2003). The third framework applied to Google's brand equity is the relations marketing (RM) model, which defines the value of brand equity as a function of the global competitiveness across comparable networks and customers' adoption and reliance on the brand. The RM model also focuses on the reciprocal nature of branding, which for Google includes free e-mail, office automation, and web acceleration products. This reciprocal nature of Google exemplifies the RM model from a networking and relationships standpoint (Fournier 1998). The RM Model is also attributed with brand loyalty and the development of cult brands due to its highly reciprocal nature and the fact that many of the most brand-loyal customers define themselves by the brands they buy and support. This model also supports the contributory role of marketing communications in strengthening a brand over time (Morgan & Hunt 1994).

Analysis of Models

Clearly the relations marketing model (RM) is the most explanatory of Google's brand attaining cult status, as this model specifically defines the company's ability to compete globally through innovation yet still retain customer relationships, loyalty and trust Jevons, C. & Gabbot, M. (2000). The more utilitarian based approach of the RBV captures only the economic value of the search engine, not including constructs for generating loyalty and trust in brands.

The network perspective does not fully explain the levels of reciprocity and trust that propels brands into cult status.

Chaudhuri (2002) and Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) have abstractly linked trust and reputation to brand equity. These researchers' work serves as an extension of the RM model that acts to create a solid foundation for very loyal customers, who transform the Google brand into cult status...

(2002) How brand reputation affects the advertising-brand equity link. Journal of Advertising Research (Summer), pp. 33-43.
Chaudhuri, a. & Holbrook, M.B. (2001) the chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 65 (Spring), pp. 81-93.

A comScore, 2007, comScore Releases Worldwide Rankings of Top Web Properties. London, UK. Published 10 April, 2007. Accessed from the Internet on April 19,2007 from location:

http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1370

Fournier, S. (1998) Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (Spring), pp. 343-373.

Jevons, C. & Gabbot, M. (2000) Trust, brand equity and brand reality in internet business relationships: an interdisciplinary approach. Journal of Marketing Management, 16, pp. 619-634.

Keller, K.L., Heckler, S.E. & Houston, M.J. (1998) the effects of brand name suggestiveness on advertising. Journal of Marketing, 62 (Winter), pp. 42-52.

M2 Presswire, 2002, "Turning Online Visitors Into 'Customers'; the Importance of Online Brand Loyalty," M2 Presswire (20 June 2002).

Moore, R.E. (2003) From genericide to viral marketing: on 'brand'. Language and Communication, 23, pp. 331-357.

Morgan, R.M. & Hunt, S. (1994) the commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58 (Summer), pp. 20-38.

Van Durme, J., Brodie, R.J. & Redmore, D. (2003) Brand equity in cooperative business relationships: exploring the development of a conceptual model. Marketing Theory, 3, pp. 37-57.