Brand Report Card

Hello friends,
There is always a dilemma about our brand position,where my brand stands in the competition,how to rate my brand etc..,.Here are few tips to evaluate your brand from your competitors.

Building and properly managing brand equity has become a priority for companies of all sizes, in all types of industries, in all types of markets. After all, from strong brand equity flow customer loyalty and profits.
The rewards of having a strong brand are clear.
The problem is , few are able to step back an assess their brand’s particular strengths and weakness objectively. Most have a good sense of one or two areas in which their brand may excel or may need help. But if pressed many would find it difficult even or to identify all of factors they should be considering. When people are immersed in the day-to-day management of a brand, it’s not easy to keep in perspective all the parts that affect the whole.
In this paper, we’ll identify the ten characteristics that the world’s strongest brand’s share and construct a brand report card—a systematic way for manager to think about how to grand their brand ‘s performance for each of those characteristics. The report card can help you to identify areas that need improvement , recognize areas in which your brand is strong, and learn more about how particular brand is configured. Constructing similar report cards for competitors can give us a clearer picture of their strengths and weakness. one caveat: Identifying weak spots for the bran does not necessarily mean identifying areas that need more attention. Decisions that might seem straightforward-“we haven’t paid much attention to innovation: let’s direct more resources toward R&D “- can sometime prove to be serious mistakes if they undermine another characteristic that customer value more.
THE TOP TEN TRAITS:
The world’s strongest brands share these Ten attributes.

The Brand excels at delivering the benefits customer truly desire.
Why do customers really buy a product? Not because the product is a collection of attributes but because those attributes, together with the brand’s image, the service and many other tangible and intangible factors create an attractive whole. In some cases , the whole isn’t even something that customers know or can say they want.
Consider starbucks. It’s not a cup of coffee. In 1983,starbucks was a small Seattle coffee retailer. Then while on vocation in Italy, Starbucks chairman, was inspired by the romance and the sense of community he felt in Italian coffee bars and coffee houses. the culture grabbed him and he saw an opportunity.
He says “ Starbucks sold great coffee beans, but we didn’t serve coffee by cup. We treated coffees produce something to be bagged an sent home with the groceries. We stayed one big step away from the heart and soul of what coffee has meant throughout centuries.
And also starbucks began to focus its efforts on building a coffee bar culture, opening coffee houses like those in Italy. The company maintained control over the coffee from start to finish—from the election an procurement of the beans o their roasting and blending to their ultimate consumption. The extreme vertical integration paid off. Starbucks locations thus far have successfully delivered superior benefits to customers by appealing to all five senses-through the enticing aroma of the beans, the rich taste of the coffee, the product displays and attractive artwork adorning the walls, the contemporary music playing in the back-back ground , and even the cozy, clean feel of the tables and chairs.
2.The brand stays relevant:
In strong brands, brand equity is tied both to the actual quality of the product or service and to various intangible factors. Those intangible includes:
a) USER IMAGERY: The type of person who uses the brand;
b) USAGE IMAGERY: The type of situations in which the brand is used, the type of personality the brand portrays(sincere, exciting, competent);
c) The feeling that the brand tries to elicit in customers( purposeful warm);and
d) The type of relationship it seeks to build with its customers (committed, casual, seasonal)

Without losing sight of their ore strengths, the strongest brands stay on the leading edge I the product arena an tweak their intangibles to fit the times.
Gillette, for example, pours millions of dollars into R&D to ensure that its razors blades are as technologically advanced as possible, calling attention to major advances through subbrands( Trac II, Atra , Sensor, Mach 3) and signaling minor improvements with modifiers,(Altra plus, Sensor excel). At the same time , Gillette has created consistent, intangibles sense of product superiority with its long-running ads,” The best a man an be”, which are tweaked through images of men at work and at play that have evolved over time to reflect contemporary trends.
These days , images can be tweaked in many ways other than through traditional ads, logos, or slogans. “Relevance” has a deeper and broader meaning in today’s market. Increasingly consumers’ perceptions of a company as a whole and its role in a society affect a brand’s strength as well.

3.The pricing strategy s based on consumers’ perceptions of value:
The right blend of product quality, design, features, costs, and prices I very difficult to achieve but well worth the effort. Many are woefully unaware of how price can and should relate to what customers think of a product, and they therefore charge too little or too much.
For example, in implementing its value-pricing strategy for the cascade automatic-dishwashing detergent brand, P&G made a cost-cutting change in its formulation that had an adverse effect on the product’s performance under certain-though somewhat atypical-water conditions. Lever brothers quickly countered, attacking Cascade’s core equity of producing “virtually spotless” dishes out f the dishwasher. In response, P&G immediately returned to the brand ‘s old formulation. The lesson P&G and others is the value pricing should not be adopted at the expense of essential brand-building activities.
By contrast, with its well-known shift to an “Everyday low pricing”( EDLP ) strategy ,P&G successfully align its prices with consumer perceptions of its products’ value while maintaining acceptable profit levels. In fact, in the fiscal year after P&G switched to EDLP the company reported its highest profit margins.
4. The brand is properly positioned:
Brands that are well positioned occupy particular niches in consumers’ minds. They are similar to and different from competing brands in certain reliably identifiable ways. The most successful brand in this regard keeps up with competitors by creating points of difference to achieve advantages over competitors in some other areas.
The Mercedes-Benz and Sony brands, for example holds a clear advantages in the product superiority and match competitors’ level of service. Calvin Klein and Harley-Davidson excel at providing compelling user and usage imagery while offering adequate or even strong performance.
Visa is a particularly good example of a brand whose managers understand the positioning game. In the 1970’s and 1980’s, American Express maintained the high profile band in the credit card market through a series highly effective marketing programs. Trumpeting that “membership has is privileges”, American express came to signify status, prestige and quality.
In response, Visa introduced he Gold and Platinum cards and launched an aggressive marketing campaign to build up the status of its cards to match the American Express cards. It also developed an extensive merchant delivery system to differentiate itself on the basis of superior convenience and accessibility. Its as campaigns showcased desirable locations such as restaurants, resorts, and events that did not accept American Express while proclaiming,” VISA. It’s everywhere you want to be”. The aspirational message cleverly reinforced both accessibility and prestige and helped Visa stake out a formidable position for its brand. Visa become the consumer card of choice for family and personal shopping, for personal travel, and entertainment, and even for international travel, a former American Express stronghold.
Of course, branding isn’t static, and the game is even more difficult when a brand spans many product categories.

The mix of points of parity and point of difference that works for a brand in one category may not be quite right for the same brand in another.
5. The brand is consistent:
MAINTAINING A STRONG BRAND MEANS STRICKNG THE RIGHT BALANCES BETWEEN CONTINUITY IN MARKETING ACTIVITIES AND THE KIND OF CHANGE NEEDED TO STAY RELEVANT. By continuity mean that the brand’s image does not get muddled or lost in a cacophony of marketing efforts that confuse customers by sending conflicting messages.
Just such a fate befell the Michelob brand. In the 1970’s Michelob ran ads featuring successful young professionals that confidently proclaimed. “ Where you’re going its Michelob”. The company’s next ad campaign trumpeted,” weekends were made for Michelob.” Later in an attempt to bolster sagging sales, the theme was switched to “Put a little weekend in your weak”, In the mid 1980’s, managers launched a campaign telling consumers that “ The night belongs to Michelob”. Then in 1994 they told,” Some days are better than others”, which went to explain that” A Special day requires a special beer”. The slogan was subsequently changed to “Some days were made for Michelob”.Pity the poor consumers. Previous ad campaigns simply required that the look at their calendars or out a window to decide whether it was the right time to drink Michelob; by the mid-1990’s, they had to figure out exactly what kind of day they were having as well. After receiving so many msgs consumers could hardly be blamed if they had no idea when they were supposed to drink beer. Predictably sales suffered. From a high in 1980 of 8.1 million barrels, sales dropped to just 1.8 million barrels by 1998.

6.The brand portfolio and hierarchy make change:
Most companies do not have only one brand; they create and maintain different brands for different market segments. Single product lines are often sold under different brand names, and different brands within a company hold different powers. The corporate, or companywide, brand acts as an umbrella. A second brand name might be targeted at the family market. The third brand name nest one level below the family brand and appeal to boys, or be used for one type of product.
Brands at each level of the hierarchy contribute to the overall equity of the portfolio through their individual ability to make consumers aware of the various products and foster favorable associations with them. At the same time, though, each brand should have its own bound-aries; it can be dangerous to try to cover too much ground with one brand or to overlap two brands in the same portfolio.
The Gap’s brand portfolio provides maximum market coverage with minimal overlap. Banana Republic anchors the high end, the Gap covers the basic style and quality terrain, and Old Navy taps into the border mass market. Each brand has a distinct image and its own sources of equity.
BMW have a particular well-designed and implemented hierarchy. At the corporate brand level, BMW pioneered the luxury sports and sedan category by combining seemingly incongruent style and performance considerations. BMW’s clever advertising slogan “The ultimate driving machine”, reinforces dual aspects of this image and is applicable to all cars sold under the BMW name. At the same time , BMW created well-differentiated sub brands through its 3,4, and 7 series, which suggest a logical order and hierarchy of quality and price.
General motors, by contrast, still struggles with its brand portfolio and hierarchy. In 1920’s, Alfred P. slogan decreed that his company would offer” a car fo9r every purse and purpose”. This philosophy led to the creation of the Cadillac, Oldsmobile, Buick, Pontiac, and Chevrolet divisions. The idea was that each division would appeal to unique market segmentation the basics of price, product design, user imagery and so forth. Through the years, however, the marketing overlap among the five main GM divisions increased, and the divisions’ distinctiveness diminished. In the mid-1980’s for example, the company sold a single body type (the j-body) modified slightly for the five different brand names. In fact, ads for Cadillac in the 1980’s actually stated that “motors for a Cadillac may come from other divisions, including Buick and Oldsmobile.
IN the last ten years, the company has attempted to sharpen the divisions’ blurry images by repositioning each brand. Chevrolet has been positioned as the value priced, entry level brand. Saturn represents no-haggle customer-oriented service. Pontiac meant to be sporty, performance oriented brand for young people. Oldsmobile is the brand for larger, medium-priced cars. Buick is the premium, “near luxury” brand. And Cadillac of course, is still the top of the line. Yet the goal remains challenging. The financial performance of Pontiac and Saturn has improved. But the top and bottom lines have never regained the momentum they had years ago. Consumers remain confused about what the brands stand for, in sharp contrast to the clearly focused images of competitors like Honda and Toyota.
7. The brand makes use of and coordinates a full repertoire of marketing activities to build equity:
At its most level, a rand is made up of all the marketing elements that can be trademarked—logos, symbols, slogans, signage, and so on. Strong brand mi and match these elements to perform a numb of brand-related functions, such as enhancing or reinforcing consumer awareness of the brand or its image and helping to protect the brand both competitively and legally.
Managers of the strongest brands also appreciate the specific rules that different marketing activities can play in building brand equity. They can show consumers how and why who use a product, where and when. They can associate a brand with a person, place, or thing to enhance or refine its image.
Some activities, such as traditional ad, lend themselves best to “pull” programs-those meant to create consumer demand for a given product. Others, like trade promotions , work best as “push” programs-those designed to help push the product to distributors. When a brand makes good use of all its resources and also takes a particular care to ensure that the essence of the brand is the same in all the activities, it is hard to beat.
Coco-Cola is one of the best example. The brand makes a excellent use of many kinds of marketing activities. These include media advertising(such as the global “Always Coco-Cola” campaign);promotions(the recent effort focused on the return of the popular contour bottle, for example); and sponsorship(its extensive involvement with the Olympics). They also include direct response and interactive media. Through it all, the company always reinforces its key values of “originality”, “classic refreshment”, and so on. The brand is always the hero in Coca-Cola advertising.
8. The brand’s managers understand what the brand means to consumers:
Managers of strong brand appreciate the totality of their brand’s image –that is, all the different perceptions, beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors customer associate with their brand, whether created intentionally by the company or not. As a result, managers are able to make decisions regarding the brand without confidence. If it’s clear what customers like and don’t like about a brand, and what core associations are linked to the brand, then it should also be clear whether any given action will dovetail nicely with brand or create friction.
The Bic brand illustrates the kinds of problems that can arise when managers don’t fully understand their brand’s meaning. By emphasizing the convenience of inexpensive, disposal products, the French company Societe Bic was able to create a market of non-refillable ballpoint pens in late 1950s,disposal cigarette lighters in the early 1970s, disposal razors in the early 1980s. But in 1989, when Bic tried the same strategy with perfumes in the US and Europe, the effort bombed.
The perfumes- two for women and two for men- were packaged in quarter-ounce glass spray bottles that looked like a fat cigarette lighters and sold for about $5 each. They were displayed in plastic packages on racks at checkout counters throughout Bic’s extensive distribution channels, drug stores, super markets, and mass merchandisers. At the of the launch, a Bic spokesperson described the products as logical extensions odf the Bic heritage. “High quality at affordable prices, convenient to purchase and convenient to use.” The company spent $20 million on an advertising and promotion that featured images of stylish people enjoying the perfumes and used the tag line “Paris in Your Pocket”.
What went wrong? Although their products did stand for convenience and for good quality at low prices, Bics managers didn’t understand the overall brand image lacked a certain cachet with customers- a critical element when marketing something as tied to emotions as perfume. The marketers knew that customers understood the message they were sending with their earlier products. But they didn’t have a handle on the associations that the customers had added to the brand image- a utilitarian, impersonal essence-which didn’t at all lend itself to perfume.
By contrast, Gillette has been carefully not to fall into the Bic trap. While all of its products benefit from a similarly extensive distribution system, it is very protective of the name carried by its razors, blades, and associated toiletries. The company’s electric razors, for example, use the entirely separate Braun name, and its oral care products are marketed under the Oral B name.
9. The brand is given proper support, and that support is sustained over the long run:
Brand equity must be carefully constructed. A firm foundation for brand equity requires that customers have the proper depth and breadth of awareness and strong, favorable, and unique associations with the brand in their memory. Too often, we want to take shortcuts and bypass more basic branding considerations-such as achieving the necessary level of brand awareness- in favor of concentrating on flashier aspects of brand building related to image.
A good example of lack of support comes from the oil and gas industry in the 1980’s. IN the late 1970s, consumers had an extremely positive image of Shell oil and according to market research, saw clear differences between brand and its major competitors. In the early 1980s however , for a variety of reasons, shell cut back considerably on its advertising and marketing. The brand no longer enjoys the same special status I the eyes of consumers, who now view it as similar to other oils.

10. The company monitors sources of brand equity:
Strong brands generally make good and frequent use of in-depth brand audits and ongoing brand-tracking studies. A brand audit is an exercise designed to assess the health of a given brand. Typically, it consists of a detailed internal description of how exactly the brand has been marketed called Brand inventory. And through a thorough external investigation, through focus groups and other consumer research, of exactly what the brand does and could mean to consumers called a Brand Explaratory. Brand audits are particularly useful when they are scheduled on periodic basics. It’s also important to see how that same picture looks to customers. Tapping customers’ perceptions and beliefs often uncovers the true meaning of brand, or group of brands, revealing where corporate and consumer views conflict and thus showing managers exactly where they have to refine or redirect their branding efforts or their marketing goals.
Tracking studies can build on brand audits by employing quantitative measures to provide current information about how a brand is performing for any given dimension. Generally, a tracking study will collect information on consumers’ perceptions ,attitudes , and behaviors on a routine basis over time; a thorough study can yield valuable tactical insights into the short-term effectiveness of marketing programs and activities. Whereas brand audits measure where the brand is now and whether marketing programs are having their intended effects.
The strongest brands, however, are also supported by formal brand-equity-management systems. It has written in document known as a “brand equity charter”-that spells out the company’s general philosophy with respect to brands and brand equity as concepts :
A) What a brand is?
B) Why brand matters?
C) Why brand management is relevant to the company?
And so on……,
It also summarizes the activities that make up brand audits, brand tracking, and other brand research; specifies the outcomes expected of them; and includes the latest findings gathered from the research. The charter then lays out guidelines for implementing brand strategies and tactics and documents proper treatment of the brand ‘s trade mark-the rules for how the logo can appear and be used on packaging, in ads, and so forth. The brand equity report not only describes what is happening within a brand but also why.
Even a market leader can benefit by carefully monitoring its brand, as Disney aptly demonstrates. In the late 1980s, Disney become concerned that some of its characters (among them Mickey mouse and Donald duck) were being used inappropriately and becoming over exposed. To determine the severity of the problem, Disney undertook an extensive brand audit. First, as part of the brand inventory, managers complied a list of all available Disney products(manufactured by the company and licensed) and all third-party promotions in stores world wide. At the same, as part of brand exploratory, Disney launched its first major consumer research study to investigate how consumers felt about the Disney brand.
The results of the brand inventory were a revelation to senior managers. The Disney characters were on so many products and marketed in so many ways that it was difficult to understand how or why many of the decisions had been made in the first place. The consumers study only reinforced their concerns. The study indicated that people lumped all the product endorsements together. Disney was Disney to consumers, whether they saw the characters in films, or heared them in recordings, or associated them with theme parks or products.
Consequently, all products and services that used the Disney name or characters had an impact on Disney’s brand equity. And because of the characters broad exposure in the marketplace, many consumers had begun to feel that Disney was exploiting its name. Disney characters were used in a promotion of Johnson wax, for instance, a product that would seemingly leverage almost nothing of value from Disney name. consumers were upset when Disney characters were linked to well-regarded premium brands like Tide laundry detergent. In that case, consumers felt the characters added little value to the product. Worse yet, they were annoyed that the characters involves in a purchasing decision that they otherwise would probably have ignored.
If consumers reacted so negatively to associating Disney with a strong brand like Tide, imagine how they reacted when they saw the hundreds of other Disney’s licensed products and joint promotions. Consumers reported that they resented all the endorsements because they felt they had a special relationship with its characters and with Disney that should not be handled so carelessly.
As a result of the brand inventory and brand exploratory, Disney moved quickly to establish a brand equity team to better manage the brand franchise and more selectively evaluate licensing and other third-party promotional opportunities. One of the mandates of this team was to ensure that a consistent image for Disney-reinforcing its key association with fun family entertainment- was conveyed by all third-party products and services. Subsequently, Disney declined an offer to co-brand a mutual fund designed to help parents save their children’s college expenses. Although there was a family association, managers felt that a connection with the financial community suggested associations that were inconsistent with other aspects of the brand’s image.
Rating Your brand:
RATE YOUR BRAND on a scale of one to ten (one being extremely poor and ten being extremely good) for each characteristic below. Then create a bar chart that reflects the score. Use the bar chart to generate discussion among all those individuals who participate in the management of your brands. Looking at the results in that manner should help u to identify areas that need improvement, recognize areas in which we excel, and learn more about how your particular brand is configured.
It can also be helpful to create report card and chart for competitors’ brands simply by rating those brands based on our own perceptions, both as a competitor and as a consumer. As an outsider, you may know more about their brands are received in the market place than they do.
When we evaluate our own brand we have to look at it through the eyes of consumers’ rather than through our own knowledge of budgets, teams, and time spent on various initiatives.

The brand excels at delivering the benefits customers truly desire:

a) Have we attempted to uncover consumer needs and wants? By what methods?
b) Do we focus relentlessly on maximizing our customers’ product and service experience?
c) Do we have a system in place for getting comments from customers to the people who can effect change?






The brand stays relevant:

a) Have we invested in product improvements that provide better value for our customers?
b) Are we in touch with our customers’ taste? With the current market conditions? With new trends as they apply to our offering?
The pricing strategy is based on consumers’ perception value:

a) Have we optimized price, cost, and quality to meet o exceed customers’ expectations?
b) Do we have a system in place to monitor customers’ perceptions of our brand ‘s value?
c) Have we estimated how much value our customers believe the brand adds to our product?

The rand is properly positioned:

p) Have we established necessary and competitive points of parity with competitors?
q) Have we established desirable and deliverable points of difference?

5. The brand ids consistent:

x) Are we sure that our marketing programs are not sending conflicting messages and that they haven’t done so over time?
y) Conversely, are we adjusting our programs to keep current?

6. The brand portfolio and hierarchy make sense:

a) Can the corporate brand create a seamless umbrella for all the brands in the portfolio?
b) Do the brands in that portfolio hold individual niches?
c) How extensively do the brand overlap? In what areas?
d) Conversely, do the brand maximize market coverage?
e) Do we have a rand hierarchy that is well thought ad well understood?



7. The brand makes use of and coordinates a full repertoire of marketing activities to build equity:
a) Have we chosen or designed our brand name, logo, symbol, slogan, packaging, signage, and so forth to maximize brand awareness?
b) Have we implemented integrated push and pull marketing strategies that target both distributors and customers?
c) Are we aware of all the marketing activities that involve our brand?
d) Are the people managing each activity aware of one other?
e) Have we capitalized on the unique capabilities of each communication option while ensuring that the meaning of the brand is consistently represented?



8. The brand’s managers understand what the brand means to consumers:
a) Do we know what customers like and don’t like about a brand?
b) Are we aware of all the core associations people make with our brand, whether intentionally created by our company or not?
c) Have we created detailed, research-driven portraits of our target customers?
d) Have we outlined customer-drive boundaries for brand extension and guidelines for marketing programs?

9. The brand is given proper support, and that support is sustained over the long run:
a) Are the successes or failures of marketing programs fully understood before they are changed?
b) Is the brand given sufficient R&D support?

10. The company monitors sources of brand equity:
a) Have we created a brand charter that defines the meaning and equity of the brand and how it should be treated?
b) Do we conduct periodic brand audits to assess the health of our brand and to set strategic direction?
c) Do we conduct routine tracking studies to evaluate current market performance?
d) Do we regularly distribute brand equity reports that summarize all relevant research and information to assist marketers in making decisions?
e) Have we assigned explicit responsibility for monitoring and preserving bran equity?