Introduction

Consumer behaviour is the study of individuals, groups, or organizations and the processes they use to select, secure, and dispose of products, services, experiences, or ideas to satisfy needs and the impacts that these processes have on the consumer and society. It blends elements from psychology, sociology understand the buyer’s decision making process, both individually and in groups. It studies characteristics of individual consumers such as demographics and behavioural variables in an attempt to understand people’s wants. It also tries to assess influences on the consumer from groups such as family, friends, reference groups, society in general. Customer behaviour study is based on consumer buying behaviour, with the customer playing the three distinct roles of user, payer and buyer (Vijayalakshmi and Mahalakshmi, 2013). Research has shown that consumer behaviour is difficult to predict, even for experts in the field. Relationship marketing is an influential asset for customer behaviour analysis as it has a keen interest in the re-discovery of the true meaning of marketing through the re-affirmation of the importance of the customer or buyer. A greater importance is also placed on consumer retention, customer relationship management, personalisation, customisation and one-to-one marketing. Social functions can be categorized into social choice and welfare functions (Chitra, 2014). The goal of food packaging is to contain food in a cost-effective way that satisfies industry requirements and consumer desires, maintains food safety, and minimizes environmental impact (Marsh and Bugusu, 2007). Packages and labels communicate how to use, transport, recycle, or dispose-off the package or product. Some types of information are required by governments. Packaging also provides information to the consumer. For example, package labelling satisfies legal requirements for product identification, nutritional value, ingredient declaration, net weight, and manufacturer information. Additionally, the package conveys important information about the product such as cooking instructions, brand identification. The packaging and labels can be used by marketers to encourage potential buyers to purchase the product(Renaud, 2007). Package design has been an important and constantly evolving phenomenon for several decades. Marketing communications and graphic design are applied to the surface of the package and the point of sale display (Arora, 2009). Colour plays an important role in a potential customer’s decision making process, certain colours set different moods and can help to draw attention. Commodity packaging is an important factor to influence consumer psychology, particularly in the food industry. The visual stimulation of food packaging leads consumer to produce taste reaction. So good or bad packaging directly influences the product sales (Ramasamy et al., 2005). The font style of packaging grabs customer attraction. The up gradations of IT technology have supported this feature well the successful companies have best practices of the font styles. They hire specialist in composing which create mind blowing and attractive font styles. The attractive package has an innovative font style combination(Rettie and Brewer, 2000). Innovative packaging may actually add value to the product if it meets a consumer need such as portion control, recyclability, tamper-proofing, child-proofing, easy-open, easy-store, easy-carry, and non breakability (Sony, 2008).  Manufacturers today strive to have packaging that maintains the key equities of the brand, has stand out appeal on the retailer’s shelf, and is sustainable but with lower production costs. The customer can adopt product on the basis of its innovative packaging, which shows the relation between buying behavior and innovation of packaging (Sharma, 2008). Keeping in view the  investigation was carried out on “An impact study of food product packaging on consumer buying behaviour : A study premise to Himachal Pradesh–India.

Materials and Methods

The descriptive research design was adopted for the concerned research study. A sample size of 100 respondents were taken from Mandi District of Himachal Pradesh, including respondents of different demographic status were selected for the present study. Convenience sampling technique was used for the present study for collection of data. The study was conducted by using both Primary and Secondary data. The primary data for the present study was collected with the help of questionnaire. The secondary data for the present study was collected from journals, magazines, research articles, newspapers, and website. Simple mathematical and statistical tools, Percentage Method and Total Weightage Score method was used to analyze the collected data. Total Weightage Score Method is a method in which we have to provide different weights according to their importance and multiply the values of the items (X) by the weights (W) as provided. Then add all the values to obtain the total weights of all the items and the one which get highest score will get the first rank and the one which get the lowest score will get the lowest rank. The concerned research paper was initiated with the key objectives, to analyze the factors influencing buying behaviour of Food Products on account of its packaging, to determine the impact of packaging on customer buying behaviour and to investigate the reasons for brand preference with respect to packaging.

Results and Discussion

3.1.  Age status of the respondents

It was observed from the Table 1 that  largely the respondents  constituted in the age category of 20-30 years (37%), followed by  25% in 30-40 years, 22% in the category below 20 years. However, only16% respondents were in the age category of above 40 years. Therefore it concluded that respondents are of 20-30 age groups interesting to purchased packaged food products.

Table 1: Age status of the respondents

3.2.  Gender status of the respondents

From the Table 2 in reference to gender status of the respondents 55% were male and 45% were female. Hence it concluded that the majority of respondents are male gender.

Table 2 : Gender status of the respondents

3.3.  Occupational status of the respondents

It is revealed from Table 3 that among the total respondents, 60% are student, followed by 18% were businessmen, whereas 11% respondents were self-employed and 11% were housewife. Hence respondents are literate and have a prior knowledge of packaged products and also aware about the packaging factor.

Table 3: Occupational status of the respondents

3.4.  Income status of the respondents

It was observed from the Table 4 that  52% respondents were in 16000–24000 income category, followed by 34% in above 24000 income category, 10% respondents in 8000–16000 income category. However, 4% respondents were in below 8000 income category.

Table 4: Income Status of the respondents

3.5.  Respondents’ preference for packaged food products

It was observed from the Table 5 that 100% respondents were prefers packaged food products for daily needs and other purpose.

Table 5: Respondents’ preference for packaged food products

3.6.  Preferred reasons packaged food products

The data presented in Table 6 reveals that 36% respondents preferred food Product for ethical reason, followed by 30% respondents preferred for Taste, 36% respondents Preferred for quality whereas 14% respondents preferred Food product for Peace of mind. This finding was found to be similar with the study of Ramasamy et al., 2005. Therefore, it was concluded that quality is most important factor for prefer packaged products as compared to taste.

Table 6: Preferred reasons packaged food products

3.7.  Important Factors for choosing packaged Food Products

Table 7 shows that 37% respondents were choose Food Products by checking Nutritional Information, followed by 27% respondents were choosing on the basis of Brand Image. 22% respondents were choosing Food Products for Flavour whereas 14% respondents were prefer products by instruction for using product. This finding also matched with the study of Prathiraja and Ariyawardana, 2003. Therefore, it concludes that most of respondents purchase packaged products on the basis of nutritional information as compared to brand image of products.

Table 7: Important factors for choosing packaged food products

3.8.  Significance level of factors associated with packaging of food products

From the Table 8 it is clearly indicated from the below stated results analyzed by using Total weightage score method, reveals that price is the most important factor pertained to packaging for food products, followed by material of packaging. However, the shape, colour, type and even size of packaging have not been resulted as significant factors for packaging. Similar results were found by Rex and Antonio, 2003. Thus, it may have been stated that companies must focus on the kind of material used in the packaging for food products and the brand name and pricing should also be clearly revealed on the packaging as well.

Table 8: Significance Level of factors associated with Packaging of food products

3.9.  Preferential reason for using distinctive kind of Packaging

It is clearly observed from the Table 9 that consumers largely preferred tin can as the most preferred choice for food products, followed by plastic packaging. However, aluminium packaging is almost negatively preferred by large number of respondents, followed by foil packaging as well. This finding also matched with the study of Sharma, 2008. Thus, it may have been suggested that food product companies must prefer over tin can packaging to provide an influential promotion and look to their products.

Table 9: Preferential reason for using distinctive kind of Packaging

3.10. Rank analysis for the distinctive reason for brand preference

The data presented in Table 10 showed that total weightage score method consumers largely preferred Quality as most preferred choice for Brand Preferences, followed by Social Value and Brand Loyalty. Self appearance and reliability and believability is less preferred by large number of respondents. Similar results were found by  Nandagopal and Chinnaiyan, 2003;Aaker, 2000. Thus, it may have been stated that companies must focus on product self appearance.

Table 10: RANK analysis for the distinctive reason for brand preference

3.11.  Level of Buying Behaviour in reference to the Packaging Information

From the Table 11 it is clearly observed that consumers largely preferred Basic information products, followed by Kind of packaging, Quality and Nutrition Value. Whereas Social value of packaging for information are largely preferred by customers as compared to Brand logo appearance. This finding matched with the study of John, 2000 and Moskowitz, 2009. Thus, it may have been suggest that companies must improve Brand logo for more promotion of product.

Table 11: Level of buying behaviour in reference to the packaging information

3.12.  Influencing level of elementary Packaging factors on the Buying Behaviour

It is clearly observed from the Table 12 that consumers largely preferred Quality based products, followed by Brand appearance and Information based products. Whereas colors, graphics, attractiveness and brand ambassadors appearance have been not resulted as influencing level or packaging factor. This finding was found to be similar with the study of Liang, 2008. Thus, it may have been advice that companies must focus on Brand Ambassadors Appearance and Attractiveness of the products.

Table 12: Influencing level of elementary packaging factors on the buying behaviour

Conclusion

The brand is considered as the most important element of packaging. Study also indicated that packaging factor play a significant role associated with food products. Mostly respondent preferred tin can as the most preferred choice for food products. In reference to buying behaviour of respondents for Food Product packaging, consumers largely preferred Quality and Nutritive Value based products, basic information products, followed by Brand appearance and Kind of packaging. 

Reference

Aaker, D., 2000. Building Strong Brands. The Free Press, New York, 278–323.

Arora, P., 2009. Material management. Global India publication. New Delhi, 13.

Chitra B., 2014. A Study on consumer attitude towards buying in sri devi textiles. International Journal of Business and Management Invention 3(1), 35–40.

John, 2000. Packaging communication: attentional effects of product imagery. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 10(7), 403–422.

Liang, L., 2008. Consumer perceptions of product packaging. Journal of Consumer Marketing 23(2), 100–112.

Marsh, K., Bugusu, B., 2007. Food Packaging role material and environmental issues. Journal of Food Science 72.

Moskowitz, H.R., 2009. Packaging Research in Food Product Design and Development. USA

Nandagopal, R., Chinnaiyan, P., 2003. Brand preference of soft drinks in rural Tamil-Nadu. Indian Journal Marketing 33(1), 14–17.

Prathiraja, P.K., Ariyawardana, 2003. Impact of nutritional labelling on consumer buying behaviour, Sri Lankan Journal of Agricultural Economics, 5(1).

Ramasamy, K., Kalaivanan, G., Sukumar, S., 2005. Consumer behaviour towards instant food product Indian Journal Marketing 35(6), 24–25.

Renaud, L., 2007. The influence of label on wine consumption: its effects on young consumers’ perception of authentic city and purchasing behaviour, Bologna, Italy, 390.

Rettie, R.,  Brewer, C., 2000. The  verbal and visual components of package design, Journal of Product Brand Management, 9(1), 56–70.

Rex, Antonio, L., 2003. The importance of packaging design for own-label food brands. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 35(9), 677–690.

Sharma, B., 2008. New consumer products branding, packaging and labelling in Nepal, the Journal of Nepalese Business Studies, 5(1).

Sony, K., 2008. Consumer responses toward attribute framing in product packaging, department of management, 47(4), 577.

Vijayalakshmi, S., Mahalakshmi, V., 2013. An impact of consumer buying behavior in decision making process in purchase of electronic home appliances in chennai, Elixier International Journal 59, 15267–15273.