Label Design as a Competitive Differentiator: Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Segment of Decorative Paints

Ângela Cristina Gonçalves Minutti; Felipe Galesi Jaoude

DOI: 10.22167/2675-6528-202602671

Article derived from a Course Conclusion Work (TCC), with content based on the student’s original work and adapted to the editorial format of the E&S Magazine with the support of the ResumeAI tool, an artificial intelligence solution developed by Instituto Pecege for textual synthesis and organization.

Summary

The growing competitiveness at the point of sale has expanded the role of packaging as a central element in communication between product and consumer. The study aimed to understand the influence of label design on consumer perception and the competitiveness of paint packaging. To this end, a mixed-methods research was conducted, including a literature review and the application of a structured electronic questionnaire to a non-probabilistic convenience sample of 210 respondents. Data analysis considered scale ratings, comparisons between two paint packaging options, and open-ended responses. The results showed that color stood out as the main element of initial attraction. Clarity of information and overall appearance were most cited as influencing factors in the choice. It was observed that design, although not always explicitly recognized as a decisive factor, exerted relevant influence when comparing different options, impacting the perception of quality, trust, and preference. It was concluded that the label acts as a mediator in the purchasing experience, capable of influencing perception and contributing to product competitiveness at the point of sale, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises.

Keywords: Buying behavior; Visual communication; Point of sale experience; Decision making; Perceived value.

1. Introduction

Packaging, driven by human needs and technological advancements, has transcended its original function of conservation and safe transportation of goods. Currently, it assumes a strategic role in marketing and communication, serving as a crucial channel of connection between the manufacturer and the consumer (Junior and Viana, 2024). This evolution has consolidated packaging as a symbolic element that represents the brand’s values, attributes, and promises, becoming an active agent in the purchasing decision process and surpassing its mere utility to represent an entire industry.

Within this context, the label is defined by Decree-Law No. 986 (Brazil, 1969) as any identification printed or engraved on the container or packaging, evidencing its communicative nature. Complementarily, the Consumer Defense Code (Brazil, 1990), in its Article 31, establishes that the label must guarantee the right to information, presenting correct, clear, precise, and conspicuous data to the consumer.

Beyond legal requirements, the label plays a strategic role by enabling product and brand identification, the clear presentation of its characteristics, and promotion through visual design elements. Thus, the label directly influences consumer attention and contributes to the generation of perceived value (Kotler and Keller, 2012). The introduction of a product into the market, after planning and investment, makes the label’s attributes decisive at the point of sale, where competition is fierce. Inadequate design decisions can, therefore, compromise brand perception and marketing efforts.

However, micro and small enterprises often lack specialized design or marketing support, leading their managers to make decisions based on intuitive perceptions, without technical grounding (Sartor, 2024). For these companies, packaging often becomes the only sales tool available at the point of purchase, especially when there is no brand promotion support through other channels (Sartor, 2021). This scenario highlights the importance of studies that can guide these companies in prioritizing key elements on the label, such as color, clarity of information, quality seal, typography, or product image.

The shopping experience in retail and self-service models is strongly influenced by the five senses, with sight and touch allowing for a more engaging interaction with the product (Strunck, 2011). In this sense, investment in labels and packaging can be decisive in the consumer’s choice “moment of truth”. The visual communicator’s decisions in composing visual elements are crucial for solving problems and expressing the message’s objective (Dondis, 2003). Research indicates that packaging appearance significantly influences consumers, with 85.6% of respondents affirming this influence (Jacob et al., 2025). Therefore, label planning, including defining a strategy for elements such as shapes, images, colors, and typography, is fundamental (Mestriner, 2005).

It is considered relevant to investigate the role of the label and its visual elements as strategic communication tools. The understanding of how these elements, when applied with intentionality and coherence from a theoretical repertoire, can enhance the clarity of information, reinforce the perception of quality, generate greater attraction and trust in the product, and consequently, expand the competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises. The applied nature of this research is justified by the intention to generate knowledge aimed at solving practical problems, offering subsidies for small and medium-sized enterprises to improve their labels as a tool for communication and competitiveness. Thus, the objective of this study is to understand the influence of label design on consumer perception and the competitiveness of paint packaging at the point of sale (POS).

2. Material and Methods

The present study adopted a mixed methodological approach, combining exploratory bibliographic research with an applied descriptive phase. This structure initially allowed for the construction of a robust theoretical framework and, subsequently, the collection and analysis of empirical data on consumer perception regarding the design of paint packaging labels. The research sought to understand how visual elements influence purchasing decisions at the point of sale.

The exploratory phase began with a literature review, according to Gil (2002), using technical books and scientific articles. The objective was to identify the essential elements of visual communication in the composition of labels and to investigate how these elements can influence the perception of quality and product competitiveness. The analytical scope focused on the front label of packaging, from the perspective of graphic analysis and graphic design, serving as a theoretical basis for the development of the data collection instrument.

In the second stage, of an applied and descriptive nature, a mixed approach was used, combining quantitative and qualitative elements. The focus was to evaluate consumer perception regarding the elements of the front label of paint packaging. For this purpose, a structured electronic questionnaire was applied to a non-probabilistic convenience sample, seeking to capture the opinions of a diverse audience.

The sample consisted of 210 valid respondents, selected from a total of 246 participants. 36 respondents who declared working in the paint, construction, or related areas were excluded to mitigate technical biases in perception. Participants were between 18 and 65 years old, with greater representation in the 30 to 65 age group, considered decision-makers or influencers in the purchasing process, and with a balanced gender distribution.

The data collection instrument consisted of a structured electronic questionnaire, developed on the Google Forms platform. The questionnaire contained 36 questions, organized into five thematic blocks. These blocks addressed the respondent’s profile, their purchasing habits, the evaluation of packaging A, the evaluation of packaging B, and a comparison section between the packages, including an open-ended question.

The questionnaire items were formulated using a five-point Likert scale for perception assessments, in addition to single and multiple-choice questions. The inclusion of an open-ended question allowed for the collection of qualitative data, complementing the quantitative information and offering deeper insights into the participants’ perceptions.

Before the final application, a pre-test was conducted with five participants to validate the questionnaire. The objective was to verify the clarity of the questions, the order of the blocks, the quality of the images presented, and the average response time. As a result of this stage, adjustments were implemented, such as improving the definitions of technical terms and repeating the packaging images in the final block, aiming to optimize comprehension and analysis.

For the empirical analysis unit, two wall paint packages were selected, named Brand A and Brand B. The selection criterion aimed to ensure that both belonged to small or medium-sized companies and to the same product category, specifically standard acrylic paint for walls, in 18-liter packages. The packages were indicated for use in indoor and outdoor environments, and presented comparable attributes, such as yield, coverage, ease of application, and low odor.

The original brand markings on the packaging were deliberately suppressed to avoid participant preference biases, ensuring a more neutral evaluation of the visual elements. However, the selected packaging presented distinct physical formats, a characteristic that was not controlled in the research design and was considered a limitation in the interpretation of the comparative results.

Data collection occurred through the electronic questionnaire, disseminated via a link generated by the Google Forms platform itself. The collection period was from April 6 to 9, 2026. During the project’s development, an artificial intelligence tool was used solely to assist in the search for references and textual review, without any interference in the originality of the work.

The analysis of the collected data included descriptive procedures to characterize the sample and the responses. To compare the evaluations assigned by the same participants to packaging A and B on eight equivalent attributes, measured by a five-point Likert scale, the non-parametric Wilcoxon test for paired samples was used (Siegel and Castellan, 2006).

The choice of the Wilcoxon test considered the ordinal nature of the evaluations and the fact that both packages were evaluated by the same participants. A significance level of 5% (α = 0.05) was adopted for all statistical analyses. Complementarily, cross-tabulation analyses were performed using frequencies and percentages, with the purpose of investigating the relationships between the comparative perceptions of the packages and the choice declared by the participants.

3. Results and Discussion

The analysis of the research results allowed for an in-depth understanding of the influence of label design on consumer perception and the competitiveness of paint packaging at the point of sale. Initially, the theoretical discussion by Borghi (2007) and Mestriner (2005) established that individuals selectively respond to environmental stimuli, directing attention to what stands out. Symbols in communication can influence consumer choice, even if they do not consciously recognize this influence. The appropriate choice of aesthetic and functional packaging components, such as shape, color, image, and typography, is crucial for aligning the brand’s marketing objectives with consumer expectations (Kotler and Keller, 2012).

Communicational elements of the label and related stimuli

The shape of the packaging or label constitutes one of the most expressive elements in product communication, according to Mestriner (2005). A differentiated format not only generates strong visual impact and distinction in competitive environments but can also be perceived as a value attribute, contributing to initial attraction, memorization, and product recognition (Mestriner, 2018). Color, in turn, is highlighted as the main communication element after shape, with its definition being a critical decision in design. Colors reinforce brand identity, evoke stimuli and associations with ideas, sensations, and memories, and possess a strong power of attraction at the point of sale.

The image on the packaging plays a fundamental role in communication, with a high power of visual impact and influence on consumer perception. Realistic images can evoke sensations and memories, while illustrations attribute personality to the product (Mestriner, 2005). Furthermore, the image informs instantly, providing a clear view of the product’s characteristics, its form and occasion of consumption, as well as quality references (Mestriner, 2018). Clarity in visual communication is, therefore, an essential attribute, where well-crafted images contribute to the perception of quality, while low-quality ones can harm the product’s image (Mestriner, 2005).

Typography also configures itself as a strategic element in packaging communication, adding value and meaning to the product. The chosen font directly interferes with the perception of the message, building the product’s personality (Mestriner, 2005). After the initial visual impact, which attracts attention, typography organizes and makes complementary information legible, influencing the final purchase decision. Clear information hierarchy on the label is essential, as each content has a specific function. Elements such as the logo and the product name receive greater prominence for identification and communication of the main attributes, while complementary texts and legal information fulfill informative and normative roles (Mestriner, 2005).

The definition of this order of importance is fundamental for the content to be easily understood by the consumer at the time of purchase, promoting clearer and more efficient communication (Mestriner, 2018). Supporting elements, such as the splash, contribute to highlighting relevant product attributes, adding dynamism to the packaging and increasing its attractiveness at the point of sale. The use of these elements must be carefully planned to maintain coherence with the visual language of the label (Mestriner, 2005). Studies indicate that the consumer perceives the packaging and the product as a single entity, with no distinction between form and content, causing the label’s impressions to directly influence the product’s evaluation (Mestriner, 2018).

Considering that a large part of purchasing decisions occurs in the store environment, effective packaging must act as a sales agent, capturing attention, informing about the product, conveying credibility, and reinforcing a favorable image with the consumer (Kotler and Keller, 2012). This theoretical perspective underpins the relevance of investigating how label elements influence perception and purchase decisions, especially for companies that rely on packaging as the main communication tool at the point of sale.

Sample profile

The applied research obtained a total of 246 responses, of which 36 were excluded for declaring activity in the paint, construction, or related areas, in order to reduce technical biases. Thus, the final sample consisted of 210 valid responses. The majority of respondents were female (69.5%) and were concentrated in more mature age groups, with 15.7% between 35 and 44 years old, 35.7% between 45 and 54 years old, and 29.5% aged 55 or older. These groups, combined, represent 80.9% of the sample, indicating a potentially more experienced audience in purchasing and decision-making processes, which is of great interest to the research, as they are potential consumers of wall paint.

The majority of participants do not work professionally in the paint, construction, or related sectors, which strengthens the analysis from the final consumer’s perspective, aligning with the study’s objective. It was observed that the paint purchasing process predominantly occurs in physical environments, with specialized paint stores being the preferred channel for 180 respondents (85.7%), followed by construction or renovation material stores, cited by 82 respondents (39.0%). Online stores were mentioned by 25 respondents (11.9%) and home centers by 10 respondents. This result reinforces the importance of the physical point of sale as a central decision-making space, representing an opportunity for micro and small businesses to explore the potential of their packaging, especially in retail and self-service models, where sensory, visual, and tactile interaction is more engaging and influential in the purchase decision (Strunck, 2011; Sartor, 2024).

Regarding the method of painting, 114 respondents (54.3%) prefer to hire a professional, while 43 (20.5%) paint on their own and 53 (25.2%) adopt both practices. Although hiring professionals is the most frequent option, the proportion of consumers who paint on their own or in a mixed way is significant. This scenario indicates that a relevant part of the public, even if not specialized, actively participates in the purchasing decision process, which increases the relevance of the packaging’s visual communication at the point of sale. Thus, elements such as color, typography, information organization, and visual composition assume a strategic role in building perception and influencing choice, reinforcing the packaging’s function as a sales agent (Kotler and Keller, 2012).

Buying Habits

When analyzing purchasing habits, it was found that price exerts a strong influence on respondents’ decisions, with 31% declaring themselves totally influenced, 25.2% with a high level of influence, and 32.9% with moderate influence. Brand also proved to be a relevant factor, with 32.9% of participants totally influenced, 34.8% with a high level of influence, and 23.8% with moderate influence. This data reinforces the strategic role of established brands, which, with greater resources in communication and prior recognition, enhance their ability to stand out. This scenario increases competitive pressure on smaller brands, which need to differentiate themselves in other attributes, such as packaging, clarity of information, and visual appeal, to compete more effectively at the point of sale.

The product benefits highlighted on the packaging influence the purchase decision for 29% of participants totally, 30.5% highly, and 24.3% moderately. The visual design of the label, although showing a lower declared influence compared to price, brand, and benefits, is still pointed out as relevant: 26.7% of participants are totally influenced, 23.3% highly, and 26.2% moderately. This result suggests that well-structured labels can confer a competitive advantage, especially in contexts where the consumer is more open to trying brands that are not market leaders.

Regarding the behavior of reading the label before purchase, most respondents (28.6%) stated they do it “sometimes”, while 21% do it “frequently” and 20.5% “rarely”. A smaller portion (13.3%) declared they “always” read it, and 28 respondents (13.3%) stated they “never” read the label. These results can be related to Borghi’s (2007) discussion, which points out that symbolic elements of packaging can influence the choice process even when the consumer does not clearly recognize this influence. This indicates that the perception of the label can occur at conscious and subconscious levels, affecting the purchase decision.

Packaging evaluation

The comparative analysis between the packaging of Brands A and B revealed significant differences in consumer perception. Packaging A received superior evaluations in all eight attributes analyzed, which included visual, informational, and symbolic aspects. Specifically, the colors of packaging A were considered more effective in attracting attention, with 77 respondents fully agreeing and 62 agreeing, compared to 48 and 31 for packaging B, respectively. This result aligns with the importance of color as an element of communication and visual attraction in the literature.

The image attractiveness was also higher in packaging A, with 85 respondents fully agreeing and 61 agreeing, versus 72 and 38 for packaging B. The clarity and organization of the texts on packaging A were evaluated more favorably, with 98 respondents fully agreeing and 74 agreeing, compared to 42 and 33 for packaging B. These findings indicate that color effectiveness is not sustained in isolation, depending on the articulation with other label elements, such as image attractiveness and informational clarity.

Packaging A also obtained superior evaluations regarding the perception of trust and quality. For trust, 84 respondents fully agreed and 81 agreed for packaging A, while for packaging B, 56 fully agreed and 49 agreed. Similarly, for quality, 80 respondents fully agreed and 76 agreed for packaging A, versus 68 and 56 for packaging B. These results suggest that the perceived differences are not limited to visual and informational aspects, extending to more symbolic evaluations, such as product reliability and quality.

The statistical comparison, using the Wilcoxon test for paired samples, confirmed that the observed differences between packaging A and B were statistically significant (p < 0.001) for all eight attributes evaluated. Packaging A showed a predominance of superior evaluations in all aspects, from the ability of colors and images to attract attention, to the organization and comprehension of information, trust, quality, and professionalism. However, it is essential to interpret these results considering that the analyzed packaging had distinct physical formats, an uncontrolled variable in the research, which prevents attributing the observed differences solely to the label design.

When analyzing the elements that most caught attention in the packaging, for Brand A, color was the most cited element (133 citations), followed by the organization of information (108 citations) and typography (72 citations). For Brand B, color also stood out (92 citations), followed by the organization of information (64 citations), shape (63 citations), and typography (60 citations). A notable difference was observed in the attention to the packaging’s shape, cited by 9.0% of participants for Brand A and by 30.0% for Brand B. This result reinforces that the physical format was perceived by the participants and should be considered an uncontrolled variable in the interpretation of the differences between the packages.

Comparison between packaging

The direct comparison between the packaging reinforced the differences perceived in previous evaluations. Packaging A was indicated by 174 respondents (82.9%) as the one that most caught attention, while 31 (14.8%) chose packaging B and 5 (2.4%) saw no difference. Regarding reliability, 154 respondents (73.3%) considered packaging A more reliable, 22 (10.5%) B, and 34 (16.2%) both. For quality, 161 respondents (76.7%) pointed to packaging A as superior, 18 (8.6%) B, and 31 (14.8%) both. The communication of product benefits was perceived as better in packaging A by 158 respondents (75.2%), versus 21 (10.0%) for B and 31 (14.8%) for both.

In a hypothetical condition of price equality, 167 participants (79.5%) declared that they would choose packaging A, 27 (12.9%) would choose B, and 16 (7.6%) would not know how to decide. The cross-tabulations between comparative perception and packaging choice showed a high correspondence. For example, among participants who considered packaging A more reliable, 98.1% would choose it. Similarly, 97.5% of those who rated A as higher quality would choose it. This correspondence was also observed for the communication of benefits (94.3% for A) and, to a lesser extent, for attention.

A relevant finding was the indecision among participants who did not perceive a quality difference between the packages, with 48.4% stating they did not know which to choose at equal price. In contrast, indecision was minimal (0.6%) among those who perceived package A as higher quality and nonexistent among those who attributed higher quality to B. This suggests that perceived differentiation is directly related to a more defined choice, while perceived equivalence tends to generate greater indecision. Attributes such as trust, quality, and communication of benefits are, therefore, crucial for the relationship between perception and preference.

The analysis of the element declared as most influential in the choice, obtained through open-ended responses, added a new perspective. Information clarity was the most cited element (26.7%), followed by the overall appearance of the packaging (26.2%), packaging shape (16.2%), and color (14.3%). This result is particularly relevant because, although color was the most cited element in the initial attention evaluation, it appears in fourth place when participants indicated what most influenced their choice. Information clarity, on the other hand, takes first place in this evaluation. This suggests that the element responsible for capturing initial attention does not necessarily coincide with the one recognized by the consumer as most influential in the final purchase decision. Visual and informational components, therefore, play complementary roles in packaging evaluation.

The packaging shape was pointed out by 16.2% of participants as the element with the greatest influence on choice, surpassing color, highlighted benefits, and image. Added to the fact that shape caught the attention of 30.0% of participants in packaging B, this result indicates that the physical format participated in the perception of alternatives and may have influenced some of the choices. This reinforces the need to consider this characteristic as a limitation of the study. The analysis of open-ended responses complemented the quantitative results, grouping participants’ expressions into five main themes: clarity and organization of information, color and visual impact, communication of benefits, perception of quality and trust, and overall packaging appearance. The responses reinforce the simultaneous presence of visual and informational aspects in the evaluation of alternatives, indicating that consumer perception does not focus on a single isolated component, which is aligned with the literature on the importance of integration between communication elements for efficient point-of-sale communication.

In general, the results demonstrate that several elements of the packaging contribute to consumer perception. Color stood out as the main element of initial attraction, while the clarity of information and the overall appearance were the most cited factors as influencers of choice. The analyses revealed significant differences between the evaluations of packaging A and B, and a clear relationship between perceived differentiation and declared preference, which contributes to understanding how packaging perception can be related to product competitiveness at the point of sale. Although the non-probabilistic sample and the nature of declared perceptions and simulated scenarios are limitations, the findings present internal coherence and alignment with the literature, offering subsidies for the development of more efficient labels.

4. Conclusion

This study aimed to understand the influence of label design on consumer perception and the competitiveness of paint packaging at the point of sale. It was found that the label is not limited to an informative function, assuming a crucial role in communication between product and consumer, guiding reading and facilitating comprehension in the decision-making process. The results showed that color stood out as the main element of initial attraction, while the clarity of information and the overall appearance of the packaging were the most cited factors influencing the final choice. It was observed that design, although not always explicitly recognized as a decisive factor, exerted relevant influence when comparing different packaging options, directly impacting the perception of quality, trust, and preference. Perceived differentiation in visual and informational attributes proved to be directly related to consumer preference, contributing to the product’s competitiveness at the point of sale, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises that rely on packaging as their primary communication tool.

However, the study presented important limitations, such as the non-probabilistic nature of the sample, which restricts the generalization of the results, and the reliance on declared perceptions and simulated scenarios, which may not reflect actual purchasing behavior. Additionally, the analyzed packaging had distinct physical formats, an uncontrolled variable that prevents attributing the observed differences solely to the label design. For future studies, it is suggested to conduct research with probabilistic samples and observe purchasing behavior in real environments. It is also recommended to investigate the influence of label design on packaging with standardized physical formats, in order to isolate the impact of visual and informational elements. The findings, however, offer relevant subsidies for the development of more efficient labels, which integrate visual appeal, informational clarity, and element organization to enhance market competitiveness.

Bibliographic References

Borghi, A. R. 2007. A Influência do Design de Embalagens na Elaboração de Estratégias do Produto nas Micro e Pequenas Empresas. Um Estudo no Pólo de Cosméticos de Diadema. Dissertação apresentada ao Programa de Mestrado em Administração. Universidade Municipal de São Caetano do Sul. São Caetano do Sul, SP, Brasil.

Brasil. 1969. Decreto-Lei nº 986, de 21 de outubro de 1969. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, 21 out. 1969. Seção 1, p. 8935.

Brasil. 1990. Lei nº 8.078, de 11 de setembro de 1990. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, 12 set. 1990. Seção 1, p. 1.

Dondis, A.D. 2003. Sintaxe da Linguagem Visual. 2ed. Martins Fontes. São Paulo, SP, Brasil.

Gil, A.C. 2002. Como Elaborar Projetos de Pesquisa. 4ed. Atlas S.A., São Paulo, SP, Brasil.

Jacob et al., 2025 [Referência completa não encontrada no documento original]

Junior, C.J. V; Viana, B.C.L. 2024. A Evolução das Embalagens no Brasil até 1953 – Impactos Culturais e Econômicos: Um Guia Visual e Pedagógico. p. 9-29. In: Cordeiro, C.A.M.; Barreto, N.S.E.; Sanches, A.G.S. Avanços, Inovações e Saberes em Ciência e Tecnologia de Alimentos. 1ed. Editora Científica Digital Ltda. Guarujá, SP, Brasil.

Kotler, P; Keller, K. L. 2012. Administração de Marketing. 14ed. Pearson Education do Brasil, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.

Mestriner, F. 2005. Design de Embalagem – Curso Avançado. 2ed. Prentice Hall. São Paulo, SP, Brasil.

Mestriner, F. 2018. Inovação na Embalagem. M.Books do Brasil Editora. São Paulo, SP, Brasil.

Sartor, R. J. 2021. Embalagem como Diferencial Competitivo para a Agroindústria: Um Estudo Multicaso em Pequenas Empresas. Dissertação (Mestrado em Administração). Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias e Veterinária, Universidade Estadual Paulista, Jaboticabal, SP, Brasil.

Sartor, R. J. 2024. Ações Voltadas à Embalagem como Diferencial Competitivo em Pequenas Empresas Agroindustriais. Mestrado Profissional em Administração. Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias e Veterinária, Universidade Estadual Paulista, Jaboticabal, SP, Brasil.

Siegel, S.; Castellan Jr., N.J. 2006. Estatística Não-paramétrica para Ciências do Comportamento. 2ed. Artmed. Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil.

Strunck, G. 2011. Compras por Impulso! Trade Marketing, Merchandising e o Poder da Comunicação e do Design no Varejo. 2AB Editora. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.

Article originating from the Final Course Work of the Specialization in Marketing of the MBA USP/Esalq

To learn more about the course, click here and access the MBX Academy platform