The authors of this reply article note that B. Gawronski, E. P. LeBel, K. R. Peters, and R. Banse (2009) (a) expressed agreement in their comment with the analysis put forward in the target article (J. De Houwer, S. Teige-Mocigemba, A. Spruyt, & A. Moors, 2009) and (b) pointed to a further implication for the way in which the implicitness of a measure should be examined. The current authors note that B. A. Nosek and A. G. Greenwald (2009), on the other hand, raised questions in their comment about the definition of the concept "implicit" in the target article, arguing for a fundamentally different approach to measurement that emphasizes not theoretical understanding but usefulness for predicting behavior. In this reply, the current authors respond to these comments and argue that when theoretical claims are made about measures, these claims should be backed up with appropriate evidence. In the absence of basic research, measures and their relation to behavior can only be described. (Contains 1 footnote.)