Aug 7, 2025 | Analytics, Branding
Investing in building a brand is only done by rational people when they can reasonably expect a return on that investment in the future.
Even with the benefit of hindsight, putting a value on a brand is an exercise in both judgement and maths. Most disregard the maths and invest because the marketing textbook says it is a good idea.
The outcome of having a brand with market power is increased cashflow. Luckily, cashflow is measurable absolutely in the past, and possible within boundaries of probability in the immediate future. The challenge is setting those boundaries of probability.
The purpose of investing in a brand building program is very simply to build incremental future cash flow. To that end, there are only three considerations.
Mental availability.
A brand provides ‘mental availability’ when a potential prospect is in the market. This is a different metric to the more common ‘awareness’ metric, as it implies that when a potential customer starts the process of considering alternatives to addressing a challenge they face, your brand is front and centre. Awareness lacks the second component. Coca Cola has huge awareness, but that does not do you much good when you come into the market for a new car.
Differentiation.
A brand articulates in a prospects mind why they should use you rather than a competitor to address their problem. Differentiation is only useful when it is wrapped around something competitors cannot or choose not to do. To continue the car analogy. For the last few years, a few new car buyers wanted to be seen as a sensible, ecologically aware and able to afford an expensive car that projects a specific image felt an electric car was the best option. Tesla was the only viable choice. That has rapidly changed as competitors finally caught up the technology, are producing objectively better cars at a cheaper price, at a time when the Tesla brand has been tarnished.
Greater value.
The third is the promise to deliver value to the customer greater than they would find elsewhere. Value is not the cost to the customer, although it is a key component of the equation.
Value = Utility – Cost.
As you increase utility, the impact of cost on the calculus of value lessens. Conversely, utility is a combination of quantitative and qualitative assessments every buyer will make, usually without great consideration. In the case of Tesla, the utility of owning one of their cars has been reduced substantially, so the value of the brand has been significantly reduced.
The key question in attaching a value to a brand is therefore the ‘Utility’ it delivers that is convertible into future cash flow.
In the literature, and established practises of those who value brands for a living, there are many ways to do the calculation.
Following are a few of the more obvious.
- Brand attributable cash flow. What percentage of gross margin can be attributed to the brand. Attribution is one of the ‘stickiest’ problems in marketing, so be very careful to separate reality from what you would like to believe. User research is the only way to be as sure as you can be.
- Royalty premium. Brand licencing is a well-worn track. What would you be prepared to pay to have that aspirational brand on your product?
- Price premium, and elasticity. What premium to the market average does your brand attract, and how ‘price elastic’ is that premium? Years ago when Meadow Lea was king of the margarine market, it held a dominating market share at premium prices. This meant that the benchmark shelf price was roughly the same as the alternative brands, usually just a cent or two more, but the promotional discounts demanded by retailers were less, we were able to attract significant added shelf space as there was ‘pantry stocking’ happening when of special, we won the preferred time slots for promotion, we did not need to promote quite so often, and the volume differences between standard sales at standard shelf price and on promotion sales were not as dramatic as competitors. It is not always just the headline price that counts.
- Weighted distribution. What percentage of distribution points that could stock your brand do so. This is mostly a measure for B2C, and it is too often forgotten.
- Customer repeat purchase. How often does a customer purchase your brand compared to others? Repeat purchase, particularly at non promotion prices is the holy grail of FMCG marketing. Price discounting in FMCG has just about destroyed all but the very best brands, so this measure needs to be able to filter out price as the motivation. For example, a house-brand at a standard discounted price to the market may seem to have a high repeat purchase rate, but price can be the determining driver for some consumers. Besides, an expectation of a low price is a lousy brand attribute, and does not contribute meaningfully to brand value.
- Net promoter score. This has become a widely used measure, and sadly, widely misused. Every time I pay an insurance premium, I get an emailed NPS survey asking about my experience. Clearly, the insurance company marketing people are deluded about the drivers of the payment of another insurance premium.
- Mental availability. This is the ‘kingmaker’ measure in many markets. I added it here as it is a measure that is calculatable with market research.
The word ‘Brand’ can mean many different things to a casual observer. To those who understand the word from a commercial perspective it is simply a device that is an indicator of the probability of future cash flow.
Aug 1, 2025 | Branding, Marketing
‘Loyalty’ means that a consumer has internalised the value promised.
The purchase becomes automatic.
This is different to habit, which is easily disrupted. Loyalty comes from the ‘gut’ and confirms there is no alternative.
The only choice for a loyal consumer is to go without if their store is out of stock, or go down the road to another retailer.
Marketers often (usually) mistake preference and habit for loyalty. Market research usually makes the same mistake, acting as confirmation to marketers.
I drink a fair bit of coffee, working from home, and doing the ‘thinking’ stuff in the morning. To feed the habit, I buy a particular brand of coffee beans, almost always when it is on special. I also tend to ‘pantry-stock’.
The ‘normal’ shelf price is close to $40 a kilo. On special, it is usually $20 -$25.
Is my buying habit loyalty, or is it better described as regular or preferred?
If I was truly a loyal consumer, I would buy my preferred brand at ‘full’ price, but I never do.
On occasions when I have run out, I buy an alternative brand closer to the now benchmark price of $20. it is my opportunity to check out other brands, usually one I am in some way familiar with, that happens to be on special that week.
No loyalty shown there, only preference when the circumstances are right for me. Subject to the performance test of now and again, buying a competitor, I stick with my preferred brand, for now.
Jul 28, 2025 | Change, Strategy
My time is spent assisting SME’s to improve their performance. This covers their strategic, marketing, and operational performance. Deliberately, I initially try and downplay focus on financial performance as the primary measures, as they are outcomes of a host of other choices made throughout every business.
It is those choices around focus, and resource allocation that need to be examined.
Unfortunately, the financial outcomes are the easiest to measure, so dominate in every business I have ever seen.
When a business is profitable, even if that profit is less that the cost of capital, management is usually locked into current ways of thinking. Even when a business is marginal or even unprofitable, it is hard to drive change in the absence of a real catalyst, such as a creditor threatening to call in the receivers, or a keystone customer going elsewhere.
People are subject to their own experience and biases, and those they see and read about in others.
Convention in a wider context, status quo in their own environment.
Availability bias drives them to put undue weight in the familiar, while dismissing other and especially contrary information.
Confirmation bias makes us unconsciously seek information that confirms what we already believe, while obscuring the contrary.
Between them, these two forces of human psychology cements in the status quo, irrespective of how poor that may be.
Distinguishing between convention and principle is tough, as you need to dismiss these natural biases that exist in all of us. We must reduce everything back to first principles, incredibly hard, as we are not ‘wired’ that way.
The late Daniel Kahneman articulated these problems in his book ‘Thinking fast and Slow’ based on the data he gathered with colleague Amos Tversky in the seventies. This data interrogated the way we make decisions by experimentation, which enables others to quantitively test the conclusions, rather than relying on opinion.
That work opened a whole new field of research we now call ‘Behavioural Economics’ and won Kahneman the Nobel prize. Sadly however, while many have read and understand at a macro level these biases we all feel, it remains challenging to make that key distinction between convention, the way we do it, the way it has always been done, and the underlying principles that should drive the choices we make.
As Richard Feynman put it: “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool. So, you have to be very careful about that.”
Jul 23, 2025 | Governance, rant
Last week’s “unintended” Treasury leak about the unsustainable state of the budget fooled nobody who’s been around the block. It is an old trick: float a policy balloon, wait for the howls, then retreat or advance, depending on which way the wind is blowing.
Fiscal discipline? We all cheer for it as long as it doesn’t hit our own slice of the pie.
The Treasurer’s challenge is less about balancing numbers, and more about navigating the swamp of human psychology. We feel the pain of losing a perk much more strongly than the pleasure of gaining it.
Daniel Kahneman called it “Loss Aversion”.
Hand out a benefit to appease a small group, and you’ve just set a trap for your future self. Try clawing it back, and the noise will make a toddler’s tantrum look civil. Ever tried taking a birthday present from a six-year-old? Good luck.
That’s how government spending grows. Drip by drip, group by group. Give out enough trinkets and nobody notices until it’s time to start collecting them back. Suddenly, the losers organise, mobilise, and scream bloody murder, while the rest of us just mutter, shake our heads at the stupidity of it all, and pay the bill.
Take the latest fuss over super accounts above $3 million. Only a handful are affected, but the outrage is theatrical. Why? Because the few that are in line to benefit do not want that benefit stripped away. Meanwhile the vast majority of us will not be affected, but do tend to be caught up in the emotion of being rorted by the government, again, without understanding the facts.
Nobody wants their treat taken away, but most are perfectly happy to see cuts, as long as it’s not their treat on the chopping block.
Maybe we’re just a nation of optimists who secretly believe we’ll all be in the $3 million club one day. Dream on.
The real leak here? Not Treasury’s numbers, but the enduring political tactic: float a “mistake,” watch the reaction, then call it consultation. Mr. Chalmers is no stranger to policy trial balloons.
Header courtesy of DALL-E
Jul 21, 2025 | Change, Governance
Few readers will have heard of Hyman Minsky. However, given the Australian parliament reconvenes in its post-election form tomorrow, it may be time.
Minsky was a prominent economist whose theories, labelled ‘Financial Instability Hypothesis’ were largely ignored until the financial crisis in 2008.
The dominating financial theory before the wake-up of 2008 was that financial markets were generally efficient, reflecting the best information available at any one time.
The financial crisis killed that idea.
Suddenly Minsky’s theory was that markets are driven not by just the available information, but by cycles of greed, fear, and the pursuit of power. (I feel certain that Daniel Kahneman would have agreed)
I wondered if the same cycle could be applied to the Australian body politic and economy.
It seemed an appropriate time for such thoughts, heading as we are into a term of government where the incumbent has a huge majority, and no effective opposition.
So how appropriate is the Minsky cycle to the current political and economic environment the Albanese government faces?
In the aftermath of the election, aware sentiment can change quickly, the Government surprises, and turns risk averse. After all, they now believe they have several terms to ‘get stuff done’, and do not control the Senate. This starts to create frustration in the electorate, as it seems obvious that genuine change is more possible now than for the last 30 years. Only vocal interest groups are scaring the government into inaction. The presence of such hoarding of political capital provides the catalyst for a renewed opposition to effectively attack the inaction on pressing issues.
The cynic in me assumes that none of the challenges we face as a country will be adequately addressed. Politics has devolved into a Ponzi scheme of elaborate lies, misdirects, and inaction. The focus is on gaining and keeping political power for the sake of the power, not for the long-term betterment of the country.
The optimist in me is tempted to listen to the practiced rhetoric of the two leading Labor figures and think: ‘perhaps this time’.
The header is my adaptation of the Minsky cycle reproduced below.
With apologies to Hyman Minsky.HET: Hyman P. Minsky
