TEA & SYMPATHY FOR TWININGS

Tea brand Twinings is facing a high street rebellion, according to The Grocer this week, with apparently “furious” tea drinkers angry at the changing taste of its Earl Grey tea and demanding reinstatement of the original recipe.

More than 150 consumers (not exactly an enormous sample of the tea-drinking public) have expressed their displeasure online after Twinings revamped its Earl Grey earlier this year by adding extra bergamot and citrus and renaming it “The Earl Grey”. And all this despite an increase in sales since the new blend was introduced.

This is not, of course, the first time there has been opposition to a recipe change to a well established product. Probably the most famous example was Coca Cola, whose ‘New Coke’ formula ‘won’ in blind taste tests against Pepsi but the market reaction to which was so poor, that the company revered to its original formula, which it re-branded as "Coca-Cola Classic", leading to a significant gain in sales. Is this a silver lining for Twinings in the Earl Grey cloud?

So is the message to brands that a dramatic change of recipe to a well-loved product could lead to regular, loyal consumers starting to explore other brands? Is it akin to a form of betrayal from a trusted friend?

There will always be reasons behind such a fundamental product change. Sometimes bringing a revised product to market can be viewed as an exercise in damage limitation to cause as little alienation of current buyers as possible. There can be other reasons though, including a longer term view that the current core buyers are not sustainable. Sometimes, if a brand is deemed to be in long term decline, a decision is taken to target a whole new set of ‘cooler’ and younger core buyers. In this instance, upsetting their current buyers can be acceptable in the interests of longer term sustainability.

From a research standpoint, you need to ensure you understand both the change to the product and the strategy for its introduction, and structure the research accordingly. There is no single answer to the best way to run this type of research – you have to evaluate it on a case by case basis. For example, will you tell people it’s a new and improved taste or hope to slip it in under the radar? This would certainly influence how you introduce the product when testing.

This, of course, is not just any old product. There is likely to be more risk attached to ‘tampering’ with a cherished institution like Earl Grey tea than with a lot of other projects. So research should not only focus on innovation but on “conservation” too. This is where semiotics in research can be so important, having an inherent and detailed understanding of category rules, which are sacrosanct and which could survive or even thrive with reinvention.

If the product is changing and offering a tangible benefit which you will communicate – lower salt or fat or sugar ... etc. it is wise to let people know so that they can evaluate the product and the message as a bundle. Or are you changing to make the product appeal to a wider audience or is retention of current buyers a key objective? This would impact on who you would want as respondents to your research.

Change isn’t always dangerous and isn’t always bad, provided you factor in from the outset what you are trying to achieve. If retaining core customers is still the objective, changing both the recipe and the name at the same time might be too much for a devoted consumer. And they are the ones who would be hardest to get back once they leave.

Could corporates really bring brands to market as quickly as The Apprentice?

A few weeks ago I wrote a piece about my sense of disappointment at the quality of business ideas offered up by all four of the finalists in the UK’s version of The Apprentice. This was based on their startling lack of originality and the sense of let down that, if this was supposed to be the cream of the UK’s entrepreneurial talent (which we know it isn’t), it didn’t offer a spectacular return on Lord Sugar’s investment in time and energy.

But now, just a few weeks later, comes the news that Talkback Thames, the makers of the BBC reality show, are preparing to make two food brands, created in the tasks in this year's series, real-world businesses.
British pie brand MyPy and biscuit brand Special Stars have been trademarked by the programme's creators in preparation for bringing them to market. MyPy, which was invented by eventual winner Tom Pellereau and runner up Helen Milligan, focused on British ingredients.
Special Stars, created by Helen and her team in an earlier episode, was a children's biscuit brand, with the slogan "any time is treat time". Special Stars received an Apprentice record order of 800,000 units from one supermarket outlet.

The issue this raises in my mind, however, is not whether these businesses will fly or whether we’ll all be eating pies by the end of the year, but how easy it is for entrepreneurial ideas to win out in many of our larger organisations.

Save for Talkback Thames and the profile boost it received via The Apprentice, would an idea like Special Stars actually stand a chance of coming to fruition? Or would the forensic examination the idea would receive from every department in a cautious corporate – from marketing to manufacturing – render the idea still-born? I know where my money lies. Either way, the speed with which ideas like this are being brought to market are a world away from the months, even years it can take in a larger corporate organisation.

And that’s a shame. In a market that is already suppressed, we want our brands to be bold, to create stand-out and deliver imaginative and innovative brand and product concepts that excite our interests as consumers. We want them to follow the business fundamentals that are needed to successfully bring a brand to market, and we want the brand to embody all of the entrepreneurial qualities that went into its creation. Because if it does, it will capture our imaginations as consumers, we are more likely to purchase, which will allow money to flow and will again help drag us all towards more optimistic pastures.

A matter of convenience

If you tuned in to ITV2 this week for Gordon Ramsay’s new series of Hells Kitchen USA you will have noticed that the The English Provender Company has done the deal to sponsor the series with its Very Lazy ingredients brand.

Their marketing manager, Karen Fowler, is quoted as saying that the sponsorship is being used to promote the speed and ease of using the products, thereby tapping into the growing prevalence of time poor, convenience-driven consumers.

In this context, the sponsorship makes perfect sense. After all, identifying and then aligning yourself with emerging consumer trends is fundamental to long term brand success. Increasingly our eating patterns are being forced to fit around our busy lifestyles. Research has shown that because we are hectic and time poor more and more of us are actively looking to reduce the time we spend preparing meals. But balance this with the economic downturn and more consumers are also cooking at home in order to conserve cash. This is one reason why many of us are opting to buy in fully or part-prepared meals, but also one reason why we are looking for products that enable us to prepare healthy food, more quickly at home.

The popularity of new television concepts like “Come Dine With Me” and “Dinner Date” are testament to our growing interest in eating at home, and are perfect partners for convenience ingredients products.

What is clear, as well, is that although consumers are cutting back on the amount they spend eating out, the convenience of good value restaurants remain a substantial pull. Restaurants are already targeting the time poor, cash strapped consumer. Two for one offers on main meals and sharing platters in some restaurants are beginning to re-define the eating out experience for some, whilst ‘formalising’ a new lower cost route to eating out. Similarly, take-out food, whilst under pressure because of the economy, is also seen by many as a way to continue enjoying the eating-out experience without the costs attached to restaurant dining.

These trends are increasingly reflected in the briefs that clients are bringing to us. There is an increase in the mood for price vs value–based promotions and a growth in the number of innovations that are being considered in the area of convenient but still “good” food. It’s a trend that is unlikely to fall away any time soon.