Running head: DRINK UNTIL IT LOOKS GOOD
CLEVELAND 1
Drink Until It Looks Good
Trends in Package Design and the Visual Persuasion of Beer Brands
David J. Cleveland II
Ball State University
David J. Cleveland II, Department of Journalism, Ball State University
This research was supported in part by resources from Steve Mowcomber.
Additional resources were purchased at Friendly Package Liquors in Muncie, IN and 21st
Amendment in Fishers, IN.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to David Cleveland,
Department of Journalism, Ball State University, Muncie, IN 47306.
Contact: djcleveland@bsu.edu
DRINK UNTIL IT LOOKS GOOD
CLEVELAND 2
Abstract
This paper explores how package design plays an important part in developing a
brand. Visual persuasion plays such an integral part to enhancing an image in someone’s
mind. Multiple content analyses took place with samples of modern beer bottles and
vintage beer cans to discover the differences and similarities associated with branding
across eras and mediums. Color theory and typography played a large part in the
research, and many beer brands were analyzed to discover just what made them work (or
not work). Package design is amazing at how it can galvanize consumers into one
common thread: purchasing.
Keywords: visual persuasion, package design, color theory, beer
DRINK UNTIL IT LOOKS GOOD
CLEVELAND 3
Table of Contents
Introduction
pg. 4
Purpose
pg. 6
Literature Review
pg. 8
Previous Study
pg. 15
Methods
pg. 17
Sample
pg. 17
Measures
pg. 19
Data Analysis
pg. 20
Results
pg. 23
Discussion
pg. 28
Limitations
pg. 29
Color Theory
pg. 30
Conclusion
pg. 31
References
pg. 32
DRINK UNTIL IT LOOKS GOOD
CLEVELAND 4
Introduction
Walking through a convenience store can seem rather rudimentary. One can
enhance the experience, however, simply by looking at all the packaging on the shelves.
Every potential purchase has some designed element attached to it or even encasing it.
Communication happens through visual persuasion, and the all types of people succumb
to the imagery and type. Amazingly, a package must fulfill many different roles.
Sometimes it simply catches someone’s attention, while at others a person already knows
about the product. It is at this time that the package is there to help form an opinion – or
even change a held one – so that it is more favorable (Dens, 2010). Lastly, package
design is developed to enhance a consumer’s desire and will to purchase an item. Ideally,
upon seeing an item, the awareness, perception, and action all take place, and a purchaser
leaves with a new product in hand. Unfortunately, this is not how it always goes, but why
is that? What makes some packages different than others? There are multitudes of brands
out there, and they are all competing for attention and purchase. Something must make
some more effective than others, right? What is it that pushes one product over the edge?
This document has been developed to try answering some of these questions.
Careful research through texts and content analysis has been completed to gain
knowledge on visual persuasion and package design. The sample is exciting: beer. It has
a variety of types, but not too drastic in variety to skew samples. The packaging is very
similar, so an emphasis can be put on subtle differences that make each individual stand
out. It is a popular beverage among American adults, and is easily accessible. The
package shape does not deviate often, and many aspects stay consistent. Plus, who has
ever wanted to walk into a store and leave with three boxes of different beers in tow?
DRINK UNTIL IT LOOKS GOOD
CLEVELAND 5
Research can teach much to many, and this particular process has proven that to
be true. One may never guess how many differences and similarities there are between
beer bottles and beer cans, but the results are both surprising and educational. Some
things that seem obvious show up in the results, while additional findings are sure to
catch others off guard. There is much that can be taken away about the brew. Enjoy!
In this document, the purpose section will discuss the reasoning behind the
project. One does not undertake such a task for no reason, so this explains the
commitment to the project and why it was started. The literature review will analyze the
different texts that are written about visual persuasion, package design, and beer and
explain the findings from researching them. The section detailing previous work will
explore the first analysis of this type from which much information was disseminated.
The methods section will explain how the research was conducted and what processes
were used. Specific interest will be paid to the samples, measures, and data analysis.
These were beer containers, specific questions and potential responses, and how results
were obtained, respectively. Results of the analyses will be discussed after that, focusing
on what was discovered. Next, a discussion questions and statements will be addressed
and made, with additional focus on the limitations of the process and color theory and
why it matters to the analysis. Finally, a conclusion will wrap things up and summarize,
while looking forward to the future.
DRINK UNTIL IT LOOKS GOOD
CLEVELAND 6
Purpose
“Once you can name something, you’re conscious of it” (Williams, 2004). In
other words, until one knows what something is, one does not know what is being seen.
A person must be aware before any clarity can take place, and so design must stand out to
draw a consumer’s attention so that he or she can be made aware of the brand’s existence.
Communicating through visual persuasion is how many goods make their way to
someone’s shelf. What causes people to decide on a specific choice? Package design is
one of the key ways that this happens. Typography, color, brand, placement, name,
repetition, and more – all elements are part of the overall design of a package. What
elements stand out among others, though? Are any more significant than others? What
elements attract us as humans?
Branding is “the sum total of all functional and emotional assets of the product,
service, or group that differentiate it among the competition” (Landa, 2006). The package
design makes up part of that brand, emblazoned for all to see with a simple label. A
product marks its identity with its packaging. One may want to purchase a product, but it
is the package of that product that the person sees first. It is the gateway. “The package is
the marketing medium and reference point, not the ultimate object of desire” (Lister,
1986). It is that package design that guides the purpose of this research project. I wanted
to know what designs worked with visual persuasion. I wanted to know what elements
attracted attentions. I wanted to know what type was popular and what colors stood out. I
wanted to know more about package design.
“Early discussions involve likes and dislikes of various logos and labels,
[traditions, techniques], and the meanings of symbols and icons associated with [a
DRINK UNTIL IT LOOKS GOOD
CLEVELAND 7
product] throughout history” (English, 2000). The first step to understanding something
is researching it, so pouring over materials was a natural solution, but more was
necessary if to truly understand package design. Books and journal entries had myriads of
information on visual persuasion, and blogs went into depth upon the package design of
hosts of different products, but it was not enough. What trends have changed over time?
What are the differences among mediums with the same product? What are the most
popular font styles or colors? What specific details can be discovered? These questions
had to be answered to understand more.
Enter: a content analysis focusing on package design and visual persuasion.
Indulging in research on the subject was the perfect option in order to gain a broader
understanding of branding as a whole. All these questions needed to be answered, and
studying actual samples was the logical recourse to grasp the complexities. This, coupled
with much reading and analyzing, became the basis to understand package design and
visual persuasion.
DRINK UNTIL IT LOOKS GOOD
CLEVELAND 8
Literature Review
“Packaging that is sitting on a shelf is in visual competition with the products
sitting next to it” (Landa, 2006). Products must stand out from one another, but
everything is trying to do that at the same time. If one person had the answer, he or she
would probably be a billionaire. Unfortunately, it comes down to trial, error, and market
research. “Brand communications involve various verbal, auditory and non-verbal
images, used both to capture and hold consumers’ attention and to serve as retrieval cues
for later recall” (Orth & Malkewitz, 2006). In this case, the later recall can happen, but
the immediate impact also needs to be addressed. Package design does two things – it
entices a consumer for an immediate purchase (Orth & Malkewitz, 2009) and also can
help trigger old affiliations one may have developed with a brand. “The design concept
behind the packaging design must be relevant to the audience, set in the same voice as the
larger brand identity, and eye-catching” (Landa, 2006). The brand has to stand together
on its own and tell the consumer, “Hey! Look at me, understand what I am, decide I am
worth it, and then buy me!” Whether it be making someone aware for the first time of its
existence, convincing a person that it is a worthwhile product, or just pushing an
individual over the edge into buying, a package must fulfill many roles.
Brands must respect their consumer publics as well, lest they feel the wrath of
them. Tropicana famously attempted to unleash a new package design for its brand, but
failed miserably when consumers did not understand the new packaging (Ritson, 2009).
They fully rejected the different look and clamored for the old imagery. Tropicana tried
to explain its decision, but the situation developed into a public relations nightmare.
Finally, the company performed an about face and adopted the old look back. This is an
DRINK UNTIL IT LOOKS GOOD
CLEVELAND 9
example of why companies should always be aware of what their publics want and to
satisfy them through their package designs. Brands are strong and not to be trifled with.
Gap took things to other levels when it introduced a new logo in 2010 [see Figure 1].
“Global brands like Gap must be aware of and respond to consumer sentiment so much
more quickly than ever before,” said Marc de Swaan Arons, chairman of EffectiveBrands
in The New York Times (Elliott, 2010). The reality is that times have changed, and things
are far different than they used to be. Previously, “it took weeks or months for the yeas
and nays about brand and product changes to make their way to marketers… now, the
verdicts are rendered in, well, Internet time, and everyone weighing in on the new logo,
redesigned package or new TV commercial can also see what everyone else is saying – in
real time” (Elliott, 2010).
We live in an age where everything is scrutinized to unbelievable levels. Blogs
light up when something happens, and people take to Twitter to comment (Mueller,
2011). Brands are not immune to this chatter, and package design is the signature piece
for these brands. If someone changes it without public support, everyone will know about
DRINK UNTIL IT LOOKS GOOD
CLEVELAND 10
it. “In packaging, familiarity breeds complacency,” writes John Lister. “People like to
stick with what they know and what the package tells them about the product” (1986).
This has been a trend for a very long time, only now consumers have even more ways to
comment about changes. 25 years ago, professional communicators would run tests and
obtain data to figure out how things might need to change in order to sate the market.
“The collective data gave us our redesign criteria… and color and graphics to create a
refreshing image in any competitive retail setting” (Lister, 1986). Gap would have been
wise to use the tried and true methods of old days rather than to unveil something without
much thought that seemed to have been committee’d to death. Instead, the company
reaped the wrath of the public that they shunned when concocting the apparently poor
idea of a brand redesign. Brands are powerful. They are not to be trifled with lightly.
That does not mean that every re-design is bad, though. There are plenty of
designs – even some in the alcoholic beverage community – that have succeeded. Take,
for instance, the recent redesign of one of the most well known American beers – Miller
High Life [see Figure 2]. “There are various elements that come together for this
redesign… [The logo] losing the unnecessary shading and bevels of the old one, while
DRINK UNTIL IT LOOKS GOOD
CLEVELAND 11
cleaning up the typography and balancing the contents with the holding shape” (Vit, July
22, 2010). The brand also kept its signature girl, only with an update. The new version
takes out superfluous colors and design elements and makes the girl seem a little more
updated. The slight curve to the beer glass is a small, but intelligent touch that gives a
nod to the beer glasses of today. The old design was nothing special. The new design
shows off a classic look with modern touches – all in all, something that should stand out
better on the store shelves. Juxtaposed to the Gap Logo, this redesign took a lot of careful
thought and execution as opposed to… Helvetica bold with a gradient square.
Other alcoholic beverage campaigns have been churned out in recent years as
well, to both positive and negative reactions. Anheuser-Busch, famous for Budweiser and
Bud Light, among others, was acquired by
Belgium-based InBev in 2008 (Vit, Nov.
19, 2008). The new logo for the company
was nothing spectacular [see Figure 3] and
is even reminiscent of the failed Gap logo
– some text with an image in the corner.
This time it was an eagle. Meanwhile, the parent companies of the Miller and Coors
brands consolidated to create MillerCoors, a superpower of the beer industry. The newly
merged company wisely did not go about changing logos on its mass products, but
instead created a simple corporate logo [see Figure 3], representing the company as a
whole, while keeping the well-established and recognizable visual pieces to the brands
active. While the new logo was not perfect, the company did manage to create something
original, playful, and modern – much like its clientele. “The trick was to come up with a
DRINK UNTIL IT LOOKS GOOD
CLEVELAND 12
mark that would seem to be all about beer while looking distinct from the iconography of
the Miller and Coors brands” (Palino, 2008). This shows positive recognition of the
consumer public and that careful thought went into the execution.
Domestic beers were not the only ones to get changed, though. Small American
breweries (aka microbrews) and imports (non-American beers) got involved in the
rebranding action as well. Washington state native Pyramid breweries rebranded with a
dramatic difference that enhances the contrast of the design. The logo received positive
reception from design critic Armin Vit of the Under Consideration website, but the label
and box design was a different story (Vit, Apr. 20, 2009). Meanwhile, another
microbrewery – Red Hook of Seattle, WA – unleashed a new design that wetted Vit’s
appetite. The design is classic, “almost like something you would find adhered on an old
motor oilcan: no frills typography, simple color-coding, and one overarching graphic”
(Vit, Apr. 20, 2011). In other words, this is a good design. Import Molson Canadian
improved its look by ditching the italic font, the extreme bevels, and the wet leaf and
improved to a clean, bold look with a leaf rising from behind (Ryan, 2011). Denmark’s
Carlsberg – another import beer – may not fair so well. It recently rebranded with a
slogan, “That calls for a Carlsberg,” and a new look. “We used the slogan back in 1957
and up to the ‘70s, so you could say we’re taking our old slogan back,” Carlsberg’s head
of PR, Jens Bekke, told the Copenhagen Post (Sokolowsky, 2011). Unfortunately, this
may be a bit more of a company acting before getting all the research, as some critics say
the new brand will meet the same fate as Gap (Sokolowsky, 2011). Whether domestic,
import, microbrew, or something else entirely, beer has seen its share of changes, just like
countless other brands. In reality, brands change every day, and package design with
DRINK UNTIL IT LOOKS GOOD
CLEVELAND 13
them. It is up to the professional communicators to ensure that things go over smoothly
and that such a change is appropriate.
More changes have taken place to bottles recently, including blue glass for
Spindrift beer (Beverage packaging, 2010), bottles you can write on, thanks to the
geniuses behind Bud Light (Casey, Apr. 5, 2011), and even Coors Light’s Cold Activated
bottles and cans that turn blue when the temperature drops (Coors rolls out, 2009). The
reality is that as technology changes, so does package design. It is no longer just about
what looks good, but what feels good, and how one interacts with the design elements.
Domestic beers seem to be leading the charge in this category. “The goal isn’t to please
the masses but to make time to listen to their ideas, to acknowledge and appreciate
them… social media [gave] us the tools to do that” (Mueller, 2011). Not only does
technology help in the design process, but it also helps in the listening and
communicating process that precedes quality design changes. In regards to the Gap logo,
Marka Hansen, the president of Gap North America, said, “We recognize that we missed
the opportunity to engage with the online community” (Elliott, 2010). No quality
communicator should fall into that trap. It should be a given that anyone handling the
brand of a company will gather information before any changes are made. Bud Light is
furthering its decision to listen to its publics. “When brands reflect differences in local
culture, they are more likely to develop strong customer relationships across a range of
geographic regions” (Eisingerich & Rubera, 2010). Bud Light is paying attention to local
cultures by making its bottles specialized for the Chicago-region. The top label will
reflect a specific aspect of Chicago culture (Casey, Apr. 5, 2011). This shows how well
DRINK UNTIL IT LOOKS GOOD
CLEVELAND 14
the company is tuned in to its customers. It utilizes technology and showcases cultural
differences. In this, it stands out above other brands.
According to Batra, Brunel, and Chandran, “It remains unclear whether superior
design should be a goal sought after by all” (2009). This makes sense, as if everything
had superior design, nothing would stand out. Also, there are more factors than just
design that can cause a consumer to make a purchase. However, information is conveyed
often through the design, and it takes much careful deliberation to craft the best visual
persuasion through the package. “Retailers and producers talk a lot about the ‘moment of
truth’… the point when people standing in the aisle decide what to buy and reach to get
it” (The way the brain buys, 2008). This is the behavior every designer wants consumers
to achieve when a package is seen, but it does not always work so well. The “moment of
truth” happens when the consumer is aware of the product and has some sort of
perception about the product. These two things are tantamount to a positive buying
experience. The decision will be made to buy a product, but to make it a specific product
that sticks out often comes down to how well its package is designed.
DRINK UNTIL IT LOOKS GOOD
CLEVELAND 15
Previous Work
This was not the first foray into an analysis of beer samples through content
analysis and textual research. This was round two. The first project was titled “Designed
to Sell: Visual Persuasion through Package Design,” and it was developed for Ball State
University’s 664 class in public relations with Dr. Dustin Supa. All research was
conducted by David Cleveland, and studies for the program were completed on June 17,
2010. The initial idea was to look into package design and visual persuasion. The only
problem was that the sample size would be far too large to realistically complete. After
condensing the sample over and over again from consumer goods to edible products to
beverages, Mr. Cleveland and Dr. Supa determined that the most exciting sample to study
would be beer bottles. There were many reasons to focus on this sample; first, it was
easily accessible. Second, beer bottles could be analyzed without the product going bad
over an extended amount of time. The packaging itself was simplistic and did not deviate
extremely from a certain norm. Beer bottles specifically were available in individual
servings and could be purchased at many different establishments. There were a wide
variety to choose from, and – hypothetically – there would be exciting results from the
research. Subtle differences would be the main focus – the average person may not note
many of the changes, but having a background in graphic design and design theory would
help the research immensely.
Content analysis seems to be the best way to accomplish the task of finding out
more. An initial study was conducted on six very visually different beer bottles, focusing
on what elements they all had so that an accurate depiction could be made of the
codebook for the main project. Some selections were obvious, while others were
DRINK UNTIL IT LOOKS GOOD
CLEVELAND 16
surprising. Emphasis was placed on design elements and also specific information
available in text on beers. Sixty-two beers were analyzed for the project once the
codebook was finished. Many discoveries were made, and the results proved fruitful. As
Han, et al mentioned, luxury can be a very important aspect in purchasing (2010). This
seemed to be the case with the beers as well. No official data was collected on price, but
it did seem that the pricier beers contained more information. They clearly established
what type of beer they were and often carried a history of the beer. Imported beers and
microbrews seemed to be very different. There were many findings made, but the biggest
understanding was this: they all come in a similar looking bottle and contain the same
thing, but the outsides are vastly different.
DRINK UNTIL IT LOOKS GOOD
CLEVELAND 17
Methods
Obtaining information for this project seemed daunting at first, but eventually
things were worked out. The first project was analyzed to create the codebook used for
this iteration. Some questions were tweaked, and others were omitted. Some were added.
The three main components of the methods were the sample, the measures, and the data
analysis. They follow in greater detail.
Sample
The samples of the two content analyses were beer bottles and beer cans. The first
set was of 75 vintage beer cans pre-dating 1980. They were all drained and were in
excellent condition. Steve Mowcomber of Indianapolis, IN was gracious enough to
supply the beer cans for analysis. The second set for content analysis was of 75 beer
bottles purchased between May 2010 and April 2011 from Friendly Package in Muncie,
IN and 21st Amendment in Fishers, IN. Many of the bottles were the same ones used in
the first analysis performed in 2010. All bottles and cans were single serving, meaning
between 11 and 16 ounces. All bottles are available for purchase in cases, though most
were bought as singles. Many of the brands of beer from the 1960s and 1970s are no
longer available for purchase today. All in all, there were a total of 150 containers
analyzed.
When purchasing bottles, careful attention was paid not to repeat any brands,
except for domestics. Major American labels (domestics) made up a much smaller
amount that could be found, so those brands were repeated. However, foreign beers
(imports) and regional beers (microbrews) were represented by just one beer per brand.
DRINK UNTIL IT LOOKS GOOD
CLEVELAND 18
This was to avoid any similarities that might arise from multiple beers within the same
brand. The domestic beers chosen were all significantly different, but microbrews and
imports do not always end up that way, and a random sample was desired for the
remaining non-domestic beers. The remainder of beers was chosen at random from cases
from what was available in the two locations. For cans, domestic samples were pulled
first to ensure there was a fair representation. After that, beers were chose at random to
make up the remaining sample size.
For bottles, the amounts fell as follows: there
were nine domestic beers, 27 imports, and 39
microbrews. The microbrews and imports were from a
wide variety of locations, but all could obviously be
purchased in Indiana, most of them as singles. For cans,
15 domestic beers were represented, 20 imports, and 40
microbrews. Between cans and bottles, some specific
beers overlapped, though not in the same set [see Figure
4]. This showed how the brands changed – or did not
change – over time, though, and it seemed helpful in the
research. Though brewery type was a conscious thought
when choosing samples, beer type was never brought into question. Whether domestic,
import, or microbrew, all beer types are completely coincidental. This proves for a real
random sample when much of the analysis is done. Beer types were taken from the Beer
Judge Certification Program to classify each one. This allowed for a third party to decide
on specifications as to which types of beer should be classified together and so forth.
DRINK UNTIL IT LOOKS GOOD
CLEVELAND 19
Measures
When developing the codebook, many factors were taken into consideration.
Much focus was placed on focal point, font styles, and colors used for various elements.
Care was taken not to just analyze the main label of the bottle or the cylinder of the can,
but top labels and bottle caps for bottles and the flat top of the cylinder for cans. Design
elements were searched for on each face of the container. Some questions were
developed that were simple to conclude, such as, “Is there an animal featured on the
bottle or can?” This was a simple yes or no question that quantified whether or not an
animal was present. There were many more questions such as this to look for specific
types of elements.
The fonts were a bit more intricate. The font had to be discovered for both the
name of the beer and the brand of the beer, which was not always easy to locate. At
times, the brand and name of beer were the same, and extra answers had to be added to
supply adequate responses for such queries. Font choices included serif, sans serif, script,
black letter, display, and other or multiple styles. This proved to be an adequate selection
and kept the analysis from being filled with graphic design jargon. Colors were a bit more
difficult to analyze. Many options had to be made available to supply adequate choices.
Red, orange, yellow, green, blue, violet, black, white, silver, gold, multi-colored, and
other were options. Color questions applied to labels on bottles – both top and main –
cylinders of cans, color of brand, and color of name. It would have been too large a
project to mark down every color used in every sample, as many had quite a few colors.
The writing on the containers was also analyzed. Certain elements were searched
for in the samples, such as brewing information, ingredients, or website listed. This part
DRINK UNTIL IT LOOKS GOOD
CLEVELAND 20
of the process was the hardest, as each sample had to be scrutinized to understand which
elements were present and how many times things were listed. Reading all the text on
every sample probably took the longest amount of time in the research process. Based on
recognition of patterns when doing the two sets of research, some questions were
changed. For example, “Is a website listed?” was a key question for the modern-day
bottles, but it was not applicable for cans that were created before the World Wide Web
was prominent or even existed. On the other hand, “Does the can have a pop tab?” was
only applicable to cans and not to bottles. Some questions were modified slightly for each
set, such as analyzing bottle caps on bottles versus the tops of cans. There were
differences, and careful deliberation was made to ensure that the sets could match up at
the end of the analyses. Questions that did not apply to both of the sets were omitted for
the final run of tests. That is why there are fewer questions on the final set of tests than
there are on the first two sets. The measures really stand out as a strong point for this
project. They seem to be a guiding force in information gathering, and most – if not all –
angles were covered in the evidence collecting process.
Data Analysis
Analyzing the data was a fun, yet exhausting process. There were so many data
points per sample. To collect accurate figures, each sample was scrutinized under full
light. Since different types of light give off different color temperatures and can change
the appearance of some hues, it was decided that sunlight would be the best source of
light for the project. This would provide blue light for the analyses and would keep colors
from appearing differently. This was to ensure an accurate reading on every sample. The
DRINK UNTIL IT LOOKS GOOD
CLEVELAND 21
samples were analyzed next to windows during sunny times of the day – mostly
weekends. With ample light illuminating each sample, the process was set up for success.
For the bottles – each was analyzed one at a time, reading carefully and inspecting each
and every label. When it came to the set of cans, though, the first few were analyzed one
at a time, until it was discovered that things could be analyzed quicker if multiple
subjects were analyzed at once. Instead of analyzing one sample, question by question,
four samples were analyzed at once. This made things run slightly quicker. As data was
collected, it was recorded on paper spreadsheets in hard copy fashion. Once all the data
was collected, it was transferred to the computer for analysis. First, though, the data had
to be cleansed, so care was taken in looking over all the numbers to ensure everything
was cohesive.
Frequencies were then run in SPSS for three sets of data – the set of 75 vintage
cans, the set of 75 modern bottles, and the combined set of all 150 samples. Next,
crosstabs were set up to find correlations among the data. The two dependent items used
were brewery type and beer type. All other data was compared to these two sets of
specifics. The cans and bottles were all compared in their own sets, using the two
dependent qualifiers. There was a third set of data created, and this was an amalgamation
of the 150 containers together. It was compared against brewer type and beer type, just as
the first, but an extra question was added to compare things by set. Interesting
correlations were discovered based on this qualifier.
Each set was analyzed on its own and against the other sets as well. This showed
the differences that were found. Some data was significant when only asked about cans,
whereas it no longer became significant when added to the data of bottles. Not every
DRINK UNTIL IT LOOKS GOOD
CLEVELAND 22
question had a counterpart in each sample set, so questions were matched the closest they
could be. Engraving questions were omitted, for it was decided that the two sets were not
approached the same way for bottles and cans.
Crosstabs and frequencies ran through SPSS delivered approximately 400 pages
of data for the three sets of data combined. This data was analyzed – page-by-page – until
every significant factor was discovered. Frequencies also played a major part, even when
things were not labeled significant through the Pearson Chi-Square. As frequencies and
significance was discovered, it was compared against the correlating question of the other
set to see if there were any notable findings.
DRINK UNTIL IT LOOKS GOOD
CLEVELAND 23
Results
What did all the research discover? This is the section that breaks all that down.
First off, the set with bottles had more significant responses than did the set with cans.
Second, most of the beers analyzed were microbrews, followed by imports, and trailing
them were domestics. Third, white is a very popular color.
When the frequencies are broken down of the bottles, it is clear to see that clear
brown bottles are most popular, and most bottles have at least a front and top label. It is
rare for bottles to have coverings on their bottle caps, but those that do, according to the
crosstabs, are imports. It is more common for labels to be of a random shape than a circle
or oval, but many stay rectangular. Black and gold were the most common choices for
bottle cap color, while 76% featured at least the brand on them. Illustrations proved to be
the main focal point in bottles. Yellow was a popular color for labels, though half were
multi-colored. Humans and animals were not common to see on bottles, but inanimate
objects showed up on about half. Serif fonts made up just over half of the names of beers,
and most of those were black, white, or multi-colored. Ingredients, brewing process and
bottled-on dates were not common, but were found on some bottles. Meanwhile, most
beers did not list the alcohol by volume, but when they did, they typically fell between
four and 5.9%. Black, white, and multi-colored made up the majority of colors for brand
name, but red and yellow were not extremely far behind. The brand was prominent on the
bottle almost 83% of the time. Two thirds of bottles did not have a date established, but
two thirds did have a website. Finally, most beers had illustrations present, showcasing
how important it is to beer packaging design.
DRINK UNTIL IT LOOKS GOOD
CLEVELAND 24
When crosstabs came into play, the information becomes even more interesting.
Domestic beer bottles were always either clear or clear brown, while microbrew beer
bottles were almost always clear brown. Import bottles ranged in style, but only they
represented clear green bottles. These findings were highly significant, according to the
Pearson Chi-Square. Beer type was also significant when compared to bottle type. The
correlations are harder to read because of the 27 choices to choose from, but one can see
that wheat beers are almost always clear brown, European pale lagers are almost always
clear green, and American lagers make up the most of the clear bottles. For labels,
imports were most likely to have three labels: one on the front, one on the back, and one
on the top. Domestics always had a front and top label and sometimes had a back label.
Microbrews, meanwhile, had only a front and top label about half the time. This was
significant. As mentioned previously, a covering on the bottle cap always signified that
the bottle was an import. An interesting piece of information popped up next. In the
original study, one of the prime discoveries was bottle cap color could often dictate
brewery type. When the sample was expanded for this study, though, the significance was
lost. It should still be noted that a black bottle cap almost always signifies a microbrew,
DRINK UNTIL IT LOOKS GOOD
CLEVELAND 25
though. The color of the top label can be significant among brewery type. Microbrews
seem to represent all sorts of colors, while domestics almost always are multi-colored,
and imports are usually multi-colored or white. Fonts were an interesting discovery.
Serifs were popular among imports and microbrews, but domestics used more multiple
fonts. This had a Pearson Chi-Square of .001. Name color of brewery type, though, was
very insignificant. Results were all over the board, but most were either black or white.
Ingredients are much more likely to be listed in microbrews than they are domestics or
imports. One very interesting and significant find was that domestics and imports are
much more likely to have the brand and name of the beer be the same. Microbrews, at the
same time, are more likely to feature their brand name as a serif or sans serif font. Black,
white, red, and yellow still stand out as brand colors as well. Imports were much more
likely to have the date established than domestics or microbrews. This was highly
significant, with a Pearson Chi-Square of .000. Another interesting fact: domestic beers
were much more likely to have a slogan or tagline than microbrews and even more so
than imports. Showing the calories of the beer is more of a domestic trait, as only one
import showcased the factor and no imports did.
For cans, some things were the same as bottles, but other factors were different.
Over half of the beers chosen did not list what type they were. Most also featured the
same brand and name similarity. The focal point varied, with 40% being the name and
brand combination, 16% being just the name, and 20% focusing on an illustrated graphic
element. It is interesting to note that more vintage cans featured photography than did
modern-day bottles. This was interesting to note since so many advances have been made
in technology featuring photography. Focal points repeated themselves three quarters of
DRINK UNTIL IT LOOKS GOOD
CLEVELAND 26
the time on cans. The most common color of cans was white, representing a third of
them. Humans and animals were still not popular even in the 1960s and 1970s on beer
containers. White was the most likely color of beer names, with red a distant second.
Interestingly, brand times mentioned on bottles was usually a higher number, but on cans,
it was usually only twice. The sans serif font was more popular for cans than it was for
bottles. Domestics were far more likely to feature any design on the top of the can than
the other brewery types. Interestingly enough, in bottles, only imports had writing in a
foreign language, but for cans, there were some outliers in domestics and microbrews that
featured foreign language, in addition to the imports. Imports were also the only brewery
type to list any alcohol per volume, and that was rare, yet significant. The date
established seemed to be much more popular with cans, though it was still not significant
to brewery or beer type.
For the combination of information, there were some points of notice. Domestics
made up 16% of the sample, while imports made up 31.3%, and microbrews 52.7%. Half
of the samples did not have any design element on the top or bottle cap. The focal point
was usually an amalgamation of the brand and name of beer or a picture illustration.
Inanimate objects were on over half the beers, but humans and animals were both
represented on less than 30%. Serif fonts dominated the name, while the brand was more
balanced. The color white stood out in the name. Illustrative art elements were on over
80% of samples, while extra beer-related information was split.
Graphic illustrations were two times as likely to be the focal point on bottles as
they were cans. For the fonts in names, scripts and black letter were more popular in
cans, while serif and multiple fonts were more popular in bottles. Red and gold were
DRINK UNTIL IT LOOKS GOOD
CLEVELAND 27
much more popular for can beer names, while black and multi-colored were much more
popular for bottles. White was still the most popular in either sample. Ingredients are
much more likely to be listed on modern bottles. Alcohol by volume is much more likely
to be listed on a bottle than a can. Bottled-on dates were never used for vintage cans, but
now they make up one third of modern bottles. The serif font is far more popular today
than it was before. Also, brands and names were almost twice as likely to be the same as
they are today. As with the other sets, imports are much more likely to have the date
established than domestics or microbrews. Calories are also much more likely to be listed
now than they used to be. Finally, extra beer-related information seemed to be the biggest
example of what has not changed over time or through medium. It was exactly the same
for both samples.
DRINK UNTIL IT LOOKS GOOD
CLEVELAND 28
Discussion
What can be learned from this research? What great things can be taken away?
“The brand must deliver the quality [people] expect and what they’ve become
accustomed to expecting” (Landa, 2006). Somewhere in the data of the beer packaging
are answers to these questions. Something represents quality and what people expect.
“We don’t just want people to buy a brand, we want people to buy into a brand, to make
it part of their lives,” said Stan Richards of the Richards Group (Landa, 2006). Somehow
there must be a correlation between noticing the beer bottle or can and wanting to be a
part of its culture. It takes multiple elements. Widmer Brothers Brewing tries to stand out
with its history, style, signatures, recommendations on drinking, ingredients, and extra
beer-related information, to go along with a very yellow label (Casey, Apr. 1, 2011).
These are just a few ways that different brands try to stand out. What works best, though?
Unfortunately, this answer did not make itself known it this study. What was made
known is that serif fonts are more popular today than they used to be, and more beers are
making multiple types, as opposed to being single beer, single brand varieties. White
stands out as the color of choice, but black, yellow, and red were constantly being used
often as well. More information is being placed on the package, with websites and extra
beer information and even more mentions of the brand than in yesteryear. Is this
significant? Without more data, one cannot be sure. That is the case with many of the
findings in this study. It simply needs more research, more information, more study.
Visual persuasion research is great, but it needs to be coupled with direct results of sales
or even surveys or case studies that explain consumers’ reactions and preferences. The
reality is that this study needs more.
DRINK UNTIL IT LOOKS GOOD
CLEVELAND 29
Limitations
Unfortunately, the limitations to this study are numerous. The two sample sets
were bottles that were new and cans that were old. Ideally, it would be beneficial to also
do a set of old bottles and new cans, so as to see how they correlate between each other
by medium and by era. Unfortunately, this was not an option, as no old bottles were
found, and cans are seldom sold in single servings. The secondary factor is that it would
have been better if each sample had the exact same amount of fluid ounces. This would
make them more alike, and allow for closer examination of the subtle differences.
Another limitation is that the samples were not 100% random. Though extra care was
taken to provide a wide variety, it would have been best if the samples were truly
random. It is unfortunate that human preference and potential error could have gotten in
the way. There is also the limitation of location. Only so many types of beers are
available in central Indiana. This keeps an accurate national sample from being possible.
The results are going to naturally skew towards the Midwest. The next limitation is the
hardest to accept. There is so much information on the package design, but no
information on how if affects direct sales. Unfortunately those numbers are hard to
acquire, and market research is difficult to conduct with one person for so many different
brands. If market research and sales reports were attached to some of these studies, then
more information could be developed, and one might be able to see correlations between
sales and package design. Lastly, regions play a factor, whether it be for imports or
microbrews. Not all of a type created equal. Imports from Germany are different from
those in Japan, and Pacific Northwest ales are different from Boston lagers. There are too
many differences for such a small-scale analysis to address.
DRINK UNTIL IT LOOKS GOOD
CLEVELAND 30
Color Theory
White is the predominant color that seems to stand out in the beer analysis. Why
could that be? “Color is perhaps the most elusive design element; there are many more
variables involved with how people respond to color than with the other visual elements”
(Landa, 2006). The reality is that white elicits certain emotions when used in design. Not
only does it act as suction for your eyes’ focus, it brings forward feelings of purity,
cleanliness, and virtue (Chapman, 2010). White space also demands attention. The more
contrasted white, the more attention it will attract.
But what about the other colors? Red and yellow were popular in the samples.
They are both warm colors and can elicit emotion. “Red can be associated with anger, but
is also associated with importance” (Chapman, 2010). It is mostly a powerful extra color.
It can dominate design when used abundantly, but used sparingly, it can have a great
effect. Yellow is another warm color. It is often associated with sunshine and happiness.
It “is often considered the brightest and most energizing of the warm colors” (Chapman,
2010). Yellow acts a lot like white in that it can attract a lot of attention when given the
right contrast. It can also just act as a giant beacon to gaze upon.
Black was featured prominently as well. It is a strong neutral color. “It’s
commonly associated with power, elegance, and formality” (Chapman, 2010). It can be
used in edgy designs, but also can have an elegant feel if used correctly. It can dominate a
design if used too much or can be used to make certain typographic functions pop. Black
is a very versatile color, but when it is used effectively, it works.
DRINK UNTIL IT LOOKS GOOD
CLEVELAND 31
Conclusion
“How [one represents] reality – the connotation of ‘constructed’ messages –
affects people” (Landa, 2006). There is no doubt that the countless messages all located
on beer packaging affects consumers in some way, but how is a different story. One must
rely on projections and hypotheticals when raw data is not available. Bill Bernbach
stated, “Today, the technological advances one brand may have over its competitors are
copied more easily and faster than a few years ago. Sometimes, the only true difference
between rival products is the content and form of their… image” (Landa, 2006).
Technology continues to advance, and with it more brands can do more things, more
interaction is available, and more connection is available with the public, if a brand
decides to use it. What makes something sell? Well that cannot be deciphered completely
in 31 pages, unfortunately, but one can agree that things do work, for these beer brands
are succeeding. Typography and text elements have changed over time, but color has
mostly stayed the same. Brands are becoming more diverse and offering more products,
while at the same time talking themselves up even more. What is in a brand? It is an
amalgamation of everything someone thinks and feels and wants from a product, and
hopefully it delivers.
Much was learned about package design and visual persuasion, but there is still
much more that can be discovered. Combining design research with market research with
research of emotions, one could learn so much more. Hopefully one day that can be
accomplished. Enjoy the next time a cold one gets cracked open, and pay attention to that
label. There is a lot of thought put into it. It is more than a drink. It is a way of life.
DRINK UNTIL IT LOOKS GOOD
CLEVELAND 32
References
Argo, Jennifer J., Popa, Monica, & Smith, Malcolm C. (2010). The sound of brands.
Journal of Marketing, 74, 97 – 109.
Aribarg, Anocha, Pieters, Rik, & Wedel, Michel. (2010). Raising the BAR: Bias
adjustment of recognition tests in advertising. Journal of Marketing Research,
XLVII, 387 – 400.
Babej, Marc E., & Pollak, Tim. (2007). In-store advertising: Coming of age?. Forbes.
Retrieved June 16, 2010 from
http://www.forbes.com.proxy.bsu.edu/2007/10/29/unsolicited-advicesupermarkets-oped_meb_1030advice.html
Batra, Rishtee, Brunel, Frederic, & Chandran, Sucharita. (2009). When good looks kill:
An examination of consumer response to visually attractive product desing.
Advances in Consumer Research, 36, 698.
Beverage packaging: Blue glass bottles for Spindrift beer. (July 21, 2010). Retrieved
from http://www.packagingdigest.com/article/509862Beverage_packaging_Blue_glass_bottles_for_Spindrift_beer.php
Casey, Linda. (Apr. 1, 2011). Craft beer packaging offers consumers tips on selection,
consumption. Packaging Digest. Retrieved from
http://www.packagingdigest.com/article/517613Craft_beer_packaging_offers_consumers_tips_on_selection_consumption.php
Casey, Linda. (Apr. 5, 2011). Beer packaging gets personal. Packaging Digest. Retrieved
from http://www.packagingdigest.com/article/517664Beer_packaging_gets_personal.php
DRINK UNTIL IT LOOKS GOOD
CLEVELAND 33
Chapman, Cameron. (Jan. 28, 2010). Color theory for designers, part1: The meaning of
color. Smashing Magazine. Retrieved from
http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2010/01/28/color-theory-for-designers-part1-the-meaning-of-color/
Coors rolls out full-line of Cold Activated cans. (Apr. 29, 2009). Packaging Digest.
Retrieved from http://www.packagingdigest.com/article/340692Coors_rolls_out_full_line_of_Cold_Activated_cans.php
Craig, James, & Scala, Irene K. (2006). Designing with type: The essential guide to
typography (5th ed.). New York, NY: Watson-Guptill Publications.
Dens, Nathalie, (2010). How advertising strategy affects brand and USP recall for new
brands and extensions. International Journal of Advertising, 29(2), pp. 165-194.
Department of the Treasury. (2008). What you should know about malt beverage labels.
Eisingerich, Andreas B., & Rubera, Gaia. (2010). Drivers of brand commitment: A crossnational investigation. Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 6479.
Elliott, Stuart. (Oct. 12, 2010). Gap Inc. puts ‘GAP’ back in logo. The New York Times,
Media Decoder.
English, Marc. (2000). Designing identity: Graphic design as a business strategy.
Gloucester, MA: Rockport Publishers, Inc.
Han, Young J., Nunes, Joseph C., & Dreze, Xavier. (2010). Signaling status with luxury
goods: The role of brand prominence. Journal of Marketing, 74, 15 – 30.
Heller, Steven. (February 27, 2009). Graphic content: Water by any other bottle. The New
York Times Style Magazine.
DRINK UNTIL IT LOOKS GOOD
CLEVELAND 34
Karjalainen, Toni-Matti & Honkaniemi, Sanna. Cut to the c(h)ase: Communicating
strategic brand intent through visual package design.
Landa, Robin. (2006). Designing brand experiences: Creating powerful integrated brand
solutions. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.
Lister, John. (Sep. 29, 1986). That delicate concept of nuance; Package designers
research to please. Advertising Age, p. 40.
McMahon, Michael. (Oct. 5, 1987). The last word in design. Adweek, Special Report.
Mike’s beer. (July 7, 2010). The Dieline. Retrieved from
http://www.thedieline.com/blog/2010/7/20/mikes-beer.html
Mohan, Anne Marie. (2011). Coors Light scores big with interactive Super Bowl carton.
Packaging World Magazine, April, p. 54.
Mueller, MP. (Jan. 12, 2011). Whose logo is it anyway?. The New York Times, You’re the
Boss.
Orth, Ulrich R. & Malkewitz, Keven. (2006). Packaging design as resource for the
construction of brand identity. 3rd International Wine Business Research
Conference, Montpellier.
Orth, Ulrich R. & Malkewitz, Keven. (2009). Good from far but far from good: The
effects of visual fluency on impressions of package design. Advances in
Consumer Research, 36, 696 – 697.
Palino, Christian. (July 7, 2008). A glass half full. Brand New. Retrieved from
http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/a_glass_half_full.php
Raley, Linda. (1998). A concise timeline of beer history by Prof. Linda Raley, Texas
Tech University. America: A Narrative History. Retrieved from
DRINK UNTIL IT LOOKS GOOD
CLEVELAND 35
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/archive/dig_hist/beer/assets/doc_11.ht
m
Ritson, Mark. (2009). Freshly squeezed. Marketing, Mark Ritson on Branding Section,
20.
Ryan, John. (Feb. 5, 2010). Molson Canadian, now more Canadian. Brand New.
Retrieved from
http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/molson_canadian_now_
more_canadian.php
Seven questions with Armin Vit of Brand New. (Oct. 21, 2010). The Stockwell. Retrieved
from http://thestockwell.com/7-questions-with-armin-vit-of-brand-new/
Sokolowsky, Jennifer. (Apr. 15, 2011). Carlsberg’s new slogan inspired by Bud Light?
That calls for a denial. Brand Channel. Retrieved from
http://www.brandchannel.com/home/post/2011/04/15/Carlsberg-TaglineChallenged.aspx
Study asks U.S. and European consumers for package preferences. (Aug. 1, 2006).
Packaging Digest. http://www.packagingdigest.com/article/345532Study_asks_U_S_and_European_consumers_for_package_preferences.php
The way the brain buys: The science of shopping. (2008). The Economist, XMAS Edition
Section.
Vit, Armin. (Nov. 19, 2008). Global beer. Brand New. Retrieved from
http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/global_beer.php
Vit, Armin. (Apr. 20, 2009). A pyramid grows in the Northwest. Brand New. Retrieved
from
DRINK UNTIL IT LOOKS GOOD
CLEVELAND 36
http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/a_pyramid_grows_in_the
_northwe.php
Vit, Armin. (Nov. 19, 2009). B is for blue, beer and Bavaria. Brand New. Retrieved from
http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/b_is_for_blue_beer_and_
bavaria.php
Vit, Armin. (June 4, 2010). Twinkle, twinkle black star. Brand New. Retrieved from
http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/twinkle_twinkle_black_st
ar.php
Vit, Armin. (July 22, 2010). Miller High Life overhaul. Brand New. Retrieved from
http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/miller_high_life_overhau
l.php
Vit, Armin. (Nov. 24, 2010). The beers’ new emperors. Brand New. Retrieved from
http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/the_beers_new_emperors
.php
Vit, Armin. (Apr. 12, 2011). Carlsberg, partying like it’s 2015. Brand New. Retrieved
from
http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/carlsberg_partying_like_i
ts_2015.php
Vit, Armin. (Apr. 20, 2011). Redhook, line, and sinker. Brand New. Retrieved from
http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/redhook_line_and_sinker.
php
What’s in a name? Sales, for one thing. (2010). The Toronto Star, H12.
DRINK UNTIL IT LOOKS GOOD
CLEVELAND 37
Williams, Robin. (2004). The non-designer’s design book (2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA:
Peachpit Press.
Young, Scott. (2006). Measuring success: Using consumer research to document the
value of package design. Design Management Review, 17, 60 – 65.