"US brands need strong independence"
Brand Value: David Allemann, Strategy Director and member of the Executive Board at Advico Young & Rubicam (AY&R), on U.S. brands in Switzerland and what has strengthened or weakened them.
Brand Value David Allemann, Strategy Director and Management Board member of Advico Young & Rubicam (AY&R), on US brands in Switzerland and what has strengthened or weakened them. ww In a few weeks, AY&R will publish the results of its latest BrandAsset Valuator (BAV) study for Switzerland. Can you already tell us something about the development of the image of US brands in Switzerland? David Allemann We will not be able to present the results of how over 1000 brands in Switzerland have developed over the past two years until July 13. That's why I can't give any detailed results yet. However, we have been conducting the BAV in Switzerland since 1995 and can recognize the major trends of the last decade in the Swiss brand landscape. There are indeed major US brands that have lost brand strength. Brands such as Harley-Davidson, Levis, Lee and McDonald's have lost some of their brand strength in Switzerland, but they remain strong brands.
One explanation is that they all embody the American dream and that this is falling out of favor with Swiss consumers. Thundering towards freedom on a Harley in Levis is no longer the image that many consumers want to identify with. This means that the brand behavior of Swiss consumers has become more individual. Big brands that stand for large community lifestyles are at a disadvantage. In contrast, niche brands are clearly on the rise. Take a look at the jeans market: With Miss Sixty, Seven, Citizen of Humanity and countless other niche brands, there is the opportunity to present yourself as an individual and not as a mainstreamer with the right jeans. Brands such as Levis, Lee and Rifle are therefore losing their appeal. Incidentally, this is likely to apply not only to Switzerland and other developed countries, but also to the USA itself.
Are there any American brands that have come under relatively greater pressure? These are mainly the brands I have already mentioned. However, it is worth taking a differentiated look at the development of US brands. We also see the other development: US brands that have developed very successfully in the last decade. Think of Starbucks, Pringles and the technology brands Microsoft, Google and eBay, for example. They have all grown into power brands in Switzerland over the last ten years or are well on the way to doing so. We are also keeping a close eye on the development of the iPod brand, which we surveyed for the first time this year in the FOT. So when US brands have fallen sharply, it is usually due to a change in the competitive environment or a change in consumer attitudes. Think of Kodak in the photography sector.
They do not attribute the erosion of the image of US brands to the American foreign policy of the Bush administration.
Exactly. If certain US brands have fallen sharply, this is usually due to the changes mentioned.
How is the USA itself perceived as a brand in Switzerland?
We also surveyed this in the Brand Asset Valuator. According to the survey, appreciation of the USA in Switzerland remains at a consistently high level. Consumers can certainly differentiate between country and politics.
Nevertheless, politicians in the USA are inviting corporations to use their importance and networks to make up for the lost image credit. What do you think of this strategy?
Building up image credit on a broad level should primarily be achieved through the brand and brand-relevant actions. This cannot be done through covert lobbying, but must be done through overt actions. However, I generally consider it very risky to associate a commercial brand with political interests. The path to a strong or strengthened brand always leads via a very independent brand profile that is relevant to consumers. An alliance between US brands and US politics would probably have exactly the opposite effect: a loss of independence and decreasing relevance for consumers outside the USA. I would therefore not recommend an internationally active US brand to associate itself with US politics. Primarily, brands must have a strong independence: "Think different" shows the way.
Switzerland once came under fire for Nazi gold and dormant accounts. Have you noticed any changes in the popularity of Swiss brands at home and abroad in connection with the global FOT?
No, we have not seen any negative effects, and this shows once again that consumers are good at keeping country and politics apart.
Interview: Luca Aloisi
One explanation is that they all embody the American dream and that this is falling out of favor with Swiss consumers. Thundering towards freedom on a Harley in Levis is no longer the image that many consumers want to identify with. This means that the brand behavior of Swiss consumers has become more individual. Big brands that stand for large community lifestyles are at a disadvantage. In contrast, niche brands are clearly on the rise. Take a look at the jeans market: With Miss Sixty, Seven, Citizen of Humanity and countless other niche brands, there is the opportunity to present yourself as an individual and not as a mainstreamer with the right jeans. Brands such as Levis, Lee and Rifle are therefore losing their appeal. Incidentally, this is likely to apply not only to Switzerland and other developed countries, but also to the USA itself.
Are there any American brands that have come under relatively greater pressure? These are mainly the brands I have already mentioned. However, it is worth taking a differentiated look at the development of US brands. We also see the other development: US brands that have developed very successfully in the last decade. Think of Starbucks, Pringles and the technology brands Microsoft, Google and eBay, for example. They have all grown into power brands in Switzerland over the last ten years or are well on the way to doing so. We are also keeping a close eye on the development of the iPod brand, which we surveyed for the first time this year in the FOT. So when US brands have fallen sharply, it is usually due to a change in the competitive environment or a change in consumer attitudes. Think of Kodak in the photography sector.
They do not attribute the erosion of the image of US brands to the American foreign policy of the Bush administration.
Exactly. If certain US brands have fallen sharply, this is usually due to the changes mentioned.
How is the USA itself perceived as a brand in Switzerland?
We also surveyed this in the Brand Asset Valuator. According to the survey, appreciation of the USA in Switzerland remains at a consistently high level. Consumers can certainly differentiate between country and politics.
Nevertheless, politicians in the USA are inviting corporations to use their importance and networks to make up for the lost image credit. What do you think of this strategy?
Building up image credit on a broad level should primarily be achieved through the brand and brand-relevant actions. This cannot be done through covert lobbying, but must be done through overt actions. However, I generally consider it very risky to associate a commercial brand with political interests. The path to a strong or strengthened brand always leads via a very independent brand profile that is relevant to consumers. An alliance between US brands and US politics would probably have exactly the opposite effect: a loss of independence and decreasing relevance for consumers outside the USA. I would therefore not recommend an internationally active US brand to associate itself with US politics. Primarily, brands must have a strong independence: "Think different" shows the way.
Switzerland once came under fire for Nazi gold and dormant accounts. Have you noticed any changes in the popularity of Swiss brands at home and abroad in connection with the global FOT?
No, we have not seen any negative effects, and this shows once again that consumers are good at keeping country and politics apart.
Interview: Luca Aloisi
