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

Choosing packaging is one of the most important decisions brand managers face. Packaging is the embodiment of the brand and its primary spokesman at the shelf (and online), where most purchase decisions are made. Packaging also plays an important role in the usage experience (the second moment of truth), directly impacting satisfaction, intent to repurchase and consumption rates. Given these realities, it’s not surprising that well-executed innovations in pack graphics and structure can drive sales – for both new products and re-stages – and that misguided packaging decisions have led to double-digit sales declines (for Kotex, Kraft Natural Cheese and Pantene, among others).     

However, packaging is also an area where relying on judgment or asking the wrong questions can easily mislead marketers. In this article, I will discuss the unique dynamics of packaging, explore why the wrong pack research can be misleading and share several best practices for gathering valuable consumer input and feedback.

Why asking questions can mislead marketers

Both shoppers and marketing managers are often eager to share their opinions related to packaging. In fact, because it is so tangible, packaging is an area in which many marketers tend to trust their intuition. However, we should be wary of our initial reactions and preferences, as several factors can lead us astray.  

First and foremost, there is the issue of shelf context. Packaging lives within extremely cluttered store environments, in which brands are often shelved next to their primary competitors. What’s more, shoppers are making their purchase decisions very quickly (typically, within five to 10 seconds for many CPG products), based largely on what they see and recognize in the aisle. Thus, across our firm’s studies, we’ve found that measures of on-shelf performance (visibility and shopability) are the most predictive of in-market success. So if shoppers are shown and asked about packaging outside of the shelf context – and upon extended consideration – their reactions may be quite honest and well-intended but are likely to be misleading. Similarly, marketers’ personal opinions may be equally off the mark, particularly when formed in conference room settings, removed from the shopper and store. 

A second challenging dynamic relates to aesthetics. When people view and discuss packaging, they naturally (and understandably) gravitate toward what is appealing to them (an attractive visual, a compelling icon, etc.). However, while we certainly want to avoid packaging that is ugly or offensive, the most aesthetically pleasing design is not necessarily the most effective. In fact, research has often found that it is far more important for packaging to quickly and clearly convey a point-of-difference (vs. competition), as opposed to being more appealing. Aesthetic changes may be pleasing, yet fail to make a difference in-market because they don’t give shoppers a compelling reason to reconsider a brand.

Third, when shoppers compare packaging options (for the same brand) side-by-side, they tend to overstate differences among alternatives. Whether comparing alternative graphics, structures or features, they tend to pick a winner and support it emphatically. The problem is these forced preferences don’t correlate closely with in-store purchase decisions: Option B may be favored or selected consistently over Option A but the reality could be that the options are not dramatically different and would perform quite similarly in the market. Similarly, shoppers may emphatically claim to value a particular pack feature (such as resealability) but incorporating it may not impact their actual purchase selections at shelf.

For these reasons, it is often misguided (and misleading) to make gut-level decisions and/or to simply ask people questions about packaging. When this happens, marketers, designers and pack engineers may emerge from initial pack development/screening believing that they’ve hit a home run, only to be disappointed when a new concept is later tested on-shelf and next to competition.  

Avoiding the pitfalls

What can companies do to address these unique challenges and gather more accurate and actionable consumer feedback on packaging? I offer these recommendations: 

Develop, screen and assess new packaging systems within shelf context. As new ideas are first created, find ways to place them within a physical or digital shelf context for internal reviews and discussions. When screening new concepts, start by showing packs on the shelf among competitors. This will provide an important reality check and help ensure that different options go into final validation studies. It will reduce the likelihood of pursuing a very narrow path and developing options that are not discernibly different to shoppers.

Simulate the introduction of new packaging (rather than comparing options). When it comes time for validation testing, studies should simulate the introduction of a new packaging system on-shelf – to see how people react – rather than asking people to compare options for the same brand or product (to ask/gauge their stated preferences). This monadic approach will keep consumers in a shopping mind-set and help minimize their tendency to art-direct or to overthink. Importantly, it will also provide a more accurate sense of how a new packaging system will actually impact purchase patterns and perform in-market.

Focus on what people do (not what they say). Given the reality of cluttered shelves and very quick purchase decisions, packaging operates largely in a System 1 context (driven by visibility and immediate visceral/emotional reactions), as opposed to a System 2 framework (of rational thought). Thus, when developing action standards and analyzing findings, the emphasis should be on behavioral measures of visibility, shopability and purchase (gathered from a realistic shelf), rather than reactions to packaging (gathered after extended consideration of packs). Certainly, there is value in asking shoppers questions, primarily to uncover the why behind their actions. However, we need to be careful not to overemphasize reactions gathered after people spend several minutes with a pack as the same pack is likely to get only five to 10 seconds to close the sale in the aisle.  

Beware of applying an advertising framework. Marketers should also be cautious in applying advertising metrics to packaging, as the two work very differently. Generally speaking, advertising is about implanting a message, which will be acted upon at a later time. The primary objective of packaging, on the other hand, is to immediately drive action and close the sale. Thus, while recall is a well-established measure in advertising research, it makes less sense in a packaging context. In addition, most advertising typically has a well-established time frame and viewing flow (as in a 15-second TV commercial or Web ad). Packaging, however, is usually about buying space (on a shelf) and attempting to gain and hold shoppers’ attention. Thus, measures of retail visibility and viewing patterns (gathered via eye-tracking) are particularly important for packaging and shopper marketing efforts.

Avoid asking the wrong questions. It’s important to keep in mind what not to ask consumers. Although people will readily provide responses when asked, we know from experience that there are some questions they can’t accurately answer:

  • Would you notice this pack on shelf?
  • Would you find it difficult to find this product on shelf?
  • Would you pay more for this feature?

 
While these are critical issues, they shouldn’t be addressed directly. Instead, we need to observe the behavior when shoppers encounter a new packaging system and/or an alternative price point.

Taking it to the next level to drive packaging success

What separates the best-in-class marketers from the rest when it comes to packaging? Here are several best practices that can help you gain a competitive advantage:

  • Benchmarking of current packaging: Several forward-thinking companies have processes that regularly evaluate current packaging (vs. competition) across multiple brands. This benchmarking research confirms which packs are working, identifies any limitations and uncovers the core visual equities associated with each brand (via drawing exercises). It helps ensure that packaging resources are directed to the brands in need – and importantly, that redesign and development efforts are focused on the right objectives.
  • On-shelf screening: Many clients are consistently using mini-store research environments as venues for ideation and screening of new packaging and shopper marketing concepts. By placing ideas into competitive clutter, even at early stages of development, they are changing the paradigm for screening and refining concepts. They are identifying ideas likely to differentiate and work on-shelf – and bringing better concepts into validation studies and ultimately to market.      
  • Holistic testing (from shelf to hand to home): Increasingly, leading companies are executing more integrated research studies, which link on-shelf testing with exercises to gauge pack functionality and product delivery (via home-use studies/IHUTs). This integrated approach saves money (vs. conducting several parallel studies) and also more faithfully mirrors the shopper experience (from purchase through use) – and thus provides more accurate insights regarding customer satisfaction and intent to repurchase. This is particularly critical for new products, as it is critical to ensure that the product delivers against expectations created by the packaging. 
  • Winning at retail: Similarly, many companies are now leveraging pack studies to optimize their retail presence, by simultaneously assessing alternative approaches to category management, shelving and shopper marketing (signage, displays, point of sale marketing, etc.). As with holistic testing, this is not merely about stretching a research budget, it is about adopting a different mind-set, which views packaging in the larger context of impacting purchase decisions at retail. Indeed, more companies are breaking down the silos that have traditionally separated packaging (i.e., brand) and shopper marketing (i.e., sales) functions – and that is leading to more effective solutions in the aisle.

Taken collectively, these best practices reflect a more proactive, shelf-based and integrated approach to pack research. It is a path that starts and ends with the shopper yet avoids the pitfalls of direct questioning and emphasizes behavior. It is an approach that not only helps avoid in-market disasters but also pushes marketers to more fully explore options and make a difference at the shelf. Given the growing importance of packaging as a vital marketing tool – and the unique challenges of pack research – employing the right practices will very likely to lead to higher sales.