Lesson in how not to brand: Cocaine Energy Drink
Cocaine energy drink is a drink marketed by Redux Beverages, LLC. Last month, it was announced that the FDA had issued a warning letter to them suggesting that it was not proper to market an energy drink under that name with the slogan “a legal alternative”. In response to mounting pressure against the drink name, the drinkmaker said that it was ceasing distribution of the Cocaine energy drink and shortly after announced that they would be renaming it as Censored.
As I wrote last month, this was the first time I had ever heard of the drink. I agree that the name of the drink was quite silly and they were trying to build a brand about something controversial without actually investing the time to build an lasting brand. It was a horrible attempt to be edgy.
Last night, while at my local deli, I noticed that they still had several cans of the energy drink. I figured I would give it a try to see if maybe, just maybe, there was something there. If the drink is great, maybe the company can spin the band press and use that level of awareness during the rebranding. All PR is good PR, right?
But boy, is this drink putrid. I’m sorry, I’ve drank a lot of energy drinks and weird sodas, but this one was pretty nasty. I couldn’t even finish the can without getting heartburn, so I put it down and moved along.
Maybe the drinkmaker was right to try to brand themselves in an edgy, controversial way in order to gain marketshare. It’s obvious they don’t have much else going for them. The product, in this case, seems like an afterthought. It’s almost as if the brand was conceived of first and then the product was developed.
Lesson learned: develop a great product first and build a brand around that. Focus on what sets you apart from the competition and what you deliver to the customer. Don’t rely on a gimmick when sculpting your brand, today’s consumers are too smart for that and eventually, they will move on.
Did you find this post helpful? Then, you should also view these posts:
2 Comments
Sorry, we are no longer accepting comments on this post. Please join the conversation through one of our more recent posts.
Dumb ass!
I do agree that a gimmick alone is not a sustainable long term strategy in food and beverage or, nearly any business that relies on repeat business for success.
I must disagree that finding a market and designing a product for it is not good business. This product missed (according to you) but that in itself does not invalidate the model. This strategy does work.
I can’t comment on what this new jooky tastes like but I do have very strong feelings on the FDAs involvement. I am appalled that the FDA would take any position on a “name”. It is absurd. If the local convenience store consumer is outraged that can be voiced to store owners who can make their own decision based on their own customers’ desires. That is the way the system is supposed to work! Even though the FDA only made a “suggestion” I think it sets a nasty precendent.
This is a novelty drink and I think it can find a place in novelty stores. If spencers had a clear glass beverage case, this stuff should be in it. This beverage clearly does not containe cocaine.
Note: Coke did contain cocaine and yet there is no confusion there and coke did not change their name.
Regards,