Brand erasure has an overreaching impact across all levels of the corporation. Firstly, everyone from the CEO to the lower level managers and employees need to be on the same mind set. This implies that all information is disbursed so that employees understand that the program is not one of cost cutting but rather of profit growing and company efficiency. Numerous managers and employees will have their jobs up in the air due to the removal of their brands from the portfolio and understandably the organization will face very heated internal resistance. To follow through with such a program, it’s imperative that the top executives come to unison and provide rationale to all other employees. Though many jobs will be eliminated, brand deletion can free up capital, time, and laborers to devote towards the successful brands. By removing the brands that act as anchors, bog the company down, and the costs associated with them can be utilized to market the company’s brand leaders. Hidden costs within the company will disappear and the company will likely aggregate a larger customer base rather than a mosaic of customers from the different brands.
Cultural Issues: For a multi-national corporation, many times there are multiple very similar offerings for a product appealing to both the local market and the global market. Often times, these local offerings have a much stronger following of customers than the global brand would possess simply because the local brand caters towards the local market. By engaging in brand deletion, the company risks alienating those existing customers and losing them to their competitors, hence a meticulous planning of blending product attributes as well as thought out process of how to eliminate the brand (merging, milking, selling) should be followed. Often times company goals interfere with consumer goals and the company has to decide where to make cuts and where to overlook them.
Marketing Mix: When a company decrees the surviving brands, it is necessary that those brands appeal to both the existing consumer base and the customer base of the discontinued brand. By doing this, the company does not lose out on core customers of the removed brand while simultaneously adding a product feature that the existing brand’s consumers will find appealing, hence creating a more loyal consumer base. While the company will blend the product features and placement, the price and people of the replacement brand will remain distinctly unique, often just taking the characteristics of the surviving brand. When dealing with promotions, the company will have to highlight the deleted products attributes in the replacement. Additionally promotion materials such as discounts for the existing brand will need to be prevalent to herd customers.
Apple’s Branding: Apple itself does not engage in having a house of brands, rather choosing to stick to a singular symbol of its dominance, but this does not detract from extracting other principles from the article and applying them to Apple. The core purpose of the article deals with removing superfluous parts of a company so that resources can be freed and directed towards more plausible efforts. Similarly with Apple, we will have to examine areas that may/may not need the capital directed towards it and analyze if we can make the process more efficient. One particular area of focus may lie in partnerships, which may be fruitless for Apple to engage in since there is no observable benefit coming from them. It may be result from our brand audit that Apple removes these partnerships and puts more money towards developing the iPhone or other R&D associated projects.