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

21–30 of 148 posts

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

#21

Post by Clewza313 »

Interestingly, in Australia, major supermarket chain Woolworths used to have two parallel home brands: the bargain-basement Homebrand in stark black & white packaging, and the slightly better but still "designed in the DDR in the 1970s" Essentials. They had to ditch Homebrand, because it looked too cheap and was driving people to discount grocer Aldi, where you could get similar goods in packaging you wouldn't be ashamed to show friends.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/woolworths-is-killing-off...

https://www.woolworths.com.au/shop/discover/our-brands/essen...

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

#22

Post by jwagenet »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #2

I am surprised that the article did not mention Costco's Kirkland brand. In my mind, that is the inhouse brand to beat in terms of high quality and good value. And it is definitely driven by consumer data, since Costco has information on what every member bought and returned.

The article is about branding, not quality/value. The Kirkland brand logo and label design haven’t changed in a while and aren’t particularly modern.

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

#23

Post by jariel »

It's not so much tech as understanding. 25 years ago Grocery CEO's may not have realized the power of brand to the same extent. Price/Quality product is it.

With the internet, photoshop, diversity in packaging, explosion of available artists and designers, better printers for test and packaging, more savvy PM's it's a natural progression.

They still are not that good frankly, there's a ways to go to improve.

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

#24

Post by skunkworker »

I'm surprised no one has mentioned H-E-B, living in Austin I quickly grew to love the grocery store and they had some of the best generic items, often times better than the name brand competitor. After moving out west for a couple of years I miss that store.

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

#25

Post by dazc »

Clewza313 wrote: post #21

Interestingly, in Australia, major supermarket chain Woolworths used to have two parallel home brands: the bargain-basement Homebrand in stark black & white packaging, and the slightly better but still "designed in the DDR in the 1970s" Essentials. They had to ditch Homebrand, because it looked too cheap and was driving people to discount grocer Aldi, where you could get similar goods in packaging you wouldn't be ash…

Tesco, in the UK, did this too but only recently. They used to have a 'basics' range with labelling that said nothing but 'cheap'!

Instead, they now have these wholesome-sounding brands such as Redmere Farms, Nightingale Farms, etc which imply you're buying from some twee family business instead.

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

#28

Post by watwut »

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...

They are not replacement for each other. Canned ones taste completely differently. You cook different foods from them.

Less important point is that you dont need to soak them 24 hours in advance, that is excessively long. A day before is primary convenient time when to do it for people who soak them for that long.

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

#29

Post by Rebelgecko »

I'd love to see what they think of the Aldi knockoffs of popular products. For example their cereal section has something like "Green Wizard with Marshmallows", "Fruit Rounds", and "Crispy Rices". Their inhouse brand name is something blatant like "Colonel Mills"

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

#30

Post by ObsoleteNerd »

Clewza313 wrote: post #21

Interestingly, in Australia, major supermarket chain Woolworths used to have two parallel home brands: the bargain-basement Homebrand in stark black & white packaging, and the slightly better but still "designed in the DDR in the 1970s" Essentials. They had to ditch Homebrand, because it looked too cheap and was driving people to discount grocer Aldi, where you could get similar goods in packaging you wouldn't be ash…

They kind of still do the split home brands, the “Essentials” brand is the super budget stuff and their “Woolworths” brand is the better-packaging stuff. There’s definitely products I’ve noticed that have both versions too.

Then they have heaps of other brands that are owned by them but have “proper” sounding brand names to give more illusion of choice.

Post reply on HN