Brand Growth and Development

0 owned physical kitchens 8 virtual food brands launched 65+ local restaurant partnerships. If you’re curious about how innovation can redefine an entire industry, this post is for you. I’ve come across many impressive business models in my career, but recently, I was genuinely surprised by the bold vision and execution behind Dil Foods. Imagine handling thousands of orders daily without a single physical restaurant location—that’s exactly what Dil Foods has achieved. Founded just three years ago by Arpita Aditi, Dil Foods has disrupted the food industry in ways I didn’t expect to see so soon. > She didn’t just build one virtual brand; she launched eight distinct food brands in a remarkably short span. > But here's what really caught my attention - her partnership-first approach Instead of competing with local restaurants, Arpita chose to collaborate with them. > Local restaurants benefit from additional revenue streams, optimized kitchen utilization, access to proven brands, and zero extra infrastructure costs. > In return, Dil Foods enjoys rapid scaling capability, minimal capital investment, a wide geographic presence, and ready-to-use infrastructure. Working with over 65 local restaurants, Arpita’s approach goes beyond scaling her own brands. Being one of India's first entrepreneurs to create a multi-brand virtual kitchen network, she's essentially built a win-win ecosystem where both her brands and local restaurants thrive together. Over the past 1.5 years, the company has expanded to 111 outlets and generated an impressive incremental revenue of ₹6 Crores for their restaurant partners, achieving a 4-star overall customer satisfaction rating. (thestartuptrends) In the Shark Tank India episode, Arpita showcased Dil Foods and sought 0.5% equity for ₹50 lakh. She ultimately secured ₹2 Crore for 2.67% equity from Vineeta Singh, Radhika Gupta, Ritesh Agarwal, and Peyush Bansal, while Aman Gupta opted out. While many startups burn cash on infrastructure, Arpita’s model shows that sometimes the best assets are the ones you don’t own. Have you seen similar virtual brand models in your industry? 

Just over ten years ago, New Balance entered the global skate shoe market, under the sub-brand of New Balance Numeric. After nearly a decade-long incubation period of building sub-cultural credibility, “mainstream” sneaker and streetwear culture is just now beginning to notice the strength of New Balance in the world of skate boarding. From global distribution at Supreme, to now featuring some of the best male and female riders in the world, how has “New Balance Numeric” (NB#) expanded with a boutique mindset? 1.    Remaining laser-focused on the core skate consumer and limiting distribution to speciality skate shops as well as direct to consumers channels: “Keeping speciality special.” 2.    Relentlessly focusing on building best-in-class product and endemic storytelling, while always connecting back to the heritage of New Balance at large. 3.    Building a world-class team of riders that reflects the values and image of our brand - including Tiago Lemos, Jamie Foy, Margielyn Didal & Tom Knox. 4.    Trying to be the best version of ourselves, not the biggest version of ourselves. Staying small and thinking big, focusing on consumer experience, and building a pinnacle roster of partners is how this concept ultimately won with consumers. To learn more about our last 10 years in skate, hear from our expert Sebastian Palmer: https://lnkd.in/e867HGsC More to come... #branding • #marketing • #merchandising

What marketers can learn from New Balance’s shift from ‘Dad Shoe’ to scoring the No. 1 NBA Draft prospect. For years, New Balance was the quiet one in the sneaker wars. Solid product with a loyal fan base, but zero hype. It even ran ads in the ’90s with the line “Endorsed by No One.” Fast forward to today, and it’s now home to some of the most exciting names in global sport including Coco Gauff, Shohei Ohtani, and Cooper Flagg, the No. 1 NBA Draft pick. Here’s what stood out to me: → This shift is part of a 15-year repositioning plan. New Balance picked their lane and stuck to it. → They moved away from performance ads and leaned hard into cultural storytelling with athlete-driven brand building. → “Dad Shoe” became a meme and then its own category. But instead of running from it, they reframed it. Now those same shoes are worn by Gen Z tastemakers and NBA stars. That takes patience and consistency. → They’ve used that to their advantage signing the right ambassadors, betting on athletes early, and staying hyper-selective. It’s working. The brand grew global revenue 27% in two years, and it’s now aiming for $10 billion in annual revenue. Shifting perception is one of the hardest tasks for any brand. Shedding years of public perception is daunting for a sports apparel company and New Balance remains a relatively small player compared to Nike and Adidas. You don’t always need to shout the loudest to win. You need a clear point of view, a long-term plan, and the patience to stick to it. New Balance re-earned its relevance. Chris Davis 👏 (Image Source: Forbes)

Why I think LVMH should acquire JACQUEMUS? No one's calling Simon Porte Jacquemus the next Virgil Abloh or Pharrell YET. But maybe they should. Over the past few years, one thing has become clear: JACQUEMUS isn't just a brand - it's a movement. I believe LVMH should act fast - why? 1. SPJ is the next big creative powerhouse Virgil redefined LV. Pharrell is reshaping it further. Simon Porte Jacquemus could be LVMH's next creative superstar. At just 35, he's built a brand that's cool, inclusive and profitable. All while staying true to his roots. His personal brand (playful, authentic, the French Provence, ...) is inseparable from the brand's appeal. Gen Z connects with Simon the way Millennials did with Virgil - through his vision, relatability and ability to bridge culture & fashion. I can imagine Simon not just running his own brand, but influencing other LVMH brands, injecting new energy across the portfolio. 2. Jacquemus is Gen Z's favorite luxury brand Gen Z doesn't want the same luxury their parents did. They value authenticity, playfulness and individuality: everything Jacquemus embodies. From its Le Chiquito bags to viral campaigns, the brand hits the sweet spot between accessible luxury & exclusivity. Unlike tradluxe brands relying on heritage, Jacquemus feels young, fresh and rooted in today's culture. Acquiring Jacquemus would give LVMH a direct line to Gen Z wallets while ensuring relevance for years to come. 3. Culture relevance = Growth The brand isn't just selling products - it's selling a lifestyle. From viral lifestyle collabs (e.g. Nike) to dreamy runway shows in lavender fields, Jacquemus mastered the art of creating cultural moments. It thrives on platforms like IG & TikTok, where legacy brands sometimes struggle. SPJ's ability to create hype is EXACTLY what conglomerates like LVMH need to stay ahead. 4. The numbers don't lie Jacquemus is already profitable - rare for a brand its size and stage. The tightly controlled DTC model, paired with limited wholesale partnerships, creates scarcity and drives demand. Every collection feels special = key to long-term brand equity. Under LVMH, the brand could scale globally without losing its charm. The potential in Asia (particularly China) is MASSIVE and the group's expertise could unlock exponential growth. 5. It fills a gap in LVMH's portfolio LVMH's portfolio is unmatched, but Jacquemus would fill a key gap. It'd sit perfectly alongside CELINE and Loewe but with a more vibrant, culturally plugged-in vibe. While a brand like Kenzo could cater to younger audiences, it doesn't have the clout of Jacquemus. But the clock is ticking. If LVMH doesn't move, Kering or Richemont might. They all are looking for culturally relevant brands to capture Gen Z. Even PE firms see it as a rare mix of profit & growth potential. For LVMH, it wouldn't be just about adding a new brand - it's about securing the future of luxury. A new blueprint for the future of luxury?

Coca-Cola spend less than 3% of revenue (estimated) on advertising… While challenger brands burn 10–20%. Why? One word: brand equity. Recent estimates put Oatly at ~8% of revenue on ads, Liquid Death at ~6%, and The Coca-Cola Company closer to 2–3%. Not because Coke's marketing team is lazy, but because 138 years of brand building does the heavy lifting. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝘂𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘁𝗲𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆: • Challenger CPG brands: 10–20% of revenue • Established brands: 3–5% • Category leaders like Coke: Under 3% That gap? Pure profit margin. Think about it. When you're thirsty at a gas station, you don't need an ad to remember Coke exists. But that new kombucha brand? They might spend $8 in Facebook ads just to acquire a single customer. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗯𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗯𝘂𝘆𝘀 𝘆𝗼𝘂: • Retail real estate: Strong brands get eye-level shelf placement. Weak brands fight for bottom shelf at twice the slotting fee.    • Word-of-mouth multiplier: When someone says "grab me a Coke," they might mean any cola. That mental availability is worth billions.    • Pricing power. Private-label cola: $0.99. Coca-Cola: $2.49. Same sugar water, different trust levels. The real insight? Every dollar you invest in building genuine brand connection compounds. Ads get you today's sale. But consistent quality, memorable packaging, and keeping promises? That gets you the next decade of sales, at half the marketing cost. Liquid Death gets this. Sure, they're spending ~6% now. But every skull-covered can is building equity. In 10 years? They'll be spending 3% while new brands burn cash trying to break through. The strongest brands aren't built on the biggest budgets. They're built on the smallest details, delivered consistently, until trust becomes automatic. Because when trust becomes automatic, marketing becomes optional.

Consistency isn’t boring. It’s branding. This BIC pen has looked the same since 1955. Same design. Same transparent barrel. Same blue cap. Bic knew it didn’t need to evolve the design of the product. By sticking to what worked, it has become iconic. Most brands don’t have that kind of discipline. They get bored to easily and change too much. If you change too much, you lose consistency and lose recognition. Great branding isn’t about changing everything all the time. And knowing what not to change is equally as important. A solid brand strategy should do two things: 1. Tell you where to stay consistent. 2. Show you where to evolve to stay relevant. Every brand has core brand assets (or codes)… distinctive elements that drive recognition. KFC has the bucket, the Colonel, the colour red and chicken. the LEGO Group has the brick, the yellow minifigure, the red square logo, and imagination. Bic has this pen shape, the blue cap, the orange packaging and the Bic Boy. When you protect those core assets, show up consistently, and then find relevant, creative ways to show up in culture that’s how you win. Not everything needs to change. Know what to keep. That’s the work.

poppi is now the #1 soda on Amazon. OLIPOP PBC just hit $200M in revenue. Meanwhile, legacy beverage brands are spending billions… just to stay relevant. What do these $2 gut-friendly, influencer-fueled drinks tell us? The consumer isn't just trying new brands. They’re abandoning the old ones. Poppi didn’t outspend Coca-Cola. Olipop didn’t out-innovate PepsiCo’s R&D team. But they did outmaneuver them where it matters: → Real-time consumer feedback → Community-driven branding → Rapid formulation sprints → Distribution moves that feel like culture, not commerce This is the new era of brand trust, where 15-second TikToks outperform 15-year brand equity strategies. So here’s the question for Big Food: Are you hiring leaders who’ve built brands with the consumer, not just for them? Because most CPG hiring still prioritizes category tenure over creator fluency. Still favors brand managers over true community architects. Still underweights digital-native growth stories, especially at the GM level. But the brands winning in 2025 aren’t just food and beverage companies. They’re trust companies. And that requires different muscles. Who’s doing it right? What legacy brands are actually adapting their hiring to match this shift? #FMCG #ChallengerBrands #CPGLeadership #Poppi #Olipop #TalentStrategy #ConsumerTrust #ExecutiveSearch #LaurenStiebing

Marketing has two big jobs, but we're usually judged on only one. Our job in marketing splits into two parts: Building mental availability: making sure people know who we are and remember us when they’re ready to buy. This is often called brand marketing. Activating demand: making sure that people who are ready to buy choose us. This is typically performance or demand marketing. Here’s the challenge — most of our metrics (MQLs, pipeline, revenue) are tied to demand activation. But brand and demand aren’t separate – they work together. Still, they behave differently and aren’t always easy to measure in the same way. Brand is like staying in shape. You go to the gym, eat healthy, and take care of yourself. You don’t always see instant results, but over time, your body gets stronger. → In marketing terms: We want more people to know us, remember us, and think of us when they’re ready to buy. This is a long-term game. Demand activation is like showing up on race day. You’ve trained for months, and now it’s time to perform. If you’re fit, you’ll likely do well. → In marketing terms: When someone’s ready to buy, our goal is to be easy to find and hard to ignore. Most of the time, our execs care about the race day numbers – leads, opps, deals. That’s fair, because those drive revenue. But if we don’t also take care of our brand (our fitness), performance eventually suffers. So what do we do? We need to measure both. Performance marketing already has clear metrics. But brand often feels fuzzy — hard to prove it’s working. That’s why Share of Search (SoS) is useful. It’s a quantifiable way to track how much people are searching for our brand compared to competitors. It acts like a “brand scoreboard”, so we can see how campaigns are moving the needle, even if the revenue impact comes later. So: Use performance metrics for activation (leads, opps, CAC, etc.) Use Share of Search as the north star for brand Run both in parallel, and know that each supports the other Two different motions. Two different metrics. One goal: revenue growth.

Am I the only brand designer who hates seeing logos everywhere? Nothing screams insecure brand like a poster, slide, billboard, hoodie and email footers all shouting the logo at you. It feels cheap, like a watermark on every thought. Last week I walked past a billboard that could have been interesting. Big photo, nice headline, then a the logo, huge in size, placed in two different versions. All I remembered was the clutter. When you overuse the logo, people stop seeing the brand and start seeing noise. Instead, strong brands build recognition without shouting their name every five seconds. Think McDonald’s. You can crop the Golden Arches into a corner, show a red panel with fries arranged as lines, or use that ketchup red and yellow and your brain fills in the rest. Tesco can lead with just one elements and no name, Heinz can drop the wordmark entirely and you still know who is speaking. That is identity as a system, not a sticker. And before someone shouts at me, I GET IT, a startup is not McDonald’s. In the early stage you need clear labeling. But the trick I think lies in using the logo as a signature, not a blanket. Your goal is to create brand cues that travel on their own. Here is how I approach it: • Pick two or three assets you can repeat everywhere: a color that is truly yours, a type system with character, a photography or illustration style, a layout rhythm, a tone of voice people can quote. • Design every touchpoint to feel like you even if the logo falls off. Test it. Cover the logo on a slide or ad. If it still feels like your brand, you are doing it right. • Place the logo with intent. Clear, consistent, same size rules, generous breathing room. Signature, not wallpaper. • For early stage companies: keep the logo present on high intent pages and sales materials, then let brand cues carry the storytelling on social, content and campaigns. People remember patterns faster than they remember names. Distinct color, shape, type and tone create memory hooks. Repetition builds trust. Overexposure creates banner blindness. The logo is not the brand. The logo is the receipt. Curious to hear your take: where do you see logos overused, and which brands do you think nail recognition without shouting? #BrandStrategy #VisualIdentity #DesignThinking #Marketing #BrandingTips

I always tell my teams we are in service of two objectives: 1. Leave the brand more valuable than when we were given the privilege to serve it. 2. Leave the shareholders more content than when we started. Brand value and shareholder value are mutually reinforcing. Any other thinking is simply not marketing excellence. When brand initiatives fail to drive financial outcomes, we've created art, not marketing. When financial pursuits damage brand equity, we've mortgaged the future for quarterly results. True marketing leadership rejects false choices. We don't separate creative excellence from commercial impact, purpose from profit, or data from intuition. The tension between these elements is precisely what drives breakthrough strategy. Shareholder value without brand stewardship is unsustainable. Brand purity without commercial results is indulgent. Excellence means embracing both. Always.