NEW PRODUCTS AND BRAND EXTENTIONS

To facilitate the discussion, it is useful to establish some terminology. When a firm introduces a new product, it has three main choices as to how to brand it:

1. It can develop a new brand, individually chosen for the new product.

2. It can apply, in some way, one of its existing brands.

3. It can use a combination of a new brand with an existing brand. 

A brand extension is when a firm uses an established brand name to introduce a new product. When a new brand is combined with an existing brand, the brand extension can also be called a sub-brand. An existing brand that gives birth to a brand extension is referred to as the parent brand. If the parent brand is already associated with multiple products through brand extensions, then it may also be called a family brand. Brand extensions can be broadly classified into two general categories:

Line extension: The parent brand is used to brand a new product that targets a new market segment within a product category currently served by the parent brand. A line extension often involves a different flavor or ingredient variety, a different form or size, or a different application for the brand (e.g., Head & Shoulders Dry Scalp shampoo).

Category extension: The parent brand is used to enter a different product category from that currently served by the parent brand (e.g.. Swiss Army watches).

Most new products are line extensions—typically 80 percent to 90 percent in any one year. Moreover, many of the most successful new products, as rated by various sources, are extensions (e.g., Microsoft Xbox videogame system, Apple iPod digital music player, and BMW mini automobile). Nevertheless, many new products are intro­duced each year as new brands (e.g., Gleevec oncology drug, ReplayTV digital video recorders, and Harmony low-fat cereal).

Extensions can come in all forms. One well-known branding expert, Edward Tauber, identifies the following seven general strategies for establishing a category—or what he calls a franchise—extension

1.      Introduce the same product in a different form. Examples: Ocean Spray Cranberry Juice Cocktail and Jell-0 Pudding Pops

2.      Introduce products that contain the brand's distinctive taste, ingredient, or component. Examples: Philadelphia cream cheese salad dressing and Haagen-Dazs cream liqueur

3.      Introduce companion products for the brand. Examples: Coleman camping equipment and Duracell Durabeam flashlights

4.      Introduce products relevant to the customer franchise of the brand. Examples: Gerber insur­ance and Visa traveler's checks

5.      Introduce products that capitalize on the firm's perceived expertise. Examples: Honda lawn mowers and Canon photocopy machines

6.      Introduce products that reflect the brand's distinctive benefit, attribute, or feature. Example: LysoFs "deodorizing" household cleaning products and Ivory's "mild" cleaning products

7.      Introduce products that capitalize on the distinctive image or prestige of the brand. Examples: Calvin Klein clothes and accessories and Porsche sunglasses

Brand extension strategies are considered more systematically later in this chapter. Next, however, some of the main advantages and disadvantages of brand extensions are outlined.

Advantages Of Extensions

The high failure rate of new products is well documented. Marketing analysts estimate that perhaps only 2 of 10 new products will be successful, or maybe even as few as 1 of 10. As noted previously, new products can fail for a number of reasons. Robert McMath, who oversees a collection of over 75,000 once-new consumer products called the New Products Showcase and Learning Center in Ithaca, New York, identifies nine main rea­sons for product failure

1. The market was too small (insufficient demand for type of product).

2. The product was a poor match for the company.

3. The product was justified on inadequate or inaccurate marketing research, or the company ignored research results.

4. The company was too early or too late in researching the market (failure to capitalize on its marketing window).

5. The product provided insufficient return on investment (poor profit margins and high costs).

6. The product was not new or different (a poor idea that really offered nothing new).

7. The product did not go hand in hand with familiarity.

8. Credibility was not confirmed on delivery.

9. Consumers could not recognize the product.

For most firms, the question is not whether the brand should be extended, but when, where, and how the brand should be extended. Extensions can certainly suffer from some of the same shortcomings faced by any new product. Nevertheless a new product, introduced as an extension, may be more likely to succeed, at least to some degree, because it offers the advantages described in the following subsections. Well-planned and well-implemented extensions offer a number of advantages to marketers. These advantages can broadly be categorized as those that facilitate new product acceptance and those that provide feedback benefits to the parent brand or company as whole.

Improve Brand Image

One of the advantages of a well-known and well-liked brand is that consumers form expectations over time concerning its performance. Similarly, with an extension, consumers can make inferences and form expectations as to the likely composition and performance of a new product based on what they already know about the brand itself and the extent to which they feel this information is rele­vant to the new product These inferences may improve the strength, favorability, and uniqueness of the extension's brand associations. For example, when Sony introduced a new personal computer tailored for multimedia applications, Vaio, consumers may have been more likely to feel comfortable with its anticipated performance because of their experience with and knowledge of other Sony products than if the product had been branded by Sony as something completely new.

Reduce Risk Perceived by Customers

One research study examining factors affecting new product acceptance found that the most important factor for predicting initial trial of a new product was the extent to which a known family brand was involved Extensions from well-known cor­porate brands such as General Electric, Hewlett-Packard, Motorola, or others may communicate longevity and sustainability. Although corporate brands may lack spe­cific product associations because of the breadth of products attached to their name, their established reputation for being able to introduce quality products and stand behind them may be an important risk-reducer for consumers Thus, perceptions of corporate credibility—in terms of expertise and trust-worthiness—can be valuable associations in introducing extensions Similarly, although widely extended supermarket family brands such as Betty Crocker, Green Giant, Del Monte, and Pepperidge Farm may lack specific product meaning, they may still stand for product quality in the minds of consumers and, by reducing perceived risk, facilitate the adop­tion of extensions.

Increase the Probability of Gaining Distribution and Trial

Because of the potentially increased consumer demand resulting from introducing a new product as an extension, it may be easier to convince retailers to stock and pro­mote an extension. For example, one study indicated that brand reputation was a key screening criteria of gatekeepers making new product decisions at supermarkets

Increase Efficiency of Promotional Expenditures

From a marketing communications perspective, one obvious advantage of intro­ducing a new product as an extension is that the introductory campaign does not have to create awareness of both the brand and the new product but instead can con­centrate on only the new product itself. In general, it should be easier to add a link from a brand already existing in memory to a new product than it is to first establish the brand in memory and then also link the new product to it. As a dramatic illustra­tion of the marketing communication efficiencies of extensions, when General Mills launched its fourth Cheerios extension, Frosted Cheerios, the brand was able to achieve a 0.44 percent market share in the extremely competitive cereal category in its very first week of sales with essentially no advertising or promotion. Solely on the basis of its name and product concept, demand for the sweetened oat cereal was so high that most supermarkets were forced to limit the number of boxes that could be purchased.

Several research studies document this extension benefit. One study of 98 con­sumer brands in 11 markets found that successful extensions spent less on adver­tising than did comparable new-name entries. A comprehensive study by Indiana University's Dan Smith found similar results, indicating that the average advertising to sales ratio for extensions was 10 percent, compared with 19 percent for new brands. His study identified some underlying factors moderating this extension advan­tage. The difference in advertising efficiency between extensions and new brands was shown to increase as the fit with other products affiliated with the parent brand increased, as the new product's relative price compared with that of competitors increased, and as distribution intensity increased. On the other hand, the difference in advertising efficiency between extensions and new brands was shown to decrease when the new product was composed primarily of search attributes (i.e., when product quality could be Judged through visual inspection), as the new product became established in the market, and as consumers' knowledge of the new product category increased.

Reduce Cost of Introductory and Follow-Up Marketing Programs

Because of these push and pull considerations in distribution and promotion, it has been estimated that a firm can save 40 percent to 80 percent on the estimated $30 mil­lion to $50 million it can cost to launch a new supermarket product nationally in the United States. Moreover, other efficiencies can result after the launch. As one such example, when a brand becomes associated with multiple products, advertising can become more cost-effective for the family brand as a whole. For example, in 1988, Jaguar introduced its first substantially improved automobile model in 16 years, adopt­ing new technology to improve reliability although still retaining the classic Jaguar look. The resulting marketing program, which included a lavish ad campaign, increased demand for all new Jaguars. Even older Jaguars found their resale market value enhanced.

Avoid Cost of Developing a New Brand

Developing new brand elements is an art and science. To conduct the necessary consumer research and employ skilled personnel to design high-quality brand names, logos, symbols, packages, characters, and slogans can be quite expensive, and there is no assurance of success. As the number of available— and appealing—brand names keeps shrinking, legal conflicts are more likely to result. Despite the fact that it had conducted a trademark search, Cosmair's L'Oreal division was successfully sued for $2.1 million when a court decided that the name it had chosen to introduce a new green and purple hair dye, Zazu, infringed on the name of a line of shampoos sold by a Hinsdale, Illinois, hair-styling salon called ZaZu Designs.

Allow for Packaging and Labeling Efficiencies

Similar or virtually identical packages and labels for extensions can result in lower production costs and, if coordinated properly, more prominence in the retail store by creating a "billboard" effect. For example, Stouffer's offers a variety of frozen entrees with identical orange packaging that increases their visibility when stocked together in the freezer. A similar billboard effect is evident with other supermarket brands, such as Coca-Cola soft drinks and Campbell soup.

Permit Consumer Variety-Seeking

By offering consumers a portfolio of brand variants within a product category, con­sumers who need a change—because of boredom, satiation, or whatever—can switch to a different product type if they so desire without having to leave the brand family Even without such underlying motivations, by offering a complement of line exten­sions, customers may be encouraged to use the brand to a greater extent or in different ways than otherwise might have been the case. Moreover, to even effectively compete in some categories, it may be necessary to have multiple items that together form a cohesive product line.

Clarify Brand Meaning

Extensions can help to clarify the meaning of a brand to consumers and define the kinds of markets in which it competes. Thus, through extensions, Hunts means "tomato," Clairol means "hair coloring," Gerber means "baby care," Nabisco means "baked cookies and crackers," and Chun King means "Chinese food" to consumers. Figure 12-3 shows how other brands that have introduced multiple extensions may have broadened their meaning with consumers.

Broader brand meaning often is necessary so that firms avoid "marketing myopia" and do not mistakenly draw narrow boundaries around their brand and either miss market opportunities or become vulnerable to well-planned competitive strategies Thus, as Harvard's Ted Levitt pointed out in a pioneering article, railroads are not just in the "railroad" business but also the "transportation' business In other words, rail­roads do not necessarily compete with other railroads so much as with other forms of transportation (e g , cars and planes) Thinking more broadly about product meaning can easily result in different marketing progiams and new product opportunities For example, Steelcase's one-time slogan, "A Smarter Way to Work," reflected the fact that the company defines its business not as manufacturing desks, chairs, file cabinets, and credenzas but as "helping to enhance office productivity" For some brands, creat­ing broader meaning is critical and may be the only way to expand sales In some cases, it is advantageous to establish a portfolio of related products that completely satisfy consumer needs in a certain area. For example, the $3 billion oral care market is characterized by a number of mega-brands (e.g., Colgate and Crest) that compete in multiple segments with multiple product offerings. Although these differ­ent brands were limited to a few specific products at one time, they have broadened their meaning through extensions to represent "complete oral care." Similarly, many specific-purpose cleaning products have broadened their meaning to become seen as multipurpose (e.g., Lysol, Comet).

Enhance the Parent Brand Image

According to the customer-based brand equity model, one desirable outcome of a successful extension is that it may enhance the parent brand image by strength­ening an existing brand association, improving the favorability of an existing brand association, adding a new brand association, or a combination of these.

One common way that an extension affects the parent brand image is by helping to clarify its core brand values and associations. Core brand values are those attributes and benefits that come to characterize all the prod­ucts in the brand line and, as a result, are those with which consumers often have the strongest associations. For example, Nike has expanded from running shoes to other athletic shoes, athletic clothing, and athletic equipment, strengthening its associations to "peak performance" and "sports" in the process.

Another type of association that may be improved by successful extensions is consumer perceptions of the credibility of the company behind the extension. For example, Keller and Aaker showed that a successful corporate extension led to improved perceptions of the expertise, trustworthiness, and likability of the company. In the late 1990s, several firms chose to introduce online versions of their services under a separate brand name (e.g., Bank One chose to launch its online bank as Wingspan). Besides increasing the difficulty and expense of launching a new brand, such companies also lost the opportunity to modern­ize the parent brand image and improve its technological credentials. In many cases, these ventures failed and their capabilities were folded back into the parent organization.

Bring New Customer into the Brand Franchise and Increase Market Coverage

Line extensions can benefit the parent brand by expanding market coverage, for example, by offering a product benefit whose lack may have heretofore pre­vented consumers from trying the brand. For example, when Tyienol introduced a capsule form of its acetaminophen pain reliever, it was able to attract consumers who had difficulty swallowing tablets and therefore might have otherwise avoided the brand.

By creating "news" and bringing attention to the parent brand, its sales may also increase. For example, although the market share of regular powdered Tide—which once was at 27 percent—had slipped to 21 percent in the early 1980s, the introduction of Liquid Tide and Multi-Action Tide (a combined detergent, whitener, and fabric soft­ener) resulted in market share increases of 2 percent to 4 percent for the flagship Tide parent brand by 1986. Remarkably, through the skillful introduction of extensions, Tide as a family brand has managed to maintain its market leadership and a market share of roughly 50 percent from the 1950s to the present.

Revitalize the Brand

Sometimes extensions can be a means to renew interest and liking for the brand. 

Permit Subsequent Extensions

One benefit of a successful extension is that it may serve as the basis for subsequent extensions. For example, Goodyear's successful introduction of its Aquatred tires sub-brand led to the introduction of Eagle Aquatred for performance vehicles with either wider wheels (e.g., the Ford Mustang) or a luxury image (e.g., the Cadiltdi Seville).

Disadvantages Of Extensions

Despite these potential advantages, extensions have a number of disadvantages

Can Confuse or Frustrate Consumers

Different varieties of line extensions may confuse and per­haps even frustrate consumers as to which version of the product is the "right one" for them. As a result, they may reject new extensions for tried and true favorites or all-purpose versions that claim to supersede more specialized product versions. Moreover, because of the large number of new products and brands continually being introduced, many retailers do not have enough shelf or display space to stock them all. Con­sequently, some consumers may be disappointed when they are unable to find an advertised extension if a retailer is not able to or is unwilling to stock it. If a firm launches extensions that consumers deem inappropriate, they may question the integrity and competence of the brand.

Can Encounter Retailer Resistance

On average, the number of consumer packaged-goods stock-keeping units (SKUs) grew 16 percent each year from 1985 to 1992, whereas retail shelf space expanded only 15 percent each year during the same period. Many brands now come in a multitude of different forms. For example, Campbell has introduced a number of different lines of up—including Condensed, Home Cookin', Chunky, Healthy Request, Select, Simply Home, and Ready-to-Serve Classic—and offers more than 100 flavors in all.

 

As a result, it has become virtually impossible for a grocery store or supermarket to offer all the different varieties available across all the different brands in any one product category. Moreover, retailers often feel that many line extensions are merely "me-too"" products that duplicate existing brands in a product category and should not stocked even if there were space. Attacking brand proliferation, a year-long Food Marketing Institute (FMI) study showed that retailers could reduce their SKUs by 5 percent to 25 percent in certain product categories without hurting sales or consumer perceptions of the variety offered by their stores The FMI "product variety" study commended that retailers systematically identify duplicated and slow-moving items eliminate them to maximize profitability. The Science of Branding summarizes one perspective on how to reduce brand proliferation and simplify marketing.

Can Fail and Hurt Parent Brand Image

The worst possible scenario with an extension is that not only does it fail, but it also harms the parent brand image somehow in the process. Unfortunately, these negative feedback effects can sometimes happen.

Consider General Motors's experience with the Cadillac Cimarron This model reduced in the early 1980s, was a "relative" of models in other GM lines, such as the Ponitiac 2000 and Chevrolet Cavalier. The target market was less-affluent buyers seeking small luxury car who wanted, but could not really afford, a full-size Cadillac. Nor was the Cadillac Cimarron unsuccessful at generating new sales with this market 'segment, but existing Cadillac owners hated it. They felt it was inconsistent with the large size and prestige image they had expected from Cadillac. As a result, Cadillac sales dropped significantly in the mid-1980s. Looking back, one GM executive offered following insights:

The decision was made purely on the basis of shortsighted profit and financial analysis, with no accounting for its effect on long-run customer loyally or, if you will, equity. A typical financial analysis would argue that the Cimarron would rarely steal sales from Cadillac's larger cars, so any sale would be one that we wouldn't have gotten otherwise. The people who were most concerned with such long-range issues raised serious objections but the bean counters said, "Oh no, we'll get this many dollars for every model sold." There was no think­ing about brand equity. We paid for the Cimarron down the road. Everyone now realizes that using the model to extend the name was a horrible mistake.

Even if an extension initially succeeds, by linking the brand to multiple products, the firm increases the risk that an unexpected problem or even tragedy with one product in the brand family can tarnish the image of some or all of the remaining products. For example, starting in 1986, the Audi 5000 car suffered from a tidal wave of negative pub­licity and word of mouth because it was alleged to have a "sudden acceleration " problem that resulted in an alarming number of fatal accidents. Even though (here was little concrete evidence to support the claims (resulting in Audi, in a public relations dis­aster, attributing the problem to the clumsy way that Americans drove the car), Audi's U.S. sales declined from 74,000 in 1985 to 21,000 in 1989. As might be expected, the dam­age was most severe for sales of the Audi 5000, but the adverse publicity also spilled over to affect the 4000 model and, to a lesser extent, the Quattro model. The Ouattro might have been relatively more insulated from negative repercussions because it was dis­tanced from the 5000 by virtue of its more distinct branding and advertising strategy.

Understanding when unsuccessful extensions may damage the parent brand is important. On a more positive note however, it should be recognized that one reason why an unsuccessful extension may not necessarily damage the parent brand is for the very reason that the extension may have been unsuccessful in the first place—hardly anyone may have even heard of it. Thus, the sil­ver lining in the case when an extension fails as a result of an inability to secure adequate distribution or to achieve sufficient brand awareness is that the parent brand is more likely to survive relatively unscathed. Product failures in which the extension is found to be inadequate in some way on the basis of performance are more likely to negatively affect parent brand perceptions than these "market" failures.

Can Succeed but Cannibalize Sales of Parent Brand

Even if sales of an extension are high and meet targets, it is possible that this rev­enue may have merely resulted from consumers switching to the extension from exist­ing product offerings of the parent brand—in effect cannibalizing the parent brand by decreasing its sales. Line extensions are often designed to establish points of parity with current offerings competing in the parent brand category, as well as to create addi­tional points of difference in other areas (e.g., low-fat versions of foods). These types of line extensions may be particularly likely to result in cannibalization. Often, however, such intrabrand shifts in sales are not necessarily undesirable because they can be thought of as a form of "preemptive cannibalization." In other words, consumers might have switched to a competing brand instead of the line extension if it had not been introduced into the category.

 

For example Diet Coke's point of parity of "good taste" and point of difference of "low calories" undoubtedly resulted in some of its sales coming from regular Coke drinkers. In fact, although U.S. sales of Coca-Cola's cola products have held steady since 1980, sales in 1980 came from Coke alone whereas sales today also receive signif­icant contributions from Diet Coke, Cherry Coke, and uncaffeinated forms of Coke. Without the introduction of those extensions, however, some of Coke's sales might have gone to competing Pepsi products or other soft drinks or beverages instead.

Can Succeed but Diminish Identification with Any One Category

One risk of linking multiple products to a single brand is that the brand may not be strongly identified with any one product. Thus, extensions may obscure the iden­tification of the brand with its original categories, reducing brand awareness. For example, when Cadbury became linked in the United Kingdom to mainstream food products such as Smash instant potatoes, marketers of the brand may have run the risk of weakening its association to fine chocolates. Pepperidge Farm is another brand that has been accused by marketing critics of having been extended so much (e.g.. into soups) that the brand has lost its original meaning as "delicious, high-quality cookies."

 

The vociferous business consul­tants Al Ries and Jack Trout, who in 1981 introduced the notion of the “line extension trap”, have popularized this potential drawback. They provide a number of examples of brands that, at the time, they believed had overextended.

 

One such example was Scott Paper, which Ries and Trout believe became overex­tended when its name was expanded to encompass ScotTowels paper towels, ScotTissue bath tissue, Scotties facial tissues, Scotkins, and Baby Scot diapers. Interestingly, in the mid-1990s, Scott decided to attempt to unify its product line by renaming ScotTowels as Scott Towels and ScotTissue as Scott Tissue, adding a common look and logo (although some distinct colors) on both packages as well as their Scott Napkins. In perhaps a risky move, Scott also decided to phase out local brand names in 80 foreign countries where Scott garnered almost half its sales including Andrex, its top-selling British bath tissue. Scott's hope was that the advantages of brand consoli­dation and global branding would offset the disadvantages of losing local brand equity.

 

Some notable—and fascinating—counterexamples to these dilution effects exist, however, in terms of firms that have branded a heterogeneous set of products and still achieved a reasonable level of perceived quality in the minds of consumers for each product. For example, Yamaha has developed a strong reputation selling an extremely diverse brand line that includes motorcycles, guitars, and pianos. Mitsubishi uses its name to brand a bank, cars, and aircraft. Canon has successfully marketed cameras, photocopiers, and office equipment. In a similar vein, the founder of Virgin Records, Richard Branson, has conducted an ambitious, and perhaps risky, extension program. In all these cases, it seems as if the brand has been able to secure a dominant association to quality in the minds of consumers without strong product identification that might otherwise limit it.

Can Succeed but Hurt the Image of the Parent Brand

If the extension has attribute or benefit associations that are seen as inconsistent or perhaps even as conflicting with the corresponding associations for the parent brand, consumers may change their perceptions of the parent brand as a result. For example, Farquhar notes that when Domino's Pizza entered into a licensing agreement to sell fruit-flavored bubble gum a number of years ago, it ran the risk of creating a "chewiness" association that could negatively affect its flagship pizza products.

 

As another example described Miller Brewing's difficulty in creating a "hearty" association to its flagship Miller High Life beer brand in, part because of its clear bottle and other factors such as its advertising heritage as the "champagne of bot­tled beer." It has often been argued that the early success of the Miller Lite light beer extension-market share soared from 9.5 percent in 1978 to 19 percent in 1986—only exacerbated the tendency of consumers to think of Miller High Life as "watery" tasting and not a full-bodied beer. These unfavorable perceptions were thought to have helped to contribute to the sales decline of Miller High Life, whose market share slid from 21 percent to 12 percent during that same eight-year period.

Can Dilute Brand Meaning

The potential drawbacks from a lack of identification with any one category and a weakened image may be especially evident with high quality or prestige brands.

Can Cause the Company to Forgo the Chance to Develop a New Brand

One easily overlooked disadvantage to extensions is that by introducing a new product as an extension, the company forgoes the chance to create a new brand with its own unique image and equity. For example, consider the advantages to Disney of having introduced Touchstone films, which attracted an audience interested in movies with more adult themes and situations than Disney's traditional family-oriented releases; to Levies of having introduced Dockers pants, which attracted a cus­tomer segment interested in casual pants; to General Motors of having introduced Saturn, which attracted consumers weary of "the same old cars sold the same old way"; and to Black & Decker from having introduced DeWalt power tools, which attracted a higher-end, more skilled market segment.

Each of these brands created its own associations and image and tapped into mar­kets completely different from those that currently existed for other brands sold by the company. Thus, introducing a new product as an extension can have significant and potentially hidden costs in terms of lost opportunities of creating a new brand franchise.

Moreover, there may be a loss of flexibility in the brand positioning for the extension given that it has to live up to the parent brand promise and image. The posi­tioning of a new brand could be introduced and updated in the most competitive advantageous way possible.