Internet’s Influence on Packaging Buyers is Inevitable, 2016 Packaging Industry Survey Says Pt. 2
New packaging industry research shows just how much the internet influences packaging buyers. The research is meant to improve the online shopping experience for both buyers and suppliers, with the intention of closing the gaps between buyers’ expectations and suppliers’ services provided online. To accomplish this, the survey set out to find out about the process packaging professionals use on the internet while finding information about suppliers or products, comparison shopping and other important factors of the buying process.
A 2016 survey called Online Buying Behavior of Packaging Buyers from Fontys University of Applied Sciences, which involved over 450 people from 21 countries, asked packaging professionals about their purchasing history using the internet over the past year. The findings focus on 227 of these people who answered 20 questions about using the internet to facilitate a packaging purchase. This blog will focus on the survey findings of Effort, Impact, Intent and Reputation.
This survey asked packaging buyers to rate what they found on the internet using the following four factors; 1. Effort needed to find it, measured as either low or high; 2. The impact delivered, measured as either none or lots; 3. The intent as presented by the information, measured as vague/unclear or supportive of me; and 4. Reputation of the content, measured as misleading/doubtful or impressive/certain.
Specifically, the survey looked at effort ratings and the role of the buyer.
The survey also delved into reasons the buyers thought materials were difficult to buy online, using a forced scale of distributing 100 points among the choices, and the distance searched vs. smoothness. These findings proved there is room for improvement to make the process of buying packaging materials online smoother overall. The findings of distance searched vs. smoothness were very similar from last year’s survey – the average rating being 6.5 with a standard deviation of 2.0 in 2016 and 6.8 with a standard deviation of 2.0 in 2015.