I think a few more drinks than just vodka...Jager and Bacardi flavors do real well.
How can the clubs make more money if they offer more choices of energy? How many clubs carry more than one cola? Does this stop them from making more money? The fact is the clubs will make the same amount with a captured audience. Only the suppliers are the ones who will make less money.

I guess to answer your question why sell only one energy drink? This should be answered by a bar or club owner not by the suppliers and distributors on this board.

[ 06-19-2006, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: NRgizR ]

Ron S,
To add to your point about Roaring Lion. Below is a news article.

May 30, 2006
Vodka And Fake Red Bull
Coke may be the real thing, but Red Bull is making its own authenticity case in courtrooms across the land.

From Iowa City Press-Citizen:

The distributor of the energy drink Red Bull has filed a lawsuit against an Iowa City bar for mixing cocktails with an imitation, but failing to tell customers who specifically ordered drinks with the popular beverage.
Red Bull North America Inc. filed its lawsuit in U.S. District Court, accusing the Sports Column, a popular bar in downtown Iowa City, of trademark infringement.

The beverage company claims Sports Column bartenders lied repeatedly when customers asked whether their drinks were mixed with Red Bull. Instead, the lawsuit claims the customers were served Roaring Lion, an imitation described as a cheaper product designed to tap Red Bull's market share.

The lawsuit is similar to others filed across the nation as Red Bull seeks to protect its market and label.

"They seem to be trying to make an example out of me," said Brett Sawyer, the owner of the Sports Column.


Roaring Lion's tagline is "FLY TWICE AS HiiiGH." A spirits brand could never make a claim like that due to legal restrictions. But that aside, the thing I find interesting here is the retailer, at least in the case above, has no use for such product claims, because the beverage is being passed off as Red Bull.

It is very common for Red Bull to sue for trademark infringement. They often send undercover agents to accounts who have switched away from RB, to get "revenge". The agent orders a Vodka RB to see if the bartender will mention they are no longer serving RB. It really shows the mentality of this company. All the bartender/waitress has to say is "we have brand x energy drink" to avoid legal action for passing off/infringement.

It's funny how they refer to the entire energy drink market as their market share. I think many people forget that Red Bull is just a carbonated knock off of Kratingdaeng, which in my opinion and that of many others, is the original energy drink.

Establishments shouldn't be afraid to say to customers: "We don't have Red bull, We have X Brand." As long as the flavor is similar, customers just don't care. I can understand if a customer insists on Bacardi rather than another brand of Rhum. But no customer will complain if their Rhum+Coke is made with Pepsi instead of Coke.

Dudeman...as much as revenge is in part of the thinking, I'm sure you understand there is a greater sence of "protecting their brand name" than simply revenge. It would not do Red Bull any good if every bar said they sold Red Bull, but no one actually carried the brand. As a customer, you should be informed of what you order and actually get. You are right, most customers will not care if they are told they don't carry that brand, but cary another one. Some will be turned away. I know I RockStar the other day for my first time ever. I fell into the "well, I'm really tiered today, and I will get twice the caffiene" thinking, and I could not finish my can. The aftertaste was not one I was a fan of. But I still drank my roaring lion at the bar, less satisfied than with my Red Bull, but I still drank it. Point here, inform customers what you are selling them, don't pass off brands as other ones, and Red Bull needs to protect their name and brand, just as every other company needs to.

Dudeman,
Generally people will not complain about a rum&Coke vs a rum&Pepsi. The only reason they may is because of taste not because one is perceived as a higher scale cola. Red Bull is perceived as a higher end energy drink. If I order a Grey Goose and get a Popov... $ wise I got screwed.

Red Bull needs to protect the image of their brand. I can't understand why people don't understand that. With all the strong minded/opinionated people on this board, I can't believe anyone would stand for purchasing something they want and get something they didn't want.

I agree. It's about protecting your brand and nothing else. You honestly think Red Bull would actually want to go through the hassle of hiring a private investigator, documenting these infractions, spend time and money on court costs and legal fees, and run the risk of being seen as a bully just for "revenge." If you read the article about the Iowa City bar, Red Bull had been trying to work with this account for 3 years before they finally had enough and took him to court.

Whether or not you like Red Bull as a brand or as a company is not the point - what these bars and clubs are doing is illegal. If it weren't illegal, Red Bull wouldn't be winning these cases left and right. It's wrong and these bar owners know it's wrong but they're arrogant and they assume they can do whatever they want - and they just can't.

By Red Bull sueing to protect their trademark, they are in fact protecting all of us to have the ability to spend time and money marketing a product without worrying about someone else reaping the benefits.

Oh and by the way Red Bull is Krating Daeng. The owner of Red Bull GmbH bought the rights to distribute it from the Thais and he ended up carbonating it, tweaking some ingredients, and re-packaging it... but in essence they are the same. I thought that was pretty much common knowledge at this point.

CR

[ 06-20-2006, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: Coco Rico ]

Originally posted by DudeMan:
As long as the flavor is similar, customers just don't care. I can understand if a customer insists on Bacardi rather than another brand of Rhum. But no customer will complain if their Rhum+Coke is made with Pepsi instead of Coke.

I really couldn't disagree more. I have seen more than one person in line at a fast food restaurant change their drink order when the counter employee says they serve another brand.

I think it's fair to say that alot of people would agree to drink whatever they offered if they didn't have their preference, but your point completely misses the underlying issue.

If they are ordering "Red Bull and Vodka", they want Red Bull and Vodka, not "Brand-X and Vodka", etc. For them to knowingly pass off a product as another is the very reason trademarks were developed. All they would have to do is say, "We serve roaring lion, it tastes very similar, is that ok?" and there would be no case. The point is, they are knowingly substituting one product for another, and they SHOULD pay in court for that. It's a very deceptive way to run a business.

Sometimes brands become a symbol for a category, Coke and Kleenex come to mind. If you travel the South most people refer to any cola as a COKE, similarly a disposable facial tissue is referred to as a Kleenex. Perhaps Red Bull has assumed this role as well. If you ask for a 7 and 7 do you always get Seagarms and Seven Up? I think the brand will grow by association even if the bar serves a "knock off" because when the bar patron goes to the Grocery or Convenience Store, (arguably the largest market for any packaged beverage) he will still purchase a Red Bull because there is no "knock off" in a can.

What world do you buy beverages in? It took Coke and Kleenex many...MANY...years to establish that kind of brand recognition. I will give you the Xerox one,only because they actually innovated the technology. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Again,what C-Store in 2006 can survive with just one brand of energy drink. I would bet that nearly all C-Stores have a Red Bull Knock off. They have to as it's good business and demanded by their customers. Just my IMO. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 06-20-2006, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: Mr Zabe ]

My point is, I don't believe the typical bar patron would be disappointed in a good bar version energy mixed with his Vodka or Jaeger. I don't believe the typical C store consumer is purchasing Red Bull because he had it at a club last night and he loved the taste so much he just had to have it the next day without alcohol. Monster proves the point, they don't have a huge club presence, yet they are out selling Red Bull in many markets. At any rate, trying to build a brand on premise is a flawed marketing plan. You need 3 things to build a brand. 1.Brand recognition (make it memorable) 2. Trial (sampling or cost promotion) 3. Repeat purchase (only if taste and price are acceptable). So considering all these things,I believe making a "knock off" with a bar's own logo a flawed marketing strategy.