Case Study 1.1 iSnack 2.0

It looked good on paper…

Blair, Felicity & Joe

Case Summary

• 2008 campaign – interactive campaign ‘how do you like your vegemite’ - 300,000 participants.

• In 2009 developed new spread and sold in supermarkets called ‘name me’ and asked customers to submit names online (48,000 suggestions).

• Kraft chose the name iSnack 2.0 and launched product.

• Huge negative response from public but sales figures still good.

• Kraft chose a shortlist of names and allowed public to vote on a new name.

• Cheesybite finally chosen and still on supermarket shelves today.

Question 1 – Attitudes towards KraftCognitive: Kraft is known to be an American brand representing many different food products.

Affective: prior to iSnack 2.0 feelings towards Kraft were neither positive nor negative overall.

The original ‘Name Me’ campaign was seen as positive but upon the release of the iSnack 2.0 product Australian’s emotions took a negative turn. The Australian people saw this as an insult to their intelligence.

Conative: Kraft as a brand did not see any fall in sales, in fact after naming the new product iSnack 2.0 sales grew initially.

Question 1 – Attitudes towards VegemiteCognitive – Vegemite is seen as an iconic Australian brand, consumers are protective towards it.

Affective – Vegemite as a brand invokes a feeling of patriotism, happiness and safety. Australians have known and used Vegemite for as long as they can remember. The attitude towards the original Vegemite product did not change throughout the iSnack 2.0 process.

Conative – likelihood of buying new ‘Cheesymate’, not high, likelihood of continuing to buy traditional vegemite remain mostly unchanged.

Question 2 – Consumer Learning

Elements of consumer learning:

• Motivation - high level of involvement with iconic brand so motivated to learn, web advertisements as antecedent to create interest. Previous ‘how do you like your Vegemite’ campaign.

• Cues – high visibility in advertising and promotion through print, web, tvand radio channels, product also available to purchase in supermarket.

• Response – purchase of product and interaction in naming campaign, through online discussions and social media.

• Reinforcement – reward of (hopefully) tasty product and getting the chance to choose a name as method for customer satisfaction.

Question 2 – Consumer LearningClassical Conditioning

• Stimulus generalisation – Kraft hoped to extend positive feelings and associations from the Vegemite brand to Cheesybite as a product line extension.

Operant/instrumental Conditioning

• Negative reinforcement – Bad name of iSnack 2.0 chosen by Kraft and alienated consumers.

• Positive reinforcement – Kraft showing they care by changing product name. Reward of letting the public vote for Cheesybite returned control to customer and increase personal ownership and connection to the product and brand (Relationship Marketing).

Cognitive Learning

• Distributed learning – campaign released over time in stages until finally the winning name announced.

• Modelling – advertisements modelled how to enjoy eating Cheesybite.

• Memory and Retention – Different forms of advertising, association with Kraft and Vegemite schema.

Question 3 – Involvement theory

Aspects of involvement theory:

• The central routes to persuasion theory - more likely to evaluate information and products carefully when the product is more relevant

• Social judgment theory - highly involved, if congruent with their position, more positive than actually is (the assimilation effect), otherwise, more negative than actually is (the contrast effect).

• Transformational theory - transformational motivation essentially as positive motivation and involves three subtypes: sensory gratification, intellectual stimulation, social approval

Question 3 – Involvement theory

Before• Highly involved - blogs and discussion boards.• Immediate response - feedback from positive to negative.• Weighed information carefully, devoting considerable cognitive effort -

‘Cheesymite’, ‘Cheeze E Mite’, ‘Vegemate’, ‘Readymite’ even ‘Bruce and Sheila Spread’.

After - ‘Vegemite iSnack 2.0’• Response immediately again! Not congruent ‘most stupid’.• Infuriated consumers - thousands of negative comments on internet.• ‘iHateiSnack’, ‘iSnack 2.0—Marketing fail’ and ‘iSnack 2.0 is the Worst

Name!!!!’ isuck 2.0 unhappy little vegemites (abc article).

Question 4 – Perception changing name from iSnack 2.0 to Cheesybite

Customer perception of iSnack 2.0

• Confused - iPod, Web 2.0

• Negative and unpopular - inspired online uproar and spawned parody

Rove sketch -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmIjLBssqyk

Could they change perception by changing the name?

Question 4 – Perception changing name from iSnack 2.0 to Cheesybite

Yes! - Perception aims:• Disassociate negative image from scandal with

iSnack 2.0• Improve relationship marketing – reward

consumers by giving them control and letting them choose the name, increasing involvement.

• Associate positive feelings with the name.

Street talk -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UP96hrRkgYAd -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WXJFjGGeu0

Question 5 – Vegemite brand personality

Uses sincerity and competence

• Down to earth

• Honest

• Wholesome

• Cheerful

• Reliable

• True blue/Aussie

• Traditional

Suits highly dogmatic consumers

Compare to Cheesybite brand personalityUses excitement

• Daring

• Spirited/fun

• Imaginative

• Up-to-date

• New

• Different

• Snack = children/lunchbox

Suits high optimum stimulation

levelsSource: Brand personality framework (Aaker 1997)