What price Gourmet?

Writing for BrandChannel, Vivian Manning-Schaffel ("Condé Nast Considers Licensing To Mitigate Losses", here) explains that, in its quest for fresh revenue streams, publishing house Condé Nast may opt for brand licensing in an attempt to leverage income from titles such as Vogue, or even to resurrect dead titles like Gourmet -- which died last year along with Cookie, Modern Bride, Elegant Bride and Domino.

Manning-Schaffel is sceptical as to whether this strategy will yield fruit:

"Those same luxury publications (well, maybe not Gourmet) met their demise last year because their target audiences could no longer afford their contents.

So now consumers are expected to shell out money for products that are literally, in Vogue? To wit, one source ... said, "DO WE REALLY need Vogue handbags? Gourmet kitchen mitts?"".

The question, it is submitted, is not what consumers can afford, nor what they need. There are two elements to a brand: its allure and its goodwill. The allure is a magnet that attracts first-timers who want to look like Kate Moss, smell like Britney Spears drive like Jensen Button or exude the couldn't-care-less cool of Diesel. This applies in respect of both new and established brands.

Goodwill, in contrast, attaches to an existing product, being the attractive force which brings customers back for more; this is however lacking in any case of brand extension by the original owner or the licensing of the brand to another. You can't simply say, as Cadburys did many years ago, that if consumers like their chocolate bars they will purchase their instant mashed potatoes. Anyone paying licence royalties for non-core uses of Vogue, Gourmet or Domino is taking a big risk, since a brand that doesn't have sufficient gravity to retain custom in the sphere in which its goodwill was initially developed can't be expected to perform strongly in other markets.

Disney goes for the high end

Thank you, Miri Frankel (Beanstalk), for this link to this piece in the New York Times last week on leverage of the Disney brand in terms of product merchandising.

Right: some consumers may now find Disney products a little 'deer' as compared with their former pricing

Remarkably, while the most expensive piece of clothing sold by the Walt Disney Company six years ago was a US$75 sweatshirt embossed with a mug shot of Mickey Mouse, the company now sells US$3,900 designer wedding gowns — which do not portray any Disney characters — as well as US$2,800 leather club chairs and US$6,000 chandeliers patterned after the Art Deco décor in Walt Disney’s former office. It seems that Disney has become a "lifestyle brand".

The article sets out Disney's high-end game plan. It has been working with the likes of Paul Smith, Vivienne Tam and Dolce & Gabbana, who created a US$1,400 sequined Mickey Mouse T-shirt. It concludes:

Designers say they have been impressed with the willingness of the famously guarded company to take chances. Charlotte Tarantola, a Los Angeles designer, said she decided to do a limited collection based on “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” in part because Disney allowed her to explore “the darker, very adult side of the fairy tale.” As the proprietor of a small company, Ms. Tarantola was eager to piggyback on the Disney name. “Anyone who is alive today has been touched by Disney in some way. If becoming partners with them can help my business, far out.”

Although this form of leverage has worked on the Disney brand, it may be difficult for other children's entertainment-based brands to do likewise. The consistency and stability of Disney's branding, across fictional and real characters, film products and leisure complexes, together with its remarkable longevity, have created an asset that is deeply embedded in the consciousness of a generation of consumers who wish to relive pleasurable childhood experiences and who fear the consequences of age and responsibility. How many equivalent brands have the same effect?