European

Journal of
Marketing
32,11/12

Modelling the components

of the brand
Leslie de Chernatony

1074
Received July 1997
Revised November 1997

Open University Business School, The Open University,

Milton Keynes, UK and

Francesca DallOlmo Riley

Kingston University Business School, Kingston upon Thames,
London, UK

European Journal of Marketing,

Vol. 32 No. 11/12, 1998,
pp. 1074-1090, MCB University
Press, 0309-0566

Introduction
With increasing recognition of the importance of brands, academics (e.g. Aaker,
1996) and practitioners (e.g. Stobart, 1994) have proposed ways of more
effectively sustaining brands. Underlying such recommendations are
assumptions about brand differentiation through superiority on particular
aspects of the brands. As a consequence, models of the components of brands
are gaining more attention among practitioners (e.g. Dyson et al., 1996) and
academics (e.g. Kapferer, 1992), as a means of increasing managers
understanding of brands and achieving sustainable differentiation.
A strength of these models is that they simplify brand complexity into a
small number of parts. A parallel can be seen in the literature on managerial
sense making which shows how managers are able to manage complexity
through developing mental models which simplify complex issues by
reducing them into a smaller number of parts (Schwenk, 1988). However,
consensus is lacking on the brands components and on their relative
importance and, for commercial reasons, not all the details about practitioner
models are published.
A model of the components of a brand had earlier been proposed (de
Chernatony, 1993a, 1993b), referred to as the atomic model. It has proved
helpful in brand strategy workshops with managers and in MBA classes on
branding but, while grounded in the branding literature, it has not been
subjected to experts assessments. This paper reports on leading-edge brand
consultants evaluations of this model and as a consequence proposes a revised
model.
We open by reviewing why managers have a tendency to develop mental
models. An overview is then presented of the key published models of the
components of brands. Undertaking depth interviews with 20 brand experts,
we investigated their mental models of brands. We also evaluated their views
about the atomic model and, following these interviews, we propose the more
comprehensive double vortex model of the brand.

Rationale for mental models

Mental models are assumptions or generalisations that help people understand
their environment and aid decision making (Brown, 1994). They fulfil several
roles, for example capturing and interpreting information (Day, 1992), filtering
and organising information and predicting outcomes (Morecroft, 1992).
Underpinning managers mental models are different frames of reference that
they draw upon (Hill and Levenhagen, 1995). As a consequence, individual
managers mental models may differ, being influenced by professional,
functional, organizational, industrial and national factors (Hodgkinson and
Johnson, 1994). This poses a challenge for a management team in the same
organization as they strive to reconcile diverse individual mental models when
working together (de Chernatony, 1996; Huff, 1990).
Besides using mental models for sensemaking, managers need to
communicate with others and gain their support. An important step when
forming mental models for communication is the development of metaphors
(Hill and Levenhagen, 1995). Metaphors enable managers in the same
organisation to develop a common language, to understand their environment,
and to help interpret events. Mental models are formed as a development and
refinement of metaphors. Ambiguous language is replaced by more contextspecific language and the common understanding that is developed fosters
more effective internal communication. As the mental models become
increasingly detailed and formalized, problem solving becomes more efficient.
However, models must be articulated and accepted within the organisation for
them to be effective (Hill and Levenhagen, 1995).
In spite of their claimed usefulness, authors have flagged potential
weaknesses deriving from a too pragmatic use of mental models. For example,
Barr et al. (1992) warn that models should be seen as dynamic entities: a model
that fits the environment today may not be adequate tomorrow. The
parsimonious nature of mental models that makes them useful as heuristics
also limits their accuracy and precision (Daft and Weick, 1984; Hill and
Levenhagen, 1995). Furthermore, since the actions managers take are
constrained by their mental models, there is a bias in favour of actions
consistent with the existing framework, encouraging incrementalism (North,
1991), and rejection of change (Day and Nedungadi, 1994).
Our study was exploratory in nature, hence it would have been inappropiate
to formulate hypotheses to be tested. On the other hand, from the literature
regarding mental models, we had developed some expectations, or research
propositions, about brand consultants having developed mental models of the
elements which constitute a brand.
In view of the complex nature of brands, we anticipated that brand
consultants would have well-developed mental models to understand them. For
example, we were aware of several consultancies having developed proprietary
models of brands (see next section). As a consequence, the first research
proposition we intended to investigate was:

Modelling the
components of
the brand
1075

European
Journal of
Marketing
32,11/12
1076

Proposition 1: Brand consultants have well-developed mental models to

make sense of brands.
From the literature review, it is unlikely that every brand consultant would have
exactly the same mental model of brands. However, in view of the fact that
brands are consultants common focus of interest, they might adhere to similar
brand concepts. Therefore our study aimed to assess a second research
proposition:
Proposition 2: There are similarities between the components constituting
brand consultants mental models of brands.
Models of the elements constituting brands
Both practitioners and academics have devised models of the elements
constituting a brand. In practice, different consultancies have proprietary
models which, for commercial reasons, they are reticent about fully revealing.
While a more comprehensive review of the many definitions of brands can be
found in de Chernatony and DallOlmo Riley (1997), in Table I we give examples
of some of the most recently published models. In selecting these examples, we
adopted a broad definition of the term model, i.e. as a simplified
Authors

Tangible and visual elements

Intangible elements

Aaker (1992)

Symbols and slogans

Identity, corporate brand, integrated

communications, customer
relationships

Bailey and
Schechter (1994)
Biggar and
Selame (1992)
DMB & B (1993)

Name, logo, colours, brand-mark,

plus advertising slogan
Name, trademark

de Chernatony (1993a
and 1993b) (atomic
model)
de Chernatony and
McWilliam (1989)
Dyson et al. (1996)
(Millward-Brown)
Grossman (1994)
Kapferer (1992)

Table I.
Models of the brand

OMalley (1991)
Young and Rubicam
(1994)

Product delivery

Positioning, brand communications

Functional capabilities, name,

legal protection

User identification; opportunity to

share a dream
Symbolic value, service, sign of
owenership, shorthand notation

Functionality

Representationality

Presence and performance

Relevance, advantage, bond

Distinctive name, logotype,

graphics and physical design
Physique
Functional values
Differentation

Personality, relationship, culture,

refelction, self-image
Social and personal values
Relevance, esteem and
familiarity

representation of reality, incorporating the sub-set of elements deemed to be the

most critical (see Lunn, 1978). By doing so we aimed to give the reader a feel
for the broad range of brand models in recent literature. However, to be truly so,
a model should specify both the key elements in a system and the relationships
between these elements (Lunn, 1978; Zaltman, 1977).
The models in Table I vary widely due to:
(1) the critical elements constituting brands;
(2) the importance ascribed to either the tangible or intangible elements of
the brand;
(3) the weights attributed to specific elements within each model; and
(4) the extent to which the authors discuss the relationship between the
elements.
For example, at one end of the spectrum, Bailey and Schechters (1994) and
Grossmans (1994) models are quite simplified representations of the brand.
They refer solely to the tangible, visual elements of the name, logo, and product
design as the components of a brand, without much discussion of deeper
relationships in the structure of the brand system. At the opposite end of the
spectrum, Kapferer (1992) predominately stresses emotional and representational components, noting that physique forms only the first stage in
brand building. The intangible, or symbolic elements in his model refer to the
beliefs and meanings created in the minds of consumers by the brands
marketer through a mix of media and non-media elements. These symbolic
elements include the brands personality, the way brands reinforce consumers
self-images and brands abilities to represent consumers to others. In Kapferers
categorisation, the various elements of the brand system interrelate to form a
structured, integrated whole.
The atomic model of the brand
One of the models integrating both tangible and intangible elements and the
relationships among them is the atomic model (de Chernatony, 1993a; 1993b).
This conceptualises brands in terms of nine elements:
(1) functional capability;
(2) symbolic feature;
(3) service;
(4) distinctive name;
(5) ownership;
(6) shorthand notation;
(7) legal protection;
(8) risk reducer; and
(9) strategic direction.

Modelling the
components of
the brand
1077

European
Journal of
Marketing
32,11/12
1078

Brands start life with distinctive names, possibly endorsed by the corporate
reputation or sign of ownership. The brands functional capabilities become
recognised and, to build a relationship with consumers, the service component
becomes important. Legal protection is used to deter competitive infringement,
but the symbolic feature gives the brand a personality, making it more difficult
to copy. As consumer confidence increases, through skillful presentation as a
risk reducer, the brand becomes associated with unique added values and
becomes an effective shorthand notation representing a few high quality pieces
of information facilitating rapid consumer choice. At the nucleus of the brand is
strategic direction (Porter, 1985) which influences how these elements are
bonded together.
This model is grounded in the branding literature, but until now had not
been evaluated by brand consultants. One of the aims of our research was to
assess the extent to which the atomic model reflects brand consultants
conceptions of brands. Our third research proposition was therefore that:
Proposition 3: The atomic model of the brand represents a useful model and
can reflect brand consultants conceptions of brands.
Research aims and methodology
In view of the way that leading-edge brand consultants are influencing
tomorrows branding agenda, we wanted to explore how they make sense of
brands and whether they have similar views about the components of brands.
We were particularly concerned to gauge their views about the atomic model
and to use their comments to develop an improved model, which adheres to
Zaltmans (1977) contention that it be a simplified but organised and
meaningful reflection of the brand. The atomic model provides a basis for this
developmental work, since it satisfies some of the criteria Lunn (1978) identified
for an effective model, i.e. it provides an understanding of how brands influence
behaviour, it integrates disparate concepts, and facilitates communication.
In view of the exploratory nature of this research, and of the concern not to
impose our preconceptions, we opted for qualitative research, which enabled us
to fully explore and probe consultants models of brands, within their own
frame of reference. While the exploratory nature and the richness of qualitative
research usually entails small sample sizes (Sampson, 1986), we wanted to
uncover as wide a perspective as possible. Therefore we followed Gordon and
Langmaids (1988) suggestion about sample size and undertook 20 semistructured depth interviews with carefully selected brand consultants based in
the UK. To qualify, consultants needed to specialise in advising clients about
brands and had to be considered at the leading-edge of brand consultancy.
Specifically, the sample was selected on the basis that they frequently present at
management conferences on branding, or had written books or papers on
branding, or be recommended by their peer group (only two were chosen this
way). The 20 consultants were either chairmen, partners or directors in brand
consultancies (9), advertising agencies (7), market research agencies (2) and

corporate communications agencies (2). Although based in the UK, all

consultants worked on international projects on a regular basis.
Owing to the nature of their work, the brand consultants we interviewed are
exposed to a wide variety of brands and branding problems on a daily basis.
Furthermore, many authors are critical of brand managers lack of vision about
devising better branding principles (Freeling 1994; Low and Fullerton 1994;
Mitchell 1994), and only a dearth of brand managers are ever cited in the
management press as influential brand thinkers. This is one of the reasons why
brand consultants, rather than managers, were selected at this exploratory
stage of the research. However, we intend to evaluate brand managers opinions
in future research.
A topic guide was used to steer the overall interviewing process, whereby all
respondents were asked several questions, including their views about the
nature of brands and the elements that make up a brand, and their assessment
of the atomic model of the brand. The experts answers to these two topics are
the main thrust of this paper. Respondents were also asked other general topics
on brands, such as their definitions of a brand, as we report in detail
elsewhere (e.g. de Chernatony and DallOlmo Riley, 1997). The typical overall
length of the interviews was around one hour. The interviews were taperecorded, then subsequently transcribed. Content analysis (Krippendorff, 1980)
of the responses to particular questions was carried out independently by the
two authors and then compared. The coefficient of agreements (i.e. the total
number of agreements divided by the total number of coding decisions) was
never lower than 85 percent.
Experts views about the components of a brand
Mental models of the elements of a brand
The experts were asked to discuss at some length their views about the nature
of brands and what elements they consider constitute a brand. From the
transcripts, it was apparent that each expert was using his/her own mental
model because they all found simplified ways of describing the complex nature
of brands. Seventeen used models that could be described as being category
type models, since they mentioned a few category descriptors which they then
expanded into the constituting elements. For example One has to have a core,
intellectual property ... and usually that is a mixture of elements, usually a
name, a slogan, signs registered or otherwise, bottle shapes, etc. ... (brand
consultant) and There are the physical things like the name, the identity, the
colour scheme and the type face ... And then there are the metaphysical things,
I suppose, like the image and reputations (brand consultant). Table II shows
the mental models. Generally a low number of categories were used to describe
the elements of a brand. The modal number of categories was three, and the
maximum number was six.
Three other consultants had different models. One brand consultant had a
cascade type model, whereby one element caused another element, which in
turn caused a further element. For example, Behind every great brand lies a

Modelling the
components of
the brand
1079

European
Journal of
Marketing
32,11/12
1080

Table II.
Experts models of
elements constituting
brand

Consultant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Mental model
(Intellectual property) (product) (personality)
(Tangibles) (intangibles)
(Physical) (metaphysical) (brand platform)
(Physical) (company behind brand) (interactive services)
(Performance excellence) (ethics) (added services)
Performance excellence personality people who care
(Emotional) (rational)
(Emotional) (product) (differentation) (price premium) (future vision)
(renewal energy)
(Product) (positioning) (Communicators about expectation)
(Product) (ethics) (positioning)
(Emotion) (Product image) (user image) (personality) (occasion image)
(Personality) (Mechanical parts)
(Name) (goodwill) (personality)
(Functional) (psychological) (evaluative)
(Functional) (image) (name)
Metaphor of person
(Functional) (emotion) (design) (price)
Elements progressing through purchase/consumption chain
(Functional) (identity) (place in market)
(Functions) (performance) (personality) (source of authority)

great product ... 90 percent plus of a brand is the What it does, ... the nonfunctional values, the personality values, have to flow from what it is. Another
brand consultant formulated his view by building in elements as the brand
proceeded through the purchasing and consumption chain, arguing that brands
have to add value to consumers lives. An advertising consultant had a different
model. He did not like the idea of conceiving a brand as a set of separate
elements and drew a distinction between the American school, which he saw
as adopting a scientific, deconstructionist perspective and the French school,
which conceptualises brands in poetic terms, not afraid to speak in
metaphors. Brands to him are illusions in consumers minds. By using the
metaphor of the brand as a person, it can be managed, since from a particular
person emanates a personality, a style of behaviour and scope for a particular
relationship.
These findings did not disprove our first research proposition that each
brand consultant would use a particular mental model to make sense of the
elements of brands.
Similarities of component parts of experts models of brands elements
Table III summarises the consultants mental models, by showing the frequency
with which each element of the brand is specified.

Elements mentioned by expert

Frequency of
mentions

Equivalent component in
atomic model

Product functions
Performance excellence
Positioning/place in market
Physical characteristics
Design
Product usage
Tangibles
Rational aspects

8
3
3
2
1
1
1
1

Personality
Emotional values
Intangibles/metaphysical
Product image
Occasion image
User image
Metaphor of person
Psychological aspects

6
4
2
2
1
1
1
1

Company behind brand/source of

authority
Ethics
Identity
Vision

2
2
1
1

Name
Differentation

2
1

Interactive services/services
People who care

2
1

}
}

}
}

Modelling the
components of
the brand
1081

Functional capabilities

Symbolic feature

Sign of ownership

Distintive name
Service

Communication about expectations

Shorthand notation

Intellectual property

Legal protection

Price premium/price
Brand platform
Goodwill
Renewal energy
Mechanical parts
Evaluative parts
Elements in purchase/consumption chain

2
1
1
1
1
1
1

Elements not
specified on the
atomic model

Two elements receive almost universal mention, i.e.:

(1) functional capabilities, relating to the brands tangible, rationally
assessed, product performance;
(2) symbolic features, such as intangible, emotionally assessed, emotional
values of the brands personality.
The next most frequently mentioned element (six experts) relates to the
company behind the brand (sign of ownership). This encompasses its identity,

Table III.
Experts unprompted
views about elements
constituting brands

European
Journal of
Marketing
32,11/12
1082

the authority it brings through its competencies and experience, its ethical
stance, vision, employee policies and the staff. The other elements receive lower
mentions.
While there are commonalities within broad categories, there is no evidence
of perfect similarity. There are several reasons for this. Earlier research (de
Chernatony and DallOlmo Riley, 1997) reported no universally accepted
definition of the brand among brand experts. Rather, there is a spectrum of
brand definitions, which these results reflect. Second, individual consultancies
have particular philosophies about brands, to which their staff adhere.
Our second research proposition anticipated similarities between
consultants conceptualisations of brands elements. This is partially confirmed
by our findings, since while there are two elements common to virtually all
consultants, there are other elements which are unique to individuals.
Experts assessments of the atomic model of the brand
Table III highlights that, with the exception of risk reducer, all of the elements
of the atomic model were mentioned by the experts. However, as we later
address, the experts also mentioned new elements not previously included.
The atomic model was then explained and the experts were asked for their
views. Of the 20 experts 17 were positive about the model, with comments such
as, its a very comprehensive model (advertising consultant), as a general
model about brands its probably quite valuable (brand consultant), it sounds
feasible and I think its a very neat way of focusing on all the different elements
that are part of the branding equation (corporate communications consultant),
as an academic model this will certainly do (advertising consultant), this
actually reflects most brands today (brand consultant) and it seems to fit the
fmcg [fast moving consumer goods] field (corporate communications
consultant). While being positive about this model, all these respondents
expressed views about how they would fine tune the approach, as it is later
considered.
Of the three less positive experts, one consultants agency adhered to its own
model, but he added we do checklists and I recognise all these things you are
talking about (advertising consultant). Another advertising consultant
explained the strengths of the metaphor model. The third brand consultant felt
the model is just taking one slice of the whole thing and describing something
in a particular way. In his opinion, brands are holistic, rather than atomistic
entities which connect peoples lives with their needs. In view of the majority
favourable view, our third research proposition that the atomic model is a useful
model which can reflect brand consultants conceptualisations finds support.
However, in view of the detailed probing, the model would benefit from
revisions, as we next discuss.
Missing elements
Several consultants felt that some elements are missing. A brand consultant
and an advertising consultant noted the absence of the brands vision and its

mission. The brand vision specifies the brands purpose, its philosophy and
view on the world, from which evolves its mission, indicating what the brand
needs to do to achieve its vision. The brand vision, argued these consultants,
should excite employees, who can appreciate the role they play in brand
building. As a consequence of their commitment, and ultimately pride in being
associated with the brand, they take ownership of the vision and it acts as one
of their motivating reasons for coming to work.
A corporate communications consultant felt the sign of ownership element
was not sufficiently explicit about the firms beliefs. Firms need a view about
what is ethically important, and therefore how they expect their employees
attitudes and behaviour to be projected through the brand. In an era of
increasing brand similarity, this can provide a basis for effective brand
differentiation, as seen by The Body Shop and the Co-op Bank.
Two brand consultants commented that the model did not explicitly show
the value systems underpinning the brand. There is an implicit notion of this
through the functional, service, risk and symbolic elements. One brand
consultant saw the brands values as the glue to stick the vision and mission in
your mind. Another spoke about values reflecting consumers needs and
identified functional, emotional and psychological categories of values. A
further brand consultant noted that from a managerial perspective, brands are
about enhancing shareholders value, and this is absent.
The issue of the functional element was raised by a brand consultant. In his
opinion, this evolved, in part, because of the firms heritage, giving rise to
particular competencies which, while enabling the brand gain dominance,
restricted brand extensions.
Two experts made the point that the atomic model is static, unable to
respond to market dynamics.
Relevance of elements
None felt that any of the elements in the model were irrelevant. Many worked
their way through the elements giving their interpretation of them, for example
the shorthand notation could be the law of four syllables any name more than
four syllables gets contracted by the consumer (brand consultant).
Another criticism was the model incorrectly implied each element is equally
important. A brand consultant commented that for conspicuously consumed
brands, the symbolic element is particularly important. Several spoke about the
importance of the elements changing as the brand develops. Others spoke about
the importance of the elements varying according to the audience, in particular
whether they are staff, the firms agencies or consumers.
Relationship between the elements
As Lunn (1978) observed, an effective model shows the relationship between its
individual elements. There is, as some observed, a relationship between several
of the elements due to the way they facilitate communication. As a brand
consultant noted, the symbolic element feeds into the shorthand notation

Modelling the
components of
the brand
1083

European
Journal of
Marketing
32,11/12
1084

element. When a brand is enrobed with a personality, consumers can use it as a

non-verbal communicator, portraying aspects about themselves such as mood,
emotion and lifestyle. An advertising consultant spoke about the risk and
shorthand elements feeding into each other, again facilitating communication.
The risk reducing element interested several consultants, who felt this is a
useful component which many organisations have not fully exploited. Phrased
in its current form, risk reducer may, as a brand consultant discussed, be too
negative a perspective, since this is not the way all consumers assess brands.
The risk and symbolic elements were seen as inter-related, possibly describing
the concept of life enhancement. An advertising consultant similarly felt there to
be a symbiotic relationship between the risk and symbolic elements, since both
relate to consumers emotional concerns. A market research consultant and a
brand consultant took a more rational perspective on risk, talking about how
the service element and the sign of ownership element reassure concerns over
performance. A corporate communications consultant had a more integrated
perspective on the risk element, talking about its addressing consumers
rational and emotional concerns.
Three consultants spoke about a supportive relationship between the
functional and service elements, with one consultant viewing service as an
extension of the functional element. Other instances where the experts
identified relations between the elements are the interactions between the
distinctive name, sign of ownership and shorthand notation, and the
relationship between the sign of ownership and legal device. As an advertising
consultant observed, the ability of advertisers to afford to advertise their
individual brands becomes more difficult and therefore the move towards pillar
branding or umbrella branding becomes more attractive and moves into the
shorthand notation.
Appropriateness of modelling the whole as parts
Four experts raised the point that the atomic model looks at brands in terms of
element parts, rather than the whole. While it may be helpful to take it [the
brand] apart to analyse it (brand consultant), it needs to be appreciated that
all of that has to go back into just one simple box (brand consultant) and the
elements should not just be looked at in isolation, because they must all create
a gestalt, where everything supports everything else (brand consultant). As an
advertising consultant observed, these elements can be components of a
statement of brand strategy and are trying to define the brand in various
dimensions.
A market research consultant felt the model provided a useful analysis
checklist, but you cant paint by number. You cant create a brand by starting
at 12 oclock and going around .... theres a magic somewhere, theres the
alchemy that comes from combinations. Consumers relate to a brand as a whole
and not these distinctive parts. As she concluded, I think its a good analytical
tool, but as long as people remember that in the end its how these things work
together that define what the brand is. This theme was echoed by an

advertising consultant who spoke about One is constantly trying to unlock

that magic in a brand and exploit it ... There is something magical in a brand
and consumers like that.
The focus of the model
A final theme was whether this model centres around managers or consumers
perceptions. As a brand consultant noted all these things have an external
reality, that the consumer may or may not perceive at all due to the way their
brain filters out some of the information. An advertising consultant also raised
this, noting the model needs to distinguish between what the consumer thinks
it can do and what the laboratory or an independent financial adviser thinks it
can do.

Modelling the
components of
the brand
1085

Revised model: double vortex brand model

Taking heed of the experts comments led to a revised model, as shown in
Figure 1. This incorporates the elements which the experts felt had been
overlooked, specifically the brand vision, mission, values, the firms heritage
and stakeholder value. Rather than the element, sign of ownership, this has
been expanded into two components, i.e. naming policy and corporate culture.
As earlier discussed, the sign of ownership element did originally cover these
issues, but in view of the importance of the corporate culture as a basis for
differentiation, this has been shown separately.
A criticism of the original model was its static nature. This has been
overcome by the analogy of the vortex. With the particles in a vortex spinning
Time

Time/experience

Naming Functional Service Risk

policy capability
Reducer
Crisp
Legal
Personality
communicator

Confidence

Rational
Performance

Corporate Culture
Heritage

Emotional
Psycho-social
match

Values
Mission

CONSUMER
PERCEPTIONS

Vision

Brand inside firm

STAKEHOLDER
VALUE

RESPONSE
RELATIONSHIP

Brand inside
consumers mind:
shorthand device

Figure 1.
Double vortex brand
model

European
Journal of
Marketing
32,11/12
1086

as they enter new environments, so their trajectories change. Likewise, as a

firms brand strategy changes, and consumers gain more experience, so the
importance of the various elements changes.
The visual representation no longer implies that each of the seven resourcing
elements (i.e. naming policy, functional capability, service, risk reducer,
personality, legal device and crisp communicator) are equal. While they are all
in the same plane when the vortex forms (as shown in the diagram), when
different types of product field and consumer segments are encountered, the
importance of each of these elements will vary, resulting in their being closer or
further from each other.
Several consultants felt that models become useful when they focus on
specified perspectives. In view of the fact that brands are conceived inside
organisations, but their success is decided by consumers perceptions, the left
hand vortex of the revised model focuses on managers building brands and the
right hand vortex is consumers perceptions of the brand. Inside the firm,
managers craft their brand by deciding on its vision, mission and its associated
values, blended with the firms culture and heritage which make employees
proud of their roles. These strategic drivers are then implemented through a
resourcing programme incorporating some, or all of the seven resourcing
elements (naming policy through to crisp communicator). By having a good
appreciation of the strategic drivers, and consumer behaviour, an appropriate
balance of the resourcing elements can be identified.
The left hand vortex is constructed on an atomistic basis. It is an analytical
model which managers can use to identify the elements needed to develop their
brand. However, consumers would be unlikely to deconstruct the vortex; they
would consider it as a whole. Their assessment of the brand (right hand vortex)
could be considered in terms of the confidence they have in the brand being
right for them. The term confidence has been used since, as discussed in the
interviews, while firms develop their brands as risk reducers, consumers may
not adopt such negative perspectives. Instead, as benefit seekers, they may be
more concerned about confidence in the brand enhancing an aspect of their life.
Their confidence evaluation of the brand, drawing on the perceived risk
literature, can be characterised by rational and emotional dimensions (Kaplan
et al., 1974). The rational dimension describes the brands price-performance
characteristics while the emotional dimension encompasses its psychological
and social benefits. These consumer-based assessments relate to the brands
positioning and personality objectives. Consumers rational and emotional
evaluations interact with each other to influence their confidence. The
importance of these dimensions would vary by product field, consumer
segment and consumption situation. Furthermore, as consumers gain more
experience, their confidence in these two dimensions is likely to increase.
Over time, the brand becomes more entrenched in consumers minds. The
more favourably consumers perceive the brand, the more likely it is for a
trusting relationship to grow, further reinforcing positive attitudes. The overall

effect of this should enhance the value of the brand to all stakeholders, and the
virtuous branding cycle in Figure 1 should self-perpetuate.
Managerial implications
The double vortex brand model is a useful model to help managers build and
sustain their brands. Firstly, it indicates the sequential planning stages that
need addressing, i.e. starting by working as a management team to formulate a
vision then the brand mission, etc. Second, there is a strong linkage in terms of
cause and effect between each of the stages, and if the sequential stages are
followed through, it becomes easier to identify what the building blocks of the
brand should be and how they are interlinked. Thirdly, because this model
forces managers to consider the linkages between each stage, it should result in
a more integrated brand. Fourth, this model encourages managers to adopt a
more strategic approach to brand building, since if this process is followed, the
tactical resourcing of the brand (i.e. the seven resources from naming policy to
crisp communication) should tie in with the vision and mission.
The model should encourage managers to take a more balanced approach to
brand building, since once they have completed their brand plans using the left
hand vortex, they then need to undertake market research to assess how their
intentions are perceived by consumers. Through customer interviews, gaps
between managers intentions for the brand and the way consumers perceive it
in the right hand vortex can be identified then, if necessary, appropriate
corrective action can be taken.
When developing their brand plan, managers need to consider the type of
relationship they want their brand to build with their customers. For example,
if there is a strong emphasis on the emotional values of the brand, the
relationship being sought may be one of the consumer saying to himself, this
brand helps communicate who I am. If, though, there is an on-going investment
to always be the technological leader, the relationship that might be sought
could be one of I dont need to bother considering anything else as this brand
will always be the best for my needs. The strength of the relationship and the
basis for it needs monitoring. If these do not reflect the desired relationship,
thought needs to be given to adjusting the brands tactical resources and also
fine tuning the brands personality.
By auditing their competitors brands using this model, managers can better
appreciate their strengths and weaknesses. From this analysis they can start to
consider how their brand can better protect its market position and identify
more appropriate strategies to gain more market share at their competitors
expense.
When communicating the nature of their brand to staff and to external
agencies, this model facilitates communication. It can also help managers to
identify any diversity in perceptions among key individuals in different
departments who contribute to the brand building process.

Modelling the
components of
the brand
1087

European
Journal of
Marketing
32,11/12
1088

Conclusions
It is evident that brand consultants make sense of brands using mental models.
While these generally had a rational, performance element and an emotional
element, the precise composition varied between experts. The atomic model of
the brand was favourably received, and while it generally reflected aspects of
each experts conceptualisation of brands, it benefited from further
enhancements, resulting in the double vortex model.
The attempt to model the elements of a complex construct such as the brand
(de Chernatony and DallOlmo Riley, 1997) from a managers perspective may
appear deconstructionist, negating the holistic perspective. An analogy can be
drawn with the attempts to differentiate between goods and services on the
basis of deconstruction to identify the tangible and intangible elements. In the
context of the goods versus services debate, Shostack (1977) objected to a
demarcation between the two. Rather, she proposed a new structural definition,
as combinations of discrete elements linked together in molecule-like wholes. In
her own words: Elements can be either tangibles or intangibles. The entity
may have either a tangible or intangible nucleus. But the whole can only be
described as having a certain dominance (page 74). This enables the offering to
be perceived in its totality, as partly tangible and partly intangible, without
diminishing the importance of either characteristic. Through the concept of
dominance, inferences can be drawn about the required priorities.
The concept of dominance emerged from some consultants, stressing that
different elements may assume different importance at different times,
according to the stage of the brands development and depending on what side
of the spectrum (i.e. manufacturer versus consumer) one was trying to model.
At the same time, the concept of dominance allows the model to be stretched
over different types of branding situations, ranging from umbrella to retail
brands. This is because the vortex structure of the model allows different
elements to take priority to suit different branding circumstances.
These general considerations, along with experts evaluations of the atomic
model have been incorporated into the more refined double vortex model. This
represents an advance on the previous model in several respects. Not only does
it incorporate the additional elements experts felt had been overlooked, but it
also indicates the inter-related nature of variables. In particular, by addressing
brands both from managers and consumers positions, the model shows the
managerial building block approach to brand planning interacting with the
gestalt perceptions of consumers. This is consistent with Corey (1974), who
noted how consumers perceive products as configurations of interactive
attributes. Furthermore, as noted earlier in the paper, the use of metaphors has
been advocated by researchers as useful means for model development (e.g. Hill
and Lavenhagen, 1995). Through the metaphor of the vortex, the new model
provides a dynamic perspective on brands, implying that some parts of the
gestalt may assume greater importance for the overall brand identity than
others, depending on the stage of development of the brand strategy, and as
expressed by the concept of dominance referred to above.

Finally, the next stage in this research should take us back to the same
consultants with the revised model to assess their views on the incremental
value that it offers.
References
Aaker, D. (1992), Managing the most important asset: brand equity, Planning Review, Vol. 20,
pp. 56-68.
Aaker, D. (1996), Building Strong Brands, Free Press, New York, NY.
Bailey II, I.W. and Schechter, A.H. (1994), The corporation as brand: an identity dilemma, Chief
Executive, Vol. 98, pp. 42-5.
Barr, P.S., Sttimpert, J.L. and Huff, A.S. (1992), Organization science, managers, and language
games, Organization Science, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 443-60.
Biggar, J.M. and Selame, E. (1992), Building brand assets, Chief Executive, Vol. 78, pp. 36-9.
Brown, L.C. (1994), New mental models for credentialing and peer review, Health Systems
Review, Vol. 27, pp. 37-9.
Corey, L.G. (1974), Brand attributes that determine purchase, Journal of Advertising Research,
Vol. 14, pp. 77-9.
Daft, R.L. and Weick, K.E. (1984), Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9, pp. 284-95.
Day, G.S. (1992), Continuous learning about markets, Planning Review, Vol. 20, pp. 47-9.
Day, G. S. and Nedungadi, P. (1994), Managerial representations of competitive advantage,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, pp. 31-44.
de Chernatony, L. (1993a), New directions understanding the dynamics of brands as
molecules, Admap, February, pp. 21-3.
de Chernatony, L. (1993b), Categorizing brands: evolutionary processes underpinned by two key
dimensions, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 9, pp. 173-88.
de Chernatony, L. (1996), Integrated brand building using brand taxonomies, Marketing
Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 14 No. 7, pp. 40-5.
de Chernatony, L. and DallOlmo Riley, F. (1997), Brand consultants perspectives on the concept
of the brand, Marketing and Research Today, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 45-52.
de Chernatony, L. and McWilliam, G. (1989), The strategic implications of clarifying how
marketers interpret brands, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 5, pp. 153-71.
DMB & B (1993), Its Tough at the Top. A New Stategy for Leadership, DMB&B, London.
Dyson, P., Farr, A. and Hollis, N. (1996), Understanding, measuring and using brand equity,
Proceedings of the Esomar Seminar, The big brand challenge, Berlin.
Freeling, A. (1994), Marketing is in crisis can market research help?, Journal of the Market
Research Society, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 97-104.
Gordon, W. and Langmaid, R. (1988), Qualitative Market Research, Gower, Aldershot.
Grossman, G. (1994), Carefully crafted identity can build brand equity, Public Relations Journal,
Vol. 50, pp. 18-21.
Hill, R.C. and Levenhagen, M. (1995), Metaphors and mental models: sensemaking and
sensegiving in innovative and entrepreneurial activities, Journal of Management, Vol. 21,
pp. 1057-74.
Hodgkinson, G.P. and Johnson, G. (1994), Exploring the mental models of competitive strategists:
the case for a processual approach, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 31, pp. 525-51.
Huff, A. (1990), Management Thought Structures and Competitive Positioning, J. Wiley, New
York, NY.
Kapferer, J.N. (1992), Strategic Brand Management, Kogan Page, London.

Modelling the
components of
the brand
1089

European
Journal of
Marketing
32,11/12
1090

Kaplan, L., Szybillo, G. and Jacoby, J. (1974), Components of perceived risk in product purchase:
a cross-validation, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 59, pp. 287-91.
Krippendorff, K. (1980), Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology, Sage, Beverly
Hills, CA.
Low, G. and Fullerton, R. (1994), Brands, brand management and the brand management system:
a critical historical evaluation, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31, May, pp. 173-90.
Lunn, T. (1978), Consumer modelling, in Worcester, R. and Downham, J. (Eds), Consumer
Market Research Handbook, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, NY.
Mitchell, A. (1994), Marketings new model army, Management Today, March, p. 43.
Morecroft, J.D.W. (1992), Executive knowledge, models and learning, European Journal of
Operational Research, Vol. 59, pp. 9-27.
North, D.C. (1991), Towards a theory of institutional change, Quarterly Review of Economics
and Business, Vol. 31, pp. 3-11.
OMalley, D. (1991), Brands mean business, Accountancy, Vol. 107, pp. 107-8.
Porter, M.E. (1985), Competitive Advantage, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Sampson, P. (1986), Qualitative research and motivation research, in Worcester, R.M. and
Downham, J. (Eds), Consumer Market Research Handbook, 3rd ed., Elsevier Science,
Amsterdam, pp. 29-55.
Schwenk, C. (1988), The Essence of Strategic Decision Making, Lexington Books, Lexington.
Shostack, L. (1977), Breaking free from product marketing, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41,
pp. 73-80.
Stobart, P. (1994), Brand Power, Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Young and Rubicam (1994), BrandAsset Valuator, Young and Rubicam, Inc., New York, NY.
Zaltman, G. (1977), The structure and purpose of marketing models, in Nicosia, F. and Wind, Y.
(Eds), The Use of Theories and Models in Marketing: An Introduction, Dryden Press,
Hinsdale, IL.