I've asked about this on the pretotyping forums, so was wondering - what If they launched their change in limited markets, see whether it makes sense, then roll forward - kind of like how we are supposed to do software updates with new features... (kind of)
How did Tropicana lose $30M in a packaging redesign?
121–130 of 278 posts
Re: How did Tropicana lose $30M in a packaging redesign?
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, as risky and brand and logo redesigns are, there is often a need to want to modernize or revitalize your logo or mark or packaging. It’s more difficult, the larger/older/more iconic your packaging is. That’s why the best logo and branding and packaging redesigns tend to either be the most iterative or have changed early in a product/brand’s lifecycle before he could be too associated with a company. The Tropi…
One of my favorite graphics is this one detailing the evolution of the Pepsi logo vs. the Coca-Cola logo: https://flowingdata.com/2009/08/13/pepsi-and-coca-cola-logo-... Of course it was over-dramatized for effect, and the truth emerges further down the page. But it's close enough to true that it stops and makes you think.
Yes!! I mentioned this meme in another comment because it is also one of my favorites!
Coca-Cola has some of the best branding work of all time. It’s also interesting to see how iconic the branding is even in non-English countries. You can see a Coke logo in any country and know what the product is. It’s just superb.
Re: How did Tropicana lose $30M in a packaging redesign?
#123From the article:
> One of the main reasons for rebranding/redesigning is for brands to reconnect with existing consumers and reach out to new ones.
Which is horse shit. The reason companies do a rebranding is because the people that get paid to design things convinced the people that pay for the design that it was a good idea.
The problem is that the people that pay started being convinced by justifications like "reconnect with existing consumers" rather than "it will make you more money".
See also: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Re: How did Tropicana lose $30M in a packaging redesign?
#124When the package changes, I always assume the quality went down, if I even recognize it after the change.
Young people with 20/20 vision must be behind these stupid changes.
Re: How did Tropicana lose $30M in a packaging redesign?
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
Specifically, they threw away "Penney" which was, you know, the name of the company that everyone knew.
I figured rebranding Kentucky Fried Chicken to "KFC" would cost them the farm, but it doesn't seem to have hurt. The Penney's people probably felt they could get away with the same approach.
As long as they don't lose the Colonel, they can't screw up too bad. And since the actual Colonel Sanders has been dead for years and replaced by a cartoon, he's now immortal.
Re: How did Tropicana lose $30M in a packaging redesign?
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm relieved this is the second-to-the-top parent comment. They literally did an eye gaze study showing that just about no one saw the logo (and even fewer read it), yet their conclusion is some emotional fugazi.
Yes - if I'm interpreting that rapidly-changing GIF correctly, where previously people were drawn to the brand name now their eyes focused on "100% Orange" ... which completely commoditizes the contents. "I couldn't find the stuff we normally get, so I bought this one because it was cheaper".
Yeah, scanning a shelf, I would assume that the redesigned package was one of those internal brands with very generic package design.
Re: How did Tropicana lose $30M in a packaging redesign?
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
Likewise. My wife once sent me to the store to buy Cheerios and Honey Crisp Apples. I grabbed the Cheerios, then, still on the cereal isle, I looked everywhere for thr Honey Crisp Apples - before I realized the Apples were apples in the produce department
I don't understand your comment about the apples, why wouldn't apples be in the produce department?
His brain cross connects with honey bunches of oats and still thought he was looking for cereel I guess?
Re: How did Tropicana lose $30M in a packaging redesign?
#128What seems to be lost in these “redesigns” is the why : why are you doing it? If there isn’t a list of benefits long enough to justify the cost and possible risk, well, that’s a problem. There’s also a tendency for companies to be super proud of what they’ve done so they neglect methods like A/B testing and instead just bet the farm on their great new design. After all, it cost a lot of money and looks cool to the de…
The "why" was pretty clearly explained in TFA: > One of the main reasons for rebranding/redesigning is for brands to reconnect with existing consumers and reach out to new ones. The notable point here IMO is not "why did they do it?" but "how/why did it fail so badly?"
"reconnect with existing consumers and reach out to new ones" is management consultant bullshit like "leverage our synergies to enhance the client experience". It means nothing. TFA did not explain anything.
You also don't "reconnect with existing customers" by changing the brand.
Re: How did Tropicana lose $30M in a packaging redesign?
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my experience, the "why" is more often called by a manager, director, or VP who wants a big project under their belt. The amount of times a "major design change" has happened from the bottom-up is very, very, almost impossibly rare in most cases. Sad story, but a true story.
This is correct. Management gets bored. Source: Me, previously a Big Brand Marketing Manager
Not bored as much as "I need a big project to parlay into a VP/Executive role"
Re: How did Tropicana lose $30M in a packaging redesign?
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "why" was pretty clearly explained in TFA: > One of the main reasons for rebranding/redesigning is for brands to reconnect with existing consumers and reach out to new ones. The notable point here IMO is not "why did they do it?" but "how/why did it fail so badly?"
"reconnect with existing consumers and reach out to new ones" is management consultant bullshit like "leverage our synergies to enhance the client experience". It means nothing. TFA did not explain anything. You also don't "reconnect with existing customers" by changing the brand .
"the brand" is ill-defined. Is it the name "Tropicana" or is it the design of the packaging? In this case, it turned out to be the latter more than the former. There are other cases where the name is retained through a total redesign without this sort of damage.
While I half-agree on the BS level in that quote, in another sense I think it's totally obvious what they meant: consumers who already buy tropicana become inured to the brand identity - a redesign gets them actively thinking about the choice to buy tropicana while shopping; consumers who do not buy tropicana for some vague, non-specific reason may be tempted to try it after the redesign, either because they merely notice the package more, or find it more appealing.