For those of you following the transformation of Anheuser-Busch into Anheuser-Busch InBev, today’s St. Louis Post-Dispatch had an interesting article about a “shake-up in its marketing department.” Essentially, it “divides responsibility for beer brands along consumer-segment lines and places greater importance on developing new products and reaching multi-cultural consumers.” A few more of the proposed 450 lay-offs will come out of this reorganization of its marketing efforts, but no specifics were disclosed.
Here is quiz number four. This one is without images, because there were problems last time (see below). For this quiz, there is a beer slogan that is or was used for a particular beer or brewery. See how many you can get right. Good luck. Let me know how you did.
If you missed any previous quizzes, they can all be found on the beer quiz page.
NOTE: A number of people in the last quiz told me they couldn’t see the images. If you were one of those people, please send me the name of the browser you were using so I can try to see what’s going wrong. I tested it using Firefox and Safari and it worked fine. Perhaps it’s Microsoft Explorer or other browsers that is the problem?
Here is quiz number three. This one is like the first, using the first letter of a beer brand name or the brewery. Your job is simply to figure out which beer or brewery it’s from. Good luck. Let me know how you did.
If you missed any previous quizzes, they can all be found on the beer quiz page.
If you missed any previous quizzes, they can all be found on the beer quiz page.
Here is the first of what will most likely be many beer quizzes. I’ll probably do a new one every few weeks. I have tons of similar graphics I’ve been collecting for another project and figured I’d put them to good use in the meantime.
This first one is pretty easy, though I think having multiple choice answers makes them all easier. For each question you’ll be show the first letter of a brewery or beer brand’s name from their logo or label and you have to identify which one it is. Good luck. Let me know how you did.
While you should know Pete Brown from his books, especially what is arguably the best beer book of the year, Hops and Glory, he began his career in marketing and worked on several high-profile ad campaigns for well-known beer brands. On Wednesday in the UK’s Daily Mail, Pete had an interesting article giving his perspective on the present state of beer marketing. It’s entitled “The rise and fall of Britain’s favourite beers: Why brewers are desperate for us to spend £4 on a pint of lager”. Although it details British ad campaigns you may not be familiar with, it’s still worth a read, as many of the points he makes I think are universal.
Forbes had an interesting article Friday entitled Time Vs. Money: Which Rules Buying Decisions?. The article is based on a recent academic paper published in the Journal of Consumer Research by Cassie Mogilner, a professor of marketing at Wharton, and Jennifer Aaker, a professor of marketing at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business. That paper, entitled The Time vs. Money Effect: Shifting Product Attitudes and Decisions through Personal Connection [pdf], examines people’s associations with both time and money and how they relate to decisions about what products to buy. It’s a fairly common element in advertising. According to the study, “a content analysis of ads in four magazines targeting a wide range of consumers (Money, New Yorker, Cosmopolitan, and Rolling Stone) revealed that, out of 300 advertisements, nearly half of the ads (48%) integrated the concepts of time and/or money into their messages.”
Irrespective of whether feelings of personal connection stem from experiences gained using the product or from the mere possession of the product, we hypothesize that increasing one’s feelings that the product is “me” will lead to more favorable product attitudes and increased choice. Indeed, decades of research in psychology have given credence to the assumption that individuals are motivated to (and do) view themselves favorably. Consequently, people tend to have positive automatic associations with respect to themselves—which can influence their feelings about almost anything that is associated with them. For example, people like the letters that appear in their own names more than those that do not, and they are nicer to strangers who share their birthday than they are to other strangers.
One example the authors use is about beer (which is how I came to notice it). From the Forbes article:
“One thing that was surprising,” [Mogilner] says, “was to see how consumers’ attitudes and behaviors toward products and brands can be shifted by something as subtle and as pervasive as mere mentions of time or money. “The concept of time, for example, evokes a personal connection with a product in terms of the experience the consumer gains while using it, she says. To illustrate her point, [she] cites a well-known phrase in beer marketing—”It’s Miller Time.” The ads are still remembered by many consumers from the 1980s because consumers associated the beer with the routine, end-of-day transition from work to leisure.
As for the different emotions that money and social status-related campaigns can conjure, Mogilner points to advertisements for Stella Artois, a premium beer from Belgium. One of the product’s ads shows a man struggling to earn money—whether by chasing pigs, hauling sticks or herding goats—so he can buy his grandmother a pair of beautiful, expensive red shoes. But, alas, just as he’s about to present her with the gift, he spies a pint of Stella and makes a shoes-for-beer trade with the waitress. The commercial is funny, but it also captures the company’s “Perfection has its price” tagline, Mogilner says.
Both Miller and Stella are trying to sell beer. But using the concept of either time or money invites consumers to connect with a product—in this case, beer—in different ways. Of the two, the researchers found that a “Miller Time” connection typically leads to more favorable consumer attitudes and purchasing decisions because people tend to identify more closely with products they have experienced. “If you can dial up one’s thinking about time spent experiencing the product relative to thinking about the money spent to own the product, then you tend to get … beneficial effects,” Mogilner says.
But the “Perfection has its price” crowd is also important, Mogilner adds, even though there are fewer examples of consumers connecting to a product primarily because of its acquisition price. “There are cases where thinking about money can actually be a good thing for particular types of consumers, and particular types of products.”
This is not the first time the psychology surrounding time and money has been studied. Not surprisingly, it adds to the chorus that time beats money in the rochambeau of life. As the article explains, “[r]esearchers have found that because time is less fungible—or less easily replaced—than money, losing time tends to be a more painful event for people, particularly when they think about how they are not able to make up for it. Another difference is that people feel less accountable for how they spend their time because it can be more difficult to measure than monetary outlays. These two characteristics—fungibility and ambiguity—are important differentiators in how consumers think about time and money.”
From prior research, they posit that it “seems highly likely that people will also like products more that are more closely connected to the self than products that are not. Evidence from consumer research offers support for this prediction, showing that consumers report more favorable attitudes toward products that reflect their personal identities.” But then they take their hypothesis in a different direction for conventional wisdom, arguing ” that when these feelings of personal connection stem from experiences gained using the product, activating time (vs. money) should lead to more favorable product attitudes and decisions. In contrast, when feelings of personal connection stem more from product possession,” this does not occur, or least not as strongly.
To me, that’s the important revelation in this new study; that a third consideration is equally important: “the extent to which each concept is linked to consumers’ personal experiences, identity and emotions.” To advertisers, they specifically “propose that activating the construct of time while consumers evaluate a product will lead them to focus on their experiences using the product, which generally will heighten their personal connection to that product—their feeling that the product reflects the self.” So between time and money, the clear winner according to the results of their work is time. “By simply directing people’s attention to time, rather than money, you can actually make people make happier decisions.” But the true insight, I think, is linking that to the experience.
Many of us who write about beer, myself included, have waxed philosophically, even poetically, about how drinking beer is a community affair, that it’s best as a shared experience. Indeed, countless ads for beer are set in social situations and in fact I can’t think of one that features solitary drinking — not counting George Thorogood. Although I often drink alone for professional reasons, in most instances it’s considered a societal taboo, carrying very negative associations. While I don’t think it’s necessarily indicative of “problem” drinking or anything so sinister, it’s certainly not desirable.
So while I think their study is applicable universally, it seems more relatable to beer than many other products, because I think drinking beer is such an experiential beverage. I imagine I’m not alone in having all my best drinking memories ones with friends. It’s probably not a stretch to say that’s universal, too. So the idea that time and the emotional experience of spending it with friends seems almost obvious, but it’s still interesting that it’s borne out by this, and other, studies. For me personally, it may not be Miller Time, but it is “beer time.” Who wants to join me?
If you have the time (yes, pun intended) and inclination, the five studies they conducted (and the whole paper) is worth reading. It’s a little dry and steeped in academic jargon, but interesting nonetheless. (It’s also only 15 pages, and three of those are references.)
Thanks to Anat Baron from Beer Wars, who tweeted this. Laura Ries, one half of the father-daughter Ries & Ries marketing consultants, who together wrote The 22 Immutable Laws of Branding and four other books.
She wrote a piece on her far-too-cleverly named Ries’ Pieces blog about the Bud Light brand. It’s interesting to read the take of someone who knows marketing but not the beer industry’s peculiarities.
Yesterday’s World Cup match between the Netherlands and the Ivory Coast must have been quite a spectacle. As widely reported, over a thousand Dutch ticket holders arrived wearing orange lederhosen bearing the name of a Dutch brewery. Read that sentence again. Notice anything strange about it? Because it’s exactly the way this story has been reported by all but one or two news organizations. What’s missing is the name of the brewery, which was Bavaria NV. As revealed by IPKat, “For the record, most media – presumably because they benefit handsomely from Budweiser’s vast advertising budget – coyly refuse to tell us the identity of this Dutch upstart.”
So anyway, over a thousand Dutch fans show up wearing orange lederhosen with the beer brand name Bavaria on them. Dutch soccer fans traditionally don all things orange before games of their beloved “Oranje,” which is the nickname of the Netherlands national team and the distinctive color of their uniforms. So there’s nothing necessarily odd in that, and this is, after all, the biggest soccer tournament on the planet. But officials at the stadium in Stuttgart ordered them to remove their lederhosen or they would not be allowed to enter the stadium to see the game, despite having paid for their tickets. The majority simply removed them and went into the match and watched it in their underwear.
You can buy your own pair of orange lederhosen at the Bavaria online shop. They only cost about eight bucks, plus shipping. Or you can buy a twelve-pack and get a free pair. “The idea is supposed to be a gentle mockery of the Germans’ penchant for real lederhosen during the World Cup period. The lederhosen also feature a tail and a lion motif — the national symbol of Holland. So far over 250,000 pairs of lederhosen have flown off the shelves and they have become a cult item among Dutch soccer fans.”
Given that the lederhosen have long been available from the brewery and they are perfect for the rabid soccer fan, I don’t really see the problem. Go to any football game in the U.S. and you’ll see countless fans wearing their team’s colors in all manner of available merchandising paraphenalia. Is it really that much of a stretch to imagine in a succesful marketing promotion many people wearing the same item to a game. In a stadium the size of Stuttgart’s (seating is 52,000) is a thousand people wearing the same team promotional item really that hard to believe?
Even if it is to hard for you to believe, so what if the brewery gave away the lederhosen or made it very easy to obtain them? Companies have been doing that since Adam Smith first used his invisible hand to avoid a “hand ball” foul. If more of them actually wore them to a game than anticipated, they should be pleased as punch, and FIFA and sponsor Anheuser-Busch should shut the hell up about it. That’s just the market for you.
But that’s not what they did, of course. Instead, they took a different tack.
“Anheuser Busch’s Budweiser is the official beer for the tournament and world soccer’s governing body fiercely protects its sponsors from brands which are not FIFA partners. Markus Siegler, FIFA’s director of communications, said at its daily media briefing yesterday that the governing body was alert to the kind of ‘ambush’ marketing Bavaria had attempted.
From the Yahoo UK article:
“Of course, FIFA has no right to tell an individual fan what to wear at a match, but if thousands of people all turn up wearing the same thing to market a product and to be seen on TV screens then of course we would stop it.
“I don’t know exactly about what happened in Stuttgart, but it seems like an organised attempt to conduct a mass ambush publicity campaign was taking place.”
Peer Swinkels of the Dutch brewery told Reuters by telephone it was “absolutely ridiculous” and “far too extreme” to order the fans to take off their lederhosen and said the brewery had complained to FIFA.
“I understand that FIFA has sponsors but you cannot tell people to strip off their lederhosen and force them to watch a game in their underpants. That is going too far.”
Also from IPKat:
Said FIFA: “Anyone can wear whatever they want, but if a company tries to carry out ambush marketing, FIFA must prevent that happening. In common with the IOC (International Olympic Committee) and UEFA, we do not tell individual supporters what to wear, but … FIFA has already won a court case against a beer manufacturer who tried this sort of thing”.
What this means is “Anyone can wear whatever they want, if FIFA says so”.
American beer Budweiser and Germany’s Bitburger are thus the only beers that can be sold, or even worn by spectators, in the 12 World Cup stadiums. The IPKat wonders what FIFA would have done, had the offending garments been t-shirts worn by thousands of young ladies.
I think FIFA just created a public relations disaster for Anheuser-Busch by requiring 1,000 Dutch football supporters to remove their trousers when entering an international football match.
FIFA thought that the bright orange trousers represented a “marketing ambush” tactic. FIFA officials blocked entry to the stadium of any Dutch fans wearing the trousers, rather than miss the game 1,000 fans took off their trousers and watched the match in their underwear.
I think the FIFA officials have lost sight of the boundaries between business and common decency. As for Anheuser-Busch, I would not want to be the PR Manager today. This sort of protection of Anheuser-Busch’s sponsorship by FIFA surely cannot be endorsed by the company, otherwise Anheuser-Busch will be remembered this World Cup as company that took 1,000 Dutchmen’s pants away from them.
FIFA might be right that the Dutch company’s marketing tactic ambushed the World Cup stadium. But in the end what matters most in marketing terms is how a company’s brand it perceived through its marketing efforts. I’ve been searching through the web this evening, and it’s not looking good for Anheuser-Busch. Most comments are from Europe, and the majority of the posts are either incredulous or negative about the incident, for Anheuser-Busch:
I say “tough luck corporate sponsors”, money shouldn’t be able to buy the right to subject people to this kind of indignity. At the very least these people should have been offered alternative netherwear. In fact I think they should sue the sponsor who insisted on this and campaign to boycott their wares. So watch out Budweiser, I’m off Bud now (Nouslife Blog).
Where’s all this World Cup goodwill?
… and I always thought it wasn’t the winning that was important, but the taking part (No Offence Intended).
The PR disaster that is Budweiser’s sponsorship of the World Cup gets worse (CMM News).
The Netherlands beat Ivory Coast 2-1. I think I’ll be rooting for them in their next match, which of course I’ll be watching wearing nothing but my underwear with a nice cold Bavaria Beer by my side.