IMB 385

S. RAMESH KUMAR AND AMOD CHOUDHARY

BRAND REVITALIZING AND BRAND REINFORCEMENT: THE CASE

OF ARROW SHIRTS IN THE INDIAN CONTEXT
Over a period of time, Arrow had become a powerful brand in the category of premium shirts; however, it was
facing intense competition from other brands that were equally powerful. The situation was complex, and his
research agency’s findings could not help in explaining Arrow’s success. Moreover, there were contradictions in
consumer perceptions about the brand. What should be the roadmap to reinforce and revitalize brand Arrow? Should
the existing sub-brands be withdrawn? How could Arrow adapt itself to a changing environment?

The year 1930 marked the beginning of the Great Depression. Companies across the world began closing down. In
the United Kingdom and in India, the textile industry in particular was in trouble, as Mahatma Gandhi, who was
championing the Swadeshi Movement (a pre-independence struggle that advocated buying of products made in
India), had called for a boycott of all fine fabrics imported from England. However, the Lalbhai family reasoned that
there was demand for fine and superfine fabrics. The three Lalbhai brothers—Kasturbhai, Narottambhai, and
Chimanbhai—decided to set up a mill to produce superfine fabric; and a company called Arvind Mills Limited was
born.

In 1997, Arvind set up a state-of-the-art shirting, gabardine, and knits facility—the largest of its kind in India—at
Santej. The year 2005 was a watershed year for textiles. With the multi-fiber agreement getting phased out and the
disbanding of quotas, international textile trade was poised for a quantum leap. In the domestic market as well, the
growth of the organized retail industry was likely to make the textiles and apparels sector experience an explosive
growth.

Arvind had carved out an aggressive strategy to verticalize its current operations by setting up world-scale
garmenting facilities, and promising a one-stop shop service by offering garment packages, to its international and
domestic customers. With Lee, Wrangler, Arrow, and Tommy Hilfiger, as well as its own domestic brands, namely,
Flying Machine, Newport, Excalibur, and Ruf & Tuf; Arvind set its vision of becoming the largest apparel brands
company in India. Arvind was the pioneer in the apparel brands and retail space in the Indian market, with several
firsts to its name. Arvind launched the first Indian denim brand in India (Flying Machine), the first international
menswear brand in India (Arrow), the first “ready-to-stitch” mass brand in denims (Ruf &Tuf), and the first factory
outlet in the apparels category (Megamart Retail).

PREMIUM MEN’S BRANDED APPARELS: A MARKETING PERSPECTIVE OF THE

INDUSTRY
Most of the brands in this category had tried to communicate several associations in their communications: premium
offering, exclusive offering, international brand, and high quality offering.

During the early part of the previous decade, there was an unprecedented influx of international brands into the
Indian market; as a result, domestic brands had to build a clear differentiation platform.

BRAND ARROW: THE HISTORY

Arrow as a brand of shirts was first introduced in 1885 by Cluett, Peabody & Co., which has been selling superior
quality apparel for over 160 years. The Arrow brand was owned by PVH Corp., USA, based in New York. Arrow
was licensed in 55 countries, and offered a broad assortment of men’s, women’s, and children’s apparel as well as

S. Ramesh Kumar, Professor of Marketing, IIM Bangalore and Amod Choudhary, Head – Marketing, Arrow, Gant and Izod, Arvind Lifestyle
Brands Ltd., prepared this case for class discussion. This case is not intended to serve as an endorsement, source of primary data, or to show
effective or inefficient handling of decision or business processes.

Copyright © 2012 by the Indian Institute of Management Bangalore. No part of the publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or
by any means – electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise (including internet) – without the permission of Indian Institute of
Management Bangalore.
This document is authorized for use only in Dr. Rajan Saxena's Consumer Behaviour.. at Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies (NMIMS) from Jun 2019 to Dec 2019.
 Brand Revitalizing and Brand Reinforcement: The Case of Arrow Shirts in the Indian Context Page 2 of 9

apparel-related products. The brand’s look and appeal reflected youthfulness and optimism that embodied the
American spirit.

In India, the Arrow brand was licensed to Arvind Mills Ltd. Internationally, this was the typical business model in
the apparel and lifestyle brands space that was adopted by almost all the fashion houses such as PVH—the fashion
houses owned the brand, but when they were entering a new market, they looked for a local partner for distribution
and for marketing the brand; the local partner would pay a royalty to the fashion house.

Although, the Arrow brand had been brought to India by Arvind Mills Ltd. in 1993, the retail presence of the brand
was felt only from 1999.

1999–2006: PREMIUM BRANDED MENSWEAR APPAREL MARKET AND ARROW

The beginning of this period was characterized by a largely unorganized industry, with consumers preferring to
tailor their clothes; the neighborhood tailor was still the most reliable source of formal wear for men. There was a
high degree of loyalty towards the tailor; however, the consumer offering was limited in range and variety, and
consistency in quality was one of the biggest concerns that the consumer had.

The concept of premium readymade garments was relatively new in India, and the consumer had far fewer choices
then, in terms of quality international brands of readymade wear.

During this period, brand Arrow was positioned with the following associations.

a) a voice of authority, an expert in men’s office wear/formal wear

b) an international brand
c) a premium quality offering

The brand’s consumer communication was largely focused on highlighting its international (American) heritage, key
product features, and “best-in-class” quality.

An example of the consumer communication is presented in Exhibit 1.

This imagery started losing relevance with the younger consumer (in the 25–35-years age bracket), and this was
reflected in the revenues of the company (Exhibit 2).

2007: REPOSITIONING EXERCISE FOR BRAND ARROW

Consumer perception in 2007 could largely be summarized as “Arrow: My dad’s brand”. The brand was identified
with people who were more mature and higher up the age ladder; the younger consumers did not find the brand
relevant to them anymore.

The following changes were made with regard to the brand and its communications:

a) From product-focused communication, the brand switched over to a focus on “lifestyle” rather than just
merchandise, i.e., a shirt.
b) The brand strengthened its offerings in non-formal or casual dressing, and started communicating about
Arrow Sport.
c) It also reworked its formals, and introduced more colors to become relevant to the younger consumer.

2008 TO 2010: NEWER CHALLENGES FOR ARROW

Although the brand was on the growth path, there were bigger challenges ahead. During this period, several
international brands entered the Indian market. Most of these brands positioned themselves as youthful and colorful
international brands in India.

This document is authorized for use only in Dr. Rajan Saxena's Consumer Behaviour.. at Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies (NMIMS) from Jun 2019 to Dec 2019.
 Brand Revitalizing and Brand Reinforcement: The Case of Arrow Shirts in the Indian Context Page 3 of 9

Arrow responded to the competition along the following lines:

1. It strengthened its imagery of being a lifestyle brand.

2. It widened its product portfolio and offerings in order to appeal to a younger, more affluent consumer, by
strengthening Arrow Sport and introducing Arrow Women.
3. It invested in increasing its distribution points. The brand had 473 retail outlets (including presence
through retail space that was not exclusively owned by the brand such as Central, Lifestyle, and Shopper’s
Stop).

Arrow was positioned as a truly American brand, an “Expert in menswear” with 160 years of experience in dressing
up men. The brand was further associated with the following.

a) work-place dressing
b) appropriate fashion for workplace
c) comfortable, elegant, and classy
d) dressing for the discerning expert

Arrow was a brand of “premium menswear apparel” competing against brands such as Louis Philippe, Van
Heusen, Allen Solly, and Park Avenue. Of these brands, Allen Solly had a casual association, while Park Avenue
had strong professional associations.

Arrow’s target segment could be described along the following lines.

• It was a brand for working male professionals in the 25–35-years age group, residing in an urban setting,
and working at junior-middle to senior levels of management.
• It was a brand for someone who had the self-concept of being assertive, spontaneous, and full of
originality.

The psychographic profile of the target segment was as follows.

• Male
• Decision-maker about the brand of premium menswear apparel to be purchased
• Should have bought at least four garments in the last one year
• Average price of the garments purchased in the last one year should be INR 1,000 or more ($1 = INR 53, in
October 2012).
• Should own at least four of the following durables (or activities):

o Music player: iPod Nano/Classic/Touch

o Smart phone: Samsung/Nokia/LG/Blackberry/Apple etc., costing INR 10,000 and above
o Footwear: Nike/Provogue/Adidas/Reebok/Hush Puppies/Louis Philippe, etc., costing INR 2,500 and
above
o Eye wear: Ray-Ban/Titan Eye Plus/Levi’s/Versace/Police/Tommy Hilfiger/Esprit, etc., costing above
INR 5,000.
o Television: Plasma/LED/LCD from Sony/Samsung/LG, etc.
o Watches: Citizen/Titan/Tissot/TAGHeuer/Seiko/Skagen/Police/Swatch, etc., costing INR 5,500 and
above
o Car: Priced at least INR 5 lakh (1 lakh = 0.1 million)
o Debit card/Credit card: Gold Card and above
o Visited pubs or lounges once or twice a week
o Read business newspapers/journals such as The Economic Times, HT Mint, and so on
o Traveled by air for personal/professional use, and was enrolled in frequent flyer program

This document is authorized for use only in Dr. Rajan Saxena's Consumer Behaviour.. at Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies (NMIMS) from Jun 2019 to Dec 2019.
 Brand Revitalizing and Brand Reinforcement: The Case of Arrow Shirts in the Indian Context Page 4 of 9

THE COMPETITION: LOUIS PHILIPPE & VAN HEUSEN

Louis Philippe

The Louis Philippe brand—synonymous with premium, international men’s fashion—was launched in India in
1989, around the same time as Arrow. The brand had a turnover of INR 450 crore (approximately) (1 crore = 10
million), and was available through 113 exclusive stores.

The brand had a Franco-Italian lineage, and represented European fashion for those who had truly “arrived in life”.
The brand drew its name and inspiration from King Louis Philippe of France, who was famed for his generosity of
spirit and appreciation of the arts. The brand targeted consumers who had the self-concept of being elegant, classy,
status-conscious, opulent, and sophisticated.

Louis Philippe was positioned as a luxury—an exclusive fashion offering for men with a Franco-Italian lineage.

Van Heusen

Van Heusen, America’s top dress shirt brand was associated with stylish, affordable, and high-quality dress shirts
since the introduction of the patented Van Heusen “soft folding” collar in 1921. The brand was launched in India in
1990.

Exhibit 3 provides data on consumer responses (responses from consumers of Arrow, Louis Philippe, and Van
Heusen) on several dimensions associated with the respective offerings.

The decision-making areas for the brand manager of Arrow provides complex but interesting challenges. Firstly,
brand revitalization requires decisions that have to analyze dynamic consumer perceptions. How should the brand
positioning change with times but not lose the strengths of original positioning? Secondly, how can brand imagery
be altered, especially when brand positioning undergoes a change? Thirdly, how can lifestyle positioning used for a
successful brand recognize the importance of consumer personality factors; and finally how would the marketing
mix elements of the brand experience the impact of brand revitalization and brand reinforcement?

This document is authorized for use only in Dr. Rajan Saxena's Consumer Behaviour.. at Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies (NMIMS) from Jun 2019 to Dec 2019.
 Brand Revitalizing and Brand Reinforcement: The Case of Arrow Shirts in the Indian Context Page 5 of 9

Exhibit 1
Overview of Arrow’s communication (1998–2006)

This document is authorized for use only in Dr. Rajan Saxena's Consumer Behaviour.. at Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies (NMIMS) from Jun 2019 to Dec 2019.
 Brand Revitalizing and Brand Reinforcement: The Case of Arrow Shirts in the Indian Context Page 6 of 9

Exhibit 1 (Contd.)

Source: Reproduced with permission from the company

This document is authorized for use only in Dr. Rajan Saxena's Consumer Behaviour.. at Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies (NMIMS) from Jun 2019 to Dec 2019.
 Brand Revitalizing and Brand Reinforcement: The Case of Arrow Shirts in the Indian Context Page 7 of 9

Exhibit 2
Upswing of Arrow’s revenues

Note: NSV = Net Sales Volume in Indian Rupees (INR)

This document is authorized for use only in Dr. Rajan Saxena's Consumer Behaviour.. at Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies (NMIMS) from Jun 2019 to Dec 2019.
 Brand Revitalizing and Brand Reinforcement: The Case of Arrow Shirts in the Indian Context Page 8 of 9

Exhibit 3
Responses from consumers of Arrow, Louis Philippe, and Van Heusen
Factor Brand Rating*
Arrow 4
1. Offered superior quality at that price
Louis Philippe 2
Van Heusen 5
Arrow 4
2. Offered products that were worthy of the price
Louis Philippe 3
Van Heusen 2
Arrow 3
3. Enhanced my social status
Louis Philippe 1
Van Heusen 1
Arrow 2
4. Was meant for successful people
Louis Philippe 4
Van Heusen 2
Arrow 3
5. Was meant for wealthy people
Louis Philippe 2
Van Heusen 1
Arrow 1
6. Was meant for people with fine taste
Louis Philippe 1
Van Heusen 2
Arrow 1
7. Were premium brands
Louis Philippe 4
Van Heusen 3
Arrow 3
8. Friends and colleagues complimented me when I wore
Louis Philippe 2
this
Van Heusen 1
Arrow 4
9. A brand I would recommend to others
Louis Philippe 2
Van Heusen 1
Arrow 2
10. Most talked about brand
Louis Philippe 1
Van Heusen 2
Arrow 1
Louis Philippe 2
11. Had better designs than other brands
Van Heusen 2

This document is authorized for use only in Dr. Rajan Saxena's Consumer Behaviour.. at Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies (NMIMS) from Jun 2019 to Dec 2019.
 Brand Revitalizing and Brand Reinforcement: The Case of Arrow Shirts in the Indian Context Page 9 of 9

Arrow 1
12. Garments offered by these brands did not fade quickly
Louis Philippe 2
Van Heusen 3
Arrow 4
13. Garments offered by these brands did not run color
Louis Philippe 1
Van Heusen 3
Arrow 1
14. Garments offered by these brands had good finish
Louis Philippe 1
Van Heusen 1
Arrow 3
15. Quality of the fabric used in their garments was good
Louis Philippe 1
Van Heusen 2
Arrow 1
16. Had better range of colors than other brands
Louis Philippe 4
Van Heusen 3
Arrow 5
Louis Philippe 3
17. Were easily available
Van Heusen 3

*The ratings were on a scale of 1 to 5 (the higher the ratings, the better)

Source of information: Millward Brown Research (agency for Arvind Mills Ltd.)

Note: 1. Brand positioning descriptions associated with the brands Louis Philippe and Van Heusen were based on the author’s perception of
these brands’ advertisements that were analyzed over a period of time.
2. All the information about the Arrow brand was provided by the company.

This document is authorized for use only in Dr. Rajan Saxena's Consumer Behaviour.. at Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies (NMIMS) from Jun 2019 to Dec 2019.