top of page

SMIRNOFF ICE 

Did this brand have the potential to become a credible beer alternative?

Provocation

Having worked at Diageo for almost 14 years and been fortunate enough to have worked on some exciting projects, I had always thought about the Smirnoff Ice project and if this product concept could have been a long-term, credible and sustainable beer alternative.

At the initiation of the Smirnoff Ready to Drink (RTD) project, the newly formed Diageo business mindset provided an openness and a resource for pushing innovation boundaries. There were many innovation projects on the go, but the RTD project was the one that had attracted the most interest. A few lead RTD innovation markets were given the opportunity to investigate local (regional) flavours, but they all had the same key project measures: deliver a great refreshing taste and a liquid that consumers could drink, more than one, in a session. (Sessionable liquid)

​

There were existing successful RTDs on the market in the mid-90s; Two Dogs’, Mike’s Hard Lemonade, Hooch, etc. These brands were the forerunners to a plethora of alcopops on the market that received incredibly negative media attention, as they appealed to underage drinkers. With the exception of Bacardi Breezer they all generally did not have a credible parent brand.

Although Smirnoff Vodka had already tested the RTD category with Smirnoff Mule, the ginger taste and product formulation was polarising for consumers, love or hate for ginger. Mule also did not meet the new project success measures. The new RTD Project would seek to improve product formulation and ensure the proposition would add brand value to the credible parent trademark.

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

​

The lead Diageo RTD innovation markets were the UK, Poland and South Africa, and they all worked in synergy with the Ruski style formula but also with their localisation flavour ideas.

This Ruski flavour profile, together with local flavours, was "sensometrically tested’. Researching the consumer's senses and reactions to all aspects of the liquid’s bitterness, sweet, sour, salty, and savoury delivery 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 consume another? Other indicators of colour and smell were also considered, as the consumer would go through a full spectrum of sensometrics.

It became apparent that the Ruski style flavour was the strongest concept and now with global sensometric research, this provided a good foundation for liquid optimisation. The full concept was shared with the Diageo Executive, and it took some convincing using the successful global product research results and the financial modelling built on ‘profit per serve’.

At the time, Smirnoff Vodka was the number two global spirit behind Bacardi and the Smirnoff RTD would be well positioned to benefit the trademark and recruit new consumers.

​

The naming convention ‘Ice’ was tested and although it had some internal resistance, research results showed a positive association with 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 under-forecasts product adoption and conversion. As the sales quickly accelerated well beyond the production forecasts and supply capacity. The brand and innovation project teams scrambled around to find supply solutions. Once initial supply mitigation was resolved for current launch markets, the next frontier was new market requests. The wider Diageo world had seen the success, turnover and profits rolling in and wanted some of this action. Although innovation remained high on the agenda, the thrust from the executive was in support of global commercialisation, and quickly!

There were three core groups that had rallied around the Smirnoff ICE success. The brand management team, responsible for building the brand toolbox, the commercialisation team that was bringing supply to existing and new markets and the Route to Consumer (RTC) team, who were responsible for helping launch markets get to grips with selling high volume, lower value products. Thankfully Diageo had retained some muscle memory of some Guinness employees.

​

Commercialisation and RTC might be addressed in another debate, as the focus of this article is on the approach to building a sustainable Smirnoff ICE brand.

When Heineken started brewing in the 1860s, their focus was to perfect their Pilsner. A repeat exercise, using precisely the same process again and again, with meticulous focus on the craft. Progressive use of science and technology to improve results while retaining quality and consistency was paramount. Guinness might have started out with a variety of ales in the 1760s, but by the 1800s, Guinness focus was on producing the best porter, a dark beer with a rich head. It is the 260 years of building expertise in stout, that made Guinness the globally available iconic brand it is today.

​

The one thing Guinness, Heineken, and many other brands had at the time was ‘patience’. Their business was not obsessed with change and creating new things all the time. Their focus was perfecting product quality because they also knew this is what their consumers also wanted, a consistent and trusted taste.

​

Smirnoff Ice tweaked its formula to suit market needs, costing models, and value optimisation, including reformulating to contain no spirit but only a malt-based product. Unlike Heineken or Guinness, the Smirnoff ICE reformulation requirements were not steadfast to produce a consistent, high-quality product or even single-source production. The focus of commercialisation was to make a cost-effective product that maximised value for the launch market. Who or how it was manufactured was less important.

Smirnoff Ice also needed a toolbox of marketing assets, quickly. There was a realisation that competing with beer would require key visuals that should closely align with beer success factors. Some of the beer marketing hygiene factors considered; the product should always look cold and refreshing, if the bottle was opened then it would show effervescence.  The Smirnoff Ice background visual was a spritzed navy blue that allowed the bottle to stand out. At some stage there was an introduction of a brand icon, ‘the lozenge’, which had three snowflakes or stars, similar to those seen on a refrigerator.

​

The Smirnoff name in its trademark eyebrow, together with all the ICE assets, the blue, the spritzed cold bottle, and the lozenge icon were a great foundation to begin building a clear and differentiated positioning. Imagine this was the 1800s equivalent to, 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 ever-changing, there was consistently inconsistency, as rapid market expansion happened. The key reason was, as the brand rolled out in new markets with new demands, they might have used existing assets or just create their own. The first launch markets wanted to accelerate their growth and their belief was that refreshed brand assets would help with growth.

​

The business success fostered a culture that to grow the brand, the best way was to innovate, renovate and do whatever is required to bring new news to the Smirnoff RTD brand. So new pack formats, new sub-brands, new, new, new; bigger, smaller; cans, bottles, PET; formats of 24’s, 18’s, 12’s, 6’s, 3's; more product flavours; new range extensions; higher ABV; less alcohol; less sugar, with energy ingredients, new liquid colours, new campaigns, local campaigns etc.

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

With no master brand there was no need for a consistent brand toolbox. There was no longer just Smirnoff Ice, as new innovations reaching the market might or might not have even referenced Ice, Smirnoff Spin, Double Back, Triple Black, Twist, Seltzer, Storm, Ice + Flavour, Ice Margarita etc.

​

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 this brand tasted great, better than any RTD before, as its sales success would support that fact.

So, if it had remained steadfast to the original brands positioning, that Smirnoff ICE lemon taste was a definitive, single, refreshing taste profile that sensometrically was comparable with 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, great taste and refreshment. The ideal would be to decide on one universal approach to the liquid development (Malt, Spirit, or any other base) and be obsessive on improving that process only, creating some sort of process USP or secret Ice ingredient.

  • Develop a compelling, iconic, and distinctive toolbox that will be universally applied with little or no deviation, while ensuring beer hygiene factors are present. Protect the ICE trademark better and build iconography into the brand identity. Trademark the distinct Blue, Ice Lozenge, Smirnoff Crest, etc. Heineken is a master of green execution consistency, but they keep their execution visuals modern, contemporary, and exciting, but still 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.

  • Sustained brand marketing investment ensures the brand retains masculinity but still has unisex accessibility. Heineken is a master of iconic and sustained marketing investment in the biggest sporting events, soccer, rugby, and now motorsport.

  • Don’t confuse consumers. Brand marketers get tired of the idea or concept, long before the consumer has even seen it. To build sustainable brands, the marketing team does not need a brand plan; they need to work off a long-term brand blueprint. The annual operating brand plans should never deviate from the blueprint.

  • Finally, add patience to 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 did surpass Bacardi as the biggest spirit brand and the trademark recruitment purpose for Smirnoff ICE was achieved. 

Let the debate begin….

Your comments are welcome, regardless if contrarian  

bottom of page