"very clever campaign!

I also think it's pretty interesting that Clorox strategy has been to create a whole new brand for their "green" line of products, while SC Johnson has instead chosen to tout their traditional brands with "greener" improvements. There are certainly pros and cons to each strategy... build a whole new parallel brand vs add a new layer to an existing brand.

Which strategy do you guys like best? Any evidence of which approach seems to be working best for the companies?"

- Scully

"I think it's definitely a better strategy to launch a new brand. Customers know you for one thing, it's much easier to introduce something new than to say "You know that one we stand for this, well now we stands for this other thing now."

Same reason I think KFC will never find true long-term success with "UNFRIED" chicken. It's a decent short-term strategy, but they won't build long-term success with it. We all know them as "Fried", especially since that's what the "F" stands for in KFC."

- Craig Johnson

"I tend to agree with the approach, although I'm not sure that's why they did it.

I suspect that they did some consumer polling and found that labeling cleaning products as "environmentally friendly" tended to have a connotation of being less effective or not as strong, and they didn't want to risk damaging the Clorox brand in that scenario.

It's very expensive to now double the brand management portfolio with this parallel products that fulfill the same consumer need, but I'm sure it would have been very expensive to try and convince consumers that Clorox (a name that is synonymous with bleach and chemicals) has become environmentally friendly.

At some point, it seems all brands will be expected to be environmentally responsible as cost of admission to even be considered on the shelf. They also don't want to create a long term marketing strategy in which they are competing with themselves or spending money to divide the message to their own target market. I suspect that in a few years, if Green Works is successful, they'll probably re-merge them into a single product line. Maybe Green Works with Clorox, or Clorox Green Works."

- Scully

"They're not really competing with themselves though, are they? They actually own more market-space, just with 2 different products. If people begin to put their trust in Green-Works, why not just let that become the main brand as people trust it? I mean, it will be the people deciding which is the main brand by where their dollars go. But either way, Clorox has their money and trust. Seems brilliant to me.

As a side not, check this out: http://www.ossario.net/ossario/video.html - this guy gets arrested for cleaning with reverse graffiti, eventually getting the authorities to clean up."

- Craig Johnson

"In theory, it would be great to take a larger portion of the market by hitting it with two targeted brands, as long as there remains these distinct customer segments to go after. It's tough to implement organizationally I think, because those two brand groups are still battling over some of the same resources. It's still certainly more expensive to manage two brand campaigns than it is one, and in the long term, I wonder if those different consumer segments may begin to become less distinct. I suppose the migration of consumer preference is an issue for all brand managers though. Complex issues."

- Scully

"Complex indeed. But I believe it better to stay targeted than generic, especially on an overcrowded marketplace."

- Craig Johnson