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 sets out what the brand should stand for in the eyes of customers and of 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 cornerstone of brand strategy and 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 gush of brand-building ideas" and keeps brand building consistent across products, services and customer groups. When the vision is missing or superficial, "the brand will drift aimlessly", and marketing programs are likely to be inconsistent and ineffective (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 "a single thought to guide an advertising campaign" (Aaker, 2012, principle 1). Aaker argues that most brands cannot be defined by a single thought or phrase. The search for such a "magic brand concept" can lead nowhere. Worse, it can leave the brand with an incomplete vision that 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).

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 "the most compelling and differentiating" 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 marketplace, the strategy, the competition, the customers, the organization and the brand". 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, "given its current and future business strategy". A brand that plans to move into a new product category, for example, will probably need to go 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 "elegant and convenient but not feasible" today. For each product or market, managers can stress different elements, interpret elements such as quality or innovation differently, or add elements. 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 evolve or change as new capabilities and programs emerge or as markets change (Aaker, 2014a, p. 21).

Aaker adds that a winning vision must be credible inside and outside the organisation. So there should be proof points or strategic imperatives (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 "planned programs that will create 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 long wanted to do". For him, the term "brand vision" is much better at capturing "the strategic, aspirational nature of the concept". The word "identity" has less energy and too often creates 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). He now calls it the brand vision model "(formerly the brand identity model)" (Aaker, 2014a, p. 20).

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 that best illustrate an element (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). In Aaker's words, "The best brand vision won't win. The brand vision that actually gets implemented will" (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 included solid research, input from stakeholders, an excellent feel for the school's culture and strengths, and a very involved Dean. Over several years, the vision was refined and elaborated as it and its programs were stress-tested and implemented. Aaker, a Professor Emeritus at Berkeley-Haas, had "a small role to play" 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).

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 be fruitless or, worse, can leave the brand with an incomplete vision missing some relevant elements" (Aaker, 2014a, p. 20).
• Dropping ideas too early: someone's idea for an aspirational association is "too often" dismissed because it could not be the centrepiece of the brand (Aaker, 2014a, p. 20).
• Staying inside today's image: brand executives "too often" feel uncomfortable going beyond what the brand currently has permission to do. Yet most brands need to improve on some dimensions and add new ones to create new sources of growth (Aaker, 2014a, pp. 20–21).
• Insisting on an essence: at times the core elements are convincing on their own. Then "the insistence of an essence will only divert energy and cloud the strategy going forward" (Aaker, 2012, principle 4).
• Wishful thinking: the vision implies a promise to customers and a commitment by the organisation. So it "cannot be an exercise in wishful thinking" but needs substance behind it (Aaker, 2014c, "Look for Proof Points and Imperatives" section).