Final project submission for International Branding course at Trinity University.

1. T H E T I P O F T H E
ICEBERG
A Brand Audit of Caterpillar Inc.
and Deere & Company
PREPARED BY J. ADEMAR PEREZ
FOR CATERPILLAR INC.

2. T A B L E O F
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
A Personal Note from the Researcher 1
LAYING A FOUNDATION
A Fundamental Look at Both Brands 2
BRAND COMPARISONS
Specific Points of Parity & Difference 5
Expansions Strategies:
Brand ValuaNon in Mergers & AcquisiNons 6
CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS 8
WORKS CITED 9
FINAL COMMENTS
Learning, InspiraNon, and Lessons 11
INTB 4362
Dr. Deli Yang
Final Project
J. Ademar Perez
May 4, 2016
i

3. 1
I’ve had the joy of working with numerous brands this year. From a Chilean services and retail
mulNnaNonal, to a French fashion mulNnaNonal, to a consumer goods mulNnaNonal manufacturer. With
each project, I’m further inspired to pursue assignments that I have very li^le or only superficial
knowledge about. I enjoy the challenges of digging to find problems, hunNng for pieces to the larger
puzzle, and coming to a conclusion based on a combinaNon of quanNtaNve and qualitaNve data (and a
li^le intuiNon), and it’s my belief that both the company and I learn more in these situaNons.
I chose Caterpillar Inc. because I wanted to learn more. I wanted to be challenged by an
industry I’ve only seen in passing, either on the news or in conversaNons with passersby. This report is
the result of researching to be^er understand the relaNonship between Caterpillar Inc. and one of its
close compeNtors, Deere & Company. Its purpose is to demonstrate that both companies aren’t very
different, but endeavors to prove that where there are points of difference, there are opportuniNes for
growth and understanding. It is my hope that Caterpillar Inc. will take these understandings and carry
them with it to the next opportunity, disaster, or decision.
The report approaches exploring my analysis with the tone of a conversaAon and the look of
an infographic. From a structural point of view, it’s arranged in a way to allow a fundamental
understanding of both brands - from history to a SWOT analysis - be the basis for further assessing
brand similariNes and differences, conclusions, and recommendaNons. A special secNon on brand value
and the role it plays in Mergers and AcquisiNons (M&A) is included to be^er aid Caterpillar Inc.’s
understanding of the weight brand value can have on the transacNon value.
Once more, I’ve thoroughly enjoyed this project and hope that its findings benefit the company.
J. Ademar Perez
INTRODUCTION
A Personal Note from the Researcher
INTRODUCTION
J. Ademar Perez

4. LAYING A FOUNDATION
A Fundamental Look at Both Brands
ComparaAve
Variables
Caterpillar Inc. Deere & Company
What is the brand for?
Monolithic brand for
manufacturer operaNng in
Resource Industries,
ConstrucNon Industries, and
Energy & TransportaNon
Monolithic brand for
manufacturer operaNng in
Agriculture and Turf,
ConstrucNon and Forestry, and
Financial Services
Where is it located?
Headquarters:
Peoria, Illinois
InternaAonal:
North, Central, and South
America; Africa; Asia; Oceania;
and EMEA
Headquarters:
Moline, Illinois
InternaAonal:
North, Central, and South
America; Africa; Asia; Oceania;
and EMEA
When was it established?
The Caterpillar Tractor Co. was
established in 1925 merger
between Holt Manufacturing
Company and C.L. Best Tractor
Co. in California. Recognized as
Caterpillar Inc. in Delaware in
1986.
Founded in 1837 by founder of
same name in Grand Detour,
Illinois. The present company
was incorporated in Delaware in
1958.
Founder Informa7on
Benjamin Holt
Inventor, innovator, and
businessman
C.L. Best
Businessman and founder of the
C.L. Best Tractor Company
John Deere
Innovator and businessman
Interna7onal Rankings
Fortune Global 500 2015
#187
Fortune World’s Most Admired
Brands 2016
#45
Fortune Global 500 2015
#323
Fortune World’s Most Admired
Brands 2016
#46
Number of Employees
105,700 full-Ame as of
December 31, 2015
~58,000 outside the U.S.
57,200 full-Ame as of
October 31, 2015
~28,700 outside the U.S.
2
LAYINGAFOUNDATION

5. Although Deere & Company is almost half the size of Caterpillar Inc., it’s interesNng to note that
there are many similariNes between the two brands. They are both: monolithic manufacturers of
equipment for ConstrucNon industries, headquartered in Illinois, internaNonal companies with a
presence in several conNnents, historic brands in the United States, recognized on Fortune’s “500 of
2015” and its “World’s Most Admired Brands of 2016” lists. The fundamental differences are size and
specific industries serviced. Now that backgrounds and fundamental comparisons have been made, an
investor’s perspecNve is required.
SWOT Analyses
Caterpillar Inc. Deere & Company
STRENGTHSSTRENGTHS
Brand power; brand associated with
values and expectaNons
“The Age of Smart Iron,” and a firm
understanding of the impact data analyAcs can
have on be^er understanding the firm’s
performance as a whole
Cunng about 8,600 jobs and closing around 15
faciliNes as part of restructuring, but Research &
Development le] untouched
OperaNng and selling in China, which as has seen
a slight increase in sales of construcNon
equipment year-over-year
“Built For It” campaign has helped build an
integrated, consistent communicaAons approach
unheard of before for the brand
Highly recognizable brand: John Deere brand
name and trademark are unique and well known
More investment in advanced and
technologically capable equipment
Presence of a strong,
extensive dealer network
WEAKNESSESWEAKNESSES
All segments are greatly affected by commodity
price fluctuaAons in oil and mining industries;
sharp decrease in global demand and
subsequently lower sales
Sales are Ned to commodity price fluctuaAons;
global demand for agricultural and construcNon
equipment has been slipping
3
LAYINGAFOUNDATION

6. Caterpillar Inc. Deere & Company
OPPORTUNITIESOPPORTUNITIES
ConAnued expansion in emerging markets,
especially China
More breadth to mining product range than next
closest compeNtor, mining giant Joy Global due
to Bucyrus InternaNonal, Inc. acquisiNon
Need for certain agricultural machinery will
conNnue to grow as markets conAnue to emerge
THREATSTHREATS
CompeNtors like Joy Global also realize
opportunity in Asia; fierce compeAAon
Slackening of China’s construcNon and mining
sectors
Caterpillar’s bet on “Smart Iron”
ConAnued decline in commodiNes prices hurNng
farm income and, subsequently, less sales
Low purchasing power in developing countries/
emerging markets
From the investor perspecNve, both companies have strong, recognizable brands that are
associated with values and expectaNons. Both companies are at the mercy of commodity pricing
fluctuaNons in their respecNve and shared industries. Furthermore, both companies share similar
opportuniNes with emerging and growing markets, and similar threats with the uncertain futures of
their industries.
From these assessments, Caterpillar Inc. and Deere & Company have proven to be two
companies with similar stories, issues, and opportuniNes. The next secNon approaches comparisons
from a branding perspecNve. For this next assessment, certain branding tools were chosen to illustrate
specific points of parity and difference for both brands, like: brand relaNonships in brand creaNon and
posiNoning, understanding target markets in a compeNNve framework of reference, and brand
expansion strategies especially.
4
LAYINGAFOUNDATION
In the Industrial Equipment Makers compeMtors category at Yahoo!
Finance, Caterpillar Inc. and Deere & Company are ranked 2nd and 3rd
respecMvely when excluding private companies Mitsubishi Heavy
Industries, Ltd. and MAN SE.

7. The purpose of the applicaNon of this tool to is to demonstrate one major difference between
both companies: approach to brand poreolio and management. Caterpillar, Inc. has a diverse brand
porqolio whereas Deere & Company does not. Arguments can be made for either strategy being the
best, but it’s my opinion that having a diverse porqolio to fall back on is wise. If Deere & Company were
to make a decision that impacted their brand reputaNon negaNvely, it could affect the sales of all
associated products. Placing the monolithic Caterpillar Inc. brand in the same scenario might result in
seeing some negaNve effects to the endorsed brands, but not necessarily the independent brands.
Brand Relationships
7 brands in total 14 brands in total
No endorsed brands No endorsed brands
Monolithic Endorsed Independent
5
BRANDCOMPARISONS
BRAND COMPARISONS
Specific Points of Parity & Difference
Target Markets
InteresNngly, when taking the
pulse of public opinion on either
brand, rarely is either’s
consumer segment menNoned.
Both Caterpillar, Inc. and Deere
& Company can be classified as
B2B and B2C.
Besides parts and equipment
for consumers: toys, auto,
apparel, home decor, and more
InteresNngly, when taking the
pulse of public opinion on either
brand, rarely is either’s
consumer segment menNoned.
Both Caterpillar, Inc. and Deere
& Company can be classified as
B2B and B2C.
RelaNvely the same offering,
but John Deere also
manufacturers child-sized,
ba^ery-operated vehicles
This variable serves as another point of parity for both brands. Although I think posiNvely of
these consumer segments, both brands need to be careful not to become a consumer trend or fad.

8. 6
BRANDCOMPARISONS
Expanding Strategies:
Mergers & Acquisitions
M&A HistoryM&A History
Caterpillar Inc. Deere & Company
1951 - Trackson
1965 - Towmotor CorporaNon
1981 - Solar Division/Turbomach Division
1990 - Balderson, Inc.
1991 - Barber-Greene Co. Inc.
1997 - Krupp MaK Maschinenbau
1998 - Perkins Limited and Kato Engineering
1999 - F.G. Wilson
2000 - Earthmoving Equipment Division of
Hindustan Motors Ltd., Caterpillar Elphinstone
Pty. Ltd., Sabre Engines Ltd., and Bitelli SpA
2004 - Wealdstone Engineering Ltd., Williams
Technologies, Inc., and Turbomach SA
2006 - Progress Rail Services CorporaNon and
Hindustan PowerPlus Ltd.
2007 - Eurenov S.A.S. and the Forestry Division of
Blount InternaNonal, Inc.
2008 - Shandong Engineering Machinery (SEM),
Lovat Inc., Shin Caterpillar Mitsubishi Ltd., MGE
Equipamentos & Serviços Ferroviários, Gremada
Industries, Inc., and Twin City Signal Inc.
2009 - JCS Co., Ltd.
2010 - GE InspecNon Products, FCM Rail Ltd., Zeit
Comercio e Montagem de Equipamentos Ltda,
Electro-MoNve Diesel, Inc., Underground Imaging
Technologies, Inc. (UIT), Caterpillar Xuzhou Ltd,
CleanAIR Systems, Inc., and MWM Holding GmbH
2011 - Bucyrus InternaNonal, Inc. and Pyroban
Group Ltd
1948 - Deere Des Moines Works
1984 - Farm Plan CorporaNon
1989 - Funk Manufacturing Company
1991 - SABO
1994 - Homelite
1998 - Cameco Industries
2000 - Timberjack
2007 - LESCO
The purpose of detailing the M&A history of both companies is to provide a visual, side-by-side
comparison of this brand expansion strategy. Both firms parNcipate in M&A - Caterpillar Inc. to expand
capabiliNes and locaNon, and Deere & Company to expand and strengthen capabiliNes - however,
Caterpillar Inc. has acquired far more companies than Deere & Company has, especially since the start
of the 21st century. It’s interesNng that both companies take a similar approach to expansion, but they
differ in terms of volume. Perhaps Deere & Company is tackling expansion at a slower pace, but I think
that its brand relaNonship model has more weight in regards to its expansion strategy. For example, it
acquires, but it does not allow these brands to remain as independent brands.

9. 7
BRANDCOMPARISONS
Mergers & Acquisitions:
What’s a Brand’s Worth?
Another moNve behind lisNng the M&A of both companies is to gain a be^er understanding of
acquired brands over Nme. Caterpillar Inc. has allowed some brands to remain as independent brands
within its porqolio (Hindustan, MWM, Perkins, and more), whereas Deere & Company has not.
Although branding doesn’t seem to play a pivotal role in the M&A drama, there is research to prove that
it bears significant weight on the purchase price.
Factors that play a significant role. Bahadir, Bharadwaj, and Srivastava tackled heterogeneity in
brand valuaNons across mulNple acquisiNons in their study for the Journal of MarkeMng.
TARGET BRAND
TARGET OVERALL
VALUE (Mil.)
TARGET BRAND VALUE
(Mil.)
BRAND PORTFOLIO %
OF OVERALL VALUE
Rally’s Hamburgers $40 $19 49.72%
Gille^e $53,457 $26,251 49.61%
Robert Mondavi $1,042 $186 17.85%
LaNtude $86 $1 1.16%
Condensed version of “Table 1: IllustraMve TransacMons and Brand Por]olio Value”
Bahadir, Bharadwaj, and Srivastava 2008
They concluded that brand value is not only affected by the brand’s ability to drive financial
value, but how the potenNal acquirer foresees leveraging them. For Checker’s Drive in Restaurants and
Procter & Gamble, acquirers of Rally’s Hamburger’s and Gille^e respecNvely, they saw significant value
and leverage capabiliNes, whereas ConstellaNon Brands and Cisco systems, acquirers of Robert Mondavi
and LaNtude respecNvely, didn’t see as much.
The idea here is that brand valuaNon isn’t a one-size-fits all formula that can easily reveal how
much an acquiring firm should pay for the target. As Caterpillar Inc. moves forward into more M&A
(especially for those brands that will remain independent), I hope it takes the following into
consideraNon:
• The target brand’s potenNal affects on Caterpillar Inc.’s Branch Architecture
• How the target brand will fit physically into Caterpillar Inc.’s operaNons
• The abstract ideas associated with the target brand
With these ideas in mind, Caterpillar Inc.’s negoNaNons will have a more criNcal lens in which to
view the values that will be placed on the brands in quesNon.

10. 8
CONCLUSION&RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSION
The “Big Picture” Perspective
Although Caterpillar Inc. and Deere & Company both operate in similar industries, are
internaNonally known and recognized, beloved by consumers, admired by other companies, sensiNve to
similar issues, and foresee similar opportuniNes in the future, it is my opinion that one difference keeps
both brands from being fierce rivals: size. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if Caterpillar Inc. were
considering acquiring Deere & Company in the near future. Deere & Company is a reputable
compeNtor, but sNll almost half the size and market worth of Caterpillar Inc.
Approaching the exploraNon of both brands fundamentally and from a branding perspecNve, I
focused on very specific points of parity & difference (POP & POD) for both that I came to quesNon as I
researched. Branding tools that I thought most significant to highlight the less obvious POPs and PODs:
branding relaNonship, target market, and brand expansion strategy assessments. My purpose in doing
so was to illustrate that both brands have consumer segments that receive less a^enNon, and both
brands have very different philosophies for brand management and brand porqolio diversificaNon.
RECOMMENDATIONS
For Future Brand Success
• Be wary of increased interest in either
brand’s consumer segment. The possibility of
becoming a fad or trend might seem
outlandish, but if it were to happen, the
possibility of diluNng either brand with
abstract ideas like a lack of moNvaNon, or an
“old hat,” could have negaNve effects on the
associated brands
• ConNnue to monitor emerging markets for
innovaNon potenNal. Caterpillar Inc. is
keeping R&D well fed, so designing low-cost,
but greatly needed machinery could prove
beneficial
• Take brand valuaAon knowledge to the
negoNaNon table. Be wise and quesNon the
values that are presented by every branding
expert that evaluates either brand in the
transacNon.
• Remain mindful of environmental factors that
will affect the bo^om line, but also scruNnize
decisions or variables that can affect brand
reputaAon. Both brands may be strong and
imbued with posiNve characterisNcs,
associaNons, and values, but those abstract
ideas could be negaNvely influenced by poor
brand management and reacNon behaviour.
Although I have concluded that Deere & Company is a smaller compeNtor that lacks the size to
make Caterpillar Inc. sweat, here are some recommendaNons on maintaining compeNNve distance:

11. WORKS CITED
“1837 - 1869.” Timeline & InvenMons. Deere & Company. Web. 3 May 2016.
“72 Caterpillar.” 2015 Ranking. Interbrand. Web. 3 May 2016.
“83 John Deere.” 2015 Ranking. Interbrand. Web. 3 May 2016.
Bahadir, S. Cem, Sundar G. Bharadwaj, and Rajendra K. Srivastara. “Financial Value of Brands in Mergers
and AcquisiNons: Is Value in the Eye of the Beholder?” Journal of MarkeMng November 2008.
Web. 3 May 2016.
“Benjamin Holt.” ProducMon Technology. Tech DirecNons. Web. 3 May 2016.
Bishop, MarNn. “Increase your odds of M&A success with brand architecture.” Landor via WPP: Reading
Room December 2010. Web. 3 May 2016.
“Brands: What’s in a name?” Valuing consumer brands. PwC, Mar. 2013. Web. 3 May 2016.
“Caterpillar® History.” AnMque Caterpillar Machinery Owners Club. Caterpillar, Inc. Web. 3 May 2016.
“Caterpillar Inc (CAT.N).” Reuters. Thomson Reuters. Web. 3 May 2016.
Caterpillar, Inc. Caterpillar, Inc. Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2015. Caterpillar, Inc.,
31 Dec. 2015. Web. 3 May 2016.
Chamaria, Neha. “Picturing Deere through a SWOT Analysis.” InvesMng Commentary. The Motley Fool 7
Mar. 2012. Web. 3 May 2016.
Chamaria, Neha. “Caterpillar Inc.’s Awful First-Quarter Results Explained in 5 Charts.” The Motley Fool 3
May 2016. Web. 3 May 2016.
Chamaria, Neha. “Caterpillar: Strengths, Weaknesses, OpportuniNes, Threats.” The Motley Fool 3 Feb.
2012. Web. 3 May 2016.
Davis, Meredith. “Caterpillar cuts 2016 profit outlook, sees China improvement.” Reuters 22 Apr. 2016.
Web. 3 May 2016.
“Deere & Co (DE.N).” Reuters. Thomson Reuters. Web. 3 May 2016.
Deere & Company. Deere & Company Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year Ended October 31, 2015. Deere &
Company, 31 Oct. 2015. Web. 3 May 2016.
Doering, Christopher. “CondiNons improve, but farmers not opNmisNc.” The Des Moines Register 3 May
2016. Web. 3 May 2016.
Fletcher, ClemenNne, and Leslie Pa^on. “Suntory to Buy Beam in $16 Billion Deal for U.S. Brand.”
Bloomberg 14 Jan. 2014. Web. 3 May 2016.
9

12. WORKS CITED
Continued
10
“Global 500.” Fortune Global 500. Time, Inc. 2015. Web. 3 May 2016.
“Global CulNvator and Tiller Machinery Market - Key Companies are Deere and Company, Massey
Ferguson & AGCO - Research and Markets.” Business Wire 3 May 2016. Web. 3 May 2016.
“Global Footprint.” Company. Caterpillar. Web. 3 May 2016.
Hague, Paul. “Measuring Brand Value - How Much are Brands Worth?” B2B InternaMonal: Thought
Leadership 2009. Web. 3 May 2016.
Ibrahim, Youssef M. “Guinness and Grand Met in $22 Billion Deal.” The New York Times 13 May 1997.
Web. 3 May 2016.
Mizik, Natalie, Jonathan Knowles, and Isaac Dinner. “Value ImplicaNons of Corporate Branding in
Mergers.” BAV ConsulMng 31 January 2011. Web. 3 May 2016.
Neils, Elise. “Intangible assets create majority of acquisiNon value.” Intangible Business: Brand ValuaMon
News April 2006. Web. 3 May 2016.
Newmeyer, Casey E., Vanitha Swaminathan, and John Hullard. “When Products and Brands Trade Hands:
A Framework for AcquisiNon Success.” Journal of MarkeMng Theory & PracMce Spring 2016. 3
May 2016.
O’Reilly, Sean, and Tyler Crowe. “Caterpillar Inc. Is Down, But SNll Profitable.” The Motley Fool 2 May
2016. Web. 3 May 2016.
“Our Past Leaders.” Past Leaders. Deere & Company. Web. 3 May 2016.
Reid, Tony. “Caterpillar’s new smart iron age.” Herald & Review 2 May 2016. Web. 3 May 2016.
Ries, Al. “Company brands are genng just as important as product brands.” Ries & Ries 1 Oct. 2013.
Web. 3 May 2016.
Rocha, Mike. “Financial applicaNons for brand valuaNon: Delivering value beyond the number.”
Interbrand 2014. Web. 3 May 2016.
“Untouchable Intangibles.” The Economist 30 Aug. 2014. Web. 3 May 2016.
Valuentum. “Deere Plows Ahead In Weak Ag Market.” Seeking Alpha 31 Mar. 2016. Web. 3 May 2016.
Walker, James, and Joerg Niessing. “The Power of Brand ValuaNon as a Brand Management Tool.”
Prophet 16 May 2016. Web. 3 May 2016.

13. WORKS CITED
Continued
11
“World Headquarters.” Worldwide LocaMons. Deere & Company. Web. 3 May 2016.
“World’s Most Admired Companies.” Fortune World’s Most Admired Companies. 2016. Web. 3 May
2016.
Yan, Fang, and Lee Chyen Lee. “Not the bo^om yet, but Caterpillar raises hope of China rebound.”
Reuters 25 Apr. 2016. Web. 3 May 2016.
Yurieff, Kaya. “Deere (DE) Stock Slipping, Cuts Full-Year Forecast.” The Street 19 Feb. 2016. Web. 3 May
2016.
FINAL COMMENTS
Learning, Inspiration, and Lessons
This project was a challenge. I knew nothing about either company (other than the fact that they both
sell work and home related products to consumers). From this experience, I’ve gained a stronger sense
of confidence in regards to approaching understanding companies in the corporate environment. This
project has also provided an opportunity to further pracNce referencing corporate documents in
research, like 10-Ks and Annual Reports (something I had very li^le experience doing before).
Overall, I’m proud to have taken on something I wasn’t planning on doing at the beginning of the
semester and turning it into a inspiring, fun project. I thoroughly enjoyed imagining that I was an
independent consultant contracted by Caterpillar Inc. and a^empted to design the report in a way that
maintained focus, but also commanded a^enNon.