Image courtesy of KFC.

It’s clear that many companies – and their advertisers – are focused on how to capitalize on consumers’ desire for “green” initiatives and save the Earth, too. Tactics range from changing the size and type of product packaging to the push for 100% recycled mailers and even to taking marketing strictly to the Web. So it’s no surprise that a fast food chain has jumped on the emerald bandwagon as well.

Advocating for a new norm, KFC (aka Kentucky Fried Chicken) started to implement a more sustainable packaging approach last year with the theme of “reuse. renew. rejoice.” The company’s goal is to eventually eliminate Styrofoam and switch from cardboard to paper.

However, KFC’s most exciting improvement has to be its reusable plastic containers for side dishes. Modeled after the popular Ziploc and Gladware containers, the KFC containers are both microwave- and dishwasher-safe – encouraging customers to reuse the plastic ware, not pitch it.

Cool … but not exactly new

Despite KFC’s recent transition to sustainable packaging, the concept is certainly not a new one. The Sustainable Packaging Coalition counts nearly 200 member organizations, including FedEx and UPS and such major brands as The Kellogg Company and Johnson & Johnson.

At jhP we definitely like seeing fast food chains reduce environmental waste. (In a future post, we’ll talk about the more local efforts of Iwig Family Dairy. Since 2004 the dairy has sold its milk in reusable glass bottles – an environmentally friendly approach that also happens to be a traditional one!)

What say you?

Now we want to hear from you. Is KFC on to something? Should other fast food chains follow suit? What other ways besides sustainable packaging could make a difference? Tell us your thoughts!

I’m an opinionated person, and I usually know immediately how I feel about certain issues. But this week I came across a headline that left me utterly conflicted: “Feds propose graphic cigarette warning labels.” The article talks about a new campaign, announced by the FDA and the Department of Health and Human Services, to add large, graphic images to the warning labels on tobacco product packaging. Check out one of their suggested new labels below (as shown on The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Flickr account).

Typically this is one of those issues that doesn’t have much grey area – you’re either for or against, right? True, but I wear two hats in this discussion – that of a prevention advocate and that of an advertising professional. Here’s my internal conflict …

Prevention Advocate:

I began my career in advertising while I was still in high school. How so? I joined the state board of TASK, Kansas’ youth-led tobacco prevention organization. Our mission was this: TASK promotes tobacco-free teens by uniting communities to create one strong voice standing against the tobacco industry.

At 16, my role in this organization was to help expose Big Tobacco’s manipulative advertising and marketing tactics to teens throughout Kansas. I have long felt it’s clear tobacco industries have no feeling for social responsibility, and care only about following the rules just enough so they can continue to sell a product that frequently kills their customers. I guess that’s why they need as much landscape on their tobacco packaging as possible – especially with recent regulations that prevent the use of many advertising mediums for their industry.

So, naturally, reading about the inclusion of graphic images on tobacco-product warning labels to tell you about the harmful effects of tobacco AND show it, caused me, Brie “Prevention Advocate” Engelken, to break into a happy dance! Nothing of this magnitude, in regard to tobacco-product packaging, has happened since the Surgeon General’s 1964 report linking tobacco use to cancer and other disease. That report led to requiring the surgeon general’s warning label on all tobacco product packaging.

Maybe these graphic images will finally make potential first-time smokers think twice before starting and cause borderline users to quit. It’s just one more opportunity to make a difference.

Advertiser:

As an advertiser, my industry is largely unregulated, with a few exceptions like food, pharmaceuticals and tobacco – and we as advertisers like it that way! I appreciate and see great value in the limited regulations we do have – most dealing with truth-in-advertising policies. While I’m lucky enough to work for a company that puts high-level emphasis on social responsibility, not everyone does. So minimal, common sense regulations, like truth-in-advertising, level our competitive playing field and make it fairer for all.

That said, as an advertiser, if my client’s legal product is already giving full disclosure of its side effects, is the inclusion of a large graphic image of those effects really necessary? Tobacco products aren’t the only ones with detrimental side effects. Pharmaceutical print ads already have to be jam-packed with side-effect disclosures – should they start including graphic photos of miscarriages, asthma and death as well? Should every Big Mac container feature a picture of clogged arteries? And should power saw ads boast shots of severed limbs? I’m thinking not.

The government is already limiting where and to whom tobacco companies can promote their products. They already have a clear warning that fully, and truthfully, discloses the effects of their product on their consumers. Is that not enough already? People know cigarettes kill. So why is it necessary to take over half of their packaging to graphically showcase their product’s side effects – and the top half at that? Shouldn’t the first step be to regulate a legal PRODUCT rather than regulate the way the product is PROMOTED? This industry is already prevented from advertising on television, radio, billboards, to children or sponsorship of sporting events. We’re slowly killing the industry with snow-balling regulations on marketing instead of building a safer industry with regulations on the product. Isn’t product regulation really what the FDA is for?

So there’s a glimpse inside my internal struggle – what do you think? What’s your conclusion? Is this new regulation on product packaging a life-saving benefit from kindly Uncle Sam or another example of an over-reaching Nanny State?

You’re pulling out of the drive-thru, and the tantalizing aroma of French Fries fills your car, calling your name. Fumbling around inside the to-go bag, your fingers latch onto the small ketchup packet that will top off your fast-food experience. Wait! You can’t … quite … open the ketchup with your greasy fingers. Biting one corner of the packet, you pull down the other corner, and … !

We’ve all been there, driving back to the office with a stain the size of Rhode Island smeared down the front of our shirt. After 40 years of customers’ complaints about ketchup catastrophies, Heinz has debuted the new and improved packet that will be available at fast-food chains later this year.

Heinz developed its packet so we can easily tear off the end and squeeze the ketchup on our food. Or we can peel back the seal for dunking. Don’t bother grabbing handfuls of packets anymore. The re-design holds three times the ketchup as the original packet. Aside from its useful features, the packet was designed to resemble a small, classic glass bottle of the delicious condiment.

What do you think of the new Heinz packaging?

Image credit: http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/02/04/the-future-to-go-heinz-reinvents-the-ketchup-packet/

Remember how exciting the grocery store checkout stand was when you were a kid? That’s where all the really good stuff was. All those bright colors and tempting candies. The one I always begged for was a parent’s nightmare – that gooey yumminess that came in a squeezable tube. I don’t recall the name, but that bright package still catches my eye.

That’s how big a difference packaging makes. I still buy gum, and many other products, based on what package looks the coolest or is most eye–catching. The same goes for services. When choosing between a car repair shop that’s tidy and in a safe neighborhood or one that’s junky and in a scary area, which do you choose? Based on the physical evidence, you’ll probably go to the first shop. Customers base purchase decisions on comfort and trust. It’s what builds relationships. That’s why packaging and physical evidence are two very important additional Ps in the marketing mix.

Packaging:

It’s about appearances. First impressions and how your product shines next to your competition’s products are crucial. Our lifetime of checkout stand experiences proves that. Packaging can be your strongest asset, or a sales killer – remember Tropicana’s recent rebrand? Consumers come to recognize and depend on the look of our products as they make their choices. So it’s essential to regularly research and reevaluate our packaging designs for impact and effectiveness.

Physical Evidence:

It’s also about facts. Physical realities allow consumers to form opinions of your services or products based on what they see. This is another reason why it’s important to gain insight from someone outside of your company. Find out what people think of your location’s cleanliness, appearance, and how they think your product looks. Is your business’ location organized and attractive? Does your product appear fresh and able to function?

In the marketing mix, sometimes you have to judge a book by its cover. That said, what makes your product or service stand out and shine above the others?

Stay tuned to find out how positioning and perception affect your brand!

On those Extreme Makeover shows, it’s fun when the family says, “Wow! You look so terrific, we almost wouldn’t recognize you!” But what if the makeover was SO extreme that the baffled husband said, “… who are you?” And the kids cried, “Where’s our mommy?” That’s exactly what happened to PepsiCo’s Tropicana Pure Premium Orange Juice products.

After a major package redesign, Tropicana sales dropped a whopping 20% between January 1 and February 22, 2009, according to AdAge.com. To stop the bleeding, PepsiCo, the parent company of Tropicana, trashed the new look and rushed back to the old design. So what went wrong?

1.) PepsiCo underestimated the value of package recognition.

Consumers knew Tropicana by its look. But when the re–branded packaging was put next to other orange juice brands (Minute Maid, Dole, etc.) nothing said to the consumer, “Hey! It’s me, your old friend Tropicana!” The key design elements that made Tropicana packaging iconic to loyal customers were either muted or missing. Consumers no longer recognized their favorite drink. They assumed it was gone and simply grabbed another brand.

2.) The redesign was too much too fast!

It’s often best to ease into a new logo or package design gradually. But Tropicana dove head first. The packaging changed so suddenly and radically that loyal customers looked right past it.

3.) The packaging was too generic.

Although the new packaging was attractive on the design board, it looked so bland on the shelf that it simply blended into the background. Loyal customers couldn’t distinguish between their favorite brand and generic orange juice brands.

4.) The new packaging made it hard to distinguish between varieties.

Whether you were looking for Tropicana’s No Pulp or Calcium variety, all the new packaging looked the same! Tropicana’s previous packaging had used different colors to successfully differentiate each variety. Even customers who figured out what Tropicana looked like now couldn’t find the taste they wanted.

On February 23, after losing millions of dollars in sales, PepsiCo announced they were ditching their new look and reverting to the previous package design. Clearly, they learned a valuable lesson or two. What would you have done differently if you were PepsiCo?