Industry Matters/News | Booze Business: A Blog Dedicated to the Business of Spirits and Wine

Industry Matters/News, Marketing and Sales, New Brands

Borrowed Credentials or… Mention my name and it will sell

August 21, 2010 3 Comments

Borrowed credentials is a term I like to use when a brand “borrows” something or someone to identify with, such as a brand name or a person as the endorser.

The intent is the “approval” or “license” to give a brand some prominence. But, more often than not, it doesn’t seem to work.

Three categories will help you to see where I’m going:

A brand that has licensed the name from another business or category. Godiva, for example.
A brand closely identified with a star or celebrity. Such as, Ciroc.
(My favorite) A brand named after a star or celebrity.

So here we go…

Licensed Brand Name

The two that come most readily to mind are Godiva and Starbuck’s, both in the liqueur category. I gotta tell you that I thought Godiva would be a crack-of-the-bat homerun. And, I wanted to license Starbuck’s so badly, I could taste it. Alas, neither has set the world on fire.

Association with a star or celebrity

This is a mixed bag best characterized by the nursery rhyme… “There once was a girl with a curl in the middle of her forehead. When she was good she was very, very good but when she was bad she was horrid.”

So in the “good” category we have (not necessarily in order of goodness):

Ciroc and P Diddy (forgive me if I have the wrong name; who can keep up?). Probably the gold standard in celebrity links.
Crystal Head Vodka and Dan Aykroyd — talk about chutzpah.
Cabo and Sammy Hagar — (notice I didn’t say Cabo Wabo) good for you Skyy, it’s about the product not the star.
Red Stag and Kid Rock — the brand is a homerun with or without him. But he sure does help.
Margaritaville and Jimmy Buffett — remind me to tell how this came about. But even without Seagram and me, it’s doing well. But, Land Shark beer is doing even better.

The “not so good” entries I’ve come up with so far (let me know about any I’ve missed) include some that faded faster than a cold beer on a hot day:

901 Tequila and Justin Timberlake — run that by me again? I got it but I don’t get it.
Sobieski Vodka and Bruce Willis — it’s the price point, dummy. It ain’t about you. Even if you’re still involved.
Godfather Vodka — You got to be joking.
Conjure Cognac — by Ludacris. I totally agree but ludicrous is spelled wrong.
Armadale Vodka — by Jay Z. Why don’t you ask P Diddy how it’s done?
3 Vodka — by Jermaine Dupri. Enough said.
Mansinthe — by Marilyn Manson. I didn’t make this up, folks.

Named after a star or celebrity

My favorites by far. Do I hear a drum roll?

So far I covered the good and the bad. Here comes the ugly:

Trump Vodka. He doesn’t even drink for heaven’s sake. Could be a pilot for Celebrity Booze.
Willie Nelson’s Old Whiskey River Bourbon. Enough said.
Danny Devito’s Limoncello. Close but no cigars.
Jefferson and Sam Houston Bourbon. Not kidding; Google it.
Frida Kahlo Tequila. I love her and her work but… who dun it?

And the winner is…

McMahon Vodka. Would have worked with a name like, “Here’s… Johnny.”

Lessons learned:

None of the top selling brands have borrowed credentials…unless you count Captain Morgan.

I would like to meet the people behind some of these efforts, there’s a bridge they might be interested in buying.

Where would the spirits industry be without brands to pour off?

What’s next…the Lindsey Lohan Liqueur?

Crown Royal

July 8, 2010 4 Comments

Crown Royal has always been an iconic brand. But to me it’s been a bit of a mystery.

When I first met it as a consumer, it was the brand my grandfather served when company came over. Philadelphia Whiskey was his usual fare but his Crown Royal was special.

I’m not an historian on the brand but from what I can gather over the years, at the outset it had important equities but just needed a spark. The taste was great and unlike other whiskies at the time, unique packaging inside and outside, a back story about the royal visit to Canada and very aspirational look and feel. The spark occurred when oil workers from Canada working in the Gulf of Mexico (way before the current disaster) came to Gulf cities on their night off, with pockets full of money, and wanted the best whiskey they knew from home…Crown Royal.

As the story goes, this set off the growth and proliferation of the brand, primarily in the South.

It was marketed in the Seagram days in a classic brand-building manner. ‘Push’ and ‘pull’ efforts worked together successfully and the brand grew — even while vodka was growing by leaps and bounds.

The sales and regional marketing component, orchestrated by Jim Reichardt, was top of the game. All the activity was integrated and based on strategy, from the distributor focus to programming to ‘pull’ activity at retail. Above all, carefully thought through marketing innovations were introduced under Jimmy’s watch.

On the national marketing side, programs were developed to maximize the equity – especially the bag – and develop relationships with the core consumer. And, the advertising was that unique combination of creative excellence combined with brand recognition and sell. Not your average garden-variety ad campaign.

Everything on the brand was done for strategic reasons. The sole line extension (at the time) was Crown Royal Special Reserve whose intent was to protect the brand’s flank from above and make a price-value statement about the base brand. It was not to make a number. In fact, many worried about cannibalization of the base brand, which never occurred. At one point, both were growing at double digits.

Lately I’ve been looking at Crown Royal and how it’s doing. Last year was a tough one for the brand as it was for most high-end spirits. But I noticed the following in WSD the other day–

“…Furthermore, Trevor {analyst} believes the promotional support … behind Crown Royal ‘seems to be paying off,’ perhaps partly helped by its new, more expensive offering, Crown Royal Black.”

I also noticed that there are 5 Crown Royal products in the line.

I think my grandfather would have been confused.

What does the consumer think?

June 28, 2010 No Comments

There has been lots of press on the subject of privatization of state run stores with the focus on the state of Washington. For those of you who are unaware, there will be two conflicting initiatives on the ballot, one of which seeks to end the state stores. Here’s the way a local news blog described it.

There’s big money behind two efforts to privatize state liquor sales in Washington. Defenders of the status quo say the measures could end up costing the state hundreds of millions of dollars in lost tax revenue. Nonsense, say privateers.

Most of the comments to the blog seemed to support privatization.

The general and trade press has been all over this. Not surprising since many control states (not to mention suppliers and distributors) are looking at this closely.

But, what about the consumer? What does the alcohol shopper think of all this? Do they favor or oppose state run liquor stores?

The only pulse taking I’ve seen on the subject is a poll run by a research center at the University of Washington. Here’s the question they asked in the May, 2010 poll:

Another initiative that could be on the ballot in November would privatize alcohol sales. Currently hard alcohol can only be sold by the Washington State Liquor Control Board, but this initiative would allow alcohol to be sold at grocery stores and other places where beer and wine are already sold. Will you vote yes or no on the alcohol privatization initiative?

More than half (52%) of those polled said yes; 37% said no with the remainder presumably undecided. Interestingly, this spread of 15% among all voters turned out to be 21% among Republicans – 57% indicated yes and 36% said no.

I haven’t seen or conducted in-depth research on the subject but I would hypothesize that the consumer is indeed more in favor of privatization than the status quo. Obviously, attitudes will vary from state to state but in general, there are some consumer-based reasons that might be in favor of privatization:

Convenience and the need for one stop shopping
The perception that the overhead to run state stores can give way to more tax dollars
Desire for less government involvement (see the Republican support mentioned above)
Competition and better prices
Belief that 70 years since the end of prohibition means less need for government to exert day to day control of sales

No value judgments here but I would guess that privatization, slowly but surely, will take over. Control States need to do a better job of telling their story and justifying their role in the booze business if they are to survive.