15 ms·

How did Tropicana lose $30M in a packaging redesign?

236 points by simonebrunozzi 5y ago

fatcat500 4y ago
No a/b testing?
RadixDLT 4y ago
it is clear that the art director / creative director does not understand visual communication and the changes between the two are drastic and not recognizable
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
tomcam 5y ago
It is my theory, backed up by nothing but instinct and my own very fallible personal experience, that many customers simply did not “see“ the new design. That is, they would have preferred to buy Tropicana but assumed it had disappeared from the shelves.
- richbell 5y ago
  I think you're spot on. The older design shouts out "TROPICANA"; it's bad enough they removed the iconic orange from the new design, but you have to tilt your head 90 degrees to even read the logo.
- Cpoll 5y ago
  I'm inclined to agree. The article's talk about "resonating" with the audience is wishy-washy, and seems far-fetched for accounting for a 20% decrease in sales. On the other hand, a UX design tenet is to test, not assume. Just because it sounds right doesn't mean it's the correct explanation (that goes for both TFA and alternative theories).
  - tomcam 4y ago
    Well, they did. It’s just that the test cost $30 million!
- GuB-42 4y ago
  It actually happened to me, actually more than once on drastically changed designs. I buy the same thing I had at home, because I like it, and why change things that work? At the store, I don't see it. I may notice that product with the same name, but the spell is broken, it is no longer the product I mindlessly buy again and again, and it may be a good occasion to try something else. Even worse, I may end up buying competing products that look more like the original design than the new design of the same brand.
  - toast0 4y ago
    I've seen some brands where they changed the design, but they have a plan to retrain people. There will be a callback to the old design on part of the packaging, or they use the old packaging but change the name, but on the top corner write 'same great taste as whatever the old name was'. Maybe they wait a few months or even years to confirm that sales didn't fall before they can fully shed the old branding.
  - test1235 4y ago
    >Even worse, I may end up buying competing products that look more like the original design than the new design of the same brand. I wonder what the legal implications would be of copying a product's old abandoned design? Especially if the original was to revert back?
- bee_rider 4y ago
  Yeah. The article has all this stuff about emotional attachment, blah blah blah. Really, orange juice is kinda hit and miss, so I prefer to stick with a particular brand (Tropicana). The redesign is 1) totally unrecognizable 2) pretty generic looking It is literally just hard to spot next to the other juices.
  - smugma 4y ago
    I agree with all of this. Re#2 it’s even worse than pretty generic. It looks like a generic/unbranded OJ, and for some reason it looks like a low quality OJ to boot. I’m guessing it’s a picture of their actual juice, but it looks very bland, especially compared to the bright ORANGE color of… an actual orange (or at least, of an over saturated orange).
  - quickthrower2 4y ago
    Yeah the problem is simply loyal customers not being able to find the product. Supermarket shopping is a continuous game of Where's Wally, especially if you shop in a different one to your regular. Don't make that game harder.
  - interestica 4y ago
    I think most importantly it's that sideways text is harder to process at a glance than what we're used to. So, it ends up becoming a design element rather than text. And the orange/straw icon is also, in some ways, a pictograph for recognition.
    - bee_rider 4y ago
      The orange with the straw was pretty good branding, pretty unique while being straight to the point. They also had that ad in the 90's. https://youtu.be/wUVp3zyqo3s https://youtu.be/wUVp3zyqo3s
  - mateo1 4y ago
    On top of that, a major redesign of your package implies a major change in your product. Not everyone is keen of change.
- b112 4y ago
  Yes, I have lost, literally lost things I liked to buy at the grocery, due to changed packaging. One time I had to Google images for a 20 minutes to find old images, then write down the brand/ type. Another, the package changed, and the new package stated some strange "new" ingredient, which left me struggling to know if the flavour changed. I honestly would just prefer a package never changes for my entire life. Edit: also, I don't want my favourite food to be "new and improved!". Leave it alone!
  - andrewmcwatters 4y ago
    If you're not aware, "New and improved" generally means the product was changed to reduce ingredient costs. So hopefully I've ruined the "meaning" for you.
    - b112 4y ago
      Yes, but not reduce my angst.
    - yuters 4y ago
      What I feel like can happen with these changes is they'd probably push this as "See how much money we've saved by using these ingredients instead and the change in taste is barely noticeable!". Then they'll go through this process 10 times in the span of years and you'd end up with something that taste completely different than the original.
  - geoduck14 4y ago
    Likewise. My wife once sent me to the store to buy Cheerios and Honey Crisp Apples. I grabbed the Cheerios, then, still on the cereal isle, I looked everywhere for thr Honey Crisp Apples - before I realized the Apples were apples in the produce department
    - cercatrova 4y ago
      I don't understand your comment about the apples, why wouldn't apples be in the produce department?
- voisin 4y ago
  I am surprised by how the redesign looks like a lot of store brand versions.
  - renewiltord 4y ago
    Thank you! Exactly my thought. The first thought on seeing the new design was Safeway Essentials or some shit.
- ertian 4y ago
  Yeah, honestly, I think there are several brands I buy in grocery stores for which I don't know, or at least don't remember, the brand name. I just recognize the packaging and think "oh yeah, that's the one I like".
- BbzzbB 4y ago
  I'm relieved this is the second-to-the-top parent comment. They literally did an eye gaze study showing that just about no one saw the logo (and even fewer read it), yet their conclusion is some emotional fugazi.
  - JacobAldridge 4y ago
    Yes - if I'm interpreting that rapidly-changing GIF correctly, where previously people were drawn to the brand name now their eyes focused on "100% Orange" ... which completely commoditizes the contents. "I couldn't find the stuff we normally get, so I bought this one because it was cheaper".
    - shkkmo 4y ago
      Yeah, scanning a shelf, I would assume that the redesigned package was one of those internal brands with very generic package design.
      - Fomite 4y ago
        This was absolutely my impression too. "One is Tropicana, the other is the slightly upscale store brand."
  - wasmitnetzen 4y ago
    It's not made very clear in the article, but the eye tracking study was not done by Tropicana, but after-the-fact by an eye tracking company.
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  Yup. The redesign looks like any number of grocery store "house" brands, which are typically awful.
- mrcartmeneses 4y ago
  100%. The design is also just completely shit. There’s nothing wrong with it in terms of it being more “modern” and “minimal” it’s just designed by someone who isn’t at remotely good at graphic design and overseen by people who are similarly clueless. I’m sure the designers were able to ask the right questions to get the responses they wanted from their focus groups. The blind leading the blind
  - jansan 4y ago
    The design is also just completely shit. We should be careful with strong words, but in this case they may be appropriate.
- mcintyre1994 4y ago
  The eye-tracking heat map GIF in this article supports this too. Before everyone saw the logo, after they didn't. My first thought when I saw the new one was that it looks like an own-brand product, that heatmap probably explains why.
hedora 5y ago
Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/993/ https://xkcd.com/993/
- richbell 4y ago
  This is essentially the "No Name" brand in Canada. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Name_(brand) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Name_(brand)
  - throw_away 4y ago
    This used to exist in the US as well: http://gbnfgroceries.blogspot.com/2014/01/from-misc-foods-aisle-generic-brands.html http://gbnfgroceries.blogspot.com/2014/01/from-misc-foods-ai... I remember these being an entire aisle in the grocery store in the 80s. I think they've been replaced by store brands with more colorful packaging
    - ajcoll5 4y ago
      Walmart did this back in 2013 under the Price First label. About 3 years later they dropped it.
  - catlifeonmars 4y ago
    Also, there is a generic-as-a-brand brand in Japan, “Muji”: https://www.muji.com/jp/ja/store https://www.muji.com/jp/ja/store
    - glandium 4y ago
      FWIW, the full name is 無印良品. Mujirushi ryouhin. 無(mu)印(jirushi)良(ryou)品(hin). Literally "no mark good goods".
- jshprentz 4y ago
  This generic packaging appeared in the movie "Repo Man" [1], apparently based on similar grocery store products [2]. [1] https://twitter.com/waxpancake/status/1002568447140622336 https://twitter.com/waxpancake/status/1002568447140622336 [2] https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/107433/whats-the-story-behind-the-1980s-no-name-brand https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/107433/whats-the-...
Cpoll 5y ago
Would A/B testing in select markets have decreased the loss? Don't most companies do tests of that sort for new products or major redesigns?
tomhallett 5y ago
The new design doesn’t mention the pulp level and that’s one of the main things I’m thinking about when trying to pick out an OJ. So when you pair that with a redesign, it’s unclear to me what’s in the carton.
- TYPE_FASTER 4y ago
  Yeah, exactly. I'm scanning for no pulp, calcium, and vitamin D.
  - copperx 4y ago
    Yup, I steer clear of calcium enhanced OJ, because it ruins its flavor.
    - SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
      I thought I was crazy for suspecting that. I stopped buying the calcium version but spouse didn’t believe me.
      - wlonkly 4y ago
        It's chalky, which I suppose is what you'd expect by adding calcium, but I don't want chalky orange juice.
- SilasX 4y ago
  So, a redesign that looks better to the designer and sacrifices critical functionality. Web users: "Welcome to our world."
- clintonb 4y ago
  I’m not sure about the redesign, but Tropicana (and others) have used color to denote this trait. Blue, instead of orange, is low pulp+calcium.
- whywhywhywhy 4y ago
  For some reason the image used there doesn't show it but you can see what they had in mind here [1], still could be clearer. [1]: https://www.thebrandingjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/150501_Tropicana_packaging_after.jpg https://www.thebrandingjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/0...
x-shadowban 4y ago
This redesign really would wreak havoc on the muscle memory of "grab for the orange circle with red-and-white-spiral coming out of it"
lelandfe 4y ago
This article looks like an odd repackaging (wink) of the original: https://medium.com/loceye/how-we-predicted-tropicanas-big-failure-b2e1a0450944 https://medium.com/loceye/how-we-predicted-tropicanas-big-fa... ...Which is also maybe a bit tenuous, given that they just had people do eye tracking on renders of the packaging, and the two cartons are angled differently. Does that translate into real world eye attention?
- tootie 4y ago
  That is linked from the main article and is itself a bit of an ad for their eye-tracking software with some dubious claims. But it did send me down a rabbit hole over the agency that did the package design. The design came from Arnell Group headed by Peter Arnell. Arnell was retained to rebrand both Tropicana and Pepsi (same parent corp) and the produced the infamous logo redesign deck that circulated back in 2008: https://www.reddit.com/r/Design/comments/hspqgd/pepsi_logo_redesign_brand_manual_from_2008_is_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Design/comments/hspqgd/pepsi_logo_r... My guess is that Pepsi didn't know what they were doing, hired an agency who came on really strong with a ton of bravado about how their instincts trump research and got sold a pile of magic beans.
  - lelandfe 4y ago
    My favorite quote from Arnell around that logo: > "When I design things, I design in a pure vacuum. When I did the Pepsi logo, I told Pepsi that I wanted to go to Asia, to China and Japan, for a month and tuck myself away and just design it and study it and create it," he said. "There was a lot of research, a lot of consumer data points ... and dialogue that I had with the folks at Pepsi, consumers and retailers. We knew what we were doing." There was a lot of data. But I also design in a vacuum. But I talked to consumers. https://web.archive.org/web/20090121113422/http://adage.com/article?article_id=133859 https://web.archive.org/web/20090121113422/http://adage.com/... edit: also, how could I forget the Lemon Demon song! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAG7pye0V1g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAG7pye0V1g
    - WWLink 4y ago
tejohnso 4y ago
More questions than answers. How is this being so certainly attributed to packaging change? And why was the packaging changed? As it stands, this seems like a major change to a successful brand for no apparent reason. And why would you move away from such a strong and heavily advertised image of the straw in the orange? I remember those commercials and as soon as I saw that straw directly extracting juice from an orange I associated the brand as being as close to pure, fresh orange juice as possible. I was young.
- bitwize 4y ago
  Doubtless, some marketroid at Tropicana wanted to position the brand to appeal to $YOUNG_DEMOGRAPHIC (millennials, Zoomers, whatever). And since $YOUNG_DEMOGRAPHIC is on their phones all the time, they reasoned the best way to connect with them is to mimic the clean, flat design of their smartphone OS and apps. You may think this is phenomenally stupid. And you'd be right, but sometimes it pays off: the original TV Dinner was only television themed. The practice of eating it in front of the TV was not part of the branding or marketing, at least not at first.
- toast0 4y ago
  > How is this being so certainly attributed to packaging change? Consumers complained about the packaging. Sales fell 20% in the two months following the packaging rollout Sales presumably rose after the packaging was reverted (although I don't see a specific calling out of this). Presumably the product didn't change (it takes a while for people to notice and respond to a product change anyway). Advertising changed, obviously, but I'd guess the spending stayed the same, or even went up. You could probably run user studies too, but those weren't reported. Maybe pay for the product to go on the Price Is Right with different branding and see how it affects price guesses, etc. > And why would you move away from such a strong and heavily advertised image of the straw in the orange? Yeah I dunno. The cap shaped like an orange was cute, but practically invisible. The glass of orange juice wasn't very distinctive at all.
woodruffw 4y ago
This is a little bit of a tangent, but I've always thought that it was funny that orange juice is overwhelmingly sold in liquid form, not as frozen concentrate. You can buy concentrate here in the US, but it's much less common (and, IME, fewer and fewer grocery stores stock it.) Given that most liquid orange just is just reconstituted concentrate anyways, buying the liquid form means paying for the shipping and space cost of the water.
- Someone1234 4y ago
  Also interesting that elsewhere liquid concentrate is also popular. Which has the same benefits as frozen but with less of the hassle. Sometimes called Squash[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squash_(drink) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squash_(drink)
- shotta 4y ago
  I got into the mango orange juice, and it got really hard to find.. which led me to frozen and there’s no going back! There are so many more options, and a lot more options without added sugars and corn syrup being added to the mix.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    In case you were avoiding added sugars and corn syrup due to nutritional concerns, I have heard doctors for over a decade come to the conclusion that fruit juice is as bad as soda due to the total sugar content. You would not eat 10 oranges, but you can easily drink 10 oranges worth of sugar in a few gulps. One of the questions pediatricians ask nowadays is do you keep fruit juice in the house, and I believe they ask so that they can advise you to get rid of it or prevent the kids from drinking it.
- henvic 4y ago
  > buying the liquid form means paying for the shipping and space cost of the water. Buying frozen solid means cleaning up your mixer. I also bet it's easier to lose some fiber. Either way, the taste isn't the same as freshly made juice. I'm from Brazil and loved tangerine/mandarin juice since when I was a kid. Now I've moved to the Netherlands and love it even more. How come, you may ask? In Brazil, we usually find tangerine pulps. Here, I buy fresh tangerine in the supermarket. Sure thing, it takes much longer to squeeze them and clean things up... but the taste is 5 times better.
kristopolous 4y ago
The newer one could have been fixed with a distinctive flair such as a green line following the brim of the glass or an orange peel besides it in the corner or a separate glass coloring for the base of the glass, anything that separates it from the everyday. The problem is there's no motif. It doesn't need the straw orange but it does need some thing. If you have a hard time distinctly describing it, generally you have a hard time remembering it
bstar77 4y ago
I'm surprised they only lost $30m. The original packaging visuals were incredible and it got me to want to drink orange juice as a kid.
silisili 4y ago
A lot of things I don't buy super often, I just remember the packaging or color and not the brand name. In this case, I'd remember the orange with the straw and a green logo, maybe. In fact, before opening the article, I knew about the OJ with that image, but no idea it was Tropicana. So if I liked that brand, and went in and couldn't find that image, I'd probably just pick something at random.
jrs235 4y ago
The new design looks like a generic store brand...
chiph 4y ago
I hadn't noticed the redesign (I don't buy OJ all that often). But looking at it - the sentence at the bottom of the article totally matches my impression of it being a discount store brand. > On the other hand, the new packaging failed to impress the consumers, with clean lines, a lack of visuals, transforming the once indistinguishable orange juice into a "generic store brand" product. It reminds me of the failed redesign of the JC Penny logo. The new logo was crisp, clean, modern, and was 100% not what their customers were looking for. https://www.businessinsider.com/jcpenneys-new-logo-2013-5 https://www.businessinsider.com/jcpenneys-new-logo-2013-5
- lupire 4y ago
  Specifically, they threw away "Penney" which was, you know, the name of the company that everyone knew.
  - CamperBob2 4y ago
    I figured rebranding Kentucky Fried Chicken to "KFC" would cost them the farm, but it doesn't seem to have hurt. The Penney's people probably felt they could get away with the same approach.
    - mark-r 4y ago
      As long as they don't lose the Colonel, they can't screw up too bad. And since the actual Colonel Sanders has been dead for years and replaced by a cartoon, he's now immortal.
      - kbelder 4y ago
        I was going through a bunch of old newspapers I inherited from my mother. I noticed in one of them from the '60s that they had an ad for a "Sanders Cafe", some kind of Kentucky-Fried Chicken precursor. A marketing redesign I was never aware of. The news articles were interesting... "Nixon swears he'll never resign". But the old marketing was also fascinating. I had to ask my wife what the ad meant which was advertising "fashion for ladies-in-waiting".
makecheck 4y ago
What seems to be lost in these “redesigns” is the why: why are you doing it? If there isn’t a list of benefits long enough to justify the cost and possible risk, well, that’s a problem. There’s also a tendency for companies to be super proud of what they’ve done so they neglect methods like A/B testing and instead just bet the farm on their great new design. After all, it cost a lot of money and looks cool to the decision-makers so what could go wrong? Um, maybe before you throw out all of your packaging everywhere and double-down, you could tone it down a little and try it out in a few small markets first? Then watch and see if sales are going up or down? Then think about going further? And at this point there is also a tendency to ignore history. This is far from the first big failed redesign; what is going on that no one is looking at past failures (plenty of which have had high costs to other brands too), and imagining that there might be a downside?
- userbinator 4y ago
  I suspect the "why" is most simply explained by "because designers had to justify their salaries."
  - hbosch 4y ago
    In my experience, the "why" is more often called by a manager, director, or VP who wants a big project under their belt. The amount of times a "major design change" has happened from the bottom-up is very, very, almost impossibly rare in most cases. Sad story, but a true story.
    - firecall 4y ago
      This is correct. Management gets bored. Source: Me, previously a Big Brand Marketing Manager
      - strunz 4y ago
        Not bored as much as "I need a big project to parlay into a VP/Executive role"
linksnapzz 4y ago
While we're at it, please find the numpty that did the redesign of the the Newcastle Brown label, and makes sure they are never allowed to work in graphic design or commercial art ever again.
- creativemonkeys 4y ago
  I think it tastes different now too, but I can't find an old bottle to compare.
  - linksnapzz 4y ago
    I thought there was something wrong with the last bottle I had, other than the label, and now I read this: "Newcastle Brown Ale is no longer available in the United States. A product labelled “Newcastle Brown Ale” is still sold but it is produced by Lagunitas Brewing Company and has little in common with the original product." What. The. Fuck.
    - creativemonkeys 4y ago
      Yeah... that's a pretty deceptive practice, though I assume it's legal to buy a brand and manufacture a different product under that label.
- CamperBob2 4y ago
  Or the geniuses who recently redesigned Vanilla Coke Zero's cans and cartons. The cans are now the exact color of what leaks out of a car with a blown head gasket, where the oil and coolant have mixed.
didibus 4y ago
I don't see how the eye tracking would have predicted the failure. It tells you people now see 100% orange over seeing Tropicana? But now that you know that, how do you know seeing 100% orange will lower sales as compared to seeing Tropicana?
- userbinator 4y ago
  Becaue people are looking for the brand.
userbinator 4y ago
IMHO the biggest visible difference to me (besides the "straw orange" trademark) is the original one has the brand Tropicana very clearly in the middle, while the redesign puts it in much-less-readable-at-a-glance vertical text on the side. To someone quickly scanning the shelves, the former stands out and immediately tells you it's Tropicana, while the latter would probably tell you only "100% orange" --- fine, it's orange juice, but doesn't say the brand as prominently.
- civilized 4y ago
  Personally I noticed the brand change but found the new branding so lame that my lizard brain suspected the quality had also gone down. It just wasn't Tropicana anymore.
  - fy20 4y ago
    There is no Tropicana in my country, but the design and branding looks like what I'd expect from a supermarket's own brand.
    - Double_a_92 4y ago
      Yeah it feels like a very no-name brand, where you could apply the same design to many different kind of products.
- pc86 4y ago
  Yes, this is in the eye tracking heatmap gif at the beginning of the article.
- MBCook 4y ago
  The new version 100% looks like a generic to me. It’s some kind of orange juice. Likely a store brand. I agree that lacking the obvious name Tropicana somewhere is a big problem. Maybe if that was still in black and just as prominent as it was on the old carton, the new picture of orange juice might’ve worked. But if you make your product look like the store brand… what do you expect?
- 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
civilized 4y ago
They took something fun and expressive and turned it into "if Goldman Sachs merged with Microsoft to sell orange juice". I'm sure they had great support from focus groups though. Decisions like this always do.
aaron695 4y ago
jtbayly 4y ago
Poorly written article. Says exactly the opposite of what it means several times. Here’s the totally wrong conclusion, for example: “On the other hand, the new packaging failed to impress the consumers, with clean lines, a lack of visuals, transforming the once indistinguishable orange juice into a “generic store brand” product.” The orange juice used to be distinguishable, not indistinguishable! It’s very hard to read articles that are so poorly written that they say the opposite of what they mean and rely on the reader to suss out their actual intent.
bsimpson 4y ago
It's no accident that popular brand redesigns are usually just fresh coats of paint on their existing visual identity. Apple: lost the rainbow, same silhouette Google: still multicolored wordmark, but in a more modern font BMW: same silhouette, reduced color palette UPS: same colors and composition, simplified shapes Brands are worth money they engender loyalty: people become repeat customers from brands they trust. If they don't recognize your brand, why would they choose it?
- sroussey 4y ago
  Yes, continuous brand refinement keeps thing modern without breaking the connection to the consumer.
Patrax 4y ago
Is this inspired by Atrioc's video? :P https://youtu.be/KnHJtJH5AaA?t=455 https://youtu.be/KnHJtJH5AaA?t=455
oliv__ 4y ago
Why would you mess with such a classic design if it's working?
brohoolio 4y ago
At least for me it’s about pattern recognition of something that I know delivers value. As in I’ve had this juice before and it’s good and I don’t know the name but I recognize what the bottle looks like. At least that’s how parents with young kids operate.
- _carbyau_ 4y ago
  Iconography. I honestly don't care to read the packaging every time I shop. Once I find something I like, I buy the "same" damn one at a glance.
  - throwaway742 4y ago
    If I stopped and read every package in the grocery store I'd never make it out of there.
filmgirlcw 4y ago
Gosh, I remember this so well (it was 2009, not 2008, as this article states), rarely has a new logo/packaging change had such an impact on a product (Gap’s aborted logo redesign in late 2010 is probably still the ultimate example. That one lasted less than a week before reverting.). A better retrospective I think, is here [1], but it failed for all the reasons people in the comments have said. When you’re talking about consumer packaged goods, it is important to remain recognizable, especially on a store shelf. Getting rid of the iconic orange with a straw and replacing it with something that was very late-2000s Swiss type minimalist was just the wrong move. And an expensive mistake. Not Pepsi’s first or last logo/packaging mistake (there is a great meme that shows all the iterations of the Pepsi logo/can design over the years and then like one Coca-Cola design that has basically been consistent since the 1890s or something that isn’t technically accurate, but it true enough in the abstract), but probably one of its more costly, especially since it didn’t include a formulation change. [1]: https://www.thebrandingjournal.com/2015/05/what-to-learn-from-tropicanas-packaging-redesign-failure/ https://www.thebrandingjournal.com/2015/05/what-to-learn-fro...
yes_really 4y ago
A big problem is a lot of companies make changes for changes' sake instead of a real business reason. It might be due to internal incentives too: it's easier for designers and managers to justify their existence by launching new designs than by saying "all looks good, no need to change."
brador 4y ago
Actual reason for failure: juice name in rebrand is vertical making it unreadable on shelf.
yubiox 4y ago
Usually they change the packaging when they cheapen the ingredients of stuff and ruin it. It is a good indication that you should stop buying it (Ortega taco shells is a good recent example). But who cares what the Tropicana package looks like? Their OJ is sour so I don't buy it unless I am really craving OJ and I can't find Minute Maid. I will drive to 2-3 quickie marts first to look though. All juice is just sugar water anyway. I mostly avoid it altogether.
osigurdson 4y ago
I wonder how much this is to do with the re-design and how much is due to the fact that it changed.
noduerme 4y ago
I recall when this happened as I was actively redesigning the entire branding for a nationwide packaged food company at the time (15 different products for about $200k - a deal for them and a deal for me and my crew of two). The Tropicana blunder was a great object lesson in why too many cooks in the kitchen will ruin the soup. It's a textbook case of a corporation's marketing department's tendency to shy away from any type of bold graphic for fear of being the person blamed if it fails. The lesson is that failure is guaranteed if you approach a brand design with fear of failure, or fear people won't "get it". If there's one thing meme culture has shown, it's that people are desperate to be talked to like adults who are in on the message. Assuming your customers can't appreciate a metaphor because they're consumer robots is a guaranteed way to lose customers. Assuming they'll get your sense of humor or aesthetics is, of course, a big risk, but that's the job. As far as my role at that time, it worked out well, but the brand really did need a redesign. They were the second largest prepackaged sushi and salad company in the US and their packaging looked like airplane food before. I went in the complete opposite direction, filling each label with layered visual cues and references to what was inside. Sure, I was terrified it wouldn't work. But if Tropicana had approached me at that time and asked me for a redesign, I think I might have told them they didn't need one. Or I would've advocated for keeping their core "joke" because it worked. No one had the guts to tell them to stick with the brand.
malkia 4y ago
I've asked about this on the pretotyping forums, so was wondering - what If they launched their change in limited markets, see whether it makes sense, then roll forward - kind of like how we are supposed to do software updates with new features... (kind of)
verve_rat 4y ago
From the article: > One of the main reasons for rebranding/redesigning is for brands to reconnect with existing consumers and reach out to new ones. Which is horse shit. The reason companies do a rebranding is because the people that get paid to design things convinced the people that pay for the design that it was a good idea. The problem is that the people that pay started being convinced by justifications like "reconnect with existing consumers" rather than "it will make you more money". See also: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
mikewarot 4y ago
When the package changes, I always assume the quality went down, if I even recognize it after the change. Young people with 20/20 vision must be behind these stupid changes.
numair 4y ago
I looked at the title, opened the link, searched for “Peter Arnell,” got zero results, and knew the article was total garbage. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/arnells-explanation-of-failed-tropicana-design-resembles-his-nonsensical-pepsi-document/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/arnells-explanation-of-failed-t... I had a close friend who worked on a project where they brought this guy in. Charged $1m a month and invoiced his jet fuel to the company, if I remember correctly. Now you know where the $30M actually went. The article is an example of insufferably authoritative articles about “design thinking” combined with pseudo-science (the heat map image). You don’t need to know any of that, to know that Peter Arnell was an idiot and his design was utter junk.
- lifeisstillgood 4y ago
  But Indont think this is about "some guy came up with a crap design". It strikes me a number of things went badly 1. I think C-level execs at major corporations should have built up immunity against such bullshit. 2. The heatmap (plus the associated idea of lots of consumer testing) should have spotted something 3. the rollout seems to have been global and immediate, instead of for example testing the new packaging out in say tiny geographical markets first All of this reeks of failing to have rock solid product management (and release mgmt) at its core. Maybe we will find out more, but in the end, the loss was manageable, sales recovered and maybe the company learnt its lessons - would be interesting to hear what process and people changes occurred the days after ?
  - iNerdier 4y ago
    C-level execs are the bullshit in these stories. They meddled with something that wasn’t broken and this was the result.
    - TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
      Logo Management is practically a cliche. Can't think what else to do to justify the big bucks? New Logo™! So articles like these completely miss the point of the commercial design industry. The goal isn't sales - never mind brand awareness. The goal is to make C-suite execs feel like they're doing something exciting, and maybe even a little creative. From that POV I'm sure the Tropicana rebrand was a huge success. And if a design fails, it's always the agency's fault.
moistly 4y ago
No doubt this design change had to be approved by the executive class. And I’m told to believe that their $20M paycheque is justified because, you know, they’re such valuable assets to the company. Smarter, savvier, better than the peons who do the actual labour. They must be, because they always fail upwards.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dandare 4y ago
Tangential: on a mobile, you can not zoom the images in. When you click on an image, it is elevated into a lightbox that is roughly the same size as the original and can not be rescaled either. I still have no idea what the before-after image is supposed to show. A "uxdesign" website should do better.
seydor 4y ago
but it is almost lowercase logo, sans-serif, flat, how can it have failed?
taylorius 4y ago
I noticed yesterday in our local supermarket - a 1.5 litre carton of Tropicana juice was £4.80 (!!!). There's one more sale lost, to add to their missing $30 million.
rmason 4y ago
This is what test markets are all about. Proctor and Gamble has this down to a science, there are courses and books. Better to fail in a test market or two. Lose much less money than flopping nationwide too. Love Tropicana orange juice but this is an example of poor management.
woolion 4y ago
For any interested in Peter Arnell, the genius designer behind the redesign, I encourage you to look up "pepsi logo" on hn. The design document is such a radical statement it will certainly impact your view of design and corporate world. In Belgium the absolute dirt-cheap products are called "white products" ('produits blancs') due to their mostly white packaging (relevant to this is xkcd 993). It's striking how very similar their branding identity is to the new design. The fact that the design was not even recognizable from afar while the product did not change is very confusing from a consumer perspective. There are some very basic mistakes: the brand name is not in the right orientation anymore, it is less readable because it is too thin. Any "artisanal" feel is removed by the more sterilized design. I think only a "genius designer" could make corporates accepts design mistakes as bold choices. The more important thing is that this is from 2008. One would think that since then, companies would have learned that these redesigns are a terrible idea. Nonetheless, they still and always push for such soulless redesigns. The last in date being the announced Street Fighter 6 logo debacle, going from instantly recognizable brand to literal Adobe stock design.
- runlevel1 4y ago
  Pepsi Logo design document: https://www.goldennumber.net/wp-content/uploads/pepsi-arnell-021109.pdf https://www.goldennumber.net/wp-content/uploads/pepsi-arnell...
gambiting 4y ago
These kinds of changes always feel to me like a new designer coming in and feeling like they need to make their mark - so they mess with an original design that works fine, just for the sake of some stupid career progression. See: literally all Google products. Endlessly changing interfaces, one worse than another, for literally no reason - other than what I can only imagine is a string of promotions and designers feeling really important for couple months before they move onto the next product they can mess with and add to their portfolio.
- rob74 4y ago
  It's not just Google sadly - Microsoft had that before them (in every single version of Windows you had to get used to a new UI in the file explorer), and even Mozilla likes to tweak the UI of Firefox to death. Actually Google Chrome is better in this regard. Sure, they add new features too, but those fit in with the rest, and the design changes are gradual (less disruptive than Firefox' "our tabs now look like buttons").
sneak 4y ago
Orange juice has the word orange in it. Oranges are orange. Orange juice is yellow. The orange package is good. The yellow package is bad.
treyfitty 4y ago
Carton design, or not, I don't buy orange juice anymore because I don't know what "Made from Real Oranges*" means anymore. Over time, I came to learn that straightforward claims like these are engineered to deceive. Tropicana could use 100% real oranges, and I still wouldn't believe them. I could inspect the ingredients, and even then, it's dubious- companies have found ways to circumvent the rules there too. Instead of all this mental gymnastics I have to do at the grocery store, I just decided to abandon the product completely.
- ineedasername 4y ago
  I would be suspicious of any orange juice where the company feels the need to stipulate "real orange juice". What the heck else would it be made of? Reminds me of "ice cream" which, in a lot of cases, is not. Mixed in the ice cream section next to identical looking cartons of different flavors Breuer's is a big culprit) are things that say "whipped dairy dessert" in the place that others say "ice cream".
  - credittw2021 4y ago
    One common-ish case would be from concentrate, since ostensibly it is just the water removed and then re added. However, you're at that point substituting the natural water for whatever is at the bottling source. This does lead me to an interesting question, that being whether one could make orange juice from frozen concentrate that is 'better' than store bought and reconstituted at a factory
  - xattt 4y ago
    I wonder if the same health equivalency applies to jam and it’s analogues. There’s double-fruit jam that doesn’t identify as jam, but as a fruit spread. It seems like a healthier choice, due to higher bulk of fruit purée versus standard jam on toast (which I assume has more sugar).
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - 4y ago
karakfa2 4y ago
Main failure is, it converted a well known brand and box image to a generic one. There are at least 10 of them at a given time at the supermarket. Brand recognition is a time saver for the consumer to minimize the search time.
motoboi 4y ago
The article misses the most important point in those cases: how did the team miss that? It's very easy to predict the past and find errors when you know the result. It fricking hard to find errors in your reasoning right now. Why did they think that would work? What did they miss? What error got into their reasoning? Was this destined to fail or it was just bad luck? Could it have worked? I'd love to read about that kind of stuff.
aquarin 4y ago
Changing the text direction from horizontal to vertical? What is expected, that the customers will tilt the head just to read the brand?
tamaharbor 4y ago
They were just trying to eliminate the depiction of the nefarious plastic straw.
donatj 4y ago
Recently my wife found some Bubble Tape in the store. We were kind of taken aback by how horrible the modern packaging was. - https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61pGZX8pXLL._SX679_PIbundle-2,TopRight,0,0_AA679SH20_.jpg https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61pGZX8pXLL._SX679_PIbun... The entire "Bubble Tape" text is in an illegible font under a giant Hubba Bubba logo, as if kids have some sort of Hubba Bubba brand loyalty they're trying to play on. I assure you they don't. - https://www.mashed.com/img/gallery/the-untold-truth-of-bubble-tape/intro-1594529669.jpg https://www.mashed.com/img/gallery/the-untold-truth-of-bubbl... Compare to the old packaging. It was clean, fun, and to the point of the fun that waited inside for the kid. It's as if the modern redesigners didn't realize they're marketing to children.
gwbas1c 4y ago
The article totally misses the point of why the rebrand failed. I used to drink Tropicana Grovestand all the time in the 2000s. One day, I showed up at the grocery store, and a bunch of people were in front of the Tropicana rack, looking confused. I tried to find "Grovestand," but I couldn't. There were tons of identical bottles to choose from. Eventually, after staring at the bottles for a few minutes, I saw tiny text at the top of the bottle, hidden under the angle from the shelf above. It said things like, "no pulp," "pulpy," "lots of pulp." I had no idea which one was "Grovestand." Now, when it comes to orange juice, I really only like "Grovestand," so I took the time to shake the bottles around and figure out that "pulpy" was "Grovestand" and that "with pulp" wasn't. But, if there was another brand that I liked, you bet I would have bought it instead. All they needed to do was keep the old brand names, and make the words visible. That's it. Even though I was relieved when they went back to the old packaging, I was disappointed. All I wanted them to do was make it easy to find "Grovestand."
- warent 4y ago
  The article reads to me that this is the point they were getting at. > Tropicana’s orange juice became generic They genericized something which was uniquely branded. To some people it's the orange and straw, to others it's Grovestand, etc.
  - ConceptJunkie 4y ago
    And to me, this is brain-dead obvious. They completely removed everything that was visually distinct about the packaging and replaced it with blandness.
- dabernathy89 4y ago
  Seems like you had a particular reaction to the branding change, but that doesn't mean their explanation for the wider public reaction is wrong.
rendall 4y ago
I remember that design. I liked it, knew it was Tropicana, and bought it. But I do remember also being surprised by it.
jmartrican 4y ago
I suspect that redesigns (e.g. packaging, UIs) should happen in a lean agile way. And over time, the new design would replace the old. I just think that redesigns are too risky to do all in one release. Redesigns can cause too much cognitive overload and dismisses the emotional connection with the old design that customers have built up over time. I think redesigns should still happen, but maybe is smaller steps. Where these small steps can be easily A/B tested or rolled back.
runlevel1 4y ago
For reference, here were some of the Arnell Group's other designs: Logos: https://web.archive.org/web/20130714003408/http://arnell.com/work.html?view=expertise&type=identity_design https://web.archive.org/web/20130714003408/http://arnell.com... Packaging: https://web.archive.org/web/20130717162849/http://arnell.com/work.html?view=expertise&type=packaging https://web.archive.org/web/20130717162849/http://arnell.com... Food and Beverage: https://web.archive.org/web/20130717185242/http://arnell.com/work.html?view=industry&type=food_beverage https://web.archive.org/web/20130717185242/http://arnell.com...

No a/b testing?

it is clear that the art director / creative director does not understand visual communication and the changes between the two are drastic and not recognizable

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

tomcam 5y ago

It is my theory, backed up by nothing but instinct and my own very fallible personal experience, that many customers simply did not “see“ the new design. That is, they would have preferred to buy Tropicana but assumed it had disappeared from the shelves.

richbell 5y ago
I think you're spot on. The older design shouts out "TROPICANA"; it's bad enough they removed the iconic orange from the new design, but you have to tilt your head 90 degrees to even read the logo.
Cpoll 5y ago
I'm inclined to agree. The article's talk about "resonating" with the audience is wishy-washy, and seems far-fetched for accounting for a 20% decrease in sales. On the other hand, a UX design tenet is to test, not assume. Just because it sounds right doesn't mean it's the correct explanation (that goes for both TFA and alternative theories).
- tomcam 4y ago
  Well, they did. It’s just that the test cost $30 million!
GuB-42 4y ago
It actually happened to me, actually more than once on drastically changed designs. I buy the same thing I had at home, because I like it, and why change things that work? At the store, I don't see it. I may notice that product with the same name, but the spell is broken, it is no longer the product I mindlessly buy again and again, and it may be a good occasion to try something else. Even worse, I may end up buying competing products that look more like the original design than the new design of the same brand.
- toast0 4y ago
  I've seen some brands where they changed the design, but they have a plan to retrain people. There will be a callback to the old design on part of the packaging, or they use the old packaging but change the name, but on the top corner write 'same great taste as whatever the old name was'. Maybe they wait a few months or even years to confirm that sales didn't fall before they can fully shed the old branding.
- test1235 4y ago
  >Even worse, I may end up buying competing products that look more like the original design than the new design of the same brand. I wonder what the legal implications would be of copying a product's old abandoned design? Especially if the original was to revert back?
bee_rider 4y ago
Yeah. The article has all this stuff about emotional attachment, blah blah blah. Really, orange juice is kinda hit and miss, so I prefer to stick with a particular brand (Tropicana). The redesign is 1) totally unrecognizable 2) pretty generic looking It is literally just hard to spot next to the other juices.
- smugma 4y ago
  I agree with all of this. Re#2 it’s even worse than pretty generic. It looks like a generic/unbranded OJ, and for some reason it looks like a low quality OJ to boot. I’m guessing it’s a picture of their actual juice, but it looks very bland, especially compared to the bright ORANGE color of… an actual orange (or at least, of an over saturated orange).
- quickthrower2 4y ago
  Yeah the problem is simply loyal customers not being able to find the product. Supermarket shopping is a continuous game of Where's Wally, especially if you shop in a different one to your regular. Don't make that game harder.
- interestica 4y ago
  I think most importantly it's that sideways text is harder to process at a glance than what we're used to. So, it ends up becoming a design element rather than text. And the orange/straw icon is also, in some ways, a pictograph for recognition.
  - bee_rider 4y ago
    The orange with the straw was pretty good branding, pretty unique while being straight to the point. They also had that ad in the 90's. https://youtu.be/wUVp3zyqo3s https://youtu.be/wUVp3zyqo3s
- mateo1 4y ago
  On top of that, a major redesign of your package implies a major change in your product. Not everyone is keen of change.
b112 4y ago
Yes, I have lost, literally lost things I liked to buy at the grocery, due to changed packaging. One time I had to Google images for a 20 minutes to find old images, then write down the brand/ type. Another, the package changed, and the new package stated some strange "new" ingredient, which left me struggling to know if the flavour changed. I honestly would just prefer a package never changes for my entire life. Edit: also, I don't want my favourite food to be "new and improved!". Leave it alone!
- andrewmcwatters 4y ago
  If you're not aware, "New and improved" generally means the product was changed to reduce ingredient costs. So hopefully I've ruined the "meaning" for you.
  - b112 4y ago
    Yes, but not reduce my angst.
  - yuters 4y ago
    What I feel like can happen with these changes is they'd probably push this as "See how much money we've saved by using these ingredients instead and the change in taste is barely noticeable!". Then they'll go through this process 10 times in the span of years and you'd end up with something that taste completely different than the original.
- geoduck14 4y ago
  Likewise. My wife once sent me to the store to buy Cheerios and Honey Crisp Apples. I grabbed the Cheerios, then, still on the cereal isle, I looked everywhere for thr Honey Crisp Apples - before I realized the Apples were apples in the produce department
  - cercatrova 4y ago
    I don't understand your comment about the apples, why wouldn't apples be in the produce department?
voisin 4y ago
I am surprised by how the redesign looks like a lot of store brand versions.
- renewiltord 4y ago
  Thank you! Exactly my thought. The first thought on seeing the new design was Safeway Essentials or some shit.
ertian 4y ago
Yeah, honestly, I think there are several brands I buy in grocery stores for which I don't know, or at least don't remember, the brand name. I just recognize the packaging and think "oh yeah, that's the one I like".
BbzzbB 4y ago
I'm relieved this is the second-to-the-top parent comment. They literally did an eye gaze study showing that just about no one saw the logo (and even fewer read it), yet their conclusion is some emotional fugazi.
- JacobAldridge 4y ago
  Yes - if I'm interpreting that rapidly-changing GIF correctly, where previously people were drawn to the brand name now their eyes focused on "100% Orange" ... which completely commoditizes the contents. "I couldn't find the stuff we normally get, so I bought this one because it was cheaper".
  - shkkmo 4y ago
    Yeah, scanning a shelf, I would assume that the redesigned package was one of those internal brands with very generic package design.
    - Fomite 4y ago
      This was absolutely my impression too. "One is Tropicana, the other is the slightly upscale store brand."
- wasmitnetzen 4y ago
  It's not made very clear in the article, but the eye tracking study was not done by Tropicana, but after-the-fact by an eye tracking company.
AlexandrB 4y ago
Yup. The redesign looks like any number of grocery store "house" brands, which are typically awful.
mrcartmeneses 4y ago
100%. The design is also just completely shit. There’s nothing wrong with it in terms of it being more “modern” and “minimal” it’s just designed by someone who isn’t at remotely good at graphic design and overseen by people who are similarly clueless. I’m sure the designers were able to ask the right questions to get the responses they wanted from their focus groups. The blind leading the blind
- jansan 4y ago
  The design is also just completely shit. We should be careful with strong words, but in this case they may be appropriate.
mcintyre1994 4y ago
The eye-tracking heat map GIF in this article supports this too. Before everyone saw the logo, after they didn't. My first thought when I saw the new one was that it looks like an own-brand product, that heatmap probably explains why.

hedora 5y ago

Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/993/ https://xkcd.com/993/

richbell 4y ago
This is essentially the "No Name" brand in Canada. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Name_(brand) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Name_(brand)
- throw_away 4y ago
  This used to exist in the US as well: http://gbnfgroceries.blogspot.com/2014/01/from-misc-foods-aisle-generic-brands.html http://gbnfgroceries.blogspot.com/2014/01/from-misc-foods-ai... I remember these being an entire aisle in the grocery store in the 80s. I think they've been replaced by store brands with more colorful packaging
  - ajcoll5 4y ago
    Walmart did this back in 2013 under the Price First label. About 3 years later they dropped it.
- catlifeonmars 4y ago
  Also, there is a generic-as-a-brand brand in Japan, “Muji”: https://www.muji.com/jp/ja/store https://www.muji.com/jp/ja/store
  - glandium 4y ago
    FWIW, the full name is 無印良品. Mujirushi ryouhin. 無(mu)印(jirushi)良(ryou)品(hin). Literally "no mark good goods".
jshprentz 4y ago
This generic packaging appeared in the movie "Repo Man" [1], apparently based on similar grocery store products [2]. [1] https://twitter.com/waxpancake/status/1002568447140622336 https://twitter.com/waxpancake/status/1002568447140622336 [2] https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/107433/whats-the-story-behind-the-1980s-no-name-brand https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/107433/whats-the-...

Cpoll 5y ago

Would A/B testing in select markets have decreased the loss? Don't most companies do tests of that sort for new products or major redesigns?

tomhallett 5y ago

The new design doesn’t mention the pulp level and that’s one of the main things I’m thinking about when trying to pick out an OJ. So when you pair that with a redesign, it’s unclear to me what’s in the carton.

TYPE_FASTER 4y ago
Yeah, exactly. I'm scanning for no pulp, calcium, and vitamin D.
- copperx 4y ago
  Yup, I steer clear of calcium enhanced OJ, because it ruins its flavor.
  - SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
    I thought I was crazy for suspecting that. I stopped buying the calcium version but spouse didn’t believe me.
    - wlonkly 4y ago
      It's chalky, which I suppose is what you'd expect by adding calcium, but I don't want chalky orange juice.
SilasX 4y ago
So, a redesign that looks better to the designer and sacrifices critical functionality. Web users: "Welcome to our world."
clintonb 4y ago
I’m not sure about the redesign, but Tropicana (and others) have used color to denote this trait. Blue, instead of orange, is low pulp+calcium.
whywhywhywhy 4y ago
For some reason the image used there doesn't show it but you can see what they had in mind here [1], still could be clearer. [1]: https://www.thebrandingjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/150501_Tropicana_packaging_after.jpg https://www.thebrandingjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/0...

x-shadowban 4y ago

This redesign really would wreak havoc on the muscle memory of "grab for the orange circle with red-and-white-spiral coming out of it"

lelandfe 4y ago

This article looks like an odd repackaging (wink) of the original: https://medium.com/loceye/how-we-predicted-tropicanas-big-failure-b2e1a0450944 https://medium.com/loceye/how-we-predicted-tropicanas-big-fa... ...Which is also maybe a bit tenuous, given that they just had people do eye tracking on renders of the packaging, and the two cartons are angled differently. Does that translate into real world eye attention?

tootie 4y ago
That is linked from the main article and is itself a bit of an ad for their eye-tracking software with some dubious claims. But it did send me down a rabbit hole over the agency that did the package design. The design came from Arnell Group headed by Peter Arnell. Arnell was retained to rebrand both Tropicana and Pepsi (same parent corp) and the produced the infamous logo redesign deck that circulated back in 2008: https://www.reddit.com/r/Design/comments/hspqgd/pepsi_logo_redesign_brand_manual_from_2008_is_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Design/comments/hspqgd/pepsi_logo_r... My guess is that Pepsi didn't know what they were doing, hired an agency who came on really strong with a ton of bravado about how their instincts trump research and got sold a pile of magic beans.
- lelandfe 4y ago
  My favorite quote from Arnell around that logo: > "When I design things, I design in a pure vacuum. When I did the Pepsi logo, I told Pepsi that I wanted to go to Asia, to China and Japan, for a month and tuck myself away and just design it and study it and create it," he said. "There was a lot of research, a lot of consumer data points ... and dialogue that I had with the folks at Pepsi, consumers and retailers. We knew what we were doing." There was a lot of data. But I also design in a vacuum. But I talked to consumers. https://web.archive.org/web/20090121113422/http://adage.com/article?article_id=133859 https://web.archive.org/web/20090121113422/http://adage.com/... edit: also, how could I forget the Lemon Demon song! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAG7pye0V1g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAG7pye0V1g
  - WWLink 4y ago

tejohnso 4y ago

More questions than answers. How is this being so certainly attributed to packaging change? And why was the packaging changed? As it stands, this seems like a major change to a successful brand for no apparent reason. And why would you move away from such a strong and heavily advertised image of the straw in the orange? I remember those commercials and as soon as I saw that straw directly extracting juice from an orange I associated the brand as being as close to pure, fresh orange juice as possible. I was young.

bitwize 4y ago
Doubtless, some marketroid at Tropicana wanted to position the brand to appeal to $YOUNG_DEMOGRAPHIC (millennials, Zoomers, whatever). And since $YOUNG_DEMOGRAPHIC is on their phones all the time, they reasoned the best way to connect with them is to mimic the clean, flat design of their smartphone OS and apps. You may think this is phenomenally stupid. And you'd be right, but sometimes it pays off: the original TV Dinner was only television themed. The practice of eating it in front of the TV was not part of the branding or marketing, at least not at first.
toast0 4y ago
> How is this being so certainly attributed to packaging change? Consumers complained about the packaging. Sales fell 20% in the two months following the packaging rollout Sales presumably rose after the packaging was reverted (although I don't see a specific calling out of this). Presumably the product didn't change (it takes a while for people to notice and respond to a product change anyway). Advertising changed, obviously, but I'd guess the spending stayed the same, or even went up. You could probably run user studies too, but those weren't reported. Maybe pay for the product to go on the Price Is Right with different branding and see how it affects price guesses, etc. > And why would you move away from such a strong and heavily advertised image of the straw in the orange? Yeah I dunno. The cap shaped like an orange was cute, but practically invisible. The glass of orange juice wasn't very distinctive at all.

woodruffw 4y ago

This is a little bit of a tangent, but I've always thought that it was funny that orange juice is overwhelmingly sold in liquid form, not as frozen concentrate. You can buy concentrate here in the US, but it's much less common (and, IME, fewer and fewer grocery stores stock it.) Given that most liquid orange just is just reconstituted concentrate anyways, buying the liquid form means paying for the shipping and space cost of the water.

Someone1234 4y ago
Also interesting that elsewhere liquid concentrate is also popular. Which has the same benefits as frozen but with less of the hassle. Sometimes called Squash[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squash_(drink) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squash_(drink)
shotta 4y ago
I got into the mango orange juice, and it got really hard to find.. which led me to frozen and there’s no going back! There are so many more options, and a lot more options without added sugars and corn syrup being added to the mix.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  In case you were avoiding added sugars and corn syrup due to nutritional concerns, I have heard doctors for over a decade come to the conclusion that fruit juice is as bad as soda due to the total sugar content. You would not eat 10 oranges, but you can easily drink 10 oranges worth of sugar in a few gulps. One of the questions pediatricians ask nowadays is do you keep fruit juice in the house, and I believe they ask so that they can advise you to get rid of it or prevent the kids from drinking it.
henvic 4y ago
> buying the liquid form means paying for the shipping and space cost of the water. Buying frozen solid means cleaning up your mixer. I also bet it's easier to lose some fiber. Either way, the taste isn't the same as freshly made juice. I'm from Brazil and loved tangerine/mandarin juice since when I was a kid. Now I've moved to the Netherlands and love it even more. How come, you may ask? In Brazil, we usually find tangerine pulps. Here, I buy fresh tangerine in the supermarket. Sure thing, it takes much longer to squeeze them and clean things up... but the taste is 5 times better.

kristopolous 4y ago

The newer one could have been fixed with a distinctive flair such as a green line following the brim of the glass or an orange peel besides it in the corner or a separate glass coloring for the base of the glass, anything that separates it from the everyday. The problem is there's no motif. It doesn't need the straw orange but it does need some thing. If you have a hard time distinctly describing it, generally you have a hard time remembering it

bstar77 4y ago

I'm surprised they only lost $30m. The original packaging visuals were incredible and it got me to want to drink orange juice as a kid.

silisili 4y ago

A lot of things I don't buy super often, I just remember the packaging or color and not the brand name. In this case, I'd remember the orange with the straw and a green logo, maybe. In fact, before opening the article, I knew about the OJ with that image, but no idea it was Tropicana. So if I liked that brand, and went in and couldn't find that image, I'd probably just pick something at random.

jrs235 4y ago

The new design looks like a generic store brand...

chiph 4y ago

I hadn't noticed the redesign (I don't buy OJ all that often). But looking at it - the sentence at the bottom of the article totally matches my impression of it being a discount store brand. > On the other hand, the new packaging failed to impress the consumers, with clean lines, a lack of visuals, transforming the once indistinguishable orange juice into a "generic store brand" product. It reminds me of the failed redesign of the JC Penny logo. The new logo was crisp, clean, modern, and was 100% not what their customers were looking for. https://www.businessinsider.com/jcpenneys-new-logo-2013-5 https://www.businessinsider.com/jcpenneys-new-logo-2013-5

lupire 4y ago
Specifically, they threw away "Penney" which was, you know, the name of the company that everyone knew.
- CamperBob2 4y ago
  I figured rebranding Kentucky Fried Chicken to "KFC" would cost them the farm, but it doesn't seem to have hurt. The Penney's people probably felt they could get away with the same approach.
  - mark-r 4y ago
    As long as they don't lose the Colonel, they can't screw up too bad. And since the actual Colonel Sanders has been dead for years and replaced by a cartoon, he's now immortal.
    - kbelder 4y ago
      I was going through a bunch of old newspapers I inherited from my mother. I noticed in one of them from the '60s that they had an ad for a "Sanders Cafe", some kind of Kentucky-Fried Chicken precursor. A marketing redesign I was never aware of. The news articles were interesting... "Nixon swears he'll never resign". But the old marketing was also fascinating. I had to ask my wife what the ad meant which was advertising "fashion for ladies-in-waiting".

makecheck 4y ago

What seems to be lost in these “redesigns” is the why: why are you doing it? If there isn’t a list of benefits long enough to justify the cost and possible risk, well, that’s a problem. There’s also a tendency for companies to be super proud of what they’ve done so they neglect methods like A/B testing and instead just bet the farm on their great new design. After all, it cost a lot of money and looks cool to the decision-makers so what could go wrong? Um, maybe before you throw out all of your packaging everywhere and double-down, you could tone it down a little and try it out in a few small markets first? Then watch and see if sales are going up or down? Then think about going further? And at this point there is also a tendency to ignore history. This is far from the first big failed redesign; what is going on that no one is looking at past failures (plenty of which have had high costs to other brands too), and imagining that there might be a downside?

userbinator 4y ago
I suspect the "why" is most simply explained by "because designers had to justify their salaries."
- hbosch 4y ago
  In my experience, the "why" is more often called by a manager, director, or VP who wants a big project under their belt. The amount of times a "major design change" has happened from the bottom-up is very, very, almost impossibly rare in most cases. Sad story, but a true story.
  - firecall 4y ago
    This is correct. Management gets bored. Source: Me, previously a Big Brand Marketing Manager
    - strunz 4y ago
      Not bored as much as "I need a big project to parlay into a VP/Executive role"

linksnapzz 4y ago

While we're at it, please find the numpty that did the redesign of the the Newcastle Brown label, and makes sure they are never allowed to work in graphic design or commercial art ever again.

creativemonkeys 4y ago
I think it tastes different now too, but I can't find an old bottle to compare.
- linksnapzz 4y ago
  I thought there was something wrong with the last bottle I had, other than the label, and now I read this: "Newcastle Brown Ale is no longer available in the United States. A product labelled “Newcastle Brown Ale” is still sold but it is produced by Lagunitas Brewing Company and has little in common with the original product." What. The. Fuck.
  - creativemonkeys 4y ago
    Yeah... that's a pretty deceptive practice, though I assume it's legal to buy a brand and manufacture a different product under that label.
CamperBob2 4y ago
Or the geniuses who recently redesigned Vanilla Coke Zero's cans and cartons. The cans are now the exact color of what leaks out of a car with a blown head gasket, where the oil and coolant have mixed.

didibus 4y ago

I don't see how the eye tracking would have predicted the failure. It tells you people now see 100% orange over seeing Tropicana? But now that you know that, how do you know seeing 100% orange will lower sales as compared to seeing Tropicana?

userbinator 4y ago
Becaue people are looking for the brand.

userbinator 4y ago

IMHO the biggest visible difference to me (besides the "straw orange" trademark) is the original one has the brand Tropicana very clearly in the middle, while the redesign puts it in much-less-readable-at-a-glance vertical text on the side. To someone quickly scanning the shelves, the former stands out and immediately tells you it's Tropicana, while the latter would probably tell you only "100% orange" --- fine, it's orange juice, but doesn't say the brand as prominently.

civilized 4y ago
Personally I noticed the brand change but found the new branding so lame that my lizard brain suspected the quality had also gone down. It just wasn't Tropicana anymore.
- fy20 4y ago
  There is no Tropicana in my country, but the design and branding looks like what I'd expect from a supermarket's own brand.
  - Double_a_92 4y ago
    Yeah it feels like a very no-name brand, where you could apply the same design to many different kind of products.
pc86 4y ago
Yes, this is in the eye tracking heatmap gif at the beginning of the article.
MBCook 4y ago
The new version 100% looks like a generic to me. It’s some kind of orange juice. Likely a store brand. I agree that lacking the obvious name Tropicana somewhere is a big problem. Maybe if that was still in black and just as prominent as it was on the old carton, the new picture of orange juice might’ve worked. But if you make your product look like the store brand… what do you expect?
4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

civilized 4y ago

They took something fun and expressive and turned it into "if Goldman Sachs merged with Microsoft to sell orange juice". I'm sure they had great support from focus groups though. Decisions like this always do.

aaron695 4y ago

jtbayly 4y ago

Poorly written article. Says exactly the opposite of what it means several times. Here’s the totally wrong conclusion, for example: “On the other hand, the new packaging failed to impress the consumers, with clean lines, a lack of visuals, transforming the once indistinguishable orange juice into a “generic store brand” product.” The orange juice used to be distinguishable, not indistinguishable! It’s very hard to read articles that are so poorly written that they say the opposite of what they mean and rely on the reader to suss out their actual intent.

bsimpson 4y ago

It's no accident that popular brand redesigns are usually just fresh coats of paint on their existing visual identity. Apple: lost the rainbow, same silhouette Google: still multicolored wordmark, but in a more modern font BMW: same silhouette, reduced color palette UPS: same colors and composition, simplified shapes Brands are worth money they engender loyalty: people become repeat customers from brands they trust. If they don't recognize your brand, why would they choose it?

sroussey 4y ago
Yes, continuous brand refinement keeps thing modern without breaking the connection to the consumer.

Patrax 4y ago

Is this inspired by Atrioc's video? :P https://youtu.be/KnHJtJH5AaA?t=455 https://youtu.be/KnHJtJH5AaA?t=455

oliv__ 4y ago

Why would you mess with such a classic design if it's working?

brohoolio 4y ago

At least for me it’s about pattern recognition of something that I know delivers value. As in I’ve had this juice before and it’s good and I don’t know the name but I recognize what the bottle looks like. At least that’s how parents with young kids operate.

_carbyau_ 4y ago
Iconography. I honestly don't care to read the packaging every time I shop. Once I find something I like, I buy the "same" damn one at a glance.
- throwaway742 4y ago
  If I stopped and read every package in the grocery store I'd never make it out of there.

filmgirlcw 4y ago

Gosh, I remember this so well (it was 2009, not 2008, as this article states), rarely has a new logo/packaging change had such an impact on a product (Gap’s aborted logo redesign in late 2010 is probably still the ultimate example. That one lasted less than a week before reverting.). A better retrospective I think, is here [1], but it failed for all the reasons people in the comments have said. When you’re talking about consumer packaged goods, it is important to remain recognizable, especially on a store shelf. Getting rid of the iconic orange with a straw and replacing it with something that was very late-2000s Swiss type minimalist was just the wrong move. And an expensive mistake. Not Pepsi’s first or last logo/packaging mistake (there is a great meme that shows all the iterations of the Pepsi logo/can design over the years and then like one Coca-Cola design that has basically been consistent since the 1890s or something that isn’t technically accurate, but it true enough in the abstract), but probably one of its more costly, especially since it didn’t include a formulation change. [1]: https://www.thebrandingjournal.com/2015/05/what-to-learn-from-tropicanas-packaging-redesign-failure/ https://www.thebrandingjournal.com/2015/05/what-to-learn-fro...

yes_really 4y ago

A big problem is a lot of companies make changes for changes' sake instead of a real business reason. It might be due to internal incentives too: it's easier for designers and managers to justify their existence by launching new designs than by saying "all looks good, no need to change."

brador 4y ago

Actual reason for failure: juice name in rebrand is vertical making it unreadable on shelf.

yubiox 4y ago

Usually they change the packaging when they cheapen the ingredients of stuff and ruin it. It is a good indication that you should stop buying it (Ortega taco shells is a good recent example). But who cares what the Tropicana package looks like? Their OJ is sour so I don't buy it unless I am really craving OJ and I can't find Minute Maid. I will drive to 2-3 quickie marts first to look though. All juice is just sugar water anyway. I mostly avoid it altogether.

osigurdson 4y ago

I wonder how much this is to do with the re-design and how much is due to the fact that it changed.

noduerme 4y ago

I recall when this happened as I was actively redesigning the entire branding for a nationwide packaged food company at the time (15 different products for about $200k - a deal for them and a deal for me and my crew of two). The Tropicana blunder was a great object lesson in why too many cooks in the kitchen will ruin the soup. It's a textbook case of a corporation's marketing department's tendency to shy away from any type of bold graphic for fear of being the person blamed if it fails. The lesson is that failure is guaranteed if you approach a brand design with fear of failure, or fear people won't "get it". If there's one thing meme culture has shown, it's that people are desperate to be talked to like adults who are in on the message. Assuming your customers can't appreciate a metaphor because they're consumer robots is a guaranteed way to lose customers. Assuming they'll get your sense of humor or aesthetics is, of course, a big risk, but that's the job. As far as my role at that time, it worked out well, but the brand really did need a redesign. They were the second largest prepackaged sushi and salad company in the US and their packaging looked like airplane food before. I went in the complete opposite direction, filling each label with layered visual cues and references to what was inside. Sure, I was terrified it wouldn't work. But if Tropicana had approached me at that time and asked me for a redesign, I think I might have told them they didn't need one. Or I would've advocated for keeping their core "joke" because it worked. No one had the guts to tell them to stick with the brand.

malkia 4y ago

I've asked about this on the pretotyping forums, so was wondering - what If they launched their change in limited markets, see whether it makes sense, then roll forward - kind of like how we are supposed to do software updates with new features... (kind of)

verve_rat 4y ago

From the article: > One of the main reasons for rebranding/redesigning is for brands to reconnect with existing consumers and reach out to new ones. Which is horse shit. The reason companies do a rebranding is because the people that get paid to design things convinced the people that pay for the design that it was a good idea. The problem is that the people that pay started being convinced by justifications like "reconnect with existing consumers" rather than "it will make you more money". See also: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

mikewarot 4y ago

When the package changes, I always assume the quality went down, if I even recognize it after the change. Young people with 20/20 vision must be behind these stupid changes.

numair 4y ago

I looked at the title, opened the link, searched for “Peter Arnell,” got zero results, and knew the article was total garbage. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/arnells-explanation-of-failed-tropicana-design-resembles-his-nonsensical-pepsi-document/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/arnells-explanation-of-failed-t... I had a close friend who worked on a project where they brought this guy in. Charged $1m a month and invoiced his jet fuel to the company, if I remember correctly. Now you know where the $30M actually went. The article is an example of insufferably authoritative articles about “design thinking” combined with pseudo-science (the heat map image). You don’t need to know any of that, to know that Peter Arnell was an idiot and his design was utter junk.

lifeisstillgood 4y ago
But Indont think this is about "some guy came up with a crap design". It strikes me a number of things went badly 1. I think C-level execs at major corporations should have built up immunity against such bullshit. 2. The heatmap (plus the associated idea of lots of consumer testing) should have spotted something 3. the rollout seems to have been global and immediate, instead of for example testing the new packaging out in say tiny geographical markets first All of this reeks of failing to have rock solid product management (and release mgmt) at its core. Maybe we will find out more, but in the end, the loss was manageable, sales recovered and maybe the company learnt its lessons - would be interesting to hear what process and people changes occurred the days after ?
- iNerdier 4y ago
  C-level execs are the bullshit in these stories. They meddled with something that wasn’t broken and this was the result.
  - TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
    Logo Management is practically a cliche. Can't think what else to do to justify the big bucks? New Logo™! So articles like these completely miss the point of the commercial design industry. The goal isn't sales - never mind brand awareness. The goal is to make C-suite execs feel like they're doing something exciting, and maybe even a little creative. From that POV I'm sure the Tropicana rebrand was a huge success. And if a design fails, it's always the agency's fault.

moistly 4y ago

No doubt this design change had to be approved by the executive class. And I’m told to believe that their $20M paycheque is justified because, you know, they’re such valuable assets to the company. Smarter, savvier, better than the peons who do the actual labour. They must be, because they always fail upwards.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

dandare 4y ago

Tangential: on a mobile, you can not zoom the images in. When you click on an image, it is elevated into a lightbox that is roughly the same size as the original and can not be rescaled either. I still have no idea what the before-after image is supposed to show. A "uxdesign" website should do better.

seydor 4y ago

but it is almost lowercase logo, sans-serif, flat, how can it have failed?

taylorius 4y ago

I noticed yesterday in our local supermarket - a 1.5 litre carton of Tropicana juice was £4.80 (!!!). There's one more sale lost, to add to their missing $30 million.

rmason 4y ago

This is what test markets are all about. Proctor and Gamble has this down to a science, there are courses and books. Better to fail in a test market or two. Lose much less money than flopping nationwide too. Love Tropicana orange juice but this is an example of poor management.

woolion 4y ago

For any interested in Peter Arnell, the genius designer behind the redesign, I encourage you to look up "pepsi logo" on hn. The design document is such a radical statement it will certainly impact your view of design and corporate world. In Belgium the absolute dirt-cheap products are called "white products" ('produits blancs') due to their mostly white packaging (relevant to this is xkcd 993). It's striking how very similar their branding identity is to the new design. The fact that the design was not even recognizable from afar while the product did not change is very confusing from a consumer perspective. There are some very basic mistakes: the brand name is not in the right orientation anymore, it is less readable because it is too thin. Any "artisanal" feel is removed by the more sterilized design. I think only a "genius designer" could make corporates accepts design mistakes as bold choices. The more important thing is that this is from 2008. One would think that since then, companies would have learned that these redesigns are a terrible idea. Nonetheless, they still and always push for such soulless redesigns. The last in date being the announced Street Fighter 6 logo debacle, going from instantly recognizable brand to literal Adobe stock design.

runlevel1 4y ago
Pepsi Logo design document: https://www.goldennumber.net/wp-content/uploads/pepsi-arnell-021109.pdf https://www.goldennumber.net/wp-content/uploads/pepsi-arnell...

gambiting 4y ago

These kinds of changes always feel to me like a new designer coming in and feeling like they need to make their mark - so they mess with an original design that works fine, just for the sake of some stupid career progression. See: literally all Google products. Endlessly changing interfaces, one worse than another, for literally no reason - other than what I can only imagine is a string of promotions and designers feeling really important for couple months before they move onto the next product they can mess with and add to their portfolio.

rob74 4y ago
It's not just Google sadly - Microsoft had that before them (in every single version of Windows you had to get used to a new UI in the file explorer), and even Mozilla likes to tweak the UI of Firefox to death. Actually Google Chrome is better in this regard. Sure, they add new features too, but those fit in with the rest, and the design changes are gradual (less disruptive than Firefox' "our tabs now look like buttons").

sneak 4y ago

Orange juice has the word orange in it. Oranges are orange. Orange juice is yellow. The orange package is good. The yellow package is bad.

treyfitty 4y ago

Carton design, or not, I don't buy orange juice anymore because I don't know what "Made from Real Oranges*" means anymore. Over time, I came to learn that straightforward claims like these are engineered to deceive. Tropicana could use 100% real oranges, and I still wouldn't believe them. I could inspect the ingredients, and even then, it's dubious- companies have found ways to circumvent the rules there too. Instead of all this mental gymnastics I have to do at the grocery store, I just decided to abandon the product completely.

ineedasername 4y ago
I would be suspicious of any orange juice where the company feels the need to stipulate "real orange juice". What the heck else would it be made of? Reminds me of "ice cream" which, in a lot of cases, is not. Mixed in the ice cream section next to identical looking cartons of different flavors Breuer's is a big culprit) are things that say "whipped dairy dessert" in the place that others say "ice cream".
- credittw2021 4y ago
  One common-ish case would be from concentrate, since ostensibly it is just the water removed and then re added. However, you're at that point substituting the natural water for whatever is at the bottling source. This does lead me to an interesting question, that being whether one could make orange juice from frozen concentrate that is 'better' than store bought and reconstituted at a factory
- xattt 4y ago
  I wonder if the same health equivalency applies to jam and it’s analogues. There’s double-fruit jam that doesn’t identify as jam, but as a fruit spread. It seems like a healthier choice, due to higher bulk of fruit purée versus standard jam on toast (which I assume has more sugar).
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- 4y ago

karakfa2 4y ago

Main failure is, it converted a well known brand and box image to a generic one. There are at least 10 of them at a given time at the supermarket. Brand recognition is a time saver for the consumer to minimize the search time.

motoboi 4y ago

The article misses the most important point in those cases: how did the team miss that? It's very easy to predict the past and find errors when you know the result. It fricking hard to find errors in your reasoning right now. Why did they think that would work? What did they miss? What error got into their reasoning? Was this destined to fail or it was just bad luck? Could it have worked? I'd love to read about that kind of stuff.

aquarin 4y ago

Changing the text direction from horizontal to vertical? What is expected, that the customers will tilt the head just to read the brand?

tamaharbor 4y ago

They were just trying to eliminate the depiction of the nefarious plastic straw.

donatj 4y ago

Recently my wife found some Bubble Tape in the store. We were kind of taken aback by how horrible the modern packaging was. - https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61pGZX8pXLL._SX679_PIbundle-2,TopRight,0,0_AA679SH20_.jpg https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61pGZX8pXLL._SX679_PIbun... The entire "Bubble Tape" text is in an illegible font under a giant Hubba Bubba logo, as if kids have some sort of Hubba Bubba brand loyalty they're trying to play on. I assure you they don't. - https://www.mashed.com/img/gallery/the-untold-truth-of-bubble-tape/intro-1594529669.jpg https://www.mashed.com/img/gallery/the-untold-truth-of-bubbl... Compare to the old packaging. It was clean, fun, and to the point of the fun that waited inside for the kid. It's as if the modern redesigners didn't realize they're marketing to children.

gwbas1c 4y ago

The article totally misses the point of why the rebrand failed. I used to drink Tropicana Grovestand all the time in the 2000s. One day, I showed up at the grocery store, and a bunch of people were in front of the Tropicana rack, looking confused. I tried to find "Grovestand," but I couldn't. There were tons of identical bottles to choose from. Eventually, after staring at the bottles for a few minutes, I saw tiny text at the top of the bottle, hidden under the angle from the shelf above. It said things like, "no pulp," "pulpy," "lots of pulp." I had no idea which one was "Grovestand." Now, when it comes to orange juice, I really only like "Grovestand," so I took the time to shake the bottles around and figure out that "pulpy" was "Grovestand" and that "with pulp" wasn't. But, if there was another brand that I liked, you bet I would have bought it instead. All they needed to do was keep the old brand names, and make the words visible. That's it. Even though I was relieved when they went back to the old packaging, I was disappointed. All I wanted them to do was make it easy to find "Grovestand."

warent 4y ago
The article reads to me that this is the point they were getting at. > Tropicana’s orange juice became generic They genericized something which was uniquely branded. To some people it's the orange and straw, to others it's Grovestand, etc.
- ConceptJunkie 4y ago
  And to me, this is brain-dead obvious. They completely removed everything that was visually distinct about the packaging and replaced it with blandness.
dabernathy89 4y ago
Seems like you had a particular reaction to the branding change, but that doesn't mean their explanation for the wider public reaction is wrong.

rendall 4y ago

I remember that design. I liked it, knew it was Tropicana, and bought it. But I do remember also being surprised by it.

jmartrican 4y ago

I suspect that redesigns (e.g. packaging, UIs) should happen in a lean agile way. And over time, the new design would replace the old. I just think that redesigns are too risky to do all in one release. Redesigns can cause too much cognitive overload and dismisses the emotional connection with the old design that customers have built up over time. I think redesigns should still happen, but maybe is smaller steps. Where these small steps can be easily A/B tested or rolled back.

runlevel1 4y ago

For reference, here were some of the Arnell Group's other designs: Logos: https://web.archive.org/web/20130714003408/http://arnell.com/work.html?view=expertise&type=identity_design https://web.archive.org/web/20130714003408/http://arnell.com... Packaging: https://web.archive.org/web/20130717162849/http://arnell.com/work.html?view=expertise&type=packaging https://web.archive.org/web/20130717162849/http://arnell.com... Food and Beverage: https://web.archive.org/web/20130717185242/http://arnell.com/work.html?view=industry&type=food_beverage https://web.archive.org/web/20130717185242/http://arnell.com...