Millward Brown Perspectives. Volume 6: Issue 2

PerspectivesVOLUME 6 | ISSUE 2

Inthisedition
Volume 6, Issue 2
Can Marketing and Research Become Better by Design?
Point of View
Published Articles
Knowledge Points
Amazon Tops Walmart in Ranking of Most Valuable Brands
Why China’s Changing Media Landscape is an Opportunity to Build Brands
Marketing to Diversity: Lessons from US Politics
SXSW Interactive 8 Top Trends of 2013
What’s Behind the BrandZ Top 100 Ranking and Seemingly Unbeatable Apple?
It Works for Coca-Cola and Google and it Can Work for You Too
Advertising: How to Maximize the Long-Term Effects
Why is it Always Price Before Volume?
Understanding the Brand Impact of Mobile Advertising
Social Measurement Depends on Data Quantity and Quality
Marketing Cars: Change Media Gear
Navigating the New Path to Purchase
The Power of Being Meaningful, Different and Salient
What Does ‘Meaningfully Different’ Actually Mean?
Relentlessly Relevant Brands
What’s in a Name? How to Name a Company in the Global Economy
How Do I Use Online Video Effectively in my Campaign?
Tracking at the Crossroads
Delivering a Meaningful Brand Promise
Digital: The Power and the Peril
Characteristics of a Passionate Brand
Digital & Media Predicitions 2013
Optimizing Ads: Is Less Always More?
Effective Advertising: Harnessing the Power of Creativity
Reports of Apple’s Demise are Largely Exaggerated
The Joy of Six
Acknowledgements

Key to the rise of design has been the growing
understanding that successful design is user-
centric—that is, a product or service must be
optimized around the needs of the people who are
going to use it. This focus on the needs of the end
user has helped design become a factor not only
in the development of products, but also services,
organizational structures, and brands.
At its best, design encompasses form and function,
utility and aesthetic appeal. The power of good design as a means to create
value is epitomized by the success of Apple. The visual and tactile appeal of
Apple’s simple, intuitive products has helped Apple become the most valuable
brand in the world, according to the 2013 BrandZTM
Top 100 Most Valuable
Global Brands Ranking. Similarly, good design lies at the heart of the success
of Amazon, where it enables both operational efficiencies and a positive
shopping experience.
Market research has something in common with the field of design. Like
designers, market researchers set out to uncover insights into human behavior
that are relevant to client objectives. And like designers, market researchers
rely on research. (Designers might say they are making “observations,” but
their observations are, essentially, ethnographic research.)
Thoughthesesimilaritiesexist,thefortunesofdesignandmarketresearchhave
gone in opposite directions in recent years, and marketing, the discipline that
depends on market research, has struggled as well. We all know the statistics:
most new products fail, most viral videos go nowhere, and click-through rates
are laughably low. Is it any wonder that a study by the Fournaise Marketing
Group finds that 73 percent of CEOs think marketers lack business credibility
and fail to drive financial growth?
MARKETING AND RESEARCH: DIVIDED WE FALL
I believe that one issue underlying many of the problems faced by marketing
is the approach that marketers and researchers take to teamwork and
collaboration. Contrasting marketers’approach with that of designers may be
useful.
In the design process, the same group of people is involved from the definition
oftheproblemthroughideation,insight,andimplementation.Thecontinuous
involvement of the same team of designers creates a seamless process and
ensures that the insight remains central to the implementation.
By contrast, the practice of marketing is often distanced from the research
function that ought to enable its success, and different developmental
stages often involve different people. This can result in misunderstandings,
inefficiency, and a dilution of purpose. What
starts off as a racehorse of an idea often ends
up looking like a camel of a product.
In my experience, the most successful
research projects are those that involve the
same team of people during the discovery,
analysis, and implementation phases. Bringing
together multiple stakeholders with different
backgrounds and expertise helps minimize the
effects of personal bias. It also helps ensure
commitment when a final solution is implemented. To shift toward this type
of approach will take time and effort, and there will be a cost involved. But if
marketers and researchers learn to work more like designers, the result will be
more effective implementation of new and valuable marketing initiatives.
DESIGN THINKING: WHAT’S IN IT FOR US?
What else can marketers and researchers gain from studying the example
of designers? Besides their collaborative methodology, is there something
genuinely distinct about their approach to problem solving? What are the
hallmarks of “design thinking,” and do they have any applicability to our
disciplines?
Make it your business
Never delegate understanding.
– American designer Charles Eames
Like many creative people, the influential modern designer Charles Eames is
reputed to have avoided the “market research” of his time. But I take Eames’
command to mean that, whether you employ researchers or not, if you don’t
have a thorough understanding of a need and its context, you will reduce
your chances of implementing an effective solution.
One of the biggest problems facing marketing and consumer insight today
is the expectation that “insight” is the responsibility of a specific department
or agency. If we learn anything at all from design thinking, it should be that
without all the stakeholders–and particularly marketing–being involved in
the definition of the central question, the risk that research investment is
wasted will be high. If you do not really understand what question needs
to be addressed, your research is all too likely to produce vast amounts of
information and very little understanding or action.
The practice of
marketing is often
distanced from the
research function
that ought to enable
its success
NIGEL HOLLIS
Chief Global Analyst
Millward Brown
POINT OF VIEW
CanMarketingandResearch
BecomeBetterbyDesign?
Over the last decade, the importance of design has
grown beyond the traditional concept of making
an artifact look good to take a more central role in
business, academia, and government.

Ask stupid questions
Question: How many designers will it take to screw in a light bulb?
Answer: Why a light bulb?
– from a review of design thinking in Fast Company
The quip above may be funny, but it contains more than a grain of truth.
An open, curious, and questioning mindset characterizes design thinking.
Designers don’t accept a brief at face value; they step back and ensure that
the definition of the problem is correct. Don Norman, in his article“Rethinking
Design Thinking,” suggests that there is great power in the ability to ask
“stupid” questions, the ones that no one inside an organization would ask
because they are blinded by what seems obvious. A friend of mine who works
in new product development confirms this, saying,“Designers go back to zero
– minus five, even – and work to re-envisage and reengineer, not just amend
what already exists.”
Are consumer researchers equally willing to step back and look at the big
picture? We researchers are a challenging and curious bunch, but we may be
too quick to accept the premise that is offered to us. That is, instead of asking
“Why a light bulb?”we may be more likely to ask“What type of light bulb?”We
need to be brave enough to ask the stupid questions and to keep on doing so
until we get good answers.
Fully understand your customer
To create good designs, you first have to understand people—what
they need, want and enjoy, as well as how they think and behave.
– Bill Moggridge, co-founder of IDEO
Designersputhumanneedsatthecenteroftheirapproachtoproblemsolving.
ButBillMoggridgecautionshumandesignersaboutassumingtoomuchabout
their human end users.“They will probably be surprisingly different from you,”
he said, “so it will only be by understanding them that you can avoid the trap
of designing for yourself.”
Marketers and researchers also strive to understand people, but we need to go
beyond their behaviors to understand their underlying motivations if we are to
build meaningful and well-differentiated brands. So we need to ask ourselves:
Do we really know the people who use our brands, not just as people to be
sold to but as people to be served? And if not, how will we go about getting
to know them?
Designers tend to rely solely on observation to gain insights and so risk
misinterpreting why people behave as they do. By contrast, researchers have
traditionallygravitatedtowardaskingquestions,usingverbalorwrittenprobes
to understand attitudes and behavior. Ideally we would combine observation
of both physical and digital behavior with questions designed to elucidate
these behaviors. New tools such as facial coding and other implicit techniques
can add a deeper understanding, which is particularly useful when people
may not be able to vocalize why they do something. Our job as researchers
is to draw on the combination of methods that can best help us understand
people’s motivations and instinctive responses.
Embrace your constraints
One of the most interesting design tensions today is between
cost constraints - especially given the economic crisis - and
sustainability constraints, or the impact on the natural
environment. Some of the most attractive design solutions are
driven by both constraints.
– Tim Brown, CEO of IDEO, Interviewed for strategy+business by Art
Kleine
All design is about working within constraints. No one should know that
better than those who design research projects. What can we use as stimulus
material? What interview methodology is feasible? What budget do we have?
Designers understand that constraints help produce better solutions, even
when the constraints are budgetary. That understanding applies equally well
to marketing and research. None of us have the budget we think we need. But
constraints go far deeper than mere budgets. Marketers are constrained by
people’s ability to appreciate their offer. Time after time, failed “innovations”
prove that it is truly difficult to get people to adopt new habits. Brands that
are not aligned with consumers’ experience and expectations—even if they
offer real health benefits or are environmentally friendly—are not going to
succeed.
Make it tangible
Stupid question: What’s the difference between the outcome of a
design process and the outcome of a consumer research project?
The simple answer, which may evoke the response“So what?”, is that a design
process produces something tangible, such as a package, product, or process,
while a research project doesn’t. Research delivers potential. The ideas and
insights we present will have value only if they are acted upon.
Too often the potential of research is not realized. So how can we increase
the chances that our marketing insights will be acted upon? We can work to
convey our research findings through something more tangible than a slide
presentation. At the very least, we can weave our facts and findings into a
compellingstory. ButwemightalsogobeyondPowerPointtomoreexperiential
methods. For example, we might try to engage our audience in a task, such as
drawing up a map of the consumer path to purchase, brainstorming scenarios
usingPost-it®Notes,orpresentingthekeyresearchfindingintheformofaslice
of cake. Above all, we must move people beyond superficial head-nodding to
deeply felt understanding.
BACK TO THE FUTURE
In writing this Point of View, I have been dogged by the feeling that some of
the practices outlined above were once regarded as accepted best practices.
Maybe for some companies they still are, but I suspect that for the majority
they are not. Why? Because the business of marketing has become overly
siloed, fragmented, and data driven. At a time when researchers have more
tools than ever to help create insight in a timely manner, we are faced with an
evenbiggerchallenge—howtopromulgateunderstandingandinspireaction.
Maybe the most important thing we can take away from design thinking is
the fundamental question:“Does it have to be this way?”
POINT OF VIEW
CanMarketingandResearch
BecomeBetterbyDesign?

Perhaps the answer lies in a need for short-term
results brought about by shareholder pressure,
a “now” mentality that needs to see results
yesterday, along with a business culture in which
people advance quickly through positions,
creating a lack of continuity in senior marketing
roles.
Whatever the cause, the result is a disconnect
between short-term volume boosts driven by
price cutting (which are easily and immediately
measured), and the long-term brand investment
that can sustain a price premium and secure
margins. We have consistently seen, even during
recessions, that consumers are willing to pay
more for brands that they perceive are worth it.
That is one reason why the share price of the most
valuable brands consistently outperforms the S&P
500, even during tough economic times. In fact,
during the 2008 global recession the value of the top 100 brands increased
by 2 percent to $2 trillion.
While pressure from key stakeholders may be considerable, marketers should
not make pricing decisions based on short-term targets. Rather, they should
invest in research to quantify the role of price in their long-term brand
strategies. The understanding gained will result in much better-informed
pricing decisions.
PRICE ASSOCIATIONS CAN GENERATE DEMAND
Most marketers acknowledge that strong brands benefit from positive brand
associations in the minds of consumers. However, associations with price
are often considered separately from other equity-driving perceptions; price
is frequently seen as a different type of influence. But as Gordon Pincott
argued in his Point of View “Brand Equity: What’s Price Got to Do with it?”,
perceptions of price can in fact be a critical part of the association set that
determines brand equity and the resulting long-term volume demand.
In the UK airline category, for
example, we have found that
associations relating to low cost
(such as offering more acceptable
prices and offering good deals
and promotions) are the second
most important group of brand
associations for generating
demand. This importance is driven
by the low-cost airlines such as
easyJet.
However, in spite of the fact that low price is a key factor in generating
demand, there are some brands that won’t benefit from an association with
low price. For example, for Singapore Airlines, demand is generated by the
associations of exclusivity supported by perceptions of high price. There are
also some brands that need to avoid strong associations with either high or
low prices; British Airways is an example.The airline needs to avoid too strong
an association with high prices in order to maintain volume demand for
cheaper European hops, but it must also maintain some sense of exclusivity
to support demand for long-haul business and first-class flights.
Brand ASSOCIATIONS CAN SUPPORT A PRICE PREMIUM
Even when marketers recognize that price perceptions may have a role
in securing volume demand in the long term, they often still fail to ask
themselves what mix of brand associations will best justify a premium price
point for their brand. When trying to measure and build brand equity they
still default to drivers of preference and volume. But for many brands, the
main financial return delivered by brand equity is the ability to charge a
price premium. To ensure the long-term financial health of these brands,
managers must understand and manage
the associations that support this ability.
Though there is some overlap between
the brand associations that generate
volume demand and those that support
a price premium, the optimum brand
strategies for each task will rarely be
identical. We generally find that the best
way to drive volume demand is to build
very strong associations with core category needs, whereas to justify a price
premium, brands usually need to go beyond core needs to show that they
offer a meaningful difference—that they are unique or a step ahead of the
competition in some way.
They may do this by offering exclusive product features or cutting-edge
innovation; often, however, a brand may establish a meaningful difference
that justifies a price premium through establishing intangible associations
that are unique to them. With British Airways, for example, the sense of
connection that their customers feel with one another makes the brand
stand out from other airlines, thus making consumers willing to pay more.
If brand owners continue to design their strategies solely around what
drives volume demand while ignoring the perceptions that can defend a
price premium, they will inevitably struggle to justify high price points,
and even if the brand penetration grows, profits will suffer. Consequently,
Millward Brown has developed two metrics to measure equity: “Power,” to
measure the equity that delivers volume; and “Premium,” to measure the
equity that justifies a higher price. Using the concepts represented by Power
and Premium, you can understand your brand’s situation and shape and
optimize your pricing strategy.
For many brands, the
main financial return
delivered by brand
equity is the ability to
charge a price premium
Rachel Leaver
UK Head of Marketing Science
Josh Samuel
European Development Director
Brand Equity
Point of View
WhyisitAlwaysVolume
BeforePrice?
It has been 10 years since McKinsey published proof that
a price increase of 1 percent will produce an 8 percent
increase in profit, assuming that all other things remain
equal. So why are companies ignoring this and focusing on
chasing volume instead of securing margins through well-
informed pricing strategies?

DETERMINE PRICING STRATEGY USING BOTH POWER AND PREMIUM
Figure 1 illustrates the possible relationships between Power and Premium
scores and shows how a brand’s standing on these dimensions can help
to identify a pricing strategy. For a brand like easyJet, Power far exceeds
Premium; thus it would sit in the lower right-hand box. A brand in this
position would be right to maintain its primary focus on driving volume
(both through equity-driven demand and in-market deals).
However, brands like Singapore Airlines, which are low on Power and high
on Premium, would sit in the top left-hand box. Brands like these deliver
returns by charging a premium price; thus they should keep their price high
and focus on building the associations that will justify that premium.
Plotting brands on the Power/Premium axes can help managers of brand
portfolios ensure that each brand occupies a different position. If we looked
at Unilever brands in the U.S. shampoo market, for example, we would see
Nexus occupy the top left-hand corner, meaning that it can continue to
position itself as a premium brand. Suave, which targets the value shopper,
would be situated in the lower right-hand box.
Dove and TRESemmé would be right in the middle. Brands in this position
couldconceivablybemovedtowardmorepremiumormorevalue-for-money
positions.To do this, they would have to increase relevant brand associations
and possibly adjust their prices while taking care that the brands remain
differentiated from other Unilever offerings.
Don’t accept the status quo
A brand’s position on the Power/Premium plot is not necessarily its destiny.
As discussed earlier, the key is to understand which image associations can
generate volume demand and which ones justify a price premium, and then
feed that information into your brand strategy.
Specifically, you should follow these steps:
Having gone through this process, you are in a position to tailor a brand
strategy and communications plan that supports your chosen pricing
strategy.
Actual in-market pricing
Finally,onceyouhaveselectedapricingstrategyandtailoredcommunication
to support it, you need to understand the in-market price points that any
given product variant or SKU can command. A conjoint or econometric sales
model will provide you with the tools to answer this question by pinpointing
the prices and promotions to use to obtain your sales and profit targets.
Too often this type of analysis is done with the objective of deciding what
tactics to use to meet short-term targets. The overall brand strategy is not
kept in view; hence the current situation of short-term price cutting and
possible negative impact on the brand. However, this information, combined
with your overall brand-building strategy, will provide you with concrete
facts and a strategic plan with which to negotiate terms and build good
relationships with suppliers and/or retailers, while supporting the long-term
success of your business.
Conclusion
All too often, pricing decisions are made for specific products based only
on a consideration of the short-term return that different price points will
deliver. And even when price is considered as a key feed into long-term
brand equity, the focus is usually on the impact this future equity will have
on volume demand. There has been a lack of emphasis on the role of brand
equity in supporting a price premium, and hence potential for further profit
has been lost.
A holistic understanding of the most suitable pricing strategy for a brand
can only come with an understanding of the brand’s dual roles: generating
volume and supporting a price premium. Only with that understanding can
we make informed decisions about specific price points that will optimize
both short-term volume and long-term brand health.
When you combine all of these elements in your approach to pricing, you
are in a good place to deliver long- and short-term sales targets while at the
same time reassuring all stakeholders that your strategy is based on solid
research and facts.
Point of View
WhyisitAlwaysVolume
BeforePrice?
Identify the images that contribute most to generating volume
demand and justifying a price premium in your category, as well
as those that may be uniquely important to your brand
Understand the current strength of associations for your brand
in these areas. Is there room to increase them?
Consider the feasibility of your brand owning one or more of
these associations and actually communicating them.
1
2
3
Power Premium Brands
Underperforming Brands
Premium Brands
Value Brands
POWER
PREMIUM
Keep price high Keep price high
Use tactical price promotions
to drive additional volume
Keep price lowRefocus brand
Best returns at high price point Good returns at any price point
Lower returns at any price point Best returns at low price point
Figure 1: Pricing Rules Based on Power and Premium

But for those of us behind the wheel of
continuous tracking, that’s how it feels at the
moment. We are still moving forward well enough,
but signs we pass along the road are warning of
tough conditions ahead. Are the wheels really
going to fall off around the next bend?
THE DRIVE SO FAR
Continuous tracking was invented by Maurice
Millward and Gordon Brown in the 1970s to address
specific client questions. Clients commissioned our early studies because they
needed insight and actionable advice about marketplace events, such as the
launch of new competitors or the start of new advertising campaigns, and
continuous tracking enabled them to make informed marketing decisions
that helped grow their brands.
In time this longitudinal data also proved its value by revealing the underlying
dynamics of how marketing worked. It became clear, for instance, that the
majority of ads did not wear out in the way marketers anticipated, and that
the most important attributes in a category are often the most difficult to
change. Learning built up around the measures and how they could be used
to predict the sales impact of marketing activity. Over time, another distinct
use for tracking emerged: to monitor Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) on an
ongoing basis. Because tracking was proving to be so valuable, the demand
for tracking studies increased, and soon they became an essential part of the
marketing and research landscape.
CHALLENGES PAST AND PRESENT
Tracking continued to be an invaluable tool in the decades that followed. But
as marketers relied on it more and more, some problems became apparent.
For example, the dual purposes of tracking cited above (tracking advertising as
well as monitoring KPIs) created tensions. As KPI output from tracking became
part of dashboards and was reported to senior management, the focus on the
immediate actionability of tracking data was often relegated to the backseat.
This in turn led to questions about the need for such large studies to produce
top-line metrics.
Tracking’s versatility, when exploited, actually became a drawback. Tracking
studies seemed to be convenient vehicles for carrying any and all questions
relatedtomarketing,butasthestudieswereloadedup,theybecameunwieldy.
At the same time, pressure on costs led to a reduction of sample sizes, limiting
fast,reliablefeedback.Forcedtocarrymoreweightwithalesspowerfulengine,
the tracking study struggled to perform as it once had.
Tracking also encountered new challenges as the media and research
environments changed. For example, a major need has emerged in the last few
years: to evaluate the performance of media channels. Existing multipurpose
tracking studies can provide a high-level read on two or three major media, but
sample sizes and questionnaire space limit the depth of the analysis. Similarly,
the broad definition of a tracking sample and the limited sample size make it
difficult to give detailed guidance on many digital campaigns.
One of the most recent challenges to tracking is the ready availability of data
scraped from theWeb. Online data—from social media in particular—provides
cheap continuous feedback about brands and their marketing. Thus some
advertisers have new reasons to question the value of large-scale tracking
surveys.
THE VIEW AT THE CROSSROADS
The signs are clear: The world is changing and research needs to change with
it. Respondents are harder to reach, especially those in the most desirable
demographic groups, and they don’t want to engage with long, repetitious
surveys. We need to adjust to that reality.
But not every blinking light warns of a real hazard. For example, unstructured
data from online sources is not going to nullify the need for structured survey
data. Social media data is crucially important for certain types of brands, such
as those that conduct business online, and service brands that have customer
or community relationships to manage. But for most brands, coverage on
social media is typically at a low level, is often generated by a vocal minority,
and frequently relates to events (marketing or otherwise) rather than to the
brand itself.
While this information has value, if it is evaluated in isolation it may present a
distorted and partial view. Businesses need to know what is changing, and a
self-appointed online group will not usually provide the consistent frame of
reference that is needed to discern if real change is occurring.
GORDON PINCOTT
Chairman, Global Solutions
POINT OF VIEW
TrackingattheCrossroads
No one wants to hear that the car that has always
felt safe and comfortable now needs a major
overhaul.When the ride has always been smooth,
it’s hard to believe that the engine will soon be
straining to get the car up hills.

THE WAY AHEAD
To compete in today’s fast-moving, competitive, and complex markets, brand
stewards need regular, timely, and reliable feedback. Now more than ever,
they need to monitor the underlying long-term trajectory of their brands as
well as the short-term effects of in-market activity. The question is how to
capture this information most efficiently.
Many improvements and modifications have already been made to tracking
over the years. In web-based markets, the look and feel of tracking studies
have changed enormously. Questions are designed to make interviews more
engaging and enjoyable for respondents, and questionnaires have been
shortened. Further remodeling is already under way, as interviews on mobile
phones need to be shorter still.
But old-style tracking has never been able to cover every aspect of marketing
activity, nor was it best placed to do so. As the pressure on questionnaires to
become shorter has increased, it has become obvious that there are better
ways of tackling some of the important marketing questions.
REENGINEERING FOR HIGH PERFORMANCE
We need to think about moving from“tracking studies”to“brand performance
programs.” A single study can no longer answer all marketing questions, but
a brand performance program can employ the individual tools that are best
suited to address each issue. To understand how a new ad campaign has
broken through, a program can include a short study, executed over two or
three days, with a robust sample. To quantify the contribution of individual
channels to short- and long-term sales, a program can have a CrossMedia
study running over the duration of the campaign with enough questionnaire
space to ask the relevant media questions.
A program, however, cannot be a series of disconnected ad hoc projects;
the components of the program must provide a platform for integrated
storytelling.They should be glued together by the brand, not just conceptually
but by consistent brand measures selected by the brand and research teams to
address the central questions, such as how marketing activities are expected
to influence the brand and what attitudes or ideas about the brand need to
be changed. The components of a research program will vary according to
brand, category, and circumstances, but an effective program should include
the following elements:
A detailed understanding of brand equity
Underpinning the entire program and dictating its components should be
brandequityinsightsthatidentifytheprocessthroughwhichassociationsbuild
brand equity and how that equity manifests itself in the financial performance
of the brand. This understanding will make it clear what marketing actions
needtobetakenandwhatKPIsneedtobecapturedintheongoingmonitoring
of brand performance.
A continuous monitor
The second essential piece will be a sleek continuous monitor of the KPIs
that signal changes in the health of the brand. For web-enabled studies
(via computers or mobile devices), the results will flow automatically to a
web-delivered dashboard. Pen-and-paper markets will need more manual
intervention but will still be able to input
the data to a dashboard via an automated
analysis engine. This monitor will cost
less than a traditional tracking study, thus
freeing up funds to be deployed against
other elements of the program.
Insights into channel effectiveness and
creative power
CrossMedia studies and digital deep dives
can identify the effectiveness of channels.
Feedback on executions and campaigns
can be provided either continuously or on an intermittent, fast-turnaround
basis immediately after the start of the campaign. Either method will allow
timely adjustments to be made if necessary. A complete picture of the brand
activities will need to harness social media data as well as survey data.
READY FOR THE ROAD AHEAD
Cars today serve the same purpose as cars 40 years ago. But today’s cars look
and feel different; they go faster, they’re more efficient, and the components
and technology that power them have radically changed.
And just as cars have evolved to meet today’s driving conditions, research
solutions must be adapted for the complexity of our current era. Brand
performance programs are, in spirit, totally in tune with the idea that gave
birth to tracking 40 years ago. Action oriented and designed to give timely
advice on important investment decisions, brand performance programs will
provideasetoflinkedsolutions,eachsolutionchosenbecauseitisthebestone
to answer a specific question.They will harness the latest available technology
to be cost-efficient and timely. And because the most crucial factors for the
category will be identified early on through detailed brand equity work, the
questionnaires that make up the rest of the program can be short and tightly
focused.
When designed and implemented effectively, brand performance programs
will help brands negotiate the complex interchanges faced at every point of
decision-making. Moving smoothly down the highway, through a landscape
of challenging and changing conditions, they will carry brands safely and
efficiently to profitable outcomes.
A single study can
no longer answer all
marketing questions, but
a program can apply the
individual tools that are
best-suited to address
each issue
POINT OF VIEW
TrackingattheCrossroads

President Obama was reelected due in large part
to the strength of his support from Latinos (71%),
African Americans (93%), and Asian Americans
(73%). Together these groups represented close
to 30 percent of the total votes cast, compared to
roughly 10 percent in the 1990s.
The lessons for politicians are clear, but there is a
lesson for marketers as well. Brands that continue
to focus their marketing on the traditional non-
Hispanic white mainstream will become niche brands—just as Mitt Romney
was, in the end, a niche candidate. He had strong support among those who
looked like him, i.e., non-Hispanic white males, but that group is no longer
large enough to send a candidate to the White House.
To stay relevant and grow in today’s America, brands need to change and
adapt. While we are not a majority-minority nation yet, ethnic segments
already have significant influence on the country’s social, cultural, economic,
and political life, and therefore should be treated not as siloed segments but
as a fundamental part of a brand’s mainstream marketing strategy.
This lesson is applicable for marketers everywhere, since brands all over the
worldfacethechallengeofappealingtoincreasinglydiverseaudiences.Thefirst
step in meeting this challenge is to develop a research-based understanding
of the type of strategy needed for a particular brand.
CROSS-CULTURAL OR MULTICULTURAL? OR BOTH?
In reaching the different racial and ethnic groups that comprise the new
mainstream, two main approaches are considered: cross-cultural marketing
and multicultural marketing. While the former aims across demographic
groups by appealing to consumer similarities rather than differences,
traditional multicultural marketing targets a specific demographic group such
as Hispanics.
The debate between defenders of each approach has been quite passionate
in recent times. Both sides present compelling arguments to support their
respective views; consensus has yet to be reached.Why?The business interests
of agencies that specialize in one or the other approach are a contributing
factor, to be sure. But another obstacle is the assumption that cross-cultural
and multicultural marketing are mutually exclusive practices. They are not,
and in fact, a combined approach is often
needed to achieve the best return on
marketing investment.
Intheidealworldofone-on-onemarketing,
brandswouldaddresstheindividualneeds
and desires of one consumer at a time,
but this isn’t possible in the real world, so
brands need to balance their efforts. They
need to develop campaigns that appeal
to consumers of different racial or ethnic
backgrounds without being so broad and general that they are relevant to no
one in particular.The fruitful middle ground is the place where a“total market”
perspective leverages similarities and respects cultural nuances.
THE ROLE OF RESEARCH
Finding the right balance between customization and standardization can
be difficult, but some companies, including McDonald’s, Diageo, Coca-Cola,
MillerCoors, Kellogg’s, and General Mills, are doing it quite successfully. How?
By incorporating the ethnic perspective early on in their brands’foundational
research. Before making a major investment such as developing a new product
or advertising campaign, they first identify the real role of race or ethnicity
in product and brand preference. Only then do they decide if they need a
targeted approach for a particular segment, or if their strategy can be based
on a universal insight.
When cross-cultural and multicultural methods are used together, the cross-
cultural insight usually defines what the overarching message should be,
while multicultural knowledge informs how the message will be delivered
in different settings. In the presidential campaign, a cross-cultural “insight”
was easy for both sides to identify—the economy. The economy was clearly
the number one issue for the vast majority of voters, regardless of race or
ethnicity. And both candidates were able to communicate their perspectives
in a relatively consistent way when speaking at national (i.e., cross-cultural)
forums such as the debates.
However, Mitt Romney’s campaign missed opportunities to effectively
tailor his message to targeted forums. One particularly glaring error was his
communication with Latinos, who are generally more optimistic than other
groups. Seemingly ignorant of this ethnic nuance, Romney continued to
hammer away with negative campaigning when he would have done better
to adopt a positive tone in describing better days to come.
Cross-cultural and
multicultural marketing
are not mutually
exclusive practices; a
combined approach is
often needed
DAVID BURGOS
Vice President of Cultural
Strategy
POINT OF VIEW
MarketingtoDiversity:
LessonsfromU.S.Politics
The 2012 presidential election confirmed something we’ve
known for quite some time:There is a new normal in the United
States, and that new normal is multiracial, multiethnic, and
multicultural.Though Mitt Romney got 59 percent of the non-
Hispanic white vote, the highest total for a GOP nominee since
1988, he was not victorious.

But we would suggest that this debate has been
misguided. Drawing on learning from thousands
of brand equity studies as well as a recent,
groundbreaking pilot that linked neuroscience and
survey data to consumer shopping behavior, we
have established that financial success for brands
depends on all three of these qualities. The ideal
balance for a specific brand is a function of both
the product category and the primary mode of
financial return—sales volume or premium pricing.
Three Qualities, All Important
Successful brands are meaningful, different, and salient. Each of these three
elements comes with its own theory and history.
Difference (aka differentiation) has been widely adopted as a cornerstone of
successfulsalesandmarketingsincethe1940swhenRosserReevesintroduced
the term“Unique Selling Proposition”(USP) to the marketing lexicon.
And yet, as true differentiation has become more and more difficult to achieve
in increasingly commoditized markets, marketers have pursued alternate
brand-building strategies. For example, in recent years, many marketers have
embraced the idea that brands have to build relationships with consumers,
so they have worked to make their brands meaningful, usually by improving
product perceptions and strengthening emotional affinity. Other practitioners
prefer to rely on salience. Though building brand awareness has always been
accepted as a fundamental objective of brand marketing, there is ongoing
discussion over whether awareness is important simply as a precursor to brand
equity, or if the concept of salience, which goes beyond basic awareness, is
actually the most important driver of brand choice.
The Proof: Brands, Brains, and Behavior
Characteristics of Successful Brands
The strongest brands don’t rely only on being meaningful or only on being
different or only on being salient—they weave all three qualities together.
In his Millward Brown Point of View titled “China’s Top 50: Much Progress
but More to Do,” Peter Walshe details the striking success of Chinese brands
that are meaningful, different, and salient.
A similar analysis of the global BrandZ
database, in which we compare brands
that are low on all three qualities with
those that are high on all three, shows the
same pattern. Brands that are meaningful,
different, and salient derive three times
more of their volume from the strength
of the brand, as opposed to factors like
availability and promotions. Furthermore,
they command a price that is 14 percent
higher, and their growth in value share is, on average, six percentage points
higher than brands that are low on meaning, difference, and salience.
Understanding Consumer Brains
We know that successful brands are meaningful, different, and salient, but to
maximize the power of marketing, we need to know more than that.We need
to understand how these brand qualities act on the minds of consumers to
affect purchase decisions.
It is relatively easy to understand the effect of salience. Salience gives a brand
an advantage because of the habitual nature of much human behavior. In
shopping, consumers rely on mental shortcuts or heuristics when they make
their brand decisions. One such heuristic is to assign greater importance to
things that have ready mental availability, the effect of which is
to choose the most salient brand.
Comparedtobrandsalience,theroleofbrandmeaninginconsumerdecision-
making is complex, as it involves both cognition and affect. However, we
have learned that we can measure how meaningful brands are by using
some simple and straightforward questions. In his book The Branded Mind,
Erik du Plessis builds on the ideas of Antonio Damasio to suggest that simple
questions about how the brand makes you feel and how well it satisfies your
needs can be used to summarize the overall impact of functional associations
and feelings on brand decisions. We use questions like these to measure and
define how meaningful brands are. So du Plessis’interpretation of Damasio’s
theory helps us understand how brand meaning influences consumer choice.
Of the three critical elements, difference
is the one that is most often overlooked,
with some arguing that being different is
just a special case of being meaningful. The
argument is that differentiation is delivering
a brand property that others don’t deliver,
and the effect is the same as delivering a
brand property better than others. In either
case, the brand just becomes more meaningful. However, experiments in
behavioral psychology have demonstrated that when similar alternatives
compete against each other, they all become less attractive, while if one
option stands apart from the rest, even if the difference is not particularly
meaningful, that option becomes more attractive.
These experiments have tended to focus on considered human decisions
involving relatively unfamiliar objects or concepts. Therefore, this learning
is most applicable when for some reason a consumer’s normal habits are
disrupted and he or she is considering less familiar brands. This may help
explain why difference is one of the strongest markers of future growth,
as Helen Fearn notes in her 2010 Point of View, “Growing a Strong Brand:
Defining Your Meaningful Point of Difference.”
Josh Samuel
European Development
Director, Brand Equity
Point of View
Brands that are
meaningful,
different, and salient
derive three times more
of their volume from the
strength of the brand
Of the three critical
elements, difference
is the one that is most
often overlooked
ThePowerofBeingMeaningful,DifferentandSalient
Members of the marketing community have long debated the secret to
marketing success. Many practitioners assert that differentiation is the key
factor. Others maintain that salience is uppermost during critical purchase
moments, while a significant group believes that great marketing builds
positive consumer sentiment by delivering on a meaningful brand promise.

BEYOND RACE AND ETHNICITY
Consumers are defined by many things beyond race and ethnicity, including
age, gender, life stage, religion, and sexual orientation. In many consumption
situations,thefactthatapersonisgayorMuslimortheparentofyoungchildren
may be the most important motivator, regardless of whether he or she is black,
white, or brown. Understanding how these dimensions are manifested across
cultures enables brands to uncover more relevant “human insights” and use
them to develop strategies that transcend ethnic boundaries.
When this happens, we see cross-cultural advertising in its finest form. P&G’s
much-acclaimed Olympic campaign, “Salute to Moms,” was based on the
universal instinct of mothers to sacrifice for their children. The ads, which
featured mothers and athletes of every color and nationality, were believable,
relevant, and heart-warming precisely because this role of mothers is universal
and well understood.
Unfortunately, many brands try to engage ethnic consumers with “culturally
relevant” messages without understanding those consumers holistically. As
a result, the campaigns developed tend to focus primarily on racial or ethnic
factors and often lapse into stereotypes; thus they fail to connect with their
intended audience. Both presidential candidates made this type of mistake
whencourtingLatinovoters.Succumbingtomediapressure,theyoftenlimited
the conversation with Latinos to the issue of immigration reform, in spite of
numerous polls that showed that the economy was actually their biggest
concern. Ironically, Romney lost the most due to this oversight because his
position on other topics—such as the dangers of big government, trading
with Latin America, and abortion—could have resonated quite well with many
Latinos.
CROSS-CULTURAL INSIGHT CAN BE FOUND ANYWHERE
The human insight that forms the foundation of a cross-cultural campaign
doesn’thavetocomefromworkdoneamongthenon-Hispanicwhitesegment.
An insight can very well originate among ethnic consumers, who are often
at the forefront of consumer trends. Two high-profile campaigns of the 2012
Summer Olympics originated this way. The big ideas underlying both “Salute
to Moms”and Kellogg’s“From Great Starts Come GreatThings,”which included
an ad featuring Olympic swimmer Rebecca Soni, came from research done
among the Hispanic population.
Sadly, the work done by P&G and Kellogg’s is more often the exception than
the rule. It is still common practice for many brands to develop their marketing
strategy based solely on the needs of non-Hispanic white consumers. Then,
when they have created an entire marketing program, they call their “ethnic”
agency and start thinking about how they can adapt it for ethnic segments.
As suggested before, the resulting strategy is frequently irrelevant to ethnic
consumers, and it is likely to become less relevant to non-Hispanic whites as
well, who expect advertising to reflect the diversity of the world they live in.
Cross-pollination of creative ideas is feasible even when cultural differences
are significant, such as between Muslims and the mainstream in Europe, or
the Chinese and Malay segments in Malaysia. Brands just need to go deep
into the core human values that shape consumer attitudes and behaviors.
HIRING FOR DIVERSITY IS A SMART BUSINESS DECISION
If an organization is dominated by people of one race or ethnicity, it is likely
that campaigns will be built around insights that are relevant to that group.
Therefore, companies should put their own houses in order before making
any major attempt to engage with the new mainstream. They must be fully
committed from the top down to the idea
that the new mainstream is multicultural,
and they ought to make serious efforts to
build organizations that are as diverse as
the markets they serve.
Obama’s campaign team seemed to
understand this. Whether it was intentional
or not, the President assembled such a
diverse group of volunteers that pundits and voters alike often commented on
how hard it had been for them to find“white people”at the party’s convention
in September. This was in stark contrast to what they saw at the Republican
convention, where minorities were virtually nonexistent. For the architects
of the Obama campaign, keeping the ethnic perspective top of mind was no
doubt made easier by the exceptional level of diversity among the campaign
workers.
We see the same thing happening in the corporate world. Organizations that
have a culturally diverse workforce often perform better in a multicultural
marketplace thanks to the empathy and life experience that ethnic employees
bring to the table. Companies seem to recognize this, as 60 percent of Fortune
500 companies currently have Chief Diversity Officers (CDOs). However, to
effect real change and reap all of its benefits, the CDO needs to promote
diversity at every level of the organization—the mid and upper levels as well
as the lower ones. At this point, we are not certain that most CDOs have the
power to do that, as only 25 percent of them report directly to their CEOs.
DON’T GO FROM MAINSTREAM TO MARGINAL
It is as clear for marketers as it is for politicians. The new normal is here to stay,
and it needs to be accepted and embraced. But brands differ from politicians
in one important way. A brand is up for reelection every time a consumer goes
shopping—so your efforts to engage ethnic consumers should be ongoing
and consistent, not seasonal. You can’t succeed by reaching out to African
Americans only during Black History Month. Hispanics consume your brands
on the 364 days that are not Cinco de Mayo, and Chinese Americans spend
money all year, not just before Chinese New Year.
Brands that recognize and celebrate diversity will not only continue to grow
by winning the hearts and wallets of ethnic consumers, but they will succeed
in staying relevant to the ever-evolving non-Hispanic white segment, too.
Changing demographics don’t have to be a threat to long-established leading
brands—not here in the United States, and certainly not in other parts of
the world that are experiencing similar shifts, such as Europe, Latin America,
and several countries in Asia. When armed with insights gleaned from
comprehensive “total market” research that looks at both the whole and the
parts, today’s most flexible and creative marketers can successfully shepherd
their brands from the old mainstream into the new.
Your efforts to engage
ethnic consumers
should be ongoing and
consistent, not seasonal
POINT OF VIEW
MarketingtoDiversity:
LessonsfromU.S.Politics

Brands stand to gain even more when they offer points of difference that
are truly important, even if the importance is only temporary or fleeting.
Consider my relationship with three different soft drinks back in my student
days. I wasn’t a great fan of Red Bull. I didn’t feel a personal connection with
the brand, and I didn’t particularly like the taste. On the other hand, I felt
reasonably warm toward Pepsi and did like the taste. Overall, Pepsi was
more meaningful to me. However, the trouble for Pepsi was that I felt even
warmer toward Coca-Cola and preferred the taste of that, so I tended to
choose Coke over Pepsi. But on certain nights out, Red Bull felt like the only
drink that delivered the desired combination of an energy hit and social
cachet. The result was that I barely ever bought Pepsi, but did occasionally
buy Red Bull, and when I did I was willing to pay a high price for it
because there was no substitute.
It is probably true to say that I was choosing Red Bull because it was the
most meaningful brand for my need state at that moment, so in a sense
its difference was “just a special case of meaning.” However, for marketers,
the crucial point is that brands that achieve this special state of offering
something truly different are chosen more often and can charge a higher
price.
Observing Consumer Behavior
Our knowledge of the characteristics of successful brands and the latest
thinking on human decision-making underscore the importance of meaning,
difference, and salience. But can we quantify the influence of each of these
elements on consumer purchase volume and price paid?
To investigate this, we ran a groundbreaking global pilot. We linked
respondents’ survey responses with their actual purchase behavior as well
as neuroscience data to get a full picture of how raw emotional response in
the brain links to how brands are perceived, and how that in turn influences
their purchase choices. This study helped identify the best ways to measure
how meaningful, different, and salient brands are, and confirmed that these
are the three most important brand influences on purchase behavior.
The contribution of each of the three qualities was different depending on
whether we were looking at purchase volume or price paid. To drive volume,
it is most important for a brand to first be meaningful and then be salient.
Difference is slightly less important. Being meaningful is also the most
important quality in justifying a price premium; after that, being different is
next in importance, while being salient matters less. The exact proportions
vary by category; we can quantify these to help focus marketing efforts.
IMPLICATIONS FOR MARKETERS
Marketers, ask yourselves: Do you expect your brand to make money by
selling a greater volume of product or by selling at a higher price? Only a
handful of brands are compelling enough to do both, i.e., to deliver high
volume at a premium price.
Make Your Brand Meaningful
Whether your objective is volume or price, in either case your brand
needs to be meaningful, so ask these questions: Does your brand meet
the functional needs of consumers? Are
you communicating your brand’s story
in a meaningful way? And does your
combination of story and functional
delivery make people feel good?
Of the brands we measured in our pilot
work, Coca-Cola and British Airways were
among the most meaningful. Both achieved that status through great
product delivery that met consumers’ core needs, as well as marketing that
elevated the brands into emotional territory and made consumers feel good
about them.
Grow Volume through Being Salient
If growing volume is the goal, then salience is the next most important
consideration after meaning. But salience is not simply top-of-mind
awareness triggered by the category name; our pilot work confirmed that
salience is best measured in association with category needs. For example,
BritishAirwayswasthestrongestbrandontraditionaltop-of-mindawareness
for the airline category in the UK. But when we applied a needs-based
approach to salience, it was easyJet that came through as the most salient
brand. That’s because easyJet has built an extremely strong association with
low price, one of the most important category needs.
So, to build salience, you must not only shout louder than the competition,
but you must shout about things that relate to category needs.
To Command a Higher Price, Be Different
Ifyourobjectiveistosellyourbrandatahigherprice,focusonbeingdifferent.
For an example of great brand differentiation, we can look to Apple, the
most valuable brand in the world according to the 2011 BrandZ Top 100.
Though Apple does well on each element, its most outstanding performance
in nearly every category and country is on being different. The basis for this
success is Apple’s consistently great product innovation, but Apple also goes
beyond functional differentiation to project a unique personality and a clear
set of values.
Not all product innovations can capture people’s imaginations as the
Macintosh, the iPhone, and the iPad have done, but all brand owners should
work to establish genuine points of
meaningful product differentiation.
And even where there is limited scope
for functional differentiation, brands
should still strive to differentiate
through their personality and values.
CONSIDER THE POWER OF THREE
The most successful brands are not
just meaningful, just different, or just
salient—they are all three. Don’t sell
your brand short by using a myopic
model of brand building that only
acknowledges one of the three ingredients. Instead, acknowledge the
importance of all three and use consumer insight, knowledge of the category,
and brand objectives to identify the best area of focus.
POINT OF VIEW
ThePowerofBeingMeaningful,
DifferentandSalient
Whether your objective
is volume or price,
your brand needs to be
meaningful

Since faster, cheaper, and better is the goal,
it’s not surprising that last summer’s release from
Nielsen describing their neuro-compression
technology generated a flurry of articles in the
North American research press. According to the
release, “This proprietary technology enables
the most effective scenes within a TV spot to be
identified and edited into a shorter and often more
neurologically impactful version.”
It certainly sounded good—the promise of ads that would be shorter (and
therefore cheaper) and“more impactful”(according to brain activity recorded
on an EEG). The problem is, making ads shorter and “more impactful” does
not necessarily make them more effective. The goal of advertising is to build
brands. Advertising is effective when it creates or reinforces positive brand
associationsinconsumers’minds,andthatcanhappenonlywhentheattention
generated by an ad is linked to a brand. So it’s not enough to just light up the
brain; an effective ad must cast some light on the brand too.
Millward Brown has been helping clients optimize their creative for more
than three decades. Our work is based on our empirical understanding of
how advertising works, which we have developed through years of in-market
observation,testing,andvalidation.Originallywereliedontraditionalresearch
that asked direct questions to elicit conscious and introspective reactions from
respondents, but in recent years, we have extended our approach to reflect
new understanding of how the brain works. We now incorporate a variety of
indirect measurement techniques, including some with roots in neuroscience,
when they can add depth and nuance to our assessment. But whenever we
have advised clients on optimizing any aspect of their communications,
including ad length, our recommendations have always been based on a
holistic understanding of how an ad is intended to work against its specific
objectives.
Attention Is Just the Beginning
Of course, the first thing an ad has to do is capture the attention of viewers.
Advertisers are right to focus on this necessity. But an ad can capture all kinds
of attention—and be highly engaging for viewers—without being effective.
As Figure 1 clearly shows, there is no correlation between involvement and
persuasion. But what is more telling (because not all ads have direct and
immediate persuasion as an objective) is what Figure 2 shows: There is no
relationship between involvement and branding1. So advertisers should not
be satisfied with maximizing attention, whether they measure it by brain
scanning or direct questioning. They should set their sights on maximizing
branding.
Dede Fitch
Editor, Global Solutions
Point of View
FIGURE 1: INVOLVEMENT vs PERSUASION
1.75
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
2.00 2.25 2.50
Persuasion Mean Score
InvolvementMeanScore
2.75 3.00 3.503.25
r=0.56
UK TV Ads
FIGURE 2: INVOLVEMENT vs BRANDING
UK TV Ads
2.50
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
3.00 3.50 4.00
Branding Mean Score
InvolvementMeanScore
4.50 5.00
r=0.26
1 The data shown is from the United Kingdom, but all regions we have tested show the
same lack of correlation between involvement and either branding or persuasion.
OptimizingAds:
IsLessAlways
More?
It’s the relentless imperative of our age: Do everything better, but also faster
and at lower cost. Marketers confront this challenge as their own discipline
becomes ever more difficult. Not only are their financial resources limited, but
the consumer attention they seek is scattered and fragmented across a myriad
of media.Therefore, advertising practitioners are understandably
eager to explore any option that might help them reach consumers with
maximum effectiveness and minimal expense.

BRANDING BASICS
Good branding ensures that people will connect an ad with the brand being
advertised. But branding cannot be accomplished by brute force.“Brand early,
brand often” is not a winning strategy. We know that there is no relationship
between the first appearance of a brand in an ad and how well-branded the
ad is. Neither is there a correlation between the branding score and how often
the brand appears in the ad.
The fact is, there are no general rules about branding that apply to all ads.
There are no formulas to be applied. But that doesn’t mean that any branding
approach can work in any ad. Rather, it means that the critical elements of
branding—the when, where, and how—must be optimized for each individual
execution. The way in which these crucial factors are handled will depend on
the style of the creative, the communication objectives, and the history and
personality of the brand being advertised.
Poor branding not only limits the power of an ad to build associations, but can
also impede understanding. Fortunately, when copy testing points up subpar
branding, even on finished film, there are a number of post-production fixes
that can be applied. Voiceover can be added or changed. Music can be added
or changed. Pack shots, brand logos, and other brand cues can be added. And
film can be re-edited to increase the emphasis on key story elements, including
the brand.
WHAT’S THE BEST APPROACH TO BRANDING? THE ONE THAT WORKS.
The appropriate action to take to improve branding depends on the style of
the ad. Sometimes the brand needs to be introduced earlier. Sometimes just
a hint about the brand provides the necessary cue. And sometimes the brand
needs to be held back until later in the ad. It all depends on the role of the
brand in the story.
When the brand is the object of desire
An action-packed ad for a large, established carbonated soft drink in Canada
intended to highlight the brand as an object of desire, but was ineffective
because the brand was not shown early enough. In the ad, a dehydrated man
races across a bleak, sun-scorched urban landscape looking for a drink. Viewer
engagement was high, but the absence of brand cues prevented viewers from
taking away the key message: that only Brand X would slake his thirst.
The ad was improved by adding the product and the logo to the action early
in the ad. Engagement declined for the revised version (from above average to
average), but branding and advertising efficiency were 100 percent improved.
When the brand ties ideas together
Someadsworkbymakingthebrandtiethestorytogether.AUKadforSurewith
FineFragrances(anewbrandvariantintheSurelineofwomen’santiperspirants)
used this approach to explain the inspiration behind the product, which was
the realization by a creator of fine perfumes that his fragrances were useless if
busy, active women were going to“sweat them out.”
For this style of ad to be effective, viewers must appreciate the significance
of the brand to the story, but the first version of the Sure ad did not make the
brand’s role clear.Though viewers were intrigued and involved with the scenes
of the designer being chauffeured to Paris, branding and understanding were
low.
To strengthen the connection between perfume and antiperspirants, the
ad was revised in two important ways. First, signposting was improved. A
voiceover of a title card reading “The Story Behind Sure with Fine Fragrance”
set the stage, while an application shot near the end reminded viewers of the
functional benefit. Second, the voiceover was stripped down to sharpen the
focus on the essential points.
Involvement slipped slightly in the re-edited version but remained above
average,whilebranding,understanding,appeal,andnewsallsharplyincreased.
The short-term sales indicator increased from very low to very high, and its
prediction was borne out in the market.
When the brand is the solution
Athird,verycommontypeofadpresentsthebrandasthesolutiontoaproblem.
In this style, the approach to branding will vary according to the needs of the
story. We tested several versions of such an ad for Johnson & Johnson’s 24
Hour Moisture Body Lotion in the UK.
The story of the ad featured a woman
floating in an underwater world where
dry skin is never a problem, and offered
24 Hour Moisture Body Lotion as the
real-world solution.
Branding was low for the passive and
dreamlike execution, in part because
the distinction between the fantasy
sequence (a woman in an underwater world) and the real world (the woman
in her bathtub) was not clear enough.
A revision made this scene change sharper by bringing the music to a climax
as the woman’s head emerged from the bath water. Distracting elements in
the voiceover were eliminated, most notably the last line of the ad (which
alluded to the fantasy “world of hydration” from the opening). The version
which ended with viewers hearing the brand name while seeing the bottle on
the side of the tub had the strongest branding score by far.
POINT OF VIEW
OptimizingAds:Is
LessAlwaysMore?
There are no general rules
about branding that apply
to all ads.The when, where,
and how of branding must
be optimized for each
individual execution

A STORY NEEDS HIGHS AND LOWS
Maintaining the right degree of tension is a critical factor in effective
storytelling. The trick is to hold back just enough information to maintain
viewer interest, but not so much that viewers become confused. None of the
ads we’ve described were improved by adding exciting, high-impact elements.
Rather, their effectiveness was enhanced by relatively small modifications to
scenes that would likely have registered as low-impact points on a neuro-
compression test.
In two of our three examples, the ads were improved by reducing the number
of words in the voiceover. The revised ads weren’t shorter; they just included
fewer words on the audio track. The fact that these changes were so effective
points to the importance of something known as the brain’s “attentional
blink.” As described by Professor Jane Raymond and Millward Brown EVP
Graham Page in their award-winning 2006 paper, 3 attentional blink is a lapse
in attention that sometimes occurs as the brain is processing information.This
can cause a highly compelling scene to dominate viewers’ attention to such
an extent that the information in the subsequent scene does not register at
all.
The existence of the attentional blink phenomenon would seem to be an
argument for slowing an ad down, not speeding it up. The second of silence
that accompanied the closing shot of the revised ad for 24 Hour Moisture
Body Lotion contributed to stronger branding and enjoyment than did the
busier, noisier ending of the earlier version.
TIME IS MONEY, BUT ...
Clearly, advertisers face pressure to produce the shortest ads that can be
effective. Not only does this save money on production and media costs,
but it also makes it easier to repurpose ads for online and mobile settings. In
analyzing over 90,000 ads, we have found that both long and short ads can be
equally effective at generating brand-linked memorability and delivering on
primary messages, but short ads are less effective against complex advertising
objectives.
Ultimately,theoptimallengthof anadwillbeafunctionofthecommunication
task. Established brands can often benefit from increasing exposure by using
shorter executions, as they often do by using cutdowns of previously aired ads.
Cutdowns should include engaging material from the original ads, but must
balance high engagement scenes with time for branding and communication
points to register.
IN THE END, THE STORY COMES FIRST
Just as there are no formulas for creating effective advertising, there are no
shortcuts to optimizing an individual execution. While the idea of reducing
cost by running shorter ads is appealing, optimization cannot be achieved by
culling frames that appear to be less engaging.
Less can indeed be more—but don’t
assume that it is the slow-moving or
“boring” scenes that need to be cut. It
might be that too much high-impact,
high-excitement material is working
to the detriment of an ad by impeding
understanding and directing attention
away from the brand. In those cases,
branding and understanding may be improved by cutting back a cluttered
voiceover or dropping superfluous messages.
Optimize your ad by putting the story first. Your brand has a unique part to
play. By understanding its role and cueing it correctly, you will make the most
of your chances for advertising success.
POINT OF VIEW
OptimizingAds:Is
LessAlwaysMore?
Less can indeed be more.
Too much high-impact,
high-excitement material
can work to the detriment
of an ad

But can social data yield measurements that are
comparable to those from other, more established
forms of research? Is it really possible for brand
managers to tap into these data streams to gain
insight into brand equity?
We believe it is too early to say for sure, even
though social data have been used effectively
by PR and marketing departments for years. For
crisis management and on-the-fly campaign
assessments, social monitoring involves watching a wide stream of updates in
real time and using those to gauge immediate next steps. For these purposes,
a qualitative sense of the consumer mood is adequate; the precision of
quantitative research is not required.
But increasingly, insight and brand strategy teams are interested in using
social data, and they would like to place social measurement alongside
other types of brand metrics (attitudinal, behavioral, and so on). In this
context, social data must be treated with the same rigor we expect of more
traditional forms of measurement. Therefore, Millward Brown’s Emerging
Media Lab has conducted tests across 60 brands and more than 30 million
online conversations to determine the most appropriate methodologies for
working with social measurement from a brand perspective. Our conclusion?
The future of actionable social media measurement is only as strong as its
standards for data quality.
THE“SOCIAL”VOICE: HOW IS IT DIFFERENT?
Social data are fundamentally different from traditional brand measurement
data. We can think of consumers speaking in two different voices. As Figure
1 shows, the “survey” voice of consumers is captured under structured and
replicable conditions, while their“social”voice is observed in a fluid state.
The challenge is first making these two types of data structurally comparable
and then establishing linkages across them. Methodological issues arise out of
the nature of the samples available to us in these two data sources. Traditional
brand tracking and brand equity measurement rely on observing a statistically
similar group of people over time. Individuals in a quantitative dataset may be
treated differently—their opinions weighted more or less heavily—to ensure
that the sample is representative and consistent.
Butthesocialsampleisarollingsampleofactive,notnecessarilyrepresentative,
voices. Activists may overamplify topics they care deeply about, while people
having positive but ordinary experiences with a brand may not feel compelled
to speak up at all. It is not possible to weight these responses effectively
because the information needed to profile respondents is not consistently
available. Thus it is difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain whether those who
post, tweet, or comment on a brand are representative of the population of
interest.
We expect that social profiling will improve over time as we’re able to derive
more of these attributes from implicit relationships. But even with improved
profiling, we anticipate ongoing concerns as basic as user duplication—e.g.,
how can we ascertain whether one individual has posted five times—once
each on Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Blogger, and a forum—or whether five
different individuals posted similar content?
DEFINING A SOCIAL UNIVERSE TO MEASURE
In the current environment, the only way to address the issues of user
duplication and lack of profiling information is to put boundaries on our
dataset. We need to make some choices. Our collective eagerness to be
perpetually connected has spawned an ever-expanding ecosystem of
technology platforms, and as a result, the prevailing methodology for social
media listening is to capture as much social data as possible—from Facebook,
Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, Tumblr, etc. But should comments on news
articles be considered? What about reviews on sites like Yelp? How do we
define the borders of the social universe?
It seems that the edges of the social universe are as murky as those of the
real universe; in both cases, the boundaries are expanding at an apparently
increasing rate. Without an agreed-upon definition of the limits of the
universe—or even what “social” means—it’s difficult to know whether we are
truly capturing all of the relevant data.
Of course, there are also significant differences in the type of data available
across platforms. Blog and forum discussion tends to be more composed and
“conversationally”oriented than Twitter and Facebook updates, which tend to
be short and posted on the fly. And while, to consumers, it may seem like social
data points are easily accessible and browsable, from a research perspective,
platforms control how those data streams are syndicated at scale. Twitter
has monetized its “firehose” and charges for full access to it; Yelp, in contrast,
prohibits collection of its reviews for research purposes. Table 1 shows the
data fields that are available (or generally inferable) across different types of
platforms.
ANNE CZERNEK
Senior Research Analyst
Emerging Media Lab
Millward Brown Digital
POINT OF VIEW
FIGURE 1: SOCIAL VOICE VS. SURVEY VOICE
SURVEY VOICE SOCIAL VOICE
Structured
Replicable Unsolicited
Fluid
Observational
Unmoderated
Guided
Quantifiable
TABLE 1: TYPES OF INFORMATION
AVAILABLE ACROSS SOCIAL MEDIA
PLATFORMS
Full data stream
Full text availability
Majority public profiles
Historical data
User-level data
User profiles
Influence
Location
Gender
Facebook is a special case: Because data is only released
in aggregate, none of the measures above are publicly
available for research at a user level.
TWITTER
(TWEETS)
FACEBOOK
PERSONAL
PAGES*
BLOGS/
FORUMS
(POSTS)
*
SocialMeasurementDependson
DataQuantityandQuality
As social platforms proliferate, enthusiastic users are
generating more data than ever. Social media data are
fast becoming the hottest commodity in market research.

TWITTER, THE BEST SOCIAL RESEARCH SOURCE — FOR NOW
Because of all the issues we have mentioned thus far, we believe it is necessary
to rely on a single source for social data, and to us, Twitter seems to be the
strongestcandidate.It’sopen,it’smobile,andit’stheworld’slargestinformation
platform. And because the Twitter firehose flows with a good deal of tweet-
level information (including the full text, user ID, and timestamp), we’re able to
ascertain more not only about the text, but also the users. Thus Twitter meets
our requirement for respondent-level information in a bounded dataset.
Moreover, because of the way it is used and perceived by users, Twitter seems
to us to be most representative of the broader social sphere. Millward Brown’s
2010AdReactionstudyfoundthatconsumersviewedFacebookasbeingabout
connecting to friends and family, whereas Twitter was seen as an information
platform for discovering, sharing, and learning. Though much has changed
in social media in the intervening years, those observations still hold true.
Facebook is still the central connection platform, even though consumers
are also using smaller, more interest-based social networks to share content
related to cooking, photography, sports, or other specialized interests. When
the wealth of data from these sites is shared into the broader social stream, it
usually comes through Twitter. Thus Twitter seems to us the best aggregation
of discovery and sharing.
DATA ISSUES
But having chosen a data source, our work is not done. Further processing
of social data is needed. Even if Twitter is the best source of data for social
measurement, not all of the data within it is clean and useable—far from it.
Our tests of over 30 million tweets show that up to 60 percent of Twitter data
must be removed from the dataset before it is ready for analysis.
Twitter tends to have two main issues that can degrade data quality:
1. Keyword ambiguity
Social data are generally collected through keyword searches, so when a
brand name is also a common word, a large proportion of content returned
will not be about the brand. For example, collecting data for the sandwich
chain “Subway” returns many mentions of the New York City transit system.
This not only distorts the themes of conversation topics tracked, but can also
wreak havoc on other metrics, like sentiment. (In this case, a delayed subway
train might generate many complaints that are irrelevant to $5 foot-long
sandwiches.)
2. Spam
There is widespread proliferation of spam content on Twitter. As Figure 2
shows, half of the social media mentions of a particular CPG brand were spam.
When spam comments are removed, “net sentiment” tends to go down. (We
obtain our measure of net sentiment by adding the percentages of positive
andneutralcontent,andfromthatsumsubtractingthepercentageofnegative
comments.) This happens because most spam is neutral in tone; e.g., “Check
out this coupon”—so removing it leaves negative sentiment proportionally
higher, as illustrated by Figure 3.
THE FUTURE OF SOCIAL MEASUREMENT
Using social measurement effectively will require unstinting attention to the
quality of data we consider. The current generation of technology can help
aggregate the dataset (through techniques like Natural Language Processing
and applying Bayesian rules to cleaning), but human discretion is still needed
to evaluate its source, quality, and worth.
While we believe social data have value for measuring brand performance,
further work is needed to understand the exact relationship—if any—
to brand equity. Looking forward, Millward Brown is examining how our
proprietary measure of brand performance in social media—which we call
“social vitality”—relates to brand equity. We’re assessing its value as a leading
indicator of brand performance, as well as its usefulness in understanding the
influence of events and media on brand perceptions.
Thisresearchisunderwaynow,andweanticipatesharingresultsinthecoming
months. The first step in harnessing the brand insights contained in social
data is to create a dataset that can be managed by the same principles that
govern established, trusted methodologies. We need to be assured that we
are working with respondent-level data from a platform that has both breadth
and depth, and we need to cleanse the dataset of spam as well as irrelevant
references. Only when these steps have been accomplished can brands be
confident that they are making defensible decisions based on reliable data.
The Emerging Media Lab is Millward Brown Digital’s specialist practice
dedicated to research innovation across new media platforms — namely
mobile, gaming and social media.
POINT OF VIEW
SocialMeasurementDependson
DataQuantityandQuality
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
CPG brand
Tweets
Spam
Weeks
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
FIGURE 2: SPAM PROPORTION OF TOTAL BRAND KEYWORD MENTIONS
Uncleaned
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Net Sentiment* for CPG Brand
*Net Sentiment: (Positive + Neutral) - Negative
Cleaned
FIGURE 3: EFFECT OF CLEANINGON SENTIMENT

dvertisers must understand these 5 things if they want
to stop wasting money—and alienating consumers—in
digital.
In spite of the billions spent on digital marketing,
Millward Brown research suggests that many ads are
ineffective, ignored or, worse, have a negative effect. To change this,
advertisers must understand how consumers behave online and
how that behavior influences responses to digital marketing. If we
understand the motivations and instincts behind people’s digital
behavior, then we can create a better return on our investment.
To achieve their maximum potential, online communications must
make instant connections to impact the many, not simply engage the
few. Advertisers must understand the consumer motivations of the
spaces their ads inhabit and work within those spaces – not get in
the way.
The digital space represents a huge opportunity to engage people
in new ways, but it comes with many perils. These need to be
acknowledged, understood, and considered as digital campaigns are
planned and executed.
A
First published in the June 2, 2013 edition of Fast Company, www.fastcompany.com
Digital is
OPPORTUNITY
Dynamic Logic finds an additional 1.3% of people claim they will buy a brand
as a result of being exposed to an online ad. That’s 14 times higher than the
click-through rate, and the conversion to a sale is similarly higher. And we
can do better.
Digital is
DANGEROUS
Advertisers must consider users’ purple and ease of experience when
determiningasplacementandtype.Brandsneedtorecognisethatprominent
placement comes at a price/ A brand that gets between a digital user and
the content they really want risks a negative reaction. Quite often, users find
ads intrusive, irrelevant and obstructive. In fact, 27% of all online ads have
a measurable negative effect on purchase intent. A negatively received as
experience erodes brand value. This is the hidden cost of online advertising.
Behaviour alone is not a good predictor of overall effect since there is no
correlation between click though and attitudinal response.
Digital is
INSTINCTIVE
Humans have evolved to react first, think second. Academic research finds
thatittakesonetwentiethofasecondforpeopletomakeadecisionaboutthe
visual appeal of a web page.Thinking is hard work, and consciously deciding
where to click is slow and ultimately tiring. As a result, people quickly and
instinctively judge whether the content is relevant, so the first instant of an
ad exposure must be as impactful as possible. People’s attention to an online
ad is intermittent and fleeting, and ads must command that attention and
use it effectively.
Digital is
DEMANDING
Digital is often described as “lean forward” - the user must attend to a
smaller screen and is largely in control of content and sequencing. Thus,
the experience is nonlinear and user-driven. Ads must be simple and visual
to communication brand and message quickly, and they must not assume
a linear mindset or an attentive audience. An ad must make a good first
impression on everyone who sees it, not just on the few who engage with it
at length or click through to other digital assets.
Digital is
PURPOSEFUL
Digital users are usually looking for specific information or content; they
have a purpose. Users know what they are looking for and it is not ads. Our
eye-tracking database suggests that on average only 50 % of people even
look at (defined as the eyes resting for 0.1 second) an online ad. High page
engagement on sites with relevant content means longer dwell time and
higherlikelihoodthatuserswithnoticeads.thematicrelevancealsoincreases
the likelihood that people will give time to advertising communications.
Purpose is why brand recognition is crucial in the online environment. The
brand is an important cue of personal relevance.

trong brands impact much more than revenues and
profit margins: They can drive competitive advantage,
command a price premium and bolster a company’s
resilience to crises. The intense competition among
the most valuable brands in some of the categories in
the 2013 Millward Brown Optimor BrandZTM
Top 100
ranking – released today – affirms the impact a brand’s strength
has on its value, with the fiercest battles won by those that combine
solid financial performance with great brand equity.
In personal care, L’Oréal leapfrogged Gillette and Colgate with a
30% rise in value to become the most valuable brand in this category
– all three are worth between $17 and $18 billion, so competition
was tight. L’Oréal successfully introduced new, higher-performing
products to tempt customers away from private label, including
“cosmeceuticals,” which combine cosmetic and medical benefits to
appeal to consumers’ desire for products that multitask. The brand
continues to be a leader in research and innovation, creating high
quality products that give it an attractive product portfolio, which is
customized to the local market.
Gillette continued to target younger men in an effort to convert new,
life-long customers, and received one of the highest scores among all
personal care brands for Brand Contribution – a measure of brand
equity based on customer sentiment. Meanwhile, Colgate’s healthy
brand value growth of 15% was not quite enough for it to maintain
its number two spot. Despite an intensely competitive environment,
and already having a high global penetration, Colgate increased
its market share over the last year, and its brand strength was a
facilitator of that growth.
The battle for the top is also driving change in the car sector. Toyota
has overtaken BMW to regain its position as the world’s most
valuable car brand, increasing its value 12% to $24 billion, after its
strong brand helped it recover from a number of product recalls in
2009 and 2010. It has a value proposition that people really want,
offering luxury features on an affordable, environmentally conscious
car.
With a significant value increase of 60% in the last year, Zara now
stands in front of Nike as the most valuable apparel brand. Fast
fashion is in, and the Spanish brand has consistently delivered,
while expanding its business to children, men and even home décor.
It’s long been expected that online brands will eventually gain
supremacy over their brick-and-mortar rivals, and Amazon’s beating
of Walmart to become the most valuable retail brand – worth $46
billion, a growth of 34% – may suggest this is happening. As well as
having a compelling, consistently-executed promise, Amazon makes
S
By Robin Headlee,
Vice President, Millward Brown Optimor
What’sBehind
theBrandZTM
Top
100Ranking
andSeemingly
UnbeatableApple?

itself available wherever customers
are – even establishing a brick-and-
mortar presence with its Amazon
lockers, self-service delivery
locations allowing customers to
collect parcels ordered online.
Walmart delivers well, too, and has
grown its value 5% to $36 billion,
but in China, a strategic market, its
performance is challenged by the
fact that consumers prefer to buy from local markets and shops.
Regardless of whether they started as online or brick-and-mortar
businesses, retail brands can no longer rely solely on their core
channels to market their products, and the most valuable brands in
coming years will be those that recognize they need to be present at
all possible touchpoints in consumers’ lives.
There are insurgent brands in a number of categories that have the
potential to catch up with the leaders in the next few years.
Apple may appear insurmountable as the highest value technology
brand, worth $185 billion, but challengers Google and Samsung
are narrowing the gap. Google, which overtook IBM to become
the second most valuable tech brand worth $114 billion, keeps
diversifying its platforms and has grown from a search engine to
become a brand to contend with across many product and service
areas.
Samsung has risen 51% in brand value to $21 billion, balancing a
remarkable period of refined innovation with significant marketing
spend. In the U.S. market, which has been dominated by Apple,
Samsung outspent Apple on smartphone marketing, bringing a
significant rise in Brand Contribution.
Luxury brands Gucci and Prada could be battling with Louis Vuitton
and Hermès in coming years. Gucci grew by 48% to $12.7 billion: As
well as leveraging its strong brand heritage, it continues to embrace
the digital world. In February of this year Gucci rolled out its new
mobile-optimized site and as of the end of the valuation period for
BrandZTM
– 1st March 2013 – the mobile site accounted for 27% of
total traffic to Gucci.com and 13% of total online revenue. Prada,
meanwhile, was the top-rising brand across all categories, with
value growth of 63% to $9.5 billion. After years of frugality, shoppers
want to spend on luxuries – but spend wisely. Luxury is seen as a
good investment, and Gucci and Prada both engage consumers who
want to buy classic pieces rather than high fashion.
So how can brands become the most valuable brand in their category
– and then widen the gap between themselves and the competitors
nipping at their heels? Out-advertising everybody else like Samsung
will only bring a short-term boost to value. The brands that have
risen furthest in the Top 100 all score significantly higher than
average on the BrandZTM
equity measures of Meaningful, Different
and Salient.
This means they provide a superior brand experience; creating value
that sets them apart from the competition. Apple is the archetypal
“meaningfully different” brand. There is clarity about what their
brand stands for – positioning, message and values – with a value
proposition that’s communicated powerfully and consistently. All
of the top risers have a distinctive brand personality, which is more
likely to generate passion and create brand advocates.
Continuing to renew the brand is essential to remain in contention
over a number of years, and the most valuable brands are
exceptional at staying relevant to customers. IBM’s reinvention as
a greater-margin consultancy which drives a “Smarter Planet” is a
good example of this.
Finally, achieving salience – becoming a brand that people trust
and recommend – requires the consistent delivery of an experience
that matches the brand’s promise. Google has built its reputation on
continual delivery of the greatest experience.
Consumers will stay loyal to brands that meet their needs, are
unique in a positive way and are ahead of the game in setting trends.
They are more appealing, and contribute most to driving sales –
and business value. A solid financial performance is essential; but
without also being meaningful, different and salient a brand will
never be a contender for most valuable brand in their category.
First published in the May 21, 2013 edition of Forbes, www.forbes.com
What’s Behind the BrandZTM
Top 100 Ranking and Seemingly Unbeatable Apple
the most valuable
brands in coming years
will be those that
recognize they need
to be present at all
possible touchpoints in
consumers’lives

rands that build positive customer sentiment by being
‘meaningfully different’ from the competition are able
to capture five times more volume, command a 13%
price premium, and are four times more likely to grow
their value share than those that don’t, according to
research from Millward Brown.
Being meaningfully different is what gives a brand its relevance in
the eyes of consumers. It involves delivering a brand promise that
meets their expectations and needs, being unique in a positive way,
and staying ahead of the curve in setting trends. Brands that can do
this are more appealing, and generate the greatest contribution to
driving current and future sales.
Such ruthless attention to becoming - and staying - relevant to
consumers is evident in the results of some of the Most Valuable
Global Brands in this year’s BrandZ Top100 ranking.
Apple is still the number one brand, despite a big drop in share
price and rumours that it isn’t innovating fast enough, which slowed
its value growth to 1%. Brand is Apple’s secret weapon. It remains
deeply relevant to its fan base, and the ‘love’ that this California
- based technology giant generates keeps it in the top spot with a
strong brand contribution.
Even when the financial performance of a company takes a deep
dive, if it has, like Apple, a high brand contribution - the proportion
of value generated by the brand’s ability to create loyalty - the
business can still boom. Based on the opinions of existing and
potential customers, brand contribution is less volatile than investor
sentiment: Apple’s brand contribution, for example, is still 18%
greater than that of its nearest rival in the smartphone market,
Samsung, which grew its brand value by 51% on the previous year.
Luxury brands Gucci and Burberry also both showed an increase
in brand contribution, having comprehensively met the needs of
consumers who are ready to spend on luxuries again, but spend
wisely by investing in classic pieces.
Gucci has revamped outlets to enhance the consumer experience,
while, recognising that consumers are often researching online
before they buy, also building a strong online presence. It also
announced its first mobile app, further increasing the brand’s
accessibility. Gucci increased in value by 48%. Burberry excels at
emphasising its heritage and developing compelling and authentic
brand stories. It has also made a huge investment in building its
brand over the last year, expanding into new products, categories
and territories, and merging in-store and digital retail capabilities.
Strong, relevant brands also help companies bounce back from
reputational damage. Toyota has overtaken BMW to become the
world’s most valuable car brand once again, increasing its value
by 12%, after its brand helped it recover from a number of product
recall crises. The Toyota brand is very clearly defined from a
consumer perspective - people believe it offers them something that
other car brands don’t. It is incredibly trusted, and considered to
provide excellent value. A positive consumer experience has built a
core of loyal customers who recommend the brand to others; this is
what helps brands maintain their strength in the face of adversity.
Brands need to continually renew themselves to remain in
contention over a number of years. The enduring success of IBM,
which is the most valuable B2B brand in the world, is testament
to a leadership philosophy that has always been based on being
meaningfully different. The brand has enjoyed many golden
moments - from developing artificial intelligence in 1956, to creating
the industry standard for personal computing in the eighties -
but it has never stood still. It continually reinvents itself to stay
relevant to the needs of the day, and its ‘Smarter Planet’ positioning
is in perfect harmony with the spirit of the time. IBM achieved
an 80% revenue increase in 2012 from its SmartCloud solution,
which combines the trend for cloud computing with the need of its
business clients to innovate as well as cut costs.
Google, which has leapfrogged IBM to become the second most
valuable brand in the world across all categories, keeps diversifying
its platforms - extending its brand into new services and products to
increase its relevance to consumers. It has grown from just a search
engine to become an integrated provider of news, social media
(Google+) and communications (Gmail).
A deeply relevant brand is a strong brand - and a strong brand is a
valuable asset to a business, as a source of sustainable competitive
advantage and value growth. It’s no coincidence that the brands
which rose furthest up the BrandZ Top 100 ranking this year,
including Prada (63% value increase), Zara (60%), Gucci (48%) and
Amazon (34%), all scored higher than average on the attributes
of ‘meaningful’ and ‘different’. They all strive to understand
consumers’ needs, and constantly refocus and reinvent themselves
to stay relevant and set themselves apart from the competition.
B
Relentlessly
RelevantBrands
Coinciding with the release of Millward Brown’s
BrandZ Ranking of the 100 Most Valuable Global
Brands, Peter Walshe, Global BrandZ Director,
explains why a ruthless attention to relevance will
boost a brand’s strength
First published in the May 21, 2013 edition of Contagious Magazine,
www.contagiousmagazine.com

peculation about Apple running out of juice – with its
focus on small changes to big products and a perceived
lack of innovation – continue to circulate and unsettle
investors. However, Apple’s steady and continued growth
in brand value cannot be ignored. In fact, Apple is the top-
ranked technology brand in terms of brand value increase
since the 2006 inception of the BrandZTM Top 100 Most Valuable
Global Brands study. Apple’s brand value has tracked a 1043 percent
increase – from $16 billion in 2006 to $183 billion in 2012.
Before focusing on Apple’s demise, analysts should acknowledge this
very impressive growth and customer loyalty.
The fact is, sustainable brand value is something that brands
grow over time. Apple, the Most Valuable Brand in the World in
the BrandZTM Top 100 ranking for the last two years, has grown
faster than any other global brand in the last seven years. Despite
a consumer trend towards austerity, Apple has portrayed premium
brand behavior that mimics most luxury brands rather than a
technology brand and has created millions of fans that are hugely
loyal.
Of course, innovation has also been an important driver of brand
loyalty, particularly in the last few years where Apple stepped up
its new product launches and competitors like Samsung have also
started innovating. While innovation remains incredibly important,
fans of Apple don’t expect to see frequent large-scale innovations.
It’s the longer-term view and their experience with the brand that’s
most important to them. And since we believe that consumers are
the core component of valuing a brand, then it is those consumers –
as every successful business already knows – that are central to the
brand’s success.
It’s normal for brands to have periods of refinement in between big
innovation, and we’ve seen this with Apple since 2006. Dips in share
price and market valuations do impact brand’s valuation over time
and we have seen that with other technology brands. And of course
other brands – such as Samsung in the last few years – have been
hugely innovative, so who knows what will happen in the future.
Will Apple remain at the top of the heap come May 21 when the 2013
BrandZTM Top 100 will be announced? Watch this space.
S
By Robin Headlee,
Vice President, Millward Brown Optimor
First published in the April 30, 2013 edition of Forbes, www.forbes.com
ReportsofApple’s
DemiseareLargely
Exaggerated

Millward Brown Perspectives. Volume 6: Issue 2

Millward Brown Perspectives. Volume 6: Issue 2

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Destaque

Destaque (20)

Semelhante a Millward Brown Perspectives. Volume 6: Issue 2

Semelhante a Millward Brown Perspectives. Volume 6: Issue 2 (20)

Mais de Kantar

Mais de Kantar (20)

Último

Último (20)

Millward Brown Perspectives. Volume 6: Issue 2