A Second Squeeze: Tropicana’s Packaging Turnaround

Tropicana knows better than most what it means to “find out the hard way”. In fact you’d be hard pressed to find anyone in the global marketing community that hasn’t heard of the brand’s infamous 2009 redesign. The perennial punching bag of LinkedIn influencers across the globe, the Tropicana case study now acts as the ultimate cautionary tale for how not to approach a rebrand. Specifically…‍

1. ‍Don’t mess with your distinctive assets‍
2. ‍Don’t interrupt established shopping patterns
3. Don’t change everything all at once

Which brings us to the present day. When news of Tropicana’s latest rebrand broke, curiosity (and perhaps even a touch of dread) rippled through Cubery HQ. Early impressions weren’t entirely reassuring. While some of the brand’s core assets remained intact, the removal of the classic carafe-style bottle (with a more generic, rectangular bottle instead replacing it) prompted the obvious question: “have they managed to do it again?” Have they sacrificed recognizability and uniqueness for the sake of “freshness” and “breathing new life” into the brand’s assets?

To get to the bottom of this question, we A/B tested the old and new packaging with everyday grocery shoppers to see what impact (if any) the changes had. And… hallelujah, the results were positive!

While the change in bottle shape introduced a separate set of challenges (largely outside of Tropicana’s control), the decision to move away from this asset didn’t come at the brand’s expense. Though the shift was certainly noticed, the new pack ultimately maintained the same level of shelf standout, emotional appeal, and recognizability as its predecessor.

This outcome wouldn’t have been possible if the brand had repeated the same mistake of making sweeping changes to the rest of its core design architecture. With the familiar logo and distinct orange visual still sitting at the center of the new pack’s vertically stacked layout (exactly where people expected to see it), this helped bridge the gap between old and new. Even with a number of elements being revamped (including the bottle shape and smaller cues such as the leaf in the Tropicana lockup), people were still left in no doubt as to who the product belonged to.

While the 2009 misstep will forever be cited in marketing textbooks, the brand’s latest refresh provides a complementary tale, reminding marketers that “considered evolution” should be their foremost priority when it comes to an established brand. A complete makeover is generally only necessary for small, niche, or emerging brands. For established players like Tropicana (whose focus should be firmly centered on maintaining the brand’s mental and physical availability), the goal isn’t reinvention: it’s continued recognition.

Tropicana may have found out the hard way 16 years ago, but it’s clear that they’ve since learned their lesson. And as they say, better late than never!

‍

Sales tanked after Tropicana’s new look… but was the packaging really to blame?

It was widely reported in late in 2024 that Tropicana’s sales dropped 19% YOY shortly following the new pack’s launch into market. With our research among a robust, nationally representative audience of American juice consumers indicating they didn’t feel any worse about the new design, we therefore wouldn’t have expected the design change - on its own - to have such a detrimental impact on sales. So, what’s up?

The first thing to note is that while Shelf Impact (our headline predictor of success) was on-par between the two designs (which measures a pack’s ability to command attention at shelf and instantly cue the brand), expected behavior change dropped-off by 2pts for the new design. But while this might explain a very small part of the impact, a result like this is very common for a new design - especially one that involves a structural change.

Digging a little deeper, one of the most important parts of the design change was that it also involved the multi-serve 52-oz carafe being replaced with a smaller 46-oz bottle (equating to an 11.5% drop in volume). This resulted in significant consumer backlash, with allegations of “shrinkflation” - which was compounded by structural changes reducing the number of facings at shelf (meaning consumers instinctively felt like they were getting much less when at the point of purchase). And this is of course only becoming a bigger issue in a post-COVID world where consumers are becoming more in-tune to these types of tactics being employed by companies.

However, this actually wasn’t the case - or at least the intention wasn’t, given the decrease in volume also came with a corresponding reduction in the suggested retail price (from $4.69 for the 52-oz bottle to $3.99 for the 46-oz). So this 11.5% drop in volume was actually surpassed by a 15% drop in price. What gives, then? Well, passing on that price reduction was largely at the retailer’s discretion, and reports at the time suggested many actually didn’t. And this was likely the biggest factor at play. But with Tropicana releasing a statement more recently indicating unit sales have begun to normalize, it appears they’ve been able to get this under control.

With the orange juice industry facing headwinds on multiple fronts (including weather conditions leading to crop scarcity, inflationary pressures, and perhaps most importantly the changing breakfast behaviors of American families), Tropicana was justified in making a significant step change in an effort to reduce manufacturing and shipping costs, along with lessening its environmental footprint. And that’s not considering the usability and storage benefits offered by the new pack.

The learning for marketers? A packaging change almost never exists in a vacuum, which means robust research is critical to provide the confidence and clarity to know what’s working and what’s not. Could the roll-out and wider support have been better? Without a doubt. But while it’s easy for outside commentators to write sensationalized headlines pinning the blame on an easy target (given Tropicana’s past missteps), digging into things a little deeper and it’s clear that there were bigger factors at play here outside of the packaging design itself.

‍