Booze Business | A blog dedicated to the business of spirits and wine

Business in the Bush

September 20, 2010 No Comments

There were two couples and the pilot on the small plane as it returned from sightseeing in the African countryside. They were heading for the “base camp” some 20 minutes away. Actually, base camp was a misnomer; it should have been referred to as the Ritz in the Jungle.

It was a very elaborate sales incentive trip that a spirits company decided to offer its distributors and outdo Seagram. From what I’m told this was indeed a spectacular trip.

No one really knows what caused the eruption and noises coming from one of the distributor’s stomach. It could have been the huge breakfast, maybe the elaborate dinner the night before, perhaps jetlag, or even the water. Possibly, it was all of the above.

Whatever the cause, the big guy in the back row was in distress. “Hey pilot, I got some stomach trouble…real bad…how long ‘til we land?”

The pilot’s answer was far from comforting. “About 20 minutes. Can’t go much faster.”

“You don’t understand son, I can’t last that long. Isn’t there any place closer where you can land?” howled the distributor.

“Not really” said the pilot.

By now, the other three people in the plane were also in distress worrying about his discomfort and the elevated sounds coming from the distributor. “Please,” said his wife, “isn’t there anything you can do.”

“Well…Okay, I have an idea,” the pilot offered. “There is a flat area without brush just ahead. I think I can land…it’ll be a bit choppy…not too bad…just hang on.”

Sure enough the pilot landed amidst a few bumps but surprisingly smooth for the middle of the jungle.

“Now what?” asked the distributor.

“As soon as I stop, leave the plane and head about 200 yards to that brush area and do what you got to do.”

The plane had barely come to a stop when he jumped out and did a combination crab-walk and jog for the foliage.

A few minutes later he walked out of the brush with a smile on his face. Ran to the plane, got in and the pilot immediately took off.

* * *

Somewhere in eastern Africa there is a bushman who often tells the villagers the story of how he was tending his flock and, out of nowhere, an airplane lands. A big white man jumps out of the plane into the bush, makes awful body noises, jumps back into the plane and off they go.

To this day the bushman must be telling his friends that he has no idea about how or why this happened. But it was surely the strangest thing he had ever seen. It took hours to round up his flock.

* * *

If it were a Seagram trip, there would have been a bathroom on the plane.

Product Placements

September 14, 2010 No Comments

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.

Tequila Sunrise, Ascent, or Hype?

September 13, 2010 No Comments

Wine and Spirits Daily had a story last week entitled, IS TEQUILA THE NEW VODKA?

Good question.

The article quoted a writer at the Washington Post who said… “A new trend emerges: the proliferation of ‘ultra-premium’ tequilas targeted at a club crowd that slowly has begun to trade in Grey Goose for Patron.” The article goes on to point out that “various social indicators, such as Al Roker claiming on the Today Show that Tequila is the new Vodka.” (I must have missed the announcement about Al Roker as social forecaster. I thought he did the weather.)

A few observations:

Drinking Patron at clubs at the expense of Vodka brands like Grey Goose is not a new concept. They are often interchangeable depending on the mood and occasion. Both brands are at the top of the heap in terms of being icons.

Further, it’s not Tequila, it’s Patron. Generally speaking, among most consumers, the Tequila category has three brands…Patron, Cuervo and all others. Remember the old adage? Consumers drink brands not categories.

Tequila will grow as it continues to be the focus of new product introductions and in that regard, it will be the new Vodka. I don’t have the actual data but I’d bet there have been more new Tequilas introduced in the last few years than Vodka. The shifts in Vodka preferences from the high end to mid-priced and value brands make new Tequila entries more enticing.

So, among most consumers, Vodka will continue to rule. Whether Al Roker thinks so or not.