The short version
Most package redesigns don’t fail because the design was wrong. They fail because the team never verified it was right. For roughly a decade, CPG brands stripped their packaging down to cleaner, minimalist, digital-first aesthetics, a trend the industry calls blanding, and many recognizable brands became indistinguishable from a private-label flanker. The data isn’t ambiguous: only around 15% of brand assets are genuinely distinctive, and approximately 62% of package redesigns hurt sales or produce no measurable lift, according to Designalytics. That’s a validation problem, not a design-quality problem.
The brands growing fastest reinvested in what made them recognizable. Pillsbury brought back the Doughboy, named Standout Brand Mascot of 2025 by Advertising Week. Planters restored Mr. Peanut. Kraft Heinz committed $600 million to reviving its US portfolio, with Kool-Aid investment set to increase 70% in 2026, per CNBC. Olipop grew revenue to approximately $400 million, per Spocket, and Poppi was acquired by PepsiCo for $1.95 billion, both on packaging that was immediately identifiable. Cadbury defends its Pantone 2685C purple in court because ownable color is competitive infrastructure. Before briefing an agency, run the five-question distinctiveness audit (ownership, recall at a glance, character, craft, coherence), identify the recoverable asset, design with production specs, proof the move in a production-matched comp, and validate it on-shelf, not on-screen. What makes a redesign genuinely safe isn’t the design itself. It’s proving the design in the right medium, at the right fidelity, before the investment is committed.
What is blanding in packaging?
Blanding is the decade-long trend of stripping brand assets down to cleaner, minimalist, digital-first packaging: removing the mascot, simplifying the palette, muting the distinctive cues. It looks disciplined on a monitor and modern in a brief, but on shelf it can make a brand that built recognition over decades indistinguishable from a private-label flanker. The risk in packaging was never bold. It was invisible.
How can you tell if a brand asset is genuinely distinctive?
Remove the logo and the wordmark, then ask whether a shopper can still identify the brand from what remains in under one second. A genuinely distinctive asset triggers accurate brand identification with no brand name present, and it belongs to your brand alone; if the same element could sit on a competitor’s pack without looking wrong, it’s a category signal, not a brand signal. Research suggests only around 15% of brand assets clear that bar.
Why do most package redesigns fail?
Most redesigns don’t fail because the design was wrong. They fail because the team never verified it was right. Approximately 62% of package redesigns hurt sales or produce no measurable lift, according to Designalytics, largely because the decision is made in environments a monitor, a white-background PDF, an isolated render that can’t replicate the shelf. It’s a validation problem, not a design-quality problem.
Why validate a redesign physically instead of on screen?
A monitor displays color in RGB, while print produces color through CMYK ink, varnish, and substrate, and no calibration fully closes the gap. Texture, finish, and structure only communicate when the pack is held, and a design only proves itself faced on a real shelf against competitors under retail lighting. A production-matched comp is the lowest-risk place in the system to catch a problem, because it can be held, placed on a mock shelf, and tested by shoppers before tooling and print are committed.
Bob Jennings is the CEO of 3D Color, where comps, prototypes, and sales samples are 100% of the business. If your team is evaluating a packaging redesign and hasn’t yet held a production-matched proof, reach him at bob.jennings@3dcolor.com. This piece is part of Insights, 3D Color’s ongoing series on the future of packaging and design.