Why Does a Brand Need Pruning?

November 20, 2009 Leave a comment

Before and After Pruning

“How do you keep a garden healthy?”

Ask any gardener this question and they will tell you that one of the keys is pruning.

By pruning, gardeners are able to remove parts of the plants that are no longer useful and pose a threat to the plant’s future health. When you stop to think about it, a plant and a brand are very similar. Both need a fertile foundation, need nurturing, and need proper growing conditions.

Just as pruning is essential for healthy plant growth, it is also crucial for healthy brand growth. Some functional reasons to prune include:

1. Improve the brand’s overall health.

Unchecked growth in all directions weakens a brand; frequently removing older stems encourages a brand to put energy into new growth. Just look at Starbucks’ garden, it is growing unwieldy. Aside from unhealthy store expansions, Starbucks has also gotten sidetracked with its’ Entertainment division and focus on merchandise. Starbucks must prune those things which that do not line up with their promise of serving the highest quality coffee.

2. Control or direct new growth.

Each cut will stop the plants growth in one direction and redirect it in another, guiding the shape and size of the plant. Time Warner announced earlier this year that they are going to spin off AOL, this comes after the decision to prune the cable division in 2008. Though it may be too little too late, these decisions put Time Warner in the position to focus on its core content businesses.

3. Prevent the spread of disease.

GM's Sinking Ship

Removing dead or damaged branches will decrease the chance of disease entering through dead wood and spreading throughout the plant. There is no better example of the consequences of neglecting to prune than General Motors. GM’s forest was in desperate need of pruning. Hummer, Pontiac, GMAC, OnStar, AC Delco.

A healthy pruning always promotes in healthy and sustainable future growth. What are some current companies that should consider pruning businesses that are not congruent with their brand’s promise?

Filed under Brand Development, Branding, Marketing Tagged with , , , , ,

Stuck in the Middle

October 14, 2009 Leave a comment

Following up on the topic of divergence in my last post, I would like to dive a little deeper into category development cycles.

As we discussed, Darwin described divergence as “the evolutionary principle responsible for the creation of new species.” According to this theory, humans didn’t evolve from apes, but rather branched off of the same ancestral tree that also produced monkeys, gorillas, and chimpanzees.

The same is true with product categories. In the 1950’s we had diners that served everything from hamburgers to coffee to ice cream treats. Fast forward 50 years and we have McDonald’s, Starbucks, and Baskin Robbins. Each of these brands, with their single product focus were able to separate their brands in a way that created a new product category.

Divergence is a two sided coin, however. With every successful brand who was able to create a new category and own a position in the consumer’s mind are countless brands who are stuck in the middle, dying a slow, but inevitable death.

Just look at Sears. As the retail industry has diverged over the past decades, Sears has not diverged.

Wal-mart is thriving at the low end of the retail market. Further diverged Target has been successful at the “chic” low end of the market.

Bloomingdale’s is doing well at the high end of the retail market. Further diverged Nordstrom is thriving at the “customer friendly” high end of the market.

Sears Net Income

Neither high end, nor low end, I’m afraid Sears is stuck in the mushy middle. I believe the net income chart of Sears Holdings (which also owns another middle of the road retailer, K-Mart) says it all.

Filed under Brand Development, Branding, Category Development, Focus, Positioning Tagged with , , , , ,

Successful Brands are Created by Category Divergence.

October 12, 2009 Leave a comment


In The Origin of Brands, Al and Laura Reis brilliantly apply Darwin’s theory of evolution to the branding process. Darwin’s theory had two key components 1) evolution and 2) divergence. Evolution is pretty much survival of the fittest (Average height has increased over centuries). Divergence, however, can be described as random changes that create new branches off of the ancestral tree, where new species arise from divergence of existing species.

The Ries’ make a compelling case that divergence is the driving force behind an effective strategy for effective branding. To succeed you must create new categories first, and then create a new brand in this category. In fact, virtually every successful new brand is created by category divergence.

For a glimpse of divergence in action let us look at the computer category.

What started off as a single category with mainframe computers diverged into multiple categories with desktops, laptops, all-in-ones, servers, tablet, and mobile.

Numerous successful brands have been created by this category divergence. Acer (netbooks), Apple (user friendly computers), Sun Microsystems (workstations), Dell (computers sold direct), Logitech (computer peripherals).

What are your thoughts on divergence? Can you think of any successful brand that is not a result of divergence?

Filed under Branding, Category Development Tagged with , , , , , ,

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.