In summary of this YouTube clip, effective packaging may help stimulate sales and reduce costs within a company’s marketing plan (Stewart. 1995). With evidence showing that most shopping decisions are made at the point of purchase, packaging stimuli is an essential factor of persuading consumer purchase decisions (Liao et al. 2010).
Take a guess at what brand this is…
If you guessed Nutella…..
Nutino be like LOL, what’s Nutella?
Here the blurry line exists within the explosion of choice amongst product category, because of certain consumer learning theories. Basically the Russian physiologist, Pavlov (1927), found that learning depends not only on repetition, but also on the ability for individuals to generalize. This Nutella V Nutino scenario arises because the Nutella packaging contains underlying conditioned stimulus for positive attributes like childhood and sweetness (Anrep et al. 2003). Here, Nutino has utilised these aspects by provoking consumer response in similar packaging in hope to promote their similarities to Nutella.
Don’t fret, stimulus generalization is not only for pure evil.
Brand’s use similar or the same packaging design for all or most of its products in product line, form and category extensions (Shiffman. 2014) to upkeep positioning to all of its products.
For example, Garnier emits their packaging into all brand categories in hope to keep brand loyalty amongst its consumers.
Contrastingly, stimulus discrimination occurs when a brand completely differentiates themselves amongst competing brands within packaging. This approach underlines the positioning strategy, aiming to establish unique qualities and create interest for prospective buyers (Shiffman. 2014).
Wang et al (2012) examines the sales opportunity that occurs when effective packaging engages consumer attention. But what a marketer may wonder, is, in which scenario does discrimination or generalization produce this opportunity?
Ted Pappas (Hemdom. 2012) whiskey packaging demonstrates an example where generalization wasn’t working. Initially a good response to the design, but when sales were low there was the underlying factor that the plain and clean label would “just sink into the dark wall of whiskey” (Hemdom. 2012, p.30).
Where are they now?
Pappas invested in new packaging with something BIGGER and BETTER.
The salient word BIG, may illustrate the positive motivation of ‘bigger is better’, thus, the distinguishing factor can be proposed, that Ted Pappa’s whiskey, is the biggest and the best out there of whiskey brands. Pappas is said (Hemdom. 2012, p.30) to have an incline of 67% from the previous year for product sales.
So, whether its stimulus generalization or discrimination, there must be evidential research taken to decide which packaging decision YOU must make.
Hemdom, LK., 2012, Packaging stimulus, Entrepreneur, 40(11) pp. 28-30, Business Source Complete.
Liao, L., Lockshin, L., Kennedy, R. and Corsi, A., 2010. The Impact of Emotion on Effective Packaging for Consumer Goods (Doctoral dissertation, University of Canterbury).
Pavlov, I.P. and Anrep, G.V. 1927. Conditioned reﬂexes. An Investigation of the physiological activity of the cerebral cortex. Pg. 185.
Pavlov, I.P., 2003. Conditioned reflexes. Courier Corporation.
Schiffman, L, O’Cass, A, Paladino, A and Carlson, J., 2014, Consumer Behaviour, Pearson Australia
Stewart, B., 1995. Packaging as an effective marketing tool. CRC Press.
Wang, R.W., Chou, M.C. and Lan, P.W., 2010. Research into the Elements of Design Differentiation in the Findability of Beverage Packaging. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 5(2).