honestly i never got why people hated it so much. i thought it was an ok change.... at least it was something new!

While I agree that it was a less than amazing rebrand that was yanked far too quickly, I have to wonder if all the Twittered high fives and congratulatory blogging on this supposed corporate branding coup are a bit misplaced, if not entirely incorrect. Sure, The Internet as a whole lost their collective shit over what was perceived as a lackluster rebranding, but I think the majority of these stories chronicling its quick rise and fall are leaving out a brand's harshest critics: the brands themselves. Just because a design makes it to store shelves (or Internet shelves, or any public-facing arena) doesn't mean everyone at that company felt it was the best move. Sometimes even the highest of higher-ups, the people who ultimately approved the effort, are still not 100% sold on things, but sign on the dotted line because there's a deadline to meet, a tradeshow to prepare for, or an upcoming trip to Barbados and they can't afford to waste any more time. Sometimes there are turnovers in leadership and drastic changes in internal thinking that start long before the relaunch is made, but more often than not, it can be a case of the client not being totally sold on things, not trusting their agency/branding shop/design haüs. Does this mean a brand's leadership is immune to the collective rantings of Twitter and the blogosphere? Absolutely not. In fact, I think it would be ridiculous to suggest the big shots at Tropicana were not being made aware of the backlash. I just think we may be giving the Internet denziens a tad much credit on this one.

@ gatti - that is a really great point.

@ryan - I think we need to take into account the strategy. We don't know what Tropicana was trying to achieve when they made that redesign. But THEY knew, and that focus group may well have confirmed they weren't accomplishing it. If they confirmed they were accomplishing their goal, but there was a bit of a backlash (as in SJobs killing the floppy), they may have endured it anyway.

Nick- Agreed. It wasn't bankrupt, it was just kind of boring. I mean, the Pepsi logo is worse. WAY worse.

Gatti- I think there are always doubters in the client corporation, and any backlash gives them the political fuel to pull something they don't agree with. Sometimes, they're right. Sometimes, they're wrong. I felt the same way about those Seinfeld/Gates Microsoft ads. Bad as they were, I was interested to see where they were going. Alas.

Rick- True, I suppose...Perhaps if their strategy was to create a buzz about a fairly unemotional brand by pushing a diluted, generic design on an unsuspecting public, thus generating a groundswell of Tropicana awareness, well, mission accomplished. In that vein, New Coke could've been a huge viral campaign for Coca Cola.


All kidding aside, if they were clear on their strategy, and could stomach a little whining from mostly uninformed, reactionary consumers, more power to them. We know all too well that brands these days are giving far more credit to the Internet's opinion than is sometimes warranted. I mean, if it was a reaction to a DIGG redesign, well, OK, but this is juice we're talking about. It transcends the Internet Opinion Meme.

i'll go on record as liking the new pepsi redesign. i'm not sure if you're taking issue with the new logo (lackluster) or the whole nine...but all in all an update and improvement in my opinion.

Dave- The logo, specifically. Lackluster is kind. I'm actually pretty OK with the entire redesign of the brand, and the train ads are nice and clean, but that logo just ruins it. What are those curves? They make no sense!

I think Coke actually is a good example of an updated design that is both retro and modern without sacrificing the brand. Plus they got rid of those fake water droplets on cans.

Thanks for writing this Ryan, I've been meaning to and you pretty much hit on everything I wanted to say.

In the Times article the only thing that popped out as reasonable feedback was the bit about it being harder to differentiate the different versions, other than that it was just a bunch of people complaining. If they had said they pulled the redesign for this reason I would have totally understood. But listening to a bunch of people bitch about a logo and then deciding to pull it seems short sighted (and damn expensive). This is more or less what I was trying to say with my original rant on branding post ... What people say about a log on their blog has little-to-nothing to do with how they'll feel about it when it hits shelves. Ugh.

And Rick, I would agree with you except that would assume they're lying about why they pulled it, right? What strategy would they have had that would include pulling it if a bunch of bloggers get upset?

Another vote in favor of the rebrand: I never understood the argument that the new design was "too generic". On the shelf at my local grocery store there are three different brands of orange juice available. Two of them are forgettable, generic brand names with packaging that looks nearly identical to the old Tropicana design. The third is the new Tropicana carton which, for a little while longer at least, actually stands out from the others because it is clean, simple and (most importantly) different.

I think Tropicana is shooting themselves in the foot far more severely by retreating than they (arguably) did by launching the new brand identity in the first place.

Interesting post about the whole thing on redesign:related:

http://redesignrelated.com/post/80948802/tropicana-redesign-rolls-back

My favorite part was Paula Scher's Facebook status saying this was the worst thing to happen to Graphic Design since focus testing (I would argue since the drop shadow, but whatever).

I have to agree, but not because it's a fantastic design success (it's not - even if you like it, from a purely design standpoint, it's pretty sloppy), but because of my original argument: as soon as you undermine the designer's vision with the howling of the masses, we're bound to stagnate.

Nice post post Ryan, I am SOO late to this but here is a interesting post about it from a usability / user centered design perspective.

http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/merholz/2009/02/tropicanas-marketing-folly.html

Reading your post makes me think about the idea of designing the things "people don't know they want yet." It makes me think about Apple, the classic design by "gut" example who also happen to be masters of ease of use.

An inspiration to throw cation and research to the wind. Personas can be just as detrimental to the design process as focus groups. ;)

But a carton of juice? I would have played it safe. ha.

@noah - well I think it's a matter of "explicit" strategy vs. "unspoken." Some people half ass the strategic part of the brief and come up with the "new" goal - reposition tropicana in the marketplace - and forget to state/think about the obvious, unspoken, "continuing" goal - stay true to the brand's history and story.

@ ryan - I disagree. I'll wager the strategy had nothing to do with buzz. It was probably focused on repositioning on the luxury scale or doing a brand refresh looking toward keeping the brand from getting stale. I doubt it was an attention-seeking move.

@ dave/ryan - I actually really don't mind the pepsi logo. I hate the campaign. if they had just switched the logo out and not plastered the planet with it and made a ridiculous brand manifesto, it would have been fine. Like when coke went from swirlies to an italicized serif font. It was fine. Didn't matter. Then later they switched it again. Whatever. They didn't make the new logo the campaign. That's where pepsi failed.

@ryan - i totally agree on the fear part, it feels like a tyranny of the minority type thing. Or as Chris Hall put it - the vocal minority http://www.hallicious.com/vocal-minority/