A warning about Brand Match: Don’t take the shortcut
Tom Dougherty, CEO – Stealing Share
11 June 2012
Be very wary of research claims from Brand Match
As I’ve said many times before – and it’s a mantra of sorts at Stealing Share – that we all buy a reflection of ourselves. I didn’t buy a BMW because it had good gas mileage or was easy to park. (Even if that’s what I tell people.) I bought it because I feel like I am still the ultimate driving machine even if I have just as many aches and pains as I have ever-increasing gray hairs.
The best brands are the ones that are a direct reflection of who we aspire to be when we use that brand. We think big and scorn the status quo when we use Apple. We think ourselves as winners when we wear a pair of Nikes.
“I’m not a big fan of market segmentation because our research has shown that, within the context of any brand, there exist precepts, belief systems that drive behavior, that are common among all demographics.”
So, it was interesting to hear about a syndicated service called “Brand Match,” a study by Ipsos that matched affection for brands with demographics. (In this case, the demographics were political leaning.)
There is, though, something disturbing about the study if advertisers take it to heart. The idea behind the study is that respondents rated brands on Recognition, Attraction, Presence (having a definite opinion about) and Polarization (how divisive the brand is).
The study then takes those ratings and breaks them into demographics, with the purpose of finding what brands are most attractive to a particular demographic.
I’m not a big fan of market segmentation because our research has shown that, within the context of any brand, there exist precepts, belief systems that drive behavior, that are common among all demographics. Once you align your brand with the precept with the highest emotional intensity, you become an Apple or Nike.
If, as Brand Match theorizes, that Democrats like Red Lobster, but Republicans prefer Outback Steakhouse, the question is “why?” And, “so what?”
Think of it this way. The value of this study, as it’s proposed, is that, let’s say, Red Lobster should advertise more on The Daily Show than The O’Reilly Factor to reach, what the study says, is its core audience.
But here’s the thing: Brand exists so that you steal market share, not keep it. You must steal your competitors’ customers because there are very few immature markets. The only way to grow is to steal market share.
If you speak to the converted, you are standing still. Uncovering the “why” is more important than the “what.” Brand Match is all very interesting and it has its place, but don’t confuse it with the strategy to steal market share.
Target stores Tom Dougherty, CEO - Stealing Share 23 October 2017 Remodeling Target stores a tiny step that does little Cheers for more Target stores! Or at least, that encompasses the remarks by Target CEO Brian Cornell at a media event last week. Target spends part...
Infiniti advertising is criminal Tom Dougherty, CEO - Stealing Share 19 October 2017 Infiniti advertising fails on many levels The latest Infiniti advertising leaves me cold. Strike that. It makes me heated. Not that I have anything against Infinity as a brand. It...
Coach becomes Tapestry Tom Dougherty, CEO - Stealing Share 18 October 2017 Who cares Coach is becoming Tapestry? Coach changing its name to Tapestry means nothing no matter what CEO Victor Luis says. He tells The New York Times that the iconic leather bag company is...