3 ms·

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

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.

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.