The three different versions of Procter & Gamble are impacting the perception of the market in varying degrees and affecting the business community's grasp of the brand management model in different ways.
After the new CEO Lafley took office, he performed the latest version of Procter & Gamble. Since he took charge of the world's most influential day-to-day company, Lafley has made great strides in brand management, and has included the top three super brands Icari, Weiner and Gillette at an astronomical price. Huaizhong. Brand M&A has made a decisive change in the company's business focus in a very short period of time. From then on, P&G's product line consists of healthcare, personal care and beauty products, all of which are in high-growth areas. This is a Procter & Gamble with a keen strategic mindset and ambition to innovate its traditional Japanese market pattern with generous brand acquisitions.
The second version of Procter & Gamble is a bit frustrating, as can be seen from its condensed version in China. In 2002, Procter & Gamble, after three years of meticulous preparation for the launch of the first local brand of Rune shampoo against the Chinese market, failed to complete its operations in less than one year. In 2005, P&G suffered the same fate as the first domestic bathing brand that specifically devoted to the Chinese market after spending three years and investing one billion yuan in advertising. In just three years, two self-made brands specifically targeting the Chinese market have actually encountered “Waterlooâ€, and S&P’s Procter & Gamble has traditionally had to suspend its traditional approach of developing new brands. The two famous cosmetics of the Mi Si Buddha and the cover girl The brand introduced China and stormed the high-end market. As a result, P & G has been weakening in its traditional Chinese key markets - shampoos and baths, and its strategic focus has begun to tilt toward the color cosmetics market with huge growth potential and more lucrative profits. Although this version of P&G is a bit gray-headed, it does not blindly stick to its brand tactics that it has always been good at. Instead, it turns more to strategic thinking - giving up part of the darkened business areas in exchange for a big overall gain. Through overall strategic adjustments to reverse the unfavorable situation in the local market.
The third version has a long history. It is a well-known brand legend and myth. In 1931, based on the concept of “one person is responsible for a brand†proposed by Neil McCree, Procter & Gamble introduced a brand management system that allows brand managers to manage different brands like different companies, and that different brands within the company interact with each other. Can compete with each other. This management philosophy constitutes the cornerstone of P&G's brand operation and is also regarded as the origin of brand management. In the past few decades, between the Procter & Gamble Company and a number of vendors, this brand management system with a long tradition has performed very well.
Looking back at the changes in the above three versions, a completely new issue is clearly presented: The traditional brand management model of Procter & Gamble has gradually been replaced by the new game rules of brand acquisition.
In the early 1930s and 1940s, when P & G began to enter the initial development stage of brand image, it was easier to create brands from scratch. After the Second World War, the population surged, science and technology developed rapidly, the distribution system completely changed, and the disposable income of consumers increased. Of course, the most important thing is that television, a kind of propaganda tool that can attract the audience's attention at the same time, is an unprecedented anesthetic. Its appearance makes the large-scale "ad sales promotion" model very useful. The products sold at that time were mainly large-scale, mass-produced household products. In general, customers only dreamed about those products but never had a consumer experience. These are the basic preconditions for a company to occupy the market with multiple competing brands.
Today, these premises are gradually weakening as the market changes. In a highly competitive market, the cost of creating a new brand is increasing. Obviously, in the era of big brands already occupying a leading position in the market, creating a new brand is a great risk. Once it fails to gain the consumer's approval and cannot raise its popularity, then design, advertising, promotion, etc., invested in the brand Huge amounts of money will be lost. The power of consumer discourse is soaring, the media is divided, the Internet is rising, the form of access is increasingly diversified, and the global competition is intensifying. In the face of a new market that does not change, the traditional brand manager system seems a bit stretched. In contrast, buying a mature brand is more cost-effective than recreating a brand; buying a good brand means buying a market and eliminating a competitor.
The new competitive situation requires the group to plan the introduction and elimination of brands under the overall strategic structure of the global market. If it is still shouting like the past to allow internal brands to compete with each other, it is inevitable that more new brands will encounter the fate of “doing a teacher not die firstâ€. The failure of Radiant and Runyan in China is more than the tactical deviations that appear in brand management, but that its birth is not based on a global consideration. These two brands only competed for food in a market with limited growth and competition, but they could only be twice as effective and less rewarding. Now that P&G considers the brand layout from the perspective of optimizing the business structure of the entire group, Whether it is the acquisition of Wella or the introduction of makeup brands into China, they are all making “high-growth fields†articles, and thus can achieve more with less.
Shiyi's time-shifting, P&G's traditional brand management model that has played a leading role for decades is singing a song that says “Going down the riverâ€, and a new Procter & Gamble that is more aware of the macro-control strategy and launches a market battle through the brand acquisition model. No doubt standing at the forefront of the next wave of trends.