Yet one important piece of information is missing: why did the consumer choose this brand?
Because they preferred it? Because it was available? Because they already knew it? Because it cost less this week?
A sale is a result. It is not a diagnosis.
And for an organization looking to grow sustainably, that distinction matters. Two brands can generate the same transaction today while building very different positions for tomorrow.
Price knows how to do its job
Let’s start by avoiding a false debate: promotions work.
In Canada, NielsenIQ reports that 41% of consumers say they stock up or buy in bulk when their preferred brand is on promotion. Forty percent say they are willing to buy any brand offered at a discounted price, 36% would opt for a less expensive product, and 28% would choose a private-label brand.
In a local market where consumers are watching their spending more closely, ignoring price in the name of brand building would be, at the very least, out of touch.
A discount can accelerate a decision. A loyalty mechanism can give people a reason to act now. An activation can help protect volume. Performance media can capture demand that already exists.
These are tools. And they are good tools when they are used to solve the right problem.
The danger begins elsewhere: when the results generated by these tools lead us to conclude that the brand itself is necessarily stronger.
Getting people to buy and getting them to prefer are not exactly the same thing.
The transaction doesn’t reveal what triggered it
Canadian consumers’ price sensitivity is very real. But it tells only part of the story.
According to Léger, nearly nine out of ten Canadians say they have changed the way they buy everyday products over the past year. Yet 40% say they have abandoned or replaced a brand for reasons other than price. And 76% still consider themselves very or somewhat loyal to brands in these categories.
In other words, price plays a role in the decision without necessarily explaining it on its own.
This is where looking at sales becomes more interesting.
A promotion that attracts new buyers can be an excellent decision. A price reduction that protects volume can be one, too. But the revenue generated does not, on its own, tell us whether we strengthened preference, capitalized on an opportunity, or simply shifted demand temporarily.
And we should be careful of making the opposite assumption, too.
Recent research by Van der Plas, Geyskens, and Dekimpe, covering nearly 150 introductions of national brands at deep-discount retailers, shows that entering an environment strongly associated with price does not automatically damage brand equity. Only about one in ten introductions reportedly had a negative effect. The researchers even estimate that a significant proportion of brands that chose not to enter these retail networks may have passed up an opportunity to increase their brand equity.
The channel, discount, or activation is therefore not the problem in itself.
The better question is: what role do they play in the reason people choose us?
The brand becomes interesting when it changes the conditions of the sale
We still reduce brand building too often to awareness: being known today so that we can be considered someday.
Its potential value is more tangible than that.
In its BrandZ model, Kantar distinguishes, among other things, a brand’s ability to generate current demand, support a price premium, and create future demand potential. In Canada, its 2025 BrandZ study also reports that brands that increased their Meaningful Difference experienced twice as much brand value growth as those whose score declined.
This does not mean that a strong brand can charge any price it wants or do without activation. The market always has a say.
Rather, it means that a brand can change the conditions under which a company competes.
When a brand is known, but also relevant, distinctive, and valued, it gives consumers more reasons to choose it beyond the immediate incentive.
This is where, in our view, the “brand or sales” debate is poorly framed.
A company obviously does not have to choose between selling today and building for tomorrow. It needs to understand what is generating its sales today, and what its decisions are strengthening for tomorrow.
The difference seems subtle. Yet it changes the conversation.
The question isn’t just how much. It’s why.
When a campaign works, we naturally look for what moved: sales, acquisitions, visits, conversions, market share.
We should add another layer of questions.
What actually moved the decision forward? If the incentive disappears, what remains? Did the campaign simply capture existing demand, or did it make the brand more desirable? Does the consumer know why they would choose us over a competitor? Is our advantage rooted in what we represent, or primarily in the conditions we are offering this week?
These questions are not meant to diminish the value of the short term. They help us better understand what it accomplishes.
David Aaker also points to the risk of a strategy dominated by sales-now programs: by continually concentrating the market relationship around the immediate purchase, a company can increase the emphasis placed on price and weaken its brand equity.
A promotion remains a promotion. A CRM program remains a tool. A media buy remains a lever.
They become problematic when they ultimately constitute the sole reason to choose.
For Rinaldi, this is precisely where the concept of brand-to-market fit becomes useful: a high-performing brand is not simply a strong identity to which conversion tactics are added. It understands what its market values, clarifies the place it wants to occupy within that market, and then aligns its offering, creative, communications, channels, and activations to reinforce that position.
Because, ultimately, an increase in sales answers one question: did we sell?
A brand needs to ask a second: why did they choose us?
The answer to that question often tells us much more about what will happen with the next sale.