Brand Extension: Molson Coors Brewing Company

Brand extension is a useful way to introduce promising products that will revive the brand name in hopes of retaining its loyal customers. Take a company of the magnitude as Molson Coors Brewing Company, established in 1873, whereby producing its famously known beer (Coors, 2017). There were several flavor offerings for the bottled sparkling water such as original, lemon-lime, and cherry (Time, 2009).

One highly visible quandary with this promotion was that the new product carried the brand name of Coors, which remained a popular brand name that purely associated its product line with beer. Second, it carried the Coors logo on the front of each bottle, identical to the can or bottled brewed beer, suggesting too close a tie to the original brand product. Another visible problem was its water (i.e., H2O) product that could not resonant with brand loyalties, which were their target audience. In the end, sales plummet and affected market shares.

According to Aaker (1990), two-thirds of the food product found on store shelves, are brand extension, which suggest the competitiveness of the business. It becomes imperative that marketers stay abreast of the shifts: who purchase the products; focus on the ideal target or segments; involve band loyalties on planning,

stop being your own competitor and start advocating for the name – be human (Colon, 2017).

By offering the product to the wrong target audience, did not set well with loyal customers who consumed beer, is one specific reason for failure.

The target segments needed expansion to include healthier and natural ties such as gym, yoga, sports goers, hospitals, health food stores or markets, existing in the early 1990’s, which had a better chance of appealing on a grander stand. Uggla (2015) critically scrutinize the views (i.e., pros, cons) of brand positioning and it relevance on brand product extensions. One view where Uggla examines denotes that the strength of brand positioning towards another product other than brand, severances its connectivity to its parent brand and weaken the product

introduced.

One reason that the Coors brand extension was unsuccessful and pulled from existence in 1997 due to the current entry and position strategy of the product (Bell, 2017); and without prior consideration of its target segments and audience. Bell suggests that there was a 112% increase for mineral like water. This proves that there was a need for the product. However, this attempt to market a brand product Coors Sparkling water, initially sent signals with close ties and association to brewed beer product, not necessarily appealing to beer lovers. To convey the trickiness of how this situation viewed, let us look at the review of Uggla (2015) examination on views and beliefs where brand extension and brand name are synonymous. In essence, the brand Coke will have the like association of being a cola soda, as would Ariel resonant with washing power, and nothing else. This would heavily suggest that product extension of a brand in the consumer’s mind would be one alike. Therefore, consumers immediately will associate Coors brand extension and conceive water adjacent to beer, and nothing more. Because there is an “irresistible pull to extend” positioning a strong brand and profitable, however, on the other side of the coin, present the worst case – serious damage to the brand (Aaker, 1990).

Another reason the product failed when consumers yet cannot disassociate the brand logo presentation of the product packaging. Brand awareness and imagery is recognizable, recallable and connects consumers association and behaviors that is essential to brand equity, whether direct or indirect (Keller, 2006). Uggla further raise views that by mistakenly positioning a product extension will results in fewer successes, due to the oblivion of brand focus. Claudiu-Catalin (2014), explains in simplicity that even with the attributes, benefits, and uniqueness of a brand product, there are psychological association involved that the consumer takes on same characteristics. Therefore, restricting the brand within a smaller market will also create a perception of a more specialized product; nevertheless, the product brand extension climbs a scale to catastrophic.

The last reason for failure it lacked proper advertises to appropriate audience that included educating them on the benefits and value of the product. In addition, advertisement would further need to communicate, what is so special and different about the offering that would distinguish the product from other brands such as Pierre, Pellegrinaggio, Deer Park, and Nestle. In the end, the properly narrowing and positioning the brand extension will more align with strategic accomplishments.