Effect of Packaging and Logo on Consumers’ Attention: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Tseng-Ping Chiu
,
Derrick Jessey Yang
,
Min-Yuan Ma

Given the significance of packaging and logos, the type of form element that can attract consumers has become a crucial research topic. Attention and attraction signify the first stage of the attitude toward further consumption behavior and visual communication to understand the product or service, which is a cognitive stimulation and has a crucial effect on further purchase attitude.

  • visual attention and attraction
  • reusable packaging
  • monotone logo
  • consumer behavior

1. Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic began toward the end of 2019 and the ensuing restrictions, such as social distancing, led to the rapid growth of the delivery industry and online shopping, thereby significantly impacting consumption behavior. Consequently, many industries and companies have invested significant resources in online marketing. In addition to changes in social trends, consumption patterns have shifted from physical to online shopping, further highlighting the significance of visual stimulation. Visualization is a significant tool to attract attention, especially for digital (online) displays. Therefore, whether the type and design of the packaging will affect the attitude and attention of consumers from the screen’s perspective needs to be studied.
Of late, reusable packaging, which indicates environmental awareness, has become a significant social trend. Many start-up companies, responding to the lifestyle changes caused by the pandemic, have redesigned and launched their services—for example, providing reusable containers—and cooperate with multiple business chains to simultaneously respond to the current living situation as well as meet the requirements of environmental protection. Additionally, countries worldwide are committed to reducing single-use plastic (SUP) packaging use to construct a circular economy [1]. However, most previous studies have focused on food or delivering packages [2][3][4][5] neglecting the daily supplies.
Recently, with the rise of minimalism, the packaging and logos of many brands have been simplified, dramatically changing from the earlier physical packaging marketing. Packaging design is an important but needs to be better understood as a visual merchandising tool [6]. Favier et al. [7] mentioned that package design complexity can impact the purchase intention and decision-making of consumers who prefer the simple over the complex. Therefore, many brands have simplified their brand logos to improve brand logo recognition. Many big companies, such as Google, Apple, Nike, Starbucks, Burger King, and Pepsi have simplified their brand logos in form and color. The color of the package label significantly impacts preference; for example, a black logo is more attractive than a colored one [8]. However, the effect of a monotone logo on consumers’ cognition of consumption attitudes remains to be identified.
Given the significance of packaging and logos, the type of form element that can attract consumers has become a crucial research topic. Attention and attraction signify the first stage of the attitude toward further consumption behavior and visual communication to understand the product or service [9], which is a cognitive stimulation [10] and has a crucial effect on further purchase attitude [11].

2. Pandemic-Induced Changes in Consumption

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted the human society and reshaped consumers’ spending habits [12]. The delivery industry has grown in response to social distancing requirements, and traditional business models and activities have become more digital-based [13]. In addition to digital technology support, the contactless delivery business has dominated the retail and logistics industry in the post-pandemic era [14]. Some studies have questioned whether consumer behavior patterns will return to physical purchase patterns after the epidemic [15][16]. However, although most countries have lifted COVID-19 restrictions, consumers seem satisfied with the online experience [17]. However, the use of SUP in containers and packaging, mainly to prevent infection, has led to a massive generation of garbage [18][19]. Consequently, disease prevention and environmental protection have become a protracted tug of war, upending the efforts to reduce plastic use [20][21]. Today, disease prevention is relatively more important, but in the bargain, the pace of environmental protection and focus on sustainability have significantly reduced [22][23][24].

3. Visual Communication

Previous research has shown that visual communication plays a major role in designing packaging and logos to attract consumers [7][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]. Visual communication is universal and can transcend language boundaries because of greater inclusivity and unity [34]. It provides lucid and attractive information that facilitates cognitive and emotional comprehension [34][35]. Silayoi and Speece [27] proposed that visual packaging is a significant factor affecting consumption decisions for low-involvement goods, which constitute a product category that is routinely purchased [25]. The struggle for finite attention makes it more important for marketers to understand what grabs and keeps consumers’ attention [36].

4. Environmental Awareness through Packaging

As consumers worldwide become more aware of environmental issues, product packaging increasingly emphasizes sustainability [37]. Plastic is one of the biggest sources of pollution, and unlike other materials, it is indecomposable. According to Greenpeace, an independent campaigning organization, only 2.4 million tons out of the 51 million tons of plastic waste generated in U.S. households in 2021 was recycled; it also claimed that most plastic waste is not recyclable [38]. Several countries have imposed regulations prohibiting SUP. However, such measures can only temporarily address the problem and may even impede consumer perception of eco-circulation in the long term [18]. A better mitigation or resolution option is the Closed-Loop Supply Chain (CLSC)—an efficient concept to retrieve a product or reuse it or its parts to restore its value [39] and reduce the need for raw materials [18]. As the COVID-19 pandemic gradually recedes and life returns to the pre-pandemic routine, this unresolved problem needs to be addressed. It necessitates multi-party coordination involving multiple stakeholders, including the government, people, and corporations [40], especially since packaging is a major source of non-biodegradable waste that harms the environment [41][42][43][44]. Although previous research has focused on package reduction and recycling, it has largely ignored packaging reuse [45], which can limit the material used, reduce waste, conserve resources, and have a positive environmental impact [46]. Therefore, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF) [47] proposed four reuse models and generalized behaviors expected of consumers in two dimensions: refill and return. Many companies have designed strategies to implement reusable RPS (Reusable Packaging Systems) for fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) around the principle mentioned above and have found that consumers are more willing to use packaging that is not deformable and is easy to clean [45].
The form of the package can also guide or deliver the meaning of the product to consumers [48]. Clement et al. [49] hypothesized that products with characteristic shapes and high contrast are more likely to attract consumers’ initial visual attention. However, they found that fewer features are more capable of attracting consumers at first glance. Once a consumer forms cognition about a product or packaging after a positive perception has been generated, it transforms into an attitude and affects his/her decision-making [28][50]. Wang et al. [51] also proposed the “Simple = Authentic” theory, indicating that a simplified package does not significantly affect recognition of a familiar brand. However, it remains to be proven whether visual observation alone can arouse consumers’ environmental awareness and promote purchase intention.

5. Logo Simplification

A logo is a graphic design for consumers to identify a company or its products, regardless of whether it contains its name [52]. It is one of the most powerful brand elements [53] because it can deliver brand image, attract attention, increase brand awareness, differentiate, and elicit emotional responses [52][54][55][56][57][58][59]. A logo is an identification and signature of a company, service, or product [60] and arouses consumers’ expectations [52][61]. It not only has higher stimulation and recognizability compared to text [62] but also promotes the brand’s value and philosophy [63]. With the progress of information teleportation, interaction, and communication showing diversity, the visual aspect of marketing has become the preferred medium of product and social communication [64].
Research shows that a novel logo has a positive impact on the social distancing situation [65]. The logo significantly impacts the brand image [66][67] and enhances the purchase intention of consumers [68]. Chen et al. [69] stated that simplification is the main element in designing logos. A brand can improve its recognition and achieve stronger impressions through simplified images [70]; the lower visual complexity is judged more favorably and increases consumers’ willingness to purchase [71][72]. Furthermore, the logo’s attractiveness is enhanced by a simple form and smooth style—a trend confirmed by recent packaging designs [73][74][75].

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su151713115

References

  1. Garaus, M.; Garaus, C.; Wolfsteiner, E.; Jermendy, C. Anthropomorphism as a Differentiation Strategy for Standardized Reusable Glass Containers. Sustainability 2022, 14, 9473.
  2. Song, G.; Zhang, H.; Duan, H.; Xu, M. Packaging waste from food delivery in China’s mega cities. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 103, 226–227.
  3. Liu, G.; Agostinho, F.; Duan, H.; Song, G.; Wang, X.; Giannetti, B.F.; Santagata, R.; Casazza, M.; Lega, M. Environmental impacts characterization of packaging waste generated by urban food delivery services. A big-data analysis in Jing-Jin-Ji region (China). Waste Manag. 2020, 117, 157–169.
  4. de Oliveira, W.Q.; de Azeredo, H.M.C.; Neri-Numa, I.A.; Pastore, G.M. Food packaging wastes amid the COVID-19 pandemic: Trends and challenges. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 116, 1195–1199.
  5. Jang, Y.; Kim, K.N.; Woo, J. Post-consumer plastic packaging waste from online food delivery services in South Korea. Waste Manag. 2023, 156, 177–186.
  6. Husić-Mehmedović, M.; Omeragić, I.; Batagelj, Z.; Kolar, T. Seeing is not necessarily liking: Advancing research on package design with eye-tracking. J. Bus. Res. 2017, 80, 145–154.
  7. Favier, M.; Celhay, F.; Pantin-Sohier, G. Is less more or a bore? Package design simplicity and brand perception: An application to Champagne. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2018, 46, 11–20.
  8. Bresciani, S.; Del Ponte, P. New brand logo design: Customers’ preference for brand name and icon. J. Brand Manag. 2017, 24, 375–390.
  9. Hassan, S.; Nadzim, S.Z.A.; Shiratuddin, N. Strategic Use of Social Media for Small Business Based on the AIDA Model. Procedia—Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 172, 262–269.
  10. Cortinas, M.; Cabeza, R.; Chocarro, R.; Villanueva, A. Attention to online channels across the path to purchase: An eye-tracking study. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2019, 36, 100864.
  11. Simmonds, L.; Bellman, S.; Kennedy, R.; Nenycz-Thiel, M.; Bogomolova, S. Moderating effects of prior brand usage on visual attention to video advertising and recall: An eye-tracking investigation. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 111, 241–248.
  12. Rodríguez-Priego, N.; Porcu, L.; Peña, M.B.P.; Almendros, E.C. Perceived customer care and privacy protection behavior: The mediating role of trust in self-disclosure. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2023, 72, 103284.
  13. German, J.D.; Redi, A.A.N.P.; Prasetyo, Y.T.; Persada, S.F.; Ong, A.K.S.; Young, M.N.; Nadlifatin, R. Choosing a package carrier during COVID-19 pandemic: An integration of pro-environmental planned behavior (PEPB) theory and service quality (SERVQUAL). J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 346, 131123.
  14. Jiang, Y.; Lai, P.-L.; Yang, C.-C.; Wang, X. Exploring the factors that drive consumers to use contactless delivery services in the context of the continued COVID-19 pandemic. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2023, 72, 103276.
  15. Guthrie, C.; Fosso-Wamba, S.; Arnaud, J.B. Online consumer resilience during a pandemic: An exploratory study of e-commerce behavior before, during and after a COVID-19 lockdown. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 61, 102570.
  16. Szász, L.; Bálint, C.; Csíki, O.; Nagy, B.Z.; Rácz, B.-G.; Csala, D.; Harris, L.C. The impact of COVID-19 on the evolution of online retail: The pandemic as a window of opportunity. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2022, 69, 103089.
  17. Shaw, N.; Eschenbrenner, B.; Baier, D. Online shopping continuance after COVID-19: A comparison of Canada, Germany and the United States. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2022, 69, 103100.
  18. Vanapalli, K.R.; Sharma, H.B.; Ranjan, V.P.; Samal, B.; Bhattacharya, J.; Dubey, B.K.; Goel, S. Challenges and strategies for effective plastic waste management during and post COVID-19 pandemic. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 750, 141514.
  19. Cowan, E.; Booth, A.M.; Misund, A.; Klun, K.; Rotter, A.; Tiller, R. Single-Use Plastic Bans: Exploring Stakeholder Perspectives on Best Practices for Reducing Plastic Pollution. Environments 2021, 8, 81.
  20. Bengali, S. The COVID-19 Pandemic Is Unleashing a Tidal Wave of Plastic Waste. The Los Angeles Times. Available online: https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-06-13/coronavirus-pandemic-plastic-waste-recycling (accessed on 13 June 2020).
  21. Shams, M.; Alam, I.; Mahbub, S. Plastic pollution during COVID-19: Plastic waste directives and its long-term impact on the environment. Environ. Adv. 2021, 5, 100119.
  22. Rausch, T.M.; Baier, D.; Wening, S. Does sustainability really matter to consumers? Assessing the importance of online shop and apparel product attributes. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 63, 102681.
  23. Barbier, E.B.; Burgess, J.C. Sustainability and development after COVID-19. World Dev. 2020, 135, 105082.
  24. Hakovirta, M.; Denuwara, N. How COVID-19 Redefines the Concept of Sustainability. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3727.
  25. Wang, E.S. The influence of visual packaging design on perceived food product quality, value, and brand preference. Int. J. Retail. Distrib. Manag. 2013, 41, 805–816.
  26. Clement, J. Visual influence on in-store buying decisions: An eye-track experiment on the visual influence of packaging design. J. Mark. Manag. 2007, 23, 917–928.
  27. Silayoi, P.; Speece, M. Packaging and purchase decisions: An Exploratory Study on The Impact of Involvement Level and Time Pressure. Br. Food J. 2004, 106, 607–628.
  28. Venter, K.; van der Merwe, D.; de Beer, H.; Kempen, E.; Bosman, M.J.C. Consumers’ perceptions of food packaging: An exploratory investigation in Potchefstroom, South Africa. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2010, 35, 273–281.
  29. Honea, H.; Horsky, S. The power of plain: Intensifying product experience with neutral aesthetic context. Mark. Lett. 2011, 23, 223–235.
  30. Ma, J.; Li, F. Does ‘chicken soup for the soul’ on the product packaging work? The mediating role of perceived warmth and self-brand connection. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2022, 70, 103160.
  31. García-Madariaga, J.; López, M.-F.B.; Burgos, I.M.; Virto, N.R. Do isolated packaging variables influence consumers’ attention and preferences? Physiol. Behav. 2019, 200, 96–103.
  32. de Faultrier, B.; Towers, N. An exploratory packaging study of the composite fashion footwear buying framework. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2011, 18, 463–470.
  33. Kelly, M. Analysing the complex relationship between logo and brand. Place Brand. Public Dipl. 2017, 13, 18–33.
  34. Günay, M. Design in Visual Communication. Art Des. Rev. 2021, 9, 109–122.
  35. Malamed, C. Visual Language for Designers: Principles for Creating Graphics That People Understand; Rockport: Beverly, MA, USA, 2009.
  36. Myers, S.D.; Deitz, G.D.; Huhmann, B.A.; Jha, S.; Tatara, J.H. An eye-tracking study of attention to brand-identifying content and recall of taboo advertising. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 111, 176–186.
  37. Dopico-Parada, A.; López-Miguens, M.J.; Álvarez-González, P. Building value with packaging: Development and validation of a measurement scale. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 63, 102685.
  38. Brooks, T. New Greenpeace Report: Plastic Recycling Is a Dead-End Street—Year after Year, Plastic Recycling Declines Even as Plastic Waste Increases. GreenPeace. Available online: https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/new-greenpeace-report-plastic-recycling-is-a-dead-end-street-year-after-year-plastic-recycling-declines-even-as-plastic-waste-increases/ (accessed on 24 October 2022).
  39. Guide, V.D.R.; Van Wassenhove, L.N. The Evolution of Closed-Loop Supply Chain Research. Oper. Res. 2009, 57, 10–18. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25614727 (accessed on 28 June 2023).
  40. Ding, L.; Guo, Z.; Xue, Y. Dump or recycle? Consumer’s environmental awareness and express package disposal based on an evolutionary game model. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2022, 25, 6963–6986.
  41. Dilkes-Hoffman, L.S.; Lane, J.L.; Grant, T.; Pratt, S.; Lant, P.A.; Laycock, B. Environmental impact of biodegradable food packaging when considering food waste. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 180, 325–334.
  42. Mishra, P.; Jain, T.; Motiani, M. Have Green, Pay More: An Empirical Investigation of Consumer’s Attitude Towards Green Packaging in an Emerging Economy. In Essays on Sustainability and Management; Springer: Singapore, 2017; pp. 125–150.
  43. Kabir, E.; Kaur, R.; Lee, J.; Kim, K.-H.; Kwon, E.E. Prospects of biopolymer technology as an alternative option for non-degradable plastics and sustainable management of plastic wastes. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 258, 120536.
  44. Mahmoud, M.A.; Tsetse, E.K.K.; Tulasi, E.E.; Muddey, D.K. Green Packaging, Environmental Awareness, Willingness to Pay and Consumers’ Purchase Decisions. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16091.
  45. Miao, X.; Magnier, L.; Mugge, R. Switching to reuse? An exploration of consumers’ perceptions and behaviour towards reusable packaging systems. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2023, 193, 106972.
  46. Ertz, M.; Huang, R.; Jo, M.-S.; Karakas, F.; Sarigöllü, E. From single-use to multi-use: Study of consumers’ behavior toward consumption of reusable containers. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 193, 334–344.
  47. Ellen MacArthur Foundation Reuse: Rethinking Packaging. 2019. Available online: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/Reuse.pdf (accessed on 6 April 2023).
  48. Spence, C.; Van Doorn, G. Visual communication via the design of food and beverage packaging. Cogn. Res. Princ. Implic. 2022, 7, 1–23.
  49. Clement, J.; Kristensen, T.; Grønhaug, K. Understanding consumers’ in-store visual perception: The influence of package design features on visual attention. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2013, 20, 234–239.
  50. Ampuero, O.; Vila, N. Consumer perceptions of product packaging. J. Consum. Mark. 2006, 23, 100–112.
  51. Wang, Y.; Jiang, J.; Gong, X.; Wang, J. Simple = Authentic: The effect of visually simple package design on perceived brand authenticity and brand choice. J. Bus. Res. 2023, 166, 114078.
  52. Henderson, P.W.; Cote, J.A. Guidelines for Selecting or Modifying Logos. J. Mark. 1998, 62, 14–30.
  53. Keller, K.L. Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity, 2nd ed.; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2003.
  54. Aaker, D.A. Managing Brand Equity; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1991.
  55. Kapferer, J.-N. Strategic Brand Management: New Approaches to Creating and Evaluating Brand Equity; The Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1992.
  56. Melewar, T.C.; Hussey, G.; Srivoravilai, N. Corporate visual identity: The re-branding of France Télécom. J. Brand Manag. 2005, 12, 379–394.
  57. Pittard, N.; Ewing, M.; Jevons, C. Aesthetic theory and logo design: Examining consumer response to proportion across cultures. Int. Mark. Rev. 2007, 24, 457–473.
  58. Müller, B.; Kocher, B.; Crettaz, A. The effects of visual rejuvenation through brand logos. J. Bus. Res. 2011, 66, 82–88.
  59. Peng, M.; Liang, M.; Huang, H.; Fan, J.; Yu, L.; Liao, J. The effect of different animated brand logos on consumer response—An event-related potential and self-reported study. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2023, 143, 107701.
  60. Adîr, V.; Adîr, G.; Pascu, N.E. How to Design a Logo. Procedia—Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 122, 140–144.
  61. Bettels, J.; Wiedmann, K.-P. Brand logo symmetry and product design: The spillover effects on consumer inferences. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 97, 1–9.
  62. Edell, J.A.; Staelin, R. The Information Processing of Pictures in Print Advertisements. J. Consum. Res. 1983, 10, 45–61.
  63. Schechter, A.H. Measuring the Value of Corporate and Brand Logos. Des. Manag. J. (Former Ser.) 2010, 4, 33–39.
  64. Li, Y. Analysis of Visual Communication Packaging Design Based on Interactive Experience. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2021, 1852, 022074.
  65. Madadi, R.; Torres, I.M.; Fazli-Salehi, R.; Zúñiga, M. The effects of campaign-based logo changes on consumers’ attitude and behavior: A case of social distancing messages during the COVID-19 pandemic. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2023; ahead-of-print.
  66. Cian, L.; Krishna, A.; Elder, R.S. This Logo Moves Me: Dynamic Imagery from Static Images. J. Mark. Res. 2014, 51, 184–197.
  67. Kaur, H.; Kaur, K. Connecting the dots between brand logo and brand image. Asia-Pacific J. Bus. Adm. 2019, 11, 68–87.
  68. Shi, J.; Jiang, Z. Chinese cultural element in brand logo and purchase intention. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2022, 41, 171–185.
  69. Chen, C.Y.; Cheung, V.; Li, D.; Cassidy, T. Effective Simplification for Logo Design. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED15), Volume 9: User-Centred Design, Design of Socio-Technical Systems, Milan, Italy, 27–30 July 2015; pp. 365–374.
  70. McCloud, S. Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art; Harper Perennia: New York, NY, USA, 1994.
  71. Orth, U.R.; Crouch, R.C. Is Beauty in the Aisles of the Retailer? Package Processing in Visually Complex Contexts. J. Retail. 2014, 90, 524–537.
  72. Northey, G.; Chan, E.Y. Political conservatism and preference for (a)symmetric brand logos. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 115, 149–159.
  73. Bossel, V.; Geyskens, K.; Goukens, C. Facing a trend of brand logo simplicity: The impact of brand logo design on consumption. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 71, 129–135.
  74. Reber, R.; Winkielman, P.; Schwarz, N. Effects of Perceptual Fluency on Affective Judgments. Psychol. Sci. 1998, 9, 45–48.
  75. Tuch, A.N.; Presslaber, E.E.; Stöcklin, M.; Opwis, K.; Bargas-Avila, J.A. The role of visual complexity and prototypicality regarding first impression of websites: Working towards understanding aesthetic judgments. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 2012, 70, 794–811.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback