LifeStraw

by Marco Tirelli

Exactly ten years ago, in 2005, a great

innovation
was
introduced
in
the
marketplace of many Less Developed
Countries, aiming at a quite ambitious goal:
to provide access to safe drinking water by
converting microbiologically contaminated
water into safe drinking water. In spite of
the seriousness and complexity of the
problem, however, the solution provided by
this new product was indeed stunningly
simple: as its brand suggested, LifeStraw
was basically a light plastic straw allowing
users to extract clean water from dirty sources by simply sipping through it. The
function was extremely intuitive, so that even the children could use it without
having to learn any written manuals or complicated set of instructions. This was
clearly a particularly crucial advantage, considering the dramatic illiteracy rate in
the poorest countries. It also dodged the cultural translation problem that many
innovations have to face when introduced in many different foreign markets: being
a simple, neutral tool, it could avoid problems related to cultural and religious taboo
or gender discriminations.
In other words, LifeStraw is an emblematic example of how an innovation does
not need to be sophisticated in order to be successful. On the contrary, many
times the opposite is true, since the technological simplicity also implies two crucial
elements of success: user-friendliness and affordable prices.
The most famous version of LifeStraw has actually been inspired by
a previous prototype launched in 1996 to address a specific
problem: LifeStraw Guinea Worm, designed to prevent the
contraction of this particular disease. The 2005 model, however, has
significantly improved the original product concept as well as to
greatly extend the range of the markets served:
Its simple structure is essentially composed by a plastic
body with a micro-filter preventing 99,9% of bacteria,
protozoa and microorganisms from passing through, due to
the 0,2 microns diameter of the fiber membranes pores. As a
result, it allows people to drink water directly from the
sources, such as rivers or ponds, without basically any risks of
contracting dangerous diseases. From the Guinea Worm, in
fact, the protective capability has been extended against a
vast range of bacteria such as Salmonella, E.coli and many
others.
Moreover, the product is designed to be extremely durable, being able to
filter up to 1.000 liters of water before requiring substitution. In addition,
except for this limit, it can be stored without an expiration date.
Other remarkable features are the very light weight (56 grams, due to the
use of plastic instead of steel), the moderate dimensions (around 22
centimeters of length), allowing transportation even across long distances, as
well as the absence of purifier chemicals (the filter membrane guarantees a
natural protective system).

Thus, it is clear how this product has represented a relevant innovation for
humanitarian and social development programs. It has also been praised as
an ecologically oriented initiative, having discouraged the previously frequent
practice of cutting and burning wood in order to boil and disinfect water in rural
villages. Moreover, it has proven to be particularly useful during natural disaster
and calamities, such as floods and earthquakes. Consequently, it is not surprising
that the product has been repeatedly awarded and celebrated by many eminent
and renowned institutions and opinion-leaders. The same year of its launch, for
instance, the Time magazine celebrated it as Best Innovation of 2005.
At the same time, Vestergaard Frandsen (the company who developed it) has
realized a strategic development of both the product portfolio and the
users market over the years. The entire history of the company is based on the
evolution and development of its core capabilities. Founded in 1957 as a textile
company producing uniforms for workmen, it has continuously developed and
extended its capabilities over time by increasing the range of activities and market
treated: in 1986, for instance, it converted clothes into blankets for humanitarian
organizations such as Red Cross and Save the Children; in the 90s it started
producing traps, nets and sheets against mosquitos, flies and other infective insects
in many poor countries. In short, the incremental improvement of some core
technical capabilities (in the textile industry) has finally led to the development
and application of an entirely new product such as the original LifeStraw (based on
a membrane filter) and its product extensions.
In fact, several new products have been introduced over the years, extending both
the product line and the users range.
In 2008 LifeStraw Family, a larger but still
transportable water purifier, was introduced. This
product represented a shift from the individual
usage to the simultaneous consumption of an
entire family. Besides the increased number of
users, this product also introduced an important
novelty: it allowed to transport and store a water
reserve at home, a particularly relevant aspect for
villages without direct access to clean water sources. As the original
LifeStraw, it was based on the similar simple technology, but with an even
stricter and more durable filter of 0,02 microns capable of cleaning up to
18.000 liters (of even cleaner water). A backwash pump-mechanism was also
added to expel the contaminated water after usage.
In 2012 the family-line was extended with the
new LifeStraw Family 2.0 version, which
increased the volume and the cleaning capacity
to 30.000 liters. In addition, the design of the
bigger tank improved the usage efficiency and
comfort, since this product could be simply
placed on a table without having to assemble
rudimental structures to hang the product such
as in the previous version.
In the same year, another collectively usable model has been launched:
LifeStraw Community, conceived to extend the simultaneous consumption
from the family to entire social communities such as schools, health facilities,
organizations or villages. The water cleaning capacity was further extended to

reach 70.000 100.000 liters, with a further modification of the design, but
always based on the same simple technology.
With this enhanced capacity, it could serve up to
100 people per day for several years.
However, what made market and customer
extension particularly evident was the launch of
LifeStraw Go in 2013. This was certainly not a
radical innovation from a strict product
perspective: the new model simply framed the
original straw into a light plastic bottle. What is
changed, though, was the range of suitable
market segments and the communication
strategy. In fact, contrary to previous versions more tailored for developing
countries, this new product was conceived and marketed to address the needs
of the Western customers: hikers, backpackers and camping tourists were the
main targets for a product that could be refilled and easily transported during
tours and field trips.

In conclusion, all these models show how Vestergaard has been able to translate its
core capabilities into a huge marketing success: starting from the breakthrough
of the first LifeStraw, it has followed an incremental innovation process by
increasingly extending the original product concept around its key features:
highly effective but simple technology (versatile use)
user-friendliness and intuitive usage (very flat learning curve)
strong physical features (lightweight, adaptability in different settings)
reliable and positive brand image (leadership in the market)
affordable prices
relevance of both the problem and the solution (clean water is a continuous,
primary necessity)
Threats (and Opportunities) for future expansion
In spite of the clear and evident strengths of such a product, even LifeStraw has not
been exempt from criticisms. Besides the praises and the applauses, many
controversial and critical voices have risen too. These issues reflect and suggest
some marketing and strategic issues LifeStraw should deal with, in order to improve
both its market share and its product characteristics even further in the future
years.
First of all, despite the legal protection provided by the patent and IPR, many
imitators and possible substitutes have emerged over the years with similar
technologies. Between the several brands available nowadays in the market, for
instance, there are Lifesaver and Sawyer, both providing filtering solutions with
enhanced performance but at higher prices. Objectively, these rivals are probably
too much expensive to be competitively marketed in developing countries, where
LifeStraws brand image is already well established. Nevertheless, they still can
erode LifeStraw Gos market share in the Western World, where price is a far lower
problem for customers and monetary ratios (such as price for liter and long-term
costs) are much more taken into consideration. These similar products are also
readily available on many e-commerce platforms (sometimes with discounts) such
as Amazon, which has clearly increased the competition even more. In addition,

hikers and professional excursionists may even appreciate more the technological
content of a higher priced but more sophisticated solution for their needs.
For example, some observers and influential users highlight in their specialized
blogs the difference in terms of performance between LifeStraw Go and its
competitors, which have a stricter membrane filtering until 0,015 microns
preventing any possible kind of contraction, included viruses that could still pass
through a 0,2 filter. In other words, LifeStraw Go was conceived to bring a
substantial benefit in the Third World for a cheap price, but it would not be suitable
for a perfectly safe use by the more affluent Western customers, who should
integrate it with iodine tablets in order to avoid possible diseases and intoxications
(caused by virus smaller than 0,2 microns).
Another criticism against LifeStraw is that (unlike some competitors) it cannot filter
harmful minerals and chemical substances, so that it should be used only in
emergency situations or with sufficiently trustworthy sources of water. For instance,
it could not be used with salt (seaside) or waters contaminated by industrial wastes.
These are product characteristics that, if the market demand sustained the
investment, could lead to the development and commercialization of a specific
(more expensive but also more reliable) model for Western customers.
Others point out that LifeStraw cannot really extend its market share into the
Western World because of fundamental problems of customers acceptance,
tolerance and perception. In fact, there are both psychological as well as habitrelated constraints that hinder the marketability of this product in the Western
culture. For example, according to many forums and blogs on the Internet, potential
users consider the product too uncomfortable even for hiking or camping: they
would simply not like the idea of kneeling or lying down in the soil, maybe in the
mud, to sip water with a 22 cm straw. Others cannot psychologically accept the idea
of drinking from a dirty or contaminated source, despite the efficacy and the safety
proofs shown in many occasions with the strictest filters commercially available
nowadays. The reason is a simple, unavoidable psychological disgust towards the
idea in itself.
This actually represents a serious boundary for any further expansions of this kind
of product into the Western countries. In other words, there seems to be a
physiological limit for its adoption in our marketplace, except for the niche
segments (hikers) and the emergency situations (natural calamities such as the
Hurricane Katrina). This acceptabilitys barrier also implies many issues in terms of
marketing communication strategy, which should adapt the product concept to
Western needs, in order to facilitate its acceptability level for potential users, as
well as suggesting new usage occasions through advertising initiatives. For
example, LifeStraw Go could represent a very cost-saving solution for tourists and
frequent travellers, who could collect and drink water from different sources in
public spaces: these could be the fountains of a very touristic and expensive city
such as Venice, Rome or Paris, as well as the exotic destinations for Western
tourists; another practical use could be in places like airports, where water cannot
be brought in from outside and must be bought from local retailers at quite high
prices.
Other potential customers complain about the physical characteristics of the
product in itself. Beside LifeStraws lower level of filtering compared to other
brands, a commonly cited inconvenience is the necessity of constantly refilling the
bottle, because of the reduction in volume capacity due to the presence of the

plastic straw inside. Similarly, others point out that it is not a feasible solution for
runners, because of the inconvenience of bringing a bottle bouncing around while
running. Maybe a portable bag version of the product, instead of the rigid bottle,
could at least partially address this issue.
Another problem regarding the Western marketability of LifeStraw is the
frequency of its use. While in the Third World it represents a vital necessity for
everyday water consumption, the use is obviously much more rarefied in affluent
countries. This aspect greatly limits LifeStraws possibilities of expansion in terms of
both market share (overall volume) and future sales (due to the prolonged life of the
product and the consequent slower substitution with a new one). LifeStraws critics
claim that for many Western customers it can only represent a gadget such as the
items sold at Brookstone for curious or bored tourists and travellers.
To sum up, whether there is a market for LifeStraw in the advanced countries is a
still controversial topic. The product is readily available on many e-commerce
platforms and is sold through exclusive distributors (such as WaterNlife for
Europe and Eartheasy for North American). Certainly, though, the vast majority of
customers for LifeStraw are NGOs, charities and other international and social
development organizations active in the Third World. However, many problems
directly concern the use of this product also in the main marketplace of the poor
countries:
According to some observers, LifeStraw products are still too expensive for
many rural settings and organizations in poor countries, limiting its further
expansion in terms of overall volumes. However, this problem could be
addressed by loan schemes and micro-credit programs for bulk purchases,
maybe in collaboration with NGOs. More importantly, there are several social
and humanitarian programs (such as the Carbon Credits and Follow the
Liters), by which LifeStraw can be donated in the poorest countries through
charity schemes. In particular, these initiatives represent one of the most
important opportunities to stimulate the products penetration in the Less
Developed Countries and, at the same time, to sensitize audience (and also
potential customers, increasing the brand awareness) in the advanced
economies.
A specific problem concerns the products expiration, especially for the
poorest settings with high levels of illiteracy. In theory, it could be difficult to
assess when the product is really expired, since there are no clear signals. As
a result, it could be overused well after the safe limit indicated by the
manufacturer, with clear potential dangers. In a similar way, the elimination of
the expired plastic product represents a potentially serious polluting
threat where recycling facilities are not available. A specific initiative aimed
at tackling this problem, maybe in collaboration with recycling-specialized
NGOs, could represent a viable way to encourage the products substitution
and to deal effectively with the plastic wastes problem.
Finally, in case of misuse with the straw or the filter mechanism, perhaps
with the potential poisoning of an entire community, a significant damage in
terms of human costs and brand image could follow. This aspect must be
carefully kept under control in order to avoid potential tragedies, scandals and
calamities (that could also have consequences in the Western countries). In
other words, it is not always a matter of increasing market share, but also to
avoid its potentially dramatic contraction.

In conclusion, LifeStraw represent a very interesting case-study about innovation for

many different reasons. Between these, as previously said, there is the evidence
that successful innovation often consists in finding a simple, practical, userfriendly solution for a complex, relevant and serious problem. LifeStraw is also the
example of an incremental innovation strategy that, by integrating the interaction
between R&D activities and field experience, has been able to exploit some core
capabilities in order to develop new product lines and market segments. Moreover,
the controversial discussions about this product make it even more interesting from
a marketing perspective, besides suggesting further product and market
developments in the future.