Brand Authenticity

Brand Authenticity:
A New Way Forward

in Customer Experience Management
By David Robbins, Kerry Colligan, and Jeff Hall

Brand Authenticity: A New Way Forward in Customer Experience

Copyright 2009 Second To None, Inc. All rights reserved. 2

Executive Summary
Exceptional and intentional management of the brand experience requires recognition of the fact that it is co-
created by brand owners, brand representatives and customers alike. There are three basic elements of the
brand experience that comprise this dynamic process of co-creation: the ideal, actual and subjective
experiences. Alignment of these experiences represents the key process through which brands are
experienced in a meaningful and consistent manner (or in many cases, not). In this way, meaningful
consistency across the ideal, actual and subjective elements of the brand experience leads to authenticity.
And brand authenticity is the most critical outcome of the brand experience that propels brands along the
desirable path of sustainable growth and prosperity.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

David Robbins, MS, is Vice President of Client Services; Kerry Colligan, MBA, is Marketing Manager; and Jeff
Hall is CEO. All of Second To None Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction: Brands Are About Experiences .................................................................................................. 3
The Three Key Elements of Brand Experience .................................................................................................. 4
Brand Authenticity and the Process of Alignment ........................................................................................... 5
Real World Authenticity .................................................................................................................................. 6
The Importance of Measuring More than Customer Perception ...................................................................... 8
Best Buy & Circuit City Customer Centricity or Bust ..................................................................................... 9
Southwest Airlines & Unwavering Commitment ........................................................................................... 11
Walmart: Unexceptional Authenticity ....................................................................................................... 13
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 15
Authors Note ............................................................................................................................................... 15
Notes ............................................................................................................................................................ 16



INTRODUCTION: BRANDS ARE ABOUT EXPERIENCES
Brands are under attack by consumers. The problem is not the medium. The problem is the message, and
the fact that it is not trusted, not wanted, and not needed, says Eric Clemons of the Wharton School
(Clemons, 2009). Personal authority over the terms of the marketing engagement means brands that were
once defined and manipulated by marketers are now co-created by producers and consumers (Brown, 2003).
Brands hold multiple meanings because brands are created by multiple people. There are many models that
describe brand meaning. These include: the reflection of consumer attitudes through brand image and
personality (Blackston, 1993); consumer self-expression resulting from use or ownership of goods and
services that are unique (Lewis, 2001); and the amalgamation of the product or service and its ownership,
consumer experience, and identity construction (Leigh, 2006).
Increasingly, the prevailing theory is that brand meaning depends on the relationship between the
consumers sense of self and his or her experience interacting with a brand. The more a brand performs and
aligns in a manner that is consistent with a salient consumer identity, the more meaning the consumer
ascribes to the brand and the more authentic the experience becomes (Reed, 2004) (Gilmore, 2009).
This paper presents a new customer experience management framework built on the foundation of co-
creation that will help organizations better understand the key elements of the brand experience, and how
the process of alignment leads to the creation of brand authenticity and sustainable growth.


Copyright 2009 Second To None, Inc. All rights reserved.
THE THREE KEY ELEMENTS OF BRAND EXPERIENCE
There are three key elements that comprise the overall brand experience: the ideal, the actual and the
subjective. While each distinct in their own right, they also are intricately linked and related.
Figure 1. The Three Key Elements of the Brand Experience

The ideal brand experience can best be understood as the sum of all intended brand messages and
expressions. The ideal experience is synonymous to a brands promise in that it provides the basis for all
customer and organizational expectations of the brand. The ideal brand experience generally is under the
control of the brand owner (i.e., company/organization), and by-in-large is communicated to customers
through marketing and communication efforts, as well as in the operational standards/guidelines that all
brand representatives (i.e., employees at both the corporate and field level) are expected to adhere to and
deliver on.
It is important to recognize that the ideal brand experience or brand promise is not created or managed in a
vacuum. Instead, the brand promise is typically co-created through the combined dynamics of what is
possible to deliver and what consumers needs/desires are. Consider for example, an unlikely brand whose
promise is not possible to deliver/execute, nor one that few if any consumers would find appealing. Few
would argue that any such brand could ever be a sustainable success.
4



Often times, the ideal brand experiences closest relative is the actual brand experience. The actual brand
experience represents the implementation of the brand promise in organizational terms; or the sum of all
actions taken by an organization in an effort to deliver on its brand promise.
The subjective brand experience is synonymous to customer perception. It is a reflection of how customers
view their experiences with a brand through their own eyes and on their own terms. Formed from their
knowledge and understanding of the brand promise, customer expectations shape perception. To the extent
that a brand experience meets or exceeds customer expectations, customer perception generally is favorable.
When the brand experience falls short of customer expectation, customer perception of that experience is
less favorable.
In a perfect world, there is a one-to-one relationship between the actual and subjective experiences. Each
aligns with the ideal brand experience or brand promise and, as a result, aligns with one another. However,
perception is often not reality. There likely are countless inconsistencies between the actual and subjective
brand experiences.
The fact that two individuals can often have vastly different interpretations of the same experience highlights
the frequent disconnect that can occur between the subjective and actual experiences. In these cases, each
individuals interpretation of the experience reflects a subjective experience, while the actual experience lies
somewhere in between.
BRAND AUTHENTICITY AND THE PROCESS OF ALIGNMENT
Authentic experiences are created when an organization consistently and intentionally meets or exceeds its
brand promise and does so in a manner consistent with customer perceptions. The first dimension of the
alignment process is represented by the Y-axis (vertical) in Figure 2 brand promise/brand perception. Equally
important is the degree to which an organizations actual performance or implementation is consistent with
its brand promise. The second dimension of the alignment process is represented by the X-axis (horizontal) in
Figure 2 brand promise/brand implementation. Alignment across both the horizontal and vertical axes is
what leads to authenticity.
Deficient brand experiences (lower left quadrant of Figure 2) have fundamental operational challenges. In
advance of attempting to create an authentic brand experience, these fundamental shortcomings must be
addressed. A brand that cant deliver product to stores or adequately staff its retail outlets should focus on
survival not authenticity.
Misaligned brand experiences (lower right quadrant of Figure 2) fail to take into account that which
customers care about most. The actions taken to manage such experiences do not resonate with customers,
but are executed exceptionally well. Perception often falls short relative to the brands co-created promise.
Over time misaligned brand experiences lead to declining market share and performance. Focus needs to shift
toward a better understanding customer needs, followed by a hard discussion about how best to meet those
needs. A key pressure point here is ongoing exposure to competitive alternatives. How long will a customer
stay with you if youre not meeting their needs?


Glorified brand experiences fail to measure-up to customers perceptions (upper left quadrant of Figure 2).
Customers overlook these shortcomings because they think highly of the brand. Think of glorified brands as
borrowing against their equity credit line. Implementation must improve to better align the
implementation of the actual experience with the brands promise. Here too, brands are vulnerable. Their
competitive advantage is based on perception rather than reality. Unless barriers to entry are extremely high,
expect established or emerging competitors to emphasize and leverage equity shortfalls.
Figure 2. Visualizing the Brand Authenticity Framework

REAL WORLD AUTHENTICITY
To help demonstrate the importance and business implications of brand authenticity in a real world context,
consider a prototypical example from a national retailer.
6



This retailer operates more than 1,000 locations and is known for its strong brand equity; customers are
generally satisfied with the overall experience and financial performance correlates.
The following data was collected:
Table 1. Selected National Entertainment Retailer Program Results

Customer
Satisfaction Survey
(Subjective)
Operational Audit
(Actual)
Target
(Ideal)
Store employee discussed in-store
marketing program while
considering purchase
79% 49% 80 100%
Notice the substantial difference between customer perception (79%) of the experience and actual execution
of it at the point-of-sale (49%). The Co-created experience data-point in Figure 3 shows an authenticity-
based view of the customer experience that is Glorified. Obviously, any management decisions or actions
taken on the basis of either of these isolated data-points (79% versus 49%) are risky because of the
substantial margin of error associated with only having one piece of the puzzle.
By placing insufficient emphasis on customer perceptionin lieu of the information from the auditthe
data-point moves toward deficiency. Worse yet, placing too much emphasis on customer perception pushes
the data-point toward the incorrect conclusion that actual performance aligns with the target. Either
incorrect conclusion results in a large number of lost sale opportunities.


Figure 3. National Retailer Brand Authenticity

THE IMPORTANCE OF MEASURING MORE THAN CUSTOMER PERCEPTION
As this simple example helps to demonstrate, the framework of customer satisfaction measurement (CSM) is
focused on developing an in-depth understanding of how well the subjective experience is performing
relative to the ideal. This reflects the commonly accepted definition of the term: Customer satisfaction is a
measure of how products and services supplied by a company meet or surpass customer expectation.
However, as the Brand Authenticity Framework postulates, customer satisfaction represents only one piece of
the puzzle. What CSM fails to capture is an in-depth and integrated understanding of how well an
organizations actual performance measures up against its own expectations (the ideal), and the degree to
which an organizations actual performance is consistent with the customer experience.
In the absence of this understanding, actionable business intelligence is lost. Failure to understand the three-
way brand authenticity relationship leaves managers guessing what is most important to their customers.
Thus, moving toward better alignment of the ideal and actual experiences rarely happens. Resulting customer
attrition and resources that support misaligned strategies and tactics can be costly.
A key implication of managing brand authenticity (versus customers perception of performance alone) is the
understanding that the performance dimension (good bad) is relative not absolute. In practice, the faulty
8



assumption of absolute performance is reflected in the widely held (and hoped for) belief that improving
customer satisfaction will translate into improved business performance. One need not look any further than
the continuous cycle of articles/case studies/blogs in the trade press that call this assumption into question.
Increasingly concerning are customer experience management frameworks that recycle the same faulty
assumptions that are at the root of CSMplacing the sole focus on customer perception and/or behavior
that result in measures of absolute not relative performance. The reality is that improving and/or delivering
exceptional customer satisfaction/value/loyalty is not always necessary. What is critical and necessary is the
ability for brands to create a consistent and intentional experience that is aligned with their brand promise.
This is what leads to brand authenticity.
Best Buy, Southwest Airlines, and Walmart have all demonstrated impressive patterns of growth through an
implicit understanding and commitment to creating brand authenticity. Each of these companies grew their
bottom line by aligning customers perception of the experience (subjective) with both the brands promise
(ideal) and its implementation (actual).
BEST BUY & CIRCUIT CITY CUSTOMER CENTRICITY OR BUST
Both Best Buy and Circuit City operated on largely the same brand promise for many years: provide a variety
of high-engagement consumer electronics products and associated services to individual and small business
customers. Both worked to establish that promise as the ideal experience for their target markets. The
success of Best Buy and eventual bankruptcy of Circuit City resulted from different approaches to managing
the actual and subjective experiences.
Beginning in the mid-1990s, Circuit City and Best Buy battled for consumer electronics supremacy. The
economic prosperity of the late 1990s afforded both companies undeniable success. Beginning around 2000,
a pattern of intentional, consistent customer experiences emerges for Best Buy that resulted in a 17% market
share. At the same time, the absence of this pattern led to bankruptcy for Circuit City.
In 1989, Brad AndersonBest Buy founder Dick Schulzes protgmade a strategic decision to stop paying
sales commission to in-store employees. While controversial, it proved to be a major growth driver as
customers showed a preference for the low-pressure store experience (Boyle, 2006). Circuit City did not make
a similar sales commission decision until a 2003 staff reduction prompted the move.
In 2003, Best Buy trailed Circuit City on customer satisfaction measures (see Figure 4; ACSI Circuit City,
2009). Now CEO, Anderson put Best Buy on a new growth path with two decisions: 1) a customer centricity
initiative that placed the customer at the center of merchandising and other operational decisions; and 2) the
purchase of GeekSquad, a 24x7 computer support service.


Figure 4. 2003-2006 Customer Satisfaction Scores, Best Buy and Circuit City

Customer centricity, Anderson said, means altering our business to address differences in customer needs at
each of our stores (Anderson, 2003). After extensive testing, chain-wide results of the customer centricity
initiative showed 5.4% same store sales growth vs. 3.3% for stores not implementing the initiative (Boyle,
2006), resulting in a net earnings per share (EPS) of $1.96. Circuit Citys net EPS for FY 2005 was $0.33.
The GeekSquad marked Best Buys entry into in-home, online and in-store services. Though it would be three
years before GeekSquad made a noticeable contribution to Best Buys bottom line, the importance of the
relationship between the customer centricity initiative and the GeekSquad service is critical. By building a
service that requires listening to customers and collecting information about product preferences, Best Buy
built brand loyalty.
By contrast, Circuit City CEO Philip Schoonover announced the Firedog service in August, 2006. The service
program was available at all 626 Circuit City locations and in addition to computer support, Firedog brand
messages emphasized home theater installation, and linking existing and new components in the home
(Gogoi, 2006). Car audio installation also was rebranded under the Firedog name. The program launch came
on the heels of record digital and flat panel TV sales (Gogoi, 2006).
2007 brought lower product sales volume. To compensate, Circuit City laid off thousands of its higher paid,
experienced staffthose best able to provide the customer service Firedog was designed to deliver
(ODonnell, 2008).
In November, 2008, Circuit City filed for bankruptcy. There are many reasons for Circuit Citys demise
including electronics sales moving online, the credit crunch, and increased competitive pressure from Best Buy
10



and Wal-Mart at each end of the electronics market (Kavilanz, 2009). These macro factors mask the long-
standing discord between the experience Circuit City provided and the ideal experience that creates customer
expectation.
Measures of both customer satisfaction and financial performance demonstrate the importance of delivering
a well-aligned experience. According to the American Customer Satisfaction Index, Best Buy outperformed
Circuit City by 10% from 2003-2006 (see Figure 4). During the same period, Best Buys net EPS was six times
greater.
The Best Buy-Circuit City relationship is telling because their initial brand promises were similar. Best Buys
success rests in part on alignment between that brand promise and their delivery of it. Similarly, Circuit City
failed to deliver the experience they promised customers.
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES & UNWAVERING COMMITMENT
Southwest Airlines exemplifies brand as experience. Amid passenger air carriers, Southwest differentiates on
the customer experience. It continues to succeed by using the subjective experience of its customers to help
define and shape the actual and the ideal.
In 1971, Herb Kelleher started Southwest Airlines at Love Field in Dallas, Texas. His brand promise was simple:
be the low-cost airline. To achieve this, Southwest operates only Boeing 737s, uses smaller, less congested
airports, and offers passengers seats on a first-come first-served basis.
Southwest boasts 36 consecutive years of profitability and a laundry list of multi-year Best-in-Class awards
including the #1 ranking for Most Reliable Airline according to Forbes magazine (Ruiz, 2008). This long-
standing record of intentional customer experiences, operational consistency, and uniform discourse about
the brand demonstrates one path companies can follow to better align for authenticity.
Since 1996, Southwest has ranked first in customer satisfaction on the ACSI (Figure 5; ACSI Industry,
2009). Through March, 2009, Southwest ranks 24% higher than the airline industry average.


Figure 5. 1996-2009 Customer Satisfaction Scores, Airline Industry

Among Southwests most impressive achievements is its unwavering commitment to the customer without
compromising the low-cost strategy. Gary Kelly, Kellehers successor as CEO, believes the low cost strategy is
achieved in one word: simplicity. Southwest planes are in the air 12 hours per day, compared to an average
of seven for other airlines. And, Southwest chooses its markets very carefully. Focusing on underserved and
overpriced markets, Southwest only operates in markets that fit its operational model. We would not run an
Austin to Tulsa flight, for example. We couldnt fill 737s to fly from Austin to Tulsa all day, every day
(Unknown, 2003).
Unwavering commitment extends to customers through employee interactions and a culture of mutual
respect and fun. Employees are not viewed as costs but as sources of knowledge that can reduce cost and
deliver high-quality, reliable service (Gittell, 2003). Respect for personal contributions encourages employees
to listen to customers.
Southwest Airlines brand messages help create this discourse. To capture the attention of passengers, Flight
Attendant David Holmes welcomed passengers aboard a 2009 Southwest flight with a Safety Rap (Bodry,
2009, among multiple others). Since his first SWA rap, Mr. Holmes has been interviewed by CNN and USA
Today, and he appeared on The Tonight Show.
12


Figure 6. Southwest Airlines Rapping Flight Attendant

Southwest continues to feed public discourse around mutual respect and fun. In June, Mr. Holmes reviewed
the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) at Southwests annual shareholders meeting.
Meanwhile, customers have embraced Mr. Holmess creativityhis Safety Rap has received more than 1
million YouTube views. Many visitors to the Southwest web site have commented on the rapping flight
attendant:
Awesome! I love this guy! This kind of stuff is why Southwest will always be my business
success story hero! You all have figured it out and you keep making it better! Susan
Baze, 5/20/09
I love the fact that your CEO has truly embraced this and is having fun with what has
become a bit of an internet phenomenon Love this story so much Ive blogged about it in
the UK. James Gurd, 6/1/09
(Southwest, 2009)
Southwest delivers on their ideal brand experience by aligning operational performance and the mutual
discourse about the brand; as they have continued to prove: low-cost need not be Spartan, it can be fun.
WALMART: UNEXCEPTIONAL AUTHENTICITY
Sam Waltons five-and-dime has come a long way since 1962. Walmarts early growth as a discount retailer
and its more recent market-busting domination comes from price-driven value not exceptional customer
satisfaction; Walmart creates strong brand authenticity in spite of low customer satisfaction.
Walmarts financial success is well documented: it accounts for 21% of all US grocery spending and 7.5% of
all retail spending (Hudson, 2009) with sales topping $400B. Since 1988, Walmart has operated two
segments under one roof: a complete grocery and discounted general merchandise. Revenue is divided
almost equally, 49% from grocery. Since grocery is not particularly lucrativeaccording to a Hoovers
13


industry analysis average net margins are around 1.5% (Hoovers, 2009)we can attribute a good measure
of financial success to retail margins.
Unlike Best Buy, this financial success does not align with customer satisfaction. Traditional customer
satisfaction models expect financial growth to be associated with higher scores
1
. The ACSI only began
measuring Walmarts grocery segment in 2004. Since then, both grocery and general merchandise customer
satisfaction scores have been well below average
2
(Figure 7).
Figure 7. ACSI Walmart Customer Satisfaction Scores by Segment, 2004-2008

The relative stability of Walmarts weak customer satisfaction scores demonstrates a keen managerial focus
on making price-driven value a reality. It also demonstrates that the core strategy has not changed.
For Walmart, unexceptional customer satisfaction scores and exceptional delivery on the price-driven promise
create strong brand authenticity. Customers generally dont expect the promise of a great in-store
1
On average, every 1% increase in customer satisfaction is associated with 2.37% increase in a firms return on
investment (ROI) (Anderson, 2000).
2
Recently, general merchandise scores have risen slightly, in part due to the increased importance of price-driven value in
a down economy.
14



experience, but they do expect great value. The experience is authentic because it aligns with the brands
promise.
CONCLUSION
As Best Buy, Southwest and Walmart help to demonstrate, co-created, authentic brands consistently and
intentionally align customer perception and implementation with their brand promise. This cumulative brand
experience is the standard by which customers evaluate products, services and all organizations alike.
The Brand Authenticity framework is an important addition to more traditional approaches to customer
experience management such as CSM and its more recent corollaries. While each approach is important in its
own right, by taking a more holistic approach to customer experience management that is centered on all
elements of the brand experience, organizations can better manage the dynamic process of aligning the
ideal, actual and subjective experiences in a manner that consistently engineers authenticity.
The storied histories of countless brands have shown time and again that authentic brands are much more
likely to show strong and sustainable financial performance. And this is not by chance. It is because at their
very foundation lie clear strategic and operational initiatives designed to deliver their brand promise
authentically.
AUTHORS NOTE
If you havent done so, or done so recently, a suggested first step toward embracing Brand Authenticity is to
evaluate your brand promise. Ensure that it both resonates and is clearly understood by customers and
employees alike. The brand promise is the foundation on which brand authenticity is built.
###
Second To None, Inc. is a multi-disciplinary customer experience and customer satisfaction measurement firm
specializing in mystery shopping, competitive analysis and merchandising and brand audits. We assist Fortune
1000 brands in measuring, understanding and optimizing their brand performance across all points of
customer interaction by providing actionable forward-looking information about the customer experience.
For more information, visit www.second-to-none.com or call +1 (734) 302-8400.



NOTES
1. American Consumer Satisfaction Index. (2009). Scores by Company: Circuit City. ACSI Website. Retrieved June 8, 2009, from
http://www.theacsi.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=149&Itemid=157&c=Circuit+City+Stores.
2. American Consumer Satisfaction Index. (2009). Scores by Industry: Specialty Retail Stores. ACSI Website. Retrieved June 29, 2009,
from http://www.theacsi.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=147&Itemid=155&i=Specialty+Retail+Stores.
3. Anderson, B. H. (2003). Letter to Shareholders. Best Buy Annual Report. Retrieved June 4, 2009, from http://media.corporate-
ir.net/media_files/irol/83/83192/2003/pdfs/FY03_BBY_AR.pdf.
4. Blackston, M. (1993). Beyond Brand Personality: Building Brand Relationships. In Aaker, D., Biel, A. L. (Eds.), Brand Equity and
Advertising (113-125). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5. Bodry, C. (2009). Southwest Airlines rapping flight attendant. Gadling. Retrieved June 26, 2009, from
http://www.gadling.com/2009/06/24/southwest-airlines-rapping-flight-attendant/.
6. Boyle, M. (2006). Best Buys giant gamble. Fortune. Retrieved June 10, 2009, from
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/04/03/8373034/index.htm.
7. Brown, S., Kozinets, R. V., Sherry Jr., J. F. (2003). Teaching Old Brands New Tricks: Retro Branding and the Revival of Brand
Meaning. Journal of Marketing, (67)3.
8. Clemons, E. (2009). Why Advertising is Failing on the Internet. Tech Crunch. Retrieved May 26, 2009, from
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/03/22/why-advertising-is-failing-on-the-internet/.
9. Gilmore, J. H., Pine II, B. J. (2007). Authenticity. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
10. Gittell, J.H. (2003). The Southwest Airlines Way. New York: McGraw-Hill.
11. Gogoi, P. (2006). Circuit Citys Secret Service. BusinessWeek. Retrieved June 8, 2009, from
http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/aug2006/pi20060824_857413.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_businesswe
ek+exclusives.
12. Holt, D. B. (2002). Why Do Brands Cause Trouble? A Dialectical Theory of Consumer Culture and Branding. Journal of Consumer
Research (29).
13. Kavilanz, P. B. (2009). Circuit City to shut down. CNN Money.com. Retrieved June 4, 2009, from
http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/16/news/companies/circuit_city/.
14. Kim, W. C., Mauborgne, R. (1999). Creating New Market Space. Harvard Business Review, 77, 83-93.
15. Leigh, T.W., Peters, C., Shelton, J. (2006). The consumer quest for authenticity: The multiplicity of meanings within the MG
subculture of consumption. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, (34)4.
16. Lewis, D., Bridger, D. (2001). The soul of the new consumer. Boston: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
17. ODonnell, J. (2008). Electronics retailers find service sells. USA Today. Retrieved June 8, 2009, from
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2008-07-22-circuit-city_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip.
18. Reed II, A. (2004). Activating the Self-Importance of Consumer Selves: Exploring Identity Salience Effects on Judgments. Journal of
Consumer Research, (31)2.
19. Ruiz, R. (2008). Americas Most Reliable Airlines. Forbes.com. Retrieved June 26, 2009, from
http://www.forbes.com/2008/09/30/airlines-reliable-ten-forbeslife-cx_rr_0930travel.html.
20. Southwest Airlines. (1988). The Unknown Flier. Retrieved June 26, 2009, from http://www.southwest.com/multimedia/sack.mpg.
21. Southwest Airlines. (2009). Southwest Airlines Blog. Retrieved June 29, 2009, from http://www.blogsouthwest.com/video/the-gaap-
rap-southwest-airlines%E2%80%99-rapping-flight-attendant.
22. Treacy, M., Wiersema, F. (1993). Customer Intimacy and Other Value Disciplines. Harvard Business Review, 71, 84-93.
23. Unknown. (2000). Business Publications: Home Depot, Inc. Retrieved July 8, 2009, from
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3642/is_200003/ai_n8883659/.
24. Unknown. (2003). Simplicity key to low-cost strategy, says Southwest CFO. McCombs School of Business: News and Information.
Retrieved June 26, 2009, from http://www.mccombs.utexas.edu/news/pressreleases/kelly_wrap.asp.

Brand Authenticity

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brand Authenticity

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brand Authenticity:

A New Way Forward

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

You might also like