House of Brands vs. Branded House A House of Brands (e.g., Procter-Gamble) A Branded House (e.g., General Electric) GE Storage GE Media and E t t i GE Consumer Electronics GE Appliances GE Home Comfort and Safety GE Lighting By David Reibstein William S. Woodside Professor and Professor of Marketing The Wharton School
November 2004
House of Brands vs. Branded House Over the past fifty years we have seen a remarkable transition in what determines a firm s value. Nearly 80% of a firm s valuation was determined by tangible assets its plant, equipment, inventory, land, work in process, etc. Today, nearly 50% of a firm s value is determined by intangible assets; things that don t appear directly on the books and are harder for us to measure. Perhaps one of the largest of these assets is the firm s brand or brands. Interestingly, companies will invest to establish, grow, and fortify their brand(s), but often not directly measure what has happened with their investment and the overall health of their brand. Further, we have not figured out how to directly put our brand s value on our books, other than to lump it into the catch-all, goodwill. Goodwill serves to explain the difference between our assets and liabilities when we have no other way to explain it. Nonetheless, financial markets have figured out that what the firm is developing is a true, albeit intangible, asset that contributes to the value of the firm. Interestingly, while we can t directly account for a brand, we could sell a brand, as Rolls Royce did to BMW for nearly $60 million. Once acquired, BMW could now put the asset on their books. While BMW might invest to grow the brand it now owns, its book value cannot change until there is another transaction of the brand alone, and, keep in mind, it never appeared on the Rolls Royce books prior to its sell. Brand is an important asset. We should measure it. We should manage it. Every year Business Week publishes the Interbrand ratings of the world s top 100 brands and their values. The list is a very interesting one. The perennial leader in this list, as shown in Table 1, is Coca Cola. The value of that brand alone is nearly $70 billion. This is a significant portion of the overall value of the firm. The first point from this study: A brand can be a very significant asset of the firm. Table 1 Top Valued Brands, 2004 (Million $) 1 1.Coca-Cola $ 67,394 2.Microsoft 61,372 3. IBM 53,791 4. GE 44,111 5. INTEL 33,499 6. Disney 27,113 7. McDonalds 25,001 8. Nokia 24,041 9. Toyota 22,673 10. Marlboro 22,128 1 Interbrand study, 2004
It is also worth noting, by looking at the next four brands, Microsoft, IBM, GE, and Intel, that while many people think that the role of a brand is something significant for consumer packaged goods, it is also significant in other business categories as well.. Examples of this are Microsoft in software, IBM in business to business services with now a lesser role in hardware, GE, with primarily business to business products and some services, and Intel, a business-to-business, hi-tech microchip manufacturer. Point two: The importance of a brand is not the exclusive concern of consumer packaged goods. TO GLOBAL BRAND OR NOT? As firms have more of a global presence there is the question of whether to have a global brand or not. On the surface this is an easy question with the answer being, of course. On the other hand, aside from the well-known and publicized guffaws of using a name which translates into a nasty interpretation in another language, there are other reasons why a firm might not have a global brand. Let s first explore what it means to have a global brand. As Day and Reibstein (2004) 2 explained in an earlier writing, to be a global brand, it is necessary to not only use the same name in all markets, but to also have the same target and positioning in all markets. This may not always be achievable given differences in competition. Walmart is renown in North America as the low price provider of branded goods and always carrying fresh produce. As Walmart has opened stores now in China, it is difficult for them to be positioned as the guaranteed low price provider or even the supplier of the freshest produce, given the local farmers and vendors with whom they compete. Their position is different. Further, it may not even be desirable to offer the same position and feature the same benefits in all parts of the world. The segments may be different and the relative sizes of these segments, and hence, their attractiveness will differ. For a brand to truly be a brand, it must be consistent. For a global brand to truly be a global brand, it must also be consistent, not just in name, but also in position and what it offers. There is a spectrum of degrees of brand globalness, Figure 1. 2 Day, George and David Reibstein, Global Branding, in The INSEAD-Wharton Alliance on Globalizing: Strategies for Building Successful Global Businesses, edited by Hubert Gatignon and John R. Kimberly, Cambridge University Press, September 2004.
Figure 1 Global Branding Continuum Local Global Henkel Whirlpool MTV Starbucks Siemens At one end are companies that are identical in all parts of the world. Perhaps good examples of this would be Starbucks, Coca Cola, Siemens, Phillips, and Sony. There are other companies, which offer different brands in different parts of the world, such as Toyota. Undoubtedly, there are many others that have brands with intermediate levels, offering some brands in common, and others that are unique to markets, such as Unilever. Another interim stance is to have the same name and positioning, yet to have a different product. An example of this would be MTV, which offers the live hip music programming, yet in most markets, local music and artists of the region are selected. In China and Vietnam, for example, nearly 70% of the content is unique to that market. Point 3: Being a global brand is more than just having a common name around the world and it may not always be a desirable goal. Branded House vs. A House of Brands Another major branding question is whether to have a single umbrella or master brand versus a portfolio of brands. An example of a firm with a house of brands would be Unilever or Proctor and Gamble. There are also several business to business firms which
have portfolio of brands, such as Dupont, with Kevlar, Kalrez, Lycra, Teflon, Thinsulate, Stainmaster, etc. They have a wide portfolio of branded products, and most consumers do not know the parent company s name or that the products are even affiliated with one another. The brands cover different product categories as well as different segments within any one category. P&G has shampoos (Head and Shoulders, Pert, and Pantene, for example), mouthwash (Scope), deodorant (Sure), dental floss (Glide), toilet paper (Charmin), toothpaste (Crest), tampons (Tampax), and bath soap (Dove and Ivory), just to name a few of their categories and a sample of their brands. In the detergent category, P&G has Tide, Gain, Cheer, Ivory, Ariel, Daz, Bold, Fairy, and Dreft,. Each is targeted after different value propositions and different customer segments. In contrast, we have companies like General Electric, Intel, Sony, Nike, or HP that have multiple products, but almost all of their products carry the corporate brand name. GE is in multiple product categories, sometimes very distant from each other, but stretches the brand name to cover each of the categories GE Lighting, GE Financial Services, GE Appliances, GE Turbine Engines, for example. Strategically, these are very different decisions. There are tradeoffs with each approach. For the house of brands, the cost is very high each time a new brand is established. There are substantial costs to introducing a new name and defining its meaning to its targeted customers. It takes additional time before the product gets established in the market. Whenever Intel, a branded house, releases their latest microchip, they do so under the Intel name, and most likely with a sub-brand, as well, such as Pentium V or Centrino. When they do so, it is at a significantly lower cost than if they did not have the Intel name associated with it, which gains them instant recognition, acceptance, and communicates Intel s image of latest technology. Why would a company ever prefer to use a house of brand approach over a branded house? There are several advantages to being a house of brands. It provides the firm the opportunity to take very different positions, as it is unconstrained by the image of the corporate brand or other brands in the portfolio. Whirlpool has a mixed strategy, with both a corporate brand, as well as other brands. In the U.S., they have four brands: Whirlpool, KitchenAid, Kenmore, and Roper. In other parts of the world, they have other brands, as well. Why would they have multiple brands rather than just all under the Whirlpool name? Roper is positioned as a good value brand, being relatively low priced and targeted for the middle to low-income household. It would be extremely difficult to offer a hi-end product and command the image and price under the Roper name versus a totally different name such as Whirlpool. Even if they had used the Whirlpool name for the entire line, it would be difficult to stretch the brand far enough to reach either extreme of the economy image as well as the prestige image. Similarly, it allows the firm to have different brands for different segments. Under the same logic as above, Marriott has elected to keep the Marriott name associated with its main hotel chain and have sub-brands for other segments. Courtyard by Marriott and Fairfield Inn by Marriott are good examples of using the Marriott name on the lower end, but they have been very careful to maintain a distance from their premium brand, Ritz.
Most people do not know that Marriott owns Ritz, and the company prefers to keep it that way. Sometimes, appealing to one segment makes the brand less attractive to other sets of customers, which is often referred to as target conflict. Mercedes has a longstanding premium image appealing to those in the upper income. When the Smart car was first introduced in Europe, it was highly associated with Mercedes and carried the Mercedes hood ornament. This helped the Smart car gain some legitimacy in the economy segment as not just a car for under $10,000, but also as one that must be safe and reliable. On the other hand, it threatened the main customer set of Mercedes, who now saw a totally different peer set driving Mercedes. It threatened the core customer set of the company. It did not take Mercedes long to distance themselves from the Smart brand. This was only possible because the product was introduced under a different brand name. The value of a brand is that it communicates to the customer a set of attribute associations. When we see the brand name Virgin, we think of fun and renegade. Intel communicates latest technology. Yet, we may want to enter into certain categories where the attribute association carried by the brand may not be appropriate. Campbell s Soup, for example, has elected not to associate their name with some of their products, such as Godiva Chocolate. They easily could have named the product, Campbell s Soup Chocolate. Fortunately, they elected not to. They have gone so far to keep the distance, that it is hard to even find Godiva on the Campbell s Soup Internet site or the association with the parent company, Campbell s Soup, on the Godiva site. Introducing a product under the same name induces higher levels of cannibalization. Those people who have a positive affinity with the existing brand will be more prone to switch to the new brand. If the new product, in the same category, enters with a new brand name, there is a greater likelihood of a new positioning, and not as much appeal to the customers already belonging to the brand s franchise. A concern companies often have is different distributors competing against each other by selling the same product, but at lower and lower prices. This is known as channel conflict. Such over distribution often disenfranchises the distributor from pushing the product, as they would rather promote products for which they have some level of exclusivity. Sony, and other branded houses, deal with this issue by having different stockkeeping units (sku s) and try to allocate different models to different distributors. The house of brands allows for selling one brand with one distributor and another brand through the other. This minimizes the direct channel conflict. The Roper and Kenmore appliances are sold through different channels than KitchenAid and Whirlpool. It is often good to select a brand name that communicates to the customer the benefit or function of the brand. This helps the customer more quickly position in their mind what the brand delivers. Examples would be Glide (dental floss), Rotorooter (drain unclogger), Toys R US (toys), Skin So Soft (a skin moisturizer), or Jiffy Lube (a quick service lubricating shop). Having a brand that helps communicate the function of the product limits the brand in what else it can be stretched to do.
A clear advantage of having a portfolio of brands is that if there should be a public failure it is desirable to have the other products in the company s portfolio protected. When Audi, Firestone, Perrier, or Coca Cola came under public criticism, the entire company was threatened. Yet, when Tylenol had its scare, it had minimal direct affect on the other products of the Johnson and Johnson family. Most consumers had no idea that Tylenol was even a J&J product. The rationale for having a branded house is that there may be synergies across the brands. When one brand is advertised, it really helps all the products in the house. GE can advertise that GE brings good things to life it helps all the products in their portfolio. As mentioned earlier, using the same name makes new product introductions less costly. How do financial markets view the difference between a house of brands versus a branded house? It would appear greater values are placed on the branded house. Looking back at Table 1, we see that all of the top brands are corporate brand names used for multiple products in their portfolio. Other firms that have well established brand names, do not have brands whose value is nearly as high as those of branded houses. The clear exception to that is Marlboro. Philip Morris has elected to have different brand names for each of its cigarette products with Marlboro being a highly recognized name around the world. Yet, for the most part, companies with well established names, such as the Unilever, P&G, or Dupont do not have brand names that rival any of the top marketvalued names. If you added up the value of the portfolio of brand names, it still does not reach the top level of the branded houses. As can be seen in Table 2, the well known branding companies have values that are significantly lower than for the branded houses. Table 2 Value of Portfolio of Brands, 2001(Billion, US dollars) 3 P&G $ 45.44 Nestle 41.69 Unilever 37.85 L Oreal 17.80 Diageo 15.00 This disparity in how branded houses are valued over houses of brands has led some companies to reconsider whether to maintain a portfolio rather than to move to a more branded house. As there is a continuum (Figure 2) in how global brands are, the reality is there are not two choices--houses of brands and branded houses, but rather there are interim positions. GE, which brands almost everything under the corporate name, occasionally offer some products under other brand names. GE offers Hotpoint as an alternative to GE appliances. The Coca Cola Company sells the Coca Cola brand and would appear to be a branded house, but they have over 300 brands as part of the 3 Interbrand study, 2002
company. In their portfolio is Sprite. It could have been named Lemon Lime Coca Cola. Or, they have Dasani water, rather than Coca Cola Water. Figure 2 Continuum of Branded House vs. House of Brands Branded House Intel, Siemen, Phillips, Coca Cola Whirlpool Unilever, Proctor and GambelGa mble House of Brands While financial markets seem to be rewarding the branded house of this continuum, caution should be taken before jumping on to this trend. There are several reasons to be a
house of brands. This may not be rewarded short-run in the financial markets, but does allow the firm to develop another brand establish itself with a different position, and appeal to a unique segment. These are all aspects to be rewarded. Point 4: While financial markets may reward being a branded house, there are several advantages, not to be ignored, about being a house of brands.