Hey, I’m Isaac 👋 I founded Pistachio, a growth agency working with B2B brands like Atono and Clay to build trust, relationships and loyalty with their current and future customers.
If you want to chat about your own growth strategy, book a free call with me here.
Interested in sponsoring these emails? See our partnership options here.
Stanley’s $680m trade-off
A construction worker's wife left a comment on a YouTube video about Stanley bottles. Her husband has carried a Stanley cup to work sites for years, she wrote. Now he's embarrassed to leave the house with it.
The cup still works perfectly. Still keeps his coffee hot through long shifts. Still survives the drops and dents that come with construction work.
But the meaning had changed. Stanley wasn't his brand anymore. It belonged to someone else now.
That transformation, from blue-collar essential to lifestyle status symbol, represents one of the most financially successful brand reinventions in recent memory. Stanley grew from $70 million in revenue in 2019 to $750 million in 2023. More than 10x growth in four years.
But every revolution has casualties. Stanley's explosive success came at a cost that other brands should pay attention to before attempting their own reinvention.
Heritage foundation
Stanley launched in 1913. For 113 years, they built a reputation on the simple promise of products that last a lifetime.
The iconic green hammer-tone finish became synonymous with durability. Construction workers passed down Stanley thermoses to their kids. Outdoorsmen relied on them in extreme conditions. The brand meant something beyond the product itself. Craftsmanship, reliability, the kind of quality you could stake your livelihood on.
Stanley embodied the "buy it for life" philosophy before it had a trendy name. They were meant for people who needed tools that worked, day after day, job after job.
The OG Stanley thermos
An accidental discovery
By 2019, that heritage had become a problem. Revenue sat at $70 million and declining. Their market wasn't growing. Construction workers and outdoorsmen weren't suddenly buying more thermoses.
So Stanley faced a choice. Stay authentic to their blue-collar roots and slowly shrink, or reinvent everything and risk alienating the customers who'd kept them alive for over a century.
Heritage abandonment is a high-stakes gamble. Jaguar's controversial rebrand shows what happens when the execution falters. They're attempting complete reinvention, but their direction feels abstract and confused. The rebrand alienates their existing customers without creating clarity about who they're for now.
We all remember this one…
Stanley would need to get this right. The initial discovery wasn't carefully planned. It started with three women from The Buy Guide who noticed Stanley's discontinued Quencher tumbler at a trade show in 2017. They saw something Stanley's leadership hadn't. The product could work for lifestyle consumers, not just outdoor enthusiasts.
They convinced Stanley to produce 5,000 Quenchers in pastel colours instead of utilitarian green. Those tumblers sold out in five days.
That early success caught attention, but it took the right person to recognise what it meant. When Terence Reilly joined Stanley as president in 2020, he saw the opportunity clearly. They’d been "fishing in the wrong pond" as he put it. They had the right product for the wrong audience.
Reilly knew what he was talking about. As former CMO at Crocs, he'd already orchestrated one brand transformation. He'd taken another functional, unfashionable product and turned it into a cultural sensation through viral marketing and celebrity collaborations.
What started as an accidental discovery became a deliberate transformation strategy. Reilly took that early signal from The Buy Guide and scaled it into complete brand reinvention.
So Stanley made the decision. Abandon over a century of brand building and chase a completely different target audience.
The viral machine
The strategic shift happened fast. Stanley moved from hardware stores to Target shelves. Their classic green gave way to millennial pink, coral and sage. The outdoor tool transformed into an Instagram-worthy accessory.
Then in November 2023, everything accelerated.
A woman named Danielle posted a TikTok video of her car after a fire. Everything inside had melted or burned. Except her Stanley tumbler, sitting in the cup holder, still intact. When she picked it up, there was still ice inside.
That video has 98 million views and counting.
@danimarielettering Thirsty after you catch on fire? @Stanley 1913 is like no problem i gotchu #fyp #carfire #accident #stanleycup
Stanley responded to amplify the moment. They bought Danielle a new car on top of sending her replacement tumblers.
The viral moment triggered explosive growth. Instagram followers increased 430% in a single month. TikTok followers jumped 3,000%.
Stanley doubled down with limited edition releases. Valentine's Day collections. Exclusive Target colourways that had people queueing at dawn and stampeding through stores. Tumblers that retailed for $45 started appearing on eBay for over $1,500.
Target stampedes made the news
Stanley engineered the scarcity deliberately. They'd learned the playbook from brands like Supreme: artificial limitation drives demand. Make people work for it, and they want it more.
Reilly's Crocs experience showed through every decision. Limited edition drops. Celebrity endorsements. Viral moments converted into sustained hype. The car fire video might have been opportunistic, but Stanley's response and the cascade of scarcity tactics that followed were pure strategy. This wasn't a heritage brand accidentally stumbling into virality. It was calculated transformation by someone who'd made it work once already.
By the end of 2023, Stanley hit $750 million in revenue. The transformation was complete.
The trade-off
But transformation always costs something. For over a century, Stanley had meant durability and craftsmanship. Now it meant matching your water bottle to your outfit.
The original customer base lost much more than a brand they trusted, they lost part of their identity. When a tool becomes a trend, the people who loved the tool lose their claim to it.
Stanley's pivot happened within a broader cultural shift. Water bottles evolved from functional items into status symbols. The wellness economy and sustainability messaging created demand for reusable bottles. Social media turned every possession into a curated aesthetic choice.
Stanley rode that wave brilliantly. But the financial upside they gained came at the expense of brand equity with customers who'd kept them alive for over a century.
After the trend ends
Riding a trend comes with inherent instability.
The water bottle category is crowded. Yeti, Hydro Flask, Frank Green. They're all competing for the same aesthetic-driven consumers. Product differentiation is minimal. Everyone makes insulated stainless steel tumblers that keep drinks hot or cold.
When the next trend arrives, what makes Stanley special? They can't credibly return to blue-collar durability positioning after spending years marketing to Target fans who collect tumblers in all different colours.
The brand has no authentic foundation to fall back on, which makes them entirely dependent on cultural momentum continuing. When collecting Stanley tumblers feels as dated as collecting Beanie Babies, they'll be competing on price and features with a dozen other brands making essentially identical products.
Stanley proves heritage abandonment can work financially. No one is debating turning $70m into $750m in 4 years being an objective success. But it required perfect conditions of timing, viral catalysts and exceptional execution. And it cost them their existing loyal brand advocates.
Other brands considering similar pivots should ask some tough questions:
Can you execute as brilliantly as Stanley did? They caught lightning in a bottle with that car fire video, then converted virality into revenue with limited editions and scarcity tactics. Most brands won't get that lucky.
What happens when the trend cycle turns? Stanley's positioning is entirely trend-dependent now. When water bottle collecting stops being cool, what distinguishes them from every other insulated tumbler brand?
Stanley's $680 million revenue increase is real and impressive, but so is the cost. 113 years of heritage traded for trend exposure that could evaporate when the algorithm decides the next thing is more interesting.
That construction worker, embarrassed to be seen with his Stanley thermos, has lost more than his water bottle. He lost a brand that understood who he was and what he needed. Stanley decided that customer was worth less than the Instagram aesthetic crowd.
Financially, and in the short term, they were right. But when the TikTok trend ends and the limited edition releases stop selling out, what survives? A company that makes good insulated cups, just like everyone else. The distinctiveness that took over a century to build, gone in four years.
That's the trade-off every brand needs to understand before chasing viral success. Sometimes what you gain doesn't fully compensate for what you lose.
If you enjoyed this post or know someone who may find it useful, please share it with them and encourage them to subscribe: brandchemistry.co/p/stanley-trade-off