This presentation has been created by Hemant Kumar during a marketing internship under the guidance of Prof. Sameer Mathur, IIM Lucknow.

1. 0
CRESCENT PURE
A HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL CASE STUDY

2. Companies Involved
Crescent Pure
PDB(Portland Drake Beverages)

3. Crescent Pure
•Founded by Peter Hooper.
•Founded in 2008 in Oregon.
•Manufacturer of Non-alcoholic beverages.

4. PDB(Portland Drake Beverages)
•CEO : Michael Booth
•Manufacturers of organic juices and sparkling water.
•Gives great emphasis on quality and affordability.

5. Situation Analysis
•Michel Booth PDB’s CEO acquired Crescent pure in July 2013
•Sarah Ryan, VP of marketing for PDB has to develop a positioning strategy for
Crescent.
•Has to choose between energy drink, sports drink or organic drink

6. Possible product positioning options
Energy Drink Energy Drink
Organic Drink

7. 1.Energy Drink
Market
Size
For energy
drinks had
grown by
40%
Consumer
data
Largest
group of
consumers-
between age
18 to 34
Competition
Together,
Fright, Razor,
Torque and
Stellar
account for
85% revenue
Opportunity
Sales of
organic
products
with purer
ingredients
rising
Threats
Alleged
health
risks

8. 2.Sports Drink
Competition
Gleam and
Drip had 73%
and 21%
market share
Consumer
data
Sports drink
appealed to
younger
consumers.
77% betwwen
age 12 to 17
Opportunity
New diet
and low-
sugar sports
drinks-
growth area
of industry
Threats
Government-
mandates
guidelines to
remove sports
drink from
school vending
machine

9. 3.Organic Drink
Strengths
Emerging
Market and
less
competition
Opportunity
Increasing
demand for
a healthier
drink
Weaknesses
No existing
customer
base
Threats
Less
advertising
budget
may pose
a problem

10. Crescent Pure vs. Energy Drinks
Points of
Parity
Energizing
Has
caffeine
Kills
fatigue
Refreshing
Points of
Difference
Organic
Healthy
2.75$ vs.
2.99$
Low
sugar

11. Crescent Pure vs. Sports Drink
Points of
Parity
Enhance
performance
Hydrating nature
High nutrition
Points of
Difference
Low sugar
Healthier
alternative

12. Consumer Study/Analysis

13. 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Refreshing Healthy Affordable Functional Too sweet Natural Hydrating
12
6 5
22
9
4
11
34
16
11
28
8
6
49
PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHO INDICATED A
WORD THAT DESCRIBED ENERGY OR SPORTS
DRINKS
Energy Drinks Sports Drinks

14. 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54
44
36
15
3
2
DEMOGRAPHICS OF CRESCENT ONLINE
CONSUMERS
Age Ranges
55+

15. 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Refreshing Healthy Affordable Functional Too Sweet Fun Natural Hydrating
35
22
29
47
9
19
38
29
Percentage of respondents who described Crescent

16. Perceptual Map : Hydration vs. Energy

17. Perceptual Map : Nutrition vs. Taste

18. Break-Even Analysis

19. oVariable costs per can = $1.02
oVariable costs per case (24 cans) = $1.02*24 = $24.48
oWholesale price to distributors per case = $29.76
oProfit per case = $29.76 - $24.48 = $5.28
oPlanned advertising cost = $ 750,000
oRequired sale of cases per year = 750,000/5.28 =
142,045.45
oRequired sale of cases per month = 142,045.45/12 =
11,837.12 (which is less than maximum production
capacity of 12,000 cases per month)
RESULT: Break-even is possible

20. Result
Crescent pure should be positioned as an organic healthy Sport Drink to target
men of age 18-24.
Positioning it like this would help the company to capture a large market.
Organic
Sports
Drink

21. Summary
Companies Involved
Crescent Pure
PDB(Portland Drake Beverages)
Situation Analysis
Possible product positioning options
1. Energy Drink
2. Sports Drink
3. Organic Drink

22. Summary(contd.)
Crescent Pure vs. Sports Drinks
Consumer Study/Analysis
Perceptual Map
Break-Even Analysis
Result

23. Disclaimer
This presentation has been
created by Hemant Kumar,
IIT Guwahati, during a
marketing internship under
the guidance of Prof.
Sameer Mathur, IIM Lucknow.