More than just an odd chunk off the block

Cadbury brand owner, Kraft has kept true to character by putting profits before criticism in the knowledge that today’s consumers will put up with just about anything in a climate of fear and uncertainty.

Kraft has cut the size of many of its Cadbury brand chocolate bars – whilst keeping confectionary prices at pre-size reduction costs.

For example, a squatter version of Cadbury Dairy Milk bar has two less chunks, but still costs £1 at the till.

Toblerone has removed an entire ‘mountain’ from its bar.

Similar cuts have been applied to British brand favourites such as Mars, Snickers, Yorkie and Rolo.

· Rolo has been reduced from 11 portions to 10.
· Yorkie – 68g to 64.5g – a ‘chunk’
· Snickers is 7.2% smaller.
· Mars – 7.2% smaller.

Even the iconic Dairy Milk bar is now 120g from 140g. (Again its retail price has not been cut accordingly).

Kraft justified the slices by pointing to excessive charges for cocoa. (The commodity’s price rose to a six-month high, following reports of an export ban by the Ivory Coast – one of world’s key producers).

Last year the American company reneged on its promise not to close a Cadbury factory in Bristol.

Consumer Focus, an organisation that represents customer interests, told reporters, “Shrinking the size but not price of products could damage consumers’ trust in the brand they love”.

On the defence, Cadbury said, “… We believe our confectionary still represents very affordable treat.”

From a Brandforensics perspective, the trend is worrying. Brands including Dairylea, Pringles and Heinz have also used a comparable ploy.

The question now is just how far brands are willing to go to further gamble customer loyalty? How many more cuts, will consumers naively put up with before questioning the motives of brand ‘leaders’ that spend millions of pounds carefully nurturing imageries to suggest that they are people- before profits led organisations?

Years ago the British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher declared, “There’s no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families.”

Today’s gates leading to the utopian ‘Big Society’ are draped with a banner which reads ‘austerity will give you purpose’.

Austerity Britain

Thin on excuses
Using obesity as central to its logic for justifying less for more, back in 2009, the Food Standards Agency said it wanted food and drink companies to start manufacturing smaller sizes, “which in time will become the standard”.
Arguably, that motive was noble.

However in today’s world of increasing divide between money-strapped consumers and certain bonus-bloated brand leaders, this ‘shared austerity’ could be viewed as little more than a propaganda ploy to create communal apathy.

In the short-term that is good for brands wishing to placate shareholders.

Long term it could spell trouble as it dawns on consumers that despite all the marketing hype, it turns out that only ones who really believe they are ‘worth it’ are the same organisations which keep on insipidly ‘swearing on their mother’s life’ that the public still has a choice and comes first – honest.

This may be just one example of brand conceit and arrogance that is simply too hard for any consumer to swallow or shareholders to profitably sustain.

Jonathan Gabay
www.jonathangabay.com
www.brandforensics.co.uk

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

Is anyone listening anymore from the clock tower?

There have been riots again on the streets of London.

Legitimate protestors had arguments, rather than arms in the mind.

However, spotting an opportunity for a ‘good kicking’ many illegitimate rioters turned chants of complaint into assaults on democracy.

Meanwhile, following a pleasant lunch at the House of Commons restaurant, MPs, elected by the people on a promise, betrayed voters’ trust in preference to keeping their jobs during tough economic times with new coalition bosses. (Who says Parliament doesn’t reflect ‘real life’).

Long-term commitments, like memories in photo albums seem to be fading relics of the past.  Unsurprisingly people – like the ex X Factor contestant, Cher, are led to believe it is their right that fortune must instantaneously follow fame – even if that fame is over in the rap of song.

Today, pictures of promises are becoming as disposable as people’s jobs at companies into which they invested their lives and from which in return they can confidently expect a ‘Good Luck’ card from their nearest and dearest bosses.

Bravery and independence as displayed by the likes of WikiLeaks has been kettled into place by a society that sometimes appears to have more in common with Stalinism than capitalism.

In the concrete jungle, just the promise of having a job in 2011 to pay the increase in rail journeys to work, has become enough of a carrot to keep the masses from protesting – too much.

With so many sniffing like dogs at the heels or any whiff of opportunity at all, those still with a job grow increasingly desperate to keep afloat.

The only certainty seems to be uncertainty of the future and fragility of the present.

We comfort ourselves in the high-definition lit delusion of our John Lewis TVs broadcasting around the clock Xmas dreams at the price of two for one.

Our sense of self and social demonstration of worth has become defined by the latest release of fashionable phones, computers, celebrity books (on a Kindle of course) or trinkets.

With populations doubling in size in years rather than decades, whilst tightening their grip around the neck of available community resources, the ordinary person in the street is forced to implode his or her id, ego and super-ego – so become increasingly self-centred – and obsessed – simply to survive.

Middle class professionals, complaining about the state of the nation  retreat to a Sony/ Xbox/ Nintendo fantasyland, away from the harshness of the day to a place where they can be the celebrity, sex symbol, speed fiend or thrill seeking rioter  they know they will meet again in their dreams tonight.

Brands such political parties, financial institutions, power-generating companies, and commercial enterprises – all promising to protect our futures – are regularly exposed as primarily concerned with protecting themselves before the rest.

With each exposure, people become much more immune and blasé.  Like watching thousands die in Pakistan, or another story of a cleric abusing a child, shock is no longer shocking enough.

Our trust in leadership – religious, political, social and commercial has become as tenuous as our faith in liberal democracy

The UK government, faced with the cost for recklessly inviting everyone from anywhere to become someone in a land away from their home, has been hoisted on its own perturb.

Overwhelming competition for space, land, and jobs …  has forced Parliament to repress accessible education for the masses, by imposing a lifetime repayment tariff for the foreseeable future generations of brand UK.  Or to put it another way, a further tax for already hard-pressed parents who only want to give their kids some kind of chance for a future.

Perhaps eventually the only ones able to pay for places at top UK universities will be those from India, the Middle East and China (where the UK buys the components for consumer’s trinkets).

The rest will have to settle for the high street college near a MacDonald’s, which offers local students free Fries at lunchtime.

Greed is good - worth fighting for

So money is tight. Cheer is translucent. Christmas has become little more than a sales promotion opportunity for companies to offer hope through gifts for the hapless horde.

Yet despite it all, in desperation to live the moment – capture a ‘buzz’ of happiness whilst they can, consumers consume as if the weeks leading to Christmas day mark the last supper of their lives.

Thanks to the Internet, redemption is just a click away from consumers walking the mile.

In the fervour to spend, consumers inadvertently feed the cycle of needs and wants kept spinning by wheels bigger than the one who guilelessly believes is in fact the biggest wheel in town.

And so the spiral goes on in the circles of the windmills of the minds.

This Christmas and into the new year, the greatest wish is for companies, politicians, students, surfers, bosses, individuals…  to follow the philosophy of human greatness: communicate with honesty and integrity for others and in doing so nurture a market rather than exploit it and then reck it.

Do that and students will eventually inherit more than arrogance bred into them by adults who, by the time they mature, long lose their spirit – apart from the solace still lingering at the bottom of their glass.

Opportunists will link hands rather than take up arms.

Instant gratification will serve lessons for a long-term education.

Politicians will aspire to more than borderline expense dodges or pay checks in the House of Lords.

Brands will actually believe and act upon the message of social responsibility facetiously promised by their advertising.

People will stop feeling that in order for their drum to be heard – they have to bash the skin of their passions until ears burst.

Respect will be returned to the hard working…

But perhaps that’s all just a Christmas faith, that is as realistic as baby in a crib of straw changing the world.

Maybe we are all clutching at straws.

Or just perhaps the one who picks the short straw to make a sustainable change will be you.

Merry Christmas.

Jonathan Gabay

www.brandforensics.co.uk

“ I wanted to change the world, but I realised it was too large of a task for one person, so I tried to change my community.

That was also too hard, so I tried to change my family. That was also too hard, so I decided to try and change myself.

And though it was very hard,

I finally changed myself.

And once I changed myself,

I discovered my family changed, the community changed, and the entire world changed.”

Rabbi Israel Salanter

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

A nice cuppa of Chinese tea and biscuits

Chinese brand leader, Bright Food has become the front line contender, ahead of Campbell Soup, PepsiCo, Nestle and Kellogg’s for buying Britain’s biggest biscuit producer United Biscuits (UB).

The company employs 7,000 people and owns some of the UK’s best-loved food brands.

These include McVitie’s biscuits, Jaffa Cakes, McCoys, Twiglets, Hula Hoops, Phileas Fogg and McCoy’s crisps.

Reports suggest that Bright Food is planning a take over bid of £2billion for UB.

Unless jobs are at risk, the bid is unlikely to cause the same kind of long-term political consternations in the UK as when US conglomerate, Kraft took over Cadbury’s.

This is partly because the ‘ostensibly’ British company is already owned by two overseas private equity firms: Blackstone of the US and PAI partners of France. Four years ago they purchased the brand umbrella for £1.6billion, then put the business up for sale in July 2010.

Last year UB profits reportedly rose by 14 per cent to £223million. However, it also has £1.2billion of debt.

Coincidently Bright Food was established four years ago.  It generates annual profits of approximately £200million on sales of £4.3billion and has around 3,300 shops in China.

Just what the middle-class love – a nice cup of tea with a biscuit

The Chinese market is essential for any brand.  Top-end Chinese consumers have ‘snapped up’ luxury and cool brands like Apple (especially the iPhone4 and iPad) as well Louis Vuitton and Gucci.

Equally Chinese consumers have taken to lower-end western brands such McDonald’s, Wal-Mart and KFC.

That leaves a vast middle-class market of an estimated 120 million people (more than the number of households in the United States), which is set to double in size during the next decade.

One category of consumer foods brands that traditionally attracts the middle-classes is snacks including biscuits and other ‘treats’.  In the case of Kraft, Oreo cookies have already become an Eastern phenomenon.

If the Bright Food bid goes ahead, The prospect of a takeover of United Biscuits is likely to raise shares in rivals such as Mr Kipling cakes, Hovis maker Premier Foods and Fox’s biscuits maker Northern Foods.

According to Thomson Reuters data, a winning Bright Food bid on United Biscuit would signify the biggest outbound food and beverage industry purchase in Asia this year.

Brands that you thought were 100% British – down to the last crumb:

The Swiss company Nestle owns Kitkat.
• India’s Tata Group owns Tetley’s tea.
• Wedgwood was sold to an American private equity firm last year.
• The State of Qatar bought Harrods for £1.5bn in May 2010.
• Tate & Lyle was in 2010 to American Sugar Refining for £211m.

And still the British brand names crumble:

Boots

Established in Nottingham in 1849 by John Boot, Boots was first owned by a foreign company in 1920 when Jesse Boot sold it to the American United Drug Company. Part of Alliance Boots since 2006, Boots is now owned by the Italian tycoon Stefano Pessina and the American private equity firm KKR.

Cadbury

John Cadbury began producing and selling tea, coffee and drinking chocolate in Birmingham in 1824.Cadbury merged with drinks company Schweppes in 1960. In 2010 it was sold to American good giant Kraft for £11.5bn.

Rolls Royce cars

Charles Rolls and Henry Royce started manufacturing cars in Derby in 1906. In 1973, Rolls Royce Motors was bought by Sheffield engineering firm Vickers. In 1994 it was sold to German company BMW.

Bentley cars

In 1919, Walter Owen Bentley, a World War One captain in the Royal Naval Air Service, started building Bentley automobiles in Cricklewood, London.

The company was sold to Rolls Royce during the Great Depression in 1931 in a deal so guarded not even Bentley himself knew the exact identity of the buyer until the contract was sealed.

Since 1998, the firm has been owned by German carmakers Volkswagen.

Jaguar

Jaguar originally appeared as SS Jaguar (Swallow Sidecar Co, owned by William Lyons).  Mr Lyons  felt a Jaguar mirrored his car’s design and performance. ‘SS’ was dropped because of the resemblance to the SS Nazi party. In 1999, American conglomerate Ford Motors bought the company and then sold it in 2008 to Indian firm Tata motors for £1.7bn.

Mini

Following the 1958 Suez crisis, which affected fuel supplies, the British Motor Corporation introduced a new car to meet mounting demand for small German ‘bubble’ cars. The Mini launched in 1959.

The brand was sold along with Rover to German car maker BMW in 1994.

Walkers Crisps

Following World War Two rationing, Leicester based pork butcher Henry Walker sought an additional form of revenue: the un-rationed potato.  He was so successful at making Walkers crisps that his company kept on producing potato chips when meat was de-rationed in 1954.

Walkers was bought by Fortune 500 American firm PepsiCo in 1989.

Harry Ramsden

Harry Ramsden established his first fish and chip shop in a wooden hut in West Yorkshire in 1928. In 1999, the company expanded into motorway locations. In  2006 it was sold to Swedish firm EQT Partners as part of a deal worth £1,822 million.

Smarties/Aero/Rolo/Fruit Pastilles

In York, 1863, Henry Rowntree and his brother Joseph founded Rowntree’s. The company was responsible for iconic British Empire favourites like Smarties, Aero, Fruit Pastilles, Yorkie and Black Magic.

In 1988, Swiss mega-brand owner Nestle, bought the company for $4.55billion.

It dropped the Rowntree name from all packaging except Rowntree’s Cocoa and Fruit Pastilles.

HP Sauce

Nottingham grocer Frederick Gibson Garton invented HP sauce in 1895. He called it HP because of a rumour that a restaurant in the Houses of Parliament was serving it to MPs – hence the label on the bottle (which shows a picture of the Houses of Parliament).

HP sauce has been owned by the American food giant Heinz since 2005.

Jonathan Gabay

www.brandforensics.co.uk

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

The commercial addresses traditional ‘macho’ views of homosexuality with a teenager boy being questioned about his ‘all -male’ school by his older ‘traditional’ father who feels sorry for him as the son has  lost opportunities to date girls.  The teenager responds with a wry smile.

McDonalds spokesperson explained that the commercial aimed to recognise the diversity of McDonald’s customers in France.
A YouTube version of the ad has already received in excess of 1,691,642 hits.

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

Viral parodies have been quick and furious.  Including the ‘Iranian McDonalds’ ad.

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]
Fox News anchor Bill O’Reilly caused controversy after he derided  the commercial saying:

“Do you think they have an ad for Al Qaeda?”

One blogger  in Los Angeles wrote:

‘They could never show that in the States, or the Christian right would boycott the restaurant forever.’

Another in Memphis, Tennessee, added:

‘I don’t understand – McDonald’s is simply saying that they will still serve you if you are gay.

In December 2009 it was reported that an Orlando McDonald’s fired one of its managers after he told a 17-year-old job applicant (via voice mail):

“You will not get hired. We do not hire faggots.”

2008 - Protestors outside McDonald's Chicago HQ

From a BrandForensics’ point of view it could be argued that the downside of the commercial is that it singles out gay people as if they are somehow different from other diners.

Would it not be considered discriminatory if there was a commercial focussing on  Jews, or people with special needs?

The alternative view is that the commercial is brave, witty and -given it’s viral success – a whopper of a promotion.  (With apologies to Burger King).

Jonathan Gabay

www.brandforensics.co.uk

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

Not content with hijacking St. George’s Day to publish the BNP’s  manifesto,  Nick Griffin, the leader of the ultra-right political party, the BNP has plagerised another great British icon – Marmite.

In response, the BNP was threatened with legal action from brand giant, Unilever over the party featuring a jar of Marmite in a political broadcast.  The brand owner said it had not given the BNP permission to use its product and was seeking to take out an injunction.

The BNP’s removed its online party broadcast from the party’s website, However it is still viewable on YouTube.   The nature of viral videos virtually ensures that the injunction will make it highly spreadable (‘virtually’, rather than any other sense of the word, ‘spread’).

Back-pedalling, Mr Griffin tried to explain to the BBC that the broadcast was a spoof capitalising on Marmite’s  ”love it or hate it” advertising slogan.

Distancing itself from BNP’s hijacking of a British brand favourite, Unilever, whose other brands include PG Tips, Knorr and Vaseline, said:

“Neither Marmite nor any other Unilever brand are aligned to any political party.

“We are currently initiating injunction proceedings against the BNP to remove the Marmite jar from the online broadcast and prevent them from using it in future.”

Marmite created two fictitious political parties as part of an online marketing campaign — the “Love Party” and the “Hate Party” — They battle for supporters and haters of the yeast spread.

BNP claimed that it was the inspiration for Marmite’s “Hate Party.”  The party said it was complaining against Unilever to the Electoral Commission for “interference with the electoral process.”

A series of Twitter messages from Mr Griffin were posted on the BNP website.

“Unilever PR men and lawyers all over us like a rash,” spluttered Griffin.

“Very upset at our using Marmite in our TV broadcast. They should have thought of that before modelling the one for their Hate Party on us. Quite simply, if you start a spoof, you should expect to get spoofed”

he said.

Mr Griffin  took no responsibility  for the Marmite logo appearing in the BNP’s online broadcast — an unknown “joker” had inserted the image, he spuriously claimed.

Love it or hate it, you’ve got to admire Marmite for making a great British stand against what many will see as an insult to a true British icon- and I am not referring to the man from the party of the right.

In honour of the brand, I  for one will be enjoying a nice bit of toast with some Marmite on it whilst watching the election debates.

Jonathan Gabay

www.brandforensics.co.uk

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

The sweet taste of success

To all intents and purposes, unless there is a last minute change, it appears that global brand giant, Kraft Foods has succeeded in a £11.9bn bid to buy one the UK’s best loved brands, Cadbury.

Kraft increased its bid from an initial offer of 771p a share back in September 2009 to 840p plus a dividend (the equivalent of 8581/2 p, including the fee).

If and once the deal goes ahead, it will lead to the creation of the world’s biggest confectionary group with sales of nearly £37bn (About 15 per cent of the market).

Kraft said it would own 40 confectionary brands with sales in excess of $100m.

Strategically it makes sense for Kraft Foods to take a bite out of Cadbury.  For example, in one segment alone: gum in aquiring Cadbury gum  brands Dentyne, Trident and Stride, will be close on the heals of the competitive Mars brand. (Mars acquired Wrigley in 2008.)

However, from a regional branding perception stance, in the short term at least, such a deal could spell trouble ahead for the Bourneville brand.

Licking the cream

Board members at Cadbury are reportedly expected to enjoy huge payouts if the deal is sealed. (The UK Guardian newspaper suggests that the Chief Executive alone is in line for a £12m cash and share reward (The Daily Telegraph estimates £20m).

Various financial advisors expect to pocket hundreds of millions. PR companies, bankers, lawyers and accountants have already reportedly cost the brand £2m per day in fees during the battle for the iconic brand.

Bonanza payout headlines come on same day that Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England, warned that UK families will see their standard of living fall over the next two years with salaries remaining frozen and inflation rises.

To make things worst, it is reported throughout the press that Kraft Foods has indicated that job losses were inevitable, especially at Cadbury’s West London office.

One paper reported cutbacks could affect 5,600 workers across the UK and Ireland.

From the nation which which brought you the man in red, a brand treat?

Grabbing our Curly Wurlies
The clash of profits versus doom, incensed the popular press such as The UK’s Daily Express to run front page headlines reading: SAVE OUR CHOCOLATE.

David Frost, director general of the British Chamber of Commerce asked:

“ Do we simply want to sell every UK brand to the highest bidder or do we see certain parts of it as being very fundamental to the future and for the future growth of the UK?”

The sentiment was echoed by Jennie Formby, Unite’s National Officer for Food and Drink:

“This is a very sad day for UK manufacturing. A successful iconic brand will be owned by a giant company with massive debt.”

Felicity Loudon, great-great granddaughter of the brand’s founder, John Cadbury described the takeover as a “horror story”.

Defending the bid, Irene Rosenfeld, Chief Executive of Kraft said:

“We have great respect for Cadbury’s brands, heritage and people. We believe they will thrive as part of Kraft Foods.”

Alluding towards, but not overtly pushing for national intervention for the brand, Prime Minister Gordon Brown said:

“We are determined that the levels of investment that take place in Cadbury in the UK are maintained.”

Lord Mandelson said:

“ I want my Crème Egg to be produced in this country. It’s perfectly produced and perfectly tasty”.

(He added that state intervention would set a “dangerous precedent”).

It’s all about the taste
One of the greatest fears for the brand is that in potentially moving some of the production of its iconic confectionary delights to other countries offering competitive workforces, taste could be affected.

Clearly, chocolate depends on milk – which could arguably vary in taste -depending on local farm regimes.

In the UK, Chocolate must contain at least 20 per cent cocoa solids. In the US only 10 per cent is stipulated.

Kraft Foods will be wise to pay attention to messing with a food and drink brand’s core ingredients.

Coca-Cola learnt the hard way. It attempted to launch ‘New Coke’ featuring a different taste than the original recipe. That had to be relaunched with the original recipe as ‘Classic Coke’ and eventually back to where it started in the first place.

Getting the brand  name right
Recent British confectionary brands loosing their original trade names for more globally marketable ones include:

Opal Fruits – now Starburst, Marathon – now Snickers and Treets – now M&Ms.

In America, Cadbury’s biggest-spending national (US)  brands: Trident, Stride and Dentyne are handled by JWT, New York; and McCann Erickson, New York.

According to AdAge, Kraft worked extensively with JWT Chicago, until 2007, when it began draining the agency of big brands such as Kraft Singles, Oscar Mayer, Grey Poupon, Ritz and Triscuit.

The branding lesson

From a Brandforensics point of view, Kraft is certainly not naive. If their acquisition goes ahead, it will give them deeper reach and distribution into lucrative markets such as India and Latin America.

Kraft capitalise on population and economic growth

Irene Rosenfeld from Kraft Foods explained:

“We’ve expanded our footprint in developing markets to capitalise on both population and economic growth trends.  This further creates opportunities over the long term as consumers trade up to more of our products.”

As for taste changing, it is doubtful that Kraft Foods will meddle.

America and the UK has long enjoyed ‘ a special relationship’.  For this deal to work, it must be as culturally responsible as it is financially prudent.

In terms of brand reputation any merger or acquisition involving an iconic brand must take into account that no money can ever replace a brand’s illustrious relationship with loyal consumers.

Equally with the right investment in terms of finance and sensitivity, every brand can always be developed further to satisfy a global taste for excellence.

For now at least, in terms of where this particular brand story ends- there will be more than enough speculation for people to chew over in coming weeks and months.

Jonathan Gabay
www.brandforensics.co.uk

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

In the 1920s The Coca-Cola Company began its Christmas advertising with shopping-related ads in magazines like The Saturday Evening Post.  At this time, consumers drank Coca-Cola mainly when the weather was hot.  In 1922 The Coca-Cola Company started a campaign “Thirst Knows No Season,” and continued with a campaign again connecting the brand to Santa Claus.

In 1930, artist Fred Mizen painted a department store Santa in a crowd drinking a bottle of Coke.  In 1931 the Coca-Cola Company commissioned Michigan-born illustrator, Haddon Sundblom, to develop advertising images using Santa Claus showing Santa himself rather than just a man dressed as ‘Santa’, as Mizen’s work had portrayed him.  Sundblom was inspired by Clement Clark Moore’s 1822 poem “A Visit From St. Nicholas” (commonly called “‘Twas the Night Before Christmas”.)

Sundblom’s Santa was also said to be based on a live model- his friend, Lou Prentiss – a retired salesman. When Prentiss passed away, Sundblom used himself as a model, painting while looking into a mirror.  (The children who appeared with Santa Claus in Haddon Sundblom’s paintings were based on Sundblom’s neighbours.)

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

1930 was also the year when radio listeners could tune into one of the first national coast-to coast radio programmes – ‘The Coca-Cola Hour’ – broadcast nightly on NBC.  The show was a mix of celebrity interviews, sports news and live music played by the thirty-one-piece Coca-Cola Dance orchestra.  Leonard Joy, the conductor, composed a simple theme tune for the programme, ‘Coca-Cola Signature’.  The tune, which was preceded by the sound of a bottle of Coca-Cola being opened, was the company’s first official jingle and was used for over two decades.

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

The Coca-Cola Santa made its official debut in 1931 in The Saturday Evening Post and appeared regularly in that magazine, as well as Ladies Home Journal, National Geographic, The New Yorker and others.  From 1931 to 1964, Coca-Cola advertising showed Santa enjoying a Coke, playing with children who stayed up to greet him and raiding the refrigerators at a number of homes.  (Taken from Soul Traders).

Happy Christmas from Brandforensics!

Jonathan Gabay

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

How stupid do brands think people are?  Discussing Heinz’s decision last week to drop the word ‘baked’ which has graced its tins of iconic beans since 1886, John Alderman, marketing manager for the company said: “Heinz Beanz have been powering the nation for over a hundred years and to say thank you to our loyal fans, we have given this iconic product a 21st century makeover”.

Well ‘thanks’ for er… nothing Mr Alderman. The new tins (which go on sale from August) will still be printed in their familiar turquoise colour.  However, instead of the word ‘baked’ there will be a picture of some their lovely beans oozing out of the label.  This is so the consumer will know what’s inside the tin without having to read the word ‘baked’.

Whilst the new design is pretty, the reasons for the new design are questionable.  According to the company’s PR people, the reverse of the new tin will highlight the beans’ nutritional benefits – low in fat and sugar (Heinz has reduced the salt content by 30 per cent over the last five years) and high in fibre and protein: All good stuff.  However the other reason for the new label is apparently because consumers are just too dumb to say the world ‘baked’ when asking for a tin in the local supermarket. So now they only have to say ‘Heinz Beanz’ rather than Heinz Baked Beans’.

Whilst grammar students would question the idea of ‘beanz’ rather than ‘beans’, I totally understand the branding thinking and it’s a reasonable one.  However, dropping ‘baked’ because Heinz believe that the average 850 million Britons who eat their product each year (that’s equivalent to 96,000 plates an hour) can’t get manage to pronounce an additional one syllable word is frankly an insult.

The move is reportedly costing the company up to £5 million. (Presumably that includes the cost of the extra ink not such a good idea in these green- conscious days).

This is all nothing compared the current cost of baked beans in Zimbabwe where that most congenial of grocers – Mr Mugabe – is charging tin Z$30 billion tin.

Now that really is a mouthful for consumers to swallow.
Jonathan Gabay
www.brandforensics.co.uk

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

Heinz, the perennial family brand favourite, has withdrawn its television commercial for mayonnaise because it believes it offends family values.
The thirty-second commercial, which was due to run over five weeks, features a man in a typical middle-class family kitchen setting preparing sandwiches for a schoolboy and girl.  The man, dressed as a chef, sounds and acts like a native New Yorker.  The children collect their sandwiches. A second man appears, in a hurry to get to work.  He is presumed to be the father of the family.  He calls  “goodbye” to the chef who in turns orders him back to give a ‘farewell’ kiss on the lips.
The commercial prompted over 200 complaints.  The Daily Mail, noted for its campaigning on behalf of ‘Middle-England’, reported that some parents were angry because they had been forced to explain same-sex relationships to their children.
Heinz suspended the campaign explaining to the press that, “We are a global, family company that listens to its consumers.”
However clearly not all the family were happy with ‘Ma’ and ‘Pa’ Heinz.
Outrage and dissent broke out among Britain’s 3.6 million gay community.  Gay rights group Stonewall called for gays to stop eating baked beans, spaghetti and other products from Heinz.
This heavy-handed decree offers the sad prospect of gay men and women being forced to covertly eat tins of beans in dark closets – away from the aghast of the general public.  Will they next be forced to swallow beans in their unprotected raw form still dripping with fresh sauce, straight from the tin?
David Muniz, commercial director at Gaydar, points out, “If Heinz had announced they were pulling the ad because it hadn’t worked creatively I could have understood it, but what they went on to say was nothing short of offensive and insensitive to the gay community”.
Meanwhile in the States, The American Family Association has urged members to register disapproval with Heinz in America.”Forward this to all your family and friends letting them know of the push for homosexual marriage by Heinz,” proclaims the Association’s website.
Members of Parliament have also joined the debate, saying that Heinz should actually reinstate the campaign.  Michael Cashman MEP for West Midlands– a former actor who, in 1987 played a man with HIV in the popular soap, Eastenders, described the commercial as,” a clever and innovative” reflection on modern life.
Food producers, the general public, politicians and pressure groups await to hear the Advertising Standards Association’s ruling on whether or not the commercial was indeed offensive.  (It wasn’t shown during children’s programming as regulations don’t allow foods with high fats, salt or sugar content to be broadcast at that time).
When it comes to mainstream UK broadcasting of gay-themed commercials, Heinz is certainly not the first to provoke debate.  Brands like FCUK and Benetton have gone much further. A Dolce & Gabbana commercial screened during the X Factor in 2006 received 89 complaints.  In 2006 a computer game, Canis Canem Edit, originally called, ‘Bully’, was given a 15 certificate because of a kiss between teenage boys.
From a brand forensics point of view it’s  confusing to suggest that the Heinz commercial reflects the true taste of New York. Whilst some Delis in New York may indeed give you a free pucker on the lips with every baloney sandwich, most only offer extra mustard.
You simply don’t automatically think, ‘New York equals a gay kiss’. That said, brands such as Heinz have to reflect the reality of the society occupied by its customers.
It is not up to Heinz or any other brand to set moral agendas. However they need to demonstrate a degree of ethics that address all people irrespective of their sexual preferences. All brands have to be mindful of audiences watching commercials and their sensibilities.
Heinz is a family brand and there is always a risk of upsetting members of that family (i.e. Heinz’s customers) even if their intention was supposed to be an innocent joke.
Perhaps the brand is saying, “this is today’s family values – we’re not suggesting such values are right or wrong we’re just reflecting society.”

However much negative publicity this suspension generates, history tends to show that brands like Heinz are more than capable of taking the flak squarely on the chin (or this case on the lips).

Jonathan Gabay
www.brandforensics.co.uk

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to: