This is a Harvard Brief Case of a beverage Crescent Pure.

1. C R E S C E N T
P U R E
Case study

2. What is
Crescent Pure?
What is PDB?

3. The Companies
Crescent
Pure
Acquired
Portland
Drake
Beverages
(PDB)

4. The Product
Crescent Pure: History
• A non-alcoholic FUNCTIONAL beverage.
• Founded by Peter Hooper. Purpose: To
REFRESH, ENERGIZE and enhance MENTAL
FOCUS
• Price : $3.75 for an 8-ounce can.

5. The Product
Crescent Pure: Ingredients
• Clear liquid. Taste : Like a fruit.
• All Ingredients: “Certified Organic”.
• Herbal stimulants: (Guarana seed, Ginseng)
Deliver 80 mg caffeine. ½ that of other energy
drinks.
• Sugar quotient 70% less than leading energy
and sports drinks.
• Dash fine-grain salt delivered electrolytes.

6. The People
Michael
Booth
CEO, PDB
Sarah Ryan
Vice
President,
Marketing,
PDB
Matt Levor
Director,
Market
Research,PDB

7. The
Situation

8. The Situation
➜ PDB planned to “soft launch” Crescent Pure
in 3 western states(California, Washington,
Oregon) in January 2014.
➜ Clashes about LUCRATIVE POSITIONING of
the product.
➜ Advertising Campaign Budget of PDB :
$750,000.
➜ Ryan’s task: To EVALUATE the positioning
opportunities and recommend POSITIONING
STRATEGY to th exucutive team by October
1, 2013.

9. RYAN’S OBJECTIVES
1
Industry Specifics of
the Positioning
options.
2
3 Final Recommendation
Potential Benefits and
Drawbacks of each option

10. P o s i t i o n i n g
O p t i o n s

11. POSITIONING OPTIONS
Sports
Drink
Organic
Drink
Energy
Drink

12. Energy
Drink
vs
Sports
Drink
(Insights)

13. ENERGY DRINK : INDUSTRIAL POINT OF VIEW
• Price Range: $2-$5.
• Average Price for 8 ounce can : $2.99.
• 34% population consumed in last 6
months.
• Most advertisings targeted consumers
of age 18-24.
GREEN: Advantage
for Crescent
RED: Disadvantage
for Crescent

14. ENERGY DRINK : MARKET POINT OF VIEW
• Market size: Grown by 40% between 2010
and 2012.Estimated to be $13.5 billion by
2018.
• Largest Group of consumers: Males
between age 18-34.
• Competition : Top 4 companies accounted
for 85% revenue.
• Opportunity: Sales of Crescent(low in
caffeine and purer ingredients) estimated
to rise.
• Threats: People not consuming due to
concerns about health.
GREEN: Advantage
for Crescent
RED: Disadvantage
for Crescent

15. SPORTS DRINK: INDUSTRIAL POINT OF VIEW
• Price Range: $1-$2 for 12oz. & 24oz.
• 42% population considered it as
“anytime beverages”.
• Wider consumer base than that of
energy drinks.
GREEN: Advantage
for Crescent
RED: Disadvantage
for Crescent

16. SPORTS DRINK: MARKET POINT OF VIEW
• Market Size: Increased only by 9% in 5
years. $9.58 billion by 2017.
• Sports drinks appealed 77% of those
ages 12-17.
• Competition: Top 2 companies have 94%
market share.
• Opportunity: New low sugar sports drinks
were growth areas.
• Threats: Concerns regarding high calorie
sports drinks.
GREEN: Advantage
for Crescent
RED: Disadvantage
for Crescent

17. Crescent
Consumer
Study
How do people percieve
Crescent?

18. Crescent : Consumer Study
Fig.1:Demographics of
Crescent Online Consumers
Fig.2:Percentage of Respondents
who described Crescent

19. Consumer Study: Insights
Fig.1:
• The age group which prefers
Crescent is the same which
consumes energy drinks.
• Males drink energy drink and
also use Crescent more women
do.
Fig.2:
• Most people fin Crescent
Natural, Healthy & Refreshing
which is lacking in the energy
drink market.
• Only 8% consumers consider it
to be safe for teens which
consists of a large segment of
sports drink market.

20. Crescent :Retailer Feedback &
Focus Group Feedback
• Crescent was sold out before the inventory replenished.
• Most popular among age group 18-30.
• Higher percentage of women purchased it than expected.
• Taste: No unfavorable reactions.
• Energy content: Old consumers liked lower level of caffeine
than other energy drinks.
• Young consumers wanted more energy content.
• Price: Most were happily surprised.

21. Consumer
Studies
What’s in their
minds?
Energy Drink
vs
Sports Drink

22. Percentage of respondants who indicated a word that
described the drinks
....
.
. ..
.
.
.
Areas where
Crescent can
create a Point of
Difference(POD)
. =

23. Perceptual Maps
Fig.1:Energy and Hydration Fig.2:Nutrition and Taste

24. Perceptual Maps: Insights
• The red area in Fig.1 is the ideal positioning
for Crescent where no energy drink is
present but a Top sports drink brand is.
• The red area in Fig.2 indicates that all the
top brands have great taste and hence
consumers prefer taste over nutrition.
Crescent is good in both.

25. FINAL
RECOMMENDATION
What should Ryan opt for?

26. Crescent Pure should be placed as an Healthy &
Natural drink in the Energy Drink category

27. WHY
ENERGY
DRINK?

28. The Reasons
• Consumers recognized Crescent as an healthy
alternative to Energy Drink.
• Sales of energy drinks with low caffeine levels were
rising.
• There was threat to the market due to concerns
about health and safety but it does not apply to
Crescent.
• Lesser competition than Sports Drink industry.(From
slides 16 & 18)
• Pricing($2.75/8 oz.) lower than average in market.
• Larger market growth than that of Sports
Drink.(From slides 16 & 18)

29. The Reasons
• Perceptual map: Fig.1 shows that
there is no energy drink in the High
energy & High hydration section.
• Crescent’s online consumers are
mostly between age 18-34 which
is exactly the same age group of
Energy Drink consumers.

30. WHY NOT
ORGANIC
DRINK?

31. The Reasons
• The advertising campaign budget would be needed
to increased. Crescent is just breaking even as
shown in the further slides.
• Such campaign would take a longer period to
develop and execute.
• Such positioning would create confusion among
consumers about the type of the drink.
• As the drink contains caffeine, it is not at all good
for children. Hence, Crescent would lose a big
segment of the Sports Drink market anyway.

32. One more
Question
Will They
Break Even?

33. BREAKEVEN ANALYSIS
ENTITY AMOUNT
Cases predicted to be sold monthly 12,000
Cases predicted to be sold annually 144,000
Cans per case 24
Manufacturer’s profit per can $ 0.22
Manufacturer’s profit per case $ 5.28
Manufacturer’s annual profit $ 760,320
Breakeven Point $750,000
Annual Profit $10,320

34. R E C A P
 Company History
 Product Description
 The Situation
 Ryan’s Objectives
 Positioning Options
 Energy Drink vs Sports Drink(Pros and Cons)
 Consumer Studies
 Final Recommendation(Reasons)
 Break Even Analysis

35. DISCLAIMER
This Presentation was prepared by Soham Gorade, MES AGC,
Pune for to present Case Study analysis assigned during
Marketing Internship under Prof. Sameer Mathur(IIM Lucknow).
Prof. Sameer MathurSoham Gorade