Flickr Photo uploaded by je suis erin
Sometimes the lure of licensing a strong brand for the extra revenue it brings in because too tempting. Take the three examples that Robyn McMaster highlighted in her Obsessive Branding post:
Reebok Tennis shoes by Kool Aid
Cologne by PlayDoh
Romance novels by Nascar
Sure the wild colors make you take a second look, but does the marriage of Kool Aid and Reebok make sense? To me licensing a brand name to extend a product line really only makes sense when it’s a natural marriage of the two brands. Sometimes licensors get greedy for a little more of the pure profit that comes back when they put their brand name on another company’s products.
I think that they may be short sighted in terms of long term brand image.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Thanks for extending the conversation on Obsessive Branding, Chris. Steve Colbert really brings out the humor connected to this phenomenon since it gets very laughable rather than serious. And the author of the book calls it Obsessive Branding Disorder. :-)
When I happened on to the OBD book ,just published, I began to realize it’s not an isolated thing. It may be a fad that won’t last long because it just won’t pull in the money hoped for. I’m not apt to by those Reebok gym shoes because they have a Kool Aid scent to freshen them. What do you think, Chris?
I don’t think that combining two brands is going to be a fad by any means… but the resulting product is usually a passing fad.
As far as the scent, it’s a clever “hook” that might make people look twice. To me the vibrant colors probably have more staying power. Any smells associated with exercise shoes make me think of that Disney movie and book by Louis Sacher called “HOLES”.