Design flaws of Method soap

December 19, 2007


I love good design. No surprise there.

However, there’s a time when sharp design clouds common sense - when the idea of making something look great takes precedence over usability. Sure, that font might look cool, but what happens if it causes an “i” and “r” to fuse together? That shirt you’re talking about just turned into shit.

For weeks, I’ve experienced the sad triumph of design over usability every time I try to wash the dishes.

We often purchase Method cleaning products - a design-friendly, super-green company, an antithesis of your typical mass-market mega-companies (Proctor and Gamble, for instance). They’re available at Target, and now at our local HyVee stores.

The company is founded on two things: biodegradable, Earth-positive products and great design. In fact, one of the founders was a graphic designer. He had experience in style and branding, and sought a way to introduce design to the home care industry.

Admittedly, this is a selling point to Kerrie and me. We enjoy nicely designed products, so we were instantly drawn in by Method’s clean bottles and unobtrusive labels. When you look at the over-bright, seizure-inducing labels that appear on most home care product, you understand the allure.

Unfortunately, Method’s dish soap holds a serious flaw.

The plastic bottle it comes in is impossible to use.

Method soapTake a look. The bottle looks pretty sharp. It’s sleek and it would look nice on your counter. You would pick up the bottle at the store and hold it and fall in love with the design.

Then you take it home. With wet hands, you reach for it.

*SLOOP!*

Right out of your hands. Into the water. Go ahead - try turning the top knob to get soap out. Haha - the joke’s on you! Our soap happens to be under the counter, so we have to try to pick the bottle up from the top - a near impossible feat with wet hands.

The tapered top looks great. But it’s not practical. The rounded corners of the spout make the bottle look modern. But they’re also not practical. This is a product designed to look great. Not to work great. Those strong, sturdy shoulders on the typical bottle of Dawn? They seem so necessary now.

I will buy things because they are designed well. I will stop and read ads that look good. I will be drawn to people who put forth a well-designed personality. And the most frustrating thing in these cases is when the design is just that - all design, no substance, lacking the most common sense workability functions. It’s as if the ideas were never bounced off of anyone, the product created in a vacuum with hopes of a grand unveiling.

Do you have the next great design idea? Lay it on us. But make sure that it’s more than just packaging. Make sure that you test it out first before sending it out into the world to fend for itself. Because if no one will ever remember your art if they can’t get the soap out.

Tags: Advertising and Marketing, Annoyances |

Comments

2 Responses to “Design flaws of Method soap”

  1. kv on December 19th, 2007 215 pm

    We’ve resorted to leaving the lid twisted open. Also, you can’t tell if the product is coming out if you are squeezing it. However, the product itself I enjoy. There’s nothing worse than taking a drink out of a glass and smelling Dawn.

  2. Doug Jacobs on December 19th, 2007 710 pm

    I have used Radio Shack since HAM Radios, they have gone down hill since and rarely do I buy from them anymore. I just spent 2 hours trying to buy a sirius radio and a one year subscription from them to send to my son 1500 miles away in a town where radio shack has many outlets.
    After being on hold, not finding the deal in the newspaper, then finding it, they tell me I must order online as they do not take CC over phone. I go to the site where it does not have the offer (Again) and call their 800 number. After half an hour of waiting I am told again they don’t know how or have the capability to take an order over the phone… I’m going elsewhere and Radio Shack be be a thing of the past just as Montgomery Wards or Woolworth’s…Oh well…

Leave a Reply