When the marketing history of the past decade is written, the single most significant trend will have to be line extension. That is, taking the name of an established product and using it on a new one. (The free-ride trap carried to its ultimate conclusion.)
Dial soap, Dial deodorant.
Life Savers candy. Life Savers gum.
Kleenex tissue. Kleenex towels.
Line extension has swept through the advertising and marketing community like Sherman through Georgia. And for some very sound reasons.
Logic is on the side of line extension. Arguments of economics. Trade acceptance. Consumer acceptance. Lower advertising costs. Increased income. The corporate image.
Logic is on the side of line extension. Truth, unfortunately, is not.
Line extension is a result of clear, hard-headed, inside-out thinking that goes something like this:
“We make Dial soap, a great product that gets the biggest share of the bar-soap market. When our customers see Dial deodorant, they’ll know it comes from the makers of the great Dial soap.”
“Furthermore,” and this is the clincher, “Dial is a deodorant soap. Our customers will expect us to produce a high-quality underarm deodorant.” In short, Dial soap customers will buy Dial deodorants.
Notice, however, how the rationale changes when the line extension is in the same category.
Bayer “invented” aspirin and marketed the leading brand of analgesic for many years. The people at Bayer couldn’t fail to notice the progress made by the “anti-aspirin” approach used by Tylenol.
So Bayer introduced an acetaminophen product called “Bayer nonaspirin pain reliever.” Presumably people who had been buying Tylenol and other acetaminophen products would now switch back to Bayer, the leading name in headache remedies.
But neither strategy worked.
Dial has a large share of the soap market and a very small share of the deodorant market.
And Bayer nonaspirin never got more than a tiny share of the acetaminophen market.
Let’s look at line extension from the point of view of the prospect and work backward.
Both Dial and Bayer hold strong positions inside the prospect’s mind.
But what does it mean to own a position in the mind? Simply this: The brand name becomes a surrogate or substitute for the generic name.
“Where is the Bayer?”
“Hand me the Dial.”
The stronger the position, the more often this substitution takes place. Some brands are so strong they are practically generic. Fiberglas, Formica, Jell-O, Kleenex, Band-Aid, Sanka. “Generic” brand names are, of course, close to the edge, so they have to be handled carefully or Uncle Sam will take your goodies away.
From a communication point of view, the generic brand name is very efficient. One word serves in place of two. When you have a generic brand name, you can afford to ignore the brand and promote the category.
“Coffee keeps you awake? Drink Sanka.”
“Serve your family low-calorie Jell-O instead of cake or pie.”
From the prospect’s point of view, line extension works against the generic brand position. It blurs the sharp focus of the brand in the mind. No longer can the prospect say “Bayer” if he or she wants aspirin. Or “Dial” for soap.
In a sense, line extension educates the prospect to the fact that Bayer is nothing but a brand name. It destroys the illusion that Bayer is a superior form of aspirin. Or that Dial is deodorant soap rather than just a brand name for a deodorant soap.
What actually gets driven into the mind is not the product at all but the “name” of the product, which the prospect uses as a hook to hang attributes on.
So if the name of the automobile battery is the DieHard and Sears tells you that it will last 48 months, you have a hook (DieHard) to hang the long-lasting idea on.
But if the name of the battery is the JCPenney battery and the retailer tells you it never needs water, you have a very weak hook (JCPenney) to hang this feature on.
In a physical sense, the name is also like the point of a knife. It opens up the mind to let the message penetrate. With the right name, the product fills the creneau and stays there.
So why would JCPenney call it the JCPenney battery? Presumably there were other communicative words like DieHard available.
It’s easy to see why if you apply “inside-out” thinking. “We’re the JCPenney company. We’re highly respected among all kinds of buyers including battery buyers. We’ll put our own name on the product so that everyone will instantly know who made it and that it’s an exceptionally good product.”
Then the clincher. “With the JCPenney name on the battery, the prospect will know where to buy it.”
“Terrific thinking, J. C.” And another logical inside-out decision is made.
But when the tables are turned, the name makes no sense because the mind of the prospect is organized differently. The prospect thinks in terms of products.
It should come as no surprise that in terms of brand preference (the battery ladder in the mind of the prospect) the DieHard sits on the top rung and JCPenney is way down the line.
But doesn’t a big retailer like JCPenney sell a lot of batteries? Of course, but as everyone knows, many products with the wrong name are sold “in spite of” rather than “because of.”
On the other hand, doesn’t the prospect have difficulty remembering that the DieHard battery can only be bought at Sears? Yes, it is a problem for Sears and not everyone who might want to buy the DieHard will be able to make the connection. But it’s better to establish a position in the prospect’s mind first and then worry about how to establish a retail connection later.
In positioning, the shortest distance between two points is not necessarily the best strategy. The obvious name isn’t always the best name.
Inside-out thinking is the biggest barrier to success. Outside-in thinking is the best aid.
The consumer and the manufacturer see things in totally different ways.
Would you believe that to the folks down in Atlanta, Coca-Cola is not a soft drink? To the manufacturer, Coca-Cola is a company, a brand name, an institution, and a great place to work.
But to the consumer, Coca-Cola is a sweet, dark, carbonated beverage. What’s in the glass is Coke. It’s not a cola drink manufactured by a company called Coca-Cola.
The tablets in a bottle of aspirin are Bayer. Not aspirin manufactured by a company called Bayer. (The company name, of course, is Sterling Drug, not Bayer. So Bayer nonaspirin could just as logically have been called Sterling nonaspirin.)
The great strength of a generic brand name is this close identification with the product itself. In the consumer’s mind, Bayer is aspirin and every other aspirin brand becomes “imitation Bayer.”
The Coca-Cola slogan, “The real thing,” capitalizes on the tendency of the prospect to put the first product into the mind on a pedestal and to treat the me-too products as somehow inferior to the original.
If Coke or Kleenex or Bayer is not available or if other brands are cheap enough, then the prospect might buy something else. But Bayer would still own a strong position in the mind.
But notice what happens when the same customer is asked to buy a product called “Bayer nonaspirin.” If Bayer is aspirin, how can Bayer also be nonaspirin?
Bayer timed-release aspirin, Bayer decongestant cold tablets, Bayer nonaspirin pain reliever. Each extension of the Bayer line undercuts the brand’s aspirin position.
As you might expect, Bayer’s total share of the analgesic market keeps falling.
Perhaps the classic example of the line-extension trap is what happened to Protein 21 shampoo.
A number of years ago the Mennen company introduced a combination shampoo/conditioner called Protein 21, which rapidly carved out a 13 percent share of the shampoo market.
Then Mennen hit the line-extension lure. In rapid succession, the company introduced Protein 21 hairspray in regular and extra hold, scented and unscented. Also Protein 21 conditioner (in two formulas) and Protein 21 concentrate. And to make sure you can’t remember what to put on your hair, Mennen also markets Protein 29. For men.
No wonder Protein 21’s share of the shampoo market has fallen from 13 percent to 2 percent. And the decline is bound to continue.
But as incredible as it may seem, line extensions continue to sweep the packaged goods field.
Take the position of Scott in paper products. Scott has the lion’s share of the billion-dollar market for towels, napkins, toilet tissues, and other consumer paper products. But Scott was weak where they thought they were strong.
ScotTowels, ScotTissue, Scotties, Scotkins, even BabyScott diapers. All of these names undermine the Scott foundation. The more products hung on the Scott name, the less meaning the name has to the average consumer.
Take ScotTissue, for example. ScotTissue was the No. 1 brand in the toilet-tissue market. Then Mr. Whipple and his tissue squeezers at Procter & Gamble moved in. Now ScotTissue is second to Charmin.
In Scott’s case, a large share of market didn’t mean they owned the position. More important is a large share of mind. The consumer could write “Charmin, Kleenex, Bounty, and Pampers” on a shopping list and we’d know exactly what products he or she was going to get. “Scott” on a shopping list has no meaning.
The actual brand names aren’t much help either. Which brand, for example, is engineered for the nose, Scotties or ScotTissue?
In positioning terms, the name Scott exists in limbo. It isn’t firmly ensconced on any product ladder.
Scott has begun to see the error of its ways. Viva paper towels, a Scott brand, is a winner. So is Gottonelle bathroom tissue.
Life Savers gum is another example of line extension that went nowhere.
Again, the logic is on the side of line extension. In an article in The New York Times, Life Savers’ executive vice president explained the strategy:
“I am convinced that one way to improve the odds is by transferring an existing strong name to a new product requiring similar attributes.”
Then he explains the attributes of Life Savers candy: “Our consumer dialogue indicates that the Life Savers brand name conveys more than merely the candy with the hole. It also means excellence in flavor, outstanding value, and dependable quality.”
Not exactly. How many people would have said “Life Savers” if you asked them, “What brand means excellence in flavor, outstanding value, and dependable quality?” None.
Now what if you ask them “What’s the name of the candy with the hole?”
Most people would say “Life Savers.”
So what happened to Life Savers gum? The product never got more than a few percent of the market. One of those brands you won’t see anymore because it was quietly killed.
As the television commercials used to say, “It’s a great product, but where’s the hole?”
The hole, of course, is not in the product at all. It’s in the marketing strategy.
Ironically, Life Savers, Inc. has a big success in the gum field. The bubble gum field.
No, it wasn’t Life Savers bubble gum.
It’s Bubble Yum. The first brand of soft bubble gum. (The advantage of being first plus the advantage of not using a line-extension name.)
Bubble Yum is a runaway success. Sales already exceed those of Life Savers candy.
Not only is Bubble Yum the largest-selling brand of bubble gum, it’s likely to become the largest-selling brand of chewing gum of any type.
Many companies find themselves in rough water when new technologies rock their boats.
Eveready, a product of Union Carbide, dominated the battery market when flashlights were the principal application. Then came the transistor and with it a host of new products including tape recorders and more powerful radios. And, of course, the longer-lasting alkaline batteries.
P. R. Mallory saw the opportunity and introduced the Duracell alkaline battery in a distinctive black and gold case.
The folks at Union Carbide pooh-poohed the idea of a new name. “We’ve already got the best name in the battery business,” they said.
But to hedge their bets, the Union Carbide people copied the Duracell black and gold color scheme. And gave the words “alkaline power cell” more prominence than the Eveready trademark.
The Duracell battery just says Duracell in bold type. It doesn’t need to say “alkaline power cell” because Duracell means alkaline power cell.
This, of course, is the essence of positioning. To make your brand name stand for the generic. So the prospect freely uses the brand name for the generic.
Finally the Union Carbide people gave up and decided to copy the Duracell approach. The Eveready alkaline power cell became the Energizer which finally is giving Duracell a run for its money.
Line extension seems so intuitively right that company after company falls into the trap. Examples are not hard to find. They’re a saga of opportunities missed.
What’s the name of the first extra-long, 100-mm cigarette?
Benson & Hedges, right? It’s the best-known and largest-selling 100-mm brand.
“The disadvantages of Benson & Hedges” launched the brand and burned the name into the mind of the cigarette smokers.
Benson & Hedges became known as the first, the original, the inventor of the 100-mm concept.
But, of course, it wasn’t. The first 100-mm cigarette was Pall Mall Gold, but Pall Mall fell into the line-extension trap.
Then Benson & Hedges moved in and preempted the long-cigarette position.
You’d think the missed opportunity represented by Pall Mall Gold would have discouraged them.
But it didn’t. As we said, the logic in favor of line extension is overwhelming.
So now we have Pall Mall Menthol, Pall Mall Extra Mild, and Pall Mall Light 100s. The confusion has detracted from sales of the basic Pall Mall brand.
Take Pall Mall Menthol, for example. Again, the logic is unassailable to the manufacturer. “Menthol cigarettes like Kool and Salem are getting a larger and larger share of the market.… If we had a menthol brand, we could capture a share of that growing market.”
Introducing Pall Mall Menthol. Which never achieved more than 7 percent of the volume of Kool.
In 1964 Pall Mall was the No. 1 cigarette brand in the United States.
In 1965 Pall Mall line-extended for the first time. They also fell to second place in sales. Every year since, Pall Mall’s share of the American cigarette market has declined.
From 14.4 percent in 1964 to 3.8 percent today.
Line-extension logic in cigarettes should work two ways. Since regular brands represent a large share of the market, would you introduce a Kool nonmenthol?
Of course not. Kool was the original menthol cigarette. Kool means menthol. Like Bayer means aspirin.
Today a well-stocked tobacco shop will carry well over 100 different brands (including line extensions) out of an industry that produces in the neighborhood of 1.75 brands. It boggles the mind.
Naturally, the two leading brands, Marlboro and Winston, have long since line-extended the lights, 100-mm, and menthol. So according to the theory, can you expect to see the Marlboro and Winston brands follow in Pall Mall’s steps? Perhaps. But in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
What brands are left to challenge the leaders? Almost all major cigarette brands have been line-extended to death.
What’s the name of the first corn-oil margarine?
Fleischmann’s is the leading brand of corn-oil margarine and the biggest seller.
But the first corn-oil margarine was Mazola. A classic example of logic leading you astray.
Mazola was the name of the leading brand of liquid corn oil. What more logical choice for a corn-oil margarine than Mazola? Mazola corn oil. Mazola corn-oil margarine. And the rest is history.
Fleischmann’s is the No. 1 brand today.
Oddly enough, Fleischmann’s margarine, if you want to get technical, is a line-extended name. Remember Fleischmann’s yeast? Fortunately for Fleischmann’s, few people do because few people bake their own bread today.
And then there is Fleischmann’s gin, vodka, and whisky, also from the same company. The confusion factor is minimized because of the mental distance between a liquor product and a margarine. (Who really believes that Cadillac dog food is made by General Motors?)
Another missed opportunity took place in the freeze-dried coffee field. Today Taster’s Choice is the leading brand and the largest seller.
But what was the name of the first freeze-dried coffee? Maxim. So why isn’t Maxim the No. 1 brand? It’s a story of intrigue and courage that might be worth telling in more detail.
With its Maxwell House brand, General Foods owned the coffee market. The company got the largest share and made the most money. Then it invented a new process called “freeze-dried instant.”
On the surface this seemed to be a way for General Foods to increase its share of the coffee market.
Or was it?
General Foods’ opening move was good news for competition. By using the name Maxim, a spinoff of the Maxwell House name, the company instantly became vulnerable. (Maxim, Maxwell, get it? Most people didn’t.) Maxim is a meaningless word that doesn’t connote a benefit.
The Nestlé counterattack was named Taster’s Choice. Not only was the strategic choice of the name superb, but Nestlé’s advertising was just about perfect.
“Tastes like ground roast,” said the Taster’s Choice ads, relating the freeze-dried coffee brand to the standard of excellence, ground-roasted coffee.
Taster’s Choice is the big winner in the coffee-cup caper. In spite of the fact that General Foods invented the freeze-dried category and was first on the scene, Taster’s Choice outsells Maxim 2 to 1.
Another missed opportunity is known in hand lotion circles as “the fickle-fingers affair.” The story starts with Jergens, the No. 1 brand with the dominant share of market.
First, the company introduced Jergens Extra Dry, a creamlike product in an era of liquidlike lotions. Jergens Extra Dry was really a significant innovation smothered by the similarity of names. The prospect didn’t recognize the difference.
But the competition did.
Chesebrough-Pond’s introduced Intensive Care. Now for the first time, the new creamlike lotion had a name which positioned the product clearly in the consumer’s mind. And the product took off.
Of course, when Jergens realized what was happening, they countered with a brand called Direct Aid.
But it was the old story of too little and too late because the marketing victory went to Intensive Care. Today Intensive Care is the No. 1 brand. It outsells Jergens, Jergens Extra Dry, and Direct Aid combined.
But isn’t the brand really called “Vaseline Intensive Care,” a line-extended name?
True, but customers call the product Intensive Care, not Vaseline. In the mind of the prospect Vaseline is petroleum jelly; Intensive Care is a hand lotion.
While line extension is usually a mistake, the reverse can work. Reverse line extension is called “broadening the base.” One of the best examples is Johnson’s baby shampoo.
By promoting the mildness of the product to the adult market, the company has made Johnson’s baby shampoo one of the leading brands of adult shampoo.
Notice the characteristics of this broadening-the-base strategy. Same product, same package, same label. Only the application has changed.
If Johnson & Johnson had line-extended the product and introduced Johnson’s adult shampoo, the product would not have been nearly as successful.
Another example of broadening the base is Blue Nun, a white wine being promoted as equally good with meat courses as with fish.
But aren’t these examples of the “everybody trap”? Not exactly. Johnson’s baby shampoo is the first and only baby shampoo being promoted as an adult product too. And Blue Nun is the only white wine being advertised as good with meat as well as fish.
If other brands tried the same approach, they wouldn’t be nearly as successful as these two.
And then there is Arm & Hammar baking soda, being promoted as good for refrigerators and drains. Very successfully too. But what happened when the same company line-extended with Arm & Hammer, the baking soda deodorant?
Very little. As Phyllis Diller says, “It only works if you’re standing in the refrigerator.”