Wisk vs Ariel Liquid

413 Words2 Pages
Explain why Wisk was not so successful as Ariel Liquid. Unilever wanted to be first to market a new class of liquid detergents and launched Wisk as a revolutionary new product. They wanted to differentiate this new product from any existing product and did so by creating a new brand name. Competitors, Proctor & Gamble launched Ariel Liquid just over 12 months later. The brand ‘Ariel Liquid’ is an extension of an existing brand (Ariel) and competed directly with Wisk. Unilever had significant market share with Persil powder (33%) prior to the launch of Wisk. This suggests that the brand name Persil was well respected and valuable in the market place. This value is considered to be a relational or rMarket based asset (rMBA). The brand name Wisk did not have any rMBA value. As such, even with good marketing it is difficult to gain a strong market response from a product launch without rMBA. This is due to rMBA has a multiplier effect on the 4 Ps. Even though an organisation might have good 4 Ps they may struggle if there is no rMBA as Unilever did with Wisk. Proctor & Gamble had a 19% market share with Ariel prior to the Wisk launch. Ariel Liquid achieved a 10% market share in one quarter (Wisk achieved this in a year). They used the rMBA they had with the brand name Ariel which assisted in magnifying the market response. The Ariel Liquid brand also assisted the consumer is recognising the product and value associated with the brand name. A purpose of brand names is to allow easy product identification. Names and logos are part of the brand identity and allow customers to recognise a product or offering. Once a brand has been established it can be used to effectively create trust and loyalty to any extensions on this brand. This is where Proctor & Gamble did much better with Ariel Liquid than Unilever did with Wisk. They used the

More about Wisk vs Ariel Liquid

Open Document