Target on the ‘Up & Up’ with Private Label

Ms. Tesija’s logic is backward: “We believe that it will stand out on the shelf, and it is so distinctive that we’ll get new guests that will want to try it that maybe didn’t even notice the Target brand before.” New guests (or customers, as the rest of us call them) are unlikely to walk into a Target store for the first time in order to buy a private label they never saw before. More important, one of the key ingredients in Target’s brand equity is the red bullseye logo. Almost every other company in America (retailers and others) would kill to have a logo this recognizable and powerful. Target is certainly within its rights to rethink its private labels, and many other private-brand categories in the store do not exploit the bullseye. But did they have to come up with something so bland and unmemorable?

George makes the assumption that Target has researched this and received positive results. I wouldn’t be so sure. And when was the last time we heard someone switching from Kroger to Publix or Jewel to Dominick’s or Ralphs to Safeway because of their private label products?

I agree with the previous comments about the importance and desirability of a logo that brings about instant recognition and reinforces brand equity. It’s hard to understand why Target would want to dismiss that on-sight connection. I’m curious to know the testing that was done to demonstrate the upside value of the new package design and logo. Furthermore, testing should be able gauge any downside risk.

Here are package design criteria I would have recommended to include in the marketing research: shelf impact, variety and benefit differentiation, label readability/identification of content, imagery (e.g. quality product, good value for the money) conveyed, stimulation of purchase interest and finally, overall attractiveness.

To use these criteria for change as important as Target is undergoing the research would have to be quantitative with measures that are direct, not inferences about the packaging dynamics. Perhaps Target did this kind of research, although the change with no link to their well-established iconic branding makes it hard to believe.

If Target could demonstrate an upside in the design for attracting new buyers for their private label without alienating (or being overlooked by) their current franchise, that could have been a reason to move ahead.

I’ve been yapping about private label over the last few months and I’m all about divergence from the norm. I wholeheartedly applaud Target’s move. The bulls eye is great, but if they really want to penetrate, they will create new brands within their PL category.

People want value but they will not sacrifice quality at this point in time. The stigma of the ‘house brand’ is still apparent so it is wise to create new labels.

Take a cue from Loblaws. They have different tiers of value and quality within their house brand program. I’m looking forward to seeing the layouts and merchandising for the new lines.

Target tries a lot of new things to stay relevant to the shoppers, but this logo design is odd to me. It’s really generic and doesn’t feel at all upscale. But, I defer to the shoppers and will be interested to watch what they do with it from a marketing POV. They need to create meaning for the brand name, so let’s give them a shot at that and see how consumers respond. They’re a smart retailer and I have to think they are doing some sort of listening to the shoppers.

Perhaps this is a nod to the “downwardly less affluent” not wanting the world to see they shop at Target. Just a hunch but I doubt Target is as stupid as some of these commentators think.

I don’t think there is an obvious answer. Target does have the problem that the bulls eye, while visibly striking and iconic outside of their store, is so ubiquitous within the store that it does blend in. Meanwhile, Archer Farms is a food brand that doesn’t logically extend to H&B. So the idea of developing another brand sounds reasonable to me.

I hear Walmart cheering. No one will identify the new logo with Target. If Target is trying to get in store consumers to purchase a new brand, it might work. If Target is trying to get current consumers who are in the store and havve some affinity for Target to buy Target products, this is a mistake. At the very least the arrow should be Rex on a white background to affiliate it with Target. Big mistake in my opinion.

Good to see contrary opinions to our negative reaction. That said, it’s hard to argue that Trader Joe’s, Trader Jose’s, Trader Darwin, etc. on that chain’s various store brands brings down the image of its private label products. From our perspective, the bull’s-eye has a well-established reputation for quality. Moving away from from a known positive image to a new and unknown logo still has us confused.

My colleagues are correct. However, there is even a more basic approach to this that most are forgetting: Private label is all about appearing to be similar to the national brand at a much lower price. Getting all of the product benefits without paying for the national brand is what private labeling is all about. It is not necessary to stand out when the product is placed next to the national brand and looks like the national brand, has the perceived value of the national brand, yet costs much less.

Private label brands are not destination products, but are instead impulse purchases when customers are considering a national brand. Target is wasting their monies and product positioning when they continually re-invent a private brand. Stick to the basics and they will continue to see success and the increased profits that private labels bring.

The great thing about PL is that it usually takes eons to build a “following” for the simple reason PL isn’t advertised. Product benefits and attributes have to be learned by trial. From that point of view Target doesn’t have much to lose.

By the same token they don’t have much to gain either. Facts are that they can only sell to their shoppers. One mistake that many have made in PL is to reduce alternative products (national brands). Target has already done this and, in fact I will no longer even go in their grocery section because the PL push is so strong (pushed me out of the store).

The only positive thing that will come out of a revamp of PL packaging is that they might hire a few more people.

Looks like they’re trying the plain white look, which so many companies like Apple, Philips and countless others have done in the past 5 years. White packaging stood out when iPods came around, but on shelf it’s not so distinctive anymore. The art doesn’t look that great to me. But at least the font colours are blue. Think how much worse it would be if it was black lettering.

The big change in the logo is the use of words. “Up & Up” suggests a whole lot more than the bulls-eye image and the timing for this message couldn’t be better. I am Canadian, but I imagine there are a lot of Americans shopping Target for their designer brands that can no longer afford them.

The new look aside, the message is clear. You can buy PL and don’t have to be embarrassed. Target does have quality PL products and I am sure they are more profitable than their designer brands. What a great way to keep their primary customer base happy and make more money in the process.