Product Package Size Perception: Don't be fooled by "Supersize in 1D and downsize in 3D"
Package Resizing: Supersize in 1D and Downsize in 3D!
Consumers are quite sensitive about price changes. Because of this, many manufacturers and retailers choose to change the size of packages or portions instead of changing prices. As an example, JIF peanut butter reduced its jar size from 18 Oz to 16 Oz, starting form June 1st, 2013. Interestingly, JIF decided to keep the height of the jar about the same, but trimmed jar's waistline by about one-half an inch. A natural question here is "how does consumers' size perception get affected by product supersizing and downsizing?" Prof. Chandon (INSEAD) and Prof. Ordabeyeva (Erasmus) investigated this issue by using controlled lab experiment.
In three laboratory experiments, they found that changes in size appear smaller when products change in all three dimensions (height, width, and length) than when they change in only one dimension. Specifically, they showed that a) size estimations follow an inelastic power function of the actual size of the products; b) size estimations are even less elastic when size changes in 3D than when it changes in 1D; and c) the effect of dimensionality is not reduced by making size information available. As a result, consumers expect (and marketers offer) steeper quantity discounts when packages and portions are supersized in 3D than when they are supersized in 1D; consumers pour more product into and out of conical containers (in which volume changes in 3D) than cylindrical containers (in which volume changes in 1D); and consumers are more likely to supersize and less likely to downsize when package and portion sizes change in 1D than when they change in 3D.
The lesson here for consumers is that "please pay attention to actual product volume and per-ounce prices on the labels. Don't be fooled by "supersize in 1D and downsize in 3D" tactics from manufacturers/retailers!
If you are interested in this paper, you can download this paper from the following link.
Downsize in 3D, Supersize in 1D: Effects of the Dimensionality of Package and Portion Size Changes on Size Estimations, Consumption, and Quantity Discount Expectations
In three laboratory experiments, they found that changes in size appear smaller when products change in all three dimensions (height, width, and length) than when they change in only one dimension. Specifically, they showed that a) size estimations follow an inelastic power function of the actual size of the products; b) size estimations are even less elastic when size changes in 3D than when it changes in 1D; and c) the effect of dimensionality is not reduced by making size information available. As a result, consumers expect (and marketers offer) steeper quantity discounts when packages and portions are supersized in 3D than when they are supersized in 1D; consumers pour more product into and out of conical containers (in which volume changes in 3D) than cylindrical containers (in which volume changes in 1D); and consumers are more likely to supersize and less likely to downsize when package and portion sizes change in 1D than when they change in 3D.
The lesson here for consumers is that "please pay attention to actual product volume and per-ounce prices on the labels. Don't be fooled by "supersize in 1D and downsize in 3D" tactics from manufacturers/retailers!
If you are interested in this paper, you can download this paper from the following link.
Downsize in 3D, Supersize in 1D: Effects of the Dimensionality of Package and Portion Size Changes on Size Estimations, Consumption, and Quantity Discount Expectations
Comments
Post a Comment