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

41–50 of 148 posts

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

#41

Post by twic »

dazc wrote: post #25
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.

'Basics' was Sainsbury's, Tesco had 'Value', with its incredibly bold branding:

https://logos.fandom.com/wiki/Tesco_Everyday_Value

They also have "Stockwell & Co" for the things which don't come from British farms, like jam and baked beans. That at least is a nod to history, because Tesco started out selling tea packaged by T. E. Stockwell.

They are entirely upfront about their brands:

https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/zone/exclusively-at-te...

It amuses me that their dairy brand is 'Creamfields', both because that's too obvious, and also a house music festival:

https://creamfields.com/

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

#42

Post by jansan »

In Germany we have a generic brand called "ja!". The Products are simply named "ja!" with the descriptive product name, for example "ja! Sugar", "ja! Milk" etc.

The design of these products is not exactly good looking, but very recognizable. One designer applied this brand image to a whole appartment with a "ja! living room" and "ja! armchair", which I find hilarious.

http://www.danieldilger.de/portfolio/ja-wohnung/

Look at that "ja! disco ball" and the "ja! beer vending machine", isn't that just awesome?

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

#44

Post by harporoeder »

theamk wrote: post #16

Unrelated to actual content: if you visit the site with ad-blocker on, it does not load. Instead, you just have this icon of the eye looking at you and blinking. And the eye will just blink until you turn ad-blocker off. I know the site is called "eye on design", but the associations of user tracking via ads and this blinking eye were amusing to me. Imagine having a blinking eye in the corner of each website for each…

Interesting design choice. When I load the site fresh with ublock origin I get through, but when I visit the page a second time I get the eye forever (confirmed by replicating on a private window).

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

#45

Post by twic »

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...

It's enough to soak overnight, rather than for 24 hours.

This lines up well with cooking the beans in a slow cooker, which in turn lines up well with working from home. Some evenings, i think "oh, i'll cook beans tomorrow", and put a pan on to soak (one minute's work). The next morning, i boil them for ten minutes to kill the PHA (if necessary for that variety), then load them in the slow cooker with whatever other ingredients seem good, and set it to run for eight hours.

It only involves a little bit of planning ahead, and very little actual work. In fact, it's nice to be able to front-load the work, so i do it in the morning when i'm still coming up to speed, rather than in the evening when i'm tired.

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

#46

Post by twic »

anilakar wrote: post #36
4ggr0 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's because you have an ad blocker.

A red herring. Reloading the page fixes it, which is what happens anyway after your disable the ad blocker. The next reload breaks it again.

I reloaded a few times with an ad-blocker on, with javascript on and off, and got the eye every time. It was only on disabling the ad blocker that i got the article.

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

#47

Post by dazc »

twic wrote: post #41
dazc wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

'Basics' was Sainsbury's, Tesco had 'Value', with its incredibly bold branding: https://logos.fandom.com/wiki/Tesco_Everyday_Value They also have "Stockwell & Co" for the things which don't come from British farms, like jam and baked beans. That at least is a nod to history, because Tesco started out selling tea packaged by T. E. Stockwell. They are entirely upfront about their brands: https://www.tesco.com/groceries…

Thanks for the correction. The branding obviously works since I would have never dreamed of buying 'basics' or 'value' in their original branding but do sometimes buy the 'farm-brand' veg and 'Stockwell' products.

Wairtrose also have an 'Essentials' range although the labelling is very similar to regular priced products. I buy these without a second thought.

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

#49

Post by raverbashing »

raverbashing wrote: post #33
dimes wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

The pre-soaking is supposed to help with digestability (I can't find the exact name of the substance it removes) a pressure cooker of course cooks it faster but it is not very convenient (also you can cook them without a pressure cooker - pre-soaking helps with this as well) But yeah canned beans are easier. There are also some vacuum packed ones "Canned doesn't taste as good" you still have to season them

(Since I can't edit anymore: it removes phytic acid) https://www.webmd.com/diet/foods-high-in-phytic-acid

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

#50

Post by m463 »

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 tried this in the USA in the early 80's. Common products like paper towels in black-and-white "GENERIC" packaging.

Didn't last too long.

I think what people really want are "good enough" replacements for higher-priced brands, yet someone to take responsibility.

Post reply on HN