My Photo

Wardle McLean website

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter
    The Times Cities fit for cycling


    • Stats

      View My Stats

    « So elegant yet so cheesy | Main | 'Messages' and conversations »


    Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

    Paul Feldwick

    I think this paper is a really useful and important piece of work.
    It's a fact that Heineken never in thirty years even entered an IPA Effectiveness Paper and this explains why.
    Ithink the question remains open whether the advertising was a complete waste of time, or contributed to the decline of the brand. Although the lager market went through the roof in the mid seventies, it was some sort of an achievement to hold on to share as the market grew.There's a good argument that advertising's effect on brand salience should have impacted sales.
    But as you say, not as much an achievement as gaining share would have been.
    Over time, the product (UK brewed gnats piss) became increasingly out of touch with a fast changing market and Whitbread were having astonishing results with Stella (see four IPA winning papers). It made strategic sense to let it go.
    Having made all those allowances, the Heineken Myth is I think effectively debunked by your story.
    Do you plan to publish this or present it at a conference?


    hi Paul, many thanks for the comment. I did actually present a paper with Jan Zajac to Adamp (now WARC of course) in 06, I think. Bar charts and everything! Probably a bit too long. Btw did WCRS ever put in for an IPA Effectiveness paper for CBL? Some interesting developments in the argument, I shall send you a note on another frequency...


    Really great post Kevin. Good that it reinforces that research, planning and clients are not territories to be guarded, but are open to make 'better' advertising. An advertising problem shared is a problem halved etc etc.  

    The comments to this entry are closed.

    Books We're Reading