Analysis: Suma Mandagiri

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><root available-locales="en_US," default-locale="en_US"><static-content language-id="en_US"><![CDATA[<p><p align="justify"><span class='dropthecap'>I</span>n the earlier decades, organisations had supersized their brand portfolios through bold  expansion strategies. Brand portfolios were doubled overnight through a slew of brand launches with the singular objective of catering to finely segmented consumer groups. Communication was crafted around consumer demographic and psychographic profiles encapsulating lifestyle, aspirations and beliefs. While organisations could be proud of owning mammoth brand portfolios, they quickly became aware of the economic hazards of portfolio obesity. High costs, slow decision making and inflexibility made them eventually cut the fat off.<br /><br />But slimming a brand portfolio is a delicate exercise. Companies seek to rid themselves of second- and third-tier brands that consume large resources with low returns. This job has to be executed without losing the retail advantage. Some, instead of losing out on a cultivated consumer audience, club the consumer audiences together by combining two brands into a single product. While this may seem like a middle path, I would simply equate it with greed.<br /><br />Jahnvi Pandya is representative of the baffled consumer audience that is forced to rethink its consumption behaviour due to the waywardness of brand management. By clubbing two brands into a single product, brand managers are creating a mutated version that relates to neither consumer segment. This is the fastest route to kill both the brands and deal a mortal blow to the organisation's role in a consumer's life.<br /><br />The core of the brand lies with consumers. A brand is a repository of values, beliefs, aspirations — intangible but powerful bonds that keep a brand relevant to its consumers and profitable to its marketers. Brands belong to organisations only to the extent of executing the tangible activities around it. In reality, the ownership of a brand resides with its consumers.<br /><br />When organisations create mutated versions of trusted brands, they are meddling with an entity that they have long ceased to be owners of. The entire Classic Coke and New Coke episode was a backlash by consumers to such  ‘illegitimate' activity.<br /><br />So what is the best way to prune the brand portfolio without stepping on consumer toes and keeping intact the organisation's role as influencer? As Charmy asks, "Should not the process be more sensitive?"<br /><br />One, recognise the consumer as a partner. Extensive consumer research is needed to understand the complex relationship between the consumer and the brand. Too many times, decisions taken at a management level are thrust down the throats of retailers and consumers.  Such actions create insecurity and distrust. Sure, you would have a branded product on the shelves. Only, it will cease to be on the minds and wish lists of consumers. <br /><br />Two, if you do need to abandon a brand, ensure that you do not abandon the consumers of the brand. One of the major reasons why an organisation abandons a brand is that it may have one or two or more brands catering to the same audience. In that case, the organisation needs to hand-hold consumers while they adopt the new brand — a process that may take time and requires patience. The ideal time to prune a brand from the portfolio is when the event is barely noticed by its consumers.<br /><br />Three, the distance between the brand to be pruned and the brand to be adopted should be as short as possible, in every sense — demographic, psychographic and sensory.<br /><br />As Gunjan states, Stepp is the no-nonsense brand communicating effectiveness without frills. The positioning is carried forward in the geometric, bold lines of the packaging. Whereas Comma is positioned as a genteel, premium brand with delicate white packaging. Common sense dictates that these brands are positioned in different orbits that cannot overlap.<br /><br />In a brand pruning exercise, the newly adopted brand should be in the same price league as the pruned brand, it should be employing a similar communication strategy and it should deliver a similar sensory engagement.  The objective should be to minimise dissonance and make it an easy transition. <br /><br />As brand managers, we are taught to be practical beings governed by practical aspects of economics and management. But at the core, we are all emotional beings, as are the consumers we are catering to. While we marvel at, and even mock the attachments that audiences of soap operas form with the characters, it should give us an idea of the extent of emotion that the audiences of our brands are capable of. The detached brand pruning and brand mutation exercises that we undertake have far reaching consequences that will tangibly present themselves over time. Before the negative effects reflect on the balance sheet, it is crucial that organisations become aware of whom the ownership of the brand truly lies with.<br /><br /><em>Suma Mandagiri is a strategic branding consultant based in Mumbai<br /></em></p> <script type="text/javascript"> var intro = jQuery.trim(jQuery('#commenth4').text()) var page = jQuery.trim(jQuery('#storyPage').text()) if (page.indexOf(intro) < 0) { jQuery('#commenth4').attr('style', 'display:block;') } </script> (This story was published in Businessworld Issue Dated 22-11-2010)