Andy Milligan is a brand consultant, and an author of five best-sellers. He advises senior management teams, including CEOs and their boards, on strategies for developing and exploiting brands and growing their business. His experience spans industries as diverse as airlines, financial services, packaged goods, telecommunications, sports and leisure and pharmaceuticals. He has directed major programmes in Japan, South Korea, Singapore, the USA and throughout Europe. Clients he has worked with include Unilever, Thai Airways, Orange, Intercontinental Hotels, Nissan, Barclays, FIFA, Sage, Arcadia, Avon and Roche.
From a marketing and advertising viewpoint, how valuable do you think are ‘once-loved’ brands that are today ‘dormant’ or ‘dead’. Are these typically worth revival?
‘Once loved’ brands which are currently ‘dormant’, are valuable for two main reasons: First, they already have ‘equity’ (positive associations in our minds) which has been built up over many years over communication and product experience. One of the hardest tasks facing any marketer is to build awareness, understanding and even affection for their brand; owning a brand which already has this is, probably, the equivalent of a two-year-long campaign; and second, they are already registered trade marks in their markets and thus are protectable investments. Having to build a brand from scratch, includes the expensive and frustrating process of finding, testing and then registering as a trade mark, a suitable brand name. A brand name already registered is an enormous asset.
Would you like to share an example of a brand revival that you think was executed successfully?
One of my favourite examples in recent years was the revival of the Plymouth Gin brand. Plymouth Gin was once a highly distinctive gin with an international following. However, over the years, the growth of the white spirits market to include exciting new brands like Absolut Vodka and investment by Diageo and others in brands such as Gordons, Beefeater, et al, had conspired to marginalise Plymouth. In fact, it was an ailing and neglected brand which its owners had given up on. But its management team believed it could still have potential and they persuaded an entrepreneur with a keen eye for brands to help them buy it out. They then re-packaged it, re-positioned it as a ‘discerning gin-drinkers’ tipple, maintained its product integrity (i.e. did not dilute its alcohol by volume) and focused its distribution on premium bars in major metropolitan towns. And they got a break.
So are you indicating that sellouts are a better option to revive dead brands?
It does not need to be a ‘sell-out’, although the example I have given of Plymouth Gin, is one. It requires belief, strategic focus and determination to invest wisely, and usually a new owner has those qualities.
Is it easier to create new brands or to revive old, valuable jewel brands?
There are two aspects in which the process of reviving a dormant brand is easier than creating a new one – and they are the ones I mentioned while responding to the values that once-loved brands have: you don’t have to create a new trademark and you already have some ‘equity’ in the consumer’s ‘mindbank’. Other than that, both processes are just as difficult as both involve remaining relevant and distinctive in a world which has become very competitive with consumers who are more demanding than ever.
