The Journal of Brand Management Volume 2 Number 4

Editorial

Just how different are retail look-alikes from traditional me-toos?

Throughout the summer of 1994, roughly comes immediately noticeable. A scan of the 16 per cent of the British cola market was in shelves shows that many of the Boots prod­ the hands of a look-alike, Sainsbury's Classic ucts look fa miliar - a disturbing prospect Cola. Compared to the previous summer, fo r the producers of leading brands. Pepsi's share was down almost 2 per cent and Examples such as these give rise to the Coca-Cola's had fallen over 8 per cent. In widespread belief that the growth of look­ the fo llowing months, Sainsbury's Classic alikes is a new phenomenon that is leading Cola was joined by Asda Cola, Safeway to unprecedented levels of consumer confu­ Cola, Virgin Cola and Wo olworth's Genuine sion. But is this impression correct? American Cola. Proof, if proof were needed, that retail look-alikes had become a serious threat to leading producers of branded IS THE GROWTH OF LOOK-ALIKES A goods. NEW PHENOMENON? With good reason, leading producers have The received wisdom says 'yes'. Recently, been very concerned. They point out that look-alikes have been doing more than sail­ retailers are confusing consumers by placing ing very close to the wind - they have been goods on their shelves which look like exist­ blatantly infringing passing offlaws . 1 It is ar­ ing well-established brands. They argue that gued that these breaches of the law are very such blatant and deliberate attempts to cause different from 'me-too-ism'. The difference confusion are both unfair and unjust, in that is between claiming a work of art to be by their investment in brand building activities Constable, and painting in the style of Con­ is seriously undermined. stable - a distinction that was not lost when Sainsbury's is portrayed as one of the main judging the competent, but fr audulent, culprits. Its Classic Cola is merely the most artistry of To m Keating. visible of a string of look-alike products. It Unfortunately, such neat distinctions are has also been accused of introducing look­ often hard to prove. It is significant that few alike Marmite and Bovril, and has been cases come under judicial gaze. Most are chastised fo r launching an anti-dandruff never challenged or they are settled out of shampoo, Headway, which bears a striking court. Examples in the marketplace are de­ resemblance to Head & Shoulders. Many cidedly grey. The name, 'Mild & Gentle', would argue that its laundry detergent, describes the effect, on hair, of a fr equent­ Novon, is uncannily similar to Ariel. It wash shampoo, whereas the name 'Timotei' seems as if Sainsbury's is set to undermine is evocative - there is a clear difference many of our favourite brands. here. At best, Mild & Gentle sounds like a Sainsbury's, however, is not alone in its crude me-too. Nevertheless, the fa miliar actions. In any Boots store the distinct simi­ shape, colouring and market positioning re­ larity between Timotei (the very successful veal this to be a look-alike in all but name. Elida Gibbs fre quent-wash shampoo) and Given that there is nothing new about Mild & Gentle (the Boots private label) be- 'me-too-ism', and that some me-toos have

Page 204 Editorial

always sailed close to the wind, perhaps all enced buyers and users of packaged goods. that we have with look-alikes are extreme Assume a consumer buys 50 items each instances of an old phenomenon: a case of week. This amounts to 26,000 purchases light grey merging into dark grey. over ten years. Now assuming that, on aver­ age, each item is used five times (a can of beans will be used once, but a tube of ARE CONSUMERS CONFUSED BY toothpaste might be used 40 times), then LOOK-ALIKES? the total number of consumption events is Some consumers really do find it hard to 130,000. Whatever the exact number, it is distinguish look-alikes from brands. But are clear that this shopper will be an expert these consumers any more confused by consumer! look-alikes than by all the minor product Faced with this wealth of experience, modifications - new varieties, new consumers can respond in two ways: flavours, new tastes, new packages, new tex­ tures - or by the growing number of run­ (1) If the purchase is important enough, the of-the-rnill private labels that are available in consumer will stop, read the cues (de­ our supermarkets? sign, packaging, name, logo, etc), and Consider the laundry detergent market. make a considered decision. Anyone Even without the presence of strong private who carefully studies a pack of Mild & labels, many consumers were becoming Gentle soon realises it is a Boots' private confused by the launch of biological and label, and not Timotei. Considered de­ non-biological powders, liquids and pow­ cision-making is, invariably, more often ders, and 'power' and 'non-power' varieties associated with product category choices of the leading brands Persil and Ariel. The than with brand choices (,Do I need fr e­ launch of Novon may not have confused quent-wash shampoo or an anti-dan­ shoppers at Sainsbury's any more than they. druff variety?', as against 'Do I want were already. Timotei or Mild & Gentle?'). Consider the potential confusion arising (2) If the purchase is not so important (be­ from the growth of baking soda toothpaste cause there is little risk attached to mak­ in the British market. Arm & Hammer ing a poor selection) , it may be a matter should be leading this sub-market. After all, of indifference whether a brand or a they are 'The Baking Soda Experts' of 150 look-alike is bought. Probably the years standing. Arm & Hammer toothpaste, choice will be based on value-for­ however, comes in regular and mint money considerations and situational flavoured varieties in 50ml tubes which are fa ctors. wrapped in standard rectangular boxes. How is the consumer to distinguish this brand Typically, the observed outcome of (1) and fr om Colgate and Macleans me-to os? In­ (2), over time, is a pattern of divided loyalty, deed, how is the consumer to know or polygamy. A consumer who often buys whether Colgate is following Arm & Ham­ Timotei (the 'favourite' brand) might also mer or vice versa? Given the reputation of buy a Boots' look-alike or a Tesco private all three brands, which is the best buy, or are label, and an expensive salon shampoo. The all three equally good? It is doubtful that underlying decision-process will be based on the entry of private labels would cause sig­ the interplay of considered reasons ('I buy nificantly more confusion. different brands for different usage occa­ This potential for confusion has to be set sions' or 'I like some variety'), situational against the fact that we are all very experi- factors (,It was the only one in stock' or 'I

Page 205 Editorial

was drawn to it on the shelf'), and value­ Persil are each worth about £240m, and fo r-money considerations ('I bought it on Nescafe almost £200m. It is hardly surprising offer'). that competitors and new entrants seek to Such an outcome should not be seen as encroach on these markets. It is instructive to consumer confusion. Rather, it is a reason­ remember how the successful launch of able coping strategy fo r consumers when McVitie's HobNobs was almost de-railed by they are confronted with the task of routine the spoiling tactics of Bur tons, or how Senso­ buying and when the choice alternatives are dyne toothpaste came under threat when the so similar. majors re-positioned their toothpastes fo r people with sensitive teeth, or, even more re­ cently, how the '2 in l' shampoo and condi­ SHOULD WE BE CONCERNED BY tioner market - once the preserve of LOOK-ALIKES? Proctor & Gamble's Wash & Go - is now The answer very much depends on one's under a direct assault fr om Elida Gibbs' Or­ viewpoint. Established producers have been ganics haircare range. The threat of me-toos the most vocal in expressing their concerns, will always hang over these profitable mar­ notably through the British Producers & kets. This is in the nature of competition. Brand Owners Group. This was especially Indeed, one significant effect of the growth the case prior to the enactment of the Trade of look-alikes is that different producers are 2 3 Marks Act 1994. , A vigorous response was pitched against each other. For instance, most to be expected. of the new colas (Sainsbury's Classic Cola, It is perfectly rational to try to protect as­ Safeway Cola, Virgin and Wo olworth's) are sets where millions of pounds have been in­ supplied by Cott Corporation, an old-estab­ vested to build brand equity, secure a lished bottling company that is mounting an customer fr anchise, and create memorable assault on Coke and Pepsi markets across the 5 brand names, familiar logos, and distinctive globe. This is very much a competitive packaging. Anything less than a vigorous re­ struggle among producers. sponse would be an admission of defeat. By comparison, retailers should be highly Some producers have responded by re­ contented. They are seen as the obvious branding their product range.4 Dulux, fa ced winners in any struggle fo r a share of the with so many copycat designs, is in the consumer's purse. However, their own posi­ process of adopting a new livery which it tion is not clear-cut. sees as 'distinguishable and non-copyable'. Retailers are leading brand owners in But, fo r many producers, re-branding is their own right. Indeed, the very success of hardly an option. Apart fr om being expen­ private labels (which now account fo r al­ sive, it carries the risk of undermining pat­ most 40 per cent of packaged goods sales in terns of habitual buying - all the benefits Britain) and the growth of look-alikes is a of brand familiarity are endangered in one reaffirmation of branding - not a negation fe ll swoop. Babycham, to quote just one ex­ of it. Moreover, as retailers move into this ample, is a shadow of itself without Bambi territory, they incur many of the attendant - a key element of brand familiarity has costs of brand management, in paying fo r been lost. design consultancies, conducting product On the other hand, it is also true that tests, and supporting new launches with many leading producers preside over very lu­ large advertising and promotion budgets. In­ crative markets. The latest Marketing/Nielsen dividual supermarket chains are spending survey of Britain's biggest brands shows that upwards of £20m a year on advertising Coca-Cola is worth over £ 400m, Ariel and alone, putting them among heavy spenders

Page 206 EditOrial

such as Cadburys, Pedigree Pet Foods and is little reason to suppose that consumers are Brooke Bond. any more confused by most look-alikes than It is not, however, in the interest of retail­ by closely competing brands and private la­ ers to kill off leading brands. The conse­ bels. Furthermore, many consumers will quence of, say, Pepsi being squeezed out of have purchase repertoires which will include the cola market would be to reduce the bar­ all these types of product. It is natural for es­ gaining power of retailers when negotiating tablished producers to be concerned, and to with Coca-Cola or private label suppliers. seek protection, but their assets always have Another consequence would be to force even been under threat and will be for the fore­ more producers to appeal directly to their seeable future. buyers - following the initiatives of compa­ nies such as Nestle ('Casa Buitoni Club') and Heinz ('Heinz at Home' magazine). REFERENCES Finally, we should not ignore the fact that (1) Lane,]. and King, W (1994) 'A retailers, as owners of major brands in their Professional Disagreement', Marketing, own right, are increasingly exposed to in­ 21stJuly, pp. 18-19. tense competition. They have to cope with (2) Davies, I. (1994) 'The Great Coca­ 'me-too-ism' in a world where consumers Cola Dispute: Look-alikes', TheJour nal typically patronise a repertoire of stores. For of Brand Management, Volume 2, instance, the onslaught on major brands by Number 1, pp. 59-64. Boots is second only to its recent shot across (3) Davies, I. (1994) 'Review of the Trade the bows of Body Shop with the launch of Marks Act 1994', TheJour nal of Brand the 'Natural' and 'Global' collections. Sains­ Management, Volume 2, Number 2, pp. bury's 'Nature's Compliments' is encroach­ 125-132. ing on Body Shop too. This is not a (4) Miles, L. (1994) 'Designing for peculiarly British phenomenon; the Body Distinction', Marketing Business, Shop has imitators from Australia (Red September, pp. 33-5. Earth) to the USA (Bath & Body Works). (5) (1994) 'Copy Cotting catches on', These are certainly me-toos, if not blatant Marketing, 20th October, p. 17. look-alikes. We are forced to conclude that look-alikes are not so very different from old-style 'me­ Mark Uncles toos' and 'copy-cats'. In practice there Editorial Board

Page 207