the right to property. Thus, it appears, from this period, that one can attach industrial property to the talent of individuals. The obvious extension between industrial production and the product sold is consumption.
On the basis of the principle of consumption that determines the creations of producers in every country, Jean-Baptiste Say lets us understand that creation is induced by consumption, which, itself, enables production: production that will naturally be protected by a process that identifies the creator and the owner of this production. This notion of ownership attached to the product led to the appearance of the modern “brand”.
From this point on, we can question the materialization of the brand and the modalities of its appearance. The marking of products was ensured, in particular, by the appearance, on the products, of the name of the place of production or the name of the production plant; the name and its commercial use thus became the basis of the evolution of the brand concept. For his part, Ries (1998) conceptualizes the trademark from the relation of the name and brand. His approach consists of approaching the principle of uniqueness: “A brand name is nothing but a word in the mind, albeit a special kind of word. A brand is a noun, a proper noun which like all proper nouns is usually spelled with a capital letter.” This connection between brand and proper name suggests the gestation of the notion of “brand”.
Afterwards, we can see that the brand could be a name, but not only that. The name certainly makes it possible to make a distinction between the products; to this can be added distinctive signs. Le Mercator, the reference work for marketing specialists, gives a first definition: “A brand is a name and a set of distinctive signs that have power in the market by giving meaning to products and creating perceived value for customers and economic value for the company” (Lendrevie and Lévy 2012). The breakdown of this definition, taken up and commented on by Jacques Lendrevie and Julien Lévy, suggests that the brand has economic power in terms of value creation.
On the other hand, for the consumer, the brand has another dimension; it allows identification through a distinctive sign which carries values with which the consumer can identify. This ability to identify with a brand provides them with a mental reference point for their consumption habits. Other authors have studied this subject. Lacoeuilhe and Lewi approach this theme by emphasizing that “a brand is a mental reference point in a market based on tangible and intangible values” (Lacoeuilhe and Lewi 2007, p. 12). In the same vein, they stipulate that a brand makes it possible to distinguish products in a given market; it goes beyond the notion of image to convey a mental representation resulting from a complex perception of objectifiable elements and subjective sensations. Brand membership enables the consumer to consider that they are part of a club representing the values that represent them.
In an effort to define the brand, Aaker puts into perspective that “the brand is a distinguishing name and/or symbol (such as a logo trademark, or package design) intended to identify the goods or services of either one seller or a group of sellers, and to differentiate those goods or services from those of competitors” (Aaker 1994). In this framework, the author equates the brand to its place of destination and thus to the possible extensions of the brand, logo or packaging. This approach has the advantage of extending the brand’s territory. In his famous book Managing Brand Equity, he infers that, through these attributes, the brand represents value. In short, the representation of the brand makes it possible to communicate around an image that has a distinctive character for the consumer, but the brand is also an accounting and financial asset that represents value for the company that owns it.
1.2. Brand value and brand equity
1.2.1. Definition of the brand value concept
McQueen et al. (1993) argue that brand value is determined by its strength in the marketplace. This developed strength is used to determine whether or not the brand is dominant and to ensure market position. They have shown that the brand’s products will be purchased in larger quantities, over the longer term, more expensively than those of competitors and that they will better resist competitive attacks because of the brand’s strength.
Aaker (1994) and Keller (1993) consider the perceptions and behaviors of consumers in relation with the brand in their approach to measuring brand equity. Srinivasan (1979) uses consumer sentiment to define brand value, distinguishing between brand and product, and concludes that the brand has its own value independent of the product’s value. The author considers, in addition, that the brand allows the branded product to create value; it is a measure of the brand’s influence on the consumer’s purchase decision. Notoriety, whether spontaneous or not, and image evaluation are the main components of brand equity. Brand valuation depends on the consumer’s preference, who decides to choose this or that product based on their own perception of the brand.
Dobni and Zinkhan’s approach leads to the observation that “the perception of reality is more important than reality itself” (Dobni and Zinkhan 1990, pp. 110–119). The consumer’s perception of the product is the result of the brand image. Thus, the consumer’s purchasing behavior is guided by the message that will enable them to identify the product they are looking for. It is understandable that this notion developed by Dobni and Zinkhan originates from the message communicated by the company owning the brand. This could be considered as an indicator of brand strength according to a marketing perspective. Most studies based on this image concept have been conducted in a framework directly related to the cognitive or psychological elements described by Aaker (1994) and Keller (1993).
Thus, these studies show the effects both on the brand image according to the consumer’s perceptions and conveyed by the company and on the ability of the company to capitalize on the brand value. Aaker (1994) considers that the consumer perceives the brand through three associations that make it possible to build the brand image, and the mixture of these different dimensions constitutes the brand image. These dimensions can be composed according to several degrees and thus make it possible to reach several categories of consumers.
Aaker (1994) thus highlights 11 dimensions of the brand that allow it to be categorized. These are as follows:
– product attributes that reveal the tangible characteristics, to develop brand image traits and provide consumers with reasons for purchase;
– the intangible characteristics perceived by consumers, related to their own definition of the product sought;
– the benefits they want to derive from it, which are both objective and psychological benefits;
– the price, associated with the consumer’s own concept of price and product;
– the perceived usefulness to the consumer;
– the quality of the buyer or consumer who wants to obtain the product;
– the creation of notoriety in relation to the brand’s image with celebrities who could recommend product use;
– the humanization of the brand through its personality;
– classification of products by category;
– comparison of the brand image that has emerged with that of the competition;
– the origin or provenance of the brand with which the image induced by the brand is associated.
Brand image is associated with the consumer’s ability to recognize the brand. Keller (1993) defines the dimensions of brand knowledge through associations and attributes that make it possible to materialize brand image.
