We spent 3 days on the slope in La Rosiere, France. Highlights were: the Chalet food, the Danish bar, Tom winning the slalom race & Tim crashing, Sean winning the bowling, Stu denting the mountain, JP sampling the delights of Toffee Vodka and someone losing their passport, erhem!!

Thanks all for your hard work and support over the year. You deserved the break! Here’s to next year!

Put simply, die cut windows are an efficient way of giving the customer a clue about what on earth is inside. They are especially successful in fresh produce packaging.

Previously these windows have often been simple, functional and generally unexciting shapes, for practicality. Now printing techniques are much more advanced, allowing for a more compelling design trend. Windows are becoming more instrumental to the overall concept, and as a result more creative shapes are cropping up on the shelves.

Cereals are particularly favouring this approach, as well as wines, condiments, pastas and rices. There is no excuse to have a mundane, unimaginative shape cut out of a pack anymore, and if executed properly it can cleverly stand out from the competition.

References:

http://www.boxvox.net/2009/05/die-cut-windows.html

If you think about it, ‘Limited Edition’ designs provide fantastic, extra advertising. The consumer is reminded of the brand, with the added bonus of being tempted by novelty.

Many enterprises bring out seasonal ranges, taking full advantage of shoppers’ celebratory spirits. Design agencies are required to keep a brand’s established identity whilst giving it a fresh, innovative boost. The most successful cases are well-known brands that have a distinct shape to their structure, like the Coca-Cola bottle for example.

Whether a product is designed by an artist such as Paul Smith, or based around a comical concept, or even tells a story, consumers eagerly anticipate their launch. Namely, the annual, limited edition Evian bottle is seen as something special, attractive and even a keepsake.

Nevertheless, there may be a danger for some brands. In 2008, Burger King launched a luxury burger costing £95 (made of Wagyu beef), ‘to be more premium than McDonalds’. All proceeds were to go to charity, and the campaign generated significant press exposure. Then again given their price-conscious, core audience, mixed reviews revealed negative thoughts of an expensive publicity stunt and sizable carbon footprint.

Without doubt, limited edition packaging is something to look forward to, for consumers, but especially for agencies like us as they are so much fun to design!

References:

http://www.whytraveltofrance.com/2009/10/10/limited-edition-evian-bottle-designed-by-paul-smith/

http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/news/821808/Marketing-TV-Burger-King-customers-review-95-purchase/

The recycling process has greatly improved over the last decade. In spite of that, WRAP research has shown that Joe Public will often find it incredibly difficult to decipher recycling instructions on packaging waste. It’s no wonder – have you seen all the different symbols and codes? Unless you work in the industry or are particularly geeky in this subject, would you know what LDPE or PS stood for?

It may not seem very important to some, but in our environmentally mindful age it is a real disgrace when domestic waste fails to be recycled, especially if it is perfectly capable to do so. Just think how much money, fuel and energy is squandered as a result.

Addressing this issue sounds so obvious. Instructions on packaging must be easily identifiable. Of course limited space on the back of packs will make this a demanding task, but maybe future designs should allow for a larger, printable area.

Guidance on plastics recycling is a particular necessity. Some councils won’t accept PVC plastics for example. Consequently we will be pushing for change, and in the meantime, if you are curious to learn what the current ‘gibberish’ means, please check out this link: http://www.bpf.co.uk/Sustainability/Plastics_Recycling.aspx <http://www.bpf.co.uk/Sustainability/Plastics_Recycling.aspx>

References:

http://www.observatorioplastico.com/genera_pdf.php?ar_id=49670

http://www.packaginggazette.co.uk/sharpak-consumers-confused-over-recycling-cms-1373

As we know Government environmental thinking on packaging has recently expanded the Courtauld agreement, from a focus on primary packaging, to a wider view on the Co2 lifecycle and footprint.

Courtauld 2 is a worthy next step and probably a more effective way of reducing Co2 emissions. For instance reducing the specification of a piece of packaging might actually reduce it’s effectiveness, and so actually increase the percentage of product wastage and so the Co2 footprint. If you waste the item that you’re trying to protect, just think of all the energy that went into producing it that you’ve just wasted, right down to the petrol used by the vegetable picker on their way to the field!

The problem is that people understand and relate to the packaging in their hand, and it’s hard for them to understand much more than that and maybe it’s unrealistic to expect them to? I think few people disagree that Co2 reduction is a good thing, but maybe the problem is how to take the consumer on the journey? After all getting people to engage with the process of recycling and energy reduction is key to the success of any packaging improvement.

So do we fall back to Courtauld 1 again and try to find ways of reducing the primary packing? That’s not necessarily a problem if we do it in ways that make sense to the consumer, such as the flexible Kenco coffee refill. But also make sure that any changes we make do not increase product wastage, in fact they should aim to reduce it, and we should in fact aim to reduce Co2 emissions across the whole packaging lifecycle.

Finally in all this let’s not forget that packaging is in fact a good thing, it protects the things that we buy and delivers them to us in the best possible condition. For instance the film on a cucumber extends it’s life for up to 14 days, without this it dries up and goes to waste before we can eat it.

So let’s all reduce, but let’s make it relevant to the consumer but also effective across the full product lifecycle.

Recent packaging news suggests that a dispensing specialist is in talks with a number of UK diaries about trialing self service filling machines for milk, to be used in Supermarkets in conjunction with a plastic pouch.

This follows on from an award wining WRAP funded trial for a refillable fabric softener. Various refilling options are being discussed, such as single serve pouches, as well as refillable pouches that consumers bring with them.

Packaging reduction within this sector has had mixed success in the past, for example Waitrose have recently withdrawn milk pouches because of product wastage, where as the Sainsbury’s ‘Jugit’ system has proven to be popular.

In simple terms plastic bottles offer the consumer a very effective and user friendly solution to the their concerns of transporting milk. They are robust, well sealed, and easy to pick up and open, and it’s clear that if you make any changes from this solution you need a very good reason for the consumer to adopt the alternative.

Also if packaging reduction results in increased product wastage, then that in turn increases the Co2 footprint, and the multiple retailers in fact need to be going in the opposite direction!

But to hear that a refillable solution is being investigated for milk is actually welcome news. The challenge is how make sure that the Co2 lifecycle for the solution is lower than the existing arrangement, if not then it’s just window dressing. For example 72% of HDPE milk bottles in the UK are presently recycled, and this figure is rising, “by contrast the recycling credentials of the refillable pouch are not clear” www.nampak.com/Sustainability-Report.aspx

But let’s not forget the old adage that “there is no such thing as a new idea, just a new opportunity’. In this country we’ve already got a long tradition of refillable milk packaging, and one despite the efforts of the multiple retailers refuses to die out.

It’s true that Arkwright’s corner shop may mostly be gone now, to be replaced by the corporate alternative, that as they say is progress. I wonder though does the same fate lie ahead for our humble milk man?

A recent Government funded study has told us that Green is Good. www.wrap.org.uk/goinggreen

The study recommends that, when possible producers should aim to use green glass over clear or brown, as this cuts packaging related Co2 emissions by up to 20%. This is because in the UK green glass contains at least twice the recycled content of clear glass, as you can use recycled clear in the green mix, but not the other way round.

So this is therefore a simple way for a business to meet it’s Courtauld 2 commitments, that being to reduce their overall packaging Co2 footprint.

It does however ignore one small element of the packaging success story, brand differentiation. As we know 60% of consumers make their purchase decision at the fixture, if everything is in a green bottle then that decision becomes more difficult!

For example Gin is traditionally a clear bottle market, however Gordon’s have created a visual equity through the use of green glass. The question then is how to use green glass without becoming a second rate copy of an established brand?

The answer is to be Remarkable. Create a relevant, stimulating and exiting brand proposition, and then through own-able structural equities become instantly recognizable by consumers.

In simple terms stand out from the crowd or be knocked from the wall.

Well done all!