Which comes first--structural or graphic branding?

Let each project’s specific needs, rather than a formal protocol, determine who leads.

Pw 7973 Skin Medica

The successful integration of structural and graphic branding has proved to be a great challenge for many consumer packaged goods companies. “Do we start with the graphics branding and then create a structure around it, or do we create a structure and then start the graphics exploration afterward?” This question is commonly asked at the beginning of the creative process.

The best answer I have found to the question is “neither.” A successful package must be a seamless combination of structural form and function and graphic branding working together in support of a common message to the consumer.
So why is a balance so difficult to achieve?

Possible reasons for much of the difficulty are varied. Structural designers tend to have industrial design backgrounds and they must be technically familiar with many complex manufacturing processes in order to be effective in structural branding. For this reason, in addition to the marketing team, they often interface with a company’s research and development team and operations.

On the other hand, graphic designers are often trained specifically in graphic design. They have little experience in structural manufacturing processes. They typically work directly with the brand manager and/or creative services group in communicating the brand attributes in the two dimensions of print.

If that were not enough of a difference, timelines for structural changes are typically much longer than for graphic changes, making it difficult to work on both concurrently. Projects often start with the “longest lead time” item to be resolved first, leading to a structural kick-off before the graphics team is even assembled.

To be successful, I have found that a collaborative process involving both graphic and structural designers (along with marketing, research and development, and operations) is vital to successful overall package communication. The following examples illustrate the point.

SkinMedica line

 SkinMedica had a very effective line of skin care products that was sold primarily in dermatologists’ offices. Unfortunately, the line was produced in stock packaging with graphics that did not truly reflect the quality (and price!) of the products inside. While the doctor-recommended line of TNS-based medical products continued to sell individually, consumers did not seem to see a reason to buy the remaining 21 products in the line. Instead, they chose mass-market equivalents.

SkinMedica needed a line of products that stood out as unique in dermatologists’ offices and reflected the medical and scientific heritage of the line in order to differentiate the products from mass-market competitors.

Annual Outlook Report: Automation & Robotics
What's in store for CPGs in 2025 and beyond? <i>Packaging World</i> editors explore the survey responses from 118 brand owners, CPG, and FMCG <i>Packaging World</i> readers for its new Annual Outlook Report.
Download
Annual Outlook Report: Automation & Robotics
Is your palletizing solution leaving money on the floor?
Discover which palletizing technology—robotic, conventional, or hybrid—will maximize your packaging line efficiency while minimizing long-term costs in this comprehensive analysis.
Read More
Is your palletizing solution leaving money on the floor?