IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i6p3463-d772202.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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. Chen, Bo & Zhang, Xiaoheng & Zhou, Qingjie, 2021. "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), March.
    2. Glawe, Linda & Wagner, Helmut, 2020. "China in the middle-income trap?," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    3. 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.
    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. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    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. 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.

    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. Emmanuel Olateju Oyatoye & Sulaimon Olanrewaju Adebiyi & Bilqis Bolanle Amole, 2013. "An Application of Conjoint Analysis to Consumer Preference for Beverage Products in Nigeria," Acta Universitatis Danubius. OEconomica, Danubius University of Galati, issue 9(6), pages 43-56, December.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Shakila Yasmin & Khaled Mahmud & Farzan Afrin, 2016. "Job Attribute Preference of Executives: A Conjoint Analysis," Asian Social Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 12(2), pages 1-68, February.
    6. Vetschera, Rudolf & Weitzl, Wolfgang & Wolfsteiner, Elisabeth, 2014. "Implausible alternatives in eliciting multi-attribute value functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 234(1), pages 221-230.
    7. 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.
    8. Shuto Mikami & Yutaka Ito & Hernan Gabriel Oyola Gonzales, 2021. "Assessing Peruvian University Students’ Preferences for Labor Conditions in Mining Site," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-13, August.
    9. P. De Pelsmacker & L. Driesen & G. Rayp, 2003. "Are fair trade labels good business ? Ethics and coffee buying intentions," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 03/165, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    10. 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).
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Yutaka Ito & Shuto Mikami & Hyongdoo Jang & Abbas Taheri & Kenta Tanaka & Youhei Kawamura, 2020. "University Students’ Preferences for Labour Conditions at a Mining Site: Evidence from Two Australian Universities," Resources, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-13, March.
    15. Julian Schuir & Frank Teuteberg, 2021. "Understanding augmented reality adoption trade-offs in production environments from the perspective of future employees: A choice-based conjoint study," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 1039-1085, September.
    16. Konstantinos Pouliakas & Ioannis Theodossiou, 2010. "Measuring the Utility Cost of Temporary Employment Contracts Before Adaptation: A Conjoint Analysis Approach," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 77(308), pages 688-709, October.
    17. Vinaytosh Mishra & Cherian Samuel & S. K. Sharma, 2019. "Patient’s Utility for Various Attributes of Diabetes Care Services," IIM Kozhikode Society & Management Review, , vol. 8(1), pages 1-9, January.
    18. Min Ding & Rajdeep Grewal & John Liechty, 2005. "Incentive-aligned conjoint analysis," Framed Field Experiments 00139, The Field Experiments Website.
    19. 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).
    20. 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.

    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 (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.