Juice Guys Case Study Analysis
1213 words5 pages
Show MoreJuice Guys™ In the summer of 1998, Nantucket Nectar created a subsidiary of their brand called Juice Guys. This new product was comprised of fresh juice and fruit smoothie drinks that were taking over the West Coast. Within three-and-a-half months, Juice Guys had sold a total of 175,000 items ranging from smoothies, yogurts, sorbets, Nantucket Nectar drinks and fresh squeezed juices. Juice Guys’ revenue went up to 91% and they made a profit of $227,000 in sales. Noticing the tremendous success within the industry in such a short time, Nantucket Nectar and Juice Guys decided to expand this new juice retail concept into the East Coast. Their primary focus within the East Coast was expansion into the Boston market. Although this…show more content…
The purpose of these interviews were to enable the founders to gain a perspective of what the consumer’s needs, wants, likes and dislikes concerning a juice store were. This was beneficial to the Nantucket Nectars employees because it allowed them to communicate with their potential future customers, it enabled them to get their brand name and product out in the new market and it also created potential successful long-term growths for future locations and geographical expansions. The marketing research that took place resulted in the following findings about the Juice Guys retail concept such as: the atmosphere should smell fruity, warm and inviting, and the employees should be fun, young and chatty. In addition, it proved that the Beacon Hill District should address the issue of year round business by: doing more promotions in the winter months, serve seasonal beverages such as: hot apple cider, pumpkin smoothies and cinnamon smoothies as well as serving other products such as: t-shirts, hats, vitamins, power bars and newspapers. I feel that the research findings were very beneficial and could have been very influential in helping out with the challenges that the Juice Guys had to face in trying to implement their product into a new and diverse marketplace.
My recommendations would be to take the information from the research and adhere to the customer’s needs and
June 22, 1988|By Bob Greene.
I don`t know about you, but when I read a story about a Wall Street wheeler-dealer going to court-an Ivan Boesky or a Dennis Levine-I find it sort of interesting, but I don`t get all worked up about it. Maybe that`s just because I don`t really understand the world of high finance. I know those guys have violated some regulations, but the whole thing doesn`t affect me viscerally.
In recent days, though, there has been a case that has literally sickened me. Maybe you have heard about it.
Two former executives of the Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp. were each sentenced to a year and a day in prison and fined $100,000 after being found guilty of selling apple juice-apple juice that was intended for babies-and knowing that it wasn`t apple juice at all. Inside the bottles, sold to unsuspecting parents, was an artificial blend of water, sugar and chemicals.
The two former Beech-Nut executives were Niels L. Hoyvald, 54, who had been president of the company, and John F. Lavery, 56, who had been a vice president for operations. Both men asked not to be sent to jail. U.S. District Judge Thomas C. Platt rejected their pleas. This all happened in a federal courtroom in Brooklyn, N.Y.
If you will, think about this for a moment. Beech-Nut-one of the most respected brands in baby-food products-willingly sold bottles of liquid that were marked ``100 percent`` pure apple juice to parents who trusted the company to manufacture a product that would provide nutrition for infants and babies at the beginning of those infants` and babies` lives. In fact, the bottles contained no apple juice at all-none. The parents were unknowingly feeding their tiny sons and daughters what one Beech-Nut employee described as ``a chemical cocktail.``
The company itself had already agreed to pay a fine of $2 million-by far the largest fine ever imposed under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. The two executives, though, had pleaded not guilty.
The whole thing seemed so appalling that I had a long discussion with Thomas H. Roche, the chief federal prosecutor in the case, to see if the press reports were missing anything. Was this as bad as it appeared to be?
``I can`t see how it could be much worse,`` Roche said. ``They sold millions and millions of bottles of this stuff, which was consumed by millions and millions of infants. They knew that what they were labeling as `100 percent apple juice` contained no apple juice at all.
``In fact, these men had no idea what ingredients might be in the bottles. But they knew that there was no apple juice in the bottles, yet they let the liquid be given to the most unsuspecting and trusting people in our society-infants.``
The way Roche explained it, Beech-Nut entered into an agreement with a supplier of apple-juice concentrate. The supplier gave Beech-Nut a huge price break on what was described as the apple-juice concentrate-a price break of between 20 percent and 25 percent. The price break made no sense-unless what was being supplied was not, indeed, apple juice or apple-juice concentrate.
``By 1978, employees inside the Beech-Nut operation began to suspect something was wrong,`` Roche said. ``By 1979 those employees knew that what was being sold was not apple juice. The company continued to sell the product, though. Beech-Nut was not doing well financially, and the apple-juice product line made up about 30 percent of the company`s business. They wanted to keep selling the phony apple juice for consumption by infants, just because of the price break they were getting from the supplier.
``Perhaps the most venal aspect of this whole thing is that after the executives knew without a doubt what was going on, they demanded that the product continue to be sold. The reason was that they still had a tremendous quantity of the product in storage, and they were determined to make as big a profit on it as they could.``
There is no evidence that what was contained in the bottles was poisonous or that it could make infants ill-although, as Roche points out, there is no proof that it could not cause health problems.
``The point is, when a parent buys apple juice, that parent has the expectation that the apple juice will provide nutrition for his or her infant,`` Roche said. ``This was not some fly-by-night `XYZ Corporation.` This was Beech-Nut. Parents saw the Beech-Nut brand, and they thought, `I know I can rely on this.`
``And these guys who were running the company knew that it was fake apple juice, they had no idea what ingredients were in it, yet they kept selling the stuff. I find it almost unbelievable. I find it a damned outrage.``