Media Watch: New Campbell’s Soup label gets canned by press

It’s a classic design. An artistic icon. Yet even an All-American symbol is no longer sacred. Campbell’s recent announcement that they were to ’revamp’ the distinctive style of their soup cans led the media to wonder is nothing sacred anymore?

It’s a classic design. An artistic icon. Yet even an All-American symbol is no longer sacred. Campbell’s recent announcement that they were to ’revamp’ the distinctive style of their soup cans led the media to wonder is nothing sacred anymore?

It’s a classic design. An artistic icon. Yet even an All-American

symbol is no longer sacred. Campbell’s recent announcement that they

were to ’revamp’ the distinctive style of their soup cans led the media

to wonder is nothing sacred anymore?



Changing a brand image even slightly is never easy at the best of times,

but it is especially risky when sales are sagging. CARMA’s examination

of the media coverage surrounding Campbell’s announcement revealed that

beyond the familiar marketing ploy laid an attempt not only to revive

sales, but also reverse the trends of American eating habits.



To its credit, Campbell took a gentle approach to avoid a consumer

backlash.



Campbell has retained parts of the visual qualities of the package, as

well as its unique typography. A company spokesman surmised, ’It’s all

about contemporizing our label and making it easier for consumers to

find the soups they want’ (The Wall Street Journal, August 26).



In making the most significant change to its labeling in its 101-year

history, Campbell played down any sense of panic within the company.



Once a staple of the American diet, the soup has been given a ’jazzier’

label with a photograph and a claim that it is ’98% fat free.’ A company

spokeswoman explained, ’The design is much loved and very familiar to

Americans, but we felt there was a wonderful opportunity to update it’

(San Diego Union-Tribune, August 26).



The general consensus of the media, however, said the change is unlikely

to create significant long-term sales growth. Some made reference to the

’New Coke’ debacle as an example of what could go wrong as a result of

re-branding. Much of the coverage seized upon falling sales as the

primary reason for change. Earlier this year, Campbell acknowledged that

a major reorganization was due and as Naomi Ghez of Goldman Sachs &

Company pointed out, ’It will definitely take more than changing a label

to change eating habits’ (The New York Times, August 26).



Several media outlets drew parallels with other product revamps which

have had mixed success and fired a warning to Campbell that eye-catching

packaging is not a sure bet to boost sales. Andrew Lazar, an analyst

with Lehman Brothers, explained, ’Though commendable for now, that well

is going to dry up. Longer term, these companies are going to have to

come out with innovative products’ (Omaha World-Herald, August 29).



More stinging critical coverage called the revamp an act of ’tampering’

and ’dumping a loved icon.’ ’Why change a design which is perfectly good

and which works?’ cried out the Chicago Sun-Times (August 31). Numerous

references in the coverage were made to Andy Warhol - who helped give

the red and white labels iconic status with his silk-screen images - and

how the changes would make him turn in his grave.



For just that reason, the company made only cosmetic changes to its soup

cans. If nothing else, the revamp provides a novel way to shift cans off

to the shelves to collectors. However, as the media pointed out, company

research has shown we all have one or two cans of soup in the

cupboard.



The problem remains that people just aren’t eating it anymore.



Evaluation and analysis by CARMA International. Mediawatch can be found

at www.carma.com.



Have you registered with us yet?

Register now to enjoy more articles and free email bulletins

Register
Already registered?
Sign in