Are Ford Motor Company (F) and General Motors Company (GM) Using the Right Strategy?

How many brands is the perfect number? It’s a delicate balance for management and is more of an art than a science. If you expand too much, it’s costly for the additional marketing and attention needed. If you don’t have enough brands, you miss opportunities to gain market share and incremental revenue. This is where the line in the sand is drawn between automotive giants.

Ford Motor Company (NYSE:F) and General Motors Company (NYSE:GM) have drastically cut their number of brands since the recession, helping them return to profitability. On the other side, Volkswagen and Chrysler have drastically increased the amount of brands under their respective umbrellas. Which strategy will position the companies for future success? I’ll explain two key topics — brand portfolio and architecture — and show you why companies on one side of the strategy could be in trouble.

General Motors Company (NYSE:GM)

Portfolio and architecture
With my background in marketing, I’ll take a quick second to brief you on the difference of these two factors. A brand portfolio, as you probably guessed, is how many brands are under a company’s umbrella. Think how Coca-Cola (NYSE:KO) also owns Sprite, a different name brand. The problem with having numerous brands is creating an efficient architecture. If Coca-Cola has five spinoffs of coke — Vanilla Coke and Coke Zero, to name two — and only regular Sprite, it is competing more with itself rather than expanding its market share. At some point, the cost in creating additional spinoffs outweighs the revenue that it can generate. Crossing that line in the sand would hurt Coca-Cola’s ability to generate maximum profits.

Ford Motor Company (NYSE:F) and General Motors Company (NYSE:GM) are taking the opposite strategy. because they learned a valuable lesson during the recession. They found that their brands were too costly and inefficient and lacked compelling marketing to stay profitable. It wasn’t until then, when sales practically disappeared, that they were forced to cut slacking brands and refocus on their core to rebuild a strong portfolio. Let’s dig into the details and see the change in brand numbers.

By the numbers
General Motors Company (NYSE:GM) went from nine brands in the U.S. market 10 years ago down to four currently. It killed off Pontiac, Saturn, and Hummer in 2010. It also sold off Saab, which has since been killed. Before the recession, it closed the doors on Oldsmobile. Ford has made similar moves to cut five of its brands, now sitting at only two — Ford and Lincoln.

With the opposite strategy, Volkswagen is up to 12 distinct brands after adding Porsche last year. Chrysler has increased its brand count up to nine, including the Alfa Romeo, which has been absent since the mid-’90s.

“We’re going against the grain,” Chrysler-Fiat CEO Sergio Marchionne said. “Ford has decided to go with an oval strategy across the whole range, and we’re the only ones that keep on carving up or have carved up our brand-name portfolio into more distinct pieces.”

More complicated
The soda analogy was nice and simple. However, it’s much more complicated in the automotive industry — not to mention that the costs and risks are amplified greatly. I asked my old chief marketing officer– from an automotive aftermarket company — for some insight on costs associated with maintaining multiple brands. These three stood out to me.

Tooling. The capital required to design, engineer, and tool product parts for different brand appearances would add up quickly, reducing margins. Ford is able to share platforms between models more easily, with fewer brands to differentiate between one another. By the end of 2013, it plans on having 85% of global sales from nine platforms. Volkswagen can share some pieces, but no matter how hard it tries, a frame for an Audi won’t work for a Beetle.

Marketing. The costs incurred to create different themes, logos, and awareness add up quickly per brand. On top of that, with each brand representing a different segment, it would require research and information to target a specific consumer. It can get expensive for VW to target such different consumers between the Beetle, Audi, and high-end Porsche.

Complexity. More brands, more problems? It isn’t always the case, but the complexity of juggling numerous models and inventory does become more difficult. It also increases the dealer network needed to support in sales and advertising.

These are all very real factors that come into play with numerous brands. If not juggled properly, you can get into an unprofitable mess similar to Detroit’s Big Three before the recession. With the additional costs, why do VW and Chrysler continue to create brands?

Fewer brands, less share
The argument I hear the most is that if you have fewer brands, you inevitably lose market share. People then point out that Ford Motor Company (NYSE:F) and GM have indeed lost market share since cutting their number of brands. But I think General Motors Company (NYSE:GM) in particular has lost market share because it has the oldest vehicle portfolio in the world. That’s a weakness it’s addressing this year, with the busiest redesign schedule in its history.

Ford Motor Company (NYSE:F), meanwhile, speaks for itself. In 2007 — a time when Ford still owned Volvo, Jaguar, Land Rover, and Aston Martin — its market share was 15.8%. Now after removing those brands, and shutting down Mercury, its share is at 15.5%. That’s a small price to pay when that portfolio trimming has allowed Ford to bounce back to its best financial shape in more than a decade.

For the fewer brands/less share argument to hold some weight, adding multiple brands as Chrysler and VW have done should increase market share. In 2007, Chrysler’s market share stood at 12.9%, but in 2012 it was down to 11.4%. Volkswagen has had more success, moving from 2% to 4.2%, but I’m still not convinced that it’s all from expanding its number of brands.

Bottom line
In my opinion, for both Ford and General Motors Company (NYSE:GM), less is more. I think you’d be shocked at how few brands you actually need to get all the revenue you want. If you like extra costs, complexity, and juggling inventory — then more power to you. VW and Chrysler would be the option you would prefer. Volkswagen has proved to be a valid investment, but it has extra risks with so many brands going forward. I prefer lean operations, focused marketing, and brand portfolios that produce impressive profits. That’s the strategy Ford Motor Company (NYSE:F) and GM chose, and that’s where I’m placing my bet for the future.

The article Are Ford and GM Using the Right Strategy? originally appeared on Fool.com.

Fool contributor Daniel Miller owns shares of Ford. The Motley Fool recommends Coca-Cola, Ford, and General Motors and owns shares of Ford.

Copyright © 1995 – 2013 The Motley Fool, LLC. All rights reserved. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

Comments
Insider Monkey Small Cap Strategy
Insider Monkey Small Cap Strategy

Insider Monkey beat the market by 52 percentage points in 24 months. Our beta is only 1.2 (don't click this link if beating the market isn't important to you).

Lists

The 9 Most Dangerous Countries for Tourists to Visit

Reign of Terror: The 10 Most Ruthless Politicians in History

On the Move: The 10 Fastest Growing Businesses in 2015

Fast Money: The 10 Highest Paying Fast Food Restaurants

Mixing It Up: The 14 Best Music Mashups of 2014

Rito Pls Buff: The 10 Least Played Champions in LoL Season 4

10 Covers of Popular Songs that are Better than the Originals

Must See TV: The 9 Most Anticipated Shows of 2015

The 15 Biggest Box Office Bombs of All Time

10 Things The World Can’t Stand About Americans

Picture Perfect: The 6 Smartphones with the Best Cameras

The 10 Best Countries To Work In the World

A Profitable Day At The Track: 5 Tips For Betting On Horses

Tearing You Apart: 6 Bad Habits That Ruin Relationships

Learning on the Job: The 6 Biggest Mistakes Parents Make

Shopaholics Rejoice: The 12 Biggest Malls in the World

Fright Night: 10 Horror Movies Based on True Stories

Mach Mania: The 10 Fastest Jets in the World

Military Heavyweights: The 10 Countries with the Most Tanks

All In: The 7 Richest Poker Players in the World

Abracadabra: The 10 Best Magicians in the World

The 10 Richest Asian Countries in the World in 2014

Eyes in the Sky: 10 Things You Need to Know About Drones

Rising Stars: The 6 Best Silicon Valley Startups

Military Muscle: The 5 Most Advanced Armies in South America

All that Glitters: The 7 Most Luxurious Jewelry Brands in the World

5 Things You Didn’t Know About ISIS but Should

Empowering Your Money: The 5 Best Energy Stocks to Invest In

The 11 Best Android Apps You Can’t Get on iOS

The 10 Most Important International Conflicts in 2014

Mood Enhancers: The 20 Most Uplifting Songs of all Time

Lover Beware: The 8 Countries that Cheat the Most

Breath of Fresh Air: The 25 Countries with the Best Air Quality on the Planet

Singles Beware: The 8 Worst Mistakes Made on First Dates

Healthy and Happy: The 10 Countries with Lowest Healthcare Costs

The 6 Best Company Team Building Activities to Build Workplace Camaraderie

Ships Ahoy: The 10 Busiest Shipping Ports in the World

10 Productivity Tips to Save You Time and Help You Do More With Less

Grab a Bite: The Most Popular Fast Food Restaurants in America

Friday Night Thirst: The 10 Most Popular Cocktails in the World

The 6 Greatest Unsolved Mysteries We May Never Figure Out

7 Useless Products You Never Should’ve Bought

The 5 Reasons Why You’re Single and Miserable

The 7 Most Addictive Foods in the World We Can’t Stop Eating (Even Though We Should)

5 Amazing Places You Can Swim with Dolphins

The Top 7 Most Livable Countries In The World

The 10 Most Expensive Baseball Cards Ever Pulled From A Pack

The 5 Easiest Second Languages to Learn for English Speakers

Silver Spoon: The 6 Richest Families in the World

The 20 Countries with the Largest Prison Populations in the World

Subscribe

Enter your email:

Delivered by FeedBurner

X

Thanks! An email with instructions is sent to !

Your email already exists in our database. Click here to go to your subscriptions

Insider Monkey returned 47.6% in its first year! Wondering How?

Download a complete edition of our newsletter for free!