Explain brand awareness, recognition and slogans
Distinguish brand recall from recognition and brand image, evaluate Fischer et al.’s child logo study, and apply Kohli et al.’s slogan guidance without confusing recognition with understanding or purchase.
Original StudyForA teaching mapped to the Cambridge 2028–2030 Version 1 syllabus. It is not Cambridge material, an official mark scheme or an awarded grade. Study findings are bounded by their samples, tasks and settings.
Before you begin
- This lesson covers Cambridge Psychology 9990 Consumer Psychology section 2.5.3. Recognition, recall, brand image, understanding of persuasive intent and purchasing are distinct outcomes.
Work on paper. Try each question before revealing help, and explain why your method works.
Quick readiness check
Which measure requires a logo or list of brands to be shown?
What you will learn
- Children’s brand recognition and understanding of advertising through logo recognition; Fischer et al. (1991)
- Brand awareness and brand image; slogan types and functions; Kohli et al. (2007) guidelines for effective slogans
- Apply branding ideas; evaluate use of children in research, determinism versus free will, experiments and interviews
Brand awareness and brand image describe different knowledge
Brand awareness is whether a person can bring a brand to mind or identify it. Unaided recall asks someone to name brands without a list; recognition asks them to identify a brand when given a logo, name or other cue. Recognition is usually easier because the cue is provided.
Brand image is the set of associations a person connects with a brand, such as expected quality, users, values or experiences. A person may recognise a logo without knowing much about the product or holding a positive image. Recognition, recall, attitude and purchase should therefore be measured separately.
A logo, name and slogan are elements of brand identity. They can help a company become identifiable and distinguishable, but repeated exposure does not by itself prove that a viewer understands the commercial purpose of an advert.
Fischer et al. (1991) tested logo matching in 229 preschool children
Fischer, Schwartz, Richards, Goldstein and Rojas (1991) studied a convenience sample of 229 preschool children aged 3–6 in Augusta and Atlanta, Georgia. Each child matched 22 logos to one of 12 pictured product categories on a game board. The set included children’s and adults’ brands and cigarette logos, including Old Joe the Camel and Marlboro.
Logo recognition was high and increased with age. About 30% of 3-year-olds matched Old Joe to cigarettes, compared with 91.3% of 6-year-olds; recognition of the Disney Channel logo ranged from 86.1% at age 3 to 100% at age 6. The task records matching with cues, so it measures aided recognition rather than unaided brand recall, attitude, smoking or buying.
The researchers concluded that very young children can see, understand and remember advertising. A careful evaluation separates the directly measured logo-product match from broader claims about understanding persuasive intent or future behaviour. The convenience sample came from preschools in two Georgia cities, so it does not represent all children or contemporary media exposure.
Children took part in a game-like matching task, which can make testing age-appropriate. Any replication must use guardian permission, child assent, privacy safeguards and careful handling of potentially harmful material. The presence of a cigarette logo in a recognition study is not a reason to expose children to new tobacco advertising.
Slogans can connect a message with a brand
A slogan is a concise phrase that expresses or supports a brand idea. It may be a product-specific line, a campaign line or a longer-term corporate slogan; forms can be descriptive, benefit-focused, emotional, imperative or playful. Its functions can include attracting attention, expressing a position, supporting recognition and recall, differentiating the brand and reinforcing brand image.
Kohli, Leuthesser and Suri (2007) reviewed prior academic work and industry cases and proposed practitioner guidelines; it was not a controlled experiment. Their recommendations include taking a long-term strategic view, making the brand position clear, linking the slogan to the brand, using it consistently across advertisements, considering sound or a jingle where useful, using slogans from the outset, and allowing creativity that still fits the brand.
Consistency can help a slogan become associated with its brand, but repetition alone cannot guarantee recall or a good image. Including the brand name may strengthen linkage for some firms while limiting creative flexibility. A slogan should be tested with the intended audience for correct brand association, recall, clarity and the associations it creates.
The guidelines combine a review of research with practice cases rather than a single experimentally proven recipe. A slogan that works in one language, category or campaign may not transfer to another. Evaluation should identify the intended function and audience and should not infer long-term sales from a short-term recognition score.
Interpret children’s recognition without treating them as passive
A deterministic account asks whether repeated advertising exposure predicts recognition. A free-will account considers how children interpret, question or ignore messages, and how parents and context shape their choices. The logo-matching study measured recognition, not whether a child felt compelled to use the product.
An experiment can control which logos are shown and score matches consistently. An interview can explore what a child thinks the logo or advert means, but answers require age-appropriate questions and careful interpretation. Combining recognition with interviews may illuminate understanding, though neither alone predicts later behaviour.
A responsible application encourages clear advertising labels and age-appropriate design. Researchers should avoid using children to optimise harmful product advertising; informed permission, child assent, privacy and minimizing exposure are essential.
Sources for this lesson
Pause and explain
What is the strongest conclusion from Fischer et al.’s Old Joe result?
Worked example
A brand manager says that because 91.3% of six-year-olds in Fischer et al. (1991) matched Old Joe the Camel to cigarettes, children understood the advert and would choose the product. Evaluate this claim and propose a better test of brand understanding.
Show the worked solution
- State the sample, logo-matching procedure and measured recognition result.
- Explain why recognition does not prove understanding of persuasive intent, positive attitudes or later purchase.
- Propose an age-appropriate interview or task with guardian permission and child assent, and name a limitation.
Answer Fischer et al. found that 91.3% of their six-year-old sample matched Old Joe to cigarettes in a logo-recognition task. The match does not show that children understood the advert’s persuasive purpose, liked cigarettes or would buy them. A separate, age-appropriate interview could ask children what they think the character is trying to do, with guardian permission and child assent. Its answers would still be shaped by language, memory and the two-city convenience sample.
Try a topic test
Choose Easy, Normal or Difficult. Save your answers and open worked review after finishing.
Test this topic →From guided practice to a new situation
Write your answer and reasoning first. Use a hint only if you are stuck. The model solution is for self-checking; your written work is not automatically marked.
A child sees a familiar logo on a card and matches it to a product picture. Identify the memory measure and one thing it does not show.
Give me a hint
Check whether the child had a cue and separate identification from attitudes or behaviour.
Compare my reasoning
- The logo is provided, so the task measures aided recognition rather than unaided recall.
- Matching the product does not by itself measure brand image, attitude or persuasive understanding.
- A separate interview or behaviour measure would be required for those claims, with child safeguards.
This is aided brand recognition because a logo cue is shown. It does not directly show that the child can recall the brand without a cue, understands the advert’s purpose or wants to use the product. Those claims need separate, age-appropriate measures and suitable safeguards.
Look for these in your work
- Cue identified
- Construct distinguished
- Unmeasured outcome named
A slogan is remembered by 80% of an audience, but only 20% can connect it to the correct company. Use Kohli et al. (2007) to explain what may be failing and suggest a test.
Give me a hint
A memorable phrase can fail if the brand link is weak; distinguish recall from correct association.
Compare my reasoning
- The slogan may be recalled but not sufficiently linked to the brand, weakening its contribution to brand awareness and image.
- Kohli et al. recommend clear positioning, brand linkage and consistent use; their paper synthesises literature and industry cases rather than proving a single formula.
- Test slogan-only recall and correct brand association separately with target consumers, and compare versions with clear consistent branding.
The slogan is remembered but poorly associated with its brand, so the linkage that supports brand awareness may be weak. Kohli et al.’s recommendations to position clearly, connect slogan and brand and repeat consistently are relevant, but are practitioner guidance, not a guarantee. Test unaided slogan recall and correct brand attribution separately among the intended audience.
Look for these in your work
- Brand linkage problem diagnosed
- Nature of evidence described
- Separate measures proposed
Create an ethical way to investigate whether 5–6-year-olds recognise a new educational-app logo and understand that a short video is advertising. Include a comparison and explain a validity limit.
Give me a hint
Use permission, simple neutral prompts, non-commercial material and separate recognition from understanding.
Compare my reasoning
- Obtain guardian permission and child assent; explain the activity, protect privacy and allow the child to stop.
- Present the logo among plausible alternatives for recognition, then show a clearly labelled short video and ask an age-appropriate open question about its purpose.
- Compare video-exposed and no-video groups without increasing exposure; report that one school, language or task may not represent children elsewhere.
With permission and assent, test logo recognition using a balanced matching task, then ask children in simple open language what the labelled video is trying to do. A no-video group can help separate prior recognition from exposure, but exposure should remain minimal. Avoid leading questions; one school or language group limits generalisation and verbal answers may not fully reflect understanding.
Look for these in your work
- Child protection included
- Recognition and persuasion understanding separated
- Comparison and validity limit stated
Common mistakes
- Confusing aided brand recognition with unaided recall or brand image
- Claiming Fischer et al. measured cigarette use, preference or understanding of persuasive intent
- Inferring that children who recognise a logo will buy or use its product
- Presenting Kohli et al.’s practitioner recommendations as an experimental law
- Assuming a slogan is effective only because it rhymes or includes the brand name
- Ignoring parent permission, child assent and protection when applying child-advertising research
What can you explain now?
What did Fischer et al. (1991) directly measure when a child matched an Old Joe logo to a product picture?
Compare with the explanation
Aided logo recognition: identifying the product category when a logo cue was shown.
The task did not directly measure unaided recall, cigarette use, purchase or understanding of persuasive intent.
After trying it yourself, choose your next review. This is your self-assessment.
Your review choice appears on Today. Sign in to sync it across devices.
Make it stick
Distinguish recognition, recall and brand image; summarise Fischer et al.’s child logo result and two Kohli et al. slogan recommendations.
If you needed the solution, close it and solve the problem again from a blank page. A correct answer is stronger when you can explain the reason for each step.