Salience vs. Differentiation: Is being famous enough for a brand to succeed or does differentiation really make the difference?

If you are a follower of the general marketing discourse on LinkedIn, Twitter, or in the marketing media, you’ll notice ongoing debates around supposedly opposing concepts – long-term versus short-term, traditional versus digital media, mass marketing versus targeting, etcetera. Each concept comes with its own dedicated following and active promoters swearing their view of the world is the correct one. A big, seemingly conflicting, topic that has sparked debate in recent years is the issue of brand salience versus differentiation, particularly in how brands prioritise growth investments.

At its core this is a discussion on the best route to brand growth strategy. One side of the argument claims that improving salience, i.e., having a brand that people come to think of in many buying situations, is the only route. This implies that brands should only focus on making sure they are mentally and physically available to consumers in the right buying situations, often referred to as mental and physical availability, and that building a differentiated brand position is a waste of time and resources. Team Differentiation, on the other hand, argues that brands need to find a meaningfully different position compared to their competitors or they will lose their relevance in the marketplace.

The pendulum has been swinging back and forth on this topic over the years. Not long ago, most brands were focusing all their efforts into creating a differentiated position. However, brand salience has made a comeback, thanks to the highly influential work of Byron Sharp and the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute, shifting how marketers think about scale and penetration.

As entertaining as these polarised marketing debates can be, the truth is often that it’s not either/or. We need to consider both the long and the short term, traditional and digital media combined to reach the broadest audiences, etcetera. And the same goes for brand salience and brand differentiation. Both are crucial aspects of long-term brand building, but they play different roles in how they contribute to a brand’s growth.

How do Salience and Differentiation add to your brand growth?

Sharp and his colleagues have shown that brand salience is a key factor for growing volume and revenue via increased penetration and the activation of non-frequent buyers. This makes salience a powerful lever for scaling demand. But solely focusing on salience means ignoring another important benefit of having a strong brand, which is creating pricing power. This is where brand positioning and differentiation become essential rather than optional.

Brands that are very salient but lack differentiation against competitors are perceived as generic and can rarely justify charging a higher price for their products or services. On the other hand, a brand that is differentiated from competitors in a way that is meaningful and value adding for consumers can not only charge a price premium, but maintain it over time. This outcome sits at the heart of any effective willingness to pay pricing strategy.

Well known examples of this approach include Apple and Tesla. Both those companies have been successful in building a unique position as a niche brand, then grow their brand salience without compromising on their differentiation. Their success is rooted in a clear brand differentiation strategy that reinforces positioning as salience increases. This has allowed them to dramatically grow their market share over the years while keeping their price premiums intact. Then there are other brands, like Virgin and IKEA, that have built a unique brand positioning and then used the higher perceived value from consumers to support sustainable growth and brand expansion strategy into new categories.

So, both Team Salience and Team Differentiation are right. Brand salience grows volume and revenue, whilst differentiation in branding builds and protects pricing power over time.

Measuring Salience and Differentiation

To ensure that investments are allocated in the right direction, brands need measurements and KPIs that capture both perspectives. Most brands measure salience in some way, either through brand funnel KPIs in brand monitoring tools or through other measurements such as share of search. These brand salience measures help brands understand how easily they come to mind and in which buying situations they are considered.

A Brand Tracker usually also covers brand associations or attributes. This is an important way to keep track of consumer perceptions and the current competitive landscape. But brand associations should not serve as long-term KPIs of differentiation or as a substitute for a clearly defined brand differentiation strategy, as they often change faster than a brand’s underlying value proposition.

Achieving a differentiated position is a moving target – consumer needs and behaviours change, and a brand’s position needs to be adjusted to maintain differentiation over time. What sets your brand apart from competitors today may be category standard in just a couple of years. Thereby, the brand associations you choose as your main KPIs for differentiation will need to be changed and updated frequently, making them difficult to use as guidance for long-term strategy adjustments.

Instead, brands should consider the end-goal of having a differentiated position and evaluate differentiation through outcomes such as pricing power and sustained relevance. This thinking aligns with a broader brand portfolio strategy creating relevance, differentiation, energy, leverage and clarity across markets.

Read more: What is brand value in marketing? A complete guide

Pricing Power as a KPI for Differentiation

Published on: 14TH JAN 2025