Commentary

On BrandWhether a Semiotic
Marketing System or Not

Journal of Macromarketing
1-4
The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0276146714548929
jmk.sagepub.com

John F. Gaski1

Abstract
Problems of definition and conceptualization have plagued the word brand for longer than any readers professional memory.
Conejo and Wooliscroft have recently addressed this issue in their creative and radical Journal of Macromarketing article challenging especially the American Marketing Associations official definition of brand. The following note offers response to the central
content of the authors framework and discusses derived semantic and conceptual concerns, while endeavoring to contribute to a
coherent and viable understanding of the brand construct and its surrounding conceptual system, but from a different posture
than their approach. Unless a generally accepted understanding of the elemental brand term and construct is settled upon, shoring
up our fields conceptual underpinning, one large part of the body of marketing theory will remain ethereal.
Keywords
branding, marketing conceptual systems, marketing definitions, marketing language, marketing theory, macromarketing

Credit is due Francisco Conejo and Ben Wooliscroft (2014)

for highlighting the issue of proper definition of the word
brand. For whatever it is worth, this author emphatically
salutes their observations that:
[a]lmost everything is now considered a brand. . . . The situation
is . . . compounded by constantly evolving definitions [producing]
endless ambiguity (2014, p. 6); and that a proliferation of
branding terms . . . must be . . . resolved . . . so terminological
order can be brought to the field (p. 9).

Indeed, everyone and his or her brother in the field of marketing now seem to have a personal, idiosyncratic, renegade definition of brand (Sullivan 2014). It truly is a Tower of Brand
Babble out there (Phillips 2011).
So, do Conejo and Wooliscroft deliver the Rosetta stone of
branding, or roil the linguistic and lexicographic landscape further? Despite their conceptual contributions, the position taken
here is that Conejo and Wooliscroft (CW), in fact, add to the confusion and move marketing thought in the wrong direction with
yet another brand definition that is problematic and maybe
even not coherent conceptually. Differences with CW regarding
the concept of brand and the term brand itself will now be summarized after some appropriate foundation is presented.

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 sellers
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 journals 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 widelyadopted 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,

University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, USA

Corresponding Author:
John F. Gaski, Mendoza College of Business, University of Notre Dame, Notre
Dame, IN 46556, USA.
Email: jgaski@nd.edu

Downloaded from jmk.sagepub.com at University of Birmingham on February 5, 2015

Journal of Macromarketing

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 vendors like items, or an identified sellers 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 sellers 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 productcontrarily 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 Ogilvys a
brand is the consumers 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;
(2) for marketing nomenclature to be coherent, the prominent slang usage of brand as product should be
addressed and either codified or renounced; and

(3)

those cacophonic personal definitions should be given

whatever respect such noise deserves.

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 CWs 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 outputi.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

Downloaded from jmk.sagepub.com at University of Birmingham on February 5, 2015

Gaski

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-GSTSemiotic Brand System (SBS) world, which undercuts the purity of CWs 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 Mesopotamias 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 todays 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 brands 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 nameunless the rest of the system is meaningless, in which case the CW SBS is fiction or illusion. Symbolically, x 6 x 1, or x 6 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 longstanding 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 tellbut 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
definitions 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,

Downloaded from jmk.sagepub.com at University of Birmingham on February 5, 2015

Journal of Macromarketing

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, maybebut
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 protodefinitions. At best, it can be considered a descriptive extension
into brands proximate environment, not a genuine repudiation
of the managerial AMA conceptualization. I simply argue that
the CW definitions 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.

References
Anderson, Don S. (1936), The Consumer and the Agricultural
Adjustment Administration, Journal of Marketing, 1 (July), 3-9.
Armstrong, Gary and Philip Kotler (2011), Marketing: An Introduction, 10th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice-Hall.
Bennett, Peter D. (Ed.). (1995), Dictionary of Marketing Terms, 2nd
ed. Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Business Books.
Blackston, Max (1992), Observations: Building Brand Equity by
Managing the Brands Relationships, Journal of Advertising
Research, 32 (May/June), 79-83.
Conejo, Francisco and Ben Wooliscroft (2014), Brands Defined as
Semiotic Marketing Systems, Journal of Macromarketing, 34 (4).
Gaski, John F. (2011), The Language of Branding. New York, NY:
Nova Science.
Hempel, Carl G. (1970), Fundamentals of Concept Formation in
Empirical Science, in Foundations of the Unity of Science, Vol.
2, Otto Neurath, Rudolf Carnap, and Charles Morris, eds. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 651-745.
Howard, John A. and Jagdish N. Sheth (1969), The Theory of Buyer
Behavior. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Hunt, Shelby D. (1991), Modern Marketing Theory: Critical Issues in the
Philosophy of Marketing Science. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.
Journal of Marketing (1948), Report of the Definitions Committee,
13 (October), 202-17.
Neurath, Otto (1970), Foundations of the Social Sciences, in Foundations of the Unity of Science, Vol. 2, Otto Neurath, Rudolf Carnap,
and Charles Morris, eds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1-51.
Nixon, H. K. (1936), Notes on the Measurement of Consumers Attitudes, Journal of Marketing, 1 (July), 13-19.
Phillips, Carol (2011), Lets Put an End to Brand Babble, Brand
Amplitude (December), (accessed June 6, 2014) [available at
http://www.brandamplitude.com/resources/branding/item/let-s-putan-end-to-brandbabble].
Rice, Jennifer (2005), Madison Avenue and Branding, Whats Your
Brand Mantra? (accessed December 23, 2005; July 27, 2014),
[available at http://brand.blogs.com/mantra/].
Sullivan, Elisabeth A. (2014), Branding Might Need a Rebrand,
Marketing News, 48 (May), 2.
Teas, R. Kenneth and Kay M. Palan (1997), The Realms of Scientific
Meaning Framework for Constructing Theoretically Meaningful
Nominal Definitions of Marketing Concepts, Journal of Marketing, 61 (April), 52-67.
Wolfe, Harry Deane (1942), Techniques of Appraising Brand
Preference and Brand Consciousness by Consumer Interviewing,
Journal of Marketing, 6 (Part II, April), 81-86.

Acknowledgments
The author thanks Editor Terry Witkowski for his consideration.

Author Biography
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

John F. Gaski (Ph.D., University of Wisconsin) is Associate Professor at

the University of Notre Dame, and author of over 135 articles and papers
published in the Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research,
Journal of Consumer Research, and elsewhere. Professor Gaski has
served on editorial boards of the Journal of Marketing, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Journal of Marketing Channels, and Journal of Education for Business. Books include Frugal Cool (Corby 2009).

Downloaded from jmk.sagepub.com at University of Birmingham on February 5, 2015