09-11-2016, 12:01 PM
1467621426-Packaging.pdf (Size: 210.98 KB / Downloads: 14)
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore consumer views on different aspects of packaging,
exemplified by a common product in the fruit and vegetable category and to identify advantages and
disadvantages perceived by consumers purchasing packaged or unpackaged products.
Design/methodology/approach – Three focus group interviews were conducted. Thematic analysis
based on theory was performed. The findings were categorised into nine themes.
Findings – Consumer views on packaging aspects were revealed, covering: packaging material; pack
size; protection and preservation; convenience; price; communication and information; ethical perspectives;
novelty and innovation; and advantages and disadvantages of packaged and unpackaged products.
Research limitations/implications – The study adds to present knowledge on the role of
packaging in consumers’ food choices. The qualitative analysis identified areas for further research
through quantitative methods.
Practical implications – Challenges in communicating the consumer benefits of packaging and
ways to improve the attractiveness of items in the fresh produce category were identified. The results
can potentially assist in improving food packaging design practice to the mutual benefit of consumers
and suppliers.
Originality/value – Fruit and vegetables is generally a category with weak branding and low levels
of packaging. This study examined the role of packaging in a category with substantial opportunities
for differentiation and increasing consumer value. The results can be applied in immediate practice
and/or serve as a basis for further research.
Keywords Packaging, Consumer choice, Food, Potato, Fruit and vegetables
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The role of packaging in consumer selection of fast-moving consumer goods, such as
food products, is increasingly being studied and discussed. Until recently, the literature
was considered limited and failing to acknowledge the contribution of packaging to
British Food Journal product development and businesses (Rundh, 2005; Simms and Trott, 2010), and there is still limited understanding of how consumers perceive extrinsic attributes of
packaging (Hollywood et al., 2013). Packaging carries functions in both the logistics
and marketing chains (Prendergast and Pitt, 1996), acting as an interface between
the product and the logistics system, and between the consumer and the product
(Olsson and Larsson, 2009). Many of the functions of packaging are connected with the
physical properties of the product, such as protecting and preserving it, while also
promoting hygiene and safety and facilitating distribution (Rundh, 2005). From a
marketing perspective, packaging is a way of communicating messages to consumers,
selling and promoting in order to sway customer choice, providing information and
instructions and filling a need for convenience (Rundh, 2005).
Communicative features of packaging are important in gaining a competitive
advantage (Nancarrow et al., 1998). Visual and informational elements on packaging
and packaging form influence consumer choice at the place of purchase (Silayoi and
Speece, 2004, 2007). These communicative elements may comprise images, including,
e.g. a logo, print fonts and illustrations (Polonsky et al., 1998; Underwood and Ozanne,
1998; Underwood et al., 2001; Silayoi and Speece, 2004; Rundh, 2009), the exposure of
brand (Pieters and Warlop, 1999; Underwood, 2003; Wells et al., 2007) and other
extrinsic cues, such as colour and novelty design (Schoorsman and Robben, 1997;
Garber et al., 2000; Underwood et al., 2001).
A particular issue is signalling ethical concerns by labels on the packaging
(Bone and Corey, 1992, 2000; Polonsky et al., 1998), which has been well studied for the
case of organic food (Aertsens et al., 2009). The environmental impact of product
packaging is an important aspect of consumers’ product perception, balanced against
personal benefits such as convenience (van Dam and van Trijp, 1994). Different
packaging materials are perceived as differing in their environmental impact (van Dam,
1996; Lindh et al., 2012).
A product’s attractiveness may be improved by packaging. However, products
lacking significant consumer benefit do not provide consumers with a reason to buy
(Lord, 2000). There is a strong association between packaging and purchase decisions
(Silayoi and Speece, 2004, 2007; Wells et al., 2007), but packaging must also reflect
product quality and brand values in order to avoid consumer disappointment (Coles,
2003). Thus, understanding user needs is one of the most important discriminators
between new product winners and losers (Cooper, 1996).
The aim of this study was to obtain insights into consumer views on packaging for
fruit and vegetables, here exemplified by fresh table potatoes. This product was chosen
because the industry is facing strategic challenges in decision making on whether to
differentiate its products by means of packaging or to focus on low-cost, unpackaged
bulk sales. Increased knowledge on the topic is needed to assist the industry in its
decision making and to improve packaging design practice for the mutual benefit of
consumers and suppliers, in particular for the difficult category of fruit and vegetables.
The case of packaging in the fruit and vegetable category
The fresh fruit and vegetable category stands out as a special case in the food market.
Many fresh food products are sold unbranded and are largely treated as commodities
(Nijssen and van Trijp, 1998). Central quality cues such as packaging and brands are
often absent in this category (Lejdström and Teytaud, 2007; Grebitus et al., 2008),
especially as strong brands are generally lacking (Heiman and Goldschmidt, 2004).
The fruit and vegetable department is thus an opportunity for differentiation and
a possibility to create a store image and identity (Bech-Larsen and Esbjerg, 2006).
For example, adding packaging to an ordinary food commodity is a way to differentiate
the product in relation to the alternatives and gain a competitive advantage (Heiman
and Goldschmidt, 2004).
This study was based on focus group interviews with Swedish consumers
concerning the issue of packaging in relation to fresh table potatoes. Fresh table
potatoes are a staple in the fruit and vegetable department of supermarkets and, in a
Swedish context, are the arch-typical commodity, i.e. sold at low price in unpackaged
form, anonymous, unbranded, unsorted and even with damage, greening and soil
residues (Fernqvist and Ekelund, 2009). The lack of strong brands, attractive exposure
and packaging and an perception of potatoes as being boring may at least partly
explain the current decreased consumption of fresh table potatoes (Fernqvist and
Ekelund, 2009; Spendrup and Ekelund, 2009). However, Swedish consumers still prefer
to buy unpackaged potatoes, despite the availability of potatoes in pre-packaged
plastic or paper bags carrying either a producer’s or retailer’s brand and providing
different amounts of information (Fernqvist and Ekelund, 2009). The decline in
consumption raises questions about the survival of potato growers and about how a
product mainly seen as a commodity can be developed and differentiated to meet
consumer demand. In this regard, the potato industry finds itself at a strategic
crossroads on whether to focus on low cost and bulk, or on differentiation with means
of, among other things, packaging. Otherwise, it risks “getting stuck in the middle” and
thus fail to competing in either way according to the generic strategies of positioning
on the market (Porter, 1991). This risk is even more pronounced considering the growth
of retailers’ own-label brands, where the retailers exercise both sourcing and market
control (Wells et al., 2007).
The study explored consumer views on different aspects of potato packaging
and the advantages and disadvantages perceived with purchasing packaged or
unpackaged (loose) potatoes.
Materials and method
In the focus group discussions on which this study is based, a substantial proportion
of the discussion time concentrated on potato packaging in particular. Focus group
discussions characteristically emphasise specific themes or topics that are explored
in depth (Bryman, 2008). This may reveal respondents’ attitudes, beliefs, experiences
and reactions in a way that cannot be achieved through other methods, e.g.
questionnaires or observational studies (Gibbs, 1997). Interactions and the social
setting allow a diversity of views to emerge (Gibbs, 1997), and individual respondent’s
statements may bring issues to mind in another respondent (Lawless and Heymann,
2010). The method is often used in marketing research to gather information about
consumer behaviour, particularly in connection with issues relating to the food
industry ( Jenkins and Harrison, 1990). It is also a suitable approach for discussing
food attitudes (Barrios et al., 2008) and complex behaviour, such as food consumption
(Morgan and Kreuger, 1993). Such qualitative studies can provide data in unexplored
fields, providing insights and concepts for further research using more quantitative
approaches.
Participants
Three focus groups, consisting of six respondents each, were created. One group
consisted of female respondents over the age of 40 (Group 1), and the other two of
female and male respondents between the ages of 20 and 30 (Groups 2 and 3). The respondents were recruited as a convenience sample, with the first group consisting of
administrative personnel on the university campus, and the other two contacts made
through colleagues and previously recruited participants. The discussions were held in
2009 in the Malmo region of southern Sweden. The respondents were told in advance
that the topic of the discussions would be food consumption habits with respect to
potatoes and other carbohydrate foods.
Procedure
The focus group interviews were planned beforehand using a semi-structured
interview guide and a schedule of topics was drawn up. Before discussing packaging,
the respondents were presented with six different packaging options (with content)
available in an ordinary supermarket (Table I). The participants were asked to write
down their immediate spontaneous response to the different packages in a simple
questionnaire before the discussion started. This was intended to stimulate good
discussions and to collect individual arguments before the participants were influenced
by discussing the topic. Thus, in the results section, participants’ arguments both
before and during the discussions are presented. Two researchers were present during
the interviews, one leading the discussion while the other took notes. The interviews
lasted between one and one and a half hours and were audio-recorded and transcribed.
Data analysis
The transcribed material and the completed questionnaires were analysed by applying
thematic analysis (Boyatzis, 1998; Knight et al., 2007). The initial themes for coding
(numbered 1-10) were identified based on the aspects of packaging listed by Rundh
(2005) (see Table II). In the first step of the process, all transcribed material and
questionnaire responses were reviewed and all statements associated with one or more
of the ten themes were coded accordingly. In the second step, the coded material was
further scrutinised, which yielded a number of sub-themes (e.g. 1a-c, covering different
aspects of packaging material) relating to the initial themes (Table II). Some of the
coded statements were also re-coded to other themes if the in-depth analysis showed
this to be more appropriate. The process was repeated until saturation. In all steps, two
researchers went through transcripts in parallel, coded and identified concepts based
on the themes and then validated the code, agreeing on a common interpretation.
Results
The thematic analysis of the transcribed material ultimately resulted in nine themes,
with sub-themes as presented in Table II. An initial theme concerning aspects of
distribution was not mentioned at all and was thus removed from the final coding.
Eight themes related to specific packaging features, namely: (1) packaging material; (2)
pack size; (3) protection and preservation; (4) convenience; (5) price; (6) communication
and information; (7) ethical perspectives; and (8) novelty and innovation. The last theme
(9) concerned consumer purchases of the unpackaged, undifferentiated product in
relation to the packaged version. The most discussed themes were (6) and (1), i.e.
aspects of information and packaging material. As one of the aims with the discussions
was to find consumer arguments regarding the unpackaged product in comparison
with the packaged, differentiated product, bulk potatoes were also discussed in more depth. The results revealed issues where the respondents had clear views and attitudes
regarding different packaging aspects, reflecting reasonable issues that may explain
their choice.
Packaging material
The initial responses of participants regarding packaging material covered both
positive and negative aspects. Paper bags were mentioned as being “homely”, “nice”
and giving a “feeling of healthiness”, although also as being a bit “dull”. The feature of
having a transparent window on the back of paper bags was also appreciated. Plastic
packaging was regarded more negatively, e.g. as unnecessary, resulting in lower
quality (condensation and greening of the potatoes) and “strange”. On the positive side,
several respondents appreciated the fact that the potatoes were easier to inspect
through the transparent material. Similar associations were reported for plastic
packaging intended for cooking in the microwave.
The discussions revealed similar arguments, with some additions, e.g. paper as giving
a feeling of a “fresh” product and of “farmers’ market”, while also providing positive
protection and preservation functions; and plastic as being strange, expensive and
unnecessary, but as having both positive and negative properties as regards protection
and durability. A positive property was that plastic bags are more durable, while negative
properties were that “the potatoes cannot breathe” and that “the potatoes lose quality
sooner than in the paper bag”. Overall, plastic bags were also seen as “bad for the
environment”, revealing strong concern in that regard. In all three groups, participants also
expressed interest in putting their bulk potatoes into paper bags, instead of having to use
the light plastic bags provided, which may also reflect a negative consumer view of plastic
as a packaging material. Plastic bags intended for cooking directly in the microwave oven
were regarded with much scepticism, as being “unappetizing” and “suspicious” and “not
environmentally friendly”, although the convenience aspect was supported.