Sign up for the Packaging Digest News & Insights newsletter.
As product price goes up, so does the consumer’s expectation for being able to dispense all the product. Anything less merits a #PackagingFail.
1 Min Read
Photo credit: luismolinero – stock.adobe.com
Clearly, consumers recognize value. So when @Skorupasdragon saw the too-short dropper in this transparent bottle of cuticle treatment, she knew something was funky. No matter how dexterous you are in handling the square container, simple physics prove the dropper just isn’t going to reach all the product. And that means this customer won’t be able to use up all the product she paid good money for. What a waste!
In my opinion, she nails the consequence: Frustration.
It’s a feeling other people share, too, with products as diverse as lotion and foundation makeup, as Cookie Roof (@10MinDQ) and L҉A҉S҉ #Outlander (@Skorupasdragon) point out in the comments.
Despite Cookie Roof’s claim, it’s hard to believe any brand would deliberately choose a package that doesn’t dispense all or most of the product to force consumers to buy more product sooner. Because it’s more likely the user won’t buy that disappointing brand again anyway.
No repeat purchase from that customer. Ack! Deadly.
Doing the upside-down container balancing act is one solution to getting more product out. I find leaning a package in a corner on the counter helps keep it from falling over (sometimes). But, really, why is this necessary when different packages (squeezable! says Cookie Roof) and easy-out packaging technology exist?
About the Author(s)
You May Also Like
