Showing posts with label brand extensions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label brand extensions. Show all posts

Sunday, February 08, 2009

P&G expanding car washes

Procter & Gamble has bought an Atlanta car wash chain and will use it as a foundation for expansion of their Mr. Clean experiment.

The move follows an August announcement by P&G that it was seeking franchisees to expand the car wash centers throughout Ohio and Kentucky, including with locations in the Dayton area. At the time it operated two local operations – in Deerfield Township and Evendale – and offered services at Fountain Square garage in downtown Cincinnati.

Now, Mr. Clean Car Wash operates 16 locations, including the two corporate-owned sites. Three other franchised locations are in the works.

On the one hand, using the Mr. Clean name on car washes certainly sounds like a natural brand extension. On the other, going into the car wash business seems rather distant from P&G's core competencies. On the third hand, who am I to question P&G?

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

Brand extensions -- the best and worst

Brandweek put together a rating of brand extensions. Some of them are great ideas, like the American Red Cross emergency radio (featuring a hand crank, a cell phone charger and a siren). As a panelist said, it links a solid brand name with an appropriate product. "It seems logical and magical," he said. "Unlike bad extensions, it's just one that sounds like 'Why didn't they do that sooner?'"

But the real fun is with some of the really bad ideas. What were these people thinking?:
  • Cheetos-flavored lip balm
  • Salvadore Dali deodorant
  • Diesel Jeans wine
  • Chicken Soup for the Soul pet food
  • Lamborghini notebook computer
Those were the top (or bottom) five bad ideas, but some of the others really deserve mention:
  • Willie Nelson Biodiesel Fuel
  • Lance Armstrong's LiveStrong mutual funds
And I don't see why my favorite didn't win a prize: Play-Doh perfume.

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Strange-sounding line extension

Not that I claim to be any kind of expert in this area, but this sounds like a very strange idea -- Mattel is licensing the Barbie name to a company to market a line of cosmetics.
Mattel Inc. said on Wednesday that its Barbie business will partner with cosmetics company MAC (Make-up Art Cosmetics) for an "adult-targeted project" that will be unveiled in the spring of 2007.

The toy company declined to give more details on the partnership. Mattel does not currently sell Barbie cosmetics in the United States, although it does sell Barbie children's cosmetics in markets such as Europe, Latin Americas and Asia.

It said the collaboration is the first time that Barbie has partnered with "an adult prestige cosmetics company."

Mattel, the No. 1 U.S. toy maker, has been working to revive sales of its Barbie business amid difficult market conditions and stiff competition from MGA Entertainment's Bratz fashion dolls.

I understand that the women they are targeting grew up playing with Barbies and presumably have strongly-positive feelings toward the brand. But still ... does that mean that they want to wear Barbie perfume?

Still, what do I know? Next year Barbie cosmetics may be all the rage, and I'll be sitting here looking dumb.