Do cheap brands require design of brutal economy?
09th October
Along with generic price war advertising, supermarkets are all promoting their own value lines, which generally share a common design aesthetic…
When launching a line of hundreds of products to be dotted about a giant supermarket it clearly makes sense to go for a simple and impactful design system. And using one’s brand colours makes equal sense. And if you are selling a “no frills” line then the easiest way to communicate your proposition is to get rid of the visual frills. But does such an approach, taken to extremes, look so basic that it devalues both the products and the store?
I won’t forget an impassioned argument put forward at a jkr company chat by designer Martin Francis a few years ago, where he laid into value own label packaging for looking not just cheap but ugly. His point was not a designer lovey one – rather he was saying that everyone, no matter what they are spending, deserves to have nice looking packs – why make folk feel like they are getting the cheapo rubbish with design to match? Making the basics range look more attractive might confuse a “good, better, best” strategy, but I suppose there are degrees of design refinement that can be applied. At the other extreme of the product spectrum Chanel No. 5′s box is simple and basic but it has enough nuance to also be beautiful. Still, Coco wasn’t stuck with making a bright yellow pack look appealing.
John Ruskin, who thought deeper and knew more than most of us ever will about aesthetics, was a progressive champion of the importance of art and beauty for the “common man” – although his writing came before the age of the soundbite, so I’ll leave the last words to him. “A thing is worth what it can do for you, not what you choose to pay for it.”
2 Comments
Cliff Peat
October 9, 2009 4:45 pm
First of all – it seems implicit in Ruskin’s “soundbite” that the purchaser may not consider or appreciate the true utility value of a “thing” – and be prepared to pay more than that true value.
To an outsider it would seem that a key objective of most of the marketing industry is to befuddle the value issue for the consumer and create an irrational desire for specific “things”. Or have I misunderstood? Morrisons own branding, whilst very dull and unimaginative, does suggest trustworthiness – it cuts through the flannel and leaves you, the consumer, to decide whether you want the item for its own sake. Do you have access to their comparitive sales figures? That, of course is the acid test of this (lack of) design approach.
2. Your item today is yet another interesting comment on branding issues
3. Since chancing on your site a few days ago there have been no comment responses to any of the items you have posted. In case you think you are “talking to yourself” I thought I would re-assure you that your work is very much appreciated for its content, presentation and thoughtfulness. Now that the browser allows one to fire up more than one “home” site I get to see your latest missive every time I access the internet.
Thanks.
Cliff
Gen
February 14, 2010 9:58 pm
I have had all those brands of beans, apart from the Asda one, and I must say, I actually really like Asda’s design and I don’t think its cheap at all!! Its actually quite cute! I’m going to check out more of the Asda Smart Price range now.
Post a Comment