is presented as an ‘ideal type’. We emphasize the ideal type of each approach
rather than eventual nuances and similarities, because it enables us to understand
the differences between the mindsets underlying each approach. For example,
the perception of the brand–consumer exchange in the identity approach has
evolved over time from a perception of linear communication towards an
assumed co-creation of brand value. In practice most of the approaches have
evolved and often embraced new developments and accommodating critique.
The differences between the approaches in practice are hence more blurred than
they are as presented in the framework of this book. The most important develop-
ments and discussions are included in each approach chapter, but we have
chopped a toe and squeezed a heel in order to provide our readers with as much
clarity as possible. In the following, we will go through the main categorizations
of the model.
The time of origin(or academic conceptualization) of each brand approach is
more or less precise. Some of the approaches are born from a specific, ground-
breaking article introducing a whole new brand perspective. These approaches can
be dated to a specific publication. Others emerge incrementally and from the
hands of several researchers, they can only be dated approximately. The seven
approaches are presented in a chronological order reflecting when the approaches
were conceptualized in the context of brand management. In the cases of the easy-
to-date approaches, the ground-breaking articles are identified as key readings. In
the other approaches, key readings are research articles central to and represen-
tative of the approach; written by the most important and influential researchers
constituting the approach.
Key wordsare the main concerns of the approach. The brand perspective
describes the overall ‘take’ on the brand in the given approach. We have focused
not only on clarifying the different brand perspectives, but also on the different
consumer perspectivesassociated with the different brand perspectives.
Each brand approach can be traced to a specific scientific tradition. The clarifi-
cation of the respective traditions implies differences in consumer perceptions and
methods and also hints towards differences in philosophical standpoints. These
aspects of the proposed taxonomy might seem difficult and over the top, but in our
experience it actually facilitates the understanding of the discipline to add the
assumed, ‘taken for granted’ stuff, as it guides the overall concerns of each
approach: what is investigated; which methods are presumed valid; view of man
(as consumer) and so on. When it comes to methods, the model makes it very clear
that the methods formally applied to brand management research have developed
from a focus on quantitative methods to the use of a wide variety of methods, and
that they are primarily qualitative in the later approaches.
At the heart of brand management is the ability to create brand value. The
arrows reflect the implied perception of the brand value creationin the
brand–consumer exchange. The managerial implications of each approach are
complex, but we have tried to sum them up in seven different words. The mana-
gerial key wordsevolve from reflecting control with the process of brand value
creation to key words reflecting a perception of the brand manager having to
248 Taxonomy