The importance of packagingdesign for own-label food brands

L.E. Wells, H. Farley and G.A. ArmstrongSchool of Marketing, Entrepreneurship and Strategy,University of Ulster, Newtownabbey, Northern Ireland

Abstract

Purpose – This paper seeks to investigate the importance of packaging design for a UK premiumown-label food brand, by developing an understanding of how consumers evaluate own-labelpackaging, providing an insight into their shopping behaviour regarding premium own-label dessertsand identifying the factors that influence their purchase decisions. Implicit in this is a need to establishhow the packaging designs of premium own-label products influence the purchase decisions ofconsumers.

Design/methodology/approach – The paper reports on the findings of participant observationalexercises employed at two Tesco stores.

Findings – Overall, analysis of findings would clearly indicate that there is a strong associationregarding the influence of packaging on the purchase decision, with over 73 per cent of interviewedconsumers stating that they rely on packaging to aid their decision-making process at the point ofpurchase.

Research limitations/implications – This study reports on the preliminary findings of the firststage of a research project. Future studies could extend this research by considering the importance ofpackaging for products with lower experiential benefits than those offered by premium desserts or,additionally, by employing a comparative study of own-label brands.

Practical implications – As own-label brands are exclusive to, and owned by, the retailer they havepotentially the opportunity to develop packaging designs that are even more attuned to their customerbase than those offered by the equivalent range of branded products.

Originality/value – This paper presents empirical research investigating the importance ofpackaging design for own-label food brands.

Keywords Packaging, Design, Food packaging, Retailers, Premium brands

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionFood product development and innovation continues to be seen as a fundamentalstrategy for competitive success and survival within a competitive global market(Stewart-Knox and Mitchell, 2003; Bogue, 2001; Harmsen, 1994). Despite thisacknowledgement, a large number of new food products (72-88 per cent) continue to fail(Bogue, 2001; Lord, 1999; Buisson, 1995; Fuller, 1994; Rudolph, 1995), highlighting thedifficult task that retailers face in today’s food industry (Moskowitz, 1999). Foodretailers are facing a somewhat challenging scenario where the cost of marketing isalso rising and it is becoming more difficult to maintain sales for brands that are notthe first choice household name (Peters, 1994). In addition, consumers are becomingmore demanding in terms of quality and choice (Mintel, 2003) and are constantlyseeking a product tailored to their every want and need.

Products are developed to, and indeed are expected by consumers to taste good;therefore, it is not surprising that consumers will increasingly make their initial choices

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-0552.htm

The importanceof packaging

design

677

International Journal of Retail &Distribution Management

Vol. 35 No. 9, 2007pp. 677-690

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0959-0552

DOI 10.1108/09590550710773237

based on aesthetic value (Schmitt and Simonson, 1997; Dumaine, 1991). Thus, thequestion commonly faced by many food retailers is how to distinguish or differentiatetheir product from competing products. During the 1980s, UK food retailers began toenhance the pack design of their products, discovering that improvements inpackaging design and product quality enabled them to compete directly with foodmanufacturers (Southgate, 1994). Yet, despite the fact that the importance of packagingas a communication tool is growing (Silayoi and Speece, 2004; Nancarrow et al., 1998;Bloch, 1995), there is still limited research into the “influence of packaging on brandidentity” (Underwood et al., 2001). In the competitive world of food retailing, packaginghas to work harder than ever if the product is to be noticed through the congestion ofcompetitive products (Milton, 1991) and surprisingly few food retailers appreciate thepower of packaging as a piece of direct communication (Peters, 1994).

Own-label growthOwn-label products are defined as “any products over which a retailer [has] exercisedtotal sourcing and market control” (Mintel, 2005a, b). For retailers, own-label brandsoffer an opportunity to build store loyalty (Dick et al., 1996) and Mintel (2005a, b)estimate that the market growth for UK own-label food increased by “18 per centbetween 1999 and 2004” placing a total value of £28.5billion on the UK market. A recentreport published by market analyst Datamonitor (2005), revealed that spending onown-label food products had increased from “34 per cent to 45 per cent” during theperiod of 2000-2005. Despite the increasing power of own-label products, many in thefood industry believe there is still plenty of room for growth (Food and Drink, 2003).Perrin (2002) (cited by Food and Drink, 2003) states that growth will continue as“retailers become more and more sophisticated marketers” and the retailers willcontinue to increase the power of their own-label brands by offering “even morepremium priced, higher quality products”. Consumer craving for quality and choice inturn has allowed retailers to focus on the “premium priced, ‘chef’ quality products[which] offer lucrative market opportunities” (Roberts, 2001). Recent research reportsthat “premium brands can now account for about 20 per cent of a category and sell atabout 40 per cent more than standard lines” (Taylor Nelson, 2002). Virtually all of theown-label growth success has occurred within the chilled foods sector, leading the wayin many chilled categories (Mintel, 2005a, b). One such category is chilled desserts, saidto be worth £302 million in 2004, having experienced a growth of 29 per cent since 1999(Mintel, 2005a, b). Research conducted by Mintel (2005a, b) indicates that “more than 98per cent of chilled dessert sales are accounted for by retailers such as Marks & Spencer,Tesco and Sainsbury’s, with Tesco leading the way in sales. To date, there has beenlittle or no research conducted into this successful premium own-label sector.

Rationale of studyClearly, the UK food and drink supply chain is concentrated in the hands of a fewmultiples (Mintel, 2005a, b). The top three according to Mintel (2005a, b) are Tesco,Asda and Sainsbury’s, with own-label sales accounting for 51 per cent of sales for thethree retailers (Mintel, 2005a, b). As it was impossible to investigate each of the topthree retailers of own label in depth due to time constraints, it was decided to focus onone. Recent research conducted by Mintel (2005a, b) into own-label products,highlighted the phenomenal success of Tesco’s own-label sub brands. Four out of

IJRDM35,9

678

Tesco’s five sub-brands “enjoy penetration levels of over 20 per cent” and the top twoare bought by a third of all main shoppers (Mintel, 2005a, b). For this reason, Tescowas selected for the purposes of the research study. The retailer was the first UKown-label brand to offer consumers a premium range of prepared food and drinkproducts under their own-label “Finest” brand.

The role of packagingThe basic function of packaging is to “preserve product integrity” by protecting theactual food product against potential damage from “climatic, bacteriological andtransit hazards” (Stewart, 1995). However, the first to define packs as the “silentsalesman” was Pilditch in 1957, who argued that the pack must come alive at the pointof purchase, in order to represent the salesman (Vazquez et al., 2003). About 30 yearslater, Lewis (1991) expanded further on Pilditch’s views, stating that “good packagingis far more than a salesman, it is a flag of recognition and a symbol of values”. Giventhat only a small minority of brands are strong enough to justify the investment thatnational advertising requires, for the rest, packaging represents one of the mostimportant vehicles for communicating the brand message directly to the targetconsumer (Nancarrow et al., 1998). As the retail environment becomes saturated withcompetitors vying for consumers’ attention, packaging has to work harder than ever ifthe product is to be noticed through the congestion of competitive products (Milton,1991). Alongside this challenge, retailers are faced with the realisation that consumersnot only differ in how they perceive brands but also in how they relate to these brands(Fournier, 1998; Muniz and O’Guinn, 2001).

MethodologyOwing to the gap in existing research regarding consumer-buying behaviour withinthe premium dessert category, it was decided that the most appropriate method toemploy would be a participant observational study, with the aim of reducing the many“uncertainties about the behaviour” of customers in-store (Knee, 2002). Observation is aresearch technique that is often implicit in the data-gathering approach’ and“observation is something we cannot fail to do as people, we are all expert observers”(Hackley, 2003). Furthermore, participant observation was chosen as “it puts theresearcher where the action is” enabling them “to experience the lives of informants”(Bernard, 2000). Previous research has questioned the extent to which the traditionallaboratory setting can mirror the consumer’s shopping experience (Marshall, 2003).Rather than question consumers on their behaviour in a laboratory environment, oneoption is to observe consumers’ behaviour and their conversations in an actual store(Meiselman et al., 2000; Arnould and Wallendorf, 1994). An observational approachprovides a clearer representation of the decision process that consumers proceedthrough rather than the consumers’ perceptions of that process (Douglas and Wind,1978), thus providing the researcher with the ability to “uncover unconscious consumeractions” (Wimmer and Stiles, 2001). In addition, the participant observational studyprovided the opportunity not only to observe the shopping and buying behaviour ofconsumers, but also to intervene and question consumers. Consumers were firstlyobserved without interruption, allowing their natural behaviour to be recorded. Onlyonce they completed their actual purchase decision, did the researcher then approachthem. Such a method has a clear ethical advantage as consumers can choose to decline

The importanceof packaging

design

679

to participate if they do not want to disclose information regarding their purchasechoice. When developing an understanding of consumers’ behaviour, it is important toask consumers why they are carrying out a certain action. Indeed, some researchersmaintain that the richest data come from informal conversation between the researcherand the informants. Those shoppers who had picked up a product to purchase wereintercepted as they walked away from the cabinet and were asked to answer a fewshort questions regarding their purchase choice.

Study designThe exercise was conducted at two Tesco Stores situated in the suburbs of Belfast City,with both stores occupying a space of over 60,000 square foot and attracting a largeand varied segmentation of customers from surrounding residential areas. It is worthnoting that the chilled desserts cabinets consist predominately of own-label with onlya few locally produced, branded desserts. The only major difference between the twostores was the merchandising of the desserts and their location in store. Store Amerchandised their premium desserts in a separate chilled cabinet away from the restof the chilled products, situated between the deli and home bakery department.Alternatively, Store B merchandised their premium own-label desserts alongside therest of their premium own-label chilled products in one cabinet. Both observationalstudies were conducted in April 2005, following the Easter holidays and prior to thestart of the summer season, which may have had an effect on premium dessert sales.This also avoided disparities caused by variances in seasonal, promotional activity andsupply availability. Each study was undertaken over a trading week from Monday toSaturday at various times during opening hours, to observe the largest segmentation ofshoppers possible. Previous observational research conducted by Miller (1998)indicated that the observations were in marked contrast to what consumers actuallytold him about shopping when questioned. For this reason product sales of chilleddesserts for each store were examined for the corresponding period to act as atriangulation tool, ensuring that consumers’ actions actually reflected their commentsregarding product purchase. The framework for group composition was taken fromprevious observational research conducted by Brown (1991), where individualshoppers were subsequently classified into particular “groups”.

Primary findings of Store AA total of 317 groups were observed in Store A over an entire trading week fromMonday to Saturday. Of the 317 groups that stopped to browse at the chilled dessertscabinet, 51 per cent of them purchased a dessert. However, only 35 per cent of theseproducts purchased were premium own-label, suggesting a further opportunity forgreater penetration. The overall group composition was variable with no clear segmentidentified as the prominent purchaser of premium chilled desserts. Adult femalesformed the single largest category with 28 per cent of the total stopping to browse atthe cabinet. The group consisting of adult females and children followed this closely at21 per cent. There was very little difference between the adult male segment at17 per cent and the adult female and male segment at 17 per cent. The remainder wasmade up of adult females, males and children at 11 per cent, followed by adult malesand children at 6 per cent as the smallest group percentage to stop at the cabinet.When examining the breakdown of customer age groups in comparison to the group

IJRDM35,9

680

composition, there was no notable age group segment purchasing chilled desserts.The age categories between 25 and 39 years old, however, illustrated the highest levelsof purchasing with the 50 þ age group category portraying the lowest penetrationlevels. Just as group composition demonstrated variation so did the percentage of thosewho purchased Finest desserts. This ranged from 27 per cent of premium dessertsbeing purchased by adult females to 7 per cent by the adult male and children segment.Generally speaking, those consumers in the larger composition groups displayed thehighest purchase frequency of Finest desserts.

Out of the 159 consumer groups who purchased a dessert, 141 agreed to participatein answering questions regarding their purchase. Over 56 per cent of consumersportrayed strong behavioural traits of planned shopping as compared to 44 per centwho were more indicative of impulsive buying style. Purchase frequency wassurprisingly high with 44 per cent of consumers questioned purchasing a chilleddessert at least once a week, 23 per cent once a fortnight, 20 per cent more than once aweek and 13 per cent only occasionally. The general consensus from consumers wasthat “you have to treat yourself once in a while” and that “you only live once”.

Primary findings of Store BA total of 168 groups were observed in Store B over an entire trading week fromMonday to Saturday. A considerably smaller sample was observed in this exercise ascompared to that in Store A. The primary reason for this was likely to be themerchandising arrangements in Store B, as previously discussed. One advantage toobserving the cabinet in this store, was that all the products being purchased werepremium own-label and therefore it would be interesting to note any behaviouraldifferences between shoppers in Stores A and B. Of the 168 consumer groups whostopped to browse at the chilled desserts cabinet, only 17 per cent made a purchase,signalling a relatively lower penetration rate of purchase. While examining the overallgroup composition versus rate of purchase displayed, it is worth noting that adultfemales formed the single largest category with 31 per cent of the total stopping tobrowse at the cabinet. The groups consisting of adult females and children and theadult female and male segment followed this jointly with 17 per cent. The remainderconsisted of the adult male segment at 16 per cent, the adult females, males andchildren with 14 per cent and lastly the adult males and children at 5 per cent. Therewas no association when comparing the breakdown of customer age groups withgroup composition. Purchase levels did, however, appear to be strongest between theage groups of 25-44 years old.

Of the 28 groups who did purchase a dessert, 23 groups agreed to participate inanswering questions regarding their purchase. Over 61 per cent portrayed strongbehavioural traits of impulsive buying as compared to 39 per cent displaying a plannedapproach. A common statement from the impulsive buyers observed was that they didnot really need a dessert, but when [they] did see one [they] just had to buy it.Surprisingly, given the low levels of purchase penetration, purchase frequency washigh. Over 40 per cent of consumers questioned purchased premium own-label dessertsat least once a week, followed by 26 per cent buying desserts once a fortnight.Feedback presented by consumers indicated that brand loyalty was high. Oneconsumer stipulated that “without having the treat of a Finest dessert once a week,[she] would feel something was missing”.

The importanceof packaging

design

681

Overall, analysis and discussionOverall, a total of 485 groups were observed in the two stores over an entire tradingweek from Monday to Saturday. Out of the 485 groups that stopped to browse atthe cabinet, 187 (38 per cent) of them purchased a dessert. Unfortunately, due to themerchandising of chilled desserts in Store B, it was impossible to calculate an overallfigure for the purchase frequency of desserts versus the purchase frequency ofpremium desserts. The overall group composition displayed was variable with no clearsegment identified as the prominent purchaser of premium chilled desserts. Adultfemales formed the single largest category with 29 per cent of the total stopping tobrowse at the cabinet. This was closely followed by the group consisting of adultfemales and children at 20 per cent. There was very little difference between the adultmale segment at 16 per cent and the adult female and male segment at 17 per cent.The remainder was comprised of adult females, males and children at 12 per cent,followed by adult males and children at 6 per cent, the smallest group percentage tostop at the cabinet. Even though the role of women has changed dramatically over thelast 30 years, female consumers when co-habiting continue to take on the mainshopping role. Research conducted by Beardsworth et al. (2002) into the significance ofgender for food choices, overwhelmingly indicated that it was women “who bore themain responsibility for deciding” what food products are purchased. When examiningthe breakdown of customer age groups in comparison to the group composition andpurchase levels, there was no clear association. Previous research implies that brandloyalty increases as people age (Cole and Balasubramanian, 1993). Supporting thisresearch is a suggestion by Sethuraman and Cole (1999) that brand loyalty increases aspeople age, where younger consumers may be prepared to pay smaller premiums fornational brands as their preferences are not as “strongly formed as older consumers”.As a result, younger consumers may place a higher focus on the image of a brand andbe less familiar with store brands (Sethuraman and Cole, 1999). However, findings inthis observation exercise differed from these previous findings by Cole andBalasubramanian (1993) and Sethuraman and Cole (1999). Here, the strongest level ofbrand loyalty was evident in the age category of 34-39 years, followed by thoseconsumers in the 16-24 years category.

One of the predominant trends observed in both stores was that the purchase ofdesserts was quite frequent; with 44 per cent of consumers questioned purchasingdesserts at least once a week, followed by 23 per cent purchasing a dessert oncea fortnight. This was followed by 18 per cent purchasing a dessert more than once aweek and 15 per cent of consumers purchasing only occasionally. The main consensusamong consumers was that they were allowed “to spoil themselves” and they“deserved to treat themselves once in a while”. Store B had a considerably lowerpurchase penetration than Store A. However, customers visiting Store B maypotentially have been unaware that there was a premium offering of desserts due to themerchandising layout within the store at this time.

Female consumers illustrated the highest incidence of planned purchasing in thisexercise. Previous research has demonstrated that women are more likely to plan theirpurchases than men (Cobb and Hoyer, 1986). Block and Morwitz (1999) attribute threereasons for this, firstly that women are traditionally in charge of grocery shopping;secondly, that because of such tradition, females are more knowledgeable regardingproducts and stores, and lastly, that females have a better idea about “inventory levels”

IJRDM35,9

682

than males do (Goldman and Jonhansson, 1978; Urbany et al., 1996). There was someevidence of “pester power” where young children were notably attracted to the dessertsand as a result of this, the majority of parents involved did then purchase the product.

The decision-making processWhen examining the decision-making process of those questioned in both stores, therewas no dominant style of purchasing behaviour evident. Over 54 per cent portrayedstrong behavioural traits of planned purchasers as compared to 46 per cent, displayinga more impulsive buying style. Wood (2005) defines inpulse buying as “extraordinary,emotion-saturated buying without regard to financial or other consequences”. Thoseconsumers buying for indulgent reasons were mainly the result of an impulsivedecision. In these circumstances, consumers were highly driven by their emotions,whether positive or negative. Some consumers felt they should “reward” themselvesafter a good day whereas others were looking for “comfort food” after a bad day. Manyshoppers portraying this behaviour felt that a “Finest” dessert was “one similar towhat you would receive in a restaurant” and explained that when they were treatingthemselves they always “wanted the best” Such findings would correspond with theTheory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991) whereby consumer behaviour isdetermined by three dimensions, the consumer’s attitudes towards a behaviour, thesubjective norm and the perceived behavioural control (Ajzen, 1991). By purchasing adessert, it was clear that consumers expected their emotional needs to be fulfilled andsubsequently lead to an experience outcome that they would value positively (Conner,1995). Moreover, this type of impulse shopper was inclined to be more adventurousthan the planned shopper and was readily prepared to try new products.

One apparent theme, which arose during questioning, was the number of consumerswho were making a planned purchase for a specific occasion; these occasions rangedfrom a dinner party or family lunch to a birthday party. For such occasions, consumerswere seeking a product that “they wouldn’t be embarrassed to serve to their guests”and “play it safe” with a product that “they knew would deliver”. Those consumerspurchasing for a certain occasion claimed they bought premium own-label as theycould be “reassured the product they were serving was a high quality”. Many shopperswere looking for a product they could “pass off as their own” as due to time constraintsthey were unable to prepare a homemade dessert. Again, similarities arose from thesefindings and Ajzen’s (1991) TPB, whereby these consumers experienced some socialpressure to choose a dessert that they thought their guests would approve of and thuslead to a positive outcome. Furthermore, this type of consumer displayed a high level ofbrand loyalty towards premium own-label desserts. The reasons presented byshoppers were that “Finest is a brand you can trust” and the products are “always highquality”. Interestingly, a planned purchase very often coincided with a repeatpurchase, especially those buying for a special occasion.

There appeared to be a low level of brand loyalty in Store A compared to Store B,however, some of these shoppers did purchase “Finest” brand products on a regularbasis. Consumers were searching for a product to fulfil their requirements at thatparticular moment and were keen to purchase any product that they thought would doso. Alternatively, in Store B, brand loyalty was visibly high, illustrated not only bypurchase frequency but also by the fact that 52 per cent of consumers were making arepeat purchase. Although 34 per cent of shoppers were buying a new product, they

The importanceof packaging

design

683

maintained that they had remained loyal to the “Finest” range declaring that they“liked to try all the desserts” and “enjoyed a bit of variety to satisfy their changingmoods”.

Retail literature approaches “point of purchase” buying as commonplace, expectedand indeed encouraged (Hackett et al., 1993; Phillips and Bradshaw, 1993). Findingsfrom the research would indeed suggest that “point of purchase” buying was readilypractised by shoppers throughout the exercise. Clearly, store environment and highlyvisible products have the ability to act as “prompt lists” providing customers with theoption of delaying decision-making until they are in store (Bowlbey, 1997). Thoseshoppers, who were restricted with their shopping time, relied heavily on extrinsicattributes, especially visual information. Previous research conducted by Pieters andWarlop (1999) also implied that time pressured subjects tended to filter textualinformation such as ingredient information on packages, more preferring the lesscognitively-taxing pictorial information. It was evident that, shopping motivation hada large impact on purchase choice and on the various extrinsic attributes thatconsumers used as indicators of quality. Recent research revealed that consumers notonly differ in how they perceive brands but also in how they relate to brands (Munizand O’Guinn, 2001; Fournier, 1998), a theme also evident in this research.

Own-label packaging influenceFrom the observation and consumers’ comments, it was obvious that consumers placeda high dependence on the extrinsic attributes of packaging to aid the purchase decision.Indeed, over 73 per cent of consumers agreed to utilising packaging to assist in theirpurchase decision. One shopper explained that she spent a “great deal longer choosinga dessert” as compared to other food products and that “packaging had a big influenceon [her] decision”. Cox (1967) and Olson and Jacoby (1972) suggest that whenconsumers make quality judgements they use direct and indirect indicators of quality.At the point of purchase in particular, consumers increasingly relied on indirect orsurrogate cues to aid their decision. Previous research in the grocery industrydiscovered that extrinsic cues are easier to recognise and process than intrinsic cues(Purwar, 1982).

On closer examination, there does not appear to be one prominent attribute thataided consumers in their purchase decision in this research. Therefore, it is importantthat retailers understand the surrogate variables used by consumers to assess brandquality and whether various consumer segments differ in their use of such indicators inthe decision-making process. Over 43 per cent of consumers claimed to use the packphotography as an indication of product quality and one customer commented thatthey “used the photography to assist as a serving suggestion”. Even though a numberof premium own-label products have a clear window on the packaging displaying theactual product, a number of consumers still relied on the photograph to ensure“the product looked how it should do”. Consumers, who made their purchase onimpulse tended to rely heavily on the extrinsic attributes of the packaging, especiallypack photography, to assist in their choice. Of those shoppers questioned, 30 per centfelt that familiarity of the product was important, perhaps explaining the large numberof repeat purchases made. Following this, 21 per cent of consumers used the productdescriptor as a tool for judging quality; this was especially evident in those indulgentseeking consumers. This type of consumer appeared to be easily persuaded by the use

IJRDM35,9

684

of sensory descriptor words to appeal to their senses. In the words of one shopper,they were looking for a product that made “their stomach rumble and mouth water”when they read the descriptor. Only 6 per cent of shoppers maintained that portion sizewas a determining factor, this came across as a major factor for many of the groupswith families, for the obvious reason to ensure “there is enough to go around”.Vranesevic and Stancec (2003) stress that when there is no obvious advantage over onebrand as compared to another with regards to the physical product, consumers willevaluate the product brand and use it as “a sign of quality”. Likewise, De Wulf et al.(2001) believe that when consumers use extrinsic cues to judge product quality, “storesare at a disadvantage” when compared to national brands. Reinforcing this statementis Richardson and Dick (1994) who explains that store brands are largelyundifferentiated in consumers’ minds. Interestingly, the findings from this researchwould contradict these statements as analysis would indicate that current extrinsicattributes of premium own-label brands do have the power to act as a quality tool whencommunicating with the consumer. However, these findings may be due to the fact thatthe product category under investigation is generally own-label led. Analysis wouldindicate that current extrinsic attributes of the premium own-label brand do have thepower to act as a quality tool when communicating with the consumer.

ConclusionFrom this observational work, it is obvious that there was no one clear customersegment that predominately purchased chilled desserts, rather the majority of thecustomer base buy into the range. One clear emerging theme from this exercise wasthe identification of five consumer segments who all purchased premium desserts.Each segment displayed varying levels of purchase frequency and brand loyalty andrelied on different extrinsic attributes to aid their decision. This provides anopportunity for retailers like Tesco, to increase sales and build a brand relationshipacross their customer base. However, facing the difficulty of designing a package thatcommunicates to the needs and wants of such a wide customer base, is not without itsproblems. Perhaps, surprisingly, some of the consumers even viewed their shoppingtrip as a “recreational activity”. Some academics do state that shopping has become“a major leisure and lifestyle activity” (Bayley and Nancarrow, 1998). Generally,shoppers spent a considerably longer time browsing the chilled desserts cabinet ascompared to the time they spent in other product ranges in the store. To many, “Finest”desserts parallel “restaurant standard” and are of the “highest quality”. Consumercomments revealed that they were seeking a dessert that “satisfies all their cravings”and required packaging that makes “their stomach grumble and mouth water” topersuade them to make a purchase. Retailers can utilise this information for developingthe most effective packaging communications, point of sale and merchandising.By identifying the segments that purchase premium own-label and the factors thatinfluence their choice, retailers can then develop a packaging design that enhancesbrand awareness and creates positive associations within the consumers’consciousness.

Overall, analysis demonstrated the growing importance that is placed on packagingas a tool for differentiation from competitor products and for further developing theretailer’s own-label brand. Analysis of findings would clearly indicate that there isa strong association regarding the influence of packaging on the purchase decision,

The importanceof packaging

design

685

with over 73 per cent of interviewed consumers stating that they rely on packaging toaid their decision-making process at the point of purchase. Since, so many purchasedecisions are made at the point of sale, the impact of packaging represents animportant issue for food suppliers to consider. As own-label brands are exclusive to,and owned by, the retailer they have the opportunity to develop packaging designsthat are even more attuned to their customer base than those offered by the equivalentrange of branded products. Consequently, it is imperative that retailers strive tounderstand the surrogate variables used by consumers to assess brand quality andwhether various consumer segments differ in the use of such indicators during thedecision-making process.

Limitations of researchA possible limitation of this research is that it focuses upon a product category that isconsidered to be high in experiential benefits, derived from the pleasure of consumingluxury desserts. Prior research has revealed that the more experiential the product’sbenefits are, the more a consumer will focus on processing imagery and sensoryinformation, which in turn may increase the relative importance of packaging design atthe point of purchase. Owing to the time constraints and nature of this study, it wasimpossible to additionally investigate the importance of packaging design for productswhich are considered to be lower in terms of experiential benefits; however, furtherresearch could be undertaken to investigate this aspect. Moreover, the study wasconducted in the UK, where own-label brands have experienced phenomenal growthsince the 1980s and play an important role in food retail; therefore, findings may vary ifthe study was to be conducted in America or other parts of Europe.

Future researchAs this is empirical research, further research may enhance the validity andgeneralisation of these findings. This study reports on the preliminary findings of thefirst stage of a research project. Analysis of the reported research indicates that furtherinvestigation is essential for developing effective packaging for own-label brands.These observational findings aimed to structure and inform the next stage of research,which consisted of several focus groups. Results obtained from the observational studywill be used to inform and develop a matrix to better segment participants into one ofthe seven focus groups, reflecting their shopping behaviour. Future studies couldextend this research by considering the importance of packaging for products withlower experiential benefits than those offered by desserts or additionally, employinga comparative study of own-label brands.

References

Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behaviour”, Organisational Behaviour and HumanDecision Processes, Vol. 50, pp. 179-211.

Arnould, E. and Wallendorf, M. (1994), “Market-oriented ethnography: interpretation buildingand marketing strategy formulation”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31 No. 4,pp. 484-504.

Bayley, G. and Nancarrow, C. (1998), “Impulse purchasing: a qualitative exploration of thephenomenon”, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 1 No. 2,pp. 99-114.

IJRDM35,9

686

Beardsworth, A., Brynan, A., Keli, T. and Goode, J. (2002), “Women, men and food: thesignificance of gender for nutritional attitudes and choices”, British Food Journal, Vol. 104No. 7, pp. 470-91.

Bernard, H.R. (2000), Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, Sage,London.

Bloch, P.H. (1995), “Seeking the ideal form: product design and consumer response”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 59, pp. 16-29.

Block, L. and Morwitz, V. (1999), “Shopping lists as an external memory aid for groceryshopping: influences on list writing and list fulfilment”, Journal of Consumer Psychology.,Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 343-76.

Bogue, J. (2001), “New product development and the Irish food sector: a qualitative study ofactivities and processes”, Irish Journal of Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 171-93.

Bowlbey, R. (1997), “Supermarket futures”, in Falk, P. and Campbell, C. (Eds), The ShoppingExperience, Sage, London.

Brown, S. (1991), “Shopper circulation in a planned shopping centre”, Journal of Retail &Distribution Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 17-24.

Buisson, D. (1995), “Developing new products for the consumer”, in Marshall, D.W. (Ed.), FoodChoice and the Consumer, Blackie Academic and Professional, London.

Cobb, C.J. and Hoyer, W.D. (1986), “Planned versus impulse purchase behaviour”, Journal ofRetailing, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 384-409.

Cole, C.A. and Balasubramanian, S.K. (1993), “Age differences in consumers’ searchfor information: public policy implications”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20,pp. 157-69.

Conner, M.T. (1995), “Understanding determinants of food choice: contributions from attituderesearch”, British Food Journal, Vol. 95 No. 9, pp. 27-32.

Cox, D.F. (1967), “Risk taking and information handling in consumer behavior”, Risk Taking andInformation Handling in Consumer Behaviour, Harvard University, Boston, MA.

Datamonitor (2005), “Datamonitor own label products”, Research report, March.

De Wulf, K., Odekerken-Schroder, G. and Iacobucci, D. (2001), “Investments in consumerrelationships: a cross-country and cross-industry exploration”, Journal of Marketing,Vol. 65, pp. 33-50.

Dick, A., Jain, A. and Richardson, P. (1996), “How consumers evaluate store brands”, Journal ofProduct & Brand Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 19-28.

Douglas, S.P. and Wind, Y. (1978), “Examining family role and authority patterns: twomethodological issues”, Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 3, pp. 35-47.

Dumaine, B. (1991), “Design that sells and sells”, Fortune, Vol. 11, pp. 86-94.

Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumer and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumerresearch”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 343-73.

Fuller, W.G. (1994), New Food Product Development from Concept to the Market Place, CRC Press,Boca Raton, FL.

Goldman, K. and Johansson, K. (1978), “Determinants of search for lower prices: an empiricalassessment of the economics of information theory”, Journal of Consumer Research,pp. 176-86.

Hackett, P.M.W., Foxall, G. and Van Raaij, F. (1993), “Consumers in retail environments”,in Garling, T. and Golledge, R.G. (Eds), Behaviour and Environment: Psychological andGeographical Approaches, Elsevier, New York, NY, pp. 378-99.

The importanceof packaging

design

687

Hackley, C.E. (2003), Doing Research Projects in Marketing, Management and ConsumerResearch, Routledge, London.

Harmsen, H. (1994), “Tendencies in product development in Danish food companies – report of aqualitative analysis”, MAPP Working Paper, No. 17, Project No. 2, February.

Knee, C. (2002), “Learning from experience: five challenges for retailers”, International Journal ofRetail & Distribution Management, Vol. 30 No. 11, pp. 518-29.

Lewis, M. (1991), Understanding Brands, Kogan Page, London.

Lord, J.B. (1999), “New product failure and success”, in Brody, A.L. and Lord, J.B. (Eds),Developing New Food Products for a Changing Marketplace, Technomic Publishing,Lancaster, PA.

Marshall, D. (2003), “Commentary on Garber et al. Measuring consumer response to foodproducts”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 17-21.

Meiselman, H.J., Johnson, J.L., Reeve, W. and Crouch, J.E. (2000), “Demonstration of the influenceof the eating environment on food acceptance”, Appetite, Vol. 35, pp. 231-7.

Miller, D. (1998), A Theory of Shopping, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.

Milton, H. (1991), Packaging Design, Bourne Press Ltd, Bournemouth.

Mintel (2003), Own-label Food & Drink – UK, Mintel International Group Limited, London.

Mintel (2005a), Chilled Desserts –UK, Mintel International Group Limited, London.

Mintel (2005b), Own-label Food & Drink – UK, Mintel International Group Limited, London.

Moskowitz, H.R. (1999), “On the intersection of products and concepts: opportunities for sensoryanalysis to improve the commercial development process”, Food Quality and Preference,Vol. 10 Nos 4/5, pp. 333-42.

Muniz, M. and O’Guinn, T.C. (2001), “Brand community”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 27No. 4, pp. 412-32.

Nancarrow, C., Wright, L.T. and Brace, I. (1998), “Gaining competitive advantage frompackaging and labelling in marketing communications”, British Food Journal, Vol. 100No. 2, pp. 110-20.

Olson, J.C. and Jacoby, J. (1972), “Cue utilization in the quality perception process”, inVenkatesan, M. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Association forConsumer Research, pp. 167-79.

Perrin, S. (2002), “Own-label branding”, In: Food & Drink, 2003 [online], available at: www.Foodanddrinkeurope.com/news (accessed 4 November 2003).

Peters, M. (1994), “Good packaging gets through to the fickle buyer”, Marketing, Vol. 20,pp. 10-12.

Phillips, H. and Bradshaw, R. (1993), “How customers actually shop: customer interaction withthe point of sale”, Journal of the Market Research Society, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 51-62.

Pieters, R. and Warlop, L. (1999), “Visual attention during brand choice: the impact of timepressure and task motivation”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 16No. 1, pp. 1-16.

Purwar, P.C. (1982), “The role of price cut in product quality perception: a comprehensive modeland an empirical investigation”, doctoral dissertation, State University of New York,Buffalo, NY.

Richardson, P.S. and Dick, A.S. (1994), “Extrinsic and intrinsic cue effects on perceptions of storebrand quality”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 28-37.

IJRDM35,9

688

Roberts, W. (2001), “R&D initiatives are signs of the times”, Prepared Foods, Vol. 170 No. 11,pp. 27-32.

Rudolph, M.J. (1995), “The food product development process”, British Food Journal, Vol. 97 No. 3,pp. 657-71.

Schmitt, B.H. and Simonson, A. (1997), Marketing Aesthetics: The Strategic Management ofBrands, Identity and Image, Free Press, New York, NY.

Sethuraman, R. and Cole, C. (1999), “Factors influencing the price premium that consumers payfor national brands over store brands”, Journal of Product and Brand ManagementFeaturing Pricing Strategy & Practice, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 340-51.

Silayoi, P. and Speece, M. (2004), “Packaging and purchase decisions”, British Food Journal,Vol. 106 No. 8, pp. 607-28.

Southgate, P. (1994), Total Branding by Design, Biddles Ltd, Norfolk.

Stewart, B. (1995), Packaging as an Effective Marketing Tool, Pira International, Surrey.

Stewart-Knox, B. and Mitchell, P. (2003), “What separates the winners from the losers in newfood product development?”, Trends in Food Science & Food Technology, Vol. 14 Nos 1/2,pp. 58-63.

Taylor Nelson Sofres Superpanel (2002), Chilled Desserts, TNF, London.

Underwood, R.L., Klein, N.M. and Burke, R.R. (2001), “Packaging communication: attentionaleffects of product imagery”, The Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 10 No. 7,pp. 403-22.

Urbany, J.E., Dickson, P.R. and Kalapurakal, R. (1996), “Price search in the retail grocerymarketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, pp. 91-104.

Vazquez, D., Bruce, M. and Studd, R. (2003), “A case study exploring the packaging designmanagement process within a UK food retailer”, British Food Journal, Vol. 105 No. 9,pp. 20-31.

Vranesevic, T. and Stancec, R. (2003), “The effect of the brand on perceived quality of foodproducts”, British Food Journal, Vol. 105 No. 11, pp. 811-25.

Wimmer, K. and Stiles, J. (2001), “The observational research handbook: understanding howconsumers live with your products”, Journal of Advertising Research, January-February,pp. 91-3.

Wood, M. (2005), “Discretionary unplanned buying in consumer society”, Journal of ConsumerBehaviour, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 268-80.

Further reading

Food Manufacture (2005), “Own-label surges ahead and grabs further market share frombranded rival products”, Food Manufacture, February, 9.

About the authorsL.E. Wells is a Research Student within the School of Marketing, Entrepreneurship at theUniversity of Ulster and was recently awarded her PhD in November 2006. Her research focusesupon the role of packaging design within the food product development process in general, andmore specifically, on packaging design for own-label food brands. This interest was developedthrough her work with one of the major retailers and Laura is particularly interested in theapplication of qualitative methods to this research area. L.E. Wells is the corresponding authorand can be contacted at: le.wells@ulster.ac.uk

The importanceof packaging

design

689

H. Farley is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Marketing, Entrepreneurship and Strategy atthe University of Ulster and teaches marketing, consumer behaviour and business strategy.Her research is focused predominately on food product development and the need fora market-led approach and she has been involved in a range of commercially relevant projects.E-mail: h.farley@ulster.ac.uk

G.A. Armstrong is a Lecturer in Marketing within the School of Marketing, Entrepreneurshipand Strategy at the University of Ulster. She is Programme Director for the MSc in Agri-foodBusiness Development and lectures in the areas of consumer behaviour, marketingand e-marketing. Her research interests are in the area of product quality and foodmarketing, facilitated through industrially related research and relevant PhD supervision.E-mail: ga.Armstrong@ulster.ac.uk

IJRDM35,9

690

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints