Kompani Group

Menu
  • Our Services
    • SEO and SEM
    • Web Development
    • Branding
    • Marketing
    • Business Management
    • Close
  • Brands
    • Case Studies
    • Work Samples
    • Testimonials
    • Close
  • About Us
    • Our People
    • Careers
    • Library
    • FAQ
    • Close
  • Blog
  • Contact
You are here: Home / Archives for Business Strategy

Business Strategy

Marketing in 2010: How and why Amazon (and everybody else) plans to be your new best friend

Last Updated on March 20, 2019 by Jan Havmoeller Leave a Comment

You’re up and running, you have clients returning your calls, customers coming in the door or adding product to their shopping carts on your site, and you look around at the economic landscape and are at least momentarily relieved to be able to say “I am doing OK.”

Where do you go from here?  What more can you learn?  Although your products are ingenious and your marketing efforts stellar, hard as it may be to believe you haven’t already conceived of every Great Idea.  We all need to routinely challenge our thinking so that we continue to leap forward, we need to break out of the borders and assumptions we’ve always held about our company and our industry.  So occasionally this year, Kompani Group is going to talk about things we can learn from the most successful companies in other, completely unrelated industries.  Marketers in online retail have much, much more in common with traditional retailers than the few issues of format that set them apart.  And as for size, your revenues and budgets may have many more (or many fewer) zeros at the end than ours, but the fundamentals are identical:  getting our clearly defined message in front of customers and then delivering satisfaction.

There are brick-and-mortar retailers with broadly acknowledged reputations for superior service – been to Nordstrom or an Apple store lately?  Is there any reason why a retailer serving the online world can’t develop the same kind of reputation?

The question occurred to me this morning because I received another e-mail message from barnesandnoble.com.  “Chris,” it began, “you bought the last book written by so-and-so.  His newest novel will be released next month and we’d be happy to hold a copy for you.”  How cool is that?  (And equally important, how simple for them!) Although we know it’s just data manipulation, it FEELS incredibly personal.  “Somebody” at Barnes and Noble knows and uses my name, remembers what I’ve bought there before, and figures out what my previous purchases can tell them about my tastes and interests.  They’re my friend.

The principle is the same (though not quite as proactively executed) at many of the large, successful sites:  Netflix recommends movies to me based on what I’ve watched and rated before, and the behemoth Amazon suggests both new items that fit my profile and companion products that other customers like me have bought.

Is this difficult?  Absolutely not.  Every one of us has the same data base of customer descriptives and purchase history.  Not very many of us use it to anywhere near its optimal marketing capacity.

Let’s look for a few minutes at a retail success story that has been widely studied:  Starbucks.  In its off-line business, what does Starbucks sell?  And how in the world can they expect us to pay six or eight times as much for a cup of their coffee as we would pay down the street – and be happy about it?  Other coffee retailers have successfully moved coffee from a commodity to a differentiated product; only Starbucks has made coffee an experience.  In fact, Starbucks has made its name synonymous with the coffee experience.  They may have been in the headlines lately as they adapt to changes in the economy and in their marketplace – but isn’t that the point?  In the best of times and in the challenging times, they are the ICON – they define the coffee experience.

Is there any reason why a customer’s interaction with your offer, the process of selecting and buying whatever your product or service is, can’t be an experience?

That was a trick question, I’ll admit, because interacting with you  already is an experience.  There’s nothing you can do about that.  Every customer who buys from you (or chooses not to) is going to have an experience with you whether you like it or not.  The only question is what kind of experience are they going to find.

To explore how we can consistently make each consumer experience with us an excellent one, we’re going to look at some of the things Starbucks has done to become the clear leader in their field – such a dominant figure that there isn’t even a close second.

Before anything else, Starbucks had both a vision and a clear plan, which they’ve executed to perfection. Absolutely everything the company does is designed to give the customer a positive, perhaps uplifting, experience while purchasing a quality product.  Notice that “experience” comes before “product” in the sentence.  Because this is the goal, Starbucks is as much about people as it is about coffee – customers who respond to the experience, employees and managers who live the principles and values of the company.  These values – expressed as five principles and five “ways of being,” are published in The Green Apron Book, which every employee carries in the little front pocket of their apron.

In effect, this is Starbucks’ management marketing its concept to its own employees. None of the simple, common-sense ideas has anything to do with coffee – just as none of them has anything to do with secondary towing or cigars or Caribbean resorts (or whatever your own business may be.)  They have everything to do with how to personalize relationships, how to elevate customer interactions, how to preserve the intimacy of a small company even while working hard to become huge.

Starbucks’ store personnel are trained to remember your name and your favorite beverage (and that’s without a built-in data base.)  They understand the old Dale Carnegie saying that “a person’s name is to that person the sweetest and most important sound in any language.” This not only says you remember them, it says they matter to you.  Starbucks’ customers, exactly like yours, are not looking for new best friends.  They just want a positive human-feeling connection and they want their needs to matter.

Retail is detail.  Starbucks’ Chairman Howard Schultz is fond of saying that.  The truth is that ALL business is detail, and the most successful businesses are intensely focused on the execution of details at every level.  The Starbucks’ training programs teach employees to zero in on the minute details that matter greatly to their customers; every aspect of the business that touches the coffee must reflect the highest standards possible.  The goal – which is really more a compilation of small things than it is one or two big, dramatic things – is a “felt sense” among their customers, a global emotional reaction to myriad tiny details that lurk below our conscious awareness.  The name “Starbucks” automatically triggers in us a feeling that has been created over time by the specific details of our experiences there. Researchers in brain activity have found that as much as 95% of what influences our conscious choices resides below awareness.  This is true about our interactions with anyone selling anything – some we feel happy about returning to, others we stress out about just at the sound of their name.

We have to work hard at getting the details right every time.  What percentage of unhappy customers do you think take the time to bring their complaints to management?  They just go elsewhere with a single click or with their feet.

Here’s a key thing that produces delight in customers, that keeps them feeling warm and fuzzy about you:  predictability.  Since consistency (in quality as well as in the customer experience) is a rare and valued thing, companies that master delivering it will ultimately thrive.  Even when something goes wrong (which happens), if the customer knows the problem will be addressed quickly, efficiently and with good humor – we win. Sometimes this contributes even more to a positive “felt sense” than if it had all gone perfectly in the first place.

The Experience is not the same as the Brand – and we all need to focus on building both.  Using Kompani Group as the example, here’s the critical difference:  if you are considering how you feel about Kompani Group, you are thinking about our brand.  If you are thinking about how you yourself feel as a result of your involvement with Kompani Group, then you are thinking about the Experience.  The latter begins by identifying emotions we want customers to feel as a result of their experience with us, and then working back to what the organization has to do to make that happen.  When our clients prefer the experience of working with Kompani Group, they will become committed to it. They will return to us with new projects, they will recommend us to their friends and colleagues (although probably not to their competitors.)

Finally, it’s important to note that the high visibility of Starbucks has engendered a fair share of criticism through the years.  Howard Schultz says he thinks that his “ability to act positively on any criticism is (his) most crucial leadership skill.”  Given and received in a wholesome spirit, there is much to be learned from criticism and much growth to be inspired.  But the world is full of people who have told Starbucks that they would fail, and why.  It’s still happening on some business pages today, just as there are those who wonder how you and your industry can effectively respond to a challenging economy or a changing competitive environment.  The key – for Starbucks and for smart business operators in every segment – is to choose to engage with the future, to reject the idea that the sky is falling, to believe (to know instead) that the sky is the limit.

Signed/Chris Barr

Launching a Driver sub-brand

Last Updated on March 2, 2020 by Jan Havmoeller Leave a Comment

The economic strains are causing your end-users to trade down, resulting in that the mid-tier and premium brands are losing share to low-price rivals.

You face a classic strategic conundrum:

  • Do you tackle the threat head-on by reducing prices, knowing that will destroy profits in the short term and brand equity in the long term?
  • Or do you hold the line, hope for better times to return, and in the meantime lose customers who might never come back?

Given how unpalatable both of those alternatives are, you now must make a decision of how to combat manufacturers and distributors of lower priced and inferior products, to avoid losing additional market share and eroding margins.

There are four ways to battle your competition.

  1. Launching a true fighter brand
  2. Launching an endorsed sub-brand
  3. Launching a co-driver sub-brand or
  4. Launching a driver sub-brand

What is a Driver sub-brand?

Definition:

The parent brand retains its primary influence as a driver, and the sub-brand can act as a descriptor-a word or phrase that tells end-users that the company is offering a slight variation on the same product or service they have come to know.

Sky City Building People Talking
Photo by Charles Forerunner on Unsplash

Note: Of the three types of relationships, a driver brand with a descriptor sub-brand is the most risky. The parent brand is vulnerable to cannibalization because very little distinguishes one brand from the other. The risk of cannibalization is greatest when a descriptor signifies merely a lower-quality offering. The risk is minimized when the descriptor signals a different application.

Examples:

Mercedes

  • Mercedes provides a good illustration of a driver brand that has successfully accessed a downscale market with a descriptor sub-brand. In the early 1980s, Mercedes introduced that is now it’s C Class, a small car to compete with the BMW 3 series, as well as with Acura and Lexus.
  • Now priced around $30,000, the line sells nearly 30,000 cars annually in the United States (around one-third of all Mercedes sales in the United States).
  • How could a brand that has historically been identified with prestige and that offers a car selling for more than $100,000 pull off this kind of downscale move?
  • First, Mercedes delivered a quality product.
  • Second, the C Class introduction was accompanied by an intensive effort to reposition the core brand’s message from prestige to performance.
  • Third, marketing for the C class aggressively targeted young buyers. The C Class name creates a distinction that allows the sub-brand to attract a slightly different consumer, but it does not drive that consumer’s decision to buy the car. The Mercedes brand retains that power.

Celeron – B to B (Intel) 1997

  • To combat AMD’s $260.00 K6 processor chip, and to avoid having to lower prices on its Pentium processor, Intel launched a sub-brand dubbed Celeron.
  • Despite a couple of early pricing mistakes and mishaps in expectations management, Intel succeed in combating and keeping AMD from creating a strong foothold in the low-end market. With a share of 80% of the overall processor market and their ability to roll out new processors frequently, Intel proved to be a testament to both the power of fighter brands to open up lower-tier market opportunities and their unequaled ability to keep competitors at bay.
  • Note: The EU have recently been successful in winning a ruling against Intel regarding antitrust issues and pricing manipulation resulting in a fine of $1.5 billion dollars. We wonder whether the costs of the now 5 year old lawsuit brought by AMD, the fine and the distractions for Intel’s senior management team, would justify the launch of another Celeron value sub-brand when you already have more than 80 percent of the total market share.

Kompani Group’s Approach on Data-Driven Branding

Launching a Co-driver sub brand

Last Updated on March 20, 2019 by Jan Havmoeller Leave a Comment

The economic strains are causing your end-users to trade down, resulting in that the mid-tier and premium brands are losing share to low-price rivals.

You face a classic strategic conundrum:

  • Do you tackle the threat head-on by reducing prices, knowing that will destroy profits in the short term and brand equity in the long term?
  • Or do you hold the line, hope for better times to return, and in the meantime lose customers who might never come back?

Given how unpalatable both of those alternatives are, you now must make a decision of how to combat manufacturers and distributors of lower priced and inferior products, to avoid losing additional market share and eroding margins.

There are four ways to battle your competition.

  1. Launching a true fighter brand
  2. Launching an endorsed sub-brand
  3. Launching a co-driver sub-brand or
  4. Launching a driver sub-brand

Co-driver

Definition:

The parent brand and the sub-brand act as co-drivers with roughly equal influence on consumers.

Business Handshake
Photo by rawpixel on Unsplash

Examples:

United Express (United Airlines)

The United Airlines brand provides United Express, a commuter line, with the convenience of connections to United flights and a reputation for safety. There is no cannibalization because the flights do not compete.

United Express is differentiated from its parent brand by its lower level of on-board service, its use of smaller planes, and its less formal personality.

Good News (Gillette)

Gillette Good News also illustrates a successful co-driver relationship. Gillette Good News disposable razors are a definite cut below ‘the best a man can get” that is the Gillette legacy in shaving. But disposable razors are qualitatively different from the upscale razors such as Sensor and Atra with which Gillette has long held a technological edge.

Gillette could provide a rationale for a disposable brand by being the best in the disposable category. But the Good News user’s personality – younger and more carefree than the traditionally masculine and sophisticated Gillette persona – plays a key role in distinguishing the disposable brand from the rest of the line.

Both brand names – Gillette and Good News – influence the customer’s decision to buy the product.

Kompani Group’s Approach on Data-Driven Branding

What provides an unrivaled return on investment, and is safer than investing in Gold?

Last Updated on April 5, 2019 by Jan Havmoeller Leave a Comment

We have always thought that most companies are missing the boat in terms of how much their brands are really worth, because they don’t understand how much a small investment in their brand quickly multiplies the perceived value when going public or when attracting growth capital. In most cases a small investment in their brands immediately translates into a competitive edge for products sold off/on the shelf or on the web.

Since all businesses have a number of case studies that are relevant to their target audience, we suggest that you establish a CSS style web site, with a blog and content management backend where posting a new page or new blog is as easy as writing a word document or an e-mail. If you take a closer look at your competition, you will also realize that they aren’t effectively using the social media and other means of SEO friendly web sites, which in turn will send you scores of inquiries from new prospects.

Building a well designed and professional site, writing content and educating you on how to maintain or update the site is fairly inexpensive, and can be done for about $7,500 – $10,000.

Even though our own site www.kompanigroup.com and www.ActiveServe.com are more complex than what you may need, they represent the web 2.0 CSS type of web site we are talking about. Both of these sites are receiving new hits and leads every week, mainly because they both are optimized for SEO and because we are active in posting blogs.

Why Most CEOs Are Bad at Strategy

Last Updated on May 31, 2018 by Jan Havmoeller Leave a Comment

Why most corporations lack a “big idea” for how to effectively communicate their brand and essence to their stakeholders.

This is a great article from Roger Martin from the Harvard Business Review. We think this explains why most corporations don’t have a “big idea” for how to communicate their brand and essence to their stakeholders. Enjoy. Well done Roger!

A good strategy is the product of the creative combination of two disparate logics — rather than a single linear analytical logic flow — but CEOs and “strategists” are seldom conditioned to become skilled at the requisite creative combination.

There is a lot of strategy in the world, produced by all types of CEOs, corporate heads of strategy, and strategy consultants. Yet very little of this strategy is any good. There are undoubtedly many possible explanations for why this is the case, but here is my own pet theory, which I offer up to elicit your reactions and surface alternatives:

A good strategy is the product of the creative combination of two disparate logics — rather than a single linear analytical logic flow — but CEOs and “strategists” are seldom conditioned to become skilled at the requisite creative combination.

The two most fundamental strategic choices are deciding where to play and how to win. These two decisions — in what areas will the company compete, and on what basis will it do so — are the critical one-two punch to generate strategic advantage. However, they can’t be considered independently or sequentially. In a great strategy, your where-to-play and how-to-win choices fit together and reinforce one another.

For example, operating only in your home country market may seem to be a perfectly fine where-to-play choice and winning on the basis of technological superiority a perfectly fine how-to-win choice, but their combination almost always produces a bad strategy — because of global economies of scale in R&D, some competitor will globalize and blow out the geographically narrow national player. These choices don’t fit or reinforce.

In contrast, Apple wins because its where-to-play choice — broad participation across a number of high-involvement consumer electronics categories (computers, music, phones) — is matched wonderfully with its how-to-win choice — competing on user experience design and eco-system orchestration. It leverages the winning capabilities it has built in these two areas across the domains in which it has chosen to play to produce its winning Macs, iPods, and iPhones.

The trouble is, CEOs don’t usually get to the top by integrating different logics in that way. More often they rise by pushing a single logic. They like to analyze a problem and come up with a single, sufficient answer, like how to globalize or get costs under control or introduce a new product, rather than trying to look for answers to two questions that fit together elegantly.

As a consequence, many of them come to think of strategy as either where-to-play or how-to-win. For example, in the global pharma industry today, it appears that most CEOs define their strategies as simply playing in the historically lucrative pharma industry and doing whatever the rest of their competitors do. This is silent on how-to-win and the resultant set of me-too strategies is one reason why performance in the industry is going downhill fast.

Or alternatively, for many high-tech CEOs, the dominant choice is to win with a proprietary technology. This is silent on where-to-play and that has led many technology companies astray because it really matters where exactly that technology is used — as we see with Nortel Networks, which is now in the bankruptcy court despite its treasure trove of technology patents.

Meanwhile, corporate strategists and strategy consultants get ahead by demonstrating mastery of all sorts of conceptual tools for analyzing where-to-play (five forces, profit maps, etc.) or how-to-win (experience curve, value chain, VIRO, etc.). However, there as yet is no analytical tool for combining a given where-to-play choice with a congenial how-to-win choice or vice versa. That takes creative insight. But the majority of people who seek to become corporate strategists or strategy consultants do so because they are much more comfortable with analysis than what they perceive as guesswork. So they tend to become expert at strategic analyses, not strategy.

That, I submit, is why CEOs and “strategists” so seldom produce good strategies. Strategy is a creative act and the way to produce good strategy is go beyond basic analysis to creatively integrate your choices concerning where you play and how you propose to win.

Roger Martin is the Dean of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto in Canada and the author of The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking is the Next Competitive Advantage (Harvard Business Press, 2009).

Launching an endorsed sub-brand 2/4

Last Updated on January 28, 2019 by Jan Havmoeller Leave a Comment

This is the second of 4 posts about how to combat manufactures and distributors of inferior products that are being reverse engineered and produced in China and sold at much lower prices to your existing clients. You are losing market share fast, and it is time to do something about it.

The economic strains are causing your end-users to trade down, resulting in that the mid-tier and premium brands are losing share to low-price rivals.

You face a classic strategic conundrum:

  • Do you tackle the threat head-on by reducing prices, knowing that will destroy profits in the short term and brand equity in the long term?
  • Or do you hold the line, hope for better times to return, and in the meantime lose customers who might never come back?

Given how unpalatable both of those alternatives are, you now must make a decision of how to combat manufacturers and distributors of lower priced and inferior products, to avoid losing additional market share and eroding margins.

There are four ways to battle your competition.

  1. Launching a true fighter brand
  2. Launching an endorsed sub-brand
  3. Launching a co-driver sub-brand or
  4. Launching a driver sub-brand

Option Two – Endorsed Sub-Brand

Definition:

A sub-brand is a brand with its own name that uses the name of its parent brand in some capacity to bolster equity.

In the case of downscale offerings, the role of sub-brands is to help managers differentiate new offerings from the parent brand while using the parent’s equity to influence consumers.

The idea is both to maintain the parent’s credibility and prestige regardless of how the sub-brand performs and to protect the original brand from cannibalization.

Photo by 🇨🇭 Claudio Schwarz | @purzlbaum on Unsplash

Endorser

Definition:

The parent brand acts as the endorser of the sub-brand. In this case, the sub-brand is the more dominant of the two, and drives end-users’ decisions to purchase the product as well as their perceptions of the experience of using the product.

When a company offers an endorsed sub-brand, there are three brands at work. The parent brand itself is split into two: a product brand and an organizational brand. The product brand remains as it was, a premium brand delivering a certain image and associated benefits.

The endorser strategy provides an excellent chance to minimize damage and reduce the threat of cannibalization to the parent brand. Keep in mind that all three brands need to be managed actively.

Examples:

Sabre B to C (John Deere)

  • John Deere’s foray into value lawn tractors provides a good illustration of an endorser relationship. John Deere was well known for making a lawn tractor that sold for approximately $2,000 through full-service specialty dealers.
  • Although the manufacturer was still able to command that price in the specialty market, volume retailers such as Sears and Home Depot had begun to serve a growing portion (around 30%) of that market, selling products at half John Deere’s prices.
  • So the company introduced an endorsed sub-brand for the value retailers: a low-cost tractor, Sabre from John Deere, that featured an inexpensive design and a different color and feel that John Deere’s other products

Medalist B to B (Hobart)

  • The Hobart Company, which makes an industrial-grade mixer for use in bakeries and restaurants.
  • Managers decided to create an inexpensive mixer for us in commercial and industrial kitchens to compete with offshore entries without damaging its flagship “gold standard” Hobart mixer line.
  • In 1996 the company introduced Medalist from the Hobart Company. Medalist mixers were lighter than Hobart mixers.
  • In addition, they were made with less costly materials and construction processes; and they had a color and logo distinct from those of the flagship Hobart.
  • In this example, The Hobart Company, has become an organizational brand that endorses the sub-brand, Medalist. Medalist itself is a new product brand. Thus the parent brand, Hobart, is separated from the sub-brand, Medalist, by the organizational brand, The Hobart Company.

Kompani Group’s Approach on Data-Driven Branding

Launching a pure Fighter Brand, 1/4

Last Updated on December 8, 2020 by Jan Havmoeller Leave a Comment

We are losing market share to our new competition. What can we do to reverse the trend?

China City Lights
Photo by Adi Constantin on Unsplash

This is the first of 4 posts about how to combat manufactures and distributors of inferior products that are being reverse engineered and produced in China and sold at much lower prices to your existing clients.

You are losing market share fast, and it is time to do something about it.

The economic strains are causing your end-users to trade down, resulting in that the mid-tier and premium brands are losing share to low-price rivals.

You face a classic strategic conundrum:

  • Do you tackle the threat head-on by reducing prices, knowing that will destroy profits in the short term and brand equity in the long term?
  • Or do you hold the line, hope for better times to return, and in the meantime lose customers who might never come back?

Given how unpalatable both of those alternatives are, you now must make a decision of how to combat manufacturers and distributors of lower priced and inferior products, to avoid losing additional market share and eroding margins.

There are four ways to battle your competition.

  1. Launching a true fighter brand
  2. Launching an endorsed sub-brand
  3. Launching a co-driver sub-brand or
  4. Launching a driver sub-brand

Definition of a fighter brand

A fighter brand is designed to combat, and ideally eliminate, low-price competitors while protecting an organization’s premium-price offerings. A fighter brand, however, is not easy to introduce. First creating a new brand-building awareness, establishing perceptions of identity and quality, developing distributions channels is expensive, often prohibitively so.

Business Buildings
Photo by Gonz DDL on Unsplash
  • Concerns about launching fighter brands
    • Will it cannibalize our premium offering?
    • Will it fail to bury the competition?
    • Will it lose money?
    • Will it miss the mark with end-users?
    • Will it consume too much management attention?
  • Other strategic questions to consider before launching at fighter brand
    • Determine whether another brand is truly necessary
    • Run the numbers, including what it will cost to build and sustain a new brand
    • Listen to your clients and customers, early and often
    • Reinvest in your core business and consistently calibrate between the two brands.
    • Is the market you are entering still growing

Examples of fighter brands

Saturn – B to C (General Motors) 1982

  • To combat the growing threat from fuel-efficient and affordable cars being launched into America from Japan, GM decided to launch of an “a different kind of car company” dubbed Saturn.
  • Despite the fact that Saturn won accolades for being one of the strongest brands in the U.S, Saturn proved to be a financial disaster with losses in excess of 10 billion dollars. With no budgetary discipline and so much focus on differentiating Saturn from the other GM brands, completely defeated the purpose of launching the brand in the first place.

Jetstar – (Quantas) 2004

  • To combat low-fare entrant Virgin Blue, Quantas decided to launch their own low-fare airline in 2003.
  • Since Quantas only had one single brand, it did not want to create a new brand unless it had to.
  • Exhaustive strategic sessions confirmed, however, that the Quantas brand was simply not in a position to combat Virgin Blue’s explosive growth. A fighter brand was the only option.
  • Quantas’ detailed projections showed that by offering no frills, its new airline could achieve a 20% cost advantage over its rival; thus allowing it to undercut Virgin Blue’s prices while sustaining a profit.
  • Quantum spent considerable time on focus groups across Australia and listening to their customers to validate the planned initiatives.
  • In 2004 Jetstar was launched with 14 planes flying to 14 destinations. The speed at which Jetstar attacked took Virgin Blue by surprise and knocked it off balance.
  • Jetstar took over the tourist routes that Quantas had lost money on. Because Jetstar proved profitable on those routes, it cannibalized only revenues, not profits.
  • Thanks to Jetstar, Quantas was able to refocus on its more profitable business routes and increase the frequency of its flights on those legs.
  • The subsequent boost in profits, along with Jetstar’s growing contribution, were reinvested in overhauls of Quantas’s business lounges and business class cabins – strengthening the Quantas brand and the distinction between it and Jetstar.
  • Jetstar has stopped the growth of Virgin Blue, and Quantas is now using the brand to fight other competitors in Asia and New Zealand.

Ambra – B to professional (IBM) 1992

  • To combat the growing threat from direct marketers of personal computers like Dell and Gateway and other IBM models.
  • The Ambra was sourced in Asia and marketed between 1992 and 1994 by mail order in Europe and the United States.
  • Due to lack of brand equity and distribution barriers the Ambra was cancelled 2 years after its birth.

Kompani Group’s Approach on Data-Driven Branding

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

Categories

  • Announcement
  • Branding
  • Business Strategy
  • Case Studies
  • Clients
  • Content Marketing
  • Design
  • Email Marketing
  • General Posts
  • Intellectual Property
  • Interactive
  • Management
  • Naming
  • Results
  • Sales & Marketing
  • Social Media
  • Strategy
  • Technology
  • Trademarking
  • Uncategorized
  • Web Design
  • White Papers

Recent Posts

  • 8 Key Features That Every B2B Website Needs
  • Resources & Expertise to Take Your Business Further
  • How Smart, Custom Websites are Creating Big Business for Real Estate Professionals
  • SEO: Why It Matters & How To Leverage It
  • Entering the US as a business?

About Us

Our main focus is always to empower our clients and brands with effective solutions, quick implementations, training, know-how and tools
that immediately generate measurable results.

Recent Posts

  • 8 Key Features That Every B2B Website Needs
  • Resources & Expertise to Take Your Business Further

Data-Driven Business Optimization Services

  • Data-Driven SEO/SEM
  • Data-Driven Web Development
  • Data-Driven Marketing
  • Data-Driven Branding
  • Data-Driven Business Management

Copyright © Kompani Group 2021

  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Services
  • Support