May, 2011 | Booze Business: A Blog Dedicated to the Business of Spirits and Wine

How Not To Choose A Brand Name

May 31, 2011 No Comments

Call it Pig Swig.

Ad Age reported last week that the Piggly Wiggly supermarket chain is launching a line of store brand beers under the umbrella name of Pig Swig. The line up consists of “craft style” beers – Pig Tail Ale and Pig Pen Pilsner. I suppose if your company is called Piggly Wiggly you might as well go “whole hog” (sorry about that) and name your store brands accordingly.

But I must say that charging $6.99 for a 6-pack is more than a bit piggish. (Okay I’ll stop.)

A number of retailers have launched private labels/store brands but managed to name the products intelligently if not creatively. Supervalu has Buck Range Light selling at Albertson’s and other stores in the chain; Walgreen sells Big Flats; and 7-Eleven sells Game Day beer. Costco uses the Kirkland name as it does on spirits and Kroger calls its beers Tap Room No 21 and Port Republic.

The Ad Age article also reports (via Nielsen) that private label beers account for only $23.6 million out of the total beer category of $27.4 billion. But, store brand sales are up 41% the past year versus 2.3% drop in branded sales.

That must be the inspiration for Piggly Wiggly to come up with ads and slogans telling consumers to “get your swig on,” “put some pink in your cheeks” and my favorite – “toast of the trough.”

I don’t know if it’s still around but there was a Malt Scotch Whisky called Sheep Dip. Think of the name applied to the Pig Swig line. I even have the slogan – “come wallow in our beer.”

Bernie and Booze

May 19, 2011 No Comments

I knew that sooner or later, I’d get to post something about Bernie Madoff and the booze business.

Morrell and Company held an online auction of his wine and spirits collection. For a swindler who lived the rich life having stolen $65 billion, his wine collection seems to me to be paltry and uninspired. But, buyers gladly overpaid for the boasting rights of owning the charlatan’s wine and spirits.

As the auction house put it, “Some of the bottles are better viewed as conversation pieces rather than valued for their contents.”

The wines went for well beyond their value. A case of 1996 Chateau Mouton-Rothschild was valued at $3,200 to $3,800 and sold for $6,800. A bottle of Chateau Lynch-Bages from 1990 went for $2,200 despite a value appraised at no more than $1,600.

But, my favorite over valued auctioned items was on the spirits side.

Four minis consisting of Bombay, Grand Marnier and Smirnoff valued at $10 to $20 went for $300. Minis?

Nine bottles that included Jack Daniel’s, Jose Cuervo and Drambuie sold for $500 versus an estimated value of around $200. (The value must have taken into account the prices billionaires have to pay for booze in midtown Manhattan or in The Hamptons.)

Included in the nine bottle lot was – drumroll please – a bottle of Seagram’s VO with the original Canadian tax stamp dated 1981. All those years trying to figure out how to make VO grow – who knew it was a collector’s item!

A personal note to Madoff:

Dear Bernie,

Happy you are rotting in prison and hope you are not doing well. While many are laughing about your choice of alcohol libations, I for one am pleased that you obviously were not “from the drinkers.” I’m also pleased that the industry did not benefit from your ill-gotten gains.

But I am curious about something. I can understand ripping off minis from an airplane or hotel room bar. But Smirnoff and Cuervo?

Well anyway, at least the victims’ fund got some money — $41,530 to be exact. I suppose it’s a rounding error in the scheme of things but I also got a posting out of it, didn’t I?

Jack’s New Home

May 18, 2011 2 Comments

Brown Forman just announced a revised and revamped package for Jack Daniel’s. Bloggers and industry observers are starting to weigh in on the pluses and minuses, so I thought I’d jump in as well.

Once upon a time, manufacturers were frightened of package changes. Concerns about loss of heritage and denigrating the brand’s equity were always the main “don’t do it” arguments. But the most damaging concern was “what will the consumer think.” Over the years, I’ve even heard it said that a package change would suggest a product change and result in erosion of appeal among consumers.

Baloney. Well, sort of.

If a packaging shift involves walking away from the key elements of a brand’s equity then it is doomed. The best recent example of that is the fiasco with Tropicana. The main icon, an orange with a straw, was removed in favor of a nondescript glass of juice. As you may recall, the package change effort was a disaster and Pepsico reverted to the original in a hurry.

However, if a manufacturer evolves or tweaks the packaging by removing the clutter, making it less wordy and updating the message, I believe it enhances the consumer relationship and brand equity. I haven’t seen the new package as yet but from what I’ve read, the new Jack Daniel’s look does just that. Good for you for making the brave call.

One last thought — I call it the chicken soup approach to marketing. Turning a brand’s performance around based on packaging changes, major or minor, is like chicken soup when you have a cold. It may not help but it can’t hurt.