BRAND UPDATES: Tropicana & Starbucks' VIA

Here's a quick update on two previous posts:

Tropicana

In February I wrote about the outrage consumers had over the new packaging design of Tropicana's orange juice. The mob was loud enough that Tropicana ditched their $35 million dollar campaign to revert back to their old OJ design.

Last week, Tropicana reported a 20% decrease in sales from Jan 1 - Feb 22 (the day before the debranding announcement). That is a loss of nearly $33 million during that short time period; all because of a little change in art.

has anyone seen the old/new design back in the grocery store?

Starbucks' VIA

Two months ago I also wrote about Starbuck's new venture VIA, its single serving, water soluble, instant coffee. At the time I thought it was a bad decision for the brand, and that opinion hasn't changed. Whether it tastes good or not, Starbucks shouldn't try to be everything for everyone. They already tried that and it backfired.

Regardless, the VIA rollout continues. VIA is now being sold in Target, Costco, and Barnes & Noble stores in Seattle and Illinois. If you live in those areas, try some and let us know what you think? Would you have VIA every day or only on days when you're in a hurry and need a last resort coffee? Read more!

Syfy: What's in a name

The SciFi channel announced today that they are rebranding the network of "Battlestar Galactica" and cheesy Saturday night B-movies to appear less nerdy. The new name: Syfy. Really, guys?! Is that the best you could come up with? That's not a brand, that's a typo. That's like renaming CNN to CNN and saying "We switched the Ns around." What's the point of it? Even worse, they spend a lot of time and money coming up with this new strategy.

From the New York Times:

"No discussion of change affecting consumers could ignore what Mr. Howe called the “Tropicana debacle” — the recent decision by a unit of PepsiCo to abandon a major package redesign for Tropicana orange juice after shoppers vociferously complained.

“The testing we’ve done has been incredibly positive,” Mr. Howe said of the Syfy name, reading what he described as a comment from one participant: “If I were texting, this is how I would spell it.”"

So that's what it's come to, naming brands based on how easy they are to text.

Read more!

TROPICANA, DON'T EVER MESS WITH MY ORANGE JUICE PACKAGING!!!!!!!

Take a look at these two orange juice cartons. If they were side by side at your neighborhood grocer, which one would you choose to purchase? Well, THE JOKE'S ON YOU! They're the exact same brand of orange juice!! The carton on the left is Tropicana's new packaging design. Some very vocal consumers, however, prefer the carton on the right. They can rest easy tonight, Tropicana announced they are returning to the old design.

Last month Tropicana was proud to introduce a new packaging design for their orange juice. Gone was their iconic orange with a straw stuck in it, and in its place was a tall glass of OJ. The redesign was accompanied with a $35 million campaign with placement everywhere including print, billboards and television.

THEN .... THE WORLD IMPLODED!!!

Even though Tropicana focused grouped the new design to death, consumers did not like the new package. Some loyal fans were downright outraged. They felt an attachment to the old logo, and felt the new design made the product appear like a generic brand of orange juice.

“Do any of these package-design people actually shop for orange juice?” one e-mail complaint asked. “Because I do, and the new cartons stink.” (Courtesy of NYT article below)

Thanks to social media tools like Twitter, as well as using blogs and e-mail to spread word of mouth, consumers were able to make their voices heard. More importantly, Tropicana was willing to listen and quickly change course. The old packaging should be back in the stores some time next month.

There are 2 key takeaways here:

1) Consumers use social media to organize and make their voice heard. Tropicana admits that only a small fraction of their audience complained, it was a very vocal and loyal fraction. Brands should listen to what is being said about them and be willing to respond if needed. By changing course so quickly, Tropicana avoided the further spread of backlash and anger that could have lead to a significant sales decrease.

Consumers can complain about anything. When I was little my sister wrote a letter to General Mills because she felt that they did not change the content on the back of the Frosted Mini-Wheats box often enough, and she was tired of looking at the same old info every morning. They sent a form letter thanking her for her loyalty in response. I wonder what she could do now with social media. Would she get more than a form letter if she was able to organize a group who felt the same way she did? Probably. Social Media has given the consumer that power.

2) Every logo matters. Tropicana president Neil Campbell admitted he did not realize consumers had such an attachment to the orange and straw logo. While it isn't as iconic as Coca-Cola's use of red or the Nike swoosh, the logo was recognizable. To completely remove it from the packaging was a mistake. Focusing on a glass or orange juice would have been fine, as long as that orange/straw image was present somewhere (even add the red and white straw IN the glass of orange juice). If you want to overhaul a logo, do what Pepsi did (which owns Tropicana) and make slight design changes that seem different while still being recognizable as the brand's logo.

What do you think? Did the new packaging bother you? Did you even notice it?

Tropicana Discovers Some Buyers Are Passionate About Packaging - NYT Read more!

Who Does Starbucks Think They Are?

With the announcement of VIA this week, Starbucks is continuing to have an identity crisis: are they a high-end coffeehouse that values the art of a good roasted bean, a drive thru coffee drip for all the drones on their way to work, or something inbetween?

Let's take a trip back in time, shall we? Don't worry, it's not the crazy nose-bleeding, brain-scrambling Lost-style time travel. We are going on a short trip to January 2008. This was the first month of Starbuck's triumphant return to its coffee brewing roots. After declining sales and a loss of market share to the likes of McDonald's and Dunkin' Donuts, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz returned to set the ship straight again.

Upon his return after leaving his post in 2000, Schultz promised a return to what made Starbucks great: a love of fine coffee and the art of brewing the perfect cup. Schultz felt that Starbucks expanded too fast and overextended its brand by attaching the Starbucks name to grocery store coffee, ice cream, candy bars, and numerous other products (not to mention record labels and movie production companies). One of his first acts as CEO 2.0 was to close 100 underperforming stores, slow down the opening of new stores, and discontinue the sale of warm breakfast sandwiches that according to Schultz, "interferes with the coffee aroma in our stores."

The next step towards making a better coffee was in the machine. In March 2007, Starbucks purchased the maker of the $11,000 Clover coffee brewer, the Coffee Equipment Company of Seattle. The Clover is a top shelf machine that brews only one cup of coffee at a time, grinding the beans fresh and filling the room with the aroma of coffee.

Schultz put Clover machines in six of his top Boston and Seattle stores. Other shops installed new and improved espresso machines in locations visible to everyone in the shop as a shrine to coffee. Starbucks even closed down ALL of their stores for three hours to re-educate their employees on the new machines and the art of making the perfect espresso. It seemed that Starbucks brand position was clear: Yes, we cost a little bit more than the other guys, but our focus is coffee and coffee only, so our product is much better. For a while there I was falling for it.
Then Pike Place came along. Have you tried that stuff? Awful sludge. Instead of serving several different blends of coffee every day, Starbucks decided consistency was best. Pike Place started brewing late last spring. It's a basic roast meant to compete with McD's and DD's blends. It is a step backwards that didn't seem to align itself with the rest of Starbuck's new position statement. If they are the brand that is a step above all the other places, why are they slumming it with them by focusing on Pike Place? Their eyes were bigger than their stomach. Starbucks wanted both the coffee aficionado, and the casual drive-drinker who prefers their coffee cheap.

Of course, we are in a recession, and even after their rebranding, Starbucks is hurting. Consumers don't want to give up their coffee, but they want a good deal. Starbucks to the rescue! Last week Starbucks announced a new value menu that will launch in March. For $3.95 consumers have the choice of a tall latte with oatmeal or coffee cake. The other option is a tall coffee with a NEW artisan bacon sandwich, NEW artisan ham sandwich, sausage breakfast sandwich, or reduced-fat turkey bacon breakfast sandwich. That's right, they are going to serve the same warm breakfast sandwich's they discontinued a year ago because they interfered with the smell of their premium coffee. Another step backwards.

Now, this week Schultz proudly announced the launch of Starbucks VIA Ready Brew, water soluble instant-coffee powder. VIA will be sold in March as single serving pouches for about $1 a cup. The same company that less than a year ago justified spending $11,000 on coffee machines that perfectly grounded and brewed one cup at a time, is now selling powder you can pick up at your nearest Target (starting in 2010). One more step backwards.

Starbucks, who do you think you are?! Schultz has no idea what to do with the brand and as a result he's trying to be everything to everyone. That isn't helping the brand, just diluting it further. Schultz says that they have been developing VIA for years and that it is not a panic move due to the recession. That does not make it any better. That means you have been wasting shareholders money for years on developing a product that does not align itself with what you claim the Starbucks brand is. Schultz, you're diluting your brands' hold on the coffee category. If you keep flip-flopping every couple of months, it's just going to get worse. Pick a position and stick with it, through good and bad times. If you need to make changes, make sure your decisions are aligned with what the Starbucks brand is (if you even know what it is anymore). Do you own the luxury coffee brand or not?

What do you think? Has your feelings towards Starbucks changed over the past couple of years? Have you tasted a coffee that's worse than Pike Place? Will you give VIA a try (I'll at least try it).

Read more!

Post-Election, Newsweek Attempts Re-Branding

PRINT IS DEAD!!!

That’s what everyone is saying. Every passing week brings word of magazines folding and newspapers laying off staff members. Old standards are being forced to change their game plan; The New York Times has even started running ads on their front page Now, this week brought the announcement that weekly magazine Newsweek will be changing its strategy in order to appeal to a smaller audience: the rich.

In the spring Newsweek will begin to focus less on covering the straight news stories of the week, and focus more on opinion and analysis geared towards a wealthy demographic (after all, they are the only ones with the expendable income to subscribe to magazines). The overhaul includes a new design, a smaller size, and an increase in subscription rates.

Will this re-branding strategy work? Possibly. While appealing to the masses, Newsweek has always seemed like a second run issue of Time. They could benefit by distinguishing itself as the magazine that delves deeper into the issues of the week, while talking (and advertising) to their core audience of wealthy, educated news-junkies. Maybe then we will take them seriously as a source of expert opinion, and reward them with our hard earned money.

Or maybe not. I am not so sure Newsweek's web presence is aligned with their new strategy. Take a look at this new web-series produced by NTV (hat tip to Julie for bringing this to my attention):

“The District” is a satirical look at Obama’s administration. It is funny, but does it fit with the rest of Newsweek's new branding strategy. How serious are we supposed to take them? Do they want to be the New Yorker or the print version of Slate.com? They say their editorial position is geared toward "not just analysis and commentary, but an opinionated, prescriptive or offbeat take on events." I guess this web series falls into that category.

Regardless of their new image, during this brand transition, Newsweek should make sure their print strategy is aligned with their online strategy, and commit to the re-branding: be consistent with the presentation of the message, even if it means a decrease in sales for the first few months. If you say you are not going to cover traditional news anymore, don’t. NO EXCEPTIONS!

Does this re-branding make you more or less likely to read Newsweek? Is the reason you don't read it now because it is too broad, or is it because you get most of your news online (unless you're in a dentist's waiting room)?

Newsweek Plans Makeover to Fit a Smaller Audience Read more!

Angry-Gram: When you want to say 'I hate you' with a sandwich

First, did you all know that Burger King was called Hungry Jacks in Austrailia? I had no idea that has been going on all these years under my nose. What is the point of the name change, exactly? Was there already a Burger King down under?

Anyway, I'm a fan of Burger King's new brand identity as the weird, off-beat, humorous, and slightly edgy fast-food restaurant. Agency Crispin Porter & Bogusky have done good work creating strong television commercials and fun, interactive campaigns online. Burger King has become the master of viral fast-food campaigns and McDonalds is always trying to ketchup (HA HA HA HA HA!!!)

Last week BK received a decent amount of buzz for their Whopper Sacrifice campaign: sacrifice (delete) 10 of your Facebook friends and receive a coupon for a free Whopper. It's funny, a little mean, easy to measure, and will spread like a wildfire.

However, I prefer BK's other new online effort: the Angry-Gram. Meant to coincide with their new Angry Whopper sandwich, visitors to the site can fill in a Mad-Lib like letter to a friend, which is then generated into an angry tirade given by a cartoon Angry Whopper that can be e-mailed to a friend. It's also funny, a little mean, will spread like a wildfire. In addition, it can generate repeat visits by making each tirade unique. Two of my favorites have been: "Why do you always drive so fast? Are you late for an idiot parade or something?" and "You fake being upset more than a Spanish TV soap star."

Originally the Whopper talked in an angry English cockney accent, which made things even funnier. Checking it out today, however, I noticed the accent had changed to a more normal angry voice (although sometimes it screws up and goes back to the old recordings). Maybe people complained that it was hard to make out what the Whopper was saying. I hope it wasn't changed because a couple of prudes found the accent offending. It wasn't.

Despite all these funny ads, I have yet to get to a Burger King (although the Angry Whopper does look good. Anyone try it yet?). The Burger Kings around me in Cleveland are hard to get to, dirty, depressing, and offer poor service. I'm not exactly surprised, it's still a Burger King. Now that BK has established a strong brand identity through their marketing I think now they need to work on extending that brand identity to the customers' actual BK dining experience.

Feel free to send me an Angry-gram at johndaviddrake@gmail.com.

Read more!

Addressing the Needs of the Audience on Facebook

Over the weekend the New York Times posted an article addressing the problems some brands have had seeing results from Facebook advertising efforts. The article cites efforts by Procter & Gamble as an example of campaigns that may generate a little buzz at their initial launch but quickly fade out and never lead to an increase in sales.

The folks at P&G seem dumbfounded by this. They spent a lot of money on generating creative and entertaining web "events" and sweepstakes, which resulted in thousands of "fans" of their products, how come that led few to actually purchase their products?

The amount of buzz and activity with brands on Facebook does not reflect on sales within the same audience. I call it the "Snakes on a Plane Corollary": Gen Y Internet buzz does should never guarantee specific action.

What is a brand to do? How much money do they have to throw at the Internet before Generation Y takes action? Why aren't they lining up to buy Tide? The article concludes that advertisers have two approaches available to them:

1. Be more intrusive by targeting extremely specific audience groups and using their "fans" as advertising channels by posting ads within their personal profiles.
2. Spend even more money on a regular basis to constantly create new entertaining commercials, viral videos, and games.

It seems to me that there is one other option that the article fails to mention: stop trying to be best friends with the community and start using Facebook to address the needs of your audience as they pertain to your brand.

That is not to say there is no reason to use the first two options to promote a brand, especially when launching a new brand or brand extension. However, that should only be one element of a brand's social media strategy. Use entertainment, games, and videos only to generate buzz and brand awareness. These are the sort of things Facebook users want to share with their friends and post on their profile, not direct ads for a brand.

The second element of a brand's marketing strategy should address the other needs of the audience. Altogether users seek media, including the Internet and web portals like Facebook, to meet four major needs:

1. The need for entertainment and escapism (games and viral videos would fall into this category)
2. The need to develop personal relationships (this is the main reason Facebook users log on everyday: to connect socially with friends and families, not brands)
3. The need to develop a personal identity through knowledge & interests (a Facebook profile represents the users personal identity, and can include brands that the user feels reflect their personality and interests. This is why people become "fans" of certain products)
4. The need of understanding of the surrounding world and sharing information with others (this can include information about a product or promotion that the user may find helpful)

Many brands on Facebook only try to address the first need fully and forget about the rest. In order for a brand to see results from Facebook, they should try to address all four of these needs.

If P&G wants to advertise the Tide brand to Facebook users, they should go beyond the entertainment to address the need that users want Tide to help with: stains and laundry. A lot of Facebook users are college students or young professionals living on their own. Why not use Facebook to offer advice or instructional videos to those who are washing their clothes for the first time (What does permanent press mean? Is that like ironing in the washing machine?)? I would not take movie or music advice from Tide, or consider them a better stain remover if they did, but I would certainly take laundry advice, and if it was helpful I would tell all my friends about it and feel a stronger connection to the Tide brand. Viral videos are fun, but they will not get the chili stain out of my shirt.

Brands should not forget what needs their product or service best gratifies. Facebook can be an excellent portal to generate buzz for a product, but it can also be used to address the needs of the user on a personal basis on their terms in a venue that they frequent. Companies like P&G need to realize that advertising on television or even elsewhere on the Internet serves a different purpose than advertising on Facebook.

Advertising on social media sites should focus initially on buzz, but more importantly at how a brand can really help users personally. If their need is met, I believe positive word-of-mouth will spread, and actual action will take place. That, in turn, can lead to a strong association with the brand, which creates a new influencer to spread the word.

Read more!

K Mart: A brand slowly dying

Quick, when was the last time you were in a Kmart? Do you even know where your nearest Kmart is? Are you sure it is still in operation?

I personally don't know the answer to any of these questions. I cannot remember the last time I've been near a Kmart. Have you ever been to a Kmart and not left a little depressed? Every Kmart I have ever been in the lighting has been slightly poor, the floor a little too dirty and sticky for my liking, the shopping carts have at least 2 bad wheels, no one smiles, and the little plastic pony out front looks desperate for someone to feed it a quarter. Just writing this makes me feel dirty and lethargic.

Despite these negatives, Kmart will not go the way of the Woolworth. At a time when large nationwide retailers like Circuit City are closing stores left and right Kmart still stands. Why?

Four years ago Kmart was about to close up when Sears decided to snatch it. At first that seemed like a good idea. With a little retooling and re-branding Kmart had the chance to become viable again. But that never happened. Kmart just kept on keepin' on while Wal-Mart and Target (the Wal-Mart with style) stole their market share. Today, Sears announced a larger than expected third-quarter loss of $146 million dollars. Their scapegoat for this loss (besides the recession): weak Kmart sales.

Yet Kmart still lives. What should Sears do in this situation? If they keep with the same plan, Kmart will continue to slowly die until it takes the Sears retail stores with it. Or they can completely overhaul the Kmart brand. It clearly cannot compete with Wal-Mart and Target. So maybe they should redefine themselves. As what, I'm not sure. A grocery store with a large garden center? A mini-Sears with frozen foods? Private shoppers? Home delivery? Pet stores? Anything they decide would be an expensive endeavor if they want it done right.

Lastly, Sears could sever their useless limb (there has to be a Craftsmen tool for that, right?). Sell off or shut down Kmart; recognize they missed their window for re-branding opportunity, and leave Kmart behind with the last century.

What do you think? Is Kmart worth saving? Should Sears overhaul the brand? Do you cry when you close your eyes and imagine yourself lost in Kmart?

Read more!