This development is also reflected in business news. Publications of current research results on the strength of brands enjoy great popularity. For example, Interbrand annually publishes a ranking of the strongest brands, and TNS EMNID annually compiles a list of so-called Superbrands for Great Britain – brands that enjoy immense popularity and affection in England. The result of this development: in 2003 alone, over 30 brand valuation methods were offered in Germany, including systems from advertising agencies like Young&Rubicam and BBDO, or from market research firms like Nuremberg’s GfK. Many of these approaches focus on the financial representation of a brand’s strength, attempting to make brands comparable across industries. These comparisons may be interesting for the business press, as the publication of such data fuels a kind of sporting competition. However, it is questionable whether these comparisons are truly meaningful, as different industries and customer groups place entirely different demands on brand management, and therefore, the measurement of these brands’ strength should also consider different constellations.

All in all, the following conclusion remains: there is no shortage of sophisticated measurement systems. Yet, although all systems pursue the same goal, their results sometimes differ considerably. When selecting such an instrument to measure their own brand strength, companies and their management therefore face the following question:

The following questions should be carefully considered before deciding on a specific measurement method, as they have central implications for the concrete design of the measurement instrument and thus for the quality of the information provided:

In many publications, strength is automatically equated with market share, brand awareness, and logo recognition. This may apply to some industries, particularly the consumer goods industry. However, it cannot be assumed that brand awareness is a core criterion for brand strength for all companies.

It must first be clarified which key metrics are truly decisive for a brand’s attractiveness in the respective industry. Precisely these metrics and thematic areas must be covered by a measurement instrument. Anything beyond that may provide interesting data but does not truly contribute to improving entrepreneurial brand decisions.

The perceived competence of employees is certainly a key factor in building a strong brand in many B2B markets, while a prominent presence at the POS can represent a central metric for a strong brand in other industries.

Offered measurement instruments must therefore be flexible enough to adapt to the requirements of different industries and brands. Rigid systems may ensure comparability across industries, but comparing apples to oranges yields no winner. Ultimately, this also means that providers of such instruments, together with the client, must determine the relevant metrics for future brand monitoring in advance.

At the same time, measurement systems are therefore required to multidimensionally cover the phenomenon of a brand and its relationship with customers. Many gears interlock until a brand generates pull with customers; this complexity must also be covered in a measurement system.

The specific goals pursued with the measurement of brand strength must be clarified in advance. Different objectives mean different requirements, both for the information content and for the concrete approach to data collection.

Anyone whose primary goal in measuring brand strength is to support decisions for future marketing measures to nurture the brand needs an action-oriented system. A past-oriented, quantitative representation of the brand based on a few key figures falls short for such goals. This is because it provides no indication of whether improvements/deteriorations are due to changes in market presence, altered competitive behavior, or other factors. For these objectives, qualitative elements in data collection are necessary to make the brand’s content and structures tangible from the customer’s perspective.

Very few measurement instruments are capable of simultaneously providing sound data for the monetary valuation of a brand’s worth and for steering future marketing activities.

Measuring brand strength gains value when it represents changes over time rather than a snapshot of the status quo. Continuous monitoring of a brand’s development can only succeed if continuity over time is ensured: continuity of the method used, continuity of the data collection methods used, and continuity of data analysis.

The more thoroughly the initial selection of the measurement instrument is made, the fewer adaptations will be necessary in subsequent years. This is the only way to ensure ongoing, comparative review and targeted management of a brand.

Brands exist in the minds of exchange partners and leave their mark there. For not all brands is it clear from the outset which groups of exchange partners are truly significant for the brand’s success. Consumers are not always the drivers of brand success; there may be other players in the system whose brand perception is equally important for business success. For example, in service-intensive industries, employees play a central role. And especially in the B2B sector, it must not be forgotten that buying centers usually decide on customer relationships, and therefore, an image of the brand forms among various functionaries.

It then becomes essential to scrutinize precisely these system partners when measuring brand strength. Their impression of the brand, the trust and sympathy they have for it, are crucial. Accordingly, it may be necessary to analyze very different target groups and system partners during the measurement of brand strength. This requires flexible forms of methodology and data collection.

Brands exist in the minds and hearts of exchange partners, and so does the competition. How a brand is perceived is therefore also a result of the perception of competitors.

Which brand benchmarks are used should be decided from the market’s perspective. This means that the competitive set of brands to be examined should be determined by the respondent themselves. This more realistically reflects their daily selection decision than if predefined – and potentially irrelevant to them – brands are examined.

This requirement simultaneously implies that brand strength measurements should ideally be conducted anonymously, concealing the actual client. A clear disclosure of the “client brand” can lead to distortions.