LIVING LONGER, MUCH LONGER

Some charts are just brilliant. They say so much. Here’s another one I saw last week. It shows how our life expectancy has grown in the last century, compared with the previous two thousand years. In terms of social change, it’s hard to convey more with just one line.

Click on the graph to enlarge

GLOBAL DOWNTURN

They say a picture paints a thousand words. Sometimes charts do too. Look at this one from The Economist ten days ago. Consistent global economic growth at 4% for years, then suddenly …

I wonder how quickly we’ll be back to 4% growth and what shape this graph will look like in two years’ time.

DRINKING BY NUMBERS

We’ve had Coke Zero, One Cal and G2. Now Vitaminwater 10 and Trop 50. But do consumers really want to drink by numbers ?

Well, they still have to be satisfied by image and taste as well as price and convenience. But calories have been the most important single barrier to consumer preference in the history of soft drinks. Hence diet and light, aspartame and sucralose. Some diet variants even outsell their regular forebears.

The trouble with numbers is that they’re not personal in a world where consumers wish to be treated as individuals. By emphasizing the benefits of the lighter version, they draw attention to the drawbacks of a heavier heritage.

Yet numbers are at least specific. They answer a particular concern. They give permission. What you see is what you get.

Some will work and some won’t. But life will undoubtedly become more complicated, because calories are not the only feature that counts. There’s been Diet Coke Plus which consumers gave a minus. Omega-3 has not always added up. And 6 Hour Power has a seven hour rival. Will we see a caffeine 230 or a calcium 500 ?

I think I prefer 100% natural, but even that’s under threat.

CARBON FOOTPRINT OF MILK

Following in the footsteps of UK figures for soft drinks from Coca-Cola (bevblog, 1 April 2009), we now have new insights on milk from New Zealand’s Fonterra.

One litre of Fonterra milk is reported to have a carbon footprint of 940 grams. 85% is generated on the farm, 10% in processing and manufacturing, then the final 5% in distribution. 59% is methane, 24% nitrous oxide and 17% carbon dioxide.

Apparently UK produced milk has 34% higher emissions because British farmers rely more heavily on concentrated feed.

One day we’ll be comparing carbon footprints on pack like calories.