Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by PaulDavisThe1st 1499 days ago
The "why" was pretty clearly explained in TFA:

> One of the main reasons for rebranding/redesigning is for brands to reconnect with existing consumers and reach out to new ones.

The notable point here IMO is not "why did they do it?" but "how/why did it fail so badly?"
3 comments
stickfigure 1498 days ago
"reconnect with existing consumers and reach out to new ones" is management consultant bullshit like "leverage our synergies to enhance the client experience". It means nothing. TFA did not explain anything.

You also don't "reconnect with existing customers" by changing the brand.

link
PaulDavisThe1st 1498 days ago
"the brand" is ill-defined. Is it the name "Tropicana" or is it the design of the packaging? In this case, it turned out to be the latter more than the former. There are other cases where the name is retained through a total redesign without this sort of damage.

While I half-agree on the BS level in that quote, in another sense I think it's totally obvious what they meant: consumers who already buy tropicana become inured to the brand identity - a redesign gets them actively thinking about the choice to buy tropicana while shopping; consumers who do not buy tropicana for some vague, non-specific reason may be tempted to try it after the redesign, either because they merely notice the package more, or find it more appealing.

link
bambax 1498 days ago
> In this case, it turned out to be the latter more than the former.

That conclusion is not obvious. On the new packaging, the brand is much less visible, all one sees is a big promise about "orange" (like Agent Orange?) so it could be that people were looking for the brand name, and took that opportunity to switch.

link
mannykannot 1499 days ago
That would have been the fallacy of unjustifiably arguing from the general to the specific. What you have stated are arguments why a company might choose to rebrand. They are not arguments that Tropicana should have done it, and not when it did.

My guess is that the marketing people drank too deeply of their own Kool-Aid, so to speak.

link
jrumbut 1498 days ago
The piece suffered from not having nearly enough detail here. Why did they choose that exact moment? What led them to choose the new design no one liked?

I would imagine the fruit juice industry is under some pressure. When I was a kid their product was viewed as a staple breakfast item that was beneficial to your health. These days its reputation is more like soda, too sugary for regular consumption.

Were they really redesigning for vague brand marketing reasons or were they grasping at straws to revive declining sales?

link