Introduced in 1940, Fanta is not just the second oldest brand of The Coca-Cola Company but also its second largest brand outside the U.S.. (The number one in both instances, obvs, is Coke itself.) While its main flavor is orange, Fanta is available in over 100 flavors around the world where its available in 180 different markets. Earlier this year, Fanta introduced a new bottle designed by Drinkworks that is available in Poland, Italy, Romania, Serbia, and Malta. There is no indication this will (or will not) extend to the U.S. market.
Update: The logo and packaging were wrongly attributed to NiCE New York. Apologies for any confusion.
The logo, however, takes on of the most decisive and modern, in line with the tastes of young audiences, who wants to live full of fun. The goal is to continue to attract the attention of both young people of their mothers by inviting them to squeeze the unique taste of the fun. Fanta will enrich the moments of collective entertainment already present in the life of every teenager with a “twist” of spontaneity and carefree.
The last time we talked about Fanta was in 2008, when Office in San Francisco did a great redesign and introduced a groovy and vibrant illustrative visual language. The logo still holds well after 8 years and in most markets it will continue so there is no need to mourn it yet or, if you dislike the logo, there is no need to celebrate yet. The new logo answers the same challenge of “soda!”, “fun!”, “pay attention to me!” as well as the old logo in the polar opposite end of the spectrum: instead of curvy and plump letters it uses hard-angled, straight letters. Both are appropriate, both have its pros and cons. I actually like the new lettering in the logo a lot; it has a bold energy, a nice dimensional effect with some shadows (that are perhaps too subtle), and the smirk in the second “A” is cute enough. The leaf is terrible, unfortunately, and far too distracting as are the orange slices. If those two elements were better resolved this could be a really great soda logo.
The packaging becomes highly distinctive thanks to the asymmetrical silhouette - defined “slider” - with a “twist” (torsion) in the lower part, which makes it strong impact and attracts the presence of real orange juice.
It feels like beverage makers are trying way too hard with their bottle shapes, trying to nail the next best thing to Coca-Cola’s curvy bottle. The goal with this one was to make it look like squeezing an orange I suppose but, to me, it looks like wringing a wet rag. It’s not bad but maybe the effect is too exaggerated for its own good. It’s also like they just flipped the old bottle upside down and thought, “Huh, how about this?”. There is no real integration between bottle and new logo or label; it’s like the two things were brought together by parallel forces. (As a counter example of this done right, I’m thinking of the recent Rivella bottle-label-logo combo that all comes together in harmony.)
As a bonus, Fanta is speaking a new visual language of what look like paper-cut letters and shapes that are meant to attract youngsters. This could potentially be good and while perusing their Instagram accounts it almost is but it falls apart at the details: the font NEEDED to be OpenType so that it would replace repeating characters with stylistic alternates so that all those “S”s and “E”s don’t look so repetitive. The square images also add fruits with funny looks that, again, could be very fun but the executions aren’t quite well resolved. While the paper-cut letters have some semblance to the letters in the logo, there is still a disconnect in style and approach that make the two elements clash.
To stay inconsistent, there is also the look in the print ads above that rely heavily on Omnes but used very poorly and then whatever it is that the TV spot is doing which brings in none of the other elements. Overall, there is a lack of direction and consistency across elements and applications that maybe with time will settle into a better groove as there is some potential somewhere in all of this. Having different looks is to be expected from global brands but this might be pushing it in terms of creating unnecessary confusion and a sense of lack in quality control.