W14691

MAHINDRA “RISE”: A BRAND ARCHITECTURE DECISION1

Ashita Aggarwal Sharma and Lulu Raghavan wrote this case solely to provide material for class discussion. The authors do not
intend to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of a managerial situation. The authors may have disguised certain names
and other identifying information to protect confidentiality.

This publication may not be transmitted, photocopied, digitized or otherwise reproduced in any form or by any means without the
permission of the copyright holder. Reproduction of this material is not covered under authorization by any reproduction rights
organization. To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, contact Ivey Publishing, Ivey Business School, Western
University, London, Ontario, Canada, N6G 0N1; (t) 519.661.3208; (e) cases@ivey.ca; www.iveycases.com.

Copyright © 2015, Richard Ivey School of Business Foundation Version: 2015-03-19

It was April 2009 and Tanya Menon, a senior marketing manager at a leading financial services company
at Mumbai stopped by the offices of Club Mahindra at Mahindra Towers for a business meeting. Earlier
in the day she was at the Mahindra auto showroom in Mumbai suburbs to have a look at Mahindra &
Mahindra’s new sports utility vehicle (SUV), Xylo news of which was flooding the social media space.
Both the hospitality and automobile businesses belonged to the same parent company, the Mahindra
Group (Mahindra), but Menon found nothing to connect the two companies in her mind. There were no
brand reminders and the two businesses looked and felt different. She was not alone in finding this odd.
Many customers of the Mahindra Group companies had expressed a similar sentiment.

In the summer of 2009, the corporate brand team at Mahindra had been receiving feedback from many
stakeholders about brand inconsistency, which in turn was diluting the brand image. The brand team
collated the various nomenclatures, logos and brand identities used by the group companies and presented
its case before the management board. The objective of their pitch was to drive home the gravity of the
problems caused by the lack of brand consistency within the organization. Mahindra, they pointed out,
had plans to grow further in India and expand its operations globally; thus, it was imperative to have
consistency in brand image and architecture. The board commissioned the advertising agency
StrawberryFrog to identify a positioning platform that could provide meaning to the brand and help unite
its various businesses under a common umbrella. Based on extensive consumer research and an internal
audit, the agency crafted the position “Rise,” which was approved on July 17, 2009. At that time,
Mahindra’s brand architecture was complex — it was largely an inside-out arrangement and not visually
and verbally aligned. Implementing the “Rise” positioning across group companies proved difficult
without a clear definition of brand architecture and design. In late 2009, the Group Management Board
(GMB) entrusted the global brand consulting firm Landor Associates to propose a clearly articulated
global brand architecture for the group by defining the role of the corporate brand “Mahindra” and
identifying how it could be linked to the conglomerate’s various businesses.

1
Adjudged best case in the Marketing Category in the ISB-Ivey Global Case Competition 2014, held in partnership with Ivey
Business School.

This document is authorized for use only in Prof. Simon George & Prof. Jeevan J Arakal's Brand Management -MKT 6004-25.06 at Ta Pai Management Institute (Tapmi) from Jun 2020 to Dec
2020.
 Page 2 9B14A077

BACKGROUND

The US$16.7 billion2 Mahindra Group was an Indian multinational headquartered in Mumbai, India, with
operations in over 100 countries and more than 180,000 employees around the globe. The group was
present in 18 key industries including aerospace, agribusiness, aftermarket, automotive, components,
construction equipment, defence, energy, farm equipment, finance and insurance, industrial equipment,
IT, leisure and hospitality, logistics, real estate, retail and two-wheelers (see Exhibit 1). A highly reputed
Indian business, Mahindra was the market leader in utility vehicles and tractors and the largest tractor
manufacturer (by volume) in the world. It had a presence in almost every segment of the automobile
industry, from two-wheelers to utility vehicles, SUVs and commercial vehicles. Mahindra also acquired a
majority stake in the Reva Electric Car Company (subsequently renamed Mahindra Reva), strengthening
its position in the electric vehicle domain. The addition of Satyam Computer Services Limited to the
group’s growing list of businesses catapulted it into the top five league of business-to-business (B2B) IT
service providers in India.

Mahindra & Mohammed was incorporated in 1945 by the brothers J.C. Mahindra and K.C. Mahindra and
Malik Ghulam Muhammad in Ludhiana, Punjab to trade steel. After the partition of India in 1947,
Muhammad left the company and migrated to Pakistan after which the company’s name was changed to
Mahindra & Mahindra. The company first forayed into steel business but slowly moved to jeep
manufacturing in partnership with Willys Jeeps and began production in India after 1947. The company
was listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange in 1956, and by 1969, it had entered the world market as an
exporter of utility vehicles and spare parts. By 1994, the group diversified and reorganized itself into six
strategic business units, namely, automotive, farm equipment, infrastructure, trade and financial services,
IT and automotive components. Anand Mahindra was appointed the managing director in 1997 who
further reorganized the business and defined the next growth orbit for the same.

Mahindra was one of the 20 largest companies in India in 2009. The organization followed a federal
structure that enabled each business to chart its own future and simultaneously leverage synergies across
the group’s competencies.

BRAND MAHINDRA — EXAMINING THE BRAND ARCHITECTURE

Mahindra had grown rapidly and nursed an ambition to become a global leader through new business
entry, formation of joint ventures and acquisitions. The group had identified the need for a strong
corporate brand — a brand that could connect a diverse set of businesses with stakeholders across the
globe, including its employees, end consumers, government, suppliers, partners, business customers and
financial institutions. Almost all the businesses within the group used the Mahindra brand in different
degrees and roles — corporate, master, driver, co-driver and endorser — in different contexts. Unlike the
Tata Group, another Indian multinational conglomerate, Mahindra did not charge group businesses a
royalty fee for using the corporate name, and hence, every new business, product or service had greater
choice and flexibility in its use of the corporate brand.

Mahindra was perceived as a jeep and tractor company that was old-fashioned yet dependable. Indians
regarded it as a rugged, tough, value-for-money brand. The group invested in a rebranding exercise in the
late 1990s built around the message “Indians are second to none.”3 This idea centred on the belief that the
group could prove its worth to the world through the quality, reliability and durability of its products and
2
Mahindra & Mahindra website, www.mahindra.com/Who-We-Are/How-We-Got-Here, accessed April 14, 2014.
3
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/a-new-core-purpose-expansion-gives-rise-to-rebranding-at-mahindra/,
accessed March 24, 2014.

This document is authorized for use only in Prof. Simon George & Prof. Jeevan J Arakal's Brand Management -MKT 6004-25.06 at Ta Pai Management Institute (Tapmi) from Jun 2020 to Dec
2020.
 Page 3 9B14A077

services. But with the changes brought on by globalization and as the group’s businesses expanded into
new sectors and geographies, its management felt that this central idea should be redefined. “With 18
businesses and over 120 subsidiaries, it needed more than just the Indian-growth story to motivate its
155,000-strong workforce,” 12 per cent of whom were foreigners and Indian expatriates.4

The group gradually expanded its geographic (urban, semi‐urban and rural), demographic (teenagers,
youth, the middle‐aged, elderly adults, male and female) and socio‐economic (various groups in urban
and rural India) footprint. The brand (and business) portfolio grew rapidly in the first decade of the 2000s
as the company entered new businesses, formed joint ventures and made acquisitions. From a portfolio
that operated predominantly in the rural/semi‐urban and B2B space in India, the brand traversed
geographies and went global, albeit in a limited fashion. It witnessed significant growth in the number of
brands operating in the business-to-consumer (B2C) space, and revenues grew rapidly from 2002
onwards.

Mahindra had grown to its current position through a strong focus on manufacturing excellence. Until the
end of the 1990s, the group was primarily focused on utility vehicles and tractors and the rural and semi‐
urban markets. Around 65 per cent of the group’s revenue came from farm equipment and automotive
business. It was therefore the centre of investment and little attention was paid to brand building activities
in other businesses. The company did not invest much on creating consumer or business brands except
after year 2000 when some investments were made to create SUV brands (small utility vehicles) such as
Scorpio and Bolero. As the Indian economy became younger and disposable income increased, Mahindra
group also increased their focus on brand driven business in urban markets through diversification.
However, such a vast portfolio posed the risk of brand dilution.5

Mahindra’s many businesses were leveraging the corporate brand but were not consistent in their
portrayal of the umbrella brand or in communicating core brand values. Responding to the changing
economic environment and market dynamics, in 2009, the group’s management identified certain
opportunities in the Indian and global markets. To cash in on these opportunities, the company had to tell
a comprehensive brand story to stakeholders. Customers knew Mahindra as an auto company, but the
group’s diverse business lines across sectors and mixed bag of brands confused the customers over time.
Given the federal structure of the group, brand Mahindra was used differently by the businesses from the
perspective of their product‐market context. Also, the existing business architecture was visually and
verbally inconsistent. Various research studies indicated that “Brand Mahindra” had no clear position and
was perceived differently by various stakeholders. Several key stakeholders perceived the brand to be old‐
fashioned, traditional and as not keeping up with the times. And all this was happening when competition
was intensifying in both the B2B and B2C markets in India and when Mahindra was planning an
aggressive international expansion of its automobile business.

In 2013, around 50 per cent of India’s population was under the age of 25,6 a demographic that had not
historically been a major part of Mahindra’s customer base. This large youth population was becoming a
critical stakeholder for Mahindra, not only as customers but also as prospective employees. It was
therefore important for Mahindra to attract these young stakeholders by building a strong brand to which
they would have a deep emotional connection.

4
www.business-standard.com/article/management/the-parent-takes-over-at-mahindra-group-113012800002_1.html,
accessed March 23, 2014.
5
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/a-new-core-purpose-expansion-gives-rise-to-rebranding-at-mahindra/,
accessed September 20, 2014.
6
“India’s Population 2014,” www.indiaonlinepages.com/population/india-current-population.html, accessed September 20,
2014.

This document is authorized for use only in Prof. Simon George & Prof. Jeevan J Arakal's Brand Management -MKT 6004-25.06 at Ta Pai Management Institute (Tapmi) from Jun 2020 to Dec
2020.
 Page 4 9B14A077

At a meeting of the executive board, a member explained that a change in brand architecture was needed
for both utilitarian and aesthetic reasons. The group needed a brand architecture and visual identity that
would encompass its distinct segments, products, services and geographies. The members of the board
knew that for any corporate brand to remain relevant over time, it had to refresh its visual identity (word
mark and logo) to give new impetus to business outreach programs, consumer connect, branding,
marketing and sales efforts.

GLOBAL BRANDING PROJECT

With the objective of building a strong corporate brand, in 2009, Mahindra undertook a project to identify
a positioning platform that could provide meaning to the brand and could help unite its various businesses
under a common umbrella. Almost all of the group’s businesses had aggressive plans to go global. In its
quest for growth, Mahindra was guided by six mantras — globalization, innovation, leadership,
technological superiority, financial performance and customer-centricity. The project began with the
objective of defining a unique position and differentiation for Mahindra to make the corporate brand
relevant to all of its global and Indian stakeholders.

StrawberryFrog, a New York-based agency that was working on Mahindra’s U.S. auto launch, was given
the brief for the project. The agency followed a two-step approach on this project as outlined below:

1. Introspection: This step required developing a thorough understanding of the businesses to identify
common elements (values) that ran across the group. The aim of this exercise was to identify “who
we are” and “what we do” through a series of internal stakeholder interviews within Mahindra.
2. Semiotics research: This step involved research to understand the meaning and interpretation of India
(and Indians) in overseas markets. The agency conducted in-depth interviews of target customers in
seven countries (India, the United States, China, Brazil, South Africa, Egypt and Thailand) to identify
emerging cultural themes and test the resonance of company values. Key business sectors were
represented and emphasis was placed on consumer profiles (education, occupation, income, etc.).
Customers who were interviewed stated that companies ought to be like partners or friends that
empowered them with the tools to succeed. The research revealed that there was a strong match
between internal group values and customer sentiment, and the idea of “Rise” was articulated as
“Mahindra, the brand that empowers customers and stakeholders to succeed, to grow, to rise.”

The agency tested the concept “Rise” once again in different markets and it emerged a winner in terms of
emotional appeal, clarity and comprehension. Since most of the group businesses, through their products
and services, sought to empower people and help them to succeed, “Rise” emerged as a creative
expression of this objective, a call to motivate stakeholders and to take action to succeed and create a
better future. “Rise” was perceived as a simple yet powerful verb that defined the group and succinctly
summed up the aspirations of Mahindra’s stakeholders and employees.7 At the core of the “Rise”
philosophy was the customer. Mahindra believed that its portfolio of innovative products, services and
actions empowered customers to overcome their challenges, exploit their ingenuity and shape their own
destinies. This vision found expression through a new brand purpose: “We will challenge conventional
thinking and innovatively use all our resources to drive positive change in the lives of our stakeholders
and communities across the world, to enable them to rise.”7 The “Rise” proposition was built on three
pillars: accepting no limits, alternative thinking and driving positive change.

7
“Mahindra Group Unveils ‘Rise,’ New Brand Positioning,” The Financial Express, January 18, 2011,
www.financialexpress.com/news/mahindra-group-unveils-rise-new-brand-positioning/738690, accessed April 20, 2014.

This document is authorized for use only in Prof. Simon George & Prof. Jeevan J Arakal's Brand Management -MKT 6004-25.06 at Ta Pai Management Institute (Tapmi) from Jun 2020 to Dec
2020.
 Page 5 9B14A077

After testing the concept, the team from StrawberryFrog made a presentation to the GMB, key business
sectors and the marketing teams. On July 17, 2009, the GMB approved the positioning of “Rise” (see
Exhibit 2).

The group framed its positioning statement as follows: For people who are seeking to shape their own
destiny, Mahindra is a brand that accepts no limits because it uses alternate thinking to innovate products,
services and solutions that drive positive change in people’s lives and communities.

THE CONCERNS

After this repositioning exercise, Mahindra wanted to be seen as a progressive, dynamic, modern and
customer-centric brand. Senior officers at Mahindra emphasized that the “Rise” position and
accompanying strategy were not merely an image building gimmick. The group was attempting to unify
different businesses that shared the Mahindra brand and offer a compelling value proposition to its
customers.8

The heritage attributes of brand Mahindra were reliability, trustworthiness, warmth and caring. The
organization wanted to retain these as part of its core identity. But the group’s planned entry into new
sectors meant that the brand also needed a global, modern technology orientation in its visual and verbal
expression. Though its core values remained the same, the purpose and goal of the organization had
shifted. The change in brand positioning generated some amount of uncertainty within the group, and
internally people were skeptical about what the new positioning entailed for them and their growth within
the organization.

Within Mahindra, acquisitions, organic growth and geographic expansion in the previous decade had led
to a federal structure that empowered the vertical heads and boards of listed entities that had many legacy
brands. But now, to be able to leverage the “Mahindra” brand, it was important to ensure consistency
across businesses. The group was structured as a federation of companies, so it was necessary to arrive at
a consensus on when and how to use the brand, whether in naming a new company or a new product or
service. This democratic structure presented certain challenges with respect to unifying the brand and
creating a distinct and clear architecture. Management knew that getting people to buy into a single brand
ideology would be no easy task.

Mahindra was constantly evolving and changing. It was transforming from an Indian brand into a global
one and evolving from a symbol of trust to one that was more aspirational. Its product portfolio was
becoming more varied and not solely focused on manufacturing. With the market and customer
requirements in a constant state of flux and dynamism, Mahindra needed a brand architecture that was
clear, scalable and could accommodate the wide interests of the group. The primary objective of the
Mahindra Global Branding Project was to define and establish a position for the Mahindra brand among
various stakeholders in the global marketplace. The success of this project required a harmonious and
consistent brand architecture across geographies, businesses and product lines. While “Rise” was seeking
to unite internal audiences, Mahindra’s external identity also had to be made scale- and future-proof. B.
Karthik, senior general manager, Corporate Brand Council, who was made responsible for bringing this
positioning to life, felt that “Rise” was of fundamental and strategic importance and not just another
campaign. He intended to spend INR1.2 billion to promote the new brand position.

8
“A New Core Purpose: Expansion Gives ‘Rise’ to Rebranding at Mahindra,” March 24, 2011,
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/a-new-core-purpose-expansion-gives-rise-to-rebranding-at-mahindra/, accessed
April 21, 2014.

This document is authorized for use only in Prof. Simon George & Prof. Jeevan J Arakal's Brand Management -MKT 6004-25.06 at Ta Pai Management Institute (Tapmi) from Jun 2020 to Dec
2020.
 Page 6 9B14A077

Karthik knew that Mahindra’s path to becoming a global player would be smoother if brand decisions
were made with an understanding of international as well as Indian branding and communication norms.
This required a brand strategy that was well-aligned to the business portfolio and followed a disciplined
and effective implementation plan to guide, manage and enforce the use of the new brand across the
group companies.

It was difficult for the internal brand team to achieve this objective because as internal stakeholders, they
tended to have a subjective view of the business lines. Karthik, therefore, decided to seek the help of a
renowned brand consulting company. Being a neutral organization, a consultant would have a non-biased
view of the organization and its complexities and could suggest a robust, implementable and scalable
brand architecture strategy. Karthik wanted to create a clear definition of how different businesses and
product brands could reside under the “umbrella” of the corporate brand, develop a clear system for
managing the corporate brand and maintain a relevant brand image to support the group’s business
objectives.

It was during this time that he happened to read about the Taj brand architecture project and the launch of
Taj’s Vivanta brand, undertaken by Landor Associates (Landor) under the leadership of its Indian
managing director, Lulu Raghavan. Karthik lost no time in setting up a meeting with Raghavan to discuss
the new project. For Landor, this was a great opportunity to work with a group as diverse as Mahindra
and leverage its global network and market understanding. A few days after the meeting, Karthik sent
Raghavan a brief of the project with the following key objectives:

 Make the Mahindra brand bigger and international.

 Make the Mahindra brand a global player, visible and well-respected (balancing awareness with the
needs of individual businesses).
 Mahindra’s strategic intent was to lead and not take incremental steps.
Raghavan and her team immediately went to work on the project. They studied the organization and met
key stakeholders to understand the organization’s culture, core values and dynamics. The team first
conducted a thorough audit of the organization through interactive sessions with corporate strategy teams
and one-on-one interviews with 21 top executives and various marketing teams. They also reviewed the
brand history and information provided by the company along with an audit of external and internal
communications material rolled out by Mahindra and its associated companies. On this journey, Karthik
and Raghavan discovered that autonomous business units had a strong sense of self but had no unified
internal meaning or integration with the core brand (see Exhibit 3).
The next task was to analyze the existing brand architecture of the group, which spanned 11 sectors and
about 50 brands (see Exhibits 4 and 5). The businesses were classified as mobility, non-mobility B2C
businesses and B2B businesses. The team found that there was an inconsistent use of Mahindra brand
identity across the group and also within the different lines of business. There was no clear visual
distinction in the way business units, products and services used the corporate Mahindra brand, leading to
confusion and ambiguity for end customers. Also, companies and brands that leveraged endorsements by
Mahindra showed inconsistency and variability in their use of the brand, which diluted its strength and
stature. It also failed to effectively link different parts of the business and could not delineate corporate
and product offerings. Being a federal structure, the business units enjoyed a decentralized approach.
Some units were more entrepreneurial while others were process-oriented. This variation and diversity
within the organization posed a challenge to the implementation of a new brand architecture.
The next exercise was to find out what Mahindra customers thought of the organization. Raghavan and
her team began meeting Mahindra customers at dealer outlets, retail outlets and during focus group
discussions. These sessions revealed that the Mahindra brand did not connect very well with the youth of

This document is authorized for use only in Prof. Simon George & Prof. Jeevan J Arakal's Brand Management -MKT 6004-25.06 at Ta Pai Management Institute (Tapmi) from Jun 2020 to Dec
2020.
 Page 7 9B14A077

the country. Moreover, customers perceived Mahindra to be an automobile brand and, more specifically, a
utility vehicle player. Certain group businesses were seen as being closer to Mahindra’s core values while
others were not known to be part of the group at all (see Exhibit 6 for a visual representation of business
closeness to core brand as understood by customers).

Apart from correcting and strengthening its image in the Indian market, one of Mahindra’s key objectives
was to build an architecture that could be leveraged internationally. Considering that the products sold in
the United States in the short term would include farm equipment (tractors), trucks and IT, Landor
conducted a slider analysis9 in the United States and India on key attributes, including company, brand,
stakeholders and market factors (see Exhibit 7).

The “Rise” positioning was more a point of unification than differentiation. It had to be carefully woven
into the DNA of each individual business or category for relevant differentiation. Landor’s analysis and
discussions led the team to propose three broad options:

1. Should the Mahindra brand be used by all businesses, products and services? The historical brand
drivers of trust, reliability, caring and warmth had been successfully stretched by the group across
various businesses in India thus far. Landor wanted to know if the story could continue and whether
such a brand stretch would find success even in international markets.
2. Should Mahindra follow a conglomerate approach and create a “house of brands” as P&G and
Unilever had done? In this case, the Mahindra brand would be reserved as a corporate/holding brand
and “Rise” as a corporate position. Multiple brands would then be created in each individual business,
without mention of Mahindra. They would have the flexibility to incorporate “Rise” in their
positioning or leave it out. This approach could solve the brand stretch problem and allow for
flexibility in market entry and exit.
3. Should Mahindra follow a hybrid strategy? In this approach, Mahindra could identify a few strategic
businesses where the Mahindra brand could be used as a “master brand,” while in the case of other
businesses, the use of the corporate brand could be reduced or eliminated. Such a focused approach
could give Mahindra the flexibility of brand architecture design but would require immense buy-in
from internal stakeholders, which would not be easy. Also, it was difficult to decide which businesses
would receive greater brand endorsement and which would get less or none.

Over and above the decision on brand architecture strategy, Karthik and the Landor team had to answer
many other questions for Mahindra: What was the overall role of brand Mahindra? Did the new brand
architecture allow for expansion into newer businesses targeted to a young, upmarket audience? Would
the model work for B2B and B2C businesses across geographies, businesses and product classes? How
could the new architecture be translated into visual and verbal brand expression?

Karthik and Raghavan knew that aligning such diverse and legacy businesses would be a complex task,
but resources were limited, so the brand had to be used without stretching it too thin. Further, the
relationship of the group brand to the business would ultimately create the right consumer perception. A
clear brand architecture would not only help the company to efficiently allocate advertising dollars but
could also help in identifying investment opportunities and risks among the different sub-brands. The new
brand architecture was necessary to determine how the group’s companies, products and services could
leverage the Mahindra mother brand. It was the beginning of a long journey for the company.
Dr. Ashita Aggarwal Sharma is associate professor at S.P. Jain Institute of Management and Research and Lulu
Raghavan is MD, Landor Associates, India.
9
The slider analysis assesses the perceived position and movement trend of the Mahindra brand on certain key attributes of
an analytic framework in India and the United States. Such an analysis can help in framing brand/market strategy in existing
and new markets.

This document is authorized for use only in Prof. Simon George & Prof. Jeevan J Arakal's Brand Management -MKT 6004-25.06 at Ta Pai Management Institute (Tapmi) from Jun 2020 to Dec
2020.
 Page 8 9B14A077

EXHIBIT 1: THE MAHINDRA GROUP COMPANIES AND CLASSIFICATION (2009)

NATURE OF THE KEY BUSINESS LINES/

BUSINESS
BUSINESS PRODUCTS
Utility vehicles, SUVs, cars, transport
Automotive B2C, B2B vehicles and heavy vehicles
(proposed)
Tractors, machinery, agri‐inputs, farm
Farm Equipment B2C
advisory, diesel generator sets
Forgings, castings, stampings, gears,
Auto Components B2B
composites, steel
Loans, insurance broking, rural
Financial Services B2C
housing
Information Technology B2B IT services across industry verticals
Timeshares, residential apartments,
Infrastructure B2C, B2B
special economic zones (SEZs)
After‐market B2C, B2B Used cars, spares and services

Two‐wheelers B2C Scooters, motorcycles (proposed)

Defence Government Armoured vehicles, naval products

Products for expecting mothers,
Retail B2C
infants and children
Logistics B2B People and goods movement

Steel B2B Steel trading

Entry‐level and mid‐range leisure/
Boats B2C
speedboats

Source: Company sources.

This document is authorized for use only in Prof. Simon George & Prof. Jeevan J Arakal's Brand Management -MKT 6004-25.06 at Ta Pai Management Institute (Tapmi) from Jun 2020 to Dec
2020.
 Page 9 9B14A077

EXHIBIT 2: THE SPIRIT OF “RISE” POSITIONING

CORE PURPOSE: We will challenge

conventional thinking and innovatively
use all our resources to drive positive
change in the lives of our stakeholders
and communities across the world, to
enable them to “Rise.”

BRAND PILLARS

Accepting No Limits Alternative Thinking Driving Positive Change

CORE VALUES: Professionalism, Good Corporate Citizenship, Customer First, Quality

Focus, Dignity of the Individual

1. Accepting no limits: This culture helped Mahindra meet the oil crisis of the 1970s by re-engineering
fuel-efficient tractor engines for utility vehicles. It led Mahindra to take on the challenge of designing
the Scorpio utility vehicle at a cost that many industry experts thought was impossibly low. Mahindra
created completely new business models to enter areas others had ignored, such as the hospitality
business and rural financial services. This determination influenced every aspect of the culture,
inspiring employees to push past limitations and comfort zones.
2. Alternative thinking: This means solving problems in ways no one has thought of before, by using
fewer resources and entering markets thought to be unreachable.
3. Driving positive change: It was part of the organization’s culture to help communities grow by
positively impacting individuals and society. Mahindra sought to have a positive impact through its
products and services by using green manufacturing processes and by being a good employer. They
wished to be recognized for creating a better world.

Source: Company sources.

This document is authorized for use only in Prof. Simon George & Prof. Jeevan J Arakal's Brand Management -MKT 6004-25.06 at Ta Pai Management Institute (Tapmi) from Jun 2020 to Dec
2020.
 Page 10 9B14A077

EXHIBIT 3: INPUTS FROM INTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS AT MAHINDRA

The Landor team interacted with members of the GMB at Mahindra and with marketing heads. Key points
that emerged during these interactions were:

 “We have a bias towards putting Mahindra on everything.”

 “Our tractors and cars are branded Mahindra. Our automobile products have become the brand
image of the company.”
 “Brand architecture shouldn’t constrain the business.”
 “We need to be consistent around the world. Given new media, asymmetries will not be
tolerated.”
 “We’d like to be seen as a group on the move and a part of the India growth story.”
 “The brand does not seem to have a character which is well-defined. Not cohesive.”
 “Rise as a platform should be used by all group companies.”
 “Trust is applicable across all our categories, but how is it differentiated from trust that the Tata
name gives?”
 “Mahindra automobiles should be as well-known abroad as in India.”

Source: Landor Associates.

EXHIBIT 4: 2009 MAHINDRA BRAND ARCHITECTURE: ANALYSIS BY LANDOR ASSOCIATES

Financial Service Automotive Information

 Mahindra Finance Technology
 Mahindra Loan  Three-wheelers: Gio, Alfa  Mahindra Satyam
Suraksha Passenger  Bristlecone
 Mahindra Sukhi  MUV: Mahindra Pickups  Tech Mahindra
Pariwar  SUV Luxury: Scorpio, Bolero,
 Mahindra Xylo, Mahindra Renault
Insurance brokers

Infrastructure & Consulting Two-wheelers

 Mahindra Consulting; Mahindra  Duro
Consulting Engineers  Rodeo
 Mahindra Lifespaces; Mahindra  Flyre
World city
 Club Mahindra
Auto Components, etc.
Farm Equipment & Tractors  Mahindra Forgings
Aftermarket  Mahindra Gears &
 Firstchoice  Arjun, Arjun ultra,
Bhumiputra, Swaraj, Yuvraj, Transmissions
 Mahindra  Mahindra Telematics
genuine Sarpanch, Shaan
 Mahindra Gujarat tractors  Mahindra Composites
spares
 Samriddhi  Mahindra Systech
 Powerol  Mahindra Engineering
 Mahindra Steel services

Source: Landor Associates.

This document is authorized for use only in Prof. Simon George & Prof. Jeevan J Arakal's Brand Management -MKT 6004-25.06 at Ta Pai Management Institute (Tapmi) from Jun 2020 to Dec
2020.
 Page 11 9B14A077

EXHIBIT 5: CLASSIFICATION OF COMPANIES WITH RESPECT TO MAHINDRA BRAND

ASSOCIATION

Primary Branding Mahindra Gujarat tractors Mahindra World city

Mahindra Finance
Mahindra Consulting
Mahindra Consulting Engineers
Mahindra Systech
Mahindra Tractors
Mahindra Composites
Mahindra Gears and Transmissions Pvt. Ltd.
Mahindra 2 Wheelers
Mahindra loan suraksha
Shared Branding Mahindra Renault
Gio by Mahindra
Alfa by Mahindra
Champion Alfa by Mahindra
Arjun Ultra by Mahindra
Bhoomiputra by Mahindra
First Choice by Mahindra
Kisan mitra
Shaan by Mahindra
Mahindra Top Gear
Soft Endorsed Maxx Maxi Truck, Yuvraj
Branding
Invisible Branding Scorpio Xylo
Swaraj Zest
Mahindra Insurance brokers
Mahindra Samriddhi
Mahindra Forgings
Mahindra Engineering
Mahindra Telematics
Mahindra Steel Service
Mahindra Sukhi Pariwar
Mahindra Powerol
Mahindra Lifespaces
Club Mahindra holidays
Flyte by Mahindra
Rodeo by Mahindra
Mahindra Duro
Tech Mahindra
Mahindra Turbo
Mahindra Sarpanch
Mahindra Navistar
Bolero Bristlecone

Source: Analysis by Landor Associates. Reproduced with permission from Mahindra & Mahindra.

EXHIBIT 6: CLOSENESS TO MAHINDRA CORE ATTRIBUTES, AS PERCEIVED BY CUSTOMERS

Lifespaces: A World city: A

division of Mahindra division of Mahindra
Mahindra Scorpio Mahindra 2
wheelers
Mahindra
Tractors Satyam: A division
Firstchoice: A Core Mahindra of Mahindra
division of Mahindra Brand

Mahindra
farm Mahindra Gujarat Bristlecone: A
solutions tractor division of Mahindra
Expert consulting: A
division of Mahindra

Source: Based on a consumer study conducted by Landor Associates.

This document is authorized for use only in Prof. Simon George & Prof. Jeevan J Arakal's Brand Management -MKT 6004-25.06 at Ta Pai Management Institute (Tapmi) from Jun 2020 to Dec
2020.
 Page 12 9B14A077

EXHIBIT 7: SLIDER ANALYSIS OF INDIAN AND U.S. MARKETS

Legend

U.S. India

(Note: Arrow represents direction of movement with respect to consumer perceptions)

COMPANY FACTORS

Product range/business mix

Competencies range

Growth plans related to

current competencies

Cross-selling synergies
between products/services

Cultural mindset

Operation synergies mindset

Note: The U.S. market was not judged on culture and operation synergy mindset (no data).

BRAND FACTORS

Unique attributes of the brand

in portfolio: potential

Role of stature as a driver of

preference

Brand stretch potential

Corporate brand: potential

leverage

Marketing communications:
relative focus of marketing

Range of price categories

This document is authorized for use only in Prof. Simon George & Prof. Jeevan J Arakal's Brand Management -MKT 6004-25.06 at Ta Pai Management Institute (Tapmi) from Jun 2020 to Dec
2020.
 Page 13 9B14A077

EXHIBIT 7 (CONTINUED)

MARKET FACTORS

Competitive competencies/
positioning profile of lead
competitors
Category conventions: profile
of leading competitors

Critical mass: number of

significant market segments
Local market conditions:
adaptation of products/
services
Market concentration in each
category
Market risk: business or
reputation risk of different
business segments

STAKEHOLDER FACTORS

End users: needs and

preferences

End user concentration

Intermediaries: retail/ channel

partners

Employees: loyalty, culture,

mindset

CONSTRAINTS

Marketing resources, people,

budgets

Awareness of product brands

in portfolio
Organization structure:
number of operating
companies or decentralized
divisions
Marketing willingness: buy in Low: impacts the ability to make brand architecture changes
at senior management table

Source: Based on primary research conducted by Landor Associates in India and the United States.

This document is authorized for use only in Prof. Simon George & Prof. Jeevan J Arakal's Brand Management -MKT 6004-25.06 at Ta Pai Management Institute (Tapmi) from Jun 2020 to Dec
2020.