Consumer research · Fresh-food packaging
Would you buy fewer tomatoes in a paper pack?
By Prof. Alessandro Buffoli, PhD
My packaging research makes me wary of approving a redesign on an “environmentally friendly” rating alone.
A customer can like a paper tomato pack and still hesitate to buy enough tomatoes for the week. Ask only whether the packaging looks environmentally friendly and you will miss that hesitation.
This is a question from my own research. In The Plastic Paradox, we find that consumers buy larger quantities of perishable groceries in plastic packaging than in paper. The belief that plastic offers better protection against contamination helps explain the difference. The effect weakens for products with a longer shelf life.
We are studying what shoppers believe about protection. A particular package’s actual ability to protect food needs separate evidence. A customer may have decided that paper is less protective before anyone has explained how that pack performs.
That matters commercially. A redesign can get a good response in a survey about appearance while changing how much stock customers are willing to take home. A question about liking will not tell the business which change to expect.
Give the packaging test a shopping decision
For a tomato-pack redesign, I’d keep the product, quantity per pack, and price as comparable as possible, and give shoppers a quantity choice. Then ask how long they expect the food to stay usable and how well they think the pack protects it.
If paper changes the quantity chosen, the next test could examine accurate information about the pack’s protection and storage requirements. Any claim needs support from the pack’s actual performance. This would help establish whether an incorrect belief is affecting the purchase.
Changing the material, pack size, price, and product visibility together makes that diagnosis much harder. Sales can tell you the new offer performed differently. They cannot tell you which change caused it.
There is another result in our research that deserves attention: buying more did not lead to faster consumption. That raises a question about what happens to the additional food. Establishing waste would require following what gets eaten and discarded.
For a proposed retail trial, I’d follow households after purchase and compare what they bought with what they used. A packaging decision needs that second observation. I would be reluctant to approve a sustainability claim from a greener-looking pack or a larger basket while leaving the food at home out of the assessment.
Prof. Alessandro Buffoli, PhD
Assistant Professor of Marketing at The Hang Seng University of Hong Kong.