Download The Multiple Role of Packaging in the Entire Marketing Process

International Journal of Management and Administrative Sciences (IJMAS)
(ISSN: 2225-7225)
Vol. 1, No. 4, January, 2012(1-10)
www.ijmas.org
The Multiple Role of Packaging in the Entire Marketing Process (Manufacturer
Perspective).
B. E. A. Oghojafor (Lead Author)
Professor, Department of Business Administration
University of Lagos, Akoka, Yaba,
Lagos, Nigeria.
P. K. A. Ladipo (Ph.D.)
Department of Business Administration
University of Lagos
Akoka, Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria
T. O. Olufayo
Department of Business Administration
University of Lagos
Akoka, Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria
ABSTRACT
Packaging tends to suffer the problem of being viewed to majorly function purely as a
container and hence ordained to fulfill the purpose of containerization in the entire marketing
process. This article, contrary to this view, attempts to present the position that packaging
functions far beyond the purpose of containerization, and has evolved in the recent past to
serve the interests of the principal actors in the market-place. The principal actors include: [i]
the manufacturer; [ii] the intermediaries’ and the ultimate consumers. For the manufacturers it
has become an instrument for product differentiation market segmentation, product branding;
and for salesmanship. For the middlemen, it has become an effective tool in achieving optimum
use of space efficient use of shelf-space in preventing inventory losses and pilferage. For the
consumers, packaging has attempted to serve their informational, promotional and
convenience needs.
Keywords: Product packaging, market segmentation, branding, distribution, middlemen,
consumer.
INTRODUCTION
This article discusses the multiple role of packaging with a view to provide an exposition of the vital
importance of packaging in the entire marketing process.
Problem
Packaging tends to suffer the problem of being viewed to majorly functions as a container, and hence
ordained to fulfill the purpose of containerization in the entire marketing process.
Objective[s]
The objective of this article is to present the position that packaging functions far beyond the purpose of
containerization, and has evolved in the recent past to serve the interests of the principal actors in the market
place. These principal actors include; the producers, intermediaries and consumers. This role is discussed
from the perspectives of the manufacturer.
1
Copyright ©Pakistan Society of Business and Management Research
International Journal of Management and Administrative Sciences (IJMAS)
(ISSN: 2225-7225)
Vol. 1, No. 4, January, 2012(1-10)
www.ijmas.org
DEFINITION OF PACKAGING
Packaging is defined as an element of the marketing-mix whose functions in marketing fundamentally
lie/hinge on serving the interests of the marketing process through the media of the manufacturer,
intermediaries and the consumer (Kotler and Keller, 2006). The role is fundamentally discussed in relation to
fast moving convenience packaged goods or products. In accordance with the above definition efforts are
directed toward an examination of the various means by which this element of the marketing-mix identifies
itself with the interests of the three principal actors in the entire marketing process.
PACKAGING AND THE MANUFACTURER
Competition seems an inevitable phenomenon in both the industrial and consumer product markets of
modern economy. The inevitability of competition in any given market may be explained in part by the
conversion of the seller’s market into the buyer’s market and because of government’s intervention to ensure
a healthy marketing environment which is far removed from unbalanced and unfair forms of competition
which may eventuate the elimination from the market place of the more efficient manufacturers with the
concomitant establishment of a monopoly market situation for the less efficient producers.
Paradoxically, competition is by itself an opportunity and a barrier in marketing. Marketing success usually
depends on the skill with which a firm or manufacturer succeeds in creating a competitive advantage.
Marketing failures are similarly the results of competitors’ superior accomplishments. To the marketers,
competition is fundamentally a struggle for the share of the market in which they operate. The attainment of
market share, its defense, and/or its increase or growth is of major interests to manufacturers. Because the
goals of most marketing firms are closely tied to survival and growth which in turn depend upon the
maintenance and increase of market share, the manufacturer seems to employ three fundamental techniques
of competition in order to ensure survival and growth of the firm. The techniques include: (i) price
competition, (ii) indirect price competition, and (iii) non-price competition.
By price competition, we mean the strategic use of price by manufacturers or marketers to struggle for
market share. This strategy is often in the form of price reductions in order to attract customers for the
purpose of increasing sales. Because price reductions may easily be met by other competitors, the
consequence of this strategy is often a decline in revenue and a little change in market share for the
competing firms. And where a manufacturer is unable to sufficiently cover costs to remain in business, his
business may hence fold up.
Because of these reasons, price-reduction as a marketing strategy is hazardous and, where possible, is
avoided. Indirect price competition refers to a competitive situation in which a seller offers customers a
benefit that does not take an outright price concession but has much the same economic effect. This
marketing strategy may assume either of the following dimensions: (i) advertising allowances, (ii) dealer
training programmes, and (iii) free merchandising services. Such benefits may be offered by several
competing firms. However, in some cases a seller may not be in a position to offer comparable indirect price
benefits; the firm that is able to do so may hence be described as having a corresponding competitive
advantage. For instance, a manufacturer with a broad line of frozen-food products may afford to deliver
directly to large customers by combining orders for several products into a single truckload. A one-product
firm may not do this.
However, non-price competition means all efforts to increase and maintain market share other than by price
changes and indirect price concessions. This definition is broad and espouses hundreds of specific methods of
increasing a manufacturer’s sales. These methods include: (i) merchandizing, (ii) advertising, (iii) personal
selling, (iv) sales promotion and (v) packaging. A casual observation of marketing practices in developed
economies seems to suggest that non-price techniques are extensively used.
The wide extent of product, service, and enterprise differentiation suggests that all manufacturers or
marketing practitioners eagerly search for means and methods of competing on the basis of differentiated
offerings. Accordingly, this article examines the role of packaging in product differentiation and the
implications of this for product quality judgment or perception.
2
Copyright ©Pakistan Society of Business and Management Research
International Journal of Management and Administrative Sciences (IJMAS)
(ISSN: 2225-7225)
Vol. 1, No. 4, January, 2012(1-10)
www.ijmas.org
PACKAGING AND PRODUCT DIFFERENTIATION
Product differentiation evolves, out of the struggle for survival and growth on the part of the competing
manufacturers. Many marketing strategies fundamentally tend to derive from severe pressures of
competition amongst marketers in the same market. Thus, product differentiation may be viewed as a
marketing strategy whose function is perhaps to insulate a manufacturer or marketer (to some extent)
against the pressures of competition, and packaging is an obvious method of achieving this.
According to Kazimiski (1997) product differentiation is defined as the art of making one manufacturer’s
product easily distinguishable from other products in the same category. As Ogilvy (1979) puts it: “The
greater the similarity between products, the less part reasons play in brand selection”. It is, however, obvious
that in many instances the only way of telling the difference between brands is by their packaging rather than
by their contents. Packaging has inevitably assumed a role vital in creating product identity and has become
an integral part of the marketing of most new and redesigned products. That packaging may be used by a
manufacturer to distinguish his product or a line of products from those of his competitors is made possible
by the various elements of packaging. These elements include: (i) package colour, (ii) package size or shape,
(iii) graphic illustration, (iv) package design, and (v) package copy.
According to Standt, Taylor and Bowerson (1998), product differentiation may assume any of the following
dimensions:
- Physical differentiation of product
- Psychological differentiation of product
- Differences in the purchase environment
- Differences by virtue of physical distribution capability
- Differences in after-purchase assurance of satisfaction in use
- Differences in price and terms of sale.
The importance of packaging hence lies in the province of psychological differentiation of products which
depends on the proper use of the elements of packaging. Jeyes (now part of Cadbury/Schweppes) who, in
competition with Lever Brothers, Reckitt and Colman, and Johnson’s Wax, produces and markets a range of
cleaning and disinfecting fluids, and kitchen and bathroom products, is documented as having successfully
differentiated their range of products from those of their competitors by means of colour coding and common
design themes.
The Yellow Can Company, a subsidiary of Aerosol International similarly employed a strong colour coding
concept and a distinctive packaging design to differentiate their range of products from those of their
competitors. In the soft drinks market, package colour is importantly used by the manufacturers to
differentiate their products. The manufacturer of Coca-Cola, for instance, uses a red colour interspersed with
white stripes to differentiate “Coke” from other brands of soft-drinks in the market. The manufacturer of ‘7
Up’ brand of soft drink similarly uses ‘green and white’ to differentiate this brand. The yellow of Eastman
Kodak is another example of the use of package colour in product differentiation. A more common use of
package colour is that of product differentiation between the varieties of products such as shampoos and
cleaning agents. Packaging colour is probably used because of its significance in generating psychological and
physiological reactions in buyers.
Package design is also utilized by manufacturers in product differentiation. According to Kazimirski (1997), a
manufacturer of soluble coffee uses a special heat-proof glass container which can be used as a jug to heat
and serve the coffee and so differentiate his product from other products in the same category. The packaging
of mustard or mayonnaise in airtight tubes represents an interesting and successful example of product
differentiation by packaging. Because of its obvious advantages over mustard or mayonnaise sold in jars,
many buyers seem to prefer the product.
Package size similarly presents an opportunity for product differentiation. A detergent manufacturer is
documented to have employed small-sized packages of 2 oz weight in lower-income areas to differentiate his
product from the other larger-sized products in the same category. It is importantly the case that the
elements from which product differentiation derives are fundamentally referred to in marketing literature as
product stimuli (reference). These product stimuli differentiating elements like any other product stimuli (i.e.
price, product nutrient composition) may be subjectively interpreted by the consumers or buyers during the
‘comparison process’ or ‘perceptual process’ to determine the quality of the differentiated product relative to
3
Copyright ©Pakistan Society of Business and Management Research
International Journal of Management and Administrative Sciences (IJMAS)
(ISSN: 2225-7225)
Vol. 1, No. 4, January, 2012(1-10)
www.ijmas.org
other products in the same category. Such perpetual judgment of products quality based upon such stimuli
are fundamentally shaped by the individual’s attitude, learning and personality and by the social and cultural
groups to which the individual belongs. This, however, needs to be empirically verified.
To the extent that this is correct, it is important that a producer or marketer should try and understand the
implication for product quality judgement or perception of a differentiating product stimulus before
employing the use of such a differentiating element. Whilst packaging may provide a marketer with an
opportunity to differentiate his offerings from those of his competitors, packaging may perhaps be utilized by
the manufacturer to segment his market. Consequently, the role of packaging in market segmentation and
hence its implication for product quality judgment is next discussed.
PACKAGING AND MARKET SEGMENTATION
Kotler is quoted by Baker and McTavish (1976) in their text on product policy and management for
identifying three basic marketing strategies: (i) undifferentiated marketing (ii) differentiated marketing and
(iii) concentrated marketing. According to Kotler (1972, 2002), “Undifferentiated marketing exists where a
firm chooses not to recognize the different demand curves that make up the market. Instead, it treats the
market as an aggregate, focusing on what is common in the needs of people rather than on what is different. It
tries to design a product and a marketing programme that appeals to the broadest number of buyers”.
By contrast, under “differentiated marketing”, a firm decides to operate on all sides of the market but designs
separate products and/or marketing programmes for each” (Kotler and Armstrong, 2008, Kotler, Wong,
Saunders and Armstrong, 2005). As Kotler (2002) notes, both differentiated and undifferentiated marketing
imply that the firm is seeking to cover the entire market. For firms which feel they have not the resources for
such an all-selection approach, concentrated marketing is based upon the selection of one or a limited
number of segments within the market in which the firm or manufacturer will attempt to establish a
dominant position.
Whilst Kotler (1972) does not employ the concept of market segmentation, the terms differentiated and
concentrated marketing strategies” are quite suggestive of the concept of segmentation and may hence be
synonymous with it (i.e. market segmentation). The term ‘market segmentation’ appears to have been first
used in an article by W. R. Smith which was published in 1956. According to Smith (1956), “Segmentation is
based upon developments on the demand side of the market and represents a rational and more precise
adjustment of product and marketing effort to consumer or user requirements. In the language of the
economist, segmentation is disaggregative in its effects and tends to bring about recognition of several
demand schedules where only one was recognized before”.
The strategy of market segmentation recognizes that people differ in their tastes, needs, attitudes,
motivations, life-styles, family size and composition. The several demand schedules which Smith (1956)
mentions may perhaps be explained in terms of consumer differences in taste, needs, attitudes, motivations
and life-styles. Howard and Sheth (1989) note that the concept of market segmentation seems to rest on the
idea that “a firm or manufacturer should segment or divide the market in such a way as to achieve sets of
buyers”; these would lie in segments of the market and would be targets for the manufacturers’ marketing
plans.
Several bases are used by marketers to sub-divide or segment a market. These bases are importantly
influenced by the type of product, the nature of demand, the method of distribution, the media available for
market communication, and the motivations of buyers. The criteria include: (i) demographic, (ii) geographic,
(iii) buyer behaviour, and (iv) psychographic. Lancaster and Massingham (2011) add technology as new
variable in today’s technological advanced environment. According to Sheth (1997) Market segmentation, is
considered to be the essence of marketing. It is a deliberate policy of maximizing market demand by directing
efforts at significant sub-groups of customers. Assuming the three basic criteria for assessing the practical
value of a market segment advanced by Engel, Fiorillo and Cayley (1992) (i) size, (ii) reachability or
accessibility, and (iii) distinctiveness are adequately satisfied by a market segment, marketing effort(s) may
hence be economically and relevantly devised and directed to the market segment in question.
Packaging seems to represent an important marketing effort and hence its role in market segmentation is
examined with reference to consumer packaged convenience goods or products. Whether the target
consumers are male or female, sex is often one of the major bases in market segmentation. For many
products, the appeal to sex is central, and their packages tend to reflect this. For instance, women buy
4
Copyright ©Pakistan Society of Business and Management Research
International Journal of Management and Administrative Sciences (IJMAS)
(ISSN: 2225-7225)
Vol. 1, No. 4, January, 2012(1-10)
www.ijmas.org
perfume and beauty products to enhance their feminine appeal; the packages for such products generally
have a strongly feminine character. The same is true of women’s toiletries.
Age represents another basis for segmenting a market. The chocolate-bar packages offer an exceptionally
clear-out example of how packages are designed to appeal to different age groups. Chocolate, incidentally, is a
chameleon product and provides especially a vivid illustration of how important packaging can be in
merchandising. Whilst the contents remain basically the same, the product is given a seemingly endless
variety of psychological qualities and appeals by changing the package, to aim at different market segments.
By means of graphic elements chocolate-bar wrappers are designed to appeal to three separate groups: (i)
pre-school; (ii) early-school and (iii) teenagers.
Segmentation of the market by socio-economic groups or levels has long been important in marketing, and its
importance seems to be increasing in the markets of industrialized and increasingly affluent countries. The
segmentation is often on the basis of income levels, often taking into consideration additional factors, such as
profession, education, and home-ownership. When a person pays a relatively high price for a product, he may
be doing so because he expects to get better quality for his money. In actual fact there may be little noticeable
difference in quality between products sold at different price levels. In consequence the consumer looks for
signs that may tell him about the product’s quality. The most important sign is the package. For the
consumers in the upper socio-economic levels, the main benefits they often seek in a product are high quality
or status. For those in the lower levels, economy is often most important.
Thus, for the upper-class segment packaging is generally designed to appeal to this class of consumer by
building into the packaging, simple ‘clean’ graphics, quiet colours and using quality packaging materials.
According to Colckaert (2002) packages that are aimed at lower income groups generally use louder colours,
less subtle graphics, and may often display the price very prominently. Family-size and composition may
similarly be used by a manufacturer to segment the market. Because families vary in size, packages of varying
sizes are used in the detergent market to appeal to different-sized families. Within this market, packages of
different sizes ranging from the smallest to the giant-sized packs are used. Package size is similarly used to
attract the different income levels in the market. Larger sizes are used to attract high-income consumers
whilst small-sized packages are used to attract low-income customers or consumers.
In the potato market, segmentation is achieved by means of packaging. Different packaging materials are
employed to appeal to the different segments of the market. In the whisky market, different shapes of
packaging (i.e. bottle) are used for appeal and to reach the different segments of the market.
Whilst the above review provides an understanding of the role of packaging in market segmentation, it is
important to state that its use as a variable in market segmentation largely relies on its various elements: (i)
packaging colour, (ii) packaging size, (iii) shape, (iv) graphics, and (v) packaging material. These various
elements may perhaps be referred to as product stimuli, and may be processed for quality judgement during
the process of perception. For instance, the influence of packaging material on product quality perception is
already documented by McDaniel and Baker (1976). In their study they find that potato-chips that are packed
in polyvinyl bags are perceived as being of better quality than those chips that are packed in wax-coated bags.
Thus, the use or employment of packaging as a variable in reaching a market segment calls for a discrete
assessment of the implication for product quality judgment of the element of packaging to be involved in
reaching the segment of interest by a manufacturer or marketer. The role of packaging in branding is
examined by this article as branding is particularly of major economic interest to all producers and channel
intermediaries alike.
PACKAGING AND PRODUCT BRANDING
Packaging represents the medium through which a seller announces herself as the producer of a product,
variety of products or families or products. Thus, the brand component of a package is used by a
manufacturer to tell the consumers what product he makes. It is also a promise to consistently deliver the
benefits built into the product offering. (i) Umbrella brand and (ii) product brand. In the early days of
packaged retail goods, this is true in a very literal sense. The name of the company and the brand name are
one and the same; the firm puts it name on all its products.
Today, most firms or manufacturers continue to use a single name to cover broad groups of their products,
although this may not be the same as their corporate name. This identifying device is what is meant by the
concept of ‘umbrella brand’. The use of umbrella – brand on a package by a manufacturer is governed by a
5
Copyright ©Pakistan Society of Business and Management Research
International Journal of Management and Administrative Sciences (IJMAS)
(ISSN: 2225-7225)
Vol. 1, No. 4, January, 2012(1-10)
www.ijmas.org
number of important factors: (i) the market situation, (ii) the firm’s marketing aims, and (iii) the product’s
relationship with others in the line. The wisdom of employing the use of an umbrella-brand by a firm may be
fundamentally governed by the image surrounding the brand. (‘Image’ by itself is a composite of objective and
subjective ideas and feelings of the public about the firm, a product or a brand). When the umbrella-brand
acquires a strong image it evidently becomes a valuable marketing asset. In such cases, it may be used by the
manufacturer as a locomotive to pull along the individual products in the firm’s line, conferring on them its
own favourable image. A firm that uses the umbrella-brand in this manner may, for this reason, give
prominence to the brand on the package and may perhaps give the package of all its products a uniform
design pattern, in order to further identify them with the corporate image. This particular strategy may
successfully be adopted, for instance, by a pharmaceutical manufacturer producing a great number of really
different products such as ‘May and Baker – M & B’. Citing Kapferer and Laurent (1988) Kapferer (2008)
posits that most big supermarkets use umbrella brands for all their offerings while seeking the level and type
of client involvement.
This same strategy may similarly be adopted by a big diversified firm producing several families of products,
such as a food company that produces tinned vegetables, fruits, soups and preserves. Each of these is really a
family of different varieties of products. The firm or company may hence use its corporate umbrella-brand
name to lend its favourable image to all of these products. It may also use what may be called sub-umbrella or
product-group brand names to differentiate the various families of products from each other.
The use of umbrella-brand on packaging no doubt has is own limitations. When a manufacturer or a company
even possesses a very strong and successful umbrella-name, it may decide not to give it a star billing on all its
products and many sometimes not use the umbrella-brand at all. In some cases the umbrella-brand image
may not be suitable to a particular product.
For instance, if a cosmetic producer has traditionally focused on an upper-income, in a market and has built
up a strong image of an elegant, rather conservative brand, a decision to go after the youth market with the
umbrella-brand name, may render the umbrella-brand name a liability rather than an asset in selling to the
young people. Another such situation would be where a company with a prestigious, high-priced image and
product line decides to bring out a cheap line to broaden its market penetration. If it uses the umbrella-brand
to promote the cheap products, the hard-won image may suffer. The manufacturer may do well to avoid such
a problem by concentrating on promoting a new product or product-group brand.
Reference is already made to product-brand as the second brand-component of a package. Whilst the
product-brand may provide a solution to the limitation of umbrella-brand, it may similarly serve a number of
useful purposes for a firm or a marketer. Product brands may often serve as a kind of nucleus for building an
image, especially when the product in question is virtually identical to other products in the market. It may
similarly be used by a manufacturer when the specific product denomination is long and unwieldy. The
product-brand name may tend to make it easier for the buyer or consumer to find or ask for the product or
brand name may tend to make it easier for the buyer or consumer to find or ask for the product of choice.
Large manufacturers or firms often put out more than one brand of the same basic product. The intention
may either be to allow them to compete with one another or to employ them to go after different market
segment so as to maximize performance and market penetration. Giving new products, new brand names
may help to lesson the damage to the marketer’s name in the event that the product fails. Added to the
important benefits that may derive from the use of this concept, is its descriptive nature. One very important
reason for the growth of brands for individual product is that they tend to describe the packaged product.
Examples may well suffice.
According to Volckaert (2002), the name “PUNCH ‘N GRO” for packaged flower seeds seems to describe how
easy they are to use.
“Rice Crispies” seems to tell what a particular breakfast food is made of and also describes one of its
appealing qualities. The brand name “Ivory snow” seems to sum-up the image of purity and cleanliness for a
particular soap.
“Taster’s choice” seems to suggest that instant coffee is the favourite of experts. “Tang” seems to tell
something about the sensation one is supposed to derive from a powdered orange drink. Considering the
small area that is available on package to speak to the consumer, this seems a valuable asset.
The brand components of a packaged product may perhaps be viewed as a form of guarantee that the
packaged products carried under them are of sufficient quality standards. A number of studies have been
6
Copyright ©Pakistan Society of Business and Management Research
International Journal of Management and Administrative Sciences (IJMAS)
(ISSN: 2225-7225)
Vol. 1, No. 4, January, 2012(1-10)
www.ijmas.org
carried out to examine the relationship between brand names and perceived product quality judgment. Most
of these studies attest to a positive relationship between product brands and quality judgement.
It is obvious from the preceding exposition that brand image is one of the crucial factors in the marketing of
consumer goods, and that it plays a central role in packaging. This statement may be turned round to say
packaging is perhaps an important factor in image building because (i) the consumers tend to see the package
more than they see advertising; (ii) the package is physically almost part of the product, and functions as a
silent salesman.
The packages that are perhaps most effective in helping to build an image for the brand are those that have
the greatest individuality.
A number of primary tools that are perhaps instrumental to creating individuality or personality for a brand
may be identified to include: (i) the logotype, (ii) symbols, (iii) overall graphics and (iv) shape. The ‘logotypes’
are used in many ways; such as in advertising and letterheads and not merely on packaging alone. A logotype
is a brand name graphically presented in a unique way. This uniqueness may be the result of the design of the
lettering itself, or of a combination of the lettering with other graphic elements.
Thus, a good logotype is employed to express a personality which is an embodiment of the image the
marketer is trying to build. Once the marketer decides to market a brand as a strongly masculine product, the
lettering of the logotype may be given a strong, rather heavy and architectural configuration, with firm
straight line. Where the appeal is to women the lettering is made lighter, more delicate and curvier. According
to Ogilvy (1979) the lettering design tends to give the impression of conservatism or dynamism; oldfashioned virtues or contemporary excitement; of straight-laced sobriety or frothy gaiety.
Symbols may similarly play an image-building and identifying role like the logotype. Some symbols may be
very figurative and literal such as one American food company’s picture of a chef. The manufacturer produces
tinned Italian – style foods, and the chef who graces every tin, looks the way the American house-wife think
Italian chefs should look, with his hat, sweeping moustache, and jolly smile. According to Mauser (1961) the
symbol is simply employed to say the foods is really Italian – style.
Other symbols may be much more subtle, forsaking literal representation, by attempting to convey
impressions through a more basic, impressionistic means, often with the help of psychological research.
Overall graphic may perhaps; even more than the logotype or symbol gives a package individuality or
personality. The design on the wide range of Heinz tins and other packages is perhaps a good example. The
labels on the tins all bear a large keystone shape, which espouses the brand name, product denomination and
other elements. The lettering of the brand name is not very striking or expensive. Although it is set in a curve,
it has no particular character, and does not ‘say’ anything. It is so neutral that it is barely a logotype. But the
keystone is distinctive, and it has a rather old-fashioned, reliable quality, which gives the packages a
personality and helps promote the Heinz image. The brand and the keystone shape have become wedded in
consumers’ minds so that Heinz products are instantly recognizable the world over, even if the consumer
does not read the brand name.
Shape may also be an important tool for giving packages personality. An outstanding example of how a
package’s shape can give it individuality is the bottle for Rilton, a Swiss semi-medical circulation stimulant
‘for people over forty’. Unlike most products of this type, buyers can buy it without a prescription, so the
marketing is directed at consumers, not doctors. The producers had a bottle designed which is striking and
has a medical appearance to it.
The bottle, together with its cap and label, is so distinctive that the designer wisely puts its pictures on the
outer carton. When people forget the brand name, they may instantly recognize the bottle because of its
shape. The shape of the Rilton bottle, like the Heinz keystone, has largely taken over the identification role of
the brand name.
Packaging colour may also have a strong effect on image building. Warm colours like brown may help create a
feeling of tradition, of mellowness and coziness; cool colours may similarly contribute to a modern feeling.
The austerity of pure black or white and the traditional symbolism of gold on silver may contribute to a
‘prestige’ image. White may also be used to lend a feeling of purity.
The above review on packaging and branding importantly reflects packaging as a medium for displaying
umbrella-brand and product-brand names; and as a medium for creating image, individuality or personality
for a brand. The importance of each brand-component is also reflected. The primary tools for creating image,
7
Copyright ©Pakistan Society of Business and Management Research
International Journal of Management and Administrative Sciences (IJMAS)
(ISSN: 2225-7225)
Vol. 1, No. 4, January, 2012(1-10)
www.ijmas.org
personality, or individuality are thought to include: (i) logotypes, (ii) symbols, (iii) overall graphic design, (iv)
shape and (v) colour.
The primary tools, together with the umbrella-brand and product-brand names may perhaps be summarized
into product stimuli and this may have important implications for perceived quality judgement of consumers’
packaged convenience products. This view equally calls for an empirical verification.
Thus far, the attempt has been to identify and define the interest(s) of a manufacturer. These interests are
thought to include: (i) product-differentiation, (ii) market-segmentation, and (iii) product-branding. In
addition, an attempt is made to examine the role of packaging in helping the manufacturer to realize each of
these interests or needs. In this process, the various elements or tools of packaging that are importantly
instrumental to the effective employment of packaging in (i) differentiating products; (ii) segmenting a
market and (iii) in branding a product is identified and summarized into product stimuli or packaging stimuli,
whose effects the impression of product quality.
Next is a discussion of the various manners through which packaging may identify itself with the interests of
the channels of distribution.
CONCLUSION
The article thus far provide a detailed account of the multiple role of packaging with regards to how the
concept aptly identifies with the various needs/interests of the producer one of the three principal actors in
the entire marketing process.
In the process, the major interests of the producers in handling non-price competition are captured to
include: Product – differentiation, market segmentation and branding.
An attempt is made to express the capability of packaging at fulfilling its multiple role as a function of the
various elements of packaging which include: colour, shape, size, material and graphic design, logo type and
lettering.
Thus packaging is viewed as a bundle of stimuli created in the process of adapting same to serve the
interests/needs of the producers in the market place. Some of the stimuli are believed to be used by
consumers to carry out product quality judgment and choice in the market place. Marketing practitioners are
hence expected to appreciate and take relevant advantage(s) of the multiple role of packaging to advance the
course of marketing management process.
Brief Educational Background of Authors:
Professor Oghojafor, B. E. A. holds a B.Sc. degree in Business Administration; M.Sc. degree in Management and Ph.D. in Strategic
Management. He is a Fellow of Nigeria Institute of Management (FNIM) and Fellow Charted Institute of Administrator (FCIA)
Dr. Ladipo, P. K. A holds a B.Sc. degree in Agric Economics, M.Sc. degree in Marketing and Ph.D. in Marketing
Olufayo, T. O. holds a B.Sc. degree in Business Administration; M.Sc. degree in Marketing and currently a Ph.D. student in the Department
of Business Administration, University of Lagos
8
Copyright ©Pakistan Society of Business and Management Research
International Journal of Management and Administrative Sciences (IJMAS)
(ISSN: 2225-7225)
Vol. 1, No. 4, January, 2012(1-10)
www.ijmas.org
REFERENCES
Baker, M. J. and R. McTavish, (1976). “Product Policy and Management”, Product Policy and Development, p.
34.
Bell, M., (1966). “Environmental Impact on Marketing”, Marketing Concept and Strategy, pp. 546-548.
Briston, J. H. and Neil, T. H. “Introduction to Packaging”, Packaging Management, p. 7-9.
Britt, S. H. and H. W. Boyd, Jnr., Marketing Management and Administrative Action, McGraw-Hill Book
Company.
Bruce, C. F., (1973). “Multi-dimensional Scaling Analysis of Grade Labelling on Consumers’ Perception of
Product Quality”, Unpublished Ph.D Thesis, Stanford University, p. 19.
Buskirk, R. H. and J. T. Rothe, “Consumerism – An Interpretation”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34, pp. 61-65.
Day, G. S., and W. K. Brandt, (2001). A Study of Consumer Credit Decisions: Implications for Present and
Prospective Legislation, Washington, D. C., National Commission on Consumer Finance.
Drucker, P. (1969). Consumerism in Marketing’, A Speech to the National Association of Manufacturers, New
York.
Engel, J. F., Fiorillo, H. F. and Cayley, M. A. (1972). Market Segmentation, (eds.), New York, Holt, Rinehart &
Winston, p. 10.
Howard, J. A. and Sheth, J. N., (1969). The Theory of Buyer Behaviour, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Jacoby, J., J. C. Olson and R. A. Haddock, (1999). “Price, Brand-name, and Product Composition Characteristics
as Determinants of Perceived Quality”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 55, No. 6, pp. 570-571.
Jenkins, J. R. G., (1972). Marketing and Customer Behaviour, Pergamon Press, Oxford, N. York, Toronto, Sydney
and Braunschweig
Kapferer, J-N. (2008). The New Strategic Brand Management: Creating and Sustaining Brand Equity Long Term,
London, Kogan Page
Kennedy, J. F., (1970). “Consumer Advisory council, First Report, Executive Office of the President” Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 34, p. 63.
Kotler, P. and Keller, K. L. (2006). Marketing Management, New Jersey, Pearson Prentice Hall.
Kotler, P., and Armstrong, G. (2008). Principles of Marketing, New Jersey, Pearson Prentice Hall
Kotler, P., Wong, V., Saunders, J. and Armstrong, G. (2005) Principles of Marketing, Harlow, Prentice Hall
Kotler, Philip, (1972). Marketing Management, 2nd Edition, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, pp. 182-187.
Lancaster, G. and Massingham, L. (2011). Essentials of Marketing Management, New York, Routledge
Lenahan, R. J. et al., (1973). “Consumer Reactions to Nutritional Labels on food products”, Journal of Consumer
Affairs, Vol. 7, Spring.
Mauser, F. F., (1961) Modern Marketing Management: An Integrated Approach, pp. 135-136, McGraw-Hill.
McDaniel, C. and Baker, R. C. (1977) ‘Convenience Food Packaging and the Perception of Product Quality’,
Journal of Marketing, pp. 57-58.
Ogilvy, David (1964) ‘Confession of an Advertising Man: New York’, Dell Publishing Company Inc., p. 131.
Ogilvy, David (1979) ‘Packaging is more that a Marketing Tool’, Marketing, PIRA.
Robertson, J. S. (1967). “The process of innovation and the diffusion of innovation”, Journal of Marketing, Vol.
31, pp. 114-119.
Ross, Ivan, (1974) Applications of Consumer Information to Public Policy Decisions’, in Marketing Analysis for
Societal Problems, Jaggish Sheth and Peter Wright (eds.), Urbana, III, University of Illinois.
Scwartz, David J., (1973) Marketing Today: A Basic Approach, Harcourt Brace, pp. 349-50.
Sheth, J. N., (1967). “A Review of Buyer Behaviour”, Management Science, 13, No. 12.
Smith, W. R., (1956). “Production Differentiation and Marketing Segmentation as Alternative Marketing
Strategies”, Journal of Marketing, 21.
Standt, T. A., Taylor D. A. and Bowersox, D. J. (1976). A Management Introduction to Marketing, Englewood
Cliffs, N. J., Prentice-Hall Inc.
Stokes, R. C. et al., (1976). “Food Dating: Shoppers’ Relations and the Impact on Retail Foodstores” Report No
984, (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Journal of Marketing.
Theodore, R. N., ‘Packaging’, Marketing Information Officer, Printing Industries, Research Association.
Tyler, W. D., (1966). “Is competitive comparison really bad in Advertising Reform with Care?” Advertising Age,
Vol. 37, March 14, pp. 61-62.
9
Copyright ©Pakistan Society of Business and Management Research
International Journal of Management and Administrative Sciences (IJMAS)
(ISSN: 2225-7225)
Vol. 1, No. 4, January, 2012(1-10)
www.ijmas.org
Volckaert, M., (1969). “Packaging Design Facing up to the Market”, International Trade Forum, p. 21.
Volckaert, M., (2002). “Packaging Facing up to the Market”, International Trade of Forum, pp. 14-15.
10
Copyright ©Pakistan Society of Business and Management Research