5 Hour Energy Marketing Analysis

Dissecting A Marketing Strategy: 5 Hour Energy As he returned from a natural products trade show, Manoj Bhargava wondered to himself, â€Å"If I’m tired, do I also have to be thirsty? † As he contemplated this realization, he began to process it as a comparison of treatment of both a stomachache and a headache. Six months later he was entering one of the most saturated markets in the country, with a revolutionary product and a marketing plan that evolved from the placeholder name it still bears on the 3. 5 million units sold each year. -Hour Energy grossed north of $600 million last year and currently holds a 90% market share in the energy-shot business. Much of the company’s success can be attributed to a stringent customer-focused marketing plan, intent on distinguishing themselves in a competitive market by sharply reacting to customer focus groups. In dissecting the marketing strategy of Living Essential LLC’s 5-Hour Energy, I will detail how the compa ny was able to successfully target a market and position its’ product for sustained, long-run profitability. Market segmentation† is described as dividing a market into distinct segments that have similar needs or behaviors and behave in similar ways. Living Essential’s Bhargava had a product he believed could compete in the rapidly expanding energy drink market. The focus now shifted to identifying target groups of individuals that could be pulled away from the major players, such as Red Bull and Monster. With a goal to ambush the energy drink market with a customer-responsive product, Living Essential began laying out a $60 million research plan to identify a target market and develop a solid positioning strategy.The team of statisticians and psychologists embarked on a 36 month, nationwide research quest, utilizing focus groups, behavioral data collection, survey research and cross-sectional market analysis. At the core of this effort was a belief that in a mo nopolistically competitive market, the product needed to differentiate itself by directly fulfilling customer demands. The most glaring result of the company’s massive marketing research was that creating a profitable position in the energy drink market was only going to be possible by differentiating 5-Hour Energy from much larger conglomerate distributers.The product, in and of itself, possessed a points of parity laundry list when compared to other energy promoting soft drinks. Research showed that consumers were virtually indifferent as to the flavor, content and end-results of popular brands. The data did, however, produce several key areas where the potential for product differentiation shown out like a beacon of light in a cavernous black hole. Living Essential’s marketing team began swiftly developing a plan based on these very points of differentiation, which would slingshot the company into the market leader in only three short months.Equipped with the knowle dge about the target market they wanted to reach and the competitive advantage opportunities within the market, Living Essential began to refine its’ product. The marketing research results were at the forefront of product development. The decision was made that the company would not compete in refrigerated coolers with larger producers. One of the many customer complaints about energy drinks is that they need to consume nearly 12 ounces of a highly caffeinated, sugary beverage in order to get the jolt for which they were looking.From this data, 5-Hour Energy’s most important product concept was born: two-ounce bottles. Living Essential founder Manaj Bhargava had unknowingly identified one of the products biggest points of differentiation nearly a year prior on his return flight from the natural products conference: Must you be thirsty, because you’re tired? The answer from product focus groups was a resounding: â€Å"No! † Purchasers of energy drinks sim ply wanted energy. They were not engrossed in the requisite consumption of needless sugar calories that would, ultimately, lead to a â€Å"crash†, once the body had expended the artificial energy.The 5-Hour Energy product was now developing, in an effort to fulfill customer demand. This was the first major evolution toward becoming a demand-marketed product. Simple observation of the advertising efforts of popular energy drinks will lead you to the target demographic that energy drink producers hope their product will attract. If you have ever seen ESPN’s extreme sports competition, the X Games, the percentage odds are that you are a 13-17 year old boy.Even if you don’t happen to fall into that category, it would be glaringly obvious that energy drinks have deemed this demographic as their primary consumer targets. Nearly every competitor’s outerwear is littered with red-winged patches and most are promptly provided with a post-competition energy drink, l ogo facing outwards, at the conclusion of their â€Å"extreme† event. 5-Hour Energy’s marketing team consequently posed the question following their research results: â€Å"Are teens the only people in this world who are looking for extra energy? After all, it might be said that young boys have plenty of energy without caffeinated encouragement. Living Essential now had its’ second major point of differentiation on which to launch a marketing campaign. Seeking a niche that would give access to the energy drink market, Living Essential positioned itself as a product focused on individuals who work long hours, maintain non-traditional schedules and hold alertness-critical positions. Contrary to their competition, 5-Hour Energy attempted to appeal to demographics such as stay-at-home moms, doctors and professional athletes.Advertising efforts were geared toward weary professionals in contrast to BMX riding thrill-seekers. The underlying theory was that everyone ne eds energy. That being said, there was no room in the market for yet another energy drink. Living Essential could not bring forth another comparable product and compete with the brand recognition Red Bull and Monster already had in place. Using research data, Living Essential had identified the product’s differentiation advantages and the target market for optimizing sustained profitability in the energy drink market.The company, still directionally led by market research, now needed to determine at what price consumers would value their product. The conclusion that 5-Hour Energy could not effectively compete with large manufacturers was made, due mostly to the cost of retail space in refrigerated coolers. By making this concession however, it forced the upstart manufacturers to explore the retail spaces and the implicit nature of the product actually created a competitive advantage. The answer lay in the physical size of the product. Because 5-Hour Energy was not marketing i tself as an energy â€Å"beverage,† it didn’t eed to place the product in coolers next to Pepsi and Coca-Cola. Instead, the company made the decision to market 5-Hour Energy as a point-of-sale item. There was no need to have the bottles chilled, as consumers placed no additional value in temperature of only 2 ounces of consumable liquid. Next, they determined the size of the product gave them a pricing advantage as well. The cost of production for a 2-ounce product, as compared to the average 8-12 ounces of the competitors’ energy drinks, was far more cost effective.By reducing profit margins slightly, in order to sell 5-Hour Energy at a lower cost to consumer, they were able to increase the product’s value compared to competition. Living Essentials introduced the product in test markets at GNC stores in several geographic markets priced at two bottles for $5. After one week, the health food store reported that some of its stores had actually implemented wait-lists for the next shipments of 5-Hour Energy. The team at Living Essential realized they had a unique product, untapped target market and price point, that had endless potential.Bound still by the inability to financially support a large mainstream distribution, the company hired small distributors to peddle the product to convenience stores, encouraging them to put it on the counter next to lighters and key chains. It did not take long for larger competitors to take notice of the success that 5-Hour Energy was enjoying. The tiny, upstart package had not only stolen market share from the big names in the energy drink market, it had created from this share an entirely different market. The term Energy Shot was born.Today, all the major manufacturers of energy drinks have scrambled to enter the energy shot market, but 5-Hour Energy has the only real brand-recognition. Living Essential spends a modest amount on advertising in order to maintain its’ leadership position, but continues with a no-frills approach. Like the name of the product, which was only meant as a place holder originally until a marketable name was conceived, 5-Hour Energy delivers an old fashioned Proctor & Gamble message: Here’s the product, Here’s the features; Here’s the Benefits.It has been said, that one does not need to have invented rubber to sell tires. 5-Hour Energy did not create a market in energy promoting beverages. In fact, their recognition that they could not have survived in such a market, is the primary reason for their success. The progression of Living Essentials energy shot product reinforces the principles of marketing and the forces that good marketing can have on consumer behaviors. When the focus shifts from selling people your product, to producing the product they want, the odds of sustained profitability are exponentially increased. -Hour Energy utilized fundamentally sound research techniques to develop a marketing plan that emphasiz ed the competitive advantage of the product. With continued attention to the static nature of their target market and demographic segmentations, the company can look forward to a long and prosperous future. After all, people will always be thirsty, and they will always be tired, however, both problems do not need to be remedied with one product.

Abortion Is a Form of Murder

Each year, two out of every one hundred women aged fifteen to forty-four have an abortion, 48 % of them have had at least one previous abortion and 61% percent have had a previous birth. This means that these women understand the joy of a baby being born, and still choose to take away their privilege to live. They’ve carried these children before and know the happiness of seeing their own healthy child in their arms for the first time. Why then, when they know they are creating a new life inside of them, do they choose to deprive their child the right to live and experience everything life has to offer? They willingly decide to kill that child and decide to have an abortion. Hence, abortion should be illegal because one is committing an inhumane act by killing an innocent child inside the mother’s womb. The reasons included are abortion is a form of murder, causes many psychological issues, other means of contraceptives are available, legal view against abortion, is very costly, and abortion can cause medical complications. â€Å"Abortion is a form of murder and demeans the value of human life. When a mother is carrying a child, she does not say â€Å"oh, the fetus kicked† or â€Å"oh, the mass of cells that hasn’t become a person kicked†, the mother says â€Å"the baby kicked† (Balanced Politics). After contraception the baby is considered alive and a human. According to â€Å"The Official Senate report on Senate Bill 158†, the â€Å"Human Life Bill†, says that conception marks the beginning of the human life of a human being- a being that is alive and a member of the human species. The life of the baby begins right away; one cannot take that away and kill the baby. Everything that determines the individuality and originality of a person is established at conception. The first single cell contains the entire genetic blueprint of the human being. Abortion ends the innocent life of a baby. From conception, the new human conceived deserves the full protection of the law just as any other person does. Abortion causes many psychological issues not only to the mother, but also to the family. Many women who have an abortion in their younger years end up living the rest of their lives in permanent guilt. Even if the mother is fine with aborting the child, the father may not be. The father might want to keep the baby, but he thinks he has no legal alternative if the mother chooses abortion. Why should he suffer for the decision the mother makes? Abortion causes damage to everyone. In a study of post-abortion patients only 8 weeks after their abortion, researchers found that 44% complained of nervous disorders, 36% had experienced sleep disturbances, 31% had regrets about their decision, and 11% had been prescribed psychotropic medicine by their family doctor. Since many post-aborted women use repression as a coping mechanism, there may be a long period of denial before a woman seeks psychiatric care (Major Psychological Sequelae of Abortion). These repressed feelings may cause illnesses and psychiatric or behavioral issues in other areas of the mother’s life. As a result, some counselors report that unacknowledged post-abortion distress is the main factor in many of their female patients, even though their patients have come to them seeking therapy for seemingly unrelated problems. Also, women may experience abortion as a traumatic event. Many are forced into unwanted abortions by husbands, boyfriends, parents, or others. If the woman has repeatedly been a victim of domineering abuse, such an unwanted abortion may be perceived as the ultimate violation in a life characterized by abuse. Other women, no matter how compelling the reasons they have for seeking an abortion, may still perceive the termination of their pregnancy as the violent killing of their own child. The fear, anxiety, pain, and guilt associated with abortion all cause damage to the motherand anyone who is associated with the baby being aborted (Major Psychological Sequelae of Abortion). Women have the right to treat their bodies however they want, but there are other means of birth control that are much more suitable; abortion should be a last resort option and even then only if it is absolutely necessary. If a woman does not want to become pregnant, she should avoid this with some sort of contraception or abstinence. There are many ways that a woman can prevent pregnancy, the most common of which being a birth control pill that generally must be taken once a day. If a woman accidentally becomes pregnant she can choose to put the child up for adoption, take the morning after pill, which is generally a stronger dose of a birth control pill, or use a copper intrauterine device, which must be inserted within five days of conception in order to work properly. If they find out too late to use either the morning after pill or to use a CID, they should make the right choice and put the child up for adoption. A big mistake that most people think is that the morning after pill is the same thing has having an abortion because you are killing the baby, but the pill kills the sperm before it conceives the egg and is not actually killing the baby. About 1. 5 million American families want to adopt children, and women have up to nine months to decide where and who they want to raise their child. It is a win-win situation for the mother because she does not have to kill her baby if she does not want the child; instead she is doing a good thing by giving up the child for adoption. Rape and incest victims should take the morning after pill to prevent a pregnancy if they do not want it to occur, or put the child up for adoption. It is understandable for the mother to not want to go through with the birth because she wants to forget about the incident, but it is a much better alternative to abortion and a much safer one. The only situation where abortion is understandable is when the mother is in danger of dying because of giving birth to the baby. This happens in ectopic pregnancies, where the fetus begins developing outside of the womb. In this situation the mother can resort to abortion, because her life is in danger. The baby has a zero change of living also (Balanced Politics). There are many legal arguments that support not having an abortion. A good example of a case is of Roe v. Wade, which allows abortion seven months into pregnancy. It violates the standard of legal reasoning. The Supreme Court made a decision on not to decide when life began. It overturned state laws that protected the unborn and has resulted in over 30 million abortions (roughly the population of Canada) in the United States. The Supreme Court clearly stated that it does not know when life begins and then violated the very spirit of this legal principle by acting as if it just proved that no life existed in the womb. A crucial role of government is to protect life. Government cannot remove a segment of the human population from its protection without adequate justification. For example,† A hunter who hears rustling in the bushes shouldn't fire until he knows what is in the bushes. Likewise, a Court which doesn't know when life begins should not declare open season on the unborn. † (Arguments Against Abortion). Abortion is extremely expensive and tax money should not support this horrible act. The First trimester procedures run about $500-1000. Second trimester procedures cost $600-10,000. People have the right to see where their tax money is going. Abortion is a medical procedure that must be performed by a doctor. The government contributes to many health care institutions such as Healthcare for the Homeless, Planned Parenthood, free clinics, etc. Planned Parenthood, through promoting abortion, has killed far more people than the Third Reich did. It is the most efficient mass-murder machine ever devised, and is funded by our federal tax dollars. It may not use our tax money to abort babies but our taxes buy and maintain the office, hire the personnel, and pay for the counseling that leads to the abortion. Everyone who pays taxes has the right to prevent their money from going to these institutions that commit murder by killing an innocent child (Abortion And Your Taxes). Abortion also causes various medical complications to the mother. Some complications include blocked fallopian tubes, weakened cervix, uterine scarring, and damage to the mother’s reproductive system, which may make her unable to conceive in the future. Women may also face the increase in the probability of tubal babies, hysterectomies, miscarriages, still births, and premature deaths. Abortion increases the chance of breast, uterine, and cervical cancer. â€Å"During a women’s pregnancy a surge of hormone, estrogen, causes the breast cells to divide, become more mature and secrete milk† (Anti-Abortion Arguments). During this process of cell division they are more susceptible to cancer causing agents. If the woman has an abortion, the natural process is interrupted and her breast cells will remain immature. Also, not all abortions are 100% hygienically clean, which may create a leeway for hundreds of types of infections for the mother. For example, if the mother cannot afford a proper abortion, and has an abortion in a dangerous location or environment it can be harmful because the proper tools are not being used and they might not be properly sanitized (Anti-Abortion Arguments). In conclusion, abortion should be illegal due to the specific reasons mentioned in the above paragraphs. Abortion is a very harmful process which could in the end harm not only the mother, but the father too. Killing a human is never what someone should decide on doing; instead they should consider giving the baby up for adoption. The mother carrying the child should realize that there are a lot of other options available for her and she does not have to kill a human if she does not want the baby. If a woman has been raped, she should take the morning after pill and it will help her have a less of a chance of being pregnant. In the end the guilt of killing a human will never leave the mother. Why live with that guilt feeling when one knows there are many other options out there instead of killing an innocent baby?

Free Essays on The Controversy On Condoms

The Controversy on Condoms Sex Sells! Many advertising companies have demonstrated it does. But, does safe sex sell? If you’re channel surfing during prime time, on network television, you may see a group of 20’ something women discussing their life long friendship and their similar choice in oral birth control. Also, a woman lovingly speaks of her husband’s decision to use Viagra for the sake of their relationship. What are you least likely to see? Probably a commercial for condoms. If I had to identify exactly what makes condoms controversial in this country, I believe it is the fact that they are worn on an erect penis. Anytime you introduce the penis, especially an erect one, sex is implied. The condom is guilty by association. Networks have been slow to respond to the increasing public acceptance of condom ads for the fear of arousing opposition from conservative groups. Network executives cite concerns that some viewers believe condoms encourage promiscuity or may be uncomfortable with the idea of condom advertisements within the privacy of their homes. However, a June 2001 Kaiser Family Foundation study revealed that Americans might be more open to condom advertisements than the networks believe. The survey found that a whopping 71-percent of Americans favor allowing condom advertisements on television; 37-percent say the ads should be allowed to air at anytime; the other 34-percent say they should only show them during a specific time period; and 25-percent said condom advertisements should not be allowed to air at all. Interestingly, more people opposed beer ads on television, 34-percent, than condom ads. Throughout the 1960’s and 1970’s the National Association of Broadcasters’ (NAB) code of conduct prohibited condom advertising out right. A San Jose, California television station, violated the prohibition with a Trojan condom commercial in 1975, but discontinued the advertisement soon there... Free Essays on The Controversy On Condoms Free Essays on The Controversy On Condoms The Controversy on Condoms Sex Sells! Many advertising companies have demonstrated it does. But, does safe sex sell? If you’re channel surfing during prime time, on network television, you may see a group of 20’ something women discussing their life long friendship and their similar choice in oral birth control. Also, a woman lovingly speaks of her husband’s decision to use Viagra for the sake of their relationship. What are you least likely to see? Probably a commercial for condoms. If I had to identify exactly what makes condoms controversial in this country, I believe it is the fact that they are worn on an erect penis. Anytime you introduce the penis, especially an erect one, sex is implied. The condom is guilty by association. Networks have been slow to respond to the increasing public acceptance of condom ads for the fear of arousing opposition from conservative groups. Network executives cite concerns that some viewers believe condoms encourage promiscuity or may be uncomfortable with the idea of condom advertisements within the privacy of their homes. However, a June 2001 Kaiser Family Foundation study revealed that Americans might be more open to condom advertisements than the networks believe. The survey found that a whopping 71-percent of Americans favor allowing condom advertisements on television; 37-percent say the ads should be allowed to air at anytime; the other 34-percent say they should only show them during a specific time period; and 25-percent said condom advertisements should not be allowed to air at all. Interestingly, more people opposed beer ads on television, 34-percent, than condom ads. Throughout the 1960’s and 1970’s the National Association of Broadcasters’ (NAB) code of conduct prohibited condom advertising out right. A San Jose, California television station, violated the prohibition with a Trojan condom commercial in 1975, but discontinued the advertisement soon there...

Learn About the Crimean War

Learn About the Crimean War The Crimean War is perhaps remembered mostly for the â€Å"Charge of the Light Brigade,† a poem written about a disastrous episode when British cavalry valiantly attacked the wrong objective in a battle. The war was also significant for the pioneering nursing of Florence Nightingale, the reporting of a man considered the first war correspondent, and the first use of photography in a war. The war itself, however, arose from muddled circumstances. The conflict between superpowers of the day was fought between allies Britain and France against Russia and its Turkish ally. The result of the war did not make enormous changes in Europe. Although rooted in longstanding rivalries, the Crimean War erupted over what was obviously a pretext involving religion of populations in the Holy Land. It was almost as if the large powers in Europe wanted a war at that time to keep each other in check, and they found an excuse to have it. Causes of the Crimean War In the early decades of the 19th century, Russia had grown into a mighty military power. By 1850 Russia appeared to be intent on spreading its influence southward. Britain was concerned that Russia would expand to the point where it held power over the Mediterranean. The French emperor Napoleon III, in the early 1850s, had forced the Ottoman Empire to recognize France as a sovereign authority in the Holy Land. The Russian tsar objected and began his own diplomatic maneuvering. The Russians claimed to be protecting the religious freedom of Christians in Holy Land. War Declared By Britain and France Somehow the obscure diplomatic wrangling led to open hostilities, and Britain and France declared war against Russia on March 28, 1854. The Russians appeared willing, at first, to avoid war. But demands put forth by Britain and France were not met, and a larger conflict seemed unavoidable. The Invasion of the Crimea In September 1854 the allies struck the the Crimea, a peninsula in the present day Ukraine. The Russians had a large naval base at Sevastopol, on the Black Sea, which was the ultimate target of the invasion force. The British and French troops, after landing at Calamita Bay, began marching southward toward Sevastopol, which was approximately 30 miles away. The allied armies, with about 60,000 troops, encountered a Russian force at the River Alma and a battle ensued. The British commander, Lord Raglan, who had not been in combat since losing an arm at Waterloo nearly 30 years earlier, had considerable trouble coordinating his attacks with his French allies. Despite these problems, which would become common throughout the war, the British and French routed the Russian army, which fled. The Russians regrouped at Sevastopol. The British, bypassing that major base, attacked the town of Balaclava, which had a harbor that could be used as a supply base. Ammunition and siege weapons began to be unloaded, and the allies prepared for an eventual attack on Sevastopol. The British and French began an artillery bombardment of Sevastopol on October 17, 1854. The time-honored tactic did not seem to have much effect. On October 25, 1854, the Russian commander, Prince Aleksandr Menshikov, ordered an attack on the allied lines. The Russians attacked a weak position and stood a good chance of reaching the town of Balaclava until they were repulsed heroically by Scottish Highlanders. Charge of the Light Brigade As the Russians were fighting the Highlanders, another Russian unit began removing British guns from an abandoned position. Lord Raglan ordered his light cavalry to prevent that action, but his orders got confused and the legendary Charge of the Light Brigade was launched against the wrong Russian position. The 650 men of the regiment raced into certain death, and at least 100 men were killed in the first minutes of the charge. The battle ended with the British having lost a lot of ground, but with the standoff still in place. Ten days later the Russians attacked again. In what was known as the Battle of the Inkermann, the armies fought in very wet and foggy weather. That day ended with high casualties on the Russian side, but again the fighting was indecisive. The Siege Continued As the winter weather approached and conditions deteriorated, the fighting came to a virtual halt with the siege of Sevastopol still in place. During the winter of 1854-55 the war became an ordeal of disease and malnutrition. Thousands of troops died of exposure and contagious illnesses spread through the camps. Four times as many troops died of illness than combat wounds. In late 1854 Florence Nightingale arrived in Constantinople and began treating British troops in hospitals. She was shocked by the appalling conditions she encountered. The armies stayed in trenches throughout the spring of 1855, and assaults on Sevastopol were finally planned for June 1855. Attacks on fortresses protecting the city were launched and repulsed on June 15, 1855, thanks largely to incompetence by the British and French attackers. The British commander, Lord Raglan, had taken ill and died on June 28, 1855. Another attack on Sevastopol was launched in September 1855, and the city finally fell to the British and French. At that point the Crimean War was essentially over, though some scattered fighting went on until February 1856. Peace was finally declared in late March 1856. Consequences of the Crimean War While the British and French did eventually capture their objective, the war itself could not be considered a great success. It was marked by incompetence and what was widely perceived as needless loss of life. The Crimean War did check the Russian expansionist tendencies. But Russia itself was not really defeated, as the Russian homeland was not attacked.

Marketing concept Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Marketing concept - Assignment Example It will then examine why Beats Electronics used this particular concept and the extent to which it has been forced to accommodate changing trends in consumer trends and the resources that were deployed in marketing this concept and finally the analysis will consider how this concept enabled the firm to enhance on its business performance. Increasingly, firms are placing more emphasis on retaining their customers and often it takes a significant amount of effort, time as well as money in both attracting a new customer. Creating long term customers are seen as most beneficial (Gronroos & Voima, 2011). Relationship marketing is one of the theories which can be used to not only develop but also to liquidate the relationships that firms have with their customers in a manner that not only creates value, but also enhances on the firm’s level of competitiveness (Gronroos & Voima, 2011). Service quality is also another theory that seeks to explain customer value and here the quality of the provided service or product is exactly how the customer wishes it to be. In many instances, customers have a significantly wider speculation of quality which means that firms have to determine the quality in the same manner as their customers (Shamim & Ghazali, 2014). In the case of Beats Electronics, both Dr.Dre and Jimmy Iovine wished to provide the customer with similar headphones to the ones Apple had in the market but with better sound quality (Helm, 2014). Service quality in this instance is made up of two distinct parts which is the expected and perceived service. The perceived quality is made of two aspects: one is technical which is what the customer gets and customers often look to this aspect since it provides an overview of how the firm’s products can provide a technical solution to the problem (Shamim & Ghazali, 2014). The other aspect is functional which strives to examine the