Healthy innovation – Is “Zero” the way forward for Coca-Cola?
I was a little sceptical when I first ran across Coke Zero in Barcelona last year (see pic). How is this different from Diet Coke, I thought. A smart entrepreneur at the last incubator I worked at, suggested that it is a form of A/B marketing. Coke is marketing the silver Diet-brand at women and Zero at men. Made sense, I thought: black is probably more appealing to men, and some of the commercials Coke has been running for Diet seem much more targeted at women, at least to me. Last week however, in Germany, I also stumbled across Fanta and Sprite Zero, which preserved their original packaging-colours. Diet was no-where in sight. So the “black is in” theory makes a little less sense now.
So, is Zero the way forward for Coca-Cola and the world of soda? I would think so. The Coke Zero brand is advertised as “Great Coke taste, zero sugar” (much like Pepsi Max’s “Maximum taste, no sugar”), and I concur to a large degree. It does indeed taste better than the diet-variant, less chemical, emulating the rich taste we (probably) want in a soda.
There are many criticisms about the brand, particularly relating to the high content of sugar, which makes calorie-counting a (more) difficult chore, and the acidity, which is bad for the teeth. Personally, I don’t think pumping an addictive drug like caffeine into kids at school is particularly ethical either. But one out of three is a start.
In essence, where I would like soda to go, is towards becoming as close to water as possible. At least in the caloric and pH-neutral sense. There’s nothing wrong with taste, that’s why the human body has taste-buds. We are however being bombarded with so-called “easy” solutions for the fast-moving individual, yet innovation is not happening at a stage where easy is also “good.” But clearly it could be.
One of my greatest criticisms of the McDonalds-brand (read my other thoughts on it here: 1 & 2) is that with all their research, money, and scale economies, and the fact that they’ve been at it for 50+ years, they have not managed to move beyond offering an artery-clogging dish as their main meal. It’s the same with many other market-leading (food-)brands, Coca Cola included. As a business, you have a responsibility beyond your shareholders, towards the well-being of your customers. To offer them the best product technologically feasible. This is no different for web and software-businesses either, where the well-being of customers is based on values like time, portability, and cost.
The, hopefully obvious, alternative is that some young, hip entrepreneur comes along, spots the big gap in your offering and steals your customers, who were not really as happy about your product as their wallets suggested.
I’m hoping that I’m reading Coca Cola right here and their move with Zero is to eventually replace the red Coke-brand, or at least equal it in taste, which will have the same effect. But what it really comes down to is that, if my dream that all women will look like AskMen top 100, and I’m to look like Brad Pitt, is to succeed, sugar-filled drinks will have to disappear. I hope Neville Isdell, CEO of Coca Cola, supports me in that dream.
Vincent is a co-author on Tech IT Easy and enjoying the sun and his coke far too much to write about computer-tech. You can find out more about him on this blog’s initial announcement or on his site.
LikeRelated posts:
- Thoughts about Tech IT Easy, inspired by my time in Paris
- 2 resolutions for 2007: visit a cluster of innovation every year & brush up my programming skills
- America – the land of process-innovation?
- A tribute to Isaac de Rivaz; what innovation really is: marketing
- Beta equals Innovation, or another reason why I like the Business of Software
Business intelligence, Business strategy, Entertainment, Europe, Globalization, USA, innovation, marketing
Yes, Coca-Cola Zero is definetly aimed at different market than Coca-Cola light. In Finland, their advertising was deemed so sexist that they had to pull back the ads. So, the male focus is a given.
There’s a subtle difference in Zero and Coca-Cola Light (which I think Diet is usually called in Europe). Zero is sweetened with aspartame, but Light uses sucralose. Some say that Zero is just sugar-free version of normal Coke and Light uses a little bit different formula. I don’t like normal Coke or Zero, but I like the taste of Light.
Enough of the content, because I agree that the main idea behind Zero is probably a masculine sugar-free version of Coke to compete with Pepsi Max.
Many of my (male) friends have migrated from Max to Zero after the latter was introduced last year, but I don’t have any real market data to generalize this. Most of them rationalize the change by saying that it tastes better.
Anyway, I wouldn’t call it A/B marketing as they aren’t actually the same product (the sweetener difference is a fact), but refining market demographics. They couldn’t reposition Light as unisexual product, but they seriously needed a product with the same image as Max. So, in a sense what they were after was A/B marketing, but they went a bit farther than that.
What is strange, that I don’t know a restaurant that would serve Coke Zero. (it’s either Coke/Coke Light or Pepsi/Pepsi Max).
“What is strange, that I don’t know a restaurant that would serve Coke Zero. (it’s either Coke/Coke Light or Pepsi/Pepsi Max).”
Same, but I suspect there are economic reasons for this. It could be that their customers are typically of an older age-group and more conservative. It could simply be that Coke still needs to educate the market. It could also be supplier-based, which may have long-term contracts for supplying Light (also called that in the Netherlands and Germany, btw.).
I do agree with your sentiments on Zero = male. How do you explain the Fanta/Sprite Zero then? Are these also more masculine? As I mentioned, this particular store in the centre of every German city (Kaufhof) doesn’t seem to serve the ‘light’-variant of these drinks anymore (though I only checked the chilled drinks).
I’d guess that the reason for only two variants of cola drinks in restaurants (also fast-food restaurants!) is just for consumer convienience. Less choices are actually better, they say. But, the light variant of Pepsi was subsituted by Max in restaurants at some point. My guess is that Zero won’t be available in restaurants or McDonald’s as anything else as a promtional item in the near future. The education and the fans of Light are too strong barriers for this.
Around here Fanta Zero is Fanta Free. Here too it seems that Fanta Free and Sprite Zero have substituted the Lights, which seem to have been retired from stores. While both Fanta and Coke (Light and Zero) are advertised in media, I can’t remember a single advertisement for Sprite (Zero or normal). At least to me, they don’t have anywhere near as strong brand presence as the cola drinks and are quite gender-neutral. One reason might be our local Fanta competitor Jaffa (it isn’t as influental as Orangina is in France, but something like that. It’s the official drink for hang-overs and for flu in Finland), which pretty much dominates the orange/etc. carbonated drink market here.
I wonder how these local specialities like Jaffa or Orangina affect Coke’s and Pepsi’s strategies. Oh, I almost forgot about the Socttish Irn-Bru (delicious, btw!). Now that’s a special case as legend has it that it’s the only competitor to Pepsi or Coke that actually has/had bigger market share than either of them.
“I wonder how these local specialities like Jaffa or Orangina affect Coke’s and Pepsi’s strategies.”
My guess would be minimally. Pepsi / Coke have the advantage of powerful brand + economies of scale. But they also act as a parent to other brands of course, so if a local competitor is strong, they also have the option to take over one of their own and compete on local tastes. Nowadays it’s hard to find a soft-drink not owned by one of the big two.