When canned water in tall boys becomes a billion-dollar company, product makers take notice.

Liquid Death’s success seems to offer an intoxicating formula:

Irreverent marketing + viral social content = instant brand value.

But here’s the sobering truth: Liquid Death is a unicorn, not a template.

The company found an audience that would have never guessed it craved water in beer cans with heavy metal aesthetics. Through masterful execution and perfect timing, they created both the product and the desire for it simultaneously.

This is exceedingly rare. And dangerously seductive.

I’ve been pondering this for some time, and originally had a case study about Liquid Death in my book, “I Need That.”

I took it out, because the story didn’t fit with the theme of serving genuine needs. It went against my key motivation for writing the book, which came out of seeing too many innovators build things in the hope of generating demand out of thin air.

Yesterday, a provocative new article by strategist Alex Smith got me rattled. It’s titled: “I Think Liquid Death is the most significant case study of our generation.” It’s about creating space, not filling space, which is an important concept in a saturated marketplace.

With sound strategy (and a solid backup plan), there is something to this. There are many great nuggets in this thoughtful and original post, but I do worry about the impact on enthusiastic innovators.

I fear, based on my experience, that many would-be product makers will think: “If those guys can sell water in beer cans, I can sell anything with the right viral campaign.”

BUT… this thinking ignores critical factors:

• Liquid Death’s execution was fresh and flawless
• Their timing aligned with multiple cultural trends
• The product, while simple, solved actual problems (sustainability, sobriety stigma)
• Their marketing budget was substantial
• They had experienced leadership
• They won the viral video lottery

You should never model your business plan after lottery winners.

Liquid Death started with something everyone fundamentally needs: water.

But hydration is a minuscule part of why people bought the product. They bought into a certain look, and scrambled to join the magically trendy Liquid Death Drinkers tribe.

The case study gets misinterpreted because of survivorship bias.

We only see the one breakthrough success, not thousands of failed viral marketing attempts by others who’ve tried similarly risky things (many of them with a way stronger value prop). Media coverage magnifies unique elements and freak traction while downplaying fundamentals.

A viral-first strategy is particularly dangerous because:

• It drains resources (creating viral content is expensive)
• Success nearly always requires multiple attempts — and is never guaranteed
• Viral moments, when they happen, fade quickly
• Social engagement doesn’t equal product demand
• Sudden viral success can overwhelm unprepared companies

Want to learn the RIGHT lessons from Liquid Death? Study how they:

• Identified real consumer problems
• Built solid operational foundations
• Used viral marketing to enhance, not replace, fundamentals
• Planned for sustainable growth
• Tested and validated before major investment
• Focused on customer retention and product line expansion over viral acquisition

Yes, Liquid Death proves unexpected opportunities exist. That is exciting!

But for every Liquid Death, thousands of clever marketing campaigns attempting to generate demand for unnecessary products will fail spectacularly.

The real lesson here? Innovation opportunities are everywhere – but sustainable success still requires solving painful problems for numerous real people.

Where will Liquid Death be in 20 years? I seriously doubt it will be remembered as the Coca-Cola of the 2020s.

At some point, all the people willing to try it out of curiosity will have moved on. The once-fresh idea will be “that silly beer-can water fad.”

Please don’t let Liquid Death’s unicorn success story become your death trap.

Laurier

P.S. Building something innovative? I’d love to hear how you’re balancing viral potential with fundamental value. Hit reply and let me know.