MK639

Strategic Brand Management Case Analysis: Snapple

Emiliya Radeva

1. What in your estimation, did Quaker really buy in acquiring the Snapple brand? When Quaker acquired Snapple in 1994, the food company bought a strong brand with a high potential in the alternative beverage category and rapidly growing sales for the past four years (p. 4). It bought the tangible characteristics of the brand, such as the Snapple brand name, the logo, and the intangible relationships with Stern, Limbaugh, and Wendy Kaufman (p. 6). Quaker also acquired the so-called brand knowledge (that is the web of associations that the consumers have learned and connected to the brand in their memories) (Keinan & Avery, Understanding Brands, p. 2). However, since Quaker was a big food company with a traditional professional approach to marketing, it could not acquire the near cult (p. 1) image of Snapple (that is Snapples distinctive status in the minds of the consumers was based mainly on the idea that the brand was managed by inexperienced anticorporate minded people, with whom consumers could identify. 2. How did the Snapple brand change when it was acquired? According to Holt, all marketing mix elements directly impact branding and can destroy value if they are not managed properly (Holt, Brands and Branding, p. 9). In my view, Quakers three years in charge of Snapple diminished the brands value by changing its brand meaning and brand strength (Fournier et al., When Brands Resonate, p. 36) and transforming it from a purposefully amateurish brand (Holt & Cameron, p. 147) to a more typical corporate brand practicing traditional marketing initiatives. First, Snapple lost some of its existing customers due to the change in its distribution strategy. Quaker believed that Snapple could be pushed through Gatorades distribution system of supermarkets and other larger outlets. However, Quakers distribution competences could not be leveraged to push Snapple because the image of the two brands was very distinct. Snapples alternative image had been supported by the fact it had been sold through small sized and independent distributors (p. 3). The change in the packaging (introduction of larger pack sizes, p. 6) was not only an obstacle for a more
1 | P a g e

MK639 Strategic Brand Management Case Analysis: Snapple

Emiliya Radeva

efficient distribution, it also did not fit the Snapple image of an on the go beverage (Exhibit 6, p. 15). Quaker also changed the way Snapple communicated with consumers. The company decided to promote the product, abandoning eccentric advertising campaigns in favor of a more conservative approach. Just like the founders story, Wendy Kaufman exemplified the model of come-from-nowhere, make-it-big-time, success for Snapple drinkers and they associated her with the brand (Exhibit 6). However, Quaker discontinued Snapples campaign featuring Wendy (p. 6), and terminated both relationships with Stern and Limbaugh. These changes slowly killed Snapples myth that was substantial to Snapples status as an iconic brand (Holt, How Brands Become Icons, p. 33). Ultimately, Quaker failed to hold onto Snapples brand value because it did not understand the essence of its brand identity. Snapple had always been promoted as a New Age and fashionable alternative to standard soft drink brands (p. 2). Snapple was fast losing its innovative image, along with its customer base. When Quaker sold Snapple to Triarc, the brand was in a deep sales slide (about 35 percent decline in sales the period 1994-1997) (p. 6). And the moral of the story is - when brand and culture fall out of alignment, both brand and corporate owner are likely to suffer.

3. By the end of the case, the Snapple drinker is being defined as anyone who has lips and management is considering developing products before establishing target segments. What do you think of this idea? What would Holt, Fournier, Rust, or others you have read this term think of this approach? As CCT theorists, many of the authors discussed in this term, would most likely disagree with the suggested management approach. I think Holt would view it as an antipode to his idea that, in order to succeed, brands should be culturally relevant. According to him in its earlier years Snapple has profited from cultural innovations by becoming relevant to the consumers (Holt & Cameron, Cultural Strategy, p. 2). Fournier would not have liked the idea either since she believes in co-creation (that is the collaboration between consumers and companies to create a product that consumers really want,
2 | P a g e

MK639 Strategic Brand Management Case Analysis: Snapple

Emiliya Radeva

rather than products companies want to sell them) (Fournier et al., p. 46). Weinsteins management approach would only confirm Rusts apprehension that despite all the talk about customer focus among managers, brands are often managed in a way where customers are serving brands, and not vice versa (Rust et al., Customer-Centered Brand Management, p. 2). The idea of defining the Snapple user in such a broad way would contradict with his view that brands should be designed as narrow as possible to enhance the clarity and the value of the brand in customers eyes (Rust et al., p. 6). He would instead recommend making decisions about the Snapple brand subservient to decisions about customer relationships (Rust et al., p. 5). Nakai would argue that Weinsteins strategy would fail due to the brand barriers it implies (such as lack of insight, lack of focus, and lack of an idea). First of all, the approach ignores the insightful research findings by the New Jersey group (Exhibit 6). Second, by not segmenting the market and not focusing on a specific segment, Triarc risks to run after two hares [and] catch neither. Third, there is no clear idea as to who the customers are, and how would the brand delight them (Nakai, Why Does Branding Fail, p. 273-278). In my view, the idea of this strategy is to build products from scratch without any particular target market in mind. The Snapple brand would be used only because it is popular to the distribution channel and among consumers are aware of it. But without a clear view of who the target consumer of the product will be, I think Triarc could easily introduce a new brand without risking to additionally harm the Snapple image. According to the contemporary view of branding, it is crucial to find a healthy balance between maintaining a consistent brand image and updating brand associations to keep the brand relevant with the consumer (Keinan & Avery, p. 3). And what the suggested strategy implies is neither a consistent way of managing the brand, nor an update to stay relevant with the market.

3 | P a g e