Brand Architecture Toolkit

Here is a short-hand condensed version of the material you are reading on brand architecture. It is the presentation I WOULD have given tomorrow, but we have our speaker, Rob Osler to enlighten us instead.

Brand Architecture Toolkit Final2.25.09

View more presentations from Carol Phillips.

GM = General Misery?

My GM car dealership called Saturday to point out (as if I didn't know) that my Cadillac has over 124,000 miles and 'is there anything we can say to convince you to purchase a new car today?' I don't think so, at least not a new Cadillac. Will Cadillac even be around when it reaches 124,000 miles? This sad state has been blamed mostly on lack of innovation, unions, poor production practices, and more. But only Al Ries (Mr. Positioning himself) has made a point of suggesting perhaps, poor brand strategy may have played a role. Here's an excerpt from his article in Ad Age 12.2.08:

It seems to me that the fundamental nature of Detroit's Japanese competition is its ability to build brands. Toyota stands for reliability, Scion for youth, Prius for hybrid, Lexus for luxury.

But what does Saturn stand for? Or Chevrolet? Or Pontiac? Or Buick? Or Cadillac?

It's not for lack of trying. In 2007, the U.S. automobile industry spent $4.6 billion on advertising. That's 3.3% of total U.S advertising spending and 5.9% of total U.S. network TV spending.

For all that money, you might think the U.S. automobile industry would have done a lot of brand building. Take Gillette, which over the years has marketed seven different brands:
Gillette blue blades
Trac II, the two-blade razor
Atra, the adjustable two-blade razor
Sensor, the shock-absorbent razor
Good News, the disposable razor
Mach3, the three-blade razor
Fusion, the five-blade razor
Gillette has an astounding 71% of the world's wet-shaving market, and multiple brands, in my opinion, are the primary reason.

The difference between Gillette and General Motors is that each of the seven Gillette brands stands for something specific and each of the eight General Motors brands does not.

Although I may be biased, he has a point. Better attention to differentiating the brands in its portfolio may have avoided some of the mess. Reis suggests a portfolio built around product differences, rather than, well rather than whatever it is that they did end up trying to differentiate. A four cylinder Cadillac simply doesn't make sense. Reis maintains that the brand portfolio has been so devalued, that GM should simply start over.


Do you agree?