Complaints on the brand’s Facebook page began to appear in May and steadily gained momentum until the anti-stevia conversation totally dominated.
In response, the company wrote: We take our customers very seriously, and we’re appreciative of the loyalty and passion you have for our brand. A lot of effort went into the new cane sugar and stevia formulation, and it’s something we’re proud to put on shelves.
At the end of July, acknowledging the level of complaint and announcing the decision to revert to the original formula, a statement was posted on the Vitaminwater website: The fans have spoken. We’re changing back to the taste you know and love.
It continued: We tinkered with the taste of Vitaminwater and our fans haven’t had the greatest things to say about it, so we’re changing back to the taste you know and love. We tip our bottle caps to you, Vitaminwater drinkers. Like many good things, this process will take some time, but we’ll move as quickly as we can. Our first production facility will be up and running in August. The Vitaminwater you loved will start appearing back on shelves this fall and be available across the country by the winter.
Reactions posted on the brand’s Facebook page indicate that consumers are now happier: “Thank you for realising your mistake,” Facebook user Adrienne Klabnik Adams wrote. “Did you honestly taste the stevia-laced product before selling it? It is yucky.”
Previously, Vitaminwater was sweetened with a mix of sugar and crystalline fructose. The use of stevia left the calorie count unchanged at 120 calories per bottle. Interestingly, Coca-Cola still uses stevia in Vitaminwater Zero (the no-calorie version) and consumers seem OK with that.
But here’s a conundrum … Reverting to the use of crystalline fructose in Vitaminwater goes against the beverage industry’s trend to respond to rising consumer resistance to sugar and artificial ingredients. While stevia represents a natural choice – which is proving highly successful for many brands worldwide – something in the formulation literally left a bitter taste in consumers’ mouths. And, according to some of the Facebook posts, many assumed from the taste problem that stevia was an artificial rather than natural ingredient.
Lessons need to be learned. Assuming that consumers want a change – in this case, a move towards natural – without talking to them first is crazy. It would have made sense to test the revised formula on existing fans of the brand before switching. After all, it’s so easy for a brand to identify its customers through social media, and easy to talk to them directly. By failing to take this step, the same customers used social media to talk back to the brand. And as the talking became screaming, the company was, in my view, slow to respond, allowing way too much noise.
The fans seem happy now, or will be when their ‘original’ drink returns to the shelves, but this incident will have left many brand owners rethinking the importance of consulting their consumers.
I have to wonder if this will affect the upcoming debut of stevia-sweetened Coke Life, which is already on sale in Argentina, Chile and the UK, where consumers have so far made no complaint about the taste.
© FoodBev Media Ltd 2024