Can you brew authenticity under license? A case of ‘imported’ beer.

Ales, lagers, stouts, porters, pilsners, IPAs… If there is one thing Australian’s like its beer.  Whether it’s for celebrating, commiserating, relaxation or concentration, a beer is never far away.

Although the market is dominated by a few stalwart brands (think VB, XXXX and Tooheys), their overall share of the market has been diminishing in recent years.  Fueled in part by the easy accessibility and relative affordability of international brands, increasingly sophisticated Australian drinkers are branching out and expanding their sudsy palates.

If you have spent some time sampling various ‘premium’ international beers, your discerning eye may notice a seeming peculiarity – often your bottle of Heineken is not brewed at the eponymous factory in Holland, but at a decidedly less romantic, non-descript Lion Nathan brewery on NSW’s central coast.

In many cases, your premium international beer is made in Australia.  Well known brands such as Peroni, Stella Artois, Kronenbourg and Carlsberg are brewed by Foster’s and Heineken and Beck’s are brewed by Lion Nathan.  This is done for economic reasons, for their bottom line it makes more fiscal sense for these big, well-known international brands to outsource and franchise their production.  After all, the majority of their value exists in their ‘brand’, rather than in the beer itself.

Peroni: Made in Australia

Is there a taste difference?  Well the evidence it is inconclusive.  Dedicated beer aficionados claim they can taste whether a Peroni Nastro Azzuro is the ‘real’ Italian version or a ‘fake’ Aussie knock off – often citing differences in water quality and ingredients.  However, casual drinkers may be unable to tell, or simply blissfully unaware.  In fact there is even the suggestion that some people may find the locally brewed versions tastier.

However, this is really not what’s at stake here for many consumers, particularly those with some knowledge of the international beer market.  Many consumers are feeling duped.  If they are paying premium prices, they want a premium product; they want the ‘real’ thing.  It’s almost akin to thinking you are buying an authentic Rolex, but getting a dodgy knockoff.

This is reflected in the user reviews of various beers on Dan Murphy’s website (one of Australia’s largest alcohol retailers).  Interestingly, they stock both the ‘fully imported’ and ‘brewed under license’ of a number of well-known, premium international brands.  Invariably, the ‘authentic’ version scores much better than the ‘fake’ version, a phenomenon which is reflected in the various comments.

	Fully imported	Brewed under license
Peroni	4.5	2
Becks	4.75	2
Heineken	4.5	3
Stella Artois	4.3	1.8
Grolsh	4.3	2.7
		(scores out of 5)

It would seem these brands can’t brew authenticity under license.  In fact doesn’t matter if there is a functional taste difference – psychologists would tell us that if your brain thinks it is likely to taste inferior (because it is made locally and therefore less authentic), chances are your tongue will agree.  Once the illusion of international sophistication is eroded, of the authenticity brand will be questioned every time a beer is in hand.

This rejection and scepticism of the ‘fake’ international brands is likely to increase, particularly as Aussie beer drinkers become increasingly sophisticated and questioning.  And although it may not hurt these brands in the short run, it may over time see Australian consumers turning their back on these well-known international brands – particularly if online consumers become more vocal.

// Alec Schumann

Shame marketing won’t solve the complex problem of obesity

There is something of a trend of what I like to call “shame marketing” emerging.  To address complex social problems like obesity, some organisations are running campaigns based on messages of shame and guilt to in an attempt to bring about positive behavioural changes

For example, Strong4Life (left) ran this intentionally controversial campaign with obese children in an attempt to shame parents in order to disrupt an institutionalised trend of childhood obesity in Georgia.

Strong4Life or Shame4Life?

And the Western Australian Heart Foundation (right) recently ran this series of belly grabbing ads to promote awareness of the potential dangers of carrying a few extra kilos.

Toxic Fat: The campaign director described it as “truly innovative and creative”

Using intentionally controversial messages and imagery to address sensitive and complex problems is purely a shock tactic and will be ineffective in addressing these problems.

An institutionalised and complex problem like obesity will not be reversed by an ad of a fat child.  There is no silver bullet that will solve the problem of obesity.  Rather than simplistic shock advertising campaigns, addressing obesity will involve a series of initiatives which target social and economic issues such as shopping and eating habits, body image and self confidence issues

Even being able to isolate the effect of a single media campaign on the multifaceted process of losing weight is implausible.  It would be hard enough to show that there any relationship between a campaign and obesity, without even making a claim that the media campaign actually caused people to become healthier.

Being able to say these campaigns “work” by encouraging people to get healthy is practically impossible.  And anyone who tries to claim otherwise is making an extremely misleading claim.

Essentially the only good these campaigns do is shock and offend people into talking about the problem of obesity.

// Alec Schumann

Shell’s arctic campaign: snowball fighting with trolls

Shell recently had the well-meaning idea of asking the general internet population to create their next ad about arctic fuel sources.  Posting a meme template with images of the arctic, anyone can enter in ad copy and it is published on Shell’s website http://arcticready.com/social/gallery.

Power on: Let’s melt some ice

On the surface it seems like a good idea.  Allowing customers to have a say in ad copy, in theory will encourage them to engage with the campaign, share it with their friends and feel a stronger sense of ownership in the campaign.  It also allows Shell to crowd source ideas for the campaign and get some constructive ideas about what consumers think about their brand.

Theory does not always predict action, particularly when it comes to online consumers.

Despite Shell’s best intentions, this campaign failed miserably. 

Their official campaign site was attacked by consumers who subverted the campaign message by posting ad copy rich with sarcasm and black humour.

Shell was either not prepared for or did not anticipate this possibility.  What should have been a democratic campaign, quickly turned into a running joke which went viral (even making it onto popular online humour site 9GAG).

Shell: Social Media Fail?

By running this campaign, Shell has likely done more damage to their brand among the general internet population.

In the short term it is an embarrassing social media gaff, but in the long term it may do lasting damage to their brand image as these consumer created, anti-brand images will likely remain on the internet for a long time.

As Shell’s campaign demonstrates, involving consumers in designing your ad campaign is not always a good idea.  It is also a reminder that online consumers can be funny, cruel and subversive in a short meme.

//Alec Schumann

Video game marketing: Anything goes, but nobody cares

In the most recent Hitman Absolution promotional trailer the protagonist Agent 47 brutally kills some stripper nuns.  Unsurprisingly, various sources have condemned the trailer as gratuitous, over sexualised and exploitative.  I’m not debating that.  And as Keza MacDonald of ign wrote, it well and truly is ‘violence porn’.

Vevo: a profitable venture but ineffective marketing

So Vevo, the omnipresent advertising platform on Youtube, made over $150 million in 2011.  Vevo is essentially an advertising platform and is owned by Sony and Universal Music Group and Universal, among others.  And it has recently launched an Australian specific platform, signing up a number of big names (Mentos, Sony Music, Paramount Pictures and Vodafone).

In an era of more slightly ‘progressive’ marketing strategies, whether it is content marketing, opt in branded communities and collaboration with consumers – Vevo is very much based on a traditional model of advertising as an unwelcome interruption.

Cheap but awesome music videos: Why a good idea beats a big budget

I’m often puzzled when musicians and record companies produce their music videos on multi-million dollar production budgets.  In a period of declining music sales, an increasing ambivalence to the ‘wow’ factor sought by special effects and tiny attention spans, spending big on a music video is an investment which is often not worth the return.

What’s more, many big budget music videos lack a strong creative idea and as a result simply don’t resonate with people.  Even though they might be lavishly produced – the next, more interesting video is simply one click away on YouTube.   These videos are not shared, not remembered and the investment is wasted.

Grill’d Burgers: Just how healthy are their “healthy” burgers?

Perhaps it’s the cynical marketer in me, but I have always thought that Grill’d Burgers claims of selling ‘Health Burgers’ are somewhat suspicious.  Don’t get me wrong, I love a good hamburger – but I get a bit cheesed off when I’m sold something, which is marketed to be ‘healthy’ but in reality is anything but.

The problem with commission based remuneration: are companies limiting the growth of their brand?

Commission based remuneration is popular in many sales-based professional services firms; from recruiting to accounting to advertising.  Consultants (or fee-earning staff) are paid a low base salary and are rewarded in accordance with how much revenue they are personally responsible for bringing into the firm.   Essentially, companies can keep costs down and employees are encouraged to sell as much ‘stuff’ as possible.

The ‘environmental’ premium: why it highlights organizational inefficiencies

Recently I purchased tickets to a popular Australian music festival.   After securing the tickets and finalizing my purchase, I was asked if I wanted to pay an additional fee to help offset the carbon emissions of the festival.  Reluctantly (and not wanting to be stricken with environmental guilt), I agreed to pay the additional fee.

A number of weeks later when I received the paper tickets by registered post, I couldn’t help but reflect on this additional fee and how it highlighted a number of inefficiencies within the organization supply chain.

Consider the environmental costs involved in transporting two paper tickets across Australia via registered post:

• People are employed to print the tickets and supporting documents
• These are sorted, double checked and folded into envelopes for postage
• The packages enter the Australia post supply chain and dispatched to various processing centres
• A postal worker attempts to deliver these packages to the recipient
• Many recipients are not available to sign for them, so packages are returned to the processing centre
• The recipient receives a notification and travels to the processing centre themselves to pick up the ticket
  

  The environmental costs of postage can be overwhelming

Clearly once materials, administrative expenses and travel are factored in, the environmental costs associated with transporting two paper tickets across Australia are substantial.

So, why did I agree to pay a small premium to offset the carbon emissions for the event when the environmental costs associated with dispatching me the tickets far outweighed the impact of the environmental premium I paid?

If the organizers were serious about reducing their carbon emissions, an e-ticketing system would be an obvious way of reducing the total environmental footprint of the event.  An e-ticketing system would reduce all the above costs to practically zero and would have a much more substantial impact on reducing the total environmental footprint of the event than asking customers to pay an additional ‘environmental’ premium

A wider trend

By no means am I using this example simply to denigrate the festival.  Rather, it is representative of a much wider trend whereby businesses are charging ‘environmental’ premiums to their customers to offset the environmental costs caused by inefficiencies in their supply chain.  How many times has a business suggested that you pay a little extra to help the environment, when they themselves are doing little more than using said premium to make some ‘environmental’ contribution?

If businesses were serious about reducing their total environmental footprint, they would think of more efficient ways to run their operations, rather than passing on these costs to customers under the guise of an ‘environmental’ premium and operating ‘business as usual’.

In many cases, the ‘environmental premium blatantly highlights organizational inertia and a willingness to exploit customers for a socially acceptable premium.

Businesses should be smarter.

// Alec Schumann

“Share a Coke”: Why Coke shouldn’t have released a list of the top 150 names

I don’t normally drink Coke.  I find it too sweet and sugary.  However, after hearing Coke was printing 150 of the most common Australian names on Coke bottles, in the “Share a Coke” campaign I found myself rifling through the shelves at all of Canberra’s major supermarkets.  (Even though I’m in marketing I’m still a sucker for a good marketing ploy).

However, after an hour and half of anticipation, frustration set in as it became clear that the nearby supermarkets were not stocking ‘Alec’ Coke bottles, so I trudged back to the office.

When I got back I logged onto the campaign’s Facebook page(which by the way is getting a lot of “likes”) to see if Alec was available.  To my surprise and disappointment it wasn’t and thus my interest in Coke immediately ended.

What does this narrative indicate?

Well for the hour that I was searching for a bottle with my name on it, I was intensely engaged with the brand.  I didn’t even want to drink the Coke when I bought it; I was going to display proudly it on my desk for everyone to see.

However, as soon as I realised I wouldn’t find “my” Coke, my interest in the campaign and the brand plummeted (I also wasn’t willing to go through the hassle of locating one of the few outlets which will personalize one on the spot).

Share a Coke with Jess: but not Alec (or Bork).

But how could Coke have kept me searching and engaged with their brand?

Hypothetically, just say Coke decided to release 1,000 of the most common names, but stage this over a period of 12 months (e.g. release around 100 new names each month), all the while keeping this list secret.

People would be much more likely to believe that they will eventually find a bottle with their name on it, and will conceivably keep looking.  Furthermore, people wouldn’t be disappointed by learning at the very start of the campaign that they would never find their name on shelves at all.

This would also promote greater engagement with the brand via social media.  People would post stories of how they found ‘their’ Coke, upload photos of the named bottles in various locations, and discuss the campaign amongst their friends, thus creating a level of excitement and engagement each time a new name was found on shelves.

Undoubtedly the aim of Coke’s campaign was to promote this type of engagement with their brand by being on a first name basis with their customers.  However, people will often lose interest if you can’t remember their name.

// Alec Schumann