376 Int. J. Business Innovation and Research, Vol. 4, No.

4, 2010

Packaging elements and consumer buying decisions

Bahram Ranjbarian, Somayeh Mahmoodi and

Arash Shahin*
Department of Management,
University of Isfahan,
Hezar Jarib St., Isfahan, 81746-73441, Iran
Fax: +98 311 7932604
E-mail: [email protected]
E-mail: [email protected]
E-mail: [email protected]
*Corresponding author

Abstract: Since food products directly affect consumers’ health, they consider
more care in selection of such products. Packaging as an important element
plays a major role in consumer decision of food products. The aim of this
research is to gain a deeper understanding of the role of packaging elements in
consumer buying decisions considering different product categories. For this
purpose, some hypotheses have been derived in order to examine the influence
of factors such as the effects of colour, size, information, images, ease of use,
and shape of package on consumer buying decisions based on a literature
review. The hypotheses have been examined in a survey including a random
sample of 60 MBA students of the University of Isfahan. The findings imply
that graphical, structural and informational elements of packaging influence
customer choice of product, while the measure of influence differs for various
elements in different product categories.

Keywords: packaging; consumer decision; product category.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Ranjbarian, B.,

Mahmoodi, S. and Shahin, A. (2010) ‘Packaging elements and consumer
buying decisions’, Int. J. Business Innovation and Research, Vol. 4, No. 4,
pp.376–390.

Biographical notes: Bahram Ranjbarian is an Associate Professor of

Marketing at the University of Isfahan and has research interests in consumer
behaviour. He is currently the Chief Editor of Administrative Sciences and
Economics Journal and also the Assistant Dean of Research Affair in the
Faculty of Administrative Sciences and Economics at the University of Isfahan,
Iran.

Somayeh Mahmoodi is a Marketing graduate from the University of Isfahan,

and has research interests in marketing plan, packaging and customer
relationship management.

Arash Shahin graduated in Iran in 1995 and 1998 with BS and MS in Industrial
Engineering, respectively. He received his PhD in Quality Engineering from
the University of Newcastle, UK in 2003. He carried out research in quality
engineering, both in manufacturing and service fields. From 1992 to 1995, he
was the Quality Manager of a car parts producer company in Isfahan. From
1995 to 2003, he was the Executive Manager of Amin Cara Engineering

Copyright © 2010 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

 Packaging elements and consumer buying decisions 377

Consulting Co. (Isfahan). Currently, he is a full-time Assistant Professor at the

Department of Management, University of Isfahan. He authored four books and
more than 150 published papers at national and international levels in refereed
journals and conferences since 1994.

1 Introduction

In today global competition, companies are looking for a powerful solution that can
transform their efficient product development processes into a source of competitive
advantage (Hua et al., 2006). In this respect, it is necessary for organisations to
understand customer needs and problems so that accumulating technological expertise
could be directed towards the development of a commercially viable product
(McDonough III et al., 2006). Packaging is one of the important elements in consumer
decision of products and particularly in food products. In general terms, packaging is a
container that is in direct contact with product itself, which holds, protects, preserves and
identifies the product as well as facilitating handling and commercialisation. In response
to increasing competitive pressure and apart from technical challenges, packaging design
expectations are increasing as well (Munzel, 2007). Packaging is an important trade in
the industrialised part of the world and is becoming more important for logistic purposes
in developing countries (Rundh, 2005). Packaging is no longer considered a container for
a product but a sign or billboard (van Hurley, 2007). The packaging of a product provides
information to the consumer to assist with purchase decisions. To many people,
readability and appearance of packaging are affected if the carton is burst on the surface
(Munzel, 2007). More specifically; there are three types of packaging:
1 Primary packaging which is in direct contact with the product, such as perfume
bottles.
2 Secondary packaging which contains one or more primary package and serves to
protect and identify products and to communicate their quality. It is normally
discarded when the product is used or consumed. Following the previous example,
this would be the cardboard box that contains the perfume bottle.
3 Tertiary packaging which contains the two previous ones and its function is to
distribute, unify and protect products throughout the commercial chain. This would
be the card board box that contains several bottles (Ampuero and Vila, 2006).
In marketing literature, packaging is considered to form part of the product and the brand.
As Evans and Berman (1992) stated, packaging is an extrinsic element of the product,
that is to say, it is an attribute which is associated with the product but does not form part
of the physical product. Price and brand are also extrinsic elements of the brand and
according to Underwood et al. (2001), these are the most important extrinsic values when
come to deciding what food products to buy. Packaging is presented as part of the buying
and consuming process, but often it is not directly related to the ingredients that are
essential for the product to function (Underwood, 2003).
Packaging represents one of the most important vehicles for communicating the brand
message directly to the target consumer. Since it reaches almost all buyers in the
378 B. Ranjbarian et al.

category; it is present at the crucial moment when the decision to buy is made (Wells et
al., 2007); and buyers are actively involved with packaging as they examine it to obtain
the information they need (Ampuero and Vila, 2006).
The real value of packaging is that the package is an integral part of the product
today. While corporate functions divide the component parts, the consumer does not
differentiate between the product, the package and the equity. The package is the product
delivery system and the package comes of great use in selling the product (Ahmed et al.,
2005).
Numerous market trends suggest a growing role for product packaging as a brand
communication vehicle. These include a reduction in spending on traditional
brand-building mass media advertising (Belch and Belch, 2001), an increase in
nondurable product buying decisions at the store shelf, and growing management
recognition of the capacity of packaging to create differentiation and identify relatively
homogenous consumer nondurable goods. Considering all point-of-purchase
communication vehicles, the primary role for product packaging at the shelf is to generate
consumer attention by breaking through the competitive clutter (Underwood et al., 2001).
The importance of packaging design and the use of packaging as a vehicle for
communication and branding is growing (Rettie and Brewer, 2000), as packaging takes a
role similar to other marketing communications elements. One reason for this is simply
the fact that consumer may not think very deeply about brands before he/she goes into the
store for shopping. It is important to note that in an investigation, 73% of purchase
decisions are made at the point of sale. Also, in another research work, one shopper
explained that she spent a ‘great deal longer choosing a dessert’ as compared to other
food products and that ‘packaging had a big influence on her decision’ (Wells et al.,
2007).
By using design to improve customer value, sales packaging is one of the key
components that can provide a competitive advantage for many consumer products
(Rundh, 2005). From the consumer perspective, packaging also plays a major role when
products are purchased; packaging is crucial, given that it is the first thing that the public
sees before making the final decision to buy (Ampuero and Vila, 2006). This function has
increased with the arrival and popularisation of self-service sales systems which have
caused packaging to move to the foreground in attracting attention and causing a
purchase. Prior to this, it had remained behind the counter and only the sales attendant
stays between the consumer and the product (Ampuero and Vila, 2006). Store salespeople
have the responsibility for guiding the consumer to buy; with the advent of self-service
selling, packaging addresses the role of ‘silent salesman’ using visual communications to
get the consumer’s attention, introduces its contents, and encourages the consumer to
make the purchase (Sonsino, 1990). In the current self-service economy, packaging
provides manufacturers with the last opportunity to persuade possible buyers before
brand selection (Ampuero and Vila, 2006). Elements of the packaging, including
cover, colour, structure and graphics have to be combined to provide the consumer
with visual sales negotiation when purchasing and using the product (McNeal and
Mindy, 2003).
The aim of this paper is to examine the effects of packaging elements including
colour, size, information, image, ease of use and shape on buying decisions and also to
examine the relative importance of each packaging element for selected products in a
case study. Thus, the paper’s major research questions are as follows:
 Packaging elements and consumer buying decisions 379

1 Does package colour influence consumer choice?

2 Does package size influence consumer choice of product?
3 Do images on package influence consumer choice of product?
4 Does package ease of use influence consumer choice of product?
5 Does information on package influence consumer choice of product?
6 Does packaging shape influence consumer choice of product?
For this purpose, in the following, the subject of packaging design is demonstrated and
the key elements of packaging including graphic, structural and informational elements
are introduced. The research methodology is then described and a case study is presented
in which, data is collected using questionnaire and statistically analysed. Finally, the
findings are discussed and conclusions are derived.

2 Packaging design

Consumers will increasingly make their initial choices based on aesthetic value. Thus, the
question commonly faced by many food retailers is how to distinguish or differentiate
their product from competing products. During the 1980s, UK food retailers began to
enhance the pack design of their products, discovering that improvements in packaging
design and product quality enabled them to compete directly with food manufacturers
(Munzel, 2007). Product design must include consideration of the impact that design
decisions will have on operations, maintenance, transportation and supply (Klevas, 2005).
Literature on package design has concentrated on the growing importance of design
in packaging and the role of packaging as a vehicle for communication and branding.
While there is considerable literature on package design, they mostly have been applied
to individual package designs and only a few contain empirical research. The more the
psychological involvement connected with the research of quality, the more the role of
packaging as a quality cue becomes relevant and asks for an effective approach in
packaging design (Rocchi and Stefani, 2005). Attempting to design a package with the
consumer in mind decreases the likelihood that any features a consumer searches for will
be overlooked. Therefore, manufacturers and designers must know what the specific
elements of a package suggest to consumers in order to send a clear message. They must
know what attributes a consumer will look for in a product and design a package that will
convey those attributes (Whaling, 2007). Researchers are able to better understand what
consumers perceive about products and what motivates them to buy. Discovering and
using these motives and the driving factors behind purchasing behaviour is extremely
fertile around for marketing experts which can later be translated into packaging designs
(Whaling, 2007).
The role of package design is changed with the move to self-service, and the
packages become an essential part of the selling process. The move to larger
supermarkets and increased segmentation of markets has led to the proliferation of
products, so the packaging has to work in a more crowded competitive context both in the
retail environment and in the food stores (Rettie and Brewer, 2000).
Olson and Jacoby (1972) refer to a package as an extrinsic cue; that is an attribute that
is product-related but not part of the physical product. Cue utilisation theory suggests that
380 B. Ranjbarian et al.

consumers tend to use extrinsic cues as surrogate indicators of product quality, occurring
most often when the consumer is unfamiliar with the product; when insufficient
opportunity exists for the consumer to evaluate the intrinsic attributes of a product; and
when the consumer cannot make an adequate evaluation of the intrinsic attributes
(Underwood et al., 2001).
It is suggested that packaging may be the biggest medium of communication .Three
reasons are given for this:
1 its extensive reach to nearly all purchasers of the category
2 its presence at the crucial moment when the purchase decision is made
3 the high level of involvement for users who will actively scan packaging for
information (Rettie and Brewer, 2000).

3 Key elements of packaging

Prendergast and Pitt (1996) review the basic functions of packaging and their role in
either logistics or marketing. The logistical function of packaging is mainly to protect the
product during movement through distribution channels. This could cause added
packaging expense, but serves to reduce the incidence of damage, spoilage or loss
through theft or misplaced goods. In the marketing function, packaging provides an
attractive method to convey messages about product attributes to consumers at the point
of sale. It may be difficult to separate these two package functions, as they are usually
needed. The package sells the product by attracting attention and communicating, and
also allows the product to be contained, apportioned, unitised and protected. Whatever
the functional aspects of packaging are as related to logistics considerations, packaging is
one of the product attributes perceived by consumers. It can not escape performing the
marketing function, even if a company does not explicitly recognise the marketing
aspects of package. There is, of course, a risk of miscommunication by package, but a
package well designed for its marketing function helps sell the product by attracting
attention and positively communicating (Silayoi and Speece, 2007).
Consumer decision-making can be defined as a mental orientation characterising a
consumer’s approach to making choice. This approach deals with cognitive and affective
orientation in the process of decision making (Lemanski, 2007). Six main packaging
elements potentially affecting consumer purchase decisions are separated into three
categories as graphic, structural and informational elements. The graphic elements consist
of colour and images on package; structural elements consist of size and shape of
packaging; and informational elements are related to information provided in the package
and ease of use.

3.1 Graphic elements: colour/images

The significance of graphics is explained by the images created on the package, whether
these images are purposely developed by the marketer, or unintended and unanticipated.
Graphics include colour, combinations, typography and product photography and the
total presentation communicate an image. The accessibility-diagnostic framework put
forth by Feldman and Lynch (1988) may offer some guidance as well. This framework
 Packaging elements and consumer buying decisions 381

suggests that the probability that any piece of information will be used as an input for
judgment or choice depends on the accessibility of the input; accessibility of alternative
inputs; and diagnostic or perceived relevance of the inputs.
One of the core strengths of packaging as a marketing communication vehicle is its
inherent accessibility at the point of purchase. Incorporation visual imagery on this
vehicle may enhance accessibility even more, because pictures are extremely vivid
stimuli compared to words.
According to Underwood and Klein (2002), the packages with pictures are preferred
over the packages without pictures (van Hurley, 2007). A vivid product picture may serve
as a very diagnostic piece of information in some product purchase situations. In an
investigation, over 43% of consumers claimed to use the pack photography as an
indication of product quality and one customer commented that they ‘used the
photography to assist as a serving suggestion’ (Wells et al., 2007). For consumers
wishing to save money, a picture may validate the quality of a more inexpensive private
label product comparing to a national brand. In categories where product knowledge is
low, the product picture may again prove to be highly diagnostic (Zeithaml, 1988). This
may be especially true if little variance exists in price and in perceived quality among
brands .The picture becomes an information input that consumer can use to compare and
differentiate among brands. The relative accessibility and diagnostic of product picture
for judgment and choice is likely to depend on variables such as time pressure, the
consumers’ experience with the product, and their ability to evaluate intrinsic product
attributes. For example those shoppers, who are restricted with their shopping time, relied
heavily on extrinsic attributes, especially visual information. Time pressured subjects
tend to filter textual information such as ingredient information on packages, more
preferring the less cognitively-taxing pictorial information (Wells et al., 2007). Also,
Ahmed et al. (2005) emphasises that the impact of visual package elements on choice is
stronger when consumers have low levels of involvement with the product due to time
pressure and weaker when they have high levels of involvement due to less time pressure.
Ellis and Miller (1981) found that right-handed respondents preferred print
advertisements with verbal copy on the right and pictorial on the left. And non-attended
verbal advertisements are preferred when placed on the right hand of attended material,
while the converse is true of non-attended pictorial print advertisements. Recall was
better for verbal stimuli when the copy was on the right-hand side of pack, and better for
non-verbal stimuli when it was on the left-hand side of the pack (Rettie and Brewer,
2000).
Ampuero and Vila (2006) found that non-selective products, directed to the middle
classes, use horizontal and oblique straight lines, circles, curves, wavy outlines,
asymmetrical compositions and other elements. In contrast, high price products appear to
be associated with vertical straight lines, squares, straight outlines and symmetrical
composition with one single element.
One of the important advantages of picture on packages may be their ability to
enhance incidental learning. This has special significance for non durables, which often
involves low involvement choice processes such as incidental learning. Research has
demonstrated that people learn more quickly and effectively when information is
presented in picture rather than words. Pictorial content represent concrete information
that tends to be more influential in the decision-making process than more abstract verbal
information (Underwood et al., 2001).
382 B. Ranjbarian et al.

Colour may assist consumers with their purchasing behaviour. For example, when a
consumer replaces a used item, he or she will scan the supermarket shelves for the
familiar packaging colour then confirm the correct product choice by reading the brand
name (van Hurley, 2007). Consumers also learn colour associations, which leads them to
prefer certain colours for certain product categories (Grossman and Wisenblit, 1999).
One study that explains the dual nature of colour response is Crowley (1993). His
findings suggest that colour may have both an arousal component and an evaluative
component. From an associative learning perspective, the dual nature of colour responses
makes intuitive sense as researchers in classical conditioning have begun to discover that
attitudes formulated via the conditioning process may result both from belief formation, a
cognitive process, and through direct affect transfer, a more emotional process (Kim et
al., 1998). Using colour as a cue on packaging can foster a potentially strong association,
especially when it is unique to a particular brand. However, people in different cultures
are exposed to different colour associations and develop colour preferences based on their
own culture (Ahmed et al., 2005) Marketers therefore must consider colour as part of
their strategies. Simply taking the colours of a particular logo, package or product design
from one market to another should only be done under a thorough understanding of how
colours and the colour combinations are perceived in each location (Silayoi and Speece,
2007).
Products that are directed to the upper social classes, with a high price and based on
elegant and refined aesthetics require cold, dark coloured (mainly black) packaging. In
contrast, accessible products that are directed to price sensitive consumers require light
(mainly white) coloured packaging. Safe and guaranteed products and patriotic products
are associated with red packaging, maybe because the colour of the national flag of the
consumers interviewed is essentially red (Ampuero and Vila, 2006).

3.2 Structural elements: size/shape

Package size, shape, and elongation also affect consumer judgment and decisions, but not
always in easily uncovered ways. Consumers apparently use these things as simplifying
visual heuristics to make volume judgments. Generally, they perceive more elongated
packages to be larger, even when they frequently purchase these packages and can
experience true volume. This implies that disconfirmation of package size after
consumption may not lead consumers to revise their volume judgments in the long term,
especially if the discrepancy is not very large (Silayoi and Speece, 2004). Packaging
shape also might have some influence on consumer purchase decisions. As found in the
literature, bigger package reflects better value (Ampuero and Vila, 2006). Consumers
from smaller households might not become interested in larger packages, and larger sizes
communicate waste to many of them. According to Whaling (2007), the size/shape of a
package relates more to the affective side of consumer decision making. Research has
shown that demand from the market also requires that many products can be bought in
different sizes of the package due to smaller households (Rundh, 2005). Different
packaging sizes potentially appeal to consumers with somewhat different involvement.
For example, for some low involvement food products, such as generics, low price is
made possible through cost savings created by reduced packaging and promotional
expenses. Since generics are usually packaged in large sizes, this directly caters to the
needs of consumers from larger households, who are more likely looking for good deals.
They find the low price of the generics, in larger packaging, is an attractive offer with
 Packaging elements and consumer buying decisions 383

excellent value for money. In addition, this could imply that when product quality is hard
to determine, the effect of packaging size is stronger. Thus, elongating the shape, within
acceptable bounds, should result in consumers thinking of the package as a better value
for money and result in larger sales generally. However, many other aspects of packaging
could also conceivably affect perceived volume, such as aspects of package shape,
colour, material, and aesthetic appeal (Silayoi and Speece, 2007). A package must also be
coincide with consumers expectations of the product. The traditional wine bottle versus a
bag in a box packaging system is one such example. For years consumers thought only
glass wine bottles with real cork closures were quality products. They expect that other
packages do not provide as good of a product. However, the bag in box packaging system
provides better protection from constantly changing temperatures, hard handling
conditions, exposure to light, and oxidation (Tinney, 2005).

3.3 Informational elements: information/ ease of use

Many consumers feel that it is important to consider information on the package in order
to compare quality and value. In the investigation of Wells et al. (2007), 21% of
consumers used the product descriptor as a tool for judging quality; this was especially
evident in those indulgent seeking consumers. This type of consumer appeared to be
easily persuaded by the use of sensory descriptor words to appeal to their senses. In the
words of one shopper, they were looking for a product that made ‘their stomach rumble
and mouth water’ when they read the descriptor. The trend towards healthier eating has
highlighted the importance of food labelling in allowing consumers the opportunity to
make carefully considered and informed food choices (Coulson, 2000). In contrast to
consumers who rely on visual information, some rely on label information quite heavily
for the final decision. The impact of informational package elements on choice is stronger
when consumers have high levels of involvement with the product due to enough time in
hand and weaker when they have low levels of involvement with the product due to time
pressure (Ahmed et al., 2005). Written information on the package can assist consumers
in making their decisions carefully as they consider product characteristics. However,
packaging information can create confusion by conveying either too much information or
misleading and inaccurate information. Manufacturers often use very small fonts and
very dense writing styles to pack extensive information onto the label, which lead to poor
readability and sometimes confusion (Silayoi and Speece, 2004). Information on food
labels needs to be accurately communicated. Lots of food labels are not clear. This
confusion leads people to ignore the information and sometimes it leads to rejection in
favour of packages on which information is more effectively communicated.
A similar framework, the availability-valence hypothesis, also suggests an improved
strategic position for packages that incorporate visual product imagery. This framework
posits that vivid information increases cognitive elaboration; that is, the enhancement of
the number of message-relevant associations in memory. Increased cognitive elaboration
thus improves the availability of making attitudinal judgments. The resulting judgments
are then based on the valence or favourableness of the available information. For those
products whose benefits can be favourably conveyed by a picture, a well-produced
product image is likely to evoke memorable and positive associations with the product
(Underwood et al., 2001). To satisfy consumers, who are increasingly demanding and
sophisticated, the powerful retailers seek greater responsiveness and flexibility from
384 B. Ranjbarian et al.

manufacturers including packaging. The ability to satisfy consumer now plays an

important role for both retailers and suppliers (Adebanjo, 2000). Innovation must respond
and develop new products that are more efficiently produced and packaged for a longer
shelf life; environmentally, friendly and nutritionally responsive to each of the emerging
segments of society, and meet maximum food safety requirements (McIlveen, 1994). The
most successful new product developments suggest increasing consumer demand for
convenient, portable, easy-to-prepare meal solutions that lessen the hassles of
time-starved modern urban life and the inevitable limitations on food preparation and
shopping time that distress consumers (Wells et al., 2007). One of the main functions of
the package is to dispense a proper amount of product when it is used. Package of
product should open easily as well.
A product’s packaging is seen on the shelf at the moment when consumers are in the
midst of the making a buying decision. The money spent on advertising, promotion and
education is irrelevant in the midst of the consumer’s purchase decision because the
packaging is the only thing available at the supermarket shelf (Hilton, 2005). However, it
is clear from the literature review that the packaging development is important, as
packaging plays a major role in consumer decisions of packaged food products. Earlier
studies, however, are not very extensive, and have not focused very carefully on
differences in how packaging elements are used for different products. This subject is
examined in the next section through a survey incorporating a sample of the students of
Business Management of the University of Isfahan.

4 Case study

In this research, the effects of colour, size, information, images, ease of use and shape of
package on consumer buying decisions is hypothesised and studied as follows:
H1 Package colour influences consumer buying decision.
H2 Package size influences consumer buying decision.
H3 Package information influences consumer buying decision.
H4 Package images influence consumer buying decision.
H5 Package ease of use influences consumer buying decision.
H6 Package shape influences consumer buying decision.
The research is carried out using questionnaire filled by MBA students of Business
Management at the University of Isfahan. The pilot sample size includes 60 students who
are selected randomly. After data analysis using 0.95 level of confidence and 0.05
assumed error, the needed size of the sample is calculated as 47; hence, the pilot sample
size was approved and found sufficient. Six product categories are selected for the study
as tomato sauce, biscuit, butter, tissue, juices and washing liquid to assess the influence
of each of the six packaging elements on consumer buying decisions. These product
categories are selected for study since almost all of them encompass the six elements.
The questionnaire is designed based on a 5-point Likert Scale. The questionnaire is
divided into six sections. Each section measures the influence of one of the elements on
the six product categories. Therefore, the questionnaire includes 36 questions. For
 Packaging elements and consumer buying decisions 385

statistical analysis, one sample t-test, two independent t-test, correlation analysis and
Freidman test are used. The data is analysed using version 15 of SPSS software.

4.1 Findings
Table 1 contains the results of one-sample t-test for each of the six packaging elements
included in this study. As it is illustrated, the mean value of the participants’ answers for
all of the six elements is more than the median, i.e., 3. Also, the significant level of t-test
for all the elements is equal to 0.000, which in turn supports the hypothesis of ‘mean
values are higher than the median’. Therefore, all of the six hypothesises are approved,
implying that the six packaging elements affects buyer decision.
It is important to note that although all of the values are greater than the median, their
differences seem not significant. According to the results, package information and
package shape have the highest and the lowest values respectively.
Table 1 The results of one-sample t-test

Hypothesis Mean Std. deviation T p-value

H1 3.7478 0.5926 9.773 0.000
H2 3.7500 0.7437 7.811 0.000
H3 3.8917 0.8574 8.055 0.000
H4 3.4378 0.7166 4.732 0.000
H5 3.8222 0.6494 9.807 0.000
H6 3.6533 0.6687 7.567 0.000

Table 2 The results of correlation analysis for each of the six packaging elements

Colour Size Information Image Ease of use Shape

Colour 1 –0.113 0.409** 0.586** 0.003 0.207
Size 1 –0.122 –0.335** 0.121 0.254*
Information 1 0.279* 0.006 0.134
Image 1 0.053 0.372**
Ease of use 1 0.022
Shape 1
Notes: **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed)
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed)
Table 2 illustrates the results of correlation analysis between the six packaging elements.
As it is indicated, there are some significant correlations among packaging elements. The
strongest correlation coefficient (0.586) is between package colour and package images.
This suggests that choosing a package colour that could match appropriately with image
on package is very effective. The next strong correlation (0.409) is between package
colour and package information. Negative correlation (–0.335) between package size and
package images implies that if the package size increases, the consumers do not like the
number or size of images on packages to be increased. The weakest meaningful
correlation exists between the package size and packaging shape at 0.05 level of
confidence. Based on the fact that correlation coefficient more than 0.5 is more
significant and should be critically considered in analysis and decision making, it is
386 B. Ranjbarian et al.

necessary to emphasise that the correlation between colour and image of packaging is
relatively more important than the other correlations.
By summing up the absolute values of the correlation coefficients of Table 2, total
values of 1.318, 0.945, 0.95, 1.625, 0.205 and 0.989 are computed for colour, size,
information, image, ease of use and shape of packaging, respectively. Consequently,
colour and image are found to play greater roles. Therefore, it is important to add that
although packaging information was addressed as the most influencing factor on buyer
decision making (according to Table 1), colour and image should be considered as critical
factors with respect to their greater correlation values compared to other packaging
elements.
In order to study the impact of consumer demographic factors on results, only gender
is considered for analysis. This is because of no significant differences in the sample
since all the respondents are MBA students, they have had same age, same level of
education and mostly unemployed. Two sample t-test is conducted to examine the impact
of respondents’ gender on the results. According to Table 3, only the informational
element contains significant difference. In addition, females realise informational element
of package more than males; perhaps due to the fact that females pay more attention to
details than males. As it was mentioned earlier, informational elements are related to
information provided in the package and ease of use.
Table 3 The results of two independent sample t-test for impact of gender

Packaging elements Gender Mean Std-deviation F p-value

Graphical elements Male 3.70 0.52 0.824 0.368
Female 3.47 0.62
Structural elements Male 3.81 0.62 1.10 0.297
Female 3.67 0.45
Informational elements Male 3.77 0.64 4.89 0.031
Female 3.94 0.39

Results of Friedman test for the six product categories are represented in Table 4. In the
following, the results are discussed separately for each product category.
Table 4 The results of Freidman test on different packaging elements among different product
categories

Mean rank
Tomato sauce Biscuit Butter Tissue Juices Washing liquid
Colour 4.08 2.42 3.24 2.42 3.56 3.86
Size 2.33 2.68 4.78 3.95 3.55 3.70
Images 2.16 3.74 2.5 3.80 3.83 3.01
Ease of use 4.05 2.52 3.31 2.65 3.34 3.31
Information 2.92 3.33 3.83 2.36 3.58 2.81
Shape 2.26 2.28 2.90 2.73 3.15 4.31
Chi-square 40.74 33.547 54.168 32.213 36.125 34.183
Asymp sig. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
 Packaging elements and consumer buying decisions 387

4.1.1 Tomato sauce

Package colour plays the most important role in consumer choice within this product
category with a mean rank of 4.08. Package ease of use has the second rank (4.05). For
instance, when a consumer looks for snack foods, colour of the package helps them to
find the product easier. Red bag of tomato sauce shows the content of the package and
helps the consumer to find this product quickly. Ease of use helps consumers to choose
special brands. For most of foods and in particular tomato sauce, ease of use is a vital
element of the package.

4.1.2 Biscuit
Table 4 indicates that images on package play the most important role in consumer
buying decisions within this product category with a mean rank of 3.74. For biscuit or
juices, colour and images of package help consumer to find desired taste. Biscuits are
produced with different tastes and buyers considerably realise the image in choosing
products with desired taste. For example, consumers first look for the picture of banana
or strawberry, etc. on the package and then try to select their desired taste.

4.1.3 Butter
Package size and information on package are the most important factors in consumer
buying decisions for these products with mean ranks of 4.78 and 3.83, respectively.
According to Coulson (2000), the trend towards healthier eating denotes the importance
of labelling, which provides consumers the opportunity to continuously consider
alternatives and make food choices with relatively perfect information. For some
products size of package is very important because small families cannot finish the larger
pack of food before the expiry date and they prefer to buy a smaller package which would
be more suitable for them. Some consumers do not like to put butter into refrigerator
while its pack is opened, because its smell will change. These consumers prefer to buy
small sizes of butter.

4.1.4 Tissue
Package size and package image are the most important factors in consumer buying
decisions for tissue with mean ranks of 3.95 and 3.80. Comparing with butter, the
informational elements of this product is not important. When people want to buy a
tissue, image on package becomes important. Also, it serves as a decoration.

4.1.5 Juices
While almost all of the package elements of this category are significantly important, the
image of package plays the most important role in consumer choice with a mean rank of
3.83. An attractive fruit image on the package of juice can influence buyers’ decision as it
sometimes reflects a good quality product.
388 B. Ranjbarian et al.

4.1.6 Washing liquid

Package shape is the most important factor in consumer buying decisions for washing
liquids with a mean rank of 4.31. Package colour has the second rank with a mean value
of 3.86. Shape of package and colourful pack for some products can effectively seize the
attention of consumer. It is important to note that information on package of washing
liquid is not so important for the studied sample; highlighting that the expiry date and/or
ingredients have weak influence on consumers’ choice of washing liquid.

5 Conclusions

This paper addressed the role of packaging elements in consumer buying decisions
considering different product categories. The subject of packaging design was
demonstrated and the key elements of packaging including graphic, structural and
informational elements were introduced. The research methodology was described and a
case study was presented in which, data collected through questionnaire was statistically
analysed.
The findings support the six hypothesises of the study. It is concluded that graphical,
structural and informational elements of packaging influence customers’ choice of
product in the studied sample. It is found that delivered information on packaging could
have a strong impact on the consumers’ purchase decision. This information reduces the
uncertainty and enhances product credibility. It is important to note that some products
such as foods (e.g., butter, tomato sauce and juice) are needed to be more carefully
selected by the consumer. Considering the information element, products such as foods
require more attention and other household products, such as tissue and washing liquid
require less attention. Since food products directly affect consumers’ health, they
consider more care in selection of such products. Also, for these products, expiry date
and nutrition facts are very important. Some other product categories such as washing
liquid and tissue have longer expiration. For these products people usually pay attention
to graphic and structure elements more than information elements. For products such as
tissue and washing liquid, nice images on the package and colourful package make them
more attractive. While it is strongly argued that packaging is an important marketing tool
for food products, it should be noted that each of the three elements of packaging
stimulates consumer buying decisions differently.
Consumption patterns differ in various markets and in different parts of the world.
Therefore, the influence of package elements on consumers’ choice might be different in
different regions and countries. This in turn provides a good opportunity for future
research. The subjects addressed and discussed in this research seem necessary for
developing effective packaging which can maximise in-store consumer choice. However,
more detailed understanding of the subjects is necessary and their careful examination in
other product categories and from different types of consumers’ viewpoints could further
develop the outcomes obtain in this research.
It is clear that packaging plays a very important role in product choice and in contrary
it is also clear that poor packaging can push consumers away from buying the product.
Consequently, better understanding of the subjects in packaging design becomes a critical
success factor in the competitiveness of packaged products and differentiation of
companies in markets.
 Packaging elements and consumer buying decisions 389

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the anonymous referees for their helpful comments on an
earlier version of this paper.

References
Adebanjo, D. (2000) ‘Identifying problems in forecasting consumer demand in the fast moving
consumer goods sector’, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp.223–230.
Ahmed, A., Ahmed, N. and Salman, A. (2005) ‘Critical issues in packaged food business’, British
Food Journal, Vol. 107, No. 10, pp.760–780.
Ampuero, O. and Vila, N. (2006) ‘Consumer perception of product packaging’, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp.100–112.
Belch, G.E. and Belch, M.A. (2001) Advertising and Promotion: an Integrated Marketing
Communications Perspective, McGraw-Hill Irwin, Boston, MA.
Coulson, N.S. (2000) ‘An application of the stages of change model to consumer use of food
labels’, British Food Journal, Vol. 102, No. 9, pp.661–668.
Crowley, A.E. (1993) ‘The two-dimensional impact of color on shopping’, Marketing Letters,
Vol. 4, No. 1, pp.59–69.
Ellis, A.W. and Miller, D. (1981) ‘Left and wrong in adverts: neuropsychological correlates of
aesthetic preferences’, British Journal of Psychology, Vol. 72, No. 2, pp.225–229.
Evans, J. and Berman, B. (1992) Marketing, Macmillan Publishing Co, New York, NY.
Feldman, J. and Lynch, J. Jr. (1988) ‘Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on
belief, attitude, intention and behavior’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 73, No. 3,
pp.421–435.
Grossman, R.P. and Wisenblit, J.Z. (1999) ‘What we know about consumers’ color choices’,
Journal of Marketing Practice: Applied Marketing Science, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp.78–88.
Hilton, J. (2005) ‘Packaging: your face to the customer’, Neutraceuticals World, April, pp.42–45.
Hua, Zh., Yang, J., Coulibaly, S. and Zhang, B. (2006) ‘Integration TRIZ with problem-solving
tools: a literature review from 1995 to 2006’, International Journal of Business Innovation &
Research, Vol. 1, Nos. 1/2, pp.111–128.
Kim, J., Lim, J.S. and Bhargava, M. (1998) ‘The role of affect in attitude formation: a classical
conditioning approach’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 26, No. 2,
pp.143–152.
Klevas, J. (2005) ‘Organization of packaging resources at a product-developing company’,
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 35, No. 2,
pp.116–131.
Lemanski, J. (2007) ‘Impact of cognitive load and source credibility on attitude toward the ad for
affective and cognitive advertising appeals’, PhD thesis of Florida University.
McDonough, E.F. III, Athanassiou, N. and Barczak, G. (2006) ‘Networking for global new product
innovation’, International Journal of Business Innovation & Research, Vol. 1, Nos. 1/2,
pp.9–26.
McIlveen, H. (1994) ‘Product development and the consumer: the reality of the managing
creativity’, Nutrition & Food Science, Vol. 94, No. 6, pp.26–30.
McNeal, J.U. and Mindy, F.J. (2003) ‘Children’s visual memory of packaging’, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 20, No. 5, pp.400–427.
Munzel, J. (2007) ‘Marketing innovation pharmaceutical packaging technology and design
requirements are on the rise’, Journal of Medical Marketing, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp.136–145.
390 B. Ranjbarian et al.

Olson, J.C. and Jacoby, J. (1972) ‘Cue utilization in the quality perception process’, in Venkatesan,
M. (Ed.): Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer
Research, pp.167–179, Association for Consumer Research, Iowa City, IA.
Prendergast, P.G. and Pitt, L. (1996) ‘Packaging, marketing, logistics and the environment: are
there trade-offs?’, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,
Vol. 26, No. 6, pp.60–72.
Rettie, R. and Brewer, C. (2000) ‘The verbal and visual components of package design’, Journal of
Product & Brand Management, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp.56–70.
Rocchi, B. and Stefani, G. (2005) ‘Consumers’ perception of wine packaging: a case study’,
International Journal of Wine Marketing, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp.33–44.
Rundh, B. (2005) ‘The multi-faceted dimension of packaging, marketing logistic or marketing
tool?’, British Food Journal, Vol. 107, No. 9, pp.670–684.
Silayoi, P. and Speece, M. (2004) ‘Packaging and purchase decisions: a focus group study on the
impact of involvement level and time pressure’, British Food Journal, Vol. 106, No. 8,
pp. 607–628.
Silayoi, P. and Speece, M. (2007) ‘The importance of packaging attributes: a conjoint analysis
approach’, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41, Nos. 11/12, pp.1495–1517.
Sonsino, S. (1990) Packaging Design: Graphics, Materials, Technology, Gustavo Gili, Barcelona.
Tinney, M. (2005) ‘3L boxed wine sales take off’, Retail Sales Analysis, Vol. 12, No. 8, pp.78–85.
Underwood, R.L., Klein, N.M. and Burke, R.R. (2001) ‘Packaging communication: attention
effects of product imagery’, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 10, No. 7,
pp.403–422.
Underwood, R.L. and Klein, N. (2002) ‘Packaging as brand communication: effects of product
pictures on consumer responses to the package brand’, Journal of Marketing Theory &
Practice, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp.58–68.
Underwood, R.L. (2003) ‘The communicative power of product packaging: creating brand identity
via lived and mediated experience’, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 11, No. 1,
pp.62–77.
van Hurley, V.L. (2007) ‘The influence of packaging color on consumer purchase intent: the
influence of color at the point of purchase’, PhD thesis, Michigan University.
Wells, L.E., Farley, H. and Armstrong, G.A. (2007) ‘The importance of packaging design for
own-label food brands’, International Journal of Retail & Distribution, Vol. 35, No. 9,
pp.677–690.
Whaling, A.M. (2007) ‘The effect of packaging attributes on consumer perception of cherry juice’,
PhD Thesis of Michigan University.
Zeithaml, V. (1988) ‘Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: a means-end model and
synthesis of evidence’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, No. 3, pp.2–22.