In the mid-1980s, an Austrian businessman and former toothpaste marketer named Dietrich Mateschitz was traveling from the Bangkok Airport in Thailand to the City Centre with a severe case of jet lag. Looking for relief, he stopped and bought a local beverage called Krating Daeng, and found that, unlike anything else he had tried, it cured his jet lag. 

Mateschitz, who arrived back in Austria some time later, couldn’t stop thinking about the product. He could sense there was an opportunity afoot, perhaps to bring something new to a European audience. He knew Europeans had different tastes and sensibilities than the Thai people did, but Mateschitz thought that with just a few adjustments to the formula to satisfy a different type of palette, he’d have a winning product on his hands. Mateschitz approached the original drink maker, a man named Chaleo Yoovidhya, and proposed a new company that would be separate from the original drink company and allow him to reformulate the beverage and launch it to a new market. Yoovidhya saw the potential and agreed. 

For three years, from 1984 to 1987, Mateschitz worked to reformulate the drink. 

An Acquired Taste

Here’s where it gets interesting: the version Mateschitz launched in Austria was more expensive than the original, came in a smaller can, and—by most accounts—tasted terrible. Logic would suggest changing the formula, improving the taste, and lowering the price. Instead, he did the opposite.

As Rory Sutherland notes in Alchemy: The Dark Art and Curious Science of Creating Magic in Brands, Business, and Life, one research agency even reported that it had “never seen a worse reaction to any proposed new product.” And yet, Mateschitz pushed forward.

By 2022, Red Bull’s brand was valued at more than $18 billion.

It’s Not logical

“The trouble with market research,” famed advertiser David Ogilvy once said, “is that people don't think what they feel, they don't say what they think and they don't do what they say.” 

What he’s getting at is that people, by and large, aren’t logical, even though we tell ourselves, and anyone else who will listen, that we are. Buying a sugary, stimulant-fueled carbonated beverage that’s probably not all that good for you, in a small can, for a high price, because it will cure your jet lag or keep you awake longer than you should be, isn’t really rational.

Nevertheless, that's exactly what many of us do. The fact that we’re not always logical means that sometimes the solution to our problems—or the reasons and motivations behind our behaviors—aren’t always logical either. 

“Why do people clean their teeth?” Sutherland asks in Alchemy. “Obviously, it is to maintain dental health and to prevent cavities, fillings, and extractions. What possible other answer could there be?  Sutherland goes on to write that when we look at adult human behavior as they choose, buy, and use toothpaste, we see patterns of consumption that entirely contradict this logical explanation. 

“If we were really interested in minimizing the risk of tooth decay,” he writes, “we would brush our teeth after every meal, and yet almost nobody does this. In fact, the times when people are most likely to clean their teeth occur right before those moments when we are most frightened of the adverse social consequences of visible stains or bad breath.”

This is why so many of the toothpastes we see on the shelves of our local Target are flavored with mint. Fresh breath has nothing to do with clean teeth, but it’s the main reason we use toothpaste. We essentially say one thing and then do another.

“The reason toothpaste is an especially interesting example,” Sutherland concludes, “is because, if an unconscious motivation happens to coincide with a rational explanation, we assume that it is the rational motive which drives the action.”

Moving Away From Logic

Our assumptions are often wrong. Even after careful research, the most effective solution may be the one that contradicts logic. That’s the point: breakthrough ideas are rarely obvious.

This is where a consultancy adds value. You don’t engage us to confirm the answers you’ve already considered—you engage us to reframe the problem, ask uncomfortable questions, and surface solutions that others overlook. Logical choices are safe, but they rarely transform. No one gets fired for choosing the logical path. Few get promoted for it either.

So when you face a decision like Dietrich Mateschitz did—between the safer option of a bigger, cheaper, better-tasting can and the riskier option of a smaller, pricier, worse-tasting one—don’t be afraid to challenge logic. Look for your Red Bull moment. It may feel counterintuitive, but it might also be the very thing that unlocks growth.