The foundation, on which the implications of
the paper “Effectiveness of corporate responses to brand crises: The role of
crisis type and response strategies” are built, is that brand crisis types
differ by brands benefits, which are functional and symbolic. Furthermore, it
is claimed that poor performance on functional attributes is more detrimental
to satisfaction (performance-based crises) than poor performance on symbolic
attributes (values-based crises), according to Mittal et al. I disagree with
this argument because the impact of the crisis is a function of the relevance
of the crisis to the brand’s equity key associations, as stated in the paper
“Brand crises: The roles of brand familiarity and crisis relevance in
determining the impact on brand evaluations”. So, if the key association with
the brand is a symbolic one, it is more important than the functional one and
determines the impact of the crisis. Here the example with Porsche can be
adduced as a proof, since it is associated with symbolic attributes and if
there is a huge relevance (mediation effect) of the crisis with them the
transgression on equity will be significant. Moreover, brand positioning on
lifestyle /symbolic attributes/ can prevent a brand from crisis and be safer
than functional positioning. And that is the example with beverage, which when
positioned on purity is at higher risk than on lifestyle. This reaffirms my statement
that symbolic benefits impacted by values-based crisis should not be
underestimated and are not less important than functional ones affected by
performance-based crises, therefore the response strategies to these kinds of
crises should be also be revised.
.png "English"){kind=small}
Публикации
Теория за целевата ориентация
Преди 18 часа
