Tropicana Weathers Blowback from ‘Shrinkquivelence,’ Pack Redesign
Infamous in pack design circles for a similar occurrence in 2008, Tropicana once again redesigned packaging in such a way that cost the company 19% in sales. We spoke to expert Brent Lindberg of Fuseneo, designer of legacy pack that's being replaced.
The new 46-oz multi-serve bottle format is smaller and sleeker than the legacy carafe-shaped bottle. But the price was reduced, so it's not a true incident of 'shrinkflation.' More like 'shrin-quivelence' according to Brent Lindberg.
Tropicana's legacy carafe-style 52-oz bottle.Back when it was owned by PepsiCo in 2009, juice icon Tropicana committed a faux pas with a packaging carton redesign. It backfired, consumers revolted, sales dropped, and the affair became a fundamental case study in how not to handle a packaging design switch.
The company quickly put the genie back in the proverbial bottle, got back into familiar packaging within two months, then went back to the drawing board. The good news was that by 2011, the brand recovered with a well-thought-out, custom, 59-oz multi-serve carafe-shaped clear PET bottle with hefty, premium cap. Lots of focus group-testing was done to arrive at the carafe, and it paid off. Leaving less expensive cartons behind for clear PET, the new bottle reconstituted Tropicana in consumers' minds as a premium product in the category. Over the past decade-plus, the curvy savior of a bottle had grown into an icon of its own, so the ship was fully righted by the time PepsiCo sold Tropicana to private equity in 2021.
Happy ending, right? Other than a blip by way of a size reduction from 59 oz to 52 oz in the intervening years, consumers were happy.
Only, it looks like it happened again. In 2024, Tropicana, replaced its 52-oz, multi-serve carafe bottle with a shorter-necked, 46-oz PET container with a thinner stature and stock, off-the-shelf closure. The smaller single-serve size shifted from a 12-oz to an 11-oz package, also with a revised shape. The company says that the new designs were intended to reduce plastic use, make the bottle easier to pour, and obviate induction sealing consumers needed to remove.
“In both sizes, the cap no longer includes the induction seal therefore is easy to open, without compromising product safety, and contains less plastic: 52% less in the 11 oz and 61% less in the 46 oz,” The Tropicana Company explains on its website FAQ section. “We’ve modernized the product design: this includes a refreshed label to fit the new bottle dimensions and make it easier to find on shelf, as well as new cap colors to create consistency and help differentiate our products. Orange juice will have orange caps, juice drinks green, and any lower sugar products—for orange juice or juice drinks—blue."
Regarding the material reduction element, a more cynical observer might add that the move from custom to stock packaging that uses less material is also cheaper. Regardless the motivation, a consumer jury deliberated and rendered its verdict. They complained that the new multi-serve bottle was harder to pour and didn't look as nice as the old one. Sales dropped by 19% year over year.
So, was this Tropicana blindsided by the reaction? Or was this an expected consumer reaction, but the move simply had too many supply chain and material input benefits to ignore? Maybe Tropicana is hoping to quickly weather the blowback, rip off the Band-Aid, and bounce back as soon as consumers get used to the new format.
I didn't have any luck in reaching out to the company, but a Tropicana Brands Group Spokesperson had this to say in a statement: “At Tropicana, the consumer is always at the center of our decision making, and our new packaging intends to directly address feedback we’ve received from them. This includes changing the shape of our bottle so it’s easier to pour and store as well as upgrading to a more streamlined and sustainable cap made with less plastic that’s easier to open.
"These types of changes can take time, and recent third-party data shows that unit sales are returning to normal levels. In addition, a recent survey we conducted of 1,300 loyal consumers confirms they are responding positively to the new bottle: nearly half say the updated packaging has improved their perception of Tropicana, and among those who have purchased the new bottle more than 70% say it will make them more likely to purchase it again. We will also continue to do what we can to further help shoppers get accustomed to our new look, including investing in advertising and in-store elements,” the spokesperson said. New 46-oz bottle design.
Expert opinions
To learn more about how the sausage is made in situations like this one, I spoke with Brent Lindberg, head of curiosity at packaging design and prototyping agency Fuseneo, about the nationally reported kerfuffle. Full disclosure, Fuseneo designed the recently eschewed carafe, so Lindberg has some historical skin in the game. But he also knows Tropicana, the package redesign game, and can see the bigger picture. And it’s not all negative—if it were anyone else it might have gone less noticed, but Tropicana’s reputation precedes it, resulting in some of today’s blowback. But it’s not all positive, either.
“In my opinion, this was a miscalculation,” he says. “With their majority sale to private equity in 2021, they likely needed to see better margins. I think the numbers drove the decision more than the consumer. There are a lot of positive moves they are making as a company, but I don't think this is one of them."
Is it shrinkflation?
The specter of shrinkflation has something to do with negative consumer reaction. And indeed, the single-serve bottle lost an ounce of juice while maintaining the same price. But with the larger 46-oz multi-serve bottle, 6 oz smaller than the legacy 52-oz carafe, that’s not really the case. While consumers are programmed to be distrustful of shrinking pack sizes, reading underhanded motivations into the practice, Lindberg’s math says that’s an unfair accusation for the multi-serve bottle.
“I think we need another term. Maybe ‘shrinkqual’ or ‘shrinkquivalent,’ he suggests. “Shrinkflation usually refers to less product being sold for the same price. In the case of the 46-oz bottle, the volume was lower, but so was the price. It is actually a fraction of a cent lower per ounce. $4.69/52oz = $0.09/oz, $3.99/46oz=$0.087/oz.”
He adds that the reduction of size and cost is an interesting move here, as the cost of the package doesn’t decrease at the same rate as the product. For example, a bottle and cap for a 32-oz bottle isn’t half the cost of one that is 64 oz. A move to 46oz at a lower price means the package is a larger percentage (albeit small) of the overall cost relative to 52 oz.
The reality is that the cost of materials, labor, and transportation are always going to increase. But consumers are going to be resistant to any type of cost or size change.
Here’s what The Tropicana Brand had to say about it: “The orange juice industry is facing several headwinds. Crop scarcity due to weather and disease coupled with macroeconomic inflation has driven costs beyond what we could absorb without compromising quality. While we’ve made every effort to keep prices stable, this modest increase ensures we can continue delivering the premium orange juice our customers expect. We’ll also continue to offer a variety of price points across our portfolio to help keep orange juice affordable.”
Indeed, according to Lindberg, “lightweighting is a great way to reduce costs to maintain price for the consumer. You can never underestimate the financial impact of shaving a gram or two off of millions of packages. Moving from a custom to a stock closure is another way to do this. It’s usually lighter and cheaper due to larger tooling and shared volume across multiple brands. Tropicana had already made the move from their more expensive custom closure to a stock closure as a cost-cutting measure prior to this new design, so the savings had already been realized.”
So it’s not nefarious or underhanded, as is often perceived by consumers. Brands are trying to stay competitive on shelf and keep the grocery bill as close to the same as possible, so a volume reduction is typically the way to do this as costs increase.
“We may recommend something like this only in a case where there is a significant benefit in molding, shipping, or shelf facings,” Lindberg says. “If, for example, we can get 20% more on a pallet/truck, 10% more parts in a mold, or an extra case on shelf, these numbers can provide the necessary cost savings while not increasing the cost to the consumer. You really have to look at the whole picture.”
Lindberg and I agree that, in a vacuum, the new package looks pretty good. The reduction of material is a good move towards sustainability. The reduced footprint allows for more efficient transportation and takes up less space in the fridge, even potentially fitting in a refrigerator door. While the overall consumer feedback has been negative, from what we’ve read, there are some consumers that prefer this design.
Was Tropicana prepared for the reaction?
Could Tropicana have gotten out in front of the negative reaction?A soft launch at a local, regional, or even national level may have been a way to gauge the market before committing to the new bottle shape, but they represent a pretty big commitment in their own right.
That’s especially true “when it comes to custom packaging,” Lindberg says. “A commercial change like this can cost north of $100 million depending on the level of infrastructure change. Any type of soft launch is very expensive, time consuming, and can ‘show your hand’ to your competition.”
Whether soft launched or fully committed to a new package design, a brand still has to produce, fill, label, and cap the bottles, conduct shelf and flavor testing, and do distribution tests. A major food and bev CPG can’t launch a new pack format until it’s fully vetted. Besides that, getting slotting to put it on shelf and not confuse customers is a challenge. It doesn’t appear that a soft launch occurred in this case—Tropicana preferred to go all in on the commitment, or maybe, to rip off the Band-Aid in one fell swoop to concentrate blowback over a shorter period.
“It’s a risk regardless. All change is risk, but for that matter, so is stagnation,” Lindberg says. “In-market soft-launch tests are typically more feasible for a brand new product or something like a new flavor launch. It’s very difficult to evaluate two different versions of the same product at the same time. Therefore, packaging changes like this one are typically done in a national roll-out versus a soft launch.
“I’m not sure if they didn’t conduct much research with their consumers or they got a false read by seeking to affirm rather than learn, but I think more research would have been critical. Understanding your consumer is paramount. That may have told them that they were okay with a new bottle, but not a smaller size. It may have told them that the shape can change, but there needs to be more in common with the current bottle. It may have even told them there would be a revolt if anything changed [but they proceeded anyway to rip off the Band-Aid]” he concludes. “Who knows. It’s pretty easy to provide feedback with hindsight, and that’s important to realize.”
In this e-book, you’ll learn key considerations for vertical and horizontal f/f/s and how to choose between premade bags and an f/f/s system. Plus, discover the pitfalls to avoid on bagging machinery projects.
INTRODUCING! The Latest Trends for All Industries at PACK EXPO Southeast
The exciting new PACK EXPO Southeast 2025 unites all vertical markets in one dynamic hub, generating more innovative answers to your production challenges. Don’t miss this extraordinary opportunity for your business!