| By Dustin Longstreth
Thanks to the success of popular diets such as Atkins, South Beach,
and the Zone, the term “lowcarb” has become synonymous
with “good for you”. As a result, food and beverage
marketers are scrambling to redefine their brands in a more healthful
context. Every food and beverage category imaginable, from bread
to beer, now has a low-carb alternative. Entire retail chains, such
as Totally Low Carb Stores (TLC), have been created around the low-carb
benefit. The noise emanating from low-carb violators in the grocery
aisle has reached deafening levels. In this frenetic environment
marketers must be extra careful not to confuse product benefits
with their brand’s identity. Perceived health benefits such
as reduced carbohydrates may be highly relevant for some brands,
but they will never be sustainable points of differentiation. Brands
that fail to recognize this important distinction risk alienating
their core consumers by hopping aboard a “benefit bandwagon”
that is completely void of any meaningful differentiation and may
even be contrary to their brand’s emotional experience.
A host of recent studies show that an increasing number of Americans
currently are monitoring their dietary carbohydrate intake. The
large and affluent group of aging baby-boomers continues to demonstrate
a growing interest in health and wellness. And with childhood obesity
on the rise, parents are on the hunt for nutritional products their
kids will enjoy as well. Wall Street analysts estimate some $1.5
billion in revenue is up for grabs. Leave no doubt, there is a tremendous
market opportunity here. However, while providing low-carb products
may be the right thing to do, it needs to be done right. Confusing
a hot new product benefit with a brand’s emotional connection
to the consumer can lead to myopic brand strategies that erode meaningful
differentiation in favor of the latest fad.
Recent history provides us with some great examples. Remember
way back when in the dot-com era? Businesses everywhere were repositioning
themselves for the “new economy”. Popular window dressing
techniques such as adding an “e” prefix and a “.com”
suffix to company names seemed to be a sure fire way to win “mind
share” and fast track market cap to meteoric heights. Businesses
who for years had been known as Bricks ‘n Mortar instantly
became e- BricksnMortar.com. Those who jumped on the bandwagon were
touted as forward thinking, visionary, on the pulse of the new economy…
until things changed. The bubble burst and suddenly anything “e”
or “.com” became instantly associated with failed business
models and overpriced sock-puppets. Four years after the announcement
of the $106 billion AOL/Time Warner merger, AOL Time Warner’s
board members have recently elected to drop AOL from the company’s
name (the ticker symbol has returned to TWX and is currently trading
at a fraction of its pre-merger value). The dot-com era has become
a pejorative term, and the brands that sought to define themselves
solely based on the digital benefit have suffered or gone out of
business completely.
Some of these same shortsighted brand strategies are in play today.
Food marketers are rushing to define their brand experience purely
in the context of the low-carb benefit. Brand names like CarbRite,
CarbSmart, Carb-You-Name-It have become ubiquitous. But just as
attempting to add a digital halo has never created meaningful brand
differentiation neither will wrapping a brand in a low-carb flag.
These product benefits, while important to consumers, are easily
imitated and incapable of providing sustainable differentiation.
When the low-carb diet craze cools so will the brands that hitched
their wagon to that single benefit. Staying focused on you brand’s
emotional relevance must always remain the beacon for all strategic
brand identity decisions.
For other brands the low-carb benefit may simply be emotionally
irrelevant. There’s no question that consumers are seeking
healthier choices but that’s not all they want. Research has
consistently shown that while consumers want to eat better there
is one critical element they will not forgo: taste. Despite much-publicized
concerns about over-eating, consumers continue to get their fill
of junk food. One need look no further than the local doughnut shop.
Krispy Kreme is one the hottest brands in the market today, enjoying
a 5-year annual growth rate of 65.28% (source: Krispy Kreme). At
the Texas state fair, fried Twinkies, served in a paper boat with
powdered sugar and chocolate sauce, were all the rage (along with
fried Oreos and fried Snickers bars). Dominoes Pizza recently launched
a Philly Cheese Steak pizza with plenty of carbs, fat, and calories
to go around. While demand for nutraceuticals and low-carb product
offerings may be on the rise, great taste will always drive business.
Despite their typically low nutritional value, comfort foods still
manage to elude the barrage of criticism from concerned consumers.
No one is out to demonize macaroni and cheese or Rice Crispie treats.
That is because comfort foods by definition have established strong
emotional connections with consumers that serve as an inoculation
from the whims of the latest diet fads. Nutritional benefits are
easily trumped by the feelings of love, security, and optimism associated
with comfort foods. For many brands, speaking to the heart is much
stronger than speaking to the waistline.
Answer: Stay focused and be true to your brand experience. Make
sure that your brand’s identity is relevant to your product,
provides meaningful differentiation, and conveys a message that
resonates with consumers emotionally. Product claims such as “low-carb”
and “zero trans fat” are only claims – not brand
drivers. Claims are easily imitated while strong brand identities
provide sustainable points of differentiation. And while it is clear
that a large group of consumers are choosing to eat better, healthy
claims and positioning are not equally relevant for all brands.
We eat the foods we crave; the foods that taste good and make us
feel good both physically and emotionally. “Good for you”
does not necessarily mean “good for me”. Find out what
role, if any, health claims play in enhancing your brand and then
incorporate them only within the context of your brand’s unique
emotional experience.
Dustin Longstreth manages brand strategy
and business development at Wallace Church, Inc., a strategic brand
identity consultancy and design firm headquartered in Manhattan.
Dustin is a frequent speaker at Columbia Business School and the
Institute for International Research. He is a graduate of the Actors
Theatre of Louisville conservatory training program and holds an
MBA from Columbia Business School. For more information: 212.755.2903
or dustin@wallacechurch.com
.
This article first appeared in the Summer
2004 issue of DMI
News & Views.
|
