You are on page 1of 10

International Journal of Consumer Studies ISSN 1470-6423

Buying behaviour of rural and urban consumers in India: the impact of packaging
Mahavir Sehrawet and Subhash C. Kundu
Haryana School of Business, Guru Jambheshwar University of Science & Technology, Haryana, India

Keywords Packaging, consumer behaviour, rural consumers, impact of package, India. Correspondence Subhash C. Kundu, Haryana School of Business, Guru Jambheshwar University of Science & Technology, Hisar 125001, Haryana, India. E-mail: sckundu@yahoo.com doi: 10.1111/j.1470-6431.2007.00629.x

Abstract
This study aims to establish whether the residential background of consumers has a varying inuence on their buying decisions. A survey of 1090 urban and rural respondents was carried out of which 523 were rural and 567 were urban. The gathered data were analysed by applying counts, percentages, means, and analysis of variance. Rural residents found that packaging is more helpful in buying, that better packaging contains a better product and that they are more inuenced by the ease of storing a package than their urban counterparts. Ease of carriage, package weight, simplicity, transparency and similarity of packaging have comparatively less impact on purchase decisions of rural consumers than urban ones. However, rural consumers are more critical about packaging as they strongly consider that it contributes to misleading buyers and is also an environmental hazard.

Introduction
A package is the face of a product (Sagar and Kumar, 2005). Packaging involves the activities of designing and producing the container and wrapper for the product. Up to three levels of material may be used in packaging, i.e. primary package, secondary package and shipping package. Many marketers have called the packaging a fth P; the other four Ps are Product, Price, Place and Promotion (Kotler, 2004). So packaging is used as a marketing tool. Well-designed packages can create convenience and promotional values (Kotler, 2004). It serves several purposes, such as protecting the product on its way to the consumer, protecting the product after it is purchased, helping to gain acceptance of the product, helping to persuade consumers to buy the product (Etzel et al., 2005), supporting self-service, consumer afuence, company and brand recognition, and innovation opportunity (Kotler, 2004). Initially, packaging was intended largely to provide protection to the product. With its increasing signicance in marketing, it has become a major factor in gaining customers. Packaging is criticized largely because of its environmental impact on depleting natural resources; certain form of packages are health hazards; and there is problem of disposal of packages; some packages are deceptive; others are expensive. Marketing executives have to address these criticisms. They must enhance the positive features of packaging, like product protection, consumer convenience and marketing support (Etzel et al., 2005). To remain competitive in the market, packaging strategies should be reviewed annually (Schreiber, 1994).
630

Literature review
Package/packaging
The shampoo bottle cap that drops on the bathroom oor or down the sink. The jam bottle refuses to open as per the instructions. The our (atta) that goes stale because the inner bag tears or does not reseal securely. The last bit of toothpaste or shampoo that is retrievable only by balancing the bottle upside down for a while. These are few examples of packages that do not always do what you want them to do (Alsop and Abrams, 1986). Packaging is a key component of marketing, according to recent studies by the Point of Purchase and Advertisement Institute (POPAI), which indicate that 70% of consumers buying decisions are made at the point of sale (Parker, 1997). Pandey (2005) also claims that impulse purchase is increasing rapidly. The package is a very effective tool for inuencing impulse purchasing (Sehrawet, 2002; Sehrawet and Kundu, 2003). Further, Kundu and Sehrawet (2002) showed that consumers feel that the package is very helpful in identifying and distinguishing products. As people become time poor, they are more prone to impulse buying. The unplanned purchase is a large source of revenue. The power of the package is an important element of unplanned purchasing. The concept of retailing has virtually been rewritten and brands jostle for space and recognition in the crowded and over populated shelf. Packaging is now in an era where communication and display are still not valid value additions by themselves. The package has to promote, emote, glamorize and enhance the value of the contents (Sivan, 2000). This trend in marketing represents a

International Journal of Consumer Studies 31 (2007) 630638 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

M. Sehrawet and S.C. Kundu

Impact of packaging

major opportunity for the packaging industry. To exploit this opportunity fully requires knowledge of how consumers interact at the point of purchase. The study by Sivan (2000) has shown that 18% buying decisions are inuenced by advertisements. Mehta (1999) suggests that the efciency of traditional approaches appears to be reducing year by year and the effectiveness of modern marketing tool like packaging is increasing rapidly. Phillips (1997) argues that the modern consumer is more educated, more sophisticated and more cynical. As a result of this, the consumers are postponing their decision making until at the point of purchase. In turn, this has led to an increase in impulse purchase and brand switching, and consequently a decline in the power of branding and traditional marketing approaches. So, the importance of marketing communications by making use of the packaging has increased. Twede (1997) observes that our buying behaviour is continuously shifting towards an increasing amount of self-service shopping. So, the package is required to provide more information and motivation (Peters-Texeira and Badrie, 2005). For low involvement goods (i.e. bought routinely without much thought, search or purchase time), packaging provides consumers with visual cues and an increasing amount of physical and psychological benets. For higher involvement goods, packaging provides information and a means of comparing products in a self-service store. After purchase, a package provides instructions and features to ensure consumer satisfaction (Twede, 1997). Narayanan (2000) claims that a large part of the population has started to give higher importance to health and hygiene, which is leading to an increased demand for packaged goods and a shift from loose buying. The spread of education, particularly among housewives, has swung the trend in purchasing from loose to pre-packaged and branded products, from tea to ketchup and noodles. The market share of packaged edible oil has increased from 20% in 1998 to 26% in 2005. Todays consumers are nding packaging as value addition [The Times of India (TOI), 2005]. The study of Bone and Corey (1992) has established a relationship between the package and the overall price of a product. In other words they claim that the package is a cost element too. Packaging must be able to stand out from other packages. This can be accomplished by the use of colour, shape, copy, trademark, logo or additional features. This aspect of packaging was exploited by Hindustan Levers Le Sancy soap, with its unique bean shape, which was packaged in transparent polythene to exhibit its shape. Customers could experience the unique shape, colour and appearance for the rst time in the product of soap. This package strongly inuenced the high trail purchases (Ramaswamy and Namakumari, 2004). In their earlier study Alsop and Abrams (1986) found that ease of storage is one of the important features of package in inuencing buying decisions. The package must be able to communicate its message to the buyers. All the necessary information must be clearly visible and highlighted by colour or design to make direct and indirect communication effective (Ajarekar, 1997). Pandey (2005) observes that marketers are successfully using product design and packaging strategies to target the rural customers, for example, smaller packages of Fair & Lovely (fairness cream) are being pushed aggressively in rural markets by Hindustan Lever Ltd. (HLL) (Bhushan, 2005). de Maricourt (1994) claims that an important part of the competitiveness of Japanese

companies operating internationally is that they give highest priority to product quality followed by packaging and design. Approving the impact of the package on buying behaviour of consumers, HLL has very recently repositioned their toilet soaps Liril and Lux (which had a stagnant market for some past years). To achieve this HLL changed its promotion campaign, product formulation and most importantly its packaging (adopting global packaging for Lux) (Bhushan, 2005). However, the general perception is that the package will have a different inuence on buying decisions of different product categories and may vary according to the gender of the buyers too. A study conducted by Sayulu and Ramana Reddy (1996) among rural households nds that in case of items like groceries (42%), toiletries (61%), cosmetics (63%), utensils (44%), vegetables (45%), etc. the house wife dominated the purchasing process; while the husband dominated in case of items like tobacco (79%), foot wear (68%), medicines (39%); in the case of expensive items like clothes (50%), electric appliances (53.51%) both husband and wife were involved in the purchase. Shampoos and packaged biscuits are two good examples of rural Indias hunger for branded products. In comparison with 13.3% penetration of shampoo in 2000, today, a third of the rural population use shampoo (Mahalingam, 2007). Sachets of affordable price points are being pushed by the companies like HLL and CavinKare in the rural market. Today, 86% of all shampoo sales in the rural markets are in the form of sachets. In urban areas, this gure is 69% (Mahalingam, 2007). Ramaswami and Namakumari (2004) argue that it is necessary to assess the reaction of consumers to a package periodically and adapt it accordingly. Consumers may have their own preferences covering: (a) package size; (b) package shape; (c) packaging materials used; (d) package graphics, etc. Marketers must assess consumer preferences on the one hand and cost and availability aspects on the other hand, in order to provide the consumer with the best possible package. An effective package can be an efcient mass-selling medium and it is often worth more attention and money that are now devoted to it by most companies. According to the study of Alsop and Abrams (1986), 19% of consumers refused to buy the brand in a poor package again, while 24% said they would buy it cautiously or in a different type of package. Their research further revealed that most important package characteristics to consumers are storage life of any unused portion, the ability to recognize the contents by looking at the package and its graphics, resealability and ease of storage. Research indicates that with verbal stimuli, people focus on common features among options but with pictorial stimuli, they focus on distinctive features of options (Dabholker, 1994). Thus, greater differences between options may be perceived with pictorial than verbal stimuli, which make the alternatives less comparable. The package is a good medium to carry pictorial stimuli to the point of purchase where it matters most (Dabholker, 1994). Important labelling and packaging elements in todays marketing are accuracy, brevity, comprehensibility, durability, good visibility and multilingual content for warning and instructions for the disposal of containers. These ndings fall in line with the ndings of Kundu and Sehrawet (2002) in which it was observed that the label and the seal are important from marketing point of view. Further, approximately 70% of the respondents in another study (Rimal, 2005) reported that labels helped in the purchases; the packaging feature that inuenced most of the respondents
631

International Journal of Consumer Studies 31 (2007) 630638 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Impact of packaging

M. Sehrawet and S.C. Kundu

choice of products was information on the label (Peters-Texeira and Badrie, 2005). Of late, the recyclable and biodegradability features of packages have started to exert a growing inuence on consumers, thanks to their growing environmental consciousness (Noah, 1994). Suchard and Polonski (1991) observed that ecology conscious consumers will try to protect the environment by purchasing packages of recyclable or recycled material. The studies of MyburghLouw and Shaughnessy (1994) and Laroche et al. (2001) revealed that the segment of environmentally conscious consumers is large enough to warrant the marketers attention. Nath and Pateriya (2004) have highlighted the ways by which todays organizations are trying to attract people by making false claims about the environment. Rural consumers are relatively poor and highly price sensitive. As a result, the majority of products are being sold loose. Loose sugar, tea and biscuits are big sellers in rural India. Most packaged products are local brands (Mahalingam, 2007). Rural consumers high expectations of packaged products means that local packaged products might not satisfy them. So, marketers have to produce cheap products. A study conducted in India by Verma (2002) established that consumers in a developing country like India are on the threshold of the green era. Further, establishing sustainable global resource systems, across developed and developing nations, is dependent on nding ways to encourage consumers to prioritize environmental issues as one of the key determinants of their consumption decisions (Sibbel, 2003). The studies of Triandis (1993) and McCarty and Shrum (1994) suggested that collectivist behaviour characterized by rural people tends to be more ecology conscious than individualistic behaviour characterized by urban people. The study of Sandahl and Robertson (1989) found that environmentally conscious consumers are relatively less educated and have lower than average incomes. S.C. Kundu and M. Sehrawet (communicated paper) found similar results in their earlier study. According to Drumwright (1994), 75% of the consumers claim that their purchasing decisions are inuenced by a companys reputation with respect to the environment and eight in 10 said that they would pay more for the products that are environmentally friendly. A Wall Street Journal survey in 1991 found that 80% of consumers found it more important to protect the environment than to keep prices down (Balooni, 1997). There are companies whose sales dropped precipitously as a result of being labelled environmentally unfriendly (Cairncross, 1993) and a number of studies found that consumers will readily incorporate environmental information into their consumption decisions (Russell and Christopher, 1999). Environmental responsibilities and improvements are also essential as a source of competitive advantage in todays dynamic economy (Porter and Van der Linde, 1995).

Indian rural vs. urban market


With the population of over one billion, India is on the threshold of becoming one of the worlds foremost consumer markets. About a quarter of this huge mass of consumers are urbanized and about three-quarters are rural. Over the years, the retailing infrastructure that has proliferated in India is characterized by a high degree of fragmentation as compared with many developed nations. There are an estimated 10 million operational retail outlets in India, of
632

which 68% are in rural areas (Banerjee and Banerjee, 2000). The challenge lies in identifying the key drivers that steer the Indian consumers perception and behaviour when it comes to their shopping needs (Banerjee and Banerjee, 2000). About a half of Indias rural population do not have access to good roads and infrastructure. They are relatively poor and so, have limited spending power (Mahalingam, 2007). Easy nance associated with rising income has caused a major boom in the discretionary income of the middle class. This has led to heightened consumer expectations (Tribune News Service, 2000). Changing life styles of the Indian population are likely to boost the sales of packaged products. It is estimated that the Indian food industry would grow to $140bn in the next 10 years creating wealth from what is waste today (Lakshminarayan, 2001). Realizing the potential of the rural market, HLL launched project Shakti 3 years ago, to target villages having a population of less than 2000, by appointing rural women as retailers of their products. Today such 13 000 retailers are operating in 12 states of India and contributing 15% of the companys rural sales (Srinivasan, 2005a,b,c). The HLL will cover half a million villages in 2010 (Mahalingam, 2007). In 19931994, 50.1% households had an income of more than 40 000 rupees per annum (Chaturvedi, 1998). By 20062007 the majority of rural households (68.1 million households or around 400 million consumers out of total 700 million rural people) will earn 22 00045 000 rupees ($4891000) a year (Pandey, 2005). The number of people living below the poverty line is declining rapidly and faster in rural than in urban areas. The number of poor in rural areas declined from 37% to 27% (10% decline) whereas in urban areas it declined from 33% to 24% (9% decline), over 6 years from 19931994 to 19992000 (Gupta, 2005). The prosperity of rural households is growing rapidly. The lowest income class (2500 rupees and below) is estimated to have shrunk from 60% in 19941995 to 20% in 20062007 (Pandey, 2005). Sayulu and Ramana Reddy (1996) suggest that the rural market offers a very promising future for the marketing of consumer goods. But this rural market has certain characteristics that hinder marketers from exploiting the opportunities provided by this huge market. These characteristics are: (a) low literacy; (b) ignorance of their rights as consumers; (c) low purchasing power; (d) indifference to quality or standards; and (e) lack of cooperative spirit. Ramana Rao (1997) observes that the marketing boom in the rural areas is caused by such factors as increased discretionary income, market surpluses, rural development schemes, improved infrastructure, increased retailing and retailers, increased awareness, expanding TV Networks, liberalized government policies for rural development, emphasis on rural markets by companies, new entrepreneurship, competitive and creative sales promotion, the packaging revolution and changing life styles. The new generation in the rural areas considers itself to be like the urban generation. Sudhakar (1997) observes that the process of evolution of the urban markets is being replicated in rural India, both for international brands and home-grown products.

Research objectives
The main objective of this research is to make a comparative study of buying behaviour of rural and urban consumers with special

International Journal of Consumer Studies 31 (2007) 630638 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

M. Sehrawet and S.C. Kundu

Impact of packaging

Table 1 Descriptions of the variables Variable No. V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 V9 V10 V11 V12 V13 V14 V15 Description Package adds value to product. Package helps in buying product. Better packaged product is better. Strong package inuences buying decision positively. Ease of carriage inuences buying decision positively. Light weight of package inuences buying decision positively. Simplicity of package inuences buying decision positively. Consistency in package for different products of the same company inuences buying decision positively. Transparent package is preferred. Ease of storage inuences buying decision positively. Package helps in identifying and distinguishing product. Package helps in avoiding pilferage. Label is an important part of package. Package misleads buyers. Package is an environmental hazard.

Table 2 Distribution of sample Administrative divisions Residential background Rural Urban Total AD1 203 181 384 AD2 123 113 236 AD3 101 125 226 AD4 96 148 244 Total 523 567 1090

AD1, Hisar administrative division; AD2, Rohtak administrative division; AD3, Ambala administrative division; AD4, Gurgaon administrative division.

reference to packaging. To achieve this objective, answers to the following research questions were sought. 1 Do perceptions of the value and quality of product differ signicantly by place of residence? 2 Do perceptions of the quality of the packaging differ signicantly by place of residence? 3 Do perceptions of labelling differ signicantly by place of residence? 4 Do perceptions of the environment effects of packaging differ signicantly by place of residence?

this study. Due care has been taken in preparing the schedule to suit to the literary standard of the target population. While conducting the survey, due consideration was given to the respondents of different walks of life, i.e. different gender, educational standards, economic backgrounds, residential backgrounds, age groups, people with different buying roles, etc. A total of 2000 questionnaires (500 in each administrative division) were circulated among the respondents. Out of these, 1182 respondents returned the questionnaires. Of these collected questionnaires, a total of 1090 questionnaires were considered t for analysis and remaining 92 questionnaires were deleted as these were incomplete for one or more reasons. Of these, 523 were from rural and 567 were from urban respondents. Further details of the data are shown in Table 2. The scale of 15 identied variables was also subjected to reliability test. The results show that Cronbach alpha of the scale was 0.632, which is considered satisfactory.

Results and discussion


The results are based on primary data collected from 1090 respondents of the rural and urban residential backgrounds. The means, grand means and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used for bringing out the results. Scheffe Test was also used for comparing the multiple means. Table 3 describes the characteristics of the sample, Table 4 explains the results of anova indicating the signicant differences between the means and Table 5 shows the means and grand means indicating the direction and extent of the difference between means. Table 6 shows the comparison of multiple means of four administrative divisions as derived by Scheffe Test. Out of 538 males surveyed, 250 (46.5%) were of the rural background and 288 (53.5%) of the urban. Nearly equal number of female were selected from both residential backgrounds, i.e. 273 (49.5%) females from rural and 279 (50.5%) from urban backgrounds. Various demographic variables have been considered while selecting the sample like age, gender residential background, educational qualications, occupation, economic background, buying role of the respondents and size of the family, etc. The details of the same may be seen through Table 3. The rural and urban consumers do not vary signicantly (P 0.169) in considering the package as value addition to the product. Mean scores (Table 5) also supports the same for rural people (x = 4.17) and their urban counterparts (x = 4.18). Overall, people consider the package as a strong value addition (x = 4.18). However, it is to be noted here that people of different administrative divisions differ signicantly (P 0.005) on the cost aspect
633

Research methods
A comprehensive questionnaire was constructed covering 56 variables related to the package. Besides general information about the respondents, four major issues related to the package were addressed in the questionnaire, i.e. the package as a marketing tool, functions of package, package and environment and other issues related to the package. As only one section of the all four sections of the questionnaire was relevant for the study of consumer behaviour with respect to packaging, the other three sections were not considered for this study. Therefore, only the 15 variables relating to this study out of the total 56 variables were selected and analysed. All the responses on variables related to this study were obtained on 5-point scale (from point 5 for strongly agreeing with the statement to point 1 for strongly disagreeing). These variables may be seen through Table 1. The data were collected through a schedule. A multistage sampling method was used for the study. The study was conducted in all four administrative divisions of the north-western State of Haryana in India. The survey was administered in randomly selected eight cities/towns and 16 villages spreading in these administrative divisions. Out of these eight cities/towns, four cities and four towns were selected randomly and out of the 16 villages, eight large (more than 5000 residents) and eight small (less than 5000 residents) villages were selected randomly for the purpose of

International Journal of Consumer Studies 31 (2007) 630638 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Impact of packaging

M. Sehrawet and S.C. Kundu

Table 3 Characteristics of the sample Residential background Demographic variables Gender Age (years) Categories Male Female 1525 2635 3650 >50 Non-literate Primary Matriculate Graduate Post-graduate Professional Service Business Farming Others <5 000 5 00110 000 10 00115 000 15 00120 000 >20 000 13 4 5 67 8 Head of the family Purchaser of most products Inuence in buying decisions User of most products Rural 250 273 204 217 70 32 20 42 144 205 78 34 197 65 55 206 128 267 75 30 23 55 117 130 149 72 163 143 65 152 523 (46.5) (49.5) (52.2) (54.5) (31.5) (40.0) (76.9) (63.6) (56.0) (46.3) (48.1) (25.0) (41.6) (45.8) (90.2) (49.9) (64.3) (48.8) (36.6) (35.3) (42.6) (42.0) (38.9) (44.1) (58.0) (67.9) (47.5) (42.1) (41.9) (60.3) (48.0) Urban 288 279 187 181 151 48 6 24 113 238 84 102 276 77 6 208 71 280 130 55 31 76 184 165 108 34 180 197 90 100 567 (53.5) (50.5) (47.8) (45.5) (68.3) (60.0) (23.1) (36.4) (44.0) (53.7) (51.9) (75.0) (58.4) (54.2) (09.8) (50.1) (35.7) (51.2) (63.4) (64.7) (57.4) (58.0) (61.1) (55.9) (42.0) (32.1) (52.5) (57.9) (58.1) (39.7) (52.0) Total 538 552 391 398 221 80 26 66 257 443 162 136 473 142 61 414 199 547 205 85 54 131 301 295 257 106 343 340 155 252 1090 (49.4) (50.6) (35.9) (36.5) (20.3) (7.3) (2.4) (6.1) (23.6) (40.5) (14.9) (12.5) (43.4) (13.0) (5.6) (38.0) (18.3) (50.1) (18.8) (7.8) (5.0) (12.0) (27.6) (27.1) (23.6) (9.7) (31.5) (31.2) (14.5) (23.1) (100)

Education

Occupation

Income (monthly in Rupees)

Family size (no. of member)

Status in family buying unit

Total Figures in the parentheses show percentages.

Table 4 Summary results of two-way analysis of variance Administrative division effect (d.f. = 3) F-value 4.243 12.808 5.772 1.906 2.701 3.304 2.045 1.557 20.087 3.054 15.710 7.257 1.602 4.455 3.360 (0.005) (0.000) (0.001) (0.127) (0.044) (0.020) (0.106) (0.198) (0.000) (0.028) (0.000) (0.000) (0.187) (0.004) (0.018) Residential background effect (d.f. = 1) F-value 1.897 12.639 3.451 0.246 6.867 1.228 5.881 5.312 1.419 0.009 2.781 1.881 5.278 4.450 4.789 (0.169) (0.000) (0.063) (0.620) (0.009) (0.268) (0.015) (0.021) (0.234) (0.924) (0.096) (0.170) (0.022) (0.035) (0.029) Interactive effect (d.f. = 3) F-value 7.085 4.064 0.225 4.581 6.042 7.456 7.276 15.570 3.095 2.009 1.713 4.912 4.025 0.829 12.942 (0.000) (0.007) (0.879) (0.003) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.026) (0.111) (0.162) (0.002) (0.007) (0.478) (0.000)

Variables V1 Package adds value V2 Package helps in buying V3 Better packaged products are better V4 Strong package inuences positively V5 Ease of carriage inuences positively V6 Light weight of package inuences positively V7 Simplicity of package inuences positively V8 Consistency in package of different product inuences positively V9 Transparent package is preferred V10 Ease of storage inuences positively V11 Package helps in identifying and distinguishing product V12 Package helps in avoiding pilferage V13 Label is an important part of package V14 Package misleads buyers V15 Package is an environmental hazard Figures in the parentheses show level of signicance.

634

International Journal of Consumer Studies 31 (2007) 630638 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

M. Sehrawet and S.C. Kundu

Impact of packaging

Table 5 Summary of mean and grand mean scores Residential background Rural Urban GM Rural Urban GM Rural Urban GM Rural Urban GM Rural Urban GM Rural Urban GM Rural Urban GM Rural Urban GM Rural Urban GM Rural Urban GM Rural Urban GM Rural Urban GM Rural Urban GM Rural Urban GM Rural Urban GM

Variables V1 Package adds value

AD1 (M) 4.38 4.08 4.24 3.83 3.27 3.57 3.62 3.54 3.58 3.89 3.73 3.82 3.95 3.93 3.94 3.63 3.51 3.57 3.68 3.71 3.69 3.60 3.34 3.48 3.91 3.83 3.88 3.98 3.81 3.90 4.28 4.24 4.27 4.21 3.99 4.10 4.38 4.32 4.35 3.75 3.58 3.67 4.11 3.73 3.93

AD2 (M) 4.21 4.39 4.30 3.82 3.88 3.85 3.48 3.37 3.42 3.46 3.88 3.66 3.51 4.04 3.76 3.31 3.93 3.61 3.13 4.51 3.80 2.92 3.81 3.35 3.25 3.07 3.16 3.95 4.18 4.06 4.34 4.35 4.35 3.82 3.86 3.84 4.00 4.44 4.21 3.79 3.40 3.79 3.70 4.02 3.86

AD3 (M) 3.82 4.24 4.05 3.38 3.17 3.27 3.32 3.17 3.24 3.70 3.62 3.65 3.82 3.68 3.74 3.42 3.25 3.33 3.48 3.24 3.35 3.44 3.24 3.33 3.28 3.65 3.49 3.78 3.81 3.80 3.72 3.98 3.87 3.60 3.95 3.80 4.34 4.43 4.39 3.50 3.40 3.44 3.62 3.76 3.70

AD4 (M) 4.04 4.09 4.07 3.47 3.20 3.30 3.34 3.11 3.20 3.83 3.77 3.80 3.77 4.01 3.92 3.51 3.47 3.48 3.62 3.71 3.67 3.43 3.61 3.54 3.51 3.73 3.65 4.04 3.93 3.98 4.11 4.23 4.18 3.91 4.05 4.00 4.32 4.36 4.34 3.68 3.37 3.49 4.21 3.63 3.85

GM 4.17 4.18 4.18 3.68 3.35 3.51 3.48 3.31 3.39 3.74 3.75 3.74 3.79 3.92 3.86 3.49 3.53 3.51 3.50 3.76 3.64 3.38 3.48 3.43 3.56 3.61 3.59 3.95 3.92 3.93 4.16 4.20 4.18 3.95 3.97 3.96 4.27 4.38 4.33 3.70 3.53 3.61 3.94 3.77 3.85

V2 Package helps in buying

V3 Better packaged products are better

V4 Strong package inuences positively

V5 Ease of carriage inuences positively

V6 Light weight of package inuences positively

V7 Simplicity of package inuences positively

V8 Consistency in package of different product inuences positively

V9 Transparent package is preferred

V10 Ease of storage inuences positively

V11 Package helps in identifying and distinguishing product

V12 Package helps in avoiding pilferage

V13 Label is an important part of package

V14 Package misleads buyers

V15 Package is an environmental hazard

AD1, Hisar administrative division; AD2, Rohtak administrative division; AD3, Ambala administrative division; AD4, Gurgaon administrative division; M, mean; GM, grand mean.

of packaging. AD1 (x = 4.24) and AD2 (x = 4.30) have a compara tively stronger feeling of value addition than AD3 and AD4. The residential background of people has an inuence on respondents in considering packaging as helpful in buying (P 0.000). Rural residents (x = 3.68) consider the package more helpful in buying goods than their urban counterparts (x = 3.35). However, from this analysis it can be concluded that the buyers nd packaging helpful in buying (x = 3.51). People in different

divisions also attach different signicance (P 0.000) to the package as helpful in buying. Further, Table 5 shows that the respondents of AD1 and AD2 consider the package comparatively more helpful in buying than AD3 and AD4. Residential background effect (P 0.063) establishes that this independent variable has a signicant bearing on consumers (rural as well as urban) in considering that a better package contains a better product. Administrative division effect also has a signicant
635

International Journal of Consumer Studies 31 (2007) 630638 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Impact of packaging

M. Sehrawet and S.C. Kundu

Table 6 Summary results of Scheffe Test for multiple comparisons of means Variables V1 Package adds value V2 Package helps in buying V3 Better packaged products are better V4 Strong package inuences positively V5 Ease of carriage inuences positively V6 Light weight of package inuences positively V7 Simplicity of package inuences positively V8 Consistency in package of different product inuences positively V9 Transparent package is preferred V10 Ease of storage inuences positively V11 Package helps in identifying and distinguishing product V12 Package helps in avoiding pilferage V13 Label is an important part of package V14 Package misleads buyers V15 Package is an environmental hazard MD (1,2) 0.028 0.280* 0.160 0.157 0.180 0.037 0.218 0.132 0.714* 0.158 0.039 0.265* 0.142 0.121 0.076 MD (1,3) 0.186 0.302* 0.344* 0.163 0.199 0.245 0.322* 0.152 0.388* 0.105 0.398* 0.352* 0.035 0.224 0.233* MD (1,4) 0.174 0.264* 0.387* 0.023 0.025 0.089 0.005 0.062 0.227 0.074 0.085 0.104 0.010 0.175 0.080 MD (2,3) 0.159 0.582* 0.185 0.006 0.019 0.283* 0.104 0.020 0.326* 0.263 0.438* 0.087 0.178 0.346* 0.157 MD (2,4) 0.146 0.544* 0.227 0.134 0.155 0.127 0.223 0.194 0.487* 0.084 0.125 0.161 0.132 0.296* 0.003 MD (3,4) 0.012 0.038 0.042 0.140 0.175 0.156 0.327* 0.214 0.160 0.179 0.313* 0.248* 0.045 0.049 0.153

*The mean difference is signicant at the 0.5 level. MD (1,2), mean difference between AD1 and AD2; MD (1,3), mean difference between AD1 and AD3; MD (1,4), mean difference between AD1 and AD4; MD (2,3), mean difference between AD2 and AD3; MD (2,4), mean difference between AD2 and AD4; MD (3,4), mean difference between AD3 and AD4; AD1, Hisar administrative division; AD2, Rohtak administrative division; AD3, Ambala administrative division; AD4, Gurgaon administrative division.

impact (P 0.001) on this variable. It is important to note here that the rural respondents (x = 3.48) give comparatively higher support than the urban respondents to the statement that better packaging contains a better product. Table 5 shows that the respondents of AD1 and AD2 have comparatively more support to this opinion than AD3 and AD4. Further, buyers (x = 3.39) irrespective of categories assume that better packages contain a better product. The residential background effect and administrative division effect do not discriminate among the various categories of the consumers in claiming that strong packaging inuences buying decisions. Further, the interactive effect (P 0.003) is signicant. However, strong package (x = 3.74) does inuence buying deci sions. The cell means of the Table 5 show that the rural consumers of AD1, AD4 and the urban consumers of AD2 prefer stronger packaging. The ease of carriage of the package from retail outlet to the place of consumption has a varying inuence on residents of different backgrounds (P 0.009) and administrative divisions (P 0.044). The Interactive effect (P 0.000) is also signicant. Ease of carriage of package from retail outlet to the place of consumption has a good inuence on rural people (x = 3.79) but they are less inuenced as compared with their urban counterparts (x = 3.92). However, this is a strong factor in inuencing buying behaviour. The inuence of the variable lightness of package differs signicantly on the basis of administrative divisions (P 0.020) and interaction (P 0.000). Overall, it can be said that the lightness of package inuences buying decisions positively (x = 3.51). Table 5 shows that the respondents of AD1 and AD2 have comparatively more liking for such type of package than AD3 and AD4. Further, the cell means of the Table 5 show that the rural consumers of AD1, AD3 and AD4 prefer the light weight package and the urban consumers of AD2 prefer the light weight package.
636

The results of ANOVA (P 0.015) indicate that rural and urban consumers vary in their behaviour regarding the inuence of simplicity of the package. The simplicity of the package (x = 3.64) inuences the consumers positively. Rural respondents (x = 3.50) are comparatively less inuenced by simplicity of the package than urban consumers (x = 3.76). The Interactive effect (P 0.000) is also signicant. Further, the cell means of the Table 5 show that the urban consumers of AD1, AD2 and AD4 prefer the simple package and the rural consumers of AD3 prefer the simple package. Residential background effect (P 0.021) is signicant and indicates that the rural (x = 3.38) and the urban (x = 3.48) consum ers behave differently on the variable consistency in the package for different products of a company. Further, all consumers irrespective of their backgrounds are inuenced positively by consistency in packaging. The interactive effect of residential background and administrative division (P 0.000) is again highly signicant on this dependent variable. The cell means of the Table 5 indicate that the rural consumers of AD1, AD3 and the urban consumers of AD2 and AD4 like comparatively more the consistency in the package. Further perusal indicates that rural consumers of AD2 (x = 2.92) do not like consistency/similarity in the package for different products. The residential background (P 0.234) of people does not inuence signicantly the impact of transparency of the package on their buying behaviour. However, buying behaviour of respondents varies signicantly (P 0.000) in different administrative divisions on this variable. Table 5 shows that the respondents of AD1 (x = 3.88) and AD4 (x = 3.65) have comparatively more liking for transparent package than consumers of AD2 and AD3. Further, the means table shows that the transparency of a package has relatively less inuence on buying behaviour of rural consumers (x = 3.56) than their urban counterparts (x = 3.61), although the

International Journal of Consumer Studies 31 (2007) 630638 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

M. Sehrawet and S.C. Kundu

Impact of packaging

variation is marginal. However, the transparency of a package has an impact on the buying behaviour of all consumers. Rural and urban consumers do not differ signicantly (P 0.924) on the variable ease of storage. Table 4 shows that ease of storage of packaged products affects equally positively both rural and urban people. However, it should be mentioned here that the inuence of this variable differs signicantly (P 0.028) according to the administrative divisions. Consumers of AD2 (x = 4.06) are comparatively more inuenced than other divisions by the package feature, i.e. ease of storage. The residential background of people does not have differential impact (P 0.096) on consumers when considering how packaging helps in identifying and distinguishing products. People of different administrative divisions (P 0.000) do differ signicantly on this variable. A perusal of mean scores in Table 5 shows that respondents from AD3 (x = 3.87) are comparatively less inuenced than those from AD1, AD2 and AD4. Further, rural and urban respondents are fairly equally and highly inuenced by this feature of the package. Overall, consumers are inuenced by the packages that help in identifying and distinguishing products. The residential background effect (P 0.170) indicates that the rural and the urban consumers do not differ signicantly on the variable package avoids pilferage. However, there are strong differences between administrative divisions (P 0.000). Table 5 shows that the respondents of AD1 (x = 4.10) and AD4 (x = 4.00) have comparatively more support for the variable package avoids pilferage than AD2 and AD3. The mean scores show that people accept that packaging that helps in avoiding pilferage (x = 3.96). The interactive effect of the residential background and the administrative division (P 0.002) is again highly signicant on this dependent variable. The cell means of the Table 5 indicate that the rural consumers of AD1 and the urban consumers of AD2, AD3 and AD4 are more likely to consider that the package helps in avoiding pilferage. The residents of different backgrounds differ signicantly (P 0.022) in considering labelling as an important part of the package. Interaction of residential background and administrative division (P 0.007) differ signicantly on the label as a part of package. That the label is an important part of package (x = 4.33) is evident from mean scores. Further, rural people have less appreciation for the label as important part of package as compared with their urban counterparts. The cell means of Table 5 indicate that rural consumers of AD1 and urban consumers of AD2, AD3 and AD4 consider the label a comparatively more important part of the package. Background effect (P 0.035) indicates that the behaviour of people varies with respect to the role of the package in misleading buyers. Administrative division effect also differs (P 0.004) on this dependent variable. The results show that rural residents (x = 3.70) are of the strong opinion that the package misleads buyers as compared with urban consumers (x = 3.53). Table 5 shows that the respondents of AD1 (x = 3.67) and AD2 (x = 3.79) have comparatively more support for this opinion than AD3 and AD4. Grand mean score (x = 3.61) also indicates that consumers are sensitive to this fact. The variable package is an environmental hazard differs signicantly according to different residential backgrounds (P 0.029). Against the general perception (x = 3.85), urban

people have relatively less support (x = 3.77) compared with their rural counterparts (x = 3.94).

Policy implications
A signicant feature of the Indian rural middle class is its rapid growth in terms of volume and value. This provides a potentially huge untapped market. Today, rural consumers are less passive than they were in the past and are more like their urban counterparts. So, the package manufacturers and marketers will perceive opportunities to target rural consumers. To be successful in this market, they will have to develop their product, modify their pricing strategies, adjust their distribution programmes and redesign their promotion to suit rural residents. So far as packaging is concerned, rural customers are graduating from loose to packaged products as they recognize that it helps them in identifying, buying and using quality products. They need strong packages, as handling usually happens to be multi-handed and rough. It should provide them with convenient storage and it has to address the issue of environment. The label should be modied to suit their preferences. The package manufacturers also have to modify their strategies to suit their new consumers. In future, the prospects of companies will depend upon how quickly and effectively they incorporate these dimensions in their marketing philosophy and how accurately they understand rural consumers preferences.

Conclusion
This study sought to make a comparison of the reactions of rural and urban markets on packaging in Haryana, India. It shows that rural and urban consumers vary signicantly on various aspects of packaging. Rural people feel that packaging is more helpful in buying than their urban counterparts, and they have stronger opinions that better packages usually contain better products. The ease of carriage, lightness of weight, simplicity, transparency and consistency of a package have relatively less inuence on buying decisions of rural consumers than urban consumers. Although labelling is strongly considered to be an important part of a package, rural respondents give less importance to this aspect of packaging than urban ones. Rural residents are more environmentally conscious than their urban counterparts as they have a stronger belief that packaging is an environmental hazard. They also are more likely to believe that packaging contributes to misleading buyers.

Future research direction


This is a preliminary attempt to study the behaviour of future rural consumers regarding packaging. Further research is needed on each sub-element of these broad aspects of tomorrows market. This study throws the challenge open to marketers and researchers to better understand this potential market. This study is conducted in the north-western state of Haryana in India. More comprehensive studies should be conducted at national or international levels by increasing the sample size.

References
Ajarekar, P. (1997) Packaging design. Packaging India, October November, 9.

International Journal of Consumer Studies 31 (2007) 630638 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

637

Impact of packaging

M. Sehrawet and S.C. Kundu

Alsop, R. & Abrams, B. (1986) Getting an edge with better packages. In The Wall Street Journal on Marketing (ed. by R. Alsop & B. Abrams), pp. 139141. Dow Jones-Irwin, Homewood, IL. Balooni, K. (1997) Green consumerism the new challenge. Indian Management, October, 6067. Banerjee, A. & Banerjee, B. (2000) Effective retail promotion management: use of point of sales information resources. Vikalpa, 25, 5455. Bhushan, R. (2005) HLL revamps personal care portfolio. The Times of India, New Delhi, 11 April, p. 16. Bone, P.F. & Corey, R.J. (1992) Ethical dilemmas in packaging: beliefs of packaging professionals. Journal of Macro Marketing, Spring, 3257. Cairncross, F. (1993) Costing the Earth: The Challenge for Government, the Opportunities for Business. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Chaturvedi, M. (1998) Badalti tasvir: gramin bajaroan ki. The Hindustan, New Delhi, 13 May, p. 12. Dabholker, A.P. (1994) Incorporating choice into an attitudinal frame work: analyzing models of mental comparison processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 115123. Drumwright, M.E. (1994) Socially responsible organizational buying: environmental concern as a non-economic buying criterion. Journal of Marketing, 58, 119. Etzel, M.J., Walker, B.J. & Stanton, W.J. (2005) Marketing. Tata McGraw-Hill, New Delhi. Gupta, A. (2005) Rich like us. Business Today, 14, 12. Kotler, P. (2004) Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation, and Control. Prentice Hall of India Private Limited, New Delhi. Kundu, S.C. & Sehrawet, M. (2002) Impact of packaging on consumer buying behaviour. The Indian Journal of Commerce, 55, 2635. Lakshminarayan, T.V. (2001) India wastes 70,000 cr. worth food articles. The Tribune, New Delhi, 15 January, p. 8. Laroche, M., Bergeron, J. & Forleo, G.B. (2001) Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18, 503520. McCarty, J.A. & Shrum, L.J. (1994) The recycling of solid waste: personal values, value orientation, and attitude about recycling as antecedent of recycling behaviour. Journal of Business Research, 30, 5362. Mahalingam, T.V. (2007) Salvation in a sachet. Business Today, 11 February, pp. 98102. de Maricourt, R. (1994) Segmentation, innovation, proliferation: production policies in Japan. Decision Marketing, 3, 5161. Mehta, R. (1999) The mysteries of rural markets. Advertising & Marketing, 15, 1823. Myburgh-Louw, J. & Shaughnessy, N.J. (1994) Consumer perception of misleading and deceptive claims on the packaging of green fast moving consumer goods. In AMA Summer Educators Conference Proceedings (ed. by R. Achrol & A. Mitchell), Vol. 5, pp. 344353. American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL. Narayanan, P.V. (2000) Packaging in a developing economy. Packaging India, OctoberNovember, 2327. Nath, V. & Pateriya, L.P. (2004) Green wash-creating a seduced environmental image. Review of Professional Management, 2, 3033. Noah, T. (1994) Order to be issued on civil rights, pollution link. Wall Street Journal, 11 February, p. 14. Pandey, D.P. (2005) Education in rural marketing. University News, 43, 78. Parker, R. (1997) Counting down the top 10 US packaging trends. Packaging India, AugustSeptember, 7982.

Peters-Texeira, A. & Badrie, N. (2005) Consumers perception of food packaging in Trinidad, West Indies and its related impact on food choices. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 29, 508 514. Phillips, H. (1997) How we actually shop: the implications for the designer? Packaging India, AugustSeptember, 4754. Porter, M.E. & Van der Linde, C. (1995) Green and competitive. Harvard Business Review, 73, 120134. Ramana Rao, P.V. (1997) Rural market problems and perspective. Indian Journal of Marketing, 27, 1719. Ramaswamy, V.S. & Namakumari, S. (2004) Marketing Management, Planning, Implementation, and Control. McMillan India Ltd, Delhi. Rimal, A. (2005) Meat labels: consumer attitude and meat consumption pattern. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 29, 4754. Russell, C.S. & Christopher, D.C. (1999) The potential effectiveness of the provisions of consumers information on product environmental characteristics as a regulatory tool. Paper presented at the SOM- Conference, November, in Copenhagen, Denmark. [WWW document]. URL http://www.afk.dk/som/index.html (accessed on 20 April 2002). Sagar, V.R. & Kumar, S. (2005) Packaging requirements for raw & processed foods. Beverage & Food World, 32, 2428. Sandahl, D.M. & Robertson, R. (1989) Social determinant of environmental concern: specication and test of the model. Environment and Behavior, 21, 5781. Sayulu, K. & Ramana Reddy, V.V. (1996) Socio-economic inuences of rural consumer behaviour an empirical study. Management Researcher, 3, 4151. Schreiber, E. (1994) Retail trends shorten life of packaging design. Marketing News, 5 December, p. 7. Sehrawet, M. (2002) Impact of packaging on consumer buying behaviour: a comparative study of rural and urban consumers in Haryana. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Sehrawet, M. & Kundu, S.C. (2003) Packaging as a marketing tool: a study. In International Business and Financial Services in WTO Regime (ed. by M.S. Turan & S.C. Kundu), pp. 287298. Excel Books, New Delhi. Sibbel, A. (2003) Consumer science: a science for sustainability. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 27, 240. Sivan, V. (2000) Corrugated as an advertising medium. Packaging India, AugustSeptember, 5961. Srinivasan, P. (2005a) Rural teller. Business Today, 14, 53. Srinivasan, P. (2005b) Strength in numbers. Business Today, 14, 56. Srinivasan, P. (2005c) Women power. Business Today, 14, 52. Suchard, H.T. & Polonski, M.J. (1991) A theory of environment buyer behaviour and its validity: the environmental action-behaviour model. In AMA Summer Educators Conference Proceedings (ed. by M.C. Gilly), Vol. 2, pp. 187201. American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL. Sudhakar, B.R. (1997) Target: the rural consumer. The Times of India, New Delhi, 11 March, p. 19. The Times of India (TOI) (2005) Rural India drives consumer goods growth. The Times of India, 30 April, p. 9. Triandis, H.C. (1993) Collectivism and individualism as cultural syndromes. Cross-Cultural Research, 27, 155180. Tribune News Service (2000) Middle class behind retail boom in India. The Tribune, Chandigarh, 21 February, p. 7. Twede, D. (1997) Marketing and distribution aspects in packaging in 2000. Packaging India, 30, 3134. Verma, H.V. (2002) Green consumer: an initial study. Labour Management Studies, 27, 88.

638

International Journal of Consumer Studies 31 (2007) 630638 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

You might also like