A definition of brand as Muzellec and lambkin (2005) cited from the American Association of Marketing, could be “a name, term, symbol, design or a combination of them intended to identify goods or services of one seller or a group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of competitors”. After 1922 when the initial product “vegemite” was invented and had to be positioned at the Australian Market through different kinds of commercials for television, radio, contests, a new challenge appeared for the Kraft Foods Inc. Company. Although the product was very popular in Australia, in the mid-2000s a change in the local society happened and many immigrants showed up. Vegemite was a product with strong taste and not so successful to people that was not grown up with Australian traditions. This was one of the main reasons for the company to produce another brand as successful as the initial product but milder and also for more uses than only in breakfast. The new product was produced and ready to find its position in the market but first had to be named. At the same time when the product was reaching the market, a naming contest was running as a marketing strategy. People had to suggest a name through a website that company had designed. After the contest was finished, marketing department had to pick up a name from all the suggested ones. At that time, marketing team was considering about another phenomenon of that time, the generation Y. According to Broadbridge et al. (2007) and Cui et al. (2003) generation Y are the people who have been born between 1977 and 1994 and referred as the internet generation which are very familiar with the digital technologies. This was the main reason for naming the new product as “isnack 2.0”. Knäpper (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...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document