Brands die because their owners let them die.  If no-one is in command of the health and welfare of a brand it will go away.  If no-one seizes responsibility, good things rarely happen.

A friend made a statement to me today about the history of the Tango so I did some research and found a few factoids very relevant to brand strength and decline.  Consider Tango as a brand of dance.  In 1903 to 1910, 1/3 of all music recorded was the Tango.  In 1910-1920, of 5500 recordings, 2500 were Tango.  But no-one owned the Tango, and no-one was charged with keeping it vital and leading it into the future.  So today, Tango is a mere shadow of its former self.

During the same years, 1903 to 1920, brands like Coca Cola and Hallmark were embryonic.  Both Coca Cola and Hallmark grew to Killer Brand status in the 20th century.  How healthy are they today?  The answer is that neither is as strong as it once was.

Compare both to Geico, which was founded a touch later, in 1936, and continues to strengthen.  Geico had only $150 Million in policies in 1966.  Geico has $24.4 Billion now, 95% of which developed after Warren Buffett bought the company and increased brand marketing from $31 Million in 1990 to $900 Million today.

Is there a lesson here?  Do old brands have to decline?