Brand Failures

56 Brand failures
Clearly if Corfam was to become as big as it could be, it would need to be
used by manufacturers of women’s shoes. It soon became clear, however, that
the female shoe market was itself divided – between comfy, everyday shoes
and ‘fashion’ shoes made for special occasions.
For all Corfam’s strengths, it was not as flexible or ‘skin-like’ as ordinary
leather, and therefore was not suited for those shoes designed for comfort or
everyday use. So fashion shoes seemed to be the solution. And yet, even here
there was a problem. A synthetic material called polyvinyl chloride (now
known to us as PVC) was fast becoming popular owing to its extreme low
cost. Vinyl shoes, which could be coloured or embossed very easily, were
perfect for women looking for a ‘throwaway’ pair which may be worn once
or twice at special occasions before being discarded.
Furthermore, the leather industry was keen to dampen the appeal of
Corfam by lowering its prices and improving quality. This factor, combined
with the growing popularity of vinyl shoes, led to DuPont’s announcement
in March 1971 that they were to withdraw Corfam. On 11 April 1971, the
New York Times referred to Corfam as ‘Du Pont’s $100 million Edsel.’
Lessons from Corfam
Improve on the original. For a substitute product to work it needs to be
better than the original in the minds of consumers. Although Corfam was
long-lasting, it lacked the flexibility and ‘breathability’ of leather. It also
proved too expensive.
Remember that there’s no such thing as a certain success. Corfam was, without
doubt, one of the most thoroughly researched and developed products of
all time. As such, DuPont felt that its prediction that by 1984, 25 per cent
of US shoes would be made of Corfam, was a justifiable one. And yet,
Corfam wasn’t even around to see 1984, having failed after just seven years.
Compete on quality or value. When a product is unable to be the best in
terms of either quality or value it faces an uphill struggle to convince
consumers of its merits.