Packaging Attributes

European Journal of Marketing
The importance of packaging attributes: a conjoint analysis approach

Pinya Silayoi Mark Speece
Article information:
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI At 22:59 18 August 2016 (PT)
To cite this document:

Pinya Silayoi Mark Speece, (2007),"The importance of packaging attributes: a conjoint analysis approach",
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41 Iss 11/12 pp. 1495 - 1517
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560710821279
Downloaded on: 18 August 2016, At: 22:59 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 59 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 16362 times since 2007*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

(1990),"Packaging as a Retail Marketing Tool", International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management, Vol. 20 Iss 8 pp. 29-30 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000000372
(1996),"Packaging, marketing, logistics and the environment: are there trade-offs?", International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 26 Iss 6 pp. 60-72 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/09600039610125206
(1999),"What we know about consumers color choices", Journal of Marketing Practice: Applied Marketing
Science, Vol. 5 Iss 3 pp. 78-88 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000004565
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:537789 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm
The importance of packaging

attributes: a conjoint analysis
approach
Pinya Silayoi
Department of Packaging Technology, Faculty of Agro-Industry,
Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand, and
Mark Speece
Importance of
packaging
attributes
1495
Received January 2004
Revised October 2004,
April 2005
School of Business, Public Administration and Information Systems,

University of Alaska Southeast, Juneau, Alaska, USA
Abstract
Purpose The importance of packaging design and the role of packaging as a vehicle for consumer
communication and branding are necessarily growing. To achieve communication goals effectively,
knowledge about consumer psychology is important so that manufacturers understand consumer
response to their packages. this paper aims to investigate this issue.
Design/methodology/approach The paper examines these issues using a conjoint study among
consumers for packaged food products in Thailand, which is a very competitive packaged food
products market.
Findings The conjoint results indicate that perceptions about packaging technology (portraying
convenience) play the most important role overall in consumer likelihood to buy.
Research limitations/implications There is strong segmentation in which packaging elements
consumers consider most important. Some consumers are mostly oriented toward the visual
aesthetics, while a small segment focuses on product detail on the label.
Originality/value Segmentation variables based on packaging response can provide very useful
information to help marketers maximize the packages impact.
Keywords Food products, Food packaging, Purchasing, Consumer behaviour, Market segmentation
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Food products brands use a range of packaging attributes, combining colors, designs,
shapes, symbols, and messages (Nancarrow et al., 1998). These attract and sustain
attention, helping consumers identify with the images presented. The importance of
packaging design and the use of packaging as a vehicle for communication and
branding is growing (Rettie and Brewer, 2000), as packaging takes on a role similar to
other marketing communications elements. One reason for this is simply the fact that
consumers may not think very deeply about brands at all before they go into the store
to buy. One recent study estimated that 73 percent of purchase decisions are made at
the point of sale (Connolly and Davidson, 1996).
Consumer intention to purchase depends on the degree to which consumers expect
that the product can satisfy their expectations about its use (Kupiec and Revell, 2001).
But when they have not even thought about the product much before entering the
store, this intention to purchase is determined by what is communicated at the point of
European Journal of Marketing

Vol. 41 No. 11/12, 2007
pp. 1495-1517
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0309-0566
DOI 10.1108/03090560710821279
EJM
41,11/12
1496
purchase. The package becomes a critical factor in the consumer decision-making

process because it communicates to consumers at the time they are actually deciding in
the store. How they perceive the subjective entity of products, as presented through
communication elements in the package, influences choice and is the key to success for
many food products marketing strategies.
To achieve the communication goals effectively and to optimize the potential of
packaging, fast moving consumer goods (FMCG) manufacturers must understand
consumer response to their packages, and integrate the perceptual processes of the
consumer into design (Nancarrow et al., 1998). In the design process, marketers and
package designers must take account of consumers past experiences, needs and wants;
understand how packaging design elements get consumers to notice the package and
notice messages on the package; and, broadly, evaluate packaging design and labeling
for their effectiveness in the communications effort.
In doing this, it is particularly important to remember that not all consumers
evaluate packaging the same way. Just as in consumer response to other elements of
marketing, segmentation is an important factor (e.g., Orth et al., 2004). However, some
observers believe that standard segmentation schema, often based on demographics,
are inadequate. Al-Khatib et al. (2005), for example, note that often the standard ways
of segmenting fail to yield very useful results in developing countries. They call for
more sophisticated segmentation analysis in developing countries, focusing on
psychological and situational issues.
In addition, there is quite a lot of debate about whether consumer behavior is
consistent across cultures. Many industry observers, e.g. AC Nielsen, a leading
international consumer research company, believe that consumers worldwide are
likely to have roughly similar response to many FMCG, despite cultural differences
(The Nation (Bankok), 2002). Not all observers, however, believe that consumer
behaviors will converge rising incomes and extensive competition give consumers
more ability, not less desire, to consume according to their own particular cultural
preferences (e.g., de Mooij, 2000). Some believe that many basic issues are likely to be
similar across cultures, while specific details such as response to particular colors or
themes may be interpreted differently in different cultures (e.g., Walle, 1997).
Certainly, for FMCG, which consumers do not really think about much, basic trends
(such as, for food products, desire for convenience, or health/nutrition information on
packages) may be similar. But consumers are unlikely to change their culturally
conditioned response to details of the product, or, for food products, the package, which
represents the product during the purchase process. However, more research on this
issue is needed, as there is only limited empirical research on consumer response to
packaging, and very little of it is in Asian markets. Many cross-cultural researchers
assert that knowledge developed in one culture should be confirmed before use in new
cultural contexts (e.g., Malhotra et al., 1996).
We examine consumer response to packaging using a conjoint study among
consumers for packaged food products in Bangkok, Thailand. Thailand provides a
good context for examining this issue. Asian food markets in general are large and
growing very rapidly, and consumers are becoming more sophisticated (Coyle et al.,
2004), as is the case in Thailand. The expansion of modern retailing helps drive this
growth, so that packaging plays an increasingly critical role in merchandising and
communication for FMCG (The Nation (Bangkok), 2002). Internationalization is a key
ingredient; for example, Britain is now the fifth largest investor in Thailand, and major
British FMCG companies and retailers have a strong presence (UK Trade and
Investment, 2003). A report by IGD (2003) indicates that, after China, Thailand is one of
just three other key Asian markets for international retailers.
Further, the local food processing industry is strong and internationally competitive
(e.g., BOI, 2002). Agro-industry represented nearly one-third of Thailand gross
domestic product (GDP) in 2001. Food and beverage processing accounts for roughly
one-fifth of GDP and nearly one-fourth of manufacturing (BOT, 2003). The country
ranks among the worlds five biggest suppliers of food products, with exports valued
at US$9.8 billion in 2002 (NFI, 2003). Thus, Thailand is a very competitive processed
food products market, with modern shopping formats and sophisticated consumers,
where packaging plays a key role in helping companies remain competitive. This
should provide a good context for examining consumer response to packaging of food
FMCG.
Packaging and the buying decision for packaged food products
The packages overall features can underline the uniqueness and originality of the
product. Quality judgments are largely influenced by product characteristics reflected
by packaging, and these play a role in the formation of brand preferences. If the
package communicates high quality, consumers frequently assume that the product is
of high quality. If the package symbolizes low quality, consumers transfer this low
quality perception to the product itself (Underwood et al., 2001; Silayoi and Speece,
2004). The package becomes the symbol that communicates favorable or unfavorable
implied meaning about the product. Underwood et al. (2001) suggest that consumers
are more likely to spontaneously imagine aspects of how a product looks, tastes, feels,
smells, or sounds while viewing product pictures on the package.
Food product expectations can be generated from cues such as packaging, labeling,
product information, and stereotypes. The effect of color is the most obvious and well
studied (Imram, 1999). Consumer perceptions of an acceptable color are associated with
perceptions of other quality attributes, such as flavor and nutrition, and also with
satisfaction levels. Positive effect can be achieved by manipulating one or more
packaging variables, including packaging color, clear packs that allow viewing food
color, incident light, and nomenclature and brand name appearance. In food service, the
food products chosen for display and sale by caterers are selected for their color and
appearance attributes (Imram, 1999).
Visual imagery on the package is another essential attribute. To be noticed at the
point of sale, pictures on the package can be a strategic method of differentiation,
which will enhance access to consumer consciousness. This is because pictures are
extremely vivid stimuli compared to words (Underwood et al., 2001) and also are
quicker and easier for consumers to process in a low involvement situation. 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.
Packaging functions and elements
Prendergast and Pitt (1996) define the basic functions of packaging by their role in
either logistics or marketing. The logistical function of packaging is mainly to protect
Importance of
packaging
attributes
1497
EJM
41,11/12
1498
the product during movement through the distribution channels. This could cause
added packaging expense, but serves to reduce the incidence of damage, spoilage, or
loss through theft or misplaced goods. The second function of packaging is essentially
a marketing role. Packaging provides an attractive method to convey messages about
product attributes to consumers. Whatever the functional aspects of packaging as
related to logistics considerations, packaging is one of the product attributes perceived
by consumers. It cannot escape performing the marketing function, even if a company
does not explicitly recognize the marketing aspects of package. There is, of course, a
danger that the package communicates negatively, but a package well designed for its
marketing function helps sell the product by attracting attention and positively
communicating.
A review of the relevant literature indicates that there are four main packaging
elements potentially affecting consumer purchase decisions. They can be separated
into two categories; visual and informational elements. The visual elements consist of
graphics and size/shape of packaging. Informational elements relate to product
information and information about the technologies used in the package.
1. Visual elements
Graphics and color. Different people respond to different packages in different ways,
depending on their involvement (Vakratsas and Ambler, 1999). Since an evaluation of
attributes is less important in low involvement decision making, a highly noticeable
factor such as graphics and color becomes more important in choice of a low
involvement product (Grossman and Wisenblit, 1999). On the other hand, the behavior
of consumers towards high involvement products is influenced less by image issues.
For low involvement, there is a strong impact on consumer decision making from the
development of the market through marketing communications, including image
building (Kupiec and Revell, 2001).
The significance of graphics is explained by the images created on the package,
whether these images are purposely developed by the marketer, or unintended and
unanticipated. Graphics includes image layout, color combinations, typography, and
product photography, and the total presentation communicates an image. For
consumers, the package is the product, particularly for low involvement products
where initial impressions formed during initial contact can have lasting impact. As one
of the product attributes that most directly communicate such messages to the target
consumers (Nancarrow et al., 1998), the design characteristics of the package need to
stand out in a display of many other offerings.
Many consumers today shop under higher levels of perceived time pressure, and
tend to purchase fewer products than intended (Herrington and Capella, 1995; Silayoi
and Speece, 2004). Products purchased during shopping excursions often appear to be
chosen without prior planning and represent an impulse buying event (Hausman,
2000). A package that attracts consumers at the point of sale will help them make
decisions quickly in-store. As the customers eye movement tracks across a display of
packages, different new packages can be noticed against the competitors. When
scanning packages in the supermarket, the differential perception and the positioning
of the graphics elements on a package may make the difference between identifying
and missing the item (Herrington and Capella, 1995).
Placement of visual elements matters. Psychology research indicates that brain

laterality results in an asymmetry in the perception of elements in package designs
(Rettie and Brewer, 2000). The recall of package elements is likely to be influenced by
their lateral position on the package, as well as by other usually recognized factors,
such as font style, size, and color. Recall is better for verbal stimuli when the copy is on
the right-hand side of the package, and better for non-verbal stimuli when it is on the
left-hand side. This may imply that, in order to maximize consumers recall, pictorial
elements, such as product photography, should be positioned on the left-hand side of
the package.
Consumers also learn color associations, which leads them to prefer certain colors
for certain product categories (Grossman and Wisenblit, 1999). Using color as a cue on
packaging can foster a potentially strong association, especially when it is unique to a
particular brand. However, people in different cultures are exposed to different color
associations and develop color preferences based on their own culture. Marketers
therefore must consider color as part of their strategies. Simply taking the colors of a
particular logo, package, or product design from one market to another should only be
done under a thorough understanding of how colors and the color combinations are
perceived in each location (Madden et al., 2000).
Packaging size and shape. Size and shape also emerges as a crucial dimension. One
way in which consumers appear to use these things is as a simplifying visual heuristic
to make volume judgments. Generally, they perceive more elongated packages to be
larger, even when they frequently purchase these packages and have experience using
them. Disconfirmation of package size after consumption may not lead consumers to
revise their volume judgment sufficiently in the long term, especially if the discrepancy
is not very large (Raghubir and Krishna, 1999).
Different packaging sizes potentially appeal to consumers with somewhat different
involvement. For example, for some low involvement food products, such as generics,
low price is made possible through cost savings created by reduced packaging and
promotional expenses. Since generics are usually packaged in large sizes, this directly
caters to the needs of consumers from larger households, who are more likely to be
specifically looking for good deals. They find the low price of the generics, in larger
packaging, is an attractive offer with excellent value for money (Prendergast and Marr,
1997). In addition, this could imply that when product quality is hard to determine, the
effect of packaging size is stronger. Thus, elongating the shape, within acceptable
bounds, should result in consumers thinking of the package as a better value for money
and result in larger sales generally. However, many other aspects of packaging could
also conceivably affect perceived volume, such as aspects of package shape, colour,
material, and aesthetic appeal. As yet, though, there is little research available on any
of these other aspects.
2. Informational elements
Product information. One of packagings functions is to communicate product
information, which can assist consumers in making their decisions carefully. An
example of such significant information is food labeling. The trend towards healthier
eating has highlighted the importance of labeling, which allows consumers the
opportunity to cautiously consider alternatives and make informed food choices
(Coulson, 2000). Package layout is important for information presentation. One recent
Importance of
packaging
attributes
1499
EJM
41,11/12
1500
survey on food labeling found that 90 percent of respondents agreed that nutritional
information panels should be laid out in the same way for all food products so that they
are easy to understand quickly (Mitchell and Papavassiliou, 1999).
However, packaging information can create confusion by conveying either too
much information or misleading and inaccurate information. To maximize the
information carried on products, manufacturers often use very small fonts and very
dense writing styles. This reduces readability and sometimes causes confusion.
Mitchell and Papavassiliou (1999) suggest that one major way consumers reduce
confusion from information overload is to narrow down the choice set. Considering
fewer alternative brands and evaluating fewer attributes decreases the probability that
the consumer will be confused by excessive choice and information overload.
This strategy could apply to more experienced consumers, because heavy users
potentially look at fewer brand alternatives. In other words, experience makes
consumers selectively perceptive and restricts the scope of their search (Hausman,
2000). Confusion can also affect consumer decision quality, and can undermine
consumer rights to safety and information. Thus, there are trade-offs between
cognitive effort and decision-making accuracy. Balance between information and
choices is needed in order to decrease the difficulty of purchase decisions.
Hughes et al. (1998) indicate that involvement level reflects the extent of personal
relevance of the decision to the individual in terms of basic values, goals and
self-concept. If the product does not stimulate much interest, consumers do not give
much attention to it. High involvement indicates more personal relevance or
importance. In general, consumer acquisition of low involvement products is often
done without carefully examining brand and product information. This lack of
commitment suggests that information on the package would carry relatively less
value in such cases. On the other hand, more highly involved consumers evaluate
message information more carefully, relying on the message to form their attitudes and
purchase intentions (Vakratsas and Ambler, 1999; Silayoi and Speece, 2004).
Technology image. The role of packaging in marketing communications is further
advanced by recent developments in technology (McNeal and Ji, 2003). Technology is
somewhat of a special case relative to other informational elements, because packaging
technology conveys information which is often linked to the consumers lifestyle. In
other words, technology developed for packaging comes directly from current trends of
products and consumer behaviors. The technology of packaging development is
constrained in that the message communicated through the technology must fully meet
consumer criteria. And, importantly, it needs to be presented visually as one of the
communication elements.
One example is that when people tend to think of time as a precious resource, they
will not spend much as much time on food preparation (Warde, 1999). Convenience has
become increasingly important for food products, and consumers who are worried
about time saving will pay more attention to claims of new technology, because of
technologys association with convenience. The technology embodied in the package
also communicates to Thai consumers such things as ease of dispensing the product,
freshness and shelf life, and nutritional value and toxicity (Silayoi and Speece, 2004).
These communication elements linked to technology all influence the purchase
decision.
Cultural context and segmentation

Most of this work on consumer response to packaging has been carried out in the West,
frequently in the USA. There could be some debate on whether consumers in diverse
cultures would have similar responses. de Mooij (2000) notes that American
scholarship frequently espouses the convergence theory, which implies that
standardized marketing will work across cultures, but many other scholars are less
likely to see convergence. de Mooij (2000), for example, points out several products for
which one might expect convergence based on Europes growing economic integration,
but where consumption across European countries is, in fact, quite different. That
discussion shows how cultural elements might cause such differences. Suh and Kwon
(2002) demonstrate that many consumers in both the USA and Korea accept the more
open economies ushered in by globalization, but this results in different impact on
consumer ethnocentrism. They argue that culture affects how acceptance of
globalization translates into buying, implying that convergence in response to
marketing elements is unlikely to occur.
Malai and Speece (2005) argue that there are probably several levels of cultural
impact at work in conditioning any response to marketing elements. Walles (1997)
view, noted above, that basic trends may be similar while specific responses might
differ seems to imply that convergence may occur on some levels, but not on others.
Certainly, the issue is much more complex than just the differences in cultural
manifestations themselves (Lowe and Corkindale, 1998). Given such complexity, and
debate about whether and how much convergence is happening, it seems useful to
follow the advice of cross-cultural researchers (e.g., Malhotra et al., 1996), and examine
response to packaging carefully in the Thai context before assuming everything is
similar to current research.
As in most countries, the influence of these various packaging elements on brand
choice among Thai consumers is fairly strong. A focus group study specifically about
the visual and informational elements discussed here shows that Thai consumers use
all of these elements in their brand decisions (Silayoi and Speece, 2004). A number of
surveys show that roughly half of brand choice for FMCG by middle class Thai
consumers is made after entering the store, with the exact percentage varying by
product category. Under such conditions, packaging is likely to play a major role in
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. In another
survey, 84 percent answered that they would be willing to pay a reasonably higher
price simply to get a nicer package if the food product inside was the same quality.
In-depth interviews revealed that reasonably higher was about 10 percent for most
consumers (Speece, 2004).
Packaging must adapt to several major trends that are also common throughout the
world, and in Thailand. As noted above, consumer perceptions about packaging
technology are used, among other things, to assess convenience. Convenience is a key
driver for food choice worldwide (IGD, 2002), including in Thailand, where convenience
products are among the most rapidly growing food product categories (The Nation
(Bangkok), 2002). Some research shows that other trends, such as growing health
orientation, are separate from the convenience trend (e.g., Shiu et al., 2004; McCullough
et al., 2003). The growing use of label information by consumers is partly related to the
desire for healthy food products (e.g., Coulson, 2000; Dimura and Skuras, 2005).
Importance of
packaging
attributes
1501
EJM
41,11/12
1502
However, incorporating consumer response to packaging elements into packaging

design decisions is likely to be made somewhat more complex because different
consumers may not respond to the elements the same way. Segmentation is usually
strong in markets where competition offers consumers choice so that they can match
their specific preferences. For example, Orth et al. (2004), demonstrate that consumers
seeking different beer brand benefits react differently to communications about the
brand. Shiu et al. (2004) show that the convenience and health segments for food
products are distinct and should be treated separately. While these (and most such)
studies are not specifically about packaging, it is clear that segmentation will be a key
issue if packaging is one of the key ways that brand image and brand information is
conveyed.
Thus, in Thailand, we might expect to see segmentation in response to the
packaging elements discussed here. A strong convenience segment should be evident,
consistent with Thai and worldwide trends. Another segment should rely on package
information. Then, some consumers may simply not pay much attention to any of this
sort of information, and rely mainly on visual imagery, which is fairly common for low
involvement FMCG generally (e.g., McWilliam, 1997). However, within these broad
response segments, use of specific packaging details might differ from results in
research in the West. In other words, broad trends should be consistent, while specific
details would depend on the Thai cultural context, which is essentially Walles (1997)
view, noted above.
Methodology
This study used conjoint analysis to examine the relative importance weights for
packaging elements that enhance consumer perception. Conjoint analysis has been
widely used in marketing to evaluate consumer preferences for products and services
(Hair et al., 1998). It is frequently applied in examining preferences for food product
attributes (e.g., Gil and Sanchez, 1997). Green and Krieger (1991) pointed out the
usefulness of conjoint analysis for benefit segmentation. The necessary data to carry
out conjoint analysis consist of consumer evaluations of alternative product concepts
described as sets of attributes levels (Gil and Sanchez, 1997).
Establishing the attributes
Murphy et al. (2000) suggest that the conjoint attributes should include those most
relevant to potential consumers and those that can be influenced or manipulated by the
producer. Attribute levels must be chosen carefully to represent what would be
realistic in the market, and should cover the entire range or representative levels (Gil
and Sanchez, 1997). Building on the literature, several related studies among Thai
consumers established that both shape and an appealing picture are important, as they
visually convey quality (Silayoi et al., 2003; Silayoi and Speece, 2004). Package size and
shape also helped consumers to judge product volume and value for money.
Even when consumers are somewhat more involved, and under less time pressure,
the visual elements influence 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 worth investigating more
carefully. They use explicit product information to assess healthiness, but also many
other aspects of quality. In addition, the package needed to perform well; in particular,
it is important that it be easy and convenient to use.
Considerations of attributes such as color and graphics, shape, product information,
and technology issues were relatively stable across different situations and consumers,
and would therefore retain some importance among all consumers in most of their
purchase decisions. Packaging size seemed to be strongly dependent on situation and
consumer demographics, so it was controlled by holding it constant in the conjoint
study. Most discussion of the conjoint methodology points out the importance of
balancing the number of attributes required to realistically represent the package (or
generally, the product) against the need to simplify the representation so that it does
not overly complicate the respondents ranking task (e.g., Green and Krieger, 1991; Gil
and Sanchez, 1997).
Thus, the four main packaging attributes found to influence the consumers
packaged food brand choice were color and graphic design (combined), shape, product
information, and technology image (essentially, convenience). The layout of verbal and
visual elements was also included to account for the impact of different positions of
these two elements on the purchase decision. Most consumers did not explicitly
mention layout as a key element, but the literature is clear that the impact of layout is
essentially at the subconscious level, and might not be explicitly recognized by
consumers. Thus, it was included, and the study can assess whether Thai consumer
behavior is consistent with others mentioned in the international literature.
The attribute levels were determined based on levels that consumers might
realistically face. These must be capable of being traded-off (Van der Pol and Ryan,
1998). The study used instant curry that could be cooked by microwave into a
ready-to-eat meal as the product which consumers would evaluate. In the in-depth
interviews, specific levels were investigated for instant curry in a pouch. This product
is relatively new in the Thai market, so extensive knowledge of brands would not
contaminate results, but generally, many middle-class Thai consumers are now
increasingly using instant foods because of its convenience (Silayoi and Speece, 2004).
The attributes and levels which consumers considered to be realistic, and thus included
in the conjoint analysis study, are summarized in Table I.
Each attribute used two levels, including one level that was considered to be quite
favorable, but still likely to be found in the market, and one that was not very
attractive, but still actually present in the market. Five attributes, each with two levels,
gives rise to 32 possible scenarios (2 2 2 2 2). It would clearly be tedious for
respondents to rank their preferences for so many scenarios, so the Orthoplan
subroutine in SPSS was used to produce an orthogonal main-effects design, which
ensures the absence of multi-collinearity between attributes. The eight combinations of
attribute level which resulted and were used in the study are shown in Table II.
Colour and graphics
Package
shape
Attribute
Product
information
Packaging
technology
Layout of graphics
and information
Colorful design
Classic design
Curvy
Straight
Precise
Vague
Presented
Not presented
Left-right
Right-left
Importance of
packaging
attributes
1503
Table I.
Attributes of package
design and their levels
EJM
41,11/12
1504
Table II.
Card descriptions
Color and
Description graphic
Packaging
shape
Product
information
Packaging
technology
Layout of graphics
information
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Curvy
Curvy
Curvy
Straight
Straight
Curvy
Straight
Straight
Precise
Vague
Precise
Vague
Vague
Vague
Precise
Precise
Not presented
Not presented
Presented
Not presented
Presented
Presented
Not presented
Presented
Right-left
Right-left
Left-right
Left-right
Right-left
Left-right
Left-right
Right-left
Classic
Colourful
Colourful
Classic
Colourful
Classic
Colourful
Classic
Presenting the stimuli

To obtain valid data, it is generally accepted that experimental tasks must closely
resemble the way consumers make marketplace choices (Vriens et al., 1998). Research
in cognitive psychology suggests different mental processing systems for handling
verbal and pictorial inputs (Jaeger et al., 2001). Verbal descriptions may be inadequate
when the design or styling of products plays an important role in consumer choice
(Lovejoy and Beach, 1997). Vriens et al. (1998) showed that respondents pay less
attention to design and styling than other characteristics when presented with verbal
profiles. The use of pictorial formats can enhance task realism and external validity in
product categories where choices depend strongly on visual inspection. Rettie and
Brewer (2000) used pictorial stimuli to explore the relationship between the positioning
of copy and pictures on different sides of a package and recall of those elements.
In our study, the eight sets of packaging scenarios were simulated into prototypes at
a major local packaging company. Product brand and logo were not applied to avoid
distracting respondents by elements not included in the study. The designs were done
by the first author of this study, who is a professional package designer with graduate
level training, several years of industry experience, and a continuing consulting
practice in package design since entering academia. However, to ensure that the eight
designs represented the levels described by consumers in pilot work, five other
professional packaging designers were consulted.
Jaeger et al. (2001) showed that photographs convey verbal and visual information
about apple varieties equally well compared to prototype apple packages. Since they
are equally valid, and cheaper and easier to use, photographic images of the prototypes
were used as the pictorial format. The images were represented on eight separate cue
stimulus cards, which consisted of a 6 in: 4 in: high-quality color photograph of a
package. The prototype packages were photographed against a black background
preserving the natural shadows cast by the package and giving the effect of a real
product. Figure 1 shows two examples representing the different levels of the
attributes, although not in color because of printing requirements.
A full ranking of the eight package attribute pictures was used to establish
consumer likelihood to buy. To simulate the packages in a realistic situation where
consumers would be evaluating many packages, the eight pictures were presented all
at the same time. The order was rotated to avoid order bias. Respondents were asked to
complete the questionnaire themselves and to rank each package on likelihood to buy.
The questionnaire was pre-tested with 30 food shoppers, to check for possible
Importance of
packaging
attributes
1505
Figure 1.
Example of the attribute
levels
problems with statement clarity and respondent understanding of how to complete the
task. This pilot indicated no problems with the survey instrument.
Sample selection and description
This research used convenience sampling at eight large companies in metropolitan
Bangkok. The companies were chosen so that no two companies were too close to each,
providing good coverage of the business areas in the city, with distinctive local urban
environments and varying socio-economic contexts. Company choices were discussed
with brand managers in several major packaged food companies to make sure that
these locations would provide a sample of respondents representative of the type of
customers who would use this product. According to the brand managers, the main
target market for products such as the instant curry, would be younger middle-class
consumers who are working. This includes a high proportion of single consumers who,
although they may live with their parents as is common in Asia, may not take meals
with the family because of their hectic lifestyles.
We obtained permission from the companies to approach employees during work,
and screened to get the main food shopper in the household, or for themselves.
Participants were advised that their participation was voluntary and that their
individual responses would remain confidential. No personal information that could
identify any specific individual was collected. This study collected responses of 305
consumers, roughly evenly divided among the eight locations. This is well above the
minimum recommended 100-200 sample size to obtain reliable results from conjoint
analysis (Quester and Smart, 1998).
EJM
41,11/12
1506
Slightly over two-thirds of the respondents were women, which is consistent with
the pattern in most Asian countries that women are still mainly responsible for
household shopping. Screening questions indicated that participants made the
purchase decisions for packaged food products. The sample was relatively young, with
93 percent in the 20 to 40 age category, and 70 percent of them were single.
Approximately 40 percent of this sample has monthly household incomes over Baht
40,000, compared to about 48 percent in metropolitan Bangkok (UBCTV.COM, 2004,
citing government statistics). Market research companies in Bangkok consider
monthly household income of roughly Baht 20,000 to be entry level into the middle
class, so overall, this sample is oriented toward the middle class.
It also fits the target market, as defined by the brand managers, fairly well. In
addition, extensive discussion in a separate project with food company and packaging
company managers involved in packaging design (Silayoi, 2004) also indicated that the
part of the Bangkok population which would be more oriented toward the type of
convenience food product presented in the study would tend to be younger adults,
frequently single, middle class, so the sample characteristics seem to represent the
target market for the package fairly well.
Results
The conjoint results indicate that packaging technology (which conveys a message of
convenience and ease of use in this study) plays the most important role in consumer
likelihood to buy. The relative importance of this attribute is about 32 percent
(Table III). The other attributes included in this study were not much different from
each other in importance. Packaging shape had a slight edge (19 percent), followed by
product information (17 percent), color and graphics (16 percent), and, finally, layout of
graphics and information (15 percent), but these are actually minor differences which
are not statistically significant.
Packaging technology is the most important attribute. The positive utility of 0.8086
for presented packaging technology indicates that clearly pointing out the technology
image on the package increases the consumers likelihood to buy. The specific message
that the technology conveys is about convenience and ease of use, so these results
suggest that urban consumers give technology representing convenience more
Table III.
Results of conjoint
analysis (n 305)
Attribute
Level
Utility
Relative importance (%)
Packaging technology
Presented
Not presented
0.8086
20.8086
32.53
Packaging shape
Curvy
Straight
20.0381
0.0381
18.96
Product information
Precise
Vague
0.3857
2 0.3857
17.42
Color and graphic
Colourful design
Classic design
20.1725
0.1725
16.36
Layout of graphics and information
Left-right
Right-left
20.2980
0.2980
14.74
consideration; i.e. the technology image clearly shown on the pack seems to be more
appealing on the shelf. Working Bangkokians do perceive time constraints, do not have
sufficient time to cook, and believe that convenience products help facilitate their lives
(Silayoi and Speece, 2004). Apart from reflecting the ease of cooking and consumption,
people may be more likely to pick the packaged food from the shelf if the technology
represents their self-image well. If the product looks innovative, it would bring a
contemporary image to the buyer too.
Precise product information has a positive utility score of 0.3857, while the vague
presentation of information had a negative utility. This indicates that consumers value
the product information on food labels, and confirms prior studies from other countries
(Mitchell and Papavassiliou, 1999) and in Thailand (Silayoi et al. 2003; Silayoi and
Speece, 2004) which show that consumers are increasingly reading the label and want
it to be clear. The result suggests that consumers are evaluating product quality using
some concrete information, not purely image. One thing this probably reflects is the
impact of health conscious behaviors on food choice, as concern for proper nutrition is
a key factor influencing consumption choice now in many countries (e.g., McIlveen,
1994).
Straight shape has a positive utility compared to curvy, as does classic design on
the package compared to colorful. This suggests that, overall the respondents may be
more attracted to a package that seems familiar and reliable, rather than exciting.
Focus group work also indicated that Thai consumers strongly prefer more familiar
products. Without their usual choices, another product from a well-known company
would be perceived as more reliable (Silayoi and Speece, 2004). This seems consistent
with the view that branding in Asia is more strongly about building trust, compared to
achieving differentiation in the West (Speece and Toqueur, 2005). The increasing
health consciousness already mentioned could also be a contributing factor. The design
of food products packaging should be able to convey healthiness and safety, rather
than excitement. Classic and calm graphics may better indicate the quality of the
product inside. Also the shape should not be too fancy. Consumers seem to rely on
traditional shapes that they are familiar with.
Layout of graphics and information utility scores indicate that the position of
graphics on the right and product information on the left is more effective. This result
is particularly interesting for packaging developers because it is not consistent with
the findings in psychology research in the West. As noted in discussion above, Rettie
and Brewer (2000) show that recall is better for verbal stimuli when the copy is on the
right-hand side of the package, and better for non-verbal stimuli which are on the
left-hand side. However, there is a substantial body of research demonstrating that
thought patterns differ between Asians and Westerners (e.g., summarized in Nisbett
(2003)). A fundamental factor in this divergence is the different emphasis on right
brain, left brain types of processing in the two cultural areas. Our result seems to be
consistent with this research about differences in thought processes, and it indicates
the usefulness of adapting the details of packaging design across cultures to maximize
effectiveness.
Segmenting response to packaging elements
Four of these five packaging design attributes were roughly equal in importance
overall among the consumers in our sample, while the technology image associated
Importance of
packaging
attributes
1507
EJM
41,11/12
1508
Figure 2.
Importance weights in
three segments
with convenience and ease of use stood out with stronger importance. However, as in
most markets, subtle differences in lifestyle and values lead to diverging shopping
orientations; which give rise to clearly discernable segments. Cluster analysis (Wards
method) was performed using the five individual level importance weights.
Examination of the resulting dendogram indicated that three clusters were distinct,
separating from each other at relatively large distances in the mental space about
attribute importance. Further separation was at much closer distances, and moving to
that closer level would have resulted in a much larger number of clusters because
several of the larger clusters split apart at approximately the same level. The three
clusters had clear and meaningful interpretation, and thus were taken to represent
three broad segments, characterized by differing emphasis on package attributes in
evaluating packaging.
Figure 2 shows the pattern of importance across the three segments on each of the
five packaging elements included in this study. Reference to Table IV will indicate that
the segmentation scheme derived from the cluster analysis is not based on minor
differences of opinion. MANOVA results show that the clusters do distinguish
significantly on all five importance weights. The Thai market consists of three major
consumer segments identified by their approaches to considering packaging in food
shopping. We might name these three segments convenience oriented, image
seeking, and information seeking.
Convenience-oriented shoppers in first segment account for almost half of the
sample (47 percent). They place greater weight on the technology image of the package,
0.3253
0.1896
0.1636
0.1474
0.1742
All consumers
(n 305)
0.5143
0.1376
0.1070
0.0990
0.1421
Convenience oriented
(n 144; 47.2%)
Note: Sig ANOVA significance of difference between italics mean and other row means
Packaging technology
Packaging shape
Color and graphics
Layout of graphics and information
Product information
Level of attribute
0.1428
0.2782
0.2403
0.2299
0.1087
Image seeking
(n 119; 39.0%)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Sig.
0.1940
0.1164
0.1402
0.0795
0.4700
Information seeking
(n 42; 13.8%)
Importance of
packaging
attributes
1509
Table IV.
Means of importance on
five packaging elements
by segment
EJM
41,11/12
1510
Figure 3.
Attractiveness of the
overall positive utility on
each attribute by segment
which communicates convenience and ease of use to them (see Figure 3). Among these
consumers, just over half of the weight is given to packaging technology, and they
strongly prefer the packaging that explicitly calls attention to the technology
(Tables IV and V). The other packaging attributes all have roughly similar importance,
and all score quite low relative to the technology image conveying convenience. These
consumers show little preference toward any of the various implementations of the
several visual elements, but somewhat more preference for detailed information.
The large size of this segment is consistent with trends in Bangkok that are driven
by consumer perceptions that they do not have enough time to spend in buying and
preparing food. The technology image embodied in the package communicates to these
consumers not only about the package itself, but also the underlying convenience of
preparing the food in it (Silayoi and Speece, 2004). This is also consistent with
worldwide trends showing that young modern urban middle-class consumers face
increasing time pressure (e.g., Underwood, 2003; Warde, 1999). Consumers in this
segment are slightly younger than in the other large segment (Table VI). About 55
percent are in the 20-30 age category in our sample, and few are over 40. In many
countries, younger consumers are somewhat more technology oriented, and more
receptive to new technologies in food packaging.
Image-seeking consumers constitute the second largest segment, with about 39
percent of respondents falling in this group. This segment contains slightly fewer
younger consumers than the others, and is the most heavily weighted toward the 31-40
age category, although it also has a few more consumers over 40 than the convenience
oriented segment (Table VI). These consumers value the visual elements of package
design. Packaging shape, color and graphics, and layout each have stronger
importance than either convenience or product information, and collectively account
for almost three-fourths of the weight in likelihood to buy. The segment is influenced
towards purchase by the aesthetic appeal of a good-looking package, and the tendency
toward more classic designs and colors noted in the overall results can be attributed
mostly to the influence of this segment (Table V). They are indifferent to whether
detailed information is presented or not.
Related qualitative work (Silayoi and Speece, 2004) indicates that members of this
segment are concerned with package appearance primarily for quality reasons. They
are willing to spend more time to prepare better quality food, and generally do not find
instant foods to be highly attractive. These consumers view the package as
representing the product, and high quality packaging (with high aesthetic appeal)
indicates to them a high quality product inside. Underwood and Klein (2002) review
some of the work indicating that package imagery can help consumers imagine how
products taste, feel, or smell. This is a low involvement shopping strategy, allowing
segment members a way to select one food product over another to gain high quality
while remaining relatively detached from the purchase process. Quick evaluation of
package appearance is a simple way for these individuals to meet their objectives.
Information-seeking consumers formed the smallest group, with included about 14
percent of the respondents. The product information accounted for nearly half of
importance weight, while the packaging technology image constituted another 20
percent (Table IV). Obviously, the detailed information was strongly preferred. These
consumers also preferred that the technology image explicitly call attention to
convenience and ease of use, though this tendency was not as strong as among the
convenience-oriented segment. Members of this segment had very slight disinclination
toward the graphics and color that attracted the image seeking segment. They also
Convenience
oriented
(n 144; 47.2%)
Image seeking
(n 119; 39.0%)
Information
seeking
(n 42; 13.8%)
Row sig.
1.4523
2 0.0148
0.0998
0.2057
0.4036
0.1092
0.0777
0.3634
0.5399
0.0966
0.5833
0.1071
2 0.1190
2 0.0714
1.1429
0.000
0.610
0.001
0.000
0.000
Convenience
Explicit straight shape
Classic graphics
Right picture, left information
Detailed information
Age
20-30
31-40
41 or over
Convenience oriented
(47%)
Image seeking
(39%)
Information seeking
(13%)
54.9
41.7
3.5
45.8
46.6
7.6
50.0
31.0
19.1
Note: Significance of F in a chi-square test 0:007, column percents do not total exactly 100 percent
because of rounding
Importance of
packaging
attributes
1511
Table V.
Means of the overall
positive utilities by
segment
Table VI.
Ages across the three
segments
EJM
41,11/12
1512
reversed the order of the graphics verbal information layout, showing slight
tendency toward what is found in the West (Table V).
Qualitative work showed that consumers in this group were consciously seeking
information about a variety of food matters (Silayoi and Speece, 2004). They may
exhibit the strongest exploratory food purchase behavior among the segments. They
have a great deal of knowledge about food and are creative in the manner in which they
prepare and consume it, with strong interest in knowing the ingredients and
preparation methods of food. Similarly, they appear to be strongly quality and health
conscious, but food is much higher involvement for them than for the other, larger
segments. There was a slight tendency for this segment to be either younger, in the
20-30 age category, or older, over 40. The older consumers constitute a larger part of
this segment, 19 percent, than of the other segments (Table VI).
Conclusions
The results of this study give some insight into consumer preferences for food
packages in Bangkok, Thailand, which is probably fairly representative of many
markets in Asia where the modern urban middle class is rapidly expanding. One
important limitation is that this sample was gathered in offices, so the respondents are
clerical and managerial, mostly lower middle class to upper middle class. We do not
know whether industrial workers, urban low income, or rural inhabitants in the
agricultural sector would respond the same way, and these are important segments in
many countries. Nevertheless, the rapid shift toward urban middle class is the trend in
most of developing Asia, and developed Asian countries are already mostly urban
middle class. Also, the sample does represent the type of consumers who would be
more likely to buy convenience food products, according to industry managers. In this
sense, the results from Bangkok can probably be generalized broadly in East and
Southeast Asia where the cultures and product types are similar.
Results show strong segmentation in response to packaging. The three segments,
convenience oriented, information seeking, and image seeking, follow patterns
common worldwide. To some extent, this suggests that on a broad level, middle class
urban consumer behavior in Thailand is becoming similar to other developed
countries. However, this might be expected. The desire of busy people for more
convenience, of modern educated consumers for product information, or even the
tendency of many to rely on visual impressions and not think much about low
involvement products, does not seem to have much scope for strong cultural influences.
Within each of the three segments, none of the importance weights becomes
negligible for any element. In other words, these consumers view the package as a
coherent whole, stressing one aspect or another, but not completely ignoring any
element. There may not be a single ideal design for the whole market, but the most
effective single package would probably need to have a technology image which
clearly conveys convenience and ease of use; list clear product information, and have
more classic, traditional graphic design, colors, and shape. In specific segments, some
of the package elements are somewhat less desired, but the specific implementation of
most elements as suggested by the overall results would not usually strongly detract
from attractiveness of the package. Thus, it would be possible to use a single package
that was fairly attractive across all three segments, provided that the package included
the key elements most attractive to each specific segment.
A key issue, though, is that not all of the elements are consistent with how Western
consumers respond to packaging, so packaging design would have to be adapted to
Asian markets to be most effective. This seems consistent with Walles (1997) view
that broad patterns of behavior might be similar, but not specific details. The graphics
right verbal information left layout works better, especially among the strongly
image seeking segment. This is in contrast to what research in the West shows. The
broad body of cross-cultural research in psychology summarized in Nisbett (2003)
indicates that Asian thought patterns tend to be more strongly right brain-oriented,
which could give rise to differences in how effective copy vs graphics placement is on
the package. In addition, more traditional, familiar, trusted design seems to work
better. Trust may be a contributing factor here. Trust is usually discussed in terms of
higher involvement situations, particularly in the context of relationship marketing
and/or high level services. However, recent work has begun to look at trust as a
component of brand image for low involvement products (e.g., Reast, 2005). In Asia,
trust may be even more important, and more effective than differentiation as part of the
brand image conveyed by the package.
Whatever their specific response, the conjoint study seems to have been an effective
way to examine how consumers view packaging. Producers of packaged food products
can use it to help create effective packaging strategies. Results demonstrate that there
is strong segmentation in consumer response to food packaging. The preferred levels
of the key elements in each segment are not mutually exclusive in this study, so that
segmentation would not unduly complicate the packaging strategy. However,
designers must remain aware that three complementary views need to be addressed on
the package; there is not a single way of perceiving the package. They also will need to
adapt some specific package elements to the Asian context culture does seem to
condition how consumers view the specific design details.
The relationship between consumer choices in various market segments and design
characteristics of packaging is a key issue that marketers of packaged food products
must understand to develop effective marketing strategies. Attention and
attractiveness at the point of purchase play a critical role in getting brand choice.
Utilizing the importance of packaging design elements as market segmentation
variables can provide very useful information to marketers who what to maximize the
packages impact in selling the food product. Businesses that want to develop new
brands, expand their product lines, or even enhance the impact and image of current
brands can use segmentation on customer response to package elements as a useful
tool in developing effective product strategies.
References
Al-Khatib, J.A., Stanton, A.D. and Rawwas, M.Y.A. (2005), Ethical segmentation of consumers
in developing countries: a comparative analysis, International Marketing Review, Vol. 22
No. 2, pp. 225-46.
Bank of Thailand (BOT) (2003), Production of manufactured goods, October, available at:
www.bot.or.th/BOTHomepage/Library (accessed October 2003).
Board of Investment of Thailand (BOI) (2002), Development of the Thai food industry, press
release, BOI, Public Relations Department, Bangkok, July.
Connolly, A. and Davidson, L. (1996), How does design affect decisions at point of sale?, Journal
of Brand Management, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 100-7.
Importance of
packaging
attributes
1513
EJM
41,11/12
1514
Coulson, N.S. (2000), An application of the stages of change model to consumer use of food
labels, British Food Journal, Vol. 102 No. 9, pp. 661-8.
Coyle, W., Gilmour, B. and Armbruster, W.J. (2004), Where will demographics take the
Asia-Pacific food system?, Amber Waves (USDA, Vol. 3, June, pp. 14-21, available at:
www.ers.usda.gov/Amberwaves/June04/pdf/features_asiapacific.pdf (accessed June 2005).
de Mooij, M. (2000), The future is predictable for international marketers: converging incomes
lead to diverging consumer behaviour, International Marketing Review, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 103-13.
Dimura, E. and Skuras, D. (2005), Consumer demand for informative labeling of quality food
and drink products: a European Union case study, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 22
No. 2, pp. 90-100.
Gil, M.J. and Sanchez, M. (1997), Consumer preferences for wine attributes: a conjoint analysis
approach, British Food Journal, Vol. 99 No. 1, pp. 3-11.
Green, P.E. and Krieger, A.M. (1991), Segmenting markets with conjoint analysis, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 20-32.
Grossman, R.P. and Wisenblit, J.Z. (1999), What we know about consumers colour choices,
Journal of Marketing Practice: Applied Marketing Science, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 78-88.
Hair, F.J., Anderson, E.R., Tatham, L.R. and Black, C.W. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis,
5th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Hausman, A. (2000), A multi-method investigation of consumer motivations in impulse buying
behaviour, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 403-19.
Herrington, J.D. and Capella, L.M. (1995), Shopping reactions to perceived time pressure,
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 23 No. 12, pp. 13-20.
Hughes, D., Hutchins, R. and Karathanassi, V. (1998), Purchase involvement methodology and
product profiles: the case of cheese products in Greece, British Food Journal, Vol. 100
No. 7, pp. 343-50.
Imram, N. (1999), The role of visual cues in consumer perception and acceptance of a food
product, Nutrition and Food Science, Vol. 5, September/October, pp. 224-8.
Institute of Grocery Distribution (IGD) (2002), Continued demand for convenience, June 14,
available at: www.igd.com/analysis/ (accessed November 2003).
Institute of Grocery Distribution (IGD) (2003), Competition intensifies in Thailand, available at:
www.igd.com/analysis/news_analysis/viewArticle_fs.asp?mode sr&at 0&id 701
(accessed November 2003).
Jaeger, S.R., Hedderley, D. and Halliday, J.H.M. (2001), Methodological issues in conjoint
analysis: a case study, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 11/12, pp. 1217-37.
Kupiec, B. and Revell, B. (2001), Measuring consumer quality judgments, British Food Journal,
Vol. 103 No. 1, pp. 7-22.
Lowe, A.C.T. and Corkindale, D.R. (1998), Differences in culture value and their effects on
responses to marketing stimuli: a cross-cultural study between Australians and Chinese
from the Peoples Republic of China, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32 Nos 9/10,
pp. 843-67.
Lovejoy, V.S. and Beach, D. (1997), Intergrated product design for marketability and
manufacturing, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 154-63.
McCullough, F., Jones, S. and Vignali, D. (2003), The pt snack market are todays consumers
demanding health as well as convenience?, British Food Journal, Vol. 106 No. 6,
pp. 395-404.
McIlveen, H. (1994), Product development and the consumer: the reality of the managing
creativity, Nutrition & Food Science, Vol. 6, November/December, pp. 26-30.
McNeal, U.J. and Ji, M.F. (2003), Childrens visual memory of packaging, Journal of Consumer
McWilliam, G. (1997), Low involvement brands: is the brand manager to blame?, Marketing
Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 60-70.
Madden, J.T., Hewett, K. and Roth, M.S. (2000), Managing images in different cultures: a
cross-national study of colour meaning and preferences, Journal of International
Malai, V. and Speece, M. (2005), Cultural impact on the relationship among perceived service
quality, brand name value, and customer loyalty, Journal of International Consumer
Malhotra, N.K., Agarwal, J. and Peterson, M. (1996), Methodological issues in cross-cultural
marketing research: a state-of-the-art review, International Marketing Review, Vol. 13
No. 5, pp. 7-43.
Mitchell, V.W. and Papavassiliou, V. (1999), Marketing causes and implications of consumer
confusion, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 319-39.
Murphy, M., Cowan, C., Henchion, M. and OReilly, S. (2000), Irish consumer preferences for
honey: a conjoint approach, British Food Journal, Vol. 102 No. 8, pp. 585-98.
Nancarrow, C., Wright, T.L. and Brace, I. (1998), Gaining competitive advantage from
packaging and labeling in marketing communications, British Food Journal, Vol. 100
No. 2, pp. 110-8.
(The) Nation (Bangkok) (2002), Unilever unfolds new business units, November 18, available
at: www.nationmultimedia.com/page.arcview.php3?clid 6&id 6934&date 2002
(accessed November 2003).
National Food Institute (NFI) (2003), Thai food export (1997-2002), October, available at: www.
nfi.or.th/domestic/thai-food-industry/thai-export02.html (accessed October 2003).
Nisbett, E.R. (2003), The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently
. . . and Why, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Orth, U.R., McDaniel, M., Shellhammer, T. and Lopetcharat, K. (2004), Promoting brand
benefits: the role of consumer psychographics and lifestyle, Journal of Consumer
Prendergast, P.G. and Marr, N.E. (1997), Generic products: who buys them and how do they
perform relative to each other?, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 94-109.
Prendergast, P.G. and Pitt, L. (1996), Packaging, marketing, logistics and the environment: are
there trade-offs?, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,
Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 60-72.
Quester, P.G. and Smart, J. (1998), The influence of consumption situation and product
involvement over consumers use of product attribute, Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 220-38.
Raghubir, P. and Krishna, A. (1999), Vital dimensions in volume perception: can the eye fool the
stomach?, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 313-26.
Reast, J.D. (2005), Brand trust and brand extension acceptance: the relationship, Journal of
Product & Brand Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 4-13.
Rettie, R. and Brewer, C. (2000), The verbal and visual components of package design, Journal
of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 56-70.
Importance of
packaging
attributes
1515
EJM
41,11/12
1516
Shiu, E.C.C., Dawson, J.A. and Marshall, D.W. (2004), Segmenting the convenience and health
trends in the British food market, British Food Journal, Vol. 106 No. 2, pp. 106-27.
Silayoi, P. (2004), Packaging design management in the Thai food processing industry, PhD
dissertation, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok.
Silayoi, P. and Speece, M. (2004), Packaging and purchase decisions: a focus group study on the
impact of involvement level and time pressure, British Food Journal, Vol. 106 No. 8,
pp. 607-28.
Silayoi, P., Malai, V., Rajatanavin, R. and Speece, M. (2003), The effects of packaging on
consumer satisfaction and loyalty, Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on
Marketing and Development, Bangkok, Thailand, January, (abstract only; published on CD
by International Society for Marketing and Development).
Speece, M. (2004), Consumer Marketing in Asia for the New Economy: Executive Seminar
Organized by JKYL (International) Pte Ltd, Singapore, July 2004.
Speece, M. and Toqueur, G. (2005), Service Brand Management in the Asia Pacific. JKYL
Conference Executive Seminar, Organized by JKYL (International) Pte Ltd, Singapore, June
2005.
Suh, T. and Kwon, I.G. (2002), Globalization and reluctant buyers, International Marketing
Review, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 663-80.
UBCTV.COM (2004), Business environment, Market Potential, available at: www.ubctv.com/eng/
AboutUBC_Business_EnvMarket.aspx (accessed May 2004).
UK Trade and Investment (2003), Country profile: Thailand, available at: www.trade.
uktradeinvest.gov.uk/thailand/profile/index/introduction.shtml (accessed November
2003).
Underwood, R.L. (2003), The communicative power of product packaging: creating brand
identity via lived and mediated experience, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,
Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 62-77.
Underwood, R.L. and Klein, N.M. (2002), Packaging as brand communication: effects of product
pictures on consumer responses to the package and brand, Journal of Marketing Theory
and Practice, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 58-69.
Underwood, R.L., Klein, N.M. and Burke, R.R. (2001), Packaging communication: attentional
effects of product imagery, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 10 No. 7,
pp. 403-22.
Vakratsas, D. and Ambler, T. (1999), How advertising works: what do we really know?, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 63, January, pp. 26-43.
Van der Pol, M. and Ryan, M. (1998), Using conjoint analysis to establish consumer preferences
for fruit and vegetables, British Food Journal, Vol. 98 No. 8, pp. 5-12.
Vriens, M., Loosschilder, G.H., Rosbergen, E. and Wittink, D.R. (1998), Verbal versus realistic
pictorial representation in conjoint analysis with design attributes, Journal of Product
Innovation Management, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 455-67.
Walle, A.H. (1997), Global behaviour, unique responses: consumption within cultural
frameworks, Management Decision, Vol. 35 No. 10, pp. 700-8.
Warde, A. (1999), Convenience food: space and timing, British Food Journal, Vol. 101 No. 7,
pp. 518-27.
About the authors
Pinya Silayoi is on the faculty in the Department of Packaging Technology, Faculty of
Agro-Industry at Kasetsart University, Bangkok. She worked in R&D and design at a major
Thai packaging company before joining academia, and has kept up a small free-lance consulting
practice in graphics and packaging design since. Her research interests focus on management of
the packaging design process, integration of consumer knowledge into the process, and the role
of packaging in marketing. Dr Silayois PhD is from the School of Management, Asian Institute
of Technology, Thailand. She holds a Master of Design Management and Product Design at
Staffordshire University in UK, and a second Masters in Computing in Design also from
Staffordshire. Pinya Silayoi is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
pinya@rocketmail.com
Mark Speece is Associate Professor and MBA Director in the School of Business, Public
Administration, and Information Systems at the University of Alaska Southeast in Juneau.
Before joining in August 2004, he had spent 16 years in East/Southeast Asia. In Bangkok, he
taught at Kasetsart University (where he continues as visiting faculty during summers), Asian
Institute of Technology, National Institute of Development Administration, and Bangkok
University; in Singapore at Nanyang Technological University, and in Hong Kong at Chinese
University of Hong Kong. Much of his research focuses on food products marketing in Southeast
Asia. Dr Speece holds a PhD in Marketing from the University of Washington, Seattle, and a PhD
in Middle East Economic Geography from University of Arizona, Tucson.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Importance of
packaging
attributes
1517
This article has been cited by:

1. Bo Rundh Karlstad University; Karlstad Business School Karlstad Sweden ChristopherJ. Griffith
Broadmayne Consulting Dorchester United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ChristopherJ. Griffith Broadmayne Consulting
Dorchester United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland . 2016. The role of packaging within marketing and value creation. British Food
Journal 118:10. . [Abstract] [PDF]
2. Andrew Charles Montandon University of Cape Town Cape Town South Africa Christopher Colli
University of Cape Town Cape Town South Africa ChristopherJ. Griffith Broadmayne Consulting
Dorchester United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland ChristopherJ. Griffith Broadmayne Consulting Dorchester United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland . 2016. Effective
nutrition labels for fast food consumers. British Food Journal 118:10. . [Abstract] [PDF]
3. A. Eldesouky, F.J. Mesas, A. Elghannam, P. Gaspar, M. Escribano. 2016. Are packaging and presentation
format key attributes for cheese consumers?. International Dairy Journal 61, 245-249. [CrossRef]
4. Rubn Rebollar, Ivn Lidn, Ignacio Gil, Javier Martn, Maria J. Fernndez, Celia E. Riveres. 2016. The
influence the serving suggestion displayed on soft cheese packaging has on consumer expectations and
willingness to buy. Food Quality and Preference 52, 188-194. [CrossRef]
5. Catherine Prentice, Nikolai Handsjuk. 2016. Insights into Vodka consumer attitude and purchasing
behaviors. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 32, 7-14. [CrossRef]
6. Martin Heinberg, H. Erkan Ozkaya, Markus Taube. 2016. A brand built on sand: Is acquiring a local
brand in an emerging market an ill-advised strategy for foreign companies?. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science 44:5, 586-607. [CrossRef]
7. Constanze Stiefel, Sylvia Dietzel, Marc Endress, Gertrud E. Morlock. 2016. Separation of pigment
formulations by high-performance thin-layer chromatography with automated multiple development.
Journal of Chromatography A 1462, 134-145. [CrossRef]
8. Andrew C. Montandon, Andrzej Ogonowski, Elsamari Botha. 2016. Product Involvement and the Relative
Importance of Health Endorsements. Journal of Food Products Marketing 1-19. [CrossRef]
9. Denize Oliveira, Leandro Machn, Rosires Deliza, Amauri Rosenthal, Eduardo H. Walter, Ana Gimnez,
Gastn Ares. 2016. Consumers' attention to functional food labels: Insights from eye-tracking and change
detection in a case study with probiotic milk. LWT - Food Science and Technology 68, 160-167. [CrossRef]
10. Helena Lindh, Helen Williams, Annika Olsson, Fredrik Wikstrm. 2016. Elucidating the Indirect
Contributions of Packaging to Sustainable Development: A Terminology of Packaging Functions and
Features. Packaging Technology and Science 29:4-5, 225-246. [CrossRef]
11. Frdric Basso, Julien Bouill, Kvin Le Goff, Philippe Robert-Demontrond, Olivier Oullier. 2016.
Assessing the Role of Shape and Label in the Misleading Packaging of Food Imitating Products: From
Empirical Evidence to Policy Recommendation. Frontiers in Psychology 7. . [CrossRef]
12. Fabio Verneau and Professor Christopher J. Griffith Rosa Arboretti TeSAF Department, University of
Padova, Legnaro, Italy Paolo Bordignon Department of Management and Engineering, University of
Padova, Vicenza, Italy . 2016. Consumer preferences in food packaging: CUB models and conjoint analysis.
British Food Journal 118:3, 527-540. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
13. Shuo-Fang Liu, Jui-Hung Cheng, Yann-Long Lee, Feng-Ru Gau. 2016. A case study on FMEA-based
quality improvement of packaging designs in the TFT-LCD industry. Total Quality Management &
Business Excellence 27:3-4, 413-431. [CrossRef]
14. Iris van Ooijen, Marieke L. Fransen, Peeter W.J. Verlegh, Edith G. Smit. 2016. Atypical food packaging
affects the persuasive impact of product claims. Food Quality and Preference 48, 33-40. [CrossRef]
15. Jyoti Vohra Khalsa College, Amritsar, India Pavleen Soni University Business School, Guru Nanak Dev
University, Amritsar, India . 2016. Understanding dimensionality of childrens food shopping behaviour
in retail stores. British Food Journal 118:2, 450-463. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
16. Robert P Hamlin Department of Marketing, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand . 2016. The
consumer testing of food package graphic design. British Food Journal 118:2, 379-395. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
17. Toni Ryynnen Economics and Management, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland Markus Joutsela
Visual Communication Design, Aalto University School of Arts, Design and Architecture, Helsinki,
Finland Visa Heinonen Economics and Management, Univeristy of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland . 2016.
My Grandfather kept one of these tins on top of the bookshelf . Qualitative Market Research: An
International Journal 19:1, 4-26. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
18. Mohsen Rasouli Valajoozi Industrial Design, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran Nosrat Ollah Zangi
Business management, Islamic Azad University of Ali Abad-E-Katul, Ali Abad, Iran . 2016. A review on
visual criteria of pure milk packaging for parents and their children (case study: Tehran, Iran). British
Food Journal 118:1, 83-99. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
19. Agnieszka Izabela Baruk Systems of Management and Innovation Department , Organization and
Management Faculty, Lodz University of Technology, Lodz, Poland AND Management and Marketing
Department, Agrobioengineering Faculty, University of Life Sciences, Lublin, Poland Anna Iwanicka
Management and Marketing Department, Agrobioengineering Faculty, University of Life Sciences,
Lublin, Poland . 2016. The effect of age, gender and level of education on the consumers expectations
towards dairy product packaging. British Food Journal 118:1, 100-118. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
20. Shioko MUKAI, Genta MIYAZAKI. 2016. Effects of Both Similarity of the Evaluation of Impressions,
Between Elements, and Font Legibility, on Aesthetic Impression of Packaging. International Journal of
Affective Engineering 15:3, 289-293. [CrossRef]
21. Helena Lindh, Annika Olsson, Helen Williams. 2016. Consumer Perceptions of Food Packaging:
Contributing to or Counteracting Environmentally Sustainable Development?. Packaging Technology and
Science 29:1, 3-23. [CrossRef]
22. S. Thomas, M. ChambaultExplicit Methods to Capture Consumers Responses to Packaging 139-159.
[CrossRef]
23. Markus Joutsela, Terhi Latvala, Virpi Roto. 2016. Influence of Packaging Interaction Experience on
Willingness to Pay. Packaging Technology and Science . [CrossRef]
24. Lise Magnier, Jan Schoormans. 2015. Consumer reactions to sustainable packaging: The interplay of
visual appearance, verbal claim and environmental concern. Journal of Environmental Psychology 44, 53-62.
[CrossRef]
25. Paramaporn Thaichon, Thu Nguyen Quach. 2015. The relationship between service quality, satisfaction,
trust, value, commitment and loyalty of Internet service providers' customers. Journal of Global Scholars
of Marketing Science 25:4, 295-313. [CrossRef]
26. Ana M. Arboleda, Carlos Arce-Lopera. 2015. Quantitative analysis of product categorization in soft drinks
using bottle silhouettes. Food Quality and Preference 45, 1-10. [CrossRef]
27. Rita Coelho do Vale Catlica Lisbon - School of Business and Economics, Universidade Catlica
Portuguesa, Lisbon, Portugal Pedro Verga Matos ISEG- Lisbon School of Economics & Management,
Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal . 2015. The impact of copycat packaging strategies on the
adoption of private labels. Journal of Product & Brand Management 24:6, 646-659. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
28. John L Stanton Department of Food Marketing, Saint Joseph's University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
United States James Wiley Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States Neal H
Hooker John Glenn College of Public Affairs, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United
States Ekaterina Salnikova Department of Food Marketing, Saint Joseph's University, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, United States . 2015. Relationship of product claims between private label and national
brands. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 43:9, 815-830. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
29. Daniele Lama, Gabriele Pizzi. 2015. L'effetto del packaging sulle percezioni di qualit del prodotto nel
mercato vinicolo. MERCATI E COMPETITIVIT :3, 61-82. [CrossRef]
30. Mahsa-Sadat Taghavi Department of Business Management, Faculty of Management and Economics,
Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran. Alireza Seyedsalehi Department
of Executive Management, Qazvin Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qazvin, Iran. . 2015. The effect of
packaging and brand on childrens and parents purchasing decisions and the moderating role of pester
power. British Food Journal 117:8, 2017-2038. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
31. Huda Khan, Richard Lee, Larry Lockshin. 2015. Do ethnic cues improve advertising effectiveness for
ethnic consumers?. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ) 23:3, 218-226. [CrossRef]
32. Huda Khan School of Marketing, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia Richard Lee School
of Marketing, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia Larry Lockshin School of Marketing,
University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia . 2015. Localising the packaging of foreign food
brands: a case of Muslim consumers in Pakistan. Journal of Product & Brand Management 24:4, 386-398.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
33. Judith Versloot, Agnes Grudniewicz, Ananda Chatterjee, Leigh Hayden, Monika Kastner, Onil
Bhattacharyya. 2015. Format guidelines to make them vivid, intuitive, and visual. International Journal of
Evidence-Based Healthcare 13:2, 52-57. [CrossRef]
34. Lewis Xinwei Liao, Armando Maria Corsi, Polymeros Chrysochou, Larry Lockshin. 2015. Emotional
responses towards food packaging: A joint application of self-report and physiological measures of
emotion. Food Quality and Preference 42, 48-55. [CrossRef]
35. Marcela Lika Kobayashi, Marta de Toledo Benassi. 2015. Impact of Packaging Characteristics on
Consumer Purchase Intention: Instant Coffee in Refill Packs and Glass Jars. Journal of Sensory Studies
30:3, 169-180. [CrossRef]
36. Edward Shih-Tse Wang. 2015. Different Effects of Utilitarian and Hedonic Benefits of Retail Food
Packaging on Perceived Product Quality and Purchase Intention. Journal of Food Products Marketing 1-13.
[CrossRef]
37. Anne-Sophie Binninger. 2015. Perception of Naturalness of Food Packaging and Its Role in Consumer
Product Evaluation. Journal of Food Products Marketing 1-17. [CrossRef]
38. Mar Gmez, David Martn-Consuegra, Arturo Molina. 2015. The importance of packaging in purchase
and usage behaviour. International Journal of Consumer Studies 39:3, 203-211. [CrossRef]
39. Toni Ryynnen, Elina Rusko. 2015. Professionals' View of Consumers' Packaging Interactions - A
Narrative Analysis. Packaging Technology and Science 28:4, 341-355. [CrossRef]
40. Fredrik Fernqvist Department of Work Science, Business Economics and Environmental Psychology,
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Alnarp, Sweden Annika Olsson Department of Design
Sciences, Packaging Logistics, Lund University, Lund, Sweden Sara Spendrup Department of Work
Science, Business Economics and Environmental Psychology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences,
Alnarp, Sweden . 2015. Whats in it for me? Food packaging and consumer responses, a focus group study.
41. Jerzy Grobelny, Rafa Michalski. 2015. The role of background color, interletter spacing, and font size on
preferences in the digital presentation of a product. Computers in Human Behavior 43, 85-100. [CrossRef]
42. Agnieszka Izabela Baruk Department of Systems Innovation Management, Ldz University of
Technology, Lublin, Poland Anna Iwanicka Department of Economics and Management, University of
Life Sciences in Lublin, Lublin, Poland . 2015. Polish final purchasers expectations towards the features of
dairy product packaging in the context of buying decisions. British Food Journal 117:1, 178-194. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
43. Tunyarut Jinkarn Department of Packaging and Materials Technology, Kasetsart University, Bangkok,
Thailand Prisana Suwannaporn Department of Food Science and Technology, Kasetsart University,
Bangkok, Thailand . 2015. Trade-off analysis of packaging attributes for foods and drinks. British Food
Journal 117:1, 139-156. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
44. Rubn Rebollar, Ivn Lidn, Javier Martn, Miriam Puebla. 2015. The identification of viewing patterns
of chocolate snack packages using eye-tracking techniques. Food Quality and Preference 39, 251-258.
[CrossRef]
45. Suraj Kushe Shekhar, P.T. Raveendran. 2015. Promises of silent salesman to the FMCG industry: an
investigation using linear discriminant analysis approach. Management & Marketing 10:4. . [CrossRef]
46. Professor Brigitte de Faultrier Monali Hota Marketing and International Negotiations Department,
IESEG School of Management, Lille, France Karine Charry Marketing and International Negotiations
Department, IESEG School of Management, Lille, France . 2014. The impact of visual and childoriented packaging elements versus information on childrens purchase influence across various age groups.
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 42:11/12, 1069-1082. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
47. Brigitte de Faultrier Nora Zeghache Department if Marketing, University of Pantheon-Sorbonne Paris1,
Paris, France . 2014. The impact of packaging colour on childrens brand name memorization (7-12 years
old). International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 42:11/12, 1053-1068. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
48. Christopher Simms Portsmouth Business School, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK Paul Trott
Portsmouth Business School, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK . 2014. Conceptualising the
management of packaging within new product development. European Journal of Marketing 48:11/12,
2009-2032. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
49. Paula Varela, Luca Antnez, Rafael Silva Cadena, Ana Gimnez, Gastn Ares. 2014. Attentional capture
and importance of package attributes for consumers' perceived similarities and differences among products:
A case study with breakfast cereal packages. Food Research International 64, 701-710. [CrossRef]
50. E. Carrillo, S. Fiszman, Liisa Lhteenmki, P. Varela. 2014. Consumers perception of symbols and health
claims as health-related label messages. A cross-cultural study. Food Research International 62, 653-661.
[CrossRef]
51. Hannele Kauppinen-Risnen. 2014. Strategic Use of Colour in Brand Packaging. Packaging Technology
and Science 27:8, 663-676. [CrossRef]
52. Prashant Kumar National Institute of Industrial Engineering, Mumbai, India . 2014. Greening retail: an
Indian experience. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 42:7, 613-625. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
53. Mehmet Seckin Aday, Ugur Yener. 2014. Understanding the buying behaviour of young consumers
regarding packaging attributes and labels. International Journal of Consumer Studies 38:4, 385-393.
[CrossRef]
54. Bonnie J.K. Simpson DAN Management and Organizational Studies, University of Western Ontario,
London, Ontario, Canada Scott K. Radford Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary, Calgary,
Alberta, Canada . 2014. Situational variables and sustainability in multi-attribute decision-making.
European Journal of Marketing 48:5/6, 1046-1069. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
55. Armando Maria Corsi, Sarah Rann Overton, Leonardo Casini. 2014. The impact of the new wine common
market organization (CMO) on behavioural loyalty towards product attributes: A case from Italy. Journal
of Consumer Behaviour n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
56. Manilall Dhurup, Chengedzai Mafini, Tshepiso Dumasi. 2014. The impact of packaging, price and brand
awareness on brand loyalty: Evidence from the paint retailing industry. Acta Commercii 14:1. . [CrossRef]
57. Andrea Insch University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand Erin Jackson Fonterra, Auckland, New
Zealand . 2014. Consumer understanding and use of country-of-origin in food choice. British Food Journal
116:1, 62-79. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
58. Jessica Ridgway, Beth Myers. 2014. A study on brand personality: consumers perceptions of colours
used in fashion brand logos. International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education 7:1, 50-57.
[CrossRef]
59. Maja Arslanagi, Almir Petek, Selma Kadi-Maglajli. 2014. Perceptions of Healthy Food Packaging
Information: Do Men and Women Perceive Differently?. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 109,
78-82. [CrossRef]
60. Rupert Andrew Hurley, Josh Galvarino, Emily Thackston, Andrew Ouzts, Andy Pham. 2013. The Effect
of Modifying Structure to Display Product Versus Graphical Representation on Packaging. Packaging
Technology and Science 26:8, 453-460. [CrossRef]
61. Daleen van der Merwe, Stephn Viljoen, Hanli de Beer, Magdalena Bosman, Elizabeth Kempen. 2013.
Consumers' experiences of cold chain food packaging: A qualitative study among women in South Africa.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 37:6, 650-657. [CrossRef]
62. S.T. Wang Edward Graduate Institute of Bio-Industry Management, National Chung Hsing University,
Taichung, Taiwan . 2013. The influence of visual packaging design on perceived food product quality,
value, and brand preference. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 41:10, 805-816.
63. Iris Vilnai-Yavetz, Ran Koren. 2013. Cutting through the clutter: purchase intentions as a function of
packaging instrumentality, aesthetics, and symbolism. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and
Consumer Research 23:4, 394-417. [CrossRef]
64. Carl Johan Lagerkvist. 2013. Consumer preferences for food labelling attributes: Comparing direct
ranking and bestworst scaling for measurement of attribute importance, preference intensity and attribute
dominance. Food Quality and Preference 29:2, 77-88. [CrossRef]
65. Tobias OtterbringService Research Center, Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden Poja ShamsService
Research Center, Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden Erik WstlundService Research Center, Karlstad
University, Karlstad, Sweden Anders GustafssonService Research Center, Karlstad University, Karlstad,
Sweden, and BI Norwegian School of Management, Oslo, Norway. 2013. Left isn't always right:
placement of pictorial and textual package elements. British Food Journal 115:8, 1211-1225. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
66. Jabir Ali. 2013. Consumers' Perspectives on Mandatory versus Voluntary Provisions of Food Safety
Regulations in India. Journal of Food Products Marketing 19:4, 261-278. [CrossRef]
67. Sanatcha Theerachun, Mark Speece, Willi Zimmermann. 2013. Relationship Marketing and MicroRetailer Brand in Traditional Markets. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing 25:3,
242-266. [CrossRef]
68. Hollywood Lynsey School of Biological Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK Wells Laura
Belfast, UK Armstrong Gillian Department of Accounting, University of Ulster, Newtownabbey, UK
Farley Heather Department of Management, University of Ulster, Newtownabbey, UK . 2013. Thinking
outside the carton: attitudes towards milk packaging. British Food Journal 115:6, 899-912. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
69. Toni Ryynnen, Annaleena Hakatie. 2013. Low involvement, low price and low quality image renegotiated
a case study of staple food package design. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer
Research 23:2, 204-219. [CrossRef]
70. Betina Piqueras-Fiszman, Carlos Velasco, Alejandro Salgado-Montejo, Charles Spence. 2013. Using
combined eye tracking and word association in order to assess novel packaging solutions: A case study
involving jam jars. Food Quality and Preference 28:1, 328-338. [CrossRef]
71. Jenni NiemelNyrhinenSchool of Business and Economics, University of Jyvskyl, Jyvskyl, Finland
Outi UusitaloSchool of Business and Economics, University of Jyvskyl, Jyvskyl, Finland. 2013.
Identifying potential sources of value in a packaging value chain. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
28:2, 76-85. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
72. S.J. Westerman, E.J. Sutherland, P.H. Gardner, N. Baig, C. Critchley, C. Hickey, S. Mehigan, A. Solway,
Z. Zervos. 2013. The design of consumer packaging: Effects of manipulations of shape, orientation,
and alignment of graphical forms on consumers assessments. Food Quality and Preference 27:1, 8-17.
[CrossRef]
73. A. Azzi, D. Battini, A. Persona, F. Sgarbossa. 2012. Packaging Design: General Framework and Research
Agenda. Packaging Technology and Science 25:8, 435-456. [CrossRef]
74. Justine A. Spack, Virginia E. Board, Lindsay M. Crighton, Phillip M. Kostka, James D. Ivory. 2012. It's
Easy Being Green: The Effects of Argument and Imagery on Consumer Responses to Green Product
Packaging. Environmental Communication 6:4, 441-458. [CrossRef]
75. Hannele KauppinenRisnenDepartment of Marketing, Hanken School of Economics, Helsinki, Finland
Richard A. OwusuSchool of Business and Economics, Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden Bylon
Abeeku BamfoDepartment of Marketing & Corporate Strategy, KNUST School of Business, Kumasi,
Ghana. 2012. Brand salience of OTC pharmaceuticals through package appearance. International Journal
of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing 6:3, 230-249. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
76. Lynn MetcalfOrfalea College of Business, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo,
California, USA Jeffrey S. HessOrfalea College of Business, California Polytechnic State University,
San Luis Obispo, California, USA Jeffrey E. DanesOrfalea College of Business, California Polytechnic
State University, San Luis Obispo, California, USA Jay SinghOrfalea College of Business, California
Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California, USA. 2012. A mixedmethods approach for
designing marketdriven packaging. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 15:3, 268-289.
77. Ahmad Jamal, Mohammed Sajid Khan, Matoula Stamatia Tsesmetzi. 2012. Information cues roles in
product evaluations: the case of the UK cosmetics market. Journal of Strategic Marketing 20:3, 249-265.
[CrossRef]
78. Ding Hooi Ting, Christina Kwai Choi Lee. 2012. Understanding students choice of electives and its
implications. Studies in Higher Education 37:3, 309-325. [CrossRef]
79. Karen Glanz, Michael D.M. Bader, Shally Iyer. 2012. Retail Grocery Store Marketing Strategies and
Obesity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 42:5, 503-512. [CrossRef]
80. Tsui-Yii Shih. 2012. Integrative effects of firms' price and endorsement strategies on consumers' loyalty
intention. The Service Industries Journal 32:6, 981-1005. [CrossRef]
81. Polymeros ChrysochouEhrenbergBass Institute for Marketing Science, University of South Australia,
Adelaide, Australia Athanasios KrystallisMAPP, Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus, Denmark Ana
MocanuEhrenbergBass Institute for Marketing Science, University of South Australia, Adelaide,
Australia Rachel Leigh LewisMAPP, Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus, Denmark. 2012. Generation Y
preferences for wine. British Food Journal 114:4, 516-528. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
82. Aspasia Vlachvei, Ourania Notta, Tsakirianidou Efterpi. 2012. Branding Strategies in Greek Wine Firms.
Procedia Economics and Finance 1, 421-430. [CrossRef]
83. Mohd Hafiz Faizal Mohamad Kamil, Azizah JaafarUsability of package and label designs using eye tracking
316-321. [CrossRef]
84. Carla Pires, Lusa Agante. 2011. Encouraging children to eat more healthily: The influence of packaging.
Journal of Consumer Behaviour 10:3, 161-168. [CrossRef]
85. Karin Venter, Daleen van der Merwe, Hanli de Beer, Elizabeth Kempen, Magdalena Bosman. 2011.
Consumers' perceptions of food packaging: an exploratory investigation in Potchefstroom, South Africa.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 35:3, 273-281. [CrossRef]
86. Jan R. Landwehr, Rupert Stadler, Andreas Herrmann, Daniel Wentzel, Christian Labonte. 2011.
Verankerung von Markenwerten im Produktdesign. Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift fr betriebswirtschaftliche
Forschung 63:2, 189-212. [CrossRef]
87. C. CHREA, L. MELO, G. EVANS, C. FORDE, C. DELAHUNTY, D.N. COX. 2011. AN
INVESTIGATION USING THREE APPROACHES TO UNDERSTAND THE INFLUENCE OF
EXTRINSIC PRODUCT CUES ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: AN EXAMPLE OF AUSTRALIAN
WINES. Journal of Sensory Studies 26:1, 13-24. [CrossRef]
88. Alex GofmanRule Developing Experimentation in Consumer-Driven Package Design . [CrossRef]
89. Simone Mueller, Larry Lockshin, Jordan J. Louviere. 2010. What you see may not be what you get:
Asking consumers what matters may not reflect what they choose. Marketing Letters 21:4, 335-350.
[CrossRef]
90. Robert P. Hamlin. 2010. Cue-Based Decision Making. A new framework for understanding the uninvolved
food consumer. Appetite 55:1, 89-98. [CrossRef]
91. Prisana SuwannapornDepartment of Food Science and Technology, Faculty of AgroIndustry, Kasetsart
University, Bangkok, Thailand Mark W. SpeeceSchool of Management, University of Alaska Southeast,
Juneau, Alaska, USA. 2010. Assessing new product development success factors in the Thai food industry.
92. Alex GofmanMoskowitz Jacobs Inc., White Plains, New York, USA Howard R. MoskowitzMoskowitz
Jacobs Inc., White Plains, New York, USA Tnis MetsCentre for Entrepreneurship, University of Tartu,
Tartu, Estonia. 2010. Accelerating structured consumerdriven package design. Journal of Consumer
Marketing 27:2, 157-168. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
93. Byoungho JinDepartment of Consumer, Apparel and Retail Studies, The University of North Carolina
at Greensboro (UNCG), Greensboro, North Carolina, USA Jin Yong ParkSchool of Business, Konkuk
University, Seoul, South Korea Jay Sang RyuDepartment of Design, Housing, and Merchandising,
Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA. 2010. Comparison of Chinese and Indian
consumers' evaluative criteria when selecting denim jeans. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management:
An International Journal 14:1, 180-194. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
94. Corinna Hawkes. 2010. Food packaging: the medium is the message. Public Health Nutrition 13:02, 297.
[CrossRef]
95. Leonardo Casini, Cam Rungie, Armando Maria Corsi. 2009. How Loyal are Italian Consumers to Wine
Attributes?. Journal of Wine Research 20:2, 125-142. [CrossRef]
96. Martin LfgrenCTF Service Research Center, Karlstad University, Sweden Lars WitellCTF Service
Research Center, Karlstad University, Sweden Anders GustafssonCTF Service Research Center, Karlstad
University, Sweden. 2008. Customer satisfaction in the first and second moments of truth. Journal of
Product & Brand Management 17:7, 463-474. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
97. Joonas Rokka, Liisa Uusitalo. 2008. Preference for green packaging in consumer product choices - Do
consumers care?. International Journal of Consumer Studies 32:5, 516-525. [CrossRef]

Packaging Attributes

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Packaging Attributes

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

European Journal of Marketing

The importance of packaging attributes: a conjoint analysis approach

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI At 22:59 18 August 2016 (PT)

To cite this document:

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

The importance of packaging

School of Business, Public Administration and Information Systems,

European Journal of Marketing

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI At 22:59 18 August 2016 (PT)

purchase. The package becomes a critical factor in the consumer decision-making

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI At 22:59 18 August 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI At 22:59 18 August 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI At 22:59 18 August 2016 (PT)

Placement of visual elements matters. Psychology research indicates that brain

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI At 22:59 18 August 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI At 22:59 18 August 2016 (PT)

Cultural context and segmentation

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI At 22:59 18 August 2016 (PT)

However, incorporating consumer response to packaging elements into packaging

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI At 22:59 18 August 2016 (PT)

Colour and graphics

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI At 22:59 18 August 2016 (PT)

Presenting the stimuli

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI At 22:59 18 August 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI At 22:59 18 August 2016 (PT)

Relative importance (%)

Color and graphic

Layout of graphics and information

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI At 22:59 18 August 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI At 22:59 18 August 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI At 22:59 18 August 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI At 22:59 18 August 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI At 22:59 18 August 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI At 22:59 18 August 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI At 22:59 18 August 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI At 22:59 18 August 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI At 22:59 18 August 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI At 22:59 18 August 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI At 22:59 18 August 2016 (PT)

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI At 22:59 18 August 2016 (PT)

This article has been cited by:

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI At 22:59 18 August 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI At 22:59 18 August 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI At 22:59 18 August 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI At 22:59 18 August 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI At 22:59 18 August 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI At 22:59 18 August 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI At 22:59 18 August 2016 (PT)

Вам также может понравиться