The product life cycle (PLC) is one of the best-known marketing concepts in the world. First referenced in the 1920s by economists reporting on the automobile industry, the term applies biology to new brands, makes, and models of package goods, cars, magazines, electronics, and so on, tracing each as it passes from birth to growth, growth to maturity, maturity to decline, and ultimately to death. But while it's universally known, it's not unanimously accepted. In fact, many—Copernicans among them—think it's downright absurd to try to draw kinship between living things, which have a finite, genetically predetermined, uncontrollable course of development, to products, services, and, especially, brands, who's "life" is completely in the hands of its management and competitors.

Unlike living things, there are no statistics published on the average life of brands, in general or by category. Given that the vast majority of new products and services barely make it to their third birthday, we'd estimate the average is 13 years, about the same as lions and tigers. But this number is really meaningless. Brands do not necessarily have a finite end; well-managed, they can live forever. The American Express, Budweiser, Camel, Coca-Cola, Gillette, Western Union, and Wells-Fargo brands, for instance, are all still going strong in their respective categories after 100+ years. And even if a brand dies, it can rise again from the dead, though perhaps in more limited distribution. Take PanAm Airlines.

Another problem is that one of the basic premises of PLC is that products require different strategies at different stages of the life cycle. All marketers need do, PLC proponents explain, is plot where their brand is on the PLC continuum and follow the prescribed strategies to maximize profits at that stage. For example, during the growth stage, action plans include improving the quality of a product or adding more features; entering new market segments; or increasing distribution. At the decline stage, action plans include cutting prices and reducing marketing budgets.

Sounds nice and easy, but understand that researchers have identified as many as 17 different PLC patterns—there's the growth-slump-maturity pattern, the cycle-recycle pattern, the classic S-curve, and more. How are you supposed to know what pattern fits your brand? If you don't know what PLC pattern applies, how do you know that your brand is truly in decline? Maybe it's just a slight decline before a dramatic increase in another growth period, or maybe it's a leveling off of sales with no more peaks and valleys, just perpetual maturity. There's just no way for a marketer to know, nor is there a scientific way to measure and pinpoint an exact location. There's no way to know because the pattern is as much a function of academic researchers attaching a label on a random phenomenon as it is a serious taxonomic classification of a real underlying pattern.

Also bear in mind that the recommended actions at each stage are based purely on observations and anecdotes of what other companies have done. There's nothing proprietary; it may or may not be relevant for a particular brand; and it certainly isn't directly linked to increasing profitability. As Nariman Dhalla and Sonia Yuseph wrote in the Harvard Business Review nearly 30 years ago, "the PLC is a dependent variable which is determined by marketing actions; it is not an independent variable to which companies should adapt their marketing programs."

As an alternative to PLC, customer equity—in the simplest terms, the lifetime value of all of a brand's customers (for more on the topic click here)—is a much more predictive measure of how much longer a brand is likely to live if the company maintains the status quo. The more equity a brand has relative to competitors, the longer it will live irrespective of its chronological age. It's also a much more prescriptive tool; if a brand has weak equity, a transformational marketing program can improve it and prolong its life.

While there's nothing you can do to make a dog live to age 75, there are many things you can do to double the life expectancy of a brand.

According to a recent AdAge.com poll, 61% of respondents don't think Super Bowl commercials are worth their cost. And after watching (and quickly forgetting) this year's lineup of Super Bowl advertising, it's hard to disagree.

In spite of an Initiative Media Worldwide study that demonstrated, "messages from marketers who buy time on the Super Bowl receive unusually high levels of audience attention because of the unique dynamics of the annual broadcast," the close to 30 advertisers who paid a reported $2.25 million for :30 seconds of airtime chose not to use the opportunity to communicate a clear, compelling message, instead opting—or perhaps we should say—resorting to potty humor to breakthrough the clutter.

Swearing kids. Farting horses. A man getting a bikini wax. A chimpanzee making lewd references to sex. This is advertising at its best? Other highlights from advertising's "Night of Nights," include a seemingly endless montage of car ads, an alien, a donkey, warnings about 4-hour erections (NOT NORMAL! See your doctor immediately!), and a bear that replaces the quarterback's towel with Charmin toilet paper that's, "strong enough for your end zone." Yick.

Sure, there were some effective ads. A young Jimi Hendrix making a split second decision to buy a Pepsi from a vending machine in front of a guitar shop instead of a Coke from a vending machine in front of an accordion store was worth a chuckle. As was the Mastercard spot with Homer Simpson. "Stupid voice-over."

But more often than not, we were either offended or perplexed. For instance, when it decided to air the referee commercial, did Budweiser forget almost as many, if not more, women watch the game then men? In the spot, a male referee tunes out a barrage of verbal insults from a PO'ed coach. The announcers covering the game wonder how the guy is able to take the abuse. Flash to the ref at home tuning out his screaming wife who, at the top of her lungs, is telling him to take care of the cat litter box that hasn't been changed in three weeks.

When it comes to stumping the audience, the IBM Linux commercial (indeed their entire campaign) wins hands down. A seemingly Albino boy sits alone, stone-faced, in a white cell-like room facing Muhammad Ali, who tells him to shake up the world. What's that about? It was so weird and the kid so creepy, we were left with the feeling that the Linnux system can't be something good.

It was pretty clear by half-time that none of the commercials during Super Bowl XXXVIII were headed to the Advertising Hall of Fame. And if talk around the water-cooler—that coveted conversation Super Bowl advertisers hope to dominate post-game and often use to justify the ad purchase in the first place—is any indication, Janet Jackson's exposed breast was far more interesting and memorable than anything the big-name advertisers were able to put together. Perhaps breast billboards will be the next big media trend?

Back to top.

From a young age, we're all ingrained with the notion that you absolutely must be first, in order to have an impact in the market, make money, win the prize, etc., etc. "The early bird gets the worm," we're told. But then came the dot-coms. First-mover proponents pointed to the early achievements of Ebay and Amazon as proof positive that being first was the key to making it big. The inglorious end of so many first-to-the-market Internet start-ups quickly put the notion that the first-mover advantage automatically spelled s-u-c-c-e-s-s to bed.

Of course we know that many important lessons in business are quickly forgotten, so we thought we'd offer further proof that first-in doesn't always win.

In May 2002, Coke, in desperate need of a new product success, launched Vanilla Coke. The latest flavored version of the venerable soda pop quickly grabbed a 2.1% share in its first four weeks of sales. In the soft drink category, this is gigantic! Noting the excitement surrounding its rival's new addition, Pepsi set about creating its own Vanilla version. More than a year after Vanilla Coke first hit the shelves, Pepsi marched out its me-too version, Pepsi Vanilla.

Coke's first-mover advantage helped it maintain market share against the direct competition from its arch rival, right? Wrong. In its first four full weeks on the market, Pepsi Vanilla took a 1.2% share, while Vanilla Coke's share shriveled to 1%.

Unfortunately for Vanilla Coke, Pepsi Vanilla had several clear advantages. One, it had a lighter vanilla taste, which an informal poll of tasters found much more pleasant than Vanilla Coke's strong vanilla flavor and lingering after-taste. While Vanilla Coke's packaging was virtually indistinguishable from regular Coke, Pepsi Vanilla was more differentiated from Pepsi's. Furthermore, Pepsi Vanilla's ad campaign clearly communicated its main selling point—it had a lighter vanilla flavor than Vanilla Coke. Vanilla Coke's campaign, on the other hand, was bizarre (featuring cameo appearances by actor Chaz Palminteri in "Godfather"-like settings), focused on the unexpected flavor, and anyway it was MIA from the air waves once Pepsi Vanilla hit the market.

Vanilla Coke had more than a year on the market by itself, yet it was no match for Pepsi Vanilla. As Vanilla Coke demonstrates, first mover advantage can't help a brand, product, or service overcome serious marketing shortcomings.

For more insightful marketing discoveries, visit http://www.copernicusmarketing.com/discover/index.htm

Have a hot discovery for our next release? Contact us at info@copernicusmarketing.com

Back to top.

We're looking forward to reading this entertaining analysis of some of the worst marketing mistakes on record in any industry, never mind just high-tech. Because high-tech companies (remember the dot-coms?) are often heralded as the most innovative businesses destined to dominate the world and relegate "old economy" companies to the past, we find it ironic to see just how old-fashioned and backward the decision-making processes are, especially when it comes to marketing.

Back to top.

Mark your calendars for what will be one of the most insightful, informative, and important conferences of 2004. On May 10-12, at the Westin River North, Chicago, Illinois, the American Marketing Association will present the Strategic Marketing Conference, featuring a powerful line-up of speakers—most authors of top marketing books—including positioning guru Jack Trout, expert on "Influentials" RoperASW's Ed Keller, customer relationship authority Chris Hart, trend-spotter Sam Hill, and Copernicus' very own Kevin Clancy, talking about cutting-edge concepts including customer equity and marketing ROI measurement.

More details to come. In the meantime, save May 10-12 now!

Back to top.