Vol.:(0123456789) Journal of Brand Management https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-020-00187-6 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Building a unique brand identity: measuring the relative ownership potential of brand identity element types Ella Ward 1  · Song Yang 1  · Jenni Romaniuk 1  · Virginia Beal 1 Revised: 16 November 2018 © Springer Nature Limited 2020 Abstract A strong brand identity must comprise unique identity elements such as logos, colours or characters that distinguish it from competitors and facilitate recognition and purchase. A critical marketing function is therefore deciding which elements to invest in, to protect and build this identity. Within this paper, a new measure, Competitive Intensity, is proposed as a means to critically evaluate brand identity elements on their uniqueness potential. Results of testing 1281 in-market elements from 13 consumer packaged goods categories in 19 countries show that character, logo and logotypes have the greatest potential for unique brand ownership. Colour, however, is more challenging to develop as a unique brand identifer due to high levels of competitive sharing. Competitive intensity varies for elements of the same type, suggesting that practitioner execution plays a critical role in successful ownership. Being the frst empirical comparison of eight element types, this paper provides comprehensive guidance to practitioner decision-making. Keywords Brand identity · Uniqueness · Herfndahl–Hirschman Index Introduction During Christmas of 2011, Coca-Cola partnered with the World Wildlife Fund to develop the “Artic Home” advertis- ing campaign in the USA and Canada, raising funds and awareness for arctic habitat protection. Intended to be dis- ruptive, the campaign was fronted by the release of an Artic Home can that diverted from Coca-Cola’s signature red for the frst time. Featuring silver polar bears, the white can was intended to run until March 2012; however, when the cans hit shelves in November, they were met by immediate con- fusion and criticism by consumers. Hundreds of consumers published tweets, posts and comments publicly complaining that the can was too similar to the Diet Coke can (Shayon 2011). In response, Coca-Cola discontinued the white cans more than two months ahead of schedule, and replaced them with a red rendition of the Arctic Home can (Esterl 2011). By removing the colour red, Coca-Cola made it difcult for consumers to recognise the product amid the clutter of competing information. Critically, consumers use brand identity cues as short cuts to quickly recognise brands and distinguish them from competitors in their purchase environ- ment and in the advertising campaigns they produce (Perry and Wisnom 2003; Hoek and Gendall 2010; Romaniuk and Nenycz-Thiel 2014). The colour red had been used to rep- resent Coke consistently for 125 years (Booker 2012); for many consumers the white and silver can both be diverted from the mental image they had of Coke, and conformed to the colour palette and identity of Diet Coke. This is poten- tially damaging on several accounts. First, it fails to convey key Coca-Cola image attributes as characterised in the minds of consumers, and second, it afects the ability of that image to build brand equity for Diet Coke (Keller 1993, 2001). The white can was designed to be “bold [and] attention grabbing”, said Scott Williamson spokesperson for Coca- Cola (Esterl 2011), but instead the disruptive campaign sim- ply confused shoppers as core brand elements of Coke were altered to such a degree that it inhibited consumer ability to fnd and purchase the brand. Identity elements are the cornerstone to brand identity that helps consumers to recognise brands and distinguish them from competitors (Hoek and Gendall 2010). These elements evoke the brand in the mind of consumers, and create a unique look and/or feel that makes it easy to identify * Ella Ward Ella.ward@marketingscience.info 1 School of Marketing, Ehrenberg-Bass Institute for Marketing Science, University of South Australia, UniSA City West, 70 North Terrace, Adelaide, Australia