There is a vital interplay between the challenge a brand faces and the culture of the corporation that owns it. When brand and culture fall out of alignment, both brand and corporate owner are likely to suffer.
The brand’s distribution channels were as unconventional as its promotions. Initially Snapple had very little supermarket coverage. Instead, it flowed through the so-called cold channel: small distributors serving hundreds of thousands of lunch counters and delis, which sold single-serving refrigerated beverages consumed on the premises. Small as the individual distributors were, they aggregated into a mighty marketing force.
But replicating Gatorade’s success was more than an objective—it was a matter of corporate survival. With only one brand in its beverage portfolio, Quaker was at a serious disadvantage to larger players that could use their broader lineups to capture economies of scale. To stave off acquisition by one of those larger competitors, Quaker needed to add a second brand that could capture similar economies. Acutely aware of the make-or-break nature of the acquisition, Quaker’s executives formulated a marketing plan that sought to minimize or eliminate risk. As it happened, though, Quaker’s very risk aversion turned out to be the greatest risk of all.
It’s tempting to say that Triarc’s executives understood and embodied the quirky spirit of the Snapple brand in a way that Quaker’s marketing team never did, and Triarc’s executives aren’t inclined to disagree.
The only fixed plan we had was to limit the cost of failure.
The team understood the need to stay away from big risky ideas. All we had to do was to avoid fatal mistakes, to make sure that each time we took a risk, we would be able to come back if the gamble didn’t payout.”

4/5 FREE ARTICLES LEFT REGISTER FOR MORE | SUBSCRIBE + SAVE!
MENU