‘P’ for product includes ‘P’ for packaging

I’m sure that all marketeers, practising and aspiring, are familiar with the marketing mix. Marketing 101, day one, introduction to the four Ps: product, price, promotion and place (distribution). In the realm of services marketing, add three more: process, people and physical evidence.

Zoom in on product. Yes, it’s important to get the actual product right. What does the customer need? What is important to them? Can we build a product or service to meet those needs?

Zoom in closer, to packaging. Are we going to ‘wrap’ this product? If so, how? How do we make the ‘wrapping’ reflect what’s inside, and engage the customer?

I remember (very clearly) a time when a former colleague called marketing ‘the fluffy stuff’. At the time, I took umbrage because it seemed to belittle everything our team produced and contributed to the organisation. Yes, we would agonise over images, fonts, colours and sizes, but it certainly wasn’t all we did, nor even the bulk of our work.

But I’m happy to be associated with getting ‘the fluffy stuff’ right after seeing this obvious fail:

A fabulous of example of why font selection, size, colour and kerning matter. Am I the only one who, at first glance, reads this as sausages with beef (reduced), fat and salt?

Mmmm, delicious. Fat and salt sausages with a little bit of beef (or is it a beef reduction?!).

Even when you look closer and see that the mark before the ‘reduced’ is an addition sign rather than an asterisk, the fact that ‘fat & salt’ appears on the next line when they are (presumably) the items that have been reduced makes you scratch your head. Is it really reduced fat and salt? Are they trying to sneak something else past me? And why is ‘reduced’ in smaller font than ‘fat & salt’?

Aaargh, it’s too hard. I’ll just buy the expensive ones instead. The ones with a smaller profit margin for the offending supermarket. That’ll learn ’em.