Skip to main content

The Evils of Brand Extension

For years, marketing experts have cautioned against "brand extension". If you have an established product with a successful brand name, you might be tempted to "extend" it. There are two ways to extend your brand:
  1. Broaden the appeal of a single product by adding features to it. For example, if your product is a television, you might add a radio feature to it.
  2. Leverage the appeal of your existing brand name by attaching it to a new product. For example, you might produce a brand of bicycle called "The Ruckus". It's so successful that you decide to start a line of bicycle products: Ruckus Classic, Ruckus Sport, and Ruckus Supreme.
If you're not careful, extending your brand in either of these ways can destroy your profitability. The reason is that you may "pollute" your brand.

A brand represents an idea in the customer's mind. If you add features to your product that don't relate to the original, core purpose of the product, you run the risk of confusing the established idea in the customer's mind. When you create or extend a line of products, you make it difficult to maintain a single, coherent meaning for the brand name.

If you "pollute" your brand, it will be a less powerful force for driving your prospective customers to buy your products.

Laura Ries has a recent entry about brand extension on her Origin of Brands blog.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why Spreadsheets Suck for Prioritizing

The Goal As a company executive, you want confidence that your product team (which includes all the people, from all departments, responsible for product success) has a sound basis for deciding which items are on the product roadmap. You also want confidence the team is prioritizing the items in a smart way. What Should We Prioritize? The items the team prioritizes could be features, user stories, epics, market problems, themes, or experiments. Melissa Perri  makes an excellent case for a " problem roadmap ", and, in general, I recommend focusing on the latter types of items. However, the topic of what types of items you should prioritize - and in what situations - is interesting and important but beyond the scope of this blog entry. A Sad but Familiar Story If there is significant controversy about priorities, then almost inevitably, a product manager or other member of the team decides to put together The Spreadsheet. I've done it. Some of the mos

Use Case as a Black Box

Consider the following use case: Purchase Items Actor: Purchaser Precondition: Purchaser types at least thirty words per minute and has a web navigation efficiency rating of at least 40. Postcondition: For the average Purchaser acting at full efficiency, the number of seconds elapsed is no more than 30 + 20 * n, where n is the number of items purchased. The name of the use case represents a functional requirement. What does the product do, or enable the user to do? Purchase items. What are we to make of the preconditions and postconditions? What relationship do they have to the requirements for the product? Answer: the preconditions and postconditions are the nonfunctional requirements attached to the functional requirement . Another way of expressing the nonfunctional requirement would be as an attribute and associated constraint: Usability: For a Purchaser who types at least thirty words per minute and has a web navigation efficiency rating of at least 40, it shall take no

Henry Ford's "Faster Horse" Quote

You may have heard the ( apocryphal ) Henry Ford quote: If I'd asked customers what they wanted, they would have said "a faster horse". Over at the On Product Management blog , Saeed gives his take on this infamous quote. He "hates" it, and gives some compelling reasons. Saeed is spot on in his explanations. Personally, I think the quote is great, but it's a matter of interpretation. The valid point of the quote is not that it's a bad idea to facilitate a conversation with your market to better understand it. The valid points are: You must ask the right questions to get valuable answers. You must interpret the answers thoughtfully - often outside their direct meaning - to glean reliable information. Asking questions is not always the best way to "listen" to your market. (E.g., sometimes pure observational studies are more reliable.) Nonetheless, I find the quote is helpful to combat "armchair product management" in the