JOURNAL OF

MARKETING
MANAGEMENT

How Brand Portfolios Have Changed:

A Study of Grocery Suppliers Brands
from 1994 to 2004
Sylvie Laforet, University of Sheffield, UK*
John Saunders, Aston University, UK

Abstract This study examines the changes in brand structures based on a repeat
audit of brand portfolios by leading grocery product suppliers. It compares results
from content analyses of four hundred leading suppliers' brands sold to Tesco and
Sainsbury's in 1994 and 2004. The brand structures used have changed although
not uniformly in extent or direction. There is now more complexity in the way
brand names are used. An extended typology of brand structures is incorporated.
Propositions drawn from latest thinking on the use of brand portfolios are
compared with the findings implications discussed.
Keywords Brand structures, FMCG, Brand portfolios. Research paper.

INTRODUCTION
Emerging market complexities, competitive pressures, channel dynamics, globalisation,
acquisitions, multiple and aggressive brand extensions have left companies with an
increasingly complex portfolio of brands to manage. Furthermore, the diverse nature
of consumers as well as stakeholders, the power of new media (such as the Internet)
and public opinion add complexity to today companies' branding activity (Simoes
and Dibb 2001) and brand portfolios.
The popularity of brand extensions and umbrella branding in the 90s led a wealth
of research (Aaker and Keller 1990, 1993; Keller and Aaker 1992; Boush 1993;
'Correspondence details and biographies for the authors are located at the end of the article, p. 58.
JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT, 2007, VoL 23, No. 1 -2, pp.39-58
ISSN0267-257X print /ISSNU72-1376 online Westburn Publishers Ltd.
DOI 10.1362/026725707X178549

40

m y

Journalof Marketing Management, Volume 23

Sundie and Brodie 1993; Nijssen and Hartmann 1994; Kim and Lavack 1996; Glynn
and Brodie 1998; Pryor and Brodie 1998, Sheinin 1998; Nijssen 1999; Swaminathan
2003). Another strong research strand focuses on the concept and value of corporate
brand (Bickerton 2000; Simoes and Dibb 2001; Balmer and Gray 2003; Leitch and
Richardson 2003; Knox and Bickerton, 2003; Knox 2004). The value of a clear
corporate identity is widely accepted but how this relates to product brands and
within a portfolio of brands is not well understood. This is because much of this work
is in service industries or is concerned with companies that sell directly to consumers.
This contrasts with Christopher's (1998) observation that much competition is based
in the supply chains and among companies' product portfolios rather than among
individual companies.
Based on ideas from the literature of design and corporate identity (Olins, 1989
and Murphy, 1987), Laforet and Saunders' (1994) study of suppliers' brands in the
grocery sector found a great diversity in the way that companies managed their brand
portfolios, even when operating in the same market. Moreover, firms usually mixed
and matched corporate, house (division or subsidiary) and individual brand names
on their products. The interplay between brand names captured in Laforet and
Saunders' study stimulated further research into the brand linkages and relationships
(Jevons et al. 2001), the leverage of secondary brand associations (Uggla 2002), brand
architecture and relationships within product categories (Rajagopal and Sanchez
2004), consumers' reactions to brand naming strategies across durables and services
(Bhat et al. 1998) and the benefits of using two or more names or more on a pack
(Speed 1998). Strebinger (2002) proposed a strategy for brand architecture embracing
three fields of theory - the brand concept, consumer information processing and a
typology of brand architecture while Douglas et al. (1999) extended the work to
international brand structures.
The study of brand portfolios has grown over the last decade but there are
suggestions that the pressures now facing competitors is changing the way brand
portfolios are used. This study seeks to find if the brand structures uncovered in the
mid 1990s persist. Are companies changing their emphasis in their use of various
branding options and are there new patterns in the use of brand portfolios? It
compares the results from content analyses of four hundred leading suppliers' brands
sold at Tesco and Sainsbury's supermarkets in 1994 and 2004. The paper starts by
examining current thoughts on how brand structures are changing. Companies' brand
strategies were then surveyed and compared with the results of the last study (Laforet
and Saunders 1994), the findings are discussed and conclusions drawn.

CURRENT THOUGHTS ON BRAND STRUCTURES

There is a conflict in the current academic debate on where brands are going. Aaker
and Joachimstahler (2000) suggest a trend from individual brands, through over
endorsed and sub brands, towards corporate branding structures driven by emerging
market complexities, competitive pressures, channel dynamics, and globalisation. To
these are added markets confused by multiple brands, aggressive brand extensions
and complex, sub-brand structures. Consequently, cost effective leveraged corporate
brands are replacing individual portfolio brands. Furthermore, Balmer and Gray
(2003) argue corporate brands, if successful, would be more sustainable and a valuable
strategic resource to companies than individual brands. This is because, according to
the latter, corporate brands are best at communicating the brand's value and promise.

Laforet and Saunders How Brand Portfolios Have Changed

they are seen as a means of differentiation and enhance the esteem and loyalty in
which the organisation is held. These authors suggest companies use the corporate
brand through six corporate branding categories: familial, shared, surrogate, supra,
multiplex and federal. If the above arguments for corporate brands are correct,
corporate branding should be more dominant now than ten years ago.
Petromilli et al. (2002) argue that there is an increasing financial gain in using
brand names together due to the efficiency of 'pooling' and "trading' strategy.
'Pooling' captures more shelf-space and market share using individual brand
names to differentiate products. For example. Proctor and Gamble has leveraged
its manufacturing capabilities to develop a host of laundry detergent brands. Each
targets a different segment of the market and offers different benefits, but Proctor
and Gamble has 'pooled' them together by presenting the entire portfolio to the
trade in order to capture more shelf space and gain additional market share. Two or
more simultaneously used brand names can 'trade' off each other's values. Each subbrand can thus gain from 'pooling' and benefit from 'trading' on the halo effect of
master brand associations. This suggests that, in search for efficiency, mixed brands
are increasingly used.
In contrast, Kapferer (2001) suggests that individual brands have become more
common as companies decentralise. The reasons for this demutualisation are, firstly,
the use of market segmentation and differentiation to create barriers to cannibalisation
and to avoid distribution channel conflicts. Secondly, individual brands are a logical
response to market fragmentation into increasingly small segments. Kapferer also
notes companies turn to individual brands often after failing to find the synergies
anticipated from the corporate brand.
A number of companies also use individual brand strategy to grow vertically in a
highly segmented market. Vijayraghavan (2003) pointed out that individual brands
offer more character and allow accurate positioning in intensely competitive markets.
In price-sensitive markets, value-for-money brands (possibly own labels) are often
volume pullers. In these segments umbrella branding does not necessarily help and
conflict with the umbrella brand's use in less prices sensitive segments. Similarly
Pierce and Mouskanas (2002), note that individual brand names within a portfolio
become more powerful when they are interrelated. They suggest use of individual
brands to that successful companies should concentrate on a small group of powerful
brands and position more precisely.
Brands and corporate brands are sensitive to external threats. In anti-globalisation
movements, global brands attract protestors as well as customers (Held 2002; Notes
from Nowhere 2003). Best selling books, such as No Logo (Klein 2000) and Fast Food
Nation (Schlosser 2001) have helped focus activists and the wider market on brands
and corporate brands in particular. The power of the media and public opinion adds
further complexity to companies' branding activity (Simoes and Dibb 2001). Bad
pubhcity can influence pubUc opinion about a brand which can pose serious threats
to companies' reputations and their entire business, especially if the company is also
a brand. For example, following Arthur Andersen's recent corporate scandal, the
company went out of business (Stein 2004). This case highlights the vulnerability of
corporate brands. In the grocery market, once corporate branders like Kellogg's and
Nestle who used their corporate names to endorse their product range could face
reputation risk across the whole business if bad news hits. In contrast, Unilever's
use of mono brands gives firebreaks that can limit reputation loss across a whole
business. The Internet is now an instrument that can be used by activists to attack
corporate brands or used by disgruntled customers spreading ideas so quickly that a

42

^ ^ 1 Journalof Marketing Management, Volume 23

local problem can suddenly become a global disaster (Murray 2003). Therefore, it
is probable that companies are moving away from corporate brands to limiting their
exposure to reputation risk
Most intensive users of individual brands, such as Unilever, Procter & Gamble,
still disclose their company's identity somewhere on their packs, by either an address
or a small logo. But in some cases, suppliers have been careful not to expose the
interrelationships between their ranges when their joint ownership is unappealing,
for instance, in the case of Mars confectionery and Pedigree pet foods (these two
businesses belong to the same company Mars Inc.), or where a company dominates
a category in many of the world's market, as does Unilever in yellow fats. By using
furtive brands (i.e. where companies do not disclose the company's identity anywhere
on product packs (Laforet and Saunders' 1994), that do not disclose corporate
ownership, marketers minimise the chance of consumers or activists remembering
or communicating who owns what. The heightened sensitivity of companies to
reputation risk therefore suggests an increased used of furtive brands.

BRAND STRUCTURES
Using a content analysis of 400 grocery brands sold at Tesco and Sainsbury's
supermarkets and personal interviews with senior managers (Laforet and Saunders
1994), revealed a more complete brand structure (Table 1) than the monolithic,
endorsed and branded structure proposed by Olins (1989) and Murphy's (1987):
Corporate dominant - companies that use corporate brand names on all of its
product range were rare. Heinz is the closest to being corporate dominant but, even
in the study then, 60 percent of its products were found to be dual branded (i.e. two
or more names with equal prominence used). Acquisitions have caused composite
corporate dominant firms to emerge such as Cadbury Schweppes and ColgatePalmolive and parts of the corporate name associated with product classes, for
example, Cadbury with chocolate and Schweppes with mixers (Laforet and Saunders
1994, p. 68).
House brands (divisions or subsidiaries) structures were found to be more common
than corporate ones. For example. Mars used its corporate branded products for
human consumption but Pedigree on pet foods and Thomas's on pet accessories
(Laforet and Saunders 1994, p.68).
Dual brands - many products were found to be mixed brands, carrying two or more
brand names. Dual brands gave the brands roughly equal prominence. Examples of
dual brands are Cadbury's Dairy Milk uses a corporate name with a mono brand
name, while Rowntree's Chocolite has a family brand and mono brand name. The
use of brand leverage in launching new brands was resulting in an increasing number
of mixed brands of all types (Laforet and Saunders 1994, p.68-69).
Endorsed brands - whereby the brand was endorsed by either the corporate or
house name.
The brand dominant included the mono brands i.e. single brand names used and,
furtive brands i.e. single brand names used but the corporate identity was undisclosed
or not found anywhere on product packs. For example, Unilever was found to be
a brand-dominant company whose product ranges were dominated by a series of
mono brands. While pet-food makers often disclosed their names on product packs
to reduce the link between food for pets and that for humans, similarly, Unilever used

Laforet and Saunders How Brand Portfolios Have Changed

to identify their detergents (Radion, Persil, etc) as made by Lever Brothers and their
margarine (I can't believe it's not butter! Stork, etc.) from Van Den Bergh (Laforet
and Saunders 1994, p.69).
The suppliers also used five brand strategies: mixed corporate branded strategy,
mixed house branded, mixed family branded, mixed corporate endorsed and mono
branded strategies (Table 7). For instance, the mixed corporate branded strategy
recognised that unlike the traditional view of Kellogg and Heinz as corporate
branders, the companies also used other branding approaches. Kellogg used their
corporate identity with mono brand names, e.g. Kellogg Rice Krispies.
METHODOLOGY
This study examines changes in the use of brand portfolios over the last decade. It
follows the same sampling procedure and method used by Laforet and Saunders
(1994). Four hundred leading grocery brands - twenty brands from each of the
twenty major suppliers to Tesco and Sainsbury's - were analysed. The brands were
randomly selected from the supermarket shelves and were not selected based on any
specific criteria, other than they must come from the same leading grocery suppliers
as in the last study. The exceptions are two companies that merged and another
that is withdrawing from grocery market. Thus in the analysis, merged companies
have the same status as old companies and those added to replace the one that was
withdrawn, are considered as new companies. These included most of the western
world's leading suppliers of grocery products but with a bias towards Furopean firms
(Tables 3 to 6).
As in the 1994 study, brands from the first of the twenty suppliers were examined
and the interplay between that supplier's brands and corporate identities recorded.
Next, brands from a second supplier were analysed and so on, until a classification
scheme described all the 400 brands sampled. Types of brand mark were identified
and the relative priority given to them on each sample package was noted. The
brand types suggest a way of classifying the branding of individual products and how
companies use their portfolio of brand identities (Tables 1 and 2).
Suppliers' brand strategies are described, based on how often they used a brand
type (or the frequency of a brand type used), refers to brand 'usage' and the relative
prominence given to the brand type used, known as brand 'strength'. For instance.
Table 3 shows Proctor and Gamble used their corporate identity and a mono brand
name on 100 percent of the products studied in 2004 but the prominence of their
corporate identity on the products sampled was 1, meaning the brand type is not in
the front of the package but appears somewhere, often at the back of the product
pack. In contrast the mono brand name's prominence on all the products sampled
was 4, meaning the brand type is given a predominant position on the package and
it usually appears in front of the product pack in large print. 2 represents a small
endorsement and 3 an inferior size name. The derivation of brand strength score is
shown in Table 3 and further explained in Laforet and Saunders (1994). In addition,
companies were ranked in terms of how strongly they adhered to a brand type or
style. The 'heavy users' were those that used more than 67% of a brand type; 'medium
users' 66% to 33%; 'light users' less than 32% and 'non users' were those companies
who did not use any of the brand type shown (Tables 3 to 6). Companies using a
mixture of branding approaches appear more than once on a table.

43

Q^m Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 23

Table 7 sums up the strategies used by the twenty suppliers. For instance, Heinz
is now a mixed corporate branded company because Tables 3 to 6 show although it
is a heavy user of corporate brand (in terms of frequency), it also uses mono (single)
brands (refer Table 4 which indicates that Heinz is a medium user of mono brands)
and super (family) brands (refer Table 5 which indicates that Heinz is a light user
of super brands). Recorded personal interviews with managers refined the brand
structure and gained an insight into why brand strategies were used.
RESULTS
The 2004 study revealed that brand structures are more complex than in 1994 (Tables
1 &2).
Corporate branded. At the top of the hierarchy, corporate or house names (divisions
or subsidiaries) are used with a description, such as Heinz tomato ketchup or L'Oreal
kid's shampoo (Table 2). A company using this approach for all their products range
has a corporate dominant strategy. However, none of the companies studied now

TABLE 1 Brand Structures 1994-2004

1994
Brand
Structure

2006
Brand Type

Brand Structure

Corporate
Dominant

- Corporate
Brands
- House
Brands

Corporate
Branded

- Corporate Name
- House Brands

Mixed
Brands

-Dual
Brands
- Endorsed
Brands

Endorsed

- Corporate Name (endorsing a

product brand)
- House Name (endorsing a
product brand)
- Family/Super Brand [endorsing a
product brand)

Brand
Donninant

- Mono
Brands
- Furtive
Brands

Dual Brand
(Horizontal
relationship)

- Corporate, House, Family Brand

+ product
- Product brand 1 + Product brand
2

Multi Branded
(Mixed of vertical
& horizontal
relationships
between names)

- Endorsed multi Brand (Family

name endorsing two product
brand names)
- Triple Brand (corporate
name+brandl+brand2)

Branded

- Mono Brand
- Furtive Brand

Brand Type

Laforet and Saunders How Brand Portfolios Have Changed

used this approach dominantly (Table 3) so 'corporate branded' is used to refer to
products displaying their company's name or house name prominently.
Endorsed structure is the next level of the hierarchy where a company or house
name endorses a brand (Table 2), such as L'Oreal Elvive or Lipton Tchae. The content
analysis shows in addition the family or super brand is now used to endorse the
product brand name, for example. Always Alldays Black panty liners - Always are
shown in small prints and Alldays, the product brand name, is prominent.
Dual brands give equal prominence to either a corporate, house, super brand or
another product brand name together with the product's own brand (Table 2), such
as Nestle (corporate name) Blue Riband (brand name), Twinings (house name) Lady
Grey (brand name) or Airwick (super brand) Haze (brand name). All companies now
use the dual brand approach (Table 5) and this style occurs on 34.5% of products
surveyed.
Multi branded cases use both the endorsed and dual brand styles in a combined
format on a product pack (Table 2). Eriskies Winalot Reward pet food is an example
of an endorsed multi brand where Eriskies is an endorsement while Winalot and
Reward have almost equal prominence. Another is triple branded Cadbury's Wispa
Toppers hot chocolate, Cadbury's (corporate name) Wispa (brand name) are
endorsements but Toppers (brand name) is more prominent. This strategy is used by
Nestle, Cadbury, Kellogg's, United Biscuits and Mars.

TABLE 2 200A Extended Typology of Brand Structures (with examples)

Brand Structure

Brand Type

Examples

Corporate
Branded

- Corporate Name
- House Brands

- Heinz Tomato Ketchup

- L'Oreal Kids Shampoo

Endorsed

- Corporate Name (endorsing a

product brand)
- House Name [endorsing a
product brand)
- Family/Super Brand
(endorsing a product brand)

- Nestle Kit Kat

- L'Oreal Elvive
- Always Alldays Black panty
liners

Dual Brand
(Horizontal
relationship)

- Corporate, House, Family

Brand + product
- Product brand 1 + Product
brand 2

- Nestle Blue Riband,

Twinings Lady Grey
- Airwick Haze

Multi Branded
(Mixed of vertical
& horizontal
relationships
between names)

- Endorsed multi Brand (Family

name endorsing two product
brand names)
- Triple Brand (corporate
name+brand1+brand2)

- Friskies Winalot Reward pet

food
- Maltesers Teasers from
Celebrations
- Cadbury's Dairy Milk
Crunchie
- Cadbury's Wispa Toppers hot
chocolate

Branded

- Mono Brand
- Furtive Brand

- Persil, Ribena
- lams (P&G undisclosed)

Journal of Marketing Management. Volume 23

Branded describes only 32% of the products sampled which were a single brand
name product (Table 2). This compares with a dominant 61% using some form of
mixed brands, although all companies used mono brands to some degree (Table 4).
The results show few companies' strategies remained the same over the last decade.
Eight out of twenty companies surveyed (40%) have changed significantly in their
overall brand strategy (Table 7): Allied Domecq, Cadbury, GSK, Kellogg's, Reckitt
Benckinser, Unilever, United Biscuits and Uniq. Even those who stayed most constant
in their overall brand approaches have had some variations in the branding styles.
TABLE 3 Ranking of Corporate Branders 1994-2004
Frequency and Priority in use
1994

2006

Heavy Users
Gillette **
Colgate Palmolive
Sara Lee **
Kraft General Foods *
Proctor &Gamble
Uniq Pic (Dairy Crest & St Ivel) *
Glaxo Smithkline Pic *
Heinz Corp
Reckitt Benckinser*
United Biscuits Pic
Kellogg Corp
Quaker Oats Ltd
Nestle SA
Cadbury Schweppes
Mars Ltd

Usage
Strength'
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength

80
2

100
3.9
100
1
10
2
100
2
100
4
85
1
65
1
100
4
50
2.7
80
1.4
100
3
1

100
2
100
1.5
100
1.5
100
1.2
100
1
100
1
90
0.9
85
2.8
85
1
85
1
80
2.1
80
1.25
75
2
70
2.8
70
1

Medium users
Allied Domecq *

Usage
Strength

30
1.4
Cont'd...

Laforet and Saunders How Brand Portfolios Have Changed

Frequency and Priority in use
1994

2004

None Users
Associated British Foods Pic
Northern Foods Pic
Rank Hovis McDougail
Unilever Pic

Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength

Companies in bold increased their use of corporate brands while those in italics
decreased the use over time period.
* Companies that have been merged since the last time this survey was conducted
** Companies added to the list since the last time this survey was conducted.
Nc

' brand strength scores is calculated: Sc,t = ^Pc, t, n /(Nc-Mc,t)

Where: Sc,t = strength of the display of brand type t by company c
Pc,t,n = the prominence given to brand type c on product n
Nc = number of brands surveyed
Mc,t = number of products on which brand type t is not used.

Over the last decade, heavy users of mono brand, Allied Domecq, Reckitt Benckinser
and Unilever (Table 4), have increased their usage to the point that they are now best
described as brand dominant companies (Table 7). Tables 3 to 6 show Allied Domecq
as a light user of corporate and super (or dual) brand but a heavy user of mono
brands. In addition, the large decline of their house brands is offset by an increase
in mono brand to 100% by 2004, from 80% a decade earlier. Similarly, Reckitt
Benckinser has increased their use of mono brand to 100% compared with 20% a
decade ago (Table 4). Unilever's large decline of super brand also emphasises their
position as a brand dominant company (Table 1).
Cadbury and Kellogg have moved from a mixed corporate brand approach to
a corporate dual brand dominant approach (Table 7 & Table 1), United Biscuits
and Uniq from a house branded approach to a super or family brand dominant.
In contrast, as mentioned above, Unilever, Reckitt Benckinser and Allied Domecq
have moved in the opposite direction and become brand dominant by dropping their
super brands and opting for mono brands. Lastly, GSK has also moved from one
end of the brand hierarchy spectrum to another, from a mixed corporate endorsed
brand strategy to a mono branded strategy (Table 7 &c Table 1). Since GSK is the
culmination of a merger between Smith Kline Beecham and Glaxowellcome to form
GSK, whose names were already littered with corporate names from earlier mergers,
there was a need to remove a confusing clutter of corporate names from their packs.
Other companies remained relatively constant in their overall branding strategy.
The decline in the use of individual corporate and house branded styles is changing
the overall profile of how each company uses brands (Tables 3 to 6). Heinz is now
the only company studied that uses a mixed corporate branded strategy (Table 7).
Cadbury Schweppes and Kellogg have both moved away from corporate branding
towards using more dual brands.

47

Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 23

TABLE 4 Ranking of Mono Branders 199A-2004

Frequency and Priority in use
1994

2004

80

Heavy users
Allied Domecq
Cadbury Schweppes
Colgate Palmolive
GSK
Kellogg's Corporation
Kraft General Foods
Mars Ltd

Nestle SA
Proctor and Gamble
Rank Hovis McOougall
Reckitt Benckinser
Sara Lee
Unilever Pic
Uniq Pic (Dairy Crest & St Ivel)
United Biscuits Pic
Quaker Oats Ltd

Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength

65
3.6

100
4
90
4
100
4
100
A
90
3.9
75
4
95
4
100
A
100
3.9
90
3.5
100
3.9
75
A
100
A
90
A
100
4
75
4

Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strenqth

45
4
60
3.5
65
4

58
4
50
3.5
60
4

80
95
3.8
100
A
100
3
95
3.9
100
3.8
100
A
100
3.9
90
3.9
80

100
A
90
A
85

Medium Users
Associated British Foods
Heinz Corporation
Northern Foods Pic

Light Users
Gillette

Usage
Strength

20
A

Companies In bold increased their use of mono brands while those in /'fa//cs decreased
the less over time period.

Laforet and Saunders How Brand Portfolios Have Changed

TABLE 5 Ranking of Super Branders 1994-2004

Frequency and Priorityr in use
2004

1994
Heavy users
Gillette
Unilever Pic
United Biscuits Pic

Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength

85
2
35
2.6

85
4
25
3
75
2.75

Medium users
Cadbury Schweppes
Kraft General Foods
Mars Ltd
Nestle SA
Northern Foods Pic
Proctor and Gamble
Quaker Gats Ltd
Reckitt Benckinser
Uniq Pic
Kellogg's Corp
Sara Lee

Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength

0
25
4
15
3.5
40
3.25
10
3
10
2.5
55
3.5
30
4
10
3
0

35
3
35
2.5
40
3
60
3
40
3.3
35
3
55
3
40
3.9
40
2.6
45
3
40
A

Light users
15
15
Usage
3.6
3
Strength
20
30
Usage
Associated British Foods
3.4
Strength
3.75
Pic
20
10
Colgate Palmolive
Usage
3.8
Strength
4
15
0
Usage
GSK
2.7
Strength
15
0
Usage
Heinz Corporation
3.3
Strength
20
10
Usage
Rank Hovis McDougail
3.5
Strength
3.5
Companies in bold increased their use of super brands v\/hile those in italics
decreased the less over time period.
Allied Domecq

49

50

Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 23

TABLE 6 Ranking of House Branders 1994-2004
Frequency and Priority in use
1994

2004

Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strenqth

90
1
WO
2.7
60
1.75
90
3.3
90
2
100
1
65
2.5
60
2

45
3.8
70
2.75
35
1
100
2.4
100
3.8
85
0.85
0

Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength

25
1
10
4
25
1

20
1.7
10
2.5
20
3
25
3
25
2.4
20
2
10
1

Heavy Users
Allied Domecq
Associated British Foods Pic
Mars Ltd
Northern Foods Pic
Rank Hovis McDougail
Unilever Pic
Uniq Pic (Dairy Crest & St Iveli
United Biscuits Pic

15
2

Light users
Cadbury Schweppes
Colgate Palmolive
Gillette
Kraft General Foods
Nestle SA
Quaker Oats Ltd
Reciiitt Benckinser

10
1
0
0

None users
GSK
Heinz Corporation
Kellogg's Corporation
Proctor and Gamble
Sara Lee

Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength
Usage
Strength

Laforet and Saunders How Brand Portfolios Have Changed

TABLE 7 Suppliers Brand Strategies
2004
Mixed Corporate Branded
Cadbury Schweppes, Heinz, Kellogg's

Mixed Corporate Branded

Heinz

Mixed House Branded

Associated British Foods, Northern
Foods, Unigate, United Biscuits,
Rank Hovis McDougail

Mixed House Branded

Associated British Foods*, Northern
Foods, Rank Hovis McDougail*

Mixed Family Branded

Quaker, Kraft General Foods

Mixed Family Branded

Quaker, Kraft General Foods
Family Brand Dominant
United Biscuits**, Uniq**

Mixed Corporate Endorsed

Nestle, Colgate Palmolive,
Smith Kline Beecham

Mixed Corporate Endorsed

Nestle, Colgate PatmoUve

Mono Branded
Allied Lyons, Mars, Unilever,
Proctor and Gamble, Reckitt
Benckinser, CPC, Dalgety

Mono Branded
Proctor and Gamble*, Mars*,
GSK**

Brand Dominant
Allied Domecq**, Reckitt
Benckinser**, Unilever**
Corporate Dual Brand Dominant
Cadbury Schv\/eppes**, Kellogg's*
Gillette, Sara Lee
Note: * Moderate changes; **Significant move

The number of companies using a corporate endorsed approach has reduced from
three to two (Table 7). This divergence occurs because of the use of corporate
endorsements by those switching away from corporate branding and a growth in
suppliers now choosing from a wider range of mixed styles. Although companies have
reduced their corporate visibility by hmiting the prominence of corporate and house
brand names, a significant decline in the use of furtive brands suggests a willingness
to disclose their identities. Overall, the trend shows a drift from corporate branding
to an increase in individual brands sprinkled with an increased mixing and matching
with other brand names. Therefore, the proposal that mixed brands are on the
increase is supported while the proposal that corporate branding increases is not.

51

52

m j j Journalof Marketing Management, Volume 23

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Managers in the 1994 survey suggested history, company philosophy or company
tradition drove branding structures. Corporate branding was associated with market
leadership and the advantage that it bestowed and dual brands were thought to be the
result of accident not design. Discussion with managers supported the capitalisation
view, with suppliers focusing on a few core or 'drive' brands because of advertising
costs and the increasing cost of branding due to the fragmentation of communication
and distribution channel. Unilever explain their rationalisation: "We will continue
to focus on portfolio of core brands and the marketing efforts will go behind those
nominating brands. Then there are those we call the tails, we can first help those by
promotions and managing decline". United Biscuits has similar strategy: "We've got
our priority drive brands by doing a portfolio priorisation to determine which are the
brands that we want to build and grow and then develop plans around that brand".
Speed (1998) asserts that companies motivated by a defensive or maintenance
focus reason would tend to maintain the core brand and focus on resources. In
practice, this partly reflects in a number of companies dropping some of their brands
in the last decade (Tables 3 to 6). However, the increase in mix brands shows that
brand leverage is sought in other ways rather than through extending the corporate
brand. This is because few have found the promised synergistic gains from using
corporate names (Kapferer 2001). For example. Mars uses the Bounty brand as
a flavour signifier in their Bisc & Bounty cookies (Bounty is associated with the
coconut flavour found in Bounty): "We use brands as signifier and texture descriptor.
Something with Bounty in will be good for our loyal customers. Bounty has a core of
consumer loyal to the brand and love Bounty therefore it would be more interesting
to have Bisc & Bounty than Bisc & coconut flavour". The Mars name does not appear
on this new product. There was no synergistic gain from using the corporate name in
this case since the Mars name suggests chocolate and not biscuits. Another example
is Cadbury with their Cadbury Dairy Milk Crunchie and Cadbury Dairy Milk Bubbly.
As their Marketing Director explains: "Crunchie is used as a brand descriptor of
ingredients and Bubbly acts as a texture brand descriptor". However, unlike Mars,
Cadbury has left the corporate name on both of their count line products because:
"Cadbury means chocolate similar to the products the company was selling". These
cases highlight the extent to which a corporate brand can be stretched.
The literature suggests companies realizing the cost of building leveraged brands
and the need to keeping a sufficient psychological distance between products (Kim
& Lavack 1996). The packaging design literature claims a product does not need to
have the corporate brand mark stamped on the front of its package for consumers to
identify as part of a particular company (Silayoi and Speece 2004). Similarly, research
on logos also shows visual expressions are more recognisable and more powerfully
remembered than names or words (Nelson 2002).
Managers see greater benefits in using endorsed and dual brand approaches
over mono or single brands. In dual branding an established brand gives immediate
recognition and awareness of the new product. For instance, by having the Bounty
brand name on Mars' new line of biscuits, customers who already like the Bounty
are more likely to buy the new range of biscuits than if Bounty were omitted (See
the manager's comment above). Similarly, two established brands names transmit
a stronger signal to consumers than a single identity. As in the previous example,
Cadbury Dairy Milk Crunchie was thought to give a stronger signal to the consumer
than Cadbury Dairy Milk with honeycomb pieces. Crunchie acts as a brand descriptor

Laforet and Saunders How Brand Portfolios Have Changed

of ingredients while Cadbury Dairy Milk signals quality chocolate from Cadbury
Dairy Milk which is fed off from Cadbury's heritage and value and vice versa.
Using a brand for endorsement does not expose companies to reputation risk and
provides a greater variety of positioning alternatives than if corporate branding were
the only option considered (Aaker and Joachimstahler 2000). The brand endorsement
would bring trust and value to the brand being endorsed without which the consumer
may not see the new product as a trusted brand. As Kellogg's executive explains:
"Given the support of brands is very costly, we never have enough money to do what
we need to do. That's why you're building what you advertise the brand stand for...
Kellogg's Nutri-grain Eleventh brings all the brand values - will not be trusted if it
did not have the K name on it. K helps position it in certain ways". Secondly, the
endorsement helps position the new product, for example, Kellogg's Rice Krispies
Treats. In this case Treats feeds off Rice Krispies' heritage of quality and breakfast
cereal while Treats help position Rice Krispies as a product that children enjoy.
Besides providing the opportunity to launch new lines, companies support
Leuthesser et al's (2003) view that brand endorsements, dual brands and mixed brands
increase a brand's visibility and saliency. Managers also believe that consumers buy
brands more frequently if there is a range of products that suit different occasions
and fulfil different needs. Equally, companies perceive a need to increase consumers'
curiosity and reduce the chance of consumers tiring of a brand that only appears in
one format.
Past research suggests that companies use brand extensions to bolster short-term
profits (Ambler and Styles 1997). Recent research also indicates that brand extensions,
and multiple extensions in particular, help attract non-users of the core brand and
through these, a company's brand equity can be built (Swaminathan 2003). The
findings show some mixed brands were transient or opportunistic. Examples are
Mars Maltesers Teasers from Celebrations, McVitie's McV Hob Nobs, Dettol Dettox
and Veet Immac. Discussion with managers suggests that Mars Maltesers Teasers
from Celebrations was a one-off (or seasonal) product launched before Christmas
whereas for mixed transient products such as McVitie's McV Hob Nobs, Dettol
Dettox and Veet Immac the reason was because they entered a new market or they
went global. Thus United Biscuits' Marketing Manager explains: "McVitie's McV
Hob Nobs is transient for another reason. With the new style McV, we hope to
give a more contemporary appearance to the product by entering the young market
segment". With regard to Dettol Dettox, the company's long-term aim is to extend
its antibacterial surface cleaning products from liquids to wipes. At times, Dettol
Dettox appears on the wipes packaging, while on others the pack explains, "Dettol
is the new name for Dettox". Veet Immac hair remover is another example of a
name change. As the company's literature suggests, local name Immac will disappear
as the company standardises on Veet across the world. The frequency of managers
explaining dual brands as transient suggests that their increased occurrence is as much
to do with companies tidying up their brand portfolio as aiming to lever the equity of
two or more brands names.
Laforet and Saunders (1999) also found brand structures were driven by company
history as much as markets. This is consistent with Euromonitor's (2003) findings
that show mixed brands were most common in the breakfast cereals, confectionery,
snacks and cookies product categories and/or markets. According to the report,
Kellogg uses mixed brands to help it move from the traditional "sit down" breakfast
cereal into the breakfast bars eaten on the go. This contrasts with the confectionery,
snack and cookie lines of Nestle, Cadbury and United Biscuits who aim to maintain

53

54

I^Q

Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 23

their customers' interest by segmenting along age and gender lines. For instance,
the Nestle's Milky Bar Munchies is for adults and Nestle's Milky Bar Choos for
children. In the processed food sector, Heinz and Rank Hovis McDougail have used
dual branding to allow their ranges to appeal to children. Other examples are Heinz
Pokemon baked beans and McDougail Tweenies biscuits. These cases suggest that
mixed brands help target market segments.
For some suppliers the move from corporate to individual brands occurs to remove
the clutter left after acquisitions. Mergers, acquisitions and the restructuring activities
of companies are also the cause of the present decline in the use of house (division or
subsidiary) brands. Examples are after merging with Carlsberg-Tetley, Allied Domecq
dropped the Lyons' food maker brand, and Uniq did the same following their merger
activities (Tables 6 and 7). This further explains the increase in mono brands across
the products sampled.
Finally, companies deploy their portfolios of brands faced with new environmental
threats. In response to intense competition in the supply chains, suppliers searched
for different ways of leveraging their brand equity that they believed would bring
more return and less risks of diluting the parent's image. Increasingly, this brand
leverage is at the product level, through dual and mixed brands where the shared
benefit among two or more brands is believed to outweigh that of mono brands.
Concern for reputation risk is a reason why companies should reduce corporate
branding. Changes in brand portfolios over the decade suggest such a move.
To conclude, the new audit of the suppliers' brands packaging showed a drift from
corporate brands to an increase in individual brands sprinkled with an increase mixing
and matching with other brand names. There are a number of reasons for this, some
suppliers have moved from corporate to individual brands because of the clutter left
after acquisitions and when they operate in global markets. However, environmental
pressures (such as intense competition, cost of advertising and branding), public
opinion that can be influenced by the power of the media and the internet are threats
that have led suppliers to spread risks and search for better returns from a few core
brands. Multiple brands are used especially in breakfast cereals, confectionery, snacks
and cookies, where new markets can be captured through lifestyle, age and gender
segmentation and to communicate product ingredients. Managers believed the more
established brands could be used in a combined format, the stronger a signal would
be transmitted about the new product to the consumer. Similarly, consumers were
thought to want the reassurance of established brands. In some cases, mixed brands
are transient when they enter a new market or go global. Most companies were
found to have used a mixed of strategies and no company adheres to one brand
approach. This study's contribution has been to record and track changes in brand
strategies over the last decade.
Patterns are discemable when comparing the early brand structures proposed by
Olins (1989), the more complex structure identified by Laforet and Saunders (1994)
and the even more complicated structures need to explain brand portfolios in 2004.
Corporate branding is declining as companies accumulate numerous brands and
compete over segments, where they need to differentiate their product and where
acquisitions, that initially produced complex brand structures, eventually led to
brand destruction as companies sought to standardise their offerings. Companies are
finding they can gain from sharing brand identities across a range of products and
position products by using multiple names to suggest ingredients or segment appeals.
Still, although suppliers have found a value in mixing and matching brand names, the
portfolio of identities from which they can choose exists more because history rather

Laforet and Saunders How Brand Portfolios Have Changed

than design. The danger is that through regular mixing and matching the brand
heritage that is being mined will be depleted. The impression is one of opportunistic
combinations where product or segment needs drive action. This suggests a future of
ever-complicated brand structures as brands are used in opportunistic way to squeeze
out a little more value.
This study has implications for corporate and brand identity management as
follows: with regard to the former, our advice to smart managers will be - (1). Get
branding on the board. Non-executive directors can provide an independent view
of how brand assets are performing. (2). Keep the corporate name separate from
individual brands although, it seems a shame not to make the short-term gains
from opportunistically mixing and matching brands with strong identities. There
is suggestion from packaging literature that a strong and well-recognised corporate
brand is used if the product was to gain benefit from being associated with it. Even
then, there is no guarantee of lesser risk of reputation loss. The alternative is to
limit the use of corporate name to the sector and market that suits companies (refer
findings above). (3). Better still, concentrate on managing and exploiting with great
care a group of key brands that define a company's wealth whilst mix and match the
company's lesser brands to achieve short-term gains.
However, much remains unknown. Future research could concentrate on the
following: (1). In-depth studies conducted to understand patterns of influence on
the brand structures. (2). Brands can be examined in relation to share prices and
brand structures in the market. (3). Brand tracking/ marketing strategies' studies may
be conducted using panel data to look at the effects of these changes. (4). Research
that can look at where the conflict of risk avoidance is and who has control in the
branding decisions. On a different note, this research has also implications for further
research in corporate/ brand reputation building - whilst past academics have looked
at ways of building and maintaining brands, future researchers need to focus on how
corporate reputation can be built and sustained.

REFERENCES
Aaker, D. and Keller, J. (1990), "Consumer Evaluation of Brand Extensions", Journal of
Marketing, 54(1), pp. 27-33.
Aaker, D. and Keller, J. (1993), "Interpreting cross-cultural replications of brand extension
research". International Journal of Research in Marketing, 10(1), pp. 55-59.
Aaker, D. and Joachimstahler, E. (2000), Brands Leadership. New York:The Free Press.
Ambler, T. and Styles, C. (1997), "Brand Development versus New Product Development:
Towards A Process Model of Extension Decisions", Journal of Product and Brand
Management, 6 (1), pp. 13-26.
Balmer, John M.T. and Gray, Emund R. (2003), "Corporate brands: what are they? What of
them?", European Journal of Marketing, 37(7/8), pp. 972-997.
Bhat, S., Kelley, Gail E., and O'Donnell, Kathleen A. (1998), "An investigation of consumer
reactions to the use of different brand names", Journal of Product Management, 7(1), pp.
41-50.
Bickerton, D. (2000), "Corporate reputation versus corporate branding: the realist debate".
Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 5(1), pp. 42-48.
Boush, D.M. (1993). "How advertising slogans can prime evaluations of brand extensions".
Psychology Marketing, 10(Jan/Eeb), pp. 67-78.
Christopher, M. (1998)., Logistics and Supply Chain Management, 1"^ edition, London: FT
Pitman Publishing.

55

56

^ Q Q Journalof Marketing Management, Volume 23

Douglas, S. R, Craig, C.S., and Nijssen, E.J. (1999), "International Brand Architecture:
Development, Drivers and Design". Available at: http://www.intbrand.html [Accessed 20*
August 2003].
Euromonitor International (2003), Available at: http://www.euromonitor.com_[Accessed 15*
July 2003].
Glynn M. and Brodie R. (1998), "The importance of brand-specific associations in brand
extension: further empirical results". Journal of Product and Brand Management, 7(6), pp.
509-518.
Held, D. and McGrew, A. (2002), Globalization and Anti-Globalization, Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Jevons, C, Gabbott, M., and de Chernatony, L. (2001), "A Taxonomy of Brand Linkages: The
Brand-Relationship-Interaction (BRI) Matrix", Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing
Annual Conference, Cardiff, UK.
Kapferer, J. N. (2001), (Re) Inventing the Brand. Kogan Page.
Keller, K. and Aaker, D. (1992), "Conceptualizing, Measuring and Managing Customer-Based
Brand Equity", Journal of Marketing Research, 57(1), pp. 1-22.
Kim, C. K. and Lavack, A. M. (1996), "Vertical Brand Extensions: Current Research and
Managerial Implications",/owrwa/ of Product and Brand Management, 5(6), pp. 24-37.
Klein, N. (2000), No Logo. New York: Picador.
Knox, S. and Bickerton, D. (2003), "The six convention of corporate branding", European
Journal of Marketing, 37, (7/8), pp. 998-1016.
Knox, S. (2004), "Positioning and branding your organisation",/owrwii/ of Product and Brand
Management, 13, (2), pp. 105-115.
Leitch, S. and Richardson, N. (2003), "Corporate branding in the new economy" European
Joumal of Marketing, 37(7/8), pp. 1065-1679.
Laforet, S. and Saunders, J. A. (1994), "Managing Brand Portfolios: How rhe Leaders Do it".
Journal of Advertising Research, 34(5), pp. 64-76.
Laforet, S. and Saunders, J. A. (1999), "Managing Brand Portfolios: Why the leaders Do What
They Do", Journal of Advertising Research, 39(1), pp. 151-166.
Leuthesser, L, C, Kohli and Suri, R. (2003), "2+2=5? A Framework for Using Co-Branding
To Leverage A Brand", Brand Management, 11(1), pp. 35-47.
Murphy, J. (1987), Branding: A key marketing tool, Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Murray, S. (2003), "Reputation Risk: Big PR to Companies' Aid", Financial Times, September
30.
Nelson, S (2002), Corporate Brand and Packaging Design. Available at: http://www.findarticles.
com/p/article/min_qa4001/is_200210/ai_n9119373/print [Accessed 15 July 2003].
Nijssen, E. J. and Hartmann, D. (1994), "Consumer evaluation of brand extensions: An
integration of previous research", European Marketing Academy Proceedings, Maastritch.
Nijssen, E. J. (1999), "Success Factors of Line Extensions of Fast-Moving Consumer Goods",
European Journal of Marketing, 33 {5/6), pp. 450-469.
Notes from Nowhere (2003), We Are Everywhere: The Irresistible Rise of Anti-Capitalist.
London: Verso Books.
Olins, W (1989), Corporate Identity. London: Thames and Hudson.
Olins, W (1989), Corporate Identity: Making Business Strategy Visible Through Design.
London: Design Council.
Petromilli, M., Morrison, D., and Million, M. (2002), "Brand Architecture: Building Brand
Portfolio Value", Strategy and Leadership, 30(5), pp. 22-28.
Pierce, A. and Mouskanas, H. (2002), "Portfolio Power: Harnessing A Group of Brands To
Drive Profitable Growth", Strategy and Leadership, 30(5), pp. 15-21.
Pryor, K. and Brodie, Roderick J. (1998), "How advertising slogans can prime evaluations of
brand extensions: further empirical results". Journal of Product and Brand Management,
7(6), pp. 497-508.
Rajagopal and Sanchez, R. (2004), "Conceptual Analysis of Brand Architecture and
Relationships Within Product categories". Brand Management, 11(3), pp. 233-247.

Laforet and Saunders How Brand Portfolios Have Changed

Schlosser, Eric (2001), Fast Food Nation: the Dark Side ofthe All-American Meal. New York:
Houghton Mifflin.
Silayoi, P. and Speece, M. (2004), "Packaging and Purchase Decisions: An Exploratory Study
On The Impact of Involvement Level and Time Pressure", British Food journal, 106(8), pp.
607-628.
Sheinin, D. (1998), "Positioning brand extensions: implications for beliefs and attitudes",
journal of Product and Brand Management, 7(2), pp.137-149.
Simoes, C. and Dibb, S. (2001), "Rethinking the brand concept: new brand orientation".
Corporate Communications: an International journal, 6(4), pp. 217-224.
Speed, R. (1998), "Choosing between line extensions and second brands: the case of the
Australian and New Zealand wine industries",/owrna/ of Product and Brand Management,
7(6), pp. 519-536.
Strebinger, A. (2002), "B.A.S.E. - A brand architecture strategy explorer". Available at: http://
www.Andreas. Strebinger@wu-wien.ac.atk [Accessed 20* August 2003].
Sundie, L. and Brodie, R. (1993), "Consumer evaluations of brand extensions: Further
empirical results". International journal of Research in Marketing, 10(1), pp. 47-53.
Stein, L. (2004), "Martha Stewart Sentencing Batters Brand Finds Brand Keys", Business Wire,
July 17.
Swaminathan, V (2003), "Sequential Brand Extensions and Brand Choice Behavior",/owrna/
of Business Research, 56, pp. 431-442.
Ugla, H. (2002), "Managing Through the Brand Association Base - A Conceptual Framework
for Leveraging Secondary Brand Associations", The European Academy of Management,
2nd annual conference on Innovative Research in Management, Stockholm May 9, 11,
2002.
Vijayraghavan, K. (2003 April). FMCG Firms Relearn Marketing Strategies, Times New York.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS AND CORRESPONDENCE

Dr Sylvie Laforet is a Lecturer in Marketing at The University of Sheffield Management
School. She has researched and published in the area of Branding/Advertising,
Innovation Management in SMEs and has collaborated in a number of international
studies in the Marketing field. She has a book in-preparation in Strategic Brand
Management. She has been a referee for European journal of Marketing and other
international Marketing journals as well as the Academy of Marketing Science and
Academy of Marketing conferences. She is on the Editorial Board of the International
Journal of Management Practice & Contemporary Thought. She is an advisory
member of several international expert services groups. She has been an invited
guest speaker and has given presentations/seminars in branding, consumer behaviour,
marketing and new technologies for innovative packaging.
Corresponding Author: Dr Sylvie Laforet, The University of Sheffield, Management
School, 9 Mappin Street, Sheffield SI 4DT, UK.
T -1-44 114 222 3341
F -f44 114 222 3348
E s.laforet@sheffield.ac.uk
Professor Johr) Saunders is Head of Aston Business School and Pro Vice Chancellor
of Aston University. He is also a member of the Senate of the Chartered Institute
of Marketing (CIM). His research is centred on strategy and product management
and includes, branding, marketing communications, market models and business

57

58

Q^m Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 23

incompetence.
He has been editor of the International Journal of Research in Marketing, and is
a past president of the European Marketing Academy. He is also a Fellow of the
Chartered Institute of Marketing (FCIM), the Royal Society of Arts (FRSA), the British
Academy of Management (FBAM), and the European Marketing Academy (FEMAC).
He is on the fellowship committee of the British Academy of Management, Deans'
Steering Committee of the European Foundation for Management Development
(EFMD) and one of the twelve assessors of Business and Management in the British
Universities Research Assessment Exercise..
He also has industrial experience in sales, marketing and corporate planning in the
aerospace industry (Hawker Siddeley and British Aerospace) and consulting experience
with many major organisations including Nestle, Unilever, Rolls-Royce, Ford, the
Asian Development Bank, the Cabinet Office and the Singapore Government.
Besides being a panel member for the QAA, EQUIS and AACSB, he has served on
the national research evaluation exercise of the United Kingdom, the Netherlands
and New Zealand. Along with marketing gurus Philip Kotler, Gary Armstrong and
Veronica Wong, Professor Saunders has authored Europe's best-selling marketing
text. Principles of Marketing. The European edition now appears in seven languages.
He has published in many leading academic journals.
Professor John Saunders, Aston University, Aston Business School, Aston Triangle,
Birmingham, UK.