Crystal Light, Thinner and Lighter

Crystal Light is a sugar-free soluble powder manufactured by Kraft Foods since 1982. Originally offered in only five flavors, the line-up now includes twenty-eight. And as non diet sodas become more and more the face of fattening evil, flavored waters and juices have risen in popularity in the last few years. While I prefer my water on tap without any kind of powder, Kraft Food bets upwards of $40 million in advertising in the last couple of years and more this year, that other people do. And while Crystal Light is clearly targeted towards women, Kraft Foods estimates that 40% of consumers are men, yet at point of purchase, women are the overwhelming majority. This past November, Kraft Foods introduced a new look for Crystal Light with an environmental-friendly range of packaging.

We measured the improvements in pounds of packaging material reduction and in terms of shipping efficiencies. Comparing finished cases, the new packaging uses 250 tons less material than previously. And, the new canister’s footprint allows for a 33-percent more efficient pallet, which we expect will result in greater outbound transportation efficiency.
— Interview with Nicole Tom, Packaging Engineer, R&D at Kraft Foods

A sampling of the new packaging.

In comparison to the old gaudy packaging that fell for every single visual cliché of consumer packaging — swooshes! glows! type on a curve! — the new packaging is remarkably restrained and sophisticated, even if it now falls under the all-white packaging trend that has been sweeping the globe. Nonetheless, the change is very welcome and it makes Crystal Light look more like a product for grown-ups than Fruit Roll-Up for kids. I believe they are using Optima as a secondary typeface and I have to admit it doesn’t look half bad. The bottom band of fruits swimming in colored water is almost appetizing even.

The logo is also a major improvement even if not quite a home run. Again, the old one was a mess on most levels and the new one clearly positions Crystal Light as a healthy, feminine product. It even shows some design awareness by being custom-lettering, rather than an off-the-shelf script font. But it would have been nice for someone to point out that the “s” is fairly awkward. On the print and TV campaign by mcgarrybowen, another secondary typeface is introduced, Museo, the free font that is quickly achieving overexposure. All in all, it’s always refreshing to see a consumer product step away from package design excess into something more palatable.

TV ad by mcgarrybowen.

Print ad.

Update: The design was created by NiCE.

Thanks to Derrick Reimer for the tip.

Nick Irwin’s comment is:

bravo! finally a redesign that is on target and makes sense!!! lets start a trend of ridding this world of gradient filled letterforms!

On Feb.03.2010 at 07:22 AM

Martin Boath’s comment is:

Totally agree Armin, it’s the swimming fruit band that saves the day as far as the packaging goes; very nice indeed.

However I’m not doing somersaults of delight at the logo; the combination of the highly-compressed type and the extended type (‘Drink mix on the go’) is very clumsy; and add to those two typefaces another one in Museo, it’s all starting to get a bit busy (especially where the compressed type features in the top right hand corner of the carton).

But overall, in a ‘first impressions’ sense, this is a nice job.

And very un-Kraft-like.

On Feb.03.2010 at 07:37 AM

JK’s comment is:

One problem - if you shop at Wal-Mart, they have done a recent redesign of all Great Value products, with white boxes, clean pictures of fruit, etc. and blue text. It takes a couple glances to distinguish Crystal Light from the knock-off brand… and the knock-off changed packaging first.

I know this is anecdotal, but I noticed it when buying Crystal Light this week.

http://walmartstores.com/FactsNews/NewsRoom/9028.aspx
Pictures in right column.

On Feb.03.2010 at 08:00 AM

Rx’s comment is:

Approved.

On Feb.03.2010 at 08:08 AM

Tom Culton’s comment is:

Ah i remember every time going to america i got crystal light. But its a little bit unfair saying its a now a feminine product. It could be aimed at both. Poor choice of font aswell.

On Feb.03.2010 at 08:08 AM

Joseph’s comment is:

This is a vast improvement over the original, though as JK pointed out it could be confused with Walmart’s Great Value rebranding to the untrained eye.

The biggest problem I have is with that compressed copy in the upper right hand corner of the box. I think it would be a far nicer, cleaner presentation if that was moved to somewhere less prominent, possibly the side of the box.

All in all though, it’s nice to see a successful rebrand on here for a change. I was beginning to lose hope for 2010 with all the garbage that’s been spewing forth so far!

On Feb.03.2010 at 08:24 AM

Ronlewhorn’s comment is:

I remember being in a college packaging design course and predictin that everything would go the way of apple with clean open packaging that helped in stand out from the gaudy, over-designed/colored packages. Eventually all will look this way and we’ll start seeing the reverse happen. I do not look forward to when packages like the first crystal light package start coming back as “the great NEW look” :)
heh.

On Feb.03.2010 at 08:28 AM

micro’s comment is:

packaging looks great, though the logo feels more like a clothing brand.

On Feb.03.2010 at 08:33 AM

Deshler’s comment is:

My first thought when I hear of Crystal Light is “1980s.” That thought came to mine before I read here that Crystal Light was introduced in 1982. The cheesy old jingle (“I believe in Crystal Light, ‘cause I believe in me!”) still sticks out in my head, and I can’t uncouple the image of Crystal Light from big-shouldered women’s power suits and Virginia Slims cigarettes.

This new identity does nothing to rid my memory of those horrible associations. If anything, its thin script and white background reinforces the 80s-ness.

On Feb.03.2010 at 08:35 AM

Megan Gedris’s comment is:

Did it NEED a period at the end? It’s not even half of a sentence. It’s a name. I don’t sign my checks “Megan Gedris.” with a period at the end of my name.

Logos these days seem bent on brutally destroying proper punctuation. (I’m lookin’ at you, AOL.)

On Feb.03.2010 at 08:37 AM

Brendan’s comment is:

The only thing I don’t like is the ‘s’ in ‘Crystal’. Other than that, great redesign!

On Feb.03.2010 at 08:37 AM

Len Damico’s comment is:

The overall rebrand is nice, but I especially like the new hierarchy on the packaging. Now, we can clearly tell that the brand is Crystal Light, not On The Go.

If I had to quibble over something, it would be that the “s” in “Crystal” feels a bit smooshed and off.

Very nice work.

On Feb.03.2010 at 08:37 AM

Q. Pheevr’s comment is:

The new packaging is much cleaner, classier, and more grown-up. I don’t know about that s, though—it looks too much like it’s just a swash on the y.

On Feb.03.2010 at 08:41 AM

Len Damico’s comment is:

The overall rebrand is nice, but I especially like the new hierarchy on the packaging. Now, we can clearly tell that the brand is Crystal Light, not On The Go.

If I had to quibble over something, it would be that the “s” in “Crystal” feels a bit smooshed and off.

Very nice work.

On Feb.03.2010 at 08:42 AM

John Mindiola III’s comment is:

Overall, I really like this. One thing that really confuses me is why they had to have that vector swoosh cut the bottom off the beautiful fruity splash of goodness. Too me, it seems like showing more of that photo would be better for color-coding the packaging system. Okay, okay, I know that half of them are pink, but the swoosh really cuts the perceived height of the package, just like capri pants.

On Feb.03.2010 at 08:51 AM

Ryan Paul’s comment is:

Refreshingly simple. I love the use of white space, and their decision to remove the glows and swooshes. This reflects a more mature, sophisticated brand positioning. No more kid stuff.

Although the new design appears to be targeted toward women, they’ve exercised a bit of restraint. I imagine the new design won’t negatively impact their male audiences. A job well done.

On Feb.03.2010 at 08:51 AM

cj’s comment is:

wonderful redesign. it would make me want to go out and buy some right now if it weren’t for the played-out objectification of women in their commercials. it would’ve been nice if while they were shedding their terrible old brand, they also got with the times and stopped preying on women’s insecurities. I get it that women buy this because they want to diet, but what I don’t get is why they treat their target customer like they’re idiots.

On Feb.03.2010 at 08:57 AM

Mog’s comment is:

The red period reminds me of another “feminine product.”

On Feb.03.2010 at 09:06 AM

Andrea’s comment is:

@Mog That was just what I was about to comment!!! The red period makes absolutely no sense.

Other than that & the “s” it’s looking good.

On Feb.03.2010 at 09:12 AM

Dan!’s comment is:

@Deshler

Get over yourself dude.
That is like me saying “Everytime I see a Ford, I just can’t help but think ‘Model-T.’ If anything, these new Ford’s remind me more of the Model T than the Model T did.”

Bleh. Sorry that you are stuck in the 80s. The rest of us are not, and neither is this packaging.

On Feb.03.2010 at 09:16 AM

Acree’s comment is:

Ok, thank you, Mog! I couldn’t put my finger on why I didn’t like the design until I realized it reminds me of Kotex.

On Feb.03.2010 at 09:30 AM

Larry W’s comment is:

The logo is nice, but that is, by the most boring packaging design I’ve ever seen!

I get the market its going for, but the amount of white space is killing me, especially since the logo is so thin and airy and the graphic is so small.

But I do think it’s an improvement. I just wished there was more color on it.

On Feb.03.2010 at 09:40 AM

felix sockwell’s comment is:

excellent redesign. would be nice to have included the firm responsible for creating the work. nah. that’d be a total invasion of company privacy!

On Feb.03.2010 at 09:45 AM

Alex P.’s comment is:

When the new look actually looks lighter, it’s already an improvement.

On Feb.03.2010 at 10:12 AM

buruno’s comment is:

Lighter and better, undoubtedly. Like others have said, my only remarks are that over-stylized (lazy?) “s”, which looks a termination of the “y”, and the red dot.

On Feb.03.2010 at 10:27 AM

Rage Designer’s comment is:

Larry W,

You’re Kidding, Right?

On Feb.03.2010 at 10:28 AM

Deshler’s comment is:

Dan!

If Ford rolled out an all-black car with a rumble seat and spindly wheels, then your analogy would have merit.

But, as it turns out …….

On Feb.03.2010 at 10:45 AM

Juliana’s comment is:

I second,

“Larry W,

You’re Kidding, Right?”

On Feb.03.2010 at 10:46 AM

Juliana’s comment is:

also,

I love that stupid little ‘s’. it makes it seem more like someone really wrote it because it isn’t perfect.

with you all on the period though.

On Feb.03.2010 at 10:48 AM

Diane Faye Zerr’s comment is:

It’s definitely an overall improvement!!! The ‘s’, the red period, and the compressed text to the right of the new logo are all bugging me.

On Feb.03.2010 at 11:01 AM

smirker’s comment is:

It’s better, definitely. But far from good. Kinda like saying that a car crash is better than a 20 car pile up.

The new logo is nice (but bland). There are too many typefaces on the pack fighting with each other.

The fruit floating in water pictures look like they were lifted straight from an illustration annual in 1995.

There’s nothing modern or interesting going on at all on pack.

PS. I can’t believe it’s legal in the states to have realistic images of fruit on totally artificial products?

On Feb.03.2010 at 11:03 AM

Larry W’s comment is:

I’m not.

I think its boring and dull, and reminds me of a ton of the stuff I saw back in 1995 for generic products in the supermarket. Its a big improvement on the original, but its just bland to me.

On Feb.03.2010 at 11:24 AM

Mustard’s comment is:

Armin,

What agency did this?

On Feb.03.2010 at 12:20 PM

Brian Son’s comment is:

Definitely an improvement! It’s simplified, without looking hokey, and impersonal. Just as the product promises simplifying and being healthier, shouldn’t the packaging look less filling as well?

The print ads look great, though the TV spot could have been executed differently. “Women who drink Crystal Light drink 20% more of water?” Really? Because I thought Crystal Light was, well, water?

On Feb.03.2010 at 12:28 PM

Emma’s comment is:

It takes me a few glances to read “Crystal” over “Cry Tal,” and the packaging seems appropriate for a flavored liquid medicine for women in their mid-40s… five years ago.

Thumbs-down to both old and new.

On Feb.03.2010 at 12:30 PM

ilovetype’s comment is:

I love the general move from gaudy packaging, which defined the latter part of the past century.. but what the heck is with that red dot? Is it supposed to represent some kind of correlation to the menses of the target group? I don’t get it.

On Feb.03.2010 at 12:32 PM

Gunther’s comment is:

Because in Germany for many decades the cheapest discount products used just this kind of package styling with much white and almost nothing else, I simply cannot stop to automatically categorize the product as such. Damn it!

On Feb.03.2010 at 03:01 PM

Mitch Lindgren’s comment is:

Anyone who has ever had to design a consumer product that is as mainstream as this has to see how clean it is. First off - the copy in the upper right hand corner is legal copy required by the government. We all try to down play it’s existence but it has to be on the PDP. After the brand you need appetite appeal, Flavor, product description, quantity and net weight. This is before some marketing person throws a ton of violators to scream some benefit or obvious use. As you can see this happened on the old package. I congratulate who ever did this with convincing someone to keep all the crap off and let the brand say it all.

On Feb.03.2010 at 03:31 PM

Christopher’s comment is:

The rebrand is OK but I don’t like the print ad at all, it looks very much to me like they searched on Istock for ‘Body’ then ‘Water’ and just stuck the images together, then slapped a product shot on it.

On Feb.03.2010 at 03:51 PM

Manny’s comment is:

I pity the American Ppublic.
The fact that many of you think this is great, just goes to show how starved you have all been for half decent packaging design.

Yes, this is an improvement… anything would be.

The re-design is OK, though a complete train wreck of visual styles and techniques.

To me it looks like tampon packaging.

On Feb.03.2010 at 04:29 PM

Armin’s comment is:

> would be nice to have included the firm responsible for creating the work. nah. that’d be a total invasion of company privacy!

> What agency did this?

I don’t know who did the work. From the interview I linked to in the original post, I would gather it was an internal job.

On Feb.03.2010 at 06:01 PM

Eva ’s comment is:

That period looks like a drop of blood

On Feb.03.2010 at 07:38 PM

TZ’s comment is:

I dont like the logo, sorry.

On Feb.03.2010 at 08:48 PM

Susan’s comment is:

I agree with Eva’s comment above. The period looks like a drop of blood. If this packaging/logo is meant to appeal more to women, why does the logo have to look like it belongs on a box of tampons? That’s the first thing that popped into my mind when I did a double-take at that red dot in disbelief. Was that intentional and intended to send a subconscious message or an oversight? I wonder.

On Feb.03.2010 at 09:10 PM

Alisha’s comment is:

Honestly I don’t like the redesign, I’m surprised there are so many that do. Does the new packaging say anything to you about food? It looks like a package design for a cosmetic product…

These shampoo bottles make me more thirsty than that bland box: http://www.globalpackagegallery.com/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=16898&g2_serialNumber=2

On Feb.03.2010 at 09:41 PM

Ryan’s comment is:

The whole packaging world needs a serious facelift and this is a nice start. Hopefully we can get away from the lowest common denominator 3d swooshy television aesthetic someday soon…

On Feb.03.2010 at 09:54 PM

izzy’s comment is:

Alisha’s comment is:

Does the new packaging say anything to you about food?

Izzy responds:

Bravo! Alisha, unknowingly I suspect, has just given props to everyone involved in this undertaking! CL = food?? Reality Check: CL isn’t food, for starters; but most importantly, CL’s target consumer is terrified of food and would be much more at ease ingesting something that reminds them of shampoo! So there it is, fait accomplis! whether the s is crooked or the red dot looks like a blood stain or the white background screams contrived simplicity which we’ve all been tired of since the nano came out — that is all irrelevant. Like Alisha, the american hoi polloi will be reminded of sephora when they look at this, and for those who cringe at the mention of the word “sandwich,” it will be a moment to rejoice in the fantasy that finally, this time around, they will be able to achieve that lovely figure they had in the 80’s.

On Feb.03.2010 at 11:06 PM

Jessica’s comment is:

Izzy, you’ve hit the nail on the head. That’s exactly right.

On Feb.03.2010 at 11:18 PM

Marcy’s comment is:

Hmmm, looks like a ‘friendly pharmaceutical’ product to me.

Gives me ‘feminine hygiene’ vibes

On Feb.04.2010 at 12:25 AM

Kay’s comment is:

Marcy, you are not far off:

Crystal light Ingredients:

CITRIC ACID, MALTODEXTRIN, CALCIUM PHOSPHATE, ASPARTAME, MODIFIED CORNSTARCH, RED 40, CONTAINS LESS THAN 2% OF NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL FLAVOR, POTASSIUM CITRATE, ACESULFAME POTASSIUM, SALT, ARTIFICIAL COLOR, BLUE 1, BHA (TO HELP PROTECT FLAVOR).

Yummy.

On Feb.04.2010 at 12:29 AM

Christian’s comment is:

@Izzy: Very good observation, which seems so obviously true. In fact, I’m itching to mention this case and your analysis to students of mine who need their critical awareness boosted.

On Feb.04.2010 at 01:33 AM

phanyxx’s comment is:

This is actually pretty decent until your eye lands on “DRINK MIX on the go”… horrible. Package design is a real lol sometimes…

On Feb.04.2010 at 01:56 AM

Kat’s comment is:

Agreed that these look way too much like the Walmart Great Value boxes.

On Feb.04.2010 at 02:20 AM

Christian’s comment is:

@Izzy: Btw, you mentioned “the white background [which] screams contrived simplicity which we’ve all been tired of since the nano came out”. My grasp of English lacks the more delicate nuances, so could you elaborate what you mean by “contrived” in this context? I get a distinctly derogatory vibe, but can’t understand exactly what irks you about this flavour of simplicity.

Cheers,
Chris

On Feb.04.2010 at 04:03 AM

Glen’s comment is:

The entire redesign screams “lazy”. Most people are going to see this at the grocery store, which usually use a very beige tone for the walls, floor, shelving, etc.

This product will just get lost on the shelf, next to the genre’s other rich packaging colors - the Crystal Light will camouflage into the beige shelving.

The mark is weak and will need to be changed in the next couple of years when the light script fad is over and the mark is looking dated once again. What is with the period? When I first glanced at it I saw “Aol.”, but at least Aol. had a reason for the “.”

On Feb.04.2010 at 11:11 AM

dg’s comment is:

Looks like the handwriting was done under the influence. With that point in mind. This rebrand will surely touch the hearts of the American Consumer. Well Done.

On Feb.04.2010 at 11:31 AM

Daho’s comment is:

Though I personally like the new design, the white b/g does give it a generic feel, and the first thing I thought of was the Tropicana debacle. Thought the old logo isn’t pretty, the value of brand equity is unmeasurable.

On Feb.04.2010 at 03:01 PM

MSGDS’s comment is:

I wouldn’t say great, but this is good redesign. I like the cleaner look of the packaging, but it could be a little more exciting. The biggest problem is the logo, the “s” doesn’t look like an “s”, it looks more like an “o”. The red period at the end kills it completely. What’s it doing there?

On Feb.04.2010 at 04:20 PM

bill’s comment is:

While i find this to be a much better design aesthetically, I can’t get past how much this looks like box wine.

On Feb.04.2010 at 04:58 PM

Armin’s comment is:

Update: The design was created by NiCE.

On Feb.04.2010 at 05:10 PM

Alex Engel’s comment is:

Nice update BUT the “artificial flavor” is much more pronounced on the new packaging. Not sure if that’s detrimental or if anyone believed the stuff was natural to begin with however.

On Feb.04.2010 at 05:27 PM

Genn’s comment is:

It’s definitely “cryptal”, not “crystal”.

On Feb.04.2010 at 09:40 PM

Matt ’s comment is:

The skinnier writing makes me feel skinnier. Bravo!

On Feb.04.2010 at 10:32 PM

Michelle’s comment is:

Honestly, out of all of those, the iced tea one is my favorite because it has a slight band of color across the top. It gives it slightly more oomph without destroying the look of simplicity they were trying to go for. It would also probably make each flavor more instantaneously identifiable on the shelf.

Note how the color identifier is suddenly this tiny band across the bottom, instead of the whole box? That was exactly the same thing that pissed me off about the failed Tropicana branding (our preferred Tropicana orange juice was “Some Pulp” which was the “green” packaging… suddenly they ALL became the same packaging with a little tiny color line… who wants to look for THAT?) and I think this would frustrate me in the store too because they all look practically the same except for the little fruit picture.

On Feb.04.2010 at 11:37 PM

Marcin’s comment is:

AWSOME!

Great job.

On Feb.05.2010 at 08:00 AM

Brandista’s comment is:

So Linda Evans. And Izzy’s right. The pack design lost a lot of weight, but what about their consumer? I think the fake fruit is honesty in advertising and the script is trying too hard to look spontaneous. Actually its perfect for those who would swallow this.

On Feb.05.2010 at 03:01 PM

Gerard Whelan’s comment is:

Certainly a vast improvement, although the old “surfing fruit” style picture has been around the block a few times, but totally makes sense in this context. Still seems a weird idea adding artificial powder to your water and marketing it as something natural!

On Feb.07.2010 at 01:14 PM

Pennsylvania wrongful death lawyer’s comment is:

Like the new logo, looks great in both fashions.

On Feb.08.2010 at 02:12 PM

qwertyale’s comment is:

depressive

On Feb.11.2010 at 03:27 PM

Adam303’s comment is:

the print ad should have read “aspartame your body”

On Feb.19.2010 at 01:43 AM

Doris’s comment is:

The package doesn’t matter to me, but the taste does. The lemonade leaves a nasty aftertaste these days. Let me know when you fix it.

On Mar.01.2010 at 11:47 AM

delia’s comment is:

can kids drink crystal light drinks.

On May.16.2010 at 05:45 PM

Miche’s comment is:

I like the new design, surfing fruit image tired or not. It’s better than the original. Although, I agree with many of you that the white background doesn’t necessarily distinguish it enough from other brands, as I found out when looking for CL last month. I don’t mind the font or the red dot. Do we really need to understand or interpret the red dot?

On a separate note from the branding, my biggest disappointment is the product itself. Maybe it’s me, but from the two flavors I’ve tried since the new packaging, the product isn’t as satisfying as it was when it was produced in the cups — seems more diluted (and I’m using the same pitcher and amount of water). Sorry, I’m most frustrated with that than the branding.

On Jun.12.2010 at 02:16 AM