IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i6p3463-d772202.html

Consumer Preference for Yogurt Packaging Design Using Conjoint Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Fa Wang

    (School of Art Design, Jiangsu Vocational Institute of Architectural Technology, Xuzhou 221116, China)

  • Haifeng Wang

    (Department of Marine Design Convergence Engineering, Pukyong National University, Busan 48513, Korea)

  • Joung Hyung Cho

    (Department of Marine Design Convergence Engineering, Pukyong National University, Busan 48513, Korea)

Abstract

With the growing consumption market of yogurt products, the continuous innovation of packaging design has become the major means of enterprise marketing for fast-moving consumer goods. Because different combinations of packaging design elements affect the consumers in different ways, the contradiction between the product packaging design and consumer demand has impacted the further development of these products’ marketing. To explore the relationship between the constituent elements of yogurt packaging design and consumer preferences, four kinds of factors to the purchased products’ attributes were selected from the packaging design, including the graphics, packaging colors, packaging shapes and label texts. The consumers’ preferences for different attributes of yogurt packaging design were quantitatively evaluated by the Conjoint Analysis Method (CAM). Consumers showed the strongest preference for yogurt packaging shapes (39.017%), and were the most satisfied with the concrete graphics of cool colors (31.330%); the level combination of attributes most preferred by consumers is that of concrete graphics, cool colors, gable-top boxes and simple labels. The packaging design satisfying consumer preferences gave rise to positive purchase attitudes. Such research results facilitated the understanding of the consumption market and provided the theoretical support necessary for the development of yogurt packaging design to match the consumers’ preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Fa Wang & Haifeng Wang & Joung Hyung Cho, 2022. "Consumer Preference for Yogurt Packaging Design Using Conjoint Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-13, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:6:p:3463-:d:772202
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/6/3463/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/6/3463/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Basoglu, Nuri & Ok, Ali Emre & Daim, Tugrul U., 2017. "What will it take to adopt smart glasses: A consumer choice based review?," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 50-56.
    2. Chen, Bo & Zhang, Xiaoheng & Zhou, Qingjie, . "Product differentiation and brand building: a hedonic analysis of yogurt price in China," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 24(3).
    3. Chen, Huan & Pang, Jun & Koo, Minkyung & Patrick, Vanessa M., 2020. "Shape Matters: Package Shape Informs Brand Status Categorization and Brand Choice," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 96(2), pages 266-281.
    4. Papadima, Georgia & Genitsaris, Evangelos & Karagiotas, Ioannis & Naniopoulos, Aristotelis & Nalmpantis, Dimitrios, 2020. "Investigation of acceptance of driverless buses in the city of Trikala and optimization of the service using Conjoint Analysis," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    5. Green, Paul E & Srinivasan, V, 1978. "Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 5(2), pages 103-123, Se.
    6. Glawe, Linda & Wagner, Helmut, 2020. "China in the middle-income trap?," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    7. Marion Garaus & Georgios Halkias, 2020. "One color fits all: product category color norms and (a)typical package colors," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 14(5), pages 1077-1099, October.
    8. Paul E. Green & Abba M. Krieger & Yoram Wind, 2001. "Thirty Years of Conjoint Analysis: Reflections and Prospects," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 31(3_supplem), pages 56-73, June.
    9. Sheng, Yu & Song, Ligang, 2019. "Agricultural production and food consumption in China: A long-term projection," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 15-29.
    10. MacInnis, Deborah J & Price, Linda L, 1987. "The Role of Imagery in Information Processing: Review and Extensions," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 13(4), pages 473-491, March.
    11. Vivek Kumar Verma & Bibhas Chandra, 2018. "Sustainability and customers’ hotel choice behaviour: a choice-based conjoint analysis approach," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 1347-1363, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Xiaheng Zhang & Lin Xiao & Guichao Jin, 2023. "Residential Environmental Protection Commodity Consumption Model and Trend Forecast Based on Consumer Preference," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-19, July.
    2. Ruiqi Chu & Marion M. Hetherington & Tang Tang, 2024. "Designers’ Needs in Leveraging the Evolving Role of Packaging for Promoting Healthy Eating," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(15), pages 1-16, July.
    3. Wen-Yun Chang & Viriya Taecharungroj & Supara Kapasuwan, 2022. "Sustainable Luxury Consumers’ Preferences and Segments: Conjoint and Cluster Analyses," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-16, August.
    4. Chang Liu & Mat Redhuan Samsudin & Yuwen Zou, 2025. "The multidimensional impact of packaging design on purchase intention: a systematic hybrid review," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-18, December.
    5. Haifei Ge & Jaewook Shin, 2025. "Bridging Consumer–Designer Gaps in Sustainable Fashion: A Framework for Eco-Friendly Product Design," SAGE Open, , vol. 15(4), pages 21582440251, December.
    6. Abubakar, Yah-ya Ibrahim & Rezai, Golnaz & Shamsudin, Mad Nasir & Mohamed, Zainalabidin, 2025. "A Conjoint Analysis of Malaysian Consumer Preferences for Imported Rice Attributes," International Journal of Food and Agricultural Economics (IJFAEC), Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University, Department of Economics and Finance, vol. 13(2), April.
    7. Nomzamo N. Dlamini & Emily J. Mayhew & Alissa A. Nolden, 2024. "Unpacking Consumer Preferences: Perceptions and Sustainability of Packaging Material for Orange Juice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(14), pages 1-14, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Merja Halme & Kari Linden & Kimmo Kääriä, 2009. "Patients’ Preferences for Generic and Branded Over-the-Counter Medicines," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 2(4), pages 243-255, December.
    2. John Liechty & Duncan Fong & Eelko Huizingh & Arnaud Bruyn, 2008. "Hierarchical Bayesian conjoint models incorporating measurement uncertainty," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 141-155, June.
    3. Christian P Theurer & Andranik Tumasjan & Isabell M Welpe, 2018. "Contextual work design and employee innovative work behavior: When does autonomy matter?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-35, October.
    4. Amirnequiee, Shobeir & Naoum-Sawaya, Joe & Pun, Hubert, 2026. "Robust framework for the joint learning of consumer preferences and market segmentation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    5. Olivier Toubia & Duncan I. Simester & John R. Hauser & Ely Dahan, 2003. "Fast Polyhedral Adaptive Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 273-303.
    6. Nikou, Shahrokh & Bouwman, Harry, 2012. "Mobile service platform competition," 19th ITS Biennial Conference, Bangkok 2012: Moving Forward with Future Technologies - Opening a Platform for All 72515, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    7. Roest, Henk & Rindfleisch, Aric, 2010. "The influence of quality cues and typicality cues on restaurant purchase intention," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 10-18.
    8. Marina Kouta & Yorgos Stephanedes, 2023. "Disaggregate Modelling for Estimating Location Choice of Safe and Secure Truck Parking Areas: A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-20, October.
    9. Florian Schreiber, 2017. "Identification of customer groups in the German term life market: a benefit segmentation," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 254(1), pages 365-399, July.
    10. Min Ding & Rajdeep Grewal & John Liechty, 2005. "Incentive-aligned conjoint analysis," Framed Field Experiments 00139, The Field Experiments Website.
    11. Ohlwein, Martin, 2022. "Same but different - The effect of the unit of measure on the valuation of a unit price," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    12. Paul R. Steffens & Clinton S. Weeks & Per Davidsson & Lauren Isaak, 2014. "Shouting from the Ivory Tower: A Marketing Approach to Improve Communication of Academic Research to Entrepreneurs," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 38(2), pages 399-426, March.
    13. Marie Caussimont & David Carassus, 2015. "L’audit financier en contexte territorial : vers un audit de performance de la gestion locale ?," Post-Print hal-02141946, HAL.
    14. Meyerding, Stephan G.H., . "Job preferences of agricultural students in Germany – A choice-based conjoint analysis for both genders," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 21(2).
    15. Wang, Qingbin & Sun, Junjie, 2003. "Consumer Preference And Demand For Organic Food: Evidence From A Vermont Survey," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22080, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    16. Peter Sarlin & Shahrokh Nikou & József Mezei & Harry Bouwman, 2015. "Visual conjoint analysis (VCA): a topology of preferences in multi-attribute decision making," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 385-405, January.
    17. Ardvin Kester S. Ong & Yogi Tri Prasetyo & Lance Albert S. De Leon & Irene Dyah Ayuwati & Reny Nadlifatin & Satria Fadil Persada, 2022. "Plantitas/Plantitos Preference Analysis on Succulents Attributes and Its Market Segmentation: Integrating Conjoint Analysis and K-means Clustering for Gardening Marketing Strategy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-24, December.
    18. Rosa, F. & Sillani, S. & Nassivera, F. & Vasciaveo, M., 2014. "Language, Ethnical Identity and Consumer Behavior: A Cross-Cultural Study of Marketing Communication in the Region FVG," 2014 International European Forum, February 17-21, 2014, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 199364, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    19. Tseng, Fang-Mei & Wang, Shenq-Yuan & Hsieh, Chih-Hung & Guo, Aifang, 2014. "An integrated model for analyzing the development of the 4G telecommunications market in Taiwan," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 14-31.
    20. Fischer, Isabel & Buchenrieder, Gertrud, 2009. "Laptop, livestock drawings and ricewine: A demand analysis for livestock insurance in Northern Vietnam," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 33(1), pages 41-60.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:6:p:3463-:d:772202. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask MDPI Indexing Manager to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.