BrandWatch by Michel Gutsatz

Bernard Gaborit, Organic and Packaging

Bernard Gaborit is one of the most interesting organic brands in the market: a complete and original range of products, a story, and - what is rare - real taste. For a long time its packaging matched the image of the brand:  in a world dominated by white (and blue), here was a cream coloured pack, an important reminder of what the brand is built on - milk cream. In a world full of products stripped of cream, Bernard Gaborit was proud of its real cream.

But, sadly, now the brand has decided to change its logo and packaging. The logo itself has hardly been altered, except for the blades of grass that have been added … no doubt to reinforce the image of milk coming from cows grazing in pastures.  In any case, the grass is absolutely superfluous - it obscures the logo and hides the words 'agriculture biologique' ('organic farming').

 
As for the packaging, it has been radically altered:

• It has lost its cream colour, making way for green and white graphics;
• A naturalistic image of the product has appeared.

Here we see an example of how the identity of brand becomes commonplace, copying all the clichés one attributes to the 'fresh' category - adopting just a flat green background to signify organic.  An original brand, with a slightly old-fashioned packaging, but which proclaimed its taste (based on cream, its founding ingredient) loud and clear, has now become just one of the pack.  What a pity!

 

The Coca-Cola Bottle

Posters urging us to discover "the new legendary bottle" from Coca-Cola have invaded Paris.  It is a powerful pitch.  But does reality live up to the promise?
One of the essential factors that contribute to the brand's aesthetics is quite evidently the "Contour" bottle, and it is interesting to recall the original brief: "We want a bottle that can be recognized even blindfolded" ... and which, "is recognizable even when broken".  The bottle was made of glass until PET arrived on the scene:  None of the PET bottles so far (especially the large sizes) resembled the original.  The last 2-liter bottle is a woeful example.



We have become familiar with a major innovation from Coca-Cola over the last few years:  it created a new iconic bottle in aluminium - a replica of the "Contour" bottle, but decorated by famous designers (Nathalie Rykiel, Karl Lagerfeld, 8 fashion designers from Italy, Daft Punk, and others).

These bottles were created at the initiative of the French and Italian subsidiaries - thereby instating Coca-Cola as a "trendy" brand, inscribing it in the fashion world.  They are a far cry from the supermarket shelves where the very unsightly PET bottles reigned supreme.
But now, on the occasion of its 125th anniversary, Coca-Cola is launching a series of sales strategies relating to the bottle. They can be divided into two groups:

• The "exclusive" back to basics:  In the U.S. Coca-Cola is offering collectors limited editions of the "Contour" bottle in crystal or gold plated, and in Europe, a series of 4 iconic bottles (the 4 original designs, including the "Contour"), sold at Colette in France and Selfridges in Great Britain (costing 50% more in France!).
  
  
  
  
• A return to its origins for the general public:  A new 1.25 litre bottle (costing less than $1 in the U.S.) has been launched - a replica of the "Contour" shape in PET.  The commercial for the launch shows, with humour, how the brand has accepted the fact that the previous inelegant bottle had to be reinvented.

This initiative has two positive effects:

• It will give new meaning to the brand by placing great emphasis one of its iconic emblems.
• It will counterbalance the very recent and very European movement that was drawing the brand towards the fashion world - something that is quite contrary to Coca-Cola, a brand that is a symbol of popular American culture (and which has nothing in common with European fashion and trends).  The brand might wish to ask itself the question of how to reinvent the bottle as an icon of popular culture, taking a page from the French initiative:  have the aluminium bottle decorated by popular rap stars, for example.

Kenneth Cole and Nestle fall into the trap

It all began on February 3.  On Kenneth Cole's Twitter feed, a tweet, signed by the creator himself (or, at least, "an authorized person"), read:

We were in the midst of the Egyptian revolution. Tens of thousands of protesters gathered daily in Tahrir Square demanding true democracy ... and in the thick of it, the American fashion brand diverts this movement for its own marketing. This tweet travelled around the Internet, prompting both outraged comments, and messages of approval. Suddenly the virtual world was split: On one side were those that said the tweet was in the worst possible taste, criticizing the irresponsible brand, on the other were fans (mostly American), who found the message amusing and reaffirmed their commitment to the brand.

Kenneth Cole, after admitting (half-heartedly) that he did not wish to offend the Egyptians, finally posted an apology (just as discreetly) on Facebook -

March 2010: a year ago there was another battle between Nestle and Greenpeace (the story is well related and analysed on ReadWriteWeb in French). In this instance, Nestlé showed an appalling un-professionalism. For a long time Greenpeace had been denouncing the attitude "of Nestlé sub-contractors who, to produce palm oil essential for food processing, do not hesitate to ransack Indonesian forests and destroy the habitat of many protected species". Faced with the silence of the group, Greenpeace launched a Web "attack" by deflecting the KitKat logo, creating minisites and posting a film on You Tube.
Nestle's (or their PR agency's) reaction was very careless: they summoned them to withdraw the film, arguing that it infringed their intellectual property rights. This was what triggered a form of general mobilization on the Internet and attracted media attention: Nestlé was accused of censorship. Greenpeace, simultaneously orchestrating a media campaign, called on its militants to post messages on Nestlé's Facebook page by replacing their profile photo by that of the altered logo:

Nestlé removed the posts and responded haughtily - without any attempt at dialogue with Internet users. The uproar was such that it ended up by apologizing:

This "commando" operation by Greenpeace was successful:  a month later at the shareholders general assembly Nestlé announced a programme to combat deforestation and Peter Brabeck, Nestlé's Chairman, sent a letter to Greenpeace with details of the group's commitments.
These two interesting examples, like all the others listed by Jeremyah Owyang, show that brands cannot escape the notice of Net surfers and that they have to professionalize their Web administering by:

• Equipping themselves with a genuine "social contract" to handle their relationship with the Web
• Appointing a Community Manager, responsible for communicating with Internet users … therefore paying them real attention, and
• Being willing to apologize when a mistake is made

They will thus prove themselves as responsible, give no reason for criticism – and even forestall the attacks… that (surely) will happen one day or another.

At last, brands interact with their clients!

Last week I praised the interactive website that Lancôme created in China (rosebeauty.com.cn), while deploring the fact that too few brands were willing to engage in a real dialogue with their customers through social media.  Now here are three examples to reflect on - one that would earn a "Could do Better!", and two that call for a "Bravo!":

• Could do Better:  Three years ago, Clarins launched a "participatory" site called OrSérie - managed by an external service provider and intended to "federate amateurs of everything that's beautiful".  To quote the Web Journal, "OrSérie is for Internet users and bloggers between the ages of 35 to 50, eager to share their discovery of a new boutique spa, an exceptional beauty product, their opinion on the latest haute couture collection, or talk about a recent sojourn in a dream of a hotel".  The visibility of the brand is projected by the "credits" at the bottom of the home page and through the announcement of a big competition. This website is merely a "Beauty and Well-being Journal" – i.e., a space featuring articles from bloggers.  It is therefore an interface that is not interactive in any way – unless you consider that writing articles is interaction. The brand does not intervene, it is not called into question, there is no exchange of ideas... It is just another Web magazine on beauty.
• A (small) Bravo:  At the end of 2010, Migros launched a website that is fully interactive – Migipedia - where consumers are invited to discuss products, ask the brand questions and, recently, to "invent their favourite jam".  A real innovation - but with few takers: the home page displays the last 10 contributions, received over the 5 preceding days.  Migros offers opportunities but does not really maintain a dialogue. The brand is satisfied with just responding to some of the posts.  It takes two to maintain a dialogue.
  
• A (big) Bravo: The MyStarbucksIdea.com - Share Vote Discuss See website:  Here Starbucks customers share their ideas (on products, experiences in coffee shops, collective commitments, discuss among themselves, and with the brand, which commits itself to implementing their ideas. The Starbucks contacts are identifiable and a counter displaying the ideas that were shared and those that were implemented is shown to prove its authenticity. The brand assumes, discusses, listens, commits.
  

The Starbucks website is undoubtedly a model that is exemplary. But it requires a considerable investment in human resources for monitoring, and tangible commitments. At the same time, Disney announced the acquisition of Togetherville - a new social network for children under 10 (and their parents).  Brands such as retail chains will have to follow suit, their customers are expecting it.

Aaah! The new Starbucks logo...

Decidedly, major American brands are having a rough time managing their graphic identities! After the new Tropicana packaging fiasco in 2009 (read my analysis), and the rapid backtracking on the new Gap logo in 2010 (read my analysis), will 2011 see Starbucks saying mea culpa?
On 5 January (just three days ago!) a recast of its logo was announced by Starbucks - penned by Howard Schultz ("Looking Forward to Starbucks' Next Chapter"):

"…our new brand identity will give us the freedom and flexibility to explore innovations and new channels of distribution that will keep us in step with our current customers and build strong connections with new customers".

In the same blog, its design is explained, in a style that smacks too much of marketing:

"Here we are today. Our new evolution liberates the Siren from the outer ring, making her the true, welcoming face of Starbucks. (...) She stands unbound, sharing our stories, inviting all of us in to explore, to find something new and to connect with each other. And as always, she is urging all of us forward to the next thing. After all, who can resist her? "

The reaction was vehement. The first of the 774 comments in response to the CEO's post was brutal: "Who's the bonehead in your marketing department that removed the world-famous name of Starbucks Coffee from your new logo?".  All the others, like the majority of comments from professionals (such as bnet: "New Starbucks Logo Signals Onset of Brand Worsification"), are in the same vein and say, "Give us back our Starbucks logo".
I am also appalled by the total incomprehension that Starbucks has of the significance of an iconic logo. It plays three roles:

1. It is an identification mark – made even stronger if the brand is an icon.
2. It is a primordial emotional link between the brand and its consumers.
3. A logo is most often binomial, composed of the brand name and a symbol.  Displaying the name is essential (and luxury brands whose logos use ONLY the brand name are proof of this): the name serves as a representation - it invokes a worldview shared by the community built around the object / person / brand. It indicates power - one that allows us to evoke the object, to relate to it with our own interpretations.

 

The new Starbucks logo disregards these factors:

• It drops the name "Starbucks Coffee" – ostensibly with a wish to expand into other categories. But this rejection is also of one of its roots and its history. Starbucks stands emptied of its meaning and turns commonplace. To achieve the desired diversification, simply deleting the word "Coffee" would have sufficed.
• It abandons its identifying form: the "seal"/"label".  By doing so Starbucks rejects the whole discourse on quality and authenticity conveyed by the symbol.
• It abandons one of its two iconic colours, black.  Black is also the colour of elegance, luxury, and it emphasizes the green.  But it is the black/green combination that has been copied all over the world. Starbucks lays the door open to counterfeits that will continue to capitalize on it, thanks to a recollection of the classic image in the minds of consumers.
• The choice of retaining just the Siren again shows a poor judgement that amazes me: consumers do not know who this feminine image is in the centre of the Starbucks logo. In other words, the brand preserves the least identifiable feature of all... and in the end retains only a vague feminine image, devoid of meaning. Is it blindness or arrogance?

Starbucks was smart enough to announce its new logo three months prior to its induction planned for March. Does it mean that they have factored in the eventuality of pulling back?

Responsible packaging grows in strength

One after the other, Whole Foods, Procter & Gamble and Unilever (among others ... I could add Stonyfield Farm, KFC, Odwalla in food, to the list...) have announced major initiatives in terms of sustainable development - all of which relate to product packaging.

• In early September, Whole Foods Market released its new "Sustainable Packaging Guidelines", applicable to all cosmetic products and food supplements. "The guidelines mandate that suppliers reduce the use of plastic in product packaging, encourage the switch to glass when possible, limit acceptable packaging materials to those that are easily reused or recycled, and/or feature the highest percentage of PCR content.  Suppliers were given one year to transition to more eco-friendly packaging".  These guidelines were drawn up in collaboration with 25 Whole Foods'  suppliers and are currently applied to the private label of the brand: the volumes of food supplements of 365° are entirely of recyclable PET ... and the brand has adopted a pictograph that guarantees it.
• Procter & Gamble will increase the volume of plastic made from sugarcane (100% recyclable - supplied by Braskem, a Brazilian company) for its brands - Pantene, Max Factor and Cover Girl. Natura Brasil will also be using the same material.
• Unilever finally announced its "Sustainable Living Plan" - which aims to halve the environmental impact of the group by 2020.

Two different approaches should be distinguished:

1. The PCR approach (post consumer recycled) implemented by Whole Foods for its private labels: it consists of using recycled materials.
2. The "cradle to cradle" approach, much more sophisticated – adopted, for example, by Kiehl's - and accorded a certification (C2C) which measures the toxicity of ingredients used, the extent of recycling, the energy and water used, the social accountability of the company.

All these initiatives are particularly interesting: although they are dispersed, with very different approaches from one company to another, they illustrate the growing importance of sustainable development strategies in beauty.

 

 

 

 

Kroger, Eataly & the farmers' markets

I received three bits of information in quick succession, demonstrating how the food market is moving in the U.S. - in the direction of greater product traceability. The actors of American distribution are finding responses to questions posed by consumers about the origin of products...

1. The Kroger supermarket chain (2500 stores in 31 States), thanks to a partnership with HarvestMark, has introduced bar codes on its private label products, allowing consumers to find out where the product was grown, where it was packed, how it should be preserved ... all this with an iApp on the iPhone.
   
   
2. Eataly just opened in New York: a 5000 m2 store, with a mixture of imported and local products. The result is impressive – a concept based on its flagship model in Turin (thank you psfk.com for the photos):
   
   
   
   
   
   
3. The New Amsterdam (New York) farmers' market on South Street is growing and now has its own website ... This is similar to French markets, and different at the same time.
   
   
   

These three examples have something else in common: they are a combination of tradition and modernity - where the store sees itself completed by the Web and Apps. Examples that Europeans might do well to think about!

USA: The nutrition debate speeds up

The two most important professional food associations in America (FMI – the Food Marketing Institute - and GMA – the Grocery Manufacturers Association) announced, on 27 October that they had decided to join forces to combat obesity – and to display additional Nutritional Information on the front of packagings of all food products ("fact-based, simple and easy-to-use format").  This initiative will be backed by a pedagogical communication campaign to the tune of $ 50 million.
Commentators see this as a tactical move to "pull the rug from under the FDA" - which is actively deliberating on the subject and intends to launch a system of non-compulsory nutrition information to be displayed also on pack facings.
In fact, the debate concerns the information that should be shown:

• Official bodies (such as the Institute of Medicine of late) – would like information that would list only calories, saturated fats, trans fats, portion sizes and salt.
• The FMI / GMA box would include the "positive" nutrients - most often added by manufacturers, such as omega-3, vitamins, fibres, etc. "In addition, details will be finalized on how to provide consumers with information on nutrients needed to build a “nutrient-dense” diet and on “shortfall nutrients” that are under-consumed in the diets of most Americans"

We are here very close to the issues I raised two weeks ago in my analysis of Nestlé's strategy:  food processing groups are trying to position themselves in the nutrition market... and therefore have every motive to wish to display it in the information box in question. They therefore wish to insert this information as quickly as possible, especially since the FDA inscription is not obligatory (so far).
At the same time the use of functional foods is growing (as at Gerber) and one sees authentic B to B ingredient brands emerging: the organic chocolate brand Good Cacao created by Be GOOD shows the logos of its functional ingredients on the packaging - NutriBERI, Life'sDHA, GanedenBC³⁰, etc.
The New York Times, November 7, drew attention to the complexity of the debate in a fascinating article: "While Warning about Fat, U.S. Pushes Cheese Sales". It shows how another public body, funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Dairy Management, committed to developing sales of dairy products, participated in what became a vicious circle:

• The campaign waged by government agencies against saturated fats helped increase the sales of semi-skimmed and skimmed milk.
• This policy resulted in a surplus of whole milk and cream ... which were processed into cheese.
• This led Dairy Management to encourage (or even to help financially) brands to include cheese in their recipes: today Americans eat 33 pounds of cheese a year ... or thrice as much as they did in 1970!

We are clearly in a transition period, therefore complex - in a country that has so far been reluctant to formulate restrictive regulations. All those involved, however, have realized the importance of the public health question - and each one defends its own strategy.  Food brands have always known how to adapt to changes in regulations - with different product ranges according to geographical regions. They are now facing new challenges – in the form of new queries raised by their customers. I therefore invite you to read the post of November 7th dedicated to another of these questions - "Where does the product I eat come from?".

The Nestlé Strategy

In late September the press echoed the creation of a new Nestle subsidiary - "Health Sciences". This division will initially encompass infant nutrition (Gerber), and also Jenny Craig, a rival of Weight Watchers.  Nestle announced that it will grow well beyond this: "We are going to acquire licenses, purchase patents, create partnerships with start-ups to create a very open scientific environment that is fertile..." A research centre, the Nestlé Institute of Health Sciences, will complete the configuration.
Peter Brabeck-Lamarthe states: “The combination of health economics, changing demographics and advances in health science show that our existing healthcare systems, which focus on treating sick people, are not sustainable and need redesigning. Nestlé has the expertise, the science, the resources and the organisation to play a major role in seeking alternative solutions. Personalised health science nutrition is about finding efficient and cost effective ways to prevent and treat acute and chronic diseases in the 21st century”.
Why has there been such a major shift?
I think the reason can be found in a strategic rethink which can be summed up in 4 points:

1. Under pressure, because of longer life expectancy, healthcare has become a major concern all over the world: All countries, faced with the burden of healthcare expenditure, place the onus for their health on citizens / consumers.  We see the emergence of a global mega-trend - which is gradually mutating into a new social norm:  the health responsibility.
2. Economic actors (like Nestlé) that wish to position themselves in the health sector are now facing two markets with very different characteristics:
   
   "Food": a market where are relatively few barriers to entry (this is the role of brands), marketing products that are not sophisticated with relatively slow growth - a market where "health" and "nutrition" claims are increasingly controlled.
   
   Pharmacy: a market that is highly restricted (investment in R & D and authorizations before market launch), selling sophisticated products, with low success rates and under pressure to lower prices by the government and generic manufacturers.
3. There is a third market that could meet the demand for health: according to FoodBev.com, one that Peter Brabeck called the "Disease Modifying Nutritionals".  In other words, "medical foods", that can offer consumers customized solutions to their health problems: it consists of adding ingredients that have proven health benefits to foodstuffs. The economic advantages are undeniable: recognized as safe, most often derived from food sources themselves, protected by intellectual property rights, they can generate high profit margins
4. The real challenge therefore is to identify these ingredients: this is why Nestlés press release states: "Nestlé Health Science S.A. will also have access to external scientific and technological know-how through Nestlé’s innovation network as well as a number of venture capital funds in which the group has interests". This involves identifying start-ups and SMEs that have acquired real expertise in the matter.

All the major players - in food (Danone that acquired Numico, Nestlé with Inneov, and now "Health Sciences") and pharmaceutical companies (Abbott with Abbott Nutrition) - are positioning themselves on this market. I am sure that we are at the beginning of a new era in food and nutrition. It will be marked in particular by a second challenge: building brands around personal medical prevention, able to build relationships of trust with consumers.

USA: The great nutrition clean-up

Two reports from the U.S. confirm the gradual introduction of new nutritional standards in a country that - unlike Europe – does not yet dispose of a clearcut definition of the "health" and "nutrition" claims that brands could put forward.

• The Federal Trade Commission has launched an official investigation of the brand POM, in order to determine whether its advertisements are not misleading ("violated federal law by making deceptive claims, disease prevention and treatment"): in fact POM claims that its pomegranate-based drinks and dietary supplements have health benefits (against prostate cancer, erectile dysfunction, heart problems...) because of the antioxidants contained in the fruit. POM has created a dedicated website: www.pomegranatetruth.com, and is carrying on a very aggressive campaign claiming scientific proof of its assertions: "All statements made in connection with POM products are true and supported by unprecedented scientific research". This complaint comes in the wake of a warning from the FDA a few months ago ... It was addressed to 17 brands and groups, including Nestle and Kellogg's. The latter, according to the Wall Street Journal of 27 September preferred to come to an agreement with the FDA and the FTC and abandon their claims.
  
  
• Called into question by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (the most important private American consumer protection institution in matters of nutrition), Ben & Jerry's (owned by Unilever) decided to remove the words "All Natural" from its packaging. A letter sent a month ago to the brand shows that 48 references used this expression unjustifiably. The major interest of this exchange of letters lies in the willingness of the CSPI to propose a definition of "natural" - since the regulations do not offer one. You can find these letters by following this link. Clearly the brand - which had built itself on an "authentic" positioning - viewed this demand as a potential threat and chose the "lesser evil".
  

The speed of the decision taken by Unilever, akin to the choices made by Nestlé and Kellogg's, clearly shows that large groups are now aware of the question of nutrition and the consequences that they could have on their image resulting from repeated attacks by consumer lobbies, and now the federal authorities, against their claims of "health" and "nutrition" or even claims of "naturalness".
I see this having several consequences:

1. We will be seeing a major clean-up of recipes and packaging in the U.S.A. in the coming months.
2. The actors in the beauty sector will be obliged to ask the same questions under pressure from militant groups ... and consumers: a number of brands are already "getting rid of" the most risky ingredients from their formulas...
3. All this explains Nestlé's new strategy which I will talk about next week ....