Black & Decker was one of the powerful brand names in the world, and their professional tools were the highest quality in the industry. They captured 45% of consumer market and 20% of Professional-Industrial market. Even then, the sale of Black & Decker products in the Professional-Tradesmen segment is only 9%, with Makita holding about 50% of the market share.
             There are several reasons why Makita captured so much more in this segment, although Black & Decker tools were at comparable, or even better at some cases, quality. First, Makita (who entered the market in 1978) focused on only one segment of the market while B&D focused on three. Second, Makita also distributed its product through membership clubs, in which Black & Decker did not take part in. Third, Makita had a greater "share of the heart" in this segment despite premium price over Black & Decker (67% vs. 44%). Fourth, professional tradesmen did not want to use the same tools that housewives used at homes. Tradesmen viewed Black & Decker tools more for home use than being subjected to demands of the job site. Lastly, the unremarkable grey color did not help either.
             The case mentioned several options that Joseph Galli, VP of sales and marketing for power tools, could carry out to settle the problem. However, I think that Black & Decker should not harvest Professional-Tradesmen channels because it was the fastest growing segment of the market at 9% rate. This segment would provide Black & Decker with considerable development if handled properly. The second option of sub-branding is also not good enough since Black & Decker name would still be used. To this point, customers perceived Black & Decker tools as being not reliable enough to be used professionally.
             I would recommend Galli to take the last option to use the DeWalt brand, since the underlying issue here was customer perception, not brand awareness. Customers were very aware of Black & Decker brand, but ...