ulrich r. orth & keven malkewitz holistic package design and … · 2014-09-09 · holistic...

64Journal of MarketingVol. 72 (May 2008), 64–81

© 2008, American Marketing AssociationISSN: 0022-2429 (print), 1547-7185 (electronic)

Ulrich R. Orth & Keven Malkewitz

Holistic Package Design andConsumer Brand Impressions

This article develops empirically based guidelines to assist managers in selecting or modifying package designsfor achieving desired consumer responses. Seven studies identify the key types of package designs, including thefactors that differentiate those package designs, and determine how these holistic designs are related to consumerbrand impressions. The selection of package designs can be simplified with the use of five holistic types: massive,contrasting, natural, delicate, and nondescript designs. Sincere brands should have natural package designs,exciting brands should have contrasting designs, competent brands should have delicate designs, sophisticatedbrands should have natural or delicate designs, and rugged brands should have contrasting or massive designs.The authors discuss the potential trade-offs among the impressions created by holistic design types and illustratetheir findings with numerous real packages.

Keywords: package design, brand personality, gestalt, wine, perfume, visual competitor

Ulrich R. Orth is Professor and Chair of A&F Marketing, Christian-Albrechts-Universität Kiel (e-mail: [email protected]). Keven Malkewitzis Assistant Professor of Marketing, College of Business, Oregon StateUniversity (e-mail: [email protected]). This researchwas funded in part by Willamette Valley Vineyards. The authors gratefullyacknowledge Andrea Marks, Carol Caughey, and Gerry Glasgow for theirvaluable comments and numerous professional designers for their input,especially Jay Thompson and Peter Moore. They thank Steffi Gal for herassistance in collecting the fragrances data, Cindy Lederer for providingaccess to the Oregon Consumer Panel, and the two anonymous JMreviewers for their insightful comments on previous versions of this article.

Package design involves several considerations rang-ing from protecting package contents to articulatingand communicating desired brand impressions.

Because of this wide range, package design is a broad termspanning engineered functional attributes (e.g., ergonomics,durability, recyclability) and a package’s visual attributes(Bloch 1995). Although we do not want to minimize theimportance of other characteristics, the focus of this articleis on design elements that create a package’s visual appear-ance. This appearance is often an integral part of a brand’simage, such as the hourglass shape of the Coca-Cola bottleand its logo in Spencerian type or the round-shoulderedBordeaux-style wine bottles that bear ornate labels andflourish typography.

Following Bloch (1995) and Gestalt psychologists (Kof-fka 1922; Wertheimer 1925), we define “package design” asthe various elements chosen and blended into a holisticdesign to achieve a particular sensory effect. Designerschoose design elements, decide how to mix them, and deter-mine the desired level of congruity among them (Lawson1983). For example, the design of the trademark Coca-Colabottle includes the fluted surface with parallel verticalgrooves, the hourglass shape, the greenish-hued glass, andthe iconic Spencerian script spelling “Coca-Cola” on theface of the bottle. Similarly, the design of a Bordeaux-stylewine bottle may include a slender bottle silhouette, anornate label with elaborate typography, and a natural color

scheme. In both cases, the overall effect of the packagecomes not from any individual element but rather from thegestalt of all elements working together as a holistic design.

A significant body of research attests to the importancethat managers and scholars attach to package design (e.g.,Bloch 1995; Garber, Burke, and Jones 2000; Hertenstein,Platt, and Veryzer 2005; Rettie and Bruwer 2000; Schoor-mans and Robben 1997). Taken together, the results suggestthat package design is an extremely influential mediumbecause of its pervasive impact on purchasers, its presenceat the crucial moment when the purchase decision is made,and consumers’ high level of involvement when theyactively scan packages in their decision making. Of specialinterest for this research is package design’s ability to assistin building strong brands by distinguishing offerings and byevoking favorable consumer impressions (Berkowitz 1987;Bloch 1995; Henderson et al. 2003; Schmitt and Simonson1995). This ability to create and convey brand impressionshas been studied by academics only recently (Henderson etal. 2003; Henderson, Giese, and Cote 2004; Underwood2003). However, although extant research has demonstratedthat package design can have a powerful impact on con-sumer response, it has provided only scant guidance tomanagers in selecting package design for creating desiredresponses.

Specifically, there are two major gaps in the knowledge.First, little research examining generalizable, holisticdesigns and their underlying factors exists. Identifying thesearchetypes, prototypes, or standards will substantiallyimprove the understanding of package design, just as cate-gorizing the vast number of individual traits into the “BigFive” traits facilitates the understanding of human personal-ity. For example, numerous product categories includepackage designs that appear massive, natural, or delicate, atleast relative to one another. Many consumer goods pack-ages—from wine bottles and fragrances to cereals, deter-gents, and even products such as footwear or MP3 play-ers—could all be differentiated according to thesegroupings. However, there appears to be a lack of meaning-

Holistic Package Design / 65

ful guidelines to assist design stakeholders in creating holis-tic designs.

The second knowledge gap is related to the responsesevoked by any given holistic design. A lack of insight intothe relationships between key types of package designs andgeneric dimensions of consumer response leads to ineffi-ciencies in achieving brand management objectives andleaves managers and designers in the dark in terms of whatdesign to use to stimulate desired responses. To leveragedesign, companies need guidelines for achieving brandmanagement goals, or at least a taxonomy of design typesto help them consider the range of design options and resul-tant messages available to them. We are not suggesting thatmanagers should design. Instead, by identifying prototypi-cal package designs and their relationships to genericresponse dimensions, we allow managers to communicatebetter with designers and to provide designers with thestructure they need to maximize their creativity.

To develop guidelines that address the previously out-lined gaps, we begin by identifying design elements andfactors that are important to and are used by designers indifferentiating package designs. Next, we examine brandmanagement literature to identify what types of responsesmanagers desire. On the basis of these literature reviewsand empirical assessments, we develop a series of studies toaddress two fundamental questions: (1) What are the keytypes of holistic package designs, including their differenti-ating design factors? and (2) How are these holistic packagedesigns related to generalizable brand impressions?

Package Design LiteratureThere is both theoretical and empirical support for general-izable, prototypical, holistic package designs and their rela-tionship to generalizable response dimensions. First, draw-ing from Gestalt psychology (Koffka 1922; Wertheimer1925) and work on nonconscious preference formation(Kunst-Wilson and Zajonc 1980; Lewicki 1986), classifica-tion (Berlyne 1971), and type (Pepper 1949), current designprocessing theory suggests that specific design elements areperceived and organized into more complex components(Veryzer 1999). Second, several studies have directlyexplored fundamental factors that capture differencesamong key types of designs (Henderson and Cote 1998;Henderson et al. 2003; Henderson, Giese, and Cote 2004).Third, a significant amount of literature attests to packagedesign’s ability to generate a variety of impressions (e.g.,Aaker 1991; Batra and Homer 2004; Batra, Lehmann, andSingh 1993; Keller 1993; Schmitt and Simonson 1995;Underwood 2003; Underwood and Klein 2002; Underwoodand Ozanne 1998). Thus, we put forward the idea of gener-alizable holistic package designs, which are systematicallyrelated to generalizable brand impressions. Next, we reviewthe supporting literature in greater detail.

Gestalt Psychology and the Part–WholeDistinction

Two features of the Gestalt psychology research on partversus whole perceptions are relevant to our work on holis-

tic design types. First, the general idea of part–whole per-ceptual differences was one of the pioneering contributionsof early Gestalt psychologists (Koffka 1922; Wertheimer1925). For example, consider one colored dot versus agrouping of colored dots versus a whole painting in theclassic pointillism style. A single painted dot might lookominous when seen alone, but it adds richness to a flowerthat is part of a still-life painting of a bouquet. Likewise,any one of the pure dots of color taken in isolation fails toconvey the painting itself, but content and meaning emergefrom the orchestration of numerous parts to construct a farricher perceptual whole. Second, Gestalt psychology alsorecognizes the importance of stimulus categorization,though more in terms of stimulus recognition. Considerfigure–ground distinctions, according to which two designsmight have similar features but differ in terms of whichones are made more prominent (the figure) and which aretreated more as the background. A typical example is theso-called Rubin vase (named after Edgar Rubin, the Danishpsychologist who studied such images), a vase–face,figure–ground reversal stimulus. On first sight, peoplemight categorize the image as that of a white vase against ablack background, whereas a closer look might reveal twohuman heads facing each other with contours of chins, lips,noses, and other facial features outlining the shape of theoriginal vase.

Factors Underlying Holistic Package Designs

In addition to Gestalt psychology, recent design theory andempirical evidence suggest that consumers perceive “con-stitutive” elements (e.g., colors, textures, surfaces) andorganize them into more complex components (Veryzer1999). Such a hierarchical processing explanation drawsfrom studies on nonconscious preference formation (e.g.,Kunst-Wilson and Zajonc 1980; Lewicki 1986) and fromfindings that more abstract, multidimensional design char-acteristics are determined by more basic and measurabledesign elements (Geistfeld, Sproles, and Badenhop 1977).Design elements are combined into more complex (cogni-tive) components or factors of design, which are then aggre-gated during perception and convey particular characteris-tics (i.e., of a brand) to consumers. This interpretation isconsistent with fluency-based attributions (Janiszewski andMeyvis 2001) and perceptions of beauty (e.g., Grammerand Thornhill 1994).

Furthermore, categorization, classification, and typetheories suggest that generic dimensions exist during theprogression that occurs as initial design perception movesto interpretation. Common to those theories is their refer-ence to the recognition of a particular class of objects with-out the ability to identify all its details and peculiarities(Berlyne 1971) as consumers try to understand a stimulusby placing it within an existing category (Loken and Ward1990). Thus, categorization is based on the perceived simi-larity between a given package and exemplars of variouscategories. A consumer first encountering a package mayinitially categorize the design as belonging to a particularcategory, but as perception becomes more complete and theobject is more fully understood, the person moves past the

generic design or category stage. Similarly, generic holisticpackage design may be understood in terms of Pepper’s(1949) “type” concept. Type refers to an association of acertain set of traits in certain relationships, such that theyare recognizable as a whole. Every generic design isdefined by the association of a certain set of design factorsand elements in certain relationships.

In addition to theoretical considerations, several empiri-cal studies support the emergent part-to-whole perceptualproperties of the design elements → generalizablefactors → holistic designs sequence. For example, Hender-son and Cote (1998) generate insights that assist managersin selecting or modifying logo designs to achieve corporateimage goals. Categorizing almost 200 logos on the basis of22 design elements, their analysis yielded seven underlyingfactors. Three of the seven factors were significant. The firstfactor, “natural,” combines lower-level characteristics, suchas representative and organic, and reflects the degree towhich constitutive design elements depict commonly expe-rienced objects. For example, a logo consisting of an imageof a leaf would be judged to be more natural than one con-sisting of a building. The second factor, “harmony,” com-bines symmetry and balance. A logo that uses design ele-ments that are symmetric around both a horizontal and avertical axis would be more harmonious than one that doesnot. The third factor, “elaborate,” is a combination of designelement complexity, activity, and depth. This factor capturesthe concept of design richness and the ability of the designelements to capture the essence of something. Examininglogos in Asia, Henderson and colleagues (2003) find eightdesign characteristics captured by three underlying designdimensions. Labeled “elaborate,” “harmony,” and “natural,”these factors are essentially identical to those of Hendersonand Cote (1998). Despite the different cultural contexts ofthe studies, only minor differences were observed betweenthe factor compositions.

Extending the logo studies, Henderson, Giese, and Cote(2004) extract six factors from an extensive set of typefaces.Three “universal” factors were judged to be applicable to alldesign, and three factors were specific to typeface design.Their general factors resemble Henderson and Cote’s(1998) findings, though they use different, practitioner-specified design elements. The first factor, “elaborateness,”includes positive loadings for ornate, depth, distinctive, andmeaningful and negative loadings for readable and com-mon. The second factor, “harmony,” includes balance,smoothness, symmetry, and uniformity. The third factor,“naturalness,” includes positive loadings for active, curved,organic, and slant and a negative loading for typed.

Other studies have more narrowly focused on specificdesign elements, including color (Garber, Hyatt, and Starr2000), imagery (Underwood and Klein 2002), shape(Folkes and Matta 2004; Yang and Raghubir 2005), size(Folkes and Matta 2004; Wansink 1996), proportions(Raghubir and Greenleaf 2006), unity, and prototypicality(Veryzer and Hutchinson 1998), but they do not establishlinks to generic design factors. In summary, the literaturereviewed reveals that package design should be studiedfrom a holistic perspective—namely, in terms of higher-order design factors that differentiate generalizable holistic

66 / Journal of Marketing, May 2008

package designs. Translating basic design elements intohigher-order factors and more understandable holisticdesigns, including the impressions they evoke with con-sumers, is critical in helping firms better understand pack-age design and consumers’ responses to it.

Package Design and Consumer Impressions

The design of a package elicits various responses from con-sumers (for a review, see Bloch 1995). Different from previ-ous work that addresses the aesthetic aspects of design (e.g.,Hirschman 1986; Holbrook 1986; Veryzer and Hutchinson1998) or focuses on global cognitive evaluations and theireffects on consumer behavior (e.g., Folkes and Matta 2004;Garber, Burke, and Jones 2000; Rahgubir and Krishna1993; Schoormans and Robben 1997), our research focuseson generalizable consumer brand impressions inferred frompackage design.

The literature has documented numerous impressionsgenerated by packages, and design has been repeatedlyemphasized as an instrument for conveying meaning andgenerating brand impressions (Aaker 1991; Batra andHomer 2004; Schmitt and Simonson 1995). Depending onthe research context, these impressions are related to theterminology of designers (Forty 1992), to brand manage-ment objectives (Underwood 2003), or to consumer benefits(Batra and Homer 2004; Batra, Lehmann, and Singh 1993).Many researchers emphasize that a particular design shouldevoke the same intended meaning across people (e.g., Borjade Mozota 2003; Henderson and Cote 1998; Henderson etal. 2003; Henderson, Giese, and Cote 2004; Rettie andBruwer 2000; Schoormans and Robben 1997; Underwood2003; Underwood and Klein 2002; Underwood and Ozanne1998). This perspective is consistent with current marketingthought that brand communications should convey a single,clear message that is difficult to misinterpret (Keller 1993;Underwood 2003).

Brand personality has emerged as a key tool to captureand categorize facets of brands systematically in terms of generalizable impressions responses (Aaker 1997, 1999;Aaker, Benet-Martinez, and Garolera 2001; Aaker, Four-nier, and Adam 2004). Consumer researchers have given aconsiderable amount of attention to the concept, focusingon how brand personality enables consumers to expresstheir actual self (Belk 1988; Sirgy 1982), ideal self (Elliottand Wattanasuwan 1998), or specific dimensions of the self through brand acquisition and use (Fournier 1998;McCracken 1986). In her seminal article, Aaker (1997) con-ceptualizes brand personality and explores the meaning offive basic dimensions: “sincerity,” “excitement,” “compe-tence,” “sophistication,” and “ruggedness.” Subsequentstudies confirm the number and nature of these dimensions(Sweeney and Brandon 2006). Managers also view brandpersonality as both a means of differentiating a brand (Ver-nadakis 2000) and a common denominator for marketing abrand across cultures (Aaker, Benet-Martinez, and Garolera2001; Sung and Tinkham 2005). Insights into the processesof personality inferences about brands further emphasizethe role of design for brand personality impressions (Johar,Sengupta, and Aaker 2005). Package designs are especiallycritical for impressions formed for new brands (Underwood


and Klein 2002). However, although the brand personalityconcept appears well suited to capture generalizableresponse dimensions, there are no guidelines on how a firmcan develop holistic package designs for achieving desiredbrand personality impressions.

Research Goal

Brand package modifications typically set out from theimpressions that management wants to communicatethrough the design. Designers are then charged with devel-oping packages that are believed to evoke the desiredimpressions. However, the question remains whetherdesigns developed through executive experience and intui-tion effectively generate desired responses. This researchempirically investigates how firms can develop packagedesigns for achieving desired responses.

MethodWe apply methods previously used and accepted in market-ing research on design (Henderson and Cote 1998; Hender-son et al. 2003; Henderson, Giese, and Cote 2004). As doprior studies, we employed two-dimensional stimuli from asuitable product category for identifying design characteris-tics useful both within and outside the stimulus category.This method is not used just in design research; it is analo-gous to advertising studies using one exemplary stimulus toexamine consumer responses and to derive more generaliz-able conclusions. The methodology involves (1) selecting aproduct category appropriate for the research question, (2)determining representative stimulus characteristics, (3)selecting stimuli for the research, (4) obtaining expert rat-ings of them, and (5) assessing consumer responses to thestimuli.

Product Category Selection

Four major concerns drive the selection of an appropriateexample product. First, to ensure generalizable results, abranded product is required with package design elementscommonly found in a wide variety of consumer goods. Sec-ond, the product should provide brand names that are unfa-miliar to the sample population to avoid confounds with dif-ferent levels of brand familiarity (Underwood and Klein2002). Third, a product is needed for which package designhas a measurable impact on consumer impressions and pur-chase decisions. Fourth, and perhaps most important, thereneeds to be large variance in package designs in the selectedcategory, permitting a meaningful assembly of actualstimuli.

On the basis of these criteria, we selected stimuli fromthe wine category for our research. Wine bottles contain awide variety of design elements commonly found in otherconsumer goods, there is an opportunity to use brandslargely unfamiliar to research participants, there is at leastanecdotal evidence that wine package design influencesconsumer impressions, and the large variance in wine pack-ages and brand personalities allows for a meaningful assem-bly of actual stimuli designs.

Representative Package Design Elements

Because our research aims to identify prototypical holisticpackage designs that are generalizable for many types ofconsumer goods, we obtained an initial list of design ele-ments from previously reviewed literature. We expandedthis list using trade and academic publications on winebrand management and package design (e.g., Caldewey andHouse 2003; Caputo 2005; Mackay 2005). Next, nine pro-fessional designers from multiple firms and with experiencein a broad range of design tasks, including wine packagedesign, listed primary differentiating elements of packagedesign in general and of wine packages in particular. Weintegrated their feedback with the initial list, which resultedin a final list of 62 design elements. These elements werethe basis for identifying holistic package designs and under-lying factors.

Stimuli

To prepare the selection of stimuli, we asked each of thedesigners involved in the selection of elements to assemblea list of wine packages representative of the variance in thefinal design elements list (e.g., one package design withheavy typography, a second with light typography, a thirdwith a small label, a fourth with a large label). Because con-sumers rely more on package design elements for inferringbrand characteristics of unfamiliar brands than of familiarbrands (Underwood and Klein 2002), we reduced theexpansive pool of wine packages to brands with little famil-iarity. We used additional input from a second set of profes-sionals in the wine and design industries to select a total of160 wine bottles that represented the full range of the 62design elements. These package designs were purchasedfrom various retail sources.

Stimuli for the subsequent data collection were pro-duced by taking high-resolution digital images of the pack-ages. Images were taken in a single session in a professionalphoto studio before a matte monochromatic background. Topreserve size and proportion differences, the tallest bottleserved as a calibration standard. All images were framedand taken with the object and camera in the same location;there was no variation in illumination, timing, or any othervariable.

Expert Ratings of Package Design Elements

A third set of professional designers (N = 125) associatedwith different firms each rated a subset of no more than 12of the 160 stimuli on half of the 62 design elements, using aseven-point semantic differential scale. This task tookapproximately 20 minutes. Digital images were posted on aWeb site accessible only through a confidential login andpassword. Software was developed to assign 12 stimuli ran-domly to each designer. Each package was presented indi-vidually on the left-hand side of the screen, and the respon-dents scrolled through the semantic differential scales onthe right. Participants controlled the amount of time forviewing and responding. To ensure similarity in appearanceacross different hardware settings, images were optimizedfor Internet Explorer. In all, the professionals provided


38,750 individual ratings (approximately 9 designers perstimulus). Descriptive results appear in Table 1.

Relevant Consumer Impressions

Our literature review highlighted the importance of brandpersonality for brand differentiation and assessment ofmeaning (Aaker 1999; Fournier 1998; Johar, Sengupta, and Aaker 2005; Keller 2003; Sung and Tinkham 2005;Sweeney and Brandon 2006). To ascertain whether theresponse dimensions were detailed but generalizable, weincluded ten more impression items from manageriallyoriented literature. These impressions were “high quality,”“corporate,” “everyday,” “cheap,” “feminine,” “evokeshappy memories,” “healthy,” “stylish,” “will impress myfriends,” and “value for money” (Orth 2005; Orth, Wolf,and Dodds 2005). For example, in many product categories,consumers may prefer small or family-owned companiesover “corporate” brands. Others distinguish between brandsfor everyday consumption and those for special occasions(Quester and Smart 1998). Consumers also buy brands thatremind them of good times and to relive memories of happyvacations or a carefree childhood. To confirm the relevanceof the selected impressions, we asked professionals in thedesign industry whether the impressions were meaningfuland whether they could design packages for creating theseimpressions. The results confirmed our selection of designelements and brand impressions as inclusive, actionable,and generalizable.

Consumer Response to Package Designs

We used a consumer survey to measure impressions evokedby package design. To present stimuli uniformly and toexpose consumers to the exact stimuli evaluated by design-ers, we replicated the Web-based computer task. We modi-fied the software algorithm to randomly present 10 (ratherthan 12) stimuli accompanied by the scroll-down impres-sions items. We used a consumer panel maintained by aresearch university in the Pacific Northwest, and the samplewas representative for that area. To increase motivation andinvolvement with the study tasks, respondents received $10gift certificates. The overall response was 67,000 individualratings from 268 respondents. On average, respondentswere 41.4 years of age, 57% were female, and only a smallfraction was students.

Analysis and ResultsData analysis followed procedures established in researchon design (Henderson and Cote 1998; Henderson et al.2003; Henderson, Giese, and Cote 2004), experimental aes-thetics (Seifert 1992), and language processing (Carpenterand Miyake 1995). Unique to this approach, analyses areconducted at the stimulus level rather than at the individuallevel. To obtain a score for each stimulus on a specificvariable, we averaged individual ratings of a package (i.e.,designer ratings and consumer responses). We conducted allremaining analyses using these averaged scores. Thus, theunit of analysis is the package design, and the sample sizefor each analysis is the number of different designs (i.e., the160 stimuli). The mean brand familiarity score across all

stimuli indicated that consumers were not familiar with thebrands (M = 1.74, SD = .73; scale ranged from 1 = “not atall familiar” to 7 = “very much familiar”).

Prototypical Holistic Package Designs

The first analytical step identified holistic package designson the basis of similarities of the stimuli’s 62 designelements. Because the combination of design elementsdrives holistic package design rather than any singleelement, we employed cluster analysis for this procedure(Henderson, Giese, and Cote 2004). We determined thenumber of clusters by examining the average distancebetween clusters and comparing this with the within-clusterdistances. In addition, we avoided creating clusters with toofew package designs. Five clusters appeared to best describethe data. We acknowledge that other design types orclassifications exist, but we focus on more common types,consistent with the study’s goal of identifying prototypicalpackage designs and relating them to generalizable brandimpressions.

In the second step, we performed exploratory factoranalysis (EFA) with Varimax rotation for identifying designfactors that are instrumental in differentiating the five holis-tic design clusters. On the basis of theory and previousresearch (Henderson and Cote 1998; Henderson et al. 2003;Henderson, Giese, and Cote 2004), we split design elementsinto two groups, one that included elements consistent withpreviously identified universal design factors (i.e., elabo-rate, harmony, and natural) and one that included all others.To extend previous research and advance design researchacross stimuli, we analyzed the two groups of design ele-ments separately to ensure that we identified and linkedgeneralizable dimensions to responses.

The factor analysis of the universal design factors grouprevealed three dimensions that explained 78.9% of the vari-ance (see Table 2). The first factor, natural, included colorscheme naturalness, organic versus geometric typography,bottle glass color naturalness, and images of nature, includ-ing landscapes, plants, and vines. The second factor, har-mony, included image contrast, typography uniformity,color scheme harmony, image resolution, and brand name–logo contrast. The third factor, elaborate, included labeldegree of structure, amount of detail (image and label),typography elaboration, quantity of text, single versus mul-tiple labels, label elaboration, and rounded versus angularlabel shape. The resultant design factors are similar to Hen-derson, Giese, and Cote’s (2004) findings, though we usedpackage design elements that industry professionals speci-fied. A subsequent confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) con-firmed the appropriateness of the factor structure (compara-tive fit index [CFI] = .891).

Factor analysis of the second group of design elementsuncovered five additional dimensions that explained 69.2%of the variance (see Table 2). “Size” comprised label size,brand name/logo size, image size, label coverage, and hori-zontal versus vertical orientation of the label. “Symmetry”comprised label and bottle symmetry, as well as bottle sil-houette, label material, and bottle color. Although it mightappear that symmetry and harmony tap the same dimension,they were correlated at only .158. “Compressed” comprised


TAB

LE

1P

acka

ge

Des

ign

Ele

men

ts a

nd

Th

eir

Eva

luat

ion

by

Pro

fess

ion

als

Des

ign

Ele

men

t (S

eman

tic

An

cho

rs)

MS

DD

esig

n E

lem

ent

(Sem

anti

c A

nch

ors

)M

SD

Ado

rnm

ent/c

harm

pre

senc

e (w

eak

vers

us s

tron

g)A

war

ds in

form

atio

n pr

esen

ce (

wea

k ve

rsus

str

ong)

Cap

sule

pre

senc

e (w

eak

vers

us s

tron

g)C

losu

re p

rese

nce

(wea

k ve

rsus

str

ong)

Bot

tle –bod

y (s

hort

ver

sus

long

)–g

irth

(sm

all v

ersu

s la

rge)

–gla

ss c

olor

(co

mm

on v

ersu

s un

ique

)–g

lass

col

or in

tens

ity (

wea

k ve

rsus

str

ong)

–gla

ss c

olor

nat

ural

ness

(lo

w v

ersu

s hi

gh)

–gla

ss f

inis

h (m

atte

ver

sus

glos

sy)

–gla

ss t

rans

pare

ncy

(low

ver

sus

high

)–h

ead/

lip (

not

at a

ll ve

rsus

ver

y m

uch

pres

ent)

–hef

t/gra

vita

s (li

ght

vers

us h

eavy

)–n

eck

(sho

rt v

ersu

s lo

ng)

–rel

ief/m

oldi

ng (

not

at a

ll ve

rsus

ver

y m

uch

pres

ent)

–sho

ulde

rs (

shor

t ve

rsus

long

)–s

ides

(st

raig

ht v

ersu

s ro

unde

d)–s

ilhou

ette

(co

mm

on v

ersu

s un

ique

)–s

ymm

etry

(as

ymm

etric

al v

ersu

s sy

mm

etric

al)

Bra

nd n

ame/

logo

–con

tras

t (lo

w v

ersu

s hi

gh)

–loc

atio

n (lo

w v

ersu

s hi

gh)

–siz

e (s

mal

l ver

sus

larg

e)C

olor

sch

eme

–har

mon

y (in

harm

onio

us v

ersu

s ha

rmon

ious

–nat

ural

ness

(no

t at

all

vers

us v

ery

natu

ral)

–num

ber

of c

olor

s (m

onoc

hrom

atic

ver

sus

colo

rful

)–s

tren

gth

(wea

k ve

rsus

str

ong)

Imag

e(s)

–am

ount

of

deta

il (s

mal

l ver

sus

larg

e)–e

xecu

tion

(tra

ditio

nal v

ersu

s co

ntem

pora

ry)

–im

age–

back

grou

nd c

ontr

ast

(low

ver

sus

high

)–r

elat

ion

to a

nim

al(s

) (w

eak

vers

us s

tron

g)–r

elat

ion

to b

uild

ing(

s) (

wea

k ve

rsus

str

ong)

3.56

1.88

3.74

3.34

4.41

4.19

3.46

4.61

3.84

4.95

3.16

4.13

4.33

3.95

3.17

3.87

3.53

3.54

5.19

4.41

3.64

4.17

4.37

4.24

3.45

4.33

3.88

4.03

4.05

2.02

2.14

1.23

1.10

1.02 .85

1.19 .90

.98

1.18 .66

.93

1.23 .96

.74

1.13

1.16

1.33

1.12

1.29

1.09

1.07

1.23 .99

1.28

1.11

1.27 .88

1.17

1.67

1.04

1.72

1.41

–rel

atio

n to

hum

an b

eing

(s)

(wea

k ve

rsus

str

ong)

–rel

atio

n to

land

scap

e(s)

(w

eak

vers

us s

tron

g)–r

elat

ion

to n

atur

e (w

eak

vers

us s

tron

g)–r

elat

ion

to p

lant

(s)

(wea

k ve

rsus

str

ong)

–res

olut

ion

(low

ver

sus

high

)–s

ize

(sm

all v

ersu

s la

rge)

–rel

atio

n to

win

e (w

eak

vers

us s

tron

g)Im

age

vers

us t

ypog

raph

y (im

age

only

ver

sus

text

onl

y)La

bel(s

)–a

mou

nt o

f de

tail

(sm

all v

ersu

s la

rge)

–deg

ree

stru

ctur

e (lo

w v

ersu

s hi

gh)

–ela

bora

tion

(pla

in v

ersu

s or

nate

)–f

ragm

enta

tion

(sin

gle

labe

l ver

sus

mul

tiple

labe

ls)

–qua

ntity

tex

t (s

mal

l ver

sus

larg

e)–o

rient

atio

n (h

oriz

onta

l ver

sus

vert

ical

)–s

hape

(ro

unde

d ve

rsus

ang

ular

)–s

urfa

ce a

rea

(littl

e ve

rsus

ext

ensi

ve c

over

age)

–sym

met

ry (

asym

met

rical

ver

sus

sym

met

rical

)N

eck

labe

l:pr

esen

ce (

wea

k ve

rsus

str

ong)

Orig

in in

form

atio

n:pr

esen

ce (

wea

k ve

rsus

str

ong)

Prim

ary

labe

l–f

inis

h (m

atte

ver

sus

glos

sy)

–mat

eria

l (co

mm

on v

ersu

s un

ique

)–p

ositi

on (

low

ver

sus

high

)–s

ize

(sm

all v

ersu

s la

rge)

–sur

face

tex

ture

(sm

ooth

ver

sus

text

ured

)Ty

pogr

aphy

–com

pres

sion

(co

nden

sed

vers

us e

xten

ded)

–ela

bora

tion

(pla

in v

ersu

s or

nate

)–f

lour

ishn

ess

(not

flo

uris

h ve

rsus

ver

y flo

uris

hy)

–har

mon

y (n

ot u

nifo

rm v

ersu

s un

iform

)–n

atur

alne

ss (

orga

nic

vers

us g

eom

etric

)–w

eigh

t (li

ght

vers

us h

eavy

)V

arie

tal n

ame:

pres

ence

(w

eak

vers

us s

tron

g)

2.78

2.64

3.36

2.67

3.92

4.09

3.50

4.23

4.08

4.33

4.21

2.89

3.45

3.93

4.83

4.26

4.66

3.18

4.05

3.08

3.87

3.43

4.28

3.12

3.87

3.96

3.69

4.38

3.89

3.85

4.33

1.78

1.65

1.82

1.68 .86

1.15

1.76

1.09

1.28 .78

1.34

1.71

1.10

1.38

1.30

1.25

1.12

1.53

1.39

1.16

1.19

1.07 .98

1.08 .84

1.12

1.08 .83

1.06 .81

1.24


Factors Elements Semantic Anchors Loadings

Natural Color schemeTypography

Bottle glass colorImages of nature

Images of landscapesImages of plantsImages of wine

Natural–not naturalOrganic–geometricNatural–not natural

Weak–strongWeak–strongWeak–strongWeak–strong

.885–.857–.783.765.670.647.539

Harmony Image contrastTypography

Color schemeImage resolution

Brand name/logo contrast

Low–highNot uniform–uniform

Inharmonious–harmoniousLow–highLow–high

–.851.781.686.653

–.618Elaborate Label degree of structure

Image amount of detailTypography

Label amount of detailLabel quantity textNumber of labels

LabelLabel shape

Low–highSmall–largePlain–ornateSmall–largeSmall–large

Single–multiplePlain–ornate

Rounded–angular

.811

.799

.703

.702

.684

.663

.662

.652Size Label size

Brand name/logo sizeImage size

Label coverageLabel orientation

Small–largeSmall–largeSmall–large

Little–extensiveHorizontal–vertical

.893

.891

.769

.764

.691Symmetry Label symmetry

Bottle symmetryBottle silhouetteLabel material

Bottle color

Asymmetrical–symmetricalAsymmetrical–symmetrical

Common–uniqueCommon–uniqueCommon–unique

.821

.754–.746–.661–.603

Compressed Label positionBrand name/logo location

Bottle neckTypography

Low–highLow–high

Short–longCondensed–extended

.821

.776–.712.631

Flourish Bottle lipTypography flourishness

Bottle reliefAwards presence

Adornment presenceNeck label presence

Closure presenceCapsule presence

Varietal name presence

Not at all–very much presentNot at all–very much flourishNot at all–very much present

Weak–strongWeak–strongWeak–strongWeak–strongWeak–strongWeak–strong

.837

.800

.797

.725

.662

.658

.653

.644

.569Weight Typography weight

Bottle heftBottle girthBottle sidesBottle body

Light–heavyLight–heavySmall–large

Straight–roundedShort–long

.746

.745

.663

.631–.613

Notes: Factor structures resulting from initial EFAs with Varimax rotation were confirmed through subsequent CFA.

TABLE 2EFA of the Design Elements

label position, brand name/logo location, bottle neck length,and condensed versus extended typography. It correlatedwith symmetry at only .181. “Flourish” comprised the pres-ence of lips, awards, closures, capsules, varietal names,adornments, reliefs, and neck labels, as well as typographyflourishness. The appearance that flourish and elaboratewould tap the same dimension is contradicted by a weakcorrelation at only .171. The final factor, “weight,” com-prised typography weight, bottle heft, girth, sides, and bot-tle body. These dimensions are also similar to design factorsand intermediate design characteristics established in previ-

ous studies. In particular, the factors flourish and weight(Henderson and Cote 1998; Henderson et al. 2003; Hender-son, Giese, and Cote 2004), size (Folkes and Matta 2004;Wansink 1996), and compressed (Henderson and Cote1998; Raghubir and Greenleaf 2006) appear in priorresearch. However, our results do not replicate the sharedproperties of symmetry and elaborate. Again, a CFA con-firmed the appropriateness of the factor structure (CFI =.803). Because orthogonal factor scores could be created,we used the EFA results for subsequent examinations of therelationships between design and response.


To determine which design factors significantly differ-entiated clusters, we used analysis of variance. In addition,we performed t-tests to determine what cluster-specific fac-tor scores were significantly smaller or greater than themean score across all clusters. Table 3 presents the resultsof these analyses, including example packages.

The first cluster, labeled “massive,” comprises 25 of the160 package designs. Design factors that differentiate thisholistic package design from others include above-averagesize, weight, and compressions and below-average natural,elaborate, and flourish. These factors capture broadergroupings of design elements that characterize the holistic

design type as one that can be best described as massive orrobust. Exemplary package designs include House Wine,Meditrina, and Wine by Joe. The second cluster, “contrast-ing,” is the smallest group in the sample, comprising 17package designs. Differentiating factors include below-average harmony, natural, flourish, and compressed. Thesefactors characterize the holistic package design as one thatstands in stark contrast to the harmony factor identified inprevious research. Exemplary contrasting designs includethe “critter labels” Yellow Tail and Bear Crossing and otherirregular designs, such as Ferngrove. The third cluster,“natural,” is the largest group in the sample, comprising 45

Holistic Design

Design FactorMassive(N = 25)

Contrasting(N = 17)

Natural(N = 45)

Delicate(N = 32)

Nondescript(N = 33)

SampleMean p

NaturalHarmonyElaborateSizeSymmetryCompressedFlourishWeight

2.17–

4.1903.10–

4.84+

3.1804.44+

2.61–

4.43+

2.58–

3.84–

4.0303.9903.3504.46+

2.90–

4.130

4.84+

5.03+

4.30+

4.0303.91+

3.8203.89+

3.880

2.14–

3.67–

4.60+

3.09–

3.4703.22–

3.91+

3.78–

2.32–

4.2203.43–

3.8903.72+

4.0103.6003.890

3.044.163.833.923.493.913.513.98

.001

.001

.001

.001

.003

.001

.001

.006

Examples

Notes: The superscript “+” indicates that the cluster mean scores were significantly greater (p < .01) than the pooled mean, and the superscript“–” indicates that the cluster means were significantly smaller than the pooled mean.

TABLE 3Holistic Package Designs and Differentiating Factors


package designs. Differentiation is achieved through above-average natural, harmony, elaborate, symmetry, and flour-ish. Overall, this holistic design can be described as natural,representative, or archetypical. Typical examples include“old-world” package designs, such as Chateau Lagarenne,but also packages from “new-world” companies, such asChateau Ste. Michelle and The Pines. The fourth cluster,“delicate,” comprises 32 package designs. Factors differen-tiating this holistic cluster from others include above-average elaborate and flourish and below-average natural,harmony, size, weight, and compressed. Overall, this proto-typical holistic design can be described as muted, sleek, anddelicate. Typical package designs in this group includeTravaglini, Mystic Wines, and Prinz von Hessen. The finalcluster, “nondescript,” comprises 33 package designs.Prominent within this holistic package design is the scarcityof outstanding design characteristics. Below-average naturaland elaborate and above-average symmetry differentiate thisdesign type from others. The main difference from the “deli-cate” cluster lies in the combination of design elements andfactors producing little differentiation rather than distinctlydelicate images. Package designs within this group can bedescribed as simple, clean, discrete, and transparent. Typicalpackage designs include Bierzo, Fusee, and Saint M.

Brand Impressions Responses

Brand personality data were analyzed through a CFA tocapture generalizable response dimensions (Aaker 1997).The analysis produced five factors that corresponded toAaker’s sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication,and ruggedness dimensions. The model fits the data reason-ably well (CFI = .93), and all factor loadings were accept-ably high (>.70). On the basis of these results, we used fivebrand personality dimensions to capture generalizableimpression responses. Table 4 shows descriptive results andexample designs. For example, Temptress received the low-est score on sincerity, and Sawtooth scored the highest onthis dimension. Similarly, Bierzo generated the lowest onexcitement, and Siskiyou’s Sideways generated the highest.

It might be argued that the information collected on tenadditional brand impressions was more wine specific;however, these responses are desirable for many productsand assist in differentiating not only food and beveragepackages but also products and packages such as fragrances,watches, and MP3 players. Because the goal of this researchis to show that prototypical holistic package designs arerelated to generalizable response dimensions, we examinedthe relationships between brand personality dimensions andthe managerially oriented brand impressions.

First, an EFA generated four managerially basedimpressions that loaded onto two factors, explaining 70.1%of the variance. Labeled “prestige,” the first factor com-prised stylish and impressive. The second factor, “inexpen-sive,” comprised everyday and cheap. We averaged itemscores for these factors, which resulted in a reduction of theoriginal ten managerially based impressions to eight.

Second, we performed five stepwise hierarchical regres-sion analyses with the managerially based impressions aspredictor variables, one each for the five brand personalitydimensions. The results indicate hierarchical relationships

between brand personality dimensions and manageriallybased impressions. They also indicate that much of theinformation captured by the managerially based impres-sions is represented in the brand personality dimensions.Overall, percentages of variance explained ranged from .31(ruggedness) to .88 (sophistication). For example, rugged-ness (F = 23.22) is a function of feminine (–.60), evokeshappy memories (.41), and inexpensive (.26). Sophistica-tion (F = 185.12) is a function of quality (.42), prestige(.38), feminine (.18), inexpensive (–.16), and healthy (.10).Although these findings indicate that the five brand person-ality dimensions may sufficiently represent the desired gen-eralizable response dimensions, we decided to include theeight managerially based impressions in further analysesbecause (1) retaining additional impressions that are basedon managerial language and thinking provides moredetailed insight into responses generated through packagedesigns and (2) it preserves the richness of the data, consid-ering that not all variance in the data is explained by thehierarchical relationships between brand personality dimen-sions and managerially based impressions. In addition,responses such as high quality, corporate, healthy, and valuefor money are desirable across many product categories andthus provide more generalizable insights.

Relationships Between Holistic Package Designsand Generalizable Response Dimensions

To show that generic holistic designs are associated withgeneralizable responses, we performed an analysis of vari-ance. We found differences in consumer responses to theholistic package designs for both brand personality andmanagerially based impressions (Table 5).

Massive package designs are associated with impres-sions of excitement and score low on competence andsophistication. Sincerity and ruggedness are only average.Consumers further perceive brands with massive packagesas low in quality, inexpensive, less healthy, and not classy.Contrasting package designs score high on excitement, lowon competence and sophistication, and average on sincerity.In contrast to massive designs, contrasting packages lead tostronger impressions of ruggedness. Other differentiatingimpressions include low quality, not feminine, and inexpen-sive. Natural designs generate impressions of sincerity,competence, and sophistication; they score low on excite-ment and average on ruggedness. Natural designs are per-ceived as high quality, feminine, healthy, and expensive buta good value for money, and they evoke happy memories.Delicate package designs score high on competence andsophistication, whereas sincerity, excitement, and rugged-ness responses are only average. Delicate designs furthergenerate impressions of high quality, classy, and expensive.Finally, nondescript designs score low on sincerity, excite-ment, and ruggedness and average on competence andsophistication. These designs further generate impressionsof corporate and little value for money and do not evokehappy memories.

Discussion of Findings

In previous research stages, we identified prototypicalholistic package designs and their relationships to general-


Factor Item Loading M (SD) Low Example High Example

Sincerity Down-to-earthHonest

WholesomeCheerful

.82

.89

.82

.74

3.01 (.89) Temptress(1.88)

Sawtooth(4.12)

Excitement DaringSpirited

ImaginativeUp-to-date

.89

.91

.89

.72

3.04 (1.04) Bierzo (1.82) SiskiyouSideways

(4.42)

Competence ReliableIntelligentSuccessful

.71

.89

.92

3.16 (.97) Punk Floyd(1.42)

ChateauLagarenne

(3.98)

Sophistication Upper classCharming

.85

.883.01 (1.03) House Wine

(1.97)Griffin Creek

(3.94)

Ruggedness OutdoorsyTough

.86

.892.34 (1.06) Bishop Creek

(1.38)Prosperity

Red (4.11)

TABLE 4CFA Results for Brand Personality Dimensions

izable response dimensions. Using wine as a carefullyselected example product, we determined a universe ofpackage design elements, selected representative designs as

stimuli, collected professionals’ ratings of package designelements, identified generalizable response dimensions, andassessed consumers’ design-evoked impressions. Cluster


TABLE 5Relationships Between Prototypical Holistic Package Designs and Generalizable Response Dimensions

Holistic Design

Response DimensionMassive(N = 25)

Contrasting(N = 17)

Natural(N = 45)

Delicate(N = 32)

Nondescript(N = 33)

SampleMean p

SincerityExcitementCompetenceSophisticationRuggednessMANOVA

2.963.21abc

2.77abc

2.69abc

2.28a

3.053.56adef

2.89def

2.72de

2.83abcd

3.18a

2.83bdg

3.35ad

3.22adf

2.31b

2.943.16egh

3.33be

3.17be

2.30c

2.86a

2.82cfh

3.17cf

2.96cf

2.21d

3.023.043.163.012.34

.006

.001

.001

.001

.001

.001

High qualityCorporateInexpensiveFeminineHappy memoriesHealthyPrestigeValue for moneyMANOVA

3.70abcd

3.20abcd

4.32abc

3.363.473.67a

3.81abcd

3.88

4.07aefg

3.78aef

4.04def

2.69a

3.523.744.11ae

4.12

4.86beh

4.15be

3.52ad

3.47a

3.80a

4.11ab

4.34b

4.15a

4.77cfi

4.10c

3.43be

3.103.523.994.45cef

4.05

4.44dghi

4.23df

3.65cf

3.103.27a

3.78b

4.12df

3.87a

4.473.963.723.213.543.904.214.02

.001

.001

.001

.020

.005

.003

.001

.028

.001

Notes: Values in bold distinguish the cluster in terms of emphasizing that dimension score to be significantly (p < .05) greater or smaller thanthe sample mean. Within each dimension, identical superscripts identify pairs of designs that score significantly (p < .05) different on thisfactor on the basis of a Scheffé post hoc test. MANOVA = multivariate analysis of variance.

analysis generated five holistic designs differentiated bydesign factors that were rooted in unique combinations ofpackage design elements. To capture the type of holisticdesign, we labeled these groups as massive, contrasting,natural, delicate, and nondescript. An analysis of variancelinked the prototypical holistic package designs to genericconsumer responses.

Overall, the results provide the desired empirical sup-port for holistic package designs rooted in unique combina-tions of design factors. They further indicate that packagedesign conveys a strategically valued set of brand impres-sions, analogous to how consumers infer impressions fromendorsers, advertising, and pricing. Associations betweentypes of designs and the resultant generic brand impressionsare distinctive, highlighting the holistic designs that firms,managers, and designers should consider for achieving spe-cific responses. However, because it could be argued thatour core findings apply only to the example product cate-gory, we extend the research to generate additional evidencefor the generalizability of our findings.

An Extension Beyond the WineProduct Category

To provide evidence that our research can be applied out-side the wine category, we replicated core parts of the origi-nal approach with fragrances. We selected this product cate-gory because (1) it meets the original requirements for thistype of research (i.e., package design elements common tomany other categories, availability of unfamiliar brands,package design creating impressions and driving consumerchoice, and large variance in designs and brand personali-ties), and (2) compared with wine, there are obvious differ-ences in the product category. Thus, a meaningful extensionof the research in the fragrances category will support the

existence of key types of holistic package design and theirsystematic relationships to generalizable brand impressions.

Stimuli and Evaluations

In contrast to the original procedure, we did not identifyindividual package design elements and assemble a pool ofrepresentative designs. Instead, we obtained a comprehen-sive list of fragrances (eaux de toilettes) from a leadingnational retailer. From this list of 446 designs, we obtaineda sample by randomly selecting 120 packages. Stimuli con-sisted of standardized high-resolution digital images pro-vided by the retailer.

We integrated these images into a PowerPoint presenta-tion for uniform display to ten professional designers whohad not participated in any of the previous studies. Thedesigners were paid to categorize each stimulus using thefive holistic package design types. They were briefed toensure that they understood the factors and elements under-lying each holistic design (see Table 2), and they wereasked to consider all options carefully before making adecision. If they were unable to assign a design to any ofthe five categories (i.e., massive, contrasting, natural, deli-cate, and nondescript), they were instructed to assign it to asixth “too hard/no good fit” category. On average, this tasktook the designers just over one hour for the initial rating. Inaddition, each professional reevaluated the resultant catego-rizations one more time three days later to ensure the relia-bility of the ratings.

Overall, the designers found the holistic design types tobe useful and appropriate for categorizing fragrances. With74 stimuli (61.7%), all ten designers unanimously agreedon the appropriate category; contrasting designs representedthe largest group (30.0%) and natural designs representedthe smallest group (10.0%) in the sample. In 17 cases inwhich at least one designer disagreed, the design was


assigned to the category agreed on by the majority ofjudges. Because the designers could easily assign all stimulito one or the other holistic type, we retained all stimuli forfurther analyses.

To measure design-evoked impressions, we conducted asurvey with a convenience sample of consumers who hadnot participated in the previous studies. Panel memberswere invited and paid to view the stimuli the designers eval-uated. As previously, participants controlled the speed ofviewing and completed the 15-item brand personality scaleand a measure of brand familiarity. Overall, we obtained17,460 usable impressions ratings from 108 respondents.

Analyses and Results

In our analyses of the fragrances data, we replicated theprocedures applied to the wine data. The unit of analyseswas the individual package designs (N = 120), and thevariables included 15 brand personality items (obtainedfrom consumers) and the type of holistic design (obtainedfrom professionals). In a few cases, average scores for theresponses were based on only nine individual ratingsbecause of data discarded as a result of consumer highfamiliarity with the brand. As previously, we analyzedbrand personality data through CFA, producing five factorsin line with Aaker’s (1997) scale (CFI = .94). On the basis

of these results, we averaged item scores to produce fiveuniversal brand personality dimensions. To assess the rela-tionships between holistic package designs and the general-izable responses captured by the brand personality dimen-sions, we employed an analysis of variance. Table 6 showssignificant differences in all response dimensions, as gener-ated by the holistic design types; it also shows some exam-ples. For fragrances, massive packages are associated withbelow-average impressions of excitement and sophisticationand above-average ruggedness. Contrasting packages gen-erate impressions of excitement along with high ruggednessand low competence. Natural designs appear sincere andsophisticated. Delicate designs are associated with compe-tence, sophistication, and low ruggedness. Nondescriptdesigns are associated with low sincerity, low excitement,and low ruggedness.

General Discussion

Managerial Implications: Guidelines forDeveloping and Modifying Package Designs

Note that the five types of holistic package designs may notbe exhaustive (all inclusive), and other sources may existfor stimulating more specific brand impressions. However,

Notes: Values in bold distinguish the cluster in terms of emphasizing that dimension score to be significantly (p < .05) greater or smaller thanthe sample mean. Within each dimension, identical superscripts identify pairs of designs that score significantly (p < .05) different on thisfactor on the basis of a Scheffé post hoc test.

TABLE 6Prototypical Holistic Package Designs and Impressions for Fragrances

Holistic Design

Response DimensionMassive(N = 27)

Contrasting(N = 36)

Natural(N = 12)

Delicate(N = 19)

Nondescript(N = 26)

SampleMean p

SincerityExcitementCompetenceSophisticationRuggedness

2.17a

2.53abc

2.88ab

2.51abc

3.09abc

2.11b

3.48adef

2.62acd

2.95ad

2.91de

2.98abc

2.82bdg

2.75e

3.07bef

2.72afg

2.103.02ceh

3.18bcef

3.29cdeg

2.14bdf

2.03c

2.40fgh

2.87df

2.70fg

2.41ceg

2.202.892.842.862.70

.001

.001

.001

.001

.001


analogous to how the brand personality concept assistsfirms in brand positioning and differentiation, our holisticdesign types assist companies in more confidently usingpackage design for conveying brand impressions.

First, managers can better communicate their packagedesign needs using the taxonomy of the five types of holis-tic designs. Given the myriad design elements relevant indifferent contexts and settings and considering that fewmanagers have design experience, it appears particularlyuseful that packages can be described by five holistic designtypes that plausibly exist for a wide range of products.Table 7 offers potential examples for massive, contrasting,natural, delicate, and nondescript package designs for vary-ing product categories, including cereal, detergents, softdrinks, soups, and tea. Extending our research from pack-ages to products, Table 7 also offers product design exam-ples from other categories. We show prototypical designsfor eyewear, casual shoes, MP3 players, and watches. Inany case, the ability to describe design using a taxonomy ofunderstandable holistic types is important because itenables managers to communicate better with designers. Itprovides the shared vocabulary, associations, and conven-tions that are so eloquently called for in previous research(McCracken 1986; Mick 1986).

Second, because our research shows that holistic pack-age designs vary greatly in the generic response dimensionsthey create, companies can more accurately create brandpersonality impressions using holistic designs. Ultimately,design-evoked impressions should translate into gains inbrand strength and equity. Initially, managers need to deter-mine which impressions are desirable for their brand.Appropriate designs can then be created to achieve thesedesired responses. Our findings provide guidance on thisissue by establishing systematic relationships between typesof holistic package designs and generic response dimen-sions. Across most comparisons in Tables 5 and 6, thepattern of elicited responses (i.e., whether a design typegenerates below-average, above-average, or just averageimpressions) varied for fragrances and wine, thus indicatingproduct category effects analogous to category-specific dif-ferences in types of brand personalities. A rugged winebrand is clearly related to impressions other than those for arugged brand of fragrances. However, several design-response relationships appear to be robust across productcategories. For example, massive designs are associatedwith low sophistication and average sincerity; contrastingdesigns generate high excitement, high ruggedness, lowcompetence, and average sincerity; and natural designs con-vey sincerity and sophistication but only average rugged-ness. Accordingly, managers interested in sincerity maywant to consider natural designs because these tend to ratehigh on sincerity, though such designs do not guarantee per-ceived sincerity (e.g., if done poorly, if they interact nega-tively with some product categories), and there may beother, more specific means of stimulating perceived sincer-ity, such as a photo of the company’s founder or familymembers. Given the occasional design–message variance,in some circumstances, the brand personality dimensioncommunicated by a given holistic design might vary acrossproduct categories, even though the message is likely to be

constant in most cases. Given consumer systematicresponses to holistic designs, marketers should adopt aproactive approach and consider how they want consumersto perceive a brand. Rather than leaving impressions tochance, research with target consumers using preproduc-tion package prototypes or illustrations can then deter-mine whether a design will actually evoke the desiredimpressions.

Third, despite the previously discussed trade-offs inimpressions evoked by a holistic design type, designershave flexibility in creating appropriate packages. Our find-ings that holistic designs are characterized by generalizabledesign factors that, in turn, are rooted in specific design ele-ments enable designers to achieve managerial objectivesthrough various means, allowing them significant latitudefor creativity. For example, Tables 3 and 4 show that adesign could be massive because it has large, vertically ori-ented labels; large logos and images; and expansive surfaceareas. A wine package does not need to have all these char-acteristics to be perceived as massive, meaning that design-ers and managers have considerable leeway in how theyaccomplish such a holistic package design.

Finally, our findings indicate that holistic designs areuseful in identifying visual competitors; packages within aholistic design type appear similar to consumers. Thus,managerial insight into which design group a firm’s pack-age and competing packages fall will improve brand posi-tioning and package design selection. Related to the ques-tion of differentiating versus copying brands, prior researchshows that clusters of similar alternatives commonlyincrease choice of alternatives of this type, according towhat is called (positive) cluster effects or (negative) lone-alternative effects (Glazer, Kahn, and Moore 1991; Siva-kumar 1995). Under some circumstances, however, clustereffects are negative (Brenner, Rottenstreich, and Sood1999). Sood, Rottenstreich, and Brenner (2004) reconcilethe effects by showing that cluster effects are positive whena person simply chooses an alternative from the availableset but are negative when a person first chooses his or herpreferred option within the clustered set and then choosesbetween that alternative and the otherwise lone alternative.Accordingly, clusters of similar package designs (visualcompetitors) might produce a general negative cluster effectand/or a positive lone-alternative effect, such that productsperceived as being the same on substantive dimensions butoffer unique designs are more likely to be chosen becauseof their unique packages (i.e., uniqueness on brand productfeatures might be more of a general negative than unique-ness on design dimensions).

Theoretical Implications

By identifying prototypical holistic package designs andtheir underlying design factors and by establishing relation-ships between design types and generic response dimen-sions, this research makes several contributions to the litera-ture on design and brand management. First, in line withGestalt psychology, design processing theory, and empiricalresearch on package design elements, we confirm thatdesign elements are perceived as and organized into morecomplex design dimensions. The existence of such general-


TABLE 7Examples from Other Product Categories

Holistic Design

Product Category Massive Contrasting Natural Delicate Nondescript

Cereal

Detergents

Soft drinks

Soups

Tea

Extension toProduct Designs

Holistic Design

Massive Contrasting Natural Delicate Nondescript

Eyewear

Casual shoes

MP3 players

Watches


izable design factors that capture the essence of underlyingdesign characteristics has been postulated in design pro-cessing theories (Geistfeld, Sproles, and Badenhop 1977;Veryzer 1999) and has been empirically verified in studieson selected package design elements, such as logos andtypeface (Henderson and Cote 1998; Henderson et al. 2003;Henderson, Giese, and Cote 2004). However, our study isthe first to assemble a universe of package design elementssystematically and to trace how prototypical holistic pack-age designs are rooted in generalizable design factors con-sisting of these elements.

Second, this research extends prior theorizing andempirical work by identifying not only factors of design butalso holistic package designs as key types of visual stimulirepresenting generic classes or categories. The concept ofholistic package design is important from the perspectivesof both Gestalt psychology (Wertheimer 1925) and percep-tual fluency (Janiszewski and Meyvis 2001). In addition,we add a new perspective to the discussion on part–wholedistinctions. A person may comprehend the form of a pack-age as a complete entity or as a collection of shapes, colors,typography, images, and add-ons. Durgee (1988) suggeststhat reactions to forms are based on atomistic perceptions.Accordingly, consumers might attend to individual designelements and the fit among them. Complex designs andthose with conflicting elements tend to elicit the most elab-orate cognitive processing (Schoormans and Robben 1997).For example, seeing the contrasting design of a Scion xBmight inspire consumers to try to understand which charac-teristics might be present in this car, which is sharp edgedand different from most other cars. Although our researchdoes not actually demonstrate the independence ofpart–whole perception, it suggests that the role of Gestaltprocessing is important in how consumers perceive andrespond to package designs. The package may first be per-ceived as a whole, and if the initial evaluation of the holisticdesign warrants further processing, individual design ele-ments may become salient. Thus, a consumer encounteringan Apple iPod might first consider the object in its entirety.Consumers who find the design sufficiently engaging mightfurther attempt to analyze the appearance of the MP3player. They might then process specific design elements,such as silhouette, scale, color scheme, and proportions,individually when contemplating the design.

Finally, the evidence we present strongly argues for theimportance of examining package design as a means forgenerating brand impressions. To date, anecdotal evidencesuggests that designers choose visual elements to generatebrand associations, and the literature has documented frag-mented evidence for several specific impressions generatedby a particular package (Batra and Homer 2004; Forty1992; Underwood 2003). Our research advances theory bydemonstrating that prototypical holistic designs are system-atically related to generalizable response dimensions. Weare not aware of any study that has attempted to examinethis issue of relationships between holistic package designand generic responses, probably because of the complexityinvolved. Although our results support the links identified inexisting research, they also highlight the limitations ofunderlying theories. In particular, none of the current design

theories are fully supported by our results because they donot extend beyond the identification of specific design ele-ments or factors as contributors to brand impressions. Noaesthetics or design theory considers more than one of thedimensions of design, and none address the importance ofholistic design types. These theories also do not considergeneralizable responses. As our results show, the influenceof specific design elements and factors varies by holistictype. This implies a more complex relationship betweendesign and responses than previously reported. Thus, noexisting theory appears to be adequate for explainingrelationships between design dimensions and consumerresponses. Consistent with prior work (Henderson, Giese,and Cote 2004), this recognition is especially importantbecause most marketing research is theory driven, butempirical results suggest that there is no good theory whenit comes to aesthetics.

Study Limitations and Further Research

Although our research offers valuable implications forresearchers and practitioners, it also has limitations thatmerit attention. Most important, we examine two types ofproducts: wines and fragrances. Studying design is intrin-sically difficult because important design elements anddimensions depend to some extent on the product and con-text being studied. It cannot be excluded that effect sizeschange for products with vastly different package designs(e.g., packages of toothpaste or mouthwash may be moreimportant in the purchase decision than a shoe box) or thatdifferences occur as a result of different relative salienciesof brand impressions (e.g., the role of functional, symbolic,and experiential benefits in brand choice). However, priorresearch has identified generalizable design elements, fac-tors, and relationships to responses that extend beyond aspecific context (Henderson and Cote 1998; Henderson etal. 2003; Henderson, Giese, and Cote 2004). We addressedthis context limitation throughout the article, specifically byshowing that generalizable holistic package designs arerelated to generalizable response dimensions. The productschosen for our research might reduce effect sizes andimpose limitations on how far the guidelines can beextended. However, these limitations should not be moresignificant than they are in any other study in which con-sumer responses are examined with a few examples andconclusions are extended to many types of products (e.g.,when a single product is used for examining advertisingelements).

Along similar lines, external validity concerns requiremore attention. Although our study improves on priorresearch through use of a controlled environment and con-sumer samples, a better understanding of how the focalvariables interact with other variables is necessary. Findingsfrom our single-country setting and a specific set of con-sumers may vary as a result of cultural context (Hendersonet al. 2003) and centrality of visual stimulation versus othersenses (Bloch, Brunel, and Arnold 2003). First, our researchemployed a sample of U.S. consumers. Although the sam-ple was diverse in terms of ethnicity, age, and socioeco-nomic status, employing a sample with a different culturalbackground may result in different outcomes. Prior research


has established that cultural dimensions influence the waypeople perceive and respond to different forms of design,particularly the brand impressions formed on the basis ofthe package (Aaker, Benet-Martinez, and Garolera 2001).Thus, a person’s cultural background may influence theresponses generated by a holistic package design, as well asother responses relevant to marketers.

Second, further research is needed to improve theunderstanding of a design’s influence on consumerresponses. Following approaches established in experimen-tal aesthetics (Seifert 1992), we conducted analyses at thestimulus level rather than at the consumer level. Futurestudies could apply and extend the findings to include per-sonality traits, particularly Bloch, Brunel, and Arnold’s(2003) centrality of visual product aesthetics (CVPA). Thus,consumer segments could be identified according to theirlevel of response to package design. Additional research isneeded to determine the impact of CVPA on the extent ofimpression transfer from package to brand and its impact onthe various responses and behaviors studied in marketing.Follow-up studies could replicate the analyses for groups ofpeople who score either low or high on the CVPA scale. Itis possible that individual differences occur in responses toholistic package designs and, consequently, differences inimpressions evoked.

Third, several of the design elements and dimensionswe included in this study not only influence brand impres-sions but simultaneously affect processing fluency (Reber,Schwarz, and Winkielman 2004), thus influencing brandrecognition and recall (Janiszweski and Meyvis 2001).

Future studies could determine the relationships betweendesign-related processing fluency and brand impressions todevelop guidelines for creating package designs that notonly evoke generalizable brand impressions but also arehigh in visual fluency, thus aiding brand recognition andrecall during consumer purchase processes.

Finally, the notion that design adds value to productsimplies that some consumers may be willing to pay a pricepremium for appealing designs (Bloch 1995; Borja deMozota 2003). Brand impressions such as value for money,inexpensive, prestigious, and high quality appear to beclosely related to perceptions of monetary value. Given pre-vious findings that consumers develop price expectationsfor a product and then use this price to evaluate the product(Jun, MacInnis, and Park 2005), further research couldinvestigate how package design influences consumer priceperceptions. Specifically, information on which designdimensions contribute to price discrepancies (upward ordownward differences between the prices consumers expectto pay versus the actual price) would help marketers bettermatch design-evoked price expectations to actual prices,thus avoiding unfavorable expectation–disconfirmationeffects.

In summary, this research speaks widely to the diversecommunity involved in package design, execution, and con-sumption. Although our findings might raise a new set ofquestions, we believe that meaningful answers have beenprovided, benefiting both future design activities andresearch.

REFERENCESAaker, David A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity. New York: The

Free Press.Aaker, Jennifer L. (1997), “Dimensions of Brand Personality,”

Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (August), 347–56.——— (1999), “Brand Personality: A Path to Differentiation,” in

Brands Face the Future, Rory Morgan, ed. New York:Research International, 13–21.

———, Veronica Benet-Martinez, and Jordi Garolera (2001),“Consumption Symbols as Carriers of Culture: A Study ofJapanese and Spanish Brand Personality Constructs,” Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 81 (3), 492–508.

———, Susan Fournier, and Brasel S. Adam (2004), “When GoodBrands Do Bad,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (1), 1–16.

Batra, Rajeev and Pamela Miles Homer (2004), “The SituationalImpact on Brand Image Beliefs,” Journal of Consumer Psy-chology, 14 (3), 318–30.

———, D.R. Lehmann, and D. Singh (1993), “The Brand Person-ality Component of Brand Goodwill: Some Antecedents andConsequences,” in Brand Equity and Advertising, D.A. Aakerand A. Biel, eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,83–96.

Belk, Russell W. (1988), “Possessions and the Extended Self,”Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (2), 139–60.

Berkowitz, Marvin (1987), “The Influence of Shape on ProductPreferences,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 14,Melanie Wallendorf and Paul F. Anderson, eds. Provo, UT:Association for Consumer Research, 573.

Berlyne, D.E. (1971), Aesthetics and Psychobiology. New York:Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Bloch, Peter H. (1995), “Seeking the Ideal Form: Product Designand Consumer Response,” Journal of Marketing, 59 (July),16–29.

———, Frederic F. Brunel, and Todd J. Arnold (2003), “Individ-ual Differences in the Centrality of Visual Product Aesthetics:Concept and Measurement,” Journal of Consumer Research,29 (March), 551–65.

Borja de Mozota, Brigitte (2003), Design Management: UsingDesign to Build Brand Value and Corporate Innovation. NewYork: Allworth Press.

Brenner, Lyle, Yuval Rottenstreich, and Sanjay Sood (1999),“Comparison, Grouping, and Preference,” Psychological Sci-ence, 10 (May), 225–29.

Caldewey, Jeffrey and Chuck House (2003), Icon: Art of the WineLabel. San Francisco: The Wine Appreciation Guild.

Caputo, Tina (2005), “The Repackaging of Fetzer,” Wines & Vines,86 (5), 20–25.

Carpenter, Patricia A. and Akira Miyake (1995), “Language Com-prehension: Sentence and Discourse Processing,” AnnualReview of Psychology, 46, 91–120.

Durgee, Jeffrey F. (1988), “Product Drama,” Journal of Advertis-ing, 17 (February–March), 42–49.

Elliott, Richard L. and Kritsadarat Wattanasuwan (1998), “Brandsas Symbolic Resources for the Construction of Identity,” Inter-national Journal of Advertising, 17 (2), 131–44.

Folkes, Valerie and Shashi Matta (2004), “The Effect of PackageShape on Consumers’ Judgments of Product Volume: Attentionas a Mental Contaminant,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), 390–401.

Forty, Adrian (1992), Objects of Desire. London: Thames andHudson.


Fournier, Susan (1998), “Consumers and Their Brands: Develop-ing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research,” Journal ofConsumer Research, 24 (4), 343–73.

Garber, Lawrence L., Raymond R. Burke, and J. Morgan Jones(2000), “The Role of Package Color in Consumer PurchaseConsideration and Choice,” Marketing Science Institute ReportNo. 00-104.

———, Eva M. Hyatt, and Richard G. Starr (2000), “The Effectsof Food Color on Perceived Flavor,” Journal of MarketingTheory and Practice, 8 (4), 59–72.

Geistfeld, Loren V., George B. Sproles, and Suzanne B. Badenhop(1977), “The Concept and Measurement of a Hierarchy ofProduct Characteristics,” in Advances in Consumer Research,Vol. 4, William D. Perreault Jr., ed. Atlanta: Association forConsumer Research, 302–307.

Glazer, Rashi, Barbara E. Kahn, and William L. Moore (1991),“The Influence of External Constraints on Brand Choice: TheLone-Alternative Effect,” Journal of Consumer Research, 18(June), 119–27.

Grammer, Karl and Randy Thornhill (1994), “Human (Homo sapi-ens) Facial Attractiveness and Sexual Selection: The Role ofSymmetry and Averageness,” Journal of Comparative Psychol-ogy, 108 (3), 233–42.

Henderson, Pamela W. and Joseph A. Cote (1998), “Guidelines forSelecting or Modifying Logos,” Journal of Marketing, 62(April), 14–30.

———, ———, Siew Meng Leong, and Bernd Schmitt (2003),“Building Strong Brands in Asia: Selecting the Visual Compo-nents of Image to Maximize Brand Strength,” InternationalJournal of Research in Marketing, 20 (4), 297–313.

———, Joan L. Giese, and Joseph A. Cote (2004), “ImpressionManagement Using Typeface Design,” Journal of Marketing,68 (October), 60–72.

Hertenstein, Julie H., Marjorie B. Platt, and Robert W. Veryzer(2005), “The Impact of Industrial Design Effectiveness on Cor-porate Financial Performance,” Journal of Product InnovationManagement, 2 (1), 3–21.

Hirschman, Elisabeth (1986), “The Effect of Verbal and PictorialAdvertising Stimuli on Aesthetic, Utilitarian and FamiliarityPerceptions,” Journal of Advertising, 15 (2), 27–34.

Holbrook, Morris B. (1986), “Aims, Concepts, and Methods forthe Representation of Individual Differences in EstheticResponses to Design Features,” Journal of ConsumerResearch, 13 (3), 337–47.

Janiszewski, Chris and Tom Meyvis (2001), “Effects of BrandLogo Complexity, Repetition, and Spacing on Processing Flu-ency and Judgment,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (1),18–32.

Johar, Venkataramani Gita, Jaideep Sengupta, and Jennifer L.Aaker (2005), “Two Roads to Updating Brand PersonalityImpressions: Trait Versus Evaluative Inferencing,” Journal ofMarketing Research, 72 (November), 458–69.

Jun, Sung Youl, Deborah J. MacInnis, and C. Whan Park (2005),“Formation of Price Expectation in Brand Extensions andImpact on Brand Extension Evaluation,” in Advances in Con-sumer Research, Vol. 32, Geeta Menon and Akshay Rao, eds.Valdosta, GA: Association for Consumer Research, 137–42.

Keller, Kevin L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Man-aging Customer-Based Brand Equity,” Journal of Marketing,57 (January), 1–22.

——— (2003), “Brand Synthesis: The Multidimensionality ofBrand Knowledge,” Journal of Consumer Research, 29(March), 595–600.

Koffka, Kurt (1922), “Perception: An Introduction to the Gestalt-Theories,” Psychological Bulletin, 19 (October), 531–85.

Kunst-Wilson, W.R and R.B. Zajonc (1980), “Affective Discrimi-nation of Stimuli that Cannot Be Recognized,” Science, 207(4430), 557–58.

Lawson, Bryan (1983), How Designers Think. Westfield, NJ: East-view Editions.

Lewicki, Pawel (1986), Nonconscious Information Processing.New York: Academic Press.

Loken, Barbara and James Ward (1990), “Alternative Approachesto Understanding the Determinants of Typicality,” Journal ofConsumer Research, 17 (September), 111–26.

Mackay, Jordan (2005), “Labels Should Convey Both Style andSubstance,” Wines & Vines, 86 (5), 96.

McCracken, Grant (1986), “Culture and Consumption: A Theo-retical Account of the Structure and Movement of CulturalMeaning of Consumer Goods,” Journal of Consumer Research,13 (1), 71–84.

Mick, David Glen (1986), “Consumer Research and Semiotics:Exploring the Morphology of Signs, Symbols, and Signifi-cance,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (2), 196–212.

Orth, Ulrich R. (2005), “Consumer Personality and Other Factorsin Situational Brand Choice Variation,” Journal of Brand Man-agement, 13 (2), 115–33.

———, Marianne McGarry Wolf, and Tim Dodds (2005),“Dimensions of Wine Region Equity and Their Impact on Con-sumer Preferences,” Journal of Product and Brand Manage-ment, 14 (2), 88–97.

Pepper, S.C. (1949), Principles of Art Appreciation. New York:Harcourt, Brace and World.

Quester, Pascale G. and Justin Smart (1998), “The Influence ofConsumption Situation and Product Involvement Over Con-sumers’ Use of Product Attributes,” Journal of Consumer Mar-keting, 15 (3), 220–38.

Raghubir, Priya and Eric A. Greenleaf (2006), “Ratios in Propor-tion: What Should the Shape of the Package Be?” Journal ofMarketing, 70 (April), 95–107.

——— and Aradhna Krishna (1993), “Vital Dimensions in Vol-ume Perception: Can the Eye Fool the Stomach?” Journal ofMarketing Research, 36 (August), 313–26.

Reber, Rolf, Norbert Schwarz, and Piotr Winkielman (2004), “Pro-cessing Fluency and Aesthetic Pleasure: Is Beauty in the Per-ceiver’s Processing Experience?” Personality and Social Psy-chology Review, 8 (4), 364–82.

Rettie, Ruth and Carol Bruwer (2000), “The Verbal and VisualComponents of Package Design,” Journal of Product andBrand Management, 9 (1), 56–70.

Schmitt, Bernd H. and Alex Simonson (1995), “Managing Corpo-rate Image and Identity,” Long Range Planning, 28 (5), 82–92.

Schoormans, Jan P.L. and Henry S.J. Robben (1997), “The Effectof New Package Design on Product Attention, Categorizationand Evaluation,” Journal of Economic Psychology, 18 (2–3),271–87.

Seifert, Lauren Sue (1992), “Experimental Aesthetics: Implica-tions for Aesthetic Education of Naïve Art Observers,” Journalof Psychology, 126 (1), 73–78.

Sirgy, M. Joseph (1982), “Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior: ACritical Review,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (3),287–300.

Sivakumar, K. (1995), “Role of Price and Quality Tiers on theCluster Effect in Brand Choice,” Marketing Letters, 6 (Octo-ber), 265–73.

Sood, Sanjay, Yuval Rottenstreich, and Lyle Brenner (2004), “OnDecisions that Lead to Decisions: Direct and Derived Evalua-tions of Preference,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (June),17–25.

Sung, Yongjun and Spencer F. Tinkham (2005), “Brand Personal-ity Structures in the United States and Korea: Common andCulture-Specific Factors,” Journal of Consumer Psychology,15 (4), 334–50.

Sweeney, Jillian C. and Carol Brandon (2006), “Brand Personal-ity: Exploring the Potential to Move from Factor-Analytical toCircumplex Models,” Psychology & Marketing, 23 (8),639–63.


Underwood, Robert L. (2003), “The Communicative Power ofProduct Packaging: Creating Brand Identity via Lived andMediated Experience,” Journal of Marketing Theory and Prac-tice, 9 (Winter), 62–76.

——— and Noreen M. Klein (2002), “Packaging as Brand Com-munication: Effects of Product Pictures on ConsumerResponses to the Package and Brand,” Journal of MarketingTheory and Practice, 10 (4), 58–68.

——— and Julie L. Ozanne (1998), “Is Your Package an EffectiveCommunicator? A Normative Framework for Increasing theCommunicative Competence of Packaging,” Journal of Mar-keting Communication, 4 (4), 207–220.

Vernadakis, George (2000), “What the ‘Bug’ Can Teach Gates:Brand Personality Goes a Long Way,” Advertising Age, 71 (27),48.

Veryzer, Robert W. (1999), “A Nonconscious Processing Explana-tion of Consumer Response to Product Design,” Psychologyand Marketing, 16 (6), 497–522.

——— and J. Wesley Hutchinson (1998), “The Influence of Unityand Prototypicality on Aesthetic Responses to New ProductDesigns,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (March), 374–94.

Wansink, Brian (1996), “Can Package Size Accelerate Usage Vol-ume?” Journal of Marketing, 60 (July), 1–14.

Wertheimer, Max (1925), “Untersuchungen zur Lehre von derGestalt: II (Investigations in Gestalt Theory: II),” Psychologis-che Forschung, 4 (2), 301–350.

Yang, Sha and Priya Raghubir (2005), “Can Bottles Speak Vol-umes? The Effect of Package Shape on How Much to Buy,”Journal of Retailing, 81 (4), 269–81.

ulrich r. orth & keven malkewitz holistic package design and … · 2014-09-09 · holistic...

Documents