snapple case study solution
Snapple Case Study Solution
1. From 1972 to 1993, why did Snapple flourish when so many small start-up premium fruit drinks stayed small or disappeared?
As described in the case study, Snapple flourished throughout 1972 and 1993 due to various reasons. Firstly, as the owners of Snapple realized that the popularity of no preservative fruit juices was increasing, they ceased the opportunity and decided to make a business out of it. As they were the first ones in this business, they got a chance to charge high prices and experiment products.
Secondly, the owners of the small premium drinks had the vision to exit via an acquisition as they thought that the other companies that would acquire them would have their pockets full for future investments. However, the owners of Snapple decided to cope with the next level of growth and make major investments to stay in business like hire professionals who had the expertise to run such a business.
Thirdly, over the years Snapple built up a successful distributing system with its products readily available in the markets and to the consumers. Not only this, but they heavily marketed using advertising and PR activities.
Fourthly, Snapple kept their advertisements simple and real with no real marketing stunt that would make consumers suspect Snapple’s intentions.
2. Now look at the period from 1994 to 1997. Did Quaker make an error in buying Snapple or did they just manage it badly?
In my opinion, Quaker was unable to manage Snapple. This was because the owners of Quaker assumed that changing product perception was an easy task. They wanted to change Snapple from a fashion drink to a lifestyle drink. This was a really bad move because Snapple was already making successful sales and the change wasn’t required.
Further, they tried to rationalize distributions of both Snapple and Gatorade and negotiate deals with distributors and distributor councils which were unsuccessful. Quaker already had a successful distribution
1. From 1972 to 1993, why did Snapple flourish when so many small start-up premium fruit drinks stayed small or disappeared?
As described in the case study, Snapple flourished throughout 1972 and 1993 due to various reasons. Firstly, as the owners of Snapple realized that the popularity of no preservative fruit juices was increasing, they ceased the opportunity and decided to make a business out of it. As they were the first ones in this business, they got a chance to charge high prices and experiment products.
Secondly, the owners of the small premium drinks had the vision to exit via an acquisition as they thought that the other companies that would acquire them would have their pockets full for future investments. However, the owners of Snapple decided to cope with the next level of growth and make major investments to stay in business like hire professionals who had the expertise to run such a business.
Thirdly, over the years Snapple built up a successful distributing system with its products readily available in the markets and to the consumers. Not only this, but they heavily marketed using advertising and PR activities.
Fourthly, Snapple kept their advertisements simple and real with no real marketing stunt that would make consumers suspect Snapple’s intentions.
2. Now look at the period from 1994 to 1997. Did Quaker make an error in buying Snapple or did they just manage it badly?
In my opinion, Quaker was unable to manage Snapple. This was because the owners of Quaker assumed that changing product perception was an easy task. They wanted to change Snapple from a fashion drink to a lifestyle drink. This was a really bad move because Snapple was already making successful sales and the change wasn’t required.
Further, they tried to rationalize distributions of both Snapple and Gatorade and negotiate deals with distributors and distributor councils which were unsuccessful. Quaker already had a successful distribution