All those brand reductions look better in their third stage (before the put Helvetica everywhere) than the original package. I specially love the Nutella and Duracell ones.
For a lot of the food products, the final level of reductionism seemed excessive — the product loses all personality. The sole exceptions, I think, was the Lindt chocolate, and the Durex condoms.
Forgive me if I'm if what I write seems like I pulled it out of my ass, but I think the fact that those products are heavily associated with carnal pleasures allow the person who's buying it to associate more with the experience of using it, rather than the marketing imagery, like the Mr. Muscle cleaner. It also helps that it makes the product seem more sophisticated, particularly the condoms.
Nice. This reminds me of the Coca Cola can design. For years they added more and more bling and cruft to it, then one day stripped it back to just red/white and the Coke logo. The shorter the sentence, the more powerful each word in the sentence becomes.
The point at which a brand loses personality is particularly interesting.
For me, the transparent packaging (e.g. Tabasco, Schweppes, Nutella) is far more attractive - seeing the actual product is better than some overly enhanced graphical representation of it.
The Nuttela looks 10 times more tasty in the transparent jar :)
Do you think it would look less appealing after being used for a bit? Say, with the Nutella halfway down the jar, with finger-swipes and knife-troughs streaking the sides?
My favorite is the Nutella one!
Really interesting how some of these in the 4th step would probably just as recognisable on a shelf, for example Duracell. Guinness just doesn't look right without the red signature.
Vanish turns into some kind of perscribed medication.
Vanish definitely needs the whole BANG IN YOUR FACE packaging the most, or at least seems to benefit most from it.
Love it. Really do.
My one nitpick: frik'n learn to export images in decent quality/file format. Lossy kills it.
The third phase was the best one. The fourth was losing identity and sometimes it was just lazy like in the Guinness case. Without the iconic logo it's just anonymous.
The fourth one is invariably pretty terrible, except maybe for the Duracell one.
I don't think Red Bull gains anything by removing the color red, and neither does Pringles by removing all the color.
I don't think it's really a good idea to remove the pictures in products like Nesquik; what made me want that as a kid was how tasty the chocolate milk looked. Also, even if your product is famous, many people still don't know what it is by name alone; my mother wouldn't know what m&m's or Pringles are, for instance, if it wasn't for the picture.
I would have appreciated this study a lot more if the final stage was more consistent and agreed with many of the comments about the Helvetica versions.
I ended up taking a look at the primary source and it turns out they were two separate studies which makes much more sense. The first version lacked the Helvetica treatment and the second one extended the project to include a Helvetica end state.
Whenever I see a project like this, I'm reminded of No Name Brand. It's a generic Canadian food brand with 'minimal' branding.
This would have been more interesting if a similar formula was followed for each product. Some had nearly everything but the name removed (and in a different typeface), while others kept a lot even in the end.
I think the formula = unique product identifiers.
For example, Duracel has both "AA" and "ULTRA POWER", as they have "AAA" non-ultra-power as well.