This paper critiques the Research in Motion (RIM) brand using Keller's (2000) nine major attributes of a brand audit. It examines how RIM transitioned from a purely technology-driven identity to one centered on the lifestyles of high-achieving, upwardly mobile professionals. The analysis covers each brand attribute in turn — from delivering genuine consumer benefits and maintaining relevance, to pricing strategy, positioning, consistency, marketing coordination, consumer understanding, sustained support, and brand equity monitoring. The paper identifies key weaknesses in RIM's early branding approach, including the damaging "Crackberry" reputation, and evaluates the effectiveness of the company's rebranding efforts. It concludes with actionable recommendations for strengthening brand consistency, equity management, and digital marketing support.
The paper demonstrates framework-driven analysis: each section maps directly onto one of Keller's nine brand audit attributes, showing how a theoretical model can be systematically applied to evaluate a real company's marketing performance. This approach ensures comprehensive coverage and makes the argument easy to follow and assess.
The paper opens with a brief introduction establishing the analytical framework and RIM's brand evolution. It then proceeds attribute by attribute through Keller's nine criteria, dedicating a short evaluative paragraph to each. A summary section synthesizes the findings and transitions into five concrete recommendations. References follow in APA-adjacent format. The structure is highly formulaic by design, mirroring the checklist nature of a brand audit.
This paper critiques the Research in Motion (RIM) brand according to the major attributes of a brand audit as defined by Keller (2000). Central to this critique is the transition RIM made from being purely technology-driven to redefining its identity around the young, upwardly mobile C-level executives, company founders, and industry leaders who comprise its customer base. A further objective is to examine the need for an entirely new strategy showing that the Blackberry did not always have to lead to exceptional career performance, but could also serve as a tool for achieving work/life balance. Breaking the "Crackberry" reputation (Columbus, 2003) — by showcasing highly successful customers and offering insights into their interesting, passionately lived lives that also include work/life balance — has created an entirely new set of values for the RIM brand.
RIM has struggled most with this area of branding, showing considerable vacillation between leading with technology and leading with benefits. The "Crackberry" backlash — which damaged the brand by highlighting how addictive constant email checking could become — was countered by the company through messaging that stressed how movers and shakers, and leaders of high-growth and innovative companies, were using the Blackberry to gain more freedom. In an era of increasing accountability and scrutiny over how people use their time, RIM's latest branding campaign sought to underscore the freedom that its devices could provide. However, the Blackberry was initially seen by many critics as a digital leash, and that reputation had not completely disappeared.
Globalization, teleworking, and a highly mobile workforce are all social factors contributing to RIM's increasing brand relevance. When presented from a purely technological standpoint, however, the brand's relevancy was mediocre — executives who received a Blackberry considered it both an honor and a burden. With its revised approach of speaking directly to upwardly mobile, high-achieving professionals, RIM was able to increase its relevance while simultaneously combating the Crackberry reputation it had previously acquired.
RIM's product strategies reflect a clear price/quality relationship, as prices for its devices sit at the high end of the market. The company continued to segment its prospect base and worked to introduce lower-priced models. Despite these efforts, RIM was still widely perceived as a device that companies purchased for their employees rather than one employees chose for themselves. RIM also continued to pursue premium positioning from a purely product-price standpoint. Pricing of service contracts was frequently outside RIM's control, yet these costs significantly shaped the brand's overall perception (Kelly, 1998).
When RIM's initial branding was released, the brand was not correctly positioned — it was highly product-centric and lacked a solutions focus. Rather than concentrating on the benefits to busy, upwardly mobile professionals, the company focused on the technological depth of its products. The subsequent branding overhaul, which placed a human face on the brand, moved it into closer alignment with what prospects were actually seeking. As research has shown, branding, when consistent and successfully applied, creates meaningful differentiation over time (Market Research Executive Board, 2005).
RIM's branding strategy was remarkably inconsistent, beginning with a message of technological superiority, followed by a user-centered messaging campaign, and then layering in a product-line message alongside the use of customer personas. In short, RIM committed one of the most common branding mistakes (Keller, 2000): the temptation to continually change brand messaging in response to market signals. This remained a significant challenge for the company.
You’re 42% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.