Comments on Zen and the Art of Innovation Breakthroughs: More on Crowdsourcing and Design

I may have liked the look—the simplicity more than...

2009-10-02T09:10:41.365-07:00

I may have liked the look—the simplicity more than anything—but it was poor design. Design isn't, as you put it, to "make it pretty." Although, more often than not, that's the perception and this doesn't help it.

I won't question your numbers or the fact that it was a bad move. However, I think they Pepsi rebrand was far worse. It was, as Fast Company's Aaron Perry-Zucker put it, "branding lunacy" (http://tinyurl.com/bdm4u4).

I think the real loser here is The Arnell Group. Hey, maybe they should start crowdsourcing?

As I described in an earlier blog post, sales of T...

2009-10-02T07:06:13.378-07:00

As I described in an earlier blog post, sales of Tropicana dropped 20% during the six weeks the packaging came out, and reports indicate that Tropicana lost about $35 million on the effort. Even if you think the rebrand was aesthetically pleasing, the business results and bad publicity that followed suggest that the design had failed.

As well, whenever I talk to a senior executive at a Fortune 500 company who is a laggard about design investment, they always cite Tropicana as an example of why they don't want to spend the money.

Tropicana is not only a failure for Pepsico (which owns Tropicana), it is a setback for the design industry as a whole.

Gordon

Another great post, Gordon. Great banter. I almos...

2009-10-01T14:42:13.023-07:00

Another great post, Gordon. Great banter.

I almost feel honored that my comment spurred another post and I'm happy this topic is getting more exposure. However, we're going to have to agree to (strongly) disagree. Maybe after a lobotomy I would change direction, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

It all really boils down to the client. They are the one with the design problem and they ultimately lose. Why let them go through the motions just to realize they need to hire a professional three years later? The good deal was actually a loss when you factor in the three years of butchering their perception and losing all credibility because the brand was irrelevant.

I'm not worried about competing with someone from Texas or India. Competition is good. I'm more worried about the clients that needed a quick fix and now come to me to fix it. Yes, that's more business but it would have been much easier from the onset. I'm not branding a company, I'm killing a premature perception and "rebranding" them.

No one is twisting the arm of the "designers" involved in these competitions and they can do whatever they want. However, I see this as an ethical issue and they're just mercenaries.

Yes, this may provide exposure but it's not necessarily good when the design is incomplete and non-strategic.

P.S. Am I the only one who liked the Tropicana rebrand?