It has often been said, documented and proven, that those companies who achieve comprehensive, cohesive, integrated marketing strategies, all focused on the same goal and with a concise result to account for. In addition, those companies that dominate emerging technologies, maximize today’s supercomputing, algorithmic communication infrastructures, and low cost infrastructures, are the companies that most often will achieve successes in their market segmentation, product branding, positioning, pricing, cost-effectiveness, and the growth and profitability corporate goals, always so sought after by both multi-national conglomerates, as well as, small to medium size organizations (Garg, 1999).
Coca-Cola chose early on, it was established in 1919 that it would maximize it growth potential, sales and profits by developing and expanding an exceptionally managed and highly coordinated distribution framework. That original infrastructure and distribution system would eventually come to include over 200 countries worldwide. Further Coca-Cola sought to provide incentive sales rewards for superior performing bottlers and distributors serving food stores and fountain shops. Further Coca-Cola added to the financial initiatives of those bottlers and distributors who attained and surpassed stated sales goals and volume expectations
Interestingly, though Diet Coke had previously been the company’s second biggest selling brand and volume, around 2010, however, Coca-Cola notice a sales decline in its Diet Coke product line. Not to be outcompeted within its own category, Coca-Cola chose a different branding strategy: it employed experts and initiated a worldwide campaign touting the benefits of how Diet Coke could add to an individual’s daily healthiness regimen. The public relations campaign coupled with supported integrated advertisements, helped in further strengthening and cementing Coca-Cola’s deeply embedded and extraordinary worldwide brand recognition, and ultimately profitability (Coca-Cola, 2015).
For its’ flagship product, the original Coca-Cola chose a marketing theme of bringing joy and satisfaction to a thirsting, quenching market and distraught population within the United States. As the disastrous legacy of Asian wars remained and the despondency brought the atrocities the Civil Rights Moment attempted to end for Black Americans and the blatant assignations of revered, admired, and of once in a life time leaders like John Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King had left the United States in unsure, wary state as it saw how these major painful changes were affecting them.
In an attempt to make Coca-Cola the “feel good” soda attempted to alieve the country’s woes, it launched one of the most famous television commercials of all time. It is impossible to forget, especially for us who were experiencing the nation’s rapid socio-economic and political changes, Coca-Cola developed the ultimate marketing genius of the “Hilltop” commercial (Coca-Cola, 1971). Coca-Cola by distributing this ad, which was impossible to ignore, no matter what generation you belonged to, or what your political preferences were, or what gender or heritage you came from, the “Hilltop” advertisement with its message of peace was the feel good, bringing joy to the world that Coca-Cola’s marketing focus had chosen to espouse and implement.
In addition to corporate goodwill achieved from the “Hilltop” campaign, Coca-Cola was also keen enough to address the internal and external turmoil the United States was suffering through in the late 1960s and early 1970s. To its credit, Coca-Cola which outshined like no other company at that time, with the dominant theme of not just its product awareness, but the messages of multi-cultural political and civil peace (the “Hilltop” ad preceded by decades to Apple’s classically famous 1984 Super Bowl advertisement). Almost 30 years later, Coca-Cola continues to capitalize and profit from its traditional and social media marketing vehicles, which both emphasize the satisfaction that drinking a diet Coca-Cola will illicit, in a healthy, manner for the consumer (Choi, 2015).
Coca-Cola, however, experienced one of the most disastrous known marketing campaigns when in April of 1985 corporate management determined to change the flavor of the original recipe and launched the “New Coke” which had a different flavor than that of the original (Schindler, 1992). The inception of the concept began in the mid-1970s when Pepsi, Coca-Cola’s 87 year old competitor, and always the market second runner in the soft drink category, conducted a series of blind focus group, asking participants to determine which soda flavor the enjoyed the most. The majority of participants chose the Pepsi flavor over that of Coca-Cola, and most interestingly, even loyal Coca-Cola consumers chose the Pepsi flavor over that of Coke’s.
Pepsi capitalized on these findings and turned them into the heavily promoted marketing campaign, “The Pepsi Challenge” advertisements. In the advertisements, Pepsi showed how blind tested consumers overwhelmingly showed their preference for Pepsi’s taste over that of Coca-Cola. More damaging to Coca-Cola, however, was how Pepsi showcased how even participants who were loyal to Coca-Cola, chose the Pepsi flavor during the blind tests. The Pepsi Challenge campaign contributed to a slow erosion in Coca-Cola’s food store sales, usually a prime indicator of direct consumer preferences, as opposed to when they are compared to vending machines or fountain sales. Not surprisingly, Coca-Cola found itself, losing market share and by 1977, Pepsi had become the market leader in the soft-drink category, and had surpassed Coca-Cola as the market leader.
Coca-Cola determined to find out for themselves the veracity of the Pepsi Challenge campaign claims, conducted its own blind tests and found the same conclusion as Pepsi’s focus group tests had – hence, the birth of “The New Coke”. After a massive marketing launch campaign, consumers very quickly rebelled, complained loudly and made it well known that overall they disliked the flavor the New Coke so much, that Coca-Cola was forced to with draw the product from the market and re-instated the flavor of the original recipe, much to the delight of consumers worldwide. The ineffectiveness of these focus groups showed that even they were blind testing, and the concluding results by both Coca-Cola and Pepsi were the same, led the marketing industry to re-evaluate the use of blind tests and to consider other variants that could cause unreliable results, such as wider parameters and enhanced data sets such tests should carefully scrutinize and analyze, prior to making such a monumental change in company’s product line and offerings.
Kellogg’s was established by a pioneering entrepreneur over 100 years ago (W.K. Kellogg), succeeded by choosing a different distribution and communications strategy than that of Coca-Cola, even from its early foundations. From its beginnings, Kellogg’s chose to market its products as ready to eat, convenience foods readily available at the consumer’s local grocery store or market. It also determined that it would sell its products through local and national supermarkets as well as via direct order catalog and deliveries. The Kellogg’s product line included more than cereals, and it applied that same distribution strategies to its other product line components like cookies, crackers, fruit-flavored snacks and cereal bars, as well as, other ready-to-eat snacks. Kellogg’s achieved its successes by positioning its product offerings as cost-effective healthy, breakfast cereals and snack alternatives. In addition, in 2016, sales increased as Kellogg’s further promoted its healthy strategy and the natural ingredients as they were integrated into their product lines (Gadparro & Dulaney, 2016).
Ultimately, Kellogg’s main strategic focus was to gain a competitive advantage by continuously restructuring its cost effective infrastructures. Since the company’s products appealed to a wide array of markets, such as children, adults, and older consumers, all seeking a healthy lifestyle, Kellogg’s was able to not only differentiate its products, but to also consistently and cost effectively provide the product supplies its’ segmented markets were requiring. The company’s main goal was to produce, healthy, high quality products at competitive prices that were not cost prohibited to its’ wide ranging marketing segmentation groups. Kellogg’s continues to reign in its effectiveness of manufacturing low cost, healthy alternative product line to an ever increasing Baby Boom generation – most of which are finding themselves seeking products and services which will provide them with healthy alternatives, and in many cases cost-effective products their external changing environments and aging bodies are seeking.
In 2013, Kellogg chose to capitalize on its marketing segment’s changing needs by rebranding itself with the main focus on the healthy results of its core cereal product lines (Kellogg, 2013). Integrated marketing campaigns capitalized on verbiage such as “fresh ideas in the goodness of rice” and “Kellogg’s Grow with Us” initiatives.
The effectiveness of each company’s marketing strategy (Coca-Cola and Kellogg’s) can only be measured within the context of their own particular brands and corresponding competitors. However, each company’s different paths to success does pose questions and reflections on how each of these companies’ will continue to succeed in the new geo-political and information technologies and constant informational social mediums consumer realms.
Though both companies continue to utilize traditional TV, radio advertising and sales promotions, and public relations campaigns, both companies, forays into social media have proven a result of positive positions for their individual products and brands. However, both companies will need to expand beyond traditional media and social outlets and fully integrate all existing and emerging marketing elements in order to positively enhance their own product and brand awareness, their products messaging and satisfy their vast and multi-cultural customer bases.
Something to consider is how new intuitive based technological advances can be used to attract their audiences, without compromising customers’ personal data or other personal specific data. The technology is available, it is up such conglomerates to wisely choose their paths between traditional marketing vehicles, social media outlets and the new emerging – and sometimes the unknowns - of the digital age on a personal, unobtrusive level. In this ever changing marketing environments, with consists of constantly changing integrated marketing elements, both companies need to remain focused on the success of their respective brands, and if they are to continue being market leaders within their respective markets, they must adhere to their corporate wide goals: Coca-Cola – continue its worldwide brand awareness and domination; Kellogg adherence to its main marketing focus, of producing cost effective, consumer friendly products, with healthy ingredients in ready to east or pre-pared easy to cook packaging.
With respect to how I established the effectiveness or ineffective of each company’s integrated marketing strategies, I chose to conduct extensive research and to cite them accordingly throughout this essay.
Works Cited
Choi, C. (2015). Coca-Cola PR strategy touts soda as healthy snack. Retrieved from: http://www.pressherald.com/2015/03/16/coca-cola-pr-strategy-touts-soda-as-healthy-snack/
Coca-Cola (1971) Retrieved from http://www.coca-colacompany.com/stories/coke-lore-hilltop-story
Coca-Cola Company. (2015). Annual Report. Retrieved from: http://www.coca-colacompany.com/content/dam/journey/us/en/private/fileassets/pdf/investors/2015-annual-report-on-form-10-k.pdf
Gadparro, A. and Dulaney, C. (2016). Kellogg Says Cereal Sales Will Rise in 2016. Retrieved from: http://www.wsj.com/articles/kellogg-sales-continue-to-slide-1455200247
Garg, A. (1999). U.S. Patent No. 6,009,407. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Kellogg’s. Kellogg’s Rebranding 2013. Retrieved from http://businesscasestudies.co.uk/kelloggs/re-branding-a-corporate-image/introduction.html#axzz43zpAdava
Schindler, R. M. (1992). The real lesson of new coke: The value of focus groups for predicting the effects of social influence. Marketing Research, 4(4), 22.
