To what extent is packaging more important to consumers than the quality of the product? Megan Ojari Ba (Hons) Illustration- Level 4 Module Title: Context of Practice Module Code: OUIL401 Assignment: Studio Brief 1 – Critical Analysis – Context & Chronologies Word Count: 3029
Many authors have studied the effect of packaging upon the consumer. Humphery (1998), Cummings & Lewandowska (2000) and Bowlby have all debated on how the relationship between the consumer and packaging has changed, and whether this is a beneficial development, or a forced choice ‘restricted only by a lack of information’ (1993:3) to the true purpose of packaging. As society changes over time, the relationship between consumers and the shopping experience develops also, and Humphery states in Shelf Life Supermarkets and the Changing Cultures of Consumption that this change has lead to packaging being ‘an extremely important substitute for the personal relationship that people desire’ (1998:65) with the shopkeeper, meaning the branding has to be strong and clear enough for the product to sell itself. Before branding and packaging were developed, it was the job of the shopkeeper to sell the products through their use of language (Humphery, 1998). But since the growth of self service, the packaging of a product must now ‘get attention, arouse interest, create desire, get action’. As retail has shifted from language to visual, a broader and more creative ‘coating of images and dreams’ are used on products to ‘mesh with a wider promotional culture’ and make people recognise what they ‘really desire’ (Cummings & Lewandowska, 2000:76). Bowlby argues in Shopping with Freud that consumers are being forced into choices of purchase which offer little difference except for the their approaches to selling the same product, since ‘the two versions rotate around the same two poles… full information or utter impressionability’(1993:3). Bowlby (1993:95) also argues that the changes in approaches to advertising and selling products has begun to force a falsity to consumerism which has even begun to transfer onto the individual through promoting that ‘every man or woman is an advertisement for himself or herself’ which in itself begins a never ending circle of consuming and buying material goods on the search for improvement of the self. Whilst Humphery would say that this change of selling is the natural progression brought about by the consumers’ demand for newer, quicker ways of buying as consuming is becoming a much larger part of people’s everyday lives, where the act of buying and consuming even ‘replaces other forms of leisure’ (1998:193). Due to the growing need for people to have the best of everything, Humphery would argue that the relationship between the retailer and the consumer is becoming both less and more important at the same time. This is because it is no longer warranted for the retailer to have a personal relationship with the consumer, but is equally as highly expected to have a strong, trusted ‘anonymous’ relationship with the buyer where they are ‘someone to know but not to meet; to sell to but not see’ (1998:93). The only way this juxtapositional relationship can occur is via the medium of strong, purposeful packaging and branding. Both Morton (2012) and Humphery (1998) would agree that ‘product loyalty’ can easily be instilled in consumers simply through having a ‘big’ name and being a product which people respond relatively well to. Due to this development of branding into a selling tool in itself, the importance of appropriate branding is increased, as a target audience must be selected in order to produce suitable packaging (Humphery 1998). However, Humphery also reveals in Shelf Life Supermarkets and the Changing Cultures of Consumption that research has shown that when it comes to brand loyalty ‘It was not brands that people recalled but specific food products’ (1998:126). This begins to bring into question the existence of brand loyalty on a whole, as Cialdini suggests that it is the initial
experience of buying and consuming a product which alters what buyers think of how that product reflects upon them, and after the first purchase, might make them more likely to buy it again ‘in order to be consistent with their newly formed self-image’ (1993:73). Cialdini (1993) would further argue that it is this memory of having a good experience the first time which draws them back to purchasing the same product again, almost subconsciously. This is a theory that Humphery (1998) agrees with on the pretence that it is often the recognition of elements of the product packaging on the supermarket shelves which makes the consumer want to make a purchase, and often the brand name itself is not even considered, meaning that if that particular product was not there, it would be easily replaced in the consumers’ mind with the next as appealing looking alternative. With regard to how product purchasing choices are made, Humphery (1998) would argue that the main contributing factor in a consumer choosing one product over the other is the brand name, and the connotations which go with it. However, Hutches states how ‘60-90% of people make snap judgements about products based on colour alone’ (2014). Morton agrees in Colour and Branding when she reveals that ‘research by the University of Loyola has reinforced that 60% of the time people will decide if they are attracted or not to a message based on colour’ (2012). This brings into question the validity of Humphery’s point, as it may be that what consumers are subconsciously looking for in their products is actually the colour. When Morton (2012) further discusses how it is possible that the colour of packaging is noticed by the consumer long before the features and functions of the product are even revealed, which gives an insight into how consumers mind operate. She theorises that ‘colour is the visual component people remember most about a brand followed closely by shapes/symbols then numbers and finally words’ which indicates that the learnt connotations of colour, and how the impact on the consumer can really influence their buying habits. There are many different influences which alter how people perceive colours, as well as the emotions which are attached to it, which make up the premise of ‘colour theory’. Hollands (2013) believes this is due to a combination of wide social, psychological and cultural influences, meaning the evoked emotions and connotations of a colour would vary drastically depending on the social and cultural heritage and upbringing of the individual, especially depending on their country of origin. For example, Hollands (2013) states that in western society, red is shown to increase appetite, whilst in eastern cultures it used as a signifier for prosperity and good fortune. So, looking at the packaging of a very well known company for a very standard product, the theory of colours begins to show through. Their main striking choice of colours are the Kellogg’s iconic green and red depicted through their trademark rooster cawing over half the box. As previously discussed, red is shown to increase appetite, and green is seen to portray tranquillity, health and nature (Lacey 2014), all of which are positive things to associate with cereal packaging. There is also a strong addition of a yellow/gold colour to show a sort of sunshine effect, which Hutches would say has very strong links to warmth and brightness, as well as helping to portray an optimistic feel (2014). This begins to echo the values of the product through colours related to starting the day right and promoting
healthy eating. There is also the addition of an image of fairly lively looking cornflakes among moving milk, which again pushes the idea that this product is a healthy choice for the family, which will help to persuade the consumer to purchase it. In addition, the rooster itself brings about strong imagery of a bright early morning, again something which consumers would feel happy to link to their breakfast cereal. The Kellogg’s box is also very strongly emblazoned with the company’s signature typeface in a bold red, which could be a signal to the consumer of what this product has which others don’t, which is the strong, traditional brand name and Figure 1 heritage. Also, the products strong reliance upon it’s trademark colours could be a way to make its presence among the other similar brands through the bold use of block colours which are instantly recognised as the Kellogg’s colour palette, which, as previously stated, is something that Hutches (2014), would strongly agree with. This strong branding based on colours also reveals how iconic the Kellogg’s rooster is, which Humphery (1998) would say proves how strong the links are between the product and the branding for it to have become such a famous image in society. Taking into account the huge impact that established branding has upon the consumer, is makes sense that cheaper alternatives try to emulate the key points of the packaging of big name brands (Barrie 2012). Therefore, if the main thing people notice about a product initially is the colour scheme, then choosing similar colours to a brand they wish to emulate would invariably increase the chance of their product being chosen off the shelf. Keeping in mind the way consumers consider colour within packaging, the cornflakes from the Morrison’s range seem to try to emulate the Kellogg’s packaging in a fairly subtle but definitely present manner. Similarly to the Kellogg’s box, there is a strong presence of red in the packaging, alongside a slight gleam of green, an abundance of yellow in the format of cornflakes and ears of wheat and slight additions of blue for the sky. However, upon close inspection of the hues of these colours, it becomes very apparent that they are not too similar to the ones used on the Kellogg’s cornflakes, which suggests that this product is not trying to be a copy cat of the big brand version, but carve out it’s own identity whilst still using the safety net of colours which people would respond well to on cereal packaging, probably due to their subconscious memories of the Kellogg’s branding. Therefore, the addition of a slight bit of blue, which Lacey would say is linked to’ tranquillity and calmness’ (2014), brings about a different tone to the Kellogg’s box, which seemed to portray a lively and vivacious morning, which shows the Morrison’s packaging to be a more peaceful, relaxing breakfast ideal. Furthermore, the fairly subtle Morrisons branding in the top left corner Figure 2 may again be to satiate the consumers’ worries, as
they will recognise Morrisons as a big, trustworthy brand, but not feel like it is too imposing that they are buying own brand cereal instead of the ‘real thing’ (Humphery 1998). This clever balance between emulating big brand names and being different enough to create its own consumer base ensures that the product is given a fair chance when shoppers are looking for a cheaper alternative to big brand goods. However, one flaw in this design is the incorrect use of wheat for their cornflakes. This may be because of the cost of good design, which reflects the cost cutting gone into this design (Berger 1972), however it could also be seen to reflect the class of the purchaser, as in The Value of Things, Cummings and Lewandowska discuss the appropriateness of product production in reference to class, as there is a stereo typical misconception that the lower classes are not as clever as the upper class (2000). This could therefore be seen as a design choice to purposefully target the product at the lower classes, rather than the higher classes, who would more typically be able to afford Kellogg’s cereal. Because of the strong connotations behind certain colours, it is difficult to tell if copycat brands use similar colours as big brand names simply because they are the best choices for selling the product, or, as Hemani and Punekar (2008) believe, that ‘less successful brands use the colour of a successfully established brand in the market selling a similar product to hike its sales’, which would explain why knock off brands, such as the Morrisons image above, often offer a very visually similar colour palette to more high profile brands. This is supported by Hutches who argues that consumers prefer brands which are instantly recognisable (2014) which means the colours used in the packaging are extremely important, as they give the initial impact on the consumer, often much more so than the actual brand name and message of the product. This could be another indication of how a consumer society is about the experience of buying, and often relies upon the responses to packaging, rather than the need for the actual product (Humphery, 1998:196). If the effect of the colouring of packaging really does have such a huge impact on the choice to purchase, then there is significant evidence to support the theory that the ‘image’ of products, mainly manifested through their packaging does really have a massive influence of the decision to purchase over the actual quality of the item itself. At the other end of the price scale to Kellogg’s, Morrisons Savers cornflakes portray a very different feel on its packaging. The very stark box reinforces the message that this is a value product, with the only colour on the box being red, alongside the standard white and black. This bold colour may have again been chosen to reflect how, due to the Kellogg’s colours, red is now subconsciously viewed as a trusted colour to be on cornflake packaging (Humphery 1998). However, it is strikingly obvious that the packaging is trying the promote how basic it is, which may be a device used simply to ensure consumers who are looking for cheap products spot it on the shelves. It may also be down to production costs; as less complex designs will be considerably cheaper for the manufacturer to produce (Barrie 2012). In addition, the omission of an actual image of the product on the box, like the other two include, may be a way of Figure 3 hiding the actual contents as well as not promoting
the ideals it provides in order to ensure that the consumer is not let down when the value product is revealed. The central illustration in bold red surrounded by the stark white of the box is something Lacey may argue is to reflect the simplicity of the product, whilst still showing the very literal depiction of the ‘no frills’ range (2014). This gives a very clear ethos of ‘does what it says on the tin’ which may be a message their target audience would respond well to, considering they are looking to purchase a cut cost item, which may make them more likely to want to buy the product. However, the actual reasons behind the design of this value product may have deeper connotations. In order to discover the actual reasoning behind why colours and imagery on packaging are chosen, a comparison must be drawn between similar products. If, as Barrie (2012) suggests, there is little difference in the actual product between value ranges and the big brand equivalents except for packaging which was ‘cheaper and more difficult to open’, then the question as to why there is such a huge price discrepancy must be raised. Through blind taste testing undertaken by independent parties, such as Penzo (2010), it is suggested that there is not much taste difference between different supermarket and big name brands of cereal. However, once the brand and packaging is revealed, people are a lot more likely to sway away from the ‘savers’ range. But this stigma against value goods may be the exact reason the packaging is so plain. For the supermarkets, the price of production of their two own brand cornflakes are not too dissimilar, yet their retail prices are wildly different, with their standard brand of cornflakes costing £1 per 500g, and their savers only 26p for the same weight (Morrisons 2016). Therefore, it is incredibly likely that from Morrisons stand there would be a higher profit margin if consumers purchased the higher costing product. So, this difference in packaging may actually be to push the consumers into buying the more expensive product, based solely on the overall feel given off by the savers packaging. Because of this, if a shopper feels that they are able to afford the more expensive cornflakes, they are less likely to purchase the savers version simply because it gives the feel of being an inferior quality product from the packaging alone (Humphery 1998). In addition, if the packaging itself is of lower quality then the buyer is likely to have less trust in the product itself, simply because they do not find the product as appealing. Also, the red colour depicted on the Morrisons savers product may even be a subconscious warning through the connotations of danger it provides, which may help to push the buyers away from this product to the higher end one. Overall, it seems that both Morton (2012) and Humphery (1998) would argue that packaging has a huge impact on the consumer, perhaps even more so than the quality of a product. It is also evident that buyers put a lot of trust into ‘big name’ and easily recognised brands. This, Hutches would state, means less well known or well regarded products often tend to emulate the colours and styles of their more expensive counterparts in order to freeload off the reputation these big brands have built up over years (2014). Through choices of similar colours and compositions, supermarkets are able to help their own brands sell as a cheaper alternative to branded products. However, supermarkets may also be using their own value ranges to push their normal range to seem more alluring and luxury to the consumers simply through showing them the cheaper, less appealing alternative, which reveals a lot about the still existent class system and lack of morality in consumerism. Also, through the clever uses of colour, the packaging of similar products is able to portray vastly different messages in order to connect with their target audience, which is something
Hollands (2013) would strongly agree with. In conclusion, Lacey (2014), Barrie (2013) and Penzo (2010) would all likely agree that the packaging of a product has a vastly bigger influence on the buyer’s decision to purchase than the actual quality of the product itself, even though the consumer is often not really aware that this is the reason behind their decision. Sources: Books/Journals: Berger, J. (1972) Ways of Seeing, Harmondsworth: Penguin Bowlby, R. (1993) Shopping with Freud, London: Routledge Cialdini, R. (1993) The Psychology Influence of Persuasion, New York: William Morrow & Company, Inc. Cummings, N. and Lewandowska, M. (2000) The Value of Things, London: August Harrison, R. and Newholm, T. and Shaw, D. (2005) The Ethical Consumer, London: SAGE Publications Heller, S. & Vienne, V. (2012) 100 Ideas That Changed Graphic Design, London: Laurence King Publishing Ltd Humphery, K. (1998) Shelf Life Supermarkets and the Changing Cultures of Consumption, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Lidwell, W., Holden, K. & Butler, J. (2010) Universal Principals of Design, Massachusetts: Rockport Publishers Lupton, E. & Cole Phillips, J. (2015) Graphic Design The New Basics, New York: Princeton Architectural Press th Storey, J. (2008) Cultural Theory and Popular Culture, 5 ed, London: Pearson Vignelli, M. (2015) The Vignelli Canon, Zurich: Lars Miller Publishers Internet: Barrie, J. (2012) Stores’ own brands taste just as good-and could save families a fortune, [internet] Available: <http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/business-consumer/stores-own-brands-taste-just-asgood-and-1128332#tSevG1YJotRwZc0T.97>. [21/01/16] Hemani, S. & Punekar, R. M. (2008) Visual Design – Colour Theory, [internet] Available: <http://www.dsource.in/course/colour-theory/products/products.html>. [20/12/15] Hollands, D. (2013) Colour Is King. Colour Theory & Colour Psychology, [internet] Available: <http://www.createinn.com/retfordtimes/item/colour-is-king-colour-theory-colour-psycology>. [13/01/16] Hutches, B. (2014) Colour Theory & Packaging Design, [internet] Available: <http://worksdesigngroup.com/color-and-custom-packaging/>. [10/01/16] Lacey, J. (2014) Crash Course In Colour Theory Part 3: The Psychology of Color, [internet] Available: <http://www.dirigodev.com/blog/creative-design/color-theory-part3-color-psychology/>. [11/01/16] Morton, J. (2012) Color and Branding, [internet] Available: <http://www.colormatters.com/color-andmarketing/color-and-branding>. [01/01/16] Morrisons (2016) M Savers Cornflakes 500g, [internet] Available: <https://groceries.morrisons.com/webshop/product/M-savers-Cornflakes/214836011>. [20/01/16] Penzo, L. (2010) Taste Test Experiment: 11 Kids Evaluate Name-Brand vs. Generic Cereals [internet] Available: <http://lenpenzo.com/blog/id1040-taste-test-experiment-an-all-kid-panel-evaluates-namebrand-vs-store-brand-cereals.html>. [01/01/16] Image: Figure 1 – Kellogg’s Cornflakes 500g packet Figure 2 – Morrisons Cornflakes 500g packet Figure 3 – M savers Cornflakes 500g packet
Video: Century of the self. (2002), [video] BBC4, available: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s>. [01/12/15] John Berger / Ways of Seeing, Episode 4 (1972) [video] BBC4, available: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jTUebm73IY>. [01/11/15] Money Suit Social Experiement! (2015) [video] Youtube, available: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_nuPlE2KU8>. [25/11/15]