Talk:Brand equity/Archives/2012

Suggestive
The example links Fords decision to change the brand names to the record losses of Ford Motor company. That appears somewhat suggestive to me as there is no supporting evidence to causually link both facts. 24.12.179.20 22:26, 24 February 2007 (UT Ford's not Fords.  However, you are absolutely correct in saying that there is no evidence of cause and affect. Changing the naming criteria only does that -- change the names.  It is unlikely that anyone other than a Ford employee or linguistics buff would pick up the the new methodology.

However, adding brand extension under this topic is a somewhat disturbing thought. Brand equity is frequently used as the excuse for trying to take advantage of a perceived "lift" that could come by adding more products under the core brand's "wing." Sometimes this seems to work -- as with all the Cheerios brand extensions, including the insufferably saccharine-sweet Honey bunches of Oats TV commercials. However, frequently -- much more frequently -- so-called marketers will "jump on the bandwagon" in lemming-like fanaticism, such as with the '80's "clear everything" fad. which died in less than 90 days.

Brand extensions should probably have a separate heading under marketing, with a link back to brand equity, rather than being a direct subset of brand equity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Achiodo (talk • contribs) 20:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Brand extensions should be a separate entry as they are equally likely to relate to new product introductions as they are to brand equity. Also brand extensions as a topic needs to be developed. for example, line extensions are different from franchise extensions; an illustration of the former is a new flavor of an existing brand while the latter would be something like Nutrigrain cereal bars where a known name was extended into a related but different product category. Jrubinson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrubinson (talk • contribs) 20:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Brand Equity is not only about Brand Extension. brand extension can occur when the brand equity is high (but not only), but it is not systematic. It would be interesting to develop in the article how a company can built this brand equity, and how customer equity gain in importance in today's marketing. I am sorry i cannot log in to sign :) MamzelleB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.40.52 (talk) 11:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Negative brand equity
Changed from the essay format to something slightly more encyclopedic. However, the lack of citations warranted a refimprove. Anyone with expertise in this area, please beef up this section. Thanks. JakeZ (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Opening paragraph
'Fact of the well-known brand name is that, the company can sometimes charge premium prices from the consumer.' This sentence does not make sense. Please would someone who understands this subject re-write the sentence in English?

Arlo Smith 03 May 2011

Terrible article!
This must be one of the most poorly written articles in Wikipedia! It's full of marketing jargon and uncritical acceptance of "facts" claimed by various marketing theorists. Extremely POV! I've tried to simplify the very convoluted first sentences, but there is much more to do here. Those willing, please go ahead! Thomas Blomberg (talk) 01:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Oldsmobile Cutlass
The Cutlass is an example of using brand equity across several disparate models - there was Cutlass Ciera, Cutlass Classic, Cutlass, etc. all at the same time. The Taurus is a classic example of reviving a nameplate to leverage brand equity as a business case. Redhanker (talk) 05:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)