• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Marketing failures

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: dnetmhz
New Coke
Click to expand...

oooo, that's a good one. Man, it was like a media riot when that was announced.
Click to expand...


New Coke SAVED coke.

Yes NEW Coke was not popular, BUT it made people take notice of Classic coke and coke sales went through the roof when they came back with Classic coke.

SOME believe NEW coke was a gimmick to get people to come back and drink reg. coke again.
Also I THINK Diet Coke is still based on the new coke formula.
Click to expand...

exactly, conspiracy theorists argued that new coke was a ploy to get people to drink old coke again.
I think coke rode that "original coke" sentiment once they realized how much people rebeled against new coke.

---------
I think for a lot of products i.e. N-Gage, Divx .. no matter what the marketing of the item is, if the product/concept is horrible, it will most likely fail. True marketing failures probably damage a name brand or introduces a brand poorly. I think Nissan did a poor job marketing the introduction of the Infiniti brand. The commericals were abstract and vague and many times didn't even show the car.
 
Originally posted by: dnetmhz
can't believe nobody mentioned Microsoft BOB!
Click to expand...

Ugh. Of course that failed, its like that blasted clippy the smart ass office paper clip only its a whole fvcking operating system.

"So, you want to search for a file eh? And your a dumbass? Ok, retard, let me offer up some unwanted help on an already self explainitory window."
 
FYI you can still find New Coke in some ancillary markets, sold under the name "Coke II". I like it; not quite Pepsi, not quite Coke.

I've also heard Coke was considering "bringing back" New Coke as a separate product to boost company sales with a huge marketing blitz. Anybody know anything about that?
 
I read on New Coke and is actually wasnt that bad of a thing. I mean Cokes stock jumped like 50 points even though people hated it
 
Originally posted by: Fausto
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: dnetmhz
New Coke
Click to expand...

oooo, that's a good one. Man, it was like a media riot when that was announced.
Click to expand...
...and it sucked. Everyone was like "If I wanted a Pepsi, I'd go buy one." 😛
Click to expand...


But it was all about consumers' perception of the product. In blind tests, people loved it. As a matter of fact, vast majority of the people who rallied and demanded that they bring back the old formula, when subjected to a blind test (and before that they'd claim they drank Coke for some twenty years and would always taste the difference) would always prefer New Coke.

Stupid f.ing white men.
 
Originally posted by: Jzero
Originally posted by: Elitebull
There are tons of classic ones that they tell you on the first day of your intro-to-marketing class, like how the Chevy Nova didn't sell in spanish-speaking countries cuz "no va" means "doesn't go" in spanish.
Click to expand...

Make sure your marketing flop is actually true (The Nova thing is false).
Click to expand...

Damn you, marketing textbooks!!! 😀
 
Originally posted by: imprezawrxwagon
Originally posted by: Fausto
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: dnetmhz
New Coke
Click to expand...
oooo, that's a good one. Man, it was like a media riot when that was announced.
Click to expand...
...and it sucked. Everyone was like "If I wanted a Pepsi, I'd go buy one." 😛
Click to expand...
But it was all about consumers' perception of the product. In blind tests, people loved it. As a matter of fact, vast majority of the people who rallied and demanded that they bring back the old formula, when subjected to a blind test (and before that they'd claim they drank Coke for some twenty years and would always taste the difference) would always prefer New Coke.

Stupid f.ing white men.
Click to expand...
Please restrain your racism, eh? :disgust:

New Coke was can't-lose marketing genius. They briefly had a wildly successful new product (because everyone had to try the New Coke), and then consumers rallied around the "bring back Classic Coke" banner. Most importantly, they weren't drinking Pepsi, and Coke won the "Cola Wars". Coca-Cola raked in a ton of profits, and strengtened their market share. Bill Cosby's $12 million dollar endorsements (then considered an expensive marketing gamble) paid off many times over. The fact that people still think it was a marketing failure years is in itself a testament to Coca-Cola's marketing genius, as the old quack patent nostrum continues to sell big for 120+ years now.
 
Beta vs. VHS is a classic marketing example of good product, bad market strategy. But I bet a ton of people do that one, so if there are points for originality, go with something else.
 
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: imprezawrxwagon
Originally posted by: Fausto
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: dnetmhz
New Coke
Click to expand...
oooo, that's a good one. Man, it was like a media riot when that was announced.
Click to expand...
...and it sucked. Everyone was like "If I wanted a Pepsi, I'd go buy one." 😛
Click to expand...
But it was all about consumers' perception of the product. In blind tests, people loved it. As a matter of fact, vast majority of the people who rallied and demanded that they bring back the old formula, when subjected to a blind test (and before that they'd claim they drank Coke for some twenty years and would always taste the difference) would always prefer New Coke.

Stupid f.ing white men.
Click to expand...
Please restrain your racism, eh? :disgust:

New Coke was can't-lose marketing genius. They briefly had a wildly successful new product (because everyone had to try the New Coke), and then consumers rallied around the "bring back Classic Coke" banner. Most importantly, they weren't drinking Pepsi, and Coke won the "Cola Wars". Coca-Cola raked in a ton of profits, and strengtened their market share. Bill Cosby's $12 million dollar endorsements (then considered an expensive marketing gamble) paid off many times over. The fact that people still think it was a marketing failure years is in itself a testament to Coca-Cola's marketing genius, as the old quack patent nostrum continues to sell big for 120+ years now.
Click to expand...

Racism? Well then chauvinism too, I guess, you should accuse me of. But, no, wise Yoda you are not. It?s a quote from a motion picture you are obviously not familiar with.

Anyway. What you stated is very far from the truth. If a company does in the end well with an expensive failed product, it is in spite, not because. Secondly, it costs a boatload to develop and market a new product, and that money was lost and wasted, and if it had been spent on promotion of the old coke, they would have been better off. And making statements like "nobody drank Pepsi, because everybody had to try New Coke" (including the rest of your statements)? How about you stop making stuff up and read up on some numbers? Pepsi gained much ground, numbers wise. Coca Cola suffered a big blow, along with lost customer trust, and had to spend much to regain it.
 
If you're a sports fan and want to be different try and do something like the XFL or perhaps the NHL (not failed, but dying) or maybe even MLS.
 
Originally posted by: lilFajita
Beta vs. VHS is a classic marketing example of good product, bad market strategy. But I bet a ton of people do that one, so if there are points for originality, go with something else.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but I think that's more of a case of VHS successfully marketing an inferior product than it is of a marketing failure on Beta's part.
 
Originally posted by: Elitebull
Originally posted by: lilFajita
Beta vs. VHS is a classic marketing example of good product, bad market strategy. But I bet a ton of people do that one, so if there are points for originality, go with something else.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but I think that's more of a case of VHS successfully marketing an inferior product than it is of a marketing failure on Beta's part.
Click to expand...

I think its a failure on Beta's part. They should have known that their pricing strategy at that early in the game would send people/companies running to the inferior VHS standard. They did not take into account they had a competitor at the time, and refused to compete on price. The end result was extinction.

If they were smart, they would have priced their standard competively, ran VHS out of business and THEN jacked the price back up when the standard had solidified and people would be helpless to switch. It worked for Microsoft.
 
Originally posted by: PingSpike
Originally posted by: Elitebull
Originally posted by: lilFajita
Beta vs. VHS is a classic marketing example of good product, bad market strategy. But I bet a ton of people do that one, so if there are points for originality, go with something else.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but I think that's more of a case of VHS successfully marketing an inferior product than it is of a marketing failure on Beta's part.
Click to expand...

I think its a failure on Beta's part. They should have known that their pricing strategy at that early in the game would send people/companies running to the inferior VHS standard. They did not take into account they had a competitor at the time, and refused to compete on price. The end result was extinction.

If they were smart, they would have priced their standard competively, ran VHS out of business and THEN jacked the price back up when the standard had solidified and people would be helpless to switch. It worked for Microsoft.
Click to expand...


I thought this was a case of Sony (I think is who originally brought it out) not willing to allow other manufacturers to make it because they wanted to corner the market on the superior medium, or something like they wanted a high price for the great new technology. Everyone else refused to participate, thus it died.
 
Originally posted by: PingSpike
Originally posted by: Elitebull
Originally posted by: lilFajita
Beta vs. VHS is a classic marketing example of good product, bad market strategy. But I bet a ton of people do that one, so if there are points for originality, go with something else.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but I think that's more of a case of VHS successfully marketing an inferior product than it is of a marketing failure on Beta's part.
Click to expand...

I think its a failure on Beta's part. They should have known that their pricing strategy at that early in the game would send people/companies running to the inferior VHS standard. They did not take into account they had a competitor at the time, and refused to compete on price. The end result was extinction.

If they were smart, they would have priced their standard competively, ran VHS out of business and THEN jacked the price back up when the standard had solidified and people would be helpless to switch. It worked for Microsoft.
Click to expand...
Price wasn't the only criteria though, Sony wasn't able to produce enough units initially, and also, the Beta format was limited to 1 hour of playing time at first. Matshushita had a better marketing strategy with VHS by trying to make as many partners as possible, hence getting more people on the VHS bandwagon. On the other hand, you could argue that Sony made a poor move by limiting its licensing.
 
Originally posted by: imprezawrxwagon
Racism? Well then chauvinism too, I guess, you should accuse me of. But, no, wise Yoda you are not. It?s a quote from a motion picture you are obviously not familiar with.

Anyway. What you stated is very far from the truth. If a company does in the end well with an expensive failed product, it is in spite, not because. Secondly, it costs a boatload to develop and market a new product, and that money was lost and wasted, and if it had been spent on promotion of the old coke, they would have been better off. And making statements like "nobody drank Pepsi, because everybody had to try New Coke" (including the rest of your statements)? How about you stop making stuff up and read up on some numbers? Pepsi gained much ground, numbers wise. Coca Cola suffered a big blow, along with lost customer trust, and had to spend much to regain it.
Click to expand...
Obviously I'm not aware of this movie quote.

Anyway... as for the rest, let's see:

By 1983, Coke market share had dwindled to to less than 24%. New Coke was released in 1985. Market share went up and stayed up with Coke Classic. Pepsi did not gain ground, and Coke suffered no big blow or lost consumer trust. "The only bad publicity is no publicity" and Coke got a hell of a lot of publicity out of New Coke. In addition, Coke got to switch the formula from expensive cane sugar to cheap high fructose corn syrup (Coke Classic wasn't so "classic" after all, it was yet another new formula but this time designed to taste like old one) and NO ONE NOTICED, because New Coke was sold in between the 2 "original" Coke formulas.
Text

Coke stock went up in '85, split 3-for-1 in '86, and kept going up. Oh yeah, that's a company that just made a big mistake and is in trouble...
Text

The only comment Coca-Cola has ever made in the face of these accusations was when their president said, "We are not that stupid, or that smart."

You have your own numbers, I assume? Or are just going to continue to accuse me of "making stuff up"? :roll:

editted for minor spelling typo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top