On my way to a dinner party in London recently, I came across a middle aged individual that defined the punk scene: mowhawk, studded jeans, and an overall cutting edge appearance. Yet the aggressive, ear-splitting style of this individual belied what was in his grocery bag: an Activia yogurt. This mismatch between style and eating habits made me think: I would bet that the older adults that held on to Hippie or Punk styles are segments that would be overlooked my most marketers.

Yet this example shows that even the ‘punks’ want to be healthy.

A fundamental human need – health – is why yogurts, sports drinks, and those nice Innocent veg pots appeal to such a broad audience. Product propositions, therefore, should not necessarily be focused entirely on one set of benefits – quick, juicy, etc. By adopting a broad proposition, a product can attract a wider audience; moreover, an individual is free to attribute certain attributes to a general statement of benefits – rather than trying to fit one’s perceptions about product into a narrow proposition. Putting myself in the shoes of the punk-rocker, I would think that a proposition that implied a product was ‘for the young banker looking to improve health at his desk’ would be less appealing than one that promised an improvement in one’s immune system.

Applying this example to demographic trends has striking commercial implications. As the baby boom generation retires, health needs will come more important for this segment. Marketers should be careful that propositions do not distract or upset older consumers. A wider view is necessary.

Just in time to cure lingering New Year’s hang-overs, Starbucks announced a change to its logo:  no longer will “Starbucks” and “coffee” appear on its products. Just a tailed siren will stay put, coloured in white and green. Pundits, journalists and coffee lovers each have a view. While reaction has been mixed, on key criticism is being voiced: that the logo change may limit Starbucks’ capacity to deliver on its ‘core’ product; coffee.

Yet in my view, these concerns are misguided. The logo change reflects a broader business and brand strategy.

New joiners at The Value Engineers receive weekly training on all areas of branding in a course called ‘The University of Gav’ – named after one of our experienced Engineers. A core lesson of our Uni is that brands must deliver through its products. Richard Brandson, the serial entrepreneur, said as much: “The brand is only as good as your product”.

So, where does this fit into Starbucks? Three years ago, it was down in the dumps – Frappachinos did not taste as sweet in the context of the global recession. Its CEO battled back: closing stores, but also diversifying products: in addition to coffee, it expanded into icecream, music, and tasty in-store snacks. Since 2009, it has run a series of unbranded stores that serve as ‘laboratories’ for new in-stores concepts, such as ‘open mic’ nights – a favourite of poets everywhere.

Moreover, as international sales become more important to Starbucks, a broader sense of its brand becomes important. Countries such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Taiwan may already have local coffee favourites, but what they get with the new Starbucks logo is something bigger: a unique in-store experience that delivers beyond coffee.

In sum, it is not all about coffee anymore. To be successful as a business, Starbucks needed to be something bigger – and that’s what the logo represents. It is a source of entrainment: a brand that represents quality across its products and does so while being a responsible corporate citizen. The new logo isn’t just a visual gimmick – it represents Starbucks’ broadening ambition.

“In Seattle” said Jeff Bezos, “you haven’t had enough coffee until you can thread a sewing machine while it’s running”. Without a doubt, Bezos referred to the coffee culture in Seattle, Washington in America’s Northwest. From the humble beginnings of Pike’s Place Market, Starbucks has taken drip coffee, espresso, and teas international: today it is active in 50 countries, has 11,000 stores in the US, 700 in the UK, and 100s across Asia.

Over the past few years Starbucks has struggled in the coffee market. It closed down 325 stores globally between 2008-2009. Of concern to shareholders, the board, and coffee lovers, 84% of total net revenues from retail stores globally. The Great Recession threatened the viability of the Starbucks bread and butter: tired people getting their morning Java at their ‘local’.

Starbucks innovated around the retail decline. It expanded to offices, hotels, airlines and supermarkets. Over the holidays I noticed a new trend at a supermarket in London: a refrigerated Starbucks coffee, packaged like an in store product (below). This seems to be targeted at shoppers that want the handy Starbucks cup, with the convenience of the daily shop.

Yet Starbuck’s product innovation misses a key trend among coffee consumers: they have shifted to in home brewing. Consumers are cutting purchases of ground coffee as they shift to coffee ‘Pods’. In response, Starbucks launched Via – a sachet of coffee that does not need any brewing kit – but such speciality items were 19% of total net revenue for 2009.

Moreover, Starbucks has limited options in the supermarket. Its exclusive distribution relationship with Kraft curtails options to find a new partner or a better deal in US grocery chains. On the home brewing front, Kraft’s Tassimo brewing machine has a 2.6% market share compared to Keurig’s 71%. The once fruitful relationship with Kraft seems to be losing steam due to changing preferences, an inflexible distribution agreement, and innovation.

Such trends suggest that consumers want to have a degree of creativity and flexibility in their coffee choices, rather than being vulnerable to untrained baristas. From burgers, electronics, and sportswear, it is clear that consumer choice in how one interacts with a product may determine success or failure. For the time being, it seems that Starbuck’s caffeine-fed sewing machine has slowed significantly.

Individuality, performance, innovation – these are three words that athletes, fashionholics, and branding professionals across the world associate with Nike, the American athletics megalith based in Beaverton, Oregon. Nike mixes material technology, performance monitoring, and consumer-customizable products across a huge range of kit – from football boots to jumpers. Yet where can we actually find the roots of this approach? What drives the ‘Nike’ experience?

The answers lie in the running-roots of Nike. Co-founder Phil Knight was an athlete under Coach Bill Bowerman at the University of Oregon. The ‘Bowerman’ system turned out Olympic athletes, future track coaches and internationally competitive collegiate runners. Within this milieu of running, workouts and competition the innovative, product-focused Nike emerged.

Bowerman (below) surmised that light, tailored footwear would be the key to athletic victories. He set about experimenting with the famous ‘waffle’ design by pouring liquid urethane into waffle iron (literally!) Eventually, Knight sold these shoes out of the back of his car throughout Oregon. But Nike does not owe its growth just to product design; Bowerman’s articles and books on running helped spawn the jogging phenomena of the late 1960s. It was a product within larger community, then, that propelled Nike from two blokes selling shoes to a Fortune 500 company.

Nike’s corporate history of design, innovation, and performance underlies its current approach. With the ‘Nike + iPod’ athletes can track the length and duration of their training. Athletes can then post their workouts on Nike-led social networking sites from London, England to Lincoln, Nebraska. Nike offers more than shoes: it provides consumers with the chance to connect to a community of runners every day.

A ‘product-community’ approach still drives Nike’s strategy 50 years on. Nike’s founders created a corporate culture that is focused on the whole customer experience – from the store to tallying gains and losses. As social media becomes increasingly tied to product promotion and experience, Nike’s formula, forged decades ago, should drive growth in the future.

As an American only recently living in Britain, one of the first things I noticed when I moved over here was the strength of the Cadbury brand. It is all over supermarkets, top of mind for an afternoon snack, and a pillar of British industry. Above all else one product stood out for me: the Creme Egg.

With the commercial depth of Cadbury, its eggs are available all year round in Britain. Not only that, but they come in a mind-boggling array of boxes, sizes, and configurations that are simply unheard of in America. Imagine my surprise upon a first visit to the shop – Creme Eggs available year round!?  I bought as many as I could.

Back on the other side of the pond, however, these treats are not always on shelves. Only at Easter do these eggs pop up in the US. With such seasonality, they became part of my childhood ritual: opening my Easter basket with family, a treat during spring time, something to grab at local shops after school.  I looked forward to Cadbury Eggs because of their temporary status – they were a reminder of good things to come.

In Britain, Cadbury is the industry standard. To me, and perhaps many Americans, Cadbury means nostalgia. Nostalgia derives from two Greek words meaning ‘a return to home’ and ‘ache’.  As winter approaches, I do indeed feel an ache to years past as I queue in my local shop. Luckily, with Cadbury’s Creme Eggs available so readily, I am never far away from a chocolatey reminder of home.