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

How did Tropicana lose $30M in a packaging redesign?

bootcamp.uxdesign.cc

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 278 posts

Re: How did Tropicana lose $30M in a packaging redesign?

#161

Post by mrcartmeneses »

tomcam wrote: post #2

It is my theory, backed up by nothing but instinct and my own very fallible personal experience, that many customers simply did not “see“ the new design. That is, they would have preferred to buy Tropicana but assumed it had disappeared from the shelves.

100%. The design is also just completely shit. There’s nothing wrong with it in terms of it being more “modern” and “minimal” it’s just designed by someone who isn’t at remotely good at graphic design and overseen by people who are similarly clueless. I’m sure the designers were able to ask the right questions to get the responses they wanted from their focus groups. The blind leading the blind

Re: How did Tropicana lose $30M in a packaging redesign?

#162

Post by saagarjha »

cercatrova wrote: post #120
geoduck14 wrote: post #73

Earlier 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?

"Honey Crisp Apples" sounds like a cereal, presumably.

Re: How did Tropicana lose $30M in a packaging redesign?

#163

Post by jansan »

mrcartmeneses wrote: post #161
tomcam wrote: post #2

It is my theory, backed up by nothing but instinct and my own very fallible personal experience, that many customers simply did not “see“ the new design. That is, they would have preferred to buy Tropicana but assumed it had disappeared from the shelves.

100%. The design is also just completely shit. There’s nothing wrong with it in terms of it being more “modern” and “minimal” it’s just designed by someone who isn’t at remotely good at graphic design and overseen by people who are similarly clueless. I’m sure the designers were able to ask the right questions to get the responses they wanted from their focus groups. The blind leading the blind

The design is also just completely shit.

We should be careful with strong words, but in this case they may be appropriate.

Re: How did Tropicana lose $30M in a packaging redesign?

#164

Post by jessriedel »

robador wrote: post #145
bmease wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is mentioned in the article though: "But why did it fail? How does a $35 million rebranding project fail?"

“It” here is the title, which is not talking about the cost to implement the redesign, only the lost sales. That the cost to implement the redesign is mentioned in one sentence, within an article devoted to explaining why the redesign failed, does not keep the top-level comment from being misaimed. Its clear the commenter is responding to a mistaken belief about the topic of the article (which he says he didnt read).

Re: How did Tropicana lose $30M in a packaging redesign?

#165

Post by woolion »

For any interested in Peter Arnell, the genius designer behind the redesign, I encourage you to look up "pepsi logo" on hn. The design document is such a radical statement it will certainly impact your view of design and corporate world.

In Belgium the absolute dirt-cheap products are called "white products" ('produits blancs') due to their mostly white packaging (relevant to this is xkcd 993). It's striking how very similar their branding identity is to the new design. The fact that the design was not even recognizable from afar while the product did not change is very confusing from a consumer perspective. There are some very basic mistakes: the brand name is not in the right orientation anymore, it is less readable because it is too thin. Any "artisanal" feel is removed by the more sterilized design. I think only a "genius designer" could make corporates accepts design mistakes as bold choices.

The more important thing is that this is from 2008. One would think that since then, companies would have learned that these redesigns are a terrible idea. Nonetheless, they still and always push for such soulless redesigns. The last in date being the announced Street Fighter 6 logo debacle, going from instantly recognizable brand to literal Adobe stock design.

Re: How did Tropicana lose $30M in a packaging redesign?

#166

Post by Closi »

Agentlien wrote: post #101
nkozyra wrote: post #84

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…

For a lot of websites I visit frequently what I want is ease of use and familiarity. Redesigns are often a bother since I need to learn to navigate the new site. For sites I don't visit as often I likely won't really notice a redesign.

As a counterpoint, Facebook got criticism for each redesign but if they kept their 2001 aesthetic it would look and feel incredibly dated now.

Re: How did Tropicana lose $30M in a packaging redesign?

#167

Post by walrus01 »

numair wrote: post #133

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…

If you want to see insufferable pseudo science Google "Pepsi gravitational field"

Re: How did Tropicana lose $30M in a packaging redesign?

#168

Post by Closi »

nkozyra wrote: post #84
irrational wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked on a website that was completely redesigned every few years. We, the developers, didn’t understand why until one of the business people, who was leaving for a new job, admitted to us that they (the business management team) mainly did it because it was fun, because it let them expense meetings/travel/food doing “research” and meeting with design consultants, because it gave them something to do other than th…

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…

I’ve absolutely sat in RFP processes where a product is discounted because it ‘feels old and legacy’, so you are absolutely right that there is value in the emotional feel of a product.

There is definitely a perception that if the front end of the product is old and hasn’t had a refresh, that it’s probably the same with the rest of the product and it’s sitting in maintenance mode.

Re: How did Tropicana lose $30M in a packaging redesign?

#169

Post by wasmitnetzen »

BbzzbB wrote: post #108
tomcam wrote: post #2

It is my theory, backed up by nothing but instinct and my own very fallible personal experience, that many customers simply did not “see“ the new design. That is, they would have preferred to buy Tropicana but assumed it had disappeared from the shelves.

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.

It's not made very clear in the article, but the eye tracking study was not done by Tropicana, but after-the-fact by an eye tracking company.

Re: How did Tropicana lose $30M in a packaging redesign?

#170

Post by gambiting »

These kinds of changes always feel to me like a new designer coming in and feeling like they need to make their mark - so they mess with an original design that works fine, just for the sake of some stupid career progression.

See: literally all Google products. Endlessly changing interfaces, one worse than another, for literally no reason - other than what I can only imagine is a string of promotions and designers feeling really important for couple months before they move onto the next product they can mess with and add to their portfolio.

Post reply on HN