One of the big, perennial discussions in marketing is whether attitudinal brand strength matters or whether it is simply an artifact of brand size. Noting that attitudes are correlated with penetration, one side argues that if you grow penetration attitudes will follow. Of course, you can equally well argue the opposite. Grow attitudes and penetration will follow.
There are a few factors that I believe have led to the doubt that brand attitudes matter. One is factual. At the aggregate brand level brand attitudes will always correlate with brand usage. The more users a brand has, the more likely they are to agree with positive statements about it.
What is not obvious from point-in-time aggregate brand data, however, is whether this is a chicken or an egg relationship. Looking at data sets where purchasing behavior and attitudinal data are integrated, soon demonstrates that some brands rely far more on positive attitudes to support purchase and premium pricing than others which simply rely on availability and low prices to drive volume.
The next factor undermining belief that attitudes matter is the growing understanding of how humans make decisions. Thanks to advances in cognitive neuroscience we now understand that instincts have a huge influence on decision-making but it seems to have led to the belief that all purchases are instinctive, irrespective of category and circumstance. Yes, instinctive reactions have a big influence on whether we buy a brand (this is why Millward Brown has developed techniques to measure those responses) but they do not always have the last say on our purchasing behavior.
For instance, if people are choosing for the first time, or are forced to make a new choice (because of changing needs, price increases, lack of availability or desire for a change) they will invest more time and effort in the decision and search for the best brand (witness online search data). All our research suggests that a combination of positive functional and emotional associations is more likely to lead to the brand being bought. This is when a difference meaningful to the individual has the power to sway the purchase decision and justify the price paid.
The truth is that the value of brands rests in a complex web or network of impressions, feelings and behaviors with each element in the network linked to and supporting other elements to a greater or lesser degree. You cannot make assertions about what is important simply by running a few linear regressions. Our Brand Structure Analysis studies regularly find that the relationship between attitudes and behavior is more complex than might otherwise be thought. For instance, for one brand we analyzed perceptions of quality and appeal had the strongest influence on changes in market share. However, in addition to be being important in its own right, perceptions of better quality also enhanced salience and value perceptions.
So do you agree with me that marketers under-value the importance of brand attitudes and, if so, why? Please share your thoughts.
Written by Nigel Hollis,Executive Vice President and Chief Global Analyst at Millward Brown
