Big companies must take big risks and sometimes spend millions of dollars in an attempt to find the next big thing before competitors do. Such attempts, however, are not always successful and in some cases epic failures. Some of these flops seem like a matter of bad luck. Others are quite simply foolish mistakes the companies and marketers make. Today, these product flops exist as interesting case studies companies use to avoid future failure.

An estimated 40% of all product launches fail, but only a few fail in truly spectacular fashion. To identify some of the worst product flops of all time, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed products introduced after 1950 by America’s largest companies. To make the list, the product flop had to cause the major U.S. company that launched it significant losses and potentially damage its brand. Many of these products led to hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars in losses.

A great deal of a product’s success can be determined by timing alone. In many cases, the products on this list were viable, innovative ideas that were poorly received because the technology was introduced too soon. This argument could be made for Apple’s Newton MessagePad, which failed abysmally even though it contained many technologies that are commonplace today. The same could be said of Premier smokeless cigarettes, which used a very similar technology to today’s wildly popular e-cigarettes, but were roundly rejected by the public at the time. Of course, each of these products had other problems that led to their failure as well.

Click here to see the 18 worst product flops of all time.

Even companies with extremely well-established consumer brands must on occasion think outside the box to produce new versions of their product. Sometimes, however, these new products are so far removed from the core brand that shoppers reject it. McDonald’s Arch Deluxe cheeseburger, Coors Rocky Mountain Sparkling Water, and Harley Davidson Perfume are all examples of brand overextension.

Sometimes, poor marketing can also hurt a perfectly serviceable product. Maxwell House Brewed Coffee, for example, contained a picture of a hot cup of coffee but was meant to be stored in the refrigerator, confusing too many customers. The Ford Edsel suffered from design flaws and from being overpriced, but the manufacturer generated such anticipation for the product it dubbed the “car of the future” that it was practically set to fail.

Of course, just as frequently as products fail because of bad marketing or timing, there are products that are simply inferior or faulty. Mattel’s Hot Wheels and Barbie computers, for example, were rife with manufacturing flaws, and the costs to fix the machines drove the computer’s manufacturer out of business. Unilever’s Persil Power detergent was discovered to damage clothing at high temperatures.

Revenue figures were pulled from parent company financial statements, or from the Fortune 500 the year the product was released.

These are some of the worst product flops of all time.

1. Edsel
> Company: Ford
> Year released: 1957
> Company revenue when released: $4.6 billion

Sometimes an aggressive marketing strategy can backfire and cause a product to flop instead of flourish when it does not meet expectations. The Ford Edsel, named after Henry Ford’s son, was one such case. Ford spent a year aggressively marketing the Edsel ahead of its 1957 release. The company promised that this would be the “car of the future,” and dubbed the day the Edsel was to be available on dealership lots “E-Day.” The car, however, was a commercial disaster. It was considerably overpriced, disappointingly not futuristic, and generally ugly. Ford ceased the car’s production after only two years. It lost an estimated $350 million on the car.

2. Touch of Yogurt Shampoo
> Company: Bristol-Myers Squibb
> Year released: 1979
> Company revenue when released: $2.5 billion

In keeping with the trend at the time of incorporating natural food ingredients into beauty and hygiene products, Clairol — at the time a subsidiary of Bristol-Myers Squibb — thought a yogurt shampoo was just what the American consumer wanted. It turned out the company had grossly miscalculated, and Touch of Yogurt Shampoo quickly became one of the highest profile product flops of all time. Many consumers were apparently confused as to what they had bought as there were reported cases of people eating the shampoo and getting very ill. Perhaps Clairol should have known better. After all, the yogurt shampoo failure came only a few years after another failed shampoo called Look of Buttermilk.

3. Apple Lisa
> Company: Apple
> Year released: 1983
> Company revenue when released: $583 million

Long before a series of tremendous 21st century successes, including the iPad, iPhone, and MacBook, Apple was responsible for one of the biggest product flops of all time. In 1978, the company began to develop a computer designed for business customers. After spending $50 million over more than three years of development, the Apple Lisa was launched in 1983. However, the new Apple Lisa with its $10,000 price tag — equal to roughly $24,000 today — was out of reach of many would be consumers. After selling only 10,000 units, Apple discontinued the Lisa in 1985.

4. New Coke
> Company: Coca-Cola
> Year released: 1985
> Company revenue when released: $7.4 billion

The Coca-Cola brand soft drink was first sold to the public in 1886 out of a single pharmacy in Atlanta — the pharmacy sold an average of nine drinks per day. Since then, the brand expanded exponentially and enjoyed immense commercial success, branching out into several popular products, including Sprite, Minute Maid, and Powerade. In the mid-1980s, however, the company’s flagship cola drink began losing market share to Pepsi Cola. To better compete, the company changed the drink’s formula 99 years after its debut — but the move today is considered one of the greatest flops of all time. The colloquially named “new Coke” was met with public outrage and lasted only a few months. The company reintroduced its older formula rebranded as Coca-Cola classic. After its brief hiatus, sales of the original formula Coke surged when it reappeared on market shelves.

5. Premier smokeless cigarettes
> Company: RJ Reynolds
> Year released: 1988
> Company revenue when released:

Electronic cigarettes and hand-held vaporizers have surged in popularity in the last few years. These devices are not the first attempt by the industry to radically change consumers’ smoking habits. In 1988, R.J. Reynolds, now the second largest U.S. tobacco company, began marketing a smokeless tobacco product that was intended to be a safer way for its customers to smoke. The product heated tobacco pellets rather than burning them. Unlike many of today’s e-cigarette brands, the company could not claim outright that the product was healthier because that would have required the admission that regular cigarettes were unsafe. This was likely among the major reasons for the product’s failure. In addition, regular cigarette users were irked that the product lacked the familiar elements of a traditional cigarette — the smoke, the burn, and the flick. Another issue was the widely-reported unpleasant, chemical taste, which one user described as not unlike “burning plastic.” Reynolds sunk close to a billion dollars into the product, which was off the market within a year.

6. Maxwell House Brewed Coffee
> Company: Philip Morris Companies
> Year released: 1990
> Company revenue when released: N/A

When a poorly marketed product is released to meet a demand that is not there, success is bound to be elusive. Maxwell House Brewed Coffee was pre-brewed coffee sold in a carton with a picture of a hot mug of coffee on the packaging, a misleading visual cue for a product meant to be stored in the refrigerator. Adding to the product’s issues, the carton was lined with foil, and could not be microwaved. For a product marketed for its convenience, this was an especially problematic feature for consumers. The product was discontinued shortly after it was released.

The product may also have been ahead of its time. Maxwell House, like a number of other brands, now sells concentrated pre-brewed iced coffee.

7. Harley Davidson perfume
> Company: Harley Davidson
> Year released: 1994
> Company revenue when released: $1.2 billion

Harley Davidson is one of the most iconic and valuable brands in the world. It is also one of the most masculine brands on the planet. The company has not deviated considerably from this manly personality, although it has tried. The company released Legendary Harley-Davidson, a cologne for men, among several other varieties, starting in 1994. Another perfume, Black Fire, hit the market as late as 2005. All are either discontinued or extremely rare. In the 1990s, the company released a number of other products, including wine coolers and aftershave, which after failing miserably have also become classic cases of brand overextension.

Harley Davidson may have learned from its mistake. The motorcycle company has begun targeting the growing numbers of female riders in recent years. According to brand valuation company Interbrand, to woo women to its masculine product, Harley Davidson has not reduced the manly personality of its brand

8. Coors Rocky Mountain Sparkling Water
> Company: Adolph Coors Company
> Year released: 1990
> Company revenue when released: $1.8 billion

“Pure Rocky Mountain Spring Water” has been at the core of beer maker Coors’ advertising. With this in mind, as well as a downward trend in U.S. alcohol consumption and an already effective bottling and distribution infrastructure, it may have made sense for Coors to release bottled water in 1990. By selling Coors Rocky Mountain Sparkling Water the company also sought to capitalize on the fast-growing bottled water segment in the United States at that time. The water was Coors’ first non-alcoholic product since Prohibition. The Coors brand did not help to sell the product, however, as the beer-name branding may have confused or even frightened consumers. Coors let its trademark of Rocky Mountain Sparkling Water expire in 1997.

9. Crystal Pepsi
> Company: PepsiCo
> Year released: 1992
> Company revenue when released: $19.8 billion

Crystal Pepsi was introduced to soda lovers across the United States in 1992. The product tasted like ordinary cola but was clear and caffeine free to convey purity and heath. Crystal Pepsi was promoted heavily, with the company even buying an ad slot during Super Bowl XXVII. Despite strong initial sales, the public’s interest quickly waned and the soda was discontinued less than two years after its release.

Although the product is considered a failure, it has maintained something of a cult following over the years. In fact, due to an outpouring of demand on social media, Pepsi gave out 13,000 six-packs of the drink last Christmas in a nod to loyal fans.

10. The Newton MessagePad
> Company: Apple
> Year released: 1993
> Company revenue when released: $7.1 billion

Several products on this list were not necessarily outright bad ideas, and many likely failed as a result of being launched at the wrong time. Apple’s Newton MessagePad, a handheld personal organization device introduced in 1993, likely falls into this category. Apple’s personal digital assistant incorporated touchscreen technology and a variety of innovative organizational software, including a text-based personal assistant, and the ability to sync with software on a personal computer. Unfortunately, several features did not work as well as expected, particularly the highly anticipated handwriting recognition software, and Apple only moved 50,000 units in the first four months. Many suspect the failure of the Newton MessagePad led to the departure of then-CEO John Sculley.

11. Persil Power
> Company: Unilever
> Year released: 1994
> Company revenue when released: $45.4 billion

In the 1990s, detergent companies looked for new and innovative product offerings to differentiate themselves from the competition. Unilever introduced Persil Power to the market in 1994, a detergent that utilized a newly patented stain removal formula called the Accelerator. The company was so confident in the Accelerator catalyst that it carried out its $300 million introduction of Persil Power without any formal test marketing. Over time, it became clear the detergent was damaging clothes at high temperatures. Rival consumer goods company Procter & Gamble capitalized on Unilever’s error, commissioning lab tests to demonstrate Persil Power’s damaging potential and criticizing the product in the media. After nine months on the shelves, the company replaced Persil Power with Persil New Generation, a detergent without the Accelerator compound.

12. Arch Deluxe
> Company: McDonald’s
> Year released: 1996
> Company revenue when released: $9.8 billion

McDonald’s introduced several product failures throughout its 60 year history, but none so monumental as the Arch Deluxe. Introduced in 1996, the Arch Deluxe was marketed as a more gastronomic hamburger with “a grown-up taste.” One commercial featured a child unable to enjoy the sophisticated burger, stripping its toppings to satisfy his unrefined palate. The Arch Deluxe’s advertising budget was an estimated $200 million, the most of any fast food product at the time. The approach failed and sales of the Arch Deluxe missed the $1 billion expectation set for its first year. The following year, McDonald’s reversed its strategy by switching ad agencies and introducing a 55-cent sandwich.

13. Breakfast Mates
> Company: The Kellogg Company
> Year released: 1998
> Company revenue when released: $6.8 billion

In 1998, Kellogg’s introduced Breakfast Mates, an all-in-one package containing a serving of cereal, a small carton of milk, and a plastic spoon. The product was designed as a time saver that would appeal to on-the-go families with two working parents. Breakfast Mates was deeply flawed, however, as cereal is difficult and impractical to eat while on the move. The stated convenience of the all-in-one packaging did little to save time, largely because traditional cereal is already relatively convenient to consume. In a controlled test reported by The New York Times, preparing a bowl of cereal the traditional way took only one second longer than preparing a bowl of Breakfast Mates, a time savings hardly worth the product’s considerably higher price tag. To make matters worse, the product’s $30 million ad campaign sent a mixed message, depicting a family eating the supposedly portable cereal around the kitchen table.

14. WOW! Chips
> Company: PepsiCo
> Year released: 1998
> Company revenue when released: $29.3 billion

In 1998, PepsiCo subsidiary Frito-Lay introduced its line of WOW Chips made with the fat substitute olestra. The chips were marketed as a healthier snacking option. Public perception of the product was initially in line with its advertising, and sales of the chips hit $347 million in its first year — the most of any new product in the United States.

Olestra turned out to not be the miracle ingredient consumers initially believed it to be and caused numerous adverse side effects when consumed, including diarrhea and cramps. This prompted the FDA to require all products containing the fat substitute to carry labels warning of “abdominal cramping and loose stools.” By 2000, sales of WOW Chips were about half of what they were in the year of their release. In 2004, a year after the FDA dropped its labeling requirement for products containing olestra, WOW Chips were quietly rebranded as “light” chips. While the label is no longer required, the chips still contain olestra.

15. Hot Wheels and Barbie computers
> Holding company: Mattel / Patriot Computers
> Year released: 1999
> Company revenue when released: $5.5 billion

In 1999, Mattel announced that it had entered a licensing agreement to sell Barbie and Hot Wheels computers. The move was part of an attempt to reconcile the declining sales of Barbie dolls and growing sales of software and CD-ROMs. The computers would be manufactured and sold by the Patriot Computer Corporation, a privately held company based in Toronto.

Manufacturing flaws, however, forced Patriot to devote its resources to fixing the computers and ultimately drove it out of business. By December the following year, the company had fired its 200 employees and filed for bankruptcy — but not without taking thousands of unfulfilled holiday orders. To assuage the 3,100 customers who paid $599 for the Hot Wheels or Barbie computer and would not receive one, Mattel issued each customer a $100 gift certificate.

16. EZ Squirt Ketchup
> Holding company: Heinz
> Year released: 2000
> Company revenue when released: $9.4 billion

Before Heinz EZ Squirt, ketchup was always varying shades of the same red color. To cater to kids, who were — and still are — among ketchup’s largest groups of consumers, Heinz began producing purple, green, and blue EZ Squirt ketchup in matching, vibrantly colored squeeze bottles. At first, the colorful ketchup was a huge success. With the company’s expensive promotion of EZ Squirt, which included a tie-in with the “Shrek” movies, Heinz ketchup’s market share rose to 60% in 2002 for the first time, according to the company. The novelty wore off quickly, however, and not long after its introduction, sales of EZ Squirt began to decline. In January 2006, less than six years after its debut, Heinz halted production of the colorful product.

17. TouchPad
> Holding company: Hewlett Packard
> Year released: 2011
> Company revenue when released: $126.0 billion

The TouchPad was Hewlett Packard’s attempt to compete with the Apple iPad. Hewlett Packard unveiled the device in the middle of 2011 with an extremely costly advertising campaign. The rollout incorporated numerous celebrity contracts. The New York Times estimated the company’s marketing budget for the product at roughly $15 billion, which was the difference between the company’s $41.5 million marketing budget in the first quarter of 2011 and the $26.4 million budget in the previous year’s quarter. By late summer, however, box stores such as Best Buy were sitting on excess inventory, and HP began offering steep discounts. Many discounted TouchPads were sold at a loss.

18. Google Glass
> Holding company: Google
> Year released: 2013
> Company revenue when released: $55.5 billion

Google first announced Google Glass — a head-mounted display with smartphone applications — to the public in 2012 in a post on the Google Plus social network. It began with a statement of principle: “We think technology should work for you — to be there when you need it and get out of your way when you don’t.” After two years of disappointing sales, it was clear that consumers did not need Google Glass. Google stuck to its principle and in 2015 discontinued development on the technology. While Google would not release any official figures on Glass’ market performance, low sales were not the primary reason for taking it off the market. Privacy concerns, reported bugs, low battery life, bans from public spaces, and an inability to live up to the extensive hype it received all stymied public adoption of the technology. Google is currently developing a new version of the product.

Thank you for reading! Have some feedback for us?
Contact the 24/7 Wall St. editorial team.