An Explainer: Why Tupperware’s Lid Went Off?

The brand Tupperware has become synonymous with plastic ware in today's economy. The company's meteoric rise has been a product of decades of constant innovation in marketing and technological dynamics steeped in a resounding effort to carefully project itself onto the social and cultural fabric of its time. The company meticulously, through sheer brute force and substantial investment in manpower and money, deeply entrenched itself in the 20th-century American way of life. Yet, what was once the company's biggest strength has become a nightmare today.

Tupperware was the brainchild of the American inventor and businessman Earl Tupper. With the help of Brownie Wise, the marketing wing of the company, he carried the venture into a respectable enterprise of profit. The company propounded a multi-level marketing business model called Tupperware Parties. These parties involved housewives gathering together to attend Tupperware-themed get-togethers. The women would literally play with Tupperware and had dedicated pitches by one of the women sellers. This way, under the grab of socializing and having 'fun', the company effectively marketed directly to its target audience with little to no cost.

This marketing strategy during the initial phase of the company may have been a stroke of genius yielding exponential results. But modern-day critique seems to deflate the strategy through various lenses. Unlike the company, society since the 1950s has transformed and become progressive by leaps and bounds, and what worked in the past will not stand the test of time today.

The first critique stems from the historical development of women's society. Women are no longer tethered to the uni-dimensional role of the homemaker and have penetrated the workforce; this substantial shift has changed the institution of traditional American families, with women no longer needing the economic and social benefits of the Tupperware parties. There is access to disposable income, negating the need for extra income and social 'fun.' The salaries could be spent on leisure, and women seem to no longer gather time for parties with full-time jobs. The little benefit compared with the hassle of throwing the party no longer made sense for women.

The second critique stems from the company's inability to adequately and timely adapt to the information and internet revolutions. E-commerce and online marketing channels should have been tapped into to stay ahead of the curve; instead, Tupperware relied on its old-party throwing system. By successively playing into the American life trope, “Tupperware, in some sense, became the representation of women's empowerment and the American dream as a whole.” Unfortunately, the brand's positioning was not enough to justify abstaining from the transition as society itself went through a paradigm shift with the dot-com boom and the development of feminism and women's identity. The company was now marketing to a history textbook and not real society. Tupperware had essentially bought a knife for a gunfight. Its outdated multi-level marketing strategy could simply not compete with the sheer speed, comfort, and ubiquitous adoption of e-commerce.

The third critique is the traditional ideological supersession promulgated by the 'party' strategy. The marketing strategy is inherently flawed as it panders and celebrates gender roles. The strategy assumes the relegation of women to the home as descriptive of American middle-class life. It disguises itself as the facilitator and empowerer of women's role in society but is in reality simple exploitation. Women sellers are 'friends' and 'party hosts' and hence unpaid; the meetings are 'housewives having a party' not a formal interaction where intentions are listed. These events in particular have been excessively harmful as they directly enforce these gender norms. Even when Tupperware attempted to modernise the strategy by introducing work parties, the approach failed as society has fundamentally shifted and young consumers simply won't fall for it.

Finally, the multi-level marketing model suffers from inherent limitations. There are only so many agreeable guests that can be solicited in a particular region for a party, and the durable nature of the products negates the need for continuous rebuying. Hence, there is a limitation on sales due to the diminished need of the willing guests. Further, the strategy has garnered a bad name among young consumers due to its involvement in scams and its similarities to pyramid schemes.

Tupperware's failure, though heavily attributable to its static marketing strategy, is a multifaceted problem statement. The company had an illustrious beginning; the patented plasticware was one of its kind and truly revolutionary for the 1950's. It presented itself as an alternative for storing food in the absence of refrigeration and was known for its durability. The company had the master product and was the market leader. What killed the growth was the blatant complacency with the way things were; the company, on multiple occasions, failed to innovate or diversify its product line on time and, as a result, suffered a heavy loss in profit. From losing its patent and being subjected to a flood of cheap knockoffs clearing its market share to failing to ride the sustainability wagon and only coming with an eco-friendly sustainable line of products in 2019, which ended up being too little too late late. Essentially, the company's inaction was the reason for its downfall.

Tupperware has now filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The company has a debt of around 1.2 billion dollars and is facing declining revenue.” Even with the court involved and a search for a buyer on the way, as these things usually end up, not all hope is lost. The Tupperware name is as strong as ever, and with the right management, understanding of modern marketing, and progressive strategies, the idea of renewal is not far-fetched, though this can only be a possibility if the company can defend its financial position in the short run.