Packaging is a consistently hot topic.
Some time ago on Instagram, I have asked you some questions about your approach to the packaging of personal care products. Thank you for taking part in that survey – more than 500 people have responded! Today we’re discussing the results with a short commentary. Here we go!
Question #1 – Does the mismatch of packaging type to the product discourage you from buying / re-buying the product?
- 78% – Yes
- 22% – No
No surprise here. Almost 80% of respondents answered affirmatively. I fall into this very group – I don’t like it when the pumps don’t get the product out because it’s too thick near the end, or when the pipettes can’t scoop the product effectively. From the manufacturer’s side, it’s important to ergonomically test the packaging with the finished product – it may turn out that the brand’s standard molds won’t be compatible with new formulas, and the customer will be dissatisfied with the product despite its good performance.
Question #2 – Does aeshetically challenged product packaging make you less interested in the product?
- 71% – Yes
- 29% – No
Almost one third chose the answer ‘No.’ I received several messages that if the formula is good and the packaging is functional then design doesn’t matter. This is true from a purely utilitarian point of view, but 71% of respondents, including myself, are guided in their purchases by the appearance of the packaging. I understand both points of view.. Personally, the way I see it is that poor design is, to me, a sign of a certain carelessness about the user. The application experience is important to me, and visuals are an integral part of it. You don’t have to do much, you can go for minimalism that’s inviting and easy to like. A few visual blunders that discourage me enough that I don’t feel like trying a particular brand or product are, for example: excessive text on packaging, too many ornate, mismatched typefaces, and an outdated, mismatched visual identity (not to be confused with intentional retro!).
Question #3 – Which factor is most important to you to think of a product’s packaging positively?
This question was open-ended and quite difficult. I don’t think I can point to such a main feature. The most common answers are:
- Airless packaging
- Ability to use the product to the end
- Minimalism
- Matching the product formula/easy dispensing
- Aesthetic design/quality of materials
Most responses point to an airless pump as a feature of good packaging – it dispenses the product to the end, further protects unstable active ingredients, and is convenient to use. I agree. However, in opposition to this are jars, which are associated with unhygienic, unstable. This is not entirely true. We can attribute the start of this trend to Paula Begoun, the mastermind behind Paula’s Choice. If the formulation is properly stabilized with allowance for the occasional encounter with fingers and microbiologically protected with the right preservatives (which we don’t have to be afraid of), plus we wash our hands before touching the product, jars are a great, safe option, especially for creams. We don’t have to worry about anything happening to our product that way. That’s why we need preservatives! They contain less plastic, especially in the form of often non-recyclable pumps. Of course, the jar will not be very suitable for… let’s say retinal creams among others, but for simple creams it works well enough.
Some people have also stated something that, for me, is very important in using the product – whether you know how much product is left. Life hack – put the packaging on a phone’s flashlight! This way you will see throught most packaging, including airless pumps.
One person wrote about the lack of exaggerated promises on the packaging as the most important thing – and I respect that!
Question #4 – Do you agree with the statement that refill packaging is unequivocally better for the environment?
- 49% – Yes
- 51% – No
Here I expected some polarization. We are often told that refill packaging is a panacea for excess plastic in the beauty industry. This is not entirely true, as many brands often abuse the positive image of refills.
In some ways, refills are better if done right, but life cycle assessment (environmental calculations of a product’s entire life cycle) tells us that we need to buy about 4 refill packs for the difference between these types of packaging to pay off. Reusable pumps break, get damaged when washed or don’t last for several refills. Jar caps break. On top of that, consumers for the most part rarely get attached to one product enough to buy so many refills. We like novelty. Kjaer Weis, a brand that is the absolute leader and practically the pioneer of refills in the beauty industry, has a 25-30% refill turnover rate, and they have even introduced a special mailing program to make the whole thing easier. Other brands see much lower rates. Refills currently make limited sense for small brands with low SKUs sold. They don’t make sense for packaging that is too complicated (look at Augustinus Bader’s overly intricated serum refills or Kim Kardashian’s packaging). It’s certainly not unequivocally a good thing, with some brands treating it like a good greenwashing opportunity.
Refills that make sense: lightweight, easily recyclable plastic refills (for creams, for example). Mainstream packaging with durable dispensing systems that can withstand repeated use. Products that are bought repeatedly, with huge numbers of units sold. Good examples – Skin Rocks from Caroline Hirons, Make Beauty or Glow Recipe, Experiment – preferably if the sense of logistics of the refills in question is confirmed by hard numbers (as Experiment just did).
Bottom line – this solution currently has many limitations and needs to be refined, and an industry-wide standard with standardized procedures and packaging would be ideal.
Question #5 – The most important information on the package (other than the composition) is:
The question was open-ended. The most common answers were:
- expiration date and PAO (as my good skincare & fragrance Instafriend @extrait.de.glow put it, “little jar of death”)
- recommendations for use + recommended amount of product
- how the product works
- concentration of active ingredients
One person wrote about recycling instructions – which part of the package goes to which garbage can. I consider this an underestimated element of the packaging, which increases the chance of proper recycling of its parts.
Use-by date and PAO (small jar of death) are two different things. I like them both to be stated, but it varies under different jurisdictions. The best-before date indicates how long a product can stand unopened on the shelf (known as shelf life). PAO – for how many months (M) after opening the product it is safe to use. If the expiration date is closer than PAO, then expiration date is final. For example – we opened the product on 20.02.2023, its expiration date is set for 29.05.2023, and the PAO is 6 months. As of 29.05.2023, the product becomes expired, even though according to the PAO we would still have 3 months of use. If there is no PAO on the product, and there is only an expiration date, then regardless of when you open it, it will be fit for use until that date.
The recommended amount of product is also an underappreciated and rarely correctly implemented packaging feature – a great example are Skin Rocks retinoids that have a circle drawn on the container. It corresponds to how much product we should apply to our faces. Especially important with retinoids, where too much product can result in irritation!
Question #6 – My biggest concern about packaging is:
Open-ended question. The most common answers are:
- Inability to extract the contents to the end
- Air leakage (reducing the effectiveness of the product, oxidation)
- Breakage of packaging, spilling of contents
- Environmental issues, greenwashing
- Breakage of the pump
I have to admit that my biggest concern is breakage, I’ve already bid adieu to several products this way, and some have even spilled into my makeup bag (I curse the ultra-thin glass of the Korres eye roller!).
By far the most popular concern is that you won’t be able to use the product to the end. With plastic tubes it’s pretty easy to cut them open, but what if you have a glass container and a complicated pump with a pouch inside? It can be difficult. You can see that this is an important product feature for consumers – after all, when you buy a product with your hard-earned money you want to use it up. The same goes for air leaks that reduce product efficiency.
A book could be written about greenwashing in terms of packaging. The worst declarations in my opinion are “waterless” “zero waste” or “0% waste”. – these cannot be true. It is not possible, using current production processes, to make a cosmetic that at no stage will produce waste or use even a little water. If a brand really wants to communicate environmental friendliness, it should use phrases that are easier to quantify like “less waste” and communicate how it reduces the product’s environmental impact using hard data – e.g., “our ingredient X is sourced using method Y, which reduces water consumption during its extraction by Z% relative to method Q.” Then the declaration is justified.
. A separate greenwashing post is needed. Stay tuned!
