Tropicana: Mob Rule Marketing
Tropicana: Mob Rule Marketing
The saga of Tropicana's redesigned orange-juice package leaves us with an ugly truth: Thanks largely to the Internet, companies are increasingly being forced to cater to the unpredictable whims of angry, insensible, irrational mobs.
In February, PepsiCo-owned Tropicana announced that, in the face of fierce criticism of the redesign, the cartons would go back to the old look. At the time, Neil Campbell, president of Tropicana North America, said the change wasn't because of the Internet mob that had formed to reject the new package, but because the product's most loyal customers—a tiny fraction of the total—were turned off by it. "We underestimated the deep emotional bond" that those customers had with the old package, he told the New York Times.
If that's true, we now know that Tropicana's most loyal customers buy a lot of orange juice. Advertising Age reports that sales of Tropicana plunged an astounding 20 percent in a matter of weeks after the new package was introduced. Given that number, it seems likely that the Internet reaction had a wider effect than Tropicana had guessed (or would divulge).
From which it must be concluded that, increasingly, the American consumer economy is being driven by Internet mobs and by the kinds of people who develop deep emotional bonds with orange juice cartons.
That can't be good. Predictably, the whole thing is being described in some quarters as a victory for the people, as if an army of bloggers and commenters had ousted an evil dictator.
Now, there's nothing wrong with customers registering their opinions online. It often appears to be more effective than a reliance on focus groups. But let's not mistake it for an unalloyed good. Tropicana lost tens of millions on this fiasco, and unnecessarily so.
Ad Age notes that, usually, rebranding tends to increase sales in the short run, thanks to the buzz that surrounds it. That's true even if, in the long run, the change turns out to have been a mistake.
If not for the Internet mobs and their strange obsessions, it seems quite possible that the Tropicana rebranding would have followed precisely that course. That's because the new package is, in fact, not very good. It's dull. It's not distinctive, like the old package was. The name "Tropicana" is shunted off to the side while the words "100 % Orange" are prominently displayed, which makes it look like a generic product.
Still, sans the bizarre backlash, it's hard to imagine that more than a few people would have developed strong feelings about it either way. (A new study shows this to be so.) Indeed, sales might have drifted lower over time, and Tropicana would perhaps have quietly rebranded again to regain them. Or, if Tropicana had simply stuck to its guns, people—even the enraged Internet commenters—might simply have gone back to drinking Tropicana since, after all, it's the same juice.
Instead, because people were goaded into outrage over an orange juice carton, Tropicana and PepsiCo find themselves in the middle of an expensive public-relations disaster. And that just seems wrong.
Part of the problem seems to be that, online, all outrage appears to be equal. When Facebook went through its recent redesign, the tone, and in some cases even the language, of the "outrage" seemed creepily similar to the outrage expressed against Bernie Madoff or the bankers who wrecked the economy. It's impossible for marketers to know whether or not to take such complaints seriously.
If companies are to be expected to react every time online complaints reach a critical mass, expect those companies not to display strong marketplace leadership, but to be pitchforked into action by the loudest, and most obsessed, among us.
On March 26, Slate hosted "What Is Good Design Now?" a panel discussion on design and marketing. The clip below covers the Tropicana repackaging debacle.
Recent Daily Bread Posts
-
Dan MitchellNovember 20, 2009
-
Dan MitchellNovember 19, 2009
-
Dan MitchellNovember 18, 2009
-
Dan MitchellNovember 17, 2009
-
Dan MitchellNovember 16, 2009
RSS
Twitter
Comments
Unnecessary Branding
I don't think that the internet response was the single reason why sales plunged (nor was that postulated here) but the response very likely did have an EFFECT on sales, as Mr. Mitchell says. While not the sole culprit, the internet reaction probably did have a larger effect than anticipated. Public reaction combined with an unimaginative new brand design certainly has given Tropicana a setback, one that they could have avoided if they simply didn't try to mess with what worked about their company design. While companies shouldn't allow focus groups and knee-jerk internet responses to dictate their marketing, they also shouldn't re-brand themselves just for the sake of doing so. It's attractive to think that a new look may have an initial positive effect on sales, but Tropicana, like Coca-Cola and plenty others before it, found out that sometimes change isn't necessary. Companies don't have to gussy their look up just because everyone around them is doing it. Branding and changing design is a subjective, mood-driven and unreliable operation and shouldn't be seen as an automatically positive promotion. Looking "fresh and new" or whatever message is sought through re-branding is like chasing a fashion trend. Sometimes by the time the company get to what's "hip," the mood of the marketplace has shifted (since "hip" constantly changes) and the company ends up looking out of touch. Branding has become the equivalent of a fad. A lot of companies are doing it, and the demand has over-saturated the design. Can't look "fresh and new" when everyone else looks the same way.
That video did not show the
That video did not show the package that consumers hated. I stock in a dairy section. The package that was hated was a plain white with Tropicana on it. The only way to tell the difference between the flavors, with pulp, no pulp, calcium, ect, was a small colored bar near the top of the carton. It was confusing enough stocking, let alone trying to pick out your favorite flavor.
The real problem with the new
The real problem with the new Tropicana design was that the "improved" packages looked exactly like store brand/ generic OJ. Our family drinks about 4 half gallon cartons of OJ a week (we love our vitamin C), and while we prefer Tropicana, I'm not going on a safari hunt to find that brand.
I think most people are in this boat-- once you find a product you like, you remember what the package looks like and pick it without thinking. I don't have the time or interest to stop and read every package I buy... if the new packaging was actually recognizable, and didn't look EXACTLY like Publix brand OJ, I doubt people would have care about the redesign.
mitchell's editors asleep?
Very poor quality article. MikeyC is correct.
Mitchell gives a link to Stuart Elliott's factual and balanced piece about the Tropicana oj packaging debacle [NY Times Feb 22, 2009] but it's clear he hasn't read it. Elliott cites Tropicana's Neil Campbell, president at Tropicana North America in Chicago, part of PepsiCo Americas Beverages, who acknowledged that consumers can communicate with marketers “more readily and more quickly” than ever. “For companies that put consumers at the center of what they do,” he said, “it’s a good thing.”
Mitchell has for some bizarre and unstated reason concluded it is not a good thing. Mitchell says it is mob rule. Where are Mitchell's editors? Does Slate publish drivel such as this without any thoughtful review?
Ridiculous Article
This premise of this article is ridiculous. Have you considered that the Internet people were just reflecting the fact that the repackaging sucked and not the cause of the outrage itself? Okay, according to the article, Tropicana releases new packaging and sales drop 20%. You really think that's because the Internet was up in arms? No, it's because obviously people didn't even recognize the Tropicana anymore and/or the packaging just sucked. This statement from this article is ludicrous: "Given that number, it seems likely that the Internet reaction had a wider effect than Tropicana had guessed (or would divulge)." The Internet didn't cause the decrease in sales. The cause was a bad product and the Internet just reflected people's thoughts on that. Your causation theories in this article are absurd...
I agree with mikeyC. Are you
I agree with mikeyC. Are you seriously asking us to believe that 20% of Tropicana's millions of customers stopped buying Tropicana orange juice because someone on the Internet didn't like the packaging? That's ludicrous! Far more likely, they simply didn't recognize the new packaging as Tropicana (especially since, as you point out, scaling down and sidelining the Tropicana logo made it easier to mistake for generic orange juice).
Rebranding doesn't work if nobody can identify your newly rebranded brand.