On “Brand”—Whether a Semiotic Marketing System or Not

Background and Macrocosmic Frame of Reference

As CW discern, the business practice of branding is fundamental to the field of marketing, nearly ubiquitous because of the strategic advantages of branded products, and universally familiar not only from routine consumer activity but through modern human experience itself. For the record, “brand” is formally defined by the American Marketing Association as a “name, term, design, or symbol…that identifies one seller’s good or service as distinct from those of other sellers” (Armstrong and Kotler 2011, p. 215; Bennett 1995; Journal of Marketing 1948, p. 205). Regarding scholarly provenance, the word “brand” did not make its first appearance in a Journal of Marketing title until Volume 6 (Wolfe 1942), but is found in article text since that journal’s first issue (Nixon 1936, p. 13). The concept of brand, using the term “make” (as in make of household appliance), appeared in the first article of the first issue of JM (Anderson 1936, p. 5).

Here as with CW, we initially encounter and acknowledge the one and only official American Marketing Association definition of brand. But scholars should also note the widely-adopted but contrary, unsanctioned, and colloquial branded product usage. That is, using the word “brand” as shorthand for branded item has become so second-nature in marketing that it goes unremarked and even unnoticed.

However, for example, a brand manager is not the manager of a “name, term, design, or symbol.” The expression, “sales volume of the brand,” does not reference sales of the name, term, design, or symbol. “Brand user” certainly does not mean user of a name, term, design, or symbol. In each of these cases, the word “brand” actually refers to branded product item(s), i.e., the set of a vendor’s like items, or an identified seller’s product(s), not the brand itself (name or mark, that is) per the official definition. In other words, an alternative meaning or usage prevails and is commonplace. It literally is a colloquial or slang interpretation of the term “brand,” so familiar that it is casual, yet apparently not formally sanctioned. It indicates a narrow collectivity of items of the same type offered under a particular seller’s name and/or mark, an “abstraction of objects that are either identical or very similar” (Howard and Sheth 1969, p. 33). This alternative usage is essentially a contraction for brand of product (or product of brand) and probably originated as an abbreviation of that expression.

Although not the main focus here, in the interest of cohesive marketing professional lexicon at least approaching a formal language system (Teas and Palan 1997), this non-standard usage issue needs to be resolved at some point, preferably at the academic association level. Why is this important? So what if “brand” is also sometimes, if erratically, used as a trope to designate branded product—contrarily to the official definition? What are the implications of this inconsistent use of marketing language? After all, many words have multiple meanings (homonyms, literally). Scholars and practitioners do regularly use the colloquial meaning of “brand” qua product and manage to communicate and thrive, for the most part. But the potential for miscommunication persists. Imagine the difficulty for introductory marketing students: Shortly after learning the “name/term/design” definition of a new term, they are blindsided by a completely different meaning abruptly in use in the classroom, in which the same word suddenly means a product. What palliative is there for students confronting an instructor mysteriously alternating between noun forms? Hand signals?

Then there are the myriad personalized brand definitions (reported critically by Phillips 2011; Sullivan 2014)—or alleged, putative, ontologically incorrect definitions, less charitably stated. Such phenomena also will not be examined here but, for the record, experience with the relevant literature should confirm that most of the ersatz usage actually amounts to false labeling of the brand meaning, brand image, or product position concepts: e.g., “a brand is the sum total of what people think about your company” (Rice 2005, p. 3); and Ogilvy’s “a brand is the consumer’s idea of a product” (Blackston 1992).

Now come Conejo and Wooliscroft to add another to the conceptual and terminological competition in a way that hinges on rejection of the traditional AMA brand definition. (Yet it is gratifying to see someone even remember that there is an official AMA definition of brand.) To sort out and set aside the preceding in preparation for attention to CW

(1) the official brand definition should be (a) conferred some proper appreciation, (b) understood in terms of its functionality, and (c) certainly not ignored or dismissed;

In addition to resolution of these obliquely related definitional problems, the CW system proposal should be systematically considered. That is now the business at hand. First, though, a bit more deserved recognition: Because definition is the initial stage of the scientific enterprise, further scrutiny of this described morass of conceptual and semantic basics is obviously needed by the field, and CW (along with JMK) are wise to have understood this and broached it.

On CW’s Semiotic Marketing System in Particular

First, some latent internal weaknesses of the CW presentation demand attention. The authors position brand in terms of General Systems Theory, and elaborate that conception (CW 2014, pp. 6-10). Very well, it may or may not prove to be productive to envision a generalized brand system, semiotic or otherwise. But even if reasonable, legitimate, productive, and brilliant for CW to have created such a framework, that does not therefore imply that the original meaning of the word “brand” must now be disallowed. One can define the brand system as the whole known universe, or analogize to broader systems theory, but that does not require the definition of brand to be any different than it already has been. For example, just because “[b]rands are semiotic objects…social sign systems that introduce meaning into marketing networks” (CW, p. 8) does not mean that the definition of brand needs to be changed in any way. Indeed, the original definition of brand is highly congruent with this quoted description and much of the CW framework. Observe how CW themselves merge the traditional understanding with their systemic perspective: for example, “brands…have gained in terms of meaning [and] have evolved into potentially rich connotative symbols” (p. 3). From this verbiage, even if not intended by CW, the original definition fits perfectly.

Whether by its official AMA definition or a strict interpretation of the CW expansion, brand surely can be construed as an element of a system. Per the original, in short, the “name/term/symbol/design” constitutes the input, exposure to the market or any desired audience is the process, and brand image or received meaning is the output—i.e., a defined system. So, nothing is new under the sun. But there remains a question of whether brand definition is amenable to a General Systems Theory approach inherently. Brand may be part of a system, even one as contemplated by CW, but force-fitting for the purpose of definition of one construct may qualify as a gratuitous and superfluous gimmick, or a bridge too far. Alternatively expressed, even if all of brand-related management and its environment can be reconciled with General Systems Theory and located within it, this does not mean that brand itself is such a system, as CW represent.

In fact, CW demonstrate that they agree with this point, although they protest otherwise. Numerous times throughout their article, CW use “brand” in its traditional AMA managerial sense. Beyond the earlier semantic issue, what this confirms is that the “name, term, etc.” construct definitely has a substantive role in the newly manufactured CW-GST-Semiotic Brand System (SBS) world, which undercuts the purity of CW’s framework and the effectiveness of their argument. In other words, we are not exactly replacing the brand definition when CW continue to use that very definition! Consider the following examples of this inconsistency:

“Branding dates back at least…to the mid-1800s, when firms were already…developing powerful brands” (p. 2).

“[B]rands are not modern…. [B]rands are said to have emerged with Mesopotamia’s Urban Revolution”; “pre-modern civilizations…with products and brands actively sought”; “we do not believe in distinct eras into which brands can be neatly classified” (p. 3).

“No doubt some of today’s brands are still very basic…. Brands are identified with finished products…products being more important than their brands” (p. 4).

“Branding has been researched for decades” (p. 5).

“[T]he SBS central component is the brand.…The brand is surrounded…by its immediate stakeholders”; “firms capitalize on the brand’s popularity to generate sales” (p. 6).

“Despite their commercial nature, brands are also legitimate sources of original and relevant content” (p. 9).

This practice by CW would seem to decisively contradict their position that the old definition is obsolete and needs to be displaced. Ultimately, nearly everything CW assert about their Semiotic Marketing/Brand System is reconcilable with the AMA definition of brand. Of course, the categorical rejection of that “Managerial Brand Conceptualization” is untenable on its face as long as marketing is a managerial function.

Moreover, a derived realization is fundamental, telling, and possibly compelling as counterargument to the propounded CW system. CW repeatedly define and describe brand as a system (pp. 1, 6-9, 11)—a system that incorporates brand itself (pp. 6, 7, 11). But if brand is the whole system, then the so-called brand component must be defined differently (perhaps the AMA definition?) and/or the construct CW mean by “brand” as system element should not be identified by that name—unless the rest of the system is meaningless, in which case the CW SBS is fiction or illusion. Symbolically, x ≠ x + 1, or x ≠ x + y unless y = 0. We simply cannot use the word “brand” to designate both x and the larger construct x + y. This self-contradiction is a logical dilemma for CW to resolve. We root for them to do so since the present condition dilutes or even nullifies much of their overall message.

Other Reservations, Semantic Details, and Reflection

With CW launching such unbridled criticism of the long-standing official AMA definition of brand and then proposing an extreme alternative, one might think it incumbent on them to at least reference the generally accepted criteria for valid definition (e.g., Hempel 1970, p. 654; Hunt 1991, pp. 36-37), to see how the focal specimens measure up. Examples of these qualifications for a good definition are inclusivity (of the substantive genus), exclusivity and differentiability (with respect to other constructs), clarity, consistency, and parsimony (Hunt 1991, pp. 36-37). However, readers may note the likelihood that such standards would tend, ultimately, to gravitate toward the subjective level. A large dose of eye-of-beholder would infect scholarly judgment about whether a particular definiens includes and excludes the right things (e.g., Hunt 1991, pp. 37-42), or is consistent and clear. CW may have been prudent to sidestep that type of exercise. Even Hempel acknowledges the likelihood that it could be “useless for the purposes of rigorous inquiry” (1970, p. 658) and that different individuals “will pass different judgments” (p. 662).

Instead and more broadly, but analogously, appraisal of definitional worth may have to turn on the total gestalt of comprehensive, contending didactic campaigns, such as CW and I (as volunteer advocate for the AMA definition) adduce. From CW (2014) and this subsidiary note, the audience has received two alternative visions as grist for comparative assessment: (1) the CW SBS-based definition and (2) the age-old AMA version along with its augmentative positioning in the context of rival brand definitions, as outlined here. Nevertheless, on definitional grounds alone, the CW SBS appears to fail the exclusivity test objectively by incorporating non-brand constructs such as other system elements (distributors, competitors, society, etc.). The CW definition further demonstrates the problem of circularity when the definiendum, “brand,” sometimes turns up as a component of the definiens (pp. 6-8). I also submit that the AMA definition enjoys a clear advantage on the basis of parsimony and perhaps clarity. Marketing scholars will arbitrate the contest individually and subjectively, but the narrow definition of “definition” should be only one part of that analytic process, as CW would seem to agree.

Assuredly, time, and the profession, will tell—but as CW have observed, the AMA version has about an 80-year head start. Could there be some built-up “brand” equity embodied in that history? We should not dismiss the possibility that the AMA got it right from the beginning, although there certainly is nothing wrong with scholars such as CW putting received wisdom to the test.

On that subject, CW actually lament the octogenarian stature of the AMA brand definition. In reply, I suggest that the definition’s longevity is mainly immaterial, certainly not an intrinsically negative characteristic. Yes, some definitions do evolve. Others, though, do not need to. Look at any random page in your dictionary and you will probably find that most definitions there have been essentially unchanged for far longer than 80 years. Or look around yourself. Do we need to alter the definition of table, chair, wall, floor, window, or door? Outside that door or window, what of air, tree, earth, lawn, or pavement as defined? Mixing in some intangibles, must we also feel compelled to change the definitions of motherhood, brotherhood, power, conflict, peace, and freedom? In context, try package, feature, product, price, and style, or these common nouns from the CW (2014) abstract: article, conceptualization, theory, consumer, market, benefit, scope, value. How about definitions of the firm, the individual, the wheel; supply, demand, utility, profit, or debit and credit, for that matter? Do any of these terms really need new definition? In some cases, maybe—but what bright line determines which definition needs revision and which does not? Philosophy of science has wrestled with that question for much longer than the brand issue has been around (e.g., Neurath 1970, p. 12), with imperfect success.

Conejo and Wooliscroft should be hailed for attempting to find and navigate that elusive line. They can be admired for undertaking a challenging and maybe quixotic task, that of reforming the very language of marketing at an elementary level. As opposed to those too-common, hit-and-run, personalized, putative re-definitions of brand (referenced in Gaski 2011, p. 28; Sullivan 2014), CW show respect for philosophy of science principles in their diligent constitutive and linguistic endeavor. Their proffered definition is therefore not merely another entry in the growing logjam of stylized brand proto-definitions. At best, it can be considered a descriptive extension into brand’s proximate environment, not a genuine repudiation of the managerial AMA conceptualization. I simply argue that the CW definition’s content is flawed here and there, outright incorrect in some ways, and potentially dysfunctional for marketing theory as a result. Yet if any positive contribution is realized from this response to CW, much of the credit goes to CW themselves because they inspired and provoked it. Thus is illustrated one avenue of the cumulative process of science.

Finally, some may question whether this metaphysical brand issue is sufficiently macro-oriented for the venue, but the attention of CW and JMK appears justified. Branding is such a universal practice pervading the world of marketing that there literally are few products unbranded (Armstrong and Kotler 2011, p. 216; Gaski 2011, pp. 19-20). Then there is the corollary implication of how the whole aggregate system of marketing scholarship and management will treat the concept of brand hereafter. From the perspective of both descriptive marketing science and the real world of normative practice, the scope of subject matter could hardly be broader or more integral to the full domain of marketing than that intersecting with the concept of brand. This brand/system issue, therefore, is indeed within the natural ambit of macromarketing.