Jun 18 2009
There Are Two Sides To Every Packaging Story
I have been reading some packaging reviews of some new products being introduced this spring and summer. I’m always intrigued by the interesting perspectives from different audiences.
Case in point when Tropicana introduced their new orange juice packaging the creative crowd raved about the packaging: saying it was sleek sophisticated, modern and very aesthetically pleasing.
On the other hand the consumer hated it, couldn’t find what the wanted and wanted the trademark orange and candy cane straw back on the package.
Which is the true packaging story? Turns out after spending $35 million (yes, 35) Tropicana went back to the original packaging the one the consumers loved.
Now Ritz and Oreo are introducing new product packaging @ Target. I’m seeing the same fracturing of opinions. The creative set thinks the package design is clean, simple and evocative. Consumers ask what’s the purpose of the “retro” look? It looks too simple, unfinished and again confusing to the
consumer.
Personally I think it looks amateurish like a package missing the rest of the elements.
But time will tell whether consumer like this new packaging by buying the products. In the case of Tropicana package redesign sales fell almost20%
So what’s the moral of this packaging story? Just because it looks cool contemporary or in vogue with the latest packaging trends such as going “retro” it doesn’t mean consumers will like it and continue to buy the product.
9 responses so far
9 Responses to “There Are Two Sides To Every Packaging Story”
Posts
Diva, I have to respectfully disagree with this apples to apples (or is it oranges?) comparison here.
The design, which was done by a competitor or ours Baker (http://www.bakerassociates.com/) for our friends at Kraft and Target, is anything but “amateurish.” Our agency, Voltaggio Johnson (http://www.voltaggiojohnson.com/) has been championing this type of retail channel specific package design for many years. In this case, Baker helped re-invent iconic brands specifically for the dynamics of the Target guest, and in my opinion it is very well done. This is an awesome example of how the lines of brand design, shopper marketing, and promotions are blurring more and more each day. Keep in mind, this a Target only “promo” and is the same cookies and crackers sold everyone else – just is a beautiful new package for a limited time. “Innovation” does not have to be cumbersome and complicated. But my opinion does not matter, its up to the category buyer at Target and the guests that decide to make a purchase or not.
I’m a package designer and don’t like either of the redesigns for the reasons the “consumers” stated. Also, I have not found a single designer in my group of friends that liked either design. Maybe some select designers liked it but not all designers.
I can see what they were trying to do but in both instances they missed the mark. I like clean design. I love clean design. But when you mess with classic brands like this it looks more like they were robbed, not cleaned.
Thanks!
“Consumers” can be “creative.” Witness Target’s embracing of Michael Graves. These packages fit that channel – the person who appreciates clean. Unlike the Tropicana repackaging, these retain the looks of the brands. No one would mistake them for generics.
I like the new designs. They really are clean and simple. The logo hasn’t changed so it is instantly recognizable and will really grab attention on the shelf. This kind of thing would only work with a brand that is highly recognizable because here the product is speaking for itself. We all have associations with these two brands so why add to the clutter with marketing slogans. The only change I would have made would be to maybe add a cross section Oreo next to the whole one so you can see the creamy goodness inside. That’s my 2c.
I will be fascinated to find out how it goes. One thing is for sure, I think it will fare far better than the Tropicana fiasco.
wow, they totally scraped the logos. the products lost their identities.
First off, the Tropicana example and the retro packaging for Oreo and Ritz are two very different examples and should not even be compared together. The new packaging for Tropicana was meant as a packaging redesign…meaning that the intention was for the packaging to remain this way. The new design for retro Ritz and Oreo was done only for Target and only for a limited time. It is not a redesign at all. It is a promotional package, whose design was driven by Target and its consumers. So what you are saying is not accurate and frankly, not comparable. In the future, I recommend that you critique and compare an example that would actually make sense.
Now that we have gotten several comments both pro and con I thought I would recap. The whole point of There Are Two Sides To Every Packaging Story is that regardless of the reason whether you are redesigning product packaging or creating a limited time offer, different people have different perspectives about your product packaging. The more you stretch traditional design outside of the realm of what is recognized by the consumer the more you are likely to encounter a disconnect.
What so many “creatives” forget is that the consumer is the ultimate decision maker whether they will continue to buy your products or not with a packaging redesign or limited edition offering.
I have to say that I’m not convinced by the packaging myself, it doesn’t feel retro cool to me but more inline with recession economy products. Usually I prefer clean, simple and clear design but this doesn’t seem to have filled that brief for me, but instead looks basic, empty and unfinished unfortunately.
[...] believe everything you read about product packaging. Some of its bad some good but There Are Two Sides To Every Packaging Story as you will find [...]