CASE OVERVIEW Group No. 1 The case discusses the immensely popular “Got Milk” advertisement campaign which firs t ran on US television
sets on October 23, 1993 and continues till date. The story behind the campaign started with the formation of California Milk Processor Board (CMPB). CMPB was formed by the milk processors of California to facilitate funding for advertisements and promotional activities. The processors raised $23 million in the first year by contributing $0.03 per gallon of milk sold in the hope that the advertisements can arrest the declining sales of milk that the state had been witnessing over the past two decades. Jeff Manning who had a wealth of experience in branded product marketing was hired as the executive director of CMPB. He hired the services of the ad agency Goodby, Silverstein and Partners and worked with them to come up with the “Got Milk?” campaign. The earlier campaigns focussed on creating awareness about the health benefits of milk and as the surveys showed, were successful in doing so to a large extent; however the increased awareness didn’t translate to increased sales. The “Got Milk?” campaign on the other hand focussed on showing the necessity of milk in the lives of people. The theme of the ad was to show people desperately looking for milk after having a complementary meal/snack only to find out that they have run out of it. The success of the campaign was also due to the fact that the ad makers were quick to realise that Hispanic community who formed one third of the California population found the original advertisement in poor light as the message shown was disrespectful to their beliefs. Consequently, new advertisements were launched keeping the sensibilities of the Hispanic community in mind and they turned out to be highly successful. The “Got Milk?” campaign in California was able to reverse the trends in milk consumption. Seeing the success the advertisement was licensed to national Dairy Management Inc. (DMI) and was broadcast nationally along with the ad campaigns that were being shown earlier. However, milk sales nationally continued to decline. Even so, “Got Milk?” is one of the finest examples of a commodity advertisement, and the results that it achieved in California were nothing short of spectacular. But the campaign has run for over 12 years and the question posed by the case is that has it run its course. The milk sales in California declined after reaching record high in 2003 which may be an indication that it may well have done so.
QUESTIONS
1. Evaluate the CMPB marketing program now and back in the early 90’s. What do you see as its strength and weaknesses? What changes would you make? In the early 90’s milk campaigns focussed on the health benefits by showing ads which listed the positive attributes of milk. They were able to achieve positive shi ft in consumer’s attitude. However, they failed to achieve change in consumer behaviour. While most responses indicated that people were aware of the benefits of having milk, they seldom consumed it be cause either it just didn’t occur to them or they preferred some other beverage as they felt milk was not thirst quenching. “Got Milk?” campaign started in late 1993, used the deprivation strategy. The idea was to show common people desperately looking for milk but not getting it. The idea was to increase the mind share for milk. Nationally, milk moustache campaign was being shown which focussed on the health related aspects of milk. However, after DMI was able to get the license for the “Got Milk? Advertisement event its tag line was changed to “Got Milk?” In 1998 “Got Milk?” incorporated health aspects in the marketing which they had been avoiding since its inception. In 2005, when the sporting world was embroiled in a doping scandal, a non deprivation strategy was used when it showed sportstars using milk as their secret “substance.” Strengths and weaknesses of CMPB marketing program:
Strengths:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
It depicted the actual way people consumed milk i.e. along with other ingredients. It was strikingly different from any contemporary promotion campaign, was incredibly newsworthy and unique. It was smart and humorous advertising that people embraced. Milk-deprivation was common in every ad, it appealed and applied to every age group and community. The associations with other items were very strong and the concept was highly competitive as one cannot dip his cookies in aerated drinks and juices. It was successfully able to fulfill its objective. It changed consumer behavior and mind share.
Weakness: 1. The case filled by a few processors is an indicator that all the funders were not happy with the forced funding from them. 2. The contemporary objective was achieved but in order to sustain the same no further strategies were used. They were switching between deprivation strategies and focusing on health.
We would like to propose that in future CMPB needs to expand its beverage range. They need to include different flavors of milk, milk shakes, energy drinks. In future, the “got milk” campaign needs to i nclude marketing a new range of innovative products. 2. Evaluate their Hispanic marketing initiatives. Does CMPB risk alienating its current customer base? Targeting Hispanic community with new advertisements was a correct move because: 1. It is the fastest-growing minority group in US and is 1/3 rd of the total world Hispanic population; they were already an important part of the consumer base and could not be ignored. 2. Running out of milk was not funny to them and because of differences in usage that are not accounted for in translation, misunderstood Got Milk? To mean "Are you lactating?" 3. Their marketing strategy to Hispanics was more traditional, combined food habits and family, with a focus on milk-based recipes and cooking. 4. This introduced the non-Hispanics to new recipes like Licuados which later on became a rage in California thereby had an additive effect on the overall nationwide campaign. 5. This was culturally astute and increased milk usage. 6. Since this was a multicultural approach and didn’t m ake the minority feel left out, it also generated widespread news coverage, from local Hispanic newspapers and front page of The Wall Street Journal. As the idea remained much the same, everyone could relate to it irrespective of community as it didn’t undermine any other section of society.
EVOLUTION OF GOT MILK FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF BRAND CULTURE:
L.A. Times repo rter commende d the marketing strategy of CMPB sayin g that the campaign has acquired a cult status. The Girl Scouts en dorsing “Got Milk” throug h spe cial pins on their un iforms
Influencers
The change of the image of milk from se rious to lighthearted through humorous deprivation themed ad s covering families , sports icons and children helped create stories for the product.
The Firm
Brand Culture
Customers
The innovative and consistent marketing covering a clever theme of deprivation wh ich reminded the consu mer of the importance of milk. Converting P reference to sales
Popular Culture
„Got Milk‟ cam pa ign featured on everyday items and toys as slogans. Partnerships with popular characters and associations.
BRAND VALUE CHAIN
