Brands Are Continually Changing, but in Certain Cases They Need to Shift Radically to Gain Back Their Customers

Brands Are Continually Changing, but in Certain Cases They Need to Shift Radically to Gain Back Their Customers

Brands are continually changing, but in certain cases they need to shift radically to gain back their customers

Abstract

By comparing the views of Groucutt (2006) and of Lehu (2006), reviewed by Dinnie (2008), we are able to see two different approaches to the rejuvenation and life cycle of a brand. Whilst Groucutt (2006) sees that a brands’ market position can be developed thanks to innovation and repositioning. While referring to a human life cycle for a brand, this article targets some real issues faced by brands in their highly competitive marketplaces. If brands do not adapt they run the risk of disappearing fast. Therefore it is important for them to evolve continually in order to expect a longer life. On the contrary, Lehu (2006) proposes a three-stage process to address the problem of brand ageing. Firstly recognising that the ageing process has begun; secondly examining whether the brand still has enough brand equity to survive the rejuvenation; and thirdly, to form a strategy in order to create a successful future for the brand. To accompany these two different theories, this article will also brings forward the fairly recent downfall of Burberry, which “has [had] the advantage of benefiting from an effective rejuvenation remedy that has granted it a new youthfulness”. (Dinnie, 2008)

Introduction

In today’s day and era, brands are continually changing. Although it is expected for a brand to shift slightly on a regular basis, some brands going through difficulties in the marketplace seem to need a complete and total turn around, in order to continue performing well in spite of a brand ageing problem. Very often, “the viability […] of a […] brand is dependent upon the efficacy and appropriateness of the decisions of those responsible for its management”. (Birtwistle and Moore, 2004, p.412) This is why, when a brand is not doing well, the company often shifts things around, especially within the brand management area, in order to tackle the critical theme of how to revitalise the declining brand. One way of tackling the latter is to exert a “preference for internal control over manufacturing and distribution”. (Birtwistle and Moore, 2004, p.412)

What exactly is a brand?

There are various definitions of what a brand is. Some consider it “a name, term, symbol or design (or combination of them) which is intended to signify the goods or services of one seller or groups of sellers and to differentiate them from those of the competitors” (Kotler, 2000). However, this definition being based on a more traditional view of things, it is considered to be particularly limiting. Therefore, Dibb et al. (1997) suggest “that branding is a component of a product’s tangible features – the verbal and physical cues that assist the customer in choosing one product over another.” (Groucutt, 2006)

Whilst it is a well-known fact that products or services often go through �life cycles’, some brands are equally concerned by this metaphor (usually attributed to humans). These brands concerned are generally the �big’ ones, which are able to rejuvenate themselves; in opposition to the smaller ones which often just disappear.“Brands are affected by a combination of internal (micro) and external (macro) environmental factors.” (Groucutt, 2006)

Therefore, by assimilating these influential factors, an organisation can rearrange its brands position in the concerned marketplace. This enables the company to forsee the health of the brand or simply rejuvenate it by “developing […] new market opportunities”. (Groucutt, 2006)

A cycle-like approach to brand development and management

In Figure 1 is depicted the typical life cycle of a product. “Normally it is segmented into four key components – introduction, growth, maturity and decline. Of course, additional components are often added, such as birth with death at the other end of the spectrum.” (Groucutt, 2006) The same cycle can also be attributed to brands.

Figure 1 Murphy’s measures for forecast evaluation represented as a decision matrix

(Groucutt, 2006)

Some brands have gone through decades or even centuries. However it can not be assumed that during that time, the brand itself has been paralysed in time, identical. Therefore, we can assume that the “reason why some brands outlast competitors [is because] they have not been stationary.”