CC BY
534
DOI 10.18551/rjoas.2019-08.06
HOW PACKAGING, PRODUCT QUALITY AND PROMOTION AFFECT THE PURCHASE INTENTION?
Yulianingsih Ririn, Syah Tantri Yanuar Rahmat*, Anindita Rina
Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Esa Unggul, Indonesia *E-mail: [email protected]
ABSTRACT
This study aims to measure the moderation between the effect of packaging design and product quality of hand body lotion, a brand of body care products, toward purchase intentions moderated by promotional variable. Data collection methods used are quantitative method in the form of questionnaires totaling 18 questions which are divided into four variables, then will be tested using Moderation method with a comparative approach of two groups of data samples to see the relationship between variables. Data analysis method in this study uses Univariate Analysis of Variance. The results showed that product packaging variables did not increase purchase intention, while product quality and promotion variables affected consumers' purchase intention for hand body lotion products.
KEY WORDS
Packaging, product quality, promotion, purchase intention, hand body lotion.
The purchase intention is based on consumer perceptions from some of the things that underlie the product, one of the supporting factors is packaging features and product quality, which causes a tendency for buyers to form their own opinions of various products on the market. This also depends on consumers' understanding of the various designs and graphics on the packaging that give a first impression, then attract the attention of consumers, which in turn, will be a driving factor for consumers to buy these products. Based on previous research, G. Wells, LE, Farley, H. and Armstrong (2017) says that nine out of ten buyers, at least occasionally ever buy impulsively, are reinforced by evidence that food shopping articles are not planned which can reach 51 percent of the total purchase (Ampuero, O. and Vila, 2006). This proves that not a few consumers become impulsive buyers when looking at product packaging that then attracts their attention, so they want to buy it, especially if the item has good quality and offers lucrative promotions, so the buying decision will occur suddenly and immediately before make a purchase.
However, contrary to previous research described above, there are other studies that prove that gifts and promotions such as coupons and rebates can damage product evaluation and brand loyalty (Cheong, n.d.). The main purpose of destructive effects is based on self-perception theory (Newberry, CR, Klemz, BR, and Boshoff, 2003) and attribution of price cuts (Vidales Giovannetti, 1995) Self-perception and discounts occur when someone relies on past behavior as an information signal to form an attitude assessment of the product, and when the behavior is associated with a prize rather than a truly honest positive evaluation of the product after trying the product.
Based on the explanation above, it is known that there are many studies on packaging, product quality, promotion, and purchase intention, which have been done in previous studies. However, these studies have not examined skin care products in the form of hand body lotion. In addition to these reasons, this study also wants to confirm the truth of previous studies, so that based on the above research gap, the purpose of the research to be achieved is to measure the variable level of low significance of one to the other variables, including the variable packaging and product quality, toward consumer buying intentions, which are moderated by promotional variable.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Price promotion is a kind of sales promotion, which means a kind of promotional activity that companies use as all types of short-term incentives to encourage the purchase or sale of production and services, which have features to achieve rapid sales volume growth in the short term (Chen, 2004). Price promotions and discounts have utilitarian and hedonic values for consumers, where promotions and price discounts encourage consumers to buy products that offer discounted prices, discounts or gifts. Consumer preferences for stores are influenced by functional and hedonic benefits. Functional or utilitarian benefits are related to product and service attributes, while hedonic values are associated with store atmosphere, layout, and product appearance (Nysveen, H., Pedersen, P.E. and Thorbj0nsnsen, 2005). The hedonic and utilitarian benefits offered by retailers in malls combine factors such as product mix, variety, price, and promotion strategies (Chen, 2004). The popularity of malls is associated with retailers offering various facilities that target different consumer segments. Discounts, discounts, free, and discounted prices have been used by retailers to improve store protection and loyalty (Cheong, n.d.). For mall retailers, price promotion is an important strategy to increase sales and customer satisfaction (Kabir Chowdhury, M.H. and Andaleeb, 2007).
Hawkes (2010) describes packaging as a marketing tool that combines four marketing "Ps"; namely, products, public relations, prices, and promotions, where Hawkes refers to portrayals, shapes, and symbols as the main visual features of a product.
In general, packaging is a container that is in direct contact with the product itself, which holds, protects, preserves, identifies products, facilitates handling and commercialization (Vidales Giovannetti, 1995). More specifically, according to (Vidales Giovannetti, 1995), there are three types of packaging, namely the main packaging that comes in direct contact with the product, such as a perfume bottle. Secondary packaging that contains one or more primary packages, which functions to protect and identify the product itself, and communicate the quality of the product, which is usually discarded after the product is used or consumed. Following the previous example, this will be a cardboard box containing a bottle of perfume. The latter is tertiary packaging in the form of a combination of the main packaging and secondary packaging, which functions to distribute, unite and protect products throughout the commercial chain. This will be a cardboard box containing several bottles (Olga Ampuero, 2006).
Packaging is not only a logistics tool to ensure safe and efficient delivery to consumers with minimum costs, but also is one of the most important marketing tools for communicating brand messages to consumers (Orth, U.R. and Marchi, 2007). From a marketing perspective, product packaging is extrinsic cues (Orth, U.R. and Marchi, 2007), where consumers first see product packaging, and then just enjoy the product (Orth, U.R. and Marchi, 2007). Therefore product packaging is a means for producers to communicate subliminally with their customers (Thalhammer, 2007). Based on the explanation above, product packaging has a big influence on buyers when determining purchasing decisions (Venter, K., van der Merwe, D., de Beer, H., Kempen, E. and Bosman, 2011). Previously (Venter, K., van der Merwe, D., de Beer, H., Kempen, E. and Bosman, 2011) examined packaging related to visual packaging features (Newberry, CR, Klemz, BR, and Boshoff, 2003), then suggested that the visual packaging attributes should include colors, graphics, shapes, images, typography, and illustrations.
Product quality is important for consumers when discussing consumer retail (Noad, J. and Rogers, 2008). Product quality perceived by consumers is a consumer's assessment of the overall superiority or predominance of a product (Anselmsson, J., Johansson, U. and Persson, 2007). In the study, perceptions of the quality of food products refer to the customer's assessment of the guarantee or excellence of food products considered. Previous research has suggested that consumer attitudes are shaped by learning and are influenced by personal experience and marketing stimuli (Schiffman, L. G., and Kanuk, 2000). In addition, the product package consists of a series of cues (Kabir Chowdhury, M.H. and Andaleeb, 2007) that function as indicators of product quality substitution (Zeithaml, 1988). In
this study, "attitude towards visual packaging design" refers to the feeling of being liked by consumers towards packaging attributes or features, including the choice of colors, fonts, graphics, and certain sizes. According to (Noad, J. and Rogers, 2008), consumers tend to form perceptions of product benefits when exposed or evaluate visual packaging signals.
Dodds W.B., Monroe K.B. and Grewal (1991) argue that purchase intention is applied to measure the possibility of purchasing certain products by consumers. This opinion is reinforced by the opinion of (Schiffman, L. G., and Kanuk, 2000), which argues that when consumer buying intention is higher, it means the purchase probability is also higher. This is consumer behavior intention after receiving external information. (Newberry, CR, Klemz, BR, and Boshoff, 2003) argue that when consumers have strong purchase intentions, it will produce two types of purchase levels, the first is purchase intention and the practice of purchasing decision making, while the second is purchase intention without direct practice in making purchasing decisions. According to the argument mentioned above, (Schiffman, L. G., and Kanuk, 2000) defines consumer purchasing intentions as the possibility of purchasing a product is the tendency of consumers to choose products.
Purchase intention refers to certain exchange behaviors that are created after a general evaluation of consumers on a product. This is a reaction to the perception taken of one's attitude towards an object. That is, consumer purchase intentions are formed by evaluating products or their attitude towards a brand combined with external stimulant factors. (Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., and Grewal, 1991) suggest that purchase intention represents the possibility for consumers to buy a product.
Promotion
Product Packaging
Product Quality
Figure 1 - Research Conceptual Framework
HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT
The research hypothesis is based on the research conceptual model presented in Figure 1. From the model described above, the development of the hypothesis of this study is as follows.
H1: Product packaging affects purchase intention. Packaging is not only a means to ensure safe and efficient logistics delivery to customers with minimum costs, but also is one of the most important marketing tools for communicating brand messages to consumers. From a marketing perspective, product packaging is extrinsic cues (Chung, J.E., Yu, J.P. and Pysarchik, 2006), and the first, consumers see product packaging, then feel the quality of the product (Orth, U.R. and Marchi, 2007). Therefore product packaging is a means for producers to communicate subliminally with their consumers (Thalhammer, 2007) for product evaluation (Chung, JE, Yu, JP and Pysarchik, 2006), brand differentiation and identity, and consumer brand influence (Sugiyono, 2012 ) Because product packaging reaches most buyers when important purchasing decisions occur (Ampuero, O. and Vila, 2006). Furthermore, the researchers have further suggested that product packaging is one of the sustainable marketing communication tools to grow in importance (G. A. (2007) Wells, L.E.,
Farley, H. and Armstrong, 2007). Previous research on packaging focused on visual packaging features (Mensonen, A. and Hakola, 2012), and suggested that visual packaging attributes include colors, graphics and image forms, typography, and illustrations (Venter, K., van der Merwe, D., de Beer, H., Kempen, E. and Bosman, 2011).
Previous studies have suggested further that visual package elements play a large role in influencing consumer purchasing decisions on products, especially in products with low involvement (Silayoi, P. and Speece, 2004). Low-involvement goods refer to the product categories purchased regularly and without much consideration, search, or time of purchase (Sehrawet, M. and Kundu, 2007). In general, examples of these items are food and beverages, which are considered products with low involvement because they are usually of low value and high volume (Hingley, M., Taylor, S. and Ellis, 2007).
H1a: Promotion contributes to rise the product packaging which impact the purchase intention.
Packaging will play the role of "speechless sellers" for products, as a result of competition between products similar to almost the same technical and qualitative parameters. As a result, successful products are those that have packaging that successfully creates favorable opinions about products, fulfills functions that have been designed, and that meets aesthetic requirements. In addition to the visual aspects of packaging design, price promotion is the most attractive trend to buy products. However, promotion also requires many other supporting aspects, such as packaging products, product quality, product functions and more. The majority of consumers like promotions and will be further strengthened if the goods being promoted have good and attractive product packaging. Moreover, promotions make people who do not have the intention to buy something, finally buy because the price is discounted and packaged attractively.
In addition to product packaging aspects, promotional factors also play an important role in the success of product sales. According to (Kim, J., Bojanic, D.C. and Warnick, 2009), price discounts are one of the most common marketing practices, with the aim of increasing sales. In consumption decisions, consumers not only seek pleasure from getting products but also seek good offers (Dawra, J., Katyal, K. and Gupta, 2015). This is suggested by the utility theory of transactions (Thaler, 1985), where utility acquisition reflects economic gains or losses from purchases, and transaction utility reflects the perceived benefits of the agreement. Transaction utility has proven important in consumer decisions even when products provide high acquisition utility (Meuhlbacher, S., Kirchler, E. and Kunz, 2011).
H2: Product quality has an impact on purchase intention. Perception of product quality is very important in most purchase transactions, and the effect of perceived quality on brand evaluation has been well documented (Metcalf, L., Hess, J.S., Danes, J.E. and Singh, 2012). Previous research has suggested that brand preference increases with increasing importance of product quality (Chomvilailuk, R. and Butcher, 2010). Thus, product quality has the potential to be an important factor that influences perceptions of brand preference (Ahmed, 2011). Product quality is a way in which customers view product brand equity and overall excellence compared to available alternatives (Aaker, 1991). According to (Zeithaml, 1988), this is related to the attitude of customers towards overall brand experience that is contrary to product-specific characteristics only.
H2a: Promotion contribute to rise the product quality which affect the purchase intention. Promotions is able to influence product evaluation and product selection processes, which are influenced by promotional factors. (Gardner, 1985) has proven that marketing actions, such as stimulation of purchasing and communication, will affect consumer effectiveness, which in turn will affect product evaluation and product selection decisions. In-store surprise coupons lead to increased affective circumstances, which results in better store evaluations and more unplanned purchases (Heilman, Carrie M., 2002). In addition, lottery can also generate strong and positive affective reactions in the minds of consumers, which will lead to the use of simple decision rules in evaluating product quality (Howard, 1991).
Previous research has shown that store promotions presented at the beginning of the year on consumer shopping trips automatically affect consumers' affective status during
travel (Gardner, 1985). Although the influence caused by the promotion must be considered irrelevant in the choice of the next product, such influences influence consumer decision making in the choice process, which in turn can lead to different choices (Heilman, Carrie M., 2002). For example, (Heilman, Carrie M., 2002) found that surprises in store coupons make consumers feel more positive and thus cause more unplanned purchases.
METHODS OF RESEARCH
This research was conducted in November 2018, with 120 female respondents in various regions in Indonesia, ranging in age from 18 to 29, who were users of hand body lotion. The study aims to measure the moderation between the effect of packaging design variable and product quality variable on hand body lotion, a brand of body care products, on the purchase intention variable of products that are moderated by promotional variables. The data collection method used in this study is a quantitative method in the form of a questionnaire totaling 18 questions, using a moderation research method with a comparative approach of two groups of data samples to see the relationships between variables. Data analysis method in this study uses Univariate Analysis of Variance. The aspects studied were product packaging, product quality, promotion, and purchase intention, using the Likert scale measurement method with one to five scale intervals.
The questionnaire used in this study was divided into four parts. The first part is designed to measure the level of customer perception about the packaging design of hand body lotion products. The questions used in the questionnaire were adapted from content validity ratios (Lawshe, 1975), but this study only adapted 3 items of questions out of a total of 30 items that Lawshe had formulated.
The second part is designed to measure the level of consumer perceptions about the product quality of hand body lotion referred to by Perceived Quality Indicators initiated by Dodds and Monroe (Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., and Grewal, 1991). The third part is designed to measure the level of customer perceptions of the effect of promotion in purchasing hand body lotion products, where the questions in the questionnaire are referenced from Coupon Proneness formulated by Lichtenstein, Netemeyer, and Burton (Lichtenstein, Donald R, Peter h. BLOCH, 2016 ) The fourth part is designed to measure the intention to purchase hand body lotion products, using the Willingness To Buy Indicators, which was also initiated by Dodds and Monroe (Lichtenstein, Donald R, Peter h. BLOCH, 2016).
Data was collected using a Likert scale questionnaire consisting of 18 questions in Indonesian as the native language of the respondents. Each question is followed by five answer choices, namely "strongly agree," "agree," "neutral," "disagree," and "strongly disagree." Respondents were asked to answer questions about packaging design, product quality, promotion, and purchase intention, from a hand body lotion product, which also included photos and illustrations of their products, so that respondents could see the visualization of the hand body lotion products.
In this study, there are two independent variables, namely Product Packaging and Product Quality, one moderating variable, Promotion, and one dependent variable, Purchase Intention. To obtain data from respondents, a questionnaire was used. The original questionnaire used English which was then translated into the original languages of the respondents, namely Indonesian. Validity test and reliability test is done by using 30 data in the initial sample.
In the initial stage, the questionnaire was distributed to 30 women as samples to verify the validity of the content. After testing, the results of Anti Image Matrices for independent variables and moderating variables, namely product packaging, product quality, and promotion, produce good output, which is 0.662; 0.808; and 0,631 respectively, so that all questions with a total of 18 items in the questionnaire were omitted because the results of the validity and reliability test showed good numbers.
Validity test is done by Confirmatory Factor Analysis, by looking at the value of KaiserMeyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling (KMO) and Measures of Sampling Adequacy (MSA). In
this test the value obtained must be greater than 0.500 which means that factor analysis is suitable for use, and can be further processed (Doll et al., 1994). Cronbach Alpha value reliability test is greater than> 0.5 which means reliable (Sugiyono, 2012), so that it can be said that the indicators of all variables can be said to be trusted as a data collection tool in this study. Furthermore, the actual questionnaires were distributed to 120 respondents. The results of validity and reliability tests for 120 respondents also showed normal and homogeneous numbers, as a condition for carrying out data analysis methods using Univariate Analysis of Variance. The next phase, this study manage data using the Univariate Analysis of Variance analysis method, which is able to explain the analysis of variability in two sample groups in detail.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
This finding provides some insight into the visual effects of packaging design and perceptions of product quality, on perceptions of product purchase intentions, which are moderated by the influence of promotions on the hand body lotion market. The scale of product packaging, product quality, promotion, and purchase intention, are divided into two groups to compare, the first will test the moderation of product packaging, promotion, and its influence on purchase intention, while the second group will examine the effect of product quality moderated by promotional variable towards the dependent variable purchase intention.
The table below describes the results of Univariate Anova on moderating Promotional Fix Factors and Product Packaging on the dependent variable Buy Intention. The Confidence Interval used is 95% or if the Sig value is <0.05 then it is said to be significant.
Table 1 - Univariate ANOVA Parameter Estimates
Parameter B ß t Sig Description
Intercept ß0 0.529 3.989 0.000 significant
K Code=1 ß1 -0.389 -1.469 0.145 Not Significant
[K Code=1]*[P Code=1] ß2 -0.706 -2.662 0.009 Significant
[K Code=2]*[P Code=1] ß3 -0.555 -2.094 0.038 Significant
H1: Product packaging does not increase purchase intention. H3: Product packaging that is moderated by Promotion increases Purchase Intention. The calculation of test results on the relationship model of Packaging Products that are moderated by the Promotion of Buying Intention, can be seen in table 2.
Table 2 - Calculation of Test Results
n/n K Code=2 K Code=1 Difference Hypothesis
P Code=2 ß0 ß0-ß1 ß1 H3a
P Code=1 ß0-ß3 ß0-ß1-ß2 ß3+ ß1- ß2
Difference ß3 ß2
Hypothesis H3c H3b
H3a: Specifically for respondents with high perceptions of promotion, high perceptions of packaging increase purchase intention compared to low perceptions of packaging.
H3b: Especially for respondents with low perceptions of packaging, the perception of high promotion further increases purchase intention compared to the perception of low promotion.
H3c: Especially for respondents with high perceptions of packaging, the perception of high promotion further increases purchase intention compared to the perception of low promotion.
The table below describes the results of Univariate Anova towards moderating the Promotion and Product Quality factor on the dependent variable of Purchase Intention. The Confidence Interval used is 95% or if the Sig value is <0.05 then it is said to be significant.
Table 4 - Univariate ANOVA Parameter Estimates
Parameter B ß t Sig Description
Intercept ß0 0.619 5.033 0.000 Significant
KP Code=1 ß1 -1.022 -3.560 0.001 Significant
[KP Code=1]*[P Code=1] ß2 -0.100 -0.348 0.728 Not Significant
[KP Code=2]*[P Code=1] ß3 -0.730 -2.542 0.012 Significant
H2: Product Quality increases Buy intention.
H3: Product quality with low perceptions, moderated by low perceptions of Promotion, does not increase Purchase Intention. Whereas, the quality of products with high perceptions, which are moderated by low perceptions of promotion, increases purchase intention.
Calculation of the results of the test on the relationship model of Product Quality that is moderated by Promotion to Purchase Intention, can be seen in table 4 below.
Table 4 - Test Results Calculation
n/n KP Code=2 KP Code=1 Difference Hypothesis
P Code=2 ß0 ß0-ß1 ß1 H4a
P Code=1 ß0-ß3 ß0-ß1-ß2 ß3+ ß1- ß2
Difference ß3 ß2
Hypothesis H4c H4b
H4a: Especially for respondents with high perceptions of promotion, the perception of high product quality further increases purchase intention compared to perceptions of low product quality.
H4b: Especially for respondents with a perception of low product quality, the perception of high promotion further increases purchase intention compared to the perception of low promotion.
H4c: Especially for respondents with high perceptions of product quality, the perception of high promotion further increases purchase intention compared to the perception of low promotion.
On the results of testing the first hypothesis (H1) it was found that the data did not support the hypothesis because based on the results of the Univariate Anova test on product packaging variable that were not moderated by promotion showed insignificant results. These results do not support previous studies conducted by (Ampuero, O. and Vila, 2006) which prove that product packaging has a large influence on buyers when deciding purchasing decisions. The difference in the results of this study may be due to previous research conducted with products or different ways with this research. The results of this study also contradict previous studies which support the initial hypothesis, however, (Underwood, 2003) in his study also proved that packaging is presented as part of the buying and consuming process, but often not directly related to the material that is important for product function. Based on this theory, it can be concluded that good packaging does not guarantee good product quality.
The results of testing the second hypothesis (H2) found that the data supports the hypothesis because of the results of Univariate Anova test on product quality variables that affect the purchase intention variable, without any influence from the moderation of promotional variables. However, for the Univariate Anova test results on product quality variables moderated by promotional variables, significant results were obtained for the group of respondents with a high perception of product quality and moderated by the respondent group with a perception of low promotion. Conversely, respondents with low perceived quality products are moderated by promotions that are also low, so there are insignificant results. This proves that if the quality of the product is good, even though there is no promotion of the product, consumers may still buy the product. The results are consistent with the research (Kotler, 2001) which argues that the better the quality of the product produced it will provide an opportunity for consumers to make purchasing decisions.
The results of testing the third hypothesis (H3) found that the data supports the hypothesis because of the results of Univariate Anova test on product packaging variable moderated by promotion, obtained sig 0.009 for moderation between respondents with low packaging perceptions with respondents with low perceptions of promotion, while for results tests between respondents with high perceptions of packaging with respondents with low perceptions of promotion, the results obtained were 0.038. In addition, the results of this study prove that specifically for respondents with high perceptions of promotion, the perception of high packaging increases purchase intention more than the perception of low packaging. Whereas specifically for respondents with low perceptions of packaging, the perception of high promotion increases purchase intention more than the perception of low promotion. Moreover, according to the H3c hypothesis specifically for respondents with high perceptions of packaging, the perception of high promotion further increases purchase intention compared to the perception of low promotion. This proves that product packaging that is reinforced by promotional factors will increase consumers' purchase intention of hand body lotion product.
CONCLUSION
This study examines the moderating effect of promotion on product packaging on increasing purchase intention, using Univariate Anova analysis. The results that can be concluded from this study are: (1) Product packaging does not increase consumer purchase intention of hand body lotion (the first hypothesis is not supported); (2) Product packaging which is moderated by promotion increases consumer purchase intention (hypothesis 1a is supported); (3) Particularly for groups of respondents who have high product packaging perceptions, then respondents with high perceptions of promotion have higher purchase intentions than those of respondents with low perceptions of promotion; (4) Especially for groups of respondents who have low perceptions of product packaging, then respondents with high perceptions of promotion have higher purchase intention than those of respondents with perceptions of low promotion; (5) Especially for groups of respondents who have high perceptions of promotion, then respondents with high perceptions of packaging have higher purchase intention compared to groups of respondents with low packaging perceptions; (6) Product quality increases consumer purchase intention of hand body lotion (second hypothesis is supported); (7) Specifically for groups of respondents who have high perceptions of promotion, then respondents with a perception of high product quality have higher purchase intention compared to the group of respondents with a perception of low product quality; (8) Specifically for groups of respondents who have a low perception of product quality, the respondents with high perceptions of promotion have higher purchase intention compared to the group of respondents with a low perception of promotion; (9) Specifically for groups of respondents who have high perceptions of product quality, the respondents with high perceptions of promotion have higher purchase intention than the respondent group with the perception of low promotion.
Certain research limitations must be considered when applying the results of this study, so that further studies can be even better. As a suggestion, further studies should discuss how other factors influence the purchase intention of the product, such as advertising, brand, price, and various other variables
Second, the research object design uses one new hand body lotion product, so further research is suggested to be replicated for other skin care products or using old brands that are already well-known, so that the research respondents are more familiar with these products, which will ultimately facilitate them in completing the questionnaire provided.
Further studies can also broaden gender as the respondent, because this study is only limited to female respondents who use hand body lotion products in their daily lives. In contrast, previous research shows that gender differences will also process advertisements differently, and consequently respond to marketing communication efforts differently (Nysveen, H., Pedersen, P.E. and Thorbj0rnsen, 2005). Therefore, moderators such as gender can be added to the proposed hypothesis.
REFERENCES
1. Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name.
2. Ahmed, H. T. (2011). The impact of distribution intensity on brand preference and brand loyalty. International Journal of Marketing Studies, Vol. 3 No. 3, 3(3), 56-66.
3. Ampuero, O. and Vila, N. (2006a). The influence of visual packaging design on perceived food product quality, value, and brand preference, 41(10), 805-816. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-12-2012-0113
4. Ampuero, O. and Vila, N. (2006). (2006b). Consumer perceptions of product packaging. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 2, Pp. 102-114.
5. Anselmsson, J., Johansson, U. and Persson, N. (2007). Understanding price premium for grocery products: a conceptual model of customer-based brand equity. The Journal OfProduct and Brand Management, Vol. 16 No. 6, 401-414.
6. Chen, Y. (2004). Understanding the Impact of Certain and Uncertain Store Promotions on the Decision-Making Process in Product Choices. ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
7. Cheong, K. J. (1993). (n.d.). Observations: are cents-off coupons effective? SAGE Publications, 37(5), 600-623. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143209339650
8. Chomvilailuk, R. and Butcher, K. (2010). (2010). Enhancing brand preference through corporate social responsibility initiatives in the Thai banking sector. Asia Pacific Journal OfMarketing and Logistics, Vol. 22 No. 3, 22(3), 397-418. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-02-2014-0025
9. Chung, J.E., Yu, J.P. and Pysarchik, D. T. (2006). Cue utilization to assess food product quality: a comparison of consumers and retailers in India. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 16 No. 2, 2(March), 199-214.
10. Dawra, J., Katyal, K. and Gupta, V. (2015). Can you do something about the price? Exploring the Indian deal and bargaining-prone customer. Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 5, 32(5), 356-366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2943-3
11. Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., and Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers' product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 307-319.
12. Gardner, M. P. (1985). Mood States and Consumer Behavior: A Critical Review. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 281-300.
13. Hawkes, C. (2010). Food packaging: the medium is the message, 45(3).
14. Heilman, Carrie M., K. N. and A. G. R. (2002). Pleasant Surprises: Consumer Response to Unexpected In-Store Coupons. Journal of Marketing Research, 39, 39(2), 242-252.
15. Hingley, M., Taylor, S. and Ellis, C. (2007). Radio frequency identification tagging. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 35 No. 10, 10(5), 803820.
16. Howard, D. J. and T. E. B. (1991). The Evaluative Consequences of Experiencing Unexpected Favor. Journal of Marketing Research, 27(1), 27(1), 51-60.
17. Kabir Chowdhury, M.H. and Andaleeb, S. S. (2007). A multivariate model of perceived quality in a developing country. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 4, 15(04), 33-57.
18. Kim, J., Bojanic, D.C. and Warnick, R. B. (2009). Price bundling and travel product pricing practices used by online channels of distribution. Journal OfTravel Research, Vol. 47 No. 4, 47(4), 403-412.
19. Kotler, P. (2001). Manajemen Pemasaran: Analisis, Perencanaan, Implementasi, and Kontrol.
20. Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 4, 28(4), 563-575.
21. Lichtenstein, Donald R, Peter h. bLOCH, wILLIAM c. (2016). Correlates of Price Acceptability. Journal Of Consumer Research, 15, 243.
22. Mensonen, A. and Hakola, J. (2012). Novel value perceptions and business opportunities through packaging customization. International Journal of Business and Social Science, Vol. 3 No. 6, 3(6), 39-43. https://doi.org/E-ISSN 1833-8119
23. Metcalf, L., Hess, J.S., Danes, J.E. and Singh, J. (2012). A mixed-methods approach for designing market-driven packaging. Qualitative Market Research, Vol. 15 No. 3, 15(3), 268-289. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635571111137250
24. Meuhlbacher, S., Kirchler, E. and Kunz, A. (2011). The impact of transaction utility on consumer decisions: the role of loss aversion and acquisition utility. Journal of Psychology, 219(4), 217-223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9194-1
25. Newberry, C. R., Klemz, B. R., and Boshoff, C. (2003). (2003). Managerial implications of predicting purchase behavior from purchase intentions: A retail patronage case study. Journal of Services Marketing. Journal of Services Marketing, 17(6), 17(6), 609-620.
26. Noad, J. and Rogers, B. (2008). The importance of retail atmospherics in B2B retailing: the case of BOC. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 36 No. 12, 13(3), 1002-1014.
27. Nysveen, H., Pedersen, P.E. and Thorbj0rnsen, H. (2005). Explaining intention to use mobile chat services: moderating effects of gender. The Journal OfConsumer Marketing, Vol. 22 Nos 4/5, 22(Nos 4/5), 247-256.
28. Olga Ampuero, N. V. (2006). Consumer perceptions of product packaging. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 2, 102-114. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760610655032
29. Orth, U.R. and Marchi, R. D. (2007). Understanding the relationships between functional, symbolic, and experiential brand beliefs, product experiential attributes, and product schema advertising-trial interactions revisited. Journal OfMarketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 15 No. 3, Pp. 219-233, (August 2017).
30. Schiffman, L. G., and Kanuk, L. L. (2000). Customer behavior. Engglewood Cliffs.
31. Sehrawet, M. and Kundu, S. C. (2007). Buying behaviour of rural and urban consumers in India: the impact of packaging. International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 31 No. 6, 31, 630-638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2004.09.003
32. Silayoi, P. and Speece, M. (2004). Packaging and purchase decisions: an exploratory study on the impact of involvement level and time pressure. British Food Journal, Vol. 106 No. 8, 106(8), 607-628.
33. Sugiyono. (2012). Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, and RandD. Bandung: Alfabeta, 2012.
34. Thaler, R. (1985). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, Vol. 4 No. 3, 4(3), 199-214.
35. Thalhammer, R. R. (2007). Natural product packaging: reflecting a contemporary philosophy. Global Cosmetic Industry, Vol. 175 No. 12, Pp. 52-55, 18(4), 453-461.
36. Underwood, R. L. (2003). The communicative power of product packaging: creating brand identity via lived and mediated experience. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 11 No. 1, 11(1), 62-76. https://doi.org/10.1108/16605370910988818
37. Venter, K., van der Merwe, D., de Beer, H., Kempen, E. and Bosman, M. (2011). Consumers perceptions of food packaging: an exploratory investigation in Potchefstroom. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 8, 55-82.
38. Vidales Giovannetti, M. D. (1995). (1995). El mundo del envase. Manual para el diseno y produccio'n de envases y embalajes, 7(1), 17-28. https://doi.org/10.1108/14720700710727087
39. Wells, L.E., Farley, H. and Armstrong, G.. (2017). The importance of packaging design for own-label food brands., International Journal OfRetailand Distribution Management, (August).
40. Wells, L.E., Farley, H. and Armstrong, G. A. (2007). (2007). The importance of packaging design for own-label food brands. International Journal OfRetailand Distribution Management, Vol. 35 No. 9, 35(9), 677-690.
41. Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 2, 18, 102-114.
