British Food Journal

Thinking outside the carton: attitudes towards milk packaging

Hollywood Lynsey, Wells Laura, Armstrong Gillian, Farley Heather,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Hollywood Lynsey, Wells Laura, Armstrong Gillian, Farley Heather, (2013) "Thinking outside the carton: attitudes towards
milk packaging", British Food Journal, Vol. 115 Issue: 6, pp.899-912, https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-Jul-2010-0127
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-Jul-2010-0127
Downloaded on: 29 October 2018, At: 07:14 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 64 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1887 times since 2013*
Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 07:14 29 October 2018 (PT)

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

(2006),"Consumer perceptions of product packaging", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 23 Iss 2 pp. 100-112 <a
href="https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760610655032">https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760610655032</a>
(2004),"Packaging and purchase decisions: An exploratory study on the impact of involvement level and time pressure",
British Food Journal, Vol. 106 Iss 8 pp. 607-628 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700410553602">https://
doi.org/10.1108/00070700410553602</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:546149 []
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/0007-070X.htm

Thinking outside the carton: Thinking outside

the carton
attitudes towards milk packaging
Lynsey Hollywood
School of Biological Sciences, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, UK 899
Laura Wells
Belfast, UK
Gillian Armstrong
Department of Accounting, University of Ulster, Newtownabbey, UK, and
Heather Farley
Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 07:14 29 October 2018 (PT)

Department of Management, University of Ulster, Newtownabbey, UK

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate consumer attitudes towards packaging design
as a tactical strategy for increasing the commercial value of liquid milk within the dairy industry.
Design/methodology/approach – In total, six focus groups were conducted containing 33
participants and data were analysed using QSR Nvivo 7. Findings were categorised based on the form,
function and appearance of packaging design.
Findings – Results highlighted that the majority of participants found milk packaging to be
functional; however, beyond this use, vast improvement could be made in terms of the aesthetics
surrounding packaging design.
Research limitations/implications – Even for commodity products the use of packaging
transcends beyond a functional role as consumers are becoming more demanding in their attitudes
towards packaging design.
Practical implications – The study provides insights for managers in relation to opportunities for
adding value through packaging design within the liquid milk sector.
Originality/value – The paper explores consumer attitudes towards milk packaging to identify
possible new market opportunities.
Keywords Consumer behaviour, Packaging, Design, Milk, Food products, Dairy products,
Northern Ireland
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
From the functional to the experiential, the use of packaging nowadays transcends
beyond its basic purpose of simply containing and protecting a product. For many
companies packaging design has become a potential mechanism to increase product
sales at the point of purchase (Silayoi and Speece, 2007; Rod, 1990). Therefore, as the
current economic climate fuels the fight for long-term survival, companies need to
strategically consider how their product can withstand the competition. Hence,
packaging design can become a critical tool in influencing consumer choice and
offering companies the opportunity to increase its commercial value (Rundh, 2009). British Food Journal
Vol. 115 No. 6, 2013
With this perspective in mind, it is crucial that food commodity producers consider pp. 899-912
the possible financial rewards that could be achieved if investing in packaging design. q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0007-070X
For the majority of food commodity producers their focus on low pricing initiatives and DOI 10.1108/BFJ-Jul-2010-0127
 BFJ on driving out cost within the supply chain has often distracted them from focusing on
115,6 the needs of the marketplace. For the majority of food commodity producers,
investment in packaging design remains limited for a variety of interrelated issues
such as increased costs in logistics and packaging technology, the enforcement of strict
regulatory controls, the largely undifferentiated nature of the product and high volume
production typically associated with commodity food markets (Lockamy, 1995;
900 McCune, 1998).
Food commodity producers can no longer be complacent in relying on a consumer’s
habitual buying behaviour to sustain future sales. Rather, these producers need to begin
to act like branded products in order to compete (Stanton and Herbst, 2005). Subsequently,
packaging design plays a key role in enhancing a brand as it can assist in influencing a
consumer’s decision-making process at the point of purchase in-store (Silayoi and Speece,
2007). This paper aims to identify consumer attitudes towards the packaging design of a
food commodity and explores the possible benefits commodity producers to invest in
Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 07:14 29 October 2018 (PT)

packaging design. This paper addresses the following objectives to:

.
place the research in the context of the Northern Ireland (NI) agri-food industry;
.
briefly review the literature relating to packaging design;
.
investigate consumer attitudes and perceptions towards the packaging design of
a food commodity; and
.
discuss the findings with regard to their managerial implications.

Research context: the Northern Ireland market

The NI agri-food and drinks industry is of crucial importance to the future growth and
economic success of the region. This industry alone accounted for 18.2 per cent of the
region’s total manufacturing sales in 2006, determining it to be the largest contributor
to sales within the manufacturing sector (DARD, 2008). Despite such optimistic figures,
the total gross turnover of the NI food and drinks processing sector was estimated to
have decreased by 0.7 per cent from £2.510 million in 2005 to £2.494 million in 2006
(DARD, 2008). This downturn in total gross turnover was considered to have resulted
in a decrease in the value sales of the following sub-sectors poultry meat
(2 £21.7million) and milk/milk products (2 £7.9 million) (DARD, 2008). However,
due to the level of grass based farming (26,146 farms) and the number of dairy farmers
(3,619 dairy farmers) in Northern Ireland this study will focus specifically on the liquid
milk market.
The outcome of such economic estimates presented the issue of maintaining
long-term sustainability at an adequate level of profitability. Therefore, the
government advised in The Fit for Market report (Food Strategy Group, 2004) that
food commodities need to be market orientated, meeting the needs and concerns of
today’s marketplace. Within recent years, the liquid milk sector has come under severe
scrutiny due to the industries’ reported lack of consumer focus (Franks, 2003).
Moreover, industry reports have identified the barriers facing demand for liquid milk
which are a lack of innovation, consumers’ misconceptions of the fat content of milk,
the decline of doorstep delivery, a lack of strong milk brands, the poor image of milk
and the lack of advertising and promotion of milk (DSCF, 2005; CEAS, 2004; Milk Task
Force, 2001). Therefore, by placing milk where consumers are apt to drink it, with
attractive functional packaging and combined with image building marketing – a
 higher price can then be commanded for the product, which, in turn will justify the Thinking outside
initial investment costs (Dryer, 1998). the carton
This issue of investment in marketing is a necessary strategy for survival in today’s
marketplace, as milk is now competing within the beverage market alongside soft
drinks, bottled water, juices and smoothies. Hence it is essential that marketers invest
the creation of milk as a beverage option (Phillips and Berry, 2002). Thus, literature
calls for more consumer led research into liquid milk in order to enhance marketing 901
operations through added value products, increased margins and by stimulating
demand (Pattisson and Lindgreen, 2004; Grant, 1995). This research proposes to
explore consumer attitudes towards liquid milk packaging to assist producers in
identifying packaging opportunities, which will contribute to a growth in the sector’s
commercial value.
Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 07:14 29 October 2018 (PT)

Packaging design
The basic function of packaging is to “preserve product integrity” by protecting the
actual food product against potential damage from “climatic, bacteriological and
transit hazards” (Stewart, 1995). Whilst packaging is clearly used for more than simply
logistic and technical purpose, the majority of research to date has focused primarily
on the technical aspects of food packaging design in regard to prolonging shelf life and
enhancing food safety (Petersen et al., 1999; Barth and Zhuang, 1996; Brown, 1992).
Products are developed to, and indeed are expected by consumers to taste good;
therefore it is not surprising that consumers will increasingly make their initial choices
based on aesthetic value (Bloch et al., 2003; Schmitt and Simonson, 1997; Dumaine,
1991). Although packaging appears to be a relatively minor concept within the overall
brand strategy, time pressed consumers actually rely more on indirect indicators to
replace “real” product quality cues when completing their purchase decision (Vazquez
et al., 2000; Olsen, 1972). Furthermore, Schiffman and Kanuk (2004) believe a pack
should signal its relevance to the needs and wants of its target consumers, while
creating conditions “that encourage the consumer to lower their psychological
defences” and become interested in the product (Green, 1986). Reinforcing this point,
research conducted by Marshall (2003) found that consumers do “not make choices on
the basis of taste alone”; consequently product “comparisons come down to marketing,
not just sensory evaluation”. Thus, the question commonly faced by many food
commodity producers is how to distinguish or differentiate their product from
competing products.
Pilditch (1957) was the first to define packs as the “silent salesman”, arguing that
the pack must come alive at the point of purchase, so as to represent the salesman
(Vazquez et al., 2000). Thirty years later, Lewis expanded further on Pilditch’s views,
stating that “good packaging is far more than a salesman, it is a flag of recognition and
a symbol of values”. The design characteristics of packaging need to stand out in a
display of many other offerings (Silayoi and Speece, 2004), communicating to the target
consumer (Nancarrow et al., 1998) and creating a perceptual differentiation from other
product offerings in the category (Herrington and Capella, 1995). Such benefits of
packaging highlight a potential opportunity for food commodity producers to further
develop their packaging as a means for increasing the commercial value of their
products. Current literature evaluating packaging design unanimously reports that
despite its importance, “communication is the function that is most under-used or
 BFJ badly used in packaging” (Behaeghel, 1991, cited by Southgate, 1994). Lach (1999)
asserts that two out of every three supermarket food purchases, are decided at the
115,6 point of purchase. Therefore, these findings present food commodity producers with an
opportunity to utilise point of purchase stimulus as a mechanism for increasing its
commercial value. However, despite the fact that packaging design is fast becoming
recognised as the primary vehicle for communication and branding in the world of food
902 retail (Rettie and Brewer, 2002), there is still limited research into the influence of
packaging and the crucial role of packaging design in the product development process
(Rundh, 2009; Orth and Malkewitz, 2008; Underwood et al., 2001). The majority of
literature to date has focused on elements of packaging design for example, colour,
branding, labelling, shape. However little research has been undertaken to address the
holistic attributes of packaging for a single product.
As limited research has been conducted into consumer attitudes towards
commodity food packaging, this study seeks to investigate consumer attitudes
Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 07:14 29 October 2018 (PT)

towards liquid milk packaging currently available in Northern Ireland. In order to

assess consumer attitudes, the study focus will be upon three aspects of packaging
design which are summarised as follows:
.
form;
.
function; and
.
appearance (Underwood and Klein, 2002).

The form of the packaging relates to the actual design of the packaging in terms of its
size, shape and features. The function of the packaging relates to technical features of
the packaging such as the opening and resealing, the packaging material, leakage and
protection and whether the packaging is recyclable. Whilst the appearance of the
packaging relates to communicative properties such as the branding, images/pictures,
colour, descriptors and nutritional labelling.

Methodology
As the purpose of this study is to explore the phenomenon of consumer attitudes and
perceptions towards packaging within the liquid milk category, a qualitative research
design was employed. Threfall (1999) highlights the value of focus groups within the
context of qualitative marketing research by stating that, “focus groups tend to capture
the symbolic interactionist perspective often lost in interviewing and yet find the
meanings and multiple realities which exist within the group dynamics”(p. 105).
Despite criticism of the value of focus group research throughout academic literature
this method is useful for capturing consumers real life motivations, attitudes of a new
or unexplored topic (Carson et al., 2001). Within this research focus groups will be
carried out to explore consumers attitudes and perceptions towards packaging.
Findings of this research will be used to inform measures within a consumer survey.
To assist the discussion within each focus group the projective technique known as
product handling was implemented. This involved each focus group being shown the
various types of milk packaging currently available within Northern Ireland whereby
consumers were then asked to discuss their views in relation to the packaging.
McDonagh et al. (2002) utilised the technique of visual product evaluation within focus
groups to elicit participant’s perceptions and aspirations towards a product. They
argue that the technique of product evaluation enables practitioners to bridge the gap
 between product functionality and the emotional bond with the product. Within each Thinking outside
focus group, eight types of milk packaging were shown and are described as follows: the carton
.
30 ml on-the go carton with straw;
. 1 pint plastic carton;
.
1 pint cardboard carton;
.
1 pint glass bottle; 903
.
1 litre cardboard 1 per cent fat milk;
.
2 litres plastic clear plastic container;
.
2 litres white plastic container; and a
.
3 litres translucent plastic carton.
Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 07:14 29 October 2018 (PT)

Six focus groups were conducted consisting of between six-to-eight participants. In

recruiting participants for each focus group, purposive sampling was undertaken to
ensure that the appropriate composition of participants for each group had been chosen
(Langford and McDonagh, 2003; Morgan, 1998). A recruitment matrix was developed
to determine the type of participants needing to be recruited based on key
characteristics. The recruitment matrix (Table I) segments categories of participants
based on key the characteristics of gender, residential location, age and socio- grouping
and their level of milk usage.
First, upon conducting desk research, the majority of grocery purchases in Northern
Ireland were made by females however an increasing number of male counterparts are
also becoming involved in this responsibility (IGD Retail Analysis, 2007). Second, focus
groups were based on the level of milk purchased to assist understanding different
experiences and perspectives on the product for those with a greater and lesser
involvement with the product (Bradley, 1982; Morgan, 1998). Therefore participants
were classified as follows: a light user who only purchased up to 1 litre of milk per
week and a heavy user who purchased more than 1 litre of milk per week. Third,
residential location was used as a basis for segmenting the groups as NI is known for
its strong agricultural background, therefore rural participants may have stronger
emotional affiliations with the product than those urban participants. In defining the
term urban, it included any participant living within a five-mile radius of a city. In
defining a rural dweller, the term included those living in areas five-to-ten miles from a
city not including large population centres or towns. Fourth, three broad age brackets
were chosen; 18-26, 27-45, and 46-60, as participants would be at different life stages
and therefore may encounter different issues or experiences. Finally, participants were

Focus group Gender User status Location Age Socio-economic grouping

1 Female Light Urban 44-60 A; B; C1

2 Female Heavy Urban 26-45 A; B; C1
3 Female Light Rural 18-26 C2; D; E
4 Female Heavy Rural 44-60 C2; D; E
5 Male Light Urban 26-45 C2; D; E Table I.
6 Male Heavy Rural 46-60 A; B; C1 Recruitment matrix
 BFJ identified based on their socio-economic grouping based on the social grade definitions
115,6 given by the Market Research Society (2005). Group one was classified as under the
socio-economic grouping A, B and C1 and lower earning brackets were classified under
the socio-economic groupings C2, D and E.
Once developing the recruitment matrix a screening questionnaire was designed
and used to determine participant eligibility for the study (Morgan, 1998). Through the
904 questionnaire process a total sample of 33 participants were recruited. Data was
analysed using QSR NVivo (v.7.0) within which the elements of packaging design were
used as thematic headings. In doing so, participant’s comments relating to the elements
of the packaging could be highlighted and further discussed.

Findings
Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 07:14 29 October 2018 (PT)

Findings are discussed in relation to participants’ favourable and unfavourable

attitudes towards the form, function and appearance of current milk packaging.

Form
Several research studies have reported that the size, shape and elongation of a
product’s packaging influences the consumer’s judgement and purchase decision
(Silayoi and Speece, 2004; Raghubir and Krishna, 1999; Prendergast and Marr, 1997).
Results revealed that the majority of heavy users showed a preference for larger pack
sizes as it was more convenient for the household however as pack size increased so
did the level of consumption within the household. One heavy user stated that, “The
only thing is they drink more when you buy more!” (4). For those participants classified
as light users, findings revealed they preferred to purchase two small cartons of milk
as opposed to one large carton; “The most I would ever buy would be a litre. Sometimes
I buy two pints so I haven’t broken the seal of the second pint and I think it will be
fresher then” (1).
One of the primary concerns regarding packaging shape was whether the
packaging fitted easily into the refrigerator and was able to be stored with minimal
hassle. With, the majority of milk packages discussed, all were found to overcome this
issue apart from packaging containing 3 litres of milk, “I hate those big bulky ones
because sometimes the door of your fridge won’t accommodate that” (1). Furthermore,
all users found the shape of the milk container to be awkward and difficult to use when
pouring the product. Participants highlighted a need to improve milk packaging so
that the product can be poured easily without causing any wastage or spillage; “You
need two hands to use it; one under the bottom and one on top to pour it.” (2).
Positive attitudes were displayed by the majority of participants regarding the
product feature of the inbuilt handle found on all the plastic milk containers. Results
indicated that participants liked this feature as it made the product easier to lift and
carry when making a purchase and when using it at home. However, the majority of
female participants expressed concerns that typically milk packaging is not
child-friendly. Discussions surrounding the risk and danger of a child handling the
packaging themselves were articulated; “I don’t think milk is very child friendly in
general due to its heaviness and difficulty in opening the bottle sure it’s not? It’s not
something you’d say to your child go get yourself a glass of milk” (2).
 Function Thinking outside
The function of packaging primarily relates to logistics whereby the product can be the carton
distributed and protected until it is ready to be used. Throughout the focus groups,
discussion centred on the ease of opening and resealing the product and the packaging
material.
Findings relating to the opening and resealing of packaging highlighted that the
majority of participants displayed a positive attitude towards the plastic milk 905
containers as their screw top cap meant the product could be resealed and kept fresher.
Despite the general acceptance of the plastic screw top carton, some participants voiced
concern as to whether the packaging was senior friendly due to difficulty regarding
strength and grip required in opening the package; “The plastic one can be awkward to
unscrew at the top. I have to always look for someone to open it for me.” (4); “I think
older people find them difficult to open.” (3). For the majority of participants, keeping
the product fresh and storing the product was of primary concern. Therefore
Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 07:14 29 October 2018 (PT)

discussions surrounding the inability to reseal the cardboard cartons indicated that
participants displayed a negative attitude to the functionality of the cardboard
packaging; “But then the cartons don’t seal properly at least the plastic cartons you can
seal them to keep the milk fresh.” (3).
The outcome of discussions surrounding packaging material used within the liquid
milk sector centred around three types of material: glass, cardboard and plastic. Within
the focus groups the majority of participants reminisced about a time when only glass
milk bottles were used before the introduction of plastic and cardboard containers. A
few participants shared their initial resistance to such change in milk packaging but
that over time, they have accepted this new type of packaging which is now
commonplace within the milk category; “I remember when we first changed from the
glass bottles to the plastic and initially I thought oh goodness it didn’t really look the
best but then after a while you got used to it.” (4).
Despite a general preference for glass packaging, some participants did highlight a
few disadvantages with the glass packaging as it is heavier than the plastic containers
and involved having to wash out the bottle after its use. Cardboard was viewed
negatively by the majority of participants revealing that only a few participants would
occasionally purchase this form of packaging. Participants’ main concerns
surrounding cardboard packaging were threefold: first, it did not keep the product
as fresh as other forms of packaging; second, participants associated it with UHT
treated milks and third, they could not see the product through the packaging; “I think
I would just associate those cartons with UHT treated milk. Also you can’t see it” (2).
Interestingly participants highlighted that if they could not see the product through the
packaging it meant they had to trust that the packaging contained a safe product. This
fear of uncertainty was further discussed by participants in relation to a new brand of
milk currently introduced in the Northern Ireland marketplace, whereby the brand was
sold in a plastic white container in which the product cannot be seen. The majority of
participants displayed a negative attitude towards the packaging because they feared
the unknown contents of the package and also, because they associated the packaging
with household cleaning products; “It doesn’t look like milk. I could take it home, open
it and it could come out green or black. You know you like to see what you’re getting.”
(3); “It looks like something you’d have in your toilet.” (6). Findings highlighted that the
majority of participants favoured the plastic milk containers as they were more durable
 BFJ than the glass and had less risk of breaking. Participants agreed that the plastic
115,6 containers were less likely to leak due to the screw top cap and the product itself was
better protected than when in the cardboard or glass packaging; “I prefer the plastic
bottle because its easy to store and if the kids are getting out of the fridge it’s if they
drop it it’s not going to split open so its safer.” (4).

906 Appearance
Underwood et al. (2001) highlight the use of packaging appearance as a vehicle of
communication for engaging consumers at the point of purchase, therefore the findings
discussed will relate to brand, imagery, colour and product descriptors.
With regards to brand, findings revealed that participants displayed a limited
knowledge and awareness of available brand names associated with milk. However,
the reason for this could be twofold: firstly that there is a limited range of milk brands
Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 07:14 29 October 2018 (PT)

currently on the NI marketplace and secondly the dominance of retailer own-branded

milk within the category. Moreover, participants’ lack of brand awareness within the
category indicated that the majority of participants viewed the product as a commodity
and a household necessity therefore the product brand name did not play a key role in
influencing their purchase decision; “I wouldn’t really be bothered what brand it is. If
it’s milk it’s going to be milk” (2). Throughout each group only two milk brands were
mentioned; one being a national brand and the latter a regional brand, however
participant’s perceptions of both brands varied. The majority of participants positively
received the regional brand highlighting that they were familiar with and trusted the
product as the brand name assured them that the origin of the product was locally
produced. In contrast, the majority of participants were uncertain about the national
milk brand as they did not know the origin of the milk and the distance the product had
travelled; “you don’t know how far it’s travelled to get into your local store” (3).
In relation to the images and pictures found on the milk packaging, findings
revealed that participants displayed a range of views. For the majority of heavy users
the images such as a picture of a cow or pictures of the countryside reinforced the
origin and the naturalness of the product in the mind of the participants. However, a
few heavy users discussed the unnecessary need for any images on milk packaging as
the product had become so familiar to them and is considered a common household
item; “I wouldn’t really care if there is a picture of a cow on the milk or not because its
milk and we all know it comes from a cow!” (2). Surprisingly for a few participants
classified as light users, the use of images was identified as an area of milk packaging
that could be greatly improved. For the majority of light users the images on milk
packaging were associated with words such as “boring”, “bland”, “dated” and
“uninspiring” (5,3). Findings also revealed that the use of images can stimulate
participant curiosity and interest in the product. This was evidenced by participant
reaction to a new milk package recently introduced onto the marketplace by a regional
branded company. Participants liked the modern image whereby a photograph of milk
being poured into a glass made the product look appetising; “Because it shows the milk
in a glass on the front it makes you want a glass – doesn’t it, more so than a cow image
on that container” (3).
Throughout all the focus groups, findings highlighted that the colour was typically
used to dictate the type of milk a consumer will purchase. Participants highlighted the
usefulness of generic colours such as blue and green to assist in differentiating the type
 of milk (whole, semi-skimmed or skimmed) within a purchase. However, they found the Thinking outside
colour of milk packaging had become too standardised as there was nothing new or the carton
interesting to stimulate their purchase decision. This finding was reinforced when
participants were shown a new purple coloured milk packaging introduced on the NI
marketplace. This packaging stimulated much discussion emphasising that the
majority of participants favoured this packaging as they found the purple colour
attractive and different from the standard milk colours; “Well I do really like the purple 907
because you’re eye is really drawn to it because you are just so used to the blue and the
green. It makes me think oh that’s different” (2). Findings relating to the descriptors on
milk packaging highlighted that the majority of participants would not typically ever
read this type of packaging information. Few participants claimed only to read such
descriptors if they had to seek alternative milk or if the one they typically bought was
out of stock. Furthermore, findings identified that the majority of participants did not
read the nutritional labelling on milk as they expected the nature of the product to
Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 07:14 29 October 2018 (PT)

remain unchanged and therefore found it unnecessary to read. “I don’t have time to
stand in the store and compare them and you don’t really need to as they are much of a
muchness” (2). However, for a small minority of participants who did read the
nutritional labelling on milk, they focused on assessing the percentage of fat found
within the product content.

Discussion
From these findings it is evident that many of the results concur with prior research
within this area our findings will be discussed in relation to the form, function and
appearance of packaging.

Form
Research has found that consumers appeared to use the elements of size and shape to
make volume judgements – simplifying the verbal and visual components of the
packaging (Silayoi and Speece, 2004). Taking into account both the findings from this
study and the context of this research whereby the country has witnessed an increase
in the number of one person households, opportunities exist for producers to develop
packaging which contains a smaller quantity of milk which will be purchased more
frequently (Darby, 2005). In terms of packaging shape, findings reinforced the
possibility of decreasing the packaging size in order to assist the consumer when using
the product. By developing new forms of packaging, which enable the consumer to use
the product more effectively, a point of differentiation within the product’s proposition
may be achieved to gain a competitive advantage. Findings relating to packaging
features highlighted the opportunity for producers to develop packaging which will
enable children to engage with the product, whether this is through designing smaller
pack sizes or investing in other packaging design features.

Function
The function of milk packaging was favourably discussed, with participants
preferring a carton that can be resealed. Although some participants raised issues
regarding the ease of opening the product. However, due to the rise of an ageing
population in NI it is imperative that the functionality of milk packaging is of primary
consideration for the future of the liquid milk sector in order to maintain long-term
 BFJ commercial value (National Statistics, 2006). Findings relating to packaging materials
115,6 indicate that while the introductory phase of a new packaging technology may
experience consumer resistance to change, over time as packaging becomes more
commonplace acceptance of the new technology can be achieved. Therefore while there
is an initial financial risk in developing more innovative forms of packaging,
investment in new packaging technologies could harvest future rewards.
908
Appearance
Findings discussed the lack of brand loyalty among commodity milk consumers
however, it could be argued that due to the lack of investment in branding within the
liquid milk sector – consumers have not had the opportunity to develop deep
emotional associations with a brand. Furthermore, in a study on branding industrial
products, findings revealed that branding can assist a company in enhancing their
Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 07:14 29 October 2018 (PT)

reputation and offer more scope for competitive advantage while generating consumer
confidence within a purchase decision (Michell et al., 2001). Only one participant
purchased the national branded milk as they considered it to be of superior quality
compared to other milk brands and were willing to pay a price premium when making
a purchase. These findings reinforce the benefits of branding liquid milk products as
they can create awareness and positive associations in the mind of the consumer
(Rossiter and Percy, 1997).
Aligned to findings by Pieters and Warlop (1999) our findings suggest that some
participants use the images or pictorial information on packaging as a decision
heuristic in order to save time within their purchase. Furthermore, some researchers
argue that visual pictures provide “concrete information”, which is more influential
during the decision-making process than the information given in text format
(Alesandrini and Sheikh, 1983; Nisbett et al., 1976). As Underwood et al. (2001)
proposed, consumers are more likely to imagine how a product “looks, tastes, feels,
smells, or sounds” while they are examining a visual picture on the product packaging,
therefore these findings indicate that opportunities exist for enhancing the images on
milk packaging to enable the consumer to associate the image with the products
sensory attributes.
Furthermore, in terms of branding colour can be utilised to identify product
attributes, subsequently influencing their perceptions about price and product quality
(Kerfoot et al., 2003). While findings indicated that the colour of milk packaging was a
useful decision heuristic to guide purchasing decisions when in-store, participants felt
the product was too standardised. Research conducted by Neal et al. (2002) also
revealed that a brightly coloured package is likely to draw more attention than a duller
version. Ricks (1983) does warn that an inappropriate choice of packaging colours may
also lead to strategic failure (Ricks, 1983). But colour is the least expensive way for food
commodity producers to change the image of a product’s packaging (Parmar, 2004).
While the majority of participants did not use nutritional labelling or health claims
to guide their decision prior research Wansink and Ittersum (2003) suggested that
peripheral cues, such as product descriptors, have a tremendous influence on a
consumer’s evaluation of a product’s taste. From this discussion it is evident that the
findings of this study identified various opportunities within the area of packaging
design, which food commodity producers could utilise to increase the commercial value
of their product.
 Management implications Thinking outside
In light of this study, findings signal the importance of utilising packaging as a the carton
platform for market planning in terms of segmentation, targeting and positioning.
Given the typical homogenous nature of commodity packaging, the increasing time
pressure on consumers when making their purchase decisions and the rising trends for
individuality, packaging design offers food commodity producers the opportunity to
become more market orientated. Therefore, overall analysis has demonstrated the 909
growing importance of packaging as a marketing tool for increasing a products
commercial value.
It was evident that packaging research to date has focused predominately on
extrinsic attributes and little or no research had been conducted to consider how
consumers perceive these attributes. Although there were positive attitudes towards
milk packaging in relation to the products’ form and functionality, there was an overall
consensus of negativity towards milk packaging. Findings exhibited particular
Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 07:14 29 October 2018 (PT)

emphasis on the communicative aspects of the packaging with participants stating

that milk packaging was bland, unexciting and undifferentiated. This highlights the
necessity for further improvements with packaging design for such products.
Findings revealed that while milk packaging exhibited strong utilitarian function,
its use as a mechanism for marketing communications at the point of sale remains
underdeveloped. Packaging design is not merely to “make things pretty” or to “provide
the right psychological conditions” to encourage consumers to purchase (Green, 1986),
rather its aim is to segment a market and target particular consumers. The study has
revealed the limited use of packaging design as a marketing tool within the liquid milk
sector. Furthermore, given the increasing level of competition within the drinks and
beverage category and the global crisis of low commodity milk prices, this study
advises that investment in packaging design can provide a route to long-term survival.

Conclusion
Due to the exploratory nature of this study the results provide a foundation for future
research in an area of growing theoretical and practical importance. In deepening an
understanding of the milk consumer the second stage of this study will be conducted
using quantitative approaches. However this paper does provide a useful insight into
the utilisation of packaging design as a marketing tool.

References
Alesandrini, K.L. and Sheikh, A. (1983), “Research on imagery: applications to advertising”,
in Sheikh, A. (Ed.), Imagery: Current Theory and Applications, John Wiley & Sons, New
York, NY, pp. 535-556.
Barth, M. and Zhuang, H. (1996), “Packaging design affects antioxidant vitamin retention and
quality of broccoli florets during postharvest storage”, Postharvest Biology and
Technology, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 141-150.
Behaeghel, J. (1991), Brand Packaging: The Permanent Medium, Architecture Design and
Technology Press, London.
Bloch, P.H., Brunel, F.F. and Arnold, T.J. (2003), “Individual differences in the centrality of visual
product aesthetics: concept and measurement”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29
No. 4, pp. 551-565.
Bradley, U. (1982), Applied Marketing and Social Research, Van Nostrand Reinhold, London.
 BFJ Brown, W.E. (1992), Plastics in Food Packaging: Properties, Design and Fabrication, Marcel
Dekker, New York, NY.
115,6
Carson, D., Gilmore, A., Perry, C. and Gronhaug, K. (2001), Qualitative Marketing Research, Sage
Publications, London.
CEAS – Agra Consulting (2004), October 2004-last update, Desktop study into demand for dairy
products – Final report for Dairy Supply Chain Forum, available at: www.ceasc.com.
910 Dairy Supply Chain Forum (DSCF) (2005), Barriers to Innovation in the UK Dairy Industry:
A Qualitative Study, Consortium, Milk Development Council, UK.
Darby, S. (2005), “Background Document I: Population and household statistics”, Environmental
Change Institute, University of Oxford, available at: www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/energy/
downloads/40house/background_doc_j.pdf
Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) (2008), Size and Performance of the
Northern Ireland Food and Drinks Processing Sector, Subsector Statistics 2005 with
Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 07:14 29 October 2018 (PT)

Provisional Estimates for 2006, 7th ed., pp. 1-4, Policy and Economics Division 2007.
Dryer, J. (1998), “Can milk be niched?”, Dairy Foods, Vol. 99 No. 10, pp. 31-41.
Dumaine, B. (1991), “Design that sells and sells”, Fortune, Vol. 11, pp. 86-94.
Food Strategy Group (2004), Fit for Market, Food Strategy Group, UK.
Franks, J. (2003), “Current issues in marketing organic milk in the UK”, British Food Journal,
Vol. 105 No. 6, pp. 350-363.
Grant, H. (1995), “The challenge of operating in the new Europe: case study – the dairy sector”,
British Food Journal, Vol. 97 No. 6, pp. 36-38.
Green, W.R. (1986), The Retail Store: Design & Construction, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.
Herrington, J.D. and Capella, L.M. (1995), “Shopper reactions to perceived time pressure”,
International Journal of Retail and Distribution, Vol. 23 No. 12, pp. 13-21.
IGD Retail Analysis (2007), Fit Food Market: Attitudes to Northern Irish Foods, Food Strategy
Implementation Group, Northern Ireland.
Kerfoot, S., Davies, B. and Ward, P. (2003), “Visual merchandising and the creation of discernible
retail brands”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 31 No. 3,
pp. 143-152.
Lach, J. (1999), “Meet you in aisle three”, American Demographics, April, Issue 41.
Langford, J. and McDonagh, D. (2003), Focus Groups: Supporting Effective Product Development,
Taylor & Francis, London.
Lockamy, A. (1995), “A conceptual framework for assessing strategic packaging decisions”,
International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, 7th edition.
McCune, J.C. (1998), “Tough sell: commodity products”, Management Review, Vol. 87 No. 10,
pp. 45-51.
McDonagh, D., Bruseburg, A. and Halsam, C. (2002), “Visual product evaluation: exploring users’
emotional relationships with products”, Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 231-240.
Market Research Society (2005), “Code of conduct”, available at: www.mrs.org.uk/standards/
codeconduct.htm
Marshall, D. (2003), “Commentary on Garber et al. measuring consumer response to food
products”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 17-21.
Michell, P., King, J. and Reast, J. (2001), “Brand values related to industrial products”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 415-425.
Milk Task Force (2001), Milk Task Force Report, Milk Task Force, DEFRA, London, December.
 Morgan, D. (1998), Planning Focus Groups, Sage Publications, London. Thinking outside
Nancarrow, C., Wright, L.T. and Brace, I. (1998), “Gaining competitive advantage from the carton
packaging and labelling in marketing communications”, British Food Journal, Vol. 100
No. 2, pp. 110-120.
National Statistics (2006), available at: www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/
PopTrends126.pdf
Neal, C.M., Quester, P.G. and Hawkins, D.I. (2002), Consumer Behaviour: Implications for 911
Marketing Strategy, 3rd ed., McGraw Hill, Roseville, NSW.
Nisbett, R.E., Borgida, E., Crandall, R. and Reed, H. (1976), “Popular indication: information is not
necessarily informative”, in Carrol, J.B. and Payne, J.W. (Eds), Cognition and Social
Behavior, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Olsen, J.C. (1972), “Cue utilisation in the quality perception process: a cognitive model and an
empirical test”, unpublished doctoral thesis, Purdue University, Lafayette, IN.
Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 07:14 29 October 2018 (PT)

Orth, R. and Malkewitz, K. (2008), “Holistic package design and consumer brand impressions”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 72 No. 3, pp. 64-81.
Parmar, A. (2004), “Marketers ask: hues on first?”, Marketing News, pp. 8-10, 15 February.
Pattisson, N. and Lindgreen, A. (2004), “Successes and failures in the dairy industry: South west
England and North West France”, British Food Journal, Vol. 106 Nos 6/7, pp. 422-435.
Petersen, K., Nielsen, P., Bertelsen, G., Lawther, O.M., Nilsson, M. and Mortensen, G. (1999),
“Potential of biobased materials for food packaging”, Trends in Food Science
& Technology, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 52-68.
Phillips, D. and Berry, D. (2002), “Is it a beverage yet?”, Dairy Foods, Vol. 103 No. 2, pp. 35-41.
Pieters, R. and Warlop, L. (1999), “Visual attention during brand choice: the impact of time
pressure”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Pilditch, J. (1957), The Silent Salesman, Harper and Row, London.
Prendergast, G.P. 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.
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. 313-326.
Rettie, R. and Brewer, C. (2002), “The verbal and visual components of package design”, Journal
of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 56-70.
Ricks, D.A. (1983), Big Business Blunders: Mistakes in Multinational Marketing, Dow Jones-Irwin,
Homewood, IL.
Rod, S. (1990), “Packaging as a retail marketing tool”, International Journal of Physical
Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 20 No. 8, pp. 29-30.
Rossiter, J.R. and Percy, L. (1997), Advertising and Promotion Management, McGraw-Hill, New
York, NY.
Rundh, B. (2009), “Packaging design: creating competitive advantage with product packaging”,
British Food Journal, Vol. 111 No. 9, pp. 988-1002.
Schiffman, L. and Kanuk, L.L. (2004), Consumer Behaviour, 7th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Schmitt, B.H. and Simonson, A. (1997), Marketing Aesthetics: The Strategic Management of
Brands, Identity and Image, Free Press, New York, NY.
Silayoi, P. and Speece, M. (2007), “The importance of packaging attributes: a cojoint analysis
approach”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41 Nos 11/12, pp. 1495-1517.
 BFJ Silayoi, P. and Speece, M. (2004), “Packaging and purchase decisions”, British Food Journal,
Vol. 106 No. 8, pp. 607-628.
115,6 Southgate, P. (1994), Total Branding by Design, Biddles Ltd, Guildford and Kings Lynn.
Stanton, J. and Herbst, K.C. (2005), “Commodities must begin to act like branded companies:
some perspectives from the United States”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 21
Nos 1/2, pp. 7-18.
912 Stewart, B. (1995), Packaging as an Effective Marketing Tool, Pira International, UK.
Threfall, K.D. (1999), “Using focus groups as a consumer research tool”, Journal of Marketing
Practice: Applied Marketing Science, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 102-105.
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. 58-68.
Underwood, R.L., Klein, N.M. and Burke, R.R. (2001), “Packaging communication: attentional
Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 07:14 29 October 2018 (PT)

effects of product imagery”, The Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 10 No. 7,
pp. 403-422.
Vazquez, D., Bruce, M. and Studd, R. (2000), “A case study exploring the packaging design
management process within a UK food retailer”, British Food Journal, Vol. 105 No. 9,
pp. 20-31.
Wansink, B. and Ittersum, K. (2003), “Bottoms up! The influence of elongation on pouring and
consumption volume”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 30, pp. 455-463.

Further reading
Bruseberg, A. and McDonagh, D. (2001), “New product development by eliciting user experience
and aspirations”, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 55 No. 4,
pp. 435-452.
Rundh, B. (2005), “The multi-faceted dimension of packaging: marketing logistic or marketing
tool?”, British Food Journal, Vol. 107 No. 9, pp. 670-684.
Wansink, B. (1996), “Can package size accelerate usage volume”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60
No. 3, pp. 1-14.

About the authors

Dr Lynsey Hollywood is a Research Fellow in Healthy Foods, School of Biological Sciences,
Queen’s University Belfast. Dr Lynsey Hollywood is the corresponding author and can be
contacted at: l.hollywood@qub.ac.uk
Dr Laura Wells works in the private sector.
Dr Gillian Armstrong is Head of the Department of Accounting, Business and Management
Research Institute, University of Ulster.
Heather Farley is Head of the Department of Management, University of Ulster.

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

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

1. Yiqiang Fan, Hongliang Wang, Shicheng Liu, Boyang Zhang, Yajun Zhang. 2018. Milk carton with
integrated paper-based microfluidics for milk quality rapid test. Journal of Food Safety 17, e12548.
[Crossref]
2. BahrainizadManijeh, Manijeh Bahrainizad, RajabiAzadeh, Azadeh Rajabi. 2018. Consumers’ perception
of usability of product packaging and impulse buying. Journal of Islamic Marketing 9:2, 262-282.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. RibeiroAna Paula Lima, Ana Paula Lima Ribeiro, CarneiroJoão de Deus Souza, João de Deus Souza
Carneiro, De Melo RamosThaís, Thaís De Melo Ramos, PattersonLaura, Laura Patterson, PintoSandra
Maria, Sandra Maria Pinto. 2018. Determining how packaging and labeling of Requeijão cheese affects the
purchase behavior of consumers of different age groups. British Food Journal 120:6, 1183-1194. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
4. Jarosław Świda, Michał Halagarda, Stanisław Popek. 2018. Perceptions of older consumers regarding food
Downloaded by IQRA UNIVERSITY At 07:14 29 October 2018 (PT)

packaging as a prerequisite for its improvement: A case study of Polish market. International Journal of
Consumer Studies 42:3, 358-366. [Crossref]
5. Ahmad Mumani, Richard Stone. 2018. State of the art of user packaging interaction (UPI). Packaging
Technology and Science 28. . [Crossref]
6. HamlinRobert P., Robert P. Hamlin, GinMichael, Michael Gin, NyhofFiona, Fiona Nyhof, BogueJoe,
Joe Bogue. 2017. Package graphic design development. British Food Journal 119:9, 1953-1968. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
7. SöderlundMagnus, Magnus Söderlund, CollianderJonas, Jonas Colliander, KarsbergJohn, John Karsberg,
LiljedalKarina T., Karina T. Liljedal, ModigErik, Erik Modig, RosengrenSara, Sara Rosengren,
SagfossenSofie, Sofie Sagfossen, SzugalskiStefan, Stefan Szugalski, ÅkestamNina, Nina Åkestam. 2017.
The allure of the bottle as a package: an assessment of perceived effort in a packaging context. Journal of
Product & Brand Management 26:1, 91-100. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
8. CLINTON L. NEILL, RYAN B. WILLIAMS. 2016. CONSUMER PREFERENCE FOR
ALTERNATIVE MILK PACKAGING: THE CASE OF AN INFERRED ENVIRONMENTAL
ATTRIBUTE. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 48:03, 241-256. [Crossref]
9. Carl Olsmats, Birgitta Nilsson, Sandra Pousette. 2015. Perceptions of Sustainability and Functional
Aspects on Liquid Carton Board Packaging Materials versus Competing Materials for Juice Applications
in Sweden. Beverages 1:3, 194-203. [Crossref]
10. Fredrik Fernqvist, Annika Olsson, Sara Spendrup. 2015. What’s in it for me? Food packaging and
consumer responses, a focus group study. British Food Journal 117:3, 1122-1135. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
11. 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. . [Crossref]