Case Analysis

Doosan Infracore International: Portable

Power Brand Transformation (A)

Prepared by
Section B
Group-03

Moumita Majumdar 2014PGP208

Shatabdee Tripathy 2014PGP351
Kakde Sumedh Kamalakar 2014PGP151
Ankita Verma 2014PGP045
Lasya Chandrika E L 2014PGP180
Shikha Gandhi 2014PGP354
Identification of the problem
Korean conglomerate Doosan had acquired the Bobcat compact equipment, the utility
Equipment and Attachment Business from Ingersoll Rand to form Doosan Intracore
International (DII). The acquisition was a means to become a global, full-line manufacturer
and marketer of construction equipment.
While the full ownership of Bobcat brand was transferred to DII, however the 100 year old IR
brand with strong brand equity was licensed to DII for maximum of five years. Hence, the
challenge is how to go for rebranding of the IR brand which is now under Portable Power
Division.

Analysis of the situation and the problem

Following are the four options to be considered:
1. Keep the IR brand as long as possible (possibly renegotiate brand use agreement)
2. Begin co-branding strategy over 12-24 months, then transition to Doosan
3. Retain the brand for the full five years, then transition to Doosan
4. Immediate transition to Doosan
Options Advantages
Keep the IR brand as long as  Doosan can leverage
possible (possibly renegotiate the brand equity of IR
brand use agreement) to generate more
revenue
 It won’t disturb the
distributor’s network
Begin co-branding strategy  Gives opportunity to
over 12-24 months, then the end users to adapt
transition to Doosan to the transition
 Due to small
incremental transition,
it is easier to gauge
the market response
 Distributors will be
more willing to partner
this change
Retain the brand for the full  Doosan can benefit
five years, then transition to from IR brand equity
Doosan for five years
Disadvantages
 It is not in line with the
Doosan’s philosophy
to transition acquired
brand as quickly as
possible
 It was highly unlikely
that IR will renegotiate
the agreement
 This will contribute to
brand equity of IR and
does not benefit
Doosan
 End user’s association
with IR and its
products may continue
despite strong
branding efforts from
Doosan
 It would be difficult for
Doosan to transition
after five years
 It may erode profits
and revenue because
of abrupt transition
after five years
  Distributors won’t be
willing to partner and
may switch to other
brands
Immediate transition to  line with the Doosan’s  Doosan may lose out
Doosan philosophy to an opportunity to
transition acquired benefit from IR brand
brand as quickly as equity
possible  It will disturb the
extensive dealer
network acquired
through IR

Recommendations
It is recommended that Doosan should go with the second option i.e. Begin co-branding
strategy over 12-24 months, then transition to Doosan. No brand transition is required for
Bobcat. As IR portable power equipment has significant source of brand equity, across end-
user and geographic markets, it makes sense to leverage on its brand equity. Also, the
extensive dealer network which is a main influencer of user’s decision, won’t be disturbed. It
would give ample time to dealers and users to adapt to the transition.
Also the offerings by Doosan are standardised and the firm follows decentralization approach.
Hence, the firm should follow Brand Park architecture. This approach has the benefit of
leveraging the equity of the family brand to the whole portfolio, while retaining the equity in
the line brands.
Standardized Umbrella
Brand Park
Brand Stack

Family Family

Centralization Decentralization

Brand Silos
Brand Tower

Customized

Ref: B2B Brand Architecture - Steve Muylle, Niraj Dawar and Deva Rangarajan