Looking back: What I learned from the the Pepsi, Starbucks and Tropicana redesigns.

3 years ago, Pepsi redesigned their logo. Most everyone hated it. That same year Tropicana redesigned their orange juice packaging. Most everyone hated it as well. Not long after, Starbucks simplified their logo much to the dismay of those that thought it was unnecessary. Like they say— time heals all wounds, and as "hurt" as we were by the tweaking of our beloved brands, I have gathered my thoughts and compared what I thought then versus what I think now…

When the Pepsi redesign materialized, the office was abuzz. Especially because accompanying it was a ridiculous 30-page design strategy that compared Pepsi to the center of the universe and pointed out past and present Pepsi logos' geometric qualities. There were comparisons to the Mona Lisa, Vitruvian Man, and even a section about Pepsi's "gravitational pull" and it's relation to the speed of light. WTH?! The most useful thing to come out of the design strategy was a design study of varying smiles and how they contributed to the evolution towards the final logo. Was all this real or a hoax? To this day I don't think it's been resolved, but whether it was or not it created some negative buzz around the redesign.

Thoughts then... It's not horrible, but I'm not crazy about it either. It's a noticeable difference, but not something that warranted a 30-page explanation and a bunch of useless comparisons. Why not target a main objective, stick to it, and use that as the basis for your explanation of the final artwork.

Thoughts now...  Today all I can see is the smile in the logo. And that's good. Looks like my connection to the smile study really helped me keep things in perspective. Here's what Pepsi could have done to explain the redesign:

1) We wanted to maintain the logo's simplicity. 

2) We want a mark that is reminiscent of the old, but can be appreciated by a newer, more "hip" audience.

3) Remind people: "SMILE-- we're still Pepsi!"

The Tropicana Fiasco

I caught the redesign of the Tropicana orange juice packaging when I was at my local market. I may have even purchased one. Not long later the office was again abuzz with the fact that consumers hated the redesign — they liked the old design, or the new one looked too generic. But the complaint that made the most sense was the fact that some consumers thought it was difficult to distinguish between the different varieties of O.J. offered by Tropicana. After the debacle Tropicana changed back to their original packaging.

Thoughts then... It's orange juice, people! I didn't hate the redesign. I'm with the "less is more" school of aesthetics, so it didn't bother me too much. The product was color coded at the top, so it wasn't THAT difficult to distinguish the varieties, but I could see where consumers could get confused.  In the end, it's what the consumer wants, and they ultimately got what they wanted.

Thoughts now...  It's still orange juice, people! But seriously, the design firm responsible for this is the same one that redesigned the Pepsi logo.  Maybe they could have tackled the redesign with the same mantra of "similar to the old, but tweaked to attract new buyers. Maybe a hybrid of the original and new packaging could have come about and perhaps appeased both sides. 

Bucking the System

Anytime waves are made in the design world, we hear about it, and you can bet we'll discuss it. When Starbucks redesign their logo in 2011 a lot of consumers weren't happy. They deemed it unnecessary, and too simple. Because the word "Starbucks" was taken out of the logo, people were worried they might not know where the coffee came from. They simplified the logo, but failed to state that as their main objective. Instead, we get video on their website explaining what I remember to be a complex process for their ultimate solution.

Thoughts then... I remember thinking, "I like it, but did they really need to?" and, "Well I guess if anyone can simplify their logo, THEY can, but did they really need to over-complicate how and why they did it?" I thought it was still recognizable as a brand mark with the redesign.

Thoughts now... They did it and I don't see any negative effects from doing so. They had built enough brand recognition that they could pull it off. They still kept the main component of their logo (the mermaid) and retained their brand color. I equate it to how Nike ultimately got rid of the word "Nike" in their logo and stayed with just the "swoosh". To this day you don't hear people complain about "where is that cup of coffee from?" or "What is this logo all about?"

So what did I learn?

The cliche, "It's what's inside that counts" comes to mind. People hate things. People complain about almost everything. In the end, people get over things. People will still buy what they want as long as the product is what they expect it to be despite its outward appearance. I don't buy a cup of coffee because I like the company's logo. But I do buy it because it's from a well-known and respected brand whose product I enjoy. The orange juice tastes the same no matter what the packaging looks like. While I may not like a design now, I may appreciate it later. As designers all we can do is try to visually communicate something quickly and easily without added stress to the consumer. The simpler we can get our point across, the better. If we can create something that evokes a positive feeling (even years later), then we are successful. If people don't like it, they may eventually learn to. If not, you know you can't always please everyone.


-- Joel Penos