A DRAFT REPORT ON

ON

COMPARISON OF BRAND FAIURES & BRAND

SUCCESS

(SELECTED CASES OF MNCs)

SUBMITTED TO

Dr.Neeraj Anand

Associate Professor, CMES, UPES

SUBMITTED BY

ANSHUL TOMAR (R020208005)

UTSAV NEGI (R020208040)

VIVEK ZAVERI (R020208045)

MBA (Oil & Gas), II Semester

UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM & ENERGY STUDIES

COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT & ECONOMICS STUDIES

DEHRADUN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1
Acknowledgement I
Certificate from the candidate II
Certificate from the Guide III
Preface IV
Executive summary V
CHAPTERS PAGE NO.

1. INTRODUCTION 9 - 13

2. LITERATURE SURVEY: CASE STUDIES 14 - 37

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 38- 39

3.1 OBJECTIVES
3.2 RATIONALE OF THE STUDY
3.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS (HYPOTHESES)
3.4 SCOPE
3.5 LIMITATIONS

4. FACTS & FINDINGS 40-60

4.1 BRAND MEASUREMENT
4.2 STRATEGIC BRAND ASSESSMENT
4.3 BRAND REPORT CARD
4.4 CONSUMER REPORT SURVEY FOR TOYOTA & FORD
4.5 BRAND EXTENSION STRATEGY

5. ANALYSIS & INTERPRETATIONS 61-67

6. CONCLUSIONS & SUGGESTIONS/ RECOMMENDATIONS 68

BIBLIOGRAPHY
ANNEXURE I – Balanced Scorecard

2
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
It gives us a great sense of achievement and pleasure to present
this report on out MBA research project undertaken during the
second semester (Ist year) as a part of our curriculum. We owe
special debt and gratitude to Dr. Neeraj Anand (Program Director,
LSCM) for his consistent support and invaluable guidance
throughout this endeavor. Whenever we were puzzled and
confused about the concepts, his innovative ideas gave us a way
to proceed. His sincerity, thoroughness and perseverance had
been a great source of inspiration for us. It is only his cognizant
guidance and motivation that our efforts saw light of the day.

We also take this opportunity to acknowledge the contribution of

all the faculty members of the CMES engineering department who
are guiding us during our MBA without which we wouldn’t have
been able to understand the concepts involved.

Finally, we acknowledge ourselves for our individual efforts in the

completion of this project.

3
Regards,
ANSHUL
UTSAV NEGI
VIVEK ZAVERI

CERTIFICATE FROM CANDIDATES

We hereby declare that the project entitled “Comparison of

Brand Failures & Brand Success-Selected Cases” submitted
for the Research in our MBA Program is our original work and the
project has not formed the basis for the award of any degree,
associateship, fellowship or any other similar titles.

Signature Of the Candidate:

Place: Dehradun
Anshul
Date: 31/03/2009
Utsav Negi
Vivek Zaveri

4
 CERTIFICATE FROM PROJECT GUIDE

This is to certify that the work contained in this report on

“Comparison of Brand Failures & Success-Selected Cases” by
Anshul, Utsav Negi and Vivek Zaveri student of MBA(Oil & Gas
Management),College of Management & Economic Studies ,
University Of Petroleum & Energy Studies, Dehradun was done
under my guidance and supervision for their Research Project
(Brand Management) during the IInd semester.

The work has been completed to my satisfaction.

Date: _____________ ____________________

Dr. Neeraj Anand
Place: _____________ (College Of Management &
Economic Studies)

5
 University of Petroleum & Energy
Studies,
Dehradun

PREFACE
We feel a sense of achievement on completion of our Research Project(Brand
Management) on Comparison of Brand Failures & Success.

We undertook the Brand Management for two reasons. Firstly, it involves

nearly all the marketing concepts which is very essential for now-a-days
competitive world of globalised era.

Secondly, as a management students it is very important for us to

understand that what is the necessity of brand & how a brand management
aids the organization to increase its market share , to generate trust & faith
in customer perception.

We have tried to present a blend of qualitative and quantittive aspects

pertaining to brand management by giving the inputs and learnings given in
our MBA & acquired by us through our work experience. We have tried our
best to keep our work away from errors but still we apologise if we made any.
This report has seen the daylight due to the efforts of our project guide Dr.
Neeraj Anand and the faculty members of the CMES Department of UPES ,
Dehradun and we thank them dearly.

We hope we could come up with a report that will be a true reflection of the
efforts put in by us.

6
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Building and properly managing brand equity has become a priority for
companies of all sizes, in all types of industries, in all types of markets. After
all, strong brand equity flow customer loyalty and profits. The rewards of
having a strong brand are clear.
The concept of brand management hinges on the use of marketing
techniques that would optimize brand recognition. These include activities
designed to increase the perceived value of brand names to target
customers. With efficient brand management, an increase in branch equity
and branch franchise can be expected. Brand equity is commonly defined as
an asset that is dependent on the mind associations of consumers. It can be
measured through financial data, through brand extension and consumer-
based attitudes. Brand equity can be measured financially by determining
how much a customer is willing to pay for a particular product or service. It
may also be measured through brand extension or the use of the same
brand name for a product or service that can be classified in another
category. Lastly, brand equity can be assessed based on the general attitude
of consumers toward a particular brand name. Once a brand has already
gained widespread recognition, companies can benefit from reduced
promotional costs and larger market shares.
Brand evaluation is crucial in effective brand management. This process
enables marketers to obtain a more accurate idea about how powerful a
brand name is. In turn, this will help marketers decide what their future
marketing strategy would be. Some of the more common metrics used in
measuring a brand are brand perception, brand financial value and brand
performance.

Why focus on failure?

The aim of this reserach is to provide ‘how not to’ advice by drawing on
some of the largest branding blunders of all time. Brands which set sail with
the help of multi-million dollar advertising campaigns shortly before sinking
without trace are clear contenders. However, the research will also look at
acknowledged brand mistakes made by usually successful companies such
as Virgin, McDonald’s, IBM, Coca-Cola, General Motors and many others.
7
Welcome, then, to the brand graveyard where companies have either put
their flagging brand to rest or have allowed it to stagger around with no
direction in a state of limbo. While these branding ‘horror stories’ may
suggest that failure is inevitable, their example has helped to identify the key
danger areas. It is hoped then, that this research will provide an illuminating,
if rather frightening read. Don’t have nightmares.

1) INTRODUCTION
The process of branding was developed to protect products from failure. This
is easy to see if we trace this process back to its 19th-century origins. In the
1880s, companies such as Campbell’s, Heinz and Quaker Oats were growing
ever more concerned about the consumer’s reaction to mass-produced
products. Brand identities were designed not only to help these products
stand out, but also to reassure a public anxious about the whole concept of
factory-produced goods. By adding a ‘human’ element to the product,
branding put the 19thcentury shoppers’ minds at rest. They may have once
placed their trust in their friendly shopkeeper, but now they could place it in
the brands themselves, and the smiling faces of Uncle Ben or Aunt Jemima
which beamed down from the shop shelves. The failure of mass-produced
items that the factory owners had dreaded never happened. The brands had
saved the day. Fast-forward to the 21st century and a different picture
emerge. Now it is the brands themselves that are in trouble. They have
become a victim of their own success. If a product fails, it’s the brand that’s
at fault. They may have helped companies such as McDonald’s, Nike, Coca-
Cola and Microsoft build global empires, but brands have also transformed
the process of marketing into one of perception-building. That is to say,
image is now everything. Consumers make buying decisions based around
the perception of the brand rather than the reality of the product. While this
means brands can become more valuable than their physical assets, it also
means they can lose this value overnight. After all, perception is a fragile
thing.
If the brand image becomes tarnished through a media scandal or
controversial incident or even a rumour spread via the Internet, then the
company as a whole can find itself in deep trouble. Yet companies cannot opt
out of this situation. They cannot turn the clock back to an age when
branding didn’t matter. And besides, they can grow faster than ever before
through the creation of a strong brand identity.
So branding is no longer simply a way of averting failure. It is everything.
Companies live or die on the strength of their brand. Yet despite the fact that
branding is more important than at any previous time, companies are still
8
getting it wrong. In fact, they are worse at it than ever before. Brands are
failing every single day and the company executives are left scratching their
heads in bafflement.
As the examples show, brand failure is not the preserve of one certain type
of business. Global giants such as Coca-Cola and McDonald’s have proved
just as likely to create brand flops as smaller and younger companies with
little marketing experience. It will also become clear that companies do not
learn from each other’s mistakes. In fact, the opposite seems to happen.
Failure is an epidemic. It is contagious. Brands watch each other and
replicate their mistakes. For instance, when the themed restaurant Planet
Hollywood was still struggling to make a profit, a group of supermodels
thought they should follow the formula with their own Fashion Café.
Companies are starting to suffer from ‘lemming syndrome’. They are so busy
following the competition that they don’t realize when they are heading
towards the cliff-edge. They see rival companies apply their brand name to
new products, so they decide to do the same. They see others dive into new
untested markets, so they do too. While Coca-Cola and McDonald’s may be
able to afford the odd costly branding mistake, smaller companies cannot.
For them, failure can be fatal.
The branding process which was once designed to protect products is now
itself filled with danger. While this danger can never be completely
eliminated, by learning from the bad examples of others it is at least possible
to identify where the main threats lie.

Why brands fail?

A long, long time ago in a galaxy far away, products were responsible for the
fate of a company. When a company noticed that its sales were flagging, it
would come to one conclusion: its product was starting to fail. Now things
have changed. Companies don’t blame the product, they blame the brand. It
isn’t the physical item sitting on the shop shelf at fault, but rather what that
item represents, what it conjures up in the buyer’s mind. This shift in
thinking, from product-blame to brand-blame, is therefore related to the way
buyer behavior has changed. ‘Today most products are bought, not sold,’
write Al and Laura Ries in The 22 Immutable Laws of Branding. ‘Branding
“presells” the product or service to the user. Branding is simply a more
efficient way to sell things.’ Although this is true, this new focus means that
perfectly good products can fail as a result of bad branding. So while
branding raises the rewards, it also heightens the risks. Scott Bedbury,
Starbucks’ former vice-president of marketing, controversially admitted that
‘consumers don’t truly believe there’s a huge difference between products,’
which means brands have to establish ‘emotional ties’ with their customers.
However, emotions aren’t to be messed with. Once a brand has created that
necessary bond, it has to handle it with care. One step out of line and the
customer may not be willing to forgive. This is ultimately why all brands fail.
Something happens to break the bond between the customer and the brand.

9
This is not always the fault of the company, as some things really are beyond
their immediate control (global recession, technological advances,
international disasters etc). However, more often than not, when brands
struggle or fail it is usually down to a distorted perception of either the
brand, the competition or the market. This altered view is a result of one of
the following seven deadly sins of branding:
Brand amnesia- For old brands, as for old people, memory becomes an
increasing issue. When a brand forgets what it is supposed to stand for, it
runs into trouble. The most obvious case of brand amnesia occurs when a
venerable, long-standing brand tries to create a radical new identity, such as
when Coca-Cola tried to replace its original formula with New Coke. The
results were disastrous.
Brand ego- Brands sometimes develop a tendency for over-estimating their
own importance, and their own capability. This is evident when a brand
believes it can support a market single-handedly, as Polaroid did with the
instant photography market. It is also apparent when a brand enters a new
market for which it is clearly ill-suited, such as Harley Davidson trying to sell
perfume.
Brand megalomania- Egotism can lead to megalomania. When this happens,
brands want to take over the world by expanding into every product
category imaginable. Some, such as Virgin, get away with it. Most Lesser
brands, however, do not.
Brand deception- ‘Human kind cannot bear very much reality,’ wrote T S
Eliot. Neither can brands. Indeed, some brands see the whole marketing
process as an act of covering up the reality of their product. In extreme
cases, the trend towards brand fiction can lead to downright lies. For
example, in an attempt to promote the film A Knight’s Tale one Sony
marketing executive invented a critic, and a suitable quote, to put onto the
promotional poster. In an age where markets are increasingly connected, via
the Internet and other technologies, consumers can no longer be deceived.
Brand fatigue- Some companies get bored with their own brands. You can
see this happening to products which have been on the shelves for many
years, collecting dust. When brand fatigue sets in creativity suffers, and so
do sales.
Brand paranoia- This is the opposite of brand ego and is most likely to occur
when a brand faces increased competition. Typical symptoms include: a
tendency to file lawsuits against rival companies, a willingness to reinvent
the brand every six months, and a longing to imitate competitors.
Brand irrelevance- When a market radically evolves, the brands associated
with it risk becoming irrelevant and obsolete. Brand managers must strive to
maintain relevance by staying ahead of the category, as Kodak is trying to do
with digital photography.

Brand myths

10
When their brands fail companies are always taken by surprise. This is
because they have had faith in their brand from the start, otherwise it would
never have been launched in the first place. However, this brand faith often
stems from an obscured attitude towards branding, based around one or a
combination of the following brand myths:
If a product is good, it will succeed. This is blatantly untrue. In fact, good
products are as likely to fail as bad products. Betamax, for instance, had
better picture and audio quality than VHS video recorders. But it failed
disastrously.
Brands are more likely to succeed than fail. Wrong. Brands fail every single
day. According to some estimates, 80 per cent of all new products fail upon
introduction, and a further 10 per cent die within five years. By launching a
product you are taking a one in ten chance of long-term success. As Robert
McMath, a former Procter & Gamble marketing executive, once put it: ‘it’s
easier for a product to fail than it is to survive.’
Big companies will always have brand success. This myth can be dismantled
with two words: New Coke. As this report will show, big companies have
managed to have at least as much failure as success. No company is big
enough to be immune to brand disaster. In fact, many of the examples will
highlight one of the main paradoxes of branding – namely, that as brands get
bigger and more successful, they also become more vulnerable and exposed.
Strong brands are built on advertising. Advertising can support brands, but it
can’t build them from scratch. Many of the world’s biggest brand failures
accompanied extremely expensive advertising campaigns.
If it’s something new, it’s going to sell. There may be a gap in the market,
but it doesn’t mean it has to be filled. This lesson was learnt the hard way for
RJR Nabisco Holdings when they decided to launch a ‘smokeless’ cigarette.‘It
took them a while to figure out that smokers actually like the smoke part of
smoking,’ one commentator said at the time.
Strong brands protect products. This may have once been the case, but now
the situation is reversed. Strong products now help to protect brands. As the
cases show, the product has become the ambassador of the brand and even
the slightest decrease in quality or a hint of trouble will affect the brand
identity as a whole. The consumer can cause the most elaborate brand
strategy to end in failure.

ON LIGHTER SIDE OF FEW FAILURES

Every company venturing into a new international market has to tread very
carefully. In a bid to rush into uncharted territories, they often commit grave
errors which prove very difficult to undo later on. Some of these errors are
absolutely unwarranted and provide no logic as to why the best marketing
companies across the world committed them. A few examples...

11
Scandinavian vacuum manufacturer Electrolux used the following in an
American ad
campaign: “Nothing sucks like an Electrolux.”

The name Coca-Cola in China was first rendered as Ke-kou-ke-la.

Unfortunately, the Coke
company did not discover until after thousands of signs had been printed
that the phrase
means “bite the wax tadpole” or “female horse stuffed with wax” depending
on the dialect.
Coke then researched 40,000 Chinese characters and found a close phonetic
equivalent, kokou-
ko-le, which can be loosely translated as “happiness in the mouth.”

In Taiwan, the translation of the Pepsi slogan “Come alive with the Pepsi
Generation” came
out as “Pepsi will bring your ancestors back from the dead.”

Also in Chinese, the Kentucky Fried Chicken slogan “finger-lickin’good” came

out as “eat
your fingers off.”

The American slogan for Salem cigarettes, “Salem - Feeling Free,” got
translated in the
Japanese market into “When smoking Salem, you feel so refreshed that your
mind seems to
be free and empty.”

When General Motors introduced the Chevy Nova in South America, it was
apparently
unaware that “no va” means “it won’t go.” After the company figured out
why it wasn’t
selling any cars, it renamed the car in its Spanish markets to the Caribe.
Ford had a similar problem in Brazil when the Pinto flopped. The company
found out that
Pinto was Brazilian slang for “tiny male genitals”. Ford pried all the
nameplates off and
substituted Corcel, which means horse.

When Parker Pen marketed a ball-point pen in Mexico, its ads were supposed
to say “It
won’t leak in your pocket and embarrass you.” However, the company
mistakenly thought
the Spanish word “embarazar” meant embarrass. Instead the ads said that
“It wont leak in

12
your pocket and make you pregnant.”

An American T-shirt maker in Miami printed shirts for the Spanish market
which promoted
the Pope’s visit. Instead of the desired “I Saw the Pope” in Spanish, the shirts
proclaimed
“I Saw the Potato.”

Chicken-Man Frank Perdue’s slogan, “It takes a tough man to make a tender
chicken,” got
terribly mangled in another Spanish translation. A photo of Perdue with one
of his birds
appeared on billboards all over Mexico with a caption that explained “It takes
a hard man
to get a chicken aroused.”

Hunt-Wesson introduced its Big John products in French Canada as Gros Jos
before finding
out that the phrase, in slang, means “big breasts.” In this case, however, the
name problem
did not have a noticeable effect on sales.

Colgate introduced a toothpaste in France called Cue, the name of a

notorious porno mag.
In Italy, a campaign for Schweppes Tonic Water translated the name into
Schweppes Toilet
Water.

Japan’s second-largest tourist agency was mystified when it entered English-

speaking
markets and began receiving requests for unusual sex tours. Upon finding
out why, the
owners of Kinki Nippon Tourist Company changed its name.

13
2) LITERATURE SURVEY
FEW TERMINOLOGIES

• Brand Image
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.
• Brand Recognition
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. Consumers may look on branding as an important value
added aspect of products or services, as it often serves to denote a certain
attractive quality or characteristic (see also brand promise). From the
perspective of brand owners, branded products or services also command
higher prices. Where two products resemble each other, but one of the
products has no associated branding (such as a generic, store-branded
product), people may often select the more expensive branded product on
the basis of the quality of the brand or the reputation of the brand owner.
• Brand name
The brand name is often used interchangeably within "brand", although it is
more correctly used to specifically denote written or spoken linguistic
14
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.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 clothes.
• Brand identity
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. Brand identity is fundamental to consumer recognition and
symbolizes the brand's differentiation from competitors.
• 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).
➢ Individual branding
Each brand has a separate name (such as Seven-Up 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
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 Computer.[1] In the 2000 book, No Logo,
attitude branding is described by Naomi Klein 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
➢ "No-brand" branding

15
Recently a number of companies have successfully pursued "No-Brand"
strategies, examples include the Japanese company Muji, which means "No
label, quality goods" in English. Although there is a distinct Muji brand, Muji
products are not branded. This no-brand strategy means that little is spent
on advertisement or classical marketing and Muji's success is attributed to
the word-of-mouth, a simple shopping experience and the anti-brand
movement. Another brand which is thought to follow a no-brand strategy is
American Apparel, which like Muji, does not brand its products.
➢ 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. 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
Alternatively, in a market that is fragmented amongst a number of brands a
supplier can choose deliberately to launch totally new brands in apparent
competition with its own existing strong brand (and often with identical
product characteristics); simply to soak up some of the share of the market
which will in any case go to minor brands. The rationale is that having 3 out
of 12 brands in such a market will give a greater overall share than having 1
out of 10 (even if much of the share of these new brands is taken from the
existing one). In its most extreme manifestation, a supplier pioneering a new
market which it believes will be particularly attractive may choose
immediately to launch a second brand in competition with its first, in order to
pre-empt others entering the market.

16
Individual brand names naturally allow greater flexibility by permitting a
variety of different products, of differing quality, to be sold without confusing
the consumer's perception of what business the company is in or diluting
higher quality products.
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).
Cannibalization is a particular problem of a "multibrand" approach, in which
the new brand takes business away from an established one which the
organization also owns. This may be acceptable (indeed to be expected) if
there is a net gain overall. Alternatively, it may be the price the organization
is willing to pay for shifting its position in the market; the new product being
one stage in this process.
• Own brands and generics
With the emergence of strong retailers the "own brand", a retailer's own
branded product (or service), 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.Concerns were raised
that such "own brands" might displace all other brands (as they have done in
Marks & Spencer outlets), but the evidence is that — at least in
supermarkets and department stores — consumers generally expect to see
on display something over 50 per cent (and preferably over 60 per cent) of
brands other than those of the retailer. Indeed, even the strongest own
brands in the UK rarely achieve better than third place in the overall market.
This means that strong independent brands (such as Kellogg's and Heinz),
which have maintained their marketing investments, are likely to continue
their strong performance. More than 50 per cent of UK FMCG brand leaders
have held their position for more than two decades, although it is arguable
that those which have switched their budgets to "buy space" in the retailers
may be more exposed.
The strength of the retailers has, perhaps, been seen more in the pressure
they have been able to exert on the owners of even the strongest brands
(and in particular on the owners of the weaker third and fourth brands).
Relationship marketing has been applied most often to meet the wishes of
such large customers (and indeed has been demanded by them as
recognition of their buying power). Some of the more active marketers have
now also switched to 'category marketing' - in which they take into account
17
all the needs of a retailer in a product category rather than more narrowly
focusing on their own brand.
At the same time, probably as an outgrowth of consumerism, "generic" (that
is, effectively unbranded) goods have also emerged. These made a positive
virtue of saving the cost of almost all marketing activities; emphasizing the
lack of advertising and, especially, the plain packaging (which was, however,
often simply a vehicle for a different kind of image). It would appear that the
penetration of such generic products peaked in the early 1980s, and most
consumers still appear to be looking for the qualities that the conventional
brand provides.

WHY BRAND MATTERS?

Whether you realize it or not, every business has a brand. How you develop
it is the difference between creating your point of distinction or blending in
with the crowd; projecting a positive image or eliciting a negative one;
growing your business or merely existing; successfully reaching your target
audience or missing the mark altogether. Brand does matter. Those who
build their brand and manage it successfully can profit mightily. Here are six
principles for creating and building brand as well as real-world examples of
why it matters.

1)Strong brands trigger hot buttons in the consumer.

We buy for emotional reasons and then rationalize those purchases. Know
what triggers your target audience. For Volvo buyers, it’s safety. In fact, Volvo
and safety have become synonymous. Volvo has taken this emotional
connection and strategically built its brand around safety. The company’s
Web site says, “Explore the beauty of safety with 2006 Volvos”. The site even
has a “Volvo Saved My Life Club” section with stories of real people who were
protected by their Volvos in car accidents. These stories are emotional, but
also underscore how the Volvo brand is associated with safety. As a result,
the company has developed a very loyal customer base.

2)Brand isn’t just a smart logo and tagline.

These are merely applications of the true brand—a concept that exists in the
mind of your consumer. Your brand is an experience for the customer.
Nobody delivers this idea better than MasterCard® with their “Priceless”
advertising campaign. Although they rely on consumers to purchase items
with their MasterCard® credit cards, they know that buyers want to feel
good about their purchases. What will make them feel that way? The
experience tied to that purchase. “There are some things money can’t buy.
18
For everything else there’s MasterCard®.” Although they acknowledge that
there are some experiences you can’t buy, they also elude to the fact that
there are many more experiences that you can buy. In other words, they
make the consumer feel as though MasterCard® can give them the
experiences they desire. Experiences are reinforced through the company’s
regular promotions in which cardholders can win trips, cars, cash and in a
recent promotion, a house.
A brilliant ad campaign: Thousands of dollars.

A 60 second television commercial: Hundreds of thousand of dollars.

Building a brand that makes customers feel good about their purchases and
results
in double-digit revenue growth for MasterCard®: Priceless.

3) Know what customers associate with your brand and how to

capitalize on it.

You know that brand taps into emotion. Since customers buy for emotional
reasons, their perceptions color your brand. Take Martha Stewart. She is well
aware that living well appeals to consumers on an emotional level. Her
company, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia (MSLO), has branded itself
accordingly, stating on the Web site that “...Martha Stewart shares the
creative principles and practical ideas that have made her America’s most
trusted guide to stylish living.” Even when Martha was charged with insider
trading, she continued to reinforce—even capitalize on—the “stylish living”
brand from behind bars: making delicious meals in the prison microwave,
collecting apples from the prison grounds to make applesauce, entering
Christmas decorating contests, etc. In the process, she won the admiration of
her fellow inmates and the continued brand loyalty of her customers. The
MSLO brand remained strong in spite of the challenges the company faced.
Today, it is a nearly $500 million empire with television shows, books, a
magazine, house wares merchandised through Kmart, a catalog business and
a furniture line with Bernhardt. MSLO has deftly mastered the art of
convincing consumers that they can live the good life. Reinforcing,
capitalizing and continuing to build on that brand has worked and “it’s a
good thing” for MSLO.

Brand is part art, part science.

The balance is a delicate one. Creativity strengthens and enlivens brand. But
the science of branding is equally important. You can’t build a successful
brand without both. You must understand your target audience’s likes and
dislikes as well as their hot buttons. A brand campaign can be artistically
presented, but if the consumer doesn’t know what you’re selling or can’t
identify with it, your campaign has failed. The Disney Company has done a
masterful job of creating a brand that blends art and science. Visit the
company’s overview section on their web site and you will understand why
19
this approach has created a powerful brand worldwide. “The Walt Disney
Company has remained faithful in its commitment to producing unparalleled
entertainment experiences based on its rich legacy of quality creative
content and exceptional storytelling. Today, Disney is divided into four major
business segments: Studio Entertainment, Parks and Resorts, Consumer
Products, and Media Networks. Each segment consists of integrated, well-
connected businesses that Operate in concert to maximize exposure and
growth worldwide.”
Careful market research, focus groups, maximizing brand exposure, continual
education and advanced technologies are all part of Disney’s brand science.
The organization is in tune with what their target audience wants:
wholesome, family entertainment in a world of imagination. And, they are
constantly measuring, evaluating and adjusting their efforts to maintain this
brand. The artistic component of their brand obviously can be found in the
creativity and quality of amusement parks, movies, merchandise and media
channels (i.e. television, web, magazines) that have represented the Disney
brand since 1923. Together, art and science have built the world’s largest
entertainment company.

4)Successful brands are the sum of all of its parts.

As illustrated above, Disney has been able to address all aspects of the
branding process to create a powerful brand and an organization that has
continued to grow in size, offerings and sales over the last 83 years.
Likewise, multiple aspects of your business must integrate to drive the
effectiveness of your brand. Some of these aspects include:

Understanding your market and your customer.

Brands should be customer-driven. What does the customer want or need?
What kind of experience does the customer want to have with my brand?
How does my product/service make the customer feel? You cannot affect
brand perceptions of your business without understanding your customers.

Ensuring that brand is reinforced within the corporation as well as

externally.
A strong brand is represented in every customer touch point including
customer service, direct sales, call center interactions, product/service
delivery and all other direct and indirect contact with your customers and/or
the media. Marketing alone cannot carry a brand. Moreover, your brand is
built on customer experience and perception. The best marketing and
advertising means nothing if your brand isn’t carried beyond it or the
promises don’t ring true.

Reflecting your business values and goals through your brand.

20
It is one thing to imply that your brand reflects these philosophies or values;
however, it is quite another to back up those assertions with specific actions.
In doing so, you will strengthen your brand as well as customer loyalty.
Disney presents a great example. The company has a worldwide outreach
program, which supports public service initiatives, community outreach and
volunteer programs helping families, children and the arts, as well as a
program that supports environmental efforts. Disney’s environmental beliefs
have led the company to create The Disney Wildlife Conservation Fund. The
fund has distributed more than $6 million among 200 environmental
conservation projects in more than two dozen countries. Their worldwide
outreach program has donated more than $190 million in cash, public service
announcements and volunteerism globally. Disney employees volunteer
their time and talents in their communities, contributing more than 402,000
hours of service to outreach projects. These actions are deliberate and help
project a community-focused and environmentally conscious image. In turn,
this concept drives customers’ perceptions of the Disney brand as a magical
kingdom where all is good.

Crafting external communications, both oral and written, to properly

represent your brand.

The message and tone in these communications should align with your
brand. Every opportunity in front of your customer is an opportunity to
reinforce brand. A visit to any of the Disney properties reinforces the
importance of consistently representing your brand. Cast members (as they
call their employees) adhere to strict brand guidelines—from meticulous
detail about their appearance to how they communicate with park guests.
Park cast members and characters are warm, friendly and helpful. Their
interactions with customers convey the notion that they truly care about
children and families.
Moreover, Disney’s career site states, “Yes, there really are dream jobs.Here,
the bottom line is imagination, our culture is magic and wonder, and required
previous work experience: childhood dreams.” When employees feel that
they are living out a dream, they will perform better and customer
interactions will be stronger. As a result, guests will walk away with a “feel
good” impression and the notion that they really did live out a dream.

Representing your brand through your products and services.

McDonald’s golden arches represent more than hamburgers. They reflect the
company’s commitment to quality across the board—quality in its food
products as well as quality in its employees, franchises and community
outreach programs. To reinforce their brand, the company maintains high
standards throughout the organization. Franchise operations are held to
rigorous quality assurance requirements. The company recognizes how

21
crucial these franchises are to representing the McDonald’s brand. As
founder Ray Kroc once said, “McDonald’s doesn’t confer success on anyone.
It takes guts and staying power to make it with one of our restaurants.” It is
that commitment to superior service that consistently has made McDonald’s
the premier franchising company around the world. This same philosophy
extends to its community outreach programs like the Ronald McDonald
House. Since its inception in 1974, more than 10 million families have
benefited from the company’s dedication to this program throughout the
world.

5) Brands gain value over time…if they are consistently built and
reinforced.

It worked for Nike. Less than 15 years after their entrance into the
marketplace, the athletic shoe giant became a global brand. Their success
came from an intimate understanding of their consumers’ needs and desires;
continuously introducing innovative products; establishing good
management practices and, of course, great branding. To build brand value
over time, you must give careful attention to ongoing assessment and
management of your brand, exploring questions such as: Does my brand
have a substantial and positive impact on sales? On growing market share?
Can my customer relate to my brand? Are we building brand loyalty with
every customer interaction? Building your brand is an evolving process that
should be a constant driver for your business. You can’t wait until something
goes wrong or sales start to plummet. You must be proactive in building on
your brand thoughtfully and consistently. Follow Nike’s lead on building
brand: “Just Do It.” You won’t be sorry.
Ultimately, brand matters. And not just for the big consumer product giants
like Coca-cola, Nike and Disney. For service companies, it is all about brand.
Your company’s success is determined by the perception your customers
have about your services. In short, your brand must grow with your business.
You need to continuously reevaluate what is and isn’t working with your
brand in your customer’s mind. Brand is not static. It needs to evolve in order
to thrive. It must also reflect philosophical and operational changes within
the company. It is easy to implement a brand strategy and then leave it to its
own devices. However, if you seek to build strength and longevity in
business, then your brand must be tended to carefully and regularly.

MAJOR BRAND FAILURES IN PAST

22
 1. New Coke

Think of a brand success story and you may well think of Coca-Cola. Indeed,
with nearly 1 billion Coca-Cola drinks sold every single day, it is the world’s
most recognized brand. Yet in 1985 the Coca-Cola Company decided to
terminate its most popular soft drink and replace it with a formula it would
market as New Coke. To understand why this potentially disastrous decision
was made, it is necessary to appreciate what was happening in the soft
drinks marketplace. In particular, we must take a closer look at the growing
competition between Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola in the years and even
decades prior to the launch of New Coke. The relationship between the arch-
rivals had not been a healthy one.
Although marketing experts have believed for a long time that the
competition between the two companies had made consumers more cola-
conscious, the firms themselves rarely saw it like that. Indeed, the Coca-Cola
company had even fought Pepsi-Cola in a legal battle over the use of the
word ‘cola’ in its name, and lost. Outside the courts though, Coca-Cola had
always been ahead. Shortly after World War II, Time magazine was already
celebrating Coke’s ‘peaceful near-conquest of the world.’ In the late 1950s,
Coke outsold Pepsi by a ratio of more than five to one. However, during the
next decade Pepsi repositioned itself as a youth brand. This strategy was a
risky one as it meant sacrificing its older customers to Coca-Cola, but
ultimately it proved successful. By narrowing its focus, Pepsi was able to
position its brand against the old and classic image of its competitor. As it
became increasingly seen as ‘the drink of youth’ Pepsi managed to narrow
the gap. In the 1970s, Coke’s chief rival raised the stakes even further by
introducing the Pepsi Challenge – testing consumers blind on the difference
between its own brand and ‘the real thing’. To the horror of Coca-Cola’s
longstanding company president, Robert Woodruff, most of those who
participated preferred Pepsi’s sweeter formula. In the 1980s Pepsi continued
its offensive, taking the Pepsi Challenge around the globe and heralding the
arrival of the ‘Pepsi Generation’. It also signed up celebrities likely to appeal
to its target market such as Don Johnson and Michael Jackson (this tactic has
survived into the new millennium, with figures like Britney Spears and Robbie
Williams providing more recent endorsements).
By the time Roberto Goizueta became chairman in 1981, Coke’s number one
status was starting to look vulnerable. It was losing market share not only to
Pepsi but also to some of the drinks produced by the Coca-Cola company
itself, such as Fanta and Sprite. In particular the runaway success of Diet
Coke was a double-edged sword, as it helped to shrink the sugar cola
market. In 1983, the year Diet Coke moved into the number three position
behind standard Coke and Pepsi, Coke’s market share had slipped to an all-
time low of just under 24 per cent. Something clearly had to be done to
secure Coke’s supremacy. Goizueta’s first response to the ‘Pepsi Challenge’
phenomenon was to launch an advertising campaign in 1984, praising Coke

23
for being less sweet than Pepsi. The television ads were fronted by Bill
Cosby, at that time one of the most familiar faces on the planet, and clearly
someone who was too old to be part of the Pepsi Generation. The impact of
such efforts to set Coca-Cola apart from its rival was limited. Coke’s share of
the market remained the same while Pepsi was catching up.
Another worry was that when shoppers had the choice, such as in their local
supermarket, they tended to plump for Pepsi. It was only Coke’s more
effective distribution which kept it ahead. For instance, there were still
considerably more vending machines selling Coke than Pepsi. Even so, there
was no getting away from the fact that despite the proliferation of soft drink
brands, Pepsi was winning new customers. Having already lost on taste, the
last thing Coca-Cola could afford was to lose its number one status. The
problem, as Coca-Cola perceived it, came down to the product itself.
As the Pepsi Challenge had highlighted millions of times over, Coke could
always be defeated when it came down to taste. This seemed to be
confirmed by the success of Diet Coke which was closer to Pepsi in terms of
flavour. So in what must have been seen as a logical step, Coca-Cola started
working on a new formula. A year later they had arrived at New Coke. Having
produced its new formula, the Atlanta-based company conducted 200,000
taste tests to see how it fared. The results were overwhelming. Not only did it
taste better than the original, but people preferred it to Pepsi-Cola as well.
However, if Coca-Cola was to stay ahead of Pepsi-Cola it couldn’t have two
directly competing products on the shelves at the same time. It therefore
decided to scrap the original Coca-Cola and introduced New Coke in its place.
The trouble was that the Coca-Cola company had severely underestimated
the power of its first brand. As soon as the decision was announced, a large
percentage of the US population immediately decided to boycott the new
product. On 23 April 1985 New Coke was introduced and a few days later the
production of original Coke was stopped. This joint decision has since been
referred to as ‘the biggest marketing blunder of all time’. Sales of New Coke
were low and public outrage was high at the fact that the original was no
longer available.
It soon became clear that Coca-Cola had little choice but to bring back its
original brand and formula. ‘We have heard you,’ said Goizueta at a press
conference on 11 July 1985. He then left it to the company’s chief operating
officer Donald Keough to announce the return of the product.
Keough admitted: The simple fact is that all the time and money and skill
poured into consumer research on the new Coca-Cola could not measure or
reveal the deep and abiding emotional attachment to original Coca-Cola felt
by so many people. The passion for original Coca-Cola – and that is the word
for it, passion – was something that caught us by surprise. It is a wonderful
American mystery, a lovely American enigma, and you cannot measure it
any more than you can measure love, pride or patriotism. In other words,
Coca-Cola had learnt that marketing is about much more than the product
itself. The majority of the tests had been carried out blind, and therefore

24
taste was the only factor under assessment. The company had finally taken
Pepsi’s bait and, in doing so, conceded its key brand asset:

Originality.

When Coca-Cola was launched in the 1880s it was the only product in the
market. As such, it invented a new category and the brand name became the
name of the product itself. Throughout most of the last century, Coca- Cola
capitalized on its ‘original’ status in various advertising campaigns. In 1942,
magazine adverts appeared across the United States declaring: ‘The only
thing like Coca-Cola is Coca-Cola itself. It’s the real thing.’ By launching New
Coke, Coca-Cola was therefore contradicting its previous marketing efforts.
Its central product hadn’t been called new since the very first advert
appeared in the Atlanta Journal in 1886, billing Coca-Cola as ‘The New Pop
Soda Fountain Drink, containing the properties of the wonderful Coca-plant
and the famous Cola nuts.’
In 1985, a century after the product launched the last word people
associated with Coca-Cola was ‘new’. This was the company with more
allusions to US heritage than any other. Fifty years previously, the Pulitzer
Prize winning editor of a Kansas newspaper, William Allen White had
referred to the soft drink as the ‘sublimated essence of all America stands for
– a decent thing, honestly made, universally distributed, and conscientiously
improved with the years.’ Coca-Cola had even been involved with the history
of US space travel, famously greeting Apollo astronauts with a sign reading
‘Welcome back to earth, home of Coca-Cola.’ To confine the brand’s
significance to a question of taste was therefore completely misguided. As
with many big brands, the representation was more significant than the thing
represented, and if any soft drink represented ‘new’ it was Pepsi, not Coca-
Cola (even though Pepsi is a mere decade younger). If you tell the world you
have the ‘real thing’ you cannot then come up with a ‘new real thing’. To
borrow the comparison of marketing guru Al Ries it’s ‘like introducing a New
God’. This contradictory marketing message was accentuated by the fact
that, since 1982, Coke’s strap line had been ‘Coke is it’. Now it was telling
consumers that they had got it wrong, as if they had discovered Coke wasn’t
it, but rather New Coke was instead.
So despite the tremendous amount of hype which surrounded the launch of
New Coke (one estimate puts the value of New Coke’s free publicity at over
US $10 million), it was destined to fail. Although Coca-Cola’s market
researchers knew enough about branding to understand that consumers
would go with their brand preference if the taste tests weren’t blind, they
failed to make the connection that these brand preferences would still exist
once the product was launched.
Pepsi was, perhaps unsurprisingly, the first to recognize Coca-Cola’s mistake.
Within weeks of the launch, it ran a TV ad with an old man sitting on a park
bench, staring at the can in his hand. ‘They changed my Coke,’ he said,

25
clearly distressed. ‘I can’t believe it.’ However, when Coca-Cola relaunched
its original coke, redubbed ‘Classic Coke’ for the US market, the media
interest swung back in the brand’s favor. It was considered a significant
enough event to warrant a newsflash on ABC News and other US networks.
Within months Coke had returned to the number one spot and New Coke had
all but faded away. Ironically, through the brand failure of New Coke loyalty
to ‘the real thing’ intensified. In fact, certain conspiracy theorists have even
gone so far as to say the whole thing had been planned as a deliberate
marketing ploy to reaffirm public affection for Coca-Cola. After all, what
better way to make someone appreciate the value of your global brand than
to withdraw it completely? Of course, Coca-Cola has denied that this was the
company’s intention.
‘Some critics will say Coca-Cola made a marketing mistake, some cynics will
say that we planned the whole thing,’ said Donald Keough at the time. ‘The
truth is we are not that dumb, and we are not that smart.’ But viewed in the
context of its competition with Pepsi, the decision to launch New Coke was
understandable. For years, Pepsi’s key weapon had been the taste of its
product. By launching New Coke, the Coca-Cola Company clearly hoped to
weaken its main rival’s marketing offensive.
So what was Pepsi’s verdict on the whole episode? In his book, The Other
Guy Blinked, Pepsi’s CEO Roger Enrico believes the error of New Coke proved
to be a valuable lesson for Coca-Cola. ‘I think, by the end of their nightmare,
they figured out who they really are. Caretakers. They can’t change the taste
of their flagship brand. They can’t change its imagery. All they can do is
defend the heritage they nearly abandoned in 1985.

Lessons from New Coke

Concentrate on the brand’s perception. In the words of Jack Trout, author of

Differentiate or Die, ‘marketing is a battle of perceptions, not products’.

Don’t clone your rivals. In creating New Coke, Coca-Cola was reversing its
brand image to overlap with that of Pepsi. The company has made similar
mistakes both before and after, launching Mr Pibb to rival Dr Pepper and
Fruitopia to compete with Snapple.

Feel the love. According to Saatchi and Saatchi’s worldwide chief executive
officer, Kevin Roberts, successful brands don’t have ‘trademarks’. They have
‘lovemarks’ instead. In building brand loyalty, companies are also creating an
emotional attachment that often has little to do with the quality of the
product.

Don’t be scared to U-turn. By going back on its decision to scrap original

Coke, the company ended up creating an even stronger bond between the
product and the consumer.

26
Do the right market research. Despite the thousands of taste tests Coca-Cola
carried out on its new formula, it failed to conduct adequate research into
the public perception of the original brand.

2. The Ford Edsel

Among many US marketing professors, the story of the Edsel car is

considered the classic brand failure of all time. Dubbed ‘the Titanic of
automobiles’, the Edsel is certainly one of the biggest branding disasters to
afflict the Ford Motor Company. As with other, more recent brand failures
featured in the report, the Edsel car was launched amid a vast amount of
hype. Although the car didn’t appear in showrooms until September 1957,
ads promoting it had begun to appear months previously bearing the teaser
slogan: ‘The Edsel is coming ’. Ford decided though, to fuel public interest,
the car itself should not be seen in the ads, and even when Ford dealers
started stocking the car in their showrooms, they were told they had to keep
the vehicles undercover. If they did not they risked a fine and the loss of their
franchise with the company.
As Ford hoped, interest was fuelled. The company did not think for one
moment that the product would not be able to match the hype, and would
lead to a consumer backlash. After all, more work and research had gone into
the development of this car than almost any previously. However, some of
the research had already proven futile by the time of the launch. For
instance, part of the market research process had been to find a suitable
name for the new car. This should have been a good idea. After all, the highly
popular Ford Thunderbird car, which had been launched in 1954, had gained
its evocative name as a result of market research findings. This time,
research teams were sent out to New York, Chicago and Michigan, where
members of the public were asked what they thought of certain names and
to come up with their own suggestions. There was also a competition among
employees to come up with the best name, and the company even contacted
the popular poet Marianne Moore. Her brief was to find a name which would
signify a ‘visceral feeling of elegance, fleetness, advanced features and
design.’ Her rather eccentric suggestions included Mongoose Civique,
Resilient Bullet, Utopian Turtle top and the Varsity Stroke. Altogether, the
company now had a pool of 10,000 names to choose from.
Too many, according to company chairman, Ernest Breech, as he scanned
through the names during a meeting of the Ford Executive Committee in
November 1956. ‘Why don’t we just call it Edsel?’ he asked, exasperated.
Henry Ford II, the grandson of Henry Ford, agreed. Edsel was the name of his
father, and the Ford founder’s only son. Not everyone held the same opinion
though. The PR director, C Gayle Warnock, knew that Edsel was not the right
name. It had been an early suggestion, and had not been liked by those
members of the public who had taken part in the market research (in word-

27
association tests, it had been associated with ‘weasel’ and ‘pretzel’ – hardly
the best associations for a dynamic new car). Warnock had preferred other
names on the list, such as Pacer, Ranger, Corsair or Citation. When the
decision was made, Warnock made his feelings perfectly clear. According to
Robert Lacey in his book Ford: The Men and the Machine, Warnock
responded to the new Edsel name by declaring: ‘We have just lost 200,000
sales.’ For Warnock, a rose by any other name clearly didn’t smell as sweet.
As it turned out, the name was the least of the Edsel’s problems. There was
also the design. The first blueprint for the Edsel looked truly impressive, as
Robert Lacey writes in his book on Ford. ‘With concealed air scoops below the
bumpers, this first version of the car was original and dramatic – a dreamlike,
ethereal creation which struck those who saw it as the very embodiment of
the future.’ However, this magnificent design never got to see the light of
day. The people who held onto the purse strings at Ford decided it would
simply be too expensive to manufacture.
The design that eventually emerged was certainly unique. Edsel’s chief
designer, Roy Brown Jr had always set out to design a car that would be
recognizable instantly, from any direction. And indeed, there is no denying
that the first Edsel to emerge in 1957 fulfilled this objective. In particular, the
car’s front-end bonnet and grille commanded the most attention. ‘The front
end design was the most prominent feature,’ confirms Phil Skinner, a
respected Edsel historian, ‘If you consider other cars from the mid-1950s,
they all looked somewhat alike. Basically it was two headlights and a
horizontal grille. By having the big impact ring in the middle – what we now
call a horse collar – it really set the Edsel apart.’
Although some members of the automotive press commended this
distinctive look, most were unappreciative. One reviewer famously remarked
that it looked ‘like an Oldsmobile sucking a lemon.’ While another thought
the front-end grille was less like a horse collar, and more like a toilet seat.
(The customer comments later proved to be even worse with some saying
that the grille looked like a ‘vagina with teeth’. However, Ford had good
relations with the press and Warnock, the PR director was determined to
maximize the media coverage immediately before and after the launch date.
Articles subsequently appeared in both Time and Life magazines heralding
the Edsel as a breakthrough and explaining how it had been planned for over
a decade – a blatant exaggeration on the part of Warnock as Roy Brown had
only begun designing the car in 1954. The promotional brochure to mark the
September launch of the Edsel also promised a great deal. ‘There has never
been a car like the Edsel,’ it promised.
This was a big claim, but Ford had equally big ambitions. The company
expected to produce 200,000 units in the car’s first year. This constituted
around five per cent of the entire market. Anyway, the pre-publicity had
initially seemed to work. Car showrooms became packed with curious
visitors, desperately seeking their first glance of the car. In the first week of
its launch, almost three million members of the US public visited Edsel

28
showrooms. The Edsels they saw had a number of distinct features, in
addition to the ‘love-it-or-hate-it’ front-end grille. For instance, the car was
the first ever to have self-adjusting brakes and an electronic hood release. It
also had a very powerful engine for a medium range car. However, these
features weren’t enough. In the minds of the public, the car simply didn’t live
up to the hype. And unfortunately for Ford, neither did the sales. Edsel sold
only 64,000 units in its first year, way below the number anticipated. Ford
launched 1959 and 1960 Edsel models but sales fell even further (to 44,891
and 2,846 respectively). In November 1959 Ford printed the last ever ad for
the car and halted production.
So what had gone wrong? In the case of Edsel there are almost too many
reasons to identify. In fact, it would be easier to ask: what hadn’t gone
wrong? The marketing campaign was certainly a key factor. In simple terms,
Ford had overstated its case. Buoyed by the success of the Thunderbird only
a few years previously the company must have felt invincible, and this was
reflected in the rather too self-assured advertising material. However, no-one
can excuse Ford of underexposure. On 13 Oct 1957 the marketing campaign
for Edsel took product promotion to new heights when Ford joined forces with
the CBS television network, to run a one-hour special called The Edsel Show.
The show, a parody of 1950s favorite The EdSullivan Show featured
celebrities such as Frank Sinatra and Bing Crosby. But even with such prime-
time promotion Ford was unable to shift anywhere near enough units of the
car. Consumers didn’t care whether it was ‘revolutionary’ or not. All they
knew was that it looked ugly and had a name that sounded like ‘weasel’.
Furthermore, in an age when all the successful cars had tailfins, the Edsel
was finless. According to Bob Casey, curator of transportation at the Henry
Ford Museum, this fact meant that the Edsel ‘didn’t quite fit into people’s
vision of a car’. In addition to misguided advertising, bad looks and a stupid
name, Edsel faced a further problem – it was too expensive. As Sheila Mello
explains in her informative book, Customer Centric Product Definition, the
launch of the Edsel coincided with a move towards cheaper models:
Ford’s decision to highlight the Edsel’s powerful engine during a period when
the buying public was gravitating toward smaller, more fuel efficient cars
alienated potential customers. The first models in the showroom were the
most expensive, top-of-the-line models, resulting in what we refer to today as
sticker shock. Unfortunately, too, while some Edsel models were more
expensive than comparable cars, they had an equivalent or greater number
of quality problems. Often parts did not fit properly or were simply missing,
since Ford frequently built Edsels between Fords and Mercurys on the same
assembly line. Many dealers were ill equipped to replace these parts or add
accessories. The car ended up looking more expensive than it actually was
because of poor timing. In the 1950s, US new car models typically appeared
in November for the following year. For instance, a 1956 Thunderbird would
have come out in November 1955. However, Edsel was launched in
September, two months before the other new models arrived. It was

29
therefore a 1958 car competing against 1957 models – and more
importantly, 1957 prices. In fact, the situation was even worse than that. Not
only had Edsel decided to push its most expensive models first, but the 1957
models it was competing with were being offered at a discounted price in
order to sell them before next year’s models were wheeled into the
showroom.
A high price may have been acceptable if it had been worth paying.
However, the experience of those few early Edsel customers quickly gave
the car a reputation for mechanical problems. Edsel now popularly stood for
Every Day Something Else Leaks. One thing though was completely beyond
Ford’s control. After a boom period for the US car industry during the mid-
1950s, the end of 1957 saw the start of a recession. In 1958 almost all car
models saw a drop in sales, some by as much as 50 per cent. Ironically, one
of the very few models to witness an increase in sales that year was the Ford
Thunderbird.
In a September 1989 article for The Freeman, a publication of The
Foundation for Economic Education, car industry journalist Anthony Young
explained how Ford had paid little attention to market research, and that this
was the true reason why the Edsel failed:
The Edsel serves as a textbook example of corporate presumption and
disregard for market realities. It also demonstrates that advertising and pre-
delivery hype have their limits in inducing consumers to buy a new and
unproven car. In a free market economy, it is the car-buying public, not the
manufacturer, which determines the success or failure of an automobile. A
manufacturer shouldn’t oversell a new car, or unrealistic expectations will be
built up in the minds of consumers. If the newly introduced car doesn’t live
up to expectations, it is practically doomed on the showroom floor.
However, Ford quickly learnt its lesson. A few years later the spectacular
failure of the Edsel was counterbalanced by the equally spectacular success
of the Ford Mustang. Launched in 1964, the Mustang sold half a million
vehicles in its first year of production. Not only did it have a better name and
a good-looking bonnet, the Mustang had one further advantage over its
predecessor – it was affordable.
As Sheila Mello points out, between 1960 (when the Edsel was phased out)
and 1964 (when the Mustang was launched) Ford, along with most of the car
industry, had shifted its focus towards what the consumer actually wanted.
‘The success of the Mustang demonstrates that Ford Motor Company did
learn from the Edsel experience,’ she writes. ‘The key difference between the
ill-fated development of the Edsel and the roaring success of the Mustang
was the shift from a product-centric focus to a customer-centric one.’ This
view is supported by Lee Iacocca, who oversaw the creation of the Mustang
as Ford president, before taking over the reins at Chrysler. In his
autobiography, Iacocca explains the approach behind the Mustang: ‘whereas
the Edsel had been a car in search of a market it never found, here was a
market in search of a car. The normal procedure in Detroit was to build a car

30
and then try to identify its buyers. But we were in a position to move in the
opposite direction – and tailor a new product for a hungry new market.’ As a
result, the Mustang went from strength to strength and is still in production
today. So while the whole Edsel episode may have been a costly
embarrassment for Ford in the short term, it helped the company learn some
valuable lessons which it has carried with it to this day.

Lessons from Edsel

Hyping an untested product is a mistake. ‘I learned that a company should

never allow its spokespersons to build up enthusiasm for an unseen,
unproven product,’ confessed C Gayle Warnock, the PR director responsible
for the publicity surrounding the Edsel launch.

Your name matters. At the most basic level, your brand is your name. It
doesn’t matter how important the brand name is to the company, it’s what it
means to the public that counts. If the name conjures up images of weasels
and pretzels it might be a good time to scrap it.

Looks count. Visual appearance is a key factor in creating a brand identity for
most products. It was the distinctive shape of Coca-Cola bottles which helped
that brand become so big. In the car industry, looks are particularly
important and as Edsel proved, ugly ducklings don’t always become swans.

Price is important. Products can be too expensive or too cheap. When some
brands price themselves too low, they lose their prestige. However, with a
car such as the Edsel, the high price couldn’t be justified in the minds of the
public.

The right research is important. Ford spent time and money carrying out the
wrong kind of market research. Instead of hunting for names, the company
should have been concentrating on whether there was a market for its new
car in the first place. As it turned out, the market it spent millions trying to
reach didn’t even exist.

Quality is important. Of course, product quality is always important but when

it comes to cars it is a matter of life and death. Bad quality control proved an
extra nail in Edsel’s coffin.

3. Exxon

Don’t say a word

Many companies and organizations have had to deal with a crisis during their
history. Only a very few, however, come to represent corporate

31
incompetence and irresponsibility through one critical event. Oil Company
Exxon is among them.
In 1989, the Exxon Valdez oil tanker ran aground and began spilling oil off
the coast of Alaska. Within a very short period of time, significant quantities
of the tanker’s 1,260,000 barrels had entered the water, making it the
largest tanker oil spill in US history. At the moment of impact the ship’s third
mate, Gregory Cousins, who was not certified to pilot the tanker into those
waters, was at the helm. The whereabouts of the captain, Joseph Hazelwood,
at the time of the accident was not immediately explained. A Coast Guard
investigator had the blood of the captain and the third mate tested for
alcohol. The results were that the captain had unacceptably high levels of
alcohol in his blood even nine hours after the accident. The captain was later
fined and sentenced to 90 days in prison, a sentence many considered ‘too
light’. Efforts to contain the oil spill lagged from the start. ‘The initial
response was inadequate and didn’t match the planned, outlined response
measures to be taken in a spill,’ said Dennis Kelso, commissioner of the
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. ‘As of 24 hours into the
spill, we still haven’t seen adequate containment.’ According to most
observers, the company did too little and too late. Not only was the action to
contain the spill slow to get going but the company refused to communicate
openly with the press. The Exxon Chairman, Lawrence Rawl, was immensely
suspicious of the media, and reacted accordingly.
Within hours an army of journalists had arrived to begin extensive coverage.
A company spokesman pointed to the existence of procedures to cover the
eventuality – procedures which the TV shots belied. When asked if he would
be interviewed on TV, Rawl’s response was that he didn’t have time for ‘that
kind of thing’. While the company was getting off to a bad start with the
media, the operation on the ground was failing to control the spill. Around
240,000 barrels had been spilled, with another million still on the ship.
During the first two days, when calm weather would have allowed it, little
was done to contain the spillage. This spillage spread out into a 12 square
mile slick. Then the rain and wind started to make things worse, meaning
further containment was near impossible.
A week later the company was still tight-lipped. Following President Bush’s
declaration that the spill represented a ‘major tragedy’, Frank Iarossi, the
Director of Exxon Shipping, flew to Valdez to hold a press conference. It went
badly. Small pieces of good news claimed by the company were immediately
contradicted by the eyewitness accounts of the present journalists and
fishermen.
John Devens, the Mayor of the Alaskan town Valdez, commented that the
community felt betrayed by Exxon’s inadequate response to the crisis. ‘Over
the years, they have promised they would do everything to clean up a spill
and to maintain our quality of life. I think it’s quite clear right now that our
area is faced with destruction of our entire way of life.’ Alaskan Lieutenant
Governor Stephen McAlpine also said that he was ‘severely disappointed’ in

32
the company’s response. ‘Despite all statements to the contrary, I don’t
think they ever had a handle on it.’ Eventually, the Exxon boss deigned to go
onto television. In a live interview he was asked about the latest plans for the
clean-up. Rawl started to look nervous. It turned out he had neglected to
read these, and cited the fact that it was not the job of the chairman to read
such reports. He placed the blame for the crisis at the feet of the world’s
media. Exxon’s catastrophe was complete. The consequences for Exxon of
both the disaster, and the poor way in which it was handled, were
catastrophic. The spill cost around US $7 billion, including the clean-up costs.
Most of this was made up of the largest punitive fines ever handed out to a
company for corporate irresponsibility.
The damage to the company’s reputation was even more important,
although more difficult to quantify. However, Exxon fell from being the
largest oil company in the world to the third largest. The ‘Exxon Valdez’
became synonymous with corporate arrogance, and the story remained
prominent in the media for over a year. According to a 1990 US news poll, 65
per cent of respondents said that ‘the Valdez oil spill was the key element in
raising public consciousness about environmental issues.’

Lessons from Exxon

Live up to your promises. The company failed to show that it had effective
systems in place to deal with the crisis – and in particular its stated ability to
move quickly once the problem had occurred was not in evidence.

Act like a good corporate citizen. Exxon acted indifferently to the

environmental
destruction, and therefore did little to help the company’s case.

4. Sony “Betamax”

According to received branding wisdom, the best way to become a strong

brand is to be first in a new category. This theory has been repeatedly
emphasized by the world-renowned brand guru Al Ries.
‘Customers don’t really care about new brands, they care about new
categories,’ he writes in The 22 Immutable Laws of Branding. ‘By first
preempting the category and then aggressively promoting the category, you
create both a powerful brand and a rapidly escalating market.’
There are indeed a number of cases to support this point. Domino’s was the
first company to offer home-delivered pizza and remains the leader in that
particular market. Coca-Cola, the world’s most popular and financially
successful brand, was the first in the cola category. In technology markets.

33
Owing to the fact that consumer behaviour tends to be approximately five
years behind technological breakthroughs, the first mover advantage is often
lost. Furthermore, companies have often proved to be very bad at predicting
how new technologies will be used. For example, most of the European
mobile phone companies were caught completely unaware by the rapid rise
of text messaging, a facility which some didn’t even bother to explain in their
instructions booklets.
The all-time classic among technology brand failures was Sony’s Betamax
video recorders. During the 1970s, Sony developed a machine designed to
deliver home video-taping equipment. The machine used Betamax
technology, and hit the stores in 1975. In its first year, 30,000 Betamax video
recorders (or VCRs) were sold in the United States alone. But a year later
Sony’s rival JVC came out with the VHS – short for ‘video home system’ –
format VCR. By January 1977, there were four more Japanese electronics
companies manufacturing and marketing VHS-based machines.
Whereas Sony had either been unwilling or unable to license Betamax
technology (depending on which account you believe), JVC had been more
than happy sharing their VHS format. This would later prove a critical factor
in the demise of Betamax. Although Sony pioneered most of the
advancements, JVC and the other VHS manufacturers were not slow to catch
up. For instance, JVC and Panasonic introduced VHS hi-fi formats only weeks
after Sony’s introduction of Betamax hi-fi. However, most experts agree that
the tape quality on Betamax was superior to that of its rival.
As the two formats were incompatible, consumers were forced to decide
between them. Pretty soon Sony was feeling under pressure as its
competitors started to drop prices to as much as US $300 below Sony’s
machines. By 1982 the price war was in full swing and Sony reluctantly
joined in, offering a US $50 rebate as a ‘Home Improvement Grant’. There
were other marketing problems too. Up until the early 1980s the word
‘Betamax’ was used as a synonym for ‘video recorder’. This association had
negative as well as positive consequences because in 1979, Universal
Studios and Disney took legal action against Sony, claiming VCRs were
infringing the copyrights of movie producers. Although Sony emerged
apparently unscathed from the lawsuit, several commentators have
suggested that the case had a detrimental impact on the way Sony marketed
its Betamax products.

One thing is for sure, from 1981 onwards Betamax-based machines were
rapidly losing popular favour. In 1982, the year of the price war, Betamax
VCRs accounted for a paltry 25 per cent of the entire market and the public
were being warned that the selection of video rentals available for Betamax
owners would be slightly smaller than that for VHS owners.
Furthermore, while Sony continued to claim that Betamax was a technically
superior format, video owners were becoming increasingly aware of one
serious failing. Whereas VHS machines could record for a considerable length

34
of time, Betamax machines could only record for one hour – meaning that
most films and football matches couldn’t be recorded in one go. This was
the price Sony paid for enhanced sound and picture quality. To deliver that
better standard, Sony used a bigger, slower moving tape. As a result, it
sometimes took as many as three cassettes to show an entire movie. This
caused frustration both among video owners, who had to swap tapes over,
and retailers, who had to supply more cassettes. The problem is explained by
one anonymous VHS fan on the blockinfo.com Web site: ‘What made VHS
succeed was that you could get a whole movie on a tape. Okay, maybe the
picture and sound weren’t as good as Beta; but what the heck, you didn’t
have to get up in the middle and switch cassettes. VHS delivered value on a
dimension that mattered to consumers. Beta delivered excellent value on
dimensions that did not.’ Sony refused to bite the bullet though. Indeed, it
may have been losing market share but the number of units sold still
continued to rise, peaking with global sales of 2.3 million units in 1984.
However, three years later VHS had gone way beyond the tipping point with
a 95 per cent share of the market. In 1987, Rolling Stone magazine ran an
article on Betamax (entitled ‘Format Wars’) and declared ‘the battle is over’.
On 10 January 1988 Sony finally swallowed its pride and announced plans for
a VHS line of video recorders. Although Sony was adamant that the press
should not see this as the ‘death’ of Betamax, the press weren’t listening. On
25 January, only a fortnight after Sony’s announcement, Time magazine
published a eulogy to the brand with the headline, ‘Goodbye Beta’. The same
article also argued that Betamax had failed because it had refused to license
the format to other firms. ‘While at first Sony kept its Beta technology mostly
to itself, JVC, the Japanese inventor of VHS, shared its secret with a raft of
other firms.’ This claim has since been hotly disputed by the defenders of
Betamax. For instance, one AFU (Alt Folklore Urban) white paper on The
Decline and Fall of Betamax refers to the statement as ‘blatantly untrue’.
According to James Lardner, author of Fast Forward, Sony invited JVC and
Matsushita to license the Betamax technology in December 1974, but both
companies declined the offer.
Either way, the fact that Betamax video recorders were only manufactured
by Sony meant that it couldn’t compete against the growing number of
companies pushing VHS. However, even when Sony started to make VHS
machines it didn’t abandon Betamax. Overseas production of Betamax
hobbled on until 1998, and in Sony’s home territory, Japan, machines were
still being made until 2002, although not in huge numbers (Sony produced
just 2,800 units in 2001). On 22 August 2002 Sony finally announced it would
be discontinuing Betamax products. ‘With digital machines and other new
recording formats taking hold in the market, demand has continued to
decline and it has become difficult to secure parts,’ the company said in a
statement.
Now, of course, VHS itself is under threat from the rapid rise in digital
versatile disc (DVD) players, and may not be able to survive into the long

35
term. While DVD has finally drawn a line under the battle between Betamax
and VHS, it has also managed to create its own destructive war between
different DVD formats, and therefore delayed the take-off of that market.
However, at least some of the lessons of Betamax have been learnt. Sony
and eight of its competitors eventually joined forces in 2002 to create a
common format for DVD, meaning this time Sony will not be left on the
sidelines.

Lessons from Betamax

Don’t go it alone. ‘Contrary to popular belief, what would help every category
pioneer is competition,’ says Al Ries. True, providing the competition isn’t
pushing a format incompatible with your own.

Let others in. Whether Sony refused to license its format or not, there is no
question that the company would have had a better chance if its rivals had
adopted Betamax.

Cut your losses. Sony’s decision to ignore VHS until 1987 was, with hindsight,
an undeniable mistake.

Supply equals demand. When the manufacturers of pre-recorded tapes

decreased their supply of Beta format tapes, demand for Sony’s Betamax
recorders inevitably waned.

MAJOR SUCCESS IN THE PAST

5. HYUNDAI “SANTRO”

Very often, there is an analogy drawn between the state of the great Indian
roads and the pace of economic development in the country. Needless to
say, it’s not a very pleasing comparison. So the average Indian customer
who rides the roads of India is naturally extremely cautious when it comes to
investing in a vehicle. Only those rough and tough enough to survive the
potholes and nightmarish surfaces can pass muster. In such a scenario, a
foreign company launching a car in the Indian market was bound to be
looked upon with scepticism and suspicion, more so, if it had South Korean
origins. South Korean companies were perceived not to be quality oriented.

36
The failure of Korean companies like Lucky Goldstar (later to be re-launched
as LG, which is another marketing success) and the bad word of mouth for
Daewoo led to this perception.
How to bell the cat?
In the late 1990s, car manufacturers like Ford, General Motors, and Fiat were
faring miserably in the Indian market. Maruti had a market share of a
whopping 79 per cent in the passenger car segment. Daewoo and Telco were
creating hype over the impending launches of their cars Matiz and Indica,
respectively. In such a scenario, the top management of Hyundai Motor India
Ltd, which has South Korean origins, had a tough decision to make. It was a
big gamble to go ahead with the launch of the small car –Santro.The Hyundai
management stuck to a simple strategy – launch a quality product in the
most promising segment with the latest technology and price it aggressively.
In the pre-launch period in late 1997, the company commissioned market
research project to understand the Indian consumer psyche and specify a
benchmark for the pricing policy. The results of this survey and the actions
taken thereafter had a bearing upon the success of the product later on. The
Indian consumers showed an immense dislike to the shape of Santro. One
consumer even likened it to a “funeral hearse”. A second important result
was that Hyundai is an unknown brand with almost zero brand equity
amongst Indian consumers. The company immediately undertook the
initiative of reshaping and customising the car for the Indian customer. The
tall rear end was reduced and made more aesthetically appealing. The
Santro was all set for the Indian launch.
Marketing genius -Here came the most important aspect of the launch –
the marketing strategy. This was a factor that could make or mar the success
of the Santro. Hyundai tied up with the advertising agency Saatchi and
Saatchi, who hit upon a novel strategy. Bollywood star Shah Rukh Khan was
roped in to be the brand ambassador. A three-pronged strategy was
designed to attract the consumer:
- Educate Indian Consumers about Hyundai
-Create hype and expectations about the Santro
-Explain the virtues of the Santro
The TV & Press Campaign broke in June 1998. The initial TV spots and the
press campaign showed Shah Rukh Khan being approached by a Hyundai
official to advertise the Santro. Shah Rukh was not convinced about Hyundai
and he was shown to ask all questions a normal Indian consumer is expected
to ask. What is Hyundai? Why should I advertise for the Santro? Will it match
customer service expectations? What about dealer networks? How can an
international car meet the requirements of Indian roads? As the campaign
went
through all of these questions, the Hyundai official answered Shah Rukh
Khan. By the time the car was actually launched, Shah Rukh Khan proclaims,
“he is convinced”. He declares that he is now ready to advertise the Santro
since he is certain that the Santro is the car for India. This high profile

37
campaign backed by some very innovative media buying, which went for
maximum coverage with the minimum budget, broke all grounds in terms of
creating consumer expectations and hype in the market. Along with the
Advertising Campaign, the Sales Team worked burning midnight oil in
creating the dealer network across the length and breadth of the country.
The wide dealer network would prove to be invaluable in ensuring that the
Santro would be available to anyone who wants to buy it. An important pre-
requisite for the dealer network was a fully functional workshop area with
imported international standard equipment and engineers trained in
Hyundai’s parent training centre in South Korea and localised training
provided in the Chennai Plant.
The success story
September 23, 1998 saw the launch of the Santro. There was an
unprecedented rush for bookings in spite of the fact that Hyundai was
accepting bookings only against full payment for the car and booking was
opened only for a few days. Hyundai closed the calendar year 1998 with
sales of 8,447. The next year (October 1998-August 1999) saw Hyundai
consolidating its market share, as these figures of monthly sales show: Thus,
the cumulative sales during October 1998-August 1999 were 42,283 units.
This accounted for 30 per cent of the market share in the small car segment
and 10 per cent of the overall auto industry.Within a year of its launch, the
Santro had dislodged the Maruti Zen as the no.1 car in its category and
slipped in behind Maruti Suzuki as the no.2 car manufacturer in India. The
launch of the Daewoo Matiz and the TATA Indica failed to dampen the
demand for the Santro.Ever since the historic launch of the Santro, Hyundai
has consistently taken the no.1 spot in all the segments of the passenger car
industry in which it had launched a product. Santro stands tall undisputedly
market leader in the compact car segment. The tool behind the successful
launch – the marketing campaign – won numerous awards for its innovative
concept, previously unheard of in India. This was a case of celebrity
endorsement with the celebrity actually not advertising the product but
playing the role of a common Indian consumer. Thus, the launch of the
Santro stands as an excellent exercise in understanding consumer needs and
lucrative portrayal of a product to capitalise on its design.
Lessons from HYUNDAI”SANTRO”

Marketing Campaign: Marketing campaign – won numerous awards for its

innovative concept, previously unheard of in India. This was a case of
celebrity endorsement with the celebrity actually not advertising the product
but playing the role of a common Indian consumer. Thus, the launch of the
Santro stands as an excellent exercise in understanding consumer needs and
lucrative portrayal of a product to capitalize on its design.
Leaders versus Followers: Interestingly, research supports the logic that a
direct comparative ad from a small-share market follower is least likely to
lead to higher awareness for the compared-to market leader (because the
38
market leader already has high awareness), whereas a market-leading high-
share brand has the most to lose from a direct comparative ad (by creating
"free" awareness for the compared-to smaller brand). This leads to the
conclusion that while low-share brands ought to use direct comparative ads;
market leaders perhaps ought to use non comparative or indirectly
comparative ads (those that don't name competitors).

6. Pepsi Cola: the choice of a new generation

The Pepsi Cola brand began life in 1898 and has survived several
ownerships, two bankruptcies and intense competition to become one of the
world’s largest and most recognizable brands. The brand was historically
marketed as a value product, priced significantly cheaper than the
competition to encourage sales, but as World War II drew to a close, Pepsi
began to reposition the brand and to assimilate it into American culture.
Pepsi’s marketing in the 1950s was aimed squarely at youth, the baby
boomers that they labelled ‘The Pepsi Generation’. The brand adopted the
now familiar swirl logo on their bottles and employed the crude but effective
slogan ‘Be Sociable – Have a Pepsi’. This was the first Pepsi campaign to
focus on youth, a technique they would become renowned for over the
coming decades.
The 1960s and 1970s saw further youth orientated marketing, continuing the
Pepsi Generation theme and even hitting the American Top 40 in 1964 with
their catchy jingle Girlwatchers – produced to mark the launch of the new
Diet Pepsi product. And by the mid 1970s Pepsi was beginning to close to
gap on their largest competitor, Coca-Cola. Around this time a series of
consumer tests were conducted and, to the marketers delight, they showed
that the majority of participants preferred the taste of Pepsi to their
competitors. These results gave rise to the near legendary ‘Pepsi Challenge’
campaign, again aimed predominantly at the youth market, where
consumers across the US were invited to take a blind taste test of both Pepsi
and Coca-Cola. With results favourable, the challenge soon found it’s way
into television advertising.By the beginning of the 1980s, Pepsi had
established itself as the top selling brand in take-home sales in the soft
drinks market and they continued their successful tactic of placing
themselves firmly as a youth product. The Pepsi Generation campaign was
finally laid to rest but the brand became known for expensive sponsorships
of high profile youth icons and adverts featuring superstars such as Michael
Jackson, Cindy Crawford, Michael J Fox and the Spice Girls. The youth pitch
was continued with copy such as ‘GeneratioNext’, ‘Be young, have fun, drink
Pepsi’ and ‘The Choice of a New Generation’. The late 1990s were Pepsi’s
most successful times yet as turnover grew to $32billion and they
consolidated their position as the world’s second largest beverage company.
In February 1996, Pepsi launched one of the most ambitious entertainment
sites on the World Wide Web with Pepsiworld.com and in 1998 they
39
premiered a new logo to give the brand a more modern look for the coming
new Millennium.
The Pepsi brand continues to focus on youth as its greatest core value and
recent campaigns have seen associations with the new Star Wars films and
Britney Spears. For the past half century, Pepsi has tried to be younger,
cooler and more relevant than their competitors and this consistent strategy
has enabled the brand to grow and acquire a fundamental identity. By
putting Pepsi in direct and open competition with Coca-Cola in terms of
product quality, the Pepsi Challenge campaign was also a key tactic in the
brand’s positioning and has recently been re-launched to take the challenge
into the future.

7. Apple: imagination, innovation and differentiation

Apple is a brand that is always defying the odds. The company commands
global market share of just 3%, almost went out of business after a financial
nosedive in the mid 1990s and its main products compete with the
obiquitous IBM compatible PC. Yet despite the difficulties it has faced and
continues to face, it remains an amazing success. The brand was voted
brand of the year by Interbrand in 2001, came a close second to branding
‘wonderkid’ Google in 2002 and continues to command amazing loyalty
amongst users. The value of the brand to a company such as Apple is almost
incalculable; so much so that it prompted Wired News to claim recently that
‘without the brand, Apple would be dead… The power of their branding is all
that keeps them alive’. Why has Apple been so successful? Because it
concentrated on building a powerful brand based on emotional rather than
functional values. Apple may have produced a range of powerful computers
and innovative products such as the iPod and the iMac but by far their
greatest success has been in enticing customers in – forging deep bonds and
encouraging them to fall in love with the brand. Apple has always played on
the emotions. It has been David taking on the Goliath of IBM, its ethos is
40
power to the people through technology and it seeks to build communities
around its products. The brand has become synonymous with creativity, the
choice for designers everywhere, and has communicated itself as funky,
quirky and colourful – a vibrant alternative to its drab and businesslike
competitors. The equity produced by this powerful branding is without a
doubt Apple’s key asset. Competitors such as Commodore and Amstrad were
slain by the growth of the PC but the loyalty and affection that the Apple
brand commanded allowed it to keep its head above water and become the
success it is today. In a faceless market, Apple showed character and built an
image.When former CEO John Scully talks of his timein the company during
the late 1980s and early 1990s he has no illusions about Apple’s role,
pointing out that ‘people talk about technology but Apple was a marketing
company. It was the marketing company of the decade.’ This kind of thinking
built the brand equity Apple enjoys today – the brand equity that both kept
Apple afloat and promises future profits. This asset may be intangible but it
is also truly invaluable.

3) RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Following methodology will be followed for knowing the importance of brand
management & evaluation.

We draw few characteristics of strong brand with the help of few case studies
& real world examples in industries.

3.1) Objectives

• To assess the principles for creating and building brand as well as real-
world examples of why it matters.
• To look into the importance of branding or brand management
• Whether the brand can be measured or not.
• We will identify the few characteristics that the world's strongest
brands share
• Brand Evaluation- constructing a brand report card- a systematic way
for managers to think about how to grade their brand's performance
for each of those characteristics.

3.2) Rationale of study

Building and properly managing brand equity has become a priority for
companies of all sizes, in all types of industries, in all types of markets. After
all, from strong brand equity flow customer loyalty and profits. The rewards
of having a strong brand are clear. The problem is, few managers are able to

41
step back and assess their brand's particular strengths and weaknesses
objectively. Most have a good sense of one or two areas in which their brand
may excel or may need help. But if pressed, many (understandably) would
find it difficult even to identify all of the factors they should be considering.
When you're immersed in the day-to-day management of a brand, it's not
easy to keep in perspective all the parts that affect the whole. Brand often
boils down to perception – a slippery, hard-to-get quality, not an in-the-bank
quantity. Avon can come back from the brink, despite years of cultural
maladjustment and corporate disinterest, because of residual brand value
and new vision, energy and discipline. IBM nearly fell apart as a brand yet
rebounded with a new corporate strategy and a missionary sense of brand
value. In ten years will women still find Avon relevant? Executives opt for
services from IBM? What makes people decide? These, we believe, are better
questions than the proverbial, “How much is my brand worth today?” And
while the better questions are more difficult to answer, they provoke answers
that build brands and invigorate companies.

• The main significance of the study will be that by first gaining a deep
understanding of its brand, company will be able to begin life as a
public company with a rock-solid business strategy. This work will
provide comprehensive study material for the academic purpose
• Convincing brand features form an integrated whole.
• The brands of the future will take greater notice of the customer.

3.3) Research Hypothesis

NULL HYPOTHESIS- “ BRAND DOESN’T MATTER”.

3.4) Scope of Study

The area of the study will cover the branding strategy followed by many of
the companies / industry & their practice in brand management. The scope
of the study will include identifying the market factors, determining the basic
pricing issues to be considered, and determining the necessity of brand
management.

3.5) Limitations

Brand Management ,Brand Equity &Brand Evaluation are very essential &
very vast for the study in themselves , therefore, research report cannot
cover all the characteristics that a brand should possess which should be
maintained updated by the firm periodically but it will cover the important
aspect of branding. Studying the history of brand/product failures may
42
generate some insight into the reason for those failures and create a list of
factors that may increase the opportunity for success, but there are no
guarantees.

4) FACTS & FINDINGS

4.1) BRAND MEASUREMENT - HOW TO MEASURE THE
BRANDS?
A single number that tells you what your brand is worth today won’t help you
make it worth more tomorrow. There is a great interest among many to
understand what their brand is worth in sheer financial terms. However, we
believe this financial valuation approach has little value. Moreover, relying on
the relative financial value of brands for certain decisions can be overly
simplistic. For example, a company must choose between two brands. The
numbers show that Brand A

43
 Conduct
has a higher value than Brand B. The assumption often made is that Brand A
is the right one to use. Not necessarily, if: Brand B is used in other
geographic markets and has not been promoted in Brand A’s territory, or •
Brand B has greater long-term potential, e.g., can be stretched or expanded
and used in other categories, or • Brand B is the corporate name and the
strategy is to build one brand long-term, not support multiple brands.
The prevailing methods produce a rough number that is half right-brain, half
left-brain – and, at best, a half-answer. It might help decide whether to pull
the trigger on a merger or divestiture, but it does little to tell management
how to protect and grow the value of its brand. There is a better path. It, too,
involves measurement, particularly of the feelings and perceptions in the
marketplace about a brand and competing brands, as well as other factors.
Its aim is not merely a number, but a clear direction to improved business
performance, and the ability to refine this path over time. We call it
Strategic Brand Assessment.
The desire to determine a brand’s value is understandable – in fact,
commendable. In the aftermath of dot-coms with sky-high market
capitalization passed off as “brand value,” brands are under the microscope
as never before. But a single number approach is, we firmly believe,
tangential to effective brand-building and brand management. In fact, for
most purposes, brand simply cannot be reduced to a number. Any large,
mature brand is an enormously complex set of values, not a single value.
Making corporate decisions based on a numeric value for the brand is like
managing an economy knowing only its gross domestic product. Consider
that for many companies, business and brand are inseparable. What is Nike
without the swoosh or IBM without its richly cultivated identity? Commodity
businesses aren’t compelling. Would teenagers clamor for generic Asian-
44
made sneakers? Would CIOs buy anonymous e-business services? Not likely.
The proof of this is often at the extreme, when a brand becomes so tarnished
(think of Arthur Andersen) the license to operate is removed and the
business destroyed. At that point, the question of dollar value becomes
moot. The value of the brand was the value of the business.
Brand is as understandable and manageable as any other activity – if
measured with a business tool other than a calculator.

Valid Brand Measurement

Brand is no more or less than the expression of a company’s essential

business. As a result, it should be as understandable and manageable as any
other business activity. It can be molded, steered back on course, refreshed,
adapted to changing circumstances and reinvented. Or it can be distorted,
diluted, squandered and neglected into oblivion. This is precisely why brand
can and should be measured, but with quite different tools than balance
sheets and calculators. Think of a company’s brand as a living, breathing
being that resides in the collective imagination of everybody touched by the
company as it conducts business. This very real human phenomenon – kids
jostling to buy the newest Air Jordan, CIOs hiring IBM because they count on
its ability to deliver – is best understood as social and psychological, not
arithmetic. Yet one result of any brand measurement will be the allocation of
financial resources to address what the measurement process discovers.
Therefore, brand measurement must produce analysis that’s persuasive to
financial managers, and provide the means to assess return on investment.
To manage a corporate brand, we believe, requires translating the social
behavior around it into rational terms, so that its important qualities are
quantified as intensities and values and precisely defined components that
can be acted upon. This too is measurement – not solely as a function of
shareholder value, but rather as two more inclusive measures of value:
stakeholder value and contextual value. The stakeholders include
everyone who has a personal interest in the brand, and in proportion to their
stake – customers, potential customers, disenfranchised customers,
employees, potential employees, investors and brand influencers from
financial analysts to community leaders. Contextual value measures the
brand and its drivers relative to those of competitors, similar industries and
parallel situations. Strategic brand measurement is a process. It combines
standard marketing practices and closely

45
 Brand
1
2
3
4
related methods from the social, behavioral and statistical sciences. As in all
good science, there is an art to its application. Properly managed, this
process produces information and tools that help senior management make
critical decisions, point the business in the right direction and achieve
objectives that can: focus and intensify the brand , clarify and refine
strategy, create compelling new offers , protect against brand risk, produce
competitive advantage, reduce brand-support costs, improve short-term
profitability In addition, this process will help enhance the traditional benefits
of a strong, clearly defined brand , employee retention and recruitment,
ready sources of funding and customer loyalty.
Pinpointing Brand Drivers
At the core of any brand are a handful of elements that can influence and
change behavior. We call them “brand drivers.”They come from a small,
specific universe of “brand attributes.” Knowing the brand drivers provides
managers with a powerful array of options for bringing brand to bear to solve
business problems, seize market opportunities and plot the most profitable
course for the business. There are two elements to brand drivers: The
attributes people consider when deciding to purchase a brand in a category,
and the actual differentiators – the elements that spur behavior. A company
typically has a half dozen or so key brand drivers, which vary in relative
importance depending on audience and circumstance. Any brand-driver
research needs to be sufficiently deep to understand the changes in relative
importance among not only the company’s drivers, but also those of
competitors. Over time, additional studies will show shifts in this picture,
46
particularly the effects of any actions taken to achieve some desired result.
Depending on industry, brand drivers generally don’t alter dramatically year
to year. But if the business is technology-dependent or otherwise full of flux,
drivers can change quickly. For example, as people become familiar with
technology through use, second-order drivers become more important. It
makes sense to promote a company’s ability to innovate in advance of an
important product launch, but after the launch emphasis may need to shift to
tangible features, benefits and price. Despite the decided benefits of
Strategic Brand AssessmentSM, few companies fully know and understand
their key brand drivers.Yet companies commit sizable resources to other less
strategic brand measurements. The marketing department probably gauges
awareness and perceptions of the brand. Advertising recall is typically
measured. This research may provide a picture of the brand at a point in
time, but no roadmap for the future. To complicate matters, brand
measurement in large companies often consists of decentralized,
uncoordinated research efforts. The brand “picture” becomes a series of
fragments by line of business, geographies and target markets. Yet even the
most robust of conventional brand studies tends to fall short in helping
determine future brand direction.

The biggest benefit of valid brand measurement is direction for the business
itself.

47
Measure a Brand’s Value

4.2) Strategic Brand Assessment

Our approach isolates the impact of brand. It digs down and exposes
customer decision-making.It involves a comprehensive assessment of the
brand in the hearts and minds of all critical audiences,external and internal.
The process has four major parts: information gathering and
preparation,experimental design, back-end analysis and decision modeling.
Of the four, the work up front is the most important. From the initial
preparation and analysis – why and what you’re trying to achieve –
everything flows.The results come in terms of strategic options: What’s
important, a brand’s strengths and weaknesses, competitive brand strengths
and weaknesses, are there white spaces – important areas not served that a
brand is positioned to own.What starts to emerge is a roadmap for the brand
48
linked to what the company has been doing recently,what it should do in the
future, and direction on how to get there.In light of this new information, the
company’s vision and mission may need modification. It will help the
company refine its positioning. Defining the key image attributes follows in a
process that starts with the study results, filters them through top
management’s knowledge and experience, and makes sure they differentiate
in their competitive arena. Next in the process: a communications plan with
audiences identified and messages by key audiences. Finally comes
implications for the business itself. These can be the biggest benefits of
strategic brand assessment – areas of vulnerability that must be buttressed
to improve credibility, or unique strengths that suggest paths for future
service offerings. The more extensive and well planned the research, the
more likely that these business implications will have real substance.Another
key measure is organizational alignment – how well the vision is being
supported. Are the company’s values well understood internally or are there
pockets of confusion or resistance? Is employee behavior toward customers
consistent with the image the company wishes to project, or are there
disconnects? Clearly, strategic brand measurement can be a powerful and
versatile tool, not only to move a company forward in the directions
indicated by its strengths, but also to identify and address weaknesses. It
doesn’t merely try to place a value on the corporate brand: It provides the
means to maximize brand value and project value into the future.
Therefore, realizing that brand has value is a fundamental first step. If
attaching a number to the corporate brand is the only way to gain high-level
attention and make the point, then by all means do so – but quickly move on
to more fundamental goals: Understand the brand, make sure it is strong and
relevant and learn how to maximize the brand’s positive impact on tangible
business results. To do these things effectively and efficiently requires a
brand measurement process that monitors brand drivers –the attributes of
the brand relevant to key audiences. Companies that are first to invest in
such a process will understand better than their competitors how to
differentiate their business, gain share of mind and keep their brand and
company vital. These companies are more likely to become industry leaders.

4.3) BRAND REPORT CARD

49
We have identified the ten characteristics that the world's strongest brands
share and construct a brand report card- a systematic way for managers to
think about how to grade their brands’
performance for each of those characteristics. The report card can help you
identify areas that need improvement, recognize areas in which your brand is
strong, and learn more about how your particular brand is configured.
Constructing similar report cards for your competitors can give you a clearer
picture of their strengths and weaknesses. One caveat: Identifying weak
spots for your brand doesn't necessarily mean identifying areas that need
more attention. Decisions that might seem straightforward-"We haven't paid
much attention to innovation: let's direct more resources toward R&D" - can
sometimes prove to be serious mistakes if they undermine another
characteristic that customers value more.

BRAND REPORT CARD SAMPLE

50
51
4.4)
Overall brand
perception
Leadershi
p
Brand percentag
e
Toyota 37%
Ford 29
Honda 27
Volvo 24
Chevrol 22
et
SURVEY SAYS Toyota and Ford lead in overall brand perception.
Toyota, Ford top car brands in consumer perception
Consumer Reports first Brand Report Card survey finds few car
brands stand as leaders

Automakers collectively spend $10 billion a year to promote their vehicles.

But few brands appear to be distinguished in the crowded marketplace and
often reality doesn't reflect consumer perceptions, according to new findings
by the Consumer Reports National Research Center.
The recent Brand Report Card study reveals that only five brands stand out
from the competition based on the number of survey respondents who
named them best in design/style, performance, quality, safety,
technology/innovation, or value. Toyota, Ford, Honda, and Chevrolet are
among the sales-volume leaders, with broad vehicle offerings, large dealer
networks, and deep-pocket advertising budgets. Volvo made the top five
based largely on the strength of its safety image, drawing the highest single
score in any one area. Other key findings from the survey include: Seven of
10 consumers considered safety and quality when evaluating a new car.

• The most-important individual features in a new car are safety related.

• Technology and innovation were rated least important, even though
marketing messages often focus on those factors.
• Brand-wide focus on performance alone does not ensure the vehicles
are considered among the sportiest.
52
 • Nearly one quarter of Americans are considering buying a new Toyota.

4.5) BRAND EXTENSION STRATEGY

CASE ANALYSIS: DANONE STRATEGY FOR BRAND EXTENSION

STRATEGY

The strategy of Danone will be studied to have a practical example of

company using it. Indeed, Danone launched Taillefine in the dairy product
with 0% fat in 1964. Then Danone used the image of both leanness and well-
balanced food associated to the dairy products with 0% fat of Taillefine in
order to extend this brand to the light cookies. As a consequence Danone
saved time and surprised its competitors in the cookies market. Three years
after the launch of Taillefine in the biscuits fields in 1998, the success has
been extraordinary. And, in 2000, the sales of Taillefine increased from 40%.
With this success met by this extension, Danone decided to target the water
market still with its brand Taillefine and the same promise than with the dairy
product: the leanness which is a segment that has been controlled by
Contrex (the water brand of a competitor, Nestlé).
Brand extension is one of the strategies a company can use and it is not
actually a new
concept. This marketing strategy dates back from the 1960`s (with retailers`
brands in
different products categories in this period) but it really becomes popular
since the 1980`s.Indeed, it is very expensive to create and launch a new
brand in the market. In addition, the market is already full of different
brands.
Thus brand extension is a way of “restricting” expenses and risks compared
to the creation of a new brand. This strategy consists in using a current
brand name to launch a product in a category considered as new for the
company-according to Aaker&Keller (1990). This new product has different
functions and a different nature in comparison with the product the brand
used to do. For instance, Mars is well-known in the sweets department but
can be found in the ice-cream department as well. Usually, this current brand
has a good image within consumers what drives this process “easier”
because the brand already benefits both from a good fame and from a
recognized level of quality within consumers. Thus these latter are less
reluctant to test the new product because they like buying what they already
know. Usually they don’t like to “take risk” by trying a new product from an
unknown brand. This strategy of brand extension can be very efficient for
companies to reach new consumers and penetrate new markets. However, a
company has to be careful when using this strategy because it can, for
example, weakened the image of the main brand.
I.Problem

53
A brand needs to evolve or change products if it wants to continue existing.
Face to the tough competition, companies have to reduce the amount of
brands owned -e.g. Unilever decided to keep only the 400 most sold brands
out of 1600. To reduce the brand’s portfolio companies have several
strategies and brand extension is one of them. This is a method which seems
appealing at first but actually there are some constraints with it. So, is the
brand extension a good strategy for companies instead of brand creation?
However, this strategy cannot only have advantages so what are the
weaknesses of this strategy and which precautions have to be taken when
using it?
Delimitation
This paper will focus on the strategy of the group Danone which decided to
use the brand extension strategy with its brand Taillefine. Indeed, it is only
for Taillefine that Danone decided to use brand extension because otherwise,
it prefers creating new brands. So, it will be interesting to study the reason
why Danone is not giving the priority to brand extension even if in our
theoretical part, David Taylor (2004, p1) said that a 2003 Brand gym survey
showed that 83% of managers considered that brand extensions were the
most important way to launch new products and services in next 2-3 years to
2% for new brand creation.
II. Frame of reference
II.1. Presentation of Danone
Danone has been founded in 1919 in Spain and is now the leading brand
worldwide in the fresh dairy products. Danone yoghurt was first selling in
pharmacies because of research led by Isaac Carasso after thousands of
children contracted intestinal disorders. He wanted to relieve them. He
looked into Nobel-prize-winning research led about 10 years ago about
yoghurt lactic acid bacteria. Afterwards, he bought “lactic cultures from the
Pasteur Institute in Paris and launches the first Danone yoghurt through
pharmacists” Matt Haig (2004, p119). Danone decided to operate in the
mass market but it still considered as a healthy brand.Furthermore, the
“Danone Vitapole research ensures that the health claims made by the brand
are scientifically backed up” Matt Haig (2004, p119). For the promotion of
products made by Danone, a special importance is given both to their health
benefits and their taste. In the United States, the motto is “How can
something that is so good for you taste so good?” So, they are simple
messages but they “tackle the main consumer deterrents of health food
(taste worries) and tasty food (health worries) both together” Matt Haig
(2004, p119).
The secrets of success of Danone can be listed as following:
Differentiation, Danone products are creating a new market instead of
taking share on an old one. This difference is can be seen with the packaging
with for example the unique bottle shape and “dose” size of the product
Actimel -belonging to Danone.

54
Education, Danone can easily explain a complicated science concept into a
simple message for customers.
Health associations are putting forward both by the different Danone
institutes and by its International Prize for Nutrition.It is because Danone is
associated with health that it could launch successful extensions with its
brand Taillefine.
II.2. Advantages and disadvantages of brand extension strategy
II.2.1. Advantages of brand extension strategy
According to David Taylor (2004, p1), this strategy of brand extension is
popular because it is less risky and cheaper compared to the creation of a
new brand. Leslie de Chaternatony and Malcolm McDonald (1998, p315)
point the same economical advantage by indicating that “the economics of
establishing new brands are pushing companies more towards stretching
their existing name into new markets. Daunted by the heavy R&D costs, and
more aware of the statistics about failure rates for new brands, marketers
are increasingly taking their established names into new product fields”
Leslie de Chaternatony and Malcolm McDonald, (1998, p315).Taylor (2004,
p1) emphasizes the advantages connected to this strategy instead of brand
creation as following:
Consumer knowledge: the remaining strong brand used to “promote a new
product”
makes it less critical to create “awareness and imagery”. The association
with the main brand is already done and the “main task is communicating
the specific benefits of the new innovation” Taylor (2004, p1).
Consumer trust: the existing well-known-strong brands represent a promise
–of quality, useful features etc. - for the consumer. Thus, the extension will
benefit from this fame and this good opinion about the brand to create “a
compelling value proposition in a new segment or markets” Taylor (2004,
p1). In addition, according to a Brandgym survey in 2003, “58% of UK
consumers will be more likely to try a new product from a brand they knew,
versus only 3% for a new brand”, Taylor (2004, p1).
However, this has still to be done with ability to be successful.
Catherine Viot (2007, p42) agrees to this concept when she considers that
“the customer is expecting to transfer his information from the brand to the
extension. If the general opinion about the brand is favourable, the
behaviour regarding the extension should be the positive as well”. She adds
that a successful brand extension can enable to get the customer loyalty. A
satisfied customer by an extension will be more willing to repurchase the
same brand. For example in the sport field, a customer will more likely prefer
a brand offering a complete equipment-shoes, outfit and accessories.
Lower cost: compared to launching a new brand, brand extension strategy
is cheaper
especially because the new product use the name of an already well-known
brand.

55
Taylor (2004, p2) said that “Studies show that cost per unit of trial is 36 %
lower and that repurchase is also higher” with an extension Indeed, Smith &
Park (1992, p296) confirm this idea when suggesting that regarding the
advertising effectiveness, it seems for same market share, the
advertisement budget for brand extension are smaller than for new brands.
Aaker (2004, p194) gives some advantages more or less close to Taylor or C.
Viot (2007) beliefs:
Enhancement of brand visibility: when a brand appears in another field it
can “be a
more effective and efficient brand-building approach than spending money
on advertising” In addition, he suggests that the relationship with loyal
customers will be strengthen because they will use the brand “in another
context” and it is expected as well that they will rather this brand to the
competitors’ one.
Provide a source of energy for a brand: the brand image-especially
when the brand is a bit tired- is expected to be reinforced by the extension.
Indeed, this latter gives energy to the brand because it increases the
frequency with which the brand is associated with good quality, innovations
and large range of products. In addition, the customer sees the brand name
more often and it can strengthen his idea that it is a good one.
Thus, C. Viot states that the presence of the brand on a wider number of
products should improve the popularity of the brand. The probability of being
in contact with the brand –both in the communication and in the
supermarkets – is more important and then should improve the brand
memorization.
Defensive strategy: an extension can prevent competitors from gaining or
exploiting a
foothold in the market and can be “worthwhile even though it might
struggle” according to Aaker (2004). Microsoft for instance has decided to
operate in different areas with the aim of limiting the “ability of competitors
to encroach on core business areas”.
II.2.2. Disadvantages of brand extension strategy
Dilution of the existing brand image: C. Viot (2007) underlines that the
extensions are using the most important asset of the company that i.e. its
brand name. It can be a major advantage for the extension but it represents
as well a huge risk for the existing brand because the brand image can be
diluted. Park, McCarthy & Milberg, (1993, p60) said that those positive and
negative consequences are “reciprocity effects” and defined as “a change in
the initial customer’s behaviour regarding the brand, after an extension”.
She explains that a brand extension can damage the brand. A dilution of the
brand capital can happen by the occurrence of undesirable associations or by
the weakening of the existing associations. This latter can be a consequence
of new associations transferred from the extension.

56
Indeed, an accident occurring with a product can lead to tarnish the image of
the all brand. In addition, it is sometimes difficult to associate one brand to
two products without weakening the brand position in the customer’s mind.
Aaker (2004, p211) points this problem when he argues that “the
associations created by an extension can fuzz a sharp image that had been a
key asset, and at the same time reduce the brand’s credibility within its
original setting”. So he claims like the former authors that companies have
to be careful of the confusion in the customer’s mind when making
extensions.
Aaker (2004, p211) adds that when a brand benefits are ensure by the fact
that it is not “for or available to everyone”, doing too much extensions could
reduce this image of brand selectivity. He takes the example of the overuse
of the name Gucci – at one moment therewere 14,000 products Gucci- was a
part of the factors leading to the “fall of that brand”.
Cannibalization: Aaker (2004, p214) states that the extensions can
cannibalize the
existing products of the brand when there are positioned in a close market. It
means the
extensions sales are increasing while those of the existing brand’s products
are following the opposite curved. Aaker (2004) underlines that these good
sales figures for the extensions cannot compensate the damage produced to
the original brand’s equity. He argues that this situation is however better
than seeing this happening with a competitor’s brand.
Taylor (2004) listed as well this risk and he says like Aaker that this situation
can happen when range extensions are “brand clones” i.e. they can not be
enough differentiate from the existing products. He gives the example of the
brand Crest which was launching for years new toothpaste twists –e.g. gum
protection and whitening, tartar control. Its share fell from 50 with one
product to 25% with 50 products. Thus, “each introduction competed for the
same usage occasion and introduced novelty value but not enough added
values to create incremental growth” Taylor (2004, p25). And David Taylor
continues his reasoning by saying that people wanted an “all-in-one version”
successfully provided by Colgate i.e. Colgate Total.
A disaster can occur: Aaker (2004, p212) explains that a disaster which
cannot be
controlled by the firm –e.g. that Firestone tires used for the Ford Explorers
were potentially unsafe- can happen to any brand. The more extensions the
brand made, more important the damages will be. This occurred to Audi
when the Audi 5000 cars were suspected to have sudden-acceleration
problem. Adverse publicity started to appear from 1978 and continue to the
extent that it was mentioned on CBS’s “60 minutes” in November 1986. Audi
did not make efforts to change this situation and as a consequence its sales
fell from 74000 in 1985 to 23000 in 1989. Audi needed fifteen years to
recover while it was manufacturing good cars.

57
III. Methodology
III.1. Qualitative or quantitative data
III.1.1. Qualitative research
According to Kumar (2001, p218) “the purpose of qualitative research is to
find out what is in a consumer’s mind. It is done to access and also get a
rough idea about the person’s perspective. It helps the researcher to become
oriented to the range and complexity of consumer activity and concerns.
Qualitative data are collected so researchers can know more about things
that cannot be directly observed and measured. Feelings, thoughts,
intentions,and behaviour that took place in the past are a few examples of
those things that can be obtained only through qualitative data collection
methods”. Focus group, in-depth interviews and repertory grid technique are
typical methods used in this type of approach.For this dissertation we want
to know feelings, thoughts, intentions and behaviors comparing to brand
extension. For that we apply in-depth interviews.
III.1.1.1. Data collection
Individual in-depth interview
For this dissertation, this approach will be followed and two individual in-
depth interviews will be made to understand “the feelings, thoughts,
intentions and behaviour compare to brand extension” like advice it Kumar
(2007). To make these individual in-depth interviews a list of questions need
to be prepared to be asked and answered by the respondent. For this
dissertation, Danone has been chosen as an example so it is crucial to
question one person working in Danone marketing team.” In qualitative
research the concern are more the quality and depth than the proportions of
people that gave one response or another” Hague, Paul (2004, p63). To have
an interview with this person the graduate yearbook of the Business School
of Toulouse will be used. When this person will be found, it will be possible to
ask for an interview through the phone because it will be easier because of
his or her workplace.
III.1.2.Quantitative Research
While according to Craig, Samuel (1999, p318) the “qualitative data
collection techniques aid in identifying relevant constructs and concepts to
be examined, survey research provides a means of quantifying these
concepts and examining relevant relationships in-depth”. It is possible to say
that quantitative research let quantify or precisely measure a problem. It is
often used for sophisticated statistical procedures and scientifically drawn
samples. It is possible to collect quantitative data from respondents by two
means: “the communication and the observation” Kinner and Taylor (1996).
In our case, we will not use qualitative data because we will only do two
interviews and not questionnaires.

III.2. Research methods

III.2.1. Secondary data

58
First of all, to collect some information about brand extension, look for some
secondary data was the first step because “the researcher should always
start with secondary data.” Churchill, Gilbert A., Iacobucci and JR. Dawn
(2005, p167).
Indeed, as they argue, secondary data represent “cost and time economies”
because you only need to “get online or to go to the library, locate the
appropriate sources and extract and record the information desired”. With
this data, the researcher can have a first idea about what have already been
done about his topic. Most of the time huge amount of information can be
gotten through secondary data.
However, secondary data are not enough to answer a problem and has
furthermore two main disadvantages. So they argue as well that “they
typically do not completely fit the problem, and there may be problems with
their accuracy”. Indeed, according to them first of all, the data had been
“collected for someone else’s purposes”, so it is unusual that they can
answer your problem perfectly. It can occur that the class definition is not
what the researcher is expecting i.e. he wants maybe to study the behaviour
of people between 18-24 years old but can only get data about those of 25-
34 years old for example.The second disadvantage is the problem of
accuracy. Indeed at least when collecting and analysing the data some errors
are always possible misleading the researcher using them to make decisions.
As a consequence, the researcher has to be critical when using secondary
data.
Among the secondary data, it can be found the internal and external data.
The internal data are “originate within the firm” Churchill, Gilbert A.,
Iacobucci and JR. Dawn (2005, p173). In this paper, the opportunity of having
this kind of data was able with thanks to the information got both from M.
Sudre -working for Danone- and from a letter –dating back from March 2005-
to inform the shareholders of Danone about its financial situation. The
external one originates from outside sources. Thus, information originates
from Internet and Danone website has been used, articles and literature
dealing with brand extensions as well.
III.2.2. Primary data
As it was previously stressed, secondary data cannot be sufficient to help
answering a topic. Thus, we need as well to use primary data. It is important
to find out what companies are thinking about brand extension strategy.
Thus, in this paper, communication techniques will be used by making an
interview of someone working in the Marketing field at Danone Company
through telephone. This technique is used as well to interview M. Marcel
Bottom working at Nomen France, which is a a company creating brand
name or companies’ names. This method is quick and implies lower cost.
Indeed, according to Churchill, Gilbert A., Iacobucci and JR. Dawn (2005,
p215), the “communication is often a faster means of data collection,
because researchers are not forced to wait for events to occur as they are
with the observation method”.

59
However, using communication has some weaknesses. Indeed, it is not sure
that objective answers will be obtained and data collected are less accurate
when using communication because this method is dependent of the
respondent willingness or capability to give the information desired. “For
example, respondents are often reluctant to cooperate whenever their
replies would be embarrassing or would in some way place them in an
unfavorable light” Churchill, Gilbert A., Iacobucci and JR. Dawn (2005,
p215).Use Danone‘s website seems to be a good idea to have more details
about Danone‘s strategy.
III.2.2.1. Population and sampling
In this paper, the population considered is companies which are using or
which used brand extensions. Indeed, this work is about the advantages and
disadvantages of the brand extension strategy for companies so they are the
proper target.This way, it will be possible to ask them if they would agree to
make an interview to get more information about brand extensions such as
the reason explaining that the company decided to use it, the advantages
and disadvantages of this strategy. While looking for these companies,
Danone appeared to be a good target for this paper. Indeed, the strategy of
brand extension has been used by one of Danone`s brand: Taillefine; and it is
the case study.So, an interview with a brand manager of Danone in Spain
was made. The purpose was to know if brand extension was still considered
as a good alternative to brand creation and which are the problems the
company may had to face.
The questions were asked to the respondent personally so, he did not have
too much time to prepare a “politically correct” answer and it is a means to
get frank answers. Moreover even if it has been done through the phone, it
can be considered as a personal relationship so it was maybe easier for the
respondent to feel at ease to answer. This method is as well cheaper, quick
and more convenient. This respondent had been chosen because he was a
former graduate student from the Business School of Toulouse and one of our
group members is actually studying there. As a Consequence, it was easier
to ask for an interview. This interview had been done through Skype –
enabling cheaper call from computers to landlines or to mobiles- and had
been recorded in order to have the opportunity to listen this record several
times and try to lower the amount of information missed in relation with an
interview realized without recording. This interview lasted approximately 20
minutes. However, it has to be stressed that this interview was sometimes
difficult to make because the quality of the connection was not very good.
Thus, it was necessary to call a second time to finish this interview because
the first time, the interlocutor could not hear correctly the questions and in
the opposite side his answers and in addition he found the questions too
theoretical. So, the questions had to be rephrased. It has to be emphasized
that if it was possible to make this interview again it would be better to call
him from a landline or a mobile phone to have better connection. For
additional information, another interview had been made – about 15 minutes

60
through mobile phone- with M. Marcel Bottom who is working at Nomen,
which deals with the creation of brands names and companies’ names. He
has been interviewed as well because he has lot of knowledge about brand in
general and about brand’s strategies.
III.3. Validity and reliability
The information obtained, have to be valid and reliable. Indeed, in this paper,
there are two interviews which have been then analysed. The interpretation
will depend upon our
backgrounds and one’s knows that each one has a different one. For a
measure, validity means that what we want to measure is really measured,
neither more nor less. Precisely the question we have to ask ourselves is “are
we measuring what we think we are measuring?” according to Kinnear and
Taylor (1996, p331). It is crucial not to move further away from the topic of
this dissertation which is brand extension. Thietart, Raymond-Alain (2007)
consider that reliability means that the “measuring instrument must allow
different observers to measure the same subject with the same instrument
and arrive at the same results, or permit an observer to use the same
instrument to arrive at similar measures of the same subject at different
time” . Thus, it will be important to be careful when getting the answers and
especially when analyzing them and the fact that one of the interviews has
been recorded will enable to lose less information about the respondent’s
answers. Finally, in order to deal with the topic of this paper more deductive
than inductive approach has been used because it was possible to find quite
a lot of literature about brand extension. Thus, these previous researches
were a guide for a great part of this paper work.
IV. Empirical data
IV.1. Interview of Marcel BOTTON, CEO of Nomen France, 07-04-10
Nomen is one of the world leaders companies in naming. It is situated in
many countries
Germany, France, China etc- and the company‘s mission is to look both for
names for a new company and brand for a new product. Nomen has created
well-known names such as Vivendi, Miracle (a Lancôme woman perfume),
Clio (Renault’s brand cars) etc.
Marcel Botton who is the CEO of Nomen France agreed to give us an
interview. And, the answers obtained will be analysed in this paper. He had to
answer to the following questions:
1. Brand extension is considered as more advantageous than new
brand creation.
What do you think about this statement?
According to M. Bottom, it is true and the main point is that brand extension
is obviously
cheaper than brand creation. Indeed, he said that brand creation “is very
expensive whereas with an extension the company can use the image of one
existing brand” and as a consequence make some economics on advertising,
marketing etc. In our theoretical part, David Taylor subscribed to this point of

61
view when he said that companies considered brand extension as “a cheaper
and less risky way of launching innovation than creating new brands”.
Further, Taylor adds that because of the “associations which have already
been establish” with the strong brand, “the main task is communicating the
specific benefits of the new innovation”. On the contrary, “a new brand starts
from scratch: it has to spend heavily just to get itself known” Taylor David
(2004, p1). M. Bottom underlined that the second advantage of brand
extension was the fact that it was “easier to negotiate with retailers to put in
their shops departments a brand which already exists compared to a new
brand”. Indeed, the retailers already know if a brand sales figure are good
and in this case they don’t worry about adding a new product of this brand if
they think it will make people willing to buy this product because it is not a
new unknown brand. This statement seems to be quite logical. Indeed,
nowadays, the competition is very tough and in shops departments, there
are so many brands that the retailers have to use the more efficiently as
possible the space available. It means that even if a retailer would like to
give a chance to some new brands to show to what extend they can attract
customers, he will nevertheless give the priority to an extension from a well-
known brand which already proved its ability to get good sales figures.
2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of brand extension
strategy?
M. Bottom said that when a company decides to do a brand extension
strategy, it enhances the existing brand fame but at the same time it can
lead to the weakening of the brand. Thus he took the example of Danone. He
said that “Danone is known for its good quality and healthy products.
However, if it decides to extend to some desserts like jam, it will enhance the
power of the extended product –increase of awareness for Danone and, the
new product will benefit from the image of the existing Danone’s products-
but they will be a dilution of the brand image”. This means that the
customers will be confused about the characteristics they were associating
to Danone because jam is not the same as yogurt and is not “so healthy”
compared to yogurt. And he added that “an extension is more profitable in
the short-run and more disadvantageous in the long-run”. Thus, he said that
in the short-term, a brand extension enables to save money compared to the
launch of a new brand but in the long-run companies have to be very careful
not to make too many extensions and not to extend its brand to some areas
too far from its main and first line of business.
This problem of brand image dilution was already underlined by (Viot, 2007).
Indeed, she explained that an extension uses the brand name as an asset
and represents the major advantage for the extension. However, she said
that this main advantage can as well be a main disadvantage because it can
dilute the image of the brand. Besides, Aaker quotes the dilution of existing
brand associations as one risk of brand extension strategy. Actually, he
considers that the associations following from the extension can decrease

62
the credibility of the brand perceived by the customer. It can occur when a
brand makes too many extensions.
3. What are your advices to obtain a successful brand extensions
strategy?
According to Marcel Bottom, to be successful, there is a need of “image
synergy” which he explained by the fact that the “own quality of the existing
brand products has to fit with the extension’s one”. Indeed, he took the
example of Danone to make us understand his argument. He said that if
“Danone starts making chocolate desserts, the image of the new product will
be build at the expense of Danone’s former products because they have the
same position on the market”. He took the example of Yamaha as well. He
said that this brand is positioned in the piano’s market and in the
motorcycles one as well. These areas have no common link, each product
has a territory. This way they cannot compete with each other because the
customer can easily avoid mixing up the products characteristics. Thus, it
can be considered that M. Botton is talking about the phenomenon of
cannibalization. Taylor (2004,p25) states that it occurs when the range
extensions are “lacking of differentiation versus the existing products”. As a
consequence, the customer has difficulties to make a clear split in his mind
between the existing product’s field of the brand and the extension’s one.
Thus, the sales of the extension can increase at the expense of the brand
existing products. Aaker is talking about this danger as well in his book which
named Brand portfolio Strategy. Indeed he states that an extension being
launched in a close market to the existing brand’s products can cannibalize
the brand’s sales. It means that the extension’s sales are growing but those
of the existing brand’s products can slow down and even decrease.
According to this interview, it can be stressed that the theory and the
empirical data have similarities. Thus, brand extension seems to be a good
alternative to brand creation. However, like every strategy, some precautions
have to be taken by a company willing to use brand extension. We can quote
the fact that marketers need to inquire to measure if with the extension the
company will bring added values in the market compared to competitors to
avoid long term brand spoiling. The company has also to take care not
making too many extensions to avoid weakening the brand capital. But the
first step is to have a strong brand because the customer will easily be
attracted by an extension if he already knows the brand and make good
associations with it. Indeed, the brand is a guarantee for the customer and if
he trusts its ability to deliver its promise, he will apply this judgement to the
extension and then buy it.
IV.2. Interview of M. Sudre, Brand Manager of Actimel products, 07-
05-08
Actimel product is a subdivision of Danone. An interview of M. Sudre who is
working for
Danone in Barcelona –Spain- has been made. To be more precise, he is the
brand manager of Actimel. According to the presentation of Actimel in

63
Danone’s website, it is a yogurt you drink and which helps to strengthen the
body natural immunity system because of some leavens contained in yogurt
and a special one selected by Actimel and patented.As a brand manager, he
seemed to be the right person who would be able to give some information
about the topic of this dissertation which is brand extension. He had to
answer to the following questions:
1. People consider brand extension is more beneficial than the
creation of a new brand. What do you think about it?
Brand extension is easier to do, because when creating a new brand you
need to develop everything from the beginning again. You need to invest
more in advertising to get yourproduct/service known by the consumer while
in brand stretching return on investment is quicker. These statements are
underlying by Peter Doyle and Phil Stern (2001, p175) when they said that
brand extensions are more and more used because of two main reasons
“first, the high failure rate of new products has encouraged companies to
look to extensions to reduce the odds failure. Attaching a successful brand
name to a new product reduces the buyer’s perceived risk... the brand name
may offer an implicit quality guarantee. Second, building a complete new
brand is expensive”. It is possible to say that the same belief is shared by
Taylor (2004, p1) when he says that “a new brand starts from a scratch: it
has to spend heavily just to get itself known”, contrary to brand extension.
However, M. Sudre added that this statement is not always true and that
each company being different may consider that it is better or them to
create new brand each time instead of brand extension. This is actually the
case of Danone because Taillefine is the only brand they use to make brand
extensions and actually these extensions were very successful. Indeed,
generally, Danone prefers create new brands. It will be possible to have
some clue –in the rest of the interview- about the reason of this decision from
the group Danone whereas as it has been said before that Taillefine
extensions were very successful so it would be normal to think it would not
be the only one.
2. How was the creation of Taillefine extensions in water after
biscuits perceived by the consumer knowing that Taillefine was first
launched in the 1960’s in the dairy products?
They accepted it very well. Indeed, the group Danone saw the opportunity to
use the fact that consumers accepted the introduction of Taillefine in the
biscuits field high sales rate to extend Taillefine in the water field. Thus, in a
letter to its shareholders dated from March 2005, Danone states that:“their
asset brands are performing each one several hundred millions euros of sales
in the world and experiencing growth with two figures. Mainly, we can find
them in the dairy products…. With each time an important investment in
R&D. Only with Actimel, Activia and Taillefine, increasing on an average of
more than 25%, they are the source of half of the group’s growth”.To be
more precise, in 2000 –three years after the launch of Taillefine in the biscuit
field-“the sales of Taillefine leapt from 40%, reaching 122 million euros in

64
France and 830 million euros in the world under a different brand name
Vitalinea…and better, by reinforcing itself, the brand Taillefine gained greater
recognition and it increases its sales in its original markets! With the success
of the biscuits, the sales figures of yogurts soared with an increase of both
volumes and prices. Taillefine biscuits are sold on average, 20% more
expensive than non light competitors”.
3. How many brand extension were created by Danone?
The only one we have in the group is Taillefine. We don’t have any other
cases.
4. Why Taillefine was the only brand extension in the group Danone
whereas it was a success?
Indeed, it was a success especially because the notion of health was put
forward and
consumers saw that there was a connection between the well-balanced and
0% fat dairy products offered first by Taillefine and then the biscuits and the
water which play on these promise. Indeed, even if Taillefine is present in
three different fields, it still in the food field.M. Sudre added that it was not as
if “Danone was doing healthy products and at the same time was selling beer
for example”. So it means that a company cannot keep extending its brand
because the consumer may not understand why the same brand can be
found in wide and different fields. This is again the problem of brand dilution
which appears and which is described by Aaker as the fact that the
associations to one brand extension can weakened the credibility of the
existing brand amongst customers. He said that Danone policy was to create
brands and not to extend them. He told us that each company has a different
strategy. Thus, the group Danone chose the extension strategy with Taillefine
because it considered it would give added values to the consumer to
conduce them to buy more. With Taillefine, people believe that they can eat
tasty products –with chocolate for example in the Taillefine biscuits- without
being scared about the consequences on their weight.
When M. Sudre said that Danone prefers to create brands instead of doing
brand extension, it may seem that there is a difference between the theory
and the reality. Indeed, it can be read in Doyle and Stern (2001, p175) that
“with too many brands, promotional resources can be fragmented and the
brands can be outgunned by competitors able to concentrate support around
one name”. However, it has to be underlined that Danone decided to focus
on three main sectors –dairy products, biscuits and cereal products- and that
the group decided to put in the front-rank only three brand leaders which are
Danone, Evian and Lu. This means that the group did not create so many
brands as it may seem when listening to M. Sudre answers. This is what
actually Doyle & Stern (2001, p159) state:“the trend today is clearly away
from companies launching new free-standing brands in the way Unilever and
Procter Gamble did in the past: the marketing costs are simply too great and
the risks too high. Instead they are … concentrating on a handful of strong
‘pillar’ brand names and using these as range brands or the core for line and

65
brand extensions”. In addition, when the managerial organization of Danone
is considered, it appears that there is a flexible hierarchy. Most of decisions
are made locally by each subsidiaries company, so each subsidiaries is close
as possible to its market to make the decision which seem better to attract
customers.
5. How did the competition react to your brand extension?
Danone is the leader in his field. So, Nestle which is our main competitor
needs to be more and more competitive if it wants to follow us on the
market. When the group develops a product, Nestlé develops it quite soon
after. But since Danone was created it has always been the leader. So, this
means that the fact that Danone is the leader in its fields gives it a
competitive advantage compared to its competitors. The fact that Danone
succeeded to be associated by customers to health - i.e. caring about
making products of good quality which aim to reinforced our immunity
defences, facilitating the digestion etc.- enables the company to get
customer loyalty and as a consequence to keep being the leader.
6. Can you give us and example of a brand which failed?
Activia strawberry didn’t work at all. We had to erase the brand from our
portfolio a few time after it was launched. However he said that he could not
give us much more details about this failure because he is product manager
of Actimel -based in Spain- and that the fallout of launching a brand is not
measured by the product manager but by the brand manager. In Danone
case, they are seating in Paris. According to this interview with M. Sudre, it
appears that brand extension represents a way to make economics – mainly
on advertising and marketing- and is beneficial for the company because the
consumer already know the brand. When creating a new brand, the process
is longer than brand extension because the company needs to do research
on law, marketing to get the product known by the consumer, copyright, and
of course customer satisfaction. The advantage of brand extension is that
the company can use the promises associated with its existing and well-
known brand by the customer. Thus some customers will not chose the same
drinks, depending on the fat it contains or on the consequences it will have
on his body for example. But brand extension cannot be applied to every
company; it depends on its strategy. As each company is different; Virgin
prefers to adopt a product extension whereas Danone doesn’t.
V. Analysis
After these previous interviews, it can be stressed that if Danone did not find
it relevant to make much more brand extensions, it is because first -as
underlined by M. Sudre- each company has a different strategy and second,
the risk of brand image dilution can not be underestimate. This problem of
brand image dilution is moreover underlined by M. Marcel Bottom. This latter
explained us that it was not good for the image of a brand when too many
extensions were done. In addition, a company has really to be careful to the
fields to which it wants to extend its brand. As M. Bottom said, it would not
appear credible if Danone started to do desserts like jam. In the instance of

66
Taillefine, the brand regarded the fact that it was known for its promise of
provided both healthy and tasty products when it made its extensions.
Finally, it can be emphasized that Taillefine is positioned in the health area
with the most important aspect which is that its products contain 0% fat.
Volvic, which is a brand of Danone commits to provide both tasty and good
quality drinks while having few quantity of sugar inside –from 0% to
6%.However, Taillefine and Volvic are not competing with each other because
each product has its own delimited positioning in the market. As a
consequence, Taillefine did not face the
problem of cannibalization which can occur and which has been underlined
by Marcel
Bottom.As a conclusion, it seems that one of the clues of Taillefine
extensions success is their ability to avoid some mistakes which are source
of failure –too many extensions leading to brand image dilution, extensions
having the same market position.
VI. Conclusion
Brand extensions are a means for companies to make economics on
advertising, marketing which account a lot when a company wants to create
a new brand because it has to make this brand known by customers. Indeed,
the customers perceive his purchase as risky and like buying well-known
brands. That is the reason why C. Viot (2007, p64) says that “a successful
brand extension can create favorable conditions to make the customer loyal.
A customer satisfied by an extension will have a greater tendency to
repurchase the same brand”. And as emphasize Doyle and Stern (2006,
p175), customer loyalty is the means for a company to keep existing despite
the tough competition in the market by insuring future revenues. However,
even if Taylor (2004, p1) states that brand extensions are favoured by
companies instead of brand creation, the setting up of this strategy needs to
be carefully done. Indeed, a company which decides to use it has to evaluate
carefully this decision. It has to measure if its existing brand already benefit
from a good fame amongst customers and which field it wants
to target its extension. This is actually the case of Taillefine which was
already well-known across customers when it was in the dairy product with
0% fat. And its fame increase with the extension of Taillefine in the biscuits
field.
At the same time the company has to be aware that it has to position its
extension in a way that it will not compete with its other brands by a lack of
differentiation between the existing products labelled and the extension one.
And a company does not have to forget that it has to avoid overusing brand
extension. The company must be aware that the existing brand image is an
asset for it –benchmark for the customer - and an extension can lower this
image or destroy it. The extension must respect the features linked to the
brand by customers. Taillefine respected all these precautions. First of all
because it is associated with leanness and wellbalanced food and it put
forward these features with its extensions in both biscuits and water fields.

67
So, the extensions did not lower the image of Taillefine but on the contrary it
reinforced its image. Secondly, Taillefine has a clear and different positioning
compared to the other brands of Danone, so the risk that they compete to
each other is divert. And finally, Taillefine is the only example of brand
extension within Danone. The company did not overuse the strategy of brand
extension.With the example of Danone strategy brand extension does not
appear as better than brand creation for all companies. It is a strategy and
then it is after a deep evaluation that a company will choose if it applies only
one of these strategies or mix them, keeping in mind both advantages and
disadvantages of each of them. Each company is different and a strategy.

68
5) ANALYSIS & INTERPRETATIONS

The Top Ten Traits

The world's strongest brands share these ten attributes:

1. The brand excels at delivering the benefits customers truly

desire. Why do customers really buy a product? Not because the product is
a collection of attributes but because those attributes, together with the
brand's image, the service, and many other tangible and intangible factors,
create an attractive whole. In some cases, the whole isn't even something
that customers know or can say they want.
Consider Starbucks. It's not just a cup of coffee. In 1983, Starbucks was a
small Seattle-area coffee retailer. Then while on vacation in Italy, Howard
Schultz, now Starbucks chairman, was inspired by the romance and the
sense of community he felt in Italian coffee bars and coffee houses. The
culture grabbed him, and he saw an opportunity.
"It seemed so obvious," Schultz says in the 1997 book he wrote with Dori
Jones Yang, Pour Your Heart Into It. "Starbucks sold great coffee beans, but
we didn't serve coffee by the cup. We treated coffee as produce, something
to be bagged and sent home with the groceries. We stayed one big step
away from the heart and soul of what coffee has meant throughout
centuries."
And so Starbucks began to focus its efforts on building a coffee bar culture,
opening coffee houses like those in Italy. Just as important, the company
maintained control over the coffee from start to finish from the selection and
procurement of the beans to their roasting and lending to their ultimate
consumption. The extreme vertical integration has paid off. Starbucks
locations thus far have successfully delivered superior benefits to customers
by appealing to all five senses- through the enticing aroma of the beans, the
rich taste of the coffee, the product displays and attractive artwork adorning
the walls, the contemporary music playing in the background, and even the
cozy, clean feel of the tables and chairs. The company's startling success is
evident: The average Starbucks customer visits a store 18 times a month
and spends $3.$0 a visit. The company's sales and profits have each grown
more than 50% annually through much of the 1990s.
2. The brand stays relevant. In strong brands, brand equity is tied both to
the actual quality of the product or service and to various intangible factors.
Those intangibles include "user imagery" (the type of person who uses the
brand); "usage imagery" (the type of situations in which the brand is used);
the type of personality the brand portrays (sincere, exciting, competent,
rugged); the feeling that the brand tries to elicit in customers (purposeful,
warm); and the type of relationship it seeks to build with its customers
(committed, casual, seasonal). Without losing sight of their core strengths,
the strongest brands stay on the leading edge in the product arena and
69
tweak their intangibles to fit the times. Gillette, for example, pours millions
of dollars into R&D to ensure that its razor blades are as technologically
advanced as possible, calling attention to major advances through subbrands
(Trac II, Atra, Sensor, Mach3) and signaling minor improvements with
modifiers (Atra Plus, Sensor Excel). At the same time, Gillette has created a
consistent, intangible sense of product superiority with its long running ads,
"The best a man can be," which are tweaked through images of men at work
and at play that have evolved over time to reflect contemporary trends.
These days, images can be tweaked in many ways other than through
traditional advertising, logos, or slogans. "Relevance" has a deeper, broader
meaning in today's market. Increasingly, consumers' perceptions of a
company as a whole and its role in society affect a brand's strength as well.
Witness corporate brands that very visibly support breast cancer research or
current educational programs of one sort or another.
3. The pricing strategy is based on consumers' perceptions of value.
The right blend of product quality, design, features, costs, and prices is very
difficult to achieve but well worth the effort. Many managers are woefully
unaware of how price can and should relate to what customers think of a
product, and they therefore charge too little or too much.
For example, in implementing its value-pricing strategy for the Cascade
automatic-dishwashing
detergent brand, Procter & Gamble made a cost-cutting change in its
formulation that had an adverse effect on the product's performance under
certain-albeit somewhat atypical-water conditions. Lever Brothers quickly
countered, attacking Cascade's core equity of producing "virtually spotless"
dishes out of the dishwasher. In response, P&G immediately returned to the
brand's old formulation. The lesson to P&G and others is that value pricing
should not be adopted at the expense of essential brand building activities.
By contrast, with its well-known shift to an "everyday low pricing" (EDLP)
strategy, Procter &
Gamble did successfully align its prices with consumer perceptions of its
products' value while
maintaining acceptable profit levels. In fact, in the fiscal year after Procter &
Gamble switched to EDLP (during which it also worked very hard to
streamline operations and lower costs), the company reported its highest
profit margins in 21 years.
4.The brand is properly positioned. Brands that are well positioned
occupy particular niches in
consumers' minds. They are similar to and different from competing brands
in certain reliably
identifiable ways. The most successful brands in this regard keep up with
competitors by creating points of parity in those areas where competitors are
trying to find an advantage while at the same time creating points of
difference to achieve advantages over competitors in some other areas. The
Mercedes-Benz and Sony brands, for example, hold clear advantages in

70
product superiority and match competitors' level of service. Saturn and
Nordstrom lead their respective packs in service and hold their own in
quality. Calvin Klein and Harley-Davidson excel at providing compelling user
and usage imagery while offering adequate or even strong performance.
Visa is a particularly good example of a brand whose managers understand
the positioning game. In the 1970s and 1980s, American Express maintained
the high-profile brand in the credit card market through a series of highly
effective marketing programs. Trumpeting that "membership has its
privileges," American Express came to signify status, prestige, and quality.
In response, Visa introduced the Gold and the Platinum cards and launched
an aggressive marketing campaign to build up the status of its cards to
match the American Express cards. It also developed an extensive merchant
delivery system to differentiate itself on the basis of superior convenience
and accessibility. Its ad campaigns showcased desirable locations such as
famous restaurants, resorts, and events that did not accept American
Express while proclaiming, "Visa. It's everywhere you want to be." The
aspirational message cleverly reinforced both accessibility and prestige and
helped Visa stake out a formidable position for its brand. Visa became the
consumer card of choice for family and personal shopping, for personal travel
and entertainment, and even for international travel, a former American
Express stronghold. Of course, branding isn't static, and the game is even
more difficult when a brand spans many product categories. The mix of
points of parity and point of difference that works for a brand in one category
may not be quite right for the same brand in another.
5. The brand is consistent. Maintaining a strong brand means striking the
right balance between continuity in marketing activities and the kind of
change needed to stay relevant. By continuity, I mean that the brand's
image doesn't get muddled or lost in a cacophony of marketing efforts that
confuse customers by sending conflicting messages. Just such a fate befell
the Michelob brand. In the 1970s, Michelob ran ads featuring successful
young professionals that confidently proclaimed, "Where you're going, it's
Michelob." The company's next ad campaign trumpeted, "Weekends were
made for Michelob." Later, in an attempt to bolster sagging sales, the theme
was switched to "Put a little weekend in your week." In the mid- 1980s,
managers launched a campaign telling consumers that "The night belongs to
Michelob." Then in 1994 we were told, "Some days are better than others,"
which went on to explain that "A special day requires a special beer." That
slogan was subsequently changed to "Some days were made for Michelob."
Pity the poor consumers. Previous advertising campaigns simply required
that they look at their calendars or out a window to decide whether it was
the right time to drink Michelob; by the mid-1990s, they had to figure out
exactly what kind of day they were having as well. After receiving so many
different messages, consumers could hardly be blamed if they had no idea
when they were supposed to drink the beer. Predictably, sales suffered. From

71
a high in 1980 of 8.1 million barrels, sales dropped to just 1.8 million barrels
by 1998.
6. The brand portfolio and hierarchy make sense. Most companies do
not have only one brand; they create and maintain different brands for
different market segments. Single product lines are often sold under different
brand names, and different brands within a company hold different powers.
The corporate, or companywide, brand acts as an umbrella. A second brand
name under that umbrella might be targeted at the family market. A third
brand name might nest one level below the family brand and appeal to boys,
for example, or be used for one type of product. Brands at each level of the
hierarchy contribute to the overall equity of the portfolio through their
individual ability to make consumers aware of the various products and
foster favorable associations with them. At the same time, though, each
brand should have its own boundaries; it can be dangerous to try to cover
too much ground with one brand or to overlap two brands in the same
portfolio. The Gap's brand portfolio provides maximum market coverage with
minimal overlap. Banana Republic anchors the high end, the Gap covers the
basic style-and-quality terrain, and Old Navy taps into the broader mass
market. Each brand has a distinct image and its own sources of equity.
BMW has a particularly well designed and implemented hierarchy. At the
corporate brand level, BMW pioneered the luxury sports sedan category by
combining seemingly incongruent style and performance considerations.
BMW's clever advertising slogan, "The ultimate driving machine," reinforces
the dual aspects of this image and is applicable to all cars sold under the
BMW name. At the same time, BMW created well-differentiated subbrands
through its 3, 5, and 7 series, which suggest a logical order and hierarchy of
quality and price. General Motors, by contrast, still struggles with its brand
portfolio and hierarchy. In the early 1920s, Alfred P. Sloan decreed that his
company would offer "a car for every purse and purpose." This philosophy
led to the creation of the Cadillac, Oldsmobile, Buick, Pontiac, and Chevrolet
divisions. The idea was that each division would appeal to a unique market
segment on the basis of price, product design, user imagery, and so forth.
Through the years, however, the marketing overlap among the five main GM
divisions increased, and the divisions' distinctiveness diminished. In the mid-
1980s, for example, the company sold a single body type (the Jody) modified
only slightly for the five different brand names. In fact, advertisements for
Cadillac in the 1980s actually stated that "motors for a Cadillac may come
from other divisions, including Buick and Oldsmobile.'' In the last ten years,
the company has attempted to sharpen the divisions' blurry images by
repositioning each brand. Chevrolet has been positioned as the value-priced,
entry level brand. Saturn represents no haggle customer-oriented service.
Pontiac is meant to be the sporty, performance oriented brand for young
people. Oldsmobile is the brand for larger, medium-priced cars. Buick is the
premium, "near luxury" brand. And Cadillac, of course, is still the top of the
line. Yet the goal remains challenging. The financial performance of Pontiac

72
and Saturn has improved. But the top and bottom lines have never regained
the momentum they had years ago. Consumers remain confused about what
the brands stand for, in sharp contrast to the clearly focused images of
competitors like Honda and Toyota.
7. The brand makes use of and coordinates a full repertoire of
marketing activities to build
equity. At its most basic level, a brand is made up of all the marketing
elements that can be
trademarked- logos, symbols, slogans, packaging, signage, and so on. Strong
brands mix and match these elements to perform a number of brand-related
functions, such as enhancing or reinforcing consumer awareness of the
brand or its image and helping to protect the brand both competitively and
legally.
Managers of the strongest brands also appreciate the specific roles that
different marketing activities can play in building brand equity. They can, for
example provide detailed product information. They can show consumers
how and why a product is used, by whom, where, and when. They can
associate a brand with a person, place, or thing to enhance or refine its
image.
Some activities, such as traditional advertising, lend themselves best to
"pull" functions-those meant to create consumer demand for a given
product. Others, like trade promotions, work best as "push" programs-those
designed to help push the product through distributors. When a brand makes
good use of all its resources and also takes particular care to ensure that the
essence of the brand is the same in all activities, it is hard to beat.
Coca-Cola is one of the best examples. The brand makes excellent use of
many kinds of marketing activities. These include media advertising (such as
the global "Always Coca-Cola" campaign); promotions (the recent effort
focused on the return of the popular contour bottle, for example); and
sponsorship (its extensive involvement with the Olympics). They also include
direct response (the Coca-Cola catalog, which sells licensed Coke
merchandise) and interactive media (the company's Web site, which offers,
among other things, games, a trading post for collectors of Coke
memorabilia, and a virtual look at the World of Coca-Cola museum in
Atlanta). Through it all, the company always reinforces its key values of
"originality, classic refreshment," and so on. The brand is always the hero in
Coca-Cola advertising.
8. The brand's managers understand what the brand means to
consumers. Managers of strong brands appreciate the totality of their
brand's image- that is, all the different perceptions, beliefs, attitudes, and
behaviors customers associate with their brand, whether created
intentionally by the company or not. As a result, managers are able to make
decisions regarding the brand with confidence. If it's clear what customers
like and don't like about a brand , and what core associations are linked to

73
the brand, then it should also be clear whether any given action will dovetail
nicely with the brand or create friction.
The Bic brand illustrates the kinds of problems that can arise when managers
don't fully understand their brand's meaning. By emphasizing the
convenience of inexpensive, disposable products, the French company
Societe Bic was able to create a market for non refillable ballpoint pens in the
late 1950s,disposable cigarette lighters in the early 1970s, and disposable
razors in the early 1980s. But in 1989,when Bic tried the same strategy with
perfumes in the United States and Europe, the effort bombed.The perfumes-
two for women ("Nuit" and "Jour") and two for men ("Bic for Men" and "Bic
Sport for Men")- were packaged in quarterounce glass spray bottles that
looked like fat cigarette lighters and sold for about $$ each. They were
displayed in plastic packages on racks at checkout counters throughout Bic's
extensive distribution channels, which included 100,000 or so drugstores,
supermarkets, and other mass merchandisers. At the time of the launch, a
Bic spokesperson described the products as logical extensions of the Bic
heritage: "High quality at affordable prices, convenient to purchase and
convenient to use." The company spent $20 million on an advertising and
promotion blitz that featured images of stylish people enjoying the perfumes
and used the tag line "Paris in your pocket."
What went wrong? Although their other products did stand for convenience
and for good quality at low prices, Bic's managers didn't understand that the
overall brand image lacked a certain cachet with customers- a critical
element when marketing something as tied to emotions as perfume. The
marketers knew that customers understood the message they were sending
with their earlier products. But they didn't have a handle on the associations
that the customers had added to the brand image- a utilitarian, impersonal
essence- which didn't at all lend itself to perfume. By contrast, Gillette has
been careful not to fall into the Bic trap. While all of its products benefit from
a similarly extensive distribution system, it is very protective of the name
carried by its razors, blades, and associated toiletries. The company's
electric razors, for example, use the entirely separate Braun name, and its
oral care products are marketed under the Oral B name.
9. The brand is given proper support, and that support is sustained
over the long run. Brand equity must be carefully constructed. A firm
foundation for brand equity requires that consumers have the proper depth
and breadth of awareness and strong, favorable, and unique associations
with the brand in their memory. Too often, managers want to take shortcuts
and bypass more basic branding considerations- such as achieving the
necessary level of brand awareness -in favor of concentrating on flashier
aspects of brand building related to image.
A good example of lack of support comes from the oil and gas industry in the
1980s. In the late 1970s, consumers had an extremely positive image of
Shell Oil and, according to market research, saw clear differences between
that brand and its major competitors. In the early 1980s, however, for a

74
variety of reasons, Shell cut back considerably on its advertising and
marketing. Shell has yet to regain the ground it lost. The brand no longer
enjoys the same special status in the eyes of consumers, who now view it as
similar to other oil companies.
Another example is Coors Brewing. As Coors devoted increasing attention to
growing the equity of its less-established brands like Coors Light, and
introduced new products like Zima, ad support for the flagship beer
plummeted from a peak of about $43 million in 1985 to just $4 million in
1993. What's more, the focus of the ads for Coors beer shifted from
promoting an iconoclastic, independent, western image to reflecting more
contemporary themes. Perhaps not surprisingly, sales of Coors beer dropped
by half between 1989 and 1993 Finally in 1994, Coors began to address the
problem, launching a campaign to prop up sales that returned to its original
focus. Marketers at Coors admit that they did not consistently give the brand
the attention it needed. As one commented: "We've not marketed Coors as
aggressively as we should have in the past ten to 15 years."
10.The company monitors sources of brand equity. Strong brands
generally make good and
frequent use of in-depth brand audits and ongoing brand-tracking studies. A
brand audit is an exercise designed to assess the health of a given brand.
Typically, it consists of a detailed internal description of exactly how the
brand has been marketed (called a "brand inventory'') and a thorough
external investigation, through focus groups and other consumer research, of
exactly what the brand does and could mean to consumers (called a "brand
exploratory"). Brand audits are particularly useful when they are scheduled
on a periodic basis. It's critical for managers holding the reins of a brand
portfolio to get a clear picture of the products and services being offered and
how they are being marketed and branded. It's also important to see how
that same picture looks to customers. Tapping customers' perceptions and
beliefs often uncovers the true meaning of a brand, or group of brands,
revealing where corporate and consumer views conflict and thus showing
managers exactly where they have to refine or redirect their branding efforts
or their marketing goals. Tracking studies can build on brand audits by
employing quantitative measures to provide current information about how a
brand is performing for any given dimension. Generally, a tracking study will
collect information on consumers' perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors on a
routine basis over time; a thorough study can yield valuable tactical insights
into the short-term effectiveness of marketing programs and activities.
Whereas brand audits measure where the brand has been, tracking studies
measure where the brand is now and whether marketing programs are
having their intended effects. The strongest brands, however, are also
supported by formal brand-equity-management systems.
Managers of these brands have a written document-a "brand equity
charter"-that spells out the

75
company's general philosophy with respect to brands and brand equity as
concepts (what a brand is, why brands matter, why brand management is
relevant to the company, and so on). It also summarizes the activities that
make up brand audits, brand tracking, and other brand research; specifies
the outcomes expected of them; and includes the latest findings gathered
from such research. The charter then lays out guidelines for implementing
brand strategies and tactics and documents proper treatment of the brand's
trademark- the rules for how the logo can appear and be used on packaging,
in ads, and so forth. These managers also assemble the results of their
various tracking surveys and other relevant measures into a brand equity
report, which is distributed to management on a monthly, quarterly, or
annual basis. The brand equity report not only describes what is happening
within a brand but also why. Even a market leader can benefit by carefully
monitoring its brand, as Disney aptly demonstrates. In the late 1980s, Disney
became concerned that some of its characters (among them Mickey Mouse
and Donald Duck) were being used inappropriately and becoming
overexposed. To determine the severity of the problem, Disney undertook an
extensive brand audit. First, as part of the brand inventory, managers
compiled a list of all available Disney products (manufactured by the
company and licensed) and all third party promotions (complete with point-
of-purchase displays and relevant merchandising) in stores worldwide. At the
same time, as part of a brand exploratory, Disney launched its first major
consumer research study to investigate how consumers felt about the Disney
brand. The results of the brand inventory were a revelation to senior
managers. The Disney characters were on so many products and marketed
in so many ways that it was difficult to understand how or why many of the
decisions had been made in the first place. The consumer study only
reinforced their concerns. The study indicated that people lumped all the
product endorsements together. Disney was Disney to consumers, whether
they saw the characters in films, or heard them in recordings, or associated
them with theme parks or products.
Consequently, all products and services that used the Disney name or
characters had an impact on Disney's brand equity. And because of the
characters' broad exposure in the marketplace, many consumers had begun
to feel that Disney was exploiting its name. Disney characters were used in a
promotion of Johnson Wax, for instance, a product that would seemingly
leverage almost nothing of value from the Disney name. Consumers were
even upset when Disney characters were linked to well regard premium
brands like Tide laundry detergent. In that case, consumers felt the
characters added little value to the product. Worse yet, they were annoyed
that the characters involved children in a purchasing decision that they
otherwise would probably have ignored. If consumers reacted so negatively
to associating Disney with a strong brand like Tide, imagine how they reacted
when they saw the hundreds of other Disney-licensed products and joint
promotions. Disney's characters were hawking everything from diapers to

76
cars to McDonald's hamburgers. Consumers reported that they resented all
the endorsements because they felt they had a special, personal relationship
with the characters and with Disney that should not be handled so carelessly.
As a result of the brand inventory and exploratory, Disney moved quickly to
establish a brand equity team to better manage the brand franchise and
more selectively evaluate licensing and other third-party promotional
opportunities. One of the mandates of this team was to ensure that a
consistent image for Disney reinforcing its key association with fun family
entertainment-was conveyed by all third-party products and services.
Subsequently, Disney declined an offer to co-brand a mutual fund designed
to help parents save for their children's college expenses. Although there
was a family association, managers felt that a connection with the financial
community suggested associations that were inconsistent with other aspects
of the brand's image.

6.) CONCLUSIONS & SUGGESTIONS/

RECOMMENDATIONS

It may be worthwhile for marketing managers and practitioners to give as

much importance to brand failures as they give to successful brands. As it
not only help the companies introspect and think where it went wrong, but
what are the things that need to be avoided in the future so that the
company does not encounter such things in the future. Product and Brand
failures occur on an ongoing basis to varying degrees within most product-
based organizations. This is the negative aspect of the development and
marketing process. In most cases, this failure rate syndrome ends up being a
numbers game. There must be some ratio of successful products to each one
that ends up being a failure. When this does not happen, the organization is
likely to fail, or at least experience financial difficulties that prohibit it from
meeting profitability objectives. The primary goal is to learn from product
and brand failures so that future product development, design, strategy and
implementation will be more successful.
There should be planning and implementation process to learn from the
mistakes of other product and brand failures. Each product failure can be
investigated from the perspective of what, if anything might have been done
differently to produce and market a successful product rather than one that
failed. The ability to identify key signs in the product development process
can be critical. If the product/brand should make it this far, assessing risk
before the product is marketed can save an organization budget, and avoid
77
the intangible costs of exposing their failure to the market. The factors which
contribute maximum to the brand failures are: -Category , Timing , Cultural
factors ,Top Management Complacency( Brands are doomed when top
executives drink the deadly glass of complacency mixed with arrogance) &
Bookish Funda than Consumers Insight: Brands also fail when they base
decisions on marketing theories instead of customer requirements.Brands fail
because they fail to maintain the quality, trust and loyalty that must be at
the heart of every brand.
Brand evaluation is vital to the success of the brand. It enables brand owners
to see where the brand’s strengths and weaknesses lie and what forces are
driving these, which in turn points to the nature and level of investment
needed to fulfill the brand’s potential. Measuring brand performance is an
integral part of brand management. A thorough evaluation looks not only at
the financial value of the brand but also at the brand equity – the intangible
elements of a brand that distinguish it in the mind of the consumer. Brand
evaluation is used
-For balance sheet purposes
-For mergers and acquisitions
-Joint-venture negotiations (eg, to prevent overpayment)
-Investor relations
-Licensing and Franchising
To evaluate the brand, the software for designing a brand score card can also
be used.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hill, S, Lederer, C and Lane Keller, K (2001) The Infinite Asset: Managing
brands
to build new value, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA

Lacey, R (1988) Ford: The men and the machine, Little, Brown and Company,
Boston, MA and Toronto

Trout, J (2001) Big Brands, Big Trouble: Lessons learned the hard way, John
Wiley
& Sons, New York

http://www.marketingpower.com

http://www.brandchannel.com

http://www.allaboutbranding.com

http://www.wikipedia.com
78
Duboff, Robert and Spaeth, Jim. Market Research Matters: Tools and
Techniques for
Aligning Your Business; John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2000.

Kim, Peter. “Does Advertising Work: A Review of the Evidence.” The Journal
of
Consumer Marketing, 9, 4 (1992): 5-19.

http://www.parkerlepla.com

http://www.yourmarketpoint.com

Brand Failure by Matt Haig

79