Pure Food Products Co.

Pepper-Snapple group had quite an extensive accounting profile, one that was around 133 pages to be exact. In their annual report Dr. Pepper-Snapple group showed to have quite an impressive year when it came to growth and profit. With the profit of the company being up this also lead to the current stock value as growing. This was explained both in the annual report and the current stock market standing. In the 2014 annual report the Dr. Pepper dollar share was only up 0.1 points from the previous year. The largest amount of grown that the company experienced was in Latin America. According to yahoo finance the stock as been rising ever since the first of the year, closing everyday higher than the last.

I was immediately intrigued from the beginning of Food, Inc. There was interesting and valuable information brought up during the film. Many people do not think about where their food comes from. I believe that if people were to know where their food comes from, they would not want to eat it. There are 47,000 products at a grocery store. But, Food, Inc. implies that this is in fact an illusion because all of them are made with the same crops. The fact that there are only a few multi-national corporations that control all of the crops and meat production is a huge surprise. I believe that each person in society would be absolutely shocked if they were to watch this documentary.

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).

PepsiCo expanded via acquisition of businesses outside of its core focus of packaged food and beverage brands, however it exited these non-core business lines largely in this year, selling some, and separating others into a new company named Tricon Global Restaurants, which later became known as Yum! Brands, Inc. PepsiCo also previously owned several other brands that it later sold so it could focus on its primary snack food and beverage lines, according to investment analysts reporting on the divestments in 1997.

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

The movie “Food Inc.” is a documentary created to shed light on the topic of industrialized farming of crops and animals. The video shows many scenes that display the poor methods of industrialized farming as well as the harsh conditions the animals have to endure while they are being farmed. This video however also takes a political standpoint on the topic and expresses many opinions on the matter. The movie is also filled with recent facts and statistics on the industry and compares them to how the food business used to be. “Food Inc.” also provides first-hand accounts of how farmers are affected and the types of techniques that giant corporations are imposing.

Dr. Pepper Snapple Group Case Study Overview Katina King Brenau University   Dr. Pepper Snapple Group Case Study Overview Competitive Advantage Dr. Pepper Snapple Group’s competitive advantage is its brand portfolio. Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc.-NYSE: DPS manufactures, markets, and distributes over 50 brands of beverages. These brands include carbonated soft drinks, juices, mixers, teas, and other beverages (Archer, Dunphy, Carter, Ludwick, Nosack, & Qadeer, n.d.).

The main cost reduction strategy that had been suggested by Whole Food Company is the reduction of 1,500 jobs as of 2015 (Kowitt, 2015). This decision was made because the company had been under intense scrutiny from the other organic and natural food competitors. As such the company is planning to reduce the prices of their commodities. To realize more profits under reduced prices means that the company should cut down the costs. Salary costs are the main expense that cuts down the profit margins of the company and so is the decision to reduce the

St. Louis, Missouri is where Snapple® Half n’ Half Lemonade/Tea is manufactured. They manufacture and distribute to United States (U.S.), Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean. They support local and

From time to time, corporate executives encounter ethical dilemmas that seem rather challenging. In this text, I concern myself with an ethical dilemma faced by the top leadership of Nutritional Foods Inc. In so doing, I will amongst other things explain (in detail) the actions I would take were I to find myself in a similar scenario. I will also explain not only the reasoning behind my actions, but also the results I would be expecting.

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.

In the ever changing world of customer needs and expectations Dr Pepper-Snapple was faced with an increased customer focus on energy drinks. This area, when exploited correctly, is a high growth and high margin beverage business. In early September 2007, Andrew Baker had his marching orders. He emerged out a long discussion about entering the energy drink business and off he went.

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:

From 1972-1993 Snapple Fruit Juice Company flourished while many startup premium fruit drinks struggled and, in many cases, failed. In fact, most of Snapple's successful competitors during this time were sold to larger distribution companies allowing Snapple to create a Brand image and distribution alliance for the "smaller guy." They were a cult classic, promoted by loud, brash promoters like Howard Stern and Rush Limbaugh who had huge followings of independent, "stick-it-to-the-man" listeners. Snapple also created the legend of Wendy Kaufman, a former truck dispatcher and employee of Snapple. She was an instant success with the kind of style and attitude that matched Snapple's independent image. As the product began

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