Professional Documents
Culture Documents
May 2010
Brand Audit
Target & Insight Competitive Assessment Brand Inventory
Equity Pyramid
Positioning
Objectives & Metrics
Personality
Brand Execution
Brand Elements Communications Strategy Brand Experience Map CRM & Community Building
$5
$50
$500
$5,000
Brand Recall
Brand Recognition
Brand Knowledge
Building Blocks
Relevance Believability
Brand Image
(Familiarity)
Strength of associations
Uniqueness of associations
Personal relevance
$1.89
$2.49
$2.29
Price Brands
49% rate quality
purchase.
purchase.
?
57% rate quality
purchase.
Which ideas are most relevant? Which are drivers? It can be difficult to determine what are the most relevant choice drivers. But Underlying Decision Drivers Can Be Hard to Discern
10
Choice A
Choice B
12
monitor your brand is to combine consistent real-world research with the use of quantitative models to
14
16
Source: ANA/Booz Allen online survey of over 370 marketing and non-marketing managers of mostly publicly traded companies. October, 2004. About 80% of the respondents were senior or middle managers representing 14 industries, with over 90% of the respondents distributed evenly between Consumer Packaged Goods, Financial Services, Retail, Technology, Telecommunications, Manufacturing, Health, Auto and Professional Services industries.
30%
latent value in the mind of customers that is exhibited through its impact on behavior. Positive equity results in behavior that benefits the brand through purchase frequency, brand loyalty,
-Created Journal of Advertising Research
34.5% 28.0%
37.4%
Premium Brand?
Price Brand?
56% Sales 40% Sales
76% Sales
Brand A
Brand B
Brand C
Every brand could benefit from having the core group represent a larger share of its total franchise.
Dr. Tom Reynolds
21
Associations
Market Trend
Awareness
Brand Trend Differentiatio n
x
x x
Mktng Support
Org. Associations Perceived Quality
x x
xx
Perceived Value
x
x
Personality
Price Premium
x
xx
x x
x
Knowledge
Leadership
x
x xx x
Relevance
Salience
Legal
User Sat./Loyalty
xx x
x Market Share Stability Sources: D. Aaker, Building Strong Brands, 1996; K. Keller, Strategic Brand Management, 2003
ROMI
Financial Value
23
Multiple measures at different levels of the value chain, benchmarked and tracked consistently over time:
Activity & Program Metrics
Marketing Investment Program Quality Clarity Relevance Distinctiveness Consistency Channel expansion
Market Performance
Sales Market share Price premium Profitability Price elasticity Expansion success
ROMI
Financial Value
Stock price P/E ratio Market capitalization Brand contribution (i.e., CoreBrand index)
25
Measuring Brand Value, Don E. Schultz & Heidi F. Schultz, Kellogg on Branding, 2005
26
Wireless Brand owned/used Intention to Switch in next 3, 6, 12 months? What brands would I consider purchasing?
Packaged Food Price and Quality perceptions Number of purchases of last 10 allocated to each brand Future intent to buy
Financial Value
Strategic Value
their brand is worth than what their brand could do for them of the causal activities related to the changes would make
Businessweek, BtoB,
Share Tiering
Objective:
Relate changes in consumer behavior and perceptions to changes in financial performance.
34.5%
37.4%
Consumer Measures:
1) 2) 3) 4) Relative barrier of price Brand Quality perceptions Brand purchase loyalty Self-report future brand purchase trend
28.0%
76% Sales
56% Sales
40% Sales
Brand A
Brand B
Brand C
, Journal of Advertising Research, June 2005, Tom Reynolds and Carol Phillips
31
Other Brands
Base= 164 Male and Female Primary Shoppers 24-64 Who purchased spaghetti sauce at a grocery store, supermarket or club store in past 3 mos. (Sept 2005) Ragu Volume Q1 Q2 122.0 36.8 84.2 42.0 1.6 4.4 Prego Volume Q1 Q2 27.0 25.8 58.2 39.3 4.2 4.8 Share of Prego Volume Q1 Q2 15.0% 14.3% 32.3% 21.8% 2.3% 2.7% Store Brand Volume Q1 Q2 17.6 15.8 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.0 Other Brand Volume Q1 Q2 Q3 P1 32.2 41.8 4.0 P2 27.4 30.0 3.2 P3 0.0 12.8 8.0 159.4 Share of Other Brand Volume Q1 Q2 Q3 P1 20.2% 26.2% 2.5% P2 17.2% 18.8% 2.0% P3 0.0% 8.0% 5.0% 100.0%
P1 P2 P3
Q3
P1 P2 P3
P1 P2 P3
Share of Ragu Volume Q1 Q2 Q3 37.9% 11.4% 1.6% 26.1% 13.0% 6.2% 0.5% 1.4% 1.8% 100.0%
P1 P2 P3
2.8 0.8 0.8 42.6 Share of Store Brand Volume Q1 Q2 Q3 P1 41.3% 37.1% 6.6% P2 0.0% 11.3% 1.9% P3 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 100.0%
Base = Those who do say they intend to purchase less in the future. Ragu Loyalty Servings Q1 Q2 Q3 97.6 24.2 4.0 71.4 6.4 0 0 0 0.4 204.0 Ragu Loyalty Share Q1 Q2 Q3 80.0% 65.8% 76.9% 84.8% 15.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Prego Loyalty Servings Q1 Q2 15.4 8.0 30.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 Prego Loyalty Share Q1 Q2 57.0% 31.0% 51.5% 10.7% 0.0% 0.0% Store Brand Loyalty Servings Q1 Q2 Q3 9.6 3.0 0.6 0 0.8 0 0 0 0 14 Store Brand Loyalty Share Q1 Q2 Q3 54.5% 19.0% 21.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Other Brand Loyalty Servings Q1 Q2 Q3 P1 25.0 27.6 1.6 P2 20.0 18.6 2.4 P3 0 10.0 0 105.2 Other Brand Loyalty Share Q1 Q2 Q3 P1 77.6% 66.0% 40.0% P2 73.0% 62.0% 75.0% P3 0.0% 78.1% 0.0%
P1 P2 P3
P1 P2 P3
P1 P2 P3
P1 P2 P3
P1 P2 P3
P1 P2 P3
Tiering
Loyalty Loyalty Contribution Top Box Volume Equity (Loyalty Contribution (Volume Share Volume as (Top Box attributabl (Share of Top Percent of Volume as Market e to loyal loyal user Box Brand Percent Brand Share users*) volume*) Volume Volume) Volume) 45.7% 25.6% 6.1% 22.6% 204.0 78.4 14.0 105.2 50.8% 19.5% 3.5% 26.2% 97.6 15.4 9.6 25.0 63.4% 43.5% 32.9% 66.0% 30.3% 8.6% 22.5% 15.7%
Total Volume Ragu Prego Store Other 322.0 180.1 42.6 159.4
TOTAL 704.1 100.0% 401.6 100.0% 147.6 57.0% 21.0% Volume is expressed in units of jars, cans or tubs. *Loyal users are defined as respondents who indicate they devote 4 or 5 out of last five purchases to one brand. *Top Box = respondents rating brand Q1/P1
Now that The Brand Bubble has spelled out that most brands--and their companies--are greatly overvalued by the financial markets, we find out that those on the inside do not have a clear idea of what their brands are worth, either. More than half (55%) of senior marketing executives lack a quantitative understanding of brand value within their organizations, according to a recent survey by the Association of National Advertisers and global branding consultancy Interbrand. Further, because brand value's effect on corporate value is not clearly quantified, it isn't being incorporated in decision-making: 64% of the 118 marketing officers and senior marketing executives polled said that brands do not influence decisions made at their organizations.
34
Among those who said brands don't influence corporate decisions, the underlying causes cited include: Incentives that don't support brand importance (51%); Inability to prove the brand's financial benefit (49%); Existing branding expertise is not widely accepted (40%);
Metrics do not support the brand's importance (39%); Budgets are focused on communications activities (32%);
Brand is not included in the "sphere of influence" (28%); Branding expertise does not yet exist (15%).
Companies Clueless On Brand Value, Evaluations Needed
by Karlene Lukovitz, Tuesday, Oct 28, 2008 3:15 PM ET
35
36
Key Takeaways
There Is No Silver Bullet
Each firm requires unique measures MSI Report Tim Ambler
Consistency is Key
Build knowledge over time
Prioritize
More likely to suffer from too much data than from too little
Recommended Resources
Hopelain, 2008 http://www.brandamplitude.com/whitepapers/Brand%20Vitals%20vF.pdf Reynolds and Carol Phillips, Journal of Advertising Research, 2005 http://www.brandamplitude.com/whitepapers/all_market_share_aint_created_equal.pdf Management, October, 2005 http://www.brandamplitude.com/whitepapers/on_track.pdf Kellogg on Branding, 2005, Ch 13 Advertising Age, November 26, 2007 Strategy, January, 26, 2004
38