HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL CASE

Launching Krispy Natural: Cracking the Product Management Code

Candler Enterprises:A multinational beverage and snack goods manufacturer

•Four divisionsSnacks food division – PembertonBeverage DivisionQuick Service Restaurant DivisionPet Care Division

Ashley Marne • Ashley Marne

• Executive Vice President of Sales and Marketing, Pemberton

• Brandon Fredrick• Marketing Director, Pemberton

• Burt Spivey• Chief Operating Officer, Pemberton

What is the present situation?

Situation Analysis (1/3)Pemberton is going to launch its new product “Krispy Natural” in the market

Summary analysis of the test market results has to be done

Market tests have been conducted in Columbus, Ohio and three cities in Southeast

Based on the analysis, plan for introduction of Krispy Natural has to be decided

Competition with well-established brands in different varieties

The retailers which already had a foothold of Krispy Naturals might be reluctant due to prior experience

Creating Brand Equity in snack food category all over again

Situation Analysis (1/3)

Situation Analysis (3/3)

• Consumption of crackers was frequent and regular despite competition from other foods alternatives

• Crackers that were conveniently packaged in easily portable quantities are preferred

• Desire of healthy food was driving the cracker industry• Categories of the crackers were

• “All other” crackers • Crackers with filling

Crackers Industry

Why study this case?

Objectives (1/3)

Summary analysis of the test market results

Interpreting the performance of the product from the test market results

To use the qualitative analysis and the marketing terms and strategies to predict the performance of the product when released in the market

Framing marketing plan for the introduction of the product and strategies for different situations that may arise

Objectives (2/3)

Understanding Marketing Strategies

Product

Marketing

Distribution

Pricing

Objectives (3/3)

Pemberton as a market leader of sweet snack

market

Direct Store Delivery (DSD)• Products were delivered directly to retail outlets, bypassing retailer’s

warehouses and distribution centers• DSD representatives delivered products from company distribution

centers to the retail stores and performed critical merchandising functions

• DSD maximized sales and profit growth through greater control of shelf space, more accurate forecasting, reduced stock-outs, and quicker turnover of products

Company’s Driving Force – Cultural Innovation

•Key strategic priorities for the company:• Building a collection of attractive, durable brands• Leveraging, leading, marketing, sales and DSD systems to

increase revenue and profits• Building or acquiring capabilities in salty snack categories

Present Status of US Cracker Industry

Manufacturer sales of "All Other" Crackers2009% Share

2010% ShareKraft 37.8% 37.0%Kellogg 28.9% 28.1%Pepperidge Farm (Goldfish) 13.9% 14.2%Private Label 4.6% 4.8%Other 14.8% 16.0%

Manufacturer sales of Crackers with Filling Market Share2009% Share 2010%

ShareKraft 34.7% 32.7%Lance 31.5% 29.9%Kellogg 15.5% 21.0%Private Label 8.0% 8.2%Other 10.2% 8.1%

We will focus on three inter-related

issues

Three IssuesKrispy 2009 Crisis

• Issue faced by the company after Krispy was introduced

• Reasons for the crisis• Decision of relaunching of the

product

1

Three Issues2•Marketing Plan for the testing•Market Test Results

•Results from Columbus were double than expected•Results from South eastern cities were not

impressive•Reasons for these contradicting results•Summary analysis of the test results

Interpretation of the test results

Plan for introduction of Krispy Natural?

3Three Issues

Krispy 2009 Crisis

• Issue faced by the company after Krispy was introduced

• Causes of the crisis• Decision of relaunching of the

product

1Three Issues

Krispy 2009 Crisis

SURVEY RESULTS2009 Krispy Single-Serve Sales Performance vs. Plan ($

millions)

Plan 2009 Actual % to PlanKrispy Retail $97.5 $50.8 52.1%Krispy Vend $23.4 $18.0 76.9%Total Krispy Single-Serve $120.9 $68.8 56.9%

In 2009, the product fell short of the management productions

From the surveys, many customers stood unsatisfied with the product

Causes of 2009 Crisis• Limited product line, which made it difficult to command any sort of

presence in supermarkets• A taste survey showed the product did not deliver the flavor

satisfaction scores• High competition in the same category of products• Unfulfilled brand promises regarding quality• Launched a brand product which already had well-established brands

as competitors and no differentiable quality

Krispy RelaunchPrior experience of Krispy launch in the salty snack industry hadn’t been good. Still the company decided to do brand revitalization and relaunch the product with a changed name.

Reasons for Relaunch Decision

• Cracker market fundamentals were attractive• Overall market was large and segments like crackers-

with-filling were expected to grow 10-14 % per year• Internet research suggested consumer dissatisfaction

with the flavor and taste experience of current cracker brands

•Marketing Plan for the testing•Market Test Results

•Results from Columbus were double than expected•Results from South eastern cities were not

impressive•Reasons for these contradicting results•Summary analysis of the test results

2Three Issues

Marketing Plan Specific changes were made in the marketing strategies for the relaunch of the product. This was done to build a brand equity of the product by enhancing its quality, extending the product line beyond single-serve offerings and more flavor options to compete with well-established brands

PRODUCT

MARKETING DISTRIBUTIONPRICING

Krispy Natural Marketing Strategy

PRODUCT STRATEGY• Increasing package sizes to multiple sizes• Improving tastes and flavor• Keeping proper proportion of calories• Introducing more varieties in both categories: flat

crackers & crackers with fillings

MARKETING STRATEGY• Pull spending and trade promotions• Focus on manufacturer sales than the retailer sales• Pull strategy adopted rather than push strategy

adopted by many cracker industries

DISTRIBUTION • DSD Distribution – a critical component in overall program

strategy• Distribution logistics optimization

PRICING • Premium pricing strategy• Retail price same as other brands but with smaller

quantity• Brand positioning

In 2011, Krispy Natural was launched in two test regions: Columbus, Ohio & three cities of Southeastern United States

Marketing Strategies in the two regionsColumbus (Krispy brand did not have a prior presence)• Separate DSD representatives for Columbus other than traditional

DSD route delivery called “Krispy Force”• “Krispy Force” reps worked with Pemberton regional and district sales

managers and focused solely on selling the new Krispy Natural product line

Southeast (Krispy already had a foothold in the market)• Reposition the product to a more premium offering• No separate representatives

Advertising and Promotion of the product was same in both the regions

2011 Promotional Plan—Columbus, OhioMonth 1 2 3 4 5 6

Advertising Television Online Flighted Television and Online Advertising Blitz

Social Media Facebook Like Us Campaign

Trade 15% Discount 12% Discount per case 8% Discount per case per case

Sampling In-Store Sampling with Coupon Newspaper Sampling: Trial Size with Coupon

Couponing Newspaper Shelf Pad Electronic Newspaper Shelf Pad 80¢ 2 x 60¢ 40¢ 50¢ Buy 2 get 1 Free Week 3 Week 2 Week 3 Week 2 Week 3

Market Test Results

Product Testing SummaryPositive Purchase Intent % Testers that

preferred taste of (Definitely or Probably Would Buy) Krispy Natural over leading brandCrackers with FillingWhite Cheddar 92% 78%Smoked Gouda 77% 65%Chipotle Cheddar 78% 64%Creamy Swiss 80% 72%Tomato Basil 85% 75%Vegetable Herb 77% 50%

Flat CrackersSmoked Cheddar 81% 61%Sundried Tomato 80% 58%Cracked Pepper & Olive Oil 80% 55%Roasted Garlic 81% 59%

Note: Product pricing was not included in taste test

Krispy Natural Test Market Result HighlightsStore/Display Penetration

% Store Count(a) % of Stores with % of Stores with Gondola Placement(b) End Aisle Display(c)

Columbus 94% 9% 14%Southeast 85% 12% 10%(a)Percent of total stores where product line found in distribution.

(b) Percent of stores that placed product on gondolas, which are merchandise display shelves; Provides indication of shelf presence and impact.

(c) Percent of stores that placed product on end aisle displays, which are point-of-purchase displays located at the end of a rowof shelving. A manufacturer can realize significant incremental volume from this display activity.

Estimated Dollar Shares of MarketColumbus Southeast

Pretest Market Post Pretest Market PostKraft 40% 33% 34% 32%Kellogg 25% 22% 23% 22%Pepperidge Farm 11% 10% 10%

10%Krispy 0% 18% 9% 10%

Annualized National Projection (a)Year 1 Sales (millions)

Columbus Scenario (national extended)

$ 1,000Year 1 Sales (millions)

Southeast Scenario (national extended)

$ 550Sales scenarios based on approximate share achieved in each test market multiplied by total cracker sales estimates atmanufacturer prices for year 1

ResultsColumbus• Columbus achieved 18% share, doubling the share target• This was derived by stealing shares from the competitors• Category volume had increased by 30%

Southeast• Result was not impressive showing only 1 % increase in market share• There was little category expansion

Reasons for contradictory Results• Actual shelf space and display activity was below what the team expected

due to low introductory trade discount of 15% • Krispy already had a foothold in Southeast which led to a bad prior

experience for the retailers leading to low display activity• The number of stores in which the product line was found in distribution

were less in Southeast due to bad brand image of Krispy from the year 2009

• As seen from Exhibit 5, the end aisle display in the stores was low that lead to low incremental volume

Summary Analysis of test results• According to the test results, it was clear that the quality of the new

product is being appreciated by everyone as is seen from the market share results of Columbus

• However, it also emphasizes on the difficulty of reestablishing the product in a city which already had a foothold of the brand

• Display activity of the stores plays a huge role in increasing the market share of the product

• Trade promotions, allowances, discount are very important for the display activity even if the trade is receptive to the new product.

Interpretation of the test results

Plan for introduction of Krispy Natural?

3 Three Issues

Interpretation of test results

IS THE TEST MARKET DATA RELIABLE?

Marne - “Brandon, I looked over the preliminary test market data for Krispy Natural and I see we have something really special. I think we can blow the original forecasts of $500 million out of the water. If we do it right, we should easily exceed those projections—I see no reason why we can’t double them”

INSIGHTS FROM SALES MANAGERS INTERVIEWS

Sales and Channel ResponseAccording to the Sales managers,• They were pleased with the Krispy Natural product and felt the trade

was interested in the new offering• Large chain buyers were impressed by the consumer research results

and inventory turn estimates for Krispy Natural• The promotional activity and advertising was loved by all• Pull marketing created a buzz and people were coming to the stores

asking for Krispy Natural

VIEWS OF AN INDUSTRIALIST

• The positive test market results were driven by significant price discounts, couponing and sampling which were not sustainable on a national level

• Taste preferences claims of Krispy Natural were inflated

• Flavor was no better than the current brand offerings

KRISPY NATURAL

MARKET TESTS

COLUMBUSSOUTHEAST

UNIMPRESSIVE PERFORMANCE

DOUBLED MARKET SHARE

Reasons

1. Lower shelf space than expected 2. Original Krispy product had a

foothold in Southeast at lower price

3. Low trade discount rate

1. Better quality product2. Brand building ability of the product3. Great consumer reception4. Ability to challenge well-established

brands in the market

Inferences

When launched on a national level, will the product experience the fate as in Columbus or Southeast?

The fate of the product cannot be predicted from the market results. The marketing strategy when launching the product should be planned to avoid all the possible situations

PLAN FOR INTRODUCTION

OF KRISPY NATURAL

• Krispy Natural should appeal to the qualities pointed out by the critics in their sales promotions and advertising

• Product line display should be more in the retail stores• Making the product easily and conveniently available to the

customers for example, in vending machines at the airports, stations• Brand positioning to the high-ended market to make revenue for

premium pricing of the product• Using a catchy tagline to emphasize brand revitalization catching

attention towards the difference in quality, flavor and varities in the old and new product

Company Post-Krispy Natural trends in Columbus Potential Competitive Response

Kraft Lost 7% share Short term: New product testing in process Increase trade spending and consumer promotions Long term: Spend heavily to counter national roll-out

Kellogg Lost 3% share Short term: Increase A&M

Long term: Capitalize on pull Product line improvements

Pepperidge Farm Lost 1% share Short term: Increase trade spending

Long term: Compete on quality and brand reputation

Partial Competitive Analysis

Given in the previous page are the possible short term and long term strategies of competitive brands after launch of Krispy natural.

Krispy Natural will have to change the marketing strategy accordingly to counter all the short term strategies of the competitive brands

Marketing strategies to compete with other brands• Cover all the major retail stores’ display areas to catch the maximum

attention of the customers• Emphasize more on pull strategy which is a differentiating point from

other brands• Introduce more varieties and innovative products• Develop strong brand equity till the time the competitive brands can

implement their long term strategies

Was Marne’s view of blockbuster potential of Krispy Natural supported by the data?

NO• The potential of the product didn’t work in Southeast, the profit when

national extended was equal to the revenue earned by the company before the launch

• This was because the company already had a foothold in the region, same is the case with rest of the nation leaving some exceptions like Columbus

• The perception of the people regarding the quality and the increased price might be different

• On a bigger scale, there is a possibility, the product does not get as much support as in Columbus and relying only on the quality of the product to get the customers shouldn’t be an option

What was the best rollout strategy to neutralize the competition?

Krispy Natural has to appeal to the qualities which differentiate it from other brands• Appeal to the pull strategy• Promotional activities emphasizing on the quality, flavor and varieties

to justify the premium price of the product• Easy availability of the product in convenient form of for example, in

vending machines at the airports, railway stations etc.• Keeping the brand promises and publicizing them • Giving a tagline to the new product that emphasizes the brand

revitalization decision of the company

How should the rollout strategy change if they were going to have to go head to head with Frito-Lay?

If head on competition with a successful brand when launched, Krispy Natural will have to introduce coupons and package deals to attract the customers and get more retail stores to keep the products in display

Krispy Natural can make these discounts and promotional deals available to only selected retail stores like Walmart so that these stores take care of the display of the brand products specially

Increase the product line in the retail store to improve the brand equity