In the 1980s, Colgate-Palmolive — a name most consumers strongly associated with toothpaste — put its brand on a line of frozen dinner entrées called Colgate Kitchen Entrées. It’s since become one of the most frequently cited examples in marketing coursework of a brand extension that ignored what the brand actually meant to consumers.

Why the association worked against the product

Brand extensions succeed when customers can transfer trust from the parent brand to the new product in a way that makes sense. Toothpaste and food sit on opposite ends of a very specific association: minty, clinical, oral-hygiene branding directly undercuts appetite appeal. The mental link between “Colgate” and “fresh breath” actively worked against “Colgate” and “dinner.”

0meaningful market share the product line achieved before being discontinued — it’s remembered almost entirely as a cautionary example.

The test brand extensions need to pass

  • Does the parent brand’s core association help or hurt the new category?
  • Would a customer’s gut reaction to the combination be curiosity, or discomfort?
  • Is the extension being driven by a genuine capability advantage, or just a strong name looking for a new use?

Why marketers still teach this one

Few brand extension failures are as instantly intuitive to explain as this one — which is exactly why it’s stayed in marketing curricula for decades. It’s a clean, memorable illustration of a rule that applies far beyond food: brand equity is specific, not universally transferable.