Imagine that you are sitting in the boardroom of a major global drinks company, charged with producing a new product that will rival the position of Coca-Cola as the world’s second-most-popular cold nonalcoholic drink.
How would you respond? The first thing I would say, unless I were in a particularly mischievous mood, is something like this: “We need to produce a drink that tastes nicer than Coke, that costs less than Coke, and comes in a really big bottle so people get great value for money.” What I’m fairly sure nobody would say is this: “Hey, let’s try marketing a really expensive drink that comes in a tiny can…and tastes kind of disgusting.” Yet that is exactly what one company did. And by doing so, they launched a soft-drink brand that would indeed go on to be a worthy rival to Coca-Cola. That drink was Red Bull.
When I say that Red Bull “tastes kind of disgusting,” this is not a subjective opinion. No, that was the opinion of a wide cross-section of the public. According to marketing lore, before Red Bull launched outside Thailand, where it had originated, the licensee approached a research agency to see what the international consumer reaction would be to the drink’s taste; the agency, a specialist in researching the flavoring of carbonated drinks, had never seen a worse reaction to any proposed new product.
Normally in consumer trials of new drinks, unenthusiastic respondents might phrase their dislike diffidently: “It’s not really my thing”; “It’s slightly cloying”; “It’s more a drink for kids” -- that kind of thing. In the case of Red Bull, the criticism was almost angry. “I wouldn’t drink this piss if you paid me to” was one refrain. And yet no one can deny that the drink has been wildly successful -- after all, profits from the six billion cans sold annually are sufficient to fund a Formula 1 team on the side.
Many more interesting details at the link...
(for your own ideas...can you be creatively illogical on your own...or do you need a consultant?)