Brand equity: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (References)
(Measurement)
Line 11: Line 11:
   
 
All of these calculations are, at best, approximations. A more complete understanding of the brand can occur if multiple measures are used.
 
All of these calculations are, at best, approximations. A more complete understanding of the brand can occur if multiple measures are used.
  +
pete is a gay whore
   
 
== Positive brand equity vs. negative brand equity ==
 
== Positive brand equity vs. negative brand equity ==

Revision as of 16:23, 15 March 2010

Brand equity refers to the marketing effects or outcomes that accrue to a product with its brand name compared with those that would accrue if the same product did not have the brand name [1][2][3][4]. And, at the root of these marketing effects is consumers' knowledge. In other words, consumers' knowledge about a brand makes manufacturers/advertisers respond differently or adopt appropriately adept measures for the marketing of the brand [5][6]. The study of brand equity is increasingly popular as some marketing researchers have concluded that brands are one of the most valuable assets that a company has[7]. Brand equity is one of the factors which can increase the financial value of a brand to the brand owner, although not the only one [8].

Measurement

There are many ways to measure a brand. Some measurements approaches are at the firm level, some at the product level, and still others are at the consumer level.

Firm Level: Firm level approaches measure the brand as a financial asset. In short, a calculation is made regarding how much the brand is worth as an intangible asset. For example, if you were to take the value of the firm, as derived by its market capitalization - and then subtract tangible assets and "measurable" intangible assets- the residual would be the brand equity.[7] One high profile firm level approach is by the consulting firm Interbrand. To do its calculation, Interbrand estimates brand value on the basis of projected profits discounted to a present value. The discount rate is a subjective rate determined by Interbrand and Wall Street equity specialists and reflects the risk profile, market leadership, stability and global reach of the brand[9].

Product Level: The classic product level brand measurement example is to compare the price of a no-name or private label product to an "equivalent" branded product. The difference in price, assuming all things equal, is due to the brand[10]. More recently a revenue premium approach has been advocated [4].

Consumer Level: This approach seeks to map the mind of the consumer to find out what associations with the brand that the consumer has. This approach seeks to measure the awareness (recall and recognition) and brand image (the overall associations that the brand has). Free association tests and projective techniques are commonly used to uncover the tangible and intangible attributes, attitudes, and intentions about a brand[5]. Brands with high levels of awareness and strong, favorable and unique associations are high equity brands[5].

All of these calculations are, at best, approximations. A more complete understanding of the brand can occur if multiple measures are used. pete is a gay whore

Positive brand equity vs. negative brand equity

A brand equity is the positive effect of the brand on the difference between the prices and that the consumer accepts to pay when the brand known compared to the value of the benefit received.

There are two schools of thought regarding the existence of negative brand equity. One perspective states brand equity cannot be negative, hypothesizing only positive brand equity is created by marketing activities such as advertising, PR, and promotion. A second perspective is that negative equity can exist, due to catastrophic events to the brand, such as a wide product recall or continued negative press attention (Blackwater or Haliburton, for example).

Colloquially, the term "negative brand equity" may be used to describe a product or service where an brand has a negligible effect on a product level when compared to a no-name or private label product. The brand-related negative intangible assets are called “brand liability”, compared with “brand equity” [11].

Family branding vs. individual branding strategies

The greater a company's brand equity, the greater the probability that the company will use a family branding strategy rather than an individual branding strategy. This is because family branding allows them to leverage the equity accumulated in the core brand. Aspects of brand equity includes: brand loyalty, awareness, association, and perception of quality .

Examples

In the early 2000s in North America, the Ford Motor Company made a strategic decision to brand all new or redesigned cars with names starting with "F". This aligned with the previous tradition of naming all sport utility vehicles since the Ford Explorer with the letter "E". The Toronto Star quoted an analyst who warned that changing the name of the well known Windstar to the Freestar would cause confusion and discard brand equity built up, while a marketing manager believed that a name change would highlight the new redesign. The aging Taurus, which became one of the most significant cars in American auto history would be abandoned in favor of three entirely new names, all starting with "F", the Five Hundred, Freestar and Fusion. By 2007, the Freestar was discontinued without a replacement. The Five Hundred name was thrown out and Taurus was brought back for the next generation of that car in a surprise move by Alan Mulally. "Five Hundred" was recognized by less than half of most people, but an overwhelming majority was familiar with the "Ford Taurus".

References

  1. ^ Aaker, David A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity. New York: The Free Press
  2. ^ Keller, Kevin Lane (2003). “Brand Synthesis: The Multidimensionality of Brand Knowledge,” Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (4), 595-600
  3. ^ Leuthesser, L., C.S. Kohli and K.R. Harich (1995). “Brand Equity: The Halo Effect Measure,” European Journal of Marketing, 29 (4), 57-66.
  4. ^ a b Ailawadi, Kusum L., Donald R. Lehmann, and Scott A Neslin (2003). “Revenue Premium as an Outcome Measure of Brand Equity,” Journal of Marketing, 67 (October), 1-17
  5. ^ a b c Keller, Kevin Lane (1993). “Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity,” Journal of Marketing, 57 (January) 1-22
  6. ^ Lassar, W., B. Mittal and A. Sharma (1995). “Measuring Customer-Based Brand Equity,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 12 (4), 11-19
  7. ^ a b Neumeier, Marty (2006). The Brand Gap: How to Bridge the Distance Between Business Strategy and Design, Berkekley, CA : New Riders Publishing.
  8. ^ Grannell, Chris (2009). "Untangling Brand Equity, Value and Health", Brandchannel, Fall 2008
  9. ^ Chu, Singfat and Hean Tat Keh (2006). “Brand Value Creation: Analysis of the Interbrand-Business Week Brand Value Rankings,” Marketing Letters, 17, 323-331
  10. ^ Aaker, David A. (1996), “Measuring Brand Equity Across Products and Markets,” California Management Review, 38 (Spring), 102-120.
  11. ^ Aaker, David A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity. New York: The Free Press

10. Paul Kilburn ad Alfred Riachi Brands vs non Branded Strategies, Journal of Marketing p 23, (12,1 2008).

See also