When it comes to package design, the ill-fated Tropicana redesign of 2009 has taken on a mythical aura. Late last year, news of another design failure by the company sent shockwaves through the industry, and brands are now grappling with what it means for package design moving forward.
A quick rewind: Roughly fifteen years ago, Tropicana developed a new package design that eschewed its beloved straw-stuck-in-an-orange aesthetic for a more minimalist design. Consumers revolted, and disaster ensued—in a matter of months, it had lost $30 million in sales, and it is estimated that it cost the company up to $100 million overall. Adding insult to financial injury, the New York Times ran a story on the debacle, cementing it as a cautionary tale for the CPG industry.
Back then, Tropicana’s design failed validation testing, but executives ignored the result and launched anyway. Thereafter, PepsiCo mandated design validation for all redesigns with launch conditional on achieving action standards. The industry quickly followed suit since no one wanted to be the “next Tropicana." At the time, it seemed the prudent way to foolproof the creative process. (In truth, the Tropicana redesign was so far off-base that any reputable vendor would have recommended against it at any stage of the process.)
As you might imagine, the industry was shocked to hear that it happened again… to the very brand whose 2009 fiasco still haunts the industry. Did we learn the wrong lesson? Is validation testing more career insurance than brand sales insurance? Or is it once again political malpractice. Could it be both?
Disaster Deja Vu
In case you missed the news on CNN, Fast Company, and dozens of other outlets, Tropicana redesigned its orange juice bottle in 2024 and, once again, consumers roundly rejected it. The issue is different from its 2009 predecessor—this time, the altered bottle shape is primarily what’s driving consumers away, rather than the label design—but the impact is the same. Sales have plummeted for Tropicana’s orange juice products: an 8.3% drop in July, 10.9% in August, and 19% in October. The brand has since lost its #1 rank and 4 percentage points of market share to one of its top competitors, Simply Orange.
Once a story like this hits, there is a scramble to find answers, and opinions quickly coalesce around certain explanations. And, as with 2009, folks unfortunately seem to be gravitating towards easy but misguided answers.
Three common responses to the latest Tropicana design story
“This is another case of customers rebelling against shrinkflation.”
Verdict: Not really.
This is potentially part of the story since the new bottle is 46oz, while the previous one was 52oz. However, according to Tropicana Brands, the price per ounce was intended to remain, thus providing a lower unit cost to the consumer. The extent to which retailers followed that recommendation is unclear. But the downsizing alone has led many to believe that consumer shrinkflation-rage led to the sales issues.
The numbers simply don’t bear this out, though. When asking 2,000 orange juice buyers to choose between the old and new products presented on a shelf with price tags displaying respective average retail pricing, only 49 consumers (less than 2.5%) noted cost-per-ounce or shrinkflation themes in their reasons for selection. So what actually is driving the backlash?
- Aesthetics: 42% chose the old design because of its visual appeal
- Structural Features: 19% leaned toward specific form factors
- Ergonomics: 10% perceived the old bottle to be easier to handle, open, and pour
Some consumers noted the shrinkflation factor, but a vast majority did not. Overall, this wasn’t about the price. In fact, the lower cost of the smaller bottle was an advantage for the new package as cited by 13% of juice consumers.
“This is just a Tropicana thing.”
Verdict: Emphatically, no.
Given the brand’s status in CPG design lore, it makes sense that Tropicana’s design-driven sales drop would draw attention—but it is far from alone. According to Designalytics’ analysis of nearly 2,000 redesigns, roughly 40% of redesigns reduce purchase conversion potential, a metric which has a greater than 93% correlation to in-market outcomes. In other words, disasters like this are happening to brands all the time; they are simply being dismissed. Why? Many simply assume that design can’t be the issue—after all, these designs were disaster-checked using standard, decades-old, end-of-process validation. That couldn’t be the issue… right?
Undoubtedly testing occurred. Maybe it was ignored again, or maybe the potential for cost savings was so attractive that a “parity” result would be viewed as a big win. The point is that this can happen to any brand given the current process tools and “parity or better” action standards. Before we dismiss Tropicana as a cursed brand, perhaps we should take a second look at the sales trends following our own redesigns. Is the design really not to blame when sales go sideways? Or perhaps our disaster checking is just not capable of actually detecting disasters.
“No research can predict sales outcomes”
Verdict: Actually, you can predict sales outcomes. Most brands simply aren’t measuring the right factors with the right tools.
As soon as the new Tropicana design hit the shelves, Designalytics consumer-tested it against its predecessor as part of our syndicated library of design performance data. Our unique methodology is 93% predictive of business outcomes—meaning we can predict whether a given redesign will help or hurt sales (or be largely unimpactful). In this case, alarm bells went off immediately, as results indicated a massive drop in purchase conversion potential. So the disastrous sales losses we’re seeing now were entirely predictable.
Think about that predictive metric above: If you knew in advance that a bet had a 93% chance of paying off, would you make that wager? You don’t even have to be the gambling type to say yes to that question—the odds are so overwhelmingly in your favor that it would be foolish to pass on it.
That’s the case with design today. If brands use the right process (a progressive learning one, which prioritizes reliable early-stage design screening) and predictive tools on their redesign, they can be more than 93% sure of a positive outcome. So why aren’t more brands doing it? It’s a fairly simple answer: Institutional inertia. The status quo is a powerful thing, individuals within CPG companies have little incentive to challenge it—especially since Tropicana 2009.
The reality is that most brands are not only bearing the brunt of unnecessary redesign failures like Tropicana’s, they’re missing out on the enormous financial upside of effective design. Some brands out there are launching redesigns that likely move the needle in the right direction—Designalytics’ data puts it at 37% of redesigns. There’s no reason that can’t double within a single year. It’s not only possible, it’s predictable.
A(nother) Moment of Truth, 15 Years Later
Hans Christian Andersen’s story “The Emperor’s New Clothes” tells the tale of an emperor who is convinced to “wear” invisible clothes. Arrogant and vain, he ignores his own eyes and dons the non-existent garb and parades through the city. Not wanting to anger the emperor, the townspeople all praise his new “clothes” until a child cries out: “He’s not wearing any clothes!”
Sometimes, it takes an unmistakable sign, like what we’re witnessing right now, to reassess embedded orthodoxy. Tropicana Disaster 2.0 is the proverbial child pointing out the obvious: The CPG design process is broken. New methodologies are demonstrably better; it’s easy to pivot early, from predicted failures to effective designs that virtually assure sales success. Will we heed this warning and make the necessary changes? Or will we double-down on our failure avoidance framework?
Fifteen years later, let’s hope the industry learns the right lesson from this failure: Design is capable of cratering a brand’s sales, but—with the right consumer-focused process and tools—it can also be the source of dramatic growth.
In the story above, the emperor can’t bring himself to acknowledge his nakedness. Let’s hope the CPG design ecosystem challenges the 15-year-old status quo and charts a new path towards design effectiveness using a progressive learning approach with predictive tools.
