Truvia. Remember that name. It’s a natural, no-calorie sweetener derived from compounds found in the leaves of an herb called stevia. Agribusiness giant Cargill is about to roll out Truvia, which is being positioned as a natural alternative to artificial sweeteners. D’Agostino markets in Manhattan will debut the product shortly. Eventually, supermarket chains and big box retailers will follow suit. All of this according to a recent news article in Reuters.
With a suggested retail of $3.99 for a box of 40 green/white packets, Truvia will be slightly more expensive than its artificial sweetener “cousins”. Truvia will also begin to be used as a sweetener in foods and beverages like cereals, snack bars, yogurts early next year. Coca-Cola helped Cargill develop Truvia, so the company retains exclusive rights to use it in its beverages.
While too much of any sweetener is never a good idea, natural or not, stevia can be used in small quantities to good effect. It isn’t man-made, either. Cargill worked closely with FDA for three years to make sure the agency’s “health questions and concerns about Truvia were addressed”.
Cargill also supervised the growing of the plants and extracted only specific leaf compounds to ensure consistent quality, without any of the plant’s other compounds that may have health-related implications. Ann Tucker, Cargill spokeswoman, “An independent panel of experts met, reviewed the science, and made the statement that the product is safe.” FDA has copies of the data proving that Truvia is safe.
The refined sweetener, dubbed rebiana, is being sourced by Cargill from stevia suppliers in China and South America. It’s not often that a new naturally sourced product is found and comes to market.
If you were a marketer at Cargill, responsible for the new Truvia brand:
* How would you bring the new natural sweetener to market?
* Should Truvia be positioned first as a natural product like cane sugar, but without any calories?
* Or should it be positioned as a sweetener that doesn’t detract from the foods in which it is used? Or leave an aftertaste?
* Or would it be a better strategy to position Truvia as simply natural vs all of the artificial sweeteners out there?
I’d love to hear from you.
Interesting post. I started a company called Zevia. It is a stevia based soda. As a small company we might be more interesting to review. We could use the help for sure ! Also I am glad to send you samples.
Interesting, Ian. I suspect lots of food and beverage companies will be taking a good look at stevia for their products. You’ll see my business address at http://www.designforceinc.com. Kindly send the samples and we’ll take a look and a taste and let you know what we think.
Thanks for letting us know about your business. Best of luck to you in your venture.
Why can’t it be marketed in all of those ways? Diabetics may have different triggers than the organics/natural crowd.
It can be marketed in a number of ways, Cam, though the diabetic angle is a tricky one. All sugars are a cause for concern for health problems like diabetes. I confess I’m curious to see how a truly new sweetener will be marketed as it comes to market.
Thanks for adding your comments, Cam. I appreciate it.
This is an excellent post, I quite enjoyed reading this!
Ted,
I am confident that those who use sugar are first concerned with taste, so marketing should begin there. In order, next I would talk about no calories and then its natural aspects.
I would definitely avoid the word “sweetener” in my entire marketing campaign due to some of the negative health perceptions associated with (artificial) sweeteners (i.e., Aspartame). Since this is essentially a different product than artificial sweeteners, it would be best to create a new category for this product and market it as such rather than try and slot it into the already existing category of sweeteners alongside Nutrasweet etc…
Thanks, Cosmixxx. I appreciate the kind words. Any take on how you would go about marketing this new product, by any chance? It’s great to get the ideas and input of Daily Fix readers. All points of view are welcome.
You’re a marketing pro, Lewis, and it shows. When it comes to any food or beverage product, consumers are concerned with taste first, as you pointed out. I’d also add that where sweeteners are concerned “no aftertaste” is a major point.
No calories as a selling point also ranks high on the list, as wellas the fact that it’s natural.
Thanks for weighing in, Lewis.
This is an excellent insight, Salam. You’re right: some consumers have negative connotations when it comes to just using the word “sweetener”. Better to market Truvia as a natural (herbal) sugar substitute. I also like your idea of positioning this in a “new category”, because essentially it is. It isn’t sugar; it isn’t an artificial sweetener. Other natural sweeteners do exist, though. Honey, maple syrup, molasses and sorghum fall into this category. Question: how would you further distinguish Truvia from these products, Salam? Just curious. . .
Thanks for adding a great deal to this post, Salam. Much appreciated.
I’m one of those guys that uses Splenda regularly, in fact I ask for it by name instead of other sweeteners. And I started using it because of Coke Zero. So the first thing I would do with Cargill is get a major brand like Coke to help me with “Ingredient Branding” so I can get the brand name out there using their marketing dollars. Second, I would really play up the natural part. I’ve started cutting back on my use of Splenda because I’m concerned about artificial sweeteners and their long term impact. Play up that concern as much as you can. Splenda worked at first because they said “it tastes like sugar because its made from sugar.” So they hinted at it being a little more natural. I would take that and blow it out of the water…zero calories AND all natural.
You’re right to be concerned about the long-term health effects of artificial sweeteners, Dave. I have no doubt that a natural sweetener like Truvia will be marketed as a more healthy alternative to those. However, if you go back and reread my post, you’ll see that Coca Cola partnered with Cargill to develop this product, so you’ll be seeing it in Coke products before long. “Coca-Cola helped Cargill develop Truvia, so the company retains exclusive rights to use it in its beverages.” I like your ideas on how Coke might market Truvia in its beverages, though.
Might also add for DF readers that plain old white sugar is not natural either. It might be derived from cane but it is chemically altered. Turbinado sugar, on the other hand, is natural and not chemically altered in any way.
Thanks for your well-articulated ideas, Dave. Strong stuff.
Naturally sweet without the calories.
Short and sweet. (pun intended) Usually that works best, doesn’t it, Neil? It’s far easier for consumers to remember. Thanks for adding to this post. I appreciate it.
I’m so excited there will finally be a product widely available that is made from Stevia. I’ve been a fan of, and using Stevis for 5 years now and have sold my family and friends on it. But, it’s hard to find, and I’ve never seen a marketed product that is made with it. This is great!
I would sell it on it’s all natural roots. That is why I use it, because I know it comes from a plant, naturally and it doesn’t have any chemicals. I’m not familiar with if they will be able to make that claim from a legal standpoint, but it will definitely appeal to people.
Glad to hear from you, Katie. Many natural food stores have been selling stevia in bulk or packaged form for a few years now. It’s nice, as you say, stevia will have widespread distribution soon. The “natural” selling point is an important one. So is the fact that Cargill has tested the product enough to be able to say the stevia is being extracted from the safe parts of the plant. Remember: consumers have to feel new products like this are safe, regardless how natural they are.
Thanks for adding some great comments to this post, Katie.
Thanks for your comments Ted.
One way that I would further distinguish Truvia would be by the retail packaging. Since most sweeteners come in little packets, I would make sure that Truvia’s package looks completely different. Not just in terms of colors, design, etc, but the actual package. I would move away from the traditional rectangle packet, and find something unique.
Also, since they worked so closely with the FDA, maybe they can get an “Approved by FDA” logo (or something along those lines) stamped on their packaging (like for example some products do with the Heart and Stroke Foundation). This further differentiates Truvia from sweeteners and addresses the health concerns that some potential consumers might have.
The process that goes into making Truvia should be highlighted to illustrate just how serious and exacting the company is about this product (how many people know how Nutrasweet is made?!?!?). Just my 2 cents.
Forgot to mention one thing. I don’t think Truvia should be positioned as a natural alternative to sweeteners but rather as a natural alternative to sugar.
More great ideas, Salam, and I thank you. The reason for the packets: consumers are used to them and comfortable with these individual serving sizes. Some other packaging might be devised, as you suggest, but it would be more expensive than the paper used for packets. It might also present a larger environmental waste issue. However, that doesn’t mean there might not be a good solution: that’s what brainstorming allows us, as designers to do. So you’re thinking like I do. Are you, by any chance, a designer Salam?
An approval by the FDA that could be used on packaging and in advertising, is another great idea. That does take time and considerable effort to get, however. Just ask the pharmaceutical companies. . .
As to positioning, how about this: “the natural, no calorie alternative to sugar and artificial sweeteners” to cover all of our bases?
Thanks for taking the time to offer such great, well-thought ideas, Salam. Great stuff.
As a marketer and a mother to 2 year old twins (one with sensitivities to sugars, dyes & additives) I’m about as cynical as they come when it comes to marketing messages related to food. That said I am very interested in what is currently happening with Truvia.
I understand that it is truly a natural product, but my normal cynicism wouldn’t get past the words ‘artificial’ and ‘no calorie’ as a main message on the packaging. I immediately begin to question the ‘naturalness’ of Truvia if it is offered as an alternative to NutraSweet, Aspartame, etc.
Therefore, my first thought is to actually ignore all reference to what Truvia could be an alternative to and instead make Truvia the primary focus – make all other sweeteners a (poorer/less natural) alternative to Truvia:
Nature’s Own Sweetener
More Natural Than Table Sugar
Naturally Sweet
“While others have their sweetness created in a laboratory, Truvia gets its sweetness from nature and nowhere else.”
Great input, Kate. “nature’s own sweetener” would resonate with many consumers. However, “nature’s own sweetener” also refers to honey or maple syrup. Still, I think you’re onto something.
One point, though: since so many are concerned about the safety of artificial sweeteners, it might be a good idea to still enforce the idea of a natural alternative. Ask consumers: “Which would you prefer–an artificial or natural sweetener”? Just ruminating about this a bit more, Kate. . .
Another point you made is very valid: many consumers are cynical about food claims today. Especially in light of recent scares. It’s absolutely essential that when Truvia rolls out, that it is safe. The proof is in the pudding, right? Consumers will know it’s safe once they use it and continue to use it. Like every other brand, Truvia will have to earn the public trust. Any screw-ups will lead to a major backlash.
Thanks, Kate, for weighing in on my post. I appreciate your keen insights.
Wow! I can’t believe that someone finally found a way to capitalize on this product which you can find in ANY health food store.
Firstly and most importantly. The name Truvia sucks.
It sounds like a chemical – the opposite of the image you are going for and the opposite of the reason it was developed (artificial bad – natural good). Call it Stevia for goodness sakes – probably no hippy has gotten around to TMing it yet.
Marketing Stevia as a natural, no calorie sweetener is the way to go. Add in some covert web stories about the truth behind aspartame and the rights to sell it in Diet Coke and you are off!
Oh yes. Has anyone at Cargill tasted Stevia? I don’t know if their scientists somehow refined it but it certainly has an aftertaste more subtle but very much like Splenda.
Good luck! I hope someone finally makes me a diet drink that isn’t sweetened with a pesticide for ants
Tell me how you really feel, Theresa. Actually, many products have come into the mainstream via the natural products industry. Stevia isn’t the first and it won’t be the last.
Cargill and Coke have taken their time to refine the stevia for commercial use, so I’m sure they’ve done their homework when assessing taste and safety issues. As far as coining the brand name goes, I’m sure they put considerable thought and energy into it. Will their choices appeal to all consumers? Probably not. Still, I think there is considerable merit to the idea of bringing stevia to a wider market. The business generated by natural food stores is still under 10% of the total national spend and stevia isn’t on most consumers’ radar. The kind of marketing launch Cargill and Coke can put behind a new product like this will bring it to the attention of tens of thousands of consumers.
Thanks, Theresa, for weighing in. I appreciate your candor.
no, no, not a designer, just a humble marketer
Nevertheless, I believe that Truvia’s growth would be severely stunted if their marketing message was similar to Nutrasweet/ Splenda.
I do agree with Kate on the cynicim surrounding the “no calorie” and “natural” product claims but for slightly different reasons. These messages (“no calorie” for example) are the primary messages communicated by Nutrasweet and Splenda (both of them have this visibly written on their packages just beneath their name). I do not think Truvia would be successful if their marketing repeated the messages of their competitors. I would venture to say that in the consumers mind, the part allocated to “no calorie” sugar subsitutes is already occupied by Nutrasweet/Splenda. Truvia would have a tough time overthrowing Nutrasweet/ Splenda out of that spot. They don’t need to though because by communicating a wholly different message they can occupy an “empty” place in the minds of consumers (for example, by focusing on the healthier aspect of Truvia rather than its low calorie content. The 2 are certainly related, but the latter is associated with Nutrasweet/ splenda while the former is (perhaps) not – this is where the marketing research teams kicks in
Your arguments are good ones, Salam. Still, I think the idea of a “no calorie natural alternative” has legs. I confess I’m curious to see how Cargill/Coke will choose to market Truvia. Your idea of trying to occupy an “empty space” in consumers’ mind is a good one. But given how many sweeteners there are, and how they’ve been marketed, I wonder if that’s possible?
BTW: you must be an excellent marketer. Thanks for fleshing out your ideas, Salam. I’m enjoying reading them very much.
Thanks for the comments Ted. I too am interested in how Truvia will be marketed. I’m gonna keep an eye out on it once it hits the market
This is just so interesting to me. I’ve been using a product called Stevia Plus for years and years. As far as I know, Stevia has been around forever, but it hasn’t had any real successful marketing behind it.
My only complaint with it, is that it isn’t always easy to stir into cold drinks. They instruct you to stir, pour and then stir again. It’s not a real problem, but if Truvia doesn’t have that issue then that’s one up for you.
I think the people you’ll speak to best are people like myself. I’m interested in using a no calorie sugar, but I’m not interested in unnatural substitutes. Is Truvia organic? If so, that definitely give you an edge.
I really like what Kate had to say on the subject. I appreciate Salam’s comments, but I don’t agree that Truvia’s growth would be stunted if the message was at all similar to the competitors. When Splenda jumped on the scene it was positioned as “more natural” than the other guys because it is starts out as sugar. They took the industry by storm. I’d love to see Truvia as the next Splenda so to speak.
As a long-time user of stevia as a sweetener, you have very valuable insights to share, Christina. As far as I know, Truvia is not certified organic; at least the current press on it doesn’t indicate that it is.
You’ll be interested to know that both Coke and Pepsi intend to use it as a sweetener in beverages. I wonder how they will blend Truvia in their drink products and keep it blended?
Lastly, I would also like to see Truvia do well since it will be marketed to a large audience. Sounds like a healthier, viable alternative to the artificial sweeteners out there.
Thanks for weighing in, Christina, with such great information. I appreciate it.
Consumers have had several choices of artificial sweeteners for decades, from saccharine to sucralose (Splenda). If they wanted a natural sweetener, though, they had to take the calories with it.
What Truvia brings to the market is the best of both worlds. Finally, a natural sweetener that has no calories. That’s the message.
I wouldn’t focus around how good it tastes. This should be about getting back to a more natural way to sweeten foods while cutting back on your calories. Consumers will see for themselves how good it tastes–so make sampling a big part of the early marketing.
Splenda was introduced with the claim that it was “made from sugar,” which gave the impression that it was natural. It wasn’t Splenda’s taste that drove people to it. It was the “more natural than aspartame” perception.
Truvia can pull a Splenda on Splenda by not just suggesting that it’s natural, but overtly claiming it: “The only all natural, no calorie sweetener.”
I have been using stevia for nearly a year now as an alternative to Splenda and aspartame (ugh). It has been discouraging to see how few light products are actually naturally sweetened. You think you’re doing something good for your health by eating light yogurt, for example, until you see how few choices there are without artificial ingredients.
I’m glad to see that stevia is finally going to be legal as an ingredient in the U.S. market. Other countries have been using it for 40 years with no adverse effects on the population.
I looked into it a bit more and the reason Stevia Plus can be difficult to mix is because it include fiber inulin (it’s the same fiber that’s in fruit).
Stevia also come in liquid droplet form at Whole Foods, so I’m sure the soda guys will be able to mix it in just fine.
It’s interesting that is Stevia is not FDA approved, so Stevia Plus is considered a “dietary supplement.”
I can’t wait until its out on the market in full force. It would be nice to grab some Truvia off the table at the table rather than from my purse to sweeten my iced tea at a restaurant.
Devon,
You’ve posted some well-thought-out, well-articulated thoughts here and I thank you. Having worked with food and beverage manufacturers for a couple of decades now, I have to say this. Taste is the #1 concern of consumers. Playing up a great, clean taste is important, I believe. The natural alternative aspect of stevia is, as well.
You’ve hit on an important point, Devon. Low calorie, light foods and beverages use artificial sweeteners. The trade off may not be worth it to consumers once they’ve been educated about a natural alternative like Truvia.
If stevia can be produced in sufficient quantities and it can be sourced from the safest part of plants, then it ought to have a bright future with American consumers.
Thanks for adding so much to this post, Devon. I appreciate it.
Thanks for taking the time to do more research, Christina. You’ve taught us all something. FDA has always been slow to approve herbal products, so they’ve been designated as “food supplements or food additives” by the agency. Getting their approval for Truvia would probably do some good as far as gaining the public trust in some quarters. However, FDA itself has had some notable gaffes in recent memory with some of the approvals they have issued to drugs that had to be recalled. Also: they’ve had their hands full with recent food scares. Given that, I’m not sure “FDA approved” carries the weight it used to. . .
Agreed: can’t wait until stevia is widely, commercially available. Seems like a terrific choice for consumers.
Thanks again, Christina, for adding so much to my post.
Yes, taste is a consideration, but have you tasted stevia? I would not make the claim that it’s “clean.” It does have a slight flavor of its own, sort of like a faint honey taste. I have gotten used to it, so it doesn’t bother me, but if a marketing message sets up the expectation that Truvia will taste like clean, like sugar, consumers are going to be disappointed.
I would also be concerned about having too many primary message points: 1) all natural, 2) no calorie and 3) good taste. Taste should be an assurance, rather than a lead message.
Very interesting discussion, Ted! Thanks for putting this on my radar.
It’s funny how we as human beings all have different taste perceptions, Devon. . .maybe you’re right. Maybe Truvia ought to be marketed as having a natural taste without an unpleasant aftertaste. While I don’t advocate bombarding consumers with too many messages, as a package designer, I can tell you that getting the main selling points across which you’ve enumerated, is very important. If done properly on the packaging, consumers will know Truvia’s key attributes at a glance.
Thank you, Devon, for engaging in this discussion as well. Most appreciated.
As a diabetic I’ve seen relatively little regarding blood sugar levels and stevia, which is my first concern with any sugar replacement product. Natural doesn’t mean better. Honey replaces sugar but has the same effect (it’s simple carbs). St. Johns Wort can help with colds but seriously increases my blood sugar levels as a side effect.
So, any communications regarding the product require for me some level of understanding on how it will impact my overall health.
Actually, I am surprised that no one has mentioned that the FDA banned the herb Stevia and it was illegal to import it into the USA as recently as the 1990’s. It is/was one of the few natural substances that has been used by humans for thousands of years in South America that did not get the GRAS seal of approval by the FDA (Generally Regarded As Safe – a label given by the FDA to spices and herbs) and many believe it was done because of pressure put on the FDA to protect the sugar industry. Later, it became legal to sell it as a supplement ONLY, and still illegal to put it in a food and sell it as a sweetener. The FDA has a long history of taking actions to keep Stevia out of the market place when used as a sweetener.
Is the FDA now going to lift the ban on generic Stevia and allow it to be put into a food and called a sweetener, too? Or is the FDA going to “legalize” ONLY the Cargill/Coke product because it’s made a “special” way?
As a long time personal user of generic Stevia derived from the plant, I am pleased that Cargill and Coke have teamed together to get the FDA to approve “their” product. In terms of marketing it, have they done something to it to ensure that they have the only rights to a “safe” Stevia product in the eyes of the FDA? Is the generic Stevia now considered a “legal” sweetner according to the FDA? I think Cargill/Coke’s biggest threat could be if the generic sweetner is now considered “legal”, too.
Either way, I applaud Cargill/Coke for their investment in Stevia — AND the FDA for making progress! I’ll buy the Cargill/Coke product just to support their efforts.
Position Truvia as simply natural vs all of the artificial sweeteners out there. I think the 1st people to try Truvia are the artifical sweetner customers. Simply natural will at the same time pull in more of the raw sugar eaters like myself. I refuse to eat artificial sweetners at all. But since Stevia is a natural plant I would consume it–no problem–as long as it don’t taste too funny. Advertise natural. Educate about all the other benefits via PR including the fact that stevia may help reverse the effects of type 2 diabetes. Can sugar to do that?
As a consumer the main reason I have shied away from artificial sweetners in the past is because I dont what man made chemicals in my body.
Maybe adding an “All-Natural/Chemical Free” logo label would help.
It needs a leaf logo that promotes it’s “green-ness” as a product.
You have every right to be concerned about any kind of sweetener, natural or not, as a diabetic, Robbie. Ditto for any kind of food supplements or herbs. It’s best for people who have any kind of health issues, to check in with their doctors before they consume anything new. You’ve delivered an important message to DF readers, Robbie, and I thank you.
It’s not surprising that the FDA banned substances like stevia in the past. The concern that many herbal supplements are not standardized or regulated, has been a cause of concern to FDA for quite some time. However, to your point, Todd, when manufacturers, sources and FDA work together, then good things can result. And that should lead to consumer confidence. Thanks for adding an important dimension to this conversation, Todd.
Jasmine & Katherine,
You’ve got some good ideas. One thing, Jasmine: it’s tricky to make any kind of health claims and FDA really frowns on that. Saying that stevia might reverse type 2 diabetes would have to be conclusively proven. Unlikely in the near future. I like your approach about being open-minded as a consumer to try new things.
Katherine, many natural product companies incorporate a green leaf into their brand identities. Truvia marketers will have to be careful not to infringe on other companies’ brand marks in the design of theirs.
Thanks for adding your ideas to this post, Jasmine and Katherine. I appreciate it.
Ted, just as an FYI, there’s a company in my neck of the woods (Arizona) that’s been marketing stevia since 1982.
http://www.buywisdom.com/
Here’s a recent article about it, entitled, “Gilbert firm wins FDA nod for sweetener.”
http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2008/05/24/20080524biz-gr-stevia0524-ON.html
It’ll be interesting to see how it competes with the Coca Cola-Cargill giant.
i think it should be okay to position as natural good since the trend now is concerning on healthy life.
We were established in 2002,with more than 5years development,we have now turned a workshop into a big wholesaler and retailer in the southeast of china !We located in Guangzhou city in Guangdong province,our hometown is famous for making shoes clothes and bags,and we have established a long term and closed cooperation with many factories.
Elaine,
Many small companies have been marketing stevia for quite some time now. The product has been sold as a supplement and in bulk in natural product stores for a while, as well. I think it will take a company with the clout of a Cargill to get stevia out there in a big way. They have the ability to raise the visibility of this product substantially and make it a mass market success.
Thanks for adding this info, Elaine. I appreciate it.
Good point, Skyblue. Marketing to a healthier lifestyle is an important angle now, and it will become even more important in the near future. Thanks for adding your comment.
Ted,
Saw this on The Dieline:
http://www.thedieline.com/blog/2008/12/truvia.html
Thought it might be of interest to everyone who was involved in the original discussion.
Kate
Thanks, Kate. Love http://www.thedieline.com. I hope DF readers bookmark the site because it’s full of wonderful articles and ideas.
FYI: I also read that both Pepsico and Coca Cola are getting ready to distribute their first stevia-sweetened beverages. The race is on to dominate the non-carbonated beverages of the future!
Thanks for adding this to my post, Kate. I appreciate it.