European Journal of MarketingEmerald Article: Branding in fictional and virtual environments: Introducing a new conceptual domain and research agendaLaurent Muzellec, Theodore Lynn, Mary Lambkin

Article information:

To cite this document: Laurent Muzellec, Theodore Lynn, Mary Lambkin, (2012),"Branding in fictional and virtual environments: Introducing a new conceptual domain and research agenda", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 Iss: 6 pp. 811 - 826

Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090561211214618

Downloaded on: 07-06-2012

References: This document contains references to 82 other documents

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

This document has been downloaded 10 times since 2012. *

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by Emerald Author Access

For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Additional help for authors is available for Emerald subscribers. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comWith over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Branding in fictional and virtualenvironments

Introducing a new conceptual domain andresearch agenda

Laurent MuzellecESSCA Ecole de Management, LUNAM Universite, Boulogne-Billancourt,

France

Theodore LynnLeadership, Innovation and Knowledge (LInK) Research Centre,

Dublin City University Business School, Dublin, Ireland, and

Mary LambkinUCD Michael Smurfit Graduate Business School, University College Dublin,

Dublin, Ireland

Abstract

Purpose – This paper aims at establishing a new stream of academic study for virtual brands. Itexplains the concepts of protobrands and reverse product placement and explores some of themanagerial and academic implications.

Design/methodology/approach – Starting from the most recent definition of the brand construct,the paper establishes that the brand concept may now be detached from physical embodiment. Theextension of application of the branding domain to the fictional and computer-synthesized worlds isextensively illustrated by examples of virtual brands from books, films, video games and othermulti-user virtual environments.

Findings – Evidence suggests that purely potential brands (protobrands) initiated in the virtualworld may possess strong consumer-based brand equity. The study shows that the equity of theprotobrands may be leveraged in-world (and can acquire legal protection) or through reverse productplacement and the launch of the physical embodiment of the protobrand in the physical world (theHyperReal brand).

Research limitations/implications – This is an initial conceptual paper on virtual and HyperRealbrands. This study, which has no antecedents, highlights the need for further empirical inquiry. Thereverse product placement phenomenon may result in academics and practitioners to revise thetraditional models of building brands.

Originality/value – The paper introduces and defines virtual brands, both fictional andcomputer-synthesized, HyperReal brands and the reverse product placement phenomenon.

Keywords Brand definition, Brands, Virtual worlds, Brand equity, Reverse product placement, Film

Paper type Conceptual paper

IntroductionThe marketing literature has seen a gradual evolution of the brand concept from thetraditional perspective of a brand attached to a physical product as an identifyingsymbol or word that distinguishes it from its competitors, to a multi-dimensionalapproach which sees a brand as an abstract object or a set of associations in the mind

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm

Branding invirtual

environments

811

European Journal of MarketingVol. 46 No. 6, 2012

pp. 811-826q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0309-0566DOI 10.1108/03090561211214618

of the consumer (Gardner and Levy, 1955; Kapferer, 1997; Brown, 1992; Fournier, 1998;Keller, 2008).

However, most of the academic literature has limited itself to the study of brandingapplications in the real – i.e. the physical world – and ignored the powerful features ofvirtual and fictional brands, let alone the impact they might exert on the real world.This is a gap which this paper attempts to address. In this paper we make the case thatthe brand construct can be extended to imaginary objects in fictional orcomputer-synthesized environments, and that the nature of such brands warrantsexamination particularly in cases where they connect with the real physical world.

The concept of brand now connotes the “[. . .] simultaneously virtual and actual,abstract and concrete, a means of relativity and a medium of relationality” (Lury, 2004,p. 12). As much of the branding effort is psychological (Frazer, 1983) and is aboutshaping brand images as collection of perceptions in the mind of the consumers (Keller,2008), this paper contends that brands may be entirely created in a virtual or fictionalenvironment and may be then leveraged in the real world.

The intersection of the virtual or fictional and the real and its implications for brandmanagement are important for two reasons. First, the convergence of consumers’capacity to communicate using digital technologies, and the increasing functionalinteroperability of media technologies requires a more sophisticated interpretation ofbrands. Second, from a business perspective, early identification of brand potential invirtual worlds represents a commercial opportunity to exploit and/or a risk to mitigate.

Following a review of the literature on the evolution of the brand construct, a newclassification of brands is presented reflecting Lury’s bi-polar construct – the virtual,the real and those that exist at the intersection of the virtual and the real, the hyperreal.Virtual brands are further sub-divided into fictional and computer-synthesized and it issuggested that such brands sometimes lie outside the normal designation of brand,representing brand potential rather than brand reality; they are in effect,“protobrands”. It is proposed that “protobrands” can be leveraged and transformedinto registered trademarks which can derive revenue for their owners through aprocess sometimes called reverse product placement or, more accurately, reverse brandplacement. The managerial and theoretical consequences of this extension of thebranding paradigm are discussed at the end of the paper. A research agenda formarketing scholars is also provided.

Definitional issues: brands and branding in the real and in the virtualIn 1960, the American Marketing Association defined a brand as:

A name, term, sign, symbol, or design, or a combination of them, intended to identify thegoods or services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those ofcompetitors.

This definition and other traditional definitions equate a brand with a trademarkattached to a physical product. Typically marketing textbooks focus on the concept ofbrand as a selling device managed by the marketing team who use it as a means ofdifferentiation for the firm’s offering (Kotler and Keller, 2006). Such company-orienteddefinitions concentrate on the business purpose of branding which is to achieve acompetitive advantage and provide the brand owner with higher margins and acontinuous stream of income (Aaker, 1992).

EJM46,6

812

As academics began to recognize the emotional involvement of consumers with“their” brands (Fournier, 1998), the value of widening the brand construct to includeboth firm and consumer perspectives became apparent (Salzer-Morling andStrannegard, 2004). The brand is increasingly seen as a multidimensional construct,i.e. “a double vortex” (de Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Rilley, 1998a) that embodies thefirm’s functional and emotional values as well as the performance and psychosocialneeds of consumers (de Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley, 1998b). The emotional side ofthe brand construct corresponds to a collection of perceptions in the mind of theconsumer (Fournier, 1998).

In addition to a shift of emphasis from brand managers to consumers, this evolutionalso allowed for an expansion of the scope of branding. Initially confined to physicalgoods and services (Gardner and Levy, 1955), the brand concept can now be applied toa variety of entities such as corporations (Balmer, 2001), geographical places (Medwayand Warnaby, 2008), political parties (Reeves et al., 2006), movies (Byeng-Hee andEyun-Jung, 2005), and celebrities, e.g. “Madonna as a brand” (Brown, 2003).

Such a flexible use of brand terminology reveals a gradual change in the nature ofthe brand construct. Since Gardner and Levy (1955), the intangible and abstractcharacteristic of the brand has gradually been acknowledged (Levy, 1978; Keller, 1993),to the extent that a brand may sometimes be reduced to nothing more than the sum ofall the mental connections people have around it (Brown, 1992). Pushing the reasoningfurther one may ask whether a physical embodiment is still a necessity for a brand toexist, as long as the name, the symbol or the design triggers a set of associations in themind of the consumer?

For example, Abela (2003) has identified two kinds of interpretations of a brand:

(1) The additive interpretation, which depicts the product and brand as separate,with the brand as a mark that is added to the product.

(2) The inclusive interpretation which portrays the product and brand as acombined unit, where the product is included in the brand.

Could the additive interpretation of the brand imply that a product and a brand may becreated separately and managed independently without reliance on each other? It isinteresting to note that recent sociological work on branding puts forward the notion ofthe brand as an “interface that connects the producers and the consumers and removesor separates them from each other” (Lury, 2004, p. 7). This is because consumersdevelop relationships with the brand (Blackston, 2000) but not necessarily with theproducers (Kumar and Steenkamp, 2007). In fact, some commentators have suggestedthat “successful corporations must primarily produce brands, as opposed to products”(Klein, 2000, p. 3).

This dual evolution (“intangibilisation” and “consumer-focus”) of the brandconstruct coincides with new marketing practices facilitated by the technologicalevolution of the internet. In recent years, world wide web technology such as reallysimple syndication (RSS) and Web 2.0 applications such as blogs, microblogs,multi-user virtual environments and social networking websites, have re-balanced thetraditional asymmetry of information between brand managers and consumers to therelative benefit of the latter (Kozinets et al., 2008). These technological innovations callfor a new post-modern consumer branding model (Holt, 2002; Muzellec and McDonagh,2007; Simmons, 2008).

Branding invirtual

environments

813

New terminology such as “Branding 2.0” or “Web 2.0 branding” has emerged and isattempting to capture the multifaceted nature of a new brand building process(Mairinger, 2008; Christodoulides, 2009). For example, “Branding 2.0” is built aroundthree principles:

(1) an online brand community which is not just formed around the brand but ispart of the brand;

(2) a physical-virtual interface which is evidenced in both physical and virtualenvironments; and

(3) an underlying information system that collects and disseminatesconsumer-generated information (Mairinger, 2008).

This model reflects emergent practices for the management of brands in theinformation age. It underscores how brand managers are no longer in control of thebrands, but are merely brand hosts whose main role is to facilitate the sharing ofinformation about or around the brand among internet users.

In this new dominant logic for marketing, the customer is primarily an operantresource (co-producer) rather than an operand resource (“target”) (Vargo and Lusch,2004). In such a context, branding is envisaged as a dynamic concept that is evolvingover time through interaction between the firm and consumers, and throughindependent consumer activity which occurs through word of mouth at the level ofblogs (e.g. Blogger), social networks (e.g. Facebook), video sharing sites (e.g. YouTube),and open multi-user virtual environments (e.g. Second Life).

Although novel and relevant, this model fails to capture fully the theoretical andmanagerial implications of brands comprised totally of intangible benefits. Free fromthe constraint of physical embodiment, the brand sphere may expand beyond realityinto the virtual. If the brand is no longer a product and only acquires value once it is aset of perceptions in consumers’ minds, then the argument could be made that brandsneed not be born out of a tangible good but could come out of fictional orcomputer-synthesized environments which capture consumers’ imagination.

The worlds of branding: the real, the virtual (computer-synthesized) and the fictionalWe have identified two types of platforms which may support the representation of abrand disconnected from the real, tangible world.

First of all, there is the fictional world which is a representation of imaginary worldsthat may mimic reality such as in the case of soap operas, or that may deliberatelyextrapolate into worlds which are demonstrably different from reality such as abstractart, science fiction etc. Both of these cases share in common the fact that therepresentations are not reality. As Belgian painter Rene Magritte reminds us throughhis famous painting “The treachery of images” (La trahison des images, 1928-1929),images are not the reality[1]. This fictional world may be manifest in traditional mediasuch as books, movies, television series and theatre. In the fictional world, consumers’influence on the story is limited as they are not actors in this world but simple readersor observers of the fiction.

Second, the virtual world (which will be called the computer-synthesized worldhereafter to distinguish it from the fictional world) is “an animated, nonexistent virtualworld synthesized by a computer” (Steur, 1995). Virtual worlds are platforms thatreplicate a three dimensional environment in which users can appear in the form of

EJM46,6

814

personalized avatars and interact with each other as they would in real life. Virtualworlds include virtual game worlds and virtual social worlds. The user is active andinvolved both in virtual game and virtual social worlds but the degree of users’influence on those worlds varies. In the case of virtual game worlds or multiplayeronline role-playing games (MMORPG, e.g. World of Warcraft), the user cannot modifythe world and is required to behave according to strict rules. In the case of virtual socialworlds, however, the user may sometimes, literally shape the world when it is an opensource system such as the virtual world called “Second Life” (Kaplan and Haelein,2009).

For a long time, the activity of branding in those worlds has been limited to thepractice of placing real brands in those abstract environments. This practice is knownas product placement or more accurately described in academic circles as “brandplacement” (Karrh, 1998). Brands may be placed in fictional worlds such as movies orin virtual worlds such as video games (Lee and Faber, 2007), or virtual social worlds(Kaplan and Haelein, 2009).

Most studies on brand placement have analysed its effect on brand attitude andbrand recall (see Balasubramanian et al., 2006, for a comprehensive review). Manystudies have reported some positive effects on audience memory for placed brands(Karrh, 1998; Law and Braun, 2000; Yang et al., 2006), but a limited or even negativeimpact on attitude under certain conditions (Schemer et al., 2008; Homer, 2009).

Interestingly, in a qualitative study on the meaning of brand placement formoviegoers, DeLorme and Reid (1999) observed the value of realism as audiencesappreciated the realism that real brands brought to the movie. In other words, thepractice of product placement is about bringing the reality of products/brands into anabstract fictional or virtual world. This paper argues that this is only one way ofconsidering the relationship between fiction and reality and that brands may be realbut also fictional and virtual, i.e. projections of reality in a fictional world or indeedprojections of the imaginary in the real world (reverse product placement (see Figure 1).

Arguably, projections of real brands in computer-synthezied and fictional worldsare merely a representation of product placement. This phenomenon has beenextensively discussed and studied in the area of on-line and video games (e.g. Nelson,

Figure 1.Framework for the study

of real, fictional andvirtual brands

Branding invirtual

environments

815

2002; Lee and Faber, 2007) and fictional environments (e.g. Gould et al., 2000; Wiles andDanielova, 2009), but this is not the subject of this paper. Instead, the objective of thispaper is to articulate a new concept – that of virtual brands initiated in fictional andcomputer-synthesized worlds, to suggest their relevance for brand managers and topropose a research agenda on this new topic for the academic community.

A note on the methodologyBased on our review of the literature, we propose a new typology to help us understandthe range of brands that may exist on a spectrum from real to fictional or virtual. Thisframework is illustrated in Figure 2 and it identifies four types of brands based on theorigins of the brand and the world in which it exists. Those four categories arepresented in four quadrants in Figure 2. Quadrants A and C represent productplacement and includes most brands as we currently experience them and, as pointedout already, they have already been well studied in the literature. Our purpose,therefore, is to investigate quadrant B (fictional and virtual brands in abstract worlds)and quadrant D (fictional or virtual brands in the real world).

We have collected names of brands to illustrate the two latter categories (B and D).The list that is currently available at Wiki list is quite comprehensive although notexhaustive (http://list.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_fictional_brands as accessed on 15 June2010). Under the term “defictionalised brands”, many internet websites propose a list ofvirtual brands which are now available as real products; for example:

. http://delicious.com/murketing/imaginarybrands (as accessed on 15 June 2010).

. www.buzzfeed.com/buzz/Defictionalized_Goods (as accessed on 15 June 2010).

In addition to those lists, a number of twitter users regularly send tweets about newson the topic of fictional brands (in particular @defictionalized and @defictionalised) orthe blog of Justin Kirwood (www.notarealthing.com as accessed on 15 June 2010).

Using those resources, we have identified more than 250 fictional and virtual brands(quadrant B) and found 25 examples of reverse brand placement (quadrant D). Weanalyse these two categories in the following sections and illustrate this analysis byusing the relevant examples. As the purpose of this study is to describe a phenomenonand set up a research agenda rather than develop a new theory, a limited number of

Figure 2.Typology of brands in realand virtual worlds

EJM46,6

816

examples were chosen and briefly developed on the merit of their informative value(Flyvbjerg, 2006).

Quadrant B – purely virtual: the emergence of protobrandsPurely virtual brands include fictional or computer-synthesized brands and exist solelyin the imagination of the perceiver.

Initially, fictional brands were often used to minimize the reliance on corporatesponsorship in artistic works. For example, to affirm the non-conformist nature of hismovies, film director, Quentin Tarentino uses several fictional brands such as the fastfood brand, “Big Kahuna Burgers”, the cereal brand “Fruit Brute”, and “Red Apple”cigarettes in films such as Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill, and Four Rooms.

Looking specifically at the case of “Red Apple” cigarettes, Muzellec and McDonagh(2007) note that such brands may hold specific associations. “Red Apple” cigarettesderive “coolness” from characters such as “Butch Coolidge” (Bruce Willis) and “MiaWallace” (Uma Thurman), who smoke them in the film, Pulp Fiction. Hence, “RedApple” mimics the emotional characteristics of a genuine brand. Yet, it cannot bepurchased or consumed, at least not as cigarettes. It only exists in the imagination ofthe audience. To paraphrase Brown’s assertion, a purely fictional brand is literally“nothing but the sum of all the mental connections people have around it” (Brown,1992). Thus we define fictional brands as completely imaginary brands which, whileinvented, cannot be consumed.

Virtual, computer-synthesized brands are similar to fictional brands in that theyhave no referent in the real world. The difference is that they are not only invented andbut also consumed in the online world. Users can consume these virtual brands,although only in the computer-synthesized environment in which the brand exists. Forexample, players in computer games such as Grand Theft Auto can use virtualvending machines to purchase and consume virtual beverages with virtual money,such as “Sprunk” and “eCola”. These virtual brands are often reinforced within thevirtual world through in-game advertising on virtual billboards. Again, while there aremental connections with the brand, the entire brand experience iscomputer-synthesized; the products to which the brand is attached cannot beconsumed in the real world nor can they generate monetary value in the real world.

Purely virtual brands, whether purely fictional or purely computer-synthesized, donot possess any realness, yet they can possess emotional value. Despite this emotionalvalue and equity, these brands only represent a potential which, unless acted upon inthe real world, has no economic value as this value cannot be realized without realworld interaction. We define such brands as protobrands; brands that have not been“tangibilized” or “productized” in the real physical world but which nonethelesscapture the imagination and emotional attachment of real consumers.

Evidence is also emerging of a new form of computer-synthesized brand that doesnot rely on a “real” product or service existing for commercial exploitation but whoseconsumption in the virtual results generates real monetary value in the real world. Forexample, “Aimee Weber” is the Second Life identity of Alyssa LaRoche. LaRochefounded a line of avatar fashions known as “ *Preen *” anchored by her in-world avatarpersona “[. . .] as an outrageously brash, flirty, vaguely tipsy ballerina with bluebutterfly wings” (Au, 2008). LaRoche established a number of in-world stores to sell the“ *preen *” fashion line to other Second Life members and promotes these products

Branding invirtual

environments

817

widely in-world. In August 2006, the 20 best-selling Second Life fashion designers,including LaRoche, generated a combined US$140,466 in sales (LaVallee, 2006). It isimportant to note that LaRoche’s sales are concluded in-world using Linden Dollars,the Second Life currency, which can then be used to purchase other virtual productsand services or can be exchanged for US dollars.

In November 2008, “Aimee Weber” became the first avatar with a registeredtrademark for virtual content and services. The “Aimee Weber” brand is significant fora number of reasons, not least that it has legal protection in the real world yet its brandequity and commercial value are generated entirely in the computer-synthesized worldof Second Life. LaRoche may never license or produce physical clothing products underthe “Aimee Weber” brand in the real world; however her rights to do so in the virtualworld are protected. It is important to note that “Aimee Weber” is no longer aprotobrand; it is a brand with a registered trademark, it matches the firm’s functionaland emotional values with the performance and psychosocial needs of consumers (deChernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley, 1998a, b), and generates real economic value asvirtual currency paid for “Aimee Weber” branded products can be converted to hardcurrency via the Linden Dollar Exchange.

Quadrant D – the emergence of HyperReal brandsIn this section, we discuss the phenomenon where protobrands are acted upon and, byinteracting with the real world, are no longer merely virtual brands but aretransformed into an autonomous interactive brand that exists in both the real andvirtual worlds, a HyperReal brand (Figure 3).

Figure 3.HyperReal brands arebrands that interact andgenerate brand equity inboth real and virtualworlds

EJM46,6

818

HyperReal fictional brandsHyperReal fictional brands are brands which are both fictional and real. As seenearlier, product placement is a process whereby a concrete brand (the real) is placed ina fictional or virtual environment (the abstract). In contrast, reverse product placementrefers to creating a fictional brand in a fictional environment and then placing it intothe real world (Edery, 2006). In an early example of reverse product placement, the TVseries Cheers was set in a friendly Boston bar inspired a chain of restaurants controlledby US Marriott and Paramount Pictures. The Bubba Gump Shrimp Co., a chain ofseafood restaurants was inspired by the 1994 film Forrest Gump. The first BubbaGump’s restaurant was opened in 1996 in Monterey, California by Viacom ConsumerProducts; the franchise now counts 31 restaurants. More recent examples include DuffBeer (from the animated TV series The Simpsons), Brawndo drink (from the filmIdiocracy), or Sex Panther cologne (from the film Anchorman). The phenomenon is notlimited to the western world. The initially fictional restaurant brand, “Long Quan ShanZhuang ( )”, from the TV series “Liu Lao Gen ( )” is now one of China’sfavourite restaurant chains.

HyperReal computer-synthesized brandsThe second type of HyperReal virtual brands are those which exist both in thecomputer-synthesized world (video game and virtual worlds) and in the real world. Thesimplest form of HyperReal brands are merely licensed by the creator of thecomputer-synthesized brand to a third party for exploitation in the real world. InSquare Enix’s popular videogame, Final Fantasy, gamers revitalize their in-worldwarrior avatars by drinking an herbal potion. Final Fantasy, first introduced as a gameconsole role-playing game in 1987, has become the focus of a media franchise whichincludes other game vehicles, animated feature films and print adaptations. It is thefifth best-selling video game franchise with over 85 million units sold (Square Enix,2009). Suntory, Japan’s leading beverage producer created an energy drink andlicensed the “Final Fantasy Potion” brand for marketing purposes. In this way, SquareEnix, is able to economically exploit the unintended brand equity of the Final Fantasypotion.

Equally, companies may gauge consumer interest in a future product or service byfirst seeking to establish brand equity in a computer-synthesized world and thentransferring it to real products. For example, in 2006, Starwood Hotels built, previewedand collected feedback about its new brand of hotel, “Aloft” in Second Life, a yearbefore opening the real one ( Jana, 2006). Hosea (2007) suggests that this method ofproduct introduction is an excellent way to inform consumers without the cost andhassle of an actual product launch. It is also a good way to test a beta version andintegrate customers’ views prior to the product launch. For this reason, this process issometimes equated with “crowdsourcing”, a coined termed for an online, distributedproduction model (Brabham, 2008).

Triple-play brandsTriple-play brands are brands that exist in fictional, computer simulated and realworlds. A recent example of a triple-play brand is “Bertie Bott’s Every Flavor Beans”, aconfectionary product first introduced as a protobrand in the Harry Potter books. Theprotobrand translated to a HyperReal brand with the production of real candy

Branding invirtual

environments

819

manufactured by Cap Candy, a division of Hasbro. These fictional jelly beans alsomigrated from the fictional world of the Harry Potter books to a series of verysuccessful films, where they were visualised, and then to interactive video games,where game players collected, consumed or used the beans as currency to purchaseother products within the computer-synthesized world of Harry Potter. Furthermore,internet rumours suggest that Warner Brothers are developing a MMPORG of theHarry Potter world which presumably will feature the aforementioned confectionary(Coding the Wheel, 2009). Here emotional attachments formed by readers and viewersis reinforced by having a more prominent role in the computer-simulation of a videogame and is leveraged in the real world by Cap Candy product, creating a virtuouscircle of brand reinforcement.

Discussion: protobrands, an opportunity to exploit, a risk to mitigateAll of the examples in quadrant D represent protobrands that initially existed in thevirtual world and were ultimately tangibilized or productised in the real physicalworld. We argue that there is a significant economic incentive related to the earlyidentification and protection of protobrands, particularly for media companies, evenwhere such potential is identified as a by-product of a master brand. For example,“Duff Beer” is a fictional brand of beer in the popular animated television series, TheSimpsons. It is a secondary brand to the master brand The Simpsons and exists tofurther a fictional narrative. While recognized by television audiences worldwide,“Duff Beer”, as presented in The Simpsons, could not be consumed by them.

Warner Brothers, the owners of The Simpsons, do not have interests in the brewingindustry and merchandising opportunities for an alcoholic beverage associated with ananimated television series watched by millions of children may be perceived asunethical. As such, Warner Brothers chose not to act on the potential of “Duff Beer” asa brand in the alcoholic beverage market and did not register “Duff Beer” as atrademark for such activity. In an article from 2007, a representative for 20th CenturyFox asserted that there were no plans to release a “Duff Beer” product: “It doesn’tsound like something the Simpsons would do” (Wasserman, 2007). However, anentrepreneur in Mexico, Rodrigo Contreras, managed to register the trademark inMexico. Subsequently, the brewery Haacht in Belgium produced and successfullymarketed a real beer with a real taste and while it did not feature any reference to TheSimpsons, the packaging was similar enough that when combined with thebrand-name, it attracted those consumers with emotional connections to The Simpsons.

Warner Brothers’ fictional brand still has potential, although somewhat impaired,but Contreras owns the trademarked brand which is deriving economic value forContreras and not for Warner Brothers This example illustrates that, whileprotobrands may have economic consequences, they are not economically valuable inthemselves unless acted upon in the real world. Considering that a beer brand, such asBudweiser, can have a brand valuation of over US$11 billion (Businessweek, 2009),“Duff Beer” serves as a cautionary tale to highlight the importance of identifyingprotobrands as early as possible and, where possible, of protecting those protobrandsfor future applications. It may also be that, where protobrands can be identified, a lessexpensive brand development strategy may be to develop that brand in acomputer-synthesized environment such as Second Life and, similar to the case of“Aimee Weber”, seek legal protection for the brand in the virtual environment. While

EJM46,6

820

protection against passing off in the real world may be limited by such a manoeuvre, itmay serve as a signal of intent to others seeking to exploit the protobrands withoutcompensation to the original creator of the protobrand.

Conclusion and research agenda for the study of virtual brandsFollowing a review of the literature on the brand construct and branding models, a newtypology of brands is offered based on the virtual, the real and those that exist at theintersection of the virtual and the real, the HyperReal. The concept of virtual brands isdefined and illustrated both fictional and computer-synthesized worlds. These brandsmay sometimes lie outside the normal meaning of the term, as they represent brandpotential as opposed to brand reality, and are therefore “protobrands”. From a businessperspective, the authors present the case of “Duff Beer” to illustrate that earlyidentification of brand potential in virtual worlds represents a commercial opportunityto exploit, or a risk to mitigate.

The research agenda following from the implications of virtual reality for the brandconstruct and branding theory is still in the early stages of conceptualization anddevelopment. These extensions to the concept of branding open up new researchopportunities in the field of brand marketing, brand equity and consumer-brandrelationship.

Research on traditional brand marketing has shown that positive synergiesemerged from using various marketing communication channels (Naik and Raman,2003). Some possible research questions for virtual brands include:

(1) What are the critical marketing communication factors (scale of the audience,characteristics of media vehicle, characteristics of the brand, and timeframe ofthe media plan) for a virtual brand to be successfully productised andcommercialised?

(2) Which media vehicles are the most cost effective for launching and establishingvirtual brands and why?

(3) To what extent can a protobrand be leveraged without reference to its masterbrand (i.e. the media vehicle) in which it first appeared?

(4) What is the level of congruence/ divergence between the media vehicle (e.g.brand personality of the movies, computer game etc.) and the virtual brand?

Traditional brand equity can be measured at consumer level, i.e. consumer-basedbrand equity (Keller, 1993, 2008), product-market level (e.g. Sivakumar and Raj, 1997;Park and Srinivasan, 1994) and financial market level (Keller and Lehmann, 2006). Forvirtual brands, those assertions translate in the following research questions:

(1) How do we measure consumer-based brand equity for virtual brands?

(2) What is the effect of “productisation” on consumer-based brand equity (inparticular on brand associations)?

(3) What are the best approaches to track brand performance of virtual brands?

(4) How can the financial value of a potential brand (protobrand) be assessed?

Brand transgression, defined as a violation of the implicit or explicit rules guiding therelationship between performance and evaluation has been identified as having a

Branding invirtual

environments

821

significant influence on the dynamics of the consumer-brand relationship (Aaker et al.,2004). As the consumer’s emotional attachment to virtual brands has developed on thepremise that the brand was solely virtual, some fundamental research questionsinclude:

(1) Does the act of “productisation” of the virtual brand constitute a transgression?

(2) If yes, what is the impact of such transgression on brand-consumers dynamics?

Although this initial contribution reports some interesting findings, it is not withoutlimitations. It is primarily a practical contribution and because it has no antecedents,the research agenda is broad. However the research agenda will narrow as academicsstart to study empirically the topic of virtual and fictional brands. The convergencebetween media and technology may also have theoretical and managerial implicationsthat go beyond the field of marketing.

Note

1. The picture shows a pipe. Below it, Magritte painted, “Ceci n’est pas une pipe”, French for“This is not a pipe.” The painting is not a pipe, but rather an image of a pipe, which wasMagritte’s point.

References

Aaker, D.A. (1992), “The value of brand equity”, Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 13 No. 4,pp. 27-32.

Aaker, J.L., Fournier, S. and Brasel, A.S. (2004), “When good brands do bad”, Journal ofConsumer Research, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 1-16.

Abela, A. (2003), “Additive versus inclusive approaches to measuring brand equity: practical andethical implications”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 342-52.

Au, W.J. (2008), The Making of Second Life, Harper Collins, New York, NY.

Balasubramanian, S.K., Karrh, J.A. and Patwardhan, H. (2006), “Audience response to productplacements: an integrative framework and future research agenda”, Journal of Advertising,Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 115-41.

Balmer, J.M.T. (2001), “Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate marketing: seeingthrough the fog”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 3/4, pp. 248-91.

Blackston, M. (2000), “Observations: building brand equity by managing the brand’srelationships”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 40 No. 6, pp. 101-5.

Brabham, D.C. (2008), “Crowdsourcing as a model for problem solving”, Convergence: TheInternational Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 75-90.

Brown, G. (1992), People, Brands and Advertising, Millward Brown International, New York, NY.

Brown, S. (2003), “Material girl or managerial girl? Charting Madonna’s brand ambition”,Business Horizons, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 2-10.

Businessweek (2009), “100 best global brands 2009”, Businessweek, No. 4148, pp. 50-6.

Byeng-Hee, C. and Eyun-Jung, K. (2005), “Devising a practical model for predicting theatricalmovie success: focusing on the experience good property”, Journal of Media Economics,Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 247-69.

Christodoulides, G. (2009), “Branding in the post-internet era”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 9 No. 1,pp. 141-4.

EJM46,6

822

Coding the Wheel (2009), “Summoning the Harry Potter MMORPG”, Coding the Wheel, 21 July,available at: www.codingthewheel.com/archives/summoning-the-harry-potter-mmorpg(accessed 24 April 2009).

de Chernatony, L. and Dall’Olmo Rilley, F. (1998a), “Modeling the components of a brand”,European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32 Nos 11/12, pp. 1074-90.

de Chernatony, L. and Dall’Olmo Riley, F. (1998b), “Defining a ‘brand’: beyond the literature withexperts’ interpretations”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 14 Nos 4/5, pp. 417-43.

DeLorme, D.E. and Reid, L.N. (1999), “Moviegoers’ experiences and interpretations of brands infilms revisited”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 71-95.

Edery, D. (2006), “Reverse product placement in virtual worlds”, Harvard Business Review,Vol. 84 No. 12, p. 24.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006), “Five misunderstandings about case study research”, Qualitative Inquiry,Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 219-45.

Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumerresearch”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 343-73.

Frazer, C.F. (1983), “Creative strategy: a management perspective”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 12No. 4, p. 3641.

Gardner, B.B. and Levy, S.J. (1955), “The product and the brand”, Harvard Business Review,Vol. 33, January-February, pp. 33-9.

Gould, S.J., Gupta, P.B. and Grabner-Krauter, S. (2000), “Product placements in movies:a cross-cultural analysis of Austrian, French and American consumers’ attitudes towardthis emerging, international promotional medium”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 29 No. 4,pp. 41-58.

Holt, D.B. (2002), “Why do brands cause trouble? A dialectical theory of consumer culture andbranding”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 70-89.

Homer, P.M. (2009), “Product placements”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 21-31.

Hosea, M. (2007), “Fantasy brands on a reality check”, Brand Strategy, Vol. 212, pp. 24-9.

Jana, R. (2006), “Starwood Hotels explore Second Life first”, 23 August, available at: www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/aug2006/id20060823_925270.htm?chan¼innovation_branding_branding (accessed 24 April 2009).

Kapferer, J.N. (1997), Strategic Brand Management: New Approaches to Creating and EvaluatingBrand Equity, Kogan, London.

Kaplan, A.M. and Haelein, M. (2009), “Consumers, companies and virtual social worlds:a qualitative analysis of Second Life”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 36 No. 1.

Karrh, J.A. (1998), “Brand placement: a review”, Journal of Current Issues and Research inAdvertising, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 31-49.

Keller, K.L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity”,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 1-22.

Keller, K.L. (2008), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring and Managing BrandEquity, 3rd ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Keller, K.L. and Lehmann, D.R. (2006), “Brands and branding: research findings and futurepriorities”, Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 740-59.

Klein, N. (2000), No Logo, Random House, Toronto.

Kotler, P. and Keller, K.L. (2006), Marketing Management, 12th ed., Pearson, Prentice Hall, UpperSaddle River, NJ.

Branding invirtual

environments

823

Kozinets, R.V., Hemetsberger, A. and Jensen Schau, H. (2008), “The wisdom of consumer crowds:collective innovation in the age of networked marketing”, Journal of Macromarketing,Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 339-54.

Kumar, N. and Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M. (2007), Private Label Strategy: How to Meet the Store BrandChallenge, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

LaVallee, A. (2006), “Now, virtual fashion – Second Life designers make real money creatingclothes for simulation games players”, Wall Street Journal, 22 September, available at:www.americanapparel.net/presscenter/articles/20060922wsj.html (accessed 22 April2009).

Law, S. and Braun, K.A. (2000), “I’ll have what she’s having: gauging the impact of productplacements on viewers”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 12, pp. 1059-76.

Lee, M. and Faber, R.J. (2007), “Effects of product placement in on-line games on brand memory”,Journal of Advertising, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 75-90.

Levy, S.J. (1978), Marketplace Behavior, AMACOM, New York, NY.

Lury, C. (2004), Brands: The Logos of Global Economy, Routledge, New York, NY.

Mairinger, M. (2008), “Branding 2.0 – using Web 2.0 principles to build an open source brand”,Electronic Markets, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 117-29.

Medway, D. and Warnaby, G. (2008), “Alternative perspectives on marketing and the placebrand”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42 Nos 5/6, pp. 641-53.

Muzellec, L. and McDonagh, P. (2007), “‘Ceci n’est pas une brand!’: post-modernism and brandmanagement, the case of Red Apple Cigarettes”, 36th European Marketing Academy(EMAC), Reykyavik (ISL).

Naik, P.A. and Raman, K. (2003), “Understanding the impact of synergy in multimediacommunications”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 375-88.

Nelson, M.R. (2002), “Recall of brand placements in computer/video games”, Journal ofAdvertising Research, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 80-92.

Park, C.S. and Srinivasan, V. (1994), “A survey-based method for measuring and understandingbrand equity and its extendibility”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31 No. 2, p. 271.

Reeves, P., de Chernatony, L. and Carrigan, M. (2006), “Building a political brand: ideology orvoter-driven strategy”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 418-28.

Salzer-Morling, M. and Strannegard, L. (2004), “Silence of the brands”, European Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 38 Nos 1/2, pp. 224-38.

Schemer, C., Matthes, J., Wirth, W. and Textor, S. (2008), “Does ‘passing the Courvoisier’ alwayspay off? Positive and negative evaluative conditioning effects of brand placements inmusic videos”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 10, pp. 923-43.

Simmons, G. (2008), “Marketing to postmodern consumers: introducing the internet chameleon”,European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42 Nos 3/4, pp. 299-310.

Sivakumar, K. and Raj, S. (1997), “Quality tier competition: how price change influences brandchoice and category choice”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 71-84.

Square Enix (2009), “Square Enix announces Order of War, a new western-developed WWIIreal-time strategy game”, available at: http://release.square-enix.com/na/2009/04/16.html(accessed 24 April 2009).

Steur, J. (1995), “Defining virtual reality: dimensions determining telepresence”, in Biocca, F. andLevy, M.R. (Eds), Communication in the Age of Virtual Reality, Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 57-124.

EJM46,6

824

Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004), “Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 1-17.

Wasserman, T. (2007), “Forward thinkers push reverse product placement”, Brandweek, Vol. 48No. 5, p. 5.

Wiles, M.A. and Danielova, A. (2009), “The worth of product placement in successful films: anevent study analysis”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 4, pp. 44-63.

Yang, M., Roskos-Ewoldsen, D.R., Dinu, L. and Arpan, L.M. (2006), “The effectiveness of‘in-game’”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 143-52.

Further reading

Book, B. (2005), “Virtual world business brands: entrepreneurship and identity in massivelymultiplayer online gaming environments”, Social Science Research Network (SSRN).

Brown, S. (1995), Postmodern Marketing, Routledge, London.

Brown, S. (2006), “Recycling postmodern marketing”, The Marketing Review, Vol. 6, pp. 211-30.

Clark, H.H. and Brennan, S.E. (1991), “Grounding in communication”, in Resnick, L.B.,Levine, J.M. and Teasley, S.D. (Eds), Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, APABooks, Washington, DC, pp. 127-49.

Cohen, A. (2008), “The second life of Second Life”, Fast Company, Vol. 129, pp. 58-60.

Davies, G. and Chun, R. (2003), “The use of metaphor in the exploration of the brand concept”,Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 45-71.

Deleuze, G. (1992), Postscript on Societies of Control, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 3-7.

Jenkins, H. (2004), “The cultural logic of media convergence”, International Journal of CulturalStudies, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 33-43.

Jennings, C. (2008), “Second Life for virtual worlds?”, Computer Weekly, 16 December, pp. 10-12.

Kapferer, J.N. (1995), “Brand confusion: empirical study of a legal concept”, Psychology andMarketing, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 551-68.

Keller, K.L. (1998), “The effect of brand name suggestiveness on advertising recall”, The Journalof Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 48-57.

Messinger, P.R., Stroulia, E., Lyons, K., Bone, M., Niu, R.H., Smirnov, K. and Perelgut, S. (2009),“Virtual worlds – past, present, and future: new directions in social computing”, DecisionSupport Systems, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 204-28.

Muzellec, L. and Lambkin, M.C. (2008), “Corporate rebranding: implications for brandarchitecture management”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 283-99.

Nelson, M.R., Keum, H. and Yaros, R.A. (2004), “Advertainment or adcreep? Game players’attitudes toward advertising and product placements in computer games”, Journal ofInteractive Advertising, Vol. 5 No. 1.

Papagiannidis, S., Bourlakis, M. and Li, F. (2008), “Making real money in virtual worlds:MMORPGs and emerging business opportunities, challenges and ethical implications inmetaverses”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 75 No. 5, pp. 610-22.

Reeves, B.R. (1991), “Being there: the subjective experience of presence”, Presence: Teleoperatorsand Virtual Environments, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 262-71.

Sloan, P. (2005), “The virtual Rockefeller”, Business 2.0, Vol. 6 No. 11, p. 42.

Stern, B.B. (2006), “What does brand mean? Historical-analysis method and construct definition”,Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 216-23.

Branding invirtual

environments

825

Strizhakova, Y., Coulter, R.A. and Price, L.L. (2008), “The meanings of branded products:a cross-national scale development and meaning assessment”, International Journal ofResearch in Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 82-93.

Terashima, N. (2001), “The definition of HyperReality”, in Tiffin, J. and Terashima, N. (Eds),HyperReality: Paradigm for the Third Millennium, Routledge, New York, NY.

Terry, M. (2001), “When is a prop not a prop: the advantages of product placement”, SportsMarketing, Vol. 74, pp. 17-18.

Tiffin, J. (2001), “The HyperReality paradigm”, in Tiffin, J. and Terashima, N. (Eds),HyperReality: Paradigm for the Third Millennium, Routledge, New York, NY.

Weintraub, J. (2005), “Product placement is a super tradition in Hollywood”, Milwaukee JournalSentinel, available at: http://media.www.dailygamecock.com/media/storage/paper247/news/2005/03/03/TheMix/Product.Placement.Is.A.Super.Tradition.In.Hollywood-883964.shtml (accessed 23 June 2009).

About the authorsLaurent Muzellec is currently an Associate Professor of Marketing at ESSCA School ofManagement, France. His research interests pertain to the field of strategic brand management,corporate rebranding, and branding strategies in interactive and social media. His articles haveappeared in several international publications including Industrial Marketing Management,Marketing Theory, the Journal of Product and Brand Management and the European Journal ofMarketing. Laurent Muzellec is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:laurent.muzellec@essca.fr

Theodore Lynn is the Director of the Leadership, Innovation and Knowledge Research Centre(www.link.dcu.ie) at Dublin City University where he teaches at postgraduate level on StrategicManagement. He holds a PhD in Law from University College Dublin. Dr Lynn is leading aninterdisciplinary research project on multi-user virtual environments.

Mary Lambkin is Professor of Marketing at the UCD Smurfit School of Business, UniversityCollege Dublin. She is on the editorial boards of the Journal of Strategic Marketing. She haspublished in the Journal of Marketing, the International Journal of Research in Marketing and theEuropean Journal of Marketing.

EJM46,6

826

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints