Advertisement

Marketing Letters

, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 397–407 | Cite as

Light as a feather: Effects of packaging imagery on sensory product impressions and brand evaluation

  • Thomas J. L. van RompayEmail author
  • Marieke L. Fransen
  • Bianca G. D. Borgelink
Article

Abstract

Inspired by the increasing importance of packaging design for product and brand management, this study tests effects of movement visuals and location of imagery on sensorial product impressions. Participants were exposed to a packaging variant for a fictitious brand of washing powder. Subsequently, they smelled packaging contents, estimated package weight, and evaluated product and brand. Findings show that movement visuals connoting upward (versus downward) movement resulted in the experience of a less concentrated smell, but only when presented in the top-left region of the package. Furthermore, imagery located in the top-left (versus bottom-right) region induced lower estimates of package weight. Additionally, findings show that location and movement visuals impact brand image formation and consumer preference.

Keywords

Product packaging Branding Design Embodiment Product evaluation 

References

  1. Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnheim, R. (1969). Visual thinking. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  3. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(4), 577–660.Google Scholar
  4. Becker, L., Van Rompay, T. J. L., Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Galetzka, M. (2011). Tough package, strong taste: The influence of packaging design on taste impressions and product evaluations. Food Quality and Preference, 22(1), 17–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bloch, P. H. (1995). Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumer response. Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 16–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bloch, P. H., Brunel, F. H., & Arnold, T. J. (2003). Individual differences in the centrality of visual product aesthetics: Concept and measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 551–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bone, P. F., & Jantrania, S. (1992). Olfaction as a cue for product quality. Marketing Letters, 3(3), 289–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bundesen, C., Larsen, A., & Farrell, J. E. (1983). Visual apparent movement: Transformations of size and orientation. Perception, 12, 549–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chylinski, M., & Chu, A. (2010). Consumer cynicism: Antecedents and consequences. European Journal of Marketing, 44(6), 796–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Creusen, M. E. H., & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2005). The different roles of product appearance in consumer choice. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(1), 63–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crilly, N., Moultrie, J., & Clarkson, P. J. (2004). Seeing things: Consumer response to the visual domain in product design. Design Studies, 25(6), 547–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Deng, X., & Kahn, B. E. (2009). Is your product on the right side? The “location effect” on perceived product heaviness and package evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(6), 725–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. New York: Berkley Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  14. Downing, P., & Treisman, A. (1997). The line-motion illusion: Attention or impletion? Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 23(3), 768–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fenko, A., Schifferstein, H. N. J., Huang, T., & Hekkert, P. (2009). What makes products fresh: The smell or the colour? Food Quality and Preference, 20(5), 372–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Geuens, M., Weijters, B., & De Wulf, K. (2009). A new measure of brand personality. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26(2), 97–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hine, T. (1995). The total packaging: The secret history and hidden meanings of boxes, bottles, cans and other persuasive containers. New York: Little Brown.Google Scholar
  18. Hoegg, J., & Alba, J. W. (2007). Taste perception: More than meets the eye. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(4), 490–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Honea, H., & Horsky, S. (2012). The power of plain: Intensifying product experience with neutral aesthetic context. Marketing Letters, 23(1), 223–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Huettl, V., & Gierl, H. (2012). Visual art in advertising: The effects of utilitarian vs. hedonic product positioning and price information. Marketing Letters, 23(3), 893–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind. Chicago: University Press Chicago.Google Scholar
  22. Kandinsky, V. (1926). Point and line to plane. New York: Dover Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  23. Krishna, A. (2012). An integrative review of sensory marketing: Engaging the senses to affect perception, judgment and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(3), 332–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  25. McCracken, J. C., & Macklin, M. C. (1998). The role of brand names and visual cues in enhancing memory for consumer packaged goods. Marketing Letters, 9(2), 209–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Meier, B. P., & Robinson, M. D. (2004). Why the sunny side is up. Psychological Science, 15(4), 243–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Obermiller, C., & Spangenberg, E. R. (1998). Development of a scale to measure consumer skepticism toward advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(2), 159–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Osgood, C. E. (1960). The cross-cultural generality of visual–verbal synesthetic tendencies. Behavioral Science, 5, 146–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Peracchio, L. A., & Meyers-Levy, J. (2005). Using stylistic properties of ad pictures to communicate with consumers. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 29–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Raghubir, P., & Krishna, A. (1999). Vital dimensions in volume perception: Can the eye fool the stomach? Journal of Marketing Research, 36, 313–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schoormans, J. P. L., & Robben, H. S. J. (1997). The effect of new package design on product attention, categorization and evaluation. Journal of Economic Psychology, 18(2/3), 271–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schubert, T. W. (2005). Your highness: Vertical positions as perceptual symbols of power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Van Rompay, T. J. L., De Vries, P. W., Bontekoe, F., & Tanja-Dijkstra, K. (2012). Embodied product perception: Effects of verticality cues in advertising and packaging design on consumer impressions and price expectations. Psychology & Marketing, 29(12), 919–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wansink, B., & Van Ittersum, K. (2003). Bottoms up! The influence of elongation on pouring and consumption volume. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 455–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas J. L. van Rompay
    • 1
    Email author
  • Marieke L. Fransen
    • 2
  • Bianca G. D. Borgelink
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Industrial Design EngineeringUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Amsterdam School of Communication ResearchUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Marketing Communication and Consumer PsychologyUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations