So, the story goes something like this:
- Old school OJ brand puts out a new, distinctive package re-design.
- Lovers of orange juice everywhere throw a collective fit. OJ buying becomes problematic.
- Said OJ company freaks, and pulls the new packaging publicly.
- The intertubes, rejoice — it’s a customer led coup! Bad design has been cleansed from the world, and OJ looks just like it was a few months ago.
Am I the only one who finds a big firm backtracking a new design, so quickly, totally frightening? Isn’t this entirely counter counter to our professions better arguments that all good, new design is disruptive and challenging — and therefore needs time to set in? Don’t we all say that design is a process, and that any new design needs an opportunity to be refined? Shouldn’t design be given a freakin’ chance?
My cat is displeased
Whenever I think about reactions to design, or the process of setting design out into the world, I think of Paul Ford’s piece Launch. It’s one of the best things I’ve ever read on the Internet. It’s relevant here.
Brace yourself for the initial angry wave of criticism: how dare you, I hate it, it’s ugly, you’re stupid. The Internet runs on knee-jerk reactions. People will test your work against their pet theories: It is not free, and thus has no value; it lacks community features; I can’t believe you don’t use dotcaps, lampsheets, or pixel scrims; it is not written in Rusp or Erskell; my cat is displeased. The ultimate question lurks beneath these curses: why wasn’t I consulted?
— Paul Ford, Launch
“Why wasn’t I consulted” — that’s where Paul nails it. If the internet has given us one new thing, it’s the feeling that we all matter. I have a blog, I have a twitter account, I have a voice! Most of the time, this is a good thing. But still, I worry.
What happens when this collective voice fails? Do all these opinions matter? Is there something to fear when the collective voice of a bunch of selfish, over-proud “customers” — who have inexhaustible, conflicting demands — start dictating design choices?
Better, not bitter
Don’t get me wrong — I’m all for creating new relationships between company and consumer. This is why I love designing on the web — it’s the perfect medium for constructive communication and building great customer relationships. We’re just starting to realize the amazing potential the web has to transform how we all interact, especially within the traditionally closed relationship between companies and consumers. There’s a really powerful communication mechanism developing, and everyone can benefit from it.
If this is going to happen though, we need to be better. As customers, and especially as designers, we must keep the dialogue open, positive and constructive. We must speak with soft voices and an understanding that, if our needs aren’t met or our voices seemingly ignored, there’s most likely a reason for it. Large companies might seem stupid, but they’re filled with the same warm-blooded types as yourself.
Sure, Peter Arnell (CEO of the re-design firm) isn’t a great speaker, but do we need to tease him on Twitter? Or rip into the design roughly 200 times on an industry blog? I hope not.
“The only option is politeness — remember always that you are dealing with other primates.” – Paul Ford
I don’t want to sound schoolmarmish, but I think that, in this age of Twitter, us designers tend to be a little loose with our opinions. This sucks, that sucks, and so on. The problem is, if we’re so harsh, reactionary and crowd-minded in our criticism, we’re only going to make things harder on ourselves. How will it feel when karma’s kicking your ass, and you’re at the helm of a troubled project with the thankless job of reading response emails, set in all-caps, screaming bloody murder?
Granted, we need to have high-standards. We should all strive for, and champion, the best design and the best firms. We do have a right to expect more from our large design agencies. The Arnell Group, it seems, didn’t have a convincing plan/justification for their work. There were serious usability issues with the packaging, and they obviously didn’t plan on how to incorporate customer feedback, and refine the work.
But let’s not all immediately join in some cacophonous hate-fest for the failures of others. Instead, we should offer constructive criticism and narratives about better design process, and move on with our lives. After all, it’s just fucking orange juice.
10 Comments
Keith
Feb 26th
In general I agree with you when it comes to avoiding knee-jerk decisions based on consumer or user reaction.
However, Arnell’s delivery aside; it’s obvious to me that not only was the justification for their design decisions very weak, the execution was horrible. I mean, he talks about squeezing and hugging but the new brand rips almost all the personality away. It’s clearly cold and impersonal and that’s a big part of why consumers had a problem with it.
And there were clearly some brand recognition issues, that led to people having problems finding it to purchase, etc. Also something I think is a huge reason why I feel the Pepsi brand re-design was a problem. Why would you fuck with a perfectly well known, memorable, recognizable brand? It just doesn’t make sense.
As far as making fun of the design, the justification and the handling of criticism goes, I tend to disagree with you. Then again I have a thick skin having been through many a no-holds-bared creative review in the past and feel that it helped me grow as a designer in ways I never would have had I not had suffered through it.
If nothing else it teaches you to better think out and defend your design decisions.
Matt
Feb 26th
@Keith: Good comments. You mention a few things I plan to follow up with in a future post, but here are a few quick thoughts:
Arnell’s speech: Yes, he’s terrible as a pitch man. He should have given the talk with someone closer to the work, or spent more time rehearsing the explanation himself.
The packaging design: I’m one of the few people who didn’t hate it — I think it’s a mild improvement over the previous iteration, which seemed somewhat dated and impersonal to me.
Of course, there were some issues with it being hard to tell the different types of juices apart (pulp, no pulp, some pulp, just enough pulp, etc). But still, it’s not like it’s that difficult to find your Tropicana blend.
Criticism: I’m definitely not saying that all design criticism should be positive. Strong, constructive feedback (often negative) is essential to any design project. And it’s great to have places like Brand New to critique new logo work that comes out of our profession, even if they go a little overboard.
But I think it’s harder to defend the storm of Tweets that pop-up about how much whatever just came out sucks, how stupid it is, how dumb whoever built it is, etc. I mean, it’s 140 characters, right? That’s not a true discussion, and it’s definitely not two-way.
Twitter is great for many things, and represents a fascinating social force, but I just don’t think it’s a healthy place to critique design work. That’s my $0.02 anyway.
Keith
Feb 26th
Well, re: Twitter, I don’t think it’s a healthy place to have any sort of meaningful discussion, but… then again, it does have its uses and I’m not really opposed to people firing off 140 character criticism. It’s better than no criticism at all if it’s at all valid…
I do get you that “This logo sucks” and things like that aren’t valid criticism, but you can’t blame Twitter for that. Blame the people firing off those tweets. Trust me, even if they had a better method of delivery it doesn’t change that the thoughts behind them aren’t well formed - much like Arnell’s defense of their design decisions. As such, those kind of comments shouldn’t *need* to be defended at all, no matter where they’re published.
You can post a well formed opinion via Twitter, it’s just that it’s so easy to fire things off (same goes for e-mail, IM, etc.) that people don’t *think* about things. That, to me, is user error.
Josh
Feb 26th
“After all, it’s just fucking orange juice.”
+1
Now as for this “Keith” fellow …
Matt Robin
Feb 26th
The OJ-making company clearly didn’t do their homework before they rolled out the new design - that’s what this sorry tale shows most of all (seems to me).
If the brand design was so distinctive though (as Keith notes) why was it being changed so dramatically anyway? Perhaps only a modest update was needed instead.
>>”After all, it’s just fucking orange juice.”
Yeah, I’m sort of with you on that, I mean it was only the packaging that changed right? The orange stuff in the box/bottle is still the same isn’t it?!!
As for the customer-led criticism on blogs, twitter, etc…I think any design company or individual needs to take negative feedback on the chin. If the original design decisions are sound then it just forces a reasoned and valid counter argument (I sometimes plan my answers in advance if I can, haha!). Of course, if the designers went very, VERY wrong (which they might have done with this particular effort) then they have to respect that and act fast and take responsibility.
As I haven’t seen the product in question, the re-design or the original design - then my comments are purely based on what you’ve written in this article.
Matt
Feb 26th
@Keith: You’re definitely right, that it’s silly to blame the technology. People were shouting in Usenet forums first, then blogs, now Twitter. There will always be a ‘non-useful’ way to use any technology or communication platform, and people will always find away to abuse it. User error, indeed.
Still, I think there’s something unique about the way it seems to enhance some negative threads. I can’t quite put my finger on it, but the super low threshold to post, the feed-like nature of it’s display — it just seems to encourage the user to chime in with a quick opinion. Sometimes, the result can be a bit too ‘group-thinky’ for my tastes.
But hey, I do like Twitter. Like anything, it’s gonna have some annoying aspects to it, but that’s just life. It’s an interesting conversation, and I’m glad I joined it.
Kevin
Feb 26th
I’m in agreement with Matt Robin. It clearly feels like they didn’t do their homework and ended up missing their target audience.
Sarah
Feb 26th
Great post!
I thought the Tropicana brand was interesting, bold, and modern, but I don’t think it would ever have been as strong as their image of the orange with the straw. I think they made the right decision, this time, to listen to their customers.
I don’t think this is anything to get worried about. I don’t see companies reacting to every concern a customer raises. I think there will always be thoughtful consideration behind business decisions, whether they are reactions to customer feedback, sales, or changes in the economy. It may seem like customers complained and Tropicana switched, but I think there was much more at play than that.
It’s unfortunate, yes, that much of the way we connect with each other is through whining and complaining, and that it can lead to crowd-minded hatefests. I think you’re right in suggesting we be more careful, and think about the impact of our criticism. That’s good manners, and being professional, and acting with integrity. I guess, sometimes, we all just need a little reminder.
Olivia
Feb 26th
Nice work, Matt, you make some really interesting points. I definitely agree that the pile-on of hate is distasteful, especially when it comes from people who in their own careers might easily find themselves on the receiving end of such criticism. And it’s certainly unnecessary, given that the part of the product you actually consume didn’t change. It’s not like the new package is breaking up families, destroying lives, and kicking puppies. It’s a container…of juice.
That said, what I find most interesting about this particular case is that it’s another example of how large-scale overhauls have a tendency to backfire. Now, I admittedly don’t know Tropicana’s rationale for making such a big break with the past in this new design direction. Considering their willingness to scrap it and go back to the previous version, I have to imagine it wasn’t very strong to begin with. Why then didn’t they take a more incremental approach to revising the packaging? I know hindsight makes it easier to make that argument, but still, we see it time and time again. Rarely does taking on a full-fledged redesign yield the same benefit in terms of customer satisfaction and product success as do little course-correcting design changes.
In the end, I’m not frightened by Tropicana’s back-tracking. I think it will serve as a useful example of the advantages of a more incremental strategy (and plenty of user testing/feedback early on) by showing what not to do and what the potential outcome can be.
R. Chudd
Feb 26th
From NYT: “‘Twitter is the ultimate focus group.’”