Tabulation and Analysis of Brand Architecture Types

Transcription

1 Chapter 4 Tabulation and Analysis of Brand Architecture Types The objective of this component of the study is to present comprehensive information and analysis regarding the various types of brand architecture prevalent among fast moving consumer goods (FMCG) companies in India. As indicated in Chapter 3, 55 prominent FMCG companies were identified for this purpose, and all FMCG brands offered by these companies were included in the study. Available information from company websites, advertisements, product packages, news items, etc., was used to prepare well-structured tabulations pertaining to the brands and brand architectures of the companies chosen for study. The tabulations are presented at Annexures 1 to 55 at the end of this report. The procedure followed for tabulation, including the methodology for identification and enumeration of brands, classification of brands based on product type, application class and brand architecture type, and also the recognition of sub-brands are explained in the next five sections (i.e., Sections 4.1 to 4.5 respectively). The analysis in terms of numbers and percentages of different types of brands and brand architectures used by the companies, and cross-tabulations and categorizations thereof are covered in Sections 4.6 to

2 4.1 Identification and Enumeration of Brands Having decided to study all the FMCG brands offered by 55 identified companies, the first step is to determine what should be considered and enumerated as a brand. For example, Agro Tech Foods Ltd markets several brands of edible oils Sundrop Heart, Sundrop GoldLite, Sundrop Olivea, etc. In the case of Horlicks (from GlaxoSmithKline), we have various offerings such as Horlicks Ninja, Junior Horlicks, Mother s Horlicks, Lite Horlicks, Horlicks Biscuits, Horlicks Oats and Foodles from Horlicks. In these (and similar) cases, Sundrop and Horlicks are considered and enumerated as brands. GoldLite, Olivea, Ninja, Foodles, etc., are considered as sub-brands of product brands, and are not enumerated and considered in the analysis. This is because the brand architecture template is decided at the corporate level, in terms of the pattern of usage of corporate brand, individual product brands and dual brands (i.e., combination of corporate brand and product brand). Sub-brands come one level lower. Let us now consider another set of examples. Amrutanjan Roll On, Amrutanjan Faster Relaxation and Amrutanjan Xpert (all from Amrutanjan Health Care Ltd) are considered as separate brands, and not as different products marketed under a common brand name - Amrutanjan. Likewise, the hair oils Bajaj Almond Drops, Bajaj Brahmi Amla and Bajaj Jasmine (from Bajaj Corp Ltd) are all considered as separate brands, and not as sub-brands of Bajaj. This is because each of these is marketed as a distinct brand. Even though the second part of some of the above dual names have grammatical meaning (e.g., Roll On, Faster Relaxation and Jasmine), they are not mere product descriptors, but product brand names. All these are cases of dual brand names comprising a company name and a product name. 69

3 Likewise, in the case of L Oréal, the various product brands offered by the company such as White Perfect, Youth Code, Revitalift, Color Riche, Glam Shine, Excellence Creme, Total Repair 5 and such others are all considered as separate product brands, endorsed by L Oréal, thus resulting in dual brand names. What to consider as a brand has also been to a significant extent influenced by what the company itself considers as a brand, as evident from the section on brands in the company s website. However, for the most part, what has been identified and enumerated as a brand is the primary customer-facing brand, based on which the prospective customer makes a buying decision. It is also what is marketed and communicated as a brand by the company itself. In other words, what is considered and enumerated as a brand is the primary brand. Sub-brands (often the names of variants) and endorser brands (often the names of companies or divisions) are not considered as primary brands. Accordingly, 722 primary brands have been identified and enumerated across the 55 companies selected for the study. If sub-brands (of product brands) were also to be considered, the total number would run into thousands. The sample is fairly exhaustive, and is estimated to cover around 80 per cent of the FMCG market (by value) catered to by manufacturer brands that are marketed nationally. The sample however excludes regional/local brands and retailer brands. A note on primary brand, sub-brand and endorser brand is given below, which would help to reinforce and further clarify the method followed for identification and enumeration of brands. According to Tybout & Calkins (2005) The primary brand is the main brand name on a product or service. This is generally the largest branding element on a product package or in a piece of 70

4 communication. This is what people refer to when they talk about the brand. Every brand has a primary brand. It would also be useful at this stage to quote Tybout & Calkins (2005) definitions of sub-brands and endorsing brands, as they help to amplify the meaning of the term primary brand, which is of main interest to us. Sub-brands are secondary branding elements that fall below the primary brand in prominence but usually above the product description. The primary brand continues to be the most prominent branding element. Sub-brands are usually employed to set apart a group of products or service offerings that are different in some meaningful way from the primary brand. Sub-brands can vary substantially in prominence. If the sub-brand is more prominent than the primary brand; then the sub-brand is actually the primary brand. Endorser brands are secondary branding elements. When an endorser brand is present, a primary brand and a product description will also be present. Endorser brands are used to link the parent brand to another brand. Endorser brands are often used to communicate the parent company of the primary brand, but this is not always the case. Generally, endorsers are used to bring credibility to the primary brand while letting the primary brand establish its own identity. Endorsers can vary substantially in prominence, varying from very slight endorsement to very strong endorsement. Like sub-brands, endorser brands can never exceed the prominence of the primary brand; if the endorser brand is the largest brand element, then it is actually the primary brand, not an endorser. 71

5 4.2 Product Types and Product Categories Used in the Study In the tabulations (i.e., in Annexures 1 to 55), each brand is classified by product type to indicate the type or class of product to which it is applied, and this is indicated in one of the columns (i.e., Column 4). For this purpose, eight FMCG product types are considered. These are the same as those used in Nielsen s reports on India s Most Trusted Brands. The eight product types and the letter codes used to designate them are as follows: A. Soaps & Personal Wash B. Other Personal Care C. OTC Health Care D. Fabric Care E. Other Household Care F. Chocolates & Confectionery G. Beverages H. Other Food Products However, for ease of analysis, the eight product types listed above are aggregated into four product categories, as explained below. These are designated by the letter codes S, T, U and V respectively. S. Personal Care products comprising (A) Soaps & Personal Wash and (B) Other Personal Care products T. OTC Health Care products comprising (C) OTC Health Care products U. Home Care products comprising (D) Fabric Care and (E) Other Household Care products V. Food products comprising (F) Chocolates & Confectionery, (G) Beverages, and (H) Other Food Products 72

6 4.3 Application Classes Used in the Study for Classifying Brands As mentioned earlier above, customer-facing primary brands are identified and enumerated as brands, regardless of whether they are names of companies or business divisions, or those associated with a specific product or group of products. Based on the breadth of application, each of the identified brands is classified as a mono brand (M), range brand (R) or a family brand (F), and this is indicated in Column 5 in the Annexures. This classification provides a broad indication of the extent to which the brands have been extended, both within and across product categories Mono Brand A brand is classified as a mono brand (designated by the letter M in Column 5 in the Annexures) if it is used for only one product e.g., toilet soap or deodorant. If a brand is applicable only to toilet soaps, it is considered as a mono brand, even if there are several sub-brands, variants and fragrances in which the product is available. For example, Brooke Bond Taj Mahal is considered as a mono brand as it applies only to packet tea, though there are ten sub-brands Classic, Gold, Earl Grey, English Breakfast and so on. Likewise, Fair & Lovely is considered as a mono brand (fairness cream), though there are at least seven sub-brands Winter Fairness Cream, Anti Marks Cream, Max Fairness For Men, Forever Glow, etc. When a brand is available in different forms of a product, it is still considered as a mono brand. For example, a detergent brand available in different product forms bar, powder and liquid, is considered as a mono brand. 73

7 4.3.2 Range Brand A brand is considered as a range brand (R), if it is applied to anywhere between two to five different products, which are usually closely related, but could also sometimes extend across a broader product category (e.g., personal care products, foods, etc.). For example, Aashirvaad, which is applied to staples, spices, instant mixes and ready meals, all within the larger category of foods, is considered a range brand Family Brand A brand is designated as a family brand (F) if it is used for more than five products, whether or not within a broader product category. In some cases, brands which are designated as family brands are brands developed in-house (e.g., Dove, Revlon ColorStay) which are applied across numerous products. Some others which are considered as family brands are erstwhile corporate brands, which have now become family brands, due to acquisition (e.g., Lakme and Ponds). Lakme and Ponds were earlier companies in their own right, which were acquired by Unilever/Hindustan Unilever. 4.4 Brand Architecture Types and Brand Architecture Categories Used in the Study Each of the brands is also classified into a brand architecture type (indicated in Column 6 in the Annexures) based on how it relates to the brand architecture typologies. Classical theory on brand architecture suggests that each company follows a particular model of brand architecture, and accordingly, all brands of that company are of a particular type. For example, if a company follows a 74

8 house of brands model or product branding model of brand architecture, all the products marketed by it would have distinct brand names, without any reference to the name of the company. If a company follows the branded house model or corporate branding model of brand architecture, all the products would carry the company name followed by a product descriptor. If on the other hand, a company follows a dual branding model of brand architecture, all the products marketed by it would carry dual names one part being the name of the company, and the other being a name that is distinct to each product. However, in actual practice, companies rarely follow one pure form of brand architecture throughout the organization, barring those which are quite small and have a very limited product range. More often, they use different brand architecture types for different products, product groups or business divisions. Thus, their brand architectures may have to be classified as corporate dominant, product dominant or dual dominant, or even as mixed, depending on the percentage of brands that have different brand architecture formats. Therefore, in order to be able to classify companies based on brand architectures followed by them, it is necessary to designate each brand marketed by the company with a brand architecture type. Accordingly, eight brand architecture types are identified and these are listed together with their designated letter codes in Table 4.1. When we say that corporate name alone is used or product name alone is used, etc., the brand name (whether corporate brand or product brand) would be followed by a product descriptor. The eight brand types are in turn aggregated into three brand architecture categories corporate dominant brand, dual brand and product brand. A brief explanation regarding the brand architecture categories and brand architecture types assigned to the brands (in Column 6 in the Annexures) is given below. 75

9 4.4.1 Corporate Dominant Brand In a corporate dominant brand, either the name of the company or an umbrella brand name is used to identify the product, together with a product descriptor. Accordingly, there are two brand architecture types under this category designated by the letters C and Cu (i.e., corresponding to corporate name and umbrella name respectively). In the first type (i.e., C) the product is described by using the name of the company, followed by a product descriptor, e.g., Amrutanjan herbal balm massage (from the company - Amrutanjan Health Care Ltd.) In some instances, an umbrella brand (which is other than the name of the company), may also be used across a wide range of products. This type of brand is designated by the letter code Cu. For example, Gowardhan Ghee is considered as a Cu type brand. Here, the company is Parag Milk Foods Pvt Ltd. Though Gowardhan is not the name of the company, it is used akin to a company name, and most products marketed by Parag Milk Foods are named Gowardhan. In this case, Gowardhan is considered as an umbrella brand Dual Brand A brand is classified as a dual brand, if two brand names are used one of them being a corporate/umbrella brand name and the other being a product name. Dual brands are classified into four types, depending on the relative prominence and role of the corporate/umbrella brand and the product brand. Accordingly, the four types of dual brands are - Dc (corporate brand is more important), Du (umbrella brand is more important), D (both corporate/umbrella brand and product brand are equally important) and Dp (product brand is more important). 76

10 The comparative dominance between the parent brand (corporate/umbrella brand) and the daughter brand (product brand) is decided based on the relative importance given to the two brand names on the product package and also in the marketing communications. However, in some instances, though the relative prominence given to the brand names on the packaging may be similar across products, they are categorized differently depending on the prominence acquired by the product name in consumers minds due to the company s marketing and advertising efforts. For example, L Oréal Total Repair 5 is classified as Dp (product name is more important), L Oréal White Perfect is designated as D (both company name and product name are equal drivers), while a less known brand such as L Oréal Lucent Magique is classified as Dc (corporate brand is the main driver), though the naming style on the package is nearly the same in all the three cases. An important point to note is that brand names such as Brooke Bond 3 Roses, Ujala Supreme or Sunfeast Dark Fantasy are not considered as dual names. They are considered as product brands, as no company/umbrella brand name is used. Some authors are found to consider such names as dual or mixed brand names, thus influencing their conclusions about the brand architectures followed by the companies accordingly Product Brand A brand is designated as a product brand if the product s name is used to identify and market it, without using the name of the company. The company name or logo may however appear in small size as part of the manufacturer s/marketer s details on the product or its packaging. For example, the ITC logo is used in small size on the packaging of most of its consumer goods, such as biscuits, soaps, etc. Same is true in the case of Hindustan Unilever. In some cases, the company name or logo may be flashed at the end of an audio-visual advertisement (as is often done by Hindustan Unilever, Procter & Gamble, Nestle and Vini Cosmetics on Indian television commercials). In all these cases, the brands are considered as 77

11 product brand names and not as dual names, as the companies in question are marketing the individual product brands with aggressive and dedicated marketing efforts. In some instances, the companies are even offering multiple brands competing in the same category, thus shifting the focus to the product brands rather than the name of the company. Many of these brands have sub-brands and are often associated with their sub-brand names rather than with the company names (e.g., Sunfeast Dark Fantasy and Pepsodent Germi Check rather than ITC Sunfeast or Unilever Pepsodent). Most consumers recognize these brands by their product name and not by their company name. Hence, all these brands are classified as Product brands (designated by the letter P). Product brands with a token endorsement by the company name (often at the bottom of the packaging) are designated by the letter code Pe. For example, Clean & Clear, Nizoral, Band Aid and Savlon are well known by their respective names, but are endorsed by the company name Johnson & Johnson. Likewise, edible oil brands such as Pilaf, Mahurat and Alife are endorsed by the company name Adani Wilmar. 4.5 Recognition and Identification of Sub-Brands Many of the brands in the product-dominant and dual-branding categories would have sub-brands. For example, the product brand name Ponds is used across a wide family of products, and several of these products are designated or identified by distinct sub-brand names such as Age Miracle, White Beauty, Gold Radiance, etc. In some instances, even the sub-brands in turn have sub-brands. As mentioned earlier, the combination of a product brand and its sub-brand is not considered as dual brand. However, wherever a primary brand has a sub-brand or sub-brands, the existence of the same is indicated by the letter s in Column 7 of the Annexures. In most cases, a partial or complete listing of the sub-brands is 78

12 also included in Column 2. In cases where some of the sub-brands in turn have sub-brands, this is indicated by the code s-s. However, the sub-brands are not otherwise enumerated, recognized or used for analysis of the brand architectures. They are captured for the sake of completeness of information and as an indication of the extent to which the primary brands are extended to related products, instead of launching new brands. 4.6 Brands across Application Classes and Product Categories Analysis by Application Classes Out of the 722 brands, 172 (23.8%) are categorized as range brands and 19 (2.5%) as family brands. The rest (i.e., 73.7%) are mono brands. This suggests that almost three out of four FMCG brands are used for only one product. However, one should not use this information to conclude that there are very few brand extensions in the FMCG sector. Mono brand does not imply absence of brand extension. Amrutanjan Roll On, Amrutanjan Xpert and such others are all considered mono brands, but they are extensions of the Amrutanjan brand. Likewise, Brooke Bond Taj Mahal and Fair & Lovely have several extensions/sub-brands/variants, but as explained earlier, they are identified as mono brands Analysis by Product Categories A classification summary of the 722 brands across the four major product categories and the eight product types in terms of both numbers and percentages is presented in Table

13 The largest number of brands is in the Food Products category (V), followed by Personal Care products (S). OTC Health Care (T) and Household Care (U) brands are comparatively less in number. Going into specifics, 46.3 per cent (334 numbers) are food product brands, 36.8 per cent (266 numbers) are personal care brands, 9.2 per cent (66 numbers) are household care brands, while 7.7 per cent (56 numbers) are OTC healthcare brands. Given that the sample of 55 companies includes most of the prominent companies operating in the FMCG sector at the national level in India, the percentage distribution of brands across different product categories and product types can be considered as fairly representative of the universe itself (i.e., the aggregate Indian market). Even otherwise, the skew towards large number of brands in the personal care and food products categories is as expected. Brand management as is practiced today was developed by companies such as Procter & Gamble, Unilever, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and such others, which are majorly into personal care and food products. These product categories are characterized by more number of market segments and differentiated products, thus translating into greater number of brands in the market. Company-wise break-up of brands across the four principal product categories (designated as S, T, U and V as explained earlier) in terms of numbers and percentages is shown in Tables 4.3. The last column (Prod. Cat.) is explained later in Section below. 80

14 4.7 Brands across Brand Architecture Categories The number and percentage of brands of each of the 55 companies across the three principal brand architecture categories are indicated in Table 4.4. The last column (Co. BA) is dealt with in Section later below. Out of the 722 brands included in the study, only 10.3 % (75 numbers) are corporate dominant brands, while 46.6 % (336 numbers) are dual brands, and 43.1 % (311 numbers) are product brands. This seems to suggest that corporate brands play a very minor role in the marketing of FMCG products. But we will soon discover in the following paragraphs that this is not actually so Importance of Corporate Brands in the Marketing of FMCG Products Foods command the highest level of risk perception, importance and involvement from consumers amongst all FMCG products. Nearly 75 per cent of the corporate dominant brands are found in the food products category, i.e., V (Refer Table 4.5, item (iii)). This demonstrates that a credible and reputed company or umbrella name (the main examples being Amul, Britannia, Dabur and Gowardhan) helps in the marketing of food products. Most of the dual brands are in the personal care (46.7%) and food products (44.1%) categories (Refer Table 4.5, item (iii)), both of them being of high importance to consumers. Within personal care products, dual branding is more common among cosmetics, towards which consumers are more sensitive. Examples of companies with a large number of dual brands are L Oréal, Parle, Nivea, Modi-Revlon, Colgate-Palmolive and Nestlé. In dual branding, the corporate or umbrella brand is used together with the product 81

15 name so as to bring in the images associated with both, in positioning and marketing communications. While the corporate brand lends source credibility, the differentiation associated with the individual product is communicated through the product brand. As such, this clearly shows the importance of endorsement by a corporate brand in enhancing the acceptance of the product brand in the FMCG category. And dual brands account for nearly half the total number of FMCG brands. Pure product brands are also quite commonly used in the FMCG sector. The largest numbers of product brands are offered by Hindustan Unilever, Reckitt Benckiser, Pepsico, ITC, Procter & Gamble and Johnson & Johnson. However, here too, tacit endorsement by the corporate brand to varying degrees is seen in several cases such as Hindustan Unilever, ITC, Procter & Gamble and Johnson & Johnson. Among corporate dominant brands, corporate brands (59) are far more common than umbrella brands (16). Among dual brands, corporate dominant dual brands account for the largest numbers. Nearly 64 per cent of all dual brands are corporate dominant dual brands (i.e., 214 out of 336). This again reinforces the important role played by corporate brands in the successful marketing of FMCG products. Among product brands, though 92 per cent are pure product brands, as observed earlier above, even among these, there is tacit endorsement by the corporate brand in many instances. The overall conclusion therefore is as follows: Much of the literature on brand architecture highlights the point that product branding is most common in the consumer packaged goods (i.e., FMCG) sector. This is definitely true. However, corporate brand does have a very significant and important role to play even in the marketing of FMCG products, though of an indirect nature; and this often goes unnoticed and unacknowledged. The message to marketers therefore is not to overlook the indirect support that the corporate brand can lend to product brands, when marketing consumer packaged goods. 82

16 4.8 Cross Tabulations - Brand Architecture Categories versus Product Categories 59% of personal care products (S) have dual branding, followed by 38% having product branding (Table 4.5, item (iv)). The important observation that emerges is that dual branding (i.e., inclusion of the corporate name) is quite prominent even among personal care products, which are otherwise perceived to be largely driven by independent product brands. Considering OTC health care products, only 14.3 per cent of them have corporate dominant branding (Table 4.5, item (iv)). This is an interesting finding because one would tend to think that corporate brands are extremely important for healthcare products. The presence of corporate brands is however seen to a significant extent in the form of dual branding (42.9%). Yet another surprise is that 42.9 % of OTC healthcare brands are pure product brands, without being associated with a corporate or umbrella brand name. This means that quite a number of OTC healthcare products are being marketed with distinct positioning and marketing budgets of their own, akin to personal care products. The household care products are sold almost overwhelmingly through product names (84.8 %). This speaks of the importance that they are given by way of being marketed with distinct names and positioning of their own. This also implies large marketing budgets to support individual brands. In the foods category, most of the products are sold as dual brands (44.3 %) or product brands (38.9%). Corporate brands too have a significant presence (16.8%). This pattern is along expected lines, as corporate brands are present in the case of majority of the products (44.3% %), given the perceived risk and involvement associated with this category. The presence of a reliable and well-known corporate name provides the necessary assurance and comfort to consumers. 83

17 4.9 Relationship between Company Brand Architectures and the Products Offered by Them So far, the analysis was focused on the individual brands included in the study. For instance, the association between product categories and brand architecture categories was discussed in Section 4.8 above with the 722 brands as the units of observation and measurement. Now we shift our attention to analyzing the 55 companies. What we try to do is to explore how the brand architectures followed by FMCG companies are related to the product categories that they deal with. In order to proceed with this objective, we first need to identify the product categories dealt with by each of the companies and also the predominant brand architecture type followed by them. The methodology adopted for doing these is explained in Sections and respectively. The findings about relationship between the companies product categories and brand architectures are presented in Section Assigning Product Categories that the Companies are doing Business In We consider four product categories personal care products, OTC health care products, home care products and food products, designated by the letters S, T, U and V respectively, as indicated earlier. Some companies are operating in only one of these four categories. However, many are operating in two, three or even in all four of these categories. Therefore, the following methodology is used to assign the product category (or categories) that each of the 55 companies deals with. We consider the company-wise product category data (in terms of percentage) available in Table 4.3. Data is available here pertaining to the four product categories personal care products (S), OTC health care products (T), home care products (U) and food products (V). 84

18 The product category accounting for the highest percentage of brands dealt with by the company is identified as the predominant product category that the company is doing business in. In case a second (third or fourth) product category accounts for at least 50 per cent of the percentage of brands in the predominant product category, this too is considered as a product category that the company is engaged in, thus assigning two (or more) product categories to the company. The product categories thus assigned to each company are indicated in the last column of Table 4.4 itself, which is shaded in grey. This column is named Prod. Cat. and the relevant letter codes (from among S, T, U and V) are assigned against each of the 55 companies Assigning Brand Architecture(s) Followed by the Companies For this purpose, we consider the three principal brand architecture categories corporate dominant, dual branding and product branding. However, many companies do not follow one pure form of brand architecture and use different forms for different product categories or business divisions. Therefore, a method similar to the one followed above, was used to designate the brand architecture category (or categories) used by each of the 55 companies. We consider the company-wise brand architecture category data (in terms of percentage) available in Table 4.4. Data is available here pertaining to the three brand architecture categories corporate dominant (C), dual branding (D) and product branding (P). The brand architecture category accounting for the highest percentage of brands dealt with by the company is identified as the predominant brand architecture type that the company is following. In case a second (or third) band architecture category accounts for at least 50 per cent of the percentage of brands in the predominant brand architecture category, this too is considered as a brand architecture format that the company is following, thus assigning two (or three) brand architecture 85

19 categories to the company. The brand architecture categories thus assigned to each company are indicated in the last column of Table 4.4 itself, which is shaded in grey. This column is named Co. BA and the relevant letter codes (from among C, D and P; and M, i.e., Mixed, if all three are categories are used significantly) are assigned against each of the 55 companies Analysis - Company Brand Architectures and Company Product Categories A cross-tabulation of brand architecture category applicable to each company and the product categories that each of them is engaged in is presented in Table 4.6. The companies fall into five brand architecture categories product brand (P) 24 nos., dual brand (D) 15 nos., Dual & Product Brand (DP) 8 nos., Corporate & Dual Brand (CD) 4 nos., and Mixed Brand Architecture (M), i.e., Corporate, Dual & Product 4 nos. An important point to note is that not even one of the 55 companies has corporate dominant (C) brand architecture. Considering the number of product categories, there are totally 11 S, T, U, V, ST, TU, UV, SV, TV, SU and SUV, with the letters S, T, U and V having meanings as explained earlier. Thus, there are 66 cells in the cross-tabulation (6 brand architecture categories x 11 product categories). 45 of these cells are empty and 10 cells have only one company each in them, thus making it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions. Therefore, the product categories are reduced to four in the lower part of this table, by giving pro-rata weightage to each of the product categories, wherever a company has been found to be engaged in more than one product category. The resultant data, both in terms of numbers and percentages is given in the lower part of this table. 86

20 Based on this revised table, one arrives at the following conclusions: 1. Personal care companies are strongly associated with product branding (42 %) and dual branding (40 %). 2. OTC health care companies follow one of three types of branding mix of dual and product branding (45 %), product branding (33 %) and dual branding (22 %). 3. Home care product companies predominantly follow product branding (72 %). 4. Food product companies tend to use product branding (44 %) and dual branding (27 %). Thus, analysis based on product as the unit of observation and company as the unit of observation both point in the same direction, though there are minor differences. 87

21 Table 4.1 List of Brand Architecture Categories and Brand Architecture Types Used to Designate the Brands Included in the Study Letter Code Brand Architecture Category Letter Code Brand Architecture Type C Corporate Dominant Brand C Cu Corporate name alone is used Umbrella name alone is used Dc Corporate & product names are used, and corporate name is more important Du Umbrella & product names are used, and umbrella brand is more important D Dual Brand D Product name is used together with corporate or umbrella brand, and both are equally important Dp Product name is used together with corporate or umbrella brand, and product brand is more important P Product Brand Pe Product name is used, with token endorsement by a company or umbrella brand P Product name alone is used 88

22 Table 4.2 Classification Summary of Brands across Product Categories and Product Types # Product Category Nos. % # Product Type Nos. % S Soaps & Personal A 30 4 Personal Care Wash Products Products Other Personal B Care Products T OTC Health OTC Health Care 56 8 C Care Products Products 56 8 U Fabric Care D 21 3 Household Products 66 9 Care Products Other Household E 45 6 Care Products F Chocolates & Confectionery 46 6 V Food Products G Beverages H Other Food Products Total Total

23 Table 4.3 Company-wise Tabulation of Brands by Product Categories # Company n % S T U V TOT 1 Adani Wilmar Ltd V 2 Agro Tech Foods Ltd V 3 Amrutanjan Health Care Ltd T 4 Anchor H & B Care P Ltd S 5 Bajaj Corp Ltd S 6 Bisleri International Pvt Ltd V 7 Britannia Industries Ltd V 8 Bunge India Pvt Ltd V Prod. Cat. 9 CavinKare Pvt Ltd SV 10 Cholayil Pvt Ltd S 11 Coca-Cola India Pvt Ltd V 12 Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd S 13 Dabur India Ltd ST 14 Dey s Med Stores (Mfg) Ltd S 15 Emami Ltd ST 16 Fena Pvt Ltd U 17 Ferrero India Pvt Ltd V 18 G. D. Pharma Pvt Ltd ST 19 General Mills India Pvt Ltd V 20 GSK Consr Healthcare Ltd TV 21 Godrej Consumer Prods Ltd SU 22 GCMMF Ltd V 23 Haldiram Group V 24 Heinz India Pvt Ltd V 25 Hindustan Unilever Ltd SV 26 Indo Nissin Foods Ltd V 27 ITC Limited SUV 28 Johnson & Johnson Ltd ST 29 Jyothy Laboratories Ltd U 30 Kellogg India Pvt Ltd V Contd.. 90

24 # Company n Table 4.3 (Contd..) % S T U V TOT 31 L Oréal India Pvt Ltd S 32 Marico Ltd S 33 McNroe Cons Prods P Ltd S 34 Modi-Revlon Pvt Ltd S 35 Mondelez India Foods Ltd V 36 Mother Dairy V 37 Nestlé India Ltd V Prod. Cat. 38 Nirma Ltd SU 39 Nivea India Pvt Ltd S 40 Parag Milk Foods Pvt Ltd V 41 Parle Agro Pvt Ltd V 42 Parle Products Pvt Ltd V 43 Pepsico V 44 Perfetti Van Melle I P Ltd V 45 Procter & Gamble India S 46 Rasna Pvt Ltd V 47 Reckitt Benckiser TU 48 Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd V 49 S C Johnson Prods P Ltd U 50 Tata Chemicals Ltd UV 51 Tata Global Beverages V 52 The Himalaya Drug Co S 53 Vicco Laboratories Pvt Ltd ST 54 Vini Cosmetics Pvt Ltd S 55 Wipro Enterprises Ltd S Aggregate Product Categories: S = Personal Care Products T = OTC Health Care Products U = Household Care Products V = Food Products 91

25 Table 4.4 Company-wise Tabulation of Brands by Brand Architecture Categories # Company n % C D P TOT 1 Adani Wilmar Ltd P 2 Agro Tech Foods Ltd P Co. BA. 3 Amrutanjan Health Care Ltd DP 4 Anchor H & B Care P Ltd M 5 Bajaj Corp Ltd D 6 Bisleri International Pvt Ltd M 7 Britannia Industries Ltd CD 8 Bunge India Pvt Ltd P 9 CavinKare Pvt Ltd P 10 Cholayil Pvt Ltd P 11 Coca-Cola India Pvt Ltd P 12 Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd D 13 Dabur India Ltd DP 14 Dey s Med Stores (Mfg) Ltd P 15 Emami Ltd D 16 Fena Pvt Ltd P 17 Ferrero India Pvt Ltd P 18 G. D. Pharma Pvt Ltd DP 19 General Mills India Pvt Ltd M 20 GSK Consr Healthcare Ltd P 21 Godrej Consumer Prods Ltd D 22 GCMMF Ltd CD 23 Haldiram Group D 24 Heinz India Pvt Ltd P 25 Hindustan Unilever Ltd P 26 Indo Nissin Foods Ltd DP 27 ITC Limited P 28 Johnson & Johnson Ltd P 29 Jyothy Laboratories Ltd P 30 Kellogg India Pvt Ltd D Contd.. 92

26 Table 4.4 (Contd..) # Company n % C D P TOT 31 L Oréal India Pvt Ltd D 32 Marico Ltd P 33 McNroe Cons Prods P Ltd P 34 Modi-Revlon Pvt Ltd D Co. BA. 35 Mondelez India Foods Ltd DP 36 Mother Dairy D 37 Nestlé India Ltd D 38 Nirma Ltd CD 39 Nivea India Pvt Ltd D 40 Parag Milk Foods Pvt Ltd CD 41 Parle Agro Pvt Ltd P 42 Parle Products Pvt Ltd D 43 Pepsico P 44 Perfetti Van Melle I P Ltd P 45 Procter & Gamble India P 46 Rasna Pvt Ltd D 47 Reckitt Benckiser P 48 Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd DP 49 S C Johnson Prods P Ltd P 50 Tata Chemicals Ltd M 51 Tata Global Beverages DP 52 The Himalaya Drug Co D 53 Vicco Laboratories Pvt Ltd D 54 Vini Cosmetics Pvt Ltd P 55 Wipro Enterprises Ltd DP Aggregate Brand Architecture Categories: C = Corporate Dominant Brand D = Dual Brand P = Product Brand 93

27 Table 4.5 Cross Tabulation Product Brand Architecture Categories and Product Categories (i) By Numbers S T U V TOT C D P TOT (ii) By Aggregate Percentage S T U V TOT C D P TOT (iii) By Percentage on Brand Architecture Categories S T U V TOT C D P TOT (iv) By Percentage on Product Categories S T U V TOT C D P TOT C = Corporate Dominant Brand D = Dual Brand P = Product Brand S = Personal Care Products T = OTC Healthcare Products U = Home Care Products V = Food Products 94

28 Table 4.6 Cross-Tabulation Company Brand Architectures and the Products Categories Dealt With by Them Product Brand Architecture Category Category P D C CD DP M Total S T 1 1 U 3 3 V ST TU 1 1 UV 1 1 SV 2 2 TV 1 1 SU SUV 1 1 Total Summarization of the Above: Product Category Brand Architecture Category P D C CD DP M Total Personal Care 7.83 (41.6%) 7.5 (39.8%) (2.7%) 2.0 (10.6%) 1 (5.3%) (100.0%) OTC Healthcare 1.50 (33.3%) 1.0 (22.2%) (44.5%) (100.0%) Household Care 3.83 (71.8%) 0.5 (9.4%) (9.4%) (9.4%) 5.33 (100.0%) Foods (41.1%) 6.0 (22.8%) (11.4%) 4.0 (15.2%) 2.5 (9.5%) (100.0%) Total (43.6%) 15.0 (27.3%) (7.3%) 8.0 (14.5%) 4.0 (7.3%) (100.0%) (percentages in brackets and italics) Methodology: When a company is engaged in two or three product categories, half or onethird of it is accordingly considered to be operating in each of the product categories. 95