Systems constellations:
A better way to identify
Keywords
branding constellation;
paradigm; phenomenology;
problem identification; soft
systems methodology;
systems constellation
Wim Jurg
Hofakkers 14, 9468 EE Annen,
The Netherlands
Tel: + 31 592271048
Fax: + 31 455762103
E-mail: wim.jurg@ou.nl
© 2008 PALGRAVE MACMILLAN LTD 1350-23IX $30.00 BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 15, NO. 4, 239–257 MARCH 2008
branding opportunities?
Received (in revised form): 1st July, 2007
WIM JURG
is a PhD candidate at the Radboud University, Nijmegen, where he is completing his thesis on the usefulness of
systems constellations to identify branding opportunities. He was born in 1957 and holds a Masters in Econometrics
and a Bachelor in Psychology. He has been working as an assistant marketing professor at the Open University of the
Netherlands for 15 years, and has been a part-time brand advisor for 20 years.
JOSÉE BLOEMER
is Professor of Business Administration, especially Market Analysis and Relationship Management, and Head of the
Strategy and Marketing Department at the Radboud University, Nijmegen. Born in 1961, she got her PhD in 1993
at Maastricht University. As a consultant, she has worked for different national and international organisations.
HANS DOOREWAARD
is Professor of Organization Development at the Nijmegen School of Management, Radboud University, Nijmegen
since 1999. His educational and research interests include human resource management, emotions in organisations,
gender in organisations, power in organisations, organisational change, team based work and research methodology.
ED PEELEN
is Professor of Marketing at Nyenrode Business University. He was born in 1960, got his PhD at Erasmus University
Rotterdam and is specialised in Customer Relationship Management. At Nyenrode, he is Director of the Cluster for
Marketing & Supply Chain Management and responsible for executive programmes.
RUUD SIMONS
is a former student of the Open University of the Netherlands, who examined a case study on the systems
constellation technique as his marketing dissertation: the identification of a name logo opportunity by a Dutch
marketing director of a global franchise services company. He was born in 1970 and holds Master in Electrical
Engineering and in Business Management. He has been working for over ten years in IT and telecommunications in
various technical and commercial positions.
Abstract
Building strong brands has become one of the main marketing priorities for brand-supportive
companies. The leading positivist paradigm in marketing may not be, however, the most-effective
perspective in identifying branding opportunities. This paper offers an alternative phenomenological
point of view by applying the innovative systems constellation technique within the soft systems
methodology to identify new branding opportunities. A case study illustrates its content validity but
also shows there is limited support for its reliability, which is in line with the positivists’ reservation
on phenomenological methods and techniques.
Journal of Brand Management (2008) 15, 239–257. doi:10.1057/palgrave.bm.2550116;
published online 17 August 2007
INTRODUCTION are characterised by brand decision makers
Building strong brands has become a (in short ‘branders’) who continuously
marketing priority for many companies.1–3 need to identify and predict effects of
These so-called brand-supportive companies alternative branding programme options
239
www.palgrave-journals.com/bm
 JURG, BLOEMER, DOOREWAARD, PEELEN AND SIMONS
to enhance brand equity.4 It is generally
recognised that the problem of identifying
opportunities (generally named problem
identification in marketing research litera-
ture) is the most important phase in marketing
(research). In addition, it is generally
agreed that marketing—and especially
branding—problems are fuzzy, ill-struc-
tured, messy, open mismatches between
what is and what might be, and that a
systems perspective is needed. The atten-
tion paid by companies and academics to
identify branding opportunities is, however,
mostly done in a conscious, rational, closed
and hard way, leaving branders’ noncon-
scious and emotional experiences out.5–13
But unless the nonconscious, emotional
experiences of branders are taken into
account to identify branding opportuni-
ties, it is hardly likely that sound market
research can be done.
An innovative soft systems technique to
assist in identifying effects of managerial
decisions—called the systems constella-
tion—seems to offer a useful way to
identify branding opportunities from a
nonconscious, emotional point of view.
This application of the systems constella-
tion was termed branding constellation in the
research project. The next section opposes
rather extensively the current positivist
paradigm and the alternative phenomeno-
logical perspective. Then, more intensively,
the soft systems methodology (SSM) and
the systems constellation technique are
introduced, followed by the research project
and a case study illustration to enhance the
reader’s understanding. Finally, a discussion
on the findings and suggestions for further
research close this paper.
PARADIGM: AN UNPROVEN
PERSPECTIVE
A paradigm is an unproven way to help
understand part of reality. The leading
240 © 2008 PALGRAVE MACMILLAN LTD 1350-23IX $30.00 BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 15, NO. 4, 239–257 MARCH 2008
paradigm within marketing is positivism,
assuming that the social world exists
externally, and that its properties can and
should be measured through objective
techniques within objective methodolo-
gies. An important alternative paradigm is
generally termed the phenomenological
perspective, which is also referred to as
the constructivist view. Marketing literature
generally views them as similar and for this
paper it is not necessary to differentiate
them. This phenomenological alternative
advocates the investigation of direct expe-
rience through sensation, reflection and
intuition.Where positivists assume a reality
that is external and objective, the phenom-
enological point of view presumes an
interaction between an internal, subjective
world and an outside, objective world.14–18
As the truth of these paradigms cannot be
evaluated, brand-supportive companies
and academics should not limit themselves
to the positivist perspective, but should also
take the alternative phenomenological
point of view into account to identify
branding opportunities. The next section
covers the well-established SSM within
this phenomenological point of view,
which provides a structured set of guide-
lines and activities to assist in identifying
branding opportunities.
SOFT SYSTEMS METHODOLOGY
(SSM)
SSM origin
Since the 1960s, several alternative systems
methodologies have been developed to
deal with fuzzy, ill-structured, messy, open
problems within the field of operations
research such as interactive planning, sys-
ems administrator simulation trainer and
SSM.15 This paper focusses on the latter,
as it is generally considered the leading
example of a research contribution to the

field of real-world problem solving. SSM
originated at Lancaster University (UK)
from the work of Professor Checkland
and a team of systems analysts.19,20 Initially,
they examined the possibilities for well-
developed positivist methods of systems
engineering in managerial problem situ-
ations. This transfer attempt failed. They
concluded that these positivist methods
are not effective in tackling human problem
situations.Viewing managers as conscious,
rational objects with clear one-dimen-
sional objectives does not work; managers
are intentional subjects with multiple
nonconscious goals. Checkland and his
analysts began to address the principles of
action research. They became participants
who tried to assist managers in developing
both as-is models and can-be models of
perceived problem situations.The ‘systems’
construct stopped referring to literal
objects in the real world but became
employed as a metaphor; a particular way
of organising managers’ thoughts about
the situation. The essence of the soft
systems analysis is in finding potential posi-
tive feedback factors, for which is character-
istic that small changes result in big systems
Figure 1 The seven-stage model in SSM37,40
© 2008 PALGRAVE MACMILLAN LTD 1350-23IX $30.00 BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 15, NO. 4, 239–257 MARCH 2008
SYSTEMS CONSTELLATIONS
improvements. Today, SSM has a strong
position in operations research,21–28 is well
established in information and organisa-
tional management science,29–34 and has
been successfully applied in marketing
research as well.35,36
SSM procedure
SSM has been described in various ways
throughout its existence, a period of more
than 40 years. The seven-stage model is
an early presentation, but remains the
most common for explaining the meth-
odology. It contains seven interacting,
spiral states suitable for its description:
perceived problem, expressed problem,
definition of relevant system, conceptual
model, real-world comparison, definition
of change and implementation of change.
Figure 1 presents a pictorial overview of
these seven stages.37–39
Applying SSM to the identification
problem of branding opportunities as the
first phase in marketing research means
that in SSM stage 1, branders perceive
brand equity as problematic: they have a
feeling of mismatch between current and
241
 JURG, BLOEMER, DOOREWAARD, PEELEN AND SIMONS
potential brand equity. In stage 2, they
express the perceived branding problem
situation in terms of opportunities, poten-
tial changes in the branding programme
or at the higher level of brand portfolio
strategy. In stage 3, they name and define
about seven root definitions concerning the
core brand elements on the perceived
problem. In stage 4, branders test their
thoughts on these root definitions and the
operating positive and negative feedback
loops between them, usually by using
cognitive mapping techniques. In stage 5,
branders generate insights in the oppor-
tunities by comparing the findings from
stage 4 to the ‘real world’. In stage 6, they
formulate the intuitive feasibility of the
perceived branding opportunity and in
stage 7, they ‘act’—in terms of marketing
research—to improve the perceived problem
situation by briefing a marketing agency
on this opportunity or repeat the cycle.
The innovation of the systems constella-
tions technique within SSM is that it
elicits the nonconscious, emotional expe-
riences of branders on perceived prob-
lems. The next section takes a closer look
at the systems constellation technique.
SYSTEMS CONSTELLATION
TECHNIQUE
Systems constellation origin
The systems constellation is developed
from psychodrama,41,42 a technique that
is regularly used in qualitative market
research.43–45 Psychodrama originates
from Moreno (in the 1920s) and devel-
oped out of role-play as a form of group
therapy where problems are transferred to
a real stage in movement and action.
Like psychoanalysis, psychodrama is
meant to deal with perceived problems,
but in psychodrama clients set out to find
a resolution by living it through in a
242 © 2008 PALGRAVE MACMILLAN LTD 1350-23IX $30.00 BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 15, NO. 4, 239–257 MARCH 2008
personal drama. Psychodrama includes the
observers, some of whom are assigned to
participate in the drama.The core assump-
tion of psychodrama is that people who
are constellated by clients on a stage in an
‘embodied representation’ are capable of
making these clients more aware of the
relationships between the persons in the
perceived problem situation these humans
stand for. Constellating stand-ins for arte-
facts makes it possible to clarify the role
of these artefacts in human relationships.
Approaching artefacts as human-like is
termed anthropomorphises and is generally
accepted within marketing theory as facil-
itating human interactions with the
nonhuman world.46–48 The brand-as-a-
person projection is a special case of this
anthropomorphises and is generally used
in brand theory.49–53
The innovative assumption of the
systems constellation is that people, who
are set up by a client in this embodied
representation, are capable of showing
hidden, deeper relationships between the
persons and artefacts of the client’s problem
they represent.54–56 This phenomenon is
called representative perception. Stand-ins
develop distinct emotions that are presumed
to replicate the reality of the person or
artefacts they are representing. One expla-
nation of this phenomenon is found in
the work of Merleau-Ponty57–65 and
Lakoff and Johnson66,67 who argue that
people think in embodied metaphors. As
stand-ins think in the same human way
as branders, it might be ‘just’ a matter of
back-translation of the nonconscious
emotions put into the constellations by
the brander’s choice of the stand-ins and
their positions towards each other. For
understanding this representative percep-
tion, Sheldrake68,69 and others44,59,70 refer
to Sheldrake’s field theory, while Laszlo71
and others72–75 theoretically validate this
phenomenon by extending it to the

general quantum theory and its direct
connection between internal human
reality and the outer world.
Explorative PhD studies on the systems
constellation have shown a high content
validity in identifying managerial oppor-
tunities.59,76 In addition, these studies
have indicated its low construct validity,
indicating that the system constellation
technique is only at the beginning of a
methodological discussion, and every
systems analyst has his own way of
performing the technique without hardly
any rigorous evaluation. One positivist
PhD experiment—containing several
configurations with statues in which
people were positioned on the same
place—reports high stand-in reliability,
signifying that experiences of stand-ins on
positions in constellation configurations
are significantly independent of the
gender, age and other personal character-
istics of the humans who stand for
the represented persons and abstract
constructs.75 There is one single PhD case
study report on the positive content
validity of the systems constellation to
identify branding problems in which the
researcher was also the systems analyst.59
Systems constellation procedure
In Step 1 of the system constellation
procedure, the brander—in the case study
described in this paper, the European
marketing director from a leading global
franchise brand—has a dialogue with a
systems analyst on his feeling of mismatch
between the current and the potential
brand equity. This dialogue is held before
an audience some of whom are assigned
to participate in the branding constella-
tion. In this step, the brand name is not
mentioned as previous branding constel-
lations showed that most participating
brand experts thought that the analyst and
© 2008 PALGRAVE MACMILLAN LTD 1350-23IX $30.00 BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 15, NO. 4, 239–257 MARCH 2008
SYSTEMS CONSTELLATIONS
the people who were set up, might have
been influenced by their personal image
of the brand and thus may have been
reflecting their own thoughts rather than
the brander’s projections. In the second
constellation of the case study described
in this paper, this step results in the brand-
er’s question whether the current brand
name limits the enhancement of brand
equity. Step 2 continues the dialogue with
an opportunity to deal with this problem;
in this example, how a new brand name
might enhance the brand. Step 3 discusses
the root definitions: the brand elements
that are perceived to play a key role in
this problem. Step 3 in the second constel-
lation of the case study resulted in the
identification of the brand name, the service,
the franchiser, the franchisees and the
customers as the core brand system elements
in the brand name problem. In Step 4, the
brander intuitively chooses people from the
audience to represent these key brand
elements. These embodied human repre-
sentatives of the core elements in the
branding problem are called stand-ins.
The selected persons are positioned by
the brander in the conference room on
places that feel intuitively right for the
brander. This process results in the so-
called projection constellation that shows the
brander an embodied spatial metaphor of
his/her brand systems perspective on the
experienced branding problem. Subse-
quently, the analyst questions stand-ins on
how they feel, to whom they feel attracted
and whom they want to turn away from.
Next, the brander constellates the stand-
ins for the considered branding opportu-
nity; in the second constellation of the
case study by replacing the current brand
name by a new name. This is followed by
another questioning of the stand-ins on
whether their emotions have changed
and—if so—how. Then, the analyst and
the brander find out its instigation causality
243
 JURG, BLOEMER, DOOREWAARD, PEELEN AND SIMONS
(German: ‘Anstosskausalität’): under what
conditions this change triggers a positive
feedback loop between stand-ins, resulting
in a vision constellation showing a solution
direction. Step 5 generates verbal insights
in the opportunity by comparing the
emotions generated among the stand-ins
in step 4 to the ‘real world’, and in Step
6 the brander decides on the intuitive
feasibility of the opportunity. In the brand
name example, the brander decided that
a brand name change would not solve the
real problem: the relationship between the
franchiser and the franchisees. Finally,
Step 7 briefs a marketing agency on chal-
lenging the intuitive feasible opportunity.
In the brand name example (ie the second
constellation of the case study), the
briefing was now directed at improving
the relationship rather than finding a new
brand name. To enhance the intuitive
understanding of the reader on the branding
constellation proceedings, the develop-
ments in the two branding constellations
of the case study are illustrated in the
appendices. Next, we explain the branding
constellation research project.
BRANDING CONSTELLATION
RESEARCH PROJECT
The systems constellations that were
performed in the research project to iden-
tify branding opportunities were called
branding constellations and the research
project was named the branding constellation
research project. The core of the research
project covered three branding constella-
tion conferences with brand experts as new
topics ask for support from experts in the
field,17 scientific ‘objectivity’ is often
thought of as agreement among expert
judges77 and expert audiences are thought
to inspire and to validate innovations.78
As experiencing generates a better under-
standing than reading,79 brand experts
244 © 2008 PALGRAVE MACMILLAN LTD 1350-23IX $30.00 BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 15, NO. 4, 239–257 MARCH 2008
were invited to join the conference. The
expert sample method was a combination
of purposeful, experiential and snowball
sampling.76 Every brand manager, advisor,
researcher and academic who applied was
welcome to join the expert forum, but
acknowledged brand experts were invited
personally by e-mail and at branding
conferences. All were asked to bring
colleagues and to ask brand responsible
managers of acknowledged brands if they
were prepared to use this technique to
identify one of their branding opportuni-
ties. For new techniques should demon-
strate their relevance on real-life problems
within the SSM.21 The first brand-expert
conference, in which three branders
performed a branding constellation, took
place in November 2002, the second in
October 2003 and the third in November
2004. Two branders participated in these
2003 and 2004 sessions. The brand
expert forums consisted of 18–25 brand
experts.
The branders and brand expert opin-
ions on the usefulness of the branding
constellation were triangularly generated
by a transcription of the branding constel-
lation, a questionnaire issued directly after
the constellation, a transcription of the
evaluation round and an e-mail question-
naire the day after. In addition, the 2002
and 2003 branders reflected on their
branding constellation during the 2003 or
2004 marketing-expert conference, respec-
tively. The direct questionnaire focussed
on the opinions concerning the content
validity of each constellation separately,
while the e-mail questionnaire covered the
opinions on all distinguished aspects of
validity and reliability.The direct question-
naires depended on the role within the
branding constellation: there were separate
questionnaires for the branders, the brand
experts in the audience who were asked
as stand-ins and the brand experts who
 SYSTEMS CONSTELLATIONS

stayed in the audience and witnessed the
constellation process from the outside.
As the presence of brand experts might
influence the findings,80 three alternate
settings were considered to account for
this ecological validity effect.The first vari-
ation was the brander-setting. This confer-
ence covered only branders and brand
advisors who wanted to identify a branding
opportunity themselves; thus, this setting
did not contain people who just wanted
to observe the technique. The second
distinction employed another systems
analyst. In this other-analyst-setting, branders
were asked to bring their colleagues and
their brand advisors. To have enough
choice of stand-ins, marketing students
were invited who were doing a case study
thesis as part of the branding constellation
research project.The third variant consisted
of branders in a brand-lay-setting. Here
people joined the conference because they
were interested in experiencing the systems
constellation technique as performed by
the systems analyst rather for their interest
in branding issues.Table 1 presents the four
different settings of the branding constel-
lation research project and the audience
(the stand-in population) from which the
stand-ins were picked. As the brand-
expert-setting formed the core of the
research project it is printed in italic.
Thus, the research method was an
explorative multiple case study design,81
consisting of 32 branders who performed
a branding constellation. The research
project studied the usefulness of these
branding constellations by examining two
generally accepted dimensions of useful-
ness: validity and reliability.18,80,82, This
paper focusses on the aspects of content
validity and test–retest reliability within
these two dimensions. Content validity83,84
was conceptualised as the degree to which
branders and the present brand experts
thought the branding constellations to
identify the perceived branding opportu-
nity. It was operationalised by the gener-
ated insights, the intuitive truth of these
insights and their actionability. Test–retest
reliability85–87,80 was measured holistically
by comparing the storylines and insights
of two constellations on the same brand
and analytically by contrasting stand-ins’
relationships between two constellations
on a five-point scale.
CASE STUDY FINDINGS
Case study
To enhance the reader’s intuitive under-
standing, we will illustrate the findings of
the research project by discussing the
application on one brander: the European
marketing director from a leading global
franchise brand. In June 2002, this
marketing director performed a branding
constellation in the brand-lay-setting of
the research project, while in November
2002 he performed one in the brand-
expert-setting. In the brand-lay-setting of

Table 1 Overview of branding constellation research project settings

Setting Number of cases Stand-in audience

Brand expert 7 Nonfamiliar branders and brand experts

Brander 9 Nonfamiliar branders and brand advisors who wanted to do a
constellation too
Other-analyst 8 Nonfamiliar branders, other branders’ colleagues and brand
advisors, and marketing thesis students
Brand-lay 8 Strangers who were interested in the systems constellation
technique rather than brands.

© 2008 PALGRAVE MACMILLAN LTD 1350-23IX $30.00 BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 15, NO. 4, 239–257 MARCH 2008 245
 JURG, BLOEMER, DOOREWAARD, PEELEN AND SIMONS
June 2002, he formulated a strap-line
opportunity regarding his brand and in the
brand-expert-setting of November 2002
he came up with a brand name opportu-
nity. The similarity of these opportunities
makes this case especially interesting
for this paper as the test–retest reliability
of both branding constellations can be
measured, which the branders as well as
the brand experts thought of as essential
in the research project. Moreover, the
marketing director reflected on both
his 2002 constellations two years later
during the 2004 forum of brand experts,
enabling a long-term perspective on
content validity.
Content validity
Content validity was measured by the
generated insights, the intuitive truth of the
branding constellation happenings and the
actionability of the generated insights. Both
constellations generated many insights,
which were hard to verbalise all according
to the marketing director. His main actionable
insight, however, was that both branding
constellation showed him that first of all
the interaction with the franchisees needed
improvement. On the first branding
constellation, he especially concluded that
changing one of the strap-line elements
might support this improvement and on
the second that a change of brand name
would not enhance the brand.
Table 2 Overview of ten witness brand experts’ content validity opinions
Questions on content validity
Please formulate the answer to the
brander’s research question as indicated by
the branding constellation
Do you agree with this answer?
Do you think the technique has
complementary value to existing ones?
246 © 2008 PALGRAVE MACMILLAN LTD 1350-23IX $30.00 BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 15, NO. 4, 239–257 MARCH 2008
Concerning intuitive truth, he recog-
nised—to his astonishment—the state-
ments made by the stand-ins of the brand
elements in both constellations as in line
with reality. In his reflection during the
2004 expert conference (two years after
the constellations), he reported that the
relationship between the franchiser and
the franchisees had improved and that
changing one of the strap-line elements
had supported this process. The marketing
director compared the branding constel-
lation to a city map: ‘branding constella-
tions do not tell you what the streets look
like, but they give you an overall picture
of the town that enables you to decide
where you are and how to come from
one place to another’.
The present brand experts generally
confirmed that in their opinion the
marketing director generated actionable
and true insights. They mentioned basi-
cally the same insights as the brander and
most of them also thought of these insights
as true. One brand expert, however, argued
that the idea of the branding constellation
generating intuitively true information
was a dangerous thought. In his opinion,
the branding constellation should be seen
as a lateral marketing technique, which
generates insights on the basis of the human
mind to ‘recognise’ patterns in coinci-
dences. Concerning the complementary
value of the branding constellation all were
positive. Table 2 presents a quantitative
Very Rather Neutral Rather Very
positive positive or no negative negative
answer answer answer answer answer
6 3 1 0 0
3 3 2 2 0
6 4 0 0 0

overview of the content validity opinions:
a five-point scale was applied to measure
the content validity items in the direct
witness questionnaire.88 This questionnaire
was filled out by the ten brand experts who
were not chosen as stand-in and witnessed
the branding constellation process from the
outside. Eight brand experts filled out a
questionnaire concerning their experiences
as stand-in.
Table 2 shows that most brand experts
were (very) positive on content validity.
They were especially positive on the
complementary value of the branding
constellation as well as on the insights
generated on the branding opportunity,
operationalised as the degree in which
they could formulate a clear answer on
the brander’s question. The opinions on
intuitive truth, operationalised as agree-
ment with the self-constructed ‘answer’,
were still positive, but less than on the
other two items of content validity.
Test–retest reliability
Test–retest reliability examined holistically
the storyline and core insight similarity,
and analytically the resemblance of the
relationships between similar constellated
brand elements in two constellations.
Concerning the holistic test–retest reliability,
both in the June 2002 brand-lay-setting
as in the November 2002 brand-expert-
setting, the instigation causality—the posi-
tive feedback aspect in the branding
constellation to enhance the brand—was
found in improving the relationship
between the franchiser and the franchisees.
In both constellations, the systems analyst
set aside the ‘bossy’ franchiser stand-in to
improve the overall atmosphere in the
constellation. The essential difference was
that in the June 2002 constellation, after
a new strap-line was introduced, the
stand-in of the franchisees wanted support
© 2008 PALGRAVE MACMILLAN LTD 1350-23IX $30.00 BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 15, NO. 4, 239–257 MARCH 2008
SYSTEMS CONSTELLATIONS
from the stand-in of the franchiser, while
in the November 2002 constellation no
harmony was reached in which the stand-
in of the franchisees asked for the assist-
ance of the franchiser. This difference
made that the marketing director gener-
ated in the June 2002 constellation on the
strap-line the additional insight which
strap-line element to change and how,
while in the November 2002 constella-
tion he ‘just’ concluded that a brand name
change would not bring anything. More
extensive descriptions of the development
of these two constellations are presented
in the appendices.
Concerning the analytical test–retest reli-
ability analysis on element level, first the
similar elements were determined. The
June and November constellation were
found to contain three similar elements;
brand name, franchiser and franchisees.
The comparisons were again made on a
five-point scale ( + 2;− 2), where ‘ + 2’
indicated that the statements of the stand-
ins on their relationships in the two
constellations really matched and ‘ − 2’ that
the statements of the stand-ins on their
relationships really differed. The results are
presented in Table 3.
Table 3 indicates that little similarity
was found between the statements of the
stand-ins on their relationships regarding
the three brand elements in the two
constellations. Exceptions were the well-
resembling relationship statements of the
franchisees stand-ins, and the rather well-
resembling statements of the franchiser
stand-ins regarding the name stand-ins
and the name stand-ins concerning the
franchisees stand-ins.
As a resolution, namely an improved
relationship between franchisees and fran-
chiser, was not found in the November
constellation on the name opportunity,
one might argue that the harmony part
of the June constellation should not be
247
 JURG, BLOEMER, DOOREWAARD, PEELEN AND SIMONS

Table 3 Test–retest reliability scores—overall

Element name Brand name Franchisees Franchiser Mean Range

Brand name 1 −2 − 0.5 3

Franchisees 2 −2 0 4
Franchiser 1 −2 − 0.5 3
Mean 1.5 − 0.5 −2 − 0.3

Range 1 3 0

Table 4 Test–retest reliability scores—up to the return of franchiser in the June constellation

Element name Brand name Franchisees Franchiser Mean Range

Brand name 0 0 0 0
Franchisees −1 2 0.5 3
Franchiser −1 2 0.5 3

Mean −1 1 1 0.3
Range 0 2 2

taken into account in the analytical
comparison. Indeed, the analysis up to the
moment the franchiser returned in the
June constellation gives a different picture
as shown in Table 4.
Table 4 indicates that there is a slight
positive similarity between the statements
on the relationships of the three elements
in the two constellations up to the moment
that the resolution was found in the June
constellation. Again, the relationships of the
stand-ins of the franchisees and franchisers
regarding the stand-in of the brand name
are the exception, but now the other way
around: the stand-ins of the franchisers and
franchisees in the two constellations now
react differently to the name. It is remark-
able how the findings differ on these two
measurements of test–retest reliability.
DISCUSSION
The branding constellations in this
presented explorative case study were
evaluated as content valid by the marketing
director and the present brand experts,
meaning that they evoked actionable and
true insights. In addition, they were judged
as holistically test–retest reliable as the
evoked insights by the marketing director
and the present brand experts matched
really well. They were, however, clearly
not analytically test–retest reliable as the
relationships between the stand-ins in the
two constellations did not match. More-
over, the two differentiated measurements
differed very much. The brand expert
who was dissident on the intuitive truth
of the branding constellation may be right
that it should be seen as a lateral marketing
technique. His argument was that meas-
uring analytical reliability ‘by comparing
the stand-in statements’ is vertical, posi-
tivist thinking while lateral techniques
should be measured on their output rather
than their throughput.80,88–91 Thus
concluding that from a lateral perspective
only the holistic test–retest reliability
should be measured.
Most brand experts were rather aston-
ished about the emotions they experi-
enced as stand-ins and the big emotional
effects of small changes in the positions
of other stand-ins. In line with this, many

248 © 2008 PALGRAVE MACMILLAN LTD 1350-23IX $30.00 BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 15, NO. 4, 239–257 MARCH 2008

thought that a certain degree of emotional
intelligence is essential to function well as
stand-in. Furthermore, they associated the
constellation with projective techniques
and referred to the controversial reputa-
tion concerning its reliability.45,92,93 They
argued that the branders’ interpretations
should be leading in the research project
rather than the opinions of the systems
analysts, the researcher or the brand
experts, as subjectivity of the interpreta-
tion is what makes using projective tech-
niques unreliable.The high inter-subjective
brand expert agreement on the interpre-
tation of the branding constellation in the
explorative case study was opposite to the
expectations of most brand experts. In
addition, many referred to the frequently
reported ‘lack of repeatability’ criticism on
the SSM and action research, and hence
their deficiency of rigour.94 Remarkably,
the common argument against test–retest
reliability measurement—that the percep-
tion is changed by content valid problem
identification techniques—did not fit the
presented case study as the trigger was the
same in both branding constellations: the
relationship between franchiser and fran-
chisees. The argument that ‘a new kid in
the block’ changes the configuration and
thus the identity of the brand elements
might, however, be valid and burdens the
test–retest reliability measurement.
The findings on the presented case
study are similar to the ones found in the
31 other case studies. All 32 branders
thought of the branding constellation as
content valid, although some more than
others. The very positive branders could
be portrayed as extravert, prepared to look
at the larger picture—which is often
messy and complex—and in particular at
their own role within the branding system.
Last but not the least, they were more
open to being involved with processes
they could not fully understand. The
© 2008 PALGRAVE MACMILLAN LTD 1350-23IX $30.00 BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 15, NO. 4, 239–257 MARCH 2008
SYSTEMS CONSTELLATIONS
branders who were less positive often
seemed to have done a branding constel-
lation partly as favour to a colleague.
The ecological validity95 of the findings
was high as the brand-expert-setting
generated similar findings on content
validity and test–retest reliability as the
alternative brander-, other-analyst- and
brand-lay-setting. The facts that seven
branders spontaneously applied twice,
eight out of the 18 observing November
2002 experts joined another conference,
and five others have developed into key-
informants in the research project, are
behavioural indicators of the experienced
value.
The presented findings are also in line
with the findings on the explorative PhD
systems constellation studies referred to at
the end of the systems constellation origin
section. There is, however, one big theo-
retical difference. Systems constellation
literature generally presumes that it does
not make a difference that person problem
owners choose as stand-ins.This presump-
tion was considered theoretically nonvalid
by the present brand experts. Instead, the
brand experts thought the choice and
positioning of stand-ins as fitting projec-
tion theory well, regardless of their
opinion on the usefulness of projection
techniques.
The practical acceptance of branding
constellations will probably take time as
today most companies and academics pay
little attention to the subjective percep-
tions of branders and preach analytical
(vertical, positivist) reliability. The constel-
lation perspective requires branders and
researchers to give up the ‘illusion’ of full
control. Problems that in ‘regular’ market
research would be viewed as ‘independent
and separate’ need to be seen from the
constellation perspective as‘inter-dependent
and connected’. It seems, however, that
more and more branders are open to this
249
 JURG, BLOEMER, DOOREWAARD, PEELEN AND SIMONS
kind of approach. Constellations seem to
fit the action-oriented type of manager
who experiences high ambiguity and is
used to reducing it by taking action
to see what works. In addition, it is
generally acknowledged within—posi-
tivist—marketing science that branders’
perceptions can be a valuable source for
improving opportunity identification.96–99
Moreover, projection techniques for stud-
ying consumers’ nonconscious percep-
tions are common practice in qualitative
marketing research47 and recent neuro-
scientific studies have offered this
practice a sound theoretical founda-
tion.13,47,97,100,101
A follow-up study within the positivist
paradigm should focus on the reliability of
the branding constellation by systematically
comparing independently perfor med
constellations by different members of
brand teams on the generated insights, their
intuitive truth and their actionability. In
addition, the constellation findings ought
to be contrasted with the findings of
scientifically accepted techniques. In the
presented case, for instance, the relation-
ships between the brand elements in the
two constellations should have been
compared to questionnaire and/or inter-
view findings on the franchiser, the fran-
chisees and/or the customers. Branders
and/or their brand team members could
also predict the relationships between the
stand-ins in advance and assess their differ-
ences. Moreover, they could score the state-
ments of the stand-ins on their intuitive
truth and evaluate their discrepancies.
A more conclusive study from a pheno-
menological perspective could contain an
experiment on the content validity of
branding constellations as compared to
other problem identification techniques,
such as brainstorming, cognitive mapping
and/or other lateral thinking techniques.
Such a study could also fit the plea to
250 © 2008 PALGRAVE MACMILLAN LTD 1350-23IX $30.00 BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 15, NO. 4, 239–257 MARCH 2008
generate more scientific insights about
branders’ minds on messy branding prob-
lems.11,95,102 For instance, the branding
constellation research project clarifies the
role of the brander as a spider—or fly—in
an internal and external web.103,104 As the
frontiers of scientific knowledge are found
especially at the intersections between
fields48,105 connecting the branding con-
stellation to scientific know-how on, for
instance brain theory, brainstorming, cogni-
tive mapping, embodied metaphors,
emotional intelligence, lateral thinking,
projection techniques and quantum thinking
may broaden its theoretical validity.106,107
To conclude, given the challenges and
opportunities affecting brand manage-
ment,104,108 it seems worthwhile for
academics and brand-supportive companies
to explore the usefulness of systems constel-
lations to identify branding opportunities
from a positivist perspective as well as from
a phenomenological point of view.
References and Notes
(1) Aaker, D. A. (1996) ‘Building Strong Brands’,
The Free Press, New York.
(2) Keller, K. L. (2001) ‘Brand research imperatives’,
Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 9, No. 1,
pp. 4–6.
(3) Hoeffler, S. and Keller, K. L. (2003) ‘The marketing
advantages of strong brands’, Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 10, No. 6, pp. 421–445.
(4) Yakimova, R. and Beverland, M. (2005) ‘The
brand-supportive firm—An exploration of organ-
isational drivers of brand updating’, Journal of Brand
Management, , Vol. 12, No. 6, pp. 445–460.
(5) Stryker, P. (1965) ‘Can you analyze this
problem?’ Harvard Business Review, Vol. 43,
No. 3, pp. 73–78.
(6) Stryker, P. (1965) ‘How to analyze that problem’,
Harvard Business Review,Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 99–110.
(7) Arndt, J. (1985) ‘On making marketing science
more scientific: Role of orientations, paradigms,
metaphors, and puzzle solving’, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 49, No. 3, pp. 11–23.
(8) Chapman, R. G. (1989) ‘Problem definition in
marketing research studies’, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 6, No. 2, , pp. 51–59.
(9) Damasio, A. (1994) ‘Descartes’ Error—Emotion,
Reason and the Human Brain’, G.P. Putnam’s
Sons, New York.

(10) Damasio, A. (1999) ‘The Feeling of What
Happens—Body, Emotion and the Making of
Consciousness’, Harvest Books, New York.
(11) Hackley, C. E. (1999) ‘Tacit knowledge and the
epistemology of expertise in strategic manage-
ment’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33, No. 7/8,
pp. 720–735.
(12) Damasio, A. (2003) ‘Looking for Spinoza—Joy,
Sorrow and the Feeling Brain’, Vintage/Ebury,
London.
(13) Zaltman, G. (2003) Gerald, ‘How Customers
Think’, Harvard Business School Press, Boston,
MA.
(14) Thomas, S. (1962) ‘The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions’, The University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
(15) Mingers, J. and Brocklesby, J. (1996) ‘Multi-
methodology: Towards a framework for critical
pluralism’, Systemist, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 101–131.
(16) Desai, P. (2002) ‘Philly, methods beyond inter-
viewing in qualitative market research’, Book
3, in Ereaut, G., Imms, M. and Callingham, M.
(eds.) ‘Qualitative Market Research,’ (7 volumes),
Sage, London.
(17) Remenyi, D., Williams, D. B., Money, A. and
Swartz, E. (2005) ‘Doing Research in Business
and Management—An Introduction to Process
and Method’, SAGE Publications, London/
New Delhi.
(18) Of course, other paradigms might be distin-
guished like realism and critical theory, but that
would complicate the description beyond the
aim of this section. Interested are referred to
for example, Riege, A. M. (2003) ‘Validity and
reliability tests in case study research: A litera-
ture review with “hands-on” applications
for each research phase’, Qualitative Market
Research: An International Journal, Vol. 6, No. 2,
pp. 75–86.
(19) Checkland, P. (1990) ‘Systems Thinking, Systems
Practice’, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester/
New York/Brisbane/Toronto.
(20) Checkland, P. and Scholes, J. (2005) ‘Soft
Systems Methodology in Action’, John Wiley
and Sons, Chichester/New York/Brisbane/
Toronto.
(21) Checkland, P. (1985) ‘From optimizing to
learning: A development of systems thinking
for the 1990s’, Journal of the Operational Research
Society, Vol. 36, No. 9, pp. 757–767.
(22) Mingers, J. and Taylor, S. (1992) ‘The use of
SSM in practice’, Journal of Operations Research
Society, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 321–332.
(23) Jeffrey, P. and Seaton, R. (1995) ‘The use of or
tools: A survey of or practitioners in the UK’,
Journal of the Operational Research Society,Vol. 46,
No. 7, pp. 797–808.
(24) Ledington, P. and Donaldson, J. (1997) ‘Soft
OR and management practice: A study of the
© 2008 PALGRAVE MACMILLAN LTD 1350-23IX $30.00 BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 15, NO. 4, 239–257 MARCH 2008
SYSTEMS CONSTELLATIONS
adoption and use of SSM’, Journal of the
Operational Research Society, Vol. 48, No. 3,
pp. 229–240.
(25) Lane, D. C. and Oliva, R. (1998) ‘The greater
whole: Towards a synthesis of system dynamics
and SSM’, European Journal of Operations
Research, Vol. 107, No. 1, pp. 214–235.
(26) Spear, R. (2001) ‘The dark side of the moon—
Unilluminated dimensions of systems practices’,
Systemic Practice and Action Research, Vol. 14,
No. 6, pp. 779–790.
(27) Munro, I. and Mingers, J. (2002) ‘The use of
multimethodology in practice—Results of a
survey of practitioners’, Journal of the Operational
Research Society, Vol. 53, No. 4, pp. 369–378.
(28) Mingers, J. and Rosenhead, J. (2004) ‘Problem
structuring methods in action’, European Journal of
Operations Research, Vol. 152, No. 3, pp. 530–554.
(29) Davies, L. J. (1988) ‘Understanding organiza-
tional culture: A SSM perspective’, Systems
Practice, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 11–30.
(30) Ho, K. K. J. and Sculli, D. (1994) ‘Organizational
theory and soft system methodologies’, Journal
of Management Development, Vol. 13, No. 7,
pp. 47–58.
(31) Braa, K. and Vigden, R. (1999) ‘Interpretation
intervention and reduction in the organiza-
tional laboratory’, Accounting Management &
Information Technologies, Vol. 9, No. 1, p. 25.
(32) Ho, K. K. J. and Sculli, D. (1997) ‘The scientific
approach to problem solving and decision
support systems’, International Journal of Produc-
tion Economics, Vol. 48, No. 3, pp. 249–257.
(33) Patel, D. and Patel, S. (2003) ‘The cognitive
process of problem solving: A SSM approach’,
Brain and Mind, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 283–295.
(34) Al-Karaghouli, W. and Alshawi, S., et al., (2005)
‘Promoting requirement identification quality’,
Journal of Enterprise Information Management,
Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 19–30.
(35) Driver, J. and Louvieris, P. (1998) ‘POSIT-ively
SSM for marketing’, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 32, No. 5, pp. 419–440.
(36) Presley, A., Sarkis, J. and Liles, D. H. (2000) ‘A
SSM approach in product innovation’, IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 47,
No. 3, pp. 379–392.
(37) The dividing line between the ‘real world’ (in
which stages 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 take place) and
the ‘systems world’ (stages 3 and 4), was criti-
cised later on as indicating a false dualism. The
line should be seen as helpful in drawing atten-
tion to the conscious use of systems thinking
to explore real-world complexity. Furthermore,
the seven-stage model was regarded as having
a mechanistic flavour and giving the false idea
of SSM as a prescriptive process to be followed
systematically. Despite these critical notes, this
model, however, is still mostly found in
251
 JURG, BLOEMER, DOOREWAARD, PEELEN AND SIMONS
(academic) literature. Nowadays, a more iconic
model of SSM is used that subsumes a cultural
stream of analysis in the activities. The four activ-
ities are (1) finding out about a problem situation,
including culturally/politically; (2) formulating
some relevant purposeful activity models; (3)
debating the situation, using the models, seeking
from that debate both (a) changes that would
improve the situation and are regarded as both
desirable and (culturally) feasible and (b) the
accommodations between conflicting interests
that will enable action-to improve to be taken;
(4) taking action in the situation to bring about
improvement, for example.
(38) Checkland, P. (2000) ‘Soft systems methodology:
A thirty-year retrospective’, Systems Research
Behavioral Science, Vol. 17, No. S1, pp. S11–S58.
(39) Tsouvalis, C. and Checkland, P. (1996)
‘Reflecting on SSM—The dividing line
between ‘real world’ and ‘systems thinking
world’’, Journal of Systems Research, Vol. 13,
No. 1, pp. 35–45.
(40) Sydenham, P. H. (2003) ‘Relationship between
measurement, knowledge and advancement’,
Measurement, Vol. 34, No. 1, p. 13.
(41) Franke, U. (1996/2003) ‘The River Never
Looks Back, Historical and Practical Founda-
tions of Bert Hellinger’s Family Constellations’,
Carl-Auer-Systeme Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany.
(42) Höppner, G. (2001) ‘“Heilt Demut—wo
Schicksal wirkt” Eine Studie zu Effekten des
Familien-Stellens nach Bert Hellinger’, Profil
Verlag, München Wien.
(43) Gordon, W. and Langmaid, R. (1988) ‘Qualita-
tive Market Research: A Practitioner’s and
Buyer’s Guide’, Gower, Aldershot a.o.
(44) Chandler, J. and Owen, M. (2002) ‘Developing
brands with qualitative market research’, Book
5 in Ereaut, G., Imms, M. and Callingham, M.
(eds.) ‘Qualitative Market Research, (7 volumes),
Sage, London.
(45) Zaltman, G. (1997) ‘Rethinking market
research: Putting people back in’, Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp.
424–437.
(46) Chrzanowska, J. (2002) ‘Interviewing groups
and individuals in qualitative market research,
in qualitative marketing research’, Book 2 in
Ereaut, G., Imms, M. and Callingham, M. (eds.)
‘Qualitative Market Research,’ (7 volumes),
Sage, London.
(47) Tan Tsu Wee, T. (2004) ‘Extending human
personality to brands—The stability factor’,
Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 11, No. 4,
pp. 317–330.
(48) Freling, T. H. and Lukas, P. F. (2005) ‘An exam-
ination of brand personality through methodo-
logical triangulation’, Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 148–162.
252 © 2008 PALGRAVE MACMILLAN LTD 1350-23IX $30.00 BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 15, NO. 4, 239–257 MARCH 2008
(49) Seguela, J. (1982) ‘In which the brand-object
becomes the brand-person’, Journal of Adver-
tising, Vol. 1, pp. 169–176.
(50) Aaker, D. A. (1991) ‘Managing Brand Equity’,
The Free Press, New York.
(51) Aaker, J. L. and Jennifer, L. (1997) ‘Dimensions
of brand personality’, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 347–356.
(52) Nandan, S. (2005) ‘An exploration of the brand
identity-brand image linkage—A communica-
tions perspective’, Journal of Brand Management,
Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 264–278.
(53) Wipperfürth, A. (2005) ‘Brand Hijack—
Marketing Without Marketing’, Portfolio,
Penguin Group a.o., New York.
(54) Gminder, C. U. (2005) ‘Using the management
constellation as tool for corporate sustainabili-
tyInternational Congress and Innovation Fair
“Sustainable Management in Action”,’ Univer-
sity of Geneva, 19–20 September.
(55) Gminder, C. U. (2006) ‘Nachhaltigkeitsstrate-
gien systemisch umsetzen—Eine qualitative
Exploration der Organisationsaufstellung als
Managementmethode’, Deutscher Universitäts-
Verlag, GMV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden,
pp. 222–230.
(56) Roevens, J. J. (2005) ‘Connect with inherent
dynamics in organizations: Exploring the
insights and techniques of Bert Hellinger & Jan
Jacob Stam, Unpublished dissertation draft 21.
(57) Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962) Phenomenology of
Perception. Routledge, London.
(58) Loren, L. A. and Dietrich, E. (1997) ‘Merleau-
Ponty, embodied cognition, and the problem of
intentionality’, Cybernetics and Systems, Vol. 28,
No. 5, pp. 345–358.
(59) Heinämaa, S. (1999) ‘Merleau-Ponty’s modifica-
tion of phenomenology: Cognition, passion and
philosophy’, Synthese, Vol. 118, No. 1, pp. 49–68.
(60) Dreyfus, H. L. (2002) ‘Intelligence without
representation—Merleau-Ponty’s critique of
mental representation’, Phenomenology and the
Cognitive Sciences, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 367–383.
(61) Burkitt, I. (2003) ‘Psychology in the field of
being: Merleau-Ponty, ontology, and social
constructionism’, Theory & Psychology, Vol. 13,
No. 3, pp. 319–338.
(62) Baldwin,T. (2004) ‘Maurice Merleau-Ponty—Basic
Writings’, Routledge, London and New York.
(63) Ihde, D. and Selinger, E. (2004) ‘Merleau-Ponty
and epistemology engines’, Human Studies,
Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 361–376.
(64) Madelung, E. (2004) ‘Merleau-Ponty and the
phenomenon of ‘embodiment’ in family
constellations’, Systemic Solutions Bulletin, Vol. 5,
pp. 11–13.
(65) Matthews, E. H. (2004) ‘Merleau-Ponty’s body-
subject and psychiatry’, International Review of
Psychiatry, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 190–198.

(66) Lakoff , G. and Johnson, M. (1980/2003) ‘Meta-
phors We Live By’, University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
(67) Lakoff , G. and Johnson, M. (1999) ‘Philosophy
in the Flesh—The Embodied Mind and its
Challenge to Western Thought’, Basic Books,
New York.
(68) Sheldrake, R. and Beaumont, H. (2001)
‘Morphic resonance and family constella-
tions—Hunter Beaumont in conversation with
Rupert Sheldrake’, Systemic Solutions Bulletin,
No. 2, pp. 12–20.
(69) Sheldrake, R. and Beaumont, H. (2002) ‘In
conversation on the subject of practical
research’, Systemic Solutions Bulletin, No. 3,
pp. 48–49.
(70) Schlötter, P. (2005) ‘Vertraute Sprache und Ihre
Entdeckung—Systemaufstellungen sind kein
Zufallsprodukt—der systemische Nachweis’,
Carl Auer Verlag, Heidelberg.
(71) Laszlo, E. and Ervin (2004) ‘Science and the
Akashic Field—An Integral Theory of Every-
thing’, Inner Traditions, Rochester, Vermont.
(72) Boulton, J. (2006) ‘Towards an understanding
of the ‘why’ of constellations—A perspective
from modern physics’, The Knowing Field—
International Constellations Journal, No. 8,
pp. 8–15.
(73) Lehmann, K. (2006) ‘Umgang mit komplexen
Situationen—Perspektivenerweiterung durch
Organisationsaufstellungen—Eine empirische
Studie’, Carl-Auer Verlag, Heidelberg.
(74) Roevens, J. J. (2006) ‘Connect with Organiza-
tions: System dynamics & Systemic Sets,
Unpublished dissertation draft 50.
(75) Roussoploulos, M. (2006) ‘Anyone know the
URL for the truth? Science and constellations’,
The Knowing Field—International Constellations
Journal, No. 8, pp. 16–21.
(76) Mason, J. (2002) ‘Qualitative Researching’, 2nd
edn, SAGE Publications, London/NewDelhi.
(77) Kerlinger, F. N. and Lee, H. B. (2000) ‘Founda-
tions of Behavioral Research’, 4th edn,
Thomson Learning, Wadsworth.
(78) Neumeier, M. (2003) ‘The Brand Gap—How
to Bridge the Distance Between Business
Strategy and Design’, Alga, New Riders,
Berkeley.
(79) Miles, M. B. and Huberman, A. M. (1994)
‘Qualitative Data Analysis’, SAGE Publications,
London/New Delhi.
(80) De Bono (1969) ‘Logic in marketing? Forget
it!’, Management Review, Vol. 1, pp. 54–56.
(81) Yin, R. K. (1994) ‘Case Study Research Design
and Methods’, Sage Publications, Thousand
Oaks, London/New Delhi.
(82) Peter, J. P. (1981) ‘Construct validity: A review
of basic issues and marketing practices’, Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, pp. 133–145.
© 2008 PALGRAVE MACMILLAN LTD 1350-23IX $30.00 BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 15, NO. 4, 239–257 MARCH 2008
SYSTEMS CONSTELLATIONS
(83) Sireci, S. G. (1998) ‘The construct of content
validity’, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 45,
No. 1–3, pp. 83–117.
(84) AMA. (2006) website: http://www.marketing-
power.com/mg-dictionary.php?SearchFor=con
tent+validity&Searched=1.
(85) Peter, J. P. (1977) ‘Reliability, generalizability
and consumer behavior’, Advances in Consumer
Research, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 394–400.
(86) Peter, J. P. (1979) ‘Reliability: A review of
psychometric basics and recent marketing prac-
tices’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16,
No. 1, pp. 6–17.
(87) Neal, J. M. and Liebert, R. M. (1986) ‘Science
and Behavior—An Introduction to Methods of
Research’, 3rd edn, Prentice-Hall International
Editions, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
(88) De Bono, E. (1971/1984) ‘Lateral Thinking for
Management’, Pelican Books, Suffolk.
(89) De Bono, E. (1970/1990) ‘Lateral Thinking—
Creativity Step by Step’, Harper & Row
Publishers, New York.
(90) De Bono, E. (1995) ‘Serious creativity’, Journal for
Quality & Participation, Vol. 18, No. 5, pp. 12–18.
(91) Kotler, P. and Trias de Bes, F. (2003) ‘Lateral
Marketing: New Techniques for Finding Break-
through Ideas’, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
Hobroken, NJ.
(92) Yeager, J. (2003) ‘Innovative motivational
profiling: Comparing marketing projective
techniques versus linguistic forensic techniques’,
The Qualitative Report, Vol. 8, No. 1, online.
(93) Boddy, C. (2005) ‘Projective techniques in
market research: Valueless subjectivity or
insightful reality? A look at the evidence for
the usefulness, reliability and validity of projec-
tive techniques in market research’, International
Journal of Market Research, Vol. 47, No. 3,
pp. 239–254.
(94) Eden, C. and Huxham, C. (1996) ‘Action
research for management research’, British
Journal of Management, Vol. 7, pp. 75–86.
(95) Zaltman, G. (1997) ‘Breaking out of the box:
Meaning and means’, Advances in Consumer
Research, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 12–14.
(96) Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B. and Lampel, J.
(1998) ‘Strategy Safari—The Complete Guide
Through the Wilds of Strategic Management’,
Prentice-Hall, Financial Times, Edinburgh/
London.
(97) Blichfeldt, B. S. (2005) ‘On the development of
brand and line extensions’, Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 177–190.
(98) Jones, R. (2005) ‘Finding sources of brand
value—Developing a stakeholder model of
brand equity’, Journal of Brand Management,
Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 10–32.
(99) Nijssen, E. J. and Agustin, C. (2005) ‘Brand
extensions: A decision maker’s perspective’,
253
 JURG, BLOEMER, DOOREWAARD, PEELEN AND SIMONS
Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 13, No. 1,
pp. 33–49.
(100) Franzen, G. and Bouwman, M. (2001) ‘The
Mental World of Brands’, World Advertising
Research Center, Henley on Thames.
(101) Gordon, W. (2001) ‘The darkroom of the
mind—What does neuropsychology now tell
us about brands?’ Journal of Consumer Behaviour,
Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 280–292.
(102) Mitchell, C. (2002) ‘Selling the brand inside’, Harvard
Business Review,Vol. 80, No. 1, pp. 99–105.
(103) Panigyrakis, G. C. and Veloutsou, C. A. (1999)
‘Brand managers’ interfaces in different consumer
goods industries’, Journal of Product and Brand
Management, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 19–37.
(104) Panigyrakis, G. C. and Veloutsou, C. A. (2000)
‘Problems and future of the brand management
structure in the fast moving consumer goods
industry’, Journal of Marketing Management,
Vol. 16, No. 1–3, pp. 165–184.
(105) Bertalanffy, L. von. (1969) ‘General System
Theory—Foundations, Development, Applica-
tions’, Revised edn, Revised Edition, George
Braziller, New York.
(106) Sykes, W. (1968) ‘Taking stock: Issues from the
literature on validity and reliability in qualitative
research’, Journal of the Market Research Society,
Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 3–12.
(107) Flood, R. and Jackson, M. C. (1991) ‘Creative
Problem Solving—Total Systems Intervention’,
John Wiley and Sons, Chichester/New York/
Brisbane/Toronto/Singapore.
(108) Shocker, A. D. and Srivastava, R. (1994) ‘Chal-
lenges and opportunities facing brand manage-
ment: An introduction to the special issue’,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31, No. 2,
pp. 149–158.
APPENDIX A
Franchise constellation brand-lay-
setting June 2002
The company of the European marketing
director of the leading global franchise
brand originates from a Dutch local
retailer, which in the 1980s developed
into a franchise company. In the 1990s, it
became part of the world’s largest inter-
national chain of global franchise services
within its market. The Dutch company
then successfully moved from the
consumers to the business market and in
254 © 2008 PALGRAVE MACMILLAN LTD 1350-23IX $30.00 BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 15, NO. 4, 239–257 MARCH 2008
2002 the franchisees acquired 90 per cent
of their revenues from the business market.
Its name logo contains a suggestive and a
descriptive part, and a strap-line consisting
of its three main activities. The marketing
director formulated his perceived problem
situation in the June 2002 dialogue as
follows: ‘Assuming a change of the brand
name is not done due to its high famili-
arity, it makes sense to investigate whether
the current strap-line is still applicable. In
short: does it fit the brand name?’ The
marketing director started with setting up
stand-ins for the brand name and the SME
(small and medium-sized enterprises)
customers.At the instigation of the systems
analyst, he set up the original owner as
the stand-in of the SME customers stated
to be focussing on something beyond the
name, which was appreciated by this
SME stand-in. Next, he set up the stand-
in for the corporate clients, the franchiser
(the problem owner) and franchisees. The
stand-in franchisees experienced the
stand-in franchiser as ‘irritating bossy’. As
other positions of the stand-in franchiser
did not improve the situation, he was
taken out of the constellation by the
systems analyst. Next, stand-ins for the
coded three elements of the current strap-
line were set up: Prue, Diana and Conny.
Figure 2 shows the current June 2002
franchise situation as presented by the
projection constellation.
The stand-ins for Prue and Diana were
acceptable to the other stand-ins, while
the stand-in of Conny was not. Especially,
the stand-in of Prue is appreciated by the
other stand-ins. Note that the marketing
director is more able to see the facial reac-
tions of the stand-ins of the franchiser, the
franchisees, the original owner and Diana
than those of the others from the position
he has taken during the constellation.
Next, the stand-ins of the three strap-line
elements were replaced by one stand-in

O Co
Pr
B S
Di
F O
N
Figure 2 Franchise projection constellation in brand-lay-setting June 2002
of a new strap-line, coded as Deborah and
positioned on the place of Diana’s stand-
in. She did not feel quite accepted, which
was confirmed by the other stand-ins.The
stand-in franchisees now needed support
from the stand-in of the franchiser and
asked him to stand next to him. This
improved the situation to all stand-ins.
Figure 3 presents the June 2002 franchise
vision constellation, showing the solution
direction the June 2002 branding constel-
lation offers the marketing director.
The branding constellation generated
many insights, which were hard to verbalise
all according to the marketing director. His
main actionable insight was it showed him
that first of all the interaction with the
franchisees, however, needed improvement.
In addition, he concluded that changing
one of the strap-line elements might
support this improvement.
APPENDIX B
Franchise constellation brand-
expert-setting Nov. 2002
The franchise marketing director expressed
his perceived problem in the November
© 2008 PALGRAVE MACMILLAN LTD 1350-23IX $30.00 BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 15, NO. 4, 239–257 MARCH 2008
SYSTEMS CONSTELLATIONS
Legend:
B : Brander (as person who observes)
Constellated branding elements:
S : SME customers
C : Corporate customers
P : Problem owner (franchiser, including
c marketing director)
F : Franchisees
N : Brand name
Pr : Prue (coded 1st strap-line word)
Co : Conny (coded 2nd strap-line word)
Di : Diana (coded 3rd strap-line word)
: Original owner
Female, faced to the right
P Male, faced to the right
2002 branding constellation dialogue
as follows: ‘Currently the question arises
whether our company name helps or is
holding back our business. The Dutch
are very familiar with our name but
according to our franchisees it is associ-
ated with only one activity rather than
the total product portfolio. In my opinion,
it is not the name that matters here, but
more the company’s charisma and
the selling story’. He set up stand-ins
for the brand name, the service offering,
the customers, the franchisees and
the franchiser. Figure 4 presents the
current November 2002 franchise problem
situation as shown in the marketing direc-
tor’s November 2002 projection constel-
lation.
The position the marketing director has
taken showed that he was implicitly more
focussed on the reactions of the fran-
chisees and the name than those of the
others. The stand-in franchiser felt he was
in control. The customer stand-in felt
unhappy and was allowed by the systems
analyst to move backwards. This brought
commotion to the other stand-ins,
including an argument between the fran-
chiser and franchisees stand-ins who was
255
 JURG, BLOEMER, DOOREWAARD, PEELEN AND SIMONS

Legend:
O B : Brander (as person who observes)

Constellated branding elements:

S : SME customers
C : Corporate customers
P : Problem owner (franchiser, including
marketing director)
B S C F : Franchisees
N : Brand name
D : Deborah (coded new strap-line)
O : Original owner
F
Female, faced to the right
D P
N
Male, faced to the right

Figure 3 Franchise vision constellation in brand-lay-setting June 2002

Legend:
B : Brander (as person who observes)
B
Constellated branding elements:
C C : Customers
P : Problem owner (franchiser, including
marketing director)
F : Franchisees
P N : Brand name
N
S : Service offering
S F Female, faced to the right

Male, faced to the right

Figure 4 Franchise projection constellation in brand-expert-setting November 2002

to blame for this distancing. When the
brand name stand-in was placed next to
customer stand-in, they felt better. It did
not, however, solve the conflict between
the franchiser and the franchisees, which
made the marketing director change posi-
tion to be more able to see the facial reac-
tions of the stand-ins of the franchiser.
The stand-in of the franchisees faulted the
franchiser stand-in for not really seeing
what was needed, while the franchiser
stand-in charged the franchisees stand-in
for being reactive. Replacing the stand-in
of the current name by a stand-in for an
alternative brand name only made the
situation worse. When the franchiser
stand-in wanted to take control, the
systems analyst turned him around, which
made the customer and the franchisees
stand-ins more relaxed. They formed a
harmonic, energising circle together with
the stand-ins for the brand name and the
service offering. There was even space for
stand-ins representing alternative services.
This franchise vision constellation is
presented in Figure 5.
The main insight reported by the
marketing director was that it again
showed him that the interaction with the
franchisees needed further improvement.
In addition, he concluded that the brand
name discussion was a nonissue and he
should stop wasting research money on
this nonissue.

256 © 2008 PALGRAVE MACMILLAN LTD 1350-23IX $30.00 BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 15, NO. 4, 239–257 MARCH 2008
 SYSTEMS CONSTELLATIONS

Legend:
B : Brander (as person who observes)
N
A Constellated branding elements:
C C : Customers
S P : Problem owner (franchiser, including
B marketing director)
F : Franchisees
F
N : Brand name
S : Service offering
A : Alternative services 1 and 2
Female, faced to the right
P
Male, faced to the right

Figure 5 Franchise vision constellation in brand-expert-setting November 2002

Figure 5 shows a completely different is out of play. Thus, opposite to the

vision constellation in the brand-expert-
setting of November 2002 than Figure 3
showed in the brand-lay-setting of June
2002. The November 2002 franchise
‘vision constellation’ is rather astonishing
as it is a situation in which the franchiser
June 2002 constellation on the franchise
brand strap-line and most other branding
constellations, the systems analyst was not
able to reach a real-vision constellation in
the November 2002 constellation on the
franchise brand name.

© 2008 PALGRAVE MACMILLAN LTD 1350-23IX $30.00 BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 15, NO. 4, 239–257 MARCH 2008 257
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.