The Oct. 22 issue of Brandweek had an article about how Wal-Mart commissioned an agency to redesign the packaging for its private brands of soda: Choice Cola, Twist Up and Mountain Lightning.
Now, I've linked to the article above and since I don't have the rights to any of the photos of the product, I'll have to direct you to Murray Brand Communication's site so you can see the new designs for yourself. (Murray had enough sense to not show their design for Mountain Lightning at their website but InventorSpot.com has a photo with some great tasting notes from many fine, house brand sodas.)
I'll give Murray Brand Communications a little credit for the new look of Sam's Choice Cola, but their other two designs are a complete joke.
According to Brandweek, the strategy was "not to 'knock off' the national brands" and the ideas was to come up with designs that were "confident, distinctive and innovative".
What a joke!
There is nothing distinctive or innovative about the new package designs for Twist Up or Mountain Lightning. They are completely unoriginal and look like they were the result of a bar mishap where the barkeep mixed Pepsi's Mountain Dew with Coors and Tropicana's Twister with a dash of 7-Up.
And for Tom Kane of Murray Brand Communications to whine publicly in the Brandweek article that "we had only 90 days to develop three concepts for each sub-brand" is shameful. I'm not sure if Murray Brand Communications realizes how bad they look right there in the pages of Brandweek.
Murray Brand Communications ought to be ashamed of themselves for their lack or originality and for their public whining about their client's requirements.
Oh, but I guess if sales increased 10% then all is forgiven.
Maybe to some, but give me a break.
This is an example of the worst that advertising agencies have to offer and I'm not entirely sure how Brandweek chose this case study to hold up as a shining example.
Although, now I have new product ideas for Coors Dew and Sprite Twist. I must go to my lab and start mixing.
2 comments:
The assessment of Wal-Mart's new carbonated soft drink packaging might be reasonable if the information in BrandWeek magazine was accurate or if the "self-described" brand expert offering his insight had provided side by side images of the packaging for review. Unfortunately, this didn't happen.
For the record, Murray Brand Communications did not develop the strategy and complete 3 designs in 90 day as reported in BrandWeek. The strategy, 3 designs for each of 18 flavors (a total of 54 designs), extension to cans, 1 liter bottles, 12-packs and shippers, creation of final mechanical art for 70+ layouts and printing were completed in 90 days.
By any measure, this performance was nothing short of exceptional!
Another, piece of misinformation is the fact that Wal-Mart's soft drink portfolio drives revenues of $2B annually. In fact, it is a $3B line-of-business and the 10% increase in sales is projected to be worth $200M in bottom-line profit. Again, unreal performance and something for which Murray Brand strategy and design teams are known.
In summary, while an inexperienced brand strategist or a person with an untrained eye might conclude Wal-Mart's packaging is a knock-off, an abbreviated comparison reveals, with the exception of category relevant color which Wal-Mart felt was a mandatory equity, very little similarity with national brands exists.
Supporting this is the fact that all designs were reviewed and approved by Wal-Mart and by the legal departments of the well known national brands against whom the new Wal-Mart packaging would compete.
Provided below are links allowing readers to see just one example of why Mr. Dolak is incorrect in his assessment.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.frederiksamuel.com/blog/images/spritenew.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.frederiksamuel.com/blog/2006/07/sprite-rebranding.html&h=400&w=400&sz=98&hl=en&start=20&tbnid=GVihbDfrLA-i0M:&tbnh=124&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3D7-up%2Bpackaging%26start%3D18%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D18%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.dormgear.net/images/7up-can-front.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.dormgear.net/some-ahole-stole-support-magnet-p-258.html&h=613&w=613&sz=95&hl=en&start=2&tbnid=uYdPs8li0c7vmM:&tbnh=136&tbnw=136&prev=/images%3Fq%3D7-up%2B%26gbv%3D2%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG
http://www.murraybrand.com/html/portfolio/packaging/walmart2.htm
Thanks for your comments.
Obviously you have inside information about the case that was not in the Brandweek article. Obviously also, I was going by the facts as presented by Brandweek and as such, commented on the facts that were reported.
Oddly enough, I corresponded with Vanessa Facenda, the author of the Brandweek article, and she informed me that they received overwhelming response to that article and that much of the feedback echoed my assessment.
I'm sure you saw the follow-up letter to the editor in the November 5 issue written by Jeremy Smith that starts out,
"I am appalled that a so called 'Brand Communications' company would take credit for any originality for their design work after reading your article. That anyone would consider this work original is appalling.
When I read the statement that the brand strategy was NOT to 'knock off' the national brands, I fell off my chair I was laughing so hard."
The letter continues on from there.
From your comments,
"In summary, while an inexperienced brand strategist or a person with an untrained eye might conclude Wal-Mart's packaging is a knock-off, an abbreviated comparison reveals, with the exception of category relevant color which Wal-Mart felt was a mandatory equity, very little similarity with national brands exists."
So maybe my eyes are untrained when it comes to designing national soft drink packaging. Fair enough. Guilty as charged.
My eyes see what they see, though, and they tell my brain that these designs just don't seem all that original in the soda category--which I thought flew in the face of what a good brand is supposed to do, so I commented.
If the lawyers say they are original, then I guess they are original enough.
Hey, imitation is the highest form of flattery and if the designs are legally safe and use design and "category relevant" colors that don't infringe others' trademarks, then no foul, no harm.
Thanks again. I'm glad you sounded off.
Post a Comment