How much pacaging is too much? Consumers appreciate having fewer packaging materials to discard after consuming products

Interesting ongoing packaging experiments are being conducted in Germany. British supermarket giant Tesco co-opted the idea recently to conduct an experiment of its own over a six-week period. The premise of the exercise is simple. Customers in a defined number of supermarkets are allowed to shed any packaging they find excessive near the checkouts after making their purchases.

Not only does Tesco recycle packaging its customers leave behind, it plans to study the results of its exercise and relate feedback to product manufacturers. According to the company, common customer packaging complaints cited are the amount of plastic, board, and foil used; toothpaste cartons; and trays and plastic film containing produce.

New insights are being seriously considered as Tesco, a food retailer, looks for new ways to reduce extraneous packaging on its own store brands and peripheral department packaging based on feedback from its experiment.

Consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies have been reducing excessive packaging for some time, of course. As retailers increasingly focus on developing and managing their own store brands, more sophisticated, responsible packaging is one of their primary concerns, too. Yet, there is a growing consensus that more can and should be done.

Cost savings can be significant with reduced packaging on the front end, yielding fewer materials used and less energy consumed as highly desirable added bonuses. But savings on the back end are noteworthy as well. When consumers send less material to the trash and into recycling containers, energy savings are likewise substantial. Even better: Consumers appreciate having fewer packaging materials to discard after consuming products. CPG companies and retailers should not overlook this insight; consumers attach greater perceived value to the brands involved.

As is the case with most initiatives, a balanced approach is the key to successful packaging changes. A small percentage of consumers are avid environmentalists and more sensitive to perceived excess packaging. But other shoppers might require more information about ingredients and prefer to retain additional packaging. Results will have to be weighed with these considerations after the experiment concludes.

The less packaging consumers have to dispose of during the test period, the greater the affirmation that product manufacturers and retailers are doing a good job. Still, the data collected from discarded packaging near store exits ought to be very revealing and much more insightful than verbal feedback alone. After all, actions speak louder than words.

In many focus groups, companies have focused on soliciting consumer input on the design of packaging rather than the amount of packaging. Though experiments like this might spur CPG companies to consider adding the design-of-packaging dimension, maybe it’s not a good idea to add the topic into focus-group discussions without also observing customer interaction with actual packaging.

In many instances, respondents are likely to either say what they think is expected or adopt a “herd mentality” and go along with predominant group consensus. Sometimes, it’s hard to get at the truth about the various elements of packaging that consumers respond favorably to and also ones they dislike in group sessions.

Getting back to Tesco’s experiment: What better way to find out how much packaging is too much than by allowing consumers to show product manufacturers and retailers themselves? Observing how and what consumers discard after making purchases is invaluable. In Germany, for example, retailers observed that consumers readily threw toothpaste cartons into receptacles as they left stores. This action and the resulting feedback prompted product manufacturers to develop toothpaste tubes that stand upright on store shelves, sans outer cartons.

The idea must be gaining steam because Procter & Gamble has decided against outer cartons for some of its Crest oral-care products. Perhaps P&G is taking a cue from its European counterparts. Or, perhaps P&G’s decision results from its own internal testing or information gleaned in collaboration with an outside design consultancy.

Regardless, this development presents new challenges, because products like toothpaste must include regulatory information on the packaging, not to mention OTC remedies. When it comes to food products, allergy, and dietary concerns, ingredients and sourcing make the stripping away of extraneous packaging a challenge, too. The need to eliminate excessive packaging must be balanced with a sense of responsibility. Consumers’ need for information and product safety concerns also must be carefully considered.

In spite of these concerns, brilliant package reduction solutions are being devised.

Prilosec OTC redesigned its packaging to double the number of pills on a blister card, reducing packaging waste.
HP’s laptop-in-a-bag won Walmart’s competition for innovative packaging ideas, and an exclusive promotion in its stores sold out the 15,000 laptops in a limited run.
Aveda lipstick packaged one lipstick tube with six refillables to cut down substantially on waste.
McDonald’s decision to convert hash brown containers from paperboard cartons to paper bags saves an estimated 2.9 million pounds of packaging annually.
Good package solutions can be developed when companies know where their packaging can be reduced without compromising product integrity or consumers’ “need to know.” Actually seeing how consumers interface with packaging gives companies the most solid information possible and also a real starting point. That also could lead to the development of more distinctive, proprietary packaging undreamed of until now. In turn, new advancements could be leveraged to refer back to their brands in a highly recognizable, differentiated manner.

Rather than viewing consumer disenchantment vis-à-vis current packaging as a negative, it is wiser for CPG companies to regard these insights as great opportunities. The chance to develop better package designs that are fully aligned with consumer expectations should not be missed—especially now, in a tough economy. Smart brands will survive and thrive now and be much better positioned to pick up more share when the economy turns around.

Ted Mininni is president of Design Force, Inc., the leading brand design consultancy to consumer product companies with Enjoyment Brands™. Design Force helps their clients market brands that deliver positive, gratifying experiences to consumers. Their expertise lies in emotionally connecting consumers to brands by creating compelling visual brand experiences, which motivate purchase decisions.