The appeal of “time capsule” brands
15/09/2008

Brands owners are obsessed with re-designs - if a product's not performing, they tend to think that a whole new look will solve their problems. But sometimes going back to the past can appeal more than something entirely new.

The latest fuss over the redesign of Facebook is a case in point; consumers like familiarity, and don't want beloved brands to change. eBay has also come under fire for changing its look - and there's nothing more infuriating, from a consumer's point of view, than when a supermarket changes its layout. Perhaps that is why one of the latest trends to emerge in brand design is to revisit an old design. Monster Munch, for example, has reverted to its original 1977 incarnation, prompted by research that found a huge amount of nostalgia among adults for the brand. Lilt, meanwhile, is returning to its original 'totally tropical taste' strapline, alongside a design revamp featuring blue Caribbean skies and images of tropical fruit. Even major brands are pulling out slogans from their back catalogues - Mars recently brought back 'work rest and play', and, a few years ago, Heinz rescued 'beanz means Heinz'.

At the same time, there are other brands that have hardly changed their look in years, and suddenly find themselves retro icons - Love Hearts (recently used by Wayne and Colleen Rooney as wedding favours), Smiths Chipsticks or Frazzles for example. Whether as a result of lack of investment by their owners, or by simply hanging on to a small, but loyal, group of consumers, these 'time capsule' brands have kept to their original look, and survived longer than many flashy arrivistes who have come and gone in the meantime. So what does this mean for design agencies? Is there simply a trend for nostalgia, or does it point to something more fundamental; that most brand revamps were unnecessary in the first place? Some design agencies will always argue that when a brand needs a good boost, nothing less than a radical redesign will do. But while this kind of revamp can prove a short-term shot in the arm for a struggling brand, creating a new look that results in a long-term sales uplift is harder. Multiple brand revamps over several years are particularly dangerous - after all, if brands are like trusted friends, you wouldn't want a friend to walk differently and dress differently every time you saw them.

Some successful brands have kept their look the same for years - Elnett hairspray, currently being heavily marketed by L'Oréal with ads starring Penelope Cruz, looks much the same as it did in the 50s. Brands such as this have managed to evolve, without ever having been seen by consumers to have undergone a 'revamp' - most likely by having made minor tweaks to packaging over the years.

There is certainly a cyclical element to consumers' design preferences: for example, white cars - last trendy in the 1980s - have suddenly become hugely popular after years of sitting unsold on forecourts. But revisiting the past can also be a way of tapping into consumer nostalgia, and at the same time introducing a new generation to an iconic design. There is also an important PR element; Monster Munch's return to its original design made more headlines that would have resulted from simply another new look for a struggling product. Although retro brand revivals can be dismissed as 'lazy' marketing, there is some evidence that in tougher economic times, consumers will turn to brands they can trust - and here the 'time capsule' brand comes into its own. Just as we turn to comfort food in times of personal crisis, the current financial turmoil could see even more consumer cravings for nostalgia.

Certainly there are some cases when a radical redesign is the worst possible option. There are a few brands, for example, are beloved of an older generation of consumers, but which hold little appeal for a younger audience. Take Leo's dried peas, or Camp Coffee. There is no longer a real product benefit, but as brands, they survive. For their owners, to change the packaging design here would be pointless, as brand familiarity is really the only currency they have. In the mid 90s, Babycham discovered this when it relaunched without its iconic 'leaping deer' icon to appeal to a younger market; three years later the deer was back along with the original brand positioning.

It might sound obvious but marketers should remember that consumers, as a rule, dislike change - and this applies just as much to cool young Facebook and eBay users as it does to old ladies with blue rinses. Brand owners who dismiss the importance of their design heritage - and the visual relationship they have built up with their consumers - do so at their peril.


All flb news articles