COMP MÍN T1 T2 T3 para facilitar las actividades humanas

thoroughly steeped in the product, the respondent com- pleted an extensive classifi cation questionnaire. One of the classifi cation questions required the respondent to select the three most important factors in a food or bever- age that drove selection. Look at Figure 2.1 to get a sense of how the question was asked, keeping in mind that the screen with the appropriate food/beverage name was pre- sented to the respondent. Only the name of the food or beverage changed; the questions did not.

When we tallied the results from the different studies, we learned that packaging was relatively unimportant when compared to the sensory experiences offered by the food or beverage. From these initially discouraging results, we soon realized that the notion of “ packaging ” per se was simply too general. That is, asking a person about packaging simply fails to paint a word picture to that individual, whereas asking the same person about aroma, texture, taste, etc., seems to conjure up a picture. It is no wonder, therefore, that we ended up with the results we did, shown in part in Table 2.1 . The role of packaging seems to be very small when we use the word “ packaging ” alone, without painting a concrete word picture.

Figure 2.1 Part of the classifi cation question from Crave It! ™ dealing with the selection of what drives craving. This particular question came from the chocolate candy study. Each individual food had the same question asked, but particularized to that food.

Table 2.1 Percent of respondents who selected “ packag- ing ” as one of the three main drivers of “ craving a food. ” Results from the 2001 – 2002 Crave It! ™ database with permission from It! Ventures, Inc.

Food

Packaging selected among the top three (%)

Packaging not selected among the top three (%)

Base of respondents Snack Mix 7.5 92.5 240 Pretzels 5.0 95.0 240 Tortilla Chips 4.2 95.8 238 Salad 4.2 95.8 239 Nuts 3.3 96.7 240 Popcorn 3.3 96.7 242 Cola 2.9 97.1 272 Hot Dogs 2.1 97.9 239 Potato Chips 2.1 97.9 242

Where Packaging Fits — Results from the Drink It! ™ Database

We now delve into detailed data derived from 6,000+ respondents in the Drink It! ™ database. This study, like

Chapter 2 Consumer Packaging: Important Functionally, but Not Attitudinally 17

as a limited selection of combinations. These biases are eliminated by being simply “ randomized out, ” swamped by the natural variation of the many differ- ent concepts. (See Moskowitz and Gofman, 2007 .) 3. At the end of the interview, the respondent completed

a classifi cation question about who he was, as well as factors that he considered to be important in the selec- tion of the particular beverage being evaluated. It is that “ importance ” question that will hold our focus now.

4. For the importance question, the respondent selected 3 factors from a total of 22 that he considered to be the top ones.

Let ’ s see what respondents selected. Looking at Table 2.2 , comprising almost 6,400 respondents in the total panel, we see taste coming up as the key factor. This is to be expected. After all, taste is the most critical factor in a beverage, or at least people talk about the taste of the beverage. Almost all of the respondents put taste among the top three factors of key importance (89%).

What surprises us, however, is that respondents don ’ t really pay attention to factors other than either the sensory characteristics of the beverage (taste, the aforementioned Crave It! ™ project, is part of our

ongoing effort to create systematic databases of different products in a category such as beverages, in order to understand what drives consumers to be interested in, and to select a beverage.

We set up the Drink It! ™ database in the following straightforward way:

1. The respondent received an email, and if interested, the respondent clicked on the embedded link. Those who responded were guided to a “ wall ” showing the available studies. The respondent chose one of the available studies listed. When a study was reasonably “ complete ” (i.e., had more than 250 respondents), the study was no longer available on the “ wall. ” This strategy ensures that the studies all complete with approximately the same number of respondents. Figure 2.2 shows the wall.

2. As in the Crave It! ™ project, each of the 30 studies used experimental design of ideas, with four silos, each comprising 9 elements (36 elements total). Every respondent evaluated a unique set of 60 com- binations. This unique set is important because it pre- vents any hidden biases from affecting the data, such

Figure 2.2 Example of the “ wall ” from the Drink It! ™ database. The screen shot was taken late in the course of the project, when many studies had their requisite number of respondents. The less popular beverages remained available for the respondent to choose, whereas the more popular beverages were no longer available.

The same thing happens with the word “ advertising. ” We think of funny advertisements; they are important and often memorable. However, the general notion of “ advertising ” is not important to people. Neither the general words “ advertising ” nor “ packaging ” paint strong, reinforcing, positive pictures in the mind.

When we replace the word “ packaging ” with the more concrete phrase “ convenient to use, ” the selection jumps from 2% to 9%. Convenience is the more important, effective expression of packaging. The word “ packag- ing ” is too general. The phrase “ convenient to use ” is more dramatic and paints the necessary word picture in a person ’ s mind.

What Beverages Are Most Sensitive to Packaging?

In our explorations, we saw that only 2.56% of the respondents selected packaging, in general, to be impor- tant. We obtained this low percent by aggregating the data across all of the beverages. Perhaps we are missing something important here. We know that packaging is key to a product ’ s success, and that the fi ve Ps of market- ing (price, product, position, promotion, and package) always feature the package. Could it be that we have different types of products, some of which involve pack- aging more than others?

To answer this question, look at the percent of respon- dents who selected one or more packaging - related phrases for each of the beverages (Table 2.3 ). We saw that packag- ing as a general term plays little role. Respondents don ’ t select packaging as a key factor for any of the beverages, except Kids Beverage and Sports Drink. When, however, the end use is made more concrete by the terms buying, carrying, and especially using, packaging becomes much more important. The notable fi nding here is that the term is not packaging, but rather the concrete benefi t that comes from packaging (easy to buy, easy to carry, easy to use). The benefi t paints the necessary word picture.

Summing Up

One of the most valuable real estate locations in the food - marketing environment is the food package (Aaron et al., 1994 ; Coulston, 1998 ). Packaging is important (Deliza and MacFie, 1996 ; Bredahl, 2004; Caporale and Monteleone, 2004 ). Yet, the overall general phrase pack- aging does not particularly spark the respondent, perhaps because the word “ packaging ” does not paint a suffi - appearance, aroma, temperature, variety), or brand and

mood, respectively. The option packaging per se is rarely selected (2%). Again we learn from this that packaging itself is a general word, like the word advertising. We know that taste and appearance are general words as well. However, taste and appearance are subjectively more real, and associated with specifi c, reinforcing stim- ulation. We often talk about the taste of a product, or the appearance of package or product. We don ’ t think about the specifi cs of a the package when we talk about appear- ance. We just think that the package looks good on the shelf, or that there is something noteworthy about the package. So, we learn that when “ taste ” and “ appear- ance ” are cast in general terms, they seem able to main- tain their potency. In contrast, when “ packaging ” changes from a specifi c feature to a general idea, it loses its potency.

Table 2.2 Percent of respondents choosing each factor as being one of the top three most important factors for drink- ing a beverage

All 6,346 respondents (% selecting)

Taste 89 Appearance 52 Aroma 32 Temperature of beverage 31 Variety 24 Mood I ’ m in 19 Brand 17 Healthful ingredients 15 Texture 15

Not mixed, pure beverage 11 Health considerations 9 Convenient to use 9 Fits with my meal 8 Portion size 7 Social situation 5 Convenient to buy 4 Convenient to carry 3 Memories 3 Package 2 Associations 2 Advertising 1 Package 3 Convenient to carry 3 Portion size 7

Chapter 2 Consumer Packaging: Important Functionally, but Not Attitudinally 19

Table 2.3 Drink It! ™ — Percent of respondents who selected one or more packaging elements

% selecting easy to use Meal replacement Beverage 18.5 Kids beverage 18.2 Enhanced water 15.3 Fiber beverage 14.5 Hot chocolate 12.7 Yogurt beverage 12.2 Sports drink 11.6 Smoothies 11.5 Juice 9.4 Soup 9.3 Flavored coffee 9.1 Milk smoothie 8.9 Hot tea 8.1 Cola 8.0 Iced tea 7.7 Flavored cider 7.7 Carbonated spritzer 7.5 Lemon - lime soda 7.2

Soy beverage 6.2

Coolers 5.9

Flavored tequila 5.7

Milk 4.4

ciently specifi c word picture in the respondent ’ s mind. Rather, the key appears to be packaging in terms of an end use. Respondents react to specifi cs, just as they do in concepts. It ’ s not the particular package, or even the notion of packaging, but rather how the package and the person interact. If the package simplifi es the life of the consumer respondents, then it ’ s likely that packaging will be chosen as an important aspect. The rule here is not “ packaging ” per se, but rather something that is rel- evant to the respondent in daily life, something specifi c, something familiar.

Do Consumers Respond to Packaging Features in the Body of a Concept?

This second section of the chapter focuses on specifi c packaging features for one product, a carbonated soft

drink. Look at any supermarket or the local convenience or C Store. The beverage aisle is quite abuzz with the comings and goings of different brands, the fi ckle tastes of consumers and, most of all, the ongoing fi ght between powerhouse brands like Coca - Cola ® with the emerging interest in good - for - you products such as bottled waters and energy/health drinks.

Doing the Experiment — A New Twist on a Familiar Theme

The approach we used is similar to the experimental designs that we describe throughout this book. There is only one major change, however, and it is that change which produces the information. It is “ fi t to and end use ” that tells the story.

The process followed these steps: % selecting the term packaging itself

Kids beverage 7.3 Sports drink 6.5 Enhanced water 5.1 Flavored cider 4.6

% selecting convenient to buy

Shakes 7.6 Smoothies 6.5 Sports drink 5.6 Enhanced water 5.6 Flavored tequila 5.2 Yogurt beverage 4.8 Flavored cider 4.6 Lemon lime soda 4.2

Cola 4.2

Soy beverage 4.1 Kids beverage 4.1

Coolers 4.1

% selecting convenient to carry Enhanced water 10.2 Kids beverage 8.2 Sports drink 6.5 Smoothies 6.0 Iced tea 4.5 Yogurt beverage 4.3 Meal replacement Beverage 4.2

1. Create the experimental design as we had done for the Crave It! ™ and Drink It! ™ databases. The design comprises four silos of nine elements each. These elements were mixed and matched by the experimen- tal design. Every respondent evaluated a different, unique set of 60 combinations. These 36 elements were all text elements rather than pictures. Most of the elements were descriptions of fl avors or state- ments about emotion. Three elements, however, dealt with packaging, which were always associated with a benefi t for the respondent:

With a thermal barrier your drink will stay colder

longer.

The mini - drink 6 - pack … the perfect size for chil-

dren and people on the go.

Available in gallons to quench that giant thirst. 2. The respondents were led to a “ wall ” that showed

the available studies from the set of 12 studies. The 12 studies were actually the same, except for “ end use ” (e.g., appropriate for breakfast, appro- priate for Coca - Cola ® , etc.). We saw a similar approach in Figure 2.2 , where we dealt with the “ wall ” for Drink It! ™ The only thing that changed was the rating scale. For example, for the Coca - Cola ® study, the respondent read a concept and rated how well it would fi t Coca - Cola ® . For the breakfast study, for example, the respondent rated the concept on how well it would fi t a breakfast beverage. So, with this type of scheme, all that really changes is the respon- dent ’ s mind - set. Everything else is pretty much the same.

3. When we analyze the results, we look for the effect of the “ end ” use on the impacts or utilities of the individual elements. Does the impact change by end use? If so, then tuning the respondent ’ s mind to the end use affects how he reacts to the concept. 4. Most important for this analysis is the researcher ’ s

ability to look at the impact of each of three packag- ing elements as the end use changes. The question that we can answer is simply “ Does end use or need state change the impact of a package element? ”

So, Where Is Packaging in This World of the New Carbonated Beverage?

Let ’ s look at the impact values for the 36 elements in Table 2.4 . As we typically do, we sort these elements from highest to lowest, in order to get a sense of “ what ’ s hot and what ’ s not. ” When we look at the 36 impact

values, we cannot help but be struck by two things. First, the winning elements are taste/fl avor, with maybe a little bit of “ health ” and “ good for you ” thrown in. Second, packaging is not good, not bad, for the elements that we chose. Packaging is, in a phrase, “ just there. ” However, when we get to the statement “ gallons of beverage, ” we discover that the utilities of this packaging element are negative.

So what are we to make of this? By itself, packaging is functional, and not a “ destination element ” that drives acceptance. This is very important. People drink with their eyes and, of course, with their mouths. Taste, fl avor, even ingredients are important. Packaging is important, but in a different way. The package stores the product and makes it available. But packaging is not the major driver of acceptance that fl avor is. At least packaging is not the major driver for the total panel, for a carbonated beverage.

Does Positioning or End Use Change Response to Packaging?

We know now that packaging is only modestly impor- tant, that the specifi c package feature affects the utility, and, fi nally, that taste/fl avor. Good - for - you messages do far better or at least the correct messages do far better. We also know that it is possible to have packaging mes- sages that don ’ t do well. (For example, “ Available in

gallons to quench that giant thirst ” didn ’ t do well, with

an impact of − 5, for the unpositioned, that is, otherwise unspecifi ed carbonated beverage.)

What about the remaining 11 studies in this database, where the product is positioned, both in the introduction and in the rating question? Does positioning the carbon- ated beverage in terms of end use or for a specifi c brand or age group make any difference in the performance of the packaging elements? This is an interesting question because one of the elements, “ The mini - drink 6 - pack …

the perfect size for children and people on the go, ” does

talk about situation.

Let ’ s answer this question by looking at the perfor- mance of the three packaging elements in the 12 different studies listed for us in Table 2.5 . We will not look at the other 33 elements, despite the richness of the results and the temptation to “ get lost in the data and look for insights. ” Rather, we will focus our attention on the packaging elements. Furthermore, we will look at the performance of these elements by total panel, as well as by subgroups, in the population (genders, ages). To make

Chapter 2 Consumer Packaging: Important Functionally, but Not Attitudinally 21

Table 2.4 Impact or utility value of the 36 elements for concepts about an otherwise unnamed, unpositioned carbonated beverage. The three packaging elements in the set of 36 elements are shaded.

B8 A thrilling burst of unique cherry fl avor and a sweet, crisp taste that gives you “ more to go wild for ”

8

C1 Delivers at least 100% of the recommended daily intake of Vitamin C, 15% of folate, and 14% of potassium per 8 - oz. serving

7

D7 An energizer that keeps you going … without the caffeine

6

D5 Rich and creamy with no caffeine … the perfect drink to satisfy the whole family

5

B5 Enjoy a smooth slightly translucent drink that ’ s intriguing from the very fi rst sip

5

B2 With a little splash of vanilla fl avor … sure to delight 4 C4 Enjoy a delicious taste, but without the calories 4 B9 Introducing new clear natural refreshments with a light

hint of fl avor

4

A2 100% organic … healthy for you and the planet 3 C8 Created for today ’ s naturally healthy lifestyle 3 D4 Helps you to achieve peak performance when you need

it most

3

C6 Quenches your thirst and stimulates your mind 2 D1 Enjoy a daring, high - energy, high - intensity, active drink 2 C7 For the health conscious … a sweet drink with no

sugar or aspartame

2

C2 A healthful source of calcium 2 D9 So light, so crisp, so refreshing 2 C3 Provides you with the balanced nutrition you need to

live a healthier life

1

D6 A drink that kids thirst for and moms will love 1

the analysis easy, we sorted the studies for each element by the impact for the total panel.

Take a look at the fi rst element: “ The mini - drink 6 - pack … the perfect size for children and people on the go. ” We see a very clear pattern:

1. When the carbonated beverage is positioned for kids, ages 7 – 11, the mini - drink 6 - pack is perfectly appro- priate, with a utility of +16. This fi nding makes sense because the product has been positioned for kids. On the other hand, it is defi nitely inappropriate for a supper or after - supper beverage. The respondents are saying that this mini - drink 6 - pack idea simply doesn ’ t work if the beverage is positioned to be consumed at home. For the other situations, this mini - drink 6 - pack idea is irrelevant.

2. Just because the total panel reacts strongly to an element doesn ’ t mean that everyone will react as strongly. The younger respondents (ages 21 – 30 and

31 – 40) fi nd this packaging idea appropriate. On the other hand, when we get to the older respondents, 41 – 50 years old, the mini - drink 6 - pack just doesn ’ t score as well. So we learn here that the performance of the packaging element emerges from the three - way interaction of the particular packaging element, the end use to which the element is being positioned, and the nature of the respondent who is doing the evaluating.

3. We shouldn ’ t look for general rules. It ’ s suffi cient with these types of data to fi nd out what works “ in general ” (total panel). It ’ s with the total panel where we expect to fi nd rules of what works and what doesn ’ t. When we get to the fi ne - grained detail, the granular data, such as the element - by - end - use - by - age, more than likely the general patterns will just not be clear. Often interactions are more subtle and more prone to random, confusing error, than are simple “ main effects ” of one element at a time.

B4 An eclectic mix of fruit and other intriguing fl avors 1 A5 With a thermal barrier, your drink will stay colder

longer