Question

In 2013, TCCC introduced “Coca-Cola Life” to the family of Coca-Cola brands (i.e., Classic, Diet, and Zero). While Coke Life is available in the U.S., it has been gradually rebranded into “Coca-Cola Stevia” in some markets, including Australia (since 2017), New Zealand (since 2018), and Singapore (since 2018).

Compare these two (2) branding strategies in terms of their potential to achieve stronger brand equity.

Answer 1

Coke Life is a carbonated soda pop with a mix of sugar and stevia leaf separate as sugars. It was launched with other products like classic, diet and zero under the one brand strategy of Coca Cola. Coke Life was created in order to provide customers with an option of lower calorie soft drink. But it didn't turn out to be a winning product for Coca Cola and the attempt to offer lower calories couldn't susutain as people couldn't relate to it's taste and they were prefering the earlier drinks with high calories. Sales went on decreasing in the united states but it was continued with the same name there but in order to position the product in a different way it was rebranded in other countires. Most brands follow this strategy with a non performing product. One can assume that Coca Cola"s analysts and research team after the initial launch of the product could have assumed that this product may not be a fit in America but could be a successful product in other countries if it was freed of the burden of being a failed product in The U.S and positioned as a new product in the other countries.If the name was also changed in The United states and the product would have fared the same way as before it would have had a negative impact on it's sale in other parts.America being the main market and the world being connected to each other especially countires like Australia, NewZeland where feedback of a product can travel quickly and image of a brand could already be created in the mind of consumers by it's performance in other countires even before launch in their own country. So this strategy here was a better option than renaming it in every country and had a more viable impact on it's equity in comparison to the other strategy.