Reckitt Benckiser – Cross-branding

Reckitt Benckiser (RB) is the, often over-looked, fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) producer that is responsible for brands such as Cilit Bang, Airwick and even Durex(!).  Their latest product-line decision coincides with spring: they are promoting their individual cleaning brands in one promotional campaign focused around the traditional ‘spring cleaning’ that is supposed to take place in British households.  RB hopes that consumers will purchase a wide variety of cleaning products at this time of year, and thus wants to encourage them to choose only their products.  This called cross-branding, and is just one approach a firm can apply to undertake when they operate a wider, long-term multi-brand strategy.

The theory behind a cross-branding strategy is that stronger brand equity can be created by aligning, or optimising, a firm’s diverse product-line around common beliefs and values.  This requires individual product attributes to all occupy similar positions in the consumers’ minds to be effective.  For RB, this means that all their cleaning products must emphasise efficiency, strength and effectiveness – all characteristics associated with the optimism of a ‘spring clean’.  The ultimate gain, however, extends beyond product brand equity: cross-branding generates greater brand loyalty, but across a range of brands.

RB operates in a highly competitive market where consumers often display habitual buying behaviour – when consumers repeatedly purchase familiar brands.  Hence, branding is particularly important for RB to gain loyalty (repeat purchasing does not mean consumers are loyal to a brand and thus competitive advantages over Unilever and Proctor and Gamble.  These competing FMCG giants are realising the importance of building corporate brands.  The former has always had the most significant corporate profile due to the strength of their individual brands, like Marmite, and highly successful marketing campaigns, such as Dove’s ‘real women’.  And I have previously mentioned how the latter has recently transitioned away from multi-branding towards corporate branding.

Unilever and Proctor and Gambles’ approaches differ from RB: they aim to generate brand loyalty across multiple brands by emphasising their own brand equity, as the producers.  Where as RB are trying to generate the same loyalty, under similar pressure, but through cross-branding.  This feels almost as a lost opportunity to promote their corporate brand.  I believe their advertisement should at the very least feature the company’s name or logo at the end.  This would be far more effective at generating multi-brand loyalty: consumers find it easier to remember one company as opposed to several brands.

Hence, by promoting RB as a brand, consumers would look out for products manufactured by RB and not their competitiors. Without promoting their corporate identity consumers behaviour will be similar to: seeing the ad, intending to purchase RB cleaning products and forgetting which brands inspired them to seek more variety.  This would simply lead to the total market sales for cleaning products to rise, not necessarily RB’s market share.  Overall, however, I really like the idea of cross-branding – it just seems as if RB missed a chance to kill two birds with one stone and improve their company image.

 

Pepsico – Environmental Sustainability

Pepsico – the cola drink conglomerate that is best known for its eponymous Pepsi drink – has recently launched and revised their ‘Path to Zero’ strategy concerning environmental sustainability.  This, in a marketing context, concerns developing strategies that are not detrimental to the environment while still maintaining profitability.  Pepsico have established a range of strategies to address key environmental issues where the company is a significant stakeholder: climate change, agriculture, water and their products.  You can see the full details of their strategy update here.

Hence, Pepsico have created a sustainability vision for the company, the first key stage in the strategic marketing process.  Ultimately, the aim is to become fossil fuel free by 2023.  This is something to provide guidance and motivation for the employees and base their decisions on; it is a long-term and external strategy.  What I will be assessing is some of the ways they are going to implement this strategy on a tactical scale.

An immediate, external approach to environmental sustainability has been the implementation of ‘product stewardship’ – minimising a product’s environmental impact through its life-cycle, as opposed to focusing solely on sustainable production.  Pepsico have used a ‘design for environment practice’ to develop FSC certified packaging for its Quaker and Walkers brands.  This reflects the philiosophy of enlightened marketing in two ways.  Firstly, it enables their products to be easily recycled – they have managed to reduce landfill waste by 71%.  This shows a genuine ethical concern: it is not Pepsico’s responsibility to dispose of the product responsibly, but the consumers.  Yet, Pepsico have taken responsibility and initiative; albeit, it is the consumer who will be credited with being environmentally friendly.  Secondly, this leads to increases in efficiency.  Thus, profitability is increased – let alone just maintained.

In contrast to the plan above, to become more sustainable in terms of water use and agricultural influence, Pepsico have developed new environmental technology.  Where as ‘product stewardship’ is an external and immediate approach, research and development is an internal response that focuses on long-term sustainability.  Namely, the company is developing ‘i-crop’ water usage monitoring and management programs to reduce their agricultural growers’ “water impact by 50% in 5 years”.

I personally like this approach: partnering with those in the value-delivery chain.  In the same way a company and its suppliers must work together in order to satisfy the end-consumers’ needs, it is, likewise, just as beneficial when their synergy is focused on their environmental impact.  Moreover, this could mean further environmental benefits beyond Pepsico’s microenvironment: the i-crop technology could be easily adopted by other industries and agricultural practices.  This would be a serious way to earn a green-image that other companies, such as Proctor and Gamble, are so keen to promote.

However, research and development is a very long and expensive process which makes it a very risky investment. Futhermore, Pepsico are developing technology for their suppliers’ use – not their own.  This means that they may lack the experience and insight to produce relevant innovations that will be of up-most effectiveness.  Likewise, their company’s skills are in production and branding.  Thus, perhaps it would be better to maintain a corporate focus by outsourcing the research and development (R&D) process to a specialised firm.  Specialisation, would also mean the i-crop technology could be implemented faster.  Given the long-term focus of developing new technology – in terms of corporate branding – it would be disastrous if i-crop became obsolete while it was still being perfected.

My only other concern is that their attempt at product stewardship and creation of a sustainable vision is too generic and several years too late.  Thousands of major companies are adopting – and in most cases already have adopted – recyclable packaging and more energy-efficient manufacturing processes.  In this sense, Pepsico are being reactive; the best strategies are those that are proactive to match the companies current capabilities to the future, external opportunities.  Having said that, albeit their product stewardship lacks differentiation, as a whole their ‘Path to Zero’ strategy is well-balanced.  Developing new technology, while improving existing products means that they display they have the ability to make an immediate environmental change – which should prove motivating – while also keeping the emphasis on the future.  After all, their sustainability vision concerns the future.

The underlying theme in today’s post, however, is effective strategy.  Pepsico have clearly shown that it is necessary to move through the strategic planning process in a structured way: from defining their mission to reviewing their progress.  In strategic planning, Pepsico have been exemplars; but in environmental sustainability they are at least a few years late. Perhaps if they spent less time focusing on strategy and more time on actually becoming more sustainable, they would be an even more competitive and greener company…

© Joshua Blatchford author of Manifested Marketing 19/01/2011

  • Join 202 other subscribers
  • Blog Visits

    • 294,168 views!
  • Twitter Updates

  • Archive