Introducing Isnack2.0

Case Analysis & Report:

Introducing iSnack2.0: The New Vegemite

M600 Marketing Concepts & Applications

Group 5 Case Report 1

Frances Ahn 400047211

Emily Johnstone 400046571

Amy Gorth 400046328

Susanne Hartkorn 400046491

Thursday June 8th, 2016

Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary 3

2. Problem Definition 4

3. Analysis 4

4. Key Issues 5

5. Alternatives ………………………………………………………………………………………………….6

6. Recommendations 6

7. Implementation 7

8. Contingency Plan 8

9. Appendix 9

1.

Executive Summary

Vegemite has been deeply entrenched in the Australian culture more than 70 years and is a rich part of the country’s heritage. However, the Vegemite brand had been experiencing decreasing sales numbers in recent years. In an effort to combat declining revenues, Kraft Foods ANZ launched a new snack spread product in 2009. The nameless product was debuted to the market and was later named “iSnack2.0” at the conclusion of the “Name Me” campaign. Although the initial result of the product launch was successful, the release of the new name quickly became the center of public criticism and backlash against the brand. While the “Name Me” campaign sought to gather customers’ ideas and opinions on what name would be most suitable, Kraft Foods ANZ did not properly incorporate this data into their decision-making when choosing the name. Furthermore, despite the outpouring of public backlash in response to the selected name, the initial sales and household penetration rates of the “iSnack2.0” product remained quite high. It is important to note that while the negative publicity has not adversely impacted current sales, it has damaged brand equity, which in the long run will decrease sales. The three key issues that Kraft Foods ANZ faces are that the “iSnack2.0” product name (1) does not reflect the Vegemite brand image, (2) fails in contemporizing the aging Vegemite brand while protecting brand equity, and (3) risks long-term...