Products and Brand Management MA 61400

Professor: Manuel Christiansen, DBA, MBA

Student: Jorge Yeshayahu Gonzales-Lara

Case Tastykakes Sensables

Analyses the differences between the Sensables
product development process and the new products
process presented in the Case Tastykakes
Case Tastykakes Sensables
New Products Management, Chapter # 3 of the book
by Crawford and Di Benedetto

Analysis and Findings

by Jorge Yeshayahu Gonzales-Lara

Introduction
Founded over 90 years ago, Tasty Baking Co.’s Tastykakes have been one of the most popular
snack foods in the Philadelphia area. However, due to stagnant sales, CEO Charles Piźzi decided
that a line extension for Tastykakes would be the right solution to boost performance. With the
help of marketing manager Karen Schutz and research manager John Sawicki, Tasty Baking Co
set out to ride the emerging trend on healthier snacks and embark on the journey to produce and
launch a new line of low-carb Tastykakes them later to be named Sensables.

1. How does the Sensables process compare with the new products process in this
chapter?

Given the story on the development process of Sensables, how did that process compare with the
new products process discussed in the chapter #3 of the book pages 88-93? Would you question
anything Tastykake did? Do you think the Sensables line will succeed? Why or why not?

 Objectives
1. To analyses the differences between the Sensables product development process
and the new products process presented in the Case Tastykakes. 2. To analyses
critical factors/events that Tasty Baking Co. did or did not do.
 Analysis and Findings

New Products Management, Chapter # 3 of thebook by Crawford and Di Benedetto

New Products Management, book by Crawford and Di Benedetto describe and present a new
products process separated into 5 phases, For the purposes of this paper, the analyses, discuss, and
present their findings by phase. Due to the lack of information provided by the case, certain
assumptions may be made throughout this part of the paper.

Phase 1: Opportunity Identification and Selection

Page | 2
Since the first phase is strategic in nature and is difficult to define or describe (Crawford and Di
Benedetto), it is not the group’s place to truly say whether Tasty Baking Co. followed the process
or not. However, what we can see from the case is that there was already an existing trend in
healthy low-carb products. While the case doesn’t mention if a proper study was done by the
organization, the group can only assume that the decision to create a low-carb brand extension was
born out of an internal mandate, specifically from the CEO, due to stagnant sales. Since there was
no alternative opportunity identified, there can also be no selection process.

Phase 2: Concept Generation

The trend presented in the case was rather specific being low-carb products. While it is
recommended to have customer involvement in this phase (Crawford and Di Benedetto), it is seen
in the case that Tasty Baking Co. was already set on the concept that they wanted to incorporate.
Although there was no form of formal or proper customer involvement, Melchiorre also wanted
their brand extension to be sugar-free to address their aged consumers. Sawicki and Schutz also
brought in supplier involvement on board the product design while it was still in its early stages.

Phase 3: Concept/Project Evaluation

This phase was skipped entirely by Tasty Baking Co. Since top management was adamant about
producing low-carb brand extensions of their products, there seemed to be no room for failure or
no way to back out of development. There is no evidence in the case of any financial or business
plan being made or reviewed. If their new brand extension needed to only have one thing it should
be a low-carb count. Throughout the case any form of evaluation seemed to be done through taste
testing.

Phase 4: Development

“This is the phase during which the item acquires finite form—a tangible good or a specific
sequence of resources and activities that will perform an intangible service. It is also the phase
during which the marketing planes sketched and gradually fleshed out.” (Crawford and Di
Benedetto) Since Tasty Baking Co. was to do a brand extension, resource preparation was not a
problem. Involving their suppliers in the earlier stages also helped ease the burden. As mentioned
earlier, there is no business plan of any sort involved in the case. However, it is evidenced that
ever since the beginning, Schutz and Sawicki have been busy periodically creating samples of their

Page | 3
new product. Because of this, the proper minor tweaks were made, and the doughnuts were
discontinued. It is also seen how Schutz continually considers on how to market the brand
extension. While Sawicki is busy developing a product according to protocol, Schutz is readying
the sales team.

Phase 5: Launch

This is the phase where commercialization of the plans and prototypes from the development phase
and the distribution and sale of the new product begin (Crawford and Di Benedetto). The case does
not delve into specifics of after the launch. From what can be analyzed in the case, Schutz had
already made the necessary arrangements by preparing the sales force for the introduction of the
brand extension. Upon launch, it was also mentioned that the local newspapers and radio shows
were covering their Sensables line.

Other commendable events that we see throughout the case present on the Case include:

1. Constant communication either between Schutz and Sawicki, or Melchiorre, or the suppliers.

2. Continuous marketing effort of Schutz throughout the development process.

3. Excellent team effort between Schutz and Sawicki.

2. Would you question anything Tastykake did? Do you think the Sensables line will
succeed?

In my opinion, the Sensables line will succeed because of the diabetic consumers. Sensables are
low sugar, Tastykakes are not. Given the constraints in time and personnel and equipment
resources, it is understandable why the Sensables process did a lot of things in parallel or did away
with some steps that were not as of high urgency. The difference in the process can also be
attributed to the changing direction from management and the changes in the external environment,
such as the opportunity to target the sugar fee market and the rule announced by FDA

3. Conclusions and Recommendations

Do you think the Sensables line will succeed? Why or why not?

Page | 4
In my opinion, especially with a food product offering in which good taste is the number one
priority, Tastykake should have made sure that the original taste was not drastically changed to
meet the new product specifications of low-carb and sugar free.

Although there were similarities between the product development process of Tasty Baking Co.
and the new product process presented by Crawford and Di Benedetto, the bulk and significant
parts were either skipped by the organization or was simply not presented in the case. While there
was good teamwork between Schutz and Sawicki, the whole process did not seem as systematic
as the process presented within the book. However, it is the group’s belief that Tasty Baking Co.
was lucky and that the Sensables line will succeed because of a strong trend, numerous testing
including a consumer taste testing, and Schutz role in considering the marketing throughout the
whole process. The group recommends the removal of the practice on internal mandating without
presentation of convincing data.

While internal mandates can push the development of products or services previously thought to
be undoable, it is also susceptible to rash decisions and blind conformance. While it has been
acknowledged that there is no universally successful process for new product or service
development, the group recommends that Tasty Baking Co. follow more closely the process
outlined within the book. By using a more systematic process, kinks can be earlier addressed such
as the discontinuation of The Sensable doughnuts. The group believes that the doughnuts could
have been fixed or discontinued earlier if consumer involvement was integrated earlier other than
towards the launching. The sensables products compares to the new products process in this
chapter in that a critic found that Tastykakes would not find the Sensables line to be an acceptable
substitute.

However, at the end of the Sensables presentation she received a standing ovation and was told
this is a winner. I wouldn’t question anything Tastykake did. I do think the Sensables line will
succeed because of the diabetic consumers. Sensables are low sugar, Tastykakes are not. This
opens the product up to the diabetic market.

September 20, 2018

Book & References

New Products Management
Authors C Merle Crawford and C Anthony Di Benedetto

Page | 5