Financial Brand Valuation: A Semiotic Approach to Link Marketing and Finance

  • Paulo de Lencastre
  • Nuno Côrte-Real
  • Ana Côrte-Real
  • Cosme AlmeidaEmail author
  • Pedro Veloso
Conference paper
Part of the Developments in Marketing Science: Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science book series (DMSPAMS)


The purpose of this paper is to develop an exclusively stakeholder-based financial brand valuation approach.

A semiotic model is used that recognizes three components in the brand: identity, object, and response. It is noted that the financial valuation purpose is to predict the influence of brand identity signs—the protectable trademarks as property rights—on the economic benefits of their owners. These benefits depend on the response of the stakeholders who are generators of cash-ins and cash-outs. In order to separate the “trademark influence,” stakeholders are confronted with a change scenario to a trademark that is unknown to them and asked if this change alters their behavioral response toward the brand. The affective response is also evaluated to establish the “influence of risk” in realizing the future benefits.

This approach makes it possible to transform a rigorous concept from a legal and financial point of view, but one which is incomprehensible to the common stakeholder, to a scenario that the stakeholder can understand and respond to reliably.

Grounding the brand’s financial valuation in semiotics is relevant because it distinguishes legal, marketing, and finance perspectives about the same objective, by framing them in common concerns of objectivity and intelligibility.


Brand Equity Valuation Financial value Marketing value Semiotics 


  1. Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bahadir, S. C., Bharadwaj, S., & Srivastava, R. (2008). Financial value of brands in mergers and acquisitions: Is value in the eye of the beholder? Journal of Marketing, 72, 49–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cobb-Walgren, C. G., Ruble, C. A., & Donthu, N. (1995). Brand equity, brand preference and purchase intent. Journal of Advertising, 24(3), 25–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Davcik, N. S., Vinhas da Silva, R., & Hair, J. F. (2015). Towards a unified theory of brand equity: Conceptualization, taxonomy, and avenues for future research. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 24(1), 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Delassus, V. P., & Descotes, R. M. (2012). Brand name substitution and brand equity transfer. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 24(1), 28–42.Google Scholar
  6. Farquhar, P. H. (1989). Managing brand equity. Marketing Research, 1, 24–33.Google Scholar
  7. Fishbein, M. (1963). An investigation of the relationship between beliefs about an object and the attitude toward that object. Human Relations, 16(3), 233–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. International Financial Reporting Standards Foundation—IFRS Foundation (2004). Intangible assets. International Accounting Standard IAS 38.Google Scholar
  9. International Organization for Standardization—ISO (2010). Brand valuation: Requirements for monetary brand valuation. International Organization Standard ISO 10668.Google Scholar
  10. Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lencastre, P., & Côrte-Real, A. (2010). One, two, three: A practical brand anatomy. Journal of Brand Management, 17(6), 399–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lencastre, P., & Côrte-Real, A. (2013). Brand response analysis: A Peircean semiotic approach. The Journal of Social Semiotics, 23(4), 489–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Machado, J. C., Carvalho, L. V., Costa, P., & Lencastre, P. (2012). Brand mergers: Examining consumers’ responses to name and logo design. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 21(6), 418–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Markov, A.A. (1971). Extension of the limit theorems of probability theory to a sum of variables connected in a chain. In R. Howard, Dynamic probabilistic systems (Appendix B of Vol. 1). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. Pulling, C. P., Simmons, C. J., & Netemeyer, R. G. (2006). Brand dilution: When do new brands hurt existing brands? Journal of Marketing, 70, 52–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Round, G., & Roper, S. (2015). Untangling the brand name from the branded entity. European Journal of Marketing, 49(11/12), 1941–1960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Simon, C., & Sullivan, M. (1993). The measurement and determinants of brand equity: A financial approach. Marketing Science, 12(1), 28–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Veloutsou, C., Christodoulides, G., & de Chernatony, L. (2013). A taxonomy of measures for consumer-based brand equity: Drawing on the views of managers in Europe. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 22(3), 238–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. World Intellectual Property Organisation—WIPO (2017). What is intellectual property? Retrieved September 15, 2017 from
  20. Yoo, B., Donthu, N., & Lee, S. (2000). An examination of selected marketing mix elements and brand equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 195–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paulo de Lencastre
    • 1
  • Nuno Côrte-Real
    • 1
  • Ana Côrte-Real
    • 1
  • Cosme Almeida
    • 1
    Email author
  • Pedro Veloso
    • 1
  1. 1.Catholic University of PortugalPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations