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 habit-related 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, user-friendly 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.