Abstract
Gaski’s commentary of Conejo and Wooliscroft’s “radical” (2015) “Brands Defined as Semiotic Marketing Systems” is rebutted. We reaffirm the need to update the AMA’s stagnant 80-year-old brand definition while addressing six issues: 1) That we don’t repudiate the AMA definition; 2) that we don’t present just another brand definition; 3) that definitions do change; 4) that products and brands are distinct concepts; 5) that the commentary does not properly address the Semiotic Brand System; and 6) that the commentary distracts from the real, more important question at hand, of whether the AMA brand definition is still viable.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
