CONTEXT IS KING
As package designers, one of the most common questions posed by our clients is, “How can we ensure that the ultimate design will align with the actionable standards outlined in our brief?” It’s an entirely valid question. Providing a concrete answer can be challenging without an objective method for evaluating or establishing business goals for design.
All too often we see marketers gamble the success of their brand by testing concepts online outside of the shopping context.
All too often we see marketers gamble the success of their brand by testing concepts online outside of the shopping context, by parading several designs in front of would-be-buyers and asking them to choose which design they find most appealing, may seem like a reasonable approach, but it ignores two fundamental principles:
- This methodology ignores the effect that context has in influencing a purchase decision.
- Data that is based on behavior is more reliable than data based on what respondents say they will do.
OUR CHALLENGE
We were asked by our client to design the packaging for a new line of espresso coffee for the Canadian market. based on the following concept statement:
“Inspired a world away but available to be enjoyed right at home, Brand X introduces BuonCaffe Espresso: Rich, dark, full-bodied and smooth, BuonCaffe Espresso is made from a blend of only the finest espresso beans dark roasted slowly in small batches to create a bold taste and thick crema topping with every cup. With every sip you’ll feel like you’re back in the old country! Now that’s espresso!”
We were asked to execute a number of design options that would undergo an online screen test for the selection of the final design.
We saw an opportunity to demonstrate what we believed to be a more reliable method for testing packaging and received permission from the client to proceed with a parallel test. The following is a snapshot of the final results:
THE BEAUTY CONTEST
We presented several designs to our client. They selected the four, which they felt related most strongly to the concept statement and yet were distinctly different from one another.
CONCEPT STATEMENT:
“Inspired a world away but available to be enjoyed right at home, Brand X introduces BuonCaffe Espresso: Rich, dark, full-bodied and smooth, BuonCaffe Espresso is made from a blend of only the finest espresso beans dark roasted slowly in small batches to create a bold taste and thick crema topping with every cup. With every sip you’ll feel like you’re back in the old country! Now that’s espresso!”
Participants were asked to select the design that best represented the concept statement
RESULTS
45% of respondents selected design ’C’
A
B
C
D
there were reservations or uncertainties regarding the concept statement’s relevance…
We understood that seeking input from consumers in a ‘beauty contest’ format is quite different from assessing purchase conversion on the store shelf. While screening can offer valuable insights into aesthetics and semiotics, it doesn’t consider the critical factors of shelf visibility, competitor comparisons, and pricing within the retail context.
Additionally, beauty contests tend to turn consumers into art directors who meticulously analyze small details like fonts and colors. While this feedback is genuine and well-intentioned, it has a rather limited correlation with their actual in-store shopping behavior.
CONTEXTUAL TESTING
We tested the same four concepts monadically in the same store shelf, placed according to the retailer’s planogram – in a less-than- optimal shelf location (upper right), with 200 coffee buyers in each cell. and asked them to simply shop the shelf with our V-Shopper.
Our Results
While this particular design received positive feedback from respondents who noticed it, it fell short in two crucial areas: Shelf Visibility and Purchase Conversion:
Concept C
Among the four designs evaluated on the shelf, design ‘C’ garnered the least attention from respondents. Furthermore, of the shoppers who did take notice of it, only a mere 6% went on to make a purchase, indicating that the story told by the package didn’t hit the right notes with consumers.
The testing results indicate that participants in this study found that Design C closely matched the provided concept statement. Nevertheless, it also reveals that there were reservations or uncertainties regarding the concept statement’s relevance.
This highlights the significance of conducting testing within the framework of the shopping experience..
The Winner
Concept D
This design exhibited superior performance compared to its competitors, boasting the highest shelf visibility and a Purchase Conversion rate more than 20% greater than Design C .
Respondents expressed their preference for this design, citing its appealing, genuine, and relatable attributes. Notably, the pour and foam aspects of the package garnered the highest levels of appetite appeal among respondents.
Design D performed better than design C in terms of visibility and Engagement on the shelf, which ultimately led to a 23% improvement in purchase conversion.
This means that more people noticed and engaged with design D, and a higher percentage of those who engaged with it ended up making a purchase compared to design C.
Why context matters
The absence of shelf context eliminates potential purchase barriers such as difficulties in product visibility, shopper confusion, comparisons with competing options, and concerns about price/value which directly affect purchase intent.
Making direct comparisons between different product options shifts people away from a shopping mindset (System 1 thinking**) and often puts them in the role of an art director, where they might suggest changes like altering colors or enlarging logos. This shift has limited relevance to their actual in-store shopping experience.
It’s important to note that what shoppers say in response to questions may differ from what they actually do* :For instance, if asked, “Would you be willing to pay more for this product?” or “Would you notice this package on the shelf?” shoppers may eagerly provide answers based on the study context rather than their typical shopping behavior. Shopping behavior is best tested through observation rather than relying solely on shopper responses.
This is precisely why we’ve developed V-Shopper, a more reliable research methodology that establishes a robust link between design and business outcomes, boasting an impressive correlation of 0.85 with actual sales
