Consumer perceptions of product packaging

Journal of Consumer Marketing Consumer perceptions of product packaging Olga Ampuero Natalia Vila

Article information: To cite this document: Olga Ampuero Natalia Vila, (2006),"Consumer perceptions of product packaging", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 23 Iss 2 pp. 100 - 112 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363760610655032

Downloaded by UNIVERSITAT DE VALENCIA At 23:50 17 July 2016 (PT)

Downloaded on: 17 July 2016, At: 23:50 (PT) References: this document contains references to 30 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 40969 times since 2006*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: (1996),"Packaging, marketing, logistics and the environment: are there trade-offs?", International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 26 Iss 6 pp. 60-72 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09600039610125206 (1999),"What we know about consumers’ color choices", Journal of Marketing Practice: Applied Marketing Science, Vol. 5 Iss 3 pp. 78-88 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000004565 (2001),"Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18 Iss 6 pp. 503-520 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006155

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by All users group

For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. *Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Consumer perceptions of product packaging Olga Ampuero Department of Graphic Expression in Engineering, Polytechnic University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain, and

Natalia Vila


Department of Marketing, School of Economics, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain Abstract Purpose – This paper seeks to discuss the need to understand consumer perceptions in order to correctly design product packing and to achieve the desired position in the minds of consumers. Design/methodology/approach – Data collection was divided into two phases. The first, (based on designers’ opinions), to determine the key graphic variables in the design of packaging. The second, (based on consumers’ opinions), to associate each packaging with a positioning strategy. The seven product-positioning strategies selected were represented from the consumers’ standpoint using multidimensional scaling. Four maps were obtained related to: alternative packaging colours; alternative packaging typography; alternative packaging graphical forms; alternative packaging images Findings – Each positioning strategy appears associated with particular packaging dimensions. Research limitations/implications – Consumers have exhibited harmonious perceptions towards products-packaging strategies, so one can conclude that a general feeling as to what a particular packaging exactly means exists. So the general opinion should guide packaging designers to appropriately meet consumers’ expectations. Originality/value – A range of simulated packaging was prepared for the 46 consumers that took part in the two-phase experiment: One of the seven positioning strategies was explained. For example: “Product ‘A’ is positioned as reasonably priced. People say the price is OK”; Case to be solved: “From this selection, choose the packaging that seems most suitable for product ‘A’, taking its characteristics into account”. The simulated packaging alternatives were shown and the subject chose the options that seemed most suitable (colour, typography, forms and images). The sequence was repeated for the remaining six positioning typologies. Keywords Product positioning, Packaging, Perception, Presentation graphics, Consumer behaviour Paper type Research paper

consequently, in defining its positioning in consumers’ minds. The reason for this lies in the fact that, traditionally, studies have focussed on positioning through ephemeral messages transmitted by the mass media, without taking into account the permanent character of the tangible codes that packaging transmits. Underwood (2003) states that the proliferation of brands in the market and the varied range that a purchaser finds at the point of sale, force efforts to achieve effective differentiation to be increased. This is why traditional mass media communication is being redirected to point of sale promotions and communication. To this end, this article will examine the possibilities that packaging provides within the positioning strategy of tangible products. So an experimentation-based empirical research study has been carried out to relate each positioning strategy to certain specific packaging elements (colour, typography, shape, image). To summarise, this study has come about because of the growing managerial recognition of the ability of packaging to create differentiation and identity, above all in the case of relatively homogenous perishable consumer goods.

An executive summary for managers and executive readers can be found at the end of this article.

Introduction The term positioning is a subjective and relative concept; because product positioning is defined in the minds of consumers taking into consideration the rest of the market offers. Therefore, in order to obtain a particular position, consumer product perceptions must be analysed in great detail. The reason for this is that the perceptions of a given set of consumers reflect and inspire at the same time the company’s strategy for its products. The relevance of the term “positioning” is due, in part, to the relationship between a well-positioned product and the success and growth of a company, just as many different authors sustain (Ramsay, 1983; McAlexander et al., 1993). So, given that success is traditionally associated with the choice of an appropriate product positioning strategy, the first step must be to correctly define a positioning strategy. In this area, little work has been done to discover the role of packaging in forming consumer perceptions of a product, and

Literature review The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0736-3761.htm

If we examine exactly what the term “positioning” is understood to mean, there are studies (Maggard, 1976) that sustain that its origins lie in an article by Al Ries and Jack Trout published in the magazine Industrial Marketing in 1969. This was followed by other articles published in the magazine Advertising Age in 1972 under the title “The age of positioning”, which served to extend and disseminate the

Journal of Consumer Marketing 23/2 (2006) 100– 112 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0736-3761] [DOI 10.1108/07363760610655032]

100


Consumer perceptions of product packaging

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Olga Ampuero and Natalia Vila

Volume 23 · Number 2 · 2006 · 100 –112

term. According to these authors, positioning has its origins in product packaging (the concept was called product positioning). This literally meant the shape of the product, the size of the package and its price in comparison to the competition. At that time, these authors announced the start of a new age: “The age of positioning”, which recognised the importance of the product and the image of the company, but, above all, it underlined the need to achieve a position in the mind of the consumer. Positioning starts with a product, but it does not refer to the product; rather it refers to what can be done to the mind of the probable clients or persons that are to be influenced, that is to say, how to position the product in their minds. Once the positioning plan has been completed (and the company knows how it wants to present itself to the market with respect to its competition), the company implements a plan of action through the construction of a suitable marketing mix (Brooksbank, 1994). In this way, it can be said that the positioning of a product induces its marketing mix (pricing policy, place, products and promotion) (Maggard, 1976; Aaker, 1996; Bigne´ and Vila, 2000). Later on, marketing mix elements (product, price, distribution and advertising) reach consumers and contribute to determining the desired product positioning in the minds of consumers (Maggard, 1976). If we focus on “communication” activities, the sequence should be the following: a positioning decision identifies the product characteristics that should be stressed in the marketing mix, particularly in its communication campaign. In other words, positioning guides communication action plans (Aaker, 1996). That is to say, the origin is a positioning strategy which provides a base for several decisions to be consequently followed. If instead of centring on communication activities, we pay attention to “product” decisions, we can see that it is composed of several elements. One of these elements is packaging, which is becoming an increasingly important factor for several reasons. These are summarised by Underwood et al. (2001) and Underwood (2003). The first reason that these authors propose is that, when faced with reduced advertising budgets, brand building expenses are reduced in the traditional mass media and communication efforts are concentrated on sales promotions and on point of sale communications. Second, for perishable goods there is an increase in the purchasing decisions made directly in the shop (according to the Henley Centre, 73 per cent of purchasing decisions are made at the point of sale). Similarly, managers are increasingly recognising that packaging can create differentiation and identity, above all in relatively homogenous perishable consumer goods. And finally, the proliferation of the number of brands in the market and the varied offer that purchasers find at the point of sale force there to be an increase in efforts to achieve effective differentiation. However, what exactly is the term “packaging” understood to mean. In general terms, packaging is the container that is in direct contact with product itself, which holds, protects, preserves and identifies the product as well as facilitating handling and commercialisation (Vidales Giovannetti, 1995). More specifically, and following Vidales Giovannetti (1995), there are three types of packaging. Primary packaging is in direct contact with the product, such as perfume bottles. Secondary packaging contains one or more primary packages and serves to protect and identify them and to communicate

the qualities of the product. It is normally discarded when the product is used or consumed. Following the previous example, this would be the cardboard box that contains the perfume bottle. Finally, tertiary packaging which contains the two previous ones and its function is to distribute, unify and protect products throughout the commercial chain. This would be the cardboard box that contains several bottles. In marketing literature, packaging is considered to form part of the product and the brand. So, for example, for Evans and Berman (1992) packaging is a product property or characteristic, whereas for Olson and Jacoby (1972) packaging is an extrinsic element of the product, that is to say, it is attribute that is related to the product but that does not form part of the physical product itself. Price and brand are also extrinsic elements of the brand and according to Underwood et al. (2001); these are the most important extrinsic values when it comes to deciding what food products to buy. Keller (1998) also considers packaging to be an attribute that is not related to the product. For him it is one of the five elements of the brand together with the name, the logo and/or graphic symbol, the personality and the slogans. Packaging is presented as part of the buying and consuming process, but often it is not directly related to the ingredients that are essential for the product to function (Underwood, 2003). The view that Zeithaml (1972) sustains lies halfway between these two positions. He considers packaging to be both an extrinsic and intrinsic attribute (an intrinsic attribute is one that cannot be changed without altering the physical composition of the product). For example, if we refer to the non-drip top, packaging is an intrinsic attribute; but if we refer to the information that appears on the label, packaging is an extrinsic attribute. From the managerial point of view, in order for packaging to suitably develop its functions, the structural and graphic design of the packaging and even the optimum size of the pack will be subject to market research undertaken by the company and the positioning that the company wants the product to occupy in the market (Ivan˜ez Gimeno, 2000). So, packaging is, without doubt, specifically related to the strategic decisions of the marketing mix (Underwood, 2003) and, therefore, to positioning decisions. From the consumer perspective, packaging also plays a major role when products are purchased: packaging is crucial, given that it is the first thing that the public sees before making the final decision to buy (Vidales Giovannetti, 1995). This function has increased with the arrival and popularisation of self-service sales systems which have caused packaging to move to the foreground in attracting attention and causing a purchase. Prior to this, it had remained behind the counter and only the sales attendant came between the consumer and the product (Cervera Fantoni, 2003). According to Sonsino (1990), self-service has transferred the role of informing the customer from the sales assistant to advertising and to packaging. This is why packaging has been called the “silent salesman”, as it informs us of the qualities and benefits that we are going to obtain if we consume a certain product (Vidales Giovannetti, 1995). In the current self-service economy, packaging provides manufacturers with the last opportunity to persuade possible buyers before brand selection (McDaniel and Baker, 1977). Therefore, all the packaging elements, including texts, colours, structure, images and people/ 101





Volume 23 · Number 2 · 2006 · 100 –112

personalities have to be combined to provide the consumer with visual sales negotiation when purchasing and using the product (McNeal and Ji, 2003). This becomes even more crucial when the data contributed by Clive Nancarrow et al. (1998) is taken into consideration: nine out of ten purchasers, at least occasionally, buy on impulse (Welles, 1986) and unplanned food shopping articles can account for up to 51 per cent of purchases (Phillips and Bradshaw, 1993). Behaeghel (1991) and Peters (1994) go a step further. They consider that packaging could be the most important communication medium for the following reasons: . it reaches almost all buyers in the category; . it is present at the crucial moment when the decision to buy is made; and . buyers are actively involved with packaging as they examine it to obtain the information they need.

by these two authors, the second option “extraordinary service” has been eliminated as it refers to the particular case of service positioning, in which packaging does not play a significant part. The seven remaining positioning strategies have been studied in depth to see what kind of packaging best represents them: (1) positioning based on status, for the upper classes; (2) positioning based on accessibility/economic price; (3) positioning based on safety; (4) positioning based on elegance/sobriety; (5) positioning based on the country of origin/patriotism; (6) positioning based on excellence/high price; and (7) positioning based on noble principles/for the middle classes. Of all the packaging components, this research is only focussed on the elements whose definition corresponds to graphic design (colour, typography, graphic shapes and images), leaving the other structural elements that are related to industrial design or engineering attributes (size, shape, closing systems, manufacturing materials, formats. . .) for subsequent research studies. So, the graphic elements to be studied are the four that are reflected in the literature: colour, typography, shapes and images. Therefore, if we relate the positioning strategies and the graphic elements to the studies, the following hypothesis can be proposed: H1. Consumers’ perceptions towards products will vary according to the packaging strategies defined for these products.

In this situation, it is essential to communicate the right brand and product values on packaging and to achieve a suitable aesthetic and visual level (Nancarrow et al., 1998). Similarly, McNeal and Ji (2003) underline that the peculiarity of packaging as a marketing element lies in the fact that it often accompanies the use or consumption of products and, therefore, the possibility of transmitting brand values and product characteristics increases. With regard to this aspect, Deasy (2000) points out that the characteristics of a product – its positioning – are permanently transmitted over seven stages: (1) point of sale; (2) transporting the product home; (3) home storage; (4) opening; (5) serving the product for consumption; (6) reclosing or putting away; and (7) disposal.

Methodology In order to achieve these objectives, data collection was divided into two phases: the first, aimed at determining the key graphic variables in the design of packaging; and the second, aimed at associating packaging with positioning strategies.

Underwood (2003) points out that, unlike the transmission of positioning though advertising, packaging allows positioning to be transferred live. As it accompanies products, packaging lives in the home and potentially becomes an intimate part of the consumer’s life constituting a type of live experience between the consumer and the brand (Lindsay, 1997). With regard to the main components of packaging, many different points of view have been expressed (Sonsino, 1990; Vidales Giovannetti, 1995; Hine, 1995; Ivan˜ez Gimeno, 1995; Underwood et al., 2001; Cervera Fantoni, 2003). Generally speaking, a distinction is made between two blocks of components: (1) graphic components: colour packaging, typography, the graphical shapes used and the images introduced; and (2) structural components: shape, size of the containers and the materials used to manufacture them.

Phase 1: determination of the key elements of packaging (colour, typography, shapes, and images) In the first phase, eight interviews were conducted with experts in packaging design. The objective was to determine the most important graphic variables in the use of: (1) colour; (2) typography; (3) shapes; and (4) images. In order to have a complete vision of the alternatives that can be used with these four components, interviewee heterogeneity was sought. The profile of the eight designers is: . Gender: Women – 62 per cent; Men – 38 per cent. . Age: 20-30 – 37 per cent; 30-40 – 38 per cent; 40-50 – 25 per cent. . Education: Primary education – 13 per cent; Higher studies – 87 per cent.

Research aims As we have already stated, packaging plays a major role in communicating brand personality by means of several structural and graphic elements. So, this article aims to discover how consumer perceptions vary according to product packaging strategies. To do this, the role that packaging plays in positioning strategy will be studied. The proposal recently developed by Blankson and Kalafatis (2001) has been selected, because it is based on consumer perceptions. However, of the eight positions strategies defined

As a result of this first phase, several alternatives were selected for each of the four key variables. 102





Volume 23 · Number 2 · 2006 · 100 –112

Phase 2: association of the key elements to the different positioning strategies A dossier showing a range of simulated packaging was prepared for the 46 consumer that agreed to participate in our experiment. The profile of the 46 consumers is: . Gender: Women – 57 per cent; Men – 43 per cent. . Age: 20-30 – 85 per cent; 30-40 – 15 per cent. . Education: Primary education – 7 per cent; Higher studies – 93 per cent.

have been obtained with multidimensional scaling based on the data obtained related to: (1) alternative packaging colours; (2) alternative packaging typography; (3) alternative packaging graphical forms; and (4) alternative packaging images

Results As far as obtaining the maps is concerned, SPSS software ASCAL aggregated scaling was used[1]. In general, we can state that the adjustment indices used to measure to what extent these maps reflect the perceptions of the subjects questioned (S-Stress, Stress and RSQ) are reasonably good. The S-Stress and Stress take values close to zero, which means that the perceptions are reflected accurately. The RSQ, however, are close to 1, which means that the variability explained by the model is almost 100 per cent. On our maps, the indices obtained from the consumer information are outstanding. This means that consumer perceptions regarding the seven product positioning strategies with respect to the different packaging variables analysed are reflected on the maps. With respect to the first graphical dimension analysed, “packaging colour”, the four quadrants of map 1 (Figure 2) show four groups of positioning strategies with different characteristics (Table I): (1) Products directed to the upper classes, high price products and elegant. The packaging of these three positioning strategies are highly associated with cold (10) and dark (1) colours, mainly black (14) and not to yellow, orange and red colours (25). (2) Reasonably priced, accessible products. On the contrary, the packaging of this strategy is associated with light colours (2), mainly white (13). (3) Patriotic products and products based on guarantees. Neither of these two strategies was clearly associated with any of the graphic design variables. They were associated with the options “none” and “any”: any temperature (11), no shade 1 (16), no brightness (4) no temperature (12), no saturation (8), no shade 2 (20). However, there was a slight association with the colour red, maybe because of its presence on the Spanish flag and thus related to the idea of “patriotism”. (4) Non-selective products. The packaging of this strategy is not well defined. It appears to be associated to both light colours and dark colours (3), both saturated and nonsaturated colours (7) any of the yellow, orange and red shades (24) any of the green and blue shades (19) and any of the black and white tones (15). This strategy, then, has no clearly defined colour, although it is associated to warm colours (9).

This packaging represented each one of the four selected graphic variables (colour, typography, shape and image) in the different alternatives obtained in the previous qualitative phase. So, for example, for the “colour” graphic element six prototypes were prepared. In the first, related to the “brightness” variable, two packaging alternatives were presented: one in a dark colour (less brightness) and the other in a light colour (more brightness). In the second, related to the “saturation” variable, two packaging alternatives were presented: one with a saturated or bright colour and the other with a non-saturated or dull colour. In the third prototype, relating to the “temperature” variable packaging in warm colours (red, orange and yellow) and packaging with cold colours (green and blue) were shown. Finally, for the variable “shade”, packaging in three types of colours was presented: (1) black/white; (2) blue/green; and (3) yellow/orange/red. These simulations were repeated for the other three graphic variables (typography, shape and image) (Figure 1). The complete prototype dossier was shown to the interviewees and they were asked to relate the positioning strategies proposed by Blankson and Kalafatis (2001) to the graphic variables that best represented them. This procedure was done with a sample of 46 consumers. The experiment was done according to the following three-stage sequence: (1) One of the positioning strategies presented by Blankson and Kalafatis (2001) was explained. For example: “Product ‘A’ is positioned as reasonably and affordably priced. People say the price is OK”. (2) The following is used to present the case to be solved: “From this selection, choose the packaging that seems most suitable for product ‘A’, taking its characteristics into account”. The simulated packaging alternatives (Figure 1) were shown and the subject chose the one that seemed most suitable. The sequence was repeated for the reaming six positioning typologies. (3) Finally, the number of times that each graphic variable was associated to each positioning strategy was calculated. The defining graphic variables for each strategy were obtained by frequency counting.

With respect to the second graphical dimension analysed, “packaging typographies”, the four quadrants of map 2 (Figure 3) show four groups of positioning strategies with different characteristics (Table II): (1) Elegant products. This type of product is associated with bold letters (30), expanded characters (34), upper case (38) large (42) and Roman letters (26). (2) Products directed to the upper classes and high price products. The packaging of both positioning strategies is highly associated with any weight (32), any width (36), any

Statistical techniques The seven product positioning strategies have been represented from the consumers’ standpoint. For this purpose, multidimensional scaling has been applied. The idea is that the packaging attributes that are situated close to a particular positioning strategy on a perceptual map, correctly represent this positioning strategy. Four maps (Figures 2– 5) 103




Volume 23 · Number 2 · 2006 · 100 –112


Figure 1

104




Volume 23 · Number 2 · 2006 · 100 –112


Figure 2 Packaging colour in product positioning

Figure 3 Packaging typography in product positioning

shape (40) and any type family (49). So, both strategies are “Any typography associated” (3) Accessible products. The lettering of this strategy is associated with serif (47) and sans serif (46). (4) Products based on guarantees, patriotic products and nonselective products. The packaging of these strategies has not been associated with weight (33), width (37), shape (41) and type family (50). So, theses strategies do have not a defined typography.

With respect to the third graphical dimension analysed, “packaging graphic form”, the four quadrants of map 3 (Figure 4) show four groups of positioning strategies with different characteristics (Table III): (1) Upper class products and elegant products. The packaging of both strategies is mainly associated with the “none” option in five cases: straight line (55), line shape (65), type of figures (73), elements (69) and composition (77). 105




Volume 23 · Number 2 · 2006 · 100 –112


Figure 4 Packaging graphic form in product positioning

Figure 5 Packaging image differences among positioning strategies

(3) Products based on guarantees, patriotic products and high price products. The packaging of these strategies has been associated to straight lines (61), vertical lines (51), straight outlines (70) symmetrical compositions (75) and single elements (66). (4) Non-selective products. Conversely, the packaging of this strategy is associated with horizontal lines (52) and oblique

(2) Accessible products. However, the packaging of this strategy is associated with “any graphic form”: any straight line (vertical, horizontal, oblique) (54), any line shape (straight, curved, broken) (64), any type of figures (circles, squares, triangles) (72), any amount of elements (single, several) (68) and any composition (symmetrical, asymmetrical) (76). 106




Volume 23 · Number 2 · 2006 · 100 –112

Table I Packaging colour in product positioning


Accessible Top category product, positioning, prestige reasonable status, directed to the price upper classes positioning

Brightness X2 590:047** 1 Dark 60.9 2 Light 13 3 Any 4.3 4 None 21.7 Saturation X2 537:886** 5 Saturated 39.1 6 Not saturated 32.6 7 Any 8.7 8 None 19.6 Temperature X2 546:209** 9 Warm 21.7 10 Cold 28.3 11 Any 15.2 12 None 34.8 Shade 1 X2 546:209** 13 White 23.9 14 Black 50 15 Any 13 16 None 13 Shade 2 X2 561:004** 17 Green 8.7 18 Blue 39.1 19 Any 8.7 20 None 43.5 Shade 3 X2 599:689** 21 Yellow 10.9 22 Orange 26.1 23 Red 32.6 24 Any 4.3 25 None 26.1

Positioning based on Positioning based durability, on refined, sober guarantee and and elegant safety aesthetics

Positioning based on country of origin, patriotism

Positioning based on excellence, high price, variety

Non-selective positioning, for the middle classes, based on noble principles

54.3 6.5 13 26.1

19.6 39.1 28.3 13

21.7 52.2 13 13

56.5 17.4 6.5 19.6

52.2 23.9 23.9

50 10.9 19.6 19.6

34.8

41.3

23.9

39.1

45.7

21.7

23.9 23.9 17.4

21.7 17.4 19.6

28.3 6.5 41.3

19.6 19.6 21.7

19.6 10.9 23.9

32.6 34.8 10.9

32.6 26.1 8.7 32.6

10.9 32.6 10.9 45.7

6.5 28.3 8.7 56.5

26.1 6.5 19.6 47.8

19.6 17.4 17.4 45.7

26.1 28.3 23.9 21.7

45.7 17.4 15.2 21.7

41.3 34.8 17.4 6.5

13 52.2 23.9 10.9

30.4 26.1 23.9 19.6

23.9 41.3 21.7 13

45.7 6.5 28.3 19.6

23.9 30.4 30.4 15.2

15.2 37 19.6 28.3

6.5 30.4 6.5 56.5

15.2 19.6 26.1 39.1

6.5 28.3 8.7 56.5

23.9 28.3 30.4 17.4

23.9 32.6 10.9 28.3 4.3

17.4 8.7 23.9 15.2 34.8

4.3 28.3 19.6 6.5 41.3

10.9 21.7 23.9 21.7 21.7

8.7 17.4 37 8.7 28.3

13 37 4.3 30.4 15.2

Note: Each cell is a relative frequency (how many persons have associated each property with each strategy in relative terms)

lines (53), with circles (56), curved lines (62), wavy outlines (71), asymmetrical compositions (74) and several elements (67).

(4) Accessible products. In contrast to the previous strategy, the packaging of this strategy has been associated with illustrations (78) with people (83).

With respect to the fourth graphical dimension analysed, “packaging images”, the four quadrants of map 4 (Figure 5) show four groups of positioning strategies with different characteristics (Table IV): (1) High price products, elegant products and patriotic products. The packaging of these strategies is not related to any of the image options: photographs and illustrations (81) and images of the product or people (85). (2) Non-selective products. Conversely, the packaging of this strategy is associated with both illustrations and photographs (80). (3) Products based on guarantees and upper class products. The packaging of both strategies has been associated with photographs (78) and with images of the product (82).

In summary, each positioning strategy is associated with particular packaging dimensions as follows: (1) Top category positioning, prestige status, directed to the upper classes: . Colour: Cold, Dark, Black. . Typography: Any. . Graphic form: None. . Image: Picture, Product. (2) Accessible product, reasonable price positioning: . Colour: Light, White. . Typography: Serif, Sans serif. . Graphic form: Any. . Image: Illustration, Person. 107




Volume 23 · Number 2 · 2006 · 100 –112

Table II Packaging typography in product positioning


Accessible Top category product, positioning, prestige reasonable status, directed to the price upper classes positioning

Slope X2 552:943** 26 Roman 34.8 27 Italic 56.5 28 Any 29 None 8.7 Weight X2 599:689** 30 Bold 28.3 31 Light 45.7 32 Any 33 None 26.1 Width X2 558:133** 34 Expanded 26.1 35 Condensed 50 36 Any 6.5 37 None 17.4 Shape X2 543:396** 38 Upper case 19.6 39 Lower case 60.9 40 Any 2.2 41 None 17.4 Size X2 528:751 42 Large 34.8 43 Small 30.4 44 Any 4.3 45 None 30.4 Type family X2 578:821** 46 Sans serif 17.4 47 Serif 45.7 48 Script 10.9 49 Any 50 None 26.1





45.7 28.3 10.9 15.2

50 28.3 15.2 6.5

17.4 63 10.9 8.7

34.8 34.8 19.6 10.9

34.8 41.3 10.9 13

37 21.7 26.1 15.2

23.9 45.7 23.9 6.5

23.9 45.7 23.9 6.5

6.5 56.5 4.3 32.6

28.3 34.8 23.9 13

26.1 45.7 6.5 21.7

15.2 41.3 28.3 15.2

23.9 41.3 26.1 8.7

41.3 26.1 21.7 10.90

21.7 32.6 2.2 43.50

43.5 21.7 17.4 17.40

34.8 32.6 6.5 26.10

26.1 37 28.3 8.70

32.67 39.1 21.7 6.5

41.3 32.6 15.2 10.9

23.9 37 6.5 32.6

39.1 26.1 23.9 10.9

39.1 34.8 10.9 15.2

28.3 37 26.1 8.7

41.3 23.9 6.5 28.3

41.3 23.9 6.5 28.3

26.1 39.1 4.3 30.4

50 17.4 10.9 21.7

34.8 21.7 6.5 37

43.5 13 15.2 28.3

13 23.9 43.5 13 6.5

28.3 50 4.3 13 4.3

19.6 34.8 23.9 2.2 19.6

32.6 30.4 15.2 13 8.7

19.6 41.3 10.9 10.9 17.4

15.2 17.4 28.3 26.1 13.0


(6) Positioning based on excellence, high price, variety: . Colour: Cold, Dark, Black. . Typography: Any. . Graphic form: Straight line, Vertical, Straight outline, Symmetrical, One element. . Image: None. (7) Non-selective positioning, for the middle classes, based on noble principles: . Colour: Any. . Typography: None. . Graphic form: Horizontal, Oblique, Circle, Curve, Wavy outline, Asymmetrical, Several elements. . Image: Any.

(3) Positioning based on durability, guarantee and safety: . Colour: Red. . Typography: None. . Graphic form: Straight line, Vertical, Straight outline, Symmetrical, One element. . Image: Picture, Product. (4) Positioning based on refined, sober and elegant aesthetics: . Colour: Cold, Dark, Black. . Typography: Bold, Expanded, Upper case, Large, Roman. . Graphic form: None. . Image: None. (5) Positioning based on country of origin, patriotism: . Colour: Red. . Typography: None. . Graphic form: Straight line, Vertical, Straight outline, Symmetrical, One element. . Image: None.

Conclusions Our results give rise to the following four conclusions. First, with respect to packaging colour, it seems that products that 108




Volume 23 · Number 2 · 2006 · 100 –112

Table III Packaging graphic form in product positioning


Accessible Top category product, positioning, prestige reasonable status, directed to price the upper classes positioning

Straight line direction X2 557:685** 51 Vertical 30.4 52 Horizontal 28.3 53 Oblique 21.7 54 Any 10.9 55 None 8.7 Geometric figures X2 588:962** 56 Circle 19.6 57 Square 30.4 58 Triangle 4.3 59 Any 6.5 60 None 39.1 Line shape X2 564:546** 61 Straight 28.3 62 Curve 39.1 63 Broken 6.5 64 Any 65 None 26.1 Number of elements X2 568:685** 66 One 47.8 67 Several 21.7 68 Any 2.2 69 None 28.3 Type of figures X2 535:119** 70 Straight outline 15.2 71 Wavy outline 34.8 72 Any 10.9 73 None 39.1 Composition X2 539:965** 74 Asymmetrical 37 75 Symmetrical 41.3 76 Any 4.3 77 None 17.4

Positioning Positioning based on based on refined, durability, sober and guarantee and elegant safety aesthetics




15.2 34.8 19.6 10.9

17.4 39.1 6.5 15.2 21.7

26.1 10.9 21.7 8.7 32.6

17.4 23.9 8.7 17.4 32.6

15.2 19.6 26.1 6.5 32.6

8.7 26.1 23.9 28.3 13

37 41.3 2.2 19.6

13 23.9 8.7 4.3 50

17.4 17.4 17.4 4.3

13 15.2 8.7 23.9 39.1

10.9 26.1 13 6.5 43.5

15.2 6.5 19.6 26.1 32.6

21.7 21.7 15.2 13 28.3

28.3 10.9 2.2 6.5 52.2

32.6 19.6 8.7 39.1

30.4 17.4 4.3 15.2 32.6

21.7 21.7 6.5 10.9 39.1

8.7 21.7 17.4 21.7 30.4

15.2 47.8 17.4 19.6

37 15.2 6.5 41.3

32.6 23.9 8.7 34.8

28.3 19.6 13 39.1

30.4 19.6 10.9 39.1

19.6 45.7 15.2 19.6

15.2 32.6 28.3 23.9

21.7 13 8.7 56.5

15.2 19.6 10.9 54.3

8.7 19.6 17.4 54.3

19.6 23.9 6.5 50

10.9 28.3 19.6 41.3

19.6 37 26.1 17.4

6.5 52.2 15.2 26.1

19.6 30.4 10.9 39.1

10.9 39.1 21.7 28.3

23.9 34.8 13 28.3

10.9 41.3 23.9 23.9


are directed to the upper classes, with a high price and based on elegant and refined aesthetics require cold, dark coloured (mainly black) packaging. In contrast, accessible products that are directed to price sensitive consumers required light (mainly white) coloured packaging. Safe and guaranteed products and patriotic products are associated with red packaging, maybe because the colour of the national flag of the consumers interviewed is essentially red. Second, with respect to packaging typography, our results show that packaging for elegant products usually presents bold, large, roman, upper case letters with expanded characters. In contrast, accessible products of reasonable price are associated with serif and sans serif typographies. Third, with respect to graphic forms, we can see that nonselective products, directed to the middle classes, use

horizontal and oblique straight lines, circles, curves, wavy outlines, asymmetrical compositions and several elements. In contrast, high price products appear to be associated with vertical straight lines, squares, straight outlines, and symmetrical composition with one single element. Fourth, with respect to packaging illustrations, safe guaranteed products and upper classes products are associated with pictures showing the product. In contrast, accessible products directed to price sensitive consumers are associated with illustrations showing people. In sum, each positioning strategy seems to be associated to some particular packaging graphical elements. Theses elements (colour, typography, form and illustration) are combined in different ways to transmit the desired perception in consumers’ minds. 109




Volume 23 · Number 2 · 2006 · 100 –112

Table IV Packaging image differences among positioning strategies Accessible Top category product, positioning, prestige reasonable status, directed to the price upper classes positioning


Image nature X2 5149:580** 78 Picture 65.2 79 Illustration 13 80 Any 81 None 21.7 Image motive X2 563:989** 82 Product 37 83 Person 21.7 84 Any 10.9 85 None 30.4





13 67.4 10.9 8.7

45.7 15.2 10.9 28.3

41.3 15.2 4.3 39.1

39.1 13 19.6 28.3

41.3 10.9 10.9 37

6.5 54.3 28.3 10.9

30.4 32.6 23.9 13

37 30.4 17.4 15.2

34.8 10.9 6.5 47.8

45.7 15.2 13 26.1

41.3 8.7 10.9 39.1

13 52.2 19.6 15.2


Managerial implications

differentiation. In this scene, the power of the packing has been demonstrated. To this end, this article will examine the possibilities that packaging provides within the positioning strategy of tangible products. So an experimentation-based empirical research study has been carried out to relate each positioning strategy to certain specific packaging elements (colour, typography, shape, image). To summarise, this study has come about because of the growing managerial recognition of the ability of packaging to create differentiation and identity, above all in the case of relatively homogenous perishable consumer goods. There are limitations which we should point out. The perceptions were expressed for a given point in time, so that dynamic analyses or previsions about how the positioningpackaging associations may evolve in the future could not be carried out. With regard to the future, we could suggest the possibility of extending the analysis to different cultural backgrounds so as to analyse changes in the positioning perception of one particular packaging, in accordance with the area in which it is marketed. It would also be interesting to study the cooperation/association links between competitors in order to understand packaging reformulations to attend several positioning strategies. Looking ahead, it might be possible to extend the analysis to consider different cultural scenarios in order to analyse changes in the packaging of the same brand depending on the area where it is marketed. Finally, the evolution of the relationships analysed could be studied over time in order to add a dynamic perspective to the analyses carried out.

From what has been said, it is possible to make the following basic implications for management. First, the definition of a product’s competitive positioning is a relative concept. Positioning strategy becomes meaningful when seen in comparative terms. Thus, good or poor performance is not sufficient; you have to perform better than those competitors whose competitive capacity is strong enough to influence strategic decision-taking. This enables the company to analyse competition product strategies in greater detail and in a more objective way than relying merely on intuition. In this sense, packaging design has been showed as a useful tool to achieve positioning objectives. Second, how do we go about singling out more important product competitors in order to focus company attention on them? A cognitive approach is a positive departure. In this line, perceptions are recommended on the grounds that the way a consumer sees competitive offerings will affect his buying decisions. So, opinions regarding alternative packaging formulas should be proved to anticipate the opinions that they originate and the behaviours that consequently cause. For this reason, once the firm has acted over the packaging to affect perceptions, consumers will convert these perceptions in attitudes, which will determine the final buying decision. We support that packaging is, without doubt, specifically related to the strategic decisions of the marketing mix and, therefore, to positioning decisions and consumer behaviours. Third, as has been shown, consumers have exhibited harmonious perceptions towards products packaging strategies, so we can conclude that a general feeling as to what a particular packaging exactly means exists. In this sense, the general opinion should guide packaging designers to appropriately meet consumers’ expectations. So we recommend taking into account the permanent character of the tangible codes that packaging transmits, instead of just focusing on positioning through ephemeral messages transmitted by the mass media. In sum, the proliferation of the number of brands in the market and the varied offer that purchasers find at the point of sale force there to be an increase in efforts to achieve effective

Note 1 Although it would have been possible to represent data three-dimensionally, we decided to use two-dimensional maps in order to facilitate the visual interpretation of the results, as per relevant literature such as DeSarbo et al. (1991), who are the precursors in the combined use of techniques involving spatial representation and grouping. Similarly, we have found that the use of more axes does not substantially improve the adjustment indices of the results obtained. (S-Stress, Stress y RSQ) 110




Volume 23 · Number 2 · 2006 · 100 –112


References

Peters, M. (1994), “Good packaging gets through to fickle buyers”, Marketing, 20 January. Phillips, H. and Bradshaw, R. (1993), “How customers actually shop: customer interaction with the point of sale”, The Journal of the Market Research Society, Vol. 35 No. 1. Ramsay, B. (1983), “Brand efficiency: lessons from the USA”, ADMAP, Vol. 19 No. 11, pp. 556-63. Sonsino, S. (1990), Packaging. Disenõ, materiales y tecnologıá, Gustavo Gili, Barcelona. Underwood, R.L. (2003), “The communicative power of product packaging: creating brand identity via lived and mediated experience”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Winter, pp. 62-76. Underwood, R.L., Klein, N.M. and Burke, R.R. (2001), “Packaging communication: attentional effects of product imagery”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 10 No. 7, pp. 403-22. Vidales Giovannetti, M.D. (1995), El mundo del envase. Manual para el disenõ y produccioń de envases y embalajes, Gustavo Gili, Mexico City, p. 90. Welles, G. (1986), “We’re in the habit of impulsive buying”, USA Today, 21 May, p. 1. Zeithaml, V. (1972), “Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence”, Journal of Marketing, No. 52, pp. 2-22.

Aaker, D.A. (1996), Construir marcas poderosas, Gestioń 2000, Barcelona. Behaeghel, J. (1991), Brand Packaging: The Permanent Medium, Architecture Design and Technology Press, London. Bigne´, E. and Vila, N. (2000), “Estrategia de empresa y posicionamiento de producto: un ana´lisis comparado en la industria del automo´vil”, Economıá Industrial, No. 332, pp. 29-41. Blankson, C. and Kalafatis, S.P. (2001), “The development of a consumer/customer-derived generic typology of positioning strategies”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 9 No. 2, p. 36. Brooksbank, R. (1994), “The anatomy of marketing positioning strategy”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 12 No. 4, p. 10. Cervera Fantoni, A.L. (2003), Envase y embalaje. La venta silenciosa, ESIC, Madrid. DeSarbo, W., Jedidi, K., Cool, K. and Schendel, D. (1991), “Simultaneous multidimensional unfolding and cluster analysis: an analysis of strategic groups”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 129-46. Deasy, D. (2000), “Express brand personality – let your package do the talking”, Brand Packaging Magazine, March/ April, available at: www.cheskin.com/p/ar.asp?mlid=7&arid =26&art=1 Evans, J. and Berman, B. (1992), Marketing, Macmillan Publishing Co, New York, NY. Hine, T. (1995), The Total Package, Little, Brown & Co., Boston, MA. Ivan˜ez Gimeno, J.M. (1995), La gestioń del disenõ en la empresa, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Ivan˜ez Gimeno, J.M. (2000), La gestioń del disenõ en la empresa, McGraw-Hill, Madrid. Keller, K.L. (1998), Strategic Brand Management, PrenticeHall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Lindsay, D. (1997), “Shaped to sell: package innovation can boost revenue, decrease cost and build brand”, Beverage World, Vol. 116, pp. 91-2. McAlexander, J., Becker, B. and Kaldenberg, D. (1993), “Positioning health care services: Yellow Pages advertising and dental practice performance”, Journal of Health Care Marketing, No. 13, pp. 54-7. McDaniel, C. and Baker, R.C. (1977), “Convenience food packaging and the perception of product quality”, Journal of Marketing, October, pp. 57-8. McNeal, J.U. and Ji, M.F. (2003), “Children’s visual memory of packaging”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 400-27. Maggard, J.P. (1976), “Positioning revisited”, Journal of Marketing, January, pp. 63-6. Nancarrow, C., Wright, L.T. and Brace, I. (1998), “Gaining competitive advantage from packaging and labelling in marketing communications”, British Food Journal, Vol. 100 No. 2, pp. 110-18. Olson, J.C. and Jacoby, J. (1972), “Cue utilization in the quality perception process”, in Venkatesan, M. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, Association for Consumer Research, Iowa City, IA, pp. 167-79.

Further reading Ries, A. and Trout, J. (1991), Posicionamiento, McGraw-Hill, Madrid.

About the authors Olga Ampuero is a researcher in the Department of Graphic Expression in Engineering in the School of Design Engineering at the Polytechnic University of Valencia. She has developed several projects related to graphic design, visual identities, multimedia design and packaging design. Natalia Vila is a Lecturer in Marketing in the Department of Marketing in the School of Economics at the University of Valencia. She has carried out research on topics such as competitive positioning, identification of strategic groups/ competitive groups and the application of multidimensional scaling in marketing. Her research work has been published in diverse refereed journals (i.e. Journal of Marketing Management, Journal of Strategic Marketing, European Journal of Innovation Management, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Journal of Euromarketing, The Marketing Review and Spanish refereed journals). She has presented papers at several conferences such as EMAC, AM and AMS. Natalia Vila is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]

Executive summary and implications for managers and executives This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives a rapid appreciation of the content of this article. Those with a particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article in toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of the research undertaken and its results to get the full benefits of the material present.

111





Volume 23 · Number 2 · 2006 · 100 –112

Product packaging and marketing Marketers have become increasingly alert to the notion that product packaging has a major role to play in differentiation strategies, especially where largely uniform perishable goods are concerned. The bulk of advertising has invariably been executed through different media channels but reduced budgets have forced many managers to shift the marketing focus to point of sale communication and sales promotions. Almost three-quarters of purchase decisions relating to such products are made at point of sale, making effective differentiation therefore imperative in a product category where consumers enjoy abundant choice. Furthermore, the shift towards self-service has meant closer contact between consumer and product, therefore increasing the importance of advertising at the position that represents the last and perhaps most important opportunity of influencing consumer choice. Most products are positioned to intentionally target specific consumer sectors and. diffusing messages via the media has traditionally been regarded as the most effective way to achieve the desired market position. However, such messages are obviously transient by nature and there is growing realization that the relative permanence of product packaging and its immediacy to the purchase decision can prove a more efficient means of ensuring successful positioning. It has also been pointed out that while packaging remains in the consumer’s home after purchase, it continues to communicate brand messages.

products that are high priced, elegant or aimed at the upper classes. Elegant products also require bold, large, roman, upper case fonts with expanded characters. At the other end of the scale, it was determined that products aimed at the price conscious shopper ideally come in white or other lightly colored packaging containing illustrations of people and serif or sans serif typographies. Packaging aimed at the upper classes is associated with pictures that show the product itself. Among the other assumptions was that products based on noble principles and aimed at the middle classes are packaged using a variety of graphic forms that include circles, curves, wavy outlines and different types of straight line. Implications The authors believe that the study provides significant evidence of correlation between packaging design and positioning perceptions because each positioning strategy appears to be associated with precise graphical elements in some or all of the variables. This conclusion is seen as particularly significant in the light of belief that consumers can both reflect and inspire a company’s strategies for marketing its products. In addition to achieving positioning objectives, it is additionally concluded that package design as a marketing tool can help to better inform about competitors’ product strategies. The importance here is also emphasized, since analysts maintain that the success of positioning can only be realistically calculated in relative terms. Indeed, Ampuero and Vila suggest that the findings can enable organizations to effectively scrutinize competitor performance. It is recommended that marketers closely monitor alternative packaging design that might be used by a competitor. The aim here is to measure consumer reaction and the impact on purchase decisions so that counter strategies can be devised. The evidence indicates a general agreement as to how specific packaging designs will be interpreted. In view of this, the authors recommend a greater focus on product packaging as a marketing weapon. They do, however, point out some important limitations. For instance, this study was carried out at a given time, so there is no assessment of if and how perceptions of packaging design might transform in the future. Likewise, there is no analysis of any historical development of the concept. The authors also emphasize the significant point that perceptions associated to product packaging may well be culture specific and therefore limit the conclusions that can be drawn. In respect of this, it is suggested that research into how product packaging is perceived within various cultural frameworks would be enlightening, not least as it could reveal that products may need to be packaged differently to achieve the same position within different markets.

How positioning is achieved Ampuero and Vila argue that packaging is able to influence consumer response to a product. They identified color, typography, graphical forms and images as being the key packaging variables that combine to influence perception that the product is positioned to target a specific consumer group. The premise is that the right combination of elements is needed in order for the desired effect to be achieved. Based on previous research, seven different product positioning strategies were identified: status, value, safety, elegance, country of origin, excellence and noble principles. The aim was to discover if there is general agreement among consumers as to which packaging combinations of the above named variables relate to each product positioning strategy. To test the theory, the authors carried out a study in which 46 Spanish consumers were exposed to a portfolio showing various packaging combinations and asked to select the combination they regarded as most suitable for each positioning strategy. The frequency that each variable was chosen was the determining factor. Prior contact with packaging design experts determined the combinations that were included in the portfolio. The findings indicated that the respondents’ perceptions were broadly in agreement with prior expectations established from consultation with the packaging experts. As a result, the authors were able to draw several conclusions. For example, products in cold, dark colored packaging were associated with

(A prećis of the article “Consumer perceptions of product packaging”. Supplied by Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

112


This article has been cited by: 1. Carlos Velasco, Andy T. Woods, Olivia Petit, Adrian D. Cheok, Charles Spence. 2016. Crossmodal correspondences between taste and shape, and their implications for product packaging: A review. Food Quality and Preference 52, 17-26. [CrossRef] 2. Catherine Prentice, Nikolai Handsjuk. 2016. Insights into Vodka consumer attitude and purchasing behaviors. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 32, 7-14. [CrossRef] 3. Helena Lindh, Helen Williams, Annika Olsson, Fredrik Wikström. 2016. Elucidating the Indirect Contributions of Packaging to Sustainable Development: A Terminology of Packaging Functions and Features. Packaging Technology and Science 29:4-5, 225-246. [CrossRef] 4. Shuo-Fang Liu, Jui-Hung Cheng, Yann-Long Lee, Feng-Ru Gau. 2016. A case study on FMEA-based quality improvement of packaging designs in the TFT-LCD industry. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 27:3-4, 413-431. [CrossRef] 5. Rupert Andrew Hurley, Rachel Randall, Liam O'Hara, Charles Tonkin, Julie C. Rice. 2016. Color harmonies in packaging. Color Research & Application n/a-n/a. [CrossRef] 6. Nicholas Ford, Paul Trott, Christopher Simms. 2016. Exploring the impact of packaging interactions on quality of life among older consumers. Journal of Marketing Management 32:3-4, 275-312. [CrossRef] 7. Katherine White, Lily Lin, Darren W. Dahl, Robin J. B. Ritchie. 2016. When Do Consumers Avoid Imperfections? Superficial Packaging Damage as a Contamination Cue. Journal of Marketing Research 53:1, 110-123. [CrossRef] 8. Toni Ryynänen Economics and Management, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland Markus Joutsela Visual Communication Design, Aalto University School of Arts, Design and Architecture, Helsinki, Finland Visa Heinonen Economics and Management, Univeristy of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland . 2016. “My Grandfather kept one of these tins on top of the bookshelf ”. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 19:1, 4-26. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 9. Agnieszka Izabela Baruk Systems of Management and Innovation Department , Organization and Management Faculty, Lodz University of Technology, Lodz, Poland AND Management and Marketing Department, Agrobioengineering Faculty, University of Life Sciences, Lublin, Poland Anna Iwanicka Management and Marketing Department, Agrobioengineering Faculty, University of Life Sciences, Lublin, Poland . 2016. The effect of age, gender and level of education on the consumer’s expectations towards dairy product packaging. British Food Journal 118:1, 100-118. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 10. Mohsen Rasouli Valajoozi Industrial Design, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran Nosrat Ollah Zangi Business management, Islamic Azad University of Ali Abad-E-Katul, Ali Abad, Iran . 2016. A review on visual criteria of pure milk packaging for parents and their children (case study: Tehran, Iran). British Food Journal 118:1, 83-99. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 11. Seung Hwan (Mark) Lee, K. Douglas Hoffman. 2016. Wrap-Attack Pack: Product Packaging Exercise. Marketing Education Review 26:1, 14-19. [CrossRef] 12. S. Thomas, M. ChambaultExplicit Methods to Capture Consumers’ Responses to Packaging 139-159. [CrossRef] 13. Helena Lindh, Annika Olsson, Helen Williams. 2016. Consumer Perceptions of Food Packaging: Contributing to or Counteracting Environmentally Sustainable Development?. Packaging Technology and Science 29:1, 3-23. [CrossRef] 14. Krisztina R. Dörnyei, Tamás Gyulavári. 2016. Why do not you read the label? - an integrated framework of consumer label information search. International Journal of Consumer Studies 40:1, 92-100. [CrossRef] 15. Greg Clare, Nahide Hancer. 2016. The Influence of Tunable LED Lighting Systems on Consumer Food Label Perceptions. Food and Nutrition Sciences 07:07, 566-576. [CrossRef] 16. Mu-Chien Chou, Weng-Kit ChongEvery Day for an Active Self-promotion: The Dialogue Between the Shower Gel Packaging on the Shelf of a Point of Sale and the Consumer 739-751. [CrossRef] 17. Ana M. Arboleda, Carlos Arce-Lopera. 2015. Quantitative analysis of product categorization in soft drinks using bottle silhouettes. Food Quality and Preference 45, 1-10. [CrossRef] 18. Hanna Berg Center for Consumer Marketing, Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm, Sweden Magnus Söderlund Center for Consumer Marketing, Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm, Sweden Annika Lindström Center for Retailing, Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm, Sweden AND Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden . 2015. Spreading joy: examining the effects of smiling models on consumer joy and attitudes. Journal of Consumer Marketing 32:6, 459-469. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 19. Daniele Lama, Gabriele Pizzi. 2015. L'effetto del packaging sulle percezioni di qualità del prodotto nel mercato vinicolo. MERCATI E COMPETITIVITÀ :3, 61-82. [CrossRef] 20. Mahsa-Sadat Taghavi Department of Business Management, Faculty of Management and Economics, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran. Alireza Seyedsalehi Department of Executive Management, Qazvin Branch, Islamic


Azad University, Qazvin, Iran. . 2015. The effect of packaging and brand on children’s and parents’ purchasing decisions and the moderating role of pester power. British Food Journal 117:8, 2017-2038. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 21. Huda Khan School of Marketing, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia Richard Lee School of Marketing, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia Larry Lockshin School of Marketing, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia . 2015. Localising the packaging of foreign food brands: a case of Muslim consumers in Pakistan. Journal of Product & Brand Management 24:4, 386-398. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 22. Crawford Moodie, Richard Purves, Jennifer McKell, Marisa de Andrade. 2015. Novel Means of Using Cigarette Packaging and Cigarettes to Communicate Health Risk and Cessation Messages: A Qualitative Study. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction 13:3, 333-344. [CrossRef] 23. Lewis Xinwei Liao, Armando Maria Corsi, Polymeros Chrysochou, Larry Lockshin. 2015. Emotional responses towards food packaging: A joint application of self-report and physiological measures of emotion. Food Quality and Preference 42, 48-55. [CrossRef] 24. Edward Shih-Tse Wang. 2015. Different Effects of Utilitarian and Hedonic Benefits of Retail Food Packaging on Perceived Product Quality and Purchase Intention. Journal of Food Products Marketing 1-13. [CrossRef] 25. Mar Gómez, David Martín-Consuegra, Arturo Molina. 2015. The importance of packaging in purchase and usage behaviour. International Journal of Consumer Studies 39:3, 203-211. [CrossRef] 26. X.E. Li, S.M. Jervis, M.A. Drake. 2015. Examining Extrinsic Factors that Influence Product Acceptance: A Review. Journal of Food Science 80:5, R901-R909. [CrossRef] 27. Toni Ryynänen, Elina Rusko. 2015. Professionals' View of Consumers' Packaging Interactions - A Narrative Analysis. Packaging Technology and Science 28:4, 341-355. [CrossRef] 28. Markus Joutsela, Virpi Korhonen. 2015. Capturing the User Mindset - Using the Online Research Community Method in Packaging Research. Packaging Technology and Science 28:4, 325-340. [CrossRef] 29. Agnieszka Izabela Baruk Department of Systems Innovation Management, Lódz University of Technology, Lublin, Poland Anna Iwanicka Department of Economics and Management, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Lublin, Poland . 2015. Polish final purchasers’ expectations towards the features of dairy product packaging in the context of buying decisions. British Food Journal 117:1, 178-194. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 30. Rubén Rebollar, Iván Lidón, Javier Martín, Miriam Puebla. 2015. The identification of viewing patterns of chocolate snack packages using eye-tracking techniques. Food Quality and Preference 39, 251-258. [CrossRef] 31. Anna Fenko, Jean-Marie Leufkens, Joris J. van Hoof. 2015. New product, familiar taste: Effects of slogans on cognitive and affective responses to an unknown food product among food neophobics and neophilics. Food Quality and Preference 39, 268-276. [CrossRef] 32. Suraj Kushe Shekhar, P.T. Raveendran. 2015. Promises of silent salesman to the FMCG industry: an investigation using linear discriminant analysis approach. Management & Marketing 10:4. . [CrossRef] 33. Christopher Simms Portsmouth Business School, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK Paul Trott Portsmouth Business School, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK . 2014. Conceptualising the management of packaging within new product development. European Journal of Marketing 48:11/12, 2009-2032. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 34. Eleonora Seimiene, Egle Kamarauskaite. 2014. Effect of Brand Elements on Brand Personality Perception. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 156, 429-434. [CrossRef] 35. Pei-Jou Kuo, Nelson A. Barber. 2014. Exploring Dishware Influences on Product Evaluation, Willingness to Pay, and Restaurant Type. Journal of Foodservice Business Research 17:5, 369-389. [CrossRef] 36. Lynn Sudbury-Riley Management School, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK . 2014. Unwrapping senior consumers’ packaging experiences. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 32:6, 666-686. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 37. Mehmet Seckin Aday, Ugur Yener. 2014. Understanding the buying behaviour of young consumers regarding packaging attributes and labels. International Journal of Consumer Studies 38:4, 385-393. [CrossRef] 38. Maja Arslanagić, Almir Peštek, Selma Kadić-Maglajlić. 2014. Perceptions of Healthy Food Packaging Information: Do Men and Women Perceive Differently?. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 109, 78-82. [CrossRef] 39. Daleen van der Merwe, Stephné Viljoen, Hanli de Beer, Magdalena Bosman, Elizabeth Kempen. 2013. Consumers' experiences of cold chain food packaging: A qualitative study among women in South Africa. International Journal of Consumer Studies 37:6, 650-657. [CrossRef] 40. Stuart Roper, Cathy Parker. 2013. Doing well by doing good: A quantitative investigation of the litter effect. Journal of Business Research 66:11, 2262-2268. [CrossRef]


41. Bo Rundh Department of Business Administration, Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden . 2013. Linking packaging to marketing: how packaging is influencing the marketing strategy. British Food Journal 115:11, 1547-1563. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 42. S.T. Wang Edward Graduate Institute of Bio-Industry Management, National Chung Hsing University, Taichung, Taiwan . 2013. The influence of visual packaging design on perceived food product quality, value, and brand preference. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 41:10, 805-816. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 43. Iris Vilnai-Yavetz, Ran Koren. 2013. Cutting through the clutter: purchase intentions as a function of packaging instrumentality, aesthetics, and symbolism. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 23:4, 394-417. [CrossRef] 44. Tobias OtterbringService Research Center, Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden Poja ShamsService Research Center, Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden Erik WästlundService Research Center, Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden Anders GustafssonService Research Center, Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden, and BI – Norwegian School of Management, Oslo, Norway. 2013. Left isn't always right: placement of pictorial and textual package elements. British Food Journal 115:8, 1211-1225. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 45. Kaisa Grönman, Risto Soukka, Terhen Järvi-Kääriäinen, Juha-Matti Katajajuuri, Mika Kuisma, Heta-Kaisa Koivupuro, Margareetta Ollila, Marja Pitkänen, Olli Miettinen, Frans Silvenius, Rabbe Thun, Helena Wessman, Lassi Linnanen. 2013. Framework for Sustainable Food Packaging Design. Packaging Technology and Science 26:4, 187-200. [CrossRef] 46. M. M. Gelici-Zeko, D. Lutters, R. ten Klooster, P. L. G. Weijzen. 2013. Studying the Influence of Packaging Design on Consumer Perceptions (of Dairy Products) Using Categorizing and Perceptual Mapping. Packaging Technology and Science 26:4, 215-228. [CrossRef] 47. Toni Ryynänen, Annaleena Hakatie. 2013. Low involvement, low price and low quality image renegotiated – a case study of staple food package design. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 23:2, 204-219. [CrossRef] 48. Leticia Vidal, Cecilia Barreiro, Beatriz Gómez, Gastón Ares, Ana Giménez. 2013. Influence of Information on Consumers' Evaluations Using Check-All-That-Apply Questions and Sorting: A Case Study with Milk Desserts. Journal of Sensory Studies 28:2, 125-137. [CrossRef] 49. D. Labbe, N. Pineau, N. Martin. 2013. Food expected naturalness: Impact of visual, tactile and auditory packaging material properties and role of perceptual interactions. Food Quality and Preference 27:2, 170-178. [CrossRef] 50. S.J. Westerman, E.J. Sutherland, P.H. Gardner, N. Baig, C. Critchley, C. Hickey, S. Mehigan, A. Solway, Z. Zervos. 2013. The design of consumer packaging: Effects of manipulations of shape, orientation, and alignment of graphical forms on consumers’ assessments. Food Quality and Preference 27:1, 8-17. [CrossRef] 51. A. Azzi, D. Battini, A. Persona, F. Sgarbossa. 2012. Packaging Design: General Framework and Research Agenda. Packaging Technology and Science 25:8, 435-456. [CrossRef] 52. David Yoon Kin TongFaculty of Business and Law, at Multimedia University, Melaka, Malaysia Xue Fa TongCentre for Diploma Programmes, at Multimedia University, Melaka, Malaysia Evon YinFaculty of Business and Law, all at Multimedia University, Melaka, Malaysia. 2012. Young consumers' views of infused soft drinks innovation. Young Consumers 13:4, 392-406. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 53. Georgios Koutsimanis, Kristin Getter, Bridget Behe, Janice Harte, Eva Almenar. 2012. Influences of packaging attributes on consumer purchase decisions for fresh produce. Appetite 59:2, 270-280. [CrossRef] 54. Lynn MetcalfOrfalea College of Business, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California, USA Jeffrey S. HessOrfalea College of Business, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California, USA Jeffrey E. DanesOrfalea College of Business, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California, USA Jay SinghOrfalea College of Business, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California, USA. 2012. A mixed‐methods approach for designing market‐driven packaging. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 15:3, 268-289. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 55. Rubén Rebollar, Iván Lidón, Ana Serrano, Javier Martín, María J. Fernández. 2012. Influence of chewing gum packaging design on consumer expectation and willingness to buy. An analysis of functional, sensory and experience attributes. Food Quality and Preference 24:1, 162-170. [CrossRef] 56. Karin Venter, Daleen van der Merwe, Hanli de Beer, Elizabeth Kempen, Magdalena Bosman. 2011. Consumers' perceptions of food packaging: an exploratory investigation in Potchefstroom, South Africa. International Journal of Consumer Studies 35:3, 273-281. [CrossRef] 57. C. CHREA, L. MELO, G. EVANS, C. FORDE, C. DELAHUNTY, D.N. COX. 2011. AN INVESTIGATION USING THREE APPROACHES TO UNDERSTAND THE INFLUENCE OF EXTRINSIC PRODUCT CUES ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: AN EXAMPLE OF AUSTRALIAN WINES. Journal of Sensory Studies 26:1, 13-24. [CrossRef]

58. Alex GofmanRule Developing Experimentation in Consumer-Driven Package Design . [CrossRef] 59. Gastón Ares, Rosires Deliza. 2010. Studying the influence of package shape and colour on consumer expectations of milk desserts using word association and conjoint analysis. Food Quality and Preference 21:8, 930-937. [CrossRef] 60. Gastón Ares, Mariángela Besio, Ana Giménez, Rosires Deliza. 2010. Relationship between involvement and functional milk desserts intention to purchase. Influence on attitude towards packaging characteristics. Appetite 55:2, 298-304. [CrossRef]


61. Gastón Ares, Rosires Deliza. 2010. Identifying important package features of milk desserts using free listing and word association. Food Quality and Preference 21:6, 621-628. [CrossRef] 62. Maria VernuccioSapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy Alessandra CozzolinoSapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy Laura MicheliniLUMSA University of Rome, Rome, Italy. 2010. An exploratory study of marketing, logistics, and ethics in packaging innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management 13:3, 333-354. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 63. M. Estiri, T. Hasangholi, H. Yazdani, H.J. Nejad, H. Rayej. 2010. Food Products Consumer Behaviors: The Role of Packaging Elements. Journal of Applied Sciences 10:7, 535-543. [CrossRef] 64. Nicholas GrigoriouSuccessful New Product Planning 308-336. [CrossRef] 65. Consumer Perception: 1-22. [CrossRef] 66. David James Bamber, Clay Alex Gransden, Swati Aisha BegPerfume Consumption in India: 77-98. [CrossRef]