What does website design and spirits manufacturing have in common?

Two different worlds, right?

Maybe not.

Like most people I’m on the Internet constantly — learning, exploring, researching, being entertained, buying stuff and on and on. More often than not, I get to a website and wonder, “What the hell were they thinking when they put this up? Why is it so hard to move around and find what I want?”

It’s fairly obvious that the problem lies in the “manufacturing” of some websites. They are either over designed or put up on the fly with low cost as the driving force. That’s part of the reason.

I think a more important factor is that the webmasters or designers are thinking of the “product” or what it takes to make it happen and don’t consider the user or the “consumer.”

They’re thinking manufacturing not marketing.

I once paid a visit to one of our main plants and spent a day or two explaining what marketing was up to and why our needs can sometimes be difficult to execute. At the same time, I wanted to learn how the products were made and “walk in the shoes” of the manufacturing people.

At lunch one day I got into a conversation with the plant manager. “You know, if you got rid of the embossed seven with the crown on top (Seagram’s 7 bottle), we could produce a hell of a lot more per day. Those things on the back sometimes knock up against each other, break and we have to stop the line to clean up.”

I pointed out that the brand was falling badly and the last thing we wanted was to mess with the heritage, identity and packaging. He explained that his mission was to provide the best quality product while keeping the cost of goods in line.

We got to understand each other’s agenda and from that day on, we worked in partnership matching consumer expectations with manufacturing excellence.

Above all, he was a consumer himself and understood brand equity from an end user’s standpoint. The same is true for many web designers. But, I believe there are also many who probably never visit the site they create after it’s up.

Maybe it’s just the ones I go to.

Leave A Comment

Vodkas I have known…and wish I hadn’t

I’ve been thinking about expanding the Absolut Tales that you see in the Categories section to the right. So as I was gathering my notes and recollections, I was reminded of two attempts at trying to launch vodka as the category was beginning to show its strength.

Both attempts failed.

I was running marketing for the Asia Pacific/Global Duty Free division and like the rest of Seagram we needed a vodka brand. By the time I got there plans were well underway — a concept, package, manufacturing, sales and marketing plans and an interesting name, Bolshoi. The brand was made in an eastern European city and the idea was to ship it through Siberia to the port city of Vladivostok and then on to markets in Asia.

When I got to the group, I was greeted with the marketing plan and budget. As I went over the materials to acquaint myself with what was going on, I noticed something peculiar in the shipping costs. There was an invoice for close to or over $50,000 (I can’t recall the exact amount) that was over and above the actual transportation costs. It was marked, “Transport Support.”

I asked about it and was told it was for a company of security guards (probably soldiers) who would accompany the initial shipment through Russia, the Urals and Siberia. The guards were needed to make sure the shipment got there safely.

The brand did well in Asia but was discontinued when Absolut came along. Good thing because the cost of goods would have killed it anyway.

The other attempt involved Wyborowa from Poland. The W’s are pronounced as V’s and therein lies part of the tale.

Imported vodkas in the US were just beginning to make their move and somehow we got a shot at getting the distribution of this brand with a long pedigree. It dated back to 1823 where it sold domestically, became a strong export brand throughout Europe and the first vodka brand to get an international trademark in 1927. Best of all, the Soviet Union dissolved and the Poles were eager to go capitalist.

A group of us went over and quickly learned what it takes to deal with a country emerging from the shadows of communism. We were at a conference table and there were many different liquids for us to drink, as you would expect, while we discussed the prospects of doing business. Mineral water, sparkling water, spring water even tonic. The bottles were in all different colors, some were brown, some clear, some tinted. So when you poured a liquid from a particular colored bottle (none had labels) thinking that this one was the sparkling water, it would turn out to be tonic. Our hosts made it clear that the economic difficulties meant that all bottles were reused and did not allow the “luxury” of dedicated glass.

Okay, I thought, these folks are doing the best they can, making do and trying to move forward despite the obstacles. Good for them.

As the discussions progressed, the issue of package size came up. They had a litre size but the next size down was a 700ml, which is the required size in Europe. Unfortunately, that size is not legal in the US, which requires a 750ml. We explained that in order to sell in the off-premise trade, we needed them to produce that glass. After much whispered conversation and heated exchanges in Polish, the managing director said that they had found an answer. He informed us that rather than go to the expense of new molds and glass manufacture, they would use the litre bottles and simply fill them three quarters full.

None of us laughed nor revealed our amusement. It was, after all, a creative solution stemming from a difficult economic environment. We merely pointed out that the US government wouldn’t allow that and joked about the interference of bureaucrats — east and west.

Turns out that the production problems were solved, a new contemporary package was developed and the brand was launched. Nothing, however, could overcome the brand name and call issue. No one wants to stand in a bar and call for a brand they can’t pronounce. Ad campaigns and on-premise programming couldn’t counter the verbal stumble of saying Wyborowa.

The brand does under 2 million cases around the world — most of it in Poland. The rest is in Italy, France and Mexico. Proper pronunciation is not required.

Leave A Comment

Quality Control

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard or even used the expression — “It’s all about what’s in the bottle” — when referring to the appeal of a spirits brand.

It’s homage to the intrinsic appeal of the product and recognition that image alone is not sufficient.

Couple of interesting questions…

If that’s the case why do some awful tasting brands of booze sell well? To maintain my friendships in the industry I won’t cite any examples but lets just say there are brands that sell more on image than product taste.

The more important question is, who decides if it’s “in the bottle?” For the smart marketer it’s based on consumer taste tests, sensory panels and research of that nature. Generally there are benchmarks, action standards and criteria or hurdles of acceptability.

Except when the owner or senior executive decides that he/she knows better than the consumer.

At Seagram there were the owners who made the decisions and their deputies who established the criteria.

I once asked the head of quality control who had been trained by Mr. Sam about Jack Daniels and got a 20-minute lecture on what was wrong with the quality of the brand. I protested that his view of the product was counter its performance in the market place and consumer appeal. Good thing Mr. Sam was long gone by this time or my head would have been rolled down the building plaza.

A good friend who was there when Seagram introduced a Scotch called 100 Pipers recently told me a story that illustrates the point.

Despite the fact that the company owned Chivas Regal, the leadership at the time, from Mr. Sam on down, was Canadian whiskey driven. So when the idea of 100 Pipers came along the QC folks, led by the owner, kept rejecting the formulation until it reached their notion of acceptability. Research was ignored; R&D and production was ignored; they kept fiddling with it until it tasted the way they thought it should. They felt that no one wants to drink Scotch so take the Scotch taste out.

The result — a good tasting Canadian whiskey that Scotch drinkers hated and Canadian whiskey drinkers wouldn’t consider. It never clicked.

Guess what? According to data I recently saw, it sells over 2 million cases today with more than half of that in Thailand. Who knew?

Still made by Chivas Brothers and owned by Pernod Ricard. Bet it tastes like Scotch too.

Leave A Comment