In fact, this is a very classic problem in the field of marketing. I remember that I studied marketing in college, and the teacher once told this case in class. P&G adopts multi-brand strategy for the following three reasons.

The first one: avoiding risks.

Because P&G has many brands, if a product is not well made, it will not affect the reputation of parent brand too much. In this way, more flowers will bloom, and parent brand's reputation will not be damaged by the failure of one or two products.

Second: market segmentation

We all know that different consumers have different consumption preferences. If it is found through analysis that the market can be divided into four categories of consumers, the smartest way is to create four brands with different styles to please these four categories of people respectively. This multi-brand strategy operated by Procter & Gamble is to pursue the differences between different brands of similar products, form the distinctive personality of each brand, and let each brand have its own development space without overlapping markets.

Third, overcome the "psychological stereotype" of consumers.

The traditional sales theory holds that a single brand extension strategy can unify the corporate image, which is easy for consumers to accept, and the marketing cost can also be reduced, but the shortcomings are also obvious, because once the brand is established, consumers will have a psychological set, which is not conducive to brand extension. For example, when it comes to a brand, they will think of some fixed products, such as XX brand paper towels and XX brand air conditioners. Procter & Gamble learned the lesson and formulated a product and multi-brand strategy.