From the academic archive. Fiona’s original academic writing. Views are personal and do not represent King’s College London. Historical examples, proposals and opinions retain their original context. Formatting has been repaired; original wording and references are preserved. Any editorial clarification is labelled separately.
Original submission details

Original title: Hedge, your happiness. 💄 What If L’Oréal Made One Decision That Could Weaken Every Brand It Owns? 💄🧴✨🎯 🧠📊🛍️👩‍🔬🧪🌍💎💋🩺🧴🎨📈🏷️🎯❤️🛒💰⚖️🌿🧬🏆📣🪞💄✨

View original KEATS context ↗ (university access required).

The original question / King’s College London

5.7 Reflection on poll

For the L'Oréal case study poll, did you think it would be better or worse to use L'Oréal as an umbrella brand? Why did you make the choice you submitted?

State your choice and briefly explain your reasoning.

Course task reproduced as context. The response below is Fiona’s independent academic work. KEATS source ↗ (university access required).

Explore writing on this question ↗
Fiona’s response

I voted that L’Oréal would be worse off if it moved to a single umbrella brand.

Although a Branded House can strengthen one corporate brand and create marketing efficiencies, I don’t think it would give L’Oréal a stronger competitive advantage. Its success comes from understanding that different groups of consumers want different things. Using segmentation, targeting and positioning (STP), L’Oréal has built brands that speak to very different audiences. Someone buying Lancôme is looking for something completely different from someone choosing CeraVe or Maybelline, even though all three are within the same company.

Aaker (1996) argues that a well-managed brand portfolio allows a business to compete across multiple segments without weakening individual brand identities. That is exactly what L’Oréal has achieved. Each brand has its own personality, positioning and customer base, while the company still benefits from shared research, innovation and distribution behind the scenes. I really didn’t know that Kiehls was owned by them or I would’ve expected more of them I guess now I do Feel disappointed because I’m not a fan of that product. But I am a fan of CeraVe And quite shocked their part of the business.

Keller’s (2013) Customer-Based Brand Equity model also helps explain why this works. Consumers build trust, memories and expectations around individual brands over time. Those associations are part of what people are paying for. If everything became simply L’Oréal, some of the exclusivity and specialist credibility that brands like Lancôme or CeraVe have built could easily be lost.

Although listening to my husband that works for UBS can see why investors often favour a Branded House because it concentrates brand equity into one name. From a marketing perspective, though, I think L’Oréal creates more value by protecting the identity of each brand while using the scale of the parent company where consumers never really need to see it.

On the other hand I can see why you chose a Branded House. A single brand could make marketing more efficient and help strengthen the L’Oréal name across every product.

Where I see the challenge is that beauty products are often bought because of what a particular brand represents. People don’t just buy a moisturiser or lipstick. They buy into the expertise, image and identity attached to that brand. I think L’Oréal would risk losing some of that differentiation if every product sat under one umbrella, especially in its luxury and dermatological ranges. Look at all the different factions of Ralph, Lauren Polo, etc. etc. it’s kind of like you can’t afford the Ferrari but you can buy the hat.

References.

  1. No references were listed in the original contribution.
← Back to the journal