Module Overview

Module 02 ended with segments chosen. Module 03 answers what you do once you have chosen them. It runs in four movements: differentiate (find a meaningful difference), position (plant that difference in the customer's mind), size the market (know how big the prize is and what share you hold), and strategise (translate all of it into a corporate and marketing plan). It closes by re-running the Coca-Cola case through the 5 C framework to explain why New Coke failed.

Memory hook: Differentiation happens on the product. Positioning happens in the mind. Market sizing tells you how much it is worth. Strategy tells you who does what by when.

3.1 Differentiation

3.1.1 The Foundation of Effective Positioning

Differentiation is the act of designing a set of meaningful differences to distinguish the company's offerings from those of competitors.

Two of the product dimensions are routinely confused:

Common trap: durability and reliability are not the same. Durability is how long it lasts. Reliability is how often it fails while it lasts.

3.2 Positioning

3.2.1 What Positioning Is

Positioning is the act of designing a company's offering and image to occupy a distinctive space in the mind of the target market. The goal is to locate the brand in the consumer's mind so as to maximise the potential benefit to the firm.

Memory hook: "Positioning is not what you do to a product. Positioning is what you do to the mind of a prospect."

Three definitions worth quoting:

Perceptual mapping is the technique that identifies the underlying dimensions differentiating consumer perceptions of similar products, and plots the positions of existing products on those dimensions. Positioning is always relative to the competition in the mind of the consumer, and representing that pictorially is perceptual mapping.

Statistical techniques used to build perceptual maps:

• Factor analysis
• Multidimensional scaling (MDS)
• Cluster analysis
• Conjoint analysis

Common trap: the axes of a perceptual map are not chosen by the analyst. They are extracted from the data by factor analysis or MDS, which is why maps are labelled with things like "Dimension I (54.6%)" and "Dimension II (18.8%)". Those percentages are the share of variance in the perception data that each derived dimension explains. The analyst then reads the attribute vectors to work out what the dimension means.

3.2.2 How to Position: Competitive Frame of Reference, POP and POD

Positioning starts with a competitive frame of reference. First identify the competitors, then analyse their offering against yours. What you analyse is two things:

Why you cannot be all POD. Take a refrigerator. The basic functionality has to stay: you cannot claim your refrigerator makes coffee or cooks food, because then people will not believe it is a refrigerator. So the body, the cooling power, the compressor and the machinery will mostly match the competitor. Those are your POPs. Then you say the price is lower, or the warranty is 15 years against everyone else's 10, or the compressor power is superior. Those are your PODs.

Memory hook: The realistic split is 8 or 9 parameters the same, 1 or 2 different. Selling a product by claiming every attribute differs from the competitor does not work, unless it is a genuinely new-to-the-world product on breakthrough technology, in which case you must first create the want.

Criteria for choosing which POD to promote:

1. Is the difference desirable to the consumer?
2. Can you deliver it?
3. How significantly does it differentiate you from the competitor?

How many to promote? Normally one or two differences are optimal, and they must be things the consumer can perceive and easily understand. Do not give a complex mathematical formula to differentiate one brand from another. Nobody will do the maths. People understand price, quality, colour, aroma, and how the product solves the problem they bought it for. Give a simple value proposition that is different from the competitor. Telling too many things together confuses people.

3.2.3 The Milkmaid Repositioning Sequence

The clip's central worked example. Milkmaid has been repositioned repeatedly over the years, and that is why it has stayed successful. The product never changed. The value proposition, the target user and the problem being solved changed four times.

Memory hook: Same product, four positions, four different problems solved, four different demand drivers. Repositioning is not rebranding. Nothing about the tin changed. What changed was the sentence in the consumer's head.

3.2.4 The Positioning Statement

A positioning statement has five parameters, not four.

A positioning statement should therefore identify the customer, define the product or service, identify the benefit, provide the evidence, and communicate why it is differentiated from competition.

3.2.5 The Positioning Statement Template

The slot template:

Worked example 1, PicDeck:

For moms who want to preserve memories, PicDeck is a simple cellphone feature that easily and automatically transfers phone photos to your desktop or laptop computer, unlike traditional USB cord, Bluetooth or MMS services. Now your cellphone photos won't accumulate for months on your telephone.

Worked example 2, Voss:

For upscale consumers looking to make a design statement with their choice of water, Voss is the only brand among all bottled water that offers the purest and most distinctive drinking experience, because it derives from an artisan source in Southern Norway and is packaged in a stylish, iconic glass bottle.

Reading Voss against the template: the target consumer is upscale design-conscious buyers, the product is Voss, the value is the purest and most distinctive drinking experience, and the evidence is the artisan Norwegian source and the iconic glass bottle. The evidence matters most here, because the product is, in the end, water.

Common trap: most weak positioning statements omit slot 3, the evidence. A claim without a reason to believe it is a slogan, not a position.

3.2.6 Perceptual Maps I: Preference Data

There are three perceptual map clips because there are two different data structures and then a joint reading of both.

Data structure 1: preference data. The first column lists the respondents. The remaining columns list the brands: Saab, G20, Pontiac, BMW, Ford, Audi, Toyota, Honda, Mercury, Eagle. The cells hold rank preference scores. Respondents rank the brands 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and the median or mode of those ranks becomes the reported score.

Reading a row: respondent 1 gives G20 a 4, Ford a 7, Audi an 8 and Toyota a 3. So respondent 1 prefers Audi most and Toyota least. Respondent 2 prefers Ford and Eagle most and Saab least.

The map. Built in Marketing Engineering, though the same output is available from SPSS, SAS or R.

What the map shows: Toyota, G20, Saab, Honda and BMW have clusters of customers around them. Ford, Mercury, Pontiac and Eagle have very few customers nearby. So consumer preference points towards some brands and away from others.

Common trap: the preference map tells you which brands are preferred. It does not tell you why. That requires perception data.

3.2.7 Perceptual Maps II: Perception Data

Data structure 2: perception data. Same brands, but no individual customer rows. Instead the rows are attributes: attractive, poorly built, good design, good aesthetics, good pricing, quiet, roomy, prestige, successful, unreliable, poor value, uninteresting, common, uncomfortable.

Respondents rate each brand on each attribute on a 10-point scale, and the cell holds the average across all respondents. That is why the scores are decimals: 5.3, 2.8, 6.9, 5.6.

Reading a row: on "attractive", G20 scores 5.6, Ford 4.0, Audi 4.6, Toyota 5.6. Those are the averages of 75 customers' ratings. G20 is the most attractive; Ford and Eagle are not. On "quiet", G20 scores 6.3, the maximum, and Ford scores the minimum, so the Ford engine is loud.

The map.

What the map shows: positive attributes (roomy, quiet, overall good, prestige, successful, attractive) cluster on the left with Audi, Saab, BMW, G20, Honda and Toyota. Negative attributes (unreliable, poor value, poorly built, uninteresting, common, uncomfortable) cluster with Ford, Mercury and Eagle.

Note the professor's own caveat: this is illustrative sample data. It does not mean Ford or Eagle are poor brands in reality.

3.2.8 Perceptual Maps III: The Joint Space and the Share Reading

Superimpose the two maps and you get brands, consumers and attributes in one space, which explains which way and why customers prefer certain brands. The pink lines represent customer preference direction.

Now the strategic reading, and this is the strongest passage in the module.

Focus on the top brands in the market: Saab, BMW, G20, Honda, Toyota, Audi. How much market share do they collectively hold? The answer changes your entire positioning strategy.

Memory hook: In an empty market, sell your POPs. In a crowded market, sell your PODs. The map does not tell you which; the market-share arithmetic does. That is why positioning and market sizing are taught in the same module.

3.3 Market Analysis

3.3.1 Market Sizing

Market size is a crucial input to resource allocation. Generally, a larger market means more resources allocated to marketing.

Memory hook: Interest, then income and access, then intent on the firm's side. Each step is strictly smaller than the last.

3.3.2 Market Demand, Minimum, Potential and Forecast

Market demand is the total volume that will be bought by a particular customer group in a defined area and period. Market demand always depends on the marketing effort you put in, that is, on the marketing programme built from the 4 Ps.

Market forecast is the market demand corresponding to a specific level of marketing expenditure. Because expenditure can vary, there can be multiple forecasts for the same market, one per spending level, and which one you choose depends on the resources you have.

Memory hook: Demand is not a fixed number. It is a function of expenditure, bounded below by the market minimum and above by the market potential.

3.3.3 Primary versus Secondary Demand

This is the definition that makes market share meaningful, and it is easy to lose.

Common trap: market share is a ratio of two demands computed with the same formula, not a separate concept. You compute market demand once for the category and once for your brand, and divide.

Market demand, in value terms, is the product of three things.

For the category, the quantity is soap purchased and the price is the average soap price. For the brand, the quantity is Lux purchased and the price is the average price of Lux.

3.3.4 Market Share Analysis, Step 1: The Buyer Funnel

The worked case is a Harvard Business School example: sizing the women's razor blade market in the US. It runs the three-term formula one term at a time.

Step 1: number of buyers. Start at the total population and filter down.

Worked numerical: the funnel

Given: US population 305 million; 51 percent women; women over 14 constitute 125 million; 20 percent of these do not shave; a further 20 percent of the remainder use waxing or lasers rather than razors.

Answer: 80 million buyers.

Now the strategic reading of the funnel, which is the reason the funnel is built at all. Each removed layer is a growth option with a price tag.

Memory hook: 80 million is the current potential market; 125 million is the absolute ceiling. The range 80 to 125 million is what marketing expenditure can buy, and how far up that range you get depends on how much you spend and how effective the spend is. This is the market minimum, market forecast and market potential idea from Section 3.3.2, made concrete.

3.3.5 Market Share Analysis, Step 2: Annual Quantity, the Unit Build

Not all 80 million buyers purchase the same way. Market information splits them by usage rate, which is a behavioural segmentation variable from Module 02.

Worked numerical: unit volume

Given: 80 million buyers split 15 / 70 / 15 into heavy, moderate and light users, purchasing 12, 7 and 3 blades per year respectively.

Answer: the total female blade razor market is 572 million units per annum.

Second growth lever. The usage-rate split is itself a strategy map. Convert light users into moderate users and the market grows. Convert moderate users into heavy users and it grows again. That takes resources: distribution channels, product availability and promotion.

3.3.6 Market Share Analysis, Step 3: The Value Build

The third term of the formula is average price, and it differs by user category, so the value build must be done segment by segment.

Worked numerical: dollar value of the market

Given: 144 million blades at $8.99, 392 million at $5.99 and 36 million at $7.99.

Answer: the US female razor blade market is $3,930.28 million, that is, roughly $3.9 billion per annum.

Reading the result. Moderate users are only 70 percent of buyers but 60 percent of the value, because their unit volume dominates. Heavy users are 15 percent of buyers and 33 percent of the value, because they buy both more blades and the most expensive ones. Light users are 15 percent of buyers and just 7 percent of the value.

Common trap: the average price is not uniform. Applying a single average price to the 572 million total gives the wrong answer. You must multiply each usage segment by its own price and then add.

And finally, your market share. Divide your own brand's annual dollar sales (secondary demand) by $3,930.28 million (primary demand). That ratio is the market share, and once you also know the growth rate of the light, moderate and heavy segments, you can decide which of them to attack.

3.4 Corporate Strategy

3.4.1 Strategy and the Corporate Cascade

Strategy sets out the ways and means of executing a plan. It bridges the gap between planning and execution with decisions, processes and the detail of resource allocation. Marketing strategy is a subset of corporate strategy.

Corporate decision making has three phases: Planning, Implementation, and Feedback and Control.

The Unilever cascade. How a corporate objective becomes a brand target:

Then the strategy is organised and implemented, and to ensure the firm is on track, monthly performance data is analysed, which is the controlling phase.

Memory hook: the objective flows down through four levels and the performance data flows back up. That loop is what "feedback and control" means.

3.4.2 Strategic Business Units

A Strategic Business Unit (SBU) is a business unit, or a collection of business units, that has its own set of competitors and a leader or manager responsible for strategic planning and profitability.

In practice, each brand can be treated as one SBU.

3.4.3 The BCG Matrix

Organisational resources are always limited, so the question is how to allocate resources across SBUs. The standard tool is the BCG matrix, pioneered by the Boston Consulting Group.

The axes, precisely.

Common trap: the horizontal axis is relative market share, your share divided by the largest competitor's share, not absolute market share. That is why the scale runs to 10 and the divider sits at 1: at exactly 1 you are level with the market leader.

The four quadrants, and what you actually do in each.

The worked portfolio. Take one organisation with eight SBUs:

Memory hook: the cash cow pays for the stars and the question marks. That is the entire logic of the matrix: it is a cash allocation device, and the arrow of cash runs from the bottom left quadrant to the top of the grid.

Six weaknesses of the BCG matrix:

3.4.4 Business Mission: Drucker's Five Questions

To identify your business mission, Peter Drucker proposed five questions:

1. What is our business?
2. Who is our customer?
3. What is value to the customer?
4. What will our business be?
5. What should our business be?

3.4.5 Strategic Planning for SBUs: The Seven-Step Chain

3.4.6 Mission, Vision, Objectives and Goals

The lecture separates four levels that are easy to collapse into one. Keep them apart.

Common trap: the note-level shorthand that "vision is derived from the mission and objectives and goals are the same thing" loses the exam-relevant distinction. Vision to annual objectives to quarterly goals is a three-step decomposition, and the lecture is explicit that mission is perennial while vision is time bound and numeric.

Two contrasting missions and why the difference matters. A mission of "providing value to the stakeholders" means the organisation is focused on becoming profitable and raising the share price. A mission of "providing easy communication to the public across cities, states and countries" means the organisation is not primarily focused on making money. Everyone makes money, but such a firm will sometimes take a haircut on profitability because the mission is public provision. The mission genuinely changes what decisions look rational.

3.4.7 Functioning of Organizational Strategy

The full sequence: Mission, Vision, SWOT analysis, Objectives and Goals, Planning and Strategy, Implementation, Control.

SWOT is the environmental understanding step. It sits after vision because vision involves the environment and the context in which the business is being done, and SWOT is how you analyse that environment.

Common trap: it is not the case that vision leads to SWOT in the sense of vision producing the analysis. Vision requires an understanding of the environment, and SWOT is that understanding. Get the order right: mission, then vision, then SWOT, then objectives and goals.

Planning: the Bangalore to Delhi analogy. Planning is establishing where you are and where you want to go, and then enumerating the routes between them with their resource constraints.

Suppose you are at IIM Bangalore and want to reach Delhi. You could walk, take a train, drive a car, take a flight, or ride a horse. Each is genuinely possible. Each involves different resources: a car needs a vehicle, a driver and fuel; a flight needs an airline and a ticket; a horse needs the horse, stopping places along the way, and food for the animal. Each takes different time, costs a different amount, and delivers a different experience.

Memory hook: Identifying each of these options along with their resource constraints is planning. Choosing between them is strategy. In an organisational context, if the objective is to raise ROI by 3 percent, the options are "can I reduce cost?" and "can I increase the number of customers?", each with its own resource bill.

Once the strategy is executed, you need intermittent benchmarks to check you are still on the route that leads to the objective. That checking is the feedback and control mechanism.

3.5 Marketing Strategy

3.5.1 Foundations of Marketing Strategy

To achieve marketing objectives you need two things:

Alongside these, considerable marketing analytics can be run: value chain analysis, demand estimation and demand forecasting.

Common trap: forecasting is not absolute. It depends on your investment. This is the same point as market forecast in Section 3.3.2: a forecast is only meaningful against a stated level of marketing expenditure.

Long tail marketing is a strategy of selling a wide range of products or services, including both popular and less popular items, to increase sales and attract a larger audience. The term "long tail" was coined by Chris Anderson in 2004. Long-tail effectiveness helps decide what type of goods and services to provide.

Finally, the marketing programme involves organising, staffing and training, and the process closes with feedback and control.

3.5.2 The 5 Cs: Company

5 C analysis is also known as situational analysis.

The first C is company, and in this case that means us. Before doing anything about marketing, promotions or customer outreach, understand what the business does well, where it struggles, and what it brings to the table. Strengths and weaknesses are the foundation for everything else. The tools are core competence analysis and SWOT analysis.

The Patanjali case:

• Rapid success. Despite existing competition, Patanjali quickly captured the market.
• Competitors' product lines. Established brands such as Levers, P&G, Colgate Palmolive, Dabur and Himalaya already offered similar ayurvedic and organic products.
• Missed opportunity. These companies had the right products but could not anticipate or counter Patanjali's rise.
• Patanjali's brand strength. The key differentiator was the brand image built around yoga guru Ramdev and CEO Acharya Balkrishna, which created a strong association with tradition and authenticity.
• Brand image versus product strength. Competitors focused on products; Patanjali leveraged brand image, and that was the edge.
• Customer appeal. The brand resonated, producing strong initial trial and adoption.
• Competitors' weakness. Their inability to emphasise their own expertise and traditional roots became a weakness against Patanjali's clear identity.

Other examples: Unilever's advantage is a wide distribution network. The public's trust in Tata, the so-called Tata culture, is a strength in itself.

3.5.3 The 5 Cs: Customer

Customer needs and requirements are one of the most significant parameters in the 5 Cs. Two questions are asked:

1. Who is the customer? Answered through STP.
2. How do we satisfy their needs?

Tools used to answer the second question:

• The voice of the customer
• The consumer decision-making process
• Customer satisfaction studies
• Customer loyalty studies

3.5.4 The 5 Cs: Competitor

If you are offering something to a target group, and a different organisation offers the same thing in the same price range to the same group, the two of you are competitors. But competition operates at four levels, and which level you choose determines how big you think your market is.

Memory hook, the actual rule the professor states: generic competition is "for the same consumer resources, all the fights". You will never think of a samosa when you think about Coca-Cola. You will only think of Pepsi. But every one of those ₹10 alternatives is a potential competitor.

The strategic dilemma of choosing a level. Define competition too narrowly, at brand or industry level only, and you are considering a very small market and not using its full potential. Define it too broadly, at generic level, and you spread yourself too thin. Identifying the competitor is genuinely difficult, and the tool for doing it is perceptual mapping plus competitor analysis for that specific target group.

The India evidence. Both Coca-Cola and Pepsi came to India, left, and returned: Pepsi in the 1980s, Coca-Cola in the 1990s. On returning they realised Indians are not big cola drinkers. In the US the average person drinks around 365 bottles of Coca-Cola a year, essentially one a day. In India it is 20 to 30.

So they expanded beyond cola. Since Indians prefer tea and coffee, Coca-Cola entered the tea and coffee business, competing with brands like Tata Tea. They also added fruit juices, bottled water and snacks. That is what it looks like when a firm accepts that its real competition is at the form and generic levels rather than the brand level.

3.5.5 The 5 Cs: Collaborators

Collaborators are those who help you succeed in your business but are not in your control. They are not your employees and not your own business stakeholders. Suppliers, vendors, manufacturers, licensors, franchisees, and service providers such as market research agencies, ad agencies, digital marketing agencies, hiring agencies and logistics providers.

Collaborator analysis is essentially a make-or-buy decision, the same logic as in accounting. If we produce shirts and trousers, should we sell direct or go through wholesalers and retailers? If it is ice cream, should we handle sales and logistics ourselves or work with distributors and third-party logistics providers who offer cold chain?

Key points in a collaborator analysis:

3.5.6 The 5 Cs: Context and PESTEL

You cannot control the context or climate, but if you are aware of it you can make the business robust. The tracking framework is PESTEL.

3.5.7 The Marketing Strategy Template

The whole module reduces to one working sequence, usable for any marketing problem:

1. Objective
2. 5 Cs (the situation analysis)
3. STP
4. Differentiation
5. Positioning
6. 4 or 7 Ps
7. Programme
8. Feedback and control

3.6 Case Study: Coca-Cola and the Failure of New Coke

3.6.1 The Question and the Common-Sense Answers

Why did New Coke fail? Coca-Cola did a great deal of research, found that Pepsi tasted better than Coke, spent money and time creating a new product, tested it in the market where people said it was good, launched it, and it failed.

The two answers everyone gives first:

Memory hook, the pedagogic hinge: notice what the two common-sense answers have in common. The Pepsi Challenge is Promotion. Taste is Product. Both answers sit inside just 2 of the 4 Ps, and both were reached by reading case facts rather than applying a framework. Anyone who has passed the tenth standard can produce them. That is exactly why they do not reach the real cause.

3.6.2 The 5 C Analysis

1. Company: Coca-Cola. Go through the case looking specifically for mentions of the company.

• Average age of the board was greater than 70. These people had been there forever and had seen the glory days.
• They were fighting legal battles at the very time Pepsi was rising.
• Multiple unsuccessful acquisitions and ventures.
• Problems with the channel: distributors and bottling agents.

Conclusion: nobody was really running the business. Some strategies had been set, pricing had been set, distribution had been set, and it simply carried on. The business was on auto mode, and the company had lost connection with ground reality. They could not conceive that Coca-Cola might not be doing well.

2. Customer. Who was the customer of Coke?

Common trap: the answer students give is "everybody". This is a very bad answer. When a product is for everybody, it is for nobody. Ask a CEO for promotion money and answer "everybody" to the question of who the customer is, and you will not get the money and may not keep the job.

The correct answer: people who like the taste and refreshment, who are young, and whose consumption is associated with occasions, parties, outdoor events, the war years.

And here is the finding. Search the case for who Coca-Cola's customer was during the 1980s crisis and you will not find any reference to it, because they had lost focus. The stated definition was still the same: taste, refreshment, young, association with events. But that definition dated from the 1940s and 1950s. The young men of the 1940s and 1950s are entirely different people from the young men of the 1980s. Unless you refresh the brand, change the promotion and change the positioning to the new target group, keeping the same words on the segment definition achieves nothing.

3. Competitor: Pepsi.

Who is Pepsi's customer? Right from the beginning, Pepsi never focused on the functional dimension. Pepsi never talked about taste. Pepsi talked about the Pepsi Generation: young, independent minded, rebels, trying to break free.

Break free from what? From the pattern of the older generation. Teenagers do not want to do what their parents did, not because anything is wrong with it, but because that is what their parents did. The Coke generation was the parent generation. The Pepsi Generation were the youngsters of the 1980s.

The embodiment was Michael Jackson. The previous generation had Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin and Elvis Presley: great musicians, but a different kind of music. MJ was a performer, bringing energy and storytelling that had not been there before. In breaking free from the previous generation of musicians, he was the perfect brand ambassador for a drink positioned on breaking free.

Why did Pepsi attack the product, of all things? This is the sharpest strategic question in the case.

Memory hook: If you are the challenger and price, promotion and distribution are all closed to you, the only attack surface left is the product. And the product was the one thing Coca-Cola had never tested. They had guarded the secret formula in the Atlanta vault for a hundred years, treated it as a sacred cow out of holy scripture, and never once taste-tested it against a competitor. Protecting the formula for so long had turned it into their biggest weakness. Pepsi picked the one thing nobody thought could be attacked and caught Coke on the wrong foot.

4. Collaborators. Distribution channels, bottling plants, market research agencies, ad agencies. These can be identified from the case, but they have no significant role in answering this particular question. Identifying that a C does not matter is itself part of the analysis.

5. Context. The remaining puzzle: new drinkers were choosing Pepsi and old drinkers still loved Coca-Cola, as New Coke's reception proved. So why was Coca-Cola's market share falling, to the point of dropping below Pepsi in some channels?

Because the young men of the 1940s were not young in the 1980s. Someone who was 20 in the 1940s was 60 in the 1980s. An older person cannot drink as much sugar as a youngster. This is context, not customer, because even knowing it, Coca-Cola could not reverse the ageing of its customers. It is not a curious case of Benjamin Button.

Coca-Cola's share fell because it was not attracting younger customers and its older customers could not drink enough Coke. Both halves at once.

3.6.3 Why New Coke Actually Failed

Coca-Cola was trying to solve the problem of declining market share, and the solution was not a new product. The problem was a lack of connection with the customer:

• Older customers were not able to drink enough Coke because of ageing.
• Younger customers were not patronising Coke because Coke never tried to connect with them, which Pepsi did.
• Coca-Cola had lost touch, and could not identify who the target segments now were.

And then the killer point:

Memory hook: Who told Coca-Cola that taste was the problem? Pepsi did. Through the blind testing, through the taste test, through the Pepsi Challenge, the competitor told Coca-Cola what its problem was, and Coca-Cola lapped it up because it had no idea of its own. How often do you take your strategy from your competitor and expect to succeed?

They tested it, they solved a problem, but it was not the solution to the problem they actually had.

3.6.4 What Coca-Cola Should Have Done

The real problem is that there were now multiple target segments where there had previously been one: older customers and newer customers, people who can take high sugar and people who cannot, people who like a stronger taste and people who prefer a sweeter one. Earlier there were no options, only Coca-Cola. Now there were options.

Therefore a one-product strategy could not work. The requirement was multiple product lines, which is eventually exactly what Coca-Cola did: Diet Coke, Coke Zero, Fanta, orange and lemon drinks, and fruit drinks.

Note the irony that closes the loop with Module 01. When Pepsi was offered to Coca-Cola in 1937, Woodruff refused, saying there could only be one cola in the stable. That was the right thought when there was only one target segment. By the 1980s it was exactly the thought process that had to go.

Memory hook, the learning: apply the framework and you hit the bullseye on the first attempt. Skip it and you can still get there, but only after three or four iterations and mistakes. The 5 C plus 4 P framework linked to the objective, "why is market share declining and what can be done", is what turns case facts into a diagnosis.

3.6.5 Discussion Response: Cadbury Gems

Through this ad, Cadbury is trying to position Gems as a fun, vibrant and youthful chocolate in the minds of the target audience. The use of vibrant colours in the chocolates aligns the product with enjoyment and carefree moments. Taglines such as "no umar for favourite colour" and "raho umarless" emphasise the idea that joy, playfulness and love for colours, which is a USP of Cadbury Gems, transcend age. These taglines align with the brand's effort to position itself as a treat that evokes youthful spirit and creativity in everyone, regardless of age.

Quick Revision Checklist