Drinkability
5 Comments Published by Frank Lane December 21st, 2008 in Differentiation, Execution, InnovationThe new Bud Light campaign using the non-consumer term, “drinkability” is very interesting for several reasons.
First, drinkability is a term used internally maybe by all beer companies (I have worked with Coors and Miller and it was used both places). But everyone knows it is not a consumer word. No consumer ever says, “This beer is drinkable,” much less, “I choose this beer because of its drinkability.”
Along comes Bud Light and decides they can make it a consumer word, and beyond that, they can own it for their brand. I’ve seen terms invented before, but this is the first time I can remember a major brand taking a broadly used internal term and attempting to turn it into consumer language and own it for their brand. And by the way, drinkability has always been considered one of the most, if not the most valuable attribute in the category to heavy beer drinkers (20% of drinkers who account for 80% of beer consumed.) I think Bud Light will be successful. Very interesting.
In layman’s terms what does “drinkability” actually mean?
Drinkability is a compendium of “goes down easy,” “doesn’t fill me up,” “can drink faster,” “get less gas,” “can drink more,” “want to drink another,” etc. It is similar to the potato chip phenomenon of always picking up one more chip, “Bet you can’t eat just one!”
The Drinkability campaign would have been much more entertaining if they had taken the “piss” out of the term drinkability. Wendy’s does it with their latest campaign — using everyday people to make gourmet food critic comments on the burgers. Bud Light drinkers are proud of their blue collar status and would love to make fun of wine drinkers and the term “drinkability” if given the chance. It’s too bad Budweiser went with such a boring ad campaign that doesn’t make any lasting impression.
I agree with Loretta – the ads are boring! Hopefully, Budweiser can create a more memorable way to link “drinkability” to Bud Light.
My wife and I lived in San Luis Obispo, California a few years ago. When family or friends visited from out-of-state, we would usually take them to the local wineries. Always a good excuse to drink LOTS of wine.
Although we enjoy an occasional bottle (or two), we certainly aren’t connoisseurs and we don’t have the slightest idea how to PROPERLY describe wines — at the wine tasting bar my wife and I would whisper to each other, “yummy”, “tasty” and, yes, “very drinkable.”
I love Loretta’s idea of drawing an analogy with wine drinkers. I don’t know if beer drinkers would be making fun of the wine drinkers or of themselves. I can see a group of perplexed men (& women, if Budweiser includes them as their target customer) at a “beer tasting” bar trying to come up with PROPER descriptions for the various beers. At a loss for words, they eventually decide that Bud Light is their choice for “drinkability.” Mmm.
Ernstt, I like your proposed “beer tasting” scenario. I’d like to hear all the failed descriptors before the tasters land on “drinkability”. It’d give the word context and meaning by relevant comparisons. Without Bud teaching the public what drinkability is, claiming that “the difference is drinkability” is a very hollow differentiation.