His is the mind of the Marketing strategist, scanning that ultimate yardstick of competitiveness: the brand. As a researcher, the 64-year-old Alexander Luria Biel, the director of the London-based Research International Group, has been studying brands for the last 15 years. For Biel, brand strength is akin to brand magic: a combination of personality, skills, and relationships--all of which together forge a brand persona. In an hour-long interview with BT's Adite Chatterjee, Biel explains how the softer sides of a brand are its real strengths, especially when competing products are functionally similar.

Mr Biel, in your recent articles, you postulate a brand-new thesis: that every consumer has a brandscape, within which she makes her choices. If that is correct, do you believe that typical competitor-driven strategies are capable of exploiting each individual's brandscape?

Each brand in the marketplace competes with a set of brands besides competing for the customer's share-of-mind. Good marketers do not harbour a narrow view of competition. As they look at competition in the world of images, they have to look at the extent to which their brands stand out from the clutter. And just talking about clutter in advertising isn't enough; you are talking of signage, packaging, outlets, and, of course, advertising. So, while developing a brand's personality, you have to go beyond developing simple selling messages. The challenge: how do you build a relationship with the consumer even if you are selling non-relational products? One thing that even consumer non-durables must do is to build a long-term relationship with the consumer. McDonald's does it, so do Coca-Cola and Pepsi. And Nike is an outstanding example of a brand that relates to the consumer at different levels

Would you agree that corporate, or badge, brands are better suited to exploit brandscapes?

They are really the best examples of brands that become part of a brandscape. As soon as you buy a Coke, or a bottle of Johnny Walker, you are actually wearing those brands. Take automobiles, for instance. They are the perfect examples of brands that you wear--or reject. But it is important to look at the other side too. For instance, there is a retail brand of computers in the US, Radio Shack, which has a home-use kind of down-market image. Not every consumer would feel comfortable using a Radio Shack computer.

Are badge brands more relevant in the case of hi-tech products, where the frequency of launches is faster, and sustaining multiple brands is more difficult because the rate of obsolescence is high?

That has been the case in the past. Interestingly, Sony is not an advertising success. What built Sony was the reputation of its products. Each of its products was an advertisement for the next product. But there are other brands in Japan, where companies can be in many different businesses. For instance, there are banner brands. The concept is a little different. When there are two products that are identical in every respect, the consumer could make a choice based on a factor like environment-friendliness. Or she might start asking questions about the manufacturer since she could have struck a relationship with the manufacturer rather than the product

So, the manufacturer's image--rather than the user's and the product's--is going to be the key to marketing in future

There will always be brands that play up to the image of the product, or to the image of the user. But I expect the manufacturer's image to become more relevant in future. We are already seeing that in the case of the oil companies, where the image of the manufacturer is becoming more important. That's because the purchaser of such brands cannot experience the product directly.

Your definition of brand equity emphasises three distinct aspects: salience, richness, and esteem. Is there a relationship between these three variables?

If you accept the premise that a brand is multi-dimensional, they represent three different angles of the same thing. Salience relates completely to the notion of brandscape. And the idea of simply having a brand presence in the mind is an advantage for the manufacturer. There have been interesting studies on the attitudinal impact of what is called the "mere presence of the brand." In other words, an advertisement that says just Sony--and nothing more--will give you the impression that the brand is somehow familiar.

One of the earliest such examples was Britain's Weller Ice Co. In the 1800s, it marketed ice, and branded it by delivering it in a unique way. People in uniform would ride through London in horse-drawn carriages, and deliver the product to restaurants, hotels, and wealthy consumers. This service provided a lot of salience to the brand. In the absence of other distinguishing elements, mere brand presence had an important role to play

True. But while mere presence is one aspect, aren't there other factors that contribute to increasing salience, richness, and esteem?

Salience can be achieved pretty directly since we are looking for visibility. It can come through publicity, product marking, and packaging. Take the colours and typefaces used by United Airlines, for instance. The posters generate salience, and the advertising too plays a big role. However, if you were trying to generate salience, you wouldn't need to have particularly long ads; short ads could also prove extremely helpful and effective.

One aspect of salience is the amount of money that marketers have to spend. And yet, some brands have achieved fame and salience without having spent a great deal of money. Take Hathaway Shirts, a brand sold in the US. David Ogilvy actually did its advertising, which was famous because the man wearing the shirt had a patch over his eye. Although the company spent very little money on advertising, the idea of a man with a patch over his eye was so unique that it instantly became memorable. Even today, Americans remember the man in the Hathaway shirt although the ads have stopped.

Richness is driven largely by ideas--by the types of associations that the consumer can make with a brand. For example, American Express Travel Related Services had a campaign that said: Don't Leave Home Without AmEx Travellers Cheques. The lead player was always a policeman, and the campaign would go on to reveal the tricks of a pickpocket. The idea was that you were always safe with American Express' travellers cheques. It was the rich imagery that gave the cheques a presence in our minds. Richness has to do with the way in which the personality, the relationships, and the skills of the brand are developed.

Esteem is driven by all these things. At the end of the day, you're likely to have a high regard for brands that are rich, and have a presence in the mind. However, you can also build esteem through product quality and associations. For instance, if you advertise in The Wall Street Journal, the medium, naturally, becomes part of the message

Does that mean that longevity is a measure of brand esteem?

Not just that. When we measure esteem, we do it through rating scales, and through brand-price trade-offs. In fact, we measure the purchase intention for future products based on the experiences that a consumer has had with a brand's existing range.

How important is the brand-price trade-off in determining brand esteem?

Brand choice in the marketplace is, often, a matter of making a trade-off. If brand is one aspect of esteem, the other is price. Some people, like David Aaker, have argued that the trade-off may be the best measure of brand equity. What you are saying is that a particular combination of product, brand, reputation, and price is better than another. So, you're replicating the choice

Can the brand-price trade-off be applied to every product category?

Yes, to most consumer non-durables. But it may not apply to certain categories, like tourism. If you are selling a destination like India to American tourists, it would not be appropriate to compare India with the Caribbean Islands. Rather, the choice before an American tourist would be going to India versus a new car or a skiing holiday. Here, it becomes more difficult to know what the trade-off is. However, with a tv or a camcorder, it is much easier. For instance, a factory in Japan makes three different camcorders: Sony, Yashica, and Ricoh. They're all identical but for the brandname. And, yet, the consumer is not willing to pay the same premium for all three. The difference, therefore, lies in the brand and its associations.

Until now, advertising played a big role in building brands. Now, with direct and one-to-one marketing, is the role of advertising going to diminish?

It is unquestionable that advertising's role has diminished, and will, probably, diminish a bit more. Will it disappear completely? I don't think that that is going to happen. Advertising has the great advantage of reaching a large audience, and it also has the ability to control the message, and use sight and sound.

Ad agencies will, eventually, get the idea that communication that is co-ordinated and related is more effective than disjointed communication. But, as of now, very few agencies have been able to integrate their campaigns effectively. Advertising is almost never the sole determinant of brand image; packaging, display, sponsorship, direct marketing, promotion, signage, media coverage, word-of-mouth, employees, and, of course, product and design are, essentially, all sources of brand communication.

Take the case of Shell. Its retail stations, employees, and ads clearly contribute to the brand's image. But, as you can see, there are many other sources of information impacting Shell's image--such as the reports of the Brent Spar oil spill--where its ability to control its image is limited. Also, the transnational's participation in the oil industry means that environmental concerns completely beyond Shell's control have an impact on the company's image.

The consumer interprets the actions, language, location, dress, and travelling companions of a brand and, thereby, interprets the brand's intentions. When I see the ads for Apple's Macintosh, their tongue-in-cheek manner makes me feel that the brand is warm and friendly--not stuck-up. However, when I read the reports of the share losses that the company is suffering, I begin to wonder whether I have booked myself a trip on the Titanic.

Does brand esteem depend on an integrated campaign? For instance, shouldn't the various campaigns of Coca-Cola build on brand essence and esteem rather than merely project different images of a global brand to different consumers?

There's always tremendous pressure on advertising to change. Even a slight dip in sales may change the nature of a campaign. I believe in consistency in advertising. In a way, Coca-Cola has been very consistent. Even though its campaigns have changed, the basic idea behind them has been consistent. Pepsi, Coca-Cola's rival, has been consistent too; it's a brand with attitude. In the case of Nike's advertisements, the shoe manufacturer does not have a single symbol, like the Marlboro Man. And yet, all its different ads project the same personality; it has the sound of the same person talking.

Coca-Cola is a wonderful example where mere brand presence--simply showing the bottle or the can--triggers off memories of the advertising. An advertisement's ability to access impressions from memory, especially for a well-established brand, is an important, but often misunderstood, aspect of advertising. In the case of Coca-Cola, whose target audience could have already tried the brand, advertising must keep the enthusiasts enthusiastic. I am not saying that marketers must run the same advertisement again and again. It will, eventually, wear out. What I am saying is that advertising is a brand attribute. When I buy Coca-Cola, I am actually, in a way, endorsing its advertising

Yes, but that presumes that the brand has been in existence for a while. But when a brand is getting into an unexplored market, there is no memory to fall back on...

In that case, I would look at the need structure of the market to find out what role Coca-Cola--or any other brand that is entering a new market--must play. Then, I would develop the advertising, test it, and also test the advertising that has worked elsewhere for Coca-Cola. If the new advertising does substantially better than the old one, I would use the new one. I think it is too easy to say: our market is different. Research is very important to figure out what will work in the market.

Would you also conduct a brand personality check?

Yes. But there is a difference between a brand image and a brand identity. Brand image is what you can measure in the marketplace; brand identity is where you want to be. So, you have to measure the image before you decide where you want to be. Take a product that relates to people who are happy, content, and quiet. If I want to inject some life into the brand, the aspects of the brand that I might like to accentuate are energy and vitality.

Brand magic is composed of image and relationships. It consists of the consumer's perceptions of brand skills and personality. Here, I refer to personality in a broader sense. I use it to include traits, like dominance, and lifestyle characteristics, like fun or adventure. There is ample evidence that consumers characterise the personality of brands as if they are truly human beings. This is a key source of brand energy, but it is an area that many managers have difficulty in thinking about. It is not the stuff that is taught in B-schools, but, in fact, understanding the personification of brands is essential to grasp brand magic.

Can one brand have two different images in two different markets, and, consequently, two different identities?

You can certainly have a different image in two different markets. In terms of your brand identity, you might well say: I would like to be one thing in the US and another in India depending on the development of each of those markets.

Thank you, Mr Biel.

Write to us   Subscriptions