Virtual brands and Fictional Brands explained and innovative branding and brand management techniques presented. The concepts of protobrands and reverse product placement and explores some of the managerial and academic implications. The paper establishes that the brand concept may now be detached from physical embodiment. The extension of application of the branding domain to the fictional and computer-synthesized worlds is extensively illustrated by examples of virtual brands from books, films, video games and other multi-user virtual environments. Evidence suggests that purely potential brands (protobrands) initiated in the virtual world may possess strong consumer-based brand equity. The study shows that the equity of the protobrands may be leveraged in-world (and can acquire legal protection) or through reverse product placement and the launch of the physical embodiment of the protobrand in the physical world (the HyperReal brand). This is an initial conceptual paper on virtual and HyperReal brands. This study, which has no antecedents, highlights the need for further empirical inquiry. The reverse product placement phenomenon may result in academics and practitioners to revise the traditional models of building brands. Originality/value – The paper introduces and defines virtual brands, both fictional and computer-synthesized, HyperReal brands and the reverse product placement phenomenon. Keywords

1. European Journal of Marketing
Emerald Article: Branding in fictional and virtual environments:
Introducing a new conceptual domain and research agenda
Laurent Muzellec, Theodore Lynn, Mary Lambkin
Article information:
To cite this document:
Laurent Muzellec, Theodore Lynn, Mary Lambkin, (2012),"Branding in fictional and virtual environments: Introducing a new
conceptual domain and research agenda", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 Iss: 6 pp. 811 - 826
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090561211214618
Downloaded on: 07-06-2012
References: This document contains references to 82 other documents
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
This document has been downloaded 10 times since 2012. *
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by Emerald Author Access
For Authors:
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service.
Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Additional help
for authors is available for Emerald subscribers. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in
business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as
well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is
a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

2. The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm
Branding in
Branding in fictional and virtual virtual
environments environments
Introducing a new conceptual domain and
research agenda 811
Laurent Muzellec
´
ESSCA Ecole de Management, LUNAM Universite, Boulogne-Billancourt,
France
Theodore Lynn
Leadership, Innovation and Knowledge (LInK) Research Centre,
Dublin City University Business School, Dublin, Ireland, and
Mary Lambkin
UCD Michael Smurfit Graduate Business School, University College Dublin,
Dublin, Ireland
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims at establishing a new stream of academic study for virtual brands. It
explains the concepts of protobrands and reverse product placement and explores some of the
managerial and academic implications.
Design/methodology/approach – Starting from the most recent definition of the brand construct,
the paper establishes that the brand concept may now be detached from physical embodiment. The
extension of application of the branding domain to the fictional and computer-synthesized worlds is
extensively illustrated by examples of virtual brands from books, films, video games and other
multi-user virtual environments.
Findings – Evidence suggests that purely potential brands (protobrands) initiated in the virtual
world may possess strong consumer-based brand equity. The study shows that the equity of the
protobrands may be leveraged in-world (and can acquire legal protection) or through reverse product
placement and the launch of the physical embodiment of the protobrand in the physical world (the
HyperReal brand).
Research limitations/implications – This is an initial conceptual paper on virtual and HyperReal
brands. This study, which has no antecedents, highlights the need for further empirical inquiry. The
reverse product placement phenomenon may result in academics and practitioners to revise the
traditional models of building brands.
Originality/value – The paper introduces and defines virtual brands, both fictional and
computer-synthesized, HyperReal brands and the reverse product placement phenomenon.
Keywords Brand definition, Brands, Virtual worlds, Brand equity, Reverse product placement, Film
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
The marketing literature has seen a gradual evolution of the brand concept from the European Journal of Marketing
Vol. 46 No. 6, 2012
traditional perspective of a brand attached to a physical product as an identifying pp. 811-826
symbol or word that distinguishes it from its competitors, to a multi-dimensional q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0309-0566
approach which sees a brand as an abstract object or a set of associations in the mind DOI 10.1108/03090561211214618

3. EJM of the consumer (Gardner and Levy, 1955; Kapferer, 1997; Brown, 1992; Fournier, 1998;
46,6 Keller, 2008).
However, most of the academic literature has limited itself to the study of branding
applications in the real – i.e. the physical world – and ignored the powerful features of
virtual and fictional brands, let alone the impact they might exert on the real world.
This is a gap which this paper attempts to address. In this paper we make the case that
812 the brand construct can be extended to imaginary objects in fictional or
computer-synthesized environments, and that the nature of such brands warrants
examination particularly in cases where they connect with the real physical world.
The concept of brand now connotes the “[. . .] simultaneously virtual and actual,
abstract and concrete, a means of relativity and a medium of relationality” (Lury, 2004,
p. 12). As much of the branding effort is psychological (Frazer, 1983) and is about
shaping brand images as collection of perceptions in the mind of the consumers (Keller,
2008), this paper contends that brands may be entirely created in a virtual or fictional
environment and may be then leveraged in the real world.
The intersection of the virtual or fictional and the real and its implications for brand
management are important for two reasons. First, the convergence of consumers’
capacity to communicate using digital technologies, and the increasing functional
interoperability of media technologies requires a more sophisticated interpretation of
brands. Second, from a business perspective, early identification of brand potential in
virtual worlds represents a commercial opportunity to exploit and/or a risk to mitigate.
Following a review of the literature on the evolution of the brand construct, a new
classification of brands is presented reflecting Lury’s bi-polar construct – the virtual,
the real and those that exist at the intersection of the virtual and the real, the hyperreal.
Virtual brands are further sub-divided into fictional and computer-synthesized and it is
suggested that such brands sometimes lie outside the normal designation of brand,
representing brand potential rather than brand reality; they are in effect,
“protobrands”. It is proposed that “protobrands” can be leveraged and transformed
into registered trademarks which can derive revenue for their owners through a
process sometimes called reverse product placement or, more accurately, reverse brand
placement. The managerial and theoretical consequences of this extension of the
branding paradigm are discussed at the end of the paper. A research agenda for
marketing scholars is also provided.
Definitional issues: brands and branding in the real and in the virtual
In 1960, the American Marketing Association defined a brand as:
A name, term, sign, symbol, or design, or a combination of them, intended to identify the
goods or services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of
competitors.
This definition and other traditional definitions equate a brand with a trademark
attached to a physical product. Typically marketing textbooks focus on the concept of
brand as a selling device managed by the marketing team who use it as a means of
differentiation for the firm’s offering (Kotler and Keller, 2006). Such company-oriented
definitions concentrate on the business purpose of branding which is to achieve a
competitive advantage and provide the brand owner with higher margins and a
continuous stream of income (Aaker, 1992).

4. As academics began to recognize the emotional involvement of consumers with Branding in
“their” brands (Fournier, 1998), the value of widening the brand construct to include virtual
both firm and consumer perspectives became apparent (Salzer-Morling and ¨
˚
Strannegard, 2004). The brand is increasingly seen as a multidimensional construct, environments
i.e. “a double vortex” (de Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Rilley, 1998a) that embodies the
firm’s functional and emotional values as well as the performance and psychosocial
needs of consumers (de Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley, 1998b). The emotional side of 813
the brand construct corresponds to a collection of perceptions in the mind of the
consumer (Fournier, 1998).
In addition to a shift of emphasis from brand managers to consumers, this evolution
also allowed for an expansion of the scope of branding. Initially confined to physical
goods and services (Gardner and Levy, 1955), the brand concept can now be applied to
a variety of entities such as corporations (Balmer, 2001), geographical places (Medway
and Warnaby, 2008), political parties (Reeves et al., 2006), movies (Byeng-Hee and
Eyun-Jung, 2005), and celebrities, e.g. “Madonna as a brand” (Brown, 2003).
Such a flexible use of brand terminology reveals a gradual change in the nature of
the brand construct. Since Gardner and Levy (1955), the intangible and abstract
characteristic of the brand has gradually been acknowledged (Levy, 1978; Keller, 1993),
to the extent that a brand may sometimes be reduced to nothing more than the sum of
all the mental connections people have around it (Brown, 1992). Pushing the reasoning
further one may ask whether a physical embodiment is still a necessity for a brand to
exist, as long as the name, the symbol or the design triggers a set of associations in the
mind of the consumer?
For example, Abela (2003) has identified two kinds of interpretations of a brand:
(1) The additive interpretation, which depicts the product and brand as separate,
with the brand as a mark that is added to the product.
(2) The inclusive interpretation which portrays the product and brand as a
combined unit, where the product is included in the brand.
Could the additive interpretation of the brand imply that a product and a brand may be
created separately and managed independently without reliance on each other? It is
interesting to note that recent sociological work on branding puts forward the notion of
the brand as an “interface that connects the producers and the consumers and removes
or separates them from each other” (Lury, 2004, p. 7). This is because consumers
develop relationships with the brand (Blackston, 2000) but not necessarily with the
producers (Kumar and Steenkamp, 2007). In fact, some commentators have suggested
that “successful corporations must primarily produce brands, as opposed to products”
(Klein, 2000, p. 3).
This dual evolution (“intangibilisation” and “consumer-focus”) of the brand
construct coincides with new marketing practices facilitated by the technological
evolution of the internet. In recent years, world wide web technology such as really
simple syndication (RSS) and Web 2.0 applications such as blogs, microblogs,
multi-user virtual environments and social networking websites, have re-balanced the
traditional asymmetry of information between brand managers and consumers to the
relative benefit of the latter (Kozinets et al., 2008). These technological innovations call
for a new post-modern consumer branding model (Holt, 2002; Muzellec and McDonagh,
2007; Simmons, 2008).

5. EJM New terminology such as “Branding 2.0” or “Web 2.0 branding” has emerged and is
46,6 attempting to capture the multifaceted nature of a new brand building process
(Mairinger, 2008; Christodoulides, 2009). For example, “Branding 2.0” is built around
three principles:
(1) an online brand community which is not just formed around the brand but is
part of the brand;
814 (2) a physical-virtual interface which is evidenced in both physical and virtual
environments; and
(3) an underlying information system that collects and disseminates
consumer-generated information (Mairinger, 2008).
This model reflects emergent practices for the management of brands in the
information age. It underscores how brand managers are no longer in control of the
brands, but are merely brand hosts whose main role is to facilitate the sharing of
information about or around the brand among internet users.
In this new dominant logic for marketing, the customer is primarily an operant
resource (co-producer) rather than an operand resource (“target”) (Vargo and Lusch,
2004). In such a context, branding is envisaged as a dynamic concept that is evolving
over time through interaction between the firm and consumers, and through
independent consumer activity which occurs through word of mouth at the level of
blogs (e.g. Blogger), social networks (e.g. Facebook), video sharing sites (e.g. YouTube),
and open multi-user virtual environments (e.g. Second Life).
Although novel and relevant, this model fails to capture fully the theoretical and
managerial implications of brands comprised totally of intangible benefits. Free from
the constraint of physical embodiment, the brand sphere may expand beyond reality
into the virtual. If the brand is no longer a product and only acquires value once it is a
set of perceptions in consumers’ minds, then the argument could be made that brands
need not be born out of a tangible good but could come out of fictional or
computer-synthesized environments which capture consumers’ imagination.
The worlds of branding: the real, the virtual (computer-synthesized) and the fictional
We have identified two types of platforms which may support the representation of a
brand disconnected from the real, tangible world.
First of all, there is the fictional world which is a representation of imaginary worlds
that may mimic reality such as in the case of soap operas, or that may deliberately
extrapolate into worlds which are demonstrably different from reality such as abstract
art, science fiction etc. Both of these cases share in common the fact that the
´
representations are not reality. As Belgian painter Rene Magritte reminds us through
his famous painting “The treachery of images” (La trahison des images, 1928-1929),
images are not the reality[1]. This fictional world may be manifest in traditional media
such as books, movies, television series and theatre. In the fictional world, consumers’
influence on the story is limited as they are not actors in this world but simple readers
or observers of the fiction.
Second, the virtual world (which will be called the computer-synthesized world
hereafter to distinguish it from the fictional world) is “an animated, nonexistent virtual
world synthesized by a computer” (Steur, 1995). Virtual worlds are platforms that
replicate a three dimensional environment in which users can appear in the form of

6. personalized avatars and interact with each other as they would in real life. Virtual Branding in
worlds include virtual game worlds and virtual social worlds. The user is active and virtual
involved both in virtual game and virtual social worlds but the degree of users’
influence on those worlds varies. In the case of virtual game worlds or multiplayer environments
online role-playing games (MMORPG, e.g. World of Warcraft), the user cannot modify
the world and is required to behave according to strict rules. In the case of virtual social
worlds, however, the user may sometimes, literally shape the world when it is an open 815
source system such as the virtual world called “Second Life” (Kaplan and Haelein,
2009).
For a long time, the activity of branding in those worlds has been limited to the
practice of placing real brands in those abstract environments. This practice is known
as product placement or more accurately described in academic circles as “brand
placement” (Karrh, 1998). Brands may be placed in fictional worlds such as movies or
in virtual worlds such as video games (Lee and Faber, 2007), or virtual social worlds
(Kaplan and Haelein, 2009).
Most studies on brand placement have analysed its effect on brand attitude and
brand recall (see Balasubramanian et al., 2006, for a comprehensive review). Many
studies have reported some positive effects on audience memory for placed brands
(Karrh, 1998; Law and Braun, 2000; Yang et al., 2006), but a limited or even negative
impact on attitude under certain conditions (Schemer et al., 2008; Homer, 2009).
Interestingly, in a qualitative study on the meaning of brand placement for
moviegoers, DeLorme and Reid (1999) observed the value of realism as audiences
appreciated the realism that real brands brought to the movie. In other words, the
practice of product placement is about bringing the reality of products/brands into an
abstract fictional or virtual world. This paper argues that this is only one way of
considering the relationship between fiction and reality and that brands may be real
but also fictional and virtual, i.e. projections of reality in a fictional world or indeed
projections of the imaginary in the real world (reverse product placement (see Figure 1).
Arguably, projections of real brands in computer-synthezied and fictional worlds
are merely a representation of product placement. This phenomenon has been
extensively discussed and studied in the area of on-line and video games (e.g. Nelson,
Figure 1.
Framework for the study
of real, fictional and
virtual brands

7. EJM 2002; Lee and Faber, 2007) and fictional environments (e.g. Gould et al., 2000; Wiles and
46,6 Danielova, 2009), but this is not the subject of this paper. Instead, the objective of this
paper is to articulate a new concept – that of virtual brands initiated in fictional and
computer-synthesized worlds, to suggest their relevance for brand managers and to
propose a research agenda on this new topic for the academic community.
816 A note on the methodology
Based on our review of the literature, we propose a new typology to help us understand
the range of brands that may exist on a spectrum from real to fictional or virtual. This
framework is illustrated in Figure 2 and it identifies four types of brands based on the
origins of the brand and the world in which it exists. Those four categories are
presented in four quadrants in Figure 2. Quadrants A and C represent product
placement and includes most brands as we currently experience them and, as pointed
out already, they have already been well studied in the literature. Our purpose,
therefore, is to investigate quadrant B (fictional and virtual brands in abstract worlds)
and quadrant D (fictional or virtual brands in the real world).
We have collected names of brands to illustrate the two latter categories (B and D).
The list that is currently available at Wiki list is quite comprehensive although not
exhaustive (http://list.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_fictional_brands as accessed on 15 June
2010). Under the term “defictionalised brands”, many internet websites propose a list of
virtual brands which are now available as real products; for example:
.
http://delicious.com/murketing/imaginarybrands (as accessed on 15 June 2010).
.
www.buzzfeed.com/buzz/Defictionalized_Goods (as accessed on 15 June 2010).
In addition to those lists, a number of twitter users regularly send tweets about news
on the topic of fictional brands (in particular @defictionalized and @defictionalised) or
the blog of Justin Kirwood (www.notarealthing.com as accessed on 15 June 2010).
Using those resources, we have identified more than 250 fictional and virtual brands
(quadrant B) and found 25 examples of reverse brand placement (quadrant D). We
analyse these two categories in the following sections and illustrate this analysis by
using the relevant examples. As the purpose of this study is to describe a phenomenon
and set up a research agenda rather than develop a new theory, a limited number of
Figure 2.
Typology of brands in real
and virtual worlds

8. examples were chosen and briefly developed on the merit of their informative value Branding in
(Flyvbjerg, 2006). virtual
environments
Quadrant B – purely virtual: the emergence of protobrands
Purely virtual brands include fictional or computer-synthesized brands and exist solely
in the imagination of the perceiver.
Initially, fictional brands were often used to minimize the reliance on corporate 817
sponsorship in artistic works. For example, to affirm the non-conformist nature of his
movies, film director, Quentin Tarentino uses several fictional brands such as the fast
food brand, “Big Kahuna Burgers”, the cereal brand “Fruit Brute”, and “Red Apple”
cigarettes in films such as Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill, and Four Rooms.
Looking specifically at the case of “Red Apple” cigarettes, Muzellec and McDonagh
(2007) note that such brands may hold specific associations. “Red Apple” cigarettes
derive “coolness” from characters such as “Butch Coolidge” (Bruce Willis) and “Mia
Wallace” (Uma Thurman), who smoke them in the film, Pulp Fiction. Hence, “Red
Apple” mimics the emotional characteristics of a genuine brand. Yet, it cannot be
purchased or consumed, at least not as cigarettes. It only exists in the imagination of
the audience. To paraphrase Brown’s assertion, a purely fictional brand is literally
“nothing but the sum of all the mental connections people have around it” (Brown,
1992). Thus we define fictional brands as completely imaginary brands which, while
invented, cannot be consumed.
Virtual, computer-synthesized brands are similar to fictional brands in that they
have no referent in the real world. The difference is that they are not only invented and
but also consumed in the online world. Users can consume these virtual brands,
although only in the computer-synthesized environment in which the brand exists. For
example, players in computer games such as Grand Theft Auto can use virtual
vending machines to purchase and consume virtual beverages with virtual money,
such as “Sprunk” and “eCola”. These virtual brands are often reinforced within the
virtual world through in-game advertising on virtual billboards. Again, while there are
mental connections with the brand, the entire brand experience is
computer-synthesized; the products to which the brand is attached cannot be
consumed in the real world nor can they generate monetary value in the real world.
Purely virtual brands, whether purely fictional or purely computer-synthesized, do
not possess any realness, yet they can possess emotional value. Despite this emotional
value and equity, these brands only represent a potential which, unless acted upon in
the real world, has no economic value as this value cannot be realized without real
world interaction. We define such brands as protobrands; brands that have not been
“tangibilized” or “productized” in the real physical world but which nonetheless
capture the imagination and emotional attachment of real consumers.
Evidence is also emerging of a new form of computer-synthesized brand that does
not rely on a “real” product or service existing for commercial exploitation but whose
consumption in the virtual results generates real monetary value in the real world. For
example, “Aimee Weber” is the Second Life identity of Alyssa LaRoche. LaRoche
founded a line of avatar fashions known as “ *Preen *” anchored by her in-world avatar
persona “[. . .] as an outrageously brash, flirty, vaguely tipsy ballerina with blue
butterfly wings” (Au, 2008). LaRoche established a number of in-world stores to sell the
“ *preen *” fashion line to other Second Life members and promotes these products

9. EJM widely in-world. In August 2006, the 20 best-selling Second Life fashion designers,
46,6 including LaRoche, generated a combined US$140,466 in sales (LaVallee, 2006). It is
important to note that LaRoche’s sales are concluded in-world using Linden Dollars,
the Second Life currency, which can then be used to purchase other virtual products
and services or can be exchanged for US dollars.
In November 2008, “Aimee Weber” became the first avatar with a registered
818 trademark for virtual content and services. The “Aimee Weber” brand is significant for
a number of reasons, not least that it has legal protection in the real world yet its brand
equity and commercial value are generated entirely in the computer-synthesized world
of Second Life. LaRoche may never license or produce physical clothing products under
the “Aimee Weber” brand in the real world; however her rights to do so in the virtual
world are protected. It is important to note that “Aimee Weber” is no longer a
protobrand; it is a brand with a registered trademark, it matches the firm’s functional
and emotional values with the performance and psychosocial needs of consumers (de
Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley, 1998a, b), and generates real economic value as
virtual currency paid for “Aimee Weber” branded products can be converted to hard
currency via the Linden Dollar Exchange.
Quadrant D – the emergence of HyperReal brands
In this section, we discuss the phenomenon where protobrands are acted upon and, by
interacting with the real world, are no longer merely virtual brands but are
transformed into an autonomous interactive brand that exists in both the real and
virtual worlds, a HyperReal brand (Figure 3).
Figure 3.
HyperReal brands are
brands that interact and
generate brand equity in
both real and virtual
worlds

10. HyperReal fictional brands Branding in
HyperReal fictional brands are brands which are both fictional and real. As seen virtual
earlier, product placement is a process whereby a concrete brand (the real) is placed in
a fictional or virtual environment (the abstract). In contrast, reverse product placement environments
refers to creating a fictional brand in a fictional environment and then placing it into
the real world (Edery, 2006). In an early example of reverse product placement, the TV
series Cheers was set in a friendly Boston bar inspired a chain of restaurants controlled 819
by US Marriott and Paramount Pictures. The Bubba Gump Shrimp Co., a chain of
seafood restaurants was inspired by the 1994 film Forrest Gump. The first Bubba
Gump’s restaurant was opened in 1996 in Monterey, California by Viacom Consumer
Products; the franchise now counts 31 restaurants. More recent examples include Duff
Beer (from the animated TV series The Simpsons), Brawndo drink (from the film
Idiocracy), or Sex Panther cologne (from the film Anchorman). The phenomenon is not
limited to the western world. The initially fictional restaurant brand, “Long Quan Shan
Zhuang ( )”, from the TV series “Liu Lao Gen ( )” is now one of China’s
favourite restaurant chains.
HyperReal computer-synthesized brands
The second type of HyperReal virtual brands are those which exist both in the
computer-synthesized world (video game and virtual worlds) and in the real world. The
simplest form of HyperReal brands are merely licensed by the creator of the
computer-synthesized brand to a third party for exploitation in the real world. In
Square Enix’s popular videogame, Final Fantasy, gamers revitalize their in-world
warrior avatars by drinking an herbal potion. Final Fantasy, first introduced as a game
console role-playing game in 1987, has become the focus of a media franchise which
includes other game vehicles, animated feature films and print adaptations. It is the
fifth best-selling video game franchise with over 85 million units sold (Square Enix,
2009). Suntory, Japan’s leading beverage producer created an energy drink and
licensed the “Final Fantasy Potion” brand for marketing purposes. In this way, Square
Enix, is able to economically exploit the unintended brand equity of the Final Fantasy
potion.
Equally, companies may gauge consumer interest in a future product or service by
first seeking to establish brand equity in a computer-synthesized world and then
transferring it to real products. For example, in 2006, Starwood Hotels built, previewed
and collected feedback about its new brand of hotel, “Aloft” in Second Life, a year
before opening the real one ( Jana, 2006). Hosea (2007) suggests that this method of
product introduction is an excellent way to inform consumers without the cost and
hassle of an actual product launch. It is also a good way to test a beta version and
integrate customers’ views prior to the product launch. For this reason, this process is
sometimes equated with “crowdsourcing”, a coined termed for an online, distributed
production model (Brabham, 2008).
Triple-play brands
Triple-play brands are brands that exist in fictional, computer simulated and real
worlds. A recent example of a triple-play brand is “Bertie Bott’s Every Flavor Beans”, a
confectionary product first introduced as a protobrand in the Harry Potter books. The
protobrand translated to a HyperReal brand with the production of real candy

11. EJM manufactured by Cap Candy, a division of Hasbro. These fictional jelly beans also
46,6 migrated from the fictional world of the Harry Potter books to a series of very
successful films, where they were visualised, and then to interactive video games,
where game players collected, consumed or used the beans as currency to purchase
other products within the computer-synthesized world of Harry Potter. Furthermore,
internet rumours suggest that Warner Brothers are developing a MMPORG of the
820 Harry Potter world which presumably will feature the aforementioned confectionary
(Coding the Wheel, 2009). Here emotional attachments formed by readers and viewers
is reinforced by having a more prominent role in the computer-simulation of a video
game and is leveraged in the real world by Cap Candy product, creating a virtuous
circle of brand reinforcement.
Discussion: protobrands, an opportunity to exploit, a risk to mitigate
All of the examples in quadrant D represent protobrands that initially existed in the
virtual world and were ultimately tangibilized or productised in the real physical
world. We argue that there is a significant economic incentive related to the early
identification and protection of protobrands, particularly for media companies, even
where such potential is identified as a by-product of a master brand. For example,
“Duff Beer” is a fictional brand of beer in the popular animated television series, The
Simpsons. It is a secondary brand to the master brand The Simpsons and exists to
further a fictional narrative. While recognized by television audiences worldwide,
“Duff Beer”, as presented in The Simpsons, could not be consumed by them.
Warner Brothers, the owners of The Simpsons, do not have interests in the brewing
industry and merchandising opportunities for an alcoholic beverage associated with an
animated television series watched by millions of children may be perceived as
unethical. As such, Warner Brothers chose not to act on the potential of “Duff Beer” as
a brand in the alcoholic beverage market and did not register “Duff Beer” as a
trademark for such activity. In an article from 2007, a representative for 20th Century
Fox asserted that there were no plans to release a “Duff Beer” product: “It doesn’t
sound like something the Simpsons would do” (Wasserman, 2007). However, an
entrepreneur in Mexico, Rodrigo Contreras, managed to register the trademark in
Mexico. Subsequently, the brewery Haacht in Belgium produced and successfully
marketed a real beer with a real taste and while it did not feature any reference to The
Simpsons, the packaging was similar enough that when combined with the
brand-name, it attracted those consumers with emotional connections to The Simpsons.
Warner Brothers’ fictional brand still has potential, although somewhat impaired,
but Contreras owns the trademarked brand which is deriving economic value for
Contreras and not for Warner Brothers This example illustrates that, while
protobrands may have economic consequences, they are not economically valuable in
themselves unless acted upon in the real world. Considering that a beer brand, such as
Budweiser, can have a brand valuation of over US$11 billion (Businessweek, 2009),
“Duff Beer” serves as a cautionary tale to highlight the importance of identifying
protobrands as early as possible and, where possible, of protecting those protobrands
for future applications. It may also be that, where protobrands can be identified, a less
expensive brand development strategy may be to develop that brand in a
computer-synthesized environment such as Second Life and, similar to the case of
“Aimee Weber”, seek legal protection for the brand in the virtual environment. While

12. protection against passing off in the real world may be limited by such a manoeuvre, it Branding in
may serve as a signal of intent to others seeking to exploit the protobrands without virtual
compensation to the original creator of the protobrand.
environments
Conclusion and research agenda for the study of virtual brands
Following a review of the literature on the brand construct and branding models, a new
typology of brands is offered based on the virtual, the real and those that exist at the 821
intersection of the virtual and the real, the HyperReal. The concept of virtual brands is
defined and illustrated both fictional and computer-synthesized worlds. These brands
may sometimes lie outside the normal meaning of the term, as they represent brand
potential as opposed to brand reality, and are therefore “protobrands”. From a business
perspective, the authors present the case of “Duff Beer” to illustrate that early
identification of brand potential in virtual worlds represents a commercial opportunity
to exploit, or a risk to mitigate.
The research agenda following from the implications of virtual reality for the brand
construct and branding theory is still in the early stages of conceptualization and
development. These extensions to the concept of branding open up new research
opportunities in the field of brand marketing, brand equity and consumer-brand
relationship.
Research on traditional brand marketing has shown that positive synergies
emerged from using various marketing communication channels (Naik and Raman,
2003). Some possible research questions for virtual brands include:
(1) What are the critical marketing communication factors (scale of the audience,
characteristics of media vehicle, characteristics of the brand, and timeframe of
the media plan) for a virtual brand to be successfully productised and
commercialised?
(2) Which media vehicles are the most cost effective for launching and establishing
virtual brands and why?
(3) To what extent can a protobrand be leveraged without reference to its master
brand (i.e. the media vehicle) in which it first appeared?
(4) What is the level of congruence/ divergence between the media vehicle (e.g.
brand personality of the movies, computer game etc.) and the virtual brand?
Traditional brand equity can be measured at consumer level, i.e. consumer-based
brand equity (Keller, 1993, 2008), product-market level (e.g. Sivakumar and Raj, 1997;
Park and Srinivasan, 1994) and financial market level (Keller and Lehmann, 2006). For
virtual brands, those assertions translate in the following research questions:
(1) How do we measure consumer-based brand equity for virtual brands?
(2) What is the effect of “productisation” on consumer-based brand equity (in
particular on brand associations)?
(3) What are the best approaches to track brand performance of virtual brands?
(4) How can the financial value of a potential brand (protobrand) be assessed?
Brand transgression, defined as a violation of the implicit or explicit rules guiding the
relationship between performance and evaluation has been identified as having a

13. EJM significant influence on the dynamics of the consumer-brand relationship (Aaker et al.,
46,6 2004). As the consumer’s emotional attachment to virtual brands has developed on the
premise that the brand was solely virtual, some fundamental research questions
include:
(1) Does the act of “productisation” of the virtual brand constitute a transgression?
(2) If yes, what is the impact of such transgression on brand-consumers dynamics?
822
Although this initial contribution reports some interesting findings, it is not without
limitations. It is primarily a practical contribution and because it has no antecedents,
the research agenda is broad. However the research agenda will narrow as academics
start to study empirically the topic of virtual and fictional brands. The convergence
between media and technology may also have theoretical and managerial implications
that go beyond the field of marketing.
Note
1. The picture shows a pipe. Below it, Magritte painted, “Ceci n’est pas une pipe”, French for
“This is not a pipe.” The painting is not a pipe, but rather an image of a pipe, which was
Magritte’s point.
References
Aaker, D.A. (1992), “The value of brand equity”, Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 13 No. 4,
pp. 27-32.
Aaker, J.L., Fournier, S. and Brasel, A.S. (2004), “When good brands do bad”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Abela, A. (2003), “Additive versus inclusive approaches to measuring brand equity: practical and
ethical implications”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 342-52.
Au, W.J. (2008), The Making of Second Life, Harper Collins, New York, NY.
Balasubramanian, S.K., Karrh, J.A. and Patwardhan, H. (2006), “Audience response to product
placements: an integrative framework and future research agenda”, Journal of Advertising,
Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 115-41.
Balmer, J.M.T. (2001), “Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate marketing: seeing
through the fog”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 3/4, pp. 248-91.
Blackston, M. (2000), “Observations: building brand equity by managing the brand’s
relationships”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 40 No. 6, pp. 101-5.
Brabham, D.C. (2008), “Crowdsourcing as a model for problem solving”, Convergence: The
International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 75-90.
Brown, G. (1992), People, Brands and Advertising, Millward Brown International, New York, NY.
Brown, S. (2003), “Material girl or managerial girl? Charting Madonna’s brand ambition”,
Business Horizons, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 2-10.
Businessweek (2009), “100 best global brands 2009”, Businessweek, No. 4148, pp. 50-6.
Byeng-Hee, C. and Eyun-Jung, K. (2005), “Devising a practical model for predicting theatrical
movie success: focusing on the experience good property”, Journal of Media Economics,
Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 247-69.
Christodoulides, G. (2009), “Branding in the post-internet era”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 9 No. 1,
pp. 141-4.

14. Coding the Wheel (2009), “Summoning the Harry Potter MMORPG”, Coding the Wheel, 21 July, Branding in
available at: www.codingthewheel.com/archives/summoning-the-harry-potter-mmorpg
(accessed 24 April 2009). virtual
de Chernatony, L. and Dall’Olmo Rilley, F. (1998a), “Modeling the components of a brand”, environments
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32 Nos 11/12, pp. 1074-90.
de Chernatony, L. and Dall’Olmo Riley, F. (1998b), “Defining a ‘brand’: beyond the literature with
experts’ interpretations”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 14 Nos 4/5, pp. 417-43. 823
DeLorme, D.E. and Reid, L.N. (1999), “Moviegoers’ experiences and interpretations of brands in
films revisited”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 71-95.
Edery, D. (2006), “Reverse product placement in virtual worlds”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 84 No. 12, p. 24.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006), “Five misunderstandings about case study research”, Qualitative Inquiry,
Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 219-45.
Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer
research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 343-73.
Frazer, C.F. (1983), “Creative strategy: a management perspective”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 12
No. 4, p. 3641.
Gardner, B.B. and Levy, S.J. (1955), “The product and the brand”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 33, January-February, pp. 33-9.
¨
Gould, S.J., Gupta, P.B. and Grabner-Krauter, S. (2000), “Product placements in movies:
a cross-cultural analysis of Austrian, French and American consumers’ attitudes toward
this emerging, international promotional medium”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 29 No. 4,
pp. 41-58.
Holt, D.B. (2002), “Why do brands cause trouble? A dialectical theory of consumer culture and
branding”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 70-89.
Homer, P.M. (2009), “Product placements”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 21-31.
Hosea, M. (2007), “Fantasy brands on a reality check”, Brand Strategy, Vol. 212, pp. 24-9.
Jana, R. (2006), “Starwood Hotels explore Second Life first”, 23 August, available at: www.
businessweek.com/innovate/content/aug2006/id20060823_925270.htm?chan¼innovation_
branding_branding (accessed 24 April 2009).
Kapferer, J.N. (1997), Strategic Brand Management: New Approaches to Creating and Evaluating
Brand Equity, Kogan, London.
Kaplan, A.M. and Haelein, M. (2009), “Consumers, companies and virtual social worlds:
a qualitative analysis of Second Life”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 36 No. 1.
Karrh, J.A. (1998), “Brand placement: a review”, Journal of Current Issues and Research in
Advertising, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 31-49.
Keller, K.L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Keller, K.L. (2008), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring and Managing Brand
Equity, 3rd ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Keller, K.L. and Lehmann, D.R. (2006), “Brands and branding: research findings and future
priorities”, Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 740-59.
Klein, N. (2000), No Logo, Random House, Toronto.
Kotler, P. and Keller, K.L. (2006), Marketing Management, 12th ed., Pearson, Prentice Hall, Upper
Saddle River, NJ.

15. EJM Kozinets, R.V., Hemetsberger, A. and Jensen Schau, H. (2008), “The wisdom of consumer crowds:
collective innovation in the age of networked marketing”, Journal of Macromarketing,
46,6 Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 339-54.
Kumar, N. and Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M. (2007), Private Label Strategy: How to Meet the Store Brand
Challenge, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
LaVallee, A. (2006), “Now, virtual fashion – Second Life designers make real money creating
824 clothes for simulation games players”, Wall Street Journal, 22 September, available at:
www.americanapparel.net/presscenter/articles/20060922wsj.html (accessed 22 April
2009).
Law, S. and Braun, K.A. (2000), “I’ll have what she’s having: gauging the impact of product
placements on viewers”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 12, pp. 1059-76.
Lee, M. and Faber, R.J. (2007), “Effects of product placement in on-line games on brand memory”,
Journal of Advertising, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 75-90.
Levy, S.J. (1978), Marketplace Behavior, AMACOM, New York, NY.
Lury, C. (2004), Brands: The Logos of Global Economy, Routledge, New York, NY.
Mairinger, M. (2008), “Branding 2.0 – using Web 2.0 principles to build an open source brand”,
Electronic Markets, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 117-29.
Medway, D. and Warnaby, G. (2008), “Alternative perspectives on marketing and the place
brand”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42 Nos 5/6, pp. 641-53.
Muzellec, L. and McDonagh, P. (2007), “‘Ceci n’est pas une brand!’: post-modernism and brand
management, the case of Red Apple Cigarettes”, 36th European Marketing Academy
(EMAC), Reykyavik (ISL).
Naik, P.A. and Raman, K. (2003), “Understanding the impact of synergy in multimedia
communications”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 375-88.
Nelson, M.R. (2002), “Recall of brand placements in computer/video games”, Journal of
Advertising Research, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 80-92.
Park, C.S. and Srinivasan, V. (1994), “A survey-based method for measuring and understanding
brand equity and its extendibility”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31 No. 2, p. 271.
Reeves, P., de Chernatony, L. and Carrigan, M. (2006), “Building a political brand: ideology or
voter-driven strategy”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 418-28.
¨ ˚
Salzer-Morling, M. and Strannegard, L. (2004), “Silence of the brands”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 38 Nos 1/2, pp. 224-38.
Schemer, C., Matthes, J., Wirth, W. and Textor, S. (2008), “Does ‘passing the Courvoisier’ always
pay off? Positive and negative evaluative conditioning effects of brand placements in
music videos”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 10, pp. 923-43.
Simmons, G. (2008), “Marketing to postmodern consumers: introducing the internet chameleon”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42 Nos 3/4, pp. 299-310.
Sivakumar, K. and Raj, S. (1997), “Quality tier competition: how price change influences brand
choice and category choice”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 71-84.
Square Enix (2009), “Square Enix announces Order of War, a new western-developed WWII
real-time strategy game”, available at: http://release.square-enix.com/na/2009/04/16.html
(accessed 24 April 2009).
Steur, J. (1995), “Defining virtual reality: dimensions determining telepresence”, in Biocca, F. and
Levy, M.R. (Eds), Communication in the Age of Virtual Reality, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 57-124.

16. Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004), “Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing”, Journal of Branding in
Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
virtual
Wasserman, T. (2007), “Forward thinkers push reverse product placement”, Brandweek, Vol. 48
No. 5, p. 5. environments
Wiles, M.A. and Danielova, A. (2009), “The worth of product placement in successful films: an
event study analysis”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 4, pp. 44-63.
Yang, M., Roskos-Ewoldsen, D.R., Dinu, L. and Arpan, L.M. (2006), “The effectiveness of 825
‘in-game’”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 143-52.
Further reading
Book, B. (2005), “Virtual world business brands: entrepreneurship and identity in massively
multiplayer online gaming environments”, Social Science Research Network (SSRN).
Brown, S. (1995), Postmodern Marketing, Routledge, London.
Brown, S. (2006), “Recycling postmodern marketing”, The Marketing Review, Vol. 6, pp. 211-30.
Clark, H.H. and Brennan, S.E. (1991), “Grounding in communication”, in Resnick, L.B.,
Levine, J.M. and Teasley, S.D. (Eds), Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, APA
Books, Washington, DC, pp. 127-49.
Cohen, A. (2008), “The second life of Second Life”, Fast Company, Vol. 129, pp. 58-60.
Davies, G. and Chun, R. (2003), “The use of metaphor in the exploration of the brand concept”,
Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 45-71.
Deleuze, G. (1992), Postscript on Societies of Control, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 3-7.
Jenkins, H. (2004), “The cultural logic of media convergence”, International Journal of Cultural
Studies, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 33-43.
Jennings, C. (2008), “Second Life for virtual worlds?”, Computer Weekly, 16 December, pp. 10-12.
Kapferer, J.N. (1995), “Brand confusion: empirical study of a legal concept”, Psychology and
Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 551-68.
Keller, K.L. (1998), “The effect of brand name suggestiveness on advertising recall”, The Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 48-57.
Messinger, P.R., Stroulia, E., Lyons, K., Bone, M., Niu, R.H., Smirnov, K. and Perelgut, S. (2009),
“Virtual worlds – past, present, and future: new directions in social computing”, Decision
Support Systems, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 204-28.
Muzellec, L. and Lambkin, M.C. (2008), “Corporate rebranding: implications for brand
architecture management”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 283-99.
Nelson, M.R., Keum, H. and Yaros, R.A. (2004), “Advertainment or adcreep? Game players’
attitudes toward advertising and product placements in computer games”, Journal of
Interactive Advertising, Vol. 5 No. 1.
Papagiannidis, S., Bourlakis, M. and Li, F. (2008), “Making real money in virtual worlds:
MMORPGs and emerging business opportunities, challenges and ethical implications in
metaverses”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 75 No. 5, pp. 610-22.
Reeves, B.R. (1991), “Being there: the subjective experience of presence”, Presence: Teleoperators
and Virtual Environments, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 262-71.
Sloan, P. (2005), “The virtual Rockefeller”, Business 2.0, Vol. 6 No. 11, p. 42.
Stern, B.B. (2006), “What does brand mean? Historical-analysis method and construct definition”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 216-23.

17. EJM Strizhakova, Y., Coulter, R.A. and Price, L.L. (2008), “The meanings of branded products:
a cross-national scale development and meaning assessment”, International Journal of
46,6 Research in Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 82-93.
Terashima, N. (2001), “The definition of HyperReality”, in Tiffin, J. and Terashima, N. (Eds),
HyperReality: Paradigm for the Third Millennium, Routledge, New York, NY.
Terry, M. (2001), “When is a prop not a prop: the advantages of product placement”, Sports
826 Marketing, Vol. 74, pp. 17-18.
Tiffin, J. (2001), “The HyperReality paradigm”, in Tiffin, J. and Terashima, N. (Eds),
HyperReality: Paradigm for the Third Millennium, Routledge, New York, NY.
Weintraub, J. (2005), “Product placement is a super tradition in Hollywood”, Milwaukee Journal
Sentinel, available at: http://media.www.dailygamecock.com/media/storage/paper247/
news/2005/03/03/TheMix/Product.Placement.Is.A.Super.Tradition.In.Hollywood-883964.
shtml (accessed 23 June 2009).
About the authors
Laurent Muzellec is currently an Associate Professor of Marketing at ESSCA School of
Management, France. His research interests pertain to the field of strategic brand management,
corporate rebranding, and branding strategies in interactive and social media. His articles have
appeared in several international publications including Industrial Marketing Management,
Marketing Theory, the Journal of Product and Brand Management and the European Journal of
Marketing. Laurent Muzellec is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
laurent.muzellec@essca.fr
Theodore Lynn is the Director of the Leadership, Innovation and Knowledge Research Centre
(www.link.dcu.ie) at Dublin City University where he teaches at postgraduate level on Strategic
Management. He holds a PhD in Law from University College Dublin. Dr Lynn is leading an
interdisciplinary research project on multi-user virtual environments.
Mary Lambkin is Professor of Marketing at the UCD Smurfit School of Business, University
College Dublin. She is on the editorial boards of the Journal of Strategic Marketing. She has
published in the Journal of Marketing, the International Journal of Research in Marketing and the
European Journal of Marketing.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints