Brand seduction as a tool for brand’s success: Conceptualizing the term

This paper aims to present brand seduction as a crucial element for success in marketing nowadays. The author endeavors to define brand seduction to be usable in marketing research. The concept of seduction has been conceptualized based on this literature review by qualitative coding techniques. This coding process results in three identified dimensions of seduction (interaction, irrationality, and ireality). Afterward, this concept was empirically tested through qualitative research methods. The key stakeholders experiencing brand seduction were interviewed to verify the suitability of the theoretical concept. The results show the correspondence of the concept of brand seduction with the stakeholder´s experience.

1 Introduction

There are many examples of brands being very successful in capturing customers´ hearts and also those, seemingly no worse, who fail in markets. To distinguish the essential difference between them is probably essential knowledge in marketing management research. However, although terms like success, heart, or failure are understandable by common sense, it is not easy to grasp these words scientifically. Therefore, some methodology has to be established, and obviously, there is no singular perspective for such a task. This paper aims to develop one of the possible perspectives one can hold. The answer proposed in this paper can illuminate the roots of the astounding success of some brands. The main statement to be asserted here is that the ability to seduce by a brand is vital to succeeding in today´s markets.
The idea of seduction being the critical element of the marketing mix has been introduced previously. This thought was developed in various ways, including the perspectives only slightly related to marketing. However, although seduction in marketing was conceptualized in several ways, more is needed to apply this concept in marketing practice directly. Therefore the need to reconceptualize seduction was identified.
Some other marketing concepts might seem to cover Brand seduction . One of these concepts is brand love. Although Brand Love involves similar phenomena as seduction (e.g., interpersonal metaphors), those terms are not equivalent. Seduction, apart from „healthy“ phenomena like bonding, trust, and affection, contains more controversial phenomenons like manipulation, using taboo, or creating illusions. On top of that, Brand Love is measured on the customer´s side, whereas brand seduction emerges more on the seducer´s (brand´s) side. Other related brand terms (Brand Loyalty, Brand Perception, Brand Sentiment, or Brand Touchpoints) are even more distant in meaning. On that account, it is not redundant to conceptualize brand seduction separately.
The primary insufficiency of existing concepts of brand seduction is that they are not used as a scientific term, or the definition needs to be narrower to capture all the relevant aspects of its deep meaning. The idea of a new concept of brand seduction in marketing is a term that covers its essential components (called dimensions in this paper) is measurable, and can be directly applied in marketing practice and theory. None of the existing concepts of seduction in marketing complies with these requirements.
Therefore, one of the goals of this work was to explore the means of understanding brand seduction and to capture the essence of seduction in marketing that pervades its existing definitions. For this purpose, relevant texts were compiled according to the further described criteria. The first step to conceptualizing brand seduction was exploring the broad context established by philosophical and sociological texts that addressed seduction in modern culture and society. These texts constitute the interpretational background for conceiving brand seduction because they establish the three possible ways to approach this term in marketing. Debord, Baudrillard, and Lipovetsky are among the most influential authors that can be named. Many other texts concerning brand seduction refer to these grounds works, and thus they extend the philosophically-sociological perspective.
A broader approach for conceptualizing brand seduction was chosen because of the insufficiency of the current definitions. Therefore brand seduction was approached through seduction in marketing in general. A systematic review was performed in the search for the definition of seduction in marketing. Firstly the relevant texts were identified by entering marketing seduction in Google Scholar (90 600 results). This tool allows sorting the results by relevance. The abstract review showed that only the first 45 pages (i.e., 450 results) contained texts with some description of seduction. These 450 results were sorted out based on the same criteria. Only slightly over 30 texts were identified with some description of seduction. Based on this description, these texts can be subsumed under one of the three previously mentioned perspectives.

2 Theoretical background

In order to understand the concept of brand seduction in marketing, some historical and societal changes must be reflected. In Debord´s words, during the 20th century, our society progressively transforms into a society of the spectacle (Debord 2021, p. 16). This metaphor mirrors the shift from reality to fantasy due to the boom of information technologies and digital media that enhance the advertising and entertainment industry (Gotham 2005, p. 228). Hand in hand with this expansion, the industry was massively automatized, enabling more goods to be consumed in developed countries. Therefore, it was necessary to stimulate the demand by creating false needs. As a result, advertising begins to persuade (or seduce) customers to believe their current state is insufficient and that certain commodities are needed to achieve happiness (Kaplan 2012, p. 461).
These thoughts were further developed by J. Baudrillard, who introduced seduction explicitly as a shaping principle of post-industrial society. Seduction and production are two competing powers representing masculine and feminine principles (Baudrillard 1990, p. 16). Production, a masculine power, is straightforward, rough, and establishes order. On the other hand, seduction destabilizes this order by creating illusions and playfully seizing symbols (Mortesten 2004, p. 1). In the society of the spectacle, this seductive power started to dominate advertising. Marketing incentives do not target customers´ reasoning, but it seduces them very much like seduction in human relationships – by flattering and encouraging one´s narcissism, mystery, and sexuality (Gane 2002, p. 60). Therefore, marketing seduction encourages people´s wishful thinking (people want to believe the particular product will make them young, beautiful, and healthy), even though it is only an illusion (Genosko 1994, p. 15).
Although seduction verges deception, Lipovetsky offered a different point of view on this phenomenon. According to his theory, the critical sociological change in the 20th century is enjoying the fruits of abundance by most people living in developed societies (Lipovetsky 2007, p. 13). Seduction means pampering, luxury, and the possibility to choose from the inexhaustible offer, so every customer´s need can be met. Therefore, in a seductive society, people can enjoy their life (Von Wachenfeldt 2018, p. 354) and can fulfil their needs without guilt. Furthermore, brands in a seductive society need to be emotionally compatible with the customers (Barroso 2019, p. 144), and the positive emotion connected to the brand becomes its main competitive advantage. In Lipovetsky´s view, seduction is thus not a negative phenomenon because the seductive strategies of the brand are beneficial for the customer.
There are three lines of thinking about brand seduction , based on the previous reflection: brand seduction in marketing can be understood as (i) a manipulation, (ii) a mean of satisfaction of needs, or (iii) a mean for establishing a relationship between a brand and a customer. The third way is derived from the previous two perspectives. The texts (mainly marketing academic articles) collected at the beginning of the literature review performed by the previously described method can be divided into these three categories. Each of them will be briefly characterized.
(i) The only goal of seductive marketing is to encourage customers´ consumption (Smith and Higgins 2000, p. 87). Contrary to Christian ethics, seductive marketing arouses the desire for pleasure and aims to break customers’ inner resistance to spending and enjoying (Wilner and Ghassan 2017, p. 21). That can be achieved by substituting the social consensus that might be missing for some products. People, for example, want to eat healthy food, drink alcohol, or bet. However, they are ashamed of it, so they need the proper communication techniques to support their consumption decision (Deighton and Grayson 1995, p. 664). Other manipulation techniques are based on affecting of customer´s unconscious motivation. V. Packard and J. B. Key broadly characterized such techniques. According to these authors, advertisements are full of hidden motives, primarily sexual or violent (Key 1992, p 181), which are subconsciously perceived and affect customers´ behavior without their knowledge (Packard 1957, p. 35). Therefore, this negative interpretation of seduction in marketing emphasizes that customers are deceived and manipulated for the brand´s profit.
(ii) However, other voices say that people want to be affected by advertisements and actively seek new ways to consume freely and enjoy abundance (Kusina 2004, p. 87). People ever before endeavored to achieve superiority over others, and seductive marketing only satisfies this already existing need (Madany 2016, p. 2558). Brands serve as a status symbol (Newman 2001, p. 415), so they only replace items that played this socially inherent role in the past. This positive interpretation thus meets the negative one in the idea that seduction in marketing stimulates desire leading to irrational decisions (Belk, Ger, and Askegaard 2003, p. 333). However, it differs in one crucial aspect – customers actively seek this stimulation, so the market only answers this demand.
(iii) Some authors noted an analogy between establishing a relationship between two people and a brand with its customer. The different stages of this process were described by, e.g. Deighton and Grayson (1995, p. 669) and Alreck and Settle (1999, p. 141). By flattering, provocation, affection, emotions, and caring, the brand strengthens the bond with a customer (Barroso 2019, p. 148) to develop a relationship that can satisfy the customer’s interpersonal needs. A lot can be derived from this view of seduction in marketing – González (2010b, p. 3) described how alternate approaches and distancing could stimulate the desire (for a product, brand itself, or lifestyle it associates). The seduction starts with the evoking need and ends with physical contact (González 2010a, p. 82). Understanding seduction through the relationship is a third possible way to conceive this phenomenon.

3 Methodology

The literature review leads to the further-described categorization, which maps and summarizes the discussion about brand seduction in marketing literature. Although important contact points of the relevant views can be found, only a few texts aimed to define brand seduction. Therefore, its precise meaning has to be reached analytically. Many of these texts do not focus on this theme directly, but the word seduction is used while discussing other topics. Even the texts that define brand seduction do not use a scientific method for conceptualizing this phenomenon. In order to reach a scientific definition of brand seduction usable within the empirical research in marketing, the following method has been used: In vital texts contributing to the discussion about brand seduction, keywords were identified. These words (or word phrases) are related to seduction in the following ways:
• quality of seduction (provocative, illusional, charming…)
• quality of a seducer (gentle, manipulative, conspirational…)
• a seductive technique (deception, mystery, taboo…)
• the effect of seduction on the seducee (affecting behavior, evoking emotions, stimulation of libido…)
The keywords were subsequently adjusted to infinitive and noun forms. This set of words allows using coding techniques for qualitative research, described in Saldana (2015). Coding can verbally capture a visual or linguistic phenomenon’s essence, attributes, and key features. This process is more creative and intuitive than rigid and exact (Auerbach and Silverstein 2003, p. 24). It aims to interpret the term so that specific categories or codes are based mainly on considerations and arguments that justify their suitability in the research. For this research, the technique of categorization coding (i.e., sub-coding) was used, in which the identified codes are sorted into higher-level parent categories. The codes were usually not abstracted because they were directly used in the original text (in the case of foreign texts, they were translated into Czech).
Conceptualizing brand seduction aimed to bridge the difference between two opposing views on this concept – as a positive and a negative phenomenon. Because of this distinction, it was appropriate to classify the identified words, describing the different shades of seduction meaning, according to the same key – whether they were neutral words, words with a negative connotation, and words with a positive emotional color. The classification into these categories is, naturally, not entirely exact (for some words, it is questionable which category they best fall into), and it would be difficult to name the exact criterion based on which the words were evaluated in this way. However, the purpose of the classification was to identify the superordinate categories that connect the words so that a certain fluidity within the classification is not only permissible but often desirable, as the same word may have a completely different meaning in different contexts.
After sorting according to emotional connotation, the words within the categories were classified according to the essential feature. The identified categories (e.g., positive fantasies and negative illusions) often name a similar phenomenon but with a different emotional coloration, reflecting the considerable ambivalence of brand seduction. Thus, the evaluation coding method was used. By comparing the positive and negative aspects of the same phenomenon, it was possible to approximate its meaning by synthesizing the identified parent categories. The categories associating directly identified words (categories of the 1st degree) were classified into superordinate categories, creating second-degree categories of the 2nd degree. Within the three 2nd-degree categories, meanings of the categories of the 1st degree and the individual words falling into them were shaded. Therefore, the final definition (conception) of brand seduction is based on the highest level of generality (categories of 2nd degree) and considers the specific meanings assigned at lower levels of defining the term.
The analysis showed that although brand seduction is apprehended differently in various texts, these perspectives show three similar features (i-iii): Interaction between two subjects (a brand and a customer), creating a relationship (i). However, this relationship is not entirely anchored in reality (ii), as the ideas, fantasies, and illusions that the seducer creates for the seduced to influence his or her behavior and emotions (to seduce them) play an essential role. The third notion is the type of appeal the seducers use – they target not the seduced’s mind (logical arguments or persuasion based on evidence) but their motivation and feelings (iii). These effects can be pleasant (stimulation of human libido, appeal to status) or unpleasant (arousing guilt or outrage). The definition is applicable even for interpersonal seduction. However, at this point, the research aims to prove its validity in marketing, i.e., the interaction between the brand (seducer) and the customer (seduced).
The brand uses available means (advertisements, design stores, communication on social networks) to impress the customer and arouse an emotional response, strengthening his or her relationship with the brand. Building this relationship has multiple phases that can be identified, described, and found seminal to the brand’s success. There are several ways to impress the customer – by using sexual or shocking themes, humor, flattery, appeal to his or her status or identity, and others. People are seduced by desirable ideas and associations evoked by appropriate words or stimulating senses. The imagery is often on the verge of delusion – the advertisements often show luxury destinations, high society, or supernatural features of products (e.g., providing a person with miraculous attraction or restoring youth). Thus, the seductive effect can be examined separately, and the presumed concept suggests that the framework of that process is an interaction that results in a relationship.
The theoretical conceptualization of brand seduction is thus a definition consisting of three dimensions (interaction, irrationality, and ireality), which join individual categories. These categories are divided into sub-categories according to their emotional connotation. Finally, individual keywords are classified into these sub-categories. Figure 1 represents the final concept and shows the dimension of brand seduction with the corresponding codes, divided into positive, negative and neutral.

Figure 1: Graphic representation of the concept of seduction
Source: Author

The concept above has been subsequently empirically tested. This testing aimed to verify the concept or, in other words, to ascertain whether the concept matches the experience of key stakeholders. These stakeholders were chosen to represent three groups significantly affected by brand seduction. The first type of stakeholder is the customers. This group is a seduction target, and they can share their experience of being seduced by a brand. The second type is specialists, i. e. advertising workers, brand managers, and marketers. They are active users of seductive techniques, the second perspective necessary for verifying the concept.
Since advertising (or marketing communication in general) is the primary medium of brand seduction, the point of view of the advertising workers is valuable because using seductive techniques is practically their primary occupation. Brand managers and marketers also use seduction, but their perspective is broader than the perspective of the previous group. Their job is to manage the brand complexly, so they have to consider seduction on a more general level.
For verifying the concept, the method of the in-depth interview was chosen. For this purpose, the questionnaire was prepared with open questions. These interviews aimed to investigate the chosen stakeholders’ experience and opinions about brand seduction. The questions were chosen to reflect the key elements of brand seduction. For example, the advertising workers were asked the following question: What is your brand like? How does it attract customers? These questions indirectly investigate whether the three main aspects of seduction (interaction, irrationality, and ireality) are present. According to the respondent’s statement, the relevance of individual dimensions of brand seduction can be evaluated.
The interviews were transcribed, and obtained texts were evaluated similarly to the literature discussing seduction. The keywords were marked and coded. Final codes were classed into the defined categories, if possible. Some codes were left unclassified, and the new categories were to be identified.
The correspondence between the defined concept of seduction and the stakeholder´s experience with seduction was subsequently evaluated. The individual dimensions were valued on a scale from 0 points (no match) to 5 points (a perfect match).
Eight interviews have been executed. Three respondents represent customers, and five represent specialists (two advertising workers, one marketer, and two brand managers). The customers were asked online if they had a favorite brand. If yes, then whether they are willing to participate in this research. The specialists were asked through common acquaintances or by contacting the company. Interviews lasted approximately one hour (their transcription is over 100 pages long) and provided sufficient data to analyze. Since all the interviews confirm the applicability of the proposed concept of brand seduction, it is unlikely that potential new data will contradict the results. Therefore the theoretical saturation was reached.

4 Results

Results (Table 1) show that the three identified dimensions are somewhat relevant. The highest match was confirmed for irrationality (3.75/5 points), slightly less for ireality (3.5/5 points), and 3/5 points for interaction, which also signals the relevance of this dimension.

Table 1: Relevance of identified dimensions of seduction
Source: Author

The unsorted codes analysis found a few new categories. The Table 2 shows the new categories for each respondent. The highest overlap was identified for aesthetics (5/8) and Social responsibility (4/8).

Table 2: New potential dimensions identified within the interviews
Source: Author

For aesthetics, there is an aesthetic aspect in all core dimensions of brand seduction. Beauty (or design, attractively) might be considered a presupposition of successful interaction. A customer prefers to interact with an attractive brand rather than an unattractive one. On top of that, the brand can interact with a customer passively, i. e. simply by being beautiful and being seen.
The importance of aesthetics also supports the relevance of the irrational dimension. By high valuation on beauty, the respondents confirm that customers are affected mainly by emotions, and their affection towards the brand does not rise from rational reasons.
The ireal aspect of brand seduction consists in creating fantasies and illusions. Since images primarily mediate these, the importance of aesthetics naturally emerges.
Aesthetics, thus, is a presupposition of a successful brand seduction. However, emphasizing esthetic quality in the Brand seduction definition cannot cover this. Firstly, aesthetic quality is a highly complex phenomenon. Not only beauty can seduce. There is also an aesthetics of ugliness (Rozenkranz 2015, p. 5).
Furthermore, aesthetics cannot be considered a dimension standing on the same level as the three identified dimensions. Although aesthetics can be significant, it is not essential for successfully establishing a bond with a customer. Therefore the results only highlight the importance of this category without questioning the original definition.
Social responsibility is also a broader term. There cannot be a general requirement for brand seduction to be socially responsible because only 50 % of respondents reported it as a significant feature of their experience of brand seduction. Some respondents consider some social or environmental sensitivity of the brand an important feature of today´s marketing. However, for other respondents, brand seduction is a strictly personal phenomenon. Since it might involve breaking the rules (like environmental un-friendliness or political in-correctness), social responsibility cannot be considered a universal dimension of brand seduction. However, the relative importance of this category points to the fact that seduction in the context of marketing can be something positive, and its meaning thus cannot be reduced to its controversial or demonic aspect.
The original concept of brand seduction was thus confirmed to match the experience of the key stakeholders.

5 Further research

The research described above is part of a dissertation project focusing on brand seduction in marketing. Besides conceptualizing this term and its empirical verification, brand seduction will be related to other marketing concepts. These other phases of the research will be briefly characterized.
The first phase of empirical testing evaluates the relationship between brand seduction and eye activity. When the eye-tracking method is used, the eye activity of respondents watching seductive visual features will be compared with their eye activity watching non-seductive features. The seductiveness of the features will be evaluated in the initial pre-test. This phase hypothesizes the following statement: The eye activity differs for seductive and non-seductive features by the size of heatmaps for individual areas of interest. Verifying this hypothesis would confirm brand seduction as a relevant factor for eye activity.
The second phase of the empirical testing is evaluating the relationship between brand seduction and brand recall. Brand recall represents one of the significant marketing concepts co-reflecting the success of a brand’s marketing strategy. The effect of seduction on brand recall has yet to be scientifically investigated. Ten advertisements will be shown to respondents. The seductiveness of the advertisements will be evaluated in an initial pre-test. This phase hypothesizes the following statement: Brand recall is directly proportional to brand seduction. The established methodology for measuring brand recall (both aided and unaided) will be used, and the results will be compared with the identified seductiveness of the individual advertisements.
After verifying the theoretical concept of brand seduction and evaluating its connection to the marketing concepts mentioned above, the importance of brand seduction in marketing can be assessed.
The verified concept of brand seduction can be a valuable contribution to marketing research and managerial practice. The concept can be related to other marketing concepts in further research and can be used to develop marketing strategies involving seductive techniques.

6 Conclusion

Brand seduction has been conceptualized based on the existing literature. This concept was subsequently empirically tested, and the results show that the concept matches the experience of the key stakeholders. In the following phases of the research, the concept of brand seduction will be empirically tested to assess the dependency between brand seduction and other marketing concepts. The testing will set an example for exploring the dependency between brand seduction and other marketing concepts.

Poznámky/Notes

Annex
Questionnaire respondent – a customer
1. Which brand is important in your life?
2. What do you like about this brand? How does it appeal to you?
3. What do you imagine when I say… (The brand’s name)?
4. How would you describe your relationship with this brand? What would it be if this relationship were to be likened to an interpersonal relationship?
5. How did your relationship with this brand evolve? Do you remember when you first noticed the brand and when it became important to you?
6. What role do ideas and images play in your relationship with this brand?
7. Do you think your relationship with the brand is based on reason?

Questionnaire respondent – a marketing specialist and a brand manager
1. Why do you think some brands can catch the hearts of customers while other brands fail?
2. What should the brand be like to succeed in today’s hypercompetitive environment?
3. What role do you think about the importance of relationships in today’s marketing?
4. What is the brand you work for like? How does it attract customers?
5. What do you think about the concept of seduction in marketing? Do you think such
a phenomenon could be used to answer the previous questions?
6. What do you understand by this term? What do you think the seduction techniques are? Is the brand you work for using some of them?
7. What do you think about the role of rationality and irrationality in advertising?
8. In this context, what do you think about the statement that the customer may prefer the image over reality?

Questionnaire respondent – an advertising specialist
1. Why do you think some brands can catch the hearts of customers while other brands fail?
2. What should the brand be like to succeed in today’s hypercompetitive environment?
3. What role do you think about the importance of relationships in today’s marketing?
4. What are the advertisements you created? How do they attract customers?
5. What do you think about the concept of seduction in marketing? Do you think such
a phenomenon could be used to answer the previous questions?
6. What do you understand by this term? What do you think the seduction techniques are? Have these techniques been used in advertisements you created?
7. What do you think about the role of rationality and irrationality in advertising?
8. In this context, what do you think about the statement that the customer may prefer the image over reality?

Literatúra/List of References

1. Alreck, P. L. and Settle, R. B., 1999. Strategies for building consumer brand preference. In: Journal of product & brand management. 1999, 8(2), 130-144. ISSN 1061-0421.
2. Auerbach, C. and Silverstein, L. B., 2003. Qualitative data: An introduction to coding and analysis. NYU press, 2003. ISBN 9780814706954.
3. Baudrillard, J., 1990. Seduction. New World Perspectives. Macmillan Education, 1990. ISBN 9780333510773.
4. Barroso, P., 2019. Rhetoric of affections: advertising, seduction and truth. In: Media & Jornalismo. 2019, 19(34), 143-154. ISSN 2183-5462.
5. Belk, R. W., Ger, G. and Askegaard, S., 2003. The fire of desire: A multisited inquiry into consumer passion. In: Journal of consumer research. 2003, 30(3), 326-351. ISSN 0093-5301.
6. Debord, G., 2021. Society of the Spectacle. Unredacted Word, 2021. ISBN 9781736961834.
7. Deighton, J. and Grayson, K., 1995. Marketing and seduction: Building exchange relationships by managing social consensus. In: Journal of consumer research. 1995, 21(4), 660-676. ISSN 0093-5301.
8. Gane, M., 2002. Baudrillard’s bestiary: Baudrillard and culture. Routledge, 2002. ISBN 9780203413623.
9. Genosko, G., 1994. Baudrillard and signs: Signification ablaze. Psychology Press, 1994. ISBN 0-203-20114-0.
10. Gonzalez, L., 2010. Make me yours: the psychodynamics of seduction through works of art (Doctoral dissertation, Sheffield Hallam University).
11. González, L., 2010. Stranger, Seducer. In: Transmission: Hospitality Conference Proceedings. Transmission: Hospitality, Sheffield Hallam University.
12. Gotham, K. F., 2005. Theorizing urban spectacles. In: City. 9(2), 225-246. ISSN 1360-4813.
13. Kaplan, R. L., 2012. Between mass society and revolutionary praxis: The contradictions of Guy Debord’s Society of the Spectacle. In: European Journal of Cultural Studies. 2012, 15(4), 457-478. ISSN 1460-3551.
14. Key, W. B., 1992. The age of manipulation: The con in confidence, the sin in sincere. Madison books, 1992. ISBN 0819186538.
15. Kusina, J. M., 2014. Seduction, coercion, and an exploration of embodied freedom. (Doctoral dissertation, Bowling Green State University)
16. Lipovetsky, G., 2007. Paradoxní štěstí: esej o hyperkonzumní společnosti. Praha: Prostor, 2007. ISBN 9788072601844.
17. Madany, S. M. M. et al., 2016. Assumptions of the Character of the Brand in Marketing. In: International Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies. 2016, 1(1), 2549-2561. ISSN 2356-5926.
18. Mortensen, T., 2004. Flow, seduction and mutual pleasure. 2004. [online]. [cit. 2023-05-20]. Available at: <https://www.academia.edu/628172/Flow_seduction_and_mutual_pleasures>
19. Newman, K., 2001. The sorcerer’s apprentice? Alchemy, seduction and confusion in modern marketing. In: International Journal of Advertising. 2001, 20(4), 409-429. ISSN 0265-0487.
20. Packard, V., 1957. The hidden persuaders. New York: Pocket Books. p. 240.
21. Rosenkranz, K., 2015. Aesthetics of ugliness: A critical edition. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2015. ISBN 978-1-47256-885-4.
22. Roszyk-Kowalska, G. and Małż, P., 2017. The brand of the National Forest Holding „State Forests.” In: Marketing Science & Inspirations. 2017, 12(1), 18-26. ISSN 1338-7944.
23. Saldaña, J., 2021. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage, 2021. ISBN 9781529755992.
24. Smith, W. and Higgins, M., 2000. Reconsidering the relationship analogy. In: Journal of Marketing Management. 2000, 16(1-3), 81-94. ISSN 1472-1376.
25. Štrach, P., 2015. Branding locations: Creating consistent and easy to remember messages. In: Marketing Science & Inspirations. 2015, 10(3), 58-59. ISSN 1338-7944.
26. von Wachenfeldt, P., 2018. Communicating seduction. Luxury fashion advertisements in video campaigns. In: Studies in Communication Sciences. 2018, 18(2), 353-363. ISSN 1424-4896.
27. Wilner, S. J. and Ghassan, A., 2017. Tales of seduction and intrigue: design as narrative agent of brand revitalisation. In: Journal of Marketing Management. 2017, 33(3-4), 173-202. ISSN 1472-1376.

Kľúčové slová/Key words

seduction, brand, marketing, advertisement, brand recall
svádění, značka, marketing, reklama, brand recall

JEL klasifikácia/JEL Classification

M31, M37

Résumé

Brand seduction jako nástroj úspěchu značky: Konceptualizace pojmu
Tento článek představuje brand seduction jako klíčový prvek pro úspěch v dnešním marketingu. Autor definoval brand seduction pro použití tohoto konceptu v empirickém výzkumu. Brand seduction byla definována na základě literární rešerše za pomocí kódovacích technik pro kvalitativní výzkum. Výsledkem procesu kódování byla identifikace tří dimenzí svádění (interakce, iracionalita a irealita). Následně byl koncept testován prostřednictvím kvalitativních výzkumných metod. Byly provedeny rozhovory klíčovými stakeholdery se zkušeností s fenoménem brand seduction za účelem posouzení adekvátnosti teoretického konceptu vzhledem k marketingové praxi. Výsledky prokázaly shodu navrženého konceptu sedukce se zkušeností klíčových stakeholderů.

Recenzované/Reviewed

15. May 2023 / 23. May 2023