Request a quote!

Blog, News &

Case Studies

12 Ways to Measure Brand Awareness
By E2E Research | February 7, 2023

To successfully grow your business, people need to know your brand exists. By measuring brand awareness, you can ensure your marketing strategies are doing exactly that. Before wasting a lot of time and money in the wrong places.

 

There are a variety of ways to measure brand awareness, each with their own purpose, requirements, advantages, and disadvantages. From direct and indirect to individual and group metrics, this list will help you choose the set of metrics that best suits the goals you have for your brand.

 

 

Direct Measures

 

Unaided Awareness: Unaided awareness is a very common metric wherein a targeted sample of people are asked to name any brands they can think of in a certain category. For instance, “Name five brands of computers” or “Name every brand of facial tissue you can think of.”

 

Pros: If people do name your brand, it’s clear that they are aware of it. This is particularly true if your brand name isn’t common or is difficult to spell.

 

Cons: People might not remember your brand name in the moment. Or, maybe they assumed that naming several brands was sufficient and they stopped just before naming your brand – which they did know. Just because people didn’t name your brand doesn’t mean they aren’t aware of it. You might consider this metric the lower bound of true awareness.

 

 

Decorative imageBinary Aided Awareness: Perhaps the most common and well-known metric is Aided Awareness. It’s usually measured in combination with, and after, unaided awareness by asking a targeted sample of people a simple yes/no question like “Before now, have you heard of E2E Research?”

 

Pros: It’s direct, clear, and won’t confuse readers. It’s easy to measure among a wide range of target audiences and regions without the need for any special software or technology.

 

Cons: However, this question suffers from acquiescence bias. Research participants very much want to help researchers achieve positive results and this includes trying to remember things they actually don’t quite remember. Perhaps they feel like they should remember the name or that they’ve probably heard the name, and consequently select “yes” when they shouldn’t. It’s not necessarily done out of malice, but rather poor memory or a conscious or unconscious desire to be helpful.

 

 

Multi-Select Aided Awareness: Unlike binary aided awareness, multi-select metrics present 5 to 10 brands for people to react to. People might recognize none, some, or all of the brands. The question usually looks something like “Before now, which of these brands had you heard of?”

 

Pros: Because people can’t tell what the target brand is, there is less incentive or desire to provide a positive “yes” response to every single brand. It feels natural to leave some brands unselected because people know they haven’t heard of every brand that exists. As such, this technique works well for brands that are uncommon or rare.

 

Cons: People could still select brands that they’ve never heard of before simply because people are being people. That’s why it’s a great idea to include some fake brand names which serve as a baseline for false memory.

 

 

Decorative imageAttribute Awareness: Go beyond simple recognition of your brand name to understand whether people know what your brand is about. It’s certainly not brand awareness if people know your brand has something to do with food but they don’t know if it’s dried soup or soda.

 

After you have confirmed that people can recognize your brand name, invite them to select or write out a series of words to describe the brand’s main category or key features. The animated gif illustrates the selection of emotions but it could also reflect a set of product categories or features.

 

Pros: This method ensures that people know when you’re referring to Dove soap vs Dove chocolate, or that Sysco food distributors Is not the same as Cisco technology.

 

Cons: People may genuinely recognize your brand name but without context, they may be unable to identify the category or key features perhaps because of poor marketing and branding tactics.

 

 

Decorative imageShelf Display Awareness: Another option is to present an image of product packages on a retail shelf. People can then click on all the package images they recognize. You might even wish to include package images from other categories or fake packages as distractors. (“Please click on every cereal package you recognize.”)

 

Pros: People may find it easier to recognize a brand when it’s presented in a familiar context such as a store shelf. This is particularly helpful for brands that people don’t have a personal connection with, those secondary products that back up their favorite brands.

 

Cons: Is it really brand awareness if people know what your package looks like but they can’t associate a brand name with it? Rote purchases based on shelf location and package design won’t necessarily turn into repurchase if someone always grabs the first green item on the third shelf.

 

 

Logo Awareness: Similar to shelf display awareness, you could present people with a set of product logos and ask them to click on the logos they recognize.

 

Logos that don’t incorporate the brand name are particularly good for this metric, e.g., Pepsi, Windows, NBC. Some logos that incorporate the brand name could be de-branded, e.g., Chanel, Reebok, Nike.

 

In cases where the logo is the brand name, you could even try recreating the color, font, shape, and size of the word with nonsensical line art, e.g., FILA, PUMA, Coca-Cola, Prada.

 

Pros: Many people find it easier to recognize imagery rather than words so this metric could be helpful for them.

 

Cons: Of course, if people know they’ve seen your logo before but they’re unable to match it with a brand name, you know your marketing needs some work. They could still be very much aware of your brand but not your logo.

 

 

Decorative imageImplicit Awareness: One of my favorite metrics for brand awareness is implicit awareness. This method relies on unconscious brain activity as an indicator of awareness. It can be conducted in a variety of ways but the most basic method is as follows.

 

A set of extremely well known (e.g., Coca-cola, Nike, Starbucks) brands, unknown brands, competitive brands, and the brand you wish to test is created. Brand names are then presented to people one at a time in random order.

 

Whether through biometric measurements or physical button clicking, the number of nano/milliseconds it takes to react to the brand name is recorded. A super fast biometric reaction or click of the Z vs M key indicates their level of familiarity with the brand whereas a much slower reaction indicates less awareness.

 

Pros: Because this metric is unconscious, acquiescence bias is easy to overcome and it’s difficult to fake knowledge or lack thereof. This is particularly good for brands that people might be embarrassed to claim awareness of, e.g., incontinence products, sexual dysfunction products.

 

Cons: Because everyone has a different baseline for reaction times, you must measure reactions to a large number of brands. And, you’ll need to use for-purpose technology because it’s impossible to measure nano/milliseconds with the necessary degree of accuracy for this technique.

 

 

Indirect Measures

 

As with any metric, corroborating results via multiple methods is the best way to know you’re actually measuring what you think you’re measuring and that your result is reliable. In addition to using 2 or more direct measures, consider adding at least one indirect measure to your toolkit.

 

Keep in mind that many of the indirect metrics suffer from a common set of disadvantages. For instance, without using a targeted sample of people, rates are easily over/under estimated and rank orders won’t be accurate. Never consider an indirect metric to be your best measure of brand awareness.

 

 

Decorative imageSocial Media Followers: The number of people following your social media accounts is a helpful indicator of brand awareness. Highly popular and well-known brands like Coca-Cola have thousands or millions of followers on Instagram, Pinterest, Tik-Tok, and other social media sites.

 

Pros: These metrics are easy and free to gather, and work well for extremely common, consumer-oriented brands.

 

Cons: Many people either don’t use social media or choose not to follow brands or companies on social media, particularly brands that aren’t personal or consumer focused, e.g., brands of carpets, wiring, paper. While the numbers are a helpful indictor, they will not reveal accurate volumes or rank orders.

 

 

Social Media Mentions: If you search for a brand on a social media channel, you will likely see how many times the brand has been mentioned. Obviously, a large number of mentions means a lot of people are aware of the brand.

 

Pros: Brands with a high number of mentions likely have high brand awareness. This is a helpful metric for personal, consumer focused brands.

 

Cons: Take care that the mentions you are counting aren’t all coming from the same few people. And, make sure they aren’t refering to something else, e.g., Apple computers vs apple pie. And, as with other indirect measure, having the most mentions does not correspond to having the highest brand awareness. Rankings are impossible to discern from social media mentions.

 

 

Decorative imageGoogle Trends: This website tracks monitors the number of people using specific search terms while using Google browsers.

 

Pros: Brands that are searched for a lot are more likely to have high awareness. As such, consumer focused brands will be more able to take advantage of this metric.

 

Cons: Search results can be confounded with a lot of factors. Words with similar sounds or spellings can be confused for your brand. Not everyone uses Google to search for information (remember Bing, Baidu, Yahoo?). People don’t necessarily search for brands even if they are very much aware of those brands and use them everyday. And, searches are often not awareness, but rather an indication that someone isn’t aware of a brand, e.g., “What is Pantene?” As such, it is impossible to trust the rank orders of brands with Google Trends.

 

 

 

Decorative imageReferral Traffic: If you’re lucky enough to have direct access to your website analytics, you might notice where your website traffic is coming from. Perhaps it’s sourced from industry association websites or from competitive companies. Counting inbound clicks coming from industry websites is another interesting indicator of awareness.

 

Pros: If association websites and competitive websites send links your way, you can be assured that your brand awareness is high. This is definitely a case where competitors want to be associated with the best in class!

 

Cons: Whereas industry associations are open to linking to any company in their industry, many competitive companies have policies that forbid them from linking to their competitors. They may definitely be aware of you but will also definitely never show up in your referral traffic.

 

 

Review Sites: Many product buyers and users take the time to write online reviews. New or rare brands may find they have just a few reviews whereas extremely well-known brands may have thousands or millions of reviews.

 

Pros: When people take the time to review your brand, you know they have personal experience with your brand name and have connected with you in either a positive or negative way.

 

Cons: As with other measures, a lack of reviews does not correspond to lack of awareness. Products or services that are generally fine might never receive as many reviews as a tiny brand that produces a horrible product or, conversely, an amazing product.

 

 

 

What’s Next?

Are you ready to identify and monitor brand awareness among your buyers and users? Email your project specifications to our research experts using Projects at E2Eresearch dot com. We’d love to help you turn your enigmas into enlightenment!

 

 

 

Learn more from our case studies

 

 

Learn more from our other blog posts

Trackers Suck. Here’s how market researchers can fix them right now.
By E2E Research | June 21, 2021

Researchers love trackers. At the same time, we also hate them. Trackers are designed to help us stalk brand metrics and compare them with those of sister brands and competitors over time, and build real-time dashboards that flag tiny issues before they explode into unresolvable problems. But the more the world changes, the more our trackers stay the same. The questions stay the same, the answers stay the same, and the insights… well, they become impossible to find.

 

 

Trackers are inherently problematic

One of the biggest complaints researchers have with trackers is that once they’re written, they can’t be changed.

Ever.

 

When we inevitably discover a question that is poorly written, no longer relevant, or simply wrong, we can’t touch it or we’ll introduce confounds invalidating the trendline for every subsequent question. Data quality is always top of mind for researchers who care about making valid and reliable generalizations.

 

 

Oh the times, they are a’changin

But wait. No matter how much we work to keep questions consistent for the sake of research rigor and validity, everything outside of the questions has changed since day one. Every research supplier constantly improves their techniques and processes over time – without getting our approval. Every research participant changes their demographics, internet providers, and digital devices over time – without getting our approval. Like it or not, third parties change the methodological foundation of our trackers every single day without our approval. They’ve embraced change and it makes no sense except for researchers to embrace change too.

 

 

Who’s the boss?

Trackers are inanimate objects we personally create to suit our personal needs. Researchers need data that is valid and reliable. We need data that answers our questions and helps solve our challenges. We need to stop letting questionnaires be the boss of us and start making questionnaires work for us. We need to embrace change.

 

 

Choose change-resistant designs

Fortunately, researchers have methodological techniques that are designed to be resistant to change. If we build change into every questionnaire, change will have a vastly smaller impact on our data.

 

How can we do this?

 

Randomization! When each person receives answers (or questions) in a different order, it helps prevent confounds related to order. Adding an item to a randomized list greatly reduces its ability to affect subsequent items because everyone sees a different set of subsequent items. Make sure to randomize answer options at every appropriate opportunity. If it also makes sense to randomize the order of some questions, then do that too.

 

Individual presentation. Potential order effects can be reduced even more by combining randomization with individual presentation. Rather than showing a full list of items so that people can scan through the entire list, show items individually. Since everyone sees a different set of initial items, order effects are different for everyone and therefore greatly minimized over the full sample.

 

Subsets! If you’re accustomed to breaking long questionnaires into shorter, more manageable chunks for participants, you might already be using question subsets. For example, let’s say Q6 has 20 answer options – perhaps 20 brands or 20 product features. With subsets, each research participant gets only 10 answer options – perhaps three are the same for everyone, and the other 7 answers are randomly assigned. By design, no one sees every answer and your friendly, neighbourhood statistician can easily stitch the full questionnaire of 20 answer options back together. Need to add or remove an answer option? Go right ahead. Since half of people wouldn’t have received that item anyways, you aren’t intruding a serious confound. Even better, everyone benefits from a shorter questionnaire!

 

 

Know what questions are carved in cement

Some questions should never change. There are only a few seriously important KPIs that get added to the norms/benchmarks database every time you complete a wave. They probably include:

 

  • Purchase intent
  • Recommendation
  • Satisfaction
  • Trust
  • Likeability
  • Believability

 

Identify which items on a questionnaire MUST stay the same. They’re the items that are part of every questionnaire ever written for every product line and SKU. From now on, keep them as close as possible to the beginning of the questionnaire . By ensuring this section always stays the same with no potentially new and leading items before them, we can ensure they won’t be confounded by order effects.

 

And don’t get caught up in the idea that questions tied to financial incentives can’t be changed. Do you really want to incentivize the wrong KPIs and the wrong behaviors? Absolutely not!

 

 

Embrace change

 

Now here’s the hard part.

 

Change is good.

 

Track valid benchmarks: Tracking invalid data serves no purpose. Creating a brand new VALID benchmark serves a great purpose. Once you realize you’ve been tracking invalid data, it’s time to make a change and fix the problem. Similarly, once you realize you’ve missed answer options or used disrespectful language, it’s time to fix the problem.

 

Watch the world evolve: Change lets us account for our evolving society, culture, technology, and political atmosphere.

 

  • When did you change the sex and/or gender questions on all of your studies to be more respectful and inclusive? If you haven’t done so yet, this PDF from Insights in Color will get you started.
  • When did you add Facebook or Instagram as viable channels in addition to door-to-door salespeople, radio, and TV? Have you added TikTok to your list of channels yet? (You’d better!)
  • When did you add Madonna to your list of influencers? What about Beyoncé? What about Billy Eilish?

 

You made those changes and didn’t think twice because it was the right thing to do it.

 

Plan to measure current issues: Build an entire section into your questionnaire that is all about change. If Section A is your unchangeable KPIs, make Section D completely new every single time. This quarter, it might be all about sustainability. Maybe next quarter it will be innovative packaging and the quarter after that will be all about diversity and equity.

 

Embrace fun! Change also lets us create questionnaires that are better able to capture the imagination of participants. Social networks and online games are fun because they leverage audio, video, swiping, and dragging. It’s time to change up your questionnaires so they are just as engaging.

 

 

.

 

What’s next?

It’s time for researchers to stop being pushed around by trackers. We know what we’re trying to accomplish and why. We know how change affects data. It’s time for us to be the boss of trackers and make them work for us! Embrace change!

 

Are you ready to design a useful tracker that generates great quality data using questions that are inherently engaging? Email your project specifications to our research experts using Projects at E2Eresearch dot com!

 

Learn more from our case studies

 

Download information about our services

 

Improving Operational Effectiveness at a CPG Company | A Retail B2B Case Study
By E2E Research | June 10, 2021

Research Objective

  • An FMCG client needed to assess the operations and revenue effectiveness across their company. They needed to evaluate their key performance indicators and understand their organizational maturity.

 

Scope & Methodology

  • An online questionnaire was launched to 500 business leaders to measure the KPIs and derive the stages of organizational maturity.
  • The analysis showed that about 72% of leaders expressed some governance and control of global operation while 42% described some local office independence. 30% are strongly controlled at headquarters with no local independence.
  • For operational maturity, about 80% showed high levels of maturity by deploying technology, extensive automation, dedicated roles in operations, and using AI in delivering services. Top success criteria included: Improved brand/customer engagement, staff efficiency, and agility. The success criteria “improved brand/customer engagement” is considered most important for content strategy.

 

Value Delivered

  • The client was able to better understand their operational effectiveness as well as their organizational maturity. As a result of the research, they identified operational areas needing improvement.

 

Check out other retail case studies

Understanding Patient Preferences to Inform Differentiation Strategy | A Medical Device Survey Case Study
By E2E Research | April 14, 2021

Research Objective

  • A medical device client needed to understand the market and consumer preferences for different medical treatments to inform and customize product messaging and product differentiation.
  • They also needed to understand unmet needs and barriers hindering treatment choices.

 

Scope & Methodology

A survey was designed to measure a number of key metrics including:

  • Market leaders in medical device technologies
  • Brand switching patterns
  • Changes in restriction levels
  • Change in usage of two treatments as a result of new device guidelines

The data showed patients had clear preferences for specific brands of medical devices. In addition, patients differentiated the brands based on their perceptions of clinical performance, training programs, range of treatment options, and how much the brands invested in clinical trials.

 

Value Delivered

  • As a result of the research, the client gained a better understanding of their market position relative to their competitors, and was able to gauge market shifts in the treatments used by patients. They also were able to better understand drivers of switching and the key decision makers involved in those switches.
  • The client was better able to differentiate their product and create more impactful messaging to help their patients.

 

 

Check out other patient case studies

Benchmarking Brand Awareness and Competitive Brand Space | A Consumer Food Survey Case Study
By E2E Research | March 5, 2021

Research Objective

  • The client needed to identify parameters of brand strength and understand how the brand was perceived in relation to its competition.

 

Scope & Methodology

  • A survey was launched to measure brand awareness within the category and to capture the importance of key attributes for the category.
  • Analyses included assessing the strength and importance of key drivers, and overall satisfaction. These assessments were conducted at both the global and country levels.
  • The data showed that while the brand enjoyed the highest awareness in the category, it was only the third highest in terms of purchase consideration. The data also showed that the brand competed most closely with two specific brands on several key attributes.

 

 

 

 

Value Delivered

  • A set of key performance indicators, including brand awareness, perceptions, and importance, was benchmarked for a set of brands in the category.
  • The brand was able to make targeted improvements to the product and understand their impact on brand perceptions in relation to the competition.

 

 

Check out other food case studies