MultipleStrategy

Category: Educational

  • Balancing Brand Perception and Performance

    Balancing Brand Perception and Performance

    Every brand strategy has one clear goal: generate profitable growth and sustainable cash flow. However, marketing science is split on how to achieve this. One side focuses on building consumer perceptions (what people think and feel). The other relies on the hard data of buyer behavior (what people actually do). A strong strategy requires evaluating both: balancing how a brand builds perceived value against the mathematical reality of how markets actually grow.

    Here is a direct breakdown of the core literature, analyzing the cause-and-effect pathways and the empirical limits of brand growth.

    Segment 1: How Value is Created (Keller & Swaminathan, 2020)

    Goal: Map the exact cause-and-effect chain from marketing spend to financial return. Key Points:

    • The Brand Value Chain: Value creation happens in four distinct stages. The firm makes a marketing investment, which changes the customer mindset, which improves market performance (pricing power, market share), which ultimately increases shareholder value.
    • The Multipliers: Moving from one stage to the next is not guaranteed. It is restricted by external multipliers: the actual quality of the campaign, competitor reactions in the market, and investor dynamics.
    • Investment is Not Enough: Spending money is necessary but not sufficient to create value. Because external multipliers often sit outside the marketer’s control, campaigns must be critically evaluated for their actual financial impact, not just their creative execution.

    Segment 2: Digital Measurement (France et al., 2025)

    Goal: Update traditional brand tracking with high-speed digital metrics. Key Points:

    • Speed of Data: Traditional surveys and financial audits are slow. Digital metrics like Share of Search, Digital Brand Awareness, and Digital Sentiment give managers real-time feedback.
    • Share of Search: The percentage of Google searches a brand captures compared to its competitors is a strong, early indicator of future market share and sales.
    • Data vs. Reality: While tracking online sentiment (likes, shares, comments) provides fast data, it must be critically analyzed. Online noise does not always translate directly to actual offline sales or expected financial value.

    Segment 3: The Rules of Growth (Sharp, 2010)

    Goal: Define the mathematical boundaries of brand growth using actual purchase data. Key Points:

    • The Double Jeopardy Law: Sales data across categories consistently shows that brands grow by getting more buyers, not by getting existing buyers to buy significantly more often. Small brands suffer twice: they have fewer buyers, and those few buyers purchase less frequently.
    • The Loyalty Myth: The idea that niche brands survive on small, highly loyal customer bases is empirically false. Loyalty levels remain largely the same across competing brands.
    • The Heavy Buyer Trap: Spending marketing budgets primarily to reward or cross-sell to your heaviest buyers yields a low expected return. This strategy makes the mistake of confusing past behavior with future growth potential.

    Segment 4: Finding Real Growth Potential (Trinh, Dawes, & Sharp, 2024)

    Goal: Identify exactly which consumers offer the highest expected value for sales growth. Key Points:

    • Measuring Headroom: Growth potential is found by looking at the “headroom”—how many category purchases a consumer makes without choosing your brand.
    • Maxed-Out Heavy Buyers: Heavy buyers offer almost no future expected value. They already buy your brand as much as they need to; they physically cannot consume much more of it.
    • Focus on the Masses: The highest expected return always comes from expanding reach. For small brands, up to 85% of growth potential lies with people who currently do not buy the brand at all. Even for massive market leaders, light buyers offer vastly more growth opportunity than heavy buyers.

    Effective brand management is fundamentally an exercise in resource allocation and expected value. While Keller’s models show how to build the brand awareness and associations needed to justify higher prices, this effort must be strictly guided by the empirical rules set by Sharp and Trinh. To maximize financial returns, strategies must avoid the trap of targeting a saturated base of heavy buyers, and instead relentlessly focus on expanding reach among light and non-buyers.

    Made in collaboration with Gemini 3.0

  • When Flawed Science Makes it into Top Marketing Journals

    The Journal of Marketing, published by the American Marketing Association (AMA), is arguably the most prestigious and influential journal in the entire field of marketing. If a paper is published here, it has survived one of the most brutal peer-review processes in academia.

    But even so, obviously flawed articles make it through. In this paper I review: “BMW is powerful, Beemer is not: Nickname Branding Impairs Brand Performance” by Zhang, Ye and Thomson (2025).

    The text tries to prove that when a brand uses a nickname created by consumers, it signals a “loss of authority” or a “submission” to the audience. This argument relies on the Speech Act Theory, where the authors argue that “naming” is a privilege of the powerful. Adopting a nickname is thus a sign of weakness. The text aims to prove that this perceived weakness (low brand power) is the exact reason why consumers stop buying. What they find though, is that nickname branding is unsurprisingly affected by many other criteria, such as (in my own words) the perceived intention of the advertisement and the perceived conformity of the organization.

    But this paper falls short on several validity criteria. The remaining bit will argue why the text falls short on ecological and construct validity on the basis of a select few experiments; but these select few experiments represent an issue across the majority of the paper.

    In Study 3a, the Wally vs. Walmart study, the respondents were asked which brand they found most “powerless, weak or powerful, strong” as an attempt to examine “brand power.” They then ran a mediation analysis with brand power as the mediator and purchase intention as the dependent variable. A potential issue is the fact that Wally sounds weak or powerless, while Walmart sounds more powerful. The issue here is that Wally might just score lower and affect purchase intention simply because it sounds silly. After all, Wally is a famous children’s cartoon book and Walmart is a powerful conglomerate—associations the respondents are likely to have, and associations that might affect purchase intention.

    Study 5: Admittedly, in Study 5 the authors attempted to examine if this effect exists in fictitious competent vs. warm brands—essentially ruling out the case that it’s the associations customers have with Walmart and Wally. To represent competent/warm brands, they made up a fictitious law firm and charity called Atlantic Eagle, explained to the respondents that consumers named this brand “Birdie,” and stated that the firms were using the nickname Birdie in their advertising. The issue is that Atlantic Eagle is an apex predator and a birdie is synonymous with a small, unthreatening bird. Respondents might find that a law firm calling itself Birdie is hurt by the name itself, and not by the effect of submitting power to the customer.

    This raises a question: why not test for the strength of the brand names?

    In Study 4, the authors attempt to rule out competing mechanisms. They claim that because the Consumer-Brand Relationship scores did not shift after seeing the BMW ad, nicknames do not strengthen the consumer’s connection to the brand or act as an improvement to relationships. However, they cannot confidently rule out this mechanism because their experiment lacks ecological validity. They tried to measure fluctuations in a deep, longitudinal relationship using a single, 5-second exposure to a mock X post. True Consumer-Brand Relationships are an ecosystem built over time. They cannot declare that a marketing tactic fails to strengthen brand relationships when their experimental design—a single ad experiment—is most likely fundamentally incapable of shifting this metric in the first place.

    They ran an experiment with an ad using the nickname and one with the real name, with the intention of testing Brand Power, Consumer-Brand Relationship, Brand Familiarity, and Brand Performance. They found that brand familiarity and customer brand relationships did not change after the experiment, but brand power and brand performance did. Therefore they conclude that it must be Brand Power that affects Brand Performance, with brand familiarity and customer brand relationships having little to no effect. This is obviously wrong, and contrary to existing research—which they, based on this experiment, conclude is wrong.

    Consumer-Brand Relationships develop over time and include a broader ecosystem of previous product experiences, word of mouth, and so on.

    Therefore, expecting a single ad to change this customer-brand relationship, just because the brand is using a nickname, is … I am out of words.

    To finalize, while the methodology is obviously flawed and to a certain extent smells like “design bias” (trying to prove a point using sketchy methodology—in this case: garbage in, garbage out), the text does raise some relevant questions. Does the namer matter? For example, if the third party is not just ‘the public’ but a person of superlative status, such as royalty or a celebrity, does this affect the ‘power submitted’?

    While the methodology is flawed, it could be relevant to properly investigate whether nickname branding is more powerful for brands with warm personalities or those emphasizing community values. Based on the paper, I have certain questions:

    Is nickname branding more successful if the name has positive associations? To what extent does the original perception of the brand nickname matter? And does nickname branding work better for people who actually use the brand nickname?

    Finaly, this paper passed the most brutal peer-review process in marketing, yet it bases its core conclusions on severe confounding variables and low ecological validity.

    Gemini 3.0 Has been used “as a peer reviewer” and to improve readability.

  • Why investment analysts fail to outperform – A step by step guide to institutional underperformance

    Why investment analysts fail to outperform – A step by step guide to institutional underperformance.

    Initial comment:

    In Berkshire Hathaways annual meetings Charlie Munger referred to a concept called inversion – rather than asking, “How do I achieve success?” he would ask, “What are all the things that would guarantee failure?” His strategy was simply to avoid these mistakes.

    Keeping this in mind – the following text aim to explain how and why investment analyst underperform – it does not directly answer the mistakes the average investor makes, because the text assumes an investment funds perspective. In hindsight, this would have been a more relevant article.

    A step by step guide to institutional underperformance.

    Step 1. Become institutionalised

    Rely on flawed models like GGM, CAPM or APT – while forgetting business fundamentals. Alternatively – predict the macroeconomic environment down to the decimal, but still importantly always forget business fundamentals.

    Step 2: Nepotism is key

    Skills or track records – does not matter – what matters is that your rich family can reference you. Alternatively, get referenced by a friend. If neither is an option, you ought to get lucky – because there are finance bros and macro economist with better grades than you.

    Step 3: Become complacent

    You have now gotten your job. Here it is important – stop improving. Rely on fellow analysts predictions – and speedrun your due diligence. After all – your worldview is correct and your holistic godlike predictions must outperform. This leads us to the next step.

    Step 4: You are not biased or flawed in any way

    4.1 We have already established your godlike presence.
    (The Dunning-Kruger Effect).

    4.2 Always ignore contradictory evidence
    (Confirmation Bias).

    4.3 You have made your decision, do not change your opinion (Anchoring Bias).

    4.4 You may have lost money and time researching – I REPEAT – DO NOT CHANGE YOUR MIND (Sunk Cost Fallacy).

    4.5 Your fellow investment analysts price target are way above your initial assumptions – of course you are wrong – change your assumptions to match the almighty group (Group Bias).

    If you really want to generate alpha underperformance – there are loads of other biases to rely on, such as: Availability Heuristic, Hindsight Bias, Negativity Bias, Halo Effect: Automation Bias and historical/representation Bias.

    Step 5: Fees

    Just – always take high fees. This is an almost guaranteed way to underperform (most of your coworkers actually outperform before fees – you can do better!). Also, remember, high fees = high skills.

    Step 6: Diworseify

    Never let a high-conviction idea ruin a perfectly mediocre portfolio. Once you find a great investment, immediately dilute it with 50 terrible ones to “manage risk.” After all, if you drastically underperform the index, you get fired. You are even obligated to by law.

    Final comment

    Not all investment analysts seek to outperform the market – investing is not always about making the maximum amount of money – but in many cases its about preserving wealth.

    A point I think is sadly overlooked in these “randomly throwing darts and outperform investment funds” articles.

    Also keep in mind – everyone will make some of these “mistakes” – and no step will alone lead to underperformance. It is the sum of these steps, that likely – by average – lead to underperformance.

  • Assessing brand equity – a home cooked model

    While marketing is one of the most important drivers of organic growth, the strength of a brand is rarely analyzed in depth within the investment community. Generally, the topic is discussed only vaguely, ignoring its powerful contribution to shareholder value.

    Existing research

    Plenty of research highlights ways of measuring brand value and the most reliable method often depends on the specific business model. For instance, some approaches focus on the social capital created within a brand’s network, while traditional financial models value a brand based on current profit divided by the difference between the interest rate and the profit growth rate (Swaminathan et al., 2020). Both models have inherent flaws; they often overlook each other’s contributions by focusing exclusively on either intangible assets or current income, though both are essential metrics. Thus, this model accounts for both, though to a higher degree the focus is on growth potential.

    Brand Equity

    I define Brand Equity (i.e. brand value) as the aggregate of three core pillars: Customer Perception, Market Position, and Product Utility. These factors are frequently discarded in standard models because they rely on imperfect data and require a degree of subjective interpretation. This framework seeks to bridge that gap by offering a method to get a holistic picture of the brand’s strength and growth potential.

    The market

    An essential component of brand equity is the potential of the brand. Because most companies operate in a highly competitive environment, assessing the opportunity to obtain market share is critical for future growth (i.e., current market share and market growth). Furthermore, whether a brand has a high or low market share, the threat of new entrants is a vital consideration.

    • A way to assess

    Assessing market share: Should use a combination of units sold and revenue. Relying on a single metric is often deceptive; a brand may dominate in units (Volume) but lag in profitability (Value) due to heavy discounting, or vice versa. Addressing the market share is thus: brand revenue / total market revenue and units sold / total units sold.

    Assessing market growth: While historical growth rates (CAGR) provide a baseline, they are often poor predictors of future performance, particularly in disruptive sectors. To accurately forecast growth potential, the analyst must asses: Total potential customers * average revenue pr user. It’s important to account for the time estimated – I argue for a 10 year horizon, though brands with longer plausible runway demands a higher valuation multiple.

    Assessing potential of new entries: builds upon Porters Five Forces and MOATS (i.e. network effects).

    The product

    Discrepancies between customer perception and actual product attributes may occur, typically caused by recent product launches or failures in marketing communication.

    Estimating this mismatch highlights dormant opportunities within the marketing funnel. If a product is superior to its reputation, it signals future growth potential that is likely overlooked by the market, presenting a case of undervalued equity – and vice a versa.

    Using a conjoint analysis would be ideal, but is in many cases too costly.

    • A way to assess

    The analyst must assess the correlation between target group needs and product positioning. For instance, in the laptop market, ease of use and screen size may drive high utility for older generations, whereas Gen Z consumers might prioritize portability above all else.

    In many cases, Psychographic Segmentation (analysis based on lifestyle and personality) provides more direct insight than simple demographics, allowing for a more accurate assessment of whether the product actually fits the user’s life.

    The customer perception

    A substantial component of brand value is brand perception. The marketing funnel provides insight into this. Accordingly, a brand’s strength depends on the efficiency of its marketing funnel and its capacity for optimization.

    High Awareness / Low Conversion: This often signals general dissatisfaction with the product or pricing. If the company improves the product’s utility, a rapid increase in market share is plausible.

    Low Awareness / High Loyalty: This presents a clear “scaling” play. The product works; the company simply needs to increase advertising spend to reach a broader audience.

    • A way to assess

    Tools such as Brandwatch and Google Trends provide valuable insights into Word of Mouth (WOM) and customer sentiment. A discrepancy where high social volume does not translate into sales typically signals a bottleneck between Awareness and Consideration. However, the significance of this metric varies significantly by sector.

    In aggregate

    The true power of this model lies not in analyzing these pillars in isolation, but in observing their convergence—or lack thereof. By overlaying Market Position, Product Utility, and Customer Perception, one can uncover specific investment narratives that traditional financial models miss:

    • The Value Play (High Utility / Low Perception): A brand with a superior product but weak marketing or low awareness is an “operational fix” away from growth. If management is competent enough to fix the marketing funnel, the stock is likely undervalued relative to its potential.
    • The Value Trap (Low Utility / High Perception): A brand resting on its laurels. High awareness and historical prestige can mask a degrading product (e.g., legacy luxury or tech hardware). This divergence is a leading indicator of future market share loss, regardless of current robust earnings.
    • The Compounder (High Utility / High Perception / Growing Market): The rare case where all three align. While these usally trade at higher multiples, the durability of their growth is often underestimated by financial models.

    Ultimately, true Brand Equity isn’t a single, magical metric. It is the exact point where Market Position, Product Utility, and Customer Perception intersect.

    If you only look at one pillar, you get a distorted view. A great product means nothing if the market is shrinking. Incredible perception is useless if the product is fundamentally flawed. But when you evaluate all three pillars together, you stop guessing about a brand’s strength. You get a stronger picture of whether a company’s growth engine is actually functioning, where the bottlenecks are, and whether the market has mispriced its true potential.

    Future research (improve)

    Research on casual relationships between brand equity and shareholder value are to my knowledge still limited. Finally, other theories or models might provide more useful in different or all segments.

    Discussion

    Segmentation Constraints: Focusing on one segment demographics (Age/Location) or psychographics (Lifestyle), can lead to overlooking sales from secondary groups, leading to incorrect assumptions.

    The Execution Gap: Identifying a gap in the marketing funnel is not the same as fixing it. This model identifies potential value, but it implicitly assumes management is capable of executing the pivot. They might not be.

    Capacity Constraints: If a company successfully capitalizes on increased brand equity, can they fulfill the demand? For companies with complex supply chains, increased desire without increased capacity leads to customer frustration, not revenue.

    Already Priced In: Brand Equity is an input, not a buy signal in isolation. A company with massive brand power (e.g., Apple or Hermès) may already be priced for perfection.

    Notes

    Share of revenue, profit margin relative to competitors, return on marketing expenditures, pricing power, perceptual mapping. High and low MOA.

    Pricing power and network effects are often mentioned, but pricing power is a feature of other marketing effects.

    Swaminathan, V., Sorescu, A., Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., O’Guinn, T. C. G., & Schmitt, B. (2020). Branding in a hyperconnected world: Refocusing theories and rethinking boundaries. Journal of Marketing, 84(2), 24–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242919899905

    Gemini 3.0 has been used to improve language.

  • The fallacy of returns

    The Fallacy of Returns

    Many investors fall into the trap of buying stocks simply because prices have risen or fallen, ignoring the crucial role of company fundamentals. Stock prices fluctuate based on countless factors unrelated to earnings or equity growth. Consequently, volatility can make investments look successful or disastrous largely by chance. A poor investment might yield positive capital gains, while a sound one could result in losses.

    This is arguably one of the biggest pitfalls, for me included; taking profits or mitigating losses while forgetting that the company that doubled in market cap also increased its earnings and positioned itself for continuous growth. Thus, selling or buying a company to secure gains or mitigate losses is a mistake, as this ignores business and market fundamentals.

    Finally, it is not always right to be a contrarian; the stupidity of the market might actually be correct. What matters is not volatility, market sentiment, or when a stock has been purchased.

  • How do brands create value?

    A summary of Kevin Keller and Donald Lehmanns (…) on how shareholder value ultimately stems from a chain of events – starting from the marketing program.

    • How does brand value get created?
    • The Brand Value Chain -> Tracing the value creation
    • Assuming the brand value resides with the customers

    In short – Firm makes branding activity -> Which in turn influences customers -> Which in turn dictates brand performance -> And thus ♥ shareholder value ♥ –

    • Marketing program investment entails:
      The marketing effort such as communication and product
    • Customer mindset entails:
      How well and which customers recognise and recall the brand, the strength and availability of the brand, how loyal the customer feels, generel attitude toward the brand and how much the customer uses and talks about the brand
    • Brand performance entails:
      Price elacity and how much does demand change with price changes – also market share
    • Shareholder value entails:
      Stock price, price to earnings ratio and market cap

    How well each value stage performs depends on three marketing multiplers: Program quality, Marketplace conditions & Investor sentiment.

    Marketing program investment -> Customer Mindset
    – Is affected by program quality
    Customer mindset -> Brand performance
    – Is affected by marketplace conditioning’s
    Brand performance -> Shareholder value
    – Is affected by investor sentiment

    Program quality entails:
    – Will consumers properly interpret marketing efforts, is it relevant to consumers, is it unique compared to competitors and is it consistent

    Marketplace conditioning’s entails:
    – how effective branding is compared to competition, how well branding is supported by other channels/intermediaries and the size and customer profiles

    Investor sentiment entails:
    – Brand growth potential, the likelyhood of this growth (affected by metrics such as competition), brand size of overall portfolio, overall dynamics & risks

    Own reflections

    While shareholder value is characterised by stock price, price earnings ratio and market capitalisation – this fails to capture dilution of shares outstanding – thus elements such as eps or book value pr share or valuation ratios such as price earnings or price book are stronger measurements of shareholder value.

    Kevin Keller and Donald Lehmanns argue that differentiation/uniqueness of the marketing program relative to competitors – as an indicator for how efficient marketing expenditures are – though somewhat contradicting their second point of relevance to marketing customers – as biggest market players rarely will be using niche strategy – appealing to customer needs and wants (highest conjoint utility) – should be in most cases prioritised above differentiation.

  • Template

    Template

    Company Name + Ticker

    INTRO

    • WHATS THE COMPANY

    STRATEGY & MARKETING

    • COMPETETIVE ADVANTAGE + MOAT

    VALUATION

    • EARNINGSYIELD
    • QUALITY
      • RETURN ON ASSETS/REVENUE
    • BALANCESHEET

    CONCLUSION

    EXTRA/OPTIONAL:

    MARKET & TRENDS

    COMPETITION

    Research Lingo

  • Screening – A short guide

    Screening – A short guide

    Screening – A short guide

    Introduction

    Finding investments can be done in a series of different ways – some being tedious and time consuming.
    I use a few different methodologies.

    Methodology (screening)

    Screening by ratios

    • Often quality companies enjoy high profitability and or low debt while less liquid companies might enjoy depressed valuations due to being overlooked or unavailable to big institutions (Lynch, 2000). Thus screeners such as MarketScreener are sometimes used.

    Noticing real life companies

    • Noticing an upcoming product or a quality service might lead to noticing companies or trends before the rest of the market (Lynch, 2000).

    Financial commentators

    • Other analysts, podcasts or youtubers might provide insights into companies. Though, this is my least desireble way to find companies – sometimes, something exciting will come up.

    Trends & themes

    • Selecting stocks from theme based funds, can be a way to get exposure toward companies with macroeconomic tail – or headwinds. Often macro economists and investment analysts, will under-perform based on macroeconomic forecasts (Taleb, 2005). Thus, I try to find quality companies with depressed valuations due to headwinds.

    References

    Peter Lynch. One Up Wallstreet. Book. 2000.

    Nassim Nicholas Taleb. Fooled By Randomness. Book. 2005.

  • Research Lingo

    Research Lingo

    Sustainability & Diversity

    • Teleology
      • Teleological
      • Deontological
    • Planetary Bounderies
    • Seven sins of misleading advertisements

    Customer value co creation

    • Consumer, Consumer Journey & Touchpoints

    Sensory & Experiential marketing

    • Experiential marketing
    • Sensory marketing

    Innovation process & Consumer insights

    • Meeting consumer needs framework
      • Co-creation
      • Consumer insight
      • Using personas
      • Design thinking
    • Crowd sourcing
      • Inbound/Outbound Innovation
      • The double diamond approach
      • Gamification & Equity theory
      • Crowd selection
      • Competition, cooperation & loosing
    • Co creation & Technology
    • Portfolio Management
    • Responsible Research & Innovation (RRI)
    • Harms modelling
    • Batwove Assement

    Omnichannel

    • Omni channel continium
      • Unconnected, Horizontal, Vertical & Complete
    • Key determinants
      • Consumer behaviour: Perception of integration, Impact on outcomes, Customer profitability/ multichannel buyers, customer segmentation & research shopping
      • Marketing: Adding channels, Marketing cross-effects, Task sharing & Harmonizing marketing
      • Beyond channels
    • Integrated Marketing Communication (IMC)
      • Inside-Out/Outside-In Orientation
      • Changed conditions (Media & Consumer)
      • Changes in flow
      • IMC Challenges
        • Loss of control of marketing communication
        • Content marketing
        • Dialogue and network communication
        • Management of multiple stakeholders
      • Principles for customer centricity / IMC
        • Relationship Orientation
        • Content Orientation
        • Process Orientation
      • Implementation framework of customer-centric IMC (Bruhn & Schnebelen, 2015)
    • Physical CX – The phygital customer experience framework (Batat, 2022)
      • Driving Force
      • Connectors
      • Pillars

    Strategic brand management

    Introduction

    • Brand Definitions
    • Conceptualizing brands and perspectives
      • Firm perspective
        • Strategic approach
        • Financial approach
      • Customer perspective
        • Economic approach
        • Psychological approach
      • Society perspective
        • Sociological approach
        • Cultural approach
    • Blurring & Broadening of Branding
      • Four streams of storytelling – “an empty container”
        • Companies
        • Popular Culture
        • Influencers
        • Customers
    • Branding in hyperconnected world (Swaminathan et al., 2020
    • Rethinking the role of brands (Swaminathan et al., 2020)

    Consumer Brand Equity

    • Brand Resonance Model
      • Identity: Brand Awareness & Brand Image
      • Meaning: Node Network & Points of Parity
      • Brand Response: Brand Judgements (Cognitive Response) & Brand Feelings (Affective Response)
      • Brand Relationship: Brand Ressonance
    • Stages in Brand Developments
      • 1. Brand Identity -> 2. Brand Meaning -> 3. Brand Response -> 4. Brand Relationships
    • Brand Value
      • The Brand Value Chain (Investment -> Mindset)
        • Market Program Investment -> Multiplier
          -> Customer Mindset
      • The Brand Value Chain (Mindset -> Shareholdervalue)
        • Customer Mindset -> Multiplier Market Conditioning -> Brand Performance -> Investor Sentiment -> Shareholder Value

    Brand Identity & Positioning

    • Brand Identity
    • Brand Identity Mix
      • Properties, Products, Presentations & Publications
    • Organization Identity Structures
      • Monolithic (corporate), Branded (brand) & Endorsed (multiple business)
    • Brand Elements Should Be: Memorable, Meaningful & Proctetable
    • Brand Positioning
      • Strategic view: Intended Positioning -> (Execution Failure) Actual Positioning -> (Relevance Failure) Percieved Positioning
    • Types of Positioning
      • Features, Abstracts, Direct Benefits, Indirect & Surrogate Positioning
    • Brand Differentiation
    • Distinctiveness
    • Consumer Culture Positioning (Alten et al., 1999)
      • Global Consumer Culture Positioning
        • Consumers who –
        • Product Categories with –
        • Brands that are –
      • Local Consumer Culture Positioning
        • Consumers who –
        • Product Categories with –
        • Brands that are –
      • Foreign Consumer Culture Positioning
        • Consumers who –
        • Product Categories with –
        • Brands that are –

    Brand Communication

    Digital Branding

    Brand Experience & Touchpoints

    Brand Equity Measurements

    Brand Architecture

    Brand Innovation

    Consumer Brand Relationships

    Brand Loyality

    Brand Crisis & Risk Management

    Ethics & Sustainbility in Branding

    Future Of Branding

    Strategy

    • Porters Five Forces
    • PESTEL
    • Boston Matrix
    • Competitive Edge
      • Scale & Scope
    • MOAT

    Marketing in the digital age

    • Customer Value
    • Word of mouth
    • Network Effect
    • Streetlight Effect
    • The Marketing Mix
      • 4 Ps (product, place, price & promotion)
      • 4 Cs (communication, convenience, customer cost & customer solution).
    • Earned, paid & owned media
    • Conjoint
    • Share of wallet
    • Total addressable market
    • Omni channel

    Consumer Psychology

    • Ajzen: Theory of planned behaviour
    • Pavlov: Stimuli
    • Tversky & Kahneman:
      • System 1 & 2
      • Prospect Theory (Loss Aversion)
    • Fazio: Attitude & Accessibility
    • Elaboration Likelihood Model: Central & Perephial Route Processing

    Metholodgy