Understanding brand image is critical for brand health tracking. Marketers carefully craft brand touchpoints to shape consumer perceptions, but how well do traditional research methods capture these perceptions?
At Be Digital, we distinguish between two dimensions of brand image:
Functional Image – Perceptions of tangible product performance and utility.
Symbolic Image – Abstract associations tied to a brand’s identity and personality.
While functional superiority is an ideal competitive advantage, few brands maintain it long-term. This is why symbolic differentiation plays a crucial role in branding. However, both dimensions must be measured properly—and traditional research methods often fail to do so.
The Problem with Traditional Brand Image Research
Most market research firms use a flawed approach to measuring brand image:
Awareness is established first. Respondents indicate which brands they recognize.
A long list of brand attributes follows. For each attribute, respondents select which brands they associate with it.
This seems logical, but it ignores how the human brain works. Traditional surveys assume that respondents make rational, unbiased evaluations of each brand at every attribute.
But what actually happens?
Brand size dominates responses. Larger brands consistently score higher across all attributes, even those they shouldn’t be strongly associated with.
Respondents default to familiar brands. Instead of carefully considering each attribute, they repeatedly choose brands they buy or like the most.
Little brand differentiation is found. Instead of uncovering distinct brand images, the data primarily reflects brand equity—not true brand perception.
To "fix" this, research firms often normalize the data, but this introduces new problems:
The remaining brand differences become too small, contradicting market intuition.
It assumes a linear relationship between brand size and attribute scores, which distorts the data rather than improving it.
A Smarter Method for Measuring Brand Image
To measure brand perceptions effectively, we need to consider how the brain processes information. Nobel Prize-winning research by Daniel Kahneman describes two modes of thinking:
System 1 Thinking (Fast, Intuitive, Subconscious): This is our automatic mode of thinking. It’s responsible for quick associations and gut feelings, which influence how people perceive brand personality and symbolism.
System 2 Thinking (Slow, Deliberate, Analytical): This is our rational mode of thinking. It’s used when we consciously evaluate something, such as product quality, durability, or performance.
Traditional research ignores this distinction, but at Be Digital, we structure surveys to match the way consumers actually process brand perceptions.
1. Measuring Functional Image (System 2 Thinking)
For attributes requiring conscious evaluation (e.g., product quality, durability, performance), respondents rate each brand on a 5-point scale. Instead of selecting brands for each attribute, they evaluate one brand at a time across multiple attributes.
✅ Forces careful consideration of each brand.
✅ Prevents the default selection of favorite brands across all attributes.
2. Measuring Symbolic Image (System 1 Thinking)
For abstract brand associations (e.g., trendy, luxurious, innovative), we take a fast and intuitive approach.
Instead of asking for ratings, we present a list of symbolic attributes and ask respondents to pick the top three that best describe the brand.
This aligns with System 1 thinking, ensuring that results reflect dominant brand perceptions rather than overanalyzed responses.
How This Improves Brand Image Research
By flipping the traditional attribute-by-brand grid into a brand-by-attribute structure, we:
✔ Capture meaningful brand differentiation.✔ Ensure valid functional and symbolic brand associations.
✔ Produce insights that align with real-world market dynamics.
At Be Digital, our methodology helps brands uncover actionable insights instead of misleading data, providing a true competitive advantage in brand strategy.