OJ | ScLoHo's Collective Wisdom

Nope not gonna talk about Mr Simpson, except to say there's a brand gone bad.

Last week a couple of folks wrote about the packaging of Tropicana Orange Juice. I haven't bought any orange juice recently except for a few weeks ago, while having breakfast with one of my talk show hosts at a place down the street from the radio station where they have fresh squeezed oj.

I get my orange juice from the daily Diet Mt. Dew's I drink. Check the label. It's the 2nd ingredient!

But on with the Tropicana story. First there's this piece from Skip at Maple Creative:

Tropicana Squeezed by Consumer Perception

Last month, we commented on Tropicana's packaging redesign. Some called it "generic." In fact, we questioned if Tropicana was using its new, plainer design to attempt to reposition itself downward. Now this week, as reported in the following New York Times story, Tropicana announced that it has reversed its decision (in response to consumer reaction) and has scrapped the new packaging design.

Tropicana Discovers Some Buyers Are Passionate About Packaging
(Stuart Elliott, New York Times, Feb. 23, 2009)

IT took 24 years, but PepsiCo now has its own version of New Coke.

The PepsiCo Americas Beverages division of PepsiCo is bowing to public demand and scrapping the changes made to a flagship product, Tropicana Pure Premium orange juice. Redesigned packaging that was introduced in early January is being discontinued, executives plan to announce on Monday, and the previous version will be brought back in the next month.

Also returning will be the longtime Tropicana brand symbol, an orange from which a straw protrudes. The symbol, meant to evoke fresh taste, had been supplanted on the new packages by a glass of orange juice.
The about-face comes after consumers complained about the makeover in letters, e-mail messages and telephone calls and clamored for a return of the original look. Some of those commenting described the new packaging as “ugly” or “stupid,” and resembling “a generic bargain brand” or a “store brand.”

“Do any of these package-design people actually shop for orange juice?” the writer of one e-mail message asked rhetorically. “Because I do, and the new cartons stink.” Others described the redesign as making it more difficult to distinguish among the varieties of Tropicana or differentiate Tropicana from other orange juices.

Such attention is becoming increasingly common as interactive technologies enable consumers to rapidly convey opinions to marketers.

“You used to wait to go to the water cooler or a cocktail party to talk over something,” said Richard Laermer, chief executive at RLM Public Relations in New York. “Now, every minute is a cocktail party,” he added. “You write an e-mail and in an hour, you’ve got a fan base agreeing with you.”

That ability to share brickbats or bouquets with other consumers is important because it facilitates the formation of ad hoc groups, more likely to be listened to than individuals.

“There will always be people complaining, and always be people complaining about the complainers,” said Peter Shankman, a public relations executive who specializes in social media. “But this makes it easier to put us together.”

The phenomenon was on display last week when users of Facebook complained about changes to the Web site’s terms of service using methods that included, yes, groups on facebook.com. Facebook yielded to the protests and reverted to its original contract with users.

And in November, many consumers who used Twitter to criticize an ad for Motrin pain reliever received responses within 48 hours from the brand’s maker, a unit of Johnson & Johnson, which apologized for the ad and told them it had been withdrawn.

“Twitter is the ultimate focus group,” Mr. Shankman said. “I can post something and in a minute get feedback from 700 people around the world, giving me their real opinions.”

Neil Campbell, president at Tropicana North America in Chicago, part of PepsiCo Americas Beverages, acknowledged that consumers can communicate with marketers “more readily and more quickly” than ever. “For companies that put consumers at the center of what they do,” he said, “it’s a good thing.” It was not the volume of the outcries that led to the corporate change of heart, Mr. Campbell said, because “it was a fraction of a percent of the people who buy the product.” Rather, the criticism is being heeded because it came, Mr. Campbell said in a telephone interview on Friday, from some of “our most loyal consumers.”

“We underestimated the deep emotional bond” they had with the original packaging, he added. “Those consumers are very important to us, so we responded.” Among those who underestimated that bond was Mr. Campbell himself. In an interview last month to discuss the new packaging, he said, “The straw and orange have been there for a long time, but people have not necessarily had a huge connection to them.” Reminded of that on Friday, Mr. Campbell said: “What we didn’t get was the passion this very loyal small group of consumers have. That wasn’t something that came out in the research.”

That echoed an explanation offered in 1985 by executives of the Coca-Cola Company in response to the avalanche of complaints when they replaced the original version of Coca-Cola with New Coke: Consumers in focus groups liked the taste of New Coke, but were not told old Coke would disappear. The original version was hastily brought back as Coca-Cola Classic and New Coke eventually fizzed out. (There are, it should be noted, significant differences between the two corporate flip-flops. For instance, the Tropicana changes involved only packaging, not the formula for or taste of the beverage.)

An ad campaign for Tropicana that helped herald the redesigned cartons, also introduced last month, will continue to run, Mr. Campbell said. Print and outdoor ads that have already appeared will not be changed, he added, but future elements of the campaign — like commercials, due in March — would be updated.
Unlike the packaging, the campaign has drawn praise, particularly for including in its family imagery several photographs of fathers and children hugging. Such dad-centric images are rare in food ads. The campaign, which carries the theme “Squeeze it’s a natural,” was created by Arnell in New York, part of the Omnicom Group. Arnell also created the new version of the Tropicana packaging.

“Tropicana is doing exactly what they should be doing,” Peter Arnell, chairman and chief creative officer at Arnell, said in a separate telephone interview on Friday. “I’m incredibly surprised by the reaction,” he added, referring to the complaints about his agency’s design work, but “I’m glad Tropicana is getting this kind of attention.”

In fact, Tropicana plans to contact “everyone who called or wrote us” to express opinions, Mr. Campbell said, “and explain to them we’re making the change.”

Tropicana is among several PepsiCo brands whose packaging and logos have been recently redesigned by Arnell. The new logo the agency produced for Pepsi-Cola has been the subject of comments by ad bloggers who perceive a resemblance to the logo for the Barack Obama presidential campaign.

The bloggers have also buzzed about a document outlining the creation of the Pepsi-Cola logo, which appears to have been written by Arnell for PepsiCo executives; Mr. Arnell has declined to comment on the authenticity of the document, which is titled “Breathtaking Design Strategy” and is written in grandiose language.

One aspect of the new Tropicana packaging is being salvaged: plastic caps for the cartons, also designed by Arnell, that are shaped and colored like oranges. Those caps will be used, Mr. Campbell said, for cartons of Trop 50, a variety of Tropicana with less sugar and calories that is to be introduced soon.

During the interview last month, Mr. Campbell said that Tropicana would spend more than $35 million on the “Squeeze” campaign. Although he declined on Friday to discuss how much it would cost to scrap the new packaging and bring back the previous design, he said the amount “isn’t significant.”

Asked if he was chagrined that consumers rejected the changes he believed they wanted, Mr. Campbell replied: “I feel it’s the right thing to do, to innovate as a company. I wouldn’t want to stop innovating as a result of this. At the same time, if consumers are speaking, you have to listen.”

So, I ask you marketing geniuses: what do you think of that?

(And thanks to Maple alumna and marketing genius Emily Bennington for sending this to us.)

And then Laura Ries wrote about it too:

Tropicana gets Squeezed

The recent hubbub over the Tropicana packaging change shines a light on several marketing myths. Take note so you don’t make the same mistakes with your brand.

Tropicana brand background

Tropicana is a 60-year-old brand. Originally the company sold gift boxes of oranges, but looking for something to do with the smaller fruit that went to waste they got into the frozen concentrate business. But that category was well established and Tropicana was just another brand.

The key event that really built the Tropicana brand came in 1954. Not satisfied with being just another player in the concentrate category, the company pioneered a flash pasteurization method that raised the temperature of the freshly squeezed orange juice for a very short time, extending the juice’s shelf life to three months while maintaining its flavor. Tropicana then dropped the frozen concentrate product and focused entirely on the fresh, "not-from-concentrate" product.

Being first in a new category is the key to success. Tropicana got into the mind with a great name and built a new category. Tropicana owns not-from-concentrate in the mind and is the "real thing" in fresh orange juice. With the success of Tropicana, eventually the majority of the market for orange juice moved from frozen to fresh.

Today, Tropicana remains the dominant brand and the world leader in chilled orange juice. Since the original entrepreneur sold the company in the 1970’s, there have been several owners. Since 1998, PepsiCo has owned the brand.

Last month, PepsiCo introduced a major overhaul of the Tropicana packaging. Which was done after PepsiCo Chairman-CEO Indra Nooyi announced the company would embark on a sweeping revamp of all its brands. To be changed: "every aspect of the brand proposition: how they look, how they’re packaged, how they will be merchandised on the shelves and how they connect with consumers."

What? Is she crazy? Apparently. The last thing PepsiCo should do is totally redo all of its brands. The new Pepsi logo that is a little too close to Obama’s logo hasn’t been very well received. And results for Tropicana have been disastrous.

In just a few short weeks after the packaging change, the company bowed to consumer outrage and scrapped the Tropicana changes. The previous packaging will be brought back and Arnell will finally be humbled (this part of course I doubt.)

Unfortunately, the company will continue the advertising campaign by Arnell that accompanied the new packaging look. The tagline is "Squeeze. It’s a natural." Squeeze? That is not language that consumers would ever use. Tropicana should have remained focused on fresh not from concentrate orange juice.

"Squeeze" is a typical campaign that left-brain management loves. Management values cleverness in advertising. Advertising campaigns that are clever and new appeal to left-brainers. You see squeeze is used as a double-entendre in the ads. The advertisement are filled with people hugging. Peter Arnell says the campaign is all about love. Love? The worst part is there is not an orange in sight in any of the ads. How clever indeed! Reminds me of the Saturn ads with no cars.

Right-brain marketing values credentials in advertising. Advertising that is relevant, familiar and consistent is what works best at reinforcing a brand in the consumer’s mind.

Now that you know the background, let’s debunk some enduring marketing myths:

It is the product not the brand that consumers care about. Wrong.

Consumers care about brands. The brand is what gives the product its authenticity and credibility. The brand includes everything from the name, the look, the logo, the color and the package.

When you change the look of the packaging, you lose some of the power of the brand in the mind. It no longer looks authentic. And worse, consumers think you have also changed the contents.

"We underestimated the deep emotional bond consumers had with the original packaging," said the President of Tropicana. Consumers weren’t attached to the packaging! Consumers are attached to the Tropicana brand. And it didn't feel like their Tropicana brand when you changed the packaging. The packaging is the visual that signals the brand’s familiarity in the mind.

Suppose Coca-Cola changed its classic bottle. It would be a disaster. In fact, Coca-Cola has been aggressively increasing its use of that bottle imagery on cans, cups, and billboards to reinforce its brand. Good move.

The verbal is more powerful than the visual. Wrong.

Both are necessary and should complement each other. One of the worst things about the Tropicana redesign was the loss of the iconic orange and straw. It was a powerful visual that reinforced the fresh, not-from-concentrate idea in the mind. Instead they used the words “100% orange” on the containers. Bad move. But typical of left-brain management that thinks verbally rather than visually.

The strongest brands have powerful visuals that reinforce the brands in the mind.

Marlboro – Cowboys

KFC –Colonel Sanders

Pizza Hut – Red Roof

AT&T - globe

McDonald's - golden arches

Brands need constant change to keep up with consumers. Wrong.

Strong brands should not make radical changes. Leading brands in particular should be wary of change.

(Of course, if nobody knows your brand, you can change it as much as you want.)

Occasionally (like once a decade or two) brands may need some slight changes and updates. But only very infrequently and very subtly. The changes should be ones that few people even notice.

And sometimes it is a good idea not to change at all. Jack Daniels is proud of the fact it never changes. In fact, it is the theme of its advertising. “Not subject to change, not now, not ever.”

If your brand is facing an uncertain future because of a declining category, it might be better to launch a new brand. You can’t change a brand radically in the mind anyway. Think Kodak.

Here are some classic logo changes that kept the brand’s authenticity but made slight changes to keep the look current.