Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
March 2010
Delivering consumer clarity www.nielsen.com
longevity
What Makes Big Brands Stay Big?
By: Craig Twyford, VP Product Leadership, The Nielsen Company
SUMMARY: Why is it that the most popular breakfast cereal brands of 1949 are still
amongst the best selling brands today, when in contrast, all the top shampoo brands of that
era have long ago disappeared? What are the factors that ensure some brands survive as a
dominant force while others, that appear unassailable in one decade, quickly become the topic
of nostalgia in the next? A close look at the Nielsen archives brings new insight to the old
question – what makes big brands stay big?
In the consumer packaged goods world we tend to think of the short term trend as being this week’s data and
a long term trend might look at two or three years, or if you are really resourceful, maybe as much as five or
even ten years of history – all the way back to the year 2000! In this study Nielsen has delved deeper into
the archives than ever before, going back two generations to 1949 (with a brief pit stop in 1979) to take a
new perspective on brand longevity.
1949 is the right place to start, partly because it is the oldest information that can be found in the Nielsen
archives and partly because it marks the start of the race. The war was over, rationing was easing up and
consumer brands were poised on the edge of the great marketing boom of the 1950s with the advent of
supermarkets and TV advertising and all that they brought. The question of brand survival can be nicely
framed by contrasting the evolution of the Breakfast Cereal category with the evolution of the Shampoo
category over that 60 year period (1949-2009).
The big three cereal brands at the close of the 1940s, Kellogg’s Cornflakes, Shredded Wheat and Weetabix
were still amongst the top 3 brands a generation later (in 1979). A generation after that (in 2009), despite
all the changes we have seen in consumer behaviour, all three brands were still amongst the top ten most
popular cereal brands in the country. In the 30 years between 1949 and 1979 Weetabix’s market share moved
from 17.7% to 17.8%!
2009
Kelloggs Cornflakes Shredded Wheat Weetabix
9.8 no. 1
4.1 no. 7
5.3 no. 4
In Shampoo the big brands in 1949 included Evan Williams, Icilma and Drene. Together they accounted for
over a third of all sales and yet all three had completely disappeared by 1979 as had all the other brands
in the category. Furthermore, most of the brands that replaced them, the contemporaries of Sunsilk and
Silvikrin, had themselves been displaced by 2009. Why should that be? Why should one category remain
almost totally unchanged while another should transform beyond recognition?
Emotional Engagement
The age at which the consumer engages with the brand is critical to the brand’s longevity. For the consumer
to truly engage with the brand as a child the brand needs to be very visible, both in the house and on TV, and
it needs to involve an element of personal choice for the child, however small. Chocolate and sweets are the
obvious examples but also consider the choice of a football team an illustration of loyalty. Typically the child
will choose a football team around the age of 7 and will stay with that team for the rest of their life regardless
of price, convenience or performance. At this age the parents are a very strong influence but ultimately it is
the personal choice of the child which team they support.
Nobody knows the brand of macaroni that was used to make their supper but with breakfast cereal there is
often a choice of two or three, laid out on the table by the parent, but chosen by the child; the brown sauce
or the tomato sauce bottles are visible on the table and the child consumer makes a conscious decision
whether to engage or not. The child consumer is usually allowed to either love or hate Marmite, another
survivor.
Other brands do develop an emotional engagement but at a later age – when the consumer is a young
adult. Shampoo, shaving brands, beer and cigarettes are all later choices and by this time the influences are
different. It is no longer a continuation of parental choice; it is almost the opposite effect – a desire to be
different.
The ‘man about town’ generation gap - Post War to the naughties
1970s
2000s
In the last 60 years we have seen the same thing happen countless times. The market makes a tectonic move
based on a leap in technology or a genuine innovation and the dominant brands simply can not react. It is
one thing seeing the change but quite another to be able to move the business quickly and radically enough
to benefit. In fruit juice Tropicana displaced Del Monte with a fresh chilled juice; your shower gel will more
likely be Radox or Lynx rather than Lifebuoy; and your liquid soap will be Carex not Lux. It was P&G that led
the move to synthetic detergents (with Tide in US) and they did the same with toothpaste.
7.9% 12.2%
31.3%
When radical
transformation
29.9%
accompanies innovation
17.7%
19.2%
brands can set themselves
apart from their
1949 Something 1979 2009 competitors and secure
happened? long term brand success.
P&G commercialized the use of fluoride in toothpaste, an ingredient that was proven to fight decay. Crest
was launched in the US in 1956 and when it eventually got ADA approval in 1960 it rose to 30% market
share over night. The toothpaste market split between cosmetic claims (whitening) and therapeutic claims
(fight decay with fluoride). Brands like Pepsodent that promised a “brighter taste means clean whiter teeth”
began to decline. It was not until the launch of the Aquafresh stripes (fresh breath, healthy gums, strong
teeth) that the market began to re-converge.
Creative destruction has happened to one degree or another in almost every category and will continue to
happen. It is hard to imagine that we will continue to wash our clothes in water and detergents 30 years from
now, alternative solutions are already coming to market, but will it be Persil, Ariel and Bold that profit from
the transformation or a set of new players? History would suggest the latter. In fact, it is quite hard to find
examples of brands that do survive the impact of creative destruction - a round of applause for Anchor for
having led the charge into spreadable butter from an existing position of dominance.
A brand must
Lucozade developed their energy message with the times
stay relevant
and adapt or it
will diminish.
Premium Price
The study also looked at the price position of the 33 brands to see if this presented a key differentiation
between success and failure. While more in depth work is needed on this topic there are examples of a
relationship between price premium and longevity – where price premium is defined by a brand having a
higher value than volume market share. Heinz Baby Food and Ryvita are both good examples of premium
surviving brands whereas, in the same categories Libby’s Baby Food and MacVita Crispbread are both
examples of brands that had a lower value share than volume share in 1949 and have now disappeared. It
was also clear that brands find it increasingly difficult to maintain a premium position over the long-term. In
2009 it is new brands like Organix and Ella’s Kitchen that have the premium positioning - will this help them
survive in the long term?.
30
20
10
0
Heinz Baby Ryvita Jeyes Libby Baby MacVita Ibcol
When businesses look to the developing opportunities in India and China, knowing now which retailers will
lead the consolidation and later dominate the modern trade should influence how and where they go to
market. Spending time working out which channels and which retailers will emerge as the leading force and
focusing resources there is likely to pay dividends in the long term.
Brands Baby
Wisdom Toothbrush
Colgate Toothpaste
Heinz Baby
The year was a tough year for the consumer and value for money became more important than ever before.
What is apparent though is that shoppers have continued to buy trusted brands. The sales value of the top
100 brands accounted for £16.7 billion (12.9%) of the total £130 billion grocery market, an increase of 4.5%
YoY. The growth was ahead of total market growths which were 3.8% for the year.
Topping the table again this year is Coca Cola which has now become the first ever grocery brand* to pass
the £1 billion mark. The iconic brand was launched 110 years ago and continues to perform. With sales of
£1.011 billion, Coke grew sales by 4.9% in 2009 to retain the top spot.
Other classic brands that have stood the test of time and feature in the top 10 of the league include bread
brands Warburtons and Hovis. Warburtons is 134 years old and the Bolton based brand remains strong
at number 2 with £706 million sales in 2009. Hovis, a bread who’s branding hangs heavily on its heritage
enjoyed a very successful year with sales growing over 13%, sits in 4th place. Cadbury’s Dairy Milk, another
brand which has survived over a century, ranks at number 5 and Britvic’s Robinsons drink which has a history
that can be traced back to 1823 retained its 10th place position with sales of £307 million.
The oldest surviving brand in the top 100 league is Twinings. Twinings entered the Top 100 for the first
time this year, over 300 years after the company first produced tea. In 1706, Twinings was one of the first
companies to introduce tea drinking to the British when Thomas Twining began selling tea from his first
premises on the Strand in London**. 304 years later the brand grew sales 11% and was one of the five new
entries to the top 100.
The report also sees some comparatively adolescent brands continue to climb the rankings. Danone Activia
was launched only 11 years ago and now sits in 18th position with sales of over £220million and growth in
excess of 25% YoY. Cravendale, the country’s largest branded milk came onto the market just over a decade
ago. Taking what was a commodity product and forming a brand has
proved a successful strategy which others have followed. Cravendale
remains one of the most successful and the milk brand grew sales
16% in 2009, falling within the top 40 at
number 39.