Skip to main content

Brand Vision Model

Formerly Known as the Brand Identity Model

David A. Aaker · Prophet

Purpose & Claim
Why Aaker Built the Model

Aaker developed the Brand Vision Model for three reasons.

To give brand building a clear direction. For Aaker, every brand needs a clearly worded picture of the image it aims for, which he calls the brand vision. In his words, it is "an articulated description of the aspirational image for the brand". It says what the brand should mean to customers and to other groups, such as employees and partners. This description drives the brand-building part of the marketing program and strongly shapes the rest (Aaker, 2014a, p. 20). Aaker sees it as the foundation of brand strategy and of brand building (Aaker, 2014b, "The Importance of Brand Vision" section). When the vision "clicks", it supports the business strategy, sets the brand apart from competitors, appeals to customers and inspires employees and partners. It sparks a flood of ideas for brand building and keeps brand building consistent across products, services and customer groups. When the vision is missing or superficial, the brand drifts without direction, and marketing programs tend to be inconsistent and weak (Aaker, 2014a, p. 20).

To move beyond the three-word phrase. One motivation for the model was the spread of brand models from advertising agencies. These models needed one idea to steer an advertising campaign (Aaker, 2012, principle 1). Aaker argues that a single thought or phrase rarely describes a brand. The search for such a "magic brand concept" can lead nowhere. Worse, it can leave the brand with a vision that is incomplete and misses important parts (Aaker, 2014a, p. 20).

To escape the fill-in-the-box format. Some brand models give every brand the same set of boxes to fill in. Aaker finds such "one-size-fits-all" models "too confining" (Aaker, 2012, principle 2). Each box stands for a dimension, meaning one kind of content such as personality, symbols or emotional benefits (Aaker, 2012, principle 2; Aaker, 2014a, p. 20). His model does not prescribe dimensions that every brand must fill in, even where a box does not apply. It does not give minor dimensions the same weight as important ones. Nor does it keep users from adding a dimension for which there is no box (Aaker, 2012, principle 2; Aaker, 2014a, p. 20).

The Model
From Vision Elements to Position

Brand Vision Model: six to twelve vision elements prioritised into core and extended elements, with an optional essence, backed by proof points and strategic imperatives; the short-term brand position often stresses the elements that are now credible and deliverable
Redrawn after Aaker (2014a, pp. 20–21; 2014c, "Is Your Vision Really Feasible" section).

Structural Logic
Seven Points That Set It Apart

Aaker sets his model apart from others "in several ways". In 2014 he names seven (Aaker, 2014a, pp. 20–21):

  • More than a three-word phrase: a brand may be based on six to twelve vision elements. These are the associations, the ideas that should come to mind when people see or hear of the brand (Aaker, 2011a, point 3). The two to five that are strongest and most distinctive become the core elements. They drive the brand-building programs. The others are extended elements (Aaker, 2014a, p. 20).
  • A useful extended tier: the extended elements fill in detail and add texture to the vision. They help strategists judge whether a program is "on brand", that is, whether it fits the brand. An extended element sometimes grows into a core element (Aaker, 2014a, p. 20).
  • No fill-in-the-box model: the model does not prescribe dimensions that every brand must fill in, and brands may use a dimension that lacks a box. Which dimensions are used depends on the market and the strategy, on competitors and customers, and on the organisation and the brand itself. Organisational values and programs, for example, are likely to be important for service firms and for firms that sell to other businesses (B2B), but not for packaged consumer goods (Aaker, 2014a, p. 20). Aaker lists dimensions to draw on. Some concern the organisation behind the brand and its values. Others are symbols, personality, bases of authority, and functional, emotional and social benefits. Two more concern the people who use the brand. User imagery is the picture of the typical user, with his or her values and lifestyle. Self-expressive benefits let people show who they are through the brand they use (Aaker, 2012, principle 2; Aaker, 2011a, point 4).
  • Aspiration, not description: the vision is aspirational. It describes the image the brand aims for, which can differ from its current image. It holds the associations the brand needs for the future, in line with its present and future business strategy. A brand that plans to enter a new product category will probably have to reach beyond its current image (Aaker, 2014a, pp. 20–21).
  • An optional essence: the brand essence is a central theme of the vision, one idea that sums it up (Aaker, 2011a, point 3; Aaker, 2014a, p. 21). It should always be sought, but sometimes it gets in the way and is better left out (Aaker, 2014a, p. 21).
  • Strong everywhere, not the same everywhere: using one and the same vision for every product and market is neat and convenient but, in his view, not workable in today's complex marketplace. For each product or market, managers can stress different elements, read elements like quality or innovation in different ways, or add some. But they should avoid programs that clash with the vision (Aaker, 2014a, p. 21).
  • Vision and position kept apart: the vision holds the ideas that help guide the brand's future (Aaker, 2014b, "What Is Brand Vision?" section). The brand position, by contrast, is a short-term guide for what the brand communicates. It often stresses the elements that will appeal and that the brand can already deliver credibly. The position may change over time, as the brand gains new capabilities and programs or as markets shift (Aaker, 2014a, p. 21).

Aaker adds that a winning vision must be credible inside and outside the organisation. So proof points or strategic imperatives are needed (Aaker, 2014a, p. 21). Proof points are skills and programs already in place that let the organisation deliver what a vision element promises (Aaker, 2014c, "Is Your Vision Really Feasible" section). Strategic imperatives are programs planned to build proof points (Aaker, 2014a, p. 21). In 2012, when the model was still called the brand identity model, Aaker summed it up in "six principles". Five of them match the points above. The remaining one is the elaboration of each core element, which means working it out in detail. This builds "the bridge" from the vision to brand-building programs (Aaker, 2012, para. 1, principles 5–6). A version of the 2014 text on the Prophet website presents the model as "6 Key Components" and leaves out the point on adaptation (Aaker, 2014b, "The Brand Vision Model: 6 Key Components" section).

Aaker first presented the model as the brand identity model in his book Building Strong Brands (1996) and refined it four years later in Brand Leadership (Aaker, 2012, para. 1). In Aaker on Branding (2014), he renamed it, something he had wanted to do for a long time. For him, the term "brand vision" fits the strategic, aspirational side of the idea much better. The word "identity" is weaker and often causes confusion. For some people it means the graphic design around the brand (Aaker, 2014a, p. 20), such as the logo and visual identity (Aaker, 2014b, "The Importance of Brand Vision" section). In the article he adds the old name in brackets (Aaker, 2014a, p. 20).

Elements
Building Blocks as Aaker Defines Them

Definitions follow Aaker (2014a, pp. 20–21), with details from his blog posts on the model (Aaker, 2011a, 2011b, 2012, 2014c). All examples are his own.

Starting Point

  • 01

    Vision Elements

    The building blocks of the vision. They are the associations that should come to mind when people see or hear of the brand (Aaker, 2011a, point 3). A brand may be based on six to twelve of them (Aaker, 2014a, p. 20). They are created in three steps. First, the associations the brand aims for are listed. Then they are sorted into groups that belong together. Finally, each group is summed up in a phrase. Some associations can be points of parity. The brand needs them to be relevant, but they do not set it apart (Aaker, 2012, principle 1).

    Volvo, BMW, Apple: Aaker urges brands to look beyond functional benefits to emotional and self-expressive ones. A Volvo can make customers feel safe, a BMW can excite them, and Apple can make people feel creative (Aaker, 2011a, point 4).
Priorities

  • 02

    Core Vision Elements

    The two to five vision elements that are "the most compelling and differentiating". They reflect the brand's future value propositions, that is, what it will promise customers. They drive the brand-building programs and initiatives (Aaker, 2014a, p. 20). Each core element is elaborated so that programs can be found and ranked (Aaker, 2012, principle 5). In an earlier blog post, Aaker spoke of two to four core elements (Aaker, 2011a, point 3).

    Haas School of Business: the four core elements are "question the status quo", "students always", "beyond yourself" and "confidence without attitude" (Aaker, 2014a, p. 20). Each is spelled out. The text for "students always", for instance, describes a community built around curiosity and the lifelong growth of each person, personal and intellectual (Aaker, 2011b, "Students always" section).

  • 03

    Extended Vision Elements

    All other vision elements, usually three to five (Aaker, 2012, principle 3). They "add texture" to the vision and help strategists judge whether a program is "on brand". They give a home to aspects that may not deserve a core place, such as a brand personality. They also hold elements that matter greatly for success but may not set the brand apart, such as high quality. These elements can and should still shape branding programs. An extended element sometimes grows into a core element (Aaker, 2014a, p. 20). In Aaker's view, keeping an element visible keeps it alive (Aaker, 2012, principle 3).

    B2B brands: Aaker's own example for this tier is brand personality. It often fails to become a main differentiator, especially for B2B brands. The extended tier gives it a home (Aaker, 2012, principle 3).
Theme and Communication

  • 04

    Brand Essence

    An optional central theme of the vision. It works as one umbrella idea that covers everything the brand aims to do. The right essence can be "magic" for internal communication, for inspiring employees and partners and for guiding programs. It should always be sought, but sometimes it gets in the way. If it does not fit or is not convincing, it will absorb the energy of everyone involved. Then the core elements are the better drivers of the brand (Aaker, 2014a, p. 21).

    London Business School, Panasonic, Disneyland, Mobil: the essence of London Business School is "transforming futures". For Panasonic it is "ideas for life", for Disneyland "family magic". At Mobil (now ExxonMobil), the core elements were leadership, partnership and trust. Aaker thinks it would probably be awkward to force an essence on this brand (Aaker, 2014a, p. 21).

  • 05

    Brand Position

    A short-term guide for communication. It often states what will be said to which target audience, and with what reasoning. The current position often stresses the vision elements that will appeal and that the brand can already deliver credibly. It might change as new capabilities and programs emerge or markets shift. Its centrepiece is often a tagline, a short slogan for the outside world. The tagline does not have to match the essence, and usually does not. The essence is meant for use inside the organisation (Aaker, 2014a, p. 21).

    Haas School of Business: the essence is a line about developing leaders who change how business is done. It differs from the tagline "Leading through Innovation", which Aaker calls an expression of the brand aimed at the outside (Aaker, 2011b, para. 3).
Elaboration

  • 06

    Proof Points

    Evidence that the organisation can keep its promise. Proof points are skills and programs the organisation already has. They enable it to deliver what each vision element and its value proposition promise (Aaker, 2014c, "Is Your Vision Really Feasible" section). In 2012, Aaker described them as the assets and skills already in place behind an identity element (Aaker, 2012, principle 5). Proof points can be visible to customers or work behind the scenes. The brand should make the most of them (Aaker, 2014c, "Proof Points Can Be Visible" section).

    IKEA, Tesla, Nordstrom: IKEA backs its low prices with strong design know-how and functional products. Tesla backs its range with battery knowledge and skill. Nordstrom backs its personal service with a visible return policy and empowered staff, and with pay, hiring and training that customers do not see (Aaker, 2014c, "Is Your Vision Really Feasible" and "Proof Points Can Be Visible" sections).

  • 07

    Strategic Imperatives

    Where proof points are weak or missing, a strategic imperative is needed. Aaker defines it as "a strategic investment" in assets, skills, programs or people. Without it, the promise to customers cannot be delivered. But it may require a large investment or a change in culture. Imperatives act as a reality check. They make the "must-do" investments visible and so raise the question of whether the brand strategy is realistic (Aaker, 2014c, "Proof Points Can Be Visible" section).

    Haas School of Business: to become known as the innovation school, a place where faculty and students "challenge the status quo", Haas adjusted its curriculum, faculty, research programs, alumni outreach and admission process (Aaker, 2014c, "Delivering on Your Brand Promise" section).

Application
Build, Elaborate, Test and Adapt

Work on the vision starts with the associations the brand aims for. They are listed, sorted into groups that belong together, and each group is summed up in a phrase (Aaker, 2012, principle 1). The elements are then ranked into core and extended elements (Aaker, 2014a, p. 20). The extended tier also helps the discussion. An idea that could not be the centrepiece of the brand need not be dropped. It can be placed in the extended tier, and the discussion can go forward (Aaker, 2014a, p. 20).

Next, each core element is elaborated. Besides proof points and strategic imperatives, this can include role models. External role models are other brands that already have the association the brand aims for. Internal role models are people, products or programs inside the organisation that show an element at its best (Aaker, 2012, principle 5). If a brand wants to be seen as warm and friendly, Aaker suggests looking at brands that have achieved this, even in quite different industries, and asking what could be adapted (Aaker, 2011a, point 6).

The elaboration also tests whether the vision is realistic. Aaker asks three questions. Are the resources for the investments available? Is the organisation really committed? Is it able to respond to the imperatives? If the answer to any of them is “no”, the promise becomes "an empty advertising slogan" (Aaker, 2014c, "Proof Points Can Be Visible" and "Delivering on Your Brand Promise" sections). Take a regional bank that wants to be a "relationship bank". If it will not invest in the customer database it needs, it will have to rethink the concept (Aaker, 2014c, "Delivering on Your Brand Promise" section). As Aaker puts it, the best vision does not win, but the one that gets implemented does (Aaker, 2014c, "Final Thoughts" section).

When a brand is used for different products, markets or countries, the same vision should be applied wherever possible, so that programs that work can be rolled out more widely. But adaptation is often necessary. Elements can be added, given less weight or redefined. The result should be a strong brand in each context that never contradicts the overall vision. Chevron, for example, allows its business units this kind of adaptation (Aaker, 2012, principle 6).

Aaker's recurring example is the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley. The vision was created under Dean Rich Lyons. The process drew on thorough research, input from stakeholders, a very good sense of the school's culture and strengths, and a Dean who took an active part. Over several years, the vision and its programs were tested under pressure and put into practice, and the vision was refined and worked out in more detail. Aaker, a Professor Emeritus at Berkeley-Haas, says he played only a minor part in creating it (Aaker, 2011b, paras. 1–2). The result was far more than a guide for communication. It led to extensive changes in programs and in how they are presented (Aaker, 2011b, para. 1; Aaker, 2014b, "Final Thoughts" section). The school adapted its curriculum, for example with a leadership development program. It also added, changed and reframed research programs to deliver on the promise of the vision (Aaker, 2011b, "Final Thoughts" section).

Common Mistakes

Aaker's texts point to five stumbling blocks (Aaker, 2012, principle 4; Aaker, 2014a, pp. 20–21; Aaker, 2014c, "Look for Proof Points and Imperatives" section):

  • Hunting for the magic phrase: the search for one brand concept can lead nowhere or, worse, leave the vision incomplete, with relevant elements missing (Aaker, 2014a, p. 20).
  • Dropping ideas too early: someone's idea for an aspirational association is, Aaker says, "too often" turned down when it cannot serve as the centrepiece of the brand (Aaker, 2014a, p. 20).
  • Staying inside today's image: brand executives "too often" feel uneasy about moving past what the brand is currently allowed to do. Yet most brands have to strengthen some dimensions and add new ones to open new sources of growth (Aaker, 2014a, pp. 20–21).
  • Insisting on an essence: at times the core elements are convincing on their own. Then insisting on an essence only wastes energy and blurs the strategy going forward (Aaker, 2012, principle 4).
  • Wishful thinking: the vision carries a promise to customers and a commitment from the organisation. So it must not be wishful thinking and needs substance behind it (Aaker, 2014c, "Look for Proof Points and Imperatives" section).

Takeaway
Key Contributions and Limitations

Key Contributions

  • More than a three-word phrase: instead of the single thought that agency brand models needed, Aaker offers a vision of six to twelve elements. Most brands, he argues, cannot be defined by one phrase (Aaker, 2012, principle 1; Aaker, 2014a, p. 20).
  • A core and an extended tier: ranking the elements keeps the focus on two to five drivers without throwing the rest away. The extended tier helps to judge whether a program is "on brand". It holds aspects such as personality or quality and keeps ideas alive that may later move into the core (Aaker, 2014a, p. 20).
  • Aspiration, not description: the vision sets out the associations the brand needs for its future strategy, even where they differ from today's image (Aaker, 2014a, pp. 20–21). Aaker renamed the model from "identity" to "vision" to make this strategic, aspirational nature clear (Aaker, 2014a, p. 20).
  • Flexible by design: the model has no fixed boxes. Users choose the dimensions that matter in their context (Aaker, 2014a, p. 20), and the vision can be adapted to different products, markets and countries (Aaker, 2012, principle 6). The aim is "strong brands everywhere, not the same brand everywhere" (Aaker, 2014a, p. 21).
  • Essence and position kept apart: the essence is an optional theme for use inside the organisation. The position is a short-term guide for external communication, and its tagline usually differs from the essence (Aaker, 2014a, p. 21). This separates what guides the organisation from what the brand tells customers at a given time.
  • A built-in reality check: proof points and strategic imperatives tie each element to what the organisation can already deliver or must still invest in (Aaker, 2012, principle 5; Aaker, 2014c, "Proof Points Can Be Visible" section). So the vision is tested against reality and is more than a statement of intent.

Limitations

  • A vision of image, not of mission: the name suggests a statement of what the brand should achieve. In Aaker's model, the vision is an aspirational image. It describes what customers and others should see the brand standing for (Aaker, 2014a, p. 20). The model has no element of its own for the brand's mission, its purpose for society or its ambitions for the business. It takes the business strategy as given, as something the vision must reflect and support (Aaker, 2014a, p. 20). Yet Aaker also wants brand strategy to be developed together with the business strategy (Aaker, 2011a, point 1). He notes that very strong brands tend to have a higher purpose in their vision (Aaker, 2014a, p. 21). At Haas, the core element "beyond yourself" gives the school and its students a mission and purpose that reach beyond profit (Aaker, 2011b, "Beyond yourself" section). But mission and purpose remain possible elements, not fixed parts of the model.
  • Customers not defined: the vision is meant for customers and other groups, but the model does not say who the target customers are. Aaker wants brand and business strategy to be clear on the target market (Aaker, 2011a, point 1). Yet in the model, a target audience appears in the short-term position, not in the vision (Aaker, 2014a, p. 21). User imagery and self-expressive benefits are optional dimensions (Aaker, 2012, principle 2). So the typical user and how customers see themselves through the brand can enter the vision. But neither is a fixed part of the model, and no element covers a community customers should feel part of.
  • Relationship and tone left open: a relationship can enter the vision as an element, as with partnership and trust at Mobil (Aaker, 2014a, p. 21). Aaker also sees organisational values as a possible basis for a relationship (Aaker, 2011a, point 5). And he links a "deep customer relationship" to emotional and self-expressive benefits rather than functional ones (Aaker, 2011a, point 4). But the model has no element of its own for the relationship the brand should build with its customers, or for the tone in which it should address them.
  • Character left to choice: Aaker notes that very strong brands tend to have a personality in their vision (Aaker, 2014a, p. 21). Yet personality is an optional dimension. It may not deserve a core place, and especially in B2B contexts it often does not get one (Aaker, 2014a, p. 20; Aaker, 2012, principle 3). At Haas, the vision helped to communicate the school's "core culture" (Aaker, 2011b, "Beyond yourself" section). Organisational values can be chosen as a dimension, but the model has no element of its own for the brand's culture.
  • No signature expression: Aaker dropped the word "identity" partly because some people take it to mean the visual design around the brand (Aaker, 2014a, p. 20). Symbols are one optional dimension (Aaker, 2012, principle 2), and the tagline belongs to the short-term position (Aaker, 2014a, p. 21). Outside the model, Aaker recommends two tools. A branded differentiator is an innovation with a brand name of its own, such as Westin's Heavenly Bed. Competitors may copy the innovation, but they cannot copy the brand. A branded energizer is a branded program or person that the brand attaches itself to for energy, such as Avon's Walk for Breast Cancer (Aaker, 2011a, points 8–9). But no element of the model decides which few signature elements should express the brand, meaning the distinctive signs it is recognised by. Nor does any element name the touchpoints it should become known for, the places where people come into contact with it.
  • Set by the organisation: da Silveira and colleagues quote Aaker's 1996 definition of brand identity as a “unique set of” brand associations that the strategist wants to create or keep. For them, it is an example of the view that identity comes from the brand management alone, meaning that managers set it on their own. They argue that brand identity develops over time through inputs from brand managers and other social groups, consumers among them, that influence each other (da Silveira et al., 2013, pp. 29, 35). In the 2014 model, the vision still describes what the organisation wants the brand to stand for (Aaker, 2014a, p. 20). Customers feed into it through research and stakeholder input, as at Haas (Aaker, 2011b, para. 1), not as partners who shape it over time.

References

  1. Aaker, D. (2011a, March 5). David Aaker's 10 Ways to Excel at Building a Brand [Blog post]. Prophet. Retrieved October 6, 2026, from https://prophet.com/2011/03/5-aakers-top-ten-brand-precepts/
  2. Aaker, D. (2011b, June 1). The Best Business School Brand Vision? [Blog post]. Prophet. Retrieved October 6, 2026, from https://prophet.com/2011/06/36-the-best-business-school-brand-vision/
  3. Aaker, D. (2012, February 29). 6 Reasons Your Brand Needs a Brand Identity Model [Blog post]. Prophet. Retrieved October 6, 2026, from https://prophet.com/2012/02/77-building-brands-six-principles-behind-the-bi-model/
  4. Aaker, D. (2014a). The First Step in Building a Brand. Marketing News, 48(10), 20–21.
  5. Aaker, D. (2014b, March 19). It Starts With a Brand Vision: 6 Key Components of Successful Models [Blog post]. Prophet. Retrieved October 6, 2026, from https://prophet.com/2014/03/185-it-starts-with-a-brand-vision/
  6. Aaker, D. (2014c, April 10). Is Your Brand Vision Realistic? [Blog post]. Prophet. Retrieved October 6, 2026, from https://prophet.com/2014/04/188-is-your-brand-vision-realistic/
  7. da Silveira, C., Lages, C., & Simões, C. (2013). Reconceptualizing Brand Identity in a Dynamic Environment. Journal of Business Research, 66(1), 28–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.07.020

Part of the Brand Identity Model Atlas. The atlas underpins the Brand-Building Canvas: a practical one-page brand identity and strategy framework for building, auditing, and repositioning brands. Download the PDF or PowerPoint template, or compare all brand identity models in the overview.