The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm

Importance of
The importance of packaging packaging
attributes: a conjoint analysis attributes
approach
1495
Pinya Silayoi
Department of Packaging Technology, Faculty of Agro-Industry, Received January 2004
Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand, and Revised October 2004,
April 2005
Mark Speece
School of Business, Public Administration and Information Systems,
University of Alaska Southeast, Juneau, Alaska, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The importance of packaging design and the role of packaging as a vehicle for consumer
communication and branding are necessarily growing. To achieve communication goals effectively,
knowledge about consumer psychology is important so that manufacturers understand consumer
response to their packages. this paper aims to investigate this issue.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper examines these issues using a conjoint study among
consumers for packaged food products in Thailand, which is a very competitive packaged food
products market.
Findings – The conjoint results indicate that perceptions about packaging technology (portraying
convenience) play the most important role overall in consumer likelihood to buy.
Research limitations/implications – There is strong segmentation in which packaging elements
consumers consider most important. Some consumers are mostly oriented toward the visual
aesthetics, while a small segment focuses on product detail on the label.
Originality/value – Segmentation variables based on packaging response can provide very useful
information to help marketers maximize the package’s impact.
Keywords Food products, Food packaging, Purchasing, Consumer behaviour, Market segmentation
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Food products brands use a range of packaging attributes, combining colors, designs,
shapes, symbols, and messages (Nancarrow et al., 1998). These attract and sustain
attention, helping consumers identify with the images presented. The importance of
packaging design and the use of packaging as a vehicle for communication and
branding is growing (Rettie and Brewer, 2000), as packaging takes on a role similar to
other marketing communications elements. One reason for this is simply the fact that
consumers may not think very deeply about brands at all before they go into the store
to buy. One recent study estimated that 73 percent of purchase decisions are made at
the point of sale (Connolly and Davidson, 1996).
Consumer intention to purchase depends on the degree to which consumers expect European Journal of Marketing
Vol. 41 No. 11/12, 2007
that the product can satisfy their expectations about its use (Kupiec and Revell, 2001). pp. 1495-1517
But when they have not even thought about the product much before entering the q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0309-0566
store, this intention to purchase is determined by what is communicated at the point of DOI 10.1108/03090560710821279
EJM purchase. The package becomes a critical factor in the consumer decision-making
41,11/12 process because it communicates to consumers at the time they are actually deciding in
the store. How they perceive the subjective entity of products, as presented through
communication elements in the package, influences choice and is the key to success for
many food products marketing strategies.
To achieve the communication goals effectively and to optimize the potential of
1496 packaging, fast moving consumer goods (FMCG) manufacturers must understand
consumer response to their packages, and integrate the perceptual processes of the
consumer into design (Nancarrow et al., 1998). In the design process, marketers and
package designers must take account of consumers’ past experiences, needs and wants;
understand how packaging design elements get consumers to notice the package and
notice messages on the package; and, broadly, evaluate packaging design and labeling
for their effectiveness in the communications effort.
In doing this, it is particularly important to remember that not all consumers
evaluate packaging the same way. Just as in consumer response to other elements of
marketing, segmentation is an important factor (e.g., Orth et al., 2004). However, some
observers believe that standard segmentation schema, often based on demographics,
are inadequate. Al-Khatib et al. (2005), for example, note that often the standard ways
of segmenting fail to yield very useful results in developing countries. They call for
more sophisticated segmentation analysis in developing countries, focusing on
psychological and situational issues.
In addition, there is quite a lot of debate about whether consumer behavior is
consistent across cultures. Many industry observers, e.g. AC Nielsen, a leading
international consumer research company, believe that consumers worldwide are
likely to have roughly similar response to many FMCG, despite cultural differences
(The Nation (Bankok), 2002). Not all observers, however, believe that consumer
behaviors will converge – rising incomes and extensive competition give consumers
more ability, not less desire, to consume according to their own particular cultural
preferences (e.g., de Mooij, 2000). Some believe that many basic issues are likely to be
similar across cultures, while specific details such as response to particular colors or
themes may be interpreted differently in different cultures (e.g., Walle, 1997).
Certainly, for FMCG, which consumers do not really think about much, basic trends
(such as, for food products, desire for convenience, or health/nutrition information on
packages) may be similar. But consumers are unlikely to change their culturally
conditioned response to details of the product, or, for food products, the package, which
represents the product during the purchase process. However, more research on this
issue is needed, as there is only limited empirical research on consumer response to
packaging, and very little of it is in Asian markets. Many cross-cultural researchers
assert that knowledge developed in one culture should be confirmed before use in new
cultural contexts (e.g., Malhotra et al., 1996).
We examine consumer response to packaging using a conjoint study among
consumers for packaged food products in Bangkok, Thailand. Thailand provides a
good context for examining this issue. Asian food markets in general are large and
growing very rapidly, and consumers are becoming more sophisticated (Coyle et al.,
2004), as is the case in Thailand. The expansion of modern retailing helps drive this
growth, so that packaging plays an increasingly critical role in merchandising and
communication for FMCG (The Nation (Bangkok), 2002). Internationalization is a key
ingredient; for example, Britain is now the fifth largest investor in Thailand, and major Importance of
British FMCG companies and retailers have a strong presence (UK Trade and packaging
Investment, 2003). A report by IGD (2003) indicates that, after China, Thailand is one of
just three other key Asian markets for international retailers. attributes
Further, the local food processing industry is strong and internationally competitive
(e.g., BOI, 2002). Agro-industry represented nearly one-third of Thailand gross
domestic product (GDP) in 2001. Food and beverage processing accounts for roughly 1497
one-fifth of GDP and nearly one-fourth of manufacturing (BOT, 2003). The country
ranks among the world’s five biggest suppliers of food products, with exports valued
at US$9.8 billion in 2002 (NFI, 2003). Thus, Thailand is a very competitive processed
food products market, with modern shopping formats and sophisticated consumers,
where packaging plays a key role in helping companies remain competitive. This
should provide a good context for examining consumer response to packaging of food
FMCG.

Packaging and the buying decision for packaged food products

The package’s overall features can underline the uniqueness and originality of the
product. Quality judgments are largely influenced by product characteristics reflected
by packaging, and these play a role in the formation of brand preferences. If the
package communicates high quality, consumers frequently assume that the product is
of high quality. If the package symbolizes low quality, consumers transfer this “low
quality” perception to the product itself (Underwood et al., 2001; Silayoi and Speece,
2004). The package becomes the symbol that 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 viewing product pictures on the package.
Food product expectations can be generated from cues such as packaging, labeling,
product information, and stereotypes. The effect of color is the most obvious and well
studied (Imram, 1999). Consumer perceptions of an acceptable color are associated with
perceptions of other quality attributes, such as flavor and nutrition, and also with
satisfaction levels. Positive effect can be achieved by manipulating one or more
packaging variables, including packaging color, clear packs that allow viewing food
color, incident light, and nomenclature and brand name appearance. In food service, the
food products chosen for display and sale by caterers are selected for their color and
appearance attributes (Imram, 1999).
Visual imagery on the package is another essential attribute. To be noticed at the
point of sale, pictures on the package can be a strategic method of differentiation,
which will enhance access to consumer consciousness. This is because pictures are
extremely vivid stimuli compared to words (Underwood et al., 2001) and also are
quicker and easier for consumers to process in a low involvement situation. Visual
packaging information may attract consumer attention and set expectations for
content. A well-produced product image is likely to evoke memorable and positive
association with the product.

Packaging functions and elements

Prendergast and Pitt (1996) define the basic functions of packaging by their role in
either logistics or marketing. The logistical function of packaging is mainly to protect
EJM the product during movement through the distribution channels. This could cause
41,11/12 added packaging expense, but serves to reduce the incidence of damage, spoilage, or
loss through theft or misplaced goods. The second function of packaging is essentially
a marketing role. Packaging provides an attractive method to convey messages about
product attributes to consumers. Whatever the functional aspects of packaging as
related to logistics considerations, packaging is one of the product attributes perceived
1498 by consumers. It cannot escape performing the marketing function, even if a company
does not explicitly recognize the marketing aspects of package. There is, of course, a
danger that the package communicates negatively, but a package well designed for its
marketing function helps sell the product by attracting attention and positively
communicating.
A review of the relevant literature indicates that there are four main packaging
elements potentially affecting consumer purchase decisions. They can be separated
into two categories; visual and informational elements. The visual elements consist of
graphics and size/shape of packaging. Informational elements relate to product
information and information about the technologies used in the package.

1. Visual elements
Graphics and color. Different people respond to different packages in different ways,
depending on their involvement (Vakratsas and Ambler, 1999). Since an evaluation of
attributes is less important in low involvement decision making, a highly noticeable
factor such as graphics and color becomes more important in choice of a low
involvement product (Grossman and Wisenblit, 1999). On the other hand, the behavior
of consumers towards high involvement products is influenced less by image issues.
For low involvement, there is a strong impact on consumer decision making from the
development of the market through marketing communications, including image
building (Kupiec and Revell, 2001).
The significance of graphics is explained by the images created on the package,
whether these images are purposely developed by the marketer, or unintended and
unanticipated. Graphics includes image layout, color combinations, typography, and
product photography, and the total presentation communicates an image. For
consumers, the package is the product, particularly for low involvement products
where initial impressions formed during initial contact can have lasting impact. As one
of the product attributes that most directly communicate such messages to the target
consumers (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; Silayoi
and Speece, 2004). Products purchased during shopping excursions often appear to be
chosen without prior planning and represent an impulse buying event (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 movement tracks across a display of
packages, different new packages can be noticed against the competitors. 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 the item (Herrington and Capella, 1995).
 Placement of visual elements matters. Psychology research indicates that brain Importance of
laterality results in an asymmetry in the perception of elements in package designs packaging
(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 other usually recognized factors, attributes
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 non-verbal stimuli when it is on the
left-hand side. This may imply that, in order to maximize consumers’ recall, pictorial 1499
elements, such as product photography, should be positioned on the left-hand side of
the package.
Consumers also learn color associations, which leads them to prefer certain colors
for certain product categories (Grossman and Wisenblit, 1999). Using color as a cue on
packaging can foster 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. Marketers
therefore must consider color as part of their strategies. 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 the color combinations are
perceived in each location (Madden et al., 2000).
Packaging size and shape. Size and shape also emerges as a crucial dimension. One
way in which consumers appear to use these things is as a simplifying visual heuristic
to make volume judgments. Generally, they perceive more elongated packages to be
larger, even when they frequently purchase these packages and have experience using
them. Disconfirmation of package size after consumption may not lead consumers to
revise their volume judgment sufficiently in the long term, especially if the discrepancy
is not very large (Raghubir and Krishna, 1999).
Different packaging sizes potentially appeal to consumers with somewhat different
involvement. For example, for some low involvement food products, such as generics,
low price is made possible through cost savings created by reduced packaging and
promotional expenses. Since generics are usually packaged in large sizes, this directly
caters to the needs of consumers from larger households, who are more likely to be
specifically looking for good deals. They find the low price of the generics, in larger
packaging, is an attractive offer with excellent value for money (Prendergast and Marr,
1997). In addition, this could imply that when product quality is hard to determine, the
effect of packaging size is stronger. Thus, elongating the shape, within acceptable
bounds, should result in consumers thinking of the package as a better value for money
and result in larger sales generally. However, many other aspects of packaging could
also conceivably affect perceived volume, such as aspects of package shape, colour,
material, and aesthetic appeal. As yet, though, there is little research available on any
of these other aspects.

2. Informational elements
Product information. One of packaging’s functions is to communicate product
information, which can assist consumers in making their decisions carefully. An
example of such significant information is food labeling. The trend towards healthier
eating has highlighted the importance of labeling, which allows consumers the
opportunity to cautiously consider alternatives and make informed food choices
(Coulson, 2000). Package layout is important for information presentation. One recent
EJM survey on food labeling found that 90 percent of respondents agreed that nutritional
41,11/12 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).
However, packaging information can create confusion by conveying either too
much information or misleading and inaccurate information. To maximize the
information carried on products, manufacturers often use very small fonts and very
1500 dense writing styles. This reduces readability and sometimes causes confusion.
Mitchell and Papavassiliou (1999) suggest that one major way consumers reduce
confusion from information overload is to narrow down the choice set. Considering
fewer alternative brands and evaluating fewer attributes decreases the probability that
the consumer 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). Confusion can also affect consumer decision quality, and can undermine
consumer rights to safety and information. Thus, there are trade-offs between
cognitive effort and decision-making accuracy. Balance between information and
choices is needed in order to decrease the difficulty of purchase decisions.
Hughes et al. (1998) indicate that involvement level reflects the extent of personal
relevance of the decision to the individual in terms of basic values, goals and
self-concept. If the product does not stimulate much interest, consumers do not give
much attention to it. High involvement indicates more personal relevance or
importance. In general, consumer acquisition of low involvement products is often
done without carefully examining brand and product information. This lack of
commitment suggests that information on the package would carry relatively less
value in such cases. On the other hand, more highly involved consumers evaluate
message information more carefully, relying on the message to form their attitudes and
purchase intentions (Vakratsas and Ambler, 1999; Silayoi and Speece, 2004).
Technology image. The role of packaging in marketing communications is further
advanced by recent developments in technology (McNeal and Ji, 2003). Technology is
somewhat of a special case relative to other informational elements, because packaging
technology conveys information which is often linked to the consumer’s lifestyle. In
other words, technology developed for packaging comes directly from current trends of
products and consumer behaviors. The technology of packaging development is
constrained in that the message communicated through the technology must fully meet
consumer criteria. And, importantly, it needs to be presented visually as one of the
communication elements.
One example is that when people tend to think of time as a precious resource, they
will not spend much as much time on food preparation (Warde, 1999). Convenience has
become increasingly important for food products, and consumers who are worried
about time saving will pay more attention to claims of new technology, because of
technology’s association with convenience. The technology embodied in the package
also communicates to Thai consumers such things as ease of dispensing the product,
freshness and shelf life, and nutritional value and toxicity (Silayoi and Speece, 2004).
These communication elements linked to technology all influence the purchase
decision.
Cultural context and segmentation Importance of
Most of this work on consumer response to packaging has been carried out in the West, packaging
frequently in the USA. There could be some debate on whether consumers in diverse
cultures would have similar responses. de Mooij (2000) notes that American attributes
scholarship frequently espouses the convergence theory, which implies that
standardized marketing will work across cultures, but many other scholars are less
likely to see convergence. de Mooij (2000), for example, points out several products for 1501
which one might expect convergence based on Europe’s growing economic integration,
but where consumption across European countries is, in fact, quite different. That
discussion shows how cultural elements might cause such differences. Suh and Kwon
(2002) demonstrate that many consumers in both the USA and Korea accept the more
open economies ushered in by globalization, but this results in different impact on
consumer ethnocentrism. They argue that culture affects how acceptance of
globalization translates into buying, implying that convergence in response to
marketing elements is unlikely to occur.
Malai and Speece (2005) argue that there are probably several levels of cultural
impact at work in conditioning any response to marketing elements. Walle’s (1997)
view, noted above, that basic trends may be similar while specific responses might
differ seems to imply that convergence may occur on some levels, but not on others.
Certainly, the issue is much more complex than just the differences in cultural
manifestations themselves (Lowe and Corkindale, 1998). Given such complexity, and
debate about whether and how much convergence is happening, it seems useful to
follow the advice of cross-cultural researchers (e.g., Malhotra et al., 1996), and examine
response to packaging carefully in the Thai context before assuming everything is
similar to current research.
As in most countries, the influence of these various packaging elements on brand
choice among Thai consumers is fairly strong. A focus group study specifically about
the visual and informational elements discussed here shows that Thai consumers use
all of these elements in their brand decisions (Silayoi and Speece, 2004). A number of
surveys show that roughly half of brand choice for FMCG by middle class Thai
consumers is made after entering the store, with the exact percentage varying by
product category. Under such conditions, packaging is likely to play a major role in
choice. In one survey on snack foods, respondents reported that package ranked second
behind taste, and tied with price, as an important brand choice criteria. In another
survey, 84 percent answered that they would be willing to pay a “reasonably” higher
price simply to get a nicer package if the food product inside was the same quality.
In-depth interviews revealed that “reasonably” higher was about 10 percent for most
consumers (Speece, 2004).
Packaging must adapt to several major trends that are also common throughout the
world, and in Thailand. As noted above, consumer perceptions about packaging
technology are used, among other things, to assess convenience. Convenience is a key
driver for food choice worldwide (IGD, 2002), including in Thailand, where convenience
products are among the most rapidly growing food product categories (The Nation
(Bangkok), 2002). Some research shows that other trends, such as growing health
orientation, are separate from the convenience trend (e.g., Shiu et al., 2004; McCullough
et al., 2003). The growing use of label information by consumers is partly related to the
desire for healthy food products (e.g., Coulson, 2000; Dimura and Skuras, 2005).
EJM However, incorporating consumer response to packaging elements into packaging
41,11/12 design decisions is likely to be made somewhat more complex because different
consumers may not respond to the elements the same way. Segmentation is usually
strong in markets where competition offers consumers choice so that they can match
their specific preferences. For example, Orth et al. (2004), demonstrate that consumers
seeking different beer brand benefits react differently to communications about the
1502 brand. Shiu et al. (2004) show that the convenience and health segments for food
products are distinct and should be treated separately. While these (and most such)
studies are not specifically about packaging, it is clear that segmentation will be a key
issue if packaging is one of the key ways that brand image and brand information is
conveyed.
Thus, in Thailand, we might expect to see segmentation in response to the
packaging elements discussed here. A strong convenience segment should be evident,
consistent with Thai and worldwide trends. Another segment should rely on package
information. Then, some consumers may simply not pay much attention to any of this
sort of information, and rely mainly on visual imagery, which is fairly common for low
involvement FMCG generally (e.g., McWilliam, 1997). However, within these broad
response segments, use of specific packaging details might differ from results in
research in the West. In other words, broad trends should be consistent, while specific
details would depend on the Thai cultural context, which is essentially Walle’s (1997)
view, noted above.

Methodology
This study used conjoint analysis to examine the relative importance weights for
packaging elements that enhance consumer perception. Conjoint analysis has been
widely used in marketing to evaluate consumer preferences for products and services
(Hair et al., 1998). It is frequently applied in examining preferences for food product
attributes (e.g., Gil and Sanchez, 1997). Green and Krieger (1991) pointed out the
usefulness of conjoint analysis for benefit segmentation. The necessary data to carry
out conjoint analysis consist of consumer evaluations of alternative product concepts
described as sets of attributes levels (Gil and Sanchez, 1997).

Establishing the attributes

Murphy et al. (2000) suggest that the conjoint attributes should include those most
relevant to potential consumers and those that can be influenced or manipulated by the
producer. Attribute levels must be chosen carefully to represent what would be
realistic in the market, and should cover the entire range or representative levels (Gil
and Sanchez, 1997). Building on the literature, several related studies among Thai
consumers established that both shape and an appealing picture are important, as they
visually convey quality (Silayoi et al., 2003; Silayoi and Speece, 2004). Package size and
shape also helped consumers to judge product volume and value for money.
Even when consumers are somewhat more involved, and under less time pressure,
the visual elements influence the likelihood of investigating further. Consumers are
more likely to read the label to check that the product information is consistent with
their needs if the package makes it seem that the product is worth investigating more
carefully. They use explicit product information to assess healthiness, but also many
other aspects of quality. In addition, the package needed to perform well; in particular, Importance of
it is important that it be easy and convenient to use. packaging
Considerations of attributes such as color and graphics, shape, product information,
and technology issues were relatively stable across different situations and consumers, attributes
and would therefore retain some importance among all consumers in most of their
purchase decisions. Packaging size seemed to be strongly dependent on situation and
consumer demographics, so it was controlled by holding it constant in the conjoint 1503
study. Most discussion of the conjoint methodology points out the importance of
balancing the number of attributes required to realistically represent the package (or
generally, the product) against the need to simplify the representation so that it does
not overly complicate the respondents’ ranking task (e.g., Green and Krieger, 1991; Gil
and Sanchez, 1997).
Thus, the four main packaging attributes found to influence the consumer’s
packaged food brand choice were color and graphic design (combined), shape, product
information, and technology image (essentially, convenience). The layout of verbal and
visual elements was also included to account for the impact of different positions of
these two elements on the purchase decision. Most consumers did not explicitly
mention layout as a key element, but the literature is clear that the impact of layout is
essentially at the subconscious level, and might not be explicitly recognized by
consumers. Thus, it was included, and the study can assess whether Thai consumer
behavior is consistent with others mentioned in the international literature.
The attribute levels were determined based on levels that consumers might
realistically face. These must be capable of being traded-off (Van der Pol and Ryan,
1998). The study used instant curry that could be cooked by microwave into a
ready-to-eat meal as the product which consumers would evaluate. In the in-depth
interviews, specific levels were investigated for instant curry in a pouch. This product
is relatively new in the Thai market, so extensive knowledge of brands would not
contaminate results, but generally, many middle-class Thai consumers are now
increasingly using instant foods because of its convenience (Silayoi and Speece, 2004).
The attributes and levels which consumers considered to be realistic, and thus included
in the conjoint analysis study, are summarized in Table I.
Each attribute used two levels, including one level that was considered to be quite
favorable, but still likely to be found in the market, and one that was not very
attractive, but still actually present in the market. Five attributes, each with two levels,
gives rise to 32 possible scenarios (2 £ 2 £ 2 £ 2 £ 2). It would clearly be tedious for
respondents to rank their preferences for so many scenarios, so the Orthoplan
subroutine in SPSS was used to produce an orthogonal main-effects design, which
ensures the absence of multi-collinearity between attributes. The eight combinations of
attribute level which resulted and were used in the study are shown in Table II.

Attribute
Package Product Packaging Layout of graphics
Colour and graphics shape information technology and information
Table I.
Colorful design Curvy Precise Presented Left-right Attributes of package
Classic design Straight Vague Not presented Right-left design and their levels
EJM
Color and Packaging Product Packaging Layout of graphics
41,11/12 Description graphic shape information technology information

1 Classic Curvy Precise Not presented Right-left

2 Colourful Curvy Vague Not presented Right-left
3 Colourful Curvy Precise Presented Left-right
1504 4 Classic Straight Vague Not presented Left-right
5 Colourful Straight Vague Presented Right-left
6 Classic Curvy Vague Presented Left-right
Table II. 7 Colourful Straight Precise Not presented Left-right
Card descriptions 8 Classic Straight Precise Presented Right-left

Presenting the stimuli

To obtain valid data, it is generally accepted that experimental tasks must closely
resemble the way consumers make marketplace choices (Vriens et al., 1998). Research
in cognitive psychology suggests different mental processing systems for handling
verbal and pictorial inputs (Jaeger et al., 2001). Verbal descriptions may be inadequate
when the design or styling of products plays an important role in consumer choice
(Lovejoy and Beach, 1997). Vriens et al. (1998) showed that respondents pay less
attention to design and styling than other characteristics when presented with verbal
profiles. The use of pictorial formats can enhance task realism and external validity in
product categories where choices depend strongly on visual inspection. Rettie and
Brewer (2000) used pictorial stimuli to explore the relationship between the positioning
of copy and pictures on different sides of a package and recall of those elements.
In our study, the eight sets of packaging scenarios were simulated into prototypes at
a major local packaging company. Product brand and logo were not applied to avoid
distracting respondents by elements not included in the study. The designs were done
by the first author of this study, who is a professional package designer with graduate
level training, several years of industry experience, and a continuing consulting
practice in package design since entering academia. However, to ensure that the eight
designs represented the levels described by consumers in pilot work, five other
professional packaging designers were consulted.
Jaeger et al. (2001) showed that photographs convey verbal and visual information
about apple varieties equally well compared to prototype apple packages. Since they
are equally valid, and cheaper and easier to use, photographic images of the prototypes
were used as the pictorial format. The images were represented on eight separate cue
stimulus cards, which consisted of a 6 in: £ 4 in: high-quality color photograph of a
package. The prototype packages were photographed against a black background
preserving the natural shadows cast by the package and giving the effect of a real
product. Figure 1 shows two examples representing the different levels of the
attributes, although not in color because of printing requirements.
A full ranking of the eight package attribute pictures was used to establish
consumer likelihood to buy. To simulate the packages in a realistic situation where
consumers would be evaluating many packages, the eight pictures were presented all
at the same time. The order was rotated to avoid order bias. Respondents were asked to
complete the questionnaire themselves and to rank each package on likelihood to buy.
The questionnaire was pre-tested with 30 food shoppers, to check for possible
 Importance of
packaging
attributes

1505

Figure 1.
Example of the attribute
levels

problems with statement clarity and respondent understanding of how to complete the
task. This pilot indicated no problems with the survey instrument.

Sample selection and description

This research used convenience sampling at eight large companies in metropolitan
Bangkok. The companies were chosen so that no two companies were too close to each,
providing good coverage of the business areas in the city, with distinctive local urban
environments and varying socio-economic contexts. Company choices were discussed
with brand managers in several major packaged food companies to make sure that
these locations would provide a sample of respondents representative of the type of
customers who would use this product. According to the brand managers, the main
target market for products such as the instant curry, would be younger middle-class
consumers who are working. This includes a high proportion of single consumers who,
although they may live with their parents as is common in Asia, may not take meals
with the family because of their hectic lifestyles.
We obtained permission from the companies to approach employees during work,
and screened to get the main food shopper in the household, or for themselves.
Participants were advised that their participation was voluntary and that their
individual responses would remain confidential. No personal information that could
identify any specific individual was collected. This study collected responses of 305
consumers, roughly evenly divided among the eight locations. This is well above the
minimum recommended 100-200 sample size to obtain reliable results from conjoint
analysis (Quester and Smart, 1998).
EJM Slightly over two-thirds of the respondents were women, which is consistent with
41,11/12 the pattern in most Asian countries that women are still mainly responsible for
household shopping. Screening questions indicated that participants made the
purchase decisions for packaged food products. The sample was relatively young, with
93 percent in the 20 to 40 age category, and 70 percent of them were single.
Approximately 40 percent of this sample has monthly household incomes over Baht
1506 40,000, compared to about 48 percent in metropolitan Bangkok (UBCTV.COM, 2004,
citing government statistics). Market research companies in Bangkok consider
monthly household income of roughly Baht 20,000 to be entry level into the middle
class, so overall, this sample is oriented toward the middle class.
It also fits the target market, as defined by the brand managers, fairly well. In
addition, extensive discussion in a separate project with food company and packaging
company managers involved in packaging design (Silayoi, 2004) also indicated that the
part of the Bangkok population which would be more oriented toward the type of
convenience food product presented in the study would tend to be younger adults,
frequently single, middle class, so the sample characteristics seem to represent the
target market for the package fairly well.

Results
The conjoint results indicate that packaging technology (which conveys a message of
convenience and ease of use in this study) plays the most important role in consumer
likelihood to buy. The relative importance of this attribute is about 32 percent
(Table III). The other attributes included in this study were not much different from
each other in importance. Packaging shape had a slight edge (19 percent), followed by
product information (17 percent), color and graphics (16 percent), and, finally, layout of
graphics and information (15 percent), but these are actually minor differences which
are not statistically significant.
Packaging technology is the most important attribute. The positive utility of 0.8086
for presented packaging technology indicates that clearly pointing out the technology
image on the package increases the consumer’s likelihood to buy. The specific message
that the technology conveys is about convenience and ease of use, so these results
suggest that urban consumers give technology representing convenience more

Attribute Level Utility Relative importance (%)

Packaging technology Presented 0.8086 32.53

Not presented 20.8086
Packaging shape Curvy 20.0381 18.96
Straight 0.0381
Product information Precise 0.3857 17.42
Vague 2 0.3857
Color and graphic Colourful design 20.1725 16.36
Classic design 0.1725
Table III.
Results of conjoint Layout of graphics and information Left-right 20.2980 14.74
analysis (n ¼ 305) Right-left 0.2980
consideration; i.e. the technology image clearly shown on the pack seems to be more Importance of
appealing on the shelf. Working Bangkokians do perceive time constraints, do not have packaging
sufficient time to cook, and believe that convenience products help facilitate their lives
(Silayoi and Speece, 2004). Apart from reflecting the ease of cooking and consumption, attributes
people may be more likely to pick the packaged food from the shelf if the technology
represents their self-image well. If the product looks innovative, it would bring a
contemporary image to the buyer too. 1507
Precise product information has a positive utility score of 0.3857, while the vague
presentation of information had a negative utility. This indicates that consumers value
the product information on food labels, and confirms prior studies from other countries
(Mitchell and Papavassiliou, 1999) and in Thailand (Silayoi et al. 2003; Silayoi and
Speece, 2004) which show that consumers are increasingly reading the label and want
it to be clear. The result suggests that consumers are evaluating product quality using
some concrete information, not purely image. One thing this probably reflects is the
impact of health conscious behaviors on food choice, as concern for proper nutrition is
a key factor influencing consumption choice now in many countries (e.g., McIlveen,
1994).
Straight shape has a positive utility compared to curvy, as does classic design on
the package compared to colorful. This suggests that, overall the respondents may be
more attracted to a package that seems familiar and reliable, rather than exciting.
Focus group work also indicated that Thai consumers strongly prefer more familiar
products. Without their usual choices, another product from a well-known company
would be perceived as more reliable (Silayoi and Speece, 2004). This seems consistent
with the view that branding in Asia is more strongly about building trust, compared to
achieving differentiation in the West (Speece and Toqueur, 2005). The increasing
health consciousness already mentioned could also be a contributing factor. The design
of food products packaging should be able to convey healthiness and safety, rather
than excitement. Classic and calm graphics may better indicate the quality of the
product inside. Also the shape should not be too fancy. Consumers seem to rely on
traditional shapes that they are familiar with.
Layout of graphics and information utility scores indicate that the position of
graphics on the right and product information on the left is more effective. This result
is particularly interesting for packaging developers because it is not consistent with
the findings in psychology research in the West. As noted in discussion above, Rettie
and Brewer (2000) show that recall is better for verbal stimuli when the copy is on the
right-hand side of the package, and better for non-verbal stimuli which are on the
left-hand side. However, there is a substantial body of research demonstrating that
thought patterns differ between Asians and Westerners (e.g., summarized in Nisbett
(2003)). A fundamental factor in this divergence is the different emphasis on right
brain, left brain types of processing in the two cultural areas. Our result seems to be
consistent with this research about differences in thought processes, and it indicates
the usefulness of adapting the details of packaging design across cultures to maximize
effectiveness.

Segmenting response to packaging elements

Four of these five packaging design attributes were roughly equal in importance
overall among the consumers in our sample, while the technology image associated
EJM with convenience and ease of use stood out with stronger importance. However, as in
41,11/12 most markets, subtle differences in lifestyle and values lead to diverging shopping
orientations; which give rise to clearly discernable segments. Cluster analysis (Ward’s
method) was performed using the five individual level importance weights.
Examination of the resulting dendogram indicated that three clusters were distinct,
separating from each other at relatively large distances in the mental space about
1508 attribute importance. Further separation was at much closer distances, and moving to
that closer level would have resulted in a much larger number of clusters because
several of the larger clusters split apart at approximately the same level. The three
clusters had clear and meaningful interpretation, and thus were taken to represent
three broad segments, characterized by differing emphasis on package attributes in
evaluating packaging.
Figure 2 shows the pattern of importance across the three segments on each of the
five packaging elements included in this study. Reference to Table IV will indicate that
the segmentation scheme derived from the cluster analysis is not based on minor
differences of opinion. MANOVA results show that the clusters do distinguish
significantly on all five importance weights. The Thai market consists of three major
consumer segments identified by their approaches to considering packaging in food
shopping. We might name these three segments “convenience oriented”, “image
seeking”, and “information seeking.”
Convenience-oriented shoppers in first segment account for almost half of the
sample (47 percent). They place greater weight on the technology image of the package,

Figure 2.
Importance weights in
three segments
 All consumers Convenience oriented Image seeking Information seeking
Level of attribute (n ¼ 305) (n ¼ 144; 47.2%) (n ¼ 119; 39.0%) (n ¼ 42; 13.8%) Sig.

Packaging technology 0.3253 0.5143 0.1428 0.1940 0.000

Packaging shape 0.1896 0.1376 0.2782 0.1164 0.000
Color and graphics 0.1636 0.1070 0.2403 0.1402 0.000
Layout of graphics and information 0.1474 0.0990 0.2299 0.0795 0.000
Product information 0.1742 0.1421 0.1087 0.4700 0.000
Note: Sig ¼ ANOVA significance of difference between italics mean and other row means
packaging

by segment
attributes

five packaging elements

Means of importance on
1509

Table IV.
Importance of
EJM which communicates convenience and ease of use to them (see Figure 3). Among these
41,11/12 consumers, just over half of the weight is given to packaging technology, and they
strongly prefer the packaging that explicitly calls attention to the technology
(Tables IV and V). The other packaging attributes all have roughly similar importance,
and all score quite low relative to the technology image conveying convenience. These
consumers show little preference toward any of the various implementations of the
1510 several visual elements, but somewhat more preference for detailed information.
The large size of this segment is consistent with trends in Bangkok that are driven
by consumer perceptions that they do not have enough time to spend in buying and
preparing food. The technology image embodied in the package communicates to these
consumers not only about the package itself, but also the underlying convenience of
preparing the food in it (Silayoi and Speece, 2004). This is also consistent with
worldwide trends showing that young modern urban middle-class consumers face
increasing time pressure (e.g., Underwood, 2003; Warde, 1999). Consumers in this
segment are slightly younger than in the other large segment (Table VI). About 55
percent are in the 20-30 age category in our sample, and few are over 40. In many
countries, younger consumers are somewhat more technology oriented, and more
receptive to new technologies in food packaging.
Image-seeking consumers constitute the second largest segment, with about 39
percent of respondents falling in this group. This segment contains slightly fewer
younger consumers than the others, and is the most heavily weighted toward the 31-40
age category, although it also has a few more consumers over 40 than the convenience
oriented segment (Table VI). These consumers value the visual elements of package

Figure 3.
Attractiveness of the
overall positive utility on
each attribute by segment
design. Packaging shape, color and graphics, and layout each have stronger Importance of
importance than either convenience or product information, and collectively account packaging
for almost three-fourths of the weight in likelihood to buy. The segment is influenced
towards purchase by the aesthetic appeal of a good-looking package, and the tendency attributes
toward more classic designs and colors noted in the overall results can be attributed
mostly to the influence of this segment (Table V). They are indifferent to whether
detailed information is presented or not. 1511
Related qualitative work (Silayoi and Speece, 2004) indicates that members of this
segment are concerned with package appearance primarily for quality reasons. They
are willing to spend more time to prepare better quality food, and generally do not find
instant foods to be highly attractive. These consumers view the package as
representing the product, and high quality packaging (with high aesthetic appeal)
indicates to them a high quality product inside. Underwood and Klein (2002) review
some of the work indicating that package imagery can help consumers imagine how
products taste, feel, or smell. This is a low involvement shopping strategy, allowing
segment members a way to select one food product over another to gain high quality
while remaining relatively detached from the purchase process. Quick evaluation of
package appearance is a simple way for these individuals to meet their objectives.
Information-seeking consumers formed the smallest group, with included about 14
percent of the respondents. The product information accounted for nearly half of
importance weight, while the packaging technology image constituted another 20
percent (Table IV). Obviously, the detailed information was strongly preferred. These
consumers also preferred that the technology image explicitly call attention to
convenience and ease of use, though this tendency was not as strong as among the
convenience-oriented segment. Members of this segment had very slight disinclination
toward the graphics and color that attracted the image seeking segment. They also

Convenience Information
oriented Image seeking seeking
(n ¼ 144; 47.2%) (n ¼ 119; 39.0%) (n ¼ 42; 13.8%) Row sig.

Convenience 1.4523 0.1092 0.5833 0.000

Explicit straight shape 2 0.0148 0.0777 0.1071 0.610 Table V.
Classic graphics 0.0998 0.3634 2 0.1190 0.001 Means of the overall
Right picture, left information 0.2057 0.5399 2 0.0714 0.000 positive utilities by
Detailed information 0.4036 0.0966 1.1429 0.000 segment

Convenience oriented Image seeking Information seeking

Age (47%) (39%) (13%)

20-30 54.9 45.8 50.0

31-40 41.7 46.6 31.0
41 or over 3.5 7.6 19.1
Table VI.
Note: Significance of F in a chi-square test ¼ 0:007, column percents do not total exactly 100 percent Ages across the three
because of rounding segments
EJM reversed the order of the graphics – verbal information layout, showing slight
41,11/12 tendency toward what is found in the West (Table V).
Qualitative work showed that consumers in this group were consciously seeking
information about a variety of food matters (Silayoi and Speece, 2004). They may
exhibit the strongest exploratory food purchase behavior among the segments. They
have a great deal of knowledge about food and are creative in the manner in which they
1512 prepare and consume it, with strong interest in knowing the ingredients and
preparation methods of food. Similarly, they appear to be strongly quality and health
conscious, but food is much higher involvement for them than for the other, larger
segments. There was a slight tendency for this segment to be either younger, in the
20-30 age category, or older, over 40. The older consumers constitute a larger part of
this segment, 19 percent, than of the other segments (Table VI).

Conclusions
The results of this study give some insight into consumer preferences for food
packages in Bangkok, Thailand, which is probably fairly representative of many
markets in Asia where the modern urban middle class is rapidly expanding. One
important limitation is that this sample was gathered in offices, so the respondents are
clerical and managerial, mostly lower middle class to upper middle class. We do not
know whether industrial workers, urban low income, or rural inhabitants in the
agricultural sector would respond the same way, and these are important segments in
many countries. Nevertheless, the rapid shift toward urban middle class is the trend in
most of developing Asia, and developed Asian countries are already mostly urban
middle class. Also, the sample does represent the type of consumers who would be
more likely to buy convenience food products, according to industry managers. In this
sense, the results from Bangkok can probably be generalized broadly in East and
Southeast Asia where the cultures and product types are similar.
Results show strong segmentation in response to packaging. The three segments,
convenience oriented, information seeking, and image seeking, follow patterns
common worldwide. To some extent, this suggests that on a broad level, middle class
urban consumer behavior in Thailand is becoming similar to other developed
countries. However, this might be expected. The desire of busy people for more
convenience, of modern educated consumers for product information, or even the
tendency of many to rely on visual impressions and not think much about low
involvement products, does not seem to have much scope for strong cultural influences.
Within each of the three segments, none of the importance weights becomes
negligible for any element. In other words, these consumers view the package as a
coherent whole, stressing one aspect or another, but not completely ignoring any
element. There may not be a single ideal design for the whole market, but the most
effective single package would probably need to have a technology image which
clearly conveys convenience and ease of use; list clear product information, and have
more classic, traditional graphic design, colors, and shape. In specific segments, some
of the package elements are somewhat less desired, but the specific implementation of
most elements as suggested by the overall results would not usually strongly detract
from attractiveness of the package. Thus, it would be possible to use a single package
that was fairly attractive across all three segments, provided that the package included
the key elements most attractive to each specific segment.
 A key issue, though, is that not all of the elements are consistent with how Western Importance of
consumers respond to packaging, so packaging design would have to be adapted to packaging
Asian markets to be most effective. This seems consistent with Walle’s (1997) view
that broad patterns of behavior might be similar, but not specific details. The graphics attributes
right – verbal information left layout works better, especially among the strongly
image seeking segment. This is in contrast to what research in the West shows. The
broad body of cross-cultural research in psychology summarized in Nisbett (2003) 1513
indicates that Asian thought patterns tend to be more strongly right brain-oriented,
which could give rise to differences in how effective copy vs graphics placement is on
the package. In addition, more traditional, familiar, trusted design seems to work
better. Trust may be a contributing factor here. Trust is usually discussed in terms of
higher involvement situations, particularly in the context of relationship marketing
and/or high level services. However, recent work has begun to look at trust as a
component of brand image for low involvement products (e.g., Reast, 2005). In Asia,
trust may be even more important, and more effective than differentiation as part of the
brand image conveyed by the package.
Whatever their specific response, the conjoint study seems to have been an effective
way to examine how consumers view packaging. Producers of packaged food products
can use it to help create effective packaging strategies. Results demonstrate that there
is strong segmentation in consumer response to food packaging. The preferred levels
of the key elements in each segment are not mutually exclusive in this study, so that
segmentation would not unduly complicate the packaging strategy. However,
designers must remain aware that three complementary views need to be addressed on
the package; there is not a single way of perceiving the package. They also will need to
adapt some specific package elements to the Asian context – culture does seem to
condition how consumers view the specific design details.
The relationship between consumer choices in various market segments and design
characteristics of packaging is a key issue that marketers of packaged food products
must understand to develop effective marketing strategies. Attention and
attractiveness at the point of purchase play a critical role in getting brand choice.
Utilizing the importance of packaging design elements as market segmentation
variables can provide very useful information to marketers who what to maximize the
package’s impact in selling the food product. Businesses that want to develop new
brands, expand their product lines, or even enhance the impact and image of current
brands can use segmentation on customer response to package elements as a useful
tool in developing effective product strategies.

References
Al-Khatib, J.A., Stanton, A.D. and Rawwas, M.Y.A. (2005), “Ethical segmentation of consumers
in developing countries: a comparative analysis”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 22
No. 2, pp. 225-46.
Bank of Thailand (BOT) (2003), “Production of manufactured goods”, October, available at:
www.bot.or.th/BOTHomepage/Library (accessed October 2003).
Board of Investment of Thailand (BOI) (2002), “Development of the Thai food industry”, press
release, BOI, Public Relations Department, Bangkok, July.
Connolly, A. and Davidson, L. (1996), “How does design affect decisions at point of sale?”, Journal
of Brand Management, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 100-7.
EJM Coulson, N.S. (2000), “An application of the stages of change model to consumer use of food
labels”, British Food Journal, Vol. 102 No. 9, pp. 661-8.
41,11/12
Coyle, W., Gilmour, B. and Armbruster, W.J. (2004), “Where will demographics take the
Asia-Pacific food system?”, Amber Waves (USDA, Vol. 3, June, pp. 14-21, available at:
www.ers.usda.gov/Amberwaves/June04/pdf/features_asiapacific.pdf (accessed June 2005).
de Mooij, M. (2000), “The future is predictable for international marketers: converging incomes
1514 lead to diverging consumer behaviour”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 103-13.
Dimura, E. and Skuras, D. (2005), “Consumer demand for informative labeling of quality food
and drink products: a European Union case study”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 22
No. 2, pp. 90-100.
Gil, M.J. and Sanchez, M. (1997), “Consumer preferences for wine attributes: a conjoint analysis
approach”, British Food Journal, Vol. 99 No. 1, pp. 3-11.
Green, P.E. and Krieger, A.M. (1991), “Segmenting markets with conjoint analysis”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 20-32.
Grossman, R.P. and Wisenblit, J.Z. (1999), “What we know about consumers’ colour choices”,
Journal of Marketing Practice: Applied Marketing Science, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 78-88.
Hair, F.J., Anderson, E.R., Tatham, L.R. and Black, C.W. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis,
5th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Hausman, A. (2000), “A multi-method investigation of consumer motivations in impulse buying
behaviour”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 403-19.
Herrington, J.D. and Capella, L.M. (1995), “Shopping reactions to perceived time pressure”,
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 23 No. 12, pp. 13-20.
Hughes, D., Hutchins, R. and Karathanassi, V. (1998), “Purchase involvement methodology and
product profiles: the case of cheese products in Greece”, British Food Journal, Vol. 100
No. 7, pp. 343-50.
Imram, N. (1999), “The role of visual cues in consumer perception and acceptance of a food
product”, Nutrition and Food Science, Vol. 5, September/October, pp. 224-8.
Institute of Grocery Distribution (IGD) (2002), “Continued demand for convenience”, June 14,
available at: www.igd.com/analysis/ (accessed November 2003).
Institute of Grocery Distribution (IGD) (2003), “Competition intensifies in Thailand”, available at:
www.igd.com/analysis/news_analysis/viewArticle_fs.asp?mode ¼ sr&at ¼ 0&id ¼ 701
(accessed November 2003).
Jaeger, S.R., Hedderley, D. and Halliday, J.H.M. (2001), “Methodological issues in conjoint
analysis: a case study”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 11/12, pp. 1217-37.
Kupiec, B. and Revell, B. (2001), “Measuring consumer quality judgments”, British Food Journal,
Vol. 103 No. 1, pp. 7-22.
Lowe, A.C.T. and Corkindale, D.R. (1998), “Differences in ‘culture value’ and their effects on
responses to marketing stimuli: a cross-cultural study between Australians and Chinese
from the People’s Republic of China”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32 Nos 9/10,
pp. 843-67.
Lovejoy, V.S. and Beach, D. (1997), “Intergrated product design for marketability and
manufacturing”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 154-63.
McCullough, F., Jones, S. and Vignali, D. (2003), “The pt snack market – are today’s consumers
demanding health as well as convenience?”, British Food Journal, Vol. 106 No. 6,
pp. 395-404.
McIlveen, H. (1994), “Product development and the consumer: the reality of the managing Importance of
creativity”, Nutrition & Food Science, Vol. 6, November/December, pp. 26-30.
packaging
McNeal, U.J. and Ji, M.F. (2003), “Children’s visual memory of packaging”, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 400-27. attributes
McWilliam, G. (1997), “Low involvement brands: is the brand manager to blame?”, Marketing
Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 60-70.
Madden, J.T., Hewett, K. and Roth, M.S. (2000), “Managing images in different cultures: a 1515
cross-national study of colour meaning and preferences”, Journal of International
Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 90-107.
Malai, V. and Speece, M. (2005), “Cultural impact on the relationship among perceived service
quality, brand name value, and customer loyalty”, Journal of International Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 7-40.
Malhotra, N.K., Agarwal, J. and Peterson, M. (1996), “Methodological issues in cross-cultural
marketing research: a state-of-the-art review”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 13
No. 5, pp. 7-43.
Mitchell, V.W. and Papavassiliou, V. (1999), “Marketing causes and implications of consumer
confusion”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 319-39.
Murphy, M., Cowan, C., Henchion, M. and O’Reilly, S. (2000), “Irish consumer preferences for
honey: a conjoint approach”, British Food Journal, Vol. 102 No. 8, pp. 585-98.
Nancarrow, C., Wright, T.L. and Brace, I. (1998), “Gaining competitive advantage from
packaging and labeling in marketing communications”, British Food Journal, Vol. 100
No. 2, pp. 110-8.
(The) Nation (Bangkok) (2002), “Unilever unfolds new business units”, November 18, available
at: www.nationmultimedia.com/page.arcview.php3?clid ¼ 6&id ¼ 6934&date ¼ 2002
(accessed November 2003).
National Food Institute (NFI) (2003), “Thai food export (1997-2002)”, October, available at: www.
nfi.or.th/domestic/thai-food-industry/thai-export02.html (accessed October 2003).
Nisbett, E.R. (2003), The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently
. . . and Why, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Orth, U.R., McDaniel, M., Shellhammer, T. and Lopetcharat, K. (2004), “Promoting brand
benefits: the role of consumer psychographics and lifestyle”, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 97-108.
Prendergast, P.G. and Marr, N.E. (1997), “Generic products: who buys them and how do they
perform relative to each other?”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 94-109.
Prendergast, P.G. and Pitt, L. (1996), “Packaging, marketing, logistics and the environment: are
there trade-offs?”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,
Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 60-72.
Quester, P.G. and Smart, J. (1998), “The influence of consumption situation and product
involvement over consumers’ use of product attribute”, Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 220-38.
Raghubir, P. and Krishna, A. (1999), “Vital dimensions in volume perception: can the eye fool the
stomach?”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 313-26.
Reast, J.D. (2005), ““Brand trust and brand extension acceptance: the relationship”, Journal of
Product & Brand Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 4-13.
Rettie, R. and Brewer, C. (2000), “The verbal and visual components of package design”, Journal
of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 56-70.
EJM Shiu, E.C.C., Dawson, J.A. and Marshall, D.W. (2004), “Segmenting the convenience and health
trends in the British food market”, British Food Journal, Vol. 106 No. 2, pp. 106-27.
41,11/12 Silayoi, P. (2004), “Packaging design management in the Thai food processing industry”, PhD
dissertation, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok.
Silayoi, P. and Speece, M. (2004), “Packaging and purchase decisions: a focus group study on the
impact of involvement level and time pressure”, British Food Journal, Vol. 106 No. 8,
1516 pp. 607-28.
Silayoi, P., Malai, V., Rajatanavin, R. and 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, (abstract only; published on CD
by International Society for Marketing and Development).
Speece, M. (2004), Consumer Marketing in Asia for the New Economy: Executive Seminar
Organized by JKYL (International) Pte Ltd, Singapore, July 2004.
Speece, M. and Toqueur, G. (2005), Service Brand Management in the Asia Pacific. JKYL
Conference Executive Seminar, Organized by JKYL (International) Pte Ltd, Singapore, June
2005.
Suh, T. and Kwon, I.G. (2002), “Globalization and reluctant buyers”, International Marketing
Review, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 663-80.
UBCTV.COM (2004), Business environment, Market Potential, available at: www.ubctv.com/eng/
AboutUBC_Business_EnvMarket.aspx (accessed May 2004).
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. (2003), “The communicative power of product packaging: creating brand
identity via lived and mediated experience”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,
Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 62-77.
Underwood, R.L. and Klein, N.M. (2002), “Packaging as brand communication: effects of product
pictures on consumer responses to the package and brand”, Journal of Marketing Theory
and Practice, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 58-69.
Underwood, R.L., Klein, N.M. and Burke, R.R. (2001), “Packaging communication: attentional
effects of product imagery”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 10 No. 7,
pp. 403-22.
Vakratsas, D. and Ambler, T. (1999), “How advertising works: what do we really know?”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 63, January, pp. 26-43.
Van der Pol, M. and Ryan, M. (1998), “Using conjoint analysis to establish consumer preferences
for fruit and vegetables”, British Food Journal, Vol. 98 No. 8, pp. 5-12.
Vriens, M., Loosschilder, G.H., Rosbergen, E. and Wittink, D.R. (1998), “Verbal versus realistic
pictorial representation in conjoint analysis with design attributes”, Journal of Product
Innovation Management, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 455-67.
Walle, A.H. (1997), “Global behaviour, unique responses: consumption within cultural
frameworks”, Management Decision, Vol. 35 No. 10, pp. 700-8.
Warde, A. (1999), “Convenience food: space and timing”, British Food Journal, Vol. 101 No. 7,
pp. 518-27.

About the authors

Pinya Silayoi is on the faculty in the Department of Packaging Technology, Faculty of
Agro-Industry at Kasetsart University, Bangkok. She worked in R&D and design at a major
Thai packaging company before joining academia, and has kept up a small free-lance consulting Importance of
practice in graphics and packaging design since. Her research interests focus on management of
the packaging design process, integration of consumer knowledge into the process, and the role packaging
of packaging in marketing. Dr Silayoi’s PhD is from the School of Management, Asian Institute attributes
of Technology, Thailand. She holds a Master of Design Management and Product Design at
Staffordshire University in UK, and a second Masters in Computing in Design also from
Staffordshire. Pinya Silayoi is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
[email protected] 1517
Mark Speece is Associate Professor and MBA Director in the School of Business, Public
Administration, and Information Systems at the University of Alaska Southeast in Juneau.
Before joining in August 2004, he had spent 16 years in East/Southeast Asia. In Bangkok, he
taught at Kasetsart University (where he continues as visiting faculty during summers), Asian
Institute of Technology, National Institute of Development Administration, and Bangkok
University; in Singapore at Nanyang Technological University, and in Hong Kong at Chinese
University of Hong Kong. Much of his research focuses on food products marketing in Southeast
Asia. Dr Speece holds a PhD in Marketing from the University of Washington, Seattle, and a PhD
in Middle East Economic Geography from University of Arizona, Tucson.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints