NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New. All posts have been closed to comments. Please visit underconsideration.com/brandnew for the latest version. If you would like to see this specific post, simply delete _v1 from the URL.
Laundry detergent: it’s one product you never think about until you need it. As a designer, it’s one of the few products I think of when I hear “consumerism.” I have this picture in my head of all the products looking the same up and down the aisles — it’s quite terrifying. Oh wait, it’s no picture in my head, it’s reality.
The Detergent Aisle, aka The Land of Conformity.
Add another to the pile of ambiguity. Cheer tried to update its image but produced a half-baked attempt, with a logo that is not distinct enough from the old and much less, well, distinct at all. They updated the logo on their website but apparently couldn’t photograph their new packaging. The new look keeps the rainbow colors of the old but gets rid of the bodega sans-like type treatment. The new extended type is still highly forgettable.
New bottles.
I don’t quite get why Cheer took such a lateral (almost backwards) move when redesigning their packaging. Ultimately the packaging should stand out yet keep some brand equity. When I walk up and down the aisle, I know exactly what to grab based on the shape of the package and color. I wish Cheer would have taken a bolder step and branched out beyond the standard “clean” look.
I still am stunned as to why stores don’t operate more like the Mrs. Meyer’s brand, by Werner Design Werks. Such a novel concept to lump all your needs into one area. It would save me a good thirty minutes walking up and down each aisle in the store.
Jump to Most Recent Comment
Ty’s comment is:
Their logotype choice is a very interesting one, I'm not sure how they started with the Bodega-esque mark and ended up with this.
But wordmark aside, I think the packaging and identity are a substantial improvement from the old. While it's no Mrs. Meyer's, it sure is a lot cleaner. And the actual bottle is a better shape, too.
On Nov.16.2007 at 10:08 AM
BWJ’s comment is:
Was someone paid to do this?
Even after the success of Mrs. Meyers and Method, the big guys still think their consumer base is unable to accept a drastic change to their detergent packaging. What a shame.
When I see things like this, I always wonder what the conversations were like with the client. Did the designer's really try hard enough to educate the client? Or did the client's ignorance just drive them to apathy? For the amount of money that will be spent updating all of the packaging, this subtle change (for the worse) is just wasteful.
On Nov.16.2007 at 10:27 AM
Ty’s comment is:
BWJ.
Do you really think that the old packaging is better than this? You may have a point on the old logo, I find the old packaging borderline atrocious.
On Nov.16.2007 at 10:41 AM
drew kora’s comment is:
It's no different to me. It looks identical. John, you're so right about Werner and Meyer's. The "Method" brand (by Target I think) has a really tight design down too, and it's even simpler.
However, I have to admit, at the end of the day, I don't care. There are lots of products I support becuase they have good design. If there was a distinctly cool package for detergent, I might be inclinded to buy it instead of the others (as long as it wasn't uber-expensive). But as you said, I never think of my detergent until I need it. I buy whatever I have a coupon for.
On Nov.16.2007 at 10:54 AM
Ricky Irvine’s comment is:
The only advantage to the redesign that I can see is that the new logo makes the bottle appear taller. Suckers.
Perceived product value is valued over actual product value.
On Nov.16.2007 at 10:57 AM
altoption’s comment is:
I prefer the old, too. This new design loses all personality. The old had a cheerier/quality feel. It gave me some reasons to buy - other than price. It felt friendly, colorful and high end. That's decent branding. The new just looks like another cheap generic product. Leaves me feeling cold.
On Nov.16.2007 at 11:18 AM
Mark’s comment is:
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!
what...have...they...done???
it's horrible.
first squished type??? bad...bad...bad!!!!!
the colors look like they've been done in fricking Powerpoint.
The font is dull and has zero personality compared to the old one.
and what is going on with that white outline around the letters? That looks like those dotted lines you see around coupons? It looks like a really cheap sticker.
what a despicable move.
On Nov.16.2007 at 11:35 AM
Peter Whitley’s comment is:
I agree, Ricky. When it comes to laundry detergents (though I'm certainly not a member of the target market being the dirty skateboarder that I am), I'm sure the buying decision is based on a heap of emotional cues.
What strikes me about the detergent aisle is the absence of black. Makes sense, of course, but it seems like there's an opportunity there. Everyone has seemed to glom onto a specific, bright color...but black is neglected (again) and relegated to the perfume and art supply aisles.
Mrs. Meyer's strikes me as a contemporary interpretation of the venerable hippy soap from Dr. Bonner. Design, design, design, okay.
John’s comment is:
Mark,
what a despicable move.
It's not quite as brash as you make it out to be. Cheer felt they needed to reposition itself and therefore they made choices based upon sound decision making from the top down. I didn't touch upon the packaging in hopes people would discuss that here. It's one thing to not like it, but come on, it's really not despicable.
On Nov.16.2007 at 11:52 AM
Chris’s comment is:
Clean out the empty new packaging and you got yourself a lovely water pitcher to add to your china cabinet.
On Nov.16.2007 at 12:02 PM
Drew Pickard’s comment is:
Honestly, it looks like a 'higher end brand' now.
When I look at it now, I see understated cleaner design reminiscent of smaller niche 'organic' brands.
It's at least a welcome change to the exploding rainbow packaging of all their competitors.
Maybe not drastic enough, but it's an OK step.
phil’s comment is:
I'm more likely to purchase laundry detergent because of its physical packaging and its chemical qualities (i.e., fragrance-free.)
While I admit to being drawn to attractive labels on wine bottles ... at least for an initial winnowing of choices ... staples like soap don't really register on my graphics radar.
On Nov.16.2007 at 12:47 PM
Ryan’s comment is:
So, is the new logo intended to be presented with the dashed rounded rectangle around it?
On Nov.16.2007 at 12:55 PM
Darrin Crescenzi’s comment is:
Looking at the packaging, what I notice is the level of information that is "tacked on" to the wordmark. It's never just "Cheer," it's "ULTRA Cheer with Colorguard" or ULTRA Cheer Fresh & Gentle" or whatever other superlatives they can add to it.
That being the case, I think there was an opportunity here to create a modular system for their different "technologies," similar to what came up in the Auckland comments yesterday. I find it slightly hilarious that the identity can be such a lateral move in differentiating from their competitors, and yet within their own product line the lack of cohesion is astounding.
Companies like this don't experience aesthetic "revolutions" very often, if ever, but if they were going to remain in their generic niche, they could have been generic a lot more... effectively?
On Nov.16.2007 at 02:03 PM
dietrich-muller’s comment is:
I just can't stand the xy axis created by the stem of the h and the cross-bars of the e's. ugh, how uncheerful. At least the old e's had a playful loop.
On Nov.16.2007 at 02:24 PM
C-Lo’s comment is:
uh... at least the bottle itself has a nice shape to it.
On Nov.16.2007 at 03:43 PM
TheUprock!’s comment is:
Ty,
I think BWJ's point essentially culminates as a question of "why?". Why spend money on sprucing up a growing-stale brand, which will only result in more product/packaging waste, when the difference will certainly be lost on the eyes and minds of most consumers? I agree that the ball was dropped somewhere throughout the creative process, be that on the client's or designer's side, who knows?
Personally, I don't care what the logo on my laundry detergent looks like. But I definitely agree that if you're going to sink money into re-branding and re-packaging, it should be worth the footprint that it leaves behind.
@Ricky: Indeed, it's a ploy. They've been doing this sort of thing for years though. Announce a brand re-design to cover up the fact that you're getting less for your money. All of which is hidden by fancy (not in this case) packaging, and under-worked brand development. The bottle looks taller, but is it?
@Mark: It's not stretched I don't think; it's extended.
And even though the slant on the H's ascender looks to be a trait of the whole family, it looks strange to me. Anyone else? Moreover, I prefer the egg-shaped forms of the update, but I'm likened more to the way the colors were handled on the old version. Overall, not a huge fan of the execution on either though.
On Nov.16.2007 at 05:00 PM
stock_illustration’s comment is:
I don't think in this case it's getting less in a fancier package. It seems all the detergent companies are going with super concentrated laundry soap that requires about 1/3 as much as before. Don't know if that actually works as well, but I can see the need to repackage to accommodate and call attention the new concentrated contents. Don't particularly like the design, but the bottle is much more pleasing than the "lump" they had before.
On Nov.16.2007 at 05:19 PM
Hibryd’s comment is:
Honestly, it looks like a 'higher end brand' now. When I look at it now, I see understated cleaner design reminiscent of smaller niche 'organic' brands
I don't get that at all. A squished logo, just scaled one way within 5 seconds in Illustrator, looks likes what a generic label would do if they wanted to make the type look "different" but didn't care about anything beyond that.
On Nov.16.2007 at 05:25 PM
BWJ’s comment is:
Ty...
I think both examples of the packaging are pretty terrible.
The only difference in the "new package" is a more aerodynamic bottle that looks exactly like every other one on the shelf.
This bottle (package) wasn't even designed or considered for this brand. It was most likely chosen from a catalog of pre-existing containers from whichever Chinese manufacturer supplies them.
On Nov.16.2007 at 06:02 PM
Mark’s comment is:
It's more disappointing than anything else, it just looks one of those logos that screams they could have done a lot better, Why did they extend the type? Why do they want smaller letterforms? Why is it so skinny? I mean it could've really looked beautifull without the extra extending, plus standing from afar the previous logo stands out more than the new one, it jumps out at you more.
What is going on with the "h"? It's not making any sense to me.
In other words, lost in translation.
On Nov.16.2007 at 06:12 PM
Mark’s comment is:
It's more disappointing than anything else, it just looks like one of those logos that screams they could have done a lot better, Why did they extend the type? Why do they want smaller letterforms? Is there any explanation why they put such a heavy white outline on the letters? Why is it so skinny? I mean it could've really looked beautiful without the extra extending, plus standing from afar the previous logo stands out more than the new one, it jumps out at you more.
What is going on with the "h"? It's not making any sense to me.
In other words, lost in translation.
On Nov.16.2007 at 06:14 PM
Whaleroot’s comment is:
Before it just looked like a terribly designed piece of packaging, now it looks like a discount brand. I'm not sure which is worse.
On Nov.16.2007 at 08:45 PM
John Mindiola III’s comment is:
yeah, no real improvement here. what they gained from loosing the cutesy pattern-of-shirts, they loose by adding non-descript flourishes. someone commented on the myriad varieties of a product line like laundry detergent ... i've always wondered why the companies feel the need to add to the product line, instead of consistently improving their original product. it's like toothpaste: if i have crest pro-health as an option, with all it's great features, why would/should anyone choose regular crest? am i missing something here?
On Nov.16.2007 at 09:12 PM
Dale H.’s comment is:
The design of the new logo and packaging is not particularly defensible, but it's ridiculous to compare it to Mrs. Meyers or Method. As a brand, Cheer has a much different agenda.
Cheer is a mass-market Procter & Gamble brand and has (believe me) been consumer-researched to an extreme degree. Though I personally find the new logo a marginal improvement, I suspect that P&G is quite aware that neither it nor its predecessor is a particularly sophisticated design. Mrs. Meyers and Method are both targeting a more design-savvy consumer and presenting themselves as an *alternative* to mainstream P&G products.
My point is let's critique this contextually.
On Nov.17.2007 at 12:31 AM
Joe S’s comment is:
The type isn't "squished". It's an extended face. People who think they know about type but really don't should be careful about getting too impassioned in their responses. It's an upgrade for sure. There is, however, the question of lost equity. Did they lose some brand equity? Well, I first noticed the updated look when I couldn't find the Cheer at my grocery store. It took me a little while to find it. If I wasn't such a curmudgeon I would've given up on it and bought something else. As soon as they get over that, though, I think they'll be in the clear. Is it forgettable? I don't know, and neither does anyone else. Until we see how it sticks in 2 or 3 years we wont know. That's how it works. Was it brave or bold? Not at all. For what they could've done as a brand (with 10 being the most amazing thing ever) I'd give it a 6.5, which isn't bad at all.
On Nov.17.2007 at 03:33 AM
andrew miller’s comment is:
Dale H. and Joe S. have made more sense than anybody on this thread.
Of course we're not gonna like it. We're the people that would buy Mrs. Meyer's and Method brands. Besides, who does Cheer have to compete with? Tide and eight other P&G brands? They could put anything on that bottle and still own the market.
And as far as the bottle is concerned, I doubt it had much to do with the redesign. If you notice P&G uses that bottle for its other brands as well (Tide Simple Pleasures for example).
On Nov.17.2007 at 09:32 AM
Jon Dascola’s comment is:
the new logo type is terrible. at least the old condensed "bodga sansish" mark had a bit of quirkeyness, especially in the e's.
the new mark takes itself way too seriously. its almost bothersome.
bad typography on commodity detergent packaging is like a grass stain in your jeans, something annoying that you can never really get rid of.
On Nov.17.2007 at 11:05 AM
Andrew Boardman’s comment is:
While I agree that the product packaging is a bit better, I wonder if this is a step toward a more "green" brand solution. It appears that the compressed typeface might be part of a transitional convention towards eco-packaging.
On Nov.17.2007 at 03:52 PM
Niki’s comment is:
(Off topic) Thank you for the Mrs. Meyers link. Just in time for the holidays! Awesome stuff.
On Nov.17.2007 at 04:30 PM
Anonymous’s comment is:
I actually *like* it. It's very retro '50s.
On Nov.18.2007 at 08:17 AM
Fuzzyman’s comment is:
I have a suspicion that the new bottle takes up the same amount of shelf space as the old one, but holds a bit less detergent... and sells for the same price.
On Nov.18.2007 at 12:43 PM
disgruntled designer’s comment is:
besides the stretched type the white bottle is actually a vast improvement over the patterns they unveiled not too long ago. still fug with bad type, but what are you going to do. p&g was looking for a new design director not too long ago so maybe it will change again soon.
On Nov.18.2007 at 05:30 PM
Monostereo’s comment is:
Something about the new type makes me want to punch it in the face. Like when someone is pretending to be really nice and friendly but really is stabbing you in the back. Does the new type convey 'cheer' or 'shwarmy cheer'. Pow!
On Nov.19.2007 at 01:02 PM
TheUprock!’s comment is:
Stop saying stretched!
On Nov.19.2007 at 02:10 PM
TheUprock!’s comment is:
Stop saying stretched!
On Nov.19.2007 at 02:10 PM
Joseph Szala’s comment is:
I guess it's hard to do something different when there is no point of differentiation. They didn't change any of the formula. It's still cheer on the inside. Now they just have an old english lady avatar for the campaign and a new logo/package design.
Why is it better?
Why should I buy cheer instead of Tide or Arm and Hammer?
It'd be nice to see something more minimalistic and forward like Meyer's. But still, does it matter when the detergent has no real benefit beyond other detergents? Not to mention they have extended their product line so far that it has diluted the brand itself? What's cheer anymore? There are six different cheers.
Before the redesigned the identity, they should probably refocus their branding efforts.
Next.
On Nov.19.2007 at 03:11 PM
Hibryd’s comment is:
Okay, since I clearly don't know this, how do I tell the difference between an extended font and one that's just been scaled? When I took the above Cheer logo into Photoshop and scaled it taller (about 130%), the letters were suddenly uniformly thick and the slopes on the C and Es were at perfect 45 degree angles. It was hard to tell at that size, but even the beveling highlights looked more even. That's what made me think the font was "squished" down.
On Nov.19.2007 at 05:04 PM
Von K’s comment is:
The packaging is a vast upgrade, but it's still homogenous on the shelf--safe.
The logo is just nasty. I think they did that to get more negative space on the bottle while keeping the logo's width similar. Not a good way to go, IMO.
At first glance, I think "this redesign was done to please a client-side committee."
On Nov.20.2007 at 12:55 PM
Robert Spangler’s comment is:
Did someone step on their new logo?
On Nov.20.2007 at 05:50 PM
Hibryd’s comment is:
Here's what I was talking about. Can someone help me out here?
Mark’s comment is:
I like the bottom version less flat looking. :)
On Nov.20.2007 at 11:47 PM
Jan Andersen’s comment is:
Why … why!
Why make it bad???????
On Nov.22.2007 at 07:22 AM
Derrick’s comment is:
What font did they use? I like it.
On Nov.24.2007 at 09:34 AM
Kevin M. Scarbrough’s comment is:
With consumer culture growing increasingly conscious about waste, I have an idea. Three, as a matter of fact, for the price of one!
1) Make a bottle that uses less waste
2) Use said position to differentiate Cheer from the various other uberhappily named soaps
3) Create logo that says, "Hey, we use less packaging."
Frankly, I'd prefer my soap properly named, while we are on the subject. I want candy to give me "cheer", I want my soap to "purge". With the exception of one very well done Buffy episode, I've never seen anyone excited over laundry soap.
On Nov.30.2007 at 07:47 AM
Michael Schur’s comment is:
Looks like the logo got the same "high efficiency" treatment as the detergent. It's more concentrated!
Seriously, though, if the brand and packaging change was meant to emphasize the detergent's suitability for high efficiency machines, it's very effective.
All of the curved shapes in the logo have moved from oval to circular, mimicking the shape of the HE washer logo. The loss of height in the logo and smoothing of the packaging also carry this theme, evoking the compact, sophisticated appearance of modern, high efficiency washing machines.
The appliance industry has been successful at convincing the market that it needed new technology to wash its clothing and detergent buyers have an actual compatibility panic with which to grapple. It only makes sense that detergent makers would risk death by association with the older hardware if they did not update as well.
Since laundry is such a luxurious pursuit now, how much "Cheer" do we really need anyways? "Joy" almost seems over-exuberant -- look for it to be renamed "Satisfied."
On Dec.01.2007 at 07:12 PM
M’s comment is:
you bunch of type nerds.
On Dec.13.2007 at 08:40 PM
lucia’s comment is:
lets not worry about the packaging guys what about the tv ads. when that lady goes around taking clothes off of other people you got to be kidding. I feel this way there are people with common sense and than not common sense but this is so stupid. cheer should stand by what they believe in instead of improvising with stupidity. trying to keep the prices down for one should be there number one thing because in reality soaps don't change it the ads and of course the bottles it really makes people want to change and i for one have because it really doesn't make sense to pay more for a bottle and a stupid ad in tv.
On Jan.17.2008 at 04:54 PM
Carmen’s comment is:
It took a turn for the worst... the lable with its'new logo looks flat, puggy and ugly... not that i need it to look pretty for me to wash my clothes with. I honestly think someone in the executive offices took designing up as a hobbie.
I guess some think that with all these art computer programs, anyone and everyone is a designer.
Jason R’s comment is:
I wish i could find a picture of it, but last night while shopping i saw a whole row of cheer that didn't have the ultra extended logo, nor the old bubbly one...it was some weired "tilty-font" logo that looked very childish.
Can someone find it?
On Dec.18.2008 at 05:37 PM
Mark’s comment is:
ARGH!
they redesigned this logo AGAIN! It's only been barely 2 years for the new logo and they DUMPED IT!
what the hell!!?
can't they let the paint dry on this one, before trashing it, AGAIN????
look! the f^&**(ed it up EVEN MORE!!!!!
http://www.cheer.com/
Mark’s comment is:
ARGH!
they redesigned this logo AGAIN! It's only been barely 2 years for the new logo and they DUMPED IT!
what the hell!!?
can't they let the paint dry on this one, before trashing it, AGAIN????
look! they f^&**(ed it up EVEN MORE!!!!!
http://www.cheer.com/
Comments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.
