Kraft developed a new Vegemite-flavored spread called iSnack 2.0, which received huge public backlash in Australia for its perceived un-Australian name. Although sales were still good, Kraft allowed the public to vote on a new name, ultimately selecting "Cheesybite." Perceptions of Kraft prior to iSnack were neutral, but Australians saw the American name as insulting. Vegemite maintained its iconic status. Kraft successfully changed perceptions by soliciting consumer input on a new name and marketing Cheesybite as a fun, new option versus the traditional Vegemite.

1. Case Study 1.1
iSnack 2.0
It looked good on paper…
Blair, Felicity & Joe

2. Case Summary
• 2008 campaign – interactive campaign ‘how do you like your
vegemite’ - 300,000 participants.
• In 2009 developed new spread and sold in supermarkets called ‘name
me’ and asked customers to submit names online (48,000
suggestions).
• Kraft chose the name iSnack 2.0 and launched product.
• Huge negative response from public but sales figures still good.
• Kraft chose a shortlist of names and allowed public to vote on a new
name.
• Cheesybite finally chosen and still on supermarket shelves today.

3. Question 1 – Attitudes towards Kraft
Cognitive: Kraft is known to be an American brand representing many
different food products.
Affective: prior to iSnack 2.0 feelings towards Kraft were neither
positive nor negative overall.
The original ‘Name Me’ campaign was seen as positive but upon the
release of the iSnack 2.0 product Australian’s emotions took a negative
turn. The Australian people saw this as an insult to their intelligence.
Conative: Kraft as a brand did not see any fall in sales, in fact after
naming the new product iSnack 2.0 sales grew initially.

4. Question 1 – Attitudes towards Vegemite
Cognitive – Vegemite is seen as an iconic Australian brand, consumers
are protective towards it.
Affective – Vegemite as a brand invokes a feeling of patriotism,
happiness and safety. Australians have known and used Vegemite for
as long as they can remember. The attitude towards the original
Vegemite product did not change throughout the iSnack 2.0 process.
Conative – likelihood of buying new ‘Cheesymate’, not high, likelihood
of continuing to buy traditional vegemite remain mostly unchanged.

5. Question 2 – Consumer Learning
Elements of consumer learning:
• Motivation - high level of involvement with iconic brand so motivated to
learn, web advertisements as antecedent to create interest. Previous ‘how
do you like your Vegemite’ campaign.
• Cues – high visibility in advertising and promotion through print, web, tv
and radio channels, product also available to purchase in supermarket.
• Response – purchase of product and interaction in naming campaign,
through online discussions and social media.
• Reinforcement – reward of (hopefully) tasty product and getting the
chance to choose a name as method for customer satisfaction.

6. Question 2 – Consumer Learning
Classical Conditioning
• Stimulus generalisation – Kraft hoped to extend positive feelings and associations
from the Vegemite brand to Cheesybite as a product line extension.
Operant/instrumental Conditioning
• Negative reinforcement – Bad name of iSnack 2.0 chosen by Kraft and alienated
consumers.
• Positive reinforcement – Kraft showing they care by changing product name.
Reward of letting the public vote for Cheesybite returned control to customer
and increase personal ownership and connection to the product and brand
(Relationship Marketing).
Cognitive Learning
• Distributed learning – campaign released over time in stages until finally the
winning name announced.
• Modelling – advertisements modelled how to enjoy eating Cheesybite.
• Memory and Retention – Different forms of advertising, association with Kraft
and Vegemite schema.

7. Question 3 – Involvement theory
Aspects of involvement theory:
• The central routes to persuasion theory - more likely to evaluate
information and products carefully when the product is more relevant
• Social judgment theory - highly involved, if congruent with their
position, more positive than actually is (the assimilation effect),
otherwise, more negative than actually is (the contrast effect).
• Transformational theory - transformational motivation essentially as
positive motivation and involves three subtypes: sensory gratification,
intellectual stimulation, social approval

8. Question 3 – Involvement theory
Before
• Highly involved - blogs and discussion boards.
• Immediate response - feedback from positive to negative.
• Weighed information carefully, devoting considerable cognitive effort -
‘Cheesymite’, ‘Cheeze E Mite’, ‘Vegemate’, ‘Readymite’ even ‘Bruce and
Sheila Spread’.
After - ‘Vegemite iSnack 2.0’
• Response immediately again! Not congruent ‘most stupid’.
• Infuriated consumers - thousands of negative comments on internet.
• ‘iHateiSnack’, ‘iSnack 2.0—Marketing fail’ and ‘iSnack 2.0 is the Worst
Name!!!!’ isuck 2.0 unhappy little vegemites (abc article).

9. Question 4 – Perception changing name
from iSnack 2.0 to Cheesybite
Customer perception of iSnack 2.0
• Confused - iPod, Web 2.0
• Negative and unpopular - inspired online uproar
and spawned parody
Rove sketch -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmIjLBssqyk
Could they change perception by changing the
name?

10. Question 4 – Perception changing name from
iSnack 2.0 to Cheesybite
Yes! - Perception aims:
• Disassociate negative image from scandal with
iSnack 2.0
• Improve relationship marketing – reward
consumers by giving them control and letting them
choose the name, increasing involvement.
• Associate positive feelings with the name.
Street talk -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UP96hrRkgY
Ad -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WXJFjGGeu0

11. Question 5 – Vegemite brand personality
Uses sincerity and competence
• Down to earth
• Honest
• Wholesome
• Cheerful
• Reliable
• True blue/Aussie
• Traditional
Suits highly dogmatic consumers

12. Compare to Cheesybite brand personality
Uses excitement
• Daring
• Spirited/fun
• Imaginative
• Up-to-date
• New
• Different
• Snack = children/lunchbox
Suits high optimum stimulation
levels
Source: Brand personality framework (Aaker 1997)