The Century Times

These days I see several companies giving their established brand names to their new launches to gain immediate market identity & thus a good market share very quickly. But as the old adage goes, the trees that are slow to grow bear the best fruit. Similarly, brands need time for nourishing them to make them strong. But today’s marketeers have perhaps forgotten this time tested fact. Companies today are eager to establish their new products and services faster than before. Hence they are committing the sin of Brand Extension. I don’t know what they are thinking.

Richa Arora, general manager, Britannia was recently quoted as saying “Conventionally, a product and a brand have been synonymous. We plan to expand the scope of Britannia brand by launching new products. This will liberate the existing brands from their conventional image”. Marico’s Saffola edible oil with a strong heart-care equity, has extended the Saffola brand to its salt, and now to atta mix. Madura Garments is doing similar job with its brands like Allen Solly & Van Heusen. Menswear Allen Solly is now experimenting with a range of women’s apparel. The more premium Van Heusen menswear has now forayed into footwear.

Marketers have their own arguments for their acts to convince their management and share holders. “When people enter a shop, one single brand needs to cater to all their lifestyle requirements,” observes a Madura Garments spokesperson. Single-brand-multi-product, may turn out to be the order of the day. This might be true. If everyone starts following a misconception, the misconception becomes the order of the day! But the truth is something else. I personally will not like to wear a footwear brand as my premium clothings. Same holds true for a women’s apparel brand as I’ll not feel as masculine as earlier with the stand alone masculine brand.

Actually, when you extend a brand to a different product or service, the new product / service is sold on the strengths of the brand value of the original product which is slightly siphoned off to the new product. Hence new product can never get stronger than the earlier product which carried that brand. Later on, the less strong product carrying the brand will adversely impact the stronger one too. So practically this is not brand extension but brand dilution. Moreover, brand extension also passes the evils of the original product to the new ones as well.

e.g. I am a non-smoker. Not only that I am a non-smoker, I am also against smoking. Corollary: I hate to be a part of Wills brand. Result: I never ever shop for my apparel requirements at Wills Lifestyle irrespective of the superior & the best merchandise it may offer me. I’ll be more satisfied with some other brand however inferior.

I’ll say that these marketeers are again repeating the mistakes done in history. They will do well to go back to the classic book by Al Ries & Jack Trout : “Positioning - The battlefield in your mind”. Yeah, I am dead sure that this book and its principles are still relevant.

Though some exceptions might be there. But not without any sound reason behind it. e.g. Brands with advertising restrictions like alcohol and tobacco might employ this tactic to promote their brand by giving its name to a different product. This way when they advertise for the other product, consumer is reminded of their original brand resulting in strengthening that brand for which there are very limited methods to promote.

United Spirits might do well by extending its Kingfisher brand to Airlines or Soda. This will become an instant hit with their existing beer brand users. But again it has its disadvantage of repercussions from the one who are against drinking beer and specifically those against Kingfisher beer.

They will have to do with it because no plan is fool proof afterall!