Why Brands Can Seem More Scattered and Conflicted Than Humans

Humans can at times seem quite scattered or conflicted. Some can exhibit substantial mood swings. While others might seem to have multiple personalities. However, most of us are quite predictable day-to-day and over our lifetimes. 

While brands should strive for a similar level of consistency and predictability so as to seem trustworthy, often brands will have significant swings in values, behaviors and personalities. A radical example of this is Abercrombie & Fitch.

Abercrombie & Fitch was founded in 1892 as an upscale sporting goods store. In 1928 Fitch retired and sold the company to his brother-in-law James Cobb. Under Cobb, sporting guns, fishing tackle and polo, golf and tennis equipment were added to the mix. During the Great Depression, sales dropped precipitously. After that, the products were mostly sold in seasonal shops at resorts. The brand continued to struggle for years until it filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1976. Oshman's, a sporting goods retailer, purchased the brand for $1.5 million in 1978 and continued to operate it as a sporting goods store, trying different product mixes, but without success. The biggest change came in the years 1988 through 1999 when Limited Brands purchased the brand for $47 million and turned it into a trendy brand focused on teens, sex and pop culture. This was as big a pivot as ever has occurred for a brand. More changes have been made between 2000 and today and the brand has had its struggles. In 2006 CEO Mike Jeffries made a comment disparaging customers with body types not like those of Abercrombie & Fitch models. That comment came back to haunt the brand in 2013, when detractors launched the "Fitch the Homeless" Internet campaign. The campaign highlighted giving used Abercrombie & Fitch clothes to the homeless. With the advent of celebrating differences, including different body types, Abercrombie & Fitch continues to struggle with its product mix and brand positioning.

A second example of a highly schizophrenic brand personality is Volvo. In the late 1990s to mid-2000s, Volvo Car executives believed the brand position of the “ultimate safe car” for families was too limiting and began to extend the brand into the performance car segment targeted at men. Results were disappointing. When Ford bought Volvo in 1999, it pushed the brand into the crowded luxury brand market. Ten years later, sales were down 20 percent from where they were when Ford first purchased the brand. Volvo Car Corporation was then acquired by China’s Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co. Under this new ownership, in August 2011, Volvo Car announced a new global brand strategy—”Designed Around You,” focusing on a position of human-centric luxury cars that are safe and dependable. In November 2013, Volvo Car Corporation announced a new brand strategy designed to revive the brand in the United States after a decade of declining demand. According to Automotive News, “The new focus is on ‘Scandinavian’ design, safety, environmental leadership, and ‘clever functionality’ reflected in state of the art—yet simple— infotainment systems.” 

Both of these examples demonstrate why brands can change quite a bit. The change is usually the result of poor positioning in the midst of changing market forces leading to new ownership (or at least new leadership) that then pursues a radically new brand position. Though sometimes brand change can occur associated with a leadership or ownership change without the pressure of a poor brand positioning. 

For your information, the image at the top of this post is of a vintage Abercrombie & Fitch Leather Rhino, circa 1970s. This item is not appropriate today and has no fit with the current brand. 

Common Brand Problems

Over the past twenty years, I have helped more than 200 brands in a wide variety of product and service categories. Here are the most common problems that brands seem to encounter.

• A disruptive technology has made the brand's core product obsolete. Example: Kodak.
• The brand's level of service and product innovation has not kept up with the competition. Example: Burger King.
• Stuck in the middle. The brand is neither low cost/high convenience nor does it deliver a high-end or unique customer experience. Example: Sears.
• The brand has extremely low customer awareness. Example: many start-up brands.
• The category has matured and all of the brands in the category seem to offer the same product quality, functions and features. Example: this has occurred in many categories.
• The category has been infused with new life through investment in advertising/marketing, but the brand in question has not participated in that investment. Example: any insurance brand that has not begun advertising at a fairly high level.
• The CEO or other organization leader has created a dysfunctional culture. Example: more brands than you would think.
• The brand's leadership is risk-adverse and so the brand (and its products and services) has not been proactive about reinventing itself. Example: numerous brands, Hallmark being one of them.
• A venture capital firm buys the brand, strips out costs and assets, dresses the company/brand up for sale but has not really invested in the long-term viability of the brand. Example: I have encountered many examples of this. I do not want to name them.
• Profit-focused management driven by Wall Street demands has gradually reduced the quality or increased the price of the brand's products (or both) until the perceived value is noticeably diminished. These actions can also be influenced by retailers such as Walmart that have huge leverage over manufacturers and how they price their products. Example: Newell (Rubbermaid). 
• In the effort to increase sales significantly, a more upscale brand broadens distribution to a mass channel, significantly diminishing its brand cache. Example: Columbia (vs. Patagonia or North Face).
• A brand walks away from or ignores its primary differentiating benefit in an effort to broaden its offering and gain more sales across more customer need segments. Example: Volvo (safety).
• A premium brand extends its product line down to the mass market but in so doing risks decreasing the social status associated with the brand. Example: BMW, Mercedes-Benz and Jaguar have had to grapple with this tradeoff as they try to extend down into the aspirational or mass luxury market
• Through rapid expansion and wild success, the brand becomes ubiquitous increasing the difficulty of maintaining uniform quality standards and feeling more commonplace in peoples' minds. Examples: Nike and Starbucks.
• The company and brand have been complacent for a long time, so much so that they have not kept up with evolving customer needs or the competition. Examples: Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts.
• The brand's product or service is so new, revolutionary or complex that people really don't understand what it does or how it works. This is a communication problem. Example: I have encountered this with several high-tech start-up brands that are based on new product concepts.
• Management does not have a good understanding of who their target market is, what they really want or what messaging or product configurations would work best for them. Example: I have encountered this more often than one might think. Stuhrling (watches) is one example of this.
• The brand has a ill thought through pricing or distribution strategy that does not support the positioning of their brand. Example: I have had a few clients that have had these problems. 
• The brand's founder, leader or spokesperson has encountered personal problems that reflect negatively on the brand. Examples: Anita Bryant and Sunkist and President Donald Trump and the Trump brand.

Hopefully, none of these problems seem familiar to you or applicable your brand. If they do, you need to take action before it is too late.

  

The Most Common Problems with Brand Extensions

Some of the most common problems associated with brand extension are:

• Extending into a category in which the brand adds nothing but its identity (i.e., its products or services are not significantly different from current products or services in the category)
• Extending through opportunistic brand licensing without regard to its possible impact on the brand
• Extending into lower (and, sometimes higher) quality segments
• Not fully understanding brand benefit ownership, transfer, or importance

Unsuccessful brand extension examples: 

• Bic perfume: How do you leverage the “small disposable pocket items” association?
• Levi’s tailored classic suits: What is Levi’s primary association? (casual clothes)
• Campbell spaghetti sauce: Why didn’t “tomato sauce” transfer from Campbell’s soups to spaghetti sauce?
• McDonald’s Arch Deluxe burger (for adults): What is McDonald’s primary association? (fast-food for kids)
• Bayer Aspirin-free: What is Bayer’s primary association? (aspirin)
• Volvo 850 GLT sports sedan: What is Volvo’s primary association? (safety) What is a Volvo’s primary proof point? (boxy armored-car styling)
• Colgate kitchen entrees: What were they thinking?
• Or, my all-time favorite, New Coke: What is Coke? (“It’s the real thing”—with a long-time secret formula.)

Excerpted from Brand Aid, second edition, available here.

Automobile Purchases and Self-Image Reinforcement

Research has shown that at least some people choose specific automobile brands to reinforce their self-image, project a certain social status, and enhance their self-esteem. They also choose them to “fit in” with their chosen social group. Other factors contribute to choice, including constraints such as income and capacity to acquire.1

Think about this. What might each of these brands say about the purchaser’s self-image and intended social group/status:

• Audi
• BMW
• Chevy
• HUMMER
• Jeep
• Mercedes-Benz
• MINI Cooper
• Subaru
• Tesla
• Toyota
• Volvo

1. Source: Liza-Jane Sowden and Martin Grimmer, "Symbolic Consumption and Consumer Identity: An Application of Social Identity Theory to Car Purchase Behavior" (Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference 2009), http://www.duplication.net.au/ANZMAC09/papers/ANZMAC2009-206.pdf.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

Every marketer would do well to understand Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. First, people's physiological needs must be met, then their safety and security needs. Next, they need to feel as though they belong somewhere. After they have found their tribe, they seek the respect of others. When they become fully confident about their social status, they refocus their energies on achieving their highest potential, emphasizing ethics, creativity, spontaneity and other higher ideals. 

Most, but not all, brands focus on the top three rungs - love/belonging, esteem and self-actualization. Think of the brands that focus on belonging. Certain beer brands do this. Part of Harley-Davidson's brand position is the "comradeship of kindred spirits." Friends was a television show completely based on the concept of camaraderie. A significant portion of people are focused on achievement and self-esteem. Because of this, many brands primarily confer social status. Consider Mercedes-Benz, Gucci and Salvatore Ferragamo. Others are focused on self-actualization. Patagonia and Newman's Own are examples of this. Some brands straddle different needs. Tesla operates in both the esteem/social status and self-actualization rungs as does Apple. With its fun designs and high price points, Vilebrequin also straddles the esteem and self-actualization rungs. Dove's Real Beauty campaign both promotes self-esteem and an enlightened view of "real beauty," causing it to span the top two rungs of Maslow's Hierarchy. Robert Graham's tagline is "knowledge wisdom truth." This, together with its highly creative designs, places it on the self-actualization rung.

Historically, Volvo focused on a safe ride especially for family members, putting it on the safety and love/belonging rungs. Because of its price point, it was also partially on the esteem rung. With its frequent repositioning over the past decade, its owners have pushed it up more to the esteem rung.

Where does your brand operate on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs?

Volvo Brand Strategy

In the late 1990s to mid-2000s, Volvo Car executives believed the brand position of the “ultimate safe car” for families was too limiting and began to extend the brand into the performance car segment targeted at men. Results were disappointing. When Ford bought Volvo in 1999, it pushed the brand into the crowded luxury brand market. Ten years later, sales were down 20 percent from where they were when Ford first purchased the brand.

Volvo Car Corporation was then acquired by China’s Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co. Under this new ownership, in August 2011, Volvo Car announced a new global brand strategy—”Designed Around You,” focusing on a position of human-centric luxury cars that are safe and dependable.

In November 2013, Volvo Car Corporation announced a new brand strategy designed to revive the brand in the United States after a decade of declining demand. According to Automotive News, “The new focus is on ‘Scandinavian’ design, safety, environmental leadership, and ‘clever functionality’ reflected in state of the art—yet simple— infotainment systems.” 

Volvo’s primary brand association is still “safety.” And safety is still most valued by parents with children living at home. And Volvo is still one of the most trusted automobile brands. Any repositioning must be congruent with and build on its reputation as the “ultimate safe car.”

Excerpted from Brand Aid, second edition
© 2015 Brad VanAuken

Brand Aid, second edition can be purchased at Amazon.com or BarnesandNoble.com now.