I know most people on /ck/ probably aren't design junkies like me, but the thing I find most sad about this GV type shit, or No Name, is the fact that simple, minimalist package designs can look GREAT, like most cereal boxes from the 50s and 60s.

The Lucky Charms and Honey Nut Cheerios aren't the best boxes but the Trix and Coca Puffs are terrific. Wal-Mart should do THIS minimalist style.

DAMN I wish I lived in the states.

because fancy, flashy packaging doesnt exactly scream 'great value'. plain, simple packaging increases the consumer's feeling of saving money.

>>1344893

It's simple, generic packaging.

It almost has beauty in it's simplicity.

And surprisingly enough, many of their generics taste just as good as the authentic product. Their take on Homel Chili for example is fuckwin. It's also a testament of the fact that their biggest concern is keeping costs down. Why spend millions on a label design budget when you can simply display the product in the box and be done with it?

I for one like the simplistic packaging.

Y'know, I really can't figure out why they went that way. I actually liked their old design. It wasn't fancy, but It was colorful.

I still buy mostly store brand stuff, but whatevs.

>>1344907
There's nothing beautiful about it. It violates every rule of good design. It's possible to do simplicity WITH good design.

>>1344906
I think that being attractive to the eye would be a greater advantage than appealing to a customer's sense of frugality.
At least while grocery shopping. I mean, they flat out look bad. I know they can do something much better with a white box other than this atrocity of graphic design.
It doesn't really scream "BUY ME", especially on a shelf next to name brand stuff.

Great Value products actually taste very good. I had Great Value Beef Jerky. Superior to Jack Links or Oberto

Saving ink for all those boxes saves Wal-mart millions a year. True story.

>>1344925
this

also if you've noticed, there is no sign of Sam's Choice, but Great Value is everywhere.

>>1344907
pic is an example of simple design that retains some sense of class.

As for new GV packaging, the font is terrible, the cheese and cracker diamonds are terrible, the purple stripe... it just looks awful. I know, it's just generic Wal-Mart shit, but do they have to rub it in that I'm broke as fuck? I can't even have a blue box with yellow cursive anymore?

Non brands get me like almost 2x the amount of food.

>>1344937
....aaaaaaaaaaand I forgot pic.

>>1344937
What pic?

'Austerity' is a better word for describing the new walmart packaging - people associate fancier packages with greater cost, so they believe they're getting a better deal on the products. The apparent lack of attention to design reinforces that notion, even if logically the printing costs aren't really any different (cardboard's natural color is not white).

people buy Great Value brand at walmart to save money or because they can't afford higher end foodstuffs

they don't shop there to look for modern design and art critique you dumb faggots

>>1344944
so? still cheaper

>>1344939
>>1344928
>>1344925

I agree and I understand about saving millions, this design scheme just makes me feel like I should be picking up my welfare check on the way home to my trailer. It could be so much better without costing more.

>>1344949
And it's still an advertising gimmick, they're trying to make everyone think that they're not blowing extra money on packaging. It's intentionally 'bad', not a lack of aesthetic understanding, somebody got paid to do it that way.

>>1344939

hell yeah, same amount and pretty much $2 cheaper

If you're poor and scraping the bottom of the bank account to buy food, why the fuck are you buying cheese crackers?