For decades now, Asian companies and institutions have lagged behind their Western counterparts in the creation, development and management of their brands.

The main reasons for this fact from a corporate standpoint have been to do with the pursuit of short term profits at the expense of investment in brand over the longer term. This has been supported by the scepticism of many boards of directors as to the return on brand investment - brand rewards being somewhat difficult to quantify – coupled with a mistaken view that brand building is largely accomplished by advertising, promotion, and logo design.

Thankfully, these long held views of top managers are now changing.

In the book Branding in Asia (Wiley, 2001) I outlined the fundamentals of branding for companies either Asian or interested in breaking into Asia, and highlighted some Asian brands that were heading in the right direction. I am happy to say that Asian branding has improved, with more and more companies using brand as a strategic weapon, and importantly treating their brands as valuable, though intangible, assets.

Unfortunately, it is still true to say that western brands dominate the Asian market landscape in most, if not all, industries. But Asian brands are fighting back, not just by building brands to defend their markets from increased competition due to the deregulatory effects of AFTA and WTO legislation, but also in moving out into international markets to attack the competition. Some are moving quickly, others more cautiously, yet the steady rise to prominence of Asian brands continues.

Powerful economic shifts have occurred that have stimulated this behaviour. Principally, this has been seen in the rise of China as a global industrial powerhouse, and the aggressive brand building activities of other countries such as South Korea. The use of brand as the main weapon of corporate strategy has been fuelled by ambition and the deregulation of markets.

Indeed, the focal point for investment amongst the Western countries is Asia, and China in particular. With its 1.3 billion people, an increasing level of consumer disposable income and an enthusiastic willingness to trade, China is now the world’s magnet for business development.

It is my view that we will witness the Asian brand revolution lead by China over the next 10-15 years. As a nation, China is branding itself using several massive initiatives such as Formula 1, the 2008 Olympic Games, and the World EXPO in 2010 to showcase its culture and achievements. The government of China is not just developing its brand image at a national level either, but has earmarked many companies for assistance in gaining global brand status in the future. Other Asian countries are trying hard to follow the pace and many are offering educational and financial assistance to help companies in their branding efforts.

Furthermore, Asian companies are no longer hampered in brand development by low levels of quality with world class products appearing from most countries. This in itself has been a factor in the lack of brand leadership in the past, as strong brands must have consistently high quality of product and service. Coupled with this, the costs of production are still favourable in Asia and many western brands outsource production to countries like China, Malaysia and Vietnam.

But whilst cost leadership and high quality levels are vital for successful branding, it is the image building process that is the decisive factor. In this respect, some Asian brands are hampered by their country-of-origin, for example the ‘Made in China’ tag on consumer goods still has a debilitating effect, generating perceptions as cheap and low quality. Like Japanese companies have successfully done, some Asian companies will have to work hard to change such perceptions.

The Brand Cases and Industries
I have also not included some brands that also deserve to be in the book, such as Toyota. (this brand is now regarded as the world’s number one manufacturer of motor vehicles and is a truly giant, global brand), and other Japanese brands that have been around for some time occupying prominent positions. Toyota is a massive brand that is now the global leader. Other Japanese brands like Canon and Nikon also continue to do well. Other brands such as Sony are not faring so well. Sony appears to be unfocused and does not seem to be able to manage its brand properly. But the Japanese big brands are here to stay and much has been written about them.

Rather than write about these brands, I have instead concentrated on those brands that are coming up in the world from positions of difficulty, and/or where their brand images have, in the past, not occupied top positions in people’s minds.

Connected with this point, I have not written Asia’s Star Brands from a country perspective, despite being tempted to do so, but instead have focused on looking at examples regardless of origin, where I feel there has been an attempt at good branding practice. Moreover, it is not easy to find any brand that gets everything right, even in the West, but the learning comes from seeing what has worked in Asia.

On occasions I have taken the liberty of passing comment on aspects of branding that could possibly be improved upon. I would stress that these are only personal opinions and in the absence of detailed information fairly superficial, and not necessarily correct.

The strategic brand elements covered by the cases in the book include:
Brand Alliances, mergers and acquisitions
Branding commodities
Branding conglomerates
Challenger brands
Emotional Branding
First mover advantage
Holistic branding
Brand Management
Brand Naming and Identity
Brand Renewal and Re-vitalisation
Brand as Corporate Strategy
Service branding
Strategic alliances, partnerships and co-branding

There is one more element of branding that is covered in the book, and that is brand architecture, and it is worthwhile introducing that now as it affects every brand.

Brand Architecture
I have not devoted a chapter to brand architecture as it is an issue faced by all brand builders and all the case studies in the book have made decisions – rightly or wrongly, consciously or in an ad hoc way – on what architecture they should use. For each case, therefore, I have added at the end the main architecture model used so that you can see the range of alternatives and the degree of emphasis placed on both company and product.

Brand architecture is an interesting topic and one that is occupying a great deal of time and thought in modern day brand strategy and management, as brand owners seek the answers to how their brands should, if at all, relate. This is the purpose of brand architecture – to recognise the relative importance of a company’s brands and leverage the equity of each to the full by treating each as a stand alone brand or linking a brand to others.

What makes brand architecture so interesting is that there are no rules as to how corporate and product brands should be linked to each other. Even close observation of global power brands gives no indication there is one correct way to do it as they use various formats. The options are fairly straightforward though, and I will describe them now so that you can relate them to the cases as you read on.

True Corporate Branding: This is where the company believes that building up the equity and value of the corporate brand name is of utmost importance. Products are relegated to being branded only in terms of alpha numerics. An example here is Nokia, with all mobile phones assigned only a number.

Corporate Branding with product Descriptor: Here, the company is basically using a true corporate branding stance but labels its products with descriptors. An example is Heinz Baked Beans.

Shared Branding: A departure from the above is where the product is given more recognition in terms of brand status with its own brand name, but the corporate brand name comes first and is usually visually depicted above and next to the product brand. An example is Intel Centrino.

Corporate-Product Name Linkage: Sometimes, but this is not very common, a company will combine the corporate brand name with the product descriptor to produce a single but recognizable brand name, such as Nescafe, from Nestle.

Endorsed Branding: Under this type of brand architecture the product gets the spotlight whilst the corporate brand name appears as an endorser, usually in small print. An example is BAND-AID by Johnson & Johnson.

True Product Branding: This architecture places each brand as a stand alone brand without corporate linkage. Few people realise who owns the brand, and an example is Hugo Boss, which is owned by Procter & Gamble.

Brand architecture decisions have become part and parcel of the brand manager’s job, regardless of what industry the company is in, and in this book you will find cases from the following industries.

The Industries
The industries covered in the book include:
Air travel
Asset management and development
Automotive manufacturing
Building materials
Clothing and fashion
Commodities
Consumer electronics
Destinations and tourism
Food and Beverage
Healthcare
Household appliances
Hospitality
Oil and Gas
Technology
Telecommunications
Travel

Diverse they may be, but all the cases have a commonality. They are examples of organisations trying hard to create, develop and manage international brands. Most of them are at different stages of development and face different challenges, but all have achieved some degree of success.

I must point out that the brands mentioned in the book are not the only ones that have done well; there are too many examples to fit into one book. For example, I have not written about Hyflux, a Singapore brand that is fast becoming famous under the guidance of Olivia Lum. And there are others. It is a pity to leave out some of these companies.

However, in selecting the case studies I have chosen a cross section of brands that I feel represent some of the best in Asia. Some have already gained a kind of ‘star status’, whilst others have not made it yet on to the ‘big screen’. Some of them might never really become global or even regional household names, and indeed may fail in their ambitions, but I wish them every success.

You will notice that I have included two destination brands – Dubai and Shanghai. The purpose of this is twofold. Firstly, to demonstrate that nations and destinations are adopting branding principles that traditionally have been the preserve of corporations, and secondly, to show how powerful public sector branding can be.

By contrast, you may have observed that in the brand new world of Asia there are few examples of Asian luxury brands. It will take much longer for Asia to compete with the West in the luxury categories; the emotional elements of glamour, prestige and status are still owned by Western brands. However, companies like the Beijing Lingerie Company are close to developing some really competitive luxury and emotionally-based brands with its product brand called ‘Aimer’.

In choosing the brands to profile in the book, a decisive factor has been the intense commitment of the people driving them – those top managers who are determined to make branding happen. This book is really dedicated to them, and demonstrates how the mindset of Asian business and government leaders has changed over the last few years from a business to a branded business perspective.

There is no doubt in my mind that Asia will dominate world trade in the not too distant future, and some of the brands in this book are likely to be leading the way.