85 Defi ning the New Package: Specifying the Package at the

Concept Level

are a limited number of basic packages, but the number of alternative ideas can be staggering. The imaginative package designer can work with many different basic containers, and for these containers work with as many different features on the container. In the end, only imag- ination limits the opportunities.

Such was the case with our margarine. The young team came up with literally hundreds of ideas about the margarine, of which several dozen dealt with the package. The ideas were created by corporate teams, helped along by experienced “ creativity ” moderators, individuals who specialized not so much in packaging per se, as in the creation of new ideas for foods.

Dealing with “ Very Many ” Elements for a Product Concept

Researchers who work with product concepts have to make choices in what they do, especially when they work in a business environment that demands decision and action. When there are many aspects to a product, such as the liquid margarine we deal with in this chapter, the researcher can opt to select some promising ideas, and after refi ning these ideas in focus groups, test the ideas for appeal and for possible market success. In such a case the research deliberately chooses to focus on a few, promising ideas. Testing the concepts for potential per- formance is like running a “ beauty contest. ” The objec- tive of the test is to decide which concept is the most promising for the marketplace. In such tests typically the researcher screens relatively few concepts (i.e., 1 to 20 or so), instructing respondents to rate each test concept on a number of different attributes. The output is a report card of the type we will see for margarine packages later in this chapter.

But what happens when there are dozens of elements, or perhaps even hundreds, as there were for the liquid margarine product? We are referring to many elements that, together, cover a wide range of alternatives. Such an abundance of ideas for a product is not new, and the fact that of these 69 were package - related is not particu- larly unusual. The reality is just the opposite. Most product initiatives could be opened up to hundreds of ideas, some constituting radically new directions, some simply variations of the current or variations of these new directions. More often than we care to admit, the decision to limit the number of options to a testable set is made through judgment, and all too often in light of fi nancial constraints.

At that time the use of experimental design to create new product ideas was becoming increasingly accepted. Companies in the 1990s recognized that they would have to compete on knowledge, not on simple hope. It wasn ’ t suffi cient to have insights alone. In the food business, especially, competition was heating up. We see a lot of the same situation today, 15 years later. The cost of entry is low. It doesn ’ t take much money to put a new margarine on the shelf, if you can pay the “ slotting fees ” that the stores ask (almost rent for their space, to be occupied by your product). If the product can be shown to be reasonably unique and consumer - acceptable, then you have a chance to get onto the crowded shelves and fi ght it out with competitors, at least for a little while.

With this in mind, let ’ s travel back to those years. You can imagine a group of six people. Our two key players are the 37 - year - old brand manager who just received her latest promotion the year before for a successful launch of a new soup, and a colleague, a young, 29 - year - old market researcher anxious to try new methods and “ push the business ahead. ”

The questions facing the group were very straightfor- ward regarding this new liquid margarine. Top manage- ment had dictated a pan - European launch. The research goal was to nail down the many different aspects of the margarine — from what to say about it, to how to package it. Most importantly, the fact that the product was to be a liquid rather than the conventional solid meant that there were issues of packaging. Margarine has many functions, from helping with cooking to being used as a spread, etc. What should the packaging form be for this new liquid?

Exploring Many Ideas — Strategies, Hazards, Remedies

At the end of the day the product developer, package designer, marketer, and advertising agency have to agree on the product, its features, its packaging, and the other Ps that we discussed in the introduction. Of course, the task is pretty straightforward when one is constrained to one of a few product forms, a few shapes, a few contain- ers, and a few legally approved messages. Such is the case with the pharmaceutical industry, where most of the work concentrates on messaging, not on product form and certainly not on packaging. Turn that set of constraints fi rm on its head when it comes to products in a new form, which can redefi ne a product category. Certainly there

Chapter 9 Defi ning the New Package: Specifying the Package at the Concept Level 87

there are different country - to - country preferences. Our data with 833 respondents from four European countries with different heritages, languages, etc., let us do that. Let ’ s see how far we get!

First, look at the orientation page to the study, in Figure 9.1 . The orientation page tells the respondent what is expected of him. The respondents in this study were recruited to participate for two hours, during which time each respondent evaluated 100 concepts on the computer screen and rated each concept on three attri- butes. When a respondent knows that the study will take a certain period of time and comes into a central location, he takes the task seriously. The respondent just can ’ t “ whiz through ” the evaluation, because there are “ moni- tors ” or interviewers in the test room watching the respondent, albeit discreetly.

We begin by looking at the data by total panel, and the same data by respondents in four countries. From the set of 316 different elements, we selected one silo of elements, the package plus benefi t. It was in this silo, shown in Table 9.1 , that we see differences among the package alternatives. Table 9.1 shows us the results from 27 different elements in the study (a little more than 1/12 of the elements). We can see modest differentiation by total panel, and some evidence of differences by the countries. However, we would be hard pressed to fi nd a pattern. Furthermore, the concept elements do not really Now let ’ s return to the margarine example, where the

foregoing constriction of vision was absolutely not the case. The project team decided to launch a full - scale evaluation of all the ideas. It ’ s not that the team needed to learn from the “ ground up. ” Certainly that was not the case here. Rather, the team recognized that in reality they did not know as much as they had assumed. It became clear that when talking about packages for this new liquid product, no one really could predict what would win and what would lose. Ideas sounded good on the drawing board and in the ideation session. But, and a very strong but, would they “ fl y ” when put to the test?

A First Foray into the Day — Looking at Some of the Elements “ by Country ”

As researchers, package designers, product developers, and marketers, we are accustomed to thinking in our own categories or ways of dividing information. One of these ways is by country. It is “ common knowledge ” (although rarely attributable) that people differ in their preferences by countries. It ’ s obvious that there are differences in countries and cultures because the world is not yet a homogenous whole. Yet, to describe people of different countries as wanting “ different things, such as packages ” begs the question as to what specifi cally are these differ- ent things that they want. We can test the hypothesis that

Please take your time and read each concept (screen) thoroughly. Once you have read the concept, please enter your rating based on the following question. The

entire concept should be rated as a whole. How interested are you in using this product?

All of the concepts you are about to see refer to a

How well does this product fit with BRAND X?

Would you use this product in place of oil or in place of butter/margarine?

PLEASE USE THE ENTIRE 1 TO 9 SCALE.

It is not necessary to press the <ENTER> key after entering your rating. · NOT AT ALL INTERESTED

· DOES NOT FIT AT ALL FITS VERY WELL ‚

· IN PLACE OF OIL IN PLACE OF BUTTER/MARGARINE ‚

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

VERY INTERESTED ‚

LIQUID PRODUCT TO BE USED

IN THE KITCHEN FOR COOKING (OR BAKING)

Table 9.1 Impact or utility value for 27 packaging elements (element + benefi t) for total panel and for four countries

Total Germany Netherlands Sweden UK Additive constant (baseline — no concept elements) 44 46 50 36 43 The packaging allows easy opening and reclosing 3 2 4 2 2 The packaging has a transparent stripe at the side of the pack to show how

much is left

3 3 1 1 0

The packaging is foldable, thus minimizing space in the waste - bin 3 1 4 2 3 The product stays fresh for longer, because the packaging is resealable 3 − 1 4 3 2 The packaging allows controlled dosage, which gives you more value for

money

2 3 2 2 0

The packaging allows dosing of just the right amount 2 2 3 1 5 The packaging allows easy dosing in an instant 2 3 1 1 3 The packaging can be stored outside of the refrigerator at room temperature 2 3 2 1 1 The packaging has a good grip which makes it handy to use 2 1 2 0 2 The packaging has a transparent stripe and measuring marks at the side of

the pack for quick and controlled dosing

2 3 1 4 4

The packaging has a handle for easier carrying and pouring 2 4 0 2 3 The packaging has a handy and nonmessy spout for pouring out the product

perfectly

2 3 2 1 0

The packaging is environmentally friendly 2 1 0 4 3 The packaging is designed for cleaner handling, preventing greasy fi ngers 2 2 3 1 2 The pack is fully transparent so you always see how much is left 2 2 2 2 3 The pack allows even coverage of food or pans 2 0 5 1 6 Can be used till the last drop of the product 1 − 1 1 − 1 4 The packaging is tamper - proof to guarantee it hasn ’ t been opened before 1 0 1 2 0 The packaging is economic, clean and handy to store 1 − 2 5 0 2 The packaging is sealed to guarantee freshness 1 − 3 2 2 3 With this kind of packaging you won ’ t need a knife or spoon anymore 1 2 2 − 1 3 The packaging is entirely recyclable 1 − 3 0 3 1 The packaging stays clean — every time. So does your fridge. And so do you. 1 5 − 2 1 2 The packaging allows one - hand use 0 0 1 − 1 1 In a modern packaging for today ’ s people 0 1 − 1 − 1 3 The packaging is ideal to take away, like on holiday 0 1 2 − 2 5 The packaging is refi llable 0 1 − 6 1 4

perform strongly in any country. We would like to have impact or utility values of eight or higher to say that an element drives interest in the product. We cannot fi nd that high - performing element in any country.

The lack of any pattern whatsoever across the four countries comes across even more clearly when we plot the 27 individual impact values for pairs of countries, as we see in Figure 9.2 . A good strategy in such cases plots the data in a scatterplot matrix, commonly available as a graphing procedure in many statistical packages for the personal computer (i.e., SYSTAT). Plotting the data often shows quite clearly that there is no pattern that can

be discerned, a discovery just as important as one that shows there is a pattern.

Transnational Segments — Where the “ Packaging Action ” Lives

If packaging elements do not perform strongly for the total panel or by individual country, then perhaps it is because the 833 respondents in this study comprise dif- ferent groups of individuals with different preferences. The segmentation of people into different mind - sets con- stitutes an ongoing organizing principle — a leitmotif , a

Chapter 9 Defi ning the New Package: Specifying the Package at the Concept Level 89

tively. The elements spanned the range from sensory descriptions to product use to packaging, so the study that encompassed packaging was not limited to packaging alone. From the utility values for these 319 elements, we were able to craft the story for each segment, or at least give a pr é cis of how these segments reacted.

The three segments that emerged can be described as follows:

1. Convenience Seekers (30% of the total sample). Convenience Seekers exhibit a number of clear themes in their response to the 319 elements. They want a product for busy, contemporary people. Convenience seekers want cleaner products, quick and easy, a packaging design that makes it cleaner, quicker, and easier. They want a product that won ’ t spit, spatter, burn, or cause a mess or skin burns. They

want a liquid or a spray , a modern product for a busy

life. Overall, this segment is a very good target for an innovative cooking product. They will use a liquid for ease, speed, and cleanliness. They will accept a con-

temporary package as a contributor to convenience.

recurring and organizing theme of this book (Jacobsen and Gunderson, 1986 ; Green and Krieger, 1991 ; Moskowitz, 1996 ; Qannari et al., 1997 ; Tang et al., 2000 ; Vigneau, et al., 2001 ; Westad et al., 2004 ; Moskowitz, 2006 ; Sahmer, et al., 2006 ).

We know that people differ in the foods they eat, the fl avors they like, the perfumes they accept. We also know that although the segmentation is very strong for taste and smell, which are the chemical senses, we don ’ t see such strong segmentation for other sensory attributes such as appearance (vision), texture/shape (touch/vision), and sounds (hearing).

Let ’ s look at the segmentation of our 833 respondents. We ’ re going to segment them by the pattern of the 319 utilities — one utility or impact value for each element — for each of the 833 respondents. Segmentation generates groups of people who exhibit different preference patterns.

When you read the description, keep in mind that these respondents did not “ describe themselves. ” Actually, we as researchers described them by looking at the elements to which they responded most strongly and at the elements to which they responded most nega-

GERMANY SWEDEN NETHERLANDS UK

GERMANY UK NETHERLANDS SWEDEN GERMANY UK NETHERLANDS GERMANY SWEDEN NETHERLANDS UK SWEDEN

Figure 9.2 Scatterplot matrix for the impacts or utilities corresponding to the 27 package elements (element + benefi t). Each fi lled circle corresponds to an element. The bar graphs show the distribution of the 27 utilities, allowing a comparison across countries.

of data in Table 9.2 , one column for each mind - set segment. We see in the mind - set segmentation that only the Convenience segment responds strongly to the new package features.

Exploring the Whole Gamut of Package Features

If you search the available knowledge bases, you won ’ t fi nd any sense of what packaging ideas work in different countries. The knowledge bases don ’ t really provide any idea of “ what works ” in terms of packaging, although there is a lot of information locked up in the mind of the package designer. We can create the begin- nings of this knowledge base by looking at the different ideas about packaging, at least within the realm of the study we ran.

We looked at the different elements for packaging in Table 9.1 and Table 9.2 , respectively. These were only a modest fraction of the different ideas that the company had developed. One of the key benefi ts of experimental design of ideas is the richness of the element results. We can get a better idea of this richness when we look at Table 9.3 , where we have combined the remaining two silos of package features into one group, and sorted the utility or impact by the total panel.

Looking at Table 9.3 , we see that package ideas by themselves do not “ sell ” the respondent. However, package ideas can “ unsell. ” There are a number of ideas that do poorly. The worst ideas vary by country. Thus, the notion of a portionable pouch performs

very poorly in the Netherlands (impact = − 13) and in Sweden (impact = − 10), but is irrelevant in the United Kingdom.

Summing Up

Our study with 833 respondents provided a massive amount of data about how package elements perform in the four countries where the study was run (United Kingdom, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Germany, respectively). Let ’ s summarize what we learned:

1. When it comes to packages for the total panel, no element really does well. Respondents have some packages that they absolutely do not like (i.e., reseal- able plastic pouch) (impact value = − 6).

2. With respect to the additional package specifi cs, again we see that resealable is a strong negative.

They can be convinced that the product will not burn like butter or spit like oil.

2. Health Seekers (29% of the total sample) . Health Seekers exhibit fi ve themes. The product should (1) contribute to a healthy lifestyle, including specifi c health benefi ts in terms of (2) calories, (3) cholesterol, (4) vitamins, and (5) additives, respectively. Health Seekers respond to some kind of oil mix, likes a product that tastes good and a product that is versatile. Health, however, is predominant and the fi rst three themes outweigh the two latter. Although this Health Seeker segment is similar in size to the other two, it is less motivated by the element list. Health Seekers are motivated by an oil/margarine combination, but not specifi cally a liquid. They are not receptive to

innovative form or packaging. They are not receptive to sprays.

3. Carers (27% of the total sample). Carers exhibit six major themes. The product should (1) come in a bottle like olive oil, (2) be made from vegetable oil. The product is (3) all about good home cooking. It ’ s (4) the best, (5) can be used for baking, and fi nally, it (6) contributes to a healthy lifestyle. Caring in cooking, however, is predominant, and the fi rst four themes outweigh the latter two. This caring segment is very responsive to the element list. Carers are not receptive to innovative form or

packaging , but an oil - type product in a prestige package has appeal to them. They are not receptive

to sprays . They will respond to expert and chef - based

elements, and are motivated by special and family appeals.

4. The remaining 14% of the respondents did not fall into any group. Not everyone need fall into a segment. Sometimes some small proportion of respondents in a study cannot be classifi ed.

5. Each segment represents a viable but quite distinct target. These segments exist in each country and across all user groups. These opposing minds cancel each other out. Their opposite ways of thinking drive the average toward 0, and explain the relatively neutral data — the cross - sectional data across coun- tries averages out three quite diverse attitudinal segments.

6. It is impossible to reach everybody with a single product. Convenience Seekers and Carers tend to be diametrically opposed in terms of preferences. 7. A sense of these three segments as they respond to

Chapter 9 Defi ning the New Package: Specifying the Package at the Concept Level 91

Table 9.2 Performance of 27 different package “ features and benefi ts ” among three mind - set “ segments ”