the effects of packaging on consumer satisfaction and loyalty
TRANSCRIPT
The Effects of Packaging Elements on Consumer Choice, Satisfaction, and Loyalty
Ms. Pinya Silayoi
Department of Packaging Technology
Faculty of Agro-Industry, Kasetsart University
Bangkok, 10900 Thailand
Tel: (662) 579-8902
Fax: (662) 579-8902
email: [email protected]
Mr. Veerapong Malai
Department of Marketing, Bangkok University
Bangkok, Thailand
Ms. Ranchana Rajatanavin
Department of Marketing, Sripatum University
Bangkok, Thailand
Dr. Mark Speece
School of Management, Asian Institute of Technology
and
Graduate School, Bangkok University
Bangkok, Thailand
presented at the
Eighth International Conference on Marketing and Development
Bangkok, Thailand
4-7 January, 2003
1
The Effects of Packaging Elements on Consumer Choice, Satisfaction, and Loyalty
Abstract
Many consumers have not even decided on which brand of low involvement
packaged food products to buy before they enter the store to buy the product
category. Thus, packaging takes on important communications responsibilities
in trying to influence consumer choice in-store. Packaging design can
enhance consumer perceptions that a product is new and interesting, which
will affect the purchase decision directly, and satisfaction indirectly. A
consumer survey in Bangkok indicates that packaging elements have a big
influence on likelihood to buy. Further, packaging reminds consumers of the
quality of their purchase, and thus plays a role in satisfaction. Packaging also
reminds consumers of their past purchases, so influences brand loyalty.
Introduction
Nowadays a multitude of products are available in any single product category of fast
moving consumer goods (FMCG), and it is difficult to maintain consumer loyalty to any
single brand. With ample choice of the basic product, one factor motivating consumer choice
is packaging. Many firms try to develop packages to influence the purchase decision.
Modern consumers tend to buy the same brands, but often see little difference among leading
brands, and so are not loyal to a single brand. Distinctive packaging attracts attention in-
store, helping gain purchase when consumers have not made specific brand decisions before
entering the store. Packaging reflects product performance to consumers, initially
communicating to create impressions about the product if they do not have prior experience.
Good packaging may also induce higher levels of customer satisfaction. If
satisfaction is linked to loyalty, packaging development can be a strategic tool to help
increase and retain consumer loyalty. Poor understanding of the role of packaging, and poor
package design, could lead to reduced consumer loyalty. Thus, in competitive FMCG
markets, one way many firms can develop their products is through their packages.
Packaging is likely to affect purchase decisions and may be able to hold consumers who
might otherwise defect to other brands.
2
There has been some work on how packaging attracts attention and communicates.
However, there are very few studies on how packaging influences consumer satisfaction and
loyalty. This pilot research aims at developing a better understanding of the link between
packaging development and consumer behavior. Our objectives are to examine the effects of
packaging elements on the purchase decision, to investigate consumer satisfaction towards
packaging, and to explore the role of packaging on consumer loyalty. We do so in the
context of packaged food products in Thailand.
Customer Value, Satisfaction, and Loyalty
Woodruff (1999) implies that customer value consists of what customers want and
believe they get from buying and using a product. It relates to the product characteristics and
benefits received. Of course, customers may perceive value differently at the time of
purchase than they do during or after use. Pre-purchase value is based on expectations, while
post-purchase value results from evaluation of product attributes, attribute performances, and
consequences arising from use that facilitate (or block) achieving the customer’s goals and
purpose for which they buy and use the product (Woodruff 1999).
Value also relates to the cost of gaining those benefits. According to Zeithaml (1988)
“Value is the quality I get for the price I pay” (p. 13). Customer value is created when the
perceptions of benefits received from a transaction exceed the cost of ownership (Christopher
1996). Desired value (or preferences) is a key buying criteria of customers before using or
buying a product; and received value is performance of a product that customers receive
when or after using a product. Received value may lead directly to the formation of overall
satisfaction. To make sure that they keep customers satisfied, sellers must determine what
customers want and require, the key buying criteria that they use to help satisfy those desires,
and measure customer satisfaction (Woodruff 1999).
3
However, for most low involvement FMCG, neither pre- nor post-purchase evaluation
of value is very extensive. Reference to standard marketing textbooks indicates that for low
involvement products, “consumers do not search extensively for information about the
brands, evaluate their characteristics, and make a weighty decision on which brand to buy"
(Kotler, et. al, 1996, p. 225). Further, because such products are not very important,
continuous reevaluation would be unlikely. When customers find a brand which meets their
standards, they tend to stay “satisfied” with it, especially when heavy advertising, sales
promotion, and good in-store merchandising keep reminding them that the brand is good.
The concepts of customer value, and satisfaction with value, suggest a relationship to
customer loyalty. Customer satisfaction is often cited as a prerequisite to customer loyalty
(e.g., Oliver 1999; Rowley and Dawes 2000). Satisfaction is a necessary step in loyalty
formation, but becomes less significant as loyalty begins to set in through other mechanisms
(Oliver, 1999). However, because of the low involvement nature of most FMCG, satisfaction
and loyalty may be only weakly related. Customer loyalty, therefore, seems to be a much
more reliable measure for predicting sales and financial growth. Unlike satisfaction, which is
an attitude, loyalty can be defined in terms of buying behavior (Griffin 1997).
Various operational measures for customer loyalty can be categorized as behavioral,
attitudinal, or a composite of both (Chaudhuri and Holbrook 2001; Rundle and Bennett 2001;
Oliver 1999; Ha 1998). Consolidating behavioral and attitudinal factors, Oliver (1999)
defines brand loyalty as “a deeply held commitment to re-buy or re-patronize a preferred
product/service consistently in the future, thereby causing repetitive same-brand or same
brand-set purchasing, despite situational influences and marketing efforts having the potential
to cause switching behavior” (Oliver 1999, p.34). He sees four phases to such loyalty. The
first, cognitive loyalty, is based on brand belief with information only. The second, affective
loyalty, comes from satisfaction, and customers buy the brand because they like it. The third
4
phase, conative loyalty, implies a commitment to repurchase a brand, though customers may
still be interested in other brand information. Fourth is action loyalty, representing
commitment to re-buying, with interest only in information specific to the purchased brand.
However, often, brand loyalty for low involvement products comes not from strong
conviction that the brand or brands are really best, but from habit, a routinized behavior not
representing deep-rooted loyalty. According to McWilliam (1997), marketing activities,
especially advertising, sales promotion, and strong distribution, are the main components of
brand equity with such brand loyalty, not real beliefs about brands. Standard marketing
textbooks recognize this also, for example, “ad repetition creates brand familiarity rather than
brand conviction. Consumers do not form a strong attitude toward the brand but select it
because it is familiar” (Kotler, et. al, 1996, p. 226). This makes brand loyalty quite fragile.
Certainly, both the stronger conviction loyalty discussed by Oliver (1999), and the
habit loyalty in McWilliam (1997) are present in Asia. However, habit loyalty is more
common for FMCG. Evidence from a number of Asian markets, including Thailand, indicate
that the majority of those who claim brand loyalty for FMCG are loyal out of habit, not
conviction. Information evaluation is not very extensive for FMCG, and most consumers
only consciously consider about two or three product attributes, not a whole range of possible
elements (Speece, 1998; Speece and Nair, 2000). Marketing activities seem to relate strongly
to loyalty. For example, more intensive advertising relates strongly to more knowledge of
brands, better image, and higher purchase frequency (Speece and Hoang, 1999).
The lack of substantial evaluation frequently results in inability to distinguish much
difference among leading brands of low involvement products (McWilliam 1997). In-depth
interviews with brand switchers in Bangkok shows a belief that there is no real difference
among the several brands in their acceptable set. Partly because they see little difference,
such consumers have a strong desire for variety (Speece 1998). Numerous surveys
5
throughout Asia show that loyalty to a small set of brands, rather than to a single brand, is
more common (Speece, 1998). In other words, a brand must meet consumers’ standards if
they are to buy it. If it does, then it enters their acceptable set, and they will buy it
sometimes. But they like variety, so they may also buy other acceptable brands sometimes.
And, because thinking about such issues is often relatively shallow, it is not very hard to
influence decisions through careful management of the details, such as of packaging design.
The Role of Packaging in Consumer Perceptions
Prendergast and Pitt (1996) point out that packaging serves several different logistics
and marketing functions. In its logistics function, packaging protects the product during
movement through distribution channels. One of the basic reasons for incurring the added
expense of packaging is to reduce product loss through damage, spoilage, theft, or
misplacement. However, the second function of packaging is essentially marketing, which
relates most directly to sales, attracting attention to a product and reinforcing its image.
Packaging provides an attractive method to convey the virtues of the products. Good
packaging must combine both functions, as package sells the product by attracting attention
and communicating, and also allows the product to be contained, apportioned, and unitized.
Customer satisfaction is affected by packaging; therefore it may affect either or both
attitudinal and behavioral loyalty. Thus, the importance of packaging design and the role of
packaging as a vehicle for communication and branding is necessarily growing in marketing
(Rettie and Brewer, 2000). One reason for this is simply the fact that consumers may not
think very deeply about brands at all. In fact, one recent study estimated that 73 percent of
purchase decisions are made at the point of sale (Connolly and Davison 1996). While the
exact percentage varies by product category and across different markets, there is no doubt
that in Thailand, also, a substantial number of consumers make decisions in-store (Table 1;
6
Speece, 1994-2001). This can make packaging quite important in brand choice. In one
survey on snack foods, respondents reported that package ranked second behind taste, and
tied with price, as an important brand choice criteria (Speece, 1994-2001).
This implies that packaging design plays a key role at the point of sale, as the
“salesman on the shelf”, a role which has been fostered by the move toward self-service. In
traditional retail shops, customers often ask for products. In many modern store formats, they
do their own shopping in-store to find products, especially for FMCG, and the package has
became an essential part of the selling process (Rettie and Brewer, 2000). Further, larger
supermarkets and increased market segmentation have led to extensive proliferation of
products. Packaging has to work in a more intensive competitive context, both in-store and
in the household, where most consumers are not strongly loyal to brands, will not search for
them much in-store, and are easily shifted to other similar brands by small perceived
differences. In Thailand, for example, 89 percent of respondents in one survey on snack food
(chips) reported that the package can influence their choice when they perceive two brands as
similar (Speece, 1994-2001).
Thus, although technically, package is usually considered a product attribute, it
becomes one of the most important ones communication elements for low involvement
FMCG. Package may be what attracted the consumer’s attention so that they would even
consider purchasing the brand. A good package can help initially draw consumers toward
intent to buy and even the purchase decision. Packaging is also one of the few product
attributes that directly communicate messages about the product to the target consumers.
The design characteristics of the package will have a bearing on whether the package
is noticed and how it is perceived, as it will often need to stand out in a display of many other
offerings (Nancarrow et al, 1998). The results of testing with eye-scan apparatus show that
the movement of a customer’s eyes tracks across a display of packages. Different packages
7
can be noticed against competitors’ packages. However, eye movement does not necessarily
mean attention is being paid. By scanning packages in the supermarket, the differential
perception and the positioning of the elements in a package design may make the difference
between identifying and missing the item concerned (Nancarrow et al, 1998).
Research in psychology on brain laterality shows that recall is better for verbal stimuli
when copy is on the right-hand side of the package, and better for non-verbal stimuli, such as
pictorial elements, when they are on the left-hand side of the package (Rettie and Brewer,
2000). Thus, recall of package elements is likely to be influenced by their lateral positioning
on the package, as well as by other usually recognized factors. These are just a few brief
examples which illustrate that design of packages will play a major role in gaining attention
and communicating message to consumers.
Environmental issues are also beginning to play a big role, and consumers are
showing increasing recognition of the impact of packaging on the environment. Concerned
governments have passed environmental legislation that has direct implications for
packaging. The EU, for example, regulates packaging to a considerable extent, with the
central aim of minimizing packaging waste wherever appropriate and encouraging reuse or
recycling so that less goes for final disposal (Prendergast, 1995; Prendergast and Pitt, 1996).
Balancing environmental concerns with the essential functions of packaging, and also the
trade-offs resulting from less packaging, are becoming key issues for consumer goods
manufacturers and marketers (Kassaye and Verma, 1992). Marketers are concerned that
ecologically sound packaging may mean less attractive packaging that will deter the potential
purchasers (Livingstone and Sparks, 1994).
With the extension of environmental legislation and growing consumer demand for
more environmentally friendly packaging, many companies will be forced into redesigning
their packages. As green marketing permeates management thinking (Prendergast and Pitt,
8
1996), proactive actions in packaging could provide competitive advantage to companies in
some market segments. Green marketing in Thailand is probably not as developed as in the
West. In Bangkok, urban middle class consumers have a high level of environmental
awareness, and environmental concerns about packaging for FMCG have become important
to consumers in some specific market niches. Environmental issues also seem to have some
small impact on choice criteria in the broader mass markets, but the impact on purchase
decisions is still limited for low involvement FMCG (Speece and Charernkitpan 1997).
Thus, the concerns noted above are valid for Thailand – if environmental regulation detracts
from the package’s ability to attract attention and convey message, there is probably not
sufficient greenness in consumer decision-making to compensate.
Packaging and the Buying Decision for Packaged Food Products
Food suppliers and advertisers use a range of attractions, combining colours, designs,
shapes, symbols, and messages (Nancarrow et al, 1998). These are to attract and sustain
attention in order to help consumers identify with the images presented. The message of
advance publicity and advertising, which stimulate awareness and interest of the consumer,
should be consistent with the messages that are received and processed at the time of the
purchase or consumption of the product. In other words, package as a communications
element must be consistently integrated into the broader communications campaign.
Food product expectation can be generated from cues such as packaging, labeling,
product information, and stereotypes. The effect of colour is the most obvious and well
studied (Imram, 1999). Consumer perception of an acceptable colour has been shown to be
associated with other quality attributes, such as flavour and nutrition, and also with the level
of satisfaction. The effect can be achieved by manipulation of such things as colour within a
formulation, incident light, packaging colour, and even colour and appearance nomenclature
9
and brand name. In food service, the food products chosen for display and sale by caterers is
selected for their colour and appearance attributes (Imram, 1999).
These attributes serve initially to attract consumer attention, and later influence the
decision on whether to buy or not. For food choice, colour and other appearance attributes
create the first impression encountered by consumers. Colour has been shown to be of
primary importance in the initial consideration. Colour used in packaging can be equally
important in determining a product’s desirability (Imram, 1999; Madden et al., 2000). Colour
is an important, controllable marketing variable for managing image standardization.
Elongation of package shape can affect consumers’ volume perception, translating
into preference and choice that would lead to the purchase decision. Raghubir and Krishna
(1999) show that more elongated shapes result in greater perceived volume, so that such
containers are preferred and tend to be chosen pre-consumption. To a point, then, more
elongated package shapes for a given package size gives advantage, particularly for premium
prices. Consumers perceive such packages as better value. However, consistency between
seeing and experiencing is also important. After consumption, if the elongated container does
not contain as much as volume as expected, consumers may be disappointed. Minor
discrepancies are unlikely to be noticed, but large ones might be.
Visual imagery on the package is another essential attribute. In order to be noticed at
the point of sale, pictures on the package can be a strategic method of differentiation which
will enhance accessibility. This is because pictures are extremely vivid stimuli compared to
words (Underwood et al, 2001). Visual packaging information may attract consumer attention
and set expectations for content. A well-produced product image is likely to evoke
memorable and positive association with the product. By viewing a product picture on the
package, consumers are more likely to spontaneously imagine aspects of how a product
looks, tastes, feels, smells, or sounds.
10
With all this in mind, then, when are new packages needed? Certainly there may be
occasions when the design of a package is changed in order to affect consumer perceptions
(Nancarrow et al, 1998). One main reason is to keep the product looking up-to-date without
losing the benefit of brand image. Psychologists describe the minimal difference between
two stimuli that can be detected as the differential threshold, or the “just noticeable”
difference. Packaging frequently provides the biggest impact in gaining this “just noticeable”
difference on line extensions (Nijssen, 1999). Nancarrow et al (1998) discuss the different
occasions in which marketers would make decisions on package design. These include
launching a new product or variant; revitalizing a dated / tired package; repositioning a
product (changing who it competes with and/or its functional or symbolic benefits); and
changing target market for a product (which often requires repositioning).
These reasons all ultimately stem from the communications objectives, which the
package must fulfill. Some reasons for new packaging do not come directly from
communications, but the communications objective must still be built around the technical
aspects of the design, such as when cost reductions in packaging are required; legal or
regulatory requirements demand modifications; packaging technology becomes available.
To do design well, knowledge about consumer psychology is important so that
manufacturers understand consumer response to their packages. To optimize the potential of
food packaging, the package designer and marketer need to understand the perceptual
processes of the consumer (Nancarrow et al, 1998). Key issues marketers and package
designers should address and incorporate into design include: taking account of consumers’
past experience, needs and wants; how packaging design elements get consumers to notice
the package and notice messages on the package; and, broadly, evaluating packaging design
and labeling for their effectiveness in the communications effort.
11
Hypothesis
Prior findings from qualitative in-depth interviews and focus groups about consumer
response to packaged food products in Bangkok are consistent with the literature (Silayoi, et
al. 2002; Silayoi & Speece 2002a, 2002b). Packaging does not affect most respondents’
purchase decisions in a direct, strong way; but rather, the influence is subtle. On the first
purchase, packages which stand out distinctively at the point of sale and attract attention have
high potential to be chosen. To make a strong impact, package design needs to directly
portray product quality and performance. Thus, the following hypothesis is stated:
H1: Perceptions about the importance of package elements influence the extent to which
consumers use packaging in their purchase decisions.
Packages could attract customers on the first purchase, through gaining attention and
portraying the product as attractive. However, except early, when consumers are not
experienced with the product, the role of packaging is more indirect, but, nevertheless,
important. After the first consumption experience, consumers tend to rely on product quality,
and most respondents find the graphics on the package will not affect their purchase decision.
The quality of product would be the main influence for the next decision, and consumers
would be satisfied if it is good. Because they do not think extensively about FMCG, though,
they need to be reminded of this satisfaction, which the package can help do. The role of
package changes to reminding customers about their satisfaction with the product experience
wherever they see the package again (Silayoi, et al. 2002; Silayoi & Speece 2002a, 2002b).
H2: After the first consumption experience, package design contributes to satisfaction by
reminding customers about the product quality they experienced.
12
Satisfaction contributes to repurchase, but again, unless this is a very strong loyalty, in
which case consumers will look carefully for the product, package can help by making a
familiar product stand out from the competitive clutter. Respondents in qualitative research
also suggested that packaging shape normally exposes a familiar product image. The product
will be re-bought as long as customers recall that the quality sufficient and the product is
noticeable among competitors (Silayoi, et al. 2002; Silayoi & Speece 2002a, 2002b).
H3: After the first consumption experience, familiar package design contributes to loyalty
by helping customers recall their product.
Methodology
As noted, several stages of qualitative work were carried out (Silayoi, et al. 2002;
Silayoi & Speece 2002a, 2002b) before developing the hypotheses. Further qualitative work
was used to assess the feasibility of these hypotheses for the specific product category of fruit
juice, and to aid in development of the survey questionnaire. Fifteen in-depth interviews
were held with fruit juice consumers in Bangkok. We examined the meaning people attach to
package design of juice and also purchase behaviour for the juice. Additional interviews
were carried out with marketing managers and packaging managers from food companies in
Thailand to get their views on packaging elements. The interviews were loosely guided by a
list of interview topics corresponding to the key concepts relevant to package design,
consumer choice, satisfaction, and loyalty for fast moving packaged food products.
A list of 30 bipolar scale items was developed, starting from the literature and
incorporating questions based on the consumer and manager interviews. The items used for
the importance of packaging elements and the role of the packaging elements as a reminder
13
included seven items covering attitudes toward the packaging design from the literature
(Prendergast and Pitt, 1996; Gelperowic and Beharrell, 1994; McCarthy et al, 1999; Madden
et al, 2000), but adapted and worded based on the qualitative interviews with consumers and
managers. These and all other items used a seven-point Likert scale.
The use of packaging elements in the purchase decision was measured by six self-
developed scale items, based on the qualitative research. In that work, typical respondents
described the quality of juice by healthiness, freshness, and taste. They select packages that
reflect these aspects of product performance well, i.e., healthiness, freshness, and taste are the
key decision criteria, but consumers judge these criteria by what the package communicates
about the attributes. The items representing customer satisfaction and customer loyalty were
adapted from Danaher and Haddrell (1995), with modifications to make the questions more
relevant to the consumer behaviour and shopping environment in Thailand.
The survey items were reviewed by five practitioners; marketing managers and
packaging specialists, who examined each item for problems in wording, clarity, and back
translation. This review process resulted in rewording several items. The survey was then
pre-tested with 20 consumers who buy and drink fruit juice to check for possible problems
with statement clarity and respondent understanding as well as ability to complete the survey
instrument. This pilot indicated no problems with the survey instrument or individual items,
and good reliability for the composite variables. The pretest Cronbach’s alpha for the items
representing use of packaging elements in the purchase decision was slightly weak at 0.6597.
The other alpha coefficients all ranged from 0.7118 to 0.8966, all quite good.
Sampling and sample characteristics: This research was based on convenience
sampling at nine locations of the convenience store Seven-Eleven (7-11). With the
cooperation of the head office in Thailand, the nine locations were chosen by assessing the
sales records for fruit juice at all stores in metropolitan Bangkok. Generally, the stores with
14
the largest sales were selected, subject to slight adjustment to make sure that there was good
coverage of the city, and no two locations were too close to each other. Thus, these nine
stores, while not the exact top nine, are among the top stores in fruit juice sales. This
methodology was not expected to yield a sample representative of all of Bangkok’s
population, but rather a middle class sample.
We obtained permission to approach consumers as they were about to enter the stores,
and asked them to fill out the self-administered survey questionnaire. Data were collected
between the hours of 11 a.m. and 9 p.m., Friday to Tuesday, over a one week period. Prior to
beginning the questions, participants were advised that their participation was voluntary and
they were free to discontinue their participation any time during the completion of the survey.
To encourage candidness and honesty in their responses, participants were informed that their
responses would remain confidential and would be reported in aggregate form only. No
personal information which could identify individuals was collected.
Nearly two-thirds of the 182 respondents were women. The sample was relatively
young, with 45 percent in the 15 to 25 age category, and another third in the 26 to 35
category. Slightly over forty percent had monthly personal incomes under Baht 10,000, but
most of these were in the youngest age category, indicating that most of the low personal
income respondents were still studying, or recently graduated. Just over one-third of the
respondents had monthly personal incomes from 10,001 to 20,000. (Market research
companies in Bangkok consider monthly household income of roughly Baht 20,000 to be
entry level into the middle class. Two incomes of Baht 10,000 in a household would qualify,
and is common.) Education levels were high, with almost eighty percent having at least a
bachelor degree. The majority of those who did not were in the youngest age category.
Overall, this sample is relatively young and strongly middle class, and it seems to represent
the target market of 7-11 in Bangkok well.
15
Analysis
Fruit juice consumption was moderate, as the most frequent response (42 per cent)
was that respondents bought it one or two times per week. One-fourth bought more
frequently, and the rest bought less often. Consistent with Table 1, three-fourths of the
respondents reported that they make the brand choice in the store, indicating the very critical
role of packaging for this product category. Thirty percent reported loyalty to a single brand,
and another forty percent said they are loyal to just a few brands in a set. Most of the rest
reported no brand loyalty at all, but only four percent said that they mainly choose lowest
price. However, loyalty is not very strong, and two-thirds of consumers would simply buy
another brand if their favorite(s) was(were) out of stock, rather than looking in another store
or waiting until next trip. Eighty percent consider themselves value oriented, trading off
quality and price, while most of the rest say they are strongly quality oriented. These patterns
are very consistent with the value-oriented shopping behavior for FMCG found in numerous
other surveys in Bangkok (Speece 1998, 1994-2001).
The importance of packaging elements was quite high among these consumers. They
tended to consider the message shown on the pack as most important. This indicated that
consumers were concerned with product quality and the information presented could
contribute to their initial assessment. Also, the package needed to perform its appropriate
functions; in particular, it is important that the package be convenient to use. Package size
was third in importance, and shape tied for fourth with product appearance, all elements
which would help consumers judge product volume and value for money. The aesthetics of
package design as indicated by graphics and color were less important relatively, scoring near
the midpoint on the scale. The composite variable representing importance of packaging
elements, constructed from the mean of the items, had strong reliability, with Cronbach alpha
of .7411 (Table 2).
16
The likelihood of using packaging elements in the purchase decision was generally
fairly high. Respondents agreed most strongly with the idea that good product information
reflects healthiness. They also believe that quality could be communicated by package
design, and slightly that purchase was more likely with an attractive package. Overall, the
respondents were slightly less willing to believe that the picture specifically indicated things
about the decision criteria of taste, freshness, and healthiness. This composite variable was
quite reliable in the full scale survey, with Cronbach alpha of .7956 (Table 3).
Customer satisfaction with the fruit juice brands which consumers bought is high.
Consumers found the frequently bought brand was performing quite well, and believed that
they have made the right decision on such brands (Table 4). Customer loyalty to the fruit
juice brands was also generally high. The strongest loyalty indicators related to thinking of
the brand when they want to drink fruit juice, and willingness to recommend it. Loyalty is
somewhat less strong as indicated on items which measure action. Consumers are only
roughly neutral on average about whether they are willing to buy the brand if they have to
search in another shop, to pay more, or to buy without bothering to check the price (Table 5).
Reliability was high on the composite variables representing both satisfaction and loyalty,
with alphas of .8868 and .7628, respectively.
After the first consumption experience, consumers agreed that some package elements
remind them of the product experience whenever they see the product again. Rather than the
visual elements, product information seems to play the most important role in helping
consumers recall product qualities. Packaging that is convenient to use would also be able to
remind consumers. Overall, the respondents were fairly neutral about many visual elements.
The composite variable was highly reliable, as indicated by an alpha of 0.7977 (Table 6).
17
Regression results
Regression was used to test the hypotheses, which are summarized in Figure 1. The
figure shows some links included for control purposes. Since it is well established that brand
loyalty plays some role in the purchase decision (e.g., Oliver 1999), we will include loyalty
as a control variable in looking at the use of packaging elements in the purchase decision
(H1). In testing H2, it is necessary to consider that satisfaction also comes from product
usage, not only packaging as a reminder. We use the variable representing the likelihood of
using packaging in product choice as a proxy for usage of the product – it represents what
people think of the product, as indicated by the package. In testing H3, it is well established
that satisfaction can play a role in loyalty, thus, satisfaction will be included as a control
variable in looking at how package elements as a reminder affect loyalty.
Table 7 shows that the more important respondents believe packaging elements to be,
the more likely they are to use packaging elements in their purchase decision. More loyal
customers are also more likely to use packaging elements in their purchase decision, though
the link between loyalty and use of the elements is not quite as strong (as indicated by the
standardized coefficients). These two variables account for slightly over one-third of
variance in likelihood to use packaging elements in the purchase decision.
After consumers have experience with the product, the role of the package would
change to remind them that they were satisfied with the product when they see the product
again. Table 8 demonstrates that this reminder role of packaging has an impact on customer
satisfaction, along with the use of packaging in the purchase decision. Consumers pay some
attention to packaging elements and remember about product quality. As discussed earlier,
for fruit juice, key attributes they want are aspects of healthiness and freshness. Therefore, in
this case it seems that the packaging can remind consumers that their fruit juice brand
satisfied them on these attributes.
18
On the other hand, no significant relationship was found between customer loyalty
and packaging design (Table 9). Thus, H3, “After the first consumption experience, familiar
package design contributes to loyalty by helping customers recall their product” is not
supported. The role of packaging as a reminder appears to influence loyalty only indirectly,
through satisfaction, which is significant.
However, as we still believed that packaging should make some kind of contribution
to loyalty, we tried an additional regression of customer satisfaction, the reminder of quality
by packaging, and likelihood of using packaging in the purchase decision on customer
loyalty. The reminder role of packaging remains strongly insignificant, but the use of
packaging in the purchase decision is marginal, just barely failing at 95 percent confidence
(Table 10). This indicates that our basic idea about packaging having some direct impact on
customer loyalty for fast moving packaged food products may have some validity. However,
we would need to refine our thinking about exactly how, and how to measure this role of
packaging more carefully. This would be a useful area for future research.
Discussion and conclusion
This study demonstrates that packaging design can have an impact on purchase
decisions for fast moving packaged food products. The results indicate that information and
visual cues shown on the package strongly affect decision-making. It could be noted that
consumers tend to rely on the package information on their first purchase, including
information presented visually. The packaging helps make the product noticeable, and them,
more importantly, helps consumers judge product performance and quality quickly and
easily. As found in the pilot research for this survey, nutritional information and appealing
pictures of the fruit juice product reflect healthiness and freshness in the consumer point of
view. Packaging for fruit juice has to communicate such perceived value clearly.
19
Appealing package design attracts consumers’ attention. Nice picture and shape are
important, as they visually convey quality, according to consumers in the pilot and in
previous qualitative work (Silayoi, et al. 2002; Silayoi & Speece 2002a, 2002b). The overall
appearance of the package will frequently influence the consumer’s likelihood of choosing
the product. At the least, it influences the likelihood of investigating further; consumers are
more likely to read the label to check that the product information is consistent with their
needs if the package makes it seem that the product is one worth investigating more carefully.
Then, the label could indicate exact information about fruit type, concentration, and
additional nutrition. This sort of product information tends to be among the most important
components of consumers’ conscious response to packaging, they use it to assess healthiness.
After the first consumption, product quality would be the main influence. Satisfaction
with the product contributes to repurchase. Packaging which could reflect such performance
and quality well is more likely to remind consumers about their satisfaction with their product
experience. In purchasing fruit juice, the consumer recalls satisfaction by seeing the package,
and sometimes by reading the information again. The familiar package design standing out on
shelf will be more effective.
In summary, the study demonstrates the association between packaging design and
purchase decision. Packaging design is clearly one of the very important factors for
successful fruit juices brands. Consumers use visual cues and information on the package to
help them decide which brand to buy, and which brand to consider more carefully if they do
invest a little time in reading labels. Packaging design reminds them of satisfaction with
previous purchases, reducing the need to further search for other brands. Brand strength in
such product categories as fruit juice is highly dependent on good packaging design.
20
References
Chaudhuri, Arjun & Holbrook, Morris B. 2001. The Chain of Effects from Brand Trust and
Brand Affect to Brand Performance: The Role of Brand Loyalty. Journal of
Marketing, 65(2): 81-93.
Christopher, Martin 1996. From Brand Value to Customer Value. Journal of Marketing
Practice: Applied Marketing Science, 2(1): 55-66.
Connolly A. & Davidson L. 1996. How Does Design Affect Decisions at Point of Sale?
Journal of Brand Management, 4(2): 100-107.
Danaher, Peter J. & Haddrell, Vanessa 1995. A Comparison of Question Scales Used for
Measuring Customer Satisfaction, International Journal of Service Industry
Management, 7(4): 4-26.
Gelperowic, R. and Beharrell, B. (1994), Healthy Food Products for Children: Packaging and
Mothers’ Purchase Decisions. British Food Journal, 96(11): 4-8.
Griffin, Jill 1997. Customer Loyalty: How to Earn It, How to Keep It. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass Publishers.
Ha, Choong Lyong. 1998. The Theory of Reasoned Action Applied to Brand Loyalty.
Journal of Product & Brand Management, 7(1): 51-61.
Imram, Nazlin. 1999. The Role of Visual Cues in Consumer Perception and Acceptance of a
Food Product. Nutrition and Food Science, 5(September/October): 224-228.
Kassaye, W. and Verma, D., 1992, Balancing traditional packaging functions with the new
green packaging concern. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 57 (4), 15-25.
Kotler, P., Ang, S.H., Leong, S.M., & Tan, C.T. 1996. Marketing Management: An Asian
Perspective. Singapore: Prentice Hall.
Livingstone, S. and Sparks L., 1994. The New German Packaging Laws: effects on firms
exporting to Germany. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Management, 24(7): 15-25.
Madden, T.J.; Hewett, K.; and Roth, M.S. 2000. Managing Images in Different Cultures: A
Cross-national Study of Colour Meaning and Preferences. Journal of International
Marketing, 8(4): 90-107.
McCarthy, M.; O’Sullivan, C.; & O’Reilly, S. 1999. Pre-identification of First Buyers of a
New Food Product. British Food Journal, 101(11): 842-856.
McWilliam, G. 1997. Low Involvement Brands: Is the Brand Manager to Blame? Marketing
Intelligence & Planning, 15(2): 60-70.
21
Nancarrow, C., Wright, T.L., & Brace, I. 1998. Gaining Competitive Advantage from
Packaging and Labeling in Marketing Communications. British Food Journal,
100(2): 110-118.
Nijssen, Edwin J. 1999. Success Factors of Line Extensions of Fast-Moving Consumer
Goods. European Journal of Marketing, 33(5/6): 450-469.
Oliver, Richard L. 1999. Whence Consumer Loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 63(Special
Issue): 33-44.
Prendergast, P. Gerard & Pitt, Leyland. 1996. Packaging, Marketing, Logistics and the
Environment: Are There Trade-offs? International Journal of Physical Distribution
and Logistics Management, 26(6): 60-72.
Prendergast, P. Gerard. 1995. The EC Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste: Current
Status and Logistical Implications. Logistics Information Management, 8(3): 10-17.
Rettie Ruth & Carol Brewer. 2000. The Verbal and Visual Components of Package Design.
Journal of Product and Brand Management, 9(1): 56-70.
Rowley, J. & Dawes, J. 2000. Disloyalty: a Closer Look at Non-loyals. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 17(6): 538-549.
Raghubir, Priya & Aradhna Krishna. 1999. Vital Dimensions in Volume Perception: Can the
Eye Fool the Stomach? Journal of Marketing Rresearch, 36(3): 313-326.
Rundle-Thiele S. & Bennett, R. 2001. A Brand for All Seasons? A Discussion of Brand
Loyalty Approaches and Their Applicability for Different Markets. Journal of
Product & Brand Management, 10(1): 25-37.
Silayoi, P., Rajatanavin, R., Malai, V., & M. Speece. 2002. The Effects of New Packaging on
Consumer Satisfaction and Loyalty. In: Proceedings of the 2002 AIB Southeast Asia
and Australia Regional Conference, Shanghai, China, July, 2002. (Published on CD
by Hong Kong Institute of Business Studies, Lingnan University, Hong Kong; Paper
016.)
Silayoi, P., & M. Speece. 2002a. Packaging and Purchase Decision: The Impact of
Involvement Level and Time Pressure. In: Proceedings of the 2002 Asian Forum on
Business Education Conference: Business Education and the Knowledge-based
Economy, Beijing, China, June 2002. (Published on CD by School of Business,
Renmin University of China, Beijing)
Silayoi, P., & M. Speece. 2002b. Packaging and Purchase Decision: The Impact of
Involvement Level and Time Pressure – A Focus Group Study. Presented at:
Conference on Marketing Communication Strategies in a Changing Global
Environment, Hong Kong, China, May 2002.
Speece, Mark 1994-2001. unpublished survey data from consulting projects. 1994-2001.
Speece, Mark 1998. Value Orientation Among Asian Middle Class Consumers. Marketing
22
and Research Today (ESOMAR), 27(4): 156-165.
Speece, Mark & Charernkitpan, Siriporn. 1997. Purchase of Green Packaged Detergents in
Bangkok. Journal of International Selling and Sales Management, 3(2): 73-85.
Speece, Mark & Thi Phuong Thao Hoang. 1999. Advertising, Brand Image, and Brand
Choice in a Niche Market in Vietnam. Media Asia, 26(1): 33-38.
Speece, Mark & Nair, Godwin. 2000. Value Oriented Shopping Behavior Among Urban
Middle Class Vietnamese Consumers. Asian Academy of Management Journal, 5(1):
45-54.
Underwood Robert L., Klein, Noreen M. & Burke, Raymond R. 2001. Packaging
Communication: Attentional Effects of Product Imagery. Journal of Product & Brand
Management, 10(7): 403-422.
Woodruff, Robert B. 1999. Customer Value: The Next Source for Competitive Advantage.
Journal of the Academy Marketing Science, 25(2): 139-153.
Zeithaml, V.A. 1988. Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End
Model and Synthesis of Evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(July): 2-22.
23
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework for Package Influence
Importance of
Packaging Elements
Likelihood of using
packaging elements in
purchase decision
Customer Satisfaction
Reminder of product
by familiar packaging
Reminder of quality
by packaging
Customer Loyalty
H1
H2
H3
24
Table 1: When Consumers Make Brand Choice
before go
into store
%
after inside
store
%
mix of both
%
city of survey date of
survey
milk 42 24 34 Bangkok 1995
yogurt 37 29 34 Bangkok 1995
ice cream 34 30 36 Bangkok 1995
cheese 46 24 30 Bangkok 1995
chewing gum 24 76 na Bangkok 1997
soft drinks 58 42 na Kuala Lumpur 1998
instant noodles 26 35 39 HoChiMinh City 1999
snacks (chips) 25 75 na Bangkok 1999
milk 20 13 67 Bangkok 1999
notes: na = questionnaire did not have this option;
all were convenience samples of 100 to 200, taken near supermarkets in middle class
shopping areas.
Source: Speece, unpublished survey data from consulting projects, 1994-2001.
Table 2: Package importance scale
package importance items
n mean std dev
Color 181 4.06 1.42
Graphics 182 4.04 1.48
Shape 182 4.30 1.33
Size 180 4.89 1.34
Appearance of product 182 4.40 1.65
Convenient to use 182 5.86 1.15
Product information
182 6.03 1.17
Overall package importance
(Cronbach’s alpha = .7411)
182 4.80 .87
25
Table 3: Likelihood of using packaging elements in purchase decision scale
Likelihood of using packaging
elements in purchase decision items
n
mean
std dev
Likelihood on attractive package 181 4.17 1.47
Package reflects quality 182 4.41 1.59
Nice picture means good taste 181 3.34 1.48
Nice picture means freshness 182 3.13 1.51
Nice picture reflects healthiness 181 3.18 1.56
Information reflects healthiness
181 5.17 1.52
Overall likelihood of using packaging
elements in purchase decision
(Cronbach’s alpha = .7956)
182 3.90 1.06
Table 4: Customer satisfaction scale
Customer satisfaction items
n
mean
std dev
This is one of the best brands I could have bought 182 4.80 1.31
This brand is exactly what I need 182 5.23 1.25
I am satisfied with my decision to buy this brand 182 5.53 1.13
I have truly enjoyed this brand 182 5.15 1.32
I'm sure it was the right thing to buy this brand 182 5.12 1.24
Overall customer satisfaction
(Cronbach’s alpha = .8868)
182 5.16 1.25
26
Table 5: Customer loyalty scale
Customer loyalty items
n
mean
std dev
When you would like to drink fruit juice, you would
think of your favorite brand
177 5.33 1.31
You are looking for your favorite fruit juice brand, but it
is not on shelf. You would try at another shop
182 3.84 1.74
If your friend asks for your suggestion on fruit juice, you
will recommend your favorite brand
182 4.78 1.47
Normally you buy your favorite fruit juice brand without
looking at the price shown
182 4.06 1.77
You are willing to pay more for your favorite fruit juice
brand
182 3.95 1.71
Overall customer loyalty
(Cronbach’s alpha = .7628)
182 4.39 1.16
Table 6: Package elements as reminder of product scale
Package reminder items
n
mean
std dev
Color 181 3.85 1.44
Graphics 181 3.93 1.42
Shape 180 4.02 1.29
Size 181 4.42 1.46
Appearance of product 181 4.07 1.62
Convenient to use 180 5.51 1.30
Product information
181 5.87 1.31
Overall package reminder
(Cronbach’s alpha = .7877)
181 4.52 .94
27
Table 7: Importance of packaging elements and customer loyalty as determinants of
likelihood of using packaging elements in purchase decision
Dependent variable:
Likelihood in
purchase decision
R Square adjusted
R Square
F significance
.375 .368 53.610 .000
independent variables
unstandardized
coefficients standardized
coefficients
Beta
t significance
Beta std. error
(constant) -.109 .393 -.277 .782
importance of
packaging elements
.634 .074 .519 8.608 .000
customer loyalty .220 .055 .240 3.989 .000
Table 8: Reminder of quality by packaging and likelihood of using packaging elements
in purchase decision as determinants of customer satisfaction
Dependent variable:
Customer satisfaction
R Square adjusted
R Square
F significance
.164 .155 53.610 .000
independent variables
unstandardized
coefficients standardized
coefficients
Beta
t significance
Beta std. error
(constant) 3.167 .363 8.733 .000
Reminder of quality
by packaging
.213 .090 .192 2.373 .019
Likelihood in
purchase decision
.262 .079 .268 3.306 .001
28
Table 9: Reminder of quality by packaging and customer satisfaction as determinants of
customer loyalty
Dependent variable:
Customer loyalty
R Square adjusted
R Square
F significance
.373 .366 52.960 .000
independent variables
unstandardized
coefficients standardized
coefficients
Beta
t significance
Beta std. error
(constant) .586 .421 1.391 .166
Reminder of quality
by packaging
.092 .079 .074 1.167 .245
Customer satisfaction .655 .071 .582 9.241 .000
Table 10: Regression of customer loyalty on the reminder role of packaging, customer
satisfaction, and likelihood of using packaging in the purchase decision
Dependent variable:
Customer loyalty
R Square adjusted
R Square
F significance
.386 .376 37.107 .000
independent variables
unstandardized
coefficients standardized
coefficients
Beta
t significance
Beta std. error
(constant) .523 .419 1.248 .214
Reminder of quality
by packaging
.012 .088 .009 .131 .896
Customer satisfaction .622 .073 .552 8.573 .000
Likelihood in
purchase decision
.153 .079 .139 1.939 .054