Drašković, N., Temperley, J., Vignali, C. (2011.) Communicative Dimensions of Packaging and

Consumer Perception, International Consumer Behaviour: A Mosaic of Eclective Perspectives –

Handbook on International Consumer Behaviour, ur. In: Kaufmann, H.R., Access Press UK,

Lancashire, ISBN 978-0-9562471-3-1, str. 175-190.

Communicative Dimensions of Packaging and Consumer Perception

Nikola Draskovic Leeds Metropolitan University, UK

nikola.draskovic@kr.t-com.hr

John Temperley Leeds Metropolitan University, UK

Claudio Vignali

Leeds Metropolitan University, UK

1. Abstract

Consumer packaging is a medium between producer and consumer. Within marketing literature packaging is usually considered a part of the product strategy or a product related category within the traditional 4Ps. Due to changes within marketing communications’ budgets, increased product buying decisions at the point of purchase and management recognition of the volume of packaging as an element of differentiation, packaging is becoming an increasingly important factor from the marketing perspective. Packaging communicates various marketing messages via its communicative dimensions which consist of the following elements: packaging shape, packaging size, packaging colour, packaging material, carried information, graphic applications (e.g. brand logo, fonts, pictorials, etc.). All of these elements together communicate various marketing messages to the consumer in both the purchase and consumption phases. The message that the consumer receives is a combination of particular messages carried by the communicative dimensions of packaging.

Packaging perception takes place at two points – the point of purchase and the point of consumption. Due to this separation of purchase and consumption, the benefits that influence customer satisfaction may be different between these two points. Therefore, perception of packaging may also differ between the phase of purchase and the phase of consumption. However, there are gaps in our knowledge in this area and conflicting views on the role of packaging as a means of communication and as an integral part of the product or brand. From existing literature we can say that there are a number of key elements which have been identified as key in this communications process, i.e. shape, size, colour, packaging material, labels and graphics including pictures and other brand imagery.

2. Introduction

Consumer packaging could be defined as “a medium between producer and consumer whose aim is to guarantee a product with fixed qualitative standard from the producer and at the same time offers to the consumer a product which corresponds to the illustrated

standards” (Meroni, 2000, p. 243). It is a container containing goods where the goods are placed for sale and it includes any container or wrapping in which any consumer commodity is enclosed for delivery or display of that commodity to consumers (WELMEC, 1997).

Whilst packaging is recognized in the field of marketing, there is a debate concerning whether packaging is product or brand related. Keller (1993) argues that packaging is a non-product-related but brand-related element, which means it is the external aspect of content and symbolic elements. On the other hand, Richardson, Dick and Jain (1994) suggest that packaging is product-related but with extrinsic attributes, i.e. packaging is not part of the physical product itself, like brand name and price. Underwood (2003) defines packaging in terms of product-related attributes. However, he also adds that packaging can be defined as intrinsic or extrinsic attribute based on its features. The features of packaging are intrinsic when they are physical part of the content (e.g. a soft drinks bottle), and they are extrinsic when the information on the packaging (e.g. brand logo) is taken into account. On the other side, Zeithaml (1972) considers packaging to be both an extrinsic and intrinsic attribute in the same time. Similarly, Ampuero and Vily (2006) consider packaging to be a part of both the product and brand.

Within marketing literature packaging is usually considered a part of the product strategy or a product related category within the traditional 4Ps (e.g. Calver, 2004; Kotler et al., 2005; Kotler and Keller, 2008). Furthermore, packaging has become a means by which buyers, particularly in consumer markets, can make significant brand choice decisions (Fill, 2009). It is an important promotional tool, especially within the retail environment (Vranesevic, Vignali and Vrontis, 2004). According to the summarization by Underwood, Klein and Burke (2001) and Underwood (2003), packaging is becoming an increasingly important factor nowadays for several reasons:

Firstly, marketers are no longer relying solely on advertising so they are switching marketing budgets also to other communicational tools (Moriarty, Mitchell and Wells, 2008; Belch and Belch, 2008).

Secondly, studies are showing that there is an increase in nondurable product buying decisions at the point of purchase (Gordon and Valentine, 1996; Scheier and Egner, 2003; Silayoi and Speece, 2004). With the introduction of self-service retail the salesman as the communicator and mediator has been removed from the process and the role of packaging changed because information directed toward consumers has to be put on the package (Olsson and Györei, 2002). Developments in retail have resulted in larger outlets providing a proliferation of products, offering consumers vast choice and resulting in a more competitive context in store (Silayoi and Speece, 2004). Packaging is considered a vehicle for communication and branding (Underwood and Ozzane, 1998; Silayoi and Speece, 2004). In this context, packaging has become an integral part of the selling process (Rettie and Brewer, 2000).

And finally, there is growing management recognition of the volume of packaging (i.e. container capacity) as an element of differentiation and product attractiveness (Krishna and Raghubir, 1999; Folkes and Matta, 2004; Yang and Raghubir, 2005; Raghubir and Greenleaf, 2006).

To understand how packaging communicates it is important to understand how consumers perceive packaging. Fill (2009) suggest that packaging communicates through various

dimensions. According to him, packaging communicates with consumers via its colour, shape, package size and the carried information. However, other authors (e.g. Kesic, 1997; Shimp, 2003; Underwood, 2003; Draskovic, Temperley and Pavicic, 2009) also suggest packaging material as a communicative element. Underwood (2003, p.62), on the other hands, suggests that “packaging communicates brand personality via structural and visual elements, including a combination of brand logo, colours, fonts, package materials, pictorials, product descriptions, shapes and other elements that provide rich brand associations”.

Furthermore, the communicational aspects of packaging could be also approached from the aspect of design variables. According to Sonsino (1990), packaging design variables are mainly: colour, typography, pictures, shape, size, and material. In addition to this approach, some authors discuss the variables of packaging design in two groups: graphic and structural elements (Hine, 1995; Underwood, 2003; Calver, 2004). Accordingly, graphic elements are colour, typography and pictures, while the structural elements are shape, size and material.

To summarize all of these suggestions, it could be concluded that packaging communicates various marketing messages via its communicative dimensions which consist of the following elements (Figure 1):

packaging shape,

packaging size,

packaging colour,

packaging material,

carried information,

graphic applications (e.g. brand logo, fonts, pictorials, etc.).

All of these elements together communicate various marketing messages to the consumer in both the purchase and consumption phases. The message that the consumer receives is a combination of particular messages carried by the communicative dimensions of packaging.

Figure 1: Communicative dimensions of packaging

3. An overview of the perception process

Perception could be defined as the task of making sense of sensation (Zimbardo et al., 1995). It could be described as mental organization and interpretation of sensory information

and is influenced by a variety of factors, including the intensity and physical dimensions of the stimulus; such activities of the sense organs as effects of preceding stimulation; the subject's past experience; attention factors such as readiness to respond to a stimulus; and motivation and emotional state of the subject (Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 2006).

Due to complexity of perception and different approaches to the comprehension of it, there are a number of theories that attempt to explain the essence of perception. However, there are two major approaches resulting in two main theoretical directions – constructive perception and direct perception. These theories are usually presented in opposition to each other, although sometimes they simply deal with different aspects of the same phenomenon (Sternberg, 1995).

Constructive perception, also known as intelligent perception or indirect perception is the theory of perception in which the perceiver uses sensory information and other sources of information to construct a cognitive understanding of a stimulus (Sternberg, 2006). It is the traditional approach and is called indirect because “it supposes that the perceiver makes substantial contributions to perception, usually in the form of memories or prior experience” (Michaels and Carello, 1981, p. 16). Constructive perception emphasizes the importance of the stimulus in object recognition (Matlin, 2005). During perception, hypotheses are formed and tested about precepts that are based on three things: sensory data, knowledge, and high-level cognitive processes. According to Gregory (1966), perception is not determined simply by stimulus patterns; rather it is a dynamic search for the best interpretation of the available data.

In contrast to the constructivist view, the direct-perception perspective holds that an array of information in our sensory receptors – including the sensory context – is all we need to perceive anything (Suwa and Tversky, 2003). In other words, we do not need anything else, such as prior knowledge or thought processes, to mediate between our sensory experiences and our perceptions (Michaels and Carello, 1981). According to Turvey et al. (1981), direct perception is defined as perception that is grounded in ecological law, so is always accurate. The main contributors for the development of direct perception (also known as event perception or ecological perception) are James Gibson and Eleanor Gibson (Gibson, 1966; Gibson, 1969; Gibson, 1979) whose research on perception was mostly conducted in a laboratory environment.

In the context of marketing and consumer behaviour perception is well recognised from both the practitioner and academic perspective. Knowledge of consumer perception and the perceptual process is a necessity for successful marketing communications. The perceptual process could be approached from two main directions. The psychological approach is dealing with the conversion of ambient stimulation of senses into the electrical energy of nerve impulses (Noë and Thompson, 2002). On the other hand, the behavioural approach to perception focuses on the relationship between the physical properties of stimuli and the perceptual response to this stimuli, and just as learning, thinking and emotions are all behaviours, perception is behaviour as well (Goldstein, 2009). The perceptual process could be broken down to two major stages (Figure 2). The first one is related to sensation collected by our senses while the second one is related to the understanding of the meaning of lived sensation. The process itself begins with biological processes within our senses that are initiated by various stimuli in our surrounding. Our senses of sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch are consisting of sensory receptors that are receipting stimulus within their reach from the surrounding and transferring electrical signals through nerves to the brain for further

processing (ibid). After the sensation stage, stimuli are getting meaning through the interpretation and response.

Figure 2: An overview of the perceptual process

Source: Solomon, M., Bamossy, G. and Askegaard, S. (2002): Consumer Behaviour: A European Perspective. Harlow, p. 36.

4. Packaging perception and communicative dimensions

Consumers buy what they perceive, and what they perceive is heavily influenced by the cues – brand name, packaging, colour – that marketers send to them (Tom et al., 1987). In other words, marketers communicate certain messages to consumers and therefore affect their attitudes and behaviour. Shimp (2003) notices how the sales often increase when upgraded packaging materials are used to design more attractive and effective packages, which is the result of packaging material attributes arousing consumer emotions, usually subconsciously. Furthermore, “consumers look for and expect to find certain characteristics on the packages, regarding their colour and shape, which allow them to more easily recognize the product, its qualities and usefulness” (Arango, 2008, p. 32).

Packaging perception takes place at two points – the point of purchase and the point of consumption. As Löfgren, Witell and Gustafsson argue, the point of purchase and the point of product consumption are usually separated:

“At the point of purchase, or the first moment of truth, the purpose of the package is to get the customers’ attention and function as a silent salesman that helps sell the product. This is a difficult task because customers make choices among products within seconds when they are shopping... Once the purchase is made, the product is consumed in the second moment of truth and there may actually be multiple second moments of truth because the product may not be consumed on only one occasion. This second moment of truth is a process that deals with use, handling, and actual consumption post purchase” (2008, p. 463).

Due to this separation of purchase and consumption, the benefits that influence customer satisfaction may be different between these two points (Löfgren, Witell and Gustafsson, 2008). Following this thought, consumer perception of packaging may also differ between the phase of purchase and the phase of consumption.

4.1 Perception of carried information

Most commonly, packages carry information on labels, but information content could also be printed directly on the package (e.g. carton packaging). The level of detailed information that is carried on the package is commonly determined by legislation, making package labelling “perhaps the most regulated and controversial area of packaging” (Bone and Corey, 1992, p. 46). Furthermore, carried information is usually related to the content, e.g. nutrition facts,

various health related warnings, etc. However, an increasing numbers of consumers are also repeating that they need information in order to make rational choices (Glanz et al., 1989). This is especially important in modern outlets where direct contact with the personnel over the counter is declining (Wandel and Bugge, 1997).

Academic researchers showed some interest in this area but mostly regarding food product labels. A study conducted by the European Heart Network (2003) identified 307 papers dealing with consumer understanding of nutrition labelling which proves the relative popularity of this packaging related subtopic.

An exploratory study conducted by Peters-Texeira and Badrie (2005) shows that consumer perception and resulting food choice is affected by packaging, but authors also point the need to educate consumers, so that informed decisions could be taken in respect to food quality, safety and nutrition. Some studies show that a majority of consumers read the food (and beverage) labels (MAFF, 1995; Shine, O’Reilly and O’Sullivan, 1997), while the reading frequency is associated with the degree of uncertainty about the product (Wandel, 1999). This was also confirmed by more recent studies (e.g. European Heart Network, 2003; Cowburn and Stockley, 2004; Grunert, 2006; Drichoutis, Lazaridis and Nayga, 2006; Navigator, 2007). However, these studies also report some obstacles to the understanding of labels, such as poor legibility, obscure terminology, small font sizes, multi-lingual labels and lack of standardization of format. Furthermore, nutrition knowledge relevant to the interpretation of labels was reported to be generally low and some terms used on nutrition labels are not well understood (European Heart Network, 2003). A significant number of consumers perceive nutrition information confusing as they do not understand the role of the different nutrients in their diet (Thomas, Boaz and Rayner, 1997; Abbott, 1997; Baltas, 1999). However, in the majority of cases information on the label is perceived as a buying aid when it comes to the decision process (Pudel, Spirik and Westenhofer, 1996; Nayga, Lipinski and Nitin, 1999).

Labels that contain certain warnings (e.g. on tobacco products and alcoholic beverage) generated some research on their effectiveness. Most studies have concluded that warning labels, even in combination with other types of mass communication campaigns, have failed to demonstrate a positive impact on behaviour (McCarthy et al. 1984; Richardson et al. 1987; Laughery et al., 1993; MacKinnon et al., 2002). As result of that, governments are strengthening regulations on warning labels, including pictorial warning labels and larger labels (Hassan et al., 2008).

4.2 Perception of graphic applications

Packages not only contain information in the form of text, but also visual information like brand logo, pictorials, different titles (i.e. typography), etc. These elements contribute to the visual perception of a product since “the first taste is almost always with the eye”, i.e. visual sensations help the perception since the first encounter with products is often visual and affects subsequent willingness to accept a product (Imram, 1999, p. 226). Furthermore, human perception of quality is dependent on the visual image (Hetherington and MacDougall, 1992). Like in the case of visual information in advertising, visual information on packaging may serve to attract consumer attention and set expectations for the contents of the verbal elements, i.e. the visual information is serving as an “advance organizer” for the verbal elements of packaging (Alesandrini, 1982; Bolen, 1984; Huston, Childers and Heckler, 1987). Furthermore, packages containing product images gain attention for brands, increase the likelihood of entering the consumer consideration set, create more enjoyable aesthetic

experiences for the consumer, and thus create more positive overall impressions of the product (Creusen and Schoormans, 1998; Underwood, Klein and Burke, 2001; Underwood and Klein 2002).

Research studies by Reynolds and Gutman (1988) and Hall and Winchester (2000) show that labels provide a quality cue that consumers use to assess alternative products with respect to their own values following a set of subjective rules. Furthermore, according to the study conducted by Pieters and Warlop (1999), consumers under time pressure filter textual ingredients information on packaging and labels more and pictorial information less. Time pressure also has impact on the perception of verbal and non-verbal stimuli. According to Rettie and Brewer (2000), under conditions of rapid perception (i.e. time pressure), there is an advantage for verbal stimuli perceived from the right-hand side, and for non-verbal stimuli perceived from the left-hand side of the packaging (i.e. label). This is also related to the fact that perception is not symmetrical, as the research in psychology on brain laterality shows (ibid). Therefore, it is important to position graphic elements properly because the recall of packaging 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 colour (Silayoi and Speece, 2004). This may imply that, in order to maximize consumer recall, graphic elements, such as product photography, should be positioned on the left-hand side of the package (ibid).

Graphic applications on the package are part of the brand image. As Vazquez, Bruce and Studd (2003) suggest, brand names and symbols are the most obvious tangible packaging design cues on packs that exploit brand equity. This came particularly into the focus in the case of cigarettes advertising which is mostly restricted and packaging has become the primary vehicle for communicating brand image (National Cancer Institute, 2008). As Wakefield, Germain and Durkin (2008, p. 416) state, “cigarette packs remain with users once opened and are repeatedly displayed in social situations, thereby serving as a direct form of mobile advertising for the brand”. In order to further limit the communicational aspect of cigarette packaging, especially through the graphic applications on the package, there are also initiatives and proposals to introduce “plain” cigarette packaging which would be stripped of colours, brand imagery, corporate logos and trademarks. Manufacturers would be permitted to print only the brand name in a mandated size, font and location, in addition to required health warnings and other legally mandated information such as toxic constituents, tax seals or pack contents (Cunningham and Kyle, 1995; Freeman, Chapman and Rimmer, 2008). This is, probably, the best way to successfully remove brand image associations in case of cigarettes which could have further implications on the decrease of popularity of cigarettes among current and potential smokers (Wakefield, Germain and Durkin, 2008).

McNeal and Ji (2003) conducted a research study on children’s visual memory of cereal packaging. Children were asked to draw a cereal box and over 97% spontaneously drew a cereal box with a brand name and other related symbols. Furthermore, the research results suggest that children’s evoked set is not just a list of brand names in the mind, but an elaborate symbolic environment made up of visual and verbal codes in which the brand name is nested (McNeal and Ji, 2003).

A research study conducted by Underwood, Klein and Burke (2001) points out that pictures on the package also increase a shopper’s attention to the brand. However, the study findings also indicate that these pictures are more useful for private labels brands and weaker national brands whose objective is to improve consumer perceptions of the brand.

4.3 Perception of colour

Colours are one of the non-verbal signs that are recognized as an important marketplace phenomenon (Schoormans and Robben, 1997; Grimes and Doole, 1998; Garber, Burke and Johnes, 2000; Evans, Jamal and Foxall, 2006) and their importance is especially noticed in the context of advertising and packaging (Bellizzi, Crowley and Hasty, 1983). Colour perception is also a rather popular topic in marketing and consumer behaviour (e.g. Grossman and Wisenblit, 1999; Hawkins, Best and Coney, 2004; Solomon, 2008; Kotler and Keller, 2008; Fill, 2009). However, research focused on the perception of packaging colour is very limited (Grossman and Wisenbilt, 1999) and the colour of the product’s package is overlooked tool that marketers can use to gain the consumers’ attention (Garber, Burke and Jones, 2000).

Colours on the package attract the attention of consumers (Schoormans and Robben, 1997; Garber, Burke and Jones, 2000). Danger (1987a, 1987b) argues that colours are the most important visual sign to attract consumer attention, as it is the first sign that the consumer notices on a package. On the other hand, Kojina, Hoken and Takahashi (1986) found that the colours accepted on packages by consumers may be limited.

Research studies suggest that consumers may prefer certain colour over others for various product categories (Grossman and Wisenblit, 1999) and that attitude towards colour, colour attractiveness, normative colour, and colour preferences are significantly associated with the product choice (Funk and Ndubisi, 2006). In the case of food products, a study showed that consumers in terms of packaging mostly notice the packaging colour and transparency (Dantas et al., 2004). Colour is also reported as very important element in the case of the wine packaging perception (Rocchi and Stefani, 2005).

Some studies support the idea that colours attract attention particularly when consumers seek variety in their brand choices (Schoormans and Robben, 1997; Garber, Burke and Jones, 2000). Gordon, Finlay and Watts (1994) support the idea that colours on packages may have an impact on brand evaluation and on brand choices. Garber, Burke and Jones (2000) suggest that a change in package colour can enhance brand consideration among consumers that are not loyal to a particular brand, in certain highly competitive product categories it is important to have a strikingly different package, and a change in package colour can increase the total amount of search in the category. A study conducted on industry professionals by Rex, Wai and Lobo (2004), indicates the existence of a relationship between colour and the most important stimulus, flavour, in the case of potato chips.

Titles with a more global approach and international marketing related titles point out that colour perception is also related to culture (e.g. Muhlbacher, Leihs and Dahringer, 2006; Doole and Lowe, 2008). Connotations that a particular colour has in one country or region could be completely opposite in another. Because cultural values, marketing objectives and desired customer relationship levels influence the choice of colour in corporate and marketing communications, Aslam (2006) argues that a cross-cultural perspective of colour research and implication is imperative for developing global marketing strategies. E.g. an inappropriate choice of product or package colours may lead to strategic failure (Ricks, 1983).

4.4 Perception of shape and size

Perception of shape and size seems to initiate some debate among scholars, but “it is surprising that little research pertaining to volume perceptions has been done in marketing”

(Raghubir and Krishna, 1999, p. 313). As one of the pioneers, more than fifty years ago Jean Piaget studied children’s perception of volume (Saxe, 1983). Piaget (1964) found that primary school children appeared to use only the height of container when making volume judgements. Research findings by Been, Braunstein and Piazza (1964) and Pearson (1964) also support the elongation effect on the volume judgement. These experiments provided grounds for the research study conducted by Holmberg (1975), who argues that if the greater the height-to-width ratio of a container, greater is the estimated volume. On the other hand, later research on the elongation effect of cylinders conducted by Frayman and Dawson (1981) showed weak support for the effect. Raghubir and Krishna (1999) argue that perceived volume, perceived consumption, and actual consumption are related sequentially. They also demonstrated a volume perception bias, arguing that visual cues (such as elongation of a container) are highly salient and are used to simplify spatial decisions relating to volume. In one of the following studies, Krider, Raghubir and Krishna (2001), in which they argue that consumers tend to simplify the size judgement task by using a single package’s dimension at a time. They suggest that consumers judge the area of a shape by comparing it across the most salient linear dimension, weighing the initial dimension more heavily than the second dimension. The result leads to a bias favouring whichever shape is largest on the initial dimension. Accordingly, considering an additional dimension increases the difficulty of judging a shape’s volume compared to its area (Folkes and Matta, 2004).

Wansink and van Ittersum (2003) investigated the effect of elongation on consumption volume. The research study findings show that consumers tend to consume more juice when given a short, wide glass to those given a tall, slender glass, which lead to conclusion that the elongation of glasses negatively influences consumption volume in a single serving context. These findings were further confirmed in the case of alcoholic beverages (Wansink and van Ittersum, 2005).

Wansink (1996) found that large package sizes encourage more use than smaller package sizes. The same effect is noted in case of portion size, i.e. the bigger the portion size is, the higher the food intake (Rolls, Morris and Roe, 2002; Wansink, Painter and North, 2005; Wansink and Kim, 2005). Furthermore, it is notable that package and portion size can even increase the consumption of unfavourable foods (Wansink, 2004). According to Wansink (1996), when packages are doubled in size, consumption generally increases by 18% to 25% for many meal-related foods (such as spaghetti), and 30% to 45% for many snack related foods.

According to Bloch (1995), research studies confirm that shape impacts on the attention the products attracts. When consumers seek variety in their brand choices, the shape of the package is also considered (Schoormans and Robben, 1997). The design of a product and product packaging determines a consumer’s first impression and effectively communicates product advantage (Creusen and Schoormans, 2005). In the case of food products, the attention-drawing ability of a package has been found to increase the probability of purchase (Garber, 1995; Garber, Burke and Jones, 2000).

Yang and Raghubir (2005) conducted a study in order to research the effect of packaging shape on the purchase quantity (e.g. elongated containers are perceived to contain more even in the context of frequently purchased products where package labels mention the actual volume of the container).

Raghubir and Krishna (1999) argue that a package’s shape affects preferences, choice and post consumption satisfaction. Packages that have shapes that are perceived as attracting

more attention are also perceived to contain a greater volume of a product than same sized packages that attracts less attention (Folkes and Matta, 2004). In a more recent study, Raghubir and Greenleaf (2006) focus on consumer reaction to rectangles. The results show that the ratio of the side of a rectangular product or package can influence purchase intention and preferences, and is related to marketplace demand.

4.5 Perception of packaging material

Research focusing on the perception of packaging material is scarce. From time to time, there are occasional notes in the packaging related literature on the effects on consumer perception that a particular packaging material is supposed to have. E.g., Sauvage (1996) suggests that glass has a high-quality image in the consumer mind, whilst metal packages have an old-fashioned image, or plastics have a low-quality image for especially older consumers. Accoridng to Schoiswohl (2003), sparkling wine packed in a typical glass bottle communicates prestige, while plastic packaging evokes associations of convenience. Similarly, Groth (2006, p. 32) states that PET packaging “does not carry the same quality perception of glass” or that cardboard “does not carry the same quality perception as some other materials”. Klimchuk and Krasovec (2006, p. 152) emphasise the premium image of glass: “with its visual and tactile qualities, glass communicates a reliable and distinctive quality material”. Mooy and Robben (2002, p. 432) suggest that “the tactile sensation of the material of the product may give impression of its quality”. On the other hand, Ellwood (2000) argues that the choice of packaging material could affect the brand personality.

From time to time, packaging companies and associations publish results from their research studies intended to improve certain packaging material’s rating among consumers. Since these studies clearly aim to advocate for the usage of a particular packaging material, their objectivity and thus the value in the scientific context is very questionable. Published results from consumer surveys usually show high level of preference towards glass (e.g. Glass has the bottle in branding, 2000; Winder and Dallimore, 2005; GPI, 2006; InSites Consulting, 2009).

Academic research studies that deal with the perception of packaging material are very rare. Banks (1950) conducted a study in which consumer preferences and sales results were compared in the case of two different packaging materials for two bakery products. The study shows that consumers prefer a new type of packaging material for one product, yet the sales test did not confirm that, i.e. the sales test did not reveal significant difference in sales between two types of packaging. In the case of the second bakery product, there was no significant difference in sales or consumer preferences between the new and old packaging material. Banks (1950) was not able to make any generalizations about the packaging material preferences, so his comments and remarks were more focused on the methodological problems and the validity of comparison of sales tests and consumer preferences research.

Brown (1958) focused his research on the housewives’ influence of perception by different types of bread wrappers. This study is a follow-up of his previous unpublished study in which he did the same test with university students (Brown et al., 1955). Brown (1958) revealed that the type of material used for wrapping influences perception about bread’s freshness. The results were mostly in line with those in his previous study.

Almost twenty years later, Baker and McDaniel (1977) compared consumer preferences over two different types of potato chip packaging. The results indicate that consumers preferred one packaging material over another due to packaging material image rather than packaging

convenience. The findings from Baker and McDaniel (1977) are opposite to the current interpretation of consumer preferences which emphasises packaging convenience as one of the most important feature due to the changing consumption habits (Oertel, Peterman, and Scherz, 2002; Future Innovation Today, 2006).

5. Conclusions

It is clear there are gaps in our knowledge in this area and conflicting views on the role of packaging as a means of communication and as an integral part of the product or brand. Certainly it means further research is needed to clarify its role from a consumer behaviour and marketing communications perspective. However, from existing literature we can say that there are a number of key elements which have been identified as key in this communications process i.e. shape, size, colour, packaging material, labels and graphics including pictures and other brand imagery.

Finally, we must also recognise the limitations of the literature in this area in that published studies relate to the self service supermarket environment and within that mainly food products representing a very narrow focus of study. The area of packaging is rather complex and covers many consumer product categories. Consequently, there is has a huge research potential of marketing aspects of packaging.

6. References

Abbott, R. (1997): Food and nutrition information: a study of sources, uses, and understanding. In: British Food Journal, Vol. 99(2), p. 43-49.

Alesandrini, K.L. (1982): Strategies that influence memory for advertising communications. In: Harris, R.J. (ed.): Information Processing Research in Advertising. Hillsdale, p. 65-81.

Ampuero, O. and Vila, N. (2006): Consumer perceptions of product packaging. In: Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 23(2), p. 100-112.

Arango, A.M.A. (2008): Percepciones del color y de la forma de los empaques: Una experiencia de aprendizaje. In: Estudios Gerenciales, Vol. 24(106), p. 31-45.

Aslam, M.M. (2006): Are You Selling the Right Colour? A Cross-cultural Review of Colour as a Marketing Cue. In: Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 12(1), p.15-30.

Baker, R.C. and McDaniel, C. (1977): Convenience Food Packaging and the Perception of Product Quality. In: Journal of Marketing, Vol. 44(4), p. 57-88.

Baltas, G. (1999): Nutrition labelling: issues and policies. In: European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35(5/6), p. 708-721.

Banks, S. (1950): The Measurement of the Effect of a New Packaging Material upon Preference and Sales. In: The Journal of Business of the University of Chicago, Vol. 23(2), p. 71-80.

Been, R.T., Braunstein, M.L. and Piazza, M.H. (1964): Judgment of volume reduction in distorted metal containers. In: Journal of Engineering Psychology, Vol. 3(1), p. 23-27.

Belch, G.E. and Belch, M.A. (2008): Advertising and promotion: An integrated marketing communications perspective. New York.

Bellizzi, J. A., Crowley, A. E. and Hasty, R. W. (1983): The effects of color in store design. In. Journal of Retailing, Vol. 59(1), p. 21-45.

Bloch, P.H. (1995): Seeking the Ideal Form: Product Design and Consumer Response. In: Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59(July), p. 16-29.

Bolen, W.H. (1984): Advertising. New York.

Bone, F.P. and Corey, R.J. (1992): Ethical Dilemmas in Packaging: Beliefs of Packaging Professionals. In: Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 12(1), p.45-54.

Brown, R.L. (1958): Wrapper Influence on the Perception of Freshness in Bread. In: Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 42(4), p. 257-260.

Brown, R.L. et al. (1955): Wrapper influence on the perception of freshness in bred, I. Unpublished manuscript. Greenville. Quoted in: Brown, R.L. (1958): Wrapper Influence on the Perception of Freshness in Bread. In: Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 42(4), p. 257-260.

Calver, G. (2004): What is packaging design? Mies.

Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia (2003): New York.

Cowburn, G. and Stockley, L. (2004): Consumer understanding of nutrition labelling: a systematic review. In: Public Health Nutrition, Vol. 81(1), p. 21-28.

Creusen, M.E.H., Schoormans, J.P.L. (1998): The Influence of Observation Time on the Role of the Product Design in Consumer Preferences. In: Alba, J.W. and Hutchinson, W. (eds.): Advances in Consumer Research. Iowa City, p. 551-556.

Cunningham R. and Kyle K. (1995): The case for plain packaging. In: Tobacco Control, Vol. 4, p. 50–86.

Danger, E. P. (1987a): Selecting Colour for Packaging. Vermont.

Danger, E. P. (1987b): The Colour Handbook. How to Use Colour in Commerce and Industry. Vermont.

Dantas, M.I.S. et al. (2004): The Effect of Packaging on the Perception of Minimally Processed Products. In: Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, Vol. 16(2), p. 71-83.

Doole, I. and Lowe, R. (2008): International Marketing Strategy. Andover.

Draskovic, N., Temperley, J. and Pavicic, J. (2009): Comparative Perception(s) of Consumer Goods Packaging: Croatian Consumers’ Perspective(s). In: International Journal of Management Cases, Vol. 11(2), p. 154-163.

Drichoutis, A.C., Lazaridis, P. and Nayga, R.M. (2006): Consumers’ use of nutrition labels: a review of research studies and issues. In: Academy of Marketing Science Review, Vol. 2006(9), p. 1-22.

Ellwood, I. (2000): The Essential Brand Book. London.

European Heart Network (2003): A systematic review of the research on consumer understanding of nutrition labelling. Brussels.

Evans, M., Jamal, A. and Foxall, G. (2006): Consumer Behaviour. West Sussex.

Fill, C. (2009): Marketing Communications: Interactivity, Communities and Content. Harlow.

Folkes, V. and Matta, S. (2004): The Effect of Package Shape on Consumers’ Judgements of Product Volume: Attention as a Mental Contaminant. In: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31, p. 390-401.

Frayman, B.J. and Dawson, W.E. (1981): The effect of object shape and mode of presentation on judgements of apparent volume. In: Perception and Psychophysics, Vol. 29(1), p. 56-62.

Freeman, B., Chapman, S. and Rimmer, M. (2008): The case of the plain packaging of tobacco products. In: Addiction, Vol. 103(4), p. 580-590.

Funk, D. and Ndubisi, N.O. (2006): Colour and product choice: a study of gender roles. In. Journal of Managements Research News, Vol. 29(1/2), p. 41-52.

Future innovation today (2006): Consumer packaging report. London.

Garber, L.L. (1995): The Role of Package Appearance in Consumer Choice. Chapel Hill.

Garber, L.L, Burke, R.R. and Jones, J.M. (2000): The role of package color in consumer purchase consideration and choice. Boston.

Gibson, E.J. (1969): Principles of perceptual learning and development. New York.

Gibson, J.J. (1966): The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston.

Gibson, J.J. (1979): The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston.

Glanz, K. et al. (1989): Point of choice nutrition information, federal regulations and consumer health education: a critical view. In: Journal of Nutrition Education, Vol. 21, p. 95-100.

Glass has the bottle in branding (2000): In: Grocer, March 25, p. 56.

Goldstein, E.B. (2009): Sensation and Perception. Florence.

Gordon, A., Finlay, K. and Watts T. (1994): The Psychological Effects of Colour in Consumer Product Packaging. In: Canadian Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 13, p. 3-11.

Gordon, W. and Valentine, V. (1996): Buying the brand at the point of choice. London.

GPI (2006): National Survey: Consumer Preferences in Packaging Materials. Alexandria.

Gregory, R. L. (1966): Eye and Brain. London.

Grimes, A. and Doole, I. (1998): Exploring the Relationships between Colour and International Branding: A Cross Cultural Comparison of the UK and Taiwan. In: Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 14(7), p. 799-817.

Grossman, R.P. and Wisenblit, J.Z. (1999): What we know about consumers’ color choices. In: Journal of Marketing Practice: Applied Marketing Science, Vol. 5(3), p. 78-88.

Groth, C. (2006): Exploring Package Design: The Art and Techniques of Designing Exceptional Packaging. Clifton Park.

Grunert, K.G. (2006): A review of research on consumer response to nutrition information on food labels. Brussels.

Hall, J. and Winchester, M. K. (2000): What is really driving wine consumer? In. Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal, Vol. 15, p. 93-96.

Hassan, L.M. et al. (2008): Exploring the effectiveness of cigarette warning labels: findings from the United States and United Kingdom arms of the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey. In. International Journal of Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 13, p. 263-274.

Hawkins, D.I., Best, R.J. and Coney, K.A. (2004): Consumer Behavior: Building Marketing Strategy. New York.

Hetherington, M.J. and MacDougall, D.B. (1992): Visual and instrumental attribute models of fruit juices and milk. In: Food Quality and Preferences, Vol. 3, p. 165-174.

Hine, T. (1995): The total package: the secret history and hidden meaning of boxes, bottles, cans, and other persuasive containers. Boston.

Holmberg, L. (1975): The Influence of Elongation on the Perception of Volume of Geometrically Simple Objects. In: Psychological Research Bulletin, Vol. 15(2), p. 1-18.

Huston, M.J., Childers, T.L. and Heckler, S.E. (1987): Picture-word consistency and the elaborative processing of advertisements. In: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24, p. 359-369.

Imram, N. (1999): The role of visual cues in consumer perception and acceptance of a food product. In: Nutrition & Food Science, No. 5, p. 224-228.

InSites Consulting (2009) FEVE: Consumer Preference & Packaging in Europe - European Study. Brussels.

Keller, K.L. (1993): Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity. In: The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57(1), p. 1-22.

Kesic, T. (1997): Marketinska komunikacija. Zagreb.

Klimchuk, M.R. and Krasovec, S.A. (2006): Packaging Design: Successful Product Branding From Concept To Shelf. Hoboken.

Kojina, M., Hoken, J. and Takahashi, K. (1986): The Role of Color and Pattern as Mediators of Product Selection. In: Journal of Human Ergology, Vol. 15, p. 13-25.

Kotler, P. and Keller, K.L. (2008): Marketing Management. New Jersey.

Kotler, P. et al. (2005): Principles of marketing. Harlow.

Krider, R.E., Raghubir, P. and Krishna, A. (2001): Pizzas: π or Square? Psychophysical Biases in Area Comparisons. In. Marketing Science, Vol. 20(4), p. 405-425.

Krishna, A. and Raghubir, P. (1999): Vital Dimensions in Volume Perception: Can the Eye Fool the Stomach? In: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 36, p. 313-326.

Laughery, K.K. et al. (1993): Explicitness of consequences information in warnings. In: Safety Science, Vol. 16, p. 597-613.

Löfgren, M., Witell, L. and Gustafsson, A. (2008): Customer satisfaction in the first and second moments of truth. In: Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 17(7), p. 463-474.

MacKinnon, D.P. et al. (2002): Longitudinal relationship between the alcohol warning and alcohol consumption. In: Journal of Studies in Alcohol, Vol. 62, p. 221-226.

MAFF (1995): Nutrition Labelling Study. London.

Matlin, M.W. (2005): Cognition. Hoboken.

McCarthy, R.L. et al. (1984): Product Information Presentation, User Behavior, and Safety. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society, p. 81-85.

McNeal, J.U. and Ji, M.F. (2003): Children’s visual memory of packaging. In: Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 20(5), p. 400-427.

Meroni, A. (2000): Active Packaging as an Opportunity to Create Package Design that Reflects the Communicational, Functional and Logistical Requirements of Food Products. In: Packaging Technology and Science, Vol. 13, p. 243-248.

Michaels, C.F. and Carello, C. (1981): Direct Perception. Englewood Cliffs.

Mooy, S.C. and Robben, H.S.J. (2002): Managing consumers’ product evaluations through direct product experience. In: Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 11(7), p. 432-446.

Moriarty, S., Mitchell, N. and Wells, W.D. (2008): Advertising: Principles and Practice. New Jersey.

Muhlbacher, H., Leihs, H. and Dahringer, L. (2006): International Marketing: A Global Perspective. Andover.

National Cancer Institute (2008): The role of the media in promoting and reducing tobacco use. Tobacco Control Monograph No 19. Bethesda, US Department of Health and Human Services, p. 106–108.

Navigator (2007): Front of Pack Signpost Labelling – Exploratory Research (Report). Bucks.

Nayga, R.M., Lipinski, D. and Nitin, S. (1998): Consumers’ use of nutritional labels while food shopping and at home. In: Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 32(1), p. 106-120.

Noë, A. and Thompson, E. (2002) Introduction. In: Noë, A. and Thompson, E. (eds.): Vision and Mind: Selected Readings in the Philosophy of Perception. Cambridge.

Oertel, D., Peterman, T. and Scherz, C. (2002): Technologische Trends bei Getränkverpackungen und ihre Relevanz für Ressourcenschonung und Kreislaufwirtschaft. Bonn.

Olsson, A. and Györei, M. (2002): Packaging throughout the Value Chain in the Customer Perspective Marketing Mix. In: Packaging Technology and Science, No. 15, p. 231-239.

Pearson, R.G. (1964): Judgment of Volume from Photographs of Complex Shapes. In: Perceptual and Motor Skills, Vol. 18(3), p. 889-900.

Peters-Texeira, A. and Badrie, N. (2005): Consumers’ perception of food packaging in Trinidad, West Indies and its related impact on food choices. In: International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 29(6), p. 508-514.

Piaget, J. (1964) Six Psychological Studies. New York.

Pieters, R. and Warlop, L. (1999): Visual attention during brand choice: The impact of time pressure and task motivation. In: International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 16(1), p. 1-16.

Pudel, V., Spirik, J. and Westenhofer, J. (1996): The use of information from food labels as a buying aid in the food choice of German consumers. In: Nutrition report for the Federal Republic of Germany. Bonn, p. 307-325.

Raghubir, P. and Greenleaf, E. (2006): Ratios in Proportion: What Should be the Shape of the Package. In: Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70(2), p. 95-107.

Raghubir, P. and Krishna, A. (1999): Vital Dimensions in Volume Perception: Can the Eye Fool the Stomach? In: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 36, p. 313-326.

Rettie, R. and Brewer, C. (2000): The verbal and visual components of package design. In: Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 9(1), p. 56-70.

Rex, J., Wai, S. and Lobo, A. (2004): An Exploratory Study into the Impact of Colour And Packaging as Stimuli in the Decision Making Process for a Low Involvement Non-Durable Product. In: ANZMAC 2004 Proceedings, Wellington.

Reynolds, T.G. and Gutman, J. (1988): Laddering theory, method, analysis and interpretation. In: Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 19(28), p. 11-31.

Richardson, P. et al (1987): Review of the Research Literature on the Effects of Health Warning Labels: A Report to the United States Congress. Silver Spring.

Richardson, P. S., Dick, A. S. and Jain, A. K. (1994): Extrinsic and intrinsic cue effects on perceptions of store brand quality. In: Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58(4), p. 28-36.

Ricks, D. A. (1983): Big Business Blunders: Mistakes in Multinational Marketing. Homewood.

Rocchi, B. and Stefani, G. (2005): Consumers’ perception of wine packaging: a case study. In: International Journal of Wine Marketing, Vol. 18(1), p. 33-44.

Rolls, B.J. (2003): The supersizing of America: portion size and the obesity epidemic. In: Nutrition Today, Vol. 38, p. 645–649.

Sauvage, F. (1996): The marketing aspect of packaging. In: Bureau, G. and Multon, J.-L. (eds.): Food packaging technology. New York, p. 33-47.

Saxe, G.B. (1983): Piaget and Anthropology. In: American Anthropologist, Vol. 85(1), p. 136-143.

Scheier, C. and Egner, S. (2003): Tracking Consumer Attention At The Point-Of-Sale: New approach and case study. Amsterdam.

Schoiswohl, M.A. (2003): UPP-unique packaging proposition: Verpackung als Marketinginstrument. Linz.

Schoormans, J.P.L. and Robben, H.S.J. (1997): The effect of new package design on product attention, categorization and evaluation. In: Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 18, p. 271-287.

Shimp, T.A. (2003): Advertising, Promotion, and Supplemental Aspects of Integrated Marketing Communications. Mason.

Shine, A., O’Reilly, S. and O’Sullivan, K. (1997): Consumer attitudes to nutrition labelling. In: British Food Journal, Vol. 99(8), p. 283-289.

Silayoi, P. and Speece, M. (2004): Packaging and purchase decision: An exploratory study on the impact of involvement level and time pressure. In: British Food Journal, Vol. 106(8), p. 607-628.

Solomon, M.R. (2008): Consumer Behavior: Buying, Having, and Being. Upper Saddle River.

Solomon, M., Bamossy, G. and Askegaard, S. (2002): Consumer Behaviour: A European Perspective. Harlow

Sonsino, S. (1990): Packaging design: graphics, materials, technology. London.

Sternberg, R.J. (1995): In Search of the Human Mind. Orlando.

Sternberg, R.J. (2006): Cognitive Psychology. Belmont.

Suwa, M. and Tversky, B. (2003): Constructive Perception: A Metacognitive Skill for Coordinating Perception and Conception. In: Alterman, R. and Kirsh, D. (eds.): Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Boston, p.1140-1145.

Thomas, W.B., Boaz, A. and Rayner, M. (1997): Food labelling and healthy food choices. Oxford.

Tom, G. et al. (1987): Cueing the consumer: The role of salient cues in consumer perception. In: Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 4 (2), p. 23-27.

Turvey, M. et al. (1981): Ecological laws of perceiving and acting: In reply to Fodor and Pylyshyn. In: Cognition, Vol. 9, p. 237-304.

Underwood, R.L. (2003): The communicative power of product packaging: Creating brand identity via lived and mediated experience. In: Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 11(1), pp. 6-76.

Underwood, R.L. and Klein, N.M. (2002): Packaging as Brand Communication: Effects of Product Pictures on Consumer Responses to the Package and Brand. In: Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 10(4), p. 58-70.

Underwood, R.L., Klein, N.M. and Burke, R.R. (2001): Packaging communication: attentional effects of product imagery. In: Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 10(7), pp. 403-422.

Underwood, R.L. and Ozzane, J.L. (1998): Is your package an effective communicator? A normative framework for increasing the communicative competence of packaging. In: Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 4(4), p. 207-220.

Vazquez, D., Bruce, M. and Studd, R. (2003): A case study exploring the packaging design management process within a UK food retailer. In: British Food Journal, Vol. 105(9), p. 602-617.

Vranesevic, T., Vignali, C. and Vrontis, D. (2004): Upravljanje strateskim marketingom. Zagreb, Accent.

Wakefield, M.A., Germain, D. and Durkin, S.J. (2008): How does increasingly plainer cigarette packaging influence adult smokers’ perceptions about brand image? An experimental study. In: Tobacco Control, Vol. 17, p. 416-421.

Wandel, M. (1999): Food labelling from a consumer perspective. In: British Food Journal, Vol. 99(6), p. 212-219.

Wansink, B. (1996): Can Package Size Accelerate Usage Volume? In: Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60(3), p. 1-14.

Wansink, B. (2004): Environmental Factors That Increase the Food Intake and Consumption Volume of Unknowing Consumers. In: Annual Review of Nutrition, Vol. 24, p. 455-479.

Wansink, B. and Kim, J. (2005): Bad Popcorn in Big Buckets: Portion Size Can Influence Intake as Much as Taste. In: Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, Vol. 37(5), p. 242-245.

WELMEC (1997): Application of Directives 75/106/EEC and 76/211/EEC concerning the marking and quantity control of e-marked prepackages: Definitions of terms. Middlesex.

Winder, B. and Dallimore, D. (2005) Holding Your Drink. URL:www.glasspac.com/reflectingthemoodresultsII.html

Yang, S. and Raghubir, P. (2005): Can bottles speak volumes? The effect of package shape on how much to buy. In: Journal of Retailing, Vol. 81(4), p. 269-281.

Zeithaml, V. (1972) Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, No. 52, p. 2-22.

Zimbardo et al. (1995) Psychology: A European Text. London, HarperCollins Publishers. Quoted in: Moore, D.R. (2001) Visual perception theories and communicating construction industry concepts. Work Study, Vol. 50 No. 2, p. 58-62.