preview of latest article

Whose brand is it anyway?
How the struggle for control of innovation can cause brand-damaging extensions

Before retailer consolidation and media fragmentation, manufacturers had the luxury of launching a new brand when they wanted to test an innovation. With the cost of launching new brands now virtually prohibitive, innovations are constantly being incorporated into ever-extending Superbrands. Whilst some brand extensions are brand-positive and others brand-negative, not extending is no longer an option. To protect their core revenue streams and expand into new markets, companies must ensure manufacturing and brand management teams work together to produce new products that enhance the brand, rather than simply trading on the brand’s reputation.

The core ingredients for successful brand extensions are generally agreed to be 'Fit' and 'Leverage' - fit being the appropriateness of the new category and leverage being the brand values applied to the new product[1]. In some cases though, the branding is the leverage. Some of the easiest brand extension opportunities can create successful brand extensions that trade solely on the brand, leading to the gradual (and in some cases sudden) degradation of the entire brand.

Brand extensions can be manufacturing-led: incorporating new features and inventions and adding them to the brand’s product range, or marketing-led: pivoting on one of the brand’s axes of authority and outsourcing some or all of the manufacturing, marketing and sales. Only clear communication and understanding between the teams responsible for product and brand innovation can ensure that new products deliver real added brand value, rather than the fool’s gold of brand damaging success.

More on this later.....

[1] Edward M.Tauber, Tauber Research, Brand Equity & Advertising, edited by David.A.Aaker & Alexanrder L.Biel Chapter 20, p313