White Paper:
How to Measure the Value of a Brand
by Rajan Sambandam, TRC
Brand name evokes an inherent value; finding a way to reliably measure that value is crucial in determining product development. A technique called discrete choice conjoint analysis is described in this paper by TRC.
Two companies offer consumers the same product at the same price and quality, yet one sells a lot better than the other. Why? The answer is the intangible value inherent in the brand name. It could manifest in the form of positive image, higher market share or even a price premium. But how can we measure the intangible value of a brand? Simple methods such as ratings of a brand’s attractiveness (either in the form of a single question or an index) will not distinguish the impact of tangible features and brand intangibles. What is required is an approach that can make this distinction and indicate the pure value of the brand in dollar terms. In this discussion we will take a look at how such brand value (often referred to as brand equity) can be reliably measured.
The basic problem in measuring the value of a brand is the degree to which one can control for the influence of various extraneous problems. The extent of these problems can vary by category. For example, if one were interested in understanding the brand value (or lack thereof) of private label brands (or store brands) compared to national brands in the breakfast cereal market, a simple experiment can be run. In this experiment one could switch the packaging but not the contents of the various cereal brands being tested, to measure the impact of the brand name. The problem becomes more difficult when we talk about complex services such as hotel chains or cell phone service. Simply switching packaging is no longer an option. What can we do in these situations?
The answer lies with a technique called discrete choice conjoint analysis. It is a trade-off based method that requires consumers to make choices based on the product combinations provided. The pattern of choices made provides us with enough information to identify the relative importance of the various features – brand included - being tested. Once we know this information it is relatively straightforward to hold the impact of the various features constant and identify the actual impact of the brand name on respondent choice. In essence, this is akin to switching the cereal boxes and holding the contents constant. This approach can be used as long as the product or service in question can be described using tangible features.
Example 1: Hotel Brand Value
The first example is from the hotel industry. Business travelers completed a discrete choice conjoint exercise where product bundles were described using seven features: hotel brand name, proximity to destination, restaurant location, presence or absence of a gym, internet access, rewards points and room rate. Importance scores were calculated for each of these features based on the choices made by the respondents and are given in Table 1. Note that brand is not the most important feature on which choice decisions are being made.
Table 1 - What drives hotel choice?
Next, a simulation was run to calculate the value of the brand. All five products were specified in exactly the same way except for the brand name. So effectively, it mirrors a market where there is no product differentiation whatsoever except for the brand name. This resulted in each brand having a different share of preference, but the differences in preference are now based solely on brand name. This is how we control for the effect of other features. In essence, holding the contents of the cereal box constant and varying the box itself.
Next we need to translate this difference in preference to difference in price premium. To do that, we change the prices for each brand in such a way that the shares are made equal. Once the shares of preference are equalized by varying the room rates, we are able to identify the different room rates that each brand could charge for exactly the same product. This information is given in Table 2 and shows the price premium enjoyed by the Brand B in this market place.
Table 2 - Hotel brand values
This means is that for exactly the same features, Brand B would be able to charge a premium of $13 a night more than the next highest brand (A) and a premium of $43 a night more than the lowest value brand. Such an advantage can turn into substantial revenue differences over the course of a year between these brands. This is true even when brand is not the primary criterion in the choice.
Example 2: Cell Phone Brand Value
Cell phone users were asked to make choices between various cell packages described by cell carrier brand name, price per month, length of contract, free minutes per month and cell manufacturer brand name. Again, based on the choices made importance scores were calculated for each of these features and are shown in Table 3.
Table 3 - What drives cell phone choice?
As in the previous example, price premiums were calculated (using price per month) and are shown in Table 4 and show the advantage enjoyed by Brand A.
Table 4 - Cell Phone brand values
Here brand A enjoys a $6 per month advantage over the next best brand and a $10 per month advantage over the least valuable brand name.
As these examples illustrate, it is possible to measure the impact of brand only, when controlling for the impact of tangible features. The results can be put to good use by a company, either in the form of increasing market share or improving profit. Brands that don’t enjoy a price premium in the market (i.e. when brand names are not valuable) will need to work on it either by improving their performance on tangible features or by better communications.
When embarking on research of this nature, it is important to understand that there are limitations. The shares of preference and the subsequent value of the brand are fully reliant on the features that have been used in the study to describe this product category. Exclusion of an important feature can easily distort the results. For example, in the hotel example let us assume that Internet access was not included as a feature. Let us further assume that this was an important feature on which customers base their choice. Then the results that we get essentially apply to a marketplace that does not provide Internet access and is therefore not a true representation of the real marketplace. Further if there is a brand that is especially good at providing this service and has built a reputation based on that, then its impact will be underestimated. Still, given all that, this approach provides the best practical way for measuring the value of a brand.
For brands in various categories there is a need to understand and measure the pure value offered by the brand name. The approach described in this discussion can be very helpful in achieving that goal.
This article was written by Rajan Sambandam of TRC, a full-service market research provider located in Fort Washington, PA.
Other content shared by TRC
Better Questions For Segmentation: Use of MAX-DIFF
by Rajan Sambandam, TRC
Using Maximum Difference Scaling as a method in designing surveys may ensure more useful results in your market research. It is a comparative method based on importance that sidesteps the problems associated with traditional importance scales. TRC explains the mechanics behind this method through a detailed example in this white paper. Read Article »
Database Scoring with Object Based Segmentation
by Rajan Sambandam, TRC
Segmentation created from company databases are often lacking the rich segmentation schemes formed by attitudinal surveys. A new approach is Object based segmentation that uses database variables at the basis for forming attitudinal segments, leaving both markets classifiable with clear demographic segments. TRC compares traditional segmentation analysis with Object based. Read Article »
Asymmetry in Product Features: Use of the Kano Method
by Rajan Sambandam, TRC
The presence or absence of product features strongly affect consumer satisfaction with the design. Comparing these features using asymmetry analysis can help identify satisfiers and dissatisfiers from among the features of a product. The Kano method is similar but results in categorizing each respondent's answers. TRC presents this essential method of deciding new product features in detail. Read Article »
Conjoint Analysis versus Self-Explicated Method: A Comparison
by Rajan Sambandam, TRC
Determining feature importance in a product can be divided into two techniques - top-down methods where a customer evaluates the whole product at once, and bottum-up methods where features are evaluated individually or in sets. The former method, Conjoint Analysis, is more common while the latter method, Self-Explicated Method, is not widely used but has practical advantages. TRC compares the two methods in this white paper. Read Article »
Product Configurator
by Rajan Sambandam, TRC
To help customers purchase the right product, companies often use product configurators - tools that let customers design their purchase before ordering. This method is employed as a market research technique, similar to conjoint analysis but without some of the constrictions. This white paper from TRC explains an appropriate use of the product configurator method. Read Article »
Market Segmentation: One Method, Four Examples
by Rajan Sambandam, TRC
Effective market segmentation requires an understanding of the market and the skilled art of finding the appropriate segments. TRC gives four examples of this method's application with results. Read Article »
Deriving Value from Research: the Use of Conjoint Analysis for Product Development
by Rajan Sambandam, TRC
Marketing research has been used by firms over the last several decades to provide information for decision making. Over time, increasingly sophisticated statistical methods have been developed and deployed in the service of this goal. This article focuses on one such method - conjoint analysis - and its application to product development. Read Article »
Cluster Analysis Gets Complicated
by Rajan Sambandam, TRC
Segmentation studies using cluster analysis have become commonplace. However, the data may be affected by collinearity, which can have a strong impact and affect the results of the analysis unless addressed. This article investigates what level presents a problem, why it's a problem, and how to get around it. Simulated data allows a clear demonstration of the issue without clouding it with extraneous factors. Read Article »
Identifying Feature Importance: A Comparison of Methods
by TRC
Understanding what customers want is fundamental to the new product development process as well as to the process of keeping existing products fresh and relevant. To be successful in this area we need to be able to correctly identify what features are important to consumers. Feature importance can be measured using a variety of methods of differing effectiveness. In this paper we will deal with the following methods: Importance Scales, Pick data, Pairwise Comparisons, and Max-Diff. Read Article »
Monadic Price Testing vs. Price Laddering
by TRC
Compares two popular pricing methods to understand the difference in take rate information. Read Article »
New Product Development: Stages and Methods
by Rajan Sambandam, TRC
TRC identifies the best methods for each stage of the product development process, from Idea Generation through Feature Development, Product Development and Product Testing. Read Article »
Understand Choice in Banking: Use of Discrete Choice Conjoint Analysis
by TRC
Conjoint analysis provides incentive for survey respondents to determine which features must not be omitted in their final purchase. The method closely mirrors decision-making in the real world, and as shown by TRC in this white paper, is applicable to many situations including how customers choose their bank. Read Article »
Want better product ideas? Try smart incentives
by Rajan Samandam, TRC
Idea generation from survey respondents is strongly dependent on incentive. Introducing competition strengthens the quantity and quality of creative responses. TRC provides examples of smart incentives in this white paper. Read Article »
An alternative method of reporting customer satisfaction scores
by Rajan Sambandam and George Hausser of TRC
Though customer satisfaction evaluations are widely used, reporting of these scores has varied from one study to another. This is likely the result of each method’s advantages and disadvantages, as well as the personal preferences and habits of the researcher. In this article we review various reporting methods and outline our method with an example. Read Article »
Identifying the Key Drivers of Brand Image
by TRC
Measuring brand image requires looking at direct effects as well as indirect effects of a company's performance. TRC compares traditional multiple regression with SatiscanTM, a method that can review all possible path models. Read Article »
Improving Call Satisfaction: A Case Study
by TRC
TRC presents a case study of analyzing and improving a call center as an on-going data collection process. Read Article »
Improving Claim Satisfaction: A Case Study
by TRC
A case study on applying full-service market research to help an insurance company improve their client satisfaction with claim handling. Read Article »
Non-Response Bias In Survey Sampling
by TRC
Market research accounts for many scenarios to ensure high quality of data. One of the most overlooked problems is non-response bias. TRC describes ways to reduce its effects through survey design and data adjustment in this white paper. Read Article »
Segmentation Success
by Michael Sosnowski, TRC
This paper explains the basic building blocks of the segmentation process and its implementation. Read Article »
Survey of Analysis Methods Part I
by Rajan Sambandam, TRC
Practical marketing research deals with two major problems: identifying key drivers and developing segments. In this two-part series TRC looks at key driver analysis and segmentation. Read Article »
Survey of Analysis Methods Part II
by Rajan Sambandam, TRC
This is Part II of a series looking at aspects of practical marketing research: identifying key drivers and developing segments. This content describes specific segmentation methods: cluster analysis, neural networks, self-organizing map (SOM), and mixture models. Included is a discussion on ideas for developing good segments. Read Article »
Validating Satiscan Using A Split Sample Approach
by TRC
TRC's SatiscanTM model is tested for validity using call center data and a split sample approach. This shows that SatiscanTM produces similar models when run on random halves of an energy industry dataset. Read Article »
Satiscan and Regression Analysis: A Comparison
by TRC
The comparison shows the advantages of SatiscanTM, an analytical method from TRC, over regression in identifying the correct and cost efficient action steps. Read Article »
TURF: New Methods for Implementation
by Westley Ritz, TRC
TURF is a long-established and quite useful marketing research tool, but not everyone is familiar with how it works, or with the latest developments that can make TURF even more effective. The purposes of this paper are twofold: (1) to explain the technique and (2) to describe the latest methods for implementation. Read Article »
Product Configuration: A Research Approach for the Times
by Rajan Sambandam & Pankaj Kumar, TRC
The marketplace has shifted in the last decade with the ability of consumers to configure the product they want. This white paper explains the basics of configuration, an approach that mimics the real world of customer driven product design to obtain insight into consumer decision-making. Read Article »
Product Configuration: Evidence for Effectiveness
by Rajan Sambandam & Pankaj Kumar, TRC
This white paper looks at the examples from one product configuration study, the kinds of information that can be derived and the possibilities provided by statistical analysis. Read Article »
