Quick Question- First Response
Jonah Bloom, Executive Editor of Advertising Age magazine, is the first to respond:
"Not sure about brand excitement, although I'd measure it in positive tv news/press/website/blog mentions multiplied by the readership of said vehicles.
But I have to take issue with your suggestion that brand awareness and image are "well defined?" Are you kidding me?
They might have more history than brand excitement, and there may be some cod measures out there designed to quantify them, but they are reinterpreted every time they are used and when they are quantified it is normally by people who are essentially hoodwinking someone else into believing that they've changed something.
Even if "brand awareness" has been improved and that is a proven fact, what does that then mean anyway? Does it always translate to improved sales? Not always. Does it definitely shift stock price? Not always. Does it better position the brand for growth? Not always. Does it mean the right people now know about the brand's values/selling propositions? Not always.
I guess what i am saying is that brand excitement need not be any more fluffy than brand awareness. Both sound pretty fluffy from where i'm sitting, and my guess is that in the hands of smart/thorough executives they could be useful concepts, while they might be as good as useless in the hands of a marketer who thinks their job starts and ends with an output.
That's my tuppenceworth...
JB"
"Not sure about brand excitement, although I'd measure it in positive tv news/press/website/blog mentions multiplied by the readership of said vehicles.
But I have to take issue with your suggestion that brand awareness and image are "well defined?" Are you kidding me?
They might have more history than brand excitement, and there may be some cod measures out there designed to quantify them, but they are reinterpreted every time they are used and when they are quantified it is normally by people who are essentially hoodwinking someone else into believing that they've changed something.
Even if "brand awareness" has been improved and that is a proven fact, what does that then mean anyway? Does it always translate to improved sales? Not always. Does it definitely shift stock price? Not always. Does it better position the brand for growth? Not always. Does it mean the right people now know about the brand's values/selling propositions? Not always.
I guess what i am saying is that brand excitement need not be any more fluffy than brand awareness. Both sound pretty fluffy from where i'm sitting, and my guess is that in the hands of smart/thorough executives they could be useful concepts, while they might be as good as useless in the hands of a marketer who thinks their job starts and ends with an output.
That's my tuppenceworth...
JB"
posted by B.V. at 8/11/2005
1 Comments:
Thanks for the reply.
Your equation is interesting, at least it provides a yardstick (although getting a grip on circulation, ahem, appears to be a problem in some circles).
Depending on the sort of mentions, negative or positive, it could be more a measure of "brand horror" than "brand excitement." Which goes to your point about whether or not it has any meaning in relation to or effect on sales, stock price, growth, etc.
-B.V.
Post a Comment
<< Home