Dove: Evolution of a Brand Case Solution

1. Why does Unilever want fewer brands?

The company’s brand portfolio was growing in a somewhat haphazard manner. The company was trying to be in every product category, and in every geographical area. This level of extensive expansion was resulting into an inconsistent image of its brands. The company had also decentralized itself globally to bring more diversity, but diversity also brings cultural differences, which have to be incorporated in the marketing strategy for a brand. Unilever was unable to form a global identity for its brands; therefore, decided to reduce its number of brands by selecting “Masterbrands” and creating a global vision that would allow the company to have a globally consistent image.

A consistent image is important for the creation of strong brand equity. Unilever wanted strong brand equity for all its brands around the world. The consumers have also become global with the passage of time. A consumer belonging to India may travel to America, and it would hurt the company’s brand equity if he faces dissonance in terms of what he was expecting and what he received. The marketing strategy, being adapted with respect to a particular culture, communicates what the brand is meant to be. The same brand might mean something different to consumers in America and entirely different to consumers in India. Therefore, Unilever wanted to eliminate this dissonance by reducing the number of brands and smoothing out its brand image.

2. What was Dove’s market positioning in the 1950s? What is its positioning in 2007?

Dove had positioned itself as a substitute for regular soap that does not dry skin the way soap does. The underlying positioning was of “not really soap”, i.e. it was positioned as a product that contained one quarter cleansing cream. The positioning of Dove remained the same for 40 years, and only minor changes were made such as “cleansing” was replaced with “moisturizing”, but the basis idea remained the same that it was a soap that did not dry skin like all other soaps. The positioning of Dove in 1950’s was based on functional aspects of the product.

The company had to change Dove’s positioning as it decided to reduce the number of brands, and select Dove as one of the master brands. The brand’s positioning till then was based on the functionality of the product, which could not be continued because Dove would now be responsible for an entire umbrella of products with different functionalities. The positioning of dove was then changed on the basis of a “point of view”, and it promoted the idea that a woman doesn’t have to be perfect to be beautiful. The brand positioned itself by portraying imperfect yet happy women to be associated with a point of view.

3. How did Unilever organize its product category and brand management activities before 2000? What is the corresponding structure post-2000?

Unilever had expanded greatly in terms of products and geographical areas by 2000. The company did not have a condensed structure till 2000. It had several product categories, and each product category was treated as a separate brand with a distinctive brand name. The company was growing rapidly, and brands naturally adapted the cultures in which they were operating. Unilever was managing its brands across different regions in a decentralized manner, by appointing a brand manager for every separate brand. This caused a very laissez faire management of so many brands across so many regions, and caused several image related problems for the company.

The company decided to condense its products into a few brand names, which would have similar identity and image across all regions. The company chose a few well known brand names as umbrella brands that were termed as “Masterbrands” and several related product categories were condensed into it. This also called for some changes in the marketing strategy for the brands of Unilever, since positioning had to be changed by keeping in mind that the brand held more than one product. The positioning of Dove also had to be changes due to changes in structure after 2000.

4. How was brand meaning controlled prior to 2000, and how is it controlled at the time of the case? What are the risks and rewards of its strategy?

The meaning of the brand was largely in control of the brand managers in respective regions prior to 2000. The brand managers naturally made changes in communications of the brand by incorporating cultural and environmental changes. The company was following a decentralized structure, which resulted into less control over brand meaning and less consistency across different regions.

The brand meaning was then focused on a single meaning across different regions, and it did not revolve around functionality of the product but on a positive message for the consumers. The brand meaning was later controlled by making sure that audiences in masses were exposed to the same idea or brand meaning through different channels. The brand meaning switched from functional aspects to enhancing the lives of consumers and enhancing their self esteem. The risks of this strategy were that consumers had been associating these brands with a particular meaning for almost 40 years, and changing these associations could result into reduced customer loyalty or brand switching. However, there were benefits of this new strategy also. The brand meaning was more controlled, and decentralization had been eliminated which gave less control to brand managers of respective regions. This would result into strong brand equity as the brand would mean the same thing to consumers all around the world.

5. What are people saying about Dove today? (You will need to go online and search blogs to answer this question.)

The case shows that Dove tried to change its positioning as a brand, and move away from the functional aspects in terms of its positioning. However, it is evident from the customer reviews that Dove is still positioned in their minds in terms of functionality. The customer reviews on blogs mostly show a positive feedback on Dove, regarding its benefits to their skin. The previous positioning of “a soap that does not dry your skin” is still active in the minds of consumers, and the previous responses revolve around this very aspect.

A small ratio of consumers has also given a negative feedback on Dove as a brand, but that too revolves around its functions. The negative feedback is mostly from consumers who have found that their skin is allergic to dove, or they are allergic to the smell. There is also a problem of the consumer using the wrong product. A teenager with oily skin is not supposed to use a soap that deeply moisturizes skin. However, such mistakes are being made by the consumers due to lack of awareness and the brand is being blamed for it.

6. Do you see risks for the Dove brand today?

Dove is a very old brand, which has earned millions of loyal users throughout its brand life. The competition in the market is intense, but Dove identified a market segment many decades ago and it is still reaping good results for the risk it took by being the first mover. The positioning that Dove had for 40 years is still there in the minds of consumers, and they still prefer it over other brands for that reason.

However, every brand has its risks. Dove was catering to a specific segment through its brand name with only one product; whereas, there is an entire range of products under this umbrella now. The consumers can find themselves confused, and the wrong consumers can use this product and spread bad word of mouth for bad results. The reviews on the blogs showed that some consumers perceive it as a miracle soap that can solve any problem. On the other hand, this soap had been designed to cater to only one problem i.e. dryness. This sort of lack of information or misperception can be dangerous to the integrity of the brand. The problem is further intensified by the fact that there are several products under the same umbrella now, and it becomes more difficult to communicate functionalities.