'Artic Foxes and Mallard Ducks' Which Store-Brand Design Works Best?
‘Artic Foxes and Mallard Ducks’ Which Store-Brand Design Works Best?
Contact Robert at 425.284.1545 or email@example.com
|Better communicates savings. Does a better job of expressing the savings inherent in store brands. Has a more generic, low-price impression overall.||Impression of lower quality. There is a price to pay for looking like a bargain, and the impression of lower quality is always there.|
|“Shopability.” For the true believer of buying store brands, this is shopping heaven.||Over-use of white color on packaging. Most uniform systems use too much white because it can stretch over more categories than any other color. But white says “generic” except for certain staples and drugs.|
|Brand builder. With so many customer impressions, both in the store and in the home, your store brand gets more exposure. How much good that does, however, is debatable. ||Overexposure. If your pantry shelves brim with look-alike packaging from one store, you may get tired of it. Your impression of your quality of life lessens when you see constant reminders of the bargain brand.|
|Beneficial transference. When shoppers like one of your products, they will try another.||Prejudicial transference. When the shopper has an unsatisfactory experience, she can dislike all your products. They all look the same; they all must be the same quality.|
Management loves it. It costs less, takes less time, and it’s simple to do and understand.
|Fosters a low-cost mindset. Once this mind-set is entrenched, it leads to short cuts, acceptance of ineffective design work, sub-standard photography, and low expectations. No one knows or cares how well the products sell. Uniformity is the idol you pray to.|
|Higher perception of quality. Because quality is the focus, it drives the decision process during design. Expressing a product’s “essence” is easy to do in an adaptable system, enhancing the overall quality impression.||Brand profile is lower. The brand presentation diffuses and is less memorable with less impact.|
|Greater appetite appeal. When the design is adaptable, the designer can maximize appetite appeal, which is so important in communicating quality. Food photography receives funding and presentation.||More expensive to the retailer. It takes longer and costs more to design this way. In the long term, the design cost of a good package is usually trivial compared to the return on investment it can generate.|
|Shelf impact. The designer is allowed to use color, imagery, type and all other tools at hand to build shelf “shout.”||Less “shopability.” The true believer must work harder to find the products.|
|Raising “badge” value, lowering “mock” factor. Because the emphasis is on quality, not uniformity, the potential for raising the badge value is higher. Badge value is what others think of the things you own. If the brand creates an impression you feel enhances your image, it has badge value. If it is a cause for derision, it has mock factor.||Requires a larger staff. Very few people can run a highly uniform system.|
|Potential to optimize profits. The designer is free to go one-on-one with the brand leader to erode and steal market share. The retailer can choose to concentrate his investment in categories and items of high sales volume (80 percent of profits come from 20 percent of items), spending time and effort where it will do the most good.||Brand proliferation. There is a danger that the store will have too many different branding ideas that seem confusing and scattered to the customers.|
|Capitalize on the “wisdom” of the brands. The designer is free to use colors, symbols, textures, product presentations, shapes, forms, compositions, etc. that are normative to the category and therefore reflect the accumulated “wisdom” of the brands. Consumer research validates the brand design, which has enormous familiarity. The consumer expects to see these design expressions and often will not consider a product that looks “outside” these familiar category norms. ||The suppliers must be convinced of the value. Usually the cost of packaging design is passed down to the suppliers. Many are not convinced of its value to them, or simply don’t want to pay any more than they have to.|
|More sell copy. The flexible design works more like a brand. If there is a product story to tell, you can better communicate it if the front panel is adaptable to feature copy.||Consumers might miss your package on the shelf. If the store brand design is always changing, it is more likely consumers will not see it as a store brand product.|
|Fosters a profit-based mind-set. When quality is king, everyone wants to know how the product is doing. Management develops data, charts and reports. This is extremely healthy for a private-label program because success offers the rationale to do it right.||Higher cost of food photography. If the packaging is going to stand up against a powerful national brand, the photography has to be first rate. This can be a major part of the cost of design.|