Leadership Project
Intel: Building a Technology Brand
Summary
This case concerns the marketing efforts by Intel to build brand equity in the face of a lawsuit preventing trademark protection for their X86 microprocessor series. Intel had to determine how to name its new generation of microprocessors, as well as how to establish competitive advantages and consumer preference for its microprocessor lines. A number of issues are raised concerning the development of an effective branding strategy.
The case also addresses Intel’s expansion of its business beyond PC microprocessors and the various branding strategies the company employed. After being criticized for a “lack of focus”, Intel decided clean-up its product line and limit its focus on microprocessors, servers, mobile devices, and networking equipment. As a result, the company deployed a “platform strategy” and introduced a bundle of products, including its new “Centrino” processor along with other chips designed for wireless communication.
Despite its success in the microprocessor business, Intel recognized that the PC market growth is slow and competition from AMD is becoming fiercer. As a result, Intel’s stock price declined significantly and required immediate action. The new management decided to launch a new brand strategy that attempts to reposition Intel as a “warm and fizzy consumer company.” The new campaign is based on a new logo, and new slogan (Leap Ahead), and new platform (Intel Viiv) and four specific target markets. Will this campaign help the brand achieve renewed success?
Class discussion can revolve around the following questions that students should consider before class:
1. What were the strengths and weaknesses of the Intel Inside campaign?
2. Evaluate Intel’s continued use of the Pentium family of processors. Did Intel make the right decision by extending the name through the Pentium 4 processor?
3. Suppose you were the Chief Marketing Officer for AMD. How would you propose the company position itself to better compete with Intel? Would you propose that AMD institute an Inside-like ad campaign?
4. Evaluate Intel’s segmentation strategy. Is having a good/better/best product line (Celeron, Pentium, Xeon) the best positioning for Intel? Should it discontinue a line(s) and focus on the other(s)?
5. In light of Intel’s move into the “digital home,” did the company’s executives make the right decision in launching an entirely new brand identity? Did it make the right decision in changing a 37-year-old Intel logo and dropping the Intel Inside campaign for Leap Ahead? What other marketing strategies might the company employ?
6. Intel moved into consumer-electronics products, such as digital cameras in 2000, only to withdraw after receiving complaints from OEMs such as Dell. Does Intel face a similar issue with its move into the “digital home?” Does this move too far outside Intel’s core competency of producing microprocessors?
Teaching Strategy
This case can generate and support discussion on a number of topics, e.g., high-tech marketing, ingredient branding, corporate branding strategies, brand name choice criteria, brand hierarchy, brand migration, etc. The case also can be supplemented in a number of ways to incorporate current developments. Specifically, this is an excellent case for demonstrating, among other things, the following:
1) Added-value that a brand can provide over and above that offered by a generic product — less than five years after the ingredient branding program began, Intel was ranked the third most valuable brand in the world
2) Challenges of marketing “generations” of products and brands
3) Critical importance of implementation
4) Complementarity of push and pull marketing
5) Challenges of combining an ingredient brand strategy with a corporate umbrella brand strategy and a sub-brand strategy
6) Role of branding in a highly competitive, constantly changing environment
It is useful to begin the case discussion with a quick review of Intel’s history to provide some perspective and a few quick lessons. Intel’s shift from memory to microprocessors was a fortuitous one as their microprocessors became the industry standard. It is worthwhile for students to understand Intel’s broader business model and how they invested in research and development to create a competitive advantage for their products during this time. Their marketing strategies, however, were not as strong and they faced a number of challenges. In terms of naming, internally, a proliferation of numbers and letters created an “alphabet soup” of brand; externally, competitors could copy “more or less” but still use the same name. Moreover, greater competition was emerging period. As a result, there was much consumer confusion as to who made a particular generation microprocessor and also what level of performance to expect from a particular product. Losing the court case in March 1991 and Cyrix’s introduction of the 486 SLC chip in March 1992 brought Intel’s branding issues to the forefront.
It is also important for students to understand how Intel’s target market strategy moved from a “push” to a “pull” strategy, with the mass market, non-technical business and home PC users in mind (e.g., the Circuit City or Best Buy shopper). At this point, the Intel Inside campaign can be analyzed. To provide some focus, it is useful to put the Intel brand hierarchy on the board. Intel Inside was an attempt to brand microprocessors as a whole. The word “Intel” established an umbrella brand for the company, while “Inside” established the company as an ingredient brand. The logic of such a strategy can be explored in terms of pros (e.g., efficiency of marketing expenses, simplicity of message, ability to transfer equity to new product categories) and cons (e.g., lack of product specificity). The implementation of the strategy also can be reviewed, combining pull marketing programs directed to consumers (in the form of media advertising) with push marketing programs directed to OEMs (in the form of co-op advertising). It is worth noting how consumer advertising and cooperation from 2nd and 3rd tier OEMs put pressure on 1st tier OEMs to get with the program.
The logic of the whole campaign must be spelled out: to create brand (and category) awareness for Intel as a microprocessor and a key ingredient to the computer, as well as linking two key brand associations (safety or upgradability and power or performance). This marketing program – designing state-of-the art chips and communicating to consumers through a highly integrated push and pull program – was remarkably effective in achieving those goals. Intel gained credibility in the process as a standard-bearer worthy of consumer trust, and, due to the high-tech fantasy look of their ads, gained some brand personality. It is instructive to ask students whether any other companies have adopted similar marketing strategies. In some ways, Gillette, Nike, and others play a similar game by pouring money into R&D to achieve technological advantages, adopting sub-branding strategies where the corporate brand is combined as a family brand with an individual brand that designates a particular type of technology. Minor improvements, on the other hand, are designated with a modifier as yet another brand element (e.g., Gillette Sensor Excel, Pentium II).
It is also instructive at this point to broaden the discussion to have students identify success factors for ingredient branding in general. The text reviews the concept of ingredient branding in Chapter 7 and offers several guidelines that can serve as a backdrop for this discussion (e.g., ingredients must matter and be instrumental to product performance in some way; ingredients must add value and be differentiated; ingredients must be noticeable or visible or there must be some means to identify and signal its presence; and there must be OEM or producer cooperation). The pros and cons for the host brand and the ingredient brand should also be considered. For example, in terms of the ingredient brand maker, there are many potential downsides: the promotional cost of the pull and push programs; the potential loss of control; the challenge to secure OEM acceptance and the possible power struggle and conflict that may ensue; the difficulty of managing the brand meaning; and so on.
If desired and if time permits, the evolution of Intel’s ad campaign over the years and some of the lessons that they learned along the way can be reviewed. For example, the company learned how advertising can create personality and build a brand even with a technology product (e.g., with the “graffiti” ad campaign). It learned how focus on the brand in an ad could enhance brand awareness (e.g., with the “measles” ad campaign). Intel’s initial “Intel Inside” ads had very high consumer attribution scores, which meant if consumers remembered the ad, they also remembered the brand associated with the ad. It learned how television can be more effective at the brand level and how print can be more effective at the product level (e.g., with the “Room for the Future” ad campaign). In terms of this latter point, it is worth noting how tightly integrated this campaign was – the visual of the print ad literally contains a key scene from the TV ad. Such coordination made sense given their dual brand and product communication needs (Chapter 6 of the text addresses issues with coordinated media).
The discussion could also touch on the launch of the Pentium II chip and the “bunny people” spots to support their MMX sub-brand. MMX seemed like a logical way to communicate the new multi-media capabilities of their chip. The bunny people spots were consistent with the technological focus of Intel advertising, but they got the brand out of the inside of the computer and added desired personality. Once the characters got “a life of their own,” and began taking road trips in advertising, they distracted consumers from the desired message. Intel’s subsequent ads for the Pentium III, involving the performance-art collective Blue Man Group, can be critiqued, as can the Pentium IV ads with the group and later ads with alien spacecraft. The Blue Man Group ads were artistic and abstract and may have been able to create brand awareness, but were not technological or concrete. The alien ads focused solely on technology, but also contained personality. Students can debate the merits of these approaches.
After thoroughly reviewing the rationale for ingredient branding in general and Intel’s program in particular, the discussion can turn to Intel’s branding strategy. Intel’s criteria for choosing a name can be enumerated and critiqued. The pros and cons of the three candidate names can also be considered. At this point in time, given the length of time since the introduction, most students will feel quite comfortable with the Pentium name so it is important to bring them back into the case and the fairly negative reaction that the name initially received. It is important to remind students how almost any new name sounds bad at first. The thoroughness of the marketing plan to transition to the new name should be spelled out. The name certainly had merit and made sense as a lateral – but not unrelated – move in the numbering sequence that Intel had established.
Some fruitful discussion can focus on Intel’s long-term branding strategy. What should the branding guidelines for successive generations of products be? Intel’s subsequent introductions of the Pentium Pro, MMX technology, Pentium II, III, and IV, Xeon, Celeron, and Itanium microprocessors can be discussed. Intel’s investment in Pentium as a brand has undoubtedly made them want to hang on to the name as long as possible to maximize their return on its equity. Where should they draw the line? The potential risks of using the Pentium name too long include losing the interest of consumers in subsequent Pentium line extensions, lack of technological differentiation from competitors, and building too much equity in the Pentium name instead of in the Intel umbrella brand.
It would be interesting to discuss and evaluate the new brand strategy deployed in 2006, which received mixed reviews. Do they really need to go that far and abandon the existing branding? Is the company offering the optimal product portfolio? Will the new strategy turnaround the business?
Depending on the technical sophistication of the students in the class, there can also be interesting discussion of where Intel can go as a corporate brand. Just what boundaries exist for the Intel brand? The mental map of Intel has a lot of abstract associations, which should enable brand movement beyond microprocessors. Yet Intel encountered difficulty expanding its brand, as detailed in the case. Students can discuss reasons for this difficulty and offer potential solutions. Finally, the case can serve as a backdrop for a discussion of high-tech marketing and branding. Some specific guidelines for high-tech products are included in Chapter 15 and may provide a useful starting point.
Key Lessons
Success factors for ingredient branding strategy
o Must convince consumers that ingredient matters
o Must convince consumers that branded ingredient is better
o Must create brand logo and means of identification
o Must support strong pull program
o Must enlist trade and retail cooperation
Value of brand hierarchy as planning tool
Rationale for umbrella branding in high-tech brand setting
Rationale, challenge, and synergy of push and pull strategies
Role of different advertising media to build brand equity
o TV
o Brand
o Print
o Product
Importance of creating strong brand links in advertising
Advantages of employing multiple brand elements
Discussion Questions
1. Was the Intel Inside campaign worth it? What were the factors that led to its success?
2. Evaluate the Pentium family of processors. Did Intel make the right decision by extending the name through the Pentium 4 processor? Should the company consider changing the name of the next processor in the Pentium line?
3. Suppose you were the Chief Marketing Officer for AMD. How would you propose the company position itself to better compete with Intel? Would you propose that AMD institute an Inside-like ad campaign?
4. Evaluate Intel’s segmentation strategy. Is having a good/better/best product line (Celeron, Pentium, Xeon) the best positioning for Intel? Should it discontinue a line(s) and focus on the other(s)?
5. In light of Intel’s move into the “digital home,” did the company’s executives make the right decision in launching an entirely new brand identity? Did it make the right decision in changing a 37-year-old Intel logo and dropping the Intel Inside campaign for Leap Ahead? What other marketing strategies might the company employ?
7. Intel moved into consumer-electronics products, such as digital cameras in 2000, only to withdraw after receiving complaints from OEMs such as Dell. Does Intel face a similar issue with its move into the “digital home?” Does this move too far outside Intel’s core competency of producing microprocessors?
Was the Intel inside campaign worth it? What were the factors that led to its success?
The Intel Inside campaign was as a milestone in the company’s progress in the technological sector. Although the campaign program continues to bring mixed reactions, the drive remains a key factor in the promotion of the technological dominance, reliability and quality. The features serve an important role to the online users. The worthiness of the campaign was evident when the company’s chip increased significantly from a paltry 22% of the PC buyers to over 80% in a span of two years (Kotler, 2010). The increase indicated that more and more people valued the campaign. The success story of the Intel Inside campaign was more evident in 2002 when the initiative became one of the global leading marketing cooperative boosting of over 1000 PC developers with the use of the logo (Kotler, 2010).
One of the fundamental factors that led to the success story of the campaign is the amount of money powered into the advertising. Intel Inside Company spent over 4 billion dollars on its advertisements. The advertisements done by the Intel Inside were deemed to be strong globally hence making the company popular and well established already. The move was positive in its dealings because it made the company to be ranked among the top well-known brands globally. The marketing strategy implemented by the Intel Inside was effective in the success of the company. The program designated a high-tech chips and communicating for its customers. The program was effective for the company in attaining its mission and long-term goals. This move enabled the company to gain credibility. This enabled the company to be successful in the market (Kotler, 2010).
The nature of the company’s business environment is another reason for the success of the company. The environment itself was conducive and ideal for the workers (Kotler, 2010). This made the workers have an easy time during their day-to-day work. Apart from the ideal working environment for the workers, the company provided a promotional plan, which was important in encouraging the workers to excel. With the workers excelling in their departments, the company was headed for a success story in times to come. This later happened when the company managed to increase its chip significantly raising from 22% of the PC buyers to over 80% in a span of only two years (Kotler, 2010).
In every business, understanding the customers and their needs is vital in the success of business. The company took this measure, which resulted to success of the firm. The company also engaged itself with the correct customers in its dealings. With the right customers, it managed to cooperate well with them hence succeeding in the market. The customers were also geared for the growth of the company. The company ensured a marketing leadership, which was important for its success (Kotler, 2010). This was made possible by the different innovations it implemented. The innovations were of quality standards hence it contributed to the success of the company. Finally, the company set out different standards and clearly defined them in its bid to become a force to reckon. The high standards set up a clear benchmark for the company against its rivals.
Evaluate the Pentium family of processors. Did Intel make the right decision by extending the name through the Pentium 4 processor? Should the company consider changing the name of the next processor in the Pentium line?
The Pentium family of processors has been in business for quite a while. Sophisticated clients’ value products with up to date ingredients and will pay branded products despite the elevated prices. Intel signed well skilled professionals from rival corporations with knowledge in management to improve the systems. The Intel logo has become famous over the past years. Intel has dominated the computer processor sells for the past few years. It is clear that Intel is with better products that meet client satisfaction. Their microprocessors have evolved gradually in relation to the growth in technology from generation to generation. With their developed processors, they increase customer loyalty (Hastings, 2008). The manufacturers have proved a boost in awareness amid users. Increase in brand equity has been experienced with development in every microprocessor. The campaign for Intel has been a great success with the high quality products and innovation. They bring home the best and most reliable inventions. Their products are more vulnerable and important to users on daily basis.
It is a common belief that Intel made the right decision on extending the name. Despite the high prices of their products, they still produced what the users wanted. The name to the right amount of processing muscle turned out to be Pentium (Hastings, 2008). The value set initially was high for reinforcement of the processors excellence and exceptionality. There was a striking appreciate in price soon after the cost were lowered despite the sales being sluggish initially. Thereafter, the demand for the processors was becoming high. By extending their name for the Pentium, they maintained recognition in the market. Customers will always prefer to go for that product they know other than the new one in the market. By extension of the name, the company stands a far much secure ground of counterfeiter. With the extension of the name, it makes the product well known to be from the Intel manufacturers (Hastings, 2008).
The company should not consider changing the name of the next processor since it may affect its recognition in the market. By changing the name of the product, it is going to affect the company in advertising. The processor will need more attention since it risks being counterfeited by competitors (Hastings, 2008). Other manufacturing companies will produce similar products and have a name similar to that to ruin the market place for the processor. If the company maintains the name for their next product then a sequence of improvement to the previous processor will be symbolized.
Suppose you were the Chief Marketing Officer for AMD. How would you propose the company position itself to better compete with Intel? Would you propose that AMD institute an Inside-like ad campaign?
Strong marketing and brand management is the key to maintaining AMD place in the market place. Therefore, the stiff competition from Intel and drastically changed market, the AMD should develop ways to have a share of the market. It should brand its products in a way to differentiate from Intel and institute a personality that is appealing and unique to its potential customers (Hastings, 2008). It should develop a multilayered and multifaceted procedure and discipline that aims at establishing long and profitable relationship with its consumers and stakeholders. AMD should apply an implemented and strategized branding design communicated to the significant company stakeholders over time. Through strategizing a core vision, it should develop a corporate story in ways relating and resonate with the targeted market members. Branding is aiming at building a stronger, longer relationship with its customers (Hastings, 2008). For the purpose of AMD embracing the concept of customer attached value, branding is vital for a better position to counter Intel’s competition. An influential, entrenched brand also eliminates the product from commodity category and frequently enables the company to run its operations perfectly without the urge to rival in the competitive price wars (Hastings, 2008).
Branding has been in domination with significance since the commencement of the two companies. AMD should begin seeing their brand as an asset, as tangible and valuable as their patents and the system. Since brands are more than promotion slogans and icons closely monitored and assessed by AMD analysts, accounting practices value its brands as a balance sheet asset. Building a brand through actions help AMD acquire a position in the customers and prospects mind basing solely on its products exposure and experience. The notion that both the companies carefully structure their quality products and brand fairness is the significant fact to achieve the obvious success. In high-tech, however, technology companies are engineering focused (Hastings, 2008). This makes the two companies not to concentrate on customer needs at various points in a products lifecycle. Technically, AMD’s superior products are to break into the market successfully. Strapping branding initiatives will help steer it through predictable technology lifecycle and enable create long-term success.
AMD should institute an Inside-like ad campaign to help cultivate their brand equity. It should not only improve the presently marketed products, but more significantly, enable it link the inevitable trends created by the technologically sophisticated Intel products. The campaign will enable the company strategize on how to benefit its customers e.g. the introduction of chips in OEM products. The campaign may be the driving force during the initial technological advance hence develops a staying power through the inevitable stiff Intel competition. This will help maintain the advancing technological pace (Hastings, 2008).
One of the campaign factors is to introduce a new invention into the market. This is a significant aspect of brand as a technical product prowess indicating an improvement in AMD leadership and staying power. Without the campaign, the new brand cannot carry the trust of future useful and innovative products (Hastings, 2008). Majority of the experienced IT consumers and managements have fallen for broken or empty promises of emerging technological hitches. The campaign should foster the improvement of the existing infrastructure through advancements, breakthroughs and extensions that meet the scope of the new brands. The inside-like campaign to counter frequent turnover of the leading organizational roles is a perfect indication of enhancing the stability of the Corporation
Evaluate Intel’s segmentation strategy. Is having a good/better/best product line (Celeron, Pentium, Xeon) the best positioning for Intel? Should it discontinue a line(s) and focus on the other(s)?
Intel adopted the segmentation strategy to facilitate the interest of different target groups within the market structure. This involves adoption of different product lines to offer satisfaction to unique society preferences and needs. The product lines adopted by Intel in promotion of microprocessors in the market included good (Celeron), better (Pentium), and best (Xeon). These microprocessors are applicable under different needs and conditions. Through this segmentation process, some consumers are limited from utilizing the full effects of the microprocessors in the competitive market. For instance, consumers who acquired Celeron could not enjoy similar gratification to the clients who adopt the better (Pentium) or best (Xeon) models or product lines. The product lines offered room for consumers to adopt microprocessors irrespective of the financial status. This indicates that the low-income earners can adopt the good or Celeron product line hence obtains the chance to enjoy gratification of the commodities. The segmentation strategy also ensured that wider market and target groups were covered. All the income classes are catered for by the segmentation strategy hence the company maximizes its revenue within the market structure (Hitt, 2009).
Different product lines by Intel prove to be effective and efficient. This is because through product lines, the organization is capable of maximizing its profit levels by production of ideal commodities. Production of microprocessors is based on the market needs hence the preferences of the clients are met accordingly. Different consumers adopt processors for unique activities hence enjoy enhanced satisfaction by implementation or execution of many product lines. Product lines (good, better, and best) covers wide market area hence increases consumer awareness of the products by the company. This enhances greater opportunity for development of effective reputation and image among the consumers. Clients have the right to choose from wide variety of products in the digital market. Products lines have limitations as well to counteract the overwhelming positive influences. Through product lines, the company waste resources that could have been assembled to obtain efficient and appropriate machines. This increases the overall cost of production thus reducing the total amount of profits at the end of annual financial year. Different product lines also confuse many consumers when purchasing commodities from the same industry. Traders or businesspersons take this advantage to maximize their sales at the expense of the unsuspicious consumers (Hitt, 2009).
Intel should discontinue the good product line (Celeron) to minimize the cost of production. This would offer numerous materials to the company for further modification of the two product lines. Elimination of Celeron would increase the level of efficiency within the industry. Increased level of efficiency would improve the profit levels of the organization while minimizing the total cost incurred in distribution, manufacturing, and promotion of the products. Elimination of Celeron would also see increased demand for the two product lines (Pentium & Xeon) within the market structure. This would also boost the profit levels hence building of the financial aspect of the company. Elimination of the third product line would limit the degree of confusion in relation to consumers of the commodity. Consumers would get what they pay for in high quality and transparency. This indicates that elimination of one product line would be beneficial to both consumers and the company (Hitt, 2009).
5. In light of Intel’s move into the “digital home,” did the company’s executives make the right decision in launching an entirely new brand identity? Did it make the right decision in changing a 37-year-old Intel logo and dropping the Intel Inside campaign for Leap Ahead? What other marketing strategies might the company employ?
Intel has a history as one of the main companies that faced turbulent times and remained relevant to date. This is despite the many economic meltdowns characterizing the economy since the launch of the company. The company created the first microprocessor in 1971 although they specialized in production in 1981 due to development of Personal Computer (PC). As time went by since 1981, Intel spearheaded the rapid revolution of their products (Mohr, Sengupta, & Slater, 2010). This saw the company become a household name in information technology. Collaborating with digital home as a key marketer in the internet market the company gained a large clients base.
Intel’s shift to online marketing exposed the company to many potential clients. As a company specializing in computer electronics, having a digital connection allows the company marketing space in its field of expertise. As a profit motivated company, the executive had to develop ways to increase sales. This they had to do by changing the perception of potential customers to their products. Rebranding is the most effective way to do this if the company can follow it up with aggressive advertising. Since 1981, the company faced many crises in quality and other aspects of their products (Mohr, Sengupta, & Slater, 2010). This increased the company’s need for a brand new identity. The executive move to launch a brand new identity was right and properly timed. All necessary improvements and proper quality measures were complete by the time of rebranding. This means they rebranded when the company was fully developed. The quality of products was by then of high quality and had sufficient capital to follow up the rebranding and advertising to ensure maximum sales. Companies like Dell that complained about the poor quality and the lawsuit that followed needed a new beginning for the company to remain relevant. The Leap Ahead campaign symbolizes the company’s wish to stay relevant in the market.
After rebranding, a company needs other marketing strategies to follow up the rebranding to increase sales. The company might lose consumers that were loyal after a transition since they might not identify the rebranded company with the former company. Intel should introduce the use of Loyalty Cards for their loyal consumers. After rebranding, consumers will use these cards to purchase the rebranded goods (Mohr, Sengupta, & Slater, 2010). Another fundamental marketing strategy is the involvement of consumers in developing the new rebrand. This would involve websites where the company gets information from consumers and the products they expect to get. Grouping the data obtained from consumers and merging it to give achievable ideas will allow clients to identify with the rebrand. They will feel as part of the company and hence will use the products more and increase sales.
The final marketing strategy to employ is aggressive advertising. Rebranding is close to introducing new products in the market. Customers that bought their products read Intel inside as their logo, and if not properly informed they might not associate with Leap Inside. This leaves the company with the duty to advertise and ensure their rebranded products get the desired recognition in the market (Mohr, Sengupta, & Slater, 2010). Such advertising although expensive will sustain the company, and after the initial campaign, cost of advertisement will go down. Intel moved into consumer-electronics products, such as digital cameras in 2000, only to withdraw after receiving complaints from OEMs such as Dell. Does Intel face a similar issue with its move into the “digital home?” Does this move too far outside Intel’s core competency of producing microprocessors?
Intel offers a wide variety of brands of microprocessors in various markets worldwide. The ingredients must add value as well as having the capacity for differentiation. The ingredients must also be noticeable or visible. Alternatively, there must be some means to signal and identify its presence. However, the Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) or producer cooperation has proven to be a great challenge to the company (Wells, 2009). Among the factors that should be considered in the discussion are the pros and cons for the host brand alongside the ingredient brands. The promotional cost of the push and pull programs, potential loss of control, the challenge of securing OEM acceptance, the possible power struggle, and the conflict which may follow, forms the basis potential downsides of ingredient brand maker.
Other potential downsides facing the ingredient brand maker include the difficulty with managing the brand meaning among others. Following the move by Intel to venture into manufacture of consumer-electronic products such as digital cameras, discontent and misgiving became the order of the day with Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) like Dell raising their complaints regarding the move (Wells, 2009). Dell, just like any other company has all the rights to air their reservations about any kind of practice by a competitor especially when such practice goes contrary to the ethics of the business. For many years, Dell Company has been associated with manufacturing of digital cameras among other consumer electronics. Hence, it is quite ridiculous waking up to a reality where competitors in the market such as Intel end up venturing into the business that has been associated with Dell for so many years. However, Intel has the right to manufacture consumer electronics using its own technology in a free market economy with restrictions only applicable when the brand or model it manufactures being an exact model of another company’s ideas and materials.
Dell is on record as one of the manufacturers of computer accessories, who happened to be the founder and strong supporter of Digital Living Network Alliance (DLNA). The Digital Living Network Alliance (DLNA), formerly the Digital Home Working Group is among those leading the effort to converge Personal Computers (PC), Consumer Electronics (CE), and mobile technologies among households (Schonbrun, 2009). The revelation of Intel’s move to the ‘digital home’ does not present very strong challenges as previously witnessed when it kicked off the move to manufacture consumer electronic products such as digital cameras.
Incidentally, the primary role of DLNA is to present an opportunity as to bring together key players in the CE, PC as well as mobile industries. Such a move would help address issues to do with standards and specifications to facilitate the digital home. Failure to adhere to these standards would only worsen the situation with possibility of growth of digital home market becoming extremely limited (Schonbrun, 2009). Therefore, the decision that Intel made of joining ‘digital home’ is not too far outside its core competency of producing Microprocessors. Diversity forms the basis of growth and development of business entities, Intel no exception.
References
Hastings, H. (2008). Improve your marketing to grow your business: Insights and innovation that drive business and brand growth. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Wharton School Pub.
Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Hoskisson, R. E. (2009). Strategic management: Competitiveness and globalization: cases. Mason, OH: Southwestern Cengage Learning.
Kotler, P., & Pförtsch, W. A. (2010). Ingredient branding: Making the invisible visible. Heidelberg: Springer.
Mohr, J. J., Sengupta, S., & Slater, S. F. (2010). Marketing of high-technology products and innovations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Schonbrun, M. (2009). The everything guide to digital home recording: Tips, tools, and techniques for studio sound at home. Avon, Mass: Adams Media Corp.
Wells, Q. (2009). Guide to digital home technology integration. Clifton Park, NY: Delmar Cengage Learning.
