I have always had trouble understanding what the fuss is about concerning Facebook’s “likes” for brands. Those brands spend an inordinate amount of time on their social media, but our research has never suggested that it creates any kind of preference. It just demonstrates preference brands already have.

Now comes a study by Syncapse that rates each like as being worth $174.17 to your brand. The social intelligence company bases that number on research that shows those who like a brand spend more money on that brand and are more likely to continue buying that brand.

Duh.

That’s all fine and dandy, but it speaks to a larger problem for brands that’s far too common. They are still speaking to those who have already chosen them. The art of stealing share is in stealing the customers of your competition. I don’t see where liking a brand on Facebook does that.

To be fair, being on Facebook is something you have to do as a brand. But don’t confuse it with the reasons why target audiences choose.

Worth $174.17? Maybe. To grow, however, it must attract new money, not just count the money it has already has.

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.

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.

This is what I hate about attempts to evaluate advertising. Ace Metrix recently graded ads from several brands that featured their CEOs against ones that didn’t, concluding that the CEO ads were better, in some cases.

But here’s what Ace graded them on: Persuasion, watchability, desire, relevance, change, attention, information and likeability. Persuasion is certainly important as is relevance, but the spots have not been evaluated in terms of whether they steal market share.

What Ace has done is the equivalent of judging contestants on American Idol. That is, they are evaluated by everything other than meaning. The evaluation didn’t uncover what they mean and whether those meanings were important.

Consider this. The spots featuring CEOs that worked best in Ace’s opinion were Papa John’s (John Schnatter) and Samuel Adams (Jim Koch). Yet, what did those ads mean?

Papa John’s is about price and better ingredients – the exact same messages as its competitors. Not a share-stealing category. (In fact, Papa John’s and its competitors are battling so much over price they threaten to price themselves right out of the market.)

Samuel Adams is about the quality of the beer and how much care it takes brewing the beer. (And also building on heritage that Boston Beer has been brewing Sam Adams for decades.) What’s so different about that? To get someone to switch to Sam Adams, with these messages, you’d have to believe the current beer you’re drinking is of bad quality. Who drinks a beer they believe sucks?

All the characteristics Ace tested have a place, certainly, because you do want your ads to be those things. But none of them are the most important.

You can be the best at all those things and, without a different and more meaningful message than your competitors, they don’t make an ounce of difference.