Brand image??

[Leftie]

I am trying to find out the dimensions that might be used to measure a brand image, as someone has suggested that a piece of technology I was developing for a completely different purpose might have a market in measuring brand image fairly cheaply and reliably. I thought I might give it a spin and develop a pilot version if I can just get an idea of how marketeers traditionally view brands.

Marketing is not my area, in fact it is all a bit of a black art to me. I am just a researcher but wondered if there are 'standard' dimensions that maketeers use when talking about and valuing brands?

The ones that spring to my mind are issues of quality, trustworthiness, VFM, reliability, 'greeness' , high-value, healthiness, eliteness, ethical, stability, longevity etc.

The www is crammed with marketing companies selling their wares and all having a different take on things and talking in their own slightly bizarre language.

I was given the 4 P's of Profit, Proberty, People and planet but can't get my head around whether thse 4 are all encompassing or just the latest sexy mneunomic. Amazon is full of books that look like they have been written by snake oil salesmen.

Anybody point me at the right dimensions or references?

[Golfman]

I am sure someone speaking a similar language spent £400k on the 2012 London Olympics logo… http://www.london2012.com/

[HiRich]

I held off posting in case someone came up with a magic formula I don't know about. But apparently they don't.

The only "common" measure I know is brand value - literally "how much would it cost to buy the Marlboro brand off Philip Morris". This is surveyed every year by one of the magazines.

There are other surveys that compare brand image (e.g. "Most respected brands&quot, but I'm pretty sure they all use an in-house system. And there are a host of different ways of defining and presenting brand image - every company seems to use different systems.

If I were devising a system to measure a particular brand, I would build a qualitative/quantitative questionnaire tailored to what I think is important. Much of it would be the "I strongly agree/disagree with this statement (score 1-5). Results can be compared to the competition, comparable brands (e.g. Apple and BMW), and year-on-year performance. Results can also be filtered for demographics, region, user/non-user. As the market changes, new modules (e.g. green credentials) can be bolted in. There will always be some tailoring. I can't see a system that could cover Apple, Marlboro and Waitrose.

I could see you building a universal framework with consistent questions across categories. Each brand would pick which modules to include and analyse (e.g. Marlboro would probably not be too interested in the "healthiness" module).

Modules I would consider including would be:

Brand Awareness: The name, the logo, the product, the advertising.
The list you have.
Affinity: Do users see this as a brand for them?
Comparison to other brands (same field, and other markets) against the measures above.
Comparison to activites: e.g. Do you see TVR sponsoring the Premier League? Do you associate Durex with Cosmopolitan magazine?

So I could see a position where you have maybe 50 modules/catgeories, comprising 500 sub-modules, each with a standard (or semi-standardised) questionnaire. Brand managers pick and choose which modules to use.

Output would be similarly standardised, but the accent will be on comparison:
- To competing brands (Apple-Microsoft)
- To sector (Glennfiddich to all scotch)
- Between brand and specific product (Toyota and Prius)
- To complementary brands (Glennfiddich to the Times and the Mirror)
- Population to sectors (do <20s have a different view of Apple from the population average? Users vs non-users?)

Outputs might be:
- The "Map of Antarctic" 360 degree map
- A two-axis scatter plot: Axes might be "Premium Value" and "Universal Relevance". Apple (users) appears as a dot (mean) with a ring (spread). Apple (non-users) also has a dot & ring, but is elsewhere on the scale. The Times might be near the Apple (users) spot. The Guardian might be right over the Apple (users). You choose the relevant axes, and which brands appear on the scatter.

I could then see a system where data is agglomerated. The brand manager orders a report by:
- Measures (trustworthiness, affinity, greenness, etc.)
- Demographic sectors (Females, age groups)
- Comparative brands to be included (Ford Focus, Ford Fiesta)
Another opportunity is that as well as asking for specifics (as above), the brand manager can ask you to seek convergence and divergence, e.g.:
- Brand image for Apple and The Guardian are very similar -> interesting marketing opportunity.
- <20s hate Toyota, >50s love it -> Toyota need to target >50s, or do remedial action on <20s
This is a feature not currently available (AFAIK). It relies on the BM having a hunch that Daily Mail readers buy SMEG cookers, but who would have a hunch that TVR owners are all iPod owners?

I hope that is of some help.

[mcflurry]

Leftie said:

I was given the 4 P's of Profit, Proberty, People and planet but can't get my head around whether thse 4 are all encompassing or just the latest sexy mneunomic.

In my day the 4 Ps' stood for product, price, place (distribution) and promotion

[Mattt]

mcflurry said:

Leftie said:

I was given the 4 P's of Profit, Proberty, People and planet but can't get my head around whether thse 4 are all encompassing or just the latest sexy mneunomic.

In my day the 4 Ps' stood for product, price, place (distribution) and promotion

In my day it stood for: Proper Preparation Prevents Piss Poor Performance.

Or maybe I can't count

[Leftie]

mcflurry said:

Leftie said:

I was given the 4 P's of Profit, Proberty, People and planet but can't get my head around whether thse 4 are all encompassing or just the latest sexy mneunomic.

In my day the 4 Ps' stood for product, price, place (distribution) and promotion

I think that is why they use it, you have an affinity for the brand!

[Leftie]

I was wondering which would be the more attractive to the marketing people:

something that was able to measure changes in their brand image without the need for focus groups, street surveys and telephone interviews OR

something that allowed them to compare their brand image with competitors? Or

BOTH in one package (more complex but do-able).

In terms of outputs I think they quite like visual images (a lot of 'visual' rather than feeling or thinking people in marketing?).

It has been suggested to me that some sort of Joharis window affair ('things we all know about the brand, things the customer knows but you don't, things you know but the customer doesn't and things neither of us know' like Donald Rumsfeld). The technology I am working on might be able to deliver the last (things neither of us knew about the brand).

[Leftie]

HiRich said:

I held off posting in case someone came up with a magic formula I don't know about. But apparently they don't.

The only "common" measure I know is brand value - literally "how much would it cost to buy the Marlboro brand off Philip Morris". This is surveyed every year by one of the magazines.

There are other surveys that compare brand image (e.g. "Most respected brands&quot, but I'm pretty sure they all use an in-house system. And there are a host of different ways of defining and presenting brand image - every company seems to use different systems.

If I were devising a system to measure a particular brand, I would build a qualitative/quantitative questionnaire tailored to what I think is important. Much of it would be the "I strongly agree/disagree with this statement (score 1-5). Results can be compared to the competition, comparable brands (e.g. Apple and BMW), and year-on-year performance. Results can also be filtered for demographics, region, user/non-user. As the market changes, new modules (e.g. green credentials) can be bolted in. There will always be some tailoring. I can't see a system that could cover Apple, Marlboro and Waitrose.

I could see you building a universal framework with consistent questions across categories. Each brand would pick which modules to include and analyse (e.g. Marlboro would probably not be too interested in the "healthiness" module).

Modules I would consider including would be:

Brand Awareness: The name, the logo, the product, the advertising.
The list you have.
Affinity: Do users see this as a brand for them?
Comparison to other brands (same field, and other markets) against the measures above.
Comparison to activites: e.g. Do you see TVR sponsoring the Premier League? Do you associate Durex with Cosmopolitan magazine?

So I could see a position where you have maybe 50 modules/catgeories, comprising 500 sub-modules, each with a standard (or semi-standardised) questionnaire. Brand managers pick and choose which modules to use.

Output would be similarly standardised, but the accent will be on comparison:
- To competing brands (Apple-Microsoft)
- To sector (Glennfiddich to all scotch)
- Between brand and specific product (Toyota and Prius)
- To complementary brands (Glennfiddich to the Times and the Mirror)
- Population to sectors (do <20s have a different view of Apple from the population average? Users vs non-users?)

Outputs might be:
- The "Map of Antarctic" 360 degree map
- A two-axis scatter plot: Axes might be "Premium Value" and "Universal Relevance". Apple (users) appears as a dot (mean) with a ring (spread). Apple (non-users) also has a dot & ring, but is elsewhere on the scale. The Times might be near the Apple (users) spot. The Guardian might be right over the Apple (users). You choose the relevant axes, and which brands appear on the scatter.

I could then see a system where data is agglomerated. The brand manager orders a report by:
- Measures (trustworthiness, affinity, greenness, etc.)
- Demographic sectors (Females, age groups)
- Comparative brands to be included (Ford Focus, Ford Fiesta)
Another opportunity is that as well as asking for specifics (as above), the brand manager can ask you to seek convergence and divergence, e.g.:
- Brand image for Apple and The Guardian are very similar -> interesting marketing opportunity.
- <20s hate Toyota, >50s love it -> Toyota need to target >50s, or do remedial action on <20s
This is a feature not currently available (AFAIK). It relies on the BM having a hunch that Daily Mail readers buy SMEG cookers, but who would have a hunch that TVR owners are all iPod owners?

I hope that is of some help.

That is great, I hadn't thought about the similar brand image. Advertising sellers would obviously love that as it doesn't require detailed sector knowledge, just brand similarity.

I have some pilots planned for the Autumn with a university to see if we can force a shift in the image we are measuring by giving students case stuidies of a brand, then introducing things that might impact (like job losses, a health scare like Cadburys, an environmnetal issue like BP or a political issue like the sabre rattling in Russia over oil fields like Shell) to see how it shifts.

[mc_blue]

HiRich does it once again!

[HiRich]

Leftie said:

I was wondering which would be the more attractive to the marketing people:

something that was able to measure changes in their brand image without the need for focus groups, street surveys and telephone interviews OR

something that allowed them to compare their brand image with competitors? Or

BOTH in one package (more complex but do-able).

I'm intrigued that you can measure brand image without these research methods, or perhaps you mean commissioning them themselves. If the latter, you should be aware that there are independent lifestyle surveys, that marketeers can buy parts of. These surveys define a demographic for each person (age, gender, ABC1C2DE group, life stage, etc.), then ask more about what they buy:
- Do you buy Ketchup?
- What brand?
- 1 bottle a year? 10 bottles a year?
Marketeers can then buy cross-comparisons, and identify that women who shop at Waitrose buy much more ketchup than those at Asda, are more likely to read Country Life than the Sun, etc.
A brand image version of this would be very appealing, I think.

However, image can't really be measured as an absolute, like price. A score of 50 on "trustworthiness" doesn't mean much unless you have something to compare it with (up 5 points on 2006; 40 points behind the market leader).

So I'd suggest you focus on getting one part right - I'm guessing that would be the first, as that's probably the heart of your idea, and the easiest to get up and running. But protect & develop the other. When the business has grown such that you can now analyse 10 lagers instead of 2, it's a minor tweak then just input the extra data.

Leftie said:

In terms of outputs I think they quite like visual images (a lot of 'visual' rather than feeling or thinking people in marketing?).

Definitely. Markeeers like PowerPoint. Marketing Directors prefer not to see reams of text slides.
The ideal would be a relevant chart/visual, with bullet point commentary.
Without understanding your system, I would suggest you tailor it to produce almost any graphic format. There are so many different ways of expressing data (every company has a different way). So the more flexibility you give them the better chance they have of presenting it in the most effective method (whether they want to illustrate a point or mask it!):
- So you don't just offer the standard Joharis. You allow similar formats - "What we offer, what the customer wants", "What we say, what the customer hears", etc.
- There might be a USP in there for you. Rather than sending them a final report (which doesn't quite tell them what they want to know), you issue a CD with reader-graphing application (that exports jpgs) and an encrypted datafile that includes the semi-processed data. They can then use the app to custom-build the graphic they want, and can add their own information (e.g. the "where we want to be" curve)

As an example here, I have a table on the purchaser profile for a particular product. It tells me the male-female split, age ranges, demographics, family status, children, etc., etc. However, I'm only interested in the data for females and particular ages. I can assume the profiles for male and female are the same and interpolate it that way, but it is possible that the female profile is significantly different (and I suspect it is). I either work with suspect data, or pay a huge sum to get more specific data. It's a critical decision for the business, and I'd be very interested in something that gave me the flexibility to tailor the data, look at different aspects, and present it clearly.

Leftie said:

It has been suggested to me that some sort of Joharis window affair ('things we all know about the brand, things the customer knows but you don't, things you know but the customer doesn't and things neither of us know' like Donald Rumsfeld). The technology I am working on might be able to deliver the last (things neither of us knew about the brand).

I could see this being useful, but as I said above, flexibility is key. What we're looking for are insights - nuggets of information about what the customer is thinking. A true Joharis may not identify or present that insight well enough for it to be apparent. But a subtle variation on the theme might.
I would suggest you build an ongoing list of chart types, and their sub-variations, then look for ways to make your system output them. When you have customers, ask them for ideas, and build them in.

One final observation - interpretation of the data is almost as important as the actual data. All outputs will need a human pass to identfy the insights. I would expect that you will need to employ a team of statisticians to do this, as I doubt a computer will be able to. They will have to look for statistical anomalies (large spreads, unreliable sample sizes, etc.) and might be also do the interpretation for the Client (perhaps as a premium service?)