All papers are checked via
|← Disabled||Centre for Disease Control Website →|
The major driving force behind any business entity is to make a profit (Capon 2004). Cadbury is not an exception in this class, and it has tried its level best to ensure that it widens its range of products so as to maximize its profits. Despite the expansion in number of products, the firm is geared towards widening its total market as a major way through which a firm can be able to bolster its returns prospects. The firm has also invested quite an investment in the research and development department so as to come up with products that are innovative and will attract a higher demand from its customers. This is clearly depicted when in 1873 after the firm had gained its unwavering popularity in the market that it introduced new and very innovative products thus expanding its line of products, this is by introducing products such as Cadbury Cocoa Essence (Farrow 2002). Being driven by this juncture above, the firm has constantly introduced new products in the market and in other case it has even dropped some products that it finds not to be enabling the firm realize its goals. All this is done with the aim of increasing its profits. The new products are introduced with the aim of penetrating the market through decisions and strategies that are heralded by the workforce of the firm since they feel part and parcel of the entity. New products give a boost to the sales of the firm's products and thus having a direct effect on its profits.
The firm has been known to take very strategic decisions in relation to its products dropping and introducing products whenever it deems so as to attain the respective firm goals. For instance, in 2003, the firm took such a step by the introducing and making Dairy Milk the firm's Megabrand. Such a move by the firm was accompanied by two brands that have been known as stand alones, Caramel and Wispa being discontinued and instead they were replaced by Dairy Milk's Milk Bubbly and Dairy Milk Caramel (Sharma 2008). What followed was not anything pleasing to affirm regarding its ambitions to increase its profits. There was an overwhelming response from the customers in almost all the social network sites regarding the Wispa bar, this action led to the firm re-launching the product in 2007 as a stand alone brand after the campaign held by customers in Facebook which is a social networking site. In a few weeks just after the re-launch of the chocolate bar, Cadbury was able to sell almost 20 million bars of the chocolate brand (Murphy 2000).
This move stunned the management of the firm especially regarding the overwhelming response that he consumers had accorded the products. It is a fact that if a product is able to do such well only in its first weeks of introduction into the market, producers will definitely be tempted to follow the same channel and introduce another product (Capon 2004). The move led to the re-launching of the caramel bar as a stand alone product considering that it would pay off just like its counterpart Wispa. Wispa which was first introduced into the market in early 1983 was first introduced in to the national English market, 12 years later there was the launch of the Caramel filled Wispa gold which was discontinued from production in 2003 due to the reduction in its sales. The re-launching of the special edition of Wispa Gold an edition covered in actual gold runs for approximately US$ 1626.73, this is the most expensive chocolate bar in the world (Sharma 2008).
Chaturverdi Et Al. (2009) and Davies, (2006) suggest that umbrella branding involves a case where an overarching brand is used a cross a number of products that are related. Umbrella branding can also be termed to as family branding. Standalone or individual branding deals with cases where single products are given conspicuous identity and brand names. Umbrella branding is constantly associated with economical reasons especially because a number of firm products can be promoted and advertised using single campaigns and advertisements. Similarly the umbrella branding leads to the facilitation of the introduction of new products by the use of similar names, names that are familiar with the customers (Farrow 2002). Similar names and brands often lead to trial purchase, a case where customers buy a product because they have either used similar products in future or due to the name being familiar. The disadvantage of umbrella branding is associated with the difficulties that can be faced by the owner when it comes to issues concerning the maintenance of the product quality. This is because if the commodities quality is put at a compromising situation, then the reputation of the other products is compromised too (Chester 2009).
On the other Davies, (2006) claims that standalone branding ensures that each product is on its own even away from its parent company and there is no link with the parent company whatsoever. This means that the product is never linked with other company products. This is an advantage since if the quality of the product is compromised, other firm's products can not be victimized. A disadvantage only arises when people want to be associated with products from certain companies. In such instances a product is normally compromised since people do not prefer trial and error purchase of products from firms they are not well acquitted with (Swystun 2009).
It is undisputable that Cadbury when compared to other firms in the same line of production stands out. The firm possesses a number of strengths that other firms do not posses. For example, Cadbury is the largest supplier of confectionery in the whole world. The firm controls and owns 9.9% of the total market shares (Chaturverdi Et Al. 2009). The firm has finance at its disposal. The entity makes a yearly turnover of approximately 7971.4 million pounds this is according to the financial year that ended in 2010. Similarly there is a strong manufacturing competence that is possessed by the firm, the firm is also established and it is a leader when it comes to the innovative field. The firm has also made a number of acquisitions in the recent past which enables it to control a larger market share. Recent acquisitions such as Adams have enabled the firm to expand its market share in the US (Montoya & Vandehey 2008).
Cadbury has relied heavily on its strategic management and skills to gain a competitive advantage over its rivals. Through the confectionary line of production, Cadbury is able to build a viable position in prioritizing markets through acquisition and organic growth. Apart from this opportunity, the firm has a number of development projects in Russia and china through which it expects to widen its production process. The firm's timeout candy bar has become a success s in the world market (Swystun 2009). The company has managed to use the internet in creating awareness of the various products that it is offering and at the same time it is able to distribute the products through the same channel. The web that is being utilized by the firm is referred to as the Develop Gourmet line.
The firm despite offering and developing a line of products that is entirely of low calories the firm is also offering sugar free sweets. Through these varying lines of products, a Cadbury globe has been opened in the US. There are also so many opportunities for the firm in store if it wants to trade its products in international markets. For instance, if the firm wants to export its products to the French market the politics and the economic status of the firm favors it (Swystun 2009). France is politically advanced and it has a more stable political system. The country is a member of the European Union just like the UK. Economically, the country has a very high gross domestic product and it is a first world advanced state. All this shows how there is the presence of new markets put there for the firm.
Another opportunity that lies in store for Cadbury is the confectionary market that has highly been characterized by acquisition and mergers (Saubert 2006). Such opportunities are there so as a firm can be able to increase its market shares especially if the targeted mergers and acquisitions have competitive advantages. Similarly, innovation is the key drive to the firm (Pickton & Masterson 2010). The firm is involved with coming up with ways through which they can be able to respond to the constant changing demands of the people through their R&D. R&D has led to the firm launching and re-launching products that were discontinued from production due a decrease in sales. Some of the products such as sugar free and Cadbury premium products that are chewing gum filled have been introduced into the market. For instance the demand for products such as natural confectionary and low fat organic products has proved to have a positive demand towards the customers (Murphy 2000).
A key for survival of a firm within the FMCG environment calls for firms that are capable of reducing their production costs but improving on their efficiency (Farrow 2002). The programs used by Cadbury in fueling their efficiency and reducing their costs have contributed to its very many years' survival and success stories. Some of the strategies employed by the firm involves moving their products to countries where the production costs an be curtailed due to cheap raw materials and labor, a reduction on internal expenses and costs and carrying diligent research and development.
Despite the firm enjoying the fame it does, there are a number of threats that it faces, for instance, the firm is entirely dependent on the beverage and confectionery markets. This is very dangerous because some firms that are in the same line of production such as Nescafe are engaged in more diverse portfolio products (Pickton & Masterson 2010). The profits from Nescafe are put into other activities which can earn the firm more profits. The other activities may proof worth in cases where the market in one production line tends to fail. Similarly, other firms have indicated greater international experience when compared to Cadbury, (Petruzzelli 2005).