Mountain Man Brewing Company is considering introducing a new light beer variety called MM Light to appeal to changing consumer preferences. However, this could dilute the core brand and increase expenses. While light beer sales are growing, Mountain Man's brand equity and loyal customer base are tied to its signature bitter flavor. After evaluating market insights and alternatives, the recommendation is for Mountain Man to stick to the original MM Lager and increase promotion to existing and new customers, rather than introducing a new product with uncertain returns and higher costs. Maintaining the core brand strengths and focusing marketing on the original product is believed to have less risk than diversifying the brand portfolio.

1. Mountain Man Brewing Company:
Bringing the Brand to Light
Harvard Business School Case
Bringing the Brand to Light
Harvard Business School Case

2. What is Mountain Man
Brewing Company?
Who is Chris Prangel ?

3. Main Players!
1. Guntar Prangel : Founder of Mountain Man Brewing
Comoany in 1925 and about to retire in five years.
2. Chris Prangel : An MBA graduate and the son of Guntar
Prangel, and about to inherit the company in 5 years.

4. • Founded by Guntar Prangel, the Mountain Man Beer
Company (MMBC) in 1925.
• Launched as Mountain Man Lager. By the 1960s, Mountain
Man Lager’s reputation was throughout the East Central
region of the United States.
• By 2005 Mountain Man was generating revenues just over $50
million and selling over 520,000 barrels.

5. Situation Analysis
• Decreasing sales of the Mountain Man Lager over the last few
years for the first time in history.
• Increase in the consumption of light beer by the customer.
• Chris Prangel wanted to introduce a new variety of product MM
light.
• But he had doubts about the success of this decision.
• Careful planning and evaluation was needed in order to make this
decision.

6. Situation Analysis
• Industry-
Beer

7. Main Issues
Evaluation of responses given by half a dozen participants on the
introduction of Mountain Man’s Light beer variety.
• Response of young people
• Response of loyal old age group
• Gender Diversity

8. Main Issues
To decide if the introduction of new variety would increase
the sales and would the company be able to breakeven
taking into account the expenses that would be incurred
when MM light would be introduced.

9. Insights from Demographics,2005
Insights show that majority of the customers who were regular customers of the
brand were between 35-64 age group.

10. Insights from Demographics,2005
• MM Lager was voted as the best beer of the year by 67% of the
adult population.
• Mountain Man was as recognizable a brand among working-class
males in the East Central region
• But the trend was changing continuously and the consumption of
light beer was increasing rapidly(4% over the last 6 years).
• MM’s brand equity was majorly due to its distinct bitter flavor.

11. Insights from Demographics,2005
The major competitors of the MM were the major domestic producers
which together formed 74% of shipments in the region.

12. Insights from Demographics,2005
Consumption statistics showed the increase in the sales of light beer

13. Insights from Demographics,2005
Advertising Expenses by the other brands were too much:

14. Situation Type - Decision
Chris Prangel needed to decide whether to introduce MM
Light in the market or go with the traditional MM Lager
only.

15. Situation Type - Decision
MM Lager MM Light

16. Situation Type - Decision
Decision Criteria :
1. Increase in the sales of light beer by 4% over the last 6 years.
2. It might lead to diminishing the core brand values and dilution
of the brand.
3. Young people would definitely try the new beer variety by MM
and they constituted 27% of the beer drinking population.
4. Increased expenses and advertising.

17. Situation Type - Decision
Decision Evidence :
1. Light beer category had been steadily gaining in market share
and accounted for 50.4% of volume sales in 2005.
2. Brand loyalty to MM was 57%(highest in market) and they could
not afford brand dilution.
3. Young people’s preference might boost the sales and revenues.
4. Expenses in the advertising industry by other brands was too
much.

18. Evaluations - Positive
The following things needed to be evaluated:
1. The demand for MM Lager might increase profoundly.
2. Light beer offered consistent growth in the industry.
3. Light beer appealed to young people and women and they
consisted of a large section of society.

19. Evaluations - Negative
1. Diminishing brand value.
2. Increasing expenses without assuring results.
3. The demand for MM Lager might decrease.
4. Advertising was too expensive and MM could not afford to
advertise as much as other brands.

20. Hypothesis
According to my hypothesis, MM should go with
MM Lager only and not introduce MM Light.
According to my hypothesis,
MM should go with MM Lager
only and not introduce MM
Light.

21. Reasons/Proof and Actions for Hypothesis
1. Increase in the expenses to introduce new brand.

22. Reasons/Proof and Actions for Hypothesis
2. Dilution of brand name might further decrease the sales of MM
Lager.

23. Reasons/Proof and Actions for Hypothesis
4. Guntar Prangel(father) had experience and advised not to increase
the variety of the products.

24. Reasons/Proof and Actions for Hypothesis
5. Stick to the core brand values and target original age group of
customers.

25. Examining Alternatives
Strongest Alternative : To introduce MM Light variety in the market
and increase expenses for advertising and hope that the product sales
increases.

26. Examining Alternatives
Weakness of the given hypothesis :
The greatest weakness would be that the number of
customers would remain same and no new customers would
be added, on the other hand, the sales of light beer will
keep on increasing

27. Decision :
Downside of recommended decision :
No new customer would be added and thus the advertising for MM
Lager should be increased I order to increase revenues.
New advertisement policies must be formed and money should be
spent to promote the original product among new customers instead of
increasing expenses on new product.

28. Decision :
Evidence against recommended decision :
We know that the consumption of light beer has increased by 4% over
the last six years and light beer is a promising product in order to get
good returns

29. Major alternative could also work in the market but is has
no surety of returns and based on the experience of the
father and the ability of the MM of afford expenses, it
would be better not to go with the introduction of MM
Light variety.

30. CREATED BY SAURABH AGRAWAL, NIT
HAMIRPUR, DURING A MARKETING
INTERNSHIP UNDER PROFESSOR SAMEER
MATHUR.
DISCLAMER