Opinion BY Armin

Organic Cows Make Happy Yogurt

When it comes to yogurt I have no brand allegiance. Whatever brand happens to cross my line of vision that does not look like it will taste like creamy acid, I will grab. Granted, I don’t eat much yogurt, so I have no problem in brand continuity. Same thing with milk, whatever the house brand is at the grocery store near my home at the moment is the one I buy. For a while, in the halcyon economic times of 2007, we bought organic milk. Prior to writing this post, if you had asked me what brand of organic milk I bought I would not have been able to tell you. It was only as I was going through Stonyfield Farm’s web site that I realized the $5 gallon of milk I had been buying was Stonyfield Farms. This is not a knock on this particular brand but perhaps just my perception of the dairy category: A blurry landscape of cows, prairies and fruit drawings. Most likely, I’m not the target audience. Having said all this, Stonyfield Farm stands out from the crowd as a cow- and earth-conscious company since its modest beginning in 1979 as The Rural Education Center until 1983 when they began (pun alert!) milking their expertise and killer yogurt recipe as a consumer product. Today it is one of the most successful organic dairy product lines in the market, and it recently launched a new identity and packaging designed by Webb Scarlett deVlam

In 2007, Gary Hirshberg, Stonyfield’s CEO decided to embark on an initiative to update the relevance and aesthetic of Stonyfield’s key messages, look, feel, tone, and equities as well as explore new campaign ideas, and new media. These would involve a new brandmark, packaging design, web site and advertising campaigns. The challenge was to create a distinct yet relevant point of difference within the yogurt category.

We started with research. Our analysis included a deep dive with consumers, key stakeholders and distilling needs and perceptions into brand truths and aspirations. Our design strategy was to bring consumers to the farm, so we photographed and printed the farm on the pack. Despite excellent quantitative test results, this execution took an extraordinary leap of faith for Stonyfield.

[The] the brand had lost the ‘Farm’ in the brand name. Our research concluded it wasn’t essential to the identity of the brand. Hence, Stonyfield Farm became Stonyfield.
— Briefing to Brand New from Webb Scarlett deVlam

The old logo had been in use since the early 1990s, with a few modifications over the years, and for the most part it remains the same but in a decidedly more contemporary execution. Dropping the “Farm” allowed for a non condensed type treatment, which made the old logo look a little bit dated. The new typography is very nicely executed, especially that “yfi” ligature. The cow (more on her later) is a little smaller, which I’m not sure if it’s good or bad, and the word “Organic” feels more subtle and less like a commandment that must be followed. The colors are richer and, for lack of a better term, yummier.

While I do like the logo, I don’t like the packaging as much. The photographic approach makes it feel more ordinary somehow. Too colloquial. And I’m no packaging expert by any means but I feel the hierarchy of the information was easier to access on the old one, even though the information in the new one is more consistently executed. As a metaphor for my contradiction: The old product information was like a hipster with clashing colors and textures, and the new one is like an Ivy college professor, even tones from head to toe. But I digress, before the digressions become too much. The flat colors in the old packaging were more energetic and that’s probably what I’m reacting to.

Report from the field: A comparison of old and new by Gage Mitchell.

In 1992, Stonyfield held a contest to name their cow. Elizabeth Malakie of Church Falls, Virginia suggested “Gertie” so that when she was called she would respond to “Yo! Gert!”. Stonyfield took it one step further and named the cow “Gurt.” Yes, as in “Yo! Gurt!”. Throughout the packaging line of yogurts, Gurt appears in a bevy of accessories like a beret for the French Vanilla flavor. Above is a small sampling from nearly 30 options.

“Stonyfield Farm’s new package design clearly stands out on shelf, but more importantly, Webb Scarlett deVlam worked hard to understand our core values and authenticity to ensure that the new design reflects the Stonyfield ideals. We featured a photograph of the Wayside Farm, one of the many Organic Valley family farms that supply our milk for our yogurt. We are proud of the fact that our organic milk comes from real family farmers who run real, organic farms and make real food for real people. Our packaging, which is our most important consumer communication medium, now reflects who we are and what we have stood for for over 25 years. Not many companies out there can wholeheartedly say that and mean it.”
— Attessa Bradley, Stonyfield Brand Manager

DATE: Sep.17.2009CATEGORY: Consumer products 52 COMMENTS

Bryan Redeagle’s comment is:

Though the new logo is very nice, I kind of liked the typography of the old one. Especially that "S" and the way it popped out of the box a bit.

On Sep.17.2009 at 07:14 AM

Saylor’s comment is:

Not a huge fan of yellow borders, or yellow on white. So that is a big improvement for my tastes on the new logo / packaging.

I may just have to go get me some yogurt and see if it tastes as good as it looks :)

On Sep.17.2009 at 07:19 AM

yogurt lover’s comment is:

Yeesh. A disaster. The new logo is atrocious. It now looks as manufactured and as fake as the new Snapple. Sad.

On Sep.17.2009 at 07:34 AM

Justin Tomchuk’s comment is:

I like the old one designs more. It's more graphic and interesting. Though there are a few elements on the new design that I like, I feel the branding would be more successful if they reorganized and cleaned up their original designs.

The new one has zero brand identity. It just looks like another generic dairy product.

On Sep.17.2009 at 07:45 AM

Chad Kaufman’s comment is:

There are a few things that bother me about the new logo and packaging.

While I agree the 'yfi' ligature is a nice element, I think the 'fi' is a bit too far apart. There is too much space between the letters that makes it feel more spaced out then the rest of Stonyfield. Tucking it in a little would also allow the top of the 'f' to not feel as stretched and forced as it feels right now.

I agree with the photographs on the packaging, but for a different reason and not because of the hierarchical disturbance it causes. Looking at a picture of cows in a field just brings to mind smelly poop—not something I want in my head before I dip into some yogurt.

Finally, there is something very disturbing about one of the cows in the flavor picture. The 'Gotta Have Java' looks like the cow is simmering in a fire pit.

On Sep.17.2009 at 07:49 AM

ScottyM’s comment is:

NOPE.

Old cow was better. Old type treatment was better. The new "Organic" looks cleaner than the previous iteration.

And ... "Farm" DOES matter:

"[The] the brand had lost the ‘Farm’ in the brand name. Our research concluded it wasn’t essential to the identity of the brand."

^^^ That first sentence makes no sense. Previously, they said they wanted to take people back to the farm ... so Stonyfield is kinda like Woodstock? Whatever.

Farm matters.

Love the name Gertie, though. :)

On Sep.17.2009 at 07:53 AM

Gage Mitchell’s comment is:

The old logo and packaging felt very old and faded, like your favorite pair of comfy stone-washed jeans. The new brand feels a bit more mainstream now, and if that is their intention, then it's a job well done. I wouldn't say that the new version is more designery though, it's not exactly Louise Fili packaging or anything, but the new look probably will help the average customer feel more comfortable about purchasing their organic products. It does seem to convey truth and values more than a lot of other green-washing brands do – which is a plus.

Thanks for breaking it down and getting more info for us Armin!

Regards,
Gage Mitchell, AIGA

:: Graphic Designer
:: GageMitchell.com

On Sep.17.2009 at 08:03 AM

Nathan McKinney’s comment is:

This is a tough one. There are parts of both I like, and parts of both I don't like.

I like the simplified name to Stonyfield. While the new typeface is nice, I don't necessarily prefer it to the old. They gained very little readability for such a drastic change.

My biggest issue is the new treatment of the word organic and the cows head. For starters, the cow now looks oddly small and out of proportion to the logo. Also, with the type running underneath the cows head, I'm oddly reminded of a guillotine, which in turn reminds me that cows get slaughtered for meat. Sorry, maybe I'm the only one that went there, but The cow's head looks trapped to me. Besides, I really liked the way the organic looked before. I'm not sure the egg shape with the cow head popping out of it was a good solution either.

Anyways, with the cow's head being the most interesting part of this concept, and it being shrunk to the size of Lincolns head on a penny, the characterizations (though dorky) seem to get lost. If you are going to dress the mascot in your logo up, make sure it's worthwhile. Now it seems like an after thought.

The packaging otherwise does seem a little more trendy and upscale. It certainly doesn't look cheap any more the way the old label did. I just hope that posting it here doesn't wind up giving the designers a ridiculous backlash like the tropicana debacle/fiasco. I really feel for those designers.

On Sep.17.2009 at 08:23 AM

Steven Hoober’s comment is:

Packaging fail. Hard to read anything, and most of all: less organic looking.

The new package is white. Even if they found a nice, enviro-friendly way to do this, it looks like every other evil package, with lots of printing, instead of the oddly off-beige color and low-saturation printing that sorta implied natural and unoffensive.

On Sep.17.2009 at 08:32 AM

Carlo’s comment is:

Not that I have a bovine-phobia or anything, but I think anytime you can make the cow in a logo smaller, it's a good thing (unless it's a logo for something named Cow).
Sidenote: I remember as a kid that my mother (who wasn;t an illustrator or designer) had a knack for drawing the cutest cow faces I ever saw; she could do it so smoothly and efficiently with a few strokes it amazed me.

On Sep.17.2009 at 09:05 AM

Jason Laughlin’s comment is:

Hmmm. This is one of the more interesting changes on Brand New in a while. I actually quite like the way the new package handles all the identifier info (flavor, fat content, and the smooth and creamy tag). It's much more readable I think. I'm neither here nor there on the photo as a solution, though I can see why you would move in that direction as opposed to the rather elementary graphic treatment on the old one. I also like the treatment of Organic. But the new Stonyfield type treatment comes up way short compared to the old one. The tracking feels a little too roomy and the font itself just doesn't have the same personality as the old one, which I think would have still translated pretty well to the new packaging approach. That being said, it's in no way a failure, and I would be interested to know what happens to sales.

On Sep.17.2009 at 09:35 AM

Katie’s comment is:

Elizabeth Malakie of Church Falls, Virginia...

Should be Falls Church, Virginia. As far as I know, there isn't a "Church Falls" anywhere in this blasted, horrible state.

;) Great write up, otherwise.

On Sep.17.2009 at 09:36 AM

Daniel’s comment is:

The old is clearly superior. It was a perfect mix of playful and professional. Can't say the same about the new version.

With that said, organic food is a complete fraud, and as such, I will not ever be purchasing this or any other brand of organic food. No product design will ever mask the fact that food companies are tricking consumers into paying higher prices for an identical product.

On Sep.17.2009 at 10:19 AM

Nate’s comment is:

Not a huge difference, really. I like the new packaging slightly more, but you won't find me purchasing more Stonyfield because of it.

On Sep.17.2009 at 10:43 AM

Glenn Sakamoto’s comment is:

The old Stonyfields identity was clearer and more distinctive. The new one lacks good lettering and contrast in scale.

On Sep.17.2009 at 10:46 AM

Rob O.’s comment is:

I like the changes in the logo design beneath the lettering and I'm all for the pastoral images on the packaging to evoke the farm vibe, but the old lettering style had personality and the new is boring.

On Sep.17.2009 at 11:12 AM

Sally Faust’s comment is:

I made my decision on this redesign prior to seeing it posted here. Eighty percent of my body is likely comprised of yogurt. This is to say, I buy (and eat) a lot. Stonyfield has been my yogurt of choice for a many years, and when the logo and packaging changed, I took immediate notice. More specifically, I suddenly couldn't find Stonyfield on the shelf because it was so well camouflaged by its competition. (An in-environment image might help here.) I suspect this is due to the addition of the bucolic landscape and blue background. I have also had trouble discerning between the fat-free and the full-fat varieties on the shelf. Without being able to get too technical on why my mind's eye is having trouble with this, I can tell you it's a problem. Out of frustration, I have grabbed instead Cultural Revolution which I can find immediately but is no Stonyfield.

This said, out of context, I think the typography and ligature are better on the new logo but prefer the inclusion of the word "Farm" in the logo over the inclusion of the farm image on the packaging. Agree with Armin, too colloquial.

Now, for you that will go out and do a taste comparison, I strongly recommend Stonyfield's Chocolate Underground. Fat-free is certainly delicious but why resist the temptation of the whole milk "Cream on Top" variety?

Lastly, the redesign has not fully made it to their website, where one will find yet a third iteration of the logo sans-ligature.

On Sep.17.2009 at 11:21 AM

olumi_day’s comment is:

I hate to sound like a tape player on repeat, but the old type-treatment, cow, and lock-up in the logo had so much more personality.

I'm not excited about either of the packaging solutions (old and new).

On Sep.17.2009 at 11:45 AM

Emily Brackett’s comment is:

I think the flavor identifiers are still pretty weak. With the old packaging I bought the wrong plain or vanilla many times. The new solution is slightly better, but I wish it were more pronounced. A stronger use of color differentiation or graphic info (cherry, vanilla bean, etc.).

On Sep.17.2009 at 11:53 AM

Nunnsey’s comment is:

old type rules.

On Sep.17.2009 at 11:57 AM

Katharine’s comment is:

I don't think a yf ligature is a good choice in a word which naturally reads "Stony... Field." It has the effect of making the Y and F closer together, which makes the word harder to read.

Also agree that the cream/beige packaging really stood out, and white in the yogurt context is boring.

On Sep.17.2009 at 12:20 PM

Harper’s comment is:

As a big yogurt consumer I have to say that Stonyfield farm was the one brand that actually stood out on the shelves. Every other brand sort of blends together in my mind.

This new design might look better on it's own but unfortunately that's besides the point in food packaging. From the perspective of a stimulus overloaded supermarket customer this new identity is a disaster.

On Sep.17.2009 at 12:25 PM

Brandon’s comment is:

It seems that the new packaging largely does away with "color-coding" for the different flavors. When I want my blueberry yogurt, I want to reach for the blue yogurt on the shelf. With the new packaging, it seems that most of the containers will look alike on the shelf.

On Sep.17.2009 at 12:55 PM

Ainsley’s comment is:

I agree the cow should be bigger if they are going to accessorize it. While it's gimmicky, I think it's adorable and if they're going to put the effort in they may as well show the cow more prominently.

I also found a picture of a yogurt section in a supermarket.
http://racked.com/uploads/2007_03_wf_yogurt.jpg

The most prominent identifier I can see with this brand is the large blue arch around the name. They've kept that, so as long is it contrasts with the rest of the packaging, it should be ok. They aren't nearly as identifiable as Horizon, though, with the bright red and cute cartoony cow jumping across the front.

Distinguishing between flavors of the yogurt, however, is a different matter. Looks to me like people are going to have to look at little harder for what they want without color coding, like Brandon said.

On Sep.17.2009 at 01:19 PM

Tiffany’s comment is:

As much as I want to agree, I can't.

The yfi ligature is horsey and overall forced. A ligature is not supposed to scream "ligature!", it is supposed to feel natural. (You could say it is supposed to increase readability too.) The spacing is too wide overall and the old logo actually feels more polished. The new logo looks like a typeface with a forced ligature in the middle.

On Sep.17.2009 at 01:20 PM

obse.’s comment is:

What's the opposite of improvement?

On Sep.17.2009 at 02:15 PM

mmatyus’s comment is:

While I didn't read any of the other comments I couldn't help but notice how they shamelessly pull the Newman's Own approach by giving the cow different themes... am I missing something? Why is this acceptable?

Also, I think the older logo would be better if it wasn't as wide, the new one reads better in that sense.

On Sep.17.2009 at 05:42 PM

Steve Silvas’s comment is:

I like the new identity, but I, too, enjoyed the old. Sometimes I don't mind if things are dated because certain things, to me, I want to stay the same way.. like how they were in a memory. Food products certainly fall into that category a lot, but I do like the new packaging and I think it's close enough to the old that it won't alienate loyal consumers. :)

On Sep.17.2009 at 07:10 PM

Katey’s comment is:

I used to know a woman who did packaging for Stonyfield- technically, I worked with her younger sister in a picture framing shop and she came in sometimes to frame lids for the headquarters.

I also think it's a wonderful product- basically the only fat-free yogurt I can get that DOESN'T have fake sweeteners in it.

The new design was a bit jarring for me but after inspecting it (I eat a cup of blueberry-on-the-bottom nonfat every day) It's well done. The new typeface in the logo is a bit unnecessary- miss that curly S!

I haven't had any trouble finding 'my' flavor on the shelf.

All in all I'm much happier with this than when they got rid of the lids! (I am a printer and yogurt cups are perfect for custom mixes of ink).

(And thus, I think "hurray for their printers' bottom line" when I see the new design with more colors in it.)

On Sep.17.2009 at 09:45 PM

Nik’s comment is:

I think the older logo is much better - except for possibly the cow illustration.

On Sep.18.2009 at 07:43 AM

todd zakk’s comment is:

like old logo better but I like the graphics on the new packaging better.

On Sep.18.2009 at 02:01 PM

scott hodgin’s comment is:

I gotta say, the flavor identifiers are pretty worthless. The differences are so small and subtle, that it took me second to figure out why you bother posting the same logo over and over. So, my vote says the old stuff was better.

On Sep.18.2009 at 02:40 PM

Bill Dawson (XK9)’s comment is:

I'd grade it a C. Acceptable but not exceptional.

The successes of the redesign? First off, I like the name change. "Stonyfield" is a strong name on its own. I think they did a fine job on the type treatment. I think they got the priority of the elements right in the redesign. The cow illustration is a vast improvement. "Organic" beneath the cow illustration makes sense and looks good.

A few things that I feel are less than successful about the redesign.

1. I agree with Scott that the flavor illustration changes are hardly noticeable. Nice idea but a hard sell with the reduced cow.

2. The arc on "SINCE 1983" looks wrong. The arc seems off even though it may not be. With that kind of tracking, it probably needs something to connect the letters. Perhaps some linear texture on the blue arc.

3. I think the weakest part of the design is the rough edge style of the arcs. The irregular edge on a very deliberately flat graphic logo just doesn't work. The edge seems rustic when everything else is crisp and clean. It's a mistake.

On Sep.18.2009 at 08:21 PM

Jerry Kuyper’s comment is:

I'm a big fan of their yoghurt but my first impression of the new logo was of a guillotine.

On Sep.18.2009 at 09:07 PM

Pattie McGuinness’s comment is:

At first glance I like the pasture scene...but it is not artwork for my living room wall...it is a product on a grocer's shelf. Ainsley posted a link to a grocer's yogurt section http://racked.com/uploads/2007_03_wf_yogurt.jpg ...It is worth taking a peek...Stonyfield gets lost on the shelf. I would suggest the KISS method of design (keep it simple stupid) with lots of clean lines and white space to differentiate from their competitors products on the shelf.

Additionally, consistent with the Stonyfield message the green and white organic dot was added to the new packaging. Kudos - though it gets lost.

Also consistent with the Stonyfield message and an opportunity to differentiate would be in packaging...I don't mean artwork...I mean all those plastic cups - not so good for the environment.

This is a cool forum for engaging consumers and professionals in the CPG and design fields. More kudos for the forum.

On Sep.18.2009 at 09:46 PM

izzy’s comment is:

yikes! perhaps they should look under "branding" or "graphic design" in their rolodex next time they get an itch to "embark on an initiative to update the relevance and aesthetic of Stonyfield’s key messages, look, feel, tone, and equities" LOL. industrial designers do industrial design -- you can tell just by reading their quote that they are totally out of their comfort zone. and, of course, the train-wreck that resulted.

On Sep.19.2009 at 03:39 AM

decksnap’s comment is:

I think it's pretty great. At least now I won't get the feeling that my yogurt has been sitting in a warehouse for twenty years before being placed on the shelf for me to buy.

Not sure if it'll stand out as a 'wall' of product, but individually I love the overall feel. Type could use some kerning work... some of the cow executions need to be more obvious, but I love the new cow as well.

On Sep.19.2009 at 08:31 AM

Francesco’s comment is:

I like very much the new packaging: all that green emphasizes the idea of nature and organic. The blue sky communicates freshness and purity (and so the "organic").
Moreover, seeing that landscape I think this yogurt comes directly from that pleasant place, where cows live free and happy.

All that yellow in the old packaging reminded me butter and other fat dairy products..

On Sep.19.2009 at 10:17 AM

Linette’s comment is:

I actually do prefer the new design in terms of layout. It has a much better sense of hierarchy and balance. The new cow is more appealing too. While I don't think it's an _amazing_ redesign, I certainly don't think it's a complete failure. This particular product always stood out to me amongst other brands of organic yogurt as being one in need of a redesign, so, indeed, thumbs (generally) up from me.

On Sep.19.2009 at 01:23 PM

Eli’s comment is:

Previous one had much better type.

On Sep.20.2009 at 04:52 AM

harcoutbreton’s comment is:

Waaa yogurts, I can't say no to this specially the classic vanilla beans twist.

On Sep.20.2009 at 07:19 AM

Aaron’s comment is:

I quite like the new one. There was certainly something charming about the old version, especially the type, but the new treatment - especially the ragged edges - is a nice execution of bringing this logo into the modern branding world. IMO the packaging is 100x better, too. The only thing I don't particularly like about the new logo is the cow. It's a fine illustration, but the older one seems to have a bit more personality to me and it's a tighter view of the cow's head -- the new one looks a tad bit more like an art realism project than part of a logo.

Overall definitely like the new branding and packaging.

On Sep.20.2009 at 07:03 PM

Ronan’s comment is:

I for one prefer the new cow (and the old type)

On Sep.21.2009 at 08:10 AM

Mark’s comment is:

Wow what an improvement! the old one looks way outdated compared to the new one, well done!

I disagree Armin I think the new packaging is clean and refreshing and looks a lot less cheap looking.

On Sep.21.2009 at 06:07 PM

PJ Chmiel’s comment is:

I can't stand it when some parts of a design have a faux-"distressed" look (like the edges of the shapes here) and other nearby elements are perfectly crisp and clean. More generally, I can't wait until the design fad of making everything look like it's been dragged behind a truck or already washed 1000x goes away. It looks anything but authentic. I also agree that the minute changes on the cow illustration are worthless at the small sizes they'll be seen at, and not differentiated enough to begin with. Sounds clever on paper, doesn't really translate in the design. I think it was mostly better before the redesign.

And while I don't agree with one commenter that organic products are the "same" as conventional, organic" dairy, egg and meat products are largely a fraud, and have most of the same problematic issues of animal abuse, waste, and environmental destruction as their conventional counterparts.

On Sep.23.2009 at 07:37 PM

Kevin M. Scarbrough’s comment is:

I'm a sucker for the "y-f" ligature, myself.

On Sep.24.2009 at 12:48 PM

Beezer’s comment is:

I think they bought the farm on this one.

On Sep.24.2009 at 03:21 PM

mm’s comment is:

I think the logo looks better, more contemporary and more like a premium brand, (rather than the the "creamy acid" store brand). The old logo was dated and needed an update.

The thing the consumer is looking for is, "does the maker of this product care about how it tastes, how it was made, about the craft of making quality food? Is it made by people who care?"

Yes, there is a certain look that has become associated with organic food and you can criticize it for all looking similar, but the reality of the market place is that if you don't have that feel, consumers will assume that the product inside does not have the values they care about. The new logo works, I think they did their research well.

This logo redesign succeeds where Chickenow failed. Food made by people, not robots.

As for the picture on the packaging, I thought it was a stock photo, which isn't good. Reading that it's a farm involved in the process is a much better story. Something I'd tell people if I saw it in the store. There may be a way to better resolve it so that you tell the story better. (Perhaps multiple pictures can be used, ala Jones Soda? Something that gets the consumer's attention enough to look at the caption on the package and make it worth mentioning. It's a subtle thing that says, "These people care about where they get their dairy. No powdered milk from china was used in this yogurt.")

Subtle improvements aside, this redesign is a win in telling the brand's story.

On Sep.28.2009 at 08:34 PM

SGwozdz’s comment is:

As part of a farm family, the loss of "Farm" is particularly distressing... It gave some of us hope that a farm really could not only survive by the skin of their teeth, but do well.

Looks like Stonyfield is just another agribusiness.

On Sep.29.2009 at 04:13 PM

San Jose domestic violence lawyer’s comment is:

I like the new one mostly due to the fact it just looks updated. They are very similar no large overhauls but the style makes it more appealing to me.

On Sep.30.2009 at 10:52 AM

Dean Vanek’s comment is:

I love the update, especially because they're having so much fun with it. It's a real lesson to organic and wholesome food producers: good, healthy food can be packaged with charm.

On Sep.30.2009 at 02:13 PM

simon’s comment is:

Organic Cows Make Happy Yogurt - But does it make for a happy cow?

On Oct.09.2009 at 07:16 AM