141–150 of 278 posts
I looked at the title, opened the link, searched for “Peter Arnell,” got zero results, and knew the article was total garbage. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/arnells-explanation-of-failed-t... I had a close friend who worked on a project where they brought this guy in. Charged $1m a month and invoiced his jet fuel to the company, if I remember correctly. Now you know where the $30M actually went. The article is an exam…
A "uxdesign" website should do better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Preface: I think a lot of us - particularly developers - have a tendency to mock/devalue what people in design and UI/UX do. I think there's incredible value in what they do and part of that is keeping sites from going stale. I believe that in general people get fatigue from seeing the same design day-in, day-out. There's a cost to not changing. Or at least a trade-off. The risk is when redesign is carte blanche for…
It depends on what you view a website as. - a tool? - a marketing piece? Redesign for the sake of it is usually bad for the former. It's fine (good?) for the latter.
Major redesigns to marketing pieces (aka, advertisements) are fine. No one spends a long time staring at them anyway.
Major redesigns to tools will annoy the hell out of their users, unless things are done very carefully indeed (or the old tool was indisputably awful). You've got to look at how novices onboard to and use them, how intermediate users use them, how experts use them, and, if you can find one, how a master uses the tool. (The master will probably do something that surprises you. Make sure your redesign does not piss the master off, unless you like firefighting.) That's a lot of work!
Unfortunately, most things in life are tools by this definition, or at least close enough to them.
I looked at the title, opened the link, searched for “Peter Arnell,” got zero results, and knew the article was total garbage. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/arnells-explanation-of-failed-t... I had a close friend who worked on a project where they brought this guy in. Charged $1m a month and invoiced his jet fuel to the company, if I remember correctly. Now you know where the $30M actually went. The article is an exam…
I believe you should have read the article. It discusses $30 million in lost sales due to the packaging redesign. It was not talking about the costs to do the redesign.
"But why did it fail? How does a $35 million rebranding project fail?"
What 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…
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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 i…
That conclusion is not obvious. On the new packaging, the brand is much less visible, all one sees is a big promise about "orange" (like Agent Orange?) so it could be that people were looking for the brand name, and took that opportunity to switch.
Better to fail in a test market or two. Lose much less money than flopping nationwide too. Love Tropicana orange juice but this is an example of poor management.