DEWMocracy 2 case study PDF

Preview

Summary

Individual case study...

Description

1. What do companies gain from crowdsourcing products and ideas for products from consumers? From crowdsourcing products and ideas for products from consumers, companies can obtain: + The big database about product’s favorite favors, colors which are “hot trend” in youth, names which are novel creativity from consumers… + The company can reduce the cost to conduct a primary research about consumer’s preferences, behaviors… + It helps companies to understand what consumers wants and create products that they want since many companies create products seem useless and don’t meet the needs of consumers. 2. What was the value proposition to PepsiCo (owner of Mountain Dew) of the series of DEWmocracy2 campaigns? How do you think PepsiCo benefitted? From my perspective, the value proposition of PepsiCo of the series of DEWmocracy2 campaigns are the create deeper brand engagement and to build a more active community of fans in social media. From this campaign, PepsiCo has many benefits: + Increase brand awareness and engagement and turn consumers into DEWmocracy’s fans through Facebook and Twitter. They also have an active group of consumers as members of DEW Labs who were highly engaged with the brand. + Obtain big database about the consumer’s preferences, behaviors, favourite colors, designs and feedbacks. 3. What do you think about the multi-stage (multi-campaign) design of DEWmocracy2? For each stage, how effective do you think it was in engaging consumers with the Mountain Dew brand? I think the multi-stage design of DEWmocracy2 were very novel, but it was a little bit dangerous. Since if PepsiCo designed the campaign too long, the consumers would lose interest on it and get bored. For each stage, I have to say that DEWmocracy was quite successful in engaging consumer with Mountain Dew brand and got: + Stage 1: 1.5 million people attended the events and about 3,000 votes were submitted. + Stage 2: 4,000 of barnd’s most dedicated and passionate fans joined DEW Labs. + Stage 3: Color vote: 11,745 votes were submitted for 3 colors for new 3 favors. + Stage 4: engaged more than 1,994 followers on Twitter race. + Stage 5: Designed package: More than hundreds of viable submissions of package design were sent via Facebook. + Stage 6: Design TV commercials: there are 162 submitted video. Those are viewed 202,000 times and 15,000 votes were cast. + Stage 7: Voted for Favor Nations and White Out was the winner. 4. Were there too many stages? Why? I think there are too many stages and it took more than 1 year. The campaign was successful but it’s too dangerous because it has many drawbacks: + Too time-consuming and cost too much money. + Many stages made consumers curious about the results, but they may also make consumer get bored and quick the game. + Company can get a big database but we’re not sure that how many information will be useful in the future.

5. Do you think this multi-stage approach was effective in keeping consumers’ interest in Mountain Dew (and DEWmocracy2, specifically) high over time? Were some stages better/more effective than others? This multi-stage approach was effective in keeping consumer’s interest in Mountain Dew because it can: + Give the consumer a chance to speak out: to describe the product they want. + Make the consumer curious about the next steps and engage deeper with the brand. + Create a big brand community where consumers can interact with each other, and share their feeling, their ideas about the products, the brand. 6. What was the value of having “Flavor Nations” formed from Dew Labs members? Value to PepsiCo? Value to the members? The value of having “Flavor Nations” formed from Dew Labs members are to give consumers an opportunity to take part in and contribute to the process of making a product. The value of having “Flavor Nations” to PepsiCo are create deeper brand engagement, and to build active community of fans in social media. The value of having “Flavor Nations” to the members are to create a community where DEW fans can contribute and share their experience about the products, the brand. 7. Could PepsiCo use this approach for other brands in their portfolio? Have they? For which types of brands and target segments does crowdsourcing in this way seem most appropriate? PepsiCo could use this approach for other brands in their portfolio if that brand has a similar target audience like DEW because they already created a brand community for DEW so PepsiCo can take advantage of this community. I think the types of brands and target segments crowdsourcing seem most appropriate are younger and more physically active consumers. PepsiCo has another brand called Lays – potato chips which has the same target segments of DEW so PepsiCo can create a campaign to choose the new flavor for Lays chips....