Responses and answer Question

2 responses and answer an question asked to original post by the professor.

Must be APA format, answer post thoroughly, must have at least one verifiable, legitimate reference if needed Due Sunday @ 8:00 PM June 30, 2019. Due today by 10:00 PM. June 30, 2019.

This is a question to your post from the professor that needs to be answered.

Hi Josh: Good choice and a classic failure What would be different if Coke offered its New Coke today?  Given the intense competition in the beverage market with Nestle, Cadbury, Kraft foods, Red Bull to include, etc. would this new product receive such scrutiny?  For example, Coke Zero versus Diet Coke and Pepsi Next or Dr. Pepper 10 versus Mr. Pibb?  Couldn’t New Coke co-exist with the original?

Thanks

RESPONSE #1

JOdi Demay

· Send Email

· Send Instant Message

I decided to research a product that flopped and in the mainstream world there is a lot of new technology that constantly is released and failed due to not living up to its competitors. In the past 5 years there have been a lot of consumer based technology products that have come out and failed from the start. In 2014 one of those products came from the giant we know as Amazon. The Amazon Fire Phone, in 2014 Amazon released its first and only smartphone the Amazon Fire Phone, many early adopters were excited to test out this phone and see if it lived up to the other products Amazon came out with including the Alexa, which is wildly popular and the Kindle Readers and Tablets but sadly the phone didn't live up to the hype that Amazon products normally have. 

First the biggest problem with the phone is that it didn't offer the apps that many of us use on a daily basis including, google maps and Starbucks which left many wondering what other faults this phone had. The phone cost a whopping $650.00 and was competing with other smart phones on the market including Apple and Samsung and even though it had cool technology including 3D option many people didn't understand why it was included but highly useful apps were not as Amazon created its own Android system which didn't include Google applications which turned a lot of people off and they went back to their tried and true phones, Samsung and Apple (Rubin, 2015). 

References:

Rubin, B. F. (2015, July 24). Fire Phone one year later: Why Amazon's smartphone flamed out. Retrieved June 27, 2019, from https://www.cnet.com/news/fire-phone-one-year-later-why-amazons-smartphone-flamed-out/

Loading...

Soniya Stoddard

Thu at 7:56 PM

Hi Jodi,

Thank you for the information. I had no idea Amazon had released a smartphone. Reading the information you provided, for the price tag of $650 and it not having the more commonly used apps found on Apple or Android, I can see why it would fail. Also, I read the article you referenced, AT&T was only carrier tied to the phone and I personally know a lot of people who prefer Verizon or Sprint, so I see that being a huge detractor as well...well maybe not when AT&T offered the phone for 99 cents with a two-year contract (smile). 

Thanks for your insight on this product!

V/r

Soniya

Loading...

James Bookout

Fri at 4:58 PM

Hi Jodi: Good choice and what a failure it was but Amazon could afford the loss.  Can you find how much of an investment it was to produce and sell?

thanks

RESPONSE #2

Jamie-Lyn Truax

"It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off

· Send Email

· Send Instant Message

Truax - Post 1

Jamie-Lyn Truax posted Jun 27, 2019 5:10 PM

Subscribed Subscribe

Previous   Next 

This page automatically marks posts as read as you scroll.

Adjust automatic marking as read setting

Coors Brewing Company located in Golden Colorado made the decision in 1990 to enter the thriving bottled water market. An industry that had gained momentum and the US consumer was becoming increasingly enamored of their bottled water. Coors saw an opportunity o make more money without incurring additional costs. They had access to the spring water, the means of production, and the ability to distribute without adding to their overhead.

There are a few reasons why products fail to achieve longevity. In the case of the Coors Rocky Mountain Spring Water their cost analysis showed a positive. Coors had a small amount of risk and Cost of Capital would have shown them that investing into bottle water as the two investments are very similar. What that Cost of Capital did not show them was the consumers loyalty to their favorite brands. Coors failed to Market their bottled water correctly as they kept the same label  and marketed to their current consumers. Ultimately, the failure of Coors bottled water was the confusion over the label and their lacking of correctly marketing.

Bell, E. (2016) When Coors (Really) Made Water. Vinepair. Retrieved from.

https://vinepair.com/wine-blog/when-tapping-the-rockies-was-a-terrible-idea/

Loading...

Kraig Johnson

Thu at 7:29 PM

Jami-Lyn,

Talk about a missed opportunity. As you stated Coors was all set up, it just had bottle water vs. brewing beer. They had/have the infrastructure, had the water source from the Rockies, but fell short on marketing. I think if they would have come up with a different label, the bottle itself was somewhat different but not enough to make it stand out.

Although it was a failed endeavor, I recall seeing many of the big breweries (Coors, Anheuser-Bush, etc.) actually send cans of bottled water during a natural disaster. So there may be a chance to try Coors bottled water, but now the market is so saturated, they best just stick to what they know best.

Kraig

Loading...

James Bookout

Fri at 4:55 PM

Hi Jamie-Lyn:

Back in the day, a Coors beer was a prized possession because it wasn't sold in the east.  You would think that the rocky mountain water used in their beer would be successful as just water.   Maybe the label was confusing since is was similar to its beer label.  

Thanks

False

False