ORCID Profile
0000-0002-6213-1423
Current Organisation
University of South Australia
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: WARC Limited
Date: 12-2010
Publisher: Emerald
Date: 1991
DOI: 10.1108/02634509110139556
Abstract: In this article which is based on a marketing analysis of Michael Porter′s definition of competitive strategies, the confusion present in marketing and strategic management texts as to the definitions of the three strategies of low cost, differentiation and focus is noted. The idea that using price to differentiate means a firm is using a low cost strategy is dismissed and the value of a definition of focus strategy as merely some degree of extreme differentiation is questioned. New definitions of the three strategies are proposed which are based upon the idea that firms react to, and take actions which influence, the structure of the market in which they operate. They influence market structure through determining the market′s proximity level ‐the minimum level of marketplace performance which a firm must reach in order to compete across the broad marketplace. If a firm has the ability to reach this level and go further to excel in the provision of one or more benefits, it can implement a differentiation strategy. Alternatively, it can attempt to lift the market′s proximity level or partake in imitative activity, which reduces the potential bases for differentiation in the market, a low cost strategy (only sensible for the firm with the lowest costs of production). If a firm lacks the ability to reach the proximity level, it must seek segments which do not require reaching proximity in order to serve them, a focus strategy.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 09-2000
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 09-2004
DOI: 10.1016/S1441-3582(04)70107-X
Abstract: From analysis of over 39 categories Laurent, Kapferer and Roussel (1995) found that top of mind, spontaneous and aided brand awareness measures have the same underlying structure. The difference in scores appears due to the difficulty of the measure. We have successfully replicated this work and extended it to similarly structured advertising awareness measures. However, additional analyses then revealed that while there is a good category level fit, modelling a single brand over time is less successful. Indeed, Laurent et al.'s excellent cross-sectional fit appears due to substantially different levels of salience between larger and smaller brands. This suggests that while the different types of awareness tend to vary with a brand's overall level of salience, this does not mean that the different measures simply reflect a single underlying construct. Further, our finding challenges the previous authors’ claim that knowing the score for one measure allows the estimation of the score for another measure. Instead, the model provides useful norms against which to compare actual scores.
Publisher: Inderscience Publishers
Date: 2012
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 12-2004
Abstract: Historically, brand salience has been considered synonymous with the brand being ‘top of mind’ (mentioned first) when the product category is used to cue retrieval from memory. In this article we argue that this conceptualization (and associated measure) is too narrow. We show that there is value in distinguishing salience from the concepts of awareness and attitude by conceptualizing brand salience as the brand’s propensity to be noticed or come to mind in buying situations. Brand salience reflects the quantity and quality of the network of memory structures buyers’ hold about the brands. This article offers guidelines to facilitate research on the role of brand salience in brand choice and buyer behaviour that are an important progression from the evaluation (attitude) focus of contemporary marketing theory.
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 07-2010
Publisher: WARC Limited
Date: 06-2012
Publisher: WARC Limited
Date: 06-2009
Publisher: WARC Limited
Date: 06-2009
Publisher: Emerald
Date: 07-1991
Abstract: Brand extension, the use of an existing brand name on a new product, is an exceedingly popular marketing tactic as companies attempt to economise on new product launches and managers attempt to improve short run sales results. Review and analysis of current marketing research concludes that popular claims for general benefits of the practice are contradicted both by marketplace evidence and logical argument. Directions of future research to determine whether any specific conditions exist where brand extension might be an appropriate brand management tactic are outlined.
Publisher: WARC Limited
Date: 06-2009
Publisher: Emerald
Date: 12-1998
DOI: 10.1108/10610429810244648
Abstract: Over the last 30 years a range of empirical generalisations has been developed about the performance of competitive brands in frequently purchased product categories. These generalisations have been based mainly on European and US data, and this paper addresses the question of whether they also hold in Australia and New Zealand. We examined consumer panel data from four different markets (supermarkets, department stores and retail fuel in Australia and retail fuel in New Zealand) and found similar patterns to those in Europe and the USA, although there were some minor exceptions, and also some interesting variations between markets. Our results suggest that there is much that Australasian marketers can learn from using models such as the Dirichlet, which was developed in the Northern hemisphere, to identify norms and exceptions in their own markets.
Publisher: Emerald
Date: 08-02-2016
Abstract: – This paper aims to reflect on the generalisability of the predictive validity test of the Persuasion Principles Index (PPI) conducted by Armstrong et al. (2016). – Different aspects of the test are considered, such as the s le of ads, the dependent variable and the comparability of the methods used to predict effectiveness, in terms of how relevant these are to real-world advertising testing. – The s le of ads and the testing procedure may have contributed to the success of the PPI predictions over the other copy-testing methods. The s le of print ads does not bear a close resemblance to current advertising. The competing copy tests do not represent modern advertising copy testing. – More research is needed to test the validity of the principles and the predictive accuracy of the PPI across a range of conditions (e.g. different ads, media, products and cultures). Testing against advertising sales effectiveness would be the ideal next step. – It certainly seems the index method has the potential to help advertisers make better decisions regarding what executions to support, for high-involvement products at least. Given the accessibility of the software, it should be easy and cost effective for advertisers to trial the PPI. – This commentary directs researchers to the real-world conditions under which advertising pre-tests need to be evaluated.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 29-09-2016
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 04-2000
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 11-2010
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 05-2014
Publisher: WARC Limited
Date: 06-2009
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 03-2002
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 12-2007
DOI: 10.1016/S1441-3582(07)70042-3
Abstract: The credibility and vibrancy of any discipline depends on a willingness to question even the most strongly held beliefs. Our research challenges the central importance of differentiation to brand strategy. We provide an empirically grounded theoretical argument that differentiation plays a more limited role in brand competition than the orthodox literature assumes. We then present empirical data, spanning many categories and two countries, showing that there is a low level of perceived differentiation across competing brands. However, despite this lack of perceived differentiation, customers are still buying these brands. This leads us to question the importance of perceived and valued differentiation and to instead place distinctiveness at the centre of brand strategy - where a brand builds unique associations that simply make it more easily identifiable. We discuss the very positive implications for marketing management and call for research on being distinctive and getting noticed.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 18-11-2016
Publisher: Emerald
Date: 04-1991
Abstract: As the wine industry globally is pushed towards a marketing orientation, what does this mean for companies and their managers and owners? Distinction should be made between market orientation and marketing orientation. Market orientation places the customer at the top of the organisational chart, yet in the wine industry the customer can be very fickle. As such it does not encapsulate the marketing concept of the matching process – it is not a marketing orientation. The true marketing orientation has evolved from a realisation of the inadequacies of production and sales orientation. Marketing orientation should give equal weight to customer demands and to company requirements. It must choose its markets and manage its own productive capabilities in order to achieve its goals in pursuit of a strategic policy. In the wine industry in particular, it is imperative for management that customer and company needs and wants should be correctly balanced.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 30-11-2009
DOI: 10.1057/FSM.2009.19
Publisher: WARC Limited
Date: 06-2009
Publisher: Emerald
Date: 12-2006
DOI: 10.1108/07363760610713019
Abstract: Many service organisations seek to grow by selling additional different products to their existing customers. Many managers are evaluated on the level of customer loyalty in terms of cross‐product holdings – for ex le, the average number of bank products or insurance policies held per customer. The purpose of this paper is to provide managers and researchers with some contextual knowledge and norms concerning “cross‐category” loyalty. In order to compare the levels of loyalty for competing brands, five relevant loyalty metrics were used in the analysis, with data sourced from two service industries, banking and insurance. The results show little variation in loyalty scores between competing brands, and what variation there is can be explained by historic factors, without reference to CRM strategies. This suggests that investments into CRM and cross‐selling initiatives seem to have less effect on loyalty metrics than many marketing textbooks and CRM advocates have assumed. Marketers should be very cautious of setting ambitious goals for increasing loyalty to their brand at a cross‐category level. Very few research papers have explored the issue of cross‐category loyalty. This is despite the value of the specific loyalty metrics as key performance indicators in service industries such as banking and insurance.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 09-1995
Publisher: Emerald
Date: 03-1993
DOI: 10.1108/07363769310041938
Abstract: Examines the inherent risks of brand extension alongside empirical evidence of the success rates of brand extensions compared with brand‐name product launches. Concludes that the brand extension is justifiable only when it can be clearly shown to enhance the success of a new product launch and existing brand equity. Puts forward a number of rules for the appropriate use of brand extension.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 12-1997
No related grants have been discovered for Byron Sharp.