The Global Soft Power Index uses a balanced scorecard approach to evaluating nation brand perceptions which recognises that Soft Power encompasses elements of visibility, reach, weight. Soft Power is more than reputation alone.

Of course, Reputation is important. Soft Power aims to impact attitudes and (ultimately) behaviour through attraction or persuasion rather than coercion, and for a nation to be attractive and a role model for others, its overall Reputation must be as positive as possible.

But that is often not sufficient. There are plentiful examples of nations with positive Reputations but somewhat limited Soft Power, beyond very specific arenas/pillars or in neighbouring countries.

We also emphasise the importance of Familiarity and mental availability – if you have a good Reputation you want as many people as possible to know about it, and to have frequent reminders and demonstrations of your qualities. Our third KPI is Influence – the perceived presence and impact that your nation has in other countries, overall or in specific areas.

Familiarity and Reputation are correlated with Influence, but the relationships between these three KPIs (and their underlying drivers) is complex, and a balanced Soft Power strategy should always aim to fire on all cylinders.

Familiarity underpins Influence

It is hard to have much Influence and thus Soft Power if you are a small, geographically-remote, and/or relatively obscure nation.

But it is not a linear relationship – if you have a strong Reputation and widespread Influence in specific fields, you are going to be less obscure, people will visit your nation, do business with you, and absorb your culture – all of which will in turn increase your mental availability and Familiarity.

A strong Reputation takes you to the next level

Salience and Familiarity are clearly important foundations of Soft Power, but to build on that your target audiences need to see something desirable in your actions, governance, values, culture, or products. The logical argument is that a great Reputation is also necessary for a nation to grow its Soft Power base, and while that is largely true, there are some obvious exceptions.

Nations with weak Reputations do indeed generally have very limited Soft Power, even when they are relatively large and strategically ‘important’. Nigeria, India, and Brazil are good examples of nations that have considerable Soft Power potential but underperform in terms of Reputation. In Nigeria’s case this is limiting its Influence within sub-Saharan Africa (let alone beyond). Common sense says that a more positive Reputation would improve these nations’ Influence and overall Soft Power.

As the chart above shows, a great Reputation can take you a long way, if not to the very top of our Soft Power rankings. Among the top 30 nations for Reputation, all wield significant Soft Power apart from very small nations (e.g. Maldives, Iceland), and even these punch well above their weight. So while a strong Reputation may not always be sufficient to be a Soft Power heavyweight, obviously it is a key component.

Influence complements Reputation

Hence, a nation with a negative or mixed Reputation can never fulfil its Soft Power potential – but there are several examples of nations with significant Soft Power despite a Reputation that we might politely say has ‘room for improvement’.

Russia is the most obvious outlier, where sheer size, historical Influence and, arguably, hard power, combine to ensure that Russia retains Soft Power assets – but unless Russia can turn its Reputation around these are likely to erode in the medium term.

Israel, China, Saudi Arabia, UK, and USA are other examples of nations whose Soft Power rankings are not a merely a function of having a ‘perfect’ Reputation.

However, for these nations, their Reputations generally are positive – very good in many cases. Saudi Arabia, for example, may not be universally acclaimed but ranks a respectable 32nd for overall Reputation and in the top 15 for economic stability, diplomatic influence, and heritage.

Similarly, while Israel polarises opinion somewhat, its qualities are acknowledged even in relatively hostile markets (for example, Chinese respondents are negative towards Israel overall but admire its educational and scientific achievements).

The magic ingredient that translates a ‘good enough’ Reputation into strong Soft Power is Influence. Best-practice for developing Soft Power thus considers how best to improve Reputation and Influence.

Influence is not easily earned, but there are steps that nations can take to build it. Nations which punch above their weight for Influence typically have one or more of these characteristics listed in the table below.

The last two elements will be more directly impacted by the actions of nation brand marketing teams and activity – even the smallest, most remote or economically-challenged nation can undertake actions to grow its Influence. Our section on drivers analysis discusses how.

Global Soft Power Index 2023

Explore the findings of the world's most comprehensive research study on perceptions of nation brands, presented in a downloadable report and an interactive dashboard.

Our brand evaluation framework - the Brand Strength Index (BSI) - is based on the principles outlined in our article Measuring Brand Equity and Why Brand Evaluation Is An Important Management Practice. The framework has core consistency but is tailored where necessary to reflect the specific brand or category dynamics.

Brand Strength Index (BSI) - How it Works

Each brand is assigned a Brand Strength Index (BSI) score out of 100, which is determined based on performance on a broad range of input and output metrics. A typical example is shown here:

This example is purely illustrative – the actual model must be carefully constructed to reflect all elements which are likely to affect brand success. But the starting point is a strong measurement framework, backed by compelling empirical evidence outlining the links between brand investment and performance, and ultimately commercial success.

Benefits of the Brand Strength Index (BSI)

Having a broad framework and set of principles in place brings a number of benefits:

• Confidence: That the measures are meaningful, commercially relevant and actionable.
• Efficiency: management time is focussed only on the necessary category or organisation-specific customisation.
• Consistency: Data sources are identified in advance, and consistent.
• Stronger benchmarking and insight: Consistency of KPIs provides robust benchmarking, and better insight because the speed and magnitude of trends is interpreted more clearly.
• Communications: Clearer communication of results.
• Brand Commercialisation: Where required, hard evidence to use in licencing/sponsorship negotiations, and in addressing internal brand architecture debates.

This type of evaluation framework obviously meets the fundamental objective of providing marketing and senior management with a comprehensive dashboard of brand performance and progress against strategic goals – but it goes much further. Analysing brands using this framework allows us to track the links between activity, brand equity, behaviour and financial performance:

Outputs are fed into strategic plans and help develop the commercial case for brand investment. Further applications include:

• Internal Tracking: Corporate, team and personal target-setting, including incentivisation and reward
• Partner Conversations: Ammunition for retailer/dealer support and other external discussions.
• Scenario planning

What is measured is managed. See our consulting services to find out more about what we do to help teams understand the strength and value of their brands.

Role of ISO and Development of ISO:20671

As mentioned above, ISO has developed (with our input) the first-ever global standard on brand evaluation – ISO:20671.

This standard sets out a rigorous framework and set of principles for conducting brand evaluation from an input/output point of view. As such it is intended to serve as the standard for the development and implementation of other standards for brand evaluation - and in addition, aligning to the international standard of brand valuation – i.e. ISO 10668.

The standard contains several elements. It sets out a brand evaluation framework, conceptually similar to those used by Brand Finance and some other organisations, incorporating both brand inputs and outputs.

The framework outlines the concept of brand strength, which, as Brand Finance advocates, is a broader assessment than pure brand equity measurement. (Hence, the Brand Finance BSI approach is compliant with ISO 20671)

ISO 20671 also outlines the fundamental principles of brand evaluation, including the need to take into account:

• A range of input measures: including marketing investment, innovation/R&D, distribution, etc.
• External factors: such as economic and political conditions
• Brand strength: qualitative/subjective assessments from customers and other stakeholders
• Performance measures: including sales, market share, margins, etc.

In this respect, a comprehensive check-list of possible elements and dimensions is outlined, although ISO stresses (as do we) that measures and dimensions have to be customised somewhat depending on the brand and category: “Applicable indicators should be determined e.g. according to company size, particular type of brand, purpose of the brand evaluation, different external regulating environment.”

ISO goes further than many best-practice discussions through its consideration of the brand evaluation process, and not just the content/data and analytic approach. Specific principles outlined are:

• The need for a suitably experienced ‘brand evaluator’ (whether internal or external), at least to design and set-up an evaluation system (if not actively manage it)
• Obligations of the brand evaluator, including the need for transparency, consistency and objectivity. More specifically, the standard outlines the importance of justifying the inclusion (or exclusion) and weight given to specific measures – measurements must not be based around vague or personal choice or the views of a ‘committee’.
• A clear understanding of the role and impact of different stakeholders on brand strength and outcomes, and the need for evaluation measures to take this into account.
• An audit process to confirm “the integrity of the brand evaluation system, its compliance with this international standard and/or reviews whether the brand evaluation practices of the entity are effectively implemented and maintained”.
• The need to ensure that required data inputs are available and of sufficient quality.

Overall, ISO 20671 provides a welcome set of standards and best-practice checklists which all organisations would benefit from following. It is imperative that brand owners assess the extent to which their evaluation system follows the best-practice principles of the ISO standard. While many larger organisations are likely to be compliant with most aspects of the standard – even within some of the biggest branding operations globally it is not unusual to find evidence of corner-cutting and inconsistency (for smaller/niche brands, segments, and markets, for example).

The Marketing Accountability Standards Board (MASB)

Marketing Accountability Standards Board (MASB) is an industry body established to establish standards and processes necessary for evaluating marketing measurement in a manner that “ensures credibility, validity, transparency, and understanding”.

MASB is a participant in the development of the ISO but had in addition outlined brand evaluation standards and processes which are valuable contributions to the marketing discipline. Of particular relevance is the Marketing Metric Audit Protocol (MMAP) - a formal process for assessing the robustness of brand metrics, and the extent to which these are indicative of the impact of marketing activities on the financial performance of the brand owner.

It includes the conceptual linking of marketing activities to intermediate marketing outcome metrics and in turn to commercial outcomes, as well as an audit as to how the metrics meet the validation & causality characteristics of an ideal metric.

As part of this programme, MASB has carefully audited the conceptual framework and rigour of a number of leading research/evaluation agency systems (including Brand Finance), and in 2016 published “Accountable Marketing”, considered to be one of the definitive texts on marketing and brand evaluation.

A Brand-owner’s Checklist

Does your organisation have a brand evaluation system that provides a comprehensive measure of brand health and progress? Some key steps every brand-owner should take:

1. Identifying roles and responsibilities – who is responsible for brand evaluation, and ensuring the overall system is fit for purpose?
2. Ensure that the overall conceptual framework is comprehensive and predictive of brand growth and commercial success
3. Developing & reviewing the measurement framework – are all relevant brand inputs, equity dimensions, and outputs covered?
4. Identifying/reviewing data sources. For existing programmes, this includes cutting irrelevant data and scoping out additional research or data needs
5. Determining the links between marketing activities and brand strength, and between brand strength and commercial value (sales, profits, brand value)
6. Establishing appropriate measurement and reporting frequencies, and ensuring that measures are updated appropriately
7. Determining a reporting hierarchy and system
8. Ensuring the system is correctly used as a benchmark for performance and input into brand strategy

In Conclusion

But the rewards are considerable – the entire organisation benefits from clear measures of performance and the impact of business actions upon the brand. Hence, as brands account on average for 20% business value, an effective evaluation programme pays for itself, by outlining a roadmap towards stronger, more resilient, and ultimately more profitable brands. As Warren Buffet points out, a strong brand ensures that strong commercial performance is enduring and resilient to competitive attack:

…all the time, if you’ve got a wonderful castle, there are people out there who are going to try and attack it and take it away from you. And I want a castle that I can understand, but I want a castle with a moat around it.

Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway

Brand owners must develop effective programmes and processes to evaluate the strength and performance of their brands. There are good checklists of good practice available, including ISO 20671 – but these can only ever be a guide. Professional expertise and an understanding of business goals and purchasing patterns/dynamics will always be required; there is no such book as ‘Brand Evaluation for Dummies’.

Hence even the most sophisticated branded enterprises will acknowledge challenges of brand evaluation – and the need for constant review and improvement (of the evaluation process) without tinkering for its own sake.

Brand Evaluation 101
Why Brand Evaluation Is An Important Management Practice
Measuring Brand Equity
The Brand Strength Index (BSI) - Our Brand Evaluation Process

The importance of managing brands and evaluating their progress and future prospects has been recognised since the early days of branding. Procter & Gamble, the originators of the brand management function, recognised the need for rigorous and continuous assessment of their brands' performance as far back as 1931:

"Examine carefully the combination of effort that seems to be clicking and try to apply this treatment to other territories that are comparable".

Neil McElroy, Former P&G President in his famous three-page memo. ¹

Other big brand owners soon followed suit. Brands and branding have such a crucial role in business success, so a process of brand evaluation is essential. However, while most larger companies conduct some sort of brand evaluation, the scale and sophistication of the practice differ wildly. Some companies under-track, some over-track, some track inappropriate things that have no relevance for improving business performance.

What is measured is managed. See our consulting services to find out more about what we do to help teams understand the strength and value of their brands.

What Is Brand Evaluation?

Before we get into the nitty-gritty, we should set out our guiding principles when setting out to evaluate our brand. Fit-for-purpose brand assessments deliver:

• Data that are relevant to improving business performance.
• Are delivered in a timely fashion.
• Are produced for an audience that can act on the information.

Brand evaluation is the measurement of the strength of a brand. In laymen’s terms, how ‘good’ the brand is and the impact it has on stakeholders’ actions, whether to buy the product, what price to pay, whether to work for an organisation, etc...

Brand evaluation is also an input into brand valuation, which focuses on the monetary value of a brand and its commercial worth to a company as a transferable and income-generating asset. The evaluation takes into account non-financial considerations as well as obvious factors such as sales, profit, and ROI.

However, the two concepts are inherently linked – some kind of evaluation is required as part of a brand valuation exercise. In turn, brand evaluation should track brand performance on dimensions which link directly or indirectly to commercial performance and are not ‘vanity metrics’.

Our conceptual framework for brand evaluation is intended to identify the links between actions/investments and the awareness, perceptions, and stakeholder behaviour that they cause. While the levers, as well as the drivers of brand preference, differ by sector, the overarching idea is seen in this graph.

Diagnostic and holistic evaluation programmes should use a range of relevant indicators to assess:

• The overall strength and reputation of the brand.
• Strong and weak aspects of the brand.
• How the brand is responding to marketing activities, e.g. advertising.
• The impact of the brand on the actions of customers and other stakeholders.
• Why the brand is evolving in the ways observed.

Naturally, any evaluation will generally be in some sort of competitive context - many of the key measures are only insightful when compared with other brands. Even organisations with few or no direct competitors (e.g. a state-monopoly energy provider) will still wish to benchmark in some way, and in any case, will be competing with others on some level (e.g. with other large organisations for talent/employees).

Brand evaluation is not a precise science. Some aspects of good practice are universal, and general principles of measurement can be applied in virtually all situations. But every brand and organisation is different, and brand owners should seek to adopt this broad evaluation framework to meet their specific needs. There is no one-size-fits-all solution, which can be a challenge for organisations which lack sufficient internal resource and expertise to design and manage evaluation programmes.

Finally, evaluation can contain both qualitative and quantitative assessments, and best practice combines both. A purely qualitative assessment can be problematic – such programmes are always open to challenge by appearing to be more subjective – and more sophisticated ROI analysis is impossible without a degree of quantification. Hence to all intents and purposes, evaluation is largely a quantitative discipline.

Setting up a Brand Evaluation Framework

Brand evaluation programmes only deliver real value to an organisation if they provide a measurement framework which allows performance to be tracked with reasonable accuracy and confidence. Evaluation should never be ad-hoc or designed on a whim – brand owners must think carefully about what they are measuring and why.

Best practice in brand evaluation begins with a clear sense of the different measures required. At this stage, some brand owners focus on what might be termed equity measures – e.g. whether stakeholders know and like the brand. But input measures should also be considered – e.g. how well is this brand supported in the media? or what is its innovation spend? – as well as output measures which reveal how customers are behaving and what impact their behaviour has on the business.

Tracking these groups of data and establishing an understanding of how each element links and influences the others helps to form the core of value-based brand management systems that can identify the return on investment of specific brand-related actions.

A basic understanding of how brands drive commercial outcomes, and how brands themselves succeed should underpin any evaluation framework. In particular, a knowledge of some of the fundamental principles of brand growth is helpful when designing an evaluation framework, and especially when choosing which measures to track.

Although many of the more commonly-used measures have been validated to have an impact on sales or market share, some brand owners struggle to quantify the precise relationships (and in turn to understand which measures have the biggest commercial impact and should be prioritised in ongoing evaluation).

Such linkages can be determined via sophisticated analysis conducted internally or via external modellers. However, to do so requires sufficient data covering all relevant inputs and outputs. This underlines the need for rigour and consistency.

Brand Evaluation 101
Why Brand Evaluation Is An Important Management Practice
Measuring Brand Equity
The Brand Strength Index (BSI) - Our Brand Evaluation Process

1. How well are we currently doing and how can we track our performance?

The first step to nation branding is assessing how the brand is currently performing. Identifying factors which drive behaviour allows an understanding of how brands create economic impact. Insight to uncover the drivers of demand, perceptions of various stakeholders and decision-makers is an important first step in building a nation brand for the nation and corporates within it.

2. How do we engage, direct, and manage all relevant stakeholders?

The second key question to ask is how will the brand activate engagement from relevant organisations, departments, and stakeholders. A cohesive nation brand that is able to impact the 4 key segments of the economy explored earlier, requires co-ordination and endorsement across departments.

3. Where should we invest budgets?

Once a governance structure is in place, the next question is the strategic evaluation of campaign activities, focus and spend to ensure resources are allocated to those activities which have the most impact value and support long term positioning.

4. How can we increase the value of our nation brand?

Finally, an ongoing assessment of how the brand is performing against KPIs, targets, and its return on investment is essential to enable nation brands to grow economies. In a changing global political, economic, and social landscape, the evolution and adaptability of a nation brand are central to its long-term efficacy.

GREAT: A Nation Branding Success Story

The GREAT Campaign unifies efforts across governmental divisions to deliver a  campaign that can be adapted, modified, and tailored for each segment and sub-segment. The universality of the GREAT Campaign has also meant that it has been able to readjust focus in light of changing national priorities and an evolving political discourse. The GREAT Campaign has invested significantly in a campaign to promote international trade, particularly following the UK’s Brexit vote to leave the European Union. ¹

An approach to nation branding where assessments are holistic but also specific will ensure that the nation’s brand works to serve not only the nation as a whole but also plays to its strengths across each key sector of the economy. In a similar way, corporates can also benefit from location branding, leveraging the reputation nurtured through nation branding.

Nation Branding 101
How to Build an Effective Location Brand Identity

It may sometimes be difficult to quantify and there is no 100% consensus on how to measure it, but every business needs to develop a system for assessing whether their brands are healthy, enjoy a strong and resilient reputation, and most importantly, are poised to deliver future growth and commercial return.

A comprehensive measure of brand equity sits at the heart of brand evaluation. This means measuring the degree to which stakeholders are aware of the brand, and their perceptions of it.

Each year we conduct our own global consumer equity research study in over 20 sectors and 30 geographies.

Brand Equity Research Method

Most (but by no means all) brand owners measure brand equity or brand image in some way. In many cases, the core of such measurement is some form of market research to survey the opinions of customers/consumers, and perhaps other stakeholders. However, other data sources and signals may also have a role:

• Comments and reviews in online social media and other online media.
• Customer complaints and other direct feedback.
• Transactional or behavioural data, e.g. a number of website visits, retail footfall, search volumes, etc.
• Feedback from sales teams and other on-the-ground staff.

The voice of the customer is essential, and while signals from social/ digital media are valuable (and meaningful), they are not sufficiently comprehensive and reliable as measures of brand equity. Therefore, robust surveys of relevant stakeholders are still fundamental to brand equity measurement.

Do We Rely Too Heavily on Surveys?

In recent years, some marketers have challenged the reliance on survey data at the core of brand evaluation. They are seen by some:

• As a ‘rear-view mirror’ - i.e. too retrospective.
• To reflect sales and usage experience, but neither drive nor predict sales.
• As ‘over rational’ (“consumers always lie in surveys”)/
• To not take into account the ability of brand owners to ‘nudge’ consumers to purchase their brand regardless of underlying feelings.
• As not fast enough, in a world where other signals/data are available in real-time.
• As expensive/impractical for some segments or audiences.

Such views understate the degree to which survey measures are predictive of future behaviour/outcomes. There is convincing empirical evidence that improvements in survey scores do lead to higher sales and other commercial gains (though there is certainly dual causality evident, too). Noted academic and marketing scientist Koen Pauwels concluded “attitude survey metrics excel in sales prediction”¹

Customer/market surveys are rarely ‘perfect’, but they are valid solutions for evaluating brands.

Input and Output Metrics

When evaluating brands, one should look to use both input/investment and output/performance metrics. Input measures reflect the degree to which a brand owner is investing in and supporting the brand. These are, therefore, forward-looking and less about how the brand may have performed to date. Typically, one should consider:

• Marketing investment: for example, ad spend, social media presence and activity, search, events.
• Product investment: for example, brand-related R&D and innovation, number of patents.
• Existing systems and processes: such as quality management systems.
• Service performance: where this can be objectively and independently measured, can also be incorporated – for example, airlines’ punctuality performance.
• Physical presence and resources: number of branches, staff or other tangible resources.

Outcome measures such as sales, market share and profitability will be familiar to all brand owners, and obviously form part of any overall brand evaluation. Price elasticity or ability to sustain price premiums is an often-overlooked measure in this space, particularly in categories where price promotions and discounting is commonplace.

Many would consider these to be the result of a strong brand and investment behind it (i.e. the inputs and outputs above), and therefore on their own are not adequate measures of brand strength. Moreover, sales may be up or down for a variety of other factors (market/economic conditions, regulatory issues, etc.), and hence do not necessarily reflect the underlying health and strength of a brand. They should, however, always be considered.

Which Stakeholders to Survey

Most brand owners start by wishing to understand how their brand is perceived by their customers – as the old adage says, the customer is king. This would be our recommendation, though we should consider:

• Coverage: it is not good practice to survey only your customers (or people in your CRM database). It is essential to get a ‘market view’ – perceptions of your brand from both customers and non-customers.
• Intermediate parties: the relevance and impact of other opinions in the sales channel/process: brokers, retailers, etc. For example, an over-the-counter healthcare brand may need to gauge the views of pharmacists and doctors as well as consumers/patients.
• Demographic and Geography: there is often a need to cover specific customer/market segments (demographic, geographic, product-line, etc.)
• Internal users/influencers: In complex (typically B2B) purchase decisions, recommenders are a crucial stakeholder in the sales process.

In addition, depending on the brand and budgets available, it may be relevant to ascertain opinions about the brand among:

• Employees (and possibly potential employees)
• Regulators and other public officials
• General public: to track your broader corporate/brand reputation
• Media figures and/or other ‘influencers’

Typically, some trade-off will need to be made with regard to stakeholder coverage and budget/ frequency. For example, a multinational brand manager may face the question: is it more important to cover end-customers in every country in the world, or to survey the views of retailers in my five key global markets?

What to Survey

Much has been written on this subject, and many major market research agencies have standard brand equity tracking frameworks incorporating standard evaluation measures. Though there are some differences, there is broad consistency in the main dimensions to cover.

The exact mix should only be chosen after gaining a full understanding of the branded business, its market dynamics and strategic goals. Equity tracking typically features brand KPIs which summarise people’s overall opinions and feelings towards a brand, and the extent to which they are familiar with it. These should generally include:

• Awareness and familiarity
• Consideration &/or future purchase intent
• Preference

Together these three form the ‘brand funnel’ – measures which sum up the market presence and position of a brand. Much evidence suggests that consideration is the most powerful measure of these. Most brand evaluations will also include a combination of these measures.

• Overall evaluation: overall opinion/reputation/relevance – this might be ratings of the brand on straightforward questions, or a more ambitious attempt to capture emotional responses/feelings via less direct questioning or even biometric responses.
• Recommendation/advocacy: most commonly the Net Promoter System (NPS) which is a widely-used measure of customer satisfaction/recommendation. However, there is a good case for measuring actual levels of recommendation (or word-of-mouth) in addition to recommendation intentions via NPS.
• Quality, trust, value for money. In some cases, a composite metric which combines all relevant measures into a single index score; this can be helpful in summarising overall performance/progress.

Key Principles When Designing a Brand Evaluation

Brand KPIs should be commercially-validated, not ‘vanity measures’. Most of the above have been validated in some way – i.e. an increase on a given measure can be expected to translate into an improvement in sales, market share, willingness to pay a price premium, customer loyalty, etc.

Brand owners should ascertain the relationship between brand KPIs and their own commercial outcomes – generally via complex analytical modelling, but if not at least a conceptual model of why such a measure is commercially impactful. Likewise, KPIs should relate to brand inputs in a meaningful way. It is important that KPIs are sufficiently sensitive and responsive to measure marketing ROI and campaign effectiveness. Marketers need to know which actions will impact the brand.

KPIs should be aligned to brand/business strategy – for new/ emerging brands this might place greater emphasis on word-of-mouth or opinions among ‘influencers’, for example. But the core metrics above are relevant to most brands. Avoid data overload – don’t just measure everything because it can be measured. Consider the number of KPIs that provide genuine insight, or can be communicated to internal stakeholders, especially senior management.

Some of the ‘overall evaluation’ measures can be highly correlated with each other, and resource is wasted measuring virtually the same thing in 2-3 different ways. Current trends are for big brand owners to highlight a smaller number of KPIs which best predict future outcomes, and reduce duplication. KPIs must have credibility and comprehension beyond marketing/ communications teams. Consistency is important – KPIs need to be tracked over time.

Alongside the brand KPIs will be a range of diagnostic and analytic variables, where time and budgets permit – for example detailed brand image ratings, profiling variables (demographics, brand purchase history, etc.)

Budgetary constraints clearly play a part – there is little point spending $1m/year evaluating a brand whose revenues are at a similar level. Where brands or budgets are small, it may be difficult to conduct an evaluation as thoroughly or frequently as desired – but it is possible to obtain very basic measurements for just a few thousand dollars per year.

Non-Survey Measures

Survey measures should be integrated with other data signals of brand performance. These might include:

• Social media analysis: generally of volume and sentiment of posts and mentions about a brand; such analysis should cover as many social channels as possible (i.e. not just a brand’s own social channels, but a full range of social media, blogs, news sites, etc.). This should never replace survey measurement. All evidence indicates that to evaluate a brand rigorously, social media data alone is insufficient, even for brands targeting young people or heavy tech users.
• Search volumes/trends: particularly organic search. There is increasing empirical evidence that the share of search is an important indicator of brand strength.
• Review scores: which are obviously more relevant in certain categories such as travel, tourism, and restaurants.

Measurement and Reporting Frequency

Brand evaluation should be focused on assessing the underlying health of the brand, which for many mature brands evolves relatively slowly (unless there is a corporate scandal or genuinely breakthrough innovation). Hence measurement is generally geared towards relatively stable metrics which change slowly over time – consideration, overall reputation, trust, etc.

But marketers always want the most up-to-date measures, and in addition, there may be a need for frequent or continuous evaluation - e.g. to assess the impact of short-term or tactical marketing activity on brand measures.

The need for relatively expensive, ‘continuous’ tracking (with monthly reporting of KPIs which hardly differ) must be assessed carefully. For even fast-moving categories, quarterly tracking may be more than enough, and for many sectors, annual tracking will suffice.

There is no need to design a one-size-fits-all system. Smaller brands or markets can make do for lower frequency, and some evaluation systems focus on frequent KPI measurement coupled with less frequent ‘deep dives’ into brand image. And as with survey content, measurement frequency should be determined once the needs and culture of the business, and its strategic goals, are established.

Lastly, the use of non-survey measures such as review or social listening data can often fill the gaps between survey measurement periods, as these data streams are often real-time.

Reporting and Dissemination

The value of Brand Evaluation is only maximised if the results and strategic implications are widely shared to people that can act on the findings. The degree of detail and frequency must be tailored to the audience, and it is helpful to have a strategy following principles such as these below:

The reporting plan will reflect the organisational structure and culture of the brand owner – there is no set formula. But typically, senior management needs (and should be encouraged to focus on) a relatively small set of KPIs, and reporting frequency that is both insightful and actionable. The goal should be to avoid the trap of monthly reporting which concludes “it might be a blip, let’s see what next month looks like…”.

Importance Weights and Driver Analysis

A key requirement of any model is to ascribe a weight (or measure of importance) to each element, which may not be easy. Ideally, weights are derived via statistical analysis of input and output data, and within input data such as customer surveys. The latter involves conducting ‘driver analysis’, determining the likely impact on customer choice/consideration which might accrue should performance improve on an individual element (e.g. ‘innovative products’).

Of course, surveys can get people to say directly what is important to them in making their brand choices (‘stated importance’), but this approach is generally regarded as delivering over-rationalised results. Ideally, the stated importance should be assessed alongside statistically-derived importance before weights in the evaluation model are calculated.

In our model we use a combination of stated and derived importance analysis in its BSI Evaluation framework, and wherever possible sets weights based on their observed impact on brand revenues and value.

Data Sourcing

Identifying suitable data sources, and assessing its quality are important parts of the evaluation process.

Not everything that can be measured should be, and perfect measures on every dimension cannot necessarily be obtained. Even the very largest organisations have to make trade-offs in respect of data coverage (markets, stakeholders), precision, timeliness, etc.

Factors to consider:

• What data is already available internally or externally – do we really need to commission further research?
• Are there good proxy measures available for a specific dimension?
• How quickly are measures likely to change? Is data from a year or two ago suitable?
• If detailed data is not available, are the views of industry experts/ analysts a good substitute?

Conclusions

It is perhaps a no-brainer that the best brand strength evaluations are ones that thoroughly consider all the relevant brand attributes. Due diligence is so crucial when evaluating your brand.

When setting out to evaluate the strength of your brand it is often useful to have an experienced hand at the wheel, so that the exercise can be run smoothly over many years. A perfectly balanced brand strength scorecard will be the strongest tool in a marketers belt.

Brand Evaluation 101 Why Brand Evaluation Is An Important Management Practice Measuring Brand Equity The Brand Strength Index (BSI) - Our Brand Evaluation Process