Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

When did generic grocery brands get so good looking?

eyeondesign.aiga.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 148 posts

Re: When did generic grocery brands get so good looking?

#121

Post by lotsofpulp »

beart wrote: post #99
ogre_codes wrote: post #88

This article puts quite a bit of focus on packaging, but I think there is a much bigger picture here. We started using store brand products more and more when the store brand products got better . Not long ago, most store brand foods were very mediocre. It’s only when companies like Costco started creating their own good house brands that my wife and I started going with store brand stuff. With true “generic” product…

The in-store brands are just repackaged name brand products at a reduce price. "Kirkland" is a brand, but they don't really produce anything as far as I know. Most of the time, the actual name brand product is on the same shelf as the in-store branded product, so you can directly compare the ingredients and nutrition labels to see they are identical.

Not necessarily. Costco specifically guarantees Kirkland products are of the same quality as name brand products, and people trust Costco to do the quality control to ensure that statement is true. Although, I have noticed Kirkland marinara sauce is inferior to Rao’s marinara.

I would not think the same of a regular grocery store and generic products.

Re: When did generic grocery brands get so good looking?

#122

Post by kazinator »

> When did generic grocery brands get so good looking?

Since that time when you can order a nice book made out of your photographs, for ten bucks, and 3D print complex parts.

The people who are in the business of providing packaging likely upped their game with new production techniques that let them use better images, colors, materials and so on. They probably did that to edge out other people in that business.

Packaging sells; people are attracted to attractive packaging, so there is obvious motivation behind it. Once everyone is doing it, you can't be left behind.

Re: When did generic grocery brands get so good looking?

#123

Post by lotsofpulp »

melomal wrote: post #17

It pains me to go shopping where there are "well-known" brands on display. All that I see is their brand tax slapped onto each product whereas I go to Lidl/Aldi and I have no qualms in buying the knock off products. Same product, different labelling.

Some brands do offer a better product than generics. Just like there’s different quality of silicon chips that result in different quality electronics, I can imagine the same exists for food.

Whether or not the price different is worth it is obviously up to the buyer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_binning

Re: When did generic grocery brands get so good looking?

#124

Post by taurath »

CivBase wrote: post #115
taurath wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trader Joe’s makes me irrationally angry about cheese prices at other grocery stores, especially Safeway and Kroger.

Is Trader Joe's cheese particularly cheap? Sharp Cheddar is about $5/lb here.

Cheap cheddar and mozzarella is everywhere here, but Brie, any hard cheese other than cheap Parmesan, meunster, Gouda, goat, chevre, anything smoked, fresh ricotta, glouchester, etc are all half price or less at Trader Joe’s compared to the above companies and the quality is good. To get better quality you must pay 4x at a Whole Foods or specialty store.

Re: When did generic grocery brands get so good looking?

#125

Post by CivBase »

taurath wrote: post #124
CivBase wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is Trader Joe's cheese particularly cheap? Sharp Cheddar is about $5/lb here.

Cheap cheddar and mozzarella is everywhere here, but Brie, any hard cheese other than cheap Parmesan, meunster, Gouda, goat, chevre, anything smoked, fresh ricotta, glouchester, etc are all half price or less at Trader Joe’s compared to the above companies and the quality is good. To get better quality you must pay 4x at a Whole Foods or specialty store.

Most of that can be found for $8-15/lb at supermarkets here. I'm not sure how that compares to Trader Joe's since they don't support online shopping.

Re: When did generic grocery brands get so good looking?

#126

Post by htnsao »

dimes wrote: post #9
htnsao wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny realizing how people have been so trained to purchase processed products instead of dry beans etc.

Is it training, or is it convenience? Personally, I don't like soaking beans 24 hours before cooking. In fact, any additional time is too much for me, as bad as that may be. A article in the NYT called The Tyranny of Convenience really crystalized this for me: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/16/opinion/sunday/tyranny-co...

Good point. Convenience rules.

But I was certainly trained to buy peanut butter instead of putting peanuts in a blender.

When the only source of food are giant super markets 95% filled with aisles of packaged processed products (be they generic or otherwise) then yes people are trained from birth to buy them.

Re: When did generic grocery brands get so good looking?

#128

Post by NoOneNew »

I... sadly... went to graphic design school in 2005-09 and am I happy as hell I left that shit hole industry. Especially with this incredibly sad excuse for journalism. Also, I had a fascination with package design at the time.

Publix (southern US employee owned grocery store) was the first "big" store to try making the store brand look like a competing brand back in the early 2000s. They did it in response to the dot com bust and then gas prices soaring a year or two later. Other food brands were shrinking package sizes, but charging the same. Publix tried to differentiate by keeping the bigger sizes as long as they could (they eventually adopted the smaller trends). However, they capitalized on being able to brand at the same time. That Target brand aesthetic in the article, yea, Publix did that first in 04.

If you look up HOW, ADDY and AIGA awards from like 2004 to 2009 for package design, you see Publix kicking ass and taking names. Every award article commented how other stores need to take notice (especially target). Add on their profits from store brand goods went up, making them a bigger powerhouse in southern US grocery. Other stores followed suite.

I just find it weird how aiga themselves cant report on something they helped break out from back in the day. I'm guessing it's a Target paid article? Or a fiver blog writer...

Re: When did generic grocery brands get so good looking?

#129

Post by JCharante »

irrational wrote: post #108
CivBase wrote: post #95

Local supermarket chains reign supreme here in Iowa. There is nary a Trader Joe's or Whole Foods to be found. The generic brands offered by our local stores usually offer a greater variety of fresher food at a lower price compared to name brands. I also tend to like our supermarkets' generic packaging better. They use quality, color packaging, but the designs are usually understated and no-nonsense. It's like they're…

I don’t know if I could live somewhere without a Trader Joe’s. Though, I only buy the pound plus chocolate bars and chocolate treats there.

I loathe going into Trader Joe's because of the atrocious font on their in house products. Whole Foods doesn't have vegan marshmello unlike Trader Joe's so I still go there occasionally, but I never thought I cared deeply about design until I attended a school right next Trader Joe's. I walked 5x the distance to Whole Foods everytime to spare my eyes.

Re: When did generic grocery brands get so good looking?

#130

Post by cambalache »

irrational wrote: post #106
cambalache wrote: post #105

This is BS. I used to work for a gigantic consumer product company, I took a seminar more than 10 years ago and the generic chain brands were already identified as a big risk because of how good they were in all sense (including presentation) and how much cheaper they were. Nothing to do with big data.

(Seminar, seminary is a place of religious instruction).

I know the difference, I am kinda dyslexic. Thanks anyway.
Post reply on HN