Snapple Case Study Evaluation

1. How would you characterize Snapple’s brand image and sources of brand equity? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the brands existing personality and image?

Snapple’s brand image can be characterized “New Age” (pg. 329). Snapple was a nationally recognized brand on the rise in the beverage industry. Their brand image reflected on the quality of naturally flavored drinks which improved marketing efforts, product differentiation, distribution and premium pricing (pg. 330). Snapple’s level of popularity in the 90’s reached celebrity sponsorship and consumer testimonials that contributed elevated levels of brand equity. A strength of Snapple’s existing personality and image is that it still subsists in a level-playing field. Currently merged with Dr. Pepper, Snapple has prevailed remarkably in the acquisition which is a now leading producer of beverages (Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, 2014). A weakness still apparent in today’s marketing efforts is the promotion of single serve tea. Dr. Pepper Snapple Group (DPS) continues to express Snapple’s sovereign essence by enduring the realization of a challenging marketing approach.

2. Where did Quaker go wrong? What could it have done differently? Is Cadbury in danger of making the same mistakes as Quaker did?

Despite perplexing determinations, Quaker made the mistake of responding to the reduced market for New Age beverages by promoting new advertising and tactics (334). Causing sales to decline, Quaker failed to monitor a consistent advertising agenda and did not present new products fast enough (334). Instead of taking marketing risks, Quaker should have initiated a strategy that would aim toward the proper target market by studying the demographic and pushing inventory in those high volume areas. Cadbury is most likely not in danger of making the same mistakes as Quaker. Reason being the corporation has realized many acquisitions which allows Cadbury to retain competitive advantage in numerous markets.

3. How effective and appropriate do you think Triarc’s marketing program was? How effective and appropriate do you think Cadbury’s marketing program is? What changes, if any, would you recommend Cadbury make to Snapple marketing?

Triarc’s marketing program was both effective and appropriate because they were able to revert back to the image Snapple once had and capture the essence of their brand by using “off-beat humor” in their ads (pg. 331). Once Triarc acquired Snapple from Quaker, their marketing campaigns became more effective returning Snapple back to the roots of the company. When Snapple started out their brand was about differentiating themselves from the other “New Age Beverage” competition. Not only did Snapple have the claim of using all natural fruit juices, but they prided themselves on their variety of flavors and “down to earth” marketing tactics.

For instance, they were the first company to produce a complete line of all-natural beverages, the first to sell drinks in a single serving wide-mouthed glass, and they used quirky advertising methods that grew the company from a regional underground favorite to a nationally recognized brand. (pg.329, pg 1) Snapple was restored to their old state, but also offered a new edge once Triarc acquired the company. The marketing campaigns that brought back, Wendy, showed their ability to get the brand back to where it was. (pg.337, pg 2) With their innovative and risqué advertising Triarc was able to increase sales and bring back the, “speed, fun, innovation and quirkness”, that Snapple once had.

When Cadbury came along, their marketing program was more intensive and aggressive then Triarc; and although they attempted to pattern Triarcs marketing, they were less organic which did not allow them to be as effective. Although they were trying to utilize the same campaigns some of their advertising was slightly controversial. For example, Cadbury used a campaign with the “Little Fruits” in a more provocative manner. This ad captured the spirit of Snapple’s blended juices, but was a bit more edgy. Despite their commercial ads, Cadbury also tried to place the Snapple brand in several different drink markets, which did not prove to be successful.

Although they were trying to push their ability to cultivate the brand, recent history would prove that Snapple was more successful when they stayed within their drink market. If there is one thing I would recommend, I would suggest that Cadbury remain organic to the established Snapple brand. Some of their advertising initiatives were too generic for the Snapple and placed them on the same tier of marketing with their other brands like Dr. Pepper, 7Up, A&W, and Hawaiian punch. Although, they have been efficient in combining the distribution, they have to differentiate Snapple from their other products and continue to use quirky marketing, which has made Snapple a unique drink rather than blending in with the other competitors.

4. How has Snapple’s sale to Cadbury affected Snapple’s equity? Are there dangers of the brand’s association with a large corporation?

5. What do you think Cadbury’s next moves with Snapple should be? Should the company attempt to expand or reposition Snapple? Should Cadbury spin-off its America Beverages group?

Triarc was able to get Snapple back on it’s feet; however, like with any product, Snapple must continue to evolve and do things that enable them to continue growing. In any market, there is no standing still. Companies need to grow and evolve or they will fail. Therefore, Cadbury took over Snapple and left some things the way Triarc had them, like keep the CEO, use the existing distribution system, and keep management the same. They first looked for things that could prove to be more cost effective in the areas of manufacturing, distributions, management, and in the way they got their materials. They also decided to sell their already successful products such as Dr. Pepper and 7Up through the Snapple distribution system. Cadbury was already an internationally successful company so they could afford to be more aggressive and innovative in Snapple’s growth. Cadbury needs to focus on what customers want and aim for something new as well as a price they can sustain at.

They can advertise all they want but if it’s the same products at the same prices, competition will quickly overcome them and they will decline until Snapple is washed out. Cadbury should both expand and reposition Snapple. It’s known as being bright colored humorous and can be expensive. Cadbury found major cost savings, why not use that to help drive the price down. They are large enough they can afford to take a loss for a while to force competition either out of the market or to lower their prices as well. They need to expand by creating different flavors again and being creative with their designs. The end talked about Cadbury would have another spin-off to survive. They can do this to re-energize Snapple and it might help in separating them from the rest of the company that they combined it with. This can provide them with a better opportunity to re-invent Snapple and create a better competitive advantage.

References

Dr. Pepper Snapple Group (2014). Our History http://www.drpeppersnapplegroup.com/company/history/