Combining New and Natural in food innovation is hard

Combining New and Natural is tricky in food innovation, given consumer demands for great taste allied to natural and healthy on the one hand and unprocessed on the other ....all wrapped up in transparency and a no compromise mentality.... great challenge!

Geography/ culture and History:

This area has been a popular route these past few years with as just two examples the increased interest shown in historical products that had fallen out of favour like eg spelt flour, or products used in one country ,culture or region introduced into other such as Tofu or Quinoa.

Conversely, the introduction of more non dairy products based on plants into traditional Dairy countries and a reverse movement of Dairy products into countries like China shows that this type of axis is promising on an international scale ; witness recent pronouncements on the growth of coconut based products by the Pret a manger chain as a major growth driver in the UK.

There are going to be limits however; I'm sceptical for instance about the likelihood of bugs becoming the next big thing in protein , certainly in my household.

What has often helped this movement has been the opportunity to offer built in health benefit associations for these new around here products....


Health benefits help in both existing and new foods:

The explosion in the various categories of "free from " foods says all you need to know about the interest in lactose free ,gluten free, dairy free, sugar free vegetarian and vegan foods , with over 50% of British homes now buying into the various claimed health and wellness or ethical benefits , as opposed to this being the result of a rise in medical diagnoses . Although often not completely new , free from versions do open up pre existing categories to new or lapsed buyers rather than cannibalise a given market.

Similarly,interest generated in a very traditional product category such as oats centred around newly claimed cholesterol reducing benefits and has helped spark a raft of more contemporary developments in both the traditional oats core hot and cold cereals market and beyond into areas such as so called dairy free oat"milk".Similarly ,health claims around a claimed antibiotic effect have definitely helped the sales of Manuka Honey . Witness also ,the successful new market established by new products containing natural plant extracts which help cholesterol reduction meets the consumer criteria of new and Natural....Similarly ,significant consumer interest and market growth were seen by the launch of added health benefits with the launch of e.g. probiotic yogurts, or the introduction of smoothies.


As a word of caution there was a rush a few years ago to add Fish oil Omega 3 into a great many products , some of which sat uneasily with consumers and which failed...by what logic for example was fish oil added to liquid cows milk? It is fine to remove fat or other ingredients from an existing product ,or indeed reinforce existing ingredients , but beware tinkering.....consumers do look at ingredients lists .


Genuinely new foods however are trickier because they are often at odds with either consumer acceptance of the use of technology in food , or because they push boundaries too far for consumer acceptance.

Consider for instance the genuinely new food that is Quorn, a plant based myco protein ingredient that is similar to tofu in its infinite ability to be transformed . The Quorn business is a long term endeavour for sure , but gaining traction over time ,and successive owners. No one however talks much about the technological background and history......Compare that technically based entirely new product success with the unwillingness of the British public to embrace Ostrich meat ,which was much hyped as a healthier new meat in the late 20th Century.


Cleaning up one's act:


Pretty much a given these days simply to stay in the game , and whether it is reducing sugar or fat , embracing sustainability or fairtrade, sourcing local ,reducing carbon footprint, animal welfare , no to growth hormones in animals, reducing packaging waste ....just about everyone is actively pursuing this....making this axis generally a poor differentiator or source of innovation. Witness the advertising money spent by e.g. makers of breakfast cereals generally to change perceptions from junk food to wholesome by adding wholegrain to all their products as just one example.

This route also has risks.... if consumers dislike the taste of the reformulation this can be tricky ,Just ask the people at companies behind Lucozade or Heinz brands about this balancing act as it applies to sugar and/or salt reduction. However laudable it may be to make food choices healthier, our taste buds need reeducation over time...

Consumer willingness to accept a "technology over natural" compromise plays a big role. Sugar / calorie free drinks for example rely on consumer desire for guilt free outweighing any of the concerns that regularly make the headlines about potential health side effects of artificial sweeteners..


Food Technology , science and consumers:

Global Heavy hitters are now coming to market with hybrids that blur the boundaries of food and life science,beauty companies are selling beauty from within drinks in Asia ( collagen or Aloe Vera drinks ); food supplements are being repackaged ,retargeted and resited in store from e.g. bodybuilding in an attempt to make them more mainstream.

Then there are pure technologically based attempts to innovate ,and this is where things get tricky....most consumers don't really want to know , generally it is felt the less technology and additives used in our food the better...no GM crops, no pesticides, no meat grown in a lab.... but being fickle we don't want compromises on year round availability, shorter shelf life, uglier looking fruit and vegetables, and so on.

Some other technologies like eg the use of cold pressing of juice or raw instead of cooked chocolate make intuitive sense and may indeed being taste and health benefits.


It is worth pointing out that one of the arguably good things that the EU authorities have done is to outlaw health claims that are not deemed to be scientifically proven , by which I mean it protects consumers .


So where's the point in this ramble, and where's the branding angle?

In the teeth of a major decline in the belief in and value added of brands generally in many countries , it is now a given that not only must food brands be transparent and honest like never before, but that they must innovate like never before to try and help sustain relevant value added versus private label as well as other competing brands.

I would suggest this has more to do with taste than technology per se. So , greater focus on and respect for our consumers whatever their idiosyncrasies and apparent contradictions..and small incremental steps if you want us to embrace new foods and new technology...but no bugs for me thanks..

Promise and delivery,can they ever be friends?

This is a personal perspective on a very tricky topic, sparked by a great post on linkedin by Dr Travis Bradberry recently about things which get you fired......

" underdelivering versus promises made" is one topic covered in his article , but it is such a major topic and the cause of many a painful journey , that it merits a sizeable space of its own.

What you read next may not be you or the place you work , but I know this kind of stuff still happens on both client and agency side...and it unfolds like a slow motion car crash ,leaving a trail of human and business debris. Reading this piece to the end may therefore help you sense if something is not right before it all turns ugly.....

The delivery versus promise issue is a recurring life challenge ,not just in our working lives ,because it covers communication both explicit and implicit, relationships , and the balance of power ; what is said vs what is inferred but not said ; what is actually understood , what is agreed happily or under pressure ; negotiation vs imposition, process , and a kind of alternate reality with double speak and double standards enshrined in an opaque, coded language ......

Most of us have at some point been obliged to call on others for something of a leap of faith ,to trust our ability to step up into new responsibilities we have little or an imperfect experience and expertise in, bullshit our way through the selection process and the subsequent newly hired in post learning curve. "Fake it till you make it " is just one new phrase I have learned on Linkedin....

The bad news is in getting that job you just "agreed" to the unrealistic top down targets the Board / your Boss are imposing on you.....which they hopefully also deep down know are totally unrealistic, but are obliged to accept themselves in order to protect their own position in the food chain...

The sad truth is that unfortunately people are sometimes mistakenly hired or go for roles or corporate cultures they turn out to be simply unsuited for, never mind about whether promised ressources have been provided or cut. Sometimes this situation can be compounded if the "underperforming " party can't or won't accept there is an unfixable problem..even if it is entirely a fiction of the employer's making...either way it spells trouble, and it takes guts and a good personal internal warning system to recognize the problem early and tackle it head on.

This conflict situation can lead to all kinds of bad consequences, from seemingly constant or personal criticism , to dysfunctional and demotivated teams , to losing the brightest team members , or sky high personal stress levels which can and do often leave nasty physical and psychological scarring , even before the end game , the sudden reorganisation and assisted rapid exit for "underdelivery versus expectation....."

To be clear ,this blog is neither in any way an apology for underperformance, which must always be addressed transparently honestly and promptly....nor does it seek to ignore the fact that we are all free to walk away if we don't like what is being asked of us, which as a concept works better in some countries, cultures and situations than others of course....

It is rather a call for greater integrity and transparency in how we set up and communicate goals and expectations be they numeric , competency or judgement (yes, .. subjective ..nightmare) based , the spoken as well as the unspoken; and how we deal with the fallout when things don't work out in a way that maintains everyone's dignity.

As to the Brandbuilding angle , if we aren't personally aligned with the work culture we find ourselves in then both parties brands will be harmed.

The new marketing team ..same as the old one?

I just read a pretty balanced Article in Marketing Week about the changing shape of the marketing team, which painted a coherent picture of the career and skills landscape and challenges facing marketeers today ..but don't necessarily agree with the vision painted of the optimal marketing structure.

Do check it out on https://www.marketingweek.com/2017/04/11/specialists-future-marketing/?

My issue with the notion of multiple in house specialists approach, as distinct from the traditional marketer as generalist approach , is that although there are indeed more specialisations or tools in the marketing tool box than ever before ,there is nothing new with the core challenges....

the biggest of which is whether to outsource or bring in house...something the big fmcg companies have been dealing with ,in changing ways since the very dawn of fmcg when they literally produced their own soap operas in house ,I mean content for broadcast on the mass media of the day.

As a marketeer of a certain mindset I agree with the analogy made in the article of the continuing role of the Brand manager as "Quarterback ", but I would argue this really hasn't changed.

It could be argued that one of the key factors driving the trend to bring more specialists in house is because of an inability to successfully harness multiple partners externally...

Essentially my issue with much of the current theory swirling around the roles and shape of the New marketing team is that by default all specialists risk a certain myopia, or to paraphrase a song lyric" to a hammer everything looks like a nail"..

Nett, the role of the brand manager ,generalist but with a holistic, discipline neutral approach is in fact even more important than ever....

The Food industry is important and worthy of more serious debate

I love food, it's a fascinating topic which cuts across borders,Geo politics, ecology, history,culture,trade,economics, farming, animal welfare ,and more....

I am lucky enough to have spent almost all of my marketing career in the food business across different countries and food categories, but there were times when it felt certainly less glamorous than working in other sectors, not to be mentioned at social gatherings....

Over recent years howeverI have tended to jump in and defend it from the increasing media negativity surrounding it,despite its shortcomings.

So let's start with the important stuff...food is literally a matter of life and death;the latest smartphone , app, handbag, car and so forth are not...does any other industry come close to that?

On the flip side there are a few criminals in our industry who deliberately peddle dangerous or even potentially deadly chemicals passed off as food products to innocent people around the world. Such acts should in some cases be treated as attempted mass murder by the authorities, which might just act as a deterrent.

The vast majority of food companies do not ,contrary to some articles you might see in the media , set out to deliberately harm the health of their consumers...that would be a stupid business model, surely, apart from the ethical issues.

Food stories in the media too often seem to be presented as scare stories, placing insufficient share of the responsibility on the consumer who chooses to buy and consume ,or the need for good education at home and in schools.

Similarly, stories are often not properly supported by robust ,proven scientific data...in the last month alone I have "consumed" scare stories about the risk of arsenic poisoning from eating rice( see my earlier blog on this topic) and about how vegetable fats are making "us " all ill...or how we are all being pretty much force fed sugary fizzy drinks....

Let's have more education,more qualified nutritional and dietary advice,more balanced reporting, more personal responsibility along with choices , and of course true corporate social responsibility .


If you are interested enough then fact check the data in your country about the popularity of" free from" foods ( no gluten, dairy ,sugar etc.,)and compare with the incidence of medically diagnosed intolerance....It makes interesting reading ,certainly here in the UK. I read an article just yesterday about this in the Times about the number of people in the UK claiming to be Lactose intolerant versus those actually professionally diagnosed...

There are other issues as well....

The scientific and unscientific communities both seem to change the goal posts and advice with alarming regularityabout which foods or diets are good or bad for us...people are getting confused,too much noise.


Equally seriously, how to stop good,edible fresh food being scrapped or dumped in order to meet absurd "beauty pageant " appearance criteria from customers, or to artificially bolster market prices instead of ensuring farmers can simply get a fair reward for their hard work..

So food industry, we do important work and also sometimes trivial work (OK, chocolate is pretty serious for me, if not truly existential), but could we do much more ..isn't that what so called "purpose based" businesses should be doing?

Where's the Brandbuilding/ marketing angle on this? Responsibility towards the long term welfare of our consumers and our planet is both the right thing to do as well as the best business strategy...just look at the the gushing feedback for Unilever and it's ethical business model following the recent failed take over attempt...

Your brand is your whole company...get real about business ethics

At what point do corporations get real about all the Happy Smiley stuff , and where does the responsibility lie for corporate ethics ? I certainly don't mean simply having a beautifully crafted tab about corporate social responsibility or similar "Feelgood of the day" on the corporate website .

Is there any joined up, corporate level evaluation of this stuff , should there need to be an Ethics Director on the board, or should everyone in positions of power be able to flag and stop " bad behaviour"?

Recently we all saw the video rant of the Boss of Uber;this week I read an article on the BBC about foreign Truckers working in the UK for months at a time away from home and on low wages based on pay rates in their home countries, which are insufficient for them to live decently on in the UK ...and it made me think of the behaviours of the companies using this type of working arrangements ,and that somewhere this has been sanctioned by bosses with apparently little or no regard for the welfare of their workers or sub contractors. Conditions for workers in developing economies is of course a similar issue,as are issues of animal welfare in countries with different standards....

I worked more than thirty years ago for a firm where every year,starting as a junior manager I had to sign an ethics policy document which meant that not only was I not allowed to do anything illegal or unethical or indeed ask anyone else to do similar , but that there was an anonymous phone number in Head Office to report any such attempts for any employees to use if necessary.

Let me just put a few contemporary Buzz words out there:

Purpose, Corporate social responsibility, inclusion/ diversity in the workplace,
Environmentally friendly( energy, bio environment ,emissions, recycling and waste reduction),the Gig economy, zero hours contracts...

What do they mean overall if your business behaves unethically in just one area ?

I'm not for instance suggesting closing down all factories in emerging economies as a panacea , but people up and down the supply chain need to be treated with fairness and dignity....and fairly rewarded.

I recently heard the UK managing director of a large fmcg firm complain for instance that standards of health and safety , quality assurance and employee conditions expected by UK retail customers from their private label suppliers simply didn't exist where his product raw materials came from,and that the cost of applying UK standards to his business model was culturally as well as economically unviable....with potential job losses in several countries.

Finally ,here's my "Brandbuilder" point....your brand is your whole company, your whole supply chain, how you treat your workers, your animals, your suppliers, local tax authorities...not just the shiny end product. Make sure this subject is on the agenda of every board meeting.....and on the objectives of every functional team.

The responsibility for good corporate governance should lie with each and every one of us, as employees,bosses and as consumers. It ultimately risks damaging not just people but also profits if businesses fail to properly address the wellbeing of their employees.

And just maybe for some it should be keeping them awake at night ...

Does m&a activity need more checks and balances?

In the current political economic and financial environment with continuing access to low interest debt there has been a recent spate of large merger projects, some of which have succeeded eg PSA takeover of Vauxhall/Open brands from GM, together with some that have failed like Kraft Heinz proposed takeover of Unilever.

It seems as if the underlying rationale behind these two projects which are not atypical highlights the current push to consolidation, cleaning up balance sheets eg offloading burdensome employee pension obligations and the pursuit of "synergies"...eg the inevitable loss of jobs as capacity is rationalised.


Within this it seems there is little talk of top line growth or even serving consumers better, and let's not even go near the notion of the Purpose Economy ..


To my mind these examples are pretty much pure financial transactions, and it seems to me like todays m&a might be the reincarnated persona of those Bad Boys ,the bankers who precipitated the global economic recession, the effects of which will be felt for a generation at least...

So should m&a be subject to closer scrutiny pre approval ( BHS refers)...?

Who's in charge here .?

Another boring blast from the past , or a call for pragmatism ?
During the early part of my career local brand managers were exhorted by their bosses to behave like business unit General Managers , and take overall ownership of every aspect of their brands, from sales forecasting and other supply chain disciplines through the four P's including advertising and promotion. Honesty requires me to say that particularly for multicountry brands this was the cause in some companies of brands with little or no consistency in brand identity, sometimes justified by different local consumer needs, often not.. In this era some companies practised a comparatively light touch approach to ensuring consistency of brand identity, with local teams still enjoying a good measure of input in all aspects of the marketing mix, albeit with some centralised coordination and oversight.

Critically a notion of the primacy of the local market still had meaning...

At some point in the 90's I think it became the custom to begin the increasing fragmentation of the job , with brand equity considerations and control transferred definitively from local teams to global or regional marketing teams.

At this point the local brand marketing teams were left essentially with local so called brand activation roles , eg picking from a menu of centrally prepared options for promotion, new products, and comms. The obvious benefits of a more centralised approach included subtantial cost synergies , as well as providing for greater consistency of international brand strategy and brand identity...

The consequences however unintended at the sharp end in the local market are the risk that the brand becomes further removed from the local consumer,lowest common denominator blandness, that success is more dependant on skilful internal relationship management between local and central teams;and finally for me personally the bigggest bugbear , that the appeal ,reward and role of local brand management is somehow diminished , with the reduced autonomy that comes if the local team no longer has full use of the marketing toolbox ......

Today I see the brand management role being fragmented further and further ,as new specialisations make their presence felt and new departments spring to life: Digital and Innovation being the most talked about...and don't start me on automation either please....

So my question is who's in charge nowadays, and does any one person actually have a holistic view of the brand in the local market?

p.s :My speciality subject is food , where local tastes and habits vary widely and do matter; there may be less of a local issue in other fmcg product categories of course...