The document discusses fact-based branding, emphasizing the use of quantitative measurement to enhance branding decisions throughout the customer lifecycle. It outlines five key reasons to adopt this approach and explores methods to identify brand attributes and improve brand perception. Additionally, the document addresses potential pitfalls in research practices that may lead to flawed branding insights.

1. Rolf M. Wulfsberg, PhD
February 6, 2013

2. Rolf M. Wulfsberg, Ph.D.
Global Director
Quantitative Research
Siegel+Gale
+ 43 years as a survey researcher and executive
+ Prior to joining S+G, worked at Enterprise IG, several
leading survey research firms and the US Government
+ An author and frequent speaker at professional conferences
+ An expert witness before the U.S. House of
Representatives and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
+ Holds a PhD and an MA in statistics from
American University, and a BA (summa cum laude) in
mathematics and economics from Luther College
+ A former Rhodes candidate, Woodrow Wilson
Fellow and NCAA Postgraduate Fellow
2

3. Agenda
+ What is fact-based branding?
+ What is the compelling truth of your
brand(s)?
+ Predicting ROBI in advance of
implementation
+ Warning signs of potentially ―bad‖
research
3

4. What is
fact-based branding?

5. What is ―fact-based branding‖?
+ “The use of rigorous quantitative
measurement and forecasting techniques
to make better branding decisions.”
+ Fact-based branding covers the entire
customer life cycle—from the acquisition of
new customers to the retention and expansion
of existing customer relationships.
5

6. Five reasons to embrace fact-based branding
1. It builds consensus within
your organization.
6

7. Five reasons to embrace fact-based branding
2. It could add years, if not
decades, to your tenure
as CMO.
7

8. Five reasons to embrace fact-based branding
3. It provides concrete metrics
for evaluating the effectiveness
of brand-building initiatives.
8

9. Five reasons to embrace fact-based branding
4. It elevates brand and
communications to a vital
role within the organization.
9

10. Five reasons to embrace fact-based branding
5. It’s really fun!
10

11. What is the
compelling truth
of your brand(s)?

12. The role of brand in the acquisition process
―Have I heard of ―Do I know what ―Does your ―Does it meet ―Did you deliver
your brand?‖ category your brand meet my needs better your promises?‖
brand is in?‖ my needs?‖ than others?‖
12

13. Potential ―centers of gravity‖ for the compelling
truth of a brand
1. Infrastructure
2. Products/Services
3. Process/Approach
4. People/Skills
5. Mission/Purpose
6. Emotional connection
7. Emotional projection
8. Personality 13

14. There are several methods researchers use to
determine the importance of brand attributes
1. Ask decision makers how they make choices
2. Derive importance through simple statistical tools
such as correlation and regression
3. Use more complex trade-off techniques such as
conjoint analysis or discrete choice modeling
4. Construct a ―micro-model‖ built on decision
makers’ brand perceptions
14

15. A chip allocation exercise that compares brands
head-to-head establishes both preference and
strength of preference
―Suppose you had 11 points to allocate between
Exxon and BP to indicate how much you prefer
one brand of gasoline over the other.
How many of these 11 points would you give to
Exxon, and how many would you give to BP?‖
15

16. Chip allocation results can be very informative
16

17. Unlike conjoint or discrete choice analysis
(shown below), this model bases preference on
brand perceptions rather than forced disclosure
17

18. Perceptual maps demonstrate how various
brands perform on key preference drivers
Noncompetitive Potential Core
HIGH PERFORMING
Strengths Equities Equities
BRAND
Drivers you are Drivers that you Drivers that you ―own‖
perceived to deliver don’t ―own‖ but and are perceived to
ABSOLUTE PERFORMANCE
well, but not as well as you can talk about deliver well
another brand(s) credibly
6
Weaknesses Unmet
LOW PERFORMING
Drivers on which Needs
you are perceived as
BRAND
Drivers on which
weak you lead, but no brand
is perceived
to deliver well
0
–0.3 0
NOT COMPETITIVE WITHIN REACH BEST IN CLASS
PERFORMANCE RELATIVE TO BEST IN CLASS
18

19. The brand maps reveal how the brands are
positioned in decision makers’ minds
Brand A (Americas)
Note: Only Key and Secondary
Drivers are shown
8 P High quality products
C Knowledgeable
ACTUAL PERFORMANCE
C Professional P Meet/exceed standards
L Leader in UL components
L Long heritage C Knowledgeable employees
C Dependable and reliable
C Ethical L Leader in UL assemblies
L Global leader
L Leader in low voltage S Responsive service
S Local mfg.
V Value for price
S Easy catalogues
S Delivers when needed
L Leader in medium voltage A Added Value
S Full support C Straightforward
C Character
S Effective, prompt response
7 L Leadership
P Products
S Service/Support
~
~ V Value for Price
0 NOT COMPETITIVE WITHIN REACH BEST IN CLASS
19
PERFORMANCE RELATIVE TO BEST IN CLASS

20. Predicting return on
brand investment
(ROBI) in advance of
implementation

21. A simplistic model for measuring ROBI
21

22. There are other factors that affect the business
condition
22

23. An improved model for predicting ROBI
23

24. Warning signs of
potentially “bad”
research

25. Warning signs of potentially ―bad‖ research
1. Inappropriate respondents
2. Inappropriate level of detail
3. Compound attributes
4. Failure to recognize different use of scales
by some cultures
5. Inappropriate combining of scores or
ratings
6. Inadequate analysis
25

26. 26 2626
26 26