There is a compulsion to focus in on functional benefits. It comes perhaps from the legacy of the Rosser Reeves unique selling proposition that brought us the candy that “melts in your mouth instead of your hand.” A functional benefit is appealing. Our instinct, especially if we reside in the high tech or a B2B sector, is to assume that customers are rational and will be swayed by functional benefits.

Further, when asked why customers buy this brand or avoid that one, we assume they will give functional reasons. The resulting insights often have an inordinate influence on strategy. But we have too much evidence from behavioral economists and market researchers that shows customers are far from rational. We see it every day. Even an airline, when buying a plane, will, in the end, be influenced by their gut even with piles of proposal details in front of them.

“When a brand provides a self-expressive benefit, the connection between the brand and the customer is likely to be heightened.”

In most contexts, customers lack the motivation, the time, the information or the competence to make decisions that will maximize performance outcomes and project functional benefits from other brand associations. Even worse, strategies based on functional benefits are often strategically ineffective or limiting:

• Customers may not believe that a brand has a functional advantage because of competitors’ conflicting claims, and they may not believe the benefit represents a compelling reason to buy the brand.
• If the functional benefit represents a point of differentiation, competitors may quickly copy it.
• The benefit may not represent a basis of a strong, long-term relationship because there is no emotional attachment.
• A strong functional association confines the brand, especially when it comes to responding to changing markets or in exploring brand extensions.

A Crest that is about toothpaste will be less able to win in other categories than a Crest that enables people to feel healthy and shine confidently in social settings. Thus, it makes sense to move beyond functional benefits and consider self-expressive, social and emotional benefits as a basis for the value proposition.

Self-Expressive Benefits

Brands and products, as symbols of a person’s self-concept, can provide a self-expressive benefit by providing a vehicle by which a person can express his or her self. “When I buy or use this brand, I am___.” A brand does not have to be Harley-Davidson to deliver self-expressive benefits. A person can be cool by buying clothes at Zara, successful by driving a Lexus, creative by using Apple, frugal and unpretentious by shopping at Kmart, or adventurous and active by owning REI camping equipment.

Using a Schwab account is a signal that a person can manage an investment portfolio. When a brand provides a self-expressive benefit, the connection between the brand and the customer is likely to be heightened. For example, consider the difference between the brand connection of using Lancôme, which may heighten one’s self-concept of being sophisticated, exotic, and mysterious versus using Jergens or Vaseline Intensive Care Lotion.

Social Benefits

The drive to have friends, colleagues, family and groups with common interests is intense and can generate immediate and long-term rewards. People are not only fulfilled with social relationships, they are influenced as well. Many brands have the capability of participating or even driving social benefits. “When I buy or use this brand, the type of people I relate to are ____.”

There are several types of social benefits. The Hyatt brand has focused on enabling a social feel and experience. Sephora created a community with Beauty Talk that provides a social dimension to the brand. Others can involve affinity groups: “When I go to Starbucks I am part of a closed club of aficionados, even if I don’t interact with any.” Still others can involve aspirational groups: “When playing with a Titleist Pro V1, I am among a group that contains some really good golfers.”

Emotional Benefits

An emotional benefit relates to the ability of the brand to make the buyer or user of a brand feel something during the purchase process or use experience. “When I buy or use this brand I feel___.” Thus, a customer can feel safe in a Volvo, excited in a BMW, refreshed with Coca-Cola, or warm when receiving a Hallmark card. Evian associated itself with the satisfied feeling that comes from a workout with its “Another day, another chance to feel healthy” tagline. Cars.com takes the stress out of the car buying experience.

Emotional benefits add richness and depth to the brand and the experience of owning and using the brand. Without the memories that Sun-Maid raisins evokes, the brand would border on commodity status. The familiar red package links many users to the happy days of helping mom in the kitchen (or the idealized childhood for some who wished that they had such experiences.) The result can be a different user experience, one with feelings and a stronger brand.

For those involved with building a brand, there are certain challenges to keep in mind that are essential to your success.

After writing my latest book, Aaker on Branding, a book that contains an overview of 20 key branding principles, I included an epilogue that identifies 10 additional branding challenges to keep in mind as you work to build your brand. If you are involved with building a brand or brand portfolio, you will benefit from appraising how you are facing each of the challenges below:

1. Treating brands as assets

The ongoing pressure to deliver short-term financial results coupled with the fragmentation of media will tempt organizations to focus on tactics and measurables and neglect the objective of building assets.

2. Possessing a compelling vision

A brand vision needs to differentiate itself, resonate with customers and inspire employees. It needs to be feasible to implement, work over time in a dynamic marketplace and drive brand-building programs. Visions that work are usually multidimensional and adaptable to different contexts. They employ concepts such as brand personality, organizational values, a higher purpose and in general they simply move beyond functional benefits.

3. Creating new subcategories

The only way to grow, with rare exceptions, is to develop “must have” innovations that define new subcategories and build barriers to inhibit competitors from gaining relevance. That requires substantial or transformational innovation and a new ability to manage the perceptions of a subcategory so that it wins.

4. Generating breakthrough brand building

Exceptional ideas and executions that break out of the clutter are necessary in order to bring the brand vision to life. These ideas and the execution of them are more critical than the size of your budget. “Good” is just not good enough. That means making sure you get more ideas from more sources, and that you make sure you have the mechanisms in place to recognize brilliance and bring those ideas to market – quickly.

5. Achieving integrated marketing communication (IMC)

IMC is more elusive and difficult than ever in light of the various methods you have to choose from such as advertising, sponsorships, digital, mobile, social media and more. These methods tend to compete with each other rather than reinforce because the media scene and options have become so complex, so dynamic, and because product and country silos reflect competition and isolation rather than cooperation and communication.

“A brand vision needs to differentiate itself, resonate with customers and inspire employees.”

6. Building a digital strategy

This arena is complex, dynamic and in need of a different mindset. The reality is, the audience is in control here. New capabilities, creative initiatives and new ways to work with other marketing modalities are required. Adjust the digital marketing focus from the offering and the brand to the customer’s sweet spot, which is to say the activities and opinions in which they are interested or even passionate about. Develop programs around that sweet spot in which the brand is an active partner, such as Pampers did with Pampers Village or what Avon did with their Walk for Breast Cancer.

7. Building your brand internally

It is hard to achieve successful integrated marketing communications or breakthrough marketing without employees both knowing the vision and caring about it. The brand vision that lacks a higher purpose will find the inspiration challenge almost impossible.

8. Maintaining brand relevance

Brands face three relevance threats: Fewer customers buying what the brand is offering, emerging reasons not-to-buy, and loss of energy. Detecting and responding to each requires an in-depth knowledge of the market, plus a willingness to invest and change.

9. Creating a brand-portfolio strategy that yields synergy and clarity

Brands need well-defined roles and visions that support those roles. Strategic brands should be identified and resourced, and branded differentiators and energizers should be created and managed.

10. Leveraging brand assets to enable growth

A brand portfolio should foster growth by enabling new offerings, extending the brand vertically or extending the brand into another product class. The goal is to apply the brand to new contexts where the brand both adds value and enhances itself.

While much attention is paid to building brands, too often the brand portfolio is neglected. The result is marketplace confusion, paralysis in naming new products, under-supported brands and misallocation of brand-building resources. We need to better identify brand roles and, more particularly, distinguish between the strategic brands and their roles.

A strategic brand is one with strategic importance to the organization. It is a driver of reputation, differentiation, loyalty, sales and cash flow. Identifying your strategic brands will be a huge step toward ensuring that brand-building resources are not misallocated.

In general, there are four types of strategic brands:

Current power brands

Current power brands will be the ones currently generating significant sales and profits and projected to maintain or grow their position. Large dominant brands such as Microsoft Windows or Coke Zero would qualify, as would high-energy growth brands such as Chobani or Dove.

Future power brands

These brands are the ones projected to generate significant sales and profit in the future. Future power brands may be small or even yet to be introduced, but they earn status because of their potential and place in the portfolio of the future.

Linchpin brands

These will indirectly influence (as opposed to generate) significant sales and market position in the future. These brands are the linchpin or leverage point of a major business area or of a future vision of the firm and are likely to be branded differentiators. Hilton Rewards is such a brand for Hilton Hotels because it represents the future ability to control a substantial and critical segment in the hotel industry—travelers involved in loyalty programs.

Niche brands

Niche brands have become dominant in a profitable niche market but will not become power brands. They do have a strategic role in controlling a market that has value in generating profits and enhancing a brand’s image. It could be an upscale market entrant such as Mobil 1 or GE Monogram that provide both margin and image enhancement. Or it could be a protected niche, such as Yoplait’s Go-Gurt.

One classic problem is that future power brands and lynchpin brands get starved of resources. The current power brands and often the niche brands as well receive the lion’s share of both the budget and the organizational power. Often there is no organizational mechanism to take a total portfolio view, thus the brands of the future get starved.

“The current power brands and often the niche brands as well receive the lion’s share of both the budget and the organizational power.”

A second problem is the danger of wishful thinking from optimistic brand managers that will result in an excessive number of strategic brand nominees. The new brands and offerings become vested with substantial professional and personal commitment, which results in over-branding and too many strategic brands. The result is underfunding and an inability of the portfolio brands to become successful.

Sometime in the late 1980s, an explosive idea emerged that brands are assets, have equity and drive overall business strategy and performance. That idea altered perceptions of what marketing does, who does it, and to what end is its purpose. It’s also the focal point of the first chapter of my latest book, Aaker on Branding. It truly transformed marketing, comparable in impact to other transformational ideas that have appeared in the last century such as mass marketing, segmentation and globalization.

“Brands are assets, have equity and drive overall business strategy and performance.”

When firms adopt this asset view of branding, marketing is no longer perceived as a tactical arm of the business run by middle and lower-level managers (or an outside agency) in order to generate short-term sales for a single brand, offering and organizational unit. Rather, marketing is seen as:

Strategic and visionary

Marketing contributes to the business strategy through its first-hand knowledge of customer insights and marketplace trends, plus its expertise with respect to segmentation, brand portfolio strategies, the value proposition, growth strategies and global brand strategies.

Being managed by top executives

From a strategic view, the brand is usually managed by people higher in the organization, often the top marketing professionals in the business organization. For marketing-driven organizations, the ultimate brand champion can be the CEO. In any case, marketing now gets a seat at the strategy table becoming a participant at creating and managing the business strategy.

Charged with building brand assets

Shifting the emphasis from tactical measures such as short-term sales to strategic measures of brand equity and other indicators of long-term financial performance is a monumental change. The guiding premise is that strong brands can be the basis of competitive advantage and long-term profitability going forward. A primary brand-building goal will be to build, enhance or leverage brand equity, the major dimensions of which are awareness, associations and loyalty of the customer base.

Leveraging brand assets

When a brand is viewed as an asset, the opportunity will arise to leverage that asset to generate growth. It can be used as a master brand or perhaps as an endorser to support a vertical extension or a strategic entry into another product class by providing awareness, credibility, customer relationships and positive associations. It can also be used to frame a subcategory, thereby rendering competitor brands less relevant.

Managing the brand portfolio

As offerings and brands proliferate, it’s clear that marketing needs to manage the brand family to foster clarity, synergy, energy, relevance and leverage. That means that each brand needs to be assigned well-defined role sets and managed so that they are successful in those roles. The possible brand roles include strategic brands, cash-cow brands, master brands, endorser brands sub-brands and more.

Addressing the organizational silo issues

Nearly all brands span different silo organizations defined by products, markets or countries. Marketing is charged with fostering communication and cooperation across silos without which there can be inefficiencies, lost opportunities to scale effective programs and brand diminution. The brand-as-asset view has faced resistance for various reasons. The power of short-term financials is overwhelming and pay-off from brand building is difficult to quantify, especially in the short term. Building brand assets is no easy feat. Nevertheless, the time has come to prioritize brands as assets – its impact on marketing can be transformational.

The concept of brand equity and the science and practice of building and managing brands strategically have been with us for more than a quarter-century. Taking stock, what are the most powerful and impactful ideas that have emerged during that time?

I addressed that question when writing my book, Aaker on Branding: 20 Principles That Drive Success. Drawing on my previous branding books, my articles and the work of others in the field, I identified some four dozen ideas and packaged them into 20 principles. The result is an overview of what has emerged during the brand era that has allowed strong brands to win in tough marketplaces. Of these ideas, here are the home runs that have changed, if not transformed, marketing:

Think of brands as assets, with strategic value

In the late 1980s, the idea that a brand was an asset with equity began to get traction. That concept has since transformed marketing, which had been dominated for a half-century by the tactical view of marketing developed in the halls of Procter & Gamble. Starting in the ’80s, marketing was managed by a CMO who had a seat at the executive table. Marketing was now intimately involved in—if not a driver of—business strategy, and was no longer relegated to being a tactical arm. Marketing was now measured by brand equity in addition to short-term sales, and marketing resources were allocated to strategic brands and programs rather than to the big silos rich with funds and political power.

We have seen mass marketing, segmentation and globalization as transformational ideas in marketing. Considering brands as assets with equity should be in that set.

Communicate a multidimensional, strategic and flexible brand vision

There was a time when markets were stable, segmentation was simple, and a brand just needed a unique selling proposition that could be captured in a three-word phrase and worked everywhere. No more. A brand vision for today should be multidimensional and allow the brand to express itself. Some brands will aspire to have a personality that adds interest and energy as well as communicates attributes. Some may feature organizational values that provide a point of differentiation. Some will deliver social or self-expressive and functional benefits. What will differentiate and resonate will depend on the brand context and the brand strategy going forward. The brand vision thus cannot be constrained by a “fill in the box” model with pre-specified dimensions and no sense of priorities.

A brand vision should be strategic. It should reflect not only the existing offering but also the role that the brand will play in future offerings and in supporting other brands. The brand vision also should be flexible, as the goal should be to have strong brands in every product category or country. The adjustment can be made by interpreting a vision dimension differently, by changing the priority within the vision or by augmenting the vision in some contexts, and it may change as the market and strategy changes.

Find opportunities to create new subcategories

Growth, with some exceptions, only occurs by engaging in transformational or substantial innovation that creates “must-haves” that define new subcategories. Brand teams thus need to nurture “big” innovations in offerings, services or programs. One implication is that the competition in dynamic categories is shifting from “my brand is better than your brand” marketing to the creation of subcategories, and to managing their defining image so that the right subcategory wins, and so that your brand is the most—or the only—relevant brand.

“Subcategories have to be protected or the advantage of the innovator can be short-lived.”

Another implication is that subcategories have to be protected or the advantage of the innovator can be short-lived. One way to protect a subcategory is to brand the innovation, thereby creating a branded differentiator that can not only help communicate the “must-have,” but also provide a way to own it. Competitors can copy the innovation but not the brand.

Look to the customer sweet spot instead of selling the offering, brand or firm

The driving logic is that customers will seek out, discuss and be engaged in what they are interested in, and, with rare exceptions, offerings or firms do not qualify. The alternative is to become an active participant using a shared interest program around a customer’s “sweet spot.” For example, Pampers went beyond diapers by “owning” a “go-to” website for baby care.

A sweet spot reflects customers’ “thinking and doing” time, beliefs and values, activities and passions or possessions. Ideally, it would be a part of, if not central to, their self-identity and lifestyle, and reflect a higher-order value proposition much beyond the benefits provided by the offering. Connecting with a shared interest area provides avenues to a relationship much richer than that of an offering-based relationship. The positive feelings associated with the shared-interest area can lead to positive feelings about the brand. Further, people attribute all sorts of good characteristics to brands that they like, and with which they share values and interests. And a shared interest program should stimulate a social network because people talk about what they are interested in.

Manage the brand portfolio strategically

Naming a new product on an ad hoc basis potentially leads to brand confusion, brand damage and the loss of an opportunity to build brand platforms to support future strategies. Instead, a new product should have a brand that will support the new offering, will enhance the brand and will be effective in needed roles when additional products make their appearance. Branding new products strategically involves working with the brand relationship spectrum where descriptors, sub-brands, endorsed brands and shadow endorsers are employed to control the distance from the master brand. A sub-brand will allow some distance from a master brand, an endorsed brand more, a shadow endorser even more and a new brand the most.

Vertical extensions are risky but sometimes necessary when business realities dictate a vertical move. When moving into a value market, a brand may be put at risk, and even a strong brand may lack the prestige and credibility to support a super-premium offering. The use of a sub-brand or endorsed brand can reduce such risk when creating a new brand simply is not feasible.

In the future, branding and business, in general, is going to involve more subcategory creation and competition and less “my brand is better than your brand” competition. This is because, with rare exemptions, that is the only way to achieve real profitable growth. In category after category, real growth results not from market share increases, but from brands that have created a set of “must-haves” that define a new subcategory and then manage that subcategory by becoming its exemplar.

These brands continue to innovate and create a moving target. By managing the perceptions and attitudes toward the subcategory, the subcategory wins. I’ve previously discussed in my blog and my book, Brand Relevance, a host of examples of brands that have created subcategories and won a subcategory battle. The Chrysler minivan, Asahi Super Dry, Enterprise-Rent-a-Car, Muji (the no-brand retailer), Patagonia, Zipcar, Tesla, Red Bull, IKEA, Gillette razors in India, the list goes on and on.

“Real growth results not from market share increases, but from brands that have created a set of “must-haves” that define a new subcategory.”

Chobani, recently written about in Marketing News, is another good example. Hamdi Ulukaya, a native of Turkey and the owner of a small cheese business, bought a former Kraft yogurt plant in New York in 2005. His goal was to produce Greek yogurt, back then a minuscule and unnoticed part of the yogurt scene dominated by Yoplait and Dannon. He named it “Chobani,” and in just over five years, was making 1.4 billion dollars. The share of the yogurt market held by the Greek subcategory went from 0.7% in 2006 to 52% in 2014. The Greek subcategory won.

Four observations about Chobani’s achievement:

1. The product has a distinct value proposition. It’s thicker, which makes it have a richer, creamier texture. With the same amount of calories, it usually has twice the protein, half the sugar, and half the carbs as regular yogurt. That has an appeal to those interested in high protein diets as well as those that want or need to avoid meat. The low sugar, carb, calorie counts are valued by anyone into health or trying to lose weight.
2. Chobani created a unique package design. Their cup was shorter and fatter than the prototypical yogurt container and displayed vivid colors. That provided a symbol of the new subcategory that helped customers recognize which option was Greek. It also provided the self-expressive benefit of knowing that what you are buying and eating was the authentic Greek yogurt with all its attributes.
3. Chobani positioned itself as a subcategory and not as a specialty product. It wasn’t to be used only by those that would want a niche, ethnic product. That enabled the brand to become a mass product with appeal to a broad segment.
4. Chobani fought back. When its rivals, particularly the big players Dannon and Yoplait, attempted to become relevant, Chobani leveraged its exemplar position by innovating and framing the subcategory. As a result, the upstart Chobani still retains a 40% share of the Greek yogurt market. Chobani innovated. It now offers a 100-calorie version (Simply 100), a flip yogurt with added toppings such as blueberries, a breakfast line labeled Chobani Oats, a line of seasonally inspired yogurt flavors called Chobani Indulgent, a line of dips, and a full-fat yogurt in large containers for cooking and as a substitute for sour cream. They have even opened retail cafes that stock more exotic versions of their product.

Further, Chobani framed the subcategory to include natural ingredients, where Chobani has an edge. Their “How Matters” campaign highlights the Chobani production process and will become a theme of a larger campaign about how important process is when training for the Olympics, as well as making yogurt. How could the two dominant yogurt brands sit by while a newcomer with very limited resources grew to a 1.4 billion business in under six years?

The concept of storytelling is one of the hottest topics in marketing today. By communicating a narrative that has a beginning, an end, emotions and facts, brands are able to become more human and more compelling.

Both research and common sense tell us that when facts are put into story form they are powerful because stories are more easily remembered. When facts are embedded into a story, counter-arguing is less likely because the power of the story distracts. When an argument is in a story context, people deduce the logic themselves and we know, again from research and common sense, that self-discovery is much more powerful than having people talk at you. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, a storyteller is usually more liked than one attempting to persuade an audience with facts.

There is a classic Israeli folktale that tells the story of two women, Truth and Parable, who compete against each other to see who is more attractive to the townspeople. Truth wanted to attract as much attention as possible, so she shed her clothes thinking people would flock to her. They in fact did the opposite and shut the route. When Parable walked quietly into town, unassuming yet friendly, the townspeople came out and followed her, talking happily. The lesson comes when Parable explains, “People do still love Truth, but they do not like the naked truth. If you wish people to accept you, you must clothe yourself in the mantle of story.”

“People do still love Truth, but they do not like the naked truth. If you wish people to accept you, you must clothe yourself in the mantle of story.”

Stories break down suspicions and distract from facts that may be counter to beliefs and thus threatening.

So, what makes a good story?

Consider the classic series of Timex ads hosted by John Cameron Swayze, one of America’s first network TV anchors. In one, a diver climbs to the top of an amazingly high Mexican cliff with a Timex strapped to his wrist. Will the Timex survive the shock? The diver leaps into the air, enters the water and struggles to get to shore. However, the Timex is still working. Swayze announces the familiar “Timex takes a licking and keeps on ticking.” This story is repeated dozens of times with the watch on Mickey Mantle’s bat, on the stomach of a Sumo wrestler, running through a dishwasher and many, many more examples.

Why was this story so effective? There are 4 reasons:

First, there is a narrative. With a beginning that captures our attention and interest (a high diver wearing a watch and facing a challenge), a middle that is involving (the dive), and a conclusion (the watch still works) we are enthralled as viewers for the duration of the commercial.

Second, there is a climax. The emotion in this case is created by the uncertainty of the outcome and the nature of the activity.

Third, there is authenticity. The settings and challenges are real. The voice of John Cameron Swayze offers another level of credibility.

Fourth, there is a brand-related goal. In this case, the goal is to show that Timex is durable and reliable. There are many examples of great, memorable stories that got disassociated from the brand and the intended message. There needs to be an objective and a point to the story that satisfies the objective.

There is way too much emphasis on “my brand is better than your brand” competition.

The real payoff comes as a result of shifting positioning the brand to frame the subcategory (or category) and thereby changing the way people perceive, discuss and feel. It changes which brands are relevant.

Your goal should be to define what people are buying in such a way that competitor brands are at a disadvantage or are not even considered at all. This route to winning is often the only path to real growth and is a way toward a marketplace niche that will result in enduring leadership, energy and success. Winning by framing the subcategory can take several forms:

Elevate Your Offering By Defining What the Customer is Buying.

Ideally, it will become a “must-have,” which means that if a brand is deficient in that characteristic it will be less relevant and unlikely to be considered. It may even become completely irrelevant. Consider: -Whole Foods Markets making “organic” a primary choice factor for food. -Dove creating a case for moisturizing as a must-have shampoo characteristic -Patagonia arguing that clothing brands should have sustainable programs and values -ASUS creating a subcategory that makes motherboards for the big name computer brands. When a subcategory can be defined using multiple dimensions it becomes exclusionary. Fewer brands will be able to qualify. For example, Prius defined a subcategory that included car styling, the self-expressive benefit of appearing as a sustainable person, low operating costs and Toyota quality. This set of “must-haves” in combination allowed the Prius brand to define and dominate a subcategory for well over a decade.

Reframe Competing Subcategories.

The publicity around the recent Tesla fires potentially brought the important issue of safety to the forefront of consumers’ minds. Tesla needs to reframe the discussion away from the safety of Tesla alone and shift the conversation to a comparison between the safety of gasoline-powered cars and the subcategory of high-powered electric cars for which Tesla is the exemplar brand — and, in fact, the only brand. Fire incidents are over four times as great in gasoline-powered cars. And for some, a more visible fire risk might create a reason for a car buyer to say yes to the electric-powered subcategory.

Expand the Perceived Category Decision.

UC-Berkeley’s Haas School of Business reframed the MBA category by launching an “Evening & Weekend MBA Program.” DiGiorno introduced their signature “rising crust” pizza, the first frozen pizza without a precooked crust, and reframed the frozen pizza subcategory and even the delivery pizza category. “It’s not delivery, it’s DiGiorno.” In the reframed subcategory, DiGiorno, instead of being a premium-priced frozen pizza, now has a decided price advantage by being half the price of a delivered pizza. And its quality is perceived as comparable to boot.

“Your goal should be to define what people are buying in such a way that competitor brands are at a disadvantage or are not even considered at all.”

This notion that the real branding challenge is to create and win subcategory competition instead of brand competition by framing a subcategory is a big one. Framing is powerful because a strong frame will dominate perceptions and information flow. UC-Berkeley Professor of Linguistics George Lakoff, who wrote the delightful book Don’t Think of an Elephant said, “Frames are mental structures that shape the way we see the world. If a strongly held frame doesn’t fit the facts, the facts will be ignored and the frame will be kept.”

In order to successfully frame or reframe a subcategory and actively manage its perceptions over time, it is necessary to become the subcategory exemplar, the brand that represents the subcategory. Brands such as Prius, Jell-O, Gatorade, V8, Google, Apple, Whole Foods Market, Enterprise Rent-A-Car and Geek Squad are examples. A brand with a strong exemplar position can actually become the label for the subcategory and will thus be its most visible and credible brand. Any competitors are in the awkward position of defining their relevance in a way that only reaffirms the authenticity and leadership of the exemplar.

Look for Proof Points and Imperatives

What does a winning brand vision look like? As I noted in a recent post, the brand vision should reflect and support the business strategy, differentiate from competitors, resonate with customers, energize and inspire employees and partners, adapt to different markets and precipitate a gush of ideas for marketing programs.

Creating a brand vision that meets these requirements is a great start to success. However, the brand vision implies a promise to customers and a commitment by the organization. It cannot be an exercise in wishful thinking but, rather, needs to have substance behind it.

Is Your Vision Really Feasible Given Organizational Limitations, Resource Demands and Competitive Dynamics?

The answer comes from an analysis of proof points and strategic imperatives. Proof points come from existing capabilities and programs that enable the organization to deliver the promise of each brand vision element and its associated value proposition. IKEA supports its low prices with deep design expertise and functional products. Tesla supports its category-changing mileage range with battery knowledge and capability. Dove supports its product expansion strategy with its moisturizer image and branded differentiators such as the “weightless moisturizer” shampoos. Patagonia supports its environmental credentials with its heritage values and its programs such as the “Common Thread” effort.

Proof Points Can Be Visible or They Can Exist Behind the Scenes.

The visible proof points behind Nordstrom’s claim of outstanding personal service are its return policy and its empowered staff. The employee compensation system, together with hiring and training programs, are proof points the customer doesn’t see. Proof points are to be leveraged, but if they are weak or missing altogether a strategic imperative is needed. A strategic imperative is a strategic investment in assets, skills, programs or people.

“A strategic imperative is a strategic investment in assets, skills, programs or people.”

It’s essential if the customer promise is to be delivered. But delivering on a strategic imperative might require significant investment or a change in culture. Consider the following: For a regional bank brand that aspires to have a comprehensive customer relationship, a strategic imperative might be to equip each customer contact person with access to all of the customer’s accounts with the bank. For a premium audio equipment brand that aspires to be a technological leader, strategic imperatives might include an expanded R&D program and improved manufacturing quality. For a value sub-brand for a household cleaning product, a strategic imperative might be to develop a cost culture.

The strategic imperative represents a reality check, because it makes the critical “must-do” investments visible and thus stimulates an assessment as to the feasibility of the brand strategy. Are the investment resources available? Is the commitment from the organization really there? Is the organization capable of responding to the strategic imperative? If the answer to any of these questions is “no,” then the organization is unable or unwilling to deliver behind the brand promise.

Delivering on Your Brand Promise.

The promise will then become an empty advertising slogan. At best, it will be a waste of resources and at worst it will create a brand liability instead of a brand asset. For example, if the regional bank is not willing to invest the tens of millions of dollars necessary to create the database needed to allow appropriate customer interaction, then the “relationship bank” concept will need to be rethought. If the audio components firm is not willing to create innovative products and improve manufacturing quality, a high-end leader brand vision may be doomed.

If the household cleaning product manufacturer is not willing or able to create a sub-unit with a real cost culture, then the value market may be a recipe for failure. The Haas School of Business is a good example of an organization that recognized the strategic imperatives they needed to address if they wanted to stand out as the innovation school where faculty and students “challenge the status quo.” The curriculum, the faculty, the research programs, the alumni outreach and the admission process were all adjusted to make the school realize the vision.

Adam Grant’s book Give and Take suggests that all people take different dominant approaches to their jobs. They are either defined as “givers,” “takers” or “matchers.” Research shows that these different styles can affect performance and satisfaction.

I wonder if the same paradigm could be applied to brands and whether some of the psychologically-based research that Adam reports could shed light on the management of firms and brands. Are some brands and the firms they represent “givers?” And if so, under what circumstances is that style of operating likely to result in superior short-term or long-term performance?

A “giver” is concerned with what others need and is both willing and able to spend time and energy helping others, even if that time and energy will not result in personal gain. A “taker” is self-focused with an unrelenting goal of advancing his or her own career agenda. A “matcher” takes a more balanced approach, helping others when the net result will be reciprocated in a balanced way and result in fairness.

A host of studies have shown that being a “giver” can result in inferior personal performance, especially if the “giver” has little self-interest and if the measurement is not extended over time. However, the “giver” style tends to win, sometimes big, over time when the effects of creating trust, forming relationships, creating networks and moving into areas in which collaboration is important becomes more relevant factors. Though the “giver” style tends to be successful in the long run, it does require a measure of self-interest as well. There needs to be some ambition there.

An important caveat is that successful “givers” need to be authentic. Those that appear as “givers” but are really self-oriented and interested in promoting their own image (either by exaggerating their accomplishments and/or manipulating their audience) will often eventually lose, and lose big.

How would these ideas apply to brands?

A “giver” brand is customer-oriented in order to not only maximize sales but also because there is an intrinsic interest in customers and their concerns. The brand would likely also be guided by a higher purpose. They would tend to be passionate about something – think organic food and Whole Foods, on protecting the environment and Patagonia, or helping people live healthier and Kaiser Permanente. This higher purpose may be directed to people that are not just customers but also include those that share common problems like climate change, hunger or water shortage. Their “other” orientation would be sincere and supported by real programs such as Pamper Village’s microsite for baby care tips and forums, or IBM’s effort to improve education.

“A “matcher” takes a more balanced approach, helping others when the net result will be reciprocated in a balanced.”

A “taker” brand has a single-minded mission to achieve growth in sales and profits. It would tend to focus on the products and services of the firm exclusively and look to the customer mainly to make those products and services more attractive in the marketplace. A brand “taker” would subscribe to Milton Friedman’s prescription that “the social responsibility of business is to make profits.”

Can being a “giver” still result in superior performance? Will success improve over time, as the impact of more motivated employees and more committed customers provide traction?

There is no shortage of studies that show that firms that meet the giver criterion do well. For example, in his book Grow, Jim Stengel stated that 50 firms that “centered on improving people’s lives” had a decade long performance that was 400 percent more profitable than the S&P. And in their book Firms of Endearment, Sisodia, Sheth and Wolfe found that 18 publicly traded “firms of endearment” had financial performance over eight times that of the S&P. These studies and others like them fall well short of showing a cause-and-effect relationship, but they are still suggestive. Perhaps more persuasive is the concept that the sheer incidence of “giver” behavior in the marketplace would not occur if it did not have some positive impact on financials.

Brands, like people, should realize that the “giver” label should not be self-applied when the belief is not authentic and supported by substance. Like people “givers,” brand “givers” that have a false front exposed will be worse off. Not only will its image suffer, so will its long-term credibility. A brand cannot be in business only to be a “giver.” It needs evidence that its ambition will do well commercially. So those firms that allow the higher purpose to dominate, to eclipse the “giver” goals, will be at risk.

What Is Brand Vision?

Brand vision refers to the ideas behind a brand that help guide the future. When the brand vision clicks, it reflects and supports the business strategy, differentiates from competitors, resonates with customers, energizes and inspires employees and partners, and precipitates a gush of ideas for marketing programs. When absent or superficial, the brand will drift aimlessly and marketing programs are likely to be inconsistent and ineffective.

The Importance of Brand Vision

As I was writing my latest book, Aaker on Branding: 20 Principles that Drive Success, I realized two things:

First, brand identity is the cornerstone of brand strategy and brand building. You need an articulated description of the aspirational image for the brand, and what you want the brand to stand for in the eyes of customers and employees. That description drives the brand-building component of the marketing program and greatly influences the rest of your brand’s activity. In fact, seven of the 20 principles in my book are centered on getting the brand identity concept right.

Second, I had a chance to re-label brand identity as “brand vision,” something I had long wanted to do. In golf, we call that a do-over. I had been stuck with the term brand identity because it was described in two of my previous books and countless articles I’ve written in the past. Now in this new book, I could finally change the label to “brand vision.” This term better captures the strategic, aspirational nature of the concept. The word “identity” has less energy and too often creates confusion because, for some, identity refers to the brand’s logo and visual identity as supported by graphic design.

“Brand identity is the cornerstone of brand strategy and brand building.”

When the brand vision clicks, it will reflect and support the business strategy, differentiate from competitors, resonate with customers, energize and inspire employees and partners, and precipitate a gush of ideas for marketing programs. When absent or superficial, the brand will drift aimlessly and marketing programs are likely to be inconsistent and ineffective.

The brand vision model (formerly the brand identity model) is one structural framework for the development of a brand vision with a point of view that distinguishes it from others in several ways:

The Brand Vision Model: 6 Key Components

The Brand Vision Model directs you through the process of defining your brand vision and incorporating it fully into your business. Keep these six components in mind:

1. Defining Your Brand Vision

It may be based on six to 12 vision elements. Most brands cannot be defined by a single thought or phrase, and the quest to find this magic brand concept can be fruitless or, worse, can leave the brand with an incomplete vision missing some relevant elements. The vision elements are prioritized into the two to five that are the most compelling and differentiating, termed the “core vision elements,” while the others are labeled “extended vision elements.”

The core elements will reflect the value propositions going forward and drive the brand-building programs and initiatives.

2. Incorporating Extended Vision Elements

They add texture to the brand vision, allowing most strategists to make better judgments as to whether a program is “on brand.” The extended vision affords a home for important aspects of the brand, such as a brand personality, that may not merit being a core vision element but are crucial for success. Such elements can and should influence branding programs.

Too often during the process of creating a brand vision, a person’s nominee for an aspiration brand association is dismissed because it could not be a centerpiece of the brand. When such an idea can be placed in the extended vision, the discussion can go forward. An extended vision element sometimes evolves into a core element, and without staying visible throughout the process that would not happen.

3. Selecting Unique Brand Vision Dimensions

Brand dimensions that are relevant for the context at hand are the dimensions that should be selected. And contexts vary. Organizational values and programs are likely to be important for service and B2B firms, but not for consumer package goods. Innovation is likely to be important for high-tech brands, but less so for packaged goods brands. Personality is often more important for durables, and less so for corporate brands. The dimensions that are employed will be a function of the marketplace, the strategy, the competition, the customers, the organization and the brand.

4. Keeping the Brand Vision Aspirational

It is the association the brand needs to go forward given its current and future business strategy. Too often, a brand executive feels constrained and uncomfortable going beyond what the brand currently has permission to do. Yet most brands need to improve on some dimensions to compete and add new dimensions in order to create new growth platforms. A brand that has plans to extend to a new category, for example, will probably need to go beyond the current image.

5. Representing a Central Theme of the Brand Vision

When the right brand essence is found, it can be magic in terms of internal communication, inspiration to employees and partners, and guiding programs. Consider “Transforming Futures,” the brand essence of the London School of Business, “Ideas for Life” for Panasonic, or “Family Magic” for Disneyland. In each case, the essence provides an umbrella over what the brand aspires to do. The essence should always be sought.

However, there are times in which it actually gets in the way and is better omitted. One B2B brand, Mobil (now ExxonMobil), had leadership, partnership and trust as the core brand vision elements. Forcing an essence on this brand would likely be awkward. If the essence does not fit or is not compelling, it will soak up all the energy in the room. In these cases, the core vision elements are better brand drivers.

6. Using Brand Position as a Short-Term Communication Guide for Reaching Your Target Audience

The current positioning often emphasizes the brand vision elements that are credible and deliverable. As organizational capabilities and programs emerge, or as markets change, the positioning message might evolve or change. The centerpiece of the position is often a tagline communicated externally, that need not and usually does not correspond to the brand essence, which is an internally communicated concept.