Sophie Wilson Dissertation 2013 by sophie wilson

Name Sophie Wilson Degree Programme BA (Hons) Graphic Design Date 2012/13 Title ‘Using the Innocent brand as a case study, evaluate whether companies within the health drinks industry can be truly ethical and sustainable in contemporary, capitalist Western cultures; and the role branding and marketing plays upon consumer influence.’ 8,045 words

Acknowledgements I would like to thank Joe Gilmore, of Qubik, Leeds, for his support, encouragement, and, most of all, for taking valuable time from his work to provide insight and further development for my writing. Thank you to Richard Miles for the enthusiasm instilled within my second year essay and theoretical writing which has encouraged me, and provided the confidence to explore my interests within branding and consumer influence throughout this dissertation. But above all, thank you to my dissertation supervisor, Jenny Hutton, for her wisdom, knowledge, and cheery support and encouragement throughout the writing process. It canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t have been easy, and I am wholeheartedly grateful.

2 Â

Contents Illustrations

Page 4

Introduction

Page 5

Social, Economic, and Political Disarray: The Demands of Modern Life and the Necessity for Change Chapter 1

Page 8

Innocent, the Rise of the Health Drinks Industry, and Emotive Influence Chapter 2

Page 19

Innocent’s Ethics and Sustainability: Brand Values and Contradictions Conclusion

Page 31

The Future of Innocent Drinks and the Ethical Responsibilities of Brands Images

Page 34

Bibliography

Page 40

Appendices

Page 44

Consent To The Use of Data Form & Evidence

Page 62

Illustrations -

Age UK (2013), Innocent [ONLINE] Available at: www.ageuk.org.uk/get-involved/corporate-partners/cause-relatedmarketing/innocent [Accessed 15 January 13].

Coca - Cola (2013), Glaceau Vitamin Water Power C - Dragonfruit [ONLINE] Available at: www.coca-cola.co.uk/brands/glaceau.html [Accessed 13 January 13].

Coheso, Inc. (2013), Nutrition Information for Naked Juice Protein Zone Banana Chocolate Flavor [ONLINE] Available at: www.coheso.com/nutridata/Naked_Juice/Protein_Zone_Banana_Choc olate_Flavor/item_details.html [Accessed 13 January 13].

Gilmore, J. (2013), Interview with Sophie Wilson, 14th January 2013, Online Interview

Innocent Drinks (2009), Cap-ital stuff [ONLINE] Available at: http://innocentdrinks.typepad.com/innocent_drinks/2009/04/capitalstuff-.htlm [Accessed 15 January 13].

Innocent Drinks (2012), An Olympic makeover [ONLINE] Available at: www.innocentdrinks.co.uk/blog/2012/may/an-olympic-makeover [Accessed 15 January 13].

Innocent Drinks (2013), dude_twitter.jpg [ONLINE] Available at: https://twimg0a.akamaihd.net/profile_images/1913189640/dude_twitter.jpg [Accessed 14 January 13].

The brandgym blog (2007), Being second can be best: Innocent vs. PJ’s smoothies [ONLINE] Available at: www.wheresthesausage.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/12/beingsecond-ca.html [Accessed 14 January]

Sophie Wilson (2013), Innocent Drinks: A brand and consumer analysis [ONLINE] Available at: http://s-wilson1013cts.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/dissertationprimary-research.html [Accessed 14 January 13].

Introduction Social, Economic, and Political Disarray: The Demands of Modern Life and the Necessity for Change

Within the past decade the health drinks industry has evolved from modest beginnings to now becoming one of the most competitive and profitable markets within the United Kingdom and Europe. In 2007, esteemed marketing research firm, Mintel, published an analytical report revealing that sales of fruit drinks alone had increased by 523% in the years between 2001 and 2006 to an estimated total of 6.3 million litres (Caterer and Hotelkeeper, 2007). Unsurprisingly, this industry upheaval has coincided with an array of changes with regards to socio-economics, politics, and to an extent, even psychological and philosophical changes within both governmental and consumer habits and, of course, is anything but coincidental. Despite the multitude of variables in regards to industry growth, the unquestionable dominance in regards to consumer behaviours has been the global media, with highly publicised campaigns and documentaries providing supporting evidence in the demonstration of the decline of health and wellbeing.

A notable example of such a cause within the United Kingdom and Europe is the NHS and governmentally supported ‘5 A Day’ campaign, in which the WHO (World Health Organization) and FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) published a report in 2003 to promote the recommended intake of a minimum of 400g of fruit and vegetables per day for the prevention of chronic illnesses such as heart diseases, cancers, diabetes and obesity as well as providing important nutrients and a vital component of a balanced and healthy diet (World Heath Organization, 2012), whereupon the scheme was introduced to a multitude of countries, with varying levels of success.

One of the most significant brands in regards to industry dominance of more recent years is Innocent drinks. Estimated to have a market share of 77% of the £150m UK smoothie market, selling more than 2m smoothies per week by 2010 (The Guardian, 2012). Fundamentally, the Innocent brand was

conceived as a response to a problem without immediate or apparent resolution, as are a multitude of products and brands bought to the market each year. However, in the case of Innocent, perhaps most notably, was the seizing of the consumer zeitgeist and needs of the time. In the company’s publication ‘A Book About Innocent’ (D. Germain, 2009, p. 12), the principle conception of the brand is documented: ‘At this stage we were 26 and living and working in London…it’s a great city, and there’s always something going on. Which basically means it is bad for your health. We were working long hours, followed by late nights, with no time for exercise…We realised there were a lot of people in the same position as us- who wanted to be healthy, but found that there was just something about modern urban life that conspired against us…So that was the problem we wanted to solve: to make it easy for people to do themselves some good…And to make it taste nice too.’ Since the sale of the first smoothie for the drinks company in 1999, Innocent have gone on to demonstrate longevity in a historically competitive and often unstable market place despite economic downturn; most notably, with the collapse of the global services firm, Lehman Brothers on 14th September 2008, upon which the hugely influential corporation declared bankruptcy of over $600 billion, causing global recession, frequently regarded as one of the most significant economic disasters of recent years (Market Watch, 2008). However, despite the company’s undisputable resilience, it has not been without its critics. Actively stating ‘we strive to do business in a more enlightened way’ (Innocent Drinks, 2012), Innocent’s aspirations within the industry and retail market, aside from being merely a profit-driven, appear to be focused towards ethical production, responsibility and sustainable growth, though in more recent years this proposition has been under speculation as a result of various dubious reports, with examples such as their pledge of charitable profit-sharing, and, their (often infamously regarded) alliance with Coca- Cola, formed in 2010, of which will be analysed in more depth subsequently. Throughout this essay I hope to develop an understanding and debate, discussing and evaluating branding and marketing and it’s effects upon the

consumer subconscious. I will also study further into what makes for an ethical and sustainable brand and the effective marketing tools for the promotion of these practices, along with what other companies within the industry can achieve from taking influence and inspiration from this. From the perspective of a design creative, I hope to utilise my own professional practice and interests within brand marketing, as well as developing a body of primary research and opinion from both fellow design professionals and members of the graphic and/or product design industry, as well as the public and consumers for an unbiased, yet informed overview and conclusion.

7 Â

Chapter 1 Innocent, the Rise of the Health Drinks Industry, and Emotive Influence Throughout chapter 1, the role and dominance of Innocent Drinks within the health drinks industry will be examined alongside brand and market competitors; directly focusing on ethical values and integrity within brand philosophies and marketing strategies, and how this has affected consumer trust and emotion, and, ultimately, the dynamics of purchasing behaviour. In Zygmunt Bauman’s publication ‘Globalization: The Human Consequences’, consumer psychology and behaviours are studied in regards to the everincreasing demand upon both the buyer and brands to take a more ethical and considered approach to both the purchasing and manufacturing of products. Exploring the consumer consciousness, the sociologist states ‘It is often said that the consumer market seduces it’s customers. But in order to do so it needs customers who want to be seduced.’ (Z. Bauman, 1998, p. 83) This is particularly evident within today’s over-saturated and extremely competitive health drinks market. Brands and their products can no longer solely rely on quality or pricing structures, with effective and memorable branding and marketing taking an ever-increasing, vital role in building a consumer trust, familiarity and loyalty that businesses so depend upon. Despite the consumer feeling dominant or the true decision-maker when it comes to purchasing or introducing themselves to a new brand or product, the brand identity and personality portrayed through effective branding can have a significant or even over-powering authority through various subtly creative sociological and socio-economic factors. It can be questioned just how much of a role does the consumer really have on the purchases we make, and how great a responsibility do brands have upon consumers within retail environments? Just how great is this influence of need and compulsion truly play on the ‘internalized pressure, that impossibility of living one’s life in any other way,’ (Bauman, Z, 1998, p.84) without it?

In the 2003 Monterey (California) TED talk, ‘The 3 Ways Good Design Makes Us Happy’ (Don Norman, 2003), acclaimed anthropologist and design critic, Don Norman, discusses theories of emotion and design, and how the active subconscious is hugely affected by conceptual and creative design. Three levels of processing: visceral (mental associations), behavioural (automatic, skilled), and reflective (the consciousness and “voice in your head”) are credited for working with one another to produce a response to the aforementioned creative and conceptual aspects of design. This is believed to combine emotive associations with objects or narratives of fun, happiness, or pure (and often), subjective beauty to evolve the way in which our subconscious manipulates and interprets the emotive reaction to visual stimuli, even on the most rudimentary level. Although perceived to be from one’s own free will and mind, in truth, the critical and free-minded consumer is often subconsciously and emotionally persuaded into purchasing from the allure or promise of a way of life, being it the belief of personal benefit to the individual, a belief which the Innocent drinks company have captured outstandingly well in their years of trading. Now valued at over £85m, Innocent’s presence on the health drinks industry is unquestionable. Since their conception in 1999, there was little to no awareness of smoothies evidenced within the UK consumer market, their onetime market rival, ‘PJ Smoothies’ being the most notable competitor. Now, selling their products throughout the UK and Europe (in countries such as France and Germany) the awareness of Innocent has exceeded any initial expectations of the “grass roots”, independent business to becoming a global success, with economic growth rising from £400k in their first year (1999) to a very respectable £115m (2007), in under ten years of trading (Simmons, J, 2011, p. 116), upon which Innocent have expressed the hope to become “the Earth’s favourite little food company.” (Simmons, J, 2011, p. 118) Although Innocent have experienced great success within the marketplace, the company has not been without their competitors. Whilst being one of the first smoothie products on the market, their main competition came in the form

of Pete & Johnny’s, now more commonly known as PJ Smoothies, launched in 1994. Despite being inspired by the branding of US Ice Cream manufacturing industry giants, Ben & Jerry’s, the history and personality of the brand, it’s values, and it’s owners, were never considered to have real depth or substance, unlike the aforementioned Ice Cream start-up business, or, indeed, like Innocent and it’s three, celebrated owners, Richard Reed, Adam Balon and Jon Wright, and therefore made the decision to change the name to PJ’s in 2002. Despite both a amendment of the company’s name and two branding and packaging re-designs within the space of ten years, by Graphic design agency, Landor (Fig. 1), Innocent’s market share overtook that of PJ’s smoothies in 2004 thanks to a combination of branding, product innovation and an evident pledge of responsibility for ingredient sourcing and a respect for the environment (The brandgym blog, 2007). Regardless of this market shift, in 2005, PJ’s were bought by drinks giant, PepsiCo, upon which they went on to decrease the price of the smoothies by 30%, along with reducing the product range in order to make them a more desirable purchase in regards to cost-effectiveness and value for money for the consumer (Marketing Week, 2008). Despite their efforts, PJ’s smoothie ultimately failed to capture the imagination of health drinks consumers, leading PepsiCo to abandon the brand in 2008 (Marketing Week, 2008). However, during this time, PepsiCo were securing another lucrative deal within the health drinks industry. Regarded as one of Innocent’s most significant contemporary competitors on the health drinks market, Naked Juices were purchased for an estimated $450 million in 2006 from the privateequity firm, North Castle Partners (Barrons, 2012), now functioning as a fully owned subsidiary of the PepsiCo company, having since gone on to experience enormous growth with distribution in all 50 US states, Canada, and within the UK health drinks market. Boasting over twenty various flavours of blended fruit and vegetable drinks and smoothies within the product’s range with the promise of specific health benefits of their drinks, such as aiding digestion and immune health with the

addition of both probiotic and prebiotic microorganism “good bacteria” (Food Processing, 2008), the company have adapted well to the ever- increasingly scrutinised health drinks market, although, like many new brands and products, they have not been without their critics, with apparent false claims and misleading nutritional information. Despite many health benefits, as previously stated, both lesser and greater consumer trust and persuasion factors have been highlighted in recent years. Along with every day factors, such as a comparatively high price-point (a single serve 10-oz bottle suggested price at $2.99 (Food Processing, 2008) and a somewhat alarming total of 240 calories (Fig. 2), as shown in the Naked Protein Zone Banana Chocolate 8 fl oz drink (Fig. 2), with approximately 9.6% of the recommended daily allowance of calories for adult men in just one drink (NHS, 2012), serious implications have resulted from an apparent lack of integrity from the company in regards to the ingredients used within the products themselves. In 2011, lawsuits were filed against the Naked Juice and PepsiCo brands for misleading the public and consumers about the contents of their products, regarding the use of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in their “All Natural” juice products, which may potentially cause harmful or unexpected effects in the body, having not been stated fully and legitimately throughout their nutritional information through both their packaging and promotional media. The lawsuit went on to demonstrate finite details of molecular structures between both the natural vitamins stated to be in the products, and the actual manufactured GMO replacements as found to appear within them; a far cry from the “All Natural”, and “Naked” purity that the brand initially portrays to the public (Natural News, 2013). Another infamously scrutinised competitor to Innocent within the health drinks market is Vitamin Water. In 2007, the product sold under the brand Glaceau, bought by drinks giant, Coca-Cola for $4.2 billion (New York Times, 2007) has come under severe criticism since it’s release onto the health drinks market in 2000 in New York. Although greeted with trans-Atlantic commercial and retail success, in 2011, the Advertising Standards Authority watchdog upheld three

customer complaints in regards to the misleading marketing of its drinks as “nutritious”. Despite containing 100% of the recommended daily allowance of Vitamin C, along with other vitamins (as the brand name suggests), the marketing failed to address the issue of the drink having an equivalent of five teaspoons of added sugar, thus pursuing to ban the advert. Vitamin Water went on to confirm that the drinks contained a maximum of 23g (Fig. 3 and Fig. 4) of sugar per 500ml, which, under EU regulations still classifies the product within the “low calorie” category within the drinks industry (BBC News, 2011). Despite Coca-Cola now also being the majority shareholder in Innocent drinks, the public perception of the brand is anything but parallel with Vitamin Water. In the case of both Naked Juice and the Vitamin Water products, misleading or misrepresentative marketing In regards to it’s nutritional information and health benefits to the consumer have resulted in mistrust and suspicion throughout the health drinks industry. Whilst these brands still exist, unlike in the case of the now obsolete and abandoned PJ’s Smoothies brand, Innocent’s customer approval has shown evidence of enormous growth, thus supporting the theory of the direct importance and influence of both brand ethos and identity, along with creative and emotive direct marketing to the company’s consumer demographic. One of the key elements behind Innocent drink’s success and year-on-year growth is it’s unique and wholly- regarded playful and wholesome tone-ofvoice portrayed through various means, within both it’s branding and communication and relationship with clients. In the 2011 publication, ‘Innocent’ (Simmons, J, 2011) Will Awdry, the Creative Partner and Acting Manager Director at international advertising agency, Ogilvy, reflects upon the identity and personality of the Innocent brand… ‘Innocent was born eloquent. It is a brand that –genuinely- talks with its customers not to, or at them. This is a reflection of the mastery of great

writing. Like those nurses who talk to mute patients and yet who keep it conversational, Innocent’s approach to customers has a two-way element. It balances transmit and receive (both tonally and in reality). The conversation is funny, engaging, entertaining without being clever.’ (Simmons, J, 2011, p.113) Author, Simmons, goes on to evaluate Innocent’s “gift to a cynical world” (Simmons, J, 2011, p. 169) through bucking the trend of business ruthlessness and proving the overwhelmingly positive effects of it’s vocalised optimism and unashamed upbeat personality, evidencing the growth of substantial consumer trust and loyalty, purely through the consideration of it’s audience and the responsibilities they have not only as a manufacturer, but also as an influential brand within the marketplace. Likewise, in ‘How they Started: How 30 Good Ideas Became Great Businesses’, author David Lester praises Innocent’s personal approach… ‘The company’s offices are among the most friendly and relaxed in the world and its staff are extremely well treated, with perks ranging from free snowboarding trips to bonuses for having children.’ (Lester, D, 2007, p. 22) From a branding design perspective, Innocent’s own logo, represents it’s playfulness by visually communicating the brand name, through the character known as ‘The Dude’ (Fig. 5), which has since been incorporated through the packaging design for the “smoothies for kids” range, along with other Dudeinspired characters such as ‘Nature Girl’ and ‘Explorer Dude’ (The Independent, 2006). Initially quite spontaneously designed from a sketch produced during a business meeting. Innocent’s branding and positive, upbeat writing style and communication is translated through both their print and web- based design collateral throughout their range of products. One of the most successfully utilised means of communication that Innocent have formed between its company and the consumer is through the use of social media. The publication, ‘The Ethical Consumer’ (Harrison, 2005, p.202) analyses information about the communication channels of companies through more

traditional means of contact (as opposed to more lavish marketing and advertising strategies), describing ‘this awareness is most commonly attributed to informal communication channels… word of mouth (18 per cent)…working for the company (17 per cent)…’ going on to observe the importance of the communication of ethical issues and the influence of day-today, informal contact, of which ‘… The public does not always recall sources of information accurately… There is a propensity for customers, employees and other stakeholders to act as advocates for those companies they perceive as ethical, and conversely to act as saboteurs of those companies they perceive as unethical.’ Whether this social media and online contact be directly from Innocent themselves, or from the recommendations and praises of other consumers, this virtual platform has not only increased the exposure of Innocent drinks as a business, but have also enabled a more informal and humanistic presence within the industry, which may have previously been regarded as “unprofessional” or somewhat amateurish, but in fact emphasises the brand’s friendly and warm personality and core philosophy in remaining faithful to the wants and needs of the consumer. Along with it’s fun and entertaining personality conveyed to its customers, Innocent are often applauded and admired for their conviction, integrity and honesty. As with many brands and products analysed throughout the text, and due to the nature of business, mishaps and errors of judgement will occur within business decisions, marketing strategies, etc. However, what makes Innocent unique is their ability to address their problems, not only by taking direction action, but publically acknowledging errors with the aim, once more, to prioritise the consumer necessities, whether it be ethical, economical, environmental, etc. Throughout a published primary-research survey (Fig. 6) carried out on a selection (a total of forty- seven participants) of the general public regular consumers of Innocent drinks, were anonymously asked a variety of

questions about their initial responses to the health drinks market, the direct influence of brands upon their own purchasing behaviours, and their general opinions of the Innocent Drinks company, particularly with the focus of product range and brand influence. One question asked, ‘Are there any factors specific to the Innocent brand that particularly appeal to you, or have persuaded you to make a purchase?’ both the brand personality and clarity of information in regards to their ingredients and processing was particularly referenced, and when later asked ‘What changes would you like to see the Innocent company make in regards to their brand personality and ethics?’ the response for little or no changes wanted, or felt needed to be made was overwhelmingly positive with at a total of over 65% (31/47 consumers). However, from the feedback shown, it was clear that there was a great divide from consumers into the insight of the ethical practices of the company, particularly in terms of profit- sharing and charitable donation (which will be highlighted and analysed in greater depth throughout Chapter 2), many responses appearing to assume that the company is ethical and responsible purely from the brand perspective, and, of course, the name ‘Innocent’ creating emotive associations with a sense of warmth and trust in an otherwise often monotonously branded product market. This, once again, relates to Bauman’s theory of the consumer psyche, and the industry’s need for customers who ‘want to be seduced’ (Z. Bauman, 1998, p. 83). The seduction, as shown from this market audience and research participants, is the effective and conceptual branding that Innocent have demonstrated; be it the ability to raise a smile, to make someone laugh, or even to feel a sense of accomplishment for a healthier lifestyle. It is this seduction that cannot be underestimated, and widely evidenced throughout the marketing and advertising industry. Affecting various emotions and the subconscious through both visual and physical stimulate, be it shock, sadness, or simply pure happiness, supports the brand in such a definitive and profound way by creating a memorable means of consumer contact, thus ensuring that the brand is heavily promoted not only by the initial advertising or marketing media, but also, most importantly, through word of mouth of it’s

consumers, developing the trust and familiarity that brands so depend upon to build an enduring product and/or company. Along with this emotive association, many consumers simply relied upon the product in terms of flavour, range, and having a real priority in regards to health and nutritional benefit; which, as previously discussed, the awareness and promotion of which is hugely promoted within contemporary society through a multitude of healthy living campaigns, again, through the effective influence of marketing and promotional advertising (for full and extensive list of questions and consumer feedback given in response to the questionnaire, refer to the appendices). Despite offering valuable insight into the mind set and consumer psychology of the general public, the results of the questionnaire cannot be considered wholly valid, both in regards to the low participant numbers and the selective ways in which the questionnaire was published. Largely promoted through social networking site, ‘Twitter’, this suggests a potential bias towards a younger generation of consumers, along with an career- focused market, particularly within the design industries; therefore, can be assumed to be more insightful (through design education) in regards to the devices used by Innocent within both their branding and marketing strategies. The research from the consumer survey, however, is also supported by way of an interview carried out for the purpose of the focusing the audience perspective of the Innocent brand. Joe Gilmore, a Graphic Designer with over a decade of experience within the industry, operates under the design studio pseudonym of ‘Qubik’. As both a working professional and homemaker with a young family, Joe represents Innocent’s primary target consumer audience, regularly purchasing products from the Innocent range both for himself and from the ‘Innocent Kid’s’ product line. Throughout a series of selected questions, Joe shares his views upon the Innocent brand and it’s products from the perspective of both a retail consumer, and as a designer.

As a regular daily consumer of Innocent products, the drinks and smoothies in particular (as evidenced in the feedback and response shared in Fig. 8), a loyalty and familiarity with the brand has been reinforced and instated within the household, to the extent of which the product is now purchased on a dayto- day basis. Throughout the interview Joe discloses his personal views and interests and the impact of the company, stating, “I am drawn to their whole ethos which comes across in their tone of voice” (Fig. 9), citing influence from the brand values, portrayed to the customer instantaneously by print-based media through their product packaging… “The design influenced me a lot I think. It’s very clever, oozing simplicity and honesty in a playful way. It’s way more sophisticated than all of the other juice packaging branding you see in the supermarket. It also feels quite independent and personal. The logo is clever and the choice of fonts is very good. It’s also nice that the colour ways they use reflect the juice colours and they feel confident enough to pretty much go with a single colour design.” This level of analysis and recognition for brand and graphic/packaging design, of course, wouldn’t necessarily be acknowledged or analytically considered by the typical consumer market for Innocent’s products. However, from the perspective of a member of the Graphic Design industry, it demonstrates the suggested attention-to-detail, precision and passion that Innocent themselves have in all aspects of their business. This attention-to-detail reflects their drive and ambition to not only maintain the majority market share of the health drinks industry, but, perhaps most importantly, to maintain the values and integrity of “innocence”. Conclusively, as evidenced, Innocent’s distinctive, playful and uplifting attitude and approach to branding and marketing of their business has insured that the company have become widely recognised as somewhat revolutionary within the industry. Innocent’s market methodologies, developed from their primary brand philosophies (later evaluated through their aforementioned fivepoint plan), in which they aspire to “leave behind a legacy we can be proud of” (Germain, D. 2009, p.166), the company actively engage with the consumer in

a positive and optimistic way, without an overly excessive or “preaching” campaign for the demands of a healthy lifestyle, or the importance of a balanced diet, instead, using witty, humorous and friendly marketing strategies which actively creates a feeling of approachability, familiarity, and a truly positive brand association for the consumer.

Chapter 2 Innocent’s Ethics and Sustainability: Brand Values and Contradictions Throughout Chapter 2, further research and study into the practice of Innocent Drinks and their stance on ethics and sustainability will be documented, particularly focusing on the consumer perception through controversial and often, regarded as contradictory business decisions made throughout the brand’s growth within the industry. Unlike many typical business strategies, creating a brand “promise”, or a series of brand values, Innocent’s brand philosophies are demonstrated though their ‘Rule of Five’, in which they express their ambition and aim to always remain natural, entrepreneurial, commercial, generous and responsible (Germain, D. 2009, p.78), the latter of which, to modern consumers, is regularly considered a priority. Particularly emphasised within a highly- competitive industry, and through an acutely evident economic downturn within the both the national and global economy, issues of sustainable and ethical production are more recognised and publicised in both print and web-based media; and, as a result, readily scrutinised within the retail market. Despite this heightened awareness, 53% of the British Public stated that they are ‘sympathetic to social and environmental issues, but not active’ (Harrison, R. 2005, p.197), therefore, the pressure to fulfil these wants and needs of the public and retail consumer are increased, with a higher responsibility being designated on to the brands and companies within the marketplace. Innocent is eminent within the industry for their ambition to create an ethical company in all aspects of the business, whether it be through responsibly sourcing products from producers and farmers, to the financial donations to charitable causes through the Innocent Foundation (established as a registered charity in 2004 in the aid of the support of non-governmental organizations around the world), and donating 10% of their annual profits to charities each year (Germain, D. 2009, p.169). Whilst the 90%, although seemingly vastly proportionate, returns to the business in support of

development of products, opportunities and overall growth, as demonstrated within many capitalist businesses. Since July 2004, Innocent have annually pledged profits to the companies own established charity, the Innocent Foundation. The 10% of profits donated to the charity support a combination of causes, largely to aid the maintenance of the livelihood of producers and farmers in countries of which the Innocent drinks company build a series of contacts and networks with, predominantly through product sourcing, and which are believed to have the greatest financial/economic hardship and needs, as specified through the UK Development Need Index. Countries currently within the portfolio of the Innocent Foundation’s profit-sharing schemes include Colombia, India, Ecuador and Costa Rica (as of 2006), from which many of the tropical fruits and ingredients are sourced for development and production within the UK retail market. This active profit- sharing and distribution of wealth distinguishes Innocent from many of its contemporaries on the retail market. Infamously documented throughout a variety of industries and companies established within Western Capitalist countries, many lesser economically developed countries (commonly referred to as LEDC’s) face prospects of exploitation in regards to both produce and land, along with the human attributes in the concerns of labour of the farmers themselves. This circulation of wealth ensures not only will the famers, producers, and labours benefit economically, but will also develop working relationships with Innocent built upon mutual respect, trust and integrity with transfers through to the care and nourishment of the land and products grown and sourced in a mutually successful, and ultimately creating a beneficially profitable, balanced relationship. A notable case within Innocent’s pledge for sustainable/ethical sourcing is evidenced in the forging of their relationship with the Rainforest Alliance, a non- governmental organization (NGO), which aims to promote the conservation of biodiversity and the sustainability of livelihoods of farmers and producers through land-use, business, and consumer behaviour. In 2005, upon fruit- sourcing visits to Costa Rican plantations, Innocent pledged to only

buy bananas from Rainforest Alliance certified banana plantations, providing peace of mind not only from a business perspective, for the welfare employment of land-owners and farmers, but, perhaps most importantly from the company’s perspective, providing peace of mind for the retail consumer (Innocent Drinks, 2013). In spite of Innocent’s extensive publicising of it’s profit sharing through the Innocent Foundation, it was recently bought into questioning since reports released information that the company had withheld the £520,000 pledge (10% of it’s annual profits) in 2007, along with no evidence of profit- sharing between 2008 and 2010 with the company’s expansion throughout Europe, as verified in documents sourced and analysed through the United Kingdom Registrar of Companies, Companies House (of which all companies permitted by the United Kingdom Companies Act are registered). Since this time, Innocent has stated that the company kept the withheld money, primarily owned by the foundation in order to reap even great financial profit through the interest rates offered through commercial banking. Despite a continued commitment to profit- sharing throughout the Innocent Foundation, and other notable charities alike, the Foundation itself has seen a substantial decline in spending since this time. In 2008 the charity pledged to spend £274,000 in the funding and development of various projects, with this expenditure decreasing to under half of this proposed total (The Guardian, 2011). This wariness of wealth distribution can be largely accredited to the aforementioned economic downturn in 2008, which affected the industry and marketplace explicitly, to be analysed in further depth imminently. Despite initial concerns by both the media, charities and Companies House, Innocent’s plan for profit- sharing remained strategic, with the optimism to provide the most effective solution and security for the brand in difficult financial times. In response to this, Innocent announced voluntary contributions to both the foundation and to Age UK (of which they have a long-standing profit-sharing relationship with through the acclaimed ‘Big Knit’ fund-raising campaign,

frequently cited throughout the previously mentioned primary research questionnaire as a particularly memorable and admirable campaign, from the consumer perspective) of £250,000 and £473,000 respectively through direct payments, with an additional £520,000 to be paid to the foundation over a period of three years from 2011 to ensure that both the charity and the Innocent brand could maintain an optimal standard of work and commitment to both charitable causes and as a retail business. As alluded to previously, Innocent’s stance on charitable giving and support is evident throughout their day-to-day business, often through creative and highly playful campaigns that, once more, demonstrate the company’s brand values, ethos, and, above all, a sense of humour and fun. The most notable of these campaigns in recent years is ‘The Big Knit’. Established in 2004, Innocent introduced the notion of accessorised products and packaging through the addition of woolly hats (see Fig. 11) to the bottled smoothies to raise money for Age UK Charity, which supports winter initiatives for the elderly such as home visits, lunch clubs and skills/workshop experiences to help the aged in a difficult time of the year both financially, and from a health perspective. In the first year of the viral campaign, £10,000 was raised for the Age Concern charity through the purchasing of 20,000 Big Knit bottles sold, and, with steady progression and campaign awareness that captures the imagination of the UK public, went on raise over £1 million with thanks to a vast multitude of knitted hat donations. Consequently, through effective means of promotion through advertising and marketing awareness, the project went on to win the Business in the Community National Example of Excellene for Cause- Related Marketing at the 2007 BitC Awards for Excellence (Age UK, 2013). Through this highly publicised campaign, Innocent, once more achieved the balance of charitable giving and brand awareness- creating a mutual benefit for both the charity and the company itself. Alongside Innocent’s commitment to ethical and sustainable product and ingredient sourcing, with their support of charitable giving and profit-sharing, an assurance of sustainability and the ethical monitoring of the production of

packaging materials is evidenced through their published, and downloadable, sustainability report. Throughout the company’s history, they have developed new and innovative ways to remain faithful to this pledge, whether it be through the progression of the development of carbon neutral offices, or being the first smoothie company to use biodegradable polylactic acid bottles. Made from corn starch, the bottles can be readily recycled to the extent of which they can be composted from home (Hill, L, 2006, p.95). Other notable achievements in Innocent’s developing technologies and support of the use of recyclable materials include the 15% reduction of packaging materials in the Innocent Kid’s range, which saw a total weight reduction of 75 tonnes of card used each year, and, consequently the reduction of 185 tonnes of carbon emissions. Likewise, 20 tonnes of plastic has annually been saved due to the evolution of the caps on the larger Innocent smoothie cartons (Fig. 12), in which the plastic seal around the caps was removed, and the existing cap reinforced and secured, therefore without the necessity of the seal in a simple yet incredibly effective solution from both an environmental and economic perspective (Innocent Drinks, 2013). Despite these advancements and the research into the development of new technologies, Innocent have once again come under scrutiny from their claims of sustainable and ethical production, when, in 2009, reports were published that questioned the integrity and efforts of Innocent’s pledge for sustainability when it was found in environmental reports that the carbon footprint of a variety of Innocent’ products were substantially higher than that of industry giant Coca-Cola, a product and brand synonymous with Capitalism and often associated with poor diet and even so far as to believed to have a nutritional correlation with the rise of morbid obesity. When Coca-Cola published it’s report on the production of greenhouse gases (which take manufacturing, packaging, transportation, refrigeration and disposal into consideration), the study, as supported by Carbon Trust, the governmental not-for-profit organisation which supports the reduction of carbon emissions and the increase of resource efficiency with businesses, it

was found that a 330ml can of regular Coke produces an equivalent of 170g CO2e (carbon dioxide), whereas Innocent’s 250ml bottle of mango and passion fruit smoothie revealed to have a carbon footprint of 209g. But with two such diverse ingredients within each of the products, Coca-Cola largely produced from carbonated water and a high fructose corn syrup, as opposed to Innocent’s (frequently) tropically-sourced crushed, fresh fruit, can they truly, and fairly, be compared in such a way? Sustainability and environmental responsibility, although achievable, can often be highly complex with a multitude of factors and variables to be considered and resolved, as shown in this particular circumstance, various elements of production are considered. By way of resolution of these issues, as documented in The Guardian’s 2009 report, Innocent proposed then notion of “carbon calories” in which a calculation for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions was carried out, in which the total number of emissions was “distributed”, meaning that an average person could responsibly eat and drink 2,900g of CO2e on a daily basis, of which one of their smoothie products would equate to 1% (The Guardian, 2009). However, as aforementioned, consumers, although somewhat passionate about the plight of environmental issues and responsibility, many are passive to active change. Therefore, once more, it becomes accountable for brands and companies to ensure their products are contributing to this social change. In the 2009 publication, ‘The Value of Nothing’, author Raj Patel discusses topics of social justice and ethical consumerism in regards to the responsibility of brands to adapt to the ever-evolving industry and marketplace, summarising the importance of brands and companies to adhere to the increasing expectations of consumers: ‘… If some goods produce positive social and environmental benefits… and if that’s reflected in their prices, the market can successfully use prices to allocate resources to their most efficient use. This shouldn’t be an optional “ethical consumer” choice for those who choose to buy products that don’t pollute the planet. If products do generate costs and benefits, then those need to be reflected in the price in order for the economic logic of markets to work properly.’ (Patel, R, 2009, p.49)

With influential and aspirational brands, such as Innocent drinks, taking a stand to promote environmental, sustainable and ethical production, other companies and product ranges will undoubtedly follow the industry zeitgeist and, potentially, make a real change to consumer purchasing and the mind set of ethical retail responsibility. Though undoubtedly a rising star of the health drinks industry, Innocent have not been without their hardships and difficulties, some of which alluded before, in less serious or severe circumstances, and some of which have put the brand and perception of the brand from the public and consumers, in real jeopardy. With economic growth and public awareness within businesses comes a much more magnified public scrutiny of decisions made within the company. Innocent first experienced this when taking the, what is now regarded as bold decision to collaborate with global fast-food chain, McDonalds, with the addition of the Innocent drinks as an option within the ‘Happy Meal’ range through selected restaurants in the North East of England in 2007. As previously mentioned, despite actions to “green- wash” the brand with both a re-evaluation of their menus, with the addition of salads and healthier options, particularly for children, along with the 2009 rebranding, spending $1 billion across the 14,000 worldwide restaurants, simply by changing the existing red and yellow colour scheme to yellow and green, for which a McDonald’s spokesman explained was in order to “clarify [their] responsibility for the preservation of natural resources” (USATODAY, 2011), and, consequently, giving the aesthetic and visual representation through colour association of somewhere far healthier and nutritious than perhaps historically perceived. The fallout from this partnership was professed as somewhat catastrophic by a large majority of vocal Innocent drinks consumers, with the perception that the independent brand was entering a Faustian pact, with bloggers commenting “It’s all about money and you won’t be getting any more of mine” (Simmons, J, 2011, p.135-136) with the assumption that Innocent was “selling out” to the infamously Capitalist chain with only the foresight for sales volumes, and a lack of disregard for the consumer, with the proposed notion

of loosing sight of their values and ethos to always remain an ethical and sustainable brand to improve the lives of it’s consumers. In an interview with co- founder of Innocent drinks, Richard Reed, he states: “Obviously, we expected to get a kicking from some of our drinkers for going into McDonald’s but when a company slated for selling unhealthy food asks to start selling healthy food, it felt more irresponsible to say no than yes. And our strategy has always been to do what we think is right now what we think sounds right. And we weren’t going to change from that philosophy now, even though we knew we would get some flak.” (Simmons, J, 2011, p. 136) Despite earning back the trust of consumers, sadly, Innocent had to face yet more difficulties in the following year. 2008 witnessed the Lehman Brothers (Lehman Brothers Holding Inc) financial crisis, whereupon the global financial firm filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection through both a dramatic loss in stock and a vastly substantial departure of the company’s clients. Filing for bankruptcy at a total of $613 billion in total debts against $639 billion in assets, it has become the largest bankruptcy claim in U.S. history (Market Watch, 2008). This financial meltdown had proceeded to have an enormous global effect on financial markets, retail industry and to companies throughout the world, with independent businesses being significantly affected as a result. Coincidentally, during this time, Innocent were facing their own difficulties with the competitive nature of the health drinks industry and marketplace: “Up till Spring 2008 everything had been going our way. Then we hit a perfect storm. Tropicana (owned by Pepsi) launched aggressively against us. They used the same distribution channels as us- but they did that overnight whereas it had taken eight years’ slog for us to build those channels. They reduced over revenue by a third, our market share by a third- and the total market shrank at the same time. Fruit was at its highest price ever with countries like China and India importing fruit for their own consumers. The exchange rate collapsed. We lost more money in one year than we had made previously.” (Simmons, J, 2011, p. 177)

For Innocent to survive in the marketplace, seeking outside investment to financially support the company was an absolutely necessity. On the very day that Innocent drinks went to market to seek investment funds, 14th September 2008, Lehman Brothers collapsed, consequently causing the crash of financial institutions the world-over, whereupon investors became far more cautious with their money and how it would be spent. In John Simmon’s publication, ‘Innocent’, co-founder Reed reflects retrospectively, “Serious contingency plans were drawn up that would have involved the closure of Innocent’s international businesses (in Europe) and the shedding of half the staff” (Simmons, J, 2011, p. 177-178). Miraculously, Innocent found investment from somewhere they least expected, with the possibility that the Capitalist heavy- weight U.S company, Coca-Cola would be interested in a substantial financial investment in the company, stating their interest and admiration in the brand with a respect for it’s ethos, philosophy, and values. Perhaps even more surprisingly was CocaCola’s opinion that the co-founders and workers at Innocent were the most suitable and responsible when it came to operating the brand and product developments on a day-to-day basis. Despite initially committing to buy 18% shares in the company, Coca-Cola ultimately became the majority shareholders with a purchase of 58% (Simmons, J, 2011, p. 180). Despite the co-founders no longer lawfully owning the company, this business transaction has lead to being able to pay off the company’s initial investor, the revered “Mr Pinto”, along with a new level of distribution and communication channels through the investment, as well as the unsuspected promise from the investor to support Innocent wholly, evidencing this through the agreement that they would not launch any other juice products within Europe (Simmons, J, 2011, p. 179). Alongside this, Innocent secured the rights to a quarterly Investor Board meeting to decide upon the direction of the business. With four members, one, James Quincey, a representative with whom they negotiated with from Coca- Cola, alongside the three Innocent co-founders, Richard Reed (chairman), Adam Balon, and Jon Wright, as long as the members and representatives of Innocent are in agreements over decision-making, the majority ruling is outnumbered one-to-three, consequently, a firm

management of the company and products is held by the Innocent drinks founders (Simmons, J, 2011, p. 178 - 179). Despite maintain operational control over the company, Coca-Cola still upholds the aforementioned majority stake, and with an estimated growth of the company by 25% in 2012 alone (Marketing Week, 2012), views upon the Capitalist influence and growth upon the once independent “grass roots” company, still sees opinion divided by consumers, with a total of approximately 300 customer complaints (Germain, D, 2009, p. 67) despite Richard Reed agreeing that ‘the uproar over McDonald’s was ten times worse than anything Innocent had to suffer over the Coke deal’ (Simmons, J, 2011, p. 180 - 181).

However, the partnership and investment made by Coca-Cola for the Innocent brand, from a commercial stance, has been astronomically successful. Since it’s marketing prime within the 1980’s, whereupon it began to be a viable substitute for public funding, sponsorship has played a great part in brand marketing, with a focus upon brand association and promotion. At this time, the dynamic of sponsors and the sponsored turned, whereupon ‘many corporations becoming more ambitious in their demands for grander acknowledgements and control’ (Klein, N, 2001, p.34) Since selling it’s majority shares (58%, with an estimated financial transaction of £75 million) to Coca-Cola in 2010, the profile of the Innocent Drinks company has raised dramatically (The Guardian, 2010), perhaps most notably with it’s 2012 sponsorship of the official London Olympic Games, of which Innocent, naturally, was incredibly proud, to the extent of which they erected an enormously-scaled banned on the side of their London offices, loving nicknamed ‘Fruit Towers’ (see Fig 13, above). Despite a natural synergy with the health drinks company, the majority shareholders Capitalist and questionably ethical company history lead many to question the company, sparking a backlash that the brand had ‘sold-out’ and was beginning to loose it’s famous charm, independence and values as an ethical, sustainable, and

natural company which put the consumer above all else (Marketing Week, 2011). Perhaps coincidentally, in more recent months since the conclusion of the Olympic Games, Innocent have announced that they want to return to their fundamental principles, Douglas Lamont, Innocent’s marketing director noting, “I want people to think about Innocent in the same way consumers did when they discovered us in 1999. Our challenge as we become more of a mainstream, household brand is how we continue to be unique and engage more people in conversation with us… we’re in a strong place, but as we gain size and gain people we need to think of new ways to engage them.” (Marketing Week, 2012). With the rise of economic and retail success comes the question of the influence of Capitalism. Independent businesses will constantly be under attack, resulting in a flux of ethics in regards to their ethos and valuing the product and the consumer above profitability. Despite the fact that Western Capitalist businesses, inevitably depend upon the reliability of promotion, advertising and the retail market to survive financially, the economic crisis of 2008 gave evidence to the dangers that this dependency can result in. Whilst Capitalism can lead to greed financially within businesses, as well as greed of consumption or materialism within the consumers themselves, the businesses with greatest power, the bourgeoisie of companies within the retail market also have the greatest influence, as supported by theorists and philosophers Karl Marx and Frederick Engels in ‘Manifesto of the Communist Party’, in which they discuss the notion of the power structure and influence of the bourgeois Capitalist industries and methods of production upon lowerclass and proletarian civilizations with the aspiration to “create a world after it’s own image… on pain of extinction” (McNally, D, .Marx, K. & Engels , F. 1973, p.68, 71). By this, the theory of market and industry authority is asserted and analysed in relation to class and power structure, with the dominant industries having “ownership” of independent companies, or, indeed, nations; often ones of which are less economically or politically developed as, for example, countries within the United States and Europe, often regarded as the financial and

influential “powerhouses” of the World. This economic dominance and assumed greed by wealthy and influential companies, can lead to the exploitation of workers, the unfair pay of exported goods, and generally exerting intimidation upon countries to achieve maximum profitability within Western industries and privatized companies for personal gain. Yet, despite this overwhelming influence of brands upon the consumer, and companies in relation to one another within the marketplace, such as the buying of the Innocent drinks company by Capitalists, Coca-Cola, without business the progression of businesses, society and nations simply could not, and would not be economically subsidized.

Conclusion The Future of Innocent Drinks and the Ethical Responsibilities of Brands In the new age and “ownership” of Innocent through the majority shareholders, Coca-Cola, the trust and brand loyalty of consumers remains in question, and, potentially, even in jeopardy. As evidenced, in a few short years, Coca-Cola’s influence and direction for the brand has evolved and progressed enormously, along with corporate collaborations and partnerships, such as the trial period with fast-food chain, McDonalds resulting in consumers questioning with the brand’s ethics and ethos truly lies. It remains to be seen just how much more will the brand evolve, and whether or not it will truly be for the greater good or the consumer, or, fundamentally, to support the economic growth of the company in it’s profitability. However, Innocent’s dedication and commitment to its key values prove difficult to question. In an interview for the company’s own publication ‘A Book About Innocent: Our Story and Some Things We’ve Learned’, it states, ‘We now judge decisions, ideas, and our choice of words against whether they feel ‘Innocent’ or not. It has become an adjective to describe whether something adds to, or subtracts from, the brand’ (Germain, D, 2009, p. 129), which is a moral and a principle they have demonstrated through integrity, honesty, and above all, through building a trust and respect for the consumer. Despite set- backs, drawbacks, and struggles that the company has endured, both financially and through public perception, what really demonstrates the well- intentions of the brand is the lack of denial, and the ability to admit, and to apologise, if necessary, for it’s mistakes, something which is incredibly rare within the practice of businesses. In regards to Innocent’s sustainably and ethical sourced ingredients and development of product packaging, innovation is vital. Since the company’s conception in 1999, the brand and product range has constantly evolved to meet ever-increasing standards of social expectation and responsibility from famers, producers, designers, environmentalist and environmental charities and, most profoundly, from the consumers. With the research of new

technologies, the development of more sustainably-sourced and refined packaging for products, effectively reducing carbon emissions, and, alongside this, regularly reducing production and manufacturing costs, promoting and implementing a sustainable approach has proven to be a win-win situation for the company, which is then translated to the product’s consumers. Whilst new technologies to help develop and support the need for sustainable sourcing, production, and manufacturing will constantly be in development, evidencing a consistent, proactive motivation to adhere to social change within the marketplace is not only admirable, but an increasingly considered expectation. Although Innocent, as a business, simply, and fundamentally, requires profit in order to develop and grow, with this profit- sharing, donation and support for charities will also increase. Despite this somewhat ethical compromise, Innocent has demonstrated a new form of business, which holds its values and respect for the consumer above all else. Where market leaders, such as Innocent within the health drinks industry go, other companies will follow. Perhaps most readily available and within sight is the development of new technologies and the advances of sustainable and recyclable materials, giving way to the development of eco- efficiency (McDonough, W. & Braungart, M, 2000, p. 51) and responsibility within companies, especially if consumers continue to reflect their own environmental awareness upon companies and develop an expectation of ethical responsibility within the future of the industry, and it’s production of packaging, and sourcing of materials. Along with this, through the increase of public awareness of Innocent drinks’ support of environmental, charitable, and ethical causes, more businesses will contribute to the promotion of the values of sustainability and consumer care, which, evidently, may provide the balance and agreeable compromise between capitalist industry and the promotion of ethics and sustainable practice within them.

Moreover, it is without question just how dependent Innocent Drinks, along with all companies and products are upon effective means of marketing and promotion. As evidenced throughout various case studies, marketing cannot always necessarily be depended upon to conceal untruths or exaggeration. Ultimately, a successful brand is built upon integrity, truth and pursuing the strength of a relationship and trust with it’s consumers. Whilst no company will be without it’s suggestive or questionable motives, strategies, or ethos at any given point, honesty, communication, and respect, will, inevitably, always be the central device for creating an abiding and memorable brand.

Images

Fig. 1 The brandgym blog (2007)

Fig. 2 Coheso, Inc (2013)

Fig. 3 Coca - Cola (2013)

Fig. 4 Coca - Cola (2013)

Fig. 5 Innocent Drinks (2013)

Fig. 6 Sophie Wilson (2013)

Fig. 7 Sophie Wilson (2013)

Fig. 8 Gilmore, J. (2013)

Fig. 9 Gilmore, J. (2013)

Fig. 10 Gilmore, J. (2013)

Fig. 11 Age UK (2013)

Fig. 12 Innocent drinks (2009)

Fig. 13 Innocent drinks, (2012)

Bibliography Online Sources -

Age UK, 2013, Innocent [ONLINE] Available at: www.ageuk.org.uk/getinvolved/corporate-partnets/cause-related-marketing/innocent/ [Accessed 15 January 2013].

Barrons, 2012, There’s Big Business in Fresh Green Juices Barrons.com [ONLINE] Available at: www.online.barrons.com/article/SB5000142405311190434650457753 1063244598398.html#articleTabs_article%3DI [Accessed 13 January 2013].

BBC News, 2011, BBC News – Advert for Coca- Cola Vitamin Water ‘misled public’ [ONLINE] Available at: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk12218673 [Accessed 13 January 2013].

Brandgym Blog, 2007, The brandgym blog: Being second can be best: Innocent vs. PJ’s smoothies [ONLINE] Available at: www.wheresthesausage.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/12/beingsecond-ca.html [Accessed 12 January 2013].

Caterer and Hotelkeeper, 2007, UK smoothie sales on the increase [ONLINE] Available at: www.caterersearch.com/Articles/03/01/2007/310622/UK-smoothiesales-on-the-increase.htm [Accessed 19 November 2012].

Food Processing, 2008, Rollout | Naked Juice introduces 100% probiotic juice smoothie | Food Processing [ONLINE] Available at: www.foodprocessing.com/articles/2008/096.html [Accessed 13 January 2013].

Innocent Drinks, 2012, Innocent Juice [ONLINE] Available at: www.juice.innocentdrinks.co.uk [Accessed 20 November 2012].

Innocent Drinks, 2013, Innocent - 100% pure fruit smoothies, orange juice, kids smoothies and tasty veg pots [ONLINE] Available at: www.innocentdrinks.co.uk/us/being-sustainable [Accessed 15 January 2013].

Innocent Drinks, 2013, The Big Knit - Making Winter warmer for older people [ONLINE] Available at: www.innocentdrinks.co.uk/bigknit [Accessed 15 January 2013].

Marketing Week, 2008, PepsiCo to scrap PJ Smoothies | In – Depth Analysis | Marketing Week, 2008 [ONLINE] Available at: www.marketingweek.co.uk/pepsico-to-scrap-pjsmoothies/2063155/article [Accessed 13 January 2013].

Marketing Week, 2008, Smoothies for the masses | News | Marketing Week [ONLINE] Available at: www.marketingweek.co.uk/smoothiesfor-the-masses/2059444.article [Accessed 12 January 2013].

Marketing Week, 2011, Innocent joins Coke as Olympic sponsor | News | Marketing Week [ONLINE] Available at: www.marketingweek.co.uk/innocent-joins-coke-as-olympocsponsor/3032450.article [Accessed 15 January 2013].

Marketing Week, 2012, Innocent bids to regain ‘entrepreneurial’ spirit of ’99 | News | Marketing Week [ONLINE] www.marketingweek.co.uk/innocent-bids-to-regain-entrepreneurialspirit/4003590.article [Accessed 15 January 2013].

Market Watch, 2008, Lehman folds with record $613 billion debt [ONLINE] Available at: www.marketwatch.com/story/lehman-folds-withrecord-613-billion-debt?siteid=rss [Accessed 20 November 2012].

Natural News, 2013, Lawsuits against Kashi and Naked Juice for falsely mislabelling “natural” products continue [ONLINE] Available at: www.naturalnews.com/038621_Kashi_Naked_Juice_misleading_labeli ng.html [Accessed 13 January 2013].

NHS, 2012, What should my daily intake of calories be? – Heath questions – NHS Choices [ONLINE] Available at: www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/1126.aspx?CategoryID=51&SubCategoryID=1 64 [Accessed 13 January 2013].

New York Times, 2007, Coca-Cola Agrees to Buy Vitaminwater - New York Times [ONLINE] Available at: www.nytimes.com/2007/05/26/business/26drinks-web.html?_r=0. [Accessed 13 January 2013].

TED Blog, 2003, The 3 Ways Good Design Makes Us Happy [ONLINE VIDEO] Available at: http://blog.ted.com/2009/03/09/don_norman_3/. [Accessed 06 February 2013].

The Guardian, 2009, Questions over ratings as Coke publishes carbon footprint | Environment | The Guardian [ONLINE] Available at: www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/09/coke-carbon-footprintinnocent-smoothie [Accessed 15 January 2013].

The Guardian, 2010, Innocent smoothie denies sell - out after Coca Cola gets majority stake | Business | guardian.co.uk [ONLINE] Available at: www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/09/coca-colainnocent-smoothie-stake [Accessed 15 January 2013].

The Guardian, 2011, Innocent smoothie maker says charity cash bottled for best interest rate [ONLINE] Available at: www.guardian.co.uk/2011/may/26/innocent-smoothies-charity-cash [Accessed 19 November 2012].

The Independent, 2006, Marketing smoothies: Milking it for all it’s worth - Media - News - The Independent [ONLINE] Available at: www.independent.co.uk/news/media/marketing-smoothies-milking-itfor-all-its-worth-410828.html [Accessed 14 January 2013].

USA Today, 2011, McDonald’s revamps stores to look more upscale – USATODAY.com [ONLINE] Available at: www.usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2011-05-06mcdonalds-revamp_n.htm [Accessed 15 January 2013].

World Heath Organization, 2012, Promoting fruit and vegetable consumption around the world [ONLINE] Available at: www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/fruit/en/index/html [Accessed 20 November 2012].

Printed Sources -

Bauman, Z. (1998), Globalization: The Human Consequences, Cambridge: Polity Press

Germain, D. (2009), A Book About Innocent: Our Story and Some Things We’ve Learned, London: Penguin Group

Harrison, Newholm & Shaw (2005), The Ethical Consumer, London: SAGE Publications Ltd

Hill, L (2006), Cool Brands: An Insight Into Some of Britain’s Coolest Brands, Rev Ed Edition, London: Superbrands Ltd.

Klein, N. (2005), No Logo, London: Harper Perennial

Lester, D. (2007), How They Started: How 30 Good Ideas Became Great Businesses, Great Britain: Crimson Publishing

McDonough, W. & Braungart, M. (2000), Cradle to Cradle, New York: North Point Press.

McNally, D. (2006), Another World is Possible: Globalization & Anti – Capitalism, Canada: Arbeiter Ring Publishing

Patel, R. (2009), The Value of Nothing, London: Portobello Books Ltd

Simmons, J. (2011), Innocent, London: Marshall Cavendish Business.

Appendices -

Director, 2011, The new age of Innocent [ONLINE] Available at: www.director.co.uk/MAGAZINE/2011/11_December/innocent_65_04.ht ml [Accessed 15 January 2013].

Marketing Magazine, 2012, McDonald’s a ‘poor fit’ for Olympics, claims survey [ONLINE] Available at: www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/news/1139195/McDonalds-poor-fitOlympics-claims-survey/ [Accessed 15 January 2013].

Rotten Tomatoes, 2012, Super Size Me – Rotten Tomatoes [ONLINE] Available at: www.rottentomatoes.com/m/super_size_me [Accessed 20 November 2012].

The Guardian, 2009, Smoothie operators Innocent tread familiar path to lucrative deal | Business | [ONLINE] Available at: www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/apr/07/innocent-smoothies-cocacola [Accessed 15 January 2013].

Sophie Wilson (2013), Innocent Drinks: A brand and consumer analysis [ONLINE] Available at: http://s-wilson1013cts.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/dissertationprimary-research.html [Accessed 14 January 13].

Innocent Drinks: A brand and consumer analysis Primary Research Questionnaire Results 1. Do you regularly drink products from the Innocent brand? Yes 22 No 25

2. How often do you drink products within the Innocent Drinks range? Daily 1 A Few Times A Week 4 Every So Often 39 Never 4

3. What do you like most about the Innocent drinks product range? 3a. I like their visual identity but I don’t drink the drinks. 3b. Flavour choice and health benefits 3c. Delicious! Refreshing! Packaging says funny little things has a nice face on, nice colours too 3d. The taste of the smoothies and the simple branding 3e. They having quite a nice design 3f. Good quality, nice packaging 3g. Simple, tell you what’s put in, funny jokes on branding, seem like a nice clean and honest brand. Also their smoothies are well made. 3h. They are so tasty. 3i. Nothing 3j. They taste great, they’re healthy and the packaging is always cute and makes me chuckle!

3k. Not a lot as they contain far too much sugar, plus it is hard to find some without orange or dairy. 3l. It’s design, taste and ideals. 3m. The natural products and the variety of the range. 3n. It is a true product but most importantly it tells me the reason why it may include an ingredient such as a natural additive they added to stop apples turning brown. 3o. The range of flavours 3p. Packaging 3q. It’s honesty and how supportive/considerate it is of the environment and using wholesome ingredients 3r. Brand seems organic and honest. 3s. Flavours and packaging design 3t. It makes you feel good 3u. Humour on the carton 3v. The range of flavours and the health benefits 3w. Taste fruity 3x. They taste fresh and healthy 3y. They taste delicious, and it’s healthy 3z. The relatable, friendly design and truthful listing of all the fruits included in the drinks and their amounts- and they make me feel healthy! 3ai. Taste 3bi. It’s pretty nice for starters 3ci. Delicious smoothies 3di. Christmas campaigns such as The Big Knit, the Olympic Smoothie, special offers in supermarkets and children’s sized products 3ei. The packaging. 3fi. They are healthy 3gi. Packaging compared to other fruit juices/smoothies 3hi. Healthy and natural 3fi. Taste nice 3ji. The texture, it tastes all pulpy and real 3ki. I prefer drinking innocent drinks to guilty drinks, guilty drinks are bad and nobody should drink them.

3li. Taste, the 5 a day, the friendly rather than business-like packaging 3mi. The taste 3ni. I haven’t a clue who “innocent” are 3oi. Taste, flavour and use of fresh produce 3pi. The texture of the drinks and delightful and surprising blend of juices. 3qi. Taste 3ri. Taste, aesthetic and price. 3si. It is more refreshing and a better (sweeter juice) taste than other smoothie brands. Also has lovely packaging and adverts, and inventive ideas (woolly hats on the lids). 3ti. It’s packed full of good things. 3ui. Flavour. Portions of fruit and veg.

4. Are there any factors specific to the Innocent brand that particularly appeal to you, or have persuaded you to make a purchase? 4a. It seems like a clean brand who knows who they are. 4b. Honest, innovative company… bunny rabbit advert 4c. Very healthy and very tasty 4d. The quality of the drink within the bottle 4e. No, I tend not to buy them as much now due to the amount of sugar content in them 4f. Packaging, Tone of voice 4g. I guess they’re the only main highstreet brand for smoothies on the market now and I like smoothies. I must admit though, their simple branding and colours also drag me to them (say if there’s a Sainsbury;s one there considering what I have in my purse I’ll go for Innocent) 4h. Fun and well designed packaging. 4i. Nope 4j. I suppose the packaging and things such as the knitted hats they use on the lids in winter draws me to them over any other smoothies or

juices. I also like that they clearly say on them how much fruit you’re getting from one drink, so it makes you feel healthy! 4k. They tend to use natural products 4l. It’s graphic appeal and fun/humours take on something seen regularly within todays health conscious society. 4m. The health benefits. Lack of sugar and additives especially. 4n. I looked at hienz baby apple juice, concentrate apple juice with water where as innocent was genuine apple juice and after phoning Innocent I knew I was buying a better product with Innocent as I use a little bit in one of my little ones meals. 4o. The fact that it’s fruit and nothing else. 4p. Feels like you are being healthy! 4q. Health factors, and colourfulness! 4r. Packaging & woolly hats 4s. Clever marketing and sense of humour 4t. My first purchase was persuaded by the branding/packaging 4u. Little woolly hats on bottles! Clean designs, feelings of trust, house brand 4v. Tastes nicer than the cheaper brands, can taste the fruits better 4w. I like that they advertise it to mainly be healthy and with plenty of fruit in each carton/bottle. Also, I liked that the Christmas bottles had little knitted hats on! 4x. The packaging is pretty, they use lots of fresh fruit in their ads and on the box 4y. They’re clear about what goes into them in an easily understandable way, unlike supermarket-own smoothies that are full of sugar. 4z. Good marketing, idealistic about health, which is good. 4ai. Has the appearance of an ethical company 4bi. No 4ci. See as above 4di. Bought because I’d never tried the brand before. 4ei. Not really I can make my own smoothies at home which is far cheaper.

4fi. Packaging and the ‘happy lifestyle’ that is conveyed. Fun and quirky compared to other companies. 4gi. As above 4hi. Healthy 4fi. The ingredients and how it clearly says simply some fruit were blended together and exactly how many. No chemicals and E numbers 4ji. I like the way that they put lots of fruits in there drinks cos of the thought of eating like a full apple in just one mouthful of the fruity broth. I like it. 4ki. What? Because it tastes good 4li. Probably the advertising 4mi. If I knew who they were, then I would tell you 4ni. I know the taste is excellent 4oi. The quality of the product and how ethically aware the company is 4pi. None 4qi. The companies approach to marketing and social awareness 4ri. As mentioned in the question above, very clever branding. 4si. Nice choice of flavour combinations, one to suit everyone. 4ti. 4ui. No

5. What is your opinion of Innocent as an ethical and sustainable company? Do you feel they represent these claims truthfully, or not, and why? 5a. Haven’t really thought about it. But I guess that I think of them as a sustainable company. 5b. I believe the company has good, but profitable intentions (not a problem, though.) Sustainable… yes, however the cost of the drink is higher than that of its competitors. 5c. I just trust that they would be ethical and sustainable, to me it is implied by the nature of the product, of healthy things like that, they put in a bit more effort so I assume are ethical and sustainable.

5d. I don’t know much about them really to be able to answer this question properly, sorry! 5e. No I feel that they lie about how healthy they are so I don’t believe they are ethical or sustainable either 5f. I trust them as a company 5g. I do yeah. As I said before I guess it’s how clean they look- ‘neat’ in some respects (not sure if this makes sense). They seem like a friendly, respectable company 5h. Not really sure as I haven’t really checked them out- but then I haven’t heard any really bad news about them either. 5i. No 5j. I think they do represent these claims truthfully as they have set up their own humanitarian and nature projects in which they donate money too, but it does not appear to be a factor in which to draw custom as they do not draw attention to their charitable efforts on the bottles. They're hot on recycling too, which is great. 5k. It is neither ethical nor sustainable. They do not source their ingredients well and do not pay a proper wage to their farmers. 5l. Yes I believe they're an ethical and sustainable company. 5m. No, I do not believe so. The impression they give us that all of the fruit they use is Rainforest Alliance certified however this is not the case. I feel they should make this more clear to consumers. 5n. I do believe it is one of the very few genuine companies out there right now 5o. I am not sure 5p. Always cynical when a company uses such a large corporation about if they truly know themselves if they are sustainable, just due to the scale if their operations etc. 5q. I think they're truthful and ethical, at least much more than the majority of large brands and companies. 5r. Yes, well they appear to anyway 5s. I’ve never read or heard of anything to suggest otherwise 5t. Yes I believe they do.

5u. Feels quite innocent and part of the brand- cartons often depicted amongst countryside. 5v. I've not looked into them a great deal, but they seem like nice people, so yeah, why not. 5w. I don't know I hope so 5x. I believe it's truthful, as the packaging can be recycled and their isn't any nasty ingredients in there. 5y. Sustainable, yes, not sure about ethical 5z. They don't make any false claims- they know that they have a lot to work towards to make themselves a truly eco-friendly company and are trying their best. 5ai. I think it's a very ethical company. As for sustainable I have no idea. 5bi. They seem to be, even taking into account clever marketing 5ci. They seem pretty cool 5di. I feel in part that they represent their claims truthfully, as they began at Glastonbury festival in 1999 and grew from there as an entrepreneurial enterprise. However - in addition, their representation by Coca Cola defeats the object that 58% of their shares went to a company that promotes war and capitalism. While it is not effective that one boycotts all Coca Cola products, Innocent smoothies do remain a staple in our economy for their target market. 5ei. They seem to be an ethical company on the surface. 5fi. No idea? 5gi. Claims of having a positive impact are true - although Coca Cola involvement makes me skeptical as they are such a large dominant company within the drinks industry. 5hi. As above 5fi. Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know 5ji. I don't really have the knowledge on this side of them to form an opinion 5ki. Innocent have to be well good at ethics n shit cos they call

51 Â

themselves Innocent, so if they were being mean to the Farmers they would be lying and lying is wrong. 5li. Define ethical... to whom? And Define sustainable: environmental? Social? Economic? You'd expect a drinks company used in supermarkets to be ethical. Is the carton recyclable to be used as another carton? Or is it just down-cycled into a lesser product? How are their products transported? And how long for? How local are the ingredients they use in their drinks? And how are they harvested? Their adverts are of flowery meadows, trees, Springtime... so they are seen to promote a low ecological footprint and ethical mindset. But i don't know how much they actually are. 5mi. Don't have one, sorry. 5ni. See q 3 & 4 5oi. Their packaging is convincing, and from what I have seen of them as a brand they are true to their word 5pi. Yes, I believe they represent the claims truthfully, because I have seen a documentary on the company. 5qi. Yes 5ri. Yes, I do. As a member of the general public I agree with what they stand for and have no reason to believe otherwise. 5si. I feel that they are true to their claims, of being a sustainable brand using local produce (food miles) and recyclable packaging 5ti. N/A 5ui. Partially. I hear they give some profits to charity and winter woolly hats campaign.

6. What changes would you like the Innocent company to make in regards to their products? 6a. Maybe more vegetables in their juices? 6b. Cheaper, more novelty advertisements (knitted hats) 6c. A bit cheaper would be nice but nothing other than that Â

52 Â

6d. Maybe make them a little cheaper and Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d definitely purchase them more often. 6e. A rebrand to show their improvements 6f. I can't afford them- if they could make them cheaper! 6g. As a student, they are very pricey so I don't know maybe cut the price a bit. 6h. Less sugar if at all possible. 6i. All 6j. Nothing comes to mind! 6k. Actually represent themselves properly. 6l. Nothing comes to mind. 6m. I would like to see more exotic fruits available as both smoothies and juices. I would also like to see more locally produced British fruits, such as Strawberries and Pears. 6n. I wish I had something to suggest right now but I am afraid everything is perfect for me. 6o. They could be a bit cheaper. 6p. No opinion 6q. Maybe more food products? 6r. Price 6s. Still a bit pricey, more range of flavors 6t. None 6u. Limited edition versions, perhaps exploring health qualities. 6v. I'd like to see a range of soups, something in a carton that you can pour into a pan and heat up, knowing that there's all the healthy vitamins and minerals in there your body needs as well as being ethically responsible 6w. Maybe a little cheaper, but I have no serious complaints 6x. A bit cheaper! 6y. Could do yoghurts? 6z. Try and make them a bit more student-friendly cost-wise! 6ai. Price. Seriously, if it's just fruit ingredients, then it can't be that Â

53 Â

expensive. 6bi. Be careful of sugar content, even if it's naturally occurring sugars in the fruit 6ci. Chocolate 6di. None 6ei. Make the products cheaper 6fi. Price drop 6gi. None! 6hi. None 6fi. Cheaper 6ji. Some new flavours! Cheaper please 6ki. I would like to see them bring out a cereal range. 6li. Cheaper 6mi. To bring out a new range of flavours would be nice.

6ni. See q 3 & 4 6oi. Price! Only buy them when they're on offer 6pi. The possible introduction of a basics range, at a lower price point also the introduction into the yoghurt market, with unique flavoured yoghurts. 6qi. Make their products more affordable 6ri. To expand their range of flavours in to more outlets. Limited selection at most stores. 6si. A wider variety like the ones in their recipe books, cheaper prices 6ti. Slightly cheaper products to make them accessible to a wider market 6ui. Wider range

54 Â

7. What changes would you like the Innocent company to make in regards to their brand personality and ethics?

7a. Hard question.. I don't know. 7b. To get involved more with health organisations, encourage a good diet, and less obese population. Get involved more! 7c. No changes please, i enjoy their brand personality, it seems very jolly 7d. Maybe refresh the branding every so often, not a massive change but it seems to have been the same for ages. 7e. Their ethos chanting about healthiness 7f. None 7g. I don't know that much about them but maybe they could get some projects going for sustainability or... hmm... I like their branding a lot so this question is difficult 7h. Keep going as they are as they seem to be doing a good job. 7i. All 7j. They could perhaps draw more attention to their charitable efforts as this may educate others and inspire them to make a difference too, but there's only so much you can fit on a little bottle! 7k. Tell the truth 7l. Nothing I can think of. 7m. I would like to see them use Fair Trade products when Rainforest Alliance certified products are not available, and vice versa. 7n. The only thing I could suggest is to look at other marketing ideas even as simple as a rep in a supermarket for a day or town center with free samples as so many people are too busy these days to see a TV advert. 7o. More emphasis on their ethics 7p. No opinion 7q. None, I love 'em!

55 Â

7r. None 7s. None 7t. None 7u. Perhaps more of an adult awareness- products that are limited edition with a sense of a luxury drink- that could be added to alcohol?! 7v. Nothing that I can think of 7w. Maybe make more of a point about it 7x. I like what they're doing already 7y. None 7z. Do something a bit bigger to raise brand awareness- its a shame that many people don't realise how much work they do. 7ai. None, it's good. 7bi. Leave it, it's a pretty strong niche 7ci. None 7di. None 7ei. None 7fi. ? 7gi. Nothing - I love it! 7hi. None 7fi. None 7ji. I think the current branding is pretty good 7ki. Do a meat range of innocent smoothies, with a various choice of condiment sauces, for example; brown sauce, cranberry sauce, apple sauce, mustard, mint sauce… the list going on and on. 7li. I don't know anything about their ethical stance. Their brand personality doesn't need any work doing, it's simple, 7mi. None. 7ni. See q 3 & 4 7oi. None 7pi. None 7qi. None

7ri. None 7si. Maybe experiment more with the bottle shape, like the quirkiness of the rest of their packaging. 7ti. N/A 7ui. None

8. Which brands do you feel most rival Innocent drinks in the current health drinks market? 8a. Don't know, I'm from Denmark, so we have other brands here that compete but I'm not sure if they are in GB also. 8b. Supermarket own brands 8c. 'Naked' smoothies Supermarket own brand smoothies which are loads cheaper and have the same stuff in really but just have shitter packaging 8d. Rubicon, possibly? They seem quite popular due to their memorable advertising campaign. 8e. I would probably opt for the Boots own make or Shapers range over Innocent 8f. Can't think of any 8g. Vitamin Water I suppose? Not that they're healthy. I can't think of many others in all honesty 8h. Maybe Glorious in the soups/savoury market. 8i. None 8j. Naked juice, Tropicana, Vitamin water. 8k. Vitamin Water 8l. Supermarket own brands, due to cheaper costs. 8m. Naked. What they lack in variety, compared with Innocent, they make up for in taste and health benefits. They tend to contain fruits with added health benefits such as anti-oxidants. 8n. Copella juice. I say this as it use to be the brand I purchased but

57 Â

you offer a far greater selection so hence the switch. 8o. Not sure what other brands there are apart from supermarket's own makes 8p. Own branded smoothies because of price and smoothies made whilst you wait due to freshness 8q. Feel Good Juices, and perhaps cheaper supermarket own-brand smoothies 8r. Probably Vitamin Water is closest 8s. Supermarket brands 8t. Naked smoothies. 8u. Copella juices Naked juiced (From Boots- have a lot of veg juices in their fruit juice drinks, sense of healthy living associated) 8v. Aside from water? None. 8w. Well supermarket juices and smoothies as they are more affordable 8x. Perhaps other health drinks such as Yakult or Activia. A more direct competitor could be smoothie companies such as Naked. 8y. None 8z. Vitamin Water is quite a big rival, especially with health experts speculating about the true nutritional value of smoothies as a healthy drink. People assume because it's 'water' it will be healthier, which is not necessarily the case. 8ai. Tropicana, though with the price of both of the brands, I think the biggest competitor is store own juice products. 8bi. Umm can't think of any off the top of my head...they must be doing something right 8ci. Tropicana? 8di. Vitamin Water - also sponsored by Coca Cola Red Bull Purdeys 8ei. None 8fi. I’ve not really heard of any others, but I'm not a big health drink person 8gi. Tropicana

8hi. Red Bull, maybe Lucozade 8fi. Tropicana 8ji. Feel Good? 8ki. Colgate 8li. Tropicana & Supermarket own brand alternatives 8mi. Don’t know. 8ni. See q 3 & 4 8oi. Supermarket own brands 8pi. Tropicana 8qi. Supermarket brands 8ri. Firefly tonics. 8si. Feel Good Drinks 8ti. Supermarket own brand smoothies 8ui. Vitamin Water. Other veg pot brands, etc.

9. Which other health drinks do you most enjoy in the UK & Global health drinks market? 9a. Do not live in the GB 9b. Tropicana 9c. NAKED - you can have it on the Boots meal deal and I choose that over Innocent because its a bit more tasty and you get more ml of juice and it has crazy ingredients. 9d. Just general fresh juice drinks, not necessarily a particular brand to be honest. 9e. Rubicon 9f. I sometimes buy M&S or ASDA’s own brand - like extra special range 9g. Sometimes Vitamin Water if it's on offer but I really can't think of any others 9h. Corporation pop… otherwise known as water! 9i. None 9j. Vitamin water. 9k. Water 9l. I make my own otherwise so none. 9m. As mentioned before, "Naked". Also, whilst not exactly like the

Innocent or Naked products, the "Neuro" range of natural drinks are very enjoyable. 9n. To be honest just Innocent right now 9o. Supermarket makes 9p. Just pure fruit juices, which I’m not sure are classed as "health" drinks 9q. Feel Good Juices 9r. Vitamin water. 9s. None 9t. Naked Smoothies 9u. Appletiser and fizzy juice drinks 9v. None, although the herbal tea range 'Heath and Heather' found in Holland & Barretts are closing the market, although those are herbal teas and not juices. 9w. Mainly ASDA's juice but I prefer Innocent's smoothies 9x. Naked smoothies 9y. Supermarket fruit juice 9z. I sometimes buy Vitamin Water, and also buy own-brand smoothies by Boots and Marks & Spencer every so often. 9ai. Tropicana. 9bi. Don't really, 90% are a bit of a con 9ci. Diet Coke! Not exactly healthy 9di. Regrettably - vitamin water. However - I do drink Purdeys. 9ei. None 9fi. The above again 9gi. Vitamin Water 9hi. Red Bull 9fi. Tropicana 9ji. Innocents probably the only fruit juice brand I drink. Apart from that I usually get supermarket own brand smoothies as its nearly as good 9ki. Lucozade orange 9li. 9mi. I usually drink water. That’s healthy, right! 9ni. Water 9oi. Diet Coke 9pi. Carling, Fosters, OJ… is Yop healthy? Water is the healthiest drink. Tropicana's nice 9qi. Supermarket brands as taste the same but cheaper 9ri. Tropicana and supermarket own juice and health drinks 9si. Firefly tonics. 9ti. N/A

9ui. for goodness shakes protein shakes vitamin water

61 Â

Consent to the Use of Data I understand that Sophie Wilson (name of researcher) is collecting data in the form of interview (type of data, e.g. taped interviews, completed questionnaires) for use in an academic research project at Leeds College of Art. I give my consent to the use of data for this purpose on the understanding that: The material will be retained in secure storage for use in future academic research and that the material may be used in future publications, both print and online.

Signed by the contributor: Date: 15 - 01 -13 *Drafted with reference to the procedures of the University of Glasgow

Attached document/information with further information for participants explaining the aims, scope, and method of the research.

62 Â