Here in the Northeast I'm lucky enough to have the regional Polar Seltzer, but even nationwide Poland Spring produces a far more compelling product than La Croix these days.
They have a brand, but so does the CEO. He has a history of interspersing bizarre statements and conservative political views into earnings statements and other normally apolitical company press releases.
Most common bisphenol A replacements are reproductive toxicants. BPA has gained enough awareness that consumers are looking for “BPA-free” products and so companies have to abandon it for marketing purposes. The replacements aren't healthier they are just less well-known, for now.
"For example, in 2010, General Mills announced it had found a "BPA-free alternative" can liner that works with tomatoes. It said it would begin using the BPA-free alternative in tomato products sold by its organic foods subsidiary Muir Glen with that year's tomato harvest. As of 2014, General Mills has refused to state which alternative chemical it uses, and whether it uses it on any of its other canned products."
It boggles the mind that a company is allowed to keep secret which chemicals it uses in food/food packaging.
We don't need regulations! The Free Market(tm) will solve everything! (/s)
Snark aside, it's simply a problem of money in politics. It costs corporations less to lobby against regulations than it does to follow said regulations.
Reminds me of when I look at milk cartons and they say "From cows not treated with the hormone rBST." The only reason I can think of that you'd be so specific rather than just saying "Hormone free!" or something is that the cows must be treated with some hormone other than rBST.
"This tactic—which researchers call “regrettable substitution”—has been used in the formulation of products such as pesticides, flame-retardant furniture, non-stick pans, and nail polish. The chemical replacements need only be different enough to be considered distinct by regulators. They don't have to be proven safer."
It makes me wonder if regulators should have substitutes in mind before making public policy descriptions. Or if they should continue to rely on markets to "find a way".
I mean the parent comment isn't wrong. Any trend based around exclusivity is bound to lose when the exclusivity inevitably spreads. Companies have to go way upscale to be able to afford to go super exclusive and you can only really do this with privately held companies. Hipsters are just one form of trend setters,I wonder if there's a chart somewhere that tracks different types of influencers and the markets that they influence. It seems like something someone would have spent money on making because of its inherent usefulness in sales and marketing.
So there is reference to a previous lawsuit where someone sued them for claiming to be "all-natural". Which is not really a legal definition, so I don't know what merit it actually has. Similarly, for this lawsuit, BPA doesn't really seem to be harmful, and it doesn't seem they use it anyway!
There is something about marketing yourself as a "pure" product - you will never meet everyone's purity standard. But you set yourself up for a very discerning (aka fickle) customer base.
At the end of the day though, the CEO seems to take "the brand" too seriously. It's a very crowded marketspace now and I don't think there is any room to grow. If they want to get bigger as a business, they need to diversify.
That seems tough. They might have to use more than a gram of flavor in every 1000 liter batch. I don't know if they would be able to handle such quantities of taste.
Diversify on water? Or go into colas and kombuchas?
I don’t think the market potential is anywhere close to saturated. I can’t get lacroix at most (fast food) restaurants, for example. There is a large macro trend towards healthier eating, and lacroix is a prime target to eat away at colas. They need distribution and marketing prowess, not new products IMHO.
Getting fast food distribution I would consider diversification. Fountain drinks are enough of their own beast to warrant calling it a new product. But then again, their brand is around purity, and being on a fountain requires using whatever the local water source is. They can't just throw carbonation into generic CO2 carbonation and call it good.
The problem with increasing distribution and marketing is that it's way easier said than done, and there is no guarantee you can keep up with the other players. Bubly is eating their lunch right now in distribution. They would have to dump enormous resources go keep up.
If they want to keep growing, they need to either leverage the distribution they do have now and add additional products. Or they need to find ways to get their existing brand loyalists to consume more. Or they can be happy with their current market share.
Was #LaCroix the literal bubble of Silicon Valley?
Trading appropriately under the name $FIZZ, it's a simple beverage company that relies heavily on marketing to position it's brand for active and health conscious consumers (natural fit for SF). Worth about $6bn at the highs.
22 comments
[ 12.3 ms ] story [ 583 ms ] threadWonder how they'll fare.... they still have a brand but for how long?
"For example, in 2010, General Mills announced it had found a "BPA-free alternative" can liner that works with tomatoes. It said it would begin using the BPA-free alternative in tomato products sold by its organic foods subsidiary Muir Glen with that year's tomato harvest. As of 2014, General Mills has refused to state which alternative chemical it uses, and whether it uses it on any of its other canned products."
It boggles the mind that a company is allowed to keep secret which chemicals it uses in food/food packaging.
Snark aside, it's simply a problem of money in politics. It costs corporations less to lobby against regulations than it does to follow said regulations.
"This tactic—which researchers call “regrettable substitution”—has been used in the formulation of products such as pesticides, flame-retardant furniture, non-stick pans, and nail polish. The chemical replacements need only be different enough to be considered distinct by regulators. They don't have to be proven safer."
It makes me wonder if regulators should have substitutes in mind before making public policy descriptions. Or if they should continue to rely on markets to "find a way".
There is something about marketing yourself as a "pure" product - you will never meet everyone's purity standard. But you set yourself up for a very discerning (aka fickle) customer base.
At the end of the day though, the CEO seems to take "the brand" too seriously. It's a very crowded marketspace now and I don't think there is any room to grow. If they want to get bigger as a business, they need to diversify.
I don’t think the market potential is anywhere close to saturated. I can’t get lacroix at most (fast food) restaurants, for example. There is a large macro trend towards healthier eating, and lacroix is a prime target to eat away at colas. They need distribution and marketing prowess, not new products IMHO.
The problem with increasing distribution and marketing is that it's way easier said than done, and there is no guarantee you can keep up with the other players. Bubly is eating their lunch right now in distribution. They would have to dump enormous resources go keep up.
If they want to keep growing, they need to either leverage the distribution they do have now and add additional products. Or they need to find ways to get their existing brand loyalists to consume more. Or they can be happy with their current market share.
Trading appropriately under the name $FIZZ, it's a simple beverage company that relies heavily on marketing to position it's brand for active and health conscious consumers (natural fit for SF). Worth about $6bn at the highs.
https://twitter.com/jamesviggy/status/1139338102764273664?s=...