380
Part 2 Strategy and applications
Mini Case Study 8.2
Aaker and Joachimsthaler (2000) suggest that the following characteristics of identity need to be defined at
the start of a brand‑ building campaign. Marketing communications can then be developed that create and
reinforce this identity. Here, we will apply them to Napster.
●
Brand essence (a summary of what the brand represents)
This is not necessarily a tagline, but Napster has been described as an ‘All you can eat music service
which is fun and affordable’.
●
Core identity (its key features)
choice – millions of tracks
value for money – under £10 per month subscription for as many tracks as you can listen to
easy to use – Napster runs as a separate application built for purpose
listen anywhere – on a PC or other computer, MP3 player or mobile phone
listen on anything – unlike iPod, Napster is compatible with most MP3 players rather than being tied
in to a specific hardware manufacturer.
●
Extended identity
personality – flouts what is standard for existing music providers thanks to its heritage as a
peer‑to‑peer file‑ sharing service
personalisation – Napster Radio based on particular genres or based on other songs you have
downloaded
community – facility to share tracks with friends or other Napster members
symbols – Napster cat logo.
●
Value proposition
functional benefits – ease of use and personalisation
emotional benefits – community, non‑ conformist
self‑ expressive benefit – build your own collection of your tastes.
●
Relationship
customers value and will be loyal to a company that isn’t stuffy.
Napster.com’s brand identity
that imply a promise to customers from an organisation. See ‘Napster.com’s brand identity’,
Mini case study 8.2, to see the different elements of brand identity which are effectively a
checklist of what many e-tailers are looking to achieve.
Ries and Ries (2000) suggest two rules for naming brands: (a) The Law of the Common
Name – ‘The kiss of death for an Internet brand is a common name.’ This argues that common
names such as Art.com or Advertising.com are poor since they are not sufficiently distinctive;
(b) The Law of the Proper Name – ‘Your name stands alone on the Internet, so you’d better
have a good one.’ This suggests that proper names are to be preferred to generic names, e.g.
Handbag.com against Woman.com or Moreover.com against Business.com. The authors
suggest that the best names will follow most of these eight principles: (1) short, (2) simple,
(3) suggestive of the category, (4) unique, (5) alliterative, (6) speakable, (7) shocking and
(8) personalised. Although these are cast as ‘immutable laws’ there will of course be
exceptions!
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: