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.

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.

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.

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.

+1

Now as for this “Keith” fellow …

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.

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.

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.