Dharmsinh Desai University, Nadiad

Submitted by :-
 SHIVANGI JOSHI (MB49)
TUSHAR AGRAWAL (MB02)
VIDHI THAKAR (MB52)
 on march 1 , 1991 , U.S. District judge William Ingram ruled that the “386” designation used
by Intel for its microprocessor family was generic description and could not be trademark.

This decision allowed competitors to use Intel’s established naming scheme, which could have
been disastrous.

Intel’s response was to develop a trademark name for its processor family, the now-familiar
“Pentium,”

Intel became one of the leading companies in the Pc boom, enjoying virtually unchallenged
market leadership through the 1990s.

Problems arose. However, as the PC industry slowed in the early 2000s.

In2006 Intel retooled its brand equity restructured its brand architecture and launched an
entirely new branding campaign called “Intel Leap Ahead”
 Intel Corporation was founded in 1968 by Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore, Soon thereafter ,
Andy Grove joint the firm and later became President and CEO.

Intel faced competition from a number of companies mainly motorola with its 68000
microprocessor.

Intel launched a campaign to make the 8086/8088 architecture the standard in the emerging
microprocessor market.

The success of the IBM PC placed Intel at the center of the personal computer revolution and
established Intel’s x86 microprocessor architecture as the de facto industry standard.
 since 1986, Intel had been the only supplier of 386 and 486 technology.

The most serious threat came from advanced micro devices, who in October 1990 announced
its own version of Intel's then hottest product, the i386 SX, called the AM386.

In January 1991 chips and technologies and NexGen Microsystems, announced their intention
to introduce 386 compatible chips within the year.
In 1980, there was shift in focus of PC industry towards mass-markets, non-technical business,
and home PC users.

 Recognizing this shift, Intel moved from a “Push’’ strategy to more of a “pull’’ strategy and
began to redirect a portion of its advertising efforts away from computer manufacturer to actual
computer buyer.

By shifting its advertising focus to the consumer, Intel hoped to create brand awareness for
Intel and its microprocessor, as well as build brand preference for the microprocessor inside the
Intel.

Intel also recognized the growing importance of the retail or circuit city buyer as a significant
market segment and wanted a message that spoke directly to them.

Although the competing products carry the same or similar names, because increasingly
difficult for Intel to differentiate its product from those of its competitors.
During 1990, Intel was involved in a trademark case with AMD to prevent their use of the
“386’’name in a new AMD microprocessor.

Dennis Carter, vice president of Intel’s Corporate Marketing Group, began developing an
alternative branding strategy, although he planned to wait until the court’s ruling decided whether
or not to implement.

In march 1991, Intel lose the “386’’ trademark case. Now AMD would be selling its own
version of 386 microprocessorswithin the month created a sense of urgency.

The strategy recognized intel’s status as ingredient supplier to PC OEMs and consisted of 3
elements, combining both push and pull communication strategies:

The use of a logo based around the words “Intel inside’’.

Use of coop marketing funds to share ad expenses.

Intel advertising program to build equity.

The company wanted to make the consumer believe that what was inside the computer was as
important.

The company needed a slogan, logo, or some other means that more explicitly identified an
Intel microprocessor as the essential ingredient when purchasing a computer.

In order to keep continuity with “The computer Inside’’ tag line being used elsewhere in the
world.

The new logo –a swirl with “Intel inside’’ –placed the company and its name directly in front of
the consumer.
Intel officially announced the launch of its “Intel Inside’’ Program in November 1991.

Intel also announced that 240 OEM customers had agreed to participate in the co-advertising
program to carry the new Intel Inside Logo on their packaging.

“The ‘Intel Inside’ campaign is aimed at changing Intel’s image from a microchip-maker to a
quality standard-bearer.’’
 Intel developed its own Intel inside ad campaign.

The first Intel inside Ad was a printed called “measles”.

The primary objective of this ad was to get the new Intel inside logo in front of consumers
and get the familiar with the Intel name.

The ad ran in both computer trade publication and magazines such as National Geographic
and Time.

In November 1991 intel lunched its first T.V. Ad, dubbed “ Room for the Future.”

The “Room for the Future” ad was Intel’s first experiment with T.V. as an advertising
medium. Interesting cost effective way of reaching a broader audience more effectively.

Intel’s printed ads, on the other hand proved much more successful on educating the
consumer on specific product attributes with Intle486 SX.
 In December 1992, over 700 customers were participating in the program , primarily
consisting of second and third tier OEMs.

July 1992, at least half the computer ad impersonal computer magazines included the Intel
Inside Logo.

OEMs were pleased that the Intel Inside logo had boosted their advertising effectively.

Bill Saylor Said, manager of U.S. advertising For NCR commented , “ the Intel Inside program
has been a good program for us. It has helped add some credibility and enhancement to our
messages. You know our product is a quality product because it has an Intel chip in it”
 Intel expected to introduce its next generation processor, code-name “P5,” sometime after the
fall of 1992.

 Intel should name the “P5” or how it should be branded in light of the developing Intel Inside
program.

 The Intel inside program had generated significant awareness for Intel and meant that any
branding strategy developed for the “P5” would have to work in conjunction with the existing
program.
 Carter appointed Karen Alter to manage the P5 naming process.

She formed a team whose first concern was choosing a name for this new processor..

The team wanted a name that would stand on its own as well as indicate the generation of the
new chips.

Decision that numbers were not trademarkable made the choice of “586” a risky one.

The team decided that it was necessary that the name:

i. Be difficult for competition to copy
ii. Be trademarkable
iii. Indicate a new generation of technology that could effectively transition from
generation to generation.
iv. Have positive association and work on a global basis
v. Support Intel’s brand equity
vi. Sound like an ingredient so that it worked with Intel’s partners’ brand names.

 the team’s primary target audience was the retail consumer.

 Intel undertook the most extensive search in its history to find a name for the “P5.”

Names generated from the task force own brainstorming sessions, Intel hired the naming firm
lexicon and ran a company wide naming contest in which over 1200 employees worldwide
participated.

The company conduced a detailed global trademark search to ensure that each name on the list
could not be copied, as well as a worldwide linguistic review to ensure the name would be
effective in all languages.

The final three name options for the respective concept categories were: Intel igence,
RADAR1, and Pentium.
 When the naming option had been narrowed to three choices, the task force considered the
impact of each name on the multiple audiences – press, OEMs/dealer, competitors and employees
– to whom they would have to communicate the decision.

Intel hoped the computer companies would market the name to users as a key product
ingredient, much like NutraSweet , Teflon, and Gore-Tex.
 Intel officially announced the name of the new chip on October 20,1992. Andy Grove made
the announcement during an exclusive interview on CNN, who provided Intel the ability to make
a live official announcement on a worldwide basis.

The ‘Pent’ of Pentium, from the Greek meaning five, alludes to the fact that the new chip is the
fifth generation of the family. The ‘ium’ was added to make the chip sound like a fundamental
element.
 the increased competition prompted then CEO Andy grove to initiate an aggressive promotion
of the Intel's low end chips the celeron while admonishing his co-workers “if we lose the low end
today , we could lose the high end tomorrow”.

Intel quickly increased the processor speed on itscelerons and cut prices 30%.

The fear of “losing the high end” drov Intel to restructure its processor business by segmenting
it into three price and performance categories.
 In 2000, Intel announced that their next Pentium-generation chip would be called the Pentium
4, and would be the company’s first completely new desktop processor design since the 1995
Pentium Pro.

Intel supported Pentium 4 with $300 million advertising campaign, Intel’s largest outlay for a
single chip, which also featured the blue man group.

At the time of the Pentium 4 launch, the domestic PC market was in less than ideal condition.
 intel also recognized the importance of extending its business beyond processors by
developing other electronic products.

The company introduced modems and videoconferencing equipment in the mid-1990, but these
brand extensions went virtually nowhere.

This new group developed internet appliances such as web ready televisions , set-top boxes, PC
cameras, a children's microscope and wireless keyboards.

In 2000 intel introduce two new cameras.

The group worked on small projects, each one of which was treated like a start- up with
“venture capital” coming from intel’s cash reserves.
In 2000, he announced that within five years he expected that every new business.

Intel ventured into would generate revenues exceeding $1billon.

Not everyone believed that Intel's expansion strategy would yield success, however, while the
internet remained the hottest place for new business growth.

Intel was not a proven player in the internet economy and faced stiff competition from
established internet powerhouse and earnest startup.

The 2001 fiscal year was Intel's worst in its 34-year history. Revenues that year plummeted
21% $26.5billion, while net income dropped 70% to $3.6 billion as the PC market slowed.

Intel’s new business rang up zero profits, while losses doubles each year since 1998.

In order to stem its losses, Intel exited non processor businesses such as digital camera,
streaming media software for online audio and video transmissions, toys and networking
hardware.
In May 2005; Craig Barrett stepped down as CEO and was replaced by COO Paul Otellini.

He was first CEO with Degree in Engineering.

He has a degree in BA in Economics and an MBA.

He fought successfully with engineers over the need to create Centrino.

No longer would Intel focus on processor speed for speed’s sake alone.

The goal was to bring all major products in line with the company’s strategy to drive
development of complete technology platforms.

Intel also hired a new Chief marketing officer, Eric Kim.