Case Study: Intel Corporation: Branding an Ingredient Executive Summary
Autor: moto • February 28, 2011 • Essay • 1,338 Words (6 Pages) • 3,526 Views
Case Study: Intel Corporation: Branding an Ingredient
Chapter One- Background Information
Intel Corporation started in 1968 by the creation of Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore, and Andy Groove joined the corporation near the very start. The beginning of the firm's focus was to make semiconductor computer memory. In the early 1970's, the company already experienced serious competition. From the beginning of the company, Intel realized the importance of partnering with computer companies. The first joint programming was in 1980 when IBM introduced the first personal computer line that included an Intel microprocessor.
Branding Intel: The 1980's
As evident with the junction of Intel and IBM, the computer industry was changing its general focus to personal computers. Following suit, Intel realized that the need for the current advertising campaign to focus on the personal computer buyer, thus, shifting away from the computer manufacturers. The average personal computer user did not understand the individual computer components, so Intel needed to explain the inside of the computer to the consumers while also creating and building their brand preference. After the first experimentation of Intel's first print campaign in 1989, Intel had is best-selling chip ever in 1991.
Intel's First Major Upset
Through the branding campaign, research, and development of the brand preference, Intel did not license its technology. In 1990, Intel faced a trademark case with AMD. AMD planned to introduce a microprocessor with a similar name, 386, as Intel's current microprocessor. The negative verdict announced in 1991, allowed current and future competitors permission to use the same marketing approach used by Intel. Intel realized the seriousness a negative verdict, so Carter throughout the trial created an alternative branding strategy. Intel realized that filing a trademark prior to the trial was a mistake. The new marketing strategy implemented three elements ensuring that a similar mistake could not occur. The first part of the marketing strategy is a logo: "Intel Inside." The second part is to have a joint advertising with PC OEM in order to share the advertising expenses. The final element is advertising directed to build equity to the new Intel brand. The brand image was directed to the tell the customer that "purchasing a personal computer with an Intel microprocessor inside was a safe and technologically sound investment, providing ‘the power and compatibility to take you into the future'" (24). This new branding strategy was implemented into the market only a month after the court's verdict. This new strategy was to create