Browse all Articles
Being First is Secondary
Dispelling Brand Myths
“Being first in the market is most important — Being best ensures your success”
No, being first only assures your brand of an entrance opportunity. The market graveyard is littered with failed and failing “firsts.” Miller Lite is a perfect example.
Being biggest simply says no one has successfully challenged you. SONY was once the world’s biggest electronics brand.
Today they have given up leadership in VCRs, TV’s and just about every other category that they once dominated.
 A Telling Example
Over 40 years ago P&G launched Pampers brand disposable diapers.
Pampers built the category and by 1968 they owned the category — with the brand name becoming synonymous with the delivery system.
It quickly became P&Gs most profitable and dominant brand. The brand continued to build the category stressing product efficacy and innovation.
But something happened in 1968.
 Kimberly-Clark entered the market with Huggies.
It quickly become P&Gs biggest competitor. But Pampers forged on. They sold leakage protection, barrier leg cuffs, absorbency and a host of other product innovations. What they did not sell was a brand.
P&G looked to further segment its market and launched LUVS.
Huggies now dominates the disposable diaper market outselling both Pampers and Luvs combined. P&G confused brand with efficacy and continued to tout product innovation and features, leaving "caring Mother" to Huggies.
Pampers sold the best diaper money could buy.
Huggies sold the best mother you could possibly be.
Huggies built a brand and Pampers built a great category.
The moral of this story is that brand is not about R&D and product features and never has been. It is all about the target audience you need to influence. Tell your customer who they are when they choose your brand and not what your brand can do... leave that story to the category descriptors.
Comments:
I disagree with this. Huggies/Kimberly-Clark introduced Pull-Ups in the mid- to late-80s. At the same time, the gel technology that Pampers was employing became something of a commodity...everyone could do it. Kimberly-Clark was able to match product quality and at the same time introduced an innovative product which earned them greater visibility in the category and more shelf space from retailers. It wasn't brand, but product quality and innovation that hurt P&G. See Hoch's "How Should National Brands Think of Private Labels?" for a similar summary.
Branding is important, now more than ever. As people go online to look for information, they carry their favourite brands and related impressions into the online world. While innovation like thos of Pampers are definitely buzz-worthy in the social media, if consumers don't know about it, the innovation will be lost.
Does this graph represent market share in North America? U.S. alone??
If you would like to send a private message to one of our strategists, Click Here
Click Here for Site Map |
