Editor’s note: Jonathan Asher is executive vice president and chief marketing officer of The Coleman Group, a New York City marketing design consulting firm.
Many clients seem to think that packaging research is unnecessary, that it’s a time-consuming and expensive proposition that adds little to the creative process. But is that an accurate assessment?
Including research in a design project does add time to the overall schedule and dollars to the budget. However, it actually represents an investment that adds value to the creative process, provides input for decision-making and protects brand equity. So how best to go about it?
Pre-design research can be used to determine if it is even necessary or appropriate to institute a package redesign program. Then, should a redesign be called for, early research can uncover the important design components, the "design equities," associated with the brand.
This initial research phase will also gauge the extent to which a brand’s perceived image fits the intended positioning strategy, and how the package contributes to or detracts from the desired image.
Overall, the intelligence gained from pre-design research helps set the design strategy, the specific guidelines that focus the designer’s creativity, while still allowing room for artistic expression.
When pre-design research is not conducted, when design equities are not a concern, a during-design research phase is usually implemented using a range of preliminary designs as stimuli. This takes place in three instances: 1) when designing a brand new product; 2) when redesigning a package for which the equities are well understood; 3) when a dramatic change is needed and, in essence, there are no equities worth building on.
Finally, post-design research is conducted after the initial concepts have been refined and winnowed to several likely options. The learning obtained from this research phase helps management make the final selection. Post-design research also provides insights that are useful for fine-tuning the selected design to optimize its effectiveness.
Some people refer to post-design research as an evaluation of the package which is conducted after the product has been introduced to the marketplace. While this approach can be useful, it is a more expensive proposition (assuming design modifications are required) than if the learning is obtained prior to the manufacturing process and market introduction.
Input from consumers
We have long embraced the use of packaging research because we recognize the value of input from target consumers. To determine which research techniques will be most useful for a particular design program, we sort through the various options and recommend the methodology most appropriate for the situation.
Take the case of Robitussin, a long-time leading cough syrup, which over the years lost its strong identity through the addition of new formulas. Research revealed that the white Robitussin logo in a black box had high brand recognition and conveyed a quality image that could be transferred to other product categories. But severe communications problems were uncovered as consumers struggled to discern which type of product they were buying. Research guided the redesign effort which unified the brand line with a consistent brandmark and packaging format.
We employ two proprietary techniques to assess brand identity and package design, in both the pre-design and the design concept stages. In pre-design research a chief goal is to uncover the strengths and weaknesses of an existing package relative to its competition. Information provided here can help determine if a redesign is in order and, if so, can provide guidelines, along with a thorough understanding of the design equities.
One of our processes is a pre-design system that includes quantitative research using eye-tracking to measure visual impact and label readability. By asking questions, with and without the package, we determine the contribution (positive or negative) the package makes to brand image.
Qualitative research techniques are employed to obtain consumer feedback to initial design concepts. By asking the right questions, and appropriately interpreting the results, one can apply the learning to the design phase. Often, final-phase design refinements begin shortly after the last focus group has been completed.
Focus group techniques are useful when the equities of an existing package are well understood and must be maintained, when the existing package has few graphic elements worth retaining, or in the case of a new product for which one has a blank slate on which to create a new identity.
Once the final design candidates have been narrowed to one or two, a post-design research phase, which can take many forms, is appropriate. With the concepts narrowed to a few candidates, and their designs well along in their development, post-design research can help brand management gain insights for refinements and make the final selection.
While many techniques can be employed, including focus groups, mall intercepts, T-scope, eye movement measurements and simulated shopping, research that will provide statistically reliable information and offer meaningful performance evaluations is most productive. This is best accomplished through a quantitative study of a sufficiently large sample for statistical testing and sub-group analysis. It also generally includes an eye-tracking procedure to yield shelf impact and label readability measures.
Research not always merited
Still, with all this said, one cannot always be a proponent of research. There are occasions when it is not merited. In one instance, a client had recently acquired a brand, and the management group lacked familiarity with its heritage and user profile, and planned a renewed marketing effort. Since we had grown up with this brand and were familiar with its package, we believed there was equity in the white logo and blue background, and recommended retaining these elements.
We recommended a design phase with a broad range of concepts, including variations on the existing packaging theme. We also included designs a bit further afield, and subjected a representative range of these concepts to conceptual testing.
The research clearly revealed equity in the white logo and blue background. Further probing confirmed our fears that the label desperately needed upgrading. Even loyal users voiced sentiments about a "dusty" looking label and said they used the product despite its label. In the end, the new designs were well received, judged aesthetically appealing and the best reflection of the brand’s quality heritage.
However, in many instances, too much of the decision making process is based solely on management judgment, even when research is included in the process. In one telling case, a client invested in an extensive quantitative research study, tested the designs that were closest to the current one and then maintained the existing logo. As a result, they were able to evaluate the risk that might be created with making a change but never fully understood the opportunity they might have realized.
Measure effectiveness
So at the end of the day, can we really measure creativity? Perhaps not explicitly, but one can certainly measure the effectiveness of creativity and can use research to make the creative process more efficient. Perhaps the more telling question is, should we measure creativity?
The short-term view suggests not spending time and money on research given today’s ever-shortening timelines and ever-tightening budgets. In other words, don’t try to measure creativity. Make a judgment call.
But if you alienate your customer by making too great a change, or if you fail to thwart competitive threats because you didn’t go far enough, you may endanger your brand’s very survival.
Given those possible outcomes, the real question is, how can we not measure creativity?