Use of Metaphor in The Exploration of The Brand Concept

Journal of Marketing Management
ISSN: 0267-257X (Print) 1472-1376 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjmm20
The Use of Metaphor in the Exploration of the

Brand Concept
Gary Davies & Rosa Chun
To cite this article: Gary Davies & Rosa Chun (2003) The Use of Metaphor in the
Exploration of the Brand Concept, Journal of Marketing Management, 19:1-2, 45-71, DOI:
10.1080/0267257X.2003.9728201
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2003.9728201
Published online: 23 Mar 2012.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 249
View related articles
Citing articles: 4 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjmm20
Download by: [Universiti Putra Malaysia]
Date: 22 December 2015, At: 08:54
Journal ofMarketing Management, 2003,19,45-71
Gary Davies and The Use of Metaphor in the Exploration

of th~ Brand Concept
Rosa Chun1
Downloaded by [Universiti Putra Malaysia] at 08:54 22 December 2015
The use of metaphor in research and in marketing is

discussed. A typology is presented for tile structure of the
use of metaplwr in understanding the brand concept.
MJznc1rester Business
School
Three underpinning or 'root' metaphors are identified

together with fourteen assodated brand! or submetaphors. TIle three root metaphors are: brand as
differentiating mark, brand as person and brand as asset.
A number of issues surrounding the use of metaplror in
the literature on branding are identified. These include
tlte mixing of metaphors and attempts to treat metaphors
as if they are terms or constructs capable of separate
definition, instead of devices by which we can understand
more about the brand concept. Certain metaphors, such
as brand loyalty, have become terms and lUlve then taken
on a separate meaning from the original entity they were
meant to illuminate. An emergent root metaphor, brand
as role, is identified as having potential to develop a
broader understanding of the brand concept.
A lifestage model is derived to explain how the role and
use of individual metaphors evolves or dUInges over tlteir
life. Metaplwrs may pass through as many as four life
stages: creation, when the metaplror is first used; a second
stage in whidl the metaplwr may become dormant; a life
stage when the metaphor is at its most active; and a deatii
stage when t}re metaphor becomes a term.
Keywords: brand, metaphor, Ufestage model, branding, differentiating

mark, brand personality, brand asset, brand as role
Introduction
Metaphors pervade our every day speech and thought. They have a number
of roles and forms (Black, 1962). They can be used rhetorically to entertain
Correspondence: Gary Davies, Manchester Business School, Manchester MIS 6PB,

England. Tel +441612756457, Fax +44161275 6464/ e-mail gdavies@man.mbs.ac.uk
Rosa Chun, Manchester Business School, Manchester MIS 6PB, England. Tel +44 161
2756573, Fax +441612756464, e-mail rchun@man.mbs.ac.uk

ISSN0267-257X/2003/1-2/00045 +26 8.00/0
Westbum Publishers Ltd.
46
Gary Davies and Rosa Chun
and divert, their major role in a literary context. For example the metaphor
'Roger is a Lion' is not meant to be taken literally but to provide us with an
instant, figurative picture of Roger's character (Black, 1962). However the
metaphor also serves to inform us about Roger and in particular his
character. In an academic context, the main role of a metaphor is to help us
make better sense of a complex idea, such as that of 'brand'. We will explore
and categorise the various metaphors that have been applied to illuminate
the concept of brand so as to provide a structure to aid an understanding of
what a brand is and to identify the different perspectives that are possible
from different metaphors.
The role of metaphor in research is not to provide an entertaining picture
in the mind of the reader. For example if we say that the modem business
organisation is a machine or an organism, we are trying to understand the
complexity of modem organisations, {Morgan, 1986). Metaphors encourage
a re-conceptualisation of what is already given. Their use generates fresh
hypotheses about the target of the metaphor. Using a metaphor for a
metaphor, they 'rearrange the furniture of our minds' (Kittay, 1987) changing
and developing our thinking. Metaphors can be mental models for sense
making, aiding managers in their communication (de Chernatony and
Dall'Glmo Riley, 1997).
Metaphor differs from simile or analogy in that the reader is asked to
accept that the target (in our case the brand) is the metaphor. In the previous
example Roger is said to be a lion, not to be lionlike (a simile), nor merely to
behave like a lion when angry (an analogy). Simile is thus dose to analogy
except that it is a holistic and explicitly imaginative comparison that means
to be like something. Analogy has within it an aspectual bias and the
possibility of a real connection as in the example of Roger when we are told
that he is like a lion in certain circumstances. Metaphor is a more robust
approach (McCourt, 1997), because it creates a more fundamental challenge
to how we think about a target. A metaphor works through the associations
we can make with something that is better understood or just easier to
understand. More fundamentaUy the use of metaphor invites the reader to
connect two ideas.
Metaphor has been Widely used in both the physical and social sciences
(Axley, 1984). For example in the natural sciences the electron has been said
to be either a particle or a wave. Both give useful but different views on the
nature of an electron. Complex phenomena, such as time, can have different
meanings in different contexts and these can be understood by identifying
and understanding the various metaphors used to represent such
phenomena (Hazard, 2001).
The target of a metaphor, in our first example Roger, is seen through the
metaphor of the lion, which filters and transforms our view of the target.
The Use of Metaphor in the Exploration of the Brand Concept
47
Metaphors are then mental pictures that might "substitute a thousand

words" (Sackmann, 1989). They can also aid the process of creative problem
solving making the familiar strange in order to increase the likelihood of
gaining new insights into problems" (Proctor, 1989). Tourangeau (1982)
found that we prefer metaphors where target and metaphor are not
congruent, in other words where the comparison we are asked to make is
large and therefore the effect on our thinkit:lg is greater. The more useful are
those that provide experiential rather than objective similarities with the
target (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980). It is this sense-making role that is also its
most useful function in research. The reality that in sensemaking a metaphor
can also distort our view of the target has been a point of focus for the critics
of the metaphorical approach.
1/
Criticism of the Use of Metaphor

Metaphor has a literal as well as a luminary role and the two roles have led
to a dispute over its value as a research tool. For example, can downsizing be
said to be 'cancer' (Kraemer, 2001), or does the literary symbolism swamp
any insights into the management process? As metaphors are, literally, false
(Hunt and Meno~ 1995) how useful can they be in the context of formal
research? Metaphors are seen by Ortony (1975) as necessary but he sees the
creative process of the likes of Morgan as going too far as we still are obliged
to recognize the value of traditional, literal language. Pinder and Bourgeois
(1982) go further in their claim that the use of metaphor masks reality, thus
misleading and impeding the development of insightful research. Metaphor
in their view involves 'borrowing' from other disciplines, an approach they
see as inherently flawed, compared with a research approach that stays
within the discipline in which the research is being conducted. Morgan
(1983) challenges such critics by pointing out that metaphor 'creates meaning
by understanding one phenomenon through another in a way that
encourages us to understand what is in common'. But he agrees that the
metaphor and target should not be seen as synonymous. Projecting all the
characteristics of the metaphor onto the target is likely to mislead. His own
work relies upon the use of a range of metaphors to present different
perspectives on how we might view, and therefore better understand,
organisations (Morgan, 1986).
Tinker (1986) summarizes the debate between those for and against the
use of metaphor in research by stating that "metaphors may enlighten our
theoretical understanding of affairs, and they may be used to mystify and
distort our view of social reality." Metaphor is then useful but it should be
used with care. Morgan's work on applying different metaphors to
organisations illustrates how different metaphors create separate but
48
individually ~eful views of a target. We follow a similar approach with the

aim of understanding the 'brand' .
We are taught from childhood about another potential weakness in the
use of metaphor, the danger of mixing metaphors within the same context
and thereby creating confusion among the audience (Strunk and White,
1979:81). Consider one phrase taken from one of the papers referenced below
(but not specified so as not to single out one of many authors who mix their
metaphors); 'leveraging brand loyalty assets'. The phrase contains three
metaphors. The use of the word 'loyalty' implies that the brand has human
traits. the metaphor of brand as person. The use of the word'asset' directly
evokes the metaphor of brand as asset and implies that a brand is something
of financial value. 'Leveraging' is another metaphor but one probably not
intended to apply to the brand. We might have only a vague idea of what
the author meant us to understand from the phrase, other than the literal
meanings of the words. The metaphors compete (or our thoughts and collide
in doing so. Mixed metaphors can impede rather than enhance
communication in other circumstances, for example when two people are
trying to discuss the same phenomenon but are using different metaphors in
their dialogue (Proctor, 1989).
Finally, authors rarely declare that they are employing metaphor so
overtly as in our earlier examples. That they are and what the metaphor is
meant to be is often left to the reader to deduce.
In summary the general view is that metaphor can be more useful than
just linguistic seasoning to enrich the expression of experience (Axley, 1984).
It is a useful device for the researcher, one that can help to develop a creative
understanding within the research agenda. But we need to be cleaf when we
are using metaphor. This in tum requires greater clarity of the role of
metaphor in marketing in general. Second, there is no framework that
identifies the different types of metaphor in use in the literature on branding.
We aim to respond to the latter issue after reviewing what has been written
on the use of metaphor more generally in marketing and how Dny structure
in the use of metaphor in branding might be identified.
Typology of Metaphor in Marketing

The language of marketing has been more metaphoric in nature than any
other social science (Zaltman et aI., 1982; O'Malley and Tynan, 1999). There
have been two previous attempts to identify a structure in the use of
metaphor in the marketing field. Arndt (1985) suggests that there are four
types or groups of metaphor in marketing each linked to one of four
paradigms. Within the logical empiricist paradigm the consumer may be
seen as a purposive being, within the socio-political paradigm organisations
49
are seen as political economies, within the subjective world paradigm the
consumer is seen as irrational and within the liberating paradigm the
consumer may be seen as victim. Hanby (1999) is specifically concerned with
metaphors associated with the brand and he identifies two groups of
metaphor that have been used in different time periods. In the positivistic
approach of the middle of the 20th century the brand was seen as an
'extended product'. Latterly post.modem thinking has the brand as a'living
entity'.
An alternative way of appraising any structure in the use of metaphor,
one that we will use here, is to identify the metaphor dusters based on
different 'root' metaphors. Many shoots grow from a root metaphor and.
collectively, they form a system with each root metaphor creating its own
system (Ortony. 1979). Aristotle is credited with the observation that the
relationship between the root and subordinate is similar to that between
genus and species. Thus root metaphors represent the underlying
proposition that the reader is asked to accept. Attaching too much 'weight'
to subordinate metaphors is like trying to make the overtones in a chord
sound as loud as the main notes (Black, 1962). The root metaphor is more
enduring than its subordinates, which depend upon the root for their
credibility. What we will label as root and sub-metaphors will normally
reinforce one another and carry the same system of implications.
Three Root Metaphors for Brand

There appear to us to be three main root metaphors in current use in
marketing when talking about brands and a, much larger. number of submetaphors that stem from them. The three roots are: brand as differentiating
mark, brand as person and brand as asset.
Brand as DifferentiatingMark
The word 'brand' is itself a metaphor. Its original literal meaning was as a
mark of identification placed on something (originally someone, as in the
clipping of a thief's ears). The word became associated with the marking or
'branding' of cattle in the 19th century (Ford, 1936). As owners used different
marks, the brand mark also differentiated one animal from another. The
origins of the idea of a distinguishing mark predate the Western cattle ranch
by over three millennia. Brick makers in ancient Egypt used marks to identify
the bricks they made to avoid any blame if a building collapsed due to a
poorly made product. Potters in the same era often signed' theil' work. Cattle
were also marked much in the same way as in America nearly 4000 years
later. The word 'brand' itself dates from medieval times and its associations
with marketing are much later.
I
50
As a marketing metaphor the word 'brand' signifies a mark that both

identifies and differentiates something. The metaphor of brand is so
commonly associated with the concept of a brand that the idea of a brand as
distinguishing or differentiating something appears in many explanations
and definitions of the word itself (Kotler, 1988; de Chematony and
McWilliam, 1989; Murphy, 1990).
The idea of a mark that is unique to a particular brand is the root
metaphor for a number of sub-metaphors that have become important
practical issues for many brands, the brand name itself and the logo that is
used to present the name. There is an inherent advantage in a 'well chosen
name' (Berry et at, 1988). Initials or locations should be avoided in favour of
names that give 'character' to the brand (Boyd, 1985) as names can have
inherent meanings or associations (Collins, 1971). The symbolic significance
of logos has received considerable attention in practitioner oriented texts
(Olins, 1978; Selame and Selame, 1988) while the idea of a brand being
limited to a logo has been seen as limiting our thinking of the concept of a
brand (de Chematony and DatI'olmo Riley, 1997)
One of the tests used to assess a brand is the ability of the customer or
potential customer to recall the brand name in unprompted or prompted
market research tests of awareness (Crimp, 1990). What the respondent is
asked to recall is not the brand's imagery or associations but merely the
brand name itself. A strong brand becomes synonymous with the idea of a
brand whose name we remember. The extension of the root metaphor in this
way leads to the idea of assessing the contextual effects on our ability to
recall names and the set of names (the retrieval set) we recall with the
particular brand name (Alba and Chattopadhyay, 1986).
The name or logo can take on a different role, that of icon or more
precisely symbol, and a new sub-metaphor is evoked. The sub-metaphor of
brand as symbol, an emblem, something that is generally accepted to
represent something else, adds to the more bland notion of a means of
labelling or identifying. The idea of a brand's being an emblem allows us to
put brand names on the outside of clothing rather than hide them away
inside. The brand name can be used to adorn consumer durables such as a
car or a hi-fi.
Brand as Person
One of the most common metaphors in the branding literature is that of
'brand as person' where human characteristics are ascribed to a brand
(Hanby, 1999; Aaker, 1997). 'Like people, brands can have emotions' (Aaker
et at, 1986) and 'Like people, brands can have personalities' (Duboff, 1986;
Durgee, 1988; Park, et aI., 1986).
Gardner and Levy (1955) were early in claiming that a brand is more than
51
just a 'label employed to differentiate'. In doing so they pointed to the limits

of the original metaphor to do justice to the full complexity and scope of the
concept of a brand. The race was on to identify more evocative ideas.
Gardner and Levy came close to suggesting explicitly that a useful metaphor
would be the brand as a human being. The personification of the brand, or
more precisely the use of the brand as person metaphor, can be seen in a
number of works on branding dating back, not as has been implied to the
1990's (Hanby, 1999) but much earlier. King (1973) insisted that the main
difference between two competing brands, where the products were similar,
lay in the different personalities projected by each brand. Thus Keeble (1991)
could claim that, of two competing soap powders Ariel and Persi1, only Perail
'had a personality'. Brands such as Kodak, Hallmark, Fisher Price, AT&T and
Lego, seem to be associated with a 'wholesome', 'warm', and 'caring'
personality (Aaker,1996). King (1973) also explained that a brand is separate
from the product itself. In saying this he announced the end of any pretence
that brand and product were somehow synonymous or that the first was an
extension of the second. One of the earliest uses of the person metaphor was
not in the area of product branding at all but in retailing with the expression,
, the personality of the retail store' (Martineau, 1958). Interestingly the term
personality was not retained in the retailing literature that followed. Instead
the word image was used in what became 'store image'. Brand as image has
not been widely used as a metaphor probably because the two words are too
dose in meaning.
It took nearly 40 years for one obvious, but more creative, parallel to be
drawn between human and brand personality. Quantitative personality tests
for people had been available since the 1950's but the personification
metaphor was not used until recently to apply the same thinking to an
assessment of the nature of a brand. Markham (1972) showed the potential
to use a 'corporate personality scale' in measuring corporate reputation. Hiel
(1993) adapted a human personality scale into a brand personality scale.
Batra, et a1., (1993) used the idea that the five dimensions of human
personality could also apply to the personality of brands. Aaker (1997)'5
five-factor model of brand personality is also compatible with the notion that
there are five factors capable of describing human personality. More
generally however, brand personality is still seen as being accessible for
researchers more through qualitative than through quantitative means
(Durgee, 1988; Hanby, 1999).
The idea that we can have a relationship with a brand is an extension of
the brand is person metaphor, as the implication is the brand requires a
human dimension before we can have a relationship with it. Fournier (1998)
examines various types and styles of relationship that individuals may have
with specific brands. Thus concepts such as trust and friendship are
52
introduced to describe the interaction between human and brand, in much

the same way as it would be natural to discuss the relationship between two
people. Similarly if the brand is another person we can become 'involved
with the brand' (Laurent and Kapferer, 1985). People we are involved with
mean more to us. We are more interested in them, notice things about them
more and react differently towards them compared with those we feel we
have little to do with. We are highly involved with only a few people and
more involved with certain types of person (such as friend and family) than
with others (such as stranger). Not surprisingly the research propositions in
work on brand involvement renect such humanto-human traits when we are
told that there are low and high involvement products and brands (Gordon"
1996).
It is useful to distinguish between the term 'relationship marketing' and
the sub-metaphor that states that we can have relationships with brands.
Relationship marketing is a label applied to a particular way of looking at the
customer, not in terms of a series of transactions but in terms of lifetime
value. It sees marketing as a process of bUilding a longterm reJationship.
Metaphors exist to aid our understanding of relationship marketing, that of
marriage (e.g., Dwyer et a1., 1987). Our focus here is on metaphors relevant
to understanding brands, where the relationship metaphor would preclude
the idea of calculating a life time value for example, as this is not what most
human beings do in their personal relationships. A more useful metaphor in
our context could be brand as partner, an idea we address later.
A sut>.metaphor that should faU within the root of brand as person is that
of loyalty. Loyalty implies the human trait of being exclusively and
enduring linked with another person, to be true and trustworthy in a
relationship. In human relations one spouse is expcct[?d to be totally, not
partially, loyal to the other. Less exclusively, a loyal friend can still have
many other friends, but loyal friendships are enduring. When the term is
applied to describe our relationship with a brand the exclusivity issue is
generally ignored, so we are unclear as to what we are expected to surmise
about the customer's loyalty and fidelity and how long the relationship
should last. What is often meant by the expression brand loyalty in the
marketing literature is merely the propensity or otherwise of a customer to
purchase the same thing at the next purchase occasion Oacoby and Chestnut,
1978) or, even more simply, it is the likelihood of repurchOise (Areni et at,
1999). Stochastic models of purchase and repurchase rates of competing
brands are not compatible with the metaphor of loyalty drawn from the root
metaphor of brand as person.
Customers can even be seen as 'partly loyal' (Tranberg and Hansen, 1986)
an idea that is again not relevant to human relationships. Brand loyalty is
rarely being used as a metaphor. It has become a term capable of specific
53
meaning, that of repeat purchase rate (Baker, 1984) or consistency in

preference (Lewis and Littler, 1997). Used as a genuine metaphor, brand
loyalty would imply many things and not mean anyone. For example where
the brand name is used across many different product categories, as in the
case of the Nestle brand name, the loyal customer would consider Nestle first
in all product markets where the company competes. The customer would
have a lifetime relationship with the brand. Reflecting perhaps a trend
among human kind away from fidelity, the metaphor of polygamy has been
used to assess and describe the way customers really treat their relationships
with brands (MtColdrick and Andre, 1997). Here the metaphor is being used
more creatively. Marketers can think about the duster of brands that a
polygamous customer might move among, the opportunities for joint
prornotio~ joint distribution or, alternatively, how best to remove the
customer's allegiance to other brands in the cluster.
People have reputations, for good or bad. The sub-metaphor of brand as
reputation is used more in the context of corporate branding, that is,
corporate reputation. Reputation includes the character of a person,.
something that is close to personality. But the use of the word reputation
evokes other dimensions of a brand. Reputation can be lost more easily that
it can be won. A reputation is about ethics, so corporate reputation
measurement must concern itself with such dimensions (Thomas 1999).
Beauchamp and Bowie (1993) suggest two guidelines to help managers
recognize their corporate responsibilities: a Principle of Corporate Rights and
a Principle of Corporate Effects, implying that any corporate brand should be
seen to adhere to such guidelines. Herbig et al., (1994) link reputation with
credibility, the belief that a company, just as a person, will do what it says it
l
will.
Individuals have values and so must the brand as person. Corporate
reputation research has adopted the sub-metaphor of brand as a set of values
in such definitions of the corporate brand as la set of values perceived as
typical for a specific company in the eyes of a variety of stakeholders' (van
Riel, 1997). Companies define values or guiding principles and these are used
to promote a strong reputation (Davies and Miles, 1998).
Brand as Asset
The expression 'brand asset' is often used to denote the fact that brands
are valuable and that their value stems from a number of aspects of branding
(e.g., Dawar and Pillutla, 2000; de Chernatony and McWilliam, 1989).
However the metaphor that a brand is an intangible financial asset opens the
door to a large number of ideas. An asset is an item of property and one
specifically of worth. Thus the metaphor suggests two things, first that a
brand must belong to someone and second that it has a value that can be
54
determined. Ownership implies propeI~ rights that can be tested in law,

which implies in tum that such ownership should be protected under law.
This is only partly true of a brand in commercial reality (Henderson, 1997).
While trademarks, company (in this case brand) names, logos and now
packaging design can be registered in most countries, it is more difficult to
protect the imagery that is associated with the brand name. This is an issue
with retailer own brands and other competing brands that ape the' get up' of
more established brands in the expectation of advantage (Davies, 1998). The
imitator risks action under passing off (the wrong committed by someone
representing goods as if they were those of another) but in some countries
only if the consumer is disadvantaged. In others unfair competition law
offers greater protection to the brand owner. In some other countries there is
little or no protection against brand imitation. In an era of global branding
and despite recent changes in some legal systems, there is still a need for
greater consistency of treatment between countries (Howard, 1994).
The valuation of brands has received attention historically (Smiddy, 1983)
but the level of interest in the ways in which such value should be calculated
has increased recently follOWing the decision to allow the inclusion of
valuations for intangible assets within the balance sheet (Arnold et al., 1992;
Ward and Perrier, 1998; Ambler and Barwise, 1998j Kerin and Sethuraman,
1998). Assets are something that should be seen as investments for the
future. Until recent changes under accounting conventions, in some markets
the acquisition of intangible assets such as goodwill or brand values required
that such values should be written down over time. In other words the
'asset' was seen as something that declined in value to the organisation, just
like plant and machinery that need eventual replacement. Strong brands
should increase, not decrease, in value over time, and somewhat faster than
assets such as land and buildings that are regularly revalued to reflect their
change in worth.
Assets often need to be invested in, to be refurbished 50 as to ensure their
future worth and relevance. Accounting conventions allow for provisions to
be made for the refurbishment of fixed assets. Advertising can be argued to
be to the brand asset what maintenance is to the building asset. If the
metaphor is taken to its full extent, advertising expenditure should be
capitalised. The metaphor of asset and the sub-metaphor of brand as
investment allow us the idea of a need to place a value on a brand, to inclUde
values in a balance sheet, to revalue brands periodically, to argue for
advertising to be treated as a refurbishment cost for a brand.
The metaphor of ibrand is asset' has obvious benefits when marketing
practitioners are trying to influence other functions in their organisation.
What are currently needed are easily understood and non~controversial
methods for brand valuation that can be used in support of the metaphor.
The Use of Metaphor in the Exploration of the Erand Concept
55
An asset can be bought and sold. In the case of a brand, its use can also be
licensed, the equivalent of renting or hiring out the use of an asset to a third
party. As the asset is intangible, it can be rented to more than one party
simultaneously. The rental or licence value to the brand owner can be 5 to 16
percent of the turnover achieved by the user (Perrier, 1989).
The sub.metaphors of brand as asset include the notion of the brand as a
source of economic power as in the competition for market control between
manufacturer and retailer. Manufacturers' brands are their legitimate source
of market power (Ramsay, 1996) while retailers can own only 'own-labels'.
In reality own-label products have as much right to the addition of branding
as any product and retailer owned names can also be brand names (Davies,
1992).
Finally, assets can be applied in a number of ways. Plant and buildings
can be used for a number of businesses. So can the brand asset. The phrase
'umbrella brand; sounds like a very different metaphor but the underlying
root is really that of asset, not of protection. An asset is more valuable if it
can be used as an umbrella over a number of brands. It reduces the cost of
launching new brands. It reduces the cost of promoting existing products if
the brand name is the same. We do not mean that the umbrella will keep
something dry or shaded. The phrase 'brand stretcli has the same
inferences. How far the brand can stretch may have as its origin the simile of
making money go further but the issue is the value to the company of being
able to apply the brand name to as wide a range of products as possible.
A Schema of Brand Metaphors

Figure 1 summarises the root and sub-metaphor systems that are being used
in the branding literature. Three root metaphors provide the basis for
fourteen or more sub-metaphors.
New And Dormant Metaphors

Given the potential value of metaphor in marketing in general and
specifically in branding, it is surprising that there is not greater attention to
the generation of new metaphors or the rejuvenation of dormant ones.
Metaphor offers a way towards a better understanding of what brands really
are, how they can be used and of identifying and clarifying the issues that
surround them.. There is no pressing need to create new metaphors as they
are there in the environment, as often as not in the rhetoric of practitioners.
While the practical challenge is to use what is there, the theoretical challenge
is to identify any patterns among such emergent or dormant metaphors. We
would argue that there is at least one potential new root metaphor, that of
57
British food retailer (East and Hogg, 1997). The brand manager is seen as
someone who kills off other brands (Low and Fullerton, 1994). Seeing the
brand as a warrior creates a picture of aggression, moderated by a code of
honour. Brand names such as Chieftain (for a tank and a light aircraft) and
Cherokee (for an off-road vehicle) evoke the metaphor. Alternatively the
metaphor may suggest a brand that is militant, an aggressor, combative, or
belligerent. For example brand names for Aggressive' inline skates include
Razor and Rollerblade. Pharmaceuticals can be positioned as warriors and
heroes with names such as Interferon. Nike uses leading sports personalities
for endorsement but has portrayed some in advertising as warriors playing
football against the underworld. This and Peugeot's use of the song 'search
for the hero inside yourself' in its advertising are examples of marketers
evoking the brand as warrior metaphor.
Brand as Family
The use of the expression 'umbrella brand' was criticised earlier as being
misleading. A relevant metaphor might be brand as family. Compare the
role of the Virgin brand name with that of Ni Yea. The Virgin brand is
stretched across a large number of less than totally related products, Virgin
Trains, Virgin Money, Virgin Airline, Virgin Cars, to the point where it is
difficult to see w ha t the brand represents and there is a danger that the name
will become damaged from over use and by the occasional failure. Nivea is
used more selectively on a more coherent product range, N ivea Cream,
Nivea Baby, Nivea Soft, Nivea Visage, Nivea Vital. New products tend to
grow out of existing lines (Ourusoff et al, 1992). We talk about the 'parent'
brand when discussing brand extensions (van Riel, 1997; Kapferer, 1997;
Morrin, 1999). The use of the word parent is part of the family metaphor,
brand as family. The metaphor implies that brand extensions should be
closely'related'. They should share certain aspects of character and visual
appearance. They should share the same language and customs, the same
identity. The research agenda on brand extension could be enlivened
through the use of the metaphor. For example why do some extensions to
'the family' appear to be unacceptable to us as consumers? Can we
understand this by looking at the stigma of illegitimacy? Is it possible to
identify strategic options for brand extension using the various roles in a
family to denote different options: father, mother, child, elder brother and so
on.
Brand as Pilot
From the previous example it could be implied that the Virgin's strategy
of applying the brand name to literally hundreds of different companies and
products is flawed because it does not adhere to the metaphor of brand as
58
family. However we should reject the notion of metaphor as being

concerned with the evaluation of a brand strategy and focus instead on its
creative purpose. There may be other metaphors more relevant to our
understanding of the Virgin phenomenon. As life becomes more complex
and time pressured, we use brands names to reduce our decision-making
and search time (Carman, 1970). If we associate ourselves with a particular
brand irrespective of product category we are using that brand as a guide, or
more evocatively as a pilot through waters that we lack the time and
expertise to fathom for ourselves. The Virgin name could be for many a way
of making choices in unfamiliar territory because Virgin has been there
before us to select the right path. We could take a risk and sail on through
unfamiliar waters or we could trust the pilot's expertise.
Using the metaphor of brand as pilot, a retailer becomes not a store or an
outlet but a place that has made our purchasing decisions for us, buying on
our behalf, acting as OUT agent and editing our choice so as to make life easier
for us and less risky. While some retailers such as ToysRUs in toys may
offer a complete range others such as Marks and Spencer in food may offer
only one choice in each category. The latter is playing the role of pilot.
Brand as Undenvriter
People use brands to reduce their risks. For example in the context of own
brands, shoppers will trade off the risk of making a mistake in purchasing a
cheaper, but less familiar, store brand against any price advantage the own
brand offers against the more heavily branded supplier brand (Dunn et al."
1986; Batra and Sinha, 2000). Consumer risk has been conceptualized as
dealing with uncertainty (Hoover et at, 1978; Peter and Ryan, 1976) and in
the context of a brand this implies a willingness to pay a premium to reduce
or eliminate such uncertainty. Put another way the price premium of a
producer brand is the equivalent to an insurance premium paid to eliminate
the risks associated with the purchase or ownership of a house or consumer
durable. One possible role of a brand is then that of risk reducer, insurer or
even underwriter. As an underwriter the brand assumes the risks associated
with purchase that we may be unwilling to accept. Brand as underwriter is
another example of the metaphor of brand as role.
Brand as Partner
Close to the sub-metaphor of brand as someone we can have a

relationship with is the role-based sub-metaphor of brand as partner. We
form contracts with business partners and emotional contracts with brands
(Kapferer,1997). A partnership with a brand may also be seen as a marriage,
a long-term bond (Levitt, 1983). A brand that is a partner should promise us
more than short-term satisfaction. Our relationship with a brand that is Our
59
partner is a reciprocal one. Earlier we discussed the idea that we can hav.e a
relationship with a brand within the context of brand as person (FournIer,
1998). If we see the idea as evoking the brand as partner metaphor, then the
nature of the relationship becomes dearer. As a customer we would offer the
brand advice rather than criticism or complaints. We would see our own
future as dependant upon a deepening of the relationship and thus brand as
partner becomes a useful metaphor in developing an understanding of
relationship marketing.
Brands can become partners with other brands. OneWorld, SkyTeam, Star
Alliance and Qualiflyer are each alliances of airline brands. They have
become brands in their own right. Ford and Firestone were once partners,
until a Ford vehicle had problems with shredding Firestone tyres that led to
fatalities. Intel and IBM had a falling out over a chip that got its sums wrong.
In the latter two cases there was a problem with the chosen partner that
ended in corporate tears. Co.branding is common in America where a
confectionary brand is used by a brand of ice cream and Ocean Spray
cranberries are labelled as such in one of Post's breakfast cereals (Solomon
and Stuart, 2000). The brand as partner metaphor emphasises the need to
choose a partner carefully using similar criteria to those we use in our
business or personal worlds, but it also suggests that any brand should be
open to the idea of partnering.
Brand as Seducer
Deighton and Grayson (1995) refer to the brand's ability to break down a
customer's initial resistance. This evokes the metaphor of brand as seducer,
where the brand's primary role is to overcome resistance, but in a subtle
rather than in an aggressive or coercive way. Resistance could be that from
distributors as well as from customers. Seduction implies an emotional,
intuitive and primitive process. Brody (1996) accuses the cigarette industry
of seducing first time users, claiming that the most successful brands are the
ones that most adequately address the initiation process that he likens to a
vestigial initiation rite. Brands associated with being more sexually attractive
may inherently have the attributes of the seducer. The new packaging of the
male cosmetic range Lynx was described by those marketing the brand as '
remaining true to the proven brand keywords: seduction, you thiul,
masculine, cool, unpretentious, black, and quality'. The skilled seducer is
circumspect, rarely obvious. It is left to others to refer to the brand as a
seducer as in this review written about the launch of a Mazda car, , Every
couple of years, one of the automakers designs a new compact car to test the
strength of car buyers' brand loyalty. This year, it's the Protege's tum to play
the seducer's role'.
Creating new metaphors or breathing life into dormant ones has clear
60
value in enhancing our understanding generally about brands and their

management. There are both theoretical and practical implications from our
analysis.
Metaphor into Term: Dead Metaphors

We argued earlier that certain expressions, such as brand loyalty, should be
regarded more as terms with specific meanings than as metaphors that create
new meaning. There is no fundamental problem if what was once a
metaphor takes on a different and narrower reality as a term (Black, 1962).
What is essential is that we do not delude ourselves that a metaphor can be
used simultaneously as a term within the same context. A term is something
that has a specifiC meaning capable of clear definition. A metaphor is
something that is used to expand and extend meaning. It should not be
surprising when writers complain that there exist many different definitions
of what was once a metaphor that they now wish to see as a term, as in the
example of brand loyalty Oacobyand Chestnut, 1978), because the role of
metaphor is to extend not to constrain meaning.
Brand Image
Brand image and brand personality have been identified as being both
separate concepts (Gordon, 19%; Patterson, 1999) and as similar concepts
(Hendon and Williams, 1985; Upshaw, 1995).
Differences exist in the
definition of terms such as corporate brand image: 'a summary of the
impressions or perceptions held by external stakeholders' (Balmer, 1996) and
'what the customer believes or feels about the company from his experiences
and observation' (Bernstein, 1984), and 'attitudes and feelings consumers
have about the nature and underlying reality of the company' (Pharoah,
1982: 2(3).
This lack of consistency is due to the use of the expression 'brand image'
originally as a metaphor. As metaphors are a means towards understanding
and part of our attempts to define something else, different authors will
inevitably make different associations with the same metaphor. It is
important therefore to distinguish between what is being used as a concept
or term and what as a metaphor. Are brand personality and brand image
terms; or metaphors by which we can try to understand the same concept,
that of a brand? They can be both, and writers should ensure their readers
know in which sense the reader is expected to see them.
Brand image as a metaphor should be limited to the idea of a brand being
a mental picture, an impression in the mind. As a metaphor brand as image
has made a limited contribution to our understanding of what a brand is, as
the ideas of brand and image are too congruent. The words 'brand image', or
61
'store image' in a retail context, have become associated more with a list of
attributes and a scale for their measurement (Kotler, 1988). Brand image is
now, in our view, best seen as a term. It has lost whatever limited power it
once had as a metaphor and has become a potentially useful way of
communicating a single idea, as long as we can all agree which one. In
contrast, 'brand as person' and therefore the idea that brands can have
personality is providing a whole raft of new ways of thinking about brands
and branding. The metaphor is very much alive. In the future academic
thought may coalesce around their being something unique that it is useful
to label as brand personality, allowing it to be defined and to become a term.
Brand Equity
Similar issues surround other brand metaphors. The expression 'brand

equity' has been appearing more frequently in the marketing literature. At
first glance this is part of the brand as asset metaphor. Closer examination
reveals that the term is intended to embrace a wider meaning (Aaker, 1991)
where all the positive aspects of a brand are seen as equity, not just those to
which a financial value can be easily placed (Mackay et al., 1998). Other
definitions of brand equity exist (Feldwick.. 1996). Brand equity is seen as the
total of all intangible values (Francois ef at., 1995). Sometimes two meanings
are used in the same context (Krishnan, 1996). On the one hand are authors
using the brand as asset metaphor to create new meaning, on the other are
authors seeing it as a term and trying to fix its meaning.
What is happening here is that the creative Iole of metaphor in sense
making and our desire to define terms as part of clarifying that sense making
are meeting head on. We need precise terms with which to label constructs
and concepts so as to make communication more efficient. But if we use a
word as a term when that word still has potential as a metaphor, confusion is
inevitable. One author uses the phrase 'brand equity to represent a single
idea. At the same time brand as equity/asset as a metaphor is creating new
meaning. In an attempt to resolve the confusion someone else collects what
appear to be all the different definitions of the word, forgetting or ignoring
the reason why there are so many.
There are two options. Either some or most of the expressions discussed
in this paper are to be regarded as separate concepts and the central concept
of brand can be disaggregated into constructs such as image, eqUity and
personality, or it can be recognised that these same items are not separate
concepts, but are different metaphors aiming to provide different views of
the brand concept.
What we can observe is that metaphors can and do become terms. They
cease to be used creatively to evoke new meaning and come to be used to
denote specific meaning. When they do they die as metaphors. We believe
62
that this is a natural process, which can be represented as a lifestage model

connecting various phases of the usefulness of a metaphor and the transition
from metaphor to term.
A Lifestage Model of Metaphor

The mainstream literature on metaphor offers a basis for understanding what
is happening in the literature on branding when considered from a
metaphorical perspective. New metaphors are constantly being created in
OUf everyday attempts to understand our environment. The first lifestage is
then that of birth.
New metaphors are born in the titles of books and artic:1es where au thars
try to catch our attention. Examples would include that of brand as spirit
(Pringle and Thompson, 1999) or emotional capital (Thomson, 1999). The
intention may not be to use the metaphor to develop understanding, but once
an association has been made then the potential to create new understanding
exists. Metaphors can also be born in the content of advertising, particularly
for new brands. Sometimes a new metaphor will not be seen generally as
useful in providing a better understanding of the target (Turbayne, 1970) but
later it may be re-discovered and brought back into life. New associations
can be made to rejuvenate an old metaphor as is the case currently with
brand as asset. Between creation and use the metaphor remains dormant,
indicating a second lifestage. Dormancy is shown as the second stage in the
metaphor lifestage in our representation in Figure 2 but we do not imply that
all metaphors pass through this stage or that metaphors cannot enter
dormancy from another stage. We are not arguing a Iifecycle model which
all metaphors follow, although the logical progression for a new metaphor
would be from birth to either dormancy or into the third stage, that of life.
The main role of a metaphor in marketing is to stimulate creativity
(McWilliam and Dumas, 1997). In this most active phase of the metaphor's
existence our understanding of the target is greatly enriched. The metaphor
is widely and frequently used, as is the case currently with the sub-metaphor
of personality. That a word is a metaphor is obvious in this phase, new
meaning is created and our understanding of the target deepens and
changes.
A metaphor can die or become doomed for a number of reasons. Its
metaphorical use becomes conventional and so embedded in language that
its origins as a metaphor become obscured (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980).
Writers may ignore any metaphorical links (furbayne, 1970). In such cases
the metaphor often becomes a term, as is the case with brand loyalty.
In Figure 2 we superimpose a number of the brand metaphors and submetaphors mentioned earlier onto the four phase schema to illustrate the
63
evolutionary process in the life and use of metaphors for brand. There are
new metaphors for brand being born such as spirit and capital. Most stem
from existing root metaphors. Some become dormant, for example the
metaphor that a brand is a warrior was first evoked by the use of military
metaphor in both the marketing and strategy literatures. The metaphor is
not in common use, but it may move at any time from dormancy into life.
There are a number of dormant metaphors that are associated with ascribing
roles to brands and we discussed the potential for brand as role as a new root
metaphor. We see the metaphors of image and loyalty as dead now that they
have become terms with their own specific meanings. Brand as intangible
asset is likely to become more widely used now that brand valuation has
moved to the top of the management agenda. It has moved out of a period of
dormancy into full life. Personality and reputation appear to us to be the
metaphors providing significant bases for current work on understanding
brand and branding and we use these as our main examples of metaphors in
their life phase.
The model clarifies the distinction between metaphor and term. The level
of use in the literature may well be higher when a metaphor becomes a term,
but its metaphoric use declines, indeed must decline as the word takes on a
specific meaning. The two most interesting phases from a creative
perspective are the first two, because new or dormant metaphors have the
power to create new meaning for the brand phenomenon.
Theoretical Implications
The use of metaphor has been invaluable in developing our understanding of
what 'brand' means. However it is likely that many who use metaphors
when discussing or researching branding do SO unconsciously. In marketing
the conscious use of metaphor in research has fallen behind other areas in
social science. There are a limited number, three in our view, main root or
source metaphors in current use: brand as distinguishing mark, brand as
person and brand as asset. There are many other metaphors, or rather submetaphors that spring from these roots. There could and should be many
more.
Academic authors mix metaphors in their writing about brands (and other
areas of marketing) adding to a sense of confusion and detracting from the
value of metaphor in research. Mixed metaphors should be an area for
concern among Journal editors and reviewers.
"
-- --
UnsTAGfi
Fig..te 2. A
lif~St.S'
mod,1 of Mtiaphor UH
Tho l.o<k aI <kl.rily """"'S o u _ In "pWD!,,! ............, 'hey "'" ... inS'
.."..I .. I _phDr or
mm an <a_ oonfuoion. Oro metaph<>obooromeo. Imn it d
phot. I' ta.... ,.. 'IS own mNJting. """ m.
which ~ may be "II ,
pbon l<l ~. wld6 undmlor.ding
that ~ TIl< P'-"""'d of Inmition of ........phoI into. ""'" io l;\,.ly ....
f"OVldr Ihr ~_ opponunity fo<~,
~".-l
f<>< a"'''''" ....

b< o.phclt .. lC who1"",, tho rNdor ;, to ....."'" IIO<h word. "'" 0_ ..
......... """" or ... m<taptu
,,,,,,Uy, wI !\a allft'l1pt.<d to "':pIoin Ihr >-eX;"...,., of I""" on<!
_plio< throu~ Ihr _ of ~ .....,.joI .. ~ ........ ph<>n an. - . . ..
lX'ln:g In " " " of f.... Map f""" buth 10 lkotll..
Ma..ll\.n.l hnplklU"no
Pr<O<'llli<>no<> .......Id bo .w.... '" Ihr ~';.,I probI.o..... that ,.on an.. if
d,ffenmt pmo of tho .."'"
d'-', ....... phon "'hen
lh1nkIn& '" 101'''''r; _ , _
Fo< .... mple ~ .....,ktlng .s.:p..n....."
""'" ,'''' ~l"" ....... pl"" In .. 110.1", aboo' Ilw """'!"ny'. brondf,
and. .t tho ...... t"..... Ihr -AllntI doVo- is I>lk'''g ......, 'ho _
trm.ls wl!lun thr _ _phor. """"""" .. w..iIabIe. Tha, "";d. I~ 10
1... In ...mg Mf....... m<IaphDn. In dilfonm dtc",~ ..... ho, ""
_
by tho bnnd ~ II <OMpIn _
mul!if_O'd It io onlil<ely Ihol
Ihr ..... of '"'" _phor will b<....,.,sh for any orpUYlion to OAA..,;t.u\d
01""'' .' _ .....
65
what their brands really represent to them.

With the increase in interest in the valuation of intangibles, there is likely
to be an increase in the use of the brand as asset metaphor. If a brand is an
asset then it needs to be treated as such within an organisation as something
to be invested in, something that can grow in value and something for which
there must be a single approach to valuation. There needs to be greater
uniformity in the way legal systems protect brands.
Finally we are calling for a more creative and fresh approach to the use of
metaphor to add to our understanding and creative use of the brand concept
in general and for individual brands. We have argued the potential for the
metaphor of brand as role as an example. Ascribing a role to an individual
brand provides a useful way of seeing what associations might be built
around the brand in its promotion and positioning. There is potential to use
the metaphor in research. There is potential for many other metaphors to be
brought into life to illuminate both practical and theoretical understanding of
one of the more important concepts within marketing.
References
Aaker, D.A., Stayman, D.M. and Hagerty, M.R. (1986), "Warmth in
Advertising: Measurement, Impact and Sequence Effects", Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 12, No 4, pp. 365-381
Aaker, D.A (1991), "Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing On the Value of A
Brand Name", The Free Press, New York
Aaker, D. A. (1996), "Building Strong Brands", New York: The Free Press
Aaker, J. (1997), uDimensions of Brand Personality", Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 34, August, pp. 347-356
Alba, J.W. and Chattopadhyay, A. (1986), "Salience Effects in Brand Recall",
Journal ofMarketing Researdr, Vol. 23, November, pp. 363-369
Areni, C.s., Duhan, D.F. and Kiecker, P. (1999), "Point of Purchase Displays,
Product Organisation, and Brand Purchase Likelihoods", Journal of the
Academy o/Marketing Science, Fall, Vol. 27, No.4, pp. 428441
Arndt, J. (1985), liOn Making Marketing Science More Scientific: Role of
Orientations, Paradigms, Metaphors, and Puzzle Solving", Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 49, Summer, pp. 11-23
Ambler, T. and Barwise, P. (1998), "The Trouble with Brand Valuation", The
Journal ofBrand Management, Vol. 5, No.5, pp. 367-377
Arnold, J., Egginton, D., Kirkham, L., Maeve, R. and Peasnell, K. (1992),
"Goodwill and Other Intangibles", The Institute of Chartered Accountants
of England and Wales, London
Axley S.R. (1984), "Managerial and Organisational Communication in Terms
of the Conduit Metaphor", Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 9 No.3 pp.
66
428-437
Baker, M. (1984), (Ed.), Macmillan Dictionary of Marketing and Advertising,
Macmillan, London
Balmer, J.M.T. (1996), liThe Nature of Corporate Identity: an Explanatory
Study Undertaken Within BBC Scotland", Ph. D Thesis No. T8755,
Glasgow: University of Strathc1yde, Department of Marketing
Batra, Rajeev, Donald R. Lehamann, and Dipinder Singh (1993), "The Brand
Personality Component of Brand Goodwill: Some Antecedents and
Consequences", In Brand Equity and Advertising, David A. Aaker and
Alexander Biel, (Eds.), Hillsdale, NJ; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp.
83-96
Batra, R. and Sinha, I. (2000), "Consumer Level Factors Moderating the
Success of Private Label Brands", Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76 (2), pp. 175191
Beauchamp, T. L. and Bowie, N. E. (1993), Ethical Theory and Business, 4th Edn.,
Prentice Hall, New Jersey
Bernstein, D. (1984), "Company image and reality - a critique of corporate
communications", Holt Rinehart Winston, London
Berry, L.L., Lefkowith, E.E. and Clark, T. (1988), "In Services, What's in a
Name", Harvard Business Review, September/October, pp. 28-30
Biel, Alexander L. (1993), "Converting Image into Equity", In: Brand Equity
and Advertising: Advertising's Role in Building Strong Brands, David A.
Aaker and Alexander Biel, (Eds.), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence-Erlbaum
Associates, pp. 67-82
Black, M. (1962), "Models and Metaphors", Cornell University Press, New York
Boyd, C.W. (1985), "Point of View: Alpha-Numeric Brand Names", Journal of
Advertising Research, Vol. 25, No.5, October/November, pp. 48-52
Brody, A. (1996), "Cigarette Seduction: Deconstructing its Siren Appeal to
Teen Smokers" http://www.tobacco.org/Misc/cigseduction.html, as at
July 312001
Carman, J. (1970), Correlates of Brand Loyalty, Journal of Marketing Research,
March, pp. 360-371
.
Collins, E. (1977), "A Name to Conjure with", European Journal of Marketing,
Vol.ll, No.5, pp. 337-363
Crimp, M. (1990), The Marketing Research Process, 3rd Edn., Prentice Hall,
London
Davies, G. (1998), "Retail Brands and the Theft of Identity", International
Journal ofRetail and Distribution Management, Vol. 26, No.4, pp. 140-146
Davies, G. (1992), "The Two Ways in Which Retailers Can Be Brands",
International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 20, No.2,
pp.24-34
Davies, G. and Miles, L. (1998), "Reputation Management: Theory versus
67
Practice" Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 2, No.1 Winter pp.l6--28

Dawar, N. and Pillutla, M.M. (2000), "The Impact of Product - Harm Crises
on Brand Equity", Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 37, No. 2May, pp.
215-226
De Chematony, L. and McWilliam, G. (1989), "The Varying Nature of Brands
as Assets: Theory and Practice Compared", International Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 8, No.4, pp. 339-349
De Chematony, Land Dall'Olmo Riley, F.D. (1997), tiThe Chasm between
Managers" and Consumers" Views of Brands: the Experts' Perspectives",
TournaI afStrategic Marketing, Vol. 5, pp. 89-104
Deighton, J. and Grayson, K. (1995), JlMarketing and Seduction: Building
Exchange Relationships by Managing Social Consensus", Journal of
Omsumer Researdl, Vol. 21, March, pp. 660-676
Duboff, RS. (1986), "Brands, Like People, Have Personalities", Marketing
News, Vol. 20 (1), p. 8
Dunn, M.G., Murphy, P.E. and Skelly, G.U. (1986), "The Influence of
Perceived Risk on Brand Preference for Supermarket Products", Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 62 (2), pp. 204-216
Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, P. H. and Oh, S. (1987), "Developing Buyer-Seller
Relationships", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51, No 2, pp. 11-27
Durgee, J. F. (1988), "Understanding Brand Personality", Journal af Consumer
Marketing, Vol. S, No.3, pp. 21-25
East, R. and Hogg, A. (1997), "The Anatomy of Conquest: Tesco versus
Sainsbury", 'The Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 5, No.1, pp. 53-60
Feldwick, P. (19%), "What is Brand Equity Anyway, and How Do You
Measure It?" Journal of tire Market Research Society, Vol. 38, No.2, pp.85103
Ford (1936), Texas Cattle Brands, Gus L. Ford (Ed.), Dallas: Cockrell
Fournier, S. (1998), "Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship
Theory in Consumer Research", Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24, No.
4, pp. 343-373
Francois, P. and Maclachlan, D.L. (1995), "Ecological Validation of
Alternative Customer-Based Brand Strength Measures, International
Journal ofReseardt in Marketing, Vol. 12, No.4, pp. 321~32
Gardner, B.B. and Levy, S.}. (1955), "The Product and the Brand", Harvard
Business Review, MarchI April, pp. 33-39
Gilmore, F. (Ed.), (1997), "Brand Warriors: Corporate Leaders Share Their
Winning Strategies", Harper Collins, London
Gordon, W. (1996), "Accessing the Brand through Research", In Cowley, D.
(Ed.), Understanding Brands, 2nd Edn., Kogan Page, London
Hanby, T. (1999), "Brands - Dead Or Alive?: Qualitative Research For The 21!ll
Century; The Changing Conception of Brands", Journal of tlze Market
Gary Davies and Rosa Otun
68
Research Society, Vol. 41 No.1 pp.l-8

Hazard, J. (2001), "Commodification, Construction and Compression: a
Review of Time Metaphors in Organisational Analysis"', International
Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 3 (2) pp. 131-142
Henderson, S. (1997), "Unfair Competition: Some Approaches to Change",
British Brands, British Brands Group Newsletter, Summer, pp. 7-8
Hendon, D.W. and Williams, E. L. (1985), "Winning The Battle For Your
Customer"', TournaI o/Consumer Marketing, Vol. 2, No.4, pp. 6,5..75
Herbig, H., Milewicz, J. and Colden, J. (1994), A Model of Reputation
Building and Destruction", Journal afBusiness Researc1t, Vol. 31, pp. 23-31
Hoover, R.J., Green, R.T. and Saegert, J. (1978), A Cross National Study of
Perceived Risk", TournaI of Marketing, July, pp. 102108
Howard, J. (1994), "False marketing, Recent Developments in Passing Off",
Managerial Law, Vol. 36, No 3/4, pp.1-40
Hunt, S. D. and Menon, A. (1995), "Metaphor and Competitive Advantage:
Evaluating The Use of Metaphor in Theories of Competitive Strategy",
Journal ofBusiness Research, 33, pp. 81-90
Jacoby, J. and Chestnut, R.W. (1978), "Brand Loyalty Measurement and
Management", John Wiley & Sons, New York
Kapferer, J. N. (1997), "Strategic Brand Management", 2nd Edn., Kogan Page
Keeble, G. (1991), "Creativity and The Brand", In Cowley, D. (Ed.),
Understanding Brands, 2nd Edn., Kogan Page, London
Kerin, R.A. and Sethuraman, R. (1998), "Exploring The Brand ValueShareholder Value Nexus For Consumer Goods Companies", Journal of
The Academy ofMarketing Science, Vol. 26, No.4, pp. 260273
King, S. (1973), "Developing New Brands", Pitman, London
Kittay, E. F. (1987), "Reference and Truth" in Metaphor, in Metaphor, its
Cognitive Force and Linguistic Structure, Clarenden Press, London
Kotler, P. (1988), "Marketing Management", 6trl Edn., Prentice Hall, New Jersey,
II
II
P463
Kraemer, T.}. (2001), "Generating New Metaphors: Downsizing as Cancer",
Advances in Developing Human Resources, 3(3), pp. 355-66
Krishnan, H.S. (1996), '1 Characteristics of Memory Associations.
A
Consumer-Based Brand Equity Perspective", International Journal Of
Researc11 in Marketing, VoL. 13, No.4, pp. 389-405
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980), "Metaphors We Live By", Chicago
University Press, Chicago
Laurent, G. and Kapferer, J-L. (1985), "Measuring Consumer Involvement
Profiles", Journal ofMarketing Researc1l, February, Vol. 22, pp.41 53
Lewis, B. R. and Littler, D. (Eds.), (1997), "TIre Blackwell Encyclopaedic
Dictionary ofMarketing", 'Blackwell, London
Levitt, T. (1983), IJTIle Marketing Imagination", New York, The Free Press
4
69
Low, G.S. and Fullerton, RA. (1994), #lBrands, Brand management, and the
brand manager system: A criticalhistorical evaluation", Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 31, May, pp. 173--190
Mackay, M.M., Romaniuk, J. and Sharp, B. (1998), " A Classification of Brand
Equity Research Endeavours", The Tournal of Brand Management, Vol. 5,
No.6 pp. 415-429
Markham, V. (1972), Planning the Corporate Reputation, London: George Allen
& Unwin
Martineau, P. (1958), ilThe Personality of the Retail Store", Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 36, pp. 4755
McCourt, W. (1997), uDiscussion Note; Using Metaphors to Understand and
to Change Organizations: A Critique of Gareth Morgan's Approach",
Organisational Studies, Vol. 18, No.3, pp. 511522
McGoldrick, P. and Andre, E. (1997), "Consumer Misbehaviour", Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 4, No.2, pp. 73-81
McWilliam, C. and Dumas, A. (1997), "Using Metaphor in New Brand
Design", Journal ofMarketing Managemenf, Vol. 13, pp. 265-284
Morgan, G. (1983), "More on Metaphor: Why We Cannot Control Tropes in
Administrative Science", Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 28, pp. 601-
607
Morgan, G. (1986), "Images ofOrganisation", London: Sage
Morrin, M. (1999), liThe Impact of Brand Extensions on Parent Brand
Memory Structures an Retrieval Processes", Journal of Marketing Research
Vol. 36, November, pp. 517525
Murphy, J.M. (1990), "Brand Strategy", Director Books, Cambridge
O'Malley, L. and Tynan, C. (1999), "The Utility of the Relationship Metaphor
in Consumer Markets: A Critical Evaluation", Journal of Marketing
Management, October, Vol. 15, No.7, pp. 587602
Olins, W. (1978), "The Corporate Personality", Design Council, London
Ortony, A. (1975), IIWhy Metaphors are Necessary and Not Just Nice",
Educational Theory, Vol. 25, pp. 45-53
Ortony, A. (1979), "Metaphor, a Multidimensional Problem", in Ortonony, A.
(Ed.), 11 Metaphor and Thought" Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Ourusoff, A., Ozanian, M., Brown, P. B. and Starr, J. (1992), "Whal"s in a
Name? What the World"s Top Brands are Worth", Financial World,
September, Vol. 1, pp. 32-49
Park, C. Whan, Jaworski, Bernard J. and Macinnis, Deborah J. (1986),
"Strategic Brand Conceptlmage Management", TournaI of Marketing, Vol.
SO No.4, pp. 135145
Patterson, M. (1999), "Re-Appraising the Concept of Brand Image", The
Journal ofBrand Management, Vol. 6, No.6, pp. 409-426
Perrier, R. (1989), "Valuation and Licensing", in, Murphy, J. (Ed.) Brand
70
Valuation, Hutchinson, Basingstoke, pp. 105-114

Peter, P.P. and Ryan, M.J. (1976), II An Investigation of Perceived Risk at the
Brand Leve}", lou mal of Marketing Researc11, Vol. 13, May, pp. 184-8
Pharoah, N. (1982), "Corporate Image Research in Brewing Industry of From
Red Revolution to Country Goodness in Ten Years", Journal of the Market
Research Society, 24, (3), pp. 240-256
Pinder, C. and Bourgeois, (1982), "Controlling Tropes in Administrative
Science", Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 27, pp. 641-652

Pringle, H. and Thompson, M. (1999), "Brand Spirit: Hcrw Cause Related
Marketing Builds Brands", John Wiley & Sons, London
Proctor, R.A. (1989), "The Use of Metaphors To Aid the Process of Creative
Problem Solving", Personnel Review, Vat. 18, No.4, pp. 33-42
Ramsay, W. (1996), "Whither Branding?", The Tournai of Brand Management,
Vol. 4, No.3, pp. 177-184

Role of Metaphors in Organization
Transformation", Human Relations, 42 (6), pp. 463485
Selame, E. and Selame, J. (1988), "TIfe Ccmpany Image", John Wiley & Sons,
New York
Smiddy, P. (1983), IIBrands- an Asset to be Ignored?", Accountancy, July, pp.
9596
Sackmann,
S.
(1989),
liThe
Soloman, M.R. and Stuart, E. W. (2000), "Marketing, Real People, Real Choices",
2"4 Edn., Prentice Hall, New Jersey
Strunk, W. and White, E.B. (1979), "The Elements of SlyIe", 3r4 Edn., Macmillan,
New York
Thomas, R (1999), 'IDeveloping an Ethical Image: Managing Your
Reputation via Corporate Branding", The TournaI of Brand Management,
Vol. 6, No.3, pp.198-210
Thomson, K (1998), "Emotional Capital", Capston
Tinker, T. (1986), "Metaphor or Reification: Are Radical Humanists Really
Libertarian Anarchists"1 Journal ofManagement Studies, June, Vol. 23, No.4,
pp.363-384
Tourangeau, R. (1982), "Metaphor and Cognitive Structure"', in Miall, DS.
(Ed.), "Metaphor, Problems and Perspectives", Harvester Press, Brighton,
Sussex
Tranberg, H. and Hansen, F. (1986), "Patterns of Brand Loyalty, Their
Determinants and Their Role for Lending Brands", European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 20, No. 3/4, pp. 81-109
Turbayne, C.M. (1970), "The Myth ofMetaplJor", Rev. Edn., University of South
Carolina Press, Columbia, S.c.
Upshaw, L.B. (1995), #Building Brand Identity: A Strategy for Success in a Hostile
Marketplaa!JJ John Wiley & Sons, New York
Van Riel, C.B.M. (1997), "Protecting the Corporate Brand by Orchestrated
71
Communication", The Journal oj Brand Management, Vol. 4, No.6, pp. 409
418
Ward, R. and Perrier, R. (1998), "Brand Valuation, The Times are A
Changing", The Journal ofBrand Management, Vol. 5, No.4, pp. 283289
Zaltman, G., Lemasters, K., and Heffring, M. (1982), "Theory Construction in
Marketing: Some 1110ughts on Thinking", John Wiley & Sons, New York
About the Authors

Gary Davies is Professor of Corporate Reputation at Manchester Business
School where he is a member of the Marketing and Strategy group. His
research interests include the management of corporate reputation as a
strategic paradigm, time allocation theory and retailer marketing.
Rosa Chun is Lecturer in Reputation Management at Manchester Business

School where she completed her PhD in the Strategic Management of
Corporate Reputation: Aligning Image and Identity. Her current research
interests include the relationship between image and identity, strategic
alliances, business ethics and e-branding.

Use of Metaphor in The Exploration of The Brand Concept

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Use of Metaphor in The Exploration of The Brand Concept

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Journal of Marketing Management

ISSN: 0267-257X (Print) 1472-1376 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjmm20

The Use of Metaphor in the Exploration of the

Published online: 23 Mar 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 249

View related articles

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Date: 22 December 2015, At: 08:54

Journal ofMarketing Management, 2003,19,45-71

Gary Davies and The Use of Metaphor in the Exploration

Downloaded by [Universiti Putra Malaysia] at 08:54 22 December 2015

The use of metaphor in research and in marketing is

Three underpinning or 'root' metaphors are identified

Keywords: brand, metaphor, Ufestage model, branding, differentiating

Correspondence: Gary Davies, Manchester Business School, Manchester MIS 6PB,

2756573, Fax +441612756464, e-mail rchun@man.mbs.ac.uk

Westbum Publishers Ltd.

Downloaded by [Universiti Putra Malaysia] at 08:54 22 December 2015

Gary Davies and Rosa Chun

The Use of Metaphor in the Exploration of the Brand Concept

Metaphors are then mental pictures that might "substitute a thousand

Downloaded by [Universiti Putra Malaysia] at 08:54 22 December 2015

Criticism of the Use of Metaphor

Downloaded by [Universiti Putra Malaysia] at 08:54 22 December 2015

Gary Davies and Rosa Chun

individually ~eful views of a target. We follow a similar approach with the

Typology of Metaphor in Marketing

Downloaded by [Universiti Putra Malaysia] at 08:54 22 December 2015

The Use of Metaphor in the Exploration of the Brand Concept

Three Root Metaphors for Brand

Downloaded by [Universiti Putra Malaysia] at 08:54 22 December 2015

Gary Davies and Rosa Chun

As a marketing metaphor the word 'brand' signifies a mark that both

Downloaded by [Universiti Putra Malaysia] at 08:54 22 December 2015

The Use of Metaphor in the Exploration of the Brand Concept

just a 'label employed to differentiate'. In doing so they pointed to the limits

Downloaded by [Universiti Putra Malaysia] at 08:54 22 December 2015

Gary Davies and Rosa Chun

introduced to describe the interaction between human and brand, in much

Downloaded by [Universiti Putra Malaysia] at 08:54 22 December 2015

The Use of Metaphor in the Exploration of the Brand Concept

meaning, that of repeat purchase rate (Baker, 1984) or consistency in

Downloaded by [Universiti Putra Malaysia] at 08:54 22 December 2015

Gary Davies and Rosa Chun

determined. Ownership implies propeI~ rights that can be tested in law,

Downloaded by [Universiti Putra Malaysia] at 08:54 22 December 2015

The Use of Metaphor in the Exploration of the Erand Concept

A Schema of Brand Metaphors

New And Dormant Metaphors

Downloaded by [Universiti Putra Malaysia] at 08:54 22 December 2015

The Use of Metaphor in the Exploration of the Brand Concept

Downloaded by [Universiti Putra Malaysia] at 08:54 22 December 2015

Gary Davies and Rosa Chun

Downloaded by [Universiti Putra Malaysia] at 08:54 22 December 2015

family. However we should reject the notion of metaphor as being

Close to the sub-metaphor of brand as someone we can have a

Downloaded by [Universiti Putra Malaysia] at 08:54 22 December 2015

The Use of Metaphor in the Exploration of the Brand Concept

Gary Davies and Rosa Chun

value in enhancing our understanding generally about brands and their

Downloaded by [Universiti Putra Malaysia] at 08:54 22 December 2015