•    HOME   
•    NEWS   
•    BUSINESS   
•    INTERNATIONAL   
•    TECH   
•    SPORTS   
•    LIFE & TIMES   
•    OPINION   
•    MY JAKARTA   
•    BLOGS   
•    EYEWITNESS   

 Brands are strategic assets. Companies invest in building, maintaining and nurturing brands. Brand equity is such an important intangible resource for companies that they form a substantial portion of the market capitalization of some of the world’s foremost companies.

Given brands’ central role in companies’ valuations and strategies, two questions become apparent: Can well-established brands fade away; and how do brands that have lost their way reemerge revitalized?

The answers will can not only guide company’s strategies and resource allocations but can also influence the strategic charter and competitive actions.

Where does General Motors stand in this all?

GM is a house of brands, a company with a portfolio of brands under its umbrella. Although GM is a powerful corporate brand, it reaches customers through names such as Chevrolet, Cadillac and Buick. As such, positioning and communicating the brands across different segments of the market is even more challenging.

Despite the onslaught of Toyota and Honda in the US auto market, GM had a huge market share given its “American car” sentiment. While its product may not have been on a par with those of the Japanese carmakers, GM has long appealed to the US consumer psyche.

The GM brand was underpinned by a very strong network of dealerships across the United States and an aggressive brand communications program that weaved the brand into the fabric of the daily lives of Americans.

However, quality, value-added services and cutting-edge technological features later became much more desirable for car customers. As such, GM faltered, and between 2005 and 2009 lost a whopping $88 billion under former chief executive Rick Wagoner. With the recession hitting the car industry, GM declared bankruptcy. This was a case of an iconic American brand declaring strategic failure.

The revitalization of the GM brand started with a $50 billion bailout by the US government. GM had to streamline its brands and dealer network. Oldsmobile, Hummer, Saturn, Saab and Pontiac were discontinued to focus on Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet and GMC, which formed the core of GM’s portfolio.

GM cut its US dealerships from 5,900 to 3,600, shut more than 10 plants and laid off 20,000 workers, slicing $10.7 billion off base costs. It has since increased sales 18 percent, while the overall US car market rose 17 percent, beating expectations.

How did the faltered iconic brand return? GM followed some fundamental rules of iconic and strategic branding.

First, although multiple brands allow a firm to cover the market, it yields more costs than benefits. By pruning its portfolio, GM was better able to allocate corporate resources to the four brands and restructure its positioning.

Second, is the restructuring of GM’s brand identity. Before bankruptcy, GM was not focused on matching its rivals’ technologically advanced features. Furthermore, with environmentally friendly cars gaining mainstream popularity, GM was left behind.

But the new GM has been very aggressive in bringing out models such as the Chevy Cruze compact, Buick’s Regal sedan with its top-of- the-range features and the Cadillac XTS, to compete with BMW and Mercedes. Such an aggressive overhaul of his product, accompanied by focused communications, has allowed GM to bounce back.

Iconic brands are vulnerable to shifts in the environment. They too can fade away. But unlike other brands, iconic brands have an entrenched staying power. With a relentless focus on making the brand contemporary and responsive to customers’ needs, they can re-emerge revitalized.

GM is planning another IPO by the end of 2010. It will be interesting to watch how it maintains its new focus and protects its iconic status.

Martin Roll is a global business & brand strategist. His Web site is www.martinroll.com.