They say all good things must come to an end, and for a certain generation Lilt’s (timely) demise will no doubt elicit a pang of melancholy nostalgia. For those of a less sentimental persuasion however, Coke’s decision was a no-brainer.
In the midst of a decades-long decline in both its commercial viability and societal relevance, Lilt’s death – although abruptly announced – was painfully drawn out.
Coke’s move has drawn some negativity, but most of this has been clearly in jest as the realisation dawned on a retro-loving public that they hadn’t actually bought a can of the fizzy pineapple and grapefruit blend since the mid-2000s.
In the cold light of day, the decision to scrap Lilt was both astute and necessary: last year Fanta registered sales worth £282 million, by comparison Lilt registered £15.6 million. All Coke did was put an ailing zombie brand out of its misery.
Farewell sweet Lilt. pic.twitter.com/rWVj2DrWCd
— El Tigre (@hazeldanger) February 13, 2023
After years of chronic under-investment, it truly is no surprise to see the Lilt brand disappear from supermarket shelves permanently. But why now? Firstly, Fanta is undeniably a brand on the up – and the addition of the Lilt flavour to its portfolio will no doubt strengthen that proposition; but secondly – and most pertinently – there simply was no life left in the Lilt brand.
Marketing expert and consultant Danny Denhard surmises that it was “inevitable”, pointing to the brand’s dereliction as a major factor in its downfall.
“Unless Coca-Cola engineered continued viral moments for the brand and invested in brand extension the writing was on the wall,” he says.
“Interestingly I think with Coca Cola’s brand psychology of killing off underperforming brands, (what they dub zombie brands) it could be seen as a little surprising they kept Lilt for so long, but it’s a smart move to place it under the Fanta brand.”
Subscribe to Marketing Beat for free
Sign up here to get the latest marketing campaigns sent straight to your inbox each morning
For Ritchie Mehta, CEO of The School of Marketing, the Lilt brand was stuck in a catch 22 of sorts – with a lack of investment fuelling poor brand health, and poor brand health resulting in a lack of investment.
“Brand management is often a case of chicken and egg,” Mehta says.
“Brands want to see consumer interest, intent and excitement before making big bets. But without investment, it’s unlikely this will happen.Under double jeopardy laws, a brand that does not have significant market share and investment will see an erosion in both the number of customers and loyalty towards the brand.
“Lilt is a classic case with stagnant sales and brand health. So big choices needed to be made by Coke: either invest heavily in a local brand or indeed find a way out in some way, they did the latter. The writing was probably on the wall.”
Having registered such strong global sales over the last several years, Fanta is clearly a brand on the up and will undoubtedly play a major part in Coke’s international portfolio for the foreseeable future. It is no surprise that the soft drink giant chose to position the wilting Lilt within a far more robust and recognisable brand.
“The Coke portfolio is one to be admired, it’s a global house of brands that can cater to a whole range of buyer occasions and targets,” Mehta says, describing Fanta as “a jewel in their crown”;and one which is likely to draw significant investment in the future.
Although he is keen to highlight that for now at least, the brand is still firmly within Coke’s “big bets category”, saying that he would not be surprised if other market changes followed in the wake of the Lilt move.
Denhard is less convinced that Coca-Cola is considering elevating Fanta to the next level, explaining: “Fanta has always been a beloved local and international brand, and it’s certainly following the right trajectory. However, becoming a powerhouse soft drink requires huge and continued investment, and I don’t quite see that investment being made.
“Right now, large powerhouse brands are typically energy and ‘hydration’ drinks, which easily gain lots of press and sell through. Coke has struggled in this space and needs to invest a lot more in order to compete.”
He does note however that Fanta gives Coca-Cola a potent medium through which to innovate, as it lacks the rigidity of other brands.
“Coke’s creations are a great experimental approach to collaboration and limited drops of new flavours. If I were at Coke, I would be pushing for a new series of Fanta creations in the very near future.”
Although Lilt’s absorption into the Fanta portfolio will inspire gasps of mock horror for some, there will be few who genuinely question Coke’s business sense in taking this decision. Did Lilt build up an impressive brand legacy despite years of chronic under-investment? Yes. But a brand cannot be maintained simply because it is a cultural icon – it needs to generate a cold, hard profit, and Lilt sadly had ceased to grow many years ago.
“Coca Cola has to make hard brand decisions multiple times a year, especially with so many brands and SKUs,” Denhard points out. “ Although Lilt is an iconic brand for my generation, we aren’t going to be able to prop up a brand all by ourselves without long-term marketing and placement investment. Ultimately it’s a smart way to save the flavour.”
He also surmises that Lilt’s legacy clout may open up future brand activation opportunities for Coke: “We have seen Coke revive older brands and there’s likely an easy nostalgia play with relaunching Lilt or through having its ‘new Lilt’ (New coke) moment.”
Echoing Denhard’s sentiments, Mehta stresses the need for consumers to disentangle their emotions from the uneasy truth – that Lilt’s number was up: “We need to remember that while Lilt had heritage, it lost its relevance. You need both for a brand to thrive. It evoked a strong sense of nostalgia but failed to turn that into something relatable today. Fond memories alone don’t lead to sales.”
Mehta also acknowledges Fanta’s growth potential as another reason for Lilt’s decline, after all why should Coke prioritise a local brand: “that will take a lot to revive and will always have smaller market potential as a niche player over a global, strong brand with clout and a strategic priority? The answer speaks for itself.”
Concluding, he adds: “The only question to ask is whether they should have sold it off. On balance, it would not have really made a blip to their bottom line and created a competitor. So all in all, the decision was a good one by Coca-Cola.”
me seeing the news that they’ve discontinued Lilt: pic.twitter.com/WbchwT0lYt
— Scott Chegg (@buckfastbadlad) February 13, 2023
