12月，我合作了Package InSight探索假日购物主食:蛋酒。我们know successful packaging attracts and retains shopper attention, but we were also looking to understand if packaging lives up to its promise—a question we had not previously explored. To do this, we recruited real shoppers, split 50/50 between those who traditionally purchase eggnog and those who do not, and observed how they approached and made decisions on a competitive eggnog planogram.
To cap off the consumer deep dive, we set up a taste test between some of the most popular brands, with and without their packaging, to see how consumer opinions are swayed by product branding and marketing. Most of us have heard about the Coke vs. Pepsi taste tests, but expanding this into an entire category and combining the taste test with biometric and quantitative data is something new.
要彻底，我们收集了享受杂志，定性问卷，购物者购买和定量购物者眼镜跟踪的食品感官数据。这产生了对Eggnog类别，包装设计，导致消费者行为和用户体验的经验驱动的，广泛的理解。我们通过审计五个国家杂货商和收集24种各种各样的Eggng产品，包括非乳制品，有机，味，商店品牌和中档，大众市场品牌。这是我们为蛋白酒消费者创造全面了解的最佳方法，同时为品牌和类别利益相关者提供客观反馈，在包装设计和零售杂货市场定位。
The final product is a robust report and video presentation, but here are three powerful takeaways unveiled within the report:
Eye-tracking findings:
Shoppers spent an average of 1.17 seconds looking at eggnog packaged goods (per SKU), and the length of attention positively correlated with purchases. Three of the four brands with the longest attention were the top-selling brands.
We also looked at individual label elements, including brand name, product name, visual illustrations, and callouts, and discovered that shopper attention is generally most focused on brand names and product illustrations. Calorie counts and “Ultra-Pasteurized” callouts were most often overlooked.
Qualitative surveys:
如前所述，我们在那些认为自己的人之间的人口分开，那些不喜欢喝Eggng的人。我们的Aficionado集团，大多数“购买”的品牌他们通常会购买，但在第三个表明他们没有一个首选品牌。这是一个非常大的市场削减，无法摆动。对于那些不购买Eggnog的人，44％的人报告只是不喜欢品味，但22％的人承认他们从未尝试过。如果您正在创建一个经典产品的新品牌，您将如何吸引爱好者andentice someone else to try it for the first time?
Taste test:
For this last activity, we invited our eggnog drinkers to participate in a taste test where they encountered three different eggnog packages with numbered samples in front of them—our “branded” samples. Next to those were three more numbered samples with no packaging—our “blind” samples. We chose three varied brands: one organic “high-end” brand, one popular “mass-market” brand found in all the stores we audited, and one less-expensive “no-frills” brand. Participants were asked to taste each sample and rate several of their characteristics on a 9-point hedonic scale (from extreme dislike to extreme like). What the participants didn’t know was that the branded samples and blind samples were the same three products.
如附图所示，这里的发现令人着迷。当参与者了解品牌时，我们的有机样品非常高度评定，但相同的盲目样本被评为所有产品中最低的样品。盲目测试中的无褶皱品牌有点较低，但没有巨大的差异。大众市场品牌最符合，总加权平均值之间的差异在一个点的5/100内。（我们似乎在包括这个品牌的呼叫包括这个品牌;它也是我们的参与者在研究的购物/眼跟踪部分中最常用的。）这种测试风格肯定会展示我们的假设，使我们的假设有效的品牌和包装可以提升消费者心中的产品。
Research like this provides value for every food company and supplier of packaging. It can give them a comprehensive understanding of their customer, their packaging’s effectiveness, and their packaging’s impact on the product experience—all things that help improve sales and the bottom line for our consumer-driven industries.
Learn more about what the research team didhere.
Dr. R. Andrew Hurleyis the founder ofPackage Insightand包装学校，and an Associate Professor at Clemson University.
