Smaller, lighter packaging generally raises red flags with consumers. It usually signals they’re getting less product for their money… instead of the steady, insidious price hikes which also cause consternation in a down economy. But I’m here to tell you that this isn’t necessarily so.
Some manufacturers have steadily worked to cut down on extraneous packaging materials for some very good reasons: real savings in raw materials, energy–and the amount of trash that ends up in landfills. All good reasons to cut back, right?
In a recent AdvertisingAge article dubbed: “Kellogg Tests Shorter, Fatter Cereal Boxes,” signals the move by a major food manufacturer that has ramifications throughout the entire spectrum of the consumer product industry; and that includes non-food companies, as well.
According to the article: “Kellogg Co. is testing a ’space-saving’ cereal-box design that it predicts will redefine the cereal aisle. The new box, which is being tested in Detroit, represents the package-food company’s biggest box tweak since the 1950’s.”
This is big news. While Kellogg’s is touting the company’s commitment to innovative thinking, and responsiveness to its retail partners and consumers, there can be little doubt that an 8% decrease in packaging materials has its own advantages. Cost savings that go right to the bottom line. The perception of a greener footprint. Taking a lead marketing position in a highly competitive category. All good–if it works according to plan.
This test phase will be an interesting one for Kellogg’s. For one thing: after decades of consumers being educated that smaller packaging equates to less product for the same dollars, it’s going to take time to reeducate consumers that in some cases, like this one, it isn’t so. This test phase is expected to last for six months to allow for adequate retailer and consumer feedback time. . .
Retailers ought to love the shorter packaging because they can move shelves closer together and offer more product in the same footage. . .consumers ought to love the new packaging since it will fit far better on their cupboard or pantry shelves. Or will they?
Questions:
* Do you as a consumer actively purchase products from manufacturers that are more eco-conscious in the materials they use or ones that offer smaller, lighter packaging?
* Do you think consumers will “get this” or do you think they will assume smaller cereal packages connote less product for the same dollar spend?
* How do you think Kellogg’s needs to market and communicate its new packaging if the company decides to go forward with it after the test phase?
I’d love to hear from you.
I think consumers will be very wary of the product when it’s seen on store shelves. We’ve definitely been programmed to equate smaller packaging to less product but what Kellogg’s can and should do is clearly market the packaging as the same taste, same amount, less cardboard. Whatever the message, it needs to be clear.
Though, on the flip, Breyers ice cream changed their packaging (not as drastic) so that it offered less product for about the same price – but they were candid about it, which seemingly lessened any consumer backlash that may have occurred.
In the end – let consumers know exactly what you’re doing and what they’re still getting or not getting.
Breyers info – http://www.dairyreporter.com/Industry-markets/US-trend-towards-smaller-ice-cream-packaging
Well put, Sonny. I believe you are right. In the end, consumers need to be leveled with by manufacturers, if they are to retain their credibility. Kelloggs needs to reinforce why it is experimenting with smaller packaging to avoid consumer backlash. I’m also glad you cited the Breyer’s example here, since it is an excellent one in this case. So many manufacturers have clearly chosen to offer less product rather than raise price without being up front about it. Customers on the receiving end of this, are not very happy. It seems like a double whammy doesn’t it? You get less product for your money and the manufacturer doesn’t own the reason why.
Thanks, Sonny, for adding a great deal to this post.
Hi Ted,
This is a tough one. In the case of laundry detergent, I think it’s passable to reduce packaging because many manufacturers have introduced “concentrate” formulas where less product offers the same impact. However, this is cereal. As Sonny says, the box will need to clearly tell the consumer about the packaging changes, with the emphasis on “same amount of product, just less packaging”.
In the case of laundry detergents, Paul, I think companies like P&G have done a good job explaining how their smaller, lighter packaging contains less water and more detergent. Consumers know that more concentrated product goes further because they use less per wash load. Because weight and freight considerations add to the final cost of products, smaller, lighter packaging for detergents are a good thing.
In the case of cereal and other food products, on the other hand, consumers automatically think that rather than getting a price increase, they’re getting less product. Since this has been happening, advertising, packaging and other communications have to get the message across that in the case of Kellogg’s cereals, they’re not getting less product; they’re getting less packaging. That is much more environmentally friendly. This is going to take some time and effort on the part of the company. We’ll see if they can make this work.
BTW: research has shown that many consumers are on board with purchasing greener products in spite of the recession, and even if they cost more now.
Thanks for weighing in, Paul. I appreciate it.
I think consumers becoming more eco-friendly is quickly becoming the more accepted trend. Take a look at grocery stores and how much they’ve expanded the organic section, not to mention the individual smaller stores that are purely eco-friendly. The idea of smaller, lighter packaging needs to jump on board the eco-train.
I think consumers will get it. Change from something they are used to is difficult, even if the change is better. But once consumers get used to the change and realize that:
1. They really are getting the same amount of product.
2. They have more room in their pantry and find shopping to be less of a chore.
3. Product cost may go down.
…they’ll never want to go back to the big bulky packaging.
It’d be great to see Kellog’s team up with a few of the other major companies and make the change. Could prove to be a bit of an easier transition. This probably won’t happen, so they need to set themselves above the rest by pumping the eco-friendly, space saving, lower cost, same quantity message.
Hasn’t Europe been doing this for who knows how long?
Hi Nate,
Thank you for taking the time to really think this through and contribute so well to my post. Quite right: consumers will have to be educated about the advantages of smaller packaging. The only problem I see is that having seen manufacturers cut down on the amount of product for the same dollars, many among us will assume that is the case with Kellogg’s as well. It may take time to get the point across about how much better it is to have space saving, smaller–and lighter–packaging. It is much more eco-friendly.
I love your suggestion about Kellogg’s reaching out to other food manufacturers with this initiative. It would be great to see a large number of CPG companies market this initiative together, wouldn’t it? It would, no doubt, have a significantly greater impact on consumers.
Thanks very much, Nate. Great ideas.
* Do you as a consumer actively purchase products from manufacturers that are more eco-conscious in the materials they use or ones that offer smaller, lighter packaging?
Yes, absolutely. In fact, over packaging annoys me because waste annoys me. I am drawn to efficient packaging.
* Do you think consumers will “get this” or do you think they will assume smaller cereal packages connote less product for the same dollar spend?
I think it may require some education but they are testing this, which is obviously necessary and smart.
* How do you think Kellogg’s needs to market and communicate its new packaging if the company decides to go forward with it after the test phase?
For me and I think a lot of people the primary appeal will be it is less wasteful but the quantity of product is not less. There are others who just do not like wastefulness and do not even think of it in environmental terms necessarily.
Will the price go down a bit because of less packaging? If so, that is a good selling point. Because we use less packaging to provide you the same amount of product, we are able to reduce the price by X amount. Frugality is back and even when we come out of this recession, I think it will have staying power.
Hi Neil,
Thanks, as always, for really thinking my questions through and then posting some solid answers.
I especially liked this statement: “Frugality is back and even when we come out of this recession, I think it will have staying power.” The fear and uncertainty this current recession has brought with it, is sure to have staying power with people, even when we come out of it. And, as Nate pointed out, if enough manufacturers espouse less packaging to demonstrate to consumers they, too, can be more frugal without giving them less of the actual product for their money, it will be a win-win. Consumers will learn quickly if many CPG companies jump on this bandwagon. And there will considerable savings in energy and materials, as well. What’s not to like?
Hooray for Kellogg! It’s about time manufacturers start paying more attention to packaging and unnecessary landfill waste. Maybe Kellogg could take a packaging advertising approach and have a humorous bubble on the front of the box featuring [Tony the Tiger?] that reads, “Did this box just shrink?” Then,a magnification of the label part that shows how many ounces–old label beside new label–pointing out that the amount is the same. A prominent recyclable symbol on the front would help too. Media advertising could focus on the “green” initiative.
Sharon,
Thanks for sharing your creative suggestions. The fact is, a number of consumer product manufacturers have been cutting down on extraneous packaging for some time now. But that hasn’t always been visible because it hasn’t usually affected the packaging footprint. More often than not, a lot of internal packaging and extra layers of packaging have been eliminated or cut back drastically. We still have a way to go, and every bit helps, doesn’t it?
Love your ideas re Tony the Tiger and added labeling to the packaging. Anything that can quickly and easily educate consumers in this regard is a big help.
Thanks, Sharon. I enjoyed reading your comments. I’m sure Daily Fix readers will, too.
Thank for your informative and insightful post. I feel that so much of the packaging that we as consumers pay for is unnecessay and misleading. I vote for realistic packaging that is considerate of the environment.
Marlene,
I think, if properly explained by manufacturers, most consumers would agree with you. It’s important to explain why less is more in packaging and to reeducate consumers who have come to view less packaging as less product for the same money.
Thanks for adding your voice to my post, Marlene.
Just noticed Haagen Dazs is now 14oz. for same price. I must admit I am not sure if it was always 14oz…