The frontlines of brand risk: interview with Patrick Marrinan

Whether it be the NFL, Dove, Wells Fargo, VW or countless others–managers need only open a daily newspaper to see how things can go terribly wrong for brands. Decline can be fast and the landing hard. In a contemporary marketplace where ideologies reign and social media guarantees the spread of (mis)information at light speed, a lot of what we think we know about brand marketing needs to be rethought through a risk-management lens. “For me, brand risk is any event, action or condition with the potential to damage a brand’s value, thereby making revenue generation and a company’s market value less than it should or could have been,” Patrick Marrinan, Managing Principal of Marketing Scenario Analytica, states. In his talk with Susan Fournier and Shuba Srinivasan, Patrick illustrates the many facets of a risk that has only begun to be recognized as a serious threat to carefully cultivated brand assets. Here we share what to watch out for and what brands can do to protect against risk.Published versio

Branding and the risk management imperative

In an increasingly risky socioeconomic environment, management needs to proactively consider brand-related risks. To understand brands as tools for risk management, they need to understand four types of brand risk: brand reputation risk, brand dilution risk, brand cannibalization risk and brand stretch risk. Risk management is not a natural act for brand managers trained in astute execution of the 4 Ps, and contemporary market factors make this more challenging still. With an increasingly polarized society, it is almost impossible for brands to remain untouched by ideologies. In addition, the growth in digital advertising gives brand managers less control over advertising placement and context, and the mandate to keep growing adds executional risk. The more exposed a brand is to brand risk, the more attention this topic will need in the boardroom. To shift a company’s marketing philosophy toward risk, it is important to define marketing competences in a broader way, to be self-critical and to be proactive.Published versio

Asymmetric advertising impact

Companies under pressure from stakeholders to meet profit expectations are often tempted to cut advertising expenses, particularly in times of economic difficulties. However, firms may not fully grasp the actual impact of such drastic cuts. Indeed, the general assumption is that advertising effects are symmetric: the numerical sales impact of budget increase or decrease would be the same in absolute value. Our paper addresses this gap by developing a new model based on multivariate time-series analysis (VAR models) to capture these asymmetric dynamic relationships. Our results show that advertising models are improved by allowing the capture of these asymmetric patterns

Reference-based transitions in short-run price elasticity

Marketing literature has long recognized that price response need not be monotonic and symmetric, but has yet to provide generalizable market-level insights on reference price type, asymmetric thresholds and sign and magnitude of elasticity transitions. In this paper, we introduce smooth transition models to study reference-based price response across 25 fast moving consumer good categories. Our application to 100 brands shows that 77% demonstrate reference-based price response, of which 36% reflects historical reference prices, 31% reflects competitive reference prices, and 33% reflects both types of reference prices. This reference-based price response shows asymmetry for gains versus losses on three levels: the threshold size, the sign and the magnitude of the elasticity difference. For historical reference prices, the threshold size is larger for gains (20%) than for losses (12%) and the assimilation/contrast effects for gains (-0.41) are smaller than the saturation effects for losses (0.81). For competitive reference prices, the threshold size is smaller for gains (3%) than for losses (16%), and the saturation effects are larger for gains (0.33) than for losses (0.15). These results are moderated by both brand and category characteristics that affect reference price accessibility and diagnosticity. Historical reference prices more often play a role for national brands, for planned purchases and in inexpensive categories with low price volatility and high purchase frequency. When price discounting, high-share brands face larger latitudes of acceptance. When raising prices, saturation effects set in later for brands with high price volatility and for categories with high price spread and for planned purchases. As for competitive reference prices, saturation effects set in later for expensive brands with high price volatility and in categories with lower price volatility, higher price spread and higher concentration. Sales, revenue and margin implications are illustrated for price changes typically observed in consumer markets

Why do firms invest in consumer advertising with limited sales response? A shareholder perspective

Marketing managers increasingly recognize the need to measure and communicate the impact of their actions on shareholder returns. This study focuses on the shareholder value effects of pharmaceutical direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) and direct-to-physician (DTP) marketing efforts. Although DTCA has moderate effects on brand sales and market share, companies invest vast amounts of money in it. Relying on Kalman filtering, the authors develop a methodology to assess the effects from DTCA and DTP on three components of shareholder value: stock return, systematic risk, and idiosyncratic risk. Investors value DTCA positively because it leads to higher stock returns and lower systematic risk. Furthermore, DTCA increases idiosyncratic risk, which does not affect investors who maintain well-diversified portfolios. In contrast, DTP marketing has modest positive effects on stock returns and idiosyncratic risk. The outcomes indicate that evaluations of marketing expenditures should include a consideration of the effects of marketing on multiple stakeholders, not just the sales effects on consumers

Turning socio-political risk to your brand’s advantage

Employment practices, civic responsibilities, philanthropy, environmental stewardship, the conduct of corporate executives and employees, the execution of marketing campaigns: All these topics can trigger brand risk events. The challenging branding environment calls for reimagining classic brand marketing through a refreshed and updated social risk management lens. Companies need to assess which socio-economic marketing opportunities can renew brand resonance. This involves not just identifying revenue generating opportunities, but also identifying, cataloging, and tracking SEP risk types in order for managers to understand the new landscape brands must now navigate. Then, they need to implement a framework to manage a brand’s social risks and to take advantage of potential opportunities. Fully embracing this responsibility changes the marketing executive’s role in a significant way: From top line revenue generation to a dual role that includes managing risks as well as returns.Published versio

Do Promotions Benefit Manufacturers, Retailers or Both?

While there has been strong managerial and academic interest in price promotions, much of the focus has been on the impact of such promotions on category sales, brand sales and brand choice. In contrast, little is known about the long-run impact of price promotions on manufacturer and retailer revenues and margins, although both marketing researchers and practitioners consider this a priority area (Marketing Science Institute 2000). Do promotions generate additional revenue and for whom? Which brand, category and market conditions influence promotional benefits and their allocation across manufacturers and retailers? To answer these questions, we conduct a large-scale econometric investigation of the effects of price promotions on manufacturer revenues, retailer revenues and margins. This investigation proceeds in two steps. First, persistence modeling reveals the short- and long-run effects of price promotions on these performance measures. Second, weighted least-squares analysis shows to what extent brand and promotion policies, as well as market-structure and category characteristics, influence promotional impact. A first major finding of our paper is that price promotions do not have permanent monetary effects for either party. Second, in terms of the cumulative, over-time, promotional impact on their revenues, we find significant differences between the manufacturer and retailer. Price promotions have a predominantly positive impact on manufacturer revenues, but their effects on retailer revenues are mixed. Retailer (category) margins, in contrast, are typically reduced by price promotions. Even when accounting for cross-category and store-traffic effects, we still find evidence that price promotions are typically not beneficial to the retailer. Third, our results indicate that manufacturer revenue elasticities are higher for promotions of small-share brands and for frequently promoted brands. Moreover, they are higher for storable products and lower in categories with a high degree of brand proliferation. Retailer revenue elasticities, in turn, are higher for brands with frequent and shallow promotions, for storable products and in categories with a low extent of brand proliferation. As such, from a revenue-generating point of view, manufacturer and retailer interests are often aligned in terms of which categories and brands to promote. Finally, retailer margin elasticities are higher for promotions of small-share brands and for brands with infrequent and shallow promotions. Thus, the implications with respect to the frequency of promotions depend upon the performance measure the retailer chooses to emphasize. The paper discusses the managerial implications of our results for both manufacturers and retailers and suggests various avenues for future research

Do Promotions Benefit Manufacturers, Retailers or Both?

While there has been strong managerial and academic interest in price promotions, much of the focus has been on the impact of such promotions on category sales, brand sales and brand choice. In contrast, little is known about the long-run impact of price promotions on manufacturer and retailer revenues and margins, although both marketing researchers and practitioners consider this a priority area (Marketing Science Institute 2000). Do promotions generate additional revenue and for whom? Which brand, category and market conditions influence promotional benefits and their allocation across manufacturers and retailers? To answer these questions, we conduct a large-scale econometric investigation of the effects of price promotions on manufacturer revenues, retailer revenues and margins. This investigation proceeds in two steps. First, persistence modeling reveals the short- and long-run effects of price promotions on these performance measures. Second, weighted least-squares analysis shows to what extent brand and promotion policies, as well as market-structure and category characteristics, influence promotional impact. A first major finding of our paper is that price promotions do not have permanent monetary effects for either party. Second, in terms of the cumulative, over-time, promotional impact on their revenues, we find significant differences between the manufacturer and retailer. Price promotions have a predominantly positive impact on manufacturer revenues, but their effects on retailer revenues are mixed. Retailer (category) margins, in contrast, are typically reduced by price promotions. Even when accounting for cross-category and store-traffic effects, we still find evidence that price promotions are typically not beneficial to the retailer. Third, our results indicate that manufacturer revenue elasticities are higher for promotions of small-share brands and for frequently promoted brands. Moreover, they are higher for storable products and lower in categories with a high degree of brand proliferation. Retailer revenue elasticities, in turn, are higher for brands with frequent and shallow promotions, for storable products and in categories with a low extent of brand proliferation. As such, from a revenue-generating point of view, manufacturer and retailer interests are often aligned in terms of which categories and brands to promote. Finally, retailer margin elasticities are higher for promotions of small-share brands and for brands with infrequent and shallow promotions. Thus, the implications with respect to the frequency of promotions depend upon the performance measure the retailer chooses to emphasize. The paper discusses the managerial implications of our results for both manufacturers and retailers and suggests various avenues for future research