CH 51 F - Sandip Solanki Corrected

International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research
ISSN : 0972-7302
available at http: www.serialsjournal.com
„ Serials Publications Pvt. Ltd.
Volume 15 • Number 5 • 2017
A Study on the Impact of Package Color of Juices on Consumers’

Perceptions and Purchase Decisions
Solanki Sandip P.1
1
Associate Professor, Symbiosis Institute of International Business, Symbiosis International University, Pune. Email: spsolanki@hotmail.com
Abstract
Purpose: The main aim of this paper is to find out how Color of food packages/boxes especially of Juices
influences consumers’ purchase behavior and consumers perception about product healthiness.
Design/Methodology/Approach: Study was conducted in the selected cities of state of Gujarat to generate
the data for the research The impact of four different colored packages/boxes of Juices was analyzed in the
study.
Findings: Results of the study revealed that majority of respondents are influenced by Package Color. The
findings revealed that among various colors of packages of Juices. Most preferred package Color on various
dimensions like product healthiness, product liking and purchase intention was Orange colored box. Consumers
have higher intention to purchase the Juices packed in orange colored boxes.
Research Limitations: The study sample size was not extensive and was limited to a small geographical area
of selected cities of state of Gujarat. A more representative sample of the other cities of Gujarat region could
be basis of future research.
Implications: The findings of the study increase the understanding about the consumers’ perceptions about
the various types of packages of Juices and their influence on their buying behavior. They also highlight how
various package colors especially for Juices could be used for various products so as to differentiate the product
from competitors and to attract consumers’ attention.
Originality/Value: The present paper focuses specifically on how each package color of Juices affect consumer
perceptions about product healthiness and thus contributes to a limited amount of existing literature on package
Color usage and understanding.
Keywords: Packaged Foods, Package Color, Consumer behavior, Food Package, Juices.
685 International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research

Solanki Sandip P.
1. Section I
International, National and Local Scenario
of Food Processing Industry
1.1. Global Processed Food Industry

According to Food Agricultural Organization (FAO), Food processing can be defined as the process that
encompasses all the steps that food goes through from the time it is harvested to the time it arrives on
consumer’s plate. The size of global processed food industry is estimated to be valued around at US $ 3.6
trillion and accounts for three-fourth of the global food sales.11 Despite its large size, only 6% of processed
foods are traded across borders compared to 16% of major bulk agricultural commodities. United States of
America (USA) is the single largest consumer of processed food and accounts for 31% of the global sales.
This is because as countries develop, high quality and value-added processed food such as convenience
food is preferred over staples, which are prevalent in less developed economies. Over 60% of total retail
processed food sales in the world are accounted by U.S.A, European Union and Japan taken together.
Japan is the largest food processing market in the Asian region, though India and China are catching up
fast and are likely to grow more rapidly. One of the most technically advanced food-processing industries
globally is Australia as the products produced are of international standards and at comparatively lower
prices. The share of India in global Food processed industry stands at around 1.6 %. The Ministry of Food
Processing Industries has stated in its Vision 2015 that it aims to increase India’s share from current level
to 3% of world processed food trade.
1.2 Indian Processed Food Industry

India has the second largest arable land of 161 million hectares and has the highest acreage under irrigation.
Next to China, India is the second largest food producer in the world and has potential to immerge the
biggest with food and agriculture sector. The size of food industry in India is around of `13, 20,000 crores
(US $ 220 billion) by the end of 2015 and that of processed food industry is around of `6, 60,000 crores
(US $ 110 billion) by the end of 2015. The food processing industry is the 5th largest industry in India in
terms of production, consumption, export and expected growth. The food processing accounts for about
14% of manufacturing GDP, nearly 13% of India’s exports and 6% of total industrial investment and
employs about 13 million people directly and 35 million people indirectly.
The main sectors of the food processing industry are given in the following table:
Table 51.1
Main sectors of the Food Processing Industry
Sectors Products
Fruits & Vegetables Beverages, Juices, Concentrates, Pulps, Slices, Frozen & Dehydrated products, Potato Wafers/
Chips etc.
Grains & Cereals Flour, Bakeries, Starch Glucose, Cornflakes, Malted foods, Beer and Malt extracts, Vermicelli,
Grain based alcohol.
Fisheries Frozen & Canned products mainly in fresh form.
1 National Skill Development Corporation report, (2010). Human Resource and Skill Requirements in the Food Processing Sector:
Study on mapping of Human Resource Skill Gaps in India till 2022. New Delhi, India. Page 2.
International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research 686

A Study on the Impact of Package Color of Juices on Consumers’ Perceptions and Purchase Decisions
Sectors Products
Diary Whole Milk Powder, Skimmed milk powder, Condensed milk, Ice cream, Butter, Ghee & Cheese.
Meat & Poultry Frozen and packed – mainly in fresh form, Egg powder.
Consumer Foods Snakes, Namkeens, Biscuits, Alcoholic and Non alcoholic beverages.
Source: Ministry of food processing India, Annual Report 2013
2. Section II
2.1. Definition of Packaged Food and its Various Segments

Packaged foods can be defined as those foods that are wrapped or stored in container and could be shipped
to another place without any damage or destruction. They can be eaten immediately or after adding water
or other product, heating or thawing. They are usually partially prepared or completely prepared. Packaged
foods are also known as convenience foods because of ease of consumption. Packaged food is wide term
that encompasses the various products across the different sectors of food processing industry. In broader
terms, the packaged food/convenience food could be basically classified into two categories:-
Shelf stable convenience foods are further classified as:
∑ Ready to cook foods – e.g. instant mixes like cake mixes, gulab-jamun mix, falooda mix, ice
cream mix etc., pasta products like noodles, macaroni, vermicelli etc.
∑ Ready to eat foods – e.g. breads, biscuits, buns, ice cream, chips, namkeens etc.
Besides above the other general items that come under shelf stable convenience foods include milk,
Atta, corn flakes, vegetable and edible oils.
Frozen convenience food include fruits & vegetables in frozen form, yogurt etc.
Packaged food industry is expected to be `91, 000 crores industry by end of 2015. The industry is
largely dominated by ready to eat food segment which contributes 90 % of total sales of packaged food
industry. Out of various segments of packaged food industry the ready to eat food is growing at the fastest
pace of about 30 % p.a.
2.2. Packaging and its Importance for Packaged Food Industry

The package is defined as a container which holds, protects and identifies the product throughout its
distribution channel (Ampuero & Vila, 2006). It has been found from the recent research that approximately
73% of the products are sold on the self-service bases at the point of sale (Silayoi & Speece, 2007). This
shows that important cues need to be provided to the consumers at the point of sale so that companies
could differentiate their products from the competitors on one hand and could attract and persuade the
consumers to buy their products on the other hand. Under these circumstances the packaging would
be the most useful tool that may be available for attracting the consumers” attention. This is because
unlike other forms of communication which tend to be fleeting, packaging plays a crucial role not only
at the point of sale, but also after the actual purchase of the product. The first moment of truth is about
obtaining the customers attention and communicating the benefits of the offer. The second moment of
truth is about providing the tools the customer needs to experience the benefits when using the product.

Solanki Sandip P.
The packaging is even more important for packaged and ready to eat food products this is because they
belong to low involvement category. Low involvement products are basically low priced products with
little importance.
E.g. impulse purchase categories like namkeens and ice-creams. In these categories, consumers tend
to be driven by in-store factors and extrinsic cues (e.g. brand name, packaging etc.) to help them to make
their decisions as they have neither the desire nor the need to comprehensively investigate and assess all
the offerings available to them. Hence, to take advantage of the situation companies often make innovative
use of various packaging elements like shape, size, color, labels, position of visual and verbal elements etc.
to differentiate their products from competitors and to attract consumers to their products.
2.3. Objectives of the Study

The main objectives of the research study are as under:
1. To identify the package color usually preferred by consumers while purchasing food products
like juices.
2. To evaluate how particular package color influences consumers” overall evaluation of selected
Packaged food product, perception about the overall nutritional healthiness and disease risk
reduction power of the product and consumers purchase intentions & overall attitude towards
the product.
3. Section III
3.1. Literature Review

Various researches have been undertaken from time to time to analyze the success of various strategies
that companies had already employed for selling their food products to consumers and for finding still new
strategies that could be developed and employed so as to attract still more number of consumers .Some of
the researches that severed as source of inspiration for the current study are given below:-
∑ Although many people are not aware of the effect a color or a color combination has on them,
in marketing it is well documented that color can be effectively used to suggest certain product
characteristics (Birren, 1956; Cheskin, 1954; Danger, 1968; Favre, 1969; Margulies, 1970). Colors
have a powerful effect on humans (Elliot, Maier, Moller, Friedman, & Meinhardt, 2007; Spence,
2010). Color is one of the most potent features in the design of product packaging in the food
industry (Deliza, Macfie, & Hedderley, 2003; Hine, 1995). According to (Charters, Lockshin and
Unwin, 1999) shoppers often do not read the information that is presented on packages, they
mainly recognize what they want or need in order to make a quick purchase decision. Since color
is perhaps the feature of a product package that triggers the fastest response (Swientek, 2001),
it is essential to consider the associations and expectations that consumers have with certain
colors, in the design process, in order to ensure effectiveness and the successful communication
of brand and sensory qualities. It is expected that the use of a healthy package color will lead
to a more healthy product perception, in comparison with the use of an unhealthy package
color.

∑ Responses to colors can be explained by a combination of rather physiological factors and of

certain traditional uses. Also according to (Hine,1995) consumers perceive package color at three
levels: the associational, the physiological, and the cultural level. The associational level refers
to those packaging color expectations that have become associated with a brand image or even
a product category, through consumers having interacted with it over some extended period of
time (Cheskin & Ward, 1948; Garber, Hyatt, & Boya, 2008; Spence, 2010). On a physiological
level, it can for instance be said that red is known to have arousing effects on behavior, in
comparison to green which is said to be “restful” (Bellizi, Crowley, & Hasty, 1983). The meaning
of these findings is clear: the color of a product or of its package may set up expectations about
the characteristics of this product (Pinson, 1986). These associations are mostly not general,
rather the effect of color appears to be dependent upon the nature of the product, the particular
consumer, and the consumer (Pinson, 1986). For cultural associations there are already well-
established conventions about what colors are more appropriate to certain product categories,
and in certain cultures/geographical regions (Sacharow, 1970; Spence, 2010; Wheatley, 1973).
∑ A previous study concerning food and color, indicated that food color affects the consumer’s
ability to correctly identify flavor, to form distinct flavor profiles and preferences, and dominates
other flavor information sources, including labeling and taste (Garber, Hyatt, & Starr, 2000).
These results show that food color is inextricably linked to expected flavor in the minds of
consumers, making the selection of uncharacteristic food color problematical.
∑ A good example is provided by crisps (or potato chips). Each flavor variety is typically represented
by an arbitrary color: red stands for natural, blue for paprika, yellow for cheese/onion etc. The
established convention (Spence, 2011) linking the color to the flavor can help facilitate a shopper’s
ability to rapidly and effortlessly identify the particular flavor they want. By getting the color
“right”, companies should hopefully be able to deliver products that are immediately recognized,
that match the expectations of the consumers (those loyal and undecided), and increase not only
their satisfaction, but also their sales (Piqueras-Fiszman & Spence, 2011).
∑ With beverages (Deliza and MacFie, 2001) found that packaging color is an important determinant
of sweetness ratings: orange, compared to white, packaging color led consumers to expect a
higher level of juice sweetness, and consequently affected taste evaluations. Hence, consumers
adjusted their taste ratings in line with the expectations triggered by packaging color. According
to (Schifferstein and Tanudjaja, 2004) highly saturated colors boost perceptions of stimulus
intensity, therefore research addressing the relationship between color saturation and potency
perception is of particular relevance.
∑ (Schuldt, 2012) explored whether one under researched aspect of nutrition labels, namely their
color, might influence perceptions of a product’s healthfulness. Results show that participants
perceived a candy bar as healthier when it bore a green rather than a red calorie label, despite
the fact that the labels conveyed the same calorie content. It also investigated the perceived
healthfulness of a candy bar bearing a green versus white calorie label and assessed individual
differences in the importance of healthy eating. Overall, results suggest that green labels increase
perceived healthfulness, especially among consumers who place high importance on healthy
eating. This study thus shows that when concerning nutrition labels, the color green is being
Solanki Sandip P.
perceived as more healthy than the color red or white, even though white is being associated
with ‘purity’ in several cultures (Aslam, 2006). Also according to (Aslam, 2006) red is associated
with fear and anger and black is associated also with fear and anger, but also with grief.
4. Section IV
4.1. Research Methodology

Target Population: Adult consumers of Selected cities of Gujarat namely Ahmedabad, Baroda, Rajkot,
Jamnagar & Bhuj
Design and Setting: The study was undertaken in month of November and December 2015 in the city
of Rajkot.
Type of Research: Descriptive research. Since the aim of the study is to examine and analyze the
perceptions, preferences and buying behavior of consumers of Rajkot especially with respect to ready to
eat food products.
Research Hypothesis: The hypothesis tested using the study are:
I. Consumers perceptions of product healthiness do not differ significantly between different
packaging colors of Juices.
II. Consumers product liking do not differ significantly between different packaging colors of
Juices.
III. Consumers purchase intentions do not differ significantly between different packaging colors
of Juices
Sampling Plan:
(i) Samples and their size:
Total no. Respondents selected
Description of the Study Name of City
for the study from each city
Study Undertaken to analyze the impact Ahmedabad 240
of Package color on Consumers Health Baroda 72
perception and purchase Decision Rajkot 56
Jamnagar 20
Bhuj 12
Total 400
(a) Products selected for Study: Fruit Juices.

(ii) Sampling Method: The Quota sampling has been used. Here in the initial stage quota was
decided on the basis of Population of each city and then samples were selected by Investigator
as per his convenience from each city..
Sources of Data: The research study employed both secondary and primary sources of data. The details
are as under:

(a) Primary sources of Data: Personal Interview, Mall Intercept, Observation

(b) Secondary sources of Data: Gujarat related websites, Leading Magazines and Newspapers,
Company Reports, Research papers, books.
5. Section V
5.1. Findings of the Study

The stimuli used for Juices were four different boxes of Juices of different Color They are shown in Figure 51.1.
The respondents were exposed to one of the four conditions only.
Figure 51.1: Boxes of Juices of Different colors

Source: Developed by Investigator
The first thing that was analyzed was consumers’ health perception for boxes of Juices of different
Color. The corresponding Hypothesis are as under. Here H0 stands for Null Hypothesis & Ha stands for
alternate Hypothesis
H0: Consumers’ perceptions of product healthiness do not differ significantly between different
packaging colors of Juices
Ha: Consumers’ perceptions of product healthiness differ significantly between different Packaging
colors of Juices
The data was analyzed using one way Anova (between the group) test. The following tables from
Table 51.2 to 51.6
Table 51.2
Descriptives
Mean
95% Confidence Interval
Std. Std. for Mean
N Mean Minimum Maximum
Deviation Error
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Orange Color Box 79 3.7071 1.02095 .11487 3.4784 3.9357 1.29 5.00
Light Pink Color Box 74 2.6004 .79556 .09248 2.4161 2.7847 1.00 3.86
Light Green Color Box 76 3.2744 .93132 .10683 3.0616 3.4873 1.29 5.00
Violet Color Box 81 3.4462 1.22940 .13660 3.1744 3.7181 1.00 5.00
Total 310 3.2687 1.08574 .06167 3.1473 3.3900 1.00 5.00

Solanki Sandip P.
Table 51.3
Test of Homogeneity of Variances
Mean
Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
6.041 3 306 .001
Table 51.4
ANOVA
Mean
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 50.786 3 16.929 16.525 .000
Within Groups 313.470 306 1.024
Total 364.257 309
Table 51.5
Robust Tests of Equality of Means
Mean
Statistica df1 df2 Sig.
Welch 21.441 3 169.433 .000
a
Asymptotically F distributed.
Table 51.6
Multiple Comparisons
Mean
Games-Howell
Mean 95% Confidence Interval
(I) Group (J) Group Std. Error Sig.
Difference (I-J) Lower Bound Upper Bound
Orange Color Box Light Pink Color Box 1.10667* .14747 .000 .7234 1.4899
Light Green Color Box .43262* .15687 .033 .0251 .8401
Violet Color Box .26084 .17848 .463 –.2027 .7244
Light Pink Color Box Orange Color Box –1.10667* .14747 .000 –1.4899 –.7234
Light Green Color Box –.67405* .14130 .000 –1.0413 –.3068
Violet Color Box –.84582* .16496 .000 –1.2748 –.4168
Light Green Color Box Orange Color Box –.43262* .15687 .033 –.8401 –.0251
Light Pink Color Box .67405* .14130 .000 .3068 1.0413
Violet Color Box –.17177 .17341 .755 –.6224 .2788
Violet Color Box Orange Color Box –.26084 .17848 .463 –.7244 .2027
Light Green Color Box .17177 .17341 .755 –.2788 .6224
*
The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

For analysis first the assumptions were checked: (1) The four groups were completely independent
(2) The skewness & Kurtosis valued for each group were within acceptable values of 1 & indicated that
data is normally distributed. (3) Homogeneity of variance is assessed by using Levene’s test for equality of
variance since the sig-value in the Table of Homogeneity of Variance was less than 0.05 so the assumption
was not met and hence Welch Test is used the significance value in Anova Table is p < 0.05, i.e. p = 0.00
so null hypothesis is rejected and alternate hypothesis is accepted and there exists difference in consumers
Health perception for boxes of Juices of different colors. Now to find where the difference exists, post hoc
analysis is done using Games Howell test. The outcomes of Games Howell tests are shown in the above.
Hence it can be concluded that
“A one way between the groups of analysis of variance revealed that there was statistically
significant difference in consumers’ health related perceptions between the boxes of Juices
of different Colors. F (3, 169.433) = 21.441, p < 0.05, Post Hoc comparison using Games
Howell test indicated that consumers consider Orange color Box (3.70 ± 1.02) as more
healthy as compared to Light Green color Box (2.60 ± 0.79, p = 0.033) and Light Pink
Color Box (3.27 ± 0.93, p = 0.000)
The next thing that was analyzed was consumers’ product perception for boxes of Juices of different
colors. The corresponding Hypothesis are as under. Here H0 stands for Null Hypothesis & Ha stands for
H0: Consumers product liking do not differ significantly between different packaging colors of Juices.
Ha: Consumers product liking differ significantly between different packaging colors of Juices.
Table 51.7 to 51.11.
Table 51.7
Descriptives
Mean
Std. Std. for Mean
Deviation Error
Orange Color Box 79 3.7532 1.00327 .11288 3.5284 3.9779 1.20 5.00
Violet Color Box 81 3.4611 1.21630 .13514 3.1922 3.7301 1.00 5.00
Total 310 3.2803 1.07146 .06085 3.1606 3.4001 1.00 5.00
Table 51.8
Mean
6.941 3 306 .000 .001

Solanki Sandip P.
Table 51.9
ANOVA
Mean
Between Groups 58.201 3 19.400 20.019 .000
Within Groups 296.539 306 .969
Total 354.740 309
Table 51.10
Mean
Welch 27.209 3 169.047 .000
a
Table 51.11
Mean
Games-Howell
Violet Color Box .29205 .17608 .349 –.1653 .7494
Violet Color Box –.89625* .16009 .000 –1.3127 –.4797
Violet Color Box –.16835 .16962 .754 –.6091 .2724
*
For analysis, first the assumptions were checked: (1) The four groups were completely independent
was not met and hence Welch Test is used the significance value in Anova Table is p < 0.05, i.e. p = 0.00
so null hypothesis is rejected and alternate hypothesis is accepted and there exists difference in consumers
product perception for boxes of Juices of different colors. Now to find where the difference exists, post
hoc analysis is done using Games Howell test. The outcomes of Games Howell tests are shown in the
above. Hence it can be concluded that
“A one way between the groups of analysis of variance revealed that there was statistically
significant difference in consumers’ product related perceptions between the boxes
of Juices of different colors. F (3, 169.047) = 27.209 p < 0.05, Post Hoc comparison
using Games Howell test indicated that consumers liked Orange color box (3.75 ± 1.00)
more as compared to Pink Color Box (2.54 ± 0.73, p = 0.000) & Light green color Box
(3.29 ± 0.89, p = 0.016).”
The next thing that was analyzed was consumers purchase intentions for boxes of Juices of different
colors. The corresponding Hypothesis are as under. Here H0 stands for Null Hypothesis & Ha stands for
H0: Consumers’ purchase intentions do not differ significantly between different Packaging colors
of Juices.
Ha: Consumers purchase intentions differ significantly between different packaging colors of
Juices.
Table 51.12 to 51.16.
Table 51.12
Descriptives
Mean
Std. Std. for Mean
Deviation Error
Orange Color Box 3.7418 .99648 .11211 3.5186 3.9650 1.20 5.00 5.00
Violet Color Box 81 3.4642 1.21648 .13516 3.1952 3.7332 1.00 5.00
Total 310 3.2768 1.06630 .06056 3.1576 3.3959 1.00 5.00
Table 51.13
Mean
7.335 3 306 .000
Table 51.14
ANOVA
Mean
Between Groups 57.439 3 19.146 19.935 .000
Within Groups 293.894 306 .960
Total 351.333 309

Solanki Sandip P.
Table 51.15
Mean
Welch 27.337 3 168.974 .000
a
Table 51.16
Mean
Games-Howell
Violet Color Box .27757 .17561 .393 –.1786 .7337
Violet Color Box –.89933* .15955 .000 –1.3145 –.4842
Violet Color Box –.17736 .16929 .722 –.6173 .2626
*
For analysis, first the assumptions were checked (1) The four groups were completely independent
was not met and hence Welch Test is used
The significance value in Anova Table is p < 0.05, i.e. p = 0.00 so null hypothesis is rejected and alternate
hypothesis is accepted and there exists difference in consumers purchase intentions for boxes of Juices of
different colors. Now to find where the difference exists, post hoc analysis is done using Games Howell
test. The outcomes of Games Howell tests are shown in the above. Hence it can be concluded that
“A one way between the group of analysis of variance revealed that there was statistically
significant difference in consumers purchase intentions between the boxes of Juices of
different Colors. F (3, 168.975) = 27.337, p < 0.05. Post Hoc comparison using Games
Howell test indicated that consumers purchase intention was higher for Orange color Box
(3.74 ± 0.99) as compared to Light Green color Box (3.26 ± 0.88, p = 0.016) and Pink Color
Box (2.56 ± 0.72, p = 0.000).”

5.2. Limitations of the Study & Scope of Future Research

Present research is carried out with Juices, but could also be performed with many other products. Currently
many other food producers put health claims on their products, these products can also be used in research
concerning the effect of product package on perceived healthfulness (drinks, meat products, fish, other
deserts etc.). It can also be performed on other unhealthy products, like for instance chips, ice, chocolate etc.
It is interesting to examine whether the main effects in this research also apply for other food products.
In this research the products have no specific brand name, meaning that participants are not familiar
with the brand. Main effects therefore will not automatically also hold true for product packages of well-
known brands. Underwood, Klein, and Burke (2001) conducted a research where respondents were asked
to make purchases in a simulated shopping environment. They examined to what extent a consumer is
guided or not guided by the presence of photography in a package, and whether there is a difference between
familiar and unfamiliar brands. The results show that brands which are less generally known than the national
brands, are more dependent upon visual indications to attract attention. According to Underwood, Klein,
and Burke (2001) the theory behind this is that in general consumers use more visual packaging features
when they are not of hardly familiar with a brand. Therefore, it might be interesting for future research to
examine if the same effects hold true for brands that are nationally known.
Another starting point for future research is the fact that in this research product packages are
displayed in the form of pictures, meaning that respondents did not have any real references. This might
have biased the results, therefore making it interesting to carry out the same research, but instead of using
images of the package, using actual packages. Respondents then can refer to an actual package, making it
easier to make judgments about size, shape and color. Also all respondents will then see the exact same
color, whereas displaying the images on respondents’ computer screens may lead to perceived differences
in package color.
The study took place in Gujarat. Therefore findings can’t be generalized to other and dissimilarities in
color preferences and color meaning associations between different cultures. There also might be difference
in what is perceived as healthy or unhealthy or there might be differences in associations with shapes,
between different cultures. Therefore for future research it is important to include a cultural moderator
to examine whether there are also differences in consumer’s perceived healthfulness and overall product
evaluation.
In this research package color is the package feature being manipulated, but for future research it might
be interesting to manipulate other package features. For instance logo, font type and package material can
be used as independent variables, to examine whether these can also affect the perceived healthfulness of
a product.
5.3. Conclusion
The findings of the study revealed that in case of Juices, the most preferred package color was orange
color box. The reason for such preference was that consumers consider that juice in orange color box is
healthy and good source of energy and should be purchased. The findings of the study are unique to the
study only.
Solanki Sandip P.
The current research study indicated that packaging element like package color plays an important
role in differentiating the brand from its competitors & in establishing the unique position of the brand in
the market place & in the minds of the consumers.
The company’s manufacturing & selling products like Fruit Juices if taken into consideration the
findings of the present study & if implements them for their existing or upcoming products then it would
have an advantage of developing the package that would will able to grab consumers’ attention, stimulate
the consumers to try or purchase that product & would encourage them for repeat purchases & thereby
keep them loyal to the brand for long period of time.
5.4. Implications
The findings of the study increase the understanding about the consumers’ perceptions about the various
types of packages of Juices and their influence on their buying behavior. They also highlight how various
package colors especially for Juices could be used for various products so as to differentiate the product
from competitors and to attract consumers’ attention
References
Ampuero, O., & Villa, N. (2006), Consumer perceptions of product packaging. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23, 100-
112.
Arnheim, R. (1974), Art and visual perception: A psychology of the creative eye. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Aslam, M. (2006), Are you selling the right colour? A cross cultural review of colour as a marketing cue. Journal of Marketing
Communications, 12(1), 15-30.
Barreiro-Hurle, J., Garcia, A., & De Magistris, T. (2010), The Effects of Multiple Health and Nutrition Labels on Consumer
Food Choices. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 61, 426-443.
Barselou, L.W. (2008), Grounded Cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617-645.
Becker, L., Van Rompay, T.J.L., Schifferstein, H.N.J., & Galetzka, M. (2011), Tough package, strong taste: The influence
of packaging design on taste impressions and product evaluations. Food Quality and Preference, 22, 17-23.
Bellizzi J.A., Crowley A.E. & Hasty R.W. (1983), “The Effects of Color in Store Design”, Journal of Retailing, 59, 21-45.
Berlyne, D.E. (1974a).The New Experimental Aesthetics. In: Studies in the New Experimental Aesthetics, David E. Berlyne, (ed),
New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1-25.
Berlyne, D.E. (1974b), Novelty, Complexity and Interestingness. In: Studies in the New Experimental Aesthetics, David E.
Berlyne, (ed), New York: John Wiley & Sons, 175- 180.
Berlyne, D. E. (1976), Psychological aesthetics. International Journal of Psychology, 11, 43–55.
Birren, F. (1956), Selling color to people. New York: University Books.
Bloch, P.H. (1995), Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumer response. Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 16-29.
Bloch, P.H., Brunel, F.H., & Arnold, T.J. (2003), Individual differences in the centrality of visual product aesthetics:
Concept and measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 551-565.
Bone, P.F., & Ellen, P.S. (1999), Scents in the marketplace: Explaining a fraction of olfaction. Journal of Retailing, 75 (2),
243-262.

Bordo, S. (2003), Unbearable weight: Feminism, Western culture, and the body (2nd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Carels, R.A., Harper, J., & Konrad, K. (2006), Qualitative perceptions and caloric estimations of healthy and unhealthy
foods by behavioral weight loss participants. Appetite, 46, 199-206.
Carels, R.A., Konrad, K., & Harper, J. (2007), Individual differences in food perceptions and calorie estimation: an
examination of dieting status, weight and gender. Appetite, 49, 450-458.
Chapman, G., & MacLean, H. (1933), “Junk Food” and “Healthy Food”: Meanings of Food in Adolescent Women’s
Culture. Journal of Nutrition Education, 25, 108-113.
Cardello, A. V. (1994), Consumer expectations and their role in food acceptance. In H. J. H. MacFie & D. M. H. Thomson
(Eds.), Measurement of food preferences, 253–297. London: Blackie Academic.
Charters, S., Lockshin, L., & Unwin, T. (1999), Consumer response to wine bottle back label. Journal of Wine Research, 10,
183-195.
Cheskin, L. (1954), Color guide for marketing media. New York: McMillan.
Cheskin, L., & Ward, L.B. (1948), Indirect approach to market reactions. Harvard Business Review, 26, 572-580.
Cockerham, W. C., Kunz, G. & Lueschen, G. (1988) On concern with appearance, health beliefs, and eating habits: a
reappraisal comparing Americans and West Germans. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 29, 265–270.
Cohen, D.(1972), Surrogate indicators and deception in advertising. Journal of Marketing, 36, 10-15.
Cox, D.F. (1967), The sorting rule model of the consumer product evaluation process. D.F. City Mayors: The world’s
fastest growing cities and urban areas from 2006 to 2020. (n.d.). Retrieved from: http://www.citymayors.com/
statistics/urban_growth1.html
Fox (ed.), Risk taking and information handling in consumer behavior, 34-81. Boston, MA: Graduate School of Business
Administration, Harvard University.
Creusen, E. H., & Schoormans, P. L. (2005), The different roles of product appearance in consumer choice. Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 22, 63-81.
Crilly, N., Moultrie, J., & Clarkson, P. J. (2004), Seeing things: consumer response to the visual domain in product design.
Design Studies, 25, 547-577.
Danger, E.P. (1968), Using colour to sell. London: Gower.
Deliza, R., & MacFie, H. (2001), Product Packaging and Branding. In Frewer, L. J. and E. Risvik (eds.), Food, People and
Society. A European Perspective of Consumers’ Food Choices. Springer, Germany
Deliza, R., Macfie, H., & Hedderley, D. (2003), Use of computer-generated images and conjoint analysis to investigate
sensory expectations. Journal of Sensory Studies, 18, 465-486.
Doczi, G. (1981), The Power of Limits, Proportional Harmonies in Nature, Art, and Architecture. Shambala, Boulder, CO.
Doyle, J. R., & Bottomley, P. A. (2006), The interactive effects of colors and products on perceptions of brand logo
appropriateness. Marketing Theory, 6, 63-83.
Elder, R., & Krishna, A. (2012), The „Visual Depiction Effect’ in advertising: Facilitating embodied mental simulation
through product orientation. Journal of Consumer Research, 38, 988-1003.
Elliot, A.J., Maier, M.A., Moller, A.C., Friedman, R., & Meinhardt, J. (2007), Color and psychological functioning. The
effect of red on performance attainment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 154-168.
Favre, J.P. (1969), Richtige farbe erfolgreiche Packung. Zurich: ABC Verlag.

Solanki Sandip P.
Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industries (FICCI) - KPMG (2007). Processed Food and Agribusiness:
Opportunities for Investment in India. Available at http://www.in.kpmg.com/pdf/Processed%20Food%20%20Final.
pdf.
Fenko, A., Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Hekkert, P. (2010), Shifts in sensory dominance between various stages of user-product
interactions. Applied Ergonomics, 41, 34-40.
Folkes, V., & Matta, S. (2004), The Effect of Package Shape on Consumers’ Judgments of Product Volume: Attention as
a Mental Contaminant. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 390-401.
Garber, L.L. (1995), The package appearance in choice. Advances in Consumer Research, 22, 653-661.
Garber, L.L. Jr., Hyatt, E.M., & Boya, Ü, Ö. (2008), The mediating effects of the appearance of nondurable consumer
goods and their packaging on consumer behavior. In H.N.J.
Schifferstein & P. Hekkert (Eds.), Product experience, 581-602. London: Elsevier.
Garber, L.L., Hyatt, E.M., & Starr, R.G. (2000), The effects of food color on perceived flavor. Journal of Marketing Theory
and Practice, 8, 59-72.
Govers, P. C. M., & Schoormans J. P. L. (2005), Product personality and its influence on consumer preference. Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 22, 189-197.
Hekkert, P. (2006), Design aesthetics: Principles of pleasure in design. Psychology Science, 48(2), 157-172.
Hine, T. (1995), The total package: The secret history and hidden meanings of boxes, bottles, cans, and other persuasive containers. New
York: Little Brown.
Holmberg, L. (1983), The effect of form on the perceived volume and heaviness of objects. Psychological Research Bulletin,
20, 15.
Hughner, R.S., McDonagh, P., Prothero, A., Shultz, C.J., & Stanton, J. (2007), Who are organic food consumers? A
compilation and review why people purchase organic food. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 6, 94-110.
Hutchings, J.B. (2003), Expectations and the food industry: The impact of color and appearance. New York: Kluwer Academic/
Plenum Publishers.
Jacoby, J., Chestnut, R., & Silberman, W. (1977), Consumer use and comprehension of nutrition information. Journal of
Consumer Research, 4, 119-128.
Kang, Y., Williams, L. E., Clark, M. S., Gray, J. R., & Bargh, J. A. (2010), Physical temperature effects on trust behavior:
The role of insula. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 6, 507-515.
Katz, M.L., Gorden-Larsen, P., Bentley, M.E., Kelsey, K., Shields, K., & Ammerman, A. (2004), Does skinny mean
healthy? Perceived ideal, current, and healthy body sizes among African-American Girls and their Female Caregivers.
Ethnicity & Disease, 14, 533-541.
Kreijl, C.F., van, & Knaap, A.G.A.C. (2004), Ons eten gemeten. Gezonde voeding en veilig voedsel in Nederland. Bilthoven:
Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu.
Krishna, A. (2006), Interaction of senses: The effect of vision versus touch on the elongation bias. Journal of Consumer
Research, 32, 557-566.
Krishna, A. (2010), Sensory Marketing: Research on the sensuality of products. New York: Routledge.
Krishna, A. (2012), An integrative review of sensory marketing: Engaging the senses to affect perception, judgment and
behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22, 332-351.

Krishna, A., Elder, R.S., & Caldara, C. (2010), Feminine to smell but masculine to touch?
Multisensory congruence and its effect on the aesthetic experience. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 410-418.
Kwan, S. (2009), Competing Motivational Discourses for Weight Loss: Means to Ends and the Nexus of Beauty and
Health. Qualitative Health Research, 19, 1223-1233.
Lähteenmäki, L., Lampila, P., Grunert, K., Boztug, Y., Ueland, Q., & Åström, A. (2010). Impact of health-related claims
on the perception of other product attributes. Food Policy, 35, 230–239.
Lappalainen, R., Saba, A., Moles, A., Holm, L., Mykkanen, H., & Gibney, M.J. (1997). Difficulties in trying to eat healthier:
descriptive analysis of perceived barriers for healthy eating. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 51, 36–40.
Ledyard, J. O. (1995), Public goods: A survey of experimental research. In J. H. Kagel & A. E. Roth (Eds.), The handbook of
experimental economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 111-194.
Lee, A. Y., & Labroo, A. A. (2004), The effect of conceptual and perceptual fluency on brand evaluation. Journal of Marketing
Research, 41(2), 151-165.
Lewalski, Z.M. (1988), Product Esthetics: An Interpretation for Designers. Carson City, NV: Design & Development Engineering
Press.
Liem, D.G., Toraman Aydin, N., & Zandstra, E.H. (2012), Effects of health labels on expected and actual taste perception
of soup. Food Quality and Preference, 25, 192-197.
Lofgren,M.(2005), Winning at the first and second moments of truth: an exploratory study, Managing Service Quality: An
International Journal, 15 (1), 102-115.
Lutz, R.J. (1976), Communicating with consumers, 101-112. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Madden, T.J., Hewett, K., & Roth, M.S. (2000), Managing Images in Different Cultures: A Cross-National Study of Color
Meanings and Preference. Journal of International Marketing, 8 (4), 90-107.
Magnusson, M.K., Arvola, A., Hursti, U.K.K., Aberg, L., & Sjoden, P.O. (2003), Choice of organic food is related to
perceived consequences for human health and to environmentally friendly behaviour. Appetite, 40, 109-117.
Margulies, W.P. (1970), Packaging power. New York: World Publishing.
Marshall, D., Sutart, M., & Bell, R. (2006), Examining the relationship between product package colour and product
selection in preschoolers. Food Quality and Preference, 17, 615-621.
Mayall. W.H. (1968), Machines and Perception in Industrial Design. London: Studio Vista.
Meyers-Levy, J.M., & Peracchio, L.A. (1995), Understanding the effects of color: How the correspondence between
available and required resources affects attitudes. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(2), 121-138.
Ministry of Food Processing Industry (2013) Annual Report 2012-13.
Mitchell, A.A. & Olson, J.C. (1981), Are product attribute beliefs the only mediator of advertising effects on brand attitude?
Journal of Marketing Research 18, 318-332.
Moers, P.H.J.M. (2007), Merk toch hoe sterk: Het merk als strategische factor tot Success. Kluwer: Amsterdam
Murray, J.M., & Delahunty, C.M. (2000), Mapping consumer preference for the sensory and packaging attributes of
Cheddar cheese. Food Quality and Preference, 11, 419 – 435.
National Skill Development Corporation report (2010), Human Resource and Skill Requirements in the Food Processing
Sector: Study on Mapping of Human Resource Skill Gaps in India till 2022. New Delhi India. Available at: http://
www.nsdcindia.org/pdf/food-processings.pdf

Solanki Sandip P.
Ngo, M.K., Piqueras-Fiszman, B., & Spence, C. (2012), On the colour and shape of still and sparkling water: Insights from
online and laboratory-based testing. Food Quality and Preference, 24, 260-268.
Oakes, M.E., & Slotterback, C.S. (2001), Judgements of food healthfulness: Food name stereotypes in adults over 25.
Appetite, 37, 1-8.
Olson, J.C. (1978), Inferential belief formation in the cue utili- zation process. H.K. Hunt (ed.), Advances in consumer research,
5, 706-713. Chicago, IL: ACR.
Olson, J.C. (1980), Encoding processes: levels of processing and existing knowledge structures. Advances in consumer research,
7, 154-160. Ann Arbor, MI: ACR.
Papanek, V. (1984), Design for the Real World. New York: Van Nostrand.
Peck, J.,& Childers, T.L. (2003), Individual differences in haptic information processing: The need for touch scale. Journal
of Consumer Research, 30, 430-442.
Peracchio, L.A., & Tybout, A.M. (1996), The moderating role of prior knowledge in schema- based product evaluation.
Journal of Consumer Research, 23, 117.
Pinson, C. (1986), An implicit product theory approach to consumer inferential judgments about product. International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 3, 19-38.
Piqueras-Fiszman, B., & Spence, C. (2011), Do the material properties of cutlery affect the perception of the food you
eat? An exploratory study. Journal of Sensory Studies, 26, 258-262.
Pope, H.G., Jr., Phillips, K.A., & Olivardia, R. (2000), The Adonis complex: The secret crisis of male body obsession. New York:
Free Press.
Prince, G. W. (1994), The Contour: A Packaging Vision Seen Through Coke-Bottle Lenses. Beverage World, 1, 6.
Proper, K.I., Bakker, I., Overbeek, K., van, Verheijden, M.W., & Mechelen, W., van (2006).
De effectiviteit van interventies ter stimulering van gezonde voeding. Tijdschrift voor Bedrijfs- en Verzekeringsgeneeskunde, 14,
285-292.
Raghubir, P., & Greenleaf, E.A. (2006), Ratios in proportion: What should the shape of the package be? Journal of Marketing,
70, 95-107.
Raghubir, P., & Krishna, A. (1999), Vital Dimensions in Volume Perception: Can the Eye Fool the Stomach? Journal of
Marketing Research, 36, 313-326.
Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004), Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s
processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 364-382.
Rettie, R., & Brewer, C. (2000), The verbal and visual components of package design. Journal of Product & Brand Management,
9(1), 56-70.
Rodríguez Tarango, J.A. (2003), Introducción a la Ingeniería en Envase y Embalaje. In J.A.
Rodríguez Tarango (Ed.), Manual de ingería y diseño en envase y embalaje para la industria de los alimentos, farmaceutica, química y de
cosméticos (pp. 1:1-1:6), México: Instituto Mexicano de Profesionales en Envase y Envalaje S.C.
Roininen, K., Lähteenmäki, L., & Tuorila, H. (1999), Quntification of Consumer Attitudes to Health and Hedonic
Characteristics of Foods. Appetite, 33, 71-88.
Sacharow, S. (1970), Selling a package through the use of color. Color Engineering, 9, 25-27.
Schifferstein, H.N.J. (2009), The drinking experience; cup or content? Food Quality and Preference, 20, 268-276.

Schifferstein, H. N. J., Kole, A. P. W., & Mojet, J. (1999), Asymmetry in the disconfirmation of expectations for natural
yogurt. Appetite, 32, 307-329.
Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Spence, C. (2008), Multisensory product experience. In H. N. J. Schifferstein & P. Hekkert (Eds.),
Product experience, 133–161. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Schifferstein, H.N.J., & Tanudjaja, I. (2004), Visualizing fragrances through colours: the mediating role of emotions.
Perception, 1249-1266.
Schmitt, B. H., & Simonson, A. (1997), Marketing aesthetics: The strategic management of brands, identity and image. New York:
The Free Press.
Schuldt, J.P. (2012), Does Green Mean Healthy? Nutrition Label Color Affects Perceptions of Healthfulness. Health
Communication, DOI: 10.1080/10410236.2012.725270.
Sengupta, J., & Gorn, G.J. (2002), Absence makes the mind grow sharper: Effects of element omission on subsequent
recall. Journal of Marketing Research, 39, 186-201.
Sherwood, M. (1999), Winning the Shelf Wars. Global Cosmetic Industry, 164, 64–67.
Smets, G.J.F., & Overbeeke, C.J. (1995), Expressing tastes in packages. Design Studies, 16, 349-365.
Solanki Sandip and Sheth Jaydeep (2015) Healthy Food Selection: The Role of Nutritional Information of Packaged Foods
on Consumers’ Purchase Intentions. Indian Journal of Marketing, 45(9), 37-54.
Solanki Sandip, Jaydeep Sheth and Sheth Bhagyashree (2015) The Smart Food Choice: A Study on the influence of Front
of Package Nutritional label on the perceptions and buying behaviour of Consumers. Elixir International Journal, 85,
34340-34347.
Soriano, C., & Valenzuela, J. (2008), Sensorial perception as a source domain: A cross- linguistic study. Paper presented at
the Seventh International Conference on Researching and Applying Metaphor (RaAM 7), Cáceres, Spain.
Spence, C. (2010), Ízérzékelés öt érzékszervvel (Colour associations), IPM Interpress Magazin, October, 108-112.
Spence, C. (2011), Crossmodal correspondences. A tutorial review. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73, 971-995.
Steptoe, A., Pollard, T.M., & Wardle, J. (1995), Development of a measure of the motives underlying the selection of
food: the food choice questionnaire. Appetite, 25, 267-284.
Strack, F., Martin, I., & Stepper, S. (1988), Inhibiting and facilitating conditions of human smile: A nonobtrusive test of
facial feedback hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Psychology, 54, 768-777.
Swientek, B. (2001), Uncanny developments. Beverage Industry, 92 (12), 39-39.
Technopak Advisors Pvt. Ltd. and Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industries (FICCI), (2008), Land of
opportunities: The Food Industry in India. Available at: http://cifti.org/Reports/Ficci_Technopak%20’08.pdf
Underwood, R.L., Klein, N.M., & Burke, R.R. (2001), Packaging communication: Attentional effects of product imagery.
Journal of Product & Brand Management, 10(7), 403-422.
Underwood, R.L., & Ozanne, J.L. (1998), Is your package an effective communicator? A normative framework for increasing
the communicative competence of packaging. Journal of Marketing Communications, 4, 207-220.
Van Rompay, T. J. L., Hekkert, T., Saakes, D., & Russo, B. (2005), Grounding abstract object characteristics in embodied
interactions. Acta Psychologica,119, 315-351.
Van Rompay, T. J. L., & Pruyn, A. T. H. (2011), When visual product features speak the same language: Effects of
shape-typeface congruence on brand perception and price expectations. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28,
599-610.
Solanki Sandip P.
Van Rompay, T., Pruyn, A., & Tieke, P. (2009), Symbolic Meaning Integration in Design and its Influence on Product
and Brand Evaluation. International Journal of Design, 3 (2), 19-26.
Verbeke, W. (2005), Funtional foods: Consumer willingness to compromise on taste for health? Food Quality and Preference,
17, 126-131.
Wansink, B. (2006), Mindless Eating: Why we eat more than we think. Bantam-Dell: New York.
Westerman, S.J., Sutherland, E.J., Gardner, P.H., Baig, N., Critchley, C., Hickey, C., Mehigan, S., Solway, A., & Zervos,
Z. (2013), The design of consumer packaging: Effects of manipulations of shape, orientation, and alignment of
graphical forms on consumer’s assessments. Food Quality and Preference, 27, 8-17.
Wheatley, J. (1973), Putting colour into marketing. Marketing, 24-29, 67.
WHO (World Health Organization) (2002), The World Health Report 2002. Reducing Risks, Promoting Healthy Life. Geneva:
World Health Organization.
Williams, L. E., & Bargh, J. A. (2008), Experiencing physical warmth promotes interpersonal warmth. Science, 322, 606-607.
Wright, J., O’Flynn, G., & Macdonald, D. (2006), Being Fit and Looking Healthy: Young Women’s and Men’s Constructions
of Health and Fitness. Sex Roles, 54, 707-716.
Zhang, Y., Feick, L., & Price, L.J. (2006), The Impact of Self-Construal on Aesthetic Preference for Angular versus
Rounded Shapes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 32(6), 794-805.

CH 51 F - Sandip Solanki Corrected

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CH 51 F - Sandip Solanki Corrected

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CH 51 F - Sandip Solanki Corrected

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research

available at http: www.serialsjournal.com

„ Serials Publications Pvt. Ltd.

Volume 15 • Number 5 • 2017

A Study on the Impact of Package Color of Juices on Consumers’

685 International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research

1.1. Global Processed Food Industry

1.2 Indian Processed Food Industry

International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research 686

2.1. Definition of Packaged Food and its Various Segments

2.2. Packaging and its Importance for Packaged Food Industry

687 International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research

2.3. Objectives of the Study

3.1. Literature Review

International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research 688

∑ Responses to colors can be explained by a combination of rather physiological factors and of

4.1. Research Methodology

(a) Products selected for Study: Fruit Juices.

International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research 690

(a) Primary sources of Data: Personal Interview, Mall Intercept, Observation

5.1. Findings of the Study

Figure 51.1: Boxes of Juices of Different colors

691 International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research

International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research 692

693 International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research

695 International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research

International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research 696

5.2. Limitations of the Study & Scope of Future Research

International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research 698

699 International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research

International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research 700

701 International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research

International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research 702

International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research 704

You might also like