The king is dead, long live the king

Abstract

In recent years it has become increasingly popular for marketing people to suggest that it is we, the consumers, who ‘own’ their brands. The argument, put forward by, among others, Jeremy Bullmore of WPP, rests on the notion that the true value of brands lies in our perceptions of them. These perceptions, it is argued, rest in our individual minds, thus it is we — not the manufacturers or trade mark proprietors — who own the brands. A second thread of the argument suggests that, as brands are now increasingly shaped by factors way beyond those within the control of the marketers and brand owners, there is clear evidence of a loss of ownership. While accepting that the nature of the relationship between brand owner and we, the consumer, has fundamentally changed, this paper argues that it would be dangerous for any marketer to accept the notion of consumer as brand owner at face value. This paper highlights the associated risks, not only from a legal sense of opening the door to possible counterfeiters, but also from a marketing perspective. The paper highlights a difference between individual perceptions of the brand and the brand itself, and it goes on to put forward the case for brands as units of social currency and tools of multiplicity, with the need for brand owners to manage them as such. The paper also champions the role of ‘that vision thing’, and the need for brand owners to lead, and not just follow, consumers' current wishes. Finally, the paper calls for brand owners not to abdicate their responsibilities, but rather to recognise that they are now operating in the field of negotiated relationships.