“Buying
behaviour and decision-making criteria of Base of the Pyramid consumers:
the influence of
packaging on Fast Moving Consumer Goods
customers’ brand
experience”
Ebrahim Variawa
Student number:
29751332
A research
project submitted to the Gordon Institute of Business Science, University of
Pretoria, in
partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Business
Administration.
10 November 2010
1.1 Background
Over two thirds of the world’s
population are considered to be low-income earners. The
bottom of the global economic pyramid
refers to the more than four billion people with per
capita incomes below $1500 per annum
that live in poor or extremely deprived conditions.
Marketers and communicators know little
about these consumers who are considered to be
at the Base of the Pyramid (BoP). There
has been an undue bias towards understanding
developed markets, which are driven by
competitive pressures and proliferation of choice.
The sheer vastness of the low-income
market, unfamiliarity with its customers, and the lack
of ready means to reach them have all
abetted in ensuring that marketers continue to be
unaware of what drives them (Mehta,
1998).
It is collectively estimated that people
at the BoP have a combined purchasing power of $5
trillion (Subrahmanyan &
Gomez-Arias, 2008). Prahalad (2006) categorises consumers into
four tiers (see Figure 1). Tiers 3 and 4
form the bottom of the pyramid and consist of four
billion people. Traditionally, companies
considered poor or low-income groups as an
unviable market and hence they were
largely ignored (Prahalad, 2006). With over 54
countries in Africa and 900 million
consumers speaking over 2 000 languages, Africa is not
a homogenous market that companies can
merely import or manufacture products for and
try to sell to without appreciating the
diversity and complexity of their consumers’ needs,
challenges, preferences and aspirations
(Mahajan, 2008). There has, however, been a
paradigm shift, with a recent focus on
strategies to better serve this market. Many local and
international companies have begun to
operate in emerging markets such as Africa
(Mahajan, 2008). The attraction of this
market for companies increases as their consumer’s
progress up the economic pyramid.
Furthermore, the pyramid is morphing and by 2020 the very low-income market is
expected to shrink by 24%. Today is when these consumers are
forming their opinions and loyalties
(Management Agenda, 2007)
1.2 Research problem
Given the wide diversity of Africa’s
population, consumers’ behaviour is just as complex
and multifaceted. The research in
question is an attempt to help unpack “why consumers
buy what they buy”, or what is referred
to as the “the purchasing criteria”.
In mature markets, product packaging has
been found to play a strategic role in 7 of 10 ten
in-store purchase decision criteria.
This research will try, therefore, to evaluate the
importance of product packaging as a
decision criterion in the context of low-income
markets (Bone & Corey, 2000). R.
Fletcher (2005),
in “Marketing at the Bottom of the
Pyramid”, argues a different mindset is needed to tap in to the BoP.
A standardised ‘Western’ marketing mix
offering of the 4
Ps: Product, Price, Promotion and Place
alone will not work with this group, whose
circumstances warrant a contextualised
and specific approach. This research will
demonstrate how BoP consumers behave
differently. Different preferences, customs and
habits are likely to result in different
choice. R. Fletcher (2005) gives fresh insight into how
Western entrepreneurs do not fully
understand the realities on the ground. The examples he
cites are of washing clothes in an
outdoor stream. He argues that this will require a different
type of packaging and soap product
formulation to washing clothes in a washing machine
that adjusts itself to levels of soiling
and colour of garments.
With a rise in brands competing for
shelf space and market share, the consumer is left with
more choice. Increasingly,
consumer-shopping behaviour is being assessed from the
holistic perspective of an entire
shopping experience. The holistic view requires a retailer to
product range has for shoppers. When
consumers browse for different brands, they are
exposed to useful product attributes.
However, they are also exposed to various specific
brand-related stimuli, such as
brand-identifying colors, shapes, background design
elements, slogans, mascots and brand
characters (Brakus, et al., 2009).
1.3 Research scope
The scope of this research will be
limited to the investigation of the purchasing decision
criteria that low-income consumers in
South Africa use when doing their grocery shopping.
The constructs that will be studied are
Packaging as an independent variable (IV); and
Brand Experience as the dependant
variable (DV). The aim will be to investigate the
relationship that IV has on the DV (the
control variable will be an FMCG grocery product
sold on the shelf in a retail store).
1.4 Importance of this research
The purpose of the intended research is
to investigate how product packaging as a
purchasing criterion influences the
brand experience of BoP consumers. Providing insight
into SA BoP consumer preferences of
packaging attributes and desired brand experience
dimensions will fill the gap in
literature and bring greater attention to this significant but
understudied market. Manufacturers and
large retailers will benefit from these findings, as
it will depict the need to go beyond the
mentality of merely removing features of the
packaging or brand experience to make
them cheaper. Companies can embed the new
findings of packaging and customer brand
experience into their products to innovate
bottom up. This may lead to more
efficient budget allocation for design and marketing,
resulting in greater customer retention
and improved brand equity. Even though consumers
at the BoP face deprivation, with
Western markets being saturated
1.5 Research objectives
In trying to understand why BoP
consumers buy what they buy, the objective of the research
will be to investigate the influence of
product packaging on the consumers’ brand
experience. These findings will shed
light on whether preferences in packaging yield a more
positive brand experience and, as a
result, how companies can better package their products.
2.1 Introduction
Chapter 1 of this study focused on BoP
theory regarding low-income consumers and their
importance as a consumer market. It also
discussed the scope and motivation for the study
and alluded to the importance of
understanding this group’s decision-making criteria.
Chapter 2 focuses on synthesis of
consumer behaviour literature. This is followed by a
synopsis of the literature on the decision-making
criteria of BoP consumers. The argument
then refines and investigates
decision-making theory constructs such as packaging and its
attributes, and brand experience and its
respective dimensions.
2.2 BoP consumer behaviour
Belch and Belch (2007) define consumer
behaviour as “the process and activities people
engage in when searching for, selecting,
purchasing, using, evaluating, and disposing of
products and services so as to satisfy
their needs and desires”
2.3 What influences BoP consumer behaviour
2.3.1 Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
According to Maslow, there are five core
human motives that are satisfied in a hierarchical
manner: physiological; safety and
security; belonging; self-esteem; and self-actualisation.
2.4 Social capital and family systems
Social capital refers to norms and
networks that enable people to act jointly (Woolcock and
Narayan, 2000), including the notion
that networks such as family, friends and associates
are an important asset and can be called
on in a crisis. Communities with a diverse stock of
social capital are regarded to be in a
stronger position to confront poverty and lead to
sustainable development (Collier, 1998).
2.5 Compensatory consumption
According to this theory, individuals
who cannot fulfill their primary needs, especially
regarding self-esteem or
self-actualisation, would compensate these desires by alternative
means (Gronmo, 1988; Woodruffe, 1997).
It posits that low-income households, or those
facing racial or ethnic discrimination,
will spend heavily on socially visible products to
make up for their lack of status in
society. Even though this theory was developed from
observing consumer behaviour of
low-income households in the United States of America
(USA), it has relevance to a South
African BoP context. When traditional indicators of
social status, such as wealth or
occupational prestige, are not accessible, people resort to the
consumption of status products that are
easily seen as symbols of a higher class (Fontes &
Fan, 2006). This theory might explain
why BoP consumers buy occasional luxury foods for
their children instead of nutritional
ones, and spend beyond their means on festivities and
items like cosmetics.
2.6 Compensatory consumption
According to this theory, individuals
who cannot fulfill their primary needs, especially
regarding self-esteem or
self-actualisation, would compensate these desires by alternative
means (Gronmo, 1988; Woodruffe, 1997).
It posits that low-income households, or those
facing racial or ethnic discrimination,
will spend heavily on socially visible products to
make up for their lack of status in
society.
RESEARCH HYPOTHESES
In order to investigate the decision
criteria of Base of the Pyramid consumers, the research
objectives are combined with the
literature, synthesised, and the following research
hypotheses are proposed.
3.1 Main Hypothesis 1:
H1A: Grocery packaging will influence
customer brand experience.
H10: Grocery packaging will not
influence customer brand experience.
Sub Hypothesis 2:
H2 A: Perceptions of Packaging differ
across all product categories.
H20: Perceptions of Packaging do not
differ across all product categories.
Sub Hypothesis 3:
H3A: Levels of Brand Experience differ
across all product categories.
H30:
Levels of Brand Experience do not differ
across all product categories.
According to the (Sehrawet & Kundu,
2007) packaging scale and the brand experience
scale (Brakus, Schmitt, &
Zarantonello, 2009)
4.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
4.1 Choice of methodology
The methodology purpose was to help
depict the process that the researcher undertook. It
aims to provide details and information
so future researchers can replicate or improve on
the study.
Descriptive research was the choice of method
to seek answers that best suited this study.
The research design was quantitative in
nature; however, the researcher did pre-test the
questionnaire qualitatively by getting
consumers’ insight into their reasons for buying the
product. This process also helped to
refine the questionnaire, enhance it’s readability and
minimize the chances of questions being
misinterpreted. It also allowed for
testing how the
questionnaire would translate into other
ethnic languages such as Zulu. There has been
previous research conducted on the BoP
context, none of which looked at the influence of
packaging on the brand experience of BoP
consumers in the FMCG and retail industries.
4.2 Population and unit of analysis
Approximately 20.9 million people in SA
are considered low-income earners. They fall
into the LSM 5 segment and earn under R4
200, on average (Eighty20, 2009). The sample
population was BoP individuals from the
Carltonville area. The total population
is
approximately 182 000 people, according
to Stats SA 2008, of which 54 406 earn under R3
000 a month and can be considered to be
BoP (Fernridge, 2007).
The unit of analysis was a BoP consumer
choosing their products in a Cartonville
supermarket.
The control variable to make the
findings more robust was to exclude people over LSM 5.
Approximately 19 surveys were discarded
due to these individuals not matching the sample
population required. The researcher
chose Cartonville as the focus area because of the large
influx of mining workers who earn under
R4 200 (LSM 5), as well as the fact that
Carltonville retail outlets act as a
feeder to nearby rural settlements such as Khutsong,
Blybank, Welverdiend, Deelkraal,
Blyvooruitsig and the residential hostels at the mines
(Fernridge, 2007).
The general population, therefore, was
seen to be under LSM 5. Carltonville is also rather
representative of other small,
low-income urban nodes in SA, but the results have been
generalised. The survey was conducted at
an independently- owned supermarket store
called Star Hyper (which happens to
represent the BoP demographics), located at 14 Ada
Street, Carletonville, 2499 (Timol,
2010).
4.3 Sample size and method
Non-probability sampling was used as
there was a high probability of any particular
member of the population being chosen to
be BoP, and there was no list of all consumers in
Cartonville. The actual survey was
carried out near the point of purchase (product
shelves).The benefits of this included
the ability to obtain a large number of completed
questionnaires quickly and at a low
cost. Three hundred people were asked to take part in
the survey. The respondents that chose
to participate in the research were qualified in terms
of being under LSM 5 (Sander
s, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009).
4.4 Data gathering process and research
instrument
Mr Timol (2010), Managing Director of
Star Hyper, pointed to the fact that his sales cycles
were particularly high at the beginning
of each month and the middle of the month, but
slowed down considerably by the 20th
of each month. He alluded to shoppers
purchasing
different sizes and brands depending on
the day of the month and the individuals’ personal
cash flow. For instance, mine workers
generally visit the store to purchase for themselves,
and then again when they purchase in
bulk to send goods away. Their purchasing criteria,
therefore, differed at different
intervals in the month. The sample would have been skewed
if the researcher just conducted the
survey over one day, so the researcher undertook to
conduct the survey on three different
days during the month to get an average in the data
collection (September- Monday).
4.5 Method of analysis
Scale reliability and validity
There are two statistical techniques
used to test each of these. For reliability, the author
looked at Cronbach Alpha (Sanders, Lewis
& Thornhill, 2009); and for validity, the author
conducted a Factor Analysis (Sanders,
Lewis & Thornhill, 2009).
Cronbach Alpha was computed for each of
the two scales (Brand Experience and
Packaging) in an iterative process
designed to identify those statements or variables that
gave the most reliable scale. The first
round of reliability tests was conducted on all the
statements making up the scale. The
research then identified statements that were bringing
down the alpha. In other words, as part
of the analysis it depicted the strength alpha would
increase or decrease by if certain
statements were removed. Using this as criteria for
removing statements from the scale, the
researcher was able to improve Cronbach’s Alpha
across both scales. A scale with a
Cronbach Alpha that greater than 0.6 is usually a reliable
scale (Sanders, Lewis &
Thornhill, 2009).
Factor analysis
Factor analysis was a useful technique
to reduce the total number of variables/statements in
the questionnaire in order to represent
a smaller number of factors that were used for
further analysis (Sanders, Lewis &
Thornhill, 2009). A factor-loading score measured the 48
strength of association for each
statement on its corresponding factor. Explained variation
was used to give an idea of how well the
factors represented the statements. To test
validity, a factor analysis on all the
statements in each scale was conducted. The results of
the factor analysis did not
significantly show any issues with how statements were
answered.
For the purpose of this analysis,
reliability tests were run parallel to the factor analysis tests,
to see which mix of statements would
generate the best Cronbach alpha; and would load
onto a single factor. These single
factors were found to represent each of the scales. In
short, six statements we identified for
each scale that represented the best reliability and
which could be reduced to a single
factor for further analysis. Only when the factor
loadings for the statements were loading
high enough on the single factor had the scale
passed the validity test. After the
scale was found to be reliable and valid, a composite
score was created to use for further
analysis.
The next step was to use these composite
scores, in the form of averages, to conduct the
correlation and Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA) analysis (Sanders, Lewis & Thornhill,
2009).
Correlation analysis
The Pearson correlation coefficient (r)
was used to test if a linear relationship exists
between two variables. The correlation
coefficient is a statistical measure of the association
between two numerical variables
(Zikmund, 2003). The value of r ranges from +1.0 to -1.0,
where a positive r value indicates a
direct relationship and a negative r value represents an
inverse relationship between two
variables. The relationship between brand experience and
grocery packaging was tested using a
correlation analysis.
ANOVA
ANOVA was used to generalise two sample
t-tests to more than two groups. It is a
technique used to see how means differ
across different categories. One is the numerical
variable (the composite scale score);
and the other a categorical/qualitative variable (the
names of the products). ANOVA was used
to compute and compare the mean scores for
each product category, and then see if
these means were the same across all the different
product categories, or if there were
significant differences.
The author used ANOVA to see if the
levels of brand experience and the perceptions of
packaging were the same, or if they
varied across all the different products.
4.6 Research limitations
As a result of using non-probability
sampling, the results of this inquiry cannot be
generalised.
By focusing on a range of behavioural
issues and by accessing individuals at the BoP who
are highly heterogeneous, the author may
have involved the ‘noise’ of significant external
factors that may have impacted on the
relationships being investigated.
The methodology has provided a
step-by-step process, which the researcher undertook.
This study can therefore, be replicated
using the same approach to try and yield similar
results, perhaps in other BoP areas
around SA.
5. RESULTS
5.1 Response rate
The research made use of a survey
deployed in the Star Hyper supermarket in the
Carltonville area to deliberately sample
low-income consumers under LSM 5. The
researcher conducted the surveys during three
days during the course of the month
(September 2010). It was anticipated
that 300 people would be interviewed, however, about
50 people turned down the request to
participate and 23 did not want to complete the
survey half way through. A further 19
respondents were not BoP consumers. This resulted
in 208 completed questionnaires that is
large enough to draw statistical findings from.
5.2 Biographical information of
respondents
The following is a depiction of the
demographics of the sample population surveyed.
Table 1: Gender frequencies of sample
Gender
Frequency % Valid % Cumulative %
125 60.1 60.1 60.1
Valid Female 83 39.9 39.9 100.0
Total 208 100.0 100.0
Education
Table 2: Descriptive statistics for
education levels amongst sample population:
Table 3:Frequncy of education levels for
Sample Population:
Figure 15: Education levels amongst
sample population
Education
N: Valid 208 Missing 0
Mean 1.96
Median 2.00
Mode 2
Range 2
Minimum 1
Maximum 3
Table 3:Frequncy of education levels for
Sample Population:
Figure 15: Education levels amongst
sample population
Education
N: Valid 208 Missing 0
Mean 1.96
Median 2.00
Mode 2
Range 2
Minimum 1
Maximum 3
Education
Frequency % Valid % Cumulative %
Non literate 47 22.6 22.6 22.6
Primary school 123 59.1 59.1 81.7
Matriculate 38 18.3 18.3 100.0
5.3 Preparation of data
Cronbach’s Alpha was calculated to test
the internal consistency as a measure of reliability
for the Brand Experience and Packaging
scales. Furthermore, factor analysis was conducted
on each scale to investigate its
construct validity.
5.4 Tests of hypotheses
5.4.1 Hypothesis 1 – Grocery packaging
will influence the customer brand experience
• There is a correlation of 0.117
between brand experience and packaging.
• The two-tailed significance is greater
than 5% but less than 10%, indicating a weak
relationship.5.4.2 Sub-hypothesis 2 –
Perceptions of packaging differ across all product
categories
ANOVA results
A one-way ANOVA was conducted to compare
the mean packaging scores across the
different product categories. The
results showed a non-significant effect of mean packaging
scores at the p<.05 level for the
various product categories [F (18, 188) = 0.98, p = 0.481].
The mean packaging scores are show in
the following descriptive table. The majority of the
packaging mean scores range between 4.5
and 5, which further indicates that there were no
significant differences in the packaging
ratings for all the products.
5.4.3 Sub-hypothesis 3 – Levels of brand
experience differ across all product categories
This hypothesis was tested by running
another one-way ANOVA to compare the mean
brand experience scores across the
different product categories. The ANOVA table shows a
significant effect of the brand
experience scores at the p<.05 level for the various product
categories [F (18, 188) = 21.796, p =
0.000].
6. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
6.1 The sample
Insight 1: The fact that male purchasers
are higher in numbers than females is likely to be
related to the gender differences in the
Carltonville area. It is a mining town and most of
the mineworkers are male. The
demographic shift does, however support, BoP literature
that depicts more women becoming
involved in the purchasing decision for the household
(Sehrawet & Kundu, 2007).
Insight 2: The sample population was
largely literate, with a mere 22.6% of people being
illiterate. This is very close to SA’s
national literacy levels (Eighty20, 2009). Figure 37 is a
promotion by Star Hyper in the local
newspaper, and the font size and wording are very
small. Pinya and Mark (2004) argue that
despite people being able to read the product, Star
Hyper advertisements suggest that the
brand symbol, icon and price are more important in
the decision-making process. Future
research should evaluate price against branding.
Insight 3: Unemployment levels seem to
be higher than the “national” percentage of
unemployment (Eighty20, 2009). It does
reiterate though that Star Hyper is catering to BoP
individuals often reliant on social grants.
The mineworkers also make up 24.5% of the local
population, and they are generally
migrant labour, preferring to buy products in bulk.
Insight 4: Almost all the products had
instruction labels and ingredients written only in
English, despite the fact that none of
the respondents spoke English as their first language.
This poses serious questions about the
relevance of the brands and may provide the
differentiating factor for a company to
capture more market share through a culturally
relevant offering for BoP consumers.
Insight 5: With 58% of respondents
stating they shopped once a month or every two
months, it is evident that bulk
purchasing is preferred; with the remaining 19.7% and 21.2%
preferring to buy every two weeks and
weekly. This reiterates and supports the motivation
for the researcher to conduct the survey
over three interval periods across the month to get a
clearer idea of customer purchasing
habits.
6.2 Discussion of packaging and brand
experience scales
First, the negatively worded statements
were re-coded. Then, reliability (Cronbach Alpha )
and validity (Factor Analysis) of all
the scales were tested. Once the items were reduced,
the composite scores for each scale were
generated in the form of averages. These averages
were then used to conduct a correlation
analysis to see if there was a linear relationship
between packaging and the brand
experience. They were also used to see how the level of
brand experience and perceptions of
packaging differed amongst all the various products.
6.3 Hypothesis 1
H1A: Grocery packaging will influence
customer brand experience
According to the Packaging scale
(Sehrawet & Kundu, 2007) and the
Brand Experience
scale (Brakus, Schmitt &
Zarantonello, 2009)
6.3.1 Discussion of findings on
Hypothesis 1
A Pearson product-moment correlation
coefficient was computed to assess the relationship
between grocery packaging and the brand
experience. There was a positive correlation
between the two variables: r = 0.117, n
= 208, p = 0.091. Overall, the results suggest that a
weak correlation exists between grocery
packaging and the brand experience, as the p-value
was greater than the 5% significance
level, but still less than the 10% significance level.
Therefore, a weak relationship exists between
grocery packaging and brand experience.
The Packaging variable and Brand
Experience variable are, nevertheless, still important
decision-making criteria for BoP
consumers, as already proven in previous literature
(Sehrawet & Kundu, 2007) (Brakus, Schmitt,
& Zarantonello, 2009).
Future recommendations: An in-depth
qualitative study may have yielded more insight into
the strength of the relationship of
packaging and the brand experience, hence new research
ought to test this in the context
of FMCG products.
6.4 Sub-hypothesis 2
H2 A: Perceptions of Packaging differ
across all product categories
According to the packaging scale
(Sehrawet & Kundu, 2007) and the Brand Experience
scale (Brakus, Schmitt, &
Zarantonello, 2009).
6.4.1 Discussion of findings on sub
hypothesis Two
A one-way ANOVA was conducted to compare
the mean packaging scores across the
different product categories. The
results showed a non-significant effect of mean packaging
scores at the p<.05 level for the
various product categories [F (18, 188) = 0.98, p = 0.481].
As a result, the author failed to reject
the null hypothesis and concluded that all the means
are similar across the different product
categories.
Therefore, no significant differences
were found. All the respondents had a strong level of
agreement with the statements related to
packaging. These findings were supported by the
literature. In mature markets, product
packaging was found to play a strategic role in seven
out of the ten in-store purchase
decision criteria (Bone & Corey, 2000). These findings
have thus added to the packaging and
consumer behaviour body of knowledge, as previous research did not look at
low-income consumers.
6.5 Sub-hypothesis 3
H3A: Levels of Brand Experience differ
across all product categories
According to the Packaging scale
(Sehrawet & Kundu, 2007) and the Brand Experience
scale (Brakus, Schmitt &
Zarantonello, 2009).
6.5.1 Discussion of findings on
sub-hypothesis 3
This hypothesis was tested by running
another one-way ANOVA to compare the mean
brand experience scores across the
different product categories. The ANOVA table shows a
significant effect of the brand
experience scores at the p<.05 level for the various product
categories [F(18, 188) = 21.796, p =
0.000]. As a result, the authors rejected the null
hypothesis and concluded that at least
one product category had a significantly different
brand experience rating compared to all
the others.
Therefore, a significant difference was
found between the product categories on the level of
brand experience.
7. CONCLUSION
This study has examined the influence of
product packaging on brand experience.
While
the main hypothesis was marginally
supported by a statistically weak relationship between
product packaging and brand experience,
the qualitative findings supported the notion of a
strong relationship as lower income
consumers derive more value, not just from the
‘premium’ product brands, but also from
the use of the packaging for other needs after
consuming the product. This was also
reiterated by their aversion to packaging that was
deemed environmentally hazardous.
Furthermore, low-income consumers enjoy a greater
brand experience with 'premium' brand
products compared to what they perceive to be
'cheaper' brand products.
8. REFERENCES
Belch, G.E. & Belch, M.A. (2007).
Advertising and Promotion. An Integrated Marketing
Communication Perspective. 7th edn. New
York: McGraw Hill/Irwin.
Block, C. (1972). Pre-purchase search
behaviour of low-income households (Conolly &
Davidson, 1996) (Kotler, 2000).Journal
of Retailing, 48(1), 3.
Belch, G.E. & Belch, M.A. (2007).
Advertising and Promotion. An Integrated Marketing
Communication Perspective. 7th edn. New
York: McGraw Hill/Irwin.
Block, C. (1972). Pre-purchase search
behaviour of low-income households (Conolly &
Davidson, 1996) (Kotler, 2000).Journal
of Retailing, 48(1), 3.
Vandenbosch, M., & Dawar, N. (2002).
Beyond better products: capturing value in
customer interactions. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 43(4), 35-42.
Viswanathan, M. (2007). Understanding
product and market interactions in
subsistence
marketplaces, a study in South India. In
J.A. Rosa and M.
Comment:
The research, however, has helped to
better understand why BoP consumers buy what they
buy. Business development in low-income
markets requires entrepreneurs to immerse
themselves in the local market, listen,
observe and develop a localised mental model and
perspective. In mature markets, product
packaging has been found to play a strategic role in seven out of the ten
in-store purchase decision criteria and is, therefore, an important domain
through which companies can embed
knowledge for new, innovative product packaging.
Increasingly, consumers also want more
from products than just price or their functional
features, benefits and quality. This is
a given. Customers want the very essence of a brand as
a rich source of sensory, affective and
cognitive associations that result in memorable and
rewarding brand experiences. Customers
want products that have marketing campaigns that
are contextual, appeal to their senses,
touch their hearts and stimulate their minds. They want
products, communications and campaigns
that they can relate to or that they can incorporate
into their lifestyles. They want
communications campaigns to deliver an experience. The
degree to which a company is able to
stage a desirable customer experience will largely
determine its success in the global
market place (Bemd, 1999).
In mature markets, it has been proven
that product packaging and brand experience
influence customer purchase behavior;
however, the infl uence of product packaging and
customers’ brand experience in
low-income markets has not been proven thus far.
Rachru Rizazaindra S
15210509
3EA10
