Why is Guinness not growing?

I'm on the same wavelength as Mark Ritson, Professor of Brand Management at London Business School. I've one a bit of guest lecturing on his MBA programme, and I always reading his weekly column in Marketing magazine. This week he was scathing in his criticism of Guinness' new commercial. Mark's challenge is that the ad is a beautiful blockbuster of a film, but one that has absolutely nothing to do with the product or the brand. He blames this type of communication for the decline in sales the brand has suffered in the last 10 years. Well, I agree with Mark. And I don't.

I agree with Mark that the "Domino" ad is a visual masterpiece, but one without a really clear product message. It features 90 seconds of all sorts of objects  (cars, beds, books) knocking each other over in a domino effect that makes its way dramatically through a remote Argentinian village. It ends with a huge tower of books that look a bit like a glass of Guinness and the endline "Good things come to those who wait". I've always though this was a quite clever idea, as it took a negative (Guinness takes a lot longer to pour than other beers) and turned it into a positive. The idea being that this is a real man's beer, not watery lager, and like all good things in life, it takes time.

Well, if you keep watching for the full 90 seconds, I guess you might get the idea. But its all a bit metaphorical. There is no sign of any Guinness drinkers. And the product is seen for only one of the 90 seconds.

Previous Guinness ads had great production values, but had clearer and more explicit communication of "Good things come to those who wait".

I liked the "swimmer" ad with an old Italian guy trying to swim an outdoor circuit before the Guinness had settled. He's racing for a pint of Guinness, so the product is more central. The  voice-over even spells out that it takes 119.5 seconds for the pint to settle.

Where I differ from Mark is that I think two bigger factors than advertising are behind the declining sales of Guinness: targeting and the product itself. These ads seem to be trying to recruit younger drinkers, who account for a big share of drinking, by making the brand cool and aspirational. However, they find Guinness hard to drink, as its dark, heavy and bitter. Many of them might actually like and respect the brand, but dislike the product. They prefer lighter, refreshing drinks, as shown by the explosion in sales of cider.

Rather than spending millions trying to push stout uphill and grow Guinness's usage amongst younger drinkers, might there be more profit in lowering growth expectations and also lowering spending. Guinness could target more mature drinkers with more mature palates and make more of the product story. They might win less creative awards, and even sell a bit less beer, but make more money.

Comments

[Lucylene]

I have to say, Seals are actually vile, digtussing creatures that often bite and or give you nasty diseases such as seal finger, Leptospirosis, or seal pox.

[brand]

Here's a promising area where Guinness might wish to mine for its global big brand idea to revive its fortunes: Re-consider co-branding with its place of origin - Dublin, Ireland - but with a contemporary future-focus.

I'll be blogging about this issue early next year. Hint: U2's Bono and Povestry: Make Poverty History Campaign and Ireland's rise from rags to riches.

Brand the Marketect

[FC]

"Mark's challenge is that the ad is a beautiful blockbuster of a film, but one that has absolutely nothing to do with the product or the brand"

In the same vein, I've just been reading about Cadbury's Dairy Milk gorilla ad which, unless I'm missing something, has even less to do with the product or the brand... and yet, it's being cited as the reason behind a "staggering" increase in sales... Maybe I'm just being put off by the Phil Collins association but I just don't get it!