I tried the new Miller Lite bottle yesterday in the middle of a rare (and incredibly unathletic) round of golf. So how was it? Well, the beer tasted the same, the dark glass made the contours of the bottle essentially invisible and it still fit into my hand – so I guess it was fine, but not a major enhancer of the experience.

Reflect for a minute on the first sentence of this post – I tried a ‘bottle?’ Is this what innovation has become in the beer category among high volume brewers? Witness the explosion of craft spirits that have reinvigorated liquor categories – some from major brands. Observe the fast-moving trends in wine that have led to the reemergence of prosecco and moscato as well as the profusion of new and distinctive concepts that have energized viniculture.

What have we gotten from the big players in beer? Line extensions (lime!), chasing of too-late trends (carbs!) and ideas that immediately seem dissonant even to those, like me, far removed from the decision-making. Several recent examples:

• Michelob Ultra, a rare unique thought in the category, was delivered under the Michelob brand – one that may have a quality reputation, but no tangible association with health. The consumer insight seems to have been that healthy people also like beer and would prefer one with an overt low calorie/carb focus.
  

  But aren’t light beers already ‘diet beers?’ Aren’t the extremely fit able to either select a different beverage or burn off those extra calories on their next long run? Will consumers really order this brand out loud in a bar or serve it at home? So Ultra is on what seems like its tenth different campaign but the problems are at the strategic rather than the advertising level.

   

• Budweiser Black Crown, launched with Super Bowl ads even Bud enthusiasts considered bizarre at best, a likely parody at worst. One was left with the impression that the consumer target is an adult Twilight fan crossed with Captain Jack Sparrow in a fedora. If such a person actually exists, he would not likely say ‘Here’s to taste; here’s to our kind of beer,” as one ad’s hero intones.
  

  Double entendre alert! Get it? Get it? The beer tastes good and its drinkers have better taste than the rest of you! Even if there was a market for this, wouldn’t they sneer at its association with Budweiser, long a symbol of mainstream Americana? As our Creative Director likes to say, ‘Oops, your strategy is showing.’  

   

• And lest it sound like I am beating up Anheuser-Busch, let’s throw in the Miller Lite bottle. I understand that it is part of a larger campaign to ‘reintroduce the brand.’ The Ken Jeong ads were hilarious, but a major push behind the new ‘ergonomic’ bottle reeks of desperation. In this category, even a temporary lift can equate to many millions of dollars, but is this bottle and yet another celebrity ad campaign really the key to resuscitating the Miller Lite brand?

 

These are but three examples and I should be fair to the category and the smart people that work hard at these successful companies – Sam Adams has done wonders with flavors and the big brewers’ craftier side has yielded hits notable for their adoption but also their disassociation from the companies that birthed them (Blue Moon, Shock Top, etc.).

Yet here we sit and sip – the flagship American beer brands are mostly giving us ill-advised line extensions, small-bore new flavors and packaging gimmicks. Big idea innovation is never easy and particularly not in such a mature category with mega-brands to protect, earnings to report and careers to nurture – but I have to believe ‘big beer’ can do better than this.      

--

Bill Gullan, President, 
Tweeting @BillGullan

 

 

We don’t generally use this space to criticize other firms’ work and I won’t start today – Draftfcb's ad campaign for Amtrak’s Acela is very appealing on the surface. The question is whether or not Amtrak and its ad agency picked the right competitor to target.

The campaign blends sleek, beautiful train imagery with snappy headlines taking direct aim at the inconveniences of air travel. It effectively targets the business traveler in the copy, making a clever and compelling case for taking the train versus flying the northeast corridor.

And they have a point – from cost (slightly less expensive on average) to time (not much slower, all things considered) to comfort/process (no contest), Acela is a much more pleasant way to travel. It pulls into the great old rail stations right in the city centers of Boston, Philadelphia and Washington. Alas, Penn Station (not Grand Central) in New York is the centerpiece of the Acela route, and is about as enjoyable as the seventh circle of hell.

The shiny package notwithstanding, any successful advertising campaign must achieve the business objectives of its sponsor – in this case, the American taxpayer (Amtrak’s FY 2011 subsidy was $2.6 B). I am not privy to any data – either that led to the campaign or details about its ROI since launch – yet my concern is that the overt focus on competing with airlines may be the wrong choice.

The reason is that Amtrak also offers a Northeast Regional route that makes the same stops and has more frequent departures. If we compare Acela to Regional, the differences are not as clear. A NYC-DC trip tomorrow morning would take 38 minutes longer on the Regional, but would cost $107 less one way. Those early morning sleep minutes are precious and business travelers are content to pay a premium for time, but this is a tough call. And NYC-DC is a comparatively long trip, unlike Boston-NYC or the Philadelphia-NYC train we take so frequently where the time gap is nil.

Nor is Acela a materially better rider experience – the Regional has roomy seats, outlets in every row, a bar car, (obnoxiously unreliable yet free) Wifi, etc. These are the major reasons that Regional ridership more than doubled that of Acela in 2012.    

Business won for Acela from the airlines is new revenue (compared to Regional switchers), but winning business from those already planning to take the train would have a profound impact on Amtrak’s financial performance in the corridor. Again, no data to prove this assertion, but I’d venture that changing the train of choice of committed rail riders is easier than completely changing the behavior of those accustomed to flying. I’d also postulate that the decision for travelers is generally not rail versus flight as much as which train or which flight to take.

There are ways to win more Acela ridership from typical Regional riders – most transcend advertising, so this is not on Draftfcb’s plate as much as Amtrak’s.

• First, upgrade the equipment to enable faster Acela speeds and a greater performance spread versus Regional (a long story, but seems to be in the works).

• Second, offer fewer Regional trains and, fleet permitting, more Acela – one concludes that those accustomed to the train would generally be pushed not towards the airport, but to Acela instead.

• Third, widen the experience gap between Acela and Regional – how about paid Wifi on the Regional, truly enforcing the special ‘Club Acela’ station areas and upgrading Amtrak’s Guest Rewards affinity program from just a dollar-based points system to something greater?

We understand that Amtrak is, in part, a public service – witness its insistence on retaining unprofitable routes outside the northeast. Yet this campaign makes clear that the rail operator is intent on increasing Acela ridership, and there is nothing more public spirited than diminishing its public subsidy by approaching profitability. And I fear, despite the good creative work here, that this campaign will not enhance that objective in any major way.

--

Bill Gullan, President,
Tweeting @BillGullan