The Line Extension Trap
Taking a successful brand name and stretching it to new products almost always weakens the original position.
Line extension — taking the name of an established product and using it on a new one — is the single most significant and destructive trend in marketing. Logic and economics strongly favor it: trade acceptance, consumer awareness, lower advertising costs, increased income, corporate image. But truth is not on the side of line extension. From the prospect's point of view, line extension blurs the sharp focus of the brand in the mind. When Bayer means aspirin, decongestant cold tablets, timed-release aspirin, and non-aspirin pain reliever, the prospect can no longer say 'Bayer' when they want aspirin. Each extension undercuts the brand's core position. The stronger the original position, the more damage line extension does. Line extension is the free-ride trap carried to its ultimate conclusion — the assumption that a well-known name can transfer its power to anything it touches. The teeter-totter principle governs: one name cannot stand for two distinctly different products. When one goes up, the other goes down. Meanwhile, competitors with focused, single-purpose names move in and steal the original position.
- Line extension blurs the sharp focus of the brand in the mind — the prospect can no longer use the name as a shortcut for the product
- The teeter-totter principle: one name cannot stand for two distinctly different products — when one goes up, the other goes down
- The stronger the original position, the more damage line extension inflicts
- Inside-out logic favors line extension; outside-in reality punishes it
- A well-known name got well known because it stood for something — extend it and it stands for nothing
- Reverse line extension (broadening the base of a focused product) can work when the core position is preserved
- When a competitor line-extends, it creates an opportunity for a focused new brand to steal the original position
- Recognize the Line Extension TemptationWhen your brand is successful, you will inevitably face pressure to extend it. The logic will seem overwhelming: the name is already known, the trade will accept it more easily, advertising costs will be lower. Recognize this as the trap it is. The question is not whether the extension will get initial trial but whether it will dilute the core brand's position over time.Pro tipAsk yourself the shopping list test: if a customer writes your brand name on a shopping list, do they know exactly what product they are going to buy? If line extension creates ambiguity, it is destroying your position.WarningLine extension is insidious because initial results often look positive. The damage is long-term and gradual — by the time you notice the erosion, it may be too late to recover.
- Apply the Teeter-Totter TestFor any proposed extension, apply the teeter-totter principle: one name cannot stand for two distinctly different products. When the new product rises, the old one falls. Heinz stood for pickles until it extended to ketchup and other products — then Vlasic took the pickle position and Gerber took baby food.Pro tipStudy what happened to Heinz (lost pickles to Vlasic, baby food to Gerber), Protein 21 (from 13 percent share to 2 percent after extensions), and Scott (lost toilet tissue leadership to Charmin after spreading the name across all paper products).WarningDo not let internal success metrics fool you. The individual line extension may show sales, but the total brand system is being weakened as each extension educates the prospect that your brand name is just a brand name, not a product name.
- Use New Names for New ProductsInstead of extending your existing brand, create a new brand name with its own position. Procter & Gamble does this masterfully: rather than 'Tide for Colors' and 'Tide for Brightness,' they created Cheer and Bold, each with its own distinct position in the mind.Pro tipA focused competitor with a single-purpose name will almost always beat a line extension. Tab outsold Diet Pepsi. DieHard outsold JCPenney batteries. Intensive Care outsold Vaseline lotion. Invest in new names that can own their own positions.WarningThe only exception is reverse line extension — broadening the base of a focused product. Johnson's Baby Shampoo successfully broadened to adults without losing its core position. But this is the exception, not the rule.
Protein 21 shampoo held a strong 13 percent of the market. Seeing an opportunity, the Mennen Company rapidly extended the name to Protein 21 hairspray (regular and extra hold, scented and unscented), Protein 21 conditioner (two formulas), and Protein 21 concentrate. They even marketed Protein 29 for men.
Xerox owned the copier position so completely that the name became generic for copying. Believing they could transfer this brand power, Xerox invested heavily in a computer division, trying to make the Xerox name mean both copiers and computers.
When diet colas emerged, Pepsi extended its brand with Diet Pepsi while Coca-Cola created an entirely new brand called Tab. Despite Pepsi's greater overall brand recognition and the seemingly logical advantage of the Pepsi name, Tab outsold Diet Pepsi because Tab had its own distinct identity in the prospect's mind.
Ries and Trout identified line extension as the most pervasive mistake in marketing by studying dozens of cases where powerful brands destroyed their positions by stretching their names. They observed that while inside-out thinking made line extension seem obvious and logical, outside-in thinking — looking at it from the prospect's perspective — revealed that it consistently weakened the original brand. The Protein 21 shampoo case was their classic example: the brand had 13 percent market share until the company extended it to hairspray, conditioner, and concentrate, after which its share collapsed to 2 percent.