What are brands for?
品牌有什么用

Brands are the most valuable assets many companies possess. But no one agrees on how much they are worth or why
品牌是很多公司拥有的最有价值的资产。但是没人在品牌值多少和为什么值钱上达成一致WHEN Imperial Tobacco, the world’s fourth-largest cigarette-maker, said in July that it would spend $7.1 billion to expand its business in America, its chief executive, Alison Cooper, was adamant on one point: it will not be buying companies. Instead, in a three-way deal with Reynolds American and Lorillard, it will pick up a factory, a sales force and, above all, a collection of brands. Two of them, Winston and Blu (an electronic-cigarette brand), will be “the focus for the lion’s share of time and money invested”.

2014年7月份，世界上第四大香烟制造商“皇家烟草”宣布它要花71亿美元来扩大其在美国的生意。那时，它的首席执行官 Alison Cooper在一点上坚定不移：它不会收购别的公司。相反，在同Reynolds American 和 Lorillard的一宗三向交易上，它承接了一家工厂和一只营销团队，最重要的是它承接了一大堆品牌。它们中的两个，Winston 和 Blu （一个电子烟品牌），将会是时间和资金投入的首要被关注者。

No management expert would think it strange that Imperial would spend the best part of $7 billion on something as ethereal as brands. They are the most valuable thing that companies as diverse as Apple and McDonald’s own, often worth much more than property and machinery. Brands account for more than 30% of the stockmarket value of companies in the S&P 500 index, reckons Millward Brown, a market-research company. Everyone knows that a Ralph Lauren Polo shirt costs more than a polo shirt; Coke without the logo is just cola. Ms Cooper hopes to exploit Winston’s “untapped brand equity”.

对于皇家烟草把70亿美元中的大部分花在像品牌这样轻飘飘的东西上，没有管理专家会觉得这很奇怪。即使像苹果和麦当劳这样不同的公司，品牌也是他们最珍贵的东西，常常比固定资产和机器还贵得多。市场调查公司Millward Brown估计在标准普尔500指数中，品牌占了公司的股票市值的30%。所有人都知道Ralph Lauren Polo衫比普通POLO衫贵很多。没有“可口”可口可乐就不“可乐”了。Cooper女士希望利用Winston“没被开发的品牌价值”。

Yet arguments rage about how much brands are worth and why. Firms that value them come to starkly different conclusions. Most of the time they do not appear as assets on companies’ balance-sheets (see article). One school of thought says brands succeed mainly by inspiring loyalty. “Consumers would die for Apple,” believes Nick Cooper of Millward Brown. Others take a cooler view. Bruce McColl, who as the chief marketer of Mars oversees Snickers chocolate bars, Whiskas cat food and other brands, is on record as saying that “consumers aren’t out there thinking about our brands.” And however much brands may have been worth in the past, their importance may be fading.

然而争论起于牌子值多少钱和为什么值这么多钱。评价的他们的公司给出了完全不同的结论。大部分时间，品牌价值不作为资产在资产负债表上列示（见文）。一种学派认为品牌的成功主要依靠鼓舞人心的忠诚。Millward Brown的Nick Cooper 相信“消费者愿意为苹果死”。还有人则保持比较冷静的观点。Mars监督Mars巧克力吧、Whiskas猫食和其他品牌的市场营销总监，Bruce McColl，公开发表说“消费者不像那样考虑我们的品牌。”虽然一些品牌过去值钱，但是他们的重要性现在可能在降低。

Brands, of course, vary. Some identify products that are distinctive (like The Economist, we hope). Others confer distinction on products that are otherwise hard to tell apart, such as cola. The brands of banks and insurers are shaped less by advertising and marketing (the usual ways of building a brand) than by customers’ experiences, points out Simon Glynn of Lippincott, a consulting firm. In such cases, consumers get the message only if employees do.

品牌之间当然有所不同。有些使与众不同的产品（像《经济学人》，我们希望）被识别。还有的使产品难以区分的产品可以被区别，像可乐。银行和保险品牌的塑造更多通过顾客体验而不是广告和营销（建立品牌通常的方法），咨询公司Lippincott的Simon Glynn 指出。在这些事例中，只有雇员工作的时候顾客才得到信息。

The idea of brand equity arose in America in the 1980s after a bout of cut-throat discounting by consumer-goods companies, which prompted them to look for less-savage and more enduring ways to boost sales. Patiently building brands became the preferred alternative. They would allow companies to hold on to customers, win new ones and provide launching pads for new products. David Aaker, a business-school professor who helped spread the idea, identified three main components of brand equity: consumers’ awareness of a brand, the qualities they associate with it (BMW summons up German engineering, Ryanair says “cheap”) and loyalty. The arguments now are partly over how important each element

经历了一系列的消费日用品公司的残酷打折后，品牌资产的概念在20世纪八十年代的美国建立起来，这促使他们寻找一种避免自残更长久的扩大销量的方法。耐心的建立品牌成为了受欢迎的选择。这让公司可以抓住老客户，赢得新客户，有新产品的跳板。商业学校的教授David Aaker，传播了这项理念，他认定了品牌资产的三项主要成分:消费者对品牌的认知，他们与它联想的质量（BMW振作了德国的工程，Ryanair说的“廉价”）还有忠诚。现在的争论部分是关于每个元素有多重要。

What’s love got to do with it?
喜爱和品牌有什么关系？

Loyalty is what excites marketers and advertising folk. So-called “lovemarks” such as Apple and Coca-Cola are trademarks that inspire “loyalty beyond reason”, says Saatchi & Saatchi, an advertising agency; the firm runs a website that lists hundreds of them. They have legions of fans, command a price premium and, most important perhaps, are forgiven when they fall short . The “emotional bond puts credit in the bank,” says Mr Cooper. Brands are a promise to consumers, it is often said; they also serve as an insurance policy to cover the cost of breaking it.

忠诚让市场营销人员和广告人兴奋。像苹果和可口可乐这些所谓的“爱的标记”激起了“没有理由的忠诚”，广告公司Saatchi & Saatchi说到，这家公司运营了一家网站，上面列有几百家类似的品牌。他们拥有众多粉丝，控制着溢价，最重要的可能是人们会原谅他们的不足。Cooper女士说道“感情的债券会把信用放在银行里。”品牌是对消费者的承诺，人们常说到：品牌起到被破坏时的保险单的作用。

Much marketing gospel flows from this view, such as the idea that brands must differentiate, appeal to distinct groups of consumers and foster fidelity. Loyal consumers “really drive brand profitability,” believes Millward Brown, which is part of WPP, a big marketing group. Loyalty and “emotional connection” also figure in the Brand Strength Index devised by BrandFinance, a competitor. Some companies even link pay to indicators of brand health. At HSBC, part of top executives’ bonuses depend on Brand Finance’s valuation.

很多营销真理出于这样的观点，比如品牌必须区分开，吸引不同的客户群，能培养忠诚。忠诚的消费者“真的会驱使品牌盈利”，一个大的营销团队WPP的一部分Millward Brown这样相信。忠实和情感联系也被算入竞争对手 BrandFinance设计的Brand Strength 指数。一些公司会把付的钱与品牌健康度挂钩。在汇丰银行，一些行政主管的奖金取决于Brand Finance的评值。

A second view holds that brands are “a shorthand for choice”, in the words of Martin Glenn, chief executive of United Biscuits, producer of McVitie’s. They make it easier for shoppers to cut through the information bombardment that rains down upon them. On this analysis, awareness matters more than loyalty or passion.

第二种观点认为品牌是“选择的速记”， 用 McVitie’s的生产商United Biscuits的行政总裁Martin Glenn的话来说。他们会让买东西的人在信息狂轰滥炸中找到一个比较简便的方法。按照这种分析，认知比忠实和热情更重要。

Apple’s computers, for example, may have a strong brand; but they command only a little more loyalty from buyers than do customers of less-ballyhooed makes of computer, argues Byron Sharp, a marketing expert at the University of South Australia. Their slightly higher tendency to stick with Apple probably comes from the hassle of having to convert to a different operating system, rather than love of the brand, he reckons. Harley-Davidson, a motorcycle company, is well known to have a devoted fan base. But in fact such fanatics account for only a tenth of its customers and just 3.5% of its revenue.

举例来说，苹果电脑可能有很强大的品牌，但是他们仅比不宣扬的电脑制造商从买家那里获得多一点点的忠诚。University of South Australia的营销专家Byron Sharp争论到。他估计到，他们这种稍微高出一点跟随苹果的趋向，可能是因为来自更换操作系统的不愉快，而不是来自对品牌的热爱。摩托车公司 Harley-Davidson有着众所周知的忠实粉丝俱乐部。但是这些狂热用户只占十分之一的顾客并提供3.5%的收入。

On this view, companies that strive to differentiate themselves from their competitors’ brands are mostly wasting their time. Take fizzy drinks. Mr Sharp’s data show that less than one-fifth of the people who quaff them think there is anything unique or special about Coke, Pepsi and the like. Many products marketed mainly to women are largely bought by men, and vice versa. A consumer-goods brand that aimed its marketing at its most fervent fans would lose sales: a typical Coke drinker buys one or two bottles a year.

基于这种观点，那些急于区别与其他竞争者的的公司可能是在浪费时间。看看碳酸饮料。Sharp先生的数据显示不到五分之一的爱喝碳酸饮料的人认为可口可乐和百事可乐还有其他的可乐有什么特殊与不一样。有些专为女性做营销的产品却被男性大量购买，反之亦然。一个日常消费品品牌如果把市场定位于狂热粉丝就会失去销量：一个典型的喝可口可乐的人一年就买一两瓶。