Is Mountain Dew Kickstart Taking on Gatorade?

Mountain Dew Kickstart's line-up: Fruit Punch, Orange Citrus, Pineapple Orange Mango, Strawberry Kiwi, Black Cherry, and Limade.  Image courtesy of
Mountain Dew Kickstart’s line-up: Fruit Punch, Orange Citrus, Pineapple Orange Mango, Strawberry Kiwi, Black Cherry, and Limade. Image courtesy of

Following on one of their most successful drink launches in recent memory, Mountain Dew has added two additional offerings under their Kickstart drink portfolio.  The Kickstart offshoot started to segment drinks by dayparts in 2013 and brought out two beverages targeting morning consumption.  In 2014 they followed on the morning drinks with two more flavors catered toward evening occasions.  Their most recent offerings – Pineapple Orange Mango and Strawberry Kiwi – are infused with coconut water (full press release found here), but does not overtly fit an actual drinking occasion.  This makes the latest launch appear off strategy because it’s not geared specifically toward the morning, afternoon, or evening.  How do these two drinks fit into the Kickstart portfolio?  What is the purpose of this launch?

The “fit” debate may very well go back to the purpose of coconut water.  Coconut water was targeted as a healthier alternative to sports drinks like Gatorade and Powerade.  On an equivalized volume comparison, coconut water contains similar amounts of electrolytes but fewer calories and sodium, making it a strong substitute for the sports drinks marketed toward fitness-oriented consumers.  In essence standalone coconut water is meant for hydration and recovery purposes.  When mixed with Mountain Dew’s caffeinated citrus sodas, these drinks could be positioned as competition to sports drinks.  A lightly carbonated energy drinks – with juice flavors and coconut water – can be termed as a hydration drink to compete with the Gatorades and Powerades out there.  These latest release of Mountain Dew Kickstart would not need to fit under a daypart segmentation.  It could be a morning drink for people that exercise in the morning, or it could also serve an evening recovery drink after workout or recreational sports.

Mountain Dew's Kickstart newly launched flavors: Pineapple Orange Mango and Strawberry Kiwi.  Both variants are infused with coconut water.  Image courtesy of
Mountain Dew’s Kickstart newly launched flavors: Pineapple Orange Mango and Strawberry Kiwi. Both variants are infused with coconut water. Image courtesy of

If this is Mountain Dew Kickstart’s positioning around the new offerings, the only challenge would be where caffeine fits into the equation.  Sports drinks are supposed to replenish what the body loses during sport events (electrolytes, sugars, salts, liquids) and caffeine would not fall under this criteria.  While the body may craves some energy following an intense workout, it could be debated that the workout itself provides energy as a result of the activities.  Caffeinated sports drinks may not be detrimental like alcoholic energy drinks but it’s relevance is questionable due to the caffeine.  This may ultimately be an attempt to expand the Mountain Dew masterbrand beyond soda and energy drinks by reaching toward athletic consumers.

Or is it?

This brings us to the purpose of launching these two flavors of Mountain Dew Kickstart.  Bevnet’s Neil Martinez-Belkin suggested this launch had more to do with creating success for O.N.E coconut water brand than extending Mountain Dew’s reach (article link here).  Martinez-Belkin reminds us that months ago PepsiCo expressed intentions to include coconut water as an ingredient across multiple lines of business.  Driving Kickstart infused with coconut water is simply a method of increasing coconut water;s public exposure.  It may be because after buying O.N.E. coconut water that the beverage brand is still lacking robust market exposure.  This make senses given both Coca-Cola and Pepsi – owners of ZICO and O.N.E – have re-deployed efforts to focus on their core business: carbonated soda.  Marrying a powerhouse brand like Mountain Dew with coconut water increases coconut water’s consumer relevance without having to fully invest behind coconut water as a beverage brand.  This is not to say that Pepsi may not be supporting O.N.E. coconut water in the future, it just means they are looking for creative options to build up the coconut water segment.

The Mountain Dew Kickstart launch raises a few eyebrows though it helps coconut water more than it appears in the public eye.  For a global beverage manufacturer where many products fighting to keep their budgets, this is a creative way to grow a business that may be losing the fight to maintain funding against other beverages in Pepsi’s portfolio.  O.N.E. coconut water would justify increased budgets if these two new Kickstart flavors sold well.  And if this experiment is a hit between Mountain Dew and coconut water, we could see Tropicana infused with coconut water or even Pepsi cola infused with coconut water in a few years.  If that does happen, you can point to the success of Mountain Dew, which has been one of Pepsi’s increasingly consumed soda brands despite the overall declines in soda.


The O.N.E. coconut water line-up for Canada. Is the U.S. looking to grow this brand by marrying up coconut water with more lines of product?
The O.N.E. coconut water line-up for Canada. Is the U.S. looking to grow this brand by marrying up coconut water with more lines of product?

Coca-Cola Expands “Official” Olympic Drink Portfolio

Courtesy of

It’s another year for the Olympic games, this time in Sochi.  For Coca-Cola, every Olympic year is a boon based on the event partnership agreement where they hold the distinction of official Olympic non-alcoholic beverage partner.  As one of the Olympics’ global partners, the beverage giant pays about $100M to monopolize non-alcoholic beverage serving rights in all Olympic venues (other global partners hold exclusivity in their respective industries).  In recent years, the definition of “non-alcoholic beverage” has expanded to include more than just carbonated soft drinks.  Coca-Cola has gained exclusivity to serve sports drinks (Powerade), juices (Minute Maid), and waters (Dasani, vitaminwater) over the past few Olympics games.  The “Olympic Wolrdwide Partner” logo has also started appearing on Coca-Cola’s ZICO coconut water brand lately.  So given the substantial cost, how beneficial is it for Coca-Cola to be a worldwide Olympic partner?  And with the expanded definition of “non-alcoholic beverage”, which product categories are next to gain Official Olympic product status?

Despite a cost of $100M each active Olympic year, Coca-Cola has renewed their Olympic partnership until 2020.  It would appear that this agreement delivers substantive returns.  For one, Coca-Cola has blocked out their global competitor in all product categories that the conglomerate participates in.  No Pepsi-branded soft drinks, Aquafina, Gatorade, or Tropicana can be served within all Olympic-event venues.  Brand visibility is another partnership benefit.  Every game or after-party event that becomes broadcasted will feature a Coca-Cola logo or Coca-Cola beverage product.  Live viewers and spectators may only celebrate with Coca-Cola branded products and nothing else.  Positive associations is another partnership benefit.  Spectators seeing their athletes win also see them hydrating themselves with Coca-Cola products.  These same spectators will associate hard work, performance, and winning all being supported by Coca-Cola.  From a qualitative perspective, these are invaluable benefits that Coca-Cola has been able to enjoy – reduced competition, brand visibility, and positive associations.

Courtesy of

With changing taste preferences among spectators and athletes alike, incorporating other product categories as “Official Drinks” certainly makes sense.  Some people will choose carbonated soft drinks, some will want flavored water, and still some people prefer juices.  With coconut water emerging as a beverage category, expansion to include this as an Olympic-approved beverage makes sense.  However, increased exposure of Olympic branding potentially cheapens the Olympic brand with broader availability on all products – not just beverages.  Furthermore, not all products will be suitable to display the Olympic logo on its packaging.  For example, energy drinks may be one category that could be denied Official Olympic product status given possible negative associations despite the category growth.  Within Coca-Cola beverage portfolio, it’s likely that liquid enhancers (Dasani Drops, Powerade Drops) and teas (Honest Tea, Fuze) could gain approval should they apply for it.  Both these categories are enjoying growth and have fewer negative associations portrayed by the media.

Coca-Cola has been one of many key sponsors that has supported the Olympic games through the years, and it appears that both parties are satisfied with the results.  2020 is still three more Olympic games away, but given the goodwill both parties have been generated, it’s very possible that this relationship goes well beyond 2020.

Updated Minute Maid Single Serve Packaging


New Minute Maid BottlesIt’s long overdue in the implementation process, but the new Minute Maid bottles have phased into the Canadian marketplace.  Originally launched in the U.S. in 2009/2010 for the full Minute Maid assortment, the single serve bottles appear to be the last ones to be change over to the new packaging.  This may be a result of the labeling changes as well, since the adhesive labeling is now replaced with the plastic shrink wrap.  Here in Canada, that change from paper labels to plastic shrink wrap only took place this past June (could be earlier, but that’s when it was noticeable in coolers and store shelves).  Judging that there has been no backlash on Minute Maid like the Tropicana fiasco, it would appear that this change is a success in the Canadian marketplace.

Ultimately it’s a sleeker looking bottle that places more emphasis on the bottle’s images than the bottle’s content.  With more of the content behind this whole bottle plastic wrap, this makes the product more dependent on the imagery and colors – sliced oranges and leafy green colors.  The bottle itself is also streamlined – gone are the wavy grooves from the previous iteration and replaced with a smoother grip-friendly shape.

While it may not change sales all that much, the new bottle certainly makes the juice brand more current by adapting to the stronger emphasis placed on beverage packaging.

Packaging: Glass or Plastic?

Sobe glass bottle

There’s always been the debate about beverages moving away from glass bottles and replacing it with plastic bottles.  It happened to Minute Maid juices, it happened to Sobe, and for a short time it happened to Nestea (during the Vancouver 2010 Olympics all the Nesteas came in plastic bottles within Olympics venues).  Consumers have been divided on this issue because glass bottles preserve the taste better, but plastic bottles are much better for the manufacturer and retailer.  Plastic bottles are cheaper to produce, lighter to transport from the bottling plant to the retailer’s shelf and cooler, and also less likely to break.  Not to mention, profits are also higher with plastic bottles.  So in the end, who wins?

Odwalla PlantBottle

More often than not, it would seem that the manufacturers wins.  When Minute Maid juices changed their packaging, consumers either had to embrace the change, or switch to Tropicana, Dole, Sunkist, or private label juices.  Although some consumers switched to another juice product, all the offerings used plastic bottles.  So in the end, the packaging change still saw consumers embrace this change.

However, as sustainability and recycling has become forefront issues, consumers are seeing the benefits of plastic bottles.  In an article by Beverage World’s Andrew Kaplan, eco-sensitive packaging can be found in almost all beverage categories (link here).  Dr. Benjamin Punchard, Euromonitor International’s head of global packaging research says, “From what we see, the main response to environmental need is still lightweighting.  This is not a new development as producers have long understood the cost savings that lightweighting can deliver, but there is now increased imperative to take lightweighting the extra mile. The knowledge that this can be communicated to the client as an environmental benefit has seen lightweighting move from a covert action to an overt advertising opportunity.”  Lightweighting refers to is the transition from glass to plastic bottles.

What  Dr. Punchard reports about packaging change being an overt advertising opportunity is very true.  Take Coca-Cola for example, where they publicly advertise about the plant bottle used for Coca-Cola Classic, Diet Coke, Coke Zero, Sprite, and Odwalla.  Since consumers are more environmentally conscious, publicizing their eco-friendly packaging serves as a fantastic selling point to recruit and maintain customers.  One has to wonder what the effect this newer sustainable packaging has had on their sales.

It’s not certain whether remaining glass bottle beverages will be making the change to plastic, as each format has it’s own unique benefits.  With the exception of premium waters (San Pellingrino, VOSS, Perrier) and specific beverage lines (Nestea, New Leaf tea, Jones Soda, and Orangina), almost all single serve bottled beverages within a grocery store’s cooler have changed to plastic bottles.  Though taste preferences are strong factors in determining what you drink, if a beverage changed to a plastic bottle, would this alone make you want to purchase the product more than before?  Manufacturers and retailers are betting yes on this.

Another Lawsuit: Coca-Cola Company Sues Pepsico

Trop50 Carafe Bottle

Bloomberg News reported a June 2011 trial date between The Coca-Cola Company and Pepsico for trademark and patent infringement (link here).  The product in question is Pepsico’s Trop50 juices (pictured on the left), which The Coca-Cola Company claims has packaging copying their Simply juices.  The Trop50 – a low-calorie line of juices which was introduced around the same time last year as the Tropicana packaging disaster, was in the newer packaging (ie. Tropicana brand name down the side of the label, glass of juice instead of straw in orange).  Despite the newer packaging , Pepsico’s Tropicana unit ultimately decided to change up the format by converting from tetra pack carton boxes to plastic bottle packaging with a big green cap.

Coca-Cola Company lawyers said in a statement that the new packaging for the low-calorie Trop50 brand will “likely deceive consumers and dilute the quality” of Coke’s own brand of premium juices, called Simply.  Another line from the their lawyers was, “PepsiCo chose packaging that closely mimics the distinctive and nonfunctional Simply trade dress and patented Simply closure, ostensibly to revitalize PepsiCo’s fledgling Trop50 brand.”

Simply Orange Carafe Bottle

Do you consider the two different juice lines similar to one another?  Coca-Cola’s Simply juices are pictured here on the right.  I believe Coca-Cola has a strong case here, since the big green cap and the bottle’s shape are similar.  Once you have the juice within the bottle filling up the clear space, the Trop50 could legitimately pass for a bottle of Simply Orange.   It’s interesting to see that Tropicana has changed their packaging twice in the last two years.  One would think that consistency is key for consumers to recognize your product and turn it into a regular repurchase.  With the constant packaging changes in the marketplace, Tropicana risks having consumers confuse their juices with other brands of juices out there.  And in a grocery store where consumers are looking for juices based on packaging and price, they will likely choose a different product if they don’t recognize Tropicana’s juices.

This is just adds another chapter to the list of lawsuits between the two beverage companies.  BevWire last covered a lawsuit when Pepsico sued The Coca-Cola Company over sports drinks, where POWERade claimed to be the complete sports drink for rehydration.  Not sure how this lawsuit will turn out, but my initial thoughts would be that The Coca-Cola Company wins this one due to the similarities between the two juice bottles.  But I’m not a judge and I’ve been wrong a few times, so we’ll wait to find out in June 2011 to see who wins this one.

Odwalla’s New PlantBottle

courtesy of

Odwalla, the natural health beverage company announced that starting in March 2011, it will be transitioning their single-serve bottles to PlantBottle packaging.

“Plants do such a good job of making our juice, Odwalla hired them to help make our bottles,” said Alison Lewis, President, Odwalla. “Doing good things for the community and building a business with heart are core guiding principles of Odwalla’s vision. PlantBottle packaging is just the latest step in our continued commitment to the environment.”

PlantBottle packaging consists of material derived from molasses and sugarcane juice. It has the same performance as traditional HDPE and PET bottles: no differences in shelf life, weight, composition or appearance. PlantBottle™ HDPEcan be recycled again and again in today’s recycling facilities. The redesigned plastic represents a significant step in sustainability efforts and in protecting the planet.

This seems like a great move step for a health beverage company – not only is your beverage natural, but your packaging as well.  Another interesting fact is that Odwalla is bottled and distributed by Coca-Cola in Canada.  Some might remember that Coca-Cola also introduced plant-based packaging late last year in prepration for the 2010 Vancouver Olympics.  That said, Coca-Cola is environmentally conscious and supports the PlantBottle as well, so having Odwalla transition to sustainable packaging represents a step in the right direction.  Not sure what the cost is on this type of packaging, but if Coca-Cola can bottle their products using this type of packaging and their competitors stick to the traditional PET bottles, this further reinforces the fact that they are the leading beverage company.  So what else should Coca-Cola try to distribute using the plant bottle?  Nestea?  Minute Maid Juices?  Powerade?  My recommendation is to distribute the Minute Maid Juices in the PlantBottle as well. It seems like the right thing to do since Minute Maid juices are also a healthy beverage offering.

Question is, will Pepsi bottle any of these beverages using this type of packaging?  The Tropicana and Naked Juices product lines, as well as the Lipton tea series seems like suitable candidates to be transitioned to sustainable packaging.  If Pepsi also bottles their products using the PlantBottle packaging it might negate one of Coca-Cola’s selling points to consumers right now.  In a time when it matters to consumers not only what is within their drinks but how it is produced, packaging innovation is a natural progression of their curiosity.  And supporting a company that cares for the environment while providing you with what you need (in this case liquid refreshments) beats one that only cares about making money.

Your move, Pepsi.

U.S. Juice Market: Coke is No1, Pepsi No2

courtesy of www.adage.comAdvertising Age’s recently published article on the U.S. Juice Market Share now indicates that Coke’s Minute Maid and Simply juices have taken over the first position.  Pepsi’s Tropicana and Dole brands dipped in market share a little bit this past year, and coupled with Coke’s growth in this category the overall net effect was a switch of their positions.

Many insist that Tropicana’s package redesign contribute to the decline in sales, where consumers confuse the No1 brand with a private label.  Company executives indicate otherwise, saying the decline in sales resulted from economic downturn and thus switched consumers to private label brands instead of name brands.  There is truth to this theory as Information Resources Inc., reported that more units sold compared to a lower dollars sales.  However, there is a almost a 4% absolute change here, as Coke’s sales did increase while Pepsi’s sales decreased.  So even though private label products did sell more, even though there was an impact from the economic downtown, the package redesign has damaged Tropicana.

Over at, their article by Ted Mininni here indicates that Tropicana’s redesign efforts were not very well thought out.  By updating their packaging (or as Pepsi likes to call it, “refresh everything”), Pepsi has essentially taken away the message and recognition that the consumers know so well for something similar to a foreign, control brand orange juice.  And this is important because Coke’s Minute Maid has recently undertaken a redesign of their packaging as well.

courtesy of quotes Guy Wollaert, general manager for Coca=Cola’s global juice center, as saying, “Based on the research we’ve done, we’re quite confident we’re on target. It’s been amazing, the consistency in the brand equity cues.  The new Minute Maid packaging features fruit fresh from the trees with a sliced piece resting on top of whole fruit. The brand identity is strong and dominant. Beneath that, a vertical swath of color with the fruit variety appears. At the bottom of the front panel, a green vertical bar states: ‘100% Pure Squeezed Orange Juice’.”

Mininni gives it his stamp of approval because it provides a clear message leaving the important factors unchanged for easy consumer interpretation.

The graphics for the old package has a half-sliced orange over numerous whole fruits, in front of a rising (or setting) sun with a sky-blue background in the distance.  The old package conveys fresh orange juices – whole oranges taken from their natural element and then squeezed into juices.  Whereas the new packaging with the white background and green leaves may take some time to get used to.  It does convey fresh orange juice and 100% squeezed, but BevWire still prefers the old packaging, maybe for nostalgia.  With Minute Maid’s sales holding steady so far, it shows the package redesign is a success.

At least this hasn’t brought about the magnitude of attention and press coverage as Tropicana’s redesign.

PepsiCo’s bid for Pepsi Bottling Group labelled “inadequate”

Pepsi Bottling Group (PBG) announced yesterday that the board of directors has reached an unanimous decision to reject the PepsiCo bid to buy out the bottling group.  PBG’s CEO Eric Foss sent a letter to PepsiCo’s CEO Indra Nooyi stating the following:

May 4, 2009
Indra Nooyi
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
700 Anderson Hill Road
Purchase, NY 10577

Dear Indra:

We are writing to respond to your proposal of April 19 to acquire all of the outstanding shares of common stock of The Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc. (“PBG”) not owned by PepsiCo. A Special Committee of the Board of Directors of PBG (“the Special Committee”), comprised entirely of independent directors, has carefully reviewed your proposal with the assistance of independent financial and legal advisors. Based on the unanimous recommendation of the Special Committee, the Board of Directors of PBG has concluded that the proposal is grossly inadequate and not in the best interests of PBG and its stockholders.

PepsiCo’s proposal substantially undervalues PBG for many reasons, including:

* Opportunistic Timing: Your proposal was made shortly before the public release of PBG’s strong first quarter 2009 earnings on April 22. As you know, PBG exceeded Wall Street expectations for the quarter, raised its full-year guidance for earnings per share and operating free cash flow, and provided details of its plans to achieve over $250 million in cost and productivity savings in 2009 on a standalone basis.
* Inadequate Value: The value of your proposal is substantially below PBG’s intrinsic value, as well as the value that would be implied by comparable transactions. Your offer is at virtually no premium to market given PBG’s first quarter earnings and upward revision to full-year EPS and operating free cash flow guidance. Transaction premiums, especially those including cash consideration, have been very substantial since the market dislocation last September.
* Understated Synergies: We believe you have substantially understated the synergies that would be available through the combination you have proposed. As you know, PBG has thoroughly analyzed the savings and efficiencies that could be achieved through a transformation of the Pepsi system. Based on our analysis, we are confident that readily achievable synergies are multiples of the $200 million you referenced.

PBG values its longstanding relationship with PepsiCo, but the PBG Board will not agree to a proposal which does not reflect the true value of PBG. Accordingly, based on the Special Committee’s unanimous recommendation, the Board has taken customary steps to protect PBG and its stockholders from opportunistic acquisition attempts.

We remain confident that PBG’s continuing efforts to strengthen its brand portfolio, further improve its performance through operational excellence, and capitalize on geographic growth opportunities position PBG to create substantial value well into the future.

Eric J. Foss Ira D. Hall
Chairman of the Board and CEO Chairman, Special Committee of the Board of Directors
The Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc. The Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc.

PBG is rightfully portraying its value to PepsiCo saying that the bid is inadequate.  Some analysts have pegged the cost savings to be around $600 million, rather than the $200 million that PepsiCo believes it will recoup by acquiring their bottler.

Now the ball is in PepsiCo’s court, and they must decide how determined they will be in pursuing this acqusition.  Analysts are confident that PepsiCo will submit a higher and more attractive offer, and it makes sense to acquire PBG to gain cost savings and  increase efficiency.  However, what is the price at which this will settle?

PepsiAmericas, the other major Pepsi bottler, still has not responded to PepsiCo’s offer yet.

Stayed tuned for further developments…

If PepsiCo bought PBG and PepsiAmericas…

pepsilogo1Yesterday BevWire talked about PepsiCo’s offer to buy Pepsi Bottling Group (PBG) and PepsiAmericas for $6 billion.  Today BevWire will discuss the results of a successful acquisition.

“A move this big changes the entire landscape of the industry,” said John Sicher, editor of the trade publication Beverage Digest. “Today the beverage business consists of a greater diversity of products, and PepsiCo needs more control and flexibility over the route to market for its brands.”

10 years ago, Pepsi Bottling Group separated from PepsiCo to become an independent company.  This allowed both companies to concentrate on what they do best – PBG to distribute and execute the carbonated soft-drinks, and PepsiCo to focus on marketing.  However, PepsiCo currently operates three different distribution systems: soft-drinks distributed by bottlers, sports drink (Gatorade) delivered through warehouse distribution, and juice business (Tropicana) distributed through the warehouse.  At the same time, carbonated soft-drinks sales have slowed down while non-carbonated soft drinks have increased.  PepsiCo’s Gatorade and Tropicana beverage business is delivered directly from a warehouse to a retailer, whereas PepsiCo’s carbonated soft-drinks are bottled and distributed separately.  Therefore, it makes sense to consolidate the three distribution systems into one system.  Analysts estimate that cost savings when fully realized may be up to $400 million per year.

Also, by consolidating the bottling business and the marketing business, PepsiCo will have a competitive advantage in decision-making and prices to retailers.  With decision-making, PepsiCo will eliminate middle management layers and eliminate liaisons between the two companies, allowing information to travel a shorter distance and speed up key decisions.  With prices to retailers, it has been noted that bottlers have been increasing prices to retailers.  Bottlers increase prices in order to maintain profit margins due to the weak economy.  By eliminating the bottlers, PepsiCo will be able to determine pricing and may even have cost savings to pass onto the consumers (relating from transport costs and sales costs).

Pepsi Bottling Group and PepsiAmericas are evaluating PepsiCo’s offer right now, so we will wait to hear back from them.  It will also be interesting to see how The Coca-Cola Company responds, as they own a 35% stake in Coca-Cola Enterprises, The Coca-Cola Company’s largest bottler.

Out with the New, in with the Old

Tropicana recently underwent a package redesign in late 2008. The new packaging replaces the straw-in-orange on the front, changes the typeface, and also turns the word “Tropicana” sideways. At the same time, the 1.89L carton’s cap changes to a curvy orange twist cap.


After about 4 months, Tropicana has decided to revert back to the old packaging. It appears that complaints have sprouted up immediately following the news of the redesign. Critics deadpan that the new packaging is a big mistake and makes the market leader look more like an upscale private label brand. The new twist cap also received complaints as being less user-friendly. Supermarket shoppers looking for Tropicana even inquired as to whether the grocery store was out of stock of the product!

Some feel that Tropicana redesigned for the sake of redesigning. It appears that the old packaging – the straw-in-orange packaging – conveys the juice’s main selling proposition: freshness. Whereas the new packaging – a glass of juice – doesn’t showcase the product’s main benefit. Also, a curvy twist cap is definitely less user-friendly than the old cap.

In consumer products it can be a double-edged sword when updating the product packaging. On the positive side, consumers will relate better to the product with the new design’s imagery, fonts, and shape. Also, this is a good way to introduce an innovation to the market with the support of the entire brand backing it. However, the negative side can see consequences similar to what Tropicana suffered here. Consumers confused over the brand’s identity and the product’s functionality reduced. Looks like the Tropicana executives are going back to the drawing board.