Inheriting a legacy- Branding

"When Tony Blair became Prime Minister, the sun shone. When Gordon Brown took over, it rained. ... It was noted that, on 10 May, when Blair announced his resignation in his Sedgefield constituency, the heavens opened, and it has been raining ever since." - The independent 8th july 2007

Figuratively, the weather outlook for a PM(ahem.. product manager in this context) is very dependent on the work produced by his predecessor. Inherit a blockbuster post-launch and you're on your way to market share nirvana, inherit a ADR-plagued dudbuster and you'll be perspiring so hard even your sweat glands are metabolized.

Unfortunately, unless you are a boardroom politician, getting to handle any specific brand is usually down to luck. and in this highly mobile industry, hardly any PM exist to manage one product from day one to patent expiration. In some cases, a product may see anything form 5 PMs in a decade.

Indeed, this may not be optimal for a brand's development especially if companies are serious about branding. There is a wildly successful cardiac drug (simply by its impressive efficacy and lack of direct competition) that possess an incredibly schizophrenic identity, from the multiple switching of PMs (combined with the complication of a dual-company co-marketing arrangement) who decides an academic approach at one time, a commerical angle at another, a mediocre me-too compliant stance and a distasteful comedic campaign all executed within the PLC. it only managed to reach its present state of success recently when it could (& should) have been achieved way earlier.

MMs have a major role to play in maintaining the continuity of a brand, regardless of the mobility of its middle brand management. the cost of failing to do so comes at building tenable brand equity. However, all too often, the newbie would rather opt for a contrasting approach from his predecessor, preferring to do things differently, hoping to juxtapose his competencies to the senior management who usually do not query as long as general (ie sales) objectives are being met and market share is achieved.

Exercising such attitudes may lead to a misleading impression that brand objectives are met (unless it ascertained through KPIs) when in fact brand equity remains low with the business being sustained by sheer efficacy alone.

Time will be able to tell when a new entrant comes in and alter the market share equilibrium.

for the meantime, I'm waiting to see how PM Gordon Brown's drastically different foreign policy (esp towards the US) will show against former PM Tony Blair's pro-US stance.