What happens when a great tasting product, but one that has been gathering dust on the shelf, tries to make it?

To tell the tale of this wannabe spirit, we need to start with its pronunciation. It’s Two-AH-Ka and it’s named for the two brothers-in-law that created it in 1938. Messrs. Tuoni and Canepa named it after themselves –TUACA, their combined names, get it?  The liqueur is said to have come from a recipe dating back to Lorenzo de Medici and the Italian Renaissance. So they say.

I first encountered the brand during my Seagram days and, despite efforts to make it happen, the brand languished as only an orphan brand could at that company. According to Sam Ellias, who worked on the brand at one point, they tried everything to make it a contender – changed the package, reduced the alcohol (to minimize the harshness) and worked hard at developing mixed drinks using Tuaca. (My favorite was the hot apple pie, consisting of Tuaca and hot apple cider.) Nothing helped the brand catch on. Throughout the 80’s, 90’s and into the 21^st century, the brand, as they say, couldn’t get arrested.

Yet, there were pockets of strength including bartenders in different parts of the country. The poor little brand was kept a secret and hidden away. (Sob.)

Enter Brown Forman in 2004. The brand starts to grow a bit, but no real traction or spotlight to build a franchise among consumers. Still a stepchild.

I have a feeling that this is about to change. Read more…

Ad Age, Adweek and other business publications are pulsating with articles about Super Bowl ads. From the cost, to the worth, to the waste, everyone has an opinion. So, why not me?

Companies with deep pockets will ante up an average of $4 million for a 30 second spot. For some, the super bowl buys will be their entire advertising budget for the year.

In our own beloved booze business, we will see ads for Budweiser and Bud Light and I hope they’ll do better than in the past. (See Feb 8, 2011 posting) In addition, there will be ads for new products such as Budweiser Black Crown and Beck’s Sapphire. There may be as many as 3 30-second ads and 3 60-second ads. You do the math.

Aside from great seats at the game and Cheshire cat smiles from the ad agencies, are theses expenditures worth it?

According to a report from Kantar Media, far more viewers “remain riveted” to the tube, even during ads, than generally. (Really? I must be the exception.) Further, last years’ audience reach was reported to have been a record 111 million viewers.

Clearly, as a mass reach vehicle, there is nothing better than the Super Bowl. But is that all there is to advertising and brand building?

I came across a terrific article on the opinion page of Ad Age by Jonathan Salem Baskin, President of Baskin Associates. I don’t know him but his views on the Super Bowl are very similar to my own. But, he says it better. Read more…

Drambuie Liqueur has been around for quite some time gathering dust in a very limited number of liquor cabinets. At best, consumers think of it as a drink their parents or grandparents enjoyed. At worst, few contemporary drinkers have never heard of it.

The brand is independently owned and sells in the 300,000 case range – close to 400,000 ten years ago. The signature and mainstay drink is still the Rusty Nail (one part Drambuie and one part scotch on the rocks). Although, the company has worked hard at contemporizing the drink choices and has also introduced upmarket line extensions based on the age of the scotch.

There is no question but that Drambuie has a unique taste that is, according to their website, “a unique blend of aged Scotch whisky with a secret combination of spices, heather honey and herbs.”

To address the brand’s image problems, the London ad agency, Sell! Sell! Has come up with a campaign called “A Taste of the Extraordinary.” According to Adweek, the “ad features all sorts of odd characters in a surreal and foreboding landscape.” The message seems to be that “Drambuie is the favored booze of those trapped in an existential hell from which there is no escape.”

Huh? It’s just booze folks.

Nevertheless, it’s a fun ad that’s just in time for Halloween. Unfortunately, it will run in Canada and the UK. Guess they don’t know how important Halloween is for US booze sales.

What’s your opinion of the ad?

Note: If you receive this via email, you may have to view it on http://www.boozebusiness.com

Sorel is a startup spirits venture from a company called Jack From Brooklyn. Jack Summers and his partners, Alan Camet and Rich Nazario, run it.

If you are a regular reader of Booze Business, you know that I’ve been following the adventures of Jack and his associates and have written about their efforts on a number of occasions (see April 27, June 5 and June 13^th postings this year). It’s a blog meets startup meets reality show.

Well, the summer has gone by and I spoke with Jack Summers about what they have been doing. Here’s the conversation:
Read more…

Bond. James Bond. Since 1956, he has been drinking his famous vodka martinis, shaken not stirred, of course.
But in the upcoming film, Skyfall, Bond, has dropped his favorite libation for a Heineken. The brewer has signed a reported $28 million deal that goes beyond placement. The result is the ad below.
Read more…

Carlton Draught in Australia produced an award-winning ad, “The Beer Chase.” The ad won the best of August award from a media, marketing and entertainment magazine in that country.
So far, it has had over 3.2 million views on YouTube. It’s about a classic cops and robbers car chase but entirely on foot. You don’t want them to drink and drive, do you?
I think it’s an excellent ad – from concept to execution. What’s your opinion?
(By the way, if you are getting this post by email, you might not be able to click on it below. In that case go to the website http://www.boozebusiness.com)

Prohibition Bakery on the lower eastside of New York City (9 Clinton St) just opened a few weeks ago and is my kind of bakery. They are, according to their website, NYC’s original alcohol cupcake company.

They have a variety of mini cupcakes made with liquor, beer or wine that are just delicious. You taste the alcohol but it is balanced with the rest of the ingredients. Eat enough and you can expect to get a buzz. You may have to show proof of legal drinking age. (For some reason they didn’t ask for mine.)

The store is an entrepreneurial effort by two very smart women, Leslie Feinberg and Brook Siem, with baking, culinary, bartending experience, and with an instinctive understanding of branding and marketing.

Are you ready?
Read more…

Ad Age magazine gave the “creativity pick of the day” award (Aug. 30) to Murphy’s Beer for an ad that goes one up on Budweiser.
It seems that Bud released a summer app that lowers the price of beer, as the weather gets hotter. Huh? Obviously Budweiser doesn’t know very much about Irish weather. On our trip there in July, it was cool and raining most of the time. For me at least, that was a wonderful part of being in Ireland.
Murphy’s, on the other hand, knows that summer means lots of rain and, since they are Irish, came up with their own weather-related app. They give you a free pint of stout when it rains.
Read more…

The ad below was just released by Brown Forman’s Southern Comfort brand. It’s the first effort by Wieden + Kennedy in New York. The campaign is called “Whatever’s Comfortable” and runs on YouTube and the brand’s Facebook page. It will also run on national TV.
I’ll give you my take on it but first, have a look.

My informal and very unscientific survey revealed a mixed reaction. “I don’t get it,” said one of my participants, “What’s the message… where’s the brand sell?”
On the other hand, there were those who – like myself – thought that it’s excellent on a number of levels. He has an “everyday/everyman look” and the message of whatever is comfortable comes through loud and clear. Whether you like it or not, you have to give it an A+ on the production values – the glasses and shoes he is wearing, the dog, the other people and, above all, the music is well chose.
Oh, and about the brand sell in the ad coming at the very end, all I can say is if you’re watching this on social media, you know the brand because you clicked on it.

Ad Age, Buffalo Trace Newsletter, Wine and Spirits Daily, Shanken News Daily and others have all had stories about Cider and its potential as the next “craft” brew.

At first I thought – no way. Cider (Hard Cider that is) has been around for centuries and never caught on. Most people I know who have come here from the UK, sooner or later miss Cider and wonder why Americans don’t drink it. I don’t know why that is – no acquired taste for it; perceptions that it’s too sweet; dislike of apple juice; confusion about what it is; just because it’s not in consumers’ frame of reference. There are lots of reasons.

Read more…

Too many choices.

Research in Motion (RIM), the makers of BlackBerrys, is having some problems. Their stock is down, the new line of products has been delayed for a year and there are rumors of corporate sharks looking to take a bite out of them.

In the view of most observers, the problem stems from too many choices. Since 2007, they have introduced 37 models including BlackBerrys that flip, slide, with touch screens, touch screens and keyboards, high and low end products. The product line is too complicated. In a recent NY Times article, a market research firm estimated that their market share slipped from almost half in 2009 to roughly 10 percent in the US.

Compare that to Apple’s iPhone. There have only been four since 2008 and all were the same but differed only in storage or capabilities from earlier models. Apple made it simple and less is more.

Read more…

Quite a bit of press about social media in general and Facebook in particular this week. All of which, of course, relates to the booze business.

First, in the US, DISCUS (Distilled Spirits Council of the United States) has rolled out new guidelines for marketing on social media sites and digital platforms. According to what I read in Wine and Spirits Daily, the European Forum for Responsible Drinking has joined DISCUS in that initiative. Among other things, the DISCUS code requires that 71.6% of the audience be of legal drinking age.

Guess what? Nielsen data shows that Facebook, Twitter and YouTube have legal drinking age audiences in excess of 80%. Nevertheless, the DISCUS guidelines (code of responsible practices) are clear and push hard in favor of responsibility. Those of us in the industry understand a basic principle in such matters – the appearance of impropriety is as bad as the impropriety itself. There are steps including “age gating,” monitoring of content and other restrictions. Good for you, DISCUS.

Next, we learned this week that Diageo and Facebook have worked out a multimillion-dollar deal to work together and share skills and resources for mutual benefit. The Guardian quotes a Diageo spokesperson as saying the deal will “drive unprecedented levels of integration and joint business planning and experimentation between the two companies.”

Translation – this is still a new medium and we can learn a lot from each other.

(This is one of those rare moments when I tip my hat to Diageo and applaud their initiative. Although, there was one item in the press that caught my eye and made me laugh. It was something like Diageo wants to tap Facebook’s large audience in markets like Brazil, where the two companies occupy the same office building in Sao Paolo. Oh, and if they were in a different part of town, no deal?)

In any event, in the UK, this new relationship did not go over well. From what I read online, the negative reaction ranged from “serious concerns” from the British Medical Association to “torches and pitchfork” rants from the anti-alcohol forces.

Come on people, Facebook and Diageo can target legal drinking age consumers and put up safe guards to keep young people out. You can’t do that with billboards or newspapers. Perhaps manufacturers should hand out blindfolds in front of every billboard in the UK where a young person is likely to walk past.

Finally, Facebook announced new features this week that include sharing more than just informing. They hope to become a “taste maker” and influencer of products and services. The reaction has been mixed with pundits and bloggers weighing in on both sides. An unscientific poll among Mashable readers indicates as much as 75% hate the news feed changes.

Time will tell whether the relationship between Facebook and Diageo is a smart move for both, or, Facebook will become the next social media darling to wane in its appeal. But with well over 300 million users worldwide, I continue to think that Diageo’s move was right on the money – despite how much it pains me to say that.

This week’s issue of Advertising Age has a story about flavored whiskey with the headline “Brown liquors get shot of flavor as distillers look to broaden audience.” The sub headline – “Can cherry bourbon and Tabasco SoCo woo women without scaring off men?”

Right off the bat, a few things bothered me. Brown liquors? Careful Ad Age, your bias is showing.

As to the appeal to women, I suppose that’s correct but the real story is innovating the whiskey category to broaden its appeal – to all audiences, not just women – and to expand usage occasions as well.

Ad Age also forgot the brand that created the category in the first place – Wild Turkey American Honey that was launched in 2006 and has been a big seller since then.

Here’s my view on the flavored whiskey category.

When Beam introduced Red Stag by Jim Beam (Black Cherry), many people (myself included) didn’t think it would work. But I at least gave them credit for a brand extension rather than a line extension. What’s the difference? As my friends at Absolut used to say, if you add an extension, it must feed the brand not eat the brand. Extend usage and consumers without cannibalizing the core franchise.

Launched in 2009, Red Stag sold 100,000 cases that year and 190,000 in 2010. I’m told that by the end of 2011 the brand will have sold 500,000 cases since the launch. Further, according to Nielsen data, Red Stag accounted for 15% of all the growth in the Bourbon category in 2010. That, my friends, is feeding the brand.

The attractive thing about Red Stag is that it’s “Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey Infused with Natural Flavors.” At 80 proof, it’s whiskey not a liqueur. It’s the only one on the market that’s whiskey according to the regulations.

Based on the success, the race is on.

Brown Forman has two entries in the market both interesting, but more whiskey specialty and liqueur than Beam’s entry. Jack Daniel’s Tennessee Honey is a 70 proof product, has great reviews and is more expensive than Red Stag. Gutsy pricing move.

Even gutsier is the Southern Comfort entry – Southern Comfort Fiery Pepper. It’s a liqueur (like the base brand and the Lime extension) at 70 proof. As the name suggests, it’s certainly not fruity and is co-branded with Tabasco hot sauce.

The Evan Williams folks (Heaven Hill) introduced Evan Williams Honey Reserve and are launching a Cherry Reserve. Both at 70 proof, they are classified as liqueurs.

In addition to brands, the race seems to be between cherry and honey.

Which brings me to the Seagram’s 7 Crown entries – Dark Honey and Stone Cherry. (Can someone tell me what a stone cherry is? How is it different from a cherry without a stone? Sounds like a brand manager hoping consumers will add a “d” to the word stone.)

This one is worthy of some further comments, as though I could resist.

First, it’s probably a good idea – what do they have to lose and 7 Crown could use the face-lift. Second, the brands are 71 proof, not 70. That’s probably because the flavorings have alcohol and those amounts are not taxable. I think it’s called draw back credit. Third, it sells for $19.99 or about the same price as Red Stag. That’s more than gutsy — that’s chutzpah.

Flavored whiskeys could be just the ticket to revise and grow the whiskey market. It changes perceptions, increases usage and brings non-whiskey drinkers into the mix.

Somewhere, Mr. Sam (founder of Seagram) is spinning in his grave.

Unless you’ve spent the last ten years in a cave, you’re aware of social media and it’s impact. You may not be a fan or use Facebook, Twitter and the like, but it certainly has changed the way we communicate and interact. In marketing, social media can readily build or damage brands.

My friend Joan Treistman of The Treistman Group alerted me to an interesting piece of market research dealing with the importance of brand discussions on social media. I think it’s worth sharing.

A study sponsored by a company called Performics and reported in the Center for Media Research, indicates that 52% of those surveyed believe that voicing opinions on social networking sites can influence brand or company business decisions.

More importantly, the survey goes on to describe the influence of social media on consumers in various product categories. For example, nearly three quarters of respondents who purchase entertainment products discuss them on social networks.

The influence of social networks on alcohol is strong as well – 43% discuss purchases on social networks; 15% claim to have actually made a purchase as a result of social network content. The reasons for discussing alcohol beverages are based on brand loyalty (36%) to compare prices (25%) and to give advice (18%).

Most interesting of all, the reasons for following the alcohol beverage category, among half of the respondents, is that they are loyal customers of a particular  brand.

I couldn’t find a single major brand of spirits that didn’t have a Facebook page created by the brand and/or consumers. But presence is not the same as impact. If you Google Top Facebook Pages and Why They’re Successful, you won’t find a booze brand but you will find Red Bull, Coca Cola and even Jones Soda.

Obviously the industry has to deal with audience age composition issues that may put it at a disadvantage versus other brands. But who said it was easy? It’s called creativity.

Seems as though everywhere you go in NYC, you run into an ad for Malibu Black. It’s a new entry that according to the owners seeks to combine the smooth coconut flavor that you love with higher proof and less sweetness for a bolder taste of the Caribbean.

Translation: We’ve been watching the Flavored Rum category and finally noticed that Sailor Jerry was changing the Rum game so we thought we would follow along.

In fact, higher-proof, dark and spiced Rums are doing well. According to Shanken News Daily, Sailor Jerry (92 proof) grew by 59% in 2010 to 635,000 cases. The team that invented it now runs Proximo and their recent entry, Kraken (94 proof) sold 75,000 cases in its first year. The other three or four new entries in this sub-category are still trying to gain traction.

A few observations:

Seems to me, the 6 million case gorilla known as Captain Morgan, is stuck at the dock (including the 100 proof entry) while the flotilla sails off. Admiral Nelson and others are growing at the expense of the base brand and the line extensions don’t seem to be helping. Someone needs to walk the plank.

Malibu Black? Higher proof at 70? It’s still a coconut Rum without an image likely to appeal to the Sailor Jerry or Kraken drinker. Can’t you just hear the conversation leading up to the launch – “let’s make a dark rum, up the proof a bit and call it Black… a sure winner…well gotta run, don’t want to miss the 5:40.”

I had a number of conversations with James Espey about Malibu over the years. James, along with Tom Jago and Peter Fleck, created the brand. (Currently they also are the owners of Last Drop Distillers Limited.)

James has written an interesting article called The True Story of Malibu. The article raises some interesting concepts on the creation of Malibu that are still applicable to the brand and new entries in general. (Send me an email or hit the comment box if you’d like a copy.)

James points out that Malibu succeeded because the product innovation was bold and outside the box. That was facilitated by an entrepreneurial spirit and effort that managed to overcome corporate obstacles. Above all, instinct and tenacity were key elements rather than studying the concept to death.

These elements apply to Sailor Jerry and to Kraken, in my view. Which helps to explain why the spirits industry giants are better at buying new brands than creating them.

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.

I came across an interesting and fun piece in Ad Age Daily I wanted to share with you, in case you haven’t seen it.

Derek Walker, whom I’ve never met but hope to, has a blog about advertising. He describes himself as “the janitor, secretary and mailroom person for his tiny agency, brown and browner advertising based in Columbia, S.C.” So right off the bat I like him.

His posting in Ad Age was called, Clients Say the Funniest Things. Since I’ve been on both sides of the desk I found his client quotes and reactions to advertising creative to be right on target and very funny.

So to those of you on the agency side, please enjoy. Those of you on the client side, well, here’s what some of your counterparts elsewhere, ahem, sound like.

For those of you who haven’t witnessed the presentation of creative messages and the reactions, this will be a window on the dance that sometimes takes place.

Here’s the interesting part — these reactions often happen to marketers themselves when they present creative work to their management who, in effect, is a client.

With thanks to Derek Walker for his approval, here are some client comments he has heard:

• “We love the concept, it’s great! But can we change the visual, rework the headline and adjust the copy. Other than that we love it!”
• “We don’t want ‘friends’ or for people to ‘like’ us. We want customers.”
• “In the marketing class I took in college, the instructor said you should mention your company’s name at least seven times in a radio spot to be effective. Can we add 5 more mentions? That would make it great.”
• “We don’t want to use emotions, we’re talking to business people and they don’t have them.”
• On social media: “I get it but I’m worried that people will start talking about our product without us.”
• After laughing hilariously for a couple of moments: “That’s great! It does everything we want and it stands out. But seriously, let’s see the real work.”
• “Everyone loved the concept, then I took it home and showed it to my wife who used to be an English teacher and she said the line isn’t grammatically correct. Can you write a new headline?”
• “We can’t do this; it is nothing like what we’ve done in the past.”
• “Why talk to customers, can’t we just tell them what we offer?”
• “I don’t understand why you put in so much effort. It’s only a website. Couldn’t we just throw up something and be done with it?”
• “None of our competitors are doing or saying anything like that. How do we know it will work?”
• “We don’t want to spend any money but we want everyone to know about us, we want to be everywhere our customers are.”
• “Do we really need to be creative? I mean, isn’t our product great enough to attract attention?”
• “I don’t believe in advertising, we’re only doing this because our competitors are.”
• “I sure miss the days when all we had to do was produce a calendar with tits and ass and everyone was happy.”

For some of us in the booze business, the last one really resonates.

My own personal favorite is when a presenter of creative gets pushback from the client and asks for specifics on how to address the concerns. Too many times, I’ve heard the phrase, “I can’t tell you… I’ll know it when I see it.”

Think about E.T. and Reese’s Pieces. Smirnoff and James Bond. “You’ve Got Mail” and Starbuck’s.

Product placements in film and TV, depending on whom you talk to, are considered a critical brand building or reinforcement tool. There are some, however, who see it as low impact — it’s ok if you don’t have to pay for it.

In doing a little research on the subject lately, I’ve come across some interesting information.

First, consider this from a study on the subject: (Link)

“…the type of product-placement an advertiser opts for should depend on their marketing goals. If you want to build awareness … it’s probably best to opt for a placement that plays a role in the story itself. But if you just want to reinforce preferences for a well-known brand (say, “Coke” versus “Pepsi”), it’s probably not necessary to go to that expense. Just having your brand in the movie works just as well.

Second, I spoke to Joel Henrie who runs Motion Picture Placement, a leader in the field and an old friend who informs me that the upcoming Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps (the sequel) had adult beverage companies tripping over themselves to pay for placement. We’re talking big bucks here.

My first exposure to product placement (albeit from a distance) was shortly after I joined Seagram. It was on behalf of Herradura Tequila.

Based on film industry connections, the company had an opportunity (which I believe turned into a mandate) to place the brand in a film called Tequila Sunrise. Aside from the title as a perfect fit, the placement involved brand exposure galore — verbal mentions, bottle exposure on the bar and consumed by the actors, signage, even a bus passing by with a Herradura ad on the side. So, there was a role for the brand in the story, not a central role, but the title alone made the brand a key element.

Even more, Tequila Sunrise was star studded and sure to have target audience appeal. Mel Gibson, Michelle Pfeiffer and Kurt Russell starred; Robert Towne wrote and directed the movie. A sure thing, right?

The movie sucked and never lived up to its promise. A Variety review summed it up nicely: “There’s not much kick in this cocktail, despite its mix of quality ingredients.” Roger Ebert wrote, “It’s hard to surrender yourself to a film that seems to be toying with you.”

The small number of people who saw the film agreed.

I’ve always been a proponent of product placement and integration. To me, it makes good sense as a brand-building tool. But, I’ve learned the following:

• Positive impact on a brand is not a foregone conclusion. No matter how well the product is shown and integrated, sometimes, the only winner is the TV or film producer. But, that’s true for all media.
• For adult beverages, how the product is portrayed is as important as the portrayal itself. Enough said.
• If the story doesn’t click with audiences, the brand becomes “collateral damage.” Unfortunately, there’s no real way to predict it, but worth the shot.

Have you noticed what E.T. did for Reese’s Pieces? As I’ve been told, it was first offered to Mars on behalf of M&Ms and they turned it down. Hershey said yes.

The Gulfstream took off from Stockholm’s Arlanda airport with a full load of executives, all of whom had the satisfaction of knowing that the global distribution rights to Absolut were signed, sealed and delivered.

If you’ve ever flown on a corporate jet, you know how great it is. You board quickly and easily, take off on time (or even ahead of time) and generally are met on the tarmac a few steps from the plane and off you go.

Despite this great convenience, I’ve heard people complain about the absence of frequent flier miles, which always makes me laugh at the silliness of the thought. For me, however, this particular flight had one disadvantage — it was full of Seagram brass. Every one of the 14 seats was taken and there was no place to hide. And, every one of the 14 had 5 or 6 ideas about marketing and how best to grow the brand further. After all, we were taking over the brand from the legendary Michel Roux who grew the brand with a series of innovative and effective marketing actions.

While getting the brand elated us, we were also mindful of the daunting task ahead. Especially the marketing guy…me.

This was best summed up by the owner who, after laying out his thoughts and vision, said, “Arturo, I have four words for you — don’t f**k it up.”

Michel Roux was indeed a hard act to follow. Carillon Importers was part of a large corporation, but he ran the brand entrepreneurially, with vision and resources to take this fledgling brand to renowned marketing levels.

There is a great story about Michel’s brand champion efforts that I recently asked him to confirm. I wasn’t sure if it was true or a booze business myth.

It seems he was in the Detroit airport waiting to depart when he noticed a man wearing an Absolut t-shirt. Alarm bells went off in his head for two reasons. First, there were no Absolut t-shirts and he and didn’t want them, so clearly it was counterfeit. Second and most important, the man in question (according to Michel) must have weighed over 350 pounds and despite the triple XL size, it was a very snug fit.

Clearly bothered by his brand portrayed in such a manner, Roux stopped the man, told him he was looking for that particular t-shirt and offered him $100 to buy it. The man accepted the generous offer. They went to a souvenir store, bought a replacement and now Michel owned it.

The man left happy with this transaction and the Absolut t-shirt was promptly tossed in the trash.

True story.

In my opinion, the Absolut brand has gone through 4 periods in its development. The first era was with M. Roux and Carillon Importers. Next came the Seagram years and further, albeit different, growth. The third period was one in which the brand began to languish despite the efforts of some (but not all) capable people. Today, the ownership of the brand is in the hands of Pernod Ricard with the difficult task of once again polishing its luster.

I plan to cover the Absolut story from these vantage points in the future.

The last posting about Seagram and vodka neglected to point out that while there were difficulties in the category (pre Absolut) the company had phenomenal growth with Seagram’s Gin, Crown Royal and Captain Morgan.

In fact, Captain Morgan is a case study — in spirits and other businesses — about how to develop, nurture and grow a brand when all oars in the water are pulling in the same direction. I’ll go into this in more detail another time.

For now, let’s look at some numbers.

Currently, Captain Morgan Original Spiced Rum plus Parrott Bay sells over 6 million cases in the US. But, for the first time in its history, the brand had a down year in 2009. This is probably due, in part, to the economy but also a function of the growth of Rum brands like Sailor Jerry and Admiral Nelson — both brands grew by double digits from ’08 to ’09.

Further, from the birth of the brand until the close of Seagram, Captain Morgan had a Compound Annual Growth Rate of over 16%. For the past 8 or 9 years the CAGR was less than half of that.

Could be due to a number of things…a new generation of drinkers with new Rum tastes and interests, a changing competitive climate, the inevitability of brand life cycles, portfolio focus elsewhere, all of the above and other reasons.

For those who worked on the brand back in the day, I’d bet that among the most vivid recollections is hitting the million cases mark. It took well over ten years for the brand to hit that number in 1995. But it took much less time to hit two million cases.

In fact, between the planning for a million cases celebration and the event itself, the brand doubled its volume.

That, my friends, is called momentum.

It took years to get the owners of Godiva Chocolatier to license the brand for a chocolate liqueur. It took a lot less time to learn that building the brand would not be easy.

Despite the absence of a meaningful liqueur in the portfolio, distribution was slow and since liqueurs are not a fast moving category, the turnover rate was even slower.

There’s a great story of a Seagram executive who goes to a Chinese restaurant on Long Island and, while he and his family are waiting for a table, he spots a bottle of Godiva on the back bar. This is the last type of restaurant he would expect to find the product and figures that the distributor sales rep that sold the account must be at the top of his game. What could he have said about the brand that got this small neighborhood restaurant to order it?

He goes up to the owner and says, “What did the salesman tell you to get you to take in the Godiva?” The owner, looked a bit puzzled at first, then smiled and said in a thick Cantonese accent, “Oh, he say two free vodkas if I buy the Godiva.”

After much research and thought, we came to the conclusion that despite the power of the brand name, there was a discontinuity between the expectation of the chocolate taste and the delivery of the product. When you say chocolate to people, they think, chewy, sweet and unique mouth feel. This is hard to deliver in a liquid product without ending up gloppy. So for many, the expectation was chocolate but the product delivered a Kahlua-like consistency.

We had to move out of the chocolate-only world and get closer to cream liqueurs. Two line extensions were introduced, a cappuccino/chocolate and a white chocolate, both cream products.

These strategic line extensions had a number of benefits. First, the facings went from 2 to 6 and the billboard effect on the shelf got the brand noticed and bought. Second, despite the adages not to line extend from weakness, the new forms actually benefitted the base brand (original), which started to grow. A brand that was languishing in the 10,000 cases range grew to nearly 50,000. After Diageo got it, it grew to over 100,000 cases.

I noticed that the brand dropped back to 50,000 in 2009. I also noticed that Campbell sold Godiva Chocolatier to a Turkish company called Yildiz. But I don’t know whether Diageo still has the license and distributes it. Anyone know the status of the brand?

One thing I can tell you is that if you see a bottle of Godiva on the back bar of any Chinese restaurant on Long Island, I bet it’s been there since 1995.

Sort of raises the question about spirits brands and what I like to call ‘borrowed credentials’ – also known as licensed or endorsed brands. Stay tuned…

Maurice Kanbar is among a select group of entrepreneurs who have changed the spirits industry. And, he’s still at it.

Like my earlier posting about David van de Velde, Maurice is another visionary businessman who has spent a lifetime on finding a hole and filling it. Maurice has been inventing, designing and developing a host of products ranging from films and how we watch them, to surgical instruments, to things, that when we see them, we say “now why didn’t I think of that?” The man has thirty patents and products to his credit.

I first met him in the early days of Skyy Spirits when I was sent on a fool’s errand to see if he would be willing to chat about an acquisition. This was in the late 1990s and the brand was just starting its ascendency. We were feeling the effects of its growth and one of the geniuses in Sweden thought we might be able to “buy him out.” After just a few minutes of chatting, he asked the key question – why sell while the brand is still growing. Duh. Sure got my respect.

But what I really admire about him is his judgment and intuition balanced by the tenacity of an inventive mind.

Examples:

He complains to a doctor friend that he gets headaches and a hangover from Cognac. His friend explains about congeners and tells him to drink vodka. The next thing that happens, he studies the world of spirits, makes advancements to the distillation and filtering systems and creates Skyy Vodka.

At the time, no one in the food or beverage business used blue for packaging – don’t ask me why…I once got my butt chewed for presenting a new product in blue packaging. Maurice didn’t let this narrow, stay in the box thinking confine him. I don’t know for sure, but I suppose he was thinking Skyy = blue. Another duh.

When his brand starts growing, he’s smart enough to surround himself with people who know the business like Foglio and Ruvo.

So he’s an interesting guy, to say the least.

His newest effort is Blue Angel Vodka, which he says is based on further advancements in distillation that produces an ultra smooth product. But the really cool part about it, in my opinion, is that the inventor has further increased his marketing skills. First, his signature drink is the Blue Angel Martini (BAM as he calls it) made with blue curacao. Also, I like his tongue-in-cheek slogan – “the world’s second best vodka; we’re still looking for the best.”

On second thought maybe he should stick to inventing.

If it doesn’t sell, it isn’t creative. David Ogilvy (O&M)

In the modern world of business, it is useless to be a creative, original thinker unless you can also sell what you create. David Ogilvy.

Is creativity in brand communication getting better, getting worse or staying the same?

Ad agency execs will tell you that creativity is alive and well and that memorable and effective advertising is as prevalent today as it was in the past. They will also add that the fragmentation of media creates an environment whereby delivering a highly effective message is diffused and expensive. And, the new media options (digital) require new forms of creativity.

The detractors will take the view that the demise of mainstream media has hurt creativity but not as much as the changes in the advertising business itself. They point out that only small, independent shops can replicate the talent of the past. The large agencies are too busy worrying about overhead and financials than concentrating on the quality of the work.

An ad agency executive friend of mine who sold his shop to one of the conglomerates tells the story of an annual agency-wide meeting a few years ago:

All the company Presidents were asked to report on the activities of their business unit. Speaker after speaker – from New York to New Delhi – talked about revenues, profitability, new business development, overhead, etc. Finally one exec from a highly creative firm couldn’t stand it anymore and got up and shouted, “Are we ever going to talk about the f*****g work we produce?”

What’s your view? Is the advertising creative in the booze business better or worse than it used to be? Hit the comment button to the upper right of this posting and let me know your view. Or, send me an email.

Finally, the most appropriate quote from David Ogilvy for this blog…

Many people – and I think I am one of them – are more productive when they’ve had a little to drink. I find if I drink two or three brandies, I’m far better able to write.

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

Two of my favorite quotes about advertising:

“Every advertisement should be thought of as a contribution to the complex symbol, which is the brand image.” David Ogilvy (O&M)

“I have always believed that writing advertisements is the second most profitable form of writing. The first, of course, is ransom notes…” Phil Dusenberry (BBDO)

Years ago when I was in marketing research, the CEO of a midsized company and a good friend asked me to conduct some focus groups on a new campaign his ad agency had developed. After doing the work, I came back with the recommendation that he proceed – the message was in line with the strategy and consumers liked the creative effort.

He kept challenging me on each and every positive insight I shared with him. Finally, in exasperation I asked my friend/client what is the problem. He looked at me and said, “Arthur, there is nothing you can tell me that will change how I feel. I hate the campaign.” “So why did you bother to hire me to test it,” I asked. “I was hoping consumers would hate it as well. Now I’ll just kill it on my own.”

Our debate continued. “What don’t you like about it?” “I just don’t like it,” was the reply. “Well why not give your agency some guidelines for what you’re looking for?”

“Listen” he said, “I’ll know good advertising when I see it.”

Oh, it’s good to be the CEO.

This blog has given me the opportunity to re-connect with friends and to make new ones like David van de Velde whose business motto is the headline for this posting.

In addition to being a very smart and affable fellow, David is an interesting entrepreneur and created Ketel One and Van Gogh Vodkas. In that regard, he changed the spirits industry.

I hope one day to write his full story but here are a few things that make him so interesting.

Let’s start with the motto. In an age of me-tooism, finding a hole and filling it speaks volumes about brand development strategies.

Not long after Seagram got Absolut Vodka, I kept hearing about this new brand, Ketel One, which was unique in its packaging, name, underlying concept and one other “outrageous” factor… a price at a significant premium to the category.

In addition, they concentrated on bartenders and servers and used videos and events to tell the story and even special olives for a martini. Everywhere I went at the time, all I heard was how we needed to learn from the Ketel One folks.

Many people think that the ultra premium vodka market was created by Grey Goose when, in fact, by the time Grey Goose came along, Ketel was already doing 200,000 cases.

David’s understanding of consumers is very impressive. He describes the target customer for high-end vodkas at that time as someone who wears Armani suits without pockets. Someone who walks into a bar and is holding the following – car keys with a Mercedes or BMW logo, an expensive cell phone and a wallet chocked full of goodies. No pockets. The question he asked himself is – would this person drink anything but a top shelf brand?

After Ketel One, he created Van Gogh vodka and brought the flavored category to new levels.

A little birdie told me he will be celebrating a milestone birthday this week so congratulations and keep finding and filling those holes.