There’s been so much talk about the need for true innovation in recent years, it’s bound to be a surprise when a consumer product touts the fact that it’s saying “no” to innovation. A short MediaPost article, Post Shredded Wheat Celebrates Non-Innovation, was startling, refreshing and downright terrific–for just that reason.
The premise of the Post Shredded Wheat campaign–”We Put the “No” in Innovation”–developed by Ogilvy is a brilliant idea. Why would the company consider taking a successful, simple product, tinker with it and try to “innovate” it? Obviously companies innovate products for a number of reasons. But this is not desirable in many cases.
Right now, the hottest trend in food and beverage marketing is all about promoting “simplicity”–that is few, healthy ingredients–in a highly transparent manner on packaging and in advertising. But, a product like Post Shredded Wheat is and always has been, natural and simple. It’s made from 100% whole grain wheat, and has been for 117 years.
So doesn’t it make sense to remind consumers about that fact? Doesn’t it make sense to let consumers know pure and wholesome hasn’t changed in any way?
This got me thinking: have you ever noticed how consumer product companies always seem to be tweaking even great-selling products? How many packages have you seen in your lifetime touting that the products within are “new and improved”?
How many times have you purchased a favorite commodity product and found it had been “improved” with one of two results: no appreciable difference from what you’ve grown accustomed to and like–hence you continue buying the product? Or, such a drastically different flavor profile, you became disappointed and vow never to purchase it again?
Sometimes the best thing companies can do is leave their products alone. Remember when Coke launched its New Coke product, thinking it would retire its original formula? That mistake cost the company dearly. Coke saved face by reintroducing Classic Coke, but the company learned a valuable lesson, after sales plummeted.
Even leaving iconic products alone but revitalizing their packaging can create consumer disconnects. Remember when Tropicana recently contemporized its OJ packaging? Consumer outcry was loud and immediate. Net result? After spending millions of dollars to repackage, Tropicana announced it would reinstate its heritage packaging–its new packaging had been in distribution for a scant month.
Consumers can let their feelings about innovations in products and packaging be known in a number of ways. Not only can they vote with their wallets and refuse to purchase them; they can call, mail, email or blog their comments quickly and easily. Reaction is much faster and positive or negative feedback registers quickly with companies.
Questions:
* What kinds of products or packaging do you think benefit from NOT being innovated?
* Have you personally objected to innovations made to products or packaging? Were your objections sufficient enough to make you stop purchasing those products?
* Have you ever taken the step to call, write, email or blog about product innovations you either loved or hated? If not, would you consider doing that in future?
I’d love to hear from you.
Hi Ted, touting “no-vation” is certainly an alternative marketing tactic that I believe can appeal to those of us who have too much change in our lives and are looking for simplicity. It’s interesting, in that while Post celebrates no-vation with four flavors, their competitor has rolled out ten different versions!
Right, Paul. These days consumers have enough challenges in their lives. Why not tout the simple goodness of basic commodity products that have not been tinkered with–rather than trying to reinvent the wheel? It seems to me that it’s important for companies to know when to leave well enough alone when it comes to products and focus on new messaging instead.
Thanks for weighing in, Paul. I appreciate it.
This is exactly what Le Pain Quotidien did with their blonde hazelnut based spread (that had a consistency of peanut butter meets caramel and a taste so unique you’d have to try it to believe it). For those unfamiliar, Le Pain Quotidien is a chain of french bistro eateries. Changing the recipe of this delicious spread, which they usually place on their communal tables paired with jam and bread, and switching it to “organic ingredients” diminished both the flavor and the intensity. In this example, unnecessarily messing with a fantastic original product. A friend of mine wrote their feedback department, depicting her disappointment with this poor recipe alteration, and it took the company months to reply back to her with a message that was dismissive in tone.
Great example, Natalie. Most of us would agree that changing ingredients in a food product for more healthy ones is desirable. However, it can have a huge, detrimental effect on flavor profiles. When the consumer is expecting a specific flavor and consistency, it can be very disappointing when those are changed. You’ve also stated that your friend took the time to communicate her concerns to the company in question and that they were dismissive of her. That’s a double whammy, isn’t it? These are the unfortunate things that happen that turn ardent fans of brands to competitors.
Thanks for weighing in, Natalie. What you’ve said is important. Marketers: please take heed.
Ted,
I might point out that sometimes the culprit in attempted innovation involves packaging rather than product changes. Since you’re a packaging pro, you know what I’m referring to. . .how about the recent Tropicana OJ repackaging debacle, for one? Anything that makes it hard for consumers to identify favorite basic commodities is a big “no no”.
Delighted you brought packaging up, Claire.
Even leaving iconic products alone but revitalizing packaging can create consumer disconnects, as you pointed out. When Tropicana recently contemporized its OJ packaging, consumer outcry was loud and immediate. The redesign disregarded all equitable Tropicana brand assets. The “straw punctured orange” mnemonic device conveying “100 % real orange juice” disappeared and along with it, the wholesome, nurturing, approachable persona conveyed by the previous design. From a functional standpoint, the segmentation system was diminished, making it difficult for consumers to navigate. Translation: it became very difficult to find one’s favorite Tropicana variety.
Net result? After spending millions of dollars to repackage, Tropicana announced it would reinstate its heritage packaging–scrapping its new packaging that had been in distribution for a scant month. Rather than a total package innovation, Tropicana would have been wise to contemporize slightly, making sure its “ownable” brand assets were left intact.
Thanks for weighing in on this. The topic of packaging is near and dear to my heart.
Hi Ted:
! Your post was right on!! I had the same reaction to the Tropicana packaging – it was a real disconnect when I saw it on the shelf. So, bland, so dull – I guess they were going for the ‘clean, green’ look. Reminds me of when I wans in advertising several years ago, working on the Coke account, and the company made the disasterous decision to change the formula. What a consumer outcry – thus the creation of ‘Classic Coke’.
This is my first time responding to a post – but will definitely not be my last! I’m in the process of setting up a blog site. But – enough about me
Welcome aboard, Freida. Nice to hear from you. You’re quite right: innovations that include total product overhauls can either work or become disasters such as the Coke example you’ve cited. Ditto for innovations in packaging. CPG companies ought to proceed with caution in this area. Why mess with success? When it comes to flagship products and leading brands, sometimes the best things companies can do is nothing.
Words get stretched beyond recognition at times, don’t they? When the descriptor “innovative” can range from incremental to radical, the chewing gum loses its flavor, so to speak. I wonder if it was ever more than insular spin to call minor incremental changes in product formulation “true innovation.” Perhaps consumers, being as savvy as they are, appreciate a sharper recognized distinction between the classic brand (Coke) and any more “innovative” articulations thereof (Coke Blak, Zero, what have you). Nice insights!
* What kinds of products or packaging do you think benefit from NOT being innovated?
Car Models
* Have you personally objected to innovations made to products or packaging? Were your objections sufficient enough to make you stop purchasing those products?
Yes, I bought the original Toyota RAV4 in 1996. Then got the 2-door model 1998. Then another RAV4 4-door 1998. But because they kept making them Bigger and BIGGER, even discontinuing the 2-door and making them 6-cylinder, when I needed a new car, I got a 2003 Chrysler PT Cruiser.
* Have you ever taken the step to call, write, email or blog about product innovations you either loved or hated? If not, would you consider doing that in future?
I did. I e-mailed Toyota management my disappointment and dilemma and that they lost a loyal Toyota customer, because they sized me out of the line. If I wanted a bigger car I would have gotten an SUV.
Eric,
Agreed. Too many companies announce they have made an innovation that really isn’t much of one, so the term has become so overused, it doesn’t usually generate too much excitement. While some incremental changes can signify an important innovation, many do not. And product companies wonder why consumers have become jaded!
It’s also very important to know when NOT to innovate a heritage product that is a winner just as is, isn’t it? That doesn’t mean brand extensions around a flagship product can’t represent innovation of some kind, but that’s tricky sometimes. Doing anything like this requires much consideration. Never a good idea to cannibalize a superstar product, is it? Thanks for weighing in, Eric.
Elaine,
I appreciate your taking the time to answer my questions with a solid example of innovation gone awry. Not being an expert about Toyota cars, I’m not sure why the company changed its popular RAV4. I do seem to recall there was a roll-over problem when they were first introduced, so I’m wondering if the vehicles were made larger to stabilize them more in case of accidents. Not sure and maybe DF readers can help me out on this one. . .
Regardless, making changes to the originally sized vehicle may have been a better approach for Toyota, rather than making the RAV4 larger. After all, the company does make SUVs for the consumers who want them, as well. As you pointed out: not everyone does.
It’s important that you took the time to write to Toyota. If enough consumers call, write the company or blog about these issues, companies sit up and take notice. The consumer votes on products every day with their wallets. The last thing a company like Toyota wants, is to lose a loyal customer’s purchases and favorable word of mouth endorsement of its products.
Thanks, Elaine, for sharing your perspectives with us. I appreciate it.