We’ve found that, three out of four times in a design process, the first concepts created aren’t winners. With the right approach, the second round of designs can—and most often does—completely flip the script and result in greater effectiveness. And a vast majority of the time, it isn’t a “back to the drawing board” situation—it is generally just a few tweaks that are needed to take your design to the next level.
Important note: Failing to ”get a win” in Round 1 is not a reflection on the talent of your agency or internal design team. Consumer response is challenging to predict without any initial feedback on designs. Designalytics works with many award-winning agencies—all of whom understand the value of iterative testing. It’s a mistake to reason that a great agency or internal design team would’ve “nailed it” the first time.
After a negative result in design screening or testing, we’ve found some important diagnostic questions to ask:
Have you shown consumers something compelling enough in the test design?
Initially, consumers need something noticeably different to react to; otherwise, the designs may seem too similar for it to matter which one is picked. The best insights usually come from broad creative exploration.
Of course, there’s a caveat: It’s also true that small tweaks can make a big difference—and in some cases, an evolutionary change is all that’s needed. In other words, a meaningful change doesn’t have to look dramatic. In some cases, exploring a few different variables at once (e.g., alternate claim or claim wording, tweaks to the hierarchy of communication, slightly updated flavor imagery, etc.) can help a brand zero in on changes that resonate with consumers most.
Are you assuming consumers’ preference for the current design is familiarity bias?
In a word: Don’t. Familiarity bias is undoubtedly a factor to consider—absent a compelling reason to choose an unfamiliar design, consumers will generally go with what they know. We’ve seen again and again, though, that consumers will embrace a change (even a significant change from an established brand) if it’s rooted in what they care about without losing the brand’s essence.
Have you removed a key claim?
Saying important things better is basically a cheat code to better design performance, with an 88% correlation to directional in-market outcomes. So if you’ve removed or downplayed a claim that consumers look for when purchasing your product, it could have a detrimental effect on your design’s impact.
Has the layout and/or hierarchy of communication in your test design improved?
If important information is missing or hard to find on a package, consumers may react negatively. Yet, if your design is chock-full of claims, consumers can get overwhelmed. This is why early testing is so important—as is improving the navigability of key information on your packaging.
Are there legibility issues?
Consumers regularly cite difficulty reading a package as a reason they didn’t prefer it over the current design. Whether the font is too small, uses low-contrast colors, or is otherwise unclear, it can leave consumers frustrated. (Even small improvements to the legibility of key information can have a meaningful impact on consumer testing results.)
How prominent and appealing is your sensory imagery?
The only sure things in life are death, taxes… and consumers loving sensory imagery 😄. If you’re a food or beverage brand—or even a personal/home care brand, in some cases—prioritize conveying flavor or scent. If such imagery isn’t on your design, add it; if it’s smaller or occluded by other elements, consider giving it a boost in size, prominence, and realism (provided photorealism fits with your brand).
