Top Quality
- Simple but effective design
- Interactive aspects
- Nice stock - textured/strong/use of colour
- Colour and print process - gold, black, silver, white
- Luxury
- Use of embossing, foiling
- Intricate/complex nets
- Attention to detail
- Reverse patterns
- Strong branding design
- Attractive
- Eye catching and aesthetically pleasing
- Higher quality for higher quality brands e.g. Converse, MAC, Pandora
- Made and designed with the purpose of being kept for other uses or purely for their aesthetics
- Sustainability
Medium Quality
- Medium quality stock - cost considered slightly more than appearance/purpose/function
- Touch and feel of stock
- Functional with average design or non functional with good design
- Doesn't push the boundaries, middle of the road, mundane
- Basic nets
- Constant colour schemes
- Says something about the brand
- Average priced goods e.g. Ribena, Sainsburys
- Additional content
- Familiarity can lower a products quality
Low Quality
- Cheap aesthetics, cheap to touch
- Overcrowding
- Mimicking
- Poor quality images/photographs
- LOOKING mass produced
- Ephemera/disposable
- Bad stock - thin, not sturdy, can see signs of wear and tear
- Lots of gradients and use of tacky and unappealing colours **although colours can be contextual, signifiers**
- Bad quality - ink rubbing away, boxes breaking
- Used for low end brands e.g. Stateside Foods, ASDA's own, paracetamol boxes
- Noticeable across supermarket's own brands
- Disposable packaging, designed with the purpose of being thrown away after use
Things that are cheap don't need to look cheap
No comments:
Post a Comment