By Michael Moreton (UK)
This essay will look at how advertising is able to help shape
and manage brands, especially looking at the influence it
exerts as part of the marketing of that brand. It will then
look at a real life situation by focusing on a generic product,
soup. Within this product, three brands will be looked at;
Heinz, Baxters and Campbell’s. The essay will then explore
how advertising has been used to influence these brands and
how effective the advertising was in creating brand meaning.
Advertising is a part of the marketing plan of a firm, its
objectives are therefore, to market the firm’s products
to consumers. Since advertising is a one way process, one
of its main roles is to inform consumers of the product. This
is achieved through visual, aural or both visual and aural
adverts. These adverts are then directed to the target consumers
by altering a variable, such as the time of day, media channel
or type of advert.
The nature of advertising means that it only takes place
in competitive markets, here the adverts communicate a certain
image that the product or firm is trying to create of itself,
usually one that differentiates it from competitors. The successful
creation of an identity for the product or firm forms a brand.
A brand is “a name, term, sign, symbol or design, or
a combination of these, intended to identify the goods or
services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate
them from those of competitors” (Kotler, 2002, p10).
This allows the consumer to identify and trust the product
easier and gives the firm a valuable connection with the consumer.
In a generic product market, such as the soup market, advertising
becomes important since it can be the only real difference.
In such a market, “advertising remains the single most
potent tool available for the creation, shaping and direction
of powerful brands” (Duckworth, 1997). Therefore advertising
is considered an important tool in managing brand meaning.
Evidence of this can be seen in the awards foundation, Institute
of Practitioners in Advertising (IPA) Advertising Effectiveness
Awards. Set-up in 1980, it attempts to judge the most effective
advertising campaign. Although primarily based on sales, the
effects to the brand that the advertising campaign causes
are also considered.
In order to look into the soup market, at how advertising
has been used to influence the brand and how effective the
advertising has been in creating brand meaning for Heinz,
Baxters and Campbell’s, a little background information
on the firms is needed.
Heinz is well known in the UK for its four leading products;
tomato ketchup, salad cream, baked beans and soup. Each product
is the brand leader in its range, which has led to them being
the core products that reflect the Heinz brand. The brand
is strong, evidence of which can be found by looking at the
work by Interbrand, a consultancy firm that identified, in
2000, the top 75 brands in the world. Heinz was ranked 21st
in 1999 and 25th in 2000, with a brand value calculated as
$11.8 billion (Kotler, 2002, p472).
Baxters started out in 1868 by producing jam. Since then
it has continued producing jam, however it has moved onto
other food groups. Soups have now become the core product
of Baxters, with types ranging from traditional soups to luxury
soups. The company has remained in the hands of the Baxter
family and still operates from Scotland.
Campbell’s, like Baxters, first started out making
jams. After it was renamed the Campbell Soup Company, soups
became the core product and many variations and flavours were
created. Today it has diversified with sauces in its Homepride
range, yet it still concentrates on the core product, soups.
There is evidence that the stronger a brand is, the less
advertising it will need to do in order to create sales. Since
all the soup firms produce other products it is not surprising
that advertising is an efficient method to promote the brands.
All the three firms have in the past and still do conduct
very different advertising strategies. One advert for each
firm has been chosen to examine to see what the effect on
the brand was.
The advert chosen for Heinz was a television advert that
ran for four weeks in November 1999. The objective of the
advert, as quoted on the Heinz website (Anonymous, 07/01/03)
was “To remind consumers of the defining taste of Heinz
and to demonstrate that everyone is different and although
everyone loves Heinz, Heinz means different things to different
people”. The advert gave the idea that when Heinz soup
is in a pan it seems to feel home made with fresh ingredients,
when in fact it comes from a can of Heinz soup.
The advert by Baxters was by means of a poster advert, displayed
on billboards. The exact posters can be seen in Appendix 1.
The advert shows the innovative soup flavours Baxters produce.
The advert also shows that the soup is stored in a pot, not
the conventional can.
Campbell’s advert was also a poster campaign featured
in newspapers, as seen in Appendix 2. The advert suggests
that the soup is more than just soup, by showing that a pair
of tights could be used as a fan belt in a car. There is also
a recipe that the soup can be used in, followed by a link
to the Campbell’s website.
The process of building a brand can be seen in the brand-building
model below. The model shows the inputs are required to build
and drive a product so that a brand can be created. The brand
value is larger than the product since the intangible aspects
of the brand are considered.
The model shows the inputs required in order to build and
drive the product and brand, as shown on the small cog. One
such input is advertising, therefore advertising is a large
part of creating and managing a brand, in fact it is the variable
most used to influence brand meaning.
However Cundiff (1976) proposed that “there must be
brand differences of substantial importance to consumers if
advertising is to succeed in developing brand preference”.
This highlights the importance of a difference in products
or brands, in order for advertising to be able to differentiate
products. For some products, such as soup “buyers can
detect some hidden brand difference through use” (Cundiff,
1976), so that the different tastes can be part of the brand
differences. This is certainly what the soup firms try to
convince consumers in their adverts, they suggest that their
taste is the best. The type of taste, however, is described
differently by each firm.
Cundiff (1976) explained that for competing brands, such
as those in the soup market, there are usually distinctive
images in the minds of consumers. These images are the result
of all activities, most notably advertising that the firm
has conducted. They show how a firm has concentrated on a
certain product feature in order to differentiate it from
competitors. Heinz, Baxters and Campbell’s have all
created images of their soup.
Heinz soups tend to appear modern, giving the impression
of being in a modern day bustling house. They are simple flavours
that taste good, and are of a high quality since being part
of the Heinz brand. The soups are aimed at all households,
with different sized cans, microwave containers and health
conscious ingredients available.
Baxters soups on the other hand appear more traditional,
they give the impression of being in a traditional kitchen
taking time over the bowl of soup. The different flavours
are exciting and seem to create a meal that seems more than
the soup alone. They appear to be home cooked and are aimed
at consumers that will appreciate the flavour more than those
who just want soup.
Campbell’s soups give the feeling that the recipes
are made by a mother, since it is a family firm. They are
simple flavours yet have a little extra taste to them and
they give a relaxing feeling of warmth. The soups give the
consumer a choice by allowing them to choose the strength,
with the condensed soup range.
The “images affect consumer buying behaviour”
(Cundiff, 1976) so a good brand image has a favourably impact
on buying patterns. As market leader, Heinz soup would therefore
have a good brand image and have more sales than the other
two brands. This is true, however the objectives of the firms
are unknown.
Images also come from the packaging a product has. Packaging
is a type of promotion, it advertises the product and reinforces
the “brand heritage” (Kotler, 2002, p483). As
stated earlier, a brand can be a “sign, symbol or design”
(Kotler, 2002, p483), therefore the different types of packaging
that Heinz, Baxters and Campbell’s use creates different
images in the consumer’s mind.
Examples of the packaging used by each firm can be seen in
Appendix 3. Both Heinz and Campbell’s use cans as the
carrier, whereas Baxters, trying to differentiate itself,
uses pots. For Heinz, all other foods it produces are carried
in cans, thus the use of them is constant and so reinforces
the Heinz brand so that it can easily be identified on the
shelf. Baxters has tried to create a different carrier to
try and differentiate itself and create a different brand
identity to the others. Campbell’s has traditionally
used cans thus has continued to do so. Featured on the carrier,
each firm has its own label with the logo to help consumers
create an image of the firm and allow them to pick out products
easier.
The Heinz label is simple, carrying on the theme of Heinz
soups being modern. There are no images of what the soup looks
like, instead the label looks exactly like any other product
that Heinz produces. This promotes the firm and creates a
brand image of Heinz in the consumer’s mind.
The Baxters label does not seem to fit in with the brand
image of the firm. The label is modern, contrasting the traditional
image of Baxters. However the image of the soup flavour that
makes up a large percentage of the label shows the innovative
flavours and makes the soup look expensive but of a higher
quality.
Campbell’s uses a label similar to Heinz, the logo is
the main feature, but there are images of what the soup looks
like. This makes the consumer more secure in trusting the
brand and product. The same designs have been used over many
years as can be seen in Appendix 4.
“When consumers believe a brand has no differentiating
physical attributes, the brand image tends to be associated
with the personalities of the people who are thought to buy
it” (Cundiff, 1976). The firms therefore advertise an
image of a user that will appeal to the target market. Heinz
advert is to appeal to modern people that appreciate quality
soup. The soup is suited to all ages, which is why television
is the chosen media. The Baxters advert appeals to consumers
that want new interesting flavoured soups. This creates a
brand identity that produces innovative yet traditional tasting
soups. The Campbell’s advert appeals to those that want
a full flavoured taste to their soup. The brand image created
is that Campbell’s is a tasty food that can go with
many other foods.
The advertising is successful in creating brand identities
for the firm. When the advert manages to create the person
who buys Heinz soup, for example, it pushes consumers to choose
an identity, just like clothes fashion has done. However caution
must be taken since a test described by Aaker (1987) demonstrated
that different people have very different perceptions of the
people associated with brands.
The useful model by Doyle (1998) shows how consumers place
value on a brand.
The value of the brand is taken from a number of interactions.
For example the manufacturer’s reputation is the quality
of the product and any others made by the firm. It is also
the quality of other services that the firm provides, such
as help lines or information about the products. Dowling (2001)
found that if perceptions of firms are high the perceptions
of the products will be high thus the overall brand value
will be high.
All three soup firms try to complete and promote the parts
that make up the perceived value. This is seen in the design
of packaging and labels, and also the advertising in the media.
The user association is the image and personality the product
has. Heinz, Baxters and Campbell’s have different images
and personalities associated with the soups. These are created
through the advertising that is conducted, and they make up
part of the brand value.
Effective advertising is hard to conduct, and since it is
often a one way information flow, it is difficult to receive
any feedback from consumers. This can result in advertising
campaigns that experience many costs and few revenues. The
campaigns by Heinz, Baxters and Campbell’s cannot be
analysed for how successful they have been in terms of sales
as information of this type would be hard to obtain if it
could be obtained at all. But they can be analysed for their
impact on the brands that the firms have created.
Duckworth (1997) stated that advertising was the best tool
to help develop brands. The soup firms Heinz, Baxters and
Campbell’s have followed this and used advertising as
the primary process of brand identification. Although selling
a generic product, they have been able to differentiate themselves
from each other. Each firm had been able to create a brand
that has a different meaning in the consumer’s mind.
This has been achieved by a number of ways including different
prices, different packaging and different marketing. But this
essay has been concerned with how advertising in particular
has influenced the brand meaning. Looking at a set of adverts
by each of the firms showed how each one has used a different
part of the product to lead the brand image. The different
sized firms meant that Heinz, for example, has more resources
to build on the initial impressions of the brand that was
formed by consumers. It advertised its extra services, such
as Heinz-direct that enables Heinz products to be delivered
to many locations worldwide. However by looking at the other
firm’s website's, rival services exist, such as the
recipe help on Campbell’s website.
Fesinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance says that
an important part of advertising is to reduce cognitive dissonance,
which is basically the evidence that a person requires in
order to conclude their purchase is the best or right one.
All three firms continually advertise so that the consumer
knows that their choice has been the right one. Each firm
emphasises its main feature in order to build upon the image
created in the consumer’s mind. The campaigns studied
in this essay have been moderately successful in achieving
brand meaning for the firm. Moderately due to Baxters advert
perhaps confusing the consumer due to it being modern but
advertising traditional soup. The other two firms have been
successful in building on and strengthening their brands. |
