Back on July 30th, I blogged about Truvia in a post dubbed, “Marketing the New Sugar.” In my post, I commented on this new sweetener derived from the leaf of an herb called stevia. Now, many food companies, including the major soft drink companies, are scrambling to add the “new sugar” to their consumer products, Pepsico and Coca Cola among them. For good reason: nothing like cashing in on a hot trend.
As the article states: “Consumer demand for natural products continues to grow, even in this difficult economic climate. According to Nielsen, sales of products labeled “natural” generated $21.3 billion in the past year, a 12 per cent increase over the previous year.”
My post outlined what Truvia and stevia are all about and invited Marketing Profs’ Daily Fix readers to submit their ideas on how to position and market this new product. A number of great ideas emerged, as always, from the Daily Fix faithful. And now, here it comes. . .
Zanna McFerson, Cargill director of Health & Nutrition: “Through research, we found that consumers are trying to live more balanced lives but have a complicated relationship with sweeteners.” You think? “The marketing campaign to launch Truvia tabletop sweetener is designed to inform consumers that for the first time, there is a natural, great-tasting zero calorie sweetener that comes from a leaf, not a lab.”
A new article in the restaurant industry’s QSR Magazine alerts us that “Stevia Sweetener Makes TV Debut.” Minnetonka-based agricultural company, Cargill, purveyor of Truvia, has chosen Ogilvy & Mather (Chicago) to launch the new product. A new campaign featuring four 30 second TV spots will air shortly on network and cable television. Print and online ads will begin to appear, also, in media that caters to women, health and wellness and epicurean topics.
The marketing approach per Ogilvy & Mather’s Donna Charlton Perrin: “The advertising campaign recognizes that sweeteners often come with a healthy side serving of guilt or compromise. To atone for dessert, you run extra miles on the treadmill. To reduce calories, you sacrifice taste and forgo the natural for the artificial.”
Spot on.
Questions:
* Do you think from a marketing perspective that Cargill and its advertising partner have done a good job in outlining key consumer concerns about their other natural, but caloric choices as well as the problems associated with artificial sweeteners?
* Do you think that by also taking the “natural” angle, Truvia will resonate with consumers?
* Will this advertising approach to launching Truvia be engaging to consumers? Would it make you try the new product?
I’d love to hear from you.
Ted,
I think the marketing/advertising campaign needs work.
Those of us who consume natural products know that just because something comes from a leaf, that doesn’t mean it is better than a natural product called sugar cane. Processing of both is still required and more than a few leaves have been known to be toxic.
I respect Ogilvy & Mather’s Donna Charlton Perrin; however, their campaign seems built on a shallow premise; a house of cards that could tumble once consumers begin their own research. Why don’t they instead provide comparison of sugar and stevia based on facts, not slogans?
Lewis,
Thanks for taking the time to comment today. You’ve hit on something important: food safety is top of mind with consumers right now. For good reason. Not all natural products are safe, just because they are natural. However, stevia has been tested in conjunction with some very large food/beverage companies. It has been used for quite some time and is readily available in natural food stores along with unrefined sugar cane. Having said that, consumers are wary. Safety concerns are forcing even the lax among us to do more research about the food products we are ingesting.
Even when the FDA gives its approval to these kinds of products, consumers know there have still been issues. Take a look at the ongoing controversy around artificial sweeteners. . .there are many lingering concerns about those, too.
I think addressing consumer safety concerns about stevia ought to be part of a good marketing campaign. I also like your idea about providing comparisons between sugar and stevia. As you point out, this is far more substantive information.
Thanks for weighing in, Lewis.
Ted,
Stevia, Truvia, PureVia etc. From a branding and awareness perspective, each of the companies producing their own version of a sweetener from the stevia plan will have their work (and marketing budgets) cut out for them!
You’re right, Paul, but consumers are ever hungry (no pun intended) to try new sweeteners, it seems. The only thing that might tamp consumer enthusiasm: safety concerns. Still, I believe that many consumers will try stevia sweeteners since sugar is off many lists out there, as well as artificial choices. Thanks for weighing in, Paul. I appreciate it.
Two quick observations:
1) Unseating zero-calorie sweeteners is going to be a monumental task. Weight-conscious consumers already have what they’re looking for — I don’t see a “more natural” product touching a strong enough emotional nerve to shift behaviors.
2) Given the immense challenge of altering consumer behavior, Truvia might be better off targeting its marketing to distributors. Coke and Pepsi are a good start, but if they want their product to fly off shelves, they need to sell it to more food producers.
Thanks for the insights, Ted. Should be interesting to see how this plays out.
Scott,
Thanks for sharing your ideas with us. I’m not sure I agree completely with point #1. You know, natural and organic products have steadily proven to be high growth categories–20%+ per year in an otherwise stagnant growth grocery business. I think consumers are very willing to give a new sweetener a shot–as long as they feel it is safe. On point #2, we agree. I do believe a number of food producers are committing to adding stevia to their products, and that will help make the sweet herb a staple, unless problems surface. The increased use and visibility of stevia in consumer foods and beverages will probably spur people to buy the sweetener themselves, also.
Thanks for weighing in here, Scott. I appreciate your input.
Hi, Ted. Not sure if MP readers are aware that stevia has been on the market for over 25 years. Wisdom Natural Brands is the parent company of three consumer brands: SweetLeaf®, Wisdom of the Ancients® and Sweet & Slender Natural Sweetener. The company was started by James May and is located in my neck of the woods in Gilbert, AZ.
The big guys are now in the stevia business. I do hope that Wisdom can gain market share, not lose it.
Isn’t that always the way of things, Elaine? A few entrepreneurs launch new products and develop small to mid-sized companies only to have the big guys come along and get into the same business, if they think it’s viable.
Stevia brands have been around for a while and mostly sold in natural product stores for some time now. I was aware of that. When small natural food companies are confronted by increased competition, they have historically tried to increase their distribution into mass market which isn’t easy or inexpensive to do. Another avenue is to ink contracts with natural food manufacturers to utilize products like stevia in additional food products. Sometimes, they have sold their companies in part or in total, as well, to raise much-needed capital for expansion and increased distribution. While these brands have a core of loyal customers who continue to purchase them within the retail environments where they are known, the name of the game for survival today is distribution into as many channels as possible. . .including online outlets.
I wish Wisdom well and believe as in every other product category, there is plenty of room for competition as long as they continue to find ways to grow their own brand.
Thanks for weighing in, Elaine. I appreciate it.
@Ted I’ll defer: You’re probably right about the growth of the “natural/organic” market, although I suspect there’s a lot of nuance there.
For instance (and I’m just speculating here), organic probably plays better in affluent markets, metropolitan markets, and among more educated consumers. I’m generalizing, of course, but you get the idea.
I’d love to see some of the numbers behind Truvia’s market research. Would provide some great insights into their positioning.
No doubt about it, Scott. Natural and organic foods have always enjoyed success in more urban, educated and affluent areas. However, due to increasing food safety concerns, many consumers have increasingly turned to more locally sourced foods that are less refined and processed, if not certified organic. The public is becoming more educated about nutrition, and as it does so, and as these food choices become more readily available, they’re getting on board.
Agreed: it would be great to see some of the research behind Truvia.
Thanks for adding to the conversation, Scott. I appreciate it.
No one has said anything about how it tastes. If it doesn’t taste good, people aren’t going to buy it no matter how healthy it is. One of the biggest problems I have found with artificial sweeteners is the taste, especially when put in hot tea or coffee, there is something about high temperatures that changes the taste. I have been using organic sugar for quite a while.
I ‘d like to see some information on how people like the taste.
I, for one, would be thrilled to be able to drink a 0 calorie soda where I didn’t have to worry about potential future health effects from chemically created sweeteners.
I’ve done enough research on stevia, and used it at home in drinks, so I already know the taste of the sweetener won’t distract me from the taste of the drink.
However, like a lot of other consumers right now, I’m not willing to pay a premium for it. In easier economic times I would, but right now I’m more likely to forgo soda entirely, or compromise and drink a non-naturally sweetened soda than pay more for something with stevia instead of Splenda/Nutrasweet.
THis seems like it would be a natural match for some of the energy drinks that tout health benefits.
You’ve raised an important point, Elena, and I thank you. Consumers are reluctant to pay a premium for products right now as they tighten their financial belts. This might temper the success of stevia, at least in the short term. When the economy improves, consumers’ natural curiosity about new products that are heavily advertised, will probably encourage them to try a new sweetener on the market.
Thanks, Elena, for voicing a real concern among consumers right now.
Another great point, Lee. Many consumers are concerned that an herbal-based product such as stevia might have an off taste or add a strange aftertaste to a food or beverage. I know some people don’t mind the taste of stevia, but others find it takes a bit of getting used to. It depends largely upon personal sensitivity, I suppose.
Has anyone who has used stevia, besides Elena, an opinion about this?
Thanks, Lee, for asking about this issue. Hopefully we’ll get input from DF readers on this.
I for one would pay a premium for chewing gum that uses stevia. The only choice available now are laden with sugar or artificial sweetners.
Right, Mathieu. Gums that claim to be sugar-free may not have refined white sugar in them, but they do have sweeteners like sorbitol, which some consumers do not like. If stevia does well commercially, companies that make chewing gum will likely consider it as a sweetener in future. Thanks for weighing in, Mathieu. Much appreciated.
Interessante Informationen.