DESIGN FOCUS
bottle is thin and lucky to survive a drop test and the flip top, whilst active and neat, is light with sharp edges, almost a possible baby or mother scratching hazard.
Q
Does the packaging on the product adhere
enough to the brand’s identity? NF: The jam and marmalade packs certainly display the Morrisons M savers identity in a consistent way. Across the whole range this is a large re- launch in many market sectors and packaging materials. At the outset it is vital to get essential elements right and the company seem to be achieving this. AHE: It’s very clear that the
product is part of the Morrison’s budget range via the bold M savers logo. The rest of the range uses this same logo plus one bold colour for the product identity, in this case pink for fairy cakes. SW: The branding is excellent across the whole M-Saver range. It’s appropriate to the product, colours are soft and pleasing saying freshness for food, clean for household products and gentle for Baby bath.
Q
Is all the correct branding/lettering in
place in order to please loyal consumers? NF: In the store I visited there
were shelf-cards letting customers know that the Morrisons Value range was being re-launched as M Savers. In the early stages of a re- launch this is important, particularly as there were still products on sale with the old branding. As long as the M savers logo is used, it should always be clear what range these products belong to. AHE: Yes, Morrison’s customers will recognise the M logo instantly and it’s clear that this is part of the savers sub- brand. The simple graphics are consistent with the company’s straightforward, ‘no nonsense’ approach. SW: Yes as the M logo is prevalent. Also, all of the products are good value but the packaging is cheap; but to an inexpert eye it doesn’t look that cheap. It’s only when you look closely that you can see what could have been done. Therefore, as a whole range, it works.
Q
As a packaging expert, what would
you have done differently in the design and manufacturing of the packaging/what needs improving? NF: This is a huge project and, having been involved in these types of launches myself , I know how vital it is to get it right first time. There will always be criticisms and subjective negative opinions. It is a monumental task to achieve colour consistency across a whole raft of different material types and substrates, involving a myriad of packaging producers. You will never get it totally right all the time but Morrisons have made a good fist of it. AHE: Very little, as it already
takes a minimalist approach; however, the back fin seal is a little on the generous side and the film could have been 40mm narrower than it is, and still deliver an effective seal. SW: There is massive room for improvement. As every parent knows what you need when you’re bathing a baby is three or more hands. This is true from birth to twelve months. At first because they’re tiny and helpless and as they get older because they’re boisterous. So why not a bottle that is two-shot moulded with a TPE outer surface? This would give excellent grip even with wet and soapy hands and provide another colour in the moulding. And what about the closure? A child-resistant flip top would be nice, after all there is a real risk of ingestion and whilst not a regulated product, liquid soap is not good for babies to swallow. At least though a better soft edged flip top should have been specified. These two improvements would give tremendous competitive advantage and a real ‘we care’ message to customers. With so large a gap in selling price between M-Saver and brand, there has to be lots of financial elbowroom. It’s actually easier for own label marketers to try out better packaging than it is for brand owners, so we could have had ‘not just cheaper but better’. Pity they didn’t.
Q
What would you award the product out
of ten? NF: I would award the whole
range nine out of ten. I would like to congratulate Morrisons
28 | Packaging Gazette |
PackagingGazette.co.uk
Editor’s Verdict
R
eading afround this packaging, it has to be said that these designs have caused a little bit of a stir. Some, like our panel, love its simplicity and think that for a value range, it works well. Others,
on the other hand, seem rather underwhelmed by it, even though it clearly took months of work. I believe I fall somewhere between these two camps. I think the designs work well to bring together the entire range. As you walk around the supermarket, it is unmistakeable that the white packets with their hand-drawn illustrations belong together. It is also obvious that they are signalling a value brand, as they favour the simple white-and-one-colour colour scheme, something which is used frequently throughout other supermarkets’ value ranges (see the Sainsbury’s Basics range and Tesco’s iconic blue-and-white stripe branding). However, I do think that the designs, overall, look a little too simple for
me, as well as looking messy and not massively pleasing to the eye. I think it is integral that packaging is a pleasure to look at, and currently, I don’t believe these designs are interesting to indulge in visual foreplay with. The more I look at them, the more they end up annoying me. It’s a strong word, ‘annoying’, I know, and I’m surprised myself by my response. But let me expell my proverbial beef. The lettering, for starts, is just too child-like and almost conveys a
sloppy hand. Yes, I get it if that was the idea, but it just doesn’t work for me. I believe, personally, that if simplicity is going to be the main selling point of a pack’s design, that simplicity should be done well, with a bold striking font that looks clean and elegant. This pack does not follow either adjective. Also, the font looks too big in some instances, for example on the plum tomatoes and baby bath pack. The drawings, also, are just too simplistic. I understand they were
hand drawn for a reason, but I think a little more work on these would have not gone amiss - just to make sure they looked cleaner. A cleaner design overall would have looked good against the white backdrop that currently adorns all the packs. I am also concerned about obvious cost-cutting of some of the packs,
but as it is a value range, I don’t believe that non-packaging enthusiasts will be bothered. And do you know what? I don’t think designers Coley Porter Bell are bothered either, either by my or other less-than-positive evaluations on their M Savers work. As one of them wrote in their blog after his other half said the designs were “nice” and that she “didn’t really care” when presented with them: “[Her] apparently underwhelmed reaction to our new Morrisons work wasn’t a mark of failure at all. Her lack of knowledge and engagement allowed her to feel her reaction, rather than think it. Even a mild reaction like ‘nice’ is hard to achieve. It was more likely a mark of success than failure.” So if any reaction is good, the range is a success. I award six and a half
out of ten. It’s good work, but it’s just not for me.
on what they have achieved. They have also been sensible with pricing and price-points, so I believe the M savers range
will succeed commercially. AHE: This is good offering from Morrison’s. Yes, it’s a budget range, presented to appeal to busy, hard-working parents trying to get through life, making dinner and looking after the kids without too much effort or expenditure. On the cakes
specifically, there’s the aspiration of ‘homemade’ cakes which can look good with a little imagination and not too much effort. The packaging is minimal, the graphics simple and effective – and the cakes taste good too. Well done Mr Morrison. Nine and a half. SW: It would have been eight, but Morrisons have ignored too many improvement opportunities. Therefore, it’s seven and a half.
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