It shapes us, we shape it

When I sat to write this article, I closed my eyes to see which brand comes first to mind. To my surprise, it was the Kellogg's Corn Flakes brand. When I was a kid, they were my morning breakfast before going to school, as many other children at that time in the Western (and/or Western-inspired) regions. I remember the advertisements on our Lebanese television channels, from the crispy and sugary Frosties with Tony the Tiger – my absolute favourite! – to the crunchy Coco Pops, Fruit Loops, and many, many more!

I would look at the shelves in the supermarket to see if there was a new flavor out. I remember vividly – for a reason I am unaware of – when Rice Crispy Treats hit the market. I begged my mom to buy it for me, even though she knew and remarked every time that I would hand-pick the few marshmallow pieces included in the pack and leave the rest to be thrown out.

To this day, I find the classics in the supermarket. I am always tempted to buy my favorite flavors whenever I pass by the shelves, then I remember I’m an adult and they are probably not so healthy. The package design gives nostalgic feelings, butterflies in my stomach. I remember the taste, as it takes me back to my parents' kitchen. I can always recognize Tony the Tiger from afar, even though his mascot design has evolved with time.

In my view, in the specific case of packaging design and its evolution, Kellogg's has effectively balanced the new with the familiar. While the core product has remained constant, the brand has carefully and gradually introduced aesthetic novelties in its packaging design elements. 

Hard to make, Hard to break

As we established in the introductory article, a novel experience becomes familiar. A familiar experience, when repeated, becomes a habit. Habits are hard to make, but once put in place, they become automatic, and hard to break ¹. So when a habit is solidified with time, we tend to stick to it even if the alternative is easier to do. ²

In the world of branding, this is known as brand loyalty ³ – the cigarette brand you always smoke (even though you know they are not good for you), your go-to-coffee or ice cream brand, and so on. It’s the familiar brand that gives you a persistent, positive feeling and keeps you coming back for more. It’s a sort of relationship – we stick with it no matter its flaws, downsides, price tag, or what competitors offer.

A famous example is the 'New Coke' fiasco, which, in hindsight, became a test of brand loyalty versus product quality. In 1975, Pepsi conducted a blind taste test called the 'Pepsi Challenge', where it focused on taste rather than the brand. Most participants preferred Pepsi over Coca-Cola. Around the late 1970s and early 1980s, Coca-Cola’s market share declined for various reasons, including strong market presence of Pepsi after the 'Pepsi Challenge', which led to a shift in consumer preferences. In response to the crisis, Coca-Cola decided to reformulate its original recipe. After conducting extensive taste testing, the reformulated product scored favorably compared to the original formula and Pepsi, before the launch of 'New Coke' in April 1985 ⁴. However, instead of revitalizing the brand and gaining market share in the beverage industry, the change was widely rejected ⁵. In fact, some consumers hoarded or resold original Coke at premium prices. ⁶

While Pepsi's 1975 campaign encouraged consumers to choose based on taste rather than brand loyalty, Coca-Cola’s response, although non-intentionally, showed how deep the emotional connection to a brand can be, regardless of the product merit.

 "I think, by the end of their nightmare, they figured out who they really are. Caretakers. They can't change the taste of their flagship brand. They can't change its imagery. All they can do is defend the heritage they nearly abandoned in 1985," – Roger Enrico, CEO of Pepsi-Cola USA ⁷

The 'New Coke' case is a perfect example of how drastically changing something deeply familiar can become a faux pas – especially when it’s a source of comfort and connection When a company makes a significant change to a core product, it might not fully consider all the aspects involved, which can lead to unwanted or unintended consequences. 

This misstep is a reminder that innovation must be balanced with familiarity. Push too far, you risk alienating or angering loyal customers. The key is knowing how much novelty a brand can introduce before tipping the equilibrium.

Beware the double-edged sword

Change is hard for all of us, yet it is one of life's certainties. Comfort is nice – it feels cozy and safe. But clinging to it too tightly can lead to stagnation, preventing us from growing, learning, and adapting to the constant changes around us. Just as we must adapt, brands also need to be flexible and evolve in a fast-changing world, especially with technology advancing faster than ever. Products and services are constantly pivoting just to keep up, or disappearing due to irrelevance.

By 2009, BlackBerry held around 20% of the global phone market share, making them the second-largest smartphone operating system worldwide – until they were eventually overshadowed by Apple and Google ⁸. Several factors contributed to their downfall, including strategic missteps like their failure to see the smartphone market shift from the corporate world to a consumer-led app-economy. BlackBerry failed to recognize that smartphones would become 'all-in-one entertainment hubs' ⁹. Their loyalty to the design feature that gave them their rise also played a significant role in their downfall: the keyboard. 

BlackBerry was ahead of its time, pioneering ‘push email’ – letting users receive emails instantly. Back then, they nailed it. But what truly set BlackBerry apart was their full QWERTY keyboard and its design. The tactility and typing efficiency made it indispensable for managing emails and messages, keeping users constantly engaged. Typing was effortless and delicious. The sound of rapid typing, the feel of its small keyboard buttons – despite their size, we could type quickly without making too many mistakes. It kickstarted and reinforced the infamous cycle of frequent checking and responding, turning the device into more than just a tool, but a collective habit. BlackBerry’s keyboard shaped a unique user experience that people became deeply attached to. This combination earned it the nickname ‘CrackBerry‘ ¹⁰. Users weren’t just using their phones, they were hooked!

Yet, despite nailing these key aspects of the future – like ‘push email‘, which evolved into today’s ‘push notifications‘ – BlackBerry failed to anticipate how consumer habits would shift. When the shift occurred, Blackberry simply couldn’t accept the idea of going full touchscreen and ditching the keyboard, and to be honest, I get that. This resistance gave competitors the chance to offer bigger screens and better visuals, turning cellphones into entertainment devices rather than just business tools. By the time Blackberry realized that touchscreen devices were the future, it was too late. The device was perceived as a poor imitation of the iPhone ¹¹. 

BlackBerry’s downfall became a perfect case study of what happens when a tech giant fails to adapt in a fast-moving consumer technology market. In short, a brand’s initial success – i.e., the adaptation of the computer keyboard into a smaller yet easy-to-use smartphone version, striking the right balance between novelty and familiarity – can, ironically, become a liability if it stops evolving or adapting to newer trends.

Slow and steady

As many kids, parents, and adult siblings can attest, we all remember the feeling of accidentally stepping barefoot on a Lego brick – it hurts! This feeling is familiar to many of us; there are even plenty of memes illustrating this specific experience. Lego bricks are found in many households, whether scattered across kitchen and living room floors, stuck in our vacuum cleaners, or stored in our basements and completely forgotten. Many tech companies were able to adapt as technology evolved – I can imagine that it’s because it would be more relevant for them, dealing with, well, technology. However, Lego’s core physicality in its product, and its ability for technological innovation and adaptability is quite remarkable. This toy company has outlived all the immense global shifts, particularly in the digital gaming market, and continues to thrive, now aiming to lead that shift, while staying loyal to its original brand artifact: the brick. 

A study by Schultz, Hatch, and Ciccolella (2006) called Brand Life in Symbols and Artifacts: The LEGO Company ¹², highlights the distinctive components that made the LEGO brand memorable and helped it navigate through all the market changes. 

Most people associate brands with unique artifacts and symbols. Artifacts are tangible, physical elements that a brand uses to represent itself – things people can touch, see, and engage with, such as the LEGO brick. Symbols, on the other hand, are more abstract; for example, a brand’s logo or color scheme can serve as a symbol. Consumer research shows that strong brand artifacts not only serve as recognizable representations, but also help transfer meaning from the brand to the individual, becoming a part of their identity and self-expression, all the while building a lasting relationship between them and the brand ¹³. 

LEGO has used its artifacts in a clever and consistent way throughout its history. In 1949, LEGO transitioned from wooden toys to plastic bricks, giving rise to the iconic brick we all know today. The minifigure was introduced later in 1978, becoming the second artifact within LEGO’s brand, alongside the brick, both in terms of material production and cultural symbols.
The brick became a symbol of creativity. The open structure of LEGO toys invites children (and adults) to be open and creative, allowing them to build representations of their worlds and imagination, and disassemble whatever they create. There is a connection we feel when we actively engage with the bricks. This connection evolves into a relationship, filled with emotions, memories and nostalgia. It has a much stronger impact on people than simply playing with ‘pre-assembled’ toys ¹⁴. The LEGO minifigure allows users to personalize their creations, making them more relatable and human. The simple design of both the brick and the minifigure made them universally understandable across cultures, even for those who did not speak Danish. Plus, the minifigure had no specific human-based skin color or stereotypically defined body shape, making it a figure that allowed a wide range of people to relate to it.

Since 1949, only a few features have been slowly introduced. For many years, the bricks were made in primary colors, with only a few shapes and sizes to choose from. The first radical change came in 1962 with the introduction of the wheels, followed by the gear wheels and technical plates with holes 15 years later, following the small gear stick in 1985. This timeline is highlighted here to show you LEGO's steady and thoughtful transformation over the years.¹⁵ 

After decades of success, LEGO faced financial difficulties in the early 2000s. In response, the company streamlined product lines and embraced innovation, digital ventures, and strategic partnerships with popular franchises. LEGO shifted its focus from the physicality of the product to the ideas behind it, emphasizing the company's values, beliefs, and mission as the core of the brand ¹⁶. This return to its roots as a values-driven company, highlighted by the founder’s motto, ‘Only the best is good enough,’ reinforced its commitment to quality and play ¹⁷. This strategy extended into their digital play experience as the process progressed. So to keep up with technological shifts in gaming, LEGO Interactive was established as a separate division to introduce digital play. From early on, employees transferred the brick and minifigure – LEGO’s key artifacts – into the digital realm, creating a new 3D 'brick universe'. Over time, the brand’s core values (the idea behind the brick) were gradually woven into the LEGO digital gaming experience. ¹⁸

The journey of creating LEGO video games wasn’t about translating a physical product into a digital format. It was rather focusing on exploring how these two forms of play could intersect, and how that blend gave rise to an entirely new kind of play. LEGO wanted to make sure that digital experiences didn’t replace physical play but would instead enhance, extend, and enrich it. This way of thinking created a whole new way of game concept called 'fluid play'. LEGO is now designing toys that let players effortlessly transition between the physical and digital worlds ¹⁹. I totally dig that! I believe this strikes at their core values – rather than pivoting and mimicking other gaming companies, just to keep up (which could have been a disaster), they redirected themselves in a way that allowed them to create a novel play experience while keeping the company’s foundational pillars firmly grounded. Maybe BlackBerry should have taken a page from LEGO’s playbook and mastered the delicate balance between novelty and familiarity.

The seesaw effect

"Controlled innovation has clearly worked. That is the lesson learned at LEGO — just in time."  – David Robertson ²⁰

There are many examples that show how the right balance of novelty and familiarity can lead to success, such as brands like Google, Kellogg’s, IBM, LEGO, and many more. They show how slow and steady implementation of innovation, while understanding and maintaining the core familiar components within the brand intact, is an effective way to introduce novelty to the people we are designing for. 

However, this doesn’t mean there aren’t real-life examples of brands making intentionally novel or deeply traditional decisions – and succeeding. Coca-Cola has made deliberate choices to maintain a traditional brand identity, focusing on its classic formula (after learning its lesson), branding, and nostalgic imagery, while Tesla has disrupted the automotive industry, transforming electric cars from a niche market into a global phenomenon. ²¹

Now, I’m going to leave you with this thought: If I asked you to close your eyes and think of a childhood brand, which one would come to mind?