Don’t Let History Hold You Back - How to Enhance Your Brand Health Tracking.

The tools and methods for tracking brand health have evolved significantly over time, reflecting changes in our understanding of how people think, technology and business priorities. This article explores the history of brand health measurement, delves into the challenges faced by today’s brand owners, and proposes ways to enhance brand tracking by blending methodologies and data sources so brand teams are focused on the metrics that matter most.

A (very) Brief History of Brand Health / Research Developments

We are all aware the concept of branding goes way back, but brand measurement and market research are a little more than 100 years old.

In the first three decades of the 20th century, advertising agencies and marketing departments developed the basic techniques to understand how and why consumers used brands.

The advent of commercial radio in the 1920s, (and television in the 1940s), led a number of market research companies to be formed, one of the most notable being AC Nielsen in 1923. 

The 1940s  attracted increased interest in motivational research with Ernest Dichter recognised as one of the key proponents of this qualitative methodology to understand consumer behaviour.

The 1970s saw the introduction of tracking data and in 1976 Maurice Millward and Gordon Brown (Millward Brown) conducted their first continuous tracking study.

Thanks to the contributions of David Aaker and others, the 1990s saw a shift toward measuring brand equity, the intangible value that a brand adds to a product.  

The 2010s-2020s saw a number of significant breakthroughs in our understanding of how purchase decisions are made and how brands grow, which has led to a more science orientated framework for marketing.

In 2011, Daniel Kahneman released his seminal book ‘Thinking, Fast and Slow’ explaining the two systems that influence behaviour.  Understanding the implicit level of decision-making and how, as marketers, we use this insight to develop brand strategies and measure effectiveness was a transformational development.

The year prior, Byron Sharp released ‘How Brands Grow’, which urged marketers to concentrate on making their brands easy to think of and easy to buy, by building Mental & Physical Availability, shifting the emphasis of brand tracking toward salience and away from metrics such as brand loyalty.

Now, in the present day, advancements in AI are having a significant influence on;

i)  what data is being collected, for example the use of ‘synthetic consumers’ to provide faster and cheaper insight

ii) How the data is analysed, for example assessing the effectiveness of multiple pieces of creative work in real time.

The history of brand health tracking reflects the evolution of marketing itself, from the early days of awareness and recall to today’s focus on salience and behavioural science.  As brand owners navigate the challenges of staying up to date they must prioritise metrics that are strategically relevant and scientifically grounded.

Challenges for Brand Managers Today

Many brand owners have been tracking metrics like awareness, consideration, and preference for decades. 

These metrics provide continuity and historical context, but may not fully reflect the advancements in our understanding of how the brain works, what influences behaviour and how brands are recalled in buying situations.  The opportunity lies in integrating newer concepts like mental availability into existing tracking so you don’t lose the ability to compare past performance.

This evolution will require an open-minded approach and partners who are willing to help you enhance your brand tracking by blending methodologies.  

For example the ‘How Brands Grow’ theories offered by The Ehrenberg Bass Institute and the ‘Brand Equity Measurement’ offered by organisations such as IPSOS can be seen as complementary frameworks that enrich our understanding of brand performance and consumer behaviour.  I don’t know if EBI and IPSOS agree, but I do know that this is a common dilemma faced by clients and one that I offer this pragmatic perspective;

Breadth vs. Depth:

Mental Availability focuses on breadth: being present across a wide range of buying situations through distinctiveness and ‘mental pathways’ (a term Jenni Romaniuk proposes as a way to think of Category Entry Points). 

Ipsos measures the depth of brand associations: understanding emotional, functional, and rational benefits driving equity.

Measurement Alignment:

Mental Availability metrics like Mental Market Share and Category Entry Points correlate with Ipsos’ measures of brand relevance and salience.

Both approaches recognise the importance of memory and emotional resonance, albeit with slightly different lenses, i.e. memory structures vs. consumer perceptions.

Potential Integration:

Recognising that ‘someone can’t give consideration to something they haven’t yet thought of’, combining these approaches can create a holistic strategy:

Use SmilingCFO to quantify and grow Mental Availability by ensuring the brand is thought of in more buying situations.

Use Ipsos’ framework to enhance equity by deepening associations with those attributes that act as tie-breakers in the ‘Consideration’ phase of decision making.

Key Considerations when blending methodologies/trackers”

i) Data Integration: Ensure seamless merging of datasets to avoid silos.

ii) Stakeholder Alignment: Clearly communicate the value of blended metrics to the C-Suite, showing how they enhance decision-making.

iii) Test and Learn: Pilot the blended tracker with one brand or market before scaling.

The Intersection of Brand Health Tracking and Brand Strategy

The integration of brand strategy and brand health tracking creates a powerful system for brand building. 

Commenting in 2018 on their IPA Effectiveness Sliver Award, Dom Dwight, Marketing Director of Yorkshire Tea at the time, explained;

Sure enough, earlier this year, Yorkshire Tea deservedly won Gold for their submission, ‘Long Term Brand Building Done Proper’.

Aligning Metrics with Strategic Objectives

A key way to integrate tracking and strategy is by ensuring that metrics align with strategic goals. For instance:

A brand seeking to expand market share should prioritise metrics like Mental Market Share, which can be influenced by diagnostic metrics such as Mental Penetration and Network Size.  

This alignment ensures that the marketing metrics being measured correlate with the business KPIs, resulting in greater engagement and clarity for employees and stakeholders inside and outside the organisation.  For example, there is a clear correlation between Mental Market Share (MMS) and actual Market Share, so by tracking MMS and making the results visible to the business, everyone can share in the success, or if improvements are required, better understand the reasons for the mitigating actions.

What you measure should also be reflective of the maturity of your brand.

If you are a new brand you should be most concerned with whether buyers of the category can associate your brand with that category.  Prompted Awareness is the best measurement for this.

As you set about establishing your brand in the category, you will want to increase the number of buyers who associate your brand with at least one category entry point.  Mental Penetration is the metric you should track.  The SmilingCFO Database shows those able to make a link are significantly more likely to purchase the brand than those who cannot.

As your brand matures it will be increasingly important to widen the number of CEPs the brand is associated with in order to have the best possible chance of being thought of in multiple buying situations.  Tracking Network Size will help you monitor progress.  

Data-Informed Decision Making

Brand tracking ensures that strategic decisions are grounded in consumer insights and market realities. For instance:

i)  Market Entry Strategies: When launching in a new category or region, tracking tools can assess baseline awareness and identify opportunities for ‘relative differentiation’.

https://www.marketingweek.com/ritson-differentiation-uniqueness

ii)  Competitive Positioning: Tracking metrics like Mental Availability and Mental Advantage, (the extent to which a brand’s association with a CEP is greater than expected),  reveals how the brand performs relative to competitors, enabling strategic adjustments to increase the probability of the brand being thought of in buying situations.  I write more about this in a separate article;

https://smilingcfo.co.uk/strong-brands-have-healthy-mental-availability/

Tracking brand health is a vital part of brand strategy, but there are some common pitfalls to avoid:

i) Overcomplicating the Tracking System

Using too many metrics or overly complex frameworks can overwhelm stakeholders and dilute focus.  In her book ‘Better Brand Health’, Jenni Romaniuk suggests circa 60% of a tracker should be dedicated to Category Entry Points, 30% ‘Other Attributes’ and 10% Attitude Statements.  Even though it could be considered a commercial measurement within the business, I would always recommend adding a Pricing metric to your brand tracking.  

ii) Lack of Actionable Insights

We have all sat through Brand Health Reports that are overly complex and fail to drive action, meaning tracking becomes a box-ticking exercise rather than a tool for growth.  Use dashboards and storytelling techniques to communicate the “why” behind the data.

iii) Focusing on Short-Term Gains Over Long-Term Equity

Prioritising metrics that track immediate sales uplifts while ignoring those that measure brand strength over time is a mistake.  Balance short-term metrics (e.g., conversion rates) with long-term metrics (e.g. mental availability).

iv) Lack of Stakeholder Engagement

Metrics are not communicated effectively to key stakeholders, leading to disinterest or scepticism.  Tailor insights to stakeholder priorities, emphasising financial and strategic implications.

The Importance of Training

Having reached the point where you are comfortable you have the right brand health tracker in place, invest the time to ensure that your teams and your stakeholders understand it.  In my experience many brand teams have a superficial understanding of what is being measured, not through lack of engagement or capability, but because they have not been trained.  They need to be immersed in both the strategies and the metrics that drive brand growth as well as being provided the frameworks that enable them to interpret the data and build the necessary action plan.

For the wider stakeholder group such as the CFO the level of understanding need not be as deep, but time should be spent showing how the brand metrics being tracked correlate with business KPIs.

Conclusion – Navigating the Future of Brand Health Tracking

As brand health tracking continues to evolve, it’s clear that no single metric or methodology holds all the answers. The history of brand measurement reminds us of the importance of adapting to advancements in neuroscience, technology and evidence based marketing frameworks.

Integrating concepts like Mental Availability into existing brand tracking frameworks and taking the opportunity to question some of what is currently being measured will move you forward.  Now is not the time to be precious about what has gone before.  

Marketers have a strategically critical role in any organisation and need to continue to demonstrate that what is measured drives both brand performance and business performance.  Ensure that your team and wider stakeholders understand what is being measured and why.  

In an era where consumers move seamlessly between digital and physical spaces, the ability to measure what matters most and then adapt strategies quickly will be a defining advantage. Don’t let history hold you back; let it guide you forward.

Further Reading

Better Brand Health – Jenni Romaniuk

Decoded – Phil Barden

Thinking, Fast and Slow – Daniel Kahneman

Put Mental Availability and Physical Availability at the heart of your strategic thinking.