Innocent Smoothies is a phenomenon in the U.K., widely held to be one of the great marketing success stories of the last few years. The brand has attracted a loyal following who appreciate its promise of 100% pure fruit, no sugar, no concentrates and no funny business. The brand’s quirky style, readily apparent from its Web site, is an important part of its persona. So imagine the shock that greeted Innocent’s announcement that it was going to sell its kids smoothies in McDonald’s.
It was my friend Ross, a planner in the U.K., who first told me about Innocent Smoothies. Initially I wrote off Ross’s enthusiasm as the usual cool-chasing required of a guy who needs to keep current with the latest fads and fashions, but it seems his passion is shared by many. BMRB’s TGI suggests that over 1.8 million people claimed to buy Innocent in 2007.
The brand has distinguished itself from others by its idiosyncratic marketing efforts:
• Delivery vans covered in grass or painted to look like cows
• Fruitstock, a free two-day concert held in London’s Regents Park
• Bottles sporting knitted caps in winter (part of a charity event)
• “Don’t look at my bottom” written on the base of the package
• Ads that proclaim, “Made from freshly-squeezed cows”
These efforts have allowed the brand to take a substantial share of the rapidly growing smoothies market.
While many U.K. marketers look to Innocent as a great example of integrated marketing, one which speaks to all aspects of the brand experience using a consistent voice, the tone of Innocent’s voice reminds me of another brand that ran counter to the mass marketing culture of its time: the U.S. brand Snapple.
Snapple was founded in 1972 by three Brooklyn entrepreneurs who sold fruit drinks into local health food stores. In its heyday, Snapple marketed a wide range of fruit combinations, some of them odd, and many inspired by customers. Its marketing efforts reflected a fun, populist, and somewhat amateurish approach. TV ads featured Wendy the Snapple Lady, who always started with “Hi from Snapple!” before reading and answering a letter from a real customer. As Doug Holt notes, “The tagline ‘100% Natural’ captured the idea that Snapple was not only a natural product, but, even more important, it was a transparent company run by well-meaning amateurs.”
But in 1993, when Quaker Oats bought Snapple for $1.4 billion, amateur night was over. The conventional marketing tactics employed by Quaker undermined the authentic voice of the brand and precipitated a decline in sales, until Quaker sold Snapple for $300 million in 1997.
The example of Snapple perhaps serves to illustrate why Innocent’s loyal customers are so concerned by the collaboration between their brand and McDonalds. The trial proposed is limited—the kids’ smoothies are to be made available in McDonald’s Happy Meals for a six-month trial period in the northeast of England—but the furor caused by this news is widespread. Perhaps this is not surprising, when you consider the dramatic differences between the two companies in terms of scale (global versus local), culture (corporate versus unconventional), positioning (mass-market versus premium), marketing (classic versus quirky), and image (healthy and natural versus not-so-healthy).
Many Innocent loyalists appear to regard the tie-in with McDonalds as a sell-out. When this post appeared on the Innocent Blog it generated such a flood of replies that a second post followed, trying to reassure people that this was a trial, Innocent had not sold out, and that the company would not be taken over.
All of which illustrates the challenge of managing both a business and a brand. From a business point of view, it makes all the sense in the world to gain distribution in outlets like McDonalds. From a brand point of view, however, it runs counter to what people have come to know and love. The question is, will people get used to the idea of Innocent as a mass-market brand, or will they become disillusioned with the brand, as they did with Snapple, when they see amateur night turn into another company focused on the bottom line.
Let me know what you think. Will people give Innocent the benefit of the doubt, or will they be judged guilty of betraying their company ethos whatever the outcome of the McDonald’s trial?
Tags: Millward Brown, Nigel Hollis, brands, innocent smoothies, McDonald's, Snapple, marketing,
(21 votes, average: 4.05 out of 5)
Loading ...
July 17th, 2007 at 5:45 am
Great post and related to a personal experience with Tito’s Vodka. I fell in love with Tito’s after hearing the story of the founder and the gradual word-of-mouth spread of the brand. The vodka tastes incredible and I love repeating the story of this rarely-heard brand when friends visit for cocktails.
But yesterday a friend said that he saw quarter-page ads for Tito’s in the New York Times. My immediate reaction was disappointment. This little brand that I adopted had decided to go “big time” with a boring ad in a national paper. They abandoned the revolutionary mindset and now encourage the idea that Tito’s is “just another label.”
Like innocent, Tito’s probably feels the pull of opportunity. It would be interesting to measure the cost in terms of lost equity among core fans.
July 17th, 2007 at 7:12 am
Hi Bob,
Thanks for this comment.
Your use of the word “adopted” says it all. You discovered the brand and made it your own, now that sense of ownership is being undermined as Tito spreads the word for itself. Of course, you can now take delight in telling people that you did discover Tito before it became popular - assuming it does.
I say “assuming” because this will be a very tricky transition for the brand. It needs to retain the loyalty of people like you - core users - while appealing to new drinkers. Many brands do not make the transition successfully simply because they lose sight of what made them attractive to start with. Few brands can scale that personal connection successfully the way Innocent has done.
Anyway, Tito still tastes good right? So enjoy!
Nigel
July 17th, 2007 at 9:23 am
There is this band that I love. They really are about the music. Watching them play in the intimate little setting, it’s like I had them all to myself. And even though I like the feeling, I tell anyone and everyone to come and listen to them, to ‘try them’.
Next thing I know, they have a gold record. I enjoyed it for a while. But then it seemed people who didn’t appreciate them were becoming fans. And then, well, it’s hard to even talk about. Target, a big US retailer started using one of their songs in an ad. What sellouts. Now that they are big, I don’t get them to myself anymore. They’ve sold out. Worse they sold *out on me*.
End story. When a brand (or a band) can generate that kind of passion, they have two options.
1. Stay with the status quo and keep the fans happy.
2. Sell their product to more people and buy their mum a house (or something).
It happens all the time in music. To which I reply, selling out is hard to do. I guess the creators of the brand should feel proud they were able to build something that created that kind of loyalty.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
The comparison between brands and bands is an interesting one, Mark, thank you. Like many brands, bands often seem to lose the plot when they grow beyond their initial following of fans. Other people want to get in on the act because the band is seen to be cool, but these new converts may not really share the same emotional attachment.
The fundamental issue is how you scale something and keep it personal. In theory there is far more potential to do that now because of social media but few brands or bands seem to do it successfully.
I guess your brand has to be one of the following: Bloc Party, the 22-20s, the Hold Steady, British Sea Power. My bet is the last one. Will you tell us?
July 24th, 2007 at 1:10 am
The same comparison can be found in the film industy as well…You adore a director who used to produces marvelous cult movies which resonate with you so well…but one day you find out that he/she starts to make mediocre hollywood movies which appears to be extravaganza/blockbusters but you’ll never hear the line/see the act that can touch the deepest bottom of you heart…
Well I guess one cannot ask for all from one brand/band/director, can we? The company should have different brands to appeal to diffrent target consumers (cult and mass), and Paramout should have a diversified pool of directors to make all kind of movies to attract different audience…(it’s now more like a portfolio management issue…)
July 24th, 2007 at 5:00 am
Hi William,
Thanks for this addition.
The basic conclusion here seems to be that brands, like music and movies, which appeal on a very personal basis, run a big risk when they seek to extend their reach beyond their original fan base.
It is a common belief that iconic brands tap into a cultural shift to achieve their status. I wonder if iconic brands are examples of ones that successfully transcended their cult origins?
Nigel