Brand portfolio decisions are strategic in nature. These decisions have very powerful impact on the entire brand architecture and marketing strategy of the firm. According to marketing theory, there are two basic brand portfolio models –House of Brands and Branded House.
Recently Rajiv Bajaj, CEO of Bajaj Auto announced a decision that the company will not be using the corporate brand Bajaj for any of the motorcycles produced by the company. Instead, the bikes will sport individual brand names and Bajaj Auto will be a garage of independent brands like Unilever and P&G. According to newspaper reports, the company will focus on four brands – Pulsar, Boxer, Discover and KTM and will not use the parent brand to endorse these individual brands. Bajaj Auto has made the decision to move from a Branded House portfolio model to House of Brands portfolio model.
House of Brands
House of Brands model refers to a brand portfolio where firms will choose different brand names for various products across categories. These brands will have own identity and personality. Different products in the same category will also have individual brand names. FMCG giants like Hindustan Unilever, P&G l follow the model of House of Brands. For example HUL has soap brands like Lux, Rexona, Hamam, Lifebuoy, Dove etc.
House of Brands portfolio model have many advantages. One of the biggest advantages is the focus that managers can give to individual brands. Since each brand will have separate identity, brand managers can devise focused strategies with regard to segmentation, positioning etc. Individual brands also give tremendous amount of freedom as far as strategies are concerned. Brand managers are not constrained in devising their strategies since the brand is not linked to any other brands in the portfolio.
Since the brands in the portfolio are independent, the failure of any one brand is not going to have an impact on other brands. Controversies affecting one brand will have minimal impact on other brands from the same company and brand managers can distance other brands from the brand which is facing the issue.
House of Brands model also have its fair share of disadvantages. Since the firm intent to have different brand names for various products, the cost of promotion of these multiple brands will be more compared to Branded House model.
In the case of House of Brands, the promotional budget has to be shared which will create internal competition among various brands for a larger share. While internal competition can be beneficial, there is also a chance of internal conflicts within the brand management teams.
Another potential disadvantage is the chances of brand cannibalization within a category. For example soap brands Rexona and Hamam from HUL compete with each other in some southern markets. Thums Up and Coca Cola compete with each other in markets where they co-exist.
If not done carefully, different brands in the portfolio can also create confusion in terms of positioning and segmentation. Overlaps in segments, cannibalization, same positioning, and clutter etc can occur if the firm is not careful about the individual brand strategy. At one point of time HLL (now HUL) found its brand portfolio with too many brands that overlapped with each other. The company had to undertake a brand rationalization exercise which reduced the number of brands from 110 to 30 power brands.
Branded House
Branded House portfolio model is where the firm chooses to have one brand name for all the products that is marketed by the company. Many firms use the corporate brand name for all the products that they sell in the market. Dell is often cited as a classic example of a Branded House.
The biggest advantage of Branded House is the economies of scale in terms of brand promotion activities. Since there is only one brand to promote, the firm can channel the entire resources more effectively.
Another advantage of Branded House is that the promotional cost of introducing new products into the market will be significantly lower compared to House of Brands. Since the new product will carry the common brand name, there is an increased chance of consumer acceptance because of the existing brand equity of the parent brand. The firm is thus spared of the task of building brand awareness from the scratch.
A major disadvantage of Branded House model is the possibility of brand dilution arising out of different products from the same brand. Unless carefully monitored, product proliferation within the brand portfolio can dilute the core positioning of the parent brand. It may not be possible for all products to have the same positioning theme and any deviation from parent brand’s positioning will dilute the core positioning them of the Branded House.
Firms strictly adhering to Branded House portfolio model may have to forego many market opportunities if those categories do not fit into the parent brand’s positioning. For example a Branded House marketing luxury product may have to forego the mass market opportunities because of the positioning constraints. That constraint is not applicable for House of Brands because the positioning of one brand may not affect another.
Another disadvantage of Branded House portfolio is the impact of product failures/controversies on entire portfolio. Since all products carry the same brand name, failure of one product can have a negative impact on the parent brand. Any controversy involving a single product can have devastating influence on the entire product range.
Although theoretically these two portfolio models exist, in practice firms tend to use various elements of both models together while devising their brand portfolio strategy.
(Reference: Tybout, A., & Calkins, T. (2006). Brand Portfolio Strategy. In Kellogg on Branding (pp. 104-129). Wiley India.)
Originally Published here at Adclubbombay.com
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
NEW ALLOUT - "Mosquito to Flies"...!!!
From now on, Allout Frog will not only catch mosquitoes but also catch flies. India's popular liquid mosquito repellent has launched a campaign claiming the additional benefit of repelling flies. This is the first major change in the brand's strategy ever since SC Johnson's took over the brand from Karamchand Appliances.
What I make out of the ad (seen only once) is that the fly repellent property is an additional benefit of the core product - mosquito repellent. The brand expects that consumers will find more value in the product because of the additional benefit provided. Also, the current move can be seen as a larger plan for the brand to become a pest control brand from the current space of mosquito repellent.
The brand website also mirrors such a plan. The tagline of the brand is now " Worry No More " as against the " Macharoan ka Yamraj".
The new campaign follows the core theme of previous ads of Allout - talking about disease spreading pests and how the Allout Frog protects the entire family from those disease spreading pests.
The interesting question is whether launch of the additional attribute of " fly repellent" will add value to Allout brand or will it dilute the core positioning of the brand ?
My perception is that consumers will be delighted to have such an additional benefit with Allout. So far no brand has been able to provide relief from the irritating pest like housefly. So in that sense , Allout will standout ( differentiated) from the rest of the crowd.
Regarding the positioning of Allout, the brand has been careful in continuing with the same theme of ' protection from disease carrying pests ' for the new ad also. I feel that the brand will continue using this theme as its positioning and move away from the " mosquito -Yamraj " theme in future.
courtesy - Marketing Blogspot.
What I make out of the ad (seen only once) is that the fly repellent property is an additional benefit of the core product - mosquito repellent. The brand expects that consumers will find more value in the product because of the additional benefit provided. Also, the current move can be seen as a larger plan for the brand to become a pest control brand from the current space of mosquito repellent.
The brand website also mirrors such a plan. The tagline of the brand is now " Worry No More " as against the " Macharoan ka Yamraj".
The new campaign follows the core theme of previous ads of Allout - talking about disease spreading pests and how the Allout Frog protects the entire family from those disease spreading pests.
The interesting question is whether launch of the additional attribute of " fly repellent" will add value to Allout brand or will it dilute the core positioning of the brand ?
My perception is that consumers will be delighted to have such an additional benefit with Allout. So far no brand has been able to provide relief from the irritating pest like housefly. So in that sense , Allout will standout ( differentiated) from the rest of the crowd.
Regarding the positioning of Allout, the brand has been careful in continuing with the same theme of ' protection from disease carrying pests ' for the new ad also. I feel that the brand will continue using this theme as its positioning and move away from the " mosquito -Yamraj " theme in future.
courtesy - Marketing Blogspot.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Should Your Marketing Strategy Be Customer Oriented or Competitor Oriented?
Originally published here in Adclubbombay.com
Although many marketing literature propounds the dictum “Customer is the King”, it is seldom practiced in its fullest sense. Marketers would love to put customers at the center of their business strategy but the intense competitive environment forces them to think beyond the customer and move towards the competitors.
There is a dilemma in the marketers mind with the choice of whether the firm’s principal orientation should be towards customer or competitors. Conventional wisdom say that firms should be oriented more towards customers than competitor. Peter Drucker famously said “The purpose of business is to create customers “. When a firm is customer oriented, the entire business is centered on customer needs and satisfaction.
According to academic literature, there are three components of market orientation (1) Customer Orientation (2) Competitor Orientation (3) Inter-functional coordination. Customer Orientation is where the firm spends its resources on gathering information about customer needs and behavior. Competitor orientation is where the firm directs its resources to gathering information about competitor behavior and activities. The firm’s strategies will then be based on the information gathered through any of these orientations. (Source: Narver, John C. and Stanley F. Slater. 1990. "The Effect of a Market Orientation on Business Profitability." Journal of Marketing 54 (October):20-35.)
Customer orientation helps firms with a clear in-depth understanding of consumer which results in a focused marketing effort. Research has confirmed that customer orientation helps firms to increase performance and enhance customer satisfaction.
Too much customer orientation also can be dangerous. There is a chance of marketers becoming blinded by their current focus thus oblivious of the changes brought about by the competitors. There are critics who argue that customers may stifle innovation in companies because customers may not be able to explicitly state their expectations or anticipate future needs. Customers are often resistant to change and this forces the highly customer focused firms to maintain the status quo thus refraining from game changing innovations.
The firms who are skewed towards competitor orientation are blamed for launching me-too products in an effort to fight competition. Too much focus on competitor often forces firms to invest in understanding customers or anticipate their needs better. Too many resources will be spent on competitive activities which may restrict investment on breakthrough innovations. Competitor oriented firms are more open to the changing trend in the market. Since their actions are more directed by the actions of the competitor, there is less chance of lethargy in marketing activities.
Firms must understand that there is a trade-off between these two orientations. Firms will have to lose something if they chose either of the two orientations. The ideal option is to balance both the orientation. It is easy to advocate that firms should have both customer and competitor orientation but with a limited resources in-terms of men and money, firms will find tough to have best of both worlds.
Companies must realize that the choice of customer / competitor orientation is dependent on the environment in which firms operate. There are external and internal factors that will decide the orientation of the company. For example, there are organizations like Zappos.com which is totally customer oriented. The customer orientation run deep within the organization’s DNA and the entire firm is structured around the customer.
Competitor orientation is more preferable in markets which are growing very fast. In fast growing markets, firms should invest in gathering more data about competitors which will enable them to develop innovations at lower costs.
Customer orientation is preferable in more uncertain markets. When the markets are changing very fast, firms can focus on customers which will enable them to change their marketing strategies quickly in accordance with changing customer needs. Also firms that deal with complex markets need to focus on investing in customers rather than competitors.
The choice of customer vs. competitor orientation is ultimately depended on the top management’s world view. The choice is important because there are only limited resources available with the managers to spend on either of these orientations.
Firms can strike a balance between these orientations if they can focus on the following guidelines.
Invest in a robust market intelligence mechanism in the marketing department. The mechanism can be internal or outsourced, but the emphasis will be on information gathering and dissemination. When a mechanism exists, depending on the market environment, organization can decide on the type of information that should be gathered.
Encourage free flow of information within the organization. Market orientation tends to be ineffective if the organization is bureaucratic. Hence firms should ensure that important market information is passed to various levels quickly.
Although many marketing literature propounds the dictum “Customer is the King”, it is seldom practiced in its fullest sense. Marketers would love to put customers at the center of their business strategy but the intense competitive environment forces them to think beyond the customer and move towards the competitors.
There is a dilemma in the marketers mind with the choice of whether the firm’s principal orientation should be towards customer or competitors. Conventional wisdom say that firms should be oriented more towards customers than competitor. Peter Drucker famously said “The purpose of business is to create customers “. When a firm is customer oriented, the entire business is centered on customer needs and satisfaction.
According to academic literature, there are three components of market orientation (1) Customer Orientation (2) Competitor Orientation (3) Inter-functional coordination. Customer Orientation is where the firm spends its resources on gathering information about customer needs and behavior. Competitor orientation is where the firm directs its resources to gathering information about competitor behavior and activities. The firm’s strategies will then be based on the information gathered through any of these orientations. (Source: Narver, John C. and Stanley F. Slater. 1990. "The Effect of a Market Orientation on Business Profitability." Journal of Marketing 54 (October):20-35.)
Customer orientation helps firms with a clear in-depth understanding of consumer which results in a focused marketing effort. Research has confirmed that customer orientation helps firms to increase performance and enhance customer satisfaction.
Too much customer orientation also can be dangerous. There is a chance of marketers becoming blinded by their current focus thus oblivious of the changes brought about by the competitors. There are critics who argue that customers may stifle innovation in companies because customers may not be able to explicitly state their expectations or anticipate future needs. Customers are often resistant to change and this forces the highly customer focused firms to maintain the status quo thus refraining from game changing innovations.
The firms who are skewed towards competitor orientation are blamed for launching me-too products in an effort to fight competition. Too much focus on competitor often forces firms to invest in understanding customers or anticipate their needs better. Too many resources will be spent on competitive activities which may restrict investment on breakthrough innovations. Competitor oriented firms are more open to the changing trend in the market. Since their actions are more directed by the actions of the competitor, there is less chance of lethargy in marketing activities.
Firms must understand that there is a trade-off between these two orientations. Firms will have to lose something if they chose either of the two orientations. The ideal option is to balance both the orientation. It is easy to advocate that firms should have both customer and competitor orientation but with a limited resources in-terms of men and money, firms will find tough to have best of both worlds.
Companies must realize that the choice of customer / competitor orientation is dependent on the environment in which firms operate. There are external and internal factors that will decide the orientation of the company. For example, there are organizations like Zappos.com which is totally customer oriented. The customer orientation run deep within the organization’s DNA and the entire firm is structured around the customer.
Competitor orientation is more preferable in markets which are growing very fast. In fast growing markets, firms should invest in gathering more data about competitors which will enable them to develop innovations at lower costs.
Customer orientation is preferable in more uncertain markets. When the markets are changing very fast, firms can focus on customers which will enable them to change their marketing strategies quickly in accordance with changing customer needs. Also firms that deal with complex markets need to focus on investing in customers rather than competitors.
The choice of customer vs. competitor orientation is ultimately depended on the top management’s world view. The choice is important because there are only limited resources available with the managers to spend on either of these orientations.
Firms can strike a balance between these orientations if they can focus on the following guidelines.
Invest in a robust market intelligence mechanism in the marketing department. The mechanism can be internal or outsourced, but the emphasis will be on information gathering and dissemination. When a mechanism exists, depending on the market environment, organization can decide on the type of information that should be gathered.
Encourage free flow of information within the organization. Market orientation tends to be ineffective if the organization is bureaucratic. Hence firms should ensure that important market information is passed to various levels quickly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)