See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/241921578

Packaging and purchase decisions: An exploratory study on the

impact of involvement level and time pressure

Article  in  British Food Journal · August 2004

DOI: 10.1108/00070700410553602

CITATIONS READS
618 26,478

2 authors, including:

Mark Speece
adjunct College of Management Mahidol University (CMMU)
187 PUBLICATIONS   3,577 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sustainable Peace & Prosperity in Complex and Conflicted Marketing Systems: From Angkor to Zahle View project

Dissertation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mark Speece on 13 February 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0007-070X.htm

Packaging and
Packaging and purchase purchase
decisions decisions
An exploratory study on the impact of
involvement level and time pressure 607
Pinya Silayoi
Department of Packaging Technology, Faculty of Agro-Industry,
Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand
Mark Speece
School of Management, Asian Institute of Technology and Graduate School,
Bangkok University, Bangkok, Thailand
Keywords Food packaging, Design, Consumer behaviour
Abstract The importance of packaging design as a vehicle for communication and branding is
growing in competitive markets for packaged food products. This research utilized a focus group
methodology to understand consumer behavior toward such products and how packaging elements
can affect buying decisions. Visual package elements play a major role, representing the product for
many consumers, especially in low involvement, and when they are rushed. Most focus group
participants say they use label information, but they would like it if simplified. The challenge for
researchers is to integrate packaging into an effective purchasing decision model, by understanding
packaging elements as important marketing communications tools. Propositions for future research
are proposed which will help in developing better understanding of consumer response to packaging
elements.

Introduction: packaging at the point of sale

Packaging seems to be one of the most important factors in purchase decisions made at
the point of sale (Prendergast and Pitt, 1996), where it becomes an essential part of the
selling process (Rettie and Brewer, 2000). Packaged food products are moving into ever
larger supermarkets and hypermarkets, and there is a proliferation of products,
offering consumers vast choice. The competitive context is ever more intense, both in
the retail store and household. With the move to self-service retail formats, packaging
increases its key characteristic as the “salesman on the shelf” at the point of sale. The
critical importance of packaging design is growing in such competitive market
conditions, as package becomes a primary vehicle for communication and branding
(Rettie and Brewer, 2000).
This discussion examines how packaging influences buying decisions for packaged
food products. The package standing out on the shelf affects the consumer decision
process, and package design must insure that consumer response is favorable. The
problem is made more complex by several conflicting trends in consumer
decision-making. On one hand, some consumers are paying more attention to label
information, as they become more concerned about health and nutrition (Coulson, 2000; British Food Journal
Vol. 106 No. 8, 2004
IGD, 2003c). These consumers are more involved in the product decision and use pp. 607-628
package information more extensively. On the other hand, modern consumers are often q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0007-070X
looking for ways to reduce time spent on food shopping and preparation. This can DOI 10.1108/00070700410553602
BFJ influence decision processes, too, as time pressure reduces detailed consideration of
package elements (IGD, 2002b; Warde, 1999).
106,8 While these are important issues, and becoming even more critical in the
intensifying competitive environment, there is little comprehensive study on how
packaging elements influence brand choice under involvement and time pressure. This
paper aims at forming a better understanding of the link between packaging and
608 consumer purchase behavior. The main objective is to examine packaging elements
that influence purchase decisions. From this, we propose a conceptual framework for
how packaging relates to purchase decisions in the context of different product
involvement levels and under time pressure.
Generally, qualitative methods are best suited to developing deeper understanding,
so our discussion is based on focus groups interviews which examined these issues
in-depth with typical consumers. The focus groups sessions had two broad objectives.
They are:
(1) to examine the consumer experience with purchasing packaged food products;
and
(2) to understand consumer views on how packaging plays a role in their purchase
decisions.
The focus groups were conducted in Bangkok, Thailand, and thus, the views represent
consumers in an important middle-income country market where the agribusiness
industry is quite strong, and conditions are very competitive.

The packaged food products market in Thailand

Thailand provides an excellent context for examining packaging of processed food
products. Understanding consumer response to packaging in Asia is critical to food
companies competing globally, and Thailand is one of the leading markets for such
trends. The packaged food industry in Thailand is highly competitive, and the Thai
industry is a major player in the world market. Thailand is the world’s fifth largest
food exporter, with more than half of its exports going to its three major markets in
Japan, North America, and Europe (The Nation, 2003). Packaged food products
constitute to a large part of exports, and thus, domestic markets in the West are seeing
an increasing presence of Thai packaged food.
In Thailand, the rapid growth of modern retailing, where packaging plays a critical
role in merchandising and communication, is an important driver of the dynamic
competitive environment for fast moving consumer goods (FMCG) (The Nation, 2002).
Expansion of modern retailing is common across Asia, even in very low income
countries (Speece and Luc, 2002), but is more advanced in Thailand than in most parts
of developing Asia. According to AC Nielson, Thailand is the most dynamic retail
market in the Asian region except for China (Rungfapaisarn, 2002). Internationalization
is a key ingredient. For example, Britain is now the fifth largest investor in Thailand,
and major British FMCG companies and retailers have a strong presence (UK Trade
and Investment, 2003). A report by IGD (2003a) indicates that, after China, Thailand is
one of just three other key Asian markets for international retailers.
As many Asian markets, Thailand has seen an influx of foreign retailers. The whole
range of modern retail stores common in the West are also becoming common in
Thailand. Hypermarkets now lead growth, with foreign stores playing a major role in
this category. Tesco has become the largest single player, but there are also three other Packaging and
major chains, including the European Carrefour and Makro, and Big C, which is purchase
domestic (Phuangkanok, 2001; Rungfapaisarn, 2002, 2001). Supermarkets and
convenience stores, the other major outlets for packaged food products, show a decisions
similar mix of Western and domestic chains.
These trends have fostered quite a lot of product and packaging innovation. In
Thailand, ready-to-eat and other convenience food products are among the most 609
rapidly growing categories (The Nation, 2002). Packaging has become a critical
marketing issue in the competitive domestic market and as Thai products expand
their international presence. Industry experts believe that product innovation and
packaging are the keys to enhance competitiveness of Thai packaged food
products (The Nation, 2003). The director of the Bureau of Entrepreneur and
Enterprise Development, which works with Thai SMEs, believes that packaging is
one of the three critical areas where SMEs need to develop more expertise, along
with marketing and high quality raw materials (Asawanipont, 2003).
A key to maximizing package impact is understanding consumer response to
packaging. Many observers, e.g. AC Nielsen, a leading international consumer research
company, believe that consumers worldwide are likely to have roughly a similar
response to many FMCG, despite cultural differences (The Nation, 2002).
Understanding issues that concern consumers in one highly competitive market
should provide a useful guide for others, even if details of execution might have to
differ across countries. Our own work has found many elements of behavior toward
FMCG brands to be similar among middle class consumers across a number of Asian
markets (Speece, 1998, 2002, 2003). In many respects, their behavior does not seem very
different from how Europeans may view brands (Speece, 2000).
For example, while there is a considerable brand loyalty toward FMCG in Asia,
many consumers are loyal to a small set of brands, rather than to a single one. Roughly
half the consumers have frequently not made specific brand choices before they enter
the store, as several brands are all acceptable to them (Speece, 1998, 2003). The package
truly is critical for these shoppers, and it must communicate the advantages of the food
product inside. Consumers in Thailand are becoming more careful shoppers, paying
more attention to information about packaged food products (NFI, 2003; Speece, 2003).
This trend, of course, is worldwide. In the UK, for example, IGD (2003c) found that 61
percent of people surveyed now look for product information on food labels, up from
only 13 percent in 2000.
Convenience is also a key driver for food choice worldwide, and recent trends
suggest that the demand for convenience is likely to continue increasing as young
consumers take their habits with them into old age (IGD, 2002a). According to IGD
(2002a), more impulsive and impatient consumers have driven the move toward more
informal dining and a decline in the traditional fixed meal times. The trend is so strong
in middle class Thailand that even some popular restaurant chains have found it
advantageous to move into packaged food distributed through modern retail stores, as
their customers do not always have time for a restaurant meal (Jitpleecheep, 2003).

Literature review: packaging functions and elements

Prendergast and Pitt (1996) review the basic functions of packaging, and define them
by their role in either logistics or marketing. The logistical function of packaging is
BFJ mainly to protect the product during movement through distribution channels. In the
106,8 marketing function, packaging provides an attractive method to convey messages
about product attributes to consumers at the point of sale. It may be difficult to
separate these two package functions, as they are usually needed. The package sells
the product by attracting attention and communicating, and also allows the product to
be contained, apportioned, unitized, and protected.
610 Whatever be the logistics considerations, packaging is one key food product
attribute perceived by consumers. It cannot escape performing the marketing function,
even if a company does not explicitly recognize the marketing aspects of packaging.
The package is a critical factor in the decision-making process because it
communicates to consumers. Intention to purchase depends on the degree to which
consumers expect the product to satisfy them when they consume it (Kupiec and
Revell, 2001). How they perceive it depends on communication elements, which become
the key to success for many marketing strategies.
The package’s overall features can underline the uniqueness and originality of the
product. In addition, quality judgments are largely influenced by product
characteristics reflected by packaging. If it communicates high quality, consumers
assume that the product is of high quality. If the package symbolizes low quality,
consumers transfer this low quality perception to the product itself. The package
communicates favorable or unfavorable implied meaning about the product.
Underwood et al. (2001) suggest that consumers are more likely to spontaneously
imagine aspects of how a product looks, tastes, feels, smells, or sounds while they are
viewing a product picture on the package.
Consumer decision-making can be defined as a mental orientation characterizing a
consumer’s approach to making choice (Lysonski et al., 1996). This approach deals
with cognitive and affective orientations in the process of decision-making. Four main
packaging elements potentially affect consumer purchase decisions, which can be
separated into two categories: visual and informational elements. The visual elements
consist of graphics and size/shape of packaging, and relate more to the affective side of
decision-making. Informational elements relate to information provided and
technologies used in the package, and are more likely to address the cognitive side
of decisions.
Most FMCG are low involvement products. In low involvement, “consumers do not
search extensively for information about the brands, evaluate their characteristics, and
make a weighty decision on which brand to buy” (Kotler et al., 1996, p. 225). One reason
for this is low risk (Chaudhuri, 2000; Mitchell, 1999), i.e. these products are simply not
very important. The lack of substantial evaluation often results in the inability to
distinguish much difference among leading brands (McWilliam, 1997). A common
result is relatively weak “habit” brand loyalty. Thus, when consumers find a brand
which meets their standards, they tend to stay “satisfied” with it, especially, if they are
constantly reminded of the brand. But they are not very committed, and substitute
easily when it is not available.
Such habit loyalty is fairly common in the West, e.g. IGD (2002a) notes that about
one-third of women shoppers, and slightly fewer men, buy food products through habit.
It is also quite common in Thailand and more broadly in Asia (Speece, 1998, 2003).
Survey data from Thailand indicate that packaging plays a strong role in reminding
consumers about the brand (Silayoi et al., 2003), i.e. it helps to reinforce habit loyalty.
 Some observers, though, note that not all consumers view grocery shopping as a Packaging and
low involvement activity. Beharrell and Denison (1995) show a range of involvement purchase
among European consumers. Those with higher involvement tend to be more strongly
brand loyal, including willingness to postpone purchase or go to another store if the decisions
brand is not available. In Thailand, about 20-40 percent of consumers for most FMCG
show this level of loyalty, and will postpone or search rather than simply switch to a
substitute (Speece, 1998, 2003). 611
Clearly, consumer use of packaging elements is quite an important issue for low
involvement products – generally, informational elements require more mental effort
to process than do visual elements, which evoke more of an emotional response. Some
consumers are not willing to put forth this small effort, and food products which is of
truly low involvement for them. Others may consider the product more carefully, so
that involvement level might shift the package elements which are most critical. We
look at these various elements in more detail in the remainder of this section, to
examine how consumers are likely to use each one.

Visual elements
Graphics and color
Graphics includes layout, color combinations, typography, and product photography,
all of which create an image. For low involvement, there is a strong impact from
marketing communications, including image building, on consumer decision-making.
Evaluation of attributes is of less importance in low involvement decisions, so
graphics and color become critical (Grossman and Wisenblit, 1999). For many
consumers in low involvement, the package is the product, particularly because
impressions formed during initial contact can have lasting impact. As the product
attribute which most directly communicates to the target consumer (Nancarrow et al.,
1998), the design characteristics of the package need to stand out in a display of many
other offerings.
Many consumers today shop under higher levels of perceived time pressure, and
tend to purchase fewer products than intended (Herrington and Capella, 1995).
Products often appear to be chosen without prior planning, representing a form of
impulse buying (Hausman, 2000). A package that attracts consumers at the point of
sale will help them make decisions quickly in-store. As the customer’s eye tracks
across a display of packages, different new packages can be noticed against the
competitors. However, eye movement does not necessarily mean attention. When
scanning packages in the supermarket, the differential perception and the positioning
of the graphics elements on a package may make the difference between identifying
and missing an item (Herrington and Capella, 1995).
In psychology research, brain laterality results in an asymmetry in the perception of
elements in package designs (Rettie and Brewer, 2000). The recall of package elements
is likely to be influenced by their lateral position on the package, as well as by factors
such as font style, size, and color. Recall is better for verbal stimuli when the copy is on
the right hand side of the package, and better for non-verbal stimuli when it is on the
left hand side. This may imply that, in order to maximize consumer recall, pictorial
elements, such as product photography, should be positioned on the left hand side of
the package.
BFJ Consumers also learn color associations, which lead them to prefer certain colors for
106,8 various product categories (Grossman and Wisenblit, 1999). Using color as a cue on
packaging can be a potentially strong association, especially when it is unique to a
particular brand. However, people in different cultures are exposed to different color
associations and develop color preferences based on their own culture’s associations.
Simply taking the colors of a particular logo, package, or product design from one
612 market to another should only be done under a thorough understanding of how colors
and color combinations are perceived in each location (Madden et al., 2000).

Packaging size and shape

Package size, shape, and elongation also affects consumer judgment and decisions, but
not always in easily uncovered ways. Consumers appear to use these things as
simplifying visual heuristics to make volume judgments. Generally they perceive more
elongated packages to be larger, even when they frequently purchase these packages
and can experience true volume. This implies that disconfirmation of package size after
consumption may not lead consumers to revise their volume judgments in the long
term, especially if the discrepancy is not very large (Raghubir and Krishna, 1999).
Different sizes also appeal to consumers with somewhat different involvement. For
example, low price for some low involvement products, such as generics, is made
possible through cost savings created by reduced packaging and promotional
expenses. Generics are usually packaged in larger sizes, which communicates to
consumers who are specifically looking for good deals. Such consumers find the low
price of the generics, in the right size of packaging, offers excellent value for money
(Prendergast and Marr, 1997). In addition, this could imply that when product quality
is hard to determine, as with generics, the packaging size effect is stronger.

Informational elements
Product information
The behavior of consumers toward products characterized by high involvement is less
influenced by image issues and visual response (Kupiec and Revell, 2001); in such cases
consumers need more information. Written information on the package can assist
consumers in making their decisions carefully as they consider product characteristics.
However, packaging information can create confusion by conveying either too much
information or misleading and inaccurate information. Manufacturers often use very
small fonts and very dense writing styles to pack extensive information onto the label,
which lead to poor readability and sometimes confusion.
Mitchell and Papavassiliou (1999) suggest that one way consumers reduce
confusion from information overload is to narrow down their choice sets. Reducing
choice alternatives and evaluative attributes decreases the probability that they will be
confused by excessive choice and information overload. This strategy could apply to
more experienced consumers, because heavy users potentially look at fewer brand
alternatives. In other words, experience makes consumers selectively perceptive and
restricts the scope of their search (Hausman, 2000). This is effectively a form of brand
loyalty, brought about because consumers do not necessarily want to continue reading
labels every time they buy a particular product.
Many consumers appreciate food labeling, but are not satisfied with standard
formats. For example, UK survey data indicates that nearly two-thirds of consumers
now read food labels, but one-third want to see clearer labeling (IGD, 2003c). Other Packaging and
research in the UK also shows that many consumers find the format prescribed in law purchase
for both voluntary and compulsory labeling difficult to use (FSA, 2003). In another
recent survey, 90 percent of people agreed that nutritional information panels should decisions
be laid out in the same way for all food products so that they are easy to understand
quickly (Mitchell and Papavassiliou, 1999).
While not all consumers use it, the trend seems to be toward increasing attention to 613
such label information. Partly concerns about food safety and nutritional health drive
this trend (Coulson, 2000; IGD, 2003d; Smith and Riethmuller, 2000), but it is also
driven by the gradually increasing consumer sophistication. During Thailand’s recent
recession, for example, consumers were loathed to sacrifice living standards, but they
did have to watch budgets more carefully. They began evaluating products more
carefully to make sure they were worth the prices charged (Speece, 2003). Whatever be
the reasons, more highly involved consumers evaluate message information, relying on
message argument quality to form their attitudes and purchase intentions (Vakratsas
and Ambler, 1999).
On the other hand, packaged food products remain low in involvement for many
consumers. In general, consumer acquisition of low involvement products is often done
without carefully examining brand and product information. The lack of commitment
and attention implies that information on the package carries relatively less value with
consumers who view packaged food as low involvement products.

Packaging technology
Technology developed for packaging comes directly from the current trends in
products and consumer behaviors. Powerful retailers also seek greater responsiveness
and flexibility from manufacturers, including packaging, to satisfy consumers who are
more demanding and sophisticated (Adebanjo, 2000). Customers are often prepared to
pay slightly more for enhanced product value, indicating desire for more quality.
However, product and packaging development also constrained in creating products
that fully meet the consumer and channel criteria. Such constraints might be
categorized as ingredient, processing, and cost restraints.
Innovation must respond and develop new products that are more efficiently
produced, packaged for a longer shelf life, environmentally friendly, nutritionally
responsive to each of the emerging segments of society, and meet maximum food
safety requirements (McIlveen, 1994). Technology embodied in the package plays a big
role in this, making it somewhat of a special form of informational element. In addition
to its technical role, packaging technology also conveys information which is often
linked to the consumer’s lifestyle. Therefore, in order to survive in high growth,
competitive markets, technology becomes very important for developing packaging,
materials, and processes.
It is clear from the review of literature that the importance of packaging
development is high, as packaging plays a major role in consumer decisions of fast
moving packaged food products. Earlier research, however, is not very extensive, and
has not looked very carefully at differences in how packaging elements are used for
decisions based on levels of involvement and time pressure. In the next section we
discuss focus group research to examine these issues among middle class consumers in
Bangkok.
BFJ Methodology
106,8 Focus groups were used for this study in order to gain in-depth insights into consumer
shopping behaviors for packaged food products. Qualitative approaches provide richer
detail for exploring viewpoints in early stages of research, allowing the researcher to
gain a better initial understanding of issues (Healy and Perry, 2000). Focus group
interviews are particularly a good process for generating hypotheses and interpreting
614 consumer thinking. Focus group methodologies do not aim for precise measurement,
but rather at gaining in-depth knowledge about certain topic areas. A focus group is
especially useful for learning about participants’ conceptualizations of particular
phenomena and the language they use to describe them (Blackburn and Stokes, 2000;
Jinks and Daniels, 1999).
Two focus groups of six housewives and six working women were conducted in
Bangkok. Focus groups may not be fully representative of target populations, but it
was important to ensure that the results could illustrate possible variations within the
city and provide some level of generalisability. Invited participants were stratified
according to household income, marital status, number of children and family
members, and age. One group concentrated on 35-42 year old housewives with 2-3
children, and one on 27-36 year old married working women without children. For both
groups, household income of a minimum of 40,000 Baht/month and a maximum of
80,000 Baht were adopted (slightly less than US$ 1,000-2,000/month), to represent solid
middle class income levels.
The study aimed to get the participants who are responsible for household
shopping. In most countries, women are still mainly responsible for household
shopping and remain the main decision makers for frequently purchased packaged
food products. Thailand fits this pattern, and screening questions indicated that
participants made the purchase decisions for packaged food products.
The discussions were guided by a moderator (one of the authors) whose role was to
develop the exploration of the topics. This researcher was previously unknown to any
participant, so that the groups had no pre-conceived ideas about the research and
researcher influence on responses would be minimal. In the interviews, it is important
to get people to feel comfortable with expressing honest and open answers (Cowley,
2000). The interviewees were promised that individual identities would not be revealed
in any way while reporting the data. The interviews were recorded and the researcher
took notes of all the interactions. The sessions were guided by a list of topics which
acted as the framework for discussion.

Findings
Both sets of participants identified packaging elements as the main factors in their
assessment and decisions on household purchases. The packaging elements identified
most often were graphics and color, shape and size, and product information. These
dimensions were seen as important by most participants. In the following discussion,
we examine these elements and the impact of involvement level and time pressure in
more detail.

Impact of involvement level

Participants defined involvement level based on perceptions of product importance. In
their purchase strategies, the most familiar product would potentially be bought by
many consumers. The focus groups also noted that, without their usual choices, the Packaging and
product from a well-known company would be more reliable. These types of views purchase
reflect the use of brand as a simplifying heuristic so that consumers do not need to
think very deeply in their choices: decisions
I decide to buy well-known brands, especially for food, because I have found them reliable.
The brand usually seen from TV will be bought as I am familiar with it. 615
When there is choice, I rely on the most familiar brand or something from a big company.
(Note: these and all subsequent quotes are translated from Thai by the researcher)
Participants also ascertained product quality by screening product appearance.
Quality judgments are largely influenced by product characteristics reflected by
packaging. If the package communicates high quality, consumers assume that the
product is of high quality, unless they have other negative information. Some
participants, for example, said.
Without experience, I buy food by considering the appearance of the package reflecting
premium quality.
Nice package design can influence my decision as it sometimes reflects good quality products.
Some packages are made of high quality material with neat design. I cannot deny that the
product would be premium also. That is why I bought them to try.
Even though it is hard to define quality, I believe that a well-designed package helps me in
being more confident about the product.
The visual element is foremost when they discuss brand choices this way. However,
participants suggested that directly consumed products need to be carefully selected,
especially many food and skincare products. Many such products require somewhat
higher involvement, and other household products, such as shower gel, shampoo,
washing liquid and detergent, were defined at a lower level of involvement. Higher
involvement results in more attention to product characteristics, and sometimes,
stronger brand loyalty:
I consider food products with more care as they directly affect my health. This means I need
to carefully select such products.
Nutrition facts on the package are very important for me to judge the product quality.
I find food and skincare products are very specific. If the particular brand is not available in
the store, I decide to postpone my purchase. Or sometimes I try to buy from other stores.
Conversely, several quotes illustrate the lower importance of some other food product
categories, which seem to be perceived much more as commodities:
It is not critical to choose specific brands of grocery products such as rice or sugar.
If my brand is not there to choose, I usually buy some other brands which have similar
functions . . . such as, if I cannot find the oil I usually buy, I will try another brand.
I am willing to try a new product such as pepper, salt, and herbs. Because it is not important
for me to stick with one brand as long as it would not work differently.
BFJ Some food products clearly arouse higher involvement levels, but some consumers are
106,8 more involved than others. Other food products are still perceived as commodities, so
that attention to and evaluation of specific brands is not critical. Involvement arises as
a result of ongoing interest in the product class and its association with the individual’s
values, self-concept, and feelings of well-being. Some participants suggested that
characteristics of the products and brands themselves may steadily act to arouse their
616 involvement.
These views seem consistent with the West (Beharrell and Denison, 1995). Brand
loyalty and habit shopping are common there also, although the proportion of
consumers who are strongly brand loyal may be lower than in Asia. Palumbo and
Herbig (2000) note a UK survey in which 61 percent of affluent adult shoppers tended
to agree that they liked to find one brand to stay with. One respondent in another UK
survey evaluated products hardly at all, showing an extreme reliance on (store) brand:
“I never look at the labels, if something is good enough for Asda to sell then it is good
enough for me.” (IGD, 2002a, p. 21). However, another common approach is indicated
by another survey in which the majority of consumers wanted to see specific
nutritional information on the label (IGD, 2003c).

Time pressure
Time pressure frequently affects shopping decisions. Participants agreed that when
shopping under relatively high time constraints, they spend less time making any
given purchase. They described shopping under time pressure as making quick
decisions without careful evaluation. This made them purchase fewer products than
intended and led to unplanned purchases. It was more difficult to make decisions,
especially when considering multiple brands or product attributes. They made most
decisions quickly at the point of sale:
I needed to pick something quickly while I was shopping with my kids.
I feel pressured to complete my shopping quickly. And it happened that I always bought
something I didn’t intend to.
Grocery shopping is one of my responsibilities. Whenever I am in rush, it is hard for me to
make a decision. Most of the time, I made mistakes with those colorful products on the shelf.
This final quote indicates that visual elements play a big role in decisions under time
pressure, which reduces ability to evaluate carefully, i.e. it lowers involvement.
Consumers throughout the modern world report such patterns. For example, IGD
(2003d) reports that many consumers do not have time to read food labels. Often they
want label format standardized and in larger font, and some even suggest color coding
to make information more visual and easier to process quickly. Other surveys indicate
that younger consumers feel even more time pressure (IGD, 2001), and men are even
more time oriented than women food shoppers (IGD, 2002a). Time pressure, then,
counters the trend toward somewhat higher involvement toward food products, and
shifts the emphasis away from label information back toward visual package elements.

Graphics and color

Participants clearly felt that packaging helps contribute to a positive shopping
experience. Graphics communicate about the product for both low and higher
involvement products, and graphics and color were among the most highly noticeable Packaging and
factors. Poor graphics can lose the sale for many consumers, while attractive graphics purchase
gains it for many:
decisions
When I am shopping in the supermarket, a colorful pack catches my attention first. But color
also has different meaning; I was recently put off the low fat biscuits by the pale color
package.
617
I found the pale packaging is boring and dull. If the pack is dull, the food taste could be
guessed as boring.
I usually go for the colorful package when I am looking for kids’ products.

On my first purchase and without a favorite brand, I made my decision on snacks or juices by
the design of the label. If I like it, I’ll certainly buy it.
For low involvement products, these decisions were usually made on pure liking.
Some participants suggested that the appearance of packaging reflected the
characteristic of the buyers. Therefore, they intended to buy products with the
distinctive package design based on their images. Distinctive graphics become part
of the brand identifier, and consumers use the graphics to cut through shelf clutter
to find their brands:
When I am looking for snack foods, color of the package helps me to find the product easier
. . . such as I remembered that the color of my kid’s favorite biscuit bag was red. So I kept
looking for the red bag on the shelf.
Many consumers commented that similar graphics layout by other brands can mislead
them in identifying their brands. Most participants had experienced the mistake of
purchasing a product look-alike when they were in hurry. For copycat brands, this
might seem useful, but one common emotional response on discovering the mistake
was disappointment, and frequently some desire to be more careful next time. For
example:
Similar graphic design on the package made me confused every time I was rushed.
I was disappointed on buying wrong products because of those similar packages.
Even under somewhat higher involvement, visual elements influence choice of the food
product. When consumers think about more careful evaluation of alternatives, the
graphics frequently represent the product to them:
I use the pictures on the pack to compare and differentiate among the brands . . . This may be
based on my liking.
This might be under time pressure or it could be a way to reduce the time needed for
decision. But even when they actually read labels carefully, participants tended to first
notice many products by the package color, which often reminded them about familiar
brands. When they were looking for a particular product on the shelf, packages with
the same range of color would attract their attention better than others. Group
members suggested that graphics and pictorial elements on the packaging strongly
affected their attention, and agreed that one important role of the graphics is to gain
consideration for the brand:
BFJ Nice graphics on the packs are always standing out from the shelf. Most of the time, I pick
them up, at least, to see more details.
106,8
Certainly, time pressure shifts emphasis in consumer thinking to the graphics. Package
pictures increase attention and trial for some brands with low familiarity:
When I was in rush, nice pictures and bright color on the pack make it seem to be more
618 attractive than others . . . I just unintentionally bought a box of biscuits only because of its
beautiful design.
Under limited time, a beautiful package strongly influenced my decision when I could not see
my usually bought one.
Thus, graphics influence decisions under either time situation, and whether higher or
low involvement. When consumers feel no need to carefully consider product
characteristics, graphics drives their choice. Some consumers feel that they are
evaluating product attributes, in that package graphics represent products. Even
consumers who actually examine products more carefully use graphics to cut through
shelf clutter and focus on their brands. If they have no strong preference, or are open to
trying another brand, graphics gain attention for more careful evaluation.
The available data about the role of package graphics in choice seems to show
similar patterns among consumers in the West. For example, IGD (2003b) reports on a
UK survey which indicates that graphics and design can play a role in communicating
label information to consumers more effectively. As noted above, Underwood et al.
(2001) show that consumers use packaging to represent the product in their
imagination, and Imram (1999) discusses how color influences quality perceptions.

Packaging size and shape

Somewhat different from graphics and color, group members feel that size and shape
are related to usability. While consumers think of product pictures and graphics as a
means of communication, discussion about size and shape focused more on packaging
as convenient to use and carry. For example,
I found some packages were not convenient because they did not fit to my hands.
Participants agreed that packaging shape also had some influence on their purchase
decisions. As found in the literature, the bigger package reflected better value
(Prendergast and Marr, 1997). Without their familiar brands, bigger packages of very
low involvement items such as commodity food products tended to be chosen.
The participants suggested that packaging size communicated higher value and is also
more easily noticed. When they scan different products, the larger package stands out
on the shelf:
I usually buy the larger refill packs of instant coffee and cream.
Bigger package was bought usually as I thought it would be value for money. But I would
consider only the grocery products, such as jasmine rice, oil, and sauces.
Under limited time, the bigger size seems to be more noticeable and attractive.
But some participants had experienced inconsistency of size, and after consuming such
products, sometimes found that the package did not contain as much volume as
expected. This type of experience may affect their future purchase decisions. In order Packaging and
to make their judgments about volume more carefully after being fooled, many purchase
participants tended to read the information provided on the package:
decisions
It happens very often that many packs do not contain the product volume as much as we
expected from the size.
Sometimes when I see a big package, or value pack, it will remind me about my experience 619
with inconsistency. Therefore, to avoid disappointment, I need to read the information on the
package more carefully.
Package shapes could also help make products more appealing. For children’s
products, distinctive packaging shapes were considered more attractive, and
respondents reported that their children preferred to try products in different
packaging shapes. Usually in this context, they indicated low involvement products
which are essentiall commodities:
My kids are always attracted by the weird shape of package . . . The recent flavored milk they
asked for was a warped bottle with fantastic pictures.
My children find those different bottles are funny and fascinating.
Consumers from smaller households were not interested in larger packages, and larger
sizes communicated waste to many of them. Working women in particular suggested
that the smaller package was more effective. As their family size is small, they tend to
choose packages with appropriate product portions:
We never finish the larger pack of food before the expiry date. So I decide to buy a smaller
package which would be more suitable for my family.
My family is quite small so that I prefer to buy a small portion of food. And there seems to be
several petite packs in the market.
This thinking is also common in the West. For example, a UK survey of single men
shoppers showed that they believe that extra volume in a sales promotion was wasted.
It made the product too much for one meal and not enough for two meals, so that often
the food could not all be eaten within the sell-by date (IGD, 2002a).

Information
As noted, many consumers feel that it is important to consider information on the
package in order to compare quality and value. The trend toward healthier eating has
highlighted the importance of food labeling, which allows consumers the opportunity
to cautiously consider alternatives and make informed food choices (as in the West)
(Coulson, 2000). Consumers consider many packaged food products as higher
involvement, requiring more evaluation. They tend to read the message on the label
more often to ensure quality, even though graphics and shape may affect their
attention at the beginning.
Thus, in contrast to consumers who rely on visual information, many participants
were more likely to judge higher involvement products at least partly by information
provided on the package. Some rely on label information quite heavily for the final
decision:
BFJ To define the quality of products, especially food, I read everything they said on the package
to be sure that the product contains exactly what I wanted.
106,8
Only reading product information could finally help me on quality judgment.
I totally rely on what it is said on the label, when I have to make a decision.
While they generally want more information for many products, the groups also
620 suggested that information on food labels needs to be accurately communicated. They
revealed many negative experiences with food labels which were not clear. Sometimes
this confusion leads people to ignore the information, sometimes it leads to rejection in
favor of packages on which information is more effectively communicated. Some
representative statements illustrating these views include:
The nutritional information is incredibly confusing. I don’t understand it entirely.
It made me tired when I read the ingredient list.
Some labels seem to be to complicated to understand, that’s why I don’t buy them.
This confusion is also reported in the West, where many consumers want product
labels to more effectively and more simply communicate basic product information
(IGD, 2003b). While most Thai respondents did not go as far as to want such
information presented visually, they preferred to understand the displayed information
quickly without extensive interpreting:
It would be great if I could see at a glance how healthy a product is from its label.
This anxiety about being able to understand label information quickly seems
frequently to come from time pressure. Consumers explicitly recognize the conflict
between being rushed and needing to carefully evaluate products. Even when highly
rushed, many participants still avoided ambiguity by insisting on including detailed
product information in their decisions, particularly for higher involvement foods and
skincare products:
Although I do not have enough time, I still need to read the product information to avoid
mistakes.
It is important for me to read the nutritional facts and all the information on the label.
Even if I am in a hurry, information about food products could help me in selecting the right
choice.
No matter how short the shopping time I have, I will make my decision by reading the label.
In case there is no favorite brand, I really need to see what the product contains as my family
members may be allergic to some ingredients.
However, for lower involvement products, this is not as important, as some people
indicated:
For grocery products, such as snacks and drinks, I seem to filter textual information when I
am hurry. With these types of products, I use the picture for judgment.
Nevertheless, it is difficult to make decisions when rushed, causing dissatisfaction with
product and store choices. Participants indicated that any mechanism which could aid
them in processing information might reduce perceived time pressure and increase
their satisfaction with the product. They suggested that simple and accurate Packaging and
information, prominently presented, affects their decision positively: purchase
The label needs to clearly indicate about the ingredients and general information. I use this decisions
type of information to compare product quality.
Some packages do not show exactly the instructions and components. That is why sometimes
I didn’t buy them. 621
If the products do not show the information clearly, I will definitely not buy them.
Technology
When asked about convenience products such as quick meal or microwave food, the
two focus groups responded differently. Housewives mostly avoided such products,
perceiving them to be less healthy, although they occasionally bought some fresh
ready-to-eat meals (such as from the supermarket deli). On the other hand, working
women often purchased microwave food, which they found convenient and reliable.
They indicated that the food manufacturers who produced the products were well
known and provided acceptable quality. Many interviewees also felt that it was
becoming important to pay attention to packaging materials, which have an impact on
convenience as well as the product itself. They are aware of materials which are
compatible with their food preparation. For example:
The signal of plastic type (i.e. microwaveable or freezable) and information for use stated on
the pack help me to make my choice (italics from discussion context, not part of quote).
If I do not have enough time to prepare my meal, I tend to buy a Quick Meal pack. But I
always make sure that the package is microwaveable.
Most participants believed that the packaging materials were important even beyond
such examples as convenience cooking or storage. For example, some interviewees
came up with the interesting issue of package technology and storage life:
There are packages that could prolong food life. Some foods were used in the bottle, but now
they have been modified into the stand-up pouches and some plastic sachets. And it can keep
the product much longer.
Some housewives indicated that snack food packages needed to be made with nontoxic
materials, as well as to be soft and harmless when kids tried to open them themselves.
They also agreed that if they were able to tear the package open easily, it would be
more convenient. For example, some participants said that:
I experienced a bag of snack food which cut my finger when I tried to open it.
When I buy snack foods or sweets, I prefer a plastic bag which is easy to open.
In addition, the respondents suggested that one of the main functions of the package
was to dispense a proper amount of product when it was used. They found many
current food packages convenient to use, especially some special designs of sweets and
mints packages:
I love the way they do with those small boxes of candies. It could be opened easily and gives
me the right amount.
The manufacturers keep creating new techniques for the sweet boxes and it is a good
development.
BFJ On the other hand, some packages, such as bottles for beverage products, were found
to be awkward:
106,8
Every time I poured the milk, too much would come out. This made me so frustrated.
The desire for greater convenience is no surprise, and is common worldwide among
urban middle class consumers. Consumer research in the UK, for example, regularly
622 shows similar thinking (IGD, 2001, 2002b). Among other things, consumers want
packaging technology that reduces food preparation time. Simpler technology
(in consumer perception, not necessarily in package development or production) is
also important, as are technology issues such as safety, food preservation, and ease
of use.

A research agenda for packaging development

It is clear that both visual and informational package elements can influence consumer
choice. This is a very important food products marketing issue, but research on such
packaging issues is not very extensive. Further, it is likely that the way either visual or
informational elements affect choice depends on product involvement levels and time
pressure. We propose a number of research propositions which should be investigated
in much more detail, because they can have a major impact on success or failure of
brands in markets for packaged food products.
P1. Visual elements of the package (graphics and size/shape) influence choice of
the product.
P1a. More appealing graphics will be more likely to be chosen.
P1b. Visually larger packages will be more likely to be chosen.
P2. Informational elements of the package (product information and technology)
influence choice of the product.
P2a. Packages with more product information are more likely to be chosen.
P2b. Packages with newer technology are more likely to be chosen.

Product involvement
Involvement level exerts considerable influence over consumer decision processes
(Beharrell and Denison, 1995; McWilliam, 1997; Quester and Smart, 1998). Involvement
and the consumption situation significantly influence the importance of paying careful
attention to product attributes. Affective responses influence product attitudes more
positively in low involvement than in high involvement situations (Vakratsas and
Ambler, 1999). Thus, visual elements of packaging are likely to influence consumers
more for low involvement. On the other hand, if product performance is viewed as
risky, then the consumer is likely to pay more attention to the product (Grossman and
Wisenblit, 1999; Dholakia, 2001). This suggests that the cognitive information on
packaging is more effective when consumers need to explicitly evaluate and compare
products.
Much of the conceptual development of these issues has not been applied
specifically to packaging. These areas need additional research:
 P3. Involvement level has a moderating effect on the relationships in P1 and P2. Packaging and
P3a. The influence of visual package elements on choice is stronger when purchase
consumers have low levels of involvement with the product, and weaker when decisions
they have high levels.
P3b. The influence of informational package elements on choice is stronger when
consumers have high levels of involvement with the product, and weaker 623
when they have low levels.
P4. Relative impacts: P3 implies that visual elements of packaging will have more
impact on the purchase decision than will the informational elements when
consumers have low levels of involvement with the product. Conversely, the
informational elements of packaging will have more impact on the purchase
decision than will the visual elements when consumers have high levels of
involvement with the product.

Time pressure
Empirical findings indicate that consumers under time pressure tend to make their
decision when the package comes with distinctive appearance and contains simple,
accurate information. Size of package is probably also indirectly related to time
pressure. A unique package shape may arise consumer curiosity more quickly and lead
to their purchase decision. Gofton (1995) suggests that as the number of single people
increases, and the number of families and multi-person households falls, behavioral
change takes place leading to less available time for more people. In other words, time
pressure is likely to become an ever more important factor which package designers
need to address. The limited data currently available suggests that:
P5. Time pressure has a moderating effect on the relationships in P1 and P2.
P5a. The influence of visual elements on choice is stronger when consumers have
less time in which to make the product choice, and weaker when they do not
have time pressure.
P5b. The influence of informational elements on choice is stronger when
consumers have more time to make the product choice. When they have time
pressure, they tend to perceive less information from the package, and the
influence of informational elements will be weaker.
P6. Relative impacts: P5 implies that when consumers face time pressure, the
visual elements of packaging will have more impact on the purchase
decision than will the informational elements. Conversely, when
consumers do not have time pressure, the informational elements of
packaging will have more impact on the purchase decision than will the
visual elements.
However, technology is somewhat of a special case relative to the other types of
informational elements, because packaging technology is often linked to
convenience food products, and convenience has become increasingly important
for food products (Warde, 1999). Consumers who are worried about time saving
BFJ will pay more attention to claims of new technology, because of technology’s
106,8 association with convenience:
P7. New packaging technology or new technology claimed on packaging has a
more positive effect on the purchase decision under time pressure than
without time pressure.
624 All these propositions are shown in Figure 1.

Conclusion
The results of this focus group study did support the propositions listed above. In
general, visual elements of the package influence choice of the product to a great
extent, and graphics and color are frequently the major influence. Attractive packaging
generates consumer attention by breaking through the competitive clutter. Picture
vividness has the most positive impact for products with lower levels of involvement.
However, informational elements are becoming increasingly important and influence
choice. The participants tended to judge food product performance by reading the label
if they were considering products more carefully. Appropriately delivered information
on packaging generates strong impact on the consumers’ purchase decision. This
information reduces the uncertainty and creates product credibility.
Clearly, packaging is an important marketing tool for food products, but the four
elements of packaging stimulate purchase decisions differently. Consumer evaluation
of packaging elements changes as the perceived risk of the consumption situation
increases, and marketers need to know the importance of the various attributes to best
communicate through the package. Visual elements, graphics and size/shape,

Figure 1.
Conceptual model of
packaging elements and
product choice
positively influence choice more in the low involvement situation, while informational Packaging and
elements tend to play a key role in higher involvement decision-making. Time pressure purchase
similarly changes how consumers evaluate products at the point of sale, partly by
reducing ability to give attention to informational elements. Again, marketers must decisions
communicate effectively through the package.
Knowledge about the issues summarized in our research propositions is very
necessary for developing effective packaging which can maximize in-store consumer 625
choice. This and the other limited research about consumer response to packaging
gives package designers some guidance. However, much more detailed understanding
is necessary, and careful examination of the issues much more broadly among
consumers is also important. It is clear that package plays a very large role in product
choice, and it is also clear that poor packaging can push consumers away from
buying the product. Certainly, better understanding of these issues in the packaging
design process will become a key element in the competitiveness of packaged food
products.

References
Adebanjo, D. (2000), “Identifying problems in forecasting consumer demand in the fast
moving consumer goods sector”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 7 No. 3,
pp. 223-30.
Asawanipont, N. (2003), “More Thais starting SMEs”, The Nation, 1 November.
Beharrell, B. and Denison, T.J. (1995), “Involvement in a routine food shopping context”, British
Food Journal, Vol. 97 No. 4, pp. 24-9.
Blackburn, R. and Stokes, D. (2000), “Breaking down the barriers: using focus group to research
small and medium-sized enterprises”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 19 No. 1,
pp. 44-67.
Chaudhuri, A. (2000), “A macro analysis of the relationship of product involvement and
information search: the role of risk”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practices, Vol. 8
No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Coulson, N.S. (2000), “An application of the stages of change model to consumer use of food
labels”, British Food Journal, Vol. 102 No. 9, pp. 661-8.
Cowley, J.C.P. (2000), “Strategic qualitative focus group research – define and articulate our
skills or we will be replaced by others”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 42
No. 1, pp. 17-39.
Dholakia, M.U. (2001), “A motivational process model of product involvement and consumer
risk perception”, European Journal of marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 11/12, pp. 1340-60.
Food Standards Agency (FSA) (2003), “Clear labeling task force: recommendations on ideal label
formats”, available at: www.foodstandards.gov.uk/foodlabelling/researchandreports/4921
(accessed November 2003).
Gofton, L. (1995), “Dollar rich and time poor? Some problems in interpreting changing food
habits”, British Food Journal, Vol. 97 No. 10, pp. 11-16.
Grossman, R.P. and Wisenblit, J.Z. (1999), “What we know about consumers’ colour choices”,
Journal of Marketing Practice: Applied Marketing Science, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 78-88.
Hausman, A. (2000), “A multi-method investigation of consumer motivations in impulse buying
behaviour”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 403-19.
BFJ Healy, M. and Perry, C. (2000), “Comprehensive criteria to judge validity and reliability of
qualitative research within the realism paradigm”, Qualitative Market Research: An
106,8 International Journal, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 118-26.
Herrington, J.D. and Capella, L.M. (1995), “Shopping reactions to perceived time pressure”,
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 23 No. 12, pp. 13-20.
Imram, N. (1999), “The role of visual cues in consumer perception and acceptance of a food
626 product”, Nutrition and Food Science, Vol. 5, pp. 224-8.
Institute of Grocery Distribution (IGD) (2001), Winning the Mature Vote.
Institute of Grocery Distribution (IGD) (2002a), The Single Male Shopper: Are They Men
Behaving Badly?
Institute of Grocery Distribution (IGD) (2002b), Continued Demand for Convenience, available at:
www.igd.com/analysis/ (accessed November 2003).
Institute of Grocery Distribution (IGD) (2003a), Competition Intensifies in Thailand, available at:
www.igd.com/analysis/news_analysis/viewArticle_fs.asp?mode ¼ sr&at ¼ 0&id ¼ 701
(accessed November 2003).
Institute of Grocery Distribution (IGD) (2003b), Packaging Legibility: Recommendations for
Improvement.
Institute of Grocery Distribution (IGD) (2003c), The Key to a Healthier Diet is Clearer Food
Labeling and Healthier Food Choices Say Consumers, available at: www.igd.com/analysis/
(accessed November 2003).
Institute of Grocery Distribution (IGD) (2003d), Communication is Key to Improving Shoppers’
Perception of Retailer Brands, available at: www.igd.com/analysis/ (accessed November
2003).
Jinks, A.M. and Daniels, R. (1999), “Workplace health concerns: a focus group study”, Journal
of Management in Medicine, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 95-104.
Jitpleecheep, S. (2003), “Sales of buffets slow, those of green tea up”, Bangkok Post, 11 November.
Kotler, P., Ang, S.H., Leong, S.M. and Tan, C.T. (1996), Marketing Management: An Asian
Perspective, Prentice-Hall, Singapore.
Kupiec, B. and Revell, B. (2001), “Measuring consumer quality judgements”, British Food Journal,
Vol. 103 No. 1, pp. 7-22.
Lysonski, S., Durvasula, S. and Zotos, Y. (1996), “Consumer decision-making styles: a
multi-country investigation”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 12, pp. 10-21.
McIlveen, H. (1994), “Product development and the consumer: the reality of the managing
creativity”, Nutrition & Food Science, No. 6, pp. 26-30.
McWilliam, G. (1997), “Low involvement brands: is the brand manager to blame?”, Marketing
Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 60-70.
Madden, J.T., Hewett, K. and Roth, M.S. (2000), “Managing images in different cultures: a
cross-national study of colour meaning and preferences”, Journal of International
Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 90-107.
Mitchell, V.W. (1999), “Consumer perceived risk: conceptualisations and models”, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33 Nos 1/2, pp. 163-95.
Mitchell, V.W. and Papavassiliou, V. (1999), “Marketing causes and implications of consumer
confusion”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 319-39.
Nancarrow, C., Wright, T.L. and Brace, I. (1998), “Gaining competitive advantage from
packaging and labeling in marketing communications”, British Food Journal, Vol. 100
No. 2, pp. 110-8.
National Food Institute (NFI) (2003), Major Market Thai Food Export 2001, 2002, available Packaging and
at: www.nfi.or.th/domestic/thai-food-industry/thai-market02.html (accessed November
2003). purchase
Palumbo, F. and Herbig, P. (2000), “The multicultural context of brand loyalty”, European decisions
Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 116-24.
Phuangkanok, N. (2001), “Retailing survey: supercentres now No. 1”, The Nation.
Prendergast, P.G. and Marr, N.E. (1997), “Generic products: who buys them and how do 627
they perform relative to each other?”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 2,
pp. 94-109.
Prendergast, P.G. and Pitt, L. (1996), “Packaging, marketing, logistics and the environment: are
there trade-offs?”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,
Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 60-72.
Quester, P.G. and Smart, J. (1998), “The influence of consumption situation and product
involvement over consumers’ use of product attribute”, Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 220-38.
Raghubir, P. and Krishna, A. (1999), “Vital dimensions in volume perception. Can the eye fool the
stomach?”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 313-26.
Rettie, R. and Brewer, C. (2000), “The verbal and visual components of package design”, Journal
of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 56-70.
Rungfapaisarn, K. (2001), “Tesco chief reshaped retail landscape”, The Nation.
Rungfapaisarn, K. (2002), “Thai retail market second only to China”, The Nation.
Silayoi, P., Malai, V., Rajatanavin, R. and Speece, M. (2003), “The effects of packaging on
consumer satisfaction and loyalty”, Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on
Marketing and Development, Bangkok, Thailand, January 2003. (abstract only; published
on CD by International Society for Marketing and Development).
Smith, D. and Riethmuller, P. (2000), “Consumer concerns about food safety in Australia and
Japan”, British food journal, Vol. 102 No. 11, pp. 838-55.
Speece, M. (1998), “Value orientation among Asian middle class consumers”, Marketing and
Research Today (ESOMAR), Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 156-65.
Speece, M. (2000), “Positioning Thai brands in developed country markets: consumer research
from Finland”, Sasin Journal of Management (Thailand), Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 75-90.
Speece, M. (2002), “Consumer value orientation in Vietnam’s urban middle class”, Der Markt:
Zeitschrift für Absatzwirtschaft und Marketing 41/163 (2002/4), pp. 158-69.
Speece, M. (2003), “Consumer marketing in Asia for the new economy”, paper presented at the
Executive Seminar organized by JKYL (International) Pte Ltd, Singapore, 6 November
2003 (also presented in October 2002, August 2001, October 2000).
Speece, M. and Luc, Thi Thu Huong (2002), “Attitudes of mini-supermarket shoppers in Hanoi,
Vietnam: a case study in the early development of modern retailing”, Journal of the Korean
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 10 No. 11, pp. 187-212.
The Nation (2002), “Unilever unfolds new business units”, 18 November 2002, available at: www.
nationmultimedia.com/page.arcview.php3?clid ¼ 6&id ¼ 6934&date ¼ 2002 (accessed
November 2003).
The Nation (2003), “Institute to host food exhibition”, 19 September 2003, available at: www.
nationmultimedia.com/page.arcview.php3?clid ¼ 6&id ¼ 8582&date ¼ 2003 (accessed
November 2003).
BFJ UK Trade and Investment (2003), “Country profile: Thailand”, available at: www.trade.
uktradeinvest.gov.uk/thailand/profile/index/introduction.shtml (accessed November
106,8 2003).
Underwood, R.L., Klein, N.M. and Burke, R.R. (2001), “Packaging communication: attentional
effects of product imagery”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 10 No. 7,
pp. 403-22.
628 Vakratsas, D. and Ambler, T. (1999), “How advertising works: what do we really know?”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 63, pp. 26-43.
Warde, A. (1999), “Convenience food: space and timing”, British Food Journal, Vol. 101 No. 7,
pp. 518-27.

View publication stats