Case #1- Dove: Evolution of a Brand

1.) A brand is a level of product definition and is generally viewed as a resulting factor from a combination of the information provided about a company and its products and the experiences customers/the market links with that company. As a result of their strategy called “Path to Growth,” Unilever determined that their portfolio would decrease from 1,600 to 400 brands in five years. Their reasoning behind this was that they determined that many of their brands (or product lines) lacked a global unified identity as a result of decentralization. Another reason they stood behind was the lack of structure and control that was the resultant of global diversification and growth.
2.) In the 1950’s, Dove was positioned as company which operated completely through product quality and functionality. Their marketing efforts surrounded the benefits associated with Dove, such as keeping a person’s skin more moisturized than its competitors. In 2007, Dove became a “masterbrand,” or the end-goal of the “Path to Growth” employed by Unilever. This designation meant that Unilever had realized that they needed to take Dove to the next level in the industry, which for them meant marketing based on creating a consumer connection rather than just concentrating on functionality. To create a point of view on overall “beauty” Unilever launched “The Campaign for Real Beauty,” who’s goal was the to remove the current social definition of beauty and help all users identify with their message; and in connection identify with their product. This alteration in positioning with the addition of a connection portion increased the Dove brand substantially. The new marketing campaign transformed the brand in the eyes of women by helping them identify with a true definition of beauty, and these women made up a significant portion of the customer base.
3.) Prior to 2000, Unilever organized their brand with a traditional system. This system employed a brand manager for each specific brand, who was in charge of all major decisions including design of strategy, profit targets and marketing strategy. Under this system of control, each brand was essentially managed as a separate business within Unilever. Brand meaning was controlled by brand assistants who helped maintain the policies set by the brand manager. The structure was altered following 2000, where brand building was implemented as a separate branch of brand development and control. The brand development became centralized with a global scope, and focused on idea development, innovation, and evolving the idea in the future. This branch had many responsibilities including brand health, innovation, value creation, medium- to long-term market share, and both traditional and non-traditional media advertising. Brand building was charged to a separate department which was installed in all of Unilever’s major markets throughout the world. Managers in this branch were called upon to “bring the brand to life,” which they measured by paying special attention to growth, profit, cash flow, and ST market share. As part of brand meaning control, brand builders, also in charge of public relations and spending for media campaigns, report to general managers for a collection of brands, who then reported to the country/regional manager. Most importantly to Dove, brand control attempted to carry the new vision to the public, shifting focusing to the meaning behind the brand rather than the functionality. This shift has unfortunately caused a problem for Dove, as they’ve actually begun to lose control over brand meaning, allowing the public to craft the brand meaning Dove provides to them into anything they want.
4.) Across social media and blogs, most chatter seems to be directed at discussing Dove’s new meaning campaign (the “Campaign for Real Beauty”). While many of the posts and blog posts concentrate on the image Dove has created for itself through this campaign