Cosmetics and personal care products carry various kinds of front-of-package (FOP) claims to convince consumers of their properties, thus making them effective marketing tools. Current research lacks insights into the FOP labeling of nonfood fast-moving consumer goods; a surprising omission, given the continuous reinforcement of European regulation within the industry and increased consumer skepticism of FOP claims. The authors develop and validate a holistic framework of FOP claims in three studies. Through the qualitative and quantitative analysis of >2,600 product packages, they first create a unique and extensive dataset representing the personal care products market, enabling them to develop a FOP labeling framework. They find that effectiveness claims can be classified according to two dimensions: promotion versus prevention focus and before use versus after use. They also confirm the ingredient claim dimensions artificial- versus nature-based and presence- versus absence-focused. Validation studies and cluster analyses confirm consumers’ perceptions of the proposed framework. Finally, the authors examine whether different kinds of claims are associated with different levels of purchase intention. The results show that promotion-focused and absence-focused claims elicit the most positive responses.
AndréQuentinChandonPierreHawsKelly (2019), “Healthy Through Presence or Absence, Nature or Science?: A Framework for Understanding Front-of-Package Food Claims,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 38 (2), 172–91.
2.
AsioliDanieleAschemann-WitzelJessicaCaputoVincenzinaVecchioRiccardoAnnunziataAzzurraNaesTormodVarelaPaula (2017), “Making Sense of the ‘Clean Label’ Trends: A Review of Consumer Food Choice Behavior and Discussion of Industry Implications,” Food Research International, 99 (1), 58–71.
3.
BerryChristopherBurtonScotHowlettElizabeth (2017), “It’s Only Natural: The Mediating Impact of Consumers’ Attribute Inferences on the Relationships Between Product Claims, Perceived Product Healthfulness, and Purchase Intentions,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (5), 698–719.
4.
BuiMyTangariAndrea HeintzHawsKelly L. (2017), “Can Health ‘Halos’ Extend to Food Packaging? An Investigation into Food Healthfulness Perceptions and Serving Sizes on Consumption Decisions,” Journal of Business Research, 75, 221–28.
5.
ChrysochouPolymerosGrunertKlaus G. (2014), “Health-Related Ad Information and Health Motivation Effects on Product Evaluations,” Journal of Business Research, 67 (6), 1209–17.
6.
ClementJesper (2007), “Visual Influence on In-Store Buying Decisions: An Eye-Track Experiment on the Visual Influence of Packaging Design,” Journal of Marketing Management, 23 (9–10), 917–28.
7.
CorbinJuliet M.StraussAnselm L. (2015), Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Sage.
8.
Cosmetica Italia (2022), “54th Analysis of the Cosmetics Industry and Consumption in Italy in 2021,” report, https://www.cosmeticaitalia.it/documenti/a_centrostudi/beauty_report/interno_completo_EN.pdf.
9.
CoustéNora LadoMartos-PartalMercedesMartínez-RosEster (2012), “The Power of a Package,” Journal of Advertising Research, 52 (3), 364–75.
10.
DangAnhNicholsBridget Satinover (2022), “Consumer Response to Positive Nutrients on the Facts up Front (FUF) Label: A Comparison Between Healthy and Unhealthy Foods and the Role of Nutrition Motivation,” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 31 (2), 223–42.
11.
DoddsRachel E.TseelonEfratWeitkampEmma L. (2008), “Making Sense Scientific Claims in Advertising. A Study of Scientifically Aware Consumers,” Public Understanding of Science, 17 (2), 211–30.
12.
DuboisPierreAlbuquerquePauloAllaisOlivierBonnetCélineBertailPatriceCombrisPierreLahlouSaadiRigalNatalieRuffieuxBernardChandonPierre (2020), “Effects of Front-of-Pack Labels on the Nutritional Quality of Supermarket Food Purchases: Evidence from a Large-Scale Randomized Controlled Trial,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 49 (1), 119–38.
European Commission (2023b), “Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on substantiation and communication of explicit environmental claims (Green Claims Directive),” 2023/0085(COD), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52023PC0166.
15.
FajardoTatiana M.TownsendClaudia (2016), “Where You Say It Matters: Why Packages Are a More Believable Source of Product Claims Than Advertisements,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26 (3), 426–34.
16.
FlorackArndScarabisMartin (2006), “How Advertising Claims Affect Brand Preferences and Category–Brand Associations: The Role of Regulatory Fit,” Psychology and Marketing, 23 (9), 741–55.
17.
FowlerJie G.CarlsonLesChaudhuriHimadri Roy (2019), “Assessing Scientific Claims in Print Ads That Promote Cosmetics,” Journal of Advertising Research, 59 (4), 466–82.
18.
GlaserBarneyStraussAnselm (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Aldine.
19.
GrappeCindy G.LombartCindyLouisDidierDurifFabien (2021), “‘Not Tested on Animals’: How Consumers React to Cruelty-Free Cosmetics Proposed by Manufacturers and Retailers?” International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 49 (11), 1532–53.
20.
GrappeCindy G.LombartCindyLouisDidierDurifFabien (2022), “Clean Labeling: Is It About the Presence of Benefits or the Absence of Detriments? Consumer Response to Personal Care Claims,” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 65, 102893.
21.
HartmannChristinaHiekeSophieTaperCamilleSiegristMichael (2018), “European Consumer Healthiness Evaluation of ‘Free-From’ Labelled Food Products,” Food Quality and Preference, 68, 377–88.
22.
HigginsE. Tory (1998), “Promotion and Prevention: Regulatory Focus as a Motivational Principle,” Advances in Experimental Psychology, 30, 1–46.
23.
IdsonLorraine ChenLibermanNiraHigginsE. Tory (2000), “Distinguishing Gains from Nonlosses and Losses from Nongains: A Regulatory Focus Perspective on Hedonic Intensity,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36 (3), 252–74.
24.
IkonenIinaSotgiuFrancescaAydinliAylinVerleghPeeter W. J. (2020), “Consumer Effects of Front-of-Package Nutrition Labeling: An Interdisciplinary Meta-Analysis,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48 (3), 360–83.
InmanJ. JeffreyWinerRussell S.FerraroRosellina (2009), “The Interplay among Category Characteristics, Customer Characteristics, and Customer Activities on in-Store Decision Making,” Journal of Marketing, 73 (5), 19–29.
28.
KimYoungjuKimSunAhAroraNeeraj (2022), “GMO Labeling Policy and Consumer Choice,” Journal of Marketing, 86 (3), 21–39.
29.
KuHsuan-HsuanChangYi-Ting (2021), “Basing a Claim on ‘Negatives Free’: When Does It Serve as a Quality Cue?” Journal of Product & Brand Management, 30 (8), 1277–87.
30.
LeeAngela Y.AakerJennifer L. (2004), “Bringing the Frame into Focus: The Influence of Regulatory Fit on Processing Fluency and Persuasion,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86 (2), 205–18.
31.
LevinIrvin P.SchneiderSandra L.GaethGary J. (1998), “All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76 (2), 149–88.
32.
LevinIrwin P.GaethGary J. (1988), “How Consumers Are Affected by the Framing of Attribute Information Before and After Consuming the Product,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (3), 15 (3), 374–78.
33.
LiaukonyteJuraStreletskayaNadia A.KaiserHarry M.RickardBradley J. (2013), “Consumer Response to ‘Contains’ and ‘Free of’ Labeling: Evidence from Lab Experiments,” Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 35 (3), 476–507.
34.
LinYing-ChingChangChiu-chi Angela (2012), “Double Standard: The Role of Environmental Consciousness in Green Product Usage,” Journal of Marketing, 76 (5), 125–34.
35.
MaesenStijnLameyLienter BraakAnneJansenLéon (2021), “Going Healthy: How Product Characteristics Influence the Sales Impact of Front-of-Pack Health Symbols,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 50, 108–30.
36.
MaiRobertSymmankClaudiaSeeberg-ElverfeldtBerenike (2016), “Light and Pale Colors in Food Packaging: When Does This Package Cue Signal Superior Healthiness or Inferior Tastiness?” Journal of Retailing, 92 (4), 426–44.
37.
MariottiFrançoisKalonjiEstherHuneauJean FrançoisMargaritisIrène (2010), “Potential Pitfalls of Health Claims from a Public Health Nutrition Perspective,” Nutrition Reviews, 68 (10), 624–38.
38.
MayoAnna (2021), “2030 Glow-Up: The Future of Clean Beauty,” Nielsen (October 28), https://nielseniq.com/global/en/insights/analysis/2021/2030-glow-up-the-future-of-clean-beauty/.
39.
NewmanChristopher L.BurtonScotAndrewsJ. CraigNetemeyerRichard G.KeesJeremy (2017), “Marketers’ use of Alternative Front-of-Package Nutrition Symbols: An Examination of Effects on Product Evaluations,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46 (3), 453–76.
40.
NewmanChristopher L.HowlettElizabethBurtonScot (2014), “Shopper Response to Front-of-Package Nutrition Labeling Programs: Potential Consumer and Retail Store Benefits,” Journal of Retailing, 90 (1), 13–26.
41.
NewmanChristopher L.HowlettElizabethBurtonScot (2016), “Effects of Objective and Evaluative Front-of-Package Cues on Food Evaluation and Choice: The Moderating Influence of Comparative and Noncomparative Processing Contexts,” Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (5), 749–66.
42.
ParkerJeffrey R.PaulImanHamiltonRyanRodriguez-VilaOmarBharadwajSundar G. (2021), “How Product Type and Organic Label Structure Combine to Influence Consumers’ Evaluations of Organic Foods,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 40 (3), 419–28.
43.
PrabhakerPaul R.SauerPaul (1994), “Hierarchical Heuristics in Evaluation of Competitive Brands Based on Multiple Cues,” Psychology and Marketing, 11 (3), 217–34.
44.
RozinPaulSprancaMarkKriegerZeevNeuhausRuthSurilloDarleneSwerdlinAmy, andWoodKatherine (2004), “Preference for Natural: Instrumental and Ideational/Moral Motivations, and the Contrast Between Foods and Medicines,” Appetite, 43 (2), 147–54.
45.
RustRoland T.CooilBruce (1994), “Reliability Measures for Qualitative Data: Theory and Implications,” Journal of Marketing Research, 31 (1).
46.
RybakGarrettBurtonScotJohnsonAlicia M.BerryChristopher (2021), “Promoted Claims on Food Product Packaging: Comparing Direct and Indirect Effects of Processing and Nutrient Content Claims,” Journal of Business Research, 135, 464–79.
47.
SimãoSofia Alexandra VieiraRohdenSimoni F.PintoDiego Costa (2022), “Natural Claims and Sustainability: The Role of Perceived Efficacy and Sensorial Expectations,” Sustainable Production and Consumption, 34, 505–17.
SundarAparnaNoseworthyTheodore J. (2014), “Place the Logo High or Low? Using Conceptual Metaphors of Power in Packaging Design,” Journal of Marketing, 78 (5), 138–51.
50.
TonLan Anh N.SmithRosanna K.SevillaJulio (2023), “Symbolically Simple: How Simple Packaging Design Influences Willingness to Pay for Consumable Products,” Journal of Marketing, 88 (2), 121–40.
51.
TverskyAmosKahnemanDaniel (1989), “Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions,” in Multiple Criteria Decision Making and Risk Analysis Using Microcomputers, Birsen Karpak and Stanley Zionts, eds. Springer.
52.
UptonGraham J.G. (1992), “Fisher’s Exact Test,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (Statistics in Society), 155 (3), 395–402.
53.
Van DoornJennyVerhoefPeter C. (2011), “Willingness to Pay for Organic Products: Differences Between Virtue and Vice Foods,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 28 (3), 167–80.
54.
WerleCarolina O.C.YamimAmanda PruskiTrendelOlivierRocheKévinNadaudPerrine (2022), “When Detailed Information Works Better: Comparison of Three- and Five-Color/Letter Front-of-Package Nutrition Labels,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 41 (2), 177–95.
55.
ZhuChenLopezRigoberto A.LiuXiaoou (2015), “Information Cost and Consumer Choices of Healthy Foods,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 98 (1), 41–53.
56.
ZhuRuiMeyers-LevyJoan (2009), “The Influence of Self-View on Context Effects: How Display Fixtures Can Affect Product Evaluations,” Journal of Marketing Research, 46 (1), 37–45.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
