Brand Management MKTG811
Brand Extensions
08
Fall
Applied Research Project
Table of Contents
Overview 3
Coca-Cola Brand Extension Profile 3
Defining Brand Extensions 4
Ansoff Growth Share Matrix: Coca-Cola 5
Successful Brand Extensions: Coca-Cola 7
Coke Zero 8
Functional drinks- Powerade 8
Iced Tea- Nestea 9
Unsuccessful Brand Extensions: Coca-Cola 10
New Coke 10
Permanent and Limited edition variants 11
Mother Energy Drink 12
Conclusion 12
Learning Reflection 14
References 16
Appendix 18
Overview
The following ‘Applied research project’ report will use examples from the portfolio of products within the company Coca-Cola Amatil, in order to demonstrate and investigate the advantages and disadvantages of its existing and previous brand extensions.
This will be demonstrated through brand extension theories and frameworks such as:
* The Ansoff Growth Share Matrix
* Brand Evaluation Model
* Heyden’s Needs Framework (Need Based Segmentation Program)
The report will also provide a conclusion to the theories and concepts discussed in the report as well as a learning reflection in relation to a group presentation on the overall theories and concept of brand extensions that was presented in class in Week 6 (March 29, 2010).
Coca-Cola Brand Extension Profile
Coca-Cola’s beverage portfolio comprises of more than 400 brands consisting of over 2,800 beverage products, including bottled water, juice and juice drinks, sports drinks, energy drinks and ready to drink (RTD) teas and coffees (Euromonitor, 2009).
After initially resisting brand extensions, Coca-Cola introduced six brand extensions and captured a larger market share than that of the original brand. Successful examples such as Diet Coke and Coke Zero in Australia benefited significantly from the brand franchise of their parent product. As a unique example of one of Coca-Cola’s extensions, Cherry Coke was successful despite a near absence of...