Why Wisk Was Not so Successful as Ariel Liquid
Explain why Wisk was not so successful as Ariel Liquid?
‘Wisk’ was the new Unilever brand launched in 1985 and ‘Ariel Liquid’ was the line extension of Procter & Gamble launched in 1987. Wisk was not as successful as Ariel Liquid because –
Product positioning: Product Positioning is a practice by which marketers try to create an image or identity in the minds of their target market for its product, brand, or organization. Wisk was positioned as an innovative robust product whereas Ariel Liquid was positioned as an alternative option for traditional powder detergent.
Identification or differentiation: Strong differentiation or identification sometimes can be less effective, even when a product is technically quite different. Wisk had a strong identification of innovation and was launched with the expectation to move consumer behaviour to innovation. ‘Wisk as a liquid detergent’ is more memorable and easily understandable to consumer than ‘Wisk as innovative detergent’. Ariel Liquid had this clear easy identification – an alternative option to powder detergent and was successful.
Cannibalization effect: ‘Wisk’ was positioned as technically different which ultimately had some cannibalization effect. Because of strong differentiation Wisk cannibalized Persil and Surf. On the other hand Ariel Liquid did not cannibalize the parent brand. There were no barriers to consumers of Procter & Gamble switching from powder to liquid or back again.
Brand name and Brand Image: Wisk as a Product name actually was hiding behind an existing identity. In contrast ‘Ariel Liquid’ was promoting existing brand and taking the advantage of existing brand image. Therefore, when Unilever launched ‘Persil Liquid’ as line extension, did well compare to Wisk. Wisk or Persil Liquid was actually same product. The key determinant was whether consumers understand the differentiation. Most consumers saw the liquid as detergent category. Therefore, ‘Ariel Liquid’ was successful brand compare to
‘Wisk’ was the new Unilever brand launched in 1985 and ‘Ariel Liquid’ was the line extension of Procter & Gamble launched in 1987. Wisk was not as successful as Ariel Liquid because –
Product positioning: Product Positioning is a practice by which marketers try to create an image or identity in the minds of their target market for its product, brand, or organization. Wisk was positioned as an innovative robust product whereas Ariel Liquid was positioned as an alternative option for traditional powder detergent.
Identification or differentiation: Strong differentiation or identification sometimes can be less effective, even when a product is technically quite different. Wisk had a strong identification of innovation and was launched with the expectation to move consumer behaviour to innovation. ‘Wisk as a liquid detergent’ is more memorable and easily understandable to consumer than ‘Wisk as innovative detergent’. Ariel Liquid had this clear easy identification – an alternative option to powder detergent and was successful.
Cannibalization effect: ‘Wisk’ was positioned as technically different which ultimately had some cannibalization effect. Because of strong differentiation Wisk cannibalized Persil and Surf. On the other hand Ariel Liquid did not cannibalize the parent brand. There were no barriers to consumers of Procter & Gamble switching from powder to liquid or back again.
Brand name and Brand Image: Wisk as a Product name actually was hiding behind an existing identity. In contrast ‘Ariel Liquid’ was promoting existing brand and taking the advantage of existing brand image. Therefore, when Unilever launched ‘Persil Liquid’ as line extension, did well compare to Wisk. Wisk or Persil Liquid was actually same product. The key determinant was whether consumers understand the differentiation. Most consumers saw the liquid as detergent category. Therefore, ‘Ariel Liquid’ was successful brand compare to