Sampa Chakrabarty Lahiri.
SM Research Team
The service sector has dominated the economy of most
advanced capitalist societies for quite some time now but the
branding of services has received much less attention than what
it should have. While brands have long been at the heart of
business and marketing strategy, the principal focus has traditionally
been on “product” rather than “services”
brands and studies indicate that only 23 per cent of the world’s
top brands are services brands and that there are few models
to help managers develop service brands. Though the concept
of a brand is the same for both, there is a difference between
the execution of product and services brands. Branding plays
a special role in service companies because strong brands increase
customers’ trust of the invisible, enable them to better
visualize and to understand the intangible and reduce customers’
perceived financial, social or safety risk. In case of branding
of services it is the company, which is the primary brand with
the service characteristics differing from those of physical
goods and relying on employees’ actions and attitudes.
An
approach to branding of services
By applying David Aaker’s brand identity framework
(brand as product, organization, person and symbol) to the economic
classification of three types of goods (search, experience and
credence goods) and the 7Ps of services marketing (product,
price, place, promotion, physical evidence, process and people),
a comprehensive approach for branding of services can be offered.
In this the first 5Ps (product, price, place, promotion and
physical evidence) is mapped to Aaker’s “brand as
product”. The people dimension, along with organizational
culture, values and other issues are placed under “brand
as organization”. The process dimension is separately highlighted
as “brand as process” because the customer is intimately
involved in the process of delivering the service. “Brand
as person” and “brand as symbol” retain their
usual meaning in the new model. Thus modified, the Aaker model
is then related to the economic classification of three types
of goods.
Brand
as product Product
Most physical products are “search”
goods before buying which the customer searches through a lot
of information. Services tend to fall into the “experience”
and “credence” categories. A restaurant visit is an
“experience” product because the customer judges the
totality, from the food served to the manner in which it is
served and the ambience. Experience goods demand tangibles and
intangibles. A “credence” product, such as a visit
to a consultant, involves the greatest intangibility and is
mainly chosen for its reputation. For an experience or credence
good, the service provider can never be separated from the service.
Perceived risk is greatest for credence goods and least for
search goods.
Price
It is relatively
easy to cost a search good because the costs that go into producing
it are known (although competition, of course, changes the price
the customer must pay). Price setting is progressively more
difficult for experience and a “credence good”. Charging
a premium is difficult with search goods, and even with experience
goods, but easier with credence goods, where the customer tends
to be most concerned with quality.
Place
The customer is not usually prepared to
travel far for search goods. He or she will travel a reasonable
distance for an experience good like an amusement park. And
customers will often travel any distance to get the right person
for credence good. Distribution or franchising can be delegated
to an intermediary or franchisee for search goods, but this
is progressively harder for experience and credence goods.
Promotion
Advertisements for search goods tend to be quite
direct, and information-rich. Since intangibles play a greater
role in experience and credence goods, the t hrust of advertising
is less information-rich and more indirect. Word of mouth becomes
more important. The emphasis in credence goods is on customer
education. Physical evidence The need to offer physical evidence
is high in the case of search goods, and progressively lower
for experience and credence goods. Physical infrastructure is
important for search and experience goods, but less so for credence
goods. The core service (for example, the expertise of the consultant)
is more important than the supplementary elements (the waiting
room décor) for credence goods. Both aspects are important
for search and experience goods.
Brand
as process
Customer requirements can be standardized
for search goods through approaches like mass customization.
An experience good can also be standardized with time, although
it demands greater variation. A credence good involves much
more variation. At least some of the variables that contribute
to the performance of a search good can be separated from the
customer. In contrast, the customer cannot be separated from
an experience good. With a credence good, the customer’s
role is more ambiguous. For example, he or she provides the
consultant with inputs, but the consultant must be able to isolate
wrong from right clues.
Brand
as organization
The organization
must be product driven for search goods, innovation driven for
experience goods and knowledge driven for credence goods. The
skills needed become more varied and complex as one moves from
search goods, through experience goods, to credence goods. Employee
compensation also needs to be higher for credence goods, because
the depth and range of knowledge required are greater.
Brand
as person
The service provider
is routine problem solver for a search good, entertainer for
an experience good and advisor for a credence good. He or she
is a “doer” for search goods, doer and talker for
experience goods and thinker and doer for credence goods. The
personified search good becomes a friend, the personified experience
good is a spellbinder and the personified credence good is a
teacher. publsihed by Jaico Publishing. Feedback may be e-mailed
to smeditor@indiatimes.com.
TO
READ FURTHER... SUBSCRIBE
TO YOUR COPY TODAY!!!
Magazines