Walkers New Brand
February 20th, 2006 - General Design
I can’t understand what has gone wrong at Walkers crisps but boy this new logo cannot be a good thing. The established and respected brand of walkers took a wrong turn when it was first put inside a huge crisp - In my view this was unnecessary as we know that walkers sell crisps, why patronize your audience?! Anyway after that wrong turn, now they have created a bizarre gimmicky and slightly dated typeface. This type face is “3d” and raised, it is not powerful or strong and seems to be a move on from what they had, but a move, in my opinion in the wrong direction. Ok, take out the serif font but at least develop a non italic, non 3d typeface. Correct me if I’m wrong but these styles died out in the 80’s didn’t they?! The packaging also looks a little “space invadery” and may appeal to some strange children but it doesn’t really seem to be deliberately designed to do so. I’m a fan of simplicity and I think by cutting down on all the Photoshop effects Walkers could have created a more solid, stronger and more recognisable brand image. At the moment I feel this re-brand has created a weaker and short-lasting brand image.
Also another bizarre thing is the seemingly poor consistency in the other walkers collateral. For example “walkers light” packaging and branding still has the old walkers brand on it. Some one correct me but I’m sure the number one rule of branding is “consistency”. You can see the problem when you look at a page like this on their very own website:
http://walkers.corpex.com/cr15p5/welcome.asp
Ok, Walkers will be recogised anyway so will get away with it but who ever is directing the walkers campaign needs to consider the persona that this lack of consistency gives off. It says to me; “unorganized” and “unprofessional”.
However “will any of these things stop me from eating Walkers Crisps” I hear you ask. I solemnly look at the floor and admit “probably not”…
March 6th, 2006 at 1:59 pm
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.
March 23rd, 2006 at 9:11 pm
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!
March 23rd, 2006 at 9:19 pm
Good point Michelle,
It does get on my nerves though - corporate arrogance!
April 4th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
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.