Coca Cola are one of –if not the- most successful brands stories ever. So what is their plan for one of the most recent UK brand success of the last 10 years – Innocent?
Iv’e always admired Innocent, they built a very successful brand with clear positioning even if their corporate cuteness has always been a means to end.
In April Coke significantly increased their stake in the business with a majority shareholding but unusually without operational control (for now).
Coke’s involvement with the dippy, wholesome, independent Innocent brand angered many of their hardcore advocates. The usual ‘selling out’ stories appeared; counter argued by that in fact innocent were ‘selling in’ their ethical values (hmmm) but whilst compromised, Innocent’s brand is certainly strong enough to survive the backlash and over time its unlikely that anyone will really care.
Coke certainly helped the smoothie giants expand into European shores; an expensive business as their UK category dominance is nowhere near as prevalent in foreign fields but the full story of this relationship will be a brand one, not an operational one.
Keeping line extension in check
Coke’s portfolio includes more than 3,300 drinks but they’re notoriously narrow with their brand thinking so their effect on Innocent’s long term brand strategy will be interesting. Innocent have talked a lot in the press about ‘expanding their business’ but moving the brand into ‘veg pots’ in late 2008 marked the first real step in potential line extension which would almost certainly jar with Coke’s narrow approach to branding.
Continued line extension will without question, threaten their UK category dominance in the long term as it will undermine their power in their core smoothie market and I’d be shocked if Coke would support this. Unless of course they’re after a quick buck but this isn’t really their style.
So whilst Innocent have been hammered over jumping into bed with one of the biggest corporates in the world, the long term is likely to look very good for them in the UK and beyond if Coke can help to keep any line extension in check and their brand focus clear.
If Innocent continue to extend their brand over the coming years I’d be worried that one of the most focused, clear and clever brands in recent memory will lose their category leadership and follow so many line extended brands into relative irrelevance.
onebestway is one of just three businesses to be shortlisted for ‘North East Best Marketing Company’ in the Marketing Industry Network Awards 2009.
Chicago—Brand awareness breeds familiarity and trust, and is a crucial step for capturing the attention of potential clients, said Edmond Russ, chief marketing and sales officer at accounting and consulting firm Grant Thornton in his luncheon keynote speech Wednesday to the Chicago chapter of the Business Marketing Association.
Lastminute.com founders Martha Lane Fox and Brent Hoberman are among web veterans throwing their weight behind a new company that aims to help big brands and companies manage their profiles on Twitter, the social messaging service.
Why Sony is Steve Guttenberg.
When I was growing up Steve Guttenberg was everywhere. You couldn’t watch an amiable comedy without him turning up. But then one day I put the video in and it was Tom Hanks instead. And Steve never came back, having tried something a bit different at the wrong time. Tom Hanks stole his career and Steve ended up doing panto in Bromley.
I think that’s how Sony must be feeling. Time was they were the kings of two markets but their leadership has disappeared – and their profit with it. Why? Poor brand strategy.
Sony owned the category word for personal music players (Walkman for those under 12) and had a seemingly unassailable position but they blew it. Don’t let anyone tell you that it was all Apple and that they were brilliant, that’s not true. Don’t get me wrong, Apple released a great product and had a clear message (unlike Sony’s unfathomable ‘go create’) but there’s no such thing as a product that sells itself. Apple just took the opportunity that Sony gave them. Leaders have to make mistakes for competitors to steal their share and Sony let them in when technology changed.
Sony thought that the portable music market was about size and audio quality and focused their brand around those areas. Even repeating the Betamax format mistake with a defiant stance on ATRAC 3. They took for granted the market’s goodwill towards the Walkman brand and dithered. Apple on other hand realised that it was actually about capacity and simplicity and before Sony realised it, Apple had brutally and clinically taken their entire market and left them in their wake. Just like Tom Hanks in Splash.
Fast forward ten years and Sony are repeating the same trick but in the console market they so cleverly owned. Back in 1996 it wasn’t cool for grown men to play video games – Sensible Soccer and Championship Manager aside. Those who did play them had to do so in underground gaming speakeasies to avoid public humiliation. The Playstation changed all that, creating a whole new category in the process in a branding master stroke which effectively wiped out SEGA as a console manufacturer. However they’ve fallen back into old habits with PS3.
Instead of realising that people who play video games just want to play video games they messed about incorporating a (farcically expensive) Blu-ray player with the misplaced idea that anyone would care, not realising that online gaming was the next major console trick to pull. You would have thought that Sony of all people would know that technological convergence only works where convenience is the major selling point. PS3 owners are still trying to justify their purchase by telling me how great the Blu-ray player is in the console and I still couldn’t care less.
So step up the X Box 360 in the next gen adult gaming market to sweep the rug from under Sony’s feet, being (significantly) quicker to market and first into hearts and minds; just as Apple had done with the iPod 10 years earlier. How many 360 owners are saying ‘ oh well if you’d told me how good the Blu-ray player was going to be I would have held off a year and happily paid double the price!’ None that’s how many.
What’s my point? Until last quarter Sony last made profit two years ago because they keep repeating the same mistakes and have extended their brand to the point where it means very little outside of awareness. Why for example are they making batteries? And why are they running different brands in some markets (Playstation, Cybershot) but not in others, (anyone fancy a DVPSR090? No thought not).
Sony need to remember their brand successes. Category defining products built around innovation that people care about, with new brands that are narrowly focused. Not me too products that have no useful differentiation.
It may not sound like it but I really like Sony, their build quality is good and they have influenced so much of how we now live our lives. I just wish that a company who are at their best when innovating and leading would learn that selling batteries and hording their technology are bad brand strategies which will just lead to others stealing your market. Just ask Steve Guttenberg. If you can find him.