Levis Case
Levis Case
1. Do you think that Levi’s was correct to keep the Levi Strauss name on its Signature line? Or would it have been better off creating a completely new brand name? Present both sides of the case. Take and justify a position.
I don’t think they were correct to use that brand name because the Levi Straus is bringing down the Levis name. Personally I would not buy Levis jeans anymore if I knew that there were such low price Levis jeans around. It degrades the brand to the eyes of the higher end customers.
2. What do you think Levi’s image is among the following? What are the marketing implications of your response?
a. Tween girls (aged 10 to 12) (I don’t think they will necessarily have a strong opinion, at this age jeans are jeans)
b. Tween boys (aged 10 to 12) (I don’t think they will necessarily have a strong opinion, at this age jeans are jeans)
c. Teenage girls (just jeans, nothing too exciting about them)
d. Teenage boys (just jeans, nothing too exciting about them)
e. Women aged 21 to 35 (good jeans but only if you buy the right brand)
f. Men aged 21 to 35 (good jeans but only if you buy the right brand)
g. Women aged 36 to 55 (well designed jeans that will fit any budget) h. Men aged 36 to 55 (well designed jeans that will fit any budget)
3. Do you believe that the Levi’s brand is as “elastic” as Levi’s executives believe it is? Or, have they “overstretched” the name with the Signature line?
I believe that the brand has overstretched, because when a customer buys a product, they want it to be unique and easily noticeable. If the consumer knows that they will be walking down the street and see people from every social class wearing Levis, they will not be so interested in buying them.
4. Develop the “brand schema” that you think existed for the overall Levi’s brand before and after the introduction of the Signature line (i.e., an associative network map of links and nodes). What are the marketing implications of the differences?
1. Do you think that Levi’s was correct to keep the Levi Strauss name on its Signature line? Or would it have been better off creating a completely new brand name? Present both sides of the case. Take and justify a position.
I don’t think they were correct to use that brand name because the Levi Straus is bringing down the Levis name. Personally I would not buy Levis jeans anymore if I knew that there were such low price Levis jeans around. It degrades the brand to the eyes of the higher end customers.
2. What do you think Levi’s image is among the following? What are the marketing implications of your response?
a. Tween girls (aged 10 to 12) (I don’t think they will necessarily have a strong opinion, at this age jeans are jeans)
b. Tween boys (aged 10 to 12) (I don’t think they will necessarily have a strong opinion, at this age jeans are jeans)
c. Teenage girls (just jeans, nothing too exciting about them)
d. Teenage boys (just jeans, nothing too exciting about them)
e. Women aged 21 to 35 (good jeans but only if you buy the right brand)
f. Men aged 21 to 35 (good jeans but only if you buy the right brand)
g. Women aged 36 to 55 (well designed jeans that will fit any budget) h. Men aged 36 to 55 (well designed jeans that will fit any budget)
3. Do you believe that the Levi’s brand is as “elastic” as Levi’s executives believe it is? Or, have they “overstretched” the name with the Signature line?
I believe that the brand has overstretched, because when a customer buys a product, they want it to be unique and easily noticeable. If the consumer knows that they will be walking down the street and see people from every social class wearing Levis, they will not be so interested in buying them.
4. Develop the “brand schema” that you think existed for the overall Levi’s brand before and after the introduction of the Signature line (i.e., an associative network map of links and nodes). What are the marketing implications of the differences?