Branding Strategy Insider readers know, we regularly answer questions from marketers. Today we hear from Sylvia, a VP of Brand Strategy in New York, New York who writes…
“We have multiple brands (12) across the organization with varying identities. What are the best practices for deciding when to add or eliminate a brand?”
Thanks for your question Sylvia. In general, fewer brands are better. Having fewer brands reduces the required marketing resources and makes it easier to build brand awareness more quickly.
Each brand should have its own promise and positioning. Given that, each brand should have customer segments or customer need segments to which it most appeals. Brands that have similar or the same brand promises or positionings are candidates for rationalization. Further, if the products or services sold under those different brands are similar or the same, you should consider consolidating those products or services under one brand.
1. Don’t be afraid to kill weaker brands.
Capitalism rests on simple, predatory logic – weak brands must die and strong brands must kill them. Only then will the consumer be served and the market improve or progress.
Unfortunately, many marketers find this sharp end of capitalism unpalatable. We’re happy with the idea of deriving success from “delighting” customers but shy away from the side of that equation in which we “destroy” the competition.
In Walter Isaacson’s biography of Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple exemplifies the killer spirit when he proclaims he will spend “every penny of Apple’s $40bn in the bank” to destroy Android. Be aggressive.
Personalization is the quest of the moment for so many marketers, with 70% of executives interviewed by Forrester saying it is now of strategic importance to their business. (What may surprise you, as it did me, is how generalized so much of marketing still is.)
According to the Forbes article, most personalization efforts are currently underpinned by customer preferences and purchase history. Looking ahead, marketers see social sentiment, contextual behaviors, time of day/week and location information as emerging factors in their bid to make experiences feel more specific.
Few retailers do personalization better than Amazon. Their ability to suggest offers that are relevant based on what they know about consumers from previous behaviors is insightful and addictive. But that doesn’t make personalization a panacea, and it certainly doesn’t mean it can apply universally. As Paul Boag points out, “Too often personalization is requested with no clear idea of what that means or what benefits it would provide.”
Boag identifies five other types of personalization beyond Amazon’s custom personalization approach:
When I was named director of brand management and marketing at Hallmark, most of the company’s leadership team viewed the company as a greeting card manufacturing company.
With the advent of the Internet, it was easy to foresee the demise of “ink on paper” greeting cards. I felt it was my duty to get the company’s leadership team to think about our business more broadly and eliminate the risk of being defined as a product category. Ideally, brands stand for customer values and benefits, not specific products.
It was clear through research that Hallmark helped people maintain their relationships and express their feelings. Based on this, we determined that Hallmark should stand for “caring shared.”
At the time, Hallmark was mostly manufacturing “ink on paper” products – greeting cards, giftwrap, paper plates and napkins and related products. It also produced calendars and day planners. It outsourced collectable Christmas ornaments and other small gifts. Most of these were produced in Asia.
Opportunities Found, Opportunities Lost
Branding Strategy Insider helps marketing oriented leaders and professionals like you build strong brands. BSI readers know, we regularly answer questions from marketers everywhere. Today we hear from John, a VP of Marketing in Dallas, Texas who writes…
“We are a global B2B brand and the the market leader in our sector. We have a much smaller brand attacking both us and our offer and using very clever brand messaging to do so. Our response so far has been restrained and very much in keeping with your brand storytelling strategy of redirect, refute, re-position and remind. That hasn’t stopped them. In terms of best practice, when do you feel is the right time for a leader to send a more direct message that draws clear contrasts with the challenger brand offering? I know the inherent risks for giving free mindshare impressions, and generating big guy beating up on little guy perceptions, but keen to hear your thoughts.”