HubSpot: Inbound Marketing and Web 2.0

Thomas J. Steenburgh; Jill  Avery; Naseem Ashraf Dahod

Case | HBS Case Collection | May 2009 (Revised January 2011)

HubSpot: Inbound Marketing and Web 2.0

by Thomas J. Steenburgh, Jill Avery and Naseem Ashraf Dahod

Abstract

This case introduces the concept of inbound marketing, pulling customer prospects toward a business through the use of Web 2.0 tools and applications like blogging, search engine optimization, and social media. Students follow the growth of HubSpot, an entrepreneurial venture which, in its quest for growth, faces significant challenges including the following: developing market segmentation and targeting strategies to decide which customers to serve and which to turn away, configuring pricing strategies to align with the value delivery stream customers experience, and determining whether inbound marketing programs can generate enough scale or whether traditional outbound marketing methods need to be employed to accelerate growth.

Keywords: Customer Relationship Management; Entrepreneurship; Price; Growth and Development Strategy; Marketing Communications; Social and Collaborative Networks; Segmentation; Web;

Format: Print

21 pages

Educators Purchase

Citation:

Steenburgh, Thomas J., Jill Avery, and Naseem Ashraf Dahod. "HubSpot: Inbound Marketing and Web 2.0." Harvard Business School Case 509-049, May 2009. (Revised January 2011.)

For decades, American parents were warned to avoid introducing potential allergens to their babies prior to their first birthday. But two influential clinical studies caused the medical establishment to radically reverse its position. Parents were now warned that delaying the introduction of these types of foods increased a baby's risk of food allergies. Adeo Health Science was ready, with patents filed for a baby food that made it simple for parents to introduce allergens. Now, the new company had to turn its product into a brand and map its go-to-market strategy, including creating a compelling value proposition, choosing a path to market that was either direct-to-consumer, through grocery retailers, or via the physician channel, and planning its marketing communications and sales strategy. As a new startup with constrained resources, the company knew its marketing decisions would make or break the new product.

Case | HBS Case Collection | April 2019

Kraft Heinz: The $8 Billion Brand Write-Down

Jill Avery

On Friday, February 22, 2019, following an unexpected and disappointing earnings report, The Kraft Heinz Company’s stock price fell 27%, wiping out $16 billion in market value. CEO Bernardo Hees had announced that the company had taken a $15.4 billion asset write-down, that the company would be cutting its annual dividend from $2.50 to $1.60 and that it was under SEC investigation for accounting irregularities related to its procurement process. $8.3 billion of the asset write-down was related to a loss in value of the firm’s intangible assets, specifically its Kraft and Oscar Mayer brands. As Kraft Heinz looked ahead to the future, it was time to recalibrate its brand management strategies. With $50 billion in brand assets remaining on its balance sheet, effectively managing its brands going forward was critical to avoiding another brand asset write-down and to regaining the $8 billion brand value the company had just lost. Was Kraft Heinz's brand asset write-down the beginning of the end of the market dominance of "Big Food" brands across the board or was it idiosyncratic and a result of the firm's brand management resources, capabilities, and strategies?

Keywords: brand management; Brand Value; Brand equity; marketing ROI; brand storytelling; Intangible assets; Marketing; Marketing Strategy; Brands and Branding; Management; Corporate Strategy; Consumer Behavior; Food; Marketing Communications; Advertising; Private Equity; Consumer Products Industry; Food and Beverage Industry; United States; North America;

Citation:

Avery, Jill. "Kraft Heinz: The $8 Billion Brand Write-Down." Harvard Business School Case 519-076, April 2019. View Details

Cite View Details Educators

Nike's selection of politically polarizing Colin Kaepernick as the spokesperson for the thirtieth anniversary of its iconic "Just Do It" campaign catapulted the brand into the media spotlight and made it a political flashpoint for consumers across America. Would the choice of Kaepernick positively or negatively affect Nike's business results or just generate a lot of social media chatter? As Nike's management team watched some people burn their sneakers in protest on YouTube and others applaud the company's behavior on Facebook, they wondered whether inserting Nike into the middle of a heated political debate was the right thing to do or the most reckless action Nike's brand stewards had ever taken, putting Nike's $30 billion brand asset at risk? After all, on social media, it was easy to say that one would boycott or buycott a brand due to one's political beliefs, but in the marketplace, other purchase criteria often reigned supreme.

Faculty & Research

HubSpot: Inbound Marketing and Web 2.0

Abstract

Citation:

About the Author

More from the Author