Why Iconic Brands Struggle With Innovation
Kanebridge News
    HOUSE MEDIAN ASKING PRICES AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $1,766,872 (+0.21%)       Melbourne $1,063,597 (+0.19%)       Brisbane $1,235,996 (-0.71%)       Adelaide $1,100,588 (+1.40%)       Perth $1,114,234 (+0.36%)       Hobart $869,301 (-0.74%)       Darwin $915,158 (+0.08%)       Canberra $1,030,597 (+1.34%)       National Capitals $1,197,064 (+0.25%)                UNIT MEDIAN ASKING PRICES AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $817,869 (+0.11%)       Melbourne $552,138 (-0.21%)       Brisbane $784,920 (-1.69%)       Adelaide $585,744 (+1.59%)       Perth $658,340 (-1.87%)       Hobart $565,063 (-1.53%)       Darwin $494,206 (+0.53%)       Canberra $485,800 (-1.53%)       National Capitals $640,344 (-0.70%)                HOUSES FOR SALE AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 14,003 (-141)       Melbourne 16,852 (-119)       Brisbane 7,876 (+60)       Adelaide 2,794 (-13)       Perth 6,084 (+33)       Hobart 771 (-22)       Darwin 139 (+2)       Canberra 1,196 (+25)       National Capitals 49,715 (-175)                UNITS FOR SALE AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 9,308 (-9)       Melbourne 6,777 (-31)       Brisbane 1,556 (-5)       Adelaide 434 (-6)       Perth 1,292 (+16)       Hobart 154 (-9)       Darwin 198 (+7)       Canberra 1,191 (+1)       National Capitals 20,910 (-36)                HOUSE MEDIAN ASKING RENTS AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $850 ($0)       Melbourne $600 ($0)       Brisbane $700 ($0)       Adelaide $650 ($0)       Perth $750 ($0)       Hobart $628 (+$3)       Darwin $850 ($0)       Canberra $750 ($0)       National Capitals $733 (+$)                UNIT MEDIAN ASKING RENTS AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $800 ($0)       Melbourne $590 ($0)       Brisbane $670 ($0)       Adelaide $560 (+$5)       Perth $700 ($0)       Hobart $503 (-$38)       Darwin $650 ($0)       Canberra $600 ($0)       National Capitals $646 (-$2)                HOUSES FOR RENT AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 5,466 (-47)       Melbourne 6,685 (-129)       Brisbane 3,539 (-24)       Adelaide 1,337 (+2)       Perth 2,237 (-54)       Hobart 240 (+8)       Darwin 38 (-10)       Canberra 431 (+10)       National Capitals 19,973 (-244)                UNITS FOR RENT AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 8,715 (+45)       Melbourne 4,547 (+16)       Brisbane 1,877 (-18)       Adelaide 430 (0)       Perth 686 (+10)       Hobart 66 (-5)       Darwin 65 (-5)       Canberra 721 (+2)       National Capitals 17,107 (+45)                HOUSE ANNUAL GROSS YIELDS AND TREND         Sydney 2.50% (↓)       Melbourne 2.93% (↓)     Brisbane 2.94% (↑)        Adelaide 3.07% (↓)       Perth 3.50% (↓)     Hobart 3.75% (↑)        Darwin 4.83% (↓)       Canberra 3.78% (↓)       National Capitals 3.19% (↓)            UNIT ANNUAL GROSS YIELDS AND TREND         Sydney 5.09% (↓)     Melbourne 5.56% (↑)      Brisbane 4.44% (↑)        Adelaide 4.97% (↓)     Perth 5.53% (↑)        Hobart 4.62% (↓)       Darwin 6.84% (↓)     Canberra 6.42% (↑)      National Capitals 5.24% (↑)             HOUSE RENTAL VACANCY RATES AND TREND       Sydney 1.4% (↑)      Melbourne 1.5% (↑)      Brisbane 1.2% (↑)      Adelaide 1.2% (↑)      Perth 1.0% (↑)        Hobart 0.5% (↓)       Darwin 0.7% (↓)     Canberra 1.6% (↑)      National Capitals $1.1% (↑)             UNIT RENTAL VACANCY RATES AND TREND       Sydney 1.4% (↑)      Melbourne 2.4% (↑)      Brisbane 1.5% (↑)      Adelaide 0.8% (↑)      Perth 0.9% (↑)      Hobart 1.2% (↑)        Darwin 1.4% (↓)     Canberra 2.7% (↑)      National Capitals $1.5% (↑)             AVERAGE DAYS TO SELL HOUSES AND TREND         Sydney 33.5 (↓)       Melbourne 32.6 (↓)     Brisbane 33.4 (↑)      Adelaide 26.4 (↑)        Perth 37.8 (↓)       Hobart 29.4 (↓)     Darwin 27.8 (↑)        Canberra 30.0 (↓)       National Capitals 31.4 (↓)            AVERAGE DAYS TO SELL UNITS AND TREND         Sydney 31.4 (↓)       Melbourne 29.8 (↓)       Brisbane 32.2 (↓)     Adelaide 26.2 (↑)        Perth 37.5 (↓)       Hobart 31.4 (↓)     Darwin 37.4 (↑)        Canberra 38.7 (↓)       National Capitals 33.1 (↓)           
Share Button

Why Iconic Brands Struggle With Innovation

When a company markets its product’s long, iconic heritage, consumers are reluctant to buy a new variation

By LISA WARD
Tue, Oct 15, 2024 9:30amGrey Clock 2 min

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.



MOST POPULAR

Brickworks has enlisted acclaimed architecture studio Kennedy Nolan to explore how homes could become more adaptable, energy-efficient and connected to community.

Ophora Tallawong has launched its final release of quality apartments priced under $700,000.

Related Stories
Money
Celebrity-backed fund nears US$50m as investor demand builds 
By Jeni O'Dowd 02/06/2026
Money
Jet-Fuel Prices Are Spiking and Trump’s Advisers Are Worried
By Brian Schwartz & Alison Sider 07/05/2026
Property
AUSTRALIA’S PROPERTY BOOM IS MASKING A DEEPER ECONOMIC PROBLEM
By Paul Miron, Opinion 01/05/2026
Celebrity-backed fund nears US$50m as investor demand builds 

With US$40 million already committed, the Global Talent Fund is attracting investor attention with a strategy focused on building globally scalable consumer brands alongside high-profile talent. 

By Jeni O'Dowd
Tue, Jun 2, 2026 2 min

A new investment fund targeting celebrity-founded consumer brands has secured US$40 million in commitments and is rapidly approaching its US$50 million fundraising target, signalling growing investor appetite for alternative opportunities beyond traditional asset classes. 

The Global Talent Fund, which has a maximum raise of US$100 million, focuses on building and investing in consumer businesses alongside celebrities, athletes, and influential personalities who play an active role as co-founders rather than simply endorsing products. 

The strategy is based on the belief that changes in consumer behaviour, particularly the rise of social media and digital engagement, have fundamentally altered how brands are built and scaled. 

GTF founding partner Jeremy Hunt, who is helping lead the fund’s strategy, said consumers increasingly feel connected to personalities they follow online and are more willing to support products developed by those individuals. 

“Consumers are searching for content to engage with, and when a celebrity they like or follow takes them on the journey of creating a product or brand, they genuinely feel part of that process,” he said. 

The fund is targeting high-growth consumer sectors including wellness, hydration, beauty and recovery, areas Hunt believes continue to benefit from strong global demand and ongoing innovation. 

Rather than backing celebrity endorsement deals, the fund is seeking businesses where talent is deeply involved in product development, brand creation and long-term growth. 

According to Hunt, authenticity remains one of the biggest differentiators between successful celebrity-backed brands and those that fail. 

“The consumer can see clearly if someone is simply being paid to promote a product,” he said. “The winners are typically the brands where the celebrity has genuinely helped build the business from the ground up.” 

The model has attracted support from several prominent Australian investors and business families, reflecting broader interest in alternative investments with global growth potential. 

Hunt said consumer brands offered a level of tangibility that many investors found appealing. 

“Consumer brands are what we touch, feel, smell and taste every day,” he said. “Our investors understand the growth potential in the model, but they also want to be part of the journey.” 

The fund’s rapid progress towards its fundraising target comes amid growing recognition that celebrity influence, when combined with strong commercial execution and scalable business models, can create significant enterprise value. 

With several high-profile celebrity-founded businesses generating billion-dollar exits in recent years, supporters of the strategy believe the opportunity remains in its early stages. 

For more information, contact marc@kanerbridge.com.au

MOST POPULAR

Australia’s housing market defies forecasts as prices surge past pandemic-era benchmarks.

High-end homeowners are choosing to upgrade rather than relocate, investing in bespoke design, premium finishes and long-term lifestyle value.

Related Stories
Property
Jamie Durie’s amazing waterfront home for sale with a $33m price tag
By Kirsten Craze 10/10/2025
Property
LESS SHOW, MORE SOUL: MOSAIC’S BROOK MONAHAN ON AUSTRALIAN LUXURY 
By Jeni O'Dowd 04/12/2025
Property
Drew Barrymore Puts Westchester Home on the Market Two Years After Buying It
By Katherine Clarke 26/03/2026
0
    Your Cart
    Your cart is emptyReturn to Shop