Food and Drink Packaging - UK - April 2003 The Consumer: Attitudes Towards Packaging

General consumer attitudes This section of the report examines consumer attitudes towards food and drink packaging. Mintel commissioned BMRB to conduct exclusive consumer research, during mid-November 2002, among a nationally representative sample of 1,030 adults aged 15+. The objective of the research was to ascertain consumer attitudes towards different types of packaging for various food and drink products, for foods eaten on-the-go and for products targeted at children. The research also addressed the issue of openability, an on-going consumer concern. Respondents were first asked: "Which, if any, of these do you agree with?" Multiple responses were allowed. Topline results are shown in Figure 10, alongside the findings from the previous Mintel report on this subject.

FIGURE 10: Agreement with statements about food and drinks packaging, April 2000

and November 2002 Base: adults aged 15+ 2000 2,003 % Most food has too much packaging I prefer to buy soft drinks in plastic bottles I prefer to buy milk or juice in plastic bottles I don't like having to cut cartons to open them I prefer to buy milk or juice in cartons (eg Tetra-Pak) I will try a new product if the packaging is interesting 46 45 39 36 24 15 2002 1,030 % 51 46 44 35 28 19 % point change 2000-02 +5 +1 +5 -1 +4 +4

This report is supplied in accordance with Mintel's terms and conditions. Supplied to Canterbury Christ Church University. © Mintel International Group Limited.

I prefer to buy soft drinks in cans I like individually wrapped items within standard packs eg biscuits I prefer to buy soft drinks in glass bottles I look for convenient packaging so that I can eat on the go/when traveling Packaging type and design are important to reflect the product's image I will buy food that has attractive packaging I look for convenient packaging to give to children in lunchboxes I often buy food with packaging that will appeal to my children None of these Don't know

18 12 8 9 10 4 2

25 23 18 16 15 12 10 9 2 -

na na na +3 +4 +1 -1 -2 na

SOURCE: BMRB/Mintel

Looking firstly at the results for 2002, a broad comparison of the responses shows that excess packaging is respondents' top concern, followed by views about various alternatives forms of packaging for drinks products, and lastly by views about the aesthetic aspects of packaging and its influence on purchasing. The view that food has excess levels of packaging is held by over half (51%) of respondents and is the most commonly held attitude of all those listed. This is likely to reflect general concerns about the environmental impact of waste disposal and landfill. It will also reflect the impact of too much packaging on individuals in the home, including the space it takes up when storing packaged products in cupboards, fridge and freezer, and its contribution to household rubbish. A preference for plastic bottles when purchasing soft drinks, and milk or juice are the next most commonly held attitudes, representing the views of nearly half of respondents (46% and 44%, respectively). This is higher than for respondents who prefer to buy soft drinks in cans (24%) or in glass bottles (18%), and milk or juice in cartons (28%). These different preferences reflect a multitude of factors such as the weight of glass bottles making them heavier and less portable than plastic bottles, and the resealability of plastic bottles compared to crown caps or cartons. Other issues include ease of disposal, ease of use by children, and the larger volumes available in plastic bottles compared to glass and cartons. Comparing the findings with those from 2000, the order of the top five most commonly held attitudes remains the same in 2000 and 2002. Concern about overuse of packaging remains in the number one slot confirming that this is an ongoing issue for consumers. The percentage point changes between 2000 and 2002 suggest that consumers have formed stronger opinions about packaging over the

intervening period. Despite concerns about excess packaging, consumers today are more willing than in 2000 to try a new product if the packaging is interesting and are more willing to buy products that have attractive packaging, while more accept the association between the packaging and the product's image. This is good news for those involved in the design of packaging, but it clearly needs to be seen in the context of concerns about the overuse of packaging. Attitude towards drinks packaging in detail A demographic analysis of responses concerning drinks packaging is shown in Figure 11.

FIGURE 11: Consumer preference for drinks packaging, by demographic sub-group,

November 2002 Base: 1,030 adults aged 15+

Prefer soft drinks in plastic bottles %

Prefer Prefer soft soft drinks in drinks in cans glass bottles % 24.6 29.3 20.1 32.6 26.7 23.3 27.5 23.4 16.1 25.3 21.4 % 18.1 21.4 15.0 11.8 16.0 14.4 19.3 24.8 23.4 17.2 15.3

Prefer milk/juic e in plastic bottles % 43.8 42.1 45.3 40.5 44.0 49.8 49.4 40.0 38.2 47.5 41.1

Prefer milk/juic e in cartons (eg TetraPak) % 27.6 27.0 28.2 21.6 29.5 22.8 25.9 35.5 31.4 27.3 29.8

Don't like having to cut cartons to open them % 35.1 34.5 35.5 37.3 31.7 32.9 35.7 36.5 37.1 33.9 41.5

All Men Women 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ AB C1

45.8 37.3 53.7 49.0 47.9 47.6 48.9 42.0 39.4 41.1 49.2

This report is supplied in accordance with Mintel's terms and conditions. Supplied to Canterbury Christ Church University. © Mintel International Group Limited.

C2 D E London South East/Midlands

49.9 42.3 43.8 46.2 44.9 46.3

26.8 28.3 20.7 28.2 18.1 24.3 31.3 18.6 19.5 31.8 21.2 22.4 22.6 23.7 24.9

18.0 26.0 14.8 16.2 11.1 19.2 18.6 17.6 20.6 24.2 13.7 11.4 12.0 12.3 20.2

47.8 40.5 40.1 45.8 39.3 49.7 46.1 44.8 37.1 40.5 49.5 49.6 53.3 52.4 40.6

25.3 26.5 29.0 27.5 33.9 27.0 24.7 28.2 25.9 30.6 23.1 24.9 23.6 23.5 29.1

32.6 32.2 30.9 36.5 34.6 33.6 40.9 36.6 33.1 39.3 32.9 29.0 30.0 32.5 36.0

Wales/West/So 47.1 uth West Yorkshire/Nort 46.1 h East North West 46.5 Scotland Own aged 0-4 Own aged 5-9 Own aged 1015 Own any 0-15 Own none Lifestage: Pre-/no family Families Third age Retired Special Groups: Two full-time earners One person in household under 65 40.8 49.8 52.0 54.3 51.7 43.6

45.4 51.7 44.6 39.4

30.9 23.7 24.8 16.1

15.9 12.3 23.1 23.4

40.9 52.4 42.1 38.2

25.3 23.5 31.8 31.4

35.3 32.5 35.9 37.1

46.9 42.4

28.6 29.7

16.8 19.8

51.4 40.3

32.0 27.0

30.5 32.8

Media usage: Internet users 50.0 Broadsheet 36.6 readers Mid-market 45.2 tabloid readers

25.3 25.3 19.5

13.3 19.3 19.1

45.9 40.9 44.0

23.4 25.7 29.3

36.5 30.4 38.9

Popular tabloid 45.4 readers Have access to 47.3 satellite/cable/ digital TV
SOURCE: Mintel

29.9 28.8

20.4 17.1

43.5 48.5

28.9 24.7

35.7 36.5

Gender differences show that more women than men prefer plastic bottles for both soft drinks and milk or juice. Although men prefer to buy soft drinks and milk or juice in plastic bottles than in other packaging formats, overall more men than women prefer to buy soft drinks in cans or glass bottles. Although just over a quarter of respondents like to buy milk or juice in cartons, a higher proportion (just over a third) do not like the necessity of having to cut them open. The 55-64 and 65+ age groups have a lower preference for plastic bottles than younger age groups, with 15-24yearolds showing the highest preference. There is a similar bias by age for soft drinks in cans. However, when it comes to the more traditional glass bottle, 15-24s show the least preference for soft drinks in this type of packaging and older age groups the highest preference, compared to other age groups. For milk or juice, 35-54s show the strongest preference for plastic bottles compared to other age groups, while older age groups show the strongest preference for cartons. Compared to other social groups, ABs show the lowest preference for buying soft drinks in plastic bottles, while group E has the lowest preference for buying soft drinks in glass bottles, possibly because they are too heavy and the socio-economic group E is heavily biased towards pensioners. However, for milk or juice, ABs show the second highest preference for plastic bottles behind C2s. For glass bottles, those in Scotland show the strongest preference compared to other regions while London and the South show the lowest preference. For soft drinks in cans, those in Wales and Scotland show the strongest preference. With plastic bottles, the only regional difference of note is the lower preference in Scotland. Respondents without children show a stronger preference than respondents with children for soft drinks in glass bottles and cans, and the lowest preference for soft drinks in plastic bottles. They also show the lowest preference for milk or juice in plastic bottles and the highest preference for milk or juice in cartons. This may reflect that smaller households are buying smaller quantities, and thus prefer the smaller size of cartons, glass bottles and cans. Packaging quantities in demographic detail A demographic analysis of consumer responses concerning views about excess packaging and individually wrapped items is shown in Figure 12 and 13.
This report is supplied in accordance with Mintel's terms and conditions. Supplied to Canterbury Christ Church University. © Mintel International Group Limited.

FIGURE 12: Attitudes towards amount of packaging, by age group, November 2002

Base: 1,030 adults aged 15+

SOURCE: BMRB/Mintel

Concern about excess packaging increases with age, peaking in the 55-64 year age group. However, preference for individually wrapped items also shows a trend towards increasing preference with age, with the 65+ age group showing the strongest preference. This probably reflects smaller household size and the convenience of smaller packs which helps to ensure food is fresh. The greater preference for individual packaging among 15-24s compared to 25-34s may also be related to the same reason, particularly where households do not yet have children. This is supported by the higher preference for individually wrapped items in respondents with no children compared to those with children.

FIGURE 13: Attitudes towards amount of packaging, by demographic sub-groups,

November 2002

Base: 1,030 adults aged 15+

Most food has too much packaging %

I like individually wrapped items within standard packs eg biscuits % 23.0 19.7 26.1 19.7 20.0 25.3 25.2 28.8 18.1 27.4 18.7 30.1 25.3 23.7 23.7

All Men Women AB C1 C2 D E London South East/Midlands Wales/West/South West Yorkshire/North East North West Scotland Presence of children: Own child aged 0-4 Own child aged 5-9 Own child aged 10-15 Own child any 0-15 Own none Lifestage:

51.5 47.2 55.5 61.7 55.8 45.0 47.7 39.6 53.1 67.6 57.0 54.2 45.1 50.0 36.4

49.7 46.3 52.6 50.9 51.6

14.7 17.0 22.1 17.3 25.1

This report is supplied in accordance with Mintel's terms and conditions. Supplied to Canterbury Christ Church University. © Mintel International Group Limited.

Pre-/no family Families Third age Retired Special Groups: Two full-time earners One person in household under 65
SOURCE: BMRB/Mintel

44.8 50.9 58.6 53.0

17.2 17.3 26.9 34.9

54.8 55.8

17.3 23.6

More women than men are concerned about excess packaging, but conversely they show a preference for individually wrapped items within standard packs. This may be explained by convenience and portability, for any family member, or the fact that divisions into portion sizes helps those concerned about weight loss or weight maintenance with portion control. Though wrapping of individual items adds to the overall packaging, it is preferred by over a quarter of women. There is a general trend across social groups, with more ABs tending to think food has too much packaging compared to Es, and fewer ABs prefer individually wrapped items compared to Es. There is internal consistency in these two attitudes across social groups, which suggests that packaging waste is a greater concern to the better off. Packaging for lunch boxes and eating on-the-go A demographic analysis of responses concerning views about packaging when eating on-the-go or buying for children is shown in Figure 14.

FIGURE 14: Consumer seeking convenient packaging for portability and lunch boxes,

by demographic sub-group, November 2002 Base: 1,030 adults aged 15+ Look for convenient packaging so that I can eat on the go/when travelling % 16.1 17.2 15.0 20.3 Look for convenient packaging to give to children in lunch boxes % 10.4 9.9 10.9 5.2

All Men Women 15-24

25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ AB C1 C2 D E London South East/Midlands Wales/West/South West Yorkshire/North East North West Scotland Presence of children: Own child aged 0-4 Own child aged 5-9 Own child aged 10-15 Own child any 0-15 Own none Lifestage: Pre-/no family Families Third age

14.2 19.6 22.3 10.3 10.0 16.3 16.5 16.3 17.1 12.5 16.3 9.6 14.1 24.2 11.9 18.6 16.6

16.0 21.9 11.3 2.3 2.6 9.3 9.1 14.9 9.6 8.5 12.1 11.1 11.0 9.3 8.1 13.2 9.9

12.2 13.0 18.0 16.1 16.0

26.1 33.5 32.6 30.4 3.1

20.3 16.1 15.6

3.5 30.4 3.2

This report is supplied in accordance with Mintel's terms and conditions. Supplied to Canterbury Christ Church University. © Mintel International Group Limited.

Retired Special Groups: Two full-time earners One person in household under 65
SOURCE: BMRB/Mintel

10.0

2.6

16.9 16.4

10.4 1.8

Slightly more men than women are looking for packaging that makes products portable and easy to eat on-the-go. Older age groups (55+) are less interested than younger age groups in this aspect of packaging, possibly because they are more likely to have more regular, traditional meal patterns. Those in socio-economic group E are the least interested social group in packaging for portability, while regionally, those in Wales are considerably more interested in this aspect of packaging than respondents in the other regions. Packaging for foods suitable for lunch boxes is predictably of more interest to those with children aged 5+ years, compared to those without children or with very young children. Positive towards packaging A demographic analysis of responses concerning positive views about the aesthetic role of packaging is shown in Figure 15.

FIGURE 15: Positive consumer attitude towards packaging, by demographic sub-

group, November 2002 Base: 1,030 adults aged 15+ I will try a new product if the packaging is interesting % All Men Women 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 19.4 17.4 21.3 28.8 23.8 16.0 21.4 Packaging type and design are important to reflect the product's image % 14.7 16.3 13.1 23.5 13.0 9.9 19.4 I will buy food that has attractive packaging % 11.6 12.2 11.0 19.0 13.8 6.9 9.7

55-64 65+ AB C1 C2 D E London South East/Midlands Wales/West/South West Yorkshire/North East North West Scotland Presence of children: Own child aged 0-4 Own child aged 5-9 Own child aged 10-15 Own child any 0-15 Own none Lifestage: Pre-/no family Families Third age Retired Special Groups: Two full-time earners

15.3 12.1 19.2 16.4 21.6 22.9 17.2 16.5 16.4 17.2 17.3 23.9 20.9 23.4

10.6 12.6 15.7 17.4 13.6 10.2 15.2 16.0 14.4 15.0 10.8 13.2 18.3 11.6

10.1 10.8 10.8 11.5 13.5 12.4 8.1 12.3 13.7 8.8 9.6 15.7 11.5 12.6

15.9 17.8 20.1 19.4 19.4

12.2 12.2 8.6 11.4 15.9

11.4 8.2 5.3 8.5 12.7

25.6 19.4 17.8 12.1

18.9 11.4 14.8 12.6

16.4 8.5 9.8 10.8

22.1

20.5

10.9

This report is supplied in accordance with Mintel's terms and conditions. Supplied to Canterbury Christ Church University. © Mintel International Group Limited.

One person in household under 65
SOURCE: Mintel

23.8

10.1

11.4

Slightly more men than women believe that packaging is important to portray the correct image for a product. More 15-24s (23.5%) hold this view than any other age group. More 15-24-year-olds (19.0%) than any other age group are likely to be swayed by the packaging and to buy the product if it has attractive packaging. Again this is the highest response for any group. The 35-44 year age group are the most sceptical about this particular role of packaging, with fewer believing that packaging is important for a product's image (9.9%), and with the lowest response (6.9%) among those likely to buy a product with attractive packaging. Women are nevertheless keener than men to try a new product if it has interesting packaging. This is despite the fact that fewer women than men hold the view that packaging is important for the product's image and fewer are likely to purchase products with attractive packaging. Compared to other age groups, the youngest (15-24) is the most likely to be swayed by interesting packaging, and there is a trend towards being more likely to hold this view in younger compared to older age groups, although the scepticism of the 35-44-year-olds bucks the trend. For social groups, C2Ds are more likely than ABC1s and Es to be tempted by interesting packaging. Regionally, those in Yorkshire and the North East and Scotland are more likely to purchase a new product on account of interesting packaging, and those in the South and London are the least likely to buy on these grounds. Packaging consumers find awkward to open In order to investigate attitudes towards the openability of packaging, respondents were then asked: "Which, if any, of these types of food and drink packaging do you find awkward to open?" Multiple responses were allowed, and top line results are shown in Figure 16.

FIGURE 16: Opinions about the openability of packaging, April 2000 and November

2002

Base: 1,030 adults aged 15+

2000 2,003 %

2002 1,030 %

% point change 2000-02

Can with key opener (eg corned beef) Food which is shrink-wrapped in plastic Glass jar Can with ring pull Drinks in Tetra Pak-type cartons Corked bottles Packet of biscuits

45 32 28 22 26 18 20

52 33 31 27 24 22 21 19 15 11 8 7 7 11 1

+7 +1 +3 +5 -2 +4 +1 +4 +3 -1 +2 +2 -2 0

Conventional can (ie needing tin 15 opener) Drinks in cans with ring lifts or pulls 12 Drinks in screw-top bottles 12

Food in paper bags (eg flour sugar) 6 Gable-top cartons (eg fresh soup) Food in foil pie tins (eg frozen cheesecake) None of these Don't know 7 5 13 1

SOURCE: BMRB/Mintel

The top three responses in 2002 remain the same as in 2000, with cans opened with a key (eg corned beef) remaining the most common problem. It appears that industry is not responding sufficiently to this challenge as consumer concern about this issue is rising, with a 7 percentage point higher response for this particular packaging problem recorded in 2002 compared to 2000. While cans with a ring pull were meant to be the answer to opening problems with conventional cans and can openers, as in 2000 these again score higher than conventional cans on respondents' list of opening difficulties in 2002, with a 5percentage point increase between surveys. This compares to a 4-percentage point rise in those reporting difficulty of opening conventional cans. Some of the responses for ring-pull cans may reflect respondents' experience of opening such products, and that they may be messy rather than physically difficult to open, but nevertheless a significant number of consumers clearly finds a problem with this type of packaging. There is also a rise in respondents reporting difficulty with opening corked bottles. This may reflect the advent of screw-top wine bottles, which by comparison are
This report is supplied in accordance with Mintel's terms and conditions. Supplied to Canterbury Christ Church University. © Mintel International Group Limited.

easier to open than bottles with corks, or it may reflect the growing use of plastic corks, which some people may find harder to remove than conventional corks. Most difficult to get open in more detail A demographic analysis of the types of packaging that respondents have most difficulty opening (greater than 20% response) is shown in Figure 17.

FIGURE 17: Most difficult types of packaging to open, by demographic sub-group,

November 2002

Base: 1,030 adults aged 15+ Can Food Glass with which is jar key shrinkopener wrappe d in plastic % % % All Men Women 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ AB C1 C2 D E London South 51.8 40.9 62.1 55.6 54.5 49.4 53.8 55.2 45.1 43.8 51.7 56.3 52.4 57.4 44.7 45.7 33.3 31.8 34.8 30.1 25.5 27.9 42.5 40.3 36.2 34.8 38.2 31.8 29.9 27.0 28.7 37.6 30.6 17.5 43.1 16.3 25.3 28.3 33.7 46.3 35.9 27.4 30.0 29.6 33.5 36.1 27.8 31.0

Can with ring pull % 26.7 18.3 34.7 16.3 15.3 17.7 29.8 32.8 47.7 23.5 27.6 25.5 25.6 35.0 24.1 26.2

Drinks Corked in Tetra bottles Paktype cartons % 23.8 24.3 23.4 11.8 21.0 34.2 25.2 33.5 19.1 20.3 25.4 24.1 30.4 16.0 24.9 25.7 % 22.4 17.4 27.2 33.3 25.4 15.6 21.2 17.8 21.7 16.1 22.8 23.4 24.3 28.9 19.9 18.2

Packet of biscuits

% 21.2 18.0 24.3 7.8 16.8 18.1 23.7 31.0 30.1 17.5 23.6 15.6 27.3 24.2 20.5 25.0

East/Midland s Wales/West/ South West Yorkshire/No rth East North West Scotland Presence of children: Own child aged 0-4 Own child aged 5-9 Own child aged 10-15 Own child any 0-15 Own none Lifestage: Pre-/no family Families Third age Retired

53.3 55.5 53.8 57.6 47.3

30.4 31.4 44.2 28.7 31.7

31.6 34.8 32.5 35.6 32.6

26.6 29.8 32.0 25.7 22.2

23.9 26.7 28.0 23.7 16.6

18.6 22.3 31.5 26.1 21.5

21.1 26.3 20.0 21.4 17.1

54.2 47.9 52.9 53.3 51.2

24.4 16.8 26.3 26.0 36.0

22.7 31.8 29.8 28.3 31.5

14.5 13.5 18.7 16.2 30.5

25.1 28.5 32.7 30.0 21.6

23.3 23.2 18.1 21.8 22.7

17.7 22.7 19.0 18.6 22.2

53.4 53.3 53.3 45.1

31.5 26.0 41.1 36.2

20.5 28.3 41.0 35.9

18.5 16.2 31.3 47.7

18.4 30.0 27.4 19.1

24.7 21.8 21.1 21.7

12.3 18.6 27.5 30.1

Special Groups: Two full52.0 time earners One person 59.7 in household under 65
SOURCE: BMRB/Mintel

40.7 34.9

28.2 27.9

24.9 23.0

24.6 18.5

20.7 25.6

18.9 21.8

Apart from drinks in tetra-pak-type cartons, women report more difficulty than men in opening the types of packaging listed in this figure. This difference is most prominent in the opening of glass jars, cited as difficult by only 17.5% of male respondents compared to 43.1% of female respondents.

This report is supplied in accordance with Mintel's terms and conditions. Supplied to Canterbury Christ Church University. © Mintel International Group Limited.

Surprisingly, the 65+ age group reports the lowest proportion that has difficulty opening cans with a key opener. This may reflect familiarity and more experience of opening this traditional type of can, particularly compared to younger age groups. However the 65+ group report most difficulty with opening ring pull cans, and there is a general trend towards increasing difficulty with age for this type of packaging. In the 55-64 year age group, there is generally a higher proportion than 65+-year-olds who report difficulties with opening the types of packaging listed. This is a surprising finding as it would be expected that the older group would have more difficulties due to loss of strength in the hands and the onset of physical difficulties such as arthritis. The 15-24 year age group have the highest response for difficulty of opening corked bottles, but the question is whether this is due to opening more bottles than other age groups, or conversely to lack of experience of pulling corks! ABs have the lowest response for difficulty of opening ring pull cans while Es have the highest response. This may reflect usage patterns, with ABs less likely than Es to consume canned goods. Less difficult to tackle packaging Figure 18 illustrates the types of packaging that respondents have least difficulty opening (less than 20% response), while a demographic analysis is given in Figure 19.

FIGURE 18: Products consumers view as less difficult to open, November 2002

Base: 1,030 adults aged 15+

SOURCE: BMRB/Mintel

Figure 19 examines consumer responses for conventional cans, drinks cans and drinks in screw-top bottles in demographic detail. Greater detail for food in paper bags, gable-top cartons and food in foil pie tins are not shown in more detail due to the small size of the sub-sample.

FIGURE 19: Products consumuer view as less difficult to open, by demographic sub-

group, November 2002 Base: 1,030 adults aged 15+

Conventional can (ie needing tin opener) % 19.2 17.2 21.1 21.6 18.3 20.9 19.9 19.3 16.4 16.6 21.6 16.9 23.0 17.4 20.5

Drinks in cans with ring lifts or pulls % 15.4 10.3 20.2 6.5 6.8 13.4 20.0 20.6 24.9 12.5 17.1 13.6 13.1 24.1 12.9

Drinks in screwtop bottles % 11.2 5.6 16.6 9.2 5.1 6.6 11.7 18.3 17.8 7.0 11.9 11.4 7.8 22.7 6.6

All Men Women 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ AB C1 C2 D E London

This report is supplied in accordance with Mintel's terms and conditions. Supplied to Canterbury Christ Church University. © Mintel International Group Limited.

South East/Midlands Wales/West/South West Yorkshire/North East North West Scotland

20.5 18.5 18.6 23.0 19.9 16.4

17.3 16.2 15.0 18.4 13.7 14.3

10.9 11.8 14.0 11.2 12.7 15.4

Presence of children: Own child aged 0-4 16.4 Own child aged 5-9 17.2 Own child aged 10-15 Own child any 0-15 Own none Lifestage: Pre-/no family Families Third age Retired Special groups: Two full-time earners One person in household under 65
SOURCE: BMRB/Mintel

3.7 7.2 15.8 9.1 17.7

9.7 8.4 4.8 7.1 12.8

22.8 19.3 19.2

22.6 19.3 17.4 16.4

10.9 9.1 20.2 24.9

6.2 7.1 16.5 17.8

14.7 18.8

14.1 16.0

7.0 11.2

The types of packages that respondents have least difficulty with are conventional cans, canned drinks with ring pulls, drinks in screw top bottles, food in paper bags such as flour, gable top cartons and food in foil pie tins. The youngest age group reports marginally more difficulty with opening conventional cans, perhaps because they are used to the modern ring-pull cans. Conversely, the youngest age group has the least problem with opening drinks in ring pull cans, and for this particular type of packaging there is trend towards greater difficulty with age. There is also a general trend towards greater difficulty with age of opening drinks in screw top bottles, which may reflect loss of manual dexterity and loss of strength, and in some cases the onset of physical problems such as arthritis. Mintel is able to offer furtheranalysis of its exclusive research, tailored to individual clients' needs. It is possible, for example, to net and/or combine codes to

create new attitudinal, usage or demographic groups, and cross-analysis can show how the answers to any questions or categories are related. For further details and a quote, please call our statisticians - Peter Ayton/Shaheed Alam/Yemisi Williams - on 020 7606 4533. 03/2003

This report is supplied in accordance with Mintel's terms and conditions. Supplied to Canterbury Christ Church University. © Mintel International Group Limited.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful