Ritson on the History and Future of Brand Marketing

Introduction

Mark Ritson’s lecture on the history and future of brand management provides a deep exploration of branding’s evolution, the major contributors to its development, and the principles that continue to drive brand success. Known for his blunt, research-backed insights, Ritson critically views how brand management has developed over the past century and what lies ahead.

Branding is often misunderstood, with many marketers focusing too much on short-term tactics while neglecting the long-term strategic principles that make brands truly powerful. Ritson argues that the foundations of great branding remain essentially unchanged, even as digital transformation and artificial intelligence create new ways to engage with consumers. The key to success lies not in chasing trends but in understanding the timeless principles of brand management, such as distinctiveness, mental availability, market orientation, and mass marketing.

This article explores the key themes of Ritson’s lecture, highlighting the role of pioneers like David Aaker, Les Binet, Peter Field, and Byron Sharp and analyzing how concepts such as differentiation, distinctiveness, and mass marketing have shaped modern brand strategy. We also examine the impact of AI and automation, the shift towards brand salience, and the need for "Both-ism"—a balanced approach that integrates seemingly opposing marketing strategies.

The Evolution of Brand Management

Ritson opens his lecture by outlining three possible starting points for brand management:

• Two Thousand Years Ago: Branding is not a modern concept. Ancient Roman merchants used distinct marks on products like fish sauce to establish trust and distinguish their goods from competitors. These early forms of branding relied on recognition and reputation—principles that remain essential today.

• Ninety-Three Years Ago: The formal discipline of brand management began in 1931 at Procter & Gamble when Neil McElroy wrote a memo defining a brand manager's role. McElroy emphasized that brands should have dedicated managers responsible for product performance, advertising, and competitive positioning. This revolutionized how companies structured their marketing departments and remains a foundational concept today.

• Thirty-Three Years Ago: The rise of academic brand management in the late 20th century, led by David Aaker and Kevin Keller, shaped modern thinking about brand equity, positioning, and identity. Their work provided frameworks for building strong, valuable brands beyond price and functionality.

Each moment marks a fundamental shift in how brands have been perceived and managed. However, McElroy’s memo stands out as the defining moment that established brand management as a structured business discipline.

The Debate: Differentiation vs. Distinctiveness

A longstanding debate in branding is whether brands should focus on differentiation (being unique) or distinctiveness (being easy to recognize).

David Aaker, a strong proponent of differentiation, argues that brands should carve out a unique position in the market by focusing on brand personality, emotional connections, and unique product attributes. This approach has been widely used in luxury fashion, automotive, and technology industries, where brand positioning is crucial in premium pricing and customer loyalty.

However, Byron Sharp and Jenni Romaniuk from Ehrenberg-Bass Institute challenge this notion. Their research suggests that differentiation is overrated and that the actual driver of brand success is distinctiveness—a brand’s ability to be instantly recognizable through its visual, verbal, and sensory assets. Sharp’s work highlights how mental availability (being the first brand recalled in a buying situation) is more important than the slight, nuanced differentiations that many marketers focus on.

Ritson acknowledges that while differentiation can be valuable, it is often overstated. He aligns more with Romaniuk and Sharp’s research (e.g., How Brands Grow) Les Binet and Peter Field’s research¹, which suggests that brands should prioritize distinctive brand assets (e.g., logos, colors, slogans) to drive mental availability. Strong branding ensures that consumers can recall a brand in relevant buying situations, which is ultimately more powerful than a subtle point of differentiation.

Market Orientation: A Key to Brand Success

Ritson strongly advocates for market orientation—aligning a brand’s strategy with real consumer needs rather than internal company assumptions. Many brands, he argues, become internally focused, failing to see their brand as customers do.

Market orientation involves:

• Conducting rigorous consumer research rather than relying on internal biases.

• Understanding that consumers don’t think about brands as much as marketers do.

• Recognizing that competitors are defined by consumers, not by internal company perspectives.

This market-oriented approach aligns with Aaker’s belief that brand equity is shaped by how consumers perceive and interact with a brand. Binet and Field’s research also supports this view, demonstrating that the most effective brands focus on broad-reach marketing rather than niche targeting.

The Long and the Short of It: Brand Building vs. Sales Activation

One of Les Binet and Peter Field's most significant contributions to marketing science is their 60/40 rule, which suggests that brands allocate 60% of their marketing budget to brand-building efforts and 40% to short-term sales activation.

• Brand-building efforts rely on emotional storytelling, broad reach, and creating future demand by increasing mental availability.

• Sales activation focuses on immediate conversions through price promotions, discounts, and performance marketing tactics.

Ritson warns that many brands overinvest in short-term performance marketing, which can lead to brand erosion over time. The most effective brands find the right balance between immediate ROI and long-term brand health.

The Role of AI and Automation in Brand Management

Ritson takes a balanced view of AI’s impact on branding, dismissing utopian and dystopian views.

• AI will automate tactical execution, such as ad placements, content optimization, and real-time bidding.

• However, brand strategy, creativity, and positioning remain uniquely human-driven.

AI cannot replace the strategic thinking required for brand storytelling, emotional engagement, and long-term brand-building efforts. While AI can enhance efficiency and targeting, brands must not lose sight of the human elements that create powerful consumer connections.

Both-ism: Why Marketing Needs a Balanced Approach

One of Ritson’s most important contributions to modern branding thought is "Both-ism"—the idea that marketers should embrace both seemingly contradictory approaches rather than choosing one side of a debate.

• Differentiation vs. Distinctiveness? Use both.

• Traditional vs. Digital Media? Integrate both.

• Mass Marketing vs. Targeting? Combine broad reach with precise segmentation.

This pragmatic approach aligns closely with Binet and Field’s research, which suggests that a mix of broad-reach advertising and targeted marketing produces the best long-term results.

Brand Salience: The Future of Brand Measurement

Ritson also emphasizes that the future of brand marketing is shifting toward brand salience—the likelihood that a consumer will recall a brand when considering a purchase. Byron Sharp and Jenni Romaniuk champion this idea, arguing that brands must:

• Build strong category entry points.

• Improve mental availability across different shopping occasions.

Brands that excel at salience outperform those that focus only on differentiation.

Conclusion

Ritson’s lecture offers a clear, research-backed perspective on brand management. His synthesis of Aaker’s brand equity principles, Binet and Field’s long-term brand-building research, and Sharp’s work on salience creates a roadmap for brand success in an evolving marketplace.

His final message is simple: Ignore the noise, stay focused on proven marketing fundamentals, and commit to building strong brands for the long term.

1. I had wrongly attributed the conclusion to Binet and Field, whose contribution is in short vs. long-term thinking, effects, and brand building.