Does marketing become derivative when the founders leave?

Before 2011, Kulula was funny. SA’s first low-cost cost airline became well known because of its cheap fares and its sense of humour.

Before 2011, Kulula was funny. SA’s first low-cost cost airline became well known because of its cheap fares and its sense of humour.

It even ran a campaign in 2010, the year of soccer World Cup in South Africa, where it described itself as the “Unofficial National Carrier of the You-Know-What” which was taking place “Not next year, not last year, but somewhere in between”. It also offered a free seat to Sepp Blatter “for the duration of that thing that is happening right now”.

Kulula doesn’t make pre-flight jokes any more. And today, its adverts are very similar to those run by Mango and SAA.

Nandos grew big off the back of politically edgy campaigns. While it’s ad’s are sometimes close to the line, they’re much tamer than they used to be. Nando’s marketing is also derivative to those run by Spur and Chicken Licken, and all other restaurants chains.

The “regression towards the mean” by Kulula and Nando’s advertising seems to align with the departure of their founders Gidon Novick and Robert Brozin, respectively.

When Anton Rupert was growing Rembrandt, he used great marketing to drive sales.

If you visit the Franschhoek Motor Museum — the Rupert family collection — you’ll see a Rembrandt branded delivery van with green paint on one side and red paint on the other. His theory was that people would see a red van drive past now and a green one drive past later, and think that his company was bigger and more established than it was at the time.

It was smart and unusual.

Today, the marketing of Distell — a subsidiary from Rembrandt (now Remgro) — is no different from South African Breweries and Brand House.

On the other hand, Discovery — who is still run by founder Adrian Gore — is noticeably different from most other insurers in the market.

It appears that when founders leave, a companies marketing becomes derivative of the rest of the sector.

While there may be a few reasons for this, one could be the difference between principals (founders and investors) and agents (people appointed by founders).

Principals have skin in the game and are therefore worried about the performance of the business.

The biggest concern of agents, on the other hand, is getting fired by the principals. They will therefore take the path of least risk, and nothing is less risky than copying the other guy even if it doesn’t change sales or build a bigger, better business.