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.

Typical mobile industry players are regarded as arrogant and insensitive to the frustrations of the consumers. It’s an industry that has long frustrated customers with complex plans, locked-in contracts, restrictions against upgrading phones and the loss of investments in existing devices. But now, T-Mobile has introduced a game-changer to the market.

They call themselves the Un-carrier, to vividly emphasize that they are doing something radically different. They’re basing their whole philosophy around doing exactly what the customers want, as indicated by their feedback. It sounds simple. So why did it take so long to create such a strategy? And why was T-Mobile, the number 4 player in the industry, the first to innovate? (Full Disclosure—Prophet was a partner with T-Mobile in developing the new strategy.)

The “Simple Choice Plan,” introduced in March of 2013, included elements that broke long-time industry practices. Long-term contracts were replaced with monthly plans with no long-term commitment. Plan pricing that required you to estimate minutes used and text messages sent was replaced with plan pricing that was much more flexible and easier to understand. The basic plan includes unlimited talk, text and web access (up to 500MB high-speed) and can be augmented for those that need large pools of high-speed data. Finally, you can bring your own device to the program. You don’t have to buy a new phone, but if you do, T-Mobile will finance it over 24 months. When it’s paid off, the monthly bill will be reduced accordingly.

With Un-carrier 2.0, launched in the summer of 2013, family plans without necessary credit checks were added. This was a huge deal for users that are routinely slammed with multiple $200 deposits on family plans. Families could now get four lines with unlimited talk, text, and web (up to 500MB high-speed) for $100 per month, plus taxes and fees. In addition, the JUMP! (Just Upgrade My Phone) Program recently launched, where a person who subscribes for $10 a month can update their phone twice a year. At the same time improvements in their network, particularly in major urban areas, were announced, improvements that allowed T-Mobile to surpass Sprint on coverage.

And the momentum continues. In October of 2013, T-Mobile announced at a New Your concert event their Un-carrier 3.0 strategy, by which they would deliver unlimited global data at no extra charge in 100+ countries. The program was a dramatic attack at the practice of charging large fees for cross-border connections.

Then, at the 2014 Consumer Electronics Show (CES), T-Mobile announced an offer to pay the termination fee of the locked-in customers of Verizon, Sprint or AT&T and give them a credit toward a new phone. The colorful T-Mobile CEO, John Legere was quoted as saying, “We are either going to take over this whole industry or these bastards are going to change.”

Since the Un-carrier launch, T-Mobile has steadily brought this strategy to life through positioning, framing the discussion, messaging, communications, customer experience and employee engagement. The strategy was supported by humorous advertising (advertising gets easy when you have something to say) that featured Bill Hader as an inept phone user who welcomed the Jump! program. The JUMP! campaign was led by some outrageous (think Steve Jobs-style) presentations by Legere talking about why customers are switching to T-Mobile and how backward competitors are.

“They’re basing their whole philosophy around doing exactly what the customers want, as indicated by their feedback.”

At the beginning of 2013, T-Mobile was suffering from an ongoing loss of share that affected its image as well as its financial health. The Un-carrier initiative dramatically changed that. At one point during the campaign, T-Mobile was gaining customers at a rate that exceeded the three competitors combined. Further, according to a study by Baird Equity, 26 percent of potential wireless carrier switchers are looking at T-Mobile, as compared to 9 percent for Sprint, 10 percent for AT&T, and 19 percent for Verizon. In the minds of many, T-Mobile went from an also-ran company to a firm with a leadership position that reinvented a major industry. It’s an amazing achievement.

There are 5 lessons to be learned from T-Mobile’s Strategy: 

As I discussed in Brand Relevance, the only way to grow is to create “must haves” that define a new subcategory

T-Mobile was not able to grow until it did just that, developing a half dozen “must haves.” Note that the disruption was not caused by a technological advance, but by some simple changes in pricing and contracts.

A new subcategory needs to be protected

T-Mobile protected its innovative, disrupter position with breakthrough brand-building and ongoing game-changing innovation.

The disruption was driven by an understanding of basic customer frustrations and complaints

In fact, it did not take strategic insight that was subtle and nuanced. Perhaps the depth and influence of these customer issues were underestimated, but they were well known.

Any brand can become a true challenger brand

It is interesting that the brand that pulled off this innovation wasn’t Verizon or AT&T, but the fourth-place player. Why was that? The industry leaders had too much to gain by sticking with the status quo. As a challenger brand, T-Mobile had less to lose and more to gain by disrupting the wireless category and doing what the other carriers do not; they put the customers’ needs ahead of business-as-usual.

Once you start innovating, keep up the momentum

All three major competitors scrambled to respond with their own versions of fewer contracts, quicker upgrades, cheaper plans and more. To maintain relevance, they had no choice. But they are all clearly copying the innovator, playing catch up. Although these competitors have an impressive set of assets, it is likely that the market structure will be changed by the T-Mobile initiatives. Further, the T-Mobile momentum and energy will make it hard to reverse these changes.

What Are Your “Take My Name Off the Door” Values?

I was recently reminded of the power of meaningful organizational values when I watched Leo Burnett’s farewell speech, “When To Take My Name Off the Door.” In his own style, he talked about making outstanding advertising, which is the core value of Leo Burnett.

He says: “Somewhere along the line after I’m finally off the premises, you – or your successors – may want to take my name off the premises, too. That will certainly be OK with me. But let me tell you when I might demand that you take my name off the door. That will be the day:

• When you spend more time trying to make money and less time making advertising – our kind of advertising
• When you forget the sheer fun of ad making and the lift you get out of it
• When you lose that restless feeling that nothing you do is ever quite good enough
• When you lose your passion for thoroughness…your hatred of loose ends
• When you are no longer what Thoreau called “a corporation with a conscience”
• When you disprove of something, and start tearing the hell out of the man who did it rather than the work itself
• When you stop building on strong and vital ideas and start a routine production line
• When you start believing that, in the interest of efficiency, a creative spirit and the urge to create can be delegated and administrated, and forget that they can only be nurtured, stimulated, and inspired
• When you start giving lip service to this being a “creative agency” and stop really being one

THAT, boys and girls, is when I shall insist you take my name off the door. And by golly, it will be taken off the door. Even if have to materialize long enough some night to rub it out myself – on every one of our floors. And before I de-materialize again, I will paint out that star-reaching symbol too. And burn all the stationery. Perhaps tear up a few ads in passing.”

“The Leo Burnett core value doesn’t sound like much until it is elaborated with a multidimensional perspective.”

The Leo Burnett core value doesn’t sound like much until it is elaborated with a multidimensional perspective, buttressed with the numerous anecdotes reflecting the style and standards of the founder, and brought to live with legendary campaign role models (such as “Maytag: The Dependability People,” United’s “Fly the Friendly Skies,” Allstate’s “Good Hands,” the Marlboro man, the Jolly Green Giant, the Keebler Elves, and countless others).

Organizational values are almost always central to the long-term success of a business. They underlie any successful business strategy, they are the basis for a market-facing brand vision that differentiates and provides credibility, and they contribute to an internal brand that inspires and clarifies. Among those values should be a few signature values supported by substance and by stories that are central to the business. When they fade, the business may no longer reflect the brand. And as a result, its equity and legacy may become damaged.

So if the Haas School loses its “confidence without arrogance,” if being “weird” is no longer comfortable at Zappos.com, if Patagonia stopped using its business to inspire and implement solutions to the environmental crises, if Apple stops creating leadership products that extend human capability, if IBM stops focusing on being dedicated to every client’s success, or if Prophet was no longer about liberating ideas, inspiring people and driving impact, then in each case, the soul of its organization and the essence of its brand will have been compromised.

Neural marketing, which involves techniques such as fMRI (functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging) or EEG (electroencephalogram), is a hot topic in marketing. It can purportedly generate insight into consumer response to marketing variables while reducing the biases inherent in asking consumers their opinions, such as when they are not able or willing to give valid answers to questions involving perceptions, attitudes, or behavior. Further, consumers are driven in part by subconscious thoughts and emotions that neural marketing techniques can access. There are estimates that 95% of all thoughts are subconscious.

Neural marketing, in the right context, can measure variables like attention, engagement, emotion, pleasure/liking, and memory. Each of these can be an extremely relevant dependent variable of interest when testing or evaluating many marketing stimuli.

Here are several interesting anecdotes involving neural marketing:

• The MiniCooper from BMW was designed with the aid of fMRI equipment. The physical characteristics of the model were linked to a highly likable and beautiful baby face. It was said that the resulting design made people feel like caressing the car.
• Frito-Lay used EEG technology to learn that when Cheetos made the fingers of an eater turn orange a strong response was created.  The consumers liked the messiness of the product perhaps because it reflected an indulgent experience and because it indicated that the product really was infused with cheese. This insight was exploited in an advertising campaign.
• Tests of neural activity associated with unknown songs predicted their eventual commercial success.
• Campbell’s Soup used neural research to guide a redesign of their iconic packaging.
• Neural research has helped practitioners design stimuli that lead to engagement on social media.
• The Weather Channel has used EEG and eye-tracking to measure viewer reactions when showing different promotions to a popular show.

What is the future of neural marketing? Will it become an important and even game-changing technique? Or will it become more of an academic research tool that will be helpful commercially in niche contexts? I predict the future is more in line with the latter because of fundamental limitations.

1. The equipment is highly intrusive which limits the stimuli that can be presented. The EEG measure requires wearing a hat with measurement devices attached. The fMRI is beyond intrusive. Respondents have to ride through a tunnel and endure the risk of claustrophobia and the loud, high-pitched noises that accompany most experiences.
2. EEG technology is not capable of reaching the interior of the brain where an area reflecting pleasure and liking exists.  The fMRI is extremely expensive to own and to use, the polar opposite in terms of the cost of conducting something like Internet-based surveys.
3. The results are ambiguous and probably unreliable even in expert hands. It turns out that a lot of emotions can activate most regions of the brain in addition to target stimuli; in fact, some may be the opposite of what is being hypothesized, for example, eliciting disgust rather than liking. It takes a great deal of skill and experience to design experiments that guard against spurious results and to interpret the results accurately. Research to determine if findings are robust is probably rare.

“Neural marketing, in the right context, can measure variables like attention, engagement, emotion, pleasure/liking, and memory.”

Neural marketing reminds me of motivation research that was introduced in the 1950s by Ernest Dichter. Like neural marketing, motivation research aimed to understand the subconscious and its impact on motivation and choice. Dichter, a clinical Freudian psychiatrist, used in-depth interviews to find out what was motivating people. He famously linked Campbell’s soup to a mother’s love. He was very good at translating his insights into why people buy into copy like “wash your troubles away.” In the hands of Dichter, the insights were magical. But, more generally, as time passed and it became clear that motivation research insights were often not reproducible, the method was all but discredited a few decades after Dichter pioneered them. However, it is clear that many of the current qualitative research techniques incorporate some of his methodology.

Brand equity is a term used to describe the value of having a recognized brand, based on the idea that firmly established and reputable brands are more successful. More specifically, it’s a set of brand assets and liabilities linked to a brand name and symbol, which add to or subtract from the value provided by a product or service.

Connecting “brand” to the concepts of “equity” and “assets” radically changed the marketing function, enabling it to expand beyond strategic tactics and get a seat at the executive table.

To help break down brand equity and provide details about how the term is used in the marketing industry, we’ve outlined how it all came into place, why it’s so valuable and a roadmap for success.

How Brand Equity Came Into Place

In the late 1980s, brand equity was just emerging as an important idea. An avalanche of researchers, authors and executives who provided substance and momentum to this idea reframed marketing.

In 1991, I published a book, Managing Brand Equity, which defines brand equity and describes how it generates value. This model provided one perspective on brand equity that is worth another look now more than twenty years later.

Why Is Brand Equity So Valuable?

Another aspect of the definition of brand equity that I presented in my book was the argument that brand equity is that it also provides value to customers. It enhances the customer’s ability to interpret and process information, improves confidence in the purchase decision and affects the quality of the user experience.

The fact that it provides value to customers makes it easier to justify in a brand-building budget. This model provides one perspective of brand equity as one of the major components of modern marketing alongside the marketing concept, segmentation, and several others.

The Roadmap for Building & Managing Brand Equity

Brand equity has four dimensions—brand loyalty, brand awareness, brand associations, and perceived quality, each providing value to a firm in numerous ways. Once a brand identifies the value of brand equity, it can follow this roadmap to build and manage that potential value.

• Brand Loyalty
  • Reduced marketing costs
  • Trade leverage
  • Attracting new customers via awareness and reassurance
  • Time to respond to competitive threats
• Brand Awareness
  • Anchor to which other associations can be attached
  • Familiarity which leads to liking
  • Visibility that helps gain consideration
  • Signal of substance/commitment
• Brand Associations (Including Perceived Quality)
  • Help communicate information
  • Differentiate/Position
  • Reason-to-buy
  • Create positive attitude/feelings
  • Basis for extensions

The introduction of brand loyalty to the model was and is still controversial, as other conceptualizations position brand loyalty as a result of brand equity, which consists of awareness and associations. But when you buy a brand or place a value on it, the loyalty of the customer base is often the asset most prized, so it makes financial sense to include it.

And, when managing a brand, the inclusion of brand loyalty as a part of the brand’s equity allows marketers to justify giving it priority in the brand-building budget. The strongest brands have that priority.

Examples of Brand Equity

Positive Brand Equity

Amazon and Apple are classic examples of brands with positive brand equities. Both Amazon and Apple provide consistent customer experiences, are dependable, innovative, and purposeful, and are integral in people’s day-to-day lives, making them indispensable.

They also deliver on their promises to customers— Amazon provides convenience and industry-leading shipping options, while Apple prioritizes innovation and sleek design. All factors combined, these brands boast positive reputations or brand equities.

Negative Brand Equity

When it comes to negative brand equity, Volkswagen is an example that can be learned from. In September 2015, the EPA issued a notice of violation stating that the brand had been falsifying emissions numbers. As the news spread, Volkswagen lost brand equity, since the public no longer viewed the brand as trustworthy, nor as adhering to its promises to be environmentally friendly.

A key to building segments with high loyalty is to create brand relationships that have traction and meaning. To understand relationships, it’s useful to recall the classic work of Susan Fornier going way back to her dissertation in the mid-90s in which she used human relationships as a metaphor for brand relationships. She examined the work of psychologists who studied the nature of relationships and the characteristics of ideal relationships. Drawing in part on this body of work plus her own consumer research, she identified seven types of relationships that are important to understand and had intriguing insights into how brand-customer relationships should be conceived, measured and managed.

These dimensions provide lessons on brand loyalty but come at it from different perspectives. A brand can use them to understand the nature of their customer relationships and how they might expand and deepen them.  The two statements associated with each dimensions provide texture and items for a measurement scale.

The Seven Dimensions of Brand Loyalty

Behavioral interdependence

The degree to which the actions of the relationship partners are intertwined. Indicators are the frequency of interaction and the importance of and involvement in the use occasion.

• This brand plays an important role in my life.
• I feel like something’s missing when I haven’t used the brand in a while.

Personal commitment

The partners are committed to each other. There is a desire to improve or maintain the quality of the relationship over time and guilt when it is compromised.

• I feel very loyal to this brand.
• I will stay with this brand through good times and bad.

Love and passion

The intensity of emotional bonds between the partners, the inability to tolerate separation, and the reflection of love and passion that exist. In brand relationships, customers can develop passionate links to brands. Substitutes create discomfort.

• No other brand can quite take the place of this brand.
• I would be very upset if I couldn’t find this brand.

Nostalgic connection

The relationship is based in part on the memory of good times.

• This brand reminds me of things I’ve done or places I’ve been.
• This brand will always remind me of a particular phase of my life.

Self-concept connection

The partners share common interests, activities and opinions. The brand reflects the interests and activities of the person.

• The brand’s and my self-image are similar.
• The brand reminds me of who I am.

Intimacy

A deep understanding exists between partners. The consumer will achieve intimacy by knowing details about the brand and its use. One-on-one marketing programs enhance intimacy by fostering mutual understanding.

• I know a lot about this brand.
• I know a lot about the company that makes this brand.

Partner quality

The evaluation by one partner of the performance and attitude of the other. The evaluation by the consumer of the brand’s attitude toward the consumer.

• I know this brand really appreciates me.
• This brand treats me like a valued customer.

“These dimensions provide lessons on brand loyalty but come at it from different perspectives.”

Read it in Chinese: 7种可以提高忠诚度的客户-品牌关系