Olofsfors’ communication and brands
The journey towards Masterbrand
To simplify slightly, there are three routes you can take with a brand: A Masterbrand, House of Brands, or Branded House. Which route a company should choose depends on what objective the company has with its brand building. NB: Never mix these brand strategies. Choose one and stick to it:
Masterbrand
Here, the company = the brand. All the products and services you offer are strongly linked to the company name and the values that have been built up there. Usually, the product names are therefore generic only – descriptive terms to avoid directing focus away from the brand and to make it as easy as possible for the customer to know what the product is and what it promises.
Amazon, Virgin and FedEx are three great examples of Masterbrands, with products that have maximum connection to the company. Everyone knows who is behind the products and virtually all the distinctive advantages are directly linked to the company brand. This strategy makes it easy to add products and services, while at the same time creating obligations – substandard products or services risk damaging the company brand because there is no product brand as a “buffer”.
Branded House
This is the dynamic duo, where there is an overall promise in the form of a company brand, but also product brands that allow a complementary personality that can transfer benefits to new market segments and allow freedom with responsibility. However, there is never any doubt as to who has the lead role. This route may be right if the market you want to break into is one where a competitor’s product brand already holds a strong position, or if you want to make it clear that it is a completely new category of products for the same market segment. However, it requires active marketing of both product and company brand in order not to communicatively cannibalise each other.
Google and Apple are two good examples of Branded House. The Chrome browser, the Hangout conference tool, the Gmail e-mail service, etc. are individual products but with a strong link to Google. The same goes for the iPhone, Macintosh, iPad, Safari and Keynote, which all have their own product identity, but at the same time have a strong, clear link to the Apple brand.
House of Brands
This is almost the direct opposite of the other two routes. Here, the product brands live their own lives. Because they cannot be combined to protect the parent company.
Procter & Gamble and other multinational conglomerates often use this brand strategy. In their case, Pampers diapers, Gillette razor blades and Pringles potato chips all come together under the same, invisible roof. However, there is no link between the products, as neither their uses nor target group have the least to do with one another. This allows you to operate in completely different areas without creating a divisive impression. You can also “test” different products without the risk of a flop that has a negative impact on the main brand. This strategy also makes it possible for the brand to compete against itself – which Unilever does effectively with shower products from Dove, Lux, Axe, Timotei, VO5 and Sunsilk. The aim here is to push competitors’ products off the shelves by allowing the customer to opt out of one Unilever product and still choose another one.
Here you have chosen to leave the parent company in the shadows. “To work but not be seen”, to quote a Swedish business leader with the same strategy.
Olofsfors’ journey
In recent years Olofsfors has tried the middle route. A desire to develop strong product brands that are certainly linked to the parent company but also live their own lives. The aim of this approach was to gain new market shares, not least in immature markets where Olofsfors and/or the product type were previously unknown.
However, this approach has not proved to be a complete success. Entering a new market with new solutions has proved to be difficult with the existing marketing budgets. We have had to rely to a large degree on personal contacts and squeezed price offers. At the same time, the product brands have clearly taken focus from the parent company, which has slowly slipped into the background. Today, Olofsfors admittedly continues to have a very strong position in the market, but the majority of the marketing material – and the website – has consigned Olofsfors’ strengths to the history pages, and the product brands are trying to compensate for this by building up their own values.
It’s time to begin the journey towards a Masterbrand again. Olofsfors’ products have so much to gain from a much clearer association with the parent company’s quality, product development, environmental thinking and responsive customer relations. But it’s not enough just to tone down the product brands – Olofsfors needs to return to the spotlight. We must not throw away our biggest star.
But at the same time, it would be foolish to make this change of course in communication too quickly. After all, each of the product brands has built up values, and particularly in emerging markets, it may be that there is greater awareness of Bruxite, SharqEdges and Eco-Tracks than the parent company itself. In some markets it may even be the case that the product = the company. Therefore Olofsfors’ journey towards Masterbrand involves slightly different timetables in different markets. In some regions we will complete this brand journey quickly and efficiently; in other regions there will need to be a more cautious transition so that customers do not get confused by the changes.
But the ultimate goal is clear: A clearer and more communicative brand that makes up our DNA – what we ultimately are and what we stand for.