Never underestimate the power of a well-established brand!
KellyR (525 pencils) | Fri, 2011-12-02 02:15
This was a fun read on Yahoo news today: A Frosty Reception for Coca-Cola's White Christmas Can
I commend Coca-Cola for taking a risk with the new design. They were very right the design disrupted their signature red cans and grabbed attention.
I'm not much of a soda drinker at all. I see how effective this has been for Coca-Cola, but I also see how well they've trained their consumers by use of color - people see a bold red can, they know it's high-octane Coca-Cola. They see silver... or in this case, white... they're pretty sure it's supposed to be Diet Coke. Even though the label says differently.
Shows how consistency in branding is eventually relied upon by loyal consumers.
Commenting on this Forum topic is closed.
I salute them too. Coke is savvy - they know good news or bad news is still news. So what if a few people mistake it for Diet Coke? Whatever few sales they lose that way are more than covered for with the extra media coverage over the "confusion" they created (purposely imho).
They still get a mention for New Coke too - which is amazing imho. That was the greatest marketing ploy in the history of advertising.
I think the cans look great and the campaign to save wild life is good too. As a marketing tool it's successful too, this posts proves it. :)
Campaign to save wildlife, that's a massive joke if you ask me. 2 million dollars over 5 years may sound like much, but not when Coke makes 2 million dollars from vending machine sales in just 20 minutes.
With the size of Coca Cola, the public embarrassment of sponsoring town signage for advertising space (see: Africa) mass emissions from the product they push and typical recycling stewardship, they're doing far more harm than good. If they cared they'd invest heavily into wildlife sanctuaries and green technology.
From a design and marketing aspect however, I do commend Coca Cola. They do it better than most.
Yes, of course they can give away 100% of their profit and go bankrupt too. But why not praise and support those companies who do at least something good. Why put them down because they don't give enough.
It's like if you were to give $100 to a worthy cause and some bystander would complain that why didn't you give at least $2000.
They could go far more without their profit margins being majorly affected. They're a billion dollar company. The difference between an individual donating and a company donating is the fact that individuals almost always (within a typical income range) need their income to live, especially in this economy. A company making over 8 billion a year in profit can afford to make a difference. So as seen below, not only would the average person be donating more by that merit, but they can't actually afford it comparatively.
2 million dollars over 5 years, with an annual income of say 8 billion. That's 40 billion dollars, of which 2 million dollars goes to helping the environment. .00005% donation?
If an average individual made, optimistically $65, 000 ($325k over 5 years [not calculating that over 60% minimum is used as living expenses]) and donated $500 over 5 years .0015%.
First of all a company is not an abstract thing. People own it, people work within it. A company is a group of people working together. It's not fundamentally different from any other group of people.
According to you if somebody is rich it's ok to demand he gives away his wealth? This is the same as the OWS ideology.
Where do you draw the line between rich and poor? Is 1 million dollars per year per person income enough to warrant the demands? What if I draw the line at $20 a day? And then demand from you to give away your wealth above $20 to people who earn $1 or less a day? And of course you would have to work the same amount, not stop at $20 per day. It would be exactly the same morally, except you're on the wrong side of the demand. Suddenly this idea becomes uncool, right?
The division between rich and poor as you can see is completely arbitrary, therefore the whole ideology that is founded on it is inherently flawed.
Ownership is our basic value and it doesn't depend on the size of the income.
I could be wrong, feel free to point out the flaw in my logic.
Well said, Ivan.
My point was more or less that they'll make far more than 2 million dollars just by "saving the polar bears" than if they didn't change their packaging and market according to this new plan. I'm arguing that it may be wrong not to donate the bonus proceeds when they can afford to and are the cause of emissions, etc.
Strictly speaking, I was operating under the "catholic pretense" of a percentage of earned disposable income. I agree with you but the campaign feels all warm and fuzzy until you look at the possibility for increased profits over what they're "losing" in donations and marketing costs.
What's wrong with making money on a good cause. It seems like a win-win to me. It's a business after all that was established with the goal of making money. That's what all the people in the company work for. And the profit isn't guaranteed. Times change, tastes change, industries get wiped out completely. It's a lot of very hard work by a lot of people for decades that culminates in this quarterly profit.
I think that is where our opinions differ. Companies shouldn't be profiting because of a marketed donation to a cause, no matter what it is. When you decide to donate it should be because you'd like to, not because there's a massive profit margin to be seen, company or individual.
I don't see Coca Cola Ltd bankrupting anytime soon, if times change we'll have to wait another century and a half to see what the brand does. I'm not knocking their product, it's good, well designed and it's reasonably priced, I'm knocking how it rides on the backs of others for additional profit which I don't find all too ethical. Yes I know in a business sense this is smart, because profit ultimately rules; why not be honourable in your path to satisfying customers and making money?
I agree with you, when I donate I don't tell it the whole world unless I'm asked. But I don't mind or see a moral issue with a company donating and trying to leverage it. I could be wrong, I just don't see the issue.
That's exactly the point Ivan, and it opens a philosophical pandora's box which I won't go into. But the fact is that I do not believe that any company like Coke would give money to charity without letting someone know about it - i.e that they did it simply for ethical reasons. In whatever shape or form, they will ultimately benefit from that donation.
>> Cookie cut the chaos >>
One way they benefit is thru a tax deduction which - in effect - forces everyone else to support whatever issue it is they choose to contribute to charitably. So everyone (well every taxpayer) will be kicking in some cash thru proxy as well. That's all fine and dandy for wildlife preservation, but Coke has also been known to support things like the Vietnam war - which might not be as popular as saving polar bears in a lot of circles.
I'm just sayin'...
Which is why I have such a problem with them only donating the $2m over 5 years, it truly is insignificant for the benefits they receive back. I'm not saying a company doesn't deserve to wave their good deed flag around when they do good, but this is just not enough in my books to have that right. If it were 10 million ANNUALLY, that might help and be a sizable contribution to help save the environment they're systematically destroying.
Do you eat food and/or drive a car? You're the problem. I demand you donate more of your money because it's not enough, according to arbitrary fairness standards which I have just now invented.
You have an IQ of a newt. I wouldn't be profiting if I'm buying services, nor do I flaunt my purchases.
Running an awareness campaign about global warming = flaunting profits? I must be stupid since I don't think you can castigate a company by demanding they donate a certain percentage of their income based on a number you made up in your own head. It kind of defeats the point of charity when you're forced into it and then scolded by layabouts because your donations were insufficient.
Why are you here posting all the time, BTW? There has to be some local park that need Occupying.
I tend to agree with you in principle, ZM. Unfortunately, that is WHY a lot of companies get involved in "charitable" work these days - for the tax breaks and the free exposure. Some add in whatever they are "donating" to the final price of the product and some just collect the donations of others and hand it over using a big check with their corporate logo prominently displayed in the corner - so all they're really doing is acting as middle men... a virtual bank holding the money and taking credit for OUR "charity". All we can really do is be careful about who we give to and why. McDonald's has been doing great work with Ronald McDonald's House and their children's charities - but they'll still be doing great if you and I never drop a dime in their collection boxes. So give that money to someone else instead... like maybe OWS. That way you double your return - they're doing good work AND it will piss off Coup here. ;-)
They aren't going to make "additional" profit off the backs of anybody. In the cola market, most people either have a strict favorite, or pick whichever is on sale this week. Only a handful of people will actively switch brands because they like the cause. The small number of converts they get from this will be more than offset by their marketing costs and charity donations. It's an awareness campaign more than a profit strategy.
Not that I want to start a debate over it - but I think you're mischaracterizing the OWS folks.
+1!
>> Cookie cut the chaos >>
Interesting. (disclaimer: I have a 10 year background in packaging design/production)
Consumer studies to which I've been privy suggest customers/consumers view color coding as a tertiary branding element in most cases. Iconography (including typography, which is a more granular approach to iconography) is still the primary identifier used by consumers to identify products.
This, to me, is a win across the board. Simplicity. Environmental awareness. Clear, laser-focused packaging.
Hat's off to the folks at Coke. Not just the production crew and designers, but the administrative folks whose managerial skills obviously empower the right people to communicate the right message in the right way.
Craig Michael Patrick
http://cmpatrick.com
The problem is Coke & Diet Coke have practically the same iconic logo. If one has been red for 100 years and the other silver, then you release the red one in a silver edition, it's going to cause mass confusion among people not aware of the campaign. By going back to a red polar bear can, they're admitting their mistake.
+100
I like the design, but it goes against what's been branded into our minds since the start of time.
Yes it's created publicity, but really? Did no-one at Coke question this BEFORE it left their magical design department, and was put into production and distributed for consumption. Did no-one come to the conclusion that a major convention had been broken - its either a MAJOR boob, a total publicity stunt or epic arrogance on their part that they can change things and people will follow blindly. Probably a bit of all three.
I saw an episode of Dr Who the other day (and I don't particularly follow it), but this woman - to open a portal into another space/time vortex where Dr who was, pressed the RED button which was on the bottom - of two options - the top being green. She had no aim or clue as to what direction she was going in or anything - thus couldn't make an informed decision, other than to go with instinct, yet she entered a whole world of shit by pressing the red button - a universally worse option when compared to green. It was at this point that I turned it off because it's almost implausible.
Coke pressed the red button (no pun intended) - maybe because they were bored, but the fact is that this was an epic fail where function followed form, but a bloody triumph in publicity.
>> Cookie cut the chaos >>
Apparently they are backing off and releasing red cans. Looks like the white cans will quickly become collector's items. Even more hype. :)
Wow - thanks for posting this to the front, Ivan. :)
I like either design, I think they're great. Way to go, Coca-Cola with a successful marketing campaign all the way around.
Not bad, but the design is not busy enough.
http://stevefakeballmer.wordpress.com
I am not Steve Ballmer pretending not to be me!
I don't know if it is a world wide thing. But they are marketing cans and bottles in Australia with this weird new thing....The products have a random name on them...e.g. Brad..or Kylie...and there is writing saying "share a coke with "____" <--random name.
Now I understand what those polar bears mean on their cans..I thought at first, it's just for a Christmas design and polar bears implies that its snowing..but hey, not all parts of the world do experience snow.
As with the images above (not of the cans) Coca Cola has used the Polar Bears and arctic as a Christmas marketing boat for decades during the winter season. A very well put together resonating campaign if you ask me. I remember it ever since I was a kid (not overly long ago) and find it adorable to watch a baby bear sucking on a cola bottle.
I am one of the fan of Coca Cola commercial.. Their creativity in every commercials is extra ordinary especially if the season of christmas is approaching. What really gets my attention is the music of commercial you will feel the season of christmas.
Well, I think that Mercedes commercials are the most creative and funny (though it's an off-topic here), but Coca Cola also does a great job. Their Christmas commercials are really great and filled with holiday spirit. *thumbs up
What about the white cans - well, I was sure that they will bring back the red ones, it was obvious and inevitable. :)
Every decor has a story
I think it has a nice simple design. But i do prefer the design overall of the first (white) one. Seeing it in a store though, I would presume it was diet and therefore wouldn't buy it. Coca Cola have done the right thing by bringing out the red version. There's no harm in admitting a mistake!
The well-established brand is a way to making sufficient profit. People like brands which are easily recognized. Sometimes even simple design and name of some brand make it very profitable. In fact, any business starts with the brand. This can even refer to the online marketing. People remember the well-known brands and often search products under the name of the company. I'm occupied in the payday lending industry and I can say that some companies are so well-known that people don't search 'payday loans', for instance. They search the very company providing this product.
Is it me or does the Coca-Cola Word Mark look warped?
I think the packaging is great...except for the fact that I was fooled by the color and thought it was a Diet Coke until I started drinking it.
i think its a good idea!