Abstract

The position of design elements on product packaging has been shown to exert a measurable impact on consumer perception across a number of different studies and product categories. Design elements previously found to influence the consumer through their positioning on the front of pack include product imagery, brand logos, text-based claims, and basic shapes. However, as yet, no empirical research has focused specifically on the relative position of transparent windows; despite the latter being an increasingly prevalent element of many modern packaging designs. This exploratory online study details an experimental investigation of how manipulating the position of a transparent window on a range of visually-presented, novel packaging designs influences consumer evaluations and judgements of the product seen within. Specifically, 110 participants rated 24 different packaging designs (across four product categories: granola, boxed chocolates, pasta, and lemon mousse; each with six window positions: in one of the four quadrants, the top half, or the bottom half) in a within-participants experimental design. Analyses were conducted using Friedman’s tests and Hochberg procedure-adjusted Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Tests. Window position was found to be a non-trivial element of design, with a general preference for windows on the right-hand side being evidenced. Significantly higher scores for expected product tastiness and design attractiveness were consistently identified across all product categories when windows were positioned on the right- vs. left-hand side of the packaging. Effects on the perception of powerfulness, overall liking, quality, and willingness to purchase were identified, but were inconsistent across the different product categories. Very few effects of window verticality were identified, with expected weight of the product not being significantly influenced by window position. The implications of these findings for academics, designers, and brand managers are discussed, with future research directions highlighted.

Highlights

  • Most adults in the western world are typically exposed to, and interact with, product packaging many times over the course of each and every day [1]

  • Fransen, and Borgelink, 2014) [11,12], brand and product powerfulness (Dong and Gleim, 2018 [13]; Fenko, de Vries, and Van Rompay, 2018 [14]; Machiels and Orth, 2017 [15]; Sundar and Noseworthy, 2014 [16]), product quality (Machiels and Orth, 2017) [15], product healthfulness (Festila and Chrysochou, 2016) [17], calorific content (Thomas and Gierl, 2017) [18], and overall product liking (Westerman et al, 2013 [19]; see Velasco, Adams, Petit, & Spence, 2018 [20]). These effects have been found for the position of elements that include: basic shapes, product imagery, text, and brand logos

  • The results for the effect of window verticality on perceptions of heaviness demonstrates a failure for transparent windows to replicate the results of Deng and Khan (2009) and Van Rompay, Fransen, and Borgelink (2014), where expected heaviness was greater with packaging designs featuring lower windows [11,12]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Most adults in the western world are typically exposed to, and interact with, product packaging many times over the course of each and every day (see Food Marketing Institute, 2017) [1]. The relative positions of various design elements on packaging have, for example, been found to influence perceptions of product weight (Deng and Kahn, 2009; Van. Rompay, Fransen, and Borgelink, 2014) [11,12], brand and product powerfulness (Dong and Gleim, 2018 [13]; Fenko, de Vries, and Van Rompay, 2018 [14]; Machiels and Orth, 2017 [15]; Sundar and Noseworthy, 2014 [16]), product quality (Machiels and Orth, 2017) [15], product healthfulness (Festila and Chrysochou, 2016) [17], calorific content (Thomas and Gierl, 2017) [18], and overall product liking (Westerman et al, 2013 [19]; see Velasco, Adams, Petit, & Spence, 2018 [20]). The previously identified effects of design element position on product perceptions are reviewed in Table 1 (and are discussed further below)

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call