The history of Snapple presents an interesting case of a brand that went through the times of glory as well as the fading period. All the stages of the company’s development are highlighted and discussed in the given case study, which gives the reader a very good understanding of Snapple’s history and the problems it encountered. The reasons behind the brand’s great success up to the year 1993, the hard times it experienced in the period from 1994 to 1997, and the unpredictability of its future in 1998 can all be examined and the conclusions carefully pondered upon.
Investigating the reasons behind Snapple’s popularity during early stages of its development one cannot avoid the element of innovation and creativity present in its way of doing business. While there were a lot of other companies competing for the market at that time, Snapple was the most successful in this race. The strategy of being a100% natural brand adopted by the company was a clear advantage in that period of time when people started caring more about their health. Moreover, healthy way of life and natural things were a kind of a fashion trend that also contributed to Snapple’s high demand. Another advantage of the company is the people-oriented, personal attitude that was exemplified through a variety of flavors in the drink, vast public relations activity, relatively personal relationship with a handful of trusted distributors, and even a Snapple Convention. This company projected the image of new lifestyle, standing out from the mass of similar people, being fashionable and, of course, being progressive in one’s views. All these factors combined together served as a good platform for future success.
However, as it becomes evident from the case, that predicted future success never followed. After the company was purchased by Quaker in 1994, the business started to slow down. Snapple encountered problems with the revenues and the general image of the company suffered as a result. Quaker had reasonable ideas in mind concerning the development of the brand but the reality was different and the results were harmful to some extent both for Quaker and to Snapple. The company wanted to grow and become a big player in the beverage industry. Reducing the involvement of middle-men in distribution, diversifying the bottle sizes are ideas that were great in theory but didn’t yield the wanted results. In fact, this new management strategy was drastically different from the previous strategy used by Snapple, the one that made it successful. Form the small and “homey” company that people trusted in it became just a part of something bigger and impersonal. The other Quaker’s famous drink Gatorade had a completely different target market that clashed with Snapple’s one. This meant that the company had to maintain a clear distinction between the two lines of beverages, which was not taken seriously enough.
One of the main things to do in order to revitalize Snapple would be to return the image of uniqueness, innovation, and exclusivity. It has to be disassociated from the larger company it is run by. Mike Weinstein, as a new person in charge, has to put emphasis on the fact that Snapple is still its own product that promotes same standards. There also has to be a new hook to turn the consumers back. Being 100% natural is not enough now as many other brands have the same strategy. Secondly, a promoting and public relations campaign has to be launched. A press conference or the Snapple Reunion would give Weinstein the opportunity to declare his intentions for Snapple, see the kind of consumers interested in the drink, and tell the customers that they are cared for. Finally, the production and the distribution processes have to be returned to what they used to be. There is no justification in forcing new procedures if they do not work with Snapple.
As one can see, there are lots of issues with the brand that was once on the peak of its popularity. Without a doubt, the market is in constant development and strategies that worked a decade ago will not be successful nowadays. However, there are some areas where new schemes should be implemented rather carefully and a portion of previous ideas kept intact.
