MKTG10001
ASSIGNMENT 2 MARKETING REPORT:COCA-COLA LIFE
Last Name
First Name
Student ID
Tutorial Time
Tutor Name
Budihardjo
Annette Andiani
716087
Tuesday, 4.15pm
Sarah Bartfeld
Song
Yao
611481
Tuesday, 4.15pm
Sarah Bartfeld
Widjaja
Simon Budiman
716012
Tuesday, 4.15pm
Sarah Bartfeld
Xia
Tian
757376
Tuesday, 4.15pm
Sarah Bartfeld
Word Count : 3137
Executive Summary This report was commissioned to examine and evaluate the launch of Coca Cola Life in terms of the consumer behavior, segmentation in the soft drink industry, positioning and branding, and the value of the beverage itself. Coke Life, the newly launched product from Coca-Cola, attempts to address the new emerging trend of the rise of healthy beverages. It uses natural sweetener derived from Stevia, resulting in 35% less sugar than the original Coca Cola. Unfortunately, it is not the only healthy soft drink on the market. Pepsi Next, which also uses stevia in its ingredients, as well as Coke Zero and Diet Coke are some of its notable competitors. TCCC segments the market geographically, demographically; based on age groups, and psychographically, based on lifestyle. The key drivers of the soft drink industry is consumer demands. However with more people becoming more health conscious, demand for soft drinks decreases. Hence to encourage positive customer demands, Coke Life employs natural ingredient and design branding to establish its identity as the healthy version of Coca-Cola. By such, it also acts a vehicle of TCCC’s offer for a healthy alternative. Moreover, TCCC has also presented themselves with strong image regarding their values; Leadership, Collaboration, Integrity, Accountability, Passion, Diversity, and Quality. For the customers, Coke Life specifically is also a great valued drink based on its taste and use of natural ingredients. The concluded market strategies of Coke Life are at introductory market level: the 3P widespread market strategy for all TCCC products, product strategy and pricing strategy. However, these strategies did not perform as expected, hence it would be beneficial if Coke Life change its value from ‘healthy’ to ‘natural’. In conclusion, Coke Life is a suitable product to satisfy the emerging trend of healthy lifestyle. Yet in spite of Coke Life’s seemingly successful marketing strategies, further reassessments are encouraged to produce a more desirable outcome.
2
Introduction The Coca-Cola Company or TCCC is a multimillion-dollar corporation that produces, retails, and markets non-alcoholic syrup beverages. Their trademark drink; Coca Cola, was first introduced by John S. Pemberton on May 8th, 1886 (TCCC, 2015). Since then, the drink has been the number one drink preference by many people worldwide. TCCC is currently valued up to 70,042 million U.S. dollars (Statista, 2015). Their main competitors are Pepsi Co. and Dr. Pepper Snapple Group (Howard et. al., 2010). Recently, Coca-Cola launched a new product in attempting to target older balance seeking customers.; the Coca Cola Life. Coke Life is a healthier version of Coca Cola, using a natural with less kilojoule sweetener--stevia. This resulted in a 35% less sugar than the normal Coke. Pepsi Co. has previously launched a stevia-sweetened beverage; Pepsi Next, though not as successful (Herbison, 2015). This report will review and evaluate the launch of Coke Life, as well as the marketing strategy and the potentials of Coke Life based on customer behavior, segmentation of the soft drink market, positioning and branding, and the value of the drink.
Figure 1. Coca-Cola Products
3
Customer Behaviour & Segmentation In the past 30 years, most soft drinks are regarded as unhealthy consumption (Scriven & Ehrenberg, 2002). However, according to recent years’ research, its consumption have been highly increased due to population growth. There are three major segments of the soft drink industry; flavor segment, distribution segment and consumer age segment (Roberts, 1986). The flavor segment is divided into 6 categories; retail bottled water, carbonates, energy drinks, drink tea, coffee and juice. The distribution is divided into 7 segments; supermarkets, fountain operators, vending machines, convenience stores, delis and drug stores, club stores, and restaurants. The consumer age segment is divided into 4 segments; children, youth, middle-aged and elderly (Wind, Robertson & Fraser, 1982). It is almost certain that the soft drink industry’s segment’s key value driver is consumer demand. Numerous factors would determine these demand; price, consumer’s lifestyle, and the product’s taste. Health issue is also concerned by many consumers and, as a result, are driving demand in both directions (NPLAN, 2012). By analysing the soft drink industry, as consumers become more health conscious, this change of customer behaviour leads to the rise of functional beverages and bottled water (NPLAN, 2012). Thus, it puts tension to the soft drink industry while at the same time shapes the market segments.
Coca-Cola is segmenting the market in terms of geographic, demographic and psychographic. It was launched in Australia and New Zealand, which is a big market in the Pacific area. Demographic segmentation is divided into three parts: Youth (10-19), Young Adult (20-24), Adult (over 25). Psychographic segmentation is about the lifestyle of the customers. In each segment there are traditional habits and culture, thus understanding these habits and cultures is important for Coke Life to dominate the market. Culture includes religion, holidays, special days and so on (Moschis, Curasi & Bellenger, 2007). The
target
market
segments
for
Coke
Life are
also
demographically
and
psychographically. Coke Life’s target customers are adults around 30 to 49 years old, who
4
are regarded as the balance seeker, looking for the wonderful taste cola with fewer kilojoules by using natural sweetener while considering their health issues and might suffer from the obesity and diabetes (Herbison, 2015). The youths and young adults prefer Diet Coke more. Nowadays, customer behaviour trends show that individuals consider healthy issues more than the past. Increasing rate of obesity, oral health and diabetes gives Coke Life a chance to expand in the soft drink market. However, there are some challenges for Coke Life, internally and externally. One of the biggest external competitors for Coke Life is Pepsi Next. Pepsi Next also incorporates stevia and targets similar customers. Additionally, other TCCC products like Coke Zero and Diet Coke also came out as strict competitors internally as Coke Life has less brand loyalty compared to the others. Coke Life’s focus mainly on adults will restrict its market range, as youth is the major consumers for Coca-Cola. Other types of beverage may become competitors for Coke Life, such a juice, alcohols and bottled water.
Positioning & Branding Analysis It is also essential to analyse the target audience and produce an effective brand image which satisfies the market’s needs. Brand image is often seen as opinions and the consumer’s confidence in the quality of products produced by organisations (Aaker, 1997). With such consideration, Coke Life has carefully employs several strategies to establish its relevance to the market’s demands. One of which is the portrayal of Coke Life’s identity as the healthy version of classic Coca Cola, being the branch product with the most similar taste but lower sugar content. Lisa Winn, Coca-Cola’s local marketing director, ensured that Coke Life is distinctively different from other Coca Cola’s branch products such as Diet Coke or Coke Zero, as stevia provides a full-sugar taste unlike the artificial sweeteners found in the other two (Han, 2015). Stevia also produces fewer kilojoules and lower calories than regular sugar, thus allowing 35% less sugar to be used in Coca Cola Life compared to regular Coca Cola (Coca-Cola, 2015). Stevia has been used as an ingredient branding tool to further emphasise the healthy properties of Coke Life. This is not only done through stevia, but also through the choice of using green for its design branding. Green is purposely selected to make the product stand out when placed in the shelves next to other Coca Cola bottles (Coca Cola, 2015). Moreover, green colour
5
subconsciously suggests a natural, healthy and environmentally friendly product, thus indirectly implying such ‘greenwashing’ properties to Coke Life’s brand image. These strategies to promote Coke Life as a healthy product attempts to grasp the market who refuses to drink Coca Cola due to health reasons, which as previously mentioned are adults who are more health conscious than young adults who prefer Coke Zero, as well as customers who dislike the different taste of the other healthy Coca-Cola alternatives. For such, Coke Life is also used as a vehicle for positioning TCCC’s offer; a wider range of products for individual’s needs and preference. Coke Life can be seen as the company’s answer to the target audience’s demand. The product satisfies two roles of a brand from a consumer behavioural perspective; guarantee and optimism (Bell, 2015). Customers can expect to find the same quality of Coke Life compared to classic Cola-Cola, while at the same time being offered a healthier benefits, hence having the best in the product category. The company’s effort will contribute to the increase of the brand equity, as can be seen from Figure 2., even though Coke Life is positioned relatively closely to its competitors, Coca-Cola dominates 42.5% of the market share (Howard, Duvall & Goldsberry, 2010). This further proves Coca-Cola’s successful positioning, as only a small number of brands position themselves far from Coca-Cola. Pepsi Next went as far as to change its design from light blue to green after the release of Coke Life a few years after its own release.
6
Figure 2. 2D Positioning Graph
Value Analysis A value proposition is a promise of value to be delivered, which is the primary reason for successful sales (Laja, 2015). A successful value proposition should three characteristics; clear outline of the benefits consumers can gain out of the product or service, consumers’ conviction that a product or service can solve or improve their problems than other products, and a clear statement that declares unique differentiation of its product or service compared to its competitors. Coca-Cola is one of the brands that clearly states its values are leadership, collaboration, integrity, accountability, passion, diversity, and quality (The Coca Cola Company, 2015). Coca Cola’s core values have a great influence on promoting their new products. Coke Life, which was launched in Australia in April 2015, proposes a more specific value on diversity and quality aspects that is to live a healthier lifestyle. Customer value is the satisfaction a consumer feels after making a purchase for
7
the goods or services relative to what he/she must give up to receive them (Lister, 2015). Results of a blind taste test show that Coke Life has very similar taste as the regular Coke. All taste testers were surprised by the similarity in taste (Saxelby, 2015). Coke Life’s internal competitor, Coke Zero’s value proposition is that helping consumers, both males and females between 18-39 years old, to reduce calories without sacrificing taste (McWilliams, 2010). Similarly, Diet Coke is also calories and sugar free and targets women who are weight conscious. The similarity between Coke Zero, Coke Diet and Coke Life’s values is that they all have appealed the changing trend of lifestyle. However Coke Life’s focus is on its natural ingredient and helping consumers reducing soft drink intake yet not very successful in terms of sales. Furthermore, there are similar products in the market. From marketing evaluation, we can conclude that the soft drink market is dominated by a few companies. Chart 1 below shows the top producers in the soft drink industry.
Chart 1. Soft Drink Market Additionally, Coke Life and its largest external competitor--Pepsi Next, attempt to provide healthier alternatives for soft drinks. However, Coke Life has better performance in terms of communicating its value. As shown in Chart 2, Coke Life has generated more interest and brand awareness than Pepsi Next on social media and online news media (Hickey, 2015).
8
Chart 2. Coke Life vs. Pepsi Next
Marketing Tool-Box The marketing toolbox refers to price, product, place or distribution, and promotion.
Product: In terms of durability and tangibility, Coke Life can be considered to be service goods as it is intangible and its sole function is a soft drink for consumption. In terms of usage, Coke Life is consumable consumer goods.
Price: There are 3 pricing strategies used for Coke Life. The first is a Going-Rate strategy– maintaining the product in the market and having good relationship with the buyers (Paun et. al., 1997). Coke Life is sold with a competitor-based strategy, being sold at the same price as other Cokes. This shows that TCCC’s does not focus mainly on profits, allowing Coke Life to ride along the pricing trend of its competitors (Shipley & Jobber,
9
2001). Coke Life also employ psychological pricing. Charging $2.99 a bottle is believed to attract more demand than charging $3.00 (Holdershaw et. al., 1997). The price creates an illusion that the product is sold cheaper.
Distribution: A distribution strategy is a plan of how a company intends to transfer their product to distributors, retailers, and the customers (Business Dictionary, 2015). In Australia, the beverage was first introduced to remote communities least expected to get the product (Coca Cola Australia, 2015). This shows that TCCC will travel far and wide to ensure that Coke Life is available for everyone (Herbison, 2015). In spite of that, Coke does not have an official store. Distributors, retailers and outlets usually sell their drinks. Exclusive outlets have good reputations and are well known, thus Coke Life sold there are sure to be demanded and the outlets will be committed to keep selling them.
Promotion: Promotion refers to spreading the word to customers, stakeholders, and the public (Government of WA, 2015). Promoting Coke Life is done mainly through advertisement in the media; displays, radio, television, and the Internet. Advertisements on television and the Internet are effective especially in video forms; impacting through sight, sound, and movement (Government of WA, 2015). Another strategy is giving free samples and a blind taste test. Samples are efficient because the customers would perceive a close bond with the brand (Chandon et. al., 2000), having the opportunity to test the products before it is sold. In Melbourne, free samples are once given out at Melbourne Central whereas a blind taste test took place at Southern Cross Station.
10
Marketing Strategy Evaluation The Coca Cola life’s market strategy in Australia is mainly focused on three aspects: widespread market strategy of all Coca-Cola products, product strategy and pricing strategy.
Widespread Market Strategy for TCCC Before 1984, TCCC employed 3A marketing strategy indicating Affordability, Availability and Acceptability. After 1984, TCCC switched to a 3P marketing strategy, indicating Price-to-value, Pervasiveness and Preference. The 3P marketing strategy has penetrated into every subsidiary brand of TCCC. As Coke Life is still at an introductory stage in the Australian market, they only satisfy the price-to-value aspect because TCCC claimed Coke Life is healthier yet has set same price as other Coca-Cola products.
Figure 3. Coca-Cola Marketing Strategy
Product Strategy TCCC spent $10 million on Coke Life’s promotion to approach the Australian and New Zealand market. The major spending is on promoting its idea of healthy beverage and its green package, which has achieved great success.
11
Pricing Strategy Coke Life chose a stability price tactic to avoid price wars. However, the price strategy should be reassessed. This is because Pepsi Next has approached the Australian and New Zealand market prior to Coke Life and in order to differentiate Coke Life away from its competitor and maintain Coca Cola’s dominance in the market, Coke Life should use an aggressive penetration pricing strategy by increasing the scale of discounts during promotion period. Through this, arising awareness for Coke Life and dominating the market can be done in shorter period of time. Generally speaking, the market strategy currently applied by Coke Life at the introductory market stage has not shown successful progress as regarding to following two aspects:
Financial Perspective Coke Life only sold 7 million litres over five weeks. Compared to other Coca-Cola branch product, in the same period of time, Coke Vanilla sold 14 million litres after its launch in 2005 while Coke Zero sold only a little below 30 million litres. So far, Coke Life has failed to meet its expectation, however TCCC still holds a positive attitude towards it future sales (Commins, 2015).
Ethical Perspective Coca-Cola promotes Coke Life as a healthy product which uses natural sweetener. However, in reality Coke Life still has relatively high sugar content, being not far different from classic Coca-Cola in concern of health aspect. In this case, the public requested TCCC to cutback promotions through sport, and remove Coke Life from schools (Han, 2015).
12
Figure 4. Soda Drinks Sugar Content
Emerging Market Conditions & Trends As previously mentioned that the trend of healthy beverages is rising, in contrast, the soft drink industry has been declining (Trefis, 2015). The demands of carbonated soft drinks or CSD are slowly replaced by public demands of healthy alternatives such as juices and flavor-infused mineral water (Nichol, 2015). Heavy consumption of soft drinks has shown to be associated with increase in body weight and diabetes (Vartanian et. al, 2007). This new customer behaviour has lead TCCC to further focus on Coke Life as it satisfies the ongoing trend in the market.
However, Coke Life’s promotion as a healthy version of Coca-Cola puts the brand in direct competition with a long established rival, Coke Zero. Coke Zero has been previously known as the healthy alternatives years prior to Coke Life. Pepsi Next, Coke Life’s biggest external competitor is assumably less threatening as its internal competitor, predominantly because Coca-Cola has 11.7% higher market share than Pepsi (Howard, Duvall & Goldsberry, 2010). Pepsi Next itself has lower brand awareness than Coke Life (Hickey, 2015).
Suggestion for TCCC Therefore, as mentioned above that Coke Life’s marketing strategy as a healthy Coca-Cola does not fulfil its expected success, Coke Life would be benefitted if the brand image is changed from ‘healthy’ to ‘natural’. Experts believe that Coke Life’s sugar reduction has
13
little health impact (Han, 2015), thus the change of brand value not only potentially dismisses customers’ scepticism of its actual healthy properties, it would also differentiate the brand from Coke Zero. Coke Zero which has significantly less amount of sugar than Coke Life is indeed superior in terms of health, however Coke Zero uses artificial sweetener unlike Coke Life. Hence by changing the value, Coke Life sets itself apart from Coke Zero and reduces direct competitions between the brands. Additionally, following the change of brand value, promotions of Coke Life should be done more intensively. As observed that the current promotions of Coke Life does not produce desirable outcomes, partnership with fast food chain companies and sports club sponsorship deals could help raise the brand awareness in the market. For example, in fast food restaurants, a can of Coke Life could be included in a meal package with a lower price than regular Coca-Cola. Another example could be having Coke Life as a sponsored drink for a football club. With raised brand awareness, Coke Life’s sale revenue is expected to increase accordingly.
14
Bibliography Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (3), 347.
Bell, S. (2015). Lecture 8 Positioning & Branding. Retrieved from: University of Melbourne Marketing https://app.lms.unimelb.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-4898702-dt-content-rid-17441034_2/co urses/MKTG10001_2015_SM2/Lecture%208%20Positioning%20%26%20Branding.pdf. Boyd, H. W. & Massy, W. F. (1972). Marketing Management. USA: Hardcourt Brace Jovanovich. Business
Dictionary
(2015).
Distribution
Strategy.
Retrieved
from:
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/distribution-strategy.html. Chandon, P., Wansink, B. & Laurent, G. (2000). A Benefit Congruency Framework of Sales Promotion Effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 64 , pp. 65-81. Retrieved from: http://journals.ama.org.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/doi/pdf/10.1509/jmkg.64.4.65.18071. Coca-Cola
Australia
(2015).
Retrieved
from:
https://www.youtube.com/user/CocaColaAust. Coca-Cola Australia (2015). COCA-COLA LIFE Australia Launch. Retrieved from: http://www.coca-colajourney.com.au/videos/coca-cola-life-australia-launch-yt48f85ioptc8 #TCCC. The Coca-Cola Company (2015). 125 Years of Sharing Happiness. Retrieved from: http://assets.coca-colacompany.com/a7/5f/95ccf35a41d8adaf82131f36633c/Coca-Cola_1 25_years_booklet.pdf. The
Coca-Cola
Company
(2015),
Mission,Vision
and
Values.
Retrieved
from:
http://www.coca-colacompany.com/our-company/mission-vision-values. Coca-Cola
Product
Facts.
(2014).
Retrieved
http://www.coca-colaproductfacts.com/en/frequently-asked-questions/. 15
from:
Commins, P. (2015), Coca-Cola Life falling short of sales expectations. Retrieved from: http://www.smh.com.au/business/retail/cocacola-life-falling-short-of-sales-expectations-2 0150526-gh9uhd.htm. Forbes (2015). The World’s Most Valuable Brands 2015 Rankings. Retrieved from: http://www.forbes.com/powerful-brands/list/. Google
Finance
(2015).
The
Coca
Cola
Co.
Retrieved
from:
https://www.google.com/finance?fstype=ii&q=NYSE:KO. Government of Western Australia (2015). Marketing – Promotion Strategy. Retrieved from: http://www.smallbusiness.wa.gov.au/business-in-wa/about-sbdc/corporate-publications/ business-guides/marketing-promotion-strategy/. Hammond, G. T. (1990). Countertrade, Offsets, and Barter in International Political Economy. New York: St. Martin’s Press . Han, E. (2015, March 31). Coca-Cola accused of 'greenwashing' with launch of sugar-reduced Coke Life. The Sydney Morning Herald . Herbison, M. (2015). Pepsi Got In First, but Coca-Cola Life’s Launch Marks Declaration of the
Green
Cola
Wars.
Retrieved
from:
https://www.marketingmag.com.au/news-c/pepsi-next-coca-cola-life-green-cola-wars/. Hickey, D. (2015). Battle of the brands: Coca-Cola Life vs Pepsi Next. Retrieved from: https://www.marketingmag.com.au/hubs-c/battle-brands-coca-cola-life-vs-pepsi-next/. Holdershaw, J., Gendall, P. & Garland, R. (1997). The Widespread Use of Odd Pricing in Retail
Sector.
Marketing
Bulletin,
8,
pp.
53-58.
Retrieved
from:
http://marketing-bulletin.massey.ac.nz/V8/MB_V8_N1_Holdershaw.pdf. Howard, P., Duvall, C., & Goldsberry, K. (2010). The illusion of diversity: visualizing ownership
in
the
soft
drink
https://msu.edu/~howardp/softdrinks.html.
16
industry.
Retrieved
from:
Jager, C. (2014). Coke Life Is Coming To Australia: Everything You Need To Know. Retrieved
from:
http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2014/10/coke-life-is-coming-to-australia-heres-everything-y ou-need-to-know/. Laja,
P.
(2015).
Useful
Value
Proposition
Examples.
Retrieved
from:
http://conversionxl.com/value-proposition-examples-how-to-create/. Lister,
J.
(2015).
Definition
of
Consumer
Value
Hierarchy.
Retrieved
from:
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/definition-customer-value-hierarchy-26365.html. McCarthy, J. E. (1964). Basic Marketing. A Managerial Approach, 769. McWilliams, J. (2010). Coke Zero becomes a hero for Coca-Cola Co. Retrieved from: http://www.thestar.com/business/2010/09/19/coke_zero_becomes_a_hero_for_cocacola_ co.html. Moschis, G., Curasi, C., & Bellenger, D. (2007). Patronage Motives of Mature Consumers in the Selection of Food and Alcoholic Beverage Brands. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 13 (1), p.61-80.
Nichol, M. (2015). 5 Beverage Trends You Need To Know. Retrieved from: http://matthews.com.au/index.php/5-beverage-trends-you-need-to-know/. NPLAN (2015). Breaking Down The Chain: A Guide To the Soft Drink Industry. Retrieved from: http://www.changelabsolutions.org/sites/default/files/ChangeLab-Beverage_Industry_Rep ort-FINAL_(CLS-20120530)_201109.pdf. Paley, N. (2000). Chapter 10: How to manage your distribution strategy. (2000). Marketing Strategy Desktop Guide , pp. 237-263. Thorogood Publishing Ltd . Retrieved from:
http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=3ed4 98f9-90cd-45bd-ad04-6ff9e4fbcca0%40sessionmgr113&vid=3&hid=105.
17
Paun, D. A., Compeau, L. D., & Grewal, D. (1997). A Model of the Influence of Marketing Objectives on Pricing Strategies in International Countertrade. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 16 (1), pp. 69-82.
Roberts, K., J. (1986). How to define your market segment. Long Range Planning, 19(6), p.53. Saxelby, C. (2015). Product Snapshot: Coke Life vs. Coke Regular - a side-by-side taste test.
Retrieved
from:
http://foodwatch.com.au/reviews/item/product-snapshot-coke-life-vs-coke-regular-a-side -by-side-taste-test.html. Scriven, J., & Ehrenberg, A. (2002). Is Coke always less price-sensitive than Pepsi?. Marketing Research: A Magazine of Management & Applications, Winter, 14 (4), 40(3). Shipley, D. & Jobber, D. (2001). Integrative Pricing via the Pricing Wheel. Industrial Marketing
Management,
30,
pp.
301-314.
Retrieved
from:
http://ac.els-cdn.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/S001985019900098X/1-s2.0-S001985019900 098X-main.pdf?_tid=bd6fb980-6a74-11e5-b020-00000aab0f26&acdnat=1443948713_c283 609b920ec7c9fa55eaf85ac95624. Statista (2015). Leading 15 Most Valuable Soft Drink Brands Worldwide in 2015, Based on Brand
Value
(in
Million
U.S.
Dollar).
Retrieved
from:
http://www.statista.com/statistics/273063/leading-15-most-valuable-global-soft-drink-bra nds-based-on-brand-value/. Trefis (2013). How Is Coca-Cola Responding To The Big Trends In Carbonated Soft Drinks. Retrieved
from:
http://www.trefis.com/stock/ko/articles/160708/how-is-coca-cola-responding-to-the-big-tr ends-in-carbonated-soft-drinks/2013-01-04. Vartanian, L. R., Schwartz, M. B. & Brownell, K. D. (2007). Effects of Soft Drink Consumption on Nutrition and Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. American Journal
18
of
Public
Health,
97 (4),
pp.
667-675.
Retrieved
from:
http://ajph.aphapublications.org.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.2005.0837 82. Wind, Y., Robertson, T. S., & Fraser, C. (1982). Industrial Product Diffusion by Market Segment. Industrial Marketing Management, 11 , 1-8.
19