Branding a Commodity: A Case Study Analysis of got milk?

Samantha White-Hauser

I. Introduction
One will hardly ever find someone who has not seen the popular advertisements of famous actors, athletes, or musicians sporting a mustache adorned with got milk?. This campaign was an extremely recognizable, but marketers could have done more to make got milk? even more profitable. Got milk? was notable to marketing because of the complexities that come with branding a whole commodity instead of a branded product. Although the marketers were successful in increasing the sales, they were not successful in some aspects— consumers lacked mind share, the milk deprivation approach creates negative associations with consumers, the humor was not relatable to all audiences, and too many organizations were involved in the creation of the marketing plan. If the marketers consolidated the number of parties involved in the creation of got milk?, stopped using the milk deprivation approach in their advertisements they would have created more meaningful and profitable advertisements.

II. Background
The got milk? marketing plan that was implemented in the 1990s was unique for a couple of reasons that focused on the lack of a brand product. Branding a commodity is different because there are too many decision makers, their budget is small, the process to create that budget is long, market share is more difficult to measure across multiple brands, and commodities are influenced by that market value of complementary products.
In 1992, the United Dairy Industry Association (UDIA) produced a research study to find why milk was declining in popularity. The study’s conclusions gave the marketer research to Jeff Manning and the advertising agency, Goodby, Silverstein & Partners, to use to develop their marketing strategy. Their strategy involved vertically integrating milk by