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
6 Brand failures

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 Knights 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.

"David Manning" was a fictitious film critic, created by a marketing executive working for Sony Corporation around July 2000 to give consistently good reviews for releases from Sony subsidiary Columbia Pictures. Several blurbs posted under the name "David Manning" were written for the medieval action/drama A Knight's Tale (citing Heath Ledger as "this year's hottest new star!") and Rob Schneider's comedy The Animal ("Another winner!"),[1] the latter of which generally received very poor reviews by real critics.

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.

The questions over why Ratatouille didn't make more money continue. Now the theory is Pixar has "brand fatigue." What's going on? Part #1 of a 2-part series. There's been a lot of text devoted to why Ratatouille didn't do better at the box office. Despite glowing reviews, it struggled to make $200 million domestically, and is the third Pixar flick to make progressively less money since 2003's Finding Nemo. Pixar blames Disney Marketing for what it calls a lacklustre promotion for the film, Disney Marketing says "You handed us a movie about a rat!" Analysts claim that Ratatouille couldn't do well in a sequel-filled summer. And it goes on . . .

What is "Brand Fatigue?"

Jim Hill has a new theory: Pixar suffers from what he calls "brand fatigue." Here's how it goes: after 12 years atop the CGI animation heap, moviegoers are accustomed to Pixar making great movies. It's no longer "Look at this great new film from Pixar! Wow!" it's "Pixar released another great movie. Yawn." Read more at Suite101: Does Pixar Have Brand Fatigue?: Have Moviegoers Gotten Bored With CGI Powerhouse? | Suite101.com http://www.suite101.com/content/does-pixar-havebrand-fatigue-a33411#ixzz1VljuH5LX Ratatouille also came after a series of movies like Over the Hedge, Open Season, Doogal and Barnyard featuring cute, talking animals. Some people, including director Brad Bird, feel that hurt the flick. "I think we . . . have been . . . a victim of a lot of . . . films that came out before us that just have a bunch of jabbering, wise-cracking practically interchangeable animals," Bird told Time Out London's Wally Hammond. " . . . Weve had the greatest reaction ever from people who have gone to see (Ratatouille), but the reaction to seeing it weve found surprising. And I think its partially down to that rack of animal films."

History Repeating: A Disney Animator's Perspective

"Pixar now finds itself in the exact same position that we were in back in the mid-to-late 1990s," an anonymous Disney animator told Hill. ". . . Each film was . . . compared to the pictures that had proceeded (sic) it . . . If that film didn't make as much money as The Lion King did . . . Well, the press . . . said that it had failed to meet the studio's expectations. "And it was stories like that that then allowed all of those creative VPs to start messing with our movies . . . Which -- in the end -- is what wound up making the films that Feature Animation was making back then even worse."

Read This Next

Ratatouille Rumpus Ratatouille Rocks Overseas John Lasseter now Co-Director on Cars 2

The DVD Factor

Pixar's films have always done well on DVD, and Ratatouille will be no exception. Pixar is assembling a catalogue that will sell well for years to come. Thanks to home video, Disney has also made tons of cash from theatrical flops like Fantasia and Sleeping Beauty. But this could be a double-edged sword. ". . . people were really looking forward to seeing Ratatouille," an anonymous Pixar veteran told Hill. "But because of a number of factors . . . ticket prices, gas prices, a very competitive summer at the multiplex -- a lot of people . . . opted instead to wait for the Ratatouille DVD. " . . . we'll probably have the exact same problem with WALL-E," the Pixar staffer continues. "That picture will also get great reviews and do well domestically for a few weeks due to good word-of-mouth. But . . . a certain portion of that picture's domestic audience . . . will still opt to wait for the DVD. Of course, that could change if we can figure out how to market WALL-E as . . . a movie that you have to see on the big screen. "But . . . we don't like using gimmicks like IMAX 3D in order to sell our movies. We believe that our pictures should be strong enough . . . to compel people to come out and see our newest films while they're still in theaters."

Problems With "Brand Fatigue" Theory

No Pixar film has ever bombed. Ratatouille cost $150 million to make, plus another $50 million (for the sake of argument) for promotions. It made $204 million in domestic box office, plus another $271.8 million internationally. That's $474.8 million on a $200 million investment. That's more money than Cars, Pixar's previous offering,ever made in theatres. That film pulled $244 domestically, plus $217 million overseas for a $463 million total. Ratatouille has also toppled Monsters Inc. as Pixar's third-highest foreign earner ($270 million). Analysts now predict that Ratatouille will make $300 million overseas before it finishes its theatrical run.

No 'Dreck to Video'
Pixar also doesn't have Disney Toon Studios tarnishing its brand name by making cheap animated sequels. That Michael Eisner eventually shut down the legendary animation group is but one indication of how much Disney Toon hurt WDFA. Pixar has another major advantage that WDFA lacked: the support of Disney's single largest shareholder, Steve Jobs. "As long as Jobs has (Disney CEO) Bob Iger's ear," that same Disney animator says, "(John Lasseter and Ed Catmull) don't ever have to worry about that sort of meddling. They can just go on making the sorts of movies that they want to make." Jobs is of the same mind as Lasseter and Catmull when it comes to filmmaking: "Quality First." As long as Lasseter and Catmull keep their eyes on the ball, Jobs will back their play. So whether or not "brand fatigue" is real, Pixar is at the crossroads in its development. Where will it go from here? Check out Part #2 and find out.
Read more at Suite101: Does Pixar Have Brand Fatigue?: Have Moviegoers Gotten Bored With CGI Powerhouse? | Suite101.com http://www.suite101.com/content/does-pixar-have-brand-fatiguea33411#ixzz1VlkXPHeG

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 names and trademarks have always been a sensitive area for the corporations. Given the amount of money and extensive efforts are put in marketing and advertising for the brand creation and recall. It is perfectly logical for the companies/corporations to be sensitive about the use and misuse of their brand names and trademark. There have been multiple instances where corporations have engaged in a legal battle for the rightful use of the trade names and brands. Some instances have been justified, where the brand infringement actually harms the brand owning organization. For example a case where the brand name was thoroughly being misused is when Wipro Safelite brand for CFL was being used by a Delhi based manufacturer of Bulbs. The company went to the court for the appropriate action. The action of Wipro was suitably justified because the Brand infringement was happening in a related product area and could have actually misled the consumers or affected their perception of the brand. However, the concern about the Brand infringement has grown multi-folds over last few years. Corporations are actually acting paranoid and going out of the way into legal battles for brand infringement. I speak of the the two recent cases which I feel are more of a case of paranoia amidst the corporations for their brands than anything else.

Porsche Vs Crocs

Recently Porsche has filed charges of Brand Infringement against the Croc. The charges are on the basis that Croc has introduced a new series of shoes called Cayman which are primarily rubber shoes priced at $30. The Porsches claim in the suit is that this infringes the brand of twin seat sports car priced above $50,000.

Makemytrip.com Vs Tata Tata filed a case against makemytrip.com for using the name OkTataByebye.com as a name for the new line of services.

The Tatas have already won the case against MakemyTrip.com as their plea that Tata in OkTataByeBye.com infringes their trade name Tata and is confusing and misleading to the consumers. Now I have serious doubt about both of these claims - as why they needed to be made? Does Porsche really believe that the rubber shoe from Crocs and its sports car is misuse of trademark infringement? I dont think the modern consumer is dumb not to identify the difference or disconnect between these two lines of product, does the company really think that the consumer perception might be aligned that since the Croc Cayman shoes were not so comfortable, the Porsche Cayman would not be a good product or a consumer driving his super fast sports car Porsche Cayman would let him believe, since the car is so fast so he would be able to run like Usain Bolt. Similarly, for the Tatas the phrase Ok Tata Bye Bye is such a common place in India, you could find something on the same lines written on every second truck, rickshaw, tempo, tractor which are far more related to the Tatas line of Business than the travel related site Makemytrip.com. But somehow this was a paranoia that their brand might be exploited that made the turn of events becoming ugly and heading towards the legal route. I feel both the brands are as distinct as Tata Indica car with the CavinKares Indica Hair Oil.

As a matter of fact OkTataByeBye was an innovative name and a catchy one for a website and had nothing to do with Tata Sons. No matter how much Tatas would like to fancy themselves, in Hindi speaking India Tata still stands for Goodbyes instead of the surname of the corporate czars of the country. I agree that the Brands are one of the greatest assets of any corporations but the way the paranoia is hitting the companies and industries, this seems to be a tough road ahead for the entire corporate world and the poor consumer would be assumed to foolish, dumb and incapable of making distinction between the entirely different line of products. I am so grateful of companies like Amul who believe in their product, brands and consumers that they are not worried about that the customer might go out and buy an Amul Underwear when actually he wanted to buy Amul Butter.

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
This ground-breaking book defines the concept of brand relevance using dozens of case studiesPrius, Whole Foods, Westin, iPad and more-and explains how brand relevance drives market dynamics, which generates opportunities for your brand and threats for the competition. Aaker reveals how these companies have made other brands in their categories irrelevant. Key points: When managing a new category of product, treat it as if it were a brand; By failing to produce what customers want or losing momentum and visibility, your brand becomes irrelevant; and create barriers to competitors by supporting innovation at every level of the organization. Using dozens of case studies, shows how to create or dominate new categories or subcategories, making competitors irrelevant Shows how to manage the new category or subcategory as if it were a brand and how to create barriers to competitors Describes the threat of becoming irrelevant by failing to make what customer are buying or losing Energy

Tata s Nano
The concept of a people s car, one that has such a low price that it can open up the car market to the masses, has dramatically affected the industry at several points in time. In 1908 Henry Ford, inspired to create a car for the great multitude, introduced the Model T, a car offered only in basic black that was based on a cost - sensitive, static design and the assembly line technique. It sold over fi fteen million cars over sixteen

years, mostly to those who otherwise would not have been able to afford a car. In 1932 Ferdinand Porsche had a vision of a Volkswagen (translated as people s car ) and designed what is now recognized as the famous Beetle. The Beetle sold over twenty one million cars from 1946 to 2003, reaching its peak in the United States in 1968 when it sold 423,000 units, still a record. Remarkably, in a classic strategic blunder, Ford turned down the chance to take over the Beetle and its factories for nothing in 1946. Ford s right - hand man Ernest Breech reportedly concluded that the design would never sell in the United States and was not worth a damn. Like all such blunders, and there have been many over the years, the failure to project product evolutions and consider untapped markets was at the core of the tragic miscalculation. In March 2009 history repeated as the new people s car, the Tata Nano, aimed primarily at the Indian market, was commercially launched, having been announced just over a year earlier. It was a rear - engine, two - cylinder, four - passenger car designed for urban and rural use with a 52 mpg rating in city traffi c. Scheduled to sell for $ 2,000 to $ 2,500, depending on the
116 BRAND RELEVANCE

model, it was the least - expensive car made. This new people s car had the potential to disrupt automobile markets not only in India but also around the world. The Nano concept was born when Ratan Tata, the chairman of the Tata Group, observed that two wheelers, with the father driving, a wife behind, and a child in front, was a common if not dominant transportation mode. He thought there had to be a four - wheel improvement that would be safer and more comfortable. Finding no interest in a cooperative development effort from partners throughout Asia, he decided that Tata should develop the car on its own (see Figure 4.2 ). The initial idea, to base a vehicle on the two wheelers, was discarded as the existing parts were defi cient and functional criteria steered the project toward a new, freshly designed car. As the process evolved, Tata upgraded the concept from a rickshaw - like vehicle without doors or windows to more of a modern enclosed car. The target price of $ 2,000 came from
Figure 4.2 The Nano
MARKET DYNAMICS IN THE AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY 117

a casual estimate to the press of what it might be possible. This rather arbitrary estimate became the target for the design team. In addition, the team was charged with generating a design that would satisfy pollution and safety standards and achieve performance targets with respect to fuel effi ciency and acceleration. An intense focus on costs, based in part on restricting features to essential as opposed to nice and in part on sheer creative innovation, dominated the effort. Among the saving

ideas were having only one windshield wiper, putting the instrument cluster in the middle of the dash so it would work for a both left and right - side drive, having common handle designs on each side, and designing a simplifi ed engine - control computer with reduced sensors and functions. A mock - up of the car with its innards exposed was a centerpiece of an engineering team who were daily looking for ways to simplify and reduce costs. Tata did not do it alone. The suppliers were an integral part of the team and were the source of key cost - reduction approaches over forty suppliers set up plants adjacent to the Nano plant to reduce logistics and inventory costs. The effort was global. The in - house design team was supplemented by an Italian - based design fi rm and the engine management systems was created by a supplier headquartered in Germany. In addition, government subsidies were obtained for building factories. The Nano was able to leapfrog the Muruti 800, which was a popular four - passenger car in India. The Nano was much less expensive, however, and even had 21 percent more interior space because of its headroom, despite an 8 percent smaller exterior. It also scored high on fi t and fi nish, and the deluxe version had many amenities, including air conditioning. The Nano promised to greatly expand the market by bring automobile ownership to people who otherwise could not afford it 65 percent by one estimate. As a result it would obtain sales from new segments besides having an impact on sales of existing
118 BRAND RELEVANCE

models. It was reminiscent of the inexpensive Swatch watch, which expanded the watch market without affecting the sales of the established Swiss watch manufacturers. Demand was so strong that 206,000 people applied for a lottery to see who would get the fi rst 100,000 cars during a three week window in April 2009. A year later 45,000 cars had been delivered.