At Marketing Sciences we believe that packaging is often under-valued and in turn is under-evaluated. Advertising typically receives much greater attention and investment, yet TV viewership is, according to Nielsen, declining among key target groups while Lightspeed report that younger consumers are less engaged due to multitasking on their tablets while ‘watching’ TV.
I would argue that your pack is a much more frequent communicator for your brand – it plays a key role in-store at the first moment of truth (creating impact, communicating expectations about your brand, and driving purchase intent), while in-home, at the second moment of truth, it vindicates their decision to purchase by delivering a product in tip top condition, providing great functionality, and encouraging re-purchase.
We base our assessments around a model developed for advertising research, but adapted to packaging in the modern world:
– A for Attention : If your pack isn’t seen at the fixture, it can’t be bought
– B for Branding : What is it about your pack that helps turn impact into recognition? Think chocolate, think purple, and Voila! If only it was that easy
– C for Communication : What does the pack say about your brand?
– D for Desire : I like what it will do so I’ll buy it. Or will I?
– E for Environment : Not just recyclability or sustainability, but does this pack suggest this brand is socially responsible?
– F for Functionality : Opening, closing, holding, handling, squeezing, squirting, storing, standing… I’m sure you get the picture!
Packaging research should, and can, assess the performance of your packaging at all of these key touchpoints and here at Marketing Sciences I’ve utilised a number of approaches to gain a thorough understanding of the performance of your packaging – both existing and potential.
That’s enough from me for now, I’ll share more on our approaches at a later date. A final thought, what examples of great and terrible packaging have you seen of late?