Rebranding Buried Cane, part 6 – Here we go again
In July 2010 we started the most recent round of Buried Cane label design. We turned to a wine label designer with whom we’ve worked previously, but someone who hasn’t worked on any previous approaches to Buried Cane.
The creative brief emphasized Washington, Family, and Winery. While we didn’t ban use of concepts previously used on Buried Cane labels (both the current label and design rounds from other designers), we encouraged a “clean slate” approach to the process.
We shared a selection of labels offered by one of our sales reps as “good labels.” That selection included labels with similar design components and approaches to many we had already dismissed. Yes, this process gets confusing and disorienting at times. I specifically avoid identifying any personal preferences, myself, and simply try to “meet the need” and please those above me. Otherwise I could end up fighting for things that might not work, and in which I don’t have total faith. You’ll never hear DAH say, “I like this one” when talking about possible designs.
I reviewed a preliminary round with the designer in late August, then requested that he consider another design direction, too (a direction already requested by someone above me in the company). We then presented a round of a dozen or so different design comps to our wine company leaders in a four-way conference call.
Several of the comps presented and “liked” were akin to past designs (that always happens). But we all recognized that new directions were desirable. We’re now waiting for a revised round, which should come next week. Then on to the finish line!
Meanwhile, we’re bottling the current vintage of Buried Cane wines (2009 vintage) without labels and with stock black screwcaps. We had to put the wine in bottle, even though the bottle mold and screwcap choice will clearly impact the ultimate package. Reality and urgency often interrupt or distort the design process. Time marches on.
DAH is David Anthony HanceShare on Facebook