Archive for the 'retail' Category

22
Jun

High-fructose corn syrup: a commodity fights back

istock_000002171359xsmall“The public now puts high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in the same category as trans fats: poison.”

So says nutritionist Marion Nestle in a post at her blog, Food Politic.

Wow. That’s a bitter pill for the corn-refining industry, given that every American consumes on average 60-plus pounds of the sweetener per year.

Thanks to governmental subsidies of U.S. corn and an import tariff on foreign sugar, HFCS is a cheap substitute used in the manufacturing of processed foods.

And it is in just about everything — not just the obvious culprits, such as pop, candy, desserts and fast food, but also supposedly healthy foods such as bread, yogurt, salad dressings, and cereal.

Read the label. HFCS is big business.

Lately, however, due to HFCS’s association with obesity, Americans are changing their preferences. Brands such as Heinz, Gatorade, Ocean Spray and Wheat Thins are being reformulated without it. Pepsi and Snapple are introducing HFCS-free versions. In fact, sales of HFCS-free foods are approaching $1 billion.

“Consumer demand for HFCS has dropped 11 percent, says a new report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture,” according to Virginia Sole-Smith in a post at Planet Green’s blog. “HFCS makers will also buy 13 percent less corn syrup this market year than they did at the highest point of corn syrup sales in 2001.”

The Corn Refiners Association is not too happy its product’s image has soured. It maintains HFCS is “just sugar,” and launched a $30 million campaign to “change the conversation.” (Watch the TV spots below.)

Interestingly, Al Ries (who along with Jack Trout, advanced the concept of brand “positioning”) says the problem may be the category name. In a recent article in Advertising Age, he notes that. “Even today, thanks to the objections of the Sugar Association, the FDA is resisting a simple name change from ‘high-fructose corn syrup’ to ‘corn syrup.’” (The Sugar Association, which positions sugar as “natural,” categorizes HFCS as a “man-made sweetener.”)

I’m always fascinated by commodities that run brand positioning campaigns, such as the California Milk Processor Board’s “Got Milk?” and The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association’s “Beef. It’s what’s for dinner.

Which sugar is truly “natural?” Which is the least unhealthy “in moderation?” Is it corn, cane or beet? Bring on the Sugar Wars.

15
Jun

Which brand logos does your car wear?

photo-4Look at the rear end of a vehicle. What do you see?

Apparently, car and truck owners see a blank canvas.

From vanity plates to Darwin fish to “Support Our Troops” ribbons to Euro-style vacation destination decals to “Honk if you love ferrets” bumper stickers, many drivers proudly express their preferences.

Applying a decal to a bumper or rear window requires at least a degree of commitment. (Ever tried to remove one?) Therefore, it’s interesting to note the brands receiving the lion’s share of PDA.

Some of the brand logos most commonly displayed on vehicles promote:

  • sports teams, all levels
  • schools, colleges and universities
  • military service branches
  • radio stations
  • political campaigns

Think about the volume of marketing research being made available for free. Car owners are revealing where their kids go to school, who they voted for, what they do for fun, and with which station to reach them.

Some tell you even more. A select few consumer-goods logos also appear in rear windows. Some I’ve seen include:

  • Apple
  • Patagonia
  • Harley-Davidson
  • Abercrombie & Fitch

Like sports teams and universities, these are affinity brands. The drivers displaying these logos are proud members of their brand communities. The brands are part of their personal identities. Their club colors are flying for all to see.

Which other affinity consumer-goods brand logos have you seen displayed on vehicles ?

01
Jun

“Wow, that’s a low Staples’ rip-off!”

Why invest time and money in developing your own ad campaign when you can steal someone else’s?

Staples and its advertising agency may be wondering just that as Ricart Ford, an Ohio auto dealer, has duplicated the current Staples’ TV spot, right down to the African-American supporting actor. (See both spots below. Warning: Both versions are potentially annoying.)

Ricart answers viewer complaints about the unoriginality of the spot on its Facebook page with a blanket defense: “From Fred’s earliest advertising days, Ricart has used humor and parody in its TV commercials.”

Parody, by definition, requires satire of the original work. However, rather than poking fun at the Staples’ concept, Ricart is simply leveraging the spot’s established awareness as well as riding the coattails of Staples’ national TV buy.

Parody or grand theft auto? What do you think?

P.S. Since this posting, YouTube has removed the Ricart commercial “due to a copyright claim by Staples, Inc.”

04
May

Coke and Pepsi merge, combine logos.

combo-logoIn a surprise announcement, corporate giants Coca-Cola and PepsiCo today announced a multi-billion-dollar merger of their soft-drink divisions.

Following the recent example set by United and Continental airlines, the newly merged company will feature Coke’s trade name and Pepsi’s logo.

“It’s easier to combine two existing logos than to create a new one,” said Indra Nooyi, PepsiCo’s chairman and CEO. “Besides, what could be better than two icons? We look forward to serving our new blended cola beverage in Coke’s iconic bottle with Pepsi’s trademark globe on the side.”

Asked about the decision to combine trademarks, Muhtar Kent, Coke’s chairman and CEO, said, “As everyone knows, they spent hundreds of millions on their logo makeover and took a lot of heat for what they got. They’re a little sensitive about it. We agreed they could keep their globe if we could keep our bottle.”

In other news, Apple is reportedly being acquired by Microsoft. Unnamed sources have indicated the company’s new logo will feature a window with a bite taken out of it.

24
Mar

Support your local brands

In a shop near where I work, I picked up a flyer on The 3/50 Project, a grassroots initiative supporting locally owned businesses. The concept was hatched in the depth of the recession, when Cinda Baxter wrote a blog post titled “Save the economy three stores at a time.”

Her suggestion: pick three independents and spend $50 per month in each.

A movement was born. National media picked up the story. A good idea went viral.

The 3/50 Project claims that for every $100 spent in locally owned independent stores, $68 returns to the community through taxes, payroll, and other expenditures — more than generated by national chains or online purchases.

The 3/50 site offers qualifying independents free 3/50 art for flyers, window clings, countertop signs, print ads, website badges, and more.

Who qualifies as an independent? “Someone who sleeps little, eats on the run, balances their checkbook over the breakfast table, combs through order forms in bed at night, and is capable of sorting invoices, signing paychecks, fielding questions, responding to emails, and faxing confirmations while simultaneously explaining to a new employee how to check in UPS.” (Here are the official requirements.)

Picking three independents to support was tougher than I thought. In the spirit of the movement, I looked for locals in categories where I have chain options. But $50 a month? As much as I like coffee, I can’t spend that much in a coffee shop. So I settled on these three:

  • Figlio, a restaurant near where I live
  • Carnardo Wine & Cheese
  • FrontRunner, a running store

What are your picks?

08
Mar

Are running shoes a sham?

istock_000008706988xsmallIf you spend in the neighborhood of $100 per pair of running shoes like I do, you may find the following statement by Dr. Daniel Lieberman, a professor of biological anthropology at Harvard University, disconcerting:

“A lot of foot and knee injuries that are currently plaguing us are actually caused by people running with shoes that actually make our feet weak, cause us to over-pronate, give us knee problems,” says Lieberman in Born To Run: A Hidden Tribe, Superathletes, and the Greatest Race the World Has Never Seen, a book by Christopher McDougall.

“Until 1972, when the modern athletic shoe was invented by Nike, people ran in very thin-soled shoes, had strong feet, and had much lower incidence of knee injuries.”

Lieberman’s study and McDougall’s book are fueling a debate within running circles (and shoe companies). Are running shoes not only not helping us, but actually hurting us? Is running barefoot safer?

“We were born to run, but maybe not with shoes on,” says The Boston Globe. “New research … shows that people who run barefoot or with minimal shoes — as people have done for millions of years — often land on their feet in a way that avoids a jarring impact. That’s very different from most shoe-clad runners, who crash down on their heels with every bound.”

Or as Popular Mechanics asks, “Could shoes — and shoe companies — be part of a $25 billion snake oil industry, covering hundreds of thousands of perfectly able bare feet?”

Lieberman explains on his study’s web site that “runners who forefoot or midfoot strike do not need shoes with elevated cushioned heels to cope with these sudden, high transient forces that occur when you land on the ground.”

McDougall isn’t quite so gentle. One full chapter of his book is an indictment of Nike and other running shoe manufacturers that he believes know their shoes are causing injury and continue to sell them anyway.

At least one shoe company, New Balance, addresses the issue head on: “After hundreds of years of walking with shoes on, is it time we relearn? There’s a movement going on that challenges the very foundation of sneaker wearers (not to mention sneaker companies) everywhere, around running barefoot. This broad grouping of perspectives includes some runners who are finding they prefer to run exclusively barefoot, some who prefer to run with minimally cushioned shoes, and others who like to vary their runs between shod, minimally shod, and shoeless.”

Nike, the inventor of the modern high-tech, highly engineered running shoe, doesn’t miss a trick. Or a marketing niche. It has introduced a new shoe, Nike Free, that for all the world looks like the flat-soled Keds, PF Flyers, and Chuck Taylor All Stars I wore as a kid. The Nike Free slogan? “Run Supernatural.” Back to the future, I guess.

In his book, McDougall builds the case that humans are built — not to run fast — but to run long. He tracks down and studies the mythical Tarahumara Indians who run for extreme distances in lightweight sandals in the remote and deadly Copper Canyons of Mexico.

And he’s a convert. Since running in Vibram FiveFingers, a neoprene sock-like foot covering, he’s seen his running injuries disappear.

Though I’m not quite ready to hit the pavement barefoot, especially in the winter, the idea of lacing up the old Chucks from high school is kind of appealing. As I remember, I was faster back then.

How about you?





Subscribe to the RSS feed

Archives


“9 Criteria for Brand Essence” Deck

The 9 Criteria for Brand Essence



twitter grader

Add to Technorati Favorites
Featured in Alltop

Invesp landing page optimization
Chris Brogan says I'm a Rockstar!

Top 100 Blogs Award
Brand Management featured writer