Packaging and purchase decisions

An exploratory study on the impact of involvement level and time pressure

Pinya Silayoi, Mark Speece

The Authors Pinya Silayoi, Department of Packaging Technology, Faculty of Agro-Industry, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand Mark Speece, School of Management, Asian Institute of Technology and Graduate School, Bangkok University, Bangkok, Thailand Abstract The importance of packaging design as a vehicle for communication and branding is growing in competitive markets for packaged food products. This research utilized a focus group methodology to understand consumer behavior toward such products and how packaging elements can affect buying decisions. Visual package elements play a major role, representing the product for many consumers, especially in low involvement, and when they are rushed. Most focus group participants say they use label information, but they would like it if simplified. The challenge for researchers is to integrate packaging into an effective purchasing decision model, by understanding packaging elements as important marketing communications tools. Propositions for future research are proposed which will help in developing better understanding of consumer response to packaging elements.

Article type: Literature review, Survey. Keywords: Food packaging, Design, Consumer behaviour. Content Indicators: Research Implications** Practice Implications** Originality* Readability**

British Food Journal Volume 106 Number 8 2004 pp. 607-628 Copyright MCB University Press ISSN 0007-070x

Introduction: packaging at the point of sale

Packaging seems to be one of the most important factors in purchase decisions made at the point of sale (Prendergast and Pitt, 1996), where it becomes an essential part of the selling process (Rettie and Brewer, 2000). Packaged food products are moving into ever larger supermarkets and hypermarkets, and there is a proliferation of products, offering consumers vast choice. The competitive context is ever more intense, both in the retail store and household. With the move to self-service retail formats, packaging increases its key characteristic as the "salesman on the shelf" at the point of sale. The critical importance of packaging design is growing in such competitive market conditions, as package becomes a primary vehicle for communication and branding (Rettie and Brewer, 2000).

This discussion examines how packaging influences buying decisions for packaged food products. The package standing out on the shelf affects the consumer decision process, and package design must insure that consumer response is favorable. The problem is made more complex by several conflicting trends in consumer decision-making. On one hand, some consumers are paying more attention to label information, as they become more concerned about health and nutrition (Coulson, 2000; IGD, 2003c). These consumers are more involved in the product decision and use package information more extensively. On the other hand, modern consumers are often looking for ways to reduce time spent on food shopping and preparation. This can influence decision processes, too, as time pressure reduces detailed consideration of package elements (IGD, 2002b; Warde, 1999). While these are important issues, and becoming even more critical in the intensifying competitive environment, there is little comprehensive study on how packaging elements influence brand choice under involvement and time pressure. This paper aims at forming a better understanding of the link between packaging and consumer purchase behavior. The main objective is to examine packaging elements that influence purchase decisions. From this, we propose a conceptual framework for how packaging relates to purchase decisions in the context of different product involvement levels and under time pressure. Generally, qualitative methods are best suited to developing deeper understanding, so our discussion is based on focus groups interviews which examined these issues in-depth with typical consumers. The focus groups sessions had two broad objectives. They are: to examine the consumer experience with purchasing packaged food products; and to understand consumer views on how packaging plays a role in their purchase decisions. The focus groups were conducted in Bangkok, Thailand, and thus, the views represent consumers in an important middle-income country market where the agribusiness industry is quite strong, and conditions are very competitive.

The packaged food products market in Thailand

Thailand provides an excellent context for examining packaging of processed food products. Understanding consumer response to packaging in Asia is critical to food companies competing globally, and Thailand is one of the leading markets for such trends. The packaged food industry in Thailand is highly competitive, and the Thai industry is a major player in the world market. Thailand is the world's fifth largest food exporter, with more than half of its exports going to its three major markets in Japan, North America, and Europe (The Nation, 2003). Packaged food products constitute to a large part of exports, and thus, domestic markets in the West are seeing an increasing presence of Thai packaged food. In Thailand, the rapid growth of modern retailing, where packaging plays a critical role in merchandising and communication, is an important driver of the dynamic competitive environment for fast moving consumer goods (FMCG) (The Nation, 2002). Expansion of modern retailing is common across Asia, even in very low income countries (Speece and Luc, 2002), but is more advanced in Thailand than in most parts of developing Asia. According to AC Nielson, Thailand is the most dynamic retail market in the Asian region except for China (Rungfapaisarn, 2002). Internationalization is a key ingredient. For example, Britain is now the fifth largest investor in Thailand, and major British FMCG companies and retailers have a strong presence (UK Trade and Investment, 2003). A report by IGD (2003a) indicates that, after China, Thailand is one of just three other key Asian markets for international retailers. As many Asian markets, Thailand has seen an influx of foreign retailers. The whole range of modern retail stores common in the West are also becoming common in Thailand. Hypermarkets now lead growth, with foreign stores playing a major role in this category. Tesco has become the largest single player, but there are also three other major chains, including the European Carrefour and Makro, and Big C, which is domestic (Phuangkanok, 2001; Rungfapaisarn, 2002, 2001). Supermarkets and convenience stores, the other major outlets for packaged food products, show a similar mix of Western and domestic chains.

These trends have fostered quite a lot of product and packaging innovation. In Thailand, ready-to-eat and other convenience food products are among the most rapidly growing categories (The Nation, 2002). Packaging has become a critical marketing issue in the competitive domestic market and as Thai products expand their international presence. Industry experts believe that product innovation and packaging are the keys to enhance competitiveness of Thai packaged food products (The Nation, 2003). The director of the Bureau of Entrepreneur and Enterprise Development, which works with Thai SMEs, believes that packaging is one of the three critical areas where SMEs need to develop more expertise, along with marketing and high quality raw materials (Asawanipont, 2003). A key to maximizing package impact is understanding consumer response to packaging. Many observers, e.g. AC Nielsen, a leading international consumer research company, believe that consumers worldwide are likely to have roughly a similar response to many FMCG, despite cultural differences (The Nation, 2002). Understanding issues that concern consumers in one highly competitive market should provide a useful guide for others, even if details of execution might have to differ across countries. Our own work has found many elements of behavior toward FMCG brands to be similar among middle class consumers across a number of Asian markets (Speece, 1998, 2002, 2003). In many respects, their behavior does not seem very different from how Europeans may view brands (Speece, 2000). For example, while there is a considerable brand loyalty toward FMCG in Asia, many consumers are loyal to a small set of brands, rather than to a single one. Roughly half the consumers have frequently not made specific brand choices before they enter the store, as several brands are all acceptable to them (Speece, 1998, 2003). The package truly is critical for these shoppers, and it must communicate the advantages of the food product inside. Consumers in Thailand are becoming more careful shoppers, paying more attention to information about packaged food products (NFI, 2003; Speece, 2003). This trend, of course, is worldwide. In the UK, for example, IGD (2003c) found that 61 percent of people surveyed now look for product information on food labels, up from only 13 percent in 2000. Convenience is also a key driver for food choice worldwide, and recent trends suggest that the demand for convenience is likely to continue increasing as young consumers take their habits with them into old age (IGD, 2002a). According to IGD (2002a), more impulsive and impatient consumers have driven the move toward more informal dining and a decline in the traditional fixed meal times. The trend is so strong in middle class Thailand that even some popular restaurant chains have found it advantageous to move into packaged food distributed through modern retail stores, as their customers do not always have time for a restaurant meal (Jitpleecheep, 2003).

Literature review: packaging functions and elements

Prendergast and Pitt (1996) review the basic functions of packaging, and define them by their role in either logistics or marketing. The logistical function of packaging is mainly to protect the product during movement through distribution channels. 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, unitized, and protected. Whatever be the logistics considerations, packaging is one key food product attribute perceived by consumers. It cannot escape performing the marketing function, even if a company does not explicitly recognize the marketing aspects of packaging. The package is a critical factor in the decision-making process because it communicates to consumers. Intention to purchase depends on the degree to which consumers expect the product to satisfy them when they consume it (Kupiec and Revell, 2001). How they perceive it depends on communication elements, which become the key to success for many marketing strategies. The package's overall features can underline the uniqueness and originality of the product. In addition, quality judgments are largely influenced by product characteristics reflected by packaging. If it communicates high quality, consumers assume that the product is of high quality. If the package symbolizes low quality, consumers transfer this low quality perception to the product itself. The package communicates favorable or unfavorable implied meaning about the product. Underwood et al.

(2001) suggest that consumers are more likely to spontaneously imagine aspects of how a product looks, tastes, feels, smells, or sounds while they are viewing a product picture on the package. Consumer decision-making can be defined as a mental orientation characterizing a consumer's approach to making choice (Lysonski et al., 1996). This approach deals with cognitive and affective orientations in the process of decision-making. Four main packaging elements potentially affect consumer purchase decisions, which can be separated into two categories: visual and informational elements. The visual elements consist of graphics and size/shape of packaging, and relate more to the affective side of decision-making. Informational elements relate to information provided and technologies used in the package, and are more likely to address the cognitive side of decisions. Most FMCG are low involvement products. In low involvement, "consumers do not search extensively for information about the brands, evaluate their characteristics, and make a weighty decision on which brand to buy" (Kotler et al., 1996, p. 225). One reason for this is low risk (Chaudhuri, 2000; Mitchell, 1999), i.e. these products are simply not very important. The lack of substantial evaluation often results in the inability to distinguish much difference among leading brands (McWilliam, 1997). A common result is relatively weak "habit" brand loyalty. Thus, when consumers find a brand which meets their standards, they tend to stay "satisfied" with it, especially, if they are constantly reminded of the brand. But they are not very committed, and substitute easily when it is not available. Such habit loyalty is fairly common in the West, e.g. IGD (2002a) notes that about one-third of women shoppers, and slightly fewer men, buy food products through habit. It is also quite common in Thailand and more broadly in Asia (Speece, 1998, 2003). Survey data from Thailand indicate that packaging plays a strong role in reminding consumers about the brand (Silayoi et al., 2003), i.e. it helps to reinforce habit loyalty. Some observers, though, note that not all consumers view grocery shopping as a low involvement activity. Beharrell and Denison (1995) show a range of involvement among European consumers. Those with higher involvement tend to be more strongly brand loyal, including willingness to postpone purchase or go to another store if the brand is not available. In Thailand, about 20-40 percent of consumers for most FMCG show this level of loyalty, and will postpone or search rather than simply switch to a substitute (Speece, 1998, 2003). Clearly, consumer use of packaging elements is quite an important issue for low involvement products - generally, informational elements require more mental effort to process than do visual elements, which evoke more of an emotional response. Some consumers are not willing to put forth this small effort, and food products which is of truly low involvement for them. Others may consider the product more carefully, so that involvement level might shift the package elements which are most critical. We look at these various elements in more detail in the remainder of this section, to examine how consumers are likely to use each one.

Visual elements
Graphics and color Graphics includes layout, color combinations, typography, and product photography, all of which create an image. For low involvement, there is a strong impact from marketing communications, including image building, on consumer decision-making. Evaluation of attributes is of less importance in low involvement decisions, so graphics and color become critical (Grossman and Wisenblit, 1999). For many consumers in low involvement, the package is the product, particularly because impressions formed during initial contact can have lasting impact. As the product attribute which most directly communicates to the target consumer (Nancarrow et al., 1998), the design characteristics of the package need to stand out in a display of many other offerings. Many consumers today shop under higher levels of perceived time pressure, and tend to purchase fewer products than intended (Herrington and Capella, 1995). Products often appear to be chosen without prior planning, representing a form of impulse buying (Hausman, 2000). A package that attracts consumers at the point of sale will help them make decisions quickly in-store. As the

customer's eye tracks across a display of packages, different new packages can be noticed against the competitors. However, eye movement does not necessarily mean attention. When scanning packages in the supermarket, the differential perception and the positioning of the graphics elements on a package may make the difference between identifying and missing an item (Herrington and Capella, 1995). In psychology research, brain laterality results in an asymmetry in the perception of elements in package designs (Rettie and Brewer, 2000). The recall of package elements is likely to be influenced by their lateral position on the package, as well as by factors such as font style, size, and color. Recall is better for verbal stimuli when the copy is on the right hand side of the package, and better for nonverbal stimuli when it is on the left hand side. This may imply that, in order to maximize consumer recall, pictorial elements, such as product photography, should be positioned on the left hand side of the package. Consumers also learn color associations, which lead them to prefer certain colors for various product categories (Grossman and Wisenblit, 1999). Using color as a cue on packaging can be a potentially strong association, especially when it is unique to a particular brand. However, people in different cultures are exposed to different color associations and develop color preferences based on their own culture's associations. Simply taking the colors of a particular logo, package, or product design from one market to another should only be done under a thorough understanding of how colors and color combinations are perceived in each location (Madden et al., 2000). Packaging size and shape Package size, shape, and elongation also affects consumer judgment and decisions, but not always in easily uncovered ways. Consumers appear to 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 (Raghubir and Krishna, 1999). Different sizes also appeal to consumers with somewhat different involvement. For example, low price for some low involvement products, such as generics, is made possible through cost savings created by reduced packaging and promotional expenses. Generics are usually packaged in larger sizes, which communicates to consumers who are specifically looking for good deals. Such consumers find the low price of the generics, in the right size of packaging, offers excellent value for money (Prendergast and Marr, 1997). In addition, this could imply that when product quality is hard to determine, as with generics, the packaging size effect is stronger.

Informational elements
Product information The behavior of consumers toward products characterized by high involvement is less influenced by image issues and visual response (Kupiec and Revell, 2001); in such cases consumers need more information. 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. Mitchell and Papavassiliou (1999) suggest that one way consumers reduce confusion from information overload is to narrow down their choice sets. Reducing choice alternatives and evaluative attributes decreases the probability that they will be confused by excessive choice and information overload. This strategy could apply to more experienced consumers, because heavy users potentially look at fewer brand alternatives. In other words, experience makes consumers selectively perceptive and restricts the scope of their search (Hausman, 2000). This is effectively a form of brand loyalty, brought

about because consumers do not necessarily want to continue reading labels every time they buy a particular product. Many consumers appreciate food labeling, but are not satisfied with standard formats. For example, UK survey data indicates that nearly two-thirds of consumers now read food labels, but one-third want to see clearer labeling (IGD, 2003c). Other research in the UK also shows that many consumers find the format prescribed in law for both voluntary and compulsory labeling difficult to use (FSA, 2003). In another recent survey, 90 percent of people agreed that nutritional information panels should be laid out in the same way for all food products so that they are easy to understand quickly (Mitchell and Papavassiliou, 1999). While not all consumers use it, the trend seems to be toward increasing attention to such label information. Partly concerns about food safety and nutritional health drive this trend (Coulson, 2000; IGD, 2003d; Smith and Riethmuller, 2000), but it is also driven by the gradually increasing consumer sophistication. During Thailand's recent recession, for example, consumers were loathed to sacrifice living standards, but they did have to watch budgets more carefully. They began evaluating products more carefully to make sure they were worth the prices charged (Speece, 2003). Whatever be the reasons, more highly involved consumers evaluate message information, relying on message argument quality to form their attitudes and purchase intentions (Vakratsas and Ambler, 1999). On the other hand, packaged food products remain low in involvement for many consumers. In general, consumer acquisition of low involvement products is often done without carefully examining brand and product information. The lack of commitment and attention implies that information on the package carries relatively less value with consumers who view packaged food as low involvement products. Packaging technology Technology developed for packaging comes directly from the current trends in products and consumer behaviors. Powerful retailers also seek greater responsiveness and flexibility from manufacturers, including packaging, to satisfy consumers who are more demanding and sophisticated (Adebanjo, 2000). Customers are often prepared to pay slightly more for enhanced product value, indicating desire for more quality. However, product and packaging development also constrained in creating products that fully meet the consumer and channel criteria. Such constraints might be categorized as ingredient, processing, and cost restraints. Innovation must respond and develop new products that are more efficiently produced, packaged for a longer shelf life, environmentally friendly, nutritionally responsive to each of the emerging segments of society, and meet maximum food safety requirements (McIlveen, 1994). Technology embodied in the package plays a big role in this, making it somewhat of a special form of informational element. In addition to its technical role, packaging technology also conveys information which is often linked to the consumer's lifestyle. Therefore, in order to survive in high growth, competitive markets, technology becomes very important for developing packaging, materials, and processes. It is clear from the review of literature that the importance of packaging development is high, as packaging plays a major role in consumer decisions of fast moving packaged food products. Earlier research, however, is not very extensive, and has not looked very carefully at differences in how packaging elements are used for decisions based on levels of involvement and time pressure. In the next section we discuss focus group research to examine these issues among middle class consumers in Bangkok.

Methodology
Focus groups were used for this study in order to gain in-depth insights into consumer shopping behaviors for packaged food products. Qualitative approaches provide richer detail for exploring viewpoints in early stages of research, allowing the researcher to gain a better initial understanding of issues (Healy and Perry, 2000). Focus group interviews are particularly a good process for generating hypotheses and interpreting consumer thinking. Focus group methodologies do not aim for precise

measurement, but rather at gaining in-depth knowledge about certain topic areas. A focus group is especially useful for learning about participants' conceptualizations of particular phenomena and the language they use to describe them (Blackburn and Stokes, 2000; Jinks and Daniels, 1999). Two focus groups of six housewives and six working women were conducted in Bangkok. Focus groups may not be fully representative of target populations, but it was important to ensure that the results could illustrate possible variations within the city and provide some level of generalisability. Invited participants were stratified according to household income, marital status, number of children and family members, and age. One group concentrated on 35-42 year old housewives with 2-3 children, and one on 27-36 year old married working women without children. For both groups, household income of a minimum of 40,000 Baht/month and a maximum of 80,000 Baht were adopted (slightly less than US$ 1,000-2,000/month), to represent solid middle class income levels. The study aimed to get the participants who are responsible for household shopping. In most countries, women are still mainly responsible for household shopping and remain the main decision makers for frequently purchased packaged food products. Thailand fits this pattern, and screening questions indicated that participants made the purchase decisions for packaged food products. The discussions were guided by a moderator (one of the authors) whose role was to develop the exploration of the topics. This researcher was previously unknown to any participant, so that the groups had no pre-conceived ideas about the research and researcher influence on responses would be minimal. In the interviews, it is important to get people to feel comfortable with expressing honest and open answers (Cowley, 2000). The interviewees were promised that individual identities would not be revealed in any way while reporting the data. The interviews were recorded and the researcher took notes of all the interactions. The sessions were guided by a list of topics which acted as the framework for discussion.

Findings
Both sets of participants identified packaging elements as the main factors in their assessment and decisions on household purchases. The packaging elements identified most often were graphics and color, shape and size, and product information. These dimensions were seen as important by most participants. In the following discussion, we examine these elements and the impact of involvement level and time pressure in more detail. Impact of involvement level Participants defined involvement level based on perceptions of product importance. In their purchase strategies, the most familiar product would potentially be bought by many consumers. The focus groups also noted that, without their usual choices, the product from a well-known company would be more reliable. These types of views reflect the use of brand as a simplifying heuristic so that consumers do not need to think very deeply in their choices: I decide to buy well-known brands, especially for food, because I have found them reliable. The brand usually seen from TV will be bought as I am familiar with it. When there is choice, I rely on the most familiar brand or something from a big company. (Note: these and all subsequent quotes are translated from Thai by the researcher) Participants also ascertained product quality by screening product appearance. Quality judgments are largely influenced by product characteristics reflected by packaging. If the package communicates high quality, consumers assume that the product is of high quality, unless they have other negative information. Some participants, for example, said.

Without experience, I buy food by considering the appearance of the package reflecting premium quality. Nice package design can influence my decision as it sometimes reflects good quality products. Some packages are made of high quality material with neat design. I cannot deny that the product would be premium also. That is why I bought them to try. Even though it is hard to define quality, I believe that a well-designed package helps me in being more confident about the product. The visual element is foremost when they discuss brand choices this way. However, participants suggested that directly consumed products need to be carefully selected, especially many food and skincare products. Many such products require somewhat higher involvement, and other household products, such as shower gel, shampoo, washing liquid and detergent, were defined at a lower level of involvement. Higher involvement results in more attention to product characteristics, and sometimes, stronger brand loyalty: I consider food products with more care as they directly affect my health. This means I need to carefully select such products. Nutrition facts on the package are very important for me to judge the product quality. I find food and skincare products are very specific. If the particular brand is not available in the store, I decide to postpone my purchase. Or sometimes I try to buy from other stores. Conversely, several quotes illustrate the lower importance of some other food product categories, which seem to be perceived much more as commodities: It is not critical to choose specific brands of grocery products such as rice or sugar. If my brand is not there to choose, I usually buy some other brands which have similar functions ... such as, if I cannot find the oil I usually buy, I will try another brand. I am willing to try a new product such as pepper, salt, and herbs. Because it is not important for me to stick with one brand as long as it would not work differently. Some food products clearly arouse higher involvement levels, but some consumers are more involved than others. Other food products are still perceived as commodities, so that attention to and evaluation of specific brands is not critical. Involvement arises as a result of ongoing interest in the product class and its association with the individual's values, self-concept, and feelings of well-being. Some participants suggested that characteristics of the products and brands themselves may steadily act to arouse their involvement. These views seem consistent with the West (Beharrell and Denison, 1995). Brand loyalty and habit shopping are common there also, although the proportion of consumers who are strongly brand loyal may be lower than in Asia. Palumbo and Herbig (2000) note a UK survey in which 61 percent of affluent adult shoppers tended to agree that they liked to find one brand to stay with. One respondent in another UK survey evaluated products hardly at all, showing an extreme reliance on (store) brand: "I never look at the labels, if something is good enough for Asda to sell then it is good enough for me." (IGD, 2002a, p. 21). However, another common approach is indicated by another survey in which the majority of consumers wanted to see specific nutritional information on the label (IGD, 2003c). Time pressure Time pressure frequently affects shopping decisions. Participants agreed that when shopping under relatively high time constraints, they spend less time making any given purchase. They described

shopping under time pressure as making quick decisions without careful evaluation. This made them purchase fewer products than intended and led to unplanned purchases. It was more difficult to make decisions, especially when considering multiple brands or product attributes. They made most decisions quickly at the point of sale: I needed to pick something quickly while I was shopping with my kids. I feel pressured to complete my shopping quickly. And it happened that I always bought something I didn't intend to. Grocery shopping is one of my responsibilities. Whenever I am in rush, it is hard for me to make a decision. Most of the time, I made mistakes with those colorful products on the shelf. This final quote indicates that visual elements play a big role in decisions under time pressure, which reduces ability to evaluate carefully, i.e. it lowers involvement. Consumers throughout the modern world report such patterns. For example, IGD (2003d) reports that many consumers do not have time to read food labels. Often they want label format standardized and in larger font, and some even suggest color coding to make information more visual and easier to process quickly. Other surveys indicate that younger consumers feel even more time pressure (IGD, 2001), and men are even more time oriented than women food shoppers (IGD, 2002a). Time pressure, then, counters the trend toward somewhat higher involvement toward food products, and shifts the emphasis away from label information back toward visual package elements.

Graphics and color

Participants clearly felt that packaging helps contribute to a positive shopping experience. Graphics communicate about the product for both low and higher involvement products, and graphics and color were among the most highly noticeable factors. Poor graphics can lose the sale for many consumers, while attractive graphics gains it for many: When I am shopping in the supermarket, a colorful pack catches my attention first. But color also has different meaning; I was recently put off the low fat biscuits by the pale color package. I found the pale packaging is boring and dull. If the pack is dull, the food taste could be guessed as boring. I usually go for the colorful package when I am looking for kids' products. On my first purchase and without a favorite brand, I made my decision on snacks or juices by the design of the label. If I like it, I'll certainly buy it. For low involvement products, these decisions were usually made on pure liking. Some participants suggested that the appearance of packaging reflected the characteristic of the buyers. Therefore, they intended to buy products with the distinctive package design based on their images. Distinctive graphics become part of the brand identifier, and consumers use the graphics to cut through shelf clutter to find their brands: When I am looking for snack foods, color of the package helps me to find the product easier ... such as I remembered that the color of my kid's favorite biscuit bag was red. So I kept looking for the red bag on the shelf. Many consumers commented that similar graphics layout by other brands can mislead them in identifying their brands. Most participants had experienced the mistake of purchasing a product lookalike when they were in hurry. For copycat brands, this might seem useful, but one common emotional response on discovering the mistake was disappointment, and frequently some desire to be more careful next time. For example:

Similar graphic design on the package made me confused every time I was rushed. I was disappointed on buying wrong products because of those similar packages. Even under somewhat higher involvement, visual elements influence choice of the food product. When consumers think about more careful evaluation of alternatives, the graphics frequently represent the product to them: I use the pictures on the pack to compare and differentiate among the brands ... This may be based on my liking. This might be under time pressure or it could be a way to reduce the time needed for decision. But even when they actually read labels carefully, participants tended to first notice many products by the package color, which often reminded them about familiar brands. When they were looking for a particular product on the shelf, packages with the same range of color would attract their attention better than others. Group members suggested that graphics and pictorial elements on the packaging strongly affected their attention, and agreed that one important role of the graphics is to gain consideration for the brand: Nice graphics on the packs are always standing out from the shelf. Most of the time, I pick them up, at least, to see more details. Certainly, time pressure shifts emphasis in consumer thinking to the graphics. Package pictures increase attention and trial for some brands with low familiarity: When I was in rush, nice pictures and bright color on the pack make it seem to be more attractive than others ... I just unintentionally bought a box of biscuits only because of its beautiful design. Under limited time, a beautiful package strongly influenced my decision when I could not see my usually bought one. Thus, graphics influence decisions under either time situation, and whether higher or low involvement. When consumers feel no need to carefully consider product characteristics, graphics drives their choice. Some consumers feel that they are evaluating product attributes, in that package graphics represent products. Even consumers who actually examine products more carefully use graphics to cut through shelf clutter and focus on their brands. If they have no strong preference, or are open to trying another brand, graphics gain attention for more careful evaluation. The available data about the role of package graphics in choice seems to show similar patterns among consumers in the West. For example, IGD (2003b) reports on a UK survey which indicates that graphics and design can play a role in communicating label information to consumers more effectively. As noted above, Underwood et al. (2001) show that consumers use packaging to represent the product in their imagination, and Imram (1999) discusses how color influences quality perceptions.

Packaging size and shape

Somewhat different from graphics and color, group members feel that size and shape are related to usability. While consumers think of product pictures and graphics as a means of communication, discussion about size and shape focused more on packaging as convenient to use and carry. For example, I found some packages were not convenient because they did not fit to my hands. Participants agreed that packaging shape also had some influence on their purchase decisions. As found in the literature, the bigger package reflected better value (Prendergast and Marr, 1997). Without their familiar brands, bigger packages of very low involvement items such as commodity food products tended to be chosen. The participants suggested that packaging size communicated higher

value and is also more easily noticed. When they scan different products, the larger package stands out on the shelf: I usually buy the larger refill packs of instant coffee and cream. Bigger package was bought usually as I thought it would be value for money. But I would consider only the grocery products, such as jasmine rice, oil, and sauces. Under limited time, the bigger size seems to be more noticeable and attractive. But some participants had experienced inconsistency of size, and after consuming such products, sometimes found that the package did not contain as much volume as expected. This type of experience may affect their future purchase decisions. In order to make their judgments about volume more carefully after being fooled, many participants tended to read the information provided on the package: It happens very often that many packs do not contain the product volume as much as we expected from the size. Sometimes when I see a big package, or value pack, it will remind me about my experience with inconsistency. Therefore, to avoid disappointment, I need to read the information on the package more carefully. Package shapes could also help make products more appealing. For children's products, distinctive packaging shapes were considered more attractive, and respondents reported that their children preferred to try products in different packaging shapes. Usually in this context, they indicated low involvement products which are essentiall commodities: My kids are always attracted by the weird shape of package ... The recent flavored milk they asked for was a warped bottle with fantastic pictures. My children find those different bottles are funny and fascinating. Consumers from smaller households were not interested in larger packages, and larger sizes communicated waste to many of them. Working women in particular suggested that the smaller package was more effective. As their family size is small, they tend to choose packages with appropriate product portions: We never finish the larger pack of food before the expiry date. So I decide to buy a smaller package which would be more suitable for my family. My family is quite small so that I prefer to buy a small portion of food. And there seems to be several petite packs in the market. This thinking is also common in the West. For example, a UK survey of single men shoppers showed that they believe that extra volume in a sales promotion was wasted. It made the product too much for one meal and not enough for two meals, so that often the food could not all be eaten within the sell-by date (IGD, 2002a).

Information
As noted, many consumers feel that it is important to consider information on the package in order to compare quality and value. The trend toward healthier eating has highlighted the importance of food labeling, which allows consumers the opportunity to cautiously consider alternatives and make informed food choices (as in the West) (Coulson, 2000). Consumers consider many packaged food products as higher involvement, requiring more evaluation. They tend to read the message on the

label more often to ensure quality, even though graphics and shape may affect their attention at the beginning. Thus, in contrast to consumers who rely on visual information, many participants were more likely to judge higher involvement products at least partly by information provided on the package. Some rely on label information quite heavily for the final decision: To define the quality of products, especially food, I read everything they said on the package to be sure that the product contains exactly what I wanted. Only reading product information could finally help me on quality judgment. I totally rely on what it is said on the label, when I have to make a decision. While they generally want more information for many products, the groups also suggested that information on food labels needs to be accurately communicated. They revealed many negative experiences with food labels which were not clear. Sometimes this confusion leads people to ignore the information, sometimes it leads to rejection in favor of packages on which information is more effectively communicated. Some representative statements illustrating these views include: The nutritional information is incredibly confusing. I don't understand it entirely. It made me tired when I read the ingredient list. Some labels seem to be to complicated to understand, that's why I don't buy them. This confusion is also reported in the West, where many consumers want product labels to more effectively and more simply communicate basic product information (IGD, 2003b). While most Thai respondents did not go as far as to want such information presented visually, they preferred to understand the displayed information quickly without extensive interpreting: It would be great if I could see at a glance how healthy a product is from its label. This anxiety about being able to understand label information quickly seems frequently to come from time pressure. Consumers explicitly recognize the conflict between being rushed and needing to carefully evaluate products. Even when highly rushed, many participants still avoided ambiguity by insisting on including detailed product information in their decisions, particularly for higher involvement foods and skincare products: Although I do not have enough time, I still need to read the product information to avoid mistakes. It is important for me to read the nutritional facts and all the information on the label. Even if I am in a hurry, information about food products could help me in selecting the right choice. No matter how short the shopping time I have, I will make my decision by reading the label. In case there is no favorite brand, I really need to see what the product contains as my family members may be allergic to some ingredients. However, for lower involvement products, this is not as important, as some people indicated: For grocery products, such as snacks and drinks, I seem to filter textual information when I am hurry. With these types of products, I use the picture for judgment. Nevertheless, it is difficult to make decisions when rushed, causing dissatisfaction with product and store choices. Participants indicated that any mechanism which could aid them in processing information might reduce perceived time pressure and increase their satisfaction with the product.

They suggested that simple and accurate information, prominently presented, affects their decision positively: The label needs to clearly indicate about the ingredients and general information. I use this type of information to compare product quality. Some packages do not show exactly the instructions and components. That is why sometimes I didn't buy them. If the products do not show the information clearly, I will definitely not buy them.

Technology
When asked about convenience products such as quick meal or microwave food, the two focus groups responded differently. Housewives mostly avoided such products, perceiving them to be less healthy, although they occasionally bought some fresh ready-to-eat meals (such as from the supermarket deli). On the other hand, working women often purchased microwave food, which they found convenient and reliable. They indicated that the food manufacturers who produced the products were well known and provided acceptable quality. Many interviewees also felt that it was becoming important to pay attention to packaging materials, which have an impact on convenience as well as the product itself. They are aware of materials which are compatible with their food preparation. For example: The signal of plastic type (i.e. microwaveable or freezable) and information for use stated on the pack help me to make my choice (italics from discussion context, not part of quote). If I do not have enough time to prepare my meal, I tend to buy a Quick Meal pack. But I always make sure that the package is microwaveable. Most participants believed that the packaging materials were important even beyond such examples as convenience cooking or storage. For example, some interviewees came up with the interesting issue of package technology and storage life: There are packages that could prolong food life. Some foods were used in the bottle, but now they have been modified into the stand-up pouches and some plastic sachets. And it can keep the product much longer. Some housewives indicated that snack food packages needed to be made with nontoxic materials, as well as to be soft and harmless when kids tried to open them themselves. They also agreed that if they were able to tear the package open easily, it would be more convenient. For example, some participants said that: I experienced a bag of snack food which cut my finger when I tried to open it. When I buy snack foods or sweets, I prefer a plastic bag which is easy to open. In addition, the respondents suggested that one of the main functions of the package was to dispense a proper amount of product when it was used. They found many current food packages convenient to use, especially some special designs of sweets and mints packages: I love the way they do with those small boxes of candies. It could be opened easily and gives me the right amount. The manufacturers keep creating new techniques for the sweet boxes and it is a good development. On the other hand, some packages, such as bottles for beverage products, were found to be awkward:

Every time I poured the milk, too much would come out. This made me so frustrated. The desire for greater convenience is no surprise, and is common worldwide among urban middle class consumers. Consumer research in the UK, for example, regularly shows similar thinking (IGD, 2001, 2002b). Among other things, consumers want packaging technology that reduces food preparation time. Simpler technology (in consumer perception, not necessarily in package development or production) is also important, as are technology issues such as safety, food preservation, and ease of use.

A research agenda for packaging development

It is clear that both visual and informational package elements can influence consumer choice. This is a very important food products marketing issue, but research on such packaging issues is not very extensive. Further, it is likely that the way either visual or informational elements affect choice depends on product involvement levels and time pressure. We propose a number of research propositions which should be investigated in much more detail, because they can have a major impact on success or failure of brands in markets for packaged food products.P1.=Visual elements of the package (graphics and size/shape) influence choice of the product.P1a.=More appealing graphics will be more likely to be chosen.P1b.=Visually larger packages will be more likely to be chosen.P2.=Informational elements of the package (product information and technology) influence choice of the product.P2a.=Packages with more product information are more likely to be chosen.P2b.=Packages with newer technology are more likely to be chosen. Product involvement Involvement level exerts considerable influence over consumer decision processes (Beharrell and Denison, 1995; McWilliam, 1997; Quester and Smart, 1998). Involvement and the consumption situation significantly influence the importance of paying careful attention to product attributes. Affective responses influence product attitudes more positively in low involvement than in high involvement situations (Vakratsas and Ambler, 1999). Thus, visual elements of packaging are likely to influence consumers more for low involvement. On the other hand, if product performance is viewed as risky, then the consumer is likely to pay more attention to the product (Grossman and Wisenblit, 1999; Dholakia, 2001). This suggests that the cognitive information on packaging is more effective when consumers need to explicitly evaluate and compare products. Much of the conceptual development of these issues has not been applied specifically to packaging. These areas need additional research:P3.=Involvement level has a moderating effect on the relationships in P1 and P2.P3a.=The influence of visual package elements on choice is stronger when consumers have low levels of involvement with the product, and weaker when they have high levels.P3b.=The influence of informational package elements on choice is stronger when consumers have high levels of involvement with the product, and weaker when they have low levels. P4.=Relative impacts: P3 implies that visual elements of packaging will have more impact on the purchase decision than will the informational elements when consumers have low levels of involvement with the product. Conversely, the informational elements of packaging will have more impact on the purchase decision than will the visual elements when consumers have high levels of involvement with the product.

Time pressure
Empirical findings indicate that consumers under time pressure tend to make their decision when the package comes with distinctive appearance and contains simple, accurate information. Size of package is probably also indirectly related to time pressure. A unique package shape may arise consumer curiosity more quickly and lead to their purchase decision. Gofton (1995) suggests that as the number of single people increases, and the number of families and multi-person households falls, behavioral change takes place leading to less available time for more people. In other words, time pressure is likely to become an ever more important factor which package designers need to address. The limited data currently available suggests that:P5.=Time pressure has a moderating effect on the relationships in P1 and P2.P5a.=The influence of visual elements on choice is stronger when consumers have less time in which to make the product choice, and weaker when they do not have

time pressure.P5b.=The influence of informational elements on choice is stronger when consumers have more time to make the product choice. When they have time pressure, they tend to perceive less information from the package, and the influence of informational elements will be weaker. P6.=Relative impacts: P5 implies that when consumers face time pressure, the visual elements of packaging will have more impact on the purchase decision than will the informational elements. Conversely, when consumers do not have time pressure, the informational elements of packaging will have more impact on the purchase decision than will the visual elements.However, technology is somewhat of a special case relative to the other types of informational elements, because packaging technology is often linked to convenience food products, and convenience has become increasingly important for food products (Warde, 1999). Consumers who are worried about time saving will pay more attention to claims of new technology, because of technology's association with convenience: P7.=New packaging technology or new technology claimed on packaging has a more positive effect on the purchase decision under time pressure than without time pressure.All these propositions are shown in Figure 1.

Conclusion
The results of this focus group study did support the propositions listed above. In general, visual elements of the package influence choice of the product to a great extent, and graphics and color are frequently the major influence. Attractive packaging generates consumer attention by breaking through the competitive clutter. Picture vividness has the most positive impact for products with lower levels of involvement. However, informational elements are becoming increasingly important and influence choice. The participants tended to judge food product performance by reading the label if they were considering products more carefully. Appropriately delivered information on packaging generates strong impact on the consumers' purchase decision. This information reduces the uncertainty and creates product credibility. Clearly, packaging is an important marketing tool for food products, but the four elements of packaging stimulate purchase decisions differently. Consumer evaluation of packaging elements changes as the perceived risk of the consumption situation increases, and marketers need to know the importance of the various attributes to best communicate through the package. Visual elements, graphics and size/shape, positively influence choice more in the low involvement situation, while informational elements tend to play a key role in higher involvement decision-making. Time pressure similarly changes how consumers evaluate products at the point of sale, partly by reducing ability to give attention to informational elements. Again, marketers must communicate effectively through the package. Knowledge about the issues summarized in our research propositions is very necessary for developing effective packaging which can maximize in-store consumer choice. This and the other limited research about consumer response to packaging gives package designers some guidance. However, much more detailed understanding is necessary, and careful examination of the issues much more broadly among consumers is also important. It is clear that package plays a very large role in product choice, and it is also clear that poor packaging can push consumers away from buying the product. Certainly, better understanding of these issues in the packaging design process will become a key element in the competitiveness of packaged food products.

Figure 1 Conceptual model of packaging elements and product choice

References
Adebanjo, D., 2000, "Identifying problems in forecasting consumer demand in the fast moving consumer goods sector", Benchmarking: An International Journal, 7, 3, 223-30. Asawanipont, N., 2003, "More Thais starting SMEs", The Nation, 1 November. Beharrell, B., Denison, T.J., 1995, "Involvement in a routine food shopping context", British Food Journal, 97, 4, 24-9. Blackburn, R., Stokes, D., 2000, "Breaking down the barriers: using focus group to research small and medium-sized enterprises", International Small Business Journal, 19, 1, 44-67. Chaudhuri, A., 2000, "A macro analysis of the relationship of product involvement and information search: the role of risk", Journal of Marketing Theory and Practices, 8, 1, 1-15. Coulson, N.S., 2000, "An application of the stages of change model to consumer use of food labels ", British Food Journal, 102, 9, 661-8. Cowley, J.C.P., 2000, "Strategic qualitative focus group research - define and articulate our skills or we will be replaced by others", International Journal of Market Research, 42, 1, 17-39. Dholakia, M.U., 2001, "A motivational process model of product involvement and consumer risk perception", European Journal of marketing, 35, 11/12, 1340-60.

Food Standards Agency (FSA), 2003, "Clear labeling task force: recommendations on ideal label formats", available at: www.foodstandards.gov.uk/foodlabelling/researchandreports/4921 (accessed November 2003). Gofton, L., 1995, "Dollar rich and time poor? Some problems in interpreting changing food habits ", British Food Journal, 97, 10, 11-16. Grossman, R.P., Wisenblit, J.Z., 1999, "What we know about consumers' colour choices", Journal of Marketing Practice: Applied Marketing Science, 5, 3, 78-88. Hausman, A., 2000, "A multi-method investigation of consumer motivations in impulse buying behaviour", Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17, 5, 403-19. Healy, M., Perry, C., 2000, "Comprehensive criteria to judge validity and reliability of qualitative research within the realism paradigm", Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 3, 3, 118-26. Herrington, J.D., Capella, L.M., 1995, "Shopping reactions to perceived time pressure", International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 23, 12, 13-20. Imram, N., 1999, "The role of visual cues in consumer perception and acceptance of a food product ", Nutrition and Food Science, 5, 224-8. Institute of Grocery Distribution (IGD), 2001, Winning the Mature Vote. Institute of Grocery Distribution (IGD), 2002a, The Single Male Shopper: Are They Men Behaving Badly?. Institute of Grocery Distribution (IGD), 2002b, Continued Demand for Convenience, available at: www.igd.com/analysis/ (accessed November 2003). Institute of Grocery Distribution (IGD), 2003a, Competition Intensifies in Thailand, available at: www.igd.com/analysis/news_analysis/viewArticle_fs.asp?mode=sr&at=0&id=701 (accessed November 2003). Institute of Grocery Distribution (IGD), 2003b, Packaging Legibility: Recommendations for Improvement. Institute of Grocery Distribution (IGD), 2003c, The Key to a Healthier Diet is Clearer Food Labeling and Healthier Food Choices Say Consumers, available at: www.igd.com/analysis/ (accessed November 2003). Institute of Grocery Distribution (IGD), 2003d, Communication is Key to Improving Shoppers' Perception of Retailer Brands, available at: www.igd.com/analysis/ (accessed November 2003). Jinks, A.M., Daniels, R., 1999, "Workplace health concerns: a focus group study", Journal of Management in Medicine, 13, 2, 95-104. Jitpleecheep, S., 2003, "Sales of buffets slow, those of green tea up ", Bangkok Post, 11 November. Kotler, P., Ang, S.H., Leong, S.M., Tan, C.T., 1996, Marketing Management: An Asian Perspective, Prentice-Hall, Singapore. Kupiec, B., Revell, B., 2001, "Measuring consumer quality judgements", British Food Journal, 103, 1, 7-22.

Lysonski, S., Durvasula, S., Zotos, Y., 1996, "Consumer decision-making styles: a multi-country investigation", European Journal of Marketing, 30, 12, 10-21. McIlveen, H., 1994, "Product development and the consumer: the reality of the managing creativity", Nutrition & Food Science, 6, 26-30. McWilliam, G., 1997, "Low involvement brands: is the brand manager to blame? ", Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 15, 2, 60-70. Madden, J.T., Hewett, K., Roth, M.S., 2000, "Managing images in different cultures: a cross-national study of colour meaning and preferences", Journal of International Marketing, 8, 4, 90-107. Mitchell, V.W., 1999, "Consumer perceived risk: conceptualisations and models ", European Journal of Marketing, 33, 1/2, 163-95. Mitchell, V.W., Papavassiliou, V., 1999, "Marketing causes and implications of consumer confusion", Journal of Product & Brand Management, 8, 4, 319-39. Nancarrow, C., Wright, T.L., Brace, I., 1998, "Gaining competitive advantage from packaging and labeling in marketing communications", British Food Journal, 100, 2, 110-8. National Food Institute (NFI), 2003, Major Market Thai Food Export 2001, 2002, available at: www.nfi.or.th/domestic/thai-food-industry/thai-market02.html (accessed November 2003). Palumbo, F., Herbig, P., 2000, "The multicultural context of brand loyalty ", European Journal of Innovation Management, 3, 3, 116-24. Phuangkanok, N., 2001, "Retailing survey: supercentres now No. 1", The Nation. Prendergast, P.G., Marr, N.E., 1997, "Generic products: who buys them and how do they perform relative to each other?", European Journal of Marketing, 31, 2, 94-109. Prendergast, P.G., Pitt, L., 1996, "Packaging, marketing, logistics and the environment: are there trade-offs?", International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 26, 6, 60-72. Quester, P.G., Smart, J., 1998, "The influence of consumption situation and product involvement over consumers' use of product attribute", Journal of Consumer Marketing, 15, 3, 220-38. Raghubir, P., Krishna, A., 1999, "Vital dimensions in volume perception. Can the eye fool the stomach?", Journal of Marketing Research, 36, 3, 313-26. Rettie, R., Brewer, C., 2000, "The verbal and visual components of package design", Journal of Product & Brand Management, 9, 1, 56-70. Rungfapaisarn, K., 2001, "Tesco chief reshaped retail landscape ", The Nation. Rungfapaisarn, K., 2002, "Thai retail market second only to China", The Nation. Silayoi, P., Malai, V., Rajatanavin, R., Speece, M., 2003, "The effects of packaging on consumer satisfaction and loyalty", Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Marketing and Development, Bangkok, Thailand, January 2003. (abstract only; published on CD by International Society for Marketing and Development). Smith, D., Riethmuller, P., 2000, "Consumer concerns about food safety in Australia and Japan", British food journal, 102, 11, 838-55.

Speece, M., 1998, "Value orientation among Asian middle class consumers ", Marketing and Research Today (ESOMAR), 27, 4, 156-65. Speece, M., 2000, "Positioning Thai brands in developed country markets: consumer research from Finland", Sasin Journal of Management (Thailand), 6, 1, 75-90. Speece, M., 2002, "Consumer value orientation in Vietnam's urban middle class ", Der Markt: Zeitschrift fr Absatzwirtschaft und Marketing 41/163 (2002/4), 158-69. Speece, M., 2003, "Consumer marketing in Asia for the new economy", paper presented at the Executive Seminar organized by JKYL (International) Pte Ltd, Singapore, 6 November 2003 (also presented in October 2002, August 2001, October 2000). Speece, M., Luc, Thi Thu Huong, 2002, "Attitudes of mini-supermarket shoppers in Hanoi, Vietnam: a case study in the early development of modern retailing", Journal of the Korean Academy of Marketing Science, 10, 11, 187-212. The Nation, 2002, "Unilever unfolds new business units", 18 November 2002, available at: www.nationmultimedia.com/page.arcview.php3?clid=6&id=6934&date=2002 (accessed November 2003). The Nation, 2003, "Institute to host food exhibition", 19 September 2003, available at: www.nationmultimedia.com/page.arcview.php3?clid=6&id=8582&date=2003 (accessed November 2003). UK Trade and Investment, 2003, "Country profile: Thailand", available at: www.trade.uktradeinvest.gov.uk/thailand/profile/index/introduction.shtml (accessed November 2003). Underwood, R.L., Klein, N.M., Burke, R.R., 2001, "Packaging communication: attentional effects of product imagery", Journal of Product and Brand Management, 10, 7, 403-22. Vakratsas, D., Ambler, T., 1999, "How advertising works: what do we really know?", Journal of Marketing, 63, 26-43. Warde, A., 1999, "Convenience food: space and timing", British Food Journal, 101, 7, 518-27.