Design Production: Branding and Packaging

In todays workshop we categorised our 30 pieces of packaging of branding and identity we brought in collectively as a group into three sections: good quality, middle and bad.

TOP

CD - simple/interesting/interactive/informative/very nice stock/black and white colour choice/net format

Perfume - emboss/net design is interesting/texture of box/colour scheme - gold type

Bag - good quality stock/positive embossing - colour scheme is classic - pattern design inside/closing format is attractive

Converse shoebox - long/thin slick - functional for shoe/works with purpose-sterdy/strong card/-design complements the brand - simple shape

Mini perfume - gold foiling/emboss - attractive, petite - represents brand and product, colour scheme is elegant/expensive

Coke - Very brand orientated, simple/recyclable/effecting

Foundation - Matt lid - texture effective

OVERALL the packaging based in this quality is high end brands who use good stock and minimalistic design as well colours such as black, white, gold etc which make the product being packaged appear expensive. They also use different processes such as foiling and embossing to add texture and interactive features. I think that its also a lot about the experience of buying an expensive item and wanted to hold on to that element of treating yourself that makes it see high quality.

 MIDDLE

Not as good stock used

Functional but good design but not good quality or vice versa

Functional - do the job but don't go in excess of whats needed

Brand says something about quality

Ribena - shape format - the way the you hold it, colour scheme - thought process with design, it brings lower market produces e.g. food/drink but ideas have been considered

Bags - lower market produces e.g. food brought to higher market - branding picking mushrooms, adding recipes etc, more likely to purchase, additional content

OVERALL the middle quality range of packaging were determined because i had one strong element but lacked in another. For example they had good design but not matching stock and vice versa. We felt that the brand also determined it not going into higher range as it devalued the product.

BOTTOM

Cheap' looking, not sturdy/strong, colour comes off, gradient, bad typeface

Pizza - colour choice - tacky gradient, very cheap cardboard - thin, pricing - lower quality product

Coke - Can't get into it more for distribution/mobility instead of practically


OVERALL we felt that the colour was a massive aspect of the poor quality as it made it appear cheap and tacky but also the familiarity of the product/packaging made it less 'special'.

Top 5 characteristics:

TOP

• nice feeling stock
• sustainability
• looks expensive
• durability
• net complexity
• colour - black/white/gold

Middle

• disposability
• good durability but design doesn't match/design is good but stock doesn't match
• not amazing design or stock - mundane
• familiarity 

Bottom

• overcrowded design
• generic - looks mass produced
• images
• attempting mimicry
• packaging that isn't needed

CONTEXTUAL:

• colour
• brands
• pattern