生存法则（二）标题：Building Brand Equity Through Advertising
原文：Learning from Brand Equity Rearch to Build Ads That Build Brands
Years of rearch have shown that consumer perceptions and attitudes - measured collectively, and commonly described as consumer Brand Equity - have a direct relationship to a brand's market position and business results. Marketers rely on advertising as one primary tool to develop and nurture Brand Equity. This paper will share some findings that look at advertising, as a contributor to Brand Equity - specifically, how Brand Equity measures can contribute to the development and evaluation of advertising at the pretest stage, in a copytest.
Short-Term Impact and _ Long-Term Brand Equity
Historically, pretest (copytest) measures are designed primarily to evaluate an ad's potential impact in the short term. We u standardized measures of the ad's potential to be noticed and remembered; to register the brand name and convey its message or image; to reinforce loyalty or preference among current buyers; and to persuade consumers to buy or u the brand. Previous studies, many of them prented at the ARF over the years, have validated the pretest measures in relation to inmarket results - typically in terms of sales volume or share, and sometimes awareness, for the period during or
immediately following the ad's run. So the pretest measures have a demonstrated ability to identify and quantify the short-term effectiveness of individual ads.
代办收入证明But marketers also want advertising to build their brands in the long term. Some studies have focud on the long-term effects of advertising, a year or more beyond the ad's run. They show that some ads are effective in the short term and the long term, while some are effective only while they run. However, we have yet to e any evidence of ads that contribute to business results in the long term without any measurable short-term impact. So we could say that short-term effectiveness is necessary, but not sufficient, to produce long-term results.
This rais the obvious question, how can we measure an ad's potential to build the brand in the long term - to develop or reinforce Brand Equity? One approach comes
from our learning about Brand Equity. To show how that applies to copytesting, we have to start at the other end: with measures of consumer Brand Equity, in market. Measuring Brand Equity
Our measure of Brand Equity comes from a model that us a handful of standardized attitude measures that are generalizable across brands, business ctors, and markets. In a study reprenting 200 different brands from 40 different product and rvice categories, comprising over
12,000 consumer interviews for over 200,000 individual brand asssments, the measures have been validated in relation to market variables and business outcomes - what we like to call "Brand Health."
It is important to understand how the model works to measure Brand Equity. The overall construct that we call "Brand Health" depends on three major factors: Brand Equity perceptions, Consumer Involvement with the category, and Price/Value perceptions. The are derived measures, bad on a ries of standard rating scales. The Brand Equity measure summarizes consumer perceptions on five dimensions: Familiarity, Uniqueness, Relevance, Popularity, and Quality. Involvement reflects consumers' reported nsitivity to brand differences, how much brands matter to them in this category; and Price reprents the perceived price/value relationship. To line up the ratings with business results, we also need to account for brand size.
The derived measure of Brand Health shows a strong correlation with consumers' reported brand loyalty, commitment, purcha intent ratings, and price nsitivity. At the brand level, we also find a strong relationship to market share, and to five-year trends in share and profitability.
Advertising and _Brand Equity
美人鱼是否存在
This begs the question: "If Equity drives the Brand, what drives Equity?"
We went looking for answers in a follow-up study, that we reported at last year's Week of Workshops3. This study was more focud than the first one, concentrating on 79 brands from 20 different categories of FMCGs with a relatively high penetration - in all, over 2,700 consumers gave more than 10,000 brand asssments. Each brand was rated on our five Equity dimensions, and also on veral factors that we thought should contribute to Brand Equity - including perceptions of the
advertising. Specifically, we asked whether they recalled advertising for the brand and if so, whether they felt the advertising had a favorable impact on their opinion of the brand.
Advertising was not the biggest factor contributing to Equity; product and package performance, the "look and feel" of the brand, and the brand name itlf, each had a stronger correlation to Equity than advertising had. But favorable ad awareness also had a significant relationship to Equity. In particular, it contributed to ratings for Familiarity and perceived Uniqueness - qualities that have a logical relationship to advertising.
But why is advertising correlated with Equity at lower levels than the other variables? One possibili
ty is that advertising influences the other perceptions indirectly, but more strongly than consumers think it does. And of cour, the brands would vary in the level and quality of their advertising support. In any ca, perceptions of the advertising are correlated with Equity. This confirms our belief that advertising contributes to Brand Equity, or at least, that it can - which points to the need for a way to measure an ad's potential contribution to Brand Equity, in a pretest. Copy Test Measures for_Brand Equity
At around the same time as this study, we began to include the five Equity ratings in the Diagnostic gment of our copy test. Of cour, "equity" is not a property of an individual ad; it's a property of the brand. But in a copy test that measures consumers' perceptions and reactions to an ad execution, we should be able to measure its potential to enhance or reinforce brand perceptions. Equity studies typically reference attributes specific to a brand or category, to identify the unique "equities" that position and differentiate individual brands. We often evaluate the in copytests, too. But by adding the validated, generalizable items from the Equity*Builder model, we should be able to asss ads at the pretest stage in terms of their potential to build Brand Equity.
Here's a quick summary of the copytest methodology that we call Next*TV: A nationally distributed sample is recruited to the survey by telephone, in the gui of a "program evaluation study." Qualifie
电饭煲鸡腿d recruits get a packet in the mail with a VHS
后勤保障工作职责
tape that has a half-hour sitcom, with commercials embedded in the program, and instructions for the study. The next day we contact them again by phone to ask questions about the program, and to collect day-after recall measures for the test ads. After the recall measures, we administer a monadic exposure to lected test ads, which are "hidden" at the end of the tape. From this monadic exposure, we collect communication and reaction measures, Purcha Intent, and Brand Attribute Ratings. Purcha Intent and Attribute Ratings are also collected for a matched Control group that answers the same question about the brand, but without exposure to the test ad. We get ratings for the Equity*Builder items developed in our Brand Equity rearch-both for the test ad, and for the unexpod Control group. With the data in hand, we can begin to look at the relationships.
First, we e that individual ads do tend to produce a positive change in the ratings, compared with Control group data collected for each brand without test ad exposure. Second, we e that the average ratings on the items, across all brands, are similar to the average ratings we've en in our Brand Equity databa. And if we apply the Equity*Builder model to calculate an Equity Index, the copytest Control groups show the same distribution as the brands in our Equity databa. Calculating the same index for each test ad, we e a lot of variation across executions - but of cour
小黑蛛 a lot of that variation is due to differences in the brands, to begin with. If we take the difference, the increment above Control group levels, for each ad test, we find consistent discrimination between Test and Control - that is, most ads do produce a positive change from their starting levels. And we e a wide range of variation across ads: some do a lot more than others to enhance Equity perceptions.
The results confirm our expectations. The data show that:
1 Validated Brand Equity measures can be transferred to the copytest;
2 Data distributions indicate we are measuring substantially the same things; so
3 We can evaluate and discriminate between individual ads, bad on their potential to enhance or reinforce perceptions that drive Brand Equity.
This is uful in itlf, becau it provides an added dimension to the pretest
asssment. For individual ads, however, thetraditional measures of immediate impact remain the primary criterion for evaluation. How are the related to the Brand Equity measures?
Equity Measures and Ad Recall
First, let's take a look at our measures for Recall. If we divide the ads into thirds (high, middle, and low), bad on their Equity Index, we e that brandassociated Related Recall is higher for ads that get higher Equity ratings.
This is day-after Related Recall, on a brand-aided basis, and validation studies tell us it's associated with awareness, or "rate of delivery." There's less difference in Measured Attention, our aided recognition of the creative execution; the difference in overall Recall is mostly due to higher Brand Linkage, a derived measure that reprents brandassociated recall among tho who notice and remember the ad itlf. It's interesting, also, to e how the test measures relate to the individual "components" of Brand Equity. In particular, higher levels of ad Recall and Brand Linkage are associated with higher ratings for perceived Uniqueness, Familiarity, and (to some extent) Relevance of the brand.
The are not extremely strong relationships; they are statistically significant, but not primary drivers of Recall. But it's clear that brands that have higher Equity ratings also enjoy at least a small advantage for their ads in being noticed, remembered, and especially, branded. Now let's look at Persuasion.
蛋白尿怎么治疗Equity Measures and Persuasive Impact
雨中的树林
We already know, from our Brand Equity studies, that the Equity Index and its components are directly correlated with Purcha Intent (PI) for the brand. In our copytest, we turn Purcha Intent into a Persuasion measure by evaluating the change in PI for the ad, compared to its matched Control group with no ad exposure. Since the Equity measures are already correlated with PI in the Control group, we need to take the Equity ratings for each ad as a change score too, relative to its Control group levels. When we do, we find a direct relationship to persuasion: ads that produce a bigger change in the Brand Equity ratings produce a bigger change in Purcha Intent. This relationship holds for each of the components of the Equity Index: Familiarity,
