Wouldn’t availability and distribution be a form of branding too?
In this article, Tybout and Carpenter focus on the branding of companies. But they do assume that you are in a position where you can make a choice; you can go everywhere and everything that you desire is available and the brands provide you the choice.
However, I think there is one important part missing. I don’t think it’s another type of branding like the functional, image or experiential is, but it does play a role in consumers’ behaviour.
One of the best examples is the soda machine of the University. For some devilish reason, those machines have all the drinks I don’t like. I have never liked Pepsi because of the humongously gross sugar taste it has, but all the other drinks don’t have the flavour I like either. But because I don’t have the time to go to a supermarket or a café for a short drink, I usually buy Pepsi Light because that one tastes less gross than all the other drinks.
Pepsi dominates the machines. Bottom line, I will purchase a can of Pepsi because it is available at the time.
The same problem occurs with Mmore burnable CDs. My experience is that the quality of CDs is very poor. I had several problems with them and from that day on I use different brands. Problem is, everywhere I go, in every store, they always have Mmore CDs and not always the brands I want to buy. There isn’t a shop that sells burnable CDs, but does not have Mmore CDs. Because of their availability people who didn’t yet have the same experience as I did, are likely to buy Mmore CDs at least once. If their experience is different from mine and they liked to use Mmore, the chance that they’ll buy them a second time looks to be realistic. So in other words, availability and distribution are aspects of branding as well.
Dafermos, g. (2003) Blogging the market: How weblogs are turning corporate machines into real conversations
An employee who has a weblog can be a danger to a company; he can spill information, or speak badly about his boss or colleagues. As a company should I forbid my employee to have a weblog about my products?
On internal blogging, I see it as less of a disruption to business culture. Most of the control issues have been dealt with before with email; employees can already communicate without control from above. The only difference is the accessibility of conversations. Cultural disruptions end up being incorporated, as we see with managers being the greatest users of email today. Dafermos actually says in his article that blogging is a way to communicate with the costumers. In this way we can find out their preferences, likes and dislikes. The most important part of it is that it is free. Normally we would use surveys or questionnaires, witch cost a lot of money and are not always reliable. Now people tell you what they want themselves. So as a company I should encourage this development.
Gay, P. du & Pryke, M. (2002) Cultural Economy
Nixon says that sometimes not the content of an ad, but the way you mediate it to the public defines your company, and this should therefore be chosen with care. What kind of ways can you advert your products, and how are these received?
-TV commercial. About 30 seconds between TV programs, these flashy little movies can get a high impact. However they can be overlooked.
-TV sponsorship. By sponsoring a certain TV-program you make sure you will have access to a steady group of people.
-Event sponsorship. Attaching your name to an event makes sure people will talk about your brand name. De Red-bull zeepkistenrace, de ptt-telecompetitie are examples. Just as Philips who attached it’s name to a football club; PSV.
-Website. Can be effective. But only if you already have some people interested in your products. Additional advertisement is necessary.
-Giving free samples. You better have a lot of trust in your product! But if people like it they probably buy it again. Can be more effective than a commercial, but you reach less people.
-Mail. Mail is direct. But, real or electronic, it is considered spam by a lot of people. So the effect can be wrong.