So, I had to go to the store last night and see the Tropicana package in context. And I have to say, despite the fact that some graphic designers are quibbling over fonts and photography, the new package design certainly attracts attention at retail and stands out among all the other orange juices.

Design always has to be considered not just in the context of a company’s brand, but also in context to the rest of the market and your brand’s relative position in the market.

Had Tropicana stuck by its new packaging with confidence, instead of caving in to a few complainers, I’m betting that others would have eventually followed their lead. In fact, here’s the opportunity for a competitor with less market share to gain an edge by taking a bold step in the redesign of their package in light of Tropicana’s retrenchment.

The big design news yesterday was the announcement by PepsiCo’s Tropicana Products that it will be bringing back the old packaging for Tropicana Pure Premium orange juice after consumer backlash against the redesign. There has been some trashing of the redesign work on various blogs. Aside from whether or not the redesign is good or bad, there are a couple bigger issues highlighted by the situation.

The first issue is why undertake a major redesign in the first place. There are five reasons to undertake such a major change:

1. Sales. Sales are down or growth is stalling. In this case you need to evaluate why (competition, change in market tastes, economic conditions, etc.) you are losing sales and then design accordingly.

2. Product Improvement. There has been a significant change in the product itself. In this case you want to highlight that you have a new and improved product and undertake a design change in order to better communicate and signify the change and distance the new product from the old.

3. Relevance. You are losing relevance. Your sales may not be affected too negatively, yet, but your designs are showing their age and new designs and trends are emerging in the market. You can be proactive and get out in front, or you can be reactive and wait until you are in situation #1.

4. Market Leadership. You are the market leader and want to maintain leadership. If you are the leader and you know the competition is not standing still, you need to stay one step ahead.

5. Brand Harmony. The product needs to be changed to bring it in line with the rest of the brand family. If you’ve rolled out new designs, but have a lagging old product, you need to maintain consistency or create a different brand for it.

I’m guessing that the Tropicana redesign was a combination of reasons #4 and #5. Tropicana is a Pepsi brand and after the Pepsi redesign, perhaps the company wanted to bring a similar sensibility to the Tropicana brand. However, this shouldn’t have been the case because in the mind of the consumer Tropicana is distinct from Pepsi. So, there should be no reason to make them more consistent with each other.

As Tropicana is the market leader, that leaves reason #4. In this case, a company would want to assess future design trends and attempt to get ahead of the curve. The risk in this scenario is that you will end up alienating some customers who are attached to the existing design. BMW experienced this when they began rolling out their ‘flame surfacing’ design language and consumers initially reacted poorly. However, BMW was confident in its decision and stuck with it, despite protests, and went on to have several record-setting sales years.

So, despite what the market thinks of the Tropican packaging design, the company itself should have had the confidence to forge ahead with the design and let the consumers catch up. Since Tropicana is retracting the design and reverting to the ‘old’ design, which tells me that they never had much confidence in the new design anyway. So then, why did they let green light the new design?

What’s missing from the reporting on this story is any information regarding sales. Sure there have been some vocal customers who don’t like the change, but are they switching to another brand because of it? Are Tropicana’s sales actually down?

I’m guessing Tropicana never liked the new design in the first place and are happy to have an excuse to revert to the previous design. I’m also guessing they didn’t have a clear understanding as to why they were redesigning the package in the first place.

I read today that Microsoft is pushing the idea that by buying a Mac, a consumer is subjecting themselves to additional “costs” that are tantamount to a “tax”. It’s not my domain to try and parse the true costs of a particular PC model versus a comparable Apple product. Others have already addressed this over the years.

What I want to point out is that rather than thinking of Apple as being more expensive and you are paying a “tax” of sorts just for the pleasure of owning an Apple product, I’d like to point out that Apple must be providing something of value to consumers for the money. I call it Design Value Added. That is, anytime you simply compare two products or services based on features and price and Product A has the same features as Product B, at a higher price point, yet is outselling Product B, then Product A must be providing DVA (Design Value Added). Design Value Added is a term I use to define the often intangible benefits of design as it relates to style, ease of use and the entire product experience.

If I can buy a MacBook Pro for $2,000 or a comparably equipped Dell for $1,700, and I choose the MacBook Pro, I must consider there to be at least $300 of added value in the MacBook Pro.

So, how is this playing out in the market? Well, today Apple introduced new MacBook models and announced that sales have been growing at two to three times the industry average. Therefore, if Apple products do indeed cost more when comparing basic features, then consumers are evidently recognizing that Apple provides additional value in terms of design.

Which game would you rather your company play - the low price game or the added value game?

Chrysler announced yesterday that they will be introducing electric vehicles beginning in 2010. We know GM is pinning high hopes on the Chevy Volt. And we know that the interest in hybrids and electric vehicles are a reaction to factors such as global warming, gas prices and dependence on foreign oil. So car manufactures are responding by developing new cars that use alternative fuels, multiple fuels, etc. Does anyone else see the problem here?

I think all of the auto makers are suffering from the Narrow Definition Trap. That is when a business defines itself by the markets it competes in directly and ignores the larger context. The old cliche is of the railroads thinking they are in the railroad business and not the transportation business. So, with the car manufacturers, they see themselves as being only in the new car business. They can only think to solve the fuel issue by offering brand new cars that run on alternative fuels. But what does that mean to the problem? There are over 250 million registered vehicles on the road, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. In 2007, car manufacturers sold just over 14 million new cars and trucks in the U.S. We can assume that not all of those were replacement vehicles, many were added to the total number of cars on the road.

Do you see the opportunity that Detroit is missing? What if they could develop a technology and a process for making all of their cars made in the last five or ten years into hybrids? Or electric vehicles? Why does the solution have to be a new car? If my car is perfectly fine other than the fuel it runs on, why can’t I replace only the engine (and maybe the drivetrain)? I’m not saying it would be easy. But think of it this way, which business would you rather be in: the operating system business or the computer hardware business? Sales of new engines would be far, far greater than new car sales. Heck, the margins might even be better. The dealers would likely embrace it as well, as it would add significantly to their service business. There would be a little cannibalization of new car sales, but people who really want a new car are going to buy them anyway.

This type of thinking could also affect the development of new cars. What if you built a car that could take any one of two, three or even four different powerplant options? Say I wanted a Ford Explorer, but could not only choose what powerplant I wanted today, but knew that in the future I could swap it out for a different technology? Maybe a hybrid today, all electric in a couple years, and hydrogen in five years.

This is an example of what I call Ultimate Ideal thinking. It requires you to think beyond the product and the way you do things today. Unfortunately, Detroit tends to focus more on what is ideal for them instead of their customers and what is easy today, not ideal for tomorrow.

Nothing like a good visual to crystallize the essence of an issue or problem. Does this make anyone rethink their attitude toward offshore drilling? What problems are you facing or argument are you trying to make that could use a good visual? Don’t forget to consider both two and three dimensions (physical prototypes) as appropriate.

Thanks to Treehugger.

What are they thinking in Detroit? I recently saw an episode of Charlie Rose that originally aired on August 19, 2008. It featured a discussion with GM’s Vice Chairman of Global Product Development Bob Lutz about the Chevy Volt (pictures of which, like the one above, have leaked out). Two things struck me. The first was that Mr. Lutz was so emphatic about the fact that the design of the production Volt had received over 80% approval in focus groups. If you think that’s great news, you’re wrong.

Why? Because we are talking about a car for the model year 2011. If you are getting such high customer approval ratings for a design that is almost three years away, you’ve got trouble. Unless you are only surveying very early adopters and innovators, which I am confident GM did not. It means that your customers are comfortable with the design NOW. It means that it fits well with their perceptions TODAY. Not tomorrow. It would be better to have less than 20% approval of the design from focus groups. Then you are likely to be ahead of the curve. Then they may be ready for it in three years. Because you don’t realize what transformations are going to occur in the market in the next three years. Chances are high that an 80% approval three years ago warrants a yawn today.

What struck me next was when Mr. Lutz pulled back the cover of the pre-production model to reveal the front right portion of the car from the wheel to just beyond the headlamp. From what little I could see I thought the car looked like an Acura (TL & TSX - pictured below) with a little Toyota Camry Audi A4 (headlamp). It certainly did not look fresh, provocative or exciting. Now that the photos have leaked, I think I was close. Of course, by 2011 Acura and Toyota will have evolved their designs further and Detroit will still be playing catch up.

What are they thinking in Detroit? They’re not. They’re asking today’s consumers to think for them while they are busy looking sideways and backwards, instead of ahead.

The cool little car pictured above gets 65 miles to the gallon. It will soon be available in Europe. It’s a Ford. It won’t be coming to the U.S.

You can read the full story in BusinessWeek. In the article, a myriad of excuses are given as to why the car can’t be brought to the U.S. Too expensive because of the exchange rate (about $400-$1,700 more than a Prius). It’s a diesel. Diesel’s too expensive. “We don’t think North and South America would buy that many diesel cars,” says Ford American President Mark Fields. Blah. Blah. Blah.

I’ve said variations of this before: Most companies make excuses, great companies make it happen. Bottom line is that the folks in Detroit can’t lead, can’t take chances, and refuse to make a decision not backed up by focus groups. Meanwhile they hemorrhage cash and want a government bailout.

It also seems that Detroit is desperate for an instant hit. If I recall, the Prius took a couple years to really take off. Detroit appears unwilling to be ahead of a curve and make the necessary investment in time and PR to build a potentially lucrative leadership position in an uncontested market space.

Sadly, I’m guessing that this means that it won’t be long before a foreign auto maker will make a splash with a diesel sub-compact with eye-catching style and an arresting PR and advertising campaign.

There have been plenty of people bashing the new Microsoft ad featuring Bill Gates and Jerry Seinfeld. While the ad doesn’t appeal to me, I do have some praise for it. I think the ad is entirely on brand. The ad, like Seinfeld, is about “nothing”. And I think that is what Microsoft’s brand is about these days. Nothing.

Further, I think the ad is on brand from a style perspective as well. Stylistically, it’s not fresh, rather it’s derivative, just like most of Microsoft’s products. It’s not innovative. Just like the Microsoft brand. It employs a star who’s no longer hip, cool or fresh. Just like Microsoft’s brand. It leaves the viewer wondering just what the ad was about, just like Microsoft’s brand.

Well done, Microsoft.

This is what a design concept should be. Rethinking convention. Exploring new paradigms. Visualizing game-changing ideas in elegant and compelling ways. Flat out the best design exploration I’ve seen in a while. Why isn’t your company using design to envision future scenarios like this?

One of my favorite clothing companies closed their retail stores recently (you can still shop online while supplies last). I was a big fan of Nau’s design from their clothes to their retail stores and website. They lasted fourteen months. So what was once a favorite case study of mine for Brand Harmony, is now a case for the importance of a good business strategy.

Unfortunately, you can’t design yourself out of a bad business strategy. Nor can design save a poorly managed company. I don’t know how well managed Nau was. But I do know that trying to launch a full line of clothes for both men and women and sell it through your own retail stores and website is a recipe for disaster unless you are flush with a ton of cash and your backers have very deep pockets and a lot of patience. Such an approach leaves you no time to build your brand. Your brand has to be well known out of the gate to support a line of over 100 separate items and four times that many SKUs. Most people would want more channels than just a handful of retail stores and a website to support such an endeavor.

Unfortunately for Nau, it’s easier to succeed with a good business strategy and management and poor design, rather than the other way around.

Fortunately, there are still plenty of well managed companies that have the opportunity to use design to compete, succeed and grow.