What Is a Product?
PRODUCT CLASSIFICATIONS
Products Classes
Business Products
- Durable Goods
• Impulse Goods - no preplanning, not on your list, going shopping while hungry or
without a list leads to more impulse buying, as do in-store displays and sale
items.
In business and engineering, new product development (NPD) is the term used to
describe the complete process of bringing a new product or service to market. There
are two parallel paths involved in the NPD process: one involves the idea generation,
product design and detail engineering; the other involves market research and
marketing analysis. Companies typically see new product development as the first stage
in generating and commercializing new products within the overall strategic process of
product life cycle management used to maintain or grow their market share.
In this section we present a 7-step process comprising the key elements of new product
development. While some companies may not follow a deliberate step-by-step
approach, the steps are useful in showing the information input and decision making
that must be done in order to successfully develop new products. The process also
shows the importance market research plays in developing products.
We should note that while the 7-step process works for most industries, it is less
effective in developing radically new products. The main reason lies in the inability of
the target market to provide sufficient feedback on advanced product concepts since
they often find it difficult to understand radically different ideas. So while many of these
steps are used to research breakthrough ideas, the marketer should exercise caution
when interpreting the results.
The first step of new product development requires gathering ideas to be evaluated as
potential product options. For many companies idea generation is an ongoing process
with contributions from inside and outside the organization. Many market research
techniques are used to encourage ideas including: running focus groups with
consumers, channel members, and the company’s sales force; encouraging customer
comments and suggestions via toll-free telephone numbers and website forms; and
gaining insight on competitive product developments through secondary data sources.
One important research technique used to generate ideas is brainstorming where open-
minded, creative thinkers from inside and outside the company gather and share ideas.
The dynamic nature of group members floating ideas, where one idea often sparks
another idea, can yield a wide range of possible products that can be further pursued.
Step 2. SCREENING
In Step 2 the ideas generated in Step 1 are critically evaluated by company personnel to
isolate the most attractive options. Depending on the number of ideas, screening may
be done in rounds with the first round involving company executives judging the
feasibility of ideas while successive rounds may utilize more advanced research
techniques. As the ideas are whittled down to a few attractive options, rough estimates
are made of an idea’s potential in terms of sales, production costs, profit potential, and
competitors’ response if the product is introduced. Acceptable ideas move on to the
next step.
With a few ideas in hand the marketer now attempts to obtain initial feedback from
customers, distributors and its own employees. Generally, focus groups are convened
where the ideas are presented to a group, often in the form of concept board
presentations (i.e., storyboards) and not in actual working form. For instance, customers
may be shown a concept board displaying drawings of a product idea or even an
advertisement featuring the product. In some cases focus groups are exposed to a
mock-up of the ideas, which is a physical but generally non-functional version of product
idea. During focus groups with customers the marketer seeks information that may
include: likes and dislike of the concept; level of interest in purchasing the product;
frequency of purchase (used to help forecast demand); and price points to determine
how much customers are willing to spend to acquire the product.
At this point in the new product development process the marketer has reduced a
potentially large number of ideas down to one or two options. Now in Step 4 the process
becomes very dependent on market research as efforts are made to analyze the
viability of the product ideas. (Note, in many cases the product has not been produced
and still remains only an idea.) The key objective at this stage is to obtain useful
forecasts of market size (e.g., overall demand), operational costs (e.g., production
costs) and financial projections (e.g., sales and profits). Additionally, the organization
must determine if the product will fit within the company’s overall mission and strategy.
Much effort is directed at both internal research, such as discussions with production
and purchasing personnel, and external marketing research, such as customer and
distributor surveys, secondary research, and competitor analysis.
Ideas passing through business analysis are given serious consideration for
development. Companies direct their research and development teams to construct an
initial design or prototype of the idea. Marketers also begin to construct a marketing
plan for the product. Once the prototype is ready the marketer seeks customer input.
However, unlike the concept testing stage where customers were only exposed to the
idea, in this step the customer gets to experience the real product as well as other
aspects of the marketing mix, such as advertising, pricing, and distribution options (e.g.,
retail store, direct from company, etc.). Favorable customer reaction helps solidify the
marketer’s decision to introduce the product and also provides other valuable
information such as estimated purchase rates and understanding how the product will
be used by the customer. Reaction that is less favorable may suggest the need for
adjustments to elements of the marketing mix. Once these are made the marketer may
again have the customer test the product. In addition to gaining customer feedback, this
step is used to gauge the feasibility of large-scale, cost effective production for
manufactured products.
Products surviving to Step 6 are ready to be tested as real products. In some cases the
marketer accepts what was learned from concept testing and skips over market testing
to launch the idea as a fully marketed product. But other companies may seek more
input from a larger group before moving to commercialization. The most common type
of market testing makes the product available to a selective small segment of the target
market (e.g., one city), which is exposed to the full marketing effort as they would be to
any product they could purchase. In some cases, especially with consumer products
sold at retail stores, the marketer must work hard to get the product into the test market
by convincing distributors to agree to purchase and place the product on their store
shelves. In more controlled test markets distributors may be paid a fee if they agree to
place the product on their shelves to allow for testing. Another form of market testing
found with consumer products is even more controlled with customers recruited to a
“laboratory” store where they are given shopping instructions. Product interest can then
be measured based on customer’s shopping response. Finally, there are several high-
tech approaches to market testing including virtual reality and computer simulations.
With virtual reality testing customers are exposed to a computer-projected environment,
such as a store, and are asked to locate and select products. With computer simulations
customers may not be directly involved at all. Instead certain variables are entered into
a sophisticated computer program and estimates of a target market’s response are
calculated.
Step 7. COMMERCIALIZATION
Marketing strategies developed for initial product introduction almost certainly need to
be revised as the product settles into the market. While commercialization may be the
last step in the new product development process it is just the beginning of managing
the product. Adjusting the product’s marketing strategy is required for many reasons
including:
To stay on top of all possible threats the marketer must monitor all aspects of the
marketing mix and make changes as needed. Such efforts require the marketer to
develop and refine the product’s marketing plan on a regular basis. In fact, as we will
discuss in The PLC and Marketing Planning tutorial, marketing strategies change as a
product moves through time leading to the concept called the Product Life Cycle (PLC).
We will see that marketers make numerous revisions to their strategy as product move
through different stage of the PLC.
Module: II
Product life cycle (PLC)
Like human beings, products also have their own life-cycle. From birth to death human
beings pass through various stages e.g. birth, growth, maturity, decline and death. A
similar life-cycle is seen in the case of products. The product life cycle goes through
multiple phases, involves many professional disciplines, and requires many skills, tools
and processes. Product life cycle (PLC) has to do with the life of a product in the market
with respect to business/commercial costs and sales measures. To say that a product
has a life cycle is to assert four things:
Stage Characteristics
While launching a new product, marketing mix for each variable can be set at a high
or low level with different combinations of price and promotion.
• Market modification.
• Product modification.
o Quality improvement.
o Feature improvement.
o Style improvement.
Portfolio Management
What is New Product Portfolio Management?
A vital question in the product innovation battleground is, "How should corporations
most effectively invest their R&D and new product development resources?" That is
what portfolio management is all about: resource allocation to achieve corporate
product innovation objectives.
Today's new product projects decide tomorrow's product/market profile of the firm. An
estimated 50% of a firm's current sales come from new products introduced in the
market within the previous five years. Much like stock market portfolio managers, senior
executives who optimize their R&D investments have a much better opportunity of
winning in the long run. But how do winning companies manage their R&D and product
innovation portfolios to achieve higher returns from their investments?
There are many different approaches with no easy answers. However, it is a problem
that every company addresses to produce and maintain leading edge products. Portfolio
management for new products is a dynamic decision process wherein the list of active
new products and R&D projects is constantly revised. In this process, new projects are
evaluated, selected, and prioritized. Existing projects may be accelerated, killed, or de-
prioritized and resources are allocated (or reallocated) to the active projects.
Recent years have witnessed a heightened interest in portfolio management, not only in
the technical community, but in the CEO's office as well. Despite its growing popularity,
recent benchmarking studies have identified portfolio management as the weakest area
in product innovation management. Executive teams confess that serious Go/Kill
decision points rarely exist and, more specifically, criteria for making the Go/Kill decision
are non-existent. As a result, companies are experiencing too many projects for the
limited resources available!
While the portfolio methods vary greatly from company to company, the common
denominator across firms are the goals executives are trying to achieve. According to
'best-practice' research by Dr. Cooper and Dr. Edgett, five main goals dominate the
thinking of successful firms:
1. Value Maximization
Allocate resources to maximize the value of the portfolio via a number of key objectives
such as profitability, ROI, and acceptable risk. A variety of methods are used to achieve
this maximization goal, ranging from financial methods to scoring models.
2. Balance
Achieve a desired balance of projects via a number of parameters: risk versus return;
short-term versus long-term; and across various markets, business arenas and
technologies. Typical methods used to reveal balance include bubble diagrams,
histograms and pie charts.
4. Pipeline Balance
Obtain the right number of projects to achieve the best balance between the pipeline
resource demands and the resources available. The goal is to avoid pipeline gridlock
(too many projects with too few resources) at any given time. A typical approach is to
use a rank ordered priority list or a resource supply and demand assessment.
5. Sufficiency
Ensure the revenue (or profit) goals set out in the product innovation strategy are
achievable given the projects currently underway. Typically this is conducted via a
financial analysis of the pipeline’s potential future value.
Top performers emphasize the link between project selection and business strategy.
Why is it so important?
Companies without effective new product portfolio management and project selection
face a slippery road downhill. Many of the problems that plague new product
development initiatives in businesses can be directly traced to ineffective portfolio
management. According to benchmarking studies conducted by Dr. Cooper and Dr.
Edgett, some of the problems that arise when portfolio management is lacking are:
Portfolio Management is about doing the right projects. If you pick the right projects, the
result is an enviable portfolio of high value projects: a portfolio that is properly balanced
and most importantly, supports your business strategy.
BCG matrix
The BCG matrix (aka B.C.G. analysis, BCG-matrix, Boston Box, Boston Matrix, Boston
Consulting Group analysis, portfolio diagram) is a chart that had been created by Bruce
Henderson for the Boston Consulting Group in 1968 to help corporations with analyzing
their business units or product lines. This helps the company allocate resources and is
used as an analytical tool in brand marketing, product management, strategic
management, and portfolio analysis. [1]
Like Ansoff's matrix, the Boston Matrix is a well known tool for the marketing manager. It
was developed by the large US consulting group and is an approach to product portfolio
planning. It has two controlling aspect namely relative market share (meaning relative to
your competition) and market growth.
You would look at each individual product in your range (or portfolio) and place it onto
the matrix. You would do this for every product in the range. You can then plot the
products of your rivals to give relative market share.
This is simplistic in many ways and the matrix has some understandable limitations that
will be considered later. Each cell has its own name as follows.
Dogs. These are products with a low share of a low growth market. These are the
canine version of 'real turkeys!'. They do not generate cash for the company, they tend
to absorb it. Get rid of these products.
Cash Cows. These are products with a high share of a low growth market. Cash Cows
generate more than is invested in them. So keep them in your portfolio of products for
the time being.
Problem Children. These are products with a low share of a high growth market. They
consume resources and generate little in return. They absorb most money as you
attempt to increase market share.
Stars. These are products that are in high growth markets with a relatively high share of
that market. Stars tend to generate high amounts of income. Keep and build your stars.
Look for some kind of balance within your portfolio. Try not to have any Dogs. Cash
Cows, Problem Children and Stars need to be kept in a kind of equilibrium. The funds
generated by your Cash Cows is used to turn problem children into Stars, which may
eventually become Cash Cows. Some of the Problem Children will become Dogs, and
this means that you will need a larger contribution from the successful products to
compensate for the failures.
Problems with The Boston Matrix. There is an assumption that higher rates of profit are
directly related to high rates of market share. This may not always be the case. When
Boeing launch a new jet, it may gain a high market share quickly but it still has to cover
very high development costs It is normally applied to Strategic Business Units (SBUs).
These are areas of the business rather than products. For example, Ford own
Landrover in the UK. This is an SBU not a single product. There is another assumption
that SBUs will cooperate. This is not always the case. The main problem is that it
oversimplifies a complex set of decision. Be careful. Use the Matrix as a planning tool
and always rely on your gut feeling.
For each product or service, the 'area' of the circle represents the value of its sales. The
BCG Matrix thus offers a very useful 'map' of the organization's product (or service)
strengths and weaknesses, at least in terms of current profitability, as well as the likely
cashflows.
The need which prompted this idea was, indeed, that of managing cash-flow. It was
reasoned that one of the main indicators of cash generation was relative market share,
and one which pointed to cash usage was that of market growth rate.
This indicates likely cash generation, because the higher the share the more cash will
be generated. As a result of 'economies of scale' (a basic assumption of the BCG
Matrix), it is assumed that these earnings will grow faster the higher the share. The
exact measure is the brand's share relative to its largest competitor. Thus, if the brand
had a share of 20 percent, and the largest competitor had the same, the ratio would be
1:1. If the largest competitor had a share of 60 percent; however, the ratio would be 1:3,
implying that the organization's brand was in a relatively weak position. If the largest
competitor only had a share of 5 percent, the ratio would be 4:1, implying that the brand
owned was in a relatively strong position, which might be reflected in profits and cash
flows. If this technique is used in practice, this scale is logarithmic, not linear.
On the other hand, exactly what is a high relative share is a matter of some debate. The
best evidence is that the most stable position (at least in Fast Moving Consumer Goods
FMCG markets) is for the brand leader to have a share double that of the second brand,
and triple that of the third. Brand leaders in this position tend to be very stable—and
profitable; the Rule of 123.
The reason for choosing relative market share, rather than just profits, is that it carries
more information than just cash flow. It shows where the brand is positioned against its
main competitors, and indicates where it might be likely to go in the future. It can also
show what type of marketing activities might be expected to be effective.
Market growth rate
Rapidly growing in rapidly growing markets, are what organizations strive for; but, as we
have seen, the penalty is that they are usually net cash users - they require investment.
The reason for this is often because the growth is being 'bought' by the high investment,
in the reasonable expectation that a high market share will eventually turn into a sound
investment in future profits. The theory behind the matrix assumes, therefore, that a
higher growth rate is indicative of accompanying demands on investment. The cut-off
point is usually chosen as 10 per cent per annum. Determining this cut-off point, the rate
above which the growth is deemed to be significant (and likely to lead to extra demands
on cash) is a critical requirement of the technique; and one that, again, makes the use
of the BCG Matrix problematical in some product areas. What is more, the evidence
from FMCG markets at least, is that the most typical pattern is of very low growth, less
than 1 per cent per annum. This is outside the range normally considered in BCG Matrix
work, which may make application of this form of analysis unworkable in many markets.
Where it can be applied, however, the market growth rate says more about the brand
position than just its cash flow. It is a good indicator of that market's strength, of its
future potential (of its 'maturity' in terms of the market life-cycle), and also of its
attractiveness to future competitors. It can also be used in growth analysis.
Critical evaluation
The matrix ranks only market share and industry growth rate, and only implies actual
profitability, the purpose of any business. (It is certainly possible that a particular dog
can be profitable without cash infusions required, and therefore should be retained and
not sold.) The matrix also overlooks other elements of industry. With this or any other
such analytical tool, ranking business units has a subjective element involving
guesswork about the future, particularly with respect to growth rates. Unless the
rankings are approached with rigor and scepticism, optimistic evaluations can lead to a
dot com mentality in which even the most dubious businesses are classified as
"question marks" with good prospects; enthusiastic managers may claim that cash must
be thrown at these businesses immediately in order to turn them into stars, before
growth rates slow and it's too late. Poor definition of a business's market will lead to
some dogs being misclassified as cash bulls.
As originally practiced by the Boston Consulting Group the matrix was undoubtedly a
useful tool, in those few situations where it could be applied, for graphically illustrating
cashflows. If used with this degree of sophistication its use would still be valid. However,
later practitioners have tended to over-simplify its messages. In particular, the later
application of the names (problem children, stars, cash cows and dogs) has tended to
overshadow all else—and is often what most students, and practitioners, remember.
This is unfortunate, since such simplistic use contains at least two major problems:
'Minority applicability'. The cashflow techniques are only applicable to a very limited
number of markets (where growth is relatively high, and a definite pattern of product life-
cycles can be observed, such as that of ethical pharmaceuticals). In the majority of
markets, use may give misleading results.
'Milking cash bulls'. Perhaps the worst implication of the later developments is that the
(brand leader) cash bulls should be milked to fund new brands. This is not what
research into the FMCG markets has shown to be the case. The brand leader's position
is the one, above all, to be defended, not least since brands in this position will probably
outperform any number of newly launched brands. Such brand leaders will, of course,
generate large cash flows; but they should not be `milked' to such an extent that their
position is jeopardized. In any case, the chance of the new brands achieving similar
brand leadership may be slim—certainly far less than the popular perception of the
Boston Matrix would imply.
Perhaps the most important danger is, however, that the apparent implication of its four-
quadrant form is that there should be balance of products or services across all four
quadrants; and that is, indeed, the main message that it is intended to convey. Thus,
money must be diverted from `cash cows' to fund the `stars' of the future, since `cash
cows' will inevitably decline to become `dogs'. There is an almost mesmeric inevitability
about the whole process. It focuses attention, and funding, on to the `stars'. It
presumes, and almost demands, that `cash bulls' will turn into `dogs'.
The reality is that it is only the `cash bulls' that are really important—all the other
elements are supporting actors. It is a foolish vendor who diverts funds from a `cash
cow' when these are needed to extend the life of that `product'. Although it is necessary
to recognize a `dog' when it appears (at least before it bites you) it would be foolish in
the extreme to create one in order to balance up the picture. The vendor, who has most
of his (or her) products in the `cash cow' quadrant, should consider himself (or herself)
fortunate indeed, and an excellent marketer, although he or she might also consider
creating a few stars as an insurance policy against unexpected future developments
and, perhaps, to add some extra growth. There is also a common misconception that
'dogs' are a waste of resources. In many markets 'dogs' can be considered loss-leaders
that while not themselves profitable will lead to increased sales in other profitable areas.
Alternatives
As with most marketing techniques, there are a number of alternative offerings vying
with the BCG Matrix although this appears to be the most widely used (or at least most
widely taught—and then probably 'not' used). The next most widely reported technique
is that developed by McKinsey and General Electric, which is a three-cell by three-cell
matrix—using the dimensions of `industry attractiveness' and `business strengths'. This
approaches some of the same issues as the BCG Matrix but from a different direction
and in a more complex way (which may be why it is used less, or is at least less widely
taught). Perhaps the most practical approach is that of the Boston Consulting Group's
Advantage Matrix, which the consultancy reportedly used itself though it is little known
amongst the wider population.
Introduction
The Ansoff Growth matrix is a tool that helps businesses decide their product and
market growth strategy.
Ansoff’s product/market growth matrix suggests that a business’ attempts to grow
depend on whether it markets new or existing products in new or existing markets.
The output from the Ansoff product/market matrix is a series of suggested growth
strategies that set the direction for the business strategy. These are described below:
Market penetration
Market penetration is the name given to a growth strategy where the business focuses
on selling existing products into existing markets.
Market penetration seeks to achieve four main objectives:
• Maintain or increase the market share of current products – this can be achieved by a
combination of competitive pricing strategies, advertising, sales promotion and perhaps
more resources dedicated to personal selling
• Secure dominance of growth markets
• Restructure a mature market by driving out competitors; this would require a much
more aggressive promotional campaign, supported by a pricing strategy designed to
make the market unattractive for competitors
• Increase usage by existing customers – for example by introducing loyalty schemes
A market penetration marketing strategy is very much about “business as usual”. The
business is focusing on markets and products it knows well. It is likely to have good
information on competitors and on customer needs. It is unlikely, therefore, that this
strategy will require much investment in new market research.
Market development
Market development is the name given to a growth strategy where the business seeks
to sell its existing products into new markets.
There are many possible ways of approaching this strategy, including:
• New geographical markets; for example exporting the product to a new country
• New product dimensions or packaging: for example
• New distribution channels
• Different pricing policies to attract different customers or create new market segments
Product development
Product development is the name given to a growth strategy where a business aims to
introduce new products into existing markets. This strategy may require the
development of new competencies and requires the business to develop modified
products which can appeal to existing markets.
Diversification
Diversification is the name given to the growth strategy where a business markets new
products in new markets.
This is an inherently more risk strategy because the business is moving into markets in
which it has little or no experience.
For a business to adopt a diversification strategy, therefore, it must have a clear idea
about what it expects to gain from the strategy and an honest assessment of the risks.
The business portfolio is the collection of businesses and products that make up the
company. The best business portfolio is one that fits the company's strengths and helps
exploit the most attractive opportunities.
(1) Analyse its current business portfolio and decide which businesses should receive
more or less investment, and
(2) Develop growth strategies for adding new products and businesses to the portfolio,
whilst at the same time deciding when products and businesses should no longer be
retained.
The two best-known portfolio planning methods are the Boston Consulting Group
Portfolio Matrix and the McKinsey / General Electric Matrix (discussed in this revision
note). In both methods, the first step is to identify the various Strategic Business Units
("SBU's") in a company portfolio. An SBU is a unit of the company that has a separate
mission and objectives and that can be planned independently from the other
businesses. An SBU can be a company division, a product line or even individual
brands - it all depends on how the company is organised.
The McKinsey/GE Matrix overcomes a number of the disadvantages of the BCG Box.
Firstly, market attractiveness replaces market growth as the dimension of industry
attractiveness, and includes a broader range of factors other than just the market
growth rate. Secondly, competitive strength replaces market share as the dimension
by which the competitive position of each SBU is assessed.
The diagram below illustrates some of the possible elements that determine market
attractiveness and competitive strength by applying the McKinsey/GE Matrix to the UK
retailing market:
Image anchors are highly promoted products within a line that define the image of the
whole line. Image anchors are usually from the higher end of the line's range. When you
add a new product within the current range of an incomplete line, this is referred to as
line filling.
Price lining is the use of a limited number of prices for all your product offerings. This is
a tradition started in the old five and dime stores in which everything cost either 5 or 10
cents. Its underlying rationale is that these amounts are seen as suitable price points for
a whole range of products by prospective customers. It has the advantage of ease of
administering, but the disadvantage of inflexibility, particularly in times of inflation or
unstable prices.
There are many important decisions about product and service development and
marketing. In the process of product development and marketing we should focus on
strategic decisions about product attributes, product branding, product packaging,
product labeling and product support services. But product strategy also calls for
building a product line.
A product line extension is the use of an established product’s brand name for a new
item in the same product category.
Line Extensions occur when a company introduces additional items in the same product
category under the same brand name such as new flavors, forms, colors, added
ingredients, package sizes. This is as opposed to brand extension which is a new
product in a totally different product category.
Examples include
Consumer Goods
Consumer goods are goods that are bought from retail stores for personal,
family, or household use. They are grouped into three subcategories on the basis
of consumer buying habits: convenience goods, shopping goods, and specialty
goods.
Convenience Goods Convenience goods are items that buyers want to buy with
the least amount of effort, that is, as conveniently as possible. Most are
nondurable goods of low value that are frequently purchased in small quantities.
These goods can be further divided into two subcategories: staple and impulse
items.
Staple convenience goods are basic items that buyers plan to buy before they
enter a store, and include milk, bread, and toilet paper. Impulse items are other
convenience goods that are purchased without prior planning, such as candy
bars, soft drinks, and tabloid newspapers.
Since convenience goods are not actually sought out by consumers, producers
attempt to get as wide a distribution as possible through wholesalers. To extend
the distribution, these items are also frequently made available through vending
machines in offices, factories, schools, and other settings. Within stores, they are
placed at checkout stands and other high-traffic areas.
Shopping Goods Shopping goods are purchased only after the buyer compares
the products of more than one store or looks at more than one assortment of
goods before making a deliberate buying decision. These goods are usually of
higher value than convenience goods, bought infrequently, and are durable.
Price, quality, style, and color are typically factors in the buying decision.
Televisions, computers, lawnmowers, bedding, and camping equipment are all
examples of shopping goods.
Because customers are going to shop for these goods, a fundamental strategy in
establishing stores that specialize in them is to locate near similar stores in active
shopping areas. Ongoing strategies for marketing shopping goods include the
heavy use of advertising in local media, including newspapers, radio, and
television. Advertising for shopping goods is often done cooperatively with the
manufacturers of the goods.
Specialty Goods Specialty goods are items that are unique or unusual—at least
in the mind of the buyer. Buyers know exactly what they want and are willing to
exert considerable effort to obtain it. These goods are usually, but not
necessarily, of high value, and they may or may not be durable goods. They
differ from shopping goods primarily because price is not the chief consideration.
Often the attributes that make them unique are brand preference (e.g., a certain
make of automobile) or personal preference (e.g., a food dish prepared in a
specific way). Other items that fall into this category are wedding dresses,
antiques, fine jewelry, and golf clubs.
Producers and distributors of specialty goods prefer to place their goods only in
selected retail outlets. These outlets are chosen on the basis of their willingness
and ability to provide a high level of advertising and personal selling for the
product. Consistency of image between the product and the store is also a factor
in selecting outlets.
The distinction among convenience, shopping, and specialty goods is not always
clear. As noted earlier, these classifications are based on consumers' buying
habits. Consequently, a given item may be a convenience good for one person, a
shopping good for another, and a specialty good for a third. For example, for a
person who does not want to spend time shopping, buying a pair of shoes might
be a convenience purchase. In contrast, another person might buy shoes only
after considerable thought and comparison: in this instance, the shoes are a
shopping good. Still another individual who perhaps prefers a certain brand or
has an unusual size will buy individual shoes only from a specific retail location;
for this buyer, the shoes are a specialty good.
Industrial Goods
Industrial goods are products that companies purchase to make other products,
which they then sell. Some are used directly in the production of the products for
resale, and some are used indirectly. Unlike consumer goods, industrial goods
are classified on the basis of their use rather than customer buying habits. These
goods are divided into five subcategories: installations, accessory equipment,
raw materials, fabricated parts and materials, and industrial supplies.
Installations Installations are major capital items that are typically used directly in
the production of goods. Some installations, such as conveyor systems, robotics
equipment, and machine tools, are designed and built for specialized situations.
Other installations, such as stamping machines, large commercial ovens, and
computerized axial tomography (CAT) scan machines, are built to a standard
design but can be modified to meet individual requirements.
The relatively low unit value of accessory equipment, combined with a market
made up of buyers from several different types of businesses, dictates a broad
marketing strategy. Sellers rely heavily on advertisements in trade publications
and mailings to purchasing agents and other business buyers. When personal
selling is needed, it is usually done by intermediaries, such as wholesalers.
Raw Materials Raw materials are products that are purchased in their raw state
for the purpose of processing them into consumer or industrial goods. Examples
are iron ore, crude oil, diamonds, copper, timber, wheat, and leather. Some (e.g.,
wheat) may be converted directly into another consumer product (cereal). Others
(e.g., timber) may be converted into an intermediate product (lumber) to be
resold for use in another industry (construction).
Most raw materials are graded according to quality so that there is some
assurance of consistency within each grade. There is, however, little difference
between offerings within a grade. Consequently, sales negotiations focus on
price, delivery, and credit terms. This negotiation plus the fact that raw materials
are ordinarily sold in large quantities make personal selling the principal
marketing approach for these goods.
Fabricated Parts and Materials Fabricated parts are items that are purchased to
be placed in the final product without further processing. Fabricated materials, on
the other hand, require additional processing before being placed in the end
product. Many industries, including the auto industry, rely heavily on fabricated
parts. Automakers use such fabricated parts as batteries, sun roofs, windshields,
and spark plugs. They also use several fabricated materials, including steel and
upholstery fabric. As a matter of fact, many industries actually buy more
fabricated items than raw materials.
Buyers of fabricated parts and materials have well-defined specifications for their
needs. They may work closely with a company in designing the components or
materials they require, or they may invite bids from several companies. In either
case, in order to be in a position to get the business, personal contact must be
maintained with the buyers over time. Here again, personal selling is a key
component in the marketing strategy.
Branding
The annual list of the world’s most valuable brands, published by Interbrand and
Business Week, indicates that the market value of companies often consists largely of
brand equity. Research by McKinsey & Company, a global consulting firm, in 2000
suggested that strong, well-leveraged brands produce higher returns to shareholders
than weaker, narrower brands. Taken together, this means that brands seriously impact
shareholder value, which ultimately makes branding a CEO responsibility.
The discipline of brand management was started at Procter & Gamble PLC as a result
of a famous memo by Neil H. McElroy
Types of brands
• premium brand
• economy brand
• fighting brand
• corporate branding
• individual branding
• family branding
Functions of brand
(For consumers)
(For Manufacture)
Brand architecture
The different brands owned by a company are related to each other via brand
architecture. In "product brand architecture", the company supports many different
product brands with each having its own name and style of expression while the
company itself remains invisible to consumers. Procter & Gamble, considered by many
to have created product branding, is a choice example with its many unrelated
consumer brands such as Tide, Pampers, Abunda, Ivory and Pantene.
With "endorsed brand architecture", a mother brand is tied to product brands, such as
The Courtyard Hotels (product brand name) by Marriott (mother brand name). Endorsed
brands benefit from the standing of their mother brand and thus save a company some
marketing expense by virtue promoting all the linked brands whenever the mother brand
is advertised.
Techniques
Companies sometimes want to reduce the number of brands that they market. This
process is known as "Brand rationalization." Some companies tend to create more
brands and product variations within a brand than economies of scale would indicate.
Sometimes, they will create a specific service or product brand for each market that
they target. In the case of product branding, this may be to gain retail shelf space (and
reduce the amount of shelf space allocated to competing brands). A company may
decide to rationalize their portfolio of brands from time to time to gain production and
marketing efficiency, or to rationalize a brand portfolio as part of corporate restructuring.
A recurring challenge for brand managers is to build a consistent brand while keeping
its message fresh and relevant. An older brand identity may be misaligned to a
redefined target market, a restated corporate vision statement, revisited mission
statement or values of a company. Brand identities may also lose resonance with their
target market through demographic evolution. Repositioning a brand (sometimes called
rebranding), may cost some brand equity, and can confuse the target market, but
ideally, a brand can be repositioned while retaining existing brand equity for leverage.
Brand orientation is a deliberate approach to working with brands, both internally and
externally. The most important driving force behind this increased interest in strong
brands is the accelerating pace of globalization. This has resulted in an ever-tougher
competitive situation on many markets. A product’s superiority is in itself no longer
sufficient to guarantee its success. The fast pace of technological development and the
increased speed with which imitations turn up on the market have dramatically
shortened product lifecycles. The consequence is that product-related competitive
advantages soon risk being transformed into competitive prerequisites. For this reason,
increasing numbers of companies are looking for other, more enduring, competitive
tools – such as brands. Brand Orientation refers to "the degree to which the
organization values brands and its practices are oriented towards building brand
capabilities” (Bridson & Evans, 2004).
Challenges
There are several challenges associated with setting objectives for a category.
Brand equity refers to the marketing effects or outcomes that accrue to a product with
its brand name compared with those that would accrue if the same product did not have
the brand name. And, at the root of these marketing effects is consumers' knowledge. In
other words, consumers' knowledge about a brand makes manufacturers/advertisers
respond differently or adopt appropriately adept measures for the marketing of the
brand . The study of brand equity is increasingly popular as some marketing
researchers have concluded that brands are one of the most valuable assets that a
company has. Brand equity is one of the factors which can increase the financial value
of a brand to the brand owner, although not the only one.
Measurement
There are many ways to measure a brand. Some measurements approaches are
at the firm level, some at the product level, and still others are at the consumer
level.
Firm Level: Firm level approaches measure the brand as a financial asset. In short, a
calculation is made regarding how much the brand is worth as an intangible asset. For
example, if you were to take the value of the firm, as derived by its market capitalization
- and then subtract tangible assets and "measurable" intangible assets- the residual
would be the brand equity.[ One high profile firm level approach is by the consulting firm
Interbrand. To do its calculation, Interbrand estimates brand value on the basis of
projected profits discounted to a present value. The discount rate is a subjective rate
determined by Interbrand and Wall Street equity specialists and reflects the risk profile,
market leadership, stability and global reach of the brand[.
Product Level: The classic product level brand measurement example is to compare
the price of a no-name or private label product to an "equivalent" branded product. The
difference in price, assuming all things equal, is due to the brand. More recently a
revenue premium approach has been advocated.
Consumer Level: This approach seeks to map the mind of the consumer to find out
what associations with the brand the consumer has. This approach seeks to measure
the awareness (recall and recognition) and brand image (the overall associations that
the brand has). Free association tests and projective techniques are commonly used to
uncover the tangible and intangible attributes, attitudes, and intentions about a brand.
Brands with high levels of awareness and strong, favorable and unique associations are
high equity brands.
A brand equity is the positive effect of the brand on the difference between the prices
that the consumer accepts to pay when the brand known compared to the value of the
benefit received.
There are two schools of thought regarding the existence of negative brand equity. One
perspective states brand equity cannot be negative, hypothesizing only positive brand
equity is created by marketing activities such as advertising, PR, and promotion. A
second perspective is that negative equity can exist, due to catastrophic events to the
brand, such as a wide product recall or continued negative press attention (Blackwater
or Halliburton, for example).
Colloquially, the term "negative brand equity" may be used to describe a product or
service where a brand has a negligible effect on a product level when compared to a
no-name or private label product. The brand-related negative intangible assets are
called “brand liability”, compared with “brand equity” [11].
The greater a company's brand equity, the greater the probability that the company will
use a family branding strategy rather than an individual branding strategy. This is
because family branding allows them to leverage the equity accumulated in the core
brand. Aspects of brand equity includes: brand loyalty, awareness, association, and
perception of quality .
Examples
In the early 2000s in North America, the Ford Motor Company made a strategic decision
to brand all new or redesigned cars with names starting with "F". This aligned with the
previous tradition of naming all sport utility vehicles since the Ford Explorer with the
letter "E". The Toronto Star quoted an analyst who warned that changing the name of
the well known Windstar to the Freestar would cause confusion and discard brand
equity built up, while a marketing manager believed that a name change would highlight
the new redesign. The aging Taurus, which became one of the most significant cars in
American auto history, would be abandoned in favor of three entirely new names, all
starting with "F", the Five Hundred, Freestar and Fusion. By 2007, the Freestar was
discontinued without a replacement. The Five Hundred name was thrown out and
Taurus was brought back for the next generation of that car in a surprise move by Alan
Mulally. "Five Hundred" was recognized by less than half of most people, but an
overwhelming majority was familiar with the "Ford Taurus".
Brand Positioning
Definitions
Although there are different definitions of Positioning, probably the most common is:
identifying a market niche for a brand, product or service utilizing traditional marketing
placement strategies (i.e. price, promotion, distribution, packaging, and competition).
Positioning is a concept in marketing which was first popularized by Al Ries and Jack
Trout in their bestseller book "Positioning - The Battle for Your Mind."
This differs slightly from the context in which the term was first published in 1969 by
Jack Trout in the paper "Positioning" is a game people play in today’s me-too market
place" in the publication Industrial Marketing, in which the case is made that the typical
consumer is overwhelmed with unwanted advertising, and has a natural tendency to
discard all information that does not immediately find a comfortable (and empty) slot in
the consumers mind. It was then expanded into their ground-breaking first book,
"Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind," in which they define Positioning as "an
organized system for finding a window in the mind. It is based on the concept that
communication can only take place at the right time and under the right circumstances"
(p. 19 of 2001 paperback edition).
What most will agree on is that Positioning is something (perception) that happens in
the minds of the target market. It is the aggregate perception the market has of a
particular company, product or service in relation to their perceptions of the competitors
in the same category. It will happen whether or not a company's management is
proactive, reactive or passive about the on-going process of evolving a position. But a
company can positively influence the perceptions through enlightened strategic actions.
1. Defining the market in which the product or brand will compete (who the relevant
buyers are)
2. Identifying the attributes (also called dimensions) that define the product 'space'
3. Collecting information from a sample of customers about their perceptions of
each product on the relevant attributes
4. Determine each product's share of mind
5. Determine each product's current location in the product space
6. Determine the target market's preferred combination of attributes (referred to as
an ideal vector)
7. Examine the fit between:
o The position of your product
o The position of the ideal vector
8. Position.
The process is similar for positioning your company's services. Services, however, don't
have the physical attributes of products - that is, we can't feel them or touch them or
show nice product pictures. So you need to ask first your customers and then yourself,
what value do clients get from my services? How are they better off from doing business
with me? Also ask: is there a characteristic that makes my services different?
Write out the value customers derive and the attributes your services offer to create the
first draft of your positioning. Test it on people who don't really know what you do or
what you sell, watch their facial expressions and listen for their response. When they
want to know more because you've piqued their interest and started a conversation,
you'll know you're on the right track.
Positioning concepts
Repositioning a company
This is especially true of small and medium-sized firms, many of which often lack strong
brands for individual product lines. In a prolonged recession, business approaches that
were effective during healthy economies often become ineffective and it becomes
necessary to change a firm's positioning. Upscale restaurants, for example, which
previously flourished on expense account dinners and corporate events, may for the
first time need to stress value as a sale tool.
As we have argued in our other revision notes on branding, it is the “added value” or
augmented elements that determine a brand’s positioning in the market place.
A perceptual map defines the market in terms of the way buyers perceive key
characteristics of competing products.
The basic perceptual map that buyers use maps products in terms of their price and
quality, as illustrated below:
Brand Extensions
While there can be significant benefits in brand extension strategies, there can also be
significant risks, resulting in a diluted or severely damaged brand image. Poor choices
for brand extension may dilute and deteriorate the core brand and damage the brand
equity. Most of the literature focuses on the consumer evaluation and positive impact on
parent brand. In practical cases, the failures of brand extension are at higher rate than
the successes. Some studies show that negative impact may dilute brand image and
equity. In spite of the positive impact of brand extension, negative association and
wrong communication strategy do harm to the parent brand even brand family. Product
extensions are versions of the same parent product that serve a segment of the target
market and increase the variety of an offering. An example of a product extension is
Coke vs. Diet Coke in same product category of soft drinks. This tactic is undertaken
due to the brand loyalty and brand awareness they enjoy consumers are more likely to
buy a new product that has a tried and trusted brand name on it. This means the market
is catered for as they are receiving a product from a brand they trust and Coca Cola is
catered for as they can increase their product portfolio and they have a larger hold over
the market in which they are performing in.
Brand extension research mainly focuses on the consumer evaluation of extension and
attitude of the parent brand. Following the Aaker and Keller’s (1990) model, they
provide a sufficient depth and breadth proposition to examine consumer behaviour and
conceptual framework. They use three dimensions to measure the fit of extension. First
of all, the “Complement” is that consumer takes two product (extension and parent
brand product) classes as complement to satisfy their specific needs. Secondly, the
“Substitute” indicates two products have same user situation and satisfy their same
needs which means the products class is very similar so that can replace each other. At
last, the “Transfer” is the relationship between extension product and manufacturer
which “reflects the perceived ability of any firm operating in the first product class to
make a product in the second class”. The first two measures focus on the consumer’s
demand and the last one focuses on firm’s ability.
From the line extension to brand extension, however, there are many different way of
extension such as "brand alliance",co-brandingor “brand franchise extension”. Tauber
(1988) suggests seven strategies to identify extension cases such as product with
parent brand’s benefit, same product with different price or quality, etc. In his
suggestion, it can be classified into two category of extension; extension of product-
related association and non-product related association. Another form of brand
extension, is a licensed brand extension. Where the brand-owner partners (sometimes
with a competitor) who takes on the responsibility of manufacturer and sales of the new
products, paying a royalty every time a product is sold.
Categorisation theory
Literature related to negative effect of brand extension is limited and the findings are
revealed as incongruent. The early works of Aaker and Keller (1990) find no significant
evidence that brand name can be diluted by unsuccessful brand extensions.
Conversely, Loken and Roedder-John (1993) indicate that dilution effect do occur when
the extension across inconsistency of product category and brand beliefs. The failure of
extension may come from difficulty of connecting with parent brand, a lack of similarity
and familiarity and inconsistent IMC messages.
“Equity of an integrated oriented brand can be diluted significantly from both functional
and non-functional attributes-base variables”, which means dilution does occur across
the brand extension to the parent brand. These failures of extension make consumers
create a negative or new association relate to parent brand even brand family or to
disturb and confuse the original brand identity and meaning. In addition, Martinez and
de Chernatony (2004) classify the brand image in two types: the general brand image
and the product brand image. They suggest that if the brand name is strong enough as
Nike or Sony, the negative impact has no specific damage on general brand image and
“the dilution effect is greater on product brand image than on general brand image”. In
consequence, consumer may maintain their belief about the attributes and feelings from
parent brand. On the other hand, their study shows that “brand extension dilutes the
brand image, changing the beliefs and association in consumers’ mind”.
The flagship product is a money-spinner to a firm. Marketer spends budget and time to
create maximum exposure and awareness for the product. Theoretically speaking,
flagship product is usually had the top sales and highest awareness in its product
category. In spite of Aaker and Keller’s (1990) research reported that the prestige brand
do no harm from failure of extension. Evidence shows that the dilution effect has great
and instant damage to the flagship product and brand family. But in some findings, even
overall parent belief is diluted; the flagship product would not be harmed. In addition,
brand extension is also “diminish consumer’s feelings and beliefs about brand name.”
To establish a strong brand, it is necessary to build up a “brand ladder”. Marketers may
go behind the order and model created by Aaker and Keller which they are authorities
on brand management. But branding does not always follow a rational line. One mistake
can damage all brand equity. A classic extension failure example would be Coca Cola
launching “New Coke” in 1985. Although initially accepted a backlash against “New
Coke” soon emerged among consumers. Not only did Coca Cola not succeed in
developing a new brand but sales of the original flavour also decreased. Coca Cola
were had to make considerable efforts to regain customers who had turned to Pepsi
cola.
Although there are few works about the failure of extensions, literature still provides
sufficient in depth research around this issue. Studies also suggest that brand extension
is a risky strategy to increase sales or brand equity. It should consider the damage of
parent brand no matter what types of extension are used. Example. BIC Pens tried to
produce BIC pantyhose. You can read some more here
Brand equity
Brand equity is defined as the main concern in brand management and IMC campaign.
Every marketer should pursue the long term equity and pay attention to every strategy
in detail. Because a small message dissonance would cause great failure of brand
extension. On the other hand, consumer has his psychology process in mind. The
moderating variable is a useful indication to evaluate consumer evaluation of brand
extension.
Throughout the categorisation theory and associative network theory, consumer does
have the ability to process information into useful knowledge for them. They would
measure and compares the difference between core brand and extension product
through quality of core brand, fit in category, former experience and knowledge, and
difficulty of making. Consequently, in this article may conclude some points about
consumer evaluation of brand extension:
1. Quality of core brand creates a strong position for brand and low the impact of fit
in consumer evaluation.
2. Similarity between core brand and extension is the main concern of consumer
perception of fit. The higher the similarity is the higher perception of fit.
3. Consumer’s knowledge and experience affect the evaluation before extension
product trail.
4. The more innovation of extension product is, the greater positive fit can perceive.
Brand is the image of the product in the market. Some people distinguish the
psychological aspect of a brand from the experiential aspect. The experiential aspect
consists of the sum of all points of contact with the brand and is known as the brand
experience. The psychological aspect, sometimes referred to as the brand image, is a
symbolic construct created within the minds of people and consists of all the information
and expectations associated with a product or service.
People engaged in branding seek to develop or align the expectations behind the brand
experience, creating the impression that a brand associated with a product or service
has certain qualities or characteristics that make it special or unique. A brand is
therefore one of the most valuable elements in an advertising theme, as it demonstrates
what the brand owner is able to offer in the marketplace. The art of creating and
maintaining a brand is called brand management. Orientation of the whole organization
towards its brand is called brand orientation.
Careful brand management seeks to make the product or services relevant to the target
audience. Therefore cleverly crafted advertising campaigns can be highly successful in
convincing consumers to pay remarkably high prices for products which are inherently
extremely cheap to make. This concept, known as creating value, essentially consists of
manipulating the projected image of the product so that the consumer sees the product
as being worth the amount that the advertiser wants him/her to see, rather than a more
logical valuation that comprises an aggregate of the cost of raw materials, plus the cost
of manufacture, plus the cost of distribution. Modern value-creation branding-and-
advertising campaigns are highly successful at inducing consumers to pay, for example,
50 dollars for a T-shirt that cost a mere 50 cents to make, or 5 dollars for a box of
breakfast cereal that contains a few cents' worth of wheat.
Brands should be seen as more than the difference between the actual cost of a
product and its selling price - they represent the sum of all valuable qualities of a
product to the consumer. There are many intangibles involved in business, intangibles
left wholly from the income statement and balance sheet which determine how a
business is perceived. The learned skill of a knowledge worker, the type of metal
working, the type of stitch: all may be without an 'accounting cost' but for those who truly
know the product, for it is these people the company should wish to find and keep, the
difference is incomparable. Failing to recognize these assets that a business, any
business, can create and maintain will set an enterprise at a serious disadvantage.
A brand which is widely known in the marketplace acquires brand recognition. When
brand recognition builds up to a point where a brand enjoys a critical mass of positive
sentiment in the marketplace, it is said to have achieved brand franchise. One goal in
brand recognition is the identification of a brand without the name of the company
present. For example, Disney has been successful at branding with their particular
script font (originally created for Walt Disney's "signature" logo), which it used in the
logo for go.com.
Brand Awareness
Brand awareness refers to customers' ability to recall and recognize the brand under
different conditions and link to the brand name, logo, jingles and so on to certain
associations in memory. It helps the customers to understand to which product or
service category the particular brand belongs to and what products and services are
sold under the brand name. It also ensures that customers know which of their needs
are satisfied by the brand through its products.(Keller) 'Brand love', or love of a brand, is
an emerging term encompassing the perceived value of the brand image. Brand love
levels are measured through social media posts about a brand, or tweets of a brand on
sites such as Twitter. Becoming a Facebook fan of a particular brand is also a
measurement of the level of 'brand love'.
Brand Salience
Brand salience measures the awareness of the brand."To what extent is the brand top-
of-mind and easily recalled or recognized? What types of cues or reminders are
necessary?" (Keller)
Brands which come to mind on an unaided basis are likely to be the brands in a
customer’s consideration set and thus have a higher probability of being purchased.
Advertising weight and brand salience are cues to customers indicating which brands
are popular, and customers have a tendency to buy popular brands. Also, an increase
in the salience of one brand can actually inhibit recall of other brands, including brands
that otherwise would be candidates for purchase.
It is widely acknowledged that buyer’s do not see their brand as being any different from
other brands that are available. They buy a particular brand because they are more
aware of it, not because it is more distinctive, or has a point of difference. We now know
that all decisions made by humans involve memory processes to a greater or lesser
extent. Incoming information from the external environment travels by the sensory
memory into the short-term (or working) memory (STM) but if it is not acted upon in a
very short time the brain simply discards it.
But salient information that is important and received on a regular basis through
different channels is passed to the long-term memory (LTM) where it can be stored for
many years. Memories are stored or filed via connections between new and existing
memories in the different parts of the memory. They are laid down in a framework
making some memories easier to access than others. Recall is the process by which an
individual reconstructs the stimulus itself from memory, removed from the physicality’s
of that reality.
References
Brand Salience: How do Buyers Remember? Article by Terry Reeves, expert on salient
marketing and mentor at the Underdog Marketing Challenge
Global Brand
A global brand is one which is perceived to reflect the same set of values around the
world.Global brands transcend their origins and creates strong, enduring relationships
with consumers across countries and cultures.
Global brands are brands which sold to international markets. Examples of global
brands include Coca-Cola, McDonald's, Marlboro, Levi's etc.. These brands are used to
sell the same product across multiple markets, and could be considered successful to
the extent that the associated products are easily recognizable by the diverse set of
consumers.
• corporate slogan
• product names
• product features
• positionings
• language differences
A brand that is sold and marketed (distributed and promoted) in a relatively small and
restricted geographical area. A local brand is a brand that can be found in only one
country or region. It may be called a regional brand if the area encompasses more than
one metropolitan market. It may also be a brand that is developed for a specific national
market, however an interesting thing about local brand is that the local branding is
mostly done by consumers then by the producers. Examples of Local Brands in Sweden
are Stomatol, Mijerierna etc.
Brand name
The brand name is quite often used interchangeably within "brand", although it is more
correctly used to specifically denote written or spoken linguistic elements of any
product. In this context a "brand name" constitutes a type of trademark, if the brand
name exclusively identifies the brand owner as the commercial source of products or
services. A brand owner may seek to protect proprietary rights in relation to a brand
name through trademark registration. Advertising spokespersons have also become
part of some brands, for example: Mr. Whipple of Charmin toilet tissue and Tony the
Tiger of Kellogg's. Local Branding is usually done by the consumers rather than the
producers.
The act of associating a product or service with a brand has become part of pop culture.
Most products have some kind of brand identity, from common table salt to designer
jeans. A brandnomer is a brand name that has colloquially become a generic term for a
product or service, such as Band-Aid or Kleenex, which are often used to describe any
kind of adhesive bandage or any kind of facial tissue respectively.
Brand identity
A product identity, or brand image are typically the attributes one associates with a
brand, how the brand owner wants the consumer to perceive the brand - and by
extension the branded company, organization, product or service. The brand owner will
seek to bridge the gap between the brand image and the brand identity. Effective brand
names build a connection between the brand personality as it is perceived by the target
audience and the actual product/service. The brand name should be conceptually on
target with the product/service (what the company stands for). Furthermore, the brand
name should be on target with the brand demographic. Typically, sustainable brand
names are easy to remember, transcend trends and have positive connotations. Brand
identity is fundamental to consumer recognition and symbolizes the brand's
differentiation from competitors.
Brand identity is what the owner wants to communicate to its potential consumers.
However, over time, a product's brand identity may acquire (evolve), gaining new
attributes from consumer perspective but not necessarily from the marketing
communications an owner percolates to targeted consumers. Therefore, brand
associations become handy to check the consumer's perception of the brand. Brand
identity needs to focus on authentic qualities - real characteristics of the value and
brand promise being provided and sustained by organisational and/or production
characteristics.
Brand parity
Brand parity is the perception of the customers that all brands are equivalent.[11]
Branding approaches
Company name
Often, especially in the industrial sector, it is just the company's name which is
promoted (leading to one of the most powerful statements of "branding"; the saying,
before the company's downgrading, "No one ever got fired for buying IBM").
In this case a very strong brand name (or company name) is made the vehicle for a
range of products (for example, Mercedes-Benz or Black & Decker) or even a range of
subsidiary brands (such as Cadbury Dairy Milk, Cadbury Flake or Cadbury Fingers in
the United States).
Each brand has a separate name (such as Seven-Up, Kool-Aid or Nivea Sun
(Beiersdorf)), which may even compete against other brands from the same company
(for example, Persil, Omo, Surf and Lynx are all owned by Unilever).
Attitude branding is the choice to represent a larger feeling, which is not necessarily
connected with the product or consumption of the product at all. Marketing labeled as
attitude branding include that of Nike, Starbucks, The Body Shop, Safeway, and Apple
Inc.. In the 2000 book No Logo, Naomi Klein describes attitude branding as a "fetish
strategy".
"A great brand raises the bar -- it adds a greater sense of purpose to the experience,
whether it's the challenge to do your best in sports and fitness, or the affirmation that the
cup of coffee you're drinking really matters." - Howard Schultz (president, CEO, and
chairman of Starbucks)
The color, letter font and style of the Coca-Cola and Diet Coca-Cola logos in English
were copied into matching Hebrew logos to maintain brand identity in Israel.
Iconic brands are defined as having aspects that contribute to consumer's self-
expression and personal identity. Brands whose value to consumers comes primarily
from having identity value comes are said to be "identity brands". Some of these brands
have such a strong identity that they become more or less "cultural icons" which makes
them iconic brands. Examples of iconic brands are: Apple Inc., Nike and Harley
Davidson. Many iconic brands include almost ritual-like behaviour when buying and
consuming the products.
There are four key elements to creating iconic brands (Holt 2004):
"No-brand" branding
Derived brands
In this case the supplier of a key component, used by a number of suppliers of the end-
product, may wish to guarantee its own position by promoting that component as a
brand in its own right. The most frequently quoted example is Intel, which secures its
position in the PC market with the slogan "Intel Inside".
Brand extension
The existing strong brand name can be used as a vehicle for new or modified products;
for example, many fashion and designer companies extended brands into fragrances,
shoes and accessories, home textile, home decor, luggage, (sun-) glasses, furniture,
hotels, etc.
Mars extended its brand to ice cream, Caterpillar to shoes and watches, Michelin to a
restaurant guide, Adidas and Puma to personal hygiene. Dunlop extended its brand
from tires to other rubber products such as shoes, golf balls, tennis racquets and
adhesives.
There is a difference between brand extension and line extension. A line extension is
when a current brand name is used to enter a new market segment in the existing
product class, with new varieties or flavors or sizes. When Coca-Cola launched "Diet
Coke" and "Cherry Coke" they stayed within the originating product category: non-
alcoholic carbonated beverages. Procter & Gamble (P&G) did likewise extending its
strong lines (such as Fairy Soap) into neighboring products (Fairy Liquid and Fairy
Automatic) within the same category, dish washing detergents.
Multi-brands
Once again, Procter & Gamble is a leading exponent of this philosophy, running as
many as ten detergent brands in the US market. This also increases the total number of
"facings" it receives on supermarket shelves. Sara Lee, on the other hand, uses it to
keep the very different parts of the business separate — from Sara Lee cakes through
Kiwi polishes to L'Eggs pantyhose. In the hotel business, Marriott uses the name
Fairfield Inns for its budget chain (and Ramada uses Rodeway for its own cheaper
hotels).
Private labels
With the emergence of strong retailers, private label brands, also called own brands, or
store brands, also emerged as a major factor in the marketplace. Where the retailer has
a particularly strong identity (such as Marks & Spencer in the UK clothing sector) this
"own brand" may be able to compete against even the strongest brand leaders, and
may outperform those products that are not otherwise strongly branded.
There are kinds of branding that treat individuals and organizations as the "products" to
be branded. Personal branding treats persons and their careers as brands. The term is
thought to have been first used in a 1997 article by Tom Peters.[16] Faith branding treats
religious figures and organizations as brands. Religious media expert Phil Cooke has
written that faith branding handles the question of how to express faith in a media-
dominated culture. Nation branding works with the perception and reputation of
countries as brands.
History
The word "brand" is derived from the Old Norse brandr, meaning "to burn." It refers to
the practice of producers burning their mark (or brand) onto their products.[18]
Although connected with the history of trademarks[19] and including earlier examples
which could be deemed "protobrands" (such as the marketing puns of the "Vesuvinum"
wine jars found at Pompeii),[20] brands in the field of mass-marketing originated in the
19th century with the advent of packaged goods. Industrialization moved the production
of many household items, such as soap, from local communities to centralized factories.
When shipping their items, the factories would literally brand their logo or insignia on the
barrels used, extending the meaning of "brand" to that of trademark.
Bass & Company, the British brewery, claims their red triangle brand was the world's
first trademark. Lyle’s Golden Syrup makes a similar claim, having been named as
Britain's oldest brand, with its green and gold packaging having remained almost
unchanged since 1885. Another example comes from Antiche Fornaci Giorgi in Italy,
whose bricks are stamped or carved with the same proto-logo since 1731, as found in
Saint Peter's Basilica in Vatican City.
Cattle were branded long before this; the term "maverick", originally meaning an
unbranded calf, comes from Texas rancher Samuel Augustus Maverick who, following
the American Civil War, decided that since all other cattle were branded, his would be
identified by having no markings at all. Even the signatures on paintings of famous
artists like Leonardo Da Vinci can be viewed as an early branding tool.
From there, manufacturers quickly learned to build their brand's identity and personality
(see brand identity and brand personality), such as youthfulness, fun or luxury. This
began the practice we now know as "branding" today, where the consumers buy "the
brand" instead of the product. This trend continued to the 1980s, and is now quantified
in concepts such as brand value and brand equity. Naomi Klein has described this
development as "brand equity mania". In 1988, for example, Philip Morris purchased
Kraft for six times what the company was worth on paper; it was felt that what they
really purchased was its brand name.
Marlboro Friday: April 2, 1993 - marked by some as the death of the brand- the day
Philip Morris declared that they were to cut the price of Marlboro cigarettes by 20%, in
order to compete with bargain cigarettes. Marlboro cigarettes were notorious at the time
for their heavy advertising campaigns, and well-nuanced brand image. In response to
the announcement Wall street stocks nose-dived for a large number of 'branded'
companies: Heinz, Coca Cola, Quaker Oats, PepsiCo. Many thought the event signalled
the beginning of a trend towards "brand blindness" (Klein 13), questioning the power of
"brand value".
Brand Hierarchy
Module: IV
WHAT ARE BRANDS
Brands are those non-physical elements of a business, which have potential future
earnings. They are separately identifiable, intangible assets that one capable of being
reliably measured.
Difference between Brand and Goodwill: Goodwill is defined as the difference between
the net assets of a company and the price paid by its purchaser.
EMERGENCE OF BRANDS
THE BACKGROUND:
The debate of the brands came to the force in the late 1980’s with the activities of a
number of food companies. In early 1988, Nestle (UK) made a bid for Rowntree,
with more than twice the Company’s market capitalization at that time. Mc Dougall
started capitalizing the brands that they owned or acquired, implying that these
brands possessed hidden values. The service sector companies like The Daily
Telegraph Ltd, Lonhro plc etc have valued their brands and showed them in
balance sheets. Thus began the hottest debate on brands in Balance Sheet.
IN INDIA: According to AS – 10, Accounting for Fixed Assets, issued by the Institute of
Chartered Accountants, goodwill in general, should be recorded in the books only when
some consideration in money or money’s worth has been paid for it. As a matter of
financial prudence goodwill is written off over a period. However this is not mandatory.
No guidelines has been issued by ICAI on brand valuation, as it is a relatively new
concept in India. Major MNC’s like Unilever group, Proctor and Gamble, Nestle and
reputed Indian companies like Tatas, Reliance could benefit a great deal by valuing
brands and including them in the balance sheet. Now that AS - 26 is applicable, the
brands can be valued if and only if they are purchased and not self generated.
VALUATION OF BRANDS:
One of the most important reasons why a valuable asset like brands is not shown on the
balance sheet is because of the complexity involved in its valuation. However if the
company can show that it is the beneficial owner of a valuable asset then the seemingly
serious difficulty of putting a firm price (value) on brand cannot be accepted as a reason
( by any accounting principle) for refusing to record the value of brands in balance
sheet. There are various methods of valuation but each has its own draw backs. They
are briefly discussed below:
METHODS OF VALUATION
01. Valuation based on the aggregate cost of all marketing, advertising and research
and development expenditure devoted to the brand over a stipulated period.
02. Valuation based on premium pricing of a branded product over a non branded
product.
03. Valuation at market price
04. Valuation based on customer related factors such as esteem, recognition or
awareness.
05. Valuation based on potential future earnings discounted to present day values.
BRAND STRENGTH
The shape of the ‘S’ curve is because of the following reasons:
1. As brand strength increases from virtually zero ( an unknown or new brand) to a
position as number 3 or 4 in a market, the value increases gradually.
2. As the brand moves into the number 2 or particularly the no.1 position in its market
there is an accelerated increase in its value
3. Once a brand has become a powerful world brand the growth in value no longer
increases at the same rate.
Once the multiple is determined it is multiplied by the brand earnings to arrive at the
brand value. This method is explained with the help of a problem in the exhibit.
CONCLUSION:
Valuation of brands is till in its infancy. With a plethora of brands flooding the market,
established brand names are going to be a major asset and its importance will be
increasingly in the future.
The dynamics of the new world economy, particularly globalisation, outsourcing and e-
business, are fundamentally changing the way business is conducted.
The growth in recent years in global companies (primarily through cross-border mergers
and e-business) has led to an explosion in the number of goods and services, and
suppliers thereof, for consumers to choose from. With this increased choice, consumers
have also been provided with greater information to make informed decisions, including
ease of price comparison through the internet, the introduction of the European single
currency, government regulation and increased advertising spend.
How valuable is Intellectual Property?
The change in the nature of competition and the dynamics of the new world economy
have resulted in a change in the key value drivers for a company from tangible assets
(such as plant and machinery) to intangible assets (such as brands, patents, copyright
and know how). In particular, companies have taken advantage of more open trade
opportunities by using the competitive advantage provided by brands and technology to
access distant markets. This is reflected in the growth in the ratio of market capitalised
value to book value of listed companies. In the US, this ratio has increased from 1:1 to
5:1 over the last twenty years.
In the UK, the ratio is similar, with less than 30% of the capitalised value of FTSE 350
companies appearing on the balance sheet. We would argue that the remaining 70% of
unallocated value resides largely in intellectual property and certainly in intellectual
assets. Noticeably, the sectors with the highest ratio of market capitalisation to book
value are heavily reliant on copyright (such as the media sector), patents (such as
technology and pharmaceutical) and brands (such as pharmaceutical, food and drink,
media and financial services).
Brands clearly have significant value. Businesses, such as Nike, Unilever and Coca
Cola spend billions each year supporting their brands. In the UK, the growth in
trademark registrations has also demonstrated the increased focus on brand
importance:
We should stress that owning a trademark does not, in itself, provide ownership
of value. The value in a trademark is the protection it provides to a brand that
generates cash flow. Many companies spend millions of pounds protecting trademarks
that are of no, or very limited, value to the company.
Attempts have been made to account for IP. The first attempt was in 1988 when Nestle
acquired Rowntree for £5 billion, a price representing five times the recorded net assets
of the target company. Such an acquisition can lead to some distinctly funny looking
accounting results. As you can imagine, if a collection of assets is acquired for, say,
£500 million and the recorded assets are only £100 million then the remaining £400
million gets written off through the profit and loss account. This results in a balance
sheet substantially less healthy than prior to the acquisition.
The current position is that internally generated intangible assets cannot be capitalised
unless they have a "readily ascertainable market value". As no such market exists for
brands, clearly it is not possible to capitalise such internally generated assets. On the
other hand, acquired brands can be capitalised but only where it can be shown that they
are separable from goodwill.
Intellectual property is more often created internally than acquired, with the
associated expenses (such as research and development or advertising costs) being
expensed through the profit and loss account rather than being capitalised on the
balance sheet. As a result, some IP that is acquired goes on the balance sheet (as
there is a point in time opportunity to place a cost on it) but most does not. Many
balance sheets are therefore inherently inconsistent, showing some brands but not
others.
The issue is not whether brands are accounted for but whether and how they are
actively managed to enhance the company's value. The problem that arises from not
accounting for brands is that it removes a key metric by which brand management might
be measured.
Some companies now make an effort to report on the importance of their IP, if not
its value. This recognition of value in IP is, not surprisingly, led by organisations with
leading brands. Indeed, it is difficult to identify leading companies that do not have
strong brands. One reason for this is that companies compete either through price or
product differentiation, with the latter being preferable as it helps to maintain profit
margins. However, in the new global economy there are an increasing number of
suppliers of similar products, making product differentiation very difficult. Accordingly,
companies often try to differentiate their products not through physical characteristics or
product specifications but through emotive characteristics contained and developed in
their brands.
However, internet companies face intense competition, as there are few barriers to
entry. New companies have quickly entered the market, and have the ability to offer
exactly the same products and services. A good idea on the internet can be imitated
almost immediately. If a consumer has 100 internet book stores to choose from, what
will make it use any particular store? Clearly, internet companies have to establish
brands very quickly in order to develop and maintain their subscriber base. This is
supported by data on UK advertising spend which shows that advertising by .com
companies in 1999 is forecast to exceed £100 million compared to £35 million in 1998.
In the US the growth in advertising for .com companies is even more dramatic, a trend
which is likely to be followed in the UK.
It remains to be seen whether these large investments in internet branding will yield
long term results. Everybody has heard of Amazon.com but it hasn't yet made a profit.
Some questions remain: Will Amazon.com benefit in the long term from the subscriber
base it is building in the short term? Will its customers remain loyal or will they move to
lower price options later?
Transactions
Brands are often valued in connection with proposed or completed transactions.
Although the price will ultimately be a matter for negotiation, each party to the
transaction will be better placed to negotiate if they have valued the brand(s) in
advance. This theory applies equally well regardless of whether the transaction is a
sale, joint venture or strategic alliance.
Reporting
As noted above, current accounting standards and practice do not require intellectual
property to be accounted for on a balance sheet, indeed they make it difficult to do so.
Nevertheless, once brands have been capitalised, it is necessary to ensure that their
value does not fall below the value shown in the balance sheet. This necessarily
requires a valuation to be performed.
Reporting is not only a reference to financial statements. Management that do not report
to shareholders may nevertheless want regular valuations done to enable them to
assess over time whether the value of a brand has been enhanced or whether it has
greater value if used differently.
Litigation
IP damages arising from litigation is all about IP value. Although IP damages typically
manifests itself in a claim for lost profit, that profit is underpinned at the very least by a
reasonable royalty rate. That royalty rate, in turn, represents the amount a willing third
party licensee would pay to use the IP. As our brief commentary on valuation
methodologies below shows, the royalty approach is a common form of IP valuation. In
addition, there are disputes which actually require the IP to be valued.
(1) it needs to be separable from the other assets of the business - i.e. can be sold
without selling a business of the entity. Whether brands are separable from the
underlying business is often debated and needs to be considered in each case. This
is a bigger problem for corporate brands than product brands;
(2) it needs to have legal title which can be transferred - enter the trademarks; and
(3) it needs to be able to generate cashflows in its own right. This manifests itself in the
practical problem of separating the cash flows attributable to the brand from cash flows
attributable to other factors. All methodologies attempt to identify that part of earnings or
price which can be attributed purely to the brand. However, it is often very difficult to
separate the value of the brand from other intangible assets, particularly goodwill.
Accordingly, care must be taken to separate out goodwill from any brand valuation to
avoid over valuing a brand.
Having established that brands are valuable and should be valued the question arises
as to how to value them. This area is complex and, like business and property
valuations, subjective. However, certain robust methodologies have been developed,
some of which are summarised below. Due to the judgmental elements, we recommend
the use of more than one methodology in each case, with the results cross-checked to
ensure a reasonable result. We also recommend consistency of use over time so as to
reduce the comparative effect of judgement wherever possible.
The basic premise underlying the value of any asset is that its current value equals the
future economic benefits derived from its use, at today's prices. If an asset has no future
economic benefit then it has no value. The difficulty is in (1) forecasting future cash
flows (2) estimating what proportion of those future cash flows can be attributed to the
brand, and (3) determining an appropriate discount rate to put those cash flows in
present day terms. The following methods attempt to answer these questions.
Premium profits
The underlying principle supporting the premium profits method is that a value can be
determined by capitalising the additional profits generated by the intangible asset. This
approach is often used for brands on the theory that a branded product can be sold for
more than an unbranded product. For instance Coca Cola may be able to charge 50p
for a Coke whereas an unbranded cola may only sell for 35p per can. The price
difference of 15p can be described as the value of the brand, per can. To value the
brand it would be necessary to forecast the number of annual sales of the branded
product and multiply this by the price premium (i.e. the 15p). The sum of the discounted
annual price premium would be the estimated value of the brand.
It may be that the branded product can not sell at a higher price than the non-branded
product but instead can sell greater volume. The same valuation technique still applies.
The future economic benefits will thus be the profits attributable to the additional volume
generated by the brand. In many cases, branded products will be able to charge a price
premium as well as sell greater volumes than the non-branded competitors.
There are problems with the premium pricing method. Firstly, it is difficult to find a non-
branded competitor to compare prices with. Secondly, prices charged for each product
will vary between regions, and will change throughout the year, given promotions etc. In
addition it is very difficult and subjective to establish how much of the pricing differential
can be attributed to the brand and how much relates to other factors.
Once a royalty rate has been estimated it is necessary to estimate the life of the brand
and the level of annual sales. By multiplying the level of annual sales by the royalty rate
and summing all years gives you an estimate of the future economic benefit of the
brand. The final step is to bring these projected future cash flows back to today's prices
by discounting for the time value of money and the risks associated with achieving
those cash fows.
This is the most simplistic and, in our experience, most commonly used method for
valuing intellectual property. One difficulty with it is the lack of actual, comparable
agreements on which to base the hypothetical royalty rate. We seek to resolve this
problem either by reference to our own confidential database of royalty rates or by
analysing the profitability of the products in question in order to estimate the royalty that
a hypothetical third party would be prepared to pay in order to generate those profits.
Earnings basis
This method focuses on the maintainable profitability attributable to the intangible asset.
The profitability of the product that can be attributed to all other factors, such as tangible
assets and working capital, is deducted from the total forecast profitability. The profit
remaining, by matter of deduction, can then be attributed to intangible assets. For
example, if Gucci had expected future profitability of £100 million and the profit
attributed to other factors was estimated at £80 million, then the profit attributed to
intangible assets is £20 million. This would then be divided between the company's
various intangible assets.
To calculate the value of the brand a multiple is applied to the portion of the £20 million
profit attributed to the brand. Therefore if a multiple of 10 was considered appropriate
and, for simplicity, the profit attributed to the brand is the full £20 million, then the value
of the brand would be £200 million (20 x 10). The multiple could be determined by the
companies P/E ratios, comparable rates used for other companies, or calculated from
scratch, possibly based on factors relating to the strength of the brand.
Summary
Brands have never been as important or as valuable as they are at present, owing to
the dynamics of the new world economy and the increased power of the consumer.
Their importance was summarised by Sir Allen Sheppard (then the Chairman of Grand
Metropolitan plc).
"Brands are the core of our business. We could, if we so wished, subcontract all of the
production, distribution, sales and service functions and, provided that we retained
ownership of our brands, we would continue to be successful and profitable. It is our
brands that provide the profits of today and guarantee the profits of the future."
As such, brands should be managed as the key business asset that they are; not only at
the protection and enforcement level, but also in terms of building shareholder value.
This level of management requires the development of appropriate metrics for
measuring brand management performance, of which we would argue valuation is a key
management tool.
Although brands are key to the success of many companies, they do not guarantee
earnings stability. All aspects of the brand mix will need to be actively managed to
ensure that the brand remains continually relevant and desirable to consumers. It is
mainly because of this need to actively manage all aspects of the brand that regular
valuations are essential to determine whether the company strategy and tactics are
maintaining, creating or destroying
Building Strong Brands-Because Might is Not Always Right
Do brands really need to be strong? The answer to
this question is yes and is obvious to most of us.
The reason though quite apparent often goes
unnoticed. We see it everyday. Brands wrestle each
other in the arena we call the marketplace.
Moreover, as in the case of wrestling, the winner
does not win simply by might. Very often, it is the
player's strategy and technique that gets him to win.
Thus, in the game of wrestling, it’s the strength on
mind that is put to test and not the strength of
muscle.
How does all of this translate into marketing? The fact remains that in marketing too,
brands must not only be strong physically but they need to be strong intellectually. Thus
building strong brands is more a function of creating sound strategy than simply the
function of the market share of the brand. This means that just because a brand is doing
well commercially, it does not imply that it is a strong brand. There could be other
factors that may be contributing to its commercial success. It may so happen that most
of these factors will be external to the brand and may not have anything to do with the
brand. Building strong brands requires brands-even the market leaders, to introspect
and realize their inner potential. There needs to be a clear-cut distinction between the
brand's intrinsic strengths and external opportunities, both of which may be contributing
to the brand's success.
The difference between the two however, is that while brand strengths are inherent,
external opportunities will be fleeting and may follow the axiom of easy come easy go. If
one is looking forward to building a strong brand, one cannot therefore, count on the
external opportunities for strength. The strength of a brand must come from within and
must not be confused with windfall opportunities in the marketplace.
An interesting motive for building strong brands is that brand strengths are unique for
each brand. Marketplace opportunities however, while contributing to the success of the
brand are not unique and other players in the marketplace can also avail of them. Thus
while building strong brands the motto must be for the brand to achieve self-reliance
and do away with dependence on providence.
Another aspect of building strong brands is that the strengths of the brand must be
cultivated and communicated to the target audience. Once the basic strengths of the
brand have been identified, the key is to understand how more value can be delivered
using those strengths. However, there may be some brands which may not have any
exceptional strengths. In this scenario, brands must consciously cultivate those
strengths that make them stand out in the marketplace. However, building of a strong
brand does not stop at that. There is a need to communicate the brand strengths and
value offering to the target masses.
The above process of building strong brands surely seems to be a time-consuming,
tricky and complex one. Nonetheless, in the arena called the marketplace, where
brands must either do or die, they must either be strong enough to wrestle competition
or be prepared to lose to the others and perish for good.
Points of Parity
Points of parity are those associations that are often shared by competing brands.
Consumers view these associations as being necessary to be considered a legitimate
product offering within a given category.
In other words, if you create what you consider to be a wonderful point of differentiation
and position, they might not be enough if consumers do not view your product or service
as measuring up on “minimum product expectations”. Points of parity are necessary for
your brand but are not sufficient conditions for brand choice.
As an example, I might produce a wonderful new automobile that uses advanced global
positioning and sensor technologies that render a driver obsolete by automatically
routing the car, adjusting speed for traffic conditions, recognizing and complying with all
traffic laws, and delivering passengers and cargo to the proper destination without the
need for operator intervention. Alas, I’ve invented the first car with functional auto-pilot.
What a strong position and unique selling proposition!
However, unless I have fully consider my brand’s points of parity with other products in
the category, I probably will not meet with success.
Consumers might expect that at minimum my automobile have four wheels with rubber,
inflatable tires, be street legal, run on a widely-available fuel source, be able to operate
during both night and day in most weather conditions, seat at least two people
comfortably with luggage, be able to operate on existing roads and highways, and
provide a fair level of personal safely to occupants. If my automobile does not possess
these points of parity with competing brands, then it might be too different and might not
be seen as a viable choice or a strong brand.
The lesson here is that differentiation and singular distinction are necessary for strong
brands, but they do not solely make for a strong brand. Your brand must also measure
up well against the competition on expected criteria so as to neutralize those attributes.
Once you have met the points of parity requirement and then you provide a unique
selling proposition and hold a strong, defensible position, then you have the makings of
a very strong brand.
Brand Equity
Brand Equity is the sum total of all the different values people attach to the brand, or the
holistic value of the brand to its owner as a corporate asset.
Brand equity can include: the monetary value or the amount of additional income
expected from a branded product over and above what might be expected from an
identical, but unbranded product; the intangible value associated with the product that
can not be accounted for by price or features; and the perceived quality attributed to the
product independent of its physical features.
A brand is nearly worthless unless it enjoys some equity in the marketplace. Without
brand equity, you simply have a commodity product.
As I mentioned earlier, a brand is more than just a word or symbol used to identify
products and companies.
A brand also stands for the immediate image, emotions, or perceptions people
experience when they think of a company or product. A brand represents all the tangible
and intangible qualities and aspects of a product or service. A brand represents a
collection of feelings and perceptions about quality, image, lifestyle, and status. It is
precisely because brands represent intangible qualities that the term is often hard to
define. Intangible qualities, perceptions, and feelings are often hard to grasp and clearly
describe.
Brands create a perception in the mind of the customer that there is no other product or
service on the market that is quite like yours. A brand promises to deliver value upon
which consumers and prospective purchasers can rely to be consistent over long
periods of time.
First of all, you must understand that you already have a brand. Everyone has at least
one brand. Your name and who you are is, in fact, your personal brand. The brand
called "you". The issue then is not whether you have a brand, the issue is how well your
brand is managed.
Brand Management
If a brand is not effectively managed then a perception can be created in the mind of
your market that you do not necessarily desire. Branding is all about perception.
Wouldn't it be nice to have people perceive you the way you would like them to perceive
you? That is what branding and brand management are all about.
Brand management recognizes that your market's perceptions may be different from
what you desire while it attempts to shape those perceptions and adjust the branding
strategy to ensure the market's perceptions are exactly what you intend.
So you may now have a better understanding of what a brand is and why awareness
about your brand does not necessarily mean your brand enjoys high brand equity in the
marketplace. You might even understand that brand management is all about shaping
and managing perceptions. You may still be asking yourself, however, why you should
care about branding in the first place.
Here are just a few benefits you will enjoy when you create a strong brand:
• A strong brand influences the buying decision and shapes the ownership
experience.
• Branding creates trust and an emotional attachment to your product or company.
This attachment then causes your market to make decisions based, at least in
part, upon emotion-- not necessarily just for logical or intellectual reasons.
• A strong brand can command a premium price and maximize the number of units
that can be sold at that premium.
• Branding helps make purchasing decisions easier. In this way, branding delivers
a very important benefit. In a commodity market where features and benefits are
virtually indistinguishable, a strong brand will help your customers trust you and
create a set of expectations about your products without even knowing the
specifics of product features.
• Branding will help you "fence off" your customers from the competition and
protect your market share while building mind share. Once you have mind share,
you customers will automatically think of you first when they think of your product
category.
• A strong brand can make actual product features virtually insignificant. A solid
branding strategy communicates a strong, consistent message about the value of
your company. A strong brand helps you sell value and the intangibles that
surround your products.
• A strong brand signals that you want to build customer loyalty, not just sell
product. A strong branding campaign will also signal that you are serious about
marketing and that you intend to be around for a while. A brand impresses your
firm's identity upon potential customers, not necessarily to capture an immediate
sale but rather to build a lasting impression of you and your products.
• Branding builds name recognition for your company or product.
• A brand will help you articulate your company's values and explain why you are
competing in your market.
So now that you understand some of the reasons why you should want to build a strong
brand, let's talk about how you will go about building a strong brand.
In today’s highly competitive world, companies are striving hard to beat customer
expectations - marketers are at work setting the right level of expectations and shaping
the customer experience.
A positive brand value is created if customer experience exceeds his expectations. Over
a period of time companies can build a strong brand - one with high brand value. Intel,
Cisco, Google, E-bay, Wal-Mart etc., are the classic examples of how companies built a
strong brand through customer experience.
Companies mentioned above started small but built a solid reputation with the customer
along the way and in the process the name of the company evolved into a strong
brands as well. Note that these companies sell several products - and many of these
products are also branded, but the company brand is the strongest. For example -
Intel’s Pentium processor, Cisco’s Catalyst Router etc., these products are market
leaders in their respective segments, but customers remember the company brand
more than the product brand.
In this article, I want to highlight the five steps needed to create a strong brand. This
article builds on the theory of Customer relationship management & sales, you may
want to read the earlier article on Levels of Customer Relationship before reading
further.
Brand Identity means what the brand means to the customer. Brand identity sets
the customer expectations. A classic example is from Wal-Mart’s "Everyday Low
prices".
This statement sets the customer expectation. Customers expect bargain prices
at Wal-Mart. Another classic example is ‘Starbucks’ - Starbuck coffee has a
special meaning to its customers; to them Starbucks means excellent coffee
served in a warm, relaxing and pleasing environment.
The key is to clearly articulate the brand identity, and that will help you define
how customers interpret it. A clear brand identity sets right level of expectations
by the customer.
Customer value proposition is the natural outcome of the brand identity. It is what
the customers think of your brand. For example, customers think of Wal-Mart as
place to get great bargains. Then that message must be communicated to the
entire organization so that each department and each individual understands
what it means to them. The actions of each department will then be aligned with
the customer value proposition.
For example only if all employees of Starbucks understand the customer value
proposition - then they will be able to deliver an excellent cup of coffee in a warm,
relaxing and pleasing environment.
Identify all contact points where customers interact with your company. To create
a holistic brand experience, you need to create a consistent and compelling
experience at each of these touch points.
For example, marketer must work as a mystery shopper and see if the customer
experience is consistent with the customer value proposition and brand identity.
For example, marketer must see if he/she is getting the kind of coffee at
Starbucks in the right environment as expected by the customer. Take an
outside-in perspective when aligning each department with your customer value
proposition and brand identity.
Note that the marketer can only test the level of customer experience based on
his/her understanding of customer’s expectations. There may be an
understanding gap between what the customer wanted and what the marketer
understood.
4. Cultivate relationships with customers
Closing thoughts
Customers don't buy products, customers buy relationships - This is a popular phrase in
marketing. To build a strong brand, organizations must work on enhancing customer
experiences and that results in a higher level of customer relationship. All this will
eventually result in a strong brand. If you observe any popular brand today, you will see
that company promoting that brand has succeeded in building a strong relationship with
its customers.
Drop Error - a mistake made by a company in deciding to abandon a new product idea that, in hindsight,
might have been successful if developed. See Go Error
drop-error
Definition:
A decision to drop a PRODUCT from the line, or to discontinue development of a new product which subsequently proves to
have been a premature decision, in light of successes achieved by competitors with similar developments. The converse of
GO-ERROR.