With regard to Mary Lewis’ article on branding (MW September 21), I have been brand loyal to Lillets for some years now. The brand is definitely stronger, but then I was quite happy with it being smaller, and I think a lot of other people out there would agree with me. You can always recognise Lillets from afar by its dominant blue fascia, and you don’t need to be told what to do with it on the shelving space. It seems to me that a simple two dimensional design job has been carried out without really addressing the fundamental “emotional” issues associated with tampon usage.
Why you may say? I started to ask myself the question: are “graphics” all the consumer really wants and are influenced by at point-of-sale? Well I’m not, since its not the 2D graphics that make the difference in use. The outer pack has always been a bit of a problem. For example, how do you take one out of the pack discretely? How do they fit into your handbag? How do you stop them falling out on the floor when you really don’t want them to?
All I am saying is that there are many other issues which need to be reviewed within the sampro area. Functional product characteristics are valid in many ways, buy key areas relating to product application itself take priority – pain thresholds, comfort factor, discretion etc. I know everyone says today’s “modern” women have come out of their shells about personal issues, but why the hell should we tell everyone at the supermarket checkout that we are having a period just because Lillets have decided to make their brand bigger on the front of the pack?
With the superseded Lillets packs the branding was discreet, not bashful, and easily identifiable. And it had a loyal consumer base. So how can you get excited about a bit of “intangible” graphic tweaking that doesn’t add value to the end-user?
Oh I’ll stop going on. After all I am only a young consumer of the Nineties. Who am I to comment?