Most brand and insight teams would throw out their current brand tracker in the morning if they could. Most BHTs are designed with outdated legacy metrics based on current marketing science thinking, and not really fit for purpose for the modern marketing team. Unfortunately, however, the need for trending brand data is so strong that most teams just have to keep doing what they were doing, even when their BHT adds little benefit in measuring brand performance or their marketing activity. This is often driven by C-Suite or board requirements where key metrics are used fleetingly in discussing brand performance, with so much context missing underneath.
Thanks to the work of the likes of Byron Sharp and Jenni Romaniuk of the Ehrenberg Bass Institute in driving the topic of Category Entry Points forward, while also correcting some of the oversteers on focus (e.g., purpose), along with others like Peter Field, Les Binet & Mark Ritson in the general Marketing Effectiveness arena, modern marketers are more attuned to measuring what matters. With this, has come an increasing requirement in the evolution, and often the revolution, of how companies track their brand health.
However, transitioning a Brand Tracker to a new approach, setup, and methodology can be challenging when not done right or thought through properly. It can be fraught with unforeseen danger, but when managed correctly, it offers abundant opportunities for refresh and renewal. We break down the key considerations when thinking about moving to new key metrics (like CEP measurement) while keeping the best aspects of what came before intact.
-
Designing Your Ideal Tracker
First things first, start the transition process with a root and branch evaluation of your current tracker. Consult with internal stakeholders to understand how they’re currently using the tracker’s insights, where it’s falling short, and what their wish-list looks like. What’s working well? What isn’t? And where are the gaps? Then, systematically review all your old metrics to determine which to keep, which to evolve, and which to drop.
Then it’s time to dream, to imagine your ‘ideal’ tracker and how this would benefit your business. This could be how you might use Category Entry Points to track brand performance, or indeed how your BHT might better measure campaign activity.
-
An ‘establishment phase’ to optimally re-design your tracker
Transition offers an opportunity to consider (and potentially re-think) the nuts-and-bolts of your tracker. To help with this, it’s useful to undertake an ‘establishment phase’, which can take the form of desk research and/or primary research. This should be designed to help you make decisions around some less exciting but nonetheless essential elements of programme design, such as…
- Addressable target universe
- Universe sizing and profiling
- Quota and weighting targets
- Key target groups that require sample boosting
- Optimal competitor set
- Identifying the primary behaviour drivers that are most important to track
Getting these decisions right will enable you to design a tracker that’s fit-for-purpose for years to come.
-
The big question regarding ‘historical data’
So you’ve selected your new approach & key metrics to track, and everyone is excited to get going. However, there’s a crucial decision that needs to be made. Changes to methodology will probably disrupt trend-lines, and disruptive factors are numerous, including questionnaire content, on-screen survey design, competitor sets, sample universe, composition and source. Therefore, transitioning to a new approach potentially invalidates direct comparisons with historical data. Within that context, you need to decide if you…?
- Treat transition as Year Zero and lose direct comparison with historical data OR
- Take the steps necessary to retain trend lines, ensuring newly collected data is comparable to historical data
Let’s assume retaining trend-lines is imperative for some metrics, even if you are going to focus more so on new metrics, like CEP tracking. For this, you’ll need to conduct a parallel run between the old and new trackers followed by a statistical calibration process. Ideally, this wouldn’t be necessary; running two programs in parallel requires a significant investment of time and money which, understandably, most are keen to minimise. Therefore, your first question is likely to be ‘what’s the shortest possible parallel run?’ The rather inconvenient answer is ‘the longer the better’ but best practice dictates a minimum of three comparison data points. Therefore, if your tracker runs monthly it’ll be necessary to conduct a three-month parallel run. Think of this as short-term pain for long-term gain. Trackers mature, enabling greater depth of analysis over time. Your future-self will thank you.
The parallel run is followed by statistical calibration… At total sample level, but also for key sub-groups. It’s important to identify sub-groups of importance to ensure the calibration is comprehensive. It’s also necessary to structure expectations; calibration is not a magic bullet and there’s a degree of art and science involved. The statisticians will need some input from you in order to get it right.
At its simplest, and in non-technical terms, it works something like this…
But if a clean break is acceptable to the business, it will obviously be the quickest, cleanest, and most cost-effective approach.
-
A modular approach to provide a steady stream of ‘new news’
We’ve all worked on trackers which initially generate high levels of stakeholder engagement only to wane over time as KPI’s remain stubbornly stable and ‘no-change’ is the main take-out. A ‘big ticket’ item, such as a tracker, needs to deliver constant ROI. Therefore, it’s important to design a tracker that continually engages and enlightens. Due to the nature of CEPs being more sensitive to brand and category activity, a CEP focused tracker allows for more ongoing ‘new news’ in terms of performance (e.g. CEP X trended up by X% due to campaign Y), however planning for a modular approach to brand tracking can also be beneficial.
A modular approach can counteract periods of stasis as core KPI’s are supplemented by revolving sets of additional questions that provide a steady flow of further ‘new news’. These questions may be topical, designed to answer pressing business issues or they may be focused on longer-term measures that require less frequent monitoring. Whichever, the modular approach enhances KPI insights, keeps stakeholders engaged, and delivers the return you need. But care is needed. Over time, BHTs can become a Frankenstein of additional bolt-ons, which can ultimately lead to their downfall.
-
Building in ‘hooks’ to other data sources
An optimised tracker is a powerful intelligence tool with significant potential to provide a tangible competitive advantage. However, its power is further enhanced when combined with other data sources. Therefore, it’s important to think of your tracker as an insight hub and consider ways in which it can be merged with other data sources (i.e. sales data, digital traffic, marketing spend, media planning tools, existing customer segmentation, etc.). This requires identifying the ‘hooks’ that can be used to combine these disparate sources and, wherever possible, building them into your tracker design. We find this very powerful with ongoing measurement of CEP performance, where inputs (i.e. campaigns) and outputs (i.e. sales) can be tagged against specific changes in CEPs.
If you are interested in understanding how to evolve your brand tracking in line with best practices, please reach out to find out more.
