Retail
Subscription
to Advertise
  • ISSUES
    • 1996 to 1999
      • 1996
        • May 1996
        • June 1996
        • July 1996
        • August 1996
        • September 1996
        • October 1996
        • November 1996
        • December 1996
      • 1997
    • 2000 to 2009
      • 2006
        • January 2006
        • February 2006
        • March 2006
        • April 2006
        • May 2006
        • June 2006
        • July 2006
        • August 2006
        • September 2006
        • October 2006
        • November 2006
        • December 2006
      • 2007
        • March 2007
        • April 2007
        • May 2007
        • July 2007
        • August 2007
        • September 2007
        • November 2007
        • December 2007
      • 2008
        • January 2008
        • February 2008
        • March 2008
        • April 2008
        • May 2008
        • June 2008
        • July 2008
        • August 2008
        • September 2008
        • October 2008
        • November 2008
        • December 2008
      • 2009
        • January 2009
        • February 2009
        • March 2009
        • April 2009
        • May 2009
        • June 2009
        • June 2009
        • July 2009
        • August 2009
        • September 2009
        • October 2009
        • November 2009
        • December 2009
    • 2010 to 2019
      • 2010
        • January 2010
        • February 2010
        • March 2010
        • April 2010
        • May 2010
        • June 2010
        • July 2010
        • August 2010
        • December 2010
      • 2011
        • January 2011
        • February 2011
        • March 2011
        • April 2011
        • May 2011
        • June 2011
        • July 2011
        • August 2011
        • September 2011
        • October 2011
        • November 2011
        • December 2011
      • 2012
        • January 2012
        • February 2012
        • March 2012
        • April 2012
        • May 2012
        • June 2012
        • July 2012
        • August 2012
        • September 2012
        • October 2012
        • November 2012
        • December 2012
      • 2013
        • January 2013
        • February 2013
        • March 2013
        • April 2013
        • May 2013
        • June 2013
        • July 2013
        • August 2013
        • September 2013
        • November 2013
        • December 2013
      • 2014
        • January 2014
        • February 2014
        • March 2014
        • April 2014
        • May 2014
        • June 2014
        • July 2014
        • August 2014
        • September 2014
        • October 2014
        • November 2014
        • December 2014
      • 2015
        • January 2015
        • February 2015
        • March 2015
        • April 2015
        • May 2015
        • June 2015
        • July 2015
        • August 2015
        • September 2015
        • October 2015
        • November 2015
        • December 2015
      • 2016
        • January 2016
        • February 2016
        • March 2016
        • April 2016
        • May 2016
        • June 2016
        • July 2016
        • August 2016
        • October 2016
        • November 2016
        • December 2016
      • 2017
        • January 2017
        • February 2017
        • March 2017
        • April 2017
        • May 2017
        • June 2017
        • July 2017
        • August 2017
        • September 2017
        • October 2017
        • November 2017
        • December 2017
      • 2018
        • January 2018
        • February 2018
        • March 2018
        • April 2018
        • May 2018
        • June 2018
        • July 2018
        • August 2018
        • September 2018
        • October 2018
        • November 2018
        • December 2018
      • 2019
        • January 2019
        • February 2019
        • March 2019
        • April 2019
        • May 2019
        • June 2019
        • July 2019
        • August 2019
        • September 2019
        • October 2019
        • November 2019
        • December 2019
    • 2020 to 2023
      • 2020
        • January 2020
        • February 2020
        • March 2020
        • April 2020
        • May 2020
        • June 2020
        • July 2020
        • August 2020
        • September 2020
        • October 2020
        • November 2020
        • December 2020
      • 2021
        • January 2021
        • February 2021
        • March 2021
        • April 2021
        • May 2021
        • June 2021
        • July 2021
        • August 2021
        • September 2021
        • October 2021
        • November 2021
        • December 2021
      • 2022
        • January 2022
        • June 2022
        • February 2022
        • July 2022
        • March 2022
        • April 2022
        • August 2022
        • May 2022
        • December 2022
      • 2023
        • January 2023
        • February 2023
        • March 2023
        • July 2023
        • April 2023
        • May 2023
        • June 2023
  • FOR DIGITAL SUBSCRIPTION
  • BT AWARDS
    • BT Top 40
      • BT Top 40 2021 – 2022
    • BT Top 30
      • BT Top 30 2018 – 2019
    • BT Top 25
      • BT Top 25 2011 – 2012
      • BT Top 25 2012 – 2013
      • BT Top 25 2013 – 2014
    • BT Top 20
      • BT Top 20 2009 – 2010
      • BT Top 20 2010 – 2011
    • BT Top 10
      • BT Top 10 2008 – 2009
      • BT Top 10 2007 – 2008
      • BT Top 10 2006 – 2007
      • BT Top 10 2005 – 2006
      • BT Top 10 2003 – 2004
      • BT Top 10 2000 – 2001
      • BT Top 10 1999 – 2000
      • BT Top 10 1998 – 1999
      • BT Top 10 1997 – 1998
      • BT Top 10 1996 – 1997
      • BT Top 10 1995 – 1996
  • ABOUT US
No Result
View All Result
Business Today
No Result
View All Result

Equity alone is Not Enough

in December 1996
0

It seems to be the catch. word of the ’90s. Every one talks about it, every company tries to safe guard and build it. But what is it all about? Is it actually what they say it is? Or is it a myth?

The idea of brand equity started off as something like the good will that our forefathers sold when they left their stationery retail store; brand equity was a financial concept, like goodwill. Then, somehow, brand equity expanded and now it is more or less a grab bag of all the assets, usually intangible, that a brand musters. Since brand equity now means so many things, financial and otherwise, it is becoming almost unusable as an instrument to solve the major problems that brands now have.

Whatever be the case, brand equity has been proposed as a way of differentiating brands and in creasing customer loyalty, and as an stable emotional base on which to build extensions and new brands.

One proposed key measurement of equity is price inelasticity; in fact, some marketers have proposed that equity is just another word for price inelasticity. Many schools of thought now agree, that equity is something more. Equity should be seen as the special relationship that a person has with his or her brand Equity is slowly built and should withstand competitive pricing changes to some point.

The recent changes in the cigarette and detergent markets internationally, have mooted the question of just how deep that brand relationship is when prices change. Cigarette brands have traditionally been the most stable, and brand users have been the most loyal for any branded product.

A study conducted by J Walter Thompson in the US showed that cigarettes, followed by beer brands, were the most resistant to price changes of a wide range of branded products. In addition, the equity built by Marlboro (and) more recently by Camel) in the US was a standard referred to by both management professors and marketing professionals.

But what happened? Price brands have captured a major part of the US cigarette market, about 30% at last look. In response, major brands have slashed prices, Marlboro being the first. Other manufacturers seemed undecided initially, only to follow suit later on.

A similar situation occurred in the Middle East in the recent past This was when Unilever launched its OMO brand to take on the undisputed market leader “Tide” of Procter and Gamble (P&G). This low-priced OMO brand soon accumulated great market shares within no time. The P & G executives were too complacent thinking that ‘Tide’ equity is too strong to get affected by such new entrants competing on a price advantage. This myopic view however proved a little too costly for them; Tide” lost major shares and revenues. In retaliation, they started a discount campaign on both “Tide’ and ‘Ariel’ to regain some market share.

Procter & Gamble had to reduce their prices on “Tide’ in the US and the European markets which also started facing stiff competition from local price brands.

On another front, Coca-Cola has recently started offering their classic drinks at reduced prices in their pursuit of taking market shares from arch rival and market leader Pepsi.

What’s going on here? Are these equities very fragile? Have they been abandoned in a management panic? Or is this a rational long-term solution? Only future. market figures or an exposé by a company defector will tell us for sure. The fact is that managements in these cases have decided partly to leave equity as a form of franchise preservation.

That leaves us with the larger issue: Is brand equity a myth?

Is it a kind of demagoguery to persuade manufacturers that advertising and marketing work even if sales do not go up immediately? At first sight, it would seem so. Perhaps, the Marlboro case is not the text book case it has become over the years, and maybe we can learn the following canons about brand equity from the turmoil in the cigarette market:

☐ Despite the need for long term equity development, equity may wear out, may turn into wall- paper there, but not seen. That is something worth exploring.

☐ Equity must be unique, at least as much as possible. Marlboro originally offered a new taste of individuality and freedom in a world of machine-like conformity. That was something special for a brand in the late ’50s, but now it is not so unique.

Beer brands make the same offer. Automobile brands do it. Jeans and athletic shoes do it as well. Even underwear brands do the same. One need not turn to a cigarette brand to make that equity connection when other, safer alternates are available.

This raises a difficult question. In this crowded world, can a brand find any equity connection that uniquely meets consumer needs? Answer: Yes, but it is getting very hard. Perhaps one answer is to make the equity connection more precise and segmented. The tighter the personal needs met by an equity, the less likely that it will be duplicated.

☐ The price range for which. equity will help ensure inelasticity is probably shrinking. That means marketers must be prepared to have flexible equity/price strategies rather than rely on equity strategies alone.

Does this situation mean that equity does not work? Absolutely not. It probably means that equity alone is not enough to push forward or save a brand in these competetive times. Equity is one tool in a marketing arsenal. It must be integrated with quality strategy distribution strategy, and pricing strategy for total brand health and growth.

What Marlboro signals is the end of marketing laziness. As the idea of brand equity has developed, it has become a substitute. for flexibility, for complex marketing thinking. Equity has become a simple solution.

But the market is not simple; nor should our solutions be. Equity alone is not robust enough to save a brand. Equity along with other marketing elements can however do it.

Muhamed Muneer C P has extensive experience in marketing and management consultancy. He writes for a number of publications around the world. At present, he is the Strategic Planning Manager at M&C Saatchi Advertising


Please login to join discussion

Business Today August 2023

Business Today September 2023

  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions

© 2023 BT Options. All Rights Reserved

No Result
View All Result
  • ISSUES
    • 1996 to 1999
      • 1996
      • 1997
    • 2000 to 2009
      • 2006
      • 2007
      • 2008
      • 2009
    • 2010 to 2019
      • 2010
      • 2011
      • 2012
      • 2013
      • 2014
      • 2015
      • 2016
      • 2017
      • 2018
      • 2019
    • 2020 to 2023
      • 2020
      • 2021
      • 2022
      • 2023
  • FOR DIGITAL SUBSCRIPTION
  • BT AWARDS
    • BT Top 40
      • BT Top 40 2021 – 2022
    • BT Top 30
      • BT Top 30 2018 – 2019
    • BT Top 25
      • BT Top 25 2011 – 2012
      • BT Top 25 2012 – 2013
      • BT Top 25 2013 – 2014
    • BT Top 20
      • BT Top 20 2009 – 2010
      • BT Top 20 2010 – 2011
    • BT Top 10
      • BT Top 10 2008 – 2009
      • BT Top 10 2007 – 2008
      • BT Top 10 2006 – 2007
      • BT Top 10 2005 – 2006
      • BT Top 10 2003 – 2004
      • BT Top 10 2000 – 2001
      • BT Top 10 1999 – 2000
      • BT Top 10 1998 – 1999
      • BT Top 10 1997 – 1998
      • BT Top 10 1996 – 1997
      • BT Top 10 1995 – 1996
  • ABOUT US

© 2023 BT Options. All Rights Reserved