In a recent conversation I was having in regard to new brandings, it was brought to my attention that the Tropicana brand change was so unsuccessful that they are opting to go back to the good old traditional design. Oops! Granted, as mentioned, art and design can go over really well or very poorly based on the viewer, but when it comes to re-branding it is more than just a logo design. In many cases it is everything from packaging to advertising and commercial design. A lot of thought should go into such a move and should not be changed simply for the sake of changing it. Some of the reasons that we have discussed before have been, to update an outdated logo, to adjust an existing logo to reflect a merger, or even to create a new logo to go along with a new ad campaign or business model. These are all valid reasons, but in many cases re-branding inherently brings risk. Especially for companies that have been around for a very long time. There is a very fine line between becoming stale or outdated, and ruining decades of branding efforts (a.k.a. brainwashing). However, there is certainly no formula to follow and the circumstances and risk factor varies from one company to the next.

Take Walmart for example, they have recently redesigned their branding, which will not only change the way the name looks on the storefront, but will also change the look of their packaging, ads, commercials, website(s) and promotional products. An expensive endeavor no doubt, but like it or hate it, Walmart shoppers are not likely to switch stores or have a hard time locating it because of this branding change. Therefore it is likely to stick regardless of how unfavorably it is looked upon in the public eye. So clearly, this particular re-branding investment carries less risk than companies that rely on their branding to get noticed on shelves, such as Tropicana.

Tropicana has received several complaints about the fact that they gave up on the comforting image of the fresh orange with the straw coming out of it, as well as an overwhelming negative response to its now ‘generic look’. It has been compared to Publix (a small convenience / grocery store) brand orange juice and a South Tampa resident has been quoted as saying, "They couldn't have done a better job of trying to emulate a generic package." I actually stumbled upon a blogger who claimed that the carton’s design change caused him to miss it in the grocery store because he didn’t recognize the new branding and led him to buy another brand. Talk about brainwashing! (err...I mean branding) In addition to monetary losses like these, Tropicana spent an estimated thrity-five million dollars for the redesign and accompanying ad campaign. That ‘oops’ from the opening of this post, just turned into an uber-expensive oops after learning of all the actual and potential money that was lost. So why did Tropicana change its branding? Well it just so happens that Tropicana is an affiliate of PepsiCo. Shocking.