An abstract brand meaning does not necessarily infer a diluted brand meaning. Neither is it necessarily a weak foundation for brand extension. We have seen that the primary meaning of a brand is determined by the associations that most define the brand in consumers minds. Those associations may be functionally driven, or they may be more abstract, based on expressive values, for example, as in the case of Rolex. Staying with the watch category, a comparison of two brands, Timex and Rolex, provides an illustration (Park et al. 1991). Though both belong to the same category, the brands convey very different meanings to consumers: Rolex standing for the concept of prestige and luxury and Timex being associated more with product performance. In the case of status-symbol brands, like Rolex, functionality has a reduced importance (“Who wears a Rolex to tell the time?”) and brand meaning is more abstract and subjective. In such cases, the semantic and psychological space between primary brand meaning and symbolic brand meaning is reduced. In the case of Rolex primary brand meaning would presumably be about luxury or prestige, and symbolic brand meaning would fall in the realms of achievement, recognition, or power. The symbolic meaning of a brand like Dettol, by way of contrast, would be quite different from its primary brand meaning (antiseptic disinfectant/germ killer): Its symbolic brand meaning might be expressed in terms of maternal protection, perhaps, or as providing impregnable defense against an unseen evil, or, more metaphorically, as a crusading champion (taking a cue from the sword brand symbol). Its use in a first-aid and medical context and childhood memories of its strong carbolic smell in conjunction with cuts and abrasions, may elicit a different set of symbolic associations.