Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Brand elasticity
Question: What gives a brand permisison to launch a product line extension?
Answer: Its customers!
A brand can only branch out into new areas if it has established crediblity with its target audinece, and if that target audience gives it permission to branch out into a new, yet relevant area. A brand cannot- or should not - branch out into an area that conflicts with its core attributes.
Here are some recent brand extensions that we wonder about:
(???)
McDonald's recently started offering healthy food alternatives to its traditional quarter pounder and super-sized portions. You could argue that McDonald's brand was built on convenience, and if this is the case, that offering apple salads and yogurt smoothies doesn't inherently violate the brand attributes. BUT...so many of us have grown up knowing McDonald's as not just fast food - but BAD, unhealthy food - that we wonder if they'll ever really be credible as a brand that cares about our health. To be sure, the new products have opened McDonald's to a whole segment of customers who previously wouldn't eat there, so if increasing consideration and sales for the chain was the goal, they seem to have at least a temporary success on their hands. And, it's not as if they've introduced even unhealthier products to their brand - this is one example of a brand that can only improve its image in this particular area. "It's what I eat and what I do. I'm lovin' it" has been running since earlier this year.
(yay!)
Maxim magazine recently announced it will build a new casino in Vegas. In keeping with the brand promise, the casino will be fun and flirtatious, and positively indulgent for its patrons. This strikes us as a good example of a brand extension that has promise - especially since the magazine's average readership is men, aged 28: loosely speaking this group has high disposable income and seeks out adventurous and fun lifestyle-focused entertainment. The target will also attract men and women who aspire to be...umm, 28, and adventurous and flirtatious. The casino is slated to open in 2010.
(boo!)
This one we just don't like: Music licensing agency Signatures Network has secured exclusive licensing and branding rights to Woodstock, the 1969 peace, music and love festival. Woodstock, if you think of it as a brand, stands for individualism, intense creativity, respect for one's neighbor and stewardship of the environment as the brand's defining traits.
Signatures will develop Woodstock as a lifestyle brand that extends to apparel, accessories, home decor and other categories. While the original concert was a cultural milestone for baby boomers, Woodstock's licensed brand will be geared to all generations, particularly young people who've embraced recent retro '60s fashion trends, such as mod and peasant/boho looks. We can't help but think the brand's core followers will NOT be the ones buying these products, since inherently they are anti-commercialism and even anti-brand. We wonder what cultural effects this one will spawn..it can't be good. Will the name Woodstock take on a whole new meaning in the wake of this product launch? In fifty years, will "Woodtsock" be shorthand used to describe a company's hijaking of a brand for their market exploitation? I.e. "My company used to be cool, but then they woodstocked Earth Day." The line is scheduled to launch in 2007.
Comments? Arguments? Bring 'em on!
Question: What gives a brand permisison to launch a product line extension?
Answer: Its customers!
A brand can only branch out into new areas if it has established crediblity with its target audinece, and if that target audience gives it permission to branch out into a new, yet relevant area. A brand cannot- or should not - branch out into an area that conflicts with its core attributes.
Here are some recent brand extensions that we wonder about:
(???)
McDonald's recently started offering healthy food alternatives to its traditional quarter pounder and super-sized portions. You could argue that McDonald's brand was built on convenience, and if this is the case, that offering apple salads and yogurt smoothies doesn't inherently violate the brand attributes. BUT...so many of us have grown up knowing McDonald's as not just fast food - but BAD, unhealthy food - that we wonder if they'll ever really be credible as a brand that cares about our health. To be sure, the new products have opened McDonald's to a whole segment of customers who previously wouldn't eat there, so if increasing consideration and sales for the chain was the goal, they seem to have at least a temporary success on their hands. And, it's not as if they've introduced even unhealthier products to their brand - this is one example of a brand that can only improve its image in this particular area. "It's what I eat and what I do. I'm lovin' it" has been running since earlier this year.
(yay!)
Maxim magazine recently announced it will build a new casino in Vegas. In keeping with the brand promise, the casino will be fun and flirtatious, and positively indulgent for its patrons. This strikes us as a good example of a brand extension that has promise - especially since the magazine's average readership is men, aged 28: loosely speaking this group has high disposable income and seeks out adventurous and fun lifestyle-focused entertainment. The target will also attract men and women who aspire to be...umm, 28, and adventurous and flirtatious. The casino is slated to open in 2010.
(boo!)
This one we just don't like: Music licensing agency Signatures Network has secured exclusive licensing and branding rights to Woodstock, the 1969 peace, music and love festival. Woodstock, if you think of it as a brand, stands for individualism, intense creativity, respect for one's neighbor and stewardship of the environment as the brand's defining traits.
Signatures will develop Woodstock as a lifestyle brand that extends to apparel, accessories, home decor and other categories. While the original concert was a cultural milestone for baby boomers, Woodstock's licensed brand will be geared to all generations, particularly young people who've embraced recent retro '60s fashion trends, such as mod and peasant/boho looks. We can't help but think the brand's core followers will NOT be the ones buying these products, since inherently they are anti-commercialism and even anti-brand. We wonder what cultural effects this one will spawn..it can't be good. Will the name Woodstock take on a whole new meaning in the wake of this product launch? In fifty years, will "Woodtsock" be shorthand used to describe a company's hijaking of a brand for their market exploitation? I.e. "My company used to be cool, but then they woodstocked Earth Day." The line is scheduled to launch in 2007.
Comments? Arguments? Bring 'em on!
