Telling a book by the cover

A Q&A with Lan Anh Ton from Texas Christian University about what package designs say about the product inside

They say the clothes make the person. Similarly, the packaging can make the product.

Lan Anh Ton is Assistant Professor of Marketing at TCU’s Neeley School of Business. In this Q&A, we discuss her research, recently published in the Journal of Marketing, on simple vs. complex package designs.

Specifically, what does each design style say about the product inside and which products are best suited for a simple vs. a complex design?

(This discussion has been edited for length and clarity.)

Lan Anh Ton, Assistant Professor of Marketing at Texas Christian University

JF: In as basic a way as you can, please describe how you conducted this research.

LAT: First, we had a research assistant who helped us scrape a Kroger database. We scraped product packages across four common product categories: deodorant, shampoo, crackers, and cereal. We controlled for package size, product claims, and other variables. And we found that consumers are willing to pay more for simple packaging compared to complex packaging.

JF: What about the next phase of the research?

LAT: In the first experiment, we created two packages — a simple trail mix package and a complex trail mix package. We based it off the design complexity principles from established research. The packages didn’t have any colors as we wanted to control for color first. We also made sure everything remained constant — including the brand name and the quantity of the product. The only thing that changed was whether it was simple or complex.

JF: What did you find?

LAT: We found that while people think complex packaging is aesthetically more pleasing, they are still willing to pay more for simplicity.

JF: What do you think those simple packages are saying to consumers at an unconscious level?

LAT: When consumers look at the simplicity of a package design, they assume that simplicity of design — a lack of color, minimal text, relatively few things going on — means there are few ingredients in the product and that the product is pure. These are inferences consumers make when viewing a product with simple packaging, regardless of whether the product indeed has these attributes.

On the other hand, with complex packaging, where there is a lot of color and text, the consumer assumes there are probably a lot of things going on with the product. Consumers indicate that they think those products have more ingredients and are less pure, and therefore, they would pay less.

There is power in simplicity

JF: You found a couple of exceptions, though, right?

LAT: One exception is store brands. Let’s say it is a Kroger product or a Great Value product. Typically, for store brands, the packaging is very simple. We found that, for a store brand product, those positive inferences derived from simple packaging don’t work anymore.

The store brand activates inherent assumptions that the product is low quality and that the company doesn’t invest much in the product. So, simple packaging reinforces those perceptions, and therefore consumers are not going to pay a price premium.

In contrast, complex packaging contrasts with those inherent assumptions, so consumers are willing to pay a higher price for complex packaging when it is a store brand product.

There is a lot of complexity here — but given the product, that is probably a good thing.

JF: But what happens if the package is simple and then consumers look at the back and see a million ingredients?

LAT: That is our fourth experiment. When there is a conflict — simple packaging but a lot of things going on the ingredient list — they are immediately willing to pay less for the product. This is because the inside was in contrast with their assumptions about what the package was trying to communicate.

JF: So you don’t want to use packaging to try to mask something.

LAT: No, that won’t work.

JF: Or it is risky, anyway. Do you have any hypotheses about how these insights would translate into categories that are not within consumer packaged goods?

LAT: We mentioned that a little bit in our section on limitations. For Apple products, for example, the packaging is super simplistic. We think the same insights might apply, but the reasoning might be a little different. The simplicity of the package design might suggest that, in the context of technology, the product is very easy to use, while a more complex design might suggest the product is a little bit difficult to use. We did not test that, but that is our intuition.

As simple as it gets. But what does it mean?

JF: This next question is probably impossible to answer, but I am still curious. Is there something about today’s culture that shapes these findings? If we had done this study in the 1980s, or if we do it 40 years from now, would the results be the same?

LAT: I agree that current consumer culture, to some extent, plays a role. Back in the 1980s or ’90s there was less competition, so packaging may have played less of a role in the consumer decision-making process. And today, life is more complex, which could play a role. Perhaps there is more of a preference for a clean and simple aesthetic.

And also there are individual differences. Consumers who are more minimalist would prefer a simpler design, but there are people who are into, like, curated chaos. Complexity or maximal design might be more appealing to those consumers.

JF: This is an unfair question, too, because you only studied US consumers, but do you think these insights would be different in other cultures?

LAT: That is a very difficult question. If you do a Google search, minimalist packaging pops up not only in the US but also in countries like Korea and Japan. We haven’t done studies there, but it would be interesting to see if the results extend to other countries.

JF: So, if I am a marketer reading this interview, what should I take away immediately as I am thinking about my packaging?

LAT: First, consumers derive meaning from packaging. So, for a brand or marketer that wants to communicate that a product is healthy or appeal to a more health-conscious consumer, lean toward more simplistic packaging. If a brand wants to communicate tasty, flavorful, or fun, then complex packaging would be helpful.

Second, for store brand products, leaning toward complexity would be helpful because any positive inferences derived from simple packaging don’t work for store brands.

And then last, but very important, align the ingredients of the product with the assumptions consumers derive from the packaging.

James Forr is Head of Insights at Olson Zaltman