Marketing Mistakes and Successes

32; 3: ‘If it’s not broken, don’t fix it.’ Evaluate this statement.

Robert F. Hartly and Cindy Claycomb (2014) stipulate that any change to a brand should be done in response to an issue perceived to be a problem for the prevailing circumstances. When the current set circumstances are still effective in delivery of expected outcome, the governing body should not seek to interference of the flow. The Coca Cola almost made the mistake by introducing a new Coke. The reason Coca Cola did not introduce the model is not in line with our thought; they thought that the brand would compete against itself creating a gap which would have advantaged Pepsi, their main competitor. In our case however, the introduction of a new Coke would have adverse effects on the entire brand, not only Coke. For instance, the traditional coke would have drastically lost market value accruing to customer expectation of a better Coke. In parts of the world where the new Coke would take months to introduce, demand would decrease for the old Coke brand, therefore, registering a loss.  

The image of Coca Cola would be hurt and merchants in these parts would lose confidence in the Coca Cola brand. Effectively, the competing brands such as Pepsi will have the advantage because, even after introduction of the improved brand, the merchants will not be willing to bet on their stock again. Unpredictability is not always a trait sort after, if customers are accustomed to the model in the market, there is no need to change it. The change might put them off the product, 1985 disaster with Coke is testament to this. Sometimes what seems to be popular might be so only because of curiosity of the customer not its popularity. Coca Cola got to learn this is 1985 when they intended to match up to the modern tastes resulting in total failure.

264; 1: Can Schultz model be challenged.

The tremendous growth at Starbucks is credited to Howard Schultz a visionary here who has seen the company through the toughest period. Although Starbucks brand name is extensively famous in the world, it faces similar challenges as other brands. For instance, some of the critiques compared the tactics employed there to those at McDonalds. Schultz maximized on company outlets and used resources to maintain the image of Starbucks despite them diversifying to selling some foodstuffs. The issue that comes up to debate is whether the closely packed outlets will cannibalize each other bringing low incomes individually. However, the model is designed so as to save up time wasted on the long lines that existed before the models implementation. Also, customer losses to the phenomenon described by researcher Clark as “Starbucks Reverse Jinx” are minimized.

The model can be modified to fit the modern day markets without drawing in much criticsm. The opening of food quarters is most definitely a great idea, but it should be expected that the image of the company will be influenced by the change. The fact is that Starbucks is renowned as a coffeehouse nothing more; therefore, inorder to retain this image, the company should simply extend its brand and not mix up the commodities. A great idea is to have a section of the coffeehouses dedicated to food staff sales only, therefore, conserving the brand value. Also, cannibalism is expected after the move made of crowding the market with outlets. There is no recourse to this calamity because the alternative to this move is to have sparse outlets. When the outlets are spaced out, “Starbucks Reverse Jinx” is bound to occur.