I love sports, dancing, skating, running… And healthy eating goes with it. This however has stopped me in my tracks, confused and perhaps a bit bewildered.
What were they thinking? Is it a promo merchandise goody for the latest apocalyptic movie hitting the screens? Or did I miss the band wagon of runners fashion etiquette? Or is it leftover stock from a yet unpublished branding exercise episode of The Apprentice?
Eventually I was ready to move on, Spring in my step and fuel your 10k hours left of the shelf.
It’s one of those lovely finds my husband brought back from a business meeting – well, the photo that is, he wouldn’t have dared to get the product looking at the packaging!
I guess I may have been in danger of mocking him… have a look at the picture. Anything striking you as odd? Perhaps we are not getting this but why would you use a picture of a summery dressed girl with a laptop on her bare legs (if you’ve ever held that type laptop on your skin you’ll remember how hot it gets) advertising a cosy fleece blanket – which incidentally has not been treated with fire resistant chemicals and can thus not be used on soft furnishings, such as the sofa the lady is lying on?!!??!
I wonder what Alan Sugar would say to this packaging (‘does it show the product?’…) To me, it looks like a churned out product line not really caring about any brand awareness and purely targeting a ‘cheap buy’ at a motorway station, so never mind the apparent packaging inaptitude – it’s just a lovely sample of ‘what not to do’.
I’m on holiday – thus the rather sporadic and short entries – but I always look out for anything branding related that can help my SME clients.
This one is a tricky one – it’s a design issue for sure but one a brand manager has to handle. Does your brand identity have to be forced onto every object even if it distracts from its clarity and even destroys its legibility?
Brand guidelines generally contain rules on how not to distort, change, discolour or deconstruct a brand icon or name – but perhaps we need to add another rule and send it to supermarket giant Sainsbury… How not to space out your brand name or website address!
Especially if people won’t consider your business a household name (yet) clarity is paramount and designs such as this example from Sainsbury can do more harm than good.
Sometimes it’s perhaps better not to feature a name or logo if it is confusing and detrimental to a brand – or find a different brand vehicle, pardon the pun…
This may be a case of juvenile association – but perhaps I am not the only one wondering about this choice of logo shape. Even describing it as an icon symbolising fluidity and movement seems inappropriate. If it was a word, I would understand – plenty of those happened when international brands made cultural slip-ups with ill-advised translations. But this is surely an international symbol and I can’t help but not take their branding serious!
It might be just me but when I saw this packaging of people brand Jamie Oliver’s knife selection, I had to smile. For one, I am not sure if he’s such a pink guy but mainly the head is a bit close to the knife’s edge! A bit of Henry VIII maybe?
It would have been nice if, when they did the packaging design, they played with the presence of the knife and what the product does to try to link it visually to the brand.
It seems like a missed opportunity I hadn’t expected from the otherwise ‘super brand’ Jamie.
I’ve just come back from travelling and it made me smile when I sat in the airplane and found the ‘pocket on the seat in front of me’ contained the usual in-flight magazine, safety instructions and travel sick bag – all branded with the BMI logo. The latter would not have been my ideal brand application of the BMI logo but hey, it certainly is a brand touch point of a special kind!
This week saw the launch of the new homebase brand, designed by Design Bridge. The result was received rather lukewarm with a hint of disappointment at least by the design community.
Most agree that it is certainly an evolution instead of a revolution – if rebrand is indeed the correct term for this logo development.
I wonder if we are missing some information here. Why did the company feel the need to change the graphics? Some speculate that Homebase is attempting to better align itself with the newly acquired Habitat brand.
If they are trying to position themselves as the duller, more conventional brand of the two, perhaps that’s a job well done – but I don’t feel that this logo change alone is going to actually change the perception of the brand sufficiently enough.
It was perhaps not the wisest move to make it a big piece of PR as the usual comments of those just looking at the result will inevitably be along the lines of ‘I could have done that in five minutes’ and ‘how can they spend money on this’.
Perhaps they were trying to avoid a branding disaster of the scale of Tropicana. Like so many others, the brand, owned by Pepsico, intended to bring their classic packaging design with the widely recognised straw-in-an-orange image into the 21st Century.
However, they seemed to have forgotten that a successful rebrand involves not just the design of a new logo or packaging identity, but includes re-evaluating and adjusting a company’s goals, brand message and, importantly, company culture.
Instead, they rolled out completely new packaging without any other evidence of re-positioning and with the added flaw in that their consumers did not recognise the new packaging as Tropicana’s because too many elements of the design had moved.
The packaging was no longer familiar or easy to spot on the supermarket shelves. After lots of complaints and plummeting sales, the company did a u-turn and went back to the old design, proving the power of the consumer and that we are all creatures of habit…
Changing things too much certainly won’t be an issue for the Homebase logo. Which brings me back to the question ‘Why do it at all and so publicly?’
Design Bridge says, ‘Across all touch points, we have injected depth and light to move from flat, primary colours to a more natural and optimistic palette.’
That may be so – but did they have to plop it in yet another circle? I really wished I could see the creative cleverness in this – but then again, retail has its own science behind its success and this may be just the right mixture of keeping the brand identity close to its past whilst adding some new elements to ‘play with’ in different touch points.
It remains to be seen how the brand is rolled out across the website and company literature and perhaps it will complete a new picture Homebase and is going to paint.
In the meantime, I am afraid it looks like yet another rebrand without a cause – be it because it was death by committee, fear of bold change or lack of inspiration. I wonder what B&Q will do next!