• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

17 Maxwell House ready-to-drink coffee

General Foods launched cartons of Maxwell House ready-to-drink coffee in 1990. The cartons, which appeared in the refrigerated sections of supermarkets, declared the product represented ‘a convenient new way to enjoy the rich taste of Maxwell House Coffee.’ The packaging stated that the coffee was brewed with ‘crystal clear water,’ and promised that the ‘fresh brewed flavour and aroma are locked in this exclusive foil-lined fresh-pack.’ The cartons also had a convenient screw-on plug to aid ease of use. The only trouble was the product couldn’t be microwaved in its original container. Therefore the key incentive to buy ready-to-drink coffee – convenience – was taken away. As no-one fancied drinking cold coffee, the product failed.

18 Campbell’s Souper Combo

Another attempt at making life more convenient was soup manufacturer Campbell’s ‘Souper Combo’ idea, consisting of a combination frozen soup and sandwich. Designed for people with microwaves at the office or ‘latch-key kids’ cooking for themselves on their own at home, the product apparently fared well in tests.

The company spent millions on generating awareness for the ‘Souper Combo’ sub-brand, and the initial sales results were quite encouraging. However, it soon became clear that these were from people making one-off purchases, trying the product out of sheer curiosity. Consumers realized that despite the claims of increased convenience, it was actually quicker and easier to open a can of soup and make your own sandwich than prepare a Souper Combo. They therefore didn’t buy the product again.

19 Thirsty Cat! and Thirsty Dog!

Bottled water for pets

The worst of all bad ideas must surely be the Thirsty Cat! and Thirsty Dog! brands of bottled water designed for pampered pets. Although the water came in such ‘thirst-quenching’ flavours as Crispy Beef and Tangy Fish, pets and their owners remained unimpressed.

Chapter Four

Extension failures

Barron’s Dictionary of Business Terms defines brand extension as ‘the addition of a new product to an already established line of products under the same name’.

Okay, so that’s the definition – but what’s the incentive? Many companies believe that once they have created a successful brand, they should extend it into other product categories. After all, it is not the product that makes a brand, but rather an association. For instance, IBM doesn’t simply make computers, it offers ‘solutions’. As such, it has been able to enter related categories such as software and networks.

However, although brand extension may increase sales in the short term, it can devalue the identity of the brand in the long term. And when that happens, every product that falls under the brand name starts to suffer. As marketing experts Jack Trout and Al Ries have argued throughout most of their writing careers, line extensions cost market share. In the United States, 7-Up cut its share of the market in half when it added brand variations such as 7-Up Gold. ‘Invariably, the category leader is the brand that is not line extended,’ argues Jack Trout. However, if properly executed, extensions can work. For instance, in 1982 Coca-Cola launched Diet Coke. Today, it’s the third most popular cola drink and boasts over a billion dollars worth of sales every year. Gillette razors and shaving cream are a further example of a successful extension. But when companies fail to understand the true nature of their brand the results can be disastrous.

Of course, the reasons for brand extension are obvious. When a company has saturated a market with one product, it has two options for growth. Either it can expand into a new market or launch a new product. If it goes for the latter option, there are economic reasons for using the same brand name. After all, the extension results in immediate consumer recognition, less money spent on advertising (required to generate awareness of the name), and increased visibility of the parent brand. Costs are saved further if