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

1

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.

2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thank you to Katy Parry, Darren Foley, Tessa Stuart, Stergios Bititsios, and Tom Norris.

3

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

4

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

5

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 Coca-

Cola, 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

6

‘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).

7

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

8

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

9

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.

10

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’

11

(‘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 English-

speaking 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 signifier-

signified 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.

12

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

13

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).

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

could not connote ‘sophistication’ (Fiske, 1990). As Saussure says, signs cannot operate in

isolation.

18

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

19

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,

20

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).

21

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

22

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 old-

fashioned 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

23

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 mass-

manufactured artefacts which are produced for economic purposes. In referring to art, Dorset

24

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 over-

produced, 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

25

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

26

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.

27

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 ‘anti-

materialist’ 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

28

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

29

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,

30

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

31

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 long-

standing 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

32

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.

33

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.

34

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

35

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

36

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, anti-

consumerist? 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.

37

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.

38

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.

39

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’.

40

Figure 6. Dorset Cereals packaging

41

Figure 7. Dorset Cereals colour scheme

Dorset Cereals refers to nature with muted and earthy colours.

.

Figure 8. Dorset Cereals typeface: ‘ICT American Typewriter’

42

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.

43

Figure 11. Cut-out window revealing the produce inside

Figure 12. Subtle line connecting the logo to the product description

44

Figure 13. Arrow trend

These playful and informal arrows are reminiscent of a child’s drawing.

45

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’.

46

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

47

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-reconnect-

packaging-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-changing-

the-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-changing-

the-world-one-breakfast-bowl-at-a-time-7893714.html

48

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.

49

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-entrepreneurial-

spirit/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-without-

advertising

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-brand-

issues

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=8e97f5d9-8479-4f9c-

9aa9-24bbf403e9a9&q=AID%3a90615&MasterContentRef=8e97f5d9-8479-4f9c-9aa9-

24bbf403e9a9

50

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: 03-03-

13, 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: 08-

04-13, available from: http://www.dorsetcereals.co.uk/feature-blog/dorset-cereals-on-tv-

goodness-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/