|
|
Strategic
Marketing Forum
___________________________________________
FOREVER
BRANDS
One can’t have a forever brand if it connects with
a smaller and smaller set of people. It should ideally
connect with more than one generation or more than
one technology - Vivek Rampal |
Rohington
Commissariat: Every time we introduce a brand, we
hope it will become a forever brand. However, the real
test is whether the brand becomes successful and whether
its positioning is sustainable. If the answer is yes,
it has the potential to become a forever brand. I don’t
think that every brand that is launched necessarily
starts with the premise that it wants to go on forever
and ever, especially in today’s fast-changing situation.
I think there has to be a time period given to at least
a particular aspect of a brand beyond which it has to
change.
RD: Now that we have broadly identified certain
parameters that a brand has to pass before it can be
termed as a forever brand, can we list, say, 10 or 15
brands which we think will pass the criteria of minimum
lifespan, sustainability of positioning along the six
facets we discussed, size of market share, volume and
growth rate and also the continuing ability to extract
a price premium or purchase preference over a long haul?
Audience and panel members: Coke, Marlboro, Nike,
Sony, IBM, Kodak, Levi’s, Disney, McDonald, J&J, GE.
RD: If you look at this list, these forever brands can
be classified into focused or diversified. For example,
Coke is a focused forever brand while Disney is a diversified
one. Mr. Deshpande, do you think forever brands are
more suited to a focused category or a diversified category?
Deshpande: I think there is merit in just going
back to the fundamentals. When you are launching a brand,
you are actually launching a product or a business idea.
If this product or a business idea is a powerful one
that connects to the senses of the target consumer group,
and if it has a consistent, ongoing, stimulating support
of communication, which keeps it marching forward, you
have the possibility of building a winning brand. Thus,
for every brand, go back to the origin. Go back to the
basics.
Vivek: Even if a brand starts with a product,
it can diversify into related categories and I don’t
know whether there is a simple answer. Kellogg’s is
a big brand because it is only cornflakes while Dove
is now available as a soap, as a face-wash, as a shampoo
and also as a deodorant. It is diversified by definition
but is as successful. So I think it is how you drive
the brand and how you decide its DNA or genetic code
that is important. You have to be consistent with this
code, wherever you go. I think Warner Brothers or Disney
have been quite consistent, which is why they are successful
brands. Deshpande: Take the case of Sony. I don’t
think they have disassociated themselves from the technology
angle. No matter what statement they choose, at the
retail level or in communication, it is technology staring
at you. And that consistency really helps build those
big names.
Govind: I would like to add to the point that
Vivek was making. If you’re talking about a product
category, then chances are that you have to differentiate
between form and function. For example, if Singer is
a sewing machine then Singer will die the moment sewing
machines stop being relevant. Walt Disney is a successful
brand because it managed to maintain its core value
of providing family entertainment and stay that way
for a long time. So it’s about identifying one need
and delivering it well, maybe through different channels,
through different type of product formats.
Srinivasan: The basic proposition has to serve
the fundamental needs of consumers, and if you’re doing
a good job of managing that, then maybe you’ll survive
that much longer.
RD: GE, for 40 years, was only a lighting brand
and after that it extended its brand name to appliances.
Does it mean that you start with a very product-focused
brand, make it a success, then take a look at the basic
genetic code and assess if the time is ripe to move
to new categories to become a more diversified brand?
Rohington: That could be true, though it need
not necessarily be the case. For example, I think Coke
has been successful in its basic form. As a matter fact,
when it decided to get into extensions, it stumbled.
On the other hand, we just heard the example of Dove,
which has extended to newer categories. I think what
one needs to look at is: what is the core benefit that
a particular brand is giving? It is not that it has
to remain in the same form or function. It has to deliver
the same benefit. And that is what makes the difference.
RD: I had raised the issue of whether a forever
brand is more likely to be a focused brand or a diversified
brand. Research findings show that companies with focused
brands (say, Dell) are earning barely 0.9 per cent over
the industry average for their shareholders as against
a minimum five per cent extra return over industry average
earned by diversified brands such as GE, Amex or Disney.
Do you think a forever brand is more likely to be found
in the diversified category as against the focused category?
Srinivasan: I think the underlying competence
or core values are vital to ensuring the success of
a forever brand. For example, Sony’s competence in electronics
was extended to television or VCRs or whatever. As against
that, Dove talks about the larger concept of moisturising
benefit which allowed it to extend it to shampoos and
other areas.
RD: I am sure we are not talking about core competence
in the same manner that we discuss it in the context
of diversification of business portfolios at the corporate
level. When I mentioned diversified brands, I essentially
meant the extension of one brand name to a number of
categories. For example, Disney, GE or Amex.
Govind: I would like to add that if you are a
successful brand, chances are that you will want to
leverage your success by diversifying into newer categories.
However, you do not start off by saying that I have
a brand and I want to diversify into five categories.
You would see how it develops, how strong are the core
values and relationships, and then examine if such core
values and relationships can be leveraged across categories.
RD: From what we have discussed so far, it appears
that if a particular brand passes the criteria we defined
for determining a forever brand, it will always score
high in four areas, namely awareness, equity, loyalty
and sales. Balakrishnan: Yes, otherwise it won’t be
a brand.
A brand is omething that is selling and people are buying
and people like. So I think yes, all the criteria you
mentioned should be there.
RD: Can there be a situation where a forever
brand is languishing in any one or more of the above
counts? Do you think it is possible, Mr. Deshpande?
Deshpande: Yes, I would imagine it would be possible.
RD: For a forever brand, is it generally true
that it will always have a high score along all the
four parameters? For example, IBM, which had a strong
awareness in the field of computation, performed poorly
in the mini-computing segment because of its low equity
among users in that segment.
Vivek: If you have high awareness and high sales,
you probably have been there for sometime and you’ve
done well. The second and the third parameters have
implications for the future because if you’ve got high
loyalty and also high equity, the future of the brand
will be bright and you have better chances of being
forever. But paradigms do keep shifting. So if there
is a shift of paradigms in your product category, or
if the market shifts and you don’t move with it, then
current performance along these four parameters could
be illusory. Govind: While assessing performance
along these four parameters for a forever brand, never
forget the issue of differentiating between form and
function. Banking will always be there while banks may
not. Fundamental needs will always be there but the
approach to meeting those needs will have to evolve
keeping in view the changes taking place in technology,
society, lifestyles etc.
Srinivasan: I think that is what separates the
forever brands from surviving brands. Unless these four
parameters are met, a typical brand will just be surviving.
As examples, let us consider Charms, Charminar or Bata.
I would imagine that Bata perhaps would still qualify
as a forever brand. Charms or Charminar may have some
awareness and equity even now but, in terms of loyalty
or sales, they probably have seen the threat or felt
the threat, which is why they are surviving rather than
becoming forever.
RD: In any market, there are four basic segments:
economy, mass, luxury and premium. Do you expect a forever
brand, which has survived 50 years or so, to focus on
any one particular market segment?
Balakrishnan: I think if we take the really big
forever brands, the really famous ones, they would be
primarily focusing on the mass market.
RD: It is said that certain things should not
change in a forever brand and certain things should
keep evolving. In a forever brand, say one which has
survived over 50 years and meets all the other conditions
that we discussed, which could be these areas?
Rohington: I think one that comes to mind immediately
is the basic core values that the brand offers. We all
know that each brand basically does something-solves
a problem, gives a reassurance to the consumer etc.
Typically, that value would not and should not change
as far as that brand is concerned. I think that clearly
is the first fundamental and unchangeable factor. RD:
Does it mean that the core value you are referring to
will be focused on certain segments which probably have
a long-term life?
Rohington: It may not necessarily be focused
on the same segment (by segment, I assume you mean consumer
segment). The consumer segment would also be changing.
Their needs would be changing and the brand has to continue
to evolve with what that segment needs. However, the
basic premise that it offers—of course, there will be
exceptions to the rule—should not change.
RD: What should and should not change are important
questions. Let’s take the example of Coke. What do you
think hasn’t changed over the last 100 years?
Srinivasan: The recognition the brand has. In
the case of Coke, the bottle shape, the colour-these
are recognition factors that don’t change dramatically.
You may tinker around with it here or there. But, by
and large, you don’t change the essence.
RD: But bottles are now just one of the options,
and cans have come in. Srinivasan: Yes, you will
evolve in terms of packaging but you’ll probably have
something symbolic that stays with the brand. The bottles
will continue to remain but you’ll also have cans. Look
at the advertising-it still supports the bottle.
Balakrishnan: Coke is a great example. It’s a
personality. You don’t change personalities. I’d rather
discuss brands like people. You know when you look at
people, there are millions and billions of people but
we remember a few people and they are brands.
Why are they brands?
They are brands because, besides a lot of other things
like luck, there’s a lot of sacrifice. You need to sacrifice
a lot of things you could do. I think Coke is a great
example of sacrificing a lot of things, such as the
temptation to behave like Pepsi. Whenever Pepsi takes
it on, it’s very simple for Coke to react. Coke must
have hundreds of strategies to take on Pepsi but it
is a personality type that says ‘I am above it all;
I am the do-gooder.’ Coke will never get into the Pepsi
territory. It is a sacrifice and it’s very important
for a brand. If you take all the leaders of the world,
there’s an element of what they did not become. That’s
a big thing about forever brands. .
|
|
|
Magazines