strategy

Imagining the Restaurant of the Future

A day spent musing on leading edge thinking at the Food and Drink Trends & Innovations Conference 2017 sparked many a thought about the future direction of this exciting and dynamic industry. One topic in particular (aside from of course the great presentation on innovation shared by Paul Gaskell and Steve Reeves) really got me thinking.

Listening to a discussion on restaurant trends, led by Anna Fenten from Levy Restaurants UK, I reflected on the following:

How different would a restaurant started in five years’ time look compared to now?

A focus on reducing food waste: Young Danish upstart Too Good To Go have recently launched in the UK. Their app connects restaurants who have surplus food at the end of service with customers wanting great food at a discount. It’s an excellent example of a business delivering a triple win; it gives restaurants a boost to their bottom line, it reduces food wastage, and is good for the end consumer who get a cheaper meal.

Further embracing of the takeaway customer: Deliveroo, Ubereats and JustEat have redefined the takeaway and enable consumers to enjoy restaurant quality food at home. Innovation in this industry is just getting started. Deliveroo have recently launched Deliveroo Editions last month, a series of “dark” kitchens for casual dining brands to rent and use solely for their takeaway customers. This allows restaurants to optimising their food for takeaway and take pressure off their own kitchens.

Greater use of technology to attract customers: Smart Home services like Google’s Echo and Amazon’s Alexa may soon be able to respond sensitively to the question “where shall we go for dinner?” by overlaying customer cuisine preferences, propensity to travel for food, and cross-reference with table availability (or takeaway delivery wait times). Surely this is more intuitive than panic Googling? The development of Facebook Messenger bot apps also enable restaurants to engage customers through new channels at just the right moment to entice them in.

A slicker in-restaurant experience: Eating out will mostly likely always need a human element, but soon many elements of service could become automated. Apps like CAKE and Qkr make paying the bill less of a pain, and brands like McDonald’s and Applebee’s are embracing self-service kiosks and iPads for great efficiency when ordering. Who knows, maybe your food will be delivered to your table by drone?

More flexible restaurant spaces: The rise of the pop-up restaurant allows for restaurateurs to trial new concepts more flexibly and at lower upfront cost. In fact, why shell out for a restaurant at all when you could host your restaurant in an inspiring space for a few months at a time before packing up and moving on? It helps make the high street more vibrant, allows for chefs to test more experimental ideas, as well as give established restaurant brands the opportunity to test their vision in new areas without investing too much first.

One thing is for sure. Disruption in the restaurant business is just getting started.

Originally published on The Value Engineers’ blog.

Cadillac: the new transport industry disruptor

True innovation should be bold, not incremental.

True innovation should disrupt and drive an industry forward by better servicing customer needs more cheaply, quicker and more efficiently than before.

Sadly, this too often means that true innovation is reserved only for the start-up world, those ambitious guys and gals who don’t carry with them the baggage and risk aversion so typical of corporate environments. Some big brands do aspire to adopt the nimbleness of a start-up; innovation borne out of bootstrapping, a “move fast, break things” mentality, and no company politics. Some brands do achieve this too, but it is rare. It is even rarer to hear of brands that anticipate the future direction of a market and beat the start-ups to the punch.

Cadillac is such a brand.

In a move that sounds more likely to be dreamed up in a college dorm room than a boardroom, Cadillac have drawn into question the whole purpose of buying a car by launching a subscription model service for their suite of vehicles, called Book by Cadillac. $1500 a month gives you access to a range of Cadillacs which you can chop and change throughout the year at a moment’s notice, without having to pay extra for registration, insurance or maintenance.

What a great example of a brand recognizing that the status quo is ripe for change, and they should be the ones that change it. Just think of the possibilities. Got a weekend trip in the country lined up and want something sporty? Swap your sedan for a coupe. Planning a road trip and need some extra room in the boot? Swap the coupe for an Escalade. Just need something straightforward for the commute? Swap back to the sedan.

Sure it means you actually don’t own a Cadillac.

But do you really need to?

Customer experience and the peer-to-peer economy: What traditional retailers can learn from the new kids on the block

Wouldn’t life be easier if, instead of selling stuff, you just let other people do it and then take a cut?

The rise of the peer-to-peer economy in recent years has flipped traditional business wisdom on its head. No longer need you worry about stock levels, store rental prices and fixed term labour contracts- instead create a platform where incentivised parties come together to exchange goods and services, and leave the rest up to the market you’ve created.  Let the eBay buyer and seller, the Uber passenger and driver, the Airbnb guest and host do the hard work and enjoy the spoils of your self-sustaining network.

Yet in this happy (and admittedly severely rose-tinted) world, where your business’ brand ambassadors aren’t even employed by you at all, how do you ensure that your customers have a consistent customer experience that will keep them coming back? In practice, peer-to-peer companies do a reasonable job of this. They control key aspects of the experience, such as the app interface and the customer service department, to ensure in the first instance customers are comfortable using the platform, and in the second instance are reassured that any issues are dealt with professionally and efficiently.

They then leave the bulk of the customer experience in the hands of strangers- your Uber driver, your Airbnb host, your eBay seller. Now what peer-to-peer businesses do which is smart is that they align the incentives of these individuals with their business interest. The Uber driver is incentivised to get on the road when more people need cabs through surge pricing. The Airbnb host is incentivised to offer competitive pricing through a pricing map showing the cost of other Airbnb rooms nearby. The eBay seller is incentivised to accurately describe the products they have on offer through customer feedback ratings. These mechanisms mean it is in the interest of all these individuals to provide a good service to their customers. This is good for the customer, who feels reassured interacting with strangers, and it is all good for the business, since it encourages customers to come back to the platform again and again.

Smart stuff.

It is clear, however, that these mechanisms aren’t perfect. There have been claims that surge pricing by Uber is exploitative. Despite “clear” photos Airbnb rooms aren’t always as fantastic as they claim to be. Customer feedback systems such as eBay’s star ratings can be inaccurate, giving customers a platform to vent problems rather than offer accurate criticism. The next stage for these businesses is to understand the insights behind these pain points and work to rectify them, working to deliver an even better customer experience, either through intervening themselves or fine-tuning their incentive framework.

Regardless, this mix of incentives and direct customer engagement is a potent and arguably less resource-heavy way of ensuring a consistent customer experience. So, traditional retailers, the next time you’re thinking about your customer experience, maybe take a leaf out of the peer to peer economy’s book?

Incentives, rather than investment, could be the solution to your problems.

Ode to Uber: More than just a Taxi

So, I’m a bit of an Uber fan. Although admittedly a bit late to the party, the ease, flexibility and convenience of being able to summon a taxi at a moment’s notice has turned me into a complete Uber-phile. Let’s face it, I’m always going to be a fan of a service that is faster, cheaper and more convenient than the norm (a typical Millennial trait I’m sure you’ll agree).

The controversy of their ascent, aside, Uber has transformed the way we interact with taxis. From syncing your credit card to the app so you don’t have to worry about carrying cash, to seeing in real time how far your taxi is away, to developing a two-way feedback loop so that both driver and passenger know they’re in for a smooth journey, Uber has completely re-invented the industry. The question is, which industry will Uber re-invent next?

Because I really doubt Uber will be satisfied with just being a taxi company. Let’s think for a moment about what Uber has created. In one sense, Uber had created a network of taxis, allowing for a rapid response taxi service that transports people more responsively and more cheaply than existing taxi companies can. Yet in another sense, Uber has created a rapid response logistics network that has the capability to transport anything faster, cheaper and more conveniently than existing players.

 

If you start talking about Uber as a logistics company rather than a taxi company, you can begin to uncover the opportunities Uber has created for itself. What’s to stop Uber becoming…

…a rapid response food logistics operator, coming to the aid of the disorganised chef who’s run out of fish for tonight’s busy service at his restaurant?

…a mobile corner-shop, for the busy working mum who doesn’t have time to pop to the shops on her way home but still needs a pint of milk?

…a parcel delivery service, for the avid eBay seller who needs a parcel delivered quickly but doesn’t have the time to visit the Post Office? (I may be talking from personal frustration here)

 

The scary thing is, Uber is already doing some of these things. UberEats is a fantastic example of Uber’s potential. Currently in only a small number of cities, UberEats is (in Uber’s words):

…an on-demand meal delivery service powered by Uber. We partner with the best local restaurants to bring you a meal in 10 minutes or less. It’s the same cashless payment as an Uber ride. So all you need to do is tap a button and wait for the goodness to arrive.

In a shrewd tie-up from Unilever, Uber recently ran an activation with Wall’s ice-cream, enabling users to request ice-cream on demand. Not only did it generate a great buzz for both Uber and Wall’s, but it also uncovered an interesting thought: why bother letting your customers go to the shops and see competitor products alongside your own if your product, alone, can come to them?

With this and I’m sure, other partnerships in the pipeline, it seems that setting up the logistics network was only phase one for Uber. Phase two, the utilisation of that network, is just round the corner. The question is, will your business be a future partner or competitor to Uber?

 

Disruptive times lay ahead, and not just if you’re a cabbie.

How to launch a British brand in the US

USA-UK

We are often asked at The Value Engineers to tackle the big challenges facing global brands. The tension between adapting a brand to cater to the tastes and preferences of local consumers, whilst still maintaining a consistent global outlook is the pinnacle of excellent brand management and where we thrive. One of the questions often considered is this: how does a brand replicate the success it has in one country in another, completely different country?

I have a particular fascination with brands that try and bridge the gap between the UK and US. They say we Brits and the Americans are divided by a common language, and no more is this true than in the world of global brands. Despite speaking the same language and our cultural similarities, companies such as Tesco have shown us that British companies cracking the US is easier said than done. It is not an impossible challenge, however, with brands such as Pret a Manger and Topshop going from strength to strength. So what should a British brand be mindful of when looking to launch in the US? We’ve come up with six points to be mindful of when launching a British brand Stateside that should help steer your brand to success!

Be brutal. Being a British version of a brand that already exists may work in the short-term, but if that is your only real point of difference then you may suffer long-term. So what’s your true point of difference in the US market? A good starting point in understanding your brand’s point of difference is to look at the consumer insight it delivers against. Pret a Manger is a great example of a British brand that successfully identified that in the US they need to deliver on a different insight than in the UK. Broadly speaking, Pret’s UK consumer insight is grounded in the desire for a more premium, high quality lunch offering delivered fast. Yet in the US (and New York to be precise where Pret stores are primarily located) the insight is similar but nuanced, where the desire for a more healthy, premium high quality and fast lunch offer is satisfied.

Is your competitive point of difference in the UK really a point of difference in the US?

Be selective. A country that counts New York, the Rocky Mountains and the Deep South within its borders can almost be treated like many separate countries, all with their own competitor landscapes, diverse consumer bases, and local resources. Which part of the US is most likely to respond well to your brand? Which people? Can deliver your proposition in that part of the US with the resources available there? On reflection the Fresh and Easy proposition developed by Tesco would have perhaps worked better on the East Coast, not the West Coast. Their Fresh and Easy proposition centred on convenience and speed, with stores using self-checkouts to encourage smaller value more frequent trips. Yet on the West Coast, the sheer size of the geography means consumers drive more, shop less frequently and spend more each time. Hence the Fresh and Easy proposition did not quite cater to the existing behaviour of West Coast consumers. The East Coast, which is more densely populated, may have been at better fit for the Fresh and Easy model.

Are you targeting the right people in the right part of the US?  

Be British (or not). A country’s nationality can influence its perceived competence in certain fields. German companies are renowned for efficiency and high performance. Italian companies are known for artistic and creative flair. Japanese companies are seen as technologically advanced. What are British companies known for overseas? And what effect will a British association have on your brand? It is important to decide whether Britishness, and its associated perceptions, will improve or hinder your brand. Topshop have successfully leveraged its British credentials, and in particular its London roots, as a key asset in the US. In fashion, London is seen globally as a dynamic and modern city, and Topshop proudly flies the flag for the UK fashion industry abroad. Their use of British models such as Kate Moss and Cara Delevingne have also helped to build high fashion credibility into the high street brand abroad.

Are your British credentials an asset or hindrance? 

Be consistent. Perhaps the most crucial question of all is to do with logistics. Can you deliver the same product in the US without it becoming prohibitively expensive? The key difficulty some brands face, particularly in FMCG, is the challenge of delivering a consistent product across markets. Of course, one can develop entirely different propositions for each market, but this presents its own challenges. Business in a hyper-connected, globalised world can expose your consumers to how you present the same brand in different countries, which may prove problematic. In 2013 J Crew opened their first UK store on Regent Street in London, and was widely condemned for their pricing strategy, which was seen as much higher than its equivalent pricing in the US. Despite the obviously different cost bases in both locations, J Crew had to ride a consumer backlash over what UK consumers perceived to be a price hike in contrast to their US counterparts.

Can you deliver the same level of product and service in a cost-effective manner?  

Use British produce (or just expertise). To avoid the logistical issues of transporting raw materials from Britain to America, you could use local resources instead. If overseen correctly, and utilising expertise from the UK, brand quality and authenticity could be preserved, enabling consistent delivery. There is however a trade-off. Particularly with FMCG products, consumers can sometimes tell the difference between the same product delivered in two different markets. Will your brand benefit from importing resources, or will importing expertise suffice? This is reminiscent of the Guinness effect, where consumers often perceives that Guinness tastes better in Ireland (which uses water sourced in Dublin) than in their home countries, where it is brewed using local water.

Should you import British resources or just British expertise?

Be timely. You may have the perfect brand and the perfect proposition. You may have wrestled with costs and logistics to deliver the ideal product to consumers. But if you are too early or too late then it may not be much use. Timing is everything, and despite the clear similarities, the UK and US can be at vastly different life stages depending on the markets you look at. Take coconut water for example- in 2003 Vita Coco created the category in the US. Over 10 years on and the category at large is at a significantly developed stage in the US, with the likes of PepsiCo and Coke battling it out for supremacy. Head to the UK however, coconut water has only really entered the mainstream consciousness in the past few years. A new entrant in either market would be mindful of this and therefore adopt very different strategies to succeed.

Is the US market in the right life stage for your brand?

If you’d like to find out more about our experience managing global brands, do get in contact by emailing tom.speed@thevalueengineers.com.

Cadbury’s Creme Egg- Why Firms Must Embrace Irrationality

Creme-egg1

Have you tasted a Cadbury’s Creme egg recently? I have. And I can’t taste the difference between the one I ate this year, and the one I ate last year. Now maybe my taste buds aren’t refined enough to pick up the subtle changes in the taste profile (despite being a chocolate aficionado as I revealed in a previous post about Hotel Chocolat). And as any good market researcher would tell you, a qualitative study of 1 (i.e. just me) is rarely robust enough to make broad generalisations. Nevertheless the media circus surrounding Kraft’s revelation that the chocolate shell of a Cadbury’s Creme Egg is now no longer Dairy Milk chocolate but “standard cocoa mix chocolate” is bewildering to me, at least from a taste perspective. To prove how different the new Creme Egg chocolate tastes, the BBC broadcast a taste test with renowned chocolatier Paul Young to demonstrate just how dastardly Kraft had been.  Yet, when you get down to it, I’d suspect that, like me, few non-professional chocolate eaters would be able to taste the difference.

So why all the fuss? Why are consumers reacting so negatively to the recipe change despite my theory that they can’t really taste the difference anyway? This story draws distinct parallels with the infamous New Coke story, in which Coke reformulated their recipe in order to compete with the supposedly “better-tasting” Pepsi, which in fact alienated their core consumers who thought it sacrilegious to change the original Coke formula. This classic marketing story (which if you don’t know can be found here) has set a premise in marketing that the recipes of well-established products with significant brand equity should not be tinkered with, for fear of a mass consumer revolt. From a marketer’s perspective, this leaves you with little room to manoeuvre if your input costs go up and squeeze your margins, or the competitor landscape changes to make your product’s ingredients less popular. The difficulty is that when the media gets wind of a change, it tends to generate a consumer backlash even if consumers themselves were otherwise unaware. Somewhat amusingly, this can take some time (case in point: Heinz reduced the salt in its HP Sauce in November 2010, but it wasn’t until September 2011 that anyone noticed.)

Why did Coke’s consumers react so negatively to New Coke, a supposedly better-tasting drink? And why, also, are consumers reacting just as negatively to the Creme Egg chocolate change? To solve this mystery, let’s look at the situation from two perspectives: through the eyes of  Creme Egg manufacturer Kraft, and through the eyes of Creme Egg consumers.

From Kraft’s perspective, changing the chocolate recipe to presumably a cheaper quality chocolate than Dairy Milk lowers their costs. In order to quell any fears about potential taste changes, I imagine Kraft ran focus groups, testing the new and old recipes, and concluded that, like me, consumers can’t really tell the difference between the two and so wouldn’t mind if they changed the recipe. What a result! We can use cheaper chocolate and consumers will still buy it! (Cue much back-slapping, job-well-done-ing and a celebratory drink down the pub).

From a consumer’s perspective, the Cadbury’s Creme Egg is a treat. It is a chocolate with a strong ritual attached to it (Do you eat it whole? Do you bite the top off and lick the filling?). It is a chocolate with deeply nostalgic memories attached to childhood and the run up to Easter. It is a chocolate than, unlike most, can only be bought in the first four months of the year. This limited time sale period generates a heightened sense of anticipation and satisfaction when you eat the first Creme Egg of the season. And now you’re telling me you’ve changed the chocolate of my favourite treat. The treat I always look forward to every January and have looked forward to every January since I was a child, and OH WHY CAN’T YOU JUST LEAVE IT ALONE.

Consumers can have strong emotional attachments to iconic brands. It doesn’t really matter that they can’t taste the changes made to the chocolate, it’s the fact they know there is a difference. For them the product is now not the same as the one they have grown to love. This may demonstrate a certain irrationality, but from a brand perspective this is understandable and should not be underestimated. A brand at its essence is a promise to deliver a certain product or service, and a good brand consistently delivers on that promise time after time. Changing the chocolate breaks the consistency, weakening the promise and making consumers feel short-changed. Therefore by considering consumers as purely rational beings, rather than appreciating the irrationality arising as a result of consumer’s emotional attachment to the brand, Kraft have missed the point, explaining the current consumer backlash they are facing.

Now it’s all well and good saying that Kraft must revert back to the original recipe, maintain the status quo and not rock the boat with cost-saving recipe tweaks, and I would NOT recommend that Kraft engage in cloak-and-dagger changes without informing their customers that they are doing it. However, I appreciate that in a world of input cost fluctuations and such, it is not always feasible for Kraft and other corporations to stick to the status quo.

So what would I recommend to Kraft? Ironically, if in a few weeks they reverted back to the original Creme Egg (with the associated fanfare) they may well see a surge in demand by “giving the people what they want”. I reckon they’ll win a lot more customers in the long run by not messing around with the chocolate recipe and consider other cost-reduction strategies. Embracing the irrationality of consumers and how they react to your brand is crucial in informing a successful consumer-centric strategy.

But reducing the number of Creme Eggs in a pack from 6 to 5? A bloody disgrace.

 

Like what I’ve written? Disagree entirely? Good, bad and ugly, leave a comment in the comment section below! I’d love to hear your thoughts.

 

CONSUME GUILT-FREE!

burrito

Living and consuming in the 21st century is a minefield of moral dilemmas. On the one hand we have an urge to buy the latest, greatest and cheapest products available, but must also contend with nagging doubts about the environmental and ethical impact of our consumption. Therefore the rise of the virtuous consumer, someone who aims to buy from companies that are “the good guys”, is a phenomena which all brands should be mindful. Consumers are looking for guidance as to which goods they can consume “guilt-free”; and in a world of increasingly long and complex supply chains, brands which can offer consumers a clear indication of their credentials could build a loyal following.

Below are three companies which are helping to assuage feelings of guilt and enable us to lead more virtuous lives:

Reducing environmental impact: Miya’s Sushi

Miya’s Sushi in Connecticut, US is a great example of a restaurant living by the mantra of only serving what is local. Chefs at this restaurant create dishes made from plants and animals which are non-native and invasive to their local ecosystem. By using these ingredients, customers are in fact engaging in a form of gourmet pest control and are helping to reduce the destructive impact these creatures have on local habitats! On the Invasive Species Menu includes dishes such as Kiribati Sashimi, which is made from Lionfish, Le Soupe du Mean Greenies, made from European Green crabs, and Knot Your Mother’s Lemonade, containing the notorious Japanese Knotweed.

Reducing human rights violations: Sustain condoms

When a clothes factory in Bangladesh collapsed due to shoddy construction in April 2013, killing 1,129 people, the impact our buying habits have on workers in other countries was brought into sharp relief. Sustain condoms, are the first sustainable, fair trade, Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified condom brand released in the United States. In what may be news to many, traditional condom production is rife with child labour and human rights violations associated with latex production. By marketing a product that solves these previously unheard of issues, Sustain condoms may encourage other big name condom brands to improve their ethical policy too.

Reducing animal cruelty in food production: Chipotle

Chipotle released this enchanting advert in September 2013, designed to highlight their superior animal welfare practices. In the ad, the Scarecrow protagonist is disheartened by the way food is made, and decides to grow and sell produce himself. Chipotle here are positioning themselves against the big fast food corporations and highlighting their superior animal welfare standards, which would certainly make me feel less guilty when tucking into a burrito!

(Originally posted on The Value Engineers blog on November 25th  2013)

COKE BUYS MONSTER-A NIGHTMARE FOR RELENTLESS AND BURN?

mon

To buy or not to buy. That is the question.

Apologies to the Shakespeare aficionados amongst you for the blatant bastardisation of perhaps the bard’s most famous quote.

However, it is a question that many corporations often ponder (presumably with a copy of Hamlet to hand) when considering how to defend themselves from a young upstart in their industry, or when judging how best to enter a new market. Do you pour your resources into building a brand, or do you save yourself the hassle and buy up a rival?

The former seems exciting, and the creative amongst you wouldn’t undoubtedly be chomping at the bit to launch a new brand with all the vim and vigour of a start-up. Yet a new brand is unproven and unfamiliar to consumers, and with this comes an inherent risk of failure. The alternative, buying another company outright means you acquire a key strategic asset in their brand. A proven, ready-to-market brand with an identity in consumers’ minds and a consumer base with which it resonates is surely an enticing prospect. But such acquisitions do not come cheap, and thoughts immediately go to how best reclaim the significant investment.

These musings were undoubtedly swirling around the minds of Coke executives when they decided to purchase a 16.7% stake in Monster, the energy drink brand, a few weeks ago for $2.15bn (£1.28bn). The move will be great for Monster, who will surely benefit from Coke’s behemoth global distribution network. Coke will probably do well out of a stake in Monster too, which is the largest energy drink brand in America, and the only real global competitor to Red Bull.

But spare a thought for Relentless and Burn, the two existing energy drinks brands in the Coke portfolio. Much like a kid with a new toy, Coke has cast aside its existing play things and plumped for something new and shiny to take on the energy drinks market. In recent years Monster has powered ahead of Relentless in terms of market value in the UK (£108.1m vs. £59.9m) with Burn energy drink not even making the top ten. And with the positioning of Relentess, around the alternative music scene, feeling like a subset of Monster’s broader positioning around alternative music and sports, one wonders what the fate is for these lesser energy drinks brands within the Coke portfolio. Is there room for all three brands? Will they be repositioned, catering to an even smaller niche to accommodate their bigger brother? Or will they end up on the scrapheap, their assets consumed (ironically) by a turbo-charged Monster?

To me, the Monster brand has always felt more dynamic and exciting than its Coke contemporaries, with an underground grit that Red Bull had, but seems to have lost in recent years as it has gone more mainstream. So I approve (if they care) of Coke’s decision to buy, not build, its way to greater success in the energy drinks market. However, I suspect that Relentless and Burn will be sleeping less easily with this Monster nearby.

DADVERTISING: THE RISE OF DAD

tt-dove-hed-2014

In traditional advertising, Mum has been the focal point, seen as both the provider and carer for a (normally) unruly brood. Refreshingly, in recent time some brands have put Dad in this role, and below are a few adverts which I think have done this effectively:

Robinson’s Orange squash: Thanks Dad


Google Chrome
: Dear Sophie


Dove Men
: How to stay in Shape

(Originally posted on The Value Engineers blog on April 7, 2014)

 

THE PERFECT MARRIAGE- JOHNNIE WALKER AND MR PORTER

johnnie walker

I love it when a brand tie-up comes together.

When two brands that sing from the same hymn-sheet launch a campaign and creates something so perfect for their joint target audience that the credentials of each individual brand rub off and reinforce each other. Johnnie Walker Blue Label and Mr Porter are just such brands.

Johnnie Walker Blue Label is the most premium whiskey in the Johnnie Walker range, a blend of the rarest Scottish whiskies which create “an intense, rich, deep and multi-layered experience.” Mr Porter is a global men’s fashion online retailer, specialising in high-end designer brands including Burberry, Alexander McQueen and Gucci.

The two brands have come together to produce this short film, which you can view here, starring Jude Law and Giancarlo Giannini called “The Gentleman’s Wager”. It tells the story of a man who can buy anything he wants challenging himself to create an original performance for the chance to win a money-can’t-buy item. Firstly, the film itself is great- a high-quality piece of cinema, beautifully shot and starring two acclaimed actors. Secondly, it’s interactive- whilst watching the video, fans can buy the clothes worn in the film and “Shop the Look” via a specialised page on the Mr Porter website.

But for me the true success comes from the fact that the two brands link up seamlessly to tell a complete story. Both brands are targeting the same consumer- a sophisticated, middle-aged man with a medium to high disposable income, yet they are not in competition with one another. They are in fact two complementary components of this target consumer’s lifestyle. You can just imagine a man pouring himself a tumbler of Johnnie Walker Blue Label whiskey, before settling down to check out the latest blazers on Mr Porter. The brands work together so well because they complete the picture- encouraging their target consumer to buy into that lifestyle by buying both the whiskey AND the clothes.

Marketers take note- when considering strategic brand tie-ups, think carefully about your target consumer’s lifestyle, and what other brands fit in it.