– In the period of 1972 to 1993, why do you think that Snapple flourished when so many small Start–‐ ups premium fruit drinks stayed small or disappeared? The growing success of Snapple can be explained with 2 of the four principals of marketing mix. Marketing mix describes the set of tools that management can use to influence sales, in the traditional formulation: the 4Ps of marketing—product, price, place, and promotion. Analyzing the case is perceived that Snapple differentiated themselves through Place and Promotion.
After they turned a marketing executive his chief for sales and marketing the company redefined its promotion strategy and expanded its distribution. Regarding Place, the merit was to keep the expansion of the current distribution model at a sustainable pace, growing consistent in the East coast and them to the rest of the country. The company has been kept simple and under the model of small distributors.
About Promotion, with a limited budget, compared to the giants of the beverage industry, one of the biggest accomplishments of the new promotion strategy was the alignment of the product with the average citizen using real people and real situations, the promotion should follow the motto of the product: 100% Natural.
In addition, sctions such as the spread of the history of entrepreneurship of the owners and founders, the establishment of Wendy Kaufman as a spokesmodel, the Snapple Convention and the alternative channels and radios to promote the brand reinforced and are good exemplification of this success new strategy. Exhibit 1 Place – Small distributors – Sustainable pace expansion – Great retailers as secondary priority – Focus on small retailers (convenience chains, pizza stores etc.), cold channel
Promotion – Corporate entrepreneur history aligned to the product – Average citizen identification – Alternative media channels – Leverage of spontaneous media – 100% Natural Pricing – Premium, but accessible pricing aligned to the segment
Product – Alternative Beverage category – Premium non-carbonated – Different flavors
This strategies have made the long term conditions and growth of the company not only more sustainable, but also higher than its competitors who or not invested in similar strategies or sold their brands to great companies.
– Now look at the period from 1994 to 1997. Did Quaker make an error in buying Snapple or did they manage it badly? From my point of view the decision to buy Snapple was the right choice to Quaker at the time, however the integration of company and its culture and brands were poorly managed. At the beginning we can see that both companies have fit and could be complementary regarding their products and strategies. The power of the Gatorade brand and its mass distribution, aligned with the exclusivity and local distribution of Snapple could result in considerable leverages for both products. The results were not achieved because Quaker management failed in the 2 main pillars that had guaranteed the growth of Snapple: Place and Promotion and also modified a wining product.
Place – They tried to change the distribution model of Snapple bypassing the current distributors to the great chains with an unsatisfied agreement. – Difficult to supply all the flavors to all point of sales. – Wrong packaging (larger pack sizes) to small retailers (shelf issues) and with distributors limitations. Promotion – Quaker failed in absorb and promote the entrepreneur and fashionable culture and personality of the brand. – The brand began to be perceived as industrialized and “sold out” – Correct interpretation and analysis of the brand prism, but with an erroneous tactical application.
Product – Bet in family packages, not considering that Snapple sells better in unitary small containers.
In addition we could remember many cases where a small and exclusive brand was acquired by a giant corporation and kept its brand identity and made good use of the buyer structure. Cases such as Volkswagen and Porche (Germany); Coca-Cola Company and Matte Leão (Brasil), AB-Inbev and Leffe and the many acquisitions of L’Oreal in the luxury market are good example that the initial proposition of Quaker was correct, reinforcing that the deal and the acquisition were good, but poorly managed.
– Identify and elaborate the three priorities you would put in practice “tomorrow” if you were in Mike Weinstein’s shoes. Before define the three priorities of Snapple it is important to define its current situation and Complication: Exhibit 3 Situation – – – – – Brand depreciation Good product Premium segmentation Decreasing sales Distributor dissatisfied
Complication – General challenge to recover a brand – Competitor better positioned – Plurality and diversity of the market
In view of this scenario the main question should be how to recover the previous positioning and status with customers and other stakeholders? In my opinion the solution pass through a series of resolution and tactical reviews, but three of them should be faced as priorities, mainly recovering its core values and strengths prior to the Quaker deal: – Rebuild the previous brand positioning – Value Proposition The company should refocus on the 100% Natural value proposition, which was well successful in the past not only regarding the product composition, but also to all the communication process.
Using local media channels and, in special, merchandising actions, Snapple has a chance to rebuild its fashion, desirable and natural status. – Rebuild the previous distribution model Snapple should turn back its efforts on distribution over the small partners, providing them their previous exclusivity and freedom to certain point of sales. – Rationalize the portfolio With many challenges regarding communication, different market perception and distribution and with 10 of their 50 brands representing more than half of their sales, Snapple could rationalize the portfolio in order to “think small” again and focus on less and more important products.
Cite this essay
Snapple Case – Marketing. (2017, Jan 09). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/snapple-case-essay