Inskip, Irene’s (2004) work proves through interviews with various industry personnel that Branding programmes cost money, but successful SMEs are willing to pay this if the service is appropriate. Her work also concedes to the fact that B2B is not just about differentiating via service superiority. It’s also about branding, where the brand acts as a promise of providing the benefit that the customer expects from it.
Morrison (2001) provides some interesting pitfalls of B2B branding. He talks of the myth that only products are branded and remarks that “brands cannot take care of themselves”.
An SME like Realeyes has to understand the holding points of its brand support and learn to manage the brand, internationally since it is an asset that follows the company everywhere it launches.
But overall, Ballantyne and Aitken (2007) state some very vital findings about service-dominant logic of branding that a brand-mark is a relational asset whose value to the firm is contingent on past, present and future interactions with various firm stakeholders. Realeyes may be a fresh SME, but it is equally important to keep a trace of its recent past, and maintain a consistent track record for the brand to develop over time over the minds of businesses, even as it launches in foreign markets like Australia, since brand strategies can affect the strategic positioning of firms within partnerships made.
Davis et al (2008) present an information-rich branding insight while examining the relations between Brand equity, Brand Image and Brand Awareness of service provision companies. They hypothesize that brand awareness and brand image positively correlated to brand equity, and reason them out with evidences. One of their conclusions was that the brand awareness was a significant driver of brand equity for service providers. This piece of research would be useful while developing Realeyes’ marketing plan.
There are many academic papers and publishes proposing different branding models, however, generally they have some points in common as follows:
Brand equity is perceived by customer
Brand equity only exists when customer perceives it
Brand should be continuously managed in a consistent, clear communication with customers; rather than a unilateral push-marketing
A successful brand needs customer’s involvement
Although among these theories some scholars claimed that brand is not necessary based on reality, (Jevons & Gabott, 2001) some dispute that even though brand is perceived, it is not deceived. (Kotler et al, 2006) The latter argument can be supported by a physical research that “customer satisfaction relies on “disconfirmation paradigm” which views satisfaction as a result of difference between pre-purchase expectation and post-purchase experience.” (Evans et al, 2006, pp.190)
Branding strategy will be mainly based on the framework of CBBE model (Keller, 2001). Young and Rubicam’s asset evaluator model and Millward Brown’s Brand dynamics models also have concepts similar to the CBBE model.
The stages of international marketing after the Research & Analysis of Australian market include:
Local Segmentation
Targeting
Positioning
International Marketing tactics
Segmentation
Palmer and Millier (2004) provide various criteria for segmentation which we intend to employ in our studies, having understood their limitations and assumptions.
Their work identifies four main barriers to implementation: the context dependent nature of segmentation, the dynamic interaction between products, customers, and the marketplace, the difficult and demanding nature of the process, and the importance of implementation. Figure 4 shows the segmentation derivation process.
Segmentation in the B2B domain is not the same as B2C or C2C, but is a lot more complicated and context dependent. It is understood that the top-down approach to segmenting as in individual customer’s case is not the approach, but a more thorough one.
Figure 4 - Segmentation derivation and implementation; Palmer & Millier (2003)
Share with your friends: |