Anda di halaman 1dari 10

See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229456125

Buying behavior of rural and urban consumers


in India: the impact of packaging
ARTICLE in INTERNATIONAL IJC OCTOBER 2007
Impact Factor: 1.29 DOI: 10.1111/j.1470-6431.2007.00629.x

CITATIONS

READS

13

1,173

2 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Subhash C. Kundu
Guru Jambheshwar University of Science &
85 PUBLICATIONS 164 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,


letting you access and read them immediately.

Available from: Subhash C. Kundu


Retrieved on: 29 March 2016

International Journal of Consumer Studies ISSN 1470-6423

Buying behaviour of rural and urban consumers in India:


the impact of packaging
Mahavir Sehrawet and Subhash C. Kundu
Haryana School of Business, Guru Jambheshwar University of Science & Technology, Haryana, India

Keywords
Packaging, consumer behaviour, rural
consumers, impact of package, India.
Correspondence
Subhash C. Kundu, Haryana School of
Business, Guru Jambheshwar University of
Science & Technology, Hisar 125001,
Haryana, India.
E-mail: sckundu@yahoo.com
doi: 10.1111/j.1470-6431.2007.00629.x

Abstract
This study aims to establish whether the residential background of consumers has a varying
influence on their buying decisions. A survey of 1090 urban and rural respondents was
carried out of which 523 were rural and 567 were urban. The gathered data were analysed
by applying counts, percentages, means, and analysis of variance. Rural residents found
that packaging is more helpful in buying, that better packaging contains a better product
and that they are more influenced by the ease of storing a package than their urban
counterparts. Ease of carriage, package weight, simplicity, transparency and similarity of
packaging have comparatively less impact on purchase decisions of rural consumers than
urban ones. However, rural consumers are more critical about packaging as they strongly
consider that it contributes to misleading buyers and is also an environmental hazard.

Introduction

Literature review

A package is the face of a product (Sagar and Kumar, 2005).


Packaging involves the activities of designing and producing the
container and wrapper for the product. Up to three levels of
material may be used in packaging, i.e. primary package,
secondary package and shipping package. Many marketers have
called the packaging a fifth P; the other four Ps are Product,
Price, Place and Promotion (Kotler, 2004). So packaging is used
as a marketing tool. Well-designed packages can create convenience and promotional values (Kotler, 2004). It serves several
purposes, such as protecting the product on its way to the consumer, protecting the product after it is purchased, helping to
gain acceptance of the product, helping to persuade consumers to
buy the product (Etzel et al., 2005), supporting self-service, consumer affluence, company and brand recognition, and innovation
opportunity (Kotler, 2004). Initially, packaging was intended
largely to provide protection to the product. With its increasing
significance in marketing, it has become a major factor in
gaining customers.
Packaging is criticized largely because of its environmental
impact on depleting natural resources; certain form of packages
are health hazards; and there is problem of disposal of packages;
some packages are deceptive; others are expensive. Marketing
executives have to address these criticisms. They must enhance the
positive features of packaging, like product protection, consumer
convenience and marketing support (Etzel et al., 2005). To remain
competitive in the market, packaging strategies should be
reviewed annually (Schreiber, 1994).
630

Package/packaging
The shampoo bottle cap that drops on the bathroom floor or down
the sink. The jam bottle refuses to open as per the instructions. The
flour (atta) that goes stale because the inner bag tears or does not
reseal securely. The last bit of toothpaste or shampoo that is
retrievable only by balancing the bottle upside down for a while.
These are few examples of packages that do not always do what
you want them to do (Alsop and Abrams, 1986).
Packaging is a key component of marketing, according to recent
studies by the Point of Purchase and Advertisement Institute
(POPAI), which indicate that 70% of consumers buying decisions
are made at the point of sale (Parker, 1997). Pandey (2005) also
claims that impulse purchase is increasing rapidly. The package is
a very effective tool for influencing impulse purchasing (Sehrawet,
2002; Sehrawet and Kundu, 2003). Further, Kundu and Sehrawet
(2002) showed that consumers feel that the package is very helpful
in identifying and distinguishing products.
As people become time poor, they are more prone to impulse
buying. The unplanned purchase is a large source of revenue. The
power of the package is an important element of unplanned purchasing. The concept of retailing has virtually been rewritten and
brands jostle for space and recognition in the crowded and over
populated shelf. Packaging is now in an era where communication
and display are still not valid value additions by themselves. The
package has to promote, emote, glamorize and enhance the value
of the contents (Sivan, 2000). This trend in marketing represents a

International Journal of Consumer Studies 31 (2007) 630638 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

M. Sehrawet and S.C. Kundu

major opportunity for the packaging industry. To exploit this


opportunity fully requires knowledge of how consumers interact at
the point of purchase.
The study by Sivan (2000) has shown that 18% buying decisions are influenced by advertisements. Mehta (1999) suggests
that the efficiency of traditional approaches appears to be reducing
year by year and the effectiveness of modern marketing tool like
packaging is increasing rapidly. Phillips (1997) argues that the
modern consumer is more educated, more sophisticated and more
cynical. As a result of this, the consumers are postponing their
decision making until at the point of purchase. In turn, this has led
to an increase in impulse purchase and brand switching, and
consequently a decline in the power of branding and traditional
marketing approaches. So, the importance of marketing
communications by making use of the packaging has increased.
Twede (1997) observes that our buying behaviour is continuously shifting towards an increasing amount of self-service shopping. So, the package is required to provide more information and
motivation (Peters-Texeira and Badrie, 2005). For low involvement goods (i.e. bought routinely without much thought, search or
purchase time), packaging provides consumers with visual cues
and an increasing amount of physical and psychological benefits.
For higher involvement goods, packaging provides information
and a means of comparing products in a self-service store. After
purchase, a package provides instructions and features to ensure
consumer satisfaction (Twede, 1997).
Narayanan (2000) claims that a large part of the population has
started to give higher importance to health and hygiene, which is
leading to an increased demand for packaged goods and a shift
from loose buying. The spread of education, particularly among
housewives, has swung the trend in purchasing from loose to
pre-packaged and branded products, from tea to ketchup and
noodles. The market share of packaged edible oil has increased
from 20% in 1998 to 26% in 2005. Todays consumers are finding
packaging as value addition [The Times of India (TOI), 2005]. The
study of Bone and Corey (1992) has established a relationship
between the package and the overall price of a product. In other
words they claim that the package is a cost element too.
Packaging must be able to stand out from other packages. This
can be accomplished by the use of colour, shape, copy, trademark,
logo or additional features. This aspect of packaging was exploited
by Hindustan Levers Le Sancy soap, with its unique bean shape,
which was packaged in transparent polythene to exhibit its shape.
Customers could experience the unique shape, colour and appearance for the first time in the product of soap. This package strongly
influenced the high trail purchases (Ramaswamy and Namakumari, 2004). In their earlier study Alsop and Abrams (1986) found
that ease of storage is one of the important features of package in
influencing buying decisions. The package must be able to communicate its message to the buyers. All the necessary information
must be clearly visible and highlighted by colour or design to
make direct and indirect communication effective (Ajarekar,
1997).
Pandey (2005) observes that marketers are successfully using
product design and packaging strategies to target the rural customers, for example, smaller packages of Fair & Lovely (fairness
cream) are being pushed aggressively in rural markets by
Hindustan Lever Ltd. (HLL) (Bhushan, 2005). de Maricourt (1994)
claims that an important part of the competitiveness of Japanese

Impact of packaging

companies operating internationally is that they give highest priority to product quality followed by packaging and design.
Approving the impact of the package on buying behaviour of
consumers, HLL has very recently repositioned their toilet soaps
Liril and Lux (which had a stagnant market for some past years).
To achieve this HLL changed its promotion campaign, product
formulation and most importantly its packaging (adopting global
packaging for Lux) (Bhushan, 2005). However, the general
perception is that the package will have a different influence on
buying decisions of different product categories and may vary
according to the gender of the buyers too. A study conducted by
Sayulu and Ramana Reddy (1996) among rural households finds
that in case of items like groceries (42%), toiletries (61%),
cosmetics (63%), utensils (44%), vegetables (45%), etc. the house
wife dominated the purchasing process; while the husband dominated in case of items like tobacco (79%), foot wear (68%), medicines (39%); in the case of expensive items like clothes (50%),
electric appliances (53.51%) both husband and wife were involved
in the purchase. Shampoos and packaged biscuits are two good
examples of rural Indias hunger for branded products. In comparison with 13.3% penetration of shampoo in 2000, today, a third
of the rural population use shampoo (Mahalingam, 2007). Sachets
of affordable price points are being pushed by the companies like
HLL and CavinKare in the rural market. Today, 86% of all
shampoo sales in the rural markets are in the form of sachets. In
urban areas, this figure is 69% (Mahalingam, 2007).
Ramaswami and Namakumari (2004) argue that it is necessary
to assess the reaction of consumers to a package periodically and
adapt it accordingly. Consumers may have their own preferences
covering: (a) package size; (b) package shape; (c) packaging
materials used; (d) package graphics, etc. Marketers must assess
consumer preferences on the one hand and cost and availability
aspects on the other hand, in order to provide the consumer with
the best possible package. An effective package can be an efficient
mass-selling medium and it is often worth more attention and
money that are now devoted to it by most companies.
According to the study of Alsop and Abrams (1986), 19% of
consumers refused to buy the brand in a poor package again, while
24% said they would buy it cautiously or in a different type of
package. Their research further revealed that most important
package characteristics to consumers are storage life of any
unused portion, the ability to recognize the contents by looking at
the package and its graphics, resealability and ease of storage.
Research indicates that with verbal stimuli, people focus on
common features among options but with pictorial stimuli, they
focus on distinctive features of options (Dabholker, 1994). Thus,
greater differences between options may be perceived with pictorial than verbal stimuli, which make the alternatives less comparable. The package is a good medium to carry pictorial stimuli to
the point of purchase where it matters most (Dabholker, 1994).
Important labelling and packaging elements in todays marketing are accuracy, brevity, comprehensibility, durability, good
visibility and multilingual content for warning and instructions
for the disposal of containers. These findings fall in line with the
findings of Kundu and Sehrawet (2002) in which it was observed
that the label and the seal are important from marketing point of
view. Further, approximately 70% of the respondents in another
study (Rimal, 2005) reported that labels helped in the purchases;
the packaging feature that influenced most of the respondents

International Journal of Consumer Studies 31 (2007) 630638 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

631

Impact of packaging

M. Sehrawet and S.C. Kundu

choice of products was information on the label (Peters-Texeira


and Badrie, 2005).
Of late, the recyclable and biodegradability features of packages
have started to exert a growing influence on consumers, thanks
to their growing environmental consciousness (Noah, 1994).
Suchard and Polonski (1991) observed that ecology conscious
consumers will try to protect the environment by purchasing packages of recyclable or recycled material. The studies of MyburghLouw and Shaughnessy (1994) and Laroche et al. (2001) revealed
that the segment of environmentally conscious consumers is large
enough to warrant the marketers attention. Nath and Pateriya
(2004) have highlighted the ways by which todays organizations
are trying to attract people by making false claims about the
environment.
Rural consumers are relatively poor and highly price sensitive.
As a result, the majority of products are being sold loose. Loose
sugar, tea and biscuits are big sellers in rural India. Most packaged
products are local brands (Mahalingam, 2007). Rural consumers
high expectations of packaged products means that local packaged
products might not satisfy them. So, marketers have to produce
cheap products. A study conducted in India by Verma (2002)
established that consumers in a developing country like India are
on the threshold of the green era. Further, establishing sustainable
global resource systems, across developed and developing nations,
is dependent on finding ways to encourage consumers to prioritize
environmental issues as one of the key determinants of their consumption decisions (Sibbel, 2003).
The studies of Triandis (1993) and McCarty and Shrum (1994)
suggested that collectivist behaviour characterized by rural people
tends to be more ecology conscious than individualistic behaviour
characterized by urban people. The study of Sandahl and Robertson (1989) found that environmentally conscious consumers are
relatively less educated and have lower than average incomes. S.C.
Kundu and M. Sehrawet (communicated paper) found similar
results in their earlier study. According to Drumwright (1994),
75% of the consumers claim that their purchasing decisions are
influenced by a companys reputation with respect to the environment and eight in 10 said that they would pay more for the
products that are environmentally friendly. A Wall Street Journal
survey in 1991 found that 80% of consumers found it more important to protect the environment than to keep prices down (Balooni,
1997). There are companies whose sales dropped precipitously as
a result of being labelled environmentally unfriendly (Cairncross, 1993) and a number of studies found that consumers will
readily incorporate environmental information into their consumption decisions (Russell and Christopher, 1999). Environmental
responsibilities and improvements are also essential as a source of
competitive advantage in todays dynamic economy (Porter and
Van der Linde, 1995).

Indian rural vs. urban market


With the population of over one billion, India is on the threshold of
becoming one of the worlds foremost consumer markets. About a
quarter of this huge mass of consumers are urbanized and about
three-quarters are rural. Over the years, the retailing infrastructure
that has proliferated in India is characterized by a high degree of
fragmentation as compared with many developed nations. There
are an estimated 10 million operational retail outlets in India, of
632

which 68% are in rural areas (Banerjee and Banerjee, 2000). The
challenge lies in identifying the key drivers that steer the Indian
consumers perception and behaviour when it comes to their shopping needs (Banerjee and Banerjee, 2000). About a half of Indias
rural population do not have access to good roads and infrastructure. They are relatively poor and so, have limited spending power
(Mahalingam, 2007).
Easy finance associated with rising income has caused a major
boom in the discretionary income of the middle class. This has led
to heightened consumer expectations (Tribune News Service,
2000). Changing life styles of the Indian population are likely to
boost the sales of packaged products. It is estimated that the Indian
food industry would grow to $140bn in the next 10 years creating
wealth from what is waste today (Lakshminarayan, 2001).
Realizing the potential of the rural market, HLL launched
project Shakti 3 years ago, to target villages having a population of
less than 2000, by appointing rural women as retailers of their
products. Today such 13 000 retailers are operating in 12 states
of India and contributing 15% of the companys rural sales
(Srinivasan, 2005a,b,c). The HLL will cover half a million villages
in 2010 (Mahalingam, 2007).
In 19931994, 50.1% households had an income of more than
40 000 rupees per annum (Chaturvedi, 1998). By 20062007 the
majority of rural households (68.1 million households or around
400 million consumers out of total 700 million rural people) will
earn 22 00045 000 rupees ($4891000) a year (Pandey, 2005).
The number of people living below the poverty line is declining
rapidly and faster in rural than in urban areas. The number of poor
in rural areas declined from 37% to 27% (10% decline) whereas
in urban areas it declined from 33% to 24% (9% decline), over
6 years from 19931994 to 19992000 (Gupta, 2005). The prosperity of rural households is growing rapidly. The lowest income
class (2500 rupees and below) is estimated to have shrunk from
60% in 19941995 to 20% in 20062007 (Pandey, 2005).
Sayulu and Ramana Reddy (1996) suggest that the rural
market offers a very promising future for the marketing of consumer goods. But this rural market has certain characteristics that
hinder marketers from exploiting the opportunities provided by
this huge market. These characteristics are: (a) low literacy; (b)
ignorance of their rights as consumers; (c) low purchasing power;
(d) indifference to quality or standards; and (e) lack of cooperative spirit. Ramana Rao (1997) observes that the marketing
boom in the rural areas is caused by such factors as increased
discretionary income, market surpluses, rural development
schemes, improved infrastructure, increased retailing and retailers, increased awareness, expanding TV Networks, liberalized
government policies for rural development, emphasis on rural
markets by companies, new entrepreneurship, competitive and
creative sales promotion, the packaging revolution and changing
life styles. The new generation in the rural areas considers itself
to be like the urban generation.
Sudhakar (1997) observes that the process of evolution of the
urban markets is being replicated in rural India, both for international brands and home-grown products.

Research objectives
The main objective of this research is to make a comparative study
of buying behaviour of rural and urban consumers with special

International Journal of Consumer Studies 31 (2007) 630638 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

M. Sehrawet and S.C. Kundu

Table 1 Descriptions of the variables


Variable No.

Description

V1
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6

Package adds value to product.


Package helps in buying product.
Better packaged product is better.
Strong package influences buying decision positively.
Ease of carriage influences buying decision positively.
Light weight of package influences buying decision
positively.
Simplicity of package influences buying decision
positively.
Consistency in package for different products of the
same company influences buying decision positively.
Transparent package is preferred.
Ease of storage influences buying decision positively.
Package helps in identifying and distinguishing product.
Package helps in avoiding pilferage.
Label is an important part of package.
Package misleads buyers.
Package is an environmental hazard.

V7
V8
V9
V10
V11
V12
V13
V14
V15

reference to packaging. To achieve this objective, answers to the


following research questions were sought.
1 Do perceptions of the value and quality of product differ significantly by place of residence?
2 Do perceptions of the quality of the packaging differ significantly by place of residence?
3 Do perceptions of labelling differ significantly by place of
residence?
4 Do perceptions of the environment effects of packaging differ
significantly by place of residence?

Research methods
A comprehensive questionnaire was constructed covering 56 variables related to the package. Besides general information about
the respondents, four major issues related to the package were
addressed in the questionnaire, i.e. the package as a marketing
tool, functions of package, package and environment and other
issues related to the package. As only one section of the all four
sections of the questionnaire was relevant for the study of consumer behaviour with respect to packaging, the other three sections were not considered for this study. Therefore, only the 15
variables relating to this study out of the total 56 variables were
selected and analysed. All the responses on variables related to this
study were obtained on 5-point scale (from point 5 for strongly
agreeing with the statement to point 1 for strongly disagreeing).
These variables may be seen through Table 1.
The data were collected through a schedule. A multistage sampling method was used for the study. The study was conducted
in all four administrative divisions of the north-western State
of Haryana in India. The survey was administered in randomly
selected eight cities/towns and 16 villages spreading in these
administrative divisions. Out of these eight cities/towns, four cities
and four towns were selected randomly and out of the 16 villages,
eight large (more than 5000 residents) and eight small (less than
5000 residents) villages were selected randomly for the purpose of

Impact of packaging

Table 2 Distribution of sample


Administrative divisions
Residential background

AD1

AD2

AD3

AD4

Total

Rural
Urban

203
181

123
113

101
125

96
148

523
567

Total

384

236

226

244

1090

AD1, Hisar administrative division; AD2, Rohtak administrative division;


AD3, Ambala administrative division; AD4, Gurgaon administrative
division.

this study. Due care has been taken in preparing the schedule to
suit to the literary standard of the target population. While conducting the survey, due consideration was given to the respondents
of different walks of life, i.e. different gender, educational
standards, economic backgrounds, residential backgrounds, age
groups, people with different buying roles, etc.
A total of 2000 questionnaires (500 in each administrative division) were circulated among the respondents. Out of these, 1182
respondents returned the questionnaires. Of these collected questionnaires, a total of 1090 questionnaires were considered fit for
analysis and remaining 92 questionnaires were deleted as these
were incomplete for one or more reasons. Of these, 523 were from
rural and 567 were from urban respondents. Further details of the
data are shown in Table 2.
The scale of 15 identified variables was also subjected to reliability test. The results show that Cronbach alpha of the scale was
0.632, which is considered satisfactory.

Results and discussion


The results are based on primary data collected from 1090 respondents of the rural and urban residential backgrounds. The means,
grand means and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used for
bringing out the results. Scheffe Test was also used for comparing
the multiple means. Table 3 describes the characteristics of the
sample, Table 4 explains the results of anova indicating the
significant differences between the means and Table 5 shows
the means and grand means indicating the direction and extent of
the difference between means. Table 6 shows the comparison of
multiple means of four administrative divisions as derived by
Scheffe Test. Out of 538 males surveyed, 250 (46.5%) were of the
rural background and 288 (53.5%) of the urban. Nearly equal
number of female were selected from both residential backgrounds, i.e. 273 (49.5%) females from rural and 279 (50.5%)
from urban backgrounds. Various demographic variables have
been considered while selecting the sample like age, gender residential background, educational qualifications, occupation, economic background, buying role of the respondents and size of the
family, etc. The details of the same may be seen through Table 3.
The rural and urban consumers do not vary significantly
(P 0.169) in considering the package as value addition to the
product. Mean scores (Table 5) also supports the same for rural
people (x = 4.17) and their urban counterparts (x = 4.18). Overall,
people consider the package as a strong value addition (x = 4.18).
However, it is to be noted here that people of different administrative divisions differ significantly (P 0.005) on the cost aspect

International Journal of Consumer Studies 31 (2007) 630638 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

633

Impact of packaging

M. Sehrawet and S.C. Kundu

Table 3 Characteristics of the sample


Residential background
Demographic variables

Categories

Rural

Urban

Total

Gender

Male
Female
1525
2635
3650
>50
Non-literate
Primary
Matriculate
Graduate
Post-graduate
Professional
Service
Business
Farming
Others
<5 000
5 00110 000
10 00115 000
15 00120 000
>20 000
13
4
5
67
8
Head of the family
Purchaser of most products
Influence in buying decisions
User of most products

250
273
204
217
70
32
20
42
144
205
78
34
197
65
55
206
128
267
75
30
23
55
117
130
149
72
163
143
65
152
523

288
279
187
181
151
48
6
24
113
238
84
102
276
77
6
208
71
280
130
55
31
76
184
165
108
34
180
197
90
100
567

538
552
391
398
221
80
26
66
257
443
162
136
473
142
61
414
199
547
205
85
54
131
301
295
257
106
343
340
155
252
1090

Age (years)

Education

Occupation

Income (monthly in Rupees)

Family size (no. of member)

Status in family buying unit

Total

(46.5)
(49.5)
(52.2)
(54.5)
(31.5)
(40.0)
(76.9)
(63.6)
(56.0)
(46.3)
(48.1)
(25.0)
(41.6)
(45.8)
(90.2)
(49.9)
(64.3)
(48.8)
(36.6)
(35.3)
(42.6)
(42.0)
(38.9)
(44.1)
(58.0)
(67.9)
(47.5)
(42.1)
(41.9)
(60.3)
(48.0)

(53.5)
(50.5)
(47.8)
(45.5)
(68.3)
(60.0)
(23.1)
(36.4)
(44.0)
(53.7)
(51.9)
(75.0)
(58.4)
(54.2)
(09.8)
(50.1)
(35.7)
(51.2)
(63.4)
(64.7)
(57.4)
(58.0)
(61.1)
(55.9)
(42.0)
(32.1)
(52.5)
(57.9)
(58.1)
(39.7)
(52.0)

(49.4)
(50.6)
(35.9)
(36.5)
(20.3)
(7.3)
(2.4)
(6.1)
(23.6)
(40.5)
(14.9)
(12.5)
(43.4)
(13.0)
(5.6)
(38.0)
(18.3)
(50.1)
(18.8)
(7.8)
(5.0)
(12.0)
(27.6)
(27.1)
(23.6)
(9.7)
(31.5)
(31.2)
(14.5)
(23.1)
(100)

Figures in the parentheses show percentages.

Table 4 Summary results of two-way analysis of variance

Variables

Administrative division
effect (d.f. = 3)
F-value

Residential background
effect (d.f. = 1)
F-value

Interactive effect
(d.f. = 3)
F-value

V1 Package adds value


V2 Package helps in buying
V3 Better packaged products are better
V4 Strong package influences positively
V5 Ease of carriage influences positively
V6 Light weight of package influences positively
V7 Simplicity of package influences positively
V8 Consistency in package of different product influences positively
V9 Transparent package is preferred
V10 Ease of storage influences positively
V11 Package helps in identifying and distinguishing product
V12 Package helps in avoiding pilferage
V13 Label is an important part of package
V14 Package misleads buyers
V15 Package is an environmental hazard

4.243
12.808
5.772
1.906
2.701
3.304
2.045
1.557
20.087
3.054
15.710
7.257
1.602
4.455
3.360

1.897
12.639
3.451
0.246
6.867
1.228
5.881
5.312
1.419
0.009
2.781
1.881
5.278
4.450
4.789

7.085
4.064
0.225
4.581
6.042
7.456
7.276
15.570
3.095
2.009
1.713
4.912
4.025
0.829
12.942

(0.005)
(0.000)
(0.001)
(0.127)
(0.044)
(0.020)
(0.106)
(0.198)
(0.000)
(0.028)
(0.000)
(0.000)
(0.187)
(0.004)
(0.018)

(0.169)
(0.000)
(0.063)
(0.620)
(0.009)
(0.268)
(0.015)
(0.021)
(0.234)
(0.924)
(0.096)
(0.170)
(0.022)
(0.035)
(0.029)

(0.000)
(0.007)
(0.879)
(0.003)
(0.000)
(0.000)
(0.000)
(0.000)
(0.026)
(0.111)
(0.162)
(0.002)
(0.007)
(0.478)
(0.000)

Figures in the parentheses show level of significance.

634

International Journal of Consumer Studies 31 (2007) 630638 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

M. Sehrawet and S.C. Kundu

Impact of packaging

Table 5 Summary of mean and grand mean scores

Variables
V1 Package adds value

V2 Package helps in buying

V3 Better packaged products are better

V4 Strong package influences positively

V5 Ease of carriage influences positively

V6 Light weight of package influences positively

V7 Simplicity of package influences positively

V8 Consistency in package of different product influences positively

V9 Transparent package is preferred

V10 Ease of storage influences positively

V11 Package helps in identifying and distinguishing product

V12 Package helps in avoiding pilferage

V13 Label is an important part of package

V14 Package misleads buyers

V15 Package is an environmental hazard

Residential
background

AD1 (M)

AD2 (M)

AD3 (M)

AD4 (M)

GM

Rural
Urban
GM
Rural
Urban
GM
Rural
Urban
GM
Rural
Urban
GM
Rural
Urban
GM
Rural
Urban
GM
Rural
Urban
GM
Rural
Urban
GM
Rural
Urban
GM
Rural
Urban
GM
Rural
Urban
GM
Rural
Urban
GM
Rural
Urban
GM
Rural
Urban
GM
Rural
Urban
GM

4.38
4.08
4.24
3.83
3.27
3.57
3.62
3.54
3.58
3.89
3.73
3.82
3.95
3.93
3.94
3.63
3.51
3.57
3.68
3.71
3.69
3.60
3.34
3.48
3.91
3.83
3.88
3.98
3.81
3.90
4.28
4.24
4.27
4.21
3.99
4.10
4.38
4.32
4.35
3.75
3.58
3.67
4.11
3.73
3.93

4.21
4.39
4.30
3.82
3.88
3.85
3.48
3.37
3.42
3.46
3.88
3.66
3.51
4.04
3.76
3.31
3.93
3.61
3.13
4.51
3.80
2.92
3.81
3.35
3.25
3.07
3.16
3.95
4.18
4.06
4.34
4.35
4.35
3.82
3.86
3.84
4.00
4.44
4.21
3.79
3.40
3.79
3.70
4.02
3.86

3.82
4.24
4.05
3.38
3.17
3.27
3.32
3.17
3.24
3.70
3.62
3.65
3.82
3.68
3.74
3.42
3.25
3.33
3.48
3.24
3.35
3.44
3.24
3.33
3.28
3.65
3.49
3.78
3.81
3.80
3.72
3.98
3.87
3.60
3.95
3.80
4.34
4.43
4.39
3.50
3.40
3.44
3.62
3.76
3.70

4.04
4.09
4.07
3.47
3.20
3.30
3.34
3.11
3.20
3.83
3.77
3.80
3.77
4.01
3.92
3.51
3.47
3.48
3.62
3.71
3.67
3.43
3.61
3.54
3.51
3.73
3.65
4.04
3.93
3.98
4.11
4.23
4.18
3.91
4.05
4.00
4.32
4.36
4.34
3.68
3.37
3.49
4.21
3.63
3.85

4.17
4.18
4.18
3.68
3.35
3.51
3.48
3.31
3.39
3.74
3.75
3.74
3.79
3.92
3.86
3.49
3.53
3.51
3.50
3.76
3.64
3.38
3.48
3.43
3.56
3.61
3.59
3.95
3.92
3.93
4.16
4.20
4.18
3.95
3.97
3.96
4.27
4.38
4.33
3.70
3.53
3.61
3.94
3.77
3.85

AD1, Hisar administrative division; AD2, Rohtak administrative division; AD3, Ambala administrative division; AD4, Gurgaon administrative division;
M, mean; GM, grand mean.

of packaging. AD1 (x = 4.24) and AD2 (x = 4.30) have a comparatively stronger feeling of value addition than AD3 and AD4.
The residential background of people has an influence on
respondents in considering packaging as helpful in buying
(P 0.000). Rural residents (x = 3.68) consider the package more
helpful in buying goods than their urban counterparts (x = 3.35).
However, from this analysis it can be concluded that the buyers
find packaging helpful in buying (x = 3.51). People in different

divisions also attach different significance (P 0.000) to the


package as helpful in buying. Further, Table 5 shows that the
respondents of AD1 and AD2 consider the package comparatively
more helpful in buying than AD3 and AD4.
Residential background effect (P 0.063) establishes that this
independent variable has a significant bearing on consumers (rural
as well as urban) in considering that a better package contains a
better product. Administrative division effect also has a significant

International Journal of Consumer Studies 31 (2007) 630638 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

635

Impact of packaging

M. Sehrawet and S.C. Kundu

Table 6 Summary results of Scheffe Test for multiple comparisons of means


Variables

MD (1,2)

MD (1,3)

MD (1,4)

MD (2,3)

MD (2,4)

MD (3,4)

V1 Package adds value


V2 Package helps in buying
V3 Better packaged products are better
V4 Strong package influences positively
V5 Ease of carriage influences positively
V6 Light weight of package influences positively
V7 Simplicity of package influences positively
V8 Consistency in package of different product influences
positively
V9 Transparent package is preferred
V10 Ease of storage influences positively
V11 Package helps in identifying and distinguishing product
V12 Package helps in avoiding pilferage
V13 Label is an important part of package
V14 Package misleads buyers
V15 Package is an environmental hazard

0.028
0.280*
0.160
0.157
0.180
0.037
0.218
0.132

0.186
0.302*
0.344*
0.163
0.199
0.245
0.322*
0.152

0.174
0.264*
0.387*
0.023
0.025
0.089
0.005
0.062

0.159
0.582*
0.185
0.006
0.019
0.283*
0.104
0.020

0.146
0.544*
0.227
0.134
0.155
0.127
0.223
0.194

0.012
0.038
0.042
0.140
0.175
0.156
0.327*
0.214

0.714*
0.158
0.039
0.265*
0.142
0.121
0.076

0.388*
0.105
0.398*
0.352*
0.035
0.224
0.233*

0.227
0.074
0.085
0.104
0.010
0.175
0.080

0.326*
0.263
0.438*
0.087
0.178
0.346*
0.157

0.487*
0.084
0.125
0.161
0.132
0.296*
0.003

0.160
0.179
0.313*
0.248*
0.045
0.049
0.153

*The mean difference is significant at the 0.5 level.


MD (1,2), mean difference between AD1 and AD2; MD (1,3), mean difference between AD1 and AD3; MD (1,4), mean difference between AD1 and
AD4; MD (2,3), mean difference between AD2 and AD3; MD (2,4), mean difference between AD2 and AD4; MD (3,4), mean difference between AD3
and AD4; AD1, Hisar administrative division; AD2, Rohtak administrative division; AD3, Ambala administrative division; AD4, Gurgaon administrative
division.

impact (P 0.001) on this variable. It is important to note here that


the rural respondents (x = 3.48) give comparatively higher support
than the urban respondents to the statement that better packaging
contains a better product. Table 5 shows that the respondents of
AD1 and AD2 have comparatively more support to this opinion
than AD3 and AD4. Further, buyers (x = 3.39) irrespective of
categories assume that better packages contain a better product.
The residential background effect and administrative division
effect do not discriminate among the various categories of the
consumers in claiming that strong packaging influences buying
decisions. Further, the interactive effect (P 0.003) is significant.
However, strong package (x = 3.74) does influence buying decisions. The cell means of the Table 5 show that the rural consumers
of AD1, AD4 and the urban consumers of AD2 prefer stronger
packaging.
The ease of carriage of the package from retail outlet to the
place of consumption has a varying influence on residents of
different backgrounds (P 0.009) and administrative divisions
(P 0.044). The Interactive effect (P 0.000) is also significant.
Ease of carriage of package from retail outlet to the place of
consumption has a good influence on rural people (x = 3.79) but
they are less influenced as compared with their urban counterparts
(x = 3.92). However, this is a strong factor in influencing buying
behaviour.
The influence of the variable lightness of package differs significantly on the basis of administrative divisions (P 0.020) and
interaction (P 0.000). Overall, it can be said that the lightness of
package influences buying decisions positively (x = 3.51). Table 5
shows that the respondents of AD1 and AD2 have comparatively
more liking for such type of package than AD3 and AD4. Further,
the cell means of the Table 5 show that the rural consumers of
AD1, AD3 and AD4 prefer the light weight package and the urban
consumers of AD2 prefer the light weight package.
636

The results of ANOVA (P 0.015) indicate that rural and urban


consumers vary in their behaviour regarding the influence of simplicity of the package. The simplicity of the package (x = 3.64)
influences the consumers positively. Rural respondents (x = 3.50)
are comparatively less influenced by simplicity of the package than urban consumers (x = 3.76). The Interactive effect
(P 0.000) is also significant. Further, the cell means of the
Table 5 show that the urban consumers of AD1, AD2 and AD4
prefer the simple package and the rural consumers of AD3 prefer
the simple package.
Residential background effect (P 0.021) is significant and
indicates that the rural (x = 3.38) and the urban (x = 3.48) consumers behave differently on the variable consistency in the package
for different products of a company. Further, all consumers
irrespective of their backgrounds are influenced positively by
consistency in packaging. The interactive effect of residential
background and administrative division (P 0.000) is again
highly significant on this dependent variable. The cell means of the
Table 5 indicate that the rural consumers of AD1, AD3 and the
urban consumers of AD2 and AD4 like comparatively more
the consistency in the package. Further perusal indicates that rural
consumers of AD2 (x = 2.92) do not like consistency/similarity in
the package for different products.
The residential background (P 0.234) of people does not
influence significantly the impact of transparency of the package
on their buying behaviour. However, buying behaviour of respondents varies significantly (P 0.000) in different administrative
divisions on this variable. Table 5 shows that the respondents of
AD1 (x = 3.88) and AD4 (x = 3.65) have comparatively more
liking for transparent package than consumers of AD2 and AD3.
Further, the means table shows that the transparency of a package
has relatively less influence on buying behaviour of rural consumers (x = 3.56) than their urban counterparts (x = 3.61), although the

International Journal of Consumer Studies 31 (2007) 630638 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

M. Sehrawet and S.C. Kundu

variation is marginal. However, the transparency of a package has


an impact on the buying behaviour of all consumers.
Rural and urban consumers do not differ significantly
(P 0.924) on the variable ease of storage. Table 4 shows that
ease of storage of packaged products affects equally positively
both rural and urban people. However, it should be mentioned here
that the influence of this variable differs significantly (P 0.028)
according to the administrative divisions. Consumers of AD2
(x = 4.06) are comparatively more influenced than other divisions
by the package feature, i.e. ease of storage.
The residential background of people does not have differential impact (P 0.096) on consumers when considering how
packaging helps in identifying and distinguishing products.
People of different administrative divisions (P 0.000) do differ
significantly on this variable. A perusal of mean scores in Table 5
shows that respondents from AD3 (x = 3.87) are comparatively
less influenced than those from AD1, AD2 and AD4. Further,
rural and urban respondents are fairly equally and highly influenced by this feature of the package. Overall, consumers are
influenced by the packages that help in identifying and distinguishing products.
The residential background effect (P 0.170) indicates that the
rural and the urban consumers do not differ significantly on the
variable package avoids pilferage. However, there are strong
differences between administrative divisions (P 0.000). Table 5
shows that the respondents of AD1 (x = 4.10) and AD4 (x = 4.00)
have comparatively more support for the variable package avoids
pilferage than AD2 and AD3. The mean scores show that people
accept that packaging that helps in avoiding pilferage (x = 3.96).
The interactive effect of the residential background and the administrative division (P 0.002) is again highly significant on this
dependent variable. The cell means of the Table 5 indicate that the
rural consumers of AD1 and the urban consumers of AD2, AD3
and AD4 are more likely to consider that the package helps in
avoiding pilferage.
The residents of different backgrounds differ significantly
(P 0.022) in considering labelling as an important part of the
package. Interaction of residential background and administrative
division (P 0.007) differ significantly on the label as a part of
package. That the label is an important part of package (x = 4.33)
is evident from mean scores. Further, rural people have less appreciation for the label as important part of package as compared with
their urban counterparts. The cell means of Table 5 indicate that
rural consumers of AD1 and urban consumers of AD2, AD3 and
AD4 consider the label a comparatively more important part of the
package.
Background effect (P 0.035) indicates that the behaviour of
people varies with respect to the role of the package in misleading
buyers. Administrative division effect also differs (P 0.004) on
this dependent variable. The results show that rural residents
(x = 3.70) are of the strong opinion that the package misleads
buyers as compared with urban consumers (x = 3.53). Table 5
shows that the respondents of AD1 (x = 3.67) and AD2 (x = 3.79)
have comparatively more support for this opinion than AD3 and
AD4. Grand mean score (x = 3.61) also indicates that consumers
are sensitive to this fact.
The variable package is an environmental hazard differs
significantly according to different residential backgrounds
(P 0.029). Against the general perception (x = 3.85), urban

Impact of packaging

people have relatively less support (x = 3.77) compared with their


rural counterparts (x = 3.94).

Policy implications
A significant feature of the Indian rural middle class is its rapid
growth in terms of volume and value. This provides a potentially
huge untapped market. Today, rural consumers are less passive than they were in the past and are more like their urban
counterparts.
So, the package manufacturers and marketers will perceive
opportunities to target rural consumers. To be successful in this
market, they will have to develop their product, modify their
pricing strategies, adjust their distribution programmes and redesign their promotion to suit rural residents. So far as packaging is
concerned, rural customers are graduating from loose to packaged
products as they recognize that it helps them in identifying, buying
and using quality products. They need strong packages, as
handling usually happens to be multi-handed and rough. It should
provide them with convenient storage and it has to address the
issue of environment. The label should be modified to suit their
preferences. The package manufacturers also have to modify their
strategies to suit their new consumers. In future, the prospects of
companies will depend upon how quickly and effectively they
incorporate these dimensions in their marketing philosophy and
how accurately they understand rural consumers preferences.

Conclusion
This study sought to make a comparison of the reactions of rural
and urban markets on packaging in Haryana, India. It shows that
rural and urban consumers vary significantly on various aspects of
packaging. Rural people feel that packaging is more helpful in
buying than their urban counterparts, and they have stronger opinions that better packages usually contain better products. The ease
of carriage, lightness of weight, simplicity, transparency and
consistency of a package have relatively less influence on buying
decisions of rural consumers than urban consumers. Although
labelling is strongly considered to be an important part of a
package, rural respondents give less importance to this aspect of
packaging than urban ones. Rural residents are more environmentally conscious than their urban counterparts as they have a stronger belief that packaging is an environmental hazard. They also are
more likely to believe that packaging contributes to misleading
buyers.

Future research direction


This is a preliminary attempt to study the behaviour of future rural
consumers regarding packaging. Further research is needed on
each sub-element of these broad aspects of tomorrows market.
This study throws the challenge open to marketers and researchers
to better understand this potential market.
This study is conducted in the north-western state of Haryana
in India. More comprehensive studies should be conducted at
national or international levels by increasing the sample size.

References
Ajarekar, P. (1997) Packaging design. Packaging India, October
November, 9.

International Journal of Consumer Studies 31 (2007) 630638 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

637

Impact of packaging

M. Sehrawet and S.C. Kundu

Alsop, R. & Abrams, B. (1986) Getting an edge with better packages. In


The Wall Street Journal on Marketing (ed. by R. Alsop & B.
Abrams), pp. 139141. Dow Jones-Irwin, Homewood, IL.
Balooni, K. (1997) Green consumerism the new challenge. Indian
Management, October, 6067.
Banerjee, A. & Banerjee, B. (2000) Effective retail promotion management: use of point of sales information resources. Vikalpa, 25, 5455.
Bhushan, R. (2005) HLL revamps personal care portfolio. The Times of
India, New Delhi, 11 April, p. 16.
Bone, P.F. & Corey, R.J. (1992) Ethical dilemmas in packaging: beliefs
of packaging professionals. Journal of Macro Marketing, Spring,
3257.
Cairncross, F. (1993) Costing the Earth: The Challenge for Government,
the Opportunities for Business. Harvard Business School Press,
Boston, MA.
Chaturvedi, M. (1998) Badalti tasvir: gramin bajaroan ki. The Hindustan, New Delhi, 13 May, p. 12.
Dabholker, A.P. (1994) Incorporating choice into an attitudinal frame
work: analyzing models of mental comparison processes. Journal of
Consumer Research, 21, 115123.
Drumwright, M.E. (1994) Socially responsible organizational buying:
environmental concern as a non-economic buying criterion. Journal of
Marketing, 58, 119.
Etzel, M.J., Walker, B.J. & Stanton, W.J. (2005) Marketing. Tata
McGraw-Hill, New Delhi.
Gupta, A. (2005) Rich like us. Business Today, 14, 12.
Kotler, P. (2004) Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning,
Implementation, and Control. Prentice Hall of India Private Limited,
New Delhi.
Kundu, S.C. & Sehrawet, M. (2002) Impact of packaging on consumer
buying behaviour. The Indian Journal of Commerce, 55, 2635.
Lakshminarayan, T.V. (2001) India wastes 70,000 cr. worth food
articles. The Tribune, New Delhi, 15 January, p. 8.
Laroche, M., Bergeron, J. & Forleo, G.B. (2001) Targeting consumers
who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18, 503520.
McCarty, J.A. & Shrum, L.J. (1994) The recycling of solid waste: personal values, value orientation, and attitude about recycling as antecedent of recycling behaviour. Journal of Business Research, 30,
5362.
Mahalingam, T.V. (2007) Salvation in a sachet. Business Today,
11 February, pp. 98102.
de Maricourt, R. (1994) Segmentation, innovation, proliferation: production policies in Japan. Decision Marketing, 3, 5161.
Mehta, R. (1999) The mysteries of rural markets. Advertising &
Marketing, 15, 1823.
Myburgh-Louw, J. & Shaughnessy, N.J. (1994) Consumer perception of
misleading and deceptive claims on the packaging of green fast
moving consumer goods. In AMA Summer Educators Conference
Proceedings (ed. by R. Achrol & A. Mitchell), Vol. 5, pp. 344353.
American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL.
Narayanan, P.V. (2000) Packaging in a developing economy. Packaging
India, OctoberNovember, 2327.
Nath, V. & Pateriya, L.P. (2004) Green wash-creating a seduced
environmental image. Review of Professional Management, 2, 3033.
Noah, T. (1994) Order to be issued on civil rights, pollution link. Wall
Street Journal, 11 February, p. 14.
Pandey, D.P. (2005) Education in rural marketing. University News, 43,
78.
Parker, R. (1997) Counting down the top 10 US packaging trends. Packaging India, AugustSeptember, 7982.

638

Peters-Texeira, A. & Badrie, N. (2005) Consumers perception of


food packaging in Trinidad, West Indies and its related impact on
food choices. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 29, 508
514.
Phillips, H. (1997) How we actually shop: the implications for the
designer? Packaging India, AugustSeptember, 4754.
Porter, M.E. & Van der Linde, C. (1995) Green and competitive.
Harvard Business Review, 73, 120134.
Ramana Rao, P.V. (1997) Rural market problems and perspective.
Indian Journal of Marketing, 27, 1719.
Ramaswamy, V.S. & Namakumari, S. (2004) Marketing Management,
Planning, Implementation, and Control. McMillan India Ltd, Delhi.
Rimal, A. (2005) Meat labels: consumer attitude and meat
consumption pattern. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 29,
4754.
Russell, C.S. & Christopher, D.C. (1999) The potential effectiveness of
the provisions of consumers information on product environmental
characteristics as a regulatory tool. Paper presented at the SOM- Conference, November, in Copenhagen, Denmark. [WWW document].
URL http://www.afk.dk/som/index.html (accessed on 20 April 2002).
Sagar, V.R. & Kumar, S. (2005) Packaging requirements for raw & processed foods. Beverage & Food World, 32, 2428.
Sandahl, D.M. & Robertson, R. (1989) Social determinant of environmental concern: specification and test of the model. Environment and
Behavior, 21, 5781.
Sayulu, K. & Ramana Reddy, V.V. (1996) Socio-economic influences of
rural consumer behaviour an empirical study. Management
Researcher, 3, 4151.
Schreiber, E. (1994) Retail trends shorten life of packaging design.
Marketing News, 5 December, p. 7.
Sehrawet, M. (2002) Impact of packaging on consumer buying behaviour: a comparative study of rural and urban consumers in Haryana.
Unpublished PhD Thesis.
Sehrawet, M. & Kundu, S.C. (2003) Packaging as a marketing tool: a
study. In International Business and Financial Services in WTO
Regime (ed. by M.S. Turan & S.C. Kundu), pp. 287298. Excel
Books, New Delhi.
Sibbel, A. (2003) Consumer science: a science for sustainability. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 27, 240.
Sivan, V. (2000) Corrugated as an advertising medium. Packaging
India, AugustSeptember, 5961.
Srinivasan, P. (2005a) Rural teller. Business Today, 14, 53.
Srinivasan, P. (2005b) Strength in numbers. Business Today, 14, 56.
Srinivasan, P. (2005c) Women power. Business Today, 14, 52.
Suchard, H.T. & Polonski, M.J. (1991) A theory of environment buyer
behaviour and its validity: the environmental action-behaviour model.
In AMA Summer Educators Conference Proceedings (ed. by M.C.
Gilly), Vol. 2, pp. 187201. American Marketing Association,
Chicago, IL.
Sudhakar, B.R. (1997) Target: the rural consumer. The Times of India,
New Delhi, 11 March, p. 19.
The Times of India (TOI) (2005) Rural India drives consumer goods
growth. The Times of India, 30 April, p. 9.
Triandis, H.C. (1993) Collectivism and individualism as cultural
syndromes. Cross-Cultural Research, 27, 155180.
Tribune News Service (2000) Middle class behind retail boom in India.
The Tribune, Chandigarh, 21 February, p. 7.
Twede, D. (1997) Marketing and distribution aspects in packaging in
2000. Packaging India, 30, 3134.
Verma, H.V. (2002) Green consumer: an initial study. Labour Management Studies, 27, 88.

International Journal of Consumer Studies 31 (2007) 630638 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Anda mungkin juga menyukai