Sales decline (1999), result of market change bottled water (fastest-growing industry). (exhibit1) 2.
Should be market led instead of marketing led (ch1 p16 ). As the market changes, so does the values demanded. Their late response entails consequences such as: -
Brita only achieved 35% share compared to 65% PUR FM market share -
Retailer, such as BIG W , has installed a display which compares alternative filtration products. PUR does better. -
P&G purchased PUR, PUR will now be marketed by establish firm that is known for its marketing expertise and resources.
Losing sight their own value proposition (provided great tasting water), inconsistency into their 5 strategies. They’re trapped to enter into competitor’s consistent “removal of impurities” positioning. Due to focusing to attack their competitors by defensive marketing strategy, they forget their basic STP strategy
Late to conduct market research, declining in 1999; they decided to “listen” to market by 2004 (project Travolta).
Loss customer’s equity (ch3 p150 ). It’s irony as first four years they spent money, effort and time to simply explaining its product (ads:”How it works”)
External environment driving the changing market (demographics, technology etc) ->difficulty and misperception of the product technology also contribute to sales decline.
Q2. Evaluating important factors of competitive positioning, I recommend: 1.
Change current positioning as “improved taste whilst maintaining customer’s healthy lifestyle”, will have 2 impacts: -
Repositioning our former positioning (improved taste water) -
Creating bridge to cater the growing health awareness raise. So it can be valued as gradual step to change buyers’ perception toward Brita’s brand; so we can enter our competitor’s market too 2.
Fill gaps in market by producing various tasty bottled waters (sub branding Brita water)
Maximize market research data (exhibit 2-4, 5-14) to do STP...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document