Samsung TV’s are fine. I have one that’s about 20 years old and still works fine.
Thanks, Steve_O — Yeah, getting older is a b****. Thank Goodness I have good insurance.
All super concerning! Have a Samsung TV too, which has performed well, so thought their other appliances would be on par.
Research by Reise & Trout in their book 21 IMMUTABLE LAWS OF MARKETING says creating more (different) products (The Law of Line Extension) is a huge mistake that can lead to a company’s eventual demise. I.e. one product is hyper successful so the company keeps adding products, leading to their eventual downfall.
This appears to be the case with Samsung.
But that’s just my observation.
Samsung is a broad group of affiliated South Korean companies operating under a common name. There’s nothing quite like it in the U.S. The Samsung Group manufactures everything from electronics to clothing to appliances to large ocean-going ships. Samsung is also a construction company and one of the world’s largest life insurance companies. If that weren’t enough, they own theme parks/resorts and even a large advertising agency.
In some ways, Samsung is similar to Yamaha in Japan, which manufactures everything from musical instruments to motorcycles to boats to sporting goods to factory robotic systems, and audio electronics.
I’m not sure the Law of Line Extension applies to these sprawling Japanese and Korean conglomerates.
In a way it does. It’s still Line Extension, just more companies involved so they can spread the blame for failures. It’s still the Samsung Brand doing it.
I’ve been puzzled over this subject for years, so bear with me.
I suppose my observation concerns questions over root causes or symptoms. I’ve never been sure if line extensions were a cause of a brand’s decline or mainly just a symptom of a stagnant or declining company’s attempt to leverage its brand to boost profits.
If I remember correctly, The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing implies the former — a cause of the decline. Back in the '70s and '80s, when the book’s authors were developing their marketing theories, there weren’t many examples of line extensions that worked, so perhaps a logical assumption was that the line extensions didn’t work and were part of the problem.
I think it’s still true that a declining company can’t rescue itself through a line extension of a declining brand. However, since the book came out in the early '90s, I can think of dozens of examples of thriving companies and brands that have successfully used line extensions.
For example, back in the 1960s, Coca-Cola deliberately avoided a line extension by naming their new diet cola Tab instead of attempting to leverage the Coca-Cola name. It wasn’t until the late '80s that the company came out with Diet Coke, which turned into a big hit. Since then, Coca-Cola and its soft drink competitors have relied on line extensions for dozens of new variations of their core products. I’m trying to be brief, so I’ll skip other examples.
However, there are a least two kinds of line extensions. The first is brand extensions, and the second is product extensions. The Coca-Cola examples are brand extensions, which extend the brand into closely related derivative products. Product line extensions are still rare in the U.S. For example, Coca-Cola has refrained from using the Coca-Cola name on its other products.
Companies with a broad assortment of products have generally relied on pushing their various brands rather than the parent company brand. Yum! Brands, for example, keeps their KFC, Taco Bell, and Pizza Hut brands separate. Procter & Gamble markets its hundreds of brands as unrelated.
It would seem downright weird if Disney began selling Disney Computers or for IBM to market IBM Shampoo. One of the few examples of an American company even attempting this kind of product line extension is Donald Trump’s company; the Trump name is attached to everything from hotels to steaks. Of course, he’s only had limited success doing this, which might argue for line extensions not working.
However, Japanese and Korean companies have engaged in product line extensions for decades and built huge companies. Honda, Hyundai, Yamaha, Mitsubishi, Sony, Bridgestone, and Samsung, to name a few, are sprawling companies with unrelated product lines — all marketed under their parent company’s brand name.
With all that in mind, I’ll head back to my original question about line extensions being a cause of a company’s decline or simply a symptom of an already failing company’s attempt to salvage the company. Given the recent success with brand line extensions in the U.S. and with Asian conglomerates built around sprawling product line extensions, I’m inclined to think this immutable law is more nuanced than the book implies.
Anyway, I’m sorry for the long, rambling theory. 
My understanding of the concept is that a company becomes so successful with their main product (TV’s in Samsungs case) and Line Extensions that follow carry the same company brand name. In other words,Line Extensions come from very successful first products, not from failing brands.
It doesn’t mean ALL Line Extensions fail. Honda being a great example. And there are many more
I’m sure, especially Japanese brand products which promote excellent work ethics and employee participation at the decision level and rewarding excellent work. I have personally seen this through one of my son-in-laws stories of his experience as a Toyota employee for the last fifteen years—an excellent example.
1 Like
Yes. With the Asian companies, I think much has to do with the culture of those countries, which is one of the nuances I referred to. One thing I find interesting is that the line extensions of those big Asian companies have been nearly as successful here as in their home countries. For example, Yamaha branding its pianos, stereo equipment, and motorcycles under the same Yamaha brand hasn’t undermined their respective reputations here in the U.S.
I suppose the gist of what I’m getting at is that instead of line extensions being an immutable law that leads downhill, success or failure has more to do with how, why, when, and where it’s tried.
I just thought of another one—-John Deere. A few years back, I bought another John Deere lawn tractor. Two years later, just a few months after the warranty expired, I was happily mowing my yard when all at once—KLUNK! CLACK, Clack, Clack!! I know enough about engines to recognize when a motor throws a rod!
Had to get it towed to my John Deere Dealer and, sure enough—it was a thrown rod. Going to cost me mega-bucks to repair!
Come to find out the model I bought (close to two grand) had a motor made by Kholer.KHOLER!!!—The plumbing fixture company!!! What the heck does Kholer know about 4-cycle engines!!!
My dealer was sympathetic, but it was still going to cost me big-time. My dealer offered $500 off on another tractor. I bought a Cub Cadet with a Yamaha motor and a full five year warranty.
Needless to say, that was the last John Deere product I ever bought, or will ever buy. The Cub Cadet has been fantastic.
LOL! 
I grew up on a farm. We had John Deere and Massey Ferguson tractors. My Dad always told me the John Deeres were his favorite, so the company always stuck in my head as a premium, quality brand.
Years later and living in the city, I needed a heavy-duty snowblower for the steep driveway at our newly purchased house. I didn’t even do any research when I found that John Deere also made snowblowers. I simply went out and bought one.
What a mistake. I needed to take it into the shop every year and sometimes twice per winter to have it repaired. It was green with a John Deer logo on it, but it was nowhere near the quality of the John Deere tractors and bailers we owned.
After four years, I sat it outside on the curb with a note offering it to whoever wanted it for scrap. It was gone within three or four days. I ended up buying some other off-brand (Columbia, I think) that had good online reviews. It’s lasted perfectly with no issues whatsoever for the past ten years.
This topic was automatically closed 365 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.