Many beverage marketers are forgetting
about packaging. I don’t mean the label
design or sleeve, but rather the actual physical
container itself -- its shape, material, and personality.
How do I know? Recently, I was looking
through a list of all of the products we’ve covered
this year, and I realized that I couldn’t remember
holding many of them at all. Now, there are
plenty of reasons why products are forgettable,
but for those that might actually bring innovation
in flavor or design, having a great shape is
sometimes a forgotten opportunity.
Packaging has taken quite a downturn over
the past ten years. Back when we first started
BevNET, companies were always talking about
their proprietary packaging. Whether it was
something simple, like a raised company logo on
a 16 oz. glass bottle, or something complicated
and new that had never been tried before, there
was generally a proprietary piece that added zip
to a packaging plan.
Now, our experience is that companies look
to use a package that is accepted and successful
– for someone else. And that copycat methodology
hurts innovation and encourages poorlyplanned
products.
Over the course of time, packaging innovations
have made worlds of difference. The CSD
category, the former sweetheart of the industry,
has seen many: 12 oz. cans, two- and three-liter
bottles, the 6-pack and the fridge pack. Coke’s
modern growth has even been attributed to its
development of the now one-size-fits-all-brands
20 oz. PET bottle. Why aren’t we seeing more
attempts to create sizing variation, as well as that
of taste?
In today’s market, look at “the Red Bull
can” or “the Vitaminwater bottle.” Hundreds
of competitors have gone into the same package
without ever giving more than a minute of
thought to changing anything more than the design
on the label. And for those companies that
have gone the extra mile and succeeded in using
something different, such as Rockstar – or Monster,
depending on who you ask – with the 16
oz. energy drink can, their reward is their own
sea of imitators.
What happens as a result of this is, in the long
run, actually detrimental rather than helpful to
a new brand. Let’s use the example of the now
iconic Red Bull 250 mL can. Sure, it might seem
easier to launch with this package than without
it. Won’t everyone who sees that can immediately
understand that it’s an energy drink? Sure they
will – but it will also serve to remind the prospective
buyer of the Red Bull they went looking
for in the first place. Rather than create a point
of difference, the products shyly say “me too.”
Unfortunately for energy drinks and functional
waters, it’s going to be an uphill battle to
get past this. Every product that has gone into a
250 mL can or 20 oz. ribbed bottle has essentially
helped to validate Red Bull and Vitaminwater
as market leaders. Furthermore, it has trained
customers that these types of products only
come in certain types of containers – meaning
that creative marketers must be willing to accept
even more risk when they vary their packaging,
pushing any new idea further to the fringes.
We see a lot of “me too” products, and you all
know how we feel about them. We get calls from
marketers who stress points of difference, who
say consumers have a predisposal to certain flavors,
and certain packages, as well. But nothing
says ‘intellectual laziness’ like a knocked-off can
or bottle. And nothing reinforces the strength
of a category leader by echoing its iconography,
either.
John Craven is the founder of beverage-industry
watchdog The BevNET.com, based
in Cambridge, Mass. The BevNET.com’s
goal is to test nonalcoholic beverages —
primarily soft drinks — and to provide a
written critique of each one on its Web site.
With more than 1,100 reviews posted since
1996, The BevNET.com has become an internationally
recognized resource for beverage
industry professionals.