Can you Differentiate the Taste of one Brand of Vodka from the Next?

I’m sitting here thinking about the effect that marketing has on the sales of different products. Most products are innately distinct in some shape or form. For example, a Mercedes vs. a BMW; they are both German luxury cars, yet are distinct in myriad of ways. Clearly, marketing efforts in the car industry are a lot easier, because the products are unique in look, shape, maneuverability, prestige etc. I was trying to think of the toughest product to market: one where the products are so similar that marketing efforts are the only way to differentiate the products-VODKA!

Can you tell the difference in taste between Grey Goose, Bicardi, Smirnoff, Stoli, or Ciroc? I sure as hell cannot. Unless I am drinking the vodka that comes in a clear plastic bottle (the type I drank in high school and my frat parties), I cannot tell the difference. So why is it that Grey Goose is the Goliath of the Vodka industry. Goose has a certain mystique about it. The brand fosters a feeling of prestige and luxury. When you order Grey Goose at the bar, you are making a statement: “Yeah that’s right; I’m the man and I got money.” Vodka taste tests around the world have never picked Grey Goose as the best tasting vodka. In fact, the vodka that consistently wins best taste and smoothness from vodka connoisseurs is Smirnoff. So how is it that Grey Goose ascended to the top of the vodka market?

Every vodka brand has some claim to differentiate itself from the competition-“distilled six times, distilled four times, importe from Russia.” With a little research, I was able to find out exactly how Grey Goose created a brand that eventually sold for 2.2 billion dollars. Sidney Frank, a self-made billionaire saw a niche for Vodka in the United States. In 1997 he came out with Grey Goose. Ironically, the name is genius, but the only reason he used it was because he already owned the rights to the name from a previous venture-talk about a good luck. Sidney felt that Vodka imported from France (known for the best wine region in the world) would create a sense of credibility for the brand. He meticulously selected the design for the bottle-the frosted outside and the logo. However, the most genius part of it all was his decision to put a cork in the bottle. No other brand of vodka had done this and it created a sense of prestige to the consumer. Furthermore, he imported the product in wooden crates: the same way fine bottles of wine were and continue to be imported. All of these characteristics together, created a sense of superiority. In addition, Grey Goose sponsored a myriad of high end celebrity events, in which they gave out free bottles, T-shirts and gift baskets, simultaneously to the products launch. Even though Goose was purchased by Bicardi in 2004, it remains the premium Vodka. Grey Goose epitomizes “top shelf liquor,” and more importantly stands apart from its competitors in a crowded market. Vodka is one of the toughest products to sell: for the most part, ordinary people can’t tell the difference. However, people want to be served Goose, they want others to see them order and drink Goose. Grey Goose continues to thrive because of the perception that its marketing has instilled in consumers. Thoughts, feelings, objections? Love to hear them all.

D. Spinelli

Limitations of Technology, or Marketing Conspiracy?

For the past five years or so I have bought a number of computers (both PC and Mac) and smartphones (Blackberries, iPhones, Androids) and have disposed of each and every single one within a couple of years after purchase. Up until a few months ago, I have always assumed that that there was some inevitable hardware or software issue that caused most of these devices to become nearly incapacitated after a couple years of use. Only recently have I realized that this problem applies to technology as a whole. Is this issue an actual shortcoming of current technology?? Or is it a grand marketing scheme?? Whatever the case may be, American consumers quickly abandon “devices” for the new “new” thing. According to a Forbes article, Americans spend $35 billion annually on mobile devices. Personally, I have abandoned plenty of technology that worked just fine, for the newest device. Is this an extension of good marketing or is technology increasing so quickly that we are forced to keep up or be left in the dust? Besides scrapping devices that worked for ones that are dubbed “better”, I have also had a myriad of devices that have failed on me, and therefore forced me to either buy a new one or switch to a different device (I don’t even want to divulge the number of PC’s or iPhones that I’ve been through – #thankgod for insurance. When a device fails on you, then you have two choices: (1) buy the same one, or (2) spend the extra bucks and get the newest edition. The fact that computers, tablets and mobile devices tend to have problems makes me wonder if technology is made to fail. It makes complete sense. Why would Apple or Dell make a product that will last a decade, and always run like it’s fresh out of the box? It is not in a technology company’s best intrest to create a product that has an extremely long life span. Big tech companies need to sell tablets, laptops, smart phones, iPods, etc., and therefore must continue to put out products that are not made to last, or that will soon be replaced by a “better” product. These “better” products are usually nothing more than a nuance on a previous one. Americans are more guilty than any other people for falling into the trap of abandoning perfectly good tech for a newer version. Why do we do this? Also, on a side note, I had the privilege of working for a very large commercial insurance company in the Extended Warranty Department (as an underwriter). I know from experience that all those mobile devices that you trade in are “refurbished” and resold (BIG MONEY!). American retailers learned early in the 20th century that consumers will readily buy disposable products. Is that the case today with technology? I truly believe so.

-D. Spinelli