Influence of packaging attributes on perception of juice: Eye-tracking study

Authors

  • Ján Nemergut Mendel University in Brno, Department of Marketing and Trade, Zemědělská 1, 613 00 Brno Czech Republic, Tel.: +421910943341 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6238-0438
  • Stanislav Mokrý Mendel University in Brno, Department of Marketing and Trade, Zemědělská 1, 613 00 Brno Czech Republic, Tel.: +420545132332 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8868-0060

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5219/1267

Keywords:

consumer, attribute, juice, eye-tracking, package

Abstract

Today, consumers are increasingly aware of the impact that the fast and stressful way of life has on their health. They focus not only on physical activity, but also on a diet filled with fruits and vegetables. As a result, they often choose a tasty alternative which is one of the main sources of vitamins and nutrients - fruit juices. However, these products are often labeled as drinks with high amounts of sugar. Therefore, it is very important for these drinks to be perceived by the consumers as healthy and tasty, which is one of the most important features of their packages. Their goal is to appeal to customers, catch their attention and make them buy the product. One of the most convenient methods to study how packages appeal to customers is the eye-tracking method. The aim of this article is to find out how different attributes of packages can influence customers’ perception of the juice. The research was carried out in a form of eye-tracking experiment (A/B testing), which involved 38 participants at the age from 20 to 29 (generation Y). Results showed that lower color saturation significantly reduces the attention of individual packages and also reduces the influence of craving the juice as opposed to brighter colors. The importance of information on the back side was also confirmed, since moving the information from back to the front side did not show any significant decrease of the back side's attention span. Last but not least, it has been found out that the image type used on the orange juice package holds importance too, since photography of oranges led to a higher craving of the juice in comparison to the illustration of oranges. However, it was not proven that photographs of oranges held a higher attention span compared to the illustrations. The article contains demonstrable proof of individual package attributes' influence on how generation Y consumers perceive the juice.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abdi Sargezeh, B., Tavakoli, N., Daliri, M. R. 2019. Gender-based eye movement differences in passive indoor picture viewing: An eye-tracking study. Physiology & Behavior, vol. 206, p, 43-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2019.03.023

Abrams, K. M., Evans, C., Duff, B. R. 2015. Ignorance is bliss. How parents of preschool children make sense of front-of-package visuals and claims on food. Appetite, vol. 87, p. 20-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.12.100

Ampuero, O., Vila, N. 2006. Consumer perceptions of product packaging. Journal of consumer marketing, vol. 23, n. 2, p. 100-112. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760610655032

Ashurst, P. R. 2016. Chemistry and Technology of Soft Drinks and Fruit Juices. Hoboken, NJ : John Wiley & Sons, p. 424. ISBN 9781118634967. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118634943

Bone, P. F. France, K. R. 2001. Package Graphics and Consumer Product Beliefs. Journal of Business and Psychology, vol. 15, no. 3, p. 467-489. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007826818206

Burgess, P. 2016. Integrating the Packaging and Product Experience in Food and Beverages: A Road-Map to Consumer Satisfaction. CAMBRIDGE, UK : Woodhead Publishing, p. 220. ISBN 978-0-08-100356-5

Cahyorini, A., Rusfian, E. Z. 2012. The effect of packaging design on impulsive buying. Bisnis & Birokrasi Journal, vol. 18, p. 11-21.

Fenko, A., Lotterman, H., Galetzka, M. 2016. What’s in a name? The effects of sound symbolism and package shape on consumer responses to food products. Food quality and preference, vol. 51, p. 100-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.02.021

Gadioli, I. L., Pineli, L. D. L. D. O., Rodrigues, J. D. S. Q., Campos, A. B., Gerolim, I. Q., Chiarello, M. D. 2013. Evaluation of Packing Attributes of Orange Juice on Consumers' Intention to Purchase by Conjoint Analysis and Consumer Attitudes Expectation. Journal of Sensory Studies, vol. 28, no.1, p. 57-65. https://doi.org/10.1111/joss.12023

Hanson-Vaux, G., Crisinel, A. S., Spence, C. 2012. Smelling shapes: Crossmodal correspondences between odors and shapes. Chemical senses, vol. 38, no. 2, p. 161-166. https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/bjs087

Hubert, M., Hubert, M., Florack, A., Linzmajer, M., Kenning, P. 2013. Neural correlates of impulsive buying tendencies during perception of product packaging. Psychology & Marketing, vol. 30, no. 10, p. 861-873. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20651

Hurley, R. A., Randall, R., O'Hara, L., Tonkin, C., Rice, J. C. 2017. Color harmonies in packaging. Color Research & Application, vol. 42, p. 50-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.04.014

Ježovičová, I., Turčinková, J., Drexler, D. 2016. The influence of package attributes on consumer perception at the market with healthy food. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, vol. 64, no. 6, p. 1919-1926. https://doi.org/10.11118/actaun201664061919

Juravle, G., Velasco, C., Salgado-Montejo, A., Spence, C. 2015. The hand grasps the center, while the eyes saccade to the top of novel objects. Frontiers in psychology, vol. 6, p. 1-9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00633

Karnal, N., Machiels, C. J., Orth, U. R., Mai, R. 2016. Healthy by design, but only when in focus: Communicating non-verbal health cues through symbolic meaning in packaging. Food Quality and Preference, vol. 52, p. 106-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.04.004

Kovač, A., Kovačević, D., Bota, J., Brozović, M. 2019. Consumers’ preferences for visual elements on chocolate packaging. Journal of Graphic Engineering and Design, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 13-18. https://doi.org/10.24867/JGED-2019-1-013

Lee, J. Y., Gao, Z., Brown, M. G. 2010. A study of the impact of package changes on orange juice demand. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, vol. 17, no. 6, p. 487-491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2010.08.003

Liem, D. G., Aydin, N. T., Zandstra, E. H. 2012. Effects of health labels on expected and actual taste perception of soup. Food Quality and Preference, vol. 25, no. 2, p. 192-197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.02.015

Machiels, C. J., Karnal, N. 2016. See how tasty it is? Effects of symbolic cues on product evaluation and taste. Food Quality and Preference, vol. 52, p. 195-202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.04.014

Mizutani, N., Okamoto, M., Yamaguchi, Y., Kusakabe, Y., Dan, I., Yamanaka, T. 2010. Package images modulate flavor perception for orange juice. Food quality and preference, vol. 21, no. 7, p. 867-872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.05.010

Mohebalian, P. M., Cernusca, M. M., Aguilar, F. X. 2012. Discovering niche markets for elderberry juice in the United States. HortTechnology, vol. 22, no. 4, p. 556-566. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH.22.4.556

Mruk-Tomczak, D., Jerzyk, E., Wawrzynkiewicz, N. 2019. Consumer Engagement and the Perception of Packaging Information. Olsztyn Economic, vol. 14, no. 2, p. 195-207. http://doi.org/10.31648/oej.3971

Nicoli, M. C. 2012. Shelf Life Assessment of Food. Boca Raton, FL : CRC Press, p. 316. ISBN-13 978-1-4398-4603-2

Ooijen, I., Fransen, M. L., Verlegh, P. W., Smit, E. G. 2017. Signalling product healthiness through symbolic package cues: Effects of package shape and goal congruence on consumer behaviour. Appetite, vol. 109, p. 73-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.11.021

Orquin, J., Scholderer, J. 2011. Attention to health cues on product packages. Journal of Eyetracking, Visual Cognition and Emotion, vol. 1, no. 1, p 59-63. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10437/2311.

Pensasitorn, W. 2015. The use of images in graphic design on packaging of food and beverages. Journal of Economics, Business and Management, vol. 3, no. 12, p. 1159-1163. https://doi.org/10.7763/JOEBM.2015.V3.351

Pernice, K., Nielsen, J. 2009. How to Conduct Eyetracking Studies. USA: Nielsen Norman Group, p. 158. Available at: https://media.nngroup.com/media/reports/free/How_to_Conduct_Eyetracking_Studies.pdf.

Piqueras-Fiszman, B., Spence, C. 2011. Crossmodal correspondences in product packaging. Assessing color–flavor correspondences for potato chips (crisps). Appetite, vol. 57, no. 3, p. 753-757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.07.012

Rebollar, R., Lidón, I., Martín, J., Puebla, M. 2015. The identification of viewing patterns of chocolate snack packages using eye-tracking techniques. Food quality and preference, vol. 39, p. 251-258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.08.002

Robertson, G. L. 2009. Food Packaging and Shelf Life: A Practical Guide. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Pressm, p. 404. ISBN-13: 978-1-4200-7845-9

Romano, K. R., Rosenthal, A., Deliza, R. 2015. How do Brazilian consumers perceive a non-traditional and innovative fruit juice? An approach looking at the packaging. Food Research International, vol. 74, p. 123-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2015.04.033

Rompay, T. J., Deterink, F., Fenko, A. 2016. Healthy package, healthy product? Effects of packaging design as a function of purchase setting. Food quality and preference, vol. 53, p. 84-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.06.001

Sammaknejad, N., Pouretemad, H., Eslahchi, C., Salahirad, A., Alinejad, A. 2017. Gender classification based on eye movements: A processing effect during passive face viewing. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, vol. 13, no. 3, p. 232-240. https://doi.org/10.5709/acp-0223-1

Schloss, K. B., Palmer, S. E. 2010. Aesthetic response to color combinations: preference, harmony, and similarity. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, vol. 73, no. 2, p. 551-571. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-010-0027-0

Simmonds, G., Spence, C. 2017. Thinking inside the box: How seeing products on, or through, the packaging influences consumer perceptions and purchase behaviour. Food Quality and Preference, vol. 62, p. 340-351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.11.010

Smith, V., Barratt, D., Sørensen, H. S. 2015. Do natural pictures mean natural tastes? Assessing visual semantics experimentally. Cognitive Semiotics, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 53-86. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2015-0001

Solomon, M. R. 2009. Marketing: Real People, Real Decisions. 5ed ed. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education, p. 589. ISBN 978-0-273-70880-3

Sütterlin, B., Siegrist, M. 2015. Simply adding the word “fruit” makes sugar healthier: The misleading effect of symbolic information on the perceived healthiness of food. Appetite, vol. 95, p. 252-261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.07.011

Talati, Z., Norman, R., Pettigrew, S., Neal, B., Kelly, B., Dixon, H., Ball, K., Miller, C., Shilton, T. 2017. The impact of interpretive and reductive front-of-pack labels on food choice and willingness to pay. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, vol. 14, p. 171. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-017-0628-2

Velasco, C., Salgado-Montejo, A., Marmolejo-Ramos, F., Spence, C. 2014. Predictive packaging design: Tasting shapes, typefaces, names, and sounds. Food Quality and Preference, vol. 34, p. 88-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.12.005

Velasco, C., Spence, C. 2018. Multisensory Packaging: Designing New Product Experiences. Cham, GERMANY : Springer Berlin Heidelberg, p. 378. ISBN 978-3-319-94976-5.

Waheed, S., Khan, M. M., Ahmad, N. 2018. Product Packaging and Consumer Purchase Intentions. Market Forces College of Management Sciences, vol. 13, no. 2, p. 97-114.

Wei, S. T., Ou, L. C., Luo, M. R., Hutchings, J. B. 2014. Package Design: Colour Harmony and Consumer Expectations. International Journal of Design, vol. 8, no.1, p. 109-126.

Published

2020-06-28

How to Cite

Nemergut, J., & Mokrý, S. (2020). Influence of packaging attributes on perception of juice: Eye-tracking study. Potravinarstvo Slovak Journal of Food Sciences, 14, 371–378. https://doi.org/10.5219/1267