George rossolatos building strong brands with structuralist rhetorical semiotics new bulgaria university 19 9 2014

George Rossolatos MSc, MBA, PhD
//disruptiVesemiOtics// email: georgerossolatos123@gmail.com
http://uni-kassel.academia.edu/georgerossolatos
1
Key branding concepts: Brand Equity (the pinnacle of
branding)
BRAND EQUITY
THE ULTIMATE CHALLENGE OF BRANDING
Building and maintaining strong brands through
strong, unique, favorable brand associations in
 “A set of brand assets and liabilities linked to a brand, its name and
symbol that add to or subtract from the value provided by a product or
service to a firm and/or that firm's customers” (Aaker/AMA)
consumers’ minds.
 “Customer-based brand equity occurs when the consumer has a high
level of Nestle awareness in 1988 paid and 8 times familiarity the net assets with worth the of brand Rowntree and for acquiring
holds some
strong, favorable and unique the brand brand
associations in memory” (Keller)
2
Ref.ppt Date

Why brand strength matters?
 A strong brand can drive sales growth by increasing the ability of a business to
attract new customers and to retain existing ones.
 A strong brand can increase margins by commanding a price premium over
competitors (Starbucks and Pringles).
 Brands with strong bonds to consumers create barriers for entry to competitors;
consumers will be reluctant to switch to new players, even when their products and
services are of equal or higher quality.
 A strong brand can ease entrance into new categories. Consumers know what to
expect from a product with a brand name like GE or Samsung. They will recognize
and trust the brand name in a new context.
 Suppliers are more willing to work with companies that have a strong brand
reputation.
 Companies with strong brands have the option to minimize investment costs and
risks when extending into new areas by licensing the brand to a third party and
getting royalties in return (The Gap).
 A strong brand can protect against downturns. Brand loyalists are more likely to
stay with them through tough times. The reputation of brands such as Coca-Cola and
Johnson & Johnson’s Tylenol enabled them to recover quickly from adverse publicity.
(Hollis) 3
4
Ref.ppt Date

Major gaps in the marketing semiotic literature
• No coherent models available, focusing on brand equity, rather than branding in
general
• Structuralist semiotic perspectives have been largely employed for analyzing
descriptively (interpretively) ads, rather than focusing on ad texts as sources of brand
equity
• Binarism still dominant in a theoretical landscape that favors connectionist
approaches
• Lack of quantification of qualitative phenomena
5
Major gaps in the marketing literature
• Undue focus on the encoding stage of brand texts, rather than decoding.
• Adopting a brand textuality perspective in addressing and managing brand
associations.
• Adding rigor to the employment of semiotic perspectives in marketing research.
• Projecting brand equity in a category-specific context by mapping out a
category’s semic micro-universe, its expressive inventory and modes of
connectivity among expressive elements.
• Focusing on operations of semantic transformation and modes of connectivity,
rather than expressive elements, a significantly under-researched area
• with an emphasis on rhetorical relata
6
Ref.ppt Date

Aims of the brand trajectory of signification
• An innovative structuralist rhetorical semiotic approach to brand equity
planning with view to addressing:
• How ad expressive elements may be selected
• How they may be transformed into components of a brand’s grammar at
the planes of expression and content
• How they may be transformed into brand associations
• How brand associations may be managed in an ongoing fashion as
outcomes of sustainable brand equity.
7
Inter-disciplinary orientation
• Marketing literature (branding, consumer-based brand equity, advertising
effectiveness)
• Structuralist (textual) semiotics
• Rhetorical semiotics
• Advertising rhetoric
• Film semiotics & Film theory
Conceptual
framework
• Qualitative research
(Semiotic interpretative analysis)
• Content analysis
• Multivariate statistical analyses
Methodological
framework
&
Methods
of analysis
8
Ref.ppt Date

Why structuralist semiotics?
• Still a dominant school in the semiotic discipline, popular among both academics from
various backgrounds (e.g., cultural, literary, religious, film studies) and practitioners
(e.g., semiotic agencies).
• A dominant semiotic paradigm AND in various WHAT
regions (France, Italy, Finland, Brazil).
ABOUT SEM?
• Key figures in the structuralist semiotic tradition (e.g., Jacques Fontanille, Francois
Rastier) continue advancing the discipline in line with developments in the wider field of
linguistics and other humanities/social science disciplines.
• Key figures in marketing semiotics (e.g., David Mick) stem from a structuralist tradition.
• Time-hallowed structuralist semiotic conceptual constructs, such as
isotopy, semes, redundancy, have been integral to semiotic rhetorical approaches
(e.g., Groupe μ).
9
Structuralism vs. cognitivism
• The decline of structuralism coincided with the rise of cognitivism
(Rastier 2006)
• Shift of emphasis from structures of texts and natural languages to structures
of the mind.
• Similarities in epistemological orientation
• Quest for depth structures behind manifest phenomena.
• Reductionist (yet iterative and dynamic) frameworks that render complex
phenomena observable and manageable.
•
10
Ref.ppt Date

Cognitivist psychology and research of brand
meaning in marketing
 To date, little research has focused on identifying the content of consumers'
mental models- the actual meaning of representations that are contained in the
mental model- despite repeated calls for such investigations (Bohman &
Lindfors, 1998; Pieters et al., 1995; Walker, Celsi, & Olson, 1987).
 The more typical academic approach emphasizes the structure of
mental models over their content (Olson & Reynolds, 1983).
 Structure refers to how that content is organized in memory- for example, a
hierarchical organization or an associative network. Content refers to the
actual ideas or concepts represented by the mental model, that is, the
personal meanings contained therein.
 Most academic consumer researchers, perhaps following the orientation
in psychology of postulating and testing more formal models of memory
structure, have largely ignored the meaning content of mental models.
 This is strange because, fundamentally, one cannot dissociate structure from
content. The structure of such networks of representations is revealed only
through the content and the linkages identified between concepts.
 Conversely, one cannot understand the content of mental models without
measuring the connections between concepts (thus revealing structure)
(Christensen & Olson 2002). 11
Structuralism vs. post-structuralism
• Was there really a turn from structuralism to post-structuralism?
• Fuzzy and highly abstract distinction that was contested fiercely by M.Frank
(in What is Neo-structuralism?)
• Structuralism is as diverse as post-structuralism, hence it is at best arbritrary
to draw a distinction en masse.
• Major differences among post-structuralist philosophers (e.g., Foucault and
Derrida).
• Attacks on structuralism concerned mostly with early figures (e.g., Saussure,
Levi-Strauss), rather than Greimas, not to mention Fontanille and Rastier.
12
Ref.ppt Date

The pressing need for a theory of signification that allows for
projecting a brand knowledge structure at the encoding stage
• A web of associations must be foreseen and planned from the very first phase of
encoding a brand with values, as a reflection of its benefits stemming from
attributes with a long-term orientation, coupled with specific guidelines and a
rationale for carving these values in concrete advertising expressive elements.
• “It is important to incorporate from the start the higher levels of meaning that are
intended to attach to the brand in the longer term. The brand should not simply
acquire them, by accumulation or sedimentation; they should be planned from
the start and incorporated at birth” (Kapferer 2008: 56).
• Hence, there is a pressing need for focusing on how a brand equity
structure may be projected at the very encoding stage of ad texts.
13
What is encoding?
Encoding “Encoding is the process of creating intended meaning in a
message” (Pickton and Broderick 2005).
The “construction of a message based on a given code” (Greimas and Courtés
1979).
Encoding concerns the engrafting of an ad filmic text with expressive elements
and modes of configuration with view to generating and maintaining brand
equity as an ensemble of brand associations and values that make up the
brand’s generative trajectory of signification in a given product category, while
taking into account a competitive setting.
14
Ref.ppt Date

The pressing need for a theory of signification that allows for
projecting a brand knowledge structure at the encoding stage
Further remarks on the state-of-the-art in the CBBE literature
• The two primary issues a structuralist semiotic approach of brand equity must
address
• Delineation of the morphology of brand discourse
• The syntax regulating its arrangement.
• In the CBBE model there is a preoccupation with the definition of elements, at the
expense of an account of their mode of connectivity, which is in marked contrast to
the fundamental tenet of structuralism, namely that signs are first and foremost
relational entities.
• The effective management of sources of brand equity presupposes a conceptual
account of such modes of connectivity, which is the task of rhetorical semiotics.
• The rhetorical semiotic account of modes of connectivity among sources of brand
equity concerns the maintenance of brand identity, which depends on two
conditionals, brand coherence and communicative consistency.
• Hence, superior brand associations from a brand textuality POV presupposes putting
in semiotic perspective issues of brand coherence and communicative consistency.
15
Brand coherence and communicative consistency in focus
• Brand coherence concerns the mandate for maintaining the kernel of
a brand identity and a brand’s master narrative.
• Consistency concerns the maintenance of a minimum level of
invariance in the communicative manifestation of a brand or the
advertising expressive elements employed throughout a brand’s
variable advertising campaigns.
• What is lacking in the existing branding literature is an explicit
conceptual framework and a methodology for maintaining coherence
and consistency that addresses not only expressive units, but, even
more importantly, modes of connectivity.
• This is a key task of structuralist rhetorical semiotics.
16
Ref.ppt Date

Three main determinants of brand associations
(CBBE): Strength, uniqueness, favorability
• Strength is a function of
Moreover, it concerns from a brand textuality POV the degree
of isotopic coherence of a brand’s discourse throughout time in
a competitive setting
• the quantity of processing of brand related associations
• the nature or quality of that processing.
• Strength of association is further complicated by the personal relevance of the
information (or the ad text, in semiotic terms) and the consistency with which this
information is presented over time, media pressure and a plethora of contextual and
personality-related moderating factors.
•Uniqueness refers to the distinctiveness of brand associations, that is associations not
shared with other brands.
Only concerned with which associations are not shared with
competitors OR (additionally) how uniquely associations recur
diachronically in a brand’s discourse?
• The major contribution and differentiating factor of the rhetorical semiotic POV:
Uniqueness concerns merely attributes or (and even more importantly) modes of
connectivity?
17
The semiotic and psychoanalytic antecedents of
connectionist associative modeling
• “Semiosis, far from following tidy linear axes, may take place through networks”
(Jensen 1995: 166).“Connectionism, being an important recent development in the field
of cognitive science and psychology has reconstructed the interrelation between mental
representation and behaviour” (Jensen 1995).
• The connectionist rationale dates back to Quillian’s model Q, as recast by Eco, and is
antedated by Porphyry’s trees (cf. Eco 1972, 1976; Eco and Paci 1983)
18
Ref.ppt Date

The semiotic and psychoanalytic antecedents of
connectionist associative modeling
• Freud presaged the use of associative networks as a way of interlinking the strata and
the dimensions of a brand knowledge structure.
• “Associative paths lead from one element of the dream to several dream thoughts and
from one dream thought to several elements of the dream” (Freud 1900)
• The thought elements find their way through the manifest content elements or “radiate
through them” (Freud 1900) “because they constitute nodal points upon which a great
number of the dream-thoughts converge and because they have several meanings in
connection with the interpretation of the dream” (Freud 1900)
19
Rastier’s adaptation of a connectionist approach in the context
of the Differential Semantics perspective
• Rastier’s graphs connect aspects of the systemic levels of an interpretative trajectory.
•“In a conceptual graph, the boxes are called concepts, and the circles are called
conceptual relations” (Sowa et al. 1993).
•Their nodes represent actants and processes, while their links casual relations that
are articulated among them.
•Nodes are represented in rectangular shapes and links in circular ones, in line with
Sowa’s conceptual graphs.
•“The elements that make up this structure are the nodes (the terms), the links (the
relations) and the direction of the links.
•A node is generally labelled with one or more semes and a link is labelled with a
semantic case” (Hebert 2011).
20
Ref.ppt Date

Ad texts as sources of brand associations
• Brand associations contain the meaning of the brand (Keller 1998)
• They are the heart and soul of the brand (Aaker 1996)
• Advertising, as a pervasive mode of semiosis (Mick, Burroughs, Hetzel, Brannen
2004) constitutes an indirect source of brand associations (Krishnan 1996), as
against a direct source (e.g., product usage)
• Advertising influences brand equity by impacting on consumers’ brand-related
memory structure (Edell and Moore 1993)
• Associations are receivers’ memories and fantasies evoked by advertising stimuli
(Praxmarer and Gierl 2009)
21
The need for a coherent semiotic model of brand
signification
• A semiotic model may yield a more comprehensive account of the
interrelationships amongst key categories of brand association
(attributes, benefits and attitudes) and the advertising text as key source for the
formation of such associations.
• As it emphasizes how invariant content emerges synchronically and diachronically
through variable expressive structures.
• The challenge of brand equity semiotics
• The maintenance of brand coherence and communicative consistency over time.
• Furnishing a planning platform for projecting and managing brand associations as
outcomes of multimodal ad expressive units over time against a competitive brand
setting.
22
Ref.ppt Date

23
Aims of the brand generative trajectory of
signification
• Adapting Greimas’s original semiotic model to brand equity planning, while taking into
account conceptual and methodological advances in structuralist semiotics.
• Emphasizes structuralist operations as operations of semantic transformation
• Accounting for the missing link about transitions amongst the
trajectory’s strata.
• Complementing structuralist operations with operations of rhetorical transformation.
• Updating morphology and syntax based on advances in visual and film semiotics
• Incorporating issues of multimodality
• from static to moving brand images (i.e., ad films)
24
Ref.ppt Date

Aims of the brand generative trajectory of
signification
• Picking up from where Floch left the generative trajectory of signification
• But even Greimas did not apply it uniformly throughout his analyses of literary and cultural texts
• The reading of Maupassant, his most complete interpretative endeavor, is not enacted against the
trajectory
• Issuing a call for a return to the generativist rationale of the trajectory, rather than resting at the level of
extrapolating semic attributes as effects of meaning of surface discursive structures (Floch)
• thus allowing for the projection of a brand equity structure at the very encoding stage of ad texts as
key sources of equity with long-term orientation, in line with Kapferer’s demand
• Endorsing the complexity of structuralist semiotic syntactic operations of transformation that are
responsible for generating brand meaning across the levels of the trajectory
• while taking into account the limitation that was noted in Semprini’s brand identity system, viz., not
accounting for how the transition among the strata of a trajectory is effected
• Paving the way for a reformulation of the trajectory in connectionist terms, in line with advances in the
marketing brand associations literature, as well as in Rastier’s Interpretive Semantics
25
26
Ref.ppt Date

The development of Greimasian structuralist
semiotics
• “Greimas’s research does not develop in obedience to a very logical order. His work first
belonged to lexicography (until 1966), then shifted to structural semantics and finally to the
semiotics of narrative and discursive structures” (Nef 1977)
• The key difference between structuralist semantics and structuralist semiotics
• “Semantics differs from semiotics chiefly in its insistence on the description of meaning
in natural languages, as opposed to all sign systems” (Nef 1977).
• Semiotics is more apt than semantics for addressing issues of multimodality
• Meaning emerges through relations among signs, while it takes place through various
transformations in different levels or strata (niveaus) of the so-called generative trajectory
of signification.
• “The generative trajectory is a dynamic reconstitution of the way in which the signification
of an utterance (text, image, film and so on) is produced and enriched according to a
trajectory from what is simplest to what is most complex” (Floch 2001: 111)
27
The original conception of the trajectory of
signification
NUCLEAR SEMES
CLASSEMES
NARRATIVE GRAMMAR
SEM SQUARE
Functions of conjunction/ actants
disjunction (subject/verb/
object of desire)
VERBAL, VISUAL &
MULTIMODAL SIGNS
FIGURATIVE
DISCOURSE
28
Ref.ppt Date

Depth grammar- Semes as metalinguistic
relational object-terms
• At the very core of the generative trajectory lie relational properties (Greimas 1970)
which are more fundamental than sensible ones.
• The concerned approach is in line with Saussurean semiology, which propounds that
the units of a language do not derive their identity from inherent, positive
properties, but from their relationship to other terms of a language system.
• For Greimas (1966), “signification presupposes the existence of relation; it is the
appearance of relation among terms which is the necessary condition of signification”.
• “Relations have primacy over object-terms” (Greimas 1983)
• Given that the elementary units of a descriptive metalanguage are relational
terms, their basic manifestations consist in modes of connectivity; at the most basic
by affirmation and negation.
29
Depth grammar: Nuclear Semes and Classemes
as metalinguistic relational object-terms
• The unaltered depth or semic structure of a brand beneath stylistic variations at
the surface discursive level constitutes its ‘semic nucleus’ (noyau
sémique), made up of nuclear semes (Ns) which appears as invariant
(Hjelmslev) or constant in discourse.
• A brand’s semantic kernel as core brand identity consists of a semic micro-universe.
• The key brand image attributes or semes that make up its semantic edifice
constitute nuclear semes which are enriched with contextual semes or
classemes in discrete communicative contexts.
• Nuclear semes constitute the minimal units of signification of a brand language
or its core image attributes.
30
Ref.ppt Date

Depth grammar: The semiotic square
S
S1 S2
contrariety
Implication
(deixis)
deixis
S2 S1
S (neutral
zone)
---- : relationship between contrary terms
: relationship between contradictory terms
----------- : relationship of implication
31
Depth grammar: The semiotic square
• The semiotic square may be summed up as six dimensions or three pairs (Greimas
1987: 51)
• The contrary terms or semes S1 and S2 falling hyponymically under the semic
category S that organizes them into a semantic micro-universe and the contrary
terms -S1 and -S2 under the inverse semantic micro-universe -S. This is the
neutral axis, whose terms are organized in a neither/nor relationship.
• The relationships of deixis denoted by the dashed lines uniting by implication S1
with -S2 and S2 with -S1.
• The schematic relationships reuniting in categorical terms the contradictories S1
with -S1 and S2 with -S2.
32
Ref.ppt Date

Semiotic square applications in brand positioning
• The semiotic square has been extensively applied, largely as a standalone strategic brand and
communications planning platform.
• Unfortunately, in the majority of instances its application has taken place, in a completely cut-off
fashion from the wider Greimasian theoretical context (e.g., Mick & Oswald 2006, Oswald 2012)
and the rest levels of the trajectory
• but also in a simplified fashion, excluding the rationale of multiple squares interpolation and/or the
construction of homological chains among object-terms (Rossolatos 2012d)
• In this example, Darpy (2010) employs the square as a heuristic mechanism for coining four
alternative positioning routes, alongside the continuity-discontinuity spectrum, viz., the
provocative route, the guerilla route, the exploratory route and finally the harmonious
development route.
33
Criticisms of the binarist rationale of the semiotic square
• Greimas (1966, 1970) states explicitly that there is no explanation why the elementary
structure of signification should be logically structured in oppositional terms.
• It is axiomatically postulated in the context of the system of structuralist semiotics.
• “Binarism must be considered as a constructive principle and not necessarily as a
principle about the mode of existence of semic categories” (Greimas 1970: 40)
• Rastier, who co-created the semiotic square with Greimas (see Rastier 2012), later
stressed that the semiotic square is useful for exploring tentative hypotheses, but by no
means one might claim that signification is absolutely reducible to the square
• Even more polemically, he asserted rhetorically “are deep structures anything else than
the reification of the linguist’s demand for rationality?” (Rastier 1989)
34
Ref.ppt Date

From binarism to connectionism: Enhancing the relevance of
semiotic generativism for brand equity research
• The reduction of a brand’s semic micro-universe to binarist structures is reflective of
Greimas’s view on the logical arrangement of signification, but has since been
seriously challenged by connectionist approaches to the organization of meaning in
consumers’ memory.
• “Semiosis, far from following tidy linear axes, may take place through networks” (Jensen
1995: 166)
• As attested by advances in consumer research pertaining to the mode of formation of
brand knowledge structures and brand image, the organization of attributes and
expressive elements as sources of attributes is better accounted for through
associative networks, rather than binarist pairs.
• Interlocking squares may encapsulate a multiplicity of interpolated terms, but may not
adequately portray the relative importance of semes as nodes in a network.
• This does not imply that binarist readings do not constitute useful heuristics in the
exploration of tentative hypotheses, “but in itself would not be enough” (Eco 1976).
• Still, both binarist and connectionist approaches are common currency in applied
branding research.
35
The semio-narrative structure
• The semio-narrative structure constitutes the intermediate level of the generative
trajectory (between the elementary structure of signification and the discursive
structure), consisting of distinctive syntactic and semantic components
• “Semio-narrative structures consist of the entire set of virtualities the enunciating
subject has at its disposal […] discursive structures correspond to the selection and
ordering of these virtualities […] semio-narrative structures produce the plot […] while
discursive structures correspond to its staging and distribution” (Floch 2001).
“The narrative énoncé and narrative
as a whole allows for the
interpretation of the narrative model
at the epistemological level, as one
of the fundamental forms of the
organization of the imaginary”
(Greimas 1971)
• Akin to the Russian Formalists’ distinction between Fabula and Syzet and to the distinction
between story and plot in film theory
• Semio-narrative structures contain the depth meaning of a discursive structure and
furnish the form of its organization.
• Whereas in the elementary structure of signification brand image attributes function
as semes, in the semio-narrative structure they function as actants.
• In the context of a brand narrative, what counts as a seme or brand image attribute in a
positioning statement, is reiterated at a semio-narrative level as actantial term (either subject
or object) and further rendered figuratively in a surface discursive ad filmic structure.
36
Ref.ppt Date

The semio-narrative structure
• The logical organization of a manifest discourse at the semio-narrative level takes
place through the narrative grammar furnished by the actantial model.
• The morphological units of the actantial model are actants.
• The operations of the actantial syntax consist in successive conjunctions and
disjunctions that either conjoin or disjoin subject and object through the deployment of
a narrative.
• The successive transitions of a subject among states-of-being at the semio-narrative
level constitute narrative transformations.
• This mode of transformation differs from the semantic transformations that
take place at the discursive, figurative level, which are of a rhetorical nature
(Greimas 1971: 797).
• Furthermore, “narrative structures are distinct from linguistic structures because they
can be revealed in other than natural languages (dreams, cinema, etc.)” (Greimas
1971: 793), and by extension in highly figurative branding discourse and its ad filmic
textual manifestation.
37
The semio-narrative structure: What does it mean that semantic
transformations at a surface discursive level are of a rhetorical nature?
• A narrative utterance (NU) as semionarrative reconstruction of a surface discursive
ad filmic segment is a matter of
“stylistic distancing, characterized by relations of a
metaphoric, metonymic, or antiphrastic type, between the
narrative sequences and the discursive sequences” (Greimas
1971: 797)
• In short, a NU constitutes a condensed representation of a figuratively constituted
sequence of manifest discourse
• Also see Greimas 1989d for a parallel between figurative semiotics and rhetoric, with a
focus on antiphrastic structures, metaphors and metonymies.
38
Ref.ppt Date

RHETORICAL OPERATIONS OF TRANSFORMATION AND
RHETORICAL FIGURES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR CONFIGURING
DISCOURSE ACROSS THE THREE STRATA
• By allowing Greimas depth (1976): structural “Rhetorical semes figures cut
to ‘radiate’ through
lexemes across and multimodal the entire trajectory units and (borrowing are
a metaphor
employed responsible by Freud for furnishing in the IOD)
the semantic glue
that conjoins distinctive morphological units”.
• By adjoining Rhetoric pro-furnishes filmic the elements syntax that both is
horizontally (i.e., in
the course responsible of the for the combinatory organization
of brand idiolects
syntagms that make up an ad film) and
vertically, that is in so far as they constitute figurative
renditions of actants and semes at the semio-narrative and
elementary structures respectively
39
The semio-narrative structure: Three basic enunciative functions
regulate the deployment of a communicative text
• Three basic notations designate the respective modes whereby the énoncé functions in a
• Limitations:
• (i) Capable of reducing the complexity
narrative structure, as follows:
• 1. NU= F (A1,A2…) or EN= F (A1,A2…) (Greimas 1971: 799; NU designates narrative
utterance, F function, A1,A2 actants, EN énoncé; also see Greimas 2003b: 55)
• 2. F junction (S;O) either in a conjunctive (S/0) or disjunctive (S/O) form
of surface discursive structures in the
ad filmic text, but not descriptively
rich in terms of accounting for factors
of differentiation among competitive
brand discourses and hence of
reduced value for a semiotic brand
equity perspective.
• 2.1 EN1= F doing (S  O)
• 2.2 EN2= F doing (D1  Ο  D2)
• (ii) The model is applicable to films
• 3. F transformation (S;O), which yields F [S1  (S2/O)]
that follow a story/plot pattern, but not
necessarily applicable to some types
of avant-garde or post-modern film
which are pre-occupied more with the
pure play of surface structural
signifiers and aesthetic fascination,
rather than with deep meaning
structures.
• The transformative process the actants undergo during their transition among
distinctive states-of-being in a narrative is regulated by successive conjunctions and
disjunctions of the actants (subject, sender, receiver, helper, opponent) with the
narrative’s object(s) of desire.
• “A narrative is defined as the syntagmatic sequence of énoncés that bring about the
transfer of an object of value” (Greimas 1971: 804).
40
Ref.ppt Date

The semio-narrative structure: The axiological dimension of the
enunciation model or how brands as texts become valorized
• The dimension of value (Greimas 1987: 86) as axiological investment of the object is
Insofar as the subject is constituted as
spectator of a film through secondary
identifications with filmic images that
are processed on an imaginary level
and given that the subject exists as an
actant at the semio-narrative level and
that acts of exchange between images
and semes are responsible for the
subject’s imaginary constitution, then
value as the outcome of acts of
exchange from a brand textuality point
of view emerges as acts of exchange
between multimodal expressive units
and semes (objects of value)
constituted during the process of constructing the object at the interface between
sender and receiver.
• “It is only through the inscription of a value in an utterance of state, whose function is
to establish a junctive relationship between subject and object, that we may consider
subject and object as semiotically interdependent” (Greimas 1983: 27).
• In the light of the axiological dimension of the actantial model, the subject is
transformed by entering in a relationship of conjunction with the object of desire.
41
?
• If rhetoric is responsible for bringing about meaning across
the levels of the trajectory, then how is rhetoric related to the
constitution of The value value of and structuralist concomitantly rhetorical
to acts of exchange
between surface semiotics mechanism discursive lies in demonstrating elements the
of ad filmic discourse
and brand semes as objects whereby brand associations stem of differential
value?
from
distinctive modes of semic-cum-rhetorical
• If rhetoric in fact lies configurations.
at the heart of the imaginary constitution
of value and is responsible for transfiguring semes into
manifest discourse then differential brand associations and
superior brand equity that is predicated thereof are directly
dependent on rhetoric.
42
Ref.ppt Date

Discursive structures: The manifest level of the trajectory
• Discursive structures allow for the manifestation at the discursive level of semio-narrative
structures in the face of an enunciative predicament (Greimas and Courtés
1979: 364-365).
• Discursive structures correspond to the manifest texts of a master brand
narrative, such as advertising (TV, print, radio, outdoor, ambient), but also experiential
events (e.g., roadshows, in-store sampling/competitions), sponsorship and any form
of brand communications.
• Semes in the discursive order are inscribed in lexemes and multimodal expressive
units, often in a rhetorically reconfigured and far from directly recognizable fashion.
• Each brand possesses an inventory of expressive units, figures and modes of
connectivity, which constitute what may be called a brand’s idiolect, while the
common elements among brands in a product category constitute the product
category’s sociolect.
43
44
Ref.ppt Date

Brand grammar alongside planes of expression
and content
• Surface structure (plane of expression)
• Logo, ‘symbols’, multimodal advertising expressive units.
• Substance of the plane of expression (i.e., materiality of signifiers) as production
techniques, directly influencing semantic transformations.
• Depth structure (plane of content)
• Semic components as the semantic content of a brand grammar = Brand
associations as image attributes, benefits and attitudes.
45
From Floch’s adaptation of CNS to the
master brand narrative
• The aim of a master brand narrative is to flesh out an elementary semic
structure as immutable brand positioning statement and canonical
expressive inventory, also featuring modes of connectivity as rhetorical
operations/figures and film production techniques.
• An idiolectal dictionary (Klinkenberg 1990)
• (i) Transition from Propp’s typology of actantial figures to brand and
category specific canonical schemata.
• (ii) Enrichment of the deductively valid model of enunciation with
invariably recurring rhetorical figures.
46
Ref.ppt Date

The brand trajectory of signification in focus
Brand Generative Trajectory
Syntactic composition Semantic
composition
Core and peripheral brand
Brand
nuclear
semes and
classemes
Brand master
narrative
narrative
associations
Rhetorical
figures
NARRATIVE GRAMMAR
SEM SQUARE
Functions of conjunction/ actants
disjunction (subject/verb/
object of desire)
VERBAL, VISUAL &
MULTIMODAL SIGNS
Ad filmic text
Depth
level
Fundamen
tal syntax
Fundamental semantic
structure
Surface
level
Surface
semio
narrative
Narrative semantic
structure
Discursive syntax
Discursive semantic
structure (ad filmic units,
lexemes, visual units),
pro-filmic elements
47
NUCLEAR SEMES
CLASSEMES
FIGURATIVE
DISCOURSE
The building blocks of the brand trajectory of
signification
• Brand nuclear semes and classemes
• The image attributes (projected primary and secondary brand associations) that make up a
brand’s semantic micro-universe
• with a focus on Keller’s typology of attributes, benefits, attitudes
• A brand’s depth semantic structure
• The brand’s immutable, internal structure or semantic nucleus
• Brand master narrative
• The brand’s canonical narrative schema featuring
• a brand’s positioning statement
• invariably recurring filmic syntagms and/or pro-filmic elements
• invariably recurring rhetorical operations and figures
• Brand surface discourse – ad filmic text
• Ad filmic units (pro-filmic elements)
• Focus on multimodal rhetorical grammar and filmic syntax
48
Ref.ppt Date

Sructuration at the heart of the brand generative
trajectory of signification
• Homologation = Process of discovery of analogical relationships between surface discourse elements
and depth structures (A:B::A’:B’)
Homology
• Discernment of parallel structures in the text
• Preparatory step for proceeding to the generation of isotopies
• Isotopy = Equivalences among the various strata of the generative trajectory.
Isotopy
Redundancy
• Responsible for maintaining brand coherence on intra and inter ad filmic levels
• Recurrence = Regularities that serve the purpose of the organisation of an enunciated discourse
• The recurrence of semic categories institutes an isotopy
• Reduction = Transformation of an inventory of sememic (and multimodal) occurrences of
parasynonymic nature
• Redundancy = Exclusion of inessential surface
structure classemes (Greimas and Courtés)
Reduction Recurrence
49
The process of structuration – An overview
• Structuration transpierces all levels of the brand trajectory.
• It confers continuity in signification by subsuming all strata under a coherent structural
backbone.
• Structuration is effected by establishing homologies.
• Homological relations allow for the generation of isotopies by attending to
• recurrent pro-filmic units in surface ad filmic discourse.
• recurrent correlations between pro-filmic units and classes of semes.
• Recurrence is incumbent on the operations of reduction and redundancy.
• Redundancy and reduction of pro-filmic elements allow for the generation of isotopies
between surface and depth structures.
50
Ref.ppt Date

The process of structuration
Surface
discourse
elements
Brand
master
narrative
Brand
semes
Reduction Redundancy
Motivated Recurrent
by the
principle pro-of filmic
pertinence
elements
“it would certainly be possible to analyze
the structure of actions more finely,
describing the minute muscle twitches that
comprise a pitcher's wind-up. However, this
level of detail is inappropriate for our
project” (Carroll 1980: 99).
Homological chains between
elements of surface
discourse and brand master
narrative / semes
Establishment of isotopies
Structuration
Structuration
51
The structuration process as the operational backdrop whereby an
invariable brand knowledge structure may be built and managed
over time
• The structuralist operations are primarily responsible for maintaining a brand
knowledge structure and a semic nucleus, consisting of brand image attributes.
• Insofar as the maintenance of a robust brand equity structure consists in the
recurrence of salient invariant elements which are responsible for nurturing
unique, favorable and strong brand associations, the process of structuration is
capable of demonstrating how a master brand narrative is sustained.
• as a recurring textual backdrop, containing a brand’s elementary structure of
signification or depth grammar.
52
Ref.ppt Date

Isotopy in focus: The locus of brand coherence
• “The isotopy between the terms of the elementary structure of signification ensures and
is, in a way, the foundation, of the micro-universe” (Greimas 2003a: 50).
• Isotopies furnish a reading grid that allows for a homogeneous reading of a text (Greimas
and Courtés 1979: 197-198).
• At the heart of the concept lies the notion of recurrence, which may concern either the
plane of expression or content or both.
• Its main use consists in discerning correspondences among the various strata of the
generative trajectory.
• In the context of the ad filmic text as source of brand equity, an isotopically recurrent
theme, following Metz (1971: 503, 513), is conceived as the depth structure of a film.
• In terms of correspondences between the figurative and the thematic or the discursive and
the narrative levels, various combinations of correspondences are possible, such as
between a filmic segment and a brand seme.
53
Greimas’s deviation from the generativist rationale of the trajectory
or how to complement a generativist blueprint with surface
discursive reading grids
• Reading grids of surface structures composed of visual (and plastic) signs lie at
the heart of Greimas’s figurative semiotics.
• Surface figurative structures constitute semi-symbolic systems, that is they are
characterized by GREIMAS partial correlations POSITS RHETORIC between AS expressive THE POINT
units and concepts of the
plane of content.
OF INTERSECTION IN THE GENERATION OF
FIGURATIVITY BETWEEN VERBAL AND
• The point of intersection VISUAL LANGUAGE.
between visual and verbal semiotics, in terms of
figurativity, lies in the poetic text (Greimas 1989d), in which case Greimas
emphasized Jakobson’s ACCOUNTING OF THE AD poetic FOR THE CONFIGURATION
FILMIC function.
TEXT IS INEXTRICABLY
LINKED WITH THE ADOPTION OF A
• The brand text has VERBO-its own VISUAL “poetic RHETORICAL logic” (Danesi), PERSPECTIVE
and its surface is constituted by a
more or less tropical language.
• At the same time, a brand’s expressive inventory makes up a brand’s idiolect.
54
Ref.ppt Date

Should surface structure reading grids be cut-off from the
generativist rationale of the trajectory in the case of projecting a
brand equity structure?
• Figurative elements constitute variable structures.
• IT IS INVARIABLE ELEMENTS OF THE PLANE OF CONTENT THAT MUST BE
THE TASK OF STRUCTURALIST RHETORICAL
SEMIOTICS: PROPOSE A METHODOLOGY
WHEREBY RHETORICAL-CUM-SEMIC
CONFIGURATIONS MAY GIVE RISE TO
DIFFERENTIAL BRAND ASSOCIATIONS AND
HENCE ALLOW FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF
BRAND EQUITY OVER TIME BY ATTENDING
NOT ONLY TO OUTCOMES, BUT ALSO TO
THE EXPRESSIVE ANTECEDENTS OF BRAND
EQUITY.
DIFFERENTIALLY STORED IN CONSUMERS’ MINDS.
• However, the semantic content of a brand grammar is hardly ever presented in a raw
fashion.
• Insofar as figurative language constitutes the primary mode of ad filmic
communication, the isotopic maintenance of a brand’s semantic nucleus must be
accounted for in tandem with modes of rhetorical configuration.
55
56
Ref.ppt Date

Rhetorical operations/figures not simply as surface discourse
ornamentation (elocutio), but as transformative syntax that adjoins
surface discourse with depth structures (dispositio inventio)
• Greimas recognized that rhetorical figures are not just surface structure stylistic
elements, but responsible for streamlining siginification amongst the strata of the
generative trajectory (Greimas and Courtés 1979: 149).
• the rhetorical figure adjoins the surface and the depth structures
• “Variable tropical relations lead to a profound textual isotopy” (Greimas 1976: 228).
• The role of rhetorical figures is not cut-off from the logic of the generative trajectory: “the
figurative level provides the dynamics for the rules of transformation that are projected
backwards from the surface to the deep structures” (Ricoeur and Greimas (1989: 557).
• Rhetorical semiotics, and particularly the treatises put forward by Groupe μ
(1970, 1992), is capable of bridging the conceptual gap regarding the semantic distance
between figurative discourse and a brand’s semic nucleus.
57
Commonalities and differences between Groupe μ’s two rhetorical
treatises (1970, 1992)
• Four operations of rhetorical transformation are propounded
• adjunction (which was rendered in the Traité 1992 as conjunction- IPC, IAC)
• suppression (which was rendered in the Traité 1992 as disjunction- IAC, IPC)
• suppression/adjunction (or substitution)
• permutation
• Both treatises focus on the importance of markers for the recognition of whether
a rhetorical figure is operative in a text.
• Both treatises emphasize the importance of isotopy as way of gauging textual
coherence and the importance of applying the notion of degree zero.
• Rhétorique Générale comprises both operations and figures. whereasTraité du
Signe Visuel features only operations (with the exception of outlining visual
metaphors).
58
Ref.ppt Date

Areas in Groupe μ’s rhetorical treatises that merit conceptual fine-tuning
prior to being adapted to branding discourse and the ad
filmic text
• More than one rhetorical transformations are likely to be encountered in an ad film
• The operations of conjunction/disjunction, in presentia/absentia, proposed by Groupe μ
may not be discerned necessarily within a single frame or a single shot or even a single
sequence, but often make sense as such only retrospectively, that is once the entire
narrative has been deployed.
• Production techniques impact directly on the modes of rhetorical configuration of the text
• Groupe μ focused on Eisenstein’s montage in the first rhetoric.
• An expressive unit in the context of the ad filmic text may consist of different shots from
different sequences by virtue of the relay function of visual signifiers.
• This implies that the signified is postponed until these variably located signifiers will
have been juxtaposed.
• Need for taking into account relations among filmic segments and the impact of the ad
filmic text’s ‘global semantic context’ (Van Dijk) , a brand’s idiolect (its code), a product
category’s sociolect
• The highly motivated nature of the ad filmic text against the background of a positioning
statement and a filmic concept, as against purely artistic images (in the sense of art for
art’s sake)
• The latter point has also been raised by Forceville (in Go Figure 2008)- not with
reference to Groupe μ 59
Areas in Groupe μ’s rhetorical treatises that merit conceptual fine-tuning prior to
being adapted to branding discourse and the ad filmic text: EXTENDING
VERBAL FIGURES TO THE VERBO-VISUAL DOMAIN
• Groupe μ offered a general visual rhetoric, applicable primarily to artistic images and not
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY: In brand equity we are concerned with sources of
differentiation. Operations rest at a very generic level and hence are hardly
capable of furnishing figurative advantages to brand discourse.
The bulk of advertising related research into visual rhetoric has concentrated on
the role of metaphors and metonymies at the expense of other figures (Callister
and Stern 2007: 3).
MOREOVER, ad agencies construct multimodal messages with a clear
selection rationale both at the level of choosing verbo-visual pro-filmic elements
(casting) and combining them (production and post-production) in filmic
syntagms.
-An example is the incidence of a voice-over in a multi-modal syntagm which
effects semantic closure on what might be a polysemous filmic shot or
sequence.
A multimodal rhetorical perspective that comprises verbo-visual figures is more
pertinent for actual brand and advertising planning practices.
advertising discourse, in which instance the following should be taken into consideration
• Advances in the marketing related advertising rhetoric literature, where various verbal figures
have been applied to visual ads (from Durand up until recent studies about visual metonymies
and visual hyperboles)
• Advances in film rhetoric (e.g. Clifton), where attempts at applying verbal figures to the moving
image were suggested
• Advances in multimodal rhetorical analyses which have in fact treated both verbal and visual signs
as being amenable to rhetorical analysis
• Advances ever since the early 90s in rhetorical analysis where some scholars support the
applicability of argumentation schemes to visual discourse and the moving image
• The application of argumentation schemes presupposes the ability to isolate filmic segments
and individual visual units and apply argumentation schemes
• If argumentation schemes may be applied, what counter-arguments may be offered against the
applicability of figures?
• Groupe μ’s contention that only operations are applicable to the visual domain is unsustainable
60
Ref.ppt Date

Groupe μ’s general and local degrees zero
• In Rhétorique Générale two types of degree zero were propounded, general and local. General (or
absolute) degree zero is defined as univocal semantic ground or as a convention that binds sender
and receiver in a manner that is not dependent on certain literary genres or individual author styles and
advertising genres/styles, in our case.
• An example of absolute degree zero is standard grammar and rules of syntax.
• On the contrary, local (or relative) degree zero constitutes a text-specific point of reference or genre-specific
or dependent on an individual author’s stylistic convention.
• The local degree zero pertains to the particular structure of an énoncé
• An extreme example of textual signification by recourse to local rules imposed by a local degree
zero of signification is surrealist literature/painting (Klinkenberg 1990) and avant-garde films.
• The concept of degree zero is a regulative hypothesis and not a strict set of rules (Groupe μ).
• In the course of both treatises, various examples are provided that are indicative of how rhetorical
deviations as distances from degrees zero may be determined (see, for example, Groupe μ 1970: 96
on the different ways whereby deviations are generated between metataxes and metasememes), but
the process is highly situational and hardly systematizable in an encyclopedic sense.
61
Frames of reference as aspects of general degree zero for
determining multimodal rhetorical deviations in ad films at the
interpretive level of the analysis
• Grammatical rules, e.g., Quirk et al.’s (1985) standard English grammar and Kolln’s (1999)
rhetorical grammar.
• Genre rules for verbal, visual and verbo-visual pro-filmic elements,
• Advertising execution style as as genre (e.g., humorous)
• General filmic genre, e.g., the fantasy filmic genre (see Fowkes 2010) or any other form
of genre (see Todorov 1979, Schleifer 1987b, Chandler 1997, Jost 1997, Lewin et al.
2001, Malrieu and Rastier 2001, Rastier 2001b, Swanson 2003, Bronckart 2008, Taha
2008, Biber and Conrad 2009, Portillo Serrano 2010, Freadman 2012),
• but also regarding the general semiotic economy of advertising discourse (e.g., the
proclivity for employing figures such as asyndeton and ellipsis).
• Culture, e.g., Sonesson’s concept of Lifeworld, Eco’s Code (cf. Section 1.2.4.1), Groupe μ’s
notion of cultural isotopy (cf. Section 1.5.10) and convention (1970: 42), but also textual
linguistic notions, such as ‘knowledge of the world’ (Swanson 2003: 103-104), ‘linguistic
knowledge’ (Swanson 2003: 61), ‘world knowledge for discourse comprehension’ (Van Dijk
1980b: 18), ‘cultural competency’ (McQuarrie and Mick 1999; cf. Section 1.3) and ‘linguistic
competency’ (Chomsky; see Cobley 2005)
62
Ref.ppt Date

Verbal and visual markers for recognizing the incidence of
rhetorical operations/figures
• Pro-filmic elements function as semantic markers that cater for a figurative text’s semantic
coherence (which is complemented by syntactic markers of textual cohesion, in the form of
rhetorical operations/figures and production techniques).
• From a purely verbal rhetorical grammar point of view, “cohesive ties are furnished by
pronouns that have antecedents in previous sentences, by adverbial connections, by
known information and by knowledge shared by the reader” (Kolln 1999: 271).
• In the case of the ad filmic text, semantic markers partake of identifiable figurative
categories (e.g., actors, settings).
• Figurative semiotic categories allow for the interpretation of ad expressive elements, by
providing orientation.
• Groupe μ furnished examples of semantic markers whereby rhetorical deviations may be
gauged in both treatises.
• However, the examples of semantic markers that were offered in the rhetorical treatises
were not intended as a universal and a-contextual reading grid.
• The account rested at the level of exemplification, while stressing that it is impossible to
furnish a globally appealing system of semantic markers, capable of making sense of the
subtle nuances pertaining to contextual aspects of an énoncé.
63
Verbal and visual markers for recognizing the incidence of
rhetorical operations/figures
• The orientation strategy with the employment of grammatical markers that was suggested
by Groupe μ (1970) in their first rhetorical treatise was complemented by figurative
markers (Groupe μ 1992: 151) for the recognition of rhetorical deviations in figurative texts.
• Pro-filmic elements constitute figurative semantic markers, which must be inventoried in
tandem with figurative syntactic markers in order to account for a text’s semantic
coherence and syntactic cohesion, and proceed with coining isotopies
• The key differences between textual linguistic and lexical semantic approaches
(e.g., Cruse 1986, Swanson 2003, Biber and Conrad 2009, Gonzalez 2012), that explore
issues of semantic coherence and syntactic cohesion and the proposed structuralist
semiotic approach consists in the latter’s
• (i) adopting principles of film grammar and hence adopting a segmentation rationale of the text by
drawing on verbo-visual filmic syntagms, rather than verbal syntagms
• (ii) by implication adopting a multimodal approach to semantic and syntactic markers, that is visual
in complementarity to lexical items
• (iii) focusing not only on general grammatical rules for tapping semantic deviations and
rhetorical transformations, but, even more importantly, local textual rules that pertain to
brands’ local degrees zero.
64
Ref.ppt Date

65
Antecedents in consumer research on the interdependency
between meaning and value (Blackston 1995)
• Blackston (1995) placed considerable emphasis on the definitional components of
meaning and value, as indispensable for understanding and managing brand equity.
• The erosion of brand value is attributable to the erosion of a brand’s meaning
• Insofar as brand equity concerns, first and foremost, the generation of superior value
and given that value is interwoven with meaning, the mode of this intricate
relationship should be further qualified.
• This intuitively appealing idea formulated by Blackston, from a consumer research
point of view, constitutes a fundamental premise of structuralist semiotics, as
inaugurated by Saussure.
66
Ref.ppt Date

Greimas’s (Saussure’s) dual definition of value:
Axiology and Linguistic value
• “Value is employed in semiotics in two different ways, viz., value as an underpinning of a
project in the course of one’s life [my note: that is as axiology] and value in the
structuralist sense, as formulated by Saussure [my note: that is, as linguistic value]”
(Greimas and Fontanille 1991: 47).
• “Value always presupposes the notion of exchange” (Klinkenberg 2011).
• A key premise that underpins Greimas’s approach to the mode of formation of value is that
it becomes valorized through figurative discourse.
Linguistic value= Differential
realizations of virtual possibilities
or how a brand is invested with
semes as objects of value through
figurative discourse in a superior
way to competitors throughout
time.
• “The figurative form of the object guarantees its reality and at this level value becomes identified
with the desired object” (Greimas 1987).
• This is one of the crucial points where the import of semiotics in planning and accounting
for the figurative rendition and maintenance of brand equity is deemed to be
indispensable, as by virtue of a set of semiotic constraints in the form of a category’s
sociolectal degree zero, the potentially infinite expressive possibilities awaiting to be
realized in brand discourse may be reduced to a set of salient alternatives and hence
become deductively manageable.
67
Saussure’s conceptualization of meaning and value:
An inherent interdependency
 […] a word can be exchanged for something dissimilar, an idea; besides, it can be
compared with something of the same nature, another word.
 Its value is therefore not fixed, so long as one simply states that it can be “exchanged”
for a given concept, i.e., that it has this or that signification: one must also compare it
with similar values, with other words that stand in opposition to it.
 Its content is really fixed only by the concurrence of everything that exists outside it.
 Being part of a system, it is endowed not only with a signification but also and
especially with a value, and this is something quite different
(Saussure 1959: 115)
68
Ref.ppt Date

Saussure’s conceptualization of meaning and value:
What is the difference between signification and value?
• Signification emerges as vertical relations between signifiers and signifieds
whereas
• Value emerges as horizontal relations of “difference and opposition” among (i) signifiers
and signifiers and (ii) signifieds and signifieds
BUT
• If (according to Saussure) signifiers may not be conceived independently of signifieds (as
two sides of the same paper- EVEN THOUGH THIS IS CONTESTABLE), then how can
signifiers and signifieds be isolated from each other and become evaluated through
comparisons (acts of exchange) of equivalent terms in a system of language?
• Value is BY DEFINITION interdependent with meaning, it is different from meaning, but it
may not be conceived IN INDEPENDENCE of the process whereby meaning is formed
69
If differential brand value is dependent on differential meaning, then brand equity as
linguistic value is indissociable from meaning management: Crossing the…distance with
rhetoric as transformative syntax that cuts across the levels of the brand trajectory
• “There is always a distance between the cluster of semes that metalinguistically
organizes the representation of an object and the final lexeme” (Greimas 1987).
• The qualification of this distance is incumbent on the mode of transformation of
figurative discourse into semes as brand image elements and at the same time as
actantial objects, that is objects of value, with an emphasis on rhetorical transformations.
• As Floch stressed, “the rhetoric of the picture plays a role only when the “concept”
becomes figurative” (Floch 1989).
• It is by virtue of a figurative syntax that the realization of semic brand image elements
into multimodal expressive elements is feasible.
• The propounded rhetorical semiotic approach attains to qualify Greimas’s premise that
“only when syntax is brought into play can we account for the object and the values
invested in it” (Greimas 1987).
70
Ref.ppt Date

The axiological prong of value
• Invented brand values: values instituted
through brand discourses, which constitute
(at least during their emergence) instances of
undercodeness and semiotic inventio, in
Eco’s terms
• As Greimas stresses, the axiological and linguistic definitions of value are
complementary and non-contradictory (Greimas 1987: 104).
• In a quite self-explanatory manner, Greimas stresses that there is no ex nihilo creation
of values (Greimas 1987: 92). Values are always already embedded in cultural
axiological frameworks.
• Appropriated brand values: values which
reflect existing values embedded in social
structures and the particular target group(s)
to which a brand’s communication is
addressed.
• This premise echoes the Saussurean position that linguistic facts are inextricably
linked with social facts.
•“A closed universe of values corresponds to a given closed community” (Greimas 1987:
92). “Value is part of an implicit cultural code” (Greimas 1989d: 4).
71
The connectionist approach to the brand trajectory of signification
• The connectionist outlook to the brand trajectory of signification allows us to display the
pathways among highly figurative singular associations, in line with the parallel between
dreamwork and brandwork, thus connecting the latent with the manifest text, in Freud’s
terms, or an invariable semic image structure with discursive elements (in Greimas’s
terms).
• By integrating operations of rhetorical transformation in the resulting brand maps, the
missing link in the semantic investment of brands, as well as the discernment on a
product category level of the dominant rhetorical operations for effecting brand meaning
is enabled.
• This change in focus allows for operationalizing what was
put forward in a schematic fashion by Greimas (1976) as the
metaphorical mode of connectivity (among other tropes and
schemes) among morphologically distinct elements from the
three strata of the brand generative trajectory.
72
Ref.ppt Date

The propounded connectionist
approach to the construction of
a brand equity structure attains
to add dynamism to otherwise
static semiotic structures.
By not adopting the
time-hallowed binarist approach
to the elementary structure of
signification which, as argued,
has been vehemently criticized
by Rastier, but also questioned
by Greimas himself, it may be
demonstrated how structural
components from the three
levels of the generative
trajectory interact in bringing
about brand signification and
value.
The conceptual model of the brand trajectory of signification
Classem
e1
Nuclear
seme 1
Thematic
isotopy 1
adjunction
Thematic
Isotopy 2
Filmic
segment 1
Filmic
segment 2
substitutio
n
adjunction
Filmic
segment 3
73
74
Ref.ppt Date

Two methodological pillars: Interpretative semiotic analysis + content
analysis
• Semiotic interpretative analysis
• in line with traditional structuralist semiotic analyses
• continued up until Rastier’s Interpretative Semantics
• Supported by quantitative content analysis
• Facilitation of pattern generation in terms of a brand idiolectal and a category
sociolectal semic universe
• that allows for extrapolating differential brand associations at an encoding
stage against a salient set of brands and their ad filmic texts
• Furnishing data on which multivariate mapping techniques may be applied with
view to gauging
• differential patterns of associations among semes and rhetorical figures
• how differential associations as differential value emerge textually through
distinctive configurations among semes and the figurative glue that cuts across
a brand trajectory, that is rhetorical figures, applied to multimodal filmic
segments.
75
76
Ref.ppt Date

9-step methodological framework for projecting a brand equity structure
at the encoding stage of ad filmic texts
Step 1: Determination of a brand’s elementary structure of signification
Step 2: Construction of a brand’s master brand narrative
Step 3: Segmentation of manifest discourse into narrative utterances
Step 4: Demarcation of an ad text’s surface discourse with the determination of verbo-visual
semantic markers as pro-filmic elements
Step 5: Demarcation of an ad text’s surface discourse with the determination of rhetorical
operations and figures as modes of connectivity among verbo-visual pro-filmic elements
Step 6: Demarcation of an ad text’s surface discourse with the determination of production
techniques as modes of connectivity among verbo-visual semantic markers
Step 7: Preparation of homological chains among surface discourse expressive elements
(parallel structures)
Step 8: Generation of isotopies and calculation of linguistic value
Step 9: The semiotic brand equity mapping approach 77
Step 1: Determination of a brand’s elementary structure of
signification
• Determination of the key semes or invariant semantic units that make up a brand’s
semic micro-universe.
This is the bottom-up route for constructing brand
• knowledge structures.
The depth structure in structuralist semiotic textual readings usually encompasses a
text’s semic universe.
But in any case the bottom-up approach must be
complemented with a top-down one, as a brand
and/or ad is always dependent on a competitive
setting by recourse to which DIFFERENTIAL
BRAND ASSOCIATIONS and LINGUISTIC
VALUE may be constructed.
The three interpretative levels of the text (Everaert-Desmedt 2007: 16; also see Courtés 1991: 172-176).
78
Ref.ppt Date

Step 1: Determination of a brand’s elementary structure of signification:
Determination of core brand associations (nuclear semes) and peripheral brand
associations (classemes) in line with Keller’s key associative types
(attributes, benefits, attitudes)
• As regards the hierarchical organization of a semic microuniverse, this calls for an a
priori distinction, from a brand encoding point of view, between
• nuclear semes and classemes in terms of
• attributes, benefits, attitudes
Nuclear semes Classemes
Attributes
Benefits
Attitudes
• Failure to identify from the very encoding stage what semic type is projected in what
filmic segment will result in a mis-manageability of the sources of the resulting brand
associations in consumers’ minds.
79
• A narrative schema is a regulative principle, according to Greimas or a narrative algorithm
(as put metaphorically by both Rastier [1971] and Guiroud and Panier [1979])
• A narrative algorithm is more like an interpretative heuristic device, as “unlike an
algorithm, a heuristic does not guarantee a solution, but it is the best strategy for solving
the ill-defined problems characteristic of interpretation” (Bordwell 1989).
• Rastier (2005c), while comparing between hermeneutics and AI, also subscribes to the
position that it is impossible to furnish an algorithm that would account for interpretative
semiotic constraints.
• The canonical narrative schema is by default open to redefinition according to the
particularities of the corpus and genre at hand.
• A master brand narrative as canonical narrative schema concerns the textual institution of a
set of background expectations about a brand.
• These expectations concern an anticipatory structure on behalf of the target audience as a
recurrent depth structure in terms of its semic microuniverse.
80
Ref.ppt Date

• Translating the nuclear and classematic semes that were identified in Step 1 into
actantial objects (or objects of desire)
• The brand master narrative should ideally feature all the canonically recurring
expressive units of a brand’s discourse and, moreover, recurring modes of connectivity
• Not only a brand’s expressive inventory (i.e., pro-filmic elements), but
• Rhetorical inventory (invariably recurring modes of semic and surface structural
configuration )
81
Step 3: Segmentation of manifest discourse into narrative
utterances
• How a subject is transformed through various actions by entering in relations of
conjunction and disjunction with the object(s) of desire.
• A transformation may take place in any position within the manifest discursive
text, while more than one transformations are likely to occur in the succession among
various narrative utterances.
• The transformations which the subject undergoes at the semio-narrative level are
equivalent to transitions among states-of-being from one temporal point (t) to another
(t+1).•
“In order to be capable of manifestation, the logical category of content must be
temporalized” (Greimas 1976).
82
Ref.ppt Date

Step 4: Demarcation of an ad text’s surface discourse with the
determination of verbo-visual semantic markers as pro-filmic
elements
• In order to demarcate NUs/sequences and the key actantial figures that are operative
in a text, the manifest discourse’s actorial figures must be determined first.
• Pro-filmic elements constitute figurative semantic markers, which must be inventoried
prior to
• enacting the operations of reduction and redundancy in the structuration process
that allow for the transition to the semio-narrative and elementary signification
structures
• coining isotopies
• They function as semantic markers that cater for a figurative text’s semantic coherence
(complemented by figurative syntactic markers = rhetorical operations/figures and
production techniques).
83
determination of verbo-visual semantic markers as pro-filmic
elements
• The following verbo-visual pro-filmic elements are considered in the demarcation of a
surface discursive ad text:
•Actors/characters, where involved (in which case, following Chatman [1980] a character
is deemed salient for the discourse insofar as he affects the main actions involved in the
deployment WHAT of the IS narrative)
EVEN MORE IMPORTANT THAN PRO-FILMIC
•Setting: The ELEMENTS FROM A RHETORICAL SEMIOTIC POV IS
the deployment DISTINCTIVE spatiotemporal MODES configuration of a manifest plot is OF embedded
CONNECTIVITY, (e.g., landscapes, THAT historical IS
period) in which
RHETORICAL FIGURES
•Slogans (cf. Armstrong 2010: 222-224)
•Typographical features (see Goddard 1998: 18-19)
•Garments
•Fonts
•Colors
•Kinematic elements: gestures, facial expressions and proxemics
•Tone-of-voice
84
Ref.ppt Date

Step 5: Demarcation of an ad text’s surface discourse with the determination of
rhetorical operations and figures as modes of connectivity among verbo-visual
pro-filmic elements
• The metabolic function of rhetorical operations and figures is versatile, as shown by
Groupe μ ever since their first rhetorical treatise
• Figures perform various semantic and syntactic functions, from simple
(e.g., change of word ordering) to complex (e.g., metaphor, irony): IN CONTEXT
• HOW MAY FIGURES BE ASSIGNED TO PRO-FILMIC ELEMENTS OF MULTIMODAL
AD DISCOURSE?
• Certainly not…unambiguously
• Ever since their first treatise Groupe μ showed that any figure may perform
multiple metabolic functions
• Inasmuch as Peirce’s triadic classification of the sign does not preclude
inter-type classifications (e.g., the conventionalist approach to iconicity)
• Semiotic constraints in terms of a brand text’s motivational structure and a close
attendance to a text’s local degree zero are instrumental for assigning modes of
rhetorical configuration as unambiguously as possible.
85
Step 5: Master figures (?)
• Burke (1962) postulates that there are four master tropes, viz., metaphor, metonymy, irony and synecdoche.
• Todorov (1972: 353-355) suggests that the following Are there’ twenty master tropes are tropes’
most often encountered in literary texts:
•Alliteration: Repetition of the same sounds
regardless of category
•Antanaclasis: Repetition of the same word with sociolect a different •and sense
brand idiolect?
Antithesis: Correspondence of two antonyms, which comprise opposing semes
•Chiasm: A relationship between two words is repeated in an inverse manner in the course of a text
•Comparison: Parallelism between two senses
•Ellipsis: Suppression of one of two elements that are necessary for a complete syntactic arrangement
•Graduation: Succession of three or more syntactically equivalent terms that possess one or more semes in
common, of which at least one seme repeats itself in gradual form
•Hyperbole: Quantitative augmentation of one of the properties of an object, state-of-affairs, etc.
•Inversion: Permutation of the elements of a syntactic construction
•Irony: Employment of a word in an antonymical sense
•Litotes: Quantitative diminution of a property of an object, a state-of-affairs etc.
•Metaphor: Employment of a word in a different sense to its habitual one
•Metonymy: Employment of a word to designate an object or a property that share an existential
relationship, different to the one encountered in the habitual employment of the same word
•Oxymoron: Syntactical relation of two antonyms
•Paronomasia: Employment of consonant words with a different sense
•Preterition: Formula whereby one declares to avoid meaning what is stated in a phrase
•Repetition: Repetition of the same word or group of words
•Syllepsis: The employment of the same word in different senses, in different syntactical contexts
•Synecdoche: Employment of a word in a sense that is part of its habitual one
•Zeugma: Grammatical coordination of two words that possess opposing semes
86
Ref.ppt Date

Step 5: Adapting Groupe μ’s taxonomy (1970) to verbo-visual ad filmic discourse
• The inclusion of both verbal and visual figures under a common definitional rubric
enables us to account for how rhetorical operations and figures function not only in
standalone modes (i.e., verbal or visual), but, even more importantly, in interactions
between modes, that is as verbo-visual figures.
• The figures have been categorized under the four rhetorical operations that were
employed in Groupe μ’s first rhetorical treatise (1970) in order to account for the verbo-visual
interactions among figures
• Defined by allusion to various rhetorical treatises, such as
•Groupe μ’s (1970, 1992), Fontanier’s (1977), Aristotle’s, Quintilian’s, Perelman and
Olbrecht-Tyteca’s (1971), but also
•to entries in collective works, such as Sloane’s Encyclopedia of Rhetoric (2001)
• works on rhetorical grammar (e.g., Kolln 1999), as well as
• to taxonomies that were coined by scholars in the advertising rhetoric literature
(e.g., McQuarrie and Mick 1996, McQuarrie and Philips 2004, Huhmann
2008, Durand 1970, 1997)
87
Step 5: 3 semantic levels within the filmic text for gauging the incidence of
rhetorical transformations
• (i) individual filmic syntagms / segments
• (ii) between two filmic segments
• (iii) in the light of the ‘global context’ (Van Dijk 1980a) or ‘macrosemantic context’
(Rastier 2005c) of an individual film, that is the film in its entirety.
88
Ref.ppt Date

determination of production techniques as modes of connectivity
among verbo-visual semantic markers
• Production techniques (Editing, Shot Duration, Shot Type, Camera Movement, Camera
Angle, Camera Lens, Lighting, Sound ) must be addressed as aspects of the substance of the
expression plane insofar as they affect directly the discursive organization of the ad filmic text.
• e.g., displacement is materialized through editing transitions between shots and
condensation through lap-dissolves and superimpositions (see Ben Shaul 2007; Stam et al.
1992 with reference to Metz).
• Expanding our account of modes of textual configuration, such as demonstrating the effects of
lap-dissolve on the operation of permutation and the rhetorical figures that fall under its umbrella.
• Unless the rhetorical impact of such techniques is accounted for there is no way of effecting
a semio-narrative reconstruction of a highly figurative surface discourse and hence of
reinstating signification in deeper levels of the trajectory.
• Furthermore, production techniques impact directly on the mode whereby narrative continuity is
generated among filmic syntagms.
• The generation of filmic syntagms is a direct consequence of the employment of discrete
production techniques.
•For example, the single shot sequence may be effected by a long take; an alternating
syntagm by a cross-cutting technique.
89
Step 7: Preparation of homological chains among surface discourse
expressive elements (parallel structures)
• Homologies constitute a preparatory step for coining isotopies and for tapping patterns
of textual coherence.
•This step is not necessary in completing the brand equity trajectory process, but a
heuristic mechanism that allows for deriving patterns of semantic coherence.
• Homological chains essentially are responsible for establishing analogical relations
of similarity among the filmic syntagms and key themes that run across a film’s
textual fabric.
• Intra-iconic gestalt (Lindekens)
• They involve relationships of figurative similarity and by extension relationships of
contrived iconic similarity between abstract concepts (semes) and verbo-visual
expressive elements.
• Not mathematical analogies, but ‘qualitative’ relationships of similarity (Rastier 1989)
that rest with the reconstructive efforts of the semiotician.
90
Ref.ppt Date

Step 7: Homological pairings between nuclear
semes/classemes, surface discourse elements and rhetorical relata
Figurative
element
(individual
lexeme or
visual
expressive
unit or
entire
verbo-visual
filmic
syntagm)
Seme
1
Figurative
element
(individual
lexeme or
visual
expressive
unit or
entire
verbo-visual
filmic
syntagm)
Seme 2 Rhetorical
operation /
Rhetorical
figure
Nuclear
semes
Expressive
element A
: :: Expressive
element B
:
Seme 1
Seme 2
Seme 3
Classemes
Seme 1
Seme 2
Seme 3
The re-engineering of the
homologation process is geared
towards a discovery of how multi-strata
units cohere figuratively
against the background of
distinctive rhetorical figures
91
Step 8: Generation of isotopies and calculation of linguistic value
• Isotopies furnish a reading grid that allows for a homogeneous reading of a text
(Greimas and Courtés 1979) across its semic/figurative elements.
• But what is the difference between this task and the task that was the focal point of the
previous methodological step, other than that isotopic relations do not feature analogical
structures?
• Homologies constitute a heuristic step and do not feature quantified relations
• while the recruitment of the two main classes of degree zero of signification in the
calculation of isotopies is not featured in the generation of homological chains.
• The purpose of constructing isotopies is to discern the level of brand coherence on
both synchronic (individual ad text) and diachronic levels (across ad texts) .
• Brand coherence is an indispensable facet of linguistic value and its quantification.
92
Ref.ppt Date

Step 8: Generation of isotopies
• Rastier has developed a systematic way of coining isotopies in his Interpretative
Semantics
Specific isotopy (for the semantic domain ‘enfers’) made up of six semes (top row) that
recur either inherently or afferently in individual sememes (Rastier 1989: 118).
Parentheses denote an afferent seme, whereas plain crosses denote inherent seme9s3.
Step 8: Generation of isotopies (Rastier)
• In the analysis of a sonnet by Etienne Jodelle Rastier determined the isotopic
cohesion of each identified semantic domain by generating tables that match sememes
with semes.
• Each specific semantic domain comprises afferent and inherent semes (equivalent to
Greimasian classemes and nuclear semes).
• Semes are ascribed afferently to sememes by taking into account either the local
semantic structure of a text or a social practice that allows for their ascription to
particular sememes (these are socially ‘normed’ [normés] or coded semes), based on
the historical period wherein the concerned text/corpus of analysis is situated, but also
on assumptions about the target-group of the analysed cultural artifact.
• Non-context dependent semes are inherent (i.e., semes that are ascribed to sememes
based on definitions encountered in a lexicon)
• Greimas regularly resorted to lexical definitions (i.e., Petit Robert) as the point of
departure for his interpretative endeavors or general degree zero, in Groupe μ’s
terms.
94
Ref.ppt Date

•The next step consists in calculating the weight and density of each isotopy.
• The total number of occurrences of the semes that make up a semantic domain among
the sememes of the domain constitute the isotopy’s weight.
•The average semic occurrences by sememe constitutes the isotopy’s
density, according to Rastier.
• Thus, in the above example, the weight of the isotopy is 77 and its density 4.
• The relative importance of each isotopy in maintaining textual coherence is gauged by
comparing the generated isotopies’ weight and density scores.
• Inter-textual references to the corpus in which a text is situated also aid in the
substantiation of the interpretative route followed in the semantic structuration of a text.
95
• Rastier’s analysis along the lines of the interpretative trajectory does not consider
rhetorical figures which constitute the focus of the proposed brand equity planning
methodology
• even though Rastier alludes regularly to rhetorical notions, such as topoi and
enthymemes in the process of constructing the thematic structure of a text.
• The nearest analogy with rhetorical relata in Rastier’s interpretative semantics lies in
the modes of connection among generated isotopies, alongside two types, viz.,
metaphorical and symbolic connections
Metaphorical and symbolic connections among isotopies (Rastier 1989) cm=metaphoric
connection, cs=symbolic connection).
96
Ref.ppt Date

Step 8: Generation of isotopies
• The notion of metaphorical connector was also employed by Greimas in
Maupassant, as mode of figurative emergence of semes.
• Perhaps one of the most insightful passages from Greimas’s Maupassant that is
strongly suggestive of the prominent role performed by rhetorical figures in bringing
about textual signification, concerns the function of litotic expressions:
•What may be conceived as a “reality” at the surface of the text (comprising a chaining of
signs), is often a succession of litotic expressions, which lead one by one with the aid of
variable tropical relationships, to a profound textual isotopy. This is not encountered merely in
poetic texts that constitute an assembly of semantic anomalies, but in every ‘normal’ text.
(Greimas 1976; also see Greimas 1976 on chiasm).
97
Step 8: Calculation of linguistic value
• Brand equity calculi for quantifying
The equity calculi furnish a useful platform for
comparing and contrasting among the key brand
players’ projected equity structure in a given product
category by taking into account
-the level of invariant recurrence of a brand’s nuclear
semes across segments
-the degree to which the recurring semes are uniquely
reflected in the brand’s pro-filmic elements
- the incidence and density of rhetorical figures in a
brand’s discourse.
-the number of a brand’s filmic segments and the
interactions among them
• (i) the strength of projected brand associations as thematic isotopies from an encoding
point of view
• (ii) the uniqueness of the projected brand associations as thematic isotopies from an
encoding point of view
• (iii) a composite index that is reflective of a brand’s linguistic value as the semiotic
counterpart of brand equity.
98
Ref.ppt Date

Step 8: Key calculi in the process of quantifying linguistic value
• (i) Brand associative strength = nuclear semic weight x nuclear semic density
•(ii) Semic density = sum of individual semes’ density scores on an intra-brand, diachronic
level
•(iii) Brand associative strength adjusted for density of rhetorical configurations = (brand 1…n
nuclear semic weight x brand 1…n nuclear semic density) / (total incidence of figures /
number of filmic segments making up the total number of each brand’s ad films in the corpus)
•(iv) Brand associative strength index (adjusted for density of rhetorical configurations) = (iii) /
category average * 100
•(v) Uniqueness of brand association = average density score produced from individual
densities of nuclear semes
•(vi) Uniqueness of brand association index = (v) / category average * 100
• (vii) Projected brand equity as linguistic value = brand associative strength index (iv) +
uniqueness of brand association index (vi)
99
Step 8: Key calculi in the process of quantifying linguistic value (i)
Brand associative strength (ii) semic density
• (i) Brand associative strength = nuclear semic weight x nuclear semic density
• where weight is gauged by calculating the frequency of occurrence of nuclear semes
across the various verbo-visual expressive units throughout filmic syntagms from a
diachronic perspective (i.e., across the different ad filmic texts of the same brands), while
• density is gauged by calculating the frequency of occurrence of nuclear semes in particular
verbo-visual expressive units as a ratio of the total diachronic incidence of each nuclear
seme by the total number of segments making up each brand’s filmic subcorpus.
• (ii) Semic density = sum of individual semes’ density scores on an intra-brand,
diachronic level
•Density caters for understanding how dispersed the occurrence of nuclear semes is
across figurative elements, which entails that the more dispersed a semic attribute across
figurative elements, the more likely that brand textual coherence will be diluted in the face of
a highly variable advertising discourse.
100
Ref.ppt Date

(iii) Brand associative strength adjusted for density of rhetorical configurations
• The calculation of strength of projected brand associations, thus far, has taken into
account only thematic isotopies that are reflected in pro-filmic elements, but not ‘how’
this internal mirroring in a brand qua logicosemantic simulacrum has been
effected.
• In order to account for this mode of brand structuration from a structuralist rhetorical
semiotic point of view, we have to bring into the brand textual coherence picture the
effect of rhetorical figures.
• Hence, the resulting isotopic scores must be adjusted by mode of figurative
connectivity, in order to reflect more accurately the mode of each isotopic
configuration.
• To this end, associative strength is divided by the ratio of total incidence of
different rhetorical figures across a brand’s ad texts’ filmic segments that are
employed in the corpus.
• (iii) Brand associative strength adjusted for density of rhetorical configurations =
(brand 1…n associative strength) / (total incidence of figures / number of filmic
segments making up the total number of each brand’s ad films in the corpus)
101
(v) Uniqueness of brand association = average density score produced from individual
densities of nuclear semes
• Uniqueness of associations is quantified by examining to what extent thematic
isotopies differ among brands
• Difference may concern either the differential employment of an isotopy in a particular
brand’s discourse, or the relatively more ‘compact’ employment of a thematic isotopy by
a brand compared to its competitors.
• In order to determine a total uniqueness score for each brand we must account in our
calculus for both of the above uniqueness dimensions.
• To this end, we must compare the relative frequency of a thematic isotopy within the
same brand discourse from a diachronic perspective, that is across a brand’s total filmic
segments.
• Uniqueness of brand association = average density
score produced from individual densities
of nuclear semes
102
Ref.ppt Date

(iv), (vi), (vii): Brand associative strength uniqueness index, strength index and
linguistic value
• Production of individual brand associative strength and uniqueness indices within an
inter-brand and diachronic framework:
• (iv) Brand associative strength index (adjusted for density of rhetorical configurations)
= (iii) / category average * 100
• (vi) Uniqueness of brand association index = (v) / category average * 100
• (vii) Projected brand equity as linguistic value = brand associative strength index (iv) +
uniqueness of brand association index (vi)
103
Step 9: The semiotic brand equity mapping approach
• The suggested connectionist approach to the brand generative trajectory consists of
producing brand maps that associate semes with ad filmic segments, while taking into
account their figurative modes of connectivity
Micro brand textual
management
approach linking
-Rhetorical figures
with
-Ad films and or
individual filmic
segments
with
- Semes
104
Ref.ppt Date

105
Aims of the case-study
• The exemplification of the propounded methodology
• Production of the relevant brand equity metrics and semiotic equity maps which
portray the interactions among the featured brands’ elements at the planes of
expression and content.
• Coupled with an interpretation of how nuclear semes and classemes (that make
up a brand’s semantic nucleus and periphery respectively) emerge figuratively
through the employment of ad surface expressive units and distinctive modes of
rhetorical connectivity.
• Addressing how thematic isotopies are formed (which are of primary importance
for the calculation of the proposed equity metrics).
106
Ref.ppt Date

The UK cold cereals brands that make up the corpus of this study
The 13 (sub)brands that make up
this corpus account for nearly 50%
of the ttl market value (Mintel 2012)
%
…which is dominated by TV advertising
Kellogg’s Special K 7,8
Weetabix 7,7
Kellogg’s Crunchy Nut 5,8
TV 79.9 76.3 71.9 66.6
Outdoor 1.5 3.8 8.7 14.2
Cinema 8.2 4.1 7.8 7.0
Press 10.0 13.3 8.9 6.7
Radio 0 1.9 2.1 3.8
Internet 0.3 0.7 0.6 1.7
Door Drops 0.1 0 0.1 0
Grand total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Kellogg’s Corn Flakes 4,2
Kellogg’s Coco Pops 3,7
Cheerios (Nestlé) 3,5
Shreddies (Nestlé) 3,2
Kellogg’s Rice Krispies 2,7
Shredded Wheat (Nestlé) 2,7
Kellogg’s Frosties 2,1
Kellogg’s All-Bran Flakes 1,9
The top 3 brands account for over
90% of the category’s ttl ad
spending…
2010 2011
2008 2009 2010 2011
% % % %
% %
Kellogg’s 68,2 72,8
Nestlé 15,4 11,2
Weetabix 9,3 10,4
ttl 92,9 94,4
107
The brands that make up the corpus of this research and their
primary target groups
Brand Manufacturer Primary target group
1 Kellogg’s Corn Flakes Kellogg’s Entire family
2 Kellogg’s Special K Kellogg’s ABC Socio-economic class, shape-conscious women 20-44 yrs.
old
3 Kellogg’s Rice
Krispies
Kellogg’s Children 8-15 yrs. old
4 Kellogg’s Coco Pops Kellogg’s Children 8-15 yrs. old
5 Kellogg’s All-Bran Kellogg’s Women 35+, Men, Women 55+ (according to Mintel 2012 cereals
high in fiber are primarily sought by this demographic, even though
this attitudinal statement is not reflected in actual consumption
figures by this demographicwhich is compounded by the inclusion
of porridge eaters in the sample)
6 Kellogg's Crunchy Nut Kellogg’s Men 25-44
7 Kellogg’s Frosties Kellogg’s Children 8-15 yrs. old, men 18-34 yrs. old
8 Weetabix Weetabix Entire family
9 Weetabix Minis Weetabix Men/Women 18-24 yrs. old
10 Weetos Weetabix Children 8-15 yrs. old, entire family
11 Cheerios Nestle Entire family.
12 Shreddies Nestle Entire family
13 Shredded Wheat Nestle 55+
108
Ref.ppt Date

George rossolatos building strong brands with structuralist rhetorical semiotics new bulgaria university 19 9 2014

George rossolatos building strong brands with structuralist rhetorical semiotics new bulgaria university 19 9 2014

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to George rossolatos building strong brands with structuralist rhetorical semiotics new bulgaria university 19 9 2014

Similar to George rossolatos building strong brands with structuralist rhetorical semiotics new bulgaria university 19 9 2014 (20)

More from //disruptiVesemiOtics//

More from //disruptiVesemiOtics// (13)

George rossolatos building strong brands with structuralist rhetorical semiotics new bulgaria university 19 9 2014