Product

71 | P a g e Target Audience

Within the group of new category users the” innovators” and “early adopters” can be targeted to forge word of mouth (Belch & Belch, 2007). Word of mouth is very valuable when

advertising functional foods because the opinions of opinion leaders within peers have a larger potential to stimulate positive attitudes towards functional foods than advertising messages from the manufacturers have (owing to the mistrust identified in the quantitative research). This is due to the fact that in high involvement purchase decisions the opinions and beliefs of others matter the most (Belch & Belch, 2007). The word of mouth effect will ripple through to the early and late majority, and the laggards along with the development in the PLC Curve (Levitt, 1965).

72 | P a g e For these brands the product category is extremely clear and the enriched vitamins and their effects are explicitly posted on the front.

Furthermore there should be a natural coherence between the carrier and enrichment. These products are a good example of this by using fruit juices, that by themselves are naturally healthy, as carriers and a mixture of enrichments that together provide a purpose e.g.

“Defence” that contribute to the functions of the immune system (vitaminwell.se, 2009).

These brands also closely resemble “upgraded” products because of the fruit juice that naturally contain vitamins, which the respondents were most positive towards. It is easier for the consumers to understand and accept such a product than a brand extension that “piggy backs” on an existing brand. In the case of Coca Cola Light Plus it also erodes and undermines the parent brand’s equity because it causes mistrust and frustration as to whether the parent brand has been a functional food all along without the target group knowing it (Keller, 2008).

A healthier product and image would correspond better to the purpose of the product category. The Coca Cola Company should have taken advantage of this opportunity to make a healthier product instead of concealing an unhealthy product with vitamins. Additionally it should have been positioned as an alternative to sodas and juices to create an incentive to change behavior. Coca Cola Light Plus does not provide an incentive to switch from Coca Cola Light because it is the exact same product apart from the enriched vitamins, and that in itself is most likely not enough for consumers to perceive a need and switch brands. On the contrary, if a package and product design like Vitamin Well/Vitamin Water was introduced it, on its own, creates a need because it lies between sodas and water, which is currently unseen on the Danish market. It fills a gap without compromising health and taste which Coca Cola Light Plus does not. In the current crowded field of soft drinks, a functional soft drink by the Coca Cola Company needs to stand out more to avoid “running the risk of confusing consumers with endless variants in both diet and regular versions” (Keller, 2008 p. 100).

With reference to the respondents’ high distrust in food manufacturers’ ability to produce functional foods Vitamin Well take a serious approach to making the products safe to use by e.g. employing a physiologist (vitaminwell.se, 2009) and Vitaminwater, though it was acquired by The Coca Cola Company (vitaminwater.com, 2009), bears no affiliation with its owner, which is otherwise renowned for producing unhealthy products, especially in

73 | P a g e Denmark. Secondly the package designs exude professionalism, seriousness, and that much thought has been put into the product development while a Coca Cola Light Plus seems too easy to make and as an attempt to be the first of its kind on the market at all cost. Although introducing an entirely new brand is far more expensive than leveraging on an existing brand’s qualities, the success of the extension is dependent on its ability to convince the consumers that it is offering them something new and different that they need (Keller, 2008;

Keller 2001)). It is believed that this is where the Coca Cola Light Plus brand falls short. The consumers do not feel that they are offered anything new as they could not even identify the correct benefit in the in-depth interviews.

The distinct colors of Vitamin Well and Vitaminwater make them stand out in the shelves while Coca Cola Light Plus’ slim, tiny can vanishes between the myriad of energy drinks that are similar in their package designs. Products designs and ranges like Vitamin Water and Vitamin Well take advantage of more usage situations which increases the situations in which the brand is thought of (awareness breadth) because they target a specific purpose above and beyond the core benefit level of soft drinks; refreshment and hydration (Keller, 2008; Keller, 2001). For instance, “Endurance” that provides energy and “Rescue” that increases the metabolism etc. (vitaminwater.com, 2009). In contrast, Coca Cola Light Plus is only enriched with two vitamins of the same group, namely vitamin B3 and B12 that perhaps on their own cannot provide a health effect in the body.

In addition, each product name is distinctive and says something about the contents and effects while the “Plus” name in Coca Cola Light Plus does not mean much on its own accord. The style and wording of Vitamin Well and Vitaminwater speak more to a target group of 20-30 year olds, in the modern/modern-individual oriented Kompass, than Coca Cola Light Plus because the tone and language is more youthful and ironic.

With an informational packaging design and an explicit product benefit on the packaging, the advertising execution could maintain a transformational approach to induce interest. A combination of both an informational and transformational approach counterbalances the need for a brand - product category linkage while not turning the advertising campaign into being strictly cognitive and technically oriented. The point is that if the packaging is speaking explicitly to the cognitive elements, the advertising campaigns can incorporate them implicitly hence using both peripheral and central cues in the overall branding strategy.

74 | P a g e