After months of intrigue, Kraft finally made a successful bid for venerable British candy maker Cadbury, leaving archrival Hershey’s on the sidelines.

Kraft management predicts that the $50 billion combined company will be able to save $675 million over three years, but that’s not the primary reason for the merger. It’s all about global distribution and access to developing markets. Cadbury has it, Kraft wants it. Makes sense on paper.

Most mergers do make sense on paper, yet many become spectacular failures. The reason? A lack of appreciation for just how difficult it is to integrate not only global operations, but two proud and independent workforces.

Kraft is going to face this problem in spades with Cadbury. Todd Stitzer, Cadbury’s CEO, said that Hershey’s would have been a better cultural and operational fit. The company’s Chairman, Roger Carr, took it a step further by saying Kraft is “an unfocused conglomerate” with “unappealing categories” and management that “underdelivers.” Carr went on to say, “There is no strategic, operational, managerial or financial reason” for the merger.

Sure, Carr’s statement may have been a bit of strategic bluster to raise the value of the offer (which he succeeded in doing), but it sounds pretty categorical to me. And it was telling that not a single Cadbury executive was present on the conference call with analysts to discuss the deal. Hmm.

Kraft estimates it will take $1.3 billion to “integrate Cadbury.” I’m not sure exactly what that means or who came up with the number, but I don’t know how anybody could forecast the costs associated with the fear, resentment and internal jockeying with which Kraft and Cadbury managers and employees are now having to deal. The fact that Britons consider Cadbury a national treasure that has been overrun by ugly Americans sure won’t help.

Let’s hope Kraft doesn’t end up with a stomachache.

Kraft’s first quarter profits were up 10%. Hershey’s rose nearly 3%. Kellogg’s earnings have risen as well, up 2% over 2008. All in a rotten economy.

Why? Price increases. Yep, price increases.

These companies understand what too few marketers do–they don’t have to succumb to the natural loss of nerve that results from economic uncertainty. While raising prices in a contracting economy can be risky, so can lowering them–or doing nothing. And when the additional margin is reinvested to protect or grow market share, the result is a win on all counts.

Chipotle Mexican Grill, which recently raised its prices 8.5%, understands that. The company will be launching a new marketing program later this month because, says Chipotle spokesman Chris Arnold, “we’re still focused on the long term vision for growth.”

So is Dr Pepper. The company already spends upwards of $350 million on marketing, and will be increasing that amount throughout 2009. Jim Trebilcock, executive VP of marketing at Dr Pepper, said in an Ad Age interview that the company went back in time to study what happened during the deep recession of the 1980s and found that the packaged goods brands that were most successful coming out of the downturn were those that invested in their brands throughout.

Says Trebilcock, “We have, in our portfolio, a host of brands that are very trusted, high-quality brands. And at times like these, we believe if we invest in them … we can make a pretty significant impact on our business moving forward and actually strengthen and position ourselves for consistent growth when we come out of this economic downturn.”

Unfortunately, companies like Kraft, Hershey, Kellogg, Chipotle and Dr Pepper are in the minority. In Spencer Stuart’s annual survey of some 300 senior marketing execs, more than half of them said that they were neglecting long-term strategy in order to focus on short term goals.

As When Growth Stalls demonstrates, it takes a stable head and steady hand to overcome a natural loss of nerve (and the three other internal dynamics) that threaten stalled companies.