• by Martin Bishop , October 7, 2011

You'd expect Apple and Facebook to be on a list of fastest-growing brands. But would you expect such a list to include Hershey's Reese's -- the peanut butter cups brand??

Landor's Breakaway Brands study measures increases in brand strength over a three-year period. This year's list includes Reese's, looking startlingly out of place among the expected tech and social media brands, with a 42% increase, which is pretty amazing for a brand that's been around since the 1920s.

It turns out Reese's made it on this list in a decidedly "retro" way. Hershey implemented a back-to-basics approach that comes right out of the Ries' (no relation) playbook. Way back in 1998, Al and Laura Ries wrote: The 22 Immutable Laws of Branding reflecting their ideas about the importance of brand focus and specificity. Laws 1 and 2 (The Laws of Line Expansion and Contraction) are the ones that Reese's has taken to heart. These laws state that more is less when it comes to line extensions and that "a brand becomes stronger when you narrow its focus."

After over a decade of line extensions (including Reese's Whips and Reese's NutRageous and all sorts of variations of chocolate [white, dark, milk], sizes and flavors), Reese's has turned back to its core business. Although the line extensions are mostly still around, the new effort is not about them -- it's about the original peanut butter cup with a simple message about the "perfect" combination of chocolate and peanut butter.

This strategy has worked. Reese's has extended its lead in the confectionery category, pulling further ahead of M&M's. Landor's research shows that the brand is now perceived to be more straightforward, authentic and distinctive.

So, what do we conclude from the success of Reese's? That Al and Laura are right? That the immutable laws of branding are, in fact, immutable? That brands should stick to their knitting and not spread themselves too thin? Not so fast. What about Apple? Or Samsung? They are both on the list as well.

Apple and Samsung certainly haven't stuck to their knitting. If they had, Apple would only be selling computers and Samsung would still be producing noodles. Whereas Apple has gone from success to ever-bigger success with music players, phones and tablets. And Samsung has applied its brand to shipbuilding, construction, home appliances and a huge range of electronics -- all with limited use of sub-brands.

Better, I think, to have a more nuanced view. As a CPG brand, Reese's competes in a category dominated by specialists, many of whom have been around for as long as it has. (Take a tour of a supermarket and see how few brands have successfully crossed categories.) For a brand like Reese's, focus may indeed be the answer.

But in fast-moving, technology-driven categories where Apple and Samsung compete, tying your brand to the mast of a specific product or technology can be fatal. AOL, Palm and, in an earlier era, Smith & Corona, stand witness to that. In such categories, it's often better to define yourself in terms of the experience delivered and not so much on the products you sell. This helps your brand ride though disruptive changes and allows the brand a wider range of products. It may be tough to be distinctive, but it is not impossible, especially if you use sub-brands to add some category specificity.

So maybe the Reese's lesson is that the Ries' laws are not so much immutable but rather, still helpful in the right circumstances?