How To Mismanage A Brand?

Brand management isn’t just about fixing what’s broken in your funnel or optimising campaign performance.
It’s also about something far less visible, and far more dangerous if ignored: protecting the perceived value of your brand.

We spend time aligning visuals, refining messaging, vetting influencers, and controlling distribution.
But there’s another area that often slips through the cracks: brand partnerships...and specifically, licensing.

Licensing can be a smart commercial lever.
You lease the brand name, attach it to new products, enter new geographies or categories, and take a cut.
In theory, you grow reach and revenue without heavy investment.

But there’s no free growth.
And if licensing isn’t managed with intention, it can quietly bleed a brand dry.

Even the strongest brands, the ones with decades of authority, cultural equity, and emotional resonance, aren’t immune.

If no one’s minding how the brand is applied, what it shows up on, where it lives, or how it’s priced, decline is inevitable.

A textbook example? Karl Lagerfeld.

The man wasn’t just a designer. He was an icon. A god in fashion industry. Silver ponytail, black shades...when he walked down the runway, you felt nothing but respect.
Chanel. Fendi. Balmain. Patou. Chloé.
He didn’t just protect heritage of Chanel, he made it relevant again. He turned legacy brands into cultural landmarks.

But a year after his death, the Karl Lagerfeld brand, name and licensing rights, was sold to G-III Apparel Group. In 2022, they became the sole owner.

On paper, it’s a great success. According to G-III’s financial reports, the Karl Lagerfeld brand has seen consistent double-digit growth.
The ROI on the €200M acquisition is already well over 200%.

But how is the brand doing? Not on the balance sheet, in the world.

Walk through any (mid-range) mall, and the answer is obvious.

Karl’s iconic silhouette is stamped across faux leather bags, heavily discounted shoes, €15 costume jewelry, and plastic umbrellas.
Whatever premium positioning the brand once had is nowhere to be found.

This isn’t about whether brands should be accessible or exclusive.
It’s about whether they are delivering on their promise. And once they stop, it's a slide.

Licensing itself isn’t the problem.
Lack of brand governance is.

Without clear guidelines, strategic filters, and someone constantly asking “Does this belong to us?”, licensing becomes extraction. You start with revenue. You end with irrelevance.

This is what happens when short-term cash wins over long-term stewardship.
You take a brand with real cultural value, and stretch it until it says nothing at all.

You scale distribution, but lose meaning.

And then you’re left with €9.99 flip-flops that still carry the logo, but no longer carry the brand.

If that was the business model - quick monetization and exit - fine. But if the intention was sustainable brand growth, this model requires more care. More discipline.

Because in the end, those umbrellas and plastic bags and bargain-bin accessories?
They’re not just products. They’re brand signals. They are a mirror of your positioning.

And if they don’t signal the value that you stand by, you’re not building a brand anymore.
You’re diluting one.