Brand preference

One of the indicators of the strength of a brand in the hearts and minds of customers, brand preference represents which brands are preferred under assumptions of equality in price and availability.

Purpose

Measures of brand preference attempt to quantify the impact of marketing activities in the hearts and minds of customers and potential customers. Higher brand preference usually indicates more revenues (sales) and profit, also making it an indicator of company financial performance.

Construction

There are at least three classes of methodologies to measure brand preference directly:

  • Survey questions (self-report, unaided preference)
  • Brand choice measures (choice of preferred brand from a competitive set of brands)
  • Constant sum measures (planned purchases amongst a competitive set of brands)

Methodologies
  • ARS Persuasion [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] is a brand choice methodology applied at various stages of the marketing process. It is derived by comparing the percent choosing a particular brand versus competing brands before and after marketing activity .
  • Firstep applies the methodology to a selling proposition before moving on to creative execution.[3]
  • APM Facts are the results of the methodology applied to TV ads. It has been audited and profiled by the Marketing Accountability Standards Board (MASB) according to MMAP (Marketing Metric Audit Protocol) . A MMAP audit examines the 10 characteristics of an "ideal metric," including reliability, calibration, predictive validity, etc.[12][14][15]
  • Brand Preference Monitor (BPM) tracks the impact of all marketing activity over time.

References
  1. Blair, Margaret H., and Allan R. Kuse. "Better Practices in Advertising Can Change a Cost of Doing Business to Wise Investments in the Business." Journal of Advertising Research. March 2004.
  2. Shepard, Barry. "Developing and Managing Advertising for StarKist Tuna in a Pouch." Quirk's Marketing Research Review. March 2003.
  3. Shirley, Dan. "From Copy Testing and Diagnostics to Process-driven Improvement." The Advertiser (ANA). April/May 1999.
  4. Stewart, David W. "Advertising Wearout: What and How You Measure Matters." Journal of Advertising Research. September/October 1999.
  5. Masterson, Peggy. "The Wearout Phenomenon: Advertising's Selling Power Declines Predictably, Based on the Underused 'Wearout' Finding." Marketing Research. Fall 1999.
  6. Ashley, Susan R. "How to Effectively Compete Against Private-Label Brands." Journal of Advertising Research. January/February 1998.
  7. Blair, Margaret Henderson, and Michael J. Rabuck. "Advertising Wearin and Wearout: Ten Years Later. More Empirical Evidence and Successful Practice." Journal of Advertising Research. September/October 1998.
  8. Jones, John Philip. "Advertising Pretesting; Will Europe Follow America's Lead?" Commercial Communications. June 1997.
  9. Adams, Anthony. "Advertising Research" in Dartnell's Advertising Manager's Handbook: 4th Edition. Ed. David Bushko, 1997.
  10. Mondello, Mike. "Turning Research Into Return-on-Investment." Journal of Advertising Research. July/August 1996.
  11. Adams, Anthony J., and Margaret Henderson Blair. "Persuasive Advertising and Sales Accountability: Past Experience and Forward Validation." Journal of Advertising Research. March/April 1992.
  12. MASB. Practices & Processes Underlying the Development & Management of an “Ideal Metric”. October 2010. [cited 7 February 2011]
  13. comScore ARSgroup. comScore Announces Acquisition of ARSgroup. Archived 9 February 2011 at the Wayback Machine 10 February 2010. [cited 7 February 2011]
  14. MASB. Measuring and Improving the Return from TV Advertising (An Example). April 2008. [cited 7 February 2011]
  15. MASB. MMAP. [cited 7 February 2011]
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.