Comments on: An early branding mistake by duPont http://thebrandingblog.com/branding/an-early-branding-mistake-by-dupont/ information and strongly-held opinions concerning branding and positioning Wed, 01 Feb 2012 18:08:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Used Motorcycle Parts http://thebrandingblog.com/branding/an-early-branding-mistake-by-dupont/comment-page-1/#comment-34799 Used Motorcycle Parts Sat, 05 Apr 2008 06:59:41 +0000 http://thebrandingblog.com/branding/an-early-branding-mistake-by-dupont/#comment-34799 Hm.. Seems like DuPont was making there research seem a little over the top here. -Scott Hm.. Seems like DuPont was making there research seem a little over the top here.

-Scott

]]> By: Roger http://thebrandingblog.com/branding/an-early-branding-mistake-by-dupont/comment-page-1/#comment-34615 Roger Thu, 13 Mar 2008 03:28:51 +0000 http://thebrandingblog.com/branding/an-early-branding-mistake-by-dupont/#comment-34615 I used Telar & know that it worked great. What you forgot to say was that it was colored red & would turn yrllow if you had a compression leak into the coolant. Of coarse used car salesmen didnt like this, because cars could go mounths before that type of leak would show up as a problem. I used Telar & know that it worked great. What you forgot to say was that it was colored red & would turn yrllow if you had a compression leak into the coolant. Of coarse used car salesmen didnt like this, because cars could go mounths before that type of leak would show up as a problem.

]]> By: Christian http://thebrandingblog.com/branding/an-early-branding-mistake-by-dupont/comment-page-1/#comment-3979 Christian Fri, 11 May 2007 18:13:57 +0000 http://thebrandingblog.com/branding/an-early-branding-mistake-by-dupont/#comment-3979 Martin, What a great story. Thanks for sharing it. I do have a few questions however. One: Why did duPont not realize that the people (i.e. the garage owners that would lose business because it is a one time service) they wanted to support their product, would ultimately not because it was not good for their business? It would seem even the most rudimentary marketing research would have shown a negative response by the service dealers. Two: Was this really a branding mistake or simply a market research mistake (or interpretation there of) The product idea was great, the problem seemed to centered around using the proper consumer outlet. Consumers would love it, the people who DuPont wanted to sell it, did not. That sounds like supply chain error. In the end this really sounds like a product ahead of its time. Consumers of the time would desire the product but there was not viable outlet to get it into their hands. Thanks for the article Christian  ------------------------------------------ Christian: Here's my response to the questions in your comment. First, even the scientists and marketers at duPont wear rose-colored glasses. They did indeed misinterpret the research, but not it's conclusions as much as the passion of the dealer responses. They were confident they could persuade dealers of the benefit and that duPont was acting in their behalf. Yes, this was a research interpretation error, but the brand was based on that research. BBDO, though not naming the product, was instumental in naming and attaching the product category to the product - "the never-drain anti-freeze". We also contributed to package design as well. All that was done with only the ultimate consumer in mind and no thought at all given to the dealer. This did not bode well because duPont really "rubbed dealer's noses' in the idea they would lose business. A brand needs to be of value to all those constituancies that will affect the sales and success of a product or service. Ignoring dealers in the brand arena resulted in a failed brand. Martin Jelsema 303-242-5975 Martin,

What a great story. Thanks for sharing it. I do have a few questions however.

One: Why did duPont not realize that the people (i.e. the garage owners that would lose business because it is a one time service) they wanted to support their product, would ultimately not because it was not good for their business? It would seem even the most rudimentary marketing research would have shown a negative response by the service dealers.

Two: Was this really a branding mistake or simply a market research mistake (or interpretation there of) The product idea was great, the problem seemed to centered around using the proper consumer outlet. Consumers would love it, the people who DuPont wanted to sell it, did not. That sounds like supply chain error.

In the end this really sounds like a product ahead of its time. Consumers of the time would desire the product but there was not viable outlet to get it into their hands.

Thanks for the article
Christian

 ——————————————

Christian:

Here’s my response to the questions in your comment. First, even the scientists and marketers at duPont wear rose-colored glasses. They did indeed misinterpret the research, but not it’s conclusions as much as the passion of the dealer responses. They were confident they could persuade dealers of the benefit and that duPont was acting in their behalf.

Yes, this was a research interpretation error, but the brand was based on that research. BBDO, though not naming the product, was instumental in naming and attaching the product category to the product – “the never-drain anti-freeze”. We also contributed to package design as well. All that was done with only the ultimate consumer in mind and no thought at all given to the dealer. This did not bode well because duPont really “rubbed dealer’s noses’ in the idea they would lose business. A brand needs to be of value to all those constituancies that will affect the sales and success of a product or service. Ignoring dealers in the brand arena resulted in a failed brand.

Martin Jelsema
303-242-5975

]]>