Unknown’ cholesterol in processed food poses big heart health risk

With all the focus on LDL (bad) cholesterol, a ‘virtually unknown’ form called oxycholesterol may pose the biggest heart health threat, say Chinese scientists.

Scientists from the Chinese University of Hong Kong identified fried and processed food as the main sources of oxycholesterol in the diet, statements that may lead to louder calls to reformulate towards ‘healthier’ foods.

“Total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL), and the heart-healthy high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL) are still important health issues,” said lead researcher Zhen-Yu Chen, PhD.

“Our work demonstrated that oxycholesterol boosts total cholesterol levels and promotes atherosclerosis ["hardening of the arteries"] more than non-oxidized cholesterol.”

Sources

Dr Chen said: “Foods of animal origins contain cholesterol, which is stable at room temperature. However, it is susceptible to oxidation to produce the cholesterol oxidation products during heating, particularly, long frying and high temperature.

“The amount of cholesterol consumed from diet is about 300-500 mg cholesterol per day per person while cholesterol oxidation products could reach up to 10 per cent total cholesterol in diet.”

Oxycholesterol is produced in oxidised oils, particularly in the much-maligned trans-fatty acids and partially-hydrogenated vegetable oils. Health concerns, and the subsequent consumer reaction, have led many manufacturers to begin reformulating their products and reduce the trans-fat content, or eliminate it completely.

Detrimental effects of oxycholesterol have been on the researchers’ radars for a while, with the focus on cell and DNA damage, and its biochemical effects in contributing to atherosclerosis, said Dr Chen. According to the Hong Kong-based researchers, theirs is one of the first studies on oxycholesterol’s effects in raising blood cholesterol levels, compared to non-oxidized cholesterol.

Study details

According to findings presented at this week’s 238th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society, hamsters fed a diet high in oxycholesterol displayed blood cholesterol increases of up to 22 per cent more than hamsters eating non-oxidized cholesterol.

The oxycholesterol-fed group also showed greater deposition of cholesterol in the lining of their arteries and a tendency to develop larger deposits of cholesterol, called atherosclerotic plaques.

Diet vs pills

Chen noted that scientists do not know whether statins can lower oxycholesterol. “Statin is a type of drug which decreases cholesterol synthesis and thus decreases the cholesterol in blood,” he said. “Oxidized cholesterol is mainly from diet and statin should not have effect on oxidized cholesterol in blood but it needs to be proved.”

Consuming foods rich in antioxidants may be a way of countering these effects, said Chen said, since these substances may block the oxidation process that forms oxycholesterol.

There may a potential for dietary approaches said the researcher, such as phytosterols and phytostanols. “Phytosterols decreases blood cholesterol by a simple mechanism of decreasing cholesterol absorption,” said Chen. This could lead to greater excretion of oxycholesterol.

The study was funded by the Hong Kong Grant Research Council.

What Makes Functional Foods Click?

Functional foods and beverages continue to flourish, with projections for this sector ranging anywhere from 8.5% to 20% growth per year.

But what makes some functionals more successful than others?

Products with an immediate, obvious effect, like an energy boost, are more successful — at least in the short term — than those that may provide real benefits (like omega-3) but no immediate gratification, according to a new PricewaterhouseCoopers report on leveraging growth in the functional foods industry.

Innovative packaging also helps differentiate products and facilitates premium pricing. Example: “daily dose” packaging supports pricing for Optimel Control that is significantly higher than that of similar weight-management products.

Not surprisingly, successful products address and communicate a specific health benefit linked to a common ailment, or offer multiple desirable benefits in a single product. Example: Kraft’s introduction last year of LiveActive bars, the first mass-distributed shelf-stable probiotic nutrition bars, which appeal to consumers seeking the benefits of probiotics without the need for refrigeration.

Factors supporting functional foods’ overall growth, in addition to consumers’ growing concern about disease prevention, include the FDA’s simplified approval process for health claims on functional food labels; emerging food processing technologies that are leading to new methods of stabilizing ingredients, optimizing texture and improving taste; and premium pricing potential. (Functional products typically require greater R&D investment and ingredient cost, but pricing premiums can reach 30% or higher.)

Consolidating existing industry study data from various sources, PwC’s report shows functional foods’ annual sales at between $20 billion and $30 billion, representing approximately 5% of the total U.S. food market.

Soft drinks (including rapidly growing enhanced waters) are the top U.S. functional F&B by food category, with $9.6 billion in ’07 sales and compound annual growth of 12.3% between 2002 and 2007.

Dairy (including yogurts) is second ($6.8 billion in ’07, 8.1% five-year CAGR), followed by bakery and cereals ($4.6 billion, 8% CAGR); confectionary ($2.3 billion, 6.7% CAGR); savory snacks ($0.5 billion, 1.5% CAGR) and other ($3.4 billion, 3.6% CAGR).

Ranked by product benefit, energy products dominate, with $7.9 billion in sales in ’07 and a CAGR of 6.2% over the past five years. They are followed by heart health products ($5 billion, 6.9% CAGR), bone health products ($3.7 billion, 5.3% CAGR), gut health products ($0.7 billion, 15.8% CAGR) and other ($9.9 billion, 12.5% CAGR).

Other up-and-comers: Products that enhance cognitive health, such as omega-3 fatty acids (projected to reach $7 billion in sales by 2011, according to Packaged Facts); as well as weight management, mood enhancement and skin enhancement products.

Niche players remain active in the functional F&B market, but major CPG’s dominate. PwC’s analysis of various source data puts PepsiCo (Quaker and Gatorade) on top; Coca-Cola (Vitamin Water, Odwalla) second; General Mills (Cheerios, Yoplait) third; Kellogg (Special K, Kashi) fourth; Kraft (Capri Sun, Balance Bar) fifth; Nestlé (Nesquik, PowerBar) ninth; and Danone (Activia, Essensis) eleventh.

Consumers Skeptical of Organic, All-Natural Claims But Still Buy

When it comes to all-natural and organic foods, today’s consumers are wiser to the differences than most marketers might think and eager to purchase them if the price is right. More than three-quarters of respondents in a recent survey said they’d prefer to purchase organic and all-natural goods if those items were comparably priced with other leading brands.

That was one of several insights revealed in a study conducted by Harrisburg, Pa.-based marketing agency Pavone, whose roster includes several food and beverage clients, and marketing research firm Leap, also based in the state capital.

The findings were good news for an industry that’s poured millions of dollars into educating the public about the value of all-natural and organic products, but looming consumer skepticism about all-natural and organic benefits also places increased pressure on manufacturers to make sure their products support the claims made on the packages.

“Consumers are smart and getting smarter, especially in this economy,” said Pavone president Michael Pavone. “They’ve been inundated with products claiming to be all-natural or organic, so they’re naturally skeptical. It’s up to manufacturers to explain very clearly why their product meets certain criteria and why consumers should believe it.”

The study was conducted in April 2009 with 353 adults (78 percent female, 22 percent male) who identify themselves as their household’s primary shopper. Findings showed consumers are well aware of the differences between the two food categories and can accurately define process-based organic foods — those produced without the use of chemicals, contain no artificial ingredients and are minimally processed — and ingredients-based all-natural products — foods that contain no artificial ingredients.

Overall, organic foods faired slightly better in the study than their all-natural counterparts. In terms of health benefits, 79 percent agreed that organic foods are “better for my health” than non-organic foods, vs. 71 percent with the same opinion of all-natural foods.

“The best news is that the desire to purchase remains high,” said Pavone, noting that shoppers remain open to trying new things, “as long as it doesn’t break the budget.”

Consumers devouring nutrient-spiked foods, drinks

From heart-friendly margarines to sugary cereals that strengthen bones, once-demonized foods are being spiked with nutrients to give them a healthier glow — and consumers are biting, even on some that are little more than dressed-up junk food.

A report released Thursday finds that even in a weak economy, people will pay a premium for products seen as preventing a health problem or providing a good alternative to sodas and empty-calorie snacks. The report is from research firm Pricewaterhouse Coopers.

These products include winners and sinners: juices that supply kids with needed calcium, but also candy disguised as granola bars with just a smidgeon of much-ballyhooed nutrients.

The industry calls these products “nutraceuticals” or “functional foods.” Critics say they could lead people to consume too much of certain nutrients, plus too many calories and fats.

New York University food scientist Marion Nestle calls them “calorie distractors.”

“Functional foods are about marketing, not health,” she said. “They delude people into thinking that these things are healthy,” and they often eat more than is wise, she said.

Her shame list includes a candy bar pumped with caffeine and B vitamins, marketed as an “energy boost,” and fattening ice creams enriched with calcium and helpful bacteria called probiotics.

Other nutrition experts worry about too much of a good thing. The studies are far from definitive, but some suggest that too much of vitamins A, C, E and folic acid can be risky for some people.

Folic acid, for example, is “uncharted territory” because so many foods now are fortified with it, said Tufts University nutrition expert Alice Lichtenstein. “We don’t actually know how high you can go” and be safe, she said.

Americans have a big appetite for these products.

Functional foods account for more than $27 billion in sales a year — about 5 percent of the U.S. food market, the Pricewaterhouse report says. Estimates of future growth range from 8.5 to 20 percent per year, far more than the 1 to 4 percent forecast for the food industry as a whole.

Fiber, for digestive health, has been a big draw. In 2007, General Mills expanded its Fiber One brand into bars with appealing flavors such as Oat & Caramel and Chocolate Mocha. Sales exceeded $100 million in the first year.

In 2004, the company added whole grain to its entire Big G cereal line — 50 to 60 brands. Kathy Wiemer, a company dietitian, argues that a cereal such as Lucky Charms, made from whole grain oats and containing less sugar than many yogurts, is a healthy breakfast choice.

“There are some misperceptions around foods that contain sugar,” she said. “And we know that consumers are far below the recommended intakes” for fibers and whole grains.

Among beverages, vitamin-enhanced versions of Tropicana Pure Premium juices now account for 40 percent of Tropicana sales and the share is growing, said Dave DeCecco, a spokesman for Tropicana’s maker, PepsiCo Inc. A kids’ version has added vitamins A, C, D and E plus folic acid, potassium and calcium.

Coca-Cola Inc. makes an enhanced Minute Maid orange juice with a host of vitamins plus zinc, and an apple juice marketed for kids with multiple vitamins and calcium. Kraft Foods Inc. sells a version of Capri Sun drinks with added antioxidant vitamins.

Soft drinks, including vitamin waters and sports beverages, now claim a third of the nutraceutical market, according to the Pricewaterhouse report. They have gained as carbonated soft drink sales have declined.

Dairy products, led by yogurts such as Yoplait and Dannon’s Activia line, accounted for nearly $7 billion in sales in 2007, just behind the beverage category, the Pricewaterhouse report says.

However, “plus” products can have minuses, such as sweetened “silly beverages that cost $2 and $3 apiece with added gingko or caffeine or chromium, a supposed appetite suppressant,” said David Schardt, senior nutritionist for the consumer group Center for Science in the Public Interest.

“It’s really a junk food dressed up to look prettier than it is,” he said. “People are going to be deceived into thinking a lot of these products are especially healthy for them when there’s little evidence they are. There’s more hype to these products than there is reality.”

Some consumers agree.

Ahna Deverey, shopping at a grocery store in suburban Milwaukee, shook her head at milk with added DHA/omega-3 fatty acid. The label said it “helps support a healthy brain.”

“I sometimes think it’s overkill,” she said. “I try to avoid as many additives as possible, and when it says ‘doctor-recommended,’ you know damned well you don’t need it.”

The federal Food and Drug Administration is paying more attention to health claims on functional foods. The FDA recently sent General Mills a letter saying that Cheerios was being “promoted for conditions that cause it to be a drug” — lowering cholesterol 4 percent in six weeks.

General Mills says it is working with the FDA, that its fiber health claim “has been FDA-approved for 12 years,” and that the cholesterol claim has been on Cheerios boxes for more than two years.

Several nutrition scientists say they hope the agency will go after hyped claims of foods and ingredients that can “boost immunity” — a vague concept with little hard science to back it up, Schardt said.

Omega-3 fatty acids also are drawing more attention. The ones that some studies have linked to heart benefits are derived from marine sources, such as fish oil, but many foods touting omega-3 use plant sources, Lichtenstein said.

The biggest worry is that adding a nutrient will give “a health halo” to foods and lead to overconsumption, she said.

“The biggest problem we have in the United States is overnutrition — too much calories,” Lichtenstein said.

Brian Wansink, a food marketing expert at Cornell University, sees another risk. Health benefits come from eating the entire food, not just a single nutrient inside it, he said.

“People are sort of losing the point of why they’re eating certain foods,” Wansink said. With functional foods, “we end up eating it like it is medicine, so we end up eating too much of it.”

On the Net:

• Pricewaterhouse report: http://tinyurl.com/oflomp
• Food Information Council: http://www.ific.org/nutrition/functional/

Just Tell The Truth

Green Living Show Toronto. April 2008.

Green marketing claims describe, or assert, green attributes of companies’ products and services. Consider, for example, two food packages, one labeled “100% Organic” on one and “the other Eco-friendly.” Both make claims about the products, but they have different meanings and impacts: One has a specific legal definition; the other is so unspecific that many find it misleading.

Buyers have varying affinities for green products, but the bottom line is that green claims appeal to a large and growing constituency that is often willing to pay price premiums for “greener” products.

Inaccurate or overstated green claims can also turn people off of green marketing even if a watchdog group isn’t pointing fingers. If consumers start tuning out green messages, significant market opportunities will be lost, both for individual companies overstating their green claims and green products in general.

Greenwashing

Greenwashing is the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service-even with the best of intentions. Avoid it, period. “The 6 Sins of Greenwashing,” from marketing firm Terrachoice, observed this order of frequency:

• The “sin of the hidden trade-off”: A company makes a green claim on one product attribute, which obscures a less green aspect. For example, if you advertise that your shirt is made of 100% organic cotton, but it was processed with toxic dye, this would be considered a hidden trade-off.

• The “sin of no proof”: Companies claim that their products are made in factories with safe working conditions, but consumers have no way of verifying the claim.

• The “sin of vagueness” is commonly seen in recycled materials claims. If a company says it uses “recycled paper,” it could mean they recycle scrap material from within the manufacturing process and count that as recycled material. Others use post-consumer recycled material. The best way to avoid vagueness is to be specific; for example, “this product contains 70% post- consumer recycled material.”

• The “sin of irrelevance”: A company boasts its product is “CFC-Free” even though all products are, because chlorofluorocarbons were banned in the 1980s. Some products that are completely unrelated to CFCs even carry that meaningless claim, but still mislead consumers.

• The “sin of fibbing”: A euphemism for claims that are simply false. Lying to your customers is ultimately counterproductive, as well as unethical.

• The “sin of lesser of two evils”: Positioning a harmful product as greener, such as organic cigarettes.

Honest claims

With what not to do in mind, make good, clear, green claims that are specific, truthful, verifiable, and meaningful. Review applicable regulations before launching green products or marketing campaigns. Canada has established guidelines, and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission is reworking its own policies as I write this. ISO standard 14021 covers green claims. Additional legislation is on the way in the United States and in other countries, so be sure you know which claims are legally binding before making those claims.

The best policy is to make appropriate, accurate green claims that are more likely to pass regulatory scrutiny, and customers’ smell test.

Making green claims

Before you make green product claims:

• Assess which of your products and services might deserve green claims.

• Review your current claims to make sure they’re sound, legal, and informative.

• If a labeling or certification scheme doesn’t exist, ask customers what aspects of “green” are most important to them.

• If an independent verification system exists for your product (or business), consider the costs and benefits of having your claims formally certified

Tesco becomes UK’s first retailer to display carbon footprint on milk

Supermarket giant Tesco has become the first UK retailer to display the full carbon footprint of milk — one of the top-selling products in its stores.

From today, all Tesco own-label full-fat, semi-skimmed and skimmed milk ranges will display the carbon footprint label as part of an on-going drive to help shoppers make “green” purchasing decisions. It has pledged to “footprint” 500 products by the end of the year. The new labelling will not apply to organic milk, where greenhouse gas emissions are generally much lower than for conventional milk.

The move comes alongside new research which found that 50% of customers surveyed now understand the correct meaning of the term “carbon footprint”, compared with only 32% of people surveyed in 2008. The research also revealed that customers increasingly want to be green. Over half said they that would seek lower carbon footprint products as part of their weekly shop, compared with only 35% last year.

Tesco community and government director David North said: “We’re using [milk] to play an important new role in helping our customers understand climate change, the carbon footprints of products, and what steps they can take to help. Milk is not only one of the biggest sellers in store; it’s also prominent on breakfast tables day in day out across the country. So we think carbon labels on milk can play a great part in raising awareness and helping customers navigate the new carbon currency.”

Tesco said that with milk it is the agricultural stage that accounts for by far the biggest portion of the carbon footprint — in this case the most significant factor being methane emissions from the cows themselves. Tesco is already working to reduce these emissions alongside the dairy industry and farmers through the Tesco Sustainable Dairy Group and Dairy Centre of Excellence at the University of Liverpool.

North added: “We are currently embarking on a number of research projects to reduce the carbon emissions from milk production. For example, we’re working on using different feeds that might help reduce methane emissions from cows, and encouraging the use of renewable energy on farms.”

Cutting the greenhouse gas emissions of conventional fresh milk has been a major challenge because of the methane emitted by cows, relative to other animals used for food such as pigs and chickens.

Euan Murray, Carbon Footprinting General Manager of the Carbon Trust said: “Milk is found in almost every UK home and it is taking small actions in our daily lives that will help us really make a difference in tackling climate change. The Carbon Trust have been consistently impressed by the scale and ambition of Tesco’s carbon footprinting work, which will make a real difference in building consumer understanding and de-carbonising our daily shopping.”

The Carbon Trust is working with Dairy UK to help the milk industry understand more about its carbon footprints as a route to greater emission reductions, he added.

Nielsen: U.S. Private Label Sales Up 7.4%

Consumers are continuing to purchase private label products at an increasing rate, per new research from Nielsen.

The “U.S. Store Brand Development” study found that both private label dollar and unit sales significantly increased for the 52-week period ending July 11, 2009 versus the prior year.

Dollar sales grew by 7.4 percent to $85.9 billion within food, drug and mass-merchandisers (including Walmart), with shares recorded at 16.9 percent. This reflects an increase of 0.7 points from the previous year. Growth peaked in 2008 but then slowed slightly in 2009 with falling commodity prices and increased retail discounting.

Unit sales similarly experienced high growth during the same period. Sales increased by 5 percent to 39.5 billion units and unit shares rose by 1.3 points (a total of 17.5 percent).

All store brand food and non-food categories experienced better performance versus brands, but edible departments saw the greatest uptick in both dollar and unit sales.

Top dollar growth categories were frozen pizza and snacks (38 percent), flour (36 percent), and dry vegetables and grains (31 percent), and dry grocery and dairy departments accounted for 59 percent of total sales. Baby food (37 percent), candles and incense (23 percent), frozen pizza and snacks (22 percent), cheese (16 percent) and flour (15 percent) topped unit sales.

The importance of food and at-home meals in this down economy has led to strong growth for both branded and private label offerings in some basic food categories such as flour (36 percent store brand growth compared to 17 percent branded), dry vegetables and grains (31 percent to 20 percent), salad dressing and mayo (30 percent and 8 percent), pasta (27 percent to 15 percent) and baking mixes (22 percent and 10 percent).

“When categories are sorted by store brand share, from high to low, some patterns emerge,” said Todd Hale, svp, Consumer & Shopper Insights First at Nielsen. “Store brand performance and share is strongest in commodity categories. Milk, fresh eggs, sugar & substitutes and canned vegetables top the list).  Where store brand share is the lowest is among categories where we see strong marketing support for top brands including candy, gum, beer and those where a high-level of innovation occurs like detergents, deodorant, cosmetics.”

Starbucks gets it….

A real key to Brands especially those in food and nutrition developing new markets is the building of loyal followers to act as brand ambassadors.

These days the use of Social Media (Facebook, Twitter. Blogs etc..) allows the smallest companies direct access to their consumers for minimal cost.

Rather than rely on retailers to own, develop and mange the customer relationship manufacturers are now accessing their consumers directly.

Starbucks is a great example what can be achieved irrespective of size or product category.

They have been racking up accolades in the digital and social media space. As of July 23, the coffee chain surpassed Coca-Cola as the most popular brand on Facebook, with more than 3.6 million fans, per InsideFacebook.com, an independent blog that tracks the social networking site’s developments. It was also named the No. 1 “most engaged brand” in a report published by Altimeter Group last month. These recent feats are the result of Starbucks’ aggressive digital and social media strategy, said Starbucks digital strategy director Alexandra Wheeler in an interview with Brandweek. That’s because Starbucks has moved from “experimenting” to actively incorporating and utilizing social media channels, such as Twitter and Facebook, in its brand marketing plans.

In a recent interview with BrandWeek, Wheeler discussed how recent social media initiatives—like “Free Pastry Day”—are delivering real ROI for the brand, and how digital will play an active role in the fall nationwide launch of Via instant coffee. Excerpts from that conversation are below.

Brandweek: Starbucks has been getting quite active on the social media front lately. How is the use of Facebook, Twitter and other social media initiatives changing the Starbucks-consumer relationship and how would you describe that progression?
Alexandra Wheeler: What I would say about social media and online communities as it relates to the Starbucks brand is that for us, the journey really began with the launch of My Starbucks Idea last March, an online community where our customers and partners—as we like to call our employees—can go online and submit their ideas, vote for other people’s ideas or add to ideas in the community. They can also see what Starbucks is doing with those ideas through our “Ideas in Action” blog. It’s a pretty robust community. It has over 75,000 ideas in it. In its first year, we activated 25 ideas through that program. It’s a significant way to co-create through that program, to inform business decisions that were underway or forming. [For instance,] we wouldn’t have had music in our stores if it wasn’t for our partner here, Timothy Jones, or [so many different] different creations of our beverages, to take what’s happening in store and bring that online. It’s a natural extension of the brand through that experiment, and through our success with that, we started to expand beyond that. It was important for us to go where consumers are and to provide a valuable and meaningful brand experience.

BW: What’s your philosophy/approach to using social media?
AW: One of the [key priorities] we have to think about when it comes to social media and our expertise there is we have to connect in ways that are relevant to those environments as well as to our consumers. One of the most powerful ways is by sharing content. [CEO Howard Schultz’s] recent trip to Rwanda is a really great example of how a brand like Starbucks is differentiating. [Schultz met with coffee farmers during the trip, while raising awareness for AIDS research.] We care deeply about our coffee origins, we are having an impact in that community and we are sourcing the best quality coffee. [Social media platforms like] Facebook and Twitter allow us to tell and show that story, make it transparent and add texture that we didn’t have through other media and to share it with a much broader audience. That’s a story unique to us and only Starbucks can tell.

BW: Earlier this month, Starbucks became the most popular brand on Facebook, with more than 3.6 million fans. What does this mean to you and how much of it can you directly attribute to the company’s aggressive push towards social media campaigns in recent months?
AW: We’re thrilled. It’s a huge honor to be the most popular brand on Facebook. We now have 3.7 million fans. We love every single one of them. We think it’s amazing and we are really humbled by that. It acknowledges that others have taken note. It has been attributed many times. Yes, it’s great and we’re really proud of that. It absolutely is intentional. When we entered Facebook, there was certainly a community rallied around our brand that was very small. Our brand is just that relevant and part of people’s lives…, but how do we nurture, grow and build that and do it in a way that is a balance between providing relevant and meaningful content, experience and offers to those communities so that their connection with the brand is really adding value to Facebook or Twitter? …[Because at the end of the day,] a brand can promote the heck out of themselves on Facebook and still not build a [strong] following if they don’t have anything behind that and only nurture and care about it as marketing, but not as relationships. We’re developing and fostering those relationships to ensure that we’re entering this space in the right way.

BW: What are consumers talking about these days when it comes to Starbucks? What kinds of brand conversations are you seeing on Facebook and Twitter?
AW: With Twitter it’s customer service or Q&A oriented. It can be answering very basic questions about our card or loyalty program or coffee in stores, but we also have a lot of fun in that community&hellipOn Facebook, there is a large volume of conversation on people’s favorite beverages. It’s interesting to see how passionate people are about sharing their favorite beverage or [Starbucks] rituals. We did a poll: “How complicated is your drink order? Is it short and sweet? Is it five to seven [minutes?] [Or, are you the type of customer] that says, ‘I have needs!’” People love that and are engaged in that. The conversations can span from people talking about Starbucks rituals or the values and the things the brand stands for, our partnership with Product (Red) [for AIDS awareness], the trip to Rwanda, the impact we have at coffee origins and sourcing the best coffee and doing it in a way that also speaks to our LEED certification and environmental and sustainability impact. The conversation is representative of all the different aspects of our brand.

BW: How are you taking this online chatter and actually translating it to ROI for the brand? What do you look for?
AW: It’s the billion-dollar question. We made a lot of progress in this area. We certainly look at a few key things. Brands love emotional connections and human connections are one of the biggest entry points we have as we aggressively experiment our way in this space and start to mature that experimentation&hellipAnother one is translation and understanding whether these communications add value to the bottom line and the business and we believe they do. The most recent example is we really used all of our digital channels to promote Free Pastry Day. [Held July 21, the effort rewarded consumers who purchased a beverage with a free pastry.] [In using digital], the momentum [really] picked up in getting out the word, as we were [gearing up for] Free Pastry Day and in fueling redemption in our stores and seeing new faces in our store who go to try and taste our great food on that single day. That was a digital and PR effort we would say is widely successful.

Another way is really informing, listening to the conversation and engaging in it in a way that makes sense of what people’s perceptions are around certain things. Via is a good example. We were actively listening and participating in conversations around Via and helping to get samples or product in people’s hands so they can try this amazing product and looking at what kinds of product and brand experiences do we need to provide so they can get over that first feeling of, “Oh, instant coffee. Gross! I would never drink it.” [What we said instead was,] “Hey, you gotta try it. It’s not what you think.” [Social media played] a big part in the lead market [test] launch earlier this year, and it will continue to play a significant role in the fall [launch of Via.]

BW: Did you ever have an incident where social media actually backfired? What are some of the best and worst case scenarios you’ve experienced using social media?
AW: There isn’t any incident where we would consider social media backfiring. As far as best case, I would say there are two: World AIDS Day. Last holiday, as part of our multi-year partnership with Product (Red), we ran a campaign for an in-store event, predominantly on Facebook, but in other digital channels and traditional media and PR as well. For any beverage consumers purchased, five cents went to the (Red) cause. It was a way for us to build significant awareness and connect with people around a shared ideal and do something that just felt really great.

We set a record with that campaign—the most viral impressions ever. Not just what we paid to get awareness, but the viral pass-along of our campaign. We actually just broke that record, we broke our own record with Free Pastry Day.

BW: Any numbers you can provide?
AW: For (Red), we had nearly a million people RSVP for the event—either “yes” or “maybe.” For Free Pastry Day, we were on the order of nearly 600,000 consumers doing the same. The record we broke was around the viral pass along which was the power of that channel. Facebook has been really great about it. They are thrilled with the success. They have lots of other brands. [Our success has them now asking,] “How can we even do this? How can we repeat the success for them?” It speaks to the power of the Starbucks brand and how well it connects with our consumer in this space.

BW: What are we likely to see from Starbucks on the social media front going forward?
AW: You will see more of the same. We will only continue to grow and develop our assets in the social media space, but continue this kind of real philosophy of being where the people are but being relevant to them and providing value in those experiences. We don’t want to check the boxes and say we are in all the different channels. It’s not the right thing to do. It’s one of the reasons we were cited in the [Altimeter Group] report as the most engaging brand&hellipIt isn’t a marketing initiative. It isn’t a PR initiative. It’s cultivating and creating great consumer value and great consumer relationships. What you’ll see from Starbucks is us continuing to build and scale that up over time in a new way and new chances to converse with the brand.

Consumers are willing……….

In a recent study conducted by Ipsos Marketing, Consumer Goods they compared various categories of consumer goods to see how consumers rated them in terms of their perceptions of innovativeness.

Interestingly consumer packaged goods (notably, food and beverages, personal products and household products) rated the lowest!

And within consumer packaged goods, household and personal products are viewed as being more innovative than food and beverages.

Extremely or Very Innovative CPG Category (% of Global Consumers)
Category	% Saying Innovative
Computer equipment	60%
Electronic media	58
Cameras & video equipment	54
Household products	34
Pharmaceuticals	32
Personal products	28
Food & Beverage	26
Financial institutions	18
Source: Ipsos Marketing, July 2009

But somewhat surprisingly, when asked how willing they would be to try new food, household and personal products, consumers were overwhelmingly interested, as you will see below with scores ranging from 81% to 89%.

Consumers Interested in Trying New (% Global Consumers)
Product Category	% Very or Somewhat Interested
Foods	89%
Household products	86
Personal products	81
Source: Ipsos Marketing, July 2009

Lauren Demar, CEO of Ipsos Marketing, Global Consumer Goods Sector, says “… (though) consumer packaged goods are viewed to be innovative by less than one-third of global consumers… (with) food and beverages viewed as less innovative than household and personal products… consumers crave new food products the most… ” Demar concludes, “A critical step… in product development… is communicating to consumers (availability)…  and what differentiates them… “

What’s in a Name?

A recent newspaper article re fruit bars highlighted an issue we face constantly. Misuse of product categories/names/research is a problem we constantly face as we focus on bringing the best of breed (category) products in the Wellness/Vitality area to the consumers attention.

The article titled “Health Imposters” said of fruit bars;

Even if they say they are 100% fruit, fruit bars don’t have the water, fibre or vitamin content of fresh fruit.

We had one client (Australian Food Innovators) – the only company in the world, that could dry fruit and produce a fruit bar that was nothing but 100% real fruit with nothing (inc Sulphur, preservatives etc) added in the process at all and retained the full fibre and nutritional makeup of real raw fruit. Sure it didn’t have the full amount of water … but some of the water extracted in drying was added back before being made into a convenient very healthy snack.

So whilst most bars that call themselves fruit bars don’t come close to real fruit at least one does. But it doesn’t stop all the rest making the claims and therefore creating false perceptions.

Another client VibroGym produced the original and most researched Whole Body Vibration Platform. Now there are hundreds of copies – varying greatly in quality. Vibrogym invested plenty in getting volumes of university research done to support claims re the benefits of Whole Body Vibration Training. The machine was the first and only to be approved as a medical device in Europe and Australia in terms on Bone Density improvements, Cortisol reduction etc.

Now every other machine out there makes all the same claims re the research despite working and feeling vastly different from VibroGym. So why pay $15,000 for VibroGym (who employ Physios, Exercise Physiologists etc.) when you can buy one off TV shopping networks for less than $1000??

Another client PhysioTherm produces the Rolls Royce of Far Infra Red Cabins/Sauna. Made of the best timber and using the best heating elements backed by scientific research. But you guessed it. There are hundreds out there making the same claims and leveraging the same research for their cheap imitations.

Why pay $5,000 plus for the finest workmanship backed by research from a company that is a specialist when you can go to the Hardware store and buy one made from fine Burmese timber treated with God only knows what for $1000??

As such, whilst once upon a time being first to market and staking a claim to owning a category was vital it certainly doesn’t pay in the Vitality business. Others simply copy the product or bastardise the claims to suit their specific needs.

But … whilst reading and understanding the basics of labels etc is important some due diligence and research before buying products to improve your Wellbeing and Vitality is time and money well spent.

As always if it seems too good to be true, it generally is.