I just came across OK... so following that logic, the railroads were actually smart to think of themselves as being in the railroad business instead of the transportation business. And IBM was definitely wrong in putting the IBM name on PCs and services when mainframes became obsolete. And McDonald's was wrong to add salads to its menu because it goes against their "hamburger" positioning. Following this logic, there is no reason to launch line extensions and new products under the same brand name, regardless of changes in the market. Hmmm.
I guess I see things a bit differently. When you position your brand on what you do (charcoal, hamburgers, computers), it can only lead to extinction. Rather, base your positioning on how you do it (ie. a higher-level benefit), which allows you more flexibility over time. Google's brand position isn't search, it's organizing the world's information. Nike isn't shoes, it's passion. McDonald's isn't hamburgers, it's convenience.
And back to Weber. A quick search shows that while the grill industry is flat, shipments of charcoal grills are down 32% while gas grills are up 83%. So in a nutshell, Laura is suggesting that the Weber brand should just die out with charcoal grills.
The Weber brand is far bigger than charcoal. A more flexible position that's loaded with emotional attachment is tied to backyards and barbeques. As Laura noted, Weber's been around since 1952; there are a lot of collective backyard memories tied to Weber. That's where the brand equity lies... not in a lifeless piece of charcoal.
Add to DiggThis | Furl
Mantra Brand Communication. She has extensive experience in brand/marketing strategy, market/customer research, integrated marketing communications and channel support.
Jennifer also writes the
Found an error or have a suggestion? Let us know and we'll review it.
Suggest a Correction
Branding: Positioning for Extinction?
0 views
Comments (0)
Please sign in to leave a comment.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!