Beyond Recognition: Why Brand Assets Can’t Avoid Meaning

EBI vs. Kantar

Introduction: EBI vs. Kantar

In recent years, the debate over the role of Distinctive Brand Assets has become more pointed. At the centre lies a fundamental question: should DBAs be treated solely as tools for brand recognition, as Ehrenberg-Bass argues, or do they inevitably take on meaning in the minds of consumers, as suggested by behavioural data and research from groups like Kantar?

Ehrenberg-Bass scholars, particularly Jenni Romaniuk, have strongly advocated for DBAs to be “meaning-free” at the point of creation. The argument is that by avoiding category norms and emotional or functional associations, DBAs can serve their purpose more effectively: to cue the brand name quickly and cleanly in memory. Distinctiveness, in this view, is about ensuring salience, making the brand easier to notice and recall in buying situations.

However, research informed by decades of consumer behaviour tracking, particularly Kantar’s Blueprint for Brand Growth, points in a different direction. According to this view, brand assets do more than trigger recognition. They gather and reinforce associations (functional, emotional, and social) over time by being present across repeated exposures.

This post explores this tension. It aims to clarify what “meaning” really means in this context, not as an abstract ideal but as a concrete product of repeated experience and association. The goal is to help marketers manage DBAs not just for visibility but also for the meanings they will inevitably carry once in-market.

The Ehrenberg-Bass View: Meaning-Free Distinctiveness

The Ehrenberg-Bass Institute, led by Byron Sharp and Jenni Romaniuk, has significantly shaped how marketers understand brand growth. Their approach centres on the idea that brands grow primarily by increasing mental and physical availability. Mental availability refers to how easily and quickly a brand comes to mind in buying situations, and Distinctive Brand Assets are positioned as key tools in achieving this.

Romaniuk argues that DBAs should be designed to serve one specific function: to cue the brand name in the consumer’s mind with minimal cognitive effort. For this reason, she cautions against embedding DBAs with category norms, emotional messages, or functional claims. The risk is that such meanings may blur brand identity or introduce confusion, particularly if the asset resembles category conventions or competitors’ signals.