Background
In Institute Report 114, we researched the most common reasons for undertaking a pack design change. Modernisation, or keeping the pack up to date, topped the list; it was included as a reason in 58% of cases and reported as the main reason in 31% of recent pack re-designs. Managers consistently state they do not want to be ‘left behind’ and be the brand in the category with an outdated pack and so thought as lagging behind competitors.
While there are undoubtedly changing tastes in what ‘looks good’, the exact duration of packaging (or any design) trends has yet to be established, which makes it difficult to ascertain when pack modernisation is necessary. Also in terms of graphic ‘packaging’ design, it is hard to define what a modernised package should look like. Some examples of design trends to modernise packaging include; more white space, sans serif font, bold fonts, having fewer claims or reducing visual complexity on a package.
Modernisation is the most common reason for pack redesigns, yet there is little consensus on what it means to modernise a pack and the value of doing so. Therefore, we decided to do a more in-depth exploration of the topic around four questions:
- What does a modernised a pack look like? To identify any consistencies in the changes to pack visual elements when a pack is updated.
- Can consumers identify modernised packs? To quantify the accuracy of consumers in picking the modern version from the ‘old’ version, as well as any factors that lead to higher or lower accuracy in picking the updated versions.
- Do consumers like modernised packs? To test one of the motives for modernising the pack, to appeal to the tastes of consumers.
- How does modernity interact with familiarity and likeability to influence pack preferences?
Question 1: What does modernising a pack look like?
This question aims to determine if there are any consistent patterns in the visual changes that occur to a pack when it is modernised. To test what modernisation looks like, images of redesigned packaging (before and after images) were collected from 502 redesigns (1,004 packages) across 23 consumer packaged goods categories and 46 countries from 2007 to (April) 2020. These images were compared using a calculation as shown below (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Similarity Calculation
This similarity measure recorded the size of key elements (as shown in Table 1) on the packaging in pixels and how much they were changed when redesigned. Examples of packaging and similarity scores can be seen in Figure 2.
Table 1: Packaging Elements
Figure 2: Similarity Examples
When we examined the individual elements that were altered, no single component was consistently modified to modernise the design (e.g., it was not always about changing the font or creating more ‘white space’).
The only consistent factor across redesigns was that often substantive changes occurred. The modernised pack design, on average, only retained 49% similarity to the old design it replaced, with only about 20% having 75% or more similarity to the prior pack.
Question 2: Can consumers identify modernised packs?
Given the consumer is the target for pack modernisation, we tested whether consumers could identify the modernised packs. The sample is 975 primary household shoppers from the United States (n=484) and the United Kingdom (n=491), in 2020. Shoppers rated four redesigns from a sample of 48 packaging redesigns for which the main objective of the redesign was modernisation. Each consumer was shown the modernised and pre-modernised versions of 4 packaging redesigns in isolation. Respondents rated the level of modernity, likeability, and familiarity with each pack. At the end, they were asked which pack, of the two, they would prefer to purchase.
The results show that only 29% of respondents rated the modernised packaging as more modern than the pre-modernised version, i.e., in 71% of cases, consumers thought that the “old pack” was more modern! More radical redesigns (according to the similarity calculation shown in Figure 1) were slightly more likely to be rated as modern by consumers than more subtle design changes. No demographic factors such as gender, age, brand buying status or correct identification of one modernised redesign of the four changed the odds of consumers correctly identifying modern packaging.
Question 3: Do consumers like modernised packs?
A motivation for pack modernisation is to be more visually appealing to consumers, by keeping up with the current aesthetic. We found that packaging that is rated ‘by consumers’ as more modern tends to have higher likeability ratings (adjusted R2 = 0.74, p<.001). However, the designer modernised packs were rated similarly likeable to the prior packs they replaced (5.3 out of 6). This highlights the lack of success of attempts to modernise the pack. But what of packs that are considered more modern? Is there a value in maintaining a modernised pack?
Question 4: How does modernity interact with familiarity and likeability to influence pack preferences?
Using Structural Equation Modelling, which allows us to test direct and indirect relationships, we test which of the three factors (Modernisation, Familiarity or Likeability) leads to choice in a yes or no decision between the older and newer pack. Our results (Figure 3) show that modernity (that is rated by consumers), in isolation, does not have a relationship with Pack Preference. This relationship only happens via the filter of Likeability or Familiarity.
However, Familiarity has a stronger relationship with Pack Preference than Likeability; therefore, focusing on creating more aesthetically pleasing pack designs that compromise pack Familiarity could lead to negative outcomes, irrespective of the objective for pack re-design.
Figure 3: Familiarity, Likeability and Modernity Relationship Model
These results suggest modernisation should be only triggered as an objective by the loss of pack likeability, where the issue is due to a lack of a contemporary look and feel. However, the lack of a consistent framework to modernise the visual appearance of the pack presents a major challenge.
It is vitally important that packaging redesigns consider familiarity. A consistent, familiar, identity makes the brand more easily recognisable and memorable amidst the crowded shelf. Thus the challenge facing designers is to create a pack that achieves the redesign objectives while retaining familiarity.
The key implications of these findings are discussed below as a series of questions and answers.
Key implications and questions to consider
Why are you modernising your packaging?
‘Modernisation’ as a primary motive for pack change appears dangerous because of the absence of a framework that can predict what consumers will see as a modernised pack. Modernisation is in the eye of the beholder – everyone has a different idea of what is modern, so the objective will be unlikely to be achieved.
Even if pack modernisation actually made the pack look more modern it could still be a bad decision. But the fact that most fail in their primary goal suggests a lack of discipline and a lack of customer informed design. If you are planning pack modernisations we recommend you STOP until you have cleaned up your processes/capabilities.
Our findings underscore the importance of considering familiarity in any pack changes. Altering familiar elements to achieve a more aesthetically pleasing modern design may be counterproductive if it jeopardises the Distinctive Assets that are used by consumers to find brands in shopping environments. Therefore, make sure you know the brand’s shopping assets and protect these pack elements from change in a redesign.
How do you determine if a redesign is needed?
Our research suggests that directly inquiring about a design’s modernity with consumers holds little value. However, brand managers can monitor pack likeability as a precursor to initiating a packaging redesign, as a declining likeability signifies a loss of favour among current and potential buyers. Annual pack likeability assessments could provide an early warning signal.
What measures should we include in our pack redesign research?
Creativity can still be used in design, but it must not come at the expense of the Brand Identity.
Likeability – to check whether the re-design is not liked less than the prior design.
Familiarity – to ensure the redesign pack is similar enough to continue to be recognisable and the ability to find the brand is not compromised.
Fame and Uniqueness of Shopping Distinctive Assets that are altered – check that the redesign does not reduce fame and uniqueness.
Finally, we see no evidence that drastic alterations are more successful than smaller changes. In cases where radical changes are necessary, advertising to accelerate familiarity of the redesigned pack outside the purchase cycle might mitigate the potential negative impacts of reduced pack familiarity. Drastic changes by definition reduce pack familiarity and without familiarity consumers will be less able to find your brand.
