Consumer Package Testing’s Missing Link
Have we found the secret to address the simmering issue of balancing quantitative vs. qualitative consumer research that packaging designers face? And, what about the balance of in-person vs. online methods?
Consumer-facing package testing methods, including many based on digital technologies, have proliferated in recent years. But brand owners remain hungry for more and better quantitative data to inform their packaging designs and drive sales.
We recently explored the issue with Sean Bisceglia, CEO of Product Ventures, a packaging design and engineering agency. In our exclusive Q&A, Bisceglia reflects on the consumer package testing problem and offers a path forward.
What specifically is the problem that consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies are experiencing vis-à-vis quantitative package testing?
Bisceglia: CPG companies are facing significant challenges with quantitative consumer testing for packaging due to several issues:
- Lack of quantitative research. Most packaging research conducted to date has been qualitative, focusing on subjective insights rather than data-driven, measurable outcomes. There is a clear opportunity to introduce more robust quantitative methodologies to better inform packaging decisions.
- Limited focus on one-dimensional testing. Current packaging design testing tools primarily address label design and other one-dimensional aspects of packaging vs. 3D design views evaluating the full structure of the packaging. While useful, these methods fail to evaluate the structural elements of packaging, such as ergonomics and innovative structural configurations, which are critical to consumer interaction and response.
- Neglect of sensory best practices. There is insufficient integration of sensory best practices, which include evaluating how consumers engage with packaging during essential actions such as holding, opening, zipping, and emptying. These experiential factors are crucial but are often overlooked or inadequately tested.
- Inadequate testing contexts. Effective sensory testing requires controlled environments like Central Location Tests (CLT) or In-Home Usage Tests (IHUT), but these methodologies are not being widely implemented in the industry.
There are many online package-design-testing tools out there, some using artificial intelligence (AI), and they claim to generate quantitative data. Why can’t brand owners get the quantitative data they need using these tools?
Bisceglia: The main impediment to brand owners getting the quantitative data they need from online package-design-testing tools, even those that use AI, lies in the tools’ inability to fully capture the real-world, tactile, and experiential aspects of consumer interactions with packaging.
Online tools cannot replicate the critical moment when consumers physically engage with a package — touching it and interacting with its structure. These tactile and ergonomic factors are essential for assessing a package’s performance in real-world use.
Moreover, with typical sample sizes like n=100 often divided into smaller groups of 25 consumers, achieving statistically significant feedback on these physical interactions is challenging without in-person testing.
Another limitation of online tools is their failure to capture the “moment of truth” — the phase when a consumer brings the package home and uses it in real-life scenarios. This step is crucial for validating packaging effectiveness in areas like ease of opening and overall usability, all of which directly impact consumer satisfaction.
Although online tools are valuable for certain aspects of packaging evaluation, such as preliminary or visual testing, they fall short in providing the comprehensive insights needed for brands to validate both design and functional performance.
To address these gaps, brand owners must adopt methodologies that integrate online tools with in-person, hands-on testing approaches, such as CLT or IHUT. This hybrid approach ensures both quantitative rigor and real-world applicability, giving brands the confidence to refine and launch packaging designs based on thorough consumer validation.
What aspects of package testing are we talking about?
Bisceglia: The aspects of quantitative consumer testing for packaging we are focusing on include packaging structure, design, and ergonomic testing.
Packaging structure testing evaluates the physical form of the package, including its three-dimensional design and functionality, to determine how well it meets consumer needs in terms of usability and practicality.
Packaging design testing assesses visual elements such as labels, graphics, and branding to ensure they effectively communicate the product’s value and appeal to the target audience.
Ergonomic testing focuses on how consumers interact with the package in real-life scenarios, focusing on factors such as ease of handling, opening, resealing, and emptying. This includes sensory and tactile experiences, which are crucial for overall consumer satisfaction.
Our goal is to bring rigor and validated methodologies into these areas of testing, ensuring that consumer feedback is both quantitative and actionable, covering not just the visual but also the functional and experiential aspects of packaging.
Is the problem really a lack of data, or is it a skills gap in which package designers and engineers can’t properly analyze the quantitative data they are given? Or both?
Bisceglia: The problem is a combination of a lack of accessible, actionable data and a skills gap among package designers and engineers in interpreting the quantitative data they receive. Packaging teams often struggle to make sense of highly technical reports, such as 80-page documents filled with charts and graphs, that lack translation into actionable insights that are meaningful for design decisions.
This disconnect leaves designers without the practical guidance needed to implement consumer-driven changes. Additionally, while sensory research is highly rigorous and validated, it primarily focuses on the product itself rather than the packaging, making it less directly applicable to packaging teams.
There is also a critical need for data to be synthesized and presented in a way that aligns with the creative and practical processes of designers. When designers are actively involved in the research process, and reports are crafted with storytelling in mind, the insights become far more relevant and actionable.
Large companies often try to bridge this gap by relying on sensory-research organizations. However, these organizations typically focus on testing the product inside the packaging, leaving a void in rigorous, validated research specifically tailored to packaging structure and design.
The solution lies in combining rigorous quantitative testing with effective communication and interpretation of the results. By involving designers in the testing process and delivering insights in an understandable and actionable format, companies can bridge the gap between technical research and practical packaging innovation, ultimately leading to better consumer-focused outcomes.
What do you believe is the solution to the problem?
Bisceglia: The solution to the problem is what we call PV Quant — a consumer-centric, holistic, and validated approach to packaging research. This methodology integrates consumer feedback not only on the visual design of packaging but also on its structure and ergonomics, ensuring the research reflects real-world use cases and addresses consumer needs comprehensively.
By borrowing disciplined and rigorous methods from sensory research and adapting them to packaging testing, PV Quant ensures that the data collected is credible, actionable, and reflective of actual consumer behavior.
PV Quant also emphasizes better analytics, enhancing the quality and clarity of data analysis to make insights more actionable for packaging teams. Additionally, it prioritizes storytelling with data, translating technical findings into meaningful insights that designers can understand and act upon. By involving designers in the research process, PV Quant ensures the data directly informs packaging changes that align with consumer preferences.
This approach bridges the gap between data generation and its practical application, empowering designers and engineers with clear, actionable insights that drive consumer-centric packaging innovations.
What can Product Ventures do to help solve the problem?
Bisceglia: Product Ventures uses rigorous methodologies adapted from sensory research and provides hands-on testing opportunities through its Consumer Learning Center. This approach captures both usability and design insights in real-world scenarios.
The PV Quant methodology further bridges the gap by combining advanced analytics, validated testing, and storytelling, making the data actionable and easy for designers and engineers to apply. By leveraging these solutions, Product Ventures enables CPG companies to make data-driven decisions.
CPGs have often used in-person focus groups to test packaging designs with consumers, and now virtual focus groups are also an option. What are the pros and cons of conventional and virtual focus groups, for package testing?
Bisceglia: In-person and digital focus groups each have strengths and limitations in packaging research. In-person groups capture sensory reactions and offer deep qualitative feedback, as participants interact directly with packaging. However, they are limited by small sample sizes, high costs, and logistical challenges.
Digital focus groups, by contrast, provide scalability, cost efficiency, and the ability to gather large, quantitative datasets quickly, but they lack the tactile insights necessary to evaluate packaging usability and functionality. Large-scale online studies are helpful for identifying trends and assessing visual appeal but fall short without sensory data.
A hybrid approach, like the one Product Ventures offers, bridges this gap by combining online scalability with in-person sensory testing. This method reduces costs by minimizing prototype needs while ensuring actionable insights.
By integrating sensory-driven data into packaging research, companies can confidently make decisions that balance innovation with consumer needs — an approach crucial for brands navigating high-stakes changes.
If packaging is about making an emotional connection with consumers, why do we need quantitative data in addition to qualitative?
Bisceglia: Although packaging is undoubtedly about creating an emotional connection with consumers, quantitative data is critical for making informed, high-stakes decisions, particularly for billion-dollar brands.
Management cannot justify significant investments or packaging changes based solely on qualitative insights, such as a small group of consumers saying, “That’s cool.” Instead, decisions require measurable, validated, and robust data to ensure confidence and credibility in the outcomes.
Quantitative data also forms the foundation for evaluating the potential return on investment of packaging changes. By providing metrics on consumer interaction with packaging structure and usability, brands can make data-driven choices that balance emotional appeal with financial impact.
When robust quantitative data is available, it has consistently proven to drive action — guiding decisions about packaging structure, design, and ergonomics that align with consumer preferences and business objectives.
Emotional connections are essential for engaging consumers, but quantitative data ensures the functional and structural elements of packaging support those emotions in a practical, scalable, and profitable way. Qualitative data helps capture emotional resonance, but quantitative data validates those insights, measures their impact, and empowers CPG companies to make confident decisions that drive long-term brand success.
Originally Published in Packaging Digest