1

Introduction
Feb 1993: Jeff Manning newly appointed Executive Director Of California Milk Processor Board
Steady decline in the milk consumption over the previous two decades Competition with the cola giants , Snapple Ice teas and Calistoga bottled waters.

1990s looked to be the decade of health education

Consumers expressed awareness of the nutritional benefits of milk consumption
2

What could you say about milk? It was white and came in gallons. People felt they knew all there was to know about it, so it was hard to find a strategic platform. - Jeff Manning

Dairy Industry
Comprised of relatively short list of intermediaries
Three major group in the industry :

The farmers who produce the milk

The Processors who convert raw milk into whole and lower fat milks The Retailer who sells the final product

Farmers
Farmers have become more efficient than in the past
The number of dairy farms has dwindled to a mere 150,000. Small owned farms have been replaced by growing number of large farms called factory farms

In order to raise money for a national advertising campaign each farmer has to contribute some private funds

Processors
Function is to transform raw milk into the products whole, 2 percent, 1 percent and skim milk. The relationship between the processor and the producers has been one of conflict due to incompatible goals.

Retailers
Two primary retailers: Safeway Food Stores Lucky Food Stores Apart from them there are a number of secondary grocery stores.

Other Channels of Distribution

Perishable nature of fluid milk channels of distribution other than grocery store dont account major sales.
School Districts: Change in school district policy contributed to 3.8 % decline from 1986 to 1991. Food service establishment : McDonalds

Dropped 23% from 1986 to 1991

Dairy Promotion Groups in California

State promoted by 6 National Regional Dairy Groups. National Dairy Promotion and Research Board (NDPRB)

United Dairy Association (UDIA)

California Cheese and Butter Association (CCBA) California Milk Advisory Board (CMAB)

Dairy Council of California (DCC)

California Milk Processor Board (CMPB)

California Milk Processor Board

The California Milk Processor Board is a nonprofit marketing board funded by California dairy processors, and administered by the California Department of Food and Agriculture, most famous for its Got Milk? advertising campaign.
The organization was created in 1993 to counter falling sales of milk as Americans switched to soft drinks, health drinks, and other beverages

10

Contd..
Concerned with long-term declining milk sales, California's largest milk processors voted to fund a marketing board that would be charged with creating advertising dedicated to selling milk. The processors agreed to finance the California Milk Processor Board by contributing three cents for every gallon of milk they processed. This assessment allowed for a $23 million/year marketing budget. On a per-capita basis this budget approximated those of the largest national auto, beer, finance, and pharmaceutical brands. The processors agreed that they would assess the new board's effectiveness every three years.

11

Marketing a Brand Versus Marketing a Commodity

Demand Side
Supply Side

12

The Beverage Category

Media spending in beverage category approaches $ 2 billion.
Milk spends less than 10 % of the amount beer spends on media.

Since 1975, total consumption of beverages had increased by 18 %.

Soft drink per capita consumption increased by 80% from 1975 to 1991, Milks consumption dropped by 10 % and market share to 13 %.

13

Previous Milk Promotion Campaign

The California Milk Advisory Board (CMAB), had for many years produced the "Milk Does a Body Good" ad campaign.
The campaign echoed the government's nutrition program, which encouraged people to drink a few glasses of milk each day to maintain their health. "Ninety-three or -four percent of the people already said milk was good for you," Manning recalled.

"And 90% said it had calcium, and a fair percentage said that calcium helped prevent osteoporosis.
The problem was that the old ads didn't change consumers' behavior."
14

Previous Milk Promotion Campaign

Consumers-and especially kids and teens-still considered milk to be as boring as a beverage could possibly be.
Since people thought milk was good for them but sales volume was falling anyway, Manning felt that his first decision as handed to him: he would abandon the nutrition theme.

15

Shifts in Beverage Consumption

Perceptions of Milk
Historically, dairy advertising and public relations efforts, along with government programs, had helped to build the widely held belief that drinking milk was the key to good health, particularly for children.
Drinking milk linked the consumer to the dairy farms out in the rural countryside, a space implied to be healthier, both morally and hygienically. Later, this "wholesome" theme was expanded to include the notion that milk was nutritious. By the 1970s, soda makers' aggressive marketing was helping to erode milk's place in consumers' diets, stealing "share of stomach." People were drinking less milk, substituting soft drinks, even when they were at home.
16

Shifts in Beverage Consumption

Flavor and Packaging Innovation Drinks of all varieties came in containers that numbered hundreds of shapes and even more colors. New, easy-open containers were resealable so that people could drink from them with little effort while they did other things . Manning couldn't control how milk was packaged and he knew that it was still sold in monotonous cardboard boxes or translucent plastic jugs. And milk's Spartan label, typically printed in a single color, likely featured only nutritional information and an expiration date.
17

Competitors' Symbolism
Compared to the proliferation of brightly colored beverages in myriad, imaginative packages, milk had an image problem.
Milk was still associated with domesticity and it was apparent to him that most consumers were no longer excited by the tamed life. If milk had represented a domesticity that had fallen out of style, many of its new competitors had accrued altogether different meanings-like youthful rebellion, eclectic individuality, and street smart fashion. In the 1990s, Gatorade, Snapple, Mountain Dew, and Sprite led the way.
18

Potential Consumer Segment For Milk

The Ever Nourished The Insatiable The Occasional Indulgers

The Different Drummers

19

20

The Got Milk? Campaign

One rule of thumb in fast-moving packaged goods is that it's easier to get current customers to consume more than it is to convert new users.

Based on this logic, Manning and Goodby quickly agreed that their best hope of reviving sales was to prod this 70% to increase their consumption.
Recalling a strategy that his Ketchum co-worker had explored a few years earlier, Manning suggested that people who drank milk tended to think of it as an accompaniment to certain sweet and sticky foods that they loved.
21

The Got Milk? Campaign

To explain this "blank-and-milk" notion, Manning told Goodby that many people who drank milk did so with brownies, cookies, or peanut butter sandwiches. Perhaps, Manning suggested, the key for the new campaign could be found in this food-beverage connection. Pushing further, the researchers flipped around the question: how do people feel when they're eating something that demanded milk to wash it down, but don't have milk in the house? Focus group respondents placed in this situation were upset, they felt deprived.
22

The Got Milk? Campaign

They were able to convey viscerally the feeling of having a brownie or cookie remnants stuck in their throat, calling out for a gulp of milk to cleanse the palette. Manning 's research showed that 88% of milk was consumed in the home. He and Goodby agreed that their milk deprivation ads would incorporate this reality. The ads would show people running out of milk when they needed it most, in their homes. "The whole campaign was based on somebody sitting at home thirty feet from the fridge with the TV on," said Manning. "We wanted them to feel the pain."
23

Developing a Branding Strategy For Milk

Invest in R & D to expand the number of flavors available Expand the potential usage Occasions Develop an extensive push strategy via a direct sales force

Expand the market through other channels such as foodservice and school cafeterias
Cooperate with consumer packaged goods and do joint promotions

Embark on a Campaign to clear the confusion about the health content of milk
Generate an image for Milk Through Advertising

Target Latinos and aging Americans

24

Question 1:
What are the problems or challenges faced by the CMPB?

25

26

Problems
Accelerating decline in milks consumption Loss of $50 million dollars of profit every year Drop in milks MS from 17 to 13 percent. Competition from other Beverages (Alcoholic and Non-Alcoholic) Confusion about nutritional value of various prevalent varieties of milk Per capita increase in expenditure outside home: this trend is not good for milk which is consumed mostly inside home.
27

Challenges
Revitalize sales and increase Consumption Overcoming the barriers of : 1. Proliferation by other beverages 2. Portability 3. Flavor Variety 4. Low media spending 5. Creating Loyalty 6. Making milk an important part of consumers life 7. Milk being a childrens drink 8. Milk being boring compared with other drinks
28

Question 2 :
What associations do consumers have for Milk? What are the implications of these associations in terms of building brand equity for and increasing the consumption of milk?

29

Answer
Consumers associations were: Identifying milk with the complementary foods such as cereals, cookies, cheerios, sandwiches etc.

Considering milk more of a Home Drink rather than being a Drink- on go

Association of milk with certain usage occasions Association level with complementary foods was very high

30

31

Implication Of Association On Brand Equity

32

Question 3:
Evaluate the CMPB marketing program. What do you see as its strengths and weakness? Would you do anything differently? What should be their next steps?

33

Answer
There were three objectives to the Got Milk? campaign: To change the publics behavior regarding milk To create the idea of milk occasions by associating the product with certain foods To curb the decline in sales by convincing people to buy milk more often and in larger quantities.

34

Strengths
Use of Deprivation Strategy:

Was founded on a very simple strategic idea; i.e. that running out of milk when you have a mouth full of peanut butter or bowl full of cereal is a pain in the butt.
It' was intensely competitive coz just wouldn't make sense to substitute Coke or Snapple for milk. Went mass-market without any exclusions

Recognition of Brand:
Brand struck us as hip, intelligent, funny rather than being boring as earlier campaigns Campaign and not product defined the brand
35

Strengths
Simplification of Brand:

Consumers and marketers alike need brands that are simple, clear and fit squarely into their lives.
The plan's sole objective was to reach people who liked milk at home watching TV within 50 feet of the fridge. Focus: The California Milk Processor Board (CMPB) chose to target regular milk drinkers, who constituted more than two-thirds of the market and were already favorably disposed toward the product and thus more open to influence, especially in the short-term.
36

Contd..
Use of Multiple Media: Got Milk?" broke consumer behavior down to its component parts to create a highly targeted strategy: Purchase and use locations (supermarket and home) Effective message timing (en route to store, in store, at home) Product use times (breakfast, late evening snacks, etc.) Principal consumers (children in the morning, adults at night) Complementary media: TV, billboards, bus shelter signage, cross-promotion milk coupons on compatible foods, POP displays, and checkout dividers
37

Contd..
Fortification of Brand:

Going together with associated cereal and cookies brands helped in building up this brand as they drove milk sales.
Flexible Brand Proposition: This pliancy is critical to success (or even viability) in the face of shifting demographics, changing lifestyles, economic trends, competitive assaults, legislation and even litigation, which was evident in the campaign. As it did not stick to one core proposition but brought in flexibility instead

38

Weaknesses
Relying solely on Associations: Got Milk campaign relied heavily on associations with complementary foods.

Deprivation Strategy was core of brand: The campaign used deprivation strategy, and any deviance from this identity would kill the brand

39

Future Steps
Ensuring availability of milk supplies Bringing out more advertisements similar on these lines Aggressive Promotion Making milk as only drink to be consumed inside home

Competitive and consistent spending in comparison to other competitors in market

40

Porters 5 forces model

Potential Entrants Snapple Ice Tea Calistoga Bottled Waters Any other beverages
Snapple, Pepsi, Coke, Other Beverage Manufacturers Buyers Suppliers

Farmers Processors Retailers

Consumers School Districts Associations & Boards Dairy processors Substitutes Coffee/Tea Coca-Cola Bottled Water Pepsi Juices Ice Tea/Cold Coffee Soft Drinks

41