How Does a Brand Survive the Loss of a Founder?
I was intrigued to read that film critic Roger Ebert will no longer be associated with the “At the Movies” TV show that he and former colleague Gene Siskel started back in 1975.
In my mind, Siskel and Ebert and their copyrighted Two Thumbs Up were the brand icons that made “At the Movies” successful. I think the show lost some of its cache when Siskel, former film critic at the Chicago Tribune, died in 1999 and was replaced by Richard Roeper from the rival Chicago Sun-Times where Ebert also works.
I find it difficult to image the show surviving without either Ebert or Siskel. New hosts have been named by Disney-ABC Domestic Television, which owns the show, but the announcement left me asking “who are those guys?”
A discussion of whether a brand can survive without its iconic founder occurred when Martha Stewart went to prison in 2004 and 2005 and marketers wondered what the impact on the Martha Stewart brand would be. It survived and she’s been back for some time now. But is the brand what it once was? Did her absence impact it, or is its diminished status more a brand life-cycle issue? Have other domestic divas such as Rachael Ray simply supplanted Stewart?
Wendy’s lost its marketing way after founder Dave Thomas, the center piece of its image while he was alive, died in 2002. Its sold out to another company earlier this year rather than continue on its own.
Is there anyone reading this old enough to know who Roy Rogers was? I always thought Roy Rogers Restaurants had a lot more going for them when cowboy-star Rogers (a childhood idol of mine) was still alive, yet they still exist and attract customers more than a decade after his death and longer than that since his movie and television heydays.
What does it take for a brand identified with one person to go on after that person is gone?
I’d love to read your comments on that question, so feel free to post them here.
This is my first blog posting at Marketing News. I’ve joined the staff recently as editorial director, so you’ll be hearing from me often and I hope to hear from you as well. The easiest way to reach me is via e-mail at jfrank@ama.org or post a comment here, we’re always glad to hear from our readers.
Comments
I think a brand can survive beyond the founder if the brand has a powerful perception in the mind of consumers. McDonald's survived beyond the McDonald's brothers and Ray Kroc. I can't imagine Microsoft dying out when Bill Gates dies.
I think sometimes companies can sag after their founder dies because the company loses a dynamic leader who kept the company on the straight and narrow.
Companies that build a strong brand can survive. Companies that might be a strong #2 can survive, as well. However, a #3 brand or #4 brand would have a lot harder time, since most likely that person was the pillar holding it up (like your example of Wendy's).
Posted by: Joshua | July 24, 2008 12:08 PM
I think the brand can survive but not by trying to be exactly the same as it once was. I feel could be the reason Wendy's and "At the Movies" have wavered in the absence of the founder. Rather than trying to hold on to the past the brand should take the opportunity to look for rebirth. This is not to say that the brand should disregard its roots but rather to build upon the image and take advantage of new perspective and positioning.
Posted by: Chris Gibbs | July 25, 2008 7:28 AM
In my opinion, a brand's survival is dependent upon the strength of its management team and its ability to adjust after a sudden loss.
Like Chris, I agree that a brand can be reborn *if* it stays true to its origins. That's what brought customers to the brand and a way to retain them.
With Wendy's, a natural transition would have been using the cartoon character in a similar fashion as it's being used now. A sort of carrying on the family tradition.
The course a company takes depends on the culture and brand it created and the dynamics of its customer base.
And sometimes, as in the band the Grateful Dead, the passing of a founder means the end of an era.
I wonder how Newman's Own will manage that brand transition when we lose Paul Newman.
Posted by: Bonnie Parrish-Kell | July 25, 2008 5:46 PM
One might argue that "At the Movies" and Wendy's made strategic mistakes when each chose to brand a living individual rather than the entities living their brand.
Wendy's didn't lose its way because Dave Thomas died. Wendy's lost its way because the restaurants didn't embrace and live Mr. Thomas' founding values. (Forgive me, but where was "the beef.")
"At the Movies" had little chance at survival after the loss of Gene Siskel. The show wasn't a brand at all. Mr. Siskel and Mr. Ebert were the brands. (Two thumbs down for the "At the Movies" marketers.)
Strategic marketing mistakes like those are just as, or perhaps more detrimental than a company, an entity or an organization thinking (incorrectly) that their logo is their brand. Each are simply representations of the brand.
One's brand is the sum total of the perceptions your consumers or constituents believe about an entity.
To survive, personify a brand -- don't brand a personification.
Posted by: Donna Bowling | July 26, 2008 7:44 AM
How the brand is perceived by the consumer will largely depend on how it continues after the passing or the departure of a person closely associated with the brand.
It goes to content and to quality. In the case of Martha Stewart, her brand was associated with a mass merchandiser not really known for quality and as such her personal problems had little effect. Competitors with a better quality product at competitive pricing using a known celebrity had more impact on Martha's receptivity to the consumer than merely her brand. In the case of Wendy's, even when Dave Thomas was alive, the chain was always in the third or fourth tier of fast feeders due to lack of innovation in the menu and quality of food plus the individual franchise service and adherence to quality standards. Since Dave's passing, the brand remains mired in the same problems as when he was alive. "At the Movies" had and continues to have a great opportunity to re-establish a brand with viewers. Ebert and Siskel had chemistry that came across to viewers. All Disney has to do is establish chemistry that entices viewers and the show and the brand will have identity.
Anyone involved with marketing to small or med-sized businesses knows that when a new owner takes over there are numerous times when the business takes on new life and sales and marketshare increase. In some cases, the business floundered or hung by a thread because of the image and practices of the owner. New ownership realized what the consumer wanted and filled that void thereby creating value and the consumer than established the brand.
It is important to note that the consumer ultimately establishes brand based on perception of fulfilling their needs, wants and desires.
Posted by: Tomas Schafer | July 30, 2008 3:30 PM