5 CORE MARKETING CORE MARKETS

Kit Kat has grown into an iconic candy bar after experiencing multiple brand and design changes.
Write a Review

Kit Kat is widely recognized as a popular chocolate candy bar that is available in diverse nations around the world. Rowntrees of York, England in 1935, first created this chocolatecovered wafer biscuit bar. The name for the delicious bar came from Kit Kat, the name of mutton pies that were often served at political events in the Kit-Cat Club in London. Although the candy bar was reportedly founded in 1935, the origins of the candy date back as far as 1911 when Rowntrees, a candy company based in York, trademarked the Kit Cat and Kit Kat terms in hopes of using them in the future. The first conception of the Kit Kat was released in the 1920s, when Rowntree introduced a new brand of boxed chocolates called Kit Cat. The company sold enough boxes of chocolate to remain viable for a few years until Rowntree decided to shift their focus. Kit Cat was soon discontinued although the company was still in control of the trademark. One of the workers at the Rowntree York Factory developed a new four-finger bar after suggesting that it would be easy for the everyday worker to eat on the go. The bar could also be easily broken apart if someone wanted to share it with others. Based on his idea, the bar was officially launched on August 29, 1935 when it was called Rowntrees Chocolate Crisp. This new confection was sold throughout London and Southern England and saw moderate success. By 1937, the company decided that the bar showed promise so they renamed it Kit Kat Chocolate Crisp. They also began to advertise the bar by reinforcing its ability to be broken into smaller pieces. Although the developers were satisfied with the bars appearance and taste, they were soon forced to change their formula in response to World War II. The war had caused massive food shortages, forcing the company to change their formula to dark chocolate. They were also unable to package their product like they wanted so they settled on a simple blue package. When the war officially ended, the company officially changed the bars name to Kit Kat and went forward with their original milk chocolate recipe and red packaging.

The product saw most of its early success in areas near the United Kingdom during the 1940s. The company hoped to expand the product by exporting it to countries like Canada, South America, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand. The company enlisted the help of Donalf Gilles, an executive at a prominent advertising agency. He penned the now iconic advertising line Have a break, have a Kit Kat. The campaign was an instant success and the company saw a new spike in global sales. The company had to expand to new distribution factories in Germany in order to meet the European demand. The candy bars popularity spurred new interest from companies in the U.S. and Japan who wished to distribute the bar to their audiences. Rowntree stabled agreements with these countries just before the company released their rights to Kit Kat. In 1988 Kit Kat was acquired by Nestl for an undisclosed amount. Now that Nestle had global control of the new popular candy bar, they increased their production and distribution in most markets except for North America. They even set up manufacturing operations in Malaysia, India, and China. Its important to note that The Hershey Company had established a license to produce Kit Kat bars in the U.S. during the 1970s. The agreement had been executed with Rowntree when they were still in charge of the Kit Kat brand. Due to licensing laws, Nestle was forced to acknowledge the agreement and to allow The Hershey Company to produce as many Kit Kat bars as they wanted. Hershey quickly began to market and sell Kit-Kats to the American public during the late 1980s. Kit-Kat grew to become one of Hersheys top five brands in the United States. They also experimented with variants of the original chocolate bar in 1996 when they released Kit Kat Orange. This bar was released in the United Kingdom and saw enough popularity to spur additional flavor variants of the Kit Kat recipe. In 1999, the company introduced the first mint Kit Kat and the first caramel Kit Kat. They also released Kit Kat Chunky, which saw favorable reviews from international customers. The variations continued throughout the 2000s and helped Nestle to acquire more shares of the brand in the Japan market. In a few short years, the company had expanded their marketing and distribution to Japan, Russia, Turkey, and Venezuela. The company celebrated their 75th anniversary in October of 2009, making it one of the most iconic and well-known candy bars. The traditional Kit Kat bar has four fingers of chocolate covered wafer that measures about 0.39 of an inch by 3.5 inches. The company released a new design with a two-finger bar during the 1930s and that bar has remained the best selling version of the Kit Kat brand. In 1999 the company released Kit Kat Chunky, also known as Big Kat, which featured a single finger bar. In foreign countries the Kit Kat bar varies in the range of chocolate bars that come in one package. Some countries sell the bars in bags, boxes, and large multi-packs. Consumers can even purchase Kit Kat Ice Cream or Kit Kat Drumsticks. The company expanded again in 2010 when they opened a new manufacturing facility in York, UK, that was worth over $5 million. The new facility planned to produce more than a billion Kit Kat bars every single year to meet global demands. According to officials at Kit Kat, the popular candy bar is available in 13 countries including India, Turkey, and Bulgaria. The company notes that the U.S. bars are still under the licensure that is owned by The Hershey Company while Nestle produces the rest of the bars.

The company notes that 2003 was a turning point for the Kit Kat bar and for most businesses in the confectionery industry. The industry saw an extreme shift in sales after popular low carb diets began to affect eating habits. More consumers were avoiding candy bars and Kit Kat saw stifling sales around the world. In hopes to maintain their industry position, the company began to introduce new and unique versions of the original Kit Kat. They also introduced limited and special editions that prompted consumers to get them while they were available. The new marketing strategy helped to keep Kit Kat viable until most fad diets died down. The strategy has been used by various companies in the confectionery industry and has proved quite successful during hard times. The company used an interesting marketing approach during the three weeks of Big Brother Series 7 when they distributed golden tickets to 100 random consumers. The tickets were hidden in the Kit Kat bars similar to the story in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Once a consumer found the ticket, they were able to use it for a chance to become a part of the Big Brother cast competition. The ticket allowed the consumer to bypass the standard audition process so they had a better chance of being chosen for the cast. One winner was actually accepted into the house at random. The contest caused a bit of a controversy from the Advertising Standards Authority after they stated that the conditions of the contest were not properly explained in their advertisements. The winner was selected after she purchased a Kit Kat, found a golden ticket, and was then picked at random through a machine. Most consumers felt comfortable with the contest and the company never released a statement to address the controversy. The products core audience is quite varied as both children and adults love this chocolate treat. The company came under fire again in 2010 when they were the target of a boycott on behalf of Greenpeace. The organization criticized the Kit Kat brand, claiming that they used palm oil, which results in the destruction of forest habitats in Indonesia. To address the controversy, Nestle started a partnership with The Forest Trust to create more responsible guidelines for palm oil. The company publicly stated that they wanted to continue to produce their product without leaving a big environmental footprint. The company is currently attempting to achieve a fully sustainable method for palm oil harvesting that they expect to be completed by 2015. - See more at: http://topoutliers.com/products/kit-kat/#sthash.atU6mOTY.dpuf

Google's 'Android KitKat' Will Appear on 50 Million Candy Bars

Co-branding deal blends software and chocolate By Christopher Heine http://www.adweek.com/news/technology/googles-android-kitkat-will-appear-50-million-candybars-152173

Will Googles Android KitKat Bar Promotion Catch On?

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/google-android-kitkat-bar-promotion-catch173012700.html

DEMAND http://kotaku.com/5983276/15-flavors-of-japanese-kit-kats-the-snacktaku-review MARKETING OFFER

Google and Nestl announce Android KitKat

Sep 3, 2013

SPECIAL PRIZES: More than 50 million Android-branded KitKat bars will be available.

Google has ended months of online speculation about the name of the latest version of its Android mobile operating system by revealing it will be called Android KitKat, after Nestls popular chocolate and wafer confectionery. The creators of the worlds most popular mobile platform have teamed up with the worlds biggest food and beverage company to name the next release of the platform Android KitKat.
Sweet themes

Android has been developed by the companys engineers under sweet-themed names ever since the release of Android Cupcake in 2009 and continuing in alphabetical order until the most recent version, Android Jelly Bean. The news that the letter K will be dedicated to Nestls KitKat will surprise most technology commentators, who had widely thought the latest version would be Android Key Lime Pie. We couldnt imagine a better name for our Android K release than the tasty chocolate thats been a favourite among the team since the early days of Android, said Marc Vanlerberghe, Director of Android Marketing.

LIMITED EDITION: A small number of Android robot-shaped KitKat bars will also be offered as prizes. Strong digital presence

Were excited to announce this partnership with Android, the world's most popular mobile platform, which will help us to enable even more KitKat fans to enjoy their break, said Patrice Bula, Nestls Head of Marketing. KitKat is one of the worlds top ten fast-moving consumer goods brands in social media in terms of fan numbers and engagement, he continued. We continue to build on its strong digital presence with interactive, creative branding campaigns. To mark the release of Android KitKat, more than 50 million specially branded KitKat bars will be available in 19 countries including Australia, Brazil, Germany, India, Japan, Dubai, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. The packs will lead consumers to the website android.com/kitkat where they will have the opportunity to win prizes including a limited number of Google Nexus 7 tablets, and credits to spend in Google Play, Googles online store for apps, games, music, movies, books and more. A small number of Android robot-shaped KitKat bars will also be offered as prizes in selected markets.

TWINS: Giant Android KitKat statues outside Nestls headquarters in Vevey, Switzerland (left) and Google's
Mountain View, California campus (right).

Closer to consumers

Nestls branding partnership with Google is the companys latest move in its ambition to leverage digital technology and online content to get closer to its consumers to better understand and cater to their preferences. Earlier this year, Nestl acquired its first-ever piece of online content property, the Petfinder website in the United States. The online database, which links prospective adopters with adoptable pets, is visited by more than 100 million pet-lovers annually.
VALUE & SATISFACTION

Kitkat, Hershey, Guylian, Mars,Not all chocolates are trademark-equal 31 Jan 2013 | Bogdan Ivanievi

Why are some chocolate shapes, and shapes of other candy, protected as trademarks and other shapes are not? The question comes to mind after reading the decision of 12 December 2012 whereby the Board of Appeal of the E.U. Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) conferred trademark protection on Nestles KitKat trapezoid bar:

Also in 2012, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (TTAB) allowed registration of the product configuration for Hershey chocolates:

In contrast, the then-Court of First Instance endorsed in 2009 OHIMs refusal to register the following configuration of the Mars chocolate as Community trademark:

In 2005, the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) of New Zealand refused to register two KitKat marks, including this one:

Finally, in 2009 the Australian Registrar of Trademarks, with the backing of the Federal Court of Australia, denied trademark protection to the seahorse shape of Guylian chocolates:

By and large, courts and trademark offices from various countries have followed the same line of reasoning in the attempts to decipher whether the shape of confectionary merits trademark protection. That notwithstanding, the decision-making bodies did not always reach identical conclusions. The crucial difference concerned the assessment of acquired distinctiveness and, directly related to it, the approach to the issue of applicants use of the shape as a trademark. All relevant decisions examined two potential obstacles to the grant of protection: functionality and lack of distinctiveness. The shape of a chocolate is not inherently distinctive The key issue in the cases concerning trademark protection for chocolate shapes has concerned distinctiveness of the shape: to what extent, if any, is the shape capable of distinguishing the confectionary from the confectionary of other manufacturers. In the five

cases above, courts and trademark offices found that the shape of the asserted trademark was not as such distinguishable. (However, as we shall see further below, in some cases the shape has acquired the necessary distinctiveness). Compared to words and symbols in a trademark, shapes are poorly suited to provide distinctiveness of a product. Since the range of available shapes of a product is quite limited, devising an inherently distinctive shape is virtually impossible. As the pertinent decisions by the OHIM Board of Appeal and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) emphasize, only a mark which departs significantly from the basic shapes of the goods at issue may have some distinctive character (CJEU judgment Mars v. OHIM (2009), para. 28; CJEU judgment Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprngli AG v. OHIM (2012), para. 42; OHIM Board of Appeal decision Socit des Produits Nestl S.A. v. Cadbury Holdings Limited (2012), para. 28). In reality, the shapes of chocolates never depart significantly from the basic form. It is easy to agree with the CJEU that the elongated shape is almost intrinsic to a chocolate bar and does not therefore significantly depart from the norm and customs of the relevant sector (Mars v. OHIM, para. 31). Perhaps less obviously, the seahorse in Chocolaterie Guylian N.V. v Registrar of Trade Marks (Federal Court of Australia, 2009) and the sitting rabbit in Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprngli AG v. OHIM, have also been found by the courts to be typical, because chocolate manufacturers tend to make chocolates in shapes representing animals. But it may acquire distinctiveness The absence of inherent distinctiveness leaves one avenue for a company wishing to register the shape of its product as a trademark: acquired distinctiveness through use of the mark in relation to the goods for which registration is requested. Of the five marks visually presented at the beginning of this post, only the first two KitKat and Hershey candy bars have been accepted as trademarks. That means that the two offices, OHIM and TTAB, were satisfied that KitKat and Hershey bars, respectively, have acquired distinctiveness as trademarks, in the sense that a significant proportion of the relevant section of the public has come to identify the candy as originating from a particular undertaking. In contrast, no such development occurred in relation to the Mars and Guylian chocolates, or at least not in the opinion of the courts which looked into the matter. KitKat candy, in fact, is on the both sides of the divide, because the New Zealand IPO unlike OHIM refused to register it as a trademark. With the exception of the CJEU judgment Mars v. OHIM (2009), the decisions reviewed for the purpose of writing this post share a number of elements which favor the trademark applicants who claim acquired distinctiveness. The parties seeking trademark protection are world-known producers of chocolate. The specific products at issue have been sold extensively and the proprietors spent a fortune on advertising. Consumer recognition surveys show that almost half of all participants in the relevant territory associate the particular product with the applicant for trademark protection. This kind of evidence has convinced OHIMs Board of Appeal and the US TTAB that KitKat and Hershey bars, respectively, should enjoy trademark protection. The two offices ended their inquiry at that point. As for the CJEU, evidence which was received from the Mars

company was insufficient to enable the Court to deduce existence of an acquired distinctiveness in a number of E.U. countries (the evidence did not include surveys, witness statements, or examples of use of the mark on packages, advertising or other promotional material). No acquired distinctiveness in the absence of use as a trademark The Australian Federal Court and the New Zealands IPO decided for other reasons to withhold trademark protection from the shapes of KitKat, i.e. Guylian, chocolate. The central issue was the nature of the use of the marks by the applicants. According to the court and the IPO, in order to acquire distinctiveness, the mark must have been used as a trademark, i.e. as indication of commercial origin. As a general proposition, this is in line with the pronouncements of the CJEU (e.g. in Societe des produits Nestle SA v Mars UK Ltd, 2005, para. 26) and of the Board of Appeals of OHIM (KitKat decision of 12 December 2012, para. 53). The Federal Court of Australia applied this rule to the facts in the case and concluded that it is the Guylian trademark, together with the G logo, that does the work of distinguishing the goods, not the seahorse shape (emphasis added). In other words, the ability of the significant proportion of the survey respondents to identify Guylian when they were shown the seahorse shaped chocolate was due to the use, over a long period of time, of the distinctive Guylian and G trademarks on the packaging. In a similar way, the New Zealand IPO found that the word marks KIT KAT and HAVE A BREAK were dominant when the KitKat chocolate was being sold. The chocolate bar was being sold in a sealed foil wrapper which did not indicate the shape of the product within and did not bear a representation of the shape. This type of analysis is entirely absent from the TTABs Hershey decision. The KitKat decision of the Board of Appeal of OHIM briefly states the general rule that the recognition of the product as originating from a given undertaking must be the result of the use of the mark as a trade mark, but the decision does not demonstrate that the significant section of the relevant public came to know the KitKat bar through use of the bar as a trademark. Unless shape is exclusively functional, it can be a trademark The second potential obstacle to trademark registration of chocolate shape has been the utilitarian functionality. Essentially utilitarian features of goods cannot be protected as trademark; in the E.U. trademark parlance, a mark cannot consist exclusively of the shape which is necessary to obtain a technical result (Council Regulation (EC) No. 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trademark, Art. 7(1)(e)(ii)). Other competitors are thus free to use these utilitarian features. The cited provision from the Council Regulation also prohibits registration of a mark which results exclusively from the nature of the goods themselves (Art. 7(1)(e)(i)). If the asserted trademark consists only of a shape which is necessary to obtain a technical result (or which results from the nature of the goods themselves), such a mark cannot be registered. But if the mark includes non-utilitarian elements as well, registration is possible. As it turns out, the shapes proposed for trademarks of chocolate (or similar candy) include

decorative or imaginative elements, too. For example, in the photo of the Mars chocolate reproduced above, the wave features or arrows on the top of the bar are merely ornamental: they do not result from the nature of the bar and they are not necessary to obtain a technical result. The seahorse shape of the Guylian chocolate is even less susceptible to a charge of utilitarian functionality. The other form of functionality, aesthetic functionality, has received little attention in the decisions concerning chocolates and similar candies. In other words, the courts and trademark offices have not explicitly addressed whether aesthetically appealing shape was such as to give substantial value to the chocolate or related good, and whether trademark protection for the shape would hinder competition on that basis. Implicitly, i.e. by removing the whole functionality hurdle to registration, the courts and the offices have ruled out the existence of aesthetic functionality.
EXCHANGE, TRANSACTIONS & RELATIONSHIPS http://www.thehersheycompany.com/hersheys-partners.aspx http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Nestle_%28NSRGY%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kit_Kat brand name selection

Use of the name "Kit Kat" or "Kit Cat" for a type of food goes back to the 18th century, when mutton pies known as a Kit-Kat were served at meetings of the political Kit-Cat Club in London. The origins of what is now known as the "Kit Kat" brand go back to 1911, when Rowntree's, a confectionery company based in York in the United Kingdom, trademarked the terms "Kit Cat" and "Kit Kat". Although the terms were not immediately utilised, the first conception of the Kit Kat appeared in the 1920s, when Rowntree launched a brand of boxed chocolates entitled "Kit Cat". This continued into the 1930s, when Rowntree's shifted focus and production onto its "Black Magic" and "Dairy Box" brands. With the promotion of alternative products the "Kit Cat" brand decreased and was eventually discontinued.[2] The original fourfinger bar was developed after a worker at Rowntree's York Factory put a suggestion in a recommendation box for a snack that "a man could take to work in his pack".[3] The bar launched on 29 August 1935, under the title of "Rowntree's Chocolate Crisp" (priced at 2d), and was sold in London and throughout Southern England.[4] The product's official title of "Rowntree's Chocolate Crisp" was renamed "Kit Kat Chocolate Crisp" in 1937, the same year that 'Kit Kat' began to incorporate "Break" into its recognisable advertising strategy.[2] The colour scheme and first flavour variation to the brand came in 1942, owing to World War II, when food shortages prompted an alteration in the recipe. The flavour of "Kit Kat" was changed to "dark"; the packaging abandoned its "Chocolate Crisp" title, and was adorned in blue.[5] After the war the title was altered to "Kit Kat" and resumed its original milk recipe and red packaging.

http://breakwithkitkat.weebly.com/stage-4---brand-strength.html Protection: The brand is moderately protected in terms of ingredients and design scale. It has spawned imitators such as Take-It which copy the wafer chocolate. Due to different areas of production, the ingredients vary. This causes a change in flavour and lack of uniformity in taste. However, the Kit Kat brand name and the distinctive red, white and silver packaging is wellprotected.