3 ms·
> They argue strongly against "brand extension" (e.g. Coke, Diet Coke, Coke Zero). What a strange example to use in that case, namely because it's successful.
by shaggyfrog 15y ago
> They argue strongly against "brand extension" (e.g. Coke, Diet Coke, Coke Zero).
What a strange example to use in that case, namely because it's successful. Diet Coke was marketed to the calorie-conscious, and later when they discovered that "Diet" didn't sell well to men, they came up with Coke Zero. Sure, there's some cannibalization, but also more market share. All of that doesn't look like it's hurt the Coke brand in the least.
- andyking 15y agoBrand extension has worked well in starting to transition the UK across to digital radio, too, as argued (by someone other than me) in this blog post: http://james.cridland.net/blog/its-all-in-the-brand/ http://james.cridland.net/blog/its-all-in-the-brand/ Rather than filling the dial with unknown names, like "The Groove", "BBC 7" and "Liquid" as they tried (and failed) in the early 2000s, broadcasters have transitioned to using extensions of familiar names. If you already know and enjoy Absolute Radio, or BBC Radio 4, on your FM radio, you're more likely to try out Absolute Classic Rock, or Radio 4 Extra on your shiny new digital set. Good, well-targeted extensions can only help widen the reach of any particular brand rather than dilute it.
- cpeterso 15y agoI guess my Coke example wasn't that great. A better example might be Volkswagen. VWs have always been marketed as reliable, inexpensive cars (literally, the "people's car"). VW also owns Audi, which are (somewhat) higher-end cars. One company with two respected and differentiated brands. In recent years, though, VW has been try to upscale the VW brand with $50K SUVs and sedans. They are diluting the VW brand ("A $50K VW?!") and cannabalizing their Audi brand. cf. Honda/Acura and Toyota/Lexus.