August 25, 2008
Stop & Shop and Giant Launch New Logos
By Tom Ryan
Ahold NV introduced a new logo for its two East Coast grocery chains as part of a revamping of the stores. The new, colorful logo unifies the look among Stop & Shop’s 355 stores and Giant’s 181 stores, and is designed to broadcast both chains’ ongoing upgrades.
Although they’ll share similar logos resembling a yellow bowl with three fruit-like shapes in different colors over it, the two chains will maintain their names and identities. Shop & Stop’s trademark red and green traffic lights had been its symbol since 1914. Giant’s big blue G with the red Giant in block letters has been in use since 1963.
“We are giving it a new, refreshed face to get consumers to notice that things inside the store have changed,” Jim Dwyer, executive vice president for strategy and business development at Giant and Stop & Shop, told The Washington Post.
In addition to refreshing the store signs and decor, Ahold is also adding new prepared foods, expanding its private label products line-up and adding shopping technology. Specific changes include new Delivision digital kiosks, designed to cut down deli lines; a hand-held device called Easy Shop that allows customers to scan and bag groceries as they shop; a new station for weighing produce; and a family-friendly checkout lane without tabloid magazines and candy.
Also planned is an extensive remodeling program, Project Refresh, that will focus on upgrading perishable-food departments and improving the look of stores with new floors and lighting over the next two-and-half years. The new look is also designed to highlight both chains’ Value Improvement Program. Under the program, 85 percent of products in categories such as paper products and health and beauty items were reduced over the past two years.
Caley Cantrell, a communications strategy professor at Virginia Commonwealth University Brandcenter, told The Washington Post that logos have become more important symbols in speaking for consumers.
“A logo is a design embodiment of a company’s point of a view, what a company’s belief system is and its place in the market,” Prof. Cantrell said. “As the market evolves, a company has to determine, ‘Do our outward symbols…have to evolve as well?’”
Greg Johnston, executive creative director for at Ogilvy, told the Post that Giant’s old logo seemed “cold and impersonal” and the new one looked “refreshing” and “friendlier,” but a logo alone cannot change consumers’ perceptions.
“A logo doesn’t just appear by itself. There’s always something that’s surrounded by it,” he said. “You have to have more than a logo for consumers to react positively or negatively to your brand.”
Discussion Questions: What do you think of Ahold’s decision to modernize the logos for Shop & Stop and Giant? What are the pros and cons of changing well-known logos? Do you think the chains should have waited until more of the store redesigns had been accomplished?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
Ahold’s US operations have been asleep at the wheel for years, particularly Giant which has seen its sales and market share eroded. Ahold was forced to sell off BI-LO, Brunos, and Tops, leaving many dark stores as a result. Therefore, Ahold has to get it together and get it together soon if they want to maintain what they have left.
I don’t like the idea of changing logos when a company has built up a successful identity (Harley Davidson, McDonald’s, etc), but when business turns sour, it’s time for a change. When there is a lot of consumer negativity associated with the logo, then the old logo needs to be upgraded.
As far as all the other changes go, such as Delivision kiosks and hand held Easy Shop devices, if these were good ideas, smarter, faster moving retailers such as Wegmans or Stew Leonard’s would have done this yesterday. Those changes appear to be designed to reduce labor and to get to consumer to do more of the work. The consumer might come to the conclusion that if customer service is better at Wegmans and prices are lower at Walmart, why would they want to pay higher prices at a store where they have to do all the scanning, bagging, and typing orders into kiosks? I think Ahold should focus on the basics instead of the bells and whistles.
Wow! Damning statements from everyone on this topic.
I can’t say that I disagree with anything that’s been said, but my take would be that there’s much to follow. We’ve been involved in projects where the logo is one of the first things to surface from the brand platform, acting as a beacon for other elements like store experience, customer service and even advertising, so…I’m willing, for a few minutes anyway, to give S&S a “wait and see” pass at this juncture.
It’s definitely a change signal…now let’s see some change.
I have mixed feelings about the logo change. It may change the look externally, but the change needs to happen within their stores.
The logo has a more environment friendly feel to it with the lighter colors and resembling slices of fruit. We will have to wait and see if they come up with a slogan that matches their new look. As always, the consumer will decide.
Someone is trying to hold on to his/her job. A logo change is a classic cosmetic approach to appear to be improving performance. Unless real in-store improvements are made, however, the new logo will take on the aspect of the Emperor’s new clothes. This is not always the case, of course, but with Ahold it seems to be. Repackaging the exact same product has often been tried by our CPG friends, and at best it only improves trial for a while and rarely improves adoption.
The logo means absolutely nothing if the products and service are as lousy as ever. I am extremely fortunate that I have other grocery options with better produce, better meats, and friendlier service than S&S. I never ever darken their doors if I can possibly avoid it. I walked out about 15 years ago and have maybe been in 15 times since then.
In ancient times a marketing guru said you should never put old wine in new skins. We still haven’t learned that lesson. The idea that “A logo is a design embodiment of a company’s point of a view, what a company’s belief system is and its place in the market” is a remarkable statement.
So I’m looking at the new logo depicting a sleek yellow bowl with mystery produce flying out of or into it. What I’m looking for in this embodiment is the company’s point of view–of what I’m not sure. But when I find out then I’ll seek to understand the company’s belief system. With that clear I’m sure I’ll also understand its place in the market. That’s the power of a new logo?
Now this is a simple and attractive design for sure, but thinking a new logo will create transformation is like a couple thinking they can fix their marriage by buying a bigger house.
OK–the new logo is just that and only that. We should get back to work on real change…as should the folks at Ahold.
Changing the logo is a clear signal to shoppers that things have changed, and in this situation, needed. If the shopping experience is improved–more convenient, better service and selection, consistent quality–Stop & Shop will become/continue to be a destination. However, engaging the shoppers attention at this level means shoppers will be judging things more closely, and failure to deliver a better experience will be costly.
The worst thing that could happen is that nothing actually changes for the customer experience. Changing the logo MUST be accompanied by obvious and pleasing changes in the customer experience, or else you have wasted both the cost of the new logo and the cost of the changes. In today’s IM world, I think the impact of the experience change might exceed the logo’s effect but the logo serves as a good marker.
Clearly, logos, identity and design are important and increasingly so, partly thanks to merchants like Target. However, merely changing a logo is the ultimate in form over substance, so it is refreshing that there are other changes that directly affect the customer experience and relationship.
The logo is definitely an improvement visually.
Changing logos can be an effective way to refresh and contemporize the brand. By the same token, it is a bold statement to consumers that something has changed and expectations are that along with a logo change, other things about the brand/store have also changed.
Make certain that those consumer expectations are met or even exceeded, whether that is in-store look and feel, new product, customer service, etc. I have seen examples where millions have been invested with a result of over promising and under delivering.
For a lot of folks, new logo = waste of money. Most supermarket shoppers would gladly trade one cent off their grocery bill if there was no logo at all, let alone a new one. No Kix from the new logo. Not Coked up on it. Not worth the Procter or the Gamble. Of course, the bosses are Frito change the logo. But the impact is gone with Febreze.
More Discussions
As Boomers ‘Age Out of Peak Purchasing,’ How Can National Brands Retain Interest With Gen Z?
According to a recent First Insight study titled “Is Gen Z Still Choosing Your Brand,” while…Is Supply Chain Volatility Here To Stay?
Can we expect an ongoing volatility to remain in terms of retail supply chain?Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?
Ahold’s US operations have been asleep at the wheel for years, particularly Giant which has seen its sales and market share eroded. Ahold was forced to sell off BI-LO, Brunos, and Tops, leaving many dark stores as a result. Therefore, Ahold has to get it together and get it together soon if they want to maintain what they have left.
I don’t like the idea of changing logos when a company has built up a successful identity (Harley Davidson, McDonald’s, etc), but when business turns sour, it’s time for a change. When there is a lot of consumer negativity associated with the logo, then the old logo needs to be upgraded.
As far as all the other changes go, such as Delivision kiosks and hand held Easy Shop devices, if these were good ideas, smarter, faster moving retailers such as Wegmans or Stew Leonard’s would have done this yesterday. Those changes appear to be designed to reduce labor and to get to consumer to do more of the work. The consumer might come to the conclusion that if customer service is better at Wegmans and prices are lower at Walmart, why would they want to pay higher prices at a store where they have to do all the scanning, bagging, and typing orders into kiosks? I think Ahold should focus on the basics instead of the bells and whistles.
Wow! Damning statements from everyone on this topic.
I can’t say that I disagree with anything that’s been said, but my take would be that there’s much to follow. We’ve been involved in projects where the logo is one of the first things to surface from the brand platform, acting as a beacon for other elements like store experience, customer service and even advertising, so…I’m willing, for a few minutes anyway, to give S&S a “wait and see” pass at this juncture.
It’s definitely a change signal…now let’s see some change.
I have mixed feelings about the logo change. It may change the look externally, but the change needs to happen within their stores.
The logo has a more environment friendly feel to it with the lighter colors and resembling slices of fruit. We will have to wait and see if they come up with a slogan that matches their new look. As always, the consumer will decide.
Someone is trying to hold on to his/her job. A logo change is a classic cosmetic approach to appear to be improving performance. Unless real in-store improvements are made, however, the new logo will take on the aspect of the Emperor’s new clothes. This is not always the case, of course, but with Ahold it seems to be. Repackaging the exact same product has often been tried by our CPG friends, and at best it only improves trial for a while and rarely improves adoption.
The logo means absolutely nothing if the products and service are as lousy as ever. I am extremely fortunate that I have other grocery options with better produce, better meats, and friendlier service than S&S. I never ever darken their doors if I can possibly avoid it. I walked out about 15 years ago and have maybe been in 15 times since then.
In ancient times a marketing guru said you should never put old wine in new skins. We still haven’t learned that lesson. The idea that “A logo is a design embodiment of a company’s point of a view, what a company’s belief system is and its place in the market” is a remarkable statement.
So I’m looking at the new logo depicting a sleek yellow bowl with mystery produce flying out of or into it. What I’m looking for in this embodiment is the company’s point of view–of what I’m not sure. But when I find out then I’ll seek to understand the company’s belief system. With that clear I’m sure I’ll also understand its place in the market. That’s the power of a new logo?
Now this is a simple and attractive design for sure, but thinking a new logo will create transformation is like a couple thinking they can fix their marriage by buying a bigger house.
OK–the new logo is just that and only that. We should get back to work on real change…as should the folks at Ahold.
Changing the logo is a clear signal to shoppers that things have changed, and in this situation, needed. If the shopping experience is improved–more convenient, better service and selection, consistent quality–Stop & Shop will become/continue to be a destination. However, engaging the shoppers attention at this level means shoppers will be judging things more closely, and failure to deliver a better experience will be costly.
The worst thing that could happen is that nothing actually changes for the customer experience. Changing the logo MUST be accompanied by obvious and pleasing changes in the customer experience, or else you have wasted both the cost of the new logo and the cost of the changes. In today’s IM world, I think the impact of the experience change might exceed the logo’s effect but the logo serves as a good marker.
Clearly, logos, identity and design are important and increasingly so, partly thanks to merchants like Target. However, merely changing a logo is the ultimate in form over substance, so it is refreshing that there are other changes that directly affect the customer experience and relationship.
The logo is definitely an improvement visually.
Changing logos can be an effective way to refresh and contemporize the brand. By the same token, it is a bold statement to consumers that something has changed and expectations are that along with a logo change, other things about the brand/store have also changed.
Make certain that those consumer expectations are met or even exceeded, whether that is in-store look and feel, new product, customer service, etc. I have seen examples where millions have been invested with a result of over promising and under delivering.
For a lot of folks, new logo = waste of money. Most supermarket shoppers would gladly trade one cent off their grocery bill if there was no logo at all, let alone a new one. No Kix from the new logo. Not Coked up on it. Not worth the Procter or the Gamble. Of course, the bosses are Frito change the logo. But the impact is gone with Febreze.