After two years of agonizing death throes, Tupperware, the plastic, resealable, food storage brand is in bankruptcy proceedings. The demise of Tupperware is a sorry statement for an iconic, innovative, American brand that provided post-WWII stay-at-home women the opportunity for daytime comradery and extra cash.
Pundits and analysts have been dissecting the many reasons for Tupperware’s years of dire straits. There was the lack of innovation. There was the lack of focus on the changing roles of women. There were the two-year Covid-19 restrictions on gatherings. There were the supply chain issues created by Covid-19. There were the price increases on materials. There were and continues to be, environmental concerns about plastic. There were, and continue to be, the changes to how people select and buy items, including Amazon and the Container Store. Additionally, Tupperware did not focus on creating a compelling online option featuring all of its products.
This article is part of Branding Strategy Insider’s newsletter. You can sign up here to get thought pieces like this sent to your inbox.
These problems reflect bigger issues, however. Tupperware’s demise, sadly, is of its own making. Tupperware fell victim to several brand-business tendencies for trouble. Not every brand-business enmeshed in a troubling landscape dies. Brands such as Lego, Campbell’s, McDonald’s have all been in trouble and managed to claw their way back to incredible success. Even Toys R’ Us rejuvenated itself with its stores inside of all Macy’s stores. Unfortunately, others such as Blackberry, Nokia, Sears, Avon, Kodak and Bed, Bath & Beyond, Spirit Air have left the scene, are leaving the scene or are shadows of their former selves. Sometimes brand-business decline is a fast, free fall. Sometimes it takes decades. Some observers indicate that Tupperware’s current troubles were years in the making. Tupperware’s end did not have to happen.
A brand truth is that a brand can live forever, but, only if properly managed.
Tupperware fell victim to common brand tendencies for trouble. Tendencies for trouble are the result of brand mismanagement. Tendencies for trouble must be considered as “stop-now” behaviors and attitudes. These troubling tendencies are impediments to invigoration and enduring profitability.
Yes, the tendencies for trouble have financial consequences. Anything that stops a brand-business from growing customer-perceived brand value has financial consequences. Customer-perceived brand value depends on renovation, innovation and relevant differentiation. Without customer-perceived brand value, there is no shareholder value.
Tupperware is a poster child for a downward spiral of intertwined tendencies for trouble. The jury is out as to whether Tupperware’s lenders will desire a pathway back to success. Or whether an outside entity will purchase and use the brand name. For the 75-yer-old Tupperware brand, any reversal, if possible, would need to reverse the brand’s engagement with the behaviors and attitudes that have forced Tupperware to reach rock bottom.
Where did Tupperware go wrong?
First, Tupperware became complacent. Complacency is comfortable, but it is a constraint to success.
Complacency must be avoided. Complacency stops ideas and innovation. Complacency permits employees to keep on doing what they are most comfortable doing, lulling people into laziness and inaction. Complacency crushes curiosity and creativity.
Complacency creates a “staying alive” mentality rather than a “moving forward” mentality. Complacency supports the static mind-set that keeps the brand away from risk. As the Frederic Forrest’s character Chef says in the movie Apocalypse Now, “Never get off the boat.” The risk-averse brand never gets off the boat.
Brands are not passive; they are promises. Brands are active promises of an expected, relevant, differentiated experience. Brands can be soft, quiet, traditional, laid back, and chill. But, they have to move forward if they want to deliver a relevantly differentiated experience. Complacency creates irrelevancy. Success comes from action not status quo.
The more powerful and successful the brand, the easier it is to walk off the complacency cliff. Complacency is an internal, corporate-wide culture flaw. Complacency is pride, smugness and self-admiration for a job well-managed. These characteristics tend to produce laxness and carelessness. Let’s just sit back and relax. We have completed our job. All is well.
Tupperware’s focus on parties and the sales generated from these parties meant Tupperware was not looking at the power of other sales options such as online marketing and retail establishments. Tupperware felt comfortable and self-satisfied with the profitability of parties even though brands such as Avon, which used the same business model, was flailing. Tupperware felt no urgent need to move beyond its parties until it was too late.
Second, connected to complacency, Tupperware fell for the belief that what worked yesterday will continue to work today and tomorrow.
Doing what once worked when the current landscape is different makes no sense. Looking backward is a formula for failure.
Peter Drucker, the marketing guru, recognized the pitfalls into which so many great brands fall when it comes to doing the same thing over and over again. His lessons include these:
Leadership is critical. Brand-businesses need leaders who are able to change their minds and switch direction when necessary. Leadership must be able to ditch a no-longer-viable strategy. At some point, leadership must be able to say that it knows as much as it can know and is capable of making an informed judgment call, even if it seems to be a leap of faith.
Markets and customers change quickly. Brand-businesses must be flexible, agile and quickly decisive. This is why it is important to have leadership that is willing to look outward rather than backward. Just think of all the brand-businesses that had to quickly rethink and implement new strategies when Covid-19 restrictions changed people’s lives.
Tupperware would not let go of its past. To win, building a culture that is not afraid of letting go is critical. This does not mean giving up the brand’s core values. Staying out of trouble hinges on how willing the brand-business’ leadership is to recognize when it is time to move on and jettison a strategy that is holding the brand back.
Instead of injecting the brand with new ideas, in 2020, Tupperware hired an ex-Avon executive, someone familiar, comfortable and satisfied with the same failing sales approach as Tupperware, to lead Tupperware. After a year, this individual was replaced.
Third, Tupperware disregarded the changing world of core customers.
Not paying attention to core customers and their changing wants and problems means the brand-business is not up to speed. Disregarding the changing world means not understanding and attracting prospective, like-minded potential new customers. Disregarding the changing world means not renovating or innovating with customer-needs-based new product and services.
Disregarding the needs of its core customer base was probably Tupperware’s most detrimental, damaging and dangerous flaw.
Tupperware missed adapting its in-home party model when women quit staying home and went to work in an office. Like Avon, Tupperware suffered from lack of recognition that women were no longer at home all day.
Tupperware turned a blind-eye to the behaviors and attitudes of younger cohorts. Tupperware did not recognize that younger cohorts were less interested in plastic than previous generations. These younger cohorts were interested is more eco-friendly products and services. SodaStream built its business on consumers’ dislike of buying so many bottles of sparkling water. Earth Breeze and others including Arm & Hammer are selling laundry detergent sheets marketed as not plastic, no water, eco-conscious products.
Along with the ecological concerns, Tupperware missed younger cohorts’ concerns about microwaving food in plastic. Many younger consumers avoid microwaving in plastic due to environmental and health concerns.
Tupperware missed the decline of leisure time. Having or attending a Tupperware party carves out precious time from individuals’ time banks. Tupperware parties may be a luxury in a world of time-deficient people. Tupperware time might be the only time a family has for being together. This is a trade-off that most people will not make.
And, then there is the competition. Tupperware missed plastic food-container products from grocery stalwarts in the plastic bag business such as Glad and Hefty. Tupperware missed competitive food container products from take-out deliverers and restaurants. Tupperware overlooked the food containers from delicatessens.
And, Tupperware did not invest in modernizing and augmenting its brand name. Tupperware missed the fact that on Amazon, Tupperware might not be the first brand. Nor did it see that Amazon refers a customer to numerous other brands including its own Amazon Basics.
Furthermore. some analysts note that Tupperware allowed its name to become generic for the category. It is true that Tupperware became the category definer. However, other brand-businesses have managed to maintain the integrity of their brand-business while becoming a catch-all name. Kleenex and Scotch Tape, for example, have well-defined, relevant, differentiated positions in customers’ minds.
Lots of brand-business observers believe that there is a natural brand-business life cycle from birth, to growth, to maturation, to decline, to death. This is wrong. Brand-businesses do not inevitably die. They can live forever. Brand-businesses get into trouble and face death due to self-inflicted actions of brand-business owners and leaders. Brand-businesses die from brand-business mismanagement. Tupperware neglected staying relevantly differentiated. Having the lid make a ”burp” sound when closing is just not enough in today’s world.
Some outside entity may be able to revitalize Tupperware. It will be a challenge. But, it can be achieved. However, in order to do so, that entity will need to extricate the Tupperware brand-business from the trap of the tendencies for trouble.
Contributed to Branding Strategy Insider by: Joan Kiddon, Author of The Paradox Planet: Creating Brand Experiences For The Age Of I
At The Blake Project, we help clients worldwide, in all stages of development, define or redefine and articulate what makes them competitive at critical moments of change, including defining a vision that propels their businesses and brands forward. Please email us to learn how we can help you compete differently.
Branding Strategy Insider is a service of The Blake Project: A strategic brand consultancy specializing in Brand Research, Brand Strategy, Brand Growth and Brand Education
FREE Publications And Resources For Marketers
Post Views: 19
