OUGD601 - Research - Brand Psychology

BRANDWATCHING: Lifting the lid on branding - Giles Lury, 2001

What is a brand?

• Philip Kotler -  (Kotler, P. 1996. Managing Marketing: Planning, Analysis & Control. Prentice-Hall)
• ..defines branding as “A name, term, symbol or design, or a combination of them which is intended to signify the goods or services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of competitors.” (Pg.2)

- VERSUS WHEELER'S DEFINITION (COMPARE THEM?)

(Wheeler, A. 2013. Designing Brand Identity 4th Edition. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons)

• What is a brand? (pg.2) -  As competition creates infinite choices, companies look for ways to connect emotionally with customers, become irreplaceable, and create life-long relationships. A strong brand stands out in a. Densely crowded marketplace. People fall in love with brands, trust them, and believe in their superiority. How a brand is perceived affects its success, regardless of whether its a start-up, a non-profit, or a product. 

_________________________________________

• (Perry, Sir M. 1994. The Brand: Vehicle for Value in a Changing Marketplace. Speech to the Advertising Association) 
• Sir Michael Perry, former chairman of Unilever, the company which owns brands like Persil, Birds Eye, PG Tips & Calvin Klein said: 
• “In the modern world, brands are a key part of how individuals define themselves and their relationships with one another… More and more we are simply consumers… We are what we wear, eat & drive”

• Brands, as Sir Michael Perry and millions of us consumers know, are much more than the sum of their physical parts. Coca-Cola is more than a name, it is much more than a drink. 
• “Brands are a whole bundle of attributes, both functional and emotional. Coca-Cola is refreshing but it is also young, lively and energetic.”
• “Brands have personality; they have and represent certain values. Brands not only meet our physical needs, they can address our emotional needs too. They make a statement about the type of person you are/would like to be”  (pg.3)

• (King, S. 1970. “What is a brand?” Speech to the Advertising Association)
• Stephen King - director of planning at J Walter Thompson wrote a seminal paper entitled ‘What is a brand?’ He too argues that while a brand has values as a product it also has values beyond the physical or functional ones.
• “People choose their brands as they choose their friends. You choose your friends not usually because of specific skills or physical attributes (though of course these play a part) but simply because you like them as people. It is the total person you choose, not a compendium of virtues and vices.”  (pg.3)

Although quite a fanciful approach of describing the relationships we have with brands, it is a fairly accurate one. To put this theory to the test I conducted a quick ‘blind’ vs ‘named’ test with two different types of beers - a named, more popular craft brand vs a more bog-standard supermarket own brand of ‘craft’ beer too. 

Two matched samples of consumers were used whom were each asked to try and then rate the two products. The first sample tries them both ‘blind’ (not knowing the brand differences) and then the second can see the physical differences between the two brands. 

It is then possible to compare the results and see the effect that branding actually has on perception.

Blind vs Named Product Test: 

	Product A	Product B
Blind	49%	51%
Named	33%	67%

The 2 brands appear to be level on physical, functional performance, but the named brands have significantly more ‘added values’. 

The results define to us that, when tested blind, consumers are equally split. There is little that differs functionally between the two brands, so the persuasive perception of a ‘named’ brand identity is lost. But when they can visually see and compare the branding of the 2 labels, there becomes a majority to the 2nd brand. 

“Its clear that brands are more than just names. They are more than just physical entities: much of what we see and value in them exists in our own minds and not in the products themselves. It is our perceptions - our beliefs and feelings and experiences which are most important.” (2001, pg 4)

• THEN they show evidence through a blind vs named food test between 2 brands. 2 matched samples of consumers - 1 tries the two brands not knowing which they are an then rate, 1 tries them knowing which goes to which brand. It is then possible to compare the results and see the effect that branding has on perception. 
• The 2 brands appear to be level on physical, functional performance, but the named brands have significantly more ‘added values’.
• It shows us that, when tested blind, consumers are equally split. Functionally there is little that people can perceive to choose between. But when they can visually see and compare the branding of the 2 brands there is a majority to the 2nd brand. 

• “Its clear that brands are more than just names. They are more than just physical entities: much of what we see and value in them exists in our own minds and not in the products themselves. It is our perceptions - our beliefs and feelings and experiences which are most important.” (pg.4)

Origins of branding (pg.5)

• Been around for centuries - marking your goods/products as your own property/fruits of your labour - identifies you as the owner
• 19th century / industrial revolution created mass production thus more brands. Had more people working for the larger companies/factories representing one supplier  
• The rising in standard of living led to the growth of mass-markets
• Rise of mass-distribution - before railways it was ship or barge. (pg.6)
• Finally, was the growth of education and literacy that accompanied the industrial revolution in the birth of branding - mass-media through which manufacturers communicated and sold their goods to the mass market /consumers 
• Supported by Wally Ollins - corporate identity..
• “The idea of branding emerged in the middle of the 19th century, when technology combined with literacy and rising standards of living to create the first mass market. The thinking that lay behind branding was very simple, but highly original. It was to take a household product, a commodity, not different fundamentally from any other manufacturer, and to endow it with special characteristics through the imaginative use of name, packaging and advertising. 
• ..The companies, mainly American, that originated the branded idea all began in more or less the same way. They took ordinary, standard products, such as soap or tea, coffee or fats, and they gave them a distinct name or packaging. They advertised them very heavily and then they distributed them widely. The achievement of those companies was prodigious. They took advantage of the latest technology available at the time, rapid, regular and widespread transport, refrigeration, cheap newspapers, mass advertising to reach a public with improved living standards.”
• This process of taking a product, giving it a distinctive name and attractive packaging and then advertising it to highlight its merits and/or create a personality for it is a widely used explanation for what a brand is. (pg.7)
• However the origins of branding was not as Wally Ollins suggests - just a clever ploy name, pack and advert, the early brands actually offered real benefit back then…. The reliability and consistency of product quality was a persistent problem for consumers in the 19th century. Branding was the means by which this problem was addressed and resolved - It provided a re-assured guarantee of the consistency and predictability of the product for the consumer.

• As markets have become more and more competitive over the years, brands and branding have developed too. 
• Brands will introduce a whole range of different products which compete in different markets, rather than just one type of product. 

Why do we buy brands? (pg.19)

• Leading brand names can be anything from 25%-100% more expensive than a retailer’s own brand equivalent/alternatively named product. Why do we buy into the more expensive named brands?
• Better quality? Brands have traditionally been and remain, symbols of quality.  - as supported by the origins of branding - were an easily recognisable mark of consistent quality. 
• Brands have a great deal of trust and respect in the eyes of the consumer. A survey conducted by The Henley Centre as part of its “Planning for social change” research programme - more people trusted Kellogg’s to be honest and fair than they trusted the church.
• The only British institution to beat the leading brands on the measure of trust was the family GP

Your GP - 85

Kelloggs - 84

Cadbury - 83

Heinz - 81 

Nescafe - 77

Rowntree - 74 

Your bank - 72

Coca-Cola - 65

Your Church - 64

The police - 62

Your MP - 28

• One of the most significant developments in consumer marketing has been the growth of retailers’ own label brands (APPLY THIS ALL TO BEER/CRAFT) 
• 25% or more of the sales are now to the retailers own label equivalents - CHECK THIS FIGURE
• Britain is/was in the lead of this phenomenon - (there are stats but compare them to up to date ones) (pg.20)
• Sir Michael Perry, ex-Chairman of Unilever - speech to the advertising association in 94…
• “Stores like Sainsburies & Tesco have established their own reputation as guarantors of freshness & quality - and much more. For enhancing enjoyment of shopping; for broadening the minds and experiences of customers and for catering successfully to all incomes, classes and tastes. They have established powerful brand identities of their own which command consumer respect. 
• …This formidable achievement has inevitably changed the competitive context for the manufacturers’ brands in those stores. Consistency of quality is no longer enough. Its the minimum price of entry - but its no guarantee you’ll even get on the shelf!”
• So if quality is now the same, why do we still persist to buy the manufacturers brands? The answer lies in the fact that the quality of a brand only relates to its ability to physically do something for us. P.Kotler defines quality: “Quality stands for the rated ability of the brand to perform its functions. Quality is a summary term for the products durability, reliability, precision, ease of repair and other valued attributes. Some of these attributes can be measuredly objectively.” - So quality relates to the functional benefit that a product offers. But we, the consumer, often respond to our own perceptions of quality, not a true measurement. Which highlights the real reason why brands still have appeal for different people. 
• “We are not driven by our rational needs. We have emotional needs as well as functional ones. We have hearts swell as minds and it is by addressing our emotional needs, as well as our functional needs, that a brand can create not only its uniqueness, but its desirability.”
• Brands not only deliver functional benefits, they stand for certain values too. They have their own personalities. They are means of self-expression - can vary for everyone. These emotionally based factors can add to a brands worth or atlas our perception of its worth.
• We like to associate with top athletes and famous people. We want to associate with that ‘brand tribe’ - be part of something bigger/ a collective of similarly minded people.

So why is brand personality important? (Pg. 46)

• “In a world where the advance of technology means that it is now easier for one manufacturer to copy another ones product and do so more quickly than ever before, brand personality is a key means of creating differentiation and maintaining a point of difference over a period of time.”
• Brand personality is a powerful aspect of branding since there is evidence showing that when consumers choose between competing brands they do so according to the fit between the brands personality and the personality they wish to project.