Colour forecasting still gets treated like a design exercise.
Pantone releases a colour, agencies respond, and brands start asking if they need to follow. That cycle exists, but it says very little about what actually works in a supermarket.
Looking at interiors can give some context, but it is not a rulebook. What you see there is usually a reflection of how people are feeling rather than where packaging should go next.
Right now, colours are toning down. Less brightness, more muted, more natural. That sits alongside what we are seeing in grocery stores, where shoppers are more measured and less responsive to anything that feels exaggerated.
You can see that coming through in packaging. Greens have flattened out. Whites are less stark. Blues are carrying more grey. Premium ranges have moved away from sharp minimalism into something with a bit more depth. That is not just design preference. It is how brands are trying to hold credibility in a market where shoppers are paying closer attention.
However, there is a gap between what is happening in broader design and what actually performs on the shelf.
This is where a lot of good design work runs into trouble. Supermarkets are dense environments. Multiple brands, similar claims, limited time. Colour has to do a job. It needs to register quickly and signal what the product is about without effort.
Shopper data from groups such as Shopper Intelligence and NielsenIQ keeps pointing to the same thing. Decisions are made fast, often in seconds. That does not favour subtlety. What feels considered in a design review can disappear once it sits in a bay with five close competitors.
Private label has shifted the rules further. Retailers are building tighter systems across their ranges, using colour to mark out entry-, mid- and premium-tier products. That is not accidental. It is about making navigation easier and reinforcing their own architecture. In that setting, a supplier’s pack is not operating on its own terms. It either fits the system or has to work harder to stand apart from it.
Then there is the screen. More of the shop is happening digitally, whether that is full ecommerce or retail media placements. Packs are reduced, cropped and viewed quickly. Colours that feel balanced on shelf do not always hold up at that size. That is forcing clearer contrast and simpler reads, even as the broader design direction softens.
Font size becomes part of the same issue. Packs are now photographed and reduced, but many of them do not hold up. Back-of-pack is often unreadable, and even front-of-pack can lose clarity at smaller sizes. That shifts the focus onto hierarchy. Brand, product, and key cues need to be clear without relying on someone having to click through. If that information is not visible at a glance, it is effectively not there.
So, where does that leave colour for 2026 and 2027?
There are patterns emerging, but they need to be handled carefully. Muted greens and mineral tones are holding, but more as a signal of credibility than a blanket sustainability message.
Warmer shades, rust, terracotta, brown-red, are appearing more often, usually tied to simpler, ingredient-led positioning. Premium private label is moving away from stark minimalism and toward softer contrast.
At the same time, high-visibility colours are still doing the work in value-led parts of the store where price needs to be clear.
The risk is taking these as trends to follow. The better question is whether a colour choice will work where it counts. On shelf. On screen. In front of a buyer reviewing a range where several options are sitting side by side.
If it aligns with where consumers are heading but gets lost in-store, it is not doing its job. If it cuts through but feels out of step with the category's direction, it will not hold.
Colour sits alongside price, format and positioning. It is part of how a product competes. It needs to work in-store, online and in a range review. If it cannot do that, it is not the right call.
Learn more about packaging & design in the latest issue here
