data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/64a78/64a7844ee40fc1a1e6ab4feaccbcde5fce3e2917" alt=""
The fonts are cleaner, much more simple and straightforward. The bottle is now a white opaque, rather than semi-translucent, and the leaf icon now a subtle watermark. The logo is also tweaked.
I didn't like it at first. The watermark may be outdated, but it was the navigation tool I used to find the dam thing on shelf. Now, I'm OK with it. I see what J&J is trying to do. But the biggest problem is that they are doing on ALL their brands! Look at the change Rembrandt went through. Other items in their portfolio were redesigned, though I can't tell you which ones they were.
Beware: the definition of "clean and contemporary" changes every year and can move to generic real fast.
Neutrogena Oil-Free Moisturizer
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2fd38/2fd383301124885134307ddb3bb329cd8f8fcb08" alt=""
My guess is that they have a more successful sub-line that owns that blue and want to create a block of blue on shelf for that product. But to do this, you need to establish black as the overarching color for the brand so you don't have competing blues in the portfolio.
It's smart. I get it. Not sure everyone will, but in 12 months they won't have a choice. My problem is black. When I see black in the skin care section, I immediately think of acne. Blackheads. Black spots. Black circles under my eyes. It gives the brand a harder edge, one that doesn't jive with the natural, "dermatogist-approved" softness I expect.
I'm sure there was a good reason for this. These brand architecture problems (that's the real name) are never easy to solve. But black seems like a misstep.
Sorry for the poor pix. Blame my Blackberry. And yes, I do this for a living.
1 comment:
we redesigned aveeno when i was at desgrippes gobe to the pack you see there
Post a Comment