Implementation of a multi‐brand strategy in action sports

Abstract

Purpose

The present study aims to explore the efforts of a core action sports company (Board Sports Company (BSC)) to employ a multi‐brand strategy and to focus on the identity and reach of the seven distinct brands operated under the parent company. The study seeks to identify benefits and limitations of the multi‐brand strategy, as seen by company employees.

Design/methodology/approach

In a single‐case design study approach, a global, private action sports company, recognized as a leader in authentic action sports footwear and apparel, was selected for study. Data were collected via in‐depth interviews with key company employees and an extensive review of secondary sources.

Findings

The adoption of a multi‐brand strategy with the operation of seven distinct brands has allowed BSC to expand to mainstream audiences, while strengthening its core target markets. Through aggressive consumer segmentation practices and the strategic utilization of a variety of distribution outlets, BSC remains competitive in a highly antagonistic business environment.

Practical implications

Possibly the greatest benefit of a multi‐brand strategy is a company's ability to diversify, while minimizing the risk of transferring potentially harmful associations among its brands. Thus, BSC has expanded its reach into the mainstream through new sports, product lines, distribution channels, and target audiences. Simultaneously, the organization has guarded the perception of authenticity of its core brands.

Originality/value

The study extends the understanding of the management of sport brands by moving beyond collegiate and professional sport organizations to focus on an athletic wear and equipment brand. It also offers insight to sport organizations that might consider expansion via the adoption of a multi‐brand strategy.

Citation

Giannoulakis, C. and Apostolopoulou, A. (2011), "Implementation of a multi‐brand strategy in action sports", Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 171-181. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610421111134905