Strengths of Intel Inside Campaign:

1) Use of both ‘Push’ & ‘Pull’ strategy for brand building with the final consumer.
2) Pull strategy was through the cooperative advertising program (CAP)
3) CAP could only attract the tier three OEM players.
4) Tier 1 and tier 2 OEM players refused to take part in CAP because of the fear that Intel will dilute
their brand equity.
5) Tier 3 players found an opportunity of subsidized advertising for their product through CAP.
6) Biggest players i.e. IBM and Compaq were not using the Intel Inside logo.
7) Gave lot of visibility to the Intel brand
8) Created lot of awareness among the end users about the importance of microprocessor in their
PC
9) Successful in creating the perception of safety and technology in end users mind.

Q2)

The ‘Pentium’ name came up at a time when it was very important for Intel to point out the difference
between itself and its clones. In order to make people aware of this name change, they heavily invested
in promoting the name ‘Pentium’

However, after the launch of Pentium 2 processor, it was seen that many OEM players had switched to
other microprocessor manufacturers because of the high price of Pentium. Here Pentium was getting
associated with ‘expensive’ in a subtle way.

Therefore they came up with Celeron which was low cost, low efficiency version of Pentium . After a
while, they again launched Pentium 3 which was quickly surpassed by AMD’s Athlon in performance. So
again the Pentium image was tarnished somewhere.

According to me , after all this happened, Intel should not have named their new processor as Pentium
4. A new name for the chip would have created a ‘fresh start’ kind of image in consumer’s eye.

Q3)

Intel was a market leader. AMD was the challenger. If I was the CMO of AMD, I would use the following:

Fact: AMD did not have the financial strength that Intel had.

Position AMD as a customer focused brand. At one point Intel got so preoccupied with its brand building
and advertising that they lost focus of what customer wanted. At such a point, AMD consistently came
up with products which were low cost but high performance. They could have used their small budget to
spread this message.
They could also have used guerilla attack strategy when Intel faltered in providing performance at
reasonable cost.

They could not use Pull strategy because of limited resources but they could have used push strategy
like Intel did i.e. promoting to end users.

Q4)

Good, better, best segmentation strategy was perhaps the best for Intel because:

1) Intel’s segmentation came more out of necessity than out of choice.

2) They launched the expensive Pentium 2 processor which was targeted for high end users.
3) Later, AMD and Cyrix came out with better chips at lower prices.
4) Intel stated losing market in low end PC segment and it feared the same would happen to its
high end PC market share.
5) Therefore they came out with 3 different products targeted towards 3 different classes of users.

Q6)

No, Intel does not face an issue similar to Dell –digital camera issue. This is because digital home as a
concept is still in infancy stage. Not many players are there in this segment. Therefore, as of now there is
no overlapping between Intel and partner OEMs. But in future if leading PC makers like IBM, Dell,
Compaq etc want to enter this market, and then it can be a problem for Intel. However, if Intel is able to
create a strong preference among consumers before others enter then it cannot be challenged.

Yes it does move far from Intel’s core competence of producing microprocessors.