Dissertation for my MSc in Advanced Marketing Management from Lancaster University. I showed my dedication in brand management, planning and communications by choosing a related for my dissertation. The research gave me the opportunity to have a new and fresh approach to the idea of brand building, planning and brand communications. Moreover, it was a in-depth ethnographic research and has given me key skills needed to act like "fly on the wall" during the research process

1. Exploring the Role of
Cultural Branding
Strategy in Brand Building
Naveen Iftekharuddin
September, 2011
This dissertation is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the MSc in Advanced
Marketing Management degree of Lancaster University

2. Page | 2
Acknowledgement
This has been an unbelievable four months journey of cultural branding. I believe Douglas Holt – the
key author, and his theory is going to have a lasting impact on my philosophy on branding. Gracias
Holt!
I would like to take this opportunity to express my utmost gratitude, to all the respondents who
shared their knowledge with me – Gousul Alam Shaon, Sarder Saniat Hossain, Drabir Alam, Aditya
Kabir, Nazim Farhan Choudhury, Shariful Alam, Ashique Ul Azam Khan, Farooq Shams, Kazi
Mohiuddin and Asif Akbar Khan. Without these people it would not have been possible for me to
complete an original piece of academic writing.
I want to express deep gratitude to my supervisor Dr. Jim Freund for his support and guidance.
Moreover, for giving me the opportunity to study this topic and taking me on as his dissertation
student even though this was not his preferred area at our first meeting. The meetings with him
were never short of ideas and often it took us to untamed areas of brand marketing. However, I
believe that it helped me at the end of the day to work on a topic which was not usual to the type of
brand marketing I was accustomed to.
This acknowledgment will be incomplete without the mention of my parents for their faith,
inspiration, and confidence in me and more importantly, for giving me the opportunity to pursue a
foreign master’s degree. I love you both very much. Without you both, I am nobody.
The Dissertation has been quite the learning experience for me in last one year. I am grateful to have
gained sound knowledge on some crucial brand marketing theories that will guide me in forming
logical arguments once I return to the professional field again.

3. Page | 3
Abstract
Traditional models and practices of branding are being extensively challenged by the growing
consumer culture. Subsequently, there happens to be an extensive gap between conventional
branding models and its relation to the means by which consumers currently use brands. Kapferer’s
(2008) approach considered that a powerful and coherent identity is vital for development of brand
value. In Keller’s (1993, 2001) consumer-based approach, the brand is evaluated as residing in the
mind of the consumer as a cognitive construction. Conversely, Holt’s (2004) cultural branding
approach includes the exchange amongst macro-level culture and brands to the picture,
demonstrating the means in which marketers can utilise cultural forces to build strong brands
altering it into brand icons. In this transformed ‘brandscape’ and with evolving consumer culture
increasingly challenging the conventional models and practices of branding, there is lack of empirical
evidence as to whether managers in the global marketplace are conscious of pursuing a cultural
approach to branding.
The purpose of this research was to discover the brand building approach employed by advertising
agencies, taking Bangladesh as the country of context. The main objective was to see whether and to
what extent they were conscious of taking a cultural approach in their branding practices. In order to
explore this, six in-depth interviews were conducted with staff representing five differing advertising
agencies. What was revealed from the study was that most were unaware of a cultural approach to
branding and hence were exercising conventional approaches to branding. Only one staff was seen
to consciously apply a cultural branding strategy. However, it was interesting to discover that the
initial thought process emerged from a conventional branding format. The study took this into
consideration to suggest a revised model for cultural branding.
Additionally, the study aimed to see whether these agencies promoted an organisational structure
which facilitated taking a cultural approach to strategy. Most agencies were found to organise for a
command-and-control process wherein the client had the ‘final word’ in the development of
strategy. Agencies did not get the opportunity to experiment with strategy and adhered to the brand
guidelines developed before-hand by the clients. Only one agency, Grey, seemed to have had the
opportunity to experiment with brand strategy development; even that was predominantly
attributable to the face value and industry reputation of the agency’s Managing Director.
The main reason for staff or clients not being conscious or practicing a cultural approach to branding
was because most did not have the basic grounding on brand management, let alone actually
knowledge on mass culture. It is acknowledged that cultural branding is difficult and complicated
since brand managers are rarely students of mass culture and are therefore not mindful of the tools
and lenses of sociology, cultural anthropology, history, and film criticism. For organisations wanting
to embark on a cultural approach to branding, it would seriously require them to reconsider their
whole policy to recruitment. Moreover, they would need to hire and train managers who should
encompass the skills and knowledge needed for cultural branding.

4. Page | 4
Glossary
Akij refers to the parent company of Fruitika, Akij Food and Beverages Limited
Fruitika refers to the juice drink brand
Ad is the short form for Advertising
CBBE refers to Customer-Based Brand Equity
Grey refers to the advertising agency Grey Bangladesh
Unitrend refers to the advertising agency, which is an affiliate of McCann Erickson Worldgroup
Asiatic JWT refers to the advertising agency, which is an affiliate of JWT
Carrot refers to the advertising agency Carrot Communication
Adcomm refers to the advertising agency, which is an affiliate of Lowe + Partners
Cultural Icon refers to a person or thing regarded as a symbol, in particular of a culture or
movement; a person, institution, and so forth, held in high-regard.
Iconic brand refers to an identity brand that move towards the identity value of a cultural icon.
Identity myth refers to a dramatised story that resolves cultural contradictions; a requirement for an
icon
Identity value refers to the part of a brand’s value that emanates from the brand’s contributions to
self-expression
Identity brand refers to a brand whose value to consumers (and, therefore, its brand equity)
originates mainly from identity value
Populist worlds refers to sovereign places where a person’s deeds are believed to be driven by
intrinsic values and not by money or power; populist worlds act as the cultural raw materials from
which identity myths are developed
Ritual action refers to the method through which the consumers of an icon experience the identity
myth which is encompassed by the icon
Holt refers to the author Douglas B. Holt
How brands become Icons relates to Holt’s book where he developed the theory of cultural
branding
Jobs refers to Steve Jobs
CCO refers to McCracken’s notion of a new role in the organisation, that of a Chief Culture Officer.
POD refers to Points-of-difference associations
POP refers to Points-of-parity associations

5. Page | 5
Contents
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................8
1.1 Research Aim ....................................................................................................................................9
2.0 Literature Review......................................................................................................................10
2.1 Conventional Models/Approaches of Branding..............................................................................17
2.1.1 Concept of Customer-Based Brand Equity...................................................................................17
2.1.2 Brand Positioning Model..............................................................................................................20
2.1.3 The Brand Identity Prism and the Brand Essence concept..........................................................23
2.2 Cultural Branding Model.................................................................................................................27
2.2.1 Iconic and Cultural branding – Branding in mythological dimensions.........................................27
2.2.2 Approach to Cultural branding ....................................................................................................29
2.3 Organising for Cultural Branding Strategy ......................................................................................32
2.3.1 Key features of a Cultural Studio .................................................................................................32
2.3.3 How the Brand Bureaucracy Stifles the Branding Process ..........................................................33
3.0 Research objective....................................................................................................................36
3.1 Research questions.........................................................................................................................36
4.0 Methodology.............................................................................................................................37
4.1 Research Approach.........................................................................................................................37
4.2 Methods of Data Collection............................................................................................................37
4.3 Interview Structure.........................................................................................................................38
4.4 Ethical Considerations.....................................................................................................................39
5.0 Data Analysis.............................................................................................................................40
6.0 Analysis of Findings.........................................................................................................................41
6.1 Conventional Models/Approaches of Branding..............................................................................41
6.1.1 Keller’s Brand Positioning Model.................................................................................................41
6.1.2 Keller’s CBBE Model.....................................................................................................................44
6.1.3 Kapferer’s Identity Prism and Brand Essence ..............................................................................49
6.2 Cultural Branding Model.................................................................................................................53
6.2.1 Holt’s Cultural Branding Model....................................................................................................54
6.3 Organising for Cultural Branding Strategy ......................................................................................59
6.3.1 Brand Bureaucracy vs. Cultural Studio.........................................................................................59
6.4 Photo Elicitation..............................................................................................................................63
7.0 Discussion and Conclusion..............................................................................................................67

6. Page | 6
7.1 Revised Model of Cultural Branding ...............................................................................................67
7.2 Problems with Holt’s theory and model for Cultural Branding ......................................................73
8.0 Limitations.......................................................................................................................................80
9.0 Further Research.............................................................................................................................81
References ............................................................................................................................................82
Appendices............................................................................................................................................89

7. Page | 7
List of Tables and Figures
Figure 1: CBBE Pyramid........................................................................................................................19
Figure 2: Sub-dimensions of Brand-Building Blocks in CBBE...............................................................19
Figure 3: Brand Position Model ...........................................................................................................21
Figure 4: Brand Identity Prism .............................................................................................................24
Figure 5: Example of Jack Daniel’s Brand Essence ..............................................................................26
Table 1 Comparison of Characteristics across Four Branding Models................................................28
Figure 6: The Structure of a Myth Market...........................................................................................30
Table 2: Breakdown of the Respondents from the Interviews and Agency Represented..................38
Figure 7: Data Analysis Approach........................................................................................................40
Figure 8: Fruitika Leverages Cultural and Political Authority to Reinvent its Myth ..........................58
Figure 9: Researcher’s Revised Model for Cultural Branding .............................................................72
Table 3 Why Agencies do not take a Cultural Approach to Brand Strategy ......................................78
Figure 10: The Green-Movement which Brands Try to Ride on..........................................................94
Figure 11: The Urban/Hip-Hop Movement which Brands Try to Ride on...........................................95
Figure 12: The Five Forces that Shape Industry Competition............................................................100

8. Page | 8
1.0 Introduction
Powerful brands construct significant images in consumers’ mind (Keller, 1993), with brand image
and reputation strengthening differentiation and then possibly leading to a favourable consequence
on their buying behaviour (Gordon et al., 1993; McEnally and deChernatony, 1999). From the
perspective of ever-increasing identical product and service offerings, brands are fundamental
drivers for choosing and using products. Accordingly, they represent a significant intangible asset for
the majority of companies. With the intention of capitalising on this asset, researchers and
academics have developed various models and approaches to branding (Keller, 1993, 2001, 2008;
Kapferer, 2008; Aaker, 1991a; 1996).
However, these various branding approaches and models disregard the function of the cultural
context in the branding process, thus ignoring the added value embedded in brands in the shape of
cultural meaning utilised in shaping individuals’ identities. Holt (2002) asserted that this cultural
focus and method of identity construction is lacking in the major sections of branding theory.
Although Kapferer’s (2008) identity approach regards the cultural aspects of branding; culture is
however described at a micro level, in particular, organisational culture. Organisational culture in
this approach is conceived as a notion which offers a local perspective or outline for the
organisational identity (Heding et al., 2009).
Traditional models and practices of branding are being extensively challenged by the growing
consumer culture. Consumers are being cynical towards commercial messages and their authority to
commune online is giving them more and more power to control when, where and how they desire
to be contacted. Brand managers confront an environment where brand value is progressively
produced outside the boundaries of the company, in co-creation with other publics and social
networks. Subsequently, there happens to be an extensive gap between conventional branding
models and its relation to the means by which consumers currently use brands. New branding
theories push for a consumer-centred approach to branding in which branding is the process of
adding identity value to customers’ identity projects (Holt, 2004).
Kapferer’s (2008) approach considered that a powerful and coherent identity is vital for
development of brand value. The brand must concentrate on discovering ‘who we are’ as an
organisation to facilitate conveying one consistent identity to all stakeholders. In Keller’s (1993,
2001) consumer-based approach, the brand is evaluated as residing in the mind of the consumer as
a cognitive construction. Conversely, Holt’s (2004) cultural branding approach includes the exchange
amongst macro-level culture and brands to the picture. Holt’s theory demonstrated the means in
which marketers can utilise cultural forces to build strong brands altering it into brand icons.
Holt (2004) took cultural theories and historical research in to play, to reconsider how consumer
brands are built. Holt’s research revealed that iconic brands are constructed by targeting symbolic

9. Page | 9
cracks in the nation’s culture. Holt asserted that iconic brands performed myths that assist the
nation’s citizens to govern their identities in times of challenging societal shifts. Working through the
historical market communication efforts of six iconic brands, Holt concluded that they all followed
various principles that summarised create the “Cultural Branding Model”.
A matter of contention in this transformed ‘brandscape’ and with evolving consumer culture
increasingly challenging the conventional models and practices of branding, there is lack of empirical
evidence as to whether managers in the global marketplace are conscious of pursuing a cultural
approach to branding.
1.1 Research Aim
This research seeks to question the brand building approach employed by advertising agencies,
taking Bangladesh as the country of context. The main objective is to see whether and to what
extent the staffs are conscious of incorporating consumer culture in their brand communications
strategy or whether they simply rely on conventional approaches to brand building and brand
strategy development.

10. Page | 10
2.0 Literature Review
There has been a huge increase in the implementation of branding activity, not just limited to
consumer goods and services. Nowadays, branding is implemented in industrial and business-to
business sectors, the public and voluntary sectors, utilities and non-governmental organisations
(Clifton and Ahmad, 2009).
According to The American Marketing Association, branding is defined as...“a name, term, sign,
symbol or design...intended to identify the goods or service of one seller and to differentiate them of
those of the competition” (Keller et al., 2008, p.2). This definition emphasized identification and
differentiation as branding’s primary purpose, and is exactly how most modern companies seek to
build their brand. However, this definition has somewhat evolved over the years (King, 1970; King,
1973; Lannon and Cooper, 1983).
Stephen King of J. Walter Thompson1
(JWT) suggested that brands were not just product adjuncts
but complex cognitive entities created by consumers in their total set of experiences with a product
(King 1970; King 1973). A whole new language evolved to support this view of brands being
described as ‘personalities’ with which we could form relationships (de Chernatony et al., 1998),
they could have an inner ‘essence’ (Kapferer, 1992; Kelly, 1998; Hanby, 1999) and they could grow
and evolve over time (Goodyear, 1993). Other scholars describe the purpose of branding as a way to
reduce perceived risk of purchase (Kapferer, 1997) increase financial performance by charging
premium prices (Aaker, 1991b), and introduce new products without much difficulty (Aaker and
Keller, 1990).
A more detailed description of brands having a ‘deeper inner inspiration’ or ‘essence’ has been made
by Kapferer (1997, p.100) who developed the concept of brand identity comprising six combined
aspects of physique, personality, relationship, culture, reflection and self-image – ‘The Brand Identity
Prism’ – described more thoroughly later on. Kapferer (2008) argued that a brand’s identity
comprises of several essential traits that consumers relate with the brand. These traits acts as
brand’s identifying criteria to the consumer and are a fundamental component of a brand’s overall
comprehension.
According to Kapferer (1997), the notion of brand image does not work in the present environment.
“A brand image is a synthesis made by the public of the various brand signals, e.g. brand name,
visual symbols, products, advertisements, sponsoring, patronage, articles...An image results from
decoding a message, extracting meaning and interpreting signs” (Kapferer, 1997, p.94). However
companies, at times, get fixated with the requirement to establish an attractive image that will be
positively perceived by all and hence brand image ends up focusing excessively on appearance and
not enough on brand essence. Kapferer (1997) and Macrae (1996) spoke about a brand’s identity as
– what does the brand stand for? They declared that in brand management terms, brand identity
comes before brand image. It became common understanding that is it imperative, firstly, to have a
consistent self image of the brand, to facilitate identifying how it can be articulated, and how that
1
JWT is the fourth largest marketing communications network (agency) in the world (WPP.com, 2011)

11. Page | 11
shapes the external view of the brand. Through the identity prism, Kapferer (2008) pursued the issue
of why brand strategy and management is so vital in his published book entitled “The New Strategic
Brand Management”. The author considered how brands relate to every part of our society and
affect every domain of life, comprising economic, social, cultural, sports as well as religion. Kapferer
(2008) also stressed the concept of ‘Brand Essence’ in the literature stating that it emerges from the
desire to condense the brand identity and positioning. “In essence, the concept of ‘brand essence’
asks in a temporal and global way: what do you sell? What key value does the brand propose, stand
for? No more than three!” (Kapferer, 2008, p.197) Kapferer further asserted that the benefit of the
concept is that it allows for summarising the richness of an identity, making it simpler to project.
A major contribution to branding theory was that made by Kevin Keller (1993; 2001; 2007) with his
introduction of the concept of Customer-Based Brand Equity and the Brand Hierarchy. Keller’s
(1993) article “Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity”
dramatically changed the notion of brand management. The previous focus on brand management
was on the ‘sender end’ of brand communications2
. Keller (1993) outlined the ‘Customer-Based
Brand Equity (CBBE) Model’ to aid management in their brand building efforts. CBBE is based on the
premise that “the brand resides in the minds of consumers as a cognitive construal” (Heding et al.,
2009. p. 84). Keller’s article established a novel brand and consumer outlook and introduced a new
method of associating with the independent scientific discipline of brand management,
comprehensively examining the fundamental terminology of brand equity. Since the instigation of
the customer-based approach, the disposition towards it has been extensively accepted as the most
prominent outlook about brands and branding (Heding et al., 2009). Holt (2005) stated that “Keller’s
exposition of the customer-based brand equity model offers the most widely accepted and
comprehensive treatment of branding in American marketing” (p. 275).
According to Keller (2008), strong brands do not just happen by chance. Creating sources of brand
equity to build strong brands calls for thoughtful, imaginative and meticulous planning,
implementation, and measurement. In order to build and manage a brand requires the careful
development and execution of creative brand strategies.
Keller (2008) further stressed that the CBBE model offers an outline for the stages in building a
strong brand. In order to put the model to work, marketers have to make numerous strategic
decisions about the exact nature of the brand building blocks they will utilise (Keller, 2008). To guide
those decisions, Keller (2008) highlighted the ‘Brand Positioning Model’ which can come to great
use when building brands and planning brand strategies.
However, the aforementioned principles of branding disregard the function of the cultural context in
the branding process, thus neglecting the additional value embedded in brands in the shape of
cultural meanings utilised in shaping individuals’ identities. Holt (2002) asserted that this cultural
focus and method of identity construction was lacking in the major sections of branding theory.
2
The brand identity originates from the company itself indicating the brand’s value and uniqueness. It symbolises the internal desired
image which the company tries to communicate to the target audience (Kapferer, 1997; Marguiles, 1997)

12. Page | 12
Although Kapferer’s identity approach considers culture as one of the facets, it however describes
culture at micro-level3
. In the micro-level description of Kapferer’s (2008) identity prism,
organisational culture is to be conceived as a concept that presents a local context or outline for the
organisational identity. Moreover, the organisational culture contributes with symbolic material to
the creation of corporate identity. Culture in the prism is considered as the expression of the way of
life in an organisation – the values (those ‘regarded as the truth’), the behaviour (‘the way we do
things over here’) and the official internal and external communication in addition to the more
casual communication of internal organisational stories (Hatch and Schultz, 2000). In the prism, a
brand’s country of origin is also considered to affect the culture of the brand. This becomes a vital
point for consumers who wish to perceive the differences among the brands in competition.
Moreover, there appears to be a broad disconnect between the conventional branding models and
their connection to the means by which present consumers use brands. In contrast to customary
branding schemes4
, like ‘mind-share’ highlighting the significance of “brand essence” and “onion
model” seeking to position the product in the mind of consumers dependent on few key
associations, new branding theories support a more consumer-centric approach to branding.
Grant (2006) questioned and completely dismissed the traditional approaches to brand
management. Grant (2006) stated that “a brand is a cluster of strategic cultural ideas” (p.27). Grant
argued that a brand is nothing abstract or a mysterious essence – it is purely the summation of the
great ideas appropriated to build that brand. Grant argued that in due course, the brand assumes
the form of a “molecule”, made up of successive and connected ideas. Each new idea can enhance a
brand’s interest and keep it active in people’s minds’. Grant stated that the method of managing
brands is through coherence, not consistency, suggesting that the “molecular” structure of branding
needs to be coherent and ought to be guided by a singular cultural logic. From his study of brand
building within the new mediascape, Grant recommended his molecular approach to brands rather
than the conventional “onion” model, which he judged as static and conservative and therefore not
beneficial to brand innovation.
Grant McCracken’s theories on branding are also increasingly opposed to the conventional theories
of branding. McCracken (1986) asserted that “consumer goods have a significance that goes beyond
their utilitarian character and commercial value...the significance rests largely in their ability to carry
and communicate cultural meaning” (p. 71). McCracken (1986) stated that consumer goods attain
meaning from their culturally constituted world and transfer it on to the consumer through
advertising, fashion systems and exercising certain rituals.
The theory of cultural branding5
(Holt, 2003a; 2003b; 2004) is the cornerstone of the cultural
approach to branding and serves as the core theme of this research. Different from the other
3
The cultural branding approach, on the other hand, emphasises branding in the framework of the macro-level culture where data from
the culture surrounding us all is put into use in branding practices (Heding et al., 2009).
4
Propagated by leading academics, for example in books by Kotler, Aaker, Zaltman, and Keller
5
From Douglas B. Holt’s book “How Brands Become Icons: The Principles of Cultural Branding”, published in 2004 by the Harvard Business
School Press.

13. Page | 13
publications with a cultural perspective (McCracken, 1986; Alden et al., 1999; Klein, 2000; Thompson
and Arsel, 2004; Thompson et al., 2006; Askegaard, 2006), Holt’s theory concentrates more on the
management of brands. In a broad empirical study of iconic brands, Holt developed a new approach
of perceiving and managing brands. Cultural branding is the strategic principles regarding how to
build and manage a brand and transform it into an icon. Cultural branding mainly concerns what
culture can do for brand value creation. Holt’s theory demonstrated the means in which marketers
can utilise cultural forces to build strong brands altering it into brand icons, providing a detailed
examination into the creation of the inspired and talented brand communication behind iconic
brands such as Mountain Dew, Volkswagen and Budweiser, to name a few. The basis is similar to
McCracken’s (1986) theory in terms of brands or products perceived as enriched with cultural
meaning, but Holt’s theory is more specific and demanding. Holt highlighted the importance of
tackling certain “powerful cultural issues and contradictions before one is able to create myths that
are so powerful and resonant that the brand becomes iconic” (Heding et al., 2009, p.217). Heding et
al (2009) further noted that “How Brands Become Icons is the first comprehensive research on
branding in a cultural perspective” (p.217).
Holt (2004) builds his theory from extended case studies of a number of American iconic brands
from various industries, different company histories, competitive scenarios and consumer bases. For
his study, Holt analysed a collection of advertisements of numerous major brands, covering media
placements along with five decades of American political, economic and social trends. Moreover,
Holt examined other cultural texts such as movies, films and TV shows. Regardless of the differences,
the iconic brands portrayed definitive similarities that had brought about their success. Holt
concluded that these successful brand cases were the foundation of the “Cultural Branding Model”,
the theory of how brands become icons. However, it is worth mentioning that the theory of cultural
branding by Douglas B. Holt was introduced in a book published by the Harvard Business School
Press and is therefore not peer-reviewed6
.
Grant (2006), McCracken (1986) and Holt’s (2004) cultural approaches to branding are based on
examining brands and branding with regards to cultural influences. In this approach the brand is
deemed as a significant part of and contributor to mainstream culture. Heding et al (2009) noted
that a drawback to this approach was that the literature mainly focused on brands characterising
corporate America.
Holt (2004) applied his model by examining brands that are directly rooted in a single nation’s
symbols – the Mexican beach for Corona and rural Appalachia for Mountain Dew. Moreover, the
theory is built from case studies rather than actual implementation on a particular brand.
Conversely, cultural referents in different places and nations and whether managers’ consciously
take a cultural approach to branding have been ignored. There has been no empirical study as to
how branding managers in Asia7
contribute to the creation of a cultural branding strategy. Do
branding managers in Asian nations map out the myth markets currently active in popular culture?
Are they aware of the emerging cultural contradictions and the demand for myths that form around
these contradictions? Do they integrate cultural ideologies while developing brand strategies, which
6
In order to devote his full attention to cultural strategy work, Holt decided to leave academia in the fall of 2010 to form a consultancy
group called the Cultural Strategy Group.
7
Specifically, South-East Asia

14. Page | 14
consumers’ can resonate with? Do they have something equivalent of a cultural branding model or
are they currently using more conventional branding models?
Consumer researchers have widely explored the sociocultural processes and practices through which
consumption activities, material goods, and brands become channels for marketplace myths (Cayla
and Eckhardt, 2008; Giesler, 2008; Holt, 2004; Holt and Thompson, 2004; Kozinets, 2001;
McCracken, 2005; Schouten and McAlexander, 1995; Thompson and Tian, 2008; Zhao and Belk,
2008). These studies have mainly concentrated on analytic cases where consumers are partially
engaged to a consumption activity or brand by a marketplace myth and consecutively resort to these
commercially mediated meanings to further their personal and collectively shared identity projects
(Arnould and Thompson, 2005).
Most consumer research studies have only examined the means through which consumers acquire
their positions in consumer culture thus neglecting the other side of the coin, specifically, the role of
marketers in structuring these positions.
Cayla and Eckhardt (2008) investigated how brand managers developed regional Asian brands and
illustrated how they endeavoured to build new networks of interconnectedness through the
creation of a transnational, imagined Asian world. All the previous studies and ongoing focus is
surrounded on how to leverage the cultural branding model to studying brands that are directly
rooted in a single nation’s symbols or how consumers negotiate their position in consumer culture.
There has been no empirical study as to whether and to what extent branding managers, in practice,
are conscious of taking a cultural approach to branding.
Various academics such as Aaker and Joachimsthaler (2009), Kapferer (2008), Keller (2008),
Temporal (2002) and de Chernatony (1998; 1999; 2006) have offered various approaches and
models to brand building over the years. All these approaches and models have ignored the cultural
context and the method of identity construction in the branding process. McCracken (1986), Holt
(2004) and Grant’s (2006) theories on branding are all increasingly opposed to the conventional
theories/models of branding. However, there seems to be no empirical study as to whether and to
what extent brand managers are mindful of taking a cultural approach to brand building and brand
strategy development or whether they predominantly rely on conventional approaches to brand
building. This study examined the cultural branding model proposed by Holt (2004) and the
conventional branding models proposed by Keller (2001; 2008) and Kapferer (2008), in order to
identify whether a cultural or a conventional approach to branding was taken by the staff in the
various advertising agencies in the Bangladesh market. Additionally, the study aimed to investigate
whether the staff made use of an alternative approach to brand building so as to gain valuable
insight.

15. Page | 15
Various authors’ have stressed the need for a new organisational structure, role, staff and skills in
order to promote a cultural approach to branding and strategy.
Holt (2004) stated that, presently, big marketing companies – such as Procter & Gamble, Unilever,
and The Coca-Cola Company – are extremely efficient at day-to-day marketing, however equally
inept in taking a cultural perspective to branding. According to Holt (2004), these organisations are
governed by spreadsheets, income statements, clusters of market data, and feasibility reports. The
rationality and practicality of the day-to-day business of marketing stifles cultural advocacy.
Additionally, Holt (2004) noted that MBA programmes provide the initial training for some brand
managers, and therefore paves the way for some managers, into a psycho-economic domain that
runs completely against the cultural viewpoint required for identity brands. Most business schools
borderline social issues as the province of non-profit ventures and regard the texts of the cultural
industries, if at all, carelessly. The majority of MBA’s leave their programmes lacking even a basic
capability to assess an advertisement from a cultural angle (Holt, 2004).
Holt (2004) stated that the brand cases (Volkswagen, Budweiser, etc.) he examined while developing
the theory of cultural branding were successful in connecting with the nation’s culture. However,
Holt assumed that it was mainly driven by the hunches of ad agency creatives (mainly copywriters
and creative directors) and the occasional nonconventional marketing professional. The reason
being, leading consumer goods companies have not fostered a cultural viewpoint and the talent that
compliments it. According to Holt (2004) “cultural thinking normally originates from the brand team
representatives with the most cultural competencies...cultural strategies, therefore, have been
haphazardly developed through the casual engagement of gifted creatives, rather than through the
consistent employment of a brand strategy” (p.220). However, that is not to say that this can always
be the case. If we take Apple and Steve Jobs as an example, then Apple is one brand that has been
very successful in connecting with American and global culture. There is not much debate
concerning the level of success that Apple’s branding strategy has enjoyed since the return of Steve
Jobs as the CEO in 1997. Jobs had an influence over everything Apple did. In other words, every
Apple product released was done through the influence of Jobs rather than any ad agency creative
or brand team representative. Nonetheless, Holt (2004) believed that the challenge remained in
fostering a Cultural activist organisation for brand owners who aim to build iconic brands.
A similar view was presented by cultural anthropologist Grant McCracken. McCracken (2010)
offered the task of establishing cultural insight at the heart of a business in his book Chief Culture
Officer.
The author advocated a new candidate into the already crowded corporate ‘C-Suite’, suggesting that
every company needs a Chief Culture Officer, someone who is constantly learning about the latest

16. Page | 16
changes in the society along with being mindful of cultural history. McCracken (2010) argued that
corporations should concentrate on understanding what is going on in the culture surrounding them
– a job the author believed is done extremely well by Steve Jobs (Apple), Martha Stewart
(Omnicom), A.G. Lafley (P&G), Mary Minnick (Coca Cola) and Silvia Lagnado (Unilever). McCracken
identified number of companies (Snapple, Levi Strauss, PepsiCo) that had suffered the consequences
of having neglected explicit cultural instances which they could have benefited from.
McCracken (2010) does not promote the idea of companies outsourcing their knowledge of culture
to alleged cool hunters, marketing experts, consulting firms, design agencies or interns. McCracken
noted that it could prove to be dangerously costly to rely solely on the gut feel of copywriters and
creative directors. That is not to say that all companies face this problem. Many managers do work
quite closely with product innovators, research agencies and designers while developing brand
strategies. McCracken (2010) recommended that companies need a new professional and proposed
the title of the Chief Culture Officer (CCO) to deliver this sort of cultural intelligence.
Although McCracken provided plenty logical vigour and brilliant insight in his book, it is somewhat
ineptly directed towards the notion of the CCO as the highly professional expert, superior innovation
agent inside the corporation. The top-down organisational politics of this suggestion, the notion that
cultural insight occurs within a corporate setting, seems particularly skewed. This sort of
organisational structure would seem to derail cultural innovation rather than foster it. Alternatively,
Holt and Cameron (2010) proposed a new way for companies to organise for promoting cultural
innovation.
In their research to develop a new socio-cultural model for market innovation, Holt and Cameron
(2010) were surprised to learn that most of the leading consumer goods companies they worked
with had minimal capability for cultural innovation. The author’s aimed to address vital
organisational questions such as: what prevents large consumer-marketing companies from
innovating? How should companies and managers organise to practice cultural strategy? How does
this organisational structure vary from conventional organisation structures?
The world’s top consumer marketing companies are under extreme pressure from stockholders to
improve their performance, and senior managers strongly push to install operations that will
improve the ROI of marketing investments. Holt and Cameron (2010, p.294) discovered that the
organisational structure at the leading companies organises to employ a very command-and-control
management style which often causes the logical stripping-out of culture in the research and
conceptual stages. The author’s stated that designing innovative cultural expressions was a very
different task from developing the usual brand strategy.
Holt and Cameron (2010) illustrated that cultural strategy demands a different way of organising.
The author’s developed an organisational critique indicating the impractical institutional philosophy
that discourages cultural strategy at most companies, which they term the ‘Brand Bureaucracy’.
Weber (1978) stated that bureaucracies have ‘technical excellence’ since they work like a machine,
maximising precision and speed while extenuating uncertainty. Weber prominently characterised
the institutional languor of bureaucracies as an “iron cage”. Even though many facets of the
marketing function can garner huge benefits from bureaucratic norms, when it involves cultural
branding strategy, it can be extremely disadvantageous. Holt and Cameron (2010) adapted Weber’s

17. Page | 17
main principles so as to form their concept of how brand bureaucracies stifle cultural branding. This
is explained in further detail later onward.
Holt and Cameron (2010) discovered the solution to this impoverished branding potential which they
term as the ‘Cultural Studio’. From their various studies, Holt and Cameron discovered this informal
alternative organisational structure prospering in the gaps and chasms of the marketplace where
brand bureaucracy had less authority. Most of their cases constituted of entrepreneurial start-ups
(ESPN and Snapple) and from companies that rejected professional marketing management during
their successful moments. Holt and Cameron (2010) declared that cultural studios could also be
present in large marketing firms (Levi’s, Volkswagen, Tango), but they are organised as secret
projects by rebellious managers who are capable of averting the power of the brand bureaucracy.
Holt (2004), McCracken (2010) and Holt and Cameron (2010) have all acknowledged the need for
differing roles and organisational structures which will facilitate a cultural approach to brand
strategy. However the author’s have primarily based their research on case studies of a selection of
companies which they thought had an alternative organisational form or roles that cultivated
cultural strategy. Do firms, in reality, organise for a ‘Cultural Studio?’ There seems to be no
empirical study as to whether the alternative organisational structure, in the form of a ‘Cultural
Studio’, as suggested by Holt and Cameron (2010) is operating in practice. On account of this, the
study further examined whether a cultural studio flourished in the big advertising agencies in
Bangladesh or if the notion of the brand bureaucracy had more influence over their routine
operations.
2.1 Conventional Models/Approaches of Branding
2.1.1 Concept of Customer-Based Brand Equity
Customer-based brand equity is rooted in the principle that the brand exists in the minds of
consumers as a cognitive construction. Keller (2008, p.53) noted that “Customer-based brand equity
occurs when the consumer has a high level of awareness and familiarity with the brand and holds
some strong, favourable and unique brand association in memory.” In most cases, brand awareness
is not adequate in order to generate favourable consumer responses; the strength, favourability,
and uniqueness of brand associations represent a vital ingredient in shaping the differential
response that constitutes brand equity. Establishing a positive brand image in consumers minds –
strong, favourable, and unique associations – goes simultaneously with building brand awareness to
build customer-based brand equity (Keller, 2001).
Customer-Based Brand Equtiy (CBBE) Model
Keller’s (2001) Customer-Based Brand Equity Model (CBBE) was formulated to explain what
constitutes a strong brand and how to build a strong brand. CBBE is regarded as the most
comprehensive brand building model as it incorporates concepts and measures from prominent
branding models and therefore offers considerable value and insights (Keller, 2001).

18. Page | 18
According to Keller (2001), building a strong brand can be considered as a chronological series of
steps, wherein each step is dependent upon effectively completing the preceding step. Every step
entails achieving particular goals with both existing and prospective customers8
.
Keller (2001, p.5) stated that these four steps characterise a collection of basic questions that
customers generally enquire about brands – at least implicitly if not even explicitly (with the related
brand steps in tangent):
1. Who are you? (brand identity)
2. What are you? (brand meaning)
3. What about you? What do I think or feel about you? (brand responses)
4. What about you and me? What kind of association and how much of a connection would I like to
have with you? (brand relationships)
According to this model, performing the four steps means creating a pyramid of six ‘brand building
blocks’ with customers, as exemplified in Figure 1 below.
8
The first step involves certifying recognition of the brand with customers and an association of the brand in customers’ minds with a
specific product class or customer need. The second step is to strongly ascertain the entirety of brand meaning in the minds of customers,
by tactically connecting numerous tangible and intangible brand associations. The third step is to extract the appropriate customer
responses to this brand identity and brand meaning. The fourth step entails translating brand response to generate an intense, active
loyalty relationship between customers and the brand (Keller, 2001)

19. Page | 19
Figure 1: CBBE Pyramid (Adapted from Keller, 2001, p.7)
Figure 2 examines key content of each building blocks in more detail.
Figure 2: Sub-dimensions of Brand-Building Blocks in CBBE (Adapted from Keller, 2001, p.8)
A few elements of each step are discussed here which will be needed for further analysis:
Brand Salience refers to conditions of the awareness of the brand i.e. how easily and often
customers imagine the brand under different purchase or usage situations (Keller, 2001).

20. Page | 20
Brand Meaning is comprised of two key categories of brand associations that reside in customers’
minds involving performance and imagery, with a group of explicit subcategories inside each.
Brand performance relates to how well the product or service meets customers’ functional needs.
Whereas brand imagery describes the extrinsic properties of the product or service, together with
the manners in which the brand tries to accomodate customers’ psychological or social needs. These
brand associations can be explicitly created (from a customer’s personal experiences and intercourse
with the brand) or implicitly (through the brand representation in advertising or through other
source of advice, such as word-of-mouth). These associations act as the foundation for the
positioning of the brand and its points-of-parity and points-of-difference (Keller, 2001)
Keller (2001, p.12) further stated that irrespective of the types of association linked to the brand,
either performance or imagery, the brand associations constituting the brand image and meaning
could be considered and summarised according to three key dimensions that provide the means to
building brand equity:
 Strength – How strongly is the brand identified with a brand association?
 Favourability – How important or valuable is the brand association to customers?
 Uniqueness – How distinctively is the brand identified with the brand association?
Brand Responses pertains to how customers react to the brand and all its marketing programs and
other sources of information i.e. what customers think or feel about the brand. Brand responses can
be differentiated in relation to brand judgments and brand feelings, namely, relating to if they occur
from the “head” or from the “heart.” (Keller, 2001)
Brand judgments address customers’ own views and assessments relating to the brand. Brand
judgments entail how customers assemble all the diverse performance and imagery associations of
the brand to generate different types of opinions (Keller, 2001).
Brand feelings involves customers’ emotional responses and reactions relating to the brand.
Additionally, brand feelings considers the feelings that are stimulated by the marketing activities for
the brand or by other methods (Keller, 2001).
Brand Resonance refers to the nature of the relationship customers’ have and the degree to which
they consider that they have a connection with and feel “in unison” with the brand. Resonance is
distinguished in terms of intensity or the depth of the psychological bond that customers’ have with
the brand including the level of activity created by this loyalty (e.g. repeat purchase, the extent to
which customers seek out brand information, events, other loyal customers) (Keller, 2001).
2.1.2 Brand Positioning Model
Keller (2008) noted in order to put the CBBE model to work, marketers have to make numerous
strategic decisions about the exact nature of the brand building blocks they will utilise. To guide
those decisions, Keller (2008) highlighted the Brand positioning model which can come to great use

21. Page | 21
when building brands as well as assist marketers to develop branding strategies and campaigns to
augment profits and long-term brand equity and follow their development along the way.
Brand Positioning Model
Brand positioning is at the core of marketing strategy. Keller (2008) stated that it is the “act of
designing the company’s offer and image so that it occupies a distince and valued place in the target
customer’s minds” (p.98). A sound brand positioning facilitates in directing marketing strategy by
elucidating what a brand is concerned with, how is it distinctive and how is it comparable to
competitors’ brands, and why consumers must procure and make use of it (Keller, 2008).
Keller (2008) declared there to be three main elements to a superior competitive positioning:
1) A competitive frame of reference in terms of the target market and nature of competition;
2) The points-of-difference in terms of strong, favourable, and unique brand associations; and
3) The points-of-parity in terms of brand associations that cancel out any existing or likely points-of-
difference by competitors
Figure 3: Brand Position Model (Adapted from Keller, 2008)
Competitive Frame of Reference
Brand positioning begins with establishing a frame of reference, which indicates to consumers the
goal they can anticipate in accomplishing by using a brand. Selecting the appropriate frame is vital as
it determines the kinds of associations that will perform as points-of-parity and points-of-difference.
The competitive frame of reference describes which other brands a brand is up against and thus
which brands have to be the centre of analysis and investigation (Keller, 2008).
Superior
Competitive
Positioning
Identify competitve
frames of reference
-Well defined target
market
-Clearly understood nature
of competition
Develop unique brand
points-of-difference
-Desirable (to consumer)
-Deliverable (by the brand)
-Differentiated (from
competition)
Establish shared brand
points-of-parity
-Negate competitor points-
of-difference
-Demonstrate category
credentials

22. Page | 22
Target market
Identifying the target market is significant since various consumers might have varying brand
knowledge compositions and therefore varying perceptions and preferences for the brand. It could
be hard for marketers, without this understanding, to claim which brand associations should be
strongly held, favourable, and unique. Marketers need to, firstly, define and segment the market
and thereafter choose which market segment they want to target (Keller, 2008).
Nature of Competition
Planning to target a certain kind of customer, at least inherently, often describes the nature of
competition, since other firms have also planned to target that segment in the past or plan on doing
so in the future, or because consumers in that segment may by now conceive of other brands in
their purchase decisions. Competitive analysis considers multitude of factors, such as the resources,
capabilities, and probable intentions of other firms, so that marketers can select markets where
consumers can be profitably served (Keller, 2008).
Points of Parity and Points of Difference
Once marketers have set the suitable frame of reference for positioning by identifying the customer
target market and nature of competition, they can classify the basis of positioning itself. In order to
achieve the appropriate positioning entails establishing the proper points-of-difference and points-
of-parity associations (Keller, 2008).
Points of Difference Associations
Points-of-difference (PODs) are traits or benefits consumers strongly link with a brand, positively
assess, and deem they could not find these traits and benefits to the same degree with a
competitive brand. Examples in the automobile market are Volvo (safety), Toyota (quality and
dependability), and Mercedes-Benz (quality and prestige). Although there is the potential for
numerous different types of associations, according to the customer-based brand equity concept,
categorisations can be made as either functional, performance-related considerations, or abstract,
imagery-related considerations (Keller, 2008).
The concept of PODs are quite similar to other renowned maketing concepts, for example the
concept of unique selling proposition9
(USP). The idea being that advertising should present
consumers with a convincing motive to purchase a product, something which could not be matched
by the competitors (Keller, 2008).
Keller (2008) stated that there are three prime conditions that decide if a brand association can
genuinely function as a point-of-difference:
9
Established by Rosser Reeves and the Ted Bates advertising agency in the 1950s (Keller, 2008)

23. Page | 23
1. It has to be desirable to consumer
2. It has to be deliverable by the company
3. It should be differentiating from competitors offerings
Points of Parity Associations
Points-of-parity (POPs), in contrast, are associations that are not fundamentally unique to the brand
but might actually be shared with other brands. There are two types of POPs: category and
competitive (Keller, 2008).
Category points-of-parity characterise essential – but not essentially adequate – clauses for brand
selection. They reside moderately at the basic product level and are most likely at the expected
product level10
. Category POPs could change eventually owing to technological advancements, legal
developments, and consumer trends (Keller, 2008).
Competitive points-of-parity are associations intended to cancel out competitors’ points-of-
difference. Specifically if consumers can see a brand “break even” in those areas where the
competitors are trying to find an advantage and attain advantages in other areas, the brand should
be in a strong, quite possibly supreme, competitive position (Keller, 2008).
Therefore once choosing an initial frame of reference, one needs to work out the points-of-parity
that must be adhered to, if consumers are to recognise the brand as a genuine and credible player
within that frame (Keller et al.,2002).
2.1.3 The Brand Identity Prism and the Brand Essence concept
According to Kapferer (2008), inner deep inspiration is the answer for turning into a ‘passion brand’
or ‘love mark’. Namely, the brand should not be hollow, but instead have character and its own
beliefs, and thus facilitate the consumer in realising his or her personal identity.
Kapferer (2008) proposed a brand identity model from managing brands and to facilitate in
explaining and codifying brand identity. The brand identity model has six dimensions, represented by
“the identity prism” (see below), at the middle one comes across the brand essence, the
fundamental value it stands for. Moreover, the model methodically entails both the sender,
considered as the company and recipient (receiver), considered as the customer.
10
For example, consumers might not regard a bank as truly a “bank” unless or until it offered a number of checking and savings plans;
made safety deposit boxes available, provided travellers checks, and other similar services; and had suitable hours and automated teller
machines (Keller, 2008, p.109).

24. Page | 24
Figure 4: Brand Identity Prism (Adapted from Kapferer, 2008, p.182)
Physique Facet: The first facet is about the brand’s physical specialities and qualities – called the
brand physique. The brand physique comprises of a mixture of either salient objective features11
or
emerging ones. Furthermore, the physique is the chief constituent and its tangible added value.
Nonetheless, the initial step in forming a brand is to form its physical aspects. This underlines
questions such as: what is it concretely? and what does it look like? This facet consists of the brand’s
prototype as well i.e. the flagship product that is symbolic of the brand’s qualities (Kapferer, 2008).
Personality Facet: When the company and brand communicates, it gradually builds up a brand
character. The personality facet illustrates what kind of person the brand would be if it were a
human being. According to Kapferer (2008) the concept of brand personality has been the key focus
of brand advertising since the 1970’s. Accordingly, numerous American agencies have made it a
precondition for communication and was open to the idea of getting famous characters to be the
face of brands. The simplest method of forming an instant personality is to attach a spokesperson to
the brand, whether real or figurative (Kapferer, 2008).
Culture Facet: Kapferer (2008) noted that “There is no cult brand without a brand culture” (p.184).
The brand should develop its own culture from which its products originate. However, the products
are not the only actual illustration of the brand culture, but also a mode of communication. Besides,
in this facet, culture typifies the set of values, which feeds the brand’s inspiration. Moreover, it
refers to the basic principles governing the brand in the way of outward signs – through products
and communication. Kapferer (2008) further stated that “this essential aspect is at the core of the
brand” (p.184). The brand culture should, as well, be the main point for the consumers to perceive
the differences between brands in competition. “Brand culture plays an essential role in
11
Those which instantly come to mind when the brand is mentioned in a survey (Kapferer, 2008, p.182)

25. Page | 25
differentiating brands. It indicates the ethos whose values are embodied in the products and services
of the brand” (Kapferer, 2008, p.187) When the consumers select between brands, the culture is
often of high significance, for example, brands with counties of origin or brands differentiating on
culture when it involves relationships could bring fundamental value to the consumer (Kapferer,
2008).
Relationship Facet: The relationship depicts the manner in which the brand acts towards its target
audience i.e. what kind of relationship is created with the target audience. This facet is the one that
defines the manner of conduct that categorises the brand the most. It also characterises the way the
brand contributes to the consumer’s experiences and feelings12
.
Reflection Facet: As a product communicates and gets built over time, the brand constantly tries to
build a reflection or image of the consumer which it appears to be speaking to. Kapferer (2008)
noted that there is always a confusion between reflection and target. The target describes the
prospective buyers and consumers of the product. Reflection, in contrast, should be related to the
way the customer wishes to be perceived on account of using the brand. Reflection is the image of
the consumers that the brand portrays in, for example, advertisements. For instance, a luxury-
clothing brand will, in its advertisements, demonstrate wealthy, sophisticated people.
Self-image Facet: Kapferer (2008) stated that reflection is the target’s outward mirror and thus self-
image defines the target’s personal internal mirror. The self-image typifies how the brand makes you
feel about yourself. In other words, when people purchase a piece of a high fashion design for
instance, they create an attitude towards that certain brand and sort of lifestyle and may convince
themselves that they have the capability to purchase such high-priced products. Other examples
could be the prestige the product offers or a connection to particular communities.
Kapferer (2008) stated that all the six facets in the prism are interrelated, and the main notion of the
brand identity prism is communication. Kapferer believed that a silent brand is an obsolete brand
and the facets characterise the boundaries within which the brand is free to change and expand. The
prism is separated into two sections – one social and one that incorporates within the brand itself,
within its spirit. As a result, there are three externalization facets: physique, relationship, reflection,
and three internalization facets: personality, culture and self-image. The facets of physique and
personality constitute the sender of the identity, whilst the facets of reflection and self-image define
the recipient. The two facets relationship and culture help close any gap there might be between
the sender and the recipient. A sound identity prism is recognised by facets with a handful of
powerful words (Kapferer, 2008).
Brand Essence
Most advertising agencies use the phrase ‘brand essence’. According to Kapferer (2008) the concept
of ‘brand essence’ asks the questions: what do you sell? What key value does the brand propose,
stand for? Besides it should, ideally be, not more than three words. Some of the debate consists of
12
For example, the Nike brand has a provocative relationship with its consumers that encourages them to “Just do it” (Kapferer, 2008).

26. Page | 26
the idea of value – some talk about benefit, whilst the remainder talk about higher order ideals. It is
indeed possible for the essence to be closely synced with the product experience for some brands,
whilst it might not be possible for others. Kapferer (2008) further stated that in order to find a
brand’s essence one needs to first specify a brand’s identity by exploring the identity prism to find
the key values of the brand.
So what exactly is the benefit of having the brand essence concept? It has managerial value in a
sense that it allows for condensing the amplitude of an identity, making it simpler to project. The
problem with the concept is that the significance of words is extremely culturally specific. Therefore
simple words like ‘natural’ will mean different things in different regions. Accordingly, to conceive a
brand requires utilising the entire identity prism, where words attain their meaning in rapport with
others (Kapferer, 2008).
Kapferer (2008) stated that the brand essence can basically be noted in the centre of the brand
identity prism, describing essence, values, personality and attributes (see figure below).
Figure 5: Example of Jack Daniel’s Brand Essence (Adapted from Kapferer, 2008, p.199)

27. Page | 27
2.2 Cultural Branding Model
2.2.1 Iconic and Cultural branding – Branding in mythological dimensions
According to Holt (2004), myths and experience take on a more vital role in cultural branding, than in
those of more conventional models of branding. Consumers buy the product to experience the myth
embedded in it. The product alone is purely a medium for storytelling. A powerful cultural strategy
delivers a storied product, a product that embraces distinct branded features by means of which
customers bear identity myths (Holt, 2004).
Holt (2004) asserted that conventional methods of branding such as - mind-share branding,
emotional branding and viral branding, could support other forms of branding, but do not aid in
crafting iconic brands. Holt (2004) emphasised that iconic brands employ advertising to dramatise
stories that assist the nation’s citizens to govern their identities in times of challenging societal
shifts. The leading distinctive differences of the three conventional models weighed against the
cultural branding model are demonstrated below, in Table 1.

28. Page | 28
Table 1 Comparison of Characteristics across Four Branding Models (Adapted from Holt, 2004, p.14)
Whilst examining Table 1 it becomes clearly obvious that cultural branding entails substantial iconic
and myth making compared to mind-share branding, emotional branding and viral branding. The
conventional models as accentuated by Keller (2001; 2008) and Kapferer (2008) suggests that a
brand is made up of a range of abstract associations, and therefore managers become infatuated
over which abstractions the brand should own. On the contrary, with cultural branding the brand

29. Page | 29
value exists in the particulars of cultural expressions associated with the brand i.e. the distinct
cultural constituents of the brand’s myth and the distinct expression of these constituents in the
communication (Holt, 2004).
2.2.2 Approach to Cultural branding
Holt (2004) conducted systematic historic research on six American iconic brands so as to describe
how iconic brands are developed and eventually maintained. Holt concluded that they all followed a
range of principles that summarised create the “Cultural Branding Model”, which are completely
dissimilar from the principles observed in conventional models of branding.
Holt (2004) stated that this model is based on certain key principles outlined below:
1. Iconic brands address acute contradictions in society
2. Iconic brands perform identity myths that address these desires and anxieties
3. Identity myths reside in the brand, which consumers experience and share via ritual action
4. These identity myths are set in populist worlds
5. Iconic brands perform as activists, leading culture
6. Iconic brands rely on breakthrough performances, instead of consistent communications
7. Iconic brands enjoy a cultural halo effect
(Holt, 2004, p. 6-10)
For more details as to the axioms of cultural branding, please refer to Appendix-4.
The first step in cultural branding is to outline the myth markets13
currently functioning in popular
culture and to aim for the myth market which is most suitable for the brand (Figure 6 shows the
typical structure of a myth market). In order to do this, managers ought to have knowledge of the
three fundamental constituents of a myth market: national ideology, cultural contradictions, and
populist worlds.
13
“Contradictions in national ideology create myth markets. A huge range of cultural products compete to offer the most compelling
myths: stories that will provide symbolic sustenance to shore up the contradiction.” (Holt, 2004, p.59)

30. Page | 30
Figure 6: The Structure of a Myth Market (Adapted from Holt, 2004, p.58)
National Ideology
Holt (2004) stated that nations need a moral consensus to function. Citizens need to identify with
the nation, accept its institutions, and work toward its betterment. Nations are organized around a
set of values that defines what is good and just. These moral imperatives propel people to pursue
national goals as they strive to meet society’s definition of success and respect. This is national
ideology, a system of ideas that creates linkages between daily life – the aspirations of individuals,
families, and communities – and those of the nation. National ideology is normally the most potent
root of consumer demand for myth (Holt, 2004).
Cultural Contradictions
According to Holt (2004), Americans do not naturally inhabit the nation’s ideology just because they
are citizens of the United States. It somewhat requires work to develop these identifications and life
conditions can make it easier or difficult to do so. Lots of people seek for the nation’s ideals;
however face difficulties in considering how it corresponds to their lives. These contradictions
among ideology and individual experience generate intense desires and anxieties, stimulating the
need for symbolic pledges that ease over the tensions. National ideologies construct models for
living. The gap between that model and daily life works as a cultural engine, generating demand for
myths that resolve these differences (Holt, 2004).
Populist Worlds
Holt (2004) stated that myths depend on populist worlds as natural ingredients. Populist worlds are
groups that express a distinctive ideology through their activities (a non-commercial place; e.g. folk

31. Page | 31
culture, subculture or a social movement). They are powerful cultural parasites since the people
believe that populist world ideologies are reliable and dependable14
.
In Holt and Cameron’s (2010) “Cultural Strategy: Using Innovative Ideologies to Build Breakthrough
Brands”, the author’s used the term ‘source materials’ to reference these pockets of alternative
culture which brands exploit as raw ingredients to develop their myths. They mentioned that this
source material comes in three forms: subcultures, media myths, and brand assets.
For the purpose of this research, consideration was given to ‘media myths’ as it related to the brand
that was being analysed (i.e. Fruitika). For this reason, it is worthwhile to provide a description of the
term media myths.
 Media myths: The mass media are generally faster than other forms of commerce to borrow
from subcultures in order to promulgate fresh cultural expressions. Media myths come
packaged in all types of popular culture products – in newspapers, television programs,
films, music, books, magazines, sports, politics; even in the news (Holt and Cameron, 2010).
It can be a difficult task to target a myth market as they keep changing from time to time. Myth
markets are, in truth, consistently undermined by cultural or social disruptions which can destroy
the value of existing myths and spur the development of new ones. Iconic brands do not just target
the most suitable myth market but are also perceptive to cultural disruptions. This causes them to
shift their target whenever there is an opportunity presented to them. Successful iconic brands rise
swiftly across cultural disruptions by cracking the new myth markets produced by the disruption and
zero in on a new target (Holt, 2004).
Holt (2004) stated that conventional brand models maintains that brand’s equity emerges from the
uniqueness and strength of the brand essence and that equity is developed by constantly repeating
these associations over time (Keller, 2008; Aaker, 1991a; Aaker, 1996; Aaker and Joachimsthaler,
2009). Iconic brands, conversely, violate the rules of conventional models by changing their brand
essence to address the fundamental shifts in society and culture which create desires and anxieties
among the nation’s citizens.
Holt (2004) maintained that when a social disruption occurs, iconic brands do not just start again
from scratch. Whilst the brand’s myth loses steam, what remains untouched is the collective
memory of the brand’s previous stories and what these stories achieved for the people who used
them. The success of a brand’s earlier myths creates a reputation. The brand becomes celebrated for
telling particular types of stories which are valuable in addressing specific social desires and
anxieties. In explicit terms, the brand’s prior myths give rise to two types of assets – cultural
authority and political authority15
(refer to Appendix-5 for the example of Budweiser as given by
Holt). Holt (2004) stated that identity brands thrive when their brand owners employ these two
kinds of authority to recreate the brand’s myth. However, these do not naturally give credibility to
14
The populist worlds provide the raw materials that iconic brands rely on to create their myths (Holt, 2004).
15
When a brand authors myths that people consider useful, it earns the right to tell similar kinds of myths (cultural authority) to address
the identity desire of a similar constituency (political authority) in the future (Holt, 2004).

32. Page | 32
the brand. Managers need to deduce the new myth market created by the disruption and revise the
brand’s myth market to target the new contradiction that is produced. They also need to reinterpret
the two assets to align with the important social changes to optimise the brand’s myth (Holt, 2004).
2.3 Organising for Cultural Branding Strategy
Why do the world’s top consumer marketing companies have such a consistently average profile in
cultural strategy? Holt and Cameron (2010) found out that these organisations are entangled in a
management model that consistently hinders cultural branding. They termed it as the ‘brand
bureaucracy’. The author’s discovered the solution to this indigent branding potential which they
term as the ‘cultural studio’.
2.3.1 Key features of a Cultural Studio
Holt and Cameron (2010) stated that cultural studios usually develop as a kind of corporate
underground – a secret operation in the middle of a firm governed by the brand bureaucracy. They
highlighted three prime characteristics which differentiate cultural studios from brand
bureaucracies.
I. Brand Community of Practice Accelerates Cultural Learning
The cultural studio is a cultural alternative of an idiosyncratic organisational structure – a community
of practice16
– commonly acknowledged by management professionals as vital for other types of
innovation. Communities of practice can surface in conditions where members are ultimately
capable of collectively working on a particular problem. Cultural studios depend on flat collective
teams, deliberately vague assignments based on formal expertise and title, which logically inspires a
method of analysis wherein the group members encourage one another to advance the
collaborative project (Holt and Cameron, 2010).
II. Emergent Strategy through Iterative Experimentation
Cultural studios are dependent on the iterative improvements that follow from collective
improvisation. The task of the studio fundamentally rests in bouncing off each other’s ideas,
developing on them, pushing against them, improving them with new suggestions. The more
amendments, the more improved the idea. The work process focuses on chasing impulsive ideas
established on vague and often disoriented ideas, rather than relying on brand guidelines. This
provides for valuable learning, so that with time the group can hone in on a potent cultural strategy
(Holt and Cameron, 2010).
16
This concept originated in cognitive anthropological studies of apprenticeship, which indicated a certain kind of learning (situated) and
knowledge (tacit) which arises in groups of practitioners who are extremely fixed on applying certain skills to an impending problem (Lave
and Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998)

33. Page | 33
III. Decision-Making Authority Rests with the Studio
Holt and Cameron (2010), gave the example of Bob Rockey (ex-president of Levi Strauss) and how he
allowed his agency, BBH, and their team complete responsibility to develop the best work, and
demanded full accountability.
To be exact, the client places trust in the studio to make all the important calls with regards to the
brand. Therefore instead of having to wait for the “final approval” from the client side, the studio
has the power to take important decisions regarding the brand.
Holt and Cameron (2010) further noted that at the large professional marketing firms governed by
the bureaucratic structure, cultural studios often cultivate ‘underground’ when a well-placed
manager is capable of creating sufficient independence within the organisation in order for the
project team to form into a cultural studio. However, for smaller firms and start-ups which are
without a proper MBA guided marketing function, cultural studios can form organically ‘above
ground’, as members emphasise on the ideal organisational structure to further their cultural
branding objectives (Holt and Cameron, 2010).
2.3.3 How the Brand Bureaucracy Stifles the Branding Process
According to Holt and Cameron (2010), the brand bureaucracy dominates the branding process in
most professional consumer marketing companies. These firms organise for a more command-and-
control and conventional approach to brand strategy development. Holt and Cameron (2010)
highlighted three ways in which the brand bureaucracy smothers cultural innovation.
I. Brand Bureaucracy’s Siloed Assembly Line
Holt and Cameron (2010) noted that the siloed assembly line preferred by brand bureaucracies, on
the contrary, efficiently obliterates any prospect of swift collective learning necessitated. In brand
bureaucracies, branding practices are structured to obey three distinct and definite stages – at first
research insights, then strategic planning, and lastly creative development. A dedicated team with
the precise qualifications is officially designated ‘authority’ of each stage. There are market
researchers who gather the insights, brand managers and planners who devise and implement
strategies, and creatives who produce the actual design of the branding endeavour. Although they
hypothetically comprise a team, their positions, in reality, are quite specific. Each assignment is

34. Page | 34
finished in sequence and offered as a finished product to the next group to embrace and forge
ahead – research leads to strategy leads to designs.
The siloed assembly line model depends on a rigid deadline – additions to the branding endeavour
must appear completely formed and on a timetable, straightforward to elucidate for the other team
members at the bottom of the assembly line. Since the subsequent members have not been part of
the earlier process and as the insight and idea have to be officially presented, typically in the shape
of a PowerPoint presentation, what is conveyed at each phase is basically a condensed description of
the large collection of tacit insights and ideas that remain within each silo (Holt and Cameron, 2010).
Holt and Cameron (2010) further stated that the detailed insights and unorthodox conclusions that
rise from the rigorous labours of a community of practice could never handle the assembly line,
because they would create barriers and confusion. The siloed assembly line does not regard the
quick aggregation of tacit knowledge that is crucial for cultural branding strategy.
II. Brand Bureaucracy’s Literal Enforcement of Static Blueprints
Brand bureaucracies, firstly, dedicate massive resources to market research that is deemed to
provide detailed scientific measurement of the market opportunity and the type of branding that is
essential for that market. Brand bureaucracies consider their branding concept – normally a
collection of abstract phrases that emerges from the research process – as a rigid blueprint.
Strategies always lead creative development and, once they have been consented by senior
management, become the bible for the branding effort and, despite everything, have to be
maintained (Holt and Cameron, 2010).
According to Holt and Cameron (2010), brand bureaucrats are authorised to coordinate the branding
process, to make sure that all decisions taken by otherwise impulsive creative talent directly
communicate the concept. “These managers regularly intervene in the design process to enforce
their abstract phrases upon the many dozens of decisions that must come together to make the
branding effort successful” (Holt and Cameron, 2010, p.333). Hence, instead of fostering an
enhanced strategy through creative exploration, brand bureaucrats consider it as their duty to
guarantee that their initial and only strategy stays unchanged.
In cultural studios, strategy is developed resulting from a long period of design expeditions. Strategy,
in the cultural studio, is regarded as an interim outline of the studio’s thinking, which members
believe will become outdated and need modification as the studio cultivates a better understanding
through its continuous cooperation (Holt and Cameron, 2010).
III. Command and Control Management
The roles, responsibilities, and ownership a certain project or campaign are highly fragmented and
temporary in brand bureaucracies. Very often, sufficient ownership is authorised eventually to the
brand bureaucrat with the most influence (Holt and Cameron, 2010, p.335).

35. Page | 35
Holt and Cameron (2010), stated that brand bureaucracies imposes a command-and-control
approach that is dictated by the ‘last word’ of senior management, even though official allocation of
certain assignments is given to mid-level managers and their creative partners. The brand
bureaucracy, therefore, looks to create branding opportunities, concepts, and executions that
support the biases of senior managers. “Since senior manager have no time to delve into the
contextual details of the branding effort, this means in practice that the work is edited to favour
stereotypes, conventional opinions, and platitudes, hardly the stuff of cultural branding strategy.”
(Holt and Cameron, 2010, p.335)
Brand bureaucracies suppose that the more authority they exercise over the branding practice, it
will further improve their chances of getting a positive outcome. Conversely, the cultural studio
promotes an empowering management style wherein the client bestows trust in the studio to make
all the vital and necessary calls related to the branding efforts. The organisation model keeps the
brand bureaucracies command-and-control process on the low, allowing for broad decision-making
power to the studio (Holt and Cameron, 2010).

36. Page | 36
3.0 Research objective
Using the Bangladesh market as the context of study, the aim of the research was to investigate the
approach of brand building and brand strategy employed by staff in advertising agencies. The
branding model(s) that is predominantly employed by them while developing brand communications
to demonstrate whether cultural branding themes and conventional branding themes were present.
In this instance, Keller’s (2008; 2001) Brand Positioning and CBBE model and Kapferer’s (2008) Brand
Identity Prism are considered to be representatives of conventional branding models whereas Holt’s
(2004) Cultural branding model will represent the cultural approach to branding. Furthermore, the
research intended to examine the significance of the cultural branding model proposed by Douglas
Holt and further will take into consideration Kapferer’s brand identity prism to suggest a revised
model for cultural branding. The final aim of the research was to identify if the organisational
structure in the advertising agencies allowed any form of a cultural studio to flourish or whether the
concept of the brand bureaucracy was more prevalent.
3.1 Research questions
1. What is the branding model currently used for brand communications in the advertising
agencies?
2. How do they currently carry out brand strategy development?
3. Are there any cultural branding themes present in their current model, brand
communications and branding practices?
4. Are there any conventional branding themes present in their current model and brand
communications and branding practices?
5. Do they have something equivalent to a cultural studio or is the organisational setting that
of a brand bureaucracy?

37. Page | 37
4.0 Methodology
The aim of this research was to identify the branding model currently employed by the staff working
in the advertising agencies in Bangladesh, to discover if cultural branding themes were present in
their current practice to brand building and brand strategy development.
To research the significance of the cultural branding strategy, the researcher travelled to the offices
of the top five advertising agencies in Bangladesh – Asiatic JWT, Grey, Adcomm (Lowe + Partners
affiliate), Unitrend Limited (McCann Erickson affiliate), and Carrot Communication (Market Access
Group) – who were predominantly responsible for developing branding strategies for local and
global brands. The study was based on a single city i.e. Dhaka, since it is the capital city and most of
the agencies had their offices based there.
4.1 Research Approach
It is significant to explain the researcher’s philosophical stance to reinforce and rationalise the
chosen methodology. Easterby-Smith et al (2002, p.27) stated that establishing the philosophical
stance distinctly at the outset can facilitate in “clarifying research designs” as well as facilitate in
determining “which designs will work and which will not”. The researcher followed a
Constructionism epistemology where “meaning is not discovered, but constructed” (Crotty, 1998,
p.9). This kind of approach is relevant when the epistemological view deems “...meaning comes into
existence and out of our engagement with the realities of the world” (Crotty, 1998, p.8). By
interacting with the respondents in the research, the researcher deemed to construct meaning as
well as contribute to existing knowledge.
4. 2 Methods of Data Collection
The research was conducted with an exploratory interpretivist approach. A discussion guide was
composed of key questions to ask the interviewees (see Appendix-2). Semi-structured in-depth
interviews were carried out with the participants, over a period of three weeks, because it was
particularly adapted to qualitative research (Saunders et al., 2009) and “allows much deeper
probing” (Hair et al., 2011, p.194) than other methods. This is crucial so as to gain relevant insights
regarding the concerned research and minimises prejudice through open-ended questions (Thorpe
et al., 2008). All interviews were conducted face-to-face in the participants’ offices. The sampling
method for the research was “convenience sampling”, involving the selection of the most accessible
subjects (Marshall, 1996). The sample encompassed six key personnel17
. These informants were
chosen because they were involved in developing regional and global campaigns, whether as
strategic planners, account directors, creative directors or managing directors. These personnel were
all based in Dhaka city. The interviews lasted for approximately one hour. The following step was to
17
These relate to the key personnel responsible for brand strategy development, brand building, brand planning and creative execution at
their relative agencies.

38. Page | 38
transcribe every interview so as to derive a reliable material out of the interviews and identify the
cultural and conventional branding themes as well as the current organisational setting.
Additionally, the interview also utilised the photo elicitation technique (the stimulus materials are
presented in Appendix-3). Photo elicitation is the “simple idea of inserting a photograph into a
research interview” (Harper, 2002, p.14). The principle of this research method was that visual
images (e.g. photos, drawings, graphics, etc) draw out different types of memories, sensations and
information than verbal ones (Whyte, 1984; Johnson and Griffith, 1998; Harper, 2002). The images
can either be produced by the respondents or the researcher (Banks, 2001, p.87-99; Pink, 2001,
p.68). In this study the researcher offered the interviewees’ with the relevant images. The technique
has been considered helpful in studies that are empirical, and can possibly add reliability and validity
to a word-based survey (Harper, 2002).
4.3 Interview Structure
During the three weeks spent in Dhaka, Bangladesh, ten in-depth interviews were conducted. The
name, company represented, and designation of the interviewee, the duration and language in
which the interview was carried out are highlighted below in Table 2.
However, due to the time constraints and excessive data, only six out of the ten interviews were
coded and utilised for this research. The interviews which were finally used for this research is also
stated below. The six interviews which were coded are all presented in Appendix- 9.
Table 2: Breakdown of the Respondents from the Interviews and Agency represented in Dhaka, Bangladesh

39. Page | 39
4.4 Ethical Considerations
Aiming to carry out a research in a professional and ethical manner, from the beginning of research
the researcher followed a self-regulatory code of conduct as suggested by the Market Research
Society (MRS, 2010). According to that the researcher ensured a transparent data collection and
confidential handling.
All respondents were informed at the beginning of the interview that they were being recorded and
had granted permission to do so. The researcher also made the respondents aware that: “All of your
responses will be kept confidential” in order to make them fully aware of the confidentiality of their
answers and additionally made them conscious of the purpose of the research. Moreover the
interviews conducted were on a voluntary basis and it was guaranteed that respondents would
never be in risk of being affected by harmful or adverse activities. Due to the sensitivity of the nature
of this research, the researcher made certain to receive the informed consent of the respondents so
as to use their real names and the organisations they represented (McGivern, 2009).
Furthermore, it was emphasised that the data collected and utilised in this research will not be
exploited for any other purpose besides this research, unless prior consent is granted of the
members involved in the research.

40. Page | 40
5.0 Data Analysis
The interviews were firstly conducted in Bengali and then transcribed into English. Data were
decoded to “reflect on a passage of data to decipher its core meaning” (p.4) according to Saldana’s
(2009) Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Additionally, the researcher tried to identify
similar themes and patterns among the findings, so as to develop categories which could be applied
to different sections of each transcript to recognise the theory. The categorisation was significant
because not only was it descriptive but also be an appropriate method of identifying relationships
between categories (Gibbs and Gibbs, 2008). To identify the existing branding models of the Keller
(2008; 2001), Kapferer (2008) and Holt (2004) and Holt and Cameron’s (2010) notion of the
organisational structure in the form of a ‘brand bureaucracy’ or a ‘cultural studio’ present in the
transcripts, a deductive approach was undertaken. Following from that an inductive approach was
applied in order to identify emergent extensions or any anomalies of Holt’s (2004) cultural branding
model. All the steps discussed above, can also be observed through the following chart, which is
based on Chris Hart’s (1998) paper; “Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science
Imagination in Research”.
Figure 7: Data Analysis Approach
The photo elicitation technique was expected to stimulate more substantive and comprehensive
material from the respondents (Collier, 1967; Collier and Collier, 1999; Ziller, 1990), which the
researcher hoped to draw on to see whether the respondents were conscious of the idea of what a
cultural branding strategy is. This would help in identifying whether the strategy was being
consciously employed in the concerned agencies. Furthermore, this insight would add more
reliability and validity to the word-based interview.
Data Collection
•Lengthy semi-structured interviews
•Focus: whether and to what extent
staff were conscious of taking a
cultural approach to branding;
branding model currently utilitsed
by staff; current process of brand
strategy development;did the staff
organise for a cultural studio or was
the setting more bureaucratic.
Data Analysis -
Deductive/Inductive Approach
•Coding the data
•Themes, patterns and categories
identified
•Applying findings to Keller's brand
positiong and CBBE model, Kapferer's
identity prism, Holt's cultural branding
model and Holt and Cameron's
alternative organisational structure
•Extension and anomalies to Holt's
cultural branding model identified
Interpretation
•Verification of models and
organisational structure
•Modifications to the cultural
branding model

41. Page | 41
6.0 Analysis of Findings
This section presents the primary data that the researcher had obtained from the in-depth
interviews of the six personnel in five differing advertising agencies. These data included relevant
information on brand strategy development in the various agencies, current mode of organising and
views and consciousness on cultural branding. The intention being to analyse them to discover which
branding model is exercised in practice, whether there were themes of the conventional and the
cultural approach to branding in their practices, whether the organisational setting facilitated or
smothered cultural branding and respondents’ consciousness about the idea behind cultural
branding.
6.1 Conventional Models/Approaches of Branding
Exploration of the current brand building model used by the ad agencies is a key objective of this
research. For this research, Keller’s (2008) Brand Positioning Model will be used to examine this as it
better relates to the different branding tools used by different agencies. Moreover, Keller’s (2001)
CBBE Model and Kapferer’s (2008) Brand Identity Prism will also be examined to identify the process
of brand strategy development taken by the agencies. This will help to identify themes of the
conventional approaches to branding. Therefore literature review and findings regarding
conventional approaches to branding will be based on the key constructs of Keller’s (2008) Brand
Positioning Model, Keller’s (2001) CBBE Model and Kapferer’s (2008) Identity prism.
6.1.1 Keller’s Brand Positioning Model
The initial aim was to learn about the branding model that was currently used by the five different
agencies interviewed. What was revealed from the interviews was that five personnel were applying
a model which related to Keller’s (2008) brand positioning model.
As noticed from Saniat’s comment above, the model applied by his agency basically looked at
choosing a specific angle to attack a market with the brand i.e. designing the company’s offering and
image to occupy a distinctive place in the minds of the target market (Keller et al., 2002). Saniat’s
comments on studying the ‘target group’s lifestyle’ and doing a ‘competitor analysis’ relates to the
first component of defining a superior competitive positioning – identifying a competitive frame of
reference, in terms of the target market and the nature of competition. Keller et al (2002) noted that
brand positioning begins with establishing a frame of reference, which indicates to consumers the
aspiration they can anticipate accomplishing by using a brand.
After defining the basis of positioning through establishing the suitable frame of reference for
positioning, Saniat’s comments further revealed the second component of defining a superior

42. Page | 42
competitive positioning – developing unique brand points-of difference in terms of strong,
favourable, and unique brand associations.
Saniat spoke about developing a ‘Chinese’ car brand in Bangladesh and stated how he has to
develop a unique points-of-difference association that is:
 Desirable to consumers (fact that it is a Chinese car brand);
 Deliverable by the company (Chinese car brand); and
 Differentiated from competition (not as good as a Japanese product)
Keller (2008) stated these as the three prime conditions that determine whether a brand association
can truly function as a point-of-difference.
Keller et al (2002), further noted that once a frame of reference is correctly identified, even the
seemingly conflicting points of difference can be compelling. Furthermore, according to Keller et al
(2002) strong, favourable, unique associations that differentiate a brand from others in the similar
frame of reference are essential to efficacious brand positioning.
Moreover, Saniat’s thought process about brand building also related to Keller’s brand positioning
model, in the sense that the brand should create a unique point-of-difference which is desirable by
the customer, deliverable by the brand and more importantly differentiated from the competition.
A similar case was evident in Adcomm, where the initial thought process commenced with
identifying a superior competitive positioning for the brand as can be noticed from Farhan’s
comment below.