Jameson, Diageo and Seagram…

Having just returned from a holiday in the Emerald Isle, I thought I would share some thoughts, especially about my favorite topic.

Jameson

Seagram had the distribution rights to this Irish whiskey for quite some time and, frankly, didn’t do much with it. With the exception of St. Patrick’s Day promotions and pushing the Irish Coffee drink, the brand went nowhere for years. I suppose it’s understandable, with millions of scotch sales at the heart of the portfolio, there was little room for this great brand. Read more…

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.

In keeping with the theme of the last few postings on sales promotion, dealer loaders and assorted point of sale issues, I thought I would continue that theme particularly in light of the holiday season. The Advertising and Promotion Awards in the Nov/Dec issue of Beverage Dynamics also prompted me to address this subject.

First, for the uninformed, the Urban Dictionary defines Tsotchke as “free goods given by companies to consumers, buyers, trade-show participants or other target audiences to promote brand recognition or customer loyalty.”

So, here are some points of view on the subject including some picks and pans from yours truly…

The most consistent and impactful POS has to go to the Absolut folks, particularly their multi-case floor displays. In fact, Beverage Dynamics gave it 1^st place for 2010. No wonder, since Carol Giaconelli at Pernod Ricard (and a Seagram alumnae) is among the most imaginative sales promotion people I know. Even after working on Absolut for many years and for different regimes, Carol maintains her creative edge.

While I’m on the subject, I suppose the Hall of Fame for floor displays with loader items has to be the Captain Morgan mirror. According to Sam Ellias, the CM guru back in the day, that promotion was a prominent reason for the brand’s early success. Apparently, all a sales person had to do was to show the mirror in order to get the question, “how many cases do I need to buy?”

I managed to find a photo online. Despite it’s popularity at the time, you can still get one on eBay for under $25.

Now to the pans…

There are lots of awards in Beverage Dynamics for co-packs, gift packs and cartons/tins. The so-called value added packaging. Sorry, but I still don’t get it. In this environment manufacturers expect to entice consumers with Tsotchkes? If you want to measure effectiveness go to a flea market or eBay after the holidays and you’ll find glasses, shakers and pitchers galore. I wouldn’t be surprised if most of them came from retailers.

The Hall of Shame best/worst sales promotion item of all time came under my watch on behalf of Coyote Tequila. Don’t get me wrong the promotion item was great. It was a back bar pedestal with a howling Coyote as the centerpiece with a bottle on the base. Each time the bartender picked up the bottle a button was triggered and the sound of a howling Coyote was heard. Very cool. Very effective.

Just one small problem — Coyote Tequila tasted like crap. As the saying goes, “I wouldn’t drink it with your mouth.”

And now, dear reader, I have two questions for you.

Care to share your nominees for the best and worst promotions you’ve seen now or in the past? Either hit the comment button or send me an email.

Also, as I went through the 40 advertising and promotion awards by Beverage Dynamics, there were lots of first, second or third place winners from many major suppliers — Brown Forman, Heaven Hill, Skyy/Campari, Pernod, Bacardi and others. None were from Diageo. I wonder why? It could be that their market position and brand shares allows them to spend in other ways. That would explain the dearth of POS recognition. But no ads, traditional or digital, made it either. Huh.

As we used to say in Brooklyn, wait ‘til next year.

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.

A very close and dear friend from the Seagram days told me the following story about another charitable dinner event that I’d like to share…

One of the Seagram companies in the past was Four Roses and they had a metro New York manager named Nick Cotter. Nick was not only an ex-cop in NYC but he had been shot five times in a police action/raid. He nearly died and in fact was taken for dead if not for the persistence of an emergency medic.

After months and months of recovery and rehabilitation Nick was on his feet and decided on a new line of work. Four Roses hired him. Nick turned out to be very important to Seagram inasmuch as he became a conduit to the police and fire departments when things needed to get done. (More about this at another time.)

Well, as the story goes, shortly after joining the company he was at a charity dinner. But, in those days there were no pre-meeting to announce your “gift” – you were expected to announce it publicly in a ballroom with 500+ people.

As they were going down the list, someone from Schenley was called and announced, “Schenley Distillers is proud to donate one million dollars.”

Nick Carter, who didn’t know what to expect or make of this event in the first place, was called next. His colleagues were hysterical thinking that they put one over on him.

He stood up, was very calm and announced, “I donate one million and twenty-five dollars from Schenley and Nick Cotter.”

The room erupted in laughter.

I recently learned that the Wine & Spirits Division Dinner of the UJA-Federation of NY is honoring Charlie Merinoff. It made me think of a couple of things.

First, Charlie is a good guy and one of the brightest people in the industry. The Merinoff family has been great for this business and Charlie is a real mensch. It’s an excellent cause and they can use his support. I hope the dinner raises a bundle.

I also thought about the Seagram experience with the UJA fund raising event. It wasn’t pleasant. Here goes…

I came to Seagram as the VP Marketing Research, so I started in a senior position. That was in the spring of none-of-your-business. Three months later I received a memo telling me to report to The Glenlivet Tavern on the 5^th floor of 375 Park Ave. for the UJA “meeting” of the executive group. I had no idea what to make of this gathering. The folks who were on my staff said things like “Uh-ho, they are going to call you by name and expect you to announce your contribution to the annual spirits and wine fund drive for the UJA; going to cost you lots of money but don’t worry the company will match your gift.” What?

I quickly  realized that 1) this was organized extortion 2) I didn’t want to appear stingy 3) I also didn’t want to appear obsequious and 4) it was a good cause but why do I have to stand up and publically declare my gift? I later learned that it was the “tithe” that made the family look good. (Although, in fairness, I should add that the Bronfmans always made a significant contribution in their own right. But, their gift, plus the executives’ gift plus matching funds meant that the Seagram “family” would be giving enough to sustain a small developing nation for a year.)

I came to the decision that I had to do what I had to do and decided on a number that my staff had suggested. You don’t want to know how much. It was over the top.

So I was locked and loaded and ready for the “calling of names” at the meeting. Unbeknownst to me, my colleagues had been through this many times before and knew how to beat the system. They called each other beforehand and decided on the amount that would be given by each managerial level. (Hey folks, thanks for telling me!)

Since my name begins with an S, I had ample opportunity to see what my associates were giving. My planned contribution was way out of whack. I quickly made a readjustment downward.

Lessons learned: After only 3 months I realized it was us against them. I also learned that the advice you got from some was not necessarily reliable. In short, I got the lay of the land pretty quickly.

Please forgive me if the UJA is not at the top of my charitable giving list.

Blame the Bronfman’s.

Gregg Mineo sent me the following story about Sabra Liqueur. It was originally developed and introduced in 1963 by  Edgar Sr. Currently it’s produced by Carmel wineries, I believe.

Back in the days of the Seagram Empire, before the industry centralized and contracted, there were small companies like Park Avenue Imports.  They sold cordials and niche products like Vandermint, Cherry Suisse and, of course, the inimitable Sabra.

Sabra was a quality product, made from Jaffa oranges and Swiss chocolate.  It was packaged in a unique bottle similar to a Genie bottle, but unfortunately didn’t have a long shelf life.  I think in my early days of sampling Sabra, I gave more away than I sold.  It was a hit in assisted living care facilities, and of course Miami.

Well, as the story goes, one of the established retailers in Miami started selling Sabra at a brisk pace, and developed a loyal following, especially with a particular gentleman who was buying a bottle once a month.  He began buying it before the brand took off in this store, and one day came back to return one of the bottles he purchased.  He complained that this bottle of Sabra was not the same product he was used to, that it lacked something special he really enjoyed.

The retailer asked what the difference was, and the customer responded that “it didn’t have the chocolate bits in it.”

Stifling a laugh, the retailer offered him something else; all the while knowing that the bottles of Sabra the customer was used to had passed the expected shelf life. Obviously, the customer didn’t care.

What I want to know is — were the chocolate bits available at no extra charge?

I was talking to a fellow Seagram Alum the other day and the conversation turned to what made Seagram unique and where people are today.

He pointed out that ex-Seagram folks occupy top positions in many companies in the industry.

He’s right; all of the top 5 spirits companies have former Seagram people in very senior spots. When you think about it further, the Seagram folks play important roles throughout the industry – suppliers, distributors, retailers and service providers.

I suppose it’s because of a number of things that characterized the company back in the day. Perhaps it was the combination of self-confidence (some would say arrogance) and humbleness. A belief that there was a Seagram way to do things and getting it done didn’t have to be in an overbearing manner. Strength of conviction combined with respect.

Me? I think Seagram people learned to adapt, survive, flourish and succeed because of the common enemy. Sort of like a successful person who grew up with dysfunctional parents but knew he could survive if he relied on his siblings. In short, it’s called camaraderie.

They did us a favor by shutting the lights.

The Bronfman family changed the face of the booze business in America. Old Mr. Sam, regardless of what he did or did not do during prohibition, was smart enough when it ended to hold off shipping goods until they aged, had great taste and would command a premium price.

In his grandson’s office – that would be Edgar Bronfman Jr. – there was a photo of Mr. Sam with the caption, “shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations.” That was his way of saying from nothing to nothing. In a biography on A&E, Edgar Jr. looked into the camera and earnestly said, “not on my watch.”

Not long after, at the turn of the century, the “genius,” as he was referred to, sold the birthright for a song.

No worries…the family holdings must have gone from $8 Billion to $3 Billion, I suppose. But, still a boatload of money.

Not quite shirtsleeves but prophetic nonetheless.