In 2009, a major beverage company decided to revamp the packaging of its leading premium orange juice product, aiming for a modern, sophisticated look that would align with contemporary design trends. However, what was intended as a fresh visual identity turned into one of the biggest marketing missteps in recent history. The redesign removed the familiar orange with a straw an iconic image that had become synonymous with the product—and replaced it with a generic glass of orange juice. The result was immediate consumer backlash, with many loyal customers struggling to recognize the product on store shelves. The redesign led to a staggering USD 30 million drop in sales within two months, forcing the company to revert to the original packaging. This case highlights the critical role consumer expectations play in branding and packaging decisions and serves as a cautionary tale about the risks of changing a well-established brand identity without sufficient consumer research. The drastic decline in sales illustrated how a brand’s identity is deeply embedded in its visual elements and how even a seemingly minor change can alienate a loyal customer base.
Why Did the Company Redesign the Packaging?
The company sought to modernize the product’s image to appeal to a more sophisticated and health-conscious audience. It hired a renowned branding agency to create a new look that would convey purity, freshness, and natural ingredients. The redesign introduced a minimalist approach, removing key brand identifiers, including the orange with a straw, and replacing the bold typography with a softer, more generic font. The intent was to create a more premium feel, aligning the product with high-end beverage brands that emphasized wellnes and natural ingredients. This approach aimed to present the product as one that fit seamlessly into the lifestyle of modern consumers who valued simplicity and authenticity in the products they purchased.
In addition to aesthetic changes, the redesign also aimed to improve usability. The old carton’s traditional cap was replaced with a sleek, ergonomic version labeled "Squeeze," meant to reinforce the idea of freshly squeezed juice. The goal was to enhance the overall consumer experience and communicate the product’s natural quality more effectively. Despite the company’s intentions, the drastic departure from the product’s recognizable elements led to unexpected consequences that would soon impact its bottom line. The changes, though strategically planned, failed to consider the deep emotional connection consumers had with the existing packaging, ultimately leading to resistance and rejection from the market.
How Did Consumers React to the New Packaging?
The reaction from consumers was swift and overwhelmingly negative. Long-time buyers found themselves unable to locate the product on store shelves due to the significant visual departure from the previous packaging. The orange with a straw had become a powerful symbol of freshness, and its removal confused customers, making them question whether they were purchasing the same product. Additionally, the new design was perceived as generic, lacking the warmth and familiarity that had made the product so successful over the years. The shift in packaging inadvertently distanced the product from its core audience, creating a disconnect that eroded consumer trust and loyalty.
Social media and consumer hotlines were flooded with complaints, with many expressing frustration over the unnecessary change. Some even mistook the redesigned cartons for store-brand juice, leading them to purchase competing products instead. Within weeks, sales of the premium orange juice line plummeted by 20%, resulting in a USD 30 million revenue loss in just two months. The backlash demonstrated how attached consumers were to the product’s traditional imagery and underscored the importance of visual continuity in product recognition. The redesign, intended to be an evolution of the brand, instead led to a decline in consumer confidence, proving that even well-intended innovations can fail if they disregard established brand equity.
Why Did the Redesign Fail?
The failure of the redesign can be attributed to a lack of consumer insight and underestimation of brand equity. Several key missteps led to its downfall:
Disregard for Brand Recognition – One of the biggest errors was removing the iconic orange with a straw, a symbol that had become deeply ingrained in consumer perception. Without it, the new design failed to immediately communicate the product’s identity, making it less distinguishable on crowded supermarket shelves. The loss of this visual anchor caused confusion among shoppers, leading them to either hesitate or switch brands altogether.
Lack of Consumer Research – The decision to implement the redesign without thoroughly testing it with a broad consumer base proved costly. While internal teams and design professionals may have appreciated the minimalist aesthetic, everyday shoppers did not connect with it in the same way. This lack of consumer validation resulted in a misalignment between brand intentions and actual customer expectations, which ultimately contributed to the backlash.
Over-Reliance on Modern Design Trends – The push for a sleeker, contemporary look resulted in a design that lacked personality and warmth. The new packaging appeared too clinical and failed to evoke the emotional connection that the previous design had built over decades. While minimalist designs work well in certain industries, this product’s audience had developed a strong attachment to the previous branding, making the shift too drastic for comfortable adoption.
Failure to Address Core Customer Preferences – Many consumers were loyal, repeat buyers who relied on visual cues to make their purchasing decisions. The sudden and drastic change disrupted their shopping experience, leading them to switch to competitors or store-brand alternatives that retained familiar packaging. The importance of brand recognition in consumer decision-making was overlooked, which ultimately led to the failure of the redesign.
How Did the Company Respond to the Backlash?
Recognizing the scale of the failure, the company quickly took action. Within two months, it announced that it would revert to the original packaging, acknowledging consumer dissatisfaction. This decision was accompanied by a public statement in which the company admitted that it had underestimated the attachment customers had to the product’s iconic design elements. By taking responsibility for the misstep, the company sought to rebuild trust with its loyal customers and reassure them that their voices had been heard.
In an effort to mend relationships with its customer base, the company ramped up marketing efforts to reassure buyers that the product inside the packaging remained unchanged. The company also engaged in direct consumer outreach, responding to feedback and emphasizing its commitment to maintaining the trust and familiarity consumers had with the product. While the return to the classic design helped recover sales, the failed redesign served as a costly lesson in the importance of consumer perception in product branding. This episode underscored the necessity of engaging with customers before making drastic changes, proving that even the most well-established brands are not immune to missteps if they fail to prioritize consumer sentiment.
Fast Fact
The packaging redesign failure resulted in a USD 30 million drop in sales within just two months, proving that even well-intentioned brand overhauls can backfire when consumer expectations are not adequately considered. This case remains a powerful example of how misjudging brand loyalty and consumer perception can lead to significant financial consequences, reinforcing the importance of thoughtful, research-driven design decisions.
Author's Detail:
Sneha Mali /
LinkedIn
Sneha Mali is a research analyst working in various domains including the Consumer Goods, market research and transport & logistics and her primary responsibility is to conduct thorough research on various subjects and provide valuable insights to support client requirements. Her knowledge of research methodologies, and data mining which enables me to analyze large data sets, draw meaningful conclusions, and communicate them effectively.Sneha stay up-to-date with the latest research trends, methodologies, and technologies to ensure that her research is accurate, relevant, and impactful.
In her current role, Sneha is committed to continuous learning and staying abreast of emerging trends in research methodologies. Regular participation in workshops, webinars, and industry conferences ensures that her skills remain sharp and relevant. She have demonstrated ability to transform complex data sets into clear and concise narratives that inform key business strategies. Collaborating with cross-functional teams.Sneha remains an invaluable asset in the dynamic landscape of market research.
