The topic of this paper was given as The Value of Continuous Research. For any of you who may have doubts as to the value of continuous research, let me say that continuous research is the only type of research appropriate in brand development measurement. I could finish this talk within the next 60 seconds by suggesting to you that: "Since the marketplace is dynamic so should it's measuring device". Or, in other words, Manufacturer and Consumer Behaviour are continuous and as such its observation should be continuous. So, finished my paper and we can all go home! Not so. While Dynamics are a major justification for continuous research, the most important reason for continuity of brand measurement is that it gives us the ability to, finally, start building integrated marketing plans and to stop testing brand success or failure as a function of single determinants. All marketing and, therefore, market research revolved around the measuring of isolated variables with ever-increasing complexity in order to obtain the ultimate accuracy. Or so the analysts claimed. The more complex the technique, the more accurate the result. In this paper, I will attempt to show you that this is not necessarily so. I will further attempt to show that the assessment of a brand's performance cannot be restricted to measuring, however accurately, the performance of isolated variables. I will suggest to you that there are not absolute but only relative values. Marketshare on its own is no indication of brand success or failure. That a growing market share could mean a weaker brand and that a declining market share could mean a stronger brand. This might sound like heresy, particularly to those of you who represent marketing companies.