Let there be Sunlight! The Rise of Lever Brothers and Sunlight Soap

By: Avi Goldfarb1

May 24, 2001

Abstract: This paper describes the growth of Sunlight soap and Lever Brothers Limited from the 1880’s to the 1920’s with an emphasis on the early period of rapid growth. The paper argues that Sunlight’s success was a result of careful brand management. Sunlight provides an early case study for the today’s marketing theories of David Aaker and Kevin Lane Keller. 1 Economics Department. Northwestern University. 2003 Sheridan Rd. Evanston, IL. 60208. a-goldfarb@northwestern.edu. This research was partially supported by the Social Science Research Council through the predissertation fellowship of the Program in Applied Economics. I would like to thank Joel Mokyr for helpful comments.

2

“Any fool can make soap. It takes a clever man to sell it.” —Thomas Barrett of Pears’ Soap

1. Introduction

William Hesketh Lever built one of the largest industrial empires in the world.

By the time of his death in 1925, Lever Brothers Limited had over 80,000 employees

producing over 400,000 metric tons of soap per year (Wilson 1954 v. 1 pp. 283, 290).

Lever began selling Sunlight soap through his father’s grocery business in 1885. By late

1887, “sales of the new brand of ‘Sunlight’ were larger than those of any other single

brand of soap in the United Kingdom” (Wilson 1954 v. 1 pp. 33). There are a number of

possible explanations for this rapid growth in production. On the supply side, raw

material costs and Lever’s introduction of a national distribution system are often cit ed as

key factors; on the demand side, the growth is attributed to the product innovation of

Sunlight soap itself, demographic factors, advertising, and branding.

The most common story in the literature to describe Lever’s rise is a demand-side

story that focuses on the heavy advertising campaigns and the decision to individually

wrap each bar of soap. Sidney Pollard wrote that Lever “built … the largest soap

enterprise in the country by unprecedented advertising and marketing campaigns”

(Pollard 1989 pp. 35). Prior to 1885, soap in Britain was chiseled off large blocks by the

grocer. H.R. Edwards attributes Lever’s success to his innovation to wrap each bar of

soap individually with the name ‘Sunlight’ printed on the wrapper in large colored letters

(Edwards 1962 pp. 139). Similarly, Lever’s son, in his biography of his father, credits “a

registered name [which] could be advertised and sold universally” (Leverhulme 1927 pp.

38). Charles Wilson, on the other hand, in his three-volume work on the history of

3

Unilever attributes many factors to Lever’s success. He mentions the rise of the

purchasing power of the working class and heavy advertising. Wilson places much more

emphasis than other scholars on supply-side factors such as the low cost of raw materials

in the 1880’s and Lever’s innovations in reducing production and distribution costs.

This paper will argue, with reference to modern marketing theory, that Sunlight

soap’s growth was a result of the careful management of the Sunlight brand. The

decision to brand was thus a necessary step toward growth, but by no means a sufficient

one. According to the American Marketing Association, a brand is a “name, term, sign,

symbol, or design, or a combination of them intended to identify the goods and services

of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of the competition”

(Keller 1998 pp. 2). The branding of Sunlight soap allowed Lever to position his soap as

distinct from others. The management of the brand involved not only increasing

awareness of the brand, but careful molding of all aspects of the brand image. It is this

concept of management of both brand awareness and brand image, found in writings by

Kevin Lane Keller, David Aaker, and others, that was the root of Lever’s success. Brand

management involves coordinating a coherent brand image based on advertising,

distribution, and product quality in addition to ensuring awareness. It was the

coordination of many different factors toward a carefully managed brand image of

Sunlight as an affordable, easy-to-use soap for the working class women of Great Britain

that led to its success.

This paper will begin with a discussion of the relevant marketing theory and a

brief history of the soap industry before 1885. It will then discuss Lever’s brand

management strategy. Discussions of the creation and maintainance of the brand image

4

will follow. Next, it will discuss supply factors in Sunlight’s growth. The paper will

conclude by reemphasizing that Sunlight’s success was a result of careful brand

management.

2. Marketing Theory: Brand Management

Brand management has become a key buzz-phrase in modern marketing. Two of

the most influential thinkers on this topic are David Aaker and Kevin Lane Keller. Both

emphasize the importance of careful guidance of the brand-building process, and in the

case of Sunlight it is this type of careful management that is the cause of Lever’s success.

A brand gives value through what both Keller and Aaker term ‘brand equity’.

The latter defines brand equity to be “a set of assets and liabilities linked to a brand, its

name and symbol, that adds to or subtracts from the value provided by a product or

service to a firm and/or to that firm’s customers.” Aaker defines the asset categories as

brand awareness, brand loyalty, perceived quality, and brand associations (Aaker 1991

pp. 15-16). Keller sums up these ideas in two categories: brand awareness and brand

image (Keller 1993 pp. 2). It is necessary to invest in both brand awareness and brand

image in order to create value (equity) for the brand. As in any investment, careful

planning and molding of the growth of the investment is essential. Having the idea for

the investment (i.e. the decision to brand) is not sufficient for asset growth.

After deciding to brand, the next step is to build brand equity. To be successful,

this requires careful brand management. The goal is to build the assets of brand

awareness and image in order to improve marginal cash flow to the firm through

customer loyalty, premium pricing, entry deterrence, and the reduction of future

5

promotional costs (Aaker 1991 pp. 16). The process of building brand equity begins with

choosing a name and overall image for the brand. This image will reflect the target

market for the brand. For Lever’s Sunlight, the target market was the working-class

housewife. The success of the brand was largely based on focusing on the idea that

Sunlight “Heightens Housewives’ Happiness” through making their “Labour Lightened”

(Illustrated London News, May 24 1890). This image gives “favorable, strong, and

unique brand associations” that Keller argues are necessary for success (Keller 1993 pp.

9).

An important message in much of the literature is that marketing the brand is

about much more than making consumers aware of it; the marketing of the brand must

also be consistent with the brand’s image. Brand equity involves both awareness and

image. Awareness is valueless if people do not have a favorable image of the brand. The

most obvious form of brand marketing is advertising. This must both increase awareness

and enhance the image. There are, however, a number of other aspects of brand

management. These include consistent quality, pricing policy, non-advertised press, and

product distribution strategy. Successful brand management requires careful molding of

all of these into the brand image.

Keller and Aaker summarize these ideas in a small number of suggestions. Keller

asserts that “Marketers should adopt a broad view of marketing decisions”, “Marketers

should define the knowledge structures that they would like to create in the minds of

consumers”, and “Marketers should take a long-term view of marketing decisions”

(Keller 1993 pp. 14). Aaker argues that this can be best achieved “when a single person

is in charge of the business associated with a brand” (Aaker 1996 pp. 343). William

6

Lever, as the ‘single person in charge,’ adhered to these concepts in building the Sunlight

brand.

3. The Soap Industry in Britain

Soap making can be traced back at least two thousand years to the Gauls who

boiled animal fats with ash to produce soaps. The technology of soap making changed

little until the industrial revolution. In seventeenth and eighteenth century Britain, soap

was produced at the household level, if at all. Then, in the early nineteenth century, three

technological developments occurred that allowed soap to be produced consistently on a

large scale (Wilson 1954 v. 1 pp. 10). One was Chevreul’s discovery that soap making

was “not merely a mixture of fat and alkali, but a definite chemical reaction” (Edwards

1962 pp. 133). Another was Leblanc’s development of a process to obtain alkali from

common salt. The third was the improvements in transportation that gave British

producers access to tallow (animal fats) from Australia and from the Americas and to

vegetable oils from the tropics. These technological improvements led to the mass

production of soap, resulting in lower prices and much higher consumption.

Soap consumption rose in Britain from 3.6 pounds per head in 1801 to 7.1 pounds

per head in 1851 to 15.4 in 1891 (Edwards 1962 pp. 135). Aggregate consumption grew

even more rapidly as the population more than doubled over the period. There were other

causes of the rapid increase in consumption aside from technology and population

growth. A ton of soap cost £74 in 1801, of which £21 was duty. By 1831, the price fell

to £52, but the tax had increased to £28. The tax was abolished in 1853 and the price fell

to less than £30 per ton. Thus high taxation was a major hindrance to the industry’s

7

growth in the early part of the nineteenth century. Other important factors in the

industry’s expansion included the growth of education among the working classes which

was “inculcating the ideals of respectability and cleanliness” (Wilson 1954 v. 1 pp. 6),

the creation of free public water supply systems, increasing wages, and the smoke and

grime prevalent in factory and mine work. All these factors combined to make the soap

industry a rapidly growing one throughout the nineteenth century.

Prior to Lever’s arrival in 1885, the soap industry in Britain was largely regional.

Crossfield, William Gossage, and Joseph Watson dominated the north, Christr. Thomas

and Lawson’s the west, and John Knight, Pears, and Edward Cook dominated London

and the southeast. These were largely family-run companies that controlled the local

soap markets. There were only two major entries after the 1850’s into the industry: Lever

in 1885 and the Cooperative Wholesale Society in 1874 (although it did not gain

prominence until 1906).

The manufacturers made soap for the various local grocers who sold them in bulk

and unwrapped form. “If the soap bore any stamp or brand of the maker at all, it was

not—from the final consumer’s point of view—significantly branded” (Edwards 1962 pp.

146). The grocer would cut the amount the customer required from a long bar and wrap

it in a piece of paper.

One such grocer was William Lever’s father, James. In 1867, William Lever

entered his father’s business and over the next eighteen years worked in every area of the

grocery trade. In 1884, William Lever decided to give the name Sunlight, and to register

the trademark, to the soap that was sold in his father’s grocery. The soap was still made

for Lever & Co. by other manufacturers. Lever advertised that he only sold the best

8

soaps of the various manufacturers under the name Sunlight. One of these soaps was a

vegetable oil soap known as ‘self-washer soap’ that would soon become the only soap

under the Sunlight brand. This vegetable oil soap needed to be wrapped individually so

that it would not go rancid, prompting Lever to put a brightly colored Sunlight logo on

each wrapper. The soap became a huge success and Sunlight ‘self-washer’ soap began to

be sold in other grocer’s shops. When his suppliers started raising prices in 1885, Lever

decided to manufacture his own soap. He built a factory at Warrington that produced

only the oil-based soap. It was around this time that William Lever realized the potential

of branded soap manufacturing. William Lever’s son, in his biography of his father,

wrote, “Lever’s idea was to establish a soap of unrivalled quality, and which under a

registered name could be advertised and sold universally” (Leverhulme 1927 pp. 38).

By 1886, Lever had moved out of the grocery business altogether and into soap

manufacturing. By 1887, Sunlight soap had larger sales than any other brand in the

United Kingdom (Leverhulme 1927 pp. 38). Lever spent large amounts on marketing

through both advertising and giving prizes in exchange for soap wrappers. He built a

large factory near Liverpool and named the site and the town that grew up surrounding it

Port Sunlight. Production began at Port Sunlight in 1888 and increased fairly steadily

until 1906 (see Table 1). This was a difficult year for the soap industry as raw material

prices skyrocketed. Lever tried to unite the various manufacturers into a united soap

trust, but the press aggressively criticized him and he was forced to give up the idea. In

the process, Lever Brothers lost much public goodwill.

By 1906, Lever’s early growth based on careful management of the Sunlight

brand was essentially complete and the company began to focus on other brands such as

9

Monkey Brand and Lux. The period from 1906 until 1929 (when Lever Brothers merged

with Margerine Unie of Holland to become Unilever) was one of rapid expansion through

the purchase of rival firms. Lever continued to dominate the British soap industry and

became an important manufacturer in continental Europe, the United States, and the

British Dominions. Today Unilever is one of Britain’s (and Holland’s) largest companies

with revenues in excess of £29 billion per year.

4. Creating an Image for the Sunlight Brand

“The key to successful new product development is to identify an unmet need or

desire” (Robertson 1998 pp. 26). Lever recognized this unmet need to be a mass-

marketed national soap brand. He decided to meet this need through Sunlight soap. He

thus needed to build up equity for Sunlight to create this strong national brand. Before

creating brand awareness, Lever had to decide on a brand image. Who would buy his

brand and why?

As Edwards points out, “Lever realized it was in the working-class households

throughout the land that the greatest opportunities for expanding sales of soap resided”

(Edwards 1962 pp. 148). Therefore, “The working class housewife had to be convinced

that soap—and not merely any soap but Lever’s soap—was not a luxury or a semi-

necessity but an indispensable necessity for her home” (Wilson 1954 v. 1 pp. 38). There

were two aspects to this goal. The first was to convince housewives to buy soap through

emphasis on hygiene. The second was to convince them to buy Sunlight soap through

emphasis on its particular qualities.

10

In order to achieve the first goal, Lever tried to teach working class people the

importance of hygiene through door-to-door salesmen and pamphlets such as “Sunlight

Soap and How to Use it” (Wilson 1954 v. 1 pp. 39). Edwards notes, “The increase in

aggregate consumption was not merely a condition of Lever’s success, but also (partially)

its effect” (Edwards 1962, 151). Lever managed to associate the societal benefit of

hygiene with his product. The pamphlets and salesmen were aimed at housewives, the

group that Lever had targeted as his customers, and the group at whom he would aim

Sunlight’s brand image.

To achieve the second goal Lever decided to emphasize how Sunlight “Heightens

Housewife Happiness” (Illustrated London News, May 24 1890) through the ease of

washing with Sunlight. It is interesting to note that he could have emphasized that it

cleaned better than its rivals. This focus on “less labour” (Illustrated London News, June

27 1896) gave Sunlight an image distinct from its rivals as a friend of the working

woman. Even when other soaps began to advertise and create brand images of their own

they emphasized their ability to clean. The image that Lever built for the Sunlight brand

was that Sunlight alone was the friend of the working-class woman, helping her to do her

work more easily and efficiently.

5. Implementing the Brand Image

There were two initial steps that allowed Lever to implement his desired image of

a soap brand that made life easier for the working woman. He needed to choose a name

for his soap and he needed to choose a formula.

11

A trademark agent in Liverpool suggested the name ‘Sunlight’ to Lever. The

concept of a brand was new in Britain. It was just ten years earlier that the Trade Marks

Act of 1875 was enacted, protecting brand names from imitators. Lever wanted to take

advantage of it. ‘Sunlight’ was a name that was not yet taken and could be upheld in

court if an imitation came along (Wilson 1954 v. 1 pp. 27). The name also had other

benefits. Keller instructs brand managers to “choose names that are simple, familiar, and

distinctive” (Keller 1993 pp. 9). ‘Sunlight’ satisfies each of these requirements; and it

also upholds the image of making life easier for housewives. It is bright, requires no

effort to enjoy, and invokes the image of hanging clothes out to dry in the sun. Lever

understood that a brand’s name and image must be consistent.

The product must also be consistent with the image it projects. “It is true that the

soap itself was new in some degree” because Sunlight was made from oils and not fats

(Edwards 1962 pp. 146). This made it a product innovation and in fact somewhat easier

to use than previous soaps, but innovation alone does not explain why Sunlight remained

on top. By 1888, most of Lever’s major rivals were marketing vegetable soaps of their

own. The difference was that Lever’s soap had a unique image of being easy to use and a

friend of the housewife. Lever emphasized that it could be used in lukewarm water,

while most other soaps needed scalding water to be effective. This made washing much

easier. There were, however, many other soaps with the same property. While the

properties of the soap itself were important, it was an understanding of why these

properties were important, and the implementation of these properties within a consistent

brand image, that led to Sunlight’s success.

12

Lever also ensured that the price of his soap was reasonable. Rather than

capitalize on his brand equity by charging more for his soap, he kept Sunlight’s prices at

approximately that same level as other soaps. This decision to make profits on high

volume and low margins made Sunlight available to the people for whom its brand was

aimed. The price, like the name and the product, was consistent with the brand image.

This consistent image generated much more equity for the Sunlight brand than would

have been generated through focusing only on building awareness.

6. The Role of Advertising

Advertising is often credited as a (if not the) fundamental force behind Sunlight’s

growth (Wilson 1954 v. 1 pp. 43). Lever advertised heavily right from the start.

Advertising of Sunlight soap undoubtedly helped the brand awareness aspect of

Sunlight’s brand equity, but awareness and image are complementary. Without a

consistent image, the widespread awareness of the Sunlight brand would be wasted.

Heavy advertising alone is not sufficient to make a product successful, and Lever

was by no means the first to advertise soap. A glance through British newspapers in the

decade before the introduction of Sunlight will reveal numerous advertisements for soaps.

Most were in local newspapers, advertising a soap sold by a local grocer or perfumery.

The pages of the Clerkenwell Press, the Walthemstow Express, and the Southall News,

Norwood Advertiser and Harwell Observer had a number of grocers’ advertisements that

mentioned or emphasized their private soaps. The Stratford Times and Bow and Bromley

News suggested through much of January 1881 for its readers to “Try Wise’s celebrated

Juniper and Tar soap,” a soap made by a local herbalist. Notices for “Low’s Brown

13

Windsor Soap” were seen in The Daily Advertiser (of London) in May and June 1847.

The soap was sold with other products only at Robert Low and Son. Other soap

manufacturers also advertised. Clearly, Lever’s success was not due to advertising alone.

The success of Sunlight advertising was due to its consistent and compelling

brand image as the soap that made the life of working class women easier. Figure 1

shows the most prevalent and perhaps most effective of the Sunlight advertisements. It

asks the question, “Why does a woman look old sooner than a man?” The answer,

according to the advertisement, is the “scalding, boiling, and steam” (Reader 1980 pp. vi)

that result from washing clothes with other soaps. Sunlight soap is a friend to the

housewife and “the work is so light that a girl of 12 or 13 can do a large wash without

being tired” (Reader 1980 pp. vi). Another advertisement in the Illustrated London News

(May 24, 1890) emphasizes that Sunlight “Evades Exhaustion”, “Scours Surprisingly

Swift”, and “Yields Younger Youth”. It also repeats the same line as above that “the

work is so light that a girl of twelve or thirteen can do a large wash without being tired”.

Advertising alone was not sufficient to create brand equity. Equity is a result of

awareness and image. Heavy advertising would have succeeded in bringing about brand

awareness; however it was the consistency of the advertising message with Sunlight’s

distinct brand image that made it a success.

7. Maintaining the Brand Image

By 1888, Lever had built Sunlight into the largest selling soap in the United

Kingdom through the use of careful brand management. The next challenge was to

14

maintain and increase this goodwill. A variety of challenges arose, most of which were

met with success, though a handful met with failure.

In the wake of Sunlight’s success, a number of imitators arose. Lever fought to

protect his brand with numerous lawsuits against imitators. While these lawsuits were for

the most part unsuccessful in forcing the offending companies to discontinue use of

similar packaging and names, the companies often were forced deeply into debt as a

result of the lawsuits, and at least one went out of business during the court proceedings

(London Times, December 14, 1911).

Lever also understood the value of the brand equity he had built in Sunlight. He

monitored it carefully and would not risk destroying it. He even did some simple market

research, employing another of Keller’s rules of marketing: “Marketers should employ

tracking studies to measure consumer knowledge structures over time” (Keller 1993 pp.

14). This research involved having his salesmen interview groups of women about their

opinions of various soaps (Wilson 1954 v. 1 pp. 43). In this way, he could monitor the

state of Sunlight’s brand equity in terms of both awareness and image (although of course

he did not use those terms).

When raw materials prices reached an all- time high in late 1906, Lever took a

number of actions that hurt the image of Sunlight as a friend of the housewife. Starting in

the summer of 1906, he tried to unify the various British soap manufacturers in a ‘soap

trust’ to keep prices of raw materials low and those of soap high. The press began to

attack the idea in late September and by November Lever was forced to abandon the idea.

The press made Lever appear to be the enemy of the working class. Rather than

immediately trying to win back the favor of the working class, Lever promptly cut the

15

amount of soap sold in a bar of Sunlight from sixteen ounces to fifteen without changing

the price. Raw materials prices eventually fell and, by the end of the year, he had

returned to the sixteen ounce bar of soap, though not before considerable damage was

done to the Sunlight brand. He had broken his promise to consumers and was punished

for it. Sunlight’s days of rapid expansion were finished, and Lever began to concentrate

on nurturing other brands. Prior to these actions of 1906 and 1907, however, Sunlight’s

creation and maintenance of its brand are classic examples of successful brand

management. When the Sunlight brand was carefully managed it succeeded, and when it

was not, it failed. In fact, its high brand awareness may have hurt Sunlight in 1906 and

1907. People recognized the brand name when the press criticized it and this may have

led to lower sales. High brand awareness is only valuable when accompanied by a

positive and coherent brand image.

8. Supply Factors in Sunlight’s Growth

Not only did Lever use traditional demand-building mechanisms such as

advertising to create equity for the Sunlight brand, he also used supply variables to build

brand equity. The most visible of these is the creation of the town of Port Sunlight

surrounding his factory. The building of the huge factory, as well as the town around it,

was national news in Great Britain. The gigantic scope of the undertaking was

newsworthy, but more weight was placed in the press on the emphasis that he gave to the

living conditions of his workers. The workers at Port Sunlight (according the press of the

time) were given nice, roomy homes, clean streets, and attentive doctors. Thus

Sunlight’s image as the friend of the working-class woman was reiterated through Port

16

Sunlight itself. By naming the factory ‘Port Sunlight’ and then making it appear friendly

and innovative with respect to its workers (today it would likely be viewed negatively as

paternalistic), Sunlight’s brand equity increased.

Some scholars have argued that, in addition to effective brand-building, Lever

was aided by the low prices of raw materials in the late 1880’s (Wilson 1954 v. 1 pp. 61);

however the price of tallow, which was the main ingredient in Lever’s competitors’

soaps, fell more rapidly during the period than the price of vegetable oils, used to make

Sunlight. The price of tallow in 1887 was slightly above half of its 1883 level; yet the

price of oils only fell by one quarter (The Economist). Thus many other manufacturers

should have had an advantage over Sunlight in terms of raw material prices.

The idea of a national distribution network also helped Lever expand his Sunlight

brand. Reliable, inexpensive distribution was essential to the soap business. The London

Times wrote on September 8, 1894 that “cheap carriage was the most important factor in

the soap business”. Port Sunlight’s location allowed for cheap water and rail transport to

all parts of the United Kingdom. Lever saw the entire national working class as

Sunlight’s market and aimed his marketing accordingly. While this was a drastic change

in the way the soap market functioned, it was by no means a new concept. Products such

as cocoa, tea, and patent medicines had already been marketed nationally for many years.

“His idea of soap supplying a national market came as a shock to the older makers who

were accustomed to regard their local areas as preserves upon which foreigners were not

allowed to perch” (Wilson 1954 v. 1 pp. 62).

Through savings in distribution costs, he viewed branded advertising as a cost-

saving device as well as a demand-enhancement device. Lever wrote “by means of

17

advertising the manufacturer is making less costly the distribution. The consumer of an

article goes into a shop with full knowledge of the article wanted, the shopman’s time is

not wasted in explaining it, the manufacturer’s time is not wasted in the cost of salesmen

explaining the merits of the article” (Wilson 1954, 1: 44). It was only through branding

that Lever could create a national market for his product. Effective branding led to

efficient distribution on a national scale. Distribution was a competitive advantage for

Lever, but this was true because of the considerable brand equity of Sunlight. Successful

branding meant cost savings. It was Sunlight’s carefully nurtured brand equity that

allowed it to become a national product.

9. Conclusion

William Hesketh Lever is one of the founders of the modern principle of brand

management. Sunlight’s rapid success can be attributed to the careful management of its

image: “Heightens Housewives’ Happiness” (Illustrated London News May 24, 1890).

Lever understood the real product benefits of Sunlight soap and merged them with the

societal benefits of hygiene. Heavy advertising created awareness. Product development,

advertising, and production created, as Keller describes, a consistent “favorable, strong

and unique” brand image. Nicholas Ind wrote of branding, “Consistency is an ideal” (Ind

1997 pp. 158); Sunlight’s brand management came very close to that ideal.

Lever was ahead of his time in bringing the ideas of Keller and Aaker to life long

before either was born. He adopted a broad view of marketing decisions, defined what he

wanted his consumers to think of his brand, and was himself the single person in charge

of the brand. A 1947 Fortune magazine article recognized him as “the first man to hit

18

upon the durable principle, still being employed with enormous success to market

everything from machine tools to handkerchiefs, of branding, packaging, and plugging

his product. And that, in essence, is really all there is to the big- time soap business”

(Barck 1947 p. 91). While this may be true, it is perhaps more important that he may also

be the first man to understand that trademarking itself is not sufficient. Only through

disciplined management did his trademark become a brand. Careful molding of, as

Robertson put it, a “different, relevant, and appealing” brand image is essential.

References

Aaker, David A. (1996). Building Strong Brands. New York: The Free Press. ----- (1991). Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name. New York: The Free Press. Barck, Gilbert (1947). “The World of Unilever. Unilever I: The Hermitage.” Fortune, 36 ,December, pp. 88-93 and 204-214. Barnett Times: various issues. Clerkenwell Press: various issues. Daily Advertiser: various issues. De Vries, Leonard (1968). Victorian Advertisements. London: John Murray. Economist, The. Commerical History and Review: 1883 and 1887. Edwards, H.R. (1962). Competition and Monopoly in the British Soap Industry. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Goodall, Francis (1986). “Marketing consumer products before 1914: Rowntrees and Elect Cocoa” in Markets and Bagmen: Studies in the History of Marketing and British Industrial Performance 1830-1939, R. P. T. Davenport-Hines ed. Aldershot, England: Gower. Illustrated London News: various issues

19

Ind, Nicholas (1997). The Corporate Brand. New York: Macmillan business. Keller, Kevin Lane (1998). Strategic Brand Management: Building, measuring, and managing brand equity. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. ----- (1993). “Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity.” Journal of Marketing, 57, January, pp. 1-22. Leverhulme, Viscount (1927). Viscount Leverhulme by his son. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd. London Times: various issues. Nevett, T.R. (1982). Advertising in Britain: A History. London: Heinemann. Pollard, Sidney (1989). Britain’s Prime and Britain’s Decline: The British Economy 1870-1914. London: Hodder & Stoughton. Presbrey, Frank (1929). The History and Development of Advertising. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Doran, & Company. Reader, W. J. (1980). Fifty Years of Unilever: 1930-1980. London: Heinemann. Robertson, Pamela (1998). “New Brand Development” in Brands: The New Wealth Creators, Susannah Hart and John Murphy eds. New York: Macmillan business. Southall News, Norwood Advertiser and Hanwell Observer: various issues. Stratford Times and Bow and Bromley News: various issues. Wilson, Charles (1954). The History of Unilever: A study in economic growth and social change. Volume I and II. London: Cassell & Company Ltd. ----- (1968). Unilever 1945-1965: Challenge & Response in the Post-War Industrial Revolution. London: Cassell & Company Ltd. Wood, James Playsted (1958). The Story of Advertising. New York: The Ronald Press Company.