Packaging Research is NOT the Enemy

Perception Research Services' Jonathan Asher explains why research is an incredibly valuable insurance policy.

By: Jonathan Asher

Going from being the “research guy” at a design firm to the “design guy” at a research firm, I’ve seen research become a well-integrated part of the design process. Most designers now are at least accepting of its use; and many actually embrace it. They appreciate its value in providing objective insights that can be used to optimize their designs prior to launch.

Unfortunately, there are some designers who abhor the use of research. Either out of concern about having their creativity “graded”, or they’ve had a few bad experiences.

Admittedly, there is good research and bad research – just as there is good design and bad design; but it’s important to understand some fundamentals so that the right type of research is applied.

To help make that happen, I thought it useful to share answers to some frequently asked questions about packaging research that I often provide designers, researchers, and marketers:

Q. What’s the difference between Qualitative and Quantitative research – and why would I use one vs. the other?

A: Qualitative research is a method of engaging with a few people in a detailed manner. This can be done with one person at a time (known as a One-On-One interview or IDI for in-depth interview), with two or three people at a time (known as Diads or Triads), six – ten at a time (known as Focus Groups). These discussions can last anywhere from thirty minutes to two hours and are typically observed by interested parties from behind a one-way mirror.

This method is intended as a way to obtain insights and guidance – to hear consumers speak in their own language – and the output should be used to inform next steps. Not to determine whether or not a design will perform well in market. Importantly, it has no predictive abilities and no competent researcher would ever allow it to be used as such (nor should any competent designer). The output is not “data” and the use of numbers in describing the outcome should be strictly avoided.

Qualitative research can be used early in the design process - prior to any design development - to gain insights into brand imagery and personality in relation to the current packaging relative to the intended strategy and competition – as well as uncovering design equities (identify the sacred elements and baggage). This is extremely useful input for informing the Design Brief – and ensuring that the design efforts are most meaningful and efficient.

Most often, qualitative research is used at the screening stage to explore a range of concepts and help inform which of these are best meeting the objectives and most resonating with target consumers in terms of imagery and communications. The learning helps in deciding how best to move forward with a more focused number of designs.

Quantitative research is a method of engaging with a large number of people (typically a few hundred) in a highly structured manner, providing an opportunity to make predictions about how something will perform over time, across a given population of people. This requires a sufficiently large sample to allow for statistical testing and sub-group analysis; as well as having every person in the sample be asked the same questions in the same manner.

The interviews are conducted one-on-one and most often across a range of geographic locations. While individual interviews can be observed for Q & A purposes, this is generally not done as responses heard from a few interviews in one location can be unrepresentative of those of the full sample; therefore, they can be misleading in this out-of-context manner.

Quantitative research is mostly used at the late stages of the design process, once the number of designs has been narrowed in order to provide confirmation for which option is best to take to market. By utilizing a good representation of the shelf on which the package will appear, predictive measures of visibility and shopping dynamics can be obtained.

Q: Focus Groups have been around since the days of Mad Men - are there any new techniques to make them more useful?

A: While the overall structure and some of the techniques have been around for many years, many improvements have been made as approaches have evolved over time, based on vast amounts of experience and the establishment of industry standards and best practices.

This includes the screening of respondents (e.g., more representative of target consumers, weeding out “professional respondents”); the locations in which they’re conducted (e.g., vast and varied locales as needed to get to the right respondents, not simply the most convenient or desirable); the types and manner in which questions are asked (indirect, projective, engaging, open ended, etc); and the means of moderating the group (e.g., ensure all are heard, no single respondent takes over, honest answers are gleaned, even for embarrassing subject matter, etc).

Q: A good designer just knows which design will work. Do we really need to waste time with testing?

A: Good designers can create dozens of seemingly effective designs. If these concepts are all distinctly different from one another (as they should be in the early stages), how will the selection of which one to pursue be made? Does the designer get to pick his or her favorite? Marketers fear they would choose the wildest one that will look best in their portfolio but might scare off current users. Does the VP of Marketing choose his or her favorite? That could be the safe, closest to the current option - which may not be able to sufficiently meet the objectives.

In either case, it’s important to recognize that often, we – the designers, marketers and researchers involved in the project – are not the target market. And while we may be steeped in relevant knowledge and expertise, we are probably not the best suited to decide which design will perform most effectively among its intended audience, and within the market conditions it must thrive.

In terms of cost and timing, it is quite amazing how often the same people that claim to not have sufficient time or money to conduct research in the first place, somehow are able to find even more time and money later on, after their best guess didn’t work out so well in market.

Q: Isn’t the only real test of how well a design will perform to place it on the shelf in stores and see how many people buy it?

A: Choosing the best means of assessing designs is simply a matter of balancing the trade-offs between approximating the realities of being in-market against the cost and timing required to do so. There is no question that the most reliable means of determining how well a new design will perform in market is to print packages, place them on shelf and measure the sales. Of course, it is entirely prohibitive (in cost and time) to do so – even in limited locations – for even one design that’s under consideration; it is totally unrealistic to consider this approach for multiple design options. In addition, this approach would only provide insight about how well the new design sells, but nothing about why – or why not.

The various research approaches that are available to validate designs prior to marketplace introduction tend to offer various degrees of trading off between the two critical components (reality vs. investment).

At times, a compromise is reached by using a laboratory setting but with live, 3D mock-ups instead of 2D photographs. While a bit more costly and time consuming to produce the stimuli (the research procedure and cost is the same), this approach is particularly useful in cases of structural packaging innovations or with certain colors, materials or printing approaches that are not fully realized in 2D.

Q: So how should research be used to ensure that the best designs get to market?

A: Research can be utilized at three points in the design process:

• Before design work begins (pre-design) to learn what is working and what isn’t, and inform the Design Brief

• Early in the design process (screening) to help narrow the number of concepts and provide input for optimization

• Prior to market introduction (validation) to determine which design is the best to pursue

Determining when in the process to conduct research and which type of method to employ will depend on several factors, including:

• How much and what type of information already exists

• What are the brand objectives (revive a dying brand or maintain leadership position, etc.)

• What are the sales objectives (attract new users or encourage increased purchases among existing users, etc.)

• What are the design objectives (strengthen overall visibility or enhance options, etc.)

• What are the logistical parameters (budget, timeline, etc)

In short, research is an incredibly valuable insurance policy. Given the time, money and effort that go into the entire design and fabrication of a new design, as well as the potential risk to the business of making a mistake – and even the opportunity cost of not choosing the best (albeit seemingly riskier) option, how can anyone afford to not invest just a little bit more to be sure they get it right?

AUTHOR BIO: As Senior Vice President at Perception Research Services (PRS), the world’s leading packaging research firm, Jonathan manages major client relationships such as Target, General Mills, SuperValu, Del Monte, Hershey and Kimberly-Clark, to name a few, overseeing both qualitative and quantitative studies. Asher has over twenty-five years experience in both marketing research and brand design for consumer packaged goods.