January 28, 2009
Kellogg Testing New Space-Saving Cereal Box
The cereal
box as we know it may be about to change. Kellogg announced on Monday that
it is testing a new shorter and deeper cereal box in Detroit-area stores.
The new boxes,
which are currently on the shelves of 10 Kroger and Walmart stores,
will soon be added to shelves at 30 other local retail locations.
The new box,
according to Kellogg, represents the most significant change in cereal
packaging going back to the 1950s. Kellogg claims the new package will
fit more easily into consumers’ cupboards at home while still offering
the current amount of cereal found in the company’s traditional packaging.
There is also a benefit to retailers as the new
packaging will allow for more SKUs to be displayed on store shelves without
the need for extra space.
The new box
also uses eight percent less packaging per box than is currently used in
cereal.
"Kellogg
Company is proud of our 100-plus year commitment to innovative thinking
and consumer relevancy,"
said Kim Miller, vice president, Morning Foods Marketing, Kellogg Company,
in a press release. "The test of this new space-saving packaging is
part of our ongoing commitment to identify solutions that help us meet the
needs of our retail partners and consumers."
Discussion Questions:
Does the new Kellogg test box signal the beginning of the end for the
current cereal box? What do you see as the benefits and/or drawbacks
to the new box design?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
New packaging is not “new.” Change in packaging has been constant across multiple categories. I wonder whether consumers will view this as just another attempt by Kellogg to give them less cereal for the same or a higher price…something they have been doing a lot of lately.
It’s curious to me how a change like this translates into news at all. Smaller and more nimble companies add value while saving material six ways to Sunday and rarely get noticed. What occurs to me here is that Kellogg’s really shows their hand with this as I realize they have been in the same box for over fifty years with no improvement even though the entire world has changed ten times over since 1955. I would encourage them to really take a look at the times we are in and determine if an 8% reduction in raw material cost is sufficient. This is a brand that truly resonates with the American consumer and with that comes a responsibility to push the envelope in the name of conservation and economy because only the strongest brands are able to “step out” of the box and be handled with grace by the public.
Same amount of food, less packaging, environmentally friendly? Sounds like a winner. And I hope this does signal the end of current cereal boxes that seem to never ever fit in the cupboard. Only cautionary note: ensure a broad media campaign to explain the new design to consumers. That should limit any backlash from shoppers who may think a smaller box means fewer good eats.
Post tried this back in the mid-1960s with its “Compact Box,” and got hammered in terms of shelf presence. They scrapped it after a year or so and went back to the standard box configurations. Cereal is one of those areas where “billboard packaging” seems to rule the day.
If we take George’s question to heart (as we always do, George):
“Does the new Kellogg test box signal the beginning of the end for the current cereal box?”
The answer is, of course it does. If Kellogg’s represents close to half the cereal market, and the box plays well in test, then at least half the category will have switched. General Mills will have no choice but to switch if consumers like the new box.
Another sign that consumers are “thinking small” and retailers and manufacturers are responding. We too recently heard consumers say that many boxes sold in many categories were too large for their families but weighed that against the value perceptions of “bulk” packaging and the popularity of warehouse shopping.
What is the “consumer relevancy” Kellogg’s refers to? What happened to the big families buying in bulk? To big people eating big portion sizes? What happened to the McMansions that have no limit to pantry space?
This “innovation” is intriguing to me as someone who studies consumer behavior–is a smaller box simply a practical solution? Or is there an underlying emotional component–that perhaps a smaller box means consumers desire less right now? That as wallets shrink, we are “downsizing” ourselves and everything around us…?
Like others, I can see the benefits in using less packaging but would also like to see price go down in proportion. And though contents are allegedly the same, I wonder how long that will last and whether they will own up if/when the change comes. (I also like Liatt’s point about suitability for child-sized hands.)
Aaargh, we had a shelf built in our pantry just for tall cereal boxes! Oh well. But seriously, the benefits seem worthwhile, but the point above about pouring the cereal is important. That will determine if this sticks. Personally I think a more radical redesign would provide more convenience and longer freshness.
What I like about this new packaging is how much actual cereal it will save me. With a not-so-coordinated high-functioning autistic son in the house, we have tipped over countless top-heavy boxes of cereal. I especially love it when it’s something like Rice Krispies, which get all over the place. This new packaging will help to prevent these minor catastrophes. As for the comment about small children being able to handle it, perhaps they could just punch in a little handle on the side. They have to run the new boxes through the cutting machinery anyway, and we’re still in the prototype stage, no? Kellogg, are you listening to advice from parents?
If the product fits better on consumers’ shelves and does save packaging costs–which saves money and is good for the environment–then it is another example of being consumer-centric and cost cutting!
From a marketing standpoint they must be careful not to drastically reduce the billboard effect of the package or for it to require less shelf space. By making the box shorter and not narrower, they can stock the boxes two high in the same width and actually increase their facings. It would appear that this design accomplishes that and should help them in shelf planograms rather than hurt them.
Ah, to be a kid today. Mom always poured the cereal in the bowls and put the box away. Portion was controlled and our family budget dictated that, and we knew it. Ah, to be a kid today and get to pour your own! Can they handle the box? Sure they can, they can handle a gallon of milk can’t they? No wait, that’s why we need the ‘quicker-picker-upper’ isn’t it?
The only effective ‘real’ change in packaging that I happen to like is the ‘refrigerator’ pack of 12 pack soft drinks. That made sense, the opening works better, and they actually fit. The thing about this one, is all the different places that people store cereal–top of fridge, counter top, cupboard, pantry, etc. I guess, until I try it, I won’t know. But changing height for depth won’t help in our cupboards. This one get’s a definite wait and see.
What will happen to those lonely bags of generic cereal on the bottom shelf when Kellogg’s demands a complete reset for their new packaging? Maybe we could find a better place for those. A little less lonely. Maybe on the second shelf? Maybe we could even find them a box?
To the cynics out there, I would point out that the picture indicates both boxes are the same volume (12oz); but I have my own questions:
1) Won’t a thicker box be harder to grasp and pour from, especially for people with small hands (i.e. children);
2) Store shelving is spaced to fit existing box sizes, will smaller boxes mean an inefficient display/empty volume above the Kellogg boxes, or are stores expected to give K their own section…how generous!
I have always wondered how companies can introduce space-saving packaging without ever having seen my pantry. I guess they must really have superior R&D departments. To me, the most significant change in cereal packaging would be to get rid of the box altogether and replace it with a resealable plastic bag. This would save costs, and keep my Fruit Loops fresher, longer.
The new package from Kellogg’s is another step forward in making the package more functional. The package fits better on pantry shelves–ever notice how many cereal cartons are stored on top of the frige? By changing the design to fit cereal contents, empty headspace is reduced, making the package more efficient in distribution. Pallet density increases, reducing transportation and handling costs. At the store, less space required for storage and display. So, more functional, more eco-efficient, better distribution performance and less space at home–sounds like progress here!
Target introduced a new design for their Archer Farms line in a smaller format with resealable spout that was well received and recognized for its good design. Why so long to take this step? The ongoing discussions has been that smaller carton size will confuse consumers–but as detergent bottles, milk jugs, PET Coke bottles and other packages become “right sized,” thoughtful consumers see space saving convenience and less packaging material.
Sustainable packaging initiatives have been successful at retail when packaging delivers the expected convenience, performance isn’t compromised, pricing is fair – and consumers understand the change. WalMart and their Brand Partners did an excellent job explaining their new package designs, fundamental to shopper acceptance. The Kellog introduction does seem off to a quiet start, let’s hope communications to the industry and shoppers become louder and clearer in the near term.
While Kellogg, General Mills and others have downsized boxes in recent years, the new test box is said to hold the same amount of cereal as the box currently found on most store shelves.
As the number of SKUs over the past several years has exploded, Kellog’s–an innovator–has now offered the industry an opportunity to add an additional shelf within the category run at retail, if their competitors recognize the opportunity.
Although I have not actually seen the new box in stores, this seems to be a quite good move. First, there is the appeal of less cardboard to manufacture/recycle/dispose of. Second, there is the appeal of smaller shelf requirements in consumers’ pantries and cupboards. Finally, there is all the free publicity and buzz generated in the media for Kellogg’s at a time when grocers are struggling and manufacturers are striving to differentiate themselves.
The only mistake will be if cereal box designers fail to recognize that little childrens’ hands need to be able to fit around the box, and to be able to easily and cleanly maneuver the contents into a bowl.
A lot of interesting experiments going on out there in packaging and packaging materials. What hasn’t been discussed yet is not the advantage to the retailer but the advantage to Kellogg’s in supply chain efficiency like cubing out the trucks, warehousing and less damage in transit.
By the way, if there’s 8% less packaging is there 8% less cereal too?
Cereal manufacturers have been tinkering with box sizes for a year now! Head to your grocery store and check out the customers pacing in front of the shelves, attempting to find a name brand cereal that isn’t in a miniature box. I’d anticipate a fair amount of skepticism from consumers….
To me, the biggest seller is that it uses 8% less material. That means 8% less waste and at some time lower packaging cost.
The questions is, what took so long?
Space saving package redesigns are nothing new, and if in fact this new cereal box makes sense, both from an economic standpoint as well as ease of use, there is no question that Kellogg will roll it out across all of their cereal SKUs. But that does not mean that all other cereal makers will follow.
Look what has happened in the paint industry. Dutch Boy came out with their innovative Twist and Pour delivery system, but you still can find traditional paint cans in the stores. Innovation is usually rewarded, but it does not mean that all competitors will follow.
Good for Kellogg tying to differentiate themselves from the competition. As Jack Trout once said, companies must Differentiate or Die.
This is a change that has been overdue for a long time. Cereal is mostly air in an oversized box. In our recessionary time, as well as our focus on “green” manufacturing, one of the easiest ways to reduce product costs, their packaging costs, the freight costs and logistical maximization would require an entire re-do of the cereal box. Once Kellogg’s does this, everyone else will follow suit. Soon, expect to see plastic “boxes,” or more durable cardboard boxes, with refills being sold separately (in potato chip bags). This will reduce the cost of selling cereal, while increasing the margins and overall sales in the category! Everybody wins!
Kellogg’s new boxes don’t save space. Space is measured in 3 dimensions. A squatter deeper box has the same cube as a taller, shallower box, if the contents have the same weight. Want to save packaging? Use plastic bags and dump the cardboard completely.
More Discussions
As Boomers ‘Age Out of Peak Purchasing,’ How Can National Brands Retain Interest With Gen Z?
According to a recent First Insight study titled “Is Gen Z Still Choosing Your Brand,” while…Is Supply Chain Volatility Here To Stay?
Can we expect an ongoing volatility to remain in terms of retail supply chain?Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?
New packaging is not “new.” Change in packaging has been constant across multiple categories. I wonder whether consumers will view this as just another attempt by Kellogg to give them less cereal for the same or a higher price…something they have been doing a lot of lately.
It’s curious to me how a change like this translates into news at all. Smaller and more nimble companies add value while saving material six ways to Sunday and rarely get noticed. What occurs to me here is that Kellogg’s really shows their hand with this as I realize they have been in the same box for over fifty years with no improvement even though the entire world has changed ten times over since 1955. I would encourage them to really take a look at the times we are in and determine if an 8% reduction in raw material cost is sufficient. This is a brand that truly resonates with the American consumer and with that comes a responsibility to push the envelope in the name of conservation and economy because only the strongest brands are able to “step out” of the box and be handled with grace by the public.
Same amount of food, less packaging, environmentally friendly? Sounds like a winner. And I hope this does signal the end of current cereal boxes that seem to never ever fit in the cupboard. Only cautionary note: ensure a broad media campaign to explain the new design to consumers. That should limit any backlash from shoppers who may think a smaller box means fewer good eats.
Post tried this back in the mid-1960s with its “Compact Box,” and got hammered in terms of shelf presence. They scrapped it after a year or so and went back to the standard box configurations. Cereal is one of those areas where “billboard packaging” seems to rule the day.
If we take George’s question to heart (as we always do, George):
“Does the new Kellogg test box signal the beginning of the end for the current cereal box?”
The answer is, of course it does. If Kellogg’s represents close to half the cereal market, and the box plays well in test, then at least half the category will have switched. General Mills will have no choice but to switch if consumers like the new box.
Another sign that consumers are “thinking small” and retailers and manufacturers are responding. We too recently heard consumers say that many boxes sold in many categories were too large for their families but weighed that against the value perceptions of “bulk” packaging and the popularity of warehouse shopping.
What is the “consumer relevancy” Kellogg’s refers to? What happened to the big families buying in bulk? To big people eating big portion sizes? What happened to the McMansions that have no limit to pantry space?
This “innovation” is intriguing to me as someone who studies consumer behavior–is a smaller box simply a practical solution? Or is there an underlying emotional component–that perhaps a smaller box means consumers desire less right now? That as wallets shrink, we are “downsizing” ourselves and everything around us…?
Like others, I can see the benefits in using less packaging but would also like to see price go down in proportion. And though contents are allegedly the same, I wonder how long that will last and whether they will own up if/when the change comes. (I also like Liatt’s point about suitability for child-sized hands.)
Aaargh, we had a shelf built in our pantry just for tall cereal boxes! Oh well. But seriously, the benefits seem worthwhile, but the point above about pouring the cereal is important. That will determine if this sticks. Personally I think a more radical redesign would provide more convenience and longer freshness.
What I like about this new packaging is how much actual cereal it will save me. With a not-so-coordinated high-functioning autistic son in the house, we have tipped over countless top-heavy boxes of cereal. I especially love it when it’s something like Rice Krispies, which get all over the place. This new packaging will help to prevent these minor catastrophes. As for the comment about small children being able to handle it, perhaps they could just punch in a little handle on the side. They have to run the new boxes through the cutting machinery anyway, and we’re still in the prototype stage, no? Kellogg, are you listening to advice from parents?
If the product fits better on consumers’ shelves and does save packaging costs–which saves money and is good for the environment–then it is another example of being consumer-centric and cost cutting!
From a marketing standpoint they must be careful not to drastically reduce the billboard effect of the package or for it to require less shelf space. By making the box shorter and not narrower, they can stock the boxes two high in the same width and actually increase their facings. It would appear that this design accomplishes that and should help them in shelf planograms rather than hurt them.
Ah, to be a kid today. Mom always poured the cereal in the bowls and put the box away. Portion was controlled and our family budget dictated that, and we knew it. Ah, to be a kid today and get to pour your own! Can they handle the box? Sure they can, they can handle a gallon of milk can’t they? No wait, that’s why we need the ‘quicker-picker-upper’ isn’t it?
The only effective ‘real’ change in packaging that I happen to like is the ‘refrigerator’ pack of 12 pack soft drinks. That made sense, the opening works better, and they actually fit. The thing about this one, is all the different places that people store cereal–top of fridge, counter top, cupboard, pantry, etc. I guess, until I try it, I won’t know. But changing height for depth won’t help in our cupboards. This one get’s a definite wait and see.
What will happen to those lonely bags of generic cereal on the bottom shelf when Kellogg’s demands a complete reset for their new packaging? Maybe we could find a better place for those. A little less lonely. Maybe on the second shelf? Maybe we could even find them a box?
To the cynics out there, I would point out that the picture indicates both boxes are the same volume (12oz); but I have my own questions:
1) Won’t a thicker box be harder to grasp and pour from, especially for people with small hands (i.e. children);
2) Store shelving is spaced to fit existing box sizes, will smaller boxes mean an inefficient display/empty volume above the Kellogg boxes, or are stores expected to give K their own section…how generous!
I have always wondered how companies can introduce space-saving packaging without ever having seen my pantry. I guess they must really have superior R&D departments. To me, the most significant change in cereal packaging would be to get rid of the box altogether and replace it with a resealable plastic bag. This would save costs, and keep my Fruit Loops fresher, longer.
The new package from Kellogg’s is another step forward in making the package more functional. The package fits better on pantry shelves–ever notice how many cereal cartons are stored on top of the frige? By changing the design to fit cereal contents, empty headspace is reduced, making the package more efficient in distribution. Pallet density increases, reducing transportation and handling costs. At the store, less space required for storage and display. So, more functional, more eco-efficient, better distribution performance and less space at home–sounds like progress here!
Target introduced a new design for their Archer Farms line in a smaller format with resealable spout that was well received and recognized for its good design. Why so long to take this step? The ongoing discussions has been that smaller carton size will confuse consumers–but as detergent bottles, milk jugs, PET Coke bottles and other packages become “right sized,” thoughtful consumers see space saving convenience and less packaging material.
Sustainable packaging initiatives have been successful at retail when packaging delivers the expected convenience, performance isn’t compromised, pricing is fair – and consumers understand the change. WalMart and their Brand Partners did an excellent job explaining their new package designs, fundamental to shopper acceptance. The Kellog introduction does seem off to a quiet start, let’s hope communications to the industry and shoppers become louder and clearer in the near term.
While Kellogg, General Mills and others have downsized boxes in recent years, the new test box is said to hold the same amount of cereal as the box currently found on most store shelves.
As the number of SKUs over the past several years has exploded, Kellog’s–an innovator–has now offered the industry an opportunity to add an additional shelf within the category run at retail, if their competitors recognize the opportunity.
Although I have not actually seen the new box in stores, this seems to be a quite good move. First, there is the appeal of less cardboard to manufacture/recycle/dispose of. Second, there is the appeal of smaller shelf requirements in consumers’ pantries and cupboards. Finally, there is all the free publicity and buzz generated in the media for Kellogg’s at a time when grocers are struggling and manufacturers are striving to differentiate themselves.
The only mistake will be if cereal box designers fail to recognize that little childrens’ hands need to be able to fit around the box, and to be able to easily and cleanly maneuver the contents into a bowl.
A lot of interesting experiments going on out there in packaging and packaging materials. What hasn’t been discussed yet is not the advantage to the retailer but the advantage to Kellogg’s in supply chain efficiency like cubing out the trucks, warehousing and less damage in transit.
By the way, if there’s 8% less packaging is there 8% less cereal too?
Cereal manufacturers have been tinkering with box sizes for a year now! Head to your grocery store and check out the customers pacing in front of the shelves, attempting to find a name brand cereal that isn’t in a miniature box. I’d anticipate a fair amount of skepticism from consumers….
To me, the biggest seller is that it uses 8% less material. That means 8% less waste and at some time lower packaging cost.
The questions is, what took so long?
Space saving package redesigns are nothing new, and if in fact this new cereal box makes sense, both from an economic standpoint as well as ease of use, there is no question that Kellogg will roll it out across all of their cereal SKUs. But that does not mean that all other cereal makers will follow.
Look what has happened in the paint industry. Dutch Boy came out with their innovative Twist and Pour delivery system, but you still can find traditional paint cans in the stores. Innovation is usually rewarded, but it does not mean that all competitors will follow.
Good for Kellogg tying to differentiate themselves from the competition. As Jack Trout once said, companies must Differentiate or Die.
This is a change that has been overdue for a long time. Cereal is mostly air in an oversized box. In our recessionary time, as well as our focus on “green” manufacturing, one of the easiest ways to reduce product costs, their packaging costs, the freight costs and logistical maximization would require an entire re-do of the cereal box. Once Kellogg’s does this, everyone else will follow suit. Soon, expect to see plastic “boxes,” or more durable cardboard boxes, with refills being sold separately (in potato chip bags). This will reduce the cost of selling cereal, while increasing the margins and overall sales in the category! Everybody wins!
Kellogg’s new boxes don’t save space. Space is measured in 3 dimensions. A squatter deeper box has the same cube as a taller, shallower box, if the contents have the same weight. Want to save packaging? Use plastic bags and dump the cardboard completely.