View Full Version : Carbonated VS. Non-Carbonated
12-11-2005, 05:47 AM
I'm about to launch a new (yes, another one!) energy drink. I have the option of making it non-carbonated and wanted to know what you guys thought. It would taste a lot like the original Thai Red Bull that comes in 150ml amber glass bottles (non-carbonated and sweet). The packaging would be an 8.4oz slim line can however. I am curious to know if I should leave it this way or add carbonation?
Non-carbonated energy drinks are rare, therefore could be original and spell success, or then again could be a flop!
12-11-2005, 04:19 PM
The taste of the Thai Red Bull is reallllly good, much better than regular red bull. I'd say go for it.
12-11-2005, 05:54 PM
Thanks Nick. I was actually one of the Canadian distributors for Thai Red Bull until Red Bull launched their can in Canada in 2004 and sued me for trademark infringement. Now I'm back to the drawing board and need to launch something real good that will do well in both Canada and the US.
I also have the option of keeping the 150ml amber glass bottle look but I think the 8.4oz slim line will give it a rejuvenated look. Some people see non-carbonated as "flat" and "cheap", and prefer carbonated for mixers...
12-11-2005, 08:37 PM
The 150ml bottle would make people think you're too much like Thai Red Bull, I'd avoid it. I'd stick with the slim line can , with a really good design. Non-carbonated energy drinks are different, and most people like that, and I know plenty of people who fprefer non-carbonated for mixers, I think you'll be fine.