A history of brand misdefinition – with corresponding implications for mismeasurement and incoherent...

<jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Purpose</jats:title> <jats:p>This paper aims to dissect conceptual and semantic issues surrounding the word “brand.” Theoretical, operational and practical concerns resulting from the term’s use and misuse are exposed, some derived managerial problems are highlighted, and alternatives for resolving the confusing and dysfunctional brand nomenclature are offered.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Design/methodology/approach</jats:title> <jats:p>Comprehensive literature review, i.e. review of an entire population of literature, incorporating content analysis.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Findings</jats:title> <jats:p>A large fraction of empirical brand literature is ambiguous because the definition, meaning and therefore measurement of the focal construct, brand, is unclear. In other words, empirical results throughout the brand literature may apply to “brand” – by one definition or another – but there is no way of knowing which brand interpretation is in use.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Originality/value</jats:title> <jats:p>A large part of the marketing field does not know what the word “brand” means anymore, a lapse that is widely unrecognized. This paper illuminates the lost knowledge condition and proposes resolution. The present state of theoretical and empirical ambiguity is untenable because so many empirical findings throughout the literature are vitiated.</jats:p> </jats:sec>