'Fifty ways to brand your cheddar', the song Paul Simon never wrote

This  stream of thought was prompted by  recent  articles and exchanges on Twitter about the language, types  and construct of brands ; thinking amongst others here of @clairestrickett , @paulmarkbailey and @bruceclarkprof amongst many others.

As always my focus is b2c packaged groceries , where my personal core experience lies; things may well be very different  elsewhere, and I'd be interested to hear about it.

 The questions it prompted were ones I occasionally mused about  during my time as a brand marketer  when first grappling with  the  challenges of competing with  retailer private label, from way back when this was a new phenomenon  in the UK in the 80's. 

For context  retailers  today  may have up to four tiers of private label  in the same category  from lowest price  hard discounter clone  without retailers logo or identifying marks on the pack through value , standard and premium, all bearing the retailers pack identifying codes and logos. Furthermore retailer private labels are frequently  when aggregated  together the  overall market leaders which makes for a more complex competitor landscape for the  manufacturer brand marketer 

The questions : 

*Do the same rules of branding apply to retailer private label brands as those of manufacture  owned brands?

For example  could I as  a manufacturer brand of cheddar  enter the market for  say deodorants  with the same brand  without losing brand identity in the minds of consumers? I think not, but this 'no borders' approach is one of the basic  operating characteristics  and differentiators ( for marketers  anyway)  of retail private label. Similarly  I  note from my experience in food how rare it is for brands to successfully go cross category within food  without a landscape brand positioning  and benefit which is not anchored in any one  specific category , thinking du darfst from Unilever, weight watchers etc., 

more  outside food  though, thinking Dove, Nivea  and such.

*Do consumers  see differences  between manufacter brand and retailer private label and what are they ?

 I've read plenty of anecdotal  commentary in  qualitative research  mainly  about price/value/quality parity,  freedom from brand tax  and so forth ,but haven't read anything more substantial, particularly  if ( to simplify in the extreme)  manufacturer brands  can maybe  win on psychological  benefits whilst retailer private labels  are more likely  to win on  a rational / transactional  basis.

* Can manufacturer brands own relevant  different  associations in the minds of consumers  as a result ?

 Kellogg's  from memory used to have body copy along  the lines of ' we don't make for anyone else' , but this is functional rational talk.

Conversely , in my own experience some retailer private labels , especially a

in the premium  tier  are seen as doing a better  job than manufacturer brands in some categories  in terms of  functionality, quality, innovation  and prestige. 

There was even  a thing called ' having a Mark's and Spencer dinner party ' where the accent was on the conversation  and all the food was ready made and sold under the retailers  own brand. 

As retailer private label has grown in  presence and market share across all categories  we have seen manufacturer brands going the other way  ,with high profile  multinationals  like Unilever  and Danone seeking to rationalise  their portfolio of brands and categories that were  partly the result of   acquisitions , either by divestment or migration.

So in summary  retailers,  because they control  access to the consumer via ownership of  the  shelves as well as ultimate consumer prices  , have been able to rewrite part of the brand  marketing handbook as regards core competence if nothing else,  and together with  a quality supply chain  have fully segmented and met consumer needs . 

Are we harnessing the benefits of experience ?

 The topic of experience crops up regularly in my social media threads and it's normally divisive.

There are two  main  areas , namely the oft mentioned , reportedly ageist nature of certain industries and disciplines including my own field of brand  marketing;or the value of  formal learning , typically  juxtaposed with  the hidden elephant in the room of experience. I'll  save the latter  topic for another post though and concentrate on the age related angle here if I can just  find my glasses and stay awake.

I have a personal interest in this topic  as my interest in the practice of marketing has outlived my employability (although age may not be the main reason of course); I have also seen  highly motivated and  capable  people consigned to the career scrapheap due effectively to their age, although  this could never be acknowledged overtly  due presumably to legislation. My own  last full time  marketing post was secured at the age of 50 ,and I was told informally  this was an exception or experiment on their part. 

Marketing is  accused of many things,  but not understanding or being representative of an (ageing ) demographic  never mind the economic profile of the consumers it seeks to woo is something that's  easily fixed if there was a will on the part of employers..after all isn't marketing  all about being focused  on meeting  consumer needs?

Experience is of  itself no guarantee of  future economic value to any potential employer, and shouldn't  be given precedence over talent and potential. Equally  there needs to be proper space for younger people to grow their careers without opportunities being blocked by older  incumbents. Perhaps a case for more creative  job sharing ? Other criteria of evaluation eg  performance should of course be applied in the same way to all.  Marketing  for example has quite a different  face now to when I began my working life , so it doesn't follow that my experience will  still be relevant.  Conversely  the essentials of marketing  are as relevant today as they always were , even if they've had a rebrand ...

Others have written eloquently about  how deep knowledge of a business can disappear  with the loss of key personnel  , such as happens all too often after  acquisition ;  it also applies I would argue with retirement of key people. 

Conversely  and speaking   personally  I suddenly found myself with over 30 years of frontline brand marketing experience I  could  neither use to earn a living  ,nor share with others ,hence my  overuse of Twitter  where I regularly enjoy being part  of conversations with others of all backgrounds and ages  including  academics and practitioners. 

I don't  buy into the stereotype of all older people  as necessarily more resistant to change or technically more challenged than today's digital natives , but there will of course  be some. If nothing else experience has honed my own ability to smell BS early on though.

Given the likely  continuing increases in retirement age more and more people will have to find ways to stay gainfully employed beyond their  current  employment sell by date.

The challenge then is to find ways to gainfully  and creatively harness the experience that the older person has  and wants to offer:  I'm not  personally looking  for full time employment  in marketing , or indeed elsewhere, but the odd advisory role in a  project however  might be of interest.  I've noted before an excellent ,historic scheme with a former employer of bringing  back experienced people on a ( paid) project basis where specific skills or experience were lacking  , and it self evidently  could have  potential benefits for all .

So  back to the beginning  , are we harnessing the potential of  all the accumulated experience out there ? You tell me..