INTRODUCTION
In many ways, Mark Ritson is the Liquid Death of marketing. His bold content, no-nonsense tone & often controversial takes have helped to make him famous in the marketing world. Yet (ironically) his recent take on Liquid Death misses the mark.
At the heart of his argument is a claim that Liquid Death is a brand that has been built on promotion and packaging alone. He believes that Liquid Death is the ‘perfect pin up brand for a generation of marketers who define marketing as advertising’ and spend their careers ignoring the ‘remaining 90% of our disciplines hinterland’(i). Typically bold stuff from Mark yet a point of view that I think is fundamentally flawed. Let me explain why.
Is Liquid Death’s product actually any good?
To answer this question truthfully we need to consider something Mark skips over. We need to consider the category within which they operate, bottled water.
Bottled water is a commodity. It is literally water poured into a plastic container. It is a category where little product differentiation really exists. Think about your own interaction with the category and be honest with yourself. As a marketer, have you ever drank a bottle of Evian or Volvic and thought ‘wow this water just tastes so much better or different!’. I highly doubt it. Now let’s consider a far more important audience. We know growth comes by appealing to ‘light buyers’ who regularly switch between brands and pay little attention or loyalty to them(ii). Do we think this far more passive audience will muse over the qualities and taste profiles of an almost identical water product, more than marketers? Definitely not.
One of Mark’s biggest issues with Liquid Death is the fact that ‘no one talks about the product’. Yet I challenge anyone to point me in the direction of a marketing keynote focusing on their bottled water brand’s superior taste or unique product qualities. It simply doesn’t exist because water is fundamentally a commodity. In truth the success of the biggest water brands like Volvic & Evian is not down to some radically better product. It is down to the fact they spend millions more on paid advertising and on mass distribution.
However let’s give Mark the benefit of the doubt for a second. Let’s imagine product innovation & differentiation might be possible in the bottled water category. What form might that take? How about new flavours, product extensions or formats. Well the reality is Liquid Death has done this better than any legacy bottled water brand in recent times. They have released a new range of sparkling water flavours, new product extensions via an Iced Tea range and new formats via ‘Death Dust’.
In short, product differentiation and innovation is limited in the commoditised bottled water category. Yet despite these limitations Liquid Death has done more than most to push things forward.
How Liquid Death’s leverages the full four Ps
Moving on from the product let’s now tackle the remaining ‘four Ps’ of marketing. Firstly, there is no denying that Liquid Death’s promotion is brilliant. With relatively small budgets they have unlocked disproportionate levels of fame and growth. Yet despite this success, Mark believes that the brand is ‘entirely more famous among marketers than the market it targets’(iii). Whilst I do agree marketers love to talk about the brand it's simply untrue to say the Liquid Death has failed to grow significant fame with a broader audience.
We know that share of search is a proven leading indicator for both brand awareness and market share(iv). Understanding this and looking at actual data reveals that Liquid Death’s share of search is actually greater than the biggest bottled waters brands in both America & the wider world (v). Clearly, therefore, the fame of Liquid Death reaches far beyond the marketing community.
Figure 1: Liquid Death’s share of search beats many leading bottled water brands
One final point on promotion, that isn’t really touched upon in Mark’s piece, is how it extends far beyond just advertising. A large part of their success is down to their incredibly distinctive branding and package design. The bottled water category loves to follow a formula of transparent tones and glacial mountains. Liquid Death brilliantly cuts through this sea of sameness with a can that looks more like an energy drink or alcoholic beverage, than yet another generic water brand. Let’s also not underplay the importance of the brand being one of the first to ditch plastics and provide water in cans. In a recent IPSOS survey 87% of consumers agreed it’s essential to reduce the amount of plastic waste and Liquid Death has cleverly been one of the first brands to truly win on this, in the category.
Figure 2: Liquid Death’s branding cuts through in a sea of sameness
Now to finish, let’s now turn our focus to the final two P’s of marketing; placement and price. One of the biggest challenges facing any new drinks brands is that the majority of distribution is controlled by a handful of big brands, such as Coca Cola & PepsiCo. A model that is almost monopolistic in nature and makes it incredibly difficult for smaller brands to compete directly. The genius of Liquid Death, however, is that their placement strategy has enabled them to sidestep these challenges.
Ever wondered why Liquid Death looks more like an energy drink or alcoholic beverage? Well, it's deliberate. The brand began by positioning itself as a healthier alternative at bars & festivals but without the stigma of overtly drinking from a bland bottled water brand. This placement strategy saw them ditch the normal route to market, in retail stores controlled by Coca-Cola & PepsiCo, and instead grow its disruption via bars, clubs and festivals. The genius of this placement is that it also helped to unlock a more effective approach to distribution. Unlike traditional retail, American liquor licensing laws had prevented the dominance of bigger beer brands and up to 80% of disruption was still independently owned. As the founder of Liquid Death explained on a recent episode of the CMO uncensored podcast(v):
“The big beer brands, due to the American Liquor Laws, are only allowed to own 20% of their distrubtion network…so 80% of distribution is still owned by independent family owned distributors…and they are allowed to carry any brands they want” Mike Cessario, founder of Liquid Death.
When you understand the above you realise that Liquid Death’s placement strategy has been as pivtol to the brand’s success as its promotional activity. And in many ways their distribution strategy has been as rule breaking as their ads and communications.
Finally when it comes to price Liquid Death is a poster child for the power of brand building. At a time when many brands are being forced to adopt discounting and price promotion, due to a cost of living crisis, Liquid Death is able to secure a price premium and charge more than most bottled water brands. Why? Because its brand is so strong.
One small favour
Ritson is read by millions around the world. This newsletter stands at about 6,000 readers. If you enjoy this newsletter please do me one small favour. Spread the word, share it with others and sign up. Every little action you take helps us to grow.
Final thoughts
Liquid Death has grown from around $3m to $263m in revenue in just under four years. Mark dismisses this success, saying the brand is still ‘miniscule’ in comparison to Coca-Cola and points to the fact it is to even make a profit. What he fails to mention is that Coca-Cola was averaging around nine servings a day in its first year before it moved into bottled distribution. It took many more years for profit to come. Patience isn't one of the 4Ps, but it is an important P.
The truth is, it is popular in marketing to take a swipe at the brands doing things differently and shaking things up. Yet to say Liquid Death is a fad built purely on promotion is simply untrue and fails to acknowledge the brilliant work it has done across both its product range and placement.
So perhaps instead of targeting challenger brands trying to do things differently, we should ridicule those brands that simply spend their way to the top with bland promotions and products that damage the planet.
Will Poskett is an award-winning strategist and the founder of Defiant. Over the last twenty years, he has advised brands including Nike, Adidas, Meta, Rockstar Energy Drink, Coca-Cola and Olipop.
This article was first published in The Drum but I am reposting it in case you missed it. Thanks to John McCarthy & his team for publishing. The views in this piece are also my own and not reflective of everyone at Defiant.
APPENDIX
(i) https://www.marketingweek.com/ritson-liquid-death-product/
(ii) ‘How Brands Grow’ by Byron Sharp
(iii) https://www.marketingweek.com/ritson-liquid-death-product/
(iv) Google Trends data - last five years
(v) https://www.marketingweek.com/ritson-liquid-death-product/
(vi) https://www.coca-colacompany.com/about-us/history
Great summary Will. Shines light into how things are not black and white. Also from the outside it is hard to judge all the aspect of a brand, business strategy and results. Thanks.