CHAPTER 9:

MEASURING SOURCES OF BRAND EQUITY:

EQUITY
CAPURING CUSTOMER MINDSET

D S Hwang
From Kevin Lane Keller

9.1
 Qualitative Research Techniques
q

„ Free association
„ What do you like best about the brand? What are its
positive
i i aspects??
„ What do you dislike? What are its disadvantages?

„ What do you find unique about the brand? How is it

different from other brands? In what ways is it the
same?

9.2
 Free Associations
ATTRIBUTES
User Imagery Usage Imagery
Western, American,
Western American
Product-Related Appropriate for outdoor
blue collar, hard-working,
Blue denim, shrink-to-fit traditional, strong, work and casual social
cotton fabric, button-fly,
y rugged,
gg and masculine situations
two-horse patch,
Brand Personality
and small red pocket tag
Honest, classic,
LEVI’S Contemporary, approachable,
independent, and universal
501
High quality, long lasting,
and durable Feelings of self-confidence
andd self-assurance
lf
Functional Comfortable fitting
and relaxing to wear Symbolic
Experiential
9.3
BENEFITS
Qualitative Research Techniques
„ Projective techniques
„ Diagnostic
g tools to uncover the true opinions
p and
feelings of consumers when they are unwilling or
otherwise unable to express
p themselves on these
matters

9.4
 Projective Techniques
q

„ Consumers might feel that it would be socially

unacceptable to express their true feelings
„ Projective techniques are diagnostic tools to
uncover the true opinions
p and feelings
g of
consumers
„ Examples:
„ Completion and interpretation tasks
„ Comparison tasks

9.5
 New approach: ZMET
„ Zaltman Metaphor Elicitation Technique
((ZMET))
„ ZMET is “a technique for eliciting
interconnected constructs that influence thought
and behavior.”

9.6
 ZMET
„ Th guided
The id d conversation
i consists
i off a series
i off steps
that includes some or all of the following:
„ Story telling
„ Missed images
„ Sortingg task
„ Construct elicitation
„ The most representative picture
„ O
Oppositei iimages
„ Sensory images
„ Mental map
„ Summary image
„ Vignette

9.7
 Brand Personality and Values
„ Brand personality refers to the human characteristics
or traits
i that
h can b be attributed
ib d to a b
brand.
d
„ The Bigg Five
„ Sincerity (down-
(down-to-to-earth, wholesome, and cheerful)
„ Excitement
E it t (daring,
(d i spirited,
i it d imaginative,
i i ti andd up-
up-to
t -
to-
date)
„ Competence (reliable, intelligent, and successful)

„ Sophistication (upper class and charming)

„ Ruggedness (outdoorsy and tough)

JJennifer Aaker, 1997

9.8
 Identifying Key Brand Personality
Associations
BUSH KERRY
„ Coffee Dunkin’ Donuts Starbucks
„ Technology IBM Apple
„ Auto Ford BMW
„ Retail Kmart Target
„ Fast Food McDonald’s Subway

2004 U.S. presidential election, random sample of undecided voters

9.9
 Experiential Methods
„ By tapping more directly into their actual home, work,
or shopping behaviors, researchers might be able to
elicit more meaningful responses from consumers.
„ Advocates of the experiential
p approach
pp have sent
researchers to consumers’ homes in the morning to see
how they approach their days, given business travelers
Polaroid cameras and diaries to capture their feelings
when in hotel rooms, and conducted “beeper studies”
in which participants are instructed to write down what
they’re doing when they are paged.

9.10
 Quantitative Research Techniques
q

„ Awareness
„ Image
„ Brand responses
„ Brand relationships

9.11
 Awareness
„ Recognition
g
„ Ability of consumers to identify the brand (and its
elements) under various circumstances
„ Recall
„ Ability of consumers to retrieve the actual brand
elements from memory
„ Unaided vs. aided recall

9.12
 Awareness
„ C
Corrections
i ffor guessing
i
„ Any research measure must consider the issue of consumers
making up responses or guessing
guessing.
„ Strategic implications
„ The advantage
d nt ge of aided
ided recall
re ll measures
me s res is that
th t they
the yield
ield
insight into how brand knowledge is organized in memory
and what kind of cues or reminders may be necessary for
consumers to be able to retrieve the brand from memory.
„ The important point to note is that the category structure that
exists
i t iin consumers’
m r ’ minds—
minds
mi d —as reflected
r fl t d by
b br
brandd rrecallll
performance—
performance —can have profound implications for consumer
choice and marketingg strategy.
gy

9.13
 Image
g

„ Ask open-
open-ended questions to tap into the
strength, favorability, and uniqueness of brand
associations.
i ti
„ These associations should be rated on scales for
quantitative analysis.

9.14
 Brand Responses
p

„ Research in psychology suggests that purchase

intentions are most likelyy to be predictive
p of actual
purchase when there is correspondence between the
two in the following categories:
„ Purchase Intentions
„ Action ((buying
y g for own use or to give
g as a gift)
g )
„ Target (specific type of product and brand)
„ Context (in what type of store based on what prices and
other conditions)
„ Time (within a week, month, or year)

9.15
 Brand Relationships
p

„ Behavioral loyalty
„ Brand substitutability
„ Other brand resonance dimensions
„ For example
example, in terms of engagement
engagement, measures
could explore word-
word-of-
of-mouth behavior, online
behavior and so forth in depth
behavior,

9.16
 Comprehensive
p Models of
Customer--Based Brand Equity
Customer
„ Brand dynamics
„ E it engines
Equity i
„ Youngg & Rubicam’s Brand Asset Valuator (BAV)
( )

9.17
 Brand Dynamics
„ Th Brand
The d Dynamics model
d l adopts
d a
hierarchical approach to determine the strength
of relationship a consumer has with a brand.
„ The five levels of the model are:
„ Presence
„ Relevance
„ Performance
„ Advantage
„ Bonding

9.18
 Equity Engines
„ This model delineates three key dimensions of brand
affinity—
affinity—the emotional and intangible benefits of a
brand—
brand —as follows:
„ Authority: The reputation of a brand, whether as a long-
long-
standing leader or as a pioneer in innovation
„ Identification: The closeness customers feel for a brand and
h wellll they
how h ffeell the
h bbrand
d matches
h their
h i personall needs
d
„ Approval: The way a brand fits into the wider social matrix
and the intangible status it holds for experts and friends

9.19
 Young & Rubicam’s Brand Asset
Valuator (BAV)
„ Th are five
There fi keyk components off brand
b d health
h l h in
i
BAV—
BAV —the five pillars.
„ E h pillar
Each ill iis dderived
i d ffrom various
i measures that
h relate
l
to different aspects of consumers’ brand perceptions
and that together trace the progression of a brand
brand’ss
development.
„ Differentiation
„ Energy
„ Relevance
„ Esteem
„ Knowledgeg

9.20
 BrandAsset® Valuator (BAV)

„ 240 000+ consumers

240,000+
„ Up to 181 categories
„ 137 studies
„ 40 countries
„ 8 years
„ 56 different
diff t brand
b d
metrics
„ Common methodology

9.21
 How Brands Are Built

Four Primary Aspects

• The culmination of brand building efforts;
Knowledge acquisition of consumer experience

• Consumer respect, regard, reputation; a

Esteem fulfillment of perceived consumer promise

• Relates to usage and subsumes the five Ps of

Relevance marketing; relates to sale

Differentiation • The basis for consumer choice; the essence of

the brand, source of margin

9.22
 Healthyy Brands Have Greater
Differentiation than Relevance
100 D>R
90

80 E
Examples:
l
70

60
Harley Davidson
50
Yahoo!
40
AOL
30
Williams-Sonoma
20
Ikea
10
Bloomberg Business News
0
Differentiation Relevance

Room to grow...
B
Brand
dhhas power tto b
build
ild relevance.
l
9.23
Brands with greater Relevance than Differentiation
Are in Danger of Becoming Commodities

100 R>D
90

80 E
Examples:
l
70

60
Exxon
50
Mott’s
40
McDonald’s
30
Crest
20
Minute Maid
10
Fruit of the Loom
0
Differentiation Relevance Peter Pan (peanut butter)

Uniqueness has faded; price becomes

dominant reason to buy.
9.24
 More Esteem than Knowledge g Means,, “I’d
like to get to know you better”

100 E>K
90

80 E mples
Examples:
70

60 Coach leatherwear
50 Tag Heuer
40 Calphalon
30 Movado
20 Blaupunkt
10 Pella Windows
0
Palm Pilot
Esteem Knowledge
Technics

Brand is better liked than known.

9.25
 Too Much Knowledge Can Be Dangerous:
“I know you and you’re nothing special”

100 K>E
90

80
Examples:
70

60
Plymouth
50
TV Guide
40 Spam
30 Woolworths
20 Chrysler
y
10 Maxwell House
0 National Enquirer
Esteem Knowledge
g Sanka

Brand is better known than liked.

9.26
A Two-
Two-Dimensional Framework for Diagnosing
Brands: The Power Grid

BrandAsset® Valuator

Brand Strength Brand Stature

Differentiation Relevance Esteem Knowledge

Leading Lagging

9.27
Brand Health Is Captured
p on the
PowerGrid
Power Leaders
Niche/
Unrealized Potential

Relevance))
Declining
Leaders
NGTH
Differentiaation and R
D STREN

Eroded
BRAND

New

Unfocused
(D

BRAND STATURE
Base: USA Total Adults BAV 2000
(Esteem and Knowledge) 9.28
 USA 1999 PowerGrid Sample
p
100

Arizona Iced Tea Coca-Cola

Coca-
Aeropostale Ocean Spray
Newman’s Own Nike
80 Sundance Channel Pepperidge Farm
DreamWorks M&Ms
ENGTH
H
Bloomberg Business Disney
News Jeopardy!
60
CDnow Hallmark
ND STRE

IKEA
San Pellegrino Plymouth
40 Sun Microsystems Bazooka
BRAN

Wired Ivory Snow

Quest Telecomm Pert
Nokia Rolaids
20
iVillage.com
g Keds
NetGrocer Howard Johnson
Iridium TWA
Greyhound
0
0 20 40 60 80 100

Base: USA Total Adults BAV 1999 BRAND STATURE

9.29
 Y&R Resonance Research
Resonance
ACE
(10%)

Community Engagement
15%

Attachment (30%)

Loyalty (60%)

Usage

Base: 2001 BAV Data

9.30
Y&R Resonance Research with BAV
Resonance

100 Resonance
Engaged
Community
Attached
Engaged
Loyal
Differentiation

C
Community
Brand Strrength

Non-Loyals

50 Attached

Loyal Users

Non Loyal Users

Non-Loyal

0
0 50 100
Brand Stature

9.31
Base: BAV USA Adults 2001
Average U.S. Packaged Goods Brand
Proportion Consumer
of Consumers Loyalty

7% 38%
Bonded

32% 20%
Advantage

35% 19%
Performance

43% 17%
Relevance

76% 13%
Presence
9.32
Commonalty Between the Basic BAV
Model and the CBBE Framework
„ BAV’ knowledge
BAV’s k l d relates
l to CBBE’s
CBBE’ brand
b d awareness
and familiarity.
„ BAV’ esteem relates
BAV’s l to CBBE’
CBBE’s ffavorability
bili off bbrand
d
associations.
„ BAV’ relevance
BAV’s l relates
l to CBBE’s
CBBE’ strength h off brand
b d
associations (as well as perhaps favorability).
„ BAV’ energy relates
BAV’s l to CBBE’s
CBBE’ favorability
f bili off
associations.
„ BAV’ differentiation
BAV’s diff i i relates l to CBBE’
CBBE’s uniqueness
i off
brand associations.

9.33