Snapple case analysis

How Snapple Got Its Juice Back – Homework Name: _________________________________________________ Section #: ______________ Question 1 (8 Points) Identify specific changes that were made in each of the 4 P’s and explain how they were directly responsible for the decrease in Snapple’s brand value under Quakers stewardship. Question 2 (12 Points) Do you think corporate culture impacted the market’s perception of the Snapple brand. Pick a position (Yes or No) and based on the specific cultural differences referenced in the case, make your case. For the exclusive use of Y. Liu, 2020. How Snapple Got Its Juice Back by John Deighton Reprint r0201c This document is authorized for use only by Yikun Liu in MGT 140: Marketing for the Technology-based Enterprise (Spring 2020) taught by Douglas Findlay, University of California - Davis from Mar 2020 to Jun 2020. For the exclusive use of Y. Liu, 2020. January 2002 HBR Case Study Bob’s Meltdown r0201a Nicholas G. Carr First Person Saving the Business Without Losing the Company r0201b Carlos Ghosn HBR at Large How Snapple Got Its Juice Back r0201c John Deighton Leading in Times of Trauma r0201d Jane E. Dutton, Peter J. Frost, Monica C. Worline, Jacoba M. Lilius, and Jason M. Kanov Getting It Right the Second Time r0201e Gabriel Szulanski and Sidney Winter Inside Microsoft: Balancing Creativity and Discipline r0201f Robert J. Herbold A New Game Plan for C Players r0201g Beth Axelrod, Helen Handfield-Jones, and Ed Michaels Best Practice Turn Customer Input into Innovation r0201h Anthony W. Ulwick Tool Kit Selling the Brand Inside r0201j Colin Mitchell This document is authorized for use only by Yikun Liu in MGT 140: Marketing for the Technology-based Enterprise (Spring 2020) taught by Douglas Findlay, University of California - Davis from Mar 2020 to Jun 2020. For the exclusive use of Y. Liu, 2020. H B R at La rg e How Snapple Got Its Juice Back Its number one priority: repair relations with disgruntled distributors. Then revive the funky packaging, adventurous flavors, and anything-goes attitude that first made the brand soar. by John Deighton EVEN NOW, mere mention of Quaker Oats’ acquisition of Snapple causes veteran deal makers to shudder. For good reason. In 1993, Quaker paid $1.7 billion for the Snapple brand, outbidding CocaCola, among other interested parties. In 1997, Quaker sold Snapple to Triarc Beverages for $300 million, a price most observers found generous. The debacle cost both the chairman and president of Quaker their jobs and hastened the end of Quaker’s independent existence (it’s now a unit of PepsiCo). But that’s not the end of the story. In October 2000, Triarc, the privately held outfit that took Snapple off Quaker’s hands, sold the brand to Cadbury Schweppes for about $1 billion.1 The turnaround would be astonishing in any industry, but especially in the beveragemarketing business, where short-lived Copyright © 2002 by Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation. All rights reserved. brands are depressingly common. Snapple’s durability raises a number of questions. Why did the brand lose $1.4 billion in value under Quaker’s stewardship in just four years? How did Triarc restore most of that value in less than three years? What did Triarc do with such apparently effortless grace that Quaker, with all its resources, could not? In November 2000, shortly after Triarc sold Snapple to Cadbury Schweppes, I posed those questions to Triarc’s top executives: chairman and majority owner Nelson Peltz, CEO Mike Weinstein, and marketing director Ken Gilbert. Their answers led me to a conclusion that many marketing professionals are likely to resist: There is a vital interplay between the challenge a brand faces and the culture of the corporation that owns it. When brand and culture fall out of 3 This document is authorized for use only by Yikun Liu in MGT 140: Marketing for the Technology-based Enterprise (Spring 2020) taught by Douglas Findlay, University of California - Davis from Mar 2020 to Jun 2020. For the exclusive use of Y. Liu, 2020. alignment, both brand and corporate owner are likely to suffer. I’m hardly courting controversy by asserting that a brand might fit better in one company’s portfolio than in another’s. But a marketing professional would probably explain the improved fit in terms of distribution economies or manufacturing synergies.