Aakers Brand Identity Planning Model

David A. Aaker, a marketing professor at the University of California at Berkeley and author of the popular
Building Strong Brands (1996), has developed a comprehensive brand identity planning model. At the heart
of this model is a four-fold perspective on the concept of a brand. To help ensure that a firms brand identity
has texture and depth, Aaker advises brand strategists to consider the brand as: 1) a product; 2) an
organization; 3) a person; and 4) a symbol. Each perspective is distinct. The purpose of this system is to
help brand strategists consider different brand elements and patterns that can help clarify, enrich and
differentiate an identity. A more detailed identity will also help guide implementation decisions.

Aakers Brand Identity Planning Model

Aaker cautions that not every brand identity needs to employ all or even several of these perspectives. For
some brands, only one will be viable and appropriate. Each organization should, however, consider all of the
perspectives and use those deemed helpful in articulating what the brand should stand for in the customers
mind.

The following briefly characterizes each of the four perspectives Aaker recommends firms take into account
in formulating their brand strategy:
1.

The brand-as-product. A core element of a brands identity is usually its product thrust, which will
affect the type of associations that are desirable and feasible. Attributes directly related to the
purchase or use of a product can provide functional benefits and sometimes emotional benefits for
customers. A product-related attribute can create a value proposition by offering something extra
like features or services, or by offering something better. Aaker argues, however, that the goal of
linking a brand with a product class is not to gain recall of a product class when a brand is
mentioned. Its more important, he posits, for customers to remember the brand when theres a
need relevant to the product class.

2.

The brand-as-organization. This perspective focuses on attributes of the organization rather than
on those of the product or service. Such organizational attributes as innovation, a drive for quality
and concern for the environment are created by the people, culture, values and programs of the
company. (Some brand aspects can be described as product attributes in some contexts and
organizational attributes in others.) Aaker notes that organizational attributes are more enduring
and resistant to competitive claims than product attributes.

3.

The brand-as-person. Like a person, a brand can be perceived as having a unique personality. The
brand-as-person perspective suggests a brand identity that is richer and more interesting than one
based on product attributes. Aaker cites three ways a brand personality can create a stronger
brand: 1) create a self-expressive benefit that becomes a vehicle for customers to express their own
personalities; 2) form the basis of a relationship between customers and the brand (in the same
way human personalities affect relationships between people); and 3) help communicate a product
attribute and thus, contribute to a functional benefit.

4.

The brand-as-symbol. A strong symbol can provide cohesion and structure to an identity and
make it much easier to gain recognition and recall. Its presence can be a key ingredient of brand
development and its absence can be a substantial handicap. Elevating symbols to the status of
being part of the identity reflects their potential power. Aaker highlights three types of symbols:
visual imagery, metaphors and the brand heritage.
As suggested by Aakers elaborate brand taxonomy, brand identity consists of a core identity and an
extended identity. The former represents the timeless essence of the brand. Its central to both the meaning
and success of the brand, and contains the associations that are most likely to remain constant as the brand
encompasses new products and travels to new markets. The extended identity, on the other hand, includes
elements that provide texture and completeness. It fills in the picture, adding details that help portray what
the brand stands for. A reasonable hypothesis, Aaker states, is that within a product class, a larger extended
identity means a stronger brandone that is more memorable, interesting and connected to customers
lives.

Source
Aaker, David A.; Building Strong Brands; The Free Press; 1996.

Interbrands Brand Equity Model

As an asset, a brand is a symbol of the expected future profits of a company; the problem is how to
determine the earning power of a brand. Interbrand, a UK-based branding consultancy, has led the way in
defining an appropriate method for brand strength assessment and publishes a yearly chart of the top
performers. Its set of criteria, chosen subjectively, includes the business prospects of the brand and the
brands market environment, as well as consumer perceptions. Interbrands seven core criteria consist of the
following:
1.

Leadership. A brand that leads its market sector is more stable and powerful than other market
entrants. This criterion reflects economies of scale for the first-place brand in communication and
distribution, as well as the problems also-rans have in maintaining distribution and avoiding price
erosion.

2.

Stability. Long-lived brands with identities that have become part of the fabric of the marketand
even of the cultureare particularly powerful and valuable.

3.

Market. Brands are more valuable when they are in markets with growing or stable sales levels and
a price structure in which successful firms can be profitable. Some markets, such as consumer
electronics, are so rife with debilitating price competition that the prospects of any brand being
profitable are dim.

4.

International. Brands that are international are more valuable than national or regional brands, in
part because of economies of scale. More generally, the broader the scope of a brand, the more
valuable it is.

5.

Trend. The overall long-term trend of the brand in terms of sales can be expected to reflect future
prospects. A healthy, growing brand indicates that it remains contemporary and relevant to
consumers.

6.

Support. Brands that have received consistent investment and focused support are regarded as
stronger than those that havent; however, the quality of the support should be considered along
with the level of support.

7.

Protection. The strength and breadth of a brands legal trademark protection is critical to the
brands strength.
As evinced by these criteria, Interbrand takes a business-oriented rather than consumer-oriented view of
brand. This approach is useful, part, because its a step closer to putting a financial value on the brandin
fact, Interbrand uses its brand ratings to determine a multiplier to apply to earnings. The subjectivity of both
the criteria and assessment of the brands, however, makes the dimensions difficult to defend and affects the
reliability of the resulting measures. Moreover, the Interbrand method treats different types of brands in the
same way. For example, it treats Gillette as a single entity, even though it has many sub-brands and
extensions, and treats Marlboro, which is a single brand, by the same rules. This flaw reinforces the need to
develop more refined and rigorous methods of brand analysis.

Young & Rubicams Brand Asset Valuator

The premier advertising agency Young & Rubicam (Y&R) has developed a multiple criteria method to assess
brand equity growth. The company used its Brand Asset Valuator to assess the brand equity of 450 global
brands and more than 8,000 local brands in 24 countries. Each brand was examined using a 32-item survey
that included, in addition to a set of brand personality scales, four distinct measures:
1.

DifferentiationMeasures how distinctive the brand is in the marketplace.

2.

RelevancyMeasures whether a brand has personal relevance for the potential customer.

3.

EsteemMeasures whether a brand is held in high regard and considered best in its class. Closely
related to perceived quality and the extent to which the brand is growing in popularity.

4. FamiliarityMeasures the degree to which potential customers understand what a brand stands for.
According to this approach to brand equity, brand differentiation is the core of a successful brand proposition
with a distinctive position in the marketplace that will promote long-term growth. Y&R defines it as the
power of a brand to express its uniqueness and reach top-of-mind status with target consumers.
Once consumers are aware of the brand, it needs to be relevant to their needs, satisfying and exceeding
their expectations. The way that the brand manager is able to express that relevancy in a language
consumers appreciate will determine its success. Once consumers understand what the brand can do for
them, they need to aspire to own it, or have esteem for it. Finally, when the brand has communicated its
unique, relevant and aspirational message, it will be able to achieve familiarity through repurchase and reuse.
These four measures form the basis of two equations:
1.

Differentiation x Relevance = Brand Strength (or vitality)

2. Esteem x Familiarity = Brand Stature

The equations represent an attempt to overcome issues with other methods that assess brands solely in
terms of present earning power. They suggest that scores relating to brand differentiation and relevance
indicate the potential for growth, while those relating to brand esteem and familiarity indicate its present
stature. The results, however, are dependent on subjective analyses of the four criteria in relation to the
market, the consumer and the company; although there are market research techniques that can better
ensure the necessary analyses accurate reflect the competitive milieu.
Below, youll find an example of how these dimensions are displayed in Y&Rs power grid.

Young & Rubicam power grid

Download PowerPoint version

This grid allows for a quick and simple comparison among competitors along the two key dimensions
identified by Y&R. Brands that are high on both dimensions (the upper-right quadrant) have the greatest
equity to protect and exploit. The bottom-left quadrant is generally made up of brands that are just getting
started; however, a brand that stays too long in this quadrant is not likely to be successful in the long run.
According to the Y&R hypothesis, the brands in the upper-left quadrant are either strong niche brands or
brands with a significant opportunity to grow by increasing their stature (knowledge in particular). The
lower-right quadrant, in contrast, is populated by brands that are tired, but still retain some esteem and
knowledge.