Which Of The Following Is True Of Using Qualitative Research For Measuring Brand Equity?

<%@ Language=VBScript %> <% CheckState() CheckSub() %> The Qualitative Dimension of Brand Equity

Journal of Advertising Research

Advertising Research Foundation
641 Lexington Ave., New York, NY 10022; (212) 751-5656

July/August 1995

The Qualitative Dimension of Brand Equity

Max Blackston

One of the issues that was raised in one of the panels yesterday ¹ was the question of Behavioral and Attitudinal measurement of Brand Equity. I reacted very strongly to the idea of Behavioral versus Attitudinal, as if they are two coequivalent alternatives. They are not. They are both important and necessary for managing brand equity.

Consumer behavior - measured as loyalty or willingness to pay a premium for the brand - is what you get for managing equity well. Attitudes is what you have to do to get it. One is the end, the other is the means.

In the literature, these two Brand Equity concepts are usually referred to as:

Brand Value
Brand Meaning

The first of these is the report card, the bottom-line, the measure of a brand's merit. In discussions of the ways and means of Brand Equity measurement, it gets much more attention than does brand meaning. I took a look at the 1993 ARF Brand Equity Day proceedings. Out of 19 contributions, 12 - including my own - dealt in one way or the other with the measurement of brand value. So, I'm trying to even things up some, by focusing on the measurement of brand meaning.

Brand meaning is what I am referring to as the qualitative dimension - qualitative, not as in qualitative research, but in the sense that it refers to the qualities of brand that create value.

Brand value cannot be managed directly. It is the bottom line, the dependent variable, the outcome of managing the brand's meaning. So, while it is important to measure value, measuring meaning actually provides us with the tools for managing value.

Because value depends on the meaning, changing brand meaning is equivalent to changing the value of the brand. But the connection, the line of causation, is not that obvious. There is no all-purpose brand equity equation that can tell us in a fool-proof way how to manage brand meaning in order to maximize brand value. It can't be that easy - otherwise we would not have salutary object lessons, such as those that follow:

The most clamorous in my view is the way the meaning of the IBM brand was changed. IBM used to mean a company, a way of doing business, a guaranteed solution to a business problem, security for the customer. When they changed all that, and made IBM mean just machines, they radically altered the value of that brand.
Less clamorous, but no less clear was the sad case of Procter & Gamble's venerable shampoo brand, green Prell. They restaged it as new blue Prell. Two years later they tried to revive it as new-old green Prell. Too late, Prell had died.
Remember the Prudential 'Rock,' the symbol of security, trust, and peace of mind. They migrated the brand from insurance to securities, and the rock doesn't feel as solid these days.
On the credit side, Coca-Cola has a very secure grasp on the meaning of that brand - Coke knows that its brand means brown-colored soda in distinctive-shaped bottles.

What is brand meaning and how do we measure it?

Brand Saliency - a somewhat expanded definition of brand awareness.
Brand Associations - the perceived characteristics of the brand, the images with which it is associated.
Brand Personality - the type of 'human' characteristics with which the brand is endowed.

All these are very familiar concepts, the ability to measure them is tried and true, and we all have experience of using derived importance models for estimating attribute importance weights. When we ask the question 'Which of these is more important to my brand?', we are in a way asking how each of these dimensions of brand meaning influences brand value. So what are the problems?

One problem is that the sum total of a brand is usually - and thankfully - a lot more than the sum of its parts. If we talk in terms of regressions, the amount of variance explained always falls short - often far short of 100%. The problem is that, while a linear regression model may fit our data, it too often fails to predict what may happen to a brand's value when small - apparently insignificant - changes are made to brand meaning.

Another problem is that the changes we are making to brands' meanings are getting bigger and bigger. It is no longer just a question of tweaking a brand's image with a new ad campaign, or updating the packaging. With brand extension, brands are being wrenched out of their existing context into totally new areas of meaning; with large-scale co-branding, totally disparate realms of brand meaning are being thrown together. The risks to brand meaning - and brand value - have moved on to a whole new plane.

Time scale represents another problem. Brand value can move up in the short term - we observe that in our tracking studies. Brand meaning often moves slowly and deliberately; we have all bemoaned that too, hoping to see in tracking some measurable effects of a new image campaign. Unfortunately, when brand meaning does move, it is usually irreversible. Big Blue - and all that that meant - is no more. New green Prell is not the same as old green Prell.

This difference in time-scale can lead to brand dilution and the loss of brand value. The 'quick-fix' line extension may result in a short-term increase in a brand's sales and brand value. Over the longer term, however, it may not justify the cost of its shelf space and be withdrawn. At the very least, resources have been diverted from longer term brand development.

More seriously - and paradoxically - the more successful a line or brand extension, the more likely it is to redefine the meaning of its brand. What precipitated the end of the IBM brand, as we knew it, was the most successful brand extension in history - the launch of the IBM PC.

So, as we take more risks with brands, we need better, more specific understanding of how brand meaning is built, how it is altered, and how it can be irretrievably lost. Rather than borrow models from general statistical theory, we need to use specific models that reflect individual consumer psychology and behavior.

I would like to tell you about one such model that we have been using across a diverse array of brands for the last six years. This is the Brand Relationships model.

The term Brand Relationships is used a lot to describe whatever it is that goes on between a consumer and a brand. It is very intuitive. However, we have a very specific formulation of what a Brand Relationship consists of: In this model, we distinguish between the 'objective' brand and the 'subjective' brand.

The objective brand consists of the set of associations, images, and personality characteristics around which there is more or less a consensus. They represent the common or 'public' meaning of the brand, in the sense that most people who know the brand - to a greater or lesser degree - share the same perceptions. For example, for most of us the name Kraft evokes ideas of quality, family, middle America. Nike means personal achievement, going for it, not accepting limitations. Apple means mold-breaking, creating new paradigms, being antiestablishment. These are the sorts of things on which we all agree.
If the objective brand is what I - or we - think of the brand, the subjective brand is much more personal because it represents what the brand thinks of me. In addition to knowing whether I like the brand, trust the brand, respect the brand, you really need to know how I think the brand feels about me: Does it like me? Does it respect me? Does it think it's smarter than I am? Does it condescend to me? This is what we call brand attitude.

Two people may both look at an aspirational brand, like BMW or a rare brand of single malt scotch whisky, and agree that it is a status object - exclusive, refined, showing taste and style. However, while one person may feel that they belong with these brand values, another may feel that they are not good enough for the brand. Consequently, while one embraces the brand, the other rejects it. Not because they don't want the same things, but because somehow that person feels rejected by the brand.

If you ask that person to describe the brand's attitudes toward them, they will probably tell you that the brand is snobby and elitist and thinks it is too good for them.

We use this projective device of brand attitudes to capture the essence of the subjective brand. Brand attitudes are meant to describe the personal feelings and perceptions the brand has of the individual. Measuring brand attitudes is a very simple extension of other techniques, like brand personality measurement, in which respondents are asked to anthropomorphize a brand.

Consumers' relationships with a brand are the result of the interaction of objective and subjective characteristics, of brand image and brand attitudes. If a brand has bad attitudes, then no amount of emphasis on its good image qualities can make up for that - it may even make the relationship worse.

Let me show you how this works for a real example, a brand of health food. We will call it brand X.

When asked to describe Brand X physically, everyone agreed on who 'she' is - an attractive woman in her 30s. She is affluent and successful. She always looks extremely elegant and stylish and is never dressed casually. She takes good care of herself.

Moving on to the personality of brand X, perceptions are still unanimous. Brand X is an outgoing friendly person. She is active, energetic, and very ambitious.

Notice how - so far - all of these characteristics of brand X's image seem very positive. In product terms too, the brand does have a strong image; people like the product a lot, there is an excellent variety, and they all taste good. In fact, brand X 'owns' taste in this category - both literally and figuratively. It is only when we move on to the brand's attitudes that we find a divergence of opinion - on the issue of generosity.

Only loyal users perceive brand X as a generous person, who shares her gifts with others. In contrast, nonusers see the brand as totally selfish, self-centered, not caring at all about them. Occasional users - the largest segment of consumers - see brand X as rather self-absorbed - inward looking, if not totally self-centered (see Figure 1).

We went through this same process for brand X's competitors, brands Y and Z, and were able to map out the relationships between consumers and all three brands. See Figure 2.

On the horizontal dimension, representing brand image and brand personality, brand X occupies one extreme, brand Z the opposite, and brand Y lies between the two. Brand X, as we have seen, is ambitious, achievement-oriented, independent, hard-working, elegant, and stylish. At the other end, brand Z is described as passive, dependent, slow-paced, and not goal-oriented. 'Brand Y' occupies an intermediate position - probably closer to 'Brand X' than to 'Brand Z' - but with several important differences. The key differentiating descriptors would be: Down-to-earth, Straightforward, Casual, and Simple.

The second, vertical dimension defines the 'attitudes' of these brands. It could be summarized as varying from Selfishness to Generosity. As we have already seen, brand X's attitudes vary across the full length of the spectrum depending on whether people are users or not. In contrast, both brand Y and brand Z are seen as having generous attitudes.

Brand X has a problem: it is losing many of its occasional users to brand Y. At first glance, the problem seemed to be brand X's personality - too upscale, too much of an achiever. But brand X's stylish, independent, ambitious personality represents its 'edge' over brand Y. This personality only becomes negative when it is associated with a more selfish brand attitude. Trying to push brand X's personality closer to that of brand Y (more down-to-earth, casual, simple) would be a lot more difficult than working on the brand's attitude and also risks the dissipation of key brand equities: Remember that good taste and style in personality go with a taste advantage that brand X is perceived to have.

The recommendation for the advertising strategy was to focus on developing a more 'generous' attitude for the brand - not to try and make it more 'down to earth,' like brand Y. The advertising for brand X had always been rather 'narcissistic,' showing just beautiful young women and admiring men - but never their families. We felt that the brand X 'style' could easily be retained, while showing the brand in a more 'sharing' mode. The brand X personality would be much more accessible if it was motivated by generosity.

This example illustrates two things about the Brand Relationships model:

A Brand Relationship is always two-dimensional, since its constituents - brand image or personality and brand attitudes - are two different types of dimension of brand meaning. They can't be combined in a simple additive model.
Brand attitudes - representing the subjective brand - can be manipulated by marketers to strengthen the relationship between a brand and its consumers. Manipulating brand image has been one of the traditional tools of brand management, but the brand's attitudes have rarely been purposively managed. Managing image alone is not sufficient to strengthen the relationship and ensure brand loyalty, because most brand image characteristics can be associated with either positive or negative attitudes. Understanding this provides a whole new set of tools for marketing management.

We have studied the relationships of brands in categories as diverse as oral hygiene, financial institutions, retailers, and electric utilities. Relationships between consumers and brands representing deregulating monopolies are particularly fascinating, and I would like to illustrate one such example.

Because Brand Relationships are a two-dimensional measure of brand meaning, we always need to represent them as shown in Figure 3 - with the objective brand on one axis (in this case, the horizontal) and the subjective brand on the vertical. The types of dimension illustrated in Figure 3 are very typical of those of many ex- or not-yet-ex monopolies.

The personality of the brand is perceived either as authoritative - with associations of age and establishment status, power, and size - or as the 'hired help,' basic competence in a specific and limited sphere of activity. Both ends of this spectrum can contribute to positive brand relationships and to negative ones.

The brand's attitudes can be either responsive, giving the impression of a desire to provide a personalized service, of trying to anticipate customer needs, and of welcoming contact with the customer. Or it can be the exact opposite - none of the above.

At the intersection of the positive ends of these two dimensions, we find a relationship which is best termed 'admiration.' The relationship is characterized by a respect for the brand bordering on awe, mainly due to its prominence in the community. Because of its length of service - often as the only supplier - the way the brand does business defines the category in a way that brooks no alternative.

Authority can be a very strong basis for brand positioning because - as with other authority figures, like doctors, lawyers, and market research consultants - it creates a strong sense of dependence on the brand, the strongest form of brand loyalty. However, authority must be combined with a very positive attitude; otherwise it tends to be seen as authoritarian.

When the attitude of the brand is basically unknown - neither positive nor negative - a perceived authoritative positioning is regarded warily. There may be some respect, but there is little warmth in the relationship. Distant Respect is a type of relationship that varies from positive but cold to bordering on the negative.

And when authority is seen as impersonal, begrudging of any customer contact, maybe controlling and arrogant, then the relationship is as negative as it can get. People feel oppressed by a powerful and unsympathetic megalith that they cannot escape.

Back in the realm of 'good attitudes,' there is a brand positioning - neither authoritative nor servile - in which many business customers perceive themselves as in a 'partnership' role with the brand. This occurs when the brand has successfully established proactive programs directed at particular sectors or vertical markets.

For a great many customers, the brand is essentially just a service. Its attitudes are again unknown, neither good nor bad. It is probably true to say that customers who have this type of relationship with the brand have lower expectations or requirements than many others.

And finally, in the double-negative position, there are customers who because of the brand's lack of responsiveness, are not able to get even the minimal level of functionality they expect from it. It is true to say that most people with this type of relationship have extensive and lurid 'war stories' to recount.

Figure 4 shows how customers of this company were segmented between the six types of relationships I have described. The two most positive relationships, Admiration and Partnership, accounted for 25%, as did the two most negative, Dysfunction and Intimidation. The vast bulk of customers fell either into the service or distant-respect relationships.

It is interesting to note that while a third of the brand's customers see it as authoritative, only a minority of these are in an unequivocally positive relationship. Authority is a difficult positioning to pull off successfully these days. This is a challenge facing many old and venerable brands. More often now consumers expect a rational basis for a brand's authority. It cannot rely just on past performance, primacy, or longevity. If it is not supported by anything other than 'heritage,' the brand risks being perceived as over the hill, presumptuous, or just pompous.

The test of any segmentation scheme is whether it has some predictive value for behavior. In a partial or fully regulated monopoly situation, brand loyalty is of necessity a somewhat theoretical concept. However, as we have tracked such brands through progressive deregulation and increasing competition, we have found measures which are reasonably sensitive indicators of 'would-be' behavior. One such measure is used in Figure 5 to indicate the relative loyalty of these different relationship types.

What is notable in Figure 5 is the scale of difference between these different relationships. And if we go back to our relationship map, we can see that the major differences are between different parts of the vertical scale, the brand's attitude. You can have a good relationship either from a position of authority or as a peer - provided your attitude is excellent. You can even be servile and satisfactory - if your attitude is not bad.

There is a major implication here for marketing. Managing attitudes is not only vital to the development and maintenance of a strong brand relationship - it is often easier to change brand attitude than brand image. For most established brands, the brand image and personality have been developed over many years, with the investment of millions of dollars in advertising and other marketing programs. Imagine how much time and how much resources you might have to commit to changing that, if you now decide that your brand's image is wrong or not driving brand loyalty. If, however, you look at your brand's total relationship - including its attitudes - you may find that the problem, or the opportunity, lies in attitude, not image.

I started out with a plea for more attention to measuring brand meaning as a determinant of brand value, a focus on the means as well as the end. I think one of the biggest challenges facing brands is that of dilution of equity - loss of value - as a result of nonintentionally altering meaning. All the gurus of Brand Equity have come up with creative ways of measuring the leveragability, extendibility, co-brandability, but no one has yet come up with a predictive measure of dilution risk. Personally, I think there is no easy one-size-fits-all answer. What it comes down to is a thorough bottom-up understanding of what your brand's meaning is, what it can be, and what it cannot be.

Brand Meaning is a precious commodity. Like many of the world's resources, new sources of Brand Meaning may not be readily available. So, alongside the whales and the rain forests, I would urge the marketing community to put Brand Meaning conservation and management as its most pressing goal for the future.

ENDNOTE

This was originally a speech delivered at the ARF Brand Equity Workshop in February 1995.

http://www.warc.com

� Advertising Research Foundation