All definitions, both ours and those of other authors, suffer from one conceptual flaw: based on them, almost any product can be considered a brand. Any manufacturer, even the simplest pasta, will prove with foam at the mouth that consumers who buy these products believe in its advertising (a leaflet at the entrance to the store), understand all the promises of the brand, that these consumers can be clearly defined (target audience), that the importance and adequacy of its pasta can not be overestimated, and that its pasta saturate the consumer much better than the pasta competitors. It will be very difficult to prove to such a producer that its products are unlikely to be a brand or can claim this title. Look," he says, "but by your definition, it all fits..." And he will be right, as the descriptive definition does not set clear criteria for assessing whether a product is a brand.
That's why we decided to use not only a qualitative but also a quantitative definition in our work. This allows us to use objective figures to find out whether a product is a brand or not and to give the manufacturer a direction of development if he wants to develop his product into a brand.
A product can be considered a brand if:
- It is physically accessible to 75% of potential target customers;
- 75% of the target audience can accurately describe by brand name which industry it belongs to;
- At least 20% of the target audience uses it regularly;
- At least 20% of target audience customers can correctly name the main brand descriptors;
- exists in the market for at least 5 years;
- Customers are willing to pay a price higher than the average for similar products in the category.
Some provisions of this definition are quite clear: for example, a brand should be available to 75% of the potential target audience. This means nothing less than quantitative distribution in the producer's designated distribution area. For example, if a national brand is to be established by the end of the fifth year, 75% of the existing outlets should be supplied. That is why it is very difficult to create a full-fledged national brand in Russia: to ensure the delivery of goods to the most remote corners of the country is a task on the verge of possibility.
The second part of the quantitative description of the word defines the behavior of the owner of the goods in relation to the market: buyers should know the brand. It is unrealistic to claim the high title of "brand" if the potential buyer does not know what it is about when mentioning the name of the product. The brand name "Gallina Blanka" should be associated with broth cubes in at least 20% of potential consumers of such products. Usually, in marketing, the term "brand recall" is used to refer to a field of activity named after a brand (see the definition in the Glossary at the end of the book).
From this definition, it follows that the name of the product should be bright, easy to remember and belong only to the producer; boring, difficult to pronounce and remember product never to become a brand. Note that the definition does not require the brand to be top of mind, but it is necessary to remember the product when answering the question "Name all the brands you know from the relevant category".
If a brand is available for purchase and almost all potential users are aware of it, but no one buys it, it is not a brand. At best, this is what used to be a brand. That's why you need to require a brand to have a minimum of 1/5 of potential customers buying it regularly. Regularity is determined by the cycle of purchase of the brand. If we talk about sunflower oil, we are talking about buying a liter bottle every 1-2 months. If we talk about the TV, it's every 3-5 years. If about the car - then once in 5-10 years.
In addition to recognition and customer loyalty, the brand must require from the buyer and a minimum of knowledge about himself. For an accurate explanation of this situation, we can draw an analogy with human relations: considering a person at least his acquaintance, we can give him certain characteristics: smart, funny, understands his business, etc. As with brands - loyal consumers should have at least a minimum understanding of its main characteristics. This is a certain guarantee that the buyer, knowing more about the brand, will stay loyal to it longer.
Determining the age at which a product can record the proud name "brand" in its passport is one of the most difficult questions. In the course of our numerous trainings and conferences, we have repeatedly discussed with marketing managers of successful brands the question of time of existence of the product in the market.
History knows examples of brands that have been transformed into world stars for two or three years, as well as those that have left the stage after many decades of successful existence. Some managers believe that only if a product enters a particular person's life through the recommendation of reference groups can it be considered a brand; i.e., it takes at least a decade to transform a product into a brand. In principle, the time of existence of a brand in the definition could be omitted, replacing it by the difference between the money invested in it and the money earned by it.
Really, what difference does it make how much time a brand exists in the world if it has fulfilled its sales objective in the shortest possible time? The idea of the possibility of creating "short-term brands" back in 2000 was expressed by Dan Herman in his article in the Journal of Brand Management.
The problem is that we can't know the real numbers of brand investments and returns. The introduction of a time parameter suggests that if a product exists for five years or more, it was able to survive the vicissitudes of the first clashes with competitors and achieve the above indicators, and thus became a brand.
The last criterion - consumers agreeing to pay a premium price for the brand compared to other products in the category - is generally accepted. At the same time, a brand can occupy any price segment, but it should be one of the most expensive. Otherwise, it will not be able to compete with other brands and will sooner or later lose the fight for the buyer.
At the end of this chapter, it is necessary to specify that the figures in the definition may vary from category to category. It is obvious that for mobile communications (3-5 operators on the territory), supermarket chains (5-10) and grocery stores or household appliances (several dozen) the situation in terms of knowledge and understanding of brands differs dramatically.