These 3 Common Packaging Claims Unconsciously Miss the Mark

```html

60-80% of purchase decisions are influenced at the shelf.

The appeal of packaging might just be the most important reason why a product ends up in the shopping basket (or gathers dust).

It's no surprise that brand managers have increasingly invested in packaging to optimise the design and message of their products over the years.

Among all the choices that can be made, there is consistently one element that sparks much discussion at the table: the packaging claims.

 From “Nutriscore” to “75% less plastic” and from “New recipe” to “Less sugar”, you encounter numerous claims during a supermarket round. Understandably so, as brand managers now know that these claims can direct attention and influence the shopper's purchase decision.

Yet, we see that many packaging claims - although well-intentioned and often logical at first glance - do not always boost sales 🤔.

In fact, there are several common claims that unconsciously miss the mark significantly and may even reduce sales. In this blog, we share three of them.

Packaging Claim #1: Vegan vs. Plant-Based?

Although plant-based is not the same as vegan, we often get asked which of these two terms is the best to use - given that a product is both plant-based and vegan.

Large-scale research in America shows that the term “Vegan” is much more appealing than the term “Plant-Based”. Researchers Rosenfeld, Bartolotto, and Tomiyama (2022) analysed over 150,000 purchase decisions and found that products with the label ‘vegan’ or ‘vegetarian’ were sold 24% more often than products with the label ‘plant-based’.

The key question is whether this also applies to the Netherlands. We hear in passing that the term “Vegan” does not always boost sales here either. But to make statements about this, we would need to test it in a neuromarketing study.

Packaging Claim #2: From "15% Less Plastic" to "100% Recycled Plastic"

15% less plastic. A promising claim on AH's chocolate raisins, you might think. It's great that Albert Heijn is working on making packaging more sustainable. Or is it?

You might think such claims cast a positive light on the product and perhaps even make it more attractive. Yet nothing could be further from the truth. Recent research by Unravel with Vitapep shows that the opposite effect occurs.

In this study, we tested three plastic variants of a bucket of snack vegetables against a cardboard counterpart. One of these plastic buckets had the label “100% recycled plastic”. Using the Implicit Association Test (IAT), we mapped the unconscious associations with the packaging. Although the cardboard bucket was considered significantly more sustainable, the bucket with the ‘recycled plastic’ label was found to be the least sustainable in the test.

In psychology, this is also known as the boomerang effect: when you emphasise in communication that a negative point is not or less present, the consumer becomes more aware of the existence of this negative trait. Of course, this does not always occur. A claim about ‘less plastic’ can certainly work, but mainly when people are already aware of the problem when they read it. In this case, the claim would have much more effect on the back of the packaging. Then you read the claim when the packaging is empty and you are going to recycle it.

 

Packaging Claim #3: Abstract vs. Concrete Claims

Occasionally, products appear that use specific factual claims, such as ‘Only 2% fat’, hoping to attract consumers looking for healthier (or less unhealthy) products. This tactic also turns out to be not as effective as initially thought. Research by Nisbett & Wilson (1977) shows that more abstract claims are more brain-friendly.

A claim like ‘Organic’ may seem vague and meaningless to a critical marketer, but for the consumer, it is likely easy-to-process information. A specific claim has the disadvantage that it must first be concretely understood and then considered in a - time-consuming - deliberation.

As we've said before, the brain prefers the easy route. In a world overloaded with choices, a specific claim can have a negative effect.

How to Avoid Such Claim Misses?

As you can see, well-intentioned and seemingly strong claims can unconsciously miss the mark.

The question is then how you ensure that claims that truly make a difference remain, and those that do nothing - or work negatively - do not unnecessarily take up space.

Traditional research won't give you the answer: on a conscious level, people tend to give socially desirable responses, saying they appreciate claims like “15% less plastic”.

Yet, we saw in the research above that this claim at an unconscious level actually results in less attraction. And that is exactly the mindset we're in for most of our time in the supermarket.

So, do you want to know if your claim is perceived as relevant and positive by the brain? Does it reinforce the desired brand image? And does it ultimately drives purchase? Then you will need to measure that unconsciously. At Unravel, we answer these questions through neuromarketing packaging research, with EEG or Implicit Association Research.

👉 More about packaging research

Are you struggling with a specific claim, or do you just want to brainstorm about the possibilities? Feel free to contact us.

Want to Learn More About Packaging Psychology and Packaging Research?

Claims like these are one of the many factors that determine the effectiveness of packaging.

In the Neuromarketing Retail Training by Unravel Academy, a full lesson is dedicated to the psychological effects of product and packaging (lesson 5). You will learn all the scientific insights about what makes a successful product.

More About The Online Retail Psychology Training

Additionally, it is possible to conduct neuromarketing packaging research at Unravel Research. Here, we determine through brain activity and eye tracking whether the design of your packaging (as a redesign or introduction) will lead to success or not. 

References

Rosenfeld, D. L., Bartolotto, C., & Tomiyama, A. J. (2022). Promoting plant-based food choices: Findings from a field experiment with over 150,000 consumer decisions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 81, 101825.

Sanford, A. J., Fay, N., Stewart, A., & Moxey, L. (2002). Perspective in statements of quantity, with implications for consumer psychology. Psychological science, 13(2), 130-134.

```