Lifecycle of Brands

Recent analysis of 1,200 brands on Millward Brown's BrandDynamics(tm) and BRANDZ database, as reported in the recent e-Perspectives newsletter, refutes the commonly held belief that brands follow an inevitable life cycle.

Two-thirds of all brands that changed between 1998 and 2000 did not follow the pattern of growing from small, promising beginnings to mainstream brands before weakening into defensive positions or fading completely from their market.

Whilst MB had expected Tiger brands (new brands with a strong following of early adopters) to maintain their strength of relationship with customers as they grew, this was not always the case. Though more increased share than declined, many more became Defenders (large brands with few advantages over the competition) rather than the stronger Classic (well known and loved with a large core following) or Specialist (not for a mass audience but known and valued) typologies. So the company concludes that, while Tigers have great potential, it is clearly hard for them to realise this.

Similarly, while some Fading Star brands (once famous brands which no longer have appeal or perceived competitive advantage) did continue to fade, and ended up as Weak or Clean Slates, one in three clawed their way back into contention by becoming Defenders.

In essence MB believes that current brand positioning does not dictate future fate. Two brands with similar issues may face very different futures depending on how they respond to those issues, for example how clearly they communicate relevant values to their target audience.

All articles 2006-22 written and edited by Mel Crowther and/or Nick Thomas unless otherwise stated.

• Kantar Millward Brown
• All news
• MrWeb info