Essay about Marketing and Snapple

Snapple is positioned as a premium brand. The premium product that is “available to anyone”. Being so in 1993, the price is still remains a luxury. With the purchase of Snapple, Cadbury became a leader in non-carbonated premium New Age beverage. (Plus, as was discussed during the lecture, a product can’t set the price smaller than the whole company, so there is no way that Snapple will have not a premium price being a part of Cadbury).

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

Identify specific changes that were made in each of the 4 P’s and explain how they were directly responsible for the decrease in Snapple’s brand value under Quakers stewardship.

“Marketing Mix” is made up of 4P’s of marketing. This tool blends these variables together to produce the results it wants to achieve in its specific target market. “Brand Position” mentions to consumer’s reason to buy the products in preference to others.

1. How would you characterize the energy beverage category, competitors, consumers, channels, and DPSG’s category participation in late 2007?

Discuss what is meant by the term “customer orientation”. Illustrate with examples how companies demonstrate their customer orientation by reference to at least two elements of the marketing mix.

It is the vision of Dr. Pepper Snapple Co. ‘to be the best beverage business in the Americas. Our brands have been synonymous with refreshment, fun and flavor for generations, and our sales are poised to keep growing in the future’(DR Pepper Snapple Group). The company has many objectives to focus on that will ensure their position as the leading flavored beverage company in the US. These objectives include enhancing leading brands, such as but not limited to, 7UP, A&W Root Beer to even the Dr. Pepper brand. In all of these brands listed there are spinoffs to each such as the brand featuring vanilla, cherry, limeade and much more. They are pursuing profitable channels like different packaging, and leveraging current business models to improve upon. The company is working to strengthening the route to market and also improving operational efficiency. Ultimately, this will contributed to their many resources that facilitate sustainability, in turn creating corporate social responsibility (DR Pepper Snapple Group).

This document represents The i-Fusions Consultant’s Report on BRITA. The company’s current business situation is analysed and various options for action considered. The report aims to identify a clear marketing strategy for Brita in order to address the current issues facing the company the associated falling sales.

What is DPS? According to Dr. Pepper Snapple Group Investors - Annual Reports, Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. (DPS) is a leading integrated brand owner, manufacturer and distributor of non-alcoholic beverages in the United States ("U.S."), Canada and Mexico (2016).

While product promotion and advertising certainly suffered under Quaker control, the decline of Snapple was probably most affected by its the important driver of the Snapple brand in the beverage industry, its distribution. One important issue that arose during brand analysis under Quaker was that consumers began reporting that they could no longer find their favorite, or otherwise offbeat flavors, of Snapple anymore. This illustrated the effect of Quaker’s new distribution strategy in trying to use the original Snapple distribution channels to proliferate other Quaker products, but the relationship was just

Several threats exist. Company G is a well-established and respected company. Although this is a factor, rival companies eager to capitalize exist. Companies will make product closely resembling Company G’s and may offer at a lower price or with more incentives. Market growth will not be slow and low fixed cost to produce item will decrease rivalry. Since customers somewhat easily and freely switch from one product to another, this will increase rivalry. There are quite a few rivals in the same market.

2. On November 3, 1994, Quaker Oats acquired Snapple at $14 a share, for a total of $1.7 billion. Quaker Oats top management believes that too much was paid for Snapple.The management has created a task force of seven top managers to ensure the expensive investment will produce a high rate of return. The task force must make strategic decisions concerning the marketing and product mix for Snapple for the upcoming year. Tactics such as making Snapple products distinctive, listening to

By 1990s Snapple emerged as a nationally recognized brand.. With the combination of a unique product and package design and colorful advertising the company achieved nationally recognized brand. Later Snapple went through several management system and owners.

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