Comments on: Walkers New Brand

By: Des Elmes

Des Elmes — Sun, 02 May 2010 18:47:59 +0000

At least Walkers did see sense and changed their logo again (in June 2007) when they realised that this one was universally unpopular.

On the other hand, I haven’t come across one person anywhere who likes the new Mr Muscle, yet SC Johnson have doggedly stuck with him.

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:23:47 +0000

Lay’s is the brand name for a number of potato chip varieties as well as the name of the company that founded the chip brand in 1938. Lay’s chips are marketed as a division of Frito-Lay, a company owned by PepsiCo Inc. since 1965. Other brands in the Frito-Lay group include Fritos, Doritos, Ruffles, Cheetos and Rold Gold pretzels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lay%27s

By: Craig

Craig — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 16:49:03 +0000

I don’t know much about walkers (being from Canada), but I would ask who owns walkers? because we have a brand in Canada that looks identical to the brand above called “Lay’s” chips (http://www.lays.ca/). Their brand has been around in its current form for almost a decade, and if theres one thing “Parent” companies hate its brand inconsistancy.

By: matt

matt — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 21:19:13 +0000

Good point Michelle,

It does get on my nerves though – corporate arrogance!

By: Michelle

Michelle — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 21:11:54 +0000

I have to say that the first time I saw the new branding on Walkers I felt that it lacked something. It looks dated, shouldn’t re-branding be a way to refresh a product, to make it stand out from the crowd? Not to make the customer feel like they have been zapped back to the 80′s.

But then Walkers being Walkers it is fair to assume that they will get away with it, lets face it they have a massive customer base who probably take the packaging for granted anyway. Plus they tend to take up so much shelf space it’s the other companies that really need to pay attention to their branding in order to get a look in!

By: Adrian Miu

Adrian Miu — Mon, 06 Mar 2006 13:59:11 +0000

While I agree this logo sucks I want to point that the brand’s image has nothing/very little to do with the logo but with the money used to promoted it. Of course for some logos it’s easier to stay in the memory of the audience.
Everybody praise Nike, Marlboro as an example of simplicity but I’m pretty sure if you invest a few billions in promoting a brand everybody will recognize the logo no matter how bad it is. IMB broke the rules of brand naming but the billions invested in the promotion made that “error” insignificant. Do you know what’s the logo of Rolls-Royce? I don’t, but I know for sure that they produce luxury cars. Some brands have good logos, some have bad logos but the logo has little to do with what the people know about the brand. I agree that some logos are so poor that they actually heart the brand but I have never found a logo that helps the brand by itself.