The
importance of brand for companies as well as consumers was unquestionable for
a period of over two to three decades. Its definitions, functions and characteristics
have been studied to a large extent. But the mid-1990s onwards, brands have become
the center for further concerns and questions. Generally, a brand is a differentiator,
a promise and a license to charge premium. According to some authors, a brand
is a mental shortcut that discourages rational thought, infusing with the spirit
of the maker, and a naming that invites the essence to inhabit this body. A brand
is also considered as a performance, a gathering and an inspiration. A brand is
a semiotic enterprise of the firm, the companion spirit of the firm and a hologram
of the firm. Further, a brand is considered to be a contract, a relationship,
a guarantee; an elastic covenant with loose rules of engagement; a non-zero sum
game; improvizational theater at best; and guerrilla theater at worst.
According to the same authors, brands provide the impetus for generics and voluntary
simplicity, as well as targets for demonstrations of cultural nationalism. McDonaldization,
Coca-Colonization, and Disneyfication are the live examples for us. The globalization
of markets and the widespread technological and cultural development all over
the world had their effect on brands also. The market dynamics have led marketers
and scholars to re-look into the erstwhile brand and branding concept. One offshoot
of such a revolutionary thinking is the holistic branding approach. This concept
took birth in the minds of Schmidt and Ludlow in the beginning of the current
millennium. They advocate the holistic approach to brands. This article highlights
the "holistic branding" approach, its benefits and the process of realizing
a "holistic brand".
|
