I just got around to publishing this on Fever-Tree.
http://brucepackard.com/my-fever-tree-story/
The success seems so obvious retrospect.
But the broader point is that the way economists think about "barriers to entry" is wrong. What are the barriers to entry in films? or in forming a band? In economic theory, it should not be possible for anyone in an industry which has no barriers to to make excess returns.
But we know that the most successful films (Titanic, Star Wars) enjoy success way above the average. And the most successful bands like the Rolling Stones have persistent success over the decades, despite the fact that an economist would say the "barriers to entry" / moats are non existent. Anyone can start a band.
So I think the economics of consumer brands are more like this...Let me know your thoughts.
I think Michael Porter would frame this in terms of the two generic strategies available: cost leadership (having the lowest costs) vs. product differentiation (offering a product/service with unique perceived attributes).
The film & music industries are typified by the latter. The Rolling Stones product was perceived as superior to that of Hermans Hermits. 'Titanic' was perceived to be a superior product to 'Waterworld'.
The next few years will be make or break for Fevertree as regards whether it can become embedded in human minds as the 'gold-standard' tonic brand, in the same way that Coke is regarded as the 'gold-standard' cola.
