Marius, my biggest complaint with pharmaceutical packaging isn't the type or the graphics, its the stupid names, that the general public don't get. I think the agencies who create the packaging would be better off spending more time and money researching names through focus groups. More generic names that have memory retention would require less advertising and brand recognition.

Marius,

There is an article in Baseline Magazine Number 34 2001 called Can packaging be honest? The introduction is by Jeremy Myerson and the main text is by Frank Philippin. The discussion is wide ranging and interesting, addressing such considerations as how we shop, vision problems and information. Philippin reports on two redesign tests he conducted with older consumers one of which is Paracetamol packaging.

Also the books: The Total Package, The Perfect Package and others. A search on Amazon should yield related titles. Search at you library (Academic or Public) for them and others too. Librarians can help lots when doing research like this.

Jon

damien hurst in his 'last supper series' (1999) makes great use of what one could call pharmaceutical typology

http://www.eyestorm.com/works/Damien_Hirst_10823.aspx?gp=_3

in relation to the discussion above, it's interesting that packaging for early (1960s) contraceptive pills frequently replaced grotesks with the sort of 50s brush script seen in the word 'omelette' (above), in combination with the use of pink

it's one area where the swiss/international style graphics have been widely accepted, and associated with objectivity, hygiene, authority, trust --all the values that people expect from medicine