Two Brands for the Price of One
Interesting piece in today's New York Times on how the impending arrival next week of a "branding mash-up" between J.C. Penney and the Polo Ralph Lauren Corporation might confuse each company's brand image in the minds of consumers. The new clothing line, called American Living, will be featured exclusively at Penney's; its ad campaign will work hard to make the Polo/Penney connection via such tried and true Lauren components as photography by Bruce Weber.
While the potential for boosting Penney's cachet and Lauren's bottom line seems obvious, it's left some brand consultants wondering if the deal's really going to be as win/win as it's being presented. “May I remind you that Wal-Mart ran ad pages in Vogue?” the article quotes Robert K. Passikoff, president at brand and consumer loyalty consultancy Brand Keys. "The ads were lovely, but no one would buy the clothing.”
This got me to wondering what other brand-conscious companies think about the American Living deal. When does it make sense to try and expand your brand's impact with a business arrangement with another brand -- and when should you say "no thanks" to such an opportunity? Is there a real threat of losing your own brand's reputation if certain goals aren't met? Is it okay to risk losing a little of your brand's "soul" if the trade-off is higher sales?
A lot of people believe that a rose is a rose is a rose, of course. Though Ralph Lifschitz, for one, might dispute that.
Related Entries
- Is Social CRM the "It" Strategy of 2010?
- What Was Your Favorite Customer Strategy Story of 2009?
- Subway Misses the Mark on a Customer Relationship Opportunity
I had a conversation recently with a designer friend about a men's brand that in its heyday was very high style, and today is found at all the discount stores and moderate-price department stores because it was drawn in by the potential for selling to a broader market. That worked for a short time, but today the brand is just another in a sea of designer names. The company has decided it wants to rebuild the image back to where it was in its heydey, and my friend and I were discussing whether that was possible. Perhaps. But likely only if it's clear that this line of this designer is high end and that line is the moderate-priced line. Even with that approach, which is successful for some high-end brands that expand to the moderate-price market, it's more likely that this designer may never again have the cache it once did.
Kevin-
Great point, and it's definitely not a discussion limited to JCPenney and Polo. Wal-Mart started the same debate when it wanted to sell wine and other typically uppper-class merchandise, and McDonalds/Starbucks are fighting over the discount and luxury coffee market (Starbucks lowering their prices, McDonalds trying to attract a higher-end consumer).
What I think it comes down to is that every brand is trying to expand their market-share out of their niche because it's easier now than ever before. I'm looking at the issue for an upcoming "Trendspotting" that focuses on getting into the luxury market, and into the discount market. It'll be interesting to see whether brands like Polo should have just been satisfied with their image and market share and if teaming with JCPenney will be a detriment.