68

Chapter 4

Tabulation and Analysis of

Brand Architecture Types

The objective of this component of the study is to present comprehensive

information and analysis regarding the various types of brand architecture

prevalent among fast moving consumer goods (FMCG) companies in India.

As indicated in Chapter 3, 55 prominent FMCG companies were identified

for this purpose, and all FMCG brands offered by these companies were

included in the study.

Available information from company websites, advertisements, product

packages, news items, etc., was used to prepare well-structured tabulations

pertaining to the brands and brand architectures of the companies chosen for

study. The tabulations are presented at Annexures 1 to 55 at the end of this

report.

The procedure followed for tabulation, including the methodology for

identification and enumeration of brands, classification of brands based on

product type, application class and brand architecture type, and also the

recognition of sub-brands are explained in the next five sections (i.e.,

Sections 4.1 to 4.5 respectively).

The analysis in terms of numbers and percentages of different types of brands

and brand architectures used by the companies, and cross-tabulations and

categorizations thereof are covered in Sections 4.6 to 4.9.

69

4.1 Identification and Enumeration of Brands

Having decided to study all the FMCG brands offered by 55 identified

companies, the first step is to determine what should be considered and

enumerated as a brand.

For example, Agro Tech Foods Ltd markets several “brands” of edible oils –

Sundrop Heart, Sundrop GoldLite, Sundrop Olivea, etc. In the case of

Horlicks (from GlaxoSmithKline), we have various offerings such as

Horlicks Ninja, Junior Horlicks, Mother’s Horlicks, Lite Horlicks, Horlicks

Biscuits, Horlicks Oats and Foodles from Horlicks. In these (and similar)

cases, Sundrop and Horlicks are considered and enumerated as brands.

GoldLite, Olivea, Ninja, Foodles, etc., are considered as sub-brands of

product brands, and are not enumerated and considered in the analysis. This

is because the brand architecture template is decided at the corporate level, in

terms of the pattern of usage of corporate brand, individual product brands

and dual brands (i.e., combination of corporate brand and product brand).

Sub-brands come one level lower.

Let us now consider another set of examples. Amrutanjan Roll On,

Amrutanjan Faster Relaxation and Amrutanjan Xpert (all from Amrutanjan

Health Care Ltd) are considered as separate brands, and not as different

products marketed under a common brand name - Amrutanjan. Likewise, the

hair oils – Bajaj Almond Drops, Bajaj Brahmi Amla and Bajaj Jasmine (from

Bajaj Corp Ltd) are all considered as separate brands, and not as sub-brands

of Bajaj. This is because each of these is marketed as a distinct brand. Even

though the second part of some of the above dual names have grammatical

meaning (e.g., Roll On, Faster Relaxation and Jasmine), they are not mere

product descriptors, but product brand names. All these are cases of dual

brand names comprising a company name and a product name.

70

Likewise, in the case of L’Oréal, the various product brands offered by the

company such as White Perfect, Youth Code, Revitalift, Color Riche, Glam

Shine, Excellence Creme, Total Repair 5 and such others are all considered

as separate product brands, endorsed by L’Oréal, thus resulting in dual brand

names.

What to consider as a brand has also been to a significant extent influenced

by what the company itself considers as a brand, as evident from the section

on brands in the company’s website.

However, for the most part, what has been identified and enumerated as a

brand is the primary customer-facing brand, based on which the prospective

customer makes a buying decision. It is also what is marketed and

communicated as a brand by the company itself. In other words, what is

considered and enumerated as a brand is the primary brand. Sub-brands

(often the names of variants) and endorser brands (often the names of

companies or divisions) are not considered as primary brands.

Accordingly, 722 primary brands have been identified and enumerated

across the 55 companies selected for the study. If sub-brands (of product

brands) were also to be considered, the total number would run into

thousands. The sample is fairly exhaustive, and is estimated to cover around

80 per cent of the FMCG market (by value) catered to by manufacturer

brands that are marketed nationally. The sample however excludes

regional/local brands and retailer brands.

A note on primary brand, sub-brand and endorser brand is given below,

which would help to reinforce and further clarify the method followed for

identification and enumeration of brands.

According to Tybout & Calkins (2005) – “The primary brand is the

main brand name on a product or service. This is generally the largest

branding element on a product package or in a piece of

71

communication. This is what people refer to when they talk about the

brand. Every brand has a primary brand.”

It would also be useful at this stage to quote Tybout & Calkins’

(2005) definitions of sub-brands and endorsing brands, as they help to

amplify the meaning of the term – primary brand, which is of main

interest to us.

“Sub-brands are secondary branding elements that fall below the

primary brand in prominence but usually above the product

description. The primary brand continues to be the most prominent

branding element. Sub-brands are usually employed to set apart a

group of products or service offerings that are different in some

meaningful way from the primary brand.” “Sub-brands can vary

substantially in prominence.” “If the sub-brand is more prominent

than the primary brand; then the sub-brand is actually the primary

brand.”

“Endorser brands are secondary branding elements. When an

endorser brand is present, a primary brand and a product description

will also be present. Endorser brands are used to link the parent brand

to another brand. Endorser brands are often used to communicate the

parent company of the primary brand, but this is not always the case.”

“Generally, endorsers are used to bring credibility to the primary

brand while letting the primary brand establish its own identity.”

“Endorsers can vary substantially in prominence, varying from very

slight endorsement to very strong endorsement. Like sub-brands,

endorser brands can never exceed the prominence of the primary

brand; if the endorser brand is the largest brand element, then it is

actually the primary brand, not an endorser.”

72

4.2 Product Types and Product Categories Used in the

Study

In the tabulations (i.e., in Annexures 1 to 55), each brand is classified by

product type to indicate the type or class of product to which it is applied, and

this is indicated in one of the columns (i.e., Column 4). For this purpose,

eight FMCG product types are considered. These are the same as those used

in Nielsen’s reports on India’s Most Trusted Brands. The eight product

types and the letter codes used to designate them are as follows:

A. Soaps & Personal Wash

B. Other Personal Care

C. OTC Health Care

D. Fabric Care

E. Other Household Care

F. Chocolates & Confectionery

G. Beverages

H. Other Food Products

However, for ease of analysis, the eight product types listed above are

aggregated into four product categories, as explained below. These are

designated by the letter codes – S, T, U and V respectively.

S. Personal Care products – comprising (A) Soaps & Personal Wash and

(B) Other Personal Care products

T. OTC Health Care products – comprising (C) OTC Health Care

products

U. Home Care products – comprising (D) Fabric Care and (E) Other

Household Care products

V. Food products comprising (F) Chocolates & Confectionery, (G)

Beverages, and (H) Other Food Products

73

4.3 Application Classes Used in the Study for

Classifying Brands

As mentioned earlier above, customer-facing primary brands are identified

and enumerated as brands, regardless of whether they are names of

companies or business divisions, or those associated with a specific product

or group of products.

Based on the breadth of application, each of the identified brands is classified

as a mono brand (M), range brand (R) or a family brand (F), and this is

indicated in Column 5 in the Annexures. This classification provides a broad

indication of the extent to which the brands have been extended, both within

and across product categories.

4.3.1 Mono Brand

A brand is classified as a mono brand (designated by the letter M in Column

5 in the Annexures) if it is used for only one product – e.g., toilet soap or

deodorant. If a brand is applicable only to toilet soaps, it is considered as a

mono brand, even if there are several sub-brands, variants and fragrances in

which the product is available. For example, Brooke Bond Taj Mahal is

considered as a mono brand as it applies only to packet tea, though there are

ten sub-brands – Classic, Gold, Earl Grey, English Breakfast and so on.

Likewise, Fair & Lovely is considered as a mono brand (fairness cream),

though there are at least seven sub-brands – Winter Fairness Cream, Anti

Marks Cream, Max Fairness For Men, Forever Glow, etc. When a brand is

available in different forms of a product, it is still considered as a mono

brand. For example, a detergent brand available in different product forms –

bar, powder and liquid, is considered as a mono brand.

74

4.3.2 Range Brand

A brand is considered as a range brand (R), if it is applied to anywhere

between two to five different products, which are usually closely related, but

could also sometimes extend across a broader product category (e.g.,

personal care products, foods, etc.). For example, Aashirvaad, which is

applied to staples, spices, instant mixes and ready meals, all within the larger

category of foods, is considered a range brand.

4.3.3 Family Brand

A brand is designated as a family brand (F) if it is used for more than five

products, whether or not within a broader product category. In some cases,

brands which are designated as family brands are brands developed in-house

(e.g., Dove, Revlon ColorStay) which are applied across numerous products.

Some others which are considered as family brands are erstwhile corporate

brands, which have now become family brands, due to acquisition (e.g.,

Lakme and Ponds). Lakme and Ponds were earlier companies in their own

right, which were acquired by Unilever/Hindustan Unilever.

4.4 Brand Architecture Types and Brand Architecture

Categories Used in the Study

Each of the brands is also classified into a brand architecture type (indicated

in Column 6 in the Annexures) based on how it relates to the brand

architecture typologies.

Classical theory on brand architecture suggests that each company follows a

particular model of brand architecture, and accordingly, all brands of that

company are of a particular type. For example, if a company follows a

75

“house of brands” model or “product branding” model of brand architecture,

all the products marketed by it would have distinct brand names, without any

reference to the name of the company. If a company follows the “branded

house” model or “corporate branding” model of brand architecture, all the

products would carry the company name followed by a product descriptor. If

on the other hand, a company follows a “dual branding” model of brand

architecture, all the products marketed by it would carry dual names – one

part being the name of the company, and the other being a name that is

distinct to each product.

However, in actual practice, companies rarely follow one pure form of brand

architecture throughout the organization, barring those which are quite small

and have a very limited product range. More often, they use different brand

architecture types for different products, product groups or business

divisions. Thus, their brand architectures may have to be classified as

corporate dominant, product dominant or dual dominant, or even as mixed,

depending on the percentage of brands that have different brand architecture

formats. Therefore, in order to be able to classify companies based on brand

architectures followed by them, it is necessary to designate each brand

marketed by the company with a brand architecture type.

Accordingly, eight brand architecture types are identified and these are

listed together with their designated letter codes in Table 4.1. When we say

that corporate name alone is used or product name alone is used, etc., the

brand name (whether corporate brand or product brand) would be followed

by a product descriptor. The eight brand types are in turn aggregated into

three brand architecture categories – corporate dominant brand, dual brand

and product brand. A brief explanation regarding the brand architecture

categories and brand architecture types assigned to the brands (in Column 6

in the Annexures) is given below.

76

4.4.1 Corporate Dominant Brand

In a corporate dominant brand, either the name of the company or an

umbrella brand name is used to identify the product, together with a product

descriptor. Accordingly, there are two brand architecture types under this

category designated by the letters C and Cu (i.e., corresponding to corporate

name and umbrella name respectively).

In the first type (i.e., C) the product is described by using the name of the

company, followed by a product descriptor, e.g., Amrutanjan herbal balm

massage (from the company - Amrutanjan Health Care Ltd.)

In some instances, an umbrella brand (which is other than the name of the

company), may also be used across a wide range of products. This type of

brand is designated by the letter code Cu. For example, Gowardhan Ghee is

considered as a Cu type brand. Here, the company is Parag Milk Foods Pvt

Ltd. Though Gowardhan is not the name of the company, it is used akin to a

company name, and most products marketed by Parag Milk Foods are named

Gowardhan. In this case, Gowardhan is considered as an umbrella brand.

4.4.2 Dual Brand

A brand is classified as a dual brand, if two brand names are used – one of

them being a corporate/umbrella brand name and the other being a product

name. Dual brands are classified into four types, depending on the relative

prominence and role of the corporate/umbrella brand and the product brand.

Accordingly, the four types of dual brands are - Dc (corporate brand is more

important), Du (umbrella brand is more important), D (both

corporate/umbrella brand and product brand are equally important) and Dp

(product brand is more important).

77

The comparative dominance between the parent brand (corporate/umbrella

brand) and the daughter brand (product brand) is decided based on the

relative importance given to the two brand names on the product package and

also in the marketing communications. However, in some instances, though

the relative prominence given to the brand names on the packaging may be

similar across products, they are categorized differently depending on the

prominence acquired by the product name in consumers’ minds due to the

company’s marketing and advertising efforts. For example, L’Oréal Total

Repair 5 is classified as Dp (product name is more important), L’Oréal White

Perfect is designated as D (both company name and product name are equal

drivers), while a less known brand such as L’Oréal Lucent Magique is

classified as Dc (corporate brand is the main driver), though the naming style

on the package is nearly the same in all the three cases.

An important point to note is that brand names such as Brooke Bond 3 Roses,

Ujala Supreme or Sunfeast Dark Fantasy are not considered as dual names.

They are considered as product brands, as no company/umbrella brand name

is used. Some authors are found to consider such names as dual or mixed

brand names, thus influencing their conclusions about the brand architectures

followed by the companies accordingly.

4.4.3 Product Brand

A brand is designated as a product brand if the product’s name is used to

identify and market it, without using the name of the company. The company

name or logo may however appear in small size as part of the

manufacturer’s/marketer’s details on the product or its packaging. For

example, the ITC logo is used in small size on the packaging of most of its

consumer goods, such as biscuits, soaps, etc. Same is true in the case of

Hindustan Unilever. In some cases, the company name or logo may be

flashed at the end of an audio-visual advertisement (as is often done by

Hindustan Unilever, Procter & Gamble, Nestle and Vini Cosmetics on Indian

television commercials). In all these cases, the brands are considered as

78

product brand names and not as dual names, as the companies in question are

marketing the individual product brands with aggressive and dedicated

marketing efforts. In some instances, the companies are even offering

multiple brands competing in the same category, thus shifting the focus to the

product brands rather than the name of the company. Many of these brands

have sub-brands and are often associated with their sub-brand names rather

than with the company names (e.g., Sunfeast Dark Fantasy and Pepsodent

Germi Check rather than ITC Sunfeast or Unilever Pepsodent). Most

consumers recognize these brands by their product name and not by their

company name. Hence, all these brands are classified as Product brands

(designated by the letter P).

Product brands with a token endorsement by the company name (often at the

bottom of the packaging) are designated by the letter code Pe. For example,

Clean & Clear, Nizoral, Band Aid and Savlon are well known by their

respective names, but are endorsed by the company name Johnson &

Johnson. Likewise, edible oil brands such as Pilaf, Mahurat and Alife are

endorsed by the company name Adani Wilmar.

4.5 Recognition and Identification of Sub-Brands

Many of the brands in the product-dominant and dual-branding categories

would have sub-brands. For example, the “product” brand name Ponds is

used across a wide family of products, and several of these products are

designated or identified by distinct sub-brand names such as Age Miracle,

White Beauty, Gold Radiance, etc. In some instances, even the sub-brands in

turn have sub-brands. As mentioned earlier, the combination of a product

brand and its sub-brand is not considered as dual brand.

However, wherever a primary brand has a sub-brand or sub-brands, the

existence of the same is indicated by the letter s in Column 7 of the

Annexures. In most cases, a partial or complete listing of the sub-brands is

79

also included in Column 2. In cases where some of the sub-brands in turn

have sub-brands, this is indicated by the code s-s. However, the sub-brands

are not otherwise enumerated, recognized or used for analysis of the brand

architectures. They are captured for the sake of completeness of information

and as an indication of the extent to which the primary brands are extended to

related products, instead of launching new brands.

4.6 Brands across Application Classes and Product

Categories

4.6.1 Analysis by Application Classes

Out of the 722 brands, 172 (23.8%) are categorized as range brands and 19

(2.5%) as family brands. The rest (i.e., 73.7%) are mono brands. This

suggests that almost three out of four FMCG brands are used for only one

product. However, one should not use this information to conclude that there

are very few brand extensions in the FMCG sector. Mono brand does not

imply absence of brand extension. Amrutanjan Roll On, Amrutanjan Xpert

and such others are all considered mono brands, but they are extensions of

the Amrutanjan brand. Likewise, Brooke Bond Taj Mahal and Fair & Lovely

have several extensions/sub-brands/variants, but as explained earlier, they are

identified as mono brands.

4.6.2 Analysis by Product Categories

A classification summary of the 722 brands across the four major product

categories and the eight product types in terms of both numbers and

percentages is presented in Table 4.2.

80

The largest number of brands is in the Food Products category (V), followed

by Personal Care products (S). OTC Health Care (T) and Household Care

(U) brands are comparatively less in number.

Going into specifics, 46.3 per cent (334 numbers) are food product brands,

36.8 per cent (266 numbers) are personal care brands, 9.2 per cent (66

numbers) are household care brands, while 7.7 per cent (56 numbers) are

OTC healthcare brands.

Given that the sample of 55 companies includes most of the prominent

companies operating in the FMCG sector at the national level in India, the

percentage distribution of brands across different product categories and

product types can be considered as fairly representative of the universe itself

(i.e., the aggregate Indian market).

Even otherwise, the skew towards large number of brands in the personal

care and food products categories is as expected. Brand management as is

practiced today was developed by companies such as Procter & Gamble,

Unilever, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and such others, which are majorly into

personal care and food products. These product categories are characterized

by more number of market segments and differentiated products, thus

translating into greater number of brands in the market.

Company-wise break-up of brands across the four principal product

categories (designated as S, T, U and V as explained earlier) in terms of

numbers and percentages is shown in Tables 4.3. The last column (Prod.

Cat.) is explained later in Section 4.9.1 below.

81

4.7 Brands across Brand Architecture Categories

The number and percentage of brands of each of the 55 companies across the

three principal brand architecture categories are indicated in Table 4.4. The

last column (Co. BA) is dealt with in Section 4.9.2 later below.

Out of the 722 brands included in the study, only 10.3 % (75 numbers) are

corporate dominant brands, while 46.6 % (336 numbers) are dual brands, and

43.1 % (311 numbers) are product brands. This seems to suggest that

corporate brands play a very minor role in the marketing of FMCG products.

But we will soon discover in the following paragraphs that this is not actually

so.

4.7.1 Importance of Corporate Brands in the Marketing of

FMCG Products

Foods command the highest level of risk perception, importance and

involvement from consumers amongst all FMCG products. Nearly 75 per

cent of the corporate dominant brands are found in the food products

category, i.e., V (Refer Table 4.5, item (iii)). This demonstrates that a

credible and reputed company or umbrella name (the main examples being

Amul, Britannia, Dabur and Gowardhan) helps in the marketing of food

products.

Most of the dual brands are in the personal care (46.7%) and food products

(44.1%) categories (Refer Table 4.5, item (iii)), both of them being of high

importance to consumers. Within personal care products, dual branding is

more common among cosmetics, towards which consumers are more

sensitive. Examples of companies with a large number of dual brands are –

L’Oréal, Parle, Nivea, Modi-Revlon, Colgate-Palmolive and Nestlé. In dual

branding, the corporate or umbrella brand is used together with the product

82

name so as to bring in the images associated with both, in positioning and

marketing communications. While the corporate brand lends source

credibility, the differentiation associated with the individual product is

communicated through the product brand. As such, this clearly shows the

importance of endorsement by a corporate brand in enhancing the acceptance

of the product brand in the FMCG category. And dual brands account for

nearly half the total number of FMCG brands.

Pure product brands are also quite commonly used in the FMCG sector. The

largest numbers of product brands are offered by Hindustan Unilever, Reckitt

Benckiser, Pepsico, ITC, Procter & Gamble and Johnson & Johnson.

However, here too, tacit endorsement by the corporate brand to varying

degrees is seen in several cases such as Hindustan Unilever, ITC, Procter &

Gamble and Johnson & Johnson.

Among corporate dominant brands, corporate brands (59) are far more

common than umbrella brands (16). Among dual brands, corporate dominant

dual brands account for the largest numbers. Nearly 64 per cent of all dual

brands are corporate dominant dual brands (i.e., 214 out of 336). This again

reinforces the important role played by corporate brands in the successful

marketing of FMCG products. Among product brands, though 92 per cent are

pure product brands, as observed earlier above, even among these, there is

tacit endorsement by the corporate brand in many instances.

The overall conclusion therefore is as follows: Much of the literature on

brand architecture highlights the point that product branding is most common

in the consumer packaged goods (i.e., FMCG) sector. This is definitely true.

However, corporate brand does have a very significant and important role to

play even in the marketing of FMCG products, though of an indirect nature;

and this often goes unnoticed and unacknowledged. The message to

marketers therefore is not to overlook the indirect support that the corporate

brand can lend to product brands, when marketing consumer packaged goods.

83

4.8 Cross Tabulations - Brand Architecture Categories

versus Product Categories

59% of personal care products (S) have dual branding, followed by 38%

having product branding (Table 4.5, item (iv)). The important observation

that emerges is that dual branding (i.e., inclusion of the corporate name) is

quite prominent even among personal care products, which are otherwise

perceived to be largely driven by independent product brands.

Considering OTC health care products, only 14.3 per cent of them have

corporate dominant branding (Table 4.5, item (iv)). This is an interesting

finding because one would tend to think that corporate brands are extremely

important for healthcare products. The presence of corporate brands is

however seen to a significant extent in the form of dual branding (42.9%).

Yet another surprise is that 42.9 % of OTC healthcare brands are pure

product brands, without being associated with a corporate or umbrella brand

name. This means that quite a number of OTC healthcare products are being

marketed with distinct positioning and marketing budgets of their own, akin

to personal care products.

The household care products are sold almost overwhelmingly through

product names (84.8 %). This speaks of the importance that they are given –

by way of being marketed with distinct names and positioning of their own.

This also implies large marketing budgets to support individual brands.

In the foods category, most of the products are sold as dual brands (44.3 %)

or product brands (38.9%). Corporate brands too have a significant presence

(16.8%). This pattern is along expected lines, as corporate brands are present

in the case of majority of the products (44.3% + 16.8%), given the perceived

risk and involvement associated with this category. The presence of a reliable

and well-known corporate name provides the necessary assurance and

comfort to consumers.

84

4.9 Relationship between Company Brand

Architectures and the Products Offered by Them

So far, the analysis was focused on the individual brands included in the

study. For instance, the association between product categories and brand

architecture categories was discussed in Section 4.8 above with the 722

brands as the units of observation and measurement.

Now we shift our attention to analyzing the 55 companies. What we try to do

is to explore how the brand architectures followed by FMCG companies are

related to the product categories that they deal with.

In order to proceed with this objective, we first need to identify the product

categories dealt with by each of the companies and also the predominant

brand architecture type followed by them. The methodology adopted for

doing these is explained in Sections 4.9.1 and 4.9.2 respectively. The findings

about relationship between the companies’ product categories and brand

architectures are presented in Section 4.9.3.

4.9.1 Assigning Product Categories that the Companies are

doing Business In

We consider four product categories – personal care products, OTC health

care products, home care products and food products, designated by the

letters S, T, U and V respectively, as indicated earlier. Some companies are

operating in only one of these four categories. However, many are operating

in two, three or even in all four of these categories. Therefore, the following

methodology is used to assign the product category (or categories) that each

of the 55 companies deals with.

We consider the company-wise product category data (in terms of

percentage) available in Table 4.3. Data is available here pertaining to the

four product categories – personal care products (S), OTC health care

products (T), home care products (U) and food products (V).

85

The product category accounting for the highest percentage of brands dealt

with by the company is identified as the predominant product category that

the company is doing business in. In case a second (third or fourth) product

category accounts for at least 50 per cent of the percentage of brands in the

predominant product category, this too is considered as a product category

that the company is engaged in, thus assigning two (or more) product

categories to the company. The product categories thus assigned to each

company are indicated in the last column of Table 4.4 itself, which is shaded

in grey. This column is named “Prod. Cat.” and the relevant letter codes

(from among S, T, U and V) are assigned against each of the 55 companies.

4.9.2 Assigning Brand Architecture(s) Followed by the

Companies

For this purpose, we consider the three principal brand architecture categories

– corporate dominant, dual branding and product branding. However, many

companies do not follow one pure form of brand architecture and use

different forms for different product categories or business divisions.

Therefore, a method similar to the one followed above, was used to designate

the brand architecture category (or categories) used by each of the 55

companies.

We consider the company-wise brand architecture category data (in terms of

percentage) available in Table 4.4. Data is available here pertaining to the

three brand architecture categories – corporate dominant (C), dual branding

(D) and product branding (P). The brand architecture category accounting for

the highest percentage of brands dealt with by the company is identified as

the predominant brand architecture type that the company is following. In

case a second (or third) band architecture category accounts for at least 50

per cent of the percentage of brands in the predominant brand architecture

category, this too is considered as a brand architecture format that the

company is following, thus assigning two (or three) brand architecture

86

categories to the company. The brand architecture categories thus assigned to

each company are indicated in the last column of Table 4.4 itself, which is

shaded in grey. This column is named “Co. BA” and the relevant letter codes

(from among C, D and P; and M, i.e., Mixed, if all three are categories are

used significantly) are assigned against each of the 55 companies.

4.9.3 Analysis - Company Brand Architectures and Company

Product Categories

A cross-tabulation of brand architecture category applicable to each company

and the product categories that each of them is engaged in is presented in

Table 4.6. The companies fall into five brand architecture categories –

product brand (P) – 24 nos., dual brand (D) – 15 nos., Dual & Product Brand

(DP) – 8 nos., Corporate & Dual Brand (CD) – 4 nos., and Mixed Brand

Architecture (M), i.e., Corporate, Dual & Product – 4 nos. An important point

to note is that not even one of the 55 companies has corporate dominant (C)

brand architecture.

Considering the number of product categories, there are totally 11 – S, T, U,

V, ST, TU, UV, SV, TV, SU and SUV, with the letters S, T, U and V having

meanings as explained earlier. Thus, there are 66 cells in the cross-tabulation

(6 brand architecture categories x 11 product categories). 45 of these cells are

empty and 10 cells have only one company each in them, thus making it

difficult to draw meaningful conclusions.

Therefore, the product categories are reduced to four in the lower part of this

table, by giving pro-rata weightage to each of the product categories,

wherever a company has been found to be engaged in more than one product

category. The resultant data, both in terms of numbers and percentages is

given in the lower part of this table.

87

Based on this revised table, one arrives at the following conclusions:

1. Personal care companies are strongly associated with product

branding (42 %) and dual branding (40 %).

2. OTC health care companies follow one of three types of branding –

mix of dual and product branding (45 %), product branding (33 %)

and dual branding (22 %).

3. Home care product companies predominantly follow product

branding (72 %).

4. Food product companies tend to use product branding (44 %) and

dual branding (27 %).

Thus, analysis based on product as the unit of observation and company as

the unit of observation both point in the same direction, though there are

minor differences.

88

Table 4.1

List of Brand Architecture Categories and Brand Architecture Types

Used to Designate the Brands Included in the Study

Letter

Code

Brand Architecture

Category

Letter

Code Brand Architecture Type

C Corporate Dominant

Brand

C Corporate name alone is used

Cu Umbrella name alone is used

D Dual Brand

Dc

Corporate & product names

are used, and corporate name

is more important

Du

Umbrella & product names

are used, and umbrella brand

is more important

D

Product name is used

together with corporate or

umbrella brand, and both are

equally important

Dp

Product name is used

together with corporate or

umbrella brand, and product

brand is more important

P Product Brand

Pe

Product name is used, with

token endorsement by a

company or umbrella brand

P Product name alone is used

89

Table 4.2

Classification Summary of Brands across Product Categories and

Product Types

# Product Category

Nos. % # Product Type Nos. %

S Personal Care Products

266 37

A Soaps & Personal Wash Products

30 4

B Other Personal Care Products

236 33

T OTC Health Care Products

56 8 C OTC Health Care Products

56 8

U Household Care Products

66 9

D Fabric Care Products

21 3

E Other Household Care Products

45 6

V Food Products 334 46

F Chocolates & Confectionery

46 6

G Beverages 86 12

H Other Food Products

202 28

Total 722 100 Total 722 100

90

Table 4.3

Company-wise Tabulation of Brands by Product Categories

# Company n %

TOT Prod. Cat. S T U V

1 Adani Wilmar Ltd 11

100 100 V

2 Agro Tech Foods Ltd 3

100 100 V

3 Amrutanjan Health Care Ltd 12 17 67

17 100 T

4 Anchor H & B Care P Ltd 5 100

100 S

5 Bajaj Corp Ltd 8 100

100 S

6 Bisleri International Pvt Ltd 3

100 100 V

7 Britannia Industries Ltd 26

100 100 V

8 Bunge India Pvt Ltd 5

100 100 V

9 CavinKare Pvt Ltd 14 57

43 100 SV

10 Cholayil Pvt Ltd 3 100

100 S

11 Coca-Cola India Pvt Ltd 11

100 100 V

12 Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd 25 96

4

100 S

13 Dabur India Ltd 38 34 42 11 13 100 ST

14 Dey’s Med Stores (Mfg) Ltd 1 100

100 S

15 Emami Ltd 13 46 54

100 ST

16 Fena Pvt Ltd 5 20

80

100 U

17 Ferrero India Pvt Ltd 4

100 100 V

18 G. D. Pharma Pvt Ltd 3 67 33

100 ST

19 General Mills India Pvt Ltd 13

100 100 V

20 GSK Consr Healthcare Ltd 7

43

57 100 TV

21 Godrej Consumer Prods Ltd 11 64

36

100 SU

22 GCMMF Ltd 40

100 100 V

23 Haldiram Group 8

100 100 V

24 Heinz India Pvt Ltd 5 20

80 100 V

25 Hindustan Unilever Ltd 47 53

21 26 100 SV

26 Indo Nissin Foods Ltd 3

100 100 V

27 ITC Limited 17 29

35 35 100 SUV

28 Johnson & Johnson Ltd 15 53 47

100 ST

29 Jyothy Laboratories Ltd 13 23

77

100 U

30 Kellogg India Pvt Ltd 8

100 100 V

Contd..

91

Table 4.3 (Contd..)

# Company n %

TOT Prod. Cat. S T U V

31 L’Oréal India Pvt Ltd 39 100 100 S

32 Marico Ltd 10 70 10 10 10 100 S

33 McNroe Cons Prods P Ltd 3 100 100 S

34 Modi-Revlon Pvt Ltd 30 100 100 S

35 Mondelez India Foods Ltd 13 100 100 V

36 Mother Dairy 10 100 100 V

37 Nestlé India Ltd 23 100 100 V

38 Nirma Ltd 6 33 50 17 100 SU

39 Nivea India Pvt Ltd 25 100 100 S

40 Parag Milk Foods Pvt Ltd 13 100 100 V

41 Parle Agro Pvt Ltd 7 100 100 V

42 Parle Products Pvt Ltd 35 100 100 V

43 Pepsico 17 100 100 V

44 Perfetti Van Melle I P Ltd 9 100 100 V

45 Procter & Gamble India 14 64 7 29 100 S

46 Rasna Pvt Ltd 3 100 100 V

47 Reckitt Benckiser 20 10 35 55 100 TU

48 Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd 6 100 100 V

49 S C Johnson Prods P Ltd 6 100 100 U

50 Tata Chemicals Ltd 3 33 67 100 UV

51 Tata Global Beverages 18 100 100 V

52 The Himalaya Drug Co 13 69 23 8 100 S

53 Vicco Laboratories Pvt Ltd 3 67 33 100 ST

54 Vini Cosmetics Pvt Ltd 9 100 100 S

55 Wipro Enterprises Ltd 10 70 10 10 10 100 S

Aggregate 722 37 8 9 46 100

Product Categories:

S = Personal Care Products

T = OTC Health Care Products

U = Household Care Products

V = Food Products

92

Table 4.4

Company-wise Tabulation of Brands by Brand Architecture Categories

# Company n %

TOT Co. BA. C D P

1 Adani Wilmar Ltd 11

100 100 P

2 Agro Tech Foods Ltd 3

100 100 P

3 Amrutanjan Health Care Ltd 12 8 50 42 100 DP

4 Anchor H & B Care P Ltd 5 40 40 20 100 M

5 Bajaj Corp Ltd 8 25 75

100 D

6 Bisleri International Pvt Ltd 3 33 33 33 100 M

7 Britannia Industries Ltd 26 35 65

100 CD

8 Bunge India Pvt Ltd 5

100 100 P

9 CavinKare Pvt Ltd 14 7

93 100 P

10 Cholayil Pvt Ltd 3

100 100 P

11 Coca-Cola India Pvt Ltd 11 9

91 100 P

12 Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd 25 8 84 8 100 D

13 Dabur India Ltd 38 21 50 29 100 DP

14 Dey’s Med Stores (Mfg) Ltd 1

100 100 P

15 Emami Ltd 13 8 69 23 100 D

16 Fena Pvt Ltd 5 20

80 100 P

17 Ferrero India Pvt Ltd 4

25 75 100 P

18 G. D. Pharma Pvt Ltd 3

67 33 100 DP

19 General Mills India Pvt Ltd 13 38 31 31 100 M

20 GSK Consr Healthcare Ltd 7

100 100 P

21 Godrej Consumer Prods Ltd 11

73 27 100 D

22 GCMMF Ltd 40 49 43 8 100 CD

23 Haldiram Group 8 25 75

100 D

24 Heinz India Pvt Ltd 5 20 20 60 100 P

25 Hindustan Unilever Ltd 47

13 87 100 P

26 Indo Nissin Foods Ltd 3

33 67 100 DP

27 ITC Limited 17

12 88 100 P

28 Johnson & Johnson Ltd 15

7 93 100 P

29 Jyothy Laboratories Ltd 13 8

92 100 P

30 Kellogg India Pvt Ltd 8 13 88

100 D

Contd..

93

Table 4.4 (Contd..)

# Company n %

TOT Co. BA. C D P

31 L’Oréal India Pvt Ltd 39

100

100 D

32 Marico Ltd 10

10 90 100 P

33 McNroe Cons Prods P Ltd 3

100 100 P

34 Modi-Revlon Pvt Ltd 30 3 77 20 100 D

35 Mondelez India Foods Ltd 13

62 38 100 DP

36 Mother Dairy 10 10 70 20 100 D

37 Nestlé India Ltd 23 4 87 9 100 D

38 Nirma Ltd 6 33 67

100 CD

39 Nivea India Pvt Ltd 25

100

100 D

40 Parag Milk Foods Pvt Ltd 13 46 54

100 CD

41 Parle Agro Pvt Ltd 7

100 100 P

42 Parle Products Pvt Ltd 35 3 86 11 100 D

43 Pepsico 17

100 100 P

44 Perfetti Van Melle I P Ltd 9

100 100 P

45 Procter & Gamble India 14

100 100 P

46 Rasna Pvt Ltd 3

100

100 D

47 Reckitt Benckiser 20

100 100 P

48 Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd 6

33 67 100 DP

49 S C Johnson Prods P Ltd 6

100 100 P

50 Tata Chemicals Ltd 3 33 33 33 100 M

51 Tata Global Beverages 18 17 44 39 100 DP

52 The Himalaya Drug Co 13

100

100 D

53 Vicco Laboratories Pvt Ltd 3

100

100 D

54 Vini Cosmetics Pvt Ltd 9

100 100 P

55 Wipro Enterprises Ltd 10

50 50 100 DP

Aggregate 722 10 47 43 100

Brand Architecture Categories:

C = Corporate Dominant Brand

D = Dual Brand

P = Product Brand

94

Table 4.5

Cross Tabulation – Product Brand Architecture Categories

and Product Categories

(i) By Numbers

S T U V TOT

C 8 8 3 56 75

D 157 24 7 148 336

P 101 24 56 130 311

TOT 266 56 66 334 722

(ii) By Aggregate Percentage

S T U V TOT

C 1.1 1.1 0.4 7.7 10.3

D 21.7 3.3 1.0 20.6 46.6

P 14.0 3.3 7.8 18.0 43.1

TOT 36.8 7.7 9.2 46.3 100.0

(iii) By Percentage on Brand Architecture Categories

S T U V TOT

C 10.7 10.7 4.0 74.6 100

D 46.7 7.1 2.1 44.1 100

P 32.5 7.7 18.0 41.8 100

TOT 36.9 7.6 9.2 46.3 100

(iv) By Percentage on Product Categories

S T U V TOT

C 3.0 14.3 4.5 16.8 10.4

D 59.0 42.9 10.6 44.3 46.5

P 38.0 42.9 84.8 38.9 43.1

TOT 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

C = Corporate Dominant Brand

D = Dual Brand

P = Product Brand

S = Personal Care Products

T = OTC Healthcare Products

U = Home Care Products

V = Food Products

95

Table 4.6

Cross-Tabulation – Company Brand Architectures

and the Products Categories Dealt With by Them

Product

Category

Brand Architecture Category

P D C CD DP M Total

S 6 6

1 1 14

T

1

1

U 3

3

V 9 6

3 4 2 24

ST 1 2

2

5

TU 1

1

UV

1 1

SV 2

2

TV 1

1

SU

1

1

2

SUV 1

1

Total 24 15 0 4 8 4 55

Summarization of the Above:

Product

Category

Brand Architecture Category

P D C CD DP M Total

Personal

Care 7.83

(41.6%) 7.5

(39.8%) --

0.5 (2.7%)

2.0 (10.6%)

1 (5.3%)

18.83 (100.0%)

OTC

Healthcare 1.50

(33.3%) 1.0

(22.2%) -- --

2.0 (44.5%)

-- 4.50

(100.0%)

Household

Care 3.83

(71.8%) 0.5

(9.4%) --

0.5 (9.4%)

-- 0.5

(9.4%) 5.33

(100.0%)

Foods 10.83

(41.1%) 6.0

(22.8%) --

3.0 (11.4%)

4.0 (15.2%)

2.5 (9.5%)

26.33 (100.0%)

Total 24.00

(43.6%) 15.0

(27.3%) --

4.0 (7.3%)

8.0 (14.5%)

4.0 (7.3%)

55.00 (100.0%)

(percentages in brackets and italics)

Methodology:

When a company is engaged in two or three product categories, half or one-

third of it is accordingly considered to be operating in each of the product

categories.