Merchandising Project
Mona Thelemaque October 28, 2013
Introduction This project presents a comparison between Randa brands and its competitors at the men’s belt departments at Kohl’s on 2140 North Elston Avenue in Chicago and JCPenney at the Golf Mill Shopping Center in Niles. At Kohl’s, a SWOT analysis was conducted on Dockers, Levi’s, Columbia and Apt.9 in comparison to the private labels of the store and at JCPenney the focus was on Stafford in comparison to the in-house brands carried in the store. In order to make comparisons easier, the main competitor to each Randa brand was identified at each store location. Direct competitors displayed similarities in the aesthetics of its products and a potentially similar target customer.
1
Kohl’s Overview Kohl’s falls between the price tire of “good” and “better” and constitutes one of Randa’s major accounts. At its location on 2140 North Elston Avenue, men’s accessories, including wallets, belts and neckwear, were located in the men’s department along with suits and dress shirts. Overall, the men’s accessories area looked aesthetically appealing and relatively well kept. Belts were merchandised on four wooden cubical fixtures with storage space in the front and back that were placed towards the corner of the sales area in front of men’s suits and next to men’s dress shirts. Dockers had the most favorable placement in the front. An entire fixture was dedicated to the brand. The second fixture carried Eddie Bauer and Levi’s in the front and Croft & Barrow in the back. The third fixture was home to Croft and Barrow in the front and Apt.9 in the back. The front space of the last cubicle was divided between Chaps on the left and Columbia on the right and Relic in the back. Little monitors and Red Flyers were affixed to each belt fixture announcing the ongoing promotion of “Buy 1 Get 1 50% off”. There were no additional clearance sections or other special discounts. Randa brands were strongly represented with 50% of all belt brands sold at this Kohl’s location belonging under its umbrella: Dockers, Levi’s, Columbia and Apt. 9. The in-house brands offered included Croft&Barrow, Eddie Bauer, Chaps and Relic.
2
Strengths -
Strategically advantageous POS location Dominant presence on sales floor Easily visible and correct marketing Aesthetically well presented Well organized merchandise Well replenished Unique branding through colors Product labelling to guide customers while shopping Wide variety of belt styles High product quality Strong merchandise flow to add to ease of shopping
Opportunities -
Consistency and accuracy in labelling products (hangers and feature call-outs) Consistency in product presentation (hangers) Update assortment (ratio of reversible and braided styles in brown)
Weaknesses - Slightly higher priced than direct competitor
Threats - Similar aesthetics and styles offered by Croft&Barrow at a lower price - Stronger support of in-house brands by retailer due to prospect of higher profits
3
Dockers is one of Randa’s dressy belt brands which is reflected in its product assortment at Kohl’s. Luscious shades of browns, attention to detail, including the strong application of the brand’s logo, and a great hand of the materials give an indication of high quality. As mentioned above, Dockers belts had the most favorable position out of the eight belt brands at the Kohl’s men’s department I visited. They were placed on the fixture in the very front. Additionally, they filled the entire fixture – one out of four total – so the presence of the brand can be described as dominant on the sales floor. The Dockers header was affixed to the fixture as well as promotional signage to attract customers. Overall the Dockers belts were aesthetically well presented. While the front of the fixture carried belts in different brown nuances, the back carried only black belts. The merchandise was very well organized and the fixture was sufficiently replenished with product. The majority of the belts were presented on branded khaki hangers which called out the belt sizes. The hangers did not only match the product but blended in nicely with the color of the fixture as well. The color khaki was unique to the Dockers brand – no other belt brand in this department was using it for presentational purposes which provided for differentiation and easy recognition among customers. However, there were a few styles that had blue Dockers hangers (probably from previous seasons). In order to establish an even stronger brand image, the presentation should be consistent.
4
The straps featured fabric wrappings to call out special features of the belt such as “soft touch”, “reversible” and “stretch” to help guide customers and make buying-decisions easier. However, the fabric tags were missing on some belts and sometimes did not seem to be very accurate. Style 11DK02R6, for example, felt much softer than style 11DK01MD. This was another area with room for improvement. Dockers offered a wide-ranging product assortment for its customers to choose from. The assortment was a bit more varied in the brown hues than in black. Braided belts had a relatively strong presence among the former with a ratio of 4 out of 11 styles or about 36% even though braided belts do not widely appeal to Randa’s target customer. There were only two reversible styles in brown which was surprising since reversibles are usually among the best-selling styles according to Randa’s statistics, which is especially true for Kohl’s stores. An update of the assortment might be something to think about to be even more competitive. In black, there was only one braided style offered and 40% of the 10 styles were reversibles. But besides the actual assortment of the product, it was merchandised in a way that added to its aesthetical appeal and its effortlessness to shop. The assortment has great merchandise flow, beginning with braided belts, transitioning into non-reversibles (mainly harnesses) and ending with reversibles. Within each group, the belts evolve from more “casual” to dressier styles, for example with shiny straps.
5
Croft&Barrow seemed to be Dockers’ direct competitor. It offered an assortment quite similar in style and aesthetics to Dockers, except that it did not feature any logos and that it looked slightly plainer which was reflected in a slightly lower retail price of $26, compared to Dockers’ retail price of $28.
Croft&Barrow belts featured simple paper or fabric wrappings around the straps or manmade tags attached to the buckle loops to call out specific features of the belts. To me, it seemed rather confusing that different tags were used to call out the same feature, for example “soft touch”. Just like it was the case with Dockers, within each style some belts had the tags and on others they were missing. The belts were presented on navy hangers with white Croft&Barrow logos. If the belt was a reversible style, it was called out on the hanger. Overall, because the belts were not as organized and because black and brown belts were merchandised together, the presentation of the product did not look as sleek and clean as the one from Dockers. Croft&Barrow belts were carried on fixture fronts that faced each other which is great for presentational purposes. But the position of the fixtures was slightly disadvantageous in comparison to Dockers since they were further in the back of the selling space. Croft&Barrow had even more braided belts in its assortment than Dockers which made it weaker in this respect. In summary, Croft&Barrow belts were not presented as aesthetically appealing as Dockers belts and even though they had a comparable product quality, they did not feature as many details as Dockers belts which makes this Randa brand highly competitive.
6
Strengths -
Satisfying POS location Solid product assortment Aesthetically well presented Well organized merchandise Well replenished Unique branding through colors High product quality Strong merchandise flow to add to ease of shopping Slightly lower priced than main competitors
Opportunities -
Consistency in product presentation (hangers) Increase marketing of merchandise (feature call-outs)
Weaknesses -
Weak presence on sales floor Limited range of products Incorrect marketing Weak product labelling to guide customers while shopping
Threats -
Blurred differentiation between Columbia and Levi’s In-house brands with similar aesthetics and style More dominant presence of in-house brands on the sales floor that share similarities Stronger support of in-house brands by retailer due to prospect of higher profits
7
Levi’s is one of Randa’s casual belt brands which is reflected in its product assortment at Kohl’s. Cut edges and antique buckle finishes speak to the brand’s identity and the sleek product presentation, varied and highly visibly application of the brand’s logo and a great hand of the materials give an indication of high quality. Levi’s belts had a satisfying location on the sales floor in comparison to all the other belt brands at Kohl’s men’s department. The belts were merchandised on the front of the second wooden cubicle fixture. Even though Levi’s shared its space with Eddie Bauer, it was still favorably located because it was merchandised on the right – the direction where customers would come from – and is therefore relatively well visible. Limited space came with a limited product assortment which was nevertheless solid. Altogether, there were seven Levi’s styles presented, five of which were reversible. The belts were merchandised by color – three brown and four black belts – and mirrorreversed. The non-reversible bridle with cut edges (11LV02PP) on the very left in brown and on the very right in black encompassed the remaining belt styles of the Levi’s assortment, including the five reversibles and another harness. These styles transitioned from the ones with more slender buckles to the ones with chunkier buckles. Therewith, a smooth merchandise flow was established which contributed to the aesthetics of the product presentation and to the effortlessness to shop the brand. Overall the Levi’s belts were aesthetically well presented. They were not only well merchandised, but also well organized and replenished. The majority of the belts were presented on red hangers with black Levi’s batwing logo that carried the white Levi’s word logo on the inside. The 8
red color sat itself apart from the fixture and the Eddie Bauer labels on the left and made for strong banding that drew attention to the product. Even though Relic was also using the color red on its hangers, it was a more subdued hue that was further damped by its grey color frame and therefore is not to be mixed up. There were a couple of Levi’s styles that still had the black hangers with red batwing logo but in order to establish an even stronger brand image, the presentation should be consistent. Marketing did not sufficiently support the Levi’s assortment at this location. Firstly, the Columbia header was used on top of the Levi’s fixture. While strong marketing can enhance sales, the marketing in this case was only confusing and misleading. Secondly, there were no tags to promote special features and benefits of the belts, except for the hangers that called out reversible styles. In my opinion, this is a helpful tool to help customers find what they are looking for easier and quicker in today’s “product jungle” and therefore should be taken advantage of more – especially because Eddie Bauer was making use of it and could just win over customers that are indecisive between the two brands. Speaking of competition, Eddie Bauer and Relic were the private labels that competed with Levi’s most strongly. Both are casual brands that show similarity to the Levi’s assortment. While Levi’s styles retailed for $28, Eddie Bauer retailed for $36 and Relic for $30 so that Levi’s is at a clear advantage in this context. The aesthetics of Eddie Bauer, including the stitching details, logo placements, usage of heavier buckles and cut edges, reminded strongly on Levi’s. However, in this location the presentation of the Eddie Bauer product assortment was not nearly as aesthetically appealing as the one from Levi’s. It was such a mess that no sort of order was recognizable. In addition, lots of the racks were nearly empty and needed to be replenished desperately. Even though the belts seemed to be of comparable quality to the Levi’s belts and even displayed tags describing the features of certain belts, customers probably won’t even feel like shopping from Eddie Bauer because of all the chaos – not to mention the considerably higher price point of the brand.
9
Very much the same is true for Relic even though its fixture wasn’t as unorganized as Eddie Bauer’s. Some of the Relic styles corresponded more strongly with Columbia styles, especially the braided ones, but part of the Relic assortment also showed similarities to the Levi’s assortment. It was difficult to make out an order that would make it easy for customers to orientate themselves and find what they are looking for. The racks were relatively empty and needed replenishment. The Relic belts also did not carry any tags calling out special features of the belts. The logo was not heavily applied to the products. Except for a few exceptions, the overall product was fairly simple, featured little detail and its quality did not seem to justify its retail price – especially when compared to Levi’s products. However, Relic was the only brand at this Kohl’s store to offer fabric belts which differentiated it from the other belt brands, including Levi’s. The bright colors and unique patterns of the fabric belts added some interest to the product assortment and might have caught the attention of some customers. The combination of weaker brand identity and recognition, lower perceived product quality, higher retail price and the worst location of all belt brands in the store – the back side of the last fixture – made Relic seem less competitive than Levi’s. In order to avoid cannibalization between the Randa brands Columbia and Levi’s, it is important to keep their assortments as strongly differentiated as possible. Both brands are casual but have a different target customer that the assortment needs to cater to. While some of the reversible styles might have shared some similarities at this Kohl’s location, the product assortments as a whole had a very different appeal so that the market shares of both brands should not be jeopardized by the respective other.
10
Strengths -
Solid product assortment Unique branding through colors Consistency in product presentation High product quality Slightly lower priced than main competitors
Opportunities -
Improve presentation of merchandise (organization and replenishment) Improve merchandising flow Increase marketing of merchandise (feature call-outs)
Weaknesses -
Mediocre POS location Weak presence on sales floor Limited range of products Disadvantageous marketing Weakly replenished Weak merchandise flow Weak product labelling to guide customers while shopping
Threats -
Blurred differentiation between Columbia and Levi’s In-house brands with similar aesthetics and style More dominant presence of in-house brands on the sale floor that share similarities Stronger support of in-house brands by retailer due to prospect of higher profits
11
Columbia is another one of Randa’s casual belt brands which is reflected in its product assortment at Kohl’s. Great attention to detail, the varied and highly visibly application of the brand’s logo and a great hand of the materials give an indication of high quality. Columbia’s belt assortment at this Kohl’s location was mediocre. It was presented on the front of the last belt fixture. Even though Columbia shared its space with Chaps, it was comparably more favorably located because it was merchandised on the right – the direction where customers would come from – and was therefore more visible. Its shared space on the fixture and the relatively high number of other belt brands sold caused Columbia to have a relatively weak presence on the sales floor at this Kohl’s store. Even though limited space only allowed for a limited range of products, the assortment was solid and offered variety. Altogether, there were seven Columbia styles on offer, three of which were reversibles and one was braided. There were no black, but only brown and tan belts with a number of buckle finishes, including antique nickel, dark antique gunmetal and brown brass, stitching and logo details. None of the belts carried tags that promoted different belt features, except for the hangers that called out reversible styles. This is a helpful tool to help customers find what they are looking for easier and quicker and therefore should be taken advantage of more – especially because Columbia shared its fixture space with another brand. The fixture carried a Chaps header which was another disadvantage in regards to the marketing for Columbia. However, the brand’s unique blue color of its hangers helped to create a strong brand identity that created recognition among customers. Even though Chaps and Croft&Barrow also use the color blue, it is a navy blue and much darker than Columbia’s blue so that the brands cannot be confused. Also, Columbia’s product presentation was consistent; all its belts were presented on the same blue hangers.
12
While the presentation of Columbia’s product was in principle aesthetically appealing, there were some improvements to make. While the back row or merchandise looked well organized, the front needed some touch up. In addition to that, the merchandise needed to be replenished as many styles were running out. A considerably better merchandise flow could be established by rearranging the order of the products, for example like this: 11CO02F4 (#6), 11CO02J1 (#5), 11CO02J4 (#3), 11CO02J9 (#7), 11CO02A9 (#4), 11CO02L4 (#1), 11CO02J8 (#2). Chaps was Columbia’s strongest direct competitor out of all the private labels sold at this Kohl’s location. As mentioned above, Relic also had some similar styles, in particular the braided belts. However, in regards to perceived quality, brand recognition, product presentation and price point, Columbia showed stronger performance and in addition, enjoyed a slightly better POS location. Chaps was highly unorganized and no merchandise flow was recognizable which made the brand unpleasant to shop. However, Chaps seemed to offer a greater variety of products than Columbia, including braided belts, reversible and nonreversible belts, as well as textured belts in black, brown and even tan. Nevertheless, Chaps assortment could not replace what Columbia had to offer because there were still too many differences in both assortments: Chaps did not offer any brown reversibles, which Columbia did, Chaps offered a number of skinnier belts while Columbia had several wider belts in its assortment and Columbia’s belts showed a significantly greater variety of buckle finishes. But because the aesthetics and even the quality of both brands seemed comparable, and the retail price point of $28 was the same, Chaps and Columbia can be regarded as direct competitors. 13
Strengths -
Unique product assortment Aesthetically well presented Well organized merchandise Well replenished Unique branding Aggressive price strategy No direct competitor
Opportunities -
Increase marketing of merchandise (feature call-outs) Increase variety of assortment by adding detail to straps Add a pop of color to draw attention
Weaknesses -
Weak POS location Limited variety of assortment (color and style) Very simple products with little detailing Lower perceived product quality than other brands Weak product labelling to guide customers while shopping
Threats -
-
Adaptations of product assortment by other brands with similarities in aesthetics to become more similar to Apt.9, especially in regards to offering black plaques (with higher quality) Stronger support of in-house brands by retailer due to prospect of higher profits
14
Apt.9 is a Kohl’s in-house brand and Randa is licensed to produce and distribute Apt.9 belts in the USA. It is a casual lifestyle brand. Apt.9 had one of the least favorable POS locations in comparison to the rest of the belt brands offered at this Kohl’s men’s department. Its product was merchandised on the back side of the second-to-last wooden belt fixture which carried an Apt.9 header to support its promotion. The Apt.9 product assortment was aesthetically well presented. It was well organized and replenished. The assortment was unique because it was the only one that carried plaques in this Kohl’s store. However the assortment also had its short-comings in regards to color and variety, as customers could only chose between black reversible plaques, black standard reversibles and a black nonreversible style with harness buckle and double loops. The straps of the belts were so simple (generally plain or with some minor stitching detail on occasion) that the belts merely differed in the style and detailing of their buckles. The look and the feel of the belts did not speak of high quality which was also reflected in the retail price of $26, the lowest price out of all other belts offered. The belts were presented on nice and sturdy black hangers with white word logo. All other brands had colored hangers and more colorful merchandise, so that Apt.9’s branding is unique.
15
Even though Croft&Barrow had some similar simple reversible styles to Apt.9, the overall aesthetics was quite different and will most likely not attract the same customer. Because of Apt.9’s unique selling proposition, it had no direct competitor among the other brands. In order to strengthen its position in the market, Apt.9 could introduce tags to promote special features of its belts or suggest the appropriate occasion for each belt to help guide customers in their buying decision. Only the reversible styles were called out on the hangers of the belts. Also, the variety of the assortment could be increased, for example by adding more details to the straps as long as that could be supported with the existing price point and as long as it aligns with the brand identity. Adding a bold solid color that speaks to the respective season to the assortment could be a great eyecatcher and draw more attention to the product.
16
JCPenney Overview JCPenney falls between the price tire of “good” and “better” and constitutes one of Randa’s major accounts. At its location in the Golf Mill Shopping Center, men’s belts were merchandised between men’s footwear and underwear. Altogether, there were seven metal belt fixtures offering a front and back for product display, all positioned behind each other. Six out of those seven fixtures were free-standing the last one was a wall fixture. Overall, the area looked aesthetically appealing despite the big ongoing sales promotions. In regards to tidiness and product availability, however, JCPenneys did not perform as strong as Kohl’s. JCPenney’s private label J. Ferrar was merchandised on the front of the first fixture. The back was made up by a 40% clearance section. JCPenney in-house brand Haggar was presented on the entire second fixture. The front of the third fixture was merchandised with JCPenney’s private label Claiborne and the back with Dockers which also filled the entire fourth fixture. Columbia and Buffalo shared the front of fixture number ,five with Buffalo only displaying 3 styles, and Levi’s occupied the back. The sixth fixture was dedicated to a 60% clearance section. The wall fixture was merchandised with JCPenney’s in-house brand Stafford. Little headers on all the fixtures announced the ongoing promotion of “Buy 1 Get 1 50% off” for all regular priced belts besides the clearance sections. Randa brands showed strong presence as 50 % of the belt brands offered at this JCPenney location belonged to its product assortment: Dockers, Levi’s, Columbia and Stafford competed with J. Ferrar, Haggar, Claiborne and Buffalo.
17
Strengths -
Unique POS location Dominant presence on sales floor Easily visible and correct marketing Product labelling to guide customers while shopping Unique product assortment Good perceived quality Aggressive Price Strategy
Opportunities -
Improve presentation of merchandise (tidiness and replenishment) Improve merchandise flow Consistency in labelling products (feature call-outs) Increase variety of belt styles
Weaknesses -
Limited variety of belt styles Weakly replenished Relatively weak organization of merchandise Relatively weak merchandise flow
Threats -
Strong presence of in-house brands with similar aesthetics and product assortment Strong presence of Dockers with similar product assortment and higher product quality Stronger support of in-house brands by retailer due to prospect of higher profits
18
Stafford is a JCPenney in-house brand and Randa is licensed to produce and distribute its belts in the USA. Stafford caters to the classic and traditional men’s lifestyle and its aesthetics are comparable to Dockers. Stafford had a unique position at JCPenney men’s department. Even though it was displayed all the way in the back of the sales area, it was the only brand merchandised on a wall fixture which was wider than the other free standing belt fixtures. As a result, Stafford had the strongest presence on the sales floor out of all other belt brands except for Dockers. Because the wall fixture was also alternated in height, it was visible all the way from the front of the sales area. Stafford’s product assortment was accompanied by clearly visible and correct marketing signage which was placed on the shelves above the fixture. Because the 60% sales rack was placed right in front of Stafford’s wall fixture, even more customers might be drawn in its direction which could positively affect sales. The presentation of Stafford’s product assortment was aesthetically appealing but had room for improvement. The fixture was partly unorganized, especially among the black belts on the lower rack and replenishment was needed. The merchandise flow could be improved by grouping the color belts and brown hues together and sorting the assortment by style, for example all harness belts with double loop and all reversible together within each group of color/brown belts and black belts. All belts were presented on navy blue hangers with white word logo. The branding did not stick out, as other brands used a similar color theme, too.
19
The depth of Stafford’s product assortment far exceeded its breadth. While the brand offered a limited variety of belt styles, about seven to eight different styles, it offered a variety of different colors, including mustard and maroon, and textures in the same styles. This made Stafford’s product assortment unique among the belt brands offered at this JCPenney. The perceived quality of Stafford belts was relatively good. The materials looked and felt great but were all mainly manmade, with some exceptions. The retail price of $25 is extremely competitive. The belts even carried promotional paper tags that were wrapped around the strap to call out certain features of the belts, such as “ultra soft” which does not only inform the customer but also helps in the decision-making process. However, the tags were missing on some belts but should be featured consistently to create a stronger brand identity. Claiborne and especially Haggar resembled Stafford’s aesthetics and constituted the brand’s strongest direct competitors at JCPenney. Even Randa’s brand Dockers had a quite similar product assortment, but the brand competes on a different quality and price level. While Haggar offered a similar product variety, Stafford offered a wider variety of textured and colored belts. Haggar retailed at a higher price point of $30. The belts also carried paper tags to call out appropriate occasions for the belts, for example “work to weekend” or material, for example “European leather”. Haggar’s product presentation was comparable to Stafford’s. The fixture needed some touch up and replenishment, especially in regards to the brown colors. The merchandising flow, however, was smoother than in the case of Stafford, and added to the effortlessness to shop the brand. The merchandise seemed to be of good quality – again comparable to Stafford’s 20
product quality. All of the above make those two brands strong competitors. However, since the product assortment did not equal each other all the way, especially in regards to Haggar’s wider variety and different aesthetics of belt styles in black, the brands were not fully interchangeable and therewith kept a unique selling proposition. And because Stafford is competing with such an aggressive price strategy, customers are likely to choose the Randa brand over Haggar for similar-looking styles. Claiborne retailed at a slightly higher price than Stafford, at $28. The non-reversible belts with the double loops and the reversibles of both product assortments resembled each other, even though Stafford’s belt straps offered more details, such as stitching. Claiborne’s product presentation was aesthetically a bit more appealing because its fixture was slightly more replenished and better organized. The belts were fairly simple and plain with little detail. There were no tags to promote any features of the belts, except for the hangers that called out the reversible styles. Because Stafford offers similar styles with more attention to detail in a greater variety of colors and textures and at a lower price point, the Randa brands seems to have a competitive advantage to Claiborne. Other threats include the increasingly blurred differentiation between the Randa brands Stafford and Dockers and potential cannibalization.
21
Other Randa Brands at JCPenney Dockers was merchandised on three fixture fronts and was therefore strongly represented on the sales floor. However, the fixtures needed replenishment desperately. It would have looked better to consolidate the Dockers merchandise on only two fixture fronts which might also enhance the merchandising flow as the back of the fourth fixture (picture on the right) was not ideally merchandised.
The Columbia fixture was also poorly replenished and the merchandise looked “lost in space”.
The Levi’s display was extremely messy. There was no order at all and there seemed to be too many different styles to properly fit on the fixture front. Because of the chaos, the brand did not invite to shop. Also there was a strong mix of red and black hangers, making the product presentation inconsistent and visually less appealing.
Compared to Kohl’s, Randa brands had more disadvantageous POS locations at JCPenney and were not presented as visually appealing as at Kohl’s. 22
Conclusion Overall, Randa brands offer its customers a wide range of merchandise with greater perceived quality and attention to detail, especially with regard to the straps, than the competition. Randa brands were overall presented aesthetically more appealing and had a better merchandise flow than the in-house brands. But even though the fixtures with Randa brands seemed more organized and replenished, there was still room for improvement, especially at JCPenney. While this might be a sign of high consumer demand, there should always be enough product on the floor for customers to shop, in such an organized way that it is easy for them to find what they are looking for quickly and easily to avoid frustration. Because of the integrated MCG service Randa offers, I had higher expectations on the Randa brands from the start and assume that the last visit was probably a while back. The reason why this is such an important point is because retailers make more profit with their private labels since they don’t have to pay royalty and might support those brands stronger. At Kohl’s, for example, each fixture only carried one header in the front and one header in the back, even on the fixture fronts that carried two brands. On the fixture front that was merchandised with Chaps and Columbia, the header promoted Chaps which is a disadvantage for Columbia. Because in-house brands compete strongly with Randa brands through aggressive price policies and/or similar aesthetics, Randa has to assure the excellent presentation of its products on the sales floor to secure its market share. Since it is a highly competitive market, it is important for Randa brands to keep up the perceived image of quality and differentiate themselves from the competition with their product assortment and presentation while remaining true to its brand identity. Also, customers need to be able to distinguish between the Randa brands to avoid cannibalization.
23