Hidesign

HIDESIGN CASE STUDY

By:- Amit Mittal Kamal Gupta Saurabh Jain Sunil Saini Varun Chugh

Contents About Hidesign Brand Positioning

Issues Solutions

Conclusion

About Hidesign

HIDESIGN • Est. in 1978, Pondicherry , India • Then President and Promoter- Mr. Dilip Kapoor • Inception of Hidesign UK by Mr. Kapoor and Mrs. Lowell in 1988 • Year 1990, Company developed its present logo and identity graphics. • Hidesign bought over by Tula Group UK in 1991 • By 2002, Company entered in to Mainstream

Brand Positioning

Brand Positioning

Brand Positioning

Brand Positioning

Brand Positioning

Issues

Issues ?? • How did Hidesign achieve the present status ? ▫ Serendipity or Systematic exploration ▫ Strategic options faced by Hidesign ?

• Course of action for growth without brand dilution ?

How did Hidesign achieve the present status ?

Growth Trajectory

SUCCESS DETERMINANTS

Course of action for growth without brand dilution ?

Solutions • Approach 1 : Launch the new variety keeping the same brand name: Hidesign • Approach 2 : Launch the new variety under a new brand name • Approach 3 : Enter into a different product line

Extensions

Brand Extension Model

Brand Extension Model (contd.)

Brand Extension Model (contd.)

Brand Extension Model (contd.) Dimensions Of Fit

1

2

3

COMPLEMENT

SUBSTITUTE

TRANSFER

Extent to which consumers view two product classes as compliments

Extent to which consumers view two products as substitutes

Consumers view relationships in product manufacture or design

Brand Extension Model (contd.)

Brand Extension Model (contd.) Line extensions of strong brands are more successful than extensions of weak brands Line extensions of symbolic brands enjoy greater market success than those of less symbolic brands Line extensions that receive strong advertising and promotional support are more successful than those extensions that receive meager support Line extensions entering earlier into a product subcategory are more successful than extensions entering later, but only if they are extensions of strong brands Firm size and marketing competencies also play a part in an extension's success Incremental sales generated by line extensions may more than compensate for the loss in sales due to cannibalization.

Brand Extensions- Examples Successful Brand Extension

Brand Ext. Failures

Diet Coke

Bic Women Underwear

Colgate Toothbrushes

Harley Davidsons Perfume

Bic Disposable Lighters, Safety Razors (disposable)

Brand Concept “Brand unique abstract meanings that typically originate from a particular configuration of product features and a firm's efforts to create meanings from these arrangements.”

Park, Millberg and Lawson (1991)

Goodness of Fit • Product feature similarity • Brand Concept similarity • Positive relation exists between brand extensions and sales studied by Mark and Smith in 1990 • Rolex Vs. Timex • McDonald’s and toys – food, fun and folk

Evaluation of Brand Extensions: The Role of Product Feature Similarity & Brand Concept Consistency C. Whan Park, Sandra Milberg and Robert Lawson, The Journal of Consumer Research © 1991

Brand Categorization • A function oriented brand concept is primarily understood in terms of brand-unique aspects that are related to product performance. • A Prestige oriented brand concept is primarily understood in terms of consumers’ expression of self-concepts or images

Fitness Evaluation

Hypothesis • HI Consumers react more favorably to the extensions of a functional brand name when the extension products reflects a functional concept than a prestige concept • H2 Consumers react more favorably to the extensions of a prestige brand name when the extension products reflects a prestige concept than a functional concept.

Brand Extension Categorization • Functional Concept : A brand with a functional concept as one designed to solve externally generated consumption needs. • Symbolic Concept : A brand with a symbolic concept is designed to associate the individual with a desired group, role, or self-image • Experimental Concept: A brand with an experiential concept as one designed to fulfill internally generated need for stimulation and/or variety. Holbrook and Hirschman (1982) recognize the fact that "fantasies, feelings and fun" are also vital consumption phenomena which they call the "experiential view". Park et. al 1986

Hypothesis • H1: Consumers will evaluate a brand extension with a functional concept more favorably when the original brand denotes a functional rather than experiential or symbolic concept. • H2: Consumers will evaluate a brand extension with a symbolic concept more favorably when the original brand denotes a symbolic rather than a functionalor experiential concept. • H3: Consumers will evaluate a brand extension with an experiential concept more favorably when the original brand denotes an experiential rather than a functional or A CATEGORIZATION APPROACH symbolic concept. Shiv a Nandan, Missouri Western State College

Approach 1 Disadvantages: ▫ Spillover effects of new products’ quality perceptions ▫ Company has no competency in chemical tanning and commoditizing leather products ▫ Lack of synchronization in distribution and marketing channels

Approach 2 Disadvantages: ▫ Costly to create a new brand ▫ No leveraging of brand equity of original brand ▫ Requires complete new distribution and marketing channels

Conclusion We intend to follow Approach 3 to minimize risk to original brand equity

Reference 1. “Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions”, David A. Aaker and Kevin Lane Keller 2. “To Extend or Not to Extend: Success Determinants of Line Extensions”,Srinivas K. Reddy, Susan L. Holak, Subodh Bhat 3. “Consumer Perceptions of Brand Extensions: Generalising Aaker & Keller’s Model”,Joanna Barrett, Ashley Lye & P. Venkateswarlu