Testing Packaging Changes: Which Ones Need It, Which Don't

You’ve got a packaging change in the works, and at some point, you ask the question: should I test this with consumers first?

There are usually two camps. One says don’t bother testing anything, just make the change and move on. The other says test every last tweak before it goes anywhere near a shelf. Both feel safe in their own way, but when it comes to testing packaging changes, the right answer almost always sits somewhere in the middle.

Finding that middle starts with remembering why you’d test at all. There are two reasons. The first is to mitigate risk, to make sure the change won’t hurt the business by throwing off how shoppers recognize or find your product. The second is to verify the change did what you set out to do. If you reworked the front panel to look more premium, a test tells you whether consumers see it that way too.

There’s an equally good reason NOT to test: cost and time. Spending weeks and budget on something shoppers will never notice, or something you can’t meaningfully measure, is money you don’t get back and that matters.

One idea sits underneath all of this. A major packaging change should come from an actual shift in your brand strategy, not just a wish to freshen things up. It’s ok, and important, to keep your packaging updated, but a wholesale change has to be in service to a broader brand strategy shift.

This post is here to make the test-or-don’t-test call easier. We’ll start with a few rules of thumb, then walk through the kinds of changes that usually don’t need testing and the kinds that do. At the end, we’ll run a real package through the framework to bring it all to life.

A Few Rules of Thumb for Testing Packaging Changes

Before you get into specific elements, a handful of guidelines will steer most of your decisions.

Start with the simplest question there is: would a shopper actually notice? This is the pressure test behind nearly everything else. A test can only pick up a change big enough for consumers to register, which is the same as asking whether they’d notice it out in the real world. Think about rearranging a room. Move a chair two inches and no one who walks in blinks. Repaint the walls and swap the couch, and everyone reacts. Big, visible changes are worth testing. Small ones usually aren’t.

Think about the reasons you are thinking to test. As mentioned above, there might be sizable risk: would consumers notice, and could the change hurt how they recognize or find you? Most of the rules here speak to that. The second is about goal verification, which is different. Even a low-risk change you feel good about can be worth testing if you want proof it did its job, that the redesign really reads as more premium, or that the new callout pulls people in like you hoped.

Where the change sits on the package matters, too. Graphic updates can happen anywhere, but usually only some of the ones on the front are worth testing. Changes on the side or back rarely affect whether shoppers can spot and find your product on a busy shelf, so they rarely need a test.

Your equity assets are the elements that live in your consumers’ minds as shorthand for your brand. The signature color. The logo. The mascot that’s been there for decades. If you’re changing or removing one of those, test it.

Real estate is a handy gut check. If an element takes up a big chunk of the package, changing it is more likely to register, so lean toward testing. If it’s small and tucked into a corner, you can probably let it ride.

Positioning changes reset everything. This is the one that overrides the rest. When a change is driven by a shift in brand strategy or positioning, even a small element should be tested, because now it’s carrying the new positioning instead of just sitting on the package. The trigger is the strategy moving, not the size of the element. You’ll see this one keep surfacing below.

One last note, and a reassuring one for a stretched budget: testing isn’t all-or-nothing. The scale of the test can match the scale and risk of the change. A major structural overhaul might call for a full study, while a moderate change might only need a quick read. Match the spend to what’s at stake.

Small Packaging Changes That Usually Don’t Need Testing

Plenty of things can change on a package without earning a test. The common ones that usually get a pass:

• Regulatory information, like net weight. Required, but usually not something anyone shops on.

• A small certification, like a non-GMO seal, as long as it isn’t part of a bigger positioning move.

• A tweak to the food image or background visual.

• Small benefit callouts, like “whole grain” or “no added sugar,” again assuming they aren’t tied to a positioning change.

• Subtle font changes a shopper would never catch.

• Lower-level information, the secondary copy and fine print most people never read.

Notice the thread running through a few of those. The moment a “small” change starts carrying a new positioning, it stops being small. A non-GMO seal added for tidiness is a non-event. That same seal added because you’re rebuilding the brand around clean, simple ingredients is a positioning change, and positioning changes get tested. The element didn’t change. The reason behind it did.

Big Packaging Changes Worth Testing With Consumers

On the other end are the changes shoppers would notice right away. Be especially careful with anything that works as a brand equity asset. Changing those, even subtly, can be a gamble, and if you go ahead, test first.

The usual suspects:

• Color. The package, the logo, or key wording. Color does a lot of the heavy lifting in how a product reads on shelf and how consumers recognize the brand, and shifting it changes the entire look.

• Logos and fonts tied to your brand equity.

• Large visuals, like a recognizable face or anything that covers more than half the front.

• The overall communication hierarchy. Move where the brand name sits relative to the product description and other elements, and you change what a shopper sees first.

• The structure of the package itself: its shape, how it’s used, the material, like cardboard versus glass. Anything that changes how a consumer physically experiences the product, or how it compares to the old version on shelf, is worth a look. One caveat: a minor functional tweak, like adding a tear strip or dropping a resealable lid, usually doesn’t need testing if it isn’t part of a positioning change.

Testing Packaging Changes in Action: A Sun-Maid Example

Rules of thumb are easier to trust once you see them work. So, let’s run a familiar package through the framework: Sun-Maid raisins. None of these are real plans, just hypothetical changes and the call you’d make on each.

The woman in the bonnet holding grapes. Almost certainly a brand equity asset, and she takes up a big chunk of the package. If you change her look or move her, you should test it.

The red box. Another strong equity asset. If you wanted to swap it for white or gold or blue, then it’s a must to test that, no question. The color is doing too much recognition work to gamble on.

The grapes-and-raisins visual along the bottom. Minor tweaks here, nudging the size, refreshing the leaves, redrawing the illustration a touch, don’t warrant testing. But fundamentally change it, drop the grapes, blow it up to half the package, give it a whole new look, and that’s a different conversation. Realistically, a change that big usually travels with other changes, so the total starts to add up to something worth testing.

The “timeless and trusted” line under the logo. Say you swapped it for a new tagline like “always premium quality.” That’s small enough that testing wouldn’t be necessary.

Notice how the same few questions - would they notice, is it an equity asset, how much real estate, is this a positioning move - do most of the work.

Summary

The takeaway is fairly simple. Testing packaging changes is not always required. A lot of updates are too small for consumers to notice and too low-risk to spend money on. But don’t skip testing when the change is big, when it touches an equity asset, or when it’s in service to a new positioning. Those are the ones that can steer the business the wrong way if you guess wrong.

And remember a change can be graphic, structural, or both. Whatever form it takes, run it through the same questions before you decide. The next time you're looking at a packaging change, you'll know which bucket it belongs in, and you'll spend your testing budget more efficiently and effectively.