Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.


Customers shopped for a set of control packages (i.e. decorated composite cans, metal cans, and glass jars) vs. similarly decorated experimental packaging {i.e. injection in-mold labeled (IML) plastic containers} in CUShopTM. Sonoco Institute of Packaging Design and Graphics, Clemson University. The objective was to determine if IML decoration affected a shopper’s point of sale interest vs. non-IML methods of package decoration. Eighty-one volunteer participants wore eye tracking glasses and shopped for 5 products (3 of interest) over three days. Day one, control packaging data was collected; day two, IML packaging data was collected; day three, control and IML packaging positioned side-by-side data was collected. Quantitative analysis was completed for eye movements from each participant and in aggregate. Qualitative observations were recorded via a post experiment survey each day. Results showed that participants trended towards finding IML packaging faster than any of the controls; however, there were no statistically significant differences (P < 0.05) between the IML decorated samples vs. the control decorated samples for the Time to First Fixation (TTFF) and Total Fixation Duration (TFD) metrics. Because a fundamental difference between control packages and IML containers was the decorating process, the many benefits of IML were not represented in this study. It was hypothesized that the IML containers would rank equal to or better than the control packages. From the perspective of the researchers, data is compelling because IML packaging is new to the tested categories; and it was compared against traditional packages and products. The use of eye tracking applied to injection IML packaging is also novel in this field.