Disrupting for Disruption’s Sake

I’ve discussed in a few episodes that there is a shift away from “brown, natural, colors” to bright, eccentric, cool packaging. Even if the products are natural and all that, people will now differentiate themselves with brighter, rebellious type SKU’s.

Carrie’s case study of Revolution Gelato takes this approach. A Dairy-free gelato with graffiti characteristics and a bright, clean product display panel.

Gelato is generally considered a premium type product and many gelato brands have a feel of silky, smooth, exotic and divine. By demolishing that with a simple, rough, big X in your face, will it do more harm than good? To disrupt, you have to take risks, but when do things miss the mark?

Certain foods have certain associations on what to call their product. For example, the sports nutrition market can get away with INTENSE NAMES mainly because some of the target markets are REALLY INTENSE and enjoy fun names. Though revolution foods is true to its name, is it too intense? Maybe that’s what they were going for.

When considering your packaging design, there are unwritten rules on what your product associates with. In most innovation theory, a good idea is to do everything familiar, and do one, maybe two things, unfamiliar.

Here are Carrie’s thoughts

Shelf stand-out is at the top of the list for most CPG companies when designing packaging – but is disrupting category codes always the right move? Some categories come with highly desirable associations (like gelato – ‘premium’ and ‘luxe’); giving them up just to be different can feel inauthentic and bring the product itself into question. The most successful brands tie together their product with their core identity, while still keeping consumers’ baseline expectations in mind. How quickly did you recognize that these products were gelato?