Everything you wanted to know about 'brand
equity tracking' but were afraid to ask
Alan Cooper has spent
16 years working with
brands at major
advertising agencies. He
was one of the first
Account Planners
appointed by Dr Sirnon
Broadbent at Leo Burnett
and subsequently worked
at the entrepreneurial agencies GGT and
as a Director of (TBWA) Simons Palmer,
the two of which have recently merged.
Alan has just completed two years as
Chairman of the Account Planning Group,
the industry organisation that represents
the interests of ac- count planning
worldwide.
He is editor of 'Haw to plan advertising',
and wrote the foreword to 'Understanding
brands'. Alan has had several articles
published on advertising and brand
strategy issues.
Abstract
This paper reviews several key issues
connected with the measurement and
tracking of brand equities. ft was written
after a recent Market Research Society
seminar at which leading research
companies discussed their commercial
approaches on the subject. The paper
outlines two definitions of brand equity,
namely the evaluation of the strength of
consumer's relationship with a brand and
the description of the associations and
attributes that consumers link to a brand.
The principles of the measurement
approaches for each are discussed and
some issues facing the prospective
purchaser of research services are noted.
A key thesis is that professional services
should be developed more from the
perspective of the brand marketing
requirement, rather than being driven
largely by research technique.
-1-
By Alan Cooper
INTRODUCTION
Brand equity - its definition and
approaches to its measurement -
continues to be a hot topic. Nowadays, its
seems difficult to pick up a business or
marketing journal without coming across
the 'BE' phrase. This august organ itself
recently devoted an entire issue of nearly
90 pages to the financial approach to
valuing brand equity1. In September 1998
the Market Research Society (MRS)
convened a seminar at which different
views on brand equity and its
measurement were posited by a variety of
market research companies. The objective
of this paper is to review the principal
issues connected with brand equity and its
measurement or tracking that were raised
at this seminar.
It is not the intention of the author to dwell
overlong on the definition of brand equity -
this has long ago been covered admirably
in this journal 2 and in many other bodies of
literature. Nevertheless, a marker will have
been put down for any readers coming
afresh to this topic. However, it is the
author's intention to concentrate on
fostering a debate about the various
principles involved in measuring ( or
tracking) brand equity. It is clear that, just
as there is no consensus definition about
what is brand equity, there is no common
agreement about how it should be
measured. Perhaps this is healthy, as it
stimulates all those involved to continue to
think about the matter. Perhaps this is
inevitable, as measurement is practised by
commercial companies that are obliged to
offer different services or they would be
accused of plagiarism. The MRS seminar
offered a platform to eleven companies
that specialise in this area - and there may
be other practitioners to whom an offer
was not extended.

Consumer A
Consumer B
Increasing
strength
of consumer
relationship
Consumer C
with brand
Consumer D
Consumer E
BACK TO BASICS -WHAT DO WE MEAN
BY BRAND EQUITY?
Keller cites no fewer than nine definitions
of brand equity3. Across these definitions
similar phrases do occur suggesting that
there are areas of common focus. 'Sets of
brand as sets and associations', 'allows
more sales/mar- gins', 'adds value to the
product for its audiences', 'sustainable' and
'advantage' give the reader a good
impression of what the various authors
were intending to convey. Judging from
these examples, and confirmed by the
speakers at the seminar, non-financial
meanings of brand equity essentially fall
into one of two camps.
Firstly, there is the 'linear' sense of brand
equity. This is typically a single dimension
that encapsulates an audience's
relationship with a brand. Commitment to a
brand, past and present purchase loyalty,
strength of preference, preparedness to
pay a premium are some examples of what
this dimension might be. This might be
qualified by a second dimension, for
instance the perception that a brand has
competitive advantage, to add additional
sensitivity. However they are framed, it is
the intention of this approach to group
consumers according to the strength of
their relationship with the brand. The
assumption being that those consumers
-2-
Figure 1: A Typical
format used by
research companies
for the graphic
presentation of
linear brand equity
measurement
who have a stronger relationship with it are
more valuable to the brand (through their
current and supposed future purchasing
behaviour): those who have a weaker
relationship are less important, but may be
regarded as targets for acquisitive
marketing activity. Each consumer group
can be regarded as constituting different
equities for the brand and, by applying a
formula, it might be possible to derive an
expression of the total equity that a brand
has.
Invariably, the commercial measurement
approaches for 'linear' brand equity would
depict the consumer groups so formed in a
pyramid shape. Those groups that
represented greater value to the brand
would be found towards the top and those
constituting less value towards the bottom
(see Figure 1).
Secondly, there is the 'spatial' sense of
brand equity. This approach attempts to
de- fine the 'territory' that a brand occupies
in the audience's mind- the sets of
associations, attributes and imagery which
consumers vest in the brand. This is a
multi-dimensional approach which
encompasses as many facets as the
measurement organisation deems to be
relevant: typically, the verbal, and
sometimes non-verbal, brand vocabulary
of the consumer drives this. This approach

Decreasing strength of
consumer brand association,
attributes and imagery
High
High
and usage motivatio n
Increasing strength of
consumer purchase
Medium
Low
is more descriptive of a brand's equity
whereas the first one strives to be more
evaluative.
In order to interpret the importance of the
brand associations, attributes and imagery,
the motivators for category purchase and
use are obtained. Thus, it is possible to
evaluate whether attributes that are
strongly associated with a brand are also
strong purchase motivations in the
category or not.
Product development or brand
repositioning might be recommended if a
brand is found to be only moderately or
weakly associated with dimensions that
are key drivers for the sector.
Again, there is a typical method of
graphically depicting these data: namely, a
2x2 or 3x3 grid in which brand associations
are grouped (according to their strength)
along the top and sector motivations along
the side (see Figure 2) .Sectors of the grid
can thus be interpreted along the lines of
'strength, weakness, opportunity, threat'
according to the current equities of the
client brand and its competitors and the
sector drivers.
These two definitions of brand equity seem
to exist happily beside each other in
marketing circles. The appropriateness of
either concept, and of the market research
Figure 2: A typical
format used by research
companies for the
graphic presentation of
spatial brand equity
measurement
Medium Low
company's measurement tool, will vary
de- pending on the circumstances and
practical requirements of the brand owner
at any particular moment. There is a role
for both the 'counting' and 'describing'
approaches to measurement, although
there is a healthy debate about what is the
best way of doing them.
WHY IS MEASUREMENT IMPORTANT?
Market research estimates put the annual
worth of brand and advertising
measurement in the region of £50 million.
The author can classify the rationales for
the measurement of brand equity into four
categories - and the reader may consider
others.
If something exists it is a man's instinct to
measure it. The act of measurement
somehow adds further proof of the
existence of what is being measured.
"There is measure in all things"
Horace
Thus, one plausible route to demonstrate
that a brand exists, and that it is not simply
seen as commodity product, it is to
measure it. Given that brands have many
intangible components the commercial
-3-
focus can be more on the process of
measurement than on the results of it. The
author considers this as 'measurement for
the challenge'.
A second rationale for measurement is to
help understand more about the brand.
Market research is likely to provide a fuller
appraisal of the brand's strength, character
and uniqueness than the brand owner may
possess through his/her own experience
and collection of anecdotes. It can certainly
compare and contrast the brand with its
competitors in an objective way. This
picture of the brand provides confidence
and reassurance for the owner and may be
used in part or in whole in future brand
development. This could be referred to as
'measurement for information'.
"And measure every planet's wandering
course
Still climbing after knowledge infinite."
Christopher Marlowe
A third driver of measurement is the
requirement to assess whether brand
marketing strategies could (in the future) or
have (in the past) been effective in
enhancing its equity. Marketers deploy
different strategies to develop their brands
and it is against these strategies that
measurement tools should be designed
and deployed. On many occasions it is not
the specific aim of marketing programmes
to strengthen consumer's loyalty or
relationship with a brand, for instance in its
early life it may be more appropriate to
establish its presence or seek to
differentiate it in some way. The launch of
the FirstDirect, Goldfish and Virgin brands
in financial ser- vices in the last decade are
a testament to this. Thus, tracking the
linear aspect of brand equity may not be as
relevant as measuring its spatial aspects
(its attributes and associations). This could
be referred to as measurement for action.
'Measurement began our might.'
W.B. Yeats
A final motivation for measuring equities,
and one that may only be slowly emerging,
-4-
is to help interpret a financial valuation that
has been made on the brand. Guidelines
is- sued by the Accounting Standards
Board in December 19974 recommend that
all brands that have been acquired should
be valued for the company's annual
balance sheet. Moreover, beyond the need
to value acquired brands, it should be the
ambition of most companies to increase
the value of their brand assets and, so, it is
prudent to understand the brand's
strengths and weaknesses with a view to
building its equity with the following years'
marketing efforts. Recent papers published
by The London Business School5/6 suggest
that such a disciplined approach might also
be used to help make the marketing
function itself more ac- countable within
the company. The author terms this
rationale measurement for corporate
management.
'Measures, not men, have always been my
mark.'
Oliver Goldsmith
OVERVIEW OF COMMERCIALLY
AVAILABLE BRAND EQUITY
MEASUREMENT PRODUCTS
Although the universe for this overview is
the companies represented at the MRS
seminar, the author is reassured that this
constitutes almost all of the major players.
Applying the four stage classification cited
above most research agencies's offerings
could be summarised as either the first
(measurement for the challenge) or the
second (measurement for information)
types. In a some instances elements of the
third type (measurement for action) could
be identified: the fourth species was not in
evidence at all.
Perhaps this conclusion was predicated by
the occasion having been organised, and
the speakers convened, by the MRS.
Although the Society represents the
interests of market research ( or marketing
research) the focus of the company
presentations was research rather than
marketing. Considerable effort was de-
voted to explaining the techniques of data
collection and analysis, but far less
resources were generally spent in
demonstrating how this corresponded with
the strategies available to, or having been
used by marketers to build their brands.
Even if confidentiality does not permit case
studies to be revealed in detail it should
still have been possible to link the equity
tracking processes to the general
strategies that marketers pursue. Surely
this issue requires careful consideration by
practitioners if their services are to meet
the highest standards of actionability that
clients require.
This emphasis on research rather than
market(ing) was also evident in that a
number of the measurement models were
either evolved, or had their forte, in the fast
moving consumer goods (FMCG) arena
and were not always as convincingly
applicable for durable, service or corporate
brands.
Given that seminar delegates. who worked
in non-FMCG companies outnumbered
those from FMCG companies by two to
one this may be indicative that the former
group remained more keen to find
appropriate brand equity tracking solutions.
SOME CURRENT ISSUES IN 'BRAND
EQUITY TRACKING'
It is not the purpose of this paper to
critique the research companies' services:
however, it is more constructive to review
some observations that were drawn from
the author's simultaneous exposure to
nearly a dozen of the leading processes.
There seem to be more similarities than
differences in the ways in which equities
are monitored. Many underlying concepts
and principles used in the construction of
the different processes are essentially
similar - although the way they are
packaged and branded gives them their
distinctiveness. For instance, as previously
described, those ser- vices that measure
brand equity in a spatial sense tend to
follow the same three stage principle:
– What attributes do consumers
associate with the brand(s)?
– What are the motivators that are
-5-
important in choosing between, and
using, brands in the sector?
– How should a brand reposition itself
better to exploit the category motivators
and build its equity?
If research companies seized the
opportunity to design their products from a
marketing, rather than a research,
perspective a greater differentiation in
products may result.
Any market research approach can be
categorised on the spectrum of bespoke to
standardised -a group discussion would be
an example of the former and television
audience measurement the latter. The
majority of, but not all, brand equity
tracking services were claimed to be
bespoke to the circumstances of the
client's brand. The author has previously
asserted that as brand equity becomes
increasingly important, and gains the
attention of the City and corporate CEO's,
its measurement needs a common
standard7. lf the execution of equity
measurement is bespoke, such that it
varies from one sector to another, it
becomes difficult for a common standard to
emerge which may prejudice the wider
acceptance of the concept.
It is instructive that any tracking of a
brand's equity should be performed in a
competitive context: understanding one's
own brand in isolation can lead to
complacency. However, in many cases the
consumer's competitive context does not
necessarily follow the neat industry
segmentation. The first inclination to
construct a competitive set for equity
measurement along functional/product
lines may not be the most appropriate.
Thus, to explore Nike's brand equity it may
be as appropriate to define the comparison
set as being other 'youth status brands'
(e.g. Sony, Levi's and Hilfiger) as it would
be other brands of trainers (e.g. Reebok,
Adidas and Puma). As many of the
commercial equity measurement
processes are derived from a re- search
(rather than marketing) perspective their
inclination to use standard competitive sets
requires consideration.
lust as it is important to develop an
understanding of a brand's equity outside
itself (i.e. its competitors) it is also critical
to evaluate its equity inside itself (e.g.
across different purchaser affinity groups)
.As marketing budgets become more
pressurised, and as media targeting
becomes more precise, it is ever more
prudent to consider the Pareto effect,
colloquially passed on as '20 per cent of a
brand's users account for 80 per cent of its
sales'. Put simply, it is not essential -
neither is it affordable -to expect that a
brand's equity is similar for all of its
purchasers or considerers. A brand cannot
expected to have the same character and
strength of equity among all of its
purchasers. It is important to identify the
brand's core franchise and expect to find
that it has a strong and vivid equity among
them. If that is not the case they may not
be core purchasers for much longer!
Conversely, one should not expect to find
that a brand has a powerful equity among
consumers who are not as important to a
brand (e.g. light category purchasers,
those driven principally by price). A
mechanism for segmenting a brand's
franchise should always be used as a
'microscope' with which to view the
conclusions of an equity measurement
exercise. This observation was not
referenced overtly by many companies, but
it is an important consideration to enhance
the marketing actionability of a brand
equity measurement process.
SOME TECHNICAL CONCERNS IN
'BRAND EQUITY TRACKING'
Quantitative market research data
collection is essentially a verbal or written
process: Respondents are asked, or
shown, questions and are expected to
speak or write their replies. In projects
where the enquiry focus is more factual or
behavioural this does not raise too many
concerns. However, in studies where
ascertaining consumer s associations,
perceptions and feelings about brands is
important this does raise an issue. Brand
associations of ten can be visual (e.g.
MacDonald's golden arch or the lively and
-6-
fun interior of its out- lets), related to sound
(e.g. the old Milk Tray advertising tune) or
related to smell (e.g. most food brands).
Conventional data collection techniques
cannot adequately report on these types of
brand associations, thus they may not fully
represent a brand's equity among
consumers. One response to this may be
to assume that an the brands being
surveyed have a similar balance of verbal
an non-verbal associations and so the
reporting win be done on a 'level playing
field'. Another response might be to
consider measurement processes that at
tempt to assess non-verbal components of
brand equity - or at least ascertain that
they might exist.
In part related to the above mentioned
factor, most quantitative data collection
favours rational answers rather than
necessarily right answers. This point was
made by one speaker at the seminar who
said that it would be easy for a target
audience respondent, when stopped in the
street and asked the question, 'Which
brands of lager are refreshing?', simply to
answer only, 'Heineken', even though
he/she really believed that all brands were
equally refreshing.
Fortunately, there are data collection
techniques that can be used to militate
against this problem. Rather than having
the respondent associate, or not, brands
with an attribute, a rating scale can be
employed to understand the strength of
this association -in effect respondents are
being compelled to align all the brands on
the dimension in question rather than
quitting the process after only one or two
have been mentioned. Another approach
endorsed by some of the companies-at the
seminar is termed 'vertical questioning'.
Instead of the traditional approach,
'horizontal questioning', in which
respondents are required to consider a
dimension and rate all brands according to
it, they focus on one brand and rate it
across al1 the relevant dimensions. This
'vertical questioning' is better able recreate
a situation in which consumers are allowed
to consider each brand holistically and is,
doubtless, closer to the reality of how
consumers perceive brands in normal life.
Finally, the concept of 'consumer need
states' is becoming more influential in ac-
cessing brand equities. The premise for
this is that depending on an individual's
circum- stances and needs his or her
requirements from a product category and
brand wi1l vary. Thus, for instance
'consumer need states' for alcoholic drinks
will vary in-home and out-of-home which
will in turn have an impact on brand
equities. An extreme example of this would
be a premium malt whisky brand which
would have a far stronger equity for the in-
home drinker than for (the same) out-of-
home drinker. The author would not
recommend the measurement of a brand's
equity for every conceivable 'consumer
need state' - a 'total picture' is far simpler
for all to understand -but it might be a
consideration for a more detailed analysis
of how a brand 's equity is comprised.
KEY QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER
ABOUT BRAND EQUITY TRACKING
In conclusion, perhaps, marketers who are
contemplating conducting a measurement
of their brand's equity may like to consider
the following questions.
– As you are doubtless intending to use
this research as an input to brand
planning and strategy development, or
as an assessment of the achievement
of past marketing activities, would it not
be preferable to consider measurement
approaches that start from the
perspective of marketing strategies as
opposed to re- search techniques?
– Should the focus of measuring brand
equity be solely the consumer? Brands
have meaning and value to several
other audiences who can have a
significant impact on the long-term
performance on that brand, either
directly or indirectly by influencing the
consumer some time in the future. The
commercial tracking services that were
represented at the seminar (with one
exception) concerned themselves
exclusively with a consumer audience.
– As the importance of brand equity rises
up the corporate agenda should
measurement studies be targeted
beyond, as well as to, marketing?
CEO's, Finance Directors and
institutional shareholders should be
aware of how corporate assets are
being managed and understand the
effect of any investments in them.
There is a growing belief that sales and
profit reports tell only part of the story of
the underlying health of a brand.
'Most people agree that in time the
financial markets will pay more attention to
Directors' stewardship of the long-term
state and value of the assets that they are
managing, rather than any short-term profit
fluctuations'
Marketing Week, 3rd July 1997
If senior management and their corporate
advisors are to become audiences for
brand equity measurement reports it is
critical that not only should standardised
approaches be employed but that their
conclusions can be expressed in a highly
succinct format. A good test of this would
be to imagine how equity tracking results
would be documented in the company's
annual report to shareholders.

1. The journal of Brand Management (1998), Volume 5, Number 4, pp. 222-308

2. Feldwick, Paul (1996) 'Do we really need 'Brand Equity'?', The journal of Brand Management, Volume 4,
Number 1, pp. 9-28
3. Keller, K. L (1998) 'Building, measuring and managing brand equity', Prentice-Hall Inc., New York
4. (1997) 'Financial Reporting Standard 10', The Accounting Standards Board, London
5. Ambler, T. and Barwise, P. (1998) 'The trouble with brand valuation', Marketing Metrics Green Paper #2,
London Business School
6. Kokkinaki, E and Ambler, T. (1998) , Marketing metrics survey results' , Marketing Metrics Green Paper #3,
London Business School
7. Cooper, Alan (1998) 'Brand equity - a lifestage model', Admap, January

-7-