This particular blog entry started out as a comment on niche marketing, and for obvious reasons. What other thoughts could Vang Gogh’s PB & J vodka inspire (besides perhaps simultaneous disgust and curiousity)?
But as I started Googling, I happened upon an article where a discussion in the comments section became especially enlightening. The good men and women of the internet machine were discussing brands. Who owned who, which companies were truly independent, and which were merely stealth marketers.
In order to prevent you from taking the unnecessarily long path to this discovery that I did, I thought I’d highlight some particularly shocking brands that share the same mommy & daddy, despite what their marketing efforts would have you believe.
CASE 1: Nike & Converse
This one dates all the way back to 2003, so you may have heard about it already. (But does that make it any less ironic?) Nike spent a pretty penny – $305 million worth – acquiring the widely loved Converse brand, but made sure not to disrupt the ideologies behind its history in the emptying of their wallet.
A smart move for a company who received flak for their sweatshop use and was looking to adopt a product line that toted “Vegetarian” status in the land of e-commerce. Nike Profits by Leaving Converse Alone? No kidding, NY Times. This was apparently the first shoe to be marketed by Nike without bearing the Nike name or swoosh, and the “buy it and do nothing” approach that Nike took was really the best option they had in preserving the peace between the two brands.
CASE 2: Axe & Dove
The same company that promotes seducing ladies (as if luring flies to an irresistible man- flame) is under the same umbrella as the company who famously celebrates natural beauty amongst those ladies. One company urges you to embrace your wrinkles, while the other guarantees you’ll attract valuable women, the wrinkle-free kind.
The name behind Axe and Dove is Unilever. Here’s how their Chief Marketing Officer Simon Clift explains the contradiction: “It’s a spoof on the mating game. The joke is on the boy. It’s just a few bloggers in the US who don’t get it.” They argue that they have the right to promote each brand specifically to its target market, and they’re right. Yet a lot of people rejected the explanation as hypocrisy.
CASE 3: T&T Supermarket & Loblaws
This pairing is a little more unexpected than it is scandalous, but I think it’s a smart move on behalf of the Loblaw brand.
If you’ve got a President’s Choice MasterCard, you’ll see that your earned points are redeemable at the normal plethora of Loblaws establishments, including T&T Supermarkets. Doesn’t seem like a logical leap, but as Canada’s largest Asian food retailer, it’s not a bad name to have under your umbrella. Even if it does cost you about $225 million.
As per the CBC, “T&T’s talented management team and colleagues have developed what we believe are the best Asian stores in Canada, which will be used to help Loblaw extend its ethnic offering to better serve Canada’s largest growing customer segment,” Galen G. Weston, executive chairman of Loblaw, said in a release.”
To paraphrase, what he means is: ca-ching!
…
If brands are the personalities of companies, it’s only natural for consumers to assume that each brand has its own identity. While I don’t necessarily think it’s unethical to own multiple brands, it’s not exactly transparent, either. In real estate, they say that diversifying your portfolio only makes your company stronger. That’s a concept that just as easily translates over to goods and services, but for the sake of branding, it seems like a case of multiple personality disorder.
