NOT-AS-GOOD PACKAGING EXPLAINED
243
M k
I fi nd it a bit frightening. (The logo would be great for a
sports team! Mmm, meat!)
r W
Duplicate icons. Too many typefaces. Changing baselines.
A lack of central focus. Still, well-executed elements.
S W
The eagle within the small crestlike logo isn’t frightening,
but the enlarged version with the beady yellow eye swooping
in from the corner of the package, ready to attack the meat,
is terrifying. The multiple baselines and directions of type
are, in and of themselves, not bad, but if I turn the package
to read the descriptive text, then that large, overbearing
eagle is upside-down, as is the “Extra” on the side.
r W
Some of the industry’s most challenging assignments
are those that reinvent an existing brand perception. It’s
often much easier to create a brand impression than to
change one. While this design does not necessarily change
the face of ready-to-drink beverage branding, it is a huge
accomplishment for the Snapple brand. My only concern
is that, now, Snapple is representing the same “great
ingredient” story as many, many other RTD beverage
brands. Where’s that unique Snapple whimsy?
r W
Here is a package innovation largely unsupported by its
structural and graphic identity. This package heats or cools
its contents, allowing for unprecedented consumer on-the-
go convenience from a shelf-stable product. However, this
benefi t is not clearly communicated to the consumer, and
the product doesn’t appear especially appetizing. With this
product, I can get a hot cup of soup anywhere, anytime, but
the images make me wonder, what’s it going to taste like? I
suggest starting again: Change the functional brand name,
invest in new typestyles, a cleaner layout, and much more
indulgent photography. The innovation is too good not to be
communicated clearly and effectively.
(Ray) Text
Job: 05-11966 Title: RP-Really Good Packaging Explained
#175 Dtp:221 Page:243
really good packaging explained
244
B e
The redeeming feature of these products—particularly the
little one—is their interesting structure, which adds to the
sense of being freshly prepared. However, the branding is
rather insipid and recessive, and I have no idea what on
earth the product is. If you were scooting around a kitchen
in a hurry, you’d have trouble with these!
r W
Food service? Really? This identity will only work in a
professional kitchen if there is either only one flavor per
soup and sauce or there is a big honking descriptor on
the lid. And even so, it would probably be way too precious
for a high-functioning restaurant chef. If you’ve ever been
in a fine professional kitchen, you know it’s controlled
chaos. There simply is no time to waste searching for an
ingredient, and mistakenly using the wrong flavoring is
verboten. Food service workers, some of whom don’t readily
understand the language of the country they are working
in, rely on icons or dominant word cues to differentiate the
dozens of canisters in their pantry. While this identity is
stunning, it’s unusable, and therefore it fails.
S W
Aesthetically, I really love the spare simplicity of these, but
I also wondered what the actual product was. I assume
these are starter items, like broths, and sauces, but I’m
not sure of the specific flavors. These are definitely not
speaking down to the audience, but maybe speaking a bit
more clearly would be good. The large B of the logo and
the simple photography are well balanced, but maybe
just one teeny, little line of copy wouldn’t have upset the
balance, either.
r W
What is this and who is it for? Those need to be design’s first
objectives. The copy says “On or Off Scalp Lightening,” but
what does that mean? (Maybe I don’t want to know?) If, as
the website suggests, this is a hair-coloring product, then
perhaps they should show the end result. If doing so makes
it too polarizing (i.e., for both grannies and Goths), then
have two very separate products, one for each consumer
profile. Trying to walk the line between two worlds leaves
you nowhere. Be a very specific something to a very specific
someone, or create a new brand.
S W
From the name to the overall blue cast, this product
brings to mind little blue-haired ladies. After visiting this
company’s website, I realized that many teens use this
product at home to achieve white-blond hair. But certainly
this package wouldn’t appeal to that specific demographic—
so who is it reaching?
(Ray) Text
Job: 05-11966 Title: RP-Really Good Packaging Explained
#175 Dtp:221 Page:244
NOT-AS-GOOD PACKAGING EXPLAINED
245
r W
Having worked a bunch in the razor category, I know
that a consumer’s first connotation of red is blood. It’s a
warning sign. A danger cue. And it’s not just the color; the
artificial, plastic product illustration doesn’t project an
image of quality. I imagine that Oster believes that the ‘50s
sparkle inside the “O” is a core brand equity, but trying to
bring it into the twenty-first century by adding the “O2”
icon just does not work. Marketers and designers often
misunderstand the relevance of brand equities. Sure,
consumers might remember an element, but it’s how they
feel about what they remember that either makes it a true
brand equity or an opportunity
for optimization.
S W
Sure: This package does its job, highlights the product, and
plays up an ownable Oster color. But it does nothing more
than that to stimulate and entice the consumer. Granted,
it maybe doesn’t have to: When you venture out to buy a
clipper or trimmer, you’re not faced with a multitude of
choices. The red product photo on the red background does
nothing to improve the product’s visibility or its image.
Imagine if this product were floating on a sea of white or
better yet, the red product on black: Suddenly it would have
more attitude, be more enticing, more masculine. The Oster
logotype is nice but has too much competition from the O2
logo—in fact, they appear to be nearly the same size.
M k
It took me a long while to “get” this design, but it does have
merit. I am immediately drawn to the umbrella graphic, but
if the side flap were not opened this idea would be lost. The
negative space and cropping of this image is eye-catching;
it is really a shame that it is positioned inside and with type
running across it. Unless the consumer opens the side
while looking at the front, the concept of the umbrella as a
sunshade is lost. Additionally, the graphic styles of the sun
and umbrella and the typography should be similar if they
are to read as a story. Really a concept with potential that
needs to be finessed.
(Ray) Text
Job: 05-11966 Title: RP-Really Good Packaging Explained
#175 Dtp:221 Page:245
really good packaging explained
246
r W
This identity can learn a lot from modeling design best
practices, and all of us can learn from its optimization. The
package structure appears to be a generic, stock bottle, but
then again so are many of the exceptional concepts in this
book. Not every brand can afford nor particularly benefit
from a proprietary container. But with the proliferation of
stock containers now available, there are lots of choices that
could have enhanced this identity. What’s harder to forgive
is the generic look of the photographs, the expected “hand
done” logotype, the lack of branded unity between adult and
kid product, the shifting location of the “Bath Bubbles” type,
and the disconnect between the top floral images and the
main photo. What results is a less than imaginative identity
that adds little to the brand experience.
S W
It is my belief that when a new product is added to the
marketplace, it should bring something new to the
category—ideally the actual performance of the product.
It’s then the designers job to communicate that point of
difference through its package—but sometimes, its only
difference is the package design. I would completely ignore
this product on the shelf, its package does nothing to
differentiate itself. If I were to critique this even further, one
element that is so clear is the logo position on the “Happy
Kidz” versus the other labels: Where is the top band of
illustration on this label? These elements are all part of the
brand architecture that should be considered when doing a
brand line.
r W
I find the black logo-holding shape a bit strong, but I like
how it is complemented on the Luxury Bathing Kit jar by the
soothing illustrations behind it. Where is this balance across
the rest of the line? I agree that the gift set must bring the
brand to the next level of super-premium and unfortunately,
this standard, windowed box with its overplayed graphics
actually denigrates the brand experience for me.
S W
This design is almost there, but it would have been more
successful had the designers (and client) used more
restraint in the gift package and the product coloration.
The intensity of the product color makes it look highly
fragranced and inexpensive. If the colors had been toned
down to about 1/4 of the color, this would have made a nice
system with the black Kama Sutra logo.
(Ray) Text
Job: 05-11966 Title: RP-Really Good Packaging Explained
#175 Dtp:221 Page:246
NOT-AS-GOOD PACKAGING EXPLAINED
247
B e
I agree with the others that, alone, this is striking and
has a premium beverage feel to it, yet I am unsure how
consumers would navigate this range. If these came
together, however, they’d work beautifully.
M k
High-end, contemporary, classic style resonates from the
box; you get the sense that the products must be equally
aesthetically worthy. I assume that the letters wrap around
three sides and the fourth side features text (perhaps
on the black box there are outlines on three sides and
no branding?). I keep trying to fi gure out how each letter
translates to its respective utensil, but whatever the case,
as a set this line has great shelf impact.
r W
As beautiful as this identity is, I don’t immediately get what
the product is, and that’s a huge problem. The ultra-simple
identity does draw you in to want to learn more. But even
on deeper exploration, I still can’t tell if these utensils
are metal or plastic, what the colors mean, and what’s in
the black box. As designers we must keep ourselves from
falling so in love with design that we lose the product in
the process.
S W
I love this package design as a group or system, but I am
confused as to how they work individually. I assume that
each face of the box has a letter of “WUN” and the fourth
side is descriptive copy. So is the full name “WUN” never
visible? As a consumer, I would fi nd the “U” above the word
knives, and the “W” above forks, etc., confusing. And the
full set of cutlery doesn’t have the brand on the front face at
all. I wish there were a way to keep the package this simple
and beautiful and still accomplish the needs of retail. The
color palette is really appealing to me, and the typography is
minimal and perfect. Would this be as perfect-looking with
more brand clarity?
S W
There is nothing about this package that communicates
a brand story—there is no personality here. It really just
needed one element to be larger, or darker, make some
statement, take some risk. It’s the equivalent of white bread
with butter—not offensive but not interesting, either.
(Ray) Text
Job: 05-11966 Title: RP-Really Good Packaging Explained
#175 Dtp:221 Page:247
..................Content has been hidden....................
You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.