Marketers should consider all the dollars spent on manufacturing and marketing products each year not so much as “expenses” but as “investments” in what consumers saw, heard, learned, felt, and experienced about the brand. If not properly designed and implemented, these expenditures may not be good investments, in that they may not have created the right knowledge structures in consumers’ minds, but we should consider them investments nonetheless. Thus, the quality of the investment in brand building is the most critical factor, not the quantity beyond some minimal threshold amount. In fact, it is possible to “overspend” on brand building if money is not being spent wisely. Conversely, as we’ll see throughout the , some brands are considerably outspent but amass a great deal of brand equity through marketing activities that create valuable, enduring memory traces in the minds of consumers, as has been the case with Snickers.

SNICKERS® Brand

Creatively marketed, Mars Chocolate North America’s best-selling SNICKERS® bar has long been advertised as the candy bar that “satisfies” as a filling snack or means to stave off hunger before a meal. One recent ad campaign centered on a make-believe language, “Snacklish,” that puts a SNICKERS® spin on everyday words and phrases. Taxi, bus-stop, and subway posters and a variety of online postings featured catchy phrases like “Pledge your nutlegience,” “Snaxi” and “Nougetaboutit.” To reinforce its branding, the phrases all appeared in the typeface and colors of the SNICKERS® bar logo.04

The brand knowledge that marketers create over time dictates appropriate and inappropriate future directions for the brand. Consumers will decide, based on their brand knowledge, where they think the brand should go and grant permission (or not) to any marketing action or program. Thus, at the end of the day, the true value and future prospects of a brand rest with consumers and their knowledge about the brand.

No matter how we define brand equity, though, its value to marketers as a concept ultimately depends on how they use it. Brand equity can offer focus and guidance, providing a means to interpret past marketing performance and design future marketing programs. Everything the firm does can help enhance or detract from brand equity. Those marketers who build strong brands have embraced the concept and use it to its fullest as a means of clarifying, communicating, and implementing their marketing actions.

Other factors can influence brand success, and brand equity has meaning for other constituents besides customers, such as employees, suppliers, channel members, media, and the government.06 Nevertheless, success with customers is often crucial for success for the firm, so the next section considers brand knowledge and CBBE in more detail. The process of creating such brand power is not without its critics, however, as described in The Science of Branding 2-1.

What are the benefits of creating a high level of brand awareness? There are three—learning advantages, consideration advantages, and choice advantages.

• Learning Advantages: Brand awareness influences the formation and strength of the associations that make up the brand image. To create a brand image, marketers must first establish a brand node in memory, the nature of which affects how easily the consumer learns and stores additional brand associations. The first step in building brand equity is to register the brand in the minds of consumers. If the right brand elements are chosen, the task becomes easier.

• Consideration Advantages: Consumers must consider the brand whenever they are making a purchase for which it could be acceptable or fulfilling a need it could satisfy. Raising brand awareness increases the likelihood that the brand will be a member of the consideration set, the handful of brands that receive serious consideration for purchase.13 Much research has shown that consumers are rarely loyal to only one brand but instead have a set of brands they would consider buying and another—possibly smaller—set of brands they actually buy on a regular basis. Because consumers typically consider only a few brands for purchase, making sure that the brand is in the consideration set also makes other brands less likely to be considered or recalled.14

• Choice Advantages: The third advantage of creating a high level of brand awareness is that it can affect choices among brands in the consideration set, even if there are essentially no other associations to those brands.15 For example, consumers have been shown to adopt a decision rule in some cases to buy only more familiar, well- established brands.16 Thus, in low-involvement decision settings, a minimum level of brand awareness may be sufficient for product choice, even in the absence of a well-formed attitude.17

One influential model of attitude change and persuasion, the elaboration-likelihood model, is consistent with the notion that consumers may make choices based on brand awareness considerations when they have low involvement. Low involvement results when consumers lack either purchase motivation (they don’t care about the product or service) or purchase ability (they don’t know anything else about the brands in a category).18

1. Consumer purchase motivation: Although products and brands may be critically important to marketers, choosing a brand in many categories is not a life-or-death decision for most consumers. For example, despite millions of dollars spent in TV advertising over the years to persuade consumers of product differences, 40 percent of consumers in one survey believed all brands of gasoline were about the same or did not know which brand was best. A lack of perceived differences among brands in a category is likely to leave consumers unmotivated about the choice process.

2. Consumer purchase ability: Consumers in some product categories just do not have the necessary knowledge or experience to judge product quality even if they so desired. The obvious examples are products with a high degree of technical sophistication, like telecommunications equipment with state-of-the-art features. But consumers may be unable to judge quality even in low-tech categories. Consider the college student who has not really had to cook or clean before, shopping the supermarket aisles in earnest for the first time, or a new manager forced to make an expensive capital purchase for the first time. The reality is that product quality is often highly ambiguous and difficult to judge without a great deal of prior experience and expertise. In such cases, consumers will use whatever shortcut or heuristic they can come up with to make their decisions in the best manner possible. Sometimes they simply choose the brand with which they are most familiar and aware.

How do you create brand awareness? In the abstract, creating brand awareness means increasing the familiarity of the brand through repeated exposure, although this is generally more effective for brand recognition than for brand recall. That is, the more a consumer “experiences” the brand by seeing it, hearing it, or thinking about it, the more likely he or she is to strongly register the brand in memory.

Thus, anything that causes consumers to experience one of a brand’s element—its name, symbol, logo, character, packaging, or slogan, including advertising and promotion, sponsorship and event marketing, publicity and public relations, and outdoor advertising—can increase familiarity and awareness of that brand element. And the more elements marketers can reinforce, usually the better. For instance, in addition to its name, Intel uses the “Intel Inside” logo and its distinctive symbol as well as its famous four-note jingle in TV ads to enhance awareness.

Repetition increases recognizability, but improving brand recall also requires linkages in memory to appropriate product categories or other purchase or consumption cues. A slogan or jingle creatively pairs the brand and the appropriate cues (and, ideally, the brand positioning as well, helping build a positive brand image). Other brand elements like logos, symbols, characters, and packaging can also aid recall.

The way marketers pair the brand and its product category, such as with an advertising slogan, helps determine the strength of product category links. For brands with strong category associations, like Ford cars, the distinction between brand recognition and recall may not matter much—consumers thinking of the category are likely to think of the brand. In competitive markets or when the brand is new to the category, it is more important to emphasize category links in the marketing program. Strong links between the brand and the category or other relevant cues may become especially important over time if the product meaning of the brand changes through brand extensions, mergers, or acquisitions.

Gannett

In March 2011, Gannett launched its first nationwide branding and advertising campaign, themed “It’s All Within Reach.” The company traces its origins to a small newspaper in Elmira, NY, in 1906 and over the decades has grown into a leading international media and marketing solutions company. Gannett’s media properties include USA TODAY; 81 U.S. community newspapers (such as the Arizona Republic, Indianapolis Star, and Detroit Free Press); 23 broadcasting stations; over 100 digital properties; Point Roll, an industry leader in rich media advertising solutions; Career Builder, the nation’s top employment site; and Captivate, a digital programming and advertising network with nearly 10,000 elevator and lobby screens in about 1,000 buildings. Then-Chairman and CEO Craig Dubow explained the campaign as, “Today, Gannett offers consumers and businesses everything they need to connect and engage with what matters most to them—anywhere, anytime and on every platform. It’s important for our brand to reflect and promote our company as it is today and the tremendous value we bring.”19

Many marketers have attempted to create brand awareness through so-called shock advertising, using bizarre themes. For example, at the height of the dot-com boom, online retailer Outpost.com used ads featuring gerbils shot from cannons, wolverines attacking marching bands, and preschoolers having the brand name tattooed on their foreheads. The problem with such approaches is that they invariably fail to create strong category links because the product is just not prominent enough in the ad. They also can generate a fair amount of ill will. Often coming across as desperate measures, they rarely provide a foundation for long-term brand equity. In the case of Outpost.com, most potential customers did not have a clue what the company was about.

The more deeply a person thinks about product information and relates it to existing brand knowledge, the stronger the resulting brand associations will be. Two factors that strengthen association to any piece of information are its personal relevance and the consistency with which it is presented over time. The particular associations we recall and their salience will depend not only on the strength of association, but also on the retrieval cues present and the context in which we consider the brand.

In general, direct experiences create the strongest brand attribute and benefit associations and are particularly influential in consumers’ decisions when they accurately interpret them. Word-of-mouth is likely to be particularly important for restaurants, entertainment, banking, and personal services. Starbucks, Google, Red Bull, and Amazon are all classic examples of companies that created amazingly rich brand images without the benefit of intensive advertising programs. Mike’s Hard Lemonade sold its first 10 million cases without any advertising because it was a “discovery” brand fueled by word-of-mouth.22

On the other hand, company-influenced sources of information, such as advertising, are often likely to create the weakest associations and thus may be the most easily changed. To overcome this hurdle, marketing communication programs use creative communications that cause consumers to elaborate on brand-related information and relate it appropriately to existing knowledge. They expose consumers to communications repeatedly over time, and ensure that many retrieval cues are present as reminders.

Marketers create favorable brand associations by convincing consumers that the brand possesses relevant attributes and benefits that satisfy their needs and wants, such that they form positive overall brand judgments. Consumers will not hold all brand associations to be equally important, nor will they view them all favorably or value them all equally across different purchase or consumption situations. Brand associations may be situation- or context-dependent and vary according to what consumers want to achieve in that purchase or consumption decision.23 An association may thus be valued in one situation but not another.24

For example, the associations that come to mind when consumers think of FedEx may be “fast,” “reliable,” and “convenient,” with “purple and orange packages.” The color of the packaging may matter little to most consumers when actually choosing an overnight delivery service, although it may perhaps play an important brand awareness function. Fast, reliable, and convenient service may be more important, but even then only under certain situations. A consumer who needs delivery only “as soon as possible” may consider less expensive options, like USPS Priority Mail, which may take one to two days.

The essence of brand positioning is that the brand has a sustainable competitive advantage or “unique selling proposition” that gives consumers a compelling reason why they should buy it.25 Marketers can make this unique difference explicit through direct comparisons with competitors, or they may highlight it implicitly. They may base it on performance-related or non-performance-related attributes or benefits.

Although unique associations are critical to a brand’s success, unless the brand faces no competition, it will most likely share some associations with other brands. One function of shared associations is to establish category membership and define the scope of competition with other products and services.28

A product or service category can also share a set of associations that include specific beliefs about any member in the category, as well as overall attitudes toward all members in the category. These beliefs might include many of the relevant performance-related attributes for brands in the category, as well as more descriptive attributes that do not necessarily relate to product or service performance, like the color of a product, such as red for ketchup.

Consumers may consider certain attributes or benefits prototypical and essential to all brands in the category, and a specific brand an exemplar and most representative.27 For example, they might expect a running shoe to provide support and comfort and to be built well enough to withstand repeated wearings, and they may believe that Asics, New Balance, or some other leading brand best represents a running shoe. Similarly, consumers might expect an online retailer to offer easy navigation, a variety of offerings, reasonable shipping options, secure purchase procedures, responsive customer service, and strict privacy guidelines, and they may consider L.L. Bean or some other market leader to be the best example of an online retailer.

Because the brand is linked to the product category, some category associations may also become linked to the brand, either specific beliefs or overall attitudes. Product category attitudes can be a particularly important determinant of consumer response. For example, if a consumer thinks that all brokerage houses are basically greedy and that brokers are in it for themselves, then he or she probably will have similarly unfavorable beliefs about and negative attitudes toward any particular brokerage house, simply by virtue of its membership in the category.

Thus, in almost all cases, some product category associations will be shared with all brands in the category. Note that the strength of the brand associations to the product category is an important determinant of brand awareness.28

Figures 2-3 and 2-4 display some possible segmentation bases for consumer and business-to-business markets, respectively. We can classify these bases as descriptive or customer-oriented (related to what kind of person or organization the customer is), or as behavioral or product-oriented (related to how the customer thinks of or uses the brand or product).

Behavioral segmentation bases are often most valuable in understanding branding issues because they have clearer strategic implications. For example, defining a benefit segment makes it clear what should be the ideal point-of-difference or desired benefit with which to establish the positioning. Take the toothpaste market. One research study uncovered four main segments:31

1. The sensory segment: Seeking flavor and product appearance

2. The sociables: Seeking brightness of teeth

3. The worriers: Seeking decay prevention

4. The independent segment: Seeking low price

Given this market segmentation scheme, marketing programs could be put into place to attract one or more segments. For example, Close-Up initially targeted the first two segments, whereas Crest primarily concentrated on the third. Taking no chances, Aquafresh was introduced to go after all three segments, designing its toothpaste with three stripes to dramatize each of the three product benefits. With the success of multipurpose toothpastes such as Colgate Total, virtually all brands now offer products that emphasize multiple performance benefits.

Other segmentation approaches build on brand loyalty in some way. The classic “funnel” model traces consumer behavior in terms of initial awareness through brand-most-often-used. Figure 2-5 shows a hypothetical pattern of results. For the purposes of brand building, marketers want to understand both (1) the percentage of target market that is present at each stage and (2) factors facilitating or inhibiting the transition from one stage to the next. In the hypothetical example, a key bottleneck appears to be converting those consumers who have ever tried the brand to those who recently tried, as less than half (46 percent) “convert.” To convince more consumers to consider trying the brand again, marketers may need to raise brand salience or make the brand more acceptable in the target consumer’s repertoire.

Marketers often segment consumers by their behavior. For example, a firm may target a certain age group, but the underlying reason is that they are particularly heavy users of the product, are unusually brand loyal, or are most likely to seek the benefit the product is best able to deliver. Nestlé’s Yorkie chocolate is boldly marketed in the U.K. as “It is Not For Girls” because the chunky bar is thought to appeal more to men.

In some cases, however, broad demographic descriptors may mask important underlying differences.31 A fairly specific target market of “women aged 40 to 49” may contain a number of very different segments who require totally different marketing mixes (think Celine Dion vs. Courtney Love). Baby boomers are difficult to segment based on the size of the generation and individual views on aging. Age Wave, a consulting firm, created four segments for post-retirement consumers: “ageless explorers,” “comfortably contents,” “live for todays,” and “sick and tireds.”32

The main advantage of demographic segmentation bases is that the demographics of traditional media vehicles are generally well known from consumer research; as a result, it has been easier to buy media on that basis. With the growing importance of digital and nontraditional media and other forms of communication as well as the capability to build databases to profile customers on a behavioral and media usage basis, however, this advantage has become less important. For example, online Web sites can now target such previously hard-to-reach markets as African Americans (BlackPlanet.com), Hispanics ( Quepasa.com), Asian Americans ( AsianAvenue.com), college students ( teen.com), and gays ( gay.com).

A number of criteria have been offered to guide segmentation and target market decisions, such as the following:33

• Identifiability: Can we easily identify the segment?

• Size: Is there adequate sales potential in the segment?

• Accessibility: Are specialized distribution outlets and communication media available to reach the segment?

• Responsiveness: How favorably will the segment respond to a tailored marketing program?

The obvious overriding consideration in defining market segments is profitability. In many cases, profitability can be related to behavioral considerations. Developing a segmentation scheme with direct customer lifetime value perspectives can be highly advantageous. To improve the long-term profitability of their customer base, drugstore chain CVS considered the role of beauty products for its customers at three distinct stages of life, producing the following hypothetical profiles or personas:34

• Caroline, a single 20-something, is relatively new to her career and still has an active social life. She is an extremely important beauty customer who visits the chain once a week. Her favorite part of shopping is getting new beauty products, and she looks to CVS to help her cultivate her look at a price she can afford.

• Caroline will grow into Vanessa, the soccer mom with three children; she may not be as consumed with fashion as she once was, but preserving her youthful appearance is definitely still a major priority. She squeezes in trips to the store en route to or from work or school, and convenient features such as drive-through pharmacies are paramount for Vanessa.

• Vanessa becomes Sophie. Sophie isn’t much of a beauty customer, but she is CVS’s most profitable demographic—a regular pharmacy customer who actively shops the front of the store for key OTC items.

One lesson stressed by many marketing strategists is not to define competition too narrowly. Research on noncomparable alternatives suggests that even if a brand does not face direct competition in its product category, and thus does not share performance-related attributes with other brands, it can still share more abstract associations and face indirect competition in a more broadly defined product category.36

Competition often occurs at the benefit level rather than the attribute level. Thus, a luxury good with a strong hedonic benefit like stereo equipment may compete as much with a vacation as with other durable goods like furniture. A maker of educational software products may be implicitly competing with all other forms of education and entertainment, such as books, videos, television, and magazines. For these reasons, branding principles are now being used to market a number of different categories as a whole—for example, banks, furniture, carpets, bowling, and trains, to name just a few.

Unfortunately, many firms narrowly define competition and fail to recognize the most compelling threats and opportunities. For example, sales in the apparel industry often have been stagnant in recent years as consumers have decided to spend on home furnishings, electronics, and other products that better suit their lifestyle.37 Leading clothing makers may be better off considering the points-of-differences of their offerings not so much against other clothing labels as against other discretionary purchases.

As Chapter 3 outlines, products are often organized in consumers’ minds in a hierarchical fashion, meaning that marketers can define competition at a number of different levels. Take Fresca, a grapefruit-flavored soft drink, as an example: At the product type level, it competes with non-cola-flavored soft drinks; at the product category level, it competes with all soft drinks; and at the product class level, it competes with all beverages.

It is not uncommon for a brand to identify more than one frame of reference. This may be the result of broader category competition or the intended future growth of a brand, or it can occur when the same function can be performed by different types of products. For example, Canon EOS Rebel digital cameras compete with digital cameras from Nikon, Kodak, and others, but also with photo-taking cell phones. Their advantages against cell phones—such as easy photo sharing on social networks like Facebook or the ability to shoot high-definition video for sharing—would not necessarily be an advantage at all against other digital camera brands.38

As another example, Starbucks can define very distinct sets of competitors, which would suggest very different POPs and PODs as a result:

1. Quick-serve restaurants and convenience shops (McDonald’s and Dunkin’ Donuts) . Intended PODs might be quality, image, experience, and variety; intended POPs might be convenience and value.

2. Supermarket brands for home consumption (Nescafé and Folger’s). Intended PODs might be quality, image, experience, variety, and freshness; intended POPs might be convenience and value.

3. Local cafés. Intended PODs might be convenience and service quality; intended POPs might be quality, variety, price, and community.

Note that some POPs and PODs are shared across competitors; others are unique to a particular competitor. Under such circumstances, marketers have to decide what to do. There are two main options. Ideally, a robust positioning could be developed that would be effective across the multiple frames somehow. If not, then it is necessary to prioritize and choose the most relevant set of competitors to serve as the competitive frame. One thing that is crucial though is to be careful to not try to be all things to all people—that typically leads to ineffective “lowest common denominator” positioning.

Finally, note that if there are many competitors in different categories or subcategories, it may be useful to either develop the positioning at the categorical level for all relevant categories (“quick-serve restaurants” or “supermarket take-home coffee” for Starbucks) or with an exemplar from each category (McDonald’s or Nescafé for Starbucks).

Points-of-difference (PODs) are formally defined as attributes or benefits that consumers strongly associate with a brand, positively evaluate, and believe that they could not find to the same extent with a competitive brand.39 Although myriad different types of brand associations are possible, we can classify candidates as either functional, performance-related considerations or as abstract, imagery-related considerations.

Consumers’ actual brand choices often depend on the perceived uniqueness of brand associations. Swedish retailer Ikea took a luxury product—home furnishings and furniture—and made it a reasonably priced alternative for the mass market. Ikea supports its low prices by having customers serve themselves and deliver and assemble their own purchases. Ikea also gains a point-of-difference through its product offerings. As one commentator noted, “Ikea built their reputation on the notion that Sweden produces good, safe, well-built things for the masses. They have some of the most innovative designs at the lowest cost out there.”40 As another example, consider Subaru.

Subaru

By 1993, Subaru was selling only 104,000 cars annually in the United States, down 60 percent from its earlier peak. Cumulative U.S. losses approached $1 billion. Advertised as “Inexpensive and Built to Stay That Way,” Subaru was seen as a me-too car that was undifferentiated from Toyota, Honda, and all their followers. To provide a clear, distinct image, Subaru decided to sell only all-wheel-drive in its passenger cars. After upgrading its luxury image—and increasing its price—Subaru sold over 187,000 cars by 2004. Even more recently, the company launched its “Share the Love” ad campaign, which focused on the fun, adventure, and experiences the vehicles afford and the strong passion and loyalty its customers have for the brand. With its “Share the Love Event,” Subaru created a cause program in which it donates to one of five charities a customer can designate when he or she leases or buys a new car. Subaru’s unique emotional play for relatively upscale buyers who value freedom and frugality paid off in the 2008–2010 recession, when it bucked the industry tide to experience record sales.41

Points-of-difference may rely on performance attributes (Hyundai provides six front and back seat “side curtain” airbags as standard equipment on all its models for increased safety) or performance benefits (Magnavox’s electronic products have “consumer-friendly” technological features, such as television sets with “Smart Sound” to keep volume levels constant while flipping through channels and commercial breaks, and “Smart Picture” to automatically adjust picture settings to optimal levels). In other cases, PODs come from imagery associations (the luxury and status imagery of Louis Vuitton or the fact that British Airways is advertised as the “world’s favourite airline”). Many top brands attempt to create a point-of-difference on “overall superior quality,” whereas other firms become the “low-cost provider” of a product or service.

Thus, a host of different types of PODs are possible. PODs are generally defined in terms of consumer benefits. These benefits often have important underlying “proof points” or reasons to believe (RTBs). These proof points can come in many forms: functional design concerns (a unique shaving system technology, leading to the benefit of a “closer electric shave”); key attributes (a unique tread design, leading to the benefit of “safer tires”); key ingredients (contains fluoride, leading to the benefit of “prevents dental cavities”); or key endorsements (recommended by more audio engineers, leading to the benefit of “superior music fidelity”).42 Having compelling proof points and RTBs are often critical to the deliverability aspect of a POD.

Points-of-parity associations (POPs), on the other hand, are not necessarily unique to the brand but may in fact be shared with other brands. There are three types: category, competitive, and correlational.

POPs are important because they can undermine PODs: unless certain POPs can be achieved to overcome potential weaknesses, PODs may not even matter. For the brand to achieve a point-of-parity on a particular attribute or benefit, a sufficient number of consumers must believe that the brand is “good enough” on that dimension.

There is a “zone” or “range of tolerance or acceptance” with POPs. The brand does not have to be seen as literally equal to competitors, but consumers must feel that it does sufficiently well on that particular attribute or benefit so that they do not consider it to be a negative or a problem. Assuming consumers feel that way, they may then be willing to base their evaluations and decisions on other factors potentially more favorable to the brand.

Points-of-parity are thus easier to achieve than points-of-difference, where the brand must demonstrate clear superiority. Often, the key to positioning is not so much achieving a POD as achieving necessary, competitive and correlational POPs.

To reassure consumers that a brand will deliver on the fundamental reason for using a category, marketers frequently use benefits to announce category membership. Thus, industrial motors might claim to have power, and analgesics might announce their efficacy. These benefits are presented in a manner that does not imply brand superiority but merely notes that the brand possesses them as a means to establish category POPs. Performance and imagery associations can provide supporting evidence. A cake mix might attain membership in the cake category by claiming the benefit of great taste and might support this benefit claim by possessing high-quality ingredients (performance) or by showing users delighting in its consumption (imagery).

Well-known, noteworthy brands in a category can also be used as exemplars to specify a brand’s category membership. When Tommy Hilfiger was an unknown designer, advertising announced his membership as a great American designer by associating him with Geoffrey Beene, Stanley Blacker, Calvin Klein, and Perry Ellis, who were recognized members of that category at that time. The National Pork Board successfully advertised for over two decades that pork was “the Other White Meat,” riding the coattails of the popularity of chicken in the process.45

The product descriptor that follows the brand name is often a very compact means of conveying category origin. For example, USAir changed its name to US Airways, according to CEO Stephen Wolf, as part of the airline’s attempted transformation from a regional carrier with a poor reputation to a strong national or even international brand. The argument was that other major airlines had the word airlines or airways in their names rather than air, which was felt to be typically associated with smaller, regional carriers.46 Consider these two examples:

• When Campbell’s launched its V-8 Splash beverage line, it deliberately avoided including the word “carrot” in the brand name despite the fact that carrot was the main ingredient. The name was chosen to convey healthful benefits but to avoid the negative perception of carrots.47

• California’s prune growers and marketers have attempted to establish an alternative name for their product, “dried plums,” because prunes were seen by the target market of 35- to 50-year-old women as “a laxative for old people.”48

Establishing a brand’s category membership is usually not sufficient for effective brand positioning. If many firms engage in category-building tactics, the result may even be consumer confusion. For example, at the peak of the dot-com boom, Ameritrade, E*TRADE, Datek, and others advertised lower commission rates on stock trades than conventional brokerage firms. A sound positioning strategy requires marketers to specify not only the category but also how the brand dominates other members of its category. Developing compelling points-of-difference is thus critical to effective brand positioning.49

Target consumers must find the POD personally relevant and important. Brands that tap into growing trends with consumers often find compelling PODs. For example, Apple & Eve’s pure, natural fruit juices have ridden the wave of the natural foods movement to find success in an increasingly health-minded beverage market.50

Just being different is not enough—the differences must matter to consumers. For example, at one time a number of brands in different product categories (colas, dishwashing soaps, beer, deodorants, gasoline) introduced clear versions of their products to better differentiate themselves. The “clear” association has not seemed to be of enduring value or to be sustainable as a point-of- difference. In most cases, these brands experienced declining market share or disappeared altogether.

The deliverability of an attribute or benefit brand association depends on both a company’s actual ability to make the product or service (feasibility) as well as their effectiveness in convincing consumers of their ability to do so (communicability), as follows:51

• Feasibility: Can the firm actually supply the benefit underlying the POD? The product and marketing must be designed in a way to support the desired association. It is obviously easier to convince consumers of some fact about the brand that they were unaware of or may have overlooked than to make changes in the product and convince consumers of the value of these changes. As noted above, perhaps the simplest and most effective approach is to point to a unique attribute of the product as a proof point or reason-to-believe. Thus, Mountain Dew may argue that it is more energizing than other soft drinks and support this claim by noting that it has a higher level of caffeine. On the other hand, when the point-of-difference is abstract or image based, support for the claim may reside in more general associations to the company that have been developed over time. Thus, Chanel No. 5 perfume may claim to be the quintessential elegant, French perfume and support this claim by noting the long association between Chanel and haute couture.

• Communicability: The key issue in communicability is consumers’ perceptions of the brand and the resulting brand associations. It is very difficult to create an association that is not consistent with existing consumer knowledge, or that consumers, for whatever reason, have trouble believing in. What factual, verifiable evidence or “proof points” can marketers communicate as support, so that consumers will actually believe in the brand and its desired associations? These “reasons-to-believe” are critical for consumer acceptance of a potential POD. Any claims must pass legal scrutiny too. The makers of category leader POM Wonderful 100% Pomegranate Juice have battled with the Federal Trade Commission over what the FTC deems as “false and unsubstantiated claims” about treating or preventing heart disease, prostate cancer, and erectile dysfunction.52

Finally, target consumers must find the POD distinctive and superior. When marketers are entering a category in which there are established brands, the challenge is to find a viable, long-term basis for differentiation. Is the positioning preemptive, defensible, and difficult to attack? Can the brand association be reinforced and strengthened over time? If these are the case, the positioning is likely to last for years.

Sustainability depends on internal commitment and use of resources as well as external market forces. Before encountering tough economic times, Applebee’s strategy for leadership in the casual dining restaurant business, in part, was to enter smaller markets where a second major competitor might be unlikely to enter—hello Hays, Kansas! Although there are downsides to such a strategy—potentially smaller volume and lethal word-of-mouth from any service snafus—competitive threats are minimal.53

An expensive but sometimes effective approach is to launch two different marketing campaigns, each devoted to a different brand attribute or benefit. These campaigns may run concurrently or sequentially. For example, Head & Shoulders met success in Europe with a dual campaign in which one ad emphasized its dandruff removal efficacy while another ad emphasized the appearance and beauty of hair after its use. The hope is that consumers will be less critical when judging the POP and POD benefits in isolation, because the negative correlation might be less apparent. The downside is that two strong campaigns have to be developed—not just one. Moreover, if the marketer does not address the negative correlation head-on, consumers may not develop as positive an association as desired.

Brands can link themselves to any kind of entity that possesses the right kind of equity—a person, other brand, event, and so forth—as a means to establish an attribute or benefit as a POP or POD. Self-branded ingredients may also lend some credibility to a questionable attribute in consumers’ minds.

The introduction of Miller Lite beer is a classic example of a brand “borrowing” or leveraging the equity of well-known and well-liked celebrities to lend credibility to one of the negatively correlated benefits.55

Borrowing equity, however, is neither costless nor riskless. Chapter 7 reviews these considerations in detail and outlines the pros and cons of leveraging equity.

Finally, another potentially powerful but often difficult way to address the negative relationship between attributes and benefits in the minds of consumers is to convince them that in fact the relationship is positive. Marketers can achieve this by providing consumers with a different perspective and suggesting that they may be overlooking or ignoring certain factors or other considerations. Apple offers another classic example.

Apple

When Apple launched the Macintosh computer in the 1980s—back in the early days of personal computing—its key point-of-difference was “user friendly.” Many consumers valued ease of use—especially those who bought personal computers for the home—because in a pre-Windows world, the DOS PC operating system was complex and clumsy. One drawback with that association for Apple, however, was that customers who bought personal computers for business applications inferred that if a personal computer was easy to use, then it also must not be very powerful—and power was a key choice consideration in the business market. Recognizing this potential problem, Apple ran a clever ad campaign with the tag line “The Power to Be Your Best,” in an attempt to redefine what being a powerful computer meant. The message behind the ads was that because Apple was easy to use, people in fact did just that—they used them!—a simple but important indication of “power.” In other words, the most powerful computers were ones that people actually used.

Although difficult to achieve, such a strategy can be powerful because the two associations can become mutually reinforcing. The challenge is to develop a credible story with which consumers can agree.

Although identifying PODs to dominate competition on benefits that are important to consumers provides a sound way to build an initial position, once the target market attains a basic understanding of how the brand relates to alternatives in the same category, it may be necessary to deepen the meanings associated with the brand positioning. It is often useful to explore underlying consumer motivations in a product category to uncover the relevant associations. For example, Maslow’s hierarchy maintains that consumers have different priorities and levels of needs.54

From lowest to highest priority, they are as follows:

1. Physiological needs (food, water, air, shelter, sex)

2. Safety and security needs (protection, order, stability)

3. Social needs (affection, friendship, belonging)

4. Ego needs (prestige, status, self-respect)

5. Self-actualization (self-fulfillment)

According to Maslow, higher-level needs become relevant once lower-level needs have been satisfied.

Marketers have also recognized the importance of higher-level needs. For example, means-end chains have been devised as a way of understanding higher-level meanings of brand characteristics. A means-end chain takes the following structure: attributes (descriptive features that characterize a product) lead to benefits (the personal value and meaning attached to product attributes), which, in turn, lead to values (stable and enduring personal goals or motivations).55

In other words, a consumer chooses a product that delivers an attribute (A) that provides benefits or has certain consequences (B/C) that satisfy values (V). For example, in a study of salty snacks, one respondent noted that a flavored chip (A) with a strong taste (A) would mean that she would eat less (B/C), not get fat (B/C), and have a better figure (B/C), all of which would enhance her self-esteem (V).

Laddering thus progresses from attributes to benefits to more abstract values or motivations. In effect, laddering repeatedly asks what the implication of an attribute or benefit is for the consumer. Failure to move up the ladder may reduce the strategic alternatives available to a brand.56 For example, P&G introduced low-sudsing Dash detergent to attract consumers who used front-loading washing machines. Many years of advertising Dash in this manner made this position impenetrable by other brands. Dash was so associated with front-loaders, however, that when this type of machine went out of fashion, so did Dash, despite the fact that it was among P&G’s most effective detergents, and despite significant efforts to reposition the brand.

Some attributes and benefits may lend themselves to laddering more easily than others. For example, the Betty Crocker brand appears on a number of different baking products and is characterized by the physical warmth associated with baking. Such an association makes it relatively easy to talk about emotional warmth and the joy of baking or the good feelings that might arise from baking for others across a wide range of baking-related products.

Thus, some of the strongest brands deepen their points-of-difference to create benefit and value associations, for example, Volvo and Michelin (safety and peace of mind), Intel (performance and compatibility), Marlboro (western imagery), Coke (Americana and refreshment), Disney (fun, magic, family entertainment), Nike (innovative products and peak athletic performance), and BMW (styling and driving performance).

As a brand becomes associated with more and more products and moves up the product hierarchy, the brand’s meaning will become more abstract. At the same time, it is important that the proper category membership and POPs and PODs exist in the minds of consumers for any particular products sold under the brand name, as discussed in Chapter 11.

Competitive actions are often directed at eliminating points-of-difference to make them points-of-parity or to strengthen or establish new points-of-difference. Often competitive advantages exist for only a short period of time before competitors attempt to match them. For example, when Goodyear introduced RunOnFlat tires (which allowed tires to keep going for up to 50 miles at a speed of 55 mph after a tire puncture or blowout), Michelin quickly responded with the Zero Pressure tire, which offered the same consumer benefit.

When a competitor challenges an existing POD or attempts to overcome a POP, there are essentially three main options for the target brand—from no reaction to moderate to significant reactions.

• Do nothing. If the competitive actions seem unlikely to recapture a POD or create a new POD, then the best reaction is probably to just stay the course and continue brand-building efforts.

• Go on the defensive. If the competitive actions appear to have the potential to disrupt the market some, then it may be necessary to take a defensive stance. One way to defend the positioning is to add some reassurance in the product or advertising to strengthen POPs and PODs.

• Go on the offensive. If the competitive actions seem potentially quite damaging, then it might be necessary to take a more aggressive stance and reposition the brand to address the threat. One approach might be to launch a product extension or ad campaign that fundamentally changes the meaning of the brand.

A brand audit can help marketers assess the severity of the competitive threat and the appropriate competitive stance, as described in Chapter 8.

What makes a good brand mantra? Two high-profile and successful examples of brand mantras come from two powerful brands, Nike and Disney, as described in Branding Briefs 2-2 and 2-3. Brand mantras must economically communicate what the brand is and what it is not. The Nike and Disney examples show the power and utility of a well-designed brand mantra. They also help suggest what might characterize a good brand mantra. Both examples are essentially structured the same way, with three terms, as follows:

The brand functions term describes the nature of the product or service or the type of experiences or benefits the brand provides. It can range from concrete language that reflects the product category itself, to more abstract notions (like Nike’s and Disney’s), where the term relates to higher-order experiences or benefits that a variety of different products could deliver. The descriptive modifier further clarifies its nature. Thus, Nike’s performance is not just any kind (not artistic performance, for instance) but only athletic performance; Disney’s entertainment is not just any kind (not adult-oriented) but only family entertainment (and arguably an additional modifier, “magical,” could add even more distinctiveness). Combined, the brand function term and descriptive modifier help delineate the brand boundaries. Finally, the emotional modifier provides another qualifier—how exactly does the brand provide benefits and in what ways?

Brand mantras don’t necessarily have to follow this exact structure, but they should clearly delineate what the brand is supposed to represent and therefore, at least implicitly, what it is not. Several additional points are worth noting.

1. Brand mantras derive their power and usefulness from their collective meaning. Other brands may be strong on one, or perhaps even a few, of the brand associations making up the brand mantra. For the brand mantra to be effective, no other brand should singularly excel on all dimensions. Part of the key to both Nike’s and Disney’s success is that for years, no other competitor could really deliver on the promise suggested by their brand mantras as well as they did.

2. Brand mantras typically are designed to capture the brand’s points-of-difference, that is, what is unique about the brand. Other aspects of the brand positioning—especially the brand’s points-of-parity—may also be important and may need to be reinforced in other ways.

3. For brands facing rapid growth, a brand functions term can provide critical guidance as to appropriate and inappropriate categories into which to extend. For brands in more stable categories, the brand mantra may focus more on points-of-difference as expressed by the functional and emotional modifiers, perhaps not even including a brand functions term.

Brand mantras should be developed at the same time as the brand positioning. As we’ve seen, brand positioning typically is a result of an in-depth examination of the brand through some form of brand audit or other activities. Brand mantras may benefit from the learning gained from those activities but, at the same time, require more internal examination and involve input from a wider range of company employees and marketing staff. Part of this internal exercise is actually to determine the different means by which each and every employee currently affects brand equity, and how he or she can contribute in a positive way to a brand’s destiny. The importance of internal branding is reinforced in The Science of Branding 2-2.

Marketers can often summarize the brand positioning in a few sentences or a short paragraph that suggests the ideal core brand associations consumers should hold. Based on these core brand associations, a brainstorming session can attempt to identify PODs, POPs, and different brand mantra candidates. In the final brand mantra, the following considerations should come into play:

• Communicate: A good brand mantra should both define the category (or categories) of the business to set the brand boundaries and clarify what is unique about the brand.

• Simplify: An effective brand mantra should be memorable. That means it should be short, crisp, and vivid. A three-word mantra is ideal because it is the most economical way to convey the brand positioning.

• Inspire: Ideally, the brand mantra should also stake out ground that is personally meaningful and relevant to as many employees as possible. Brand mantras can do more than inform and guide; they can also inspire, if the brand values tap into higher-level meaning with employees as well as consumers.

Regardless of how many words make up the mantra, however, there will always be a level of meaning beneath the brand mantra itself that will need to be articulated. Virtually any word may have many interpretations. For example, the words fun, family, and entertainment in Disney’s brand mantra can each take on multiple meanings, leading Disney to drill deeper to provide a stronger foundation for the mantra. Two or three short phrases were therefore added later to clarify each of the three words.