MG412 Principles of Marketing: The 4Ps of Red Bull and Lucozade

This report provides a comparative analysis of the marketing mix (4Ps) employed by Red Bull and Lucozade, two prominent brands in the energy drink market. The report examines their respective target markets, product offerings, pricing strategies, distribution channels (place), and promotional activities. It utilizes frameworks like Levitt's Product Level and Aaker's Brand Personality to assess product attributes and brand perceptions. The analysis highlights the differences in how each brand approaches the market, including Red Bull's premium pricing and extensive promotional efforts versus Lucozade's focus on competitive pricing and broader product portfolio. The report concludes with recommendations for both brands, suggesting areas for improvement in their marketing strategies, such as diversification of product lines for Red Bull and enhanced promotional strategies for Lucozade to increase brand recall. The study draws upon secondary research and academic sources to support its findings.

Running head: MARKETING MIX
The 4Ps/marketing mix (A comparison between Red Bull and Lucozade)
Name of the student:
Name of the university:
Author note:

1MARKETING MIX
Table of Contents
1. Comparison of Target Markets....................................................................................................2
2. Product.........................................................................................................................................2
3. Price.............................................................................................................................................6
4. Place.............................................................................................................................................6
5. Promotion....................................................................................................................................7
Conclusion and Recommendations..................................................................................................7
Recommendations........................................................................................................................7
References........................................................................................................................................9

2MARKETING MIX
1. Comparison of Target Markets
The target market of Lucozade comprises high-income male, female and sports
enthusiasts. These people buy various products from Lucozade such as Lucozade Energy,
Lucozade Sport, Lucozade, etc. Lucozade is a nationwide popular and reputed energy drink
brand in the United Kingdom. Lucozade energy received a certificate of excellence from the
'European Food Safety Authority’ (Rortais et al. 2017).
On the other hand, Red Bull has mass popularity behind it. As of the 2018 report of
Statista, Red Bull has the biggest customer base in the United Kingdom energy drink sector. It is
ahead to two of the most popular drinks of Lucozade, Lucozade Energy and Lucozade Sport
(Statista 2020). Red Bull targets teenagers, college students, young adults and different socio-
economic classes.
Lucozade and Red Bull both went for the changes in their use of ingredients over the
times. The change brought fruitful results for Red Bull; however, not so for Lucozade. The
reformulation of energy drink in search of offering the low-sugar drink received the company a
backlash. Lucozade could witness an affected business during such times. Contrary to this
practice, Red Bull continued with its sugar variant of energy drink and instead; offered a sugar-
free version as well. It is how Red Bull could survive a business loss as happened to Lucozade.
Studies suggest that the reformulation of energy drink affected the Lucozade business as the
sales dropped down by 19% approximately. On the other hand, the sugar-free version of Red
Bull boosted up its overall sales by approximately 10 times (Pell et al. 2019).
2. Product

3MARKETING MIX
The product offering of either of the companies will be assessed using ‘Levitt’s Product
Level’ and ‘Aaker’s Brand Personality Framework’. Therefore;
Fig 1: Levitt’s Product Level
(Source: Kim, Kim and Choi 2019)
The above is a diagrammatic presentation of Levitt's model. It shows that a product has broadly
three distinct types, Augmented product, Actual product and the Core Product Benefit.
Product Type Lucozade Red Bull
Augmented product free delivery for goods
purchased online
online purchase is available
Actual product  Redesigned the bottle
to give it a squirty cap
on the top of the bottle
to make it suitable for
 It uses classic tall and
thin cans, which later
became the signature
package for the

4MARKETING MIX
sportspersons
 Lucozade is also
available in forms of
tablets and bars to
make it suitable for
consumption during
the exercise times.
energy drink industry.
 Red Bull does not
come in tablet and
bars forms
Core Product Benefit Lucozade is a recognized
energy drink in the United
Kingdom.
Red Bull is easy to use for its
cans and is an instant energy
booster.
Table 1: Product Comparison
(Source: García Sánchez, Molero and Rama 2016)
The findings of the table show that both Red Bull and Lucozade offer more or less similar
product benefits to its customers. Red Bull does not match up with the Lucozade in terms of
packaging as Lucozade is also available in bars and tablets. On the other hand, Red Bull is
massively popular in the United Kingdom and leads the energy drink sector for a few distinct
reasons such as the use of cans for packaging.

5MARKETING MIX
Fig 2: Aaker’s Brand Personality Framework
(Source: Malik and Naeem 2013)
The above is an 'Aaker’s Brand Personality Framework’, which helps to identify the
most suitable personality for a brand.
Energy Brand Competence Ruggedness Excitement
Lucozade √ √
Red Bull √ √ √
Table 2: Personality Comparison
(Source: Douglas et al. 2018)
The table indicates that Red Bull fulfills three personality types of Aaker’s Framework
whereas Lucozade does not qualify for ‘Ruggedness’. This is the point of difference between

6MARKETING MIX
Lucozade and Red Bull based on ‘Aaker’s Brand Personality Framework’. Red Bull can be
classified as ‘Ruggedness’ as its cans became the signature package for many other energy drink
brands in the United Kingdom.
3. Price
Lucozade can be considered as following a ‘Competitive Pricing Strategy’ to remain
affordable for its target market. The pricing is definitely on a higher side compared to a few
brands; however, that also does not affect its sales due to the quality of the product. Lucozade is
one of the most popular energy drink brands in the United Kingdom. Red Bull, on the other
hand, charges a premium for its product. Red Bull secures a top slot in the UK rankings for
energy drink brands for the most wider customer base. Customers have liked the brand and its
drink packaging style (Jones and Comfort 2019).
4. Place
Red Bull can be easily found at convenient locations like retail outlets, supermarkets,
bars and casinos, and convenience stores. People in bars and casinos like to have Red Bull drinks
with alcoholic beverages. It is why Red Bull is also available in bars and casinos. It also shows
how good Red Bull is in positioning its drink to suitable sales points. Red Bull can also be found
in grocery stores in exclusive refrigerators of Red Bull. It is also available for online sales
(Moreira and Tjahjono 2016). This is how Red Bull increases the visibility of its products.

7MARKETING MIX
Lucozade is also available in retail chains such as ASDA, sports center, gyms, dessert
stores and bread stores. Lucozade products can also be obtained from its official website for free
home delivery (Moreira and Tjahjono 2016).
5. Promotion
Lucozade uses TV adverts to a good effect. Video game advertisement such as using a
video game character ‘Tomb Raider’, is executed to target the teenage population of the country.
However, Red Bull is more established as a marketing player as compared to Lucozade. Red
Bull sponsors the different events and sports teams to receive wider public and media attention.
Red Bull also airs many music festivals, shows, performances, etc. Red Bull films are also
available for PCs, Laptops, Mobiles, gaming consoles, etc. The brand recall value of Red Bull is
very appreciating (Watt et al. 2019).
Conclusion and Recommendations
As found in the study, Red Bull lacks a diversified product portfolio that may concern to
the management team. Lucozade has a less compelling brand recall value as compared to Red
Bull. These will be the areas of consideration for both of these energy drink brands.
Recommendations
Lucozade

8MARKETING MIX
It needs to work on its promotion strategy to reach a diverse customer population to increase its
brand recall value. It can follow the footsteps of Red Bull as the company is extremely active
with its promotion strategy.
Red Bull
Red Bull lacks an effective product portfolio. It can make it effective through a few
points of consideration. Red Bull can go for Health Drinks to target the customer population
needing health drinks. Health drinks should be a success considering the brand image of Red
Bull and the customer demand for healthier alternatives.

9MARKETING MIX
References
Douglas, N., Knai, C., Petticrew, M., Eastmure, E., Durand, M.A. and Mays, N., 2018. How the
food, beverage and alcohol industries presented the Public Health Responsibility Deal in UK
print and online media reports. Critical Public Health, 28(4), pp.377-387.
García Sánchez, A., Molero, J. and Rama, R., 2016. Local cooperation for innovation. Food and
beverage multinationals in a peripheral European country.
Jones, P. and Comfort, D., 2019. An Interpretative Analysis of Storytelling in the Beverage
Industry. Athens Journal of Tourism, 6(3), pp.141-154.
Kim, S.J., Kim, K.H. and Choi, J., 2019. The role of design innovation in understanding
purchase behavior of augmented products. Journal of Business Research, 99, pp.354-362.
Malik, E.M. and Naeem, B., 2013. Aaker’s brand personality framework: A critical
commentary. World Applied Sciences Journal, 24(7), pp.895-899.
Moreira, M. and Tjahjono, B., 2016. Applying performance measures to support decision-
making in supply chain operations: a case of beverage industry. International Journal of
Production Research, 54(8), pp.2345-2365.
Pell, D., Penney, T., Hammond, D., Vanderlee, L., White, M. and Adams, J., 2019. Support for,
and perceived effectiveness of, the UK soft drinks industry levy among UK adults: cross-
sectional analysis of the International Food Policy Study. BMJ open, 9(3), p.e026698.
Rortais, A., Arnold, G., Dorne, J.L., More, S.J., Sperandio, G., Streissl, F., Szentes, C. and
Verdonck, F., 2017. Risk assessment of pesticides and other stressors in bees: principles, data

10MARKETING MIX
gaps and perspectives from the European Food Safety Authority. Science of the Total
Environment, 587, pp.524-537.
Statista 2020. Leading Brands Of Energy Drinks In The UK 2018 | Statista. [online] Statista.
Available at: <https://www.statista.com/statistics/308493/leading-brands-of-energy-drinks-
excluding-colas-or-mixers-for-alcoholic-drinks-in-the-uk/> [Accessed 27 March 2020].
Watt, T., Cornelsen, L., Beckert, W. and Smith, R., 2019. Reducing consumption of unhealthy
foods and beverages through banning price promotions: what is the evidence and would it
work?. Public Health Nutrition.