We are thinking of introducing an innovative New Product Development (NPD) to target younger consumers. Is innovation a good way to address the deficit across the younger consumer segments?

Based on what we know more about innovations and new product introductions, we would caution on putting an emphasis on innovation to drive brand growth when there are structural activities that still can be improved.

What we know is that brand growth is achieved through building Mental and Physical Availability, so for a smaller brand, securing more distribution as well as keeping the brand fresh in consumer minds is vital. The more we know about NPDs, the more we discover that to succeed, they need sustained commitment and support for them to succeed.

To address an actual / perceived deficit across the younger consumer segments, you may want to evaluate the messaging and the creative in your advertising, e.g., are the relevant Category Entry Points already captured in the ads? (for example, something to share while hanging out with friends, something to give me energy while exercising, etc.). Media placement is also another area that can be evaluated — do they reach the media consumed by the consumers, including the younger generation?

Some of the relevant reports for you:

Are younger consumers easier to win?
Are older consumers more loyal to older brands?
Rethinking media age skews and the ability to reach younger consumers
Category Entry Points

A.T.
19 February 2024

We are looking for arguments as to why our variant brand’s advertising should roll under our master brand campaign. Please point us towards some key points that back up the effectiveness of consistent and persistent marketing messages, even when product lines have disparate consumer targets, benefit statements, key barriers, etc.

Consistency in advertising is very important, as it makes it easier for the consumer to build a memory for your products. As you note, and in so many cases, we can be far more efficient (but also more effective) using the master brand’s campaigns, approach, etc. to benefit the variants that sit under that master brand. However, as you say, it’s important to understand how the master brand and variant/sub-brand are working together and separately to get the most from your communications.

The following report talks about advertising an umbrella brand and then variants, as well as other forms of co-branding:

Report 121: When 1+1 = …er..1? What happens when two brands advertise together

Essentially, the key take-out is that there’s little benefit of including both brands and that the master brand (rather than the variant) will be the one that looms large.

There are some Q&As on the website that go to this question that may be worth taking a look at:

Media investment: Masterbrand vs category support. Are there any signals when category (over)exposure is actually diluting the Masterbrand effect?

What are the pros and cons of different brand architecture models?

Is it “easier” to add new memory structures to a master brand or is it more efficient to leverage a sub-brand?

How does master brand advertising help build memory structures of variants?

What is the best approach for communication and media to help leverage synergies across a master brand?

How do we prioritise the use of Distinctive Assets between the DAs of the master brand and the DAs of the variant?

Our broad recommendations from these previous responses is that:

• For any advertising to be effective it needs be clearly identifiable as for the brand. This is just as important for advertising copy focused on the master brand, as it is for copy focused on supporting a category.
• Use of Distinctive Assets in your communications is a good way to do this and having an understanding of whether your Distinctive Assets are connected to the variant or (more likely) the master brand, will inform what approach is likely to be most effective. What we want is for the brands to have a consistent look and feel such that they look like they belong to the same family. You might have different assets you want to utilise for the variant brand, but it’s important to find out what assets are strong for the master brand so that those can be leveraged. We recommend against using colour to differentiate between different variants, as this can work against the assets associated with the master brand that you have worked hard to build.
• It is also important to understand if the products in the brand’s portfolio fulfil the same, or different, needs. If the same Category Entry Points (reasons for buying/using the category) apply to both the master brand and variant and apply across categories, a master brand’s advertising strategy may be sensible. If a product in the portfolio occupies a specific Category Entry Point that only applies to the variant/sub-brand, the product will need to be promoted separately, so that consumers associate the specific Category Entry Point with that part of the brand’s portfolio.
• Category-specific advertising may also be necessary when launching the brand into a new category, or the category itself is new/not yet established. This is so consumers of the master brand (as well as the overall macro-category buyers) can become aware of this part of the portfolio.
  We want to get to a stage where we barely need to advertise the variants themselves. Ideally, people will come to buy the category and then see that there are choices within a brand they are already familiar with.

E.R.
15 February 2024

How many active messages across TV or digital can a brand run at the same time without running the risk of harming itself?
How many brands – part of the same Masterbrand portfolio – should we run at the same time without them cannibalising each other?

Let’s start with the second part first. Consider the makeup of the portfolio/variants within the Masterbrand (or brand portfolio) to provide you with insight on which brands/variants within the portfolio ‘could’ be advertised at the same time if you have the budget to do so. The primary consideration is which brands or variants you have within the portfolio and are they meeting different needs of customers. If each brand/variant satisfies different needs or has different functions in the market then they can be advertised together. For example: budget vs premium, mainstream vs organic. Examples of this strategy are: Toyota + Lexus; Tesco Everyday Value + Tesco Finest; Pantene + Head & Shoulders.

If there are brands/variants that address similar needs and functions in the market they are likely to cannibalise each other. Here it is useful to analyse the level of buyer duplication across sibling brands/variants (i.e., the extent to which each brand can attract unique buyers) and how each brand satisfies different needs / functions in the market. This analysis will give you information about sharing of buyers and indicate if advertising together will just be competing head on and thus the advertising is competition for the same buyers and best run at different times (or directed to different parts of the buyer base).

In regard to the number of messages a single brand is running, there is no hard and fast answer here, it is really about the budget that you have at hand to produce effective learning / memory connection for consumers seeing the campaigns. We would consider the best messages in advertising to contain Category Entry Points (CEPs). I provide below a discussion that Jenni Romaniuk provided on how many CEPs to build with links to advertising strategy choices: How many Category Entry Points should a brand try to build?

V.B.
13 February 2024

I have questions on the application of Category Entry Points (CEPs) and how to advise brand/media teams.

How to define CEPs? – I’ve seen some that may be too broad, like “In the bathroom”

Do speak with consumers to see what’s in their memories. This is how we ensure our CEPs are relevant, and are said in a relevant way.

Some CEPs can be too narrow and have multiple ideas included – which is not ideal. What is relevant or too broad/narrow is category dependent.

Your example of “In the bathroom” would likely be too broad for some personal care categories, like mouthwash or perhaps skincare. “In the bathroom” might be where usage often take place, but you don’t buy categories like mouthwash FOR the reason to use “In the bathroom”.

You might use a bathroom environment in advertising (i.e., takes place in a bathroom) to use as the context for other CEPs to take place (e.g., “Get ready in the morning”).

We’re got some additional resources here, but reach out if you’d like to talk to your category.

What is the ideal number of CEPs to own? How many is too many?

This is something we get asked a lot! There is no one ideal number to “own”. What we do know is big brands are known by more people for more CEPs.

Having a brand linked to more CEPs is the goal, but this depends on your resources and past activity. Summary here: How many Category Entry Points should a brand try to build?

I also want to challenge this idea of uniquely “owning” CEPs vs being a “known” option. We have been doing work in this space and see unique ownership of CEPs is rare. Here’s our new report about CEP ownership: Report 124: Category Entry Points To Own or not to Own: Is that the question?.

However, not all CEPs are created equal – some are more valuable to build. Yes, we want to increase the number of CEPs in memory, but let’s focus on building the more valuable CEPs. More valuable CEPs are those that more people in the category encounter, as the memory networks we lay down have a greater opportunity of being used/activated in memory.

Does each CEP translate into a separate message?

Do make it clear what trace you’re wanting to leave behind in memory. This trace should be the brand (at the minimum), linked to a relevant message/CEP.

Advertising is a disruption in people’s lives and this high-attention/conscious viewing is not the norm. Having a single-minded message per execution will help this. This is also touched on in the above link.

How should we leverage CEPs for a small vs large brand?

Building and messaging CEPs are important for both big and small brands. Although we see big brands are known by more people for more CEPs, their work is still not over.

A persistent pattern we see throughout our projects is people who buy a brand often have more CEP links in memory, than category buyers who haven’t bought the brand.

This means even for some larger brands in the category, the work is still not over in reaching those category buyers who haven’t bought recently, to build CEP links in their head.

This is a good reminder when designing advertising, to design it with the more inattentive viewer in mind. Ensure there’s high reach, but also that it cuts through, has a relevant message and shows the brand.

How should a brand team leverage CEPs – do they all translate into messaging opportunities or could it be something else, like merchandising or innovation? How do you get the CEPs to work together cohesively, so it doesn’t look like the brand is all over the place but stands for nothing?

This is such an important question. CEPs do have messaging implications in advertising, but it absolutely can feed into other areas like innovation. Do review the CEPs you’re seeking to build and see whether your current portfolio can deliver on this.

For a CEP like “When on the go”, if you don’t have a smaller pack size/travel format, it can be hard to deliver on this CEP. This won’t be applicable for all CEPs or categories, but it is a good reminder to review not only your advertising but also your product portfolio.

How about from a media standpoint?

There are 4 “Keys” to building Mental Availability. These are: Messaging (CEPs), Branding, Creative and Media. We need to turn all these 4 to help us have a chance in building Mental Availability.

We want to be known for more CEPs by more people. This makes media important because we need to reach people, and reinforce our messages in memory. We want reach and continuity – not a narrow burst.

We have some great resources on our key media principles, that talk to how to best plan for reach across targets and time. People’s memories do decay over time – so we don’t want to be off air for long-periods! Here’s the report (and video summary): BEST PRACTICE: Ehrenberg-Bass Institute Key Media Principles.

K.V.
3 January 2024

Specific to the report Category Entry Points To Own or not to Own: Is that the question? – could we apply similar learnings in terms of benefits and barriers to other band attributes?

Yes, these findings would likely apply to other brand attributes, because while the research was focused on the mental pathways that relate to buying (Category Entry Points), the patterns are strong, clear, and related to how memory for brands works.

We don’t recommend using “benefits” as a foundation for marketing, as it is too focused on marketing as an evaluative process. Most brands don’t fail to be purchased at an evaluation level, but fail to be thought of at all. We do recommend re-focusing your efforts around a Mental Availability model, where your marketing is designed to increase the likelihood that the brand is thought of (or even noticed!).

Here’s some extra information (and readings) you may find useful/interesting to further explain this.

The reason for building a wider, fresher network of Category Entry Points is to increase the likelihood of the brand being thought of by more people, across more purchase occasions. Positioning on a single strong message and hoping to be remembered is out of step with how our minds work. This is for two reasons.

First, our memories are a bit like a spiderweb, connecting different pieces of information (nodes) together. We activate one node (e.g., I want a sweet treat) to bring other nodes to mind, i.e., to help us notice and remember other relevant information (e.g., Cadbury’s). Therefore, having more nodes linked to the brand increases the chance the brand will be thought of in buying situations.

Second, category buyers draw upon a range of memory cues (i.e., Category Entry Points) when buying from the category. We can use multiple cues both at a single point in time (e.g., buying chocolate for a sweet treat while at work) and across different purchase occasions (e.g., buying chocolate as a snack today and for an energy boost tomorrow). These “entry points” into memory networks are what we recommend focusing on when building more brand associations.

CEPs Include Brand Benefits

CEPs can include different buying and consumption situations (e.g., to give as a gift); benefits (e.g., something refreshing, when I need something low fat); and functional qualities (e.g., has a lid I can screw back on). Brand benefits are not separate to category entry points but can be a complementary part of the overall CEP portfolio.

It is dangerous to think about marketing from a benefits first-perspective, as it isn’t aligned with the evidence about how brands grow, or how minds work. There might be more common CEPs than the functional benefits you’re focusing on – meaning you may be unintentionally limiting your buying base if category buyers more easily think of competitors for these common CEPs.

Strong Positions Are Usually Tied To Functional Differences

Our research showed that strong “ownership” of a CEP is uncommon. However, we did find that such instances were usually because the brand has a very clear functional difference on that CEP (i.e., a clear brand benefit).

If you do have a clear brand benefit, this may already be a strong mental advantage for your brand, giving you a head start on being mentally available in the category. But it does not guarantee success. Bigger brands have wider, fresher memory networks to capture people entering the category via different cues.

Furthermore, these occasions where brands did “own” functional benefits were not concentrated among the big brands. Emphasising and trying to own a benefit might be a shortcut to being a smaller brand, rather than a bigger brand.

We’re not sure specifically how you might relate barriers to this research. Barriers can be physical impediments to people using the brand (e.g., limited portfolio and/or distribution), and so not mental structures at all. Brand rejection though, is usually very small, and not always related to market share.

For Further Reading on Mental Availability and Category Entry Points:

• Report 16: Mental Availability? What it is and why it matters
  For further reading on Mental Availability theory, including memory networks and cued retrieval.
  
• Report for the B2B Institute: Category Entry Points in a Business-to-Business (B2B) World
  For further reading on types of CEPs, how CEPs can be identified for a category, and how CEPs can be prioritised for a brand within the category.
• Report 40: The Uniqueness of Brands
  For further reading on the value of building a wider fresher network of CEPs, rather than positioning on a single attribute. Our recent report replicated and extended this research.

For Further Reading on Brand Benefits and Barriers:

• Report 61: Do Consumers Reject Brands? Which, Where and How Often?
  For further reading on brand rejection.
• Report 76: Physical Availability – What Makes a Brand Easy to Find and Buy?
  For further reading on overcoming physical impediments to purchase.
• Report 51: Who Do You Really Compete With?
  For further reading on the Duplication of Purchase Law, which states that brands typically compete based on size, irrespective of brand benefits and barriers.

B.P. and A.B.
5 December 2023

We are one of the suppliers that comes to mind when considering the type of product we sell. We want to diversify into other product areas, but the target customers are 95% the same.

How do I position/explain the importance of Mental Availability in the context of a legally constrained target audience with a limited supplier set?

Mental Availability is often confused with Awareness. Awareness is a blunt measure that merely detects if someone knows a brand, whereas Mental Availability delves into the likelihood a brand will come to mind across a range of buying situations and scenarios. We refer to such situations/scenarios as Category Entry Points (CEPs). The probability of a brand coming to mind varies based on the brand, the individual, and the CEPs being triggered.

Mental Availability is the first big step in a brand’s selection. The key reason buyers don’t purchase is not because a brand failed to demonstrate it was ‘good enough,’ but simply because it didn’t get thought of. In this sense, we do not recommend forsaking Mental Availability-building strategies solely to concentrate on brand consideration.

Whilst you’re talking to the same category buyers with your new product offerings, remember that human memory is fickle and imperfect – this means that even if you already have high Mental Availability, brand retrieval is not guaranteed. Our job as marketers is to continually refresh and reinforce existing memory structures.

This is where building Mental Availability, and specifically establishing links to CEPs tied to the new offerings is particularly important. Even if customers know your brand, they still need to learn and be reminded of new CEPs.

Finally, it may be beneficial to ask those who dismiss the concept of Mental Availability about how they measure it – if they can’t tell you what their brand’s Mental Penetration, Mental Market Share, Network Size, or Share of Mind is, consider reaching out to initiate a project to understand and benchmark Mental Availability for your category and brand.

C.N.
30 November 2023

My team suggests that for linking CEPs to a brand we should use a brand list with only text and no logo. However, in the Better Brand Health book it is argued (for brand awareness) that showing logos in addition to brand name in text improves accuracy, since images are easier to process and remember than just text. Is there a difference between these two measures that we should be aware of? Should one include visuals and the other not? If so, what is the reasoning behind this.

To begin with it’s important to note that brand awareness and Category Entry Points (CEPs)/Mental Availability (MA) measures are different. For the former, you’re trying to capture whether respondents have heard of your brand before/remember prior exposure, but for CEPs/MA, you’re measuring whether respondents link your brand to a given CEP.

Our research so far has shown some, but not a lot, of difference between using brand names or logos/images to capture brand awareness. As Jenni mentions in the Better Brand Health book, there are certain categories where using images/logos may be more useful – e.g., for dried pasta, where brand names in the category often have very similar Italian sounding names, so adding the brand logo or pack image can help respondents to separate them. There are also some additional considerations:

• adding a logo/image to the brand name may benefit brand recognition, especially for small brands because, as you say, images are processed more easily and remembered vs words; but
• using a logo/image may disadvantage brands that have recently had logo redesigns.

To the best of my knowledge, we don’t have any research comparing using the brand name vs logo/images for CEP/MA measures specifically. However, I don’t think they’d be any reason why the above wouldn’t also apply to CEP measures. There may also be more considerations. For example, for the same reason as using images/logos to make it easier for respondents to separate similarly named brands in a category, it may be valuable to include logos/images when investigating CEP links for sub-brands with similar names, or formats that have different logos.

So, my recommendation would be to always include the brand name in CEP measures, and then decide whether a logo may be helpful as well (e.g., brand names / sub-brands are similar, you’re a very small brand, no brands in the marketplace have recently redesigned their logo).

R.F. and K.V.
9 October 2023

In your opinion, how much do category drivers of choice from Demand Spaces overlap with Category Entry Points (CEPs)? Is there anything else we should think about doing in terms of taking the demand landscape output and converting to CEPs, or quantifying their impact?

We do get asked quite often about Category Entry Points (CEPs) vs Demand Spaces (DS). There are some similarities, but how we conceptualise them and our route to prioritising them are different.

Demand Spaces and Jobs To Be Done tend to be more product focused – with the aim to assist in product innovation and planning the portfolio. CEPs can help in this, but their purpose is broader.

Due to DS’ aim the cues/attributes that are tested typically have a narrow focus on ‘Why’ contexts (i.e., benefits), and perhaps ‘When’ and ‘Where’, but do not consider the broader contexts across the W’s (e.g., hoW feeling).

Building on this, DS oversimplifies the role of Mental Availability/consumer memory in brand competition, but also (from my understanding) the DS seeks to link the occasions with certain target consumer groups.

We know what comes to mind is quite varied – the same brand won’t be associated in all situations, nor is this static over time. It isn’t about selecting a ’target group’, but increasing propensities broadly across category buyers.

Finally, another difference in CEP vs DS is how we look to prioritise them. DS looks to place a dollar value on the purchase, but this oversimplifies that consumers can purchase and then use the same brand in lots of different ways.

We prioritise CEPs to build (by messaging and portfolio) using commonality, credibility and competitiveness. Commonality is about how the category ‘fits in’ to their lives, to provide an understanding about the size of the prize.

K.V.
18 September 2023

In the Category Entry Points (CEP) video, Jenni Romaniuk describes how to prioritise CEPs and “Category buyer? – How Common” is mentioned as one parameter to take into consideration. Is this related to penetration (how many) or frequency (how often)?

In our Category Entry Points (CEP) studies we measure both CEP penetration (if experienced in the time period) and frequency (how often experienced in the time period). Now, for the vast majority of CEPs there is a direct link between penetration and frequency. CEPs experienced by more category buyers are also experienced more often by category buyers. So you can just use CEP penetration to quantify how common.

There are some (largely predictable) exceptions, which we are detailing in a report coming out soon – we presented this research at the Mental and Physical Availability Summits. But these are few (5% in total).

J.R.
29 August 2023

When testing Mental Availability by CEP, should we check brand association to a category or the association of categories to a brand?

The short answer is neither. In CEP research, we check CEP associations to brands. The CEPs are drawn from different category buying experiences (i.e., the Ws framework). We then test which of these CEPs people associate with different brands within the category. This is because people first encounter the CEP, then evoke different brands to buy from memory. And this consideration set changes depending on the CEP encountered.

However, you raise an interesting point about brand/category associations. This is something we are currently investigating. Particularly, if there is benefit to measuring subcategory/format – CEP associations, and how well this aligns with brand – CEP associations. This may highlight opportunities for brand innovation/product development.

A.B.
29 June 2023