Prior to this group project, I was uneasy about the idea of working in a group – I thought to myself that in order to achieve the best possible result, I need to do it myself. However, my Comm 296 Marketing group helped change my perception on the matter. I was able to gain trust in my classmates as the assignments progressed and everyone worked hard to ensure assignments were completed by the given deadline. This isn’t to say that everything was done in a perfect manner, but that it was done well with what resources we had at the time.

A problem we made was in underestimating the amount of work needed at times. The first assignment resulted in a last day cram session with our group in order to complete it on time and was a stressful day for us all. We improved our timing by planning more regular meetings in preparation for the next assignment which developed much more smoothly.

There were quite a few difficulties with completing the final video project due to some technical problems, but I’m happy with how it turned out given our constraints and problems at the time of the video/editing process. I believe that everyone committed a fair amount to the various assignments and overall this proved to be an excellent learning experience on the benefits of group work.

Choosing to increase product breadth by introducing a completely new product line is an extremely risky decision which has resulted in great success and abysmal failures for businesses in the past. Increasing a business’ product breadth is especially difficult for those brands that become extremely well known for what they do. Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, the maker of such soft drinks as 7-Up, A&W Root Beer, Canada Dry, Orange Crush, Snapple, Dr. Pepper, and more made the decision to introduce a new product line of marinade and steak sauces hoping to increase its brand presence in markets other than the soft drink market. This experiment in increasing product breadth ultimately resulted in failure, as the marinades were not well received by the consumer and product was eventually discontinued.

Several companies have suffered the same consequence by trying to expand their product into new lines but there have also been those who did so successfully and with a great degree of success. Coca-Cola launched one of the most successful brand expansions in 1982 with the introduction of the Diet Coke. Coke’s existing diet product, the Tab, was successful but did not hold the Coca-Cola name due to fears that it may compromise brand equity. “Diet Coke was the first new product since 1886 to use the Coca-Cola trademark,” making it a risky decision at the time. However, this risk paid off extensively with the Diet Coke surpassing sales of Pepsi in 2011, making it the ‘the second-most popular soda in the U.S., behind Coke.’”

Choosing to increase product breadth is a risky business decision; if the resulting product is marketing incorrectly the company will suffer a major loss and may even hurt their brand equity with the decision to expand. Doing so properly takes an extremely well thought out marketing strategy and is a risk which even business giants such as Coca-Cola take great care before implementing.

http://business.time.com/2012/03/14/the-10-best-brand-extensions-ever-according-to-me/slide/diet-coke/

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-10-worst-brand-extensions-2013-2

If you have ever been in the market for a new computer, you may have realized that almost all computers sold contain an AMD or Intel processor chip. Despite both companies selling world-class processors, an effective marketing strategy has resulted in Intel becoming widely accepted as the superior product. According to Interbrand’s best global brands of 2013, Intel is ranked at #9, while AMD doesn’t even make the top 100. This substantial difference in brand equity has given Intel the ability to charge significantly more for their processors, when a similarly priced AMD chip may be more powerful and efficient.

Intel charging a premium for their product does more than simply provide them with extra revenue; it also serves to uphold their image of being a luxury/premium product. From a strategic point of view, Intel is positioning their product as superior; a necessity for those who need reliable computing power for work, gaming, or any other intensive computer use. What this positioning has resulted in is a much higher sense of brand loyalty for their processors. It is seldom the case that an individual greatly prefers AMD to Intel; usually the consumer is either indifferent or has a strong preference for Intel.

This is but one example that shows the value that brand equity has in determining a business’ success. Having strong brand loyalty and a high brand equity gives businesses a competitive advantage, especially in extremely mature and developed markets such as the computer processing chip industry.

http://interbrand.com/en/best-global-brands/2013/top-100-list-view.aspx

The 2008 recession had a nationwide impact on companies and consumers alike, but while “several retailers reporting declining sales and some declaring bankruptcy, Costco was thriving.” The key behind Costco’s success was in its value proposition, which aimed at providing “members with quality goods and services at the lowest possible prices.” It is able to do so while still maintaining a healthy profit by cutting costs where necessary and charging potential customers an annual fee to shop at Costco; “the company never advertises, charges its 64 million members to shop there and doesn’t mark up any product more than 15 percent.”

The way in which Costco organizes their warehouse-style stores is also a large contributor to their success. Customers are able to purchase a vast array of goods within one building, all of which are competitively priced. “Tim Rose, senior vice president for food and sundries, pointed out that ‘Costco only carries about one-tenth of the number of items that a typical supermarket carries,’” a strategic decision that resulted in increased revenue. Costco gains its competitive advantage when selling goods by selecting only one or two variations of a product that “it believes to be the high-quality products its customers want.” This takes away the responsibility of choosing from a variety of similar products from the customer, a process that usually prolongs or prevents a sale from being made.

Through excellent products, pricing, and positioning Costco was able to create a unique method of shopping that price-sensitive customers see a great degree of value in. This business strategy has allowed Costco to prosper, even in times of recession.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/IndustryInfo/costco-cashes-bargain-hungry-shoppers/story?id=4955384

http://www.cnbc.com/id/46603589

http://retailindustry.about.com/od/retailbestpractices/ig/Company-Mission-Statements/Costco-Stores-Mission-Statement.htm

The BlackBerry was a milestone in smartphone development, popularizing the QWERTY keyboard and holding a sizable market share throughout the mid 2000’s. By marketing the BlackBerry as a must have device for the business community and the ideal phone for text messaging, the BlackBerry was able to provide ample value to customers from a variety of market segments resulting in a significant increase in market share. However, their position at the top of the smartphone industry was challenged with the introduction of Apple’s first iPhone. The iPhone’s touchscreen became industry standard but BlackBerry founder, Michael Lazaridis, strongly favored the QWERTY keyboard and continued to push it onto the consumer.

After the introduction of the first iPhone “Verizon asked BlackBerry to create a touchscreen ‘iPhone killer’; however, the result was a flop, and Verizon turned to Motorola and Google instead.” Lazaridis’ unwillingness to adapt to changing consumer preferences caused BlackBerry to slowly become stale and out-dated. Had more resources been dedicated to the development of an “iPhone killer” after the release of the first iPhone then perhaps loyal BlackBerry users would have been more inclined to stick with BlackBerry rather than making the switch to Apple. Research in Motion’s (RIM) Inability to adapt to changing consumer preferences resulted in marketing strategies which were not well received by the consumer. Attempts at criticizing the difficulty of typing on an iPhone’s touchscreen vs. the BlackBerry’s keyboard were ineffective due to consumer’s preferring the benefits the touchscreen provided.

Ultimately, BlackBerry updated its own touchscreen product line but the result was underwhelming in comparison to similar products from its competition. The rise and fall of RIM shows that companies that fail to acknowledge and adapt to a changing market environment will ultimately be wiped out by their competition.

http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/487506f514b9b93c00f89fc2-480/thunderdownjpg.jpg

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/the-inside-story-of-why-blackberry-is-failing/article14563602/?page=all

The health risks of genetically modified foods have been a subject of controversy for many years, resulting in nations taking varying stances on marketing these foods to the general public. Europe as a whole has taken a very strict attitude towards marketing these foods; arguing that “the consumer [has a] right to information and labelling as a tool for making an informed choice.” They have required that all foods which “consist of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) or contain GMO, [and] products derived from GMO but no longer containing GMO” be labelled, a law which has been in effect since 1997. This approach of completely informing the customer on the presence of GMO in foods varies greatly with the North American policies on the marketing of GM foods.

When looking at Canada’s policy in particular, there are several significant differences which the average consumer should be aware of. Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency are the two organizations responsible for the food labelling policies in Canada. GM foods in Canada only require mandatory labelling if “there is a health or safety concern from allergens or a significant nutrient or compositional change [to the food, identified by] Health Canada.” This method of marketing GM foods to the general public differs greatly from that of the European-wide policy. Canadians, regardless of whether or not they intend on purchasing GM foods, will be uncertain of the presence of GMO due to the selective labelling that the current policy allows for. Another cause for concern with Canada’s current policy is the possibility of error when determining whether a certain GMO is hazardous to our health.

The European policy of fully informing the consumer regardless of associated health risks is honest and ethical, providing the customer with all the information they need to make an informed decision. The Canadian policy, though intended to look out for the health of the general public, does not provide the consumer with the information they need to make their preferred purchase and could be perceived as unethical depending on one’s stance on GMO’s.

http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/gmfood/labelling_en.htm

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/food/labelling/other-requirements/method-of-production/ge-factsheet/eng/1333373177199/1333373638071

http://www.thecanadiandaily.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/gmo3.jpg