果汁品牌纯果乐(Tropicana)费了不少工夫去重新设计包装,但是这番折腾却起了反效果。今年夏天,纯果乐重新设计了包装瓶的形状,将容量从52盎司“瘦身”到了46盎司,这番小动作引发了消费者的强烈不满。大家纷纷在网上吐槽,并且威胁称以后再也不会买了。这让人不禁想起2009年那一次,纯果乐也是因为重新设计包装而引发了销量暴跌,那一次,纯果乐也是不得不恢复到了最初的包装设计。
现在的橙汁消费者们对这种“减肥式涨价”(也就是容量变小但售价不变)十分敏感。虽然纯果乐将新包装橙汁定价为3.99美元一瓶,比旧款包装便宜了约0.7美元,但是在部分零售商那里,新包装橙汁的每盎司售价还是超过了旧包装。比如在沃尔玛,新包装橙汁的售价折合每盎司7.7 美分,而老包装的售价折合每盎司7.6美分。消费者也注意到了这种“减肥式涨价”。
一位网民在社交平台BlueSky上吐槽道:“以后再也不买纯果乐了,这是典型的‘减肥式涨价’。这是我最后一次买这个牌子,是时候站出来,让这些大公司知道我们是不好糊弄的了。真让我恶心!”
纯果乐的回应
从2022年以来,美国消费者就关注到了商品“减肥式涨价”的现象,不少品牌都想法设法通过缩减包装尺寸来变相涨价,尤其又以零食品牌为重灾区——比如多力多滋的玉米片包装袋的容量从9.75盎司缩水到9.25盎司,通用磨坊的“家庭装”可可泡芙和肉桂吐司脆的包装盒也从19.3盎司“瘦身”到了18.1盎司。
纯果乐需要担心不是网民的吐槽,而是销售额真的有可能会受到严重影响。毕竟上一次它搞这套小动作的时候,销售额在短短几个月里就损失了将近20%。
纯果乐品牌于2021年被百事公司出售给了私募股权公司PAI Partners,现在它的母公司是一家名叫纯果乐品牌集团的合资公司,因此它的销售数据无法通过公开渠道获得。但据CNN报道,来自消费者研究公司Circana的数据显示,在此次更改包装设计后,纯果乐的销售额立即出现暴跌,仅8月份就下降了10.9%,到10月份已下降19%。
一位网友在Reddit上表示:“消费者用钱包投票,这是最有力的抗议方式,但又是最不受品牌方重视的抗议方式,真是让人无法理解。”
纯果乐品牌集团告诉《财富》,根据第三方数据,纯果乐的销售额正在向正常水平回升。不过该公司也承认,消费者需要时间来适应包装的变化。该公司还表示,此次更改包装正是基于消费者的反馈,目的是更方便顾客倒果汁和储存果汁,同时也是为了使用一款含塑料更少、更环保的瓶盖。
纯果乐品牌集团的一位发言人向《财富》表示:“据我们所知,有不少人反馈说,这些改变更适合他们,优化了他们对我们产品的消费体验。”
愤怒的消费者
纯果乐显然消费者的不满情绪尽快缓和下来,以免重蹈15年前的覆辙。2009年初,该品牌光是换了一次包装图案,将包装上一根吸管插在橙子上的图片换成了一个盛着果汁的高脚杯的图片,便引发了消费者的强烈不满,消费者都认为新包装看起来毫无特色。
当时,一位愤怒的消费者写邮件给纯果乐表示抗议:“你们这些搞包装设计的人,真的有自己去买过橙汁吗?我会买,而且这些新包装难看死了!”
“高脚杯事件”给纯果乐造成了大约3500万美元的损失,也给整个果汁行业带来了巨大冲击。从次年1月1日到2月22日,纯果乐的果汁销量暴跌20%,销售额下降19%。而它的竞争对手佛罗里达天然公司(Florida’s Natural)和美汁源(Minute Maid)趁机在同期实现了两位数的增长。不久之后,纯果乐就恢复了原来的包装。
那次纯果乐新包装背后的设计师是彼得·阿内尔,他曾在2008年给百事公司写过一份长达27页的审美设计大纲,内容洋洋洒洒,一会儿扯到蒙娜丽莎,一会儿扯到地球引力。阿内尔为2009年纯果乐包装的新设计做了辩解。他说,之前的包装只突出了橙子,但是没有突出橙汁。而新设计的橙色瓶盖 “从人体工程学的角度”暗示了鲜榨果汁时的挤压过程——而且在阿内尔看来,这个牛叉的设计的意义还远不止于此。
2009年,他在接受《广告时代》采访时表示:“我觉得‘挤’这个动作是有情感寓意的,就像拥抱一样,它象征着爱的力量,所以它可以让人联想到妈妈对子女的那种爱,对吧?”
阿内尔并未及时回应《财富》的置评请求。(财富中文网)
译者:朴成奎
果汁品牌纯果乐(Tropicana)费了不少工夫去重新设计包装,但是这番折腾却起了反效果。今年夏天,纯果乐重新设计了包装瓶的形状,将容量从52盎司“瘦身”到了46盎司,这番小动作引发了消费者的强烈不满。大家纷纷在网上吐槽,并且威胁称以后再也不会买了。这让人不禁想起2009年那一次,纯果乐也是因为重新设计包装而引发了销量暴跌,那一次,纯果乐也是不得不恢复到了最初的包装设计。
现在的橙汁消费者们对这种“减肥式涨价”(也就是容量变小但售价不变)十分敏感。虽然纯果乐将新包装橙汁定价为3.99美元一瓶,比旧款包装便宜了约0.7美元,但是在部分零售商那里,新包装橙汁的每盎司售价还是超过了旧包装。比如在沃尔玛,新包装橙汁的售价折合每盎司7.7 美分,而老包装的售价折合每盎司7.6美分。消费者也注意到了这种“减肥式涨价”。
一位网民在社交平台BlueSky上吐槽道:“以后再也不买纯果乐了,这是典型的‘减肥式涨价’。这是我最后一次买这个牌子,是时候站出来,让这些大公司知道我们是不好糊弄的了。真让我恶心!”
纯果乐的回应
从2022年以来,美国消费者就关注到了商品“减肥式涨价”的现象,不少品牌都想法设法通过缩减包装尺寸来变相涨价,尤其又以零食品牌为重灾区——比如多力多滋的玉米片包装袋的容量从9.75盎司缩水到9.25盎司,通用磨坊的“家庭装”可可泡芙和肉桂吐司脆的包装盒也从19.3盎司“瘦身”到了18.1盎司。
纯果乐需要担心不是网民的吐槽,而是销售额真的有可能会受到严重影响。毕竟上一次它搞这套小动作的时候,销售额在短短几个月里就损失了将近20%。
纯果乐品牌于2021年被百事公司出售给了私募股权公司PAI Partners,现在它的母公司是一家名叫纯果乐品牌集团的合资公司,因此它的销售数据无法通过公开渠道获得。但据CNN报道,来自消费者研究公司Circana的数据显示,在此次更改包装设计后,纯果乐的销售额立即出现暴跌,仅8月份就下降了10.9%,到10月份已下降19%。
一位网友在Reddit上表示:“消费者用钱包投票,这是最有力的抗议方式,但又是最不受品牌方重视的抗议方式,真是让人无法理解。”
纯果乐品牌集团告诉《财富》,根据第三方数据,纯果乐的销售额正在向正常水平回升。不过该公司也承认,消费者需要时间来适应包装的变化。该公司还表示,此次更改包装正是基于消费者的反馈,目的是更方便顾客倒果汁和储存果汁,同时也是为了使用一款含塑料更少、更环保的瓶盖。
纯果乐品牌集团的一位发言人向《财富》表示:“据我们所知,有不少人反馈说,这些改变更适合他们,优化了他们对我们产品的消费体验。”
愤怒的消费者
纯果乐显然消费者的不满情绪尽快缓和下来,以免重蹈15年前的覆辙。2009年初,该品牌光是换了一次包装图案,将包装上一根吸管插在橙子上的图片换成了一个盛着果汁的高脚杯的图片,便引发了消费者的强烈不满,消费者都认为新包装看起来毫无特色。
当时,一位愤怒的消费者写邮件给纯果乐表示抗议:“你们这些搞包装设计的人,真的有自己去买过橙汁吗?我会买,而且这些新包装难看死了!”
“高脚杯事件”给纯果乐造成了大约3500万美元的损失,也给整个果汁行业带来了巨大冲击。从次年1月1日到2月22日,纯果乐的果汁销量暴跌20%,销售额下降19%。而它的竞争对手佛罗里达天然公司(Florida’s Natural)和美汁源(Minute Maid)趁机在同期实现了两位数的增长。不久之后,纯果乐就恢复了原来的包装。
那次纯果乐新包装背后的设计师是彼得·阿内尔,他曾在2008年给百事公司写过一份长达27页的审美设计大纲,内容洋洋洒洒,一会儿扯到蒙娜丽莎,一会儿扯到地球引力。阿内尔为2009年纯果乐包装的新设计做了辩解。他说,之前的包装只突出了橙子,但是没有突出橙汁。而新设计的橙色瓶盖 “从人体工程学的角度”暗示了鲜榨果汁时的挤压过程——而且在阿内尔看来,这个牛叉的设计的意义还远不止于此。
2009年,他在接受《广告时代》采访时表示:“我觉得‘挤’这个动作是有情感寓意的,就像拥抱一样,它象征着爱的力量,所以它可以让人联想到妈妈对子女的那种爱,对吧?”
阿内尔并未及时回应《财富》的置评请求。(财富中文网)
译者:朴成奎
Tropicana is about to learn if the juice is worth the squeeze. Customers are revolting after the orange juice juggernaut redesigned the shape of its bottles this summer, slimming them from 52 to 46 ounces. The backlash on social media and threats to no longer buy the product is reminiscent of a disastrous 2009 rebrand that sent sales plummeting, forcing Tropicana to revert to its original design.
This time around, orange juice-drinkers are wary of shrinkflation, or product sizes reducing while prices stay the same. Indeed, while Tropicana has set the price of its new bottles at $3.99, about 70 cents cheaper than its old design, the slim bottles are still more expensive per ounce than the older ones in some retailers. At Walmart, the new, 46-ounce bottles cost 7.7 cents per ounce, while the 52-ounce bottles retail for 7.6 cents per ounce. Consumers have taken notice of the alleged shrinkflation.
“Done with Tropicana. Classic Shrinkflation,” one BlueSky user said. “Last time it comes into this house. Time to stand up and let these big corporations know that we actually DO count. Sickens me.”
Tropicana responds to shrinkflation allegations
Shrinkflation has been a growing concern for consumers since 2022, when brands tried to hide the impact of inflation by strategically reducing package sizes instead of hiking up prices. Snack brands—even favorite cereals—have been the worst alleged perpetrators of shrinkflation, with Doritos bags shrinking from 9.75 ounces to 9.25 ounces, and “family size” boxes of General Mills’ Cocoa Puffs and Cinnamon Toast Crunch contracting from 19.3 ounces to 18.1 ounces over the course a few months in 2022.
But it’s not the social media ire that should concern Tropicana, but rather the threat of sales being washed down the drain. After all, the last redesign that soured customers resulted in a nearly 20% sales loss in just a few months.
Tropicana, which PepsiCo sold in 2021 to private equity firm PAI Partners, is now owned by joint venture Tropicana Brands Group, meaning its sales data is not publicly available; but according to consumer research firm Circana,Tropicana sales plummeted immediately after the switch, dropping 10.9% in August, and 19% by October, CNN reported.
“Consumers voting with their wallets is the most powerful and underrated form of protesting. Incredible,” one user commented on Reddit.
Tropicana Brands Group told Fortune that, according to third-party data, sales are returning to normal levels, though acknowledged it takes time for consumers to adapt to packaging changes. The company made the change—informed by customer feedback—to make the bottle easier to pour and store, as well as to produce a more sustainable cap using less plastic.
“Anecdotally, we are hearing from many that the changes better suit them and optimize their experience with our product,” a Tropicana Brands Group spokesperson told Fortune in a statement.
Tropicana’s sour customers
Tropicana will hope customers’ bitterness about the change sweetens, so as not to repeat the fallout of its redesign efforts 15 years ago. In early 2009, the juice brand switched its packaging from displaying an orange with a straw in it to an image of a tall glass of juice. Customers panned the change, complaining the bottles looked generic.
“Do any of these package-design people actually shop for orange juice?” one angry email-writer wrote to the company at the time. “Because I do, and the new cartons stink.”
The design tweak, estimated to have cost Tropicana $35 million, had a seismic shift on the juice industry. Not only did Tropicana unit sales plummet 20% from Jan. 1 to Feb. 22 following the rebrand, but dollar sales dropped 19%. Tropicana competitors Florida’s Natural and Minute Maid saw double-digit unit sales boosts in the same two-month period. Tropicana reverted to its original package soon after.
Peter Arnell, the designer behind Tropicana’s rebrand—who was also responsible for Pepsi’s metaphysical 27-page redesign outline in 2008 invoking the Mona Lisa and the earth’s gravitational pull—justified the 2009 packaging change. He questioned why the orange, but never the juice, was previously featured on Tropicana’s packaging. The new design’s orange twist cap “implied ergonomically” the squeezing motion that is required in making juice—and, in Arnell’s eyes, so much more.
“‘Squeeze’” maintains a certain level of, I guess, power when it comes to this notion emotionally about what squeeze means,” he told AdAge in 2009. “Like, ‘my squeeze.’ or ‘give me a squeeze,’ or the notion of a hug, or the ideas behind the power of love and the idea of transferring that love or converting that attitude between mom and the kids, right?”
Arnell did not respond to Fortune’s request for comment.