PDB acquired Crescent Pure, an organic beverage company, in 2013. As VP of Marketing, Sarah Ryan must recommend a positioning strategy for Crescent Pure's entry into three new states. The options are energy drinks, sports drinks, or organic drinks. Energy drinks have strong growth but health concerns. Sports drinks have less growth and face government guidelines. Consumer data finds Crescent Pure is seen as refreshing, healthy, and natural. Ryan will recommend the optimal positioning strategy within 6 weeks.

1. Harvard Business Review
A Case Study

2. • Peter Hooper founded Crescent pure in
2008.
• It was all-natural beverage lightly
infused with organic juices, herbal
stimulants, and electrolytes.
• The drink retailed for $3.75 for an 8-
ounce can.

3. INGREDIENTS
• Clear colored liquid.
• Tastes like a fruit.
• Flavor: Lime juice, leamon
juice, raw cane sugar,
green tea.
• Certified organic
• Herbal supplement:
caffeine, ginseng.

4. ACQUISITION
• Portland Drake Beverages(PDB) was a organic
juice manufacturer.
• With consumer demand PDB’s revenues had
increased to $120.5 million by 2012.
• After months of research and negotiations, PDB
acquired Crescent.

5. KEY PLAYERS of PDB
• CEO: Michael Booth
• Vice President of Marketing: Sarah Ryan
• Founder of Crescent Pure: Peter Hooper
• Director of Market research: Matt Levor

6. SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS
• After acquiring Crescent pure in 2013,PDB
planned to soft launch in three states.
• Advertising campaign budget allotted was
$750,000.
• Ryan has to evaluate positioning
opportunities and recommend positioning
strategy in 6 weeks.

7. OBJECTIVES
• Industry specifics of positioning options.
• Potential Benefits and drawbacks of each
option.
• Final recommendation.

9. Positionin
g
Options
1. Energy Drinks
2. Sports Drinks
3. Organic Drinks

11. Market Size & Consumer Data
Energy Drinks
• Growth: 40% increased
between 2010-2012.
• Market: Projected to $8.5 billion
in 2013 and $13.5 billion by
2018.
• Consumers: Men of 18-34 years
old.
• Volume: People with income
below $25,000 per year.
Sports Drinks
• Growth: Only 9% increase
between 2007-2012.
• Market: Expected to grow to
$9.58 billion by 2017.
• Consumers: Half of the men and
one third of women.
• Refreshing: 40% men and 27%
female.

12. Competition
Energy Drinks
• Fright: 34%
• Razor: 27%
• Torque: 16%
• Stellar: 8%
Sports Drinks
• Gleam: 73%
• Drip: 21%
• Other 20 producers: 6%

13. Energy Drinks
• Rising sales of energy drinks
with lower levels of caffeine
and purer ingredients for
healthier food and beverage
choices.
Sports Drinks
• Growth in new diet and
low-sugar sports drinks.
• Expected market size
increase from $1.4 billion to
$2.97 billion by 2017.
Opportunity

14. Energy Drinks
• New stories were highlighting
the drinks alleged health risks.
• Increase in health consciousness
resulted in decreased
consumption.
Sports Drinks
• Concern regarding rising
childhood obesity rates resulted
in government mandated
guidelines to remove high
calorie sugary drinks and snacks,
including sports drinks from
school vending machines in
2014.
Threats

15. Percentage of respondents indicated a word
WORD ENERY DRINKS SPORTS DRINKS
Refreshing 12% 34%
Healthy 6% 16%
Affordable 5% 11%
Functional 22% 28%
Too sweet 9% 8%
Suitable for Teens 7% 22%
Fun 9% 11%
Natural 4% 6%
Hydrating 11% 49%
None of these 52% 27%

16. Demographics
AGE RANGES %
18-24 44
25-34 36
35-44 15
45-54 3
55+ 2
Male 59
Female 41
College degree 62
Household income(median) $42500

17. Percentage of respondents who described crescent
DESCRIPTOR %
Refreshing 35
Healthy 22
Affordable 29
Functional 47
Too sweet 9
Suitable for Teens 8
Fun 19
Natural 38
Hydrating 29

18. Perpetual Map: Hydration vs. Energy
Interpretation
• Energy drinks have
high energy and low
hydration value.
• Sports drinks have
low energy and high
hydration value.

19. Perpetual Map: Nutrition vs. Taste
Interpretation
• Energy drinks have
high Taste with low
Nutrition.
• Sports drinks have
low taste with high
Nutrition.

21. Retailer:
• Quick depletion of inventory
• Sales before replenishing inventory despite of increasing price
by 25%.
• Popular among ages 18-30.
• More number of women customers.
Focus group:
• Customer satisfaction in
a) Taste
b) Price
c) Energy

22. BREAK EVEN ANALYSIS
CATEGORY AMOUNT
Total Budget $750,000
Variable cost per can $1.02
Cans per a case 24
Selling price of can $1.24
Profit per can $0.22
Total cans to be sold per month to
attain break even
11838
Manufacturing capacity per month 12000

26. DISCLAIMER
Created by Dongari Gowtham, NIFFT Ranchi,
during a marketing internship by Prof. Sameer
Mathur, IIM Lucknow.