More from the Author

• Case | HBS Case Collection | January 2018 (Revised May 2019)

  Adeo Health Science: Turning a Product into a Brand

  Elizabeth A. Keenan and Jill Avery

  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.

  Keywords: marketing; Startup; entrepreneurship; health care; consumer; consumer products; branding; brands and branding; marketing strategy; Marketing communications; Distribution; retailing; go to market strategy; Marketing; Marketing Channels; Marketing Communications; Brands and Branding; Marketing Strategy; Entrepreneurship; Health Care and Treatment; Consumer Products Industry; Health Industry; United States; North America;

  Citation:

  Keenan, Elizabeth A., and Jill Avery. "Adeo Health Science: Turning a Product into a Brand." Harvard Business School Case 518-065, January 2018. (Revised May 2019.)  View Details

  CiteView DetailsEducatorsPurchase

  Related

• 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

  CiteView DetailsEducators

  Related

• Case | HBS Case Collection | December 2018 (Revised March 2019)

  Branding and Politics: Nike and Colin Kaepernick

  Jill Avery and Koen Pauwels

  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.

  Keywords: social media; digital marketing; entertainment; politics; activism; Brand equity; Marketing; Marketing Strategy; Brands and Branding; Marketing Communications; Sports; Advertising; Apparel and Accessories Industry; Sports Industry; Consumer Products Industry; United States; North America;

  Citation:

  Avery, Jill, and Koen Pauwels. "Branding and Politics: Nike and Colin Kaepernick." Harvard Business School Case 519-046, December 2018. (Revised March 2019.)  View Details

  CiteView DetailsEducators

  Related