“Successful companies are those with the biggest product line”
Hello everyone. Today I going to challenge the idea that successful companies are those who have a biggest product line.
Success has different meanings for each of us. For one person it could be a general sense of happiness. Another might think of success as meaning making a lot of money and accumulating wealth. A third person might just see it as find a special lover or soul mate.
My point is that are those company really successful who have biggest product line? And i here try to put some arguments against this.
Some company always try to get highest market share through produce biggest product line in the way of either ...view middle of the document...
* Cannibalize sales of the brand.
EX-When Coca-Cola introduce a similar product (Diet Coke or Cherry Coke), this new product take away sales from the original Coke.
Nokia and Apple Smartphone.Nokia has different type of Smartphone (N series series, Lumina) but apple has only Iphone .That’s why continuously Nokia losing share in Smartphone market.
* Hurt parent brand image.
EX-When EASY jet extended into easy-internet cafes, it was reported to have lost £75 million. Also Virgin is another successful company but its brand extension has failed including Virgin Vodka, Virgin Jeans, Virgin Brides, and Virgin Cosmetics.
TagHeuer owns the high-end sports watch category. But with sales flat and consumers using cell phones instead of watches to define status they are fighting back.
The Cadillac Cimarron is one example of a prestige-oriented step-down extension which hurt its company’s core brand image. In the early 1980s Cadillac introduced the Cimarron model as a competitor for General Motors’ Pontiac and Chevrolet’s Cavalier. The Cimarron was not targeted to the traditional Cadillac buyer, but at a less affluent consumer who wished to buy a Cadillac but would not pay as high a price. Cadillac did not incur cannibalization sales problems by introducing Cimarron, but some of the prestige of the core Cadillac name was lost
* Diminish identification with any one category.
For example, Cadbury’s association with fine chocolates and candy weakened when it went into such mainstream food products as mashed potatoes, dried milk, soups, and beverages , while Scotts’ brand name was also considered diluted when it went into extensions like Scotts Towels, Scotts Tissues, and Baby Scotts.
* Palm oil
Palm oil heavily using for shampoo, chips, frozen foods to cosmetics. It is the world’s second most consumed edible oil (after soy) – yet consumers have little or no awareness of the product and its social and environmental impacts.
In Sumatra and Borneo, palm-oil expansion threatens elephants, tigers and rhinos, as well as orang-utans. Enormous amounts of carbon dioxide are released as forests and peat lands are destroyed. Deforestation makes Indonesia one of the world’s largest carbon-dioxide emitters.
Animal killing & killing
1.P&G- Proctor and Gamble is on the list for its continued use of animal testing for cosmetics, household products and pet food which campaigners say is “cruel and unnecessary”
2. Unilever-They doing animal testing in their product. They also alleged use of fat from rendered-down whale and dolphin meat, caught in the Caribbean, in several soap and margarine brands
3. Burburry- Approximately 30 million animals are raised in cages and killed worldwide for fur every year.
Are this companies are ethical?
1. Nestle baby powder milk marketing strategy-Evidence of direct advertising to mothers has been found in over twenty countries such as...