Any person with knowledge of sales and marketing can quickly point out the anomalous growth curve of Snapple from the year 1994 when it attained its peak growth throughout to the year 1996 when the company’s growth was drastically on the decline. It is evident that the different strategies employed by various managements along the company’s lifespan had tremendous effects on the overall growth and performance of the enterprise. Snapple, as it stands out, has not only lost a huge section of its market segment but also lost its first reputation as the preferred brand. The company’s product distribution line has been significantly distorted and hence the unavailability of the name to its loyal customers. It is, therefore, prudent that Snapple further re-adjusts its entire marketing approaches and strategies so as to redeem the brand image and subsequently recover the primary developmental growth path.
The first recommendation to the current management of Snapple would be to invest in extensive advertising intended to build the client confidence in the brand as well as introduce Snapple to new customers. The circulating rumors that the Snapple drink is anti-abortion or anti-gay are bound to have more pronounced detrimental effects if counter strategies are not implemented in time. Furthermore, the fact that consumers can afford to campaign against a brand by associating it with a social vice clearly implies that there is a significant disconnect between the same consumers and the brand.
Advertisement in this should be designed in such a manner that they explicitly disclose the favorable chemical contents of the label so as to brush off any allegations that Snapple would have been altered in whichever way. Similarly, the advertisement message should be closely related to the original ads that were mounted by the original two owners (the founding group and Quaker) so as to reassure the public further that Triarc is only a different manager marketing the one ad; just Snapple drink (Deighton, 2003). On the same note, advertising has been largely employed by most marketers to sustain competition especially in a crowded industry like the American drinks and beverage industry. Incorporating an iconic sports personality in the campaign strategy would be a much welcome idea.
The second recommendation to Snapple would be that the company restructures the supply and distribution to either resemble not necessarily the structure that was employed by the founders Arnie Greenberg, Leonard Marsh, and Hyman Golden but in such a manner that the brand is availed to the consumers, without necessarily incurring massive expenditures that might further drive the company into receivership. A more viable approach, in this case, would be to engage independent distributors on the market.
Bearing in mind, the audit carried out on Snapple’s supply chain structure as conducted by Cultural Analysis Group for Deutsch, Inc. November 1997, unavailability of the products was a prominent issue among the findings (Deighton, 2003). It is practically impossible to realize sales when in the first place; there is no single product of trade. The nature of the human mind is that people will always try to find alternatives and subsidies if their preferred brands are either in scarce supply or entirely missing. An ineffective supply chain, therefore, does not only give the consumers an opportunity to test other alternatives but slowly helps the same clients develop loyalty with the competitor. In the long last, a lot of the once scarce brand will eventually expire and rot on the shelves since the targeted clients would have eventually changed their preferences. In fact, it would be of no value to invest in extensive advertising of the products and yet they are not available.
The third recommendation is that the Triarc should also consider different approaches to sustain their operations in a competitive industry. It is evident that companies such as Napa Naturals, Natural Quencher, SoHo, After the Fall, Ginseng Rush, Elliot’s Amazing, Old Tyme Soft Drink, Manly Sodas, Syfy, and Original New York Seltzer are true competitors with great potential to completely wipe out Snapple from the market (Deighton, 2003). Therefore, besides efforts to resuscitate productive operation of the company, there is need to think of how to wade off the stiff competition as presented in the industry. One such approach would be the pricing strategy. Snapple was the most expensive natural drink since it was associated with a particular social class; people earned respect carrying the bottle around and thus felt proud. However, because the sales plummeted, the management should consider setting the price to such a level that it earns the company profit as well as compete favorably among on the market. The brand long lasting prestige that was associated with it and setting the price at the first high would further scare away would-be new loyal customers.
The final recommendation to Triarc would be to implement flexible strategies at the company that can necessitate easy modification and adjustment to keep pace with the dynamic and ever-changing market (Deighton, 2003). An overview of the operational structure of Snapple as it currently stands shows that any slight change in any of their marketing strategies is likely to halt operations in some sections of the company. For instance, adding an extra product to be sold along the natural drink would eventually imply further investment in introducing the new product into the market. Similarly, given the fact that most distributors stock the Snapple drink alone, it would be virtually hard to convince them to incorporate another fast going drink into their inventory. The management should, therefore, consider diversification, primarily marketing other non-alcoholic beverages along the main product as a strategy to revitalize sales and bring back the company to its old glory days.
Reference
Deighton, D. (2003). “Snapple”. Business School Publishing, Boston, MA 02163
