

Red Bull and Business Strategy - wyclif
https://medium.com/book-excerpts/e4c7832ee71c

======
dkrich
_Instead of “telling” its story using advertising, Red Bull conveys its story
through the creation of compelling experiences, all carefully crafted to “give
you wings.”_

Is this really true, though? I think most of Red Bull's success comes from the
U.S. market, and I distinctly remember an onslaught of clever advertisements
on American television circa the late 90's when Red Bull was really taking off
featuring poorly-drawn cartoon characters.

That's not to say there's no merit to the Flugtag argument, but I think you'd
be hard-pressed to attribute their success purely to running their own events.
What this article is describing is really product positioning, and it is what
David Ogilvy described as the single most important aspect of any marketing
campaign. Red Bull has carefully (and cleverly) positioned itself as an energy
drink company serving adventure-seeking types. The same could be said for
Tom's which has positioned itself as a new-age shoe company selling
comfortable shoes while helping disadvantaged people in other countries. Or
Coudal's Field Notes, which is positioned to appeal to people as a classic
American tool for getting stuff done even though it's been around for about
two years. There are a lot of good lessons out there.

~~~
matwood
I wondered the same thing. I remember reading the key to Red Bulls success was
when they started mixing it with liquor.

~~~
Jare
And then _replacing_ liquor in places and venues with restricted sale hours
for alcohol.

~~~
crazcarl
Or really anyone who can't acquire alcohol (such as those too young).

------
tribeofone
"If I am thirsty today, I have a vast constellation of beverages to choose
from. If I pick Red Bull, it is because, in addition to quenching my thirst
and waking me up, I want to take action that signals my allegiance to the Red
Bull tribe, to make their story part of my story."

Good article, but it's a little over the top at the end here. Most people are
going to pick up a new beverage the first time based on marketing and
packaging. The second time they are going to pick it up because they like the
taste, pure and simple.

I've always been bothered with this whole 'lifestyle' brand concept. Pepsi
says it's a lifestyle brand, but what does sugared water have to do with the
way you live your life? Alot, but not in the manner Pepsi would wan't it. It
makes you fat, not perceived as some sort of alternative thinker.

What Red Bull did right in all this, is that they NAILED the lifestyle brand
marketing strategy. They hit it out of the park. Its not a strategy aimed at
keeping people drinking it through their life, but convincing new customers
they need to try it. The Lifetime Value of a Coke customer is probably
100x-1000x more then the LTV of a Red Bull customer.

So to wrap this up, just because you succeeded in your marketing strategy,
does not make it a truth. Was it "that it ‘gives you wings…’ which means that
it provides skills, abilities, power, etc., to achieve whatever you want to"
that triggered people to try and, I concede, maybe like the beverage more then
they normally would? Yes. Do they keep drinking it just to signal their
allegiance to the Red Bull tribe, not so sure.

~~~
sokoloff
In Red Bull's case, I suspect people drinking it the second and subsequent
times are doing so for the effects (both real and perceived/psychological) and
not for the taste.

I buy and drink it occasionally, but I assure you, it's not primarily for the
taste.

~~~
oblique63
Along that same note, I thought this[1] post offered some interesting insight
on the topic:

 _" NYC Mayor Bloomberg's proposal is to ban soda sold larger than 16 oz. Is
it a government intrusion into our private lives? Shouldn't we be allowed to
make our own free choices about what to do with our own bodies?

The answer to both is a resounding yes, but nevertheless that's the trick. The
question that you should have asked, that you did not ask because you were
hypnotized into asking the above questions, is: to what extent am I free to
make the decision TO drink soda?

Soda was tested, refined and improved so that you would probably like it; but
it was packaged and marketed so that you would like it regardless of whether
you liked it, and "you" means you now, in this time, in this place. Do you
believe 10th century Viking marauders who previously described rejecting pop
music would drink 3 sodas a day? I saw Valhalla Rising.

The answer is no.

I just heard you say, "yes, they would. Yes, they'd take a few sips and find
it delicious and yes, they'd drink 3 bottles a day." WRONG.

If you believe that they would, then you are saying that marketing is
unnecessary, all that money is a waste, the soda is delicious enough to hook
anyone. That the terms "market penetration" and "early adopters" and
"branding" are meaningless. But if [the Pepsi logo], not the brown liquid, but
that image-- which cost millions of dollars to create and promote-- if that
strategy was necessary to making Pepsi a huge seller, more than the minor
difference in taste from generic brand cola which no one drinks and thus no
one needs protection from-- then you cannot say that your choice to drink soda
is a free one. And it doesn't matter if the risk of diabetes with the liquid
in the bottle labeled generic cola and the liquid in the bottle labeled Pepsi
is the same, because product= object + branding: Pepsi is more dangerous than
cola."_

[1]
[http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/09/the_nanny_state_didnt...](http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/09/the_nanny_state_didnt_show_up.html)

~~~
HeyLaughingBoy
So how does this explain that whenever I go grocery shopping and buy soda, my
choice is almost always the generic store brand because it's the cheapest one?

------
sdoering
This is so 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc'
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc))
reasoning, with fitting the facts to a story, that (imho) seemed to reside in
the authors head before writing the first letter.

Author should read a little Nasim Taleb, just for educational purposes on the
role of chance in life.

------
Stranger2013
That reminds me beer ads in eastern Europe :). They show successful people
enjoying themselves in a cosy pub. But reality is vomit and alcoholism. Not
sure that someone selling an unhealthy legal drug/stimulator is a good role
model. Unless you are trying to build a better Happy Farm clone.

~~~
ssharp
One reality of beer is vomit and alcoholism. Another reality is people, of
many socioeconomic demographics, including successful people, enjoying it
socially without vomiting or alcoholism. Of course you sell on benefits.

And maybe ironically and/or coincidentally, the only thing I associate Red
Bull with is drinking it with vodka.

~~~
notahacker
I'm not sure how much effect it's had on sales figures, but I'm convinced Red
Bull is the only soft drink whose flavour is actually _improved_ by adding
vodka.

------
dionyziz
A "meta-story" is not a _third type of story that you do_. A "meta-story" or
"meta-narrative" is _a story told about a story_. Remember One Thousand and
One Nights?

~~~
darth_aardvark
Yeah, that part kind of bugged me too. What is it about a meta-story (by the
article's definition) that makes it neither non-fiction or fiction?

------
freshfey
Interesting article. I think the same story can be applied to the GoPro
company creation. Although much younger, it's based on very similar elements
as described in the article.

~~~
tenfingers
GoPro is probably in a much better position.

I wouldn't actually take a RedBull before anything physically demanding or
that requires endurance.

~~~
michaelbuddy
based on the longevity of soda, I think Redbull is in a better position as far
as future, as long as they aren't discovered to be poison upon futher study.
GoPro has to work a lot harder to innovate as well as market like mad.

~~~
tenfingers
My comment was regarded more towards caffeinated drinks promoted as a way to
improve physical endurance. While I agree that caffeine increases focus, by my
experience the increased heart-rate has adverse effects for any hard physical
activity or endurance (I do multi-day mountain hiking and alpinism up to 6c
grade).

By my own experience, drinking a cappuccino just minutes before starting a 1km
30% hill climb will make the effort strenuous on me, and I usually drink 2
espressos a day, which is basically the norm around here. I can easily do the
same in less time, walking faster and absolutely no strain if I had at least 3
hours after the cappuccino or don't drink any.

In my hiking group this effect has been noted by several other people (we
usually go to a bar in the morning before starting the hikes).

A redbull for me is already too strong by itself. I think how quickly you can
metabolize caffeine is important, but as a rule increasing the hart-rate seems
like a dumb idea.

------
natecarroll
What's so impressive to me about Red Bull is that they've successfully
established a tier of beverages seen as more premium than soda in spite of no
particular cost differences. Caffeine is not expensive, but Red Bull gets away
with pricing their drinks at 3x what a Coke costs.

------
at-fates-hands
I remember an interview with Mateschitz who retold the humble beginnings of
the company and said once they brought the drink back from Thailand, and tried
to sell it, it was a horrible failure. This was mainly because the drink in
Thailand wasn't actually carbonated. It was more of an "elixir" than a soda.

Mateschitz said he finally realized it needed to be lightly carbonated. Not
like most pops on the market which were heavily carbonated, but just enough to
give it some fizz and tingle when you drink it.

He didn't say how long it took before they figured out the carbonation was the
key, but I'm pretty sure it didn't happen overnight.

------
snorkel
It's a good lesson. Rather than sponsoring someone else's event create your
own event and sponsor that.

------
celwell
Now I want a Red Bull...

