"Mercy killing of Brands... Pros & Cons"

A really thought provoking issue. Secondly, what a question... probably good enough for a Phd dissertation in marketing.

Anyway, to keep it simple and see other viewpoints also. My take is fairly simple - business is there to provide a return on capital employed, when there is no significant return on the capital employed either in the short or long term the business should be liquidated. Obviously, this is a very simplified scenario, hopefully all due diligence is done and all tangible and intangible cost benefit scenarios have been objectively evaluated.

If after doing all the above there is a negative trend for future ROI yes by all means the brand should be killed, otherwise it will negatively impact the overall business, giving a perception that not just one brand is doing poorly, but the entire business is also subject to the same malaise.

To touch upon GM, in my opinion they were too slow and too late in pulling the plug on - Oldsmobile, and even to some extent are doing the same with Buick now. GM makes some of the best vehicles around technology wise, but their perception is that of a stodgy car manufacturer.

The reason you think of "mercy killing" or using the proper term in my opinion "euthanasia", for a brand at-least, would be mainly because the product, service, and it's communication is no longer relevant to the market audience the - consumer. So removing any support would not really have a backlash from the customer. If enough consumers really wanted to use the product or service you wouldn't be thinking about "mercy killing" a brand.

If you look through the marketing history of the major FMCG organizations worldwide there are numerous instances of killing off various brands and not all of them mercifully! In 1993 Phillip Morris Companies, killed off their corporate name when they renamed themselves Altria.

Sometimes there are perfectly good reasons to initiate the killing of established brands, this may sound quite shocking, but look at the marketing from Microsoft which has a history of such behaviour. BTW, I do not want to get into discussing the merits of the product itself.

In 1995 they purposely killed "Windows X.1" OS to introduce "Windows 95". Then in 1998 they killed "Windows 95" to introduce "Windows 98". In 2000 they killed "Windows 98" to introduce "Windows ME". In 2001 they killed "Windows ME" to bring out "Windows XP", and this year they officially killed "Windows XP" to introduce "Windows Vista".

In each cycle of killing off a major brand MS had a perfectly good product at the stage and an established revenue stream that generated billions of dollars, yet they chose to start completely afresh rather than create a line extension.

The above was done as part of a planned strategy known as phased obsolescence, which is based on the theory that if one rests on their laurels too long someone will come and eat their cake, so rather than have that happen one eats their own cake and goes out searching for more. Again another simplistic viewpoint, but it should get the message across.

Hopefully, that provides some fodder for thought. There will never be a right or wrong answer to a query like this, only hindsight will make us comment more on the merits and demerits of each.

"What Consumers Want... As a Marketer if you had the power to know..."

As a professional in the "Product Development" business I get to hear and know all the time, directly from consumers, middle men, sales reps, etc.; what kind of products and services the consumers want and desire.

However, as a person with operational and fiscal responsibility towards my company I have to evaluate objectively whether I 'can' and more importantly 'want' to respond to those demands by putting out a product/service that is financially viable for us, and meets the needs to the consumer also.

In my opinion the reason the marketing landscape is littered with stories of failed products and services is because marketers put too much faith in listening to what the consumer wants. Most marketer's also forget way to often and conveniently how fickle the consumer is and what they want and need is a puzzling dynamic to the consumer themselves.

If you see the most common and basic service almost all consumers want across the globe is 'good supportive customer service', however almost every major global organization fails to deliver on that one service repeatedly. Even the ones that have failed or are failing on this count were once evangelical about the merits of deploying good supportive customer service, yet have in the long term determined that 'not' offering good supportive customer service does not alienate customers once a significant user base has been built up. Is there a certain loss of dissatisfied users - absolutely, however the gain from new customers more than offsets the potential losses due to consolidation and lack of competition that is now becoming rampant in various industries.

What all consumers want is choice, but due to market dynamics and governmental regulations we keep limiting that option. So in the end do we really want to listen to the consumer or just use that as an excuse to gain false empathy with the consumer, similar to the way Mel Gibson used his powers in the movie? Point to ponder....

"Brands on Steroids"

Brands on 'roids' quite an interesting concept...

Brands are built and nurtured in relation to the corporate business philosophy to execute a business plans, having said that let's examine the concept.

Usually, a branding plan is strategic in nature and to introduce a new greenfield product / service a 'nurturing' approach strategy may be employed to gain market traction in response to whatever opportunities and constraints that may have been evaluated by the business unit.

Sometimes a branding plan may be tactical in nature, to either be a offensive or defensive response to market opportunities, due to this issue you may see the emergence of - 'Brands on Steroids' syndrome. Sometimes the defensive or offensive tactical moves may open up significant opportunities for the brand to move in the limelight and from a tactical launch it may morph into long term strategic role, but still employing the original tactical moves that brought it in the limelight. The above would be the disciplined and rational explanation to the 'Brands on 'roids' syndrome.

However, as mentioned there are definitely situations when due to a change in management focus or to maximise short term revenue generation you may observe the same syndrome. When you see 'Brands on 'roids' in such a scenario quite often they follow the way of 'Humans on 'roids' , a brief spark and glimpse of a meteoric rise and then discarded and forgotten in the depths of oblivion once the spark is extinguished.