The art of killing a name softly
Robert Schofield does not want to be known as the man who killed Chivers marmalade. But there is no getting away from the fact that the classic English preserve - once called "the aristocrat of the breakfast table" - is on its way to the guillotine.
Mr Schofield is chief executive of Premier Foods, a company that is normally a sanctuary for traditional British brands. It owns Ambrosia creamed rice, Typhoo tea, Branston pickle, Gale's honey and Sarson's vinegar - a Dad's Army of store-cupboard staples, all bought by Premier in the belief that they would do better as the core of an overwhelmingly British business than on the fringes of uninterested food multinationals.
This strategy is undergoing its biggest test yet with an attempted initial public offering of Premier Foods shares, due to be priced on Tuesday. Yet Premier's policy of nurturing overlooked assets also involves some tough decisions, such as the one to kill off Chivers marmalade - which dates back to the 19th century - in an attempt to bulk up its stablemate, Hartley's.
The axeing of Chivers is not an isolated incident in the world of branded consumer goods, be they foods, cigarettes or clothes. Brands are disappearing all around us. The fact that we do not normally see it happening is a tribute to one of the darker arts practised within the consumer industries - that of brand euthanasia.
It can be surprisingly difficult to kill a brand. Once they have insinuated themselves into the popular consciousness, products are often able to look after themselves, long after their owners have withdrawn marketing support - their supposed lifeblood. Classic brands do not die easily, says Mr Scho field. "Some have very strong consumer franchises. They maintain their rate of sales. They maintain distribution. With very limited investment they produce very healthy cash flow and returns."
This often works to the advantage of the brand owner, who finds that it can rely on some old stagers to produce the cash to support brands that have stronger growth prospects but which also demand more marketing investment.
Diageo, the world's biggest spirits company, spends most of its time managing big international brands such as Smirnoff vodka, Johnnie Walker whisky and Captain Morgan rum. Yet it can also rely on the likes of Tanqueray Sterling and Popov vodkas as low-maintenance earners.
Paul Walsh, Diageo chief executive, says the company was so impressed by Tanqueray Sterling's stubborn cash generation that it decided to give it more of a marketing budget. The investment made no difference - sales ticked along as usual, so the brand is back on starvation rations.
One Diageo brand that staggers on is Booth's High and Dry gin, which still has a small following in the Cape Verde Islands, the Democratic Republic of Congo and a handful of other markets. Regardless of its long-term future in gin, the Booth name will live on in arctic Canada, where swathes of land and sea - such as the Gulf of Boothia - were named after Sir Felix Booth, a one-time head of the family distillery, who funded a voyage of discovery in the first half of the 19th century.
In spite of their cash generation, companies ration the number of weaker brands they own for fear of distracting management or clogging up production lines and marketing strategies with unnecessary complexity and fragmentation. Unilever is one multinational that has been particularly vigorous in its brand housekeeping in recent years. Hundreds of smaller brands have been hived off in an attempt to focus on a "mere" 400.
A disposal is often the obvious solution to brand clutter but in some cases this is not desirable or feasible. Then it becomes a case of killing the brand as softly as possible while trying to wean its remaining buyers on to another of the company's products.
In discontinuing the Chiver's line, Premier Foods is trying to nudge consumers into switching to Hartley's by tweaking the packaging. The aim is to consolidate all its jam and marmalade sales into one, much bigger brand with net sales of ￡32m a year.
"We never do this thing [killing a brand] lightly," says Mr Schofield. However, a single Hartley's "masterbrand" will be big enough to justify television advertising - potentially a big boost to its future health.
The look of the label is remaining familiar even as the name changes from Chivers to Hartley's, says Mr Schofield. "During research we found that consumers were telling us that if we kept the graphic the same and changed the name on the label to Hartley's they wouldn't notice."
John Murphy, the founder of Interbrand, the branding consultancy, agrees that shoppers may accept a new name if the transition is handled sensitively and there is some visual continuity with the former packaging. He says most consumers often do not put a great deal of effort into shopping so if the new label is still the same colour, they might still go for it "when they reach myopically for the product on the shelf".
On the whole, however, he says that companies are not very good at brand euthanasia. Often they are too hasty. "People get very tidy- minded. They don't want to wait five years or seven years. They want to do it sooner rather than later."
Reckitt Benckiser has had to be patient in its attempts to rebrand Immac hair removal products in the UK. It has been gradually changing the name to Veet, its international brand, for three years and the switch is expected to last another two to three years, according to Bart Becht, chief executive.
The Veet name has been gradually growing in prominence on television advertising. At one stage it was billed as "Immac, soon to be called Veet". Now it has progressed to "Veet, formerly known as Immac".
"One of the key steps is to put the new brand name on the pack small, and gradually enlarge it," says Mr Becht, who says the transition process usually takes three to seven years.
In the US, Reckitt has changed its Wizard brand to Airwick, which has also become dominant in the UK. Stain removers in Spain and France are having their names changed to Vanish.
"It is largely a simplification of the business," says Mr Becht. Among other things, managing too many brands can make it tricky to launch new products and standardise on packaging.
When it discontinues a brand, Reckitt Benckiser is careful to maintain the old trademark to stop anyone else resurrecting the name. Indeed, this dovetails with one of the main arguments against selling off old and tired brands - the fear that a competitor will make them a success.
Mr Murphy has direct experience of this: after selling Interbrand, he was one of the entrepreneurs who bought Plymouth gin from Allied Domecq in 1996 and turned the brand round.
While brand euthanasia has its risks relative to a disposal - a consumer backlash being the main one - it has the advantage of being a clean break from the past.
“温柔地杀死” 老品牌
罗伯特?斯科菲尔德(Robert Schofield)不想被别人看作是“谋杀”Chivers柑橘酱的“凶手”，但无可否认的是，这个曾被称为“早餐桌上的贵族”的英国最高档柑橘酱，正在被送往断头台的途中。
斯科菲尔德先生是第一食品公司(Premier Foods)的首席执行官。一般来说，该公司被认为是英国传统品牌的“避难所”，旗下品牌包括Ambrosia布丁，Typhoo茶叶，Branston泡菜，Gale蜂蜜和Sarson醋。这些都是普通家庭碗橱里的常用品牌，第一食品收购它们，是因为该公司相信，这些品牌以英国日用品行业的核心出现，会比处在食品跨国公司的边缘更有发展前途，因为这些跨国公司对英国品牌漠不关心。
然而，在第一食品试图首次公开上市，并将于本周二确定发行价时，这一战略让第一食品经历了迄今为止最大的一次考验。不过，在第一食品培育某些备受冷落的品牌资产的战略中，也包含着一些艰难的决定，例如为了壮大同门品牌Hartley’s而结束了创立于19世纪的老牌Chivers柑橘酱。
砍掉Chivers的举动在极为依赖品牌的日用消费品行业中(例如食品、香烟或服装）并不是一件孤立的事。品牌正从我们身边逐渐消失，而我们事实上通常不太会注意到这件事，这正是消费品行业中一种时常在暗地里发生的现象，即品牌安乐死(brand euthanasia)。
“谋杀”一个品牌的难度可能惊人地高，因为一旦品牌得以在大众意识中确立，即使在品牌所有者撤回市场营销支持后的很长时间内，常常还能自我生存下去。而市场营销活动一直被认为是品牌生存的命脉。
斯科菲尔德先生表示，经典品牌不会轻易消亡。“有些品牌对消费者具有很大的影响力，能保持住销售率和分销渠道。只要很有限的投资，它们就能创造出大量的现金流和丰厚的回报。”
这通常对品牌所有者十分有利。他们发现，可以依靠一些老品牌获得现金收益，去支持那些发展前景更好，但同时也需要更多市场投资的品牌。
全球最大的酒精饮料公司Diageo将大部分时间用于国际性大品牌的管理，例如皇家(Smirnoff)伏特加，尊尼获加(Johnnie Walker)威士忌和摩根上尉(Captain Morgan)朗姆酒，但它同时也能依靠象Tanqueray Sterling和Popov伏特加这样毋需多大投资的品牌赢利。
Diageo首席执行官保罗?沃尔什(Paul Walsh)说，Tanqueray Sterling顽强的现金创收能力曾引起公司的重视，并决定增加其市场营销预算。但这笔投资没有任何回报，销售业绩还是一如既往，因此只好再度取消追加给该品牌的预算。
布斯(Booth)高金酒和干金酒便是Diageo旗下这样一个步履蹒跚的品牌，但该品牌仍在佛得角群岛、刚果民主共和国和其它少数几个市场中拥有一小批拥趸。无论布斯在金酒行业中的长期前景如何，这个品牌将在加拿大北极地区内继续生存下去。那里的布西亚海湾(the Gulf of Boothia)等陆地和海洋都是以费利克斯?布斯(Felix Booth)爵士的名字命名的。他曾是一个家族酿酒厂的老板，在19世纪上半叶投资了一次探险航行。
尽管这些品牌具备现金创收能力，但许多公司还是对旗下弱势品牌的数量进行限定，害怕它们会转移管理层的注意力，或者把事务不必要地复杂化，造成条块分割，最后给产品线和市场营销战略制造障碍。联合利华(Unilever)就是最近几年来在品牌整顿方面尤为活跃的一家跨国公司。它把数百个较小的品牌分离出去，目的是为了集中精力发展“仅有的”400来个品牌。
品牌扬弃常常是应对品牌混乱局面最显而易见的解决办法，但在有些情况下，这样做并不符合意愿，也不可行。那么，接下来的问题就是如何尽可能让品牌“安详地”死去，同时试着将原来的顾客引向公司的另一个产品。
在放弃Chivers生产线时，第一食品设法通过调整包装，把消费者悄悄引向Hartley’s，目的是将它所有的果酱和柑橘酱销售整合成一个更强大的品牌，其年度净销售额可达3200万英镑(合5940万美元)。
“我们在这件事情上(即结束一个品牌的生命)从不心慈手软，” 斯科菲尔德先生说。然而，Hartley’s这个单一的“主品牌”(“masterbrand”)就足以证明电视广告的必要性，因为这有可能极大刺激该品牌未来的健康发展。
斯科菲尔德先生说，尽管品牌名称已从Chivers更改为Hartley’s，但产品标签看起来仍然似曾相识。“研究中我们发现，如果我们保持标签上的图形不变，而只是把名称改为Hartley’s，消费者是不会注意到这一点的。”
品牌咨询公司Interbrand的创始人约翰?墨菲(John Murphy)对此表示赞同。他说，品牌转换若能处理得巧妙，并在视觉上与从前的包装保持一定的连续性，那么顾客就有可能接受一个新的品牌。他说，大多数消费者往往不会在购物时花太多心思。因此，如果一个新的标签颜色不变的话，“当他们凭着旧有印象伸手去货架上拿商品的时候”，就仍有可能选择这个品牌。
然而，他表示，总的来说，公司对品牌安乐死并不十分在行。他们行事往往过于草率。“人们总想尽快把品牌清理干净。他们不愿等上五年或七年。他们追求的是速度。”
雷基特-本其瑟尔集团(Reckitt Benckiser)在英国重建其Immac牌脱毛产品品牌时，不得不极具耐心。公司首席执行官巴特?白克(Bart Becht)表示，三年来，公司已逐步将品牌名称改为其国际品牌威特(Veet)，而这个品牌转换可能还将持续2到3年。
威特品牌在电视广告上的知名度与日俱增。曾有一段时间，它在海报上的广告标语是“Immac，即将更名为威特”；现在则变成了“威特，曾经的Immac。”
白克先生说：“关键的一个步骤是，先让新的品牌名称占据包装上的一小块地方，然后再逐步扩大。”他表示，这个转换过程通常需要3到7年的时间。
在美国，雷基特公司已将其Wizard品牌更名为Airwick，而且该品牌在英国也开始占据主导地位。公司正将它在西班牙和法国的去污剂品牌更名为Vanish。
“这在很大程度上是业务的简单化，”白克先生说。此外，如果需要管理的品牌太多，可能会影响产品的推陈出新和包装的标准化。
在结束某个品牌时，雷基特-本其瑟尔小心翼翼地保护着旧的商标，不给他人复活该品牌的可乘之机。事实上，这与那种反对低价出让老旧过时品牌的主要观点不谋而合，即害怕竞争对手重新借此取得成功。
墨菲先生对此有亲身体验。1996年，在出售Interbrand之后，他与另外几位企业家一起从联合道麦克(Allied Domecq)手中买下了茅斯琴酒(Plymouth Gin)的品牌，并令它起死回生。
尽管安乐死在品牌整顿过程中存在风险，比如消费者强烈的反弹就是主要风险之一，但品牌安乐死的优势在于它能使该品牌与过去彻底决裂。
