HIDESIGN CASE STUDY

By:- Amit Mittal

Kamal Gupta
Saurabh Jain
Sunil Saini
Varun Chugh
Contents
About Hidesign

Brand Positioning

Issues

Solutions

Conclusion
About Hidesign
 HIDESIGN
• Est. in 1978, Pondicherry , India
• Then President and Promoter- Mr. Dilip Kapoor
• Inception of Hidesign UK by Mr. Kapoor and
Mrs. Lowell in 1988
• Year 1990, Company developed its present logo
and identity graphics.
• Hidesign bought over by Tula Group UK in 1991
• By 2002, Company entered in to Mainstream
Brand Positioning
Brand Positioning
Brand Positioning
Brand Positioning
Brand Positioning
Issues
Issues ??

• How did Hidesign achieve the present status ?

▫ Serendipity or Systematic exploration
▫ Strategic options faced by Hidesign ?

• Course of action for growth without brand

dilution ?
How did Hidesign achieve the
present status ?
Growth Trajectory
SUCCESS DETERMINANTS
Course of action for growth
without brand dilution ?
Solutions
• Approach 1 : Launch the new variety keeping the
same brand name: Hidesign

• Approach 2 : Launch the new variety under a

new brand name

• Approach 3 : Enter into a different product line

Extensions
Brand Extension Model
Brand Extension Model (contd.)
Brand Extension Model (contd.)
Brand Extension Model (contd.)
Dimensions Of Fit
1 2 3

COMPLEMENT SUBSTITUTE TRANSFER

Extent to which Extent to which Consumers view

consumers view consumers view relationships in
two product two products as product
classes as substitutes manufacture or
compliments design
Brand Extension Model (contd.)
Brand Extension Model (contd.)
Line extensions of strong brands are more successful than
extensions of weak brands
Line extensions of symbolic brands enjoy greater market success
than those of less symbolic brands
Line extensions that receive strong advertising and promotional
support are more successful than those extensions that receive
meager support
Line extensions entering earlier into a product subcategory are
more successful than extensions entering later, but only if they are
extensions of strong brands
Firm size and marketing competencies also play a part in an
extension's success
Incremental sales generated by line extensions may more than
compensate for the loss in sales due to cannibalization.
Brand Extensions- Examples

Successful Brand Brand Ext. Failures

Extension
Diet Coke Bic Women Underwear
Colgate Toothbrushes Harley Davidsons Perfume
Bic Disposable Lighters,
Safety Razors (disposable)
Brand Concept

“Brand unique abstract meanings that typically

originate from a particular configuration of
product features and a firm's efforts to create
meanings from these arrangements.”

Park, Millberg and Lawson

(1991)
Goodness of Fit

• Product feature similarity

• Brand Concept similarity
• Positive relation exists between brand
extensions and sales studied by Mark and Smith
in 1990
• Rolex Vs. Timex
• McDonald’s and toys – food, fun and folk

Evaluation of Brand Extensions: The Role of Product Feature Similarity & Brand Concept Consistency
C. Whan Park, Sandra Milberg and Robert Lawson, The Journal of Consumer Research © 1991
Brand Categorization

• A function oriented brand concept is primarily

understood in terms of brand-unique aspects
that are related to product performance.

• A Prestige oriented brand concept is primarily

understood in terms of consumers’ expression
of self-concepts or images
Fitness Evaluation
Hypothesis
• HI
Consumers react more favorably to the
extensions of a functional brand name when the
extension products reflects a functional concept
than a prestige concept
• H2
Consumers react more favorably to the
extensions of a prestige brand name when the
extension products reflects a prestige concept
than a functional concept.
Brand Extension Categorization
• Functional Concept : A brand with a functional concept as
one designed to solve externally generated consumption
needs.

• Symbolic Concept : A brand with a symbolic concept is

designed to associate the individual with a desired group, role,
or self-image

• Experimental Concept: A brand with an experiential

concept as one designed to fulfill internally generated need for
stimulation and/or variety. Holbrook and Hirschman (1982)
recognize the fact that "fantasies, feelings and fun" are also
vital consumption phenomena which they call the
"experiential view".
Park et. al 1986
Hypothesis
• H1: Consumers will evaluate a brand extension with a
functional concept more favorably when the original
brand denotes a functional rather than experiential or
symbolic concept.
• H2: Consumers will evaluate a brand extension with a
symbolic concept more favorably when the original
brand denotes a symbolic rather than a functionalor
experiential concept.
• H3: Consumers will evaluate a brand extension with an
experiential concept more favorably when the original
brand denotes an experiential rather than a functional or
A CATEGORIZATION APPROACH
symbolic concept. Shiv a Nandan, Missouri Western State College
Approach 1
Disadvantages:
▫ Spillover effects of new products’ quality
perceptions
▫ Company has no competency in chemical tanning
and commoditizing leather products
▫ Lack of synchronization in distribution and
marketing channels
Approach 2
Disadvantages:
▫ Costly to create a new brand
▫ No leveraging of brand equity of original brand
▫ Requires complete new distribution and
marketing channels
Conclusion
We intend to follow Approach 3 to minimize risk
to original brand equity
Reference
1. “Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions”,
David A. Aaker and Kevin Lane Keller
2. “To Extend or Not to Extend: Success
Determinants of Line Extensions”,Srinivas K.
Reddy, Susan L. Holak, Subodh Bhat
3. “Consumer Perceptions of Brand Extensions:
Generalising Aaker & Keller’s Model”,Joanna
Barrett, Ashley Lye & P. Venkateswarlu