Tag Archives: Product Development

Bringing consumers along for the innovation ride

The consumer woman_shopping_checkoutgoods market is developing at a faster rate of change than ever. Consumers are demanding more choice than ever, with social media platforms such as Facebook and Instagram broadening communication and accelerating change.

In response, businesses and developers are innovating rapidly to meet these demands. The speed of this change, has allowed research and development teams to really stretch themselves and extend their offerings, breaking typical format, sensory and technological barriers. The recent trends in healthy flavoured water, has led to the development of tree waters (such as birch), the enthusiasm around kale chips and the rise of alternative ‘milks’ such as almond, rice and oat based options. This breadth of development routes and options is just the beginning, and could lead to some really interesting new product development coming out over the next few years including familiar products in brand new formats – such as fizzy milk & crunchy cheese (https://tinyurl.com/ycl5row6)

Regardless of the product and development team behind it, stepping into new innovative spaces is a challenge for any brand. Many strong brands have struggled to diversify their portfolios with the Museum of Failure in Sweden happy to showcase development mistakes from which all budding developers can learn. Crucially, making a great product, simply isn’t good enough these days, without bringing the consumer along the journey with a clear brand identity and meaning. Broadening a brands portfolio doesn’t mean forgetting or even diluting what the brand stands for.

Therefore, delivering the brand meaning for consumers is key. Communicating these equities and conceptual cues is essential throughout the usage journey, with product attributes (including these new sensations), pack designs and formats, messaging and claims all playing a role in both implicit and explicit brand cues (http://www.mmr-research.com/insights/sensory-is-implicit). Ensuring all key touchpoints of pack and product experience align with the conceptual associations of the brand provides a strong and coherent message to consumers, allowing the brand to shine through even in a new category, shelf or even store. Developers, marketers and insights need to work together, particularly in this challenging fast-paced innovative world of consumer goods, to deliver new offerings with strong and consistent messages which consumers can both consciously and subconsciously navigate, and bring the strength of the brand along the innovation journey into a new food type, category and marketplace.

Is brand loyalty stifling innovation?

Innovation directionThis weekend, I ended up in a heated debate with my future Father-in-law.  We were talking about the recent sugar tax proposal in the UK budget with my Father-in-law arguing that the strongest soft drinks manufacturers should replace their full sugar versions with diet varieties and lead the way for smaller brands to follow.  He explained these were the companies able to make a difference and they should stand up to be counted.

I respect him for his idealism, and agree to some extent that innovation should be driven by the market leaders, which is mostly the case in product development.  However, the rise of smaller product manufacturers and start-ups has disrupted the status-quo of the fast moving consumer goods (FMCG) market with innovation arising from some of the most unexpected places. This got me thinking, brands crave consumer loyalty, for their customers to love their products and what their brand and message stands for, this leads not only to repeat purchase, but also to consumers feeling they own the product, the brand and become fully invested.  Whilst this sounds like an ideal situation, what is the price of consumer this loyalty?  What room does this leave for product innovation?

The sugar tax is a prime example… external pressures are forcing soft drinks manufacturers and brands to reformulate and innovate, but changing products can risk consumers noticing differences, feeling betrayed by their favourite brands and losing the all important consumer loyalty.  This wouldn’t be such an issue for smaller brands with less strong customer associations, and they could even bring them on side with changes and product developments.  For large brands however, this could lead to weakening of brand, lack of consumer trust and eventually big revenue losses.  How can they do both?

Crucially, when innovating, large brands need to remember what they stand for even more strongly than ever.  This provides clear guidance for what a new product needs to achieve and deliver in terms of emotional and conceptual associations for consumers.  Throughout the process, continuously question ‘Does this fit my brand?’.  A fantastic new product may be wonderful, but if it doesn’t align with the key equities and brand message, developers and marketers will have a fight on their hands to gain consumer understanding and trust.  If the answer throughout the new development process from both key stakeholders and target consumers is ‘Yes, this fits with the brand’ a real chance lies ahead, which combined with the right communication can bring consumers along the same journey of development and discovery.  Aligning the sensory characteristics, the consumer emotional and functional conceptualisations as well as the key brand equities, can allow truly innovative product development to not only to succeed, but shine through in the busiest marketplace ever.  Whilst the pressures of government and consumers will continuously shift and change, the driving force behind brand related innovation must be simple and never forget to connect these key touch points.

I doubt my future Father in law realises the level of careful development and reformulation required for new product development, however, he certainly isn’t wrong to lay some of the foundations of product innovation at the door of major global brands.  Let’s just hope they are ready for it!

Natural, is it all in the name?

ShoppingA colleague at work recently asked me to comment on the role of colour on consumer perceptions of natural for her own blog article. This got me thinking, natural is a buzz word for consumers these days. Natural is everywhere! Gone are the days of ‘No additives’ or ‘Nothing artificial’ to dialing up all things natural with taglines like ‘Nature’s best’.

But what is ‘natural’?  Well at the moment, anything can be!  Consumer preferences towards healthier products have driven this trend in ‘natural’ products, with no legislative or governing bodies fast enough to keep up!  As a result there is no clear definition or regulation of the term natural.  Therefore product developers have been learning through testing out the ideal ‘natural’ product, and sensory cues are key to delivering this.

For a product to be considered natural, all sensory attributes must associate to the product ingredients, marking the ideal for consumers. Visual cues of natural are most key, with less bright and vibrant pack colours (direct cues with green packaging has worked for some products), and an equally muted product inside.  Visible, recognisable ingredients, each providing a variety of colour shades, irregular shapes and combinations all help cue natural for wide range of products. Achieving an overall natural appearance is a fine balance between consistent portion size and execution (so consumers get the same product each time), with some variety and irregularly to reduce processed and mass-produced associations.
Natural aromas and flavours can also be slightly muted (aroma more than flavour) but must align with the ingredients. Take a flavoured yoghurt for example, natural aroma cues can be delivered by both notes of the over-arching strawberry flavour, but also the dairy milk base to give recognisable associations to consumers. Crucially, if a product has a wide range of ingredients, e.g. a mixed fruit juice or cereal bar, consumers need to be able to taste the different flavours. This is particularly key if there are bits of fruit, chocolates etc. as this indicates that nothing is hidden in the products, enhancing natural cues.
Textures are also key across food, drink and particularly in personal care categories. Although relating the texture to ingredients is important, it is considered more of a hygiene factor by consumers, allowing slightly more wiggle room for product developers. However, in personal care, smooth non-oily textures can achieve natural as long as the other touch points of pack and neutral pale colours align. This highlights how appearance is king for a ‘natural’ product execution with all attributes of the product delivering to this message.

Whilst the sensory cues are clear, the natural message isn’t.  Manufacturers and marketeers do not need to jump through hoops to make natural claims, which could broaden the scope of the meaning, even beyond consumer acceptance.  As the debate ‘naturally’ heats up, product development companies need to take care their natural cues have a direct basis for consumers (e.g. organic, no additives etc.), as I predict very soon proof will be needed to explain the natural claim.  They need to keep track of developments in consumer perceptions and legislation of the term natural.  I too will be watching closely!

 

Soft Drinks

Sugar wars – The attack of the chef

Sugar is in the headlines again this week and battle lines are being drawn.  Celebrity chef Jamie Oliver has launched an attack on sugar in a Channel 4 documentary to be shown later this week on UK TV, and the Food and Drink Federation has already hit back in defense.  This couldn’t be more topical following the recent SACN guidelines aiming to reduce sugar consumption to 5g a day.

Jamie Oliver and his team are aiming to introduce a tax on soft drinks with added sugar.  The sugary drinks tax would increase beverage costs by 20p per litre, which would add around 7p onto the cost of canned soft drinks.  Soft drinks have been singled out in Jamie’s manifesto as he states they are the largest single source of sugar consumption for children, providing high calorie intakes and impacting dental health.  Although a 20p per litre cost increase may not sound like much, the cost increase would be too large for manufacturers to absorb themselves and would therefore be passed directly on to consumers with the intention to reduce sugary drink consumption, increase overall public health, improve dental health and potentially reduce obesity levels.  Other countries have already introduced this tax with varying degrees of success, including France, Hungary, and most recently Mexico where a 10% tax on sugar-sweetened beverages is projected to decrease consumption by around 12% and could substantially reduce the prevalence of obesity.

However the Food and Drink Federation has already hit back, stating sugar consumption in the UK is in decline, with increasing consumption of diet product offerings.  The regulatory body also insists that sugary soft drinks are not the largest source of calories consumed by children, with director general Ian Wright suggesting that government legislation of sugar consumption won’t work by “Demonising one nutrient out of a range on the national menu is not a healthy way to proceed.”  Since many food and beverages are already taxed, the federation suggests any additional taxes would not be proven effective at driving long-term dietary changes, as found with the sugary drink tax in France showing initial decreases in consumption followed by normal patterns resuming.

This debate got me thinking, how can we define what is a “sugary drink”?  What about natural sugars?  Plenty of products already state “No Added Sugar” on the label, would these be exempt from the sugar tax?  Fruit juices can contain similar amounts of fructose as the levels of added sugar in soft drinks, would these need to be taxed even though the sugar isn’t “added”.  With the ever increase demand for natural products, will including natural sources of sweetness such as fruit juices and honey be included in this tax too?

Another thought is about the level of sugar in these drinks.  Would a blanket price increase be introduced, as requested in Jamie’s manifesto, or would the level of tax be based on the amount of sugar in a product?  Would providing sugar tax bands, or a sliding tax scale support the food and drinks industry to reduce sugar levels, and encourage consumers to make healthier choices?

I look forward to this documentary to find out more details, answer these questions and really understand the options, opportunities and challenges facing us to reduce sugar in the UK population’s diet.