So long as they don't revive the defunct "No Frills" brand, maybe they'll have a chance. I don't know why store brands skimp on branding and presentation. All they need is one intern churning out design and keeping a fresh look, rather than a set it and forget it approach where you have the housebrand look the same way it did when it debuted even decades later. Maybe they worry about cannibalization into higher profit brands?
> All they need is one intern churning out design and keeping a fresh look
I think changes to packaging requires market testing before you roll it out. Something as simple as a font change can confuse a customer into thinking the same product is now something completely different.
Even if the design intern is cheap, market testing isn't. I bet they stuck with the same simple packaging to keep costs down and recognition high.
Maybe, but I would think they also risk their housebrand becoming really stale.
I mean, while the contents might be the surplus/castoff from a branded producer (so quality-wise not bad), the bland packaging induces the product to languish unnecessarily and even become a liability if it doesn't move(limited space for goods).
The point of a house brand in most supermarkets is to appeal to bargain-hunting buyers. The most important part of the branding, then, is to communicate that the product is no frills.
Dated-looking branding probabky actually helps with that, which may be why even when store brands are new or updated, they are bith plain and dated-looking from the start. This also means that they don't really have a lot of reason to.keep them "fresh" most of the time.
Full on retro would be an interesting concept. Reusing box art from 1960, assuming its still in a vault somewhere, is cheaper and faster than trying to upgrade 2005 box art to 2016 current fads. And it would be kinda cool looking.
Two problems: Stealth inflation by shrinking package means the "one pound style" package will now be huge next to the current "one pound style" packages that are down to only 11 or so oz now. I suppose scaling in photoshop is pretty well understood. The other problem is the sports athlete on your 1961 Wheaties cereal box might have turned into a serial (cereal?) killer sometime in the last half century, need to research and censor some famous personalities.
I think the 'value' house brand's plainness also helps to nudge less price-conscious customers up to the next level up of own-brand stuff. Tesco used to have three levels of own-brand: the blue-and-white-stripe "Tesco value", a more "normal" looking Tesco own-brand, and the premium "Tesco Finest". I suspect the dated plain look of the 'value' range helped it avoid cannibalising sales of the mid-range versions of the same items.
In the UK, Tesco had the brand "Tesco Value" (picture [0]) from 1993 - 2012. It became one of the best selling brands in the UK, and is deemed responsible for allowing them to become the biggest supermarket in the country.
Oh god, in Poland Tesco Value (or any like-brand) stands for absolute bottom feeder junk that is "healthy" and edible enough to not kill you outright.
Sure it sells, since ~50% of population can't really afford anything else (as they work for Tesco for min wage)
It's interesting how Amazon can distance itself from such connotations
I've wondered if it's because poor people instinctively reach for the cheaper looking brand. I've done that during the times in my life when it was necessary. I've also occasionally found that the cheaper looking brand isn't actually the cheapest brand, and wondered of someone's been capitalising on that instinct.
