Appendix A Open introduction interview
Introduction
The objective of the interview is to get background information about brand migrations and to explore the scope of brand migrations.
1. What is your function within Unilever?
2. How long are you in this function?
3. What does the term ‘brand migration’ mean to you?
4. What are the benefits of a brand migration?
5. What are the risks of a brand migration?
6. Are there differences between brand migrations and if yes, what are the differences?
7. Did you have a role in a brand migration project?
8. If yes, what was your responsibility?
9. What were the goals of that brand migration?
10. Were the goals of the brand migration evaluated?
11. What do you think of the evaluation?
End
The interviewer thanks the interviewee.
Interview was held amongst the following people:
1. Brand manager HHC 2. Brand manager sr. HHC 3. Finance manager HHC 4. Marketing Director
5. Account manager Laurus (responsible for HHC)
6. Logistics manager HHC
7. Category manager HHC
Appendix B Selection interview
Interviewer: Rutger Anema Duur interview: 45 min.
In het kader van afstudeerproject: Het definiëren en meten van de performance van brand migrations met behulp van de balanced scorecard methode
Introductie
Na onderzoek is een lijst van indicatoren samengesteld. Deze indicatoren, of een selectie hieruit, kunnen een brand migration definiëren en meten. Het is belangrijk om de juiste (=best beschrijvende) set indicatoren te vinden om een brand migration te definiëren en meten.
Het doel daarom van dit interview is om een belangrijkheid toe te kennen aan de door onderzoek gevonden indicatoren. Het sub doel is om voor één bekende case, de ‘Andy/Cif migration’ een kwalitatief oordeel (een score) toe te kennen aan deze verschillende indicatoren.
Natuurlijk kan het lastig zijn om voor een persoon uit één discipline een oordeel te geven over een andere discipline. Toch wordt gevraagd van de geïnterviewden om een zo goed mogelijke inschatting te maken voor de andere discipline. Dit interview wordt gehouden onder personen uit verschillende disciplines, aangezien een brand migration impact heeft op verschillende gebieden in de organisatie.
NB:
• De stellingen en indicatoren zijn komen uit vier focus gebieden nl. FINANCE, CUSTOMER, CONSUMER, INTERNAL PROCESS
• Deze focus gebieden staan niet los van elkaar, maar vertonen grote samenhang.
• Tips voor (extra) stellingen en indicators zijn altijd welkom Proposition (brief explanation) and relating indicator:
Brand migrations result in:
1. Risk of losing consumers in the transition (EXT. RISK) Market share
2. Risk of losing consumers cause not aware of new brand (EXT. RISK) Awareness new brand
3. Risk of losing consumers cause not aware of name change (EXT. RISK) Awareness name change
4. Risk of losing consumers in the transition (EXT. RISK) Avg. penetration per SKU of new brand
5. Better innovation through focus on 1 technology platform (EXT. OPPORTUNITY)
% Growth of the new brand by innovation
6. Standardization of communication elements (INT. BENEFIT) Advertising costs
7. Standardization of packaging elements (INT. BENEFIT)
8. R&D projects done for more markets (INT. BENEFIT) R&D costs
9. Faster innovation roll outs (INT. BENEFIT)
Avg. time-to-market innovation (begin funnel to launch) 10. Reduction in packing material prices (INT. BENEFIT) Packaging material costs
11. Reduction in raw material prices (INT. BENEFIT) Raw material costs
12. Simpler production/packaging organization (INT. BENEFIT) Fixed costs per SKU
13. Bigger brands and bigger brands grow faster (EXT. OPPORTUNITY) Percentage growth of new brand
14. Reduction in the number of people (INT. BENEFIT) Overhead costs
15. Reduced stock in the organization (INT. BENEFIT) Cost of capital employed (COCE)
16. Reduced warehousing space and product handling (INT. BENEFIT) Full fixed distribution operating costs
17. More shelf presence at the retailer (EXT. OPPORTUNITY) Number of shelf facings
18. Higher distribution (of new launch SKU) (EXT. OPPORTUNITY) Avg. weighted distribution (per innovation SKU)
19. Lower margins on SKU for retailers (EXT. OPPORTUNITY) Avg. PPR per SKU
Proposition Indicator Importance
Rank
Andy/Cif Score
(1-5)
1 Market share
2 Awareness new brand 3 Awareness name change
4 Avg. penetration per SKU of new brand 5 % Growth of the new brand by innovation 6 Advertising costs
7 Packaging material costs 8 R&D costs
9 Avg. time-to-market innovation (funnel to launch) 10 Packaging material costs
11 Raw material costs 12 Fixed costs per SKU
13 Percentage growth of new brand 14 Overhead costs
15 Cost of capital employed (COCE) 16 Full fixed distribution operating costs 17 Number of shelf facings
18 Avg. weighted distribution (per innovation SKU)
19 Avg. PPR per SKU
Appendix C Reasons for brand name changes
Kapferer identifies 11 reasons for brand name changes. The following brief description can be given.
1. When there is only room for a limited number of competitors in a market, a new entrant may then opt to buy an existing competitor. British Airways bought the French regional airline TAT with the perspective of creating British Airways France.
2. Sometimes companies decide to stop their activities in a local market. Another company can take over their activities and brand name (for a while). After this licensing period the name needs to be changed.
3. The search for the ideal brand size. Sometimes a brand is too small for a market and doesn’t comply with internal regulations as to its size compared to its necessary market development costs (MDC). As a consequence, the brand activities are transferred to another, larger, brand (e.g. Raider-Twix).
4. The result of creating (worldwide) companies as a result of a merger. As a result, the colliding companies often decide to rename the new resulting company (e.g. Cap Volmac and Gemini Pandata became Cap Gemini).
5. When companies want to gain access to a foreign market they can use the so called
‘Trojan Horse’ strategy: buying an existing brand name and later on renaming it to an own brand name and fully roll out all its products.
6. The fact that international markets are becoming more homogeneous (globalisation).
Consumers over the world are looking more and more for the same benefits in products.
7. In order to capitalise only on few strong brands instead of spreading investment across many smaller brands, companies tend to eliminate the latter in favour of the former.
8. The retreat of hyper segmentation as a result of lack of economies of scale, justify changing small brands to one or several larger brands.
9. Along the same lines, the consolidation of a strategic brand can lead to it entering markets where it had not been before and in which specialised brands had been developed.
10. When brands are internationally expanded the name can be a burden to its development.
This is the case when the name has a particular meaning in a certain language. This was the case when local Spanish potato chip brand Bum was internationally expanded.
11. Brand name changes can be the result of lost court cases. It is possible that companies in certain markets already use brand names for other products. Entering such a market creates the need to change the name.
Appendix D Outcome category analysis Andy
Typically fewer brands
• Commodity type product
• One/few segments
• Value for money
• Low
• Low/Medium
• Homogeneous preferences
• Dislikes variety, trusts product
• High
• High
• Gasoline, diapers
• Luxury articles
• Many segments/niches
• Differentiation
• High
• High
• Heterogeneous preferences
• Customer likes variety
• Low
• Low
• Clothes, cosmetics Product type
Market characteristics Key strategic driver Product value/per volume Gross margin
Consumer preferences Consumer view on variety
Minimum Advertising and Promotion investment per brand
Private label threat Examples
Category Characteristics
Typically many brands
Appendix E Outcome migration opportunity Andy-Cif
NB:
The outcome for the Andy-Cif migration is a medium migration opportunity.
High migration opportunity
• Similar
• Low for one
• Close, few gaps
• One strong
• Low for one
• Similar
• Similar
• One brand has much stronger share
• Distinctly different
• High for both
• Distinct; many gaps
• Both strong
• High for both
• Substantially different
• Different
• Both brands have roughly equal share
Consumer populations
• Segments served
• Consumer loyalty Brand attributes
• Brand features
• Brand equity
• Cultural heritage
• Perceived Positioning Sales and distribution
• Distribution channels
• Relative market share
Brand Characteristics
Low migration opportunity
