LONDON - Healthy smoothie brand Innocent was "stupid" to sell a £30m stake in its company to fizzy drinks giant Coca-Cola, according to some members of the public interviewed in the latest Brand Republic video -- watch it now.
st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
Innocent sold the £30m stake, which equates to between 10% and 20% of the company, to Coca-Cola to help finance European expansion.
The majority of people interviewed for Brand Republic's video thought that it was a bad move for Innocent and expressed fears that Coca-Cola would change the ingredients or dilute down the drink.
Innocent's deal with Coca-Cola was described as "stupid", "weird" and a sell-out by some members of the public, while others accepted the deal as necessary for expansion.
Despite the majority of people stating that they were against the move, most said that it would not actually put them off buying Innocent drinks.
The three founders of Innocent, who still run the company and are celebrating 10 years of the firm this month, have attempted to allay customers' fears by saying the deal would help Innocent learn from the market leaders, as well as helping them "get Innocent out to more places".
Co-founder Richard Reed said: "The three of us who set up the business will continue to run and manage Innocent. We will be the same people making the same products in the same way."
In 2007, Innocent came under fire from some quarters when it struck a deal which saw McDonald's sample Innocent Smoothies in a range of Happy Meals.
I am delighted the public has spoken as they have here - they know that there is nothing innocent about Innocaent. You can't go around selling your 'ethical' wares and then buy into Coke... are ya daft. As the first woman said, it's like Pret A Manger selling shares to McDonald's... but then they bought them back, gas.
Interesting range of views - but "the majority of people interviewed... thought that it was a bad move", how many was that, out of how many interviewed?
Interesting how the question was framed as well ... not leading the witness, were we?
The weirdest thing is that many think it's a stupid move but few would change their behavior towards the brand \(I mean stop buying it, buying a competitor's product...).
I agree with Melanie - it makes me wonder exactly how far a brand would have to go to offend / disgust / shock consumers into voting with their wallets. For me, the rot started for Innocent when they appeared in Tetrapack on supermarket shelves - how can they claim freshness, purity, etc etc when they stuffed so many chemicals into their product to give their "fresh" smoothies a shelf life of 14 days plus? Read the label, folks!
Tricky this - most consumers won't know, and if they did most won't care. BUT, as a punter myself, I think it's a shame. There's no press statement in the world that can convince me that using money from a company that has opposite values is the right thing to do. I have nothing against Coke - but it's an insane tie up. We all know they're selling out and good luck to them - but let's be honest about it please. What Coke do is great, but it's not what Innocent do, and not what Innocent's consumer buy into.
Comments
John Gallen - 15/04/2009
I am delighted the public has spoken as they have here - they know that there is nothing innocent about Innocaent. You can't go around selling your 'ethical' wares and then buy into Coke... are ya daft. As the first woman said, it's like Pret A Manger selling shares to McDonald's... but then they bought them back, gas.
kevin mclean - 15/04/2009
Interesting range of views - but "the majority of people interviewed... thought that it was a bad move", how many was that, out of how many interviewed? Interesting how the question was framed as well ... not leading the witness, were we?
John Gallen - 15/04/2009
No. :)
Melanie Rohat-Meheust - 16/04/2009
The weirdest thing is that many think it's a stupid move but few would change their behavior towards the brand \(I mean stop buying it, buying a competitor's product...).
jeane GROGAN - 16/04/2009
I agree with Melanie - it makes me wonder exactly how far a brand would have to go to offend / disgust / shock consumers into voting with their wallets. For me, the rot started for Innocent when they appeared in Tetrapack on supermarket shelves - how can they claim freshness, purity, etc etc when they stuffed so many chemicals into their product to give their "fresh" smoothies a shelf life of 14 days plus? Read the label, folks!
Gellan Watt - 27/04/2009
Tricky this - most consumers won't know, and if they did most won't care. BUT, as a punter myself, I think it's a shame. There's no press statement in the world that can convince me that using money from a company that has opposite values is the right thing to do. I have nothing against Coke - but it's an insane tie up. We all know they're selling out and good luck to them - but let's be honest about it please. What Coke do is great, but it's not what Innocent do, and not what Innocent's consumer buy into.