Avoid beauty contests, seek shopability

Editor’s note: Scott Young is president of Perception Research Services, Fort Lee, N.J.

Marketers are increasingly recognizing the importance of packaging in influencing the many purchase decisions that are made at the point-of-sale. At the same time, companies are also recognizing the benefits of global packaging, which generally involves using a single packaging system, in which text can be translated into local languages.

However, marketers also face a minefield of challenges in developing and testing effective global packaging, given that competitors, retail environments and shoppers vary from market to market. With these challenges in mind, I’d like to offer five principles to help ensure that research studies are accurately gauging the impact of packaging systems. Later, I’ll also share several insights on effective global packaging gathered from our studies.

Principle #1: Don’t hold side-by-side “beauty contests”

Whether you are in Boston , Barcelona or Bangkok , the ultimate objective of any packaging system is to drive sales. Therefore, packaging studies must go beyond aesthetics (what people like) and instead focus on communication and persuasion (what people will buy).

However, poorly designed packaging studies can quickly descend into art directing rather than communication assessment. For this reason, the single most important principle of effective packaging research is monadic study design, in which each person sees/reacts to only one system - and findings are compared across “cells” (i.e., those who saw current packaging vs. those who saw proposed packaging). That’s because the primary objective of a packaging study should be to simulate the introduction of a new packaging system (to see how it impacts shoppers’ attitudes and behavior). In other words, the evaluation of packaging systems is not about preference, it is about influencing behavior.

When shoppers directly compare different packaging options on a side-by-side basis (current vs. proposed), it creates an unrealistic viewing scenario, which they would rarely encounter in store. As such, it often turns them into art directors (overly focused on aesthetics) or brand managers (over-emphasizing the differences between options), rather than shoppers deciding whether or not to buy the product. Therefore, it is important to resist the obvious temptation for side-by-side comparisons, because these comparisons can be very misleading. Finding out that “80 percent prefer the new packaging over the old” has little connection to whether or not a packaging change will have any impact on sales.

Principle #2: Start on the shelf by gauging visibility and “shopability”

Retail environments vary widely across countries, from enormous hyper-markets to small kiosks in many developing countries. However, if there is one global constant, it is that clutter and complexity are increasing, as shoppers everywhere encounter more products and choices at retail.

Because packaging must live on these increasingly cluttered shelves - and work within the limited time (often only 10-20 seconds) that shoppers typically spend making their purchase decisions - the first challenges are clearly to be seen and considered and to consistently create an opportunity to sell. In fact, our PRS Eye-Tracking studies show that shoppers never see at least one-third of the brands displayed.

The other side of the equation is “shopability.” For a smaller brand, this is a question of simply being found if a shopper approaches the category looking for it. For larger brands, this is the challenge of facilitating shopping by quickly leading shoppers to their desired product form or variety - and/or possibly driving an incremental purchase by highlighting a new or trade-up product. In either case, if shoppers do not find what they are looking for within 10-15 seconds, there is a good chance that they will grab another brand.

Unfortunately, there are few shortcuts to gauging shelf presence - and quick-and-dirty communication checks can be very misleading. Specifically, we’ve found that when packaging is shown in isolation (on a board or Web screen), shoppers cannot accurately gauge its shelf visibility or shopability. In other words, packaging that is bold or unique may be frequently described as eye-catching but it will not necessarily break through shelf clutter, since visibility is largely a function of contrast (in color or shape) vs. competitive packaging.

Gauging shelf presence via recall questioning can be equally misleading. Fundamentally, recall is an advertising measure/metric, based on the idea that marketers need to implant a message that will be acted upon later. Obviously, this is far less relevant in a shopping context, where decisions are made at that moment - and the challenge is to gain consideration, convey superiority and close sale within a short time frame. On a more pragmatic level, recall is biased greatly by brand familiarity: If you show a shopper the detergent category, she is very likely to “guess” that Tide was there. Ultimately, there is no substitute for actually documenting what happens as shoppers encounter packaging within a shelf context (i.e., what do they see, actively consider, pick up and buy?). It is important that major packaging decisions are guided by this knowledge, rather than what shoppers claim or what they recall.

Principle #3: Remember that the “norm” is competition

Packaging also differs from advertising in that packaging is typically positioned directly next to its primary competitors. In other words, packaging is rarely viewed or considered in isolation - and all communication is inherently done on a relative or comparative basis (i.e., with your package in a person’s left hand and a competitive package in their right hand). In advertising, the emphasis is often on historical norms and absolute measures. For packaging, the most relevant norm is nearly always competition - and it is critical to assess a packaging system relative to its primary competitors in each market.

In Europe and North America , we increasingly find that the store brand is a primary competitor, and therefore the interviewing sequence must uncover a packaging system’s ability to differentiate and justify a price premium. As dominant retailers continue to expand across borders, measuring communication against store brands will inevitably become a more important global challenge.

In addition, when conducting global research, it is important to remember that the basic criteria for packaging effectiveness are universal. Whether in Moscow or Montreal , a package must:

  • generate visibility and consideration at retail;
  • help shoppers to select the right product/variety;
  • convey key information and product messages;
  • generate purchase interest.

Therefore, marketers can and should use a consistent research methodology (which addresses shelf visibility, communication and persuasion) in all markets. Within each country, a brand’s packaging should be judged relative to its competitors. However, because people in different cultures tend to evaluate things quite differently, mandated absolute “scores” (such as “The packaging must have 50 percent purchase interest in each country”) often don’t make sense. A more appropriate approach is to use a consistent competitive objective across markets (“We must be stronger than competition in each country.”) In other words, it’s best to measure globally, but interpret findings locally.

Principle #4: Focus on functionality

When thinking globally, it is particularly important to remember that packaging systems need to function effectively within both the retail and home environments. Specifically, the size and shape of a package must allow it to be shelved/displayed at retail, transported home and used, stored and disposed of easily.

Because retail and home environments vary so widely across countries, finding a single global structure is nearly impossible. Inevitably, the structures that work in large U.S.  stores, SUVs and suburbs will often be inappropriate in many other markets. Therefore, the challenge is not necessarily to find a single solution, but instead to develop a global design system that translates effectively across multiple sizes and structures. From a research perspective, there are several primary implications:

  • It is important to evaluate packaging systems across different forms/structures and retail environments.
  • It is valuable to speak with retail personnel, to understand the implications of alternative packaging structures on shelving and retail presence.
  • It is worthwhile to conduct ethnographic research, to observe people transporting, using and storing packaging within their homes.

Principle #5: Don’t rely on a single number

As marketers seek to project the return on investment from packaging changes, there is increasing pressure to provide a single number to assess each proposed packaging system and guide final decisions. Understandably, some are turning to simulated shopping to document changes in shopping patterns and market share (“Did a new system drive more purchases?”).

While simulated shopping has value, we’ve found that a one-time shopping exercise captures only part of the story - and that few packaging changes meet the standard of immediately driving sales gains. That’s because packaging does not typically work in such a direct manner: The reality is that a packaging change will rarely override years of buying patterns and lead many competitive users to switch brands. Instead, a new look can and should lead non-buyers to look twice at your brand - and perhaps to give it a try if it is on special or perhaps their brand is out-of-stock. A more realistic goal is to “enter the consideration set” as a viable alternative for non-users.

To provide a more comprehensive projection of impact, packaging research must combine simulated shopping with a series of exercises that document performance in areas that link to longer-term business-building potential. These dimensions include shelf visibility, aesthetic appeal, competitive differentiation and personal relevance. As importantly, using multiple measures helps ensure that packaging research serves as more than a score sheet (for identifying winners and losers) - and also provides the diagnostic guidance needed to create more effective packaging.

Pulling it all together: toward more effective global packaging

Across these principles, several unifying themes have emerged for effective packaging research. First and foremost, the key to effective packaging research is to keep the shopper in a shopping context. When a shopper is at the shelf, considering different brands for purchase, she is in this context - and she is likely to provide accurate feedback. Conversely, when a shopper is removed from this context and asked to consider alternative designs or design elements, the shopper becomes an art director and the research can frequently become misleading.

Second, it is necessary to recognize and account for the uniqueness of packaging, both in research methodology and analysis. Specifically, the clutter of the shelf environment, the presence of direct competitors and the immediacy of the purchase decision make packaging quite different from advertising - and suggest that advertising research principles (such as recall) can’t be transplanted directly to packaging studies.

Third, given the manner in which shoppers, competitors and retail environments vary across the globe, it is important to develop and evaluate packaging in a local context. In other words, packaging should be developed with the local retail and home context in mind - and assessed relative to the primary competitors in each market.

While there is certainly no single formula for effective global packaging, we’ve seen that success is generally the result of balancing a consistent global identity with local insight, flexibility and customization. As importantly, we’ve seen that marketers who invest in a disciplined process for developing and assessing packaging systems are consistently rewarded with packaging that works globally and wins at retail.