Food Quality and Preference 22 (2011) 689–698

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Quality and Preference

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate / foodqual

Food labels: Do consumers perceive what semiotics want to convey?

Gastón Ares a,⇑, Betina Piqueras-Fiszman b, Paula Varela c, Ricardo Morant Marco d,Arantxa Martín López d, Susana Fiszman c

a Sección Evaluación Sensorial, Departamento de Ciencia y Tecnología de Alimentos, Facultad de Química, Universidad de la República (UdelaR), General Flores 2124,C.P. 11800, Montevideo, Uruguayb Departamento de Proyectos de Ingeniería, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera s/n, 46022 Valencia, Spainc Instituto de Agroquímica y Tecnología de Alimentos (CSIC), Apartado de correos 73, 46100 Burjassot, Valencia, Spaind Departamento de Teoría de los Lenguajes y Ciencias de la Comunicación, Universitat de València, Av. Blasco Ibáñez 32, 46010 Valencia, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 20 January 2011Received in revised form 14 May 2011Accepted 16 May 2011Available online 20 May 2011

Keywords:Consumer studiesSemiotic analysisWord associationYogurtFood labels

0950-3293/$ - see front matter � 2011 Elsevier Ltd. Adoi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.05.006

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +598 29245735; fax:E-mail address: gares@fq.edu.uy (G. Ares).

a b s t r a c t

In this research work, a multidisciplinary approach was applied to answer the question: do consumersperceive what semiotics want to convey? The idea behind was to determine if consumers’ expectationsand associations raised by simulated yogurt labels, designed with different sign combinations frequentlyapplied in commercial products, were in agreement with results from a semiotic analysis, and to checkfor cultural differences, comparing results from two Spanish-speaking countries (Spain and Uruguay).

A survey of the plain yogurt market was performed, followed by a semiotic analysis of the gatheredlabels performed by a team of semiotics experts. Only the non-verbal elements such as images, visualstructure, colors, typography and their combinations, were considered; so brand, price, nutritional infor-mation, composition, etc. were nor taken into consideration. The main messages conveyed by the labelswere summarized and based on that, five yogurt model labels were designed and subsequently used asstimuli in a consumer study. An online consumer questionnaire, based on a word association task, wasperformed in both countries to understand the words, descriptions, associations, thoughts or feelingsgenerated by the model labels.

The approach was successful, and the results obtained showed that the main messages conveyed by themodel labels were well understood in Spain and Uruguay; however some cultural differences in the per-ception of the messages could be highlighted.

� 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

A product’s package is the container that holds, protects, pre-serves and identifies the product, and which also facilitates its han-dling, storage and commercialization (Rodríguez Tarango, 2003).Consumers usually actively scan packages before purchase (Ulrich& Malkewitz, 2008) and therefore packaging also plays a major rolein attracting their attention and largely influence their purchasedecisions (Crilly, Moultrie, & Clarkson, 2004; Fenko, Schifferstein,& Hekkert, 2010). Consumers have to trade several sensory andnon-sensory factors when making their everyday food choices(Jaeger, 2006). For this reason, in many companies great debatesexist on whether a product’s performance in the marketplace isdue to its sensory characteristics or to its associated imagery(Rousseau & Ennis, 2008). Consumers draw important informationabout the product and its attributes from the package’s aestheticand graphic design (Moskowitz, Porretta, & Silcher, 2005; Moskowitz,Reisner, lawlor, & Deliza, 2009). Packaging is also a source of

ll rights reserved.

+598 29241906.

product recognition and serves as an extrinsic quality cue andprovides consumers with information about brand image and lifestyle(Dano, 1996; Steenkamp, 1989; van Dam & van Trijp, 1994).

Furthermore, food packaging creates sensory and hedonicexpectations in the consumer (Ares & Deliza, 2010; Becker, vanRompay, Schifferstein, & Galetzka, 2011; Deliza, MacFie, & Hedderley,2003; Lange, Issanchou, & Combris, 2000; Rodríguez Tarango,2003). Expectations could be regarded as pre-trial beliefs about aproduct (Olson & Dover, 1979), affecting decisions both con-sciously and subconsciously (Deliza & MacFie, 1996). There aretwo types of expectations: sensory-based and hedonic-based(Cardello, 1994). Sensory expectations are related to consumers’beliefs about the sensory characteristics of the product, whereashedonic expectations refer to how much the product will be likedor disliked. These expectations are created through consumers’previous experiences with the product, information presented onthe label, packaging characteristics and the product itself, particu-larly through its appearance. If the sensory and hedonic expecta-tions shaped by the packaging are high, consumers may beinterested in the product and would choose to buy it. However, ifthese expected sensory and hedonic characteristics are not

690 G. Ares et al. / Food Quality and Preference 22 (2011) 689–698

perceived when consumers try the product, they will probably notbuy the product again (Deliza & MacFie, 1996). A mismatch be-tween expectations raised for example by the pack or label, andthe actual perceived characteristics of the product would lead topositive or negative disconfirmation, depending if the product isbetter or worse than expected (Cardello, 1994).

Therefore, all the characteristics of the package should be dee-ply regarded in the design process to attract consumers’ attentionin order to generate sensory and hedonic expectations that matchthe product’s real characteristics and to increase their interest inbuying the product.

Although food companies usually invest large amounts ofmoney on packaging design for marketing reasons there are notmany published studies about the influence of the package’s visualcomponents, specifically signs, on consumer sensory, hedonic andemotional expectations of food products (Ares & Deliza, 2010;Becker et al., 2011; Deliza & MacFie, 1996; Lange et al., 2000;Moskowitz et al., 2009; Murray & Delahunty, 2000).

According to Opperud (2004), when consumers first perceive aproduct the attention is drawn to signs that can help them identifyand categorize the product. In the case of packaged products, allthis information is gathered from the signs present in their pack-age, i.e. package’s appearance and its several visual elements (col-or, size and shape). Food packages and labels could communicateinformation to consumers in two main forms: linguistic signs(symbols based entirely on social convention), or signs that arebased on resemblance (drawings, pictures, signs, colors, shapesand textures) (Smith, Mogelvang-Hansen, & Hyldig, 2010).

In addition, under the assumption of the social constructiontheory (Dittmar, 1992), physical objects are communicators of so-cial meaning between people; therefore, food packages and labelsnot only retrieve information about the qualities of the product it-self but also about the people who consume it.

The object of a semiotic analysis is to describe the mechanismby means of which a sign system produces meaning (Kehret-Ward,1988). The semiotic theory states that a specific product designevokes thoughts, emotions, impressions and associations becausethey display signs that are consciously and unconsciously inter-preted as such. In this model, the stimuli evoke a series of sponta-neous impressions in the consumer, which are subjectivelyrepresented in his mind, given a certain context (Opperud, 2004).Morris’s pioneering model of semiotics (Morris, 1939) defined a3-way relationship among a sign, being anything that stands forsomething (the product) to somebody (consumer). Semiotic analy-sis use objective, standardized and recognized methods of study to‘‘decompose’’ a label in its signs and symbols involved in conveyinga certain message. This type of analysis has been applied to severalareas that involve communication and the transfer of information,such as films, theater, fashion and architecture (Berger, 1995).Products are designed as a construct of signs capable of represen-tation which would be interpreted by users, thus the consumer re-sponse to the product appearance would be an important stage inthe understanding of the process of communication. Theoretically,the designer would produce a message which would be encodedinto a signal that the receiver should decode to receive the message(Crilly et al., 2004). However, a lack of knowledge about the rela-tionships between key parameters on product designs and howthese actually stimulate the consumer response, leads to uncer-tainty when it comes to determine what combination of signsshould be used to stimulate desired responses. Many times thismakes companies/brand objectives difficult to achieve (Ulrich &Malkewitz, 2008).

In the case of food packaging, the interplay of its many possiblevisual elements makes this interpretation a complicated process;and though in many cases rules of thumb relating to visual re-sponses have been correct, they have not been scientifically tested

and their behavioral underpinnings have not been investigated.Consequently, a semiotic analysis of food packages and labelscould help to understand and interpret consumers’ associationsand expectations of the content, and hence to design packages thatarouse specific reactions in the consumer.

In addition, different cultural backgrounds and past experiencesof consumers are key parameters influencing their response toproducts; thus, the context or environment of consumption wouldbe an important consideration in how the message would be inter-preted (Crilly et al., 2004).

The aims of the present work were: (i) to determine if consum-ers’ expectations or associations raised by simulated yogurt labels,designed with different sign combinations frequently applied incommercial products, are in agreement with results from a semi-otic analysis, or in other words, whether labels successfully conveytheir intended meaning; and (ii) to check for cultural differencescomparing results from two Spanish-speaking countries.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Information-gathering stage

The natural yogurt packaging markets of, Uruguay, Spain andtwo other European close countries (France and UK) were sur-veyed. France and UK were included in the survey, as they are veryimportant markets in terms of dairy products, and together withthe high mobility of European consumers nowadays, their productswere considered of interest for the study.

The objective of the survey was to have an overall picture of themessages that natural yogurt packages contained, focusing only onthe signs (non-verbal elements such as images, visual structure,colors, typography and their combinations). Various big-surfacesupermarkets were visited – at least three in each country – andall natural yogurts available (brands and off-brands) were pur-chased. The labels were subsequently scanned for their analysisby the semiotic team. Thirty-two labels were evaluated in total.Products were manufactured and sold in each of the countries sur-veyed (Spain, Uruguay, France and UK).

In the four countries, the colors, main image and general designof the yogurts labels were similar. The most common colors used inthe labels were blue, white, grey, black, lilac and green. The mainimages found on the labels included the product itself (in differenttypes of containers or served on a spoon), natural landscapes (sky,mountains and countryside, daisies, and cows), and a female sil-houette, depending on the type of yogurt. Yogurt labels with brightcolors that included images related to natural landscapes andimages of the product were found in the four countries, whereasthose yogurts with predominantly grey or black labels were onlyencountered in England.

2.2. Semiotic analysis of the commercial labels

A team of semiotic experts from the Departamento de Teoría delos Lenguajes y Ciencias de la Comunicación [Department of Lan-guage Theory and Communication Sciences] (Universitat de Valèn-cia) reviewed the labels surveyed from the four markets. Theyelaborated a report highlighting the main symbols contained inthe labels; these non-verbal elements were analyzed taking intoconsideration the typographic codes (Friedl, Ott, & Stein, 1998),the chromatic codes (Verichon, 2007; Zelanski & Fisher, 2006),the graphic codes and their distribution (Samara, 2007, 2009),and the messages they were intended to convey. The brand andany other information such as price, nutritional information, com-position, etc., were not considered. The analysis included two as-pects: a denotative or objective reading of the symbols, that is

G. Ares et al. / Food Quality and Preference 22 (2011) 689–698 691

the direct, rational, neutral message transmitted, and a connotativereading, based on the interpretation of the subliminal or latentmessages that are directed to produce reactions and emotions inthe consumer. The detailed semiotic analysis of the commercial la-bels has not been included in the present article because it wassimilar to that of the model labels, described in Section 3.1.

2.3. Design of the model labels

Five simulated yogurt label were designed by an expert indus-trial designer engineer from the Departamento de Proyectos deIngeniería of the Universitat Politècnica de València. The designswere based on the previous semiotic analysis, specifically, by com-bining some representative elements of the main messages presentin the commercial yogurts of the four surveyed markets. The objec-tive was to create five labels capable of conveying very distinctmessages.

The labels comprised different combination of non-verbal ele-ments; the only text included was ‘‘Plain Yogurt’’ (Yogur Naturalin Spanish), in different typographies and colors depending onthe message and taking into account the semiotic analysis. The fivedesigned model labels are displayed in Fig. 1. The labels were usedas stimuli for a consumer survey.

2.4. Semiotic analysis of the model labels

The semiotic experts reviewed the yogurt model labels createdin order to confirm that the messages involved were in line with

Fig. 1. Model labels of plain yogurt used in the study. (1) Yogurt

the main messages highlighted by the survey of the plain yogurtpreviously analyzed.

2.5. Consumer test

2.5.1. ParticipantsThe study was carried out in the cities of Montevideo (Uruguay)

and Valencia (Spain). Both cities have similar sized populations(around 1 million people) and correspond to the national capitalcity and a regional capital city, respectively. One hundred partici-pants answered the survey in each country. Participants were re-cruited in each city using a convenient, intentional and reasonedsampling. Convenience consumers’ samples are usually used inqualitative studies when the aim of the research is to get anapproximation to a research subject and involves recruiting avail-able participants who meet specific criteria (Kinnear & Taylor,1993).

Instead of randomly recruiting participants, specific age andgender quotas were defined to balance the sample and to avoid dif-ferences in the participants’ age and gender distribution betweenthe countries. Participants’ age ranged between 18 and 60 yearsold. Besides, in each city a minimum of 25 males and 25 femalesshould be more than 35 years old and a minimum of 25 malesand 25 females should be 34 years old or less (see Table 1).

Consumers were recruited via e-mail using databases in the twocountries. Apart from the age and gender requirement, they had tobe frequent consumers of natural yogurt (at least once a week).There was no requirement about brand usage. At recruitment

1; (2) Yogurt 2; (3) Yogurt 3; (4) Yogurt 4 and (5) Yogurt 5.

Table 1Demographic distribution of the participants.

Spaniards (n = 102) Uruguayans (n = 100)

Mean age (years) 35.6 36.57Gender distributionMen (%) 49 41Women (%) 51 59Yogurt consumption frequencyEvery day (%) 26.5 28Many times per week (%) 41.1 43Once a week (%) 32.4 27

692 G. Ares et al. / Food Quality and Preference 22 (2011) 689–698

stage, no information about the specific aim of the study wasprovided.

As expected, no significant differences were found in the genderand age distribution of the consumer samples recruited from Mon-tevideo and Valencia (v2 = 4.7, p = 0.20).

2.5.2. Consumer surveyThe consumer survey was designed by the sensory-consumer

experts from the Universidad de la República (Uruguay) and theInstituto de Agroquímica y Tecnología de Alimentos (Spain) co-authoring the present study.

The survey was delivered through online questionnaires inwhich consumers were given written instructions of the tasks.The questionnaires were self-completed at home.

Consumers were asked to complete a word association task.Word association is a quick, simple and useful qualitative method-ology commonly used in psychology and sociology (Ares, Giménez,& Gámbaro, 2008), and is based on the assumption that providing astimulus to a respondent and asking him/her to freely associatewhat ideas come to his/her mind could give relatively unrestrictedaccess to the respondent’s mental representations of the presentedstimulus. The stimuli in this case were the designed model labels.

The five labels were randomly presented to the participants fol-lowing a complete block experimental design (William’s LatinSquare). Each label was presented in an individual screen, togetherwith the task: ‘‘Please write down the first words, descriptions,associations, thoughts or feelings that come to your mind whenyou see the following image of a plain yogurt label’’. An open blankspace was provided were they could fit as many words or phrasesthey required (maximum 3000 characters).

2.6. Data analyses

All the associations provided by the participants were writtendown and analyzed. For each model label and country (Spain andUruguay), the frequency in which each association was mentionedwas determined by counting the number of participants that men-tioned that particular association. Words mentioned by more than5% of the consumers were considered for the data analyses. Thegrouping procedure was performed independently by three ofthe researchers who authored this study, considering personalinterpretation of the meaning of the words and word synonymyas determined by the same Spanish dictionary (Real AcademiaEspañola, 2006). After individually evaluating the data, a meetingof the researchers was undertaken in order to check the agreementbetween their classifications.

Significant differences between the frequencies of each associa-tion related to the model labels within each country were evalu-ated using Friedman’s Test. This test is a non-parametricalternative to ANOVA where the assumption of normality is notacceptable (Friedman, 1937). Friedman’s test was used instead ofchi-square test because the aim was to check for significant differ-ences in the frequency of mention of each of the elicited terms and

not global differences in the frequency distribution of all the elic-ited terms.

A multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) was performed onthe frequency table of the terms mentioned for each country. Also,a multiple factor analysis (MFA) was run on the data coming fromthe two countries as independent frequency data tables, to under-stand the comparative positioning of the five samples as perceivedby the consumers in the two markets.

FactoMineR was used to perform MCA and MFA (Husson, Josse,Lê, & Mazet, 2007; Lê, Josse, & Husson, 2008) in R language (RDevelopment Core Team, 2007). The rest of the analyses were per-formed with XLStat 2009 (Insightful, NY).

3. Results

3.1. Semiotic analysis

There are four main aspects of a label which can generate asso-ciations, and expectations in consumers’ mind: drawings (includ-ing the background and its texture), visual structure (relativepositioning of the elements), colors and typography. According toSpang (2010) considering that consumers’ purchase decisions arebased on emotional aspects rather than on rational considerations,the symbolic meaning of images play a key role in determiningconsumers’ associations of a food label.

Results of the semiotic analysis of the images of the labels aredetailed bellow:

Yogurt 1- The main image of the label referred to a traditional,artisanal production process and to a natural environment, stress-ing the freshness and naturalness of the product (Gracia, 1998).

Yogurt 2- The main image (daisies) also referred to nature andthe countryside, stressing the naturalness of the product. More-over, in some UK’s yogurts daisies and other flowers are commonlyused to represent organic products. In Uruguay, daisies are used inplain yogurt labels. Thus, the main image of this label tried to con-vey that it is a natural and organic product. In the back of the labelthere are two rounded mountains, which might communicate per-fection, calm and peace.

Yogurt 3- The main image in this label was the product itself,which tried to indicate that it is an authentic yogurt and that con-sumers would find exactly that product inside the package. The useof a non-conventional picture of the product is also used to com-municate the idea of a different, special and high quality product.

Yogurt 4- The principal image was an arrow pointing down-wards, suggesting that the product would have a positive effecton gastrointestinal health. The fact that the arrow is made of littlespheres could be associated with the idea of an effective productmade with high technology.

Yogurt 5- It had two main images: one related to the product it-self, stressing the sensory quality of the product and its authentic-ity (reference to a traditional yogurt glass container), and the otherone a slim, stylized silhouette, stressing the relationship betweenthe product and a good body figure. Therefore, the label tried toindicate that the yogurt is a high quality product which contributesto weight control and fitness.

The visual structure of the label is mainly influenced by culture.In western cultures, reading is done from left to right, which sug-gests that the main elements would be placed on the middle oron the right side (Acaso, 2009). In the case of the labels consideredin the present work, all the images had a central location.

The types of lines that are used in the label communicate a lot ofinformation to consumers and evoke different associations(Dupont, 2004). A horizontal straight line as the one used inYogurts 3 and 4 suggests calm, tranquility, security and stability(University of the State of New York., 1910), which may suggest

Table 2Summary of results from semiotic analysis of the five yogurt labels considered.

Yogurt Main message Product characteristics, feelings andemotions conveyed by the label

Yogurt1

Natural, artisanal product Freshness, naturalness, calm,relaxation, peace and purity

Yogurt2

Natural, ecological ororganic product

Light or low-calorie, freshness, calmand relaxation

Yogurt3

Premium, high qualityproduct

Exclusive, authentic and elegant

Yogurt4

Natural, positive effect ongastrointestinal health

Dynamism, joy, naturalness andoptimism

Yogurt5

High quality product,positive effect on weightcontrol

Feminine, weight control, authentic,dynamism and joy

G. Ares et al. / Food Quality and Preference 22 (2011) 689–698 693

that these feelings might a be a result of the improvement in healthstatus reached through the consumption of this product. Curvedlines, as in Yogurt 5, suggest smoothness, elegance, happiness, fan-tasy and youth, association that could be related to weight control.According to Vidales Giovannetti (1995) curved lines are also asso-ciated with femininity.

Colors in a food label are usually used to differentiate betweenproducts and make them more attractive to consumers. Attractivecolors are able to catch consumers’ attention even when seen froma long distance. However, colors have an important symbolicmeaning, communicating different emotions and ideals, and mak-ing the product identifiable and memorable (Hine, 1995; VidalesGiovannetti, 1995). Díaz Rojo, Morant Marco, and Westall Pixton(2006) state that the symbolic meaning of color is used by consum-ers to associate, differentiate, classify and rank food products.

The main colors used in the label of Yogurt 1 were green, blueand white. Green is commonly used to express healthiness, fresh-ness, naturalness and life (Díaz Rojo et al., 2006; García Fernández,2000; Grande Esteban, 2006). Blue refers to calm, relaxation,safety, freshness, cleanness and peace, particularly in this casein which it was used in the representation of the sky (VidalesGiovannetti, 1995); whereas white suggests purity, tranquilityand cleanness (Acaso, 2009).

Green, blue and white were also used in Yogurt 2, but in thiscase with a different purpose. Green was only used in the typogra-phy, which tried to suggest that the naturalness of the product wasnot the central idea that the label is trying to convey. The main col-ors were white, related to purity and cleanness, and sky blue,stressing the freshness and purity of the product. The combinationof colors is usually used to convey the idea of well-being, health,being commonly used in light, low-calorie or healthy food prod-ucts. An interesting feature of this label was that sky blue was usedin the mountains and that white was used in the sky. This might beassociated with the fact that the designer wanted to create animaginary world, presenting the product as different, dreamy andmodern (Vidales Giovannetti, 1995). Orange and yellow were alsoused in this label, communicating optimism, joy, vitality and light-ness, as the flowers themselves did (Dupont, 2004).

Yogurt 3 used a range of colors that widely differed from thosecommonly used in yogurt labels. In this case serious, dark colorssuch as grey and black were used, which tried to communicatethe idea of an elegant, luxurious, special product for a specificgroup of people (Acaso, 2009; Vidales Giovannetti, 1995). Accord-ing to García Fernández (2000) black represents the maximumsophistication and the highest social class. However, it is interest-ing to notice that this color has been also associated with negativeideas such as illness and death, suggesting that some consumersmight not like this type of label (Acaso, 2009; Vidales Giovannetti,1995).

Green clearly dominated the label of Yogurt 4, stressing the ideaof a natural and healthy product. Moreover, green could also beassociated to calm, peace and tranquility. The yellow color of thearrow is associated to optimism, joy and dynamism (Dupont,2004), which could be associated to the fact that these feelingsmight be a consequence of consuming this type of product dueto its effect on health. White was used in the typography to com-municate the idea of purity, freshness, calm and peace.

The main color in Yogurt 5 is lilac, which is associated with wo-men, dreams and relax (Vidales Giovannetti, 1995). The use of yel-low and orange gamuts in the curved lines tried to communicateoptimism, energy and joy, which could be a consequence of weightcontrol through the consumption of this product. White once againwas present in the typography of this yogurt, conveying the idea ofnatural and pure product.

Typography is another important visual element in a food label,being able to express, evoke and communicate sensations and

emotions to consumers. According to Dupont (2004) typographydetermines whether the message is successfully conveyed to con-sumers or not.

A first aspect is the use of lowercase or capital letters. Capitalletters are usually used when a word wants to be emphasized(Aicher, 1988). In this sense, Yogurts 1–4 used capital letters inthe word ‘‘natural’’ (‘‘plain’’ in English) stressing the type of yogurtover the food category. Particularly, in the case of Yogurt 1 the sizeof the word ‘‘natural’’ was larger than the size of the word ‘‘yogur’’,which intended to put emphasis on the fact that it is a plain andnatural yogurt (in Spanish ‘‘natural’’ is a polysemic word that inthis context means both ‘‘plain’’ and ‘‘natural’’ in English) (Aicher,1988).

The main message, product characteristics, feelings and emo-tions that are conveyed by the labels according to a professionalsemiotic analysis are summarized in Table 2.

3.2. Word association – Frequency of elicitation

In order to analyze results from the word association task, allthe elicited words were grouped into categories in order to over-come the possible bias of considering individual words. Only thosecategories mentioned by more than 5% of the consumer sample forat least one yogurt in one of the countries were considered for fur-ther analysis.

3.2.1. Comparison of the two countriesAs shown in Table 3 56 categories were identified, of which 49

had at least a number of mentions equivalent to 5% of the consum-ers for at least one yogurt label for Spanish consumers, whereas 47categories were relevant for Uruguayan consumers. This suggeststhat some differences existed between Spanish and Uruguayanconsumers’ associations regarding the evaluated yogurt labels.

Frequency of elicitation has been related to the importance of aconcept in consumers’ mind and therefore the most frequentlymentioned categories might be those more relevant for consumers’perception of the evaluated yogurt labels (Guerrero, Colomer,Guàrdia, Xicola, & Clotet, 2000). The most frequently elicited cate-gories in Spain were Probiotics (n = 94), Natural (n = 86), Healthy(n = 81), Commercial brands (n = 64), Nature/Countryside (n = 61),and Diet/Slimming (n = 53). Thus, in general Spanish consumers’associations of the evaluated labels were mainly related to aspectsrelated to health, naturalness and interestingly the recall of com-mercial brands of yogurt. In Uruguay the most frequently men-tioned categories were Yummy/Pleasant (n = 66), Fresh (n = 62),Healthy (n = 61), Probiotics (n = 58), and Nature/Countryside(n = 50); suggesting that for Uruguayan consumers the most sali-ent associations were related to health, naturalness, and expectedsensory and hedonic characteristics of the yogurts. It is interestingto notice that although the majority of the categories were relevant

Table 3Categories identified in the word association task and p-value of the Friedman test for establishing differences between the frequencies of the associations related to the modellabels within each country.

Category Spain Uruguay Category Spain Uruguay

Acid 0.061 0.085 Maternal <0.001* <0.001*

Advertising <0.001* – Milk <0.001* <0.001*

Artificial 0.035* 0.061 Modern <0.001* –Attractive – 0.008* Natural <0.001* <0.001*

Bland flavor 0.502 0.349 Nature/Countryside <0.001* <0.001*

Cheap 0.004* – Not attractive – 0.014*

Childhood 0.001* 0.517 Odd 0.092 0.274Classic/Old-fashioned 0.003* 0.219 Organic/Environmentally friendly 0.458 –Commercial brands <0.001* <0.001* Premium 0.004* <0.001*

Cosmetic products <0.001* – Probiotics <0.001* <0.001*

Cows <0.001* <0.001* Purity 0.004* 0.024*

Creamy <0.001* <0.001* Tranquility/Peace 0.511 <0.001*

Diet/Slimming <0.001* <0.001* Rejection to try/purchase – 0.007*

Feminine <0.001* <0.001* Runny/Liquid <0.001* <0.001*

Firm – <0.001* Tacky <0.001* –Flowers <0.001* <0.001* Simple 0.406 0.287Freedom 0.001* – Skimmed <0.001* <0.001*

Fresh 0.033* <0.001* Smooth 0.019* 0.009*

Fruits 0.071 0.004* Spanish regions <0.001* –Full fat 0.001* 0.072 Spring <0.001* <0.001*

Happiness 0.001* 0.005* Sugar – <0.001*

Healthy 0.011* 0.120 Sweet 0.429 0.675Homemade <0.001* <0.001* Thick <0.001* <0.001*

Indifference 0.427 0.282 Traditional <0.001* <0.001*

Herbal tea <0.001* – Unpleasant/Disliking – 0.076*

Light 0.394 0.084 Willingness to try/purchase 0.458 0.305Liking – 0.030* Without additives 0.001* 0.008*

Low calorie <0.001* <0.001* Yummy/Tasty/Pleasant 0.019* <0.001*

Categories identified by ‘–’ were mentioned by less than 5% of the participants for all the evaluated labels.* Indicates significant differences between the frequencies of the associations related to the model labels within each country, for a significance level of 0.05.

694 G. Ares et al. / Food Quality and Preference 22 (2011) 689–698

for both countries, some of them were only mentioned in only oneof the countries, suggesting cross-cultural differences in consum-ers’ associations of the model labels.

The evaluated labels raised different associations in consumers’minds in both countries. As shown in Table 3, according to Fried-man’s test significant differences were found in the frequency ofmention of 39 categories in Spain and for 35 categories in Uruguay.

Some differences were found in the categories that were signif-icant in discriminating between the labels, suggesting differencesbetween Spanish and Uruguayan consumers. Uruguayan consum-ers not only mentioned more frequently words related to pleasureand hedonics than Spanish consumers but they also used them todifferentiate the labels in a larger extent (Table 2).

Despite differences in some of the categories elicited in bothcountries, in general consumers’ associations for the main messageof each model label were similar in Spain and Uruguay.

3.2.2. Consumers’ perception of Yogurt 1When thinking of Yogurt 1 (c.f. Fig. 1) Spanish consumers

mainly elicited the categories Natural (n = 41), Nature/Countryside(n = 30), Healthy (n = 25), Cows (n = 19), Traditional (n = 15), Home-made (n = 14) and Fresh (n = 13); whereas Uruguayan consumersmentioned the categories Nature/Countryside (n = 34), Natural(n = 27), Fresh (n = 27), Yummy (n = 19), Healthy (n = 18), Home-made (n = 17), Milk (n = 16), Cows (n = 14) and Tranquility (n = 14).Most mentioned categories in both countries were, as expected, re-lated to a traditional, artisanal, fresh product and to a natural envi-ronment, conveyed by the blue, white and green design of label 1(Díaz Rojo et al., 2006; García Fernández, 2000; Gracia, 1998;Grande Esteban, 2006; Vidales Giovannetti, 1995).

3.2.3. Consumers’ perception of Yogurt 2In the case of Yogurt 2 the categories mostly mentioned in Spain

and Uruguay were Nature/Countryside (n = 27, n = 11), Healthy(n = 21, n = 15), Fresh (n = 13, n = 21), Spring (n = 10, n = 14), and

Flowers (n = 11, n = 11). Spanish consumers also mentioned the cat-egories Natural (n = 17), Herbal tea (n = 14), Happiness (n = 10) andTacky (n = 10); whereas Uruguayan consumers used the categoriesYummy/Tasty/Pleasant (n = 11) and Skimmed (n = 10). Referencesto naturalness, freshness and healthiness were also made in thiscase but mentions of happiness became important in this label, asexpected by the appearance of flowers and orange and yellow col-ors in the design (Dupont, 2004). It is worth highlighting that nomention to organic was made, suggesting that the association thatexists between flowers and ‘‘organic’’ observed in English yogurtsdoes not exist in Spain or Uruguay. On the other hand, Herbal Teamentions in Spain probably came from the association with theflowers normally showed in this kind of teas’ packaging in thatcountry. It is worth noting that the offer of organic yogurts in Spainand Uruguay is much lower that in the UK or in France, so it isexpectable that with the raise of this type of products, and if theimage of daisies/flowers is linked to them, in a few years this asso-ciation could be made by consumers in the two target countries.

3.2.4. Consumers’ perception of Yogurt 3Yogurt 3 was perceived as a premium product by Uruguayan

consumers (n = 18) and as modern by Spanish consumers (n = 26),being the idea of a ‘‘luxurious’’ product positioning, successfullyconveyed by the dark color of the design (Acaso, 2009; GarcíaFernández, 2000; Vidales Giovannetti, 1995). Moreover, consumersin both countries expected this yogurt to be Runny/liquid (n = 16 inSpain and n = 24 in Uruguay), Creamy (n = 22 and 10). Many men-tions for the category Milk (n = 15 and 16) were made when think-ing of this label, whereas consumers in Uruguay mentioned thehedonic-related categories Yummy/Tasty/Pleasant (n = 11) andUnpleasant/Disliking (n = 10), which indicated a clear segmentationin consumers’ hedonic perception of this label. The dislike mayhave been potentially generated as a negative response to black,as suggested by some authors (Acaso, 2009; Vidales Giovannetti,1995).

G. Ares et al. / Food Quality and Preference 22 (2011) 689–698 695

It is worth mentioning than black labels per se did not exist inUruguay or Spain at the time of the survey in yogurts. However,other premium products in both countries were using this kingof aesthetics (ice-cream, crisps, chocolate, etc.). The fact that someconsumers have negative hedonic expectations regarding this la-bel, might be related to that, they did not link the use of black tothe category, so they reject it. However, in general, the principleof premium/modern/designed was successfully conveyed.

3.2.5. Consumers’ perception of Yogurt 4Yogurt 4 was associated with commercial brands of probiotic

yogurts and therefore the most elicited categories in both countrieswere Probiotics (n = 77 and 53 in Spain and Uruguay, respectively),Commercial brands (n = 35 and 15) and Healthy (n = 14 and 14). Thislabel was the most straightforward for consumers, they agreed in agreat extent, generating fewer associations with high frequenciesof mention.

3.2.6. Consumers’ perception of Yogurt 5In the case of Yogurt 5, Spaniards’ and Uruguayans’ associations

were related to the categories Diet/Slimming (n = 36 and 10), Low-calories (n = 16 and 15), Feminine (n = 16 and 13) and Healthy(n = 13 and 11), confirming the message suggested by the curvedlines and lilac color were successfully conveyed in both countries(Vidales Giovannetti, 1995). Uruguayan consumers also used the

y1y2

y3

y4

y5

-1

0

1

2101-

Dim 1 (34.5%)

Dim

2 (2

7.8%

)

y1

y2

y3

y4

y5

-1

0

1

101-

Dim 3 (20.4%)

Dim

4 (1

7.2%

)

Fig. 2. Multiple correspondence analysis representatio

categories Yummy (n = 24), Firm (n = 15) and Creamy (n = 12),whereas Spanish consumers mentioned categories such as Com-mercial brands (n = 13) and Skimmed (n = 12) when thinking of thisproduct. Firm and creamy were relevant for Uruguayans, probablybecause of the image of the spoon, picturing a firm-set yogurt,not that common in Uruguay, as most yogurts are stirred in thatcountry. In Spain, however, the most common offering is withinthe firm-set yogurt type, so that might be why it was not necessaryfor them to point out textural characteristics in this case.

3.3. Word association – Multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) andmultiple factor analysis (MFA)

MCA was used to study the relationships between the yogurt la-bels and consumer associations in each country.

The representation of the categories and the labels in the fourdimensions of the MCA enabled the identification of the profileof each label according to consumers’ associations. As shown inFigs. 2 and 3, the five yogurts were clearly differentiated, corre-sponding to different product categories and raising differentexpectations in consumers in both countries.

In the MCA of Spaniards’ data, Yogurt 1 was located at positivevalues of the second dimension, and at negative values of the thirdand fourth dimensions of the MCA, being associated with the cat-egories Traditional, Natural, Homemade, Without additives, Spanish

Healthy

Natural

Artificial

Without aditives

Homemade

Fresh

Full fat

Skimmed

Diet Slimming

Low calorie

Creamy

Acid

ThickRunny

Bland flavour

Smooth

Light

Yummy

Attractive

LikingWillingness to try

Unpleasant

Not attractive

Rejection to tryMilk

Sugar

CowsNature Spring

Maternal

Classic

Happiness

Quietness

Purity

Modern

Premium

Simple

Feminine

Probiotics

Indiference

Organic

Freedom

Childhood

Traditional

Cheap

Commercial brands

Spanish regionsFlowers

Shabby

Herbal tea

FruitsSweet

Cosmetic productsOdd

Advertising

-2

-1

0

1

2

-2 -1 0 1 2

Dim 1 (34.2%)

Dim

2 (2

7.4%

)

Healthy

NaturalArtificial

Without aditives

Homemade

Fresh

Full fatSkimmed

Diet Slimming

Low calorieCreamy

Acid

Thick Runny

Bland flavour

SmoothLight

Yummy

AttractiveLiking Willingness to try

Unpleasant

Not attractive

Rejection to try

Milk SugarCows

Nature

Spring

Maternal

Classic

Happiness

QuitenessPurity

Modern

Premium

Simple

Feminine

ProbioticsIndiference

OrganicFreedom

Childhood

Traditional

Cheap

Commercial brands

Spanish regions

Flowers

Shabby

Herbal tea

Fruits

SweetCosmetic products

Odd

Advertising

-2

-1

0

1

2

2101-2-

Dim 3 (21.9%)

Dim

4 (1

7.4%

)

n of categories and labels for Spanish consumers.

y1

y2

y3

y4

y5

-1

0

1

2

101-2-

Dim 1 (36.7%)

Dim

2 (2

5.5%

)

y1

y2

y3

y4

y5

-1

0

1

101-

Dim 3 (21.9%)

Dim

4 (1

5.8%

)

Healthy

Natural

Artificial

Without aditives

Homemade

FreshFull fatSkimmed

Diet Slimming

Low calorie

Creamy

Acid

Thick

Firm

Runny

Bland flavour

Smooth

Light

YummyAttractive

Liking

Willingness to try

Unpleasant

Not attractiveRejection to try

Milk

Sugar

Cows

Nature

Spring

Maternal

Classic

Happiness

Quiteness

Purity

Modern

Premium

SimpleFeminineProbiotics

Indiference

Freedom

Childhood

Traditional

CheapCommercial

brands

Flowers

Shabby

Fruits

Sweet

OddAdvertising

-1

0

1

2

101-2-

Dim 1 (36.7%)

Dim

2 (2

5.5%

)

Advertising

Odd

SweetFruitsShabby

Flowers

Commercial brands

Cheap

Traditional

Childhood

Freedom

Indiference

Probiotics

FeminineSimplePremium

Modern

PurityQuiteness

Happiness

Classic

Maternal

Spring

Nature

Cows Sugar

Milk

Rejection to tryNot attractive

Unpleasant

Willingness to tryLiking

Attractive

Yummy

Light

SmoothBland flavour

Runny

Firm

Thick

Acid

Creamy

Low calorie

Diet Slimming

Skimmed

Full fat

Fresh

Homemade

Without aditives

Artificial

Natural

Healthy

-2

-1

0

1

2

2101-2-

Dim 3 (21.9%)

Dim

4 (1

5.8%

)

Fig. 3. Multiple correspondence analysis representation of categories and labels for Uruguayan consumers.

696 G. Ares et al. / Food Quality and Preference 22 (2011) 689–698

milk producer’ regions, Full fat, Freedom, and Cows. Yogurt 2 was lo-cated at positive values of the second and fourth dimensions andwas differentiated from the rest for being associated with the cat-egories Cheap, Flowers, Spring and Herbal tea.

Yogurt 3 showed a clearly different profile. This yogurt was lo-cated at positive values of the first dimension and negative valuesof the second, and it was related to the categories Runny/Liquid,Maternal, Creamy, Modern, Premium, Thick and Milk. It is interestingthat both Liquid and Thick were mentioned for the same label,probably due to the different expectations raised by the yogurtphotograph.

Yogurt 4 was associated with categories such as Probiotics, Acid,Commercial brands and Advertising. Meanwhile, the third dimen-sion of the MFA separated Yogurt 5 from the rest due to the corre-lation of this dimension with the categories Classic, Low calories,Diet/Slimming, Feminine, Sugar, and Artificial.

As shown in Fig. 3, the MCA of Uruguayan consumers’ data wassimilar to that of Spanish consumers’ data, being the differentiationand characterization of the yogurts similar. This similarity in theposition of the evaluated labels in the two countries is shown inFig. 4, through the representation of the labels in the first and sec-ond dimension of the MFA ran on the data of the two countries asindependent frequency data tables. The representation of the cate-gories in the MFA showed agreement in most of the categories that

were used by consumers in both countries (data not shown). Theseresults mean that the general understanding of the messages con-veyed by the five model labels was the same in both countries, andthat the differences pointed out in the five detailed cases, relativeto cultural or exposure differences in both countries did not deter-mine overall perception.

4. Discussion

According to the semiotic analysis, the evaluated yogurt modellabels tried to convey different messages regarding the type ofproduct they represented and particularly about product charac-teristics, feelings and emotions (Table 2). According to the wordassociation task, some of the messages that the label tried to com-municate to consumers were conveyed, whereas others were not.

As shown in Table 2 and Figs. 2 and 3, the main message regard-ing the type of yogurt each label represented was successfullycommunicated to consumers. They associated Yogurt 1 with a nat-ural, homemade o artisanal product, Yogurt 2 with a natural prod-uct, Yogurt 3 was regarded as a premium yogurt, whereas Yogurts4 and 5 were associated with gastrointestinal health and weightcontrol, respectively.

These main messages were understood in a very similar way byconsumers in Uruguay and Spain, suggesting agreement in the

Fig. 4. Representation of the labels in the multiple factor analysis performed on thedata of the two countries as independent frequency data tables.

G. Ares et al. / Food Quality and Preference 22 (2011) 689–698 697

understanding of the basic symbols used in the evaluated modellabels despite cultural differences.

It is interesting to notice that in the case of Yogurt 2 consumersdid not associate the flowers with an organic and ecological prod-uct in any of the countries, despite the fact that this was one of themessages that the semiotic analysis identified for this label inEurope; however this could be due to the fact of the low exposureto organic yogurts in the two countries target of this study. ForYogurt 3, associated with a premium quality in both markets, darkcolors were negatively appreciated by some Uruguayan consumers(dislike/unpleasant associations) probably due to the absence ofthese colors in milk product packaging in their country, leadingto an incongruence of meaning.

Consumers’ responses to the word association task were mainlyrelated to product status, sensory and hedonic characteristics ofthe yogurts, being terms related to feelings and emotions men-tioned in a much lower frequency, particularly in Spain. Thus, mostconsumers did not seem to spontaneously think of emotional is-sues when evaluating the label of different types of yogurts, oremotions were more difficult to verbalize or made conscious. Forthis reason, it would be interesting to specifically investigate theemotional issues related to the evaluated model labels, and tocompare these emotions with the ones that were identified insemiotic analysis.

5. Conclusions

The multidisciplinary approach developed for this study provedto be highly successful. A consumer study was proposed, based onword association, using as stimuli model labels originated by theinteraction of tools as semiotics, design and consumer research.

The results obtained in the word association task indicated thatthe main messages conveyed by the model labels were well under-stood in Spain and Uruguay. Furthermore, the overall perception ofthe yogurt labels was very similar in both countries.

However, some cultural differences were noted between thetwo countries. In general, Uruguayan consumers used more

frequently hedonic terms while commercial brands were morerelevant to Spaniards. In particular, the use of flowers in a yogurtlabel to convey ‘‘organic’’ was not successful in none of thecountries, probably due to a low exposure to this sign because ofthe low penetration of organic yogurts. In addition, the use of blackcolor to convey the meaning of high quality, premium or exclusivewas successfully understood in both, even if this color is not usedin yogurt labels in none of the countries. However this concept wasrejected by some Uruguayan consumers, probably because of theabsence of these colors in milk product packaging in their country,leading to an incongruence of meaning.

More research is needed in the field of semiotics and percep-tion, particularly focusing in sensory/hedonic expectations andalso in the emotions generated by products labels. Also, it mightbe interesting to study the interaction of labels, package materialsand shape in consumers’ perception and expectations.

References

Acaso, M. (2009). El lenguaje visual. Barcelona: Paidós Ibérica.Aicher, O. (1988). Tipografía. Valencia: Campgràfic.Ares, G., & Deliza, R. (2010). Studying the influence of package shape and colour on

consumer expectations of milk desserts using word association and conjointanalysis. Food Quality and Preference, 21, 930–937.

Ares, G., Giménez, A., & Gámbaro, A. (2008). Understanding consumers’ perceptionof conventional and functional yogurts using word association and hardladdering. Food Quality and Preference, 19, 636–643.

Becker, L., van Rompay, T. J. L., Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Galetzka, M. (2011). Toughpackage, strong taste: The influence of packaging design on taste impressionsand product evaluations. Food Quality and Preference, 22, 17–23.

Berger, A. A. (1995). Semiotics and Cultural Criticism. In Cultural Criticism. A primer ofkey concepts. London: SAGE Publications Ltd., pp. 73–77.

Cardello, A. V. (1994). Consumer expectations and their role in food acceptance. InH. J. H. MacFie & D. M. H. Thomson (Eds.), Measurement of Food Preferences(pp. 253–297). London: Blackie Academic and Professional.

Crilly, N., Moultrie, J., & Clarkson, P. J. (2004). Seeing things: Consumer response tothe visual domain in product design. Design Studies, 25, 547–577.

Dano, F. (1996). Packaging: une approche sémiotique. Recherche et Applications enMarketing, 11, 23–25.

Deliza, R., & MacFie, H. J. H. (1996). The generation of sensory expectation byexternal cues and its effect on sensory perception and hedonic ratings: Areview. Journal of Sensory Studies, 11, 103–128.

Deliza, R., MacFie, H., & Hedderley, D. (2003). Use of computer-generated imagesand conjoint analysis to investigate sensory expectations. Journal of SensoryStudies, 18, 465–486.

Díaz Rojo, J. A., Morant Marco, R., & Westall Pixton, D. (2006). El culto a la salud y labelleza. La retórica del bienestar. Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva.

Dittmar, K. (1992). The Social Psychology of Human Possessions. New York: StMartins’ Press.

Dupont, L. (2004). 1001 trucos publicitarios. Barcelona: Ediciones Robinbook.Fenko, A., Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Hekkert, P. (2010). Shifts in sensory dominance

between various stages of user-product interactions. Applied Ergonomics, 41,34–40.

Friedl, F., Ott, N., & Stein, B. (1998). Typography: An encyclopedic survey of type designand techniques throughout history. New York: BlackDog & Leventhal.

Friedman, M. (1937). The use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality implicitin the analysis of variance. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 32(200),675–701.

García Fernández, J. L. (2000). Comunicación no verbal. Periodismo y mediosaudiovisuales. Madrid: Editorial Universitas.

Gracia, M. (1998). El significado de los colores en la publicidad alimentaria. In A.Barusi, F. X. Medina, & G. Colesanti (Eds.), El color en la alimentaciónmediterránea (pp. 171–182). Barcelona: Institut Català de la Mediterrània.

Grande Esteban, I. (2006). Conducta real del consumidor y marketing efectivo. Madrid:ESIC.

Guerrero, L., Colomer, Y., Guàrdia, M. D., Xicola, J., & Clotet, R. (2000). Consumerattitude towards store brands. Food Quality and Preference, 11, 387–395.

Hine, T. (1995). The total package: The secret history and hidden meanings of boxes,bottles, cans, and other persuasive containers. New York: Little Brown.

Husson, F., Josse, J., Lê, S., & Mazet, J. (2007). FactoMineR: Factor analysis and datamining with R. R package version 1.04. URL http://cran.R-project.org/package=FactoMineR.

Jaeger, S. R. (2006). Non-sensory factors in sensory science research. Food Qualityand Preference, 17, 132–144.

Kehret-Ward, T. (1988). Using a semiotic approach to study the consumption offunctionally related products. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 4,187–200.

Kinnear, T. C., & Taylor, J. R. (1993). Investigación de Mercados. Un enfoque aplicado.Colombia: McGraw-Hill Interamericana S.A, pp. 361–371.

698 G. Ares et al. / Food Quality and Preference 22 (2011) 689–698

Lange, C., Issanchou, S., & Combris, P. (2000). Expected versus experienced quality:trade-off with price. Food Quality and Preference, 11, 289–297.

Lê, S., Josse, J., & Husson, F. (2008). FactoMineR: An R package for multivariateanalysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 25(1).

Morris, C. W. (1939). Esthetics and the theory of signs. Erkenntnis, 8, 131–150.Moskowitz, H. R., Porretta, S., & Silcher, M. (2005). Concepts as combinations of

graphics. In H. R. Moskowitz (Ed.), Concept research in food product design anddevelopment (pp. 105–121). Ames: Blackwell Publishing.

Moskowitz, H. R., Reisner, M., lawlor, J. B., & Deliza, R. (2009). Packaging research infood product design and development. Ames: Wiley-Blackwell.

Murray, J. M., & Delahunty, C. M. (2000). Mapping consumer preference for thesensory and packaging attributes of Cheddar cheese. Food Quality andPreference, 11, 419–435.

Olson, J. C., & Dover, P. A. (1979). Disconfirmation of consumer expectations throughproduct trial. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 179–189.

Opperud, A. (2004). Semiotic Product Analysis. In D. McDonagh, P. Hekkert, J. vanErp, & D. Gyi (Eds.), Design and Emotion (pp. 137–141). London: Taylor andFrancis.

Real Academia Española. (2006). Diccionario de la Lengua Española. Madrid: EspasaCalpe S.A.

Rodríguez Tarango, J. A. (2003). Introducción a la Ingeniería en Envase y Embalaje.In J. A. Rodríguez Tarango (Ed.). Manual de ingeniería y diseño en envase yembalaje para la industia de los alimentos, farmaceútica, química y de cosméticos(pp. 1:1–1:6). México: Instituto Mexicano de Profesionales en Envase yEmbalaje S.C.

Rousseau, B., & Ennis, D. M. (2008). An Application of Landscape SegmentationAnalysis� to Blind and Branded Data. IFPress, 11, 2–3.

Samara, T. (2007). Design Elements: A Graphic Style Manual. Minneapolis, MN:Rockport Publishers.

Samara, T. (2009). The Designer’s Graphics Stew: Visual Ingredients, Techniques, andLayout Recipes for Graphic Designers. Minneapolis, MN: Rockport Publishers.

Smith, V., Mogelvang-Hansen, P., & Hyldig, G. (2010). Spin versus fair speak in foodlabelling: A matter of taste? Food Quality and Preference, 21, 1016–1025.

Spang, K. (2010). Vender con figuras. In S. Robles & M. V. Romero (Eds.), Publicidad ylengua española (pp. 40–53). Sevilla: Comunicación Social Ediciones ypublicaciones.

Steenkamp, J. E. B. M. (1989). Product quality: an investigation into the concept andhow it is perceived by consumers. Assen: Van Gorcum.

Ulrich, R. O., & Malkewitz, K. (2008). Holistic package design and consumer brandimpressions. Journal of Marketing, 72, 64–81.

University of the State of New York. (1910). Free Hand Draqing Introduction. In:Design and Representation. A Handbook for Teachers. Albany, NY State.

van Dam, Y. K., & van Trijp, H. C. M. (1994). Consumer perceptions of, andpreferences for, beverage containers. Food Quality and Preference, 5, 253–261.

Verichon, A. (2007). Colors: what they mean and how to make them. New York: HarryN. Abrams, Inc.

Vidales Giovannetti, M. D. (1995). El mundo del envase. Manual para el diseño yproducción de envases y embalajes. Barcelona: Editorial Gustavo Gili.

Zelanski, P. J., & Fisher, M. P. (2006). Color. Upper Saddle River. NJ: Prentice Hall.