Now lets consider brands which are often mistaken to be a source of competitive advantage. Branding is like any other asset of a company which requires investment in form of marketing and advertising. By branding a firm can only make its presence felt in the market. It is an important asset of the company and cant be taken in a a loose manner but at the same time it doesnt deserve so much hype it gets compared to other assets. Its just an important asset of the company and by itself it will not drive excellent returns for the business. It wouldnt protect a lousy business. A competitive advantage is something which enables a business to earn high return on invested capital and keeps the rival at bay. It enables it to take away a disproportionate share of the market. A high return on invested capital and a disproportionate share of the market is a tell-tale sign of presence of competitive advantages or barriers to entry. Not many branded products show high returns and dominate their markets. they might show high returns in the short-run but not in the lon-run
It is not branding per se which drives the returns of the business but economies of scale with high customer captivity. Most of the branded products are in a market called monopolistic competitive market where in the long-run they dont tend to be highly profitable because there arent any effective barriers to entry. A monopolistic competitive market is defined as the one where there are large no of firms selling similar but differentiate products which means that the products sold by different firms are close but not perfect substitutes of each other
For example : soft-drink market,apparel market and various other brand oriented markets. Theoretically, in the long run in a monopolistic competitive market firms are not highly profitable and their profitablity tend towards zero.
For instance, consider the soft-drink market where there are a number of brands which differ slightly from each other in terms of taste and to some extent in color. In a study of demand for colas which used a simulated shopping experiment to determine how the market share of a Royal crown and Coca-cola changes in response to its price. In other words how elastic is the demand for a brand.
It was found that Royal crown is much less price elastic than coke i.e its demand is not much reponsive to price increases. The study seems to suggest that consumers are more loyal to royal crown and it has more brand loyaly than coke. But even because of higher brand loyalty it is not more profitable than coke. Profits depend on fixed costs and volume, as well as price. Coke will generate more profit beacause it has a much larger of market. Its the economies of scale which enables coke to spend heavily on advertising,marketing and distribution and this practice over a long period of brand reinforces the brand and keeps new brands at bay. Competitive advantages are supposed to protect profits and brand loyalty doesnt pass on that terms. Its the inherent characteristic or nature of the product which makes the customer more loyal to it than brands. people in america are habituated to coke and that is because of the first-mover advantage for the coke and the scale which enables it to sells at such a low price- the price difference between coke and any other brand is few cents and that prevents its consumer from switching to alternate brands just for price difference of a few cents.
Being a first mover in the market is more important thand brands.
At the end of the day brands are just necessary cost of doing business and making a presence in the market , nothing more and nothing less.
