In the case of Snapple, we see a brand that undergoes two different evolutionary processes. The first one is the continuous growth of the brand and its image, while the second one is the decline from this place. This second phase can obviously be tied directly to the acquisition of the company by Quaker and its subsequent strategic decisions for Snapple. The phase with the brand’s growth is tied towards the strategic decisions made by the original owners of the company. In this analysis, we will take a look at the specifics during each part to highlight what went right and what went wrong for Snapple.
Snapple’s original owners, Arnie Greenberg, Leonard Marsh, and Hyman Golden, had introduced a product in the alternative beverage market in 1972 that eventually reaped in $674 million in sales revenue by 1993. This was by no means “an overnight success” as stated by them in the case. It took over twenty years for the Snapple brand to reach the “cult status” it had. While Snapple did grow gradually in the early years of its existence, most of its growth can be attributed to the six-year period from 1987 to 1993. It was during this time period where Snapple developed its brand image and customer value. This is where it established its reputation, relationship, experiential, and symbolic values with customers to generate its brand culture.
Snapple’s relationship value began to rise as its distribution system grew. Since distributing to supermarkets was pricy and did not account for much of the sales, Snapple avoided this channel and instead was distributed on the “street.” Now gas stations, pizza stores, food service vendors, and the like knew they could forge a long-lasting relationship with Snapple that they could trust. It seems that both sides could get to know each other on a professional (and even a personal) level since Snapple’s distributors were family-oriented and opted to multi-task many specific jobs into one. Owners of mom-and-pop stores...