Consumer tastes change; technology progressives, sometimes in highly disruptive ways; and competition evolves. In short, the world changes. One implication of such change is that products and services which may have once been successful become less so or even unnecessary and irrelevant. The challenge for businesses and their managers is how best to respond by modifying product offerings to effectively respond to such changes. Such responses can take five forms: reinvention, repositioning, rebranding, retrenching, or retreat.
The most direct and obvious of these responses is retreat – leave the market. Once dominant firms like Block Buster, Pan Am, Oldsmobile, and Blackberry have left the market. Management concluded that it could not effectively, or profitability, change the product offerings in ways that would make them viable in the market. In contrast, reinvention means evolving a product or service in response to changes in the marketplace while maintaining a core identity. Thus, Apple continues to be a relevant and dominant brand through technological innovation that is anchored in serving customer needs for information management with easy-to-use products that are simultaneously expensive and an expression of the user’s personality. The identity of the Apple brand has remained constant even as its product offerings have evolved and expanded. Similarly, the Tide brand, the first heavy-duty synthetic detergent has been synonymous with “clean” for almost 80 years, even as the original product has evolved, and the product line expanded.
Often reinvention is not an option. The brand may be too closely identified with a use, a technology, a type of user, or negative association. In such cases the rebranding or repositioning options might be possible. Both strategies seek to retain some of the value of a brand by making a change in the brand’s identity but differ in the nature of the change required. Rebranding is a fundamental change in the identity of a brand. In contrast, repositioning is a change in associations with the brand such as its benefit promise, personality, or perception relative to competitors.
Rebranding can take one of two forms. In some cases the underlying product or technology is sound, but the brand name has become tainted or has a troubled history. Thus, the product may be given a new name. This is tantamount to introducing a new brand but with continuing use of the underlying product, technology, and other assets. Thus, the name change of Anderson Consulting to Accenture, which was widely criticized at the time, appeared prescient when Anderson was convicted of obstructing justice a year later. Similarly, a ninety-year-old Belgium premium chocolate company found it necessary to change its name from Isis Chocolate to Libeert.
It is important to differentiate rebranding from a brand refresh. A brand refresh is just an effort to modernize the look of an existing brand without changing the core identity of the brand. The foci of a brand refresh are usually brand identifiers like images, fonts, taglines and ad copy. There is a need to assure that the core brand identify is not lost in such a refresh. It is also important to avoid assuming that a brand refresh can substitute for a necessary rebranding.
Another genuine type of rebrand focuses on product uses or benefits. Technologies can often serve multiple purposes, any one of which may serve as part of the brand identity. Not all uses may be mutually compatible with the same brand name, however. Thus, Listerine, a carbolic acid, began its product life as a surgical antiseptic, floor cleaner, and foot wash, and was even promoted as a way to prevent infectious dandruff. Of course, today it is best known, and quite successful, as a mouthwash. Another example, Clorox, is associated with the cleaning power of bleach but bleach is not appropriate for all cleaning applications. Thus, in thinking about a brand name and identity for a given product, technology, or service it is necessary to consider what limitations to brand use and extension are appropriate.
In contrast to rebranding, products and services may be repositioned. Repositioning is a particularly challenging strategy because it involves changing something well-known and often valued by one set of consumers in order to attract another set of consumers. Attracting new consumers without confusing or alienating existing customers is fraught with problems. Coca-Cola’s efforts to reposition its signature product as “New Coke” with a new taste not only failed, it incited protests. On the other hand, Crest was able to take a leadership role in the toothpaste market by adding stannous fluoride and making oral hygiene a dominant product benefit in a market previously dominated by the cosmetic benefits of toothpaste (“You’ll wonder where the yellow went, when you brush your teeth with Pepsodent”). Repositioning requires research on both current customers and potential new customers in order avoid, or at least estimate, the loss of current customers relative to new customers attracted by a new brand positioning.
Finally, it can sometimes make sense to retrench. Product markets can shrink without completely disappearing. Indeed, some brands may become more valuable to some consumers even as their overall share of market declines. Polaroid, which was never more than a niche brand in a much larger photography market, has found new life among aficionados of analog photography. Twinkies is another example of a brand with a loyal following that has made a comeback after the parent company went bankrupt. Retrenchment simply means being willing to accept a smaller market, but perhaps a very profitable market. Very large companies may not wish to be bothered by such “small” brands, but many businesses would be very happy managing such brands. Indeed, there are a number of companies whose business model is based on the acquisition of iconic brands with strong, if small, markets.
Managing brands is a continuous process; it is hard work. Successful brands require innovation and adaptation to changes in the market. There are numerous strategies for such adaptation. No one strategy if a good fit with every brand, but there is a strategy for every brand. It is important for management to be clear about strategy and avoid confounding different strategies.
Contributed to Branding Strategy Insider by Dr. David Stewart, Emeritus Professor of Marketing and Business Law, Loyola Marymount University, Author, Financial Dimensions Of Marketing Decisions.
At The Blake Project, we help clients from around the world, in all stages of development, define and articulate what makes them competitive and valuable at critical moments of change. Please email us to learn how we can help you compete differently.
Branding Strategy Insider is a service of The Blake Project: A strategic brand consultancy specializing in Brand Research, Brand Strategy, Brand Growth and Brand Education
FREE Publications And Resources For Marketers
Post Views: 0
