Skip to main content
Log in

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

  • Published:
Marketing Letters Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnheim, R. (1969). Visual thinking. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(4), 577–660.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloch, P. H. (1995). Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumer response. Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 16–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bone, P. F., & Jantrania, S. (1992). Olfaction as a cue for product quality. Marketing Letters, 3(3), 289–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bundesen, C., Larsen, A., & Farrell, J. E. (1983). Visual apparent movement: Transformations of size and orientation. Perception, 12, 549–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chylinski, M., & Chu, A. (2010). Consumer cynicism: Antecedents and consequences. European Journal of Marketing, 44(6), 796–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. New York: Berkley Publishing Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downing, P., & Treisman, A. (1997). The line-motion illusion: Attention or impletion? Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 23(3), 768–779.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geuens, M., Weijters, B., & De Wulf, K. (2009). A new measure of brand personality. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26(2), 97–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hoegg, J., & Alba, J. W. (2007). Taste perception: More than meets the eye. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(4), 490–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honea, H., & Horsky, S. (2012). The power of plain: Intensifying product experience with neutral aesthetic context. Marketing Letters, 23(1), 223–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind. Chicago: University Press Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kandinsky, V. (1926). Point and line to plane. New York: Dover Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meier, B. P., & Robinson, M. D. (2004). Why the sunny side is up. Psychological Science, 15(4), 243–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Obermiller, C., & Spangenberg, E. R. (1998). Development of a scale to measure consumer skepticism toward advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(2), 159–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osgood, C. E. (1960). The cross-cultural generality of visual–verbal synesthetic tendencies. Behavioral Science, 5, 146–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peracchio, L. A., & Meyers-Levy, J. (2005). Using stylistic properties of ad pictures to communicate with consumers. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 29–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raghubir, P., & Krishna, A. (1999). Vital dimensions in volume perception: Can the eye fool the stomach? Journal of Marketing Research, 36, 313–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, T. W. (2005). Your highness: Vertical positions as perceptual symbols of power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wansink, B., & Van Ittersum, K. (2003). Bottoms up! The influence of elongation on pouring and consumption volume. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 455–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas J. L. van Rompay.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

van Rompay, T.J.L., Fransen, M.L. & Borgelink, B.G.D. Light as a feather: Effects of packaging imagery on sensory product impressions and brand evaluation. Mark Lett 25, 397–407 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-013-9260-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-013-9260-3

Keywords

Navigation