A Cello Business

Blog

The M&S Principle: When it comes to differentiation, motivate, don’t aggravate

Posted by Alan Morrison on November 4, 2009
Share your thoughts

The levees have finally broken. After over a year spent dipping its toe in the water with regional trials in the North and South-East, M&S is starting to sell branded grocery products at all of its stores in the UK.

m&s brands 2

Normally branding consultants might be tearing their hair out at this news: why are they undermining a point of difference?

But M&S is actually doing the right thing here. The only brands being introduced are in what it calls brand-led categories, e.g., Pantene, Coca Cola, Gordon’s, Marmite, Persil, Kit Kat, Kellogg’s and Heinz. In other words, however hard M&S might try to fabricate a localised monopoly within its stores, these are the kind of destination brands which even regular M&S shoppers would be going elsewhere to pick up. Interestingly, M&S (or rather John Dixon, their Executive Director of Food) divides the brands it’s introducing into two categories:

1. ‘Products that we could simply never compete with, like Marmite and Kit Kat,’ i.e. brands like Guinness which are very closely tied to their product format/flavour/some other intrinsic. While this quality is normally a hindrance to the brands in question because consumers don’t give them ‘permission’ to innovate away from their core, in this case, it’s a quality that means any mimic M&S produce won’t ever be seen as comparable by consumers.

2. ‘Other areas where, whilst we have a great M&S equivalent, the leading brand dominates the market,’ i.e. brands which embody their category and offer the generic, mass-market proposition, e.g. Gordon’s ‘the G in G&T’ and Heinz ‘Heinz Meanz Beanz.’ These are the kind of brands who truly can claim market leader status; all of the marketing muscle they can heft over their central ground makes them basically impossible to unseat. So, as an aside, being selected by M&S as one of these brands is a real accolade, and it’s interesting to think that being chosen and endorsed by M&S may become something brands fight for. And if this is the start of a flood of brands to M&S’s shelves, it may be something that even non-market leading brands may fight for if they believe they have a motivating proposition against the core M&S range in their category.

m&s brands 2

In any case because the brands being introduced at this stage will only cover 7% of its product range and because they’re the kind of brands M&S simply can’t compete with, I think it’s a smart move. Being brand-free has been a distinct point of difference for M&S, but because that has been to the exclusion of these destination brands, that differentiation has been the wrong kind; it’s been differentiation for its own sake. It’s left consumers frustrated that they either have to put up with a compromised, own-brand alternative they don’t want, or make a second trip to a rival store to pick up what they do want. It’s why The M&S Principle may be a useful short-hand for an important point about differentiation: what matters is owning a compelling position in consumers’ minds. So when it comes to differentiation, motivate, don’t aggravate.

Could comes before should when it comes to brand stretch

Posted by Anna Eggleton on May 15, 2009
Share your thoughts

Talking to a client about a brand stretch issue made me think about some of  worst recent brand extensions. A quick poll around our offices and the leader was without doubt Kellogg’s hip-hop street wear. 

kelloggs

But bad brand ideas are everywhere! A few of our favourites are Cosmopolitan water, Guinness slippers and pipes, Harley Davidson’s cake Decorations, Precious Moments coffins, Hooters airlines, Cheetos lip balm and Salvador Dali deodorant.

Although Coke’s RPet clothing line, made from recycled bottles, is an interesting one that suffers from the fact that its plastic packaging is set up as part of the problem.

coke

It’s always worth remembering the key principles of successful brand extension:

1. Ideas are not the only problem
2. Understand your brand
3. Could comes before should
4. Renovate before you innovate
5. Steady as she goes
6. Relevant and credible are not enough

Wanted – partner for brand growth

Posted by Rosa Wilkinson on April 9, 2009
Share your thoughts

There comes a time in every brand’s life, when its owners need to plan how to maintain sustainable growth for the future.

Traditionally the options have been to go to the markets to raise capital; or to look for a larger, more established partner. With the former option now less viable due the global economy, the latter is perhaps a more realistic option for businesses looking to take their brands to the next level. It’s interesting, then, that the sale of a minority stake to Coca-Cola should provoke criticism of Innocent from some quarters.

From a branding point of view, partnering with a more experienced company can actually bring greater clarity of focus on your core values and brand essence - illustrative case studies include Kiehl’s with L’Oreal, Ben & Jerry’s with Unilever and Green & Black’s with Cadbury.

As one of our senior consultants, Nikki Reeves summarised, “It’s the balancing act between staying true to the core values of your brand – whilst finding ways retaining relevance to your consumers over the years”.

What will be fascinating to observe is how Innocent develops with access to the expanded opportunities and expertise of the Coca-Cola organisation. Not the end of this brand story by any means, but just the start of the next chapter…

Page 1 of 212»