So, how responsible should brands be for our lifestyle choices?
Like many developed nations, the U.K. is in the grip of an obesity crisis. Until now the government has let people decide for themselves if deep fried cheese counts as one of their 5 a day fruit and vegetable options. But, now things are about to change as the government has committed to cutting 5 billion calories a day from the British diet. I’m not sure how many Mars bars that equates to, but it sounds like a lot!
But, instead of the usual healthy advertising campaigns and gentle warnings about expanding waistlines, the government has the world’s most powerful food and beverage brands directly in its sights.
Coca-Cola, Mars and Tesco, the second largest supermarket in the world (only Wal-Mart has larger profits) are three brands and retailers that have made pledges to reduce calories in their food as part of the food and beverage industry’s ‘Responsibility Deal’ with the United Kingdom government.
These measures will include Coca-Cola reducing the calories in some of its soft drinks brands by at least 30% by 2014 and Mars will cap the calories of their chocolate items to 250 calories per portion by the end of 2013.
Many other major food companies such as PepsiCo, Unilever and Kraft have also signed up to the programme, although McDonalds and KFC have resisted joining.
So, should brands be responsible for their customer’s lifestyles?
Could a similar initiative ever happen in the U.S?
How far will this effect the taste of these brands products, and possibly the perception of the brand in general? Does this mean that brands will be offering different tasting products in different countries?
London has changed a lot over the last 20 years, when getting a vaguely edible, reasonably priced meal was about as rare as unicorn tears. There was McDonalds and there was The Ritz and very little in between. Now you can’t walk down a street without being offered every variation of global cuisine. And, I believe that one brand was the turning point that got the ball rolling. Pret a Manger.
The British sandwich retail brand opened its first branch at the end of the 80’s and quickly expanding across several stores in London during post recession early 90’s, Pret introduced customers to new concepts such as freshly prepared sandwiches, with interesting fillings, affordable sushi, reasonable coffee, attractive interiors and friendly staff.
And now this week, The New York Times has acknowledged that there is something special about the 34 ‘Pret’ stores opening across the U.S. They’ve pinpointed the success of the brand down to its staff training programme, that has created a friendly happy staff with an annual turnover of 60% (in food retail 300-400% is normal).
Expanding into the U.S. has required some development and learning from both the brand and it’s customers. U.S customers are unfamiliar with pre-packaging sandwiches associated with cheap airline meals, don’t like mayonnaise in their sandwiches and prefer regular coffee to espresso and lattes. On my visit to a Pret on Wall Street, I noticed that the bread had been changed to a much darker brittle variety that in the U.K.
In London, Pret is now seen as one of many food retailers fighting for pre-work coffee and lunchtime customers. They’ve retained their approachable brand tone of voice, and added new offers such as hot food and soups. But, maybe it’s time for Pret to keep on progressing as they recently launched a new store design with a softer exposed brick look.
Panera wins with "Pay what you can coffee" →
I went to the Brooklyn Museum this past weekend, and it wasn’t until after I whipped out my $10 to pay for entry did it register that the guy at the front desk had said $10 was the “suggested” donation. Not the price - the donation - and suggested one at that.
It made me stop and think about the power of trusting people to do right. I like to think of myself as a good honest person…and I think the majority of people would say the same. So even though the museum and as you can read from the link, Panera Bread gives us the opportunity to get over on them by paying less than the service or product is worth, my self-narrative won’t let me. In fact, it almost makes me want to pay MORE, or at the very least, garners some brand loyalty. Why? Because they trusted me.
They put the decision in my hands to opine on the worth of their product instead of forcing me to pay what they thought. Now, this doesn’t and can’t work with every product. It’s surprising and really kind of cool that Panera has chosen to do it with a product that has clear profit margins and measurable added value. Usually it’s done with abstract ideas like the museum, or Radiohead’s music back in 2007.
I love this because the brand gives you a reason to remember them for more than their food. They tap into your own self-narrative and basically they’re asking you what you stand for and believe in - who you are when no one is watching. It’s something little, like coffee, but the impact will definitely make me choose Panera over a competitor when I’m in a random parking lot choosing between my fast food options.


