This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 10 November 2014, At: 22:49Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Marketing ManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjmm20

Criteria to Assess Brand SuccessLeslie de Chematony , Francesca Dall'Olmo Riley & Fiona HarrisPublished online: 01 Feb 2010.

To cite this article: Leslie de Chematony , Francesca Dall'Olmo Riley & Fiona Harris (1998)Criteria to Assess Brand Success, Journal of Marketing Management, 14:7, 765-781, DOI:10.1362/026725798784867608

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1362/026725798784867608

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Marketing Management 1998, 14, 765-781

Leslie de Chematonyl,Francesca Dall'OImoRiley2 and FionaHarris3

Open University BusinessSchool, The Open University

Kingston Business School

Open University BusinessSchool, The Open University

Criteria to Assess Brand Succe ss

The academic and trade press often talkabout the "success" of brands or "successfulbrands", yet there is disagreement regardingsuitable brand success criteria. Reaching aconsensus on the definition of brands'success criteria is essential not only for anappropriate use of the term "success", butalso for improving firms' understanding ofwhich criteria should be used as a measure oftheir success. Following a literature review onmeasures of brand success, we report ondepth interviews with 20 leading-edge brandconsultants to consider appropriate criteria tomeasure brand success.

Keywords: brand success criteria, brand success strategies

Introduction

The academic and trade press refer to the "success" of brands or "successfulbrands". This literature infrequently defines the criteria used to measure abrand's success and among the studies which do there is disagreement regardingsuitable measures, e.g. business-based criteria such as market share (Buzzell andGale, 1987) versus consumer-based criteria such as brand awareness (e.g. Pittaand Katsanis, 1995). Furthermore, there is confusion between what constitutesbrand success and the strategies that should be used to achieve it As a result,many studies (e.g. McBurnie and Clutterbuck, 1988) have talked about suitablestrategies to achieve brand success, without having clearly defined the criteriaupon which success should be judged (e.g. financial performance or brand

1 Correspondence: Professor Leslie de Chematony, BeneficialBank Professor of BrandMarketing.Open UniversityBusiness School" The Open University,Walton Hall,MiltonKeynes. MK7 6M Tel. +44 1908 655888. Fax. +44 1908 655898, E-mail:L.deChematony@open.ac.uk2 Senior Lecturer,KingstonBusiness School,Kingstonupon Thames, KT2 7LB,3 Research Fellow in Brand Management, Open UniversityBusiness School. The OpenUniversity,Walton Hall,MiltonKeynes.MK76MISSN0267-257X/98/070765+ 16 $12.00/0 ©Westburn Publishers Ltd.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

22:

49 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

766 Leslie de Chernatony, Francesca Dall'Olmo Riley and Fiona Harris

awareness, or a composite measure). Finally, previous studies have failed toidentify success criteria that would stand the test of time (e.g. Pascale, 1990),even though writers such as Hansen et al. (1990) have argued that excellenceshould have some duration and should be measured in such a way as to forecastthe future.

It was apparent after a literature review that while a large body of literatureexists on the measures of marketing success, no definitive source emerged thatspecifically focused on brand, rather than marketing success. While someauthors have talked about "successful brands" and others have discussed thecriteria for being a successful brand, none has specified measures of brandsuccess. Similarly, in the strategy literature the strategies for being a successfulbrand have been discussed, yet again no measures have been given.

Reaching a consensus on the definition of brands' success criteria is essentialnot only for an appropriate use of the term "success", but also for improvingfirms' understanding of what criteria should be used as a measure of theirsuccess. Cokayne (1991) reported that a large number of small businesses failedafter promising starts because they did not know why they had been successfuland hence how to repeat their success. This is equally applicable to brands.Furthermore, Kaplan and Norton (1992) remarked that organisations'measurement systems strongly affected the behaviour of managers andemployees. Thus the main aim of this paper is to consider appropriate criteria tomeasure brand success.

To this aim, we open with a review of the brand success criteria discussed inthe literature concerned with the measurement of performance at the companylevel as well as at the brand level. Company level and brand level success isaddressed because both are relevant for the brand structures described by Olins(1989). We then compare the findings in the literature with the results emergingfrom depth interviews with 20 leading-edge brand consultants, whose dailyactivities shape the future agenda for brands. We conclude that brand success isa complex, multidimensional construct, which should be assessed over the long-term and in relation to both the brands' stakeholders and its competitors.

Literature Review

Faulkner and Bowman (1992) and Harkness (1992) distinguished betweeninternal (i.e. within the organisation) and external (i.e. relative to eitherconsumers or competitors) success criteria. The literature attempting to definethe criteria for a brand's (or a company's) success can be classified according tothe emphasis given to business-based measures, such as profitability orshareholders' equity, or consumer-based measures, such as brand awareness orconsumers' perceptions of quality. As a consequence, this broad framework isadopted in our literature review. However, as we discuss, business- andconsumer-based criteria are interrelated, both being necessary for the overallsuccess of a company or a brand.

The parallel concepts of 'brand equity' and 'customer equity' have received

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

22:

49 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Criteria to Assess Brand Success 767

much attention in the literature, yet neither has been satisfactorily resolved inrelation to brand success. Furthermore, there are numerous interpretations ofbrand equity and we refer the interested reader to this (see for example, Keller,1993; Blatterberg and Deighton, 1996; Ehrenberg, 1997). Although the equitydebate is outside the scope of this paper, many of the variables included in it arecovered in our review as we look at measures of success from both a businessand a custom er perspective.

Business CriteriaThe three main business-based measures of success discussed in the

literature are: (j) profitability; (ii) shareholders' equity; and (iii)market share.

(i) ProfitabilityIrmscher (1993) remarked that financial returns have become a dominant

measure owing to the ease with which they can be assessed and because brandmanagers are often judged on the basis of quarterly financial results. Financialsuccess measures of profitability such as Return on Investment (ROOand Returnon Sales (ROS) (e.g. Buzzell and Gale, 1987) can be easily related to eachindividual brand or business unit, compared across organisations, and offermulti-year views of performance (McWilliams, 1996).

However, most authors do not regard financial measures alone as goodindicators of success. Owing to their short-term focus, many warn that strategieswhich maximise current profits may weaken or even destroy a company's orbrand's longer-term viability (e.g. Aaker, 1991; Doyle, 1992). Financial criteriaalso focus on what happened in the past, and provide limited guidance abouthow to create future value (McWilliams 1996). Furthermore, Doyle (1992)reported exceptionally high short-term profits being associated with low or noprofits in the long term.

(;j) Shareholders' EquityMuch of the literature has sought to identify additional success criteria to

complement purely financial measures. For example, Buzzell and Gale (1987)noted that an ideal measure of business performance would take intoconsideration both the short-term effects of a strategy and its impact on themarket value of shareholders' equity. However, shareholders' equity is easier toassess for a company as a whole than at the level of a specific brand or businessunit Furthermore, as noted by Doyle (1992), while shareholders' value is apractical way to evaluate major acquisition or divestment options, it is not auseful assessment of operational management decisions. Thus shareholder valueis another short-term measure of success, which provides an incentive formanagers to make the current performance look good, without muchconsideration for the longer-term consequences of strategic actions.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

22:

49 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

768 Leslie de Chematony, Francesca Dall'Olmo Riley and Fiona Harris

(iii)Market ShareAn often mentioned, though controversial, criterion of brand success is

market share (e.g. Hansen, Gronhaug and Wameryd, 1990). Many authors (e.g.Doyle, 1989) have proposed that a brand with superior relative quality should beable to achieve a high market share whilst charging a premium price.Furthermore, Hardy (1987) remarked that, as a consequence of consumerdemand, brand leaders often achieve greater support from the wholesale andretail trade in terms of stock and shelf position. However, Wilson (1979)cautioned that before market share could be effectively used as a measure ofsuccess, the important question of "share of what?" should be answered. Inaddition, like profitability, market share is a short term objective and can lead toproblems later.

Consumer-Based CriteriaThe main consumer-based success criteria discussed in the literature are: (i)

brand associations; and (ii) perceived differential advantage and added values.An important characteristic of these criteria is that they refer to consumers'perceptions, relative to the competition. (e.g. Cokayne, 1991; Faulkner andBowman, 1992). Another common characteristic of these two classes of criteria istheir long-term orientation, compared with the short-term perspective of financialsuccess measures. From this perspective, financial success measures should beconsidered more as a reflection of long-term commitment to surpass thecompetition along consumer relevant dimensions.

(i) Brand AssociationsHarkness (1992) believed that continuous tracking of consumer perceptions

provided the most effective assessment of success. Of the different measures ofconsumer perceptions, the ones considered in the literature to be the mostrelevant criteria of brand success are: brand awareness, brand identity, brandimage, personality and relationship (e.g. Doyle, 1989; Pitta and Katsanis, 1995;Stephens, Hill and Bergman 1996). For example, Pitta and Katsanis (1995) notedthat, for many low involvement products, familiarity with the brand name mightbe enough to determine purchase. Joachimsthaler and Aaker (1997) added thatvisibility must be coupled with clear brand identity, so that those designing andimplementing the communications programmes do not inadvertently sendconflicting or confusing messages to consumers. To Doyle (1989), and Pitta andKatsanis (1995), successful brands were those with a "strong" image orpersonality, when consumers perceived specific attributes as being stronglyassociated with particular brands. Keller (1993) stressed that the brandassociations needed to be congruent, because the favourability and strength abrand association could be influenced by other brand associations. Furthermore,Keller proposed that both direct measures (the impact of brand knowledge onconsumer response to different elements of a firm's marketing programme) andindirect measures (brand awareness and brand image) of customer-based brandequity be used. Finally, Stephens et aI. (1996) considered a long-term

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

22:

49 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Criteria to Assess Brand Success 769

relationship with the consumer to be a critical characteristic of successful brands.

(ii) Perceived Differential Advantage and Added Valuesde Chematony and McDonald (1994) emphasised the importance of added

values as a key characteristic of successful brands. To some customers addedvalue could be about unique extra benefits, for example lifestyle associations, forwhich a price premium could be charged. By contrast, for others it could be anattractive functional benefit, but because of the firm's focus on driving cost downto be the lowest cost producer (Porter, 1980) it could be at an attractive pricelevel which is below that of other brands.

Doyle (1989) maintained that the most important criterion of brand successassociated with differential advantage was outstanding reputation or image forquality, service or reliability. This, he believed, enabled successful brands to fulfilseveral additional criteria, such as obtaining higher prices than less successfulbrands, while at the same time achieving higher market shares and highercustomer loyalty. The latter was viewed as a prerequisite of a strong brand byKapferer (1997). de Chematony and McDonald (1994) stressed that it wasperceived, rather than actual quality that counted and that this was assessed byconsumers in relation to other brands. These consumer-based success criteriaare instrumental to business-based measures of success, such as the consistentstream of future income and the superior earnings that originate from highmarket shares, premium pricing and from the ability to resist pressure from thetrade for discounts.

Doyle (1989), Cokayne (1991) and de Chematony and McDonald (1994) alsostressed the importance of a long term perspective. They proposed that successshould be assessed over time on the basis of a competitive advantage that othersfind difficult to copy or achieve and that consumers perceive as highly desirable(e.g. superior customer service).

The Relationship Between Consumer-Based Criteria and Market ShareWhen analysing consumer-based criteria of success such as brand awareness

and consumer perceptions, an important aspect to be considered is theircorrelation with market share. Extensive studies (e.g. Barwise and Ehrenberg,1985; Dall'Olmo Riley et al., 1997) have established strong correlations betweena brand's market share and consumers' attitudes towards it For example, higherscoring attitudinal statements for brand A than for brand B are not due to thefact that the users of brand A feel differently about A from how users of B feelabout B, but rather to A having more users (i.e. a structural market share effect).Similarly, there is strong evidence (e.g. Ehrenberg and Scriven, 1996) that brandloyalty varies little from brand to brand, except for the effect of market share.These results indicate that "successful" brands do not differ in how well peopleregard them or in how loyal their buyers are, but in the number of buyers theyhave and in how many people regard them well.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

22:

49 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

770 Leslie de Chematony, Francesca DaIl'Olmo Riley and Fiona Harris

Success as a Multidimensional ConstructThe preceding literature review suggests that success is a multidimensional

construct, whereby business-based and consumer-based success criteria areinterrelated and cannot be considered in isolation (e.g. Faulkner and Bowman1992; Harkness, 1992). Similarly, Eccles (1991) noted a shift from treatingfinancial figures as the foundation for performance measurement to treatingthem as one among a broader set of measures. He observed that somecompanies had added criteria such as customer satisfaction, quality, marketshare, and human resources to their formal measurement system.

This trend is reflected in studies by Kaplan and Norton (1992), Doyle (1992),and McWilliams (1996) which have suggested multidimensional measures ofsuccess that also take into consideration the perspective of differentstakeholders. For example, Kaplan and Norton (1992) remarked that reliance onone instrument could be fatal and that managers should not have to choosebetween financial and operational measures. Instead, they advocated the use of a"balanced scorecard" consisting of four critical performance measures reflectingthe perspectives companies should have vis-a-vis the competition (i.e. innovationand learning), the consumers (i.e. customer satisfaction), their internal processesand their financial performance. Kaplan and Norton (1992) noted that the firstthree (operational) measures complemented the financial measures and shouldbe the drivers of financial performance; they did not guarantee a company's (or abrand's) excellence unless they translated into improved financial performance.

Doyle (1992) also supported multidimensional measures of performancereflecting the multiplicity of stakeholders inside and outside the organisation andlong-term as well as short-term goals. In his view, managers should look for abalanced performance over time on a set of goals rather than seeking to excel ona single goal. In order to do so, they should seek to operate in the "tolerance"zone that gives all stakeholder groups a satisfactory level of achievement

Research Aim and Method

There has been a lot of debate in the literature regarding suitable brand successcriteria. Whilst profit is often considered an important measure of businesssuccess, it is also criticised for its short-term orientation. Other kinds of successmeasures, relating to consumers and the competition, have therefore beensuggested. In our view, these should not be considered as alternative, butcomplementary to the profitability criterion. The main aim of our research was toconsider appropriate criteria of brand success. To this aim, we reviewed theliterature on the criteria to measure brand success and then examined the extentto which the criteria discussed in the literature matched the views of consultants,whose daily activities shape the future agenda for brands.

We focused on the success criteria used by leading-edge consultants, ratherthan brand managers, since a review of the management press indicated thatconsultants predominantly lead the evolution of new pragmatic ideas inbranding. By contrast, only a dearth of brand managers was cited in the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

22:

49 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Criteria to Assess Brand Success 771

management press as influential brand thinkers. Furthermore, consultants arewell positioned as bridges between current thinking and practice in their roleswith client companies.

Whilst the respondents were chosen from a broad base of large and smallagencies (in terms of their billings and market share) they all specialised inadvising clients about branding issues on a national and international scale.From this broad base we then selected 20 respondents (d. Gordon andLangmaid, 1988) on the basis of their apparent "success" and recognition in theircareers as consultants. The first criterion for individual selection was seniority:the 20 consultants were chairman, partners or directors in brand consultancies(9), advertising agencies (7), market research agencies (2) and corporatecommun ications agencies (2). Other criteria for selection were being frequentpresenters at branding conferences, having written books on the subject andbeing recommended by other experts, albeit only two of the 20 consultants werechosen through the recommendation of other mem bers of the panel. However, toavoid confirmatory bias, we purposely refrained from reviewing any papersauthored by our sample of consultants in the preceding literature review.

Since our research was exploratory in nature, the most appropriate approachwas depth interviews (Goodyear, 1990). The depth interviews were recorded, thensubsequently transcribed. A topic guide was used to steer the overall interviewingprocess. At the beginning of the interviews all respondents were asked: "Howwould you define a 'brand'?" (the answers to this question were earlier reportedby de Chernatony and Dall'Olmo Riley, 1997). Respondents were also askedmore detailed questions, such as: "How would you define Q successful brand?'and "What criteria would you use to evaluate whether a brand is successful?"which are the focus of this paper. Respondents were encouraged to talk as muchor as little as they wished, with only limited interruptions on our part, mainlywhen clarification was needed.

Content analysis (Krippendorff, 1980) was conducted independently by two ofthe authors, following Miles and Huberman's (1994) framework Patterns andthemes in the data were noted, links with previous literature were drawn, andareas of notable contributions to knowledge identified. A comparison of the twoauthors' analyses yielded a concurrence score of 79.4% (j.e. the total number ofagreements divided by the total number of coding decisions). Inter-researcherdifferences were resolved through discussion and reference back to thetranscriptions, as suggested by Miles and Huberman (1994).

Whilst recognising the dangers of performing any form of quantitative analysison qualitative data, numerical indications are given in the following section toprovide more insight into the findings.

Experts' Brand Success Criteria

The Interaction Between Business and Brand SuccessExperts recognised that brand success criteria were difficult to define and

were aware of the debate about its definition. For example, an advertising

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

22:

49 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

772 Leslie de Chematony, Francesca Dall'Olmo Riley and Fiona Harris

consultant reflected: "A lot of the measures of brand strength are very hard toseparate in any meaningful sense from the success of business performance. Sowhat is a successful brand is a difficult question to answer and there can becontroversy about actually what is the right answer ... there are lots of possibledimensions."

Two other experts also pOinted out the difficulty of partitioning out brandsuccess from business success, but recognised a difference between these two.For example, an advertising consultant commented that "to a large extent thesuccess of a brand is hard to separate from the success of the business" butreflected: "there is a difference between the brand and the business, because thebusiness is being driven by circumstances other than consumer demand."

The inter-relationship between business success and brand success wasexplained by a corporate communications consultant as follows:

"Brand success is going to be the extent to which it meets the totalrequirements of the company and company policy may well be just to hold itsposition in certain sectors because it intends to launch another product inanother sector in two to three years time. So success in corporate terms isabout corporate success not brand success. The brands are simply the meansto achieve the end corporate policy."

Such views are consistent with those of Barwise (1993), who argued that "thevalue of a brand is not in practice separable from the value of the product andthe rest of the firm" (p.93).

Single vs. Multiple Success Criteria and Business-Based vs. Consumer-Based Criteria

The numbers of brand success criteria given by the sample of experts areshown in Table 1. Only one expert (a brand consultant) gave just one criterion ofsuccess: "Ultimately sales is the only measurement" Of the two experts who eachgave two success criteria, one cited survivability and profitability (brandconsultant) and the other long-term profit and meeting strategic objectives(advertising consultant).

Table 1. Numbers of Brand Success Criteria Given by Experts

Number of criteria stated

Number of experts whogave each number

1

1

2

2

3

1

4

6

5

3

6

4

7

1

8

2

Consistent with the literature, the experts' brand success criteria could becategorised as either business-based or consumer-based. Consumer-basedcriteria were defined as those consumer-centred factors that could be directlymeasured amongst consumers. By contrast, business-based criteria were defined

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

22:

49 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Criteria to Assess Brand Success 773as those not directly measurable amongst consumers and included variablessuch as financial or marketing parameters which marketers control or seek toinfluence in their strategic planning. The numbers of experts citing business-based and consumer-based criteria are given in Table 2.

Table 2. Number of Experts Mentioning Business-Based and Consumer-Based Criteria

Number of experts mentioning business-based criteria 20

Number of experts mentioning consumer-based criteria 15

Consistent with the literature (e.g.Faulkner and Bowman, 1992; Harkness, 1992),Tables 1 and 2 clearly show that the vast majority of experts viewed brandsuccess as a multidimensional construct that comprised both business-based andconsumer-based criteria. For example:

"I mean those sort of financial measures have to be regarded as measures ofsuccess or failure. But I suppose that I would say a brand is successful if Istopped a whole load of people in the street ... and I got the feeling that eightor nine out of ten people said the same sorts of things .... So it's the financialmotives, [and] something about a core value system...You know I have a list ofthings: quality of innovation, service excellence, integrity or trustworthiness,dynamism. There might be six or seven things I'd think of and I'd want tohave high scores on all of them." (Market research consultant)

This suggests that, as many authors have concluded (e.g.Ambler and Kokkinaki,1997; Doyle, 1992; Kaplan and Norton, 1992), there is no single measure ofsuccess. One advertising consultant even felt that brand success was "a bit toomultidimensional".

Types of Brand Success CriteriaThe types of business-based and consumer-based criteria identified by the

experts are reviewed in detail below.

(;) Business-Based CriteriaThe experts cited a wide diversity of business-based brand success criteria

and, as shown in Table 2, they were more often cited than consumer-basedcriteria. In total, 27 different business-based criteria were mentioned, as detailedin Table 3. The importance of business-based criteria was reflected by theresponse of an advertising consultant when asked what were his criteria forbrand success: "Mostlythose utilised by everybody else in the market place: Is it abusiness success?"

Profitability was the most frequently cited business-based criteria of brand

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

22:

49 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

774 Leslie de Chematony, Francesca Dall'Glmo Riley and Fiona Harris

success, being mentioned by half the experts. Their comments indicated thatthey recognised the importance of profitability to their client companies as theirreason for existing, a view which is consistent with Cokayne (1993). For examplea brand consultant remarked: "I think profitability is very important, because thewhole basis of a brand is that it is an economic asset" Likewise, a brandconsultant said: "A payoff in terms of the bottom line, because that is what thebusiness is for."

Table 3. Types of Business-Based Criteria Given by Experts

Types of No. of Types of business-based No. ofbusiness-basedcriteria experts criteria experts

Profitability 10 Contribution to society 1Long-term 6 No. of people it employs IperspectiveMeeting strategic 5 Great sense of timing 1objectivesSurvival 4 Strength/stability 1Market share 3 Breadth 1Innovation 2 Growth 1Sales 2 Higher margin than a commodity 1

would haveReturn on 2 Size of market sector 1capital/ investmen tShare price 2 Consistently delivered 1

(distribution)Price premium 2 Clear evidence of target market 1

that somebody has thought aboutBroad target 2 Understanding customers 1marketReturn to 1 Understanding where your 1shareholders competitors are coming fromMarketing 1 Extent to which senior people in 1investment organisation share same view

about what they are trying toproject

Competitors 1under pressure

However, reinforcing the multidimensional view of success advocated in theliterature, experts clearly viewed success as a concept that encompassed morethan just profitability. For example, a brand consultant commented that "[brands]which make money is actually a little bit simplistic". An advertising consultanteven considered that "You can have a successful brand that is not profitable."

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

22:

49 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Criteria to Assess Brand Success 775

After profitability, the next most common theme was the importance of along-term perspective in assessing the success of a brand. This view also concurswith the literature (e.g.Cokayne, 1991; Doyle, 1989). Experts' comments includedthe following:

'1 think the absolute key thing is length of time. In other words, it has got tobe a profit earner that lasts and lasts, because any fool can make profits outof most things for a short time." (Brand consultant)

'1t is very dangerous to say that a brand is a success or not, based upon oneyear or even two years, if you want to put it in terms of the longer-term."(Corporate communications consultant)

Meeting strategic objectives was also an important theme, which was mentionedby a quarter of the experts. For example, a brand consultant remarked: '1t is onlya successful brand depending on whatever objectives I am setting for the brand."Similarly, a market research consultant observed: uObviously as the brandmanager, I would have a certain set of objectives for that brand and it wouldneed to be either fulfilling them or being somewhere towards fulfilling them."This finding concurs with Ambler and Kokkinaki (1997), who proposed thatsuccess was defined by the extent to which a firm's goals were met

Nearly a quarter of experts also considered the ability to survive against keycompetitors was a criterion for a successful brand. For example, a brandconsultant explained: "You've got to look at the potential for survival" and anadvertising consultant stated: "Really successful brands can survive againstsuperior products." However, as with the other criteria cited by experts, simplysurviving was not sufficient on its own as a criterion for brand success as thefollowing comment by a brand consultant indicates: "It survives comfortably. Idon't mean it finds it easy to survive, but it is not a one shot wonder. So somestability/survivability coupled with profitability are two key factors" (brandconsultant). These views are consistent with Kapferer (1997), who suggested thatkey success factors could be identified by analysing brands that had survivedcrises and lasted over the years.

Market share was mentioned by three experts, but little emphasis was given toit For example, a brand consultant commented: '1t might be market share, butmore critically it's going to be the bottom line." This is consistent with thetreatment of market share in the literature as a criterion rarely considered inisolation from other, related criteria.

While the diversity of the criteria cited by experts suggests that there is littleagreement about which particular criteria constitute indicators of success, itreinforces the proposition that brand success is a multidimensional construct,with many different parameters contributing to it

OJ) Consumer-Based CriteriaFifteen of the twenty experts stressed the importance of consumer-based

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

22:

49 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

776 Leslie de Chematony, Francesca Dall'Olmo Riley and Fiona Harris

brand success criteria in addition to business-based criteria. Twenty-fourconsumer-based brand success criteria were cited, which are detailed in Table 4.

The principal consumer-based success criteria discussed in the literaturereviewed earlier were brand associations (consumer perceptions, brandawareness, brand identity, brand image, personality and relationship withconsumers) and perceived differential advantages and added values (competitiveposition, differential advantage, perceived relevant added values, reputation,quality image, price premium and consumer loyalty). Experts identified a widerange of consumer-based success criteria that included all of the aforementionedcategory elements, but the criteria cited varied between individuals.

Table 4. Types of Consumer-Based Criteria Given by Experts

Type of consumer- No. of Type of consumer-based No. ofbased criteria experts criteria experts

Loyalty 6 Emotional elements that 1people identify and identifywith self

Consistent, crisp, well- 4 Depth (extent to which 1understood consumer bonds with brand)perceptions

Functional performance 3 Premium but classless feel 1Perceived as having 3 Satisfies the majority of 1added value customers more consistently

than any other brandPersonality perceived 3 Appeals to most people most 1

of the timeRelationship 3 Stays closer to its markets and 1

addresses its needsDistinctive/ differentiated 2 Anticipates customers' needs 1

in a more proactive fashionthan its competitors

Good service 2 Dynamism 1Added novelty 1 Social equity 1improvements

Right tone of voice 1 Customers will have a set of 1expectations and views ofwhere it should be going inthe future

Strong imagery 1 Integrity/trustworthiness 1Brand awareness 1 Reducing risk 1

The principal theme subsumed under the category perceived differentialadvantages and added values (as defined above) was consumer loyalty,with sixexperts citing it as an important criterion of brand success. This is consistent

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

22:

49 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Criteria to Assess Brand Success 777

with Kapferer (1997) who viewed consumer loyalty as a prerequisite of a strongbrand. Experts commented: '1 suppose loyalty is the key factor" (advertisingconsultant) and "I think it is having a long and lasting hold on and affection fromits consumers and customers" (brand consultant). Other cited consumer-basedcriteria that fell within this category were functional performance and havingadded value, which were each mentioned by three experts.

Of the criteria categorised under brand associations, consumer perceptions,followed by personality and relationship with consumers were the mostfrequently cited brand success criteria. Crisp, well-understood perceptions werementioned by four experts, whose comments included: "a brand has got to havea core sense of what it means to people" (market research consultant) and "Iwould say the crispness and clarity of perceptions that I know exist in consumers'minds" (brand consultant).

Dependency of CriteriaExperts observed that the criteria for evaluating the success of a brand

depended on two principal factors: (i) the market; and (ij) the agency or companyperspective.

(i) The MarketThe criteria for evaluating a brand's success "vary from market to market"

(brand consultant). For example, a brand consultant explained: "All the leadinggrocery brand manufacturers are under the most severe profit pressure. So theircriteria are just to maintain and develop profits under trying circumstances."Brand success criteria also depended upon the characteristics of a particularmarket and whether it was a growing or declining market

"It depends on the market sector. If we talk about a market which is dying,then the very least one could do is to attempt to maintain share under tryingcircumstances ... If you are in a stable market situation, then you might belooking to try to increase your value share by adding value to the overallbrand offer.... If you are in an expanding market then what you are hoping todo is to consolidate strong volume shares and at some stage in the futurethen moving to a situation where you start taking profits. So it really depends.Taking it on a market by market basis, the brand is performing different rolesin different sorts of market situations." (Brand consultant)

(ij) The Company or Agency PerspectiveSuccess criteria depended upon whether brand success was viewed from a

company or an agency perspective. Experts perceived differences between theirdefinitions of brand success criteria and those of managers in their clientcompanies. An advertising consultant stated: "There are actually very fewcompanies that use the definiti On of success that their marketing suppliers wouldagree with." Consistent with this, four experts implied that some of their criteriamight not be recognised by their client companies. For example, a brand

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

22:

49 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

778 Leslie de Chematony, Francesca Dall'Olmo Riley and Fiona Harris

consultant said: "I have no idea where all this would stand in the industry."Similarly, a market research consultant commented: "For me personally, becauseI think it's a personal thing, for me, innovation is important"

The potential for conflict between an agency's and a company's brand successcriteria was explained by an advertising consultant as follows:

"The CEO's definition of successful is simply "Can I use my branding to getmy share price up?" And a lot of people literally work like that That is whatit's for, especially conglomerates .... Their marketing suppliers like an adagency or a designer would say: "Iwant a long-term profit share that I can relyon for the next five years say. But a lot of managers won't agree with that "

Consistent with Irmscher (1993), the narrowness of companies' success criteriawas attributed to the way in which managers' performance was rewarded. Forexample, a brand consultant explained: 'lf I were a chief executive, it would bemy return on capital employed. That's what I'm judged on. Whatever we sayabout branding that's how an individual or a company are judged." Similarly, anadvertising consultant reported that managers would say: "Share price mattersmore. I want cuts in the advertisements in November, because if I don't make myprofit, the firm's financial profile will suffer and my bonus is based on that"

Conclusions and Managerial Implications

The evaluation of brand success has attracted interest in the academic literaturein recent years. However, as we pointed out at the beginning of this paper, thereis still disagreement regarding suitable criteria. Furthermore, there is confusion inthe literature between success criteria and success strategies. The purpose of ourresearch was to consider suitable criteria of brand success. With this aim inmind, we compared the brand success criteria discussed in the literature withthose of 20 UK-based, leading-edge brand experts who provided brandconsultancy to company managers.

Experts' definitions of brand success criteria were found to align closely withthe multidimensional approach advocated in the academic literature,encompassing both long-term business-based and consumer-based successcriteria. Therefore, we propose that brand success is a multidimensionalconstruct comprised of both business-based and consumer-based criteria.Business-based and consumer-based criteria are interrelated and cannot beconsidered in isolation. Rather, they are mutually dependent For example, it maybe argued that business-based measures such as profit and market share followfrom consumers' responses to a brand. Furthermore, successful companiesproactively seek to meet customers' future needs (Kapferer, 1997; Prahalad andHamel, 1990). However, the experts stressed that the individual criteriasubsumed under each of the two broad categories of business-based andconsumer-based criteria were many and varied. They depended upon factorssuch as the market, and whether a company or agency perspective was adopted.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

22:

49 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Criteria to Assess Brand Success 779

In particular, the consultants pointed out a number of discrepancies betweentheir perspectives and managers' evaluation of successful brands. Whilst expertstook a longer-term view of brand success and favoured a balance of business-based and consumer-based criteria, managers were perceived to have a narrower,short-term financially-oriented perspective of success, hence favouring theprevalence of business-based criteria. This short-term, financially-orientatedapproach to brand management has been widely criticised in the academicliterature and held responsible for hindering the building of successful brands(e.g. Aaker, 1991). Managers have been exhorted to adopt a longer-termperspective since the mid 1980's. Yet until managers' career progression and theassessment of managers' performance are aligned with the long-term interests oftheir brands, conflict will contin ue to arise between the interests of managers andtheir brands. New ways need to be found to reward and promote managers thatsupport the building of successful brands.

Whilst recognising the importance of financial business-based criteria to theirclient companies, experts stressed the importance of adopting a long-termperspective with regard to brand success. Consistent with the literature, expertsfavoured a combination of shorter-term business-based criteria and moreforward-looking consumer-based criteria. Benchmarking against competitorsfurther enhances effective strategy formulation. In order to be able to anticipatechanging consumer needs, it is important that brand managers adopt a widervariety of consumer-based brand success criteria, as well as business-basedcriteria, to assess their brands' success.

Furthermore, it is recommended that brand managers and consultants worktogether to identify the most appropriate criteria for evaluating the success of anindividual brand, taking these variables into account Not only will this helpensure a coherent focus by managers and their consultants, but can then later beused in brand auditing work to fine tune the brand strategy. It should also enablefirms to repeat their success in the future. The adoption of consumer-basedcriteria of brand success to complement the existing business-based criteriawithin companies should go some way to initiating this process.

Given the multidimensionality of brand success and the wide range of criteriaused to measure it, future research should seek to advance the currentunderstanding of brand success by exploring the relationships between criteria toestablish the different roles of brands and dependencies associated with each.Mapping out the contributions of criteria to brand success in this way will assistbrand managers in selecting the appropriate criteria for assessing the success ofa brand, in relation to its particular set of circumstances and objectives.

References

Aaker, David A (1991), Managing Brand Equity, New York, The Free Press.Ambler, Tim and Kokkinaki, Flora (1997), "Measures of Marketing Success",

Journal of Marketing Management 13, pp.665-678.Barwise, Patrick (1993), "Brand Equity: Snark or Boojum?" International Journal

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

22:

49 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

780 Leslie de Chernatony, Francesca Dall'Olmo Riley and Fiona Harris

of Research in Marketing, 10, pp.93-104.Barwise, Patrick and Ehrenberg, Andrew S.c. (1985), "Consumer beliefs and

brand usage", Journal of the Market Research Society, 27, pp.81-93.Blattberg, Robert C. and Deighton, John (1996), "Manage Marketing by the

Customer Equity Test", Harvard Business Review, July-August 1996, pp.l36-·144.

Buzzell, Robert D. and Gale, Bradley T. (1987), The PIMS Principles. LinkingStrategy to Performance, New York, The Free Press.

Cokayne, Frank (1991), Successful Marketing Strategies, Cambridge, UK,Fitzwilliam Publishing Ltd.

Dall'Olmo Riley, Francesca, Ehrenberg, Andrew S.c., Castleberry, Stephen 8.,Barwise, T. Patrick, Barnard, Neil R (1997), "The variability of attitudinalRepeat-Rates", International Journal of Research in Marketing, 14,5, pp.437-450.

de Chernatony, Leslie and Dall'Olmo Riley, Francesca (1997), "The chasmbetween managers' and consumers' views of brands: the experts' perspectives",Journal of Strategic Marketing, 5, 2, pp.89-1 04.

de Chernatony, Leslie and McDonald, Malcolm (1994), Creating PowerfulBrands, Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann.

Doyle, Peter (1989), "Building Successful Brands: The Strategic Options", Journalof Marketing Management 5, pp.77-95.

Doyle, Peter (1992), 'What are excellent companies?", Journal of MarketingManagement 8, pp.l 01-116.

Eccles, Robert G. (1991), "The performance measurement manifesto", HarvardBusiness Review, 69, January/February 1991, pp.131-137.

Ehrenberg, Andrew (1997), "Description and Prescription", Journal of AdvertisingResearch, 37, 6, pp.l7 -22.

Ehrenberg, Andrew and Scriven, John (1996), "Brand Loyalty Under theMicroscope", Economics and Business Education, 4, 4, pp.l55-160.

Faulkner, David and Bowman, Cliff (1992), "Generic Strategies and CongruentOrganisational Structures, Some Suggestions", European ManagementJournal, 10, pp.494-499.

Goodyear, Mary (1990), "Qualitative Research". In: R Bim, P. Hague and P.Vangelder (Eds.), A Handbook of Market Research Techniques, London,Kogan Page.

Gordon, Wendy and Langmaid, Ray (1988), Qualitative Market Research,A1dershot, Gower.

Hansen, Flemming, Gronhaug, Kjell and Warneryd, Karl-Erik (1990), "Excellentmarketing: The concept, its measurement and implications", Marketing andResearch Today, 18, pp.98-105.

Hardy, Len (1987), Successful Business Strategy: how to win the market-place,London, Kogan Page.

Harkness, James (1992), 'Monitoring Initiatives", Managing Service Quality,November, pp.417-419.

Irmscher, Markus (1993), "Modelling the brand equity concept", Marketing and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

22:

49 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Criteria to Assess Brand Success 781

Research Today, 21, pp.l02-110.Joachimsthaler, Erich and Aaker, DavidA (1997), "Building Brands Without Mass

Media", Harvard Business Review,75, January/February 1997, pp.39-50.Kapferer, Jean-Noel (1997), Strategic Brand Management (2nd Edition), London,

Kogan Page Limited.Kaplan, Robert S. and Norton, David P. (1992), "The Balanced Scorecard -

Measures That Drive Performance", Harvard Business Review, 70,January/February 1992, pp.71-79.

Keller, Kevin Lane (1993), "Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity",Journal of Marketing, 57, January 1993, pp.l-22.

Krippendorff, Klaus (1980), Content Analysis: An Introduction to itsMethodology, Beverly Hills, CA,Sage.

McBurnie, Tony and Clutterbuck, David (1988), The Marketing Edge. VitalLessons in Marketing Success, London, Penguin Books.

McWilliams, Brian (1996), "The Measure of Success", Across the Board, February20 1996, pp.16-20.

Miles, Matthew B. and Huberman, A Michael (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis,Thousand Oaks, CA,Sage.

Olins, Wally (1989), Corporate Identity. Making business strategy visible throughdesign, Thames and Hudson.

Pascale, Richard Tanner (1990), Managing on the Edge, New York, Simon andSchuster.

Pitta, Dennis and Katsanis, Lea Prevel (1995), "Understanding brand equity forsuccessful brand extension", Journal of Consumer Marketing, 12,4, pp.51-64.

Prahalad, GK and Hamel, Gary (1990), "The core competence of thecorporation", Harvard Business Review,May-June 1990, pp.79-91.

Stephens, Debra Lynn, Hill,Ronald Paul and Bergman, Karyn (1996), "Enhancingthe consumer-product relationship: Lessons from the QVC home shoppingchannel", Journal of Business Research, 37, pp.l93-200.

Wilson Aubrey (1979), "Six myths of marketing", Managem ent Today, August1979, pp.63-64.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

22:

49 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

22:

49 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014