PACKAGING DESIGN & SOLUTIONS: REDESIGNING
Recently at Design Activity,we workedwith Bassett’s vitamins, a brandwith real heritage. However, evidence suggested the brandwas unable to retain core users as children grewinto teens. The solution required a two-
fold strategy; firstly to create a brand marque for Bassett’s Soft and Chewy that would reinstate its caring family values and provide category leadership. Then, to build and develop own- able pack equities which provide clear life stage differentiation and a choice for all the family. The new packaging extended
the core range to include teen and adult propositions achieving trade and consumer acceptance almost immediately with 100 per cent distribution of the expanded range in all multiples, accelerating Bassett’s growth ahead of the market.
PREPARATION IS THE KEY Once the rationale for change is established, a thorough evaluation of the brief is required prior to any work starting – ultimately it saves clients’ time andmoney. Quality of packaging design output is proportionate to the quality of the brief set. Only after the brief is
established can the design process truly begin. Howmuch of the brand’s on pack elementswill it be expedient to retain,what can be evolved andwhat discarded? Unless the strategy is to
become a challenger brand, the packaging will need to evolve slowly, bringing the consumer along. Research allows the degree of change to be assessed. It's better to go wide here than miss a trick by playing it safe. Qualitative focus groups can
provide good consumer insight and a valuable cross reference
with the client’s own opinions, helping to facilitate final decisions on design choice. Whilst it's in our nature as
consumers to seek out the new or the different and align ourselves to brands most reflective of our character, we are still cautious when it comes to the brands we take home.
THE PRACTICALITIES As packaging designers, practical considerations become questions that we ask when defining the brief. For instance, we'll need to decide what visual and physical equities of the brand are intrinsic to its character and what can be disregarded or evolved. We often gain the answers to
these questions by performing a brand striptease, removing elements of the pack graphics a piece at a time untilwe can't recognise the brand anymore; it sounds like a crudemechanic but itworks. One test of the effectiveness of a brand’s packaging is to cover parts of it and see if it is still recognisable - you often find that graphics can become generic. On-pack communication should be unique in both look and tone of voice if the brand is to have single- mindedness and confidence. A further consideration is the
relationship between the product and the brand. Is the product unique to a sector, likeMarmite, or one of the crowd, like a premium raspberry jam (main image) that requires branding to communicate its USP? Does the brand have a range
of products in one sector or do they spread across several? If so, then what is the essence that binds the range together? Does the range include packs
Once a rebrand has taken place, it is integral the company then analyses whether it achieved what it was set out to do
Design Activity worked with Bassetts to redesign its range of vitamins in order to retain core users. Before (left) and after (right)
of differing formats or on-pack information that varies in length and style? As a designer it's best to design the worst case scenario to avoid a chosen design route failing as it's rolled out across the range.
AND FINALLY... The design approved on the lead SKU in the office can lose impact in the implementation process. Commonmistakes to note include: • Implementation around the pack and across the range must be consistent and follow the architecture that has been created. Good implementation translates in-store to a powerful and confident ‘brand wall’ that the consumer will notice. Poor execution and inconsistency will look weak, confusing and fail to appeal. • Also,most re-brands are launched with a promotional flash to communicate new or something similar; yet this element is often overlooked in the design evaluation process. This can result in the new packaging being compromised by having to
accommodate a flash at the 11th hour which is both detracting and distracting. • Finally, the evaluation process should have taken into account likely neighbours on shelf, resulting in a re-brand that is differentiated fromthe competition. But one aspect of shelf impact that is often not considered until it is too late is the role of shelf ready packaging (SRPs). An SRP structure often has a return lip at the base, flanked by shoulders left and right. The trap is to lose key design elements, important text communication and sometimes even branding that can be partially obscured. Ultimately you need to ensure
you’re focused on the end game – what was the rebrand for? Brand awareness? Sales increment? Share retention? Lower production costs? And, most importantly - did it deliver? Fundamentally, and something
we can’t lose sight of, is that a packaging rebrand is there to effect change and that change has to be the commercial reality
of the work produced.
PackagingGazette.co.uk | Packaging Gazette | 21
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52