Applying an Architecture

Label viewing patterns suggest easy ways to prioritize package messages

By Scott Young

For many years now, we have used the "PRS Eye-Tracking" method to document and examine exactly how shoppers examine packaging. We also study the results to understand how these viewing patterns link to product perceptions and purchase decisions.

This article discusses the importance of understanding how packages are first viewed and highlights several key issues in interpreting these findings. It also shares several consistent insights that have emerged across thousands of studies, along with their possible implications for improving packaging effectiveness.

LESS CAN DO MORE: Eye-tracking studies suggest that most consumers' eyes and minds process package information similarly, and they actively consider only three or four design elements or brand messages in a typical retail encounter. It is not wise to think that increasing the amount of information will increase the amount of time a consumer spends with a package.

The first critical seconds

As product categories continue to expand, shoppers are increasingly overwhelmed at the shelf. In most CPG categories, they spend only 10 to 20 seconds making a purchase decision, often actively considering four or five packages in that time frame. This means that if a package does make it into a consideration set, it typically has only five to seven seconds to persuade the shopper and to make the transition from the shopper's hand to the shopping cart.

Given these realities at the shelf, it's obvious that packaging absolutely has to communicate effectively in those first few seconds. And not surprisingly, shoppers' initial message takeaways upon first viewing are often quite different from their perceptions after spending 90 minutes with a package in a focus group discussion.

One common approach to measuring initial package communication is through timed exposures, or t-scope studies, in which a package is flashed in front of subject shoppers for a brief period of time. The shoppers are asked to recall and "play back" what they remembered seeing. This approach has two significant limitations, however. First, recall is often affected by the person's previous experience with a brand. If you flash a Heinz package, for example, shoppers are likely to start speaking of 57 varieties and "anticipation," regardless of what they saw on the package.

Secondly, and even more importantly, any timed exposure fails to measure a package's ability to engage shoppers and hold their attention. This flash approach can penalize a particularly engaging package. In other words, we really want to know if a package captivates shoppers and holds their attention for five to seven seconds rather than only briefly. To do this, we need to put the shopper in control of the viewing time and see how long he or she chooses to spend with a package.

STRONG VISUAL CUES: Package viewing patterns are largely consistent across cultures and product categories, because they are driven by human physiology rather than by cultural patterns or preferences. The underlying reality is that humans are primarily visual, and shoppers are nearly always drawn to strong visual elements on packages and labels.

What to look for

While engaging shoppers is important, the analysis of package viewing patterns goes well beyond viewing time alone. In fact, a package that holds shoppers' attention for 10 seconds is not necessarily better than an alternative that gets the same information across more efficiently. Two more important factors are the hierarchy of packaging communication and the attention given to key packaging messages or claims. The effectiveness of communication hierarchy, or packaging architecture, can be evident in how shoppers first navigate through a package—where their eyes typically start and where they travel around a label.

In this age of multiplying sub-brands and line extensions, there are more and more products with multiple branding on the shelves. Studying these packages can give us insight into effective label hierarchy and architecture, and label viewing studies help to confirm how the packaging conveys these brand relationships. On one hand, we see packaging systems that imply a cobranding relationship. Other examples clearly establish a "lead" brand, with the other as an endorsement. Which is better?

This cobranding discussion is not intended to suggest that there is a single right answer. Instead, the key question is whether or not the packaging is consistent with the intended branding relationship. Does the packaging design "execute" against the marketing strategy?

Seeing the benefits

Ensuring that key claims are consistently seen is perhaps the single most important and valuable reason to document package viewing patterns. Often we find that marketers and designers assume that they have highlighted an important message, only to find that it falls outside the primary viewing flow and is missed by most shoppers.

We consistently find that flags in the top right or left corner of a package are actively considered by about one-third of shoppers. These same messages are far more likely to be read if they are positioned within the primary viewing flow or linked to the main packaging visual.

Highlighting product claims is critical because we nearly always find a direct and intuitive relationship between the visual strength and salience of a packaging message and its impact on shoppers' perceptions. For example, a more visible efficacy claim (assuming, of course, it is also persuasive) typically leads to heightened product expectations, brand imagery, and competitive differentiation. This in turn leads to higher value perceptions and likelihood of purchase, particularly among a brand's non-users.

Similarly, there is linkage between package viewing patterns and shopability on shelf. As might be expected, when a new design system reduces the visual salience of product descriptors such as flavor, form, or variety, there is often a related decline in accuracy and ease of product or SKU findability on shelf.

However, when thinking about shopability, it is important to make a distinction between the information that shoppers "look for" on packaging—size, quantity, flavor, compatibility, etc.—as opposed to claim and benefit messages that you want shoppers to see and comprehend. The former don't necessarily need to be highlighted, as long as the information is clear and consistent across packages (so that shoppers know where to look). However, the latter need to be placed within the primary viewing flow, so that key claims actively "intercept" shoppers and are consistently seen.

BRANDING RELATIONSHIPS: Label viewing patterns often confirm how packaging systems convey branding relationships. The initial focal point of this package is the Fruit Falls sub-brand name, which suggests that the product is perceived by shoppers as: "Fruit falls from Minute Maid." The product claims in the top left and right corners (outside of the primary viewing flow) received limited attention.

Typical viewing patterns

Across product categories, packaging structures, and international borders, certain generalized patterns have consistently emerged regarding how shoppers typically view packaging. We'll summarize these into five patterns here.

Pattern 1: Most packages are NOT systematically "read" like books, magazines, or newspapers. Shoppers don't typically start in the top-left corner and work their way across and down the packaging in typical Western reading patterns. Instead, shoppers typically start at the dominant visual element (often the brand name), and are then drawn to the next strongest element (often a dominant visual element).

Pattern 2: A related and important point is that viewing patterns are driven by packaging layout rather than a function of "what people want to look at" or what they think is important. In other words, the fact that a message is frequently missed or overlooked does not mean that shoppers think it is unimportant. It simply means that the message was not highlighted on the package. We've consistently found that designers have the power to impact shoppers' viewing patterns by changing the layout of a package or label.

Pattern 3: In the few seconds that shoppers typically spend with a package, they can actively consider only three or four primary design elements (often the branding, a main visual, and a primary claim). We've repeatedly found that adding extra messages does not typically increase packaging viewing time, but instead results in more elements fighting for attention in a zero-sum game. Package viewing patterns suggest that the "less is more" axiom is nearly always true. It is far more effective to clearly highlight one key point-of-difference than to give equal weight to four different claims and run the risk that none is consistently seen. However, another effective strategy is to "bundle" design elements, such as having the brand logo or main visual include a claim or benefit.

Pattern 4: Package viewing patterns are largely consistent across cultures and product categories because they are driven by human physiology rather than by cultural patterns or preferences. While design aesthetics and preferences (what people like) certainly vary across cultures, the underlying reality is that humans are primarily visual. Therefore, packaging visuals nearly always draw attention and it is critical to get them right. If the packaging doesn't look appetizing, no amount of claims will overcome that perception; and if the packaging does look appetizing, there's no need for supporting copy.

Pattern 5: We've also seen that it is important for a packaging design to establish a dominant viewing flow that leads shoppers from their "start point" to the other critical packaging elements (key claims, messages, icons, etc). What doesn't work well is a "balanced" layout in which the main visual starts shoppers in the middle and the other design elements surrounding it are all secondary. This is true on packaging as well as in print advertising, or pretty much any marketing communications effort. The ineffective balanced layout forces shoppers to choose among directions, and this causes them to miss many other elements of the labeling.

A far more effective layout is to use the main visual or start point to "frame" the packaging, which leaves the shopper with only one option or "next step" in terms of navigating through the package. This typically results in a far more consistent and comprehensive package readership.

DIRECTING SHOPPERS' ATTENTION: A "balanced" layout (left) with the main visual starts shoppers' eyes in the middle and forces them to choose among directions. This often divides attention, interrupts good eye flow, and limits involvement with benefit statements. A more effective layout (right) has a main visual "frame" the packaging, leaving the shopper with a clear path to navigate through the packaging.

Getting the most from label viewing insights

As has been discussed here, initial viewing patterns are a powerful tool to better understand packaging communication and to guide design enhancements. On one level, they can serve to confirm a packaging system's consistency with design objectives. "Does the packaging reflect the communication hierarchy?" "Does the label highlight and prioritize the right messages?"

As importantly, viewing patterns can help to identify the sources of any limitations; that is, "why" a packaging system may not be working. For example, if a design system has created confusion at the shelf, or perhaps detracted from product expectations or brand imagery, we are likely to find that the problem was rooted in the reduced role of a certain message or claim. For this reason, this information is most valuable and applicable when gathered in conjunction with other measures of packaging performance such as measures of shelf presence, appeal, communication, value, and persuasion.

BUNDLING MESSAGES: Designers should be aware that shoppers' initial message takeaways upon first viewing a product at retail are often quite different from their perceptions after spending 90 minutes with a package in a focus group discussion. An effective strategy for package labels is to bundle design elements so that consumers do not miss them. Linking brand messages—claims or benefits—directly to the main product logo can be an effective way of using consumers' viewing tendencies to the package's advantage.

Finally, it is important to realize that package viewing patterns are intended to diagnose problems rather than to pinpoint a specific design solution or to reduce package design to a consistent formula. In fact, we have frequently seen that the best results come when designers are given the flexibility and latitude to address a concern in many different ways. Good results also come when new packaging systems break away from conventional design and layout approaches.

The insights covered here are the result of many PRS Eye-Tracking studies of packaging architecture. More directed research can be a useful diagnostic tool for marketers as an effective aid to packaging design. Finding the most effective architecture will help your packages make the transition from the shoppers' hands to their shopping carts.

Scott Young is President of Perception Research Services (www.prsresearch.com), a company that conducts over 600 studies annually to help develop, assess, and improve packaging systems and help marketers win at retail. Contact Scott at syoung@prsresearch.com or 201-346-1600.