I’ve sat across the table from enough Costco, Coles and Woolworths category buyers to tell you something most food founders don’t want to hear: your product doesn’t get rejected because it tastes wrong, because price is off or packaging does not communicate. It gets rejected because of it all.
That’s the whole game with food and beverage packaging. Not “does it look nice.” Does it work — on shelf, in a buyer’s hand, on a phone screen at 2am when someone’s scrolling and deciding whether to add to cart.
The 3-second shelf test
Shoppers scan a category before they read anything. They locate it, recognise a few cues, and only then do they actually read words. If your front panel needs more than three seconds to say “here’s what I am, here’s why I’m different, here’s who I’m for” — you’ve already lost that shopper to the pack next to yours.
I see this go wrong in the same few ways, over and over:
- Too many claims fighting for attention. Organic, gluten-free, high-protein, sustainably farmed, family-owned — pick two. Maybe three. Everything else goes on the back panel.
- No range architecture. If you’ve got six flavours and each one looks like it was designed by a different agency, you’re not building a brand — you’re building six separate fights for shelf space.
- Photography that undersells the product. Food needs to look like food. Flat, dark, poorly lit pack photography is one of the most common reasons a genuinely great product underperforms online.
What buyers are actually assessing
When I sit in front of a retail buyer with a client’s range, they’re not evaluating design taste. They’re running a checklist, whether they say it out loud or not:
- Does this pack communicate the category correctly in under 3 seconds?
- Does the range look like a family, or like six unrelated SKUs?
- Is there a clear reason to choose this over the incumbent on shelf?
- Will this photograph well for the retailer’s own marketing and app listings?
- Is the compliance information (weight, nutritional panel, barcode) handled cleanly, not bolted on as an afterthought?
Get those five right and you’ve done more for your ranging conversation than another six months of product tweaking.
Repurchase is a packaging problem too
Getting ranged is one battle. Getting bought again is the one that actually builds a business. Repurchase is driven by recognition — can a shopper find your product again next time, fast, without having to re-read everything? This is why consistent range design matters more than any single hero pack. A shopper who loved your original flavour needs to spot the new one on sight, not hunt for a small logo in the corner.
Where most food brands go wrong before they even get to design
Before a single concept gets drawn, most of the damage is already baked in — literally, in the brief. The founders who get the best packaging outcomes are the ones who come in with:
- A locked positioning (who this is for, and just as importantly, who it isn’t for)
- Real competitor teardown, not vibes
- Regulatory requirements identified early (nutritional panel format, country of origin labelling, any health claims that need substantiation)
Skip this and you’ll pay for it twice — once in wasted design rounds, and again when a claim gets flagged post-print.
What I’d do if this were my brand
If I were starting from where most of the founders I talk to are starting — a product that’s good, a pack that isn’t pulling its weight, and a ranging conversation coming up — I’d fix the front panel hierarchy first, get the range family relationship sorted second, and only then worry about anything else. Sustainability messaging, secondary claims, clever back-panel copy — none of it matters if the front panel can’t survive three seconds of shopper attention.
Want honest eyes on your current packaging before your next buyer meeting? In 15 minutes, we’ll tell you exactly what we’d fix first — no charge, no commitment. Book your free brand evaluation →
With Thay Javarroni · Creative Pop · Sydney-based FMCG packaging design & brand strategy
