Vegemite iSnack 2.0: Don’t try and talk the talk – find those who walk the walk

By Andy Wright

As you’ll know by now Vegemite has launched its new line. iSnack 2.0 is a milder, creamier version of Vegemite blended with Kraft’s cream cheese. To generate buzz and a name for the new product Kraft crowdsourced the Australian public.

iSnack 2.0: Photograph: Vegemite.com.au

A lot has already been written on the subject and Australian’s have been more than vocal in their response.

Vegemite has always been a polarising brand. The taste that you either love – or hate – has been a significant element of the brand’s equity. Older, iconic heritage brands will always face issues as demographic shifts occur in society and a cycle of old and new customers discover and discard the brand. A heritage brands biggest challenge? Relevance.

There’s no doubt that Vegemite went about this the right way. They engaged the Australian public and generated buzz around a new product launch and revitalisation for the brand. Judging by the result, the target audience was primarily Gen Y, those engaging with iPhones, iPods, and social media. Also, looking at their site Victoria seemed to be targeted as a key state (or was engaged the most successfully / is where the Vegemite marketing team are based).

Over 35,000 people generated 48,000 names. Interestingly, their engagement with the social media audience was far from impressive. @Vegemite_Kraft gathered just short of 200 followers and the Vegemite Kraft Facebook page had just 245 fans and stopped posting on August 14th.

Perhaps this was indicative of the success of the Vegemite ‘Name Me’ campaign. The iSnack product has come under increasing attack in the last few days. Many see the name as try-hard, cheesy (sorry) and irrelevant. It’s definitely been polarising (in the tradition of the Vegemite brand) but I’ve struggled to find the positive end of the scale.

Vegemite seem to be talking the talk but not walking the walk. They can never be Apple or a technology brand. While crowdsourcing their new name was a good idea, there’s still a need to put structure around such a pivotal brand architecture decision. If the following naming criteria had been followed I think the iSnack name would still be sitting in the sea of entries.

1)       Will the name strengthen the master brand?

2)       Does it effectively describe the company, product, its use or benefit?

3)       Does the name appeal to the target audience? What are their first impressions?

4)       Does it reinforce the brands strategy? Does it relate to who you are?

5)       Is it registerable or protectable?

I’m not on the inside at Kraft and I can’t claim to be an expert in the spreads category. However, from afar this looks like a marketing promotion that has actually turned into a significant brand development project. That is fine and actually shows what a good idea it was in the first place. But the final execution needs some substantial strategic input.

Maybe it’s still to come – it’s not on the shelves yet. In the meantime enjoy the iSnack 2.0 satire.