Vegemite: Marketing and Product Essay Example

internet generation which are very familiar with the digital technologies. This was the main reason for naming the new product as “isnack 2. 0”.

Knapper (2008) defines that “i” was used to symbolize the internet but it widely used from Apple Company as a marketing strategy for their products beginning from “imac” till nowadays with “iphone” and “ipad”. The “2. 0” came from the term “web 2. 0” which associates, according to Anderson (2008) with web applications and services such as social networking sites, blogs, wikis etc. where the content of this services, is user generated. Unfortunately the generation Y has not accepted this kind of name. First of all the name does not represent a kind of food. It may be able to be a good label for a web application, or a web service.

Although “isnack” could be a good solution for a nowadays snack which wants to be famous in the technology generation, the “2. 0” confuses a lot the customer in aspect of what the product really is. As “isnack 2. 0” is a brand extension of the original vegemite, a more logical decision for a name could be something that is relative close to the initial product and will justify just another version of it. Considering the elements that the case study provide us, is not clear if the campaign has damaged the brand image of the product or even the company. Kraft Company is well known and established company in the market.

It can not be so easily damaged from picking up a disapproved name for a product. In cases of food products and market the most important criteria for success or

failure of a product is the taste, if it is healthy or not, the frequency of daily use. Although the product has a negative past (from the name), if there is a quick and successful rebranding and an acceptable taste from the customers then it is very easy for them to forget this bad image that has been generated, as the sales-results shown also after the rename of the product to “cheesybite” According to the case study there are proofs that can support both opinions.

On the first hand of marketing effort which went wrong, the company tried to involve customers in the naming process of its product through a naming contest. Company also had spend o lot of money for the preparation of a television commercial and the purchase of broadcast time, money that lost because of the name withdrawal. Moreover the meeting between managers and the quick implementation of another plan (name withdrawal and contest for a new one) as also the absence of the project responsible manager are supporting that managers overreacted with the processes for the new product and that was the reason for that negative publicity.

The overreaction is also clear from the case because the company does not tried to find and analyse the first reactions from a specific group of customers before making the name public or they did not use at least a criterion that will filter the outsider names. The “isnack 2. 0” was already known through promotion strategies and was not in the need of more publicity, especially negative. The conversations in social networks the only advantage that can bring is to “spread the word of mouth”

quicker and internationally which is not useful at this case because vegemite and its brand extension are local Australian products.

On the other hand such a big company, which is well known internationally, it is impossible not to wonder firstly for a trademark of a new product that will be brought up in the market. And especially that it was unaware that in the local market there were two other products with the name “isnack”, something that will bring sure problems with the law. In this case can be assumed that the company was already aware of these situations and that is the reason why they did not tried first to trademark the name which automatically means that the company used “guerrilla marketing” practices. As baltes and leibing (2007 p. :1) cited, “The term “guerrilla marketing” describes unconventional marketing campaigns and/or strategies which should have a significant promotional effect – this at a fraction of the budget that “traditional” marketing campaigns would spend for the same goal”. This strategy attracts the attention of customer in a very intensive way and at the same time is a cost effective alternative to traditional marketing strategies. In case now, that the allegations of a marketing ploy from Kraft Company are true, this is the only reason that can affect negatively and damage directly the company’s image.

Customers who were buying the product for all these years will feel fooled and they will “punish” the company by not buying its products. The Direct Marketing Association (DMA) has designed a framework that companies should follow in their business relations with customers and suppliers, in order to implement an ethical structure of the

company. Brubacker (2007) notices these guidelines which are the following: “ •A demonstrated commitment to customers’ satisfaction; •Clearly, honestly, and accurately representing all products, services, terms and conditions; •Delivering products and services as represented; Communicating in a respectful and courteous manner; •Responding to inquiries and complaints in a constructive, timely way; •Maintaining security policies and practices to safeguard information; •Honoring requests not to have personally identifiable information transferred; •Honoring requests not to receive future solicitations; and •Following both the spirit and letter of all laws. “ If the above description of the situation for Kraft Company is true then many of the above guidelines are being violated and this means that image of the company will definitely be damaged. At least has been recognised that ustomer answers were manipulated. Although there was a contest where customers wrote their opinion, team selected the name without any specific criteria for the contest but with criteria of their own needs as a company. The lessons we can learn from the case of Kraft Company and the “isnack 2. 0” product are many and useful for the future of marketing function of companies. If company needs the opinion of customers then it should be treat them as colleagues and do not manipulate them to gain the result that managers have in mind. Any kind of publicity is not always the best thing that will help the company to advertise new products.

Negative publicity can have sometimes according to the product, catastrophic results to the product or even the company. Aggressive marketing techniques probably will have negative results to the overall marketing strategy. In this particular case study there is a

product which during the years after its invention became popular after lots of promotions like television or radio ads, contents with prize etc. Vegemite after all became a food icon and as food, company must invest first of all at the taste. If it tastes good then it will gain customers who will keep buying it.

If the taste is not good then is regardless of which will be the name of the product or the package or the colours that will be used for the product. The results of this case support this opinion. After the whole branding failure or even marketing ploy, the sales of vegemite do not change at all and the sales of the new product “cheesybite” were almost matching to the old successful vegemite. A branding strategy could be as simple as it can. The vegemite product should stay as it is and the new product should have its own way in the market positioning of course under the Kraft label.

A little publicity through television ads and a promotion with stands where people can taste the new product is enough for a food icon to have its own success in the market. The name will be a decision of the marketing and advertising function of the company. Should be a name that is attractive and will describe exactly what the product is and what needs of customers will fulfil. In this case there where also other available names even better from the “cheesybite” name which it could also bring legal problems because of the pizza hut cheesy bite product. snackmate” or even “vegemate” (if we want to connect the new product

with the old one as another “version” more mild of it could be better and more attractive for the customers. As it is easy to understand from this particular case study as also from the White (2008) about Fosters beer case study, the particular market of Australians wants to connect the nation with the brand. This thing had been done from Kraft about vegemite and the same for fosters beer. This phenomenon is called “commercial nationalism” and describes the entities that could be connected and that’s the reason that in commercials are used patriotic aspects.