Sonic branding: A consumer-oriented literature review Gustafsson, Clara Published in: Journal of Brand Management DOI: 10.1057/bm.2015.5 2015 Document Version: Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Gustafsson, C. (2015). Sonic branding: A consumer-oriented literature review. Journal of Brand Management, 22(1), 20-37. https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2015.5 Total number of authors: 1 General rights Unless other specific re-use rights are stated the following general rights apply: Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Read more about Creative commons licenses: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Transcript
LUND UNIVERSITY
PO Box 117221 00 Lund+46 46-222 00 00
Sonic branding: A consumer-oriented literature review
Gustafsson, Clara
Published in:Journal of Brand Management
DOI:10.1057/bm.2015.5
2015
Document Version:Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Link to publication
Citation for published version (APA):Gustafsson, C. (2015). Sonic branding: A consumer-oriented literature review. Journal of Brand Management,22(1), 20-37. https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2015.5
Total number of authors:1
General rightsUnless other specific re-use rights are stated the following general rights apply:Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authorsand/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by thelegal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private studyor research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal
Read more about Creative commons licenses: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will removeaccess to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Sonic branding: A consumer-oriented literature reviewReceived (in revised form): 20th February 2015
Clara Gustafssonis Senior Lecturer in Marketing at the Department of Business Administration, School of Economics and Management at Lund
University. Her research involves the areas of branding and consumer research, and she has published on Brand Trust in
Business Ethics: A European Review and Advances in Consumer Research. She holds a PhD from Stockholm University, and
has been a guest researcher at University of Exeter. The author acknowledges financial support from the Anna Ahlstrom and
Ellen Terserus Foundation, and from Riksbankens Jubileumsfond, the Central Bank of Sweden.
ABSTRACT Because music holds a strong power over people, and its impact on con-sumers is relatively direct, it is invariably an interesting medium for marketers.Although Sonic Branding – branding with music and sound – has been seen as ‘the nextbig thing’ in branding toward consumers for about a decade, it is a scattered field stillwaiting for its breakthrough. Addressing this problem, the present consumer-orientedreview of literature offers new insights on the consumer perspective’s role in SonicBranding today, and provides implications for future marketing research and practice.The present article also suggests that there is need for using a common set of SonicBranding concepts in order to unify the field. Further, the majority of businesses do notyet understand Sonic Branding as the uniquely consumer-oriented practice it has thepotential to be. Understanding the way that consumers themselves use music is crucialto successful brand management in this area. However, for theorists and practitionersalike, the immediate challenge lies in developing those concepts and labels for SonicBranding that will unite the field, and thereby increase its future impact.Journal of Brand Management (2015) 22, 20–37. doi:10.1057/bm.2015.5
Keywords: sonic branding; literature review; brand; consumers; music; sound
The online version of this article is available Open Access
INTRODUCTIONIn recent years, sonic branding has gainedstrategic importance for strong brands(Graakjaer and Jantzen, 2009). ‘Sonic brand-ing’means branding with sound, for instance,with music (Jackson, 2003). Music affectsconsumers instantly – and it can be a power-ful marketing tool – notably because of itsability to invoke nostalgic memories and
strong feelings related to these (for example,Fulberg, 2003; Jackson, 2003; Kilian, 2009).With technological development the use ofmusic and sound in consumers’ lives haschanged tremendously in the last two dec-ades, and marketers have not yet adapted.
To fully understand the consumer per-spective here, the developments in brandingpractice and mapping of related conceptions
Correspondence:Clara Gustafsson, Department ofBusiness Administration, Schoolof Economics and Management,Lund University, PO Box 7080,SE-220 07 Lund, Sweden.
of sonic branding, as well as its history,provide useful background. The area ofsonic branding is young, and as a consumerculture orientation it is still nascent. Today,an in-store focus permeates the literature,and the area of sonic branding is heavilypractitioner oriented. The present articleseeks to find the broader impact of theresearch on sonic branding practices as rela-ted to consumer research, in order to pointthe way to future theoretical avenues forthis research area, and provide managerialadvice. With the aim of mapping out thesonic branding area with a clear consumerfocus – rather than a ‘music’ focus – the lit-erature review includes theoretically drivenresearch, empirically driven articles, as wellas strategically focused practitioners’ perspec-tives on sonic branding and the consumer.
Since Brüner’s (1990) oft-cited reviewarticle of music in marketing, spanning 20empirical articles on music and marketing,little has been done to create an overview oftoday’s research in this area. In the 1990s,the field of music in marketing was justbeginning to take shape, and consumerpsychology was pre-eminent in the area(Brüner, 1990). Although the presentreview will seek to begin to bridge this gapin the literature by focusing on the devel-opment of sonic branding as a research areasince then, the main focus here will beresearch concerning the interface betweenmusic and brand from a combined con-sumer perspective and strategic brandingperspective. Researching consumers’ place-ment in the sonic branding literature, themeanings that sonic branding efforts cancreate are highlighted focusing on con-sumers’ own experiences and not primarilyon their subconscious reactions to music in-store (cf. Brüner, 1990)
The area of sonic branding is wide –covering such diverse topics as elevatormusic (Lanza, 2004), consumers’ behaviorin a wine store depending on the kindof music playing (Areni and Kim, 1994),
branding strategy (Fulberg, 2003; Jackson,2003; Treasure, 2007; Lusensky, 2010),sonic warfare (Goodman, 2009) and music’sversatility as a tool for identity managementin people’s everyday life (DeNora, 2000).Yet, sonic branding is often treated more orless as a heterogeneous field by marketingresearchers. The present article will con-tribute with a proposition regarding how tounite this as a research field. To begin to seesome common traits in this scatteredresearch area, the present literature reviewstarts by going through the main labels andconcepts used on the subject.
The present consumer research orientedreview of literature on sonic branding inmarketing is summarized, and labeled, inthe following framework (see Table 1).
SONIC BRANDING: LABELS ANDCONCEPTS USEDA wide range of industries are using sonicbranding strategies. The origins of sonicbranding involves a seminal concept used inthe literature: ‘Atmospherics’. This isKotler’s (1973) description of what is alsoknown today as ‘marketing of the senses’(Hultén et al, 2008; Krishna, 2013), wheremarketing with music is one of the market-ing strategies explored. This way of investi-gating music as one of several parts of thein-store ‘atmosphere’, or as speaking to oneof the senses, highlights music’s role as partof a larger experience in-store that requiresother parts as well (colors, textures, light,smell, taste) to be successful. These are a fewexamples of companies with internationallyrenowned brands using sonic branding stra-tegies extensively: Absolut, Clarion Hotels,Coca-Cola, Mitsubishi, Heineken, SAS air-lines, Oriflame (Lusensky, 2010), Starbucks(Dominus, 2006), and Nike (Fulberg,2003). Just like the practice spans acrossdiverse industries, the research field is scat-tered across disciplines and labels. In musicresearch in marketing, it is common to treat
the following labels as more or less synon-ymous: ‘brand sound, sound branding, cor-porate sound, sonic branding, acousticbranding, audio branding, and sound mark’(Kilian, 2009, p. 43), and it is not pre-dominantly under the label of ‘sonic brand-ing’ that the literature on the subject is to befound. The labels commonly used todescribe music’s presence in consumersociety and especially its use in marketingare sonic branding, acoustic branding, audiobranding, sound branding, branded sound,music branding, Muzak, elevator music,piped music, background music, fore-ground music, soundscape, audiovisualidentity, sound studies and sonic design.Although the aim here is to review litera-ture on ‘sonic branding’, this cannot bedone without widening the concept toinclude these different labels. Taking abroad view of sonic branding, and includingvarious strands of research on music inmarketing in this way, the present literaturereview proposes to fuse all of the abovementioned concepts under the sonicbranding label.
Because the term ‘sonic branding’ is theterm most frequently used both in the stra-tegic branding literature (Jackson, 2003) andin the field of Consumer Culture Theory(CCT), (Arnould and Thompson, 2005) asa description of how sound is made tointeract with brands to create meaning(Schroeder and Borgerson, 1999), I chose touse sonic branding, rather than any otherlabel, as the over all label in this consumer-centered article. Sonic branding has beensuggested to increase brand ‘loyalty’(Fulberg, 2003). Further, it has been definedas consisting of various ‘elements’ which all‘affect us emotionally and increase brandrecognition, oftentimes beyond our aware-ness and our field of action’ (Kilian, 2009, p.36). Thus, it is defined as beneficial tobrands, and as something that consumersoften do not even consciously perceive of.This ability of branding with music andT
sound to go virtually unnoticed, and stillaffect people, opens up widely for discus-sions about ethics and possible manipulationon the part of stores and brands (Bradshawand Holbrook, 2008; Gustafsson, 2005).Interestingly, ‘sonic branding’ is one of thefew concepts which includes music as wellas other sounds in the label, as ‘sonic’ means‘relating to sound or using sound waves’ and‘denoting or having a speed equal to that ofsound’ (Oxford Dictionaries Online, 2010).
The ‘sonic branding’ label, or concept,also makes an explicit connection to brandsand branding, which seems useful becauseof the potential for future research on bothmusic and sound in the branding area.
The mentioned labels are not consistentlyused between marketing researchers doingresearch in what I define here as the ‘sonicbranding’ area. For instance, there is a morefrequent use of the labels ‘audio’ and‘acoustic’ branding in, for example, Nordicand German texts (see Bode, 2009; Kilian,2009), whereas UK- and US-based writersseem to be using ‘sonic’ (for exampleSchroeder and Borgerson, 1999; Fulberg,2003; Jackson, 2003) or ‘sound’ branding(for example, Treasure, 2007) to a greaterextent. By way of comparison, ‘audiobranding’ is defined as ‘process of branddevelopment and brand managementby use of auditory elements (audio bran-ding elements) within the framework ofbrand communication’ (Audio-branding-academy.org, 2015). ‘Acoustic branding’has thus been described as the ‘process’ bywhich it is carried out (ibid.). Thus, if‘audio’ is the approach, ‘acoustic’ is thepractice. However, the immediate differ-ence between the two labels when readingarticles about them is that practitioners pre-fer the term ‘audio’, and theorists prefer‘acoustic’ branding, and they do not makeany difference in whether this is about theapproach or the practice (see Bode, 2009;Kilian, 2009). Generally, both these termsare also described as synonyms of ‘sonic
branding’. Indeed, one or both of theseconcepts are often introduced together withsound branding and sonic branding whendefining them: ‘Audio branding – alsoknown as sound branding or sonic branding –describes communication through sound,using brand sound elements like an audiologo, a brand song, or a brand voice’(Bronner and Hirt, 2009: p. 11). This kindof piling of the labels by mentioning themtogether seems to prompt the suggestionmade in the present article: namely that amore coordinated use of the term ‘sonicbranding’ would help unify the field andincrease its impact on a wider audience.These various labels being used create con-fusion among those interested in learningmore about the area. This confusion isunnecessary because there is in fact already aconsensus among researchers about thesynonymous meaning of these labels, as theyare often mentioned together when defin-ing the central concept.
In the CCT literature, sonic brandinginvestigates consumer practices in relationto, for instance, consumer agency, identityand community (Arnould and Thompson,2005). Importantly, the role of the DJs as‘prosumer’ of music has been a recurringsonic theme in CCT. DJs are seen as havinga special role in music production and con-sumption because of their increasing powerover what music consumers listen to. As a‘prosumer’ the DJ becomes a looking glassthrough which music as combined produc-tion and consumption can be amply stu-died. The phenomenon of the prosumtionof music carried out by the DJs indeedmagnifies co-production issues comparedwith, for instance, the case of consumersmaking playlists for their personal MP3players. However, possibly, the extent ofthe empirical and theoretical interest in ‘theDJ’, in the sonic branding literature can beexplained further by the fact that severalinfluential researchers and sonic brandingconsultants have had a career as DJs and/or
music producers in the past (Giesler andPohlmann, 2003; Heitanen et al, 2010;Lusensky, 2010). In a recent article, Oakeset al (2013) propose jazz music as a brandingtool that consumers can use to createtheir own meanings. Likewise transgressingboundaries between theory and practice,user and producer; Kubacki and Croft(2004) describe the divide between the artsand marketing practice as an ongoing moralstruggle. While jazz and rock musicians seetheir influence on marketing practice, mar-keters tend instead to see only their ownimpact on the jazz and rock scene, theyargue. Kubacki and Croft (2004) thus pic-ture the arts versus commerce divide, whichis at the basis of the sonic branding literature(Oakes et al, 2013), in a way that illustratesthe dialectical nature of music creation inthe business context. Importantly, a specialissue in Consumption Markets and Culture(Bradshaw and Shankar, 2008) explores theboundary of consumption and productionas applied to various music scenes, styles anduses. The special issue is ground breaking inthe sense that it clearly marks out music as asite for interesting future research in con-sumer culture research.
In the guest edited special issue on ‘Theproduction and consumption of music’ inConsumption Markets and Culture (Bradshawand Shankar, 2008), the goal is to discussand transcend the borders between produc-tion and consumption in music, inspired bymusic sociologist Attali’s (1985) writings onthe politics of music. The articles in thespecial issue covers a range of topics: thesocial and romantic role of the Jamaicandancehall (Olsen and Gould, 2008), theresisting potential of Tibetan music(Morcom, 2008), the role of anti-apartheidmusic as ‘retro’ today (Drewett, 2008), therole of jazz in film plots (Holbrook, 2008),and self-identity and music (Hesmondhalgh,2008). The guest editors put forth a wish thatthese articles ‘will contribute to wider dis-cussions of music more generally within our
field’ (Bradshaw and Shankar, 2008). Thiswish expresses the comparable newnessof this kind of work on music in the fieldof CCT, by stressing the need for morestudies and more diversity in consumerresearch on music, rather than proposing thata certain focus in the area would need moreattention.
Another way to investigate music inmarketing is to see it as primarily a memorydevice, in other words, studying music as‘mnemonics’, rather than as a cue for thesense of hearing. Tom’s (1990) marketingstudy of consumer responses to nine adver-tisements, with the brand name removed,suggests that original music in advertising ismore effective as a memory device thanparodies of songs (where the brand namehas been included), or original recordings ofhit songs. Van Dijck (2006) also investigatesrecorded music’s role for both personaland collective memory processes and cul-ture. Tempo (for example, Milliman, 1982,1986) and perceived time in relation to typeof music playing (Yalch and Spangenberg,1990) have also received much attention.Consumers’ reaction to background music,especially in terms of purchases made, iswell researched in the literature on in-storemusic (see, for example, Yalch andSpangenberg, 1990).
Mapping the sound landscape to proposesonic branding strategies, Kilian (2009,p. 41) provides a ‘typology of brand ele-ments’ where the sound is divided into twocategories: ‘narrowly defined’ and ‘broadlydefined’. The narrowly defined ones arethose that are made especially for that brand,like jingles and sound logos, whereas thebroadly defined elements are those thatcome from collaborations and voices. Whilethe typology is useful as a framework fordiscussion for practitioners and researchersalike, it could be made more functionalif Kilian (2009) engaged in a discussionabout how to use it. He presents a figureof the ‘brand formation process’, directed to
practitioners, but does not offer a discussionof the implications of the typology.
On a similar, although theoreticallydriven note, Bode (2009) is mapping outthe workings of music depending on thecontext where it appears. He argues thatmusic is a ‘stimuli’, and as such it cannot beextracted from its cultural context withoutbecoming a hollow ‘artifact’ (ibid.). In theconsumer-oriented sonic branding litera-ture, Bode’s (2009) review of music studiesin advertising takes an important stand forinterpretive research on music. AlthoughBode (2009) places this research in ‘acousticbranding’, he seems to be interested mainlyin the interplay between music and images,rather than in music and brands. Further,Bode agrees with Adorno et al’s (1970) tra-dition in which music is seen as an inevi-tably vague signifier – which basicallymeans that the music gains meaning from itscontext/changes meaning depending onthe context. In Bode’s (2009) research this isa question of musical ‘fit’ with the ad con-text, and he makes an attempt to create amodel that fuses music and cultural contextin advertising. Bode’s model of musical ‘fit’is useful because it connects advertising tomusic, taking into account that incoherencebetween picture and music may verywell be part of what creates meaning forconsumers.
Like Bode (2009), Beverland et al (2006)investigate the concept of ‘fit’; however,they connect it to brand values rather thanads. For a store to attract new consumers,they argue that a ‘music-brand “fit” ’ isespecially important. They define ‘fit’ as‘congruency between music and otheratmospheric in-store variables … and per-ceptions of the brand’ (Beverland et al,2006, p. 983). According to Beverland et al(2006), the reason why musical ‘fit’ and‘misfit’ are important for consumers andbrand managers is that the music can med-iate the relationship between them in anumber of ways depending on whether the
consumer perceives a ‘fit’ with the brandvalues or not. A perceived ‘fit’ can lead to afavorable experience of the brand and evenincrease consumers’ brand loyalty, theysuggest. A perceived ‘misfit’ could diminishthe perceived status of the brand, or enable abrand to reposition itself. The methods usedby Beverland et al include interviews with20 consumers using projective techniques,probing about certain music. The empiricalmaterial represented by detailed quotesfrom the consumers (Beverland et al, 2006)suggests that consumers do consider, andreact to, in-store music in relation to theway they perceive the brand in question.Thus, it is suggested that there is an impor-tant connection between a brand and its useof music, strategically toward consumers.Music’s ‘fit’ or ‘misfit’ has got importance inconsumers’ meaning making with ads andin the store (Beverland et al, 2006; Bode,2009). Sonic branding has the potential tofill the brand with meaning through themusic, although the context needs to betaken into account when using music.
Social control through commercial orpublic use of music, and the related ethicalconsiderations, emerges as another mainconcern in the literature (see, for example,Attali, 1985; DeNora, 2000; Bradshaw andHolbrook, 2008). At the same time, it iswidely argued that today’s consumers are soused to sonic branding practices in-storethat they have come to see it merely as‘background noise’ (McGinn, 2002). Inspite of this view of in-store music, how-ever, McGinn (2002) sees sonic design asstill holding largely unrealized possibilitiesfor industrial design. She mentions Nokia’sinnovative use of ring tones, which weremore thought through than the original‘ring’ of a telephone, as a way to bring thesound and the industrial design together andinclude the user in a successful manner.Whereas McGinn (2002) champions thepossibilities of sonic branding to achieve aconnection between a sound and a brand,
she also sees sonic branding practices as ver-ging on ‘coercion’ (p. 87). In other words,she considers the potentially manipulativeaspect of corporate sonic branding practicesproblematic. While designers shouldexplore the possibilities of sonic branding,they must also take their ‘responsibility’regarding the power of music to affect peo-ple on a near subconscious level, McGinn(2002) argues. This is similar to DeNora’s(2000) and Bradshaw and Holbrook’s(2008) view of corporate power and theuse of piped music, which will be discussedfurther in a later section, in relation to howmusic functions in people’s everyday lives.
SONIC BRANDING: LISTENERVERSUS CONSUMERRecently, it has been suggested that itwould be hard to claim ‘sound’ as typical ofthe discipline of sound studies because it iskey in many disciplines (Hilmes, 2005).‘Sound studies’ is a field coming out ofsociology, intersecting with anthropologyand media studies, among other areas.Sound studies is primarily concerned withthe relationship between sound and tech-nology (for example, Pinch and Bijsterveld,2004), sound and moving images –especially in the cinema (Coates, 2008).Although the recent book by Franinovićand Serafin (2013) claim to introduce a newfield of ‘Sonic Interaction Design’, thestandpoint of their book is very similar tothat of the sound studies field, centering onthe role of objects and technology. Impor-tantly, beside technology, sound studies isalso concerned with ‘the listener’ – in otherwords – with how people have differentcapacities and various goals as listeners (seePerlman, 2004).
The most frequent topic in sound studiesis the way technological innovations affecthow people approach listening to music(Pinch and Bijsterveld, 2004). For instance,Kassabian (2013, 2008, p. 120) argues that it
is central that our ‘attention’ as listeners canvary – sometimes we are attentive listeners,and sometimes music combined withanother medium (TV, a text, the computerscreen) makes us ‘inattentive’ in one way oranother. This research can also provide avaluable backdrop for further studies inconsumer research, as it explores and con-ceptualizes aspects which are part of con-sumers’ day-to-day lives and affect the waythey become listeners. In his recent book‘Ubiquitous Listening’, Kassabian (2013)focuses especially on how people engagewith the world through constant listening.Also focusing on people’s everyday experi-ence with music, Kastner (2013) explores thesonic branding of spaces from both a strategicand conceptual point of view. She argues thatwhat people want are environments wherethey feel at home – what she calls‘Heimatklänge’ (Kastner, 2013, p. 168). Shepostulates that ‘the sound of feeling at home’creates ‘trustful environments’, and thatmaking this kind of environment is a strengthof sonic branding. The listener’s everydayexperience of music is at the heart of howresearchers in sound studies, as well as sociol-ogists, depict the soundscape of today.
Stemming primarily from sociology,sound studies do have many points in com-mon with CCT within the ConsumerResearch field in Marketing (see Arnouldand Thompson, 2005). Both fields take ameaning-based approach to consumer issuesin a socially and culturally constructedworld. However, researchers in CCT tendto take the consumer point of view, focus-ing on how the consumer perceives of and co-constructs, different phenomena (for example,brands, music, ads and so on), whereassound studies tend to focus more on thephenomenon itself (for example, music inmovies, music technology and so on) thanon the consumer or person relating to thephenomenon. As we have seen above,when focusing on the consumers, soundsstudies labels them ‘listeners’. For a deeper
comparison of the various perspectives onsonic branding, I will go into sonic brandingin CCT and consumer research in moredetail in the section on ‘Perspectives’, below.
SONIC BRANDING: PERSPECTIVESPerspectives on music and branding in thearea of sonic branding can be usefullydescribed as polarized. Generally, sonicbranding is depicted as either a strategic toolthat opens up for new possibilities for mar-keters (for example, Kilian, 2009), or apower tool used to steer consumers in theretail setting (for example, Bradshaw andHolbrook, 2008). Another prominent ten-sion between perspectives in sonic brandingis that between the psychological perspec-tive and the CCT perspective. Althoughboth perspectives investigate consumerbehavior, the psychological perspectivecaters more clearly to the corporations,whereas the CCT perspective is generallymore critical toward power structures guid-ing consumers (see, for example, Bradshawand Holbrook, 2008), or exploring thepotential role and impact of music in con-sumers’ lives (Giesler and Schroeder, 2006).
In consumer research, Bradshaw et al(2006) investigate what it means to musi-cians that the scene space is branded when-ever they play at festivals. Like Schroederand Borgerson (2002) who explore therelationship between art and commerce inthe Italian Renaissance art scene/market,they aim to shed new light on whetherthere is tension or conflict between music asan art performance and commerce – here interms of brands as highly visible sponsors inthe space of festivals and concerts (Bradshawet al, 2006). They find that it is not necessa-rily so that brands occupy the space of theart and steal meaning from culture. Rather,several artists believed that they gainedas artists from the collaboration with thebrands, becoming more ‘hip’ becausethere is a brand that wants to sponsor them.
This is of course partly what the brands arehoping to achieve in such collaborations(Dominus, 2006). Bradshaw et al (2006)point out that this result is in line with pre-vious research (for example, Brown, 2005,Schroeder, 2005), as well as anti-globaliza-tion claims (for example, Klein, 2000),arguing that marketers and artists often havethe very same goals and strategies. Sonicbranding and music production have manyelements in common, although sonicbranding is first and foremost driven by themarket, rather than by artistic preferencesand creativity.
On a similar note as Bradshaw et al (2006)asking whether there really is a tensionbetween music as cultural expression andcommerce such as branding with music,Scherzinger (2005) suggests that music ispolitical even when it is driven by capital-ism. He argues that music produced and/orused for commercial purposes have beenseen as de-politicized merely becausethey are commercial messages. FollowingHorkheimer and Adorno (1997) he arguesthat there is a problem with the musichelping to communicate a commercial andpolitical message of agency as somethingthat only occurs in terms of being a con-sumer. This is a contested view of the post-modern consumer that has been discussedand rejected by brand researchers. Notably,Holt (2002) rejected the notion in favor of aview of brands as something that is createdin a dialectical process between brand man-agers, consumers and branding paradigms.Thus, the consumer is seen as having agencynot only as buyer and user of a product orbrand, but as producer of cultural materialin the process (Holt, 2002). This process issimilar to the previously described relation-ship between art and commerce (Schroederand Borgerson, 2002; Brown, 2005;Bradshaw et al, 2006) where the two gainfrom one another rather than overshadowand destroy one another. Thus, whereassome researchers (for example, Scherzinger,
2005) are worried that commerce willdestroy music for consumers by making it apolitical vehicle for turning society into aconsumer society, other researchers in sonicbranding have moved beyond this toexplore how the intermingling of art andcommerce is working in the present con-sumer society where brands and music arepowerful cultural expressions.
In sum, the main conflicts in the sonicbranding literature center on differences inthe view of the consumer’s role in relationto music – in other words, of (i) The powerof music in relation to consumers, and (ii)The power of branded/commercialized musicin relation to the consumer. This means thatthe conflicting perspectives are about howto act when music lends itself to being usedby actors, such as companies, with the intentof affecting consumers to perceive of abrand in a certain way. Before I discuss theresearch on these perspectives (that is,music’s function for companies and itsfunction for consumers, respectively) inmore detail, I will discuss the history ofsonic branding, below, to map out thegeneral historical context of this literature.
SONIC BRANDING: HISTORYIn practice, sonic branding is inevitablyconnected to trademarks (see McCormick,2006). McCormick (2006) describes thedevelopment of legal protection of soundsused in branding. He reminds us that soundin advertising goes back to when electronicswas first introduced in the media, stressingthe example of the lion roaring at thebeginning of every MGM film. Althoughbrands have been using sounds for as long asthe technology has existed, they have onlyrecently started to trademark their sounds,McCormick suggests. Because the previoussounds mainly were jingles – originalsongs that incorporated the brand name –they were already protected by copyright.However, the newer use of sounds and
music are not always as distinct. Althoughthere is a need to trademark, these soundsoften lack the distinctiveness that trade-marks laws ask of a sound that is to beregistered. In other words, it is not enoughfor brands to create a sound that is differentfrom that of competitors, it must also bedistinctive enough for the legal system toallow it to be trademarked (McCormick,2006). In spite of sonic branding's long his-tory, we are only beginning to copyrightsounds (ibid.) – so this is one area in whichsonic branding may still develop much as apractice.
The sonic branding research tradition isusually seen to have started with Milliman’sarticle in 1982 on music tempo in a restau-rant and then to have gained in interest as aresearch area in marketing in the early 1990swith Scott’s seminal article on jingles andadvertising images (Scott, 1990). Further,Yalch and Spangenberg’s (1990) articleabout consumer’s perceptions of back-ground and foreground music in a clothesstore was a relatively early contribution tothis new research area. Soon, Kellaris andKent (1992) examined consumers’ percep-tion of time from a psychological perspec-tive. Their findings suggest that consumersperceive that time moves more slowly whenlistening to favored music, as comparedwith faster when listening to atonal music.As Bradshaw and Holbrook (2008) pointout, although these findings have been citedfrequently, the notion that time wouldmove faster when listening to atonal musiccompared with favored music does runcounter to common sense – a claim thatmakes these early findings debatable today.
The psychological approach to music inmarketing research thus set the agenda inthis research area during the 1980s to early1990s (for example, Milliman, 1982, 1986;Yalch and Spangenberg, 1990; Macinnisand Park, 1991; Kellaris and Kent, 1992;Areni and Kim, 1994). However, followingsuch articles as Scott (1990) about the
meaning of jingles in advertising, stressingthat the interpretation of music is culturallyand personally constituted, research onmusic in marketing later shifted to a moreholistic approach. Shortly after Scott (1990),Bitner's (1992) ‘servicescapes’ stressed therole of music for ‘physical comfort’ in aretail setting, fueling the qualitativeapproach to sonic branding. Bitner (1992)argues that all stimuli are eventually eval-uated together – meaning that consumersdo not evaluate a servicescape based on onlyone factor – several stimuli are evaluated atthe same time. Noise and music are back-ground /ambient conditions and can forinstance affect perceptions of time (Bitner,1992). In later years, there has been a boomin marketing text books about in-store‘marketing of the senses’ (see, for example,Hultén et al, 2008), an extension of whatKotler, already in 1973, called ‘atmo-spherics’. In other words, this means usingsound, smell, taste, touch and sight strategi-cally as opportunities for marketers to target.
Although music has existed as a part ofthe retail experience long before sonicbranding, music has not been fully exploitedas a means of strengthening and commu-nicating the brand identity, according toJackson (2003). He argues that sonic brand-ing began in the 1980s with the way radiowas operating at the time and startedbooming in the mid-late 1990s while theInternet bubble was growing and was stillgrowing in 2003. In recent strategic litera-ture, the setting up of the experience in thestore is centered on – rather than the con-sumer’s experience of it.
Surely, the depiction of the history ofsonic branding depends on whether thebrand, the consumer, the servicescape or themusic is in focus. Before the 2000s, the lis-tener or consumer per se was seldom thefocus of any sonic branding research – ratherthe effect or outcome of the use of music wasin focus. In the following section, I will dis-cuss how brands have been depicted when in
the strategic focus in this kind of research. Itis remarkable that corporate strategy andconsumers’ everyday lives are treated ascompletely separate spheres, without a com-mon denominator, in the existing strategicliterature. There is no real interest in theconsumers’ agenda, which is paradoxicallysomething that the other research strandsreviewed here tend to focus on.
SONIC BRANDING: FUNCTIONS FORCOMPANIES AND BRANDSCompanies can take advantage of sonicbranding strategically when building theirbrand (Treasure, 2007). Sonic branding’sfunctions for companies and brands, whichare championed in the literature, includeincreasing consumer loyalty to the brand(Fulberg, 2003), making the brand a retailexperience (ibid.) and using the music to tellthe story of the brand (Westermann, 2008).Sonic branding can be used by companies asa social power tool steering consumersin a certain direction or inspiring a certainpace in-store (for example, DeNora, 2000;Bradshaw and Holbrook, 2008). Accord-ingly, some researchers suggest the coerciveuse of music in public places and stores, andthe power struggle this use of music cangive rise to, whereas others focus solely onmanagerial possibilities. There is clearly adivision in the literature regarding whethersonic branding is to be recommended as amarketing tool or not. Yet another researchstrand stresses that sonic branding has been alast minute finishing touch in most casesuntil very recently, meaning that in mostcases it has not been used to its full potentialyet (Graakjaer and Jantzen, 2009).
Jackson (2003) argues that ‘sonic brand-ing’ will succeed in involving brand identityand make the brand consistent indepen-dently of where the consumer encounters it(through an event, TV, retail environmentand so on.). Although music has been partof the retail experience for a long time, it
has not played that role to its fullest beforesonic branding (Jackson, 2003, p. 7). Thestrategic part of sonic branding has beenneglected, whereas the creative part hastaken precedence through the years, heargues. However, there is no reason toreject the jingle – jingles are useful becausethey work as ‘mnemonics’ and do helpconsumers remember the brand. Accord-ingly, in Jackson’s (2003, p. 9) definition: ‘Ajingle is a short slogan, verse or tunedesigned to be easily remembered’. Jack-son’s sonic branding model emphasizesemotions, ‘trust and belief’ in the brand, andthe ‘touchpoints’ – the various instanceswhere consumers encounter the brand.Jackson’s (2003) main argument is thatcompanies need a ‘consistent’ connectionbetween brand and sound. However, con-sidering the complexity of, for instance,musical ‘fit’ (Bode, 2009), the emphasis onconsistency of the brand strategy literatureseems limiting. There may be a fine linebetween consistency between brand andmusic, and the repetitiveness of cautiouslyfine-tuned use of music that is believed tosuit the brand. In fact, music that appears tocontrast the brand may seem just as relevantto consumers (Bode, 2009).
As mentioned earlier, the interplaybetween music and images is much discussedin the literature (Pinch and Bijsterveld, 2004;Bode, 2009). Further, managers do notknow how to measure the effects of themusic/sonic branding efforts, but they stillwant to measure it (Graakjaer and Jantzen,2009). Music has been marginalized in theprocess – images and the brand traditionallyget more attention (ibid.). Lately, however,companies increasingly turn to sonic brand-ing specialists, and this means that the strate-gic importance of understanding music inadvertising is increasing (Graakjaer andJantzen, 2009). The sonic branding con-sultants repeatedly depict sonic branding asan important success factor which has beenoverlooked by the industry (Kusatz, 2007;
Treasure, 2007; Lusensky, 2010) – the latterhaving neglected music’s role in the processof creating advertising and brand image bycontacting sound agencies late in the process,and having already spent most of the budgeton the visual elements (see, for example,Wand, 2009).
In contrast to this alleged practice of theadvertising business as a whole to start withthe visual and add the sound in the finalstages, sonic branding agencies tend toemphasize that they master the entire process(Kusatz, 2007). Thus, there is a tendency inthis literature to elevate sound and music inbranding to something that is not only gen-erally misunderstood, but also as somethingwhich should be understood as a strategy. Forexample, Treasure (2007) relates music tosilence and noise, saying that silence is notthe opposite of sound because silence is asound in itself and can be experienced assuch. In other words, everything is sound(Treasure, 2007). Having a strategy aboutsound then seems absolutely necessary.Westermann (2008) points out that peoplecannot avert their hearing as easily as theycan avert their eyes – in this way, a sonicmessage can be more effective than a visualmessage, but also more intrusive.
In the article ‘Using music to influencecognitive and affective response in queuesof low and high crowd density’, Oakes andNorth (2008) investigated how crowd den-sity affected consumers’ response to music.They found that slow-tempo music gavemore positive responses over all. Further, inlow crowd density, music enhanced theexperience of waiting, whereas in highcrowd density, it did the opposite. Not sur-prisingly, they also found that liking themusic helped people feel more positiveabout the wait (Oakes and North, 2008). Ina recent lab experiment, Vijaykumar et al(2012) found that the number of tones in asonic logo (they call it ‘sogo’) influenceswillingness to pay. In other words, thiskind of research treats sound as providing
subconscious information for consumers,believing that this information affects theoutcome in terms of the purchase. Otherpsychology-oriented studies of later yearsinclude Crisinel et al (2012), who conductedan experiment manipulating the pitch of themusic while serving toffee to respondentsand tracking how the perceived taste of thetoffee changed with the music. Similarlyusing an experiment, French social psy-chologist Guéguen famously found thatvery loud music in bars make beer drinkersdrink more beer, and drink it faster(Guéguen et al, 2008). These two studiesalso imply that it is a subconscious responseto music that the experiments are aimed atmapping out.
Summing up this section, the possibilities ofsonic branding to communicate the brand incommercial settings are championed, andconsidered vastly under-realized, by brandresearchers today in the managerial literaturereviewed. Managerial implications based onempirical studies are non-existent in the sonicbranding literature today – instead, the man-agerial implications are based on the writers’own experiences of the sonic branding busi-ness as managers in sonic branding agencies(for example, Fulberg, 2003; Jackson, 2003;Treasure, 2007; Graakjaer and Jantzen, 2009;Kilian, 2009; Lusensky, 2010) or on interviewswith managers (in Graakjaer and Jantzen,2009). Thus, a strong academic research areahas yet to take form around these strategicissues. A conceptually oriented approach istaken by quantitative studies in consumerresearch, proposing that sonic branding ismostly operating on a subconscious level thatcan be tapped into by marketers (for example,Oakes and North, 2008; Crisinel et al, 2012;Vijaykumar et al, 2012).
SONIC BRANDING: FUNCTION INCONSUMERS’ LIVESIn this section, I will discuss how the litera-ture depicts the function of sonic branding
in consumers’ lives. First, I will introducethose that are extensively dealt with andthen I will discuss some aspects that areunderdeveloped in the literature. People findmusic interesting because we do not knowhow music works (Treasure, 2007). Thebrand becomes a retail experience throughthe use of music (Fulberg, 2003). Some arguethat music even makes people do things theywould not otherwise do, because of a sub-conscious reaction to the music – like mov-ing faster or slower through a store (forexample, Milliman, 1982; Kellaris and Kent,1992). Others take this approach further,arguing that the brand can lead the consumeras a social power tool that they are partlyunaware of and therefore will find it hard toescape or protect themselves from (forexample, DeNora, 2000; Bradshaw andHolbrook, 2008). Music is often treated asnoise (see Attali, 1985; McGinn, 2002), orfrom a contrasting viewpoint, as having to dowith a certain experience (for example,Treasure, 2007; Hultén et al, 2008; Kilian,2009). How music is treated is largelydepending on the view taken on whetherthe music is seen as mainly something con-cerning the consumer, the technology or astrategic asset for the company.
Seeing sonic branding from the view-point of the consumer/user, ‘contexts ofuse’ are crucial when researching music,according to music sociologist DeNora(2000). It is necessary to investigate musicin practice – how people actually go aboutusing music in their everyday lives – inorder to present a sociology of music, sheargues. DeNora thus examines ethno-graphically how people use music whenexercising, eating, being at home, travelingand so on. She finds that people use music,for instance, to express anger in a ritualizedway, to construct and communicate some-thing about their identities, or to help thempush themselves to exercise harder. In con-clusion, DeNora (2000) finds that music isvitalizing – it is here and now – music has
power which is connected with entrain-ment (that is, when the body works largelyunconsciously or subconsciously in tunewith the music). Music is also a power toolin public space, DeNora argues. Music is apractice – we act to and with music and thismeans that music is not something which is‘done’ to us. When music is played in publicspaces – because consumers cannot easilyavert their hearing there (Westermann,2008), they will act/react in some way to it– humming to the music, or maybe leave,and so on. (DeNora, 2000).
DeNora (2000) and the music researchersin CCT have been inspired by Attali (1985),who sees music as ‘the organization ofnoise’. That organization is, in turn, seen asa political, social and cultural process. Thus,society can be theorized through music(ibid.). Attali suggests the power that musichas in forging relationships is in the pleasurethat two people can take in the same music.Further, in Attali’s view pleasure in themusic will be taken to its extreme, cateringto people’s ‘narcissistic’ side, now that peo-ple can record their own images and ‘noise’,‘composing’ their own music and imagesabout themselves (Attali, 1985, p. 144).Composition can make us see ourselves, ourrelationships as well as our history in a newlight (ibid.). That is, when the consumersbecome producers of music, anotherdimension is added to the power that musicholds for them in their everyday lives. Weall become our own DJs in our everydaylives, constructing soundtracks for ourselvesand lists of music – thus reconstructing ourview of ourselves (Attali, 1985). In otherwords, music is now available for consumerstoday in their everyday lives, and they use itto create and re-create themselves.
Like music sociology, sonic brandingresearch in CCT focuses on the culturalpractices of consumers in their music con-sumption and production. New light is shedon, for instance, the famous musicians’ ownperspective of how their creation of music
as artists relates to current marketing cam-paigns based on music performance(Bradshaw et al, 2005). Another interestingCCT oriented study concerns how DJs andtechnology interplay in their creation ofmusic – by calling the DJs ‘sonic cyborgs’Giesler and Schroeder bring to the fore thatthe DJs become one with their technologyin the process of mixing, sampling andpitching the music. Giesler and Schroeder(2006) argue that the DJ as a ‘sonic cyborg’makes consumers of music shift from historyto the present by using music in a new way,one that only exists in that moment (cf.Attali, 1985). The CCT perspective onmusic consumption differs from the soundstudies perspective, as well as the strategicbrand management perspective, because ofhow it centers on the consumers’ creatingmusic, and making it meaningful, ratherthan music’s being made and played forconsumers to create an effect.
There is a strong critical perspective inCCT (Bradshaw and Holbrook, 2008) andin sonic literature (Attali, 1985; DeNora,2000) arguing that music in public places isused as a form of social control. Bradshawand Holbrook (2008) fiercely opposeMuzak and other piped music in stores.They suggest that forcing consumers to lis-ten to certain music goes against the CCTview of consumers as active agents co-pro-ducing culture (Arnould and Thompson,2005), instead taking their freedom andtreating them as ‘passive dupes’ (Bradshawand Holbrook, 2008, p. 36). In other words,Bradshaw and Holbrook (2008, p. 26) arguethat in-store background music is a sort ofmanipulation and ‘a means of social control’created by marketers alone, rather than apart of consumer culture created with con-sumers’ involvement. Further, they claimthat Muzak ‘de-aesthetizes’ music (2008,p. 31). The authors argue that the lack ofcritical response by consumers to Muzak inservicescapes and advertising suggests thatMuzak lacks a meaningful basis in consumer
culture. Further, they see Muzak as an insultto professional musicians and ruining artistryin the name of capitalism (ibid.). Their per-spective is interesting because it makes pro-blematic some of the more or less taken forgranted aspects of the interaction betweenconsumers and in-store background music,such as the lack of choice between musicand ‘no music’ when shopping. Whatmakes it important to be attentive to the useof sonic branding and in-store backgroundmusic is not only the way that this music canbe unaesthetic – there are also implicationsbecause of how we listen to music. DeNora(2000) points out that music works as anefficient trigger for our memories and nos-talgia (Tom, 1990; van Dijck, 2006).Because of this, music used in advertisingcan have a very strong effect (DeNora,2000; Barnet, 2001). Connected to music’srole for emotional ties – based on three casestudies from Australia, Murphy et al (2013)stress the importance of building relation-ships through music, claiming that brandcommunities and emotional ties with abrand play important roles in people’s livestoday.
Another critical perspective on music inCCT is about who controls the output ofmusic (see, for example, Giesler andPohlmann, 2003). Giesler and Pohlmann(2003, p. 94) argue that the control of musicthrough online-music sharing platforms likeNapster represents a way of socially takingcontrol of the music by individualizing thechoice available and not caring about copy-right, and in that process being emancipatedsocially. Thus, it is suggested that who is incontrol of the music is of importance towhat the music enables the consumer toaccomplish through the music (ibid.). Onthat note, discussions about copyright ofmusic have been prevalent in later years.However, the present article will notextend on that literature, as it brings up a setof completely different parameters by fun-damentally questioning what the market is
and should be (see, for example, Giesler andPohlmann, 2003).
In a literature review on music in geol-ogy research, Hudson (2006, p. 626) statesthat music can create ‘powerful images ofplace, feeling of deep attachment to place’,and suggests that there is a lack of analyticand conceptually rich research on music andplace in his research field. Place brandingthrough music in the field of CCT alsoseems a fruitful future research area becauseplace generally provides an important mar-keting opportunity. This has already beenexplored as far as the ‘retail’ space, the ele-vator, the pains of in-store piped music andsonic branding of place (see Schroeder andBorgerson, 2002; Borgerson and Schroeder,2003; Fulberg, 2003; Lanza, 2004; Bradshawand Holbrook, 2008). Research on sonicbranding of specific places and spaces couldbe of large interest because it can providerich material concerning what a place meansto consumers in relation to the music thatbrands it, as well as concerning how placebranding can be implemented by way ofsound (Schroeder and Borgerson, 1999;Hudson, 2006). Further, the way that musiccan evoke a feeling of the ‘past’ which mightenhance the brand experience for culturalreasons (Wu et al, 2013) is underdeveloped inthe existing literature – there is much left toexplore about the connection betweenmusic, the brand and a general sense of thepast – a cultural nostalgia.
The critical perspective on sonic brand-ing is a recent one. Bradshaw and Holbrook(2008) and DeNora (2000) argue that thereare potential problems with the increas-ing number of spaces that are filled withmusic or noise and perhaps also branded.Bradshaw and Holbrook (2008) suggest thatsilence is a good alternative, especially as nopositive correlation between the use ofin-store music and the amount of shoppinghas been found so far. A strategic perspec-tive on music, sound – and silence – shouldbe integral to any practice of sonic branding.
In the next section, I will suggest somefuture directions for practice and researchbased on the present literature review.
SONIC BRANDING: FUTUREIn conclusion, the present article hascontributed a consumer-oriented review ofthe sonic branding literature, and providedan overview of the attitude toward the con-sumer in these presented writings (Table 1)for the benefit of brand managementresearch and practice. The framework ofthis article, as clarified in Table 1, points outthat the field has multiple approaches to theconsumer of music (for example, as listener,consumer or agent) as well as to the out-come of sonic branding approaches (pur-chase, co-production, and so on). As a resultof the present research, this review articlecalls for a clearer theoretical approach tosonic branding as an area of study in thefuture, because when the approach to theconsumer and the outcome of sonic brand-ing varies across the involved disciplines(for example, sound studies, CCT, musicsociology, strategic brand management, andconsumer behavior) the field needs to atleast have the main concept in common inorder to function and move forward as aresearch field. In other words, this needs tobe done in order to bring sonic branding tothe fore as a strategically strong research areain branding and not merely a set of promis-ing disparate strands of research efforts. Theresearch in this area needs to create a com-mon ‘umbrella’ brand for itself – and it issuggested that the label used should be‘Sonic Branding’ because this term has sev-eral advantages compared with the otherlabels that are currently used synonymously.In addition, ‘timbre’, ‘sound’, ‘tempo’ and‘beat’ – the music terminology – needs to bemade problematic from a sonic brandingperspective (Treasure, 2007) becauseresearchers, managers and practitioners needto share the music language (Fulberg, 2003).
This needs to be done in order to be able toexchange experiences, and form a moreinfluential field united around a commonset of concepts.
Because sonic branding practices areoften perceived as manipulative by con-sumers, there is reason for the industry toreclaim the use of music and sound as ashared interest between consumers andcompanies, as something which benefitsboth consumer and brand. This can be doneby using the sociological perspective as aninspiration for developing sonic brandingefforts, for instance using consumer panelsto get close to the consumers’ own ways ofusing music to be able to work harder, or toexperience entrainment in the brandscape(Bitner, 1992; DeNora, 2000). The brandsthat use sonic branding in this manner willstand out and receive goodwill, if onlybecause the majority of businesses do notyet understand sonic branding as a con-sumer-oriented practice where the con-sumer is always invited to contribute andtake part.
Importantly, the present review alsoreveals that the ‘branding’ part of ‘sonicbranding’ is underdeveloped in the litera-ture, whereas the ‘sonic’ part is focused inthe lion part of the available research. Isuggest that this conclusion opens up fornew kinds of research in the field, focusingfirstly on the ‘branding’ part, to give it moreprominence in each instance of research. Inthat vein, it would be fruitful to furtherinvestigate the question of exactly how thebrand is connected to music in consumers’everyday lives. Through the use of qualita-tive methods like those of DeNora (2000)both physical and symbolic consumer usescan be explored further (see also, for exam-ple, Hogg and Banister, 2000; Larsen et al,2010, about consumers’ symbolic use ofmusic). The main challenge for practi-tioners, based on the present framework, isto claim sonic branding as truly strategicand at the same time rooted in the role
of consumers in the ever-changing sonicconstruction of the brand’s culture. Whensonic branding initiatives fail to be strategic,and fail to connect to authentic consumerpractices around music, its critics willremain strong. However, for theorists andpractitioners alike, the immediate challengelies in developing those concepts and labelsfor sonic branding that will unite the field,and thereby increase its future impact.
REFERENCESAdorno, T.W., Tiedemann, R. and Adorno, G. (1970)
Gesammelte Schriften. Bd 7, Ästhetische Theorie.Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Suhrkamp.
Areni, C.S. and Kim, D. (1994) The influence of in-storelighting on consumers’ examination of merchandisein a wine store. International Journal of Research inMarketing 11(2): 117–125.
Arnould, E.J. and Thompson, C.J. (2005) ConsumerCulture Theory (CCT): Twenty years of research.Journal of Consumer Research 31(4): 868–882.
Attali, J. (1985) Noise: The Political Economy of Music.Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Audio-branding-academy.org (2015) Glossary, http://audio-branding-academy.org/aba/knowledge/glossary/, accessed 4 January 2015.
Barnet, K. (2001) Sonic branding finds its voice, http://www.brandchannel.com/features_effect.asp?pf_id=63, accessed 20 August 2014.
Beverland, M., Lim, E.A.C., Morrison, M. andTerziovski, M. (2006) In-store music and consumer-brand relationships: Relational transformation followingexperiences of (mis)fit. Journal of Business Research 59(9):982–989.
Bitner, M.J. (1992) Servicescapes: The impact of physicalsurroundings on customers and employees. TheJournal of Marketing 56(2): 57–71.
Bode, M. (2009) Making sense of music in advertisingresearch: An interpretative model of the interactionbetween music and image. In: N. Graakjaer andC. Jantzen (eds.) Music in Advertising: CommercialSounds in Media Communication and Other Settings.Aalborg, Denmark: Aalborg University Press,pp. 75–98.
Borgerson, J.L. and Schroeder, J.E. (2003) The lure ofparadise: Marketing the retro-escape of Hawaii. In:S. Brown and J.F. Sherry Jr. (eds.) Time, Space, andthe Market: Retroscapes Rising. New York: M.E.Sharpe, pp. 219–237.
Bradshaw, A. and Holbrook, M. (2008) Must we haveMuzak wherever we go? A critical consideration ofthe consumer culture. Consumption, Markets andCulture 11(1): 25–43.
Bradshaw, A., McDonagh, P. and Marshall, D. (2006)No space – New blood and the production of brand
culture colonies. Journal of Marketing Management22(5/6): 579–599.
Bradshaw, A., McDonagh, P., Marshall, D. andBradshaw, H. (2005) ‘Exiled music herself, pushedto the edge of existence’: The experience ofmusicians who perform background music.Consumption, Markets and Culture 8(3): 219–239.
Bradshaw, A. and Shankar, A. (2008) The productionand consumption of music. Consumption, Markets andCulture 11(4): 225–227.
Bronner, K. and Hirt, R. (eds.) (2009) Audio Branding:Brands, Sound and Communication. Baden-Baden,Germany: Nomos.
Brüner, G.C. (1990) Music, mood, and marketing.Journal of Marketing 54(4): 94–104.
Coates, N. (2008) Sound studies: Missing the (popular)music for the screens? Cinema Journal 48(1): 123–130.
Crisinel, A., Cosser, S., King, S., Jones, R., James, P. andSpence, C. (2012) A bittersweet symphony:Systematically modulating the taste of food bychanging the sonic properties of the soundtrackplaying in the background. Food Quality andPreference 1(24): 201–204.
DeNora, T. (2000) Music in Everyday Life. Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press.
Dominus, S. (2006) The Starbucks aesthetic, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/arts/22domi.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0, accessed 20 August 2014.
Drewett, M. (2008) Developing a retro brand community:Re-releasing and marketing anti-apartheid protestmusic in post-apartheid South Africa. Consumption,Markets and Culture 11(4): 287–305.
Franinović, K. and Serafin, S. (eds.) (2013) SonicInteraction Design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fulberg, P. (2003) Using sonic branding in the retailenvironment – An easy and effective way to createconsumer brand loyalty while enhancing the in-storeexperience. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 3(2): 193–198.
Guéguen, N., Jacob, C., Le Guellec, H., Morineau, T.and Lourel, M. (2008) Sound level of environmentalmusic and drinking behavior: A field experimentwith beer drinkers. Alcoholism: Clinical andExperimental Research 32(10): 1795–1798.
Giesler, M. and Pohlmann, M. (2003) The social formof napster: Cultivating the paradox of consumeremancipation. Advances in Consumer Research 30(1):94–100.
Giesler, M. and Schroeder, J.E. (2006) The sounds ofconsumption: Listening to the musical landscape.European Advances in Consumer Research 7: 498–501.
Goodman, S. (2009) Sonic Warfare: Sound, Affect, and theEcology of Fear. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Graakjaer, N. and Jantzen, C. (2009) Producingcorporate sounds: An interview with Karsten Kjemsand Soren Holme on sonic branding. In:C.N. Graakjaer (ed.) Music in Adverstising:Commercial Sounds in Media Communication and OtherSettings. Aalborg, Germany: Aalborg UniversityPress, pp. 259–274.
Gustafsson, C. (2005) Trust as an instance ofasymmetrical reciprocity: An ethics perspectiveon corporate brand management. Business Ethics:A European Review 14(2): 142–150.
Heitanen, R.J.J., Roman, R., Tikkanend, H. andAsparae, J. (2010) Pushing the Scene Forward:Restrictive Practices as Drivers of Authentication inthe Dubstep Electronic Music Culture. Paperpresented at the Consumer Culture TheoryConference 5; 10 June, Wisconsin.
Hesmondhalgh, D. (2008) Towards a criticalunderstanding of music, emotion and self-identity.Consumption, Markets and Culture 11(4): 329–343.
Hilmes, M. (2005) Is there a field called sound culturestudies? And does it matter? America Quarterly 57(1):249–259.
Hogg, M. and Banister, E. (2000) The structure andtransfer of cultural meaning: A study of youngconsumers and pop music. Advances in ConsumerResearch 27: 19–23.
Holbrook, M.B. (2008) Music meanings in movies:The case of the crime-plus-jazz genre. ConsumptionMarkets and Culture 11(4): 307–327.
Holt, D.B. (2002) Why do brands cause trouble?A dialectical theory of consumer culture andbranding. Journal of Consumer Research 29(1): 70–90.
Horkheimer, M. and Adorno, T. (1997) Dialectic ofEnlightenment. New York: Continuum.
Hudson, R. (2006) Regions and place: Music, identityand place. Progress in Human Geography 30(5):626–634.
Hultén, B., Broweus, N., van Dijk, M. and Waxberg, C.(2008) Sinnesmarknadsforing [Marketing of the Senses].Malmo, Sweden: Liber.
Jackson, D.M. (2003) Sonic Branding: An Introduction.New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kassabian, A. (2013)Ubiquitous Listening: Affect, Attention,and Distributed Subjectivity. Berkeley, CA: Universityof California Press.
Kassabian, A. (2008) Inattentive engagements: The newproblematics of sound and music. Cinema Journal 48(1): 118–123.
Kastner, S. (2013) Heimatklänge: The conceptual designof branded spaces by means of sonic branding. In:S. Sonnenburg and L. Baker (eds.) Branded Spaces:Experience Enactments and Entaglements. Wiesbaden,Germany: Springer, pp. 167–172.
Kellaris, J.J. and Kent, R.J. (1992) The influence ofmusic on consumers' temporal perceptions: Doestime fly when you're having fun? Journal of ConsumerPsychology 1(4): 365.
Kilian, K. (2009) From brand identity to audio branding.In: H. Bronner and H. Rainer (eds.) Audio Branding:Brands, Sound and Communication. pp. 35–48,Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos.
Klein, N. (2000) No Logo: No Space, No Choice, No Jobs,Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies. New York: Flamingo.
Kotler, P. (1973) Atmospherics as a marketing tool.Journal of Retailing 49(4): 48.
Krishna, A. (2013)Customer Sense: How the 5 Senses InfluenceBuying Behavior. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kubacki, K. and Croft, R. (2004) Mass Marketing,Music, and Morality. Journal of Marketing Management20(5-6): 577–590.
Kusatz, H. (2007) Acoustic Brand Management:Increasing the Aucoustic Perception of Brands.Paper presented at the 2nd International VDTSymposium – Sound Design, 11 January,Ludwigsburg, Germany.
Lanza, J. (2004) Elevator Music. Ann Arbor: TheUniversity of Michigan Press.
Larsen, G., Lawson, R. and Todd, S. (2010) Thesymbolic consumption of music. Journal of MarketingManagement 26(7-8): 671–685.
Lusensky, J. (2010) Sounds Like Branding: hur varumarkenblev de nya skivbolagen (och konsumenter blev till fans) [HowBrands Became the New Record Labels (and ConsumersBecame Fans)]. Stockholm, Sweden: Norstedts.
Macinnis, D.J. and Park, C.W. (1991) The differentialrole of characteristics of music on high- and low-involvement consumers' processing of ads. TheJournal of Consumer Research 18(2): 161–173.
McCormick, K.K. (2006) 'Ding' you are now free toregister that sound. The Trademark Reporter 96(5):1101–1121.
McGinn, T. (2002) The role of sound in industrialdesign. In: C.L. Hayes (ed.) Thoughtlines 6. Dublin,Ireland: Colour Books, pp. 83–88.
Milliman, R.E. (1982) Using background music toaffect the behavior of supermarket shoppers. Journalof Marketing 46(3): 86–91.
Milliman, R.E. (1986) The influence of backgroundmusic on the behavior of restaurant patrons. Journalof Consumer Research 13(2): 286–289.
Morcom, A. (2008) Getting heard in Tibet: Music,media and markets. Consumption, Markets and Culture11(4): 259–285.
Murphy, L., Shermann, A. and Moscardo, G. (2013)Building brands with music: Australian cases. In:P. Tschmuck, P.L. Pearce and S. Campell (eds.) MusicBusiness and the Experience Economy: The AustralianCase. Berlin, Germany: Springer, pp. 153–174.
Oakes, S., Noel, D. and Oakes, H. (2013) Web-basedforums and metaphysical branding. Journal ofMarketing Management 29(5-6): 607–624.
Oakes, S. and North, A.C. (2008) Using music toinfluence cognitive and affective response in queuesof low and high crowd density. Journal of MarketingManagement 24(5-6): 589–602.
Olsen, B. and Gould, S. (2008) Revelations of culturalconsumer lovemaps in Jamaican dancehall lyrics:An ethnomusicological ethnography. Consumption,Markets and Culture 11(4): 229–257.
Oxford Dictionaries Online (2010) Sonic, http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0792120#m_en_gb0792120, accessed 9 October 2010.
Perlman, M. (2004) Golden ears and meter readers: Theconquest for epistemic authority in audiophilia. SocialStudies of Science 34(5): 783–807.
Pinch, T. and Bijsterveld, K. (2004) Sound studies:New technologies and music. Social Studies of Science34(5): 635–648.
Scherzinger, M. (2005) Music, corporate powerand unending war. Cultural Critique 60(Spring):23–67.
Schroeder, J.E. and Borgerson, J.L. (1999) Packagingparadise: Consuming hawaiian music. Advances inConsumer Research 26(1): 46–50.
Schroeder, J.E. and Borgerson, J.L. (2002) Innovationsin information technology: Insights from Italianrenaissance art. Consumption, Markets and Culture5(2): 153–169.
Schroeder, J.E. (2005) The artist and the brand. EuropeanJournal of Marketing 39(11): 1291–1305.
Scott, L.M. (1990) Understanding jingles and needledrop:A rhetorical approach to music in advertising. Journalof Consumer Research 17(2): 223–236.
Tom, G. (1990) Marketing with music. The Journal ofConsumer Marketing 7(2): 49–53.
Treasure, J. (2007) Sound Business. London: ManagementBooks 2000.
van Dijck, J. (2006) Record and hold: Popular musicbetween personal and collective memory. CriticalStudies in Media Communication 23(5): 357–374.
Vijaykumar, K., Kellaris, J.J. and Aurand, T.W. (2012)Sonic logos: Can sound influence willingnessto pay? Journal of Product and Brand Management21(4): 275–284.
Wand, R. (2009) The ear is totally neglected. Everythingis centered on the eye. Wendy's Blog, EMC Con-sulting Blogs, http://keepthenoisedown.typepad.com/keep_the_noise_down_blog/2009/06/the-ear-is-
totally-neglected-everything-is-centred-on-the-eye.html, accessed 11 September 2013.
Westermann, C.F. (2008) Sound branding and corporatevoice: Strategic brand management using sound. In:T. Hempel (ed.) Usability of Speech Dialogue Systems.Berlin, Germany: Springer Berlin Heidelberg,pp. 147–155.
Wu, Z., Borgerson, J.L. and Schroeder, J.S. (2013) FromChinese Brand Culture to Global Brands. New York:Palgrave Macmillan.
Yalch, R. and Spangenberg, E. (1990) Effects of storemusic on shopping behavior. Journal of ConsumerMarketing 7(2): 55–63.
This work is licensed under aCreative Commons Attribu-
tion 3.0 Unported License. The images orother third party material in this article areincluded in the article’s Creative Commonslicense, unless indicated otherwise in thecredit line; if the material is not includedunder the Creative Commons license, userswill need to obtain permission from thelicense holder to reproduce the material. Toview a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
