To go along with a previous post–every brand and or product after a certain amount of time could use a little face lift. Whether the changes are minute or major they can ultimately effect sales and even brand recognition.
Let’s take a look at one example from Mountain Dew SuperNova.
(To the left, 2008 design and to the right, 2011.)
Notice that when comparing the two what sticks out first: the color! From 2008 having a darker pink/purple tone to 2011 going to red (to adhere to the Mountain Dew brand color scheme) but still the same flavor? I think overall despite that red in a Mountain Dew color, I know myself when I think of strawberry flavor–I think red not necessarily pink so I think that was a step in the right direction.
Imagery: Changes due to the updates logo, the newer 2011 version gives the flavor a more of an edgy feel with the hard lines and sharper gradation. However neither of these products (like any other Mountain Dew products) do not illustrate their flavors with imagery, simply color.
Type: With the exception of the logo, overall the type has stayed somewhat the same. With minor changes to the overall size of “SuperNova” the fonts still appear to be the same both here and on the claims listed below it.
Other changes include:
• 290 Calories Per Bottle “Key” which reflects the new FDA rule
• Sizes/hierarchy
– “Limited Edition”
– New Mtn Dew logo
– Supernova is smaller
How about another example–here with a but more of a change.
Look at these two (old to the left and new to the right)…Thoughts?
I personally have never heard of Squirt but when I look at the bottle I assume a lemon-lime soda. Apparently I am not the only one that assumes this…which one would think is a problem right there–not knowing what the product is! In comparing the two right off of the bat–the old you can tell it has to do with citrus. With the new, unless you are familiar with the product you could guess that it is citrus. But if you were selling that product would you really want your consumers to guess? By de-emphasizing the citrus fruit imagery and emphasizing the “spray” art elements, Squirt has in a way traded down? Sure a lot of brands right now are going for a more simplified look–but I think that is what made Squirt stand out from the rest before–that punch. There is less energy and does not work as hard as the previous design, but hey its just my opinion!
Imagery: The new design–Is it lemon? Lemon-lime? Grapefruit? Orange? Some sort of blend? Hard to tell. But if you look at the old designs, you can see citrus styled images as part of the branding, which could too be mistaken as orange and or grapefruit. So this new design seems to be leaving a crucial flavor behind and has very little imagery at all. Like I said before if you did a quick glance, would you know what this product was? before reading the fine print? The images seem to have been replaced with a “squirt spray” of citrus drops, rather than the bold “citrus bursts.” In fact, on the new packaging, the ”citrus burst” line has been removed all together.
Type: Once being a bold, powerful type treatment now looks on the weaker side, giving it less power, less pizazz. The lettering within the logo has become thinner and more slanted. What does this do? Makes it look a bit feminine, a little less readable. The new type too doesn’t have that pop or punch off of the bottle without the white outline on top of a solid yellow background.
When you look at the old bottle–that thick white outline and green line really sets the logo apart from its fruit background, giving it a visual punch. But compared to the the lower-contrast current packaging, it just comes off as weaker, and skinnier. There seems to be less energy.
Overall changes:
• 240 Calories Per Bottle “Key” which reflects the new FDA rule
• “Citrus Burst” eliminated
• Imagery eliminated
• “Thirst Quencher” has been added
Read More