Red Bull and Business Strategy
medium.com
medium.com
Is this really true, though? I think most of Red Bull's success comes from the U.S. market, and I distinctly remember an onslaught of clever advertisements on American television circa the late 90's when Red Bull was really taking off featuring poorly-drawn cartoon characters.
That's not to say there's no merit to the Flugtag argument, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to attribute their success purely to running their own events. What this article is describing is really product positioning, and it is what David Ogilvy described as the single most important aspect of any marketing campaign. Red Bull has carefully (and cleverly) positioned itself as an energy drink company serving adventure-seeking types. The same could be said for Tom's which has positioned itself as a new-age shoe company selling comfortable shoes while helping disadvantaged people in other countries. Or Coudal's Field Notes, which is positioned to appeal to people as a classic American tool for getting stuff done even though it's been around for about two years. There are a lot of good lessons out there.
At least anecdotal it is. Whenever I take a can of Red Bull in my hand I don't think of a energy drink, I think of high production values on their sport events, the lifestyle of thriving for excellence.
I absolutely adore Red Bull as a company for anything they do with the exception of their core competence that is the energy drink. The drink is just okay. But it enforces the thinking of the red bull mentality.
Heck, that brilliant advertising made me into a marketing figurine that pitches Red Bull to others ...
Just going to leave the current "World of Red Bull" commercial here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti2Lm4hb2ZY
To provide an opposite viewpoint: the only Red Bull 'event' I think of is Red Bull Stratos (and I had to google the name, if that means anything) -- the little cartoons are usually the first thing I think of.
I'd love to see a compare/contrast of Red Bull and Five Hour Energy, because those are two entirely different brands that attacked different parts of the market with completely different strategies, and both were successful.
(I still drink a lot of the stuff, because to me it's the only sugarfree energy drink that doesn't taste terrible.)
Good article, but it's a little over the top at the end here. Most people are going to pick up a new beverage the first time based on marketing and packaging. The second time they are going to pick it up because they like the taste, pure and simple.
I've always been bothered with this whole 'lifestyle' brand concept. Pepsi says it's a lifestyle brand, but what does sugared water have to do with the way you live your life? Alot, but not in the manner Pepsi would wan't it. It makes you fat, not perceived as some sort of alternative thinker.
What Red Bull did right in all this, is that they NAILED the lifestyle brand marketing strategy. They hit it out of the park. Its not a strategy aimed at keeping people drinking it through their life, but convincing new customers they need to try it. The Lifetime Value of a Coke customer is probably 100x-1000x more then the LTV of a Red Bull customer.
So to wrap this up, just because you succeeded in your marketing strategy, does not make it a truth. Was it "that it ‘gives you wings…’ which means that it provides skills, abilities, power, etc., to achieve whatever you want to" that triggered people to try and, I concede, maybe like the beverage more then they normally would? Yes. Do they keep drinking it just to signal their allegiance to the Red Bull tribe, not so sure.
I buy and drink it occasionally, but I assure you, it's not primarily for the taste.
"NYC Mayor Bloomberg's proposal is to ban soda sold larger than 16 oz. Is it a government intrusion into our private lives? Shouldn't we be allowed to make our own free choices about what to do with our own bodies?
The answer to both is a resounding yes, but nevertheless that's the trick. The question that you should have asked, that you did not ask because you were hypnotized into asking the above questions, is: to what extent am I free to make the decision TO drink soda?
Soda was tested, refined and improved so that you would probably like it; but it was packaged and marketed so that you would like it regardless of whether you liked it, and "you" means you now, in this time, in this place. Do you believe 10th century Viking marauders who previously described rejecting pop music would drink 3 sodas a day? I saw Valhalla Rising.
The answer is no.
I just heard you say, "yes, they would. Yes, they'd take a few sips and find it delicious and yes, they'd drink 3 bottles a day." WRONG.
If you believe that they would, then you are saying that marketing is unnecessary, all that money is a waste, the soda is delicious enough to hook anyone. That the terms "market penetration" and "early adopters" and "branding" are meaningless. But if [the Pepsi logo], not the brown liquid, but that image-- which cost millions of dollars to create and promote-- if that strategy was necessary to making Pepsi a huge seller, more than the minor difference in taste from generic brand cola which no one drinks and thus no one needs protection from-- then you cannot say that your choice to drink soda is a free one. And it doesn't matter if the risk of diabetes with the liquid in the bottle labeled generic cola and the liquid in the bottle labeled Pepsi is the same, because product= object + branding: Pepsi is more dangerous than cola."
[1] http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/09/the_nanny_state_didnt...
I don't think it's surprising this could happen though because beer, wine, etc. taste pretty sour and disgusting until you get your tongue used to them. There's a soda called "Beverly" at the World of Coca Cola museum which most visitors also find totally gross but some people enjoy it :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beverly_(drink) (5 out of 2000 claim Coca Cola..)
Never slammed an energy drink in my life. because I savor it. I stretch a monster out for like 2 hours while I'm working at my desk.
Author should read a little Nasim Taleb, just for educational purposes on the role of chance in life.
That is dramatic! Yeah, some young people vomit, some people become alcoholics... But the vast majority of people enjoy those beverages to varying degrees and quantities and most successful people have a beer or two every now and then.
Same thing with Red Bull. I don't drink it often but every once in a while I grab one when I need a little more energy.
And maybe ironically and/or coincidentally, the only thing I associate Red Bull with is drinking it with vodka.
Beer has been an integral part of the human experience for a very long time.
I wouldn't actually take a RedBull before anything physically demanding or that requires endurance.
By my own experience, drinking a cappuccino just minutes before starting a 1km 30% hill climb will make the effort strenuous on me, and I usually drink 2 espressos a day, which is basically the norm around here. I can easily do the same in less time, walking faster and absolutely no strain if I had at least 3 hours after the cappuccino or don't drink any.
In my hiking group this effect has been noted by several other people (we usually go to a bar in the morning before starting the hikes).
A redbull for me is already too strong by itself. I think how quickly you can metabolize caffeine is important, but as a rule increasing the hart-rate seems like a dumb idea.
However you can own a GoPro but if you aren't athletic or an outdoors type of person, it's much less useful and that much harder to connect with the brand.
RedBull has wider consumer appeal in that sense and less friction.
Mateschitz said he finally realized it needed to be lightly carbonated. Not like most pops on the market which were heavily carbonated, but just enough to give it some fizz and tingle when you drink it.
He didn't say how long it took before they figured out the carbonation was the key, but I'm pretty sure it didn't happen overnight.