Why Iconic Brands Struggle With Innovation

Emphasising a product’s heritage can be a powerful marketing tool. Think of brands like Coca-Cola or Converse’s Chuck Taylor All Star sneakers.

But the strategy could have a big drawback, according to research . When a brand emphasises its past, customers are less likely to buy its updates and innovations. A food company that heavily promotes its classic recipe, for instance, could have a tough time getting customers to buy a new variation on the product. The reluctance is particularly strong if people think the brand has stood the test of time and is authentic the way it is.

When you change an original product, it challenges why many people like the product in the first place, says Rosanna Smith, an associate professor at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and one of the paper’s co-authors.

“We call it the curse of the original, and the question is how to update a product that is considered an icon without enraging your customers,” says Smith.

The shock of the new

In one part of the study, 418 participants read about a fictional hand-cream company and its top lotion. Participants were either told the company was established in 1917 with “deep roots in the old world French apothecary” or that it was established in 2017. Then the participants were either told the hand lotion was developed when the company was founded or was a new and improved version of the original.

All participants tried the same lotion and rated it on a nine-point scale, with nine being most favourable. When it came to the 1917 company, people rated the classic formula much higher than the new one: The original got a 6.68, while the new one averaged only 6.09. In other words, people didn’t like a venerable brand that tried to innovate as much as a brand that stuck to its roots.

Meanwhile, participants who were told the company started in 2017 rated the original and improved hand creams similarly.

“One big limitation of heritage branding is that it makes it harder to innovate,” says Smith. “But there are ways to lessen the effect.”

Back to basics

For instance, in another experiment, 602 participants read about Fratellino, a fictional Italian-food brand launched in 1911 when founder Martina Fratellino began selling tomato sauce from her front porch. The participants were told the brand would be improving its original tomato-sauce recipe.

The people were then divided into three groups. The control group was told the company was proud to introduce the new formula. The second group was told the new sauce was a bold departure from the original recipe, while the third was told the change was inspired by traditional techniques Martina used to create her tomato sauce in 1911 and that the change was a return to the company’s beginnings.

The authors found that participants in the control group rated the new tomato sauce less favourably than the original, giving it a score of 6.0, compared with 7.2 for the original. Simply doing something novel hurt the tradition-heavy company. The new product did even worse among people who heard that it was a bold departure: The new item got a 5.57, compared with 7.19 for the original.

But in the third group, where the change was framed as grounded in the product’s origins, the scores for the original and new tomato sauces didn’t significantly differ.

“Stressing the connection to the brand’s origins may have made the update seem more authentic,” says Smith.