Introduction

Packaging (re)design is one of the most visible endeavours companies undertake, and stories of pack redesign failures litter the marketing trade press. Suggesting, that managers, perhaps, underestimate the risk of category buyers finding the new design less attractive or less noticeable than prior packaging or overestimate any benefits of packaging redesign. Clearly, how managers can maximise success when redesigning a consumer-packaged product remains a challenge.

Part of the challenge of learning how to conduct effective pack redesign is that they infrequently occur, so the opportunities to build a strong knowledge base (via repetition or trial and error learning) are restricted. The redesign process often happens behind the scenes, and mistakes are quickly buried. Most marketing practitioner books consist of design collections with commentaries on famous redesigns that have been successful or failed. It isn’t easy to draw conclusions about effective redesign practices from the atypical examples presented. Details on the types of research performed and results from the industry are non-existent, as companies are unwilling to make this information publicly available. This means there is little by way of robust, generalisable insights into factors that enhance or hamper pack redesign effectiveness.

This research aims to lift the lid on pack redesigns and addresses the following two questions:

• What is the most common reason why packaging redesigns occur?
• What factors (process, brand or marketer characteristics) coincide with more or less successful redesigns? Or doesn’t it matter at all?

The study

To answer these questions, this research draws on 228 online interviews with marketers who have engaged in a pack redesign within the past two years. Each was asked to respond to questions about their last pack redesign. The data covers redesigns from consumer packaged goods’ categories that took place in multiple locations, including Asia Pacific (37%), Europe (24%), the Americas (21%) or multi-regions (15%). A wide range of categories were covered including: beverages, both alcoholic (15%) and non-alcoholic (9%), Dairy (7%), Chocolate (7%), Pet Food (6%) and Frozen Food (3%).

The results are structured as a series of questions and answers about different aspects of pack redesign and the relationship with success. Before that, however, are the questions:

• Why do pack redesigns occur? and
• How successful are they?

Why do marketers engage in pack redesigns?
We asked an open-ended question where marketers could list up to five reasons why the redesign occurred. The responses were coded into 12 categories.

Finding 1: Out-of-date design (58%) and Change in brand strategy (49%) were the most common reasons for undertaking a pack redesign. To improve/fix sales was only mentioned by 14% of marketers.

These rankings are the same when ranked by the main objective (see Figure 1). This suggests that most of the pack redesigns are triggered by internal factors or beliefs rather than responding to external threats – someone needs to decide that the design is out-of-date.

Figure 1: Reasons for Redesigns Occurring

How successful are packaging redesigns?
It is common to assess the success of pack redesigns in terms of sales uplifts. For example, Nielsen, which ‘honours top packaging redesigns’, suggests that nine out of 10 redesigns fail to deliver meaningful sales uplift in the market. Manager reports were more positive. In our survey, we asked if, after three months of being in the market, did the redesign result in a sales uplift? 52% reported a sales uplift, 38% stated their sales were stable, and only 10% reported a decline.

Most likely, manager reports were biased towards the positive cases. As sales uplifts are not the only motive for redesigns, we asked a second, broader success measure: How did the redesign perform in fulfilling the main reason for the change? Respondents were asked to rate success on an 11-point scale where 0 = 0% = not successful and 10 = 100%, totally successful. The mean score was 76%, with only 10% scoring less than 50%.

Of those with a success score of less than 50%, about two in three redesigns did not increase sales. On the other hand, one in three marketers gave a score of 10 (100% successful), and of these ‘totally successful’ redesigns, 20% did not have a sales increase, indicating that some brand managers considered redesigns successful without the need for a sales increase. However, the lack of additional sales means incurring extra costs with no compensatory revenue. As a result, this study looks at two success outcomes, redesign success and also sales uplifts.

Finding 2: One in two packaging redesigns resulted in a claimed sales lift three months after launch, but marketers perceive pack redesign success to be about more than just sales increases.

Are some reasons for pack redesign more or less likely to lead to success?
Given that there are 12 reasons for pack redesigns, we tested if any of these reasons were more or less likely to be judged successful.

Exploring the relationship between the reasons for the redesign and sales uplift or success outcomes revealed that, when done ‘to increase sales or fix a sales/pricing issue’, redesigns are significantly less likely to have a positive sales outcome and are perceived as ten percentage points less successful than the average redesign. Most likely, this is a case of fixing the wrong problem, whereby the pack design was not the reason for the sales/pricing issue, so the pack redesign did not change the brand’s sales trajectory. No other reasons had a statistically significant relationship with sales or success.

Finding 3: Redesigns aiming to fix a sales/pricing issue were less likely to have a positive sales outcome.

Are marketers with more experience more likely to have a successful pack redesign?
We captured three forms of experience:
(a) number of years in marketing,
(b) number of years in the company, and
(c) the number of prior pack redesigns.

Marketers ranged from highly experienced experts to newer/less experienced novices and often worked in teams. There was no relationship between experience in marketing, the number of years in the company, the number of prior pack redesigns performed and pack redesign success. This highlights the lack of opportunity for on-the-job learning in this space.

Finding 4: Marketers’ prior experience with the role, company, or with pack redesigns do not increase the chance of redesign success.

Does a brand’s market share, age, or the presence of a redesign budget affect pack redesign success?
We tested to see if a brand’s market share or length of time in the market was related to higher success. There was no relationship evident. A critical factor in pack redesign success might be resourcing, as 45% stated they had a recurring budget for pack redesigns. While there was no difference in general success, those with a recurring budget were less likely to result in sales lifts (44% vs 69% without a budget). This suggests that the presence of a budget leads to more unnecessary pack redesigns, and so greater chance of poor outcomes.

Finding 5: A recurring budget for pack redesigns is associated with a lower chance of a sales lift.

Can research increase the odds of packaging redesign success?
We asked about the research undertaken before launch and, where relevant, followed up with questions on the topic, method, and audience for this research. Regardless of the research method used, marketers involving retailers in the pack redesign had a higher chance of producing sales lifts.

Of the different methods, only Distinctive Asset research was positively related to sales lifts from pack redesigns. While using focus groups is linked to a lower likelihood of a pack redesign with a sales increase.

Figure 2: Research Methods (%)

Finding 6: Focus group research leads to a lower chance of sales uplifts from pack redesigns, while pack redesigns informed by Distinctive Asset tests show a higher chance of sales uplifts.

The most popular measures used in pack redesign research include purchase intent (70%) and branding quality (68%). Table 1 shows that over half of the redesigns used six measures. Most marketers (93%) used more than one measure.

Table 1: Research Measure Used

While none of the measures significantly link to higher general success, the use of brand attitude or the impact of the pack redesign on liking/preferring the brand links to a lower likelihood of getting a sales uplift, suggesting this is not a helpful indicator of packaging redesign sales success. The most commonly used measure of purchase intentions was not linked to success. However, this finding is consistent is past research that indicates intentions are a poor predictor of future behaviour.

Finding 7: Reliance on brand attitudes as a key measure is linked to a lower likelihood of getting a sales uplift from a packaging redesign.

What do these findings mean?

Our results suggest some do’s and don’ts for more effective pack redesigns.

The Don’ts

• Don’t assume a pack redesign will fix a sales decline; playing with the identity of the pack makes it harder for buyers to find the brand. Look for what is the right problem to solve.
• Don’t have a budget set aside specifically for pack redesigns, let pack redesign proposals compete equally with other marketing activities to avoid unnecessary change.
• Don’t use focus groups to assess potential designs. Much of the value of a pack’s visual identity is subconscious, and so the negative impact of change will be underestimated by focus group participants.
• Don’t rely on past experience to inform pack design decisions. We saw no evidence that marketers with more marketing, company, or even pack redesign experience had superior outcomes.
• Don’t rely on purchase intentions as a research measurement, as they are a poor indicator of success.
• Don’t use brand attitude as a key metric. Worrying about whether category buyers will feel more positively about the brand as a result of a pack redesign is a distraction. The focus when redesigning packaging must be on the brand identity and ensuring this is not lost with any changes made.

The Do’s

• Do check if any marketer motivations (e.g., perception that the design is out-of-date) are actually problems consumers have and are negatively affecting buyers.
• Do review company systems to learn from both successful and unsuccessful pack redesigns to build up an in-house knowledge base and improve future outcomes.
• Do understand your pack’s Distinctive Assets (see Report 52) and ensure pack redesigns enhance rather than diminish their presence on the pack.
• Do review your pack redesign research practices and check that they are adding value to the process, as much of the research undertaken by marketers here had no impact on successful outcomes.

Key readings

Romaniuk, J. & Caruso, W. 2018, ‘Building physical availability with distinctive assets’, in Romaniuk, J. (ed), Building Distinctive Brand Assets, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, Victoria, pp. 43-55.

Romaniuk, J. & Hartnett, N. 2010. Sponsor Report 52: Understanding, identifying and building distinctive brand assets. Ehrenberg-Bass Institute for Marketing Science.