09 - Chapter 4 PDF

CHAPTER FOUR
COMPETITIVE STRATEGIES FOLLOWED

BY THE MARKETERS
4.1 Analysis of Prevalent Packaging Strategies

 Sachet Packaging and Small Sized Packaging
 Easy to Store Packaging
 Easy to Handle/Use Packaging
 Unique Shapes of Packaging
 Colours of Packaging
 Fun Packaging
 Gift Packs/Festive Packs
 Reusable Containers
 Eco-friendly Packaging
4.2 Analysis and Interpretation of Customers Perception of

Packaging Strategies
Marketers are using many packaging strategies in the FMCG category to woo the
customers. The trends show that the consumers are inclined towards the packaging
strategies which make the product economical, easy to store, easy to handle, different from
competitors, more stylish and eco-friendly. This chapter has been devoted to explore the
prevalent packaging strategies used by the marketers and analyze consumer perception
about prevalent packaging strategies on the basis of demographic profile of the respondents
which has already been discussed in chapter three. The consumer perception about
packaging strategies has been measured on the basis of six factors: sachet packaging
factors, communication factors, environmental factors, choice/variety factors, innovative &
different packaging factors and economy factors: sachet packaging factors include five
statements; communication factors include statements five statements to know consumer
perception about communication; environmental factors include five statements regarding
packaging issues related to pollution and environment; choice/variety factors include four
statements related to the options of packaging available; innovative & different packaging
factors include two statements and economy factors include statements two related to
money issues.
4.1 ANALYSIS OF PREVALENT PACKAGING STRATEGIES

The prevalent packaging strategies used by the marketers have been discussed in detail:
4.1.1 SACHET PACKAGING AND SMALL SIZED PACKAGING

Sachet means a little bag. The first ever sachet in India was probably introduced by tea
companies, Brooke Bond and Lipton some 60 years ago, and was called the “Paisa Pack”. It
consisted of a paper enveloped with tea, which could make 1 or 2 cups of tea, and was
priced at 1 paisa. It was mainly targeted at casual daily wageworkers, who could feed
themselves from their daily earnings. This sachet marketing effort was eminently successful
and became the world’s largest-selling retail pack in terms of numbers sold (Source:
Packaging South Asia 2007). In more recent times, the Indian marketers have been
targeting the middle class and upper middle class segments of the pyramid using a market-
skimming strategy (Dubey and Patel 2004), but due to increasing saturation in these
segments and clutter of competitive brands in consumers’ minds, the bottom of the pyramid
segment was the only one left largely untapped. The pioneering initiative in sachet
marketing strategy goes back to 1976, when CavinKare launched its ‘Velvet’ brand of
shampoo in sachet form, and more recently in 1999, it launched a 50 paise (1 cent)
shampoo sachet under the brand, ‘Chik’, which made the market share of this brand jump
from 5.6%in 1999 to 23% in 2003 (Ranganathan 2003). This strategy was matched by its
competitor HLL who responded with the launch of several of their shampoo brands in
sachets. Since shampoo has witnessed the maximum action in sachet marketing strategies.
With rural customers’ rising aspirations, the companies tried to capitalise on their need for
association with premium brands, and the only perceptual barrier seemed to be the notion of
affordability, if reach was achieved. Despite the prevalent notion that rural customers are
poor and would respond to price cuts, the marketer soon learnt that even in this segment, a
price cut was a signal of low quality goods. This has caused the large or medium companies
to go for the “sachet culture” (Dubey and Patel 2004). There is no doubt that sachet-isation
has made successful the shift in FMCG companies’ strategy from market-skimming to that
of penetration .One of the most spectacular successes has been that of the chewing tobacco,
popularly known as ‘paan masala’ which is a very popular form of chewing tobacco (also
called Gutka or Zarda) and non-tobacco, mainly as mouth fresheners. Earlier paan masala
used to be available in 250g packs at Rs 50. But later sachets came out at Rs 2 for 5 g and
became an instant hit among consumers, even though the unit cost of a sachet came to be
almost twice that of a pack. Sachet-isation in India has been most successfully used for
increasing product trials, promotional purposes, increased frequency of use, increased
affordability, reach, storage, and portability.
Today the product categories that have undergone “sachet-isation” include cold drinks,
chewing tobacco (paan masala), ice creams, mineral water, shampoos, detergents,
chocolates, tea, coffee, toothpaste, nail polish, conditioners, fairness creams, after shower
hair cream, dish drops, tomato ketchups and even ready-to-eat meals.
Some of the success stories in the Indian market because of sachet packaging include:
 Soaps: In late 2003, HLL introduced 50 gm Lifebuoy soap priced at Rs. 2. A one rupee or
five rupee sachet of the Kutti Hamam (small Hamam) aided in inducing consumer trial.
Both Hindustan Unilever and ITC have focused in their advertising for Lux and Vivel
soap brands, respectively, on the Rs 10 price point instead of brand attributes. Margo was
also launched in 40 g small package. Mysore sandal soap is also available in travel pack.
Godrej introduced Cinthol, Fair glow and Godrej soaps priced between Rs 4-5 in 50g
sizes for economically weak states like MP, UP and Bihar. Reckitt in the last few years
has also attempted to take Dettol into rural areas with smaller packs and lower price points
to entice consumers there. For instance, the firm has a small 35 g soap priced at Rs 7 in
rural areas (Figure 4.3). In urban areas, an average Dettol costs nothing less than Rs 19 for
a 70 g and Rs 31 for a 120 gm.
 Detergents: On 16th September, 2003 P&G India announced that its superior quality Tide
sachet (Figure 4.5) would be available at Rs. 1 per sachet and its Ariel sachet at Rs.2
(Figure 4.4) per sachet. Mr. Dick Carpenter, Head of P&G’s R&D Center in Beijing,
China, explained that, “This significant price correction by half and one-third on our
superior quality Tide & Ariel sachets respectively is an outcome of the consumer
feedback from our team visiting 2,000 consumers across India, observing 30,000 laundry-
sessions in their homes, and speaking to them personally on their needs. Providing this
world class, proprietary P&G technology at affordable prices in India is a true example of
making lives of consumers in India better.” Contribution of the sachet in the detergents
market in India has marginally increased from 10% to 11% between 2003 and 2004
(Blonnet.com 2004). It is also well known that companies charge differential prices on
different levels of brands in their portfolio e.g. HLL charged an 87% premium (Surf
Excel) while P&G (Tide) charged an 80% premium for their 500gm pack size compared
to the respective sachet sizes. In sachets, the price differential between HLL's premium
Surf Excel and Rin Supreme — a mid-level brand — has narrowed to 10% from 120%.
Ariel and Rin Shakti, where sachets give consumers more bang for the buck. (Economic
Times 2004). Godrej is also trying to popularise its Ezee launched almost 25 years back
through sachets (Figure 4.6).The liquid soap is positioned for fabrics such as baby
clothes,woollens and silks. Today most of the leading detergent brands are available in
sachet packs.
 Dishwashing detergents: From last many years the dishwashing detergents like Vim
liquid and Pril are available in small packs (Figure 4.7) and sachets (Figure 4.8). Even
Amway in 2002 launched its dishdrops and L.O.C. (Liquid Organic Cleaner) in 8 ml
sachets priced at Rs. 5 (Figure 4.9).
 Toothpaste: In 1993, Sachets formula was used by HLL to break into Colgate’s fort. The
Close Up sachets was priced at Rs. 3 (Figure 4.10) per unit and it offered 20 uses, which
means that a family of five could use it four times each. Colgate introduced toothpaste in
sachet form (Figure 4.11), not targeted at lower income segment, but towards children,
which has become popular in hotels.
 Biscuits: Britannia introduced its Tiger brand at Rs 3-4 in small packs. Parle has also
come up with glucose biscuits at Rs 2 (Figure 4.12) to increase penetration. Britannia
Bourbon’s low-price unit pack available for Rs.5 focuses on the ‘on-the-move’
consumption pattern of consumers and targeted at college-goers with their unique re-
packaging similar to that of a chocolate bar retailed at grocery stores. While, Cadbury
launched, a chocolate flavoured biscuit, chocoBix based on the customer insight that
mothers in rural India prefer affordable biscuits rather than expensive chocolate bars for
their children.
 Snacks: Namkeens (like Haldirams), wafers (like Lays), other salty snacks (like Kurkure)
are available in small packs. These packs help in convenience and freshness.
 Chocolate: Nestlé launched Nestlé Chocostick at Rs 2, and Cadbury and Nestlé also
launched several brands at Rs 5 like gems, KitKat (Figure 4.13), Cadbury 5 Star. In the
same year, such small packs increased Cadbury’s volumes by 19% over previous year
(Domain-b.com 1999). The chocolates and confectionery maker has launched a Rs 2
version of its flagship brand Cadbury Dairy Milk, called CDM Shots (Figure 4.14), and
will soon introduce smaller packs of its premium brand of chocolates, Bournville.
 Aerated drinks: Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola had around 2004 introduced 200ml bottles
(Figure 4.15) of soft drink priced at Rs 5, which was very successful in rural markets.
Maaza also launched in 200 ml packs, while "sunfill" a powdered soft drink concentrate
is available in a single serve pack or sachet (Figure 4.16) of 25 gm priced at Rs. 2
 Tea: Brooke Bond and Lipton some 60 years ago, and was called the “Paisa Pack”. It
consisted of a paper enveloped with tea, which could make 1 or 2 cups of tea, and was
priced at 1 paisa. It was mainly targeted at casual daily wageworkers, who could feed
themselves from their daily earnings. Small size pack (50 gms) had shown an increasing
trend in their market share from 32% to 45% between 1995 and 2000, and contributed
31% to total volumes (Globus 2002). Today, all the leading brands like Red Label (Figure
4.17), Tata Tea and Taj Mahal are available in small packs.Nestle has introduced Nestea,
its premixed ice-tea, in refill packs (Figure 4.16) of Rs 2 and Rs 10. Till now, the brand
was only available in larger packs.
 Coffee: To increase the low consumption of coffee in the market, companies had
extensively promoted 50g packs and cup sizes, which together accounted for 60% of the
category sales (Globus 2002). Take Nescafe, where a 1 gm sachet (Figure 4.19) costs Rs
1, while a 100 gm packet comes for Rs 110 (of course, there's a free mug thrown in for
good measure). In the case of Bru (Figure 4.20), the sachets are again cheaper, but the
difference is down to single-digit percentage points. (Economic Times 2004).
 Wheat Flour (Atta): Pillsbury launched a 200g pack for Rs 5 (Figure 4.21) targeting low
wheat consuming families. ITC & HLL have launched aashirwad & annapurna atta in 1kg
packs.
 Ready-to-eat products: Maggi noodles is available in a small pack (Figure 4.23) priced
at Rs. 5. In March, 2010, Kellogg’s Corn Flakes, the flagship brand of Kellogg India, was
launched in a Kpak format for Rs. 10 (Figure 4.22).
 Ketchup: Most of the leading brands of ketchups are available in small bottles and
sachets. Kissan Fresh Tomato Ketchup mini pack (90 gm) is available at Rs 15 only
(Figure 4.24) which is very flexible to carry. Maggi pichkoo (Figure 4.25) is a small doy
pack priced at Rs. 12 makes maggi tomato ketchup to a host of new consumers priced at
12.
 Shampoo: The pioneering initiative in sachet marketing strategy goes back to 1976,
when CavinKare launched its ‘Velvet’ brand of shampoo in sachet form, and more
recently in 1999, it launched a 50 paise (1 cent) shampoo sachet under the brand, ‘Chik’,
which made the market share of this brand jump from 5.6%in 1999 to 23% in 2003
(Ranganathan 2003). This strategy was matched by its competitor HLL who responded
with the launch of several of their shampoo brands in sachets. Since shampoo has
witnessed the maximum action in sachet marketing strategies. Almost all the brands of
shampoos like Head & Shoulders (Figure 4.26), Pentene (Figure 4.27), Sunsilk, Dove etc.
are available in sachets. In 2012, 87% of shampoo sold in India is in sachets
 Hair Oil: Marico Industries launched Parachute Mini - a bottle shaped small pack being
sold at an MRP of Re. 1 and a small sized 20 ml Parachute - a Rs. 5 SKU (Figure 4.28)
that enables loose oil users to upgrade to Parachute. Small packs help attract new users
into a category, says V S Sitaram, COO of Dabur India, which rolled out Amla hair oil
(Figure 4.29) in Re 1 sachets.
 Cosmetics: Even in cosmetics to make the product available in smaller packs, making
them affordable. Revlon was the first to try this strategy. It introduced its mini-range of 8
ml nail polishes (Figure 4.30) and lipsticks. It also launched a marketing campaign for
low unit packs called Small Wonder, Big Magic. And the magic worked. Volumes
improved substantially — expanding three-fold. Later, Lakmé too tested the strategy by
introducing its fragrant nail enamel in 4.5 ml bottles priced at Rs 25 each. In the fairness
creams market, the competition between Hindustan Lever and CavinKare hotted up with
both players introducing 9 ml sachets priced at Rs 5. Other players followed suit with
Amway and Oriflame foraying into sachets. Cavinkare also offered single use perfumes at
Rs.2. They also launched small Rs. 10 pack Spinz perfume in late 90s, when good
perfumes came at a huge price and were beyond the means of ordinary people. In 2008 Fa
deodorant was launched in 75 ml pack. Today many perfumes and deodorant are available
in small packs. In 2003, Brylcream (Hair cream) was launched in a 15 gm tube priced at
Rs. 10 (Figure 4.31).The small tubes, ensure trial and encourage occasional / regular use.
In 2006 Marico launched Parachute Advanced Aftershower Hair Cream (Figure 4.32) in a
sachet at Rs. 3. Around 30 per cent of Godrej Consumer Products business comes from
Rs. 5 and Rs. 10 packs in which 60 per cent of Colour Soft and Expert hair colour (Figure
4.34) sales of the company are from sachets. Hair colour is a new category. So customers
would like to try out such products. So, it makes sense to have sachets, says V Suresh,
vice-president, marketing.
4.1.2 EASY TO STORE PACKAGING

Ease of storing the product, keeping it fresh and using the remaining quantity of the product
is becoming crucial for the marketers. Some of the important packaging strategies related to
the ease of storing the products are:
 Reclosable Zipper packages: reclosable zipper are used so that the remaining product
remains fresh and can be used later on, e.g. Haldirams namkeen (Figure 4.35).
 Lockable packaging: lockable packaging helps in storing the product easily and keeping
it fresh e.g. tata gold tea 1 kg pack (Figure 4.36)and red label tea 1 kg pack.
 Vacuum toptainer: For example, the Brooke Bond Taj Mahal Topatiner pack, for the
first time a vaccum toptainer (Figure 4.37) has been incorporated with a hinged
polypropylene lid. It extends the vaccum pack benefits of better aroma and moisture
barrier to consumers of one kg packs. The reclosebility feature ensures that it becomes an
in-use pack at the consumer’s home, eliminating the need to transfer the tea to any other
container.
 Package as container: Britannia diabetic friendly multi grain biscuits (Figure 4.38) come
in innovative packaging in which 3 biscuits are packed in a sachet. The top of the outer
pack can be torn apart easily and then the pack can be used as a container to store the
sachets containing the biscuits and the small sachets inside keep the biscuits fresh. The
packaging of many detergents can also be used as containers.
 Stand-up Caps: The broadening of caps make the storage of the tubes easier as the
package can stand upside down. 1993 was the year when HLL tried to woo the customers
by innovative packaging it introduced “Stand Up Pump dispensers” for metro cities. In
2004 the packaging of new Close-up Active Gel with Vitamin Fluoride System was
completely changed. It came with a stand-up cap and a metallic tube. The stand-up cap
made the storage of the tube easier. Today many toothpastes (Figure 4.39), shampoos,
conditioners, face washes (Figure 4.40) and shaving creams are available with this feature.
 Snap-fit cap: December 2011, Bru Gold was launched in stylish and trendy packaging,
and in the form of a triangular jar. The special snap-fit cap of the jar (Figure 4.41) ensured
that the aroma and taste of this delectable coffee is preserved.
 Convenience to store On March 31st, 2008, Coca-Cola India’s new packaging
innovations was rolled out with the launch of Indianised beverage innovations. Coca-Cola
India, which had introduced the 1.25 litre ‘fridge pack’ , so named as it easily fits into any
average size refrigerator owned by most families in India. The fridge pack (Figure 4.42)
comes loaded with numerous advantages for consumers - be it the convenience to store in
an average size refrigerator or to provide an ideal serving for one occasion consumption
for four to five people.
4.1.3 EASY TO HANDLE/USE PACKAGING
The ease of handling the product has also emerged as a very important tool in packaging
attributes. The success of the following examples is the testimony to the fact that more and
more effort is being made to make package easy to handle.
 Easy to open packaging: rather than tearing the package with help of mouth, easy to
open packaging is coming, in which when pressure is put on a specific point it opens up
very easily, Parle- G biscuits (Figure 4.43).
 Easy to pour packaging: The packaging of the liquids is coming in easy to pour options
to avoid spillage of the product. Example Real juice packages (Figure 4.44), Tropicana
juices, liquid soaps bottles coming with handles (Figure 4.45), Borges olive oil (Figure
4.46) with special sieve like opening.
 Serving trays within the packs: Many biscuits and cakes are coming with a transparent
thin tray, in which biscuits can be served conveniently, example Britannia biscuits (Figure
5.47) and cakes (Figure 4.48).
 Sachets with nozzles: now sachets are coming with nozzles, which makes it very
convenient to use, example fairever fairness cream (Figure 4.49), vim liquid (Figure 4.50),
maggi pichkoo and kissan fresh tomato ketchup (Figure 4.51).
 Squeezable containers: Kissan Tomato Ketchup packaging is very innovative, where
they have replaced the glass bottle with handy, curved squeeze container, which is easy to
handle, store and is attractive too. The Kissan Multilayer Ketchup bottle (Figure 4.52)
provides good visibility, and yet, unlike glass, is not breakable. Squeezability helps
optimum consumption, while the cap ensures better closing and less spillage. Even Dabur
Honey has been launched in squeezable packaging (Figure 4.53) which makes it easy to
handle.
 Flip Top Cap: Flip top caps make the usage of the product easier. Many oils, shampoos,
conditioners, lotions and other cosmetics are available with this feature of packaging.
Parachute used such bottles (Figure 4.54) to enhance the safety and protect the purity of
Parachute oil.
 Easy Jar: Parachute designed jar with wide mouth (Figure 4.54) to facilitate usage
especially during winters.
 Reusable Sachet: Few years back some of the shampoos were launched in a special
transparent reusable sachet. When these sachets were pressed the required quantity of
shampoo came out of a small hole and the remaining could be kept to be used again.
 Easy-to-squeeze pump jar: Many soaps and cosmetics are coming in the easy-to-
squeeze jar option. This feature helps to take the required lotion without opening the lid
and by using single hand only. On July 23rd, 2007 P&G launched Olay Total Effects, in an
attractive, convenient, easy-to-squeeze pump jar, perfectly sized for every woman’s
handbag (Figure 4.55). The lid of the bottle is curved which gives it a stylish look. The
other examples are Dettol liquid soap (Figure 4.56), parachute body lotion.
 Soft Squeeze Lamitubes: Soft Squeeze lamitubes are used in a variety of products from
tooth pastes (Figure 4.57), conditioners (Figure 4.58), face wash (Figure 4.59) and many
cosmetics. The replacement of tin packs with flexible, soft pack, makes the product usage
very convenient, just by pressing a little the required amount of the product can be
obtained.
 Unbreakable Bottles: Light weighted unbreakable bottles replaced the glass bottles like
hair Bajaj Amla hair oil (Figure 4.60) even Dabur India Limited in 2008 launched Dabur
Gulabari Premium Face Freshener in a stylish, contemporary, convenient and easy-to-
carry packaging (Figure 4.61), which could be sprayed directly on to the face and then
wiped with a cotton ball.
 Easy spray: many liquid FMCG products are available with easy spray options because
of which the liquid does not spills. For example Colin liquid cleaner (Figure 4.62) and
Ease of Bang cleaner (Figure 4.63).
 Easy application: The package is designed in such a way the application of the product
becomes very easy. Harpic toilet cleaner has been designed with bent nozzle (Figure 4.64)
for its easy application. In November 2004, Reckitt Benckiser launched Cherry Quick
Wax (Figure 4.65). It claimed to offer the shine and nourishment of wax along with the
convenience of a liquid polish. It came in a round glass bottle having a sponge applicator.
For someone looking to eliminate the menace caused by cockroaches, Red HIT, with its
unique formulation and nozzle design, flushes out the cockroaches & kills them. Red HIT
(Figure 4.66) has a special Seek 'n' Kill Applicator which delivers the spray to even the
remotest cracks and crevices where cockroaches hide.
4.1.4 UNIQUE SHAPES OF PACKAGING
Shape is also very important attribute as the shape of the package can become important
marketing tool. In case of coca-cola (Figure 4.67) or other soft drinks, the bottle is the
package so the shape of the bottle becomes its brand identity. The shapes of packages of
different soft drinks have got different shapes. Even in case of cosmetics every brand has
different shapes, example Head and Shoulders Shampoo (Figure 4.68), Ayur cosmetics
(Figure 4.69), Parachute body lotion (Figure 4.71). So, the shape of package can become an
innovative marketing tool creating an iconic brand image.
Very attractive shapes are designed to package the products, example Rasna launched ghar
ka nimbu pani in a yellow and green coloured round container (Figure 4.72) which
resembled nimbu i.e. lemon. Candys come in packs with unique shapes, like Cadbury’s
Eclairs in cylindrical pack (Figure 5.70) and Tiffany Eclairs in unique flower shaped
(Figure 4.73) transparent pack. Mcfills had launched a range of non-fried ready-to-eat
snacks in pyramid-shaped (Figure 4.74) colourful packs.
4.1.5 COLOURS OF PACKAGING

Colour plays a very important role in packaging. The package colours give brand unique
identity and differentiation. Like dairy milk chocolate with purple colour (Figure 4.75), 5
star chocolate with golden colour (Figure 4.76), Maggi noodles with yellow colour (Figure
4.77), Tiger Glucose biscuits with red colour (Figure 4.78) and Parle - G Glucose biscuits
with yellow and white colour lining (Fig. 4.78), Dove soap with white colour and Margo
soap with green colour (Figure 4.79), Parachute coconut oil with blue colour (Figure 4.80).
Britannia has re-packaged and re-launched its products like Jim Jam and Treat biscuits with
purple and pink play pack (Figure 4.81) editions to attract kids. Even Pure Magic has been
re-packaged in cylindrical packs of brown and gold colours (Figure 4.81) to appeal to
indulgent adult consumers and to enhance shelf presence in retail stores. Pure Magic is
driving the growth for Britannia in the chocolate biscuit category by growing at 73 per cent.
Tide detergent has been associated with orange colour packaging with tide written in blue
colour (Figure 4.82). Even in cosmetics the colour of packaging plays a significant role.
4.1.6 FUN PACKAGING

Fun packaging is in trend, the containers are being designed in such a manner that the
container itself attracts the customers, especially children. Cartoon characters, attractive
graphics and colourful packaging are coming in the market.
 One of the oldest examples of fun packaging is Amul butter. The pack depicts the famous
butter girl (Figure 4.83)
 Colgate launched in 2003, a battery-powered toothbrush for children called Colgate
Motion Kids. It was available in four designs - dinosaur, fire truck, ballerina and horse. It
came in colourful and catchy packaging (Figure 4.84) to attract children.
 Junior Horlicks was also introduced in a very cute cartoon container to attract small
children. The new innovative packaging was designed as a unique cute baby elephant and
baby lion (Figure 4.85) - a first in the FMCG market in India. Creating a "Pick me up"
allure, the jar were designed with contours & features of baby elephant and baby lion and
shrink sleeved with attractive graphics. This helped the brand to instantly connect with the
consumers & break free from traditional health food drink to create a separate space for
itself.
 Kinder Joy Chocolate comes in popular egg shaped pack which contains chocolate and
toy inside to attract kids (Figure 4.86). Cadbury Gems - colourful chocolate buttons – are
also available in Gems Surprise Ball pack (Figure 4.87). This attractive ball contains gems
and toy inside it.
 Garnier kids shampoo sporty strawberry and mischief mango (Figure 4.88) were launched
in a fun pack with images of strawberry and mango.
 Kissan jam was launched in small tubes with famous cartoon characters like Mougli and
Tom & Jerry (Figure 4.89).
 Elle18 has relaunched its previous makeup range with some additions and a whole lot of
new packaging (Figure 4.90). They have named it the color bomb range. The packaging is
sleek and attractive. With a black casing and an animated girl over the covers. It looks way
better packaged than other same range cosmetics. amount of energy it takes to fashion
4.1.7 GIFT PACKS/FESTIVE PACKS

Special festive packs or special occasion packs are in fashion these days. Marketers have
tried to get the maximum benefit of the occasions like Diwali, Christmas, Valentine’s Day,
Raksha Bandhan. The packs are designed so that they look very attractive are easy to carry,
according to the pocket and appropriate to gift to someone. A lot of variety of such
packaging is coming in chocolates, biscuits, candies, snacks and namkeems. Examples:
Bikano Anupam gift pack for Diwali (Figure 4.91), Bikano Meetha Chatpata gift pack
(Figure 4.92), Cadbury’s Celebrations gift pack (Figure 4.93), Cadbury’s Celebrations gift
pack for Raksha Bandhan (Figure 4.94), Cadbury’s Milk Tray Valentine Chocolate pack
(Figure 4.97), Britannia Cookies gift pack (Figure 4.95), Kurkure Festive Octagonal pack
(Figure 4.96), Ferrero Rocher Chocolate in transparent and attractive gift pack (Figure
4.98).
4.1.8 REUSABLE CONTAINERS

Products are coming in such packages which can be reused. These containers can be used
later on for storage or any other purpose. Examples: Tata Tea container (Figure 4.99), Tata
Tea Gold container (Figure 4.100), Nescafe jar (Figure 4.101), Three Roses Tea jug (Figure
4.102), Surf Excel containers (Figure 4.103 and 4.104), Dettol Reusable container (Figure
4.105) and Bournvita Container (Figure 4.106).
4.1.9 ECO - FRIENDLY PACKAGING

Green packaging is defined as a way to package parts in safe way that minimizes impact to
the environment. This is important because it will slow down the usage of new resources
which will allow for higher sustainability with the current allocated amount of resources.
Green packaging also involves recycling and reducing packing materials (Kassaye, 2001).
In addition, packaging is probably the first and biggest action a company can take in
practicing green (Shi, Kane, 1996). By switching to green packaging, corporations will
allow their products to gain a competitive edge will at the same time improving their public
image (Kassaye, 2001). Many companies in FMCG sector are focusing on ecofriendly
packaging. Coca-Cola, HUL, Colgate Palmolive, P&G, Marico, Nescafe have invested
large sums of money in various recycling activities, as well as having modified their
packaging to minimize its environmental impact.
COLGATE
To reduce the impact of their product packaging on the environment, Colgate works to
improve the environmental compatibility of all its packaging materials. Colgate endorses
the worldwide hierarchy of solid waste management: source reduction; recycling (including
reuse); incineration; and landfilling.
Focus on Packaging
As a consumer-packaged-goods company, Colgate takes seriously its responsibility to
improve the sustainability profile of packaging and reduce packaging waste. Packaging
Eco-Design and Material Selection guidelines have been developed, and the Company’s
packaging experts in every category around the world share internal and external
developments via “Packaging Sustainability News,” an internal newsletter.
 Colgate founded the American Institute for Packaging and the Environment
(AMERIPEN) with other companies. AMERIPEN is a trade organization focused on
coordinating the industry’s environmental packaging efforts.
 Colgate provided design guidance to the International Safe Transit Association for the
preparation of “Responsible Packaging by Design.”
 Colgate participated in a pilot program with Walmart to assess the metrics proposed by
the Global Packaging Project.
 Colgate participated in a U.S. EPA-facilitated discussion with state and local
governments, NGOs and other brand owners on the subject of sustainable financing for the
recycling of packaging materials.
 Colgate’s global redesign of some toothpaste tubes and caps reduced consumption of non-
renewable energy and natural resources by 30% and greenhouse gas emissions by about
50%.
According to the company Colgate will
 Increase recycled and recyclable content
 Design Personal Care and Home Care packaging for reuse or refill
 Reduce packaging weight by 5% by 2012 compared to 2008
 Achieve goal of an average of 30% post-consumer plastic in all PET bottles by 2012,
based on availability.
 Continue to seek means of discontinuing the use of Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC)
Increasingly purchase paper and cartons supplied from certified forests
 Research biopolymer options
 Partnering on Progress
 Colgate actively participates on the International Standards Organization (ISO)
Subcommittee on Packaging and the Environment, which will produce a set of global
standards on proper assessment of packaging impact in the waste stream.
ITC
ITC's Packaging & Printing Business is the largest value added converter of paperboard
packaging in South Asia. It converts over 70,000 tonnes of paper, paperboard and laminates
per annum into a variety of value-added packaging solutions for the food & beverage,
personal products, cigarette, liquor and consumer goods industries.
The Division, which was set up in 1925 as a strategic backward integration for ITC's
Cigarettes business, is today India's most sophisticated packaging house. State-of-the-art
technology, world-class quality and a highly skilled and dedicated team have combined to
position ITC as the first-choice supplier of high value added packaging.
The Division supplies value-added packaging to ITC's various FMCG businesses. Its client
list includes several well-known national and international companies like Colgate
Palmolive, Tata Tetley, Tata Tea, etc.
ITC Packaging has pioneered offering of Green Packaging which includes usage of raw
material from sustainable sources and conversion of the same in a facility which is 100%
powered by renewable energy (Wind Energy). This clean energy initiative along with the
other sustainability initiatives helps the Packaging Business to significantly contribute to
ITC being a carbon Positive, Water Positive and Solid Waste Recycling Positive Company.
Consider PaperKraft- the eco-friendly paper by ITC- it is marketed as the first of its kind in
India, since it is using the pioneering 'Ozone Treatment & Elemental Chlorine Free
technology'. It combines the sustainable forestry initiatives and the use of innovative
technology to leverage and market the uniqueness of the product.
HUL
The approach of HUL is to reduce, reuse and recycle. They are reducing the weight of the
packaging by using stronger, lighter-weight materials. They are also making their
packaging more recyclable and aim to use more recycled materials. Their analysis has
highlighted that the food packaging is one of the biggest contributors to their waste
footprint. But to achieve their goal they will need to reduce waste across all product
categories by reducing the weight of packaging and by helping to increase recycling. The
following are important from the point of view of eco-friendly packaging:
Reduce packaging
By 2020 they will reduce the weight of packaging that they use by a third through: 4%
reduction in weight, achieved through a combination of light weighting and material design
optimization.
Reuse packaging
They will provide consumers with refills in the home and personal care portfolio to make it
possible to reuse the primary pack. They offer refills in a limited number of countries where
the consumer habit is well established.
Recycle packaging
Working in partnership with industry, governments and NGOs, they aim to increase
recycling and recovery rates on average by 5 per cent by 2015 and by 15 per cent by 2020
in their top 14 countries. For some this means doubling or even tripling existing recycling
rates. They will make it easier for consumers to recycle their packaging by using materials
that best fit the end-of-life treatment facilities available in their countries. By 2020 they will
increase the recycled material content in their packaging to maximum possible levels. This
will act as a catalyst to increase recycling rates. 3.4 per cent increase in recycling and
recovery rates, averaged across their top 14 countries. Some of this increase resulted from
improved data. 1,700 tonnes of post-consumer recycled materials incorporated into their
rigid plastic packaging in 2011.
Tackle sachet waste
Their goal is to develop and implement a sustainable business model for handling their
sachet waste streams by 2015. They have demonstrated ‘proof of principle’ on a technology
known as pyrolysis which turns sachet laminate into fuel oil.
Eliminate PVC
They will eliminate PVC (polyvinyl chloride) from all packaging by 2012 (where technical
solutions exist). Over 95 per cent of PVC removed from their portfolio by end 2011,
including the elimination of PVC from the rigid packaging containers.
On June 15, 2012 Pond’s Talcum Powder’s packaging innovation (Figure 4.106) has
bagged a Silver Award at the prestigious 24th DuPont Global Packaging Award. The brand
was recognised for its excellence in cost and waste reduction.
The Pond’s packaging innovation resulted in material savings of 640 tonnes of polymer.
This was achieved by optimizing the closure design to reduce the earlier three component
closure to a two component closure, leading to overall reduction in weight of the closure by
20 per cent.
PROCTER & GAMBLE

They aim to continually improve the environmental profile of our operations, focusing on
energy, waste, C02, and water. They have innovated to incorporate sustainability criteria
into our products in a number of ways - from formulation to packaging. They try to use 100
per cent renewable or recycled materials in all products and packaging. Some of the
examples eco friendly packaging are:
 Ariel and Tide: Pioneers in introducing compact detergents in India using less raw
material and packaging material (Figure 4.109), while ensuring superior consumer
value
 Pampers: Re-designed packaging to reduce thickness, thus reducing raw material usage
and saving paper
 Olay: Re-designed pump package (Figure 4.110) reduces plastic consumption and is 25
per cent lighter. Saves over 400 tons of packaging a year (the weight of a Boeing 747)
NESCAFE
Nescafe’s packaging designers are finding ways to improve the Nescafe jars, by making
them lighter and better (Figure 4.111). The glass has many positive qualities that make it an
ideal choice for making the jars that conserve the coffee. Probably the only disadvantage is
the amount of energy it takes to fashion glass. So the company is always looking for ways
to improve the jar to create responsible packaging, including adding recycled glass, which
requires less energy, and using less glass to save energy. These efforts have reduced energy
use considerably and have led to better, more responsible packaging.
They also have been able to streamline the design of the plastic cap. The lighter the cap, the
more precise must be its manufacturing parameters. If the fit is less than perfect, it could
lead either to the jar being almost impossible to open or, on the contrary, to the lid coming
off on its own. By using technology to increase the precision of the design, Nescafe has
managed to reduce the weight of the cap significantly. By these efforts they are able to save
huge amount of glass, plastic, water, energy and there has been a considerable reduction in
carbon dioxide emission.
MARICO
Marico has successfully implemented over 50 ideas in the areas of energy, water and paper
usage reduction in the last 2 years. The ideas varied from process changes in manufacturing
to investing in equipment that would reduce energy consumption to reduced usage of
plastic. On the packaging front there has been reduction in energy, water and PVC
consumption. There has been reduction in PVC consumption by 90 per cent in plastic
bottles. At Kaya Skin Clinic recycled paper is being used. Marico won 'Silver' at the
Greentech Environment Excellence Award 2010, in the FMCG sector.
COCA- COLA
Is an example of a firm that does not promote its environmental initiative is Coca-Cola.
They have invested large sums of money in various recycling activities, as well as having
modified their packaging (Figure 4.112) to minimize its environmental impact. While being
concerned about the environment, Coke has not used this concern as a marketing tool. Thus
many consumers may not realize that Coke is a very environmentally committed
organization.
AMUL has been rated as the Top Indian Green Brand by Global Green Brands survey. The
International Dairy federation has also awarded AMUL Green movement as the best
Environment Initiative in the ― Sustainability Category in 2010. It also has been awarded
Srishti’s good green Governance award for four consecutive years since 2011.
GUCCI
Even the luxury brand, Gucci has taken a step in the direction with the launch of its
worldwide eco-friendly programme to reduce dependence on materials and use 100 per cent
recyclable paper in packaging (Figure 4.114).
4.2 ANALYSIS OF CONSUMER PERCEPTION ABOUT PACKAGING
STRATEGIES
4.2.1 FACTOR ANALYSIS
Measures of Sample Adequacy such as Bartlett’s test of sphericity (Approx. Chi-square

963.689, df 276, p 0.000) in table 4.1 showed that the data was fit for factor analysis.
Principal Component analysis along Varimax rotation method was used for extracting
factors and nine factors were retained depending on eigenvalues and variance explained.
Eigenvalue represents the total variance explained by each factor.
Table: 4.1: KMO and Bartlett’s Test - Consumer Perception about Packaging
Strategies
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .636
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 963.689
Degree of Freedom 276
Sig. .000
The standard practice normally used is that all the factors with an Eigen value of one or
more should be extracted. Table 4.2 clearly depicts that there are nine factors having Eigen
values more than 1 (in other words, a factor must explain at least as much of the variance if
not more, than a single original variable). Thus nine factors have been extracted. The
solution of factor analysis gave nine factors, which explained 63.540 % of the total
variance. The results were obtained through orthogonal rotations with Varimax method and
all the factor loadings greater than 0.40 were retained. The name of the factors, variable
labels and factor loadings are summarized in following table.
Table 4.2 clearly depicts that Factor B-I is linear combination of variable number B13, B12,
B14, B10 and B11 (α=0.6898). Factor B-II is linear combination of variable number B3,
B6, B2 and B8 (α=0.5757). Factor B-III is linear combination of variable number B19,
B20, B18 and B21 (α=0.6523). Factor B-IV is linear combination of variable number B9,
B22 and B7 (α=0.5138). Factor B-V is linear combination of variable number B16 and B5
(α=0.4355). Factor B-VI includes variable number B1. Factor B-VII is linear combination
of variable number B17 and B4 (α=0.2414). Factor B-VIII includes variable number B15.
Factor B-IX is linear combination of variable number B24 and B23 (α=0.2498).
Table: 4.2: Factor Analysis – Consumer Perception about Packaging Strategies
Factor % of
Factors Statements Loading Reliability variance
B13.Sachets are easy to handle/use 0.76
B12.Sachet motivates a consumer to try various products 0.71
B-I SACHET B14.Using sachets leads to less wastage of product 0.68 .6898 9.877
PACKAGING B10.Use of sachet(very small packets) is increasing 0.57
B11.Usage of sachet is increasing because of its
affordable/low price 0.42
B3.More attractive packaging is coming in the market 0.78
B-II
INNOVATIVE B6.More colourful packaging is coming 0.62
AND B2.Today, consumer has more choices in terms of .5757 8.512
DIFFERENT packaging options 0.59
PACKAGING B8.The use of very innovative and different kind of
packaging is increasing 0.46
B19.Packaging is creating more waste material 0.86
B-III B20.It is creating more pollution in the environment 0.84
POLLUTION B18.It is wasting the scarce raw materials 0.47 .6523 8.214
B21.Unnecessary packaging of the product should be
avoided 0.41
B-IV B9.Now products are available in many sizes 0.68
VARIETY B22.More ecofriendly packaging is available in the
.5138 8.029
market 0.65
B7.Packaging is making the product more easy to use 0.56
B-V B16.After consumption of the product the packaging is
REUSABILITY used for decoration/storage purpose 0.79 .4355 6.483
B5.It tells story about the brand 0.60
B-VI OUTER
-- 5.905
COVERING B1.Packaging is just an outer covering 0.82
B17.Good packaging is taken as symbol of better quality
B-VII
product 0.75
COMMUNIC- .2414 5.780
B4.These days more information is written on the
ATION
package. 0.42
B-VIII B15.More attractive packaging is displayed in the main -- 5.441
DISPLAY
areas of the shops 0.73
B-IX B24.Majority of Indian organizations do not consider the
NEGATIVE negative impact of packaging on environment. 0.75
.2498 5.299
IMPACT B23.Packaging is an undesirable burden on the pocket of
consumers. 0.62
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
Rotation converged in 16 iterations
4.2.2 NAMING OF FACTORS
All the factors have been given appropriate names according to the variables that have been
loaded on each factor. The nine factors depicted in Table 4.2 are discussed below:
FACTOR-B-I: SACHET PACKAGING
The rotated matrix has revealed that respondents have perceived this factor to be the most
important factor with the highest explained variance of 9.877%. Five out of twenty four
statements load on significantly to this factor. Researcher have named this factor as Sachet
Packaging as it includes statements like Sachets are easy to handle/use; sachet motivates a
consumer to try various products; using sachets leads to less wastage of product; use of
sachet (very small packets) is increasing and usage of sachet is increasing because of its
affordable/low price. Hence, it can be concluded that Sachet Packaging is the most
important factor in consumer perception about packaging strategies.
FACTOR-B-II: INNOVATIVE AND DIFFERENT PACKAGING
It has been revealed that respondents have perceived this factor to be the second most
important factor with the explained variance of 8.512%. Four out of twenty four statements
load on significantly to this factor. Researcher has named this factor as Innovative and
Different Packaging as it includes statements like more attractive packaging is coming in
the market; more colourful packaging is coming; today, consumer has more choices in
terms of packaging options and the use of very innovative and different kind of packaging
is increasing. Innovative and Different Packaging is the second most crucial factor in
consumer perception about packaging strategies.
FACTOR-B-III: POLLUTION
This is the next important factor, which accounts for 8.214% of the variance. Four
statements were loaded on to this factor. It has been named Pollution as it includes
statements like packaging is creating more waste material; it is creating more pollution in
the environment; it is wasting the scarce raw materials and unnecessary packaging of the
product should be avoided.
FACTOR-B-IV: VARIETY
Three statements load on this factor and together account for 8.029% of the variance. This
factor includes statements like now products are available in many sizes; more ecofriendly
packaging is available in the market and packaging is making the product more easy to use.
It has been named as Variety, all the statements relate to the more options of packaging are
available to the consumers.
FACTOR-B-V: REUSABILITY
Two statements load on this factor and together account for 6.483% of the variance. This
factor includes statements like after consumption of the product the packaging is used for
decoration/storage purpose and it tells story about the brand. The name Reusability has
been assigned to this factor.
FACTOR-B-VI: OUTER COVERING
Only a single statement load on this factor and account for 5.905% of the variance. This
factor includes statement that packaging is just an outer covering. The name outer covering
has been assigned as this factor relates to the consumer perception whether packaging is
just an outer covering or not.
FACTOR-B-VII: COMMUNICATION
This is the next important factor, which accounts for 5.780% of the variance. Two out of
twenty four statements were loaded on to this factor. It has been named Communication as
it includes statements like good packaging is taken as symbol of better quality product and
these days more information is written on the package.
FACTOR-B-VIII: DISPLAY
Only a single statement load on this factor and accounts for 5.441% of the variance. This
factor includes statement that more attractive packaging is displayed in the main areas of
the shops. The name Display has been assigned as this factor indicates the relationship of
packaging and display options.
FACTOR-B-IX: NEGATIVE IMPACT
Two statements load on this factor and together account for 5.299% of the variance. This
factor includes statements like majority of Indian organizations do not consider the negative
impact of packaging on environment and packaging is an undesirable burden on the pocket
of consumers. The name Negative Impact has been assigned as the statements loaded on
this factor indicates problems caused by packaging.
4.2.3 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

Analysis of Variance has been used to determine whether these factors are influenced by
the demographics. If the significance value is less than 0.05 then it indicates the group
differences.
B1. Independent Samples T-test between Gender and various Factors of Consumer
Perception of Packaging Strategies
For ascertaining whether significant difference exists between the male & female
respondents regarding various factors consumers consider while perceiving packaging
strategies, t-test was employed.
Levene's test checks for Equality of variance among the various groups. Sig value of
Levene's test > 0.05 indicate that equal variance is assumed. In the given table 4.3, only
Outer Covering has Sig value < 0.05 (it is 0.005), so except Outer Covering in all other
factors we'll see the higher value of sig.. For Outer Covering the sig. value is 0.366, which
is > 0.05 so no significant difference exists between male and female respondents as
regards Outer Covering. The t-test sig. value for Display is .011, which is <0.05.
T-test statistics (Significance value) less than level of significance (0.05) indicates that the
two categories of independent variables (male and female respondents) differ significantly
towards their response to various Factors.
Table: 4.3: Independent Samples T-test between Gender and various Factors of
Consumer Perception of Packaging Strategies
Levene’s Test for t-test for Equality of Means

Equality of Variances
F Sig. t Df Sig.(2-tailed)
B-I Sachet Equal variances 1.850 .175 .053 198 .958

Packaging assumed
Equal variances .053 195.051 .958
not assumed
B-II Innovative Equal variances 1.072 .302 .121 198 .904
&Different assumed
Packaging Equal variances .121 196.945 .904
not assumed
B-III Pollution Equal variances .002 .961 1.078 198 .282
assumed
Equal variances 1.078 197.727 .282
not assumed
B-IV Variety Equal variances .858 .355 1.548 198 .123
assumed
not assumed
B-V Reusability Equal variances .964 .327 -.204 198 .838
assumed
Equal variances -.204 193.944 .838
not assumed
B-VI Outer Equal variances 7.961 .005 -.906 198 .366
Covering assumed
not assumed
B-VII Equal variances 1.594 .208 -1.075 198 .284
Communication assumed
Equal variances -1.075 194.195 .284
not assumed
B-VIII Display Equal variances .129 .720 2.563 198 .011
assumed
not assumed
B-IX Negative Equal variances .063 .802 -1.502 198 .135
Impact assumed
not assumed
Table: 4.4: Descriptives - Means of Display
B-VIII Display Male .1787780

Female -.1787780
Thus, significant difference exists between male and female respondents as regarding
Display. It was observed that the mean value of Display for male (.178) respondents is
higher than the mean value of female (-.178) respondents. So, the male respondents give
more importance to display factor than the female respondents. The males normally travel
more and have more exposure level and give more importance to attractiveness while
females give more importance to utility dimension. No significant difference was observed
in other factors as the sig value are greater than 0.05.
Hence, null hypothesis H0 (B1) is partially rejected as significant difference exists between
male and female respondents as regards Display factor, consumers consider while
perceiving the packaging strategies.
B2. Independent Samples T-test between Residential Area and various Factors of
In the given table 4.5, only Sachet Packaging and Reusability have sig. value of Levene’s
test <0.05 (it is .019 and .080 respectively). So, the lower value of t- test sig. value has been
considered. All other factors have value > 0.05 so they have equal variance. The t-test sig.
value of Sachet Packaging factor is > 0.05, so no significant difference exists between
urban and rural respondents regarding Sachet Packaging.
The t-test sig. value of Reusability factor is .422 which is < 0.05, so significant difference
exists between urban and rural respondents. Mean score of rural (.225) respondents is
higher than mean scores of rural (-.225) respondents. It indicates that the rural respondents
give more importance to the reusability dimension of packaging. The rural people generally
reuse the packaging, they use the containers for storage purpose and they think it is a cost-
effective way. While, urban people believe in use and throw concept more.
Hence, null hypothesis H0 (B2) is partially rejected, as significant difference exists between
urban and rural respondents as regards Reusability factor, consumers consider while
Table: 4.5: Independent Samples T-test between Residential Area and various Factors
of Consumer Perception of Packaging Strategies

F Sig. t Df Sig.(2-tailed)
B-I Sachet Equal variances 5.575 .019 1.431 198 .154

Packaging assumed
not assumed
B-II Innovative Equal variances .078 .780 -1.752 198 .081
&Different assumed
Packaging Equal variances -1.752 197.605 .081
not assumed
B-III Pollution Equal variances 1.146 .286 -.106 198 .916
assumed
not assumed
B-IV Variety Equal variances 1.112 .293 .879 198 .380
assumed
not assumed
B-V Reusability Equal variances .090 .764 -3.261 198 .001
assumed
not assumed
B-VI Outer Equal variances .832 .363 -.1.841 198 .067
Covering assumed
Equal variances -.1.841 197.474 .067
not assumed
B-VII Equal variances .125 .724 1.232 198 .220
not assumed
B-VIII Display Equal variances 3.087 .080 .805 198 .422
assumed
not assumed
B-IX Negative Equal variances .623 .431 .575 198 .566
Impact assumed
Equal variances .575 197.603 566
not assumed
Table: 4.6: Descriptives - Means of Reusability
B-V Reusability Urban -.2252270

Rural .2252270
B3. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) between Age and various Factors of Consumer
For ascertaining whether significant difference exists between different age groups of the
strategies, ANOVA was employed.
Table: 4.7: Analysis of Variance between Age and various Factors of Consumer
Sum of Degree of Mean Square F Sig.

Squares freedom
B-I Sachet Packaging 6.608 4 1.652 1.674 .157
B-II Innovative &Different 7.423 4 1.856 1.889 .114

Packaging
B-III Pollution 3.737 4 .934 .933 .446
B-IV Variety 1.918 4 .479 .474 .755
B-V Reusability 6.539 4 1.635 1.656 .162
B-VI Outer Covering 3.727 4 .932 .931 .447
B-VII Communication 4.112 4 1.028 1.029 .394
B-VIII Display 5.768 4 1.442 1.455 .217
B-IX Negative Impact 20.690 4 5.173 5.657 .000
Analysis of variance shown in table 4.7 represents that all factors except Negative Impact
have significance value > 0.05, so no influence of age i.e. people from all age groups
perceive these factors as same. The significance value for Negative Impact is .000, which
is < 0.05, so respondents differ significantly on the basis of Negative Impact. The mean
score of Negative Impact for below 20 age group was -.617, for the age group 21-30 it was
-.290, for age group 31-40 it was .081, for age group 41-50 it was -.212 whereas for
respondents with age group 51 and above it was .037. The age group 21-30 has given high
importance to the negative impact of packaging, as there awareness level is high. The
difference in their preference can be understood by stage of lifecycle of the respondents.
different age groups of the respondents as regards Negative Impact factor, consumers
consider while perceiving packaging strategies.
Table: 4.8: Descriptives - Means of Negative Impact
B-IX Negative Impact Below 20 -.6171259
21-30 .2906684
31-40 .0811298
41-50 .2122060
51 & above .0374896
B4. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) between Qualification and various Factors of

For ascertaining whether significant difference exists between various qualification

categories of the respondents as regards Outer Covering and Negative Impact factors,
consumers consider while perceiving packaging strategies, ANOVA was employed.
Table: 4.9: Analysis of Variance between Qualification and various Factors of
Sum of Degree of Mean F Sig.

Squares freedom Square
B-I Sachet Packaging 5.403 5 1.081 1.083 .371
B-II Innovative &Different 10.708 5 2.142 2.207 .055

Packaging
B-III Pollution 10.793 5 2.159 2.225 .053
B-IV Variety 3.773 5 .755 .750 .587
B-V Reusability 10.655 5 2.131 2.195 .056
B-VI Outer Covering 15.521 5 3.104 3.282 .007
B-VII Communication 5.327 5 1.065 1.067 .380
B-VIII Display 10.011 5 2.002 2.055 .073
B-IX Negative Impact 16.415 5 3.283 3.488 .005
Analysis of variance shown in table 4.9, represents that all factors except Outer Covering
and Negative Impact have significance value > 0.05, so no influence of qualification i.e.
people having different qualification levels perceive these factors as same. The
significance values of Outer Covering (.007) and Negative Impact (.000) which are < 0.05,
so respondents differ significantly on the basis of both the factors.
Table 4.10: Descriptives - Means of Outer Covering and Negative Impact
B-VI Outer Covering Below Matriculation .7010219
Matriculation .3586314
10+2 .0497007
Graduation -.0112117
Post-Graduation -.1299145
PhD -.536390
Below Matriculation -.24663327

B-IX Negative Impact
Matriculation -.1833029
10+2 -.4288818
Graduation .3264247
Post-Graduation .1393086
PhD .1626754
The mean scores of Outer Covering and Negative Impact for various categories of
qualification are shown in the table 4.10. Respondents below matriculation have given high
importance to Outer Covering (.701), while respondents having PhD qualification have
given least importance to it (-.536). Higher is the qualification more people think that
packaging is not just outer covering, it performs several other functions, while people with
less qualification think that packaging is just an outer covering.
All the categories below 10+2 have given less importance to Negative Impact, while all the
categories graduation, post-graduation and PhD have given more importance to this factor.
More qualified the people, higher is the awareness level so, people think about the negative
impacts of packaging. On the other hand people with less qualification because of their
limited knowledge do not consider the negative impacts of the packaging that much.
various qualification categories of the respondents as regards Outer Covering and Negative
Impact factors, consumers consider while perceiving packaging strategies.
C5. Independent Samples T-test between Marital Status and various Factors of
In the table 4.11 three factors Sachet Packaging, Innovative & Different Packaging and
Outer Covering have sig. value of Levene’s test <0.05 (it is .002, .028 and .041
respectively).
Table: 4.11: Independent Samples T-test between Marital Status and various Factors

F Sig. t Df Sig.(2-
tailed)
B-I Sachet Equal variances 10.189 .002 -1.861 198 .064
Packaging assumed
not assumed
B-II Innovative Equal variances 4.924 .028 -.569 198 .570
&Different assumed
Packaging Equal variances -.593 179.593 .554
not assumed
B-III Pollution Equal variances .005 .942 -1.028 198 .305
assumed
not assumed
B-IV Variety Equal variances .001 .970 .704 198 .482
assumed
not assumed
B-V Reusability Equal variances .368 .545 .299 198 .766
assumed
not assumed
B-VI Outer Equal variances 4.221 .041 -1.592 198 .113
Covering assumed
Equal variances -.1.526 137.966 .129
not assumed
B-VII Equal variances 1.820 .179 .043 198 ..966
not assumed
B-VIII Display Equal variances 1.180 .279 -2.135 198 .034
assumed
not assumed
B-IX Negative Equal variances 1.799 .181 -2.532 198 .012
Impact assumed
not assumed
So, in these three factors equal variance does not exists and the lower value of t- test sig.
value has been considered. All other factors have value > 0.05 so they have equal variance.
In case of Innovative & Different Packaging and Outer Covering the t-test sig. value is >
0.05 so significant difference does not exist between unmarried and married respondents.
The t-test sig. value of Sachet Packaging is .043 which is < 0.05, so significant difference
exists between unmarried and married respondents. Mean score of unmarried (.100)
respondents is higher than mean scores of married (-.100) respondents. Unmarried people
travel more so they use sachet packaging. They keep on trying new products, they buy
sachet packaging for trial purpose.
The t-test sig. value of Display is .034 which is < 0.05, so significant difference exists
between unmarried and married respondents. Mean score of unmarried (.056) respondents
is higher than mean scores of married (-.056) respondents. So, unmarried respondents give
more importance to the Display factor. Unmarried people give more importance to
attractiveness, while married people are having higher maturity level, so they give more
importance to utility.
The t-test sig. value of Negative Impact is .012 which is < 0.05, so significant difference
exists between unmarried and married respondents. Mean score of unmarried (.040)
respondents is higher than mean scores of married (-.040) respondents. As the awareness
level of the youngsters is more and they think that majority of Indian organizations do not
consider the negative impact of packaging on environment.
Table: 4.12: Descriptives - Means of Sachet Packaging, Display and Negative Impact
B-I Sachet Unmarried .1009074

Packaging
Married -.1009074
B-VIII Display Unmarried .0569760
Married -.0569760
B-IX Negative Unmarried .0406978
Impact
Married -.0406978
Hence, null hypothesis H0 (B5) is rejected, as significant difference exists between
unmarried and married respondents as regards Sachet Packaging, Display and Negative
B6. Independent Samples T-test between Family Type and various Factors of
Table: 4.13: Independent Samples T-test between Family Type and various Factors
Levene’s Test for Equality t-test for Equality of Means

of Variances
F Sig. t Df Sig.(2-
tailed)
B-I Sachet Equal variances .012 .913 .834 198 .405
Packaging assumed
not assumed
B-II Innovative Equal variances 1.692 .195 1.647 198 .101
&Different assumed
Packaging Equal variances 1.647 196.099 .098
not assumed
B-III Pollution Equal variances .045 .833 -.414 198 .679
assumed
not assumed
B-IV Variety Equal variances .368 .545 1.732 198 .085
assumed
not assumed
B-V Reusability Equal variances .027 .869 1.329 198 .185
assumed
not assumed
B-VI Outer Equal variances 1.214 .272 .829 198 .408
Covering assumed
not assumed
B-VII Equal variances .562 .454 -.595 198 .553
not assumed
B-VIII Display Equal variances .066 .798 .750 198 .454
assumed
not assumed
B-IX Negative Equal variances .231 .631 .524 198 .601
Impact assumed
not assumed
For ascertaining whether significant difference exists between the joint & nuclear family
strategies, t-test was employed.
Levene's test checks for Equality of variance among the various groups. Significance value
greater than level of significance (0.05) indicates Equal variances among groups. In the
4.13 table, all groups have equal variances. T-test statistics (Significance value) less than
level of significance (0.05) indicate that the two categories of independent variables (joint
and nuclear family respondents) differ significantly towards their response to various
Factors. In this case, no significant difference was observed as all sig values are > 0.05.
Thus it can be concluded that, there no significant difference exists between the joint and
nuclear family respondents regarding the various factors consumers consider while
Hence, null hypothesis H0 (B6) is accepted.
B7. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) between Income and various Factors of Consumer
For ascertaining whether significant difference exists between different Income categories
of the respondents regarding various factors consumers consider while perceiving
packaging strategies, ANOVA was employed.
Analysis of variance shown in table 4.14, represents that all factors except Reusability have
significance value > 0.05, so no influence of income i.e. people from all income groups
perceive these factors as same. The significance value for Reusability is .000, which is <
0.05, so respondents differ significantly on the basis of Reusability. The mean score of
Reusability for below 25,000 income group was .506, for income group 25,000 – 50,000 it
was -.146, for income group 50,000 – 75,000 it was .057, for income group 75,000 -1, 00,
000 it was .029 whereas for respondents with income above 1, 00, 000 it was -.487. The
income group below 25, 000 has given maximum importance to the Reusability, whereas
the respondents having income above 1, 00, 000 have given minimum importance to this
factor.
Table: 4.14: Analysis of Variance between Income and various Factors of Consumer
Sum of Degree of Mean Square F Sig.

Squares freedom
B-I Sachet Packaging 2.374 4 .594 .589 .671
B-II Innovative 8.256 4 2.064 2.110 .081

&Different Packaging
B-III Pollution 4.492 4 1.123 1.126 .346
B-IV Variety 3.717 4 .929 .928 .449
B-V Reusability 19.892 4 4.973 5.414 .000
B-VI Outer Covering 6.832 4 1.708 1.733 .144
B-VII Communication 3.183 4 .796 .792 .531
B-VIII Display 2.806 4 .702 .697 .595
B-IX Negative Impact 3.922 4 .980 .980 .420
Obviously, the people with low income cannot spend more, so they reuse the packaging as
it is cost effective. The people with high income can spend easily and believe in buying,
using and throwing a product.
different income groups of the respondents as regards Reusability factor, consumers
Table: 4.15: Descriptives - Means of Reusability
Below 25,000 .5065870

B-V Reusability
25, 000 – 50, 000 -.1468152
50, 000 – 75,000 .0571913
75,000 – 1, 00, 000 .0298352
Above 1, 00, 000 -.4876167

4.2.4 FINDINGS
From the foregoing analysis following findings have emerged:
 For consumer perception about packaging strategies marketers use, the respondents have
considered nine factors and the order of importance is as follows – sachet packaging
(explained variance of 9.877%), innovative and different packaging (8.512%), pollution
(8.214%), variety (8.029%), reusability (6.483%), outer covering (5.905%), communication
(5.780%), display (5.441%) and negative impact (5.299%).
Figure: 4.1: Factor Analysis of Consumer Perception of Packaging Strategies

depicting Factors in the Order of Importance
 B1. The male respondents give more importance to display factor than the female
respondents. The males normally travel more and have more exposure level and give more
importance to attractiveness while females give more importance to utility dimension.
Hence, null hypothesis H0 (B1) is partially rejected as significant difference exists between
male and female respondents as regards Display factor, consumers consider while
 B2. It indicates that the rural respondents give more importance to the reusability
dimension of packaging. The rural people generally reuse the packaging, they use the
containers for storage purpose and they think it is a cost-effective way. While, urban people
believe in use and throw concept more.
urban and rural respondents as regards Reusability factor, consumers consider while
 B3. The age group 21-30 has given high importance to the negative impact of packaging,
as there awareness level is high. The difference in their preference can be understood by
stage of lifecycle of the respondents.
different age groups of the respondents as regards Negative Impact factor, consumers
 B4. Higher is the qualification more people think that packaging is not just outer covering,
it performs several other functions, while people with less qualification think that
packaging is just an outer covering.
All the categories below 10+2 have given less importance to Negative Impact, while all the
categories graduation, post-graduation and PhD have given more importance to this factor.
More qualified the people, higher is the awareness level so, people think about the negative
impacts of packaging. On the other hand people with less qualification because of their
limited knowledge do not consider the negative impacts of the packaging that much.
various qualification categories of the respondents as regards Outer Covering and Negative
 B5. Unmarried people give more importance to sachet packaging rather than married
people. Unmarried people travel more so they use sachet packaging. They keep on trying
new products, they buy sachet packaging for trial purpose.
Unmarried respondents give more importance to the Display factor. Unmarried people give
more importance to attractiveness, while married people are having higher maturity level,
so they give more importance to utility.
Unmarried respondents give importance to the negative impact of packaging on
environment than married employees. As the awareness level of the youngsters is more and
they think that majority of Indian organizations do not consider the negative impact of
packaging on environment.
Hence, null hypothesis H0 (B5) is rejected, as significant difference exists between
unmarried and married respondents as regards Sachet Packaging, Display and Negative
 B6. No significant difference exists between the joint and nuclear family respondents
regarding the various factors consumers consider while perceiving the packaging strategies.
Hence, null hypothesis H0 (B6) is accepted.
 B7. The income group below 25, 000 has given maximum importance to the Reusability,
whereas the respondents having income above 1, 00, 000 have given minimum importance
to this factor.
Obviously, the people with low income cannot spend more, so they reuse the packaging as
it is cost effective. The people with high income can spend easily and believe in buying,
using and throwing a product.
different income groups of the respondents as regards Reusability factor, consumers
Summary results of Analysis of Variance:

Analysis of variance was applied with demographics as independent variables and various
factors obtained from factor analysis of Packaging Strategies as dependent variables. The
summary of Analysis of Variance is given in Table – 4.16. Marital Status and Qualification
of the respondents were found to be important variables which were related to some factors.
Gender, Residential Area, Age and Income were also related to one factor.
Table: 4.16: Summary results of Analysis of Variance of Consumer Perception of
Packaging Strategies
Gender Residential Age Qualification Marital Family Income

Area Status Type
B-I Sachet Packaging 
B-II Innovative
&Different Packaging
B-III Pollution
B-IV Variety
B-V Reusability  
B-VI Outer Covering 
B-VII Communication
B-VIII Display  
B-IX Negative Impact   
() indicates significant relationship between the variables
MEAN SCORES
The scale for consumer perception of packaging strategies required the respondents to rate
the statements on a five point scale from Strongly Disagree (score 1) to Strongly Agree
(score 5). The mean score more than 3 indicates agreement on the part of respondents. In
the table 4.17 all the statements except one had affirmative responses from respondents. So,
respondents are in agreement with all the statements except one i.e. packaging is just an
outer covering. Respondents perceive that packaging is not just an outer covering but it
performs more functions.
TABLE: 4.17: MEAN SCORE TABLE OF CONSUMER PERCEPTION OF
PACKAGING STRATEGIES
S.No. Statements Mean Standard
Scores Deviation
1. Packaging is just an outer covering 2.87 1.264
2. Today, consumer has more choices in terms of 4.03 .852
packaging options
3. More attractive packaging is coming in the market 4.39 .566
4. These days more information is written on the 4.07 .743
package
5. It tells story about the brand 3.30 1.155
6. More colourful packaging is coming 4.22 .708
7. Packaging is making the product more easy to use 3.62 1.159
8. The use of very innovative and different kind of 4.19 .683
packaging is increasing
9. Now products are available in many sizes 4.34 .719
10. Use of sachet(very small packets) is increasing 4.30 .783
11. Usage of sachet is increasing because of its 3.98 1.017
affordable/low price
12. Sachet motivates a consumer to try various products 4.25 .824
13. Sachets are easy to handle/use 4.07 1.020
14. Using sachets leads to less wastage of product 3.82 1.088
15. More attractive packaging is displayed in the main 3.93 .826
areas of the shops
16. After consumption of the product the packaging is 3.06 1.143
used for decoration/storage purpose
17. Good packaging is taken as symbol of better 3.52 1.169
quality product
18. It is wasting the scarce raw materials 3.03 1.015
19. Packaging is creating more waste material 3.48 1.075
20. It is creating more pollution in the environment 3.84 1.025
21. Unnecessary packaging of the product should 4.25 .845
be avoided
22. More ecofriendly packaging is available in the 3.48 1.051
market
23. Packaging is an undesirable burden on the pocket of 3.18 1.138
consumers.
24. Majority of Indian organizations do not consider the 3.70 1.008
negative impact of packaging on environment.
4.2.5 PERCENTAGE ANALYSIS
The table 4.18 depicts the percentage analysis of consumer perception of packaging
strategies, the important observations are as follows: majority of the respondents were in
disagreement with the statement that packaging is just an outer covering. 40.5 per cent of
the respondents disagreed and 11 per cent of the respondents strongly disagreed with the
statement; majority of the respondents were in agreement with the statement that today,
consumers have more choices in terms of packaging options. 55.5 per cent of the
respondents agreed and 28 per cent of the respondents strongly agreed with the statement;
almost all respondents were in agreement that more attractive packaging is coming in the
market. 52.5 per cent respondents agreed and 43.5 per cent of the respondents strongly
agreed; 56.5 per cent of the respondents agreed and 27.5 per cent of the respondents
strongly agreed that these days more information is written on the package; there was a
mixed response about the statement that packaging tells story about the brand. 33 per cent
of the respondents agreed, 26 per cent of the respondents were indifferent and 18.5 per cent
respondents disagreed; 53 per cent of the respondents agreed that more colourful packaging
is coming, while 35.5 per cent of the respondents strongly agreed with it; Majority of the
respondents were in agreement that packaging is making the product more easy to use. 35.5
per cent of the respondents strongly agreed and 25.5 per cent of the respondents agreed
with the statement; 57 per cent of the respondents agreed and 32 per cent of the respondents
strongly agreed that the use of very innovative and different kind of packaging is
increasing; a very large portion i.e. 91 per cent (45.5 per cent strongly agreed and 45.5 per
cent agreed) of the respondents were in agreement that now products are available in many
sizes; majority of the respondents were in agreement that the use of sachet packaging is
increasing. 46 per cent of the respondents strongly agreed and 41 per cent of the
respondents agreed; 39 per cent of the respondents agreed and 36 per cent of the
respondents strongly agreed that usage of sachet is increasing because of its affordable
price; a major chunk i.e. 83 per cent (44 per cent agreed and 43 per cent strongly agreed)
that sachet motivates a consumer to try various products; majority of the respondents were
in agreement that sachets are easy to use. 44.5 per cent of the respondents agreed and 38.5
per cent of the respondents strongly agreed; 35.5 per cent of the respondents agreed and 32
per cent of the respondents strongly agreed that sachets lead to less wastage of products;
49.5 per cent of the respondents agreed and 24.5 per cent of the respondents strongly agreed
that more attractive packaging is displayed in the main areas of the shops; there was a
mixed response on asking that after the consumption of the product the packaging is used
for decoration/ storage purpose. 30.5 per cent agreed 26.5 per cent were indifferent and 24
per cent disagreed with the statement; 41.5 per cent of the respondents agreed, 20 per cent
of the respondents strongly agreed that good packaging is taken as a symbol of better
quality product; there was a mixed response that it is wasting the scarce raw materials. 38
per cent of the respondents were indifferent, 27.5 per cent of the respondents disagreed and
21 per cent of the respondents agreed with the statement; majority of the respondents i.e. 39
per cent agreed that packaging is creating more waste material, 16.5 per cent of the
respondents agreed while 24 per cent of the respondents were indifferent about it; 42.5 per
cent of the respondents agreed and 28 per cent of the respondents strongly agreed that
packaging is creating more pollution in the environment; a major portion of the respondents
i.e. 87 per cent were in agreement (44.5 per cent strongly agreed and 42.5 per cent agreed)
that unnecessary packaging of the products should be avoided; 40 per cent of the
respondents agreed and 15.5 per cent of the respondents strongly agreed that more
ecofriendly packaging is available in the market; there was a mixed response that packaging
is an undesirable burden on the pocket of consumers. 31 per cent of the respondents agreed,
29 per cent of the respondents disagreed while 22 per cent of the respondents were
indifferent; a major portion of the respondents i.e. 63.5 per cent were in agreement (41.5
per cent agreed and 22 per cent strongly agreed) that the majority of Indian organizations
do not consider the negative impact of packaging on environment
The response of the respondents was in agreement for most of the statements. Only for one
statement that packaging is just an outer covering, majority of the respondents were in
disagreement. While there was a mixed response for four statements - packaging tells story
about the brand; after the consumption of the product the packaging is used for decoration/
storage purpose; it is wasting the scarce raw materials and packaging is an undesirable
burden on the pocket of consumers.
TABLE: 4.18: PERCENTAGE ANALYSIS FOR CONSUMER PERCEPTION OF PACKAGING STRATEGIES
Strongly Disagree Disagree Indifferent Agree Strongly Agree

Item Number Frequ Frequ Frequ Frequ Frequ
Score %age Score %age Score %age Score %age Score %age
ency ency ency ency ency
B 1 Packaging is just an outer covering 40.
22 22 11 81 162 23 69 11.5 48 192 24 26 130 13
5
B 2 Today, consumer has more choices in terms
2 2 1 13 26 6.5 18 54 9 111 444 55.5 56 280 28
of packaging options
B 3 More attractive packaging is coming in the
0 0 0 0 0 0 8 24 4 105 420 52.5 87 435 43.5
Market
B 4 These days more information is written on the
0 0 0 8 16 4 24 72 12 113 452 56.5 55 275 27.5
Package
B 5 It tells story about the brand
15 15 7.5 37 74 18.5 52 156 26 66 264 33 30 150 15
B 6 More colourful packaging is coming
0 0 0 5 10 2.5 18 54 9 106 424 53 71 355 35.5
B 7 Packaging is making the product more easy to use
10 10 5 29 58 14.5 39 117 19.5 71 284 35.5 51 255 25.5
B 8 The use of very innovative and different kind
1 1 0.5 2 4 1 19 57 9.5 114 456 57 64 320 32
of packaging is increasing
B 9 Now products are available in many sizes
1 1 0.5 3 6 1.5 14 42 7 91 364 45.5 91 455 45.5
B 10 Use of sachet(very small packets) is increasing
2 2 1 2 4 1 22 66 11 82 328 41 92 460 46
B 11 Usage of sachet is increasing because of its
3 3 1.5 20 40 10 27 81 13.5 78 312 39 72 360 36
affordable/low price
B 12 Sachet motivates a consumer to try various
1 1 0.5 9 18 4.5 16 48 8 88 352 44 86 430 43
products
B 13 Sachets are easy to handle/use
5 5 2.5 19 38 9.5 10 30 5 89 356 44.5 77 385 38.5
B 14 Using sachets leads to less wastage of product
4 4 2 27 54 13.5 34 102 17 71 284 35.5 64 320 32
B 15 More attractive packaging is displayed in the
0 0 0 12 24 6 40 120 20 99 396 49.5 49 245 24.5
main areas of the shops
B 16 After consumption of the product the packaging is
19 19 9.5 48 96 24 53 159 26.5 61 244 30.5 19 95 9.5
used for decoration/storage purpose
B 17 Good packaging is taken as symbol of better
12 12 6 35 70 17.5 30 90 15 83 332 41.5 40 200 20
quality product
B 18 It is wasting the scarce raw materials
9 9 4.5 55 110 27.5 76 228 38 42 168 21 18 90 9
B 19 Packaging is creating more waste material
8 8 4 33 66 16.5 48 144 24 78 312 39 33 165 16.5
TABLE: 4.18: PERCENTAGE ANALYSIS FOR CONSUMER PERCEPTION OF PACKAGING STRATEGIES (CONTD.)
Strongly Disagree Disagree Indifferent Agree Strongly Agree

Item Number Frequ Frequ Frequ Frequ Frequ
Score %age Score %age Score %age Score %age Score %age
ency ency ency ency ency
B 20 It is creating more pollution in the environment
6 6 3 17 34 8.5 36 108 18 85 340 42.5 56 280 28
B 21 Unnecessary packaging of the product should
2 2 1 8 16 4 16 48 8 85 340 42.5 89 445 44.5
be avoided
B 22 More ecofriendly packaging is available in the
8 8 4 30 60 15 51 153 25.5 80 320 40 31 155 15.5
Market
B 23 Packaging is an undesirable burden on the
10 10 5 58 116 29 44 132 22 62 248 31 26 130 13
pocket of consumers.
B 24 Majority of Indian organizations do not
consider the negative impact of packaging 5 5 2.5 21 42 10.5 47 141 23.5 83 332 41.5 44 220 22
on environment.
From the findings of the factor analysis it can be concluded that the respondents have given
maximum importance to the sachet packaging factor (explained variance 9.877 per cent).
So, in comparison to all other factors i.e. innovative and different packaging factor;
pollution factor; variety factor; reusability factor; outer covering factor; communication
factor; display factor and negative impact factor, sachet packaging factor is considered most
important factor by the respondents.
More over in the section-A of this chapter, while exploring the prevalent packaging
strategies used by the marketers, it can be concluded that the sachet packaging is being used
widely in the entire FMCG category.
In content analysis of consumer perception about packaging strategy five statements were
included in the sachet packaging factor (10, 11, 12, 13 & 14). The mean scores of all these
five statements as seen table 4.17 are having value more than 3, so respondents are in
agreement with all the statements related to consumer perception about sachet packaging
strategy. To further support this finding the percentage analysis of all these five statements
can be seen table 4.18, which depicts that majority of the respondents are in agreement with
all these statements. So, consumer perception towards sachet packaging strategy is positive.
To further strengthen this finding the studies conducted by Harinath B (2005); Joshi H and
Srivastava R K (2011); Joseph A Changco (2011) suggests that companies are adopting
sachet packaging to capture the markets.
All the four analysis, show that sachet packaging is a very popular and successful strategy
in FMCG category and consumers have positive perception towards sachet packaging.
Hence, the hypothesis H2 is accepted that Sachet Packaging is the most common
packaging strategy used in the FMCG category.

09 - Chapter 4 PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

09 - Chapter 4 PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

CHAPTER FOUR

COMPETITIVE STRATEGIES FOLLOWED

4.1 Analysis of Prevalent Packaging Strategies

4.2 Analysis and Interpretation of Customers Perception of

4.1 ANALYSIS OF PREVALENT PACKAGING STRATEGIES

4.1.1 SACHET PACKAGING AND SMALL SIZED PACKAGING

4.1.2 EASY TO STORE PACKAGING

4.1.3 EASY TO HANDLE/USE PACKAGING

4.1.4 UNIQUE SHAPES OF PACKAGING

4.1.5 COLOURS OF PACKAGING

4.1.6 FUN PACKAGING

4.1.7 GIFT PACKS/FESTIVE PACKS

4.1.8 REUSABLE CONTAINERS

4.1.9 ECO - FRIENDLY PACKAGING

PROCTER & GAMBLE

4.2.1 FACTOR ANALYSIS

Measures of Sample Adequacy such as Bartlett’s test of sphericity (Approx. Chi-square

FACTOR-B-I: SACHET PACKAGING

FACTOR-B-II: INNOVATIVE AND DIFFERENT PACKAGING

FACTOR-B-VI: OUTER COVERING

4.2.3 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

Levene’s Test for t-test for Equality of Means

B-I Sachet Equal variances 1.850 .175 .053 198 .958

Table: 4.4: Descriptives - Means of Display

B-VIII Display Male .1787780

Levene’s Test for t-test for Equality of Means

B-I Sachet Equal variances 5.575 .019 1.431 198 .154

Table: 4.6: Descriptives - Means of Reusability

B-V Reusability Urban -.2252270

Sum of Degree of Mean Square F Sig.

B-II Innovative &Different 7.423 4 1.856 1.889 .114

B-IV Variety 1.918 4 .479 .474 .755

B-V Reusability 6.539 4 1.635 1.656 .162

B-VI Outer Covering 3.727 4 .932 .931 .447

B-VII Communication 4.112 4 1.028 1.029 .394

B-VIII Display 5.768 4 1.442 1.455 .217

B-IX Negative Impact 20.690 4 5.173 5.657 .000

B-IX Negative Impact Below 20 -.6171259

51 & above .0374896

B4. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) between Qualification and various Factors of

For ascertaining whether significant difference exists between various qualification

Sum of Degree of Mean F Sig.

B-II Innovative &Different 10.708 5 2.142 2.207 .055

B-IV Variety 3.773 5 .755 .750 .587

B-V Reusability 10.655 5 2.131 2.195 .056

B-VI Outer Covering 15.521 5 3.104 3.282 .007

B-VII Communication 5.327 5 1.065 1.067 .380

B-VIII Display 10.011 5 2.002 2.055 .073

B-IX Negative Impact 16.415 5 3.283 3.488 .005

Below Matriculation -.24663327

Levene’s Test for t-test for Equality of Means

B-I Sachet Unmarried .1009074

Levene’s Test for Equality t-test for Equality of Means

Hence, null hypothesis H0 (B6) is accepted.

Sum of Degree of Mean Square F Sig.

B-II Innovative 8.256 4 2.064 2.110 .081

B-IV Variety 3.717 4 .929 .928 .449

B-V Reusability 19.892 4 4.973 5.414 .000

B-VI Outer Covering 6.832 4 1.708 1.733 .144

B-VII Communication 3.183 4 .796 .792 .531

B-VIII Display 2.806 4 .702 .697 .595

B-IX Negative Impact 3.922 4 .980 .980 .420

Table: 4.15: Descriptives - Means of Reusability