Table of Content:
Key Issues in the Case
Secondary Issues in the Case
Links with Consumer Behaviour Theories
Answers to the Questions in the Case
Behavior Case Study
iSnack 2.0 : It looked good on paper…
In 2009, Kraft foods and Vegemite undertook a product line extension and significant public and interactive campaign to incite consumers to name the new brand of vegemite that was developed under their specifications and preferences. Throughout Australia and New Zealand, Jars of “Name Me” vegemite appeared on shelves for the public to participate in the contest online.
Social Media and the internet played a significant role throughout the campaign, as public opinion and creativity revealed hundreds of possibilities for a new name, including “Vegemate” “Cheesybite” or even “Bruce & Sheila Spread”. Ultimately as a few chosen names were then selected for the Kraft board to choose from, and “isnack 2.0” .
Public outrage at the name quickly ensued as consumers felt no relation between the brand and their preferences. As jars of iSnack 2.0 filled shelves, Vegemite and Kraft saw their brand awareness and equity waiver as angry customers refused to accept the new name. Recognising that their mistake lied in the fact that they failed to seek public opinion till the very end of the contest, in other words letting them vote in a survey listing the selected options, Kraft attempted to regain consumer loyalty and positive perception by developing an online voting system in which consumers were asked to vote for their favorite name. Hence, Cheesymite was chosen and consumers felt a renewing of pride for their national specialty.
The following case study will attempt to understand and establish the key consumer behavior issues related to the case
Key Issues in the Case
Although Kraft began a powerful campaign with ‘Name me’ to engage all consumers and create a stronger bond with the product to increase loyalty and consumer brand relationship, the long awaited reveal of the new product name backlashed as consumers feedback was felt to be ignored and insulted as ‘isnack 2.0’ seemed to be completely irrelevant and just a mockery of upcoming mass brands such 1
as apple (iPhone) and the world wide web as well as complete neglect for the customers satisfaction. The negativity of the name itself triggered an instantaneous undesirable first impression on the new take on vegemite and cheese, a customer quotes, “isnack2.0 is a travesty in both name and substance.” p. 617. The outbreak of hatred of isnack 2.0 spread rapidly throughout the nation because of the community outlet Kraft had created themselves. Issues arose with statistics and media coverage, as it was recorded that an astounding 15% of Australian households stocked isnack 2.0 which highlights that they did follow consumer advice in achieving the right taste, however they went wrong when encouraging customers to suggest a name for the product then choosing the least popular one. Issues that followed the harsh criticism and marketing mistake included Kraft already having sold thousands of the new branded jars around supermarkets everywhere which just reinforced the failure of Kraft’s marketing choice therefore completely backfiring the entire purpose of the campaign ...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document