Roaring Fork Beer

To start, we must understand that the approach to the brand is different for non-users and ex-users. Non-users have possibly never tried our product, whereas ex-users have but have rejected it. Building awareness of our product to non-users may be necessary. Conversely, ex-users are all aware of our product but do not have an affinity for Roaring Fork Beer. Furthermore, we must identify whether the reason our product is rejected is sensory or perceptual. The case, there is a great deal of supportive evidence that leads us to believe the insight is sensory. Describing the taste as “chemically, gassy, bad and flat” are descriptive and tangible. Since our targets dislike the taste, we have the option of investing in either changing the sensory of our target or accommodating them by changing the taste. While changing the taste may attract these nonusers, we risk alienating our current users and potentially losing brand equity. Creating a sister product may also risk brand identity, while marketing would be problematic because ex-users would associate the old taste to the sister brand. Overcoming that barrier would be expensive. However, there are some qualities identified by these nonusers that we can build on to overcome the disposition towards our product. The main attributes to our advantage are: a) “It’s the beer that I prefer when I am out drinking” b) “It is reasonably priced” and c) our target identifies a drinker of RFB as a working man that is a common laborer. We can thus build a campaign that centers on a beer consumed in a social outing by hard-working individuals. We could focus on neighborhoods in Colorado so as to avoid alienating our current client base who identifies well with that geographic region. We can focus on increasing sales to current consumers and use their influence to spread desirability of our product. Concurrently, since 70% of our customer base is 40 or older, challenging their taste selection can be viable. The idea is that as one