دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی برند های خوب: بینش در ارزش ویژه برند های اجتماعی- اشپرینگر 2017

Abstract

Brand equity has been accepted as an important construct as evidenced by the proliferation of models and arguments on the concept. Brand equity has multiple definitions which reflect the commercial intention of brands. Social brands, however, have social intentions. It is therefore plausible that determining the value of social brand equity may be different from determining the value of commercial brand equity. The purpose of this article is to conduct exploratory research to obtain a sense of whether existing brand equity models apply to social brands, and if not, what modifications are needed to help in the measurement of social brands. In-depth interviews were conducted with fifteen experts from four continents. In general, constructs of brand equity were agreed upon as valid and useful in social brand equity. However, the application of two constructs is tempered by ethical and funding issues. This is due to the context of measuring social brand equity, and the unassailable fact that the social sector consists of complexities, over and above those experienced by the commercial sector.

Conclusions and recommendations

Given that the definition and purposes of a social brand is different from a commercial brand in key ways, the conventional means of determining brand equity needed to be evaluated for relevance, depth of similarity, and consistency of application. As expected, different categories of participants had specific departure points on each construct, as it related to their specific area of interest; however, in response, participants discussed this multi-perspectives approach to each construct. This indicated the complexity of the study. With so many stakeholders having a vested interested in the success of the brand, there was no clear means of determining how the departure point of the stakeholder could impact on the assessment of the value of the brand.

Social sector stakeholders have specific organisational objectives, mandates and positions in the sector, and will accordingly engage with a social brand. While the constructs of social brand equity provide a framework for measurement, the outcome of social brand equity in relation to what is important for each stakeholder should be evaluated.

Social brand equity has different meanings according to the type of stakeholder. What is important to a donor is not the same as to an individual, and recognition of this makes the application of social brand equity more meaningful. The donor must account for their spending and ensure that the return is optimised. Therefore, a financial figure to social brand equity has merit and enables a funder to include the asset of a social brand on their balance sheet. This also assists in the motivation for continued funding. Government must see an improvement on the social issue and so a figure for social brand equity helps government in determining whether there is increased awareness and uptake of the desired behaviour. Government is issue-orientated, rather than brand-orientated; thus, weighting of constructs to take into account ethical and funding considerations would be useful to provide a more equitable picture. For the individual, improved wellbeing and happiness are goals.