I like to go back to the archives every once in a while – partly because I’m a little crunched for time these days, but mostly because the vault contains some pretty solid posts that you guys might never had the opportunity to read. I originally wrote this post for the Corante Marketing Hub, back when I was its online editor.
Back then, Grant McCracken had pointed us to Coca Cola’s apparent then-new shift to the long tail:
“Given its pending portfolio of coffee soda, gourmet teas and Godiva drinks, Coca-Cola is expected to expend more time and energy on low-volume, high-margin categories than ever. (…)
Rather than look at beverages on a category by category basis, Mary Minnick, head of marketing, innovation and strategic growth, has said Coke is looking at how beverages fit into consumers lives. She has described the need states as, “Enjoyment today,” “feel good today,” and “be well tomorrow.”
– Kenneth Hein, from Strategy: Coke Seeks Relief (Again) By Scratching The Niche. (Adweek. March 06, 2006.)
And that seemed fine and good and all, but… whatever happened to… just… great taste?
When I order a latte from my favorite coffee shop or buy a bottle of Orangina or and IBC cream soda, it isn’t because of “enjoyment today,” “feel good today,” and “be well tomorrow.” It isn’t because of clever packaging or image or transference or projection. It’s because I’m in the mood for a particular flavor. This is about mood and palates and lifestyles, not “feeling good” and “being well”.
Oh, I know… I don’t have TCCC’s millions of dollars of research at my fingertips… but you know what? I’m wired just like everyone else, and I know why I buy drinks. I know why my friends and colleagues buy drinks. They like the taste. They look for context. Catch-phrases have nothing to do with it.
You can make any study and any set of numbers and statistics and results say anything you want. Especially when you have a whole lot of time and money invested in new products whose development needs to be justified to a board of directors.
Could this be a case of the tail wagging the dog? (TCCC’s need for some kind of ROI from its product development programs?) Is TCCC’s real strategy just a numbers’ game? Is it to throw as many products at us and see if anything sticks? Where ten years ago, none of these new drinks might have ever seen the light of day, now they’ve found a chance at life in “the long tail.” Could this just be a front? I guess the question is worth asking, even though I’ll assume – for the sake of this discussion – that this isn’t the case.
TCCC, here’s a tip: Drop the gimmicks. Focus on taste. Whether you love wines, beers bubble teas or kefirs, it always comes down to flavor. Most people who choose to drink Coca Cola do so because they prefer it over the taste of Pepsi. It isn’t because the cans are red or because Coca Cola makes them feel happy or look cool. (The glass bottles might be the exception.) The taste, before anything else, is at the core of the Coca Cola experience.
Whether you’re The Coca Cola Company or a startup with a great idea for a product, before you spend millions overthinking your strategy, just focus on making a really great product. One that people will love to discover and use and talk about. If you love it, chances are that lots of people out there will love it too. If you really want to grab hold of the long tail, you have to start with you. The game isn’t about pleasing everyone – or the majority of “the market” (which has been TCCC’s strategy for decades). It’s about creating a product for a very specific core of rabid fans/customers.
The trick though, is this: You can’t do it by trying to fill a need based on market research (American women between the ages of 32 and 46 with a median annual income of $68-97K responded favorably to XYZ… yadayadaya…). It’s what TCCC has been doing for years, without much success. It’s what everybody’s been doing too. It’s what you do if you want to be an “also in”. Your only recourse once you’ve greenlighted a new product launch is to outspend your competitors in everything from advertising to POP displays to licensing rights, and then try to hang on as long as you can. It’s ridiculous.
The right way to do this is to do the work. The real work: Instead of quantifying a culture, penetrate it. The supertool here isn’t statistics, it’s anthropology. Here’s another tip: the moment you start quantifying tastes, you’ve lost your focus and drifted back to the lukewarm center, just like everyone else. This is the easiest mistake to make, and also the most common.
The way you develop a chocolate-flavored drink isn’t by talking to 10,000 people on the street. It’s by talking to 10,000 chocoholics. These might even be people who love chocolate but hate chocolate drinks. (How cool would it be to have 10,000 people with such specific tastes tell you why they love chocolate but hate chocolate drinks? Tell me you wouldn’t crack that code with that level of feedback.)
The point is: Do your research at the extreme edge of the bell curve.
The way you develop a new endurance drink is by talking to rabid cyclists and triathletes and marathoners. The way you develop a new game console is by talking to avid gamers (not casual gamers). The way you develop a new Pop Tart flavor is by talking to people for whom Pop Tarts is a major food group. This isn’t about talking to 0.3% of American shoppers who are representative of the 60% of shoppers who place Pop Tarts in their Top 10 likeliest breakfast foods. It’s about talking to the fraction of a percent of people who live and breathe the stuff that is at the core of your new product’s identity and raison d’etre and will buy your new flavor of Pop Tarts every other week.
Not just talking to them, but understanding what makes them tick and embracing them completely.
The long tail, after all, isn’t about markets. It’s about cultures. Subcultures, even. The more specific, the better. Think skateboarders. Think triathletes. Think online gamers. Think photography hobbyists. You either become a central part of those cultures, or you go home packing.
(Incidentally, the Pop Tart team absolutely gets it.)
If TCCC wants to grab hold of the long tail and make its new strategy work, it needs to un-Coke itself. It needs to shed the TCCC formula where these offshoot brands are concerned. It needs to create truly independent subsidiaries staffed by people who live inside the cultures they are trying to cater to, and completely outside the reach of the Coca Cola culture.
Think of it as United Artists trying to produce “independent” films with $100,000 budgets. The only way they could do it well would be to create a smaller studio managed and staffed by people who live, eat and breathe the indy culture… and let them do their thing without corporate interference, bureaucracy and big business politics. Anything short of that would result in total and utter failure.
Remember Coca Cola Blak? That was the type of product Mary Minnick was talking about: Low volume, high margin (wishful thinking if your product is perceived merely as water, natural and artificial flavoring, food coloring and high fructose corn syrup… and doesn’t taste so unbelievably good that it will make people want to trade their current favorite flavor for it). TCCC going after the Starbucks crowd with Blak may have seemed like a good idea on paper, and I guess it was worth the shot (no pun intended). It might even have worked had the price point matched the perceived value of a Coca Cola retail product.
Blak launched in 2006, when his piece was written… and finally died a few months ago after a long painful battle with dismal sales and lack of interest. (Most likely due to its very high pricepoint – holding true to Mary’s strategy – than its missing the boat on taste. Red Bull doesn’t exactly taste delicious, yet it has found its market. Draw your own conclusions.)
Beware business plans that look great on paper and are based on top-down (wishful) thinking. Successful entrepreneurs (and their projects) usually do a whole lot better when their ideas come from the bottom of the distribution tree: See a need, fill a need. (That includes understanding the pricepoint-value perception feedback loop.)
Truly understanding your customers, your users, your future fans (your market), heck, actually getting back to becoming one of them is the only way to discover your next great game changing idea. The rest, as they say, is up to you.
Have a great Tuesday, everyone.
Yet another excellent post.
Moment of truth coming up–
I will admit that I am currently frustrated with my own company’s internal management teams for following the same pattern.
Typical management meeting around here lately–
“Let’s go this direction, because we think the market wants it. Don’t really care what our existing customer base thinks, our software does what it does for them already, and we’re not really interested in making it work better for them. So what if the user interface is abysmal, it’s difficult to manage, and takes at least three months to see any ROI at all using it. Let’s just go get more market share!”
Don’t get me wrong, our company builds an awesome product–it just hasn’t been fine tuned enough to make it accessible to the average American business owner or manager. Yet management is convinced that the “next big leap” is around the corner, when the support and implementation staff can barely keep clients’ heads afloat on this (admittedly cool) system that is so difficult to manage.
I keep thinking, “We don’t need new channel partners and distribution outlets. We don’t need to attack another key vertical. We need to make this product better, and the rest will take care of itself.”
Anyway…..enough of that rant.
Great post, I’ve been reading your posts for some time now. I studied communications at UF. Your message opposes what we learn in PR/ADV and Marketing of course, but the points are something to think of. Knowing how to a product/service is important, way more than making a “half-assed” product and just spending lots of getting your name out. The other trap is stay away from is having a great product which no one knows about, this can equal failure.
Great comments, guys.
I must admit I don’t usually read your blog, in fact, I don’t usually read any other blogs than lifestyle or beauty ones. But today I was happily “googling” blog branding when I stumbled across this post.
And due to the fact that most of my friends work in advertising it really caught my interest.
You are spot on regarding the product’s substance vs. the marketing gimmicks. After reading your post I took a minute of my time to think about the choices I make whenever I buy something, and indeed most of them are based on taste, performance, etc. But then I realized something else.. For example: when I choose Pepsi over Coke I sometimes do it because Coke is over advertised. Too universal. Mundane. Nothing exciting about it anymore.
But then the next day I will choose Coke exactly for the same reasons.
I think when it comes to marketing a product, that product should be, simultaneously, the buyer’s “wife and mistress” so to speak. Meaning it should gain’s the client’s trust, perform well, deliver equally well over time (substance) but in the same time it should be exciting and new (that’s where the gimmicks come).
Some products achieve this. Most go on one of these two routes, which is ok if they have a loyal customer pool or if the creators focus mainly on new clients rather than steady ones.
So I think the gimmicks are important when rebranding a product or when wanting to expand the customer target. The substance comes into equation if you plan to keep your promise (therefore your clients), as a product manufacturer.
Regarding the anthropology… yes I can see how well that would work. But people tend to think greedy rather than smart. On the other side, the customers do like to identify with the product. But if the feel is too intimate, they will steer away.
Great comment, Elena. Very astute observations. Thanks for sharing. 🙂
Comments are closed.