Dr Pepper Snapple Group Case Analysis

The third-largest company in the U.S. is Dr. Pepper/ Seven Up, Inc. (DPSU) which consists of 14.7% market share. It is the most famous brands are Dr. Pepper and Seven Up among the Soft Drink Brands. It has been Squirting the market by this company since 1995. The Unit Sales Volume Squirt is $39 million to $54.6 million from the year 1990 to the year 2000.

Once Quakers took control of snapple they made many mistakes that caused Snapples value to decrease by $1.4B. A lot of these mistakes can be contributed to the fact that they tried to use identical 4 P methods for Snapple and Gatorade. Quakers belived since these methods worked so greatly for Gatordade that they would also work for snapple. In terms of product and price they tried to introduce snapple in a bigger size. Quakers tried to get consumers to buy the more profitable size of Snapple which was 32 and 64 ounces. They believed since these sizes worked so well for gatorade they would also work for Snapple. However, Quakers didn’t take into account that people drink Gatorade when they are extremely thirsty from things such as exercise so they need

This case describes the various aspects of carbonated soft drink industry and the focuses on Squirt’s annual advertising and promotion plan in 2001. Squirt is a brand under the Dr Pepper/Seven Up, inc. The brand manager was concerned about the market targeting and product positioning and consulted advertising agency, Foote, Cone & Belding. The case also focuses on the entire industry structure and the marketing techniques used by the various leading companies so the Squirt’s annual advertising and promotion plan can be successful, and proper techniques to be used to target the growing Hispanic community in the markets where Squirt was popular. . The main aspect for the marketing planning for the brand, Squirt, is to focus on

Energy drinks are a kind of refreshments that are advertised as soft drinks that boost energy. The truth is these kinds of drinks are full of many harmful ingredients, such as sugar, stimulants, and other herbal supplements. Energy drinks are targeting high school and college students who may use this kind of drink to keep them awake for a midterm, or even give them a hallucination feeling any other alcoholic beverages will do. Many studies showed the disadvantageous of these drinks, yet this industry has wildfire between underage kids who used it to show their rebellious side through a safe and cheap way. A new study shows that 34% of youth between the ages of eighteen years old and twenty- four years old consume energy drinks regularly

§ Five dominant competitors: Red Bull, Hansen Natural (Monster), Pepsi (Sobe Adrenaline Rush, AMP), Rockstar, and Coke (Tab, Full Throttle)

Consumer Behavior Monster Energy Target Market Because the energy drink is still part of a new and developing industry, the energy drink target market is different than in some of the other beverage industries. Monster energy drinks have become a very popular, “hip” part of society, but the market at which they are aimed is not as wide and expansive, or diverse, as some might think. Early in energy drink history, when they were first being sold in the United States, athletes were the primary consumers. This shows that even initially energy drinks were directed at a select crowd, a group of people with specific interests. Although the consumer base for energy drinks has now expanded beyond that of simply athletes, the target market is

There are (3) reasons why I have chosen energy drinks as my NAB. First off, there is a growing market for energy drinks. Red Bull and Monster Beverage Corporation, together, form over 80% of domestic energy drinks volumes by estimates. Dollar sales for energy drinks grew almost 6% to $6.67 Billion in measured channels in 2013, which propelled sales growth for convenience stores (Team, 2014). A growing thirst for caffeinated “energy” drinks, which include the likes of Red Bull, Monster, and Rock star, has spurred a heart-thumping surge in sales. Globally, the energy drink industry has gone from a $3.8-billion business in 1999, to a $27.5-billion

If one has to analyze the profitability scheme of Red Bull Energy Drink, perhaps it can be safely said that it is in a very uncompromising situation. First and foremost, the stiff competition have paved the way for the emergence of many small time players (Helm 2005). With every bottled drink that aims to steal the limelight nowadays, Red Bull should capitalize more on its creativity and ingenuity—this is of course, in relation to advertising and marketing. The company should never disregard that Coca Cola and Pepsi are still top competitors (Helm 2005). More so, even if the two share equally different components as with Red Bull, still, it is evident that the two continue to partake into the market share. Meanwhile, the notion that energy drinks offers no variety in taste is an important marketing aspect that the company should take into full consideration (Laing 2005). In 2001, Pepsi had already released AMP Energy Drink (“Amp Energy Drink” n.d). It is the company’s maidens venture into the energy drink arena. Evidently, AMP’s raison d’ etre is to capitalize on Mountain Dew’s established image. The concept would be to introduce something new, yet very familiar (“Amp Energy Drink” n.d).

Dr. Pepper/Seven Up, Inc. is the company which produces the brand Squirt. “Squirt is a caffeine-free, low sodium carbonated soft drink brand with a distinctive blend of grapefruit juices that gives it a tangy, fresh citrus taste. Squirt is the best selling carbonated grapefruit soft drink brand in the U.S.” (Kerin and Peterson, 2010) Kate Cox, the brand manager responsible for Squirt believes that market targeting and product positioning are key elements in Squirt’s advertising and promotional plan development. This case study will provide a summary and analysis of Dr. Pepper/Seven Up, Inc.’s options and the examination into the company’s strengths, weaknesses, threats, and opportunities.

The target consumer market that should be chosen for a new energy beverage brand is males between the ages of 15 and 26. Marketing to this age group falls between the 12 to 34 year olds that estimate to make up 70 percent of the energy drink market (Kerin & Peterson, 2010). This would allow them to still market to the heavy users but would be able to narrow it down to a specific age group within the market. Marketing to this group would allow you to focus on groups such as high school & college students, athletes, and young adults entering the work force or newly parents. The students that would be using the energy products can use it for staying up to study or to help wake up and be alert in class. Athletes could use this product for refocusing after a workout or practice so they would crash. Young adults could use this energy drink for staying up in there social life late at night or to make sure they are awake in the morning for that new job to impress the boss. A different market would be the parents of a newborn. Markets like this could be beneficial because parents want to stay up to feed their new born and make sure everything is okay during the day especially after a sleepless night or two. Marketing to specific target markets helps companies clarify what the product is used for and how it can be beneficial instead of having it say we

The energy drink market was mostly comprised of younger individuals, 18-34 males and parents of young consumers would also often drink such energy drinks. With prices ranging $2-$5 and averaging $2.99 these were the higher priced drinks. The market surveys suggest that the main desire the consumer has is energy enhancement, however over recent years some of the market has started to erode due to health concerns.

The category is dominated by 5 major brands (94% of dollar sales), with Red Bull far above the pack with a 43% dollar sales market share. The other 4 are in close competitions with

Marketing executives at Cadbury Beverages, Inc. want to re-launch the following brands: Crush, Hires, and Sun-Drop soft drinks. However, Cadbury has seen several challenges arise in the eve of their next attempt to lead the market. Senior marketing executives decided to focus generally on the Crush brand of fruit flavored carbonated beverages. The key issues that were foreseen by Cadbury executives were the rejuvenation of the bottling network, figuring out brand equity, and develop new positioning. Lastly, there are numerous opportunities available for Crush to take advantage of that which

Quaker wanted to expand their footprint in the beverage industry and add Snapple to create the most innovative distribution system in the industry. They expected the following benefits:

Other key marketing mix failures that affected Snapple in the Quaker era fall under the promotion and product umbrellas. Quaker did not follow regular advertising schedules, ceased Snapple’s partnership with Wendy Kaufman, and beside reducing the numbers of flavors available, was also unable to introduce new ones quickly enough. The started selling the product in larger sizes (32 and 64 ounces bottle), but this initiative was another flop: bottles of that size were suitable for Gatorade, not for a leisure beverage like Snapple, customers simply would not buy it. These choices elicited negative response in consumers who stopped perceiving Snapple as a funky and fashionable brand; the beverage’s healthy reputation was damaged too. It is rather clear that Quaker’s executives did not fully understand the Snapple brand and erroneously modified its marketing mix. This failure resulted in the rise of a deleterious discrepancy between the experiential value and benefits customers were used to and expected form Snapple, and the brand’s altered nature. In synthesis, Quaker tried to transplant a marketing mix and execution strategy to a recipient who was not suitable for it, and Snapple, its distributors, and its customers ultimately suffered from