Analysis of Two Articles
Analysis of Two Articles
Interestingly, in his conclusions Kay (2006) outlined challenges for strong brands stating that following the logic of strong brands is the wrong way for decision makers because this is an easy way to be misled. The main conclusion drawn by the author was that a strong brand should be built according to certain brand logic that it tight to the meaning assigned to this brand. Porter (2008) did not draw any conclusions, but he ended his article with a concluding paragraph emphasizing the importance of careful analysis of industry structure and competition and stating that these are two the most important trends in analysis of external environment. However, both authors argued that success factors they considered in their articles are crucially important for the development of appropriate corporate strategies and brand equity. The trends described in the articles represent valuable information for analysis of brand success and approaches to the development of the corporate image.
Both articles can be considered relevant because of several reasons outlined below. The article of Kay (2006) is well-structured and contains all necessary parts of a scholarly source, namely: abstract, purpose, methodology, finding, and value. The information placed in the article is coherent and up-to-date that can be supported by other relevant literature. In addition, the article was published in European Journal of Marketing that can be considered an evidence of relevance as well. The material of the article is stated in a scholarly manner and represents significant value for the marketing research since it offers new insights regarding brands, their strength, and weaknesses. The article of Kay (2006) can be useful for students, scholars, and other people and institutions interested to understand the nature of brand and brand equity.
The article of Porter (2008) is also interesting because it offered a model for analysis of external environment that is frequently used in corporate environment. There is no need to prove its relevance because Porter’s Five Forces Model can be found in any marketing and management textbooks. Porter offered a model that is used for more than twenty years by marketing specialists, managers, and other specialists. As well as the article of Kay (2006), the Porter’s article was published in Harvard Business Review – a publishing company that recommended itself as a relevant source of information since only high-quality works can be published by this company. The article is written in a scholarly manner offering useful insights on analysis of external competitive environment. The author drew many examples from real life supporting his suggestions that also adds to the relevance of the article. Drawing examples helps understand the idea represented by the author. The same approach was used my Kay (2006). Both articles were divided into small parts related important insights of the topic helping understand ideas better. For example, Porter devoted significant parts of his article to a detailed explanation of his five forces with relevant examples. Kay (2006) used same approach dividing his article on questions. It is essential that a scholarly source can be comprehended by the readers. Both authors paid significant attention to the analysis of the issues they highlighted. For example, Porter (2008) offered analysis of a position of a company and then proposed a strategy of how this position could be improved. Kay (2006) built his paper in a manner of question-answer that was very comfortable to read. Kay (2006) gave a detailed explanation how strong brands are built and how to avoid mistakes when aiming to develop strong brand names. Both sources can be considered relevant because the suggestions about brands and large corporations represented in the articles are supported by evidence taken from corporate experiences of large international companies.
Both Kay (2006) and Porter (2008) paid enough attention to profitability as the result of the choice of the right strategy. However, Kay (2006) considered the impact of the brand strength on profitability while Porter (2008) applied to industry analysis and comparative profitability within same industry. This information proved to be relevant since Porter (2008) used relevant statistics and Kay (2006) mentioned well-known facts about large corporations that were used as evidence to prove the statements.
Also, relevance of the material represented by Kay (2006) and Porter (2008) is evident since the findings of the authors can be used in practice. For example, Porter’s model is often used for industry analysis and analysis of competition. The model suggested by Kay (2006) can be used for brand analysis to determine whether a brand is strong and what should be done to make it stronger. Also, Kay (2006) stated that the strength of a brand does not warrant its success and shed light on the approaches to promoting a brand. Thus, both articles can be considered scholarly sources of information as they meet the requirements for scholarly works. The information found in the articles proved to be relevant, up-to-date, and useful for the readers. It helped understand brand identity and approaches to analysis of external environment.
References
Kay, M.J. (2006). Strong brands and corporate brands. European Journal of Marketing, 40(8), 742-760.
Porter, M.E. (2008). The five competitive forces that shape strategy. Harvard Business Review, 3(16), 78-93.
