Critical Evaluation

of Bergenbier Marketing Mix

Author: EX17209 and EX17234

EMBA 25 Cohort Bucharest, Romania
Unit: Developing Market Presence
Executive Summary

The following report evaluates Bergenbier actual marketing mix and identifies potential
improvements based on literature review. Bergenbier is one of the most popular beers in Romania,
a core brand that in the last years managed to increase market share both in segment and in total
local beer market.

The marketing mix evaluation shows the strong equity of the brand, which has one of the most
well-known tags from the local market, “friends know why”, improved quality perception, and
high awareness. Bergenbier uses a competition based pricing strategy, specific for a highly
competitive and price sensitive market, with low profits margin, very common among fast moving
consumer goods. Placement is ensured at national level through indirect distribution
intermediaries, retailers and wholesalers. The growth strategy of the brand focuses on loyalising
current consumers through strategies that imply increasing quantity and frequency.

To increase both profitability and market share, based on the available literature, several actions
for improving the current marketing mix have been identified:
1. Better evaluation of the current promotional activities through KPIs setting;
2. SKU diversification through innovation launch;
3. Psychological pricing implementation;
4. Increase consumer experience at the point of purchase by using differentiating in-store
placements for specific store formats.

A key issue that needs an immediate call to action should be answering the question “What is
the right price positioning of the brand in order not to affect quality perception on the long run?”.
Table of Contents

1. Introduction..........…………………………………………………………………………......1

2. Marketing mix models from literature review........……………………………….......…..…..2

3. Critical evaluation of Bergenbier marketing mix………………………………………………3

3.1 Product.................................................................................................................................3

3.2 Price......................................................................................................................................7

3.3 Placement.............................................................................................................................9

3.4 Promotion...........................................................................................................................12

4. Proposals for marketing mix improvement...............................................................................16

4.1 Product...............................................................................................................................16

4.2 Price....................................................................................................................................17

4.3 Placement...........................................................................................................................17

4.4 Promotion...........................................................................................................................18

5. Conclusion........................……………………………………………………………………19

References……………………………………………………………………………………......20
 1. Introduction

Romania is one of the biggest beer markets in Eastern Europe developing annually around 18 mil
hl. of beer (INS Data, Dec 2017), quantity that is forecasted to grow in the upcoming years.
Described by many as an oligopolistic market, the three main brewers on the market sell almost
80% of total beer volumes. The market leader is SAB Miller, recently bought by Asahi, followed
by Heineken and Bergenbier SA.

After many changes in ownership, Bergenbier SA was bought in 2012 by Molson Coors, the third
largest brewer in the world and, as the name suggests, its flagship brand is Bergenbier – a core
lager produced locally.

Bergenbier is a love brand in Romania. It was launched on the market in 1995, being the first
mainstream beer distributed nationally. It is highly associated with football and friendship and its
slogan “friends know why” became part of everyday language in Romania, being used by people
of all ages. With a highly positive evolution in the last years, Bergenbier has the highest awareness
rate amongst beer brands and, in terms of volume, it is the fourth player in the beer market with
8.4% Market Share (Figure 1).

The purpose of this paper is to critically evaluate the marketing mix of Bergenbier using the 4P
model. Based on the findings, recommendations to improve the brand’s performance are proposed.

Figure 1: Top 25 Beer Brands – Market Share evolution, Nielsen Data

1
 2. Marketing mix models from literature review

Layton (2007) defines the marketing system as a “network of individuals, groups, and/or entities
linked directly or indirectly through sequential or shared participation in economic exchange that
creates, assembles, transforms, and makes available assortments of products, both tangible and
intangible, provided in response to customer demand” (p.230). Therefore, marketing can be
viewed as a “matching process”, one that reunites the capabilities and know-how of a company
with the expectations of the customers (Londhe, 2014).

There are many theories that describe the “marketing mix” concept, but the term was first
introduced by Borden (1964). After this stage, McCarthy (1964) revealed the most used theory of
marketing mix, referred to as the “4 Ps”, as a way of translating marketing planning into practice.
The abbreviation of the “4 Ps” stands for the initial letters of the four instruments: Product, Price,
Place and Promotion. In 1987, Judd proposes a “5 Ps” mix including People.

As the customers are becoming more complex and sophisticated, mainly in the services industry,
an extended marketing mix model has been developed, presented by Booms and Bitner (1980),
named as the “7 Ps” and comprising seven elements: service product, price, place/distribution,
promotion, participants, physical evidence, and service process. In 1999, Goldsmith adds the 8th
P: personalisation.

In the 1990s, under the customer driven approach, the “4 Cs” model was introduced. The
classification was proposed by Brunner in 1989 and includes concept mix, costs mix, channels mix
and communications mix (Khan, 2014). Further on, Chaffey et al (2009), proposes potential
audience, marketing support, integration, brand migration, organizational structure, budget and
strategic partnerships.

Based on the above marketing mix models, and the theory behind them, the most appropriate
marketing mix model to use for evaluating “Molson Coors Romania – Bergenbier” product is the
4 Ps marketing mix.

2
 3. Critical evaluation of Bergenbier marketing mix

3.1 Product

The core brand of Molson Coors Romania, Bergenbier, is currently in the maturity stage in the
product lifecycle. Being a well-established brand on the market, it is significantly enhanced
through components of branding, variety, quality, design and packaging (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Illustration of Bergenbier, the full range of SKUs

Currently, the brand portfolio contains Bergenbier Blonde, Bergenbier Non-Alcohol, Bergenbier
Fresh and Bergenbier ALE, all made from water, malt from barley, corn and hop. The
distinctiveness of the brand lies in the production process, being cold lagered, cold filtered and
with CO2 from natural fermentation (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Bergenbier Functional RTBs – “Refreshment campaign” 2017

3
In terms of branding, the name of the brand has German roots, meaning “beer from the
mountains”, being linked with the place where it was first produced, in the Baia Mare Plant, back
in 1995. A possible problem with the name is that Romanian mainstream beer consumers prefer
local brands and the main association with the country of origin is driven by the brand name (Ipsos
Shopper Study, 2015). If the brand name and tag remained unchanged over the years, the logo
design has undergone several transformations, illustrated in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Bergenbier Logo transformation, 1995 – 2018

The brand equity of Bergenbier has been built on three main attributes: package color (yellow),
slogan and football affiliation. Nevertheless, in Romania, according to an Ipsos Study (2016),
quality perception is the main driver in the beer industry and as per Chenavaz and Jasimuddin
(2017), consumers decode quality from everything the brand does (brand name, packaging,
advertising, etc.). Table 1 illustrates the “Consistently good quality” KPI for Bergenbier versus
main competitor, Timisoreana, showing that in the last 2 years the quality perception is improving
for Bergenbier, while for Timisoreana it is declining. Based on a GFK Study (2016), the attitude
funnels (%) show that Bergenbier has a big gap between the various levels of conversion, however
it is on a growing trend (Figure 5).

Brand tracking
Brand Total (%) Jan-Dec 2015 (%) Jan-Dec 2016 (%) Jan-Dec 2017 (%)
Is a brand with Bergenbier 31.7% 28.6% 32.5% 34.2%
consistently good quality Timisoareana 48.0% 49.6% 48.3% 45.8%

Table 1: Brand Equity – Consistently good quality KPI, GFK Research 2017

4
 Figure 5: Attitude funnels (%), Bergenbier vs Main Competitors

As per Hawkes (2010), packaging has two functions: easier transport of the product and marketing
touchpoint that highlights and promotes product attributes. In the analysed case, the product
contains three levels of packaging: primary package (can, bottle, pet or draught), secondary
package (american boxes, crates, etc.) and transportation packaging (pallets) (Figure 6).

Figure 6: Levels of packaging, Bergenbier Brand

As Baker and Hart (2008) suggest, although in an ideal world the central focus of any economic
activity should be the market, the primary concern of most companies is product policy and
management, rather than market policy and management. Bergenbier fits into this category,
therefore it invests heavily in product development and innovation. Table 2 shows the fast
innovation pace Bergenbier had since its launch.

5
 Year Product Innovation
1995 Launch Bergenbier – first Core Lager with national distribution
2001 First Core with Non-Alcohol offer
2003 Launch of Q-pack – first PET in Core Lager

2004 Launch Bergenbier Dark

2007 Launch Football PET

2009 Launch One-Way Bottle 0.33 l
2011 Launches: Bergenbier Unfiltered & Bergenbier Fresh Lemon

2015 Launch Bergenbier ALE - first ALE Beer with national distribution
Table 2: Innovation Approach Bergenbier Brand, 1995-2017

In terms of labeling, the company policy is to ensure that all the information placed on the label
is compliant with local and international legislation. As an industry specificity, all beer materials,
including labels, need to clearly state that young adults who are below the age of 18 are not allowed
to consume the product.

Considering the maturity stage in which the brand currently is, the marketing strategy applied by
the company is three folded. Firstly, it targets to increase of the overall beer category by launching
new types of beer. In addition to this, it targets to loyalise existing customers to increase share in
segment (Table 3), and lastly aims to have the best quality perception in the market, employing in
packaging upgrades and special editions (Figure 7 shows the changes in packaging layout, 2017).

Bergenbier Trademark
FY
2014 2015 2016 2017

Industry Volume (total beer in Khl) 16,389 17,442 17,530 17,703

Bergenbier Brand Volume (KHl) 1,035 1,129 1,223 1,316
Market Share (total beer) (%) 6.3% 6.5% 7.0% 7.4%
Market Share Core segment (%) 20.4% 21.9% 28.8% 29.1%

Table 3: Bergenbier Trademark, Share Evolution (Volume %), 2014-2017, National Statistics Institute Data

6
 Figure 7: Bergenbier – Changes in packaging design, 2017

3.2 Price

As Kotler and Keller (2012) suggest, price is defined as the amount paid for a service or product.
Although it is one of the most important Ps, as it impacts directly revenue (Forman and Hunt,
2005), the literature reveals that there are uncertainties in the pricing decisions companies make
because of many factors that need to be taken into consideration. Forman and Hunt (2005) divide
this factors in two main categories, internal and external ones, and highlight that the external ones
(consumer price sensitivity, distribution, taxes, etc.) are harder to predict versus the internal ones
(production costs, marketing costs, etc.).

As all FMCG brands (Ingenbleek and Lans, 2013), Bergenbier has low profit margins, therefore
the need of predictability is even higher versus other industries, so the company is investing
heavily in consumer research, conjoint, and pricing studies that can be used to minimise the
uncertainty that is driven mainly by the external factors. As for the internal factors, an optimization
process runs every year, by cross checking the prices with the biggest suppliers on the market and
by a zero-based budget process in place to assure high ROI of both marketing and trade marketing
activities.

7
According to Singh (2013), pricing is a factor that needs to be taken in consideration when defining
the competitive advantage of a brand. There are several ways of setting the price: cost based,
break even, demand based and competition based. In the beer industry, as the price elasticity is
high (Bray et al, 2009), often leading to price wars between the main players, usually the method
used for price setting is competition based.

Bergenbier follows the same path, which is the right thing to do in a highly competitive and price
sensitive market in which the leader imposes the pricing and the other brands are followers
(Ingenbleek and Lans, 2013). Being a core brand, the prices of Bergenbier vary between 2.8 lei
and 13.5 lei, depending on the size and the type of SKU. The average is 4.4 lei per liter, targeting
90%-95% price index versus the leader in the core segment, Timisoreana, which has an average
price per liter of 4.6 lei (Nielsen Data, 2017).

To reinforce the above, Singh (2013) and Foreman and Hunt (2015) correlate the market share
target with the pricing strategy, arguing that an accelerated increase in market share can only be
achieved by targeting a lower price versus main competitor. Furthermore, Davcik and Sharma
(2015) reveal that competing brands are interconnected: if a brand increases its price, the
volume loss will be gained by the competitor. In Bergenbier’s case, as the vision is to challenge
the market leadership, maintaining a lower price versus the maket leader is crucial for achieving
the accelerated growth desired. To do so, several tools for price discount are used: price list
reduction (reduction from 5% to 10%, used mainly for distributors), on and off invoice discounts,
quantity discounts (that apply per pallet), and so on.

Nevertheless, having a lower price versus a competitor has its own drawbacks. As Fruchter (2009)
highlights, although a low price can bring short term boost in sales, on the longer term it can
damage the product quality perception and overall brand equity. In Bergenbier’s case, to
counteract the negative impact in quality perception, there is a permanent switch between price
promotions and value-added promotions, leading overall to a boost in the perceived product
quality.

8
Another tool used by the company when deciding the pricing strategy is the internal pricing
ladder, that is usually used when a company has more brands in the portfolio (Davcik and Sharma,
2015). Besides Bergenbier, Bergenbier SA has another seven beer brands on the market, spread
across all the market segments. To minimise internal cannibalisation, Bergenbier SA has an
internal pricing ladder that is built with the main objective to have different price positioning for
each of its brands, being re-validated every year and checked monthly versus the market prices.

3.3. Placement

According to Wills et al (1990), for brewing industry poor marketing can be translated in the
brewer’s lack of co-ordination and planning of price and placement. Part of the marketing strategy,
placement is defined as the set of activities that ensure the product is available to target consumers,
including logistics and channel selection (Rosenbaum et al, 2017).

Bergenbier is produced in Ploiesti Plant and it is

available nationwide. The intermediaries that ensure
the distribution of the brand are represented by retailers,
modern trade channel (off trade market) and
wholesalers, traditional trade channel (off trade -
traditional trade stores and on trade – pubs, restaurants,
hotels). For Romanian beer market, the importance of
distribution channels is reflected in Figure 8.

Figure 8: Channel Mix (%), Nielsen 2017

9
Analyzing the weight of the channels, the most important one in terms of volume size is
represented by traditional trade (69.7%), followed by modern trade (30.3%). Moreover,
Bergenbier brand weight by channel reflects a higher importance of traditional trade, where 76.8%
of volumes are concentrated, while 23.2% of the brand volumes are sold to retailers (Table 4). The
trend shows a slight increase of retailer’s weight versus previous year, but there is still room for
improvement versus overall beer market channel mix.

Table 4: Bergenbier Volumes Split by Channel, 2016-2017, Internal selling data

The distribution figures across channels versus main competitors are illustrated in Table 5. Based
on the below data, Bergenbier has an opportunity to increase distribution in Traditional Trade and
to close the gap versus the segment leader, Timisoreana, because the lack of product availability
at the purchase point translates into a sale loss and in the end, the consumer chooses a competitor
brand (Wills et al, 1990).

Weighted Distribution %
Main Competitor
Bergenbier
Timisoareana
Channels 2016 2017 2016 2017
Retailers - Modern Trade 99.9% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0%
Traditional Trade - Off Trade 83.1% 84.8% 93.7% 94.2%
Traditional Trade - OnTrade/HORECA 51.4% 48.8% 68.5% 71.1%
Table 5: Weighted Distribution (%) by channel, Bergenbier vs Timisoreana, 2016-2017, Nielsen Data

Bergenbier is distributed across retailers present on the local market, with full range of SKUs,
making the products accessible for consumers nationally. The in-store product placement helps
the brand differentiate inside the category versus main competitors by increasing the shopper’s
attention (Figure 9). According to Aguiar et al (2018), in-store factors could have a significant role
in influencing customer choices while shopping. In this context, a disruptive product arrangement

10
on the shelves could increase demand, market share performance of the brand and the stores
financial results.

Figure 9: Bergenbier in-store placements, Retail Channel

The company channel strategy is affected by two types of factors, internal (objectives, resources,
capabilities, etc.) and external (market characteristics, consumer behavior, changing environment).
Based on the above, Bergenbier internal customer architecture across channels is illustrated in
Figure 10, outlining the strategic approach in the retail sector within top players in the market
(Kaufland, Carrefour and Mega Image).

Figure 10: Bergenbier SA, Internal customer architecture

11
Considering that one of marketing’s main concerns is to offer added value to the final user,
efficient supply chain management may be considered crucial for the success of the business
(Kozlenkova et al, 2015). The idea is also sustained by Ellis (2010), who outlines that when a
company makes mistakes within the supply chain, the negative consequences (out of stock,
forecast inconsistency, inventory differences) can propagate both ways through the chain. In
Bergenbier SA, the supply chain organisation is responsible for the company's planning,
procurement, manufacturing, engineering, and ensuring sustainability in the value chain, all these
through cost optimisation and high standard of customer service.

3.4 Promotion

As Shirisha and Sucharitha (2007) highlight, promotion is nothing new. It is the best tool to
increase demand, brand credibility (Davcik and Sharma, 2015), and perceived brand quality
(Caulkins et al, 2017; Chenavaz and Jasimuddin, 2017), having an impact in the overall brand
equity.

In Bergenbier’s case, promotion budget accounts for around 20% of total brand revenue, therefore
the company’s target is to maximise spend effectiveness by having a best in class promotion
strategy with high ROI tactics behind.

When defining the promotion strategy, marketing managers should first look at the brand
positioning, which is the backbone of any brand (Sair, 2014). Bergenbier’s brand positioning
(Figure 11) is built on the target consumer’s needs, having personality traits and values that are
relevant and aspirational for the target consumer (Maehle and Supphellen, 2015).

Marketing managers need to set the brand strategic direction, followed by marketing objectives,
tactics, and the needed budget for achieving the goals (Low and Mohr, 1999). The growth strategy
of Bergenbier is in line with the attitude funnel (Figure 5), focusing on loyalising current
consumers. This can be achieved through increasing quantity and frequency.

12
 Figure 11: Bergenbier Brand Positioning

Nevertheless, the success of a promotion strategy diminishes if an Integrated Marketing

Communication (IMC) model is not put in place (Duncan and Caywood, 1996; Danaher and
Dagger, 2013). Bergenbier has started using such a tool in 2017 and the results are encouraging:
more clarity regarding the brand direction, more focused activities and overall a better consistency
of the brand across touchpoints.

According to Shirisha and Sucharitha (2007), promotion can be divided into four main
categories: advertising, sales promotion, public relations (PR), and personal selling, with the first
three being the most commonly used by the FMCG brands and by Bergenbier.

Advertising is defined as the overall brand communication that targets a large group of people,
dispersed through paid media channels (Shirisha and Sucharitha, 2007). As Danaher and Dagger
(2013) reveal, the most challenging to do is choosing the right channel mix for advertising, given
that the advertising budgets remained flat and the available channels proliferated fast.

13
In the specific case of Bergenbier, the media agency developed a channel mix optimization tool
based on the results achieved in the last two years.

Both the above described tool and the literature identify TV as being the most effective media
channel if planned right (Danaher and Dagger, 2013). Bergenbier spends on this media channel
80% of the overall media budget, targeting share of voice leadership, using both equity and promo
TV campaigns (Figure 12).

Figure 12: Bergenbier TV Campaigns, 2017

Bergenbier complements TV with online to maximise reach and to optimise cost (Goerg et al,
2017). The main channels used are Facebook, YouTube, “Eu Sunt 12” football platform and
website (Figure 13). “Eu sunt 12” football platform is the most successful online platform created
by a brand in Romania, having 2 million active users.

Figure 13: Bergenbier online channels

14
Sales Promotions include all the benefits given by a company to increase volumes. As Porto and
Lima (2015) reveal, sales promotions implemented in store make people buy more than initially
planned. Moreover, the higher the magnitude, the disproportionate the sales. Nevertheless, as
discussed in the pricing chapter, sales promotions can damage the brand on the longer term.

There are many techniques used for sales promotions, but in Bergenbier’s case, as the main
objective is to increase quantity and frequency, the most used ones are national consumer promos
(NCP), multipacks offers and loyalty programs. In 2017, during the NCP, Bergenbier sales
increased with 15% versus the previous year. Nevertheless, after the promotion ended, the sales
went back to previous year’s level. No matter what type of sales promotion is applied, as Simpson
(2006) suggests, selling story is essential for getting customer support.

The third component of Promotion is PR, being a very successful way of building awareness,
credibility, and reputation for a brand. Positive reputation is essential for companies, and if
achieved, it can be considered a financial asset that the company possesses (Gibson et al, 2006).
Although Bergenbier increased PR investment in the last years, it is still used project based.
Nevertheless, to build credibility, there is a need to have ongoing PR activities that can further
support the brand.

15
4. Proposals for marketing mix improvement

4.1 Product

Range of SKU (Stock keeping unit). As per Chenavaz and Jasimuddin (2017), product innovation
improves product quality. Therefore, in Bergenbier’s case, the recommendation is to continue
investing in developing new packages, targeting the areas with the most accelerated increase
(Nielsen Data, 2017): non-returnable big bottle. One of the main advantages would be that there
is no direct competitor in core segment with this SKU available, therefore contributing to brand
distinctiveness and brand equity.

Enter new market segments. In the last years a new segment arose on the local market, craft and
unpasteurized beer, known in the industry as specialty beers. According to Donadini et al (2016),
specialty beers seem to accomplish European market need for variety more successfully than
standard industrial brands, since they are better positioned to build a distinctive and private
consumer culture. Considering this, Bergenbier can increase market share by penetrating this new
segment. Strong marketing launch campaign should be considered to have a 360-degree integrated
communication platform.

As Leonidou et al (2013) suggest, consumers are interested in protecting the environment,

therefore recommending companies to increase packaging recycling by emphasizing on the
environmental advantages this can bring. Considering that almost 50% out of total Romanian beer
market is represented by PET packaging (the ratio is valid also for Bergenbier, Nielsen Data,
2017), the company can investigate the use of a “green” type of pet (Plant Bottle). This would be
an innovative idea in the beer industry (currently it is used on the local market only by a Coca Cola
water brand, Dorna) and could support sustainable market share increase.

16
4.2. Price

Price is subjective. Building on this fact, Mullikin and Petty (2011) introduce the term “bargain
assurances” for the tactics used to convince consumers that the price they are paying for a product
is a bargain. Bergenbier should apply this technique by introducing bundle pricing, creating special
packs with two or more different SKUs offered together with a discount, to increase the quantity
per transaction. Furthermore, as the scarcity effect drives sales (Mullikin and Petty, 2011), the
communication around the pack needs to have a clear call-to-action, motivating people to buy it
on the spot as the offer is very limited.

Another proposal is to offer in store volume discount, as it is known as a very successful way of
increasing the sales (Bray et al, 2009; Porto and Lima, 2015). Bergenbier can provide pre-defined
cartoon boxes for six, eight and twelve SKUs which will be placed near the shelf giving the shopper
the freedom to choose the pack and size mix according to his needs for which he will receive a
certain discount (six-pack – 10%; eight-pack – 15%; twelve-pack – 20%) given that all the
products will be Bergenbier.

Lastly, Bergenbier should focus on implementing psychological pricing to enhance its profits
(Larson, 2014). There are many tactics that can be used, like using prices ending in odd numbers,
especially nine, to increase price attractivity. Color, symmetry and length of price together with
positioning the brand near premium players are some of the tactics that Bergenbier can implement
to maximise sales and profits.

4.3. Placement

According to Porter (1996), the best way for companies to gain sustainable advantage and to
differentiate themselves from their competitors, is to focus on product and channel differentiation.
As Bergenbier targets the same distribution channels as the main competitors and follows the
FMCG trends, the recommendation is to differentiate through increasing distribution and
consumer experience at the point of sell, with the goal to enhance loyalty both for the brand and
for the point of sales. As Rosenbaum et al (2017) reveal, during a marketplace encounter the

17
consumer may receive, in addition to goods, extrinsic or intrinsic value from exchanging money
for the product, that translates into stronger devotion for the purchased brand and place.

Based on consumer behavior and shopping missions (GFK Study, 2017) another proposal is to
approach different in-store placement strategies for specific store formats (hypermarkets,
supermarkets, hard-discounters, traditional trade stores). As the stores are increasing the range of
available products using the same limited space, and the competition between same format stores
intensified (Klein and Schmitz, 2016), Bergenbier should aim to differentiate at the selling point
through innovative and disruptive trade visibility.

Considering the growing power of the retail segment on the local market (Ipsos Study, 2017), the
company should actively increase focus in this channel to consolidate its position in terms of
market share, turnover, and profitability, through building even more sustainable and strategic
partnerships and reaching, as Kozlenkova et al (2015) suggests, the goal of delivering added
value to customers.

4.4. Promotion

To build value around the brand, Bergenbier must alternate sales promotions with short term effect
in volumes with other mechanisms that build the brand on the longer term. As Simpson (2006)
underlines, in store sampling is a form of quality promotion, being the only sales promotion
technique that has results both on the short and on the longer term. Therefore, Bergenbier should
put in place a national sampling program to increase frequency by tapping into new consumption
occasions, building memorable experiences around the brand.

As Chandukala et al (2017) reveals, to have high conversion rates, samplings must delight
consumers with an “evocative, visceral experience that allows them to touch, taste and smell the
product, thus appealing to both hedonic and utilitarian values” (p.493). Furthermore, as samplings
lead to category increase, traffic and experience in store (Simpson, 2006), Bergenbier should
prepare a strong selling story for retailers to receive their disproportionate support when
implementing such activity.

18
Secondly, as Shirisha and Sucharitha (2007) consider, FMCG companies usually focus on
advertising and sales promotion, but tend to forget about the importance of PR. Therefore,
Bergenbier should intensify the PR activities by complementing the project based activities with
an ongoing layer of PR support for building trust, credibility, and reputation of the brand.

Thirdly, to improve the effectiveness of the overall promotional activities, Bergenbier should
invest more time into evaluating the current activities as a first step for improving them (Shirisha
and Sucharitha, 2007). To do so, SMART KPIs must be set at the beginning of each project, and,
although the industry is very dynamic, marketing teams must dedicate time to evaluate the success
of the campaigns by comparing the targeted KPIs with actual results. Consequently, some activities
might be stopped and the remaining ones improved year on year based on the results and on the
qualitative feedback received from the market.

Conclusion

Based on the above findings, it can be concluded that Bergenbier puts in practice the marketing
mix model with great success, focusing equally on all 4Ps. Optimal investment, right touchpoint
mix, and consistency are the key elements that contribute to Bergenbier’s positive evolution.

Nevertheless, some improvement areas are proposed for each P, especially to balance short-term
and long-term strategies. Knowing and applying the trends in the day to day activity is essential
for product improvement: launching a big bottle, entering in the craft / specialty segment, using
ecofriendly packaging, etc. To maximise sales and profits, Bergenbier should use psychological
pricing strategies together with volume discounts and bundle packs. For placement improvement
experiential in store activations can be used together with custom made placement strategies for
each store format, leading to both consumer and customer loyalisation. For sustainable growth,
Bergenbier should join forces with retailers and build joint business plans. Lastly, for promotion
upgrading, activities such as ongoing PR support, in store sampling, and very important, evaluation
of current activities, should be put in place.

19
References

Aguiar, T., Silva, E., Guimarães, L., Carravilla, M.A. and Oliveira, J.F. (2018) Allocating products
on shelves under merchandising rules: Multi-level product families with display
directions. Omega, 76, p. 47–62.

Baker, M. and Hart, S. (2008) The marketing book. 6th edition. Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann.

Booms B. H. & Bitner B. J. (1980) Marketing strategies and organisation structures for service
firms. In: Donnelly, J. & George W. R. (Eds.), Marketing of services. American Marketing
Association, p. 47-51.

Borden, N.H. (1964) The concept of the marketing mix. Journal of advertising research, 4(2), p.
2–7.

Bray, J.W., Loomis, B.R. and Engelen, M. (2009) You save money when you buy in bulk: does
volume-based pricing cause people to buy more beer?. Health Economics, 18(5), p. 607–618.

Caulkins, J.P., Feichtinger, G., Grass, D., Hartl, R.F., Kort, P.M. and Seidl, A. (2017) Interaction
of pricing, advertising and experience quality: A dynamic analysis. European Journal of
Operational Research, 256(3), p. 877–885.

Chaffey, D., Ellis-Chadwick, F., Mayer, R. and Johnston, K. (2009) Internet marketing: strategy,
implementation and practice. 4th edition. Harlow, Pearson Education.

Chandukala, S.R., Dotson, J.P. and Liu, Q. (2017) An Assessment of When, Where and Under
What Conditions In-Store Sampling is Most Effective. Journal of Retailing, 93(4), p. 493–506.

Chenavaz, R.Y. and Jasimuddin, S.M. (2017) An analytical model of the relationship between
product quality and advertising. European Journal of Operational Research, 263(1), p. 295–307.

Danaher, P.J. and Dagger, T.S. (2013) Comparing the relative effectiveness of advertising
channels: A case study of a multimedia blitz campaign. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(4), p.
517–534.

20
Davcik, N.S. and Sharma, P. (2015) Impact of product differentiation, marketing investments and
brand equity on pricing strategies: A brand level investigation. European Journal of Marketing,
49(5/6), p. 760–781.

Donadini, G., Fumi, M., Kordialik-Bogacka, E., Maggi, L., Lambri, M. and Sckokai, P. (2016)
Consumer interest in specialty beers in three European markets. Food research international, 85,
p. 301–314.

Duncan, T. and Caywood, C. (1996) The concept, process, and evolution of integrated marketing
communication. Integrated communication: Synergy of persuasive voices, p. 13–34.

Ellis, N. (2010) Business to business marketing: Relationships, networks and strategies. Oxford,
Oxford University Press.

Forman, H. and Hunt, J.M. (2005) Managing the influence of internal and external determinants
on international industrial pricing strategies. Industrial Marketing Management, 34(2), p. 133–
146.

Fruchter, G. (2009) Signaling quality: dynamic price-advertising model. Journal of optimization

theory and applications, 143(3), p. 479–496.

Gibson, D., Gonzales, J.L. and Castanon, J. (2006) The importance of reputation and the role of
public relations. Public Relations Quarterly, 51(3), p. 15.

Goerg, G.M., Best, C., Shobowale, S., Remy, N. and Koehler, J. (2017) When to Combine
Television With Online Campaigns: Cost Savings Versus Extended Reach. Journal of Advertising
Research, 57(3), p. 283–304.

Goldsmith, R.E. (1999) The personalised marketplace: beyond the 4Ps. Marketing Intelligence &
Planning, 17(4), p. 178–185.

Hawkes, C. (2010) Food packaging: the medium is the message. Public Health Nutrition, 13(2),
p. 297–299.

Ingenbleek, P.T. and Van der Lans, I.A. (2013) Relating price strategies and price-setting
practices. European Journal of Marketing, 47(1/2), p. 27–48.

21
Judd, V. C. (1987) Differentiate with the 5th P: People. Industrial Marketing Management, 16(4),
p. 241-247.

Khan, M.T. (2014) The concept of’marketing mix’and its elements (a conceptual review
paper). International journal of information, business and management, 6(2), p. 95.

Klein, A. and Schmitz, G. (2016) Main-format dominance in consumers’ FMCG cross-format

shopping patterns. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 30, p. 105–115.

Kotler, P. and Keller, K.L. (2012) Marketing Management. 14th edition. New Jersey, Pearson
Education.

Kozlenkova, I.V., Hult, G.T.M., Lund, D.J., Mena, J.A. and Kekec, P. (2015) The role of
marketing channels in supply chain management. Journal of Retailing, 91(4), p. 586–609.

Larson, R.B. (2014) Psychological pricing principles for organizations with market power. The
Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 16(1), p. 11.

Layton, R.A. (2007) Marketing systems—A core macromarketing concept. Journal of

Macromarketing, 27(3), p. 227–242.

Leonidou, C. N., Katsikeas, C. S., & Morgan, N. A. (2013) “Greening” the marketing mix: do
firms do it and does it pay off?. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(2), p. 151-170.

Lindsey-Mullikin, J. and Petty, R.D. (2011) Marketing tactics discouraging price search: deception
and competition. Journal of Business Research, 64(1), p. 67–73.

Londhe, B. (2014) Marketing mix for next generation marketing. Procedia Economics and
Finance, 11, p. 335–340.

Low, G.S. and Mohr, J.J. (1999) Setting advertising and promotion budgets in multi-brand
companies. Journal of Advertising Research, 39(1), p. 67–67.

Maehle, N. and Supphellen, M. (2015) Advertising strategies for brand image repair: The
effectiveness of advertising alliances. Journal of Marketing Communications, 21(6), p. 450–462.

McCarthy, E.J. (1964) Basic Marketing. Homewood (IL), Richard D. Irwin.

22
Porter, M.E. (1996) What is Strategy. Harvard Business Review, 74(6), p. 61-78.

Porto, B.R. and da Rocha Lima, N.S. (2015) Nonlinear Impact of the Marketing Mix on Brand
Sales Performance. Brazilian Business Review (English Edition), 12(5).

Rosenbaum, M.S., Kelleher, C., Friman, M., Kristensson, P. and Scherer, A. (2017) Re-placing
place in marketing: A resource-exchange place perspective. Journal of Business Research, 79, p.
281–289.

Sair, A.S. (2014) Consumer Psyche and Positioning Strategies. Pakistan Journal of Commerce &
Social Sciences, 8(1), p. 58-73.

Shirisha, M. and Sucharitha, D. (2007) THE IMPACT OF PROMOTIONAL MIX ON

CONSUMERS PURCHASING DECISIONS. Journal of Commerce, Economics & Computer
Science, 03(3), p. 145-152.

Simpson, L.S. (2006) Enhancing food promotion in the supermarket industry: A framework for
sales promotion success. International Journal of Advertising, 25(2), p. 223–245.

Singh, M. (2013) Important Pricing Methods in 4P’s. International Journal of Management and
Business Studies, 3(2), p. 147–150.

Wills, G., Kennedy, S.H., Cheese, J. and Rushton, A. (1990) Maximising marketing
effectiveness. Management Decision, 28(2).

23