SMIRNOFF ICE 

Having spent nearly 14 years at Diageo and having had the opportunity to work on some exciting projects, I have always considered the Smirnoff Ice project and whether this product idea could serve as a long-term, credible, and sustainable alternative to beer.

At the start of the Smirnoff Ready-to-Drink (RTD) project, the newly established Diageo business mindset encouraged openness and provided resources to push innovation boundaries. Several innovation projects were underway, but the RTD project was considered the most important. A few lead RTD innovation markets were given the opportunity to explore local (regional) flavours, but all shared the same key project goals: deliver a great, refreshing taste and a liquid that consumers could enjoy more than once in a session (Sessionable liquid).

There were successful RTDs available in the market in the mid-90s: Two Dogs’, Mike’s Hard Lemonade, Hooch, and others. These brands paved the way for a large number of alcopops that attracted extensive negative media coverage because they appealed to underage drinkers. Apart from Bacardi Breezer, most of these lacked a credible parent brand.

Although Smirnoff Vodka had already tested the RTD category with Smirnoff Mule, the ginger flavour and product formulation were polarising for consumers—either loved or hated. Mule also did not meet the new project success criteria. The new RTD project aims to improve the product formulation and ensure that the proposition adds brand value to the credible parent trademark.

The investigation into local flavour alternatives aimed to help the project maximise local market potential. At that time, Australia had an established and sizable RTD and Alcopop market, and an existing vodka RTD success story, ‘Stoli Lemon Ruski’. The flavour and profile of Ruski were slightly different from those of existing market players, which were generally neutral spirits and flavours. Ruski was formulated to optimise duties at the time and include a wine component. This formulation deviation somehow introduced a new dynamic to the liquid, with changes in viscosity, mouthfeel, and even increased session drinking.

The leading Diageo RTD innovation markets were the UK, Poland, and South Africa, all working in harmony with the Ruski style formula as well as their localisation flavour ideas.

This Ruski flavour profile, alongside local flavours, was "sensometrically tested’. Researching the consumer's senses and reactions to all aspects of the liquid’s bitterness, sweetness, sourness, saltiness, and savouriness was standard in FMCG trials. However, the key measure was how the consumers' senses changed after the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th bottle. After consuming one, could they go on to consume another? Other indicators, such as colour and smell, were also considered, as the consumer would experience a full spectrum of sensometrics.

It became clear that the Ruski-style flavour was the strongest concept, and that global sensometric research provided a solid foundation for liquid optimisation. The full concept was presented to the Diageo Executive, and it required some convincing, using the successful global product research results and the financial modelling built on ‘profit per serve’.

At that time, Smirnoff Vodka was the second-largest global spirit brand after Bacardi, and the Smirnoff RTD was well-positioned to capitalise on the brand and attract new consumers.

The naming convention ‘Ice’ was tested, and although it faced internal resistance, the research results indicated a positive link to the liquid concept, product positioning, and the Smirnoff trademark.

The cloudy lemon-flavoured RTD launched in the UK and South Africa simultaneously in 1999.

The research significantly underestimates product adoption and conversion, as sales quickly accelerated well beyond the production forecasts and supply capacity. The brand and innovation project teams scrambled to find supply solutions. Once initial supply mitigation was addressed for current launch markets, the next challenge was new market requests. The wider Diageo world had seen the success, turnover, and profits rolling in and sought a share of this success. Although innovation remained a priority, the executive's main focus was supporting global commercialisation—and acting swiftly.

There were three core groups that rallied around the success of Smirnoff ICE. The brand management team, responsible for developing the brand toolkit, the commercialisation team, which was bringing supply to existing and new markets, and the Route to Consumer (RTC) team, tasked with helping launch markets to grasp the selling of high-volume, lower-value products. Fortunately, Diageo had retained some muscle memory from Guinness employees.

Commercialisation and RTC might be discussed in another debate, as this article concentrates on the approach to developing a sustainable Smirnoff ICE brand.

When Heineken began brewing in the 1860s, their aim was to perfect its Pilsner. A repetitive process, using exactly the same method repeatedly, with careful attention to craftsmanship. The ongoing use of science and technology to enhance results while maintaining quality and consistency was essential. Guinness may have started with a range of ales in the 1760s, but by the 1800s, Guinness was focused on producing the best porter, a dark beer with a rich head. It is the 260 years of developing expertise in stout that has made Guinness the globally recognised iconic brand it is today.

Guinness, Heineken, and many other brands at the time shared one key trait: ‘patience’. Their business was not fixated on constant change or innovation. Instead, they focused on perfecting product quality because they understood that consumers also valued a consistent, trusted taste.

Smirnoff Ice adjusted its formula to meet market demands, cost structures, and value optimisation, including reformulating it as a malt-based product with no spirit. Unlike Heineken or Guinness, the requirements for the Smirnoff ICE reformulation were not strict in ensuring a consistent, high-quality product or even single-source production. The focus of commercialisation was to create a cost-effective product that maximised value for the launch market. Who or how it was manufactured was less significant.

Smirnoff Ice also required a toolbox of marketing assets, quickly. There was a realisation that competing with beer would demand key visuals that closely align with beer success factors. Some of the beer marketing hygiene factors considered included: the product should always appear cold and refreshing, and if the bottle was opened, it would show effervescence. The background visual for Smirnoff Ice was a navy-blue spritz that helped the bottle stand out. At some point, a brand icon, ‘the lozenge’, was introduced, featuring three snowflakes or stars, similar to those seen on a refrigerator.

The Smirnoff name, in its trademark eyebrow, along with all the ICE assets, the blue bottle, the spritzed cold bottle, and the lozenge icon, provided a strong foundation to begin establishing a clear and distinctive positioning. Imagine this as the 1800s equivalent of Heineken Green & Red Star or Guinness Black & White with a Gold Irish harp.

Alas, this was not the case, as marketing principles were not mandated and were constantly evolving, leading to inconsistency as rapid market expansion occurred. The main reason was that, as the brand launched in new markets with different demands, they might have used existing assets or created new ones. The initial launch markets aimed to accelerate their growth, believing that refreshed brand assets would support this.

The business success fostered a culture in which the best way to grow the brand was through innovation, renovation, and doing whatever was necessary to deliver fresh updates to the Smirnoff RTD brand. This included new pack formats, new sub-brands, and a continuous stream of innovations; bigger and smaller sizes; cans, bottles, PET; formats of 24, 18, 12, 6, 3; more flavours; new range extensions; higher ABV; lower alcohol content; reduced sugar with energy ingredients; new liquid colours; new campaigns; local campaigns, and more.

What made matters worse over time was that there was no longer a master brand, Smirnoff Ice.

Without a master brand, there was no need for a consistent brand toolkit. It was no longer just Smirnoff Ice, as new innovations reaching the market might or might not have even referenced Ice, such as Smirnoff Spin, Double Back, Triple Black, Twist, Seltzer, Storm, Ice + Flavour, Ice Margarita, and so on.

Consumer Confusion 101 

So, if Smirnoff Ice had the potential to become a credible beer alternative, what could it have done differently?  It's undisputed that this brand tasted great, better than any RTD before, as its sales success would support that fact.

So, if it had remained true to the original brand's positioning, that Smirnoff ICE lemon flavour was a definitive, singular, refreshing taste profile, sensometrically comparable to a lager or stout.

It might be hard to pinpoint the flavours in Coca-Cola because the dark liquid can also be misleading, but it's the citrus notes that give Coke its refreshing taste appeal. 

Some provocation of what could have made a sustainable beer alternative:

• Optimise the product liquid to ensure consistent quality, excellent taste, and refreshment. The best approach is to select a single universal method for liquid development (Malt, Spirit, or any other base) and focus obsessively on refining that process, creating a unique selling point or a secret ingredient.

• Create a compelling, iconic, and distinctive toolbox that will be universally adopted with minimal deviation, while ensuring beer hygiene factors are maintained. Better protect the ICE trademark and incorporate iconography into the brand identity. Trademark the unique Blue, Ice Lozenge, Smirnoff Crest, etc. Heineken excels at consistent green branding, keeping its visuals modern, contemporary, and exciting while staying green.

• Resist the need to follow trends, particularly flavour. If there is only one Smirnoff Ice Lemon flavour, then over time (+20 years) it could get minor liquid enhancements, a lower ABV version, less sugar, fewer calories, etc., but it would still be a single Ice variant. Heineken 0.0 was launched in 2017, almost 150 years after the Original.

• Consistent brand marketing investment maintains the brand's masculinity while still offering unisex appeal. Heineken excels at iconic, sustained marketing campaigns during major sporting events, such as football, rugby, and now motorsport.

• Don't confuse consumers. Brand marketers become tired of the idea or concept long before consumers have even seen it. To build sustainable brands, the marketing team doesn't need a brand plan; they need to operate according to a long-term brand blueprint. The annual operating brand plans should never stray from the blueprint.

​

Finally, add patience to the process of building sustainable brands and apply blueprint guide rails to the marketing toolbox.

One success factor in the Smirnoff ICE story was that, in 2002–2003, Smirnoff Vodka surpassed Bacardi as the largest spirit brand, thereby achieving the trademark-recruitment purpose for Smirnoff ICE. 

 

Let the debate begin….