Exploring branding strategies of FMCG, services

and durables brands: evidence from India

Bikram Jit Singh Mann and Mandeep Kaur
Department of Commerce and Business Management, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, India
Abstract
Purpose The paper aims to analyze and compare the branding strategies used in the three sectors namely FMCG, services and durables.
Design/methodology/approach Based on the literature review, a more comprehensive list of branding strategies is proposed. A content analysis of
600 randomly selected brands, 200 from each sector, is performed. The branding strategies used in the three sectors are explained and MANOVA is
conducted to test the hypotheses about differences in the branding strategies across the three sectors.
Findings The results reveal that the branding strategies vary across the three sectors. Single corporate brand strategy is predominantly used for
durables and credence services. On the other hand, in case of FMCG and experience services, individual brand type endorsed by the corporate brand
type is the most frequently used branding strategy. Thus, there is a trend towards corporate branding as corporate brand type is popular in all the
sectors. Also, other than the single corporate brand strategy, as in case of durables and credence services, single brand type strategy is rarely used. For
FMCG brands and experience services brands, companies are trying to leverage brand equity of two or more brand types.
Practical implications The paper offers insights for designing branding strategies when branding a product/service. Brand managers may rely on
corporate brand type when risk associated with a purchase is high, as in case of durables and credence services. However, when the risk associated is
low, as in case of FMCG and experience services, individual brand type may be preferred, but at the same time, it should be endorsed by corporate
brand type.
Originality/value This study adds value to the growing body of literature on branding strategies by identifying a more comprehensive and simplistic
list of branding strategies which is a major contribution of the paper. Further, this is one of a very few empirical studies on branding strategies and is a
pioneering attempt to evaluate the branding strategies in the FMCG vis-a`-vis services vis-a`-vis durables sectors. It empirically substantiates that the
three sectors are heterogeneous among themselves and homogeneous within themselves with respect to their branding strategies.
Keywords Brands, Corporate brand, Family brand, Individual brand, Branding strategies content analysis, India, Fast moving consumer goods
Paper type Research paper

offerings can be broadly classified as fast moving consumer

goods (FMCG), services and durables. However, even within
a product category, consumers may perceive inherent
characteristics differently, due to their interpersonal
differences such as purchase goals, intended usage, prior
knowledge of the product category, demographics etc.
(Dowling and Staelin, 1994; Garbarino and Strahilevitz,
2004; Harris et al., 2006). Assuming individual characteristics
to be constant and consumers to be a homogenous group, we
define the three sectors in the broader sense. The products
under the scope of FMCG are mostly those that are
frequently purchased and are characterised by low
involvement, low purchase transaction amount and low risk
(East, 1997; Kotler, 2000), like food and beverages such as
candies, chocolates, ice-creams, cereals, milk, butter, juices,
soft drinks (Vaughn, 1980; Saunders and Guoqun, 1996;
Silayoi and Speece, 2004; Hamiln and Wilson, 2004; Wei
et al., 2009; Laforet, 2011), personal care products such as
soaps, shampoos, toothpastes, deodorants (Vaughn, 1980),
household care products such as detergents, insect repellents
(Vaughn, 1980; Knox and Walker, 2001), and personal
stationery (Zikmund and Scott, 1974) etc. On the other hand,
a service is any activity or benefit offered for sale that is
essentially intangible and does not result in the ownership of
anything, such as air travel, hairdressing, legal services etc.
(Kotler and Armstrong, 1997). A number of unique
characteristics
of
services,
notably
intangibility,
inseparability
of
production
and
consumption,
heterogeneity, and perishability, separate services from
tangible goods (Zeithaml et al., 1985). Due to these

Introduction
A key to enhancing the equity of a brand is the selection of an
appropriate branding strategy. Laforet and Saunders (1999)
define branding strategy as the way companies mix and match
their corporate, house, family and individual brand types for
their products or services. This mix and match of brand types
generates a variety of options for the companies from which
they can select a suitable branding strategy for a product/
service. Furthermore, McDonald et al. (2001) assert that an
appropriate branding strategy is crucial as it would reinforce
the desired positioning and hence influence purchase
behaviour. Unfortunately, even the best brand managers
have struggled to choose the most appropriate branding
strategy, in part, due to a lack of academic clarity and study.
Neither type of branding strategy is better than the other;
rather suitability of the branding strategy depends on the
matching of the branding strategy with the characteristics of
the offering. Based on inherent product category
characteristics such as risk, involvement, purchase
transaction amount, and frequency of purchase etc., various
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm

Journal of Product & Brand Management

22/1 (2013) 617
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]
[DOI 10.1108/10610421311298650]

Branding strategies of FMCG, services and durables brands

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Bikram Jit Singh Mann and Mandeep Kaur

Volume 22 Number 1 2013 6 17

characteristics, services are associated with high risk and high

involvement (Zeithaml, 1981; Murray and Schlacter, 1990;
Mitra et al., 1999). Finally, a durable good is a manufactured
product capable of a long, useful life (McColl-Kennedy and
Kiel, 1999) and survives many uses (Kotler, 2000), such as
furniture, household appliances, motor vehicles etc. It
involves high transaction amount, high risk, and high
consumer involvement and is quite less frequently
purchased. Once the customer purchases the durable good,
he/she is temporarily out of the market for that good until it
needs replacement. Thus, different branding strategies would
be suitable for the three sectors, that is, FMCG, services and
durables, as the three sectors differ from each other in their
characteristics.
Various researchers have discussed the appropriateness of
different branding strategies for the three sectors. Individual
brand type is advocated to be the most appropriate for
FMCG companies (Pierce and Mouskanas, 2002;
Vijayraghavan, 2003). But, Laforet and Saunders (1994,
2005) find that in actual practice, FMCG companies are
using individual brand type in combination with corporate or
house brand type. Saunders and Guoqun (1996) empirically
demonstrate that consumers prefer corporate and individual
brand types together for an FMCG product than either brand
type used alone. In contrast, Laforet (2011) reports that
corporate brand does not add any value to products in the
FMCG sector. For the services sector, corporate brand type is
recommended as the best option (de Chernatony and
DallOlmo Riley, 1999; Berry, 2000; McDonald et al.,
2001). Contrarily, Rahman and Areni (2009, 2010) argue
that service companies should also develop individual brands
and should use them in combination with their corporate
brands. For durables, corporate brand type is opined to be the
most appropriate choice (Anisimova, 2007).
A review of above stated studies suggests that there is a
conflict in the current academic debate on the most effective
branding strategy for each of the three sectors. Further, most
of the studies relate to FMCG and services sectors, but
durables sector lacks proper investigation. Moreover, no
researcher has studied branding strategies of FMCG vis-a`-vis
services vis-a`-vis durables sectors. Also, there is dearth of
empirical evidence on the topic. In order to contribute to the
closing of this gap, the present study content analyses the
branding strategies used in the three sectors namely, FMCG,
services and durables. The end result of the study would help
us to know how brand managers actually practice different
branding strategies in the three sectors. The specific objectives
of the study are as given below:
.
To explore the usage of various types of branding
strategies in the three sectors, namely, FMCG, services
and durables in India.
.
To investigate the differences, if any, in the usage of
different branding strategies across the three sectors.

branding strategies of the three sectors. This is followed by a

discussion of results. Finally, the paper is concluded with
suggestions for future research.

Identifying branding strategies

The first step towards researching different branding
strategies is identification of the entire range of branding
strategies. Past literature suggests several taxonomies for
classifying branding strategies as shown below:
1 Gray and Smeltzer (1985):
.
Single entity.
.
Brand dominance.
.
Equal dominance.
.
Mixed dominance.
.
Corporate dominance.
2 Murphy (1987):
.
Corporate dominant systems.
.
Brand dominant systems.
.
Balanced systems.
.
Mixed systems.
3 Olins (1989):
.
Monolithic strategy.
.
Endorsed strategy.
.
Branded strategy.
4 Laforet and Saunders (1994):
.
Corporate dominant strategy.
.
Mixed strategy.
.
Brand dominant strategy.
5 Aaker and Joachimsthaler (2000):
.
Branded house strategy.
.
Sub-branding strategy.
.
House of brands strategy.
6 Berens et al. (2002):
.
Corporate branding strategy.
.
Sub-branding strategy.
.
Stand alone strategy.
7 Rajagopal and Sanchez (2004):
.
House of brands strategy.
.
Brand endorsement strategy.
.
Branded house strategy.
8 Strebinger (2004):
.
Corporate branding strategy.
.
Target branding strategy.
.
Product branding strategy.
.
Product and target branding strategy.
.
Brand family strategy.
9 Laforet and Saunders (2005):
.
Corporate branded strategy.
.
Endorsed strategy.
.
Dual strategy.
.
Multi-branded strategy.
.
Branded strategy.
10 Keller (2008):
.
Company/corporate brand.
.
Family brand.
.
Individual brand.
.
Modifier.
11 Muzellec and Lamkin (2009):
.
Corporate brand as trade brand.
.
Corporate brand as business brand.
.
Corporate brand as holistic brand.

In the sections that follow, an overview of the relevant

literature on classification of branding strategies is presented,
culminating in re-classification of branding strategies which is
subsequently used for analyzing the branding strategies of the
three sectors. Next, conceptual framework is provided and
research hypotheses are postulated. Thereafter, we report the
research methodology. Afterwards, results are presented
indicating the branding strategies used in the three sectors
followed by hypotheses testing about differences in the
7

12

Branding strategies of FMCG, services and durables brands

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Bikram Jit Singh Mann and Mandeep Kaur

Volume 22 Number 1 2013 6 17

Rahman and Areni (2009):

Inter-organisational architecture:
network brands;
support brands; and
co-brands.
.
Intra-organisational architecture:
branded division;
branded features; and
branded programs.

it equal dominance strategy while Murphy (1987) names it

balanced strategy whereas Laforet and Saunders (1994) name
it dual branding strategy. Third, endorsement strategy when
corporate brand receives less emphasis than product brand.
Endorsement strategy has further been classified as strong
endorsement, linked name and token endorsement. Laforet
and Saunders (2005) argue that companies can also use more
than two brands together for a product/service, and call it
multi-branded strategy.
Strebinger (2004) has defined branding strategies based on
the number of product categories and target groups a
branding strategy serves. He proposes five types of branding
strategies: first, Corporate branding strategy that adopts a
uniform brand for all product categories and target groups.
Second, target group branding strategy where a company uses
a different brand name for each target segment. Third,
product branding strategy in which a different brand name is
used for each product category. Fourth, product and target
specific branding strategy where there is a different brand for
each combination of target group and product category. Fifth,
brand family strategy in which hierarchically ranked brands
have a common endorser.
Muzellec and Lamkin (2009) give threefold classification of
the corporate brand. First, trade brand which means that
corporate brand is not actively promoted, but acts as a simple
umbrella name housing a collection of independent brands.
Second, business brand which means corporate brand is not
actively visible to consumers on the package of the product,
but is a strong name for particular stakeholders because of
specific branding programs run by the company. Third,
holistic brand which means corporation and products share
the common name.
Rahman and Areni (2009) develop services brand
relationship matrix to understand brand architecture in
services. They propose that in addition to branding the
company, service companies can brand subsidiaries, divisions,
features and benefits, and supplementary service programs.
Service companies can also benefit by creating interorganisational brands that can take the form of network
brands, support brands or co-brands.
A review of the above listed studies suggests that there is
conflict and confusion in the existing literature on
classification of branding strategies. Branding strategies have
been given different names by different authors and none
appears exhaustive. So, there is a dire need to resolve this
conflict in branding strategies classification. Further, various
authors have defined branding strategies at the company level
by analyzing the entire portfolio of brands of the company.
They have not scrutinized the branding strategies from
individual
product/service
perspective.
However,
contemporary branding strategies suggest that companies
are not using a single standardised branding strategy for their
entire portfolio; rather they are using different branding
strategies for different brands in the portfolio. So, there is a
need to study branding strategies from individual product/
service perspective. These observations reinforce the need for
building a simplistic list of branding strategies at the
individual product/service level.

Keller (2008) proposes four hierarchical types of a brand:

1 Corporate/company brand (conglomerate or company or
subsidiary name).
2 Family brand (brand used in more than one product
category).
3 Individual brand (brand restricted to one product
category only).
4 Modifier (a means to signal refinement or differences in
brands).
This classification is from the individual product/service
perspective. Other researchers have defined branding
strategies at the company level by taking the entire portfolio
of brands of the company as a unit of analysis which is
discussed further.
Corporate-dominant strategy is defined as the strategy in
which only corporate brand name is used in all
communications of the company (Gray and Smeltzer, 1985;
Murphy, 1987; Laforet and Saunders, 1994, 2005). Olins
(1989) has given it the name of Monolithic strategy whereas
Aaker and Joachimsthaler (2000), and Rajagopal and Sanchez
(2004) name it Branded House Strategy while Berens et al.
(2002) call it corporate branding strategy. Here, corporate
brand symbolizes conglomerate name, company name and
house/subsidiary name (Laforet and Saunders, 1994, 2005;
Keller, 2008). Gray and Smeltzer (1985) also state that when
a company, essentially operating in only one product line, uses
its company brand only, it is called single entity branding
strategy.
In brand-dominant strategy, different brand names, that are
different from corporate brand, are used for different
products/services of the company (Gray and Smeltzer, 1985;
Murphy, 1987; Laforet and Saunders, 1994, 2005). Olins
(1989) has given this strategy the name of Branded strategy
whereas Aaker and Joachimsthaler (2000), and Rajagopal and
Sanchez (2004) name it house of brands strategy while Berens
et al. (2002) call it stand-alone strategy. Laforet and Saunders
(1994) classify this strategy into two categories: first, Mono
branding when corporate identity is disclosed and second,
Furtive branding when corporate identity is not disclosed.
Mixed branding strategy is the strategy in which two brand
names, that is corporate and individual product brand names,
are used together with varying visibilities for branding
products/services (Gray and Smeltzer, 1985; Murphy, 1987;
Laforet and Saunders, 1994). Olins (1989) has named it
endorsed strategy whereas Aaker and Joachimsthaler (2000)
and Berens et al. (2002) name it sub-branding strategy while
Rajagopal and Sanchez (2004) call it brand endorsement
strategy. Aaker and Joachimsthaler (2000) divide this strategy
into three categories: first, master brand as driver strategy
when corporate brand is more prominently visible. Second,
sub-brand as co-driver strategy when two brands are given
equal visibility prominence. Gray and Smeltzer (1985) name

Derivation of classification of branding strategies

The literature review discussed above suggests that brands
used can be classified into five types namely group brand,
company brand, house brand, family brand and individual
8

Branding strategies of FMCG, services and durables brands

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Bikram Jit Singh Mann and Mandeep Kaur

Volume 22 Number 1 2013 6 17

brand, where group brand is the highest in hierarchy. Group

brand is defined as the conglomerate name which is used in
branding products/services. For example, conglomerates like
Reliance, Tata etc. use their conglomerate names for branding
various products/services. Company brand is the company
name which is used in branding products/services. For
example, Essel Group has Zee Entertainment Enterprises
Ltd., whose various channels are named as Zee, which is a
company brand. House brand is defined as the companys
subsidiary name which is used in branding products/services.
For instance, Gillette, a subsidiary of Procter & Gamble
(P&G), is used to brand various products. Family brand is a
brand name which is not a company or a group name and is
used in more than one product/service categories, such as
Maggi brand owned by Nestle is used for a number of product
categories such as noodles, sauces, soups, coconut milk
powder etc. Individual brand is a brand name, other than
company or group name, which is restricted to essentially one
product category such as Ariel detergent by P&G.
For the purpose of this study, taking cue from Keller
(2008), group and company brand types are clubbed together
under single category called corporate brand. Hence, we have
identified four brand types namely corporate, house, family
and individual brand types.
A company can choose either one or two or sometimes even
more than two of these brand types while branding a product/
service. If a single brand type is chosen, obviously, it would be
the only visible brand type for the product/service. When
multiple brand types are chosen, each brand type can vary in
its relative visibility as compared to other brand types. The
different possible visibility styles for a brand type along with
their meanings are given in Table I.
The relationship of different visibility styles and the four
brand types leads to multiple combinations and hence
multiple types of branding strategies are available to
companies. When single brand type is used, the branding

strategy is the one of single corporate brand strategy, single

house brand strategy, single family brand strategy or single
individual brand strategy. When multiple brand types are used
together, various possible combinations of the four brand
types and five visibility styles result into various branding
strategies.
Thus, based on the four brand types, we have identified
various branding strategies which differ in terms of the extent
of visibility of the four brand types. This simplistic
classification of branding strategies adds value to the
literature by resolving the confusion existing in the
literature. Further, this original classification would offer
pertinent marketing intelligence to brand managers that will
help them in designing more effective branding strategies.

Conceptual framework and research hypotheses

The very nature of the three sectors indicates that the
branding strategies used to communicate with consumers
would be different, that is, the three sectors would differ in the
usage and the extent of visibility of the four brand types. The
following discussion presents the varying usage and visibility
of the four brand types across the three sectors. From the
discussion, four hypotheses concerning corporate, house,
family and individual brand types are developed.
Gurhan-Canli and Batra (2004) argue that if the risk
associated is higher, corporate associations are more
important in consumer evaluations. While there is
necessarily some degree of risk which accompanies all
purchases, it is advocated that more risk is associated with
services than goods (Zeithaml, 1981; Mitra et al., 1999).
Therefore, it is suggested that services should be corporate
branded and should not be individualised (Berry et al., 1988;
de Chernatony and DallOlmo Riley, 1999; Berry, 2000;
McDonald et al., 2001; Burt and Sparks, 2002). Hem et al.
(2003) argue that durables are also associated with high level

Table I Description of visibility styles of a brand type

Number of brand types
used

Visibility style

Meaning

Examples

Single brand type

The only visible brand type

The single brand type is used which is the

only brand type visible on the product/
service

HDFC Bank is single corporate brand.

Yardley, Ariel, Pantene etc. are single
individual brands. Gillette is single house
brand. Olay is single family brand

Combination of multiple
brand types

Prominently visible

The brand type is more prominently visible

than other brand type(s) and is the primary
frame of reference

Balanced

The brand type is equally prominent as

other brand type(s)
The brand type is inferior in size than other
brand type(s) and is secondary
When brand type has some common
element with the other brand type(s) and
acts as implied endorser

Zee Next uses corporate brand (Zee) with

prominent visibility. In Mom & Me retail
stores by Mahindra, individual brand Mom
& Me is prominently visible
Dabur Honitus uses corporate and
individual brand types with equal visibility
Cadbury Bournvita uses corporate brand
Cadbury as an endorsement
Eduignite (Individual brand type) by
Educomp (Corporate brand type). Here
Edu part of company name acts as linked
name as it links two names Eduignite and
Educomp
Lux (Family brand type) by HUL (Corporate
brand type) uses HUL as token endorser

Endorsement
Linked name

Token endorsement

The brand type is prominently less visible

than other brand type(s)

Branding strategies of FMCG, services and durables brands

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Bikram Jit Singh Mann and Mandeep Kaur

Volume 22 Number 1 2013 6 17

of risk due to the possibility of the expected financial loss

being substantial. Consumers may also lack the technical
knowledge necessary to assess quality of most of the durables,
which may further increase risk. Thus, corporate brand type is
also expected to be a preferred brand type for durables.
Furthermore, according to Berens et al. (2005) corporate
associations have a stronger influence on consumers when
consumer involvement is high. Due to high risk, there is
higher consumer involvement in purchasing services and
durables. This again reinforces the importance of corporate
brand type for services and durables. FMCG sector is
characterised by low involvement and low risk due to low
purchase transaction amount and high frequency of purchase
(East, 1997; Kotler, 2000). Therefore, FMCG companies do
not prefer corporate branding. Based on the above, we
propose the following hypothesis:

reason as to why FMCG, durables and services sectors should

differ when it comes to the usage of house brand type. Hence,
we anticipate that the visibility of house brand type would be
similar in the three sectors. Therefore, we posit the following
hypothesis:

H1.

H4.

Research methodology
A content analysis of 600 brands is performed to explore the
branding strategies used in the three sectors. Kassarjian
(1977) defines content analysis as a scientific, objective,
quantitative and generalizable description of communications
content. In marketing, various studies have been conducted
using this approach (Tse et al., 1989; Carlson et al., 1993;
Laforet and Saunders, 1994, 2005).

Visibility of the corporate brand type differs across the

three sectors namely FMCG, services and durables.
This should be more in the durables and services
sectors than in the FMCG sector.

Sample selection
Each year, Business Today gives a list of 500 Indias Most
Valued Companies (BT 500) on the basis of average market
value for the April-September period. For the present study,
the 19th edition of BT 500 list given in 2010 was considered.
Web sites of all the 500 companies were visited to list the
brands sold by each company. Only B2C products/services
were considered. Further, the brands were segregated as
FMCG, services and durables. For making sampling frame,
all FMCG brands were listed while only those service brands
that have an exclusive web site and those durable brands that
have packaging (such as consumer electronics, watches etc)
were included. Durables like automobiles were excluded as
these do not have any packaging. The sample frame consisted
of 818 FMCG brands, 245 services brands and 224 durables
brands. Using random sampling table, 200 brands were
randomly selected from each sector.

Based on the above stated discussion, it can be expected that

individual brand type is not suitable for services and durables,
but is more suitable brand type for FMCG companies. Keller
(2008) also asserts that FMCG companies find it difficult to
create a meaningful corporate brand around heterogeneous
collection of products and resort to individual branding.
Further, individual brand type is also preferred in the FMCG
sector as it allows accurate positioning in the highly
segmented and competitive FMCG markets (Laforet and
Saunders, 1999; Aaker and Joachimsthaler, 2000; Pierce and
Mouskanas, 2002; Vijayraghavan, 2003; Rajagopal and
Sanchez, 2004). Hence, we postulate the following
hypothesis:
H2.

Visibility of the individual brand type differs across the

three sectors namely FMCG, services and durables.
This should be more in the FMCG sector than in the
durables and services sectors.

Unit of measurement
The unit of measurement for content analysis in this study is a
product or service brand. For FMCG and durables,
packaging has been content analysed by visiting various
retail outlets whereas for services, web sites of the services
brands have been content analysed. Unlike goods, services do
not have any packaging that can be analysed and therefore
alternative source had to be selected. A pre-test of various
sources of communication of 25 service brands (eight banks,
three insurance, seven retail, three telecom and four hotels)
was conducted to find the most appropriate source revealing
the branding strategy. The sources of communication content
analysed in pre-testing included web sites and advertisements
plus two other sources depending on the type of service
(banks ATM card, pass book; insurance products
insurance policy, instalment slip; retail display outside the
store, loyalty card; telecom SIM card cum connection
details packet, post-paid bill or pre-paid recharge coupon as
the case may be; hotels menu, bill). For each service brand,
the branding strategy was found to be the same regardless of
the source of communication meaning thereby that the
companies are resorting to integrated marketing
communications (IMC) which is defined by Clow and
Baack (2007) as the communication strategy in which a
company creates harmony in transmitting messages to its
stakeholders through different mediums. Since consistency

Family brand type is used to link common associations to

multiple but distinct products. It is similar to corporate brand
type as both brand types are applied across a range of product
categories. However, these are different because family brand
name is distinct from corporate brand name (Keller, 2008).
As services and durables sectors are associated with high risk,
corporate associations are more important for these two
sectors and hence corporate brand is used instead of family
brand across a range of offerings. Turley and Moore (1995)
also argue that family brand type is not relevant for services
sector. As FMCG sector includes less risky purchases, family
brand type is used here to create salience among similar
product categories. Hence, we hypothesize:
H3.

Visibility of the house brand type is same in the three

sectors namely FMCG, services and durables.

Visibility of the family brand type differs across the

three sectors namely FMCG, services and durables.
This should be more in the FMCG sector than in the
durables and services sectors.

Laforet and Saunders (1994) advocate that house brand type

is essentially used for two reasons: first, when a diversified
company has divisions in tightly defined markets, and second,
when acquisitions are made and the subsidiary is given some
independence. The three sectors cannot be distinguished
based on these two reasons. We could not find any theoretical
10

Branding strategies of FMCG, services and durables brands

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Bikram Jit Singh Mann and Mandeep Kaur

Volume 22 Number 1 2013 6 17

was found in the various sources, any communication source

indicating branding strategy was found to be suitable for
content analysis. Web sites were selected as a source of
information for content analysis of services brands for the
purpose of homogeneity as most of the services brands were
found to have exclusive web sites. However, web sites were
not found to be appropriate for analyzing branding strategies
of tangible goods as there are very few such brands having
separate web sites.

Table II reveals that in the FMCG sector, corporate brand

type is used in 76 per cent of the cases. It is used as single
brand type in 16.4 per cent of the cases and in combination
with other brand types in 83.6 per cent of the cases, most
often as an endorser (34.7 per cent) or as a token endorser
(50.4 per cent). The usage of house brand type is almost
negligible (4.5 per cent). Family brand type is used in 47 per
cent of the cases. It is used as single brand type in 19.1 per
cent of the cases and in combination with other brand types in
80.9 per cent of the cases. It is most often used with
prominent visibility (75 per cent) or as an endorser (18.4 per
cent) when used in combination with other brand types.
Individual brand type is used in 47 per cent of the cases. It is
used as single brand type in 13.8 per cent of the cases and in
combination with other brand types in 86.2 per cent of the
cases, most often with prominent visibility (76.5 per cent) or
with balanced visibility (20.9 per cent).
In case of services, as depicted by Table II, corporate brand
type is used in 88 per cent of the cases. It is frequently used as
single brand type (55.7 per cent) as well as in combination
with other brand types (44.3 per cent). It is most often used as
an endorser (52.6 per cent), with balanced visibility (19.2 per
cent) or as a token endorser (16.7 per cent) when used in
combination with other brand types. Individual brand type is
another frequently used brand type (44 per cent), which is
most often used in combination with other brand types (84.1
per cent), most frequently with prominent visibility (77 per
cent) or with balanced visibility (18.9 per cent). House (3.5
per cent) and family brand types (4.5 per cent) are less often
used. Literature on degree of risk in services brings out that
services can be classified as credence and experience services.
Therefore, analysis of services is extended by classifying
services as credence and experience services. Credence
services are highly risky services that cannot be evaluated by
average consumers even after purchase or consumption
because they lack the technical expertise or the means in
terms of time and money to make a reliable assessment
(Nelson, 1970; Darby and Karni, 1973; Zeithaml, 1981).
Experience services are less risky services that can be
evaluated after purchase or during consumption (Shapiro,
1983). Based on the examples cited in past literature,
experience services content analysed in this study include
retail outlets, beauty salons, telecom services, vacations,
hotels, aviation, job and marriage consultancy, media
entertainment, and education, and credence services include
financial and health services. The sample of 200 service
brands comprises 131 experience service brands and 69
credence service brands. Results reveal that single corporate
brand type is most often used branding strategy among
credence services (97.1 per cent). Combination of brand
types, such as corporate and individual brand types, is most
frequently used branding strategy among experience services
(64.5 per cent), followed by single corporate brand type
strategy (24.4 per cent).
Analysis from Table II relating to the durables sector reveals
that single corporate brand type is the most dominating
branding strategy in this sector (82.6 per cent). It is used in
combination with other brand types in 17.4 per cent of the
cases, either with balanced visibility (87.9 per cent) or as an
endorser (12.1 per cent). Individual brand type is used in 19.5
per cent of the cases, most often in combination with other
brand types (87.2 per cent). It is used with balanced visibility
(85.3 per cent) or prominent visibility (14.7 per cent) when

Coding sheet and measurement used

In order to know the branding strategies used in the three
sectors, sampled brands were examined. Based on the
different visibility styles of brand types given in Table I, a
coding sheet (Appendix, Figure A1) was prepared for the
purpose of content analysis. First, basic details relating to
company name, brand name and sector were noted for each
sampled package/web site. Following this, the brand types
used were identified and their visibility styles were noted. The
allocation of brand types to different visibility styles was
judgemental, taking into account all the factors that affect the
relative prominence of the brand such as its relative size,
boldness, colour and position (Laforet and Saunders, 1994,
2005, 2007; Keller, 2008). The two authors and one
independent researcher were trained and served as coders.
The coders separately coded all sample brands. Minimal
differences were identified and were resolved through
discussion.
Next, for every sampled package and web site as the case
may be, each brand type was given a visibility score on the
scale ranging from 0 to 8, 8 for being the only brand type, 7
for being prominently visible, 6 for balanced type, 5 for strong
endorsement, 4 for weak endorsement, 3 for linked name, 2 if
used as token endorser, 1 if only disclosed and 0 for absence
of the brand type. The three sectors are statistically compared
based on the visibility scores of the four brand types. Mean
and standard deviation (SD) of visibility scores of each brand
type are calculated for the three sectors. Multivariate analysis
of variance (MANOVA) has been performed using PASW
19.0 to test the hypotheses. Boxs M test and Bartlett test of
Sphericity are used to test the assumptions of MANOVA.
Further, multivariate and univariate effects are examined to
investigate whether the differences in visibility of the four
brand types across the three sectors are statistically significant.
Finally, post hoc Tukey tests are conducted for pair wise
comparison of the three sectors to determine the differences
in the branding strategies of the sectors.

Results and discussion

The results are presented in two parts: first part reports the
various types of branding strategies used in the three sectors
and has been sub-headed as Branding strategies used in the
three sectors. Second part is dedicated to the comparison of
the visibilities of the four brand types across the three sectors
and is referred to as MANOVA results and hypotheses
testing.
Branding strategies used in the three sectors
Table II reports the various types of branding strategies used
in FMCG, services and durables sectors based on the
frequency of usage of the four brand types in a sector with
different visibility styles.
11

12

Prominently visible
Percentage
Balanced
Percentage
Endorser
Percentage
Linked name
Percentage
Token endorser
Percentage
Total
Percentage

The only brand type

Percentage

Brand type

2
1.6
12
9.5
44
34.7
5
3.9
64
50.4
127
83.6
152
76

25
16.4

Corporate
brand

0
0
3
60
2
40
0
0
0
0
5
55.5
9
4.5

4
44.5
57
75
5
6.6
14
18.4
0
0
0
0
76
80.9
94
47

18
19.1

FMCG
House
Family
brand
brand

62
76.5
17
20.9
2
2.5
0
0
0
0
81
86.2
94
47

13
13.8

Individual
brand

6
7.7
15
19.2
41
52.6
3
3.8
13
16.7
78
44.3
176
88

98
55.7

Corporate
brand

4
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
57.1
7
3.5

3
42.9
0
0
1
12.5
3
37.5
1
12.5
3
37.5
8
88.9
9
4.5

1
11.1

Services
House
Family
brand
brand

Note: a Percentages in each sector do not add to 100 per cent because more than one brand type can be used for a single brand

Totala
Percentage

Combination of multiple
brand types

Single brand type

Sector
Visibility

Table II Analysis of branding strategies used in the three sectors

57
77
14
18.9
3
4
0
0
0
0
74
84.1
88
44

14
15.9

Individual
brand

0
0
29
87.9
4
12.1
0
0
0
0
33
17.4
190
95

157
82.6

Corporate
brand

0
0
0
0
1
100
0
0
0
0
1
20
5
2.5

4
80

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0

Durables
House
Family
brand
brand

5
14.7
29
85.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
34
87.2
39
19.5

5
12.8

Individual
brand

Branding strategies of FMCG, services and durables brands

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Bikram Jit Singh Mann and Mandeep Kaur

Volume 22 Number 1 2013 6 17

Branding strategies of FMCG, services and durables brands

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Bikram Jit Singh Mann and Mandeep Kaur

Volume 22 Number 1 2013 6 17

used in combination with other brand types. Usage of house

brand type (2.5 per cent) is negligible with no case of family
brand type being reported.
In summary, the above analysis reveals that different types
of branding strategies are used in the three sectors.
Combination of multiple brand types such as corporate,
family and individual brand types is most frequently used
branding strategy in the FMCG sector. In the services sector,
single corporate brand type is the most often used branding
strategy for credence services while combination of multiple
brand types, such as corporate and individual brand types, is
most often used branding strategy for experience services.
Finally, in the durables sector, single corporate brand strategy
is most commonly used.

Tables IV and V depicts that multivariate statistic for

MANOVA is statistically significant (Wilks l 0:535,
F8; 1188:000 54:573,
p , 0:01,
partial
eta
squared 0:269, power 1:000) indicating that the
visibilities of the four brand types taken together differ
across the three sectors. Follow-up univariate tests of group
differences by examining the F-ratio (Tables IV and V;
indicate that visibilities of three out of four brand types differ
significantly across the three sectors (p , 0:01). In particular,
the F value for corporate, family and individual brand types is
significant (p , 0:01), while it is insignificant for house brand
type (p . 0:03). Thus, all the hypotheses, H1, H2, H3 and H4
are supported, meaning thereby that the differences across the
three sectors are significant with respect to the visibilities of
the corporate, family and individual brand types, while
insignificant for the house brand type. Table VI reports results
of post hoc Tukeys HSD Test for pair-wise comparison of the
three sectors for the three brand types that had significant
univariate F values.
While examining Table VI, we find that the visibility of
corporate brand type significantly differs across the three
sectors (p , 0:01). Mean differences (I-J) indicate that the
corporate brand type is most visible in the durables sector
followed by the services sector and is least visible in the
FMCG sector. As far as individual brands visibility is
concerned, the durables sector significantly differs from the
FMCG (p , 0:01) and the services (p , 0:01) sectors, but no
significant differences have been found between the FMCG
and the services sectors (p . 0:03). Mean differences depict
that individual brand type is more visible in FMCG and
services sectors than in the durables sector. Regarding family
brand type, the FMCG sector significantly differs from
services and durables sectors (p , 0:01). However, no
significant differences have been found between services and
durables sectors in the visibility of family brand type
(p . 0:03). Family brand type is more visible in the FMCG
sector than in the services and the durables sectors as
depicted by mean differences.
Thus, MANOVA results confirm that the differences across
the three sectors with respect to the visibilities of the three
brand types namely, corporate, family and individual brand
types are statistically significant. On the other hand, the
visibility of house brand type is similar in the three sectors.
post hoc results indicate that corporate brand type is the most
visible brand type in the durables sector, followed by the
services sector and is the least visible brand type in the
FMCG sector. Individual brand type is equally visible in the
FMCG and the services sectors, but is less visible in the
durables sector. Family brand type is more visible in the
FMCG sector than in the services and durables sectors, and it
is equally visible in the services and the durables sectors.

MANOVA results and hypotheses testing

The above analysis depicts that there are differences in the
branding strategies across the three sectors. To know whether
these differences are statistically significant, visibilities of the
four brand types namely corporate, house, family and
individual brand types in the three sectors are compared
using MANOVA and hypotheses are thus tested. Sector type
is taken as the independent (categorical) variable and visibility
scores of the four brand types, measured on a nine-point scale
(0 to 8), are taken as dependent (continuous) variables for
conducting MANOVA. Table III provides a summary of the
group profiles (means and standard deviations (SDs)) for
each of the brand types across the three sectors.
The Boxs M arrives at 308.078 with F 30:475
(p 0:000), which is significant at 1 per cent level of
significance. Thus, the assumption of homogeneity of
variance across the sectors is not satisfied. Harris (1995)
and Hair et al. (2009) state that in such a situation, if the
sample size is large and cell sizes are equal across the groups,
then MANOVA can be conducted. As the present study has
sufficiently large sample size (N 600) and equal cell sizes
(200 each), we proceed further with the analysis. Further, a
significant degree of inter-correlation has been found between
dependent variables as indicated by Bartletts Test of
Sphericity (Approx. Chi Square 1121:344, df 6,
sig: 0:000) which justifies the usage of MANOVA.
Further, the results of multivariate and univariate tests are
given in Tables IV and V.
Table III Means and SDs of brand visibility scores for each sector
Brand type
Corporate brand type
Individual brand type
Family brand type
House brand type

FMCG

SD

3.32
3.25
3.19
0.30

2.393
3.487
2.467
1.396

Sector
Services SD
5.75
3.05
0.18
0.28

2.659
3.476
0.928
1.374

Durables

SD

7.27
1.24
0.00
0.19

1.781
2.555
0.000
1.174

Implications to marketing theory and practice

A general observation reveals that there is a lot of diversity
and complexity in the way companies are using branding
strategies. The present study helps to simplify this complexity
by disclosing that the three sectors are heterogeneous among
themselves and homogeneous within themselves with respect
to the branding strategies. No doubt, there are various factors
that impact the choice of branding strategy such as history,
corporate culture, company policy, product range, market
structure etc. (Hall, 1992; Laforet and Saunders, 1994,

Table IV Multivariate tests for group differences in brand type visibility

across three sectors
Wilks l
0.535

df Error df Sig. Partial Eta SquaredObserved powera

54.573 8 1188.0000.000 *

0.269

1.000

Note: Computed using alpha 0:03 (Boneferroni adjustment (Hair et al.,

2009)); *Significant at 1 per cent level

13

Branding strategies of FMCG, services and durables brands

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Bikram Jit Singh Mann and Mandeep Kaur

Volume 22 Number 1 2013 6 17

Table V Univariate tests for group differences in brand type visibility across three sectors
Hypotheses Dependent variable Sum of squares df Mean square

H1
H2
H3
H4

Corporate brand type

Individual brand type
Family brand type
House brand type

1588.463
486.803
1280.443
1.373

2
2
2
2

Sig.
0.000 *

794.232
243.402
640.222
0.687

149.218
23.732 0.000 *
149.088 0.000 *
0.395 0.674

Partial Eta squared Observed powera

0.333
0.074
0.333
0.001

1.000
1.000
1.000
0.077

Result
Supported
Supported
Supported
Supported

Notes: a Computed using alpha 0:03 (Boneferroni adjustment (Hair et al., 2009)); * Significant at 1 per cent level

Table VI Tukeys HSD post hoc tests for individual group differences
Dependent variable

Sector I

Sector J

Mean difference (I-J) * *

Std. error

Sig.

Corporate brand type

FMCG
FMCG
Services

Services
Durables
Durables

22.43
23.95
21.52

0.231
0.231
0.231

0.000 *
0.000 *
0.000 *

Individual brand type

FMCG
FMCG
Services

Services
Durables
Durables

0.21
2.01
1.80

0.320
0.320
0.320

0.798
0.000 *
0.000 *

Family brand type

FMCG
FMCG
Services

Services
Durables
Durables

3.01
3.19
0.18

0.207
0.207
0.207

0.000 *
0.000 *
0.660

Notes: * Significant at 1 per cent level; * * Minus sign indicates that group I has the lower value than group J

branding strategy is found to be equally popular in the three

sectors.
The present study also finds that family brand type appears
rarely in both the services and durables sectors, while it
appears significantly in the FMCG sector. As services and
durables sectors are associated with high risk, corporate brand
is preferred over family brand in these two sectors to create
salience across a range of offerings and hence, family brand is
seldom used in these two sectors. FMCG sector is associated
with low risk; therefore family brand is used in this sector for
creating synergies across a group of related products.
The findings reveal that the extent of usage of individual
brand type is the same in case of FMCG and services sectors.
This may be because individual brand type is extensively used
in case of FMCG and experience services, and an overview of
the sample of services brands reveals that more experience
services brands than credence services brands are included in
this study. Individual brand type is frequently used for FMCG
and experience services essentially for two reasons. First,
FMCG and experience services are less risky. Researchers
state that these are purchased on the basis of intangibles as
well as tangibles such as price (Ostrom and Iacobucci, 1995;
Moorthi, 2002; Brady et al., 2005). Therefore, corporate
brand is relatively less important for such purchases. Second,
the companies want to capitalise the benefits of segmentation
through individual branding (Laforet and Saunders, 1999;
Aaker and Joachimsthaler, 2000; Vijayraghavan, 2003;
Rajagopal and Sanchez, 2004).
Further, single brand type strategy is not used for FMCG
and experience services. Combinations of multiple brand
types namely individual, corporate and family brand types are
used in the FMCG sector. This finding is in line with Laforet
and Saunders (1994, 2005, 2007) who find that more than 50
per cent products in the grocery industry in the UK carried

1999), however, our findings suggest that the characteristics

of a sector do have an influence on this decision.
Our results reveal that corporate brand type is frequently
used in all the three sectors, but with different visibility styles.
In case of durables and credence services, it is used either as
the single brand type or with prominent visibility. Contrarily,
in case of FMCG and experience services, single corporate
brands are not used; rather they are used as endorsers. Past
literature suggests that the use of corporate brand positively
influences consumer preferences (Andreassen and Lindestad,
1998; Kowalczyk and Pawlish, 2002; Balmer and Gray, 2003;
Czellor and Palazzo, 2004; Souiden et al., 2006; Anisimova,
2007). However, this influence also depends on the visibility
of the corporate brand in communications, that is, higher the
visibility of the corporate brand, more is its influence on the
consumers (Saunders and Guoqun, 1996; Berens et al., 2002;
Berens et al., 2005). Also, higher the risk and consumer
involvement, more do the consumers rely on corporate
associations (Gurhan-Canli and Batra, 2004; Berens et al.,
2005). Supporting these past findings, our results show that
the corporate brand is used with high visibility in case of
durables and credence services as they are associated with
higher risk and consumer involvement, while in case of
FMCG and experience services, it is used with low visibility as
they are associated with relatively lesser risk and consumer
involvement. Hence, brand managers give visibility
prominence to corporate brand type to the extent to which
mitigating risk involved in consumer purchases is the primary
purpose of branding.
Further, the results depict that the usage of house brand
type is negligible in the three sectors. The findings are in
contradiction with Laforet and Saunders (1994) who find that
house brands tend to appear more than corporate brands in
the grocery sector in the UK. Further, as anticipated, house
14

Branding strategies of FMCG, services and durables brands

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Bikram Jit Singh Mann and Mandeep Kaur

Volume 22 Number 1 2013 6 17

more than one brand type. Combination of individual and

corporate brand types is the commonly used branding strategy
for experience services. This finding is consistent with
Rahman and Areni (2009) who suggest that services can
benefit from sub-brands, but is in contradiction with a priori
research which states that corporate brand is always the
primary brand for services (de Chernatony and DallOlmo
Riley, 1999; Berry, 2000; McDonald et al., 2001; Burt and
Sparks, 2002). In todays highly product and brand
proliferated markets, it has become extremely difficult and
expensive to develop new brands from scratch that have the
potential to be successful. Hence, companies prefer to use two
brand types together, one already established brand called
master brand (Corporate/Family Brand) and another new
individual brand. Master brand adds credibility to the
offering, and individual brand adds value by describing the
offering and by modifying the associations of the master brand
through creation of specific brand beliefs (Aaker and
Joachimsthaler, 2000; Keller, 2008). The use of master
brand also eases the acceptance of new product by the trade
(Laforet and Saunders, 1994; Petromilli et al., 2002).

et al., 2006). A comparison of the companies from the West

and from the East for their branding strategies is an avenue
for future research. Third, as in todays globalised world, a
large number of companies have operations in multiple
countries, it is also worthwhile to explore whether the
branding strategies of such companies are same globally, or
there are distinctions by geography. Fourth, the kind of
research and discussion conducted by companies to evaluate
different branding strategy options while branding a product/
service is unknown. Future research may be conducted to
shed light on the organisational decision making processes
associated with choosing a particular branding strategy.

References
Aaker, D.A. and Joachimsthaler, E.A. (2000), The brand
relationship spectrum, California Management Review,
Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 8-23.
Andreassen, T.W. and Lindestad, B. (1998), Customer loyalty
and complex services: the impact of corporate image on
quality, customer satisfaction and loyalty for customers with
varying degrees of service expertise, International Journal of
Service Industry Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 7-23.
Anisimova, T.A. (2007), The effects of corporate brand
attributes on attitudinal and behavioural consumer loyalty,
Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 395-405.
Balmer, J.M.T. and Gray, E.R. (2003), Corporate brands:
what are they? What of them?, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 7/8, pp. 972-97.
Berens, G., Riel, C.B.M. and Bruggen, G.H. (2002),
The added value of corporate brands: when do
organizational associations affect product evaluations?,
available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract370986 (accessed 10
November 2010).
Berens, G., Riel, C.B.M. and Bruggen, G.H. (2005),
Corporate associations and consumer product responses:
the moderating role of corporate brand dominance,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69, July, pp. 35-48.
Berry, L.L. (2000), Cultivating service brand equity,
Journal of Academy of Marketing Sciences, Vol. 28 No. 1,
pp. 128-37.
Berry, L.L., Lefkowith, E.F. and Clark, T. (1988),
In services, whats in a name?, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 66, September-October, pp. 28-30.
Brady, M.K., Bourdeau, B.L. and Heskel, J. (2005), The
importance of brand cues in intangible service industries:
an application to investment services, Journal of Services
Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 401-10.
Burt, S.L. and Sparks, L. (2002), Corporate branding,
retailing, and retail internationalization, Corporate
Reputation Review, Vol. 5 Nos 2/3, pp. 194-212.
Carlson, L., Grove, S.J. and Kangun, N. (1993), A content
analysis of environmental advertising claims: a matrix
method approach, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 22 No. 3,
pp. 27-39.
Clow, K.E. and Baack, D. (2007), Integrated Advertising,
Promotion, and Marketing Communications, Prentice Hall,
New Delhi.
Czellor, S. and Palazzo, G. (2004), The impact of perceived
corporate brand values on brand preference: an exploratory
empirical study, working paper [IUMI 0401], Institute of
International Management, University of Lausanne,
Lausanne.

Conclusion
This study contributes to the growing body of literature on
branding strategies by identifying an original and more
simplistic list of branding strategies and by examining and
comparing the usage of branding strategies in the three
sectors FMCG, services and durables. The study
substantiates that the three sectors differ in their branding
strategies. Single corporate brand type strategy is
predominantly used in case of durables and credence
services which are associated with high risk and high
consumer involvement. On the other hand, in case of
FMCG and experience services, which are associated with
low risk and low consumer involvement, individual brand type
endorsed by the corporate brand type is the most frequently
used branding strategy. Thus, we can conclude that there is a
trend towards corporate branding as corporate brand type is
popular in all the sectors. Also, a single brand type strategy is
rarely used, except for the single corporate brand type strategy
as in case of durables and credence services. For FMCG
brands and experience services brands, companies are trying
to leverage brand equity of two or more brand types.

Limitations and future research

The sample of brands included in the study has been drawn
from the brands owned by 500 Indias most valued
companies. Thus, the sample of this study is biased towards
brands that possess higher brand equity. Therefore, the
implications drawn from this study should be applied to other
brands with caution.
Further, much remains unknown and this research has
implications for further research. First, the three sectors
chosen in this study are wide enough which can be further
segregated into various product categories or industries. The
differences in the branding strategies of within one sector
categories, such as, intra-FMCG, intra-service and intradurable categories, can be investigated. Second, past literature
suggests that the companies from the West are more inclined
towards individual branding while the companies from the
East are more inclined towards corporate branding (Souiden
15

Branding strategies of FMCG, services and durables brands

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Bikram Jit Singh Mann and Mandeep Kaur

Volume 22 Number 1 2013 6 17

Darby, M.R. and Karni, E. (1973), Free competition and

the optimal amount of fraud, Journal of Law and
Economics, Vol. 16, April, pp. 67-86.
de Chernatony, L. and DallOlmo Riley, F. (1999), Experts
views about defining services brands and the principles of
services branding, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 46
No. 2, pp. 181-92.
Dowling, G.R. and Staelin, R. (1994), A model of perceived
risk and intended risk-handling activity, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 119-34.
East, R. (1997), Consumer Behaviour, Prentice Hall, Sydney.
Garbarino, E. and Strahilevitz, M. (2004), Gender
differences in the perceived risk of buying online and the
effects of receiving a site recommendation, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 57, pp. 768-75.
Gray, E. and Smeltzer, L.R. (1985), Corporate image
an integral part of strategy, Sloan Management Review,
Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 73-8.
Gurhan-Canli, Z. and Batra, R. (2004), When corporate
image affects product evaluations: the moderating role of
perceived risk, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 41 No. 2,
pp. 197-205.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and
Tatham, R.L. (2009), Multivariate Data Analysis, Dorling
Kindersley (India) Pvt. Ltd (Pearson Education), New
Delhi.
Hall, J. (1992), Support for brand new perspectives,
Marketing, 14 May, pp. 18-19.
Hamiln, R.P. and Wilson, T. (2004), The impact of cause
branding on consumer reactions to products: does product/
cause fit really matter?, Journal of Marketing Management,
Vol. 20 Nos 7-8, pp. 663-81.
Harris, C.R., Jenkins, M. and Glaser, D. (2006), Gender
differences in risk assessment: why do women take fewer
risks than men?, Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 1
No. 1, pp. 48-63.
Harris, M.B. (1995), Basic Statistics for Behavioural Science
Research, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.
Hem, L.E., de Chernatony, L. and Iversen, N.M. (2003),
Factors influencing successful brand extensions, Journal
of Marketing Management, Vol. 19 Nos 7-8, pp. 781-806.
Kassarjian, H.H. (1977), Content analysis in consumer
research, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 4 No. 1,
pp. 8-18.
Keller, K. (2008), Strategic Brand Management, Pearson
Publication, New Delhi.
Knox, S. and Walker, D. (2001), Measuring and managing
brand loyalty, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 111-28.
Kotler, P. (2000), Marketing Management, Prentice Hall,
Sydney.
Kotler, P. and Armstrong, G. (1997), Principles of Marketing,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Kowalczyk, S.J. and Pawlish, M.J. (2002), Corporate
branding through external perception of organizational
culture, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 5 Nos 2/3,
pp. 159-74.
Laforet, S. (2011), Brand names on packaging and their
impact on purchase preference, Journal of Consumer
Behaviour, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 18-30.
Laforet, S. and Saunders, J. (1994), Managing brand
portfolios: how the leaders do it, Journal of Advertising
Research, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 64-76.

Laforet, S. and Saunders, J. (1999), Managing brand

portfolios: why leaders do what they do, Journal of
Advertising Research, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 51-66.
Laforet, S. and Saunders, J. (2005), Managing brand
portfolios: how strategies have changed, Journal of
Advertising Research, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 314-27.
Laforet, S. and Saunders, J. (2007), How brand portfolios
have changed: a study of grocery suppliers brands from
1994 to 2004, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 23
Nos 1-2, pp. 39-58.
McColl-Kennedy, J.R. and Kiel, G.C. (1999), Marketing:
A Strategic Approach, Nelson Thomson Learning, South
Melbourne.
McDonald, M., de Chernatony, L. and Harris, F. (2001),
Corporate marketing and service brands: moving beyond
the fast moving consumer goods model, European Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 3/4, pp. 335-52.
Mitra, K., Reiss, M.C. and Capella, L.M. (1999),
An examination of perceived risk, information search
and behavioural intentions in search, experience and
credence services, The Journal of Services Marketing,
Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 208-28.
Moorthi, Y.L.R. (2002), An approach to branding services,
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 259-74.
Murphy, J. (1987), Branding: the game of the name,
Marketing, 23 April, pp. 7-9.
Murray, K.B. and Schlacter, J.L. (1990), The impact of
services versus goods on consumers assessment of
perceived risk and variability, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 51-65.
Muzellec, L. and Lamkin, M.C. (2009), Corporate branding
and brand architecture: a conceptual framework,
Marketing Theory, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 39-54.
Nelson, P. (1970), Information and consumer behaviour,
The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 20, pp. 311-29.
Olins, W. (1989), Corporate Identity, Thames and Hudson,
London.
Ostrom, A. and Iacobucci, D. (1995), Consumer trade-offs
and the evaluation of services, The Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 17-28.
Petromilli, M., Morrison, D. and Million, M. (2002), Brand
architecture: building brand portfolio value, Strategy and
Leadership, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 15-21.
Pierce, A. and Mouskanas, H. (2002), Portfolio power:
harnessing a group of brands to drive profitable growth,
Strategy and Leadership, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 15-21.
Rahman, K. and Areni, C.S. (2009), Service brand
relationship matrix: brand strategy for services sector,
World Journal of Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 141-52.
Rahman, K. and Areni, C.S. (2010), Product line subbranding versus company as the brand in services, The
Marketing Review, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 57-67.
Rajagopal and Sanchez, R. (2004), Conceptual analysis of
brand architecture and relationships within product
categories, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 11 No. 3,
pp. 233-47.
Saunders, J. and Guoqun, F. (1996), Dual branding: how
corporate names add value, Marketing Intelligence and
Planning, Vol. 14 No. 7, pp. 29-34.
Shapiro, C. (1983), Optimal pricing of experience goods,
The Bell Journal of Economics, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 497-507.
Silayoi, P. and Speece, M. (2004), Packaging and purchase
decisions: an exploratory study on the impact of
16

Branding strategies of FMCG, services and durables brands

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Bikram Jit Singh Mann and Mandeep Kaur

Volume 22 Number 1 2013 6 17

involvement level and time pressure, British Food Journal,

Vol. 106 No. 8, pp. 607-28.
Souiden, N., Kassim, N.M. and Hong, H.J. (2006), The
effect of corporate branding dimensions on consumers
product evaluations - a cross cultural analysis, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 Nos 7/8, pp. 825-45.
Strebinger, A. (2004), Strategic brand concept and brand
architecture strategy a proposed model, Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 31, pp. 656-61.
Tse, D.K., Belk, R.W. and Zhou, N. (1989), Becoming a
consumer society: a longitudinal and cross-cultural content
analysis of print ads from Hong Kong, the Peoples
Republic of China, and Taiwan, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 457-72.
Turley, L.W. and Moore, P.A. (1995), Brand name strategies
in the service sector, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 12
No. 4, pp. 42-50.
Vaughn, R. (1980), How advertising works: a planning
model, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 20 No. 5,
pp. 27-33.

Vijayraghavan, K. (2003), FMCG firms relearn marketing

strategies, Times, 4 April.
Wei, S.T., Ou, L.C. and Luo, R.M. (2009), Colour design
for carton-packed fruit juice packages, paper presented at
the Undisciplined! Design Research Society Conference,
Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK, 16-19 July
2008, available from Sheffield Hallam University Research
Archive (SHURA) at: http://shura.shu.ac.uk/499/ (accessed
4 June 2012).
Zeithaml, V.A. (1981), How consumer evaluation processes
differ between goods and services, in Donnelly, J.H. and
George, W.R. (Eds), Marketing of Services, American
Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 186-9.
Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. and Berry, L.L. (1985),
Problems and strategies in services marketing, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 49, Spring, pp. 33-46.
Zikmund, W.G. and Scott, J.E. (1974), A multivariate
analysis of perceived risk, self-confidence and information
sources, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 1, pp. 406-16.

Appendix
Figure A1 The coding sheet

About the authors

Management, Vikalpa (IIM, Ahmadabad) and Decision (IIM,

Calcutta). Bikram Jit Singh Mann is the corresponding author
and can be contacted at: bikrammann@hotmail.com
Mandeep Kaur is a Research Scholar in the Department of
Commerce and Business Management, Guru Nanak Dev
University, Amritsar, Punjab, India. She is pursuing her PhD
(as UGC Research Fellow) in Brand Management. She is also
2012-2013 Fulbright-Nehru Doctoral and Professional
Research Fellow.

Bikram Jit Singh Mann is an Associate Professor in the

Department of Commerce and Business Management, Guru
Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, Punjab, India. He has a
PhD in Brand Management and his areas of teaching and
research interest are brand management and strategic
management. He has published research papers in national
and international journals of repute like International Business
Review (in press), International Journal of Commerce and

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

17