Note: this post co-created by the talented @jackiehuba
“New and improved” is a pervasive term stamped across most packaged goods; a bottle of shampoo, paper towels, or a can of soup. Marketers love these three words and are experts at tattooing on bottles, boxes, cartons, cans, and crates. I wonder if these packaged goods have a quota handed down from the group brand managers: every three years each of your products needs to blast “New and Improved” on its packaging to keep sales humming along. “New and Improved” is used so much over past forty years, we have been trained to recognize and at times even demand our products be “new and improved”.
New and improved are some of the most trusting three words we can read or hear. Case in point – you are in the supermarket and buying AA batteries, you see the same brand in two packages at the same price, but one package reads “New and Improved”. Which one do you buy? “New and improved” wins and without these three words, the other package of batteries must be “old and crappy”.
Well who decides if it is “new and improved”? The manufacturer decides and the requirement can be pretty low. If you change the formula, name or packaging, then it qualifies as “new”. “Improved” is a bit more objective. Improved can mean it tastes better, last longer, or works harder; and it usually verified in the lab. To me the real test should be user feedback and the financial measurement that most matters is increase sales and market share. If you are not increasing your sales and market with your new and improved formula then you have spent big dollars on development and risked losing your installed customer base (example the New Coke in 1985 – yes it was “new”, but they did not claim “improved” and neither did the angry public).
Domino’s Pizza after 40 years with the same pizza recipe asked customers feedback on how their pizza tastes (after witnessing losing market share to competitors including Pizza Hut, Papa Johns). Domino’s heard feedback like “the crust tastes like cardboard, the sauce is like ketchup”. Domino’s had two choices:
- ignore the feedback and compete on attributes other than taste or
- go and make a “new and improved” pizza
It would have been very easy to go back into the lab, change the sauce, cheese, crust and toppings and declare “new and improved”. But Domino’s decided to go the extra mile by collecting input from customers on current taste, and testing new tastes with the touch critics – the pizza community (people who spend $22 Billion in pizza delivery sector). The outcome is that the critics declared the new Domino’s pizza “new and improved” in their own words, not because the pizza box had a “New and Improved” dot whack. And sales show solid business results: increase of 14.3% increase in same-store sales in first quarter 2010 (while competitors like Papa John’s fell 0.4% over same period). Overall a great story, but Domino’s left some chips on the table, they turned off the feedback channel and left the taste attribute open to competitors. What better place than dominos.com as a place to aggregate the millions of voices and sentiment. With any new product launch, give all customers the opportunity to voice how the new pizza tastes, not just when the new product launches, but forever. This way Domino’s can always be associated with the taste attribute for pizza.
So why not keep this going? Domino’s, why not get feedback about your other products (improve sandwiches, wings, desserts). “New and improved” feedback should not be a campaign you turn off, it should be a way to conduct your business.
In the end “new and improved” will be decided by your customers. Marketers consider declaring “new and improved” after your customers have voted with both their feedback and their purchase dollars.
What are some of the best examples you witness of a customer driven “new and improved” product?
Sean and Jackie, I agree that “new and improved” is ultimately decided by the customer. Most marketers of almost anything will likely report that they're caught in a classic “prisoner's dilemma” if they don't play the game. As you noted, if there are two options for batteries, “new and improved” often wins – particularly since there's not much differentiation between Energizer and Duracell.
But like you, I'm a huge fan of changing the games. We need to help brands drive more powerful meaning to their usage of “new and improved” and tie it to actual customer voices. Then, brands will get to say that their approach to “new and improved” is, well, actually “new and improved.”
Comment by Chris Bailey — May 12, 2010 @ 3:51 pm
Sean and Jackie, I agree that “new and improved” is ultimately decided by the customer. Most marketers of almost anything will likely report that they’re caught in a classic “prisoner’s dilemma” if they don’t play the game. As you noted, if there are two options for batteries, “new and improved” often wins – particularly since there’s not much differentiation between Energizer and Duracell.
But like you, I’m a huge fan of changing the games. We need to help brands drive more powerful meaning to their usage of “new and improved” and tie it to actual customer voices. Then, brands will get to say that their approach to “new and improved” is, well, actually “new and improved.”
Comment by Guest — May 12, 2010 @ 9:51 pm