Sportgetränke Markenwert

The Coca-Cola Company übernimmt die Mehrheit an Sport Drinks Marke BodyArmor.

2018 erwarben sie 15%, für die restlichen 85% zahlt sie nun US$5,6 Mrd.

Bei Umsatz von US$1,4Mrd ist ArmorBody mit US$8,0 Mrd. bewertet, Faktor 5,7.

Zu The Coca-Cola Company gehören unter Anderem bereits die Sportgetränke Powerade und Aquarius. Der große Mitbewerber ist Gatorade (Pepsico).

PepsiCo mit mehr Energy

Laut Reuters, übernimmt Pepsico, bekannt für Pepsi und Dutzende weitere nicht alkoholische Getränkemarken, Rockstar Energy Drink.

Der Platzhirsch, Coca Cola, besitzt Monster Energy Drink, hatte mal in den 2000ern Burn Energy Drink, und brachte nun jüngst unter Coca Cola Energy Drinks auf den Markt.

Gegründet wurde die Kategorie von Red Bull, die Nr. 3. im Getränkemarkt. Neben Varietäten und saisonalen Geschmacks-Experimenten brachte Red Bull zuletzt auch Bitter Lemon, Ginger Ale und Tonic Wasser auf den Markt.


PepsiCo gets more Energy

According to Reuters, Pepsico, known for Pepsi and dozens of other non-alcoholic beverage brands, is acquiring Rockstar energy drink.

The rival, Coca Cola, owns Monster energy drink, tried its own label Burn in the 2000s, and launched energy drinks under the Coca Cola label recently.

The energy drinks market was created by the #3 in beverages, Red Bull. Besides offering varieties and seasonal products, Red Bull entered the bitter lemon, ginger ale, tonic water businesses recently.


Consumers in emerging markets like U.S. brands, yet

Brandweek reports here about a 2006 study from Synovate, Chicago, in which more than 13,000 consumers in 20 countries were quizzed online, via phone or in person about their brand preferences across a host of categories.

“Branded international products are a mark of quality,” said Mike Sherman, executive director of customer insights for Synovate Asia, Hong Kong. “Even low-income consumers will pay a premium for a well-made, branded product.”

While 60% of respondents in emerging markets said they’d buy local products if they were the same price as an international offering, consumers often named brands like Avon, Coca-Cola and McDonald’s as their preferred choice.

China, the premier emerging market, has a taste for not only Bud, but also Coke and Kentucky Fried Chicken. Safeguard soap is also very popular, as are Sony TVs. Adidas, Armani, Chivas Regal, Lipton, Maybelline, Shell and 7-Eleven are among the brands with more Western appeal to appear among the Chinese most-preferred brands. “While some households in China’s rural cities pull in as little as $600 per year, they may still have a state-of-the-art cell phone. Their cost of living is very low so they have the disposable income. They are savvy consumers”, said Sherman.
Being able to purchase these brands equates success. They are aspirational. Where they’re coming from, they’ve hit the big time when they purchase these brands. For some, it’s not just the quality, it’s a symbol of achieving the highest level of lifestyle success.

Pitfalls of Brand Extension Strategies

With new brands failing at rates more than 90% in many categories, and the demand for top-line growth as relentless as ever, it’s no wonder that managers turn to brand extensions in their search for salvation.

Coke got it fabulously wrong with New Coke but got it right when they pioneered the now ubiquitous “FridgePack.”

The unassailable logic usually employs some combination of the following:
faster speed to market, better return on equity of existing brands and the ability to target known segments; utilization of existing production and distribution infrastructure; minimization of risk of huge losses from a total failure; and defending the established brand from competitive assault.

And yet, not only are most brand extensions failures in their own right, but they often leave collateral damage to the original “golden goose.”

Our research suggests following some proven principles for success to avoid the well-trod road to ruin. We’ll look first at some of the patterns of failure and push beyond to find firm footing for successful brand extensions.

Of course, brand destruction borne of brand extension doesn’t happen spontaneously. Marketers often make key, but avoidable, mistakes when extending a brand.

Mistaking a marketplace “void” for a customer “need.”
How many customers would object to more features, new benefits, increased performance or fresh uses? Better is better, so who would argue with more? And that’s just the external reinforcement; ask around inside the organization where developers are always eager to build “new and improved” and advertising folks are already brainstorming a launch campaign.

But what happens all too often?
Actually, we didn’t need to look beyond the experience of one of the co-authors of this article, Scott Cook, who presided over the princely failure of Quicken’s Financial Planner. And, as with many brand-extension failures, this was no half-baked effort.

Research confirmed a large market of consumers conscious of their inadequate financial planning. Competitive assessments reinforced the suitable positioning of Intuit’s Quicken brand. Developers produced and tested a world-class product; then, based on in-market learning from V1, produced a substantially improved V2. The entire multiyear effort was a total flop.

So what went wrong?
Simple as it sounds, many folks weren’t doing comprehensive financial planning for a reason: They didn’t want to. They were not prioritizing this as a critical “job” to complete.

What’s the lesson?
Watch your customers, don’t ask them.
Where are they struggling to find adequate solutions?
Build a brand to perform that “job,” and it’s more than likely that many customers will hire your brand.

Coke got it fabulously wrong with New Coke but got it right when they pioneered the now ubiquitous “FridgePack.” Observational research revealed that consumers were likely to consume more – and therefore buy more – if a cold can was at hand. Make it easier to keep ’em cold, and sure enough, sales increase.

Sometimes, out of fear of alienating potential customers, marketers fail to design solutions to specific jobs and push only vaguely differentiated products into increasingly cacophonous marketplaces.

Example? Look in your driveway.
Odds are no brand really aligned with your precise need but one offered financing terms or a promotional giveaway that swung the tide. This from some of the most experienced marketing firms in the world.

One of the drivers of “fear of focus” is its evil twin, the “seduction of large numbers.” Because big companies need big markets to have a proportional impact, they often screen out ideas with uncertain target markets.

The problem: Most markets that are verifiably large are also verifiably occupied. “If we can just get 10% of that billion-dollar market, we’ve got a $100 million brand,” the thinking goes, and it often leads to price-based competition and cheapened brands. Great brand extensions create significant markets, they don’t enter them.

Kodak got it wrong when they dove into the alkaline battery business.
They got it right with the FunSaver and EasyShare cameras.

Why is it that established leaders with the resources, incentives and market expertise to succeed regularly fail to anticipate new customer needs when it comes to extending into new product segments?

What we have found is that the very models – both mental models and business models – that fuel success along one performance trajectory often blind managers to emerging opportunities.

Consider Microsoft.
With the most powerful software brand in the world, the company was enviably positioned to take leadership positions in emerging technology and software segments.

Yet, ask any “Microsoftie” and they will confirm that Microsoft has long survived as a “developer-driven” rather than a “sales-driven” (read: product-driven vs. need-driven)
organization. Taking nothing from their dominance of PC operating systems and desktop software, Microsoft has either missed or misfired in a number of hot new markets:
Internet portals (where Yahoo got the lion’s share); PDAs (Palm); wireless e-mail (RIM/Blackberry); online search (Google); music downloads (iPod); Internet commerce (Amazon and eBay); utility software (Norton); financial software (TurboTax, Quickbooks and Quicken) and gaming (Sony PlayStation and Nintendo).

Microsoft’s mental model was so rooted in past successes that they either

  1. missed emerging consumer trends – browsers, search, gaming and music – or
  2. tried to solve new needs with old solutions – PDAs and wireless e-mail, where attempts to stuff a PC onto a pocket-sized device have failed convincingly and repeatedly.

There are really only two ways to extend brands without destroying them.

Both start with a fundamental principle that was best articulated by the great Harvard marketing professor Theodore Levitt:

“People don’t want to buy a quarter-inch drill. They want a quarter-inch hole.”

The marketer’s task, then, is to understand what jobs periodically arise in customers’ lives and to design products and services that customers can then hire to do that job.

If you’re lucky, you’ve got a strong purpose brand to begin with.
A purpose brand is one that consumers tightly associate with the job they perform. Many of today’s strongest brands – Crest, Starbucks, Kleenex, eBay and Kodak, to name a few – started out as purpose brands.

A clear purpose brand is like a two-sided compass.
One side guides customers to the right products. The other side guides the company’s product designers, marketers and advertisers as they develop and market improved and new versions
of their products. A good purpose brand clarifies which features and functions are relevant to the job and which potential improvements will prove irrelevant.

There are two ways marketers can extend a purpose brand without eroding its value.

Different products, same job.
They can develop different products that address a common job.
If a company chooses this path, it can do so without concern that the extension will compromise what the brand does. For example, Sony’s portable CD player, although a different product
than its original Walkman branded radio and cassette players, was positioned on the same job (the help-me-escape-the-chaos-in-my-world job). So the new product caused the Walkman brand to pop even more instinctively into customers’ minds when they needed to get that job
done. Had Sony not been asleep at the switch, a Walkman-branded MP3 player would have further enhanced this purpose brand. It might even have kept Apple’s iPod purpose brand from preempting that job.

Different job, new product.
The other way to extend a brand without eroding its value is to identify new, related jobs and create new purpose brands that benefit from the “endorser” quality of the original brand. An established brand can provide valuable endorsements where the brand extension is perceived to be relevant.

That said, an established brand is a “subject expert” not a “know all.”
When Michael Jordan endorses a basketball shoe, consumers get it.
When McDonald’s tries pizza, consumers don’t.

In some cases, it can be as simple as adding a second word to its brand architecture – a purpose brand alongside the endorser brand. Different jobs demand different purpose brands. Marriott International’s executives followed this principle when they sought to leverage the Marriott brand to address different jobs for which a hotel might be hired. Marriott had built its hotel brand around full-service facilities that were good to hire for large meetings. When it decided to extend its brand to other types of hotels, it adopted a two-word brand architecture that appended to the Marriott endorsement a purpose brand for each of the different jobs its new hotel chains were intended to do.

Individual business travelers who need to hire a clean, quiet place to get work done in the evening can hire Courtyard by Marriott – the hotel designed by business travelers for business travelers. Longer-term travelers can hire Residence Inn by Marriott’s, and so on.
Even though these hotels were not constructed and decorated to the same premium standard as full-service Marriott hotels, the new chains actually reinforce the endorser qualities of the
Marriott brand because they do the jobs well that they are hired to do.

For another example, study Church & Dwight’s dominant Arm & Hammer Baking Soda. Looking for growth, the company invested in observational research of their customers and found them using the product for myriad deodorizing and disinfecting jobs.

Further analysis revealed attitudinal insights:
Consumers trusted Arm & Hammer to provide “natural,” “strong,” “pure,” “reliable” answers to household chores.
Today, the iconic “orange box” accounts for less than 10% of sales.
The Arm & Hammer endorser supports strong purpose brands in carpet cleaning, toothpaste, laundry detergent, pet deodorizer, pool-cleaning chemicals and more.

Executives are charged with generating profitable growth.
And, rightly, they believe brands are the vehicles for meeting their growth and profit targets.
By carefully protecting your brand – first, do no harm – and understanding what jobs your customers need to get done, you’ll be on track to build purposeful products and achieve
genuine innovation.

Courts and Torts: Touching on Intangibles

Intellectual property is important, say executives. So why don’t they act as if they mean it?

Like the late Rodney Dangerfield, intellectual property (IP) doesn’t get much respect. Yet the reason is still a bit of a mystery.

To be sure, executives at both big and small companies acknowledge that it’s important to handle IP – the intangible assets most often defined as patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets – correctly.

Half of 120 global senior executives responding to an Accenture survey released last year confirmed that managing IP and other intangible assets (such as brands, research and development, and goodwill) is one of the top three management issues facing their companies.

Fifty-two percent of the executives surveyed worked for small and mid-sized companies with annual revenues of under $500,000, while 37 percent worked for companies generating over $1 billion.

A whopping 96 percent said that managing IP and intangibles is important to the success of high-performing companies, while 49 percent deemed those assets to be the main source of long-term shareholder wealth creation.

But there’s a gap between such views and the effort executives expend to track and protect the assets.

Only 5 percent claimed that their companies have a robust system to catalog and measure the performance of IP and other intangibles.

Another 66 percent said their inventory-measurement process is informal or qualitative, while a full one-third admitted they don’t measure performance at all.

The cost of such inaction, however, can be high.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation estimates that U.S. businesses lose between $200 billion and $250 billion a year because of IP violations, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce claims that those totals translate into the loss of 750,000 American jobs.

Still, most companies don’t even have a complete inventory of their IP portfolios, much less procedures to protect or commercialize their patents, trademarks, and copyrights, asserts valuation specialist Robert Reilly of Willamette Management Associates.

To be clear, not all companies are IP laggards.

Some, like the Coca-Cola Company, are masters of that universe. Indeed, Coke needs to be: the value of its flagship brand, for example, is about $39 billion–twice the company’s annual revenues, according to brand management firm Lipcott Mercer.

In the 2003 Management Discussion and Analysis section of its 10-K, Coke talks candidly about the care and feeding of its trademark and brand, noting that “maintenance of brand image” is one of the corporation’s three key challenges.

Likewise, IBM., which perennially tops the list of organizations that receive the most annual patents (3,415 in 2003), is a whiz at commercializing its IP portfolio. For the last five years,
Big Blue generated over $1 billion in revenues every year from its IP-licensing agreements.

Nevertheless, many companies reportedly mismanage IP in one way or another. One reason is that outside of the context of a merger or acquisition, there’s no accounting standard
to move them to repent and disclose their IP assets.

Under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, companies aren’t usually permitted to record the value of self-generated IP (intangibles not acquired as part of a merger), says Dimitri Drone, a director of PricewaterhouseCoopers’ auditing and assurance group.

While some companies might mention IP assets in their MD&As, Drone says, “GAPP generally does not permit IP assets to be capitalized on the balance sheet, other than if they are purchased, such as in merger situations.”

The current M&A boomlet, however, could spawn wider reporting and better management of the assets. GAAP requires that companies involved in business combinations catalog and recognize the fair value of certain acquired intangibles, notes Matt Pinson, a PwC director.
Further, acquiring companies continue to test the value of newly-acquired IP for periodic impairment.

Besides the increase in mergers, another key motivation for better intangibles management is the current rise in IP-related lawsuits, which tend to force management to value intangible assets associated with the legal challenges.

Preliminary calculations from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) show that 5,533 patent- and trademark-related lawsuits were filed in federal courts during 2004, a 7 percentage point hike from 2003. Further, for the past 10 years, IP-related lawsuits have risen steadily.

There are two reasons for the litigation surge, according to Reilly.
One is that companies that are more tenacious about protecting their intangible assets have been suing to protect them.
The second is that, with the economy struggling to emerge from a downturn, businesses are willing to pursue even small claims (between $3 million and $5 million) to recover lost IP revenues.

A typical patent-infringement case costs plaintiffs between $2 million and $5 million and can last two to five years, according to Gary Morris, an IP attorney at Kenyon & Kenyon, who noted that 95 percent of the cases are settled out of court.

Still, the price of admission can be worthwhile. For example, Texas Instruments Inc. won a total of $2 billion in two patent-damage settlements 1996 and 1999. More recently, Johnson & Johnson was awarded $700 million in two patent infringement court decisions in 2003.

Further, patent-infringement, trademark counterfeiting, copyright-piracy, and other, more traditional cases will be joined by newer varieties, Morris thinks. He and other legal experts predict that two different types of lawsuits will emerge this year: suits by private-company investors charging mismanagement of IP assets and shareholder-derivative suits charging public companies with a lack of compliance with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

In the case of private companies, original investors who no longer have an interest in a company, for example, may seek to recover their share of the gains realized by the more lucrative management of IP assets by a later owner, according to Morris.

The underlying idea of the Sarbox non-compliance issue is the same.
Companies lacking solid process for managing IP assets are most open to regulatory charges of failing to present a fair and accurate picture of their financial health, opines Stacey Rabbino, legal-services network manager at AARP and the former chief IP counsel for VeriSign Inc.

That deficiency may get them into hot water with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The SEC could argue that since senior executives failed to develop procedures to identify and value a company’s IP, they won’t be able to gauge which assets are material and require disclosure, according to Rabbino, who acknowledges that her theory hasn’t been tested yet in the courts.

The allegations, she said, could involve possible violations of sections 302 (certification of financials by CFOs and their bosses) and 404 (assessment and certification of internal controls over financial reporting).

By Rabbino’s lights, executives can’t comply with either of those provisions unless they know what their IP portfolio contains, and then value those assets to find out if there’s material risk associated with the possible mismanagement of them.

Regarding 404, she says, companies must set up ways to ensure that IP information flows up to the Sarbox disclosure committee, where the question of materiality should be debated. One procedure, for instance, is to assign a senior executive to the role of keeper of corporate IP knowledge.

For their part, disclosure committees will likely have to make some tough choices in balancing business and legal interests. Members will have to decide how to disclose enough information to give shareholders an accurate picture of the company without tipping off competitors to trade secrets.

What’s the best defense against Sarbox-related charges of IP mismanagement?
While companies that make a good faith effort to inventory and value IP will retain some leeway with the SEC, they won’t get a free ride Rabbino thinks. A good-faith effort involves auditing and valuing IP, and developing an enforcement program to protect and monetize the intangibles, she adds.
Companies also should document IP transactions (licensing deals, for example) and assign one point of contact for all IP related issues.

A tall order? Maybe, but companies are already being forced to take tangible steps to avoid a lawsuit concerning their intangible assets.

Marke Toyota ist mehr wert als Mercedes

Mercedes ist nicht mehr die wertvollste Automobilmarke der Welt.

Das ergibt sich aus der aktuellen Bewertung der Markenberatungs-Agentur Interbrand, NY.

Im bislang vierten Ranking hat sich Toyota mit einem Markenwert von 18,2 Mrd. Euro auf Rang neun vor den deutschen Rivalen geschoben. Der fiel mit einem gleich bleibenden Markenwert von 17,1 Milliarden Euro um einen Platz auf Rang elf zurück.

Dagegen verbesserte sich BMW um zwei Plätze auf Rang 17.

Außerdem schafften es Porsche (74) und Audi (81) erstmals unter die 100 wertvollsten Brands.

Als höchster Neueinsteiger kommt Siemens auf den Rang 39. Mit SAP (34), Volkswagen (48), Adidas (69) und Nivea (97) sind vier weitere deutsche Marken im Ranking vertreten.

Die größten prozentualen Wertsteigerungen aller Marken verzeichneten Apple, Samsung, HSBC,
Yahoo und Amazon.

Dagegen mussten Kodak, Nintendo, Nokia und AOL die höchsten Wertverluste hinnehmen.

Vier der fünf Top-Gewinner sind Marken aus dem Technologie-Sektor, während etablierte Brands wie Coca-Cola, Microsoft und Disney ebenfalls Markenwert einbüßten.

Mercedes ist die Marke mit den loyalsten Kunden

Die Stuttgarter Automarke Mercedes hat die loyalsten Kunden und damit den höchsten Anteil an potentiellen Wiederkäufern. Gefolgt von BMW, Lego und Coca Cola.

Das ergibt eine unter Markennutzern durchgeführte empirische Untersuchung der weltweit agierenden Dialogagentur Wunderman.

Für die Studie befragten die Kommunikationsspezialisten Konsumenten kategorieübergreifend zu ihrem markenbezogenen Kaufverhalten. Aus den Antworten und den daraus resultierenden Loyalitätsprofilen ermittelten die Forscher die Top Ten der Marken mit den loyalsten Kunden.

Das Ranking ist:

  1. Mercedes
  2. BMW
  3. Lego
  4. Coca Cola
  5. Singapore Airlines
  6. Pepsi
  7. Disney
  8. Ratiopharm
  9. Audi
  10. O2

Die neuen Analysetechnik (Brand Experience Scorecard) zeigt auch die konkrete Markenerfahrung in den einzelnen Branchen.

Zu den Branchen-Siegern zählen im Bereich Auto:

  1. Mercedes
  2. BMW
  3. Audi
  4. Toyota
  5. Ford


  1. Singapore Airlines
  2. Lufthansa
  3. Ryanair
  4. British Airways
  5. Air France


  1. Ratiopharm
  2. Bayer
  3. Roche
  4. Merck
  5. Aventis


  1. Diba
  2. Dresdner Bank
  3. Deutsche Bank
  4. Citibank
  5. Commerzbank

3/4 aller Konsumenten halten einer Marke die Treue

Mehr als drei Viertel der Konsumenten (76,4 Prozent) haben eine Marke, der sie über viele Jahre hinweg die Treue halten.

Vor allem bei Bier, Kindernahrung und Zigaretten ziehen die Verbraucher Markenprodukte den günstigeren Alternativen vor.

Zu diesem Ergebnis kommt eine neue Markenstudie der Hamburger Marktforscher von dpm-team. Klarer Sieger der Treuemarken ist Nivea. Jeder Zehnte (10,9 Prozent) will nicht auf diese Marke verzichten.

In den Treue-Top-5 sind desweiteren Milka (8,1 %), Persil (6,3 %), Coca-Cola (5,5 %) und Marlboro (4,1 %) zu finden.

Insgesamt nannten die Befragten ungestützt über 100 verschiedene Marken aus allen Lebensbereichen.

Ein klares Bild ergibt sich bei der Frage, bei welchen Produktbereichen die Verbraucher echte Markenprodukte, Handelsmarken oder Produkte von Discountern bevorzugen:

Markenprodukte werden vor allem bei Bier (80,8 %), Kindernahrung (75,0 %), Zigaretten (71,9 %), Sekt (69,5 %), Kaugummi (69,3 %), Kosmetik (69,0 %) und Kaffee (68,7 %) gewählt.

Markenprodukte gelten dabei als „bekannt“, „etabliert“ und „beliebt“, aber als wenig „preisgünstig“.

Anders sieht der Aspekt „preisgünstig“ bei Handelsmarken und Produkten von Discountern aus.

Favorisierte Handelsmarken nennen die Befragten in Produktkategorien wie Haushaltsreiniger (33,6 %), Mineralwasser (31,2 %) und Toilettenpapier (29,4 %).

Dass die Marke bei einigen Produkten sogar nebensächlich sein kann, zeigt die Entscheidung für bestimmte Produkte aus einem Discounter.
Hier nennen die Teilnehmer Toilettenpapier (58,1 %), Saft (49,0 %) und
Haushaltsreiniger (44,4 %).

Die Studie basiert auf einer bundesweiten Befragung unter 1.078 Personen im Alter von 18 bis 49 Jahren über das Umfrageportal