Entertainment PR Blog by AMP3

I’m no marketing wiz.  I’m just someone who’s observant and can (tries to, at least) make logical deductions. 

That said, I read an interesting article at Consumerist today about the backlash Tropicana is feeling from “Loyal Customers” after changing the widely-recognizable Orange and Straw.

The new packaging, which is softer in color and features a glass of orange juice (SANS STRAW!) as opposed to the original, still boldly notes the brand names, and even better gets across the message that the carton is packed with “100% Orange.”

In terms of passing along pertinent knowledge, I have to give points to the new branding.   The font is easier to read, the layout is crisp and less cluttered, and the minimalistic quality gets rid of some of the superfluous text on the old box.

Now, a question that comes to mind is, why was there the push for a re-branding in the first place? The new Tropicana carton seems to follow in the lines of some similar rebranding, such as Pepsi’s, whereby a new age polish seems to have softened the older logo, as can be seen here with 33 other brands.

It’s obvious that, at times, we need to freshen up our image in order to attract new customers or to keep the ones you already have.  But with a brand like Tropicana, was their iconic packaging working against them, or did they, perhaps, get swept up in that “out with the old, in with the new” sentiment that has settled over the states in these last few months?

The thing that I find interesting is that there’s usually a major (often evident) strategy behind a re-branding effort.  The time and money that goes into a creative team figuring out the right move, the PR implementation for the announcement of such a big re-branding, the user testing… these are all things that must be taken into consideration before revamping a brand such as Tropicana.

But now there’s a backlash.  People are upset that their beloved straw-in-orange packing is gone in favor something more “generic.”

Is it possible that this was a branding strategy done on the part of Tropicana to lure value-conscious into foolishly reaching for their over-priced juice?  Could Tropicana be so evil as to disguise them as a value brand with the sole intention of getting you to purchase them when you wouldn’t otherwise?  Is it fair to even think they’d be so ruthless?

Maybe it is.

In a climate where people are eschewing name brands in favor of their identity-less counterparts, it would make sense that Tropicana, too big for its britches, masks itself amongst the other pauper orange juices in an effort to stay viable.

Countless reports have come out (including anecdotal stories of AMP3 workers falling for the rouse as well) of people being confused by the new branding, wondering what the difference is between low sodium, extra pulp, regular…  Tropicana, in going generic, has created a anarchy from which we can’t seem to rebound.

That is, until Tropicana goes back to it’s original branding—would that make it a re-re-branding or a de-branding?—and everyone is happy to know upfront that they’re paying more for a product they can purchase just as cheaply three cartons over.

Perhaps I, like Tropicana, am a marketing wiz.

The only thing that’s more bothersome than Tropicana seemingly sneakily trying to trick me into purchasing their high priced wares is the fact that we’re blaming Tropicana for actually pulling it off.

Where is the culpability of the shower to actually read what they’re purchasing?  Why should it matter what the container says since we don’t eat the container.  This isn’t a “New Coke” v “Classic Coke” dilemma. 

Here’s a helpful tip for consumers: be more concerned with what you put in your body than the package in which it comes. 

If Tropicana was looking to take advantage of our (more) frugal ways by appealing to a proven aesthetic, then I say all the power to them.  Clearly they knew their audience and they knew you could be duped, and the only one you have to blame is yourself.  Stop being so predicable and susceptible to their marketing campaigns, and then maybe they’ll come up with ones that actually appeal to you rather than harness your blind stupidity

I, for one, prefer Simply Orange, anyways….

Jackie for AMP3pr.com

@jackiebrook

Whether you recognize them by name or by sight, Snuggies are a commercial albatross around our necks (or TVs, rather).  As Time points out, you’ve almost certainly seen the commercials for them, and there are those of you that are actually buying them.

(If you haven’t had the pleasure of catching the commercial, please check this out before reading on.)

An entire retail enterprise is being made out of the concept that blankets aren’t convenient enough for staying warm.  And apparently, with its originator, “The Slanket,” Snuggies are 50 years in the making.

Now, I can’t actively support Snuggies (give me a microfiber fleece blanket any day of the week), however I have to give them credit where credit is due, and their launch and re-branding efforts have been impeccable.

True, Snuggies themselves (at least commercially advertised Snuggies) have only been around since this past September, but their essential product has been around for thousands of years: the robe. 

After all, isn’t that what a Snuggie is, a backwards robe?

Potato, potato.

Regardless of how long the generic design for the Snuggie has been around, their aggressive advertising campaign has moved from laughable late night TV informercial to the prime-time promotional spotlight.  And it’s working; people are being convinced that the blankets they already have are impractical.  Using the economic climate to stir up emotion, Snuggies claim to lower your heating bill by keeping you warm.  Eschew what you already own in favor of spending money to save money!

By taking advantage of reduced ad rates, the public’s reduced spending ability, and  the seemingly unstoppable need for Americans to wastefully spend, Snuggies secured themselves a place in the market.

And even with Snuggie dissenters like myself (and there are lots of us…) pointing out how truly foolish these things are, they seem to have positioned themselves in the market quite nicely, and have embodied the phrase “any publicity is good publicity.”

Choice comments noted below might suggest that that old cliché doesn’t apply here, but then again,  I’ve written an entire post on a “garment” I detest, so perhaps it all just boils down to getting people talking, and the Snuggies have certainly done that.

Choice Comments about the Snuggie

“Watch the video and tell me the marketing people who put this together did so with a straight face.  There is simply no way.”

“Death to Snuggie!”

“It’s almost like an SNL informercial skit brought to life.”

“OMG! They all look like ministers of Satan!  Especially the old dude in his chair!”

“Anything that isn’t sold on TV that ISN’T sold by Billy Mays is bogus.” (ed. I can support that, with Sham-Wow Vince as the exception that proves the rule.  You following me, camera guy?)

Jackie for AMP3pr.com