Folgers unveils expensive innovation for leadership of the elite “frozen turkey” coffee market
Posted by TheShot on 20 Sep 2008 | Tagged as: Consumer Trends, Quality Issues
How is it that some people can unwittingly ridicule themselves far more than anyone else could while trying? Case and point with Folgers Coffee.
Allow us to use a more bizarre application of the ever-popular wine analogy for coffee: for decades, Folgers profited as coffee’s equivalent of Thunderbird. But as consumers have developed more of an interest in, and taste for, higher quality products, the reach and profitability of the misery market — whether wine or coffee — has waned dramatically.
Thunderbird’s Ernest & Julio Gallo responded to the challenge with high-gloss marketing, upscale brands, and even a family crest. Folgers is responding with “the biggest innovation since the launch of decaf” and an ad campaign that is “the most expensive in the history of the brand,” according to yesterday’s New York Times: Advertising – Folgers Markets a New Coffee to Cost-Cutting Home Brewers – NYTimes.com.
Folgers is also responding with a heavy dose of unwitting self-ridicule. So what is this innovation? The culmination of 8-10 years of research, Folgers is unveiling a new roasting process that includes a “predry” or “preroast” step to make their product less bitter.
And here’s where the self-ridicule comes in. Also from the New York Times article:
Jim Trout, innovation leader for research and development, at P.& G., said: “It’s like thawing a turkey before you cook it. If you don’t, the outside will be burnt and the inside will still be raw. This way it cooks evenly all the way through.”
Now if you’re promoting a new product in the food industry that you want to be perceived as better, improved, and — dare we suggest — gourmet, why would anyone in a sane frame of mind compare their fancied product to frozen turkeys? We suppose we should at least give them credit for not comparing it to instant mashed potatoes.
5 Comments »
on 20 Sep 2008 at 2:12 pm +00:00T 1.Jaime said …
A double roast. That’s funny.
on 21 Sep 2008 at 12:08 pm +00:00T 2.Matt said …
Actually they also seem to get more volume for less weight. Does anyone else hear just see this as a gimmick to make the new downsized product seem better?
“Why has Folgers reduced the size of its Classic Roast Canisters? Does each Canister provide the same number of cups of coffee?
Though the weight has been slightly reduced, you still get the same number of servings in each Canister. With the enhanced roasting process, you draw more coffee flavor consistently from every bean, and therefore, use the bean to its full potential. While the packed net weight of Classic and Decaf will be slightly reduced, the volume will remain the same and consumers will still get the same number of cups in each Canister, and thus the same value.”
on 21 Sep 2008 at 9:46 pm +00:00T 3.TheShot said …
Hey Matt –
Definitely relevant here. We mentioned that very issue in a post last week:
http://theshot.coffeeratings.com/2008/09/food-snobbery-defense/
on 12 Dec 2008 at 9:04 pm +00:00T 4.Its a rip-off! said …
Despite the marketing spin that you get the same number of cups out of a can of coffee, it’s not true, this is a simple case of product downsizing and P&G marketing execs are boldly lying about it.
I have before me a new can as well as an old can of Folgers Med-Dark French Roast.
The old can is 34.5 oz and the directions on back say to use 1 tbsp per 6 oz cup, and that the can will yield 240~270 suggested servings.
The new can is 27.8 oz and the directions on back say to use 1 tbsp per 6 oz cup, and that the can will yield 215-240 suggested servings.
Who makes this marketing crap up? I know a rip-off when i see one. It’s one thing to downsize a product but quite another to lie about it. This isn’t just marketing “spin” but outright lying. That being the case i’m looking for a new brand of coffee.
on 13 Dec 2008 at 10:01 am +00:00T 5.TheShot said …
It’s not just P&G either. Maxwell House does it, everyone has to follow.
This is the vicious cycle of the big coffee purveyors. Because they largely compete on price rather than quality, corporate profits are largely determined by how well they can cut corners: i.e., cheaper and lower-grade coffee supplies, deceptive marketing about the cost per unit volume, etc.