Distinctive Assets

Distinctive Assets

Distinctive assets are the colours, logos, shapes, characters, taglines and advertising styles that let people identify a brand instantly without claiming anything for it. Byron Sharp and Jenni Romaniuk argue that brands should build them in preference to meaningful differentiation. The memory case is sound, but the return on distinctiveness has not been measured in the evidence offered for it.

What it is

The argument is made in chapter 8 of How Brands Grow (2010), co-written by Sharp with Romaniuk and opening at page 112. Differentiation means giving buyers a meaningful reason to see a brand as different or better. Distinctiveness means being easy to recognise. The book notes that distinctive assets can be trademarked while a meaningful difference usually cannot, which is a practical advantage that needs no data.

Much of the supporting evidence comes from a 2007 paper by Romaniuk, Sharp and Ehrenberg in the Australasian Marketing Journal, which asked customers across many categories in Australia and the UK whether the brand they bought was different or unique. On the averages the book prints in its Table 8.3, about 11 per cent called their brand different, 10 per cent unique and 17 per cent either. Brands that are genuinely unusual scored highly, Aldi at 67 per cent on "different" and Subway at 50 per cent on "unique". On a five-point rating scale (page 124) the average was 2.5. If brand meaning rarely sets brands apart, being easy to recognise is what is left.

The memory basis is older. Hedwig von Restorff showed in 1933 that an odd item in a list of similar ones is remembered better, and R. Reed Hunt argued in 1995 that distinctiveness arises only against a background of similarity.

In effect

A familiar colour or logo helps a shopper find a brand quickly. The same visibility can also steer a hurried choice. Milica Milosavljevic and colleagues found in 2012 that at rapid decision speeds visual saliency influenced food choices more than preferences did, especially under mental load and when people had no firm favourite. Before reaching for the most recognisable pack, it is worth asking whether you prefer what is inside.

What it does not say

The book's tables measure perceptions of differentiation, not distinctiveness, and none carries a price, a margin or a commercial return. The same Table 8.3 shows that an average of 54 per cent of customers could name at least one brand in their category they saw as different or unique, and 76 per cent in soft drinks. The conclusion at page 126, that perceived differentiation "plays little part in the success of brands", reaches further than the tables beneath it. Mark Ritson has argued in the trade press that distinctiveness belongs alongside differentiation rather than above it, an argued position rather than a finding. The status here is mixed.

Sources

  1. Sharp, B. (2010). How Brands Grow: What Marketers Don't Know. Oxford University Press. Chapter 8, with Jenni Romaniuk, pp. 112-133.
  2. Romaniuk, J., Sharp, B., & Ehrenberg, A. (2007). Australasian Marketing Journal, 15(2), 42-54. doi:10.1016/S1441-3582(07)70042-3.
  3. Hunt, R. R. (1995). Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 2(1), 105-112. doi:10.3758/BF03214414.
  4. Milosavljevic, M., Navalpakkam, V., Koch, C., & Rangel, A. (2012). Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(1), 67-74. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2011.10.002.
  5. Ritson, M., trade press commentary on distinctiveness and relative differentiation. Recorded as an argued position.