Change in packaging design

68

69 Before exposed to the redesigns, their opinion was that as long as the content and the functionality remained the same, a visual change would not affect their purchase or perception of the brand. However, their immediate reaction when they were exposed to the redesigned products, reflected the associations and emotions connection to the brand. When exposed to our redesigns, many of the redesigns were placed in the box marked ‘indifferent’, however many negative emotions were expressed for these redesigns.

An example is when Daniel and Sabrina are discussing redesign (3E). Although he has associations and memories about Nutella, he expressed an indifference to the change and argues that the product would be the same, despite his previous dislike of most of the redesigns for Nutella:

So, when articulating change without any visual example they were rationally guided, but when presented with a visual change, their reactions were more immediate and emotional. On the opposite, when having discussed the redesign we often found their reactions to reverse. Thus, they could change from expressing themselves more immediately and emotionally to more rationally, in that a visual change could not be so important for their purchase. Indicating, that they sometimes neglected their immediate emotions in favour for a more rational decision. This did, however, not mean that the respondents did not express these emotions and associations, but their arguments and the final answer changed in some cases.

The mind-set to acquaint themselves with a change was not something the consumers normally did, which means that it was difficult to assess for them how much it actually affected them. Some arguments regarding change were easy for the respondents to express and easy for the others to understood e.g. when the changes were related to a practical and functional aspect of the product.

70 Sometimes the underlying cause was hidden behind or neglected to more convenient and practical excuses when explaining their opinions.

These arguments are not necessarily something the respondents are aware of, but they may find it more difficult to explain and describe emotions, associations and experience related to the brand as something that can affect their buying behaviour. Of cause the convenience and practical reasons also plays a major role for their overall perception of the brand, but these arguments also seem much more logically and more 'true’

compared to the emotional arguments.

Therefore, their immediate attitude was not always found to be reflected in their final expression and decision (in relation to which box they placed the re-designed image). Firstly, because some respondents were influenced by the others and complied with what the other group members said, but also because the associations and emotions that some respondents had to the brands in some cases, were very personal and not necessarily shared by the others focus groups members. They did not necessary have the same strong associations attached to the brand and could find it difficult to relate to the perception. This ultimately meant that someone with stronger associations could have a harder time convincing the others. The personal attachment to the brand could thereby make their arguments "weak" in the negotiation. This was exactly the case with e.g. Sabrina and Daniel. Daniel was found to be very loyal to Nutella while Sabrina never bought it. On the opposite, Sabrina was very loyal to Colgate, while Daniel did not have any opinion about toothpaste. Daniel had strong associations and emotional connection to Nutella, but when he was arguing against Sabrina who never bought it, he found it difficult to convince her, for instance how important the bread on the packaging was. In contrast, the more practical aspects were easier to use in a negotiation and as an argument.

By the end of each focus group, we asked the respondents if they could specify in regards to what cannot be changed in a leading brand's packaging design, as well as which of the visual elements that were most important to preserve when making re-designs. The respondent found it difficult to give a clear answer and several times they ended up mentioning all the visual elements. However, they clearly expressed that the elements which characterized and identified the specific brand should not be changed and changing too many

71 elements at the same time would be perceived negatively. We found that changing to much could disrupt the positive brand association and makes it difficult to reinforce the established ones.

Their perception and respond to change, and the visual elements assessed as the most important, were mainly found through exercise 2 (see appendix 5 & 6). Furthermore, the perception of which of the visual elements respondents had the most expectations, association and emotions connection to, were not only found by looking at which of the three boxes they placed the redesigns in. Rather our knowledge was found through analysis their arguments and what they highlighted as important through their associations, emotions and experience they had with the brand.

Their perception and respond will be analysed and discussed in depth in the following sections and connected to the findings found in the change model about colour, image and typography, but first we will look at consumers’ reaction for change in size and shape, and our reasoning for not including it in our further research and the change model.