Visually communicating ‘honesty’: A semiotic
analysis of Dorset Cereals’ packaging
Jessica Burrows
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
BA (Hons) Communications Studies
Institute of Communications Studies, University of Leeds
May 2013
Supervisor: Katy Parry
Word count: 10,836
ABSTRACT
With its ‘halo’ logo and brand name alone, Innocent declares its innocence. With consumer
trust at an all-time low, guilt-free and honest brands are much-needed in today’s marketplace.
Dorset Cereals marketing tagline reads, ‘honest, tasty and real’, but how does this brand
convey these notions of honesty? Using semiotic analysis, this study investigates how Dorset
Cereals visually communicates its brand values of honesty through packaging design. This
study applies the work of Saussure, Barthes, and Williamson to explore how Dorset Cereals
uses pre-existing systems of meanings and widely-held consumer beliefs to construct its
vision of honesty.
1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thank you to Katy Parry, Darren Foley, Tessa Stuart, Stergios Bititsios, and Tom Norris.
2
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
Honesty definition...............................................................................................................................4
Honest branding..................................................................................................................................5
Dorset Cereals: ‘honest, tasty and real’..............................................................................................7
Why study Dorset Cereals’ packaging?..............................................................................................8
LITERATURE REVIEW
Signifier and Signified......................................................................................................................10
Denotation and Connotation.............................................................................................................11
The System of Signs.........................................................................................................................12
Advertising and Semiotics................................................................................................................14
METHOD............................................................................................................................................18
FINDINGS..........................................................................................................................................21
Nature as a referent...........................................................................................................................21
Controlled Culture............................................................................................................................22
‘Look no dust!’.................................................................................................................................24
CRITICAL DISCUSSION
‘Hollowing out’.................................................................................................................................27
The whole picture.............................................................................................................................27
If Dorset Cereals was a person.........................................................................................................28
What Dorset Cereals is not...............................................................................................................28
Meanings are not fixed in nature......................................................................................................29
Dorset Cereals’ paradox...................................................................................................................31
CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................................33
Conventionalisation..........................................................................................................................34
Suggestions for further study............................................................................................................35
FIGURES............................................................................................................................................37
BIBLIOGRAPHY.............................................................................................................................47
3
Honest (adjective)
1.
not given to lying, cheating, stealing, etc.; trustworthy
2.
not false or misleading; genuine
3.
just or fair ⇒ honest wages
4.
characterized by sincerity and candour ⇒ an honest appraisal
5.
without pretensions or artificial traits ⇒ honest farmers
Collins Dictionary, 2013
4
INTRODUCTION
Honest branding
In the early 2000s, trend forecasters and marketers predicted that there would be a
‘renewed emphasis on honesty’ in visual and verbal brand communications (Allen and
Simmons, 2003: 125). In the current economic and political climate, consumer trust is at an
all-time low (Mellor, 2012). Businesses and institutions are using ‘honest branding’ in an
attempt to regain the trust and faith of a seemingly untrusting and cynical public (Allen and
Simmons, 2003, Rogers, 2004, Kemp, 2013). The recent horse meat scandal, whereby horse
DNA traces were found in beef burgers in British supermarkets, exemplifies dishonest
commercial practices, in that the public were misled with fraudulent communications and
counterfeit produce. The food and drink industry is not short of dishonest and unethical
practice, particularly from the leading global FMCGs (fast-moving consumer goods
companies) and retailers. Over the years, industry leaders, such as Tesco, Nestlé, and CocaCola, have become synonymous with unethical resourcing, unsustainable environmental
practices, opaque supply chains, deceitful marketing, and synthetic means of production
(Mennell, et al., 1992).
In effect, this leaves a gap in the market for ‘honest’ food and drink brands that
champion fair trade, environmental sustainability, local sourcing, transparent marketing, and
‘as nature intended it’ methods of production. The late 1970s saw this gap in the market filled
by entrepreneurial foodies who were committed to ‘changing the world’ (The Food
Programme, 2009: 06:50). In 1978, the homemade ice cream makers Ben & Jerrys strived to
bring ‘radical fervour and good taste to the US food business’, while in the 1990s, Green &
Blacks set ‘new organic standards for the chocolate industry’ (The Food Programme, 2009:
Ibid.). Dorset Cereals, Bear Nibbles, Yeo Valley, Clipper Tea, and many more make up this
niche-but-ever-expanding market of ‘honest’ food brands (Figure 1). These brands celebrate
5
‘nothing but naked nature’, producing ‘unadulterated’ food and drink with a ‘clear
conscience’ (Bear Nibbles, 2013; Dorset Cereals, 2013b; Clipper Tea, 2013). Brand such as
these aim to provide an alternative to the multinationals’ unnatural offerings in advocating
the artisanal and authentic methods of the independent, honest famer (Roth, 1976, Atkinson,
1979, Mennell, et al., 1992, Taylor, 2012). In essence, these ‘honest’ brands serve as the
antithesis to the Tescos, Nestlés, and Coca-Colas of the food and drink industry.
These brands make food in an ‘honest’ way (without artificial traits and unethical
practices) and are ‘honest’ in their communications (they do not hide information or deceive
their publics). But how do these brands communicate their honest credentials on shelf? How
can they differentiate themselves from the dishonest, unethical and inauthentic offerings in
the supermarket? Honesty is a human construction so how can this be applied to food
branding? Visualising honesty is a difficult challenge since honesty cannot be seen and does
not exist in our tangible environment; honesty can only be known or experienced.
Fruit smoothie and veg-pot maker, Innocent, executes ‘honest’ branding
exceptionally well in that it materialises honesty visually (Figure 2). Innocent makes food ‘as
a kid would’ with fruit, vegetables, and ‘no funny business’ (Computer Arts, 2007; Innocent,
2013). In conjunction with this ‘child-like’ methodology, the company’s brand name and halo
logo urge consumers to arrive at the assumption that Innocent, like a young child or mythical
angel, are incapable of deceit and are guilt-free (unlike the multinationals). Additionally, with
its use of twee and colloquial language (‘are you looking at my bottom?’) on its packaging,
the brand immediately strikes ups a friendly rapport with consumers in store. Brands
desperately want to emulate Innocent’s innocence in a bid to restore trust and faith in their
products and services (Computer Arts, 2007, O’Reilly, 2012).
6
Evidently, to come across as honest and trustworthy brands have to do more than
verbally state the words ‘we are honest, you can trust us’. Like Innocent, brands must
nonverbally and inexplicitly convey these notions through use of language and design. This
study investigates how notions of honesty are conveyed visually via packaging design,
looking particularly at Dorset-based breakfast company Dorset Cereals. Dorset Cereals
brands itself as ‘honest, tasty and real’ (Dorset Cereals, 2013b), but how does the packaging
communicate these values? Using semiotic analysis, this study deconstructs Dorset Cereal’s
packaging to examine how the brand reinforces its ‘honest’ values through visual
communication. This study considers how texture, typography, colour and design details
contribute to the construction and visualisation of Dorset Cereals’ ‘honesty’. This study aims
to investigate what honesty looks like in 2012/13.
Dorset Cereals: ‘honest, tasty and real’
Dorset Cereals is a premium food company based in Dorset, South-West England
that has been making breakfast muesli since 1987 (Dorset Cereals, 2013a). Dorset Cereals
prides itself on creating ‘unadulterated breakfasts that are honest, tasty and real’ with
‘minimal processing, and with no artificial flavourings, colourings or preservatives’ (Dorset
Cereals, 2013b; Wellness Foods, 2013). Dorset Cereals’ range of mueslis, granolas, porridges
and cereal bars are sold in all major supermarkets in the UK and are exported to 70 countries
worldwide. The brand is owned by the Wellness Food Group which also owns Rowse Honey
and Grove Fresh Organic Fruit Juice. Dorset Cereals states that the Wellness Food Group
shares the same ‘vision of creating honest, tasty and real healthy food’ (Dorset Cereals,
2013d). In 2005, Dorset Cereals’ product packaging underwent a ‘big redesign’ (Dorset
Cereals, 2013a) courtesy of London-based branding and design consultancy, Big Fish. Along
with Dorset Cereals, Big Fish also works with Yeo Valley, Gü Puds, Clipper Tea, Tyrrel’s
Crisps and Belvoir Fruit Farms. Before Big Fish’s redesign, Dorset Cereals was packaged in
7
plastic and looked ‘more at home in a pet store than the top shelves of Waitrose’ (Big Fish,
2013).
As Dorset Cereals had no budget for above-the-line advertising (national advertising
campaigns), Big Fish was faced with the challenge of delivering brand communications
through packaging alone, or through ‘packvertising’, as Founder and Creative Director of Big
Fish, Perry Haydn Taylor, has dubbed it (Taylor, 2012). Equating packaging design with the
educative and communicative power of traditional advertising platforms, Taylor comments:
‘We use our packs as our best media, we treat them as if they were advertising media’ (2012:
00.27mins). In 2007, Dorset Cereals won a Design Business Association’s (DBA) Design
Effectiveness Award for its packaging design (Figure 3). Due to Dorset Cereal’s effective
‘packvertising’, today sales are up from £4m per year to £45m and Dorset Cereals is the
second-best seller in its category after Alpen, owned by Weetabix (Big Fish, 2013).
Why study Dorset Cereals’ packaging?
Without ATL advertising, Dorset Cereals has had immense commercial success
through the medium of packaging alone (Warc, 2007, Taylor, 2012)*. Yet, despite
packaging’s communicative power, it is marginally ignored as a site of signification and has
received little semiotic or academic attention (Schroeder, 2002, Rundh, 2005, Leeuwen and
Kress, 2006). As Big Fish’s Taylor concedes, packaging is on a par with traditional
advertising. In fact, market trends suggest that packaging has become a fully-fledged
marketing tool in its own right, which is increasingly being leveraged to break through
‘competitive clutter’ on supermarket shelves, aiming to significantly change consumer
perception (Underwood, et al., 2004: 403, Rundh, 2005, Ambrose and Harris, 2011, Agariya,
et al., 2012). Perhaps the mundane ritual of food shopping and the ‘everydayness’ of eating
and drinking could be the reason behind why ‘packvertising’ has undergone minimal research
8
in the past. Nonetheless, the general dismissal of packaging as a legitimate form of
advertising and its denial of academic attention, particularly in the field of Communications,
is all the more reason to study it.
As we have agreed, packaging is a form of advertising and advertisements require
decoding. It is thought that advertisements are the pictorial manifestation of the hegemonic
ideologies of the day (Barthes, 1973, Williamson, 1978, Dyer, 1982, Fiske, 1990, Fowles,
1996, Cook, 2003, Rose, 2012). Advertisements are ‘never ideologically impartial’ (Goldman
and Papson, 1996: 85). Rather, they are infused with meanings, and studying them can reveal
much about the cultures in which they operate (Williamson, 1978, Thwaites, Davis and
Mules, 1994, Lacey, 1998, Schroeder, 2002, Cook, 2003, Aiello, 2006). Visual cultural
theorist Johanna Drucker comments how visual texts ‘inscribe ideological values and cultural
attitudes’ that are ‘potent indices of the social conditions in which they are produced’ (in
Schroeder, 2002: 116). Similarly, Grant McCracken states that ‘advertising serves us as a
lexicon of current cultural meanings’ (1988: 79). As Fowles comments, ‘The future may
know us through our advertising and popular culture’ (1996: xiv). In essence, advertisements
are telling of their time. The way in which Dorset Cereals brands itself as ‘honest’ and ‘real’
is perhaps indicative of the fears of modern society: we live in a world which is dishonest,
inauthentic and artificial.
Advertisements also contribute to our understanding the world (Berger, 2005a). Is
Dorset Cereals’ packaging contributing to our visual understanding of ‘honesty’? If so, how?
To understand this, we must first understand how meaning is created, leading onto the next
section on semiotics.
*DC also operate online communications, however this is only a useful marketing tool if consumers are
aware of it. EDIT: At the time of writing, Dorset Cereals had no ATL advertising. As of 8th April 2013
Dorset Cereals aired its first national television advertisement.
9
LITERATURE REVIEW
Semiotics: the key to understanding how we understand
Signifier and Signified
Understanding the hidden yet obvious signs of everyday communicative systems,
such as body language, music, speech, art, literature, etc., can lead to an understanding of
how we understand (Leeds-Hurwitz, 1993, Bignell, 2002, Chandler, 2005). It is the ‘banality
of meaning’ and the sense-making of that which is taken for granted is what semiotics is
primarily concerned with (Thwaites, et al., 1994: 7, Thwaites and Davis, 2002: 9, Lacey,
1998, Chandler, 2005). For semioticians, the way in which we make sense of our world and
our reality is via signs (Fiske, 1990, Lacey, 1998, Chandler, 2005). A sign is the term used
for a word, image or sound which carries meaning. Signs are used to represent or stand in for
something else (Fiske, 1990, Fowles, 1996, Hall, 1997, Schroeder, 2002, Thwaites and Davis,
2002, Berger, 2005). According to Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure (1966), a sign is
made up of a signifier and a signified. Saussure believes that the signifier (the form: the word,
image or sound) gives way to the signified (the concept or idea we think of in our minds once
we encounter the signifier). The signified is conjured by the signifier (Fiske, 1990, Hall,
1997, Berger, 2005).
Most importantly, Saussure argued that the relationship between the signifier and the
signified is arbitrary (Fiske, 1990, Hall, 1997, Lacey, 1998, Berger, 2005). The relationship
between the signifier and the signified is cemented by ‘convention, rule or agreement among
the users’ (Fiske, 1990: 52). For instance, the four-letter word ‘T.R.E.E.’ (signifier) bears no
relation to the real thing: a tall plant with leaves and bark (signified). Any other word, such as
‘frog’ or ‘grape’ would suffice as the word (signifier) to represent a tall plant with leaves and
bark – as long as it were agreed among the culture (in this instance, an English-speaking
culture). Alluding to this, Stuart Hall (1997: 21) explains how the French word for ‘tree’
10
(‘arbre’) is different in its spelling and pronunciation to the English word. Despite this, Hall
argues that the mental concepts in the mind of a French-speaking person and an Englishspeaking person will be roughly similar (i.e. a tall plant with leaves and bark) when they
encounter their cultural signifier for ‘tree’. Again, as long as it is agreed amongst the given
culture, it does not matter which signifier is used because a sign and its meaning is arbitrary.
Denotation and Connotation
Although Saussure worked within the field of language and linguistics, many have
gone on to apply his thought to other areas of communication. Roland Barthes was one of the
first to do this. He applied Saussure’s notions of signification to visual analysis and cultural
theory (Berger, 2005, Chandler, 2005, Aiello, 2006). Barthes extends Saussure’s signifiersignified by adding an additional element to the process. Let us take our tree example further.
If we hear or see the word ‘tree’ (signifier), we may picture a tall plant with bark and leaves
in our mind (signified). The image in our mind of a tall plant with bark and leaves at its most
basic, descriptive and ‘objective’ level is what Barthes calls denotation (Aiello, 2006: 94,
Hall, 1997, Fiske, 1990). People generally agree that the word ‘tree’ is (denotes) a tall plant
with bark and leaves. However, the word ‘tree’ or the idea of a tree can mean something
entirely different to what it is. Barthes calls this second-order of meaning connotation.
Connotative meanings are ideological and symbolic (Fiske, 1990, Hall, 1997, Aiello, 2006,
Bignell, 2002). Connotations are context dependent (Barthes, 1973, 1991, Thwaites, et al.,
1994, Aiello, 2006). The way in which a sign is framed can evoke certain connotations
(Fiske, 1990). The word ‘tree’ in the context of a horror novel, for example, will most likely
invoke ‘fear’ because of the way in which it is framed by a horror narrative. Similarly, the
way in which an image of a tree is framed by soft lighting can connote ‘peace’, or ‘escapism’
in a holiday brochure. Signs can connote multiple meanings dependent upon the context and
framing.
11
Connotative meanings are also dependent by how they are perceived by the viewer,
reader or listener. The receiver’s values, emotions, experiences, and sociocultural orientation
can influence how meaning is eventually received (Hall, 1980, 1997, Fiske, 1990, Aiello,
2006). Barthes highlights this ‘context-dependency’ in his classic study of a French pasta
advertisement (Aiello, 2006: 94). He states that because of the use of colour (green, white and
red reminiscent of the Italian flag) and the use of Mediterranean vegetables such as the
tomato, the advertisement connotes Italianicity (Aiello, 2006, Hall, 1991, Fowles, 1996).
However, Barthes emphasises that the advertisement’s Italianicity will only be registered by
French people (or other non-Italian people for that matter) as ‘Italian’, whereas Italians
themselves would not read the advertisement as a referent to their own culture (Aiello, Ibid.).
Therefore, in order for signs to be meaningful and relevant, they must use the systems of
meaning familiar within the targeted culture.
The System of Signs
‘Signs are members of a system and are defined in relation to other members of that system...’
Saussure, cited by Hall, 1997: 31
‘...concepts are purely differential and defined not by their positive content, but negatively by their
relations with other terms of the system. Their most precise characteristic is in being what others are
not.’
Saussure, 1966: 117
For Saussure, signs cannot function in isolation: meanings rely on other meanings.
In order for a sign to express its intended meaning, it must be part of a wider system of
meaning (Fiske, 1990, Thwaites, et al. 1994). For Saussure, the meaning of a sign is
determined by the signs that is it not (Fiske, 1990, Hall, 1997, Bignell, 2002, Aiello, 2006),
or, as Berger puts it, ‘concepts gain their meaning by not being their opposite’ (2005: 12). For
instance, ‘cat’ is a cat because it is not ‘dog’. ‘Cat’ only has meaning because of what it is
not, and in this sense, Saussure believes that signs are defined ‘negatively’ (by what they are
not) rather than ‘positively’ (by what they are). In reference to Saussure, Hall (1997) explains
12
the way that we define or understand something is by how different or similar it is in
comparison to that which already exists. Hall gives the example of how he understands an
aeroplane (1997: 17-18). He knows that a plane is like a bird (because they both fly in the
sky), but he knows that they are different (because a bird is ‘part of nature’, a living,
breathing organism, whilst the plane is a man-made manufactured metal object). He explains
that these distinctions, or ‘classifying systems’, such as:
flying/not flying
natural/man-made
help us to categorise our complex world efficiently. The construction of meaning is entirely
dependent upon widely recognised ‘key oppositions and equations’ (Silverman, 1983: 36),
distinctions, classifying systems, or ‘binary oppositions’ as Saussure calls them (Fiske, 1990,
Lacey, 1998, Berger, 2005b, Bignell, 2002). Communication would be near-impossible if we
did not have systems in which to define meanings against each other (Williamson, 1978,
Fiske, 1990, Leeds-Hurwitz, 1993, Hall, 1997).
13
Advertising and Semiotics
In a bid to persuade consumers to purchase products, advertisers use emotional and
symbolic appeals. Instead of marketing products for their basic use-value, advertisers market
products based on what they mean to consumers (Dyer, 1982, Schudson, 1986, Lury, 1988,
Edwards, 2000). As Jean Baudrillard comments, ‘objects are no longer linked in any sense to
a definite function or need’ (cited in Mayer, 1998: ix). Extending Marxist theory, Baudrillard
states how a washing machine is not sold on the basis of its use-values (to wash clothes).
Instead it is sold on how it will make consumers feel, and how it will make them the envy of
their neighbours (Baudrillard, 1996). What the washing machine symbolises triumphs its
intrinsic use-value as a clothes-washer. In the modern marketplace, ‘sign-value’ prevails
(Baudrillard, 1996, 1998). If products are to be sold to us on the basis of symbolic meaning, it
is essential that advertisers can effectively communicate these symbolic values, and most
importantly, it is essential that consumers understand advertisers’ symbolic messages and
meanings. They do this through semiotics.
As well as a tool to deconstruct advertisements, semiotics is also employed to create
advertisements (Bignell, 2002, Aiello, 2006, Leeuwen and Kress, 2006). Advertisers must
make use of the widely recognised systems of meaning like those discussed in the previous
section. Advertisements can only be meaningful to consumers if they speak to them in
recognisable language and make use of ‘pre-existing bodies of knowledge’ (Williamson,
1978: 14, Wernick, 1991, Goldman and Papson, 1996, Bignell, 2002). In the short amount of
time that they have our attention, advertisements must ‘raid’ existing systems of meaning to
quicken communication (Leiss, Kline, Jhally, 1990: 218, Fiske, 1990, Feuer, 1992, Fiske and
Hartley, 2003, Berger, 2010). Advertisements must ‘colonise’ upon pre-existing systems of
knowledge in order to bring meaning to their unfamiliar products (Schroeder, 2002: 29).
Advertisements draw upon the known systems of literature, art, conversation, science and
14
other spheres of social and cultural discourse to lend their unknown products meaning and
value (Williamson, 1978, Fiske, 1990, Fowles, 1996, Schroeder, 2002). For instance, Nike
first existed as a Greek goddess. By adopting the name of the mythical goddess, the sports
brand Nike acquires its known qualities of ‘power’ and ‘victory’ (Schroeder, 2002). In this
way, advertisers ‘bend and redirect’ social and cultural meanings and then transform them
into meanings that align with commercial interests (Goldman and Papson, 1996: 142,
Williamson, 1978). Williamson exemplifies this in her classic analysis of a Chanel No.5
advertisement featuring French actress Catherine Deneuve:
For [Deneuve’s] face and the bottle are not inherently connected: there is no link between Catherine
Deneuve in herself and Chanel No. 5: but the link is in terms of what Catherine Deneuve’s face
means to us, for this is what Chanel No. 5 is trying to mean to us, too.
Williamson, 1978: 25, emphasis in original
Williamson explains how through her portrayals of mysterious and elusive beauties
in films such as Belle je Jour, over time Deneuve had come to symbolise ‘sophisticated
French chic’. Thus, an encounter of Deneuve (whether via film, in writing, etc.) conjures
‘sophisticated French chic’ in the mind of consumers. In this sense, Deneuve as a person
becomes a sign in a system; she becomes a signifier of ‘sophisticated French chic’
(Williamson, 1978, Fiske, 1990) (Figure 4). Williamson argues that Chanel has taken
Deneuve’s ‘meaning’ and applied it to their product by compressing her face (signifier) with
a bottle of Chanel No. 5 perfume. As Williamson says, there is no inherent connection
between this actress and this bottle of perfume. Chanel, however, has forged the two together
in the form of an advertisement in the hope that Chanel too will become a signifier of
‘sophisticated French chic’ in the eyes of the consumer. Williamson calls this process
‘hollowing out’ in that brands ‘hollow out’ pre-existing meanings and place their brand
within them (Figure 5). Chanel is meaningless and empty until it refers to something that we
15
already know, something that already has meaning, like Deneuve. Deneuve’s meaning is
‘hollowed out’ and Chanel is placed within it.
Williamson reminds us that in order for consumers to think that Chanel, like
Deneuve, possesses an air of ‘sophisticated French chic’, it is essential that consumers
understand a) who Deneuve is, and b) what she symbolises. A previous understanding is
required for Chanel’s advertisement to be effective. As Cook (2003) states, every
advertisement requires an understanding of what came before it. Thus, without the
consumers’ pre-existing knowledge of Greek mythology and French actresses, for example,
Nike’s and Chanel’s branding communication and advertising efforts would be pointless and
meaningless. Similarly, in Andrew Wernick’s deconstruction of an Eve cigarette
advertisement, he comments how the ‘discrete cultural signifiers’, such as the beach, floral
motif, the woman and her clothing, and the brand name itself, require a pre-existing
knowledge of the biblical myth of temptation in order for the advertisement to be meaningful
to its receivers (1991: 33). He comments:
It would be impossible to valorise products symbolically if the symbolism employed to that end were
itself unintelligible or without ideological appeal. Symbolic ads must therefore not only find effective
pictorial and verbal devices by which to link the commodity with a significance; they must also build
up significance from elements of an understood cultural code.
Wernick, 1991: 37, emphasis mine.
Advertisements must draw from a ‘common cultural pool’ in order to be relevant and
meaningful to consumers (Wernick, 1991: 93). While advertisements rely on our
understanding of what their signs symbolise, they also rely on our understanding of what
their signs do not symbolise. Echoing Saussure, Williamson says: ‘the identity of [products]
depends more on what it is not than what it is’ (1978: 24). Therefore, Nike’s use of a Greek
goddess only has meaning because of what it is not: a peasant weakling, for example.
Similarly, if it were not for the ‘unsophisticated’ starts such as Brigitte Bardot, then Deneuve
16
could not connote ‘sophistication’ (Fiske, 1990). As Saussure says, signs cannot operate in
isolation.
17
Method
Semiology is the primary method of this study because it is most suited to the
analysis of visual texts (Rose, 2012, Hall, 1997, Lacey, 1998). Semiotics falls into two
categories: traditional semiotics (the study of the construction of meaning) and social
semiotics (the study of how people use meanings in social contexts) (du Gay, 1997, Hall,
1997, Schroeder, 2002, Leeuwen and Kress, 2005). This study focuses on the former. A
strong semiotic analysis does not treat the texts as singular and finite entities (Lister and
Wells, 2001, Leeuewen and Kress, 2005). A successful semiotic analysis rests upon the
semiotician’s ability to relate denotative and connotative meanings to the broader ideological
apparatuses at hand (Hall, 1997, Lacey, 1998, Leeuwen and Jewitt, 2001, Fowles, 1996,
Schroeder, 2002). I have therefore related my findings to relevant ideological structures and
current sociocultural debates, of for example, consumerism and modernity. As a visual
analysis, this study primarily deals with the visual (design) over the verbal (use of language)
aspect of brand communications. As advised by Chandler (2005), Leeuwen and Kress (2005),
and Agariya, et al., (2012), I have split the visual components into organised themes. I have
also incorporated branding from other food and drink brands to identify design trends.
Mixing Methods
Due to the multidisciplinary nature of visual communication analysis (Schroeder,
2002), I have utilised reports and studies from other fields such as business, psychology,
marketing, and consumer research. To strengthen my analysis and to gain a broader
understanding of food and drink branding, I have interviewed leading industry experts. I have
interviewed Darren Foley, Managing Director at Pearlfisher. Similar to Big Fish, Pearlfisher
develops brand identity and packaging design for premium food and drink brands; Innocent,
Waitrose, Green & Blacks, and Jamie Oliver are among some of Pearlfisher’s clients. I have
also interviewed Tessa Stuart, a freelance in-store product researcher who works with start-up
18
food and drink brands. In the past, Tessa has worked with Innocent, G’nosh, Rude Health and
Leon Restaurant. I also attended Pro2Pac, a bi-annual food and drink packaging event, and
IFE13 (International Food Event) to gain a better understanding of the industry. Similar to
Lutz and Collins’ (1993) study of National Geographic magazine, I too have supplemented
analysis with interviews to validate my findings. I have broadened my knowledge of the
industry as to avoid making sweeping generalisations and coming across as ‘elitist’ and
omniscient as semioticians often do (Berger, 2010, Rose, 2012).
Acknowledging the weaknesses of semiotics
On numerous occasions, Rose (2012) advises semioticians to acknowledge the
weaknesses of their methodology. Firstly, semiotics lacks academic credibility and is not
regarded as an institutionalised discipline (Chandler, 2005). There is little consensus among
semioticians as to how semiotics should actually be practiced. There does not seem to be a
definitive method other than opinion-based analysis (Beasley and Denesi, 2002, Chandler,
2005). Unlike content analysis, for example, semiotics lacks rigidity, control or structure
(Cook, 2003). By the framing of my title, I have already assumed that my text conveys
notions of honesty. This issue is known as the ‘ideological complex’ of semiotics (Rose,
2012: 107). My assumption is, of course, subjective; to somebody else the text may convey
something entirely different (perhaps ‘dishonesty’). Nonetheless, it makes commercial sense
for Dorset Cereals to reiterate its supposed ‘honest’ claims through its packaging design.
However, I fully acknowledge that that my goal – of finding how honesty is conveyed – is
already ideological in itself (see Rose, Ibid.).
Audience interpretation
My perception of the world, like anybody else’s, is influenced by a number of
factors, such as my sociocultural stance, my political orientation, my gender, my ethnicity,
19
my education. Everybody’s ‘conceptual map’ of the world is different from person to person
which means that we make sense of the world in unique and individual ways (Hall, 1997: 18,
Fowles, 1996, Lacey, 1998, Aiello, 2006). It is impossible for me to account for anybody’s
interpretation other than my own. It is impossible for me to realistically judge how the text is
received by a diversified public on the supermarket shelves. As Williamson states:
It is not my purpose here to measure [the advertisements’] influence. To do so would require
sociological research and consumer data drawing on a far wider range of material than the
advertisements themselves. I am simply analysing what can be seen in advertisements.
Williamson, 1978: 11, emphasis in original
Or, to rephrase this, what Williamson can see in the advertisements. I (like Williamson) am
limited by my own vision in this study. I reiterate: this study is entirely my own subjective
and arbitrary reading, supported by literature, interviews and relevant material. This study is
not definitive and is not factual because interpretation can never be correct (Fowles, 1996).
For Cook (2003) and Schroeder (2002), a semiotic analysis can never be closed or completed
as there will always be room for further interpretation. Therefore, my study is not a complete
or final one; it is open-ended, left for others to develop it. I hope that it inspires others to
develop upon it (please see ‘Suggestions for further study’ section).
20
FINDINGS
Imbuing products with human traits and values is not uncommon for advertisers
(Williamson, 1978, Goldman and Papson, 1996). This technique of anthropomorphism, or
‘reification’ as Goldman and Papson call it, serves to sell products in human terms
(Schroeder, 2002: 28). Quaker Oats has been imbuing its rolled oats with human values since
1877. Using the visual signifier of the ‘man in Quaker garb’, Quaker oats transfers the
Quaker’s known characteristics of ‘honesty and integrity’ to its produce (Pratkanis and
Aronson, 2001). As discussed earlier, Innocent uses the visual signifier of the halo. Is there
anything left in the honesty-toolbox for Dorset Cereals to use?
Nature as a referent
Nature is a common referent in advertising. For Williamson, advertisements depict
nature as either ‘cooked’ (controlled in some way by culture), or as ‘raw’ (natural, wild,
dangerous) (Williamson, 1978, Rose, 2012). When used in its ‘raw’ form in advertisements,
Nature represents all that is good, pure, and authentic and represents the antithesis of all that
is cultural (Williamson, 1978). Dorset Cereals mobilises this binary opposition of Nature vs.
Culture. Dorset Cereals’ packaging is very much a ‘cooked’ cultural artefact in that it is a
commercial item. Despite the packaging’s cultural identity, it uses nature as a referent though
the use of colour. Colour has a unique symbolic significance in that it can be used to
nonverbally and inexplicitly link concepts together (Williamson, 1978, Lacey, 1998,
Leeuwen and Kress, 2006). Dorset Cereals uses muted and earthy tones that mirror the
colours of the natural world: browns, greys, and blues. Even the livelier colours of yellow
and pink are muted: mustard yellow and deep fuchsia (Figure 7). In its extremely ‘cooked’
environment in the supermarket, Dorset Cereals refers back to the natural world from which
it came with these earthy and wholesome colours. The referral to nature serves to emphasise
21
the naturalness of the ingredients. The packaging encourages the consumer to think of the
rustic colours of the countryside and forces the consumer to connect the product with this
pastoral imagery. With the use of colour, Dorset Cereals makes its alliance with the natural
world and rural life explicit.
Controlled Culture
Cardboard
Although its produce may derive from the natural world, Dorset Cereals invariably
has to make use of cultural conventions, such as packaging materials, copy and logos in order
to succeed in the commercial market. The brand is very careful of the ‘culture’ it selects.
Firstly it selects matte cardboard packaging. In relation to Peirce, Fiske states that ‘an object
becomes a symbol when it acquires through convention and use a meaning that enables it to
stand for something else’ (1990: 91). Arguably, we could say that cardboard has become a
symbol of environmental responsibility and sustainability. This is probably due to the fact
that cardboard is recyclable, while some plastics are known to be damaging to the
environment. The cardboard choice is functional in that it can be recycled, and because of
this function, cardboard also serves as a visual cue of environmental sustainability.
Commitment to environmental sustainability reinforces Dorset Cereals’ ethical and honest
values.
Typewriter typeface
The packaging uses a typewriter typeface: ‘ITC American Typewriter’ (Figure 8).
Today, the typewriter is regarded as a retro piece of equipment. The reference to this oldfashioned ribbon-and-keys mechanism works to transport consumers back to a time when
technology was simple. This typeface arouses pre-digital nostalgia. The typewriter physically
processes words as opposed to the modern computer which simulates words and images
22
through coding and pixels. With a modern computer it is easy to rectify mistakes. With a
typewriter, however, if the typist makes a mistake the entire page must be started again. In
the same way the typewriter typist must be patient and take extreme care, Dorset Cereals too
is patient and takes extreme care with its produce, ensuring all ingredients are ‘carefully
selected’ and thoroughly inspected on site (Dorset Cereals, 2013b). The computer cuts out the
psychical labour of the typewriter in the same way that machinery and chemicals cut out the
psychical labour of the farmer. This reference to the typewriter could suggest that Dorset
Cereals does not cut corners and does things the ‘traditional way’. This reference to tradition
is not uncommon for advertisements that try to convey notions of authenticity and honesty
(Goldman and Papson, 1996). As Lacey says, ‘Tradition is a great favourite of advertisers; its
use exploits the nostalgic feeling that things were better in the ‘good old days’’ (1998: 74).
This is the only typeface used across the entire packaging which could suggest consistency of
character: a trait of honesty. The brand name (‘dorset cereals’) is engraved into the cardboard
which gives the impression of ‘hard graft’, reinforcing Dorset Cereals’ emphasis on
traditional labouring.
Graphic design
Dorset Cereals’ logo is a tree design (Figure 9). Again, this links the brand to nature,
however, the logo does not look very ‘natural’. It is a flat and simplistic design of a straight
thin line and six ovals to represent the trunk and the leaves. The logo is reminiscent of
modern, minimalistic art. Of all that is ‘cultural’, art is deemed to be ‘high culture’. Art is
synonymous with good taste and cultural status. This referral to art links the brand to ‘fine
taste, prestige, and affluence’ (Schroeder, 2002: 36). In referring to high culture, Dorset
Cereals distances itself from the associations of ‘low culture’ and crass materialist values.
Works of art and creative pieces are crafted with love and passion as opposed to massmanufactured artefacts which are produced for economic purposes. In referring to art, Dorset
23
Cereals communicates its objection to those who produce only for monetary gain (i.e. the
multinationals).
If not a referral to modern art, the graphic logo is significant for another reason. It is
significant in the fact that it is not a photo of a tree. By using this design, the brand
differentiates itself from its competitors who use heavily edited photos of rolling corn fields
and tempting bowls of cereal toppled with fresh fruit (Figure 10). Across all of Dorset
Cereals’ packaging there is no use of Photoshopped images of fields or fruit. The idyllic
countryside imagery used by the competitor brands are quite obviously heavily edited,
digitally enhanced and are not true to life, which is deceitful. Jean Baudrillard states how in
our modern consumerist world of simulated realities – such as these idyllic countryside
images – we have lost touch with the real and have become distanced from reality (Berger,
2010). Arguing a similar case, Darren Foley of Pearlfisher states:
When did we become so distanced from food? When did it all become so complex? We are separated
from our food by layers of packaging, methods of preservation, artificial imaging and simulated
Photoshop illustrations. Rather than show the natural beauty of what we eat, technology has
increasingly created a world where even natural fruit, dairy and wheat products have become overproduced, stylised and synthetic.
Darren Foley, in Brooks, 2013
Dorset Cereals could have featured enhanced images on its packaging, however this may
have given consumers the impression that Dorset Cereals enhances its food with additives
and preservatives. Peculiarly, Dorset Cereal’s simplified ‘unnatural’ stick-tree conveys
‘naturalness’ more than the actual photos of nature, like the fruits, corn and fields.
‘Look, no dust!’
Window
Instead of using images like its competitors, Dorset Cereals features a cut-out
window to reveal the product inside (Figure 9 & 11). While the other brands conceal their
24
products with images, Dorset Cereals unmasks its product with a window. This invites
consumers to look at the product and judge it before they consume it, instead of entrusting the
enhanced images of competitor brands. An honest person has nothing to hide, and with this
window, Dorset Cereals says ‘Look! I have nothing to hide!’. This is antagonistic in a way
because the window challenges other brands to reveal their produce, which they may or
cannot do because their produce may not look as appetising and appealing as the enhanced,
artificial images. This brazenness to ‘reveal all’ reassures consumers. When discussing the
packaging’s cut-out window, Big Fish’s Perry comments: ‘We wanted to give people a
window in the soul of the product’ (2012: 01:25). Referring to the brand as a possessor of a
‘soul’ is significant. This ‘soul’ comment imbues Dorset Cereals with yet another humanistic
quality alongside ‘honesty’. Interestingly, the oval cut-out window is in the shape of an eye.
The eye is often referred to as the window into the soul. When confronting a person accused
of lying, people will often say ‘look into my eyes’ so that they can see weather this person is
telling the truth. The window into the soul of the product leaves no room for doubt in the
mind of the consumer.
Arrows
Dorset Cereals’ packaging makes use of subtle lines and arrows. The line on the
front of the pack connects the tree logo with the product ingredients (Figure 12). Again, this
connects the produce with nature. This line says ‘this is all there is’ and denotes the product
for consumers. This line represents the simplicity of the production process: from raw nature
(the tree logo) - straight to the finished product (product ingredients). The production of food
is unseen by the typical consumer, and this simplifies the process for them. The arrow leaves
no pause for adding preservatives, fillers or additives. On one package, a cut-out window is
anchored by an arrow pointing to the window with text reading ‘look no dust!’ (Figure 11).
Combined with the transparent window, the arrow and text playfully says ‘look if you don’t
25
believe me!’, or ‘see for yourself!’. This dismisses preconceptions and worry that cynical and
untrusting consumers may have of faulty or fraudulent produce. The arrow is not straight and
is deliberately curved. The curvature of the arrow connotes ‘informality’. The curved arrow is
also reminiscent of a child’s drawing, therefore connoting child-like innocence. This is a
common trend amongst ‘honest’ foods (Figure 13). The arrows are presented on a simple, flat
background with one colour which makes them very easy to see. Arrows cannot be confused,
their very purpose is to ease communication and to explicitly point to or attract attention to
something. With the use of arrows, Dorset Cereals vies for attention and recognition of the
fact that it has absolutely nothing to hide. The directive and explicit arrows and lines, the
imperative ‘Look!’, the eye-like window into the ‘soul’ all work together to convince
consumers that Dorset Cereals is honest and ready to prove its innocence.
26
CRITICAL DISCUSSION
‘Hollowing out’
In order for Dorset Cereals to convey notions of honesty, as Williamson and
Wernick suggest, it must work with pre-existing bodies of knowledge. The packaging relies
on the consumer’s understanding. The consumer must understand what cardboard
symbolises, what typewriters signify, what a child’s handwriting signifies, what the colours
refer to, and so on. If we use Williamson’s ‘hollowing out’ theory (Figure 5) we begin to see how
Dorset Cereals, ‘hollows out’ meanings to place its brand within them. All of the components that
make up Dorset Cereals packaging – cardboard material, typewriter typeface, tree design, etc. – can
be placed into the ‘hollowing out’ model. For example, as suggested, the typewriter typeface signifies
or connotes ‘pre-digital nostalgia’. Dorset Cereals takes what the typewriter typeface means to us and
applies it to their brand (Figure 14).In the same way Nike steals from the Greek goddess by adopting
its name, Dorset Cereals steals from the typewriter typeface by incorporating it as part of its visual
brand identity. In using this typeface, Dorset Cereals uses its associated meanings. Similarly, we can
place ‘art’ as the signifier in this model. The word ‘art’ or the idea of art, as we have already
discussed, signifies ‘anti-materialism’. In using art, Dorset Cereals uses art’s associated ‘antimaterialist’ values.
The whole picture
As Saussure says, signs cannot operate in isolation. Before exploring what these
signs are not, let us first assess their relationship to one another. All of these elements are
selected from different paradigms (material, typeface, etc.) to form a syntagm. This syntagm
can be defined as the Gestalt: ‘the collection of images, each reinforcing one another’
(Berger, 2005b: 22). Each of the elements come together to form a kind of ‘bricolage’, to use
Claude Levi-Strauss’ term (Williamson, 1978: 101). In reference to Barthes’ ‘anchoring’
(1991), we could say that all of the elements anchor one another. To restrict ambiguity and
27
confusion, advertisers use signs in conjunction with others as to solidify their meaning
(Thwaites, Davis, Mules, 1994, Lacey, 1998). Here, the elements are used in conjunction
with one another, reinforcing each other’s meaning and fixating the whole message to limit
ambiguous interpretation. Only in a collection, or Gestalt, can each of the elements have
meaning; on their own they are not as meaningful. The elements only have meaning because
of the way in which they are reinforced by one another to create a collective genre of
‘honesty’.
If Dorset Cereals was a person...
Echoing Baudrillard, Dorset Cereals is not sold in use-terms, as a food, but in human
and social terms, as ‘honest’. In this way, Dorset Cereals encourages consumers to think of
the brand as a human being. Since it is sold to us in these terms, let us think of Dorset Cereals
as a person. If Dorset Cereals was a person, he would be open, friendly, and genuine and
have nothing to hide. He would ‘do his bit for the environment’. He would have an affinity
with pre-digital technology and would like to type with his vintage typewriter. He would
appreciate the simpler things in life. He would like things ‘as nature intended it’, especially
his food. He would appreciate art and minimalist design. He would be passionate about his
work. He would be unconventional, a little bit different from all of the rest. He would dislike
commercialism, materialism and consumerism. Just how Innocent adorns its produce with an
angel’s halo; and just how Quaker Oats clothes its produce in ‘Quaker garb’, Dorset Cereals
dresses its produce in a modern-day-honest-man’s costume. It is what this imagined
trustworthy and honest man has done with the produce that certifies Dorset Cereals’ honesty.
What Dorset Cereals is not
It is very difficult to explain why Dorset Cereals conveys notions of honesty without
negation. Dorset Cereals looks honest because it is not shiny and glossy; it does not use
28
simulated images; it looks like a great piece of minimalist design and so not just another
consumer package busy with persuasive marketing; it has cut-out windows to reveal its
products, it has nothing to hide; it comes across as unconventional, perhaps informal,
suggesting its non-conformity and non-corporate values. It is incredibly difficult to define
Dorset Cereals’ brand communications without firstly explaining what it is not. How
different Dorset Cereals is to its competitors is its most effective unique selling point. As
Williamson says, products are sold on the basis of what they are not more for what they are.
In order for us to work out what Dorset Cereals is trying to say about its brand, we must work
back-to-front and ask what it is not trying to say about its brand? Let us find the opposite of
each of the elements of design:
Dorset Cereals is not an advocate of consumerist and materialist values, it does not
practice unethical and unsustainable environmental practices, it does not celebrate the
complexities of modernity, and it is not capable of adult-like deceit, and it is not corporate
and formal.
And through understanding what Dorset Cereals is not, we can come to understand
how all of these seemingly unrelated concepts come to not signify the ‘dishonesty’ associated
with consumerist values, unsustainability, corporate bodies, etc. Subsequently, because it
does not signify dishonesty, it therefore signifies its opposite: honesty. We can sum up by
saying ‘where there is choice there is meaning, and the meaning of what was chosen is
determined by the meaning of what was not’ (Fiske, 1990: 58).
Meanings are not fixed in nature
It is important to note at this point that these meanings (typewriter = pre-digital
nostalgia; matte cardboard = environmental sustainability) are not ‘fixed in nature’ and are
certainly not ‘true’. As highlighted by Fiske, Hall, Aiello, etc., due to their arbitrary nature,
29
meanings are subject to change. The typewriter can only symbolise simplicity, authenticity,
and pre-digital nostalgia now. When the typewriter was first invented it was most probably
regarded as complex. In fact, writing in the late 1940s, Martin Heidegger said the typewriter
poses a threat to the authenticity of handwriting, believing it ‘conceals the personal character
of the author, thereby contributing to the homogenisation of modern humanity’ (cited by
Zimmerman, 1999: 206). Dorset Cereals wants to signify the exact opposite of ‘the
homogenisation of modern humanity’; the brand wants to preserve the authenticity Heidegger
proposes the typewriter eradicates. The meaning of the typewriter in time has evolved. A
significant amount of time has had to have passed in order for the typewriter to be seen in the
eyes of the consumer as a fondly-remembered relic of the past. The typewriter only has its
pre-digital nostalgia and qualities of authenticity only because of the existence of modern
technology today, and what modern technology represents today.
Similarly, it is not a fact that cardboard is the most environmentally-friendly
material. In the 1990s, McDonald’s infamous clamshell packaging came under scrutiny after
an investigation proved that the production of the polystyrene clamshells was releasing
pollutant gases into the air. After much criticism, the fast-food giant was forced to switch to
cardboard packaging. The cardboard packaging was and still is coated in plastic, thus making
it difficult to recycle (Pratkanis and Aronson, 2001). Interestingly, studies concluded that the
cardboard packaging is actually worse for the environment than the polystyrene clamshells.
But because the polystyrene became synonymous with pollution, McDonald’s could not
revert back to its old packaging, even if it was better for the environment (Pratkanis and
Aronson, 2001). As Barthes (1973) would comment, cardboard as a sign or symbol of
environmental sustainability is a myth.
Dorset Cereals’ cardboard is not coated in plastic, but why wasn’t another material
such as polystyrene or a recyclable plastic chosen? Despite cardboard, polystyrene and plastic
30
all serving the same recyclable function, the symbolic value differs for each material.
Cardboard is ‘known’ to be friendly for the environment and so it is easier for Dorset Cereals
to rely on this pre-existing knowledge rather than attempt to cultivate new knowledge. It
would have taken McDonald’s a significant amount of money to launch a marketing
campaign educating consumers on the plight of the clamshells and how they are actually
more beneficial for the environment (Pratkanis and Aronson, 2001). Challenging this longstanding belief of cardboard as the ultimate environmentally friendly material could have
jeopardised Dorset Cereal’s chances of coming across as sustainable and ethical. Consumers
may not have chosen it on the basis of how ‘unrecyclable’ it looked with polystyrene
packaging, which could have been damaging for the brand. Perhaps when Dorset Cereals has
an advertising budget the size of McDonald’s they could then educate and challenge widely
held beliefs. To challenge perceptions as a new product would be too risky. As Williamson,
Goldman and Papson, Wernick, etc. have highlighted, it remains in a brand’s best interests to
work with commonly-held beliefs and widely-accepted systems of meaning to ensure
consumers do not misinterpret their messages.
Dorset Cereals’ paradox
Dorset Cereals offers consumers the opportunity to access an ‘unadulterated’ world,
free from the artificialities of modernism. Dorset Cereals offers anti-consumerist values in a
very consumerist environment (in the supermarket), which is paradoxical. The artificialities
of modernism are a by-product of capitalist consumer culture, a system of which Dorset
Cereals is part of and heavily relies upon to sustain it. Where would Dorset Cereals be if it
were not for the dishonest supermarkets to supply them? Where would Dorset Cereals be if it
were not for the capitalist systems it strives to oppose? Dorset Cereals sells anti-consumerism
via consumerism. For Goldman and Papson (1996), this is not uncommon in advertisements
that make appeals to ‘authenticity’. They suggest that advertisers offer the problem as the
31
solution. Ironically, they say, it is the catalysts of consumer culture (advertisements) that try
to offer consumers authenticity via the thing that displaced it in the first place: consumerism.
Similarly, Wernick (1997) finds how advertisers offer consumers with an opportunity to ‘get
back’ to ‘nature’, ‘authenticity’, ‘the good old days’ through consumerism. He comments
how advertisements ‘provoke an unquenchable desire to return, crossed with the realisation
that it is impossible’ (1997: 221). Dorset Cereals very much relies up that which it seeks to
oppose, which is contradictory. After all, like Nestlé or Kellogg’s or any other global FMCG,
Dorset Cereals is part of consumerism and mass-production. If we take away the ‘honest’
packaging design – what we are left with is just another mass-manufactured cereal.
32
CONCLUSION
It is not enough to claim that ‘a typewriter typeface suggests honesty’, or ‘cardboard
material suggests honesty’. Out of context, these claims are unjustified and baseless. It is only
when we pair the supposed ‘honest’ components with their ‘logical’ opposition that they can
begin to make sense as signifiers of honesty. The packaging requires us to identify the
components’ logical oppositions. Only once they are identified can they become meaningful.
Dorset Cereals works by distinction and by negation, fitting perfectly with Saussure’s theory
of how signs are defined negatively, by what they are not, as opposed to positively, by what
they are. Dorset Cereals is defined by what it is not. On the other hand, Kellogg’s, Nestlé’,
and Weetabix are defined positively by what they are: glossy and shiny (and thus artificial);
enhanced and edited (and thus dishonest and deceptive). As Saussure says, signs cannot
operate in isolation; signs gain their meanings from other signs. Without the competitors’
gloss and enhancements, Dorset Cereals could not present the opposite: matte and simplified.
Or, it could, but it would not be as meaningful without the opposite to reinforce it.
Dorset Cereals’ visual cues are not as emphatic or expressive unless the logical
oppositions are known beforehand. If Dorset Cereals was the only brand in the supermarket,
it could not possibly communicate notions of honesty because it would have no other
(dishonest) brands to compare itself against. As the one and only, Dorset Cereals’ packaging
would be the standard packaging. Only because it is one of many can Dorset Cereals work by
distinction. Imagine if Dorset Cereals was the only packaging and had set the standard for
cereal packaging. Other cereal brands would copy the ‘standard’ cereal packaging. Now,
imagine five brands all with different variations of the ‘standard’ minimalistic design, cut-out
windows, retro typefaces, and muted and wholesome colours. A new cereal brand looking to
challenge the cereal market (as Dorset Cereals did) would have to work by distinction and be
what the majority were not: coated in gloss with digitally enhanced photographs.
33
Conventionalisation
Standardisation is an issue for consumer brands, particularly for niche brands that
make their mark by being just that, niche. What happens when Dorset Cereals’ design is
copied by the majority? Conventionalisation can be damaging for brands that have worked to
build up specific meanings. Conventionalisation occurs when unique cultural practices are
subjected to homogeneity, losing their ‘original imaginative impact’ (Fiske, 1990: 103). As
displayed above, if all brands had the same visual cues, their meanings would become
standardised. As Fiske (1990) says, if all photos were photographed with soft lighting then
this technique could no longer connote ‘nostalgia’. We can already see this process of
conventionalisation taking place (Figure 15). Like Dorset Cereals, McDonald’s too wanted to
convey notions of honesty and transparency (Boxer, 2013, DBA, 2013), and like Dorset
Cereals, McDonald’s too won a DBA Effectiveness Award for its packaging two years later
in 2009. McDonald’s makes use of ‘natural’ and ‘wholesome’ colours, minimalist design,
and hand-drawn arrows to shift a ‘negative mindset, driven adverse publicity, to one that was
positive and based upon the truth’ (Boxer, 2013). As soon as we have discovered the visual
cues of honesty no sooner have they become clichéd. As Goldman and Papson put it:
The dilemma of authenticity in the age of the commodity signs is that no sooner does something
become recognised as a mark of authenticity than it gets appropriated and transformed into a common
sign.
Goldman and Papson, 1996: 143
If Dorset Cereals does not innovate soon, it will no longer connote ‘honesty’. Its design will
soon become standardised, thus rendering its visual cues meaningless.
What will the future vision of ‘honesty’ look like? Pearlfisher’s Darren Foley may
have an answer. Foley (2013) states how the use of matte cardboard packaging is beginning
to look ‘tired’ and ‘overdone’. Perhaps Foley’s criticism stems from the fact that Dorset
Cereals’ Big Fish is a rival creative agency to Pearlfisher. Nonetheless, he believes brands
34
Like Dorset Cereals need to evolve and disassociate themselves with overused conventions to
remain relevant and meaningful to consumers. As discussed, meanings within every sphere of
life are subject to change with time; from the food and drink industry to design. As a
synchronic study, my analysis has an expiry date. My findings are perhaps only relevant to
the years 2012/13, for in 10 years’ time what signifies honesty will have changed. As Fowles
states, advertisements are telling of their time. Others may look back in decades to come and
may see how Dorset Cereals’ packaging design reflected 2012/13’s issues of consumer
cynicism and distrust, the need for authenticity, and the yearning for a pre-digital, simpler
world.
Suggestions for further study
I wish to reiterate the fact that this study is in no way definitive. Instead, I have
offered an informed interpretation. I hope that others want to challenge and develop upon my
ideas. ‘Honest branding’ is a relatively new trend and understandably there is little academic
research covering it. Additionally, since packaging has only recently come into its own as an
advertising medium, this area too lacks academic and semiotic research. This study has dealt
with the visual aspects of Dorset Cereals brand communications. It would be useful to
investigate the brand’s verbal communications. Dorset Cereals’ use of Innocent-like, twee
language (‘It’s like a big fat hug from your favourite Aunt’), its use of negation (‘and
absolutely nothing else’) and references to ‘simpler’ and ‘traditional’ methods of production
(‘gently baked the traditional way’; ‘simple, but then the best things in life usually are’) are
all significant in constructing and communicating honesty. Since Dorset Cereals speaks to us
in social and human terms, it would be interesting to see how the product is used in a social
context. Using social semiotics, others could look into how Dorset Cereals is used as a prop
for identity construction and communication. As we have discovered, Dorset Cereals
communicates very specific social and cultural values. Do people use the product as ‘green
35
bling’ as Greyson Perry would suggest? (In The Best Possible Taste, 2012). Is the product
used by consumers to communicate to their peers that they too are honest, real, ethical, anticonsumerist? And finally, as of 8th April 2013, Dorset Cereals aired its first national
television advertisement (‘In our complicated world, it’s good to know that Dorset Cereals
still keep it simple... Just the best natural ingredients, and that’s it... Breakfast, far from the
madding crowd, with Dorset Cereals’). This advertisement makes themes of anti-modernism
very explicit; analysing these themes could be very interesting.
36
FIGURES
Figure 1. Green & Black’s, Yeo Valley, Bear Nibbles, Dorset Cereals, Clipper Tea
Examples of honest, ethical food producers - but how do these brands communicate their honest
credentials?
Figure 2. Innocent Smoothies
The visual signifier of the halo and the brand name convey Innocent’s innocence.
37
Figure 3. Dorset Cereals’ award winning packaging design, created by Big Fish
Using ‘packvertising’ to convey brand values via packaging.
Figure 4. Catherine Deneuve signifies ‘sophisticated French chic’
Williamson applies Saussure’s signifier-signified theory to illustrate how Deneuve has become a sign
in a system. I have applied Barthes’ denotation-connotation.
38
Figure 5. A visualisation of Williamson’s ‘hollowing out’ theory
Chanel ‘hollows out’ Catherine Deneuve’s meaning and places its brand within it so that Chanel
comes to signify what Deneuve does: ‘sophisticated French chic’.
39
Figure 6. Dorset Cereals packaging
40
Figure 7. Dorset Cereals colour scheme
Dorset Cereals refers to nature with muted and earthy colours.
.
Figure 8. Dorset Cereals typeface: ‘ICT American Typewriter’
41
Figure 9. Dorset Cereals’ logo
Simple stick-tree design.
Figure 10. Competitor brands
Competitor brands use heavily edited photos of ingredients and idyllic pastoral imagery.
42
Figure 11. Cut-out window revealing the produce inside
Figure 12. Subtle line connecting the logo to the product description
43
Figure 13. Arrow trend
These playful and informal arrows are reminiscent of a child’s drawing.
44
Figure 14. Applying Williamson’s ‘hollowing out’ model to Dorset Cereals’ use of typewriter
typeface
Dorset Cereals ‘hollows out’ the typewriter typeface’s meaning and places its brand within it so that
Dorset Cereals comes to signify what the typewriter typeface does: ‘pre-digital nostalgia’.
45
Figure 15. McDonald’s use of ‘honest’ branding
‘Honesty’ becomes conventionalised; McDonald’s makes use of minimalist design, ‘wholesome’
colours and arrows and lines to convey notions of honesty and to foster trust.
All images from Google Images
46
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. AGARIYA, A. et al., 2012. The Role of Packaging in Brand Communication. International
Journal of Science & Engineering Research, 3(2), pp. 1-13.
2. AIELLO, G. 2006. Theoretical advances in critical visual analysis: perception, ideology,
mythologies and social semiotics. Journal of Visual Literacy, 26(2), pp. 89-102.
3. ALLEN, T. and SIMMONS, S. 2003. Visual and verbal identity, In: R. Clifton, Brands and
Branding, London: Profile Books Ltd, pp. 113-126.
4. AMBROSE, G. and HARRIS, P. 2011. Packaging the Brand: The relationship between
packaging design and brand identity. AVA Publishing SA.
5. ATKINSON, P. 1979. The symbolic significance of health foods, In: M. TURNER, ed.
Nutrition and Lifestyles, London: Applied Science Publishers Ltd, pp. 79-89.
6. BARTHES, R. 1973. Mythologies, trans. Annette Lavers. New York: Hill & Wang.
7. BARTHES, R. 1991. Rhetoric of the Image. In: trans. R, Howard. The Responsibility of
Forms: Critical Essays on Music, Art, and Representation. Berkeley: University of California
Press, pp. 21-40.
8. BAUDRILLARD, J. 1996. The System of Objects, trans. James Benedict. London: Verso.
9. BAUDRILLARD, J. 1998. The Consumer Society: Myths and Structures, trans. Chris Turner.
London: SAGE.
10. BEASLEY, R. and DANESI, M. 2002. Persuasive signs: the semiotics of advertising. New
York: Mouton de Gruyter.
11. BERGER, A. A. 1998. How we see, In: A. A. BERGER ed. Seeing is Believing: An
Introduction to Visual Culture, Mountain View, CA: Mayfield, pp. 31-50.
12. BERGER, A. A. 2005a. Media Analysis Techniques. London: SAGE.
13. BERGER, A. A. 2005b. Making Sense of Media: Key Texts in Media and Cultural Studies.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
14. BERGER, A. A. 2010. Objects of Affection: Semiotics and Consumer Culture. London:
Palgrave Macmillan.
15. BIGNELL, J. 2002. Media Semiotics: An Introduction. Manchester: Manchester University
Press.
16. BONE, P.F and COREY, R.J. 2000. Packaging ethics: perceptual differences among
packaging professionals, brand managers, and ethically-interested consumers, Journal of
Business Ethics, 24(3), pp. 199-213.
17. BROOKS, J. 2013. Darren Foley: Time to reconnect packaging design with the real beauty of
food. Packaging News, 6 February [online]. Accessed: 17-02-13, available from:
http://www.packagingnews.co.uk/comment/soapbox/darren-foley-time-to-reconnectpackaging-design-with-the-real-beauty-of-food/
18. CHANDLER, D. 2005. Semiotics for Beginners [online]. Accessed: 07-03-13, available from:
http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/semiotic.html
19. CHESTERS, L. 2012. Dorset Cereals: Changing the world, one breakfast bowl at a time, The
Independent, 28 June [online]. Accessed 03-03-13. Available from:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/dorset-cereals-changingthe-world-one-breakfast-bowl-at-a-time-7893714.html
20. CHESTERS, L. 2012. Dorset Cereals: Changing the world, one breakfast bowl at a time, The
Independent, 28 June [online]. Accessed 03-03-13. Available from:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/dorset-cereals-changingthe-world-one-breakfast-bowl-at-a-time-7893714.html
47
21. Collins Dictionary, 2013. Definition of honest [online]. Accessed: 14-04-13, available from:
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/honest?showCookiePolicy=true
22. Computer Arts, 2007. Innocent Case Study. [online]. Accessed 03-03-13, available from:
http://www.computerarts.co.uk/features/case-study-innocent-drinks
23. COOK, G. 2001. The Discourse of Advertising. NY: Routledge.
24. DBA, 2013, McDonald’s [online]. Accessed: 03-03-13, available from:
http://2010.effectivedesign.org.uk/2009/management/mcdonalds.php
25. Du GAY, P. 1997. Production of Culture/Cultures of Production. London: SAGE.
26. DYER, G. 1982. Advertising as Communication. London: Routledge.
27. EDWARDS, T. 2000. Contradictions of consumption: concepts, practices and politics in
consumer society. UK: Open University Press.
28. FEATHERSTONE, M. 1991. Consumer Culture and Postmodernism. London: SAGE.
29. FEUER, J. 1992. Genre Study and Television. In: ALLEN, R. C. ed. Channels of Discourse,
Resassembled. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, pp. 138-160.
30. FISKE, J. 1990. Introduction to Communications Studies. London: Routledge.
31. FISKE, J. and HARTLEY, J. 2003. Reading Television. London: Routledge.
32. FOLEY, D. 2013. Interview with J. Burrows. 24 March. London.
33. FOWLES, J. 1996. Advertising and Popular Culture. London: SAGE.
34. GOLDMAN, R. 1992. Reading Ads Socially. London: Routledge.
35. GOLDMAN, R. and PAPSON, S. 1996. Sign Wars: The Cluttered Landscape of Advertising.
New York: Guilford.
36. GOODMAN, D. and REDCLIFT, M. 1991. Refashioning Nature: Food, Ecology and
Culture. London: Routledge.
37. HALL, S. 1980. Encoding and decoding, In: S. HALL et al. eds., Culture, Media, Language.
London: Hutchinson.
38. HALL, S. 1997. The Work of Representation, In: S. HALL, ed., Representation: Cultural
Representations and Signifying Practices. London: SAGE, pp. 13-74.
39. HEIDEGGER, M. 1977. Question Concerning Technology, trans. William Lovitt. New York:
Harper & Row Publishing.
40. In the Best Possible Taste, Series 1, Episode 1. 2012. Channel 4. 5 June. 22:00.
41. KEMP, N., 2013. Why brands embrace honesty. Marketing Magazine, 3 March [online].
Accessed 29-03-13, available from:
http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/article/1174067/Why-brands-embrace-honesty
42. LACEY, N. 1998. Image and Representation: Key Concepts in Media Studies. London:
Macmillan Press Ltd.
43. LEEDS-HURWITZ, W. 1993. Semiotics and Communication: Signs, Code, Cultures. New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
44. LEEUWEN, T. van, and JEWITT, C. 2001. Introduction, In: T. van LEEUWEN, and C.
JEWITT, eds. Handbook of visual analysis, London: SAGE, pp. 1-9.
45. LEEUWEN, T. van, and KRESS, G. 2006. Reading Images: the visual grammar of visual
design. London: Routledge.
46. LEISS, W., KLINE, S. and JHALLY, S. 1990. Social Communication in Advertising. ON:
Nelson Canada.
47. LEPPERT, R. 1997. Art and the Committed Eye: The Cultural Functions of Imagery,
Boulder, CO: Westview/HarperCollins.
48. LISTER, M. and WELLS, L. 2001. Seeing beyond belief: Cultural Studies as an approach to
analysing the visual. In: T. van LEEUWEN, and C. JEWITT, eds. Handbook of visual
analysis, London: SAGE, pp. 61-91.
48
49. LURY, C. 1988. Consumer Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.
50. LUTZ, C. and COLLINS, J. 1993. Reading National Geographic. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
51. MAYER, J. Foreword. In: BAUDRILLARD, J. The Consumer Society: Myths and Structures,
translated by Chris Turner. London: SAGE Publications.
52. MCCRACKEN, G. 1988. Culture and Consumption: New Approaches to the Symbolic
Character of Consumer Goods and Activities. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
53. MELLOR, A. 2012. Doing the Right Thing: How important is trust in a business? ‘Make
Your Mark’ Networking Series, 23 November, University of Leeds.
54. MENNELL, S., et al. 1992. The Sociology of Food: eating, diet and culture. London: SAGE.
55. MIRZOEFF, N. 1999. An Introduction to Visual Culture. London: Routledge.
56. O’REILLY, 2012. Innocent bids to regain 'entrepreneurial' spirit of '99. Marketing Week, 4
September [online]. Accessed: 06-03-13, available
from:http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/news/innocent-bids-to-regain-entrepreneurialspirit/4003590.article
57. PERRY, H., T. 2012. Building a Brand without Advertising [film] 12 April [online].
Accessed: 04-04-13, available from: http://eatbigfish.com/theblog/building-a-brand-withoutadvertising
58. PRATKANIS, A. and ARONSON, E. 2001. Age of Propaganda: The Everyday Use and
Abuse of Persuasion. New York: A W H Freeman.
59. ROGERS, E., 2004. Packaging integrity and honesty to be key brand issues. Marketing
Magazine, 7 January [online]. Accessed 29-03-13. Available from:
http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/article/198968/Packaging-integrity-honesty-key-brandissues
60. ROSE, G. 2012. Visual Methodologies: An introduction to researching with visual materials.
London: SAGE.
61. ROTH, J. 1976. Health purifiers and their enemies. London: Croom Helm LTD.
62. RUNDH, B. 2005. The Multi-faceted Dimension of Packaging. Marketing Logistic or
Marketing Tool? British Food Journal, 107(9), pp. 670-684.
63. SAUSSURE, F. 1966. Course in General Linguistics, trans. Wade Baskin. New York:
McGraw Hill.
64. SCHROEDER, J. 2002. Visual Consumption. London: Routledge.
65. SCHUDSON, M. 1986. Advertising, the Uneasy Persuasion: Its Dubious Impact on American
Society. US: Basic Books.
66. SILVERMAN, K. 1983. The Subject of Semiotics. New York: Oxford University Press.
67. STUART, T. 2013. Interview with J. Burrows. 11 February. Telephone interview.
68. The Food Programme, 2009. 30th Anniversary: Business. BBC Radio 4. 23 November,
16:00.
69. THWAITES, T. and DAVIS, L. 2002. Introducing Cultural and Media Studies: A Semiotic
Approach. Hampshire: Palgrave.
70. THWAITES, T., et al., 1994. Tools for Cultural Studies: An Introduction. Melbourne:
Macmillan Education Australia Ltd.
71. UNDERWOOD, et al., 2001, Packaging communication: Attentional effects of product
imagery, Journal of Product & Brand Management, 10(7), pp. 403-22.
72. Warc, 2007. DBA Effectiveness Award: Dorset Cereals [online]. Accessed 03-03-13,
available from: http://www.warc.com/Content/ContentViewer.aspx?ID=8e97f5d9-8479-4f9c9aa9-24bbf403e9a9&q=AID%3a90615&MasterContentRef=8e97f5d9-8479-4f9c-9aa924bbf403e9a9
49
73. WARDE, A. 1997. Consumption, Food and Taste: Culinary Antinomies and Commodity
Culture. London: SAGE.
74. WERNICK, A. 1991. Promotional Culture: Advertising, ideology and symbolic expression.
London: SAGE.
75. WERNICK, A. 1997. Resort to Nostalgia: Mountains, memories and myths of time. In: M.
NAVA, et al., eds. Buy This Book: Studies in Advertising and Consumption. London:
Routledge, pp. 207-223.
76. Which? Magazine, 2012. Supermarket packaging tactics exposed. September, pp. 49-52.
77. WILLIAMSON, J. 1978. Decoding Advertising: Ideology and Meaning in Advertising.
London: Marion Boyars.
78. ZIMMERMAN, M. 1990. Heidegger’s Confrontation with Modernity: Technology, Politics,
Art. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Brands & Agencies
 Bear Nibbles, 2013. Homepage. [online]. Accessed 03-03-13, available from:
http://www.bearnibbles.co.uk/
 Big Fish, 2013. Dorset Cereals [online]. Accessed: 03-03-13, available from:
http://www.bigfish.co.uk/blog/portfolio/dorset-cereals/
 Boxer, 2013, McDonald’s [online]. Accessed: 03-03-13, available from:
http://www.boxercreative.co.uk/our_work/mcdonalds.html
 Clipper Tea, 2013. About page. [online]. Accessed 03-03-13, available from:
http://www.clipper-teas.com/our-story/who-we-are/
 Dorset Cereals, 2013a. About Dorset Cereals Facebook page [online]. Accessed: 03-0313, available from: https://www.facebook.com/dorsetcereals/info
 Dorset Cereals, 2013b. About [online]. Accessed: 03-03-13, available from:
http://www.dorsetcereals.co.uk/about-us/
 Dorset Cereals, 2013c. Our Awards [online]. Accessed: 03-03-13, available from:
http://www.dorsetcereals.co.uk/category/our-blog/our-awards/
 Dorset Cereals, 2013d. Where we Work [online]. Accessed: 03-03-13, available from:
http://www.dorsetcereals.co.uk/about-us/where-we-work/
 Dorset Cereals, 2013e, Dorset Cereals? On TV? Goodness me… [online]. Accessed: 0804-13, available from: http://www.dorsetcereals.co.uk/feature-blog/dorset-cereals-on-tvgoodness-me/
 Innocent, 2013. Homepage. [online]. Accessed 03-03-13, available from:
http://innocentsmoothies.co.uk/
 Wellness Foods, 2013. Homepage [online]. Accessed: 03-03-13, available from:
http://www.wellnessfoods.co.uk/
50