JKR

I’ve been wondering recently if designing to be obvious (QED being conventional) can be more effective than being disruptive (but less clear)? I don’t think there is a right answer, and context is key. Nappies are by default a category that most shoppers come to un-primed in category convention. The buyer shops a complex range where they have to find a new product type every few months. I regularly find myself dithering in front of the Pampers range trying to remember which version “we” are on to this week. Yet it wasn’t until reading Design Week that I realised Pampers were playing own label at its own game with a value offer. Would you spot it at a glance?

Now I’m sure there is good reason that Pampers have gone for a colour which fits with the Pampers family – no parent wants to think they are buying a second best product for junior, or indeed to feel that they are in some kind of underclass. Nappies are a really emotional category – I read somewhere that removing the ubiquitous happy baby picture tends to kill sales. But own label is creating a “glance and you get it” language for value (see below). I wonder, couldn’t a white pack for a white product say value, simplicity and classic all at once? Perhaps not, as it would be naïve to think P&G haven’t considered this option…

So I’m no more resolved in my opinion – my knee jerk reaction is that the best design plays to the brand not the category, but being obvious also has its value. I guess the challenge is how to marry the two opposing needs in an ownable way. Pampers have chosen house style over an obvious (and potentially off putting or brand-devaluing) alternative. But is the name “Simply” enough to spell out the offer to dithering and exhausted parents? And is the design disruptive enough within the category or even the Pampers family? Perhaps the sales results will provide the answer…