The past two summers I have
interned at an auto parts manufacturer, and last summer I dealt specifically
with marketing and branding. The company is split into both an OE division (off
the line parts for automobiles) and an aftermarket division, which is
responsible for replacement parts when the originals fail (think body shop
work). The company frequently does not use its corporate name on the products
it distributes, and instead after acquiring various smaller parts companies
over the years has left their names on the products sold. This is because there
was credibility and brand recognition in the labels prior to takeover and in
order to maintain both the old company’s reputation and carry over the old
customers. Each auto segment has its own brand recognition with the market,
with different brands representing engine parts, windshield wipers, brake pads,
gaskets, or other component parts. I believe this to be a good tactic in this
industry in which being from a monopolistic company is viewed in a negative
light. If I’m not mistaken, it’s very similar to the model used for branding by
car companies. There are different brands which are associated to different
price ranges, or customer groups. There is also name variation depending on the
location of the product distribution center, as in if the product is being sold
in Germany, the brand name used will be a German name, same thing in other
regions of Europe and in the Asian countries.
The specific manufacturing
plant I worked for had a reputation for having the widest product range as well
as being most well-made product within its specific market. It also has
longevity on its side, as in the last year it just celebrated its 95th
anniversary, meaning that as long as car parts have been needed, the company
has existed. A new fad with branding that I have observed is a consumer desire
for “Made in America” products which was also something my company was well
known for. The corporation as a whole is interesting because its image in
corporate world is entirely different than the image it paints for itself when
branding and marketing to the buyer. I believe this stems from a general
dissatisfaction with corporate America and the way large companies are run, so
at this point when selling a product to buyers, the smaller you seem the
better. Smaller businesses don’t typically have the negative reputation of
being profit hungry and ruthless that large corporations do. So in that
respect, branding, and the size of the brand have a direct tie to reputation.
While this was something I witnessed first-hand on the business side over the
summer, it’s something that is all over the current business world. Most
consumers aren’t even aware of the networks the products they buy, just because
the influence of branding, and specific reputations based on brand have become
so strong.
I am attaching an image from (http://www.policymic.com/articles/71255/10-corporations-control-almost-everything-you-buy-this-chart-shows-how) that really opened my
eyes to what the corporate segment likes to hide from consumers, and when I
first saw it I was truly astonished.
This quite an interesting post. A question I have for you is who are the customers - body shops, car manufacturers, individual car owners? The fooling of the customer story you told makes the most sense if it is individual customers. However, if it is body shops (and insurance companies who approve the work the body shops do) you'd think they'd know what is going on. So what I'm asking here is whether the story you told holds water if you poke at it a little bit. I'm not saying it doesn't. I don't know much at all about this. But I'm naturally skeptical until proven wrong.
ReplyDeleteThe graphic is a bit overwhelming. It took my a while to find Tide. And maybe peanut butter is represented, though I didn't find it. But that there are these big conglomerates, yes. Perhaps we should have spent more time on it. It does give you the sense that at least regarding consumer products there is a lot of monopoly.