I worked for a large Consumer Packaged Goods company in the mid 1990’s. This company had (and continues to have) great brands. I would consider it a power-house company that knows how to innovate and give consumers new products, some of which flourish beyond expectations, while some others do the ol’ flop. They spend the money on market research to help determine customer concerns and needs and even R&D money on new formulas.
Back then, there was ongoing consumer concern regarding the environment and packaging amongst other things. The blue box was relatively new to the area, and it seemed everyone was talking about saving the planet for their kids’ kids. The sentiments were there. The concerns were definately there. I felt joy in believing that perhaps this green movement was going somewhere.
One of their flag ship products in the early 1990’s, a cleaning product, used regularly by many households had a greener version in the market-place. In essence, the ‘filler’ in the product had been reduced so that a smaller amount of the product could be used to do the same work.
Let me get specific and I’m oversimplifying this a bit:
- 1/2 cup of new product was the equivalent of 1 cup of the old product – it had the same cleaning power.
- New product meant significant savings in packaging of the product – it took up less space
- New product meant significant savings in shipping of the product in trucks – it weighed less
- New product cost less than the old product – because of the savings from packaging and weight
So here’s a new product that performed the same as the old product but took up less space and less packaging. The marketplace included competitors’ formulas which were similar to the old product (they were bigger and heavier). People were delighted that they were able to get this product manufactured to perform as well and include such green attributes in a socially-conscious environment which discerning consumers were demanding. It was such a win-win situation for everyone.
The executives decided to replace the old product with the new product. The advertising clearly showed people the benefits and savings of this new product in the smaller package that they had grown to love and trust. If it cost $2 for 1/2 cup of the new product, it also cost $2 for 1 cup of the old product. For me, the clear answer was, “Why would I lug a stinkin’ big box when I can carry a small one and do the same job?” – I loved it when I was at school because I relied on public transit and there’s only so much my arms could carry home in one go.
Unfortunately, other people didn’t agree with me. This number one brand saw a slide in sales that I find incredible. The new product in the smaller package and lesser weight (the greener product) was competing against competitor products that were still the larger format and people got stuck into believing that bigger was better – in spite of all the advertising and point of sale material; in spite of the companies best efforts, it was a disaster.
The company ended up spending ridiculous amounts of money to bring back the old product and sell both the new formula (greener version) and the old formula against the competition.
I concluded that people must be stupid.
- Daisy
