Introduction
The LOGMAN model:
Today’s markets are very turbulent and
a logical brand unstable. This not only asks for “matching”
management model strengths/weaknesses with the actual
opportunities/threats, but also for “patching”
(continuously changing portfolios and
Marc Logman competencies) (see Eisenhardt and Brown, 1999).
It is not only about where a company should be or
what it should be, but also about how it should
proceed (Eisenhardt and Sull, 2001). In their
epilogue (summary) of a special issue on exploring
marketing planning, Saunders et al. (1996)
observe that strategic marketing planning should
help organizations to cope better with the
environment.
As markets and environments become more
sophisticated and the amount of external
The author influences grows, the driving forces of brand
and customer equity become more complex
Marc Logman is a Professor at EHSAL, Brussels, Belgium.
as well. A company may deal with this in
Keywords two ways:
(1) It may accept that all these influences are
Brand management, Brand equity, Balanced scorecard,
mainly uncontrollable. This would imply
Marketing mix
that the company adapts itself to the
Abstract future and uses a reactive brand strategy. In
the best case, it may deal with different
Proposes a model that combines the proactive and reactive
nature of brand management. It is called the logical brand scenarios.
management model, abbreviated to the LOGMAN model. More (2) It may, however, perceive all these influences
specifically it combines insights from: Kaplan and Norton’s as partly controllable. This would imply that a
balanced scorecard method; BCG’s brand value creation method;
company tries to shape the future by
the path analysis method; the gap analysis method; and the
influencing the perception customers have of
house of quality (QFD) method. It allows one to perform a logical
the market, the competitive situation and the
brand consistency audit at several levels. It evaluates whether
environment. Using this kind of proactive
customer perceptions of the company’s brand drivers and the
brand strategy, a company may influence the
external brand drivers are in line with the company’s brand
objectives. Furthermore, it analyzes the logical consistency of the occurrence of a certain scenario.
company’s brand policy across multiple customer segments and
In this article a model is proposed that combines
over time.
the proactive and reactive nature of brand
Electronic access management. It is called the logical brand
management model, abbreviated the LOGMAN
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is
model. More specifically it combines insights
available at
from:
www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
Kaplan and Norton’s balanced scorecard
.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
method;
available at
BCG’s brand value creation method;
.
www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm
the path analysis method;
.
the gap analysis method; and
.
the house of quality (QFD) method.
.
First, the different methods, underlying the logical
brand management model, will be explained. In a
second stage the linkages between these methods
will be shown. In a third stage, all these methods
will be integrated into one strategic framework,
Journal of Product & Brand Management
called the logical brand management model.
Volume 13 · Number 2 · 2004 · pp. 94-104
Finally, the logical consistency of the model is
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited · ISSN 1061-0421
discussed at several levels.
DOI 10.1108/10610420410529726
94

The LOGMAN model: a logical brand management model Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 13 · Number 2 · 2004 · 94-104
Marc Logman
Explanation of the different methods The four perspectives are linked to each other
through causal or spurious relationships. In case of
(underlying the logical brand
a causal relationship, one variable has a causal
management model)
impact on another variable (direct or indirect
through a third variable). In case of a spurious
The logical brand management model explained
(noncausal) relationship, the two variables studied
later in this article, is mainly based on the
are both affected by a third variable at the same
principles of the balanced scorecard.
time. This third variable may be controlled by or
may be exogenous to the company (Logman,
1995a,b, pp. 2-3, 22-25; Campbell, 2002)[1].
Balanced scorecard
For instance, recent research has shown that
In the balanced scorecard method, introduced by
increasing customer satisfaction (customer
Kaplan and Norton (1992, 1993), different
perspective) may increase profitability up to a
performance measures are evaluated at four
certain point (financial perspective). After this
perspective levels (as indicated in Figure 1):
point (for instance more than 95 per cent
(1) The financial perspective (for instance ROI).
satisfaction) the extra efforts to increase the
(2) The customer perspective (for instance
satisfaction level outweigh the benefits (see
customer satisfaction/loyalty).
Copernicus Mzine, 2002b). Various other
(3) The process (internal business) perspective
examples illustrate the possible linkages between
(for instance time, quality and cost of
the different perspectives in the balanced
delivery).
scorecard. For instance, a mass customization
(4) The innovation and growth perspective (for
strategy (process perspective) facilitates cash flow
instance percentage of sales from new
(financial perspective), because goods are sold and
products).
at least partially paid for before they are produced
Companies do not necessarily lend equal weight to
(Berman, 2002). Or offering customizable
all four perspectives (see Olson and Slater, 2002).
solutions to customers, which offers the customers
It may be highly dependent on the strategy
the possibility to customize the product
followed. Product leaders will emphasize the
themselves, may allow the company to pursue both
innovation and learning perspective, customer
individual customer satisfaction (customer
intimates emphasize the customer perspective,
perspective) and cost efficiency (financial
while those pursuing an operational excellence
perspective) (Logman, 1997).
policy will focus on the process perspective (see
Besides relationships “between” the four
Slater et al., 1997; Treacy and Wiersema, 1993,
perspectives, relationships can be identified
1995). Niven (2002, p. 92, 107), however, states
“within” each perspective as well. For instance,
that although there may be a particular emphasis
there will be interactions between a company’s
on some perspectives, all perspective measures
processes. These interactions should show some
should reflect a company’s strategic direction. For
logical consistency. For instance, Amazon offers
instance, those pursuing a customer intimacy
the option of free shipping (lower price). In return
policy should be concerned with the perceived
customers have to wait a few days longer. These
service level of the targeted customers (customer
extra days allow Amazon to consolidate orders and
perspective), the efficiency and effectiveness of
save on shipping costs (Copernicus Mzine,
their CRM system (the process perspective), and
2002c).
customer knowledge (learning and growth
The four perspectives in the balanced scorecard
perspective).
may be extended to other perspectives. For
instance, a company may not only focus on the
Figure 1 Kaplan and Norton’s balanced scorecard customer perspective, but also on the perspective
of other stakeholders. This may lead to an
employee perspective, investor perspective and
public perspective (den Engelsen, 2002). Again, all
perspectives should be aligned, which is not always
obvious. For instance, investments in image
(related to the customer perspective) may have a
negative impact on profitability (related to the
investor perspective).
The balanced scorecard already has been linked
to other popular strategic tools. For instance, there
is a very clear link between the balanced scorecard
and Day and Wensley’s (1988) competitive
95

The LOGMAN model: a logical brand management model Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 13 · Number 2 · 2004 · 94-104
Marc Logman
Figure 2 Implementation of the balanced scorecard at the brand management level
advantage framework. Day and Wensley discuss
the causal linkages between sources (skills and
resources), positions (for instance low cost vs
differentiation) and outcomes. In the balanced
scorecard sources are defined at the learning
perspective level, positions are defined at the
process and customer perspective level and
outcomes are defined at the customer and financial
perspective level.
The balanced scorecard is based on goal
congruence throughout an organization and
therefore is partly similar to the management by
objectives method, introduced by Peter Drucker in
the early 1950s (Dinesh and Palmer, 1998). Both
methods are based on the development of strategic
measurements (linked to clear objectives) and on
collaboration between all organisation levels.
The balanced scorecard has many applications
in marketing management. For instance, the
strengths and weaknesses in a SWOT analysis may
be based on criteria of the four perspective levels
correspond to the financial perspective, brand
(Lee and Sai On Ko, 2000). Moreover, market
equity criteria to the customer perspective and
segmentation criteria may be derived from criteria
brand drivers to the process perspective. The
at the financial perspective level (for instance
company/brand strategy will drive the perspectives
customer profitability) and from criteria at the
customer perspective level (for instance customer and levels in both models.
attitudes) (Bock and Styles, 2002). Sources of brand equity may range from very
concrete attitudes/perceptions to more ephemeral
perceptions of benefits and values. Moreover, a
Implementing the balanced scorecard at the
distinction can be made between sources of brand
brand management level
equity at the corporate, product category and
Several brand management models have been
brand-specific level (Bong Na et al., 1999). In this
introduced in the literature, in particular models
context Maklan and Knox (1997) emphasize the
that measure brand equity and brand value (see
importance of the organization behind the brand,
Keller, 1997).
as customers seek a relationship with their
A brand management model that may be
suppliers rather than a relationship with an
perceived as an application of the balanced
abstract brand concept.
scorecard is the Boston Consulting Group’s brand
Another component in the model is brand
value creation model (Bixner et al., 2000). It
value. Different methods have been described in
focuses on four brand components and captures
several relationships between these components the literature to measure brand value (see Davis,
(as indicated in Figure 2): 2002; www.interbrand.com). In many of these
The relationship between the brand strategy
.
studies, brands are managed as assets. The brand
(decisions such as brand targeting and value is based on the net present value of projected
positioning) and the brand drivers (tactical brand earnings (or cash flows).
decisions such as the marketing mix). We already pointed out that there are causal
The relationship between the brand drivers
.
linkages “between” the four components of the
and brand equity (measured by the customers’ brand value creation model. Moreover, different
awareness, perception, preference and relationships will occur “within” each of the four
purchasing behavior). components. For instance brand awareness (a
The relationship between brand equity and
.
brand equity component) may directly affect the
the brand value (measured by increases in the consumer’s brand choice (another brand equity
price premium, increases in sales volume and component).
the brand value transferred to other products However, both the brand awareness and the
of the company’s portfolio). likelihood to buy may be affected by a third
variable, for instance a company’s product
As indicated in Figure 2, there is a clear
innovation efforts. This partly induces a spurious
relationship between the perspectives in the
relationship between the brand awareness and the
balanced scorecard and the components of the
brand value creation model. Brand value criteria likelihood to buy the brand.
96

The LOGMAN model: a logical brand management model Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 13 · Number 2 · 2004 · 94-104
Marc Logman
Finally, the magnitude and direction of these other marketing mix decisions. In other
kinds of relationships will highly depend on companies, the communication concept (for
moderating variables, such as market instance: “Nike is a way of life”) may precede the
characteristics. For instance, in a mature market, other marketing mix decisions. New products may
awareness may be irrelevant as an indicator of the be developed that are in line with the brand’s
likelihood to choose a brand, because in that stage communication concept.
all consumers are aware of all main brands in the Performing a gap analysis[2], different gaps may
market place (Mackay, 2001). be identified. There may be a gap between the
objective levels of the company’s brand drivers (its
marketing mix instruments) and the perceived
levels by customers. A lot of studies have been
The LOGMAN model: a logical brand written about this issue (Gijsbrechts and Logman,
management model 1996; Logman, 1995b). From these studies it
becomes obvious that important marketing mix
Using insights from gap analysis and quality
interaction effects may occur. For instance, the
function deployment, the logical brand
price level and communication content and budget
management model, which is referred to as the
may be perceived as indicators of product quality.
LOGMAN model (see Figure 3), extends and
A company may try to manipulate these kinds of
refines the brand value creation model at several
interactions. Buchholz and Wordemann (2000)
¨
levels:
illustrate this with Hallmark greeting cards.
It makes a distinction between the objective
.
Hallmark applies, what these authors call, the
levels of the company’s brand drivers
“guilty principle” in the following way: what if the
(processes) and the levels as perceived by the
person who gets your greeting card notices that he
customers and shows how these perceived
is not worth a “Hallmark”? What happens is that
levels may be influenced.
Hallmark tries to make price become part of the
It adds external brand drivers and shows how
.
value consumers assign to the product. In this way
these external drivers may be partly turned
the negative role of price (the budget barrier) may
into controllable drivers (processes).
be turned into a positive role (a buying motive).
It analyses customer perspectives for multiple
.
Companies sometimes introduce line
customer segments.
extensions in order to manipulate customers’
It integrates a learning perspective.
.
perceptions. For instance, adding a premium
Influencing customer perceptions of the version of a product may influence the price
company’s brand drivers and the external brand perception of customers towards the medium
drivers refers to the proactive nature of brand version. Some companies even add a premium
management. Integrating a learning perspective version, even if they are convinced it will not yield
refers to the reactive nature of brand management. good sales results, but simply because it will affect
Moreover, the logical brand management model the way customers perceive the price of the
allows analyzing the logical consistency of a medium version.
company’s brand strategy. Logical consistency It is quite obvious that in influencing customer
asks for a perfect alignment across the different perceptions, all brand drivers should be aligned.
perspectives and a perfect alignment within each of For instance, if communication overpromises the
these perspectives. brand’s benefits, meaning that the real quality level
is lower than the one communicated to the
customers, the latter will probably not buy the
(1) Influencing the customers’ perception of
brand a second time (Haynes et al., 1999).
the company’s brand drivers
Influencing customers’ perceptions of a
The company’s brand drivers in the LOGMAN
company’s brand drivers in order to minimize the
model (in Figure 3) refer to its marketing mix
gap between the objective and perceived levels of
instruments. The importance of each of these
these drivers is one issue. Minimizing the gap
drivers is dependent on company strategy (Treacy
between the customers’ expected levels of these
and Wiersema, 1993, 1995). Price is the central
drivers and the customers’ perceived levels of these
marketing mix instrument (driver) if a company
drivers is another one. Customers may have
pursues a cost leadership policy. The product
minimum requirements with respect to the
policy on the other hand is the key driver if a
performance levels of certain drivers. If these are
company pursues a product leadership policy. The
not fulfilled, they will not consider the brand as a
logical order of deciding on each of these
possible choice at all (Kotler et al. 2001, p. 219).
marketing mix instruments may differ from one
But customers may have maximum requirements
company to another as well. For instance, in many
as well. At a certain point in time they may perceive
companies product-related decisions precede any
97

The LOGMAN model: a logical brand management model Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 13 · Number 2 · 2004 · 94-104
Marc Logman
Figure 3 The logical brand management model (the LOGMAN model)
every extra effort to increase the performance level According to Christensen, companies may react
of a certain driver as redundant, implying that they to the problem of performance excess in several
are not willing to pay more for this extra effort. ways.
A first strategy could be one of retargeting (see
Therefore, at a certain point in time a company
also the learning perspective later in the article).
may show a performance excess on certain drivers
This would imply that the company focuses on
(Christensen, 1997a,b). This will often be
customer segments that still expect higher
accompanied by a shift of drivers, meaning that the
performance levels of the existing drivers. A
customers will consider a new driver, after their
second strategy would be one of inducing new
expected performance level on a previous decision
brand drivers. The third strategy would be one of
driver is reached. Of course, the expected
performance levels may differ from one segment to influencing customers’ expected performance
another. levels of existing drivers.
98

The LOGMAN model: a logical brand management model Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 13 · Number 2 · 2004 · 94-104
Marc Logman
environmental factors are starting to play a crucial
(2) Influencing the customers’ perception of
role in the marketing planning process.
the external brand drivers
Furthermore, it may be interesting to gain
In the LOGMAN model (Figure 3) external
insight into interactions between the
drivers are integrated as well. These drivers refer to
environmental market and competitive drivers
the competitive and market context in which the
(Gatignon and Soberman, 2002).
company’s brand will be evaluated. This context
may be controlled by the company to some extent
by manipulating its customers’ reference (3) Integrating perceptions and customer
framework (see Keller et al., 2002). For instance by equity criteria of different customer
mentioning the average market price near the segments
company’s price in the store, the company may In developing its brand strategy companies should
exercise some control on the customers’ relative also be aware of how their brand drivers are
price perception. The way customers develop perceived by different customer segments. In
decision criteria is also highly dependent on their reaching these different segments, intersegmental
perception of “the market” as such. “What is the conflicts or confusion should be avoided (see also
market?” is a key question. Or from the company’s Mitchell and Papavasiliou, 1999).
point of view: “what is our market?” and “what is We follow a reasoning similar to the one used in
the competition’s market?” the “house of quality method”. This method is a
This question can be related to the territory popular tool in quality function deployment. One
principle of Buchholz and Wordemann. By
¨ of the ideas in “the house of quality”, is that
defining your market (“this is our territory”) and requirements that are used to meet specific needs,
by pushing competitors in another territory (at may reinforce (or counteract) each other (Hauser
least in the customer’s mind), the customer’s and Clausing, 1988; Akao, 1990).
reference framework may be manipulated in the For instance, by lowering its prices a company
direction the company prefers. may attract new (price-sensitive) customers. At the
Besides redefining and refining current markets same time this may negatively affect the perception
(territories), companies may also expand their of current customers, who may feel misled, if this
price reduction takes place shortly after their
territory. Putting products in a broader market
purchase (see also Feinberg et al., 2002). Or it may
context, may affect the customer’s reference
negatively affect the quality perception of the
framework as well. Buchholz and Wordemann give
¨
current customers, who perceived price as an
the example of Wrigley, which positions chewing
indicator of quality (see Gijsbrechts and Logman
gum as an alternative for cigarettes. The general
(1996) for other examples).
message is that the customer still can eat chewing
In the same way, there should be a logical
gum in places where smoking is forbidden. This
alignment among segments in the company’s
example illustrates that the marketer should focus
objectives with respect to the value that customers
on particular contexts in which its brand may be
attribute to the brand. This is often measured by
used. By performing this kind of contextual
customer equity. Customer equity has three
marketing the marketer may try to influence the
drivers (Rust et al., 2000):
customer’s perceptions about certain contexts.
(1) Value equity, which is the customer’s objective
Besides influencing the customers’ market and
assessment of the usefulness of a brand, based
competitive drivers, a company may also try to
on the perceptions of what is given up for what
manage the environmental drivers of customers to
is received.
its own benefit. However, little is known about the
(2) Brand equity, which is the customer’s
dimensions customers use in evaluating aspects of
subjective and intangible assessment of the
the environment (Everett et al., 1994). In rapidly
brand, above and beyond its objectively
changing environments, it may be appreciated by
perceived value.
customers that companies not only “educate”
(3) Retention equity, which is the tendency of the
them about the product itself, but also about the
customer to stick with the brand, above and
environment in which the product operates (Waite
beyond the customer’s objective and
et al., 1999; Cooper, 2000). Companies hereby
subjective assessments of the brand.
may guide the customers’ perception about the
environment by “guiding” a public debate on it. The customer’s willingness to buy the brand will
Many CEOs, Bill Gates among others, even try to depend on the difference between the perceived
shape consumer expectations by writing books value (equity) and the price of the brand
about the future environment (Prahalad and (Anderson and Narus, 1999, pp. 5-7).
Ramaswamy, 2000). The rise of new marketing In trying to attract new customers, the company
concepts such as experience marketing, may focus on brand equity criteria such as brand
responsibility marketing, . . . indicates that awareness and brand associations (Keller, 1997).
99

The LOGMAN model: a logical brand management model Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 13 · Number 2 · 2004 · 94-104
Marc Logman
In trying to keep its current customers on the other the customer during the different stages of pre-
hand, a company may focus on retention equity purchase, purchase and post-purchase (Davis and
criteria such as customer satisfaction, the Dunn, 2002, pp. 58-61). Of course, a company
may also reach a point of hypersegmentation, in
customer’s lifetime, etc. (Pitt et al., 2000). Budget
which it becomes too costly for the company to
limitations may however, limit the combination of
address all customer segments in a different way
both objectives.
(using multiple sub-brands, multiple actions, etc.)
For instance, as the average age of some
(Mitchell and Papavasiliou, 1999). It may react to
companies’ customers continues to rise, these
this situation by looking for “synergetic” brand
companies may become anxious that there will be
drivers (with respect to the brand portfolio and the
no one to replace them and therefore may feel the
marketing mix), which allows the company to
pressure to attract younger people. It should ask
pursue both cost efficiency and customer segment
itself whether investing in marketing efforts to
effectiveness. For instance in a context of
attract younger customers is to the detriment of
simplicity marketing, the company will reduce the
efforts to increase customer satisfaction of current
number of sub-brands. Or, it will only introduce
customers (see Copernicus Mzine, 2002a).
new brand extensions that attract different
Finally, there should be a logical consistency in
customer segments (e.g. new and existing
the company’s brand portfolio, for instance if a
customers) at the same time.
company uses different sub-brands to reach
different customer segments.
(4) Integrating the learning perspective Implications: logical consistency at
In the previous sections, it was argued that several levels
companies should try to influence the customers’
perceptions of the company’s brand drivers and In this article principles of the balanced scorecard
the external brand drivers. This emphasizes the were applied at the brand management level. It
proactive nature of the LOGMAN model. The also integrated principles of gap analysis, path
model also has an inherent reactive nature, by analysis and QFD analysis.
integrating a learning perspective as in the The logical brand management model,
balanced scorecard. discussed in this article, allows the brand manager
More specifically customer segmentation is to perform a logical brand consistency audit by
perceived as a learning process. Customer answering the following questions:
segments may be refined all the time, based on the Is there a logical order and interaction
.
evaluation of the linkages between the process, between the company’s brand drivers?
customer and financial perspective. Segments can Are the “company’s brand drivers” perceived
.
be evaluated in terms of their share of the by the customers the way the company wants
company’s total sales volume, sales revenue, them to be (in line with the company’s brand
current and potential profitability. In terms of objectives)?
profitability, confronting revenue with the cost to Are the “company’s brand drivers” perceived
.
serve the segment or measuring customer value in by the customers the way the customers want
another way may be an interesting exercise. Similar them to be (in line with the customers’
to the brand value, defined earlier in this article, expectations)?
customer value can be defined as the net present Are the “external brand drivers” perceived by
.
value of future cash flows (resulting from the customers the way the company wants
transactions). CRM techniques such as them to be?
collaborative filtering (looking for customers with Is there a logical consistency between the
.
similar attitudes and behavior) allow the company company’s brand drivers (and related
to address its efforts to the different customer objectives) across the different customer
segments in a more effective way. For instance, segments that are adressed?
Reinartz and Kumar (2002) suggest that different
Is there a logical consistency between the
.
marketing techniques should be used, dependent
company’s brand objectives at the different
on the level of profitability and the long-term
perspective levels (for instance between the
potential of customers.
customer and financial perspective)?
In continuously refining customer segments, the
Is there a logical consistency between the
.
company moves from a segment-oriented
brand’s drivers (and related brand objectives)
approach to a one-to-one approach. When
over time (learning perspective)?
reaching individual customers over time, there
should be consistency across all brand It should be noted that finding root causes may be
touchpoints. These touchpoints are defined as the a key issue. This means that the company should
different ways (actions) the brand interacts with be able to identify the real problems and try to look
100

The LOGMAN model: a logical brand management model Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 13 · Number 2 · 2004 · 94-104
Marc Logman
2 In gap analysis methods, different possible gaps are
for common key drivers. For instance, it may find
evaluated at different levels of the marketing planning and
that many people are unaware of the product and
strategy process. The service quality model is one of the
current customers expect more. Product
well-known variants of the method (Parasuraman et al.,
innovation may for instance be the key driver to
1985). It deals with several gaps: for instance the gap
solve both problems. between the quality specified and the delivered quality, or
Moreover, the model proposed allows to analyze the gap between customer expectations and customer
a brand policy in a specific context. For instance, perceptions.
in times of recession, it may be necessary to lower
costs, by adjusting certain business processes. The
audit model may reveal what are the processes
(drivers) that only affect the financial perspective
References
and that do not affect the customer perspective
(e.g. the value of the brand to the customer) (see
Akao, Y. (1990), Quality Function Deployment: Integrating
McCarthy and Sutcliff, 2002). Or it may reveal
Customer Requirements into Product Design (translated by
how the company can increase the willingness of
Mazur, G.H.), Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA.
customers to buy the brand (the customer
Anderson, J.C. and Narus, J.A. (1999), Business Market
perspective) by reducing customer costs (purchase
Management. Understanding, Creating and Delivering
price, maintenance costs . . .) (see Lindner and
Value, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
McCarthy, 2002). Berman, B. (2002), “Should your firm adopt a mass
Finally, we note that the previous model may customization strategy?”, Business Horizons, Vol. 45 No. 4,
also be used as a tool to analyze the potential of pp. 51-60.
brand stretching. For instance, the more the brand Bixner, R., Hemerling, J. and Lachenauer, R. (2000), “Managing
brands for value”, in Silverstein, M.J. and Stalk, G. (Eds),
provides emotional benefits rather than product-
Breaking Compromises, The Boston Consulting Group,
specific functional benefits (equity at the customer
John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, pp. 138-43.
perspective level) and the more the company feels
Bock, T. and Styles, C. (2002), “Growing segmentation trees for
there may synergies both at the cost and revenue
strategic advantage”, Business Horizons, Vol. 45 No. 2,
side (the financial perspective), the higher the
pp. 17-22.
likelihood of being able to stretch the brand into
Bong Na, W., Marshall, R. and Keller, K.L. (1999), “Measuring
other product categories (Davis and Dunn, 2002, brand power: validating a model for optimizing brand
p. 210). equity”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 8
No. 3, pp. 170-84.
Buchholz, A. and Wordemann, W. (2000), What Makes Winning
¨
Brands Different? The Hidden Method behind the World’s
Challenge for future research Most Succesful Brands, John Wiley & Sons, Chicester.
Campbell, D. (2002), “Putting strategy hypotheses to the test
It is quite obvious that a similar exercise in with cause-and-effect analysis”, Balanced Scorecard
Report, September-October, pp. 3-4.
integrating different methods cannot only be
Christensen, C.M. (1997a), “Making strategy: learning by
applied at the brand management level, but also at
doing”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 75 No. 6,
the strategic (corporate) marketing management
pp. 141-56.
level. For instance, the analysis of competencies,
Christensen, C.M. (1997b), The Innovator’s Dilemma: When
organizational structure and performance analysis,
Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail, Harvard Business
which often form part of the internal analysis of a School, Boston, MA.
strategic marketing plan, are related to the learning Cooper, L. (2000), “Strategic planning for radically new
and growth perspective in the balanced scorecard. products”, Journal of Marketing, January, pp. 1-16.
The external analysis of the strategic marketing Copernicus Mzine (2002a), April, available at:
plan can be related to the customer and external www.copernicusmarketing.com/about/mzine/mothlyeds
Copernicus Mzine (2002b), October, available at:
process perspective. The tactical part of a strategic
www.copernicusmarketing.com/about/mzine/mothlyeds
marketing plan (marketing mix actions) can be
Copernicus Mzine (2002c), December, available at:
related to the internal process perspective. The
www.copernicusmarketing.com/about/mzine/mothlyeds
overall strategy and the evaluation of a strategic
Davis, S. (2002), “Brand asset management: how businesses can
marketing plan are related to measures used at the
profit from the power of the brand”, Journal of Consumer
four perspective levels.
Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 351-8.
Davis, S.M. and Dunn, M. (2002), Building the Brand-Driven
Business, Operationalize Your Brand to Drive Profitable
Notes Growth, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Day, G. and Wensley, R. (1988), “Assessing advantage: a
framework for diagnosing competitive superiority”,
1 By means of a path analysis, it is possible to determine
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 1-20.
what part of the correlation (relationship) between two
den Engelsen, B. (2002), “De brand balanced scorecard:
variables is due to causal relationships and what part is
merkprestaties meten en gericht verbeteren”, MEC
due to spurious relationships (see Logman, 1995a;
Marketeer, September, pp. 16-19.
Logman, 1995b, pp. 2-3, 22-25).
101

The LOGMAN model: a logical brand management model Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 13 · Number 2 · 2004 · 94-104
Marc Logman
Dinesh, D. and Palmer, E. (1998), “Management by objectives Mackay, M.M. (2001), “Evaluation of brand equity measures:
further empirical results”, Journal of Product & Brand
and the balanced scorecard: will Rome fall again?”,
management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 38-51.
Management Decision, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 363-9.
Maklan, S. and Knox, S. (1997), “Reinventing the brand: bridging
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Brown, S.L. (1999), “Patching: restitching
the gap between customer and brand value”, Journal of
business portfolios in dynamic markets”, Harvard Business
Product & Brand Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 119-29.
Review, Vol. 77 No. 3, pp. 72-82.
Mitchell, V-W. and Papavasiliou, V. (1999), “Marketing causes
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Sull, D.N. (2001), “Strategy as simple
and implications of consumer confusion”, Journal of
rules”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 79 No. 1, pp. 107-16.
Product & Brand Management, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 319-39.
Everett, P.B., Pieters, R.G.M. and Titus, P.A. (1994), “The
Niven, P.R. (2002), Balanced Scorecard Step-by-Step: Maximizing
consumer-environment interaction: an introduction to the
Performance and Maintaining Results, John Wiley & Sons,
special issue”, International Journal of Research in
New York, NY.
Marketing, Vol. 11, pp. 97-105.
Olson, E.M. and Slater, S.F. (2002), “The balanced scorecard,
Feinberg, F.M., Krishna, A. and Zhang, Z.J. (2002), “Do we care
competitive strategy and performance”, Business
what others get? A behaviorist approach to targeted
Horizons, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 11-16.
promotions”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 39 No. 3,
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1985), “A
pp. 277-91.
conceptual model of service quality and the implications
Gatignon, H. and Soberman, D. (2002), “Competitive response
for future research”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 No. 4,
and market evolution”, in Weitz, B. and Wensley, R. (Eds),
pp. 41-50.
Handbook of Marketing, Chapter 6, Sage Publications,
Pitt, L.F., Ewing, M.T. and Berthon, P. (2000), “Turning
London, pp. 126-47.
competitive advantage into customer equity”, Business
Gijsbrechts, E. and Logman, M. (1996), “Interacties en
Horizons, September-October, pp. 11-18.
interrelaties tussen prijs, kwaliteit en communicatie: een
Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2000), “Co-opting customer
overzicht en kritische evaluatie”, Economisch en Sociaal
competence”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 78 No. 1,
Tijdschrift, Vol. 4, pp. 673-706. pp. 79-87.
Hauser, J.R. and Clausing, D. (1988), “The house of quality”, Reinartz, W. and Kumar, V. (2002), “The mismanagement of
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 63-73. customer loyalty”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 80 No. 7,
Haynes, A., Lackman, C. and Guskey, A. (1999), “Comprehensive pp. 86-94.
brand presentation: ensuring consistent brand image”, Rust, R.T., Zeithaml, V.A. and Lemon, K.N. (2000), Driving Customer
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 8 No. 4, Equity: How Customer Life Time Value Is Reshaping
pp. 286-300. Corporate Strategy, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1992), “The balanced scorecard – Saunders, J., Saker, J. and Smith, G. (1996), “Afterword: an
measures that drive performance”, Harvard Business agenda for research into strategic marketing planning”,
Review, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 71-9. Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 12 No. 1,
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1993), “Putting the balanced pp. 215-30.
scorecard to work”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 71 Slater, S.F., Olson, E.M. and Reddy, V. (1997), “Strategy-based
No. 5, pp. 134-47. performance measurement”, Business Horizons, Vol. 40,
Keller, K.L. (1997), Strategic Brand Management: Building, July-August, pp. 37-44.
Measuring and Managing Brand Equity, Prentice-Hall, Treacy, M. and Wiersema, F. (1993), “Customer intimacy and
Englewood Cliffs, NJ. other value disciplines”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 71
Keller, K.L., Sternthal, B. and Tybout, A. (2002), “Three questions No. 1, pp. 84-93.
Treacy, M. and Wiersema, F. (1995), The Discipline of Market
you need to ask about your brand”, Harvard Business
Leaders, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Review, Vol. 80 No. 9, pp. 80-6.
Waite, T.J., Cohen, A.L. and Buday, R. (1999), “Marketing
Kotler, P., Armstrong, G., Saunders, J. and Wong, V. (2001),
breakthrough products”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 77
Principles of Marketing, 3rd European ed., Prentice-Hall,
No. 6, p. 32.
Harlow.
Lee, S.F. and Sai On Ko, A. (2000), “Building balanced scorecard
with SWOT analysis and implementing Sun Tzu’s art of
business management strategies on QFD methodology”, Further reading
Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 15 No. 1/2, pp. 68-76.
Lindner, J.C. and McCarthy, B. (2002), “When good management
Logman, M. (1996), “Information needs in a rapidly changing
shows: creating value in an uncertain economy”, Institute consumer environment: a survey among PC users”,
for Strategic Change, September, available at: working paper 96-230, DBE-UFSIA, University of Antwerp,
www.accenture.com June.
Logman, M. (1995a), “Path analysis as a methodological tool: an Logman, M. (2000), “Marketingplan, een stapsgewijs model met
application”, Cijfermatig Bekeken, Mys & Breesch, Gent, checklists, templates en tools”, Standaard Uitg,
pp. 175-98. Antwerpen.
Logman, M. (1995b), “Intrafirm marketing mix relationships: Swait, J. and Erdem, T. (2002), “The effects of temporal
analysis of their sources and modeling implications”, consistency of sales promotions and availability on
unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Antwerp consumer choice behavior”, Journal of Marketing
(UFSIA). Research, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 304-20.
Logman, M. (1997), “Marketing mix customization and Wilson, P.F., Dell, L.F. and Anderson, G.F. (1993), Root Cause
customizability”, Business Horizons, Vol. 40, November- Analysis: A Tool for Total Quality Management, ASQC
December, pp. 39-44. Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI.
McCarthy, B. and Sutcliff, M. (2002), “Taking advantage of a Yavas, U. and Yasin, M.M. (2001), “Enhancing organizational
downturn”, Outlook Journal, July, available at: performance in banks: a systematic approach”, Journal of
www.accenture.com Services Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 444-53.
102

The LOGMAN model: a logical brand management model Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 13 · Number 2 · 2004 · 94-104
Marc Logman
Executive summary marketing activities are affecting consumer
behaviour (we hope in a positive way), we can rest
assured that the activities of competitors will be
This executive summary has been provided to allow doing likewise. Thus, the totality of promotions
managers and executives a rapid appreciation of the associated with a given set of brands will determine
content of this article. Those with a particular interest the way in which consumers respond not just that
in the topic covered may then read the article in toto to small part of the activity that we control.
take advantage of the more comprehensive description Secondly, other factors other than the
of the research undertaken and its results to get the full management of brands will influence consumer
benefit of the material present. behaviour. Some of these factors can be
characterized as fads and fashions while others
reflect demographic trends, technological
Balancing the brand management mix developments and even the activities of public
In many respects the everyday task of brand agencies. Brand managers need to be as aware of
management has evolved only slowly. The essential these factors as they are of the core elements of the
core of brand management remains the brand and competitor’s brand management
manipulation of the four Ps (product, place, price activity.
and promotion) and the subsequent
implementation of strategies. The precise focus
Some drivers we control, some we can only influence
varies from one organization to the next but it is
The polemical positions described above are
probably fair to say that the greatest emphasis
equally wrong. In reality the degree to which we
tends to be placed on promotion and, as its major
control a “brand driver” varies with some
component, advertising.
completely under our control while other can only
Alongside this continuing focus on “classical”
be influenced by our activity. Logman recognizes
brand management sits the developing use of
this within his model by supplementing traditional
brand equity and brand value measures as a guide
internal brand drivers with a set of external brand
to corporate strategy development. The
drivers. Thus, our brand strategy evolves through
approaches have brought a degree of financial
reference of market developments, societal
credibility to the idea of a brand which recognizes
changes, fashions and technology as well as
that traditional approaches to business valuation
through the iterative processes associated with
do not take account to the important role that
classical brand management.
brand equity plays in the success of a brand.
Linked with this recognition of external
Despite these changes there is a need for a re-
influences over the brand is the further recognition
examination of approaches to brand management
within Logman’s model of the inconsistency of
that draw on ideas and techniques developed
consumer reaction. We cannot assume that an
elsewhere in management theory and practice.
objective fact is perceived that way by the
These ideas include the balanced scorecard, gap
consumer. There is always a difference between
analysis and organizational learning models.
consumer perception of a given brand driver and
Logman presents such an approach.
that driver’s objective level. Logman argues that
the application of gap analysis methods similar to
Are we really in control?
those developed for service quality assessment
There are two extreme positions in brand
allows marketers to develop strategies that close
management – one where we are in total control of
the gap between what the consumer perceives and
the brand’s drivers and another where the principle
the brand driver’s objective level.
brand drivers lie external to the organization and
hence are outside our control.
Linking brand management to corporate objectives
On the face of things we are in control of much
By introducing the balanced scorecard approach to
that surrounds the brand – this is, after all, the
brand management, Logman draws us away from
premise that underlies the four Ps. We are in
the narrow thinking associated with the
control of the product’s objective quality, of the
manipulation of the four Ps. Rather than focusing
price we charge, the manner in which we bring the
on the manipulation of brand variables we are
product to market and the way in which we tell
encouraged to consider financial, customer,
consumers about the product and encourage them
process and innovation factors ahead of deciding
to buy. However, the factors are all inputs to the
on the marketing mix for a given brand.
brand management process, we are not in control
Importantly this approach recognizes that the
of the outputs let alone the outcomes of our brand
firm’s expectations from a given brand must link
management.
Firstly, we do not operate in isolation but with overall corporate strategy. And it is clear that
operate in a competitive environment. If our the relative balance between a set of overarching
103

The LOGMAN model: a logical brand management model Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 13 · Number 2 · 2004 · 94-104
Marc Logman
factors will influence the manner in which we embed that approach more completely within the
construct a brand marketing strategy. entirety of the firm’s strategies. Logman’s
At the same time as we consider the balance approach provides a means of approaching such
between these factors, there is a need to develop high level brand strategies without losing touch
what Logman refers to as a learning perspective. with the prosaic task of making sure the individual
This is not simply a matter of assessing what works elements of these strategies are properly
and what does not work (although too few firms implemented. By applying a balanced scorecard
undertake this assessment is a comprehensive way) approach and using the idea of gap analysis,
but a matter of systematically using learning from Logman also points to ways in which we can
across the organization and from outside the firm improve the targeting of marketing strategies to
to inform the development of brand management strengthening the brand.
strategies.
´
If we a serious about using the development of (A precis of the article “The LOGMAN model: a
brand and the extension of brand equity as a logical brand management model”. Supplied by
central driver of corporate success, then we need to Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)
104