Radical Kellogg’s redesign "would work in Australia"
Kellogg’s is experimenting with a radical packaging redesign for its cereals range, with deeper, fatter boxes.
The move is part of a plan to get the product into households that struggle to fit the current, tall box in kitchen cupboards.
Although the trial – the most radical repackaging of the product in half a century – is taking place in the US, Steve Tindall, director of Sydney-based Maxus Retail told Mumbrella it would “almost defintiely” be successful in Australia.
He said: “It’s the sort of product that has a heavy housewife-with-kids skew. While something like this might not sound like a big deal to you and me, an enormous amount of money is spent on getting packaging right, and there is far more to it than meets the eye. This is big, big business.”
Cornflakes in a bottle would be a radical package design. Shorter, fatter boxes are, well, shorter, fatter boxes.
Don’t get me wrong: I’ve got mothing against shorter, fatter boxes. In fact, they’d find a welcome home in our pantry. And whoever thought of it deserves a promotion.
But “radical package design”? That’s hyperbole — pure and simple. Someone please slap whoever signed off on that media release.
Hi Steven,
Clearly you have a very un-American lack of understanding of the mythical status of the Kellogg’s chicken (or is it a cockerel?). Anything that changes the little red-and-green chap’s proportions could irrevocably alter the American consumer’s psyche
Some say that if the packaging is good enough it might even bring an end to the recession. Mind you, I think they may have been talking to the AFA.
I think Kelloggs would have little trouble with that form factor in Australia, as it is similar to the one Sanatarium already use for Weet-Bix.
I’m intrigued by the description of the Kellogg’s target … “It’s the sort of product that has a heavy housewife-with-kids skew.”
Does this mean we have to weigh the housewife now? Is this all part of the “war on obesity”?