acknowledge the influence of other forces on the brand value creation. In the theo-
retical building blocks of each approach, we have presented core themes and
supporting themes. The supporting themesform the backdrop of the main theory
of the approach, and reflecting upon them should facilitate the understanding of
each approach.
The model also contributes with an overview of how it is assumed that brand
management can endow brands with value. The two first approaches (economic
and identity) assumed that brand value is created in the domain of the marketer.
This brand value creation shifted in the third approach (consumer-based
approach), where it is a thorough understanding of the consumer that is presumed
to be at the heart of superior brand value creation. In the personality approach and
the relational approach, the creation of brand value is presumed to be dialogue-
based and takes place in dyadic exchange between the consumer and the marketer.
The community approach adds the triadic brand–consumer relationship to the
assumptions of what drives brand value creation: making the arrow point in three
different directions, because real brand value is assumed to be created not so much
in the interaction between marketer and consumer, as was the case in the previous
approaches, but in the interaction between consumers. In the last approach, the
addition of macro-level culture makes the assumed brand value creation very
complicated, because the marketer is assumed to be dependent on macro and
consumer culture more than on the exchange with one or more consumers.
Other categorizations of brand management
Other writers have also proposed different frameworks with the attempt to pin
down the elusive nature of the brand by systemizing the field into different cate-
gories. In this section, we will relate the categorization and taxonomy of this book
to other categorization frameworks of brand management and reflect upon the
relevance of the framework categorization of this book in comparison with the
other categorizations. The analysis underlying our proposed taxonomy stems from
a Kuhnian mindset and reflects Kuhn’s philosophy of science and its theories on
how formalized knowledge in scientific disciplines evolves. The results of the
analysis and the taxonomy are hence tightly connected with the data of the
approach, namely research articles. In the review of each approach, other relevant
literature has been added to enable a full and accurate picture of each approach,
but it is important to point out that the identificationof the seven brand approaches
is solely based on research articles. The other frameworks stem from other
analyses with other backgrounds and use other denominators for categorizing
brand management. It is not our intent to add confusion by these comparisons; our
aim is rather to enhance clarity by pointing out the similarities between ours and
other frameworks – even though they stem from different mindsets and analyses
there are significant similarities in the end result. We will review the study
‘Divided by a common language: diversity and deception in the world of global
marketing’ by Mary Goodyear (1996) that focuses on different brand roles in
different markets; an identification of four brand management paradigms based on
Taxonomy 249