0% found this document useful (0 votes)
39 views23 pagesGot Milk
CASE STUDY
Uploaded by
2022-24 RIYA JAINCopyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
39 views23 pagesGot Milk
CASE STUDY
Uploaded by
2022-24 RIYA JAINCopyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
/ 23
got milk?
BRANDING A COMMODITY!
INTRODUCTION
“got milk?”—one of the most popular ad campaigns of the 1990s—was borne of
necessity. In February, 1993, Jeff Manning, newly appointed Executive Director of
the California Milk Processor Board (CMPB), was reviewing reports on per capita
U.S. consumption of milk over the last fifteen years. To anyone involved in the
production and sales of milk, the numbers painted a disturbing picture. There had
been a steady decline in milk consumption over the previous two decades and
recently the decline was accelerating. Manning only had a $23 million budget to
make milk’s message heard among the noise.
To revitalize sales of a product in seemingly perpetual decline, Manning and
the ad agency Goodby, Silverstein & Partners developed the “got milk?” campaign.
‘The campaign was based on a “milk deprivation” strategy that reminded consumers
how terrible it was to be without milk with certain foods like cereal, brownies, ot
chocolate chip cookies. Consumers in California responded positively to the
campaign, embracing the quirky ads and also consuming more milk than if the rate
of decline had continued, The campaign was licensed nationally and “got milk?” '
soon became a catchphrase all over America. “got milk?” was successful in
California and reversed the sales and consumption slide, while consumption levels
continued to decline nationally. Critics applauded the campaign’s success in
California, but as “got milk?” entered its twelfth year, some questioned how long
the “got milk?” campaign could be effectively sustained.
THE DAIRY INDUSTRY '
‘Three major groups make up the dairy industry: 1) Farmers—who produce the
milk, 2) Processors—who convert raw milk into whole and lower-fat milk, and 3)
Retailers who sell the final product. There are many groups representing farmers
and processors in the United States, including several national milk boards and
many regional, state, and local groups. As of 2003, the U.S. milk industry had
reached a value of $23.1 billion and milk remained the most frequently purchased
item in grocery stores.?
Farmers
There are over 2,100 dairy farms in California that are represented nationally by the
National Dairy Public Relations Board (NDPRB) and the United Dairy Industry
Association (UDIA), and locally by the California Milk Advisory Board (CMAB).
Funding to support these groups and their advertising programs comes directly
from each of the farmer's profits. As.a result, farmers are traditionally tight-fisted
and scrutinize all program budgets carefully.
Scanned with CamScanni tion levels and extremely high consumer
With 100 percent distribution penetra :
ssing need to motivate retailers to carry fluid
penetration levels, there was not a pre
milk
Demand Side Differences
The demand side of commodity marketing als
a traditional brand.
0 differs in two ways from marketing
Changing a category versns market share. The paramount challenge for commodity
marketers is to change consumer attitudes and behaviors toward an entire category
ts opposed to trying to increase market share of a brand. Although difficult to
change, category attitudes do evolve over time, and when they do change, the
results can be quite dramatic. For example, a 1 percent increase in the consumption
of milk can result in literally hundreds of millions of dollars of extra revenue to the
dairy industry. Commodity marketers learned about the potentially deleterious
impact of changing consumer attitudes from experiences in the beef industry. In
1950, cattlemen and meat market retailers across the country laughed at the notion
of poultry ever coming cemotely close to beef in popularity. Yet in 1990, poultry
consumption passed beef in terms of per capita consumption. As the level of milk
consumption steadily declined for fifteen years, Manning feared a repeat of the beef
industry.
Influenced by other industries. Demand for commodities can be dramatically influenced
by other food industries. A new product in the food service industry or the
consumer packaged goods industry can increase sales exponentially. For example,
when Wendy's fast food restaurants introduced hot stuffed potatoes they cleared
the entire 8-12 ounce potato market almost overnight, The same is true of the
packaged goods industry. A new ready-to-eat raisin cereal from Kellogg’s can mean
millions of dollars to the raisin industry. Sometimes these new products are
introduced as a result of technological advancements that make thems possible.
Some commodity boards are capitalizing on such opportunities by investing more
funds in research and development.
BACKGROUND
‘The Beverage Category
‘The beverage industry includes all beverages from beer and liquor to bottled water
and soft drinks. In 1993, when the CMPB formed, the beverage category was
experiencing intense competition and an ongoing proliferation of new products,
especially from soft drinks, bottle water, and fruit drinks. According to a Beverage
Industry survey, 1,805 new beverages were introduced in 1991, many experimenting
with diet, clear, and non-caffeinated versions. Media spending in the beverage
category approached $2 billion, with over half of the total accounted for by beer
and soft drinks. Milk spent less than 10 percent what beer spent on media.
32
|
|
|
yi
\
scanned with Camscann ‘The beverage category enjoyed tremendous growth in the two decades
prior to the formation of the CMPB. Between 1975 and 1993, total consumption of
beverages increased by 18 percent. Although the category has increased
substantially, milk was one of the few beverages to actually experience a decline in
consumption over the same period. While soft drink per capita consumption
increased by 80 percent from 1975 to 1991, milk consumption dropped by 10
percent. In addition, milk’s market share dropped from 17 percent to 13 percent.
Previous Milk Promotion Campaigns
The national or regional dairy boards had sponsored a number of advertising
campaigns throughout the filteen years of declining milk consumption prior to
1993. Milk advertising traditionally communicated a three-tiered message to
consumers:
Adults: Milk is good for you and should be a regular part of the diet.
‘Teens: Milk makes you beautiful and strong.
Kids: Milk is cool and fun,
‘Traditional milk advertising campaigns showed a member of the target,
group drinking a glass of milk, followed by a brief mention of the nutrients in each
glass. A 1992 UDIA national consumer survey revealed the following:
© 80 percent agreed, “I like the taste of cold milk.”
89 percent agreed, “Milk is a healthful drink.”
* 91 percent agreed, “Milk is a good source of calcium.” |
© 83 percent agreed, “Milk is needed for growth.”
© 74 percent agreed, “Adults should drink milk.”
© 52 percent agreed, “I should drink more milk than I do.” i
In the eatly 1990s there were two dominant campaigns. The “Milk does a
body good” campaign focused on the benefits of milk as part of a well balanced
diet. In addition, the “Good fast food” campaign promoted milk, cheese, and other
dairy products. Both campaigns ran nationally
CALIFORNIA’S MILK ENVIRONMENT
Trends in 1993
Exhibit 1 reveals the accelerated decline of milk sales from 1990 to 1993. As a result
of this decline, the CMPB's goal was clear: increase the sales and consumption of
pailk in California, In 1992, California’s population was 31.3 million people but only
21 million were current or potential milk drinkers. If milk consumption could
increase by one glass per week, profits would increase over $100 million per year.
Previous advertising campaigns had been extremely effective in
communicating the health benefits of milk to consumers. However, the gains in
sales of low fat and skim milk had come at the expense of sales in whole milk. Mill
33
Scanned with CamScanni “Total fluid milk sales in
sales had not kept up with population growth either. ales in
Calfomia increased by 10.9 percent in the decade of the oe but California’s
‘opulation had increased by 26 percent over the same period.
reece To compound the problem, the U.S. Census Bureau also cereale that the
modern family size was shrinking, In 1970, the average amily incladed BS i By
; ras 2.1 kids per family. In addition, there were ™ 3 in
Fees enolase oe ith school age children worked but
lace. In 1970, 49 ent of mothers wit .
90, ha ee rent, The increase of working mothers
by 1990, that number had increased to 74 pet
meant more meals were eaten outside of the home. These trends did not bode well
imilies in their homes.
for milk consumption, a beverage consumed primarily by families ir
‘The CMPB did see some growth opportunity in the changing ethnic
‘c of the fastest growing ethnic groups in
composition of California, Latinos were one of th ‘
the state—good news for the CMPB because Latinos also represented an important
segroent of heavy usets. Ax'a group, Latinos drank slmost one third more milk then
the average individual. Latinos also drank significantly more whole milk than the
rest of the population and usually bought larger sizes of milk.
The UDIA Consumer Study ;
In 1992, the United Dairy Industry Association (UDIA) commissioned a marketing
research study to investigate the reasons behind the perpetual decline of per capita |
milk consumption. The study attempted to gauge consumer preferences by taking a
qualitative approach, conducting 1,252 personal interviews with consumers of all
age groups to talk about milk and other beverages. The UDIA study revealed
several factors that may have been playing a role in the decline of milk \
consumption, including:
Proliferation of other beverages—The average American family now had fifteen different
beverages in the refrigerator at any given moment in time.
Lack of portabilty—Eighty-nine percent of all milk was consumed at home. Most
consumers drank milk on a regular basis—at breakfast in cereal, at lunch with a
sandwich, and at dinner with the family meal—but over half of all of the meal i
occasions were outside of the home.
Lack of lavor varity —To many, milk essentially came in one favor. The lack of
variety of milk flavors was especially relevant in 1993 because other beverages were
flooding the market with a myriad of flavored drinks.
Not thirst quenching —A significant number of consumers noted milk’s lack of overall
refreshment. The inability to “gulp” when thirsty and the lack of a clean, crisp taste
‘were significant barriers to milk as a thirst-quenching beverage.
Lack of consumer mind share—Mill had always been a fairly “forgettable” beverage. At
specific times during the day or with specific foods, milk was irreplaceable i
. 34
scanned witn Lamscannt However, beyond these particular consumption occasions, foods, or outside of the
house, milk was usually forgotten.
Shared nature of onsumption—With such high penetration levels, virtually all people
drank milk at some time during the day. This shared featuce of milk often led
members of a family to pace themselves and “ration” milk. ‘This restrained behavior
could have restricted the overall consumption of milk per household.
Relationship of Milk with Other Foods
The research included a host of transcripts from consumer's experiences with milk.
Below are some of the typical quotes from consumers, listed by age and sex:
“With things like Oreos or any other kind of cookies or
cake, none of these would be good without a big glass
of milk.”
+ female, mid-30s
“At night with cereal, or for dunking Oreos.”
= female, mid-20s
“It's a pain in the a— because you usually find out (that
you're out of milk) just after you pour the cereal.” |
+ mal, late-30s
“What are Cheerios? They're nothing. But you add milk
and it’s everything.”
- male, late teens ‘
These responses highlighted the close-knit relationship between milk and other
types of food including cereal, cookies, and sandwiches. Consumer's experiences
with fluid milk also emphasized its versatility. For example, milk is used as an
accompaniment to sweets, as a necessity with cereal, and as an ingredient in coffee,
milkshakes, and soup.
Surprisingly, nutritional requirements were not as important in beverages.
Asa result, the end user health benefits of milk only moderately motivated
consumers to drink milk at any point in time. Some consumers felt that if a
beverage must be cold to taste good or if the drink has a strong taste, these were de-
motivators to drinking it. For teenagers “done something good for myself,” “goes
well with sweets,” “satisfyingly rich,” and “complements a hearty meal” were the
most effective motivators
CMPB's BRANDING STRATEGY
Developing a Strategy
To meet CMPB’s objectives of reversing the declining tzend in milk sales and
consumption, Manning was considering several strategic options:
: 35
scanned witn vamscann Invest in R&D to expand the number of flavors available.
Expand the potential usage occasions,
Cooperate with consumer packaged goods companies for joint
eee
promotions
4. Develop an advertising campaign to clarify the health benefits of mil
5. Generate a new image for milk through advertising,
6. Target Hispanics and aging Californians
[After carefully considering all the options, Manning and representatives
from the CMPB’s advertising agency, Goodby, Silverstein & Partners in San
cisco, decided that the best strategy to reverse the declining teends was to
embark on a new, innovative advertising campaign. Nobody doubted that previous
tnilk carnprigns successtilly achieved positive shilts ic eoasumer arcnnles vewtand
milk, What was missing, however, was a corresponding change in consumer
behavior, Consumers knew milk was good and thought they should drink more of
it but they never thought enough about milk to be motivated to change theis
consumption habits. The typical milk campaign—emphasizing calcium and other
Vitamins—caused consumers to tune out. The recommended campaign had to
break the mold for milk advertising, grab attention, and shake consumers out of
theie “milk malaise.” Manning knew that other beverages had successfully built up
strong brand images over the last decade and he believed that milk could do the
same by taking a more light-hearted approach, which talked directly to consumers,
Manning reflected back on the decision:
“The dairy industey has taken itself too seriously. Eating is a form of
entertainment..the most popular form of entertainment in California, the
USA, and the world. Get people smiling at your advertising and they will
look, listen, and, we believe, consume more milk.
Campaign objectives
‘The new advertising campaign had to satisfy three objectives:
1. Change consumer behavior. The CMPB's foremost priority was to increase
milk consumption by one occasion per week. Because positive attitudes toward
milk had failed to reverse the decline in consumption, the new campaign should
change the say consumers think about milk,
2, Increase mind share. Although many people drink milk everyday, milk
suffered from a complete lack of consumer mind share. People did not think
about milk enough at home and almost never outside of the home, One way t0
implement this change was to take consumers by surprise by creating 2 new and
different image for milk
36
scanned witn vamscann 3. Halt sales decline. Obviously, sales represented the bottom line for the
CMPB. The advertising campaign needed to motivate people to buy more milk
and subsequently drink more milk. A high awareness campaign that did not
result in subsequent changes in milk consumption would not be acceptable.
Target Market
In order to generate quick results, Manning decided to target “regular” users of
milk—70 percent of the California market—who already had favorable attitudes
toward drinking milk. Presumably, they could be influenced in the short-term. In
contrast, non-users or light users typically restrained from milk for actual or
perceived health reasons, which probably could not be changed very quickly.
Manning explained: .
If the 21 million people in the state that we regard as ous “marketing
universe”—those people who regularly consume milk in any form, be it a
glass of milk, a bowl of cereal, instant pudding, or whatever—increased
consumption by just one serving a week in any form, consumption of
milk would increase in California by 9-13 percent.
Because a wide range of demographic and psychographic groups drink
milk, regular users were segmented according to behavior. The behavior
segmentation strategy focused on when and where consumers drink milk. First, almost
all milk is consumed at home. The UDIA study had shown that consumers rarely
drink milk outside of the home, and even when they drink milk at home itis
generally during the same usage occasions. Second, milk is considered an essential
complement to certain types of foods. The focus groups revealed that consumers
talked about milk with other foods, not as a drink by itself. Third, consumers |
tended to discuss milk and these foods as though they were the same food, i.
Oreos and milk, peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and milk, etc. It became evident
that not only were these foods highly associated with milk, but also that these foods
were the driving force behind milk consumption and the potential key to any future
increase.
“got milk?” Creative Development y
Based on the market research, Manning and the Goodby, Silverstein & Partners
advertising agency decided to reach out to the regular users with a “deprivation
strategy.” Each ad in the campaign paired one of milk’s perfect complements:
cereal, chocolate chip cookies, peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, ete. The clever
creative twist, however, was to deprive the main character of milk, resulting in
delicious food without milk—the deprivation strategy. In each of the ads, a meal or
snack is essentially ruined because of the absence of milk. Manning explained his
thought process:
Sell milk with food. The idea is almost frighteningly simple and obvious,
‘And yet, as we reviewed milk advertising from around the country (and
37
Scanned with CamScanni from around the world), we found that food was almost totally absent
We don't know why. Perhaps in an attempt to compete against soft
drinks, the dairy industry lost contact with its roots. Consumers haven’
They will tell you time and time again that food—certain foods—deive
their milk decision.
‘The television ads gradually built the tension that was so critical to the deprivation
strategy. Each television ad began with a close-up of one of the food complements
such as the peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Once the desire for the food is
yhile joyfully chewing the food, the
established, the protagonist takes a big bite. W
reaches for a glass of milk. Unfortunately, there is no more milk
Ieftin the container. A desperate scarch for even a single drop ensues, but all efor,
are in vain, At the height of anguish, the voice-over pronounces: “got milk?”
‘One memorable ad showed an obnoxious businessperson on a busy city
sidewalk talking on a cell phone. After loudly informing the person on the other end
of the conversation that he or she is fired, the businessperson gets run over by a
truck. ‘The next scene takes place in ““heaven"—an all-white room where soothing
music is playing, On a table sits a plate of Frisbee-sized chocolate chip cookies that
the businessperson greedily devours. Searching, for milk to wash down the cookies,
he opens the refrigerator and sees row upon row of milk cartons. He reaches for
one, but finds it to be empty. Grabbing another, he discovers that it too is empty.
‘it a minute, where am 12" ‘The “got milk?” logo
protagonist casually
Finally it dawns on him: "
appears with a flame effect as the man screams.
‘The “got milk?" tagline urged consumers to run to the refrigerator and
make sure the answer was “yes.” It was felt that this deprivation strategy would
bring back the consumer mind share for milk and begin to recreate a positive image
sa necessity. The ads were humorous and well received by focus groups.
“The campaign broke away from previous milk advertisements in two
First, there was never any mention of how milk could benefit a
for mil
important ways. F
healthy diet. Consumers presumably already knew about the benefits, so the new
campaign instead urged them to change their behavior. Second, milk was never
actually shown in the ads. Whereas in the past, milk was shown without food, in the
new campaign, food was shown without milk. ‘The CMPB felt that the deprivation
strategy would increase mind share for milk precisely because the ads hit consumers
where milk (or lack thereof) hurt them the most.
Additional Communications Programs
“The creative strategy lent itself to using complementary foods as promotional tools
for milk. If consumers purchased more of the foods that naturally went with milk,
they should also buy more milk. The CMPB ran joint promotions with major
brands such as Wheaties and Oreos to focus on their relationship instead of trying
to pull consumers over to the dairy case. These promotions included coupons, ‘got
milk?" logos on cereal boxes, point-of-purchase displays, shelf talkers at the
complementary food loéations, and “got milk?” check-out dividers. Billboards were
38
scanned witn GamScann: used extensively to reinforce the television campaign. ‘The billboneds featured the
same foods as the television ads with one bite taken out and prominently displayed
the key question: “got milk?” The complementary television, radio, print, and
bilboard campaigns all leveraged the food-milk relationship and capitalized on the
advertising budgets of several major brands of cereals and cookies
Media Strategy
According to Manning there were three ideal times to communicate the milk
message—at home where milk could be immediately consumed, on the way to the
store, and in the store. The media strategy complemented the overall
Sommunications message because it reached consumers during these theee times.
‘The primary focus was television and concenteited on tarpeting consumen when
they drank the most milk—mornings during breaktast, afternoon enack time, and
late evening snacks. Timing ads in this manner and given the “cal to action” marae
of the campaign, the spots led to more impulse uses of milk. Each usage occasion
was further broken down into the type of user and specific ads were used during
those times. The spots targeted children in the early morning hours and late '
afternoons and targeted adults at prime time during their late night snack time. !
The CMPB launched a heavy outdoor campaign to target consumers on the |
way to and inside grocery stores. “got milk?” signs and billboards were located at
nearby bus stations and next to supermarkets as a reminder to purchase milk before
consumers entered the store.
Finally, the CMPB’s annual budget of $23 million doubled the previous
year’s spending: This placed milk among the top ten advertising spenders in all of
California, on a par with Coca Cola and Budweiser. As a result, the campaign
Possessed the muscle to compete with other beverages for the first time in milk
advertising history. Only one question remained: Would the deprivation strategy
work?
“GOT MILK?” SUCCESS
Immediate Results
‘The “got milk?” campaign was launched in November, 1995. Although focus
groups indicated that consumers liked the ads, the actual launch exceeded all
expectations. The campaign zoomed to a 60 percent aided recall level in only three
months, enjoyed 70 percent awareness within six months, and surpassed the long-
running “It Does a Body Good” campaign in top-of-mind awareness in less than a
yeat. The “got milk?” campaign quickly became a consumer favorite, prompting a
LA. Times reporter to comment, “Since the ad campaign began, it has reached a
near-cult following.” 7
Not only did the campaign get consumers talking, it also exceeded initial
sales expectations. In California, milk consumption increased for the first time in
years as shown in Exhibit 2. California household consumption of milk increased
‘every month in the first year of the “got milk?” campaign except for the first two
39
Scanned with CamScann: months. ‘This perform «in sharp contrast to the rest of the country where
consumption declined over the same period: ‘The number of Californian consumers
ft sceveral times a week” jumped from 72
onsuming, milk at Tea
1 10 78 percent a yea
the campaign. Prior to the camp:
later. In addition, sales
aign’s launch,
who reported
percent at the start of the campaign
jumped 6.8 percent that first year 0
California milk processors experienced a decline in sales volume of 1.67 percent or
$18 million, \ year after the launch, sales volume increased 1.07 percent or $13
around of $31 million, Ona month-to-month comparison,
million, for a to
6.8 percent by the end of the First
ed every month and ro:
ced 0.1 percent that year.
ional and International
pe campaign was also met with critical aclaim, In 1995,
vnors from several other major advertising
jot milk?” was licensed to the
DMI) who ran the campaign
¢ along with
“got milk?” Goes Ni
“The “got milk?” adver
ifthe Award and top ho:
September of that same yeat,
1 clairy farmers” group Dairy Management Inc. (
ily. Thus “got milk?” was receiving national advertising exposur
on. Even though these two campaigns
: run separately. The CMPB and Goodby
“got milk?” campaign. The DMI and Leo
“got mill” for the national campaign. In addition, the
’ Education Program (MilkPEP) controlled the famous
ign with Bozell Worldwide managing the creative.
ppaign launched in 1995 with the slogan
sed primarily on the healthy “good for
ting,
commonly promoted milk, they wei
1 created and ran the California
Burnett USA licensed “
“Milk. What a Surprise.” The program focu:
you" aspect of milk and leveraged the celebrities jn the ads, not milk itself. The
Fetlowing year, MilkPED changed the tagline to “Where's your mustache?” as a call
so getiom Then, pethaps in an effort to consolidate the equity achieved by the
separate campaigns, MilkPEP obtained licensing rights to the “got milk?” slogan in
1998 and replaced the milk mustache taglines with “got milk?” In 1998, MilkPEP
sel the DMI forged a partnership that combined their advertising budgets, pooling
Dairy Management’ $70 million budget and MilkPEP’s $110 million budget.
However, this joint budget did not compare relative to the CMPB's approximately
$30 million budget for California alone.
‘After seeing the sales results in California, the UK’s Milk Development
Council (MDC) approached the CMPB to license “got milk?” In 2004, “got milk?”
and the ads began running throughout England, Wales, and
went international
Scotland.
Products and Partnerships
‘Tha “got milk? campaign sivo’Focled » cult atytn of buying “got milk?” licensed
ch products included tshitts, baby boutes, mugs bearing the “got
“got milk?” themed Barbie doll. Manning wrote + book
gn. Companies such as General Mills, Nestle Quaker,
products
milk?” logo, and even 3
about the “got milk?” campa
40
scanned with Camscann Keebler, and even the Girl Scouts of America agreed to work with the CMPB.
‘These partnerships led to numerous creative advertisements and promotions.
‘The national campaign also consisted of print and outdoor advertising.
Billboards featured the characters Snap, Crackle, and Pop, Cookie Monster, the
California Raisins, and the Girl Scouts. The Girl Scouts initially balked at the
possibility of a partnership in 1996, because they felt a “got milk?” tie-in would be
too commercial. The following year the CMPB pointed out that “got milk?” did not
represent a corporate dairy interest and the Girl Scouts agreed to participate.
Goodby Silverstein designed a billboard that showed a group of Girl Scouts looking
directly at the viewer, with scores of boxes tucked under their arms and lying about
behind them. As usual, the words “got milk?” were placed prominently at the center
of the ad. The Girl Scouts also agreed to endorse milk by supplying local troops
with “got milk?” pins for girls to wear during door-to-door sales of their cookies.
Other promotions included a partnership with Dole that placed “got milk?” stickers
‘on 100 million clusters of bananas throughout the country and a venture with
Mattel that developed a “got milk?” Hot Wheels milk truck.
In October 1998, the CMPB established the www.gotmilk.com to provide
consumers with more information about milk, the “got milk?” campaign, and
purchase a full line of “got milk?” products direct. In 2005, the CMPB expanded its
distribution channels and licensed apparel maker MJC Corp. to produce men’s
clothing that would be sold through Wal-Mart. “got milk?” baby products were
expanded into Babies “R” Us, Buy Buy Baby, Baby Depot and Macys.com later that
same year.
“GOT MILK?” RECONSIDERED
Revising the Deprivation Strategy
“The “got milk?” campaign took a step away from its deprivation formula in
October 1997. Earlier in the year, focus groups indicated that the deprivation ads
had become somewhat familiar or predictable. Concerned that consumers might
soon tire of the ads altogether, the CPMB sought alternatives to the deprivation
strategy. Goodby Silverstein created the ad that took the deprivation principle and
expanded it throughout an entire town, Drysville
During the ad, the camera passes by daily scenes that one would expect to
occur in any town, the difference being that in Drysville the absence of milk made
these scenes depressing. The viewer sees a police officer forlornly eyeing a box of
donuts, a mother pouring tap water on her child’s bowl of cereal, and a teenager
paying cash to steal a glance at a photograph of a glass of milk. The “got milk?”
tagline appeared at the end of each Drysville spot. The Drysville campaign worked
as far as re-engaging the consumer with the “got milk?” campaign, but research
revealed that the deprived town did not affect consumers’ immediate consumption
or purchase decisions to the same degree that the traditional ads did. In his book,
Jeff Manning explained the difference:
41
Scanned with CamScann: ysville’s advertisin king more on people's heads than their
Ca nail iecachon People fal the deprivation only intellectually,
mouths and stomachs. People only in
almost abstractly. Deprivation was only happening to “them,” the people
of Drysville, not to me, (the consumer}?
the CMPB returned to isolated cases of
” t the dangers of
deprivation for its “got milk?” scripts. Several subsequent spots cas
seereioe i aitcent light. The “Paws” ad featured a grandmothesy pe who
attempts to feed her dozens of pet cat's non-dairy creamer when she runs out of
mnill. An ad called “Y2Kud” spoofed millennium paranoia by showcasing a “Y2K.
pale” cow that continues to graze after a power outage occurs the first
Following a year in Drysville,
com}
minute of 2000.
Milk Branches Out i
While milk sales had increased in California, national per capita consumption
numbers were still declining. In the interest of appealing to young milk drinkers,
some dairies began manufacturing portable and flavored milk products. Many of
these dairies developed extensive marketing programs in support of their new
product launches. One of the biggest dairies in the nation, Midwest-based Dean
Foods, invested $40 million to upgrade its plants for the production of Chugs, a
portable and flavored milk product packaged in plastic containers made to look like
old-fashioned glass bottles. The company spent an additional $12 million on ar
integrated national marketing campaign to support the new products with television,
print, and outdoor advertising. Ads with the theme, “Milk where you want it,”
showed kids and teenagers with Chugs bottles in their pockets, Jim Page, Dean’s
Vice President of Marketing, offered the following explanation for his company’s
independent marketing efforts throughout the Midwest:
1 feel very good about what ‘milk mustache’ and (national) ‘got milk?”
hhas done. It increased awareness but not consumption. Our job is to
take it to the next level+
The results of Dean’s new initiative were favorable. B
. By 1999, Chugs
generated more = $100 million in sales to the company and contributed to 40
percent of the total growth in milk sales that year, despite onl is
of total milk sales. Believing flavored milk could stimulate paler he
following year, the CMPB approved an ad with the extended tagline “got chocolate
milk?"*The ad showed.s teenaged bop looking in the:feidge for chocolate mil: to
drink. Finding none, the boy takes a box of chocolate flavored cereal from the
cabinet and pours regular milk into the box. When he finishes drinking th
concoction, he puts the milk-sodden cereal box back on the shelf. me
While kids and teens took to flavore
ed milk, demands for h
milk like soy and organic continued to Brow, too. In rae ied “
42
scanned with Camscann 2003, 8% Continent was the faster growing business for General Mills. Dean Foods
acquired Horizon Organic in 2004 and the company’s organic and soy product lines
saw record sales that same year.
Growth Slows
‘The “got milk?” and “milk mustache” campaigns helped fuel a 1 percent growth in
national milk sales during 1997. The dual campaigns did not enjoy similar success,
however, the following year. MilkPEP spent $84.5 million in 1998 and Dairy
Management spent $70 million, but national fluid milk sales dropped 0.4 percent for
that year. In the three years since both campaigns began targeting national
audiences, milk sales had risen by 1.1 percent, but the growth failed to offset the
cost in the minds many in the milk industry. The stalled growth in national milk
sales sent many industry executives searching for alternatives to the expensive milk
marketing campaigns. MilkPEP executives contended that national price increases
between 10 and 15 percent in 1998 accounted for the dragging sales. Milk
consumption continued to decline for the rest of the decade and remained flat or
down each year during the early 2000s (see Exhibit 1).
Results in California were mixed (see Exhibit 2). After three straight annual
consumption increases from 1995 to 1997, sales declined again in 1998. This was
partly due to price increases that exceeded the national increases of the same time.
A gallon of 1% low fat milk cost as much as $3.48 in San Diego during 1998,
compared with a national average of $2.69 per gallon of low fat milk for the same
year. By 1999, the cost of a gallon of milk in California had risen to over $4. in some
cities. Perhaps fearing that the rising cost of milk would once again yield a
disheartening sales decline, the CMPB allocated $23 million to the “got milk?”
campaign in 1999. Milk sales rose slightly in 1999, then dropped again in 2001, to
the same level they were in 1993 when the campaign began. “We basically stopped
the hemorrhaging,” said Jeff Manning. In 2002 and 2003, sales hit a 10-year high of
740 million gallons, but then unexpectedly dropped 1 percent in 2004.
NEW DIRECTIONS IN GOT MILK MARKETING
Back to Health
Tn 1998 the CMPB voted to maintain the “got milk?” campaign through 2002, but
also incozporated a “milk is healthy” message into some of the advertisements
Research revealed that a vast majority of women aged 25 to 49 only drank milk to
prevent bone disease. In addition, research showed a link between mother’s and
children’s milk consumption. These insights prompted the CMPB to develop two
ads with Goodby Silverstein highlighting a health benefit of milk.
‘The first ad debuted in the spring of 1999 opened with a shot of a mother
urging her two children to drink milk at a meal. The children protest that their
neighbor, a Mr. Miller, told them he doesn’t need milk to stay healthy. At which
point the children look out the window to wave at Mr. Miller, who is gardening next
door. Mr. Miller waves back, and then stoops to pick up a wheelbarrow. When he
a3
Scanned with CamScanni lifts, his arms break off at the shoulders. The ad closes with a shot of the ovo
childcen rapidly gulping down their glasses of milk.
2000 and emphasized mil
“The second ad ran in
roup of elderly men saunter
k's role in preventing
ed into a roadhouse and
Iooking characters teased them so the older men
the bullies to “step outside.” The ad closed wig,
2 the younger crowd. A voice-over discusse
erage as “got milk?” flashed onto the
osteoporosis. In the spot, 2 g!
each ordered milk. Several tough-1
gulp their glasses of milk and invite
shots of the older generation pummelin,
the preventative health benefits of the bi
“The CMPB also began a grassroots campaign targeting young teens in 1993
“got milk?” Gravity Tour traveled to high
with the lunch of the Gravity Tour. The : or
schools throughout the state and featured the world’s top professional
skateboarders, bikers, and inline skaters. The tour's purpose was f0 Promote the
“coolness” of action sports and emphasize how important milk is'ro young athletes
so joined forces with MilkPE and Dairy
and their bone density. The CMPB al
Management to make mil an official sponsor of Major League Soccer:
Tn 2003, the CMPB took milk’s health message to another level and
developed the theme, “Strength comes from within.” Half of the CMPB's $30
million budget was spent on a television spot developed to promote milk’s
set to haunting music. CMPB also
importance to healthy bones featuring real x-rays
launched a series of print ads, which creatively made bones look like butterflies,
exclamation points, and question marks. Each ad included copy that explained the
importance of milk and was targeted towards a specific user group—men, women,
or children. By 2005, visitors at gotmilk.com saw “got milk?” spelled out in bones
when they landed on the home page. The website highlighted significant amounts of
research on milk’s benefits, including how it increases bone mass in teens and
adults, prevents PMS and osteoporosis, and improves sleep.
Another non-deprivation spot was introduced in 2005, making light of the
steroid scandals sweeping professional sports. The spots depicted a media frenzy
surrounding athletes abusing a new “substance,” which happened to be milk. The
spots showed surveillance footage of athletes caught “pouring,” cryit
veillan ‘pouring,” crying on cam
and offering public denials that they are using milk. The ads positioned mail at"
‘super food’—in all of its health promoting benefits.”5
screen,
Independent Farmers Speak Out
Things scemed to going well for the CMPB as “ aoe a
year and California milk sales rose 2 paar ae ae —
level in a decade. However, on April 2, 2002, Joseph and Bren: gallons, the highest
independent dairy farmers from Westfield, Pennsylvania, filed a ieee eines
Dairy Program. The Cochrans did not want to be forced by law to pay fer national
advertising, specifically the national “got milk?” and “milk Lehn for nation! ma
previously mentioned, dairy farmers must pay a portion of their operating profit o
help func these national an local campaigns. This case was not specific pre
but its outcome would have had major implications on ey CMPB’s ‘mission
44
scanned witn Camscann Specifically, if the Cochrins won their case, the CMPB would not be able to raise
fands from California farmers for the “got milk?” campaign.
‘The Cochran case stayed in the courts for thrce years however, in May
2005, the Supreme Court made a ruling for commodity marketing campaigns and
the Cochran’s case was ruled in favor of the milk processors. As a result, the dairy
industry remained functioning as it had been and the CMPB continued receiving
fands from farmers.
Hispanic Consumers
In 2001, the Hispanic population represented 32.5 percent of California's total
population and was growing every year (Exhibit 3). The CMPB understood how
important targeting this demographic was to milk’s growth. Not only was ita
growing demographic population but also Hispanics and Latino were heavy milk
dtinkers, spending more money on milk than any other demographic (Exhibit 4).
Initial consumer testing of the original “got milk?” ads, though, found that
Spanish-speaking households did not find the commercials funny when translated
directly to Spanish. As Manning explained, “We found out that not having milk or
rice in Hispanic households is not funny: running out of milk means you failed your
family.” In addition, “got milk?” translated roughly means “are you lactating?” As a
result, the CMPB and Hispanic ad agency Anita Santiago Advertising created a
series of ads focused on milk being a sacred ingredient and often used the tagline
“Familia, Amor y Leche” (Family, Love and Milk). When the campaign did use the
“got milk?” tagline, it was left untranslated. Awareness rose among the Hispanic
population and in 2002, the CMPB tested its first Spanish-language television spot,
La Llorona (pronounced “Yoh-ROH-nah) or “The Crying One.” La Llorona is a
mythical Hispanic character who, angry with her adulterous husband, drowned her
children and then commits suicide. La Llorona wanders the world as a ghost, crying
and searching for them.
In the spot, the tragic La Lloona wafts through a family home late at
right searching, of course, for the elusive milk. Finding the refrigerator,
La Llorona utters “Leche,” stops crying (for the first time in centuries)
and joyously grabs the milk. The carton turns up dry and, in a fit of
dramatic despair; she slams the door and returns to her wailing, The
‘commercial ends with the now famous question...GOT MILK?”
Hispanic consumers were thrilled that the commercial understood their
culture and targeted them specifically. In addition, La Llorona won the “TV Silver”
award in the d_Age Hispanic Creative Advertising Awards.
“That same year, the CMPB created a campaign around the Mexican drink
Licuados (pronounced Lee-Kwa-Dohs). Licuados are authentic Mexican smoothies
made with milk, fruit, and ice. The print ads emphasized the importance of milk by
showing a blender filled with fruit and ice but no milk. A recipe for the drink
appeared in the copy and the ‘got milk? logo was spelled out on the blender
buttons. The campaign specifically targeted Hispanic Californians, popularized
45
Scanned with CamScann: he next Latin
roduced non-Hispanics to
ke See re into 2003 and Manning credited some
cont s
Licuado initiative.
Licuados throughou
craze. California milk sales
of that upswing to the new
Soe oe i Jated to the steady increase in
r ispani ographic directly correl <
The growing Hsp or Over the past 20 years, US. per capita cheese
eee w every year, reaching an all time high of 34 pounds in 2 ;
(rahibns) In Cal Ik was used for cheese production in
Exhibit In California, 46 percent of all mil :
Coa cag \Cilifornia the largest producer of Hispanic-style cheese. The CMPB
kept a watchful eye on this trend because California was also second largest over
aera producer inthe nation with almost 2 billion pounds in production.
Expanding distribution aan
nother ar developed as the obesity crisis began to make headlines at
An ey Ths pecanmage af the population that could be considered
the turn of the century. The percentage o! :
obese was above 15 percent in all 50 states by 2003, compared with just 5 states
with the same demographics in 1991. Milk producers took advantage of the
situation to promote its healthy message and expand distribution into vending
machines, schools, and fast food restaurants.
Improved portable packaging and a variety of milk flavors naturally led to
the expansion of milk into vending machines. Vending machine sales of milk
increased 45 percent in 2003 compared to other cold beverages that declined 1
percent. Beverage Marketing Corporation estimated that vending sales of milk could
generate up to $1.2 billion over the next five years ag vending machines continue to
take on a healthier variety of foods and beverages."
Some of the $1.2 billion vending machine sales increase was expected to
come from schools like the Los Angeles Unified School District that banned the
sales of all soft drinks during school hours in 2004, In addition, milk got another
boost when President George Bush signed into law the Child Nutrition Act in 2004
‘This law gave schools more flexibility as to how they serve mill and required at last
two different types of milk be served. Varieties of milk could include divferent
flavors, low or non fat, and lactose-free,
In 2003, McDonald's, under Pressure to promote healt
theit Happy Meals and 70 percent of parents want theit children fo chicit alk when
they eat out. Using the “got milk?” logo under the golden arches, McDonald’
franchises in California pushed sales of milk with its Happy Meske nero a
drinks. Milk sales soared 20 percent durin, Spy, Mews Sastead of soft
Bg the pilot test and the
to 1,000 franchises in Southern California." | eee
r -"' In addition, mote fast food
establishments and restaurants started to promote milk instead of eon rinks
including Wendy’s who took acti 5
Seagn® Wendy’s who took actions to promote milk in thei locations with point-
46
scanned witn Camscann What's next?
‘The “got milk?” campaign obviously resonated with consumers in California. Not
only did it increase sales and slow down a two-de:
but it launched a market for licensed merchandise
2005, other advertisers had co-opted the slogan for such marketing projects as “Got
Wine?" “Got Jesus?” “Got Porn?” “Got Stickers?” and “Got Books?” Jeff Manning
contended that the success of the “got milk2” campaign demonstrated both the
value and power of advertising, In his opinion, “got milk?"
stopping the disastrous slide of milk sales:
ile decline in milk consumption,
and “got milk?” knockoffs. By
accomplished more than
“got milk?” changed the world of advertising, It proved, pethaps more
convincingly than any other campaign...that products, ‘even ancient
Products like milk, can be resurrected with smart, creative advertising. '2
‘The “got milk?” campaign initially revitalized solely with effective
marketing, since the product itself and consumer attitudes about its health benefits
remained constant throughout. When the attempt by the CMPB to break with the
deprivation formula with Drysville failed to entice consumers in the same manner as
the original ads, the CMPB returned to its original strategy. In 2005, even with
exciting initiatives toward health, expanded distribution, and Hispanic-marketing,
the CMPB always came back to its roots—the deprivation strategy. The spot,
“Russian Family” ran in 2005.
‘The commercial opens in St. Petersburg on a dreary winter's night. The
snow is falling as a Russian family soberly slurps their watery soup. From
nowhere we hear the unmistakable voice of the Pilhbury Doughboy. Dad
looks up, grandma drops her pot, and the music begins to play as the
Doughboy pushes in a huge plate of his freshly baked, chocolate chip
cookies. Everyone takes a bite of the warm, irresistible cookies, hugs and
begins to dance around the kitchen. Life is good. However, the
celebration comes to an abrupt halt when the hostified mother emerges
from the kitchen, screaming “Moloko” (milk in Russian) and shakes an
empty milk carton. The music ends, faces drop, mouths clog with warm
cookies and once again milk deprivation reins terror on the world. The
commercial closes on the shocked face of the Pilhbury Doughboy and, of
course, GOT MILK?
got milk?” campaign celebrated its 12-year anniversary in 2005, the
CMPB penderedie Tontesaponryinpact of its strategy. Milk sales in California
had fallen again in 2004, after a decade of mixed results. Per capital milk a
consumption had been flat or down in the United States each year since 1997. Still,
if milk consumption had continued to decline at its early-1990s rte, the situation
would be much worse. The question remained, how long will the “got milk: aoe
catchphrase last? What will fuel the next cycle of milk growth? Specialy ould
the CMPB focus on new demographics, fresh creative, new innovative products and
47
Scanned with CamScanni distribution, or something else? Or should the CMPB just
packaging, expanded ¢
keep doing what it had been doing successfully since 1993?
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. What associations do consumers have for milk? What are the implications o¢
These associations in terms of building brand equity for and increasing the
consumption of milk?
2, Evaluate the CMPB marketing program now and back in the early 90s,
What do you see as its strengths and weaknesses? What changes would yoy
make?
Evaluate their Hispanic marketing initiatives. Does the CMPB risk
alienating its current consumer base?
4. There are several areas of growth that lay ahead of the CMPB—health,
cheese, Hispanic, and new channels of distribution. Given the trends, what
should they do and how should they do it?
How long can the CMPB keep running the “got milk?” campaign? What
can they do to keep the message and strategy fresh in the consumer's
minds? Are there other examples of other successful campaigns that ran
this long?
48
=
scanned witn Lamscann or
‘somes yoresey 21WOUIg YasN :euNoS
‘yoor 400z ‘866L s66L 766 6861 986L es6L o86L
s
on
st
0%
eyUOHIeD
‘sn
i sz
=
0
se
(suoj26) eydeo sod uoduinsuog yIW PIN} + UaINXa
Scanned with CamScann: os
“Vep UaE “90Z NIIP wok od oUNoap iuasiod gz saunsse parva{org
EeSE2E 8 §
I
I
z
&
gz
SUO||e5 jo sui
Scanned with CamScann: Scanned with CamScann SoNSNB1g 1027 Jo Neeung :eo1nog
ojueds!q-UON % '
49410 8 SHUM
‘ojuedsiy
2002 ‘PlouesnoH Jed 411W UO Sesnypuedxy jenuuy
You might also like
