Skip to main content

Laura Ries on Brand Mortality

Laura Ries' latest blog entry squarely addresses the issue of what to do about brands and product categories that are dying. The thrust of her advice is to avoid the natural inclination to try to preserve a dying brand by modifying it.

A strong brand stands for something in the mind of the consumer. Years of consistent, focused marketing and a remarkable product or company are the typical recipe for a strong brand. But sometimes the entire product category becomes obsolete, and the once-strong brand dies with it.

The natural inclination is to try to preserve the brand symbols (name, logo, etc.) since so much time, effort, and money went into making them powerful and well known. So why not transition into new or evolved products and attach the same brand to them?

Changing your brand is like trying to change the meaning of a word. If a word is relatively new and not well known, then it's not much of an uphill battle to assign a new meaning to it. But good luck trying to change what an old word with an established definition means to people. You're much better off inventing a new word.

Ries gives numerous examples of ill-conceived attempts to preserve or modify brands.

When your brand is dying, resist the temptation to modify it. Spin off a completely new brand (and not an extension of your current brand). It will take time and money to build it, but at least your new brand won't be doomed to failure.

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