inside the studio: method products

Check out this great article giving us all a peek into the method offices, and how they work!

Inside The Studio: method Products - the dieline

Our first glimpse inside the walls of Method Products proved to be somewhat of a surprise. Method’s close proximity to the city’s financial center gave us the impression we were about to walk into a rigid and sterile office space. Those feelings were soon expelled, as we entered a space that was casual and full of quirky touches. We met with Josh Handy and Sally Clarke, VP of Industrial Design and Design Director of Packaging, respectively. Both native New Zealanders, their accents came through as we touched on everything from their careers at Method, creative processes, and of course – working together as a married couple.

How did you get involved at Method?

Josh Handy: “I met Adam and Eric, the two founders, when I was working in New York at Karim Rashid Studio. This was back in 2000-2001 and they sat down across the table for Karim and me and said, ‘we want to change the world of cleaning. We want you to design a dish soap for us, and we want it to be the most revolutionary dish soap every created.’

We thought, this sounds all right. ‘How much money do you have?’

‘Uh, none.’

‘So what sort of distribution do you have?’

‘None’

Karim and I were kind of like, ‘uh-huh uh-huh, yeah see you later’

He and I had a chat afterwards and we thought; we’ll spend three days on it. We will try to get some shares off them -because at the time it was the dot.com boom, everyone was going for equity and talking start ups. We thought, what the hell, we’ll take a punt on it. We worked on it and we came up with the idea for the upside down dish soap. They took that design and took it to Target and Target said ‘We love it, let’s do it but you have to be on the shelves in 16 weeks.’”

Oh my gosh…

“They had to be there on the shelves in 16 weeks, so it was crazy trying to get the formula done. The bottle needed to be sourced, manufactured, tested, and all of that stuff. It was a nightmare and it turned out to be a bit of a disaster, because the bottles started to leak. And they were all on the top shelf. There are great Method legends of people going around and wiping down Target stores, getting all the soap off the leaky bottles! [Laughs] That kind of set the brand off.”

[After a brief move to Australia Josh had a chance encounter with one of Method’s founders]

“I bumped into Eric at a trade show in Chicago while I was there for my Australian job and we got to talking. He was like ‘You should come work for me.’ This is the short story, there’s a much longer story which is kind of fun. [Laughs] So we kind of made that happen.

So about 4 and a half, almost 5 years ago, we turned up here in San Francisco to work for Method. There were like 35 people. Its been a bit of a ride ever since..."

+

Check out the full article over on the dieline!

packaging a compelling customer experience

Be sure to read this interesting article on package design, from The Dieline! method gets a big ole' mention (and of course they would, rockin' packaging!) Check out this excerpt:

"...How about Method’s packaging? Method’s environmentally-safe home and personal use cleaning products feature beautifully-designed, clear packaging on many of its products. Packaging for the entire Method line has the look and feel of upscale cosmetic packaging. Talk about experiential!

An examination of environmental cleaning products shows that there’s a great deal of similar bill-board-type packaging in the category. Only Method’s packaging is strikingly different. Contemporary, clean, refreshing. As Method’s web site states: “(co-founder) Eric (Ryan) knew people wanted cleaning products they didn't have to hide under their sinks”. Not only does this product claim cleaning effectiveness and safety, it’s meant to be seen. What a concept for commodity products!

While a number of eco-conscious cleaning products are on the market now, why is it that Method has garnered nearly a whopping $100 million in sales in a slow-growth category? Why is it that the brand has also created a community of avid brand loyalists? Products that are made to be seen, are obviously grabbed and used more. More product used, faster repeat sales. Since there are myriad cleaning products on the market, including eco-friendly options, it’s apparent that Method’s experiential packaging accounts for part of the brand’s stunning success."

Be sure to head over to The Dieline to read the complete article!

the best form of flattery?

Hmm... Over on The Dieline, a great site that showcases product packaging, they've done a post on a new line of personal care products called Patently Obvious.

"Patently Obvious is KMI's new range of personal cleaning products combines a natural antibacterial action with a biodegradable formulation that actually works giving performance without compromise. Will King wanted packaging that was distinctive and unique so custom bottles (ironically styled on classic 'chemistry' bottles) were designed in-house... The bottles are made here in the UK using 100% post consumer recycled plastics."

You can head on over to The Dieline to read a little more, and see another pic of the products.

The interesting part? Many of the comments have mentioned JUST how similar it is to our favorite method brand (from packaging shape, to "neon" colors, etc.):

"Method much? But with cluttered graphics."

"when i first glanced at it, i thought it was more method packaging."

"yeah, this is method. but not as nice."

"Oh come on everyone... i also thought it was more Method packaging when I first saw it and then realized it was just someone knocking off the original. From the packaging itself to the way it's shot all together, there is simply no confusion."

And even method's very own Josh Handy gets into the conversation. You can check it all out for yourself!

buying in

A very interesting article over on The Dieline, a blog focusing on product and package design. And method is included in the discussion:

"Journalist, Rob Walker writes the weekly “Consumed” column for the NY Times Magazine. Equally adept at addressing both the business and cultural aspects of his subject, Walker’s well-reasoned column has emerged as an unusually clear window on the murky world of branding.

His book, “Buying In, The Secret Dialogue Between What We Buy and Who We Are” came out this past Summer.

box vox: One of the companies you write about in your book is Method. You make the case that buying one of their cleaning products is not a strictly rational decision, since so much of their product appeal is based on how cool the packaging looks, rather than how well the product works. Because of their packaging, Method seems to have inspired one of those impromptu brand communities that you discuss elsewhere in your book. Their products are regularly celebrated in package design blogs like The Dieline and I know of at least one designer’s blog (Nathan Aaron’s “Method Lust” site) that is devoted to nothing else. Of course, package designers may have their own self-serving reasons for loving Method, but they don’t seem to be the only ones who are buying Method because of its decorator packaging. Is it possible that Method has built a business entirely on a demographic of aesthetes who want every detail of their lives to reflect their own overarching good taste?

Rob Walker: It was actually one of the founders of Method who told me that their customer feedback indicated that people who bought Method products were often surprised that they worked — that is, they were attracted to the packaging for whatever reason, but had some kind of suspicion that there would be some kind of tradeoff of function for form. I thought that was pretty interesting, that people would buy a household cleaner, of all things, on that basis. It’s not like dish liquid is a good candidate for the “conspicuous consumption” theory of consumer behavior.

So I think it’s pretty clear that design was a major part of what has built Method’s business. BUT ... I’m not sure that I’d go quite so far as to say they’d built their business totally on the aesthete demo. That that demo was not crucial.

Here’s what I mean. One of the things that most interests me about Method is that they have an eco-friendly or “green” story to tell—their products are (they say) made without many of the toxic ingredients common to household cleaning products. But they chose not to make that their main selling point, their main way of differentiating themselves at the shelf level. They went with the “good design” strategy instead. They don’t hide the other, eco-ish story, they just skipped the traditional strategy of, you know, putting a tree on the bottle or whatever.

And I think this strategy worked well at a time when the broad idea of “good design” was much in the air. I think there were plenty of consumers who had been in essence conditioned by a variety of cultural forces (many of them commercial) to pay attention to the idea of “good design.” And Method offered both a kind of novelty at the shelf, and an easy way into that broad idea.

I’m generalizing wildly. But still. I think it was both a clever strategy and, on some level, an admirable one. I think it’s clever because the truth is the eco/green thing is really easy to knock off—especially in symbolic/design terms. (Just add a tree to your package and you’re ... green ... ish.) Many consumers don’t want to “do their homework” about such issues, so devious design/packaging strategies can work. And Method, as far as I can tell, had the right facts to back up their eco claims for anybody who did do their homework.

So I think that’s clever because really striking visual design is actually harder to knock off, if it’s done right. Copycats look like copycats, and it can actually strengthen the position of “the original.”

And I think it’s admirable in the sense that there was something going on behind the “good design.” (I am not particularly impressed by the argument that buying “good design” is its own reward, which is in effect what many observers seem to believe.) There was something ethical (for lack of a better term) about the product—but they aimed for an audience larger than the one that is overtly tuned in to such issues. And it would appear that they have attained such an audience. For now!"

+

Oh! I didn't even realize I was in the article! Yo, too cool! Head on over to The Dieline and read the rest!

You can also read Rob Walker's original Consumed article, from 2004 (Whew! Did they have computers back then?!) which was previously posted here on method lust.