| Home | Register | FAQ | Members List | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
|
|
|
#6 (permalink) |
|
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bristol
Posts: 3,285
|
I agree with the article, but the marketing managers will be looking to justify their existence so they'll start adding crap to the cans again. Also a lot of the shit on the cans in the pictures is promotional stuff - that'll come back again soon enough |
|
|
|
#9 (permalink) | ||
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: London
Posts: 1,092
|
Quote:
yeah! My fave response Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
#10 (permalink) |
|
Shitcasket™
|
Old design(s) didn't bother me tbh. I like both the old arty style and 'back to basics' packaging equally. Although the idea behind stripping everything back to a minimum is theoretically a good one it pretty much just says 'SUGAR' to me. Follow DT updates on Twitter: http://twitter.com/designerstalk
|
|
|
|
#17 (permalink) |
|
Doodler.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,381
|
Dont think its happened yet. Actually just to be controversial, I agree with Sub, the old overfussy intense detailing didn't bother me (hated them when they got covered with offers ans prizes and rubbish obviously) but I didn't mind the illustrative half toning and craziness going on. It's been said that doing that made it look more generic and more like supermarket own brands, but I don't agree, the own brands are more bobby basic and simpler, the detailed coke stuff looked like almost a watermark of authenticity, there was no replicating it in other brands. It did dilute the strength of the identities themselves though, so I can definitely see the merits of this. Or maybe I've just not seen the direct rip offs of the detailed styling. Don't like the coke zero one though, but thats the actual ident i dislike. |
|
![]() |