I believe that, done right, a brand can experientialize itself through a compelling and contextual line extension. One only has to look at the luxury goods market to see how brands like Gucci, Ferrari, Prada, Louis Vuitton, Ralph Lauren and Chanel have grown their business through smart (and sometimes not so smart) brand extensions. Can anyone deny that the iPhone (or even iPod) made Apple a more experiential brand?
I’ve also written on “branded brands” as well. Both methods offer up an enhanced experience, and therefore important in the field of experiential marketing.
But here comes a great article in Brandweek about bad brand extensions…really bad brand extensions. Something like this:
“…The most questionable food extension went to Hooters energy drink (32.5%), Bumble Bee Prime Fillet Chicken Breasts (21.9%) and Trump Steaks (21.1%).
Hooters has the dubious distinction of winning a worst brand extension category for the second time in the four years the survey has existed. Hooters Airline, which has since been grounded, was the other.”
Study also looks at the best line extensions out there. What do we think of extensions like:
“The brands that did it right found a way to create innovative, successful extensions that are in harmony with the core brand. PetSmart PetsHotel was voted best brand extension by 34.3% of respondents. Huggies Little Swimmers sunscreen was second (29%) followed by Disney’s Fairy Tale wedding gowns (23.3%) and American Idol camp (13.4%).”
It’s a fascinating read.