It’s always bizarre to me when financial analysts act gobsmacked when a faddish commodity experiences a sharp correction. Regardless of one’s opinion about flavored seltzer water, it was pretty clear that its white hot trendiness would eventually experience some form of reversion to the mean.
For every one of these darlings which does manage to cause a permanent paradigm shift, there are countless also-rans where the best case scenario is “gaining enough market share to become an attractive meal for a bigger fish. For most, though, there’s simply insolvency, followed by an afterlife as an era-evoking reference in light comedy routines.
You’d think that “the public is fickle as fuck” would be automatically factored into any rational assessment of hype-driven consumer goods, but the same class of prognosticators continues to get shocked over events that were clearly apparent from the onset of the buzz. The problem with a speculative economy is that it habitually rejects sober evaluation out of fear of panic-driven over-correction. Neither the manufacturer or the consumer wants to hear that Beanie Baby sales have plateaued and the kids have moved on to some other disposable wonder.
The shit seems pretty obvious to me, but maybe my geek background has helped hep me to the jive. Check out enough toy clearance aisles or fish enough of the previous decade’s funnybook darlings — still sporting $15 pricetags on the mylar — from quarter bins, and you start to realize that all glitters will return you pennies on the dollar if you’re lucky.
The article attached to that snippet above cites a “beverage analyst” cites the company’s “lack of meaningful or disruptive innovation.”
In the field of underflavored canned fizzy water. Really.
Also, how does one get a job as a “beverage analyst?” Because it sounds like a pretty swanky gig and doesn’t seem to require that much brainpower.