BIBLIOGRAPHY

APROG, JACK S. APRIL 2011. Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing. Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.

Adviser: Clifton D. Llanes, BSc.


ABSTRACT


The choice of packaging material for any product is crucial to the success of marketing it
as it protects the product, gives convenience to the buyers, and sells itself to the buyers. This
study was conducted to evaluate five different easily accessible packaging materials for etag and
to determine what demographic variables could be associated to the preference on packaging
materials. Two hundred respondents in Baguio and La Trinidad, Benguet were randomly selected
to evaluate the features of the packaging materials.

Packaging materials were rated by the respondents as to the appearance, convenience of
handling and sanitation.

Finding showed that the hard plastic and cardboard is highly preferred by the
respondents. Among the packaging materials evaluated, these materials rated the highest in terms
of aesthetics, handling, convenience, and ability to keep the product sanitary. The aluminium foil
rated the worst in these evaluated features and hence was the least preferred packaging material.

Chi-square analysis revealed no distinct demographic profile to determine the differences
in choices nor ratings given by respondents indicating similarities in answers of respondents.

---

Aside from the packaging material itself, other factors such as labels are important to the
consumers.

Among readily available packaging materials, hard plastic may be the better choice.
However, creativity in packaging the product should not be discounted. Entrepreneurs are
encouraged to further explore other options for the packaging material of etag if aggressive
marketing for this product would be done.
ii 
 

---

TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
Abstract ................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
iii


INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1



Rationale of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
Null Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
Objective of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
Importance of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
Scope and Limitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
6

Importance of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
Elements of the Packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8
Attraction of the Buyer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9
Communication of the Buyer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9
Creating a Desire for the Product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
Selling the Product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12

Location and Time of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
Respondent/evaluator of the

Packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12


Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
Data Gathering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12

---

RESULT AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13

Profile of the Respondent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13

Respondents Preference Rating Packaging

Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16

Respondents Ratings on Appearance of

Packaging Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17



Rating of Appearance for Cardboard

and Wax Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17

Rating of Appearance for Styrofoam

and Cling Wrap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20



Rating of Appearance for Zipper

Storage Bag and Cardboard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .
23



Rating of Appearance for Hard Plastic

and Cardboard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26



Rating of Appearance for Aluminum Foil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29

Respondents Ratings on Sanitation of

Packaging Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33


Rating of Sanitation for Cardboard

and Wax Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33

Rating of Sanitation for Styrofoam

and Cling Wrap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
37


Page

Rating of Sanitation for Zipper

Storage Bag and Cardboard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .
37



Rating of Sanitation for Hard Plastic

and Cardboard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
44



Rating of Sanitation for Aluminum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
77

Respondents Ratings on Convenience of

Packaging Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
51

Rating of Convenience for Cardboard

and Wax Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
51

Rating of Convenience for Styrofoam

and Cling Wrap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
54

---

Rating of Convenience for Zipper

Storage Bag and Cardboard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .
58



Rating of Convenience for Hard Plastic

and Cardboard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
62



Rating of Convenience for Aluminum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
66
.

Additional Package Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
69

Other Reasons for Choice of Packaging

Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
70
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION . . . . . . . . . . .
71

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
71

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
72

Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
73
LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
74
APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
75
A. Sample of Packaging for Cardboard

with Wax Paper. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
75



B. Sample of Packaging for Styrofoam Box

with Cling Wrap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
76

C. Sample of Packaging for Zipper Storage

with Cardboard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
77

D. Sample of Packaging for Hard Plastic

with Cardboard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
78


E. Sample of Packaging for Aluminum Foil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
79

F. Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
80




 

---

1 
 
INTRODUCTION


Rationale
The first packages using natural materials are thousands of years old. Large plant
leaves were used to preserve food and still in use in certain culture. Animal skin where
utilized as packaging materials in prehistoric times. Ceramic containers for the storage of
olive oil-dating from the 1st century where excavated in Pompeii. Barrels of wine and
other liquids were commonly used in classical Greece. The invention of weaving
permitted the introduction of new materials such as linen or burlap to wrap object of
various kinds.
Metal containers to preserve foods were introduced in the early 19th century, but it
was only in the past 50 to 75 that packaging in the modern sense develop. Cellophane
wrappings are widely used in the 1920’s and 1930’s and plastic packaging becomes
widespread after World War II. Art right aseptic packaging of foods-in several
layers of polyethylene, foil and paper a method invented years earlier become popular
in the 1980’s as public taste and awareness develop further revolution changes in
packaging can be expected (Dichter, 1983).
The importance of consumer packaging was elevated in the United States in the
late 1970’s. Rapid post-war economic expansion and market growth waned during that
period, forcing companies to focus increasingly on luring consumers to their product or
brand at the expense of the competition. Package designs become a marketing science.
And as a new corporate cost-consciousness developed in response to increased
competition, companies began to alter packaging techniques as a way to cut production,
storage, and distribution expenses. Furthermore, marketers began to view packaging
Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

2 
 
to exploit existing product lines by adding new items and pump new life into
maturing products.
Today, good package design is an essential part of successful business practice.
Since many potential customers first notice a new product after it has arrived on the
shelf of a store, it is vital that the packaging provide consumers with the information
they need and motivate them to make a purchase. But packaging decisions involve a
number of tradeoffs. While making a product visible and distinctive may be the top
priority, for example, business must also comply with a variety of laws regarding
product labeling and safety. Protecting products during transport is important, but
business also needs to keep their shipping cost as low as possible. The following provides
an overview of some of the factors to consider in packaging products for consumer
markets (Anonymous, 2009).

“ Etag ” is the Cordillera’s version of smoked ham. Pork is salted and smoked in
the cooking area (if you’re using firewood to cook) and left in the area for further
smoking. It is only taken when needed. Some people store Etag in earthenware and age it
there.

According to Bulalat (2004) as cited by Bolinao (2008) Etag is the Mountain
Province’s variant “inassin”, for which the Igorots of the Cordillera highlands are
famous. Dubbed by foreigners as “Igorots ham”, it is made by smoking that is done
repeatedly for at least 30 minutes or maximum of three hours a day for at least two
weeks. The is stored, usually in clay jars. The term innasin is derived from the
Bontoc/Igorot term “innasinan” meaning salted. This is used to describe salted pork meat.
This is actually smoke ham, but more salty, and in many ways, better. Some Igorots call
Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

3 
 
this “Etag”, but according to Ayochok, the Etag could also apply to Beef, Carrabao, and
wild Boar meat.

“Etag” is now gaining its popularity and commercially that is why it is needed to
be packaged so that it will be presentable and eye-catching to the consumers.

Statement of the Problem

One of the factors affecting the commodity’s commercial value is the type of
packaging used. Etag has been made available in the wet market of Baguio City and in
most part of the Cordillera. It is also sold in stores selling live chicken without any
wrappers or protection from any contamination.
Five simple packaging option for “etag” were evaluated. This study aimed to
answer the following question that will look in to the acceptability of packaging materials
for “Etag”.
1. What are consumers/buyers evaluate the different packaging materials of
“Etag” in terms of:
a. appearance
b. sanitation
c. convenience
2. What other packaging factor would the consumer prefer?

Null Hypothesis

There are no significant different in preference of packaging for “Etag” between
respondents as classified by their demographic profile;
a.) Age
Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

4 
 
b.) Education
c.) Income
d.) House hold size

Objective of the Study
Generally, the study evaluated the different packaging materials for “Etag”
products.
Specially, the study aimed to:
1. To determine the acceptability of different packaging materials for “Etag” by
the consumer in relation to:
a. appearance
b. sanitation
c. convenience
2. To determine the most preferred packaging material for “Etag” by each
demographic group.
3. To determine the reasons for preferring the packaging material for “Etag”.

4. To determine demographic factors related to preference of packaging

Importance of the Study
The result of this study will help the potential entrepreneur to improve the
product’s presentation to suit the satisfaction of the consumers. This study will be useful
to potential entrepreneur who will be conducting similar studies in the future. It is also be
a basis for further researcher to improve the product quality.

Scope and Limitation
Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

5 
 

The study is to be conducted in Baguio City and La Trinidad, Benguet where the
data is to be gathered. The product package evaluators/panelist will focus in determining
the acceptability of different materials packaging of “Etag”.




































REVIEW OF LITERATURE


Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

6 
 
Importance of Packaging
        Packaging is an important component for many products. A package is container or
wrapper for a product. It typically includes a label a printed description of the product on
the package. Packaging is important to both consumers and distributors of a product. A
product’s package might perform a number of different functions, including protecting
the product until consume, storing the product until consumed, facilitating consumption
of the product, promoting the product, and facilitating disposal of the product
(Anynomous, 2009).
Because many retailers are self-service sellers, a product’s package must
communicate the brand’s image and help to sell the product. Distinctive packages help
capture the attention of consumers as they view competitive products. Both package and
label also provide important information that consumers use in evaluating competing
brands (Bearden, 2007).
As stated by Pride, (1989) marketers must consider many factors as they develop
packages. Obviously, one major consideration is not cost. Although a variety of
packaging materials, processes, and designs are available, some are rather expensive. In
recent years buyers have shown willingness to pay more for improvement packaging, but
there are limits. Marketers must also decide whether to package the product singly or in
multiple units. Multiple packaging is likely to increase demand because the amount of the
available at the point of consumption (in one’s home, for example). However, multiple
packaging is not appropriate for infrequently used products because buyers not like to tie
up their dollars or store these products for a long time. Multiple packaging can, however,
make products easier to handle and store (such as six-packs used for soft drinks); and
Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

7 
 
special price offers, such as a two-for-one sale, are facilitated through multiple
packaging. In addition, multiple packaging may increase consumer acceptance of a
product by encouraging the buyer to try it several times. On the other hand, because they
must buy several units, costumer may hesitate to try the product the first time.
A package’s promotional role should be considered; will it be used to attract
costumer’s attention and encourage them to examine the product? Through verbal and
nonverbal symbols, the package can inform potential buyers about the product’s content,
features.
A new package can make the important difference in a new marketing strategy by
meeting customers needs better. A better box, wrapper, can or bottle may help create a
“new” product – or a new market (Parker, 2003).
Sometimes a new package improves a product by making it easier or safer to use.
Many drug and food product now have special seals to prevent product tampering.
Packaging can tie the product to the rest of the marketing strategy. Expensive
perfume may come in a crystal bottle, adding to the prestige. Lay eggs pantyhose come in
plastic eggs to make the product stand out in store displays and remind costumers of the
name (McCarthny, 1990).
In a way, the service provides or the area where a service is provided is a form of
packaging. Disney sends the message that its parks are a good place for family vacation
by keeping them spotless. Lawyers put their awards and diplomas on the wall so that
clients know they provide a highly quality product (McCarthny, 1990).
Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

8 
 
Better productive packaging is very important to manufacture and wholesalers.
They often heard to pay the cost of goods damage in shipment, and goods damaged in
shipment also may delay production or cause lost sales (Hui, 1991).
Retailers need good packaging, too. Package that provide better protection can
reduce storing cost by cutting breakage, preventing discloration, and stopping theft.
Packages that are easier to handle can cut cost by spreading price marking, improving
handling and display, .and saving space (Sacharow, 1970).
A good package sometimes gives a firm more promotion effect than it could
possibly afford with advertising. The package is seen in stores-when customers are
actually doing the buying. The package may be seen by many more potential customers
than the company’s advertising. An attractive package may speed turnover so much that
total cost will drop a percentage of sales (Dichter, 1983).
In other cases cost (and price) may rise because of packaging. But customers may
be more satisfied because the packaging improves the product by offering much greater
convenience waste (Fellows and Axtell, 1993).

Elements of a Packaging
The package design involves more than the surface of the aesthetics of the
package. It is influence by the entire marketing program like package-product
combination, the corporate symbol, the distribution and pricing policy and the
promotional effort. A package has the following aims:
1. Attraction to buyer
2. Communication to buyer
3. Creating a desire to product
Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

9 
 
4. Selling to product


Attraction of the Buyer
Package must have enough shelf impact to stand out among a myriad of package.
The package must draw attention to itself. This can be done through the effective choice
of color, shape, copy, trademark, logo, and other features.

Communication to the Buyer
Every packaging element communicates something, so the image projected by the
package must converge with the image being sought for the product. The package design
must show at once the intended use, method of application and intended results. A
container of talcum powder, nor should not look as if it contains scouring powder, nor
should face cream jars resemble shoe polish containers. All necessary information must
be clearly visible or implied though the design. This communication mar either be direct
or subtle. Direct communication describes the product, its benefits and how to use it.
Indirect communication uses color, shape, design forms and texture to convey intrinsic
attributes like purity, value, fun, elegance, femininity or masculinity. Here color is seen to
be the primary aspect involved in subtle consumer communication. This is the reason
cosmetics products are usually in pastel color, black or gold to communicate classic
elegance. Pharmaceutical products use light colors or a white background to denote
cleanliness, purity, and efficacy. In cigarettes, white packaging suggests low tar while red
packaging suggests a strong flavor. Companies targeting Asian markets have to be
careful in choosing packaging colors and logos. Failure to consider cultural factors may
be disastrous. Still another communication role of packaging is providing information to
Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

10 
 
the consumer through the label or immediate package. Information on contents,
instructions on use and information required by law should assist rather than confused by
the costumer. Manufacturers and marketers are guilty of placing instructions that often
hard to read without magnifying glass. When the instructions are readable, they are
frequently vague and ambiguous. Thus, instructions should be tested for understanding
since lack of instruction clarity leads to errors that might become a reason for non repeat
purchase (O’Shughnessy, 1995).

Creating a Desire for the Product
The package can convince the consumer that the product can fill a need or satisfy
an inner desire. Packages usually add value like the convenience now being offered by
microwaveable packaged foods. A shampoo or lotion bottle can shaped in such a way
that its normal position is inverted (less time to remove a viscous product), or it can be
easily hung on the shower handle. Special pump dispensers have promoted the liquid
soap form over the traditional bar soap. Convenience should also consider the ease of
disposability of the package. Advances in packaging technology have kept pace with the
demand for convenient packaging. In addition, rising consumer affluence appears to
show that consumers are willing to pay more for convenience, appearance, dependability,
and prestige of better packages (Kotler, 1984).

Selling the Product

Package must not only sell the product but also create desire for repeat purchases.
This can be in form of reusable features, special giveaways or easy dispensing devices
which promote repeat sales and add value. To ensure that the good design elements are
Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

11 
 
captured or not overlooked during product development, a checklist can be useful.
Prepare a checklist of activities and question for the packaging consultant or the product
manager. This checklist can be used at the beginning of the design program, during its
implementation and is also useful when new design ideas.



































METHODOLOGY


Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

12 
 
Locale and Time of the Study
The evaluation of packaging was conducted in last January 2011 at Baguio City
and La Trinidad, Benguet.

Respondent/Evaluator of the Product
Product evaluator is the source of data. The respondent of the study were specially
college student, faculty/employees and other consumer. The evaluators were determining
as to their age and profession. For evaluation of packaging panelist were composed of
100 from La Trinidad and 100 from Baguio these panelist were chosen randomly.

Data Collection
Simple evaluation of packaging was conducted to determine the most prefer
packaging for “Etag”. An evaluation sheet was provided to the panelist.

Data Gathering Procedure
The data gathered included the following: primary: a.) appearance b.) sanitation
c.) convenience and the types of packaging are: a.) card board box with wax paper inside
b.) Styrofoam box covered with cling wrap c.) zipper storage bag with card board d.) hard
plastic with card board e.) Aluminum foil.

Data Analysis
The data were tabulated, analyzed using simple statistical tools such as frequency
count, percentage, ranking, rating scale and other appropriate statistical tools.
RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Profile of the Respondents
Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

13 
 

There were 200 respondents who evaluated the packaging materials and they are
distributed as to their demographic profile and their utilization of etag in Table 1.
Age. Table 1 shows that of the 200 respondents who evaluated the different
packaging materials for etag, 60 (30%) were younger than 30 years of age and 53
(26.50%) were between 31 to 40 years old. Most of the respondents of this study are less
than 40 years old or from the younger generation.
Gender. Most (71.50%) of the respondents were males. Only a few (28.50%) were
females.
Educational Attainment. Most (71.50%) of the respondents are college graduates.
The others have either reached college level, graduated from high school or have finished
at least a vocational course.
Occupation. Respondents come from a variety of occupations ranging from office
workers, professionals, public servants, and businessmen or self-employed individuals.
Individual Income. Majority (51%) of the respondents earn Php10,000 or less in a
month, 67 (33.5%) earn between Php10,000 to Php20,000 a month, and the rest earn
more than 20,000 in a month. Most respondents belong to the lower income group.
Household Size. Majority (68%) come from households of 1 to 4 members, 17
(22.5%) come from households of 5 to 7 members, and only a few (8.5%) come from
households with 8 to 10 members.
Ethnic Affiliation. Majority (52%) of the respondents were of Mt. Province
Kankana-ey ethnicity, 10.5% were of Benguet Kankana-ey ethnic origin, 8.5% were of
Ibaloi origin, and others were of other ethnic Cordilleran origin while very few of the
respondents were of Ilocano, Pangasinan, or Tagalog origin.
Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

14 
 
Frequency of Etag Use. Of the 200 respondents, 185 (92.50%) were occasional
users of etag. Very few were regular, users of etag.
Respondent rated as use of etag. The most popular use of etag to most of the
respondents was to further flavor pinikpikan. Only a few use it to season vegetable dishes
or as a viand.

Table 1. Demographic profile and etag utilization of respondents

FREQUENCY OF USE OF
USES
OF
ETAG

ETAG
Once
Once a
Occasional Seasoning Flavoring
As
For Soup

PROFILE
a
month
Vegetable
Pinikpikan
Viand
Flavoring
TOTAL %
week
Dish
Age







30 yrs and

60 30.00
4 2 54
17
31
0
12
below





31 – 40 yrs
3
2
48

11
36
0
6
53 26.50




41 – 50 yrs
1
2
30

4
27
1
1
33 16.50




51 – 60 yrs
1
0
22

2
21
0
0
23 11.50




Above 60 yrs
0 0 31 4
22
4
1
31 15.50





Gender






Female 2 3 52 14
32
0
11
57 28.50




Male 7 3 133

24 105
5
9
143 71.50




Educational Attainment









College Level
1
0
26

5
17
0
5

27
13.50
College
8 4 131 27
99 5 12
143
71.50
Graduate

Vocational 0 1
18 3
15
0
1 19 9.50

High Sch.
0 1
6 2
4
0 1 7 3.50
Grad

Graduate
0 0
4 1
2
0 1 4 2.00
School

Table 1. (continued…..)
FREQUENCY OF USE OF
USES
OF
ETAG

ETAG
Once
Once a
Occasional Seasoning Flavoring
As
For Soup

PROFILE
a
month
Vegetable
Pinikpikan
Viand
Flavoring
TOTAL %
week
Dish
Occupation










Student 1 0 12 4
5 0 4
13 6.50

Unemployed 1 0
24 2
22
0
1 25 12.50

Blue Collar
0
0
6

0
6
0
0

6
3.00
 
Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

15 
 
White Collar
1
2
13

3
11
0
2

16
8.00
Gov’t
1 0 31 6
22 1 3 32 16.00
Employee


Self
0 1 30 10
15 0 6 31 15.50
Employed

Retiree 0 0 11 2
8 1 0
11 5.50
Health
4 1 29 6
26 1 1 34 17.00
Worker

Farmer 0 0 9 2
5 1 1
9 4.50
Engineer 1 2
6 2
5
0 2 9 4.50
Sales 0
0
13
1
11 1 0
13 6.50



Public
0
0
1
0
1 0 0 1 0.50
Security




Income






Less than
6 1 95 13
78
4
7
102
51.00
10,000

10,000 –
1 3 63 16
43
1
7
67
33.50
20,000

21,000 –
2 2 27 9
16
0
6
31
15.50
30,000

Household








Size





1 – 4

136 68.00
5 4 127
24 95 2
15


5 – 7
2
1
42
10
30
2
3
45 22.50









8 – 10
2
1
14
4
10 1 2
17 8.50



More than 10
0
0
2
0
2
0 0 2 1.00



Ethnicity












Kankana-ey
3
4
97
18
75
2
9
104 52.00
(Mt Province)

















Kankana-ey
1
1
19
6
13
0
2
21 10.50
(Benguet)

















Ibaloi 4
1
12
6
10
1 0
17 8.50




Ibaloi –
0
0
22
2
16
1 3
22
11.00
Kankanaey





Table 1. (continued . . . .)

FREQUENCY OF USE OF
USES
OF
ETAG

ETAG
Once
Once a
Occasional Seasoning Flavoring
As
For Soup

PROFILE
a
month
Vegetable
Pinikpikan
Viand
Flavoring
TOTAL %
week
Dish
Ethnicity







Ifugao 1 0
9
3
3 0 4
10 5.00



Kalinga
0
0
16
2
13
1
0
16 8.00









 
Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

16 
 
Itneg 0
0
1
0
1
0 0 1 0.50



Pangasinanse 0 0
2
0
2
0 0 2 1.00



Tagalog 0 0
5
0
3
0 2 5 2.50



Ilocano 0 0
2
1
1
0 0 2 1.00



TOTAL 9 6
185
38
137
5
20 200 100.0




Respondents’ Preference Rating Packaging Materials.
Table 2 shows how the respondents rated each of the packaging materials for
etag. Results show that the hard plastic packaging is highly preferred over the other
packaging materials while the aluminum foil is not preferred at all.

Table 2. Respondents’ preference rating on packaging materials

PACKAGING MATERIAL
MEAN
DESCRIPTION

Cardboard with waxpaper
4.09
Preferred

Styrofoam tray with clingwrap 3.04 Fairly
Preferred

Zipper bag
2.12
Less Preferred

Hard plastic
4.80
Highly Preferred

Aluminum foil
1.00
Not Preferred



Respondents’ Ratings on Appearance of Packaging Materials.
Respondents were asked to rate the appearance of the five packaging materials for
etag. Tables 3 to 15 present the respondents’ ratings for aesthetics of the packaging
materials as grouped by respondents’ demographics.
Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

17 
 
Rating of appearance for cardboard with wax paper. Table 3 shows that the
respondents gave an overall rating of 4.52 points or Very Good for the cardboard and
wax paper packaging material in terms of its attractiveness. It, however, received a Good
rating in terms of clean and pleasing look, its being presentable, and its ability to attract
the attention of buyers.

Results of the computed chi-squares for each aesthetic category as against
respondents’ demographics show significant differences in ratings given by age and
ethnic demographic groupings only. This indicates a considerable difference in ratings
given by respondents when grouped by age and ethnicity. Thus, the null hypothesis for
the differences on ratings given for age and ethnic demography is rejected.

When grouped by age, and when compared to those younger than 50 years old,
respondents older than 50 years of age gave a higher rating as to the packaging material’s
clean and pleasing look, its being presentable, and its ability to attract the attention of
buyers.
There also are variations in rating given on the packaging material depending on
the ethnic grouping. Generally, and although all ratings given are at least within the
category of good to very good, there is a relatively consistent lower rating on all factors
relating to aesthetics of the packaging material by Pangasinenses, Tagalogs, Ilocanos, and
even by Benguet Kankanaeys.
Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
18

Table 3. Rating of appearance for cardboard with wax paper

LOOKS
LOOKS CLEAN
LOOKS
PLEASING TO
ABILITY TO
ATTRACTIVE
PRESENTABLE
LOOK AT
INVITE BUYERS


Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description
Age
<
30
4.35 VG 3.36 G 3.97 G 3.92 G 4.10 G
31
–
40
4.66 VG 4.06 G 4.09 G 4.09 G 4.09 G
41
–
50
4.52 VG 3.97 G 4.12 G 4.36 VG 4.45 VG
51
–
60
4.57 VG 4.30 VG 4.26 VG 4.30 VG 4.30 VG
61
-
>
4.55 VG 4.19 G 4.19 G 4.23 VG 4.19 VG
X 0.03*
0.00*
0.105 0.00*
0.00*


*
*
*
Educational Attainment

College
4.33
VG
3.89 G 4.22 G 4.19 G 4.30 G
Level

College
4.54 VG
G 4.10 G 4.15 G 4.20 G
Grad.





Vocational
4.68
VG
3.89
G 3.95 G 4.05 G 4.11 G





High
4.29
VG
4.14 G 4.00 G 4.00 G 4.14 G
School
Grad.
Occupation
Student 4.08
G 3.69 G 4.23 VG 4.23 VG 4.31 VG
Unemployed 4.38 VG 3.81 G 3.87 G 4.20 VG 4.28 VG

Blue Collar
4.59
VG
4.06 G 4.16 G 4.09 G 4.19 G

White Collar
4.55
VG
3.84 G 3.97 G 4.06 G 4.13 G

Gov’t
4.55 VG 4.09 G 4.18 G 4.27 VG 4.45 VG
Employee

Self
4.59 VG 3.97 G 4.12 G 4.15 G 4.18 G
Employed

Retiree 4.56
VG
4.33 G 4.33 VG 4.44 VG 4.33 VG

Health
4.44 VG 4.00 G 4.22 VG 4.00 G 4.00 G
Worker

Farmer 4.23
VG
4.00 G 4.00 G 4.08 G 4.08 G

Engineer 5.00
VG
4.00 G 4.00 G 4.00 G 4.00 G

Public
4.67
VG
4.00 G 4.00 G 4.50 VG 4.50 VG
Security

X²
0.50
0.04*
0.13
0.13
0.01*










Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
19

Table 3. (Continued...)

LOOKS
LOOKS CLEAN
LOOKS
PLEASING TO
ABILITY TO
ATTRACTIVE
PRESENTABLE
LOOK AT
INVITE BUYERS

Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description
Income





<
10,000
4.55 VG 3.94 G 4.03 G 4.11 G 4.19 G
10,000 –
4.60 VG 4.09 G 4.22 VG 4.22 VG 4.24 VG
20,000

21,000 –
4.32 VG 3.77 G 4.03 G 4.00 G 4.13 G
30,000

X² 0.05* 0.09 0.22 0.28
0.35

Household Size

1 – 4
4.53
VG
3.96
G
4.07
G
4.13
G
4.18
G
5 – 7
4.51
VG
3.98
G
4.16
G
4.16
G
4.29
VG
8 – 10
4.41
VG
4.00
G
4.12
G
4.06
G
4.06
G
More
4.50 VG 4.00 G 4.00 G 4.00 G 4.00 G
than 10

X²
0.55 0.50 0.55 0.58 0.49

Ethnicity

Kankana-ey
4.68 VG 4.06 G 4.17 G 4.26 VG 4.28 VG
(Mt.

Province)

Kankana-ey
4.71
VG
3.38 G 3.76 G 3.76 G 4.19 G
(Benguet)

Ibaloi 3.94 G
3.38 G 4.12 G 4.06 G 4.06 G
Ibaloi –
4.59
VG
4.18 G 4.14 G 4.14 G 4.14 G
Kankanaey

Ifugao 4.00 G
3.90 G 4.00 G 3.90 G 4.10 G
Kalinga 4.44
VG
4.00 G 4.00 G 4.06 G 4.06 G
Itneg 5.00
VG
3.00
G 5.00 G 4.00 G 4.00 G


Pangasinanse
3.00 G
4.00 G 4.00 G 4.00 G 4.00 G
Tagalog 3.80 G
4.00 G 4.00 G 4.00 G 4.00 G
Ilocano 4.00 G
4.00 G 4.00 G 4.00 G 4.00 G
OVERALL
4.52
VG
3.96 G 4.10 G 4.13 G 4.19 G
AVERAGE
X²
0.00*
0.00*
0.00**
0.00*
0.732


*
*
*
*Significant Legend:
**Highly Significant Very Good (VG)
Good (G)





Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
20

Rating of appearance for Styrofoam box with cling wrap. Table 4 shows that the
respondents gave an overall rating of very good the cardboard with wax paper packaging
material in terms of its attractiveness, cleanliness, its being presentable, and its ability to
attract buyers.
Results of the computed chi-squares for each aesthetic category against the
respondents’ demographics show significant differences in ratings given by age,
occupation, income, and household size. However, the observed significant differences
were not observed in all categories of aesthetics. The categories with consistent
significant differences across income, occupation, and household size were its being
presentable, and its being pleasing to look at. Thus the null hypothesis relating the ratings
given by respondents is rejected in these particular demographics and categories.
The significant difference only indicates a considerable difference in rating given
by grouping in each demography. The general description of the ratings however is Very
Good for all categories.

Table 4. Rating for appearance on styrofoam box with cling wrap







Looks Attractive
Looks Clean
Looks Presentable
Pleasing to look at
Ability to invite


buyers

Mean
Description Mean
Description Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description

Age





















< 30
4.72
VG
4.77
VG
4.70
VG
4.63
VG
4.63
VG











31 – 40
4.36
VG
4.58
VG
4.62
VG
4.75
VG
4.64
VG











41 – 50
4.36
VG
4.42
VG
4.45
VG
4.85
VG
4.67
VG
51 – 60
4.35 VG 4.39 VG 4.43 VG 4.61 VG 4.52 VG

61
-
>
4.65 VG 4.81 VG 4.77 VG 4.77 VG 4.81 VG
x²
0.00*
0.00*
0.06
0.68
0.52


*
*




Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
21

Table 4. (continued . . . .)

Looks Attractive
Looks Clean
Looks Presentable
Pleasing to look at
Ability to invite


buyers

Mean
Description Mean
Description Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description


Gender











Female
4.46 VG 4.65 VG 4.63 VG 4.65 VG 4.53 VG

Male
4.53 VG 4.62 VG 4.62 VG 4.75 VG 4.71 VG
x²
0.26
0.16
0.24
0.38
0.12


Educational









Attainment

Col. Level
4.74
VG
4.78
VG
4.78
VG
4.78
VG
4.74
VG











Col.
4.49
VG
4.62
VG
4.60
VG
4.73
VG
4.66
VG
Graduate











Vocational
4.37
VG
4.47
VG
4.53
VG
4.68
VG
4.63
VG











High
4.43
VG
4.43
VG
4.43
VG
4.29
VG
4.29
VG
School










Grad.
Graduate
4.50
VG 4.75 VG 5.00 VG 4.75 VG 4.75 VG
School
x² 0.45
0.59
0.08
0.46
0.56

Occupation











Student
4.85
VG
4.85
VG
4.85
VG
4.69
VG
4.69
VG










Unemployed
4.50
VG
4.69
VG
4.50
VG
4.38
VG
4.31
VG











Blue Collar
4.50
VG
4.50
VG
4.59
VG
4.72
VG
4.69
VG











White Collar
4.61
VG
4.68
VG
4.61
VG
4.77
VG
4.71
VG











Gov.
4.45
VG
4.45 VG 4.64 VG 4.91 VG 4.73 VG
Employee











Self
4.35
VG
4.62
VG
4.59
VG
4.71
VG
4.68
VG
Employed











Retiree
4.44
VG
4.56
VG
4.56
VG
4.67
VG
4.67
VG











Health
4.11
G
4.67
VG
4.67
VG
4.67
VG
4.67
VG
Worker











Farmer
4.69
VG 4.77 VG 4.77 VG 4.85 VG 4.77 VG






Engineer
4.00
G
5.00
VG 5.00 VG 5.00 VG 5.00 VG







Sales
4.60
VG
4.64
VG 4.64 VG 4.80 VG 4.64 VG







Public
4.33
VG
4.33 VG 4.33 VG 4.67 VG 4.50 VG
Security
x² 0.02
0.07 0.00*
0.00*
0.07
*
*
*




Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
22

Table 4. (continued...)

LOOK
LOOKS CLEAN
LOOKS
PLEASING TO
ABILITY TO
ATTRACTIVE
PRESENTABLE
LOOK AT
INVITE BUYERS
Mean
Description Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description
Household Size











1 – 4
4.51
VG
4.62
VG
4.64
VG
4.74
VG
4.65
VG

5 – 7
4.51
VG 4.64 VG 4.60 VG 4.73 VG 4.69 VG

8 – 10
4.47
VG 4.65 VG 4.59 VG 4.59 VG 4.65 VG

others
4.50
VG 4.50 VG 4.00 G 4.00 G 4.00 G
x²
0.99 0.99
0.00**
0.00*
0.00*


*
*
Ethnicity











Kankana-
4.45
VG 4.56 VG 4.61 VG 4.73 VG 4.70 VG
ey
(Mt.Prov.)
Kankana-
4.57
VG 4.81 VG 4.76 VG 4.71 VG 4.52 VG
ey
(Benguet)

Ibaloi
4.59
VG 4.65 VG 4.65 VG 4.76 VG 4.71 VG

Ibalio –










Kankanaey
4.64
VG
4.77
VG
4.68
VG
4.68
VG
4.64
VG

Ifugao
4.60
VG 4.80 VG 4.70 VG 4.70 VG 4.50 VG






Kalinga
4.50
VG 4.50 VG 4.50 VG 4.69 VG 4.62 VG






Itneg
5.00
VG 5.00 VG 5.00 VG 5.00 VG 5.00 VG






Pangasina
4.50
VG 4.50 VG 4.00 VG 4.50 VG 4.50 VG
nse






Tagalog
4.40
VG 4.40 VG 4.20 VG 4.60 VG 4.40 VG






Ilocano
4.50
GV 5.00 GV 5.00 GV 5.00 GV 5.00 GV
Overall
4.51
VG 4.62 VG 4.62 VG 4.72 VG 4.66 VG
Average

x²
0.99
0.83
0.33
0.99
0.93


*Significant
**Highly Significant

Legend:
Very Good (VG)
Good (G)








Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
23

Rating of appearance for zipper storage bag with cardboard. Table 5 shows that
the respondents gave an overall rating of Moderately Good for the zipper storage bag
with wax paper packaging material in terms of attractiveness, cleanliness, its being
presentable, its being pleasing to look at, and its ability to attract attention of buyers.
Results of the computed chi-squares for each category against the respondents’
demographic variables show no significant differences in ratings given, hence, the null
hypothesis is accepted across all demographic variables and all categories on aesthetics.
This indicates that all the respondents have the same moderate rating of the zipper bag’s
appearance as a packaging material.

Table 5. Rating for appearance on zipper storage with cardboard


LOOKS
LOOKS CLEAN
LOOKS
PLEASING TO
ABILITY TO

ATTRACTIVE
PRESENTABLE
LOOK AT
INVITE BUYERS


Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description
Age





















< 30
3.02
MG
3.02
MG
3.02
MG
3.02
MG
3.03
MG











31 – 40
2.28
MG
2.98
MG
2.98
MG
2.96
MG
2.96
MG











41 – 50
3.00
MG
3.06
MG
3.00
MG
3.03
MG
3.12
MG











51 – 60
3.00
MG
3.00
MG
3.00
MG
3.00
MG
3.00
MG











61 and
3.00
MG
3.00
MG
3.00
MG
3.00
MG
3.00
MG
above
x² 0.863
0.830
0.863
0.765
0.765

Gender











Female
3.02
MG
3.05
MG
3.02
MG
3.02
MG
3.04
MG











Male
2.99
MG
2.99
MG
2.99
MG
2.99
MG
3.01
MG
x² 0.224
0.062
0.224
0.0430
0.093

Legend:
Moderately Good (MG)




Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
24

Table 5. (continued…)

LOOKS
LOOKS CLEAN
LOOKS
PLEASING TO
ABILITY TO
ATTRACTIVE
PRESENTABLE
LOOK AT
INVITE BUYERS
Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description

Educational
Attainment

Col.
3.00 MG 3.00 MG 3.00 MG 3.00 MG 3.00 MG
Level
Col.
3.00 MG 3.01 MG 3.00 MG 2.99 MG 3.01 MG
Graduate
Vocat’nl
3.00 MG 3.00 MG 3.00 MG 3.00 MG 3.00 MG
High
3.00
MG 3.00 MG 3.00 MG 3.14 MG 3.29 MG
School



Grad.











Graduate
3.00
MG
3.00
MG
3.00
MG
3.00
MG
3.00
MG
School
x²
0.99
0.990
0.996
0.008
0.349


Occupation











Student
3.00
MG
3.00
MG
3.00
MG
3.00
MG
3.00
MG











Unemployed
2.24
MG
2.94
MG
2.94
MG
2.94
MG
3.13
MG











Blue Collar
3.00
MG
3.00
MG
3.00
MG
3.00
MG
3.06
MG











White
3.00
MG
3.06
MG
3.00
MG
3.00
MG
3.06
MG
Collar
















Gov.
3.00
MG
3.00
MG
3.00
MG
3.00
MG
3.00
MG
Employee
















Self
2.79
MG
2.97
MG
2.97
MG
2.94
MG
2.94
MG
Employed
















Retiree
3.00
MG
3.00
MG
3.00
MG
3.00
MG
3.00
MG











Health
3.22
MG
3.22
MG
3.22
MG
3.22
MG
3.22
MG
Worker











Farmer
3.00
MG
3.00
MG
3.00
MG
3.00
MG
3.00
MG











Engineer
3.00
MG
3.00
MG
3.00
MG
3.00
MG
3.00
MG











Sales
3.00
MG
3.00
MG
3.00
MG
3.00
MG
3.00
MG











Public
3.00
MG
3.00
MG
3.00
MG
3.00
MG
3.00
MG
Security
x² 0.15
0.60
0.15
0.09
0.98

Income











< 10,000
2.99
MG 2.99 MG 2.99 MG 2.98 MG 3.00 MG



10,000 –
3.03
MG 3.06 MG 3.03 MG 3.03 MG 3.03 MG
20,000











Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
25

Table 5. (continued…)

LOOKS
LOOKS CLEAN
LOOKS
PLEASING TO
ABILITY TO
ATTRACTIVE
PRESENTABLE
LOOK AT
INVITE BUYERS

Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description
Income











21,000 –
2.97 MG 2.97 MG 2.97 MG 3.00 MG 3.06 MG
30,000
x² 0.379
0.184
0.379
0.022*
0.779

Household

Size

1 – 4
3.01 MG 3.02 MG 3.01 MG 3.00 MG 3.03 MG





5 – 7
3.00 MG 3.00 MG 3.00 MG 3.00 MG 3.00 MG





8 – 10
2.94 MG 2.84 MG 2.94 MG 3.00 MG 3.00 MG





More than
3.00 MG MG 3.00 MG 3.00 MG 3.00 MG
10
3.00
X² 0.527
0.467
0.527
0.983
0.927

Ethnicity











Kankana-
3.02 MG 3.02 MG 3.02 MG 3.00 MG 3.00 MG
ey


(Mt. Prov.)
Kankana-
2.95 MG 2.95 MG 2.95 MG 2.90 MG 2.90 MG
ey


(Benguet)
Ibaloi
3.00
MG 3.00 MG 3.00 MG 3.00 MG 3.12 MG






Ibalio –
3.00
MG 3.00 MG 3.00 MG 3.09 MG 3.09 MG
Kankanaey






Ifugao 2.90 MG 2.90 MG 2.90 MG 3.00 MG 3.00 MG





Kalinga
3.00
MG 3.00 MG 3.00 MG 3.00 MG 3.00 MG






Itneg 3.00 MG 3.00 MG 3.00 MG 3.00 MG 3.00 MG





Pangasinanse 3.00
MG
3.00
MG
3.00
MG
3.00
MG
3.00
MG











Tagalog
3.00
MG
3.00
MG
3.00
MG
3.00
MG
3.40
MG











Ilocano
3.00
MG
3.00
MG
3.00
MG
3.00
MG
3.00
MG
OVERALL
3.00 MG 3.01 MG 3.00 MG 3.00 MG 3.02 MG
AVERAGE

X²
0.742
0.021
0.742
0.982
0.97


*
8
*Significant
**Highly Significant

Legend:
Very Good (VG)
Good (G)




Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
26

Rating of appearance for hard plastic with cardboard. Table 6 shows that the
respondents gave an overall rating of Very Good for the hard plastic with cardboard
packaging material in terms of its attractiveness but only a Good cleanliness, presentable,
pleasing to look at, ability to attract attention of buyers.
Results of the computed chi-square for each category as to the demographic show
significant difference in rating given by the by income, household size, and ethnicity
grouping only.
When grouped by income as compared to these having income less than 10,000
and 21,000 to 30,000 gave a higher rating as to the packaging materials clean and
pleasing to look, its resentabilityp, and ability to attract buyers.
Like wise also in grouped of household size gave an higher rating as to the
packaging materials clean and pleasing to look, its presentability, and its ability to attract
buyers.
There are also variations in rating given on the packaging material depending on
the ethnic grouping. Generally, and although all rating given are at least with in the
category of good to very good, there is an relatively consistent lower rating on all factors
relating to aesthetic of the packaging material by Ilocanos, Tagalogs, Pangasinanse,
Itneg, Kalinga, Ifugao, Ibaloi, and even Kankana-eys.









Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
27

Table 6. Rating for appearance on hard plastic with card board paper

LOOKS
LOOKS CLEAN
LOOKS
PEASING TO
ABILITY TO

ATTRACTIVE
PRESENTABLE
LOOK AT
INVITE BUYERS

Mean
Description Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description

Age











<
30
4.92 VG 4.95 VG 4.95 VG 4.93 VG 4.93 VG











31 –
5.00
VG
4.94
VG
5.00
VG
5.00
VG
5.00
VG
40











41 –
4.94
VG
5.00
VG
4.94
VG
4.94
VG
4.91
VG
50











51 –
5.00
VG
4.97
VG
5.00
VG
5.00
VG
5.00
VG
60











61 - >
4.97
VG
4.97
VG
4.97
VG
4.97
VG
4.97
VG
x² 0.164
0.374
0.374
0.269
0.161


Gender











Female
4.98
VG
4.98
VG
4.98
VG
4.98
VG
4.96
VG











Male
4.95
VG
4.97
VG
4.97
VG
4.96
VG
4.96
VG











x²
0.306
0.514
0.514
0.396
0.823
Educational










Attainment

Col.
5.00
VG
5.00 VG 5.00 VG 5.00 VG 5.00 VG
Level











Col.
4.94
VG
4.96
VG
4.96
VG
4.95
VG
4.94
VG
Graduate











Vocational
5.00
VG
5.00
VG
5.00
VG
5.00
VG
5.00
VG











High
5.00
VG
5.00
VG
5.00
VG
5.00
VG
5.00
VG
School
Grad.











Graduate
5.00
VG
5.00
VG
5.00
VG
5.00
VG
5.00
VG
x²
0.50

0.65 0.95 0.57 0.50
Occupation











Student
5.00
VG
5.00
VG
5.00
VG
5.00
VG
5.00
VG











Unemployed
4.88
VG
4.94
VG
4.88
VG
4.88
VG
4.88
VG











Blue Collar
4.97
VG
4.97
VG
4.97
VG
4.97
VG
4.97
VG











White Collar
4.94
VG
4.97
VG
4.97
VG
4.94
VG
4.90
VG











Gov. Employee
4.91
VG
4.91
VG
4.91
VG
4.91
VG
4.91
VG











Self Employed
5.00
VG
4.97
VG
5.00
VG
5.00
VG
5.00
VG




Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
28

Table 6. (continued…)

LOOKS
LOOKS CLEAN
LOOKS
PEASING TO
ABILITY TO

ATTRACTIVE
PRESENTABLE
LOOK AT
INVITE BUYERS

Mean Description Mean
Description Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description
Educational










Retiree
5.00
VG
5.00 VG 5.00 VG 5.00 VG 5.00 VG











Health
5.00
VG
5.00
VG
5.00
VG
5.00
VG
5.00
VG
Worker











Farmer
4.92
VG
4.92
VG
4.92
VG
4.92
VG
4.92
VG











Engineer
5.00
VG
5.00
VG
5.00
VG
5.00
VG
5.00
VG











Sales
4.96
VG
5.00
VG
5.00
VG
5.00
VG
5.00
VG











Private
5.00
VG
5.00
VG
5.00
VG
5.00
VG
5.00
VG
Security











x²
0.73
0.93
0.49
0.54
0.45
Income











<
4.55
VG
3.94
G
4.03
G
4.11
G
4.19
G
10,000











10,000
4.60
VG
4.09
G
4.22
VG
4.22
VG
4.24
VG
–
20,000











21,000
4.23
VG
3.77
G
4.03
G
4.00
G
4.13
G
–
30,000
x² 0.05*
0.09
0.22
0.28
0.35


Household
Size













1 – 4
4.53
VG
3.96
G
4.07
G
4.13
G
4.18
G











5 – 7
4.51
VG
3.98
G
4.16
G
4.16
G
4.29
VG











8 – 10
4.41
VG
4.00
G
4.12
G
4.06
G
4.06
G











More
4.50
VG
4.00
G
4.00
G
4.00
G
4.00
G
than 10
x²
0.55
0.50
0.55
0.58
0.50


Ethnicity

Kankana-ey










(Mt.
4.68
VG
4.06
G
4.17
G
4.26
VG
4.28
VG
Province)











Kankana-ey
4.71
VG
3.38
G
3.76
G
3.76
G
4.19
G
(Benguet)












Ibaloi
3.94
G
3.88
G
4.12
G
4.06
G
4.06
G











Ibalio –
4.59
VG
4.18
G
4.14
G
4.14
G
4.14
G
Kankanaey




Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
29

Table 6. (continued……)


LOOKS
LOOKS CLEAN
LOOKS
PEASING TO
ABILITY TO

ATTRACTIVE
PRESENTABLE
LOOK AT
INVITE BUYERS


Mean
Description Mean
Description Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description

Ethnicity












Ifugao
4.00
G
3.90
G
4.00
G
3.90
G
4.10
G











Kalinga
4.44
VG
4.00
G
4.00
G
4.06
G
4.06
G











Itneg
5.00
VG
3.00
G
5.00
VG
4.00
G
4.00
G
Pangasin
3.00
G
4.00
G
4.00
G
4.00
G
4.00
G
anse











Tagalog
3.80
G
4.00
G
4.00
G
4.00
G
4.00
G











Ilocano
4.00
G
4.00 G 4.00 G 4.00 G 4.00 G

OVERA
4.52
VG 3.36 G 4.10 G 4.13 G 4.19 G
LL
AVARA
GE

x²
0.00*
0.00*
0.00*
0.00*
0.732


*
*
*
*
*Significant
**Highly Significant

Legend:
Very Good (VG)
Good (G)


Rating of Appearance for Aluminum Foil. Table 7 shows that respondents gave a
Poor overall rating on all categories of appearance of the aluminum foil packaging
material.
Result of the computed chi-square for each aesthetic category as to the
respondents’ demographic shows significant differences in ratings given by gender and
household size groupings, thus, the null hypothesis is rejected for these demographic
groupings.
Although the overall ratings fall under the description of Poor, females gave a
much lower rating than males for all categories of aesthetics of the aluminum foil. Those




Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
30

from households with 5 to 7 members and from households of 8 to 10 family members
gave a consistently lower rating on each category of aesthetics of the aluminum foil
package than those from households of less than 5 members or more than 10 members.

When evaluated by aesthetic features, the Styrofoam had the highest average
rating of Very Good. Additionally, The cardboard and hard plastic received an average
rating of Good. The zipperbag had an average rating of Moderately Good and the
Aluminum Foil received a poor rating.

Table 7. Rating of appearance of aluminum
LOOKS
LOOKS CLEAN
LOOKS
PLEASING TO
ABILITY TO
ATTRACTIVE
PRESENTABLE
LOOK AT
INVITE BUYERS

Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description
Age










<
30
2.03 P 2.02 P 2.00 P 2.00 P 1.98 P
31
–
40
2.04 P 2.04 P 2.04 P 2.04 P 2.04 P
41
–
50
2.03 P 2.03 P 2.03 P 2.03 P 2.03 P
51
–
60
1.96 P 1.096 P 1.96 P 1.96 P 1.96 P
61
-
>
1.90 P 1.90 P 1.96 P 1.90 P 1.90 P
X²
0.29

0.23 0.25 0.25 0.23
Gender










Male

2.09 P 2.09 P 2.09 P 2.09 P 2.09 P
Female
1.97 P 1.97 P 1.96 P 1.96 P 1.95 P
X²
0.05*
0.04* 0.02* 0.02* 0.00*

*
Educational









Attainment

College
2.04 P 2.00 P 1.96 P 1.96 P 1.96 P
Level
 
 




Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
31

Table 7. (continued...)

LOOKS
LOOKS CLEAN
LOOKS
PLEASING TO
ABILITY TO
ATTRACTIVE
PRESENTABLE
LOOK AT
INVITE BUYERS

Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description
Educational









Attainment

College
1.99 P 1.99 P 1.99 P 1.99 P 1.99 P
Graduate
Vocational
2.00
P 2.00 P 2.00 P 2.00 P 2.00 P
High
2.29 P 2.29 P 2.29 P 2.29 P 2.29 P
School
Graduate
Age











<
30
2.03 P 2.02 P 2.00 P 2.00 P 1.98 P
31
–
40
2.04 P 2.04 P 2.04 P 2.04 P 2.04 P
41
–
50
2.03 P 2.03 P 2.03 P 2.03 P 2.03 P
51
–
60
1.96 P 1.096 P 1.96 P 1.96 P 1.96 P
61
-
>
1.90 P 1.90 P 1.96 P 1.90 P 1.90 P
X²
0.29

0.23 0.25 0.25 0.23
Gender










Male

2.09 P 2.09 P 2.09 P 2.09 P 2.09 P
Female
1.97 P 1.97 P 1.96 P 1.96 P 1.95 P
X²
0.05*
0.04* 0.02* 0.02* 0.00*

*
Educational









Attainment

College
2.04
P
2.00 P 1.96 P 1.96 P 1.96 P
Level
College
1.99
P
1.99 P 1.99 P 1.99 P 1.99 P
Graduate
Vocational
2.00
P
2.00 P 2.00 P 2.00 P 2.00 P
High School
2.29
P
2.29 P 2.29 P 2.29 P 2.29 P
Graduate
Occupation





Student 2.15
P
2.08 P 2.00 P 2.00 P 2.00 P
Unemployed
2.00
P
2.00 P 2.00 P 2.00 P 2.00 P
Blue
Collar
2.00
P
2.00 P 2.00 P 2.00 P 2.00 P
White
Collar
2.13
P
2.19 P 2.13 P 2.13 P 2.13 P




Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
32

Table 7. (continued...)

LOOKS
LOOKS CLEAN
LOOKS
PLEASING TO
ABILITY TO
ATTRACTIVE
PRESENTABLE
LOOK AT
INVITE BUYERS

Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description
Occupation
Gov’t
2.06 P 2.03 P 2.06 P 2.03 P 2.03 P
Employee
Self
1.90 P 1.90 P 1.90 P 1.90 P 1.90 P
Employed
Retiree
2.00
P 2.00 P 2.00 P 2.00 P 2.00 P
Health
2.00 P 2.00 P 2.00 P 2.00 P 2.00 P
Worker
Farmer
2.00 P 2.00 P 2.00 P 2.00 P 2.00 P
Engineer
1.89
P 1.89 P 1.89 P 1.89 P 1.89 P
Public
1.92 P 1.92 P 1.92 P 1.92 P 1.92 P
Security
X²
0.40 0.11 0.35 0.24 0.24
Income
<
10,000
1.99 P 1.98 P 1.99 P 1.99 P 2.77 P
10,000 –
1.97 P 1.97 P 1.97 P 1.97 P 2.66 P
20,000
21,000 –
2.13 P 2.13 P 2.06 P 2.06 P 2.68 P
30,000

X²
0.62 0.09 0.89 0.89 0.07

HOUSE










HOLD
SIZE
1
–
4 2.03 P 2.03 P 2.03 P 2.03 P 2.02 P
5
–
7 2.00 P 1.98 P 1.96 P 1.96 P 1.96 P
8
–
10
1.82 P 1.82 P 1.82 P 1.82 P 1.82 P
More
2.00 P 2.00 P 2.00 P 2.00 P 2.00 P
than 10
X²
0.00*
0.00*
0.00*
0.00*
0.00*


*
*
*
*
*
Ethnicity










Kankana-ey
1.94
P
1.95 P 1.94 P 1.94 P 1.94 P
(Mt.
Province)
Kankana-ey
2.19
P
2.19 P 2.19 P 2.19 P 2.19 P
(Benguet)
Ibaloi 2.24
P
2.00 P 2.12 P 2.12 P 2.12 P




Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
33

Table 7. (continued...)

LOOKS
LOOKS CLEAN
LOOKS
PLEASING TO
ABILITY TO
ATTRACTIVE
PRESENTABLE
LOOK AT
INVITE BUYERS

Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description
Ethnicity
Kankana-
1.94 P 1.95 P 1.94 P 1.94 P 1.94 P
ey
(Mt.
Province)
Kankana-
2.19 P 2.19 P 2.19 P 2.19 P 2.19 P
ey
(Benguet)
Ibaloi 2.24 P 2.00 P 2.12 P 2.12 P 2.12 P
Ibaloi –
2.00 P 1.90 P 2.00 P 2.00 P 2.00 P
Kankanae
y
Ifugao 1.90 P 1.87 P 1.90 P 1.90 P 1.90 P
Kalinga
1.94 P 2.00 P 1.94 P 1.94 P 1.87 P
Itneg
2.00 P 2.00 P 2.00 P 2.00 P 2.00 P

Pangasi-
2.00 P 2.00 P 2.00 P 2.00 P 2.00 P
nanse
Tagalog
2.00 P 2.00 P 2.00 P 2.00 P 2.00 P
Ilocano
2.00 P 2.00 P 2.00 P 2.00 P 2.00 P
X²
0.54 P 0.89 P 0.78 P 0.78 P 0.68 P

OVERALL
2.00

2.00 1.99 1.99 1.99
AVERAGE
*Significant
**Highly Significant

Legend:
Poor
(P)


Respondents’ Ratings on Sanitation of Packaging Materials.
Respondents rated the ability of the packaging materials to keep the product clean
and prolong its shelf life.
Rating of sanitation for card board with wax paper. Table 8 shows that the
respondents gave an overall rating of Acceptable for the cardboard and wax paper




Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
34

packaging material in terms of its ability to act as a barrier to moisture, protect the
product, protect against ingress of odors, provide resistance to physical damage, and
suppress the odor of the product.
Results of the computed chi-squares for each category on sanitation against the
demographic profiles show significant differences in each category when grouped by age
and income. The null hypothesis is hence rejected for demographics of age and income.

Respondents from the age group of 31 to 40 and 41 to 50 tended to give
consistently higher ratings on sanitation capabilities of the cardboard box than the older
or younger respondents. Likewise, those belonging to the income bracket of Php10,000 to
Php20,000 earned per month gave a higher rating on sanitation for the cardboard
packaging material than those with higher or lower monthly income.

Table 8. Rating of sanitation for card board

ACT AS A
PROTECT THE
PROTECTS THE
PROVIDE
SUPPRESSES

BARRIER TO
PRODUCT
INGRESS OF
RESISTANCE TO
ODOUR OF THE

MOISTURE

ODOUR
PHYSICAL
PRODUCT
DAMAGE
Mean Description Mean
Description Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description
Age











< 30
3.36
A
3.22
MA 3.35 MA 3.55 A
3.55
A



















31 –
4.36
HA
4.17
A
3.26
MA
3.64
A
4.17
A
40


















41 –
4.33
HA
4.15
A
3.79
A
3.97
A
4.33
HA
50


















51 –
4.48
HA
3.87
A
3.17
MA
3.52
A
4.13
A
60


















61 -
4.42
HA
4.35
A
4.16
A
4.29
HA
4.29
HA
>
x²
0.00** 0.00** 0.00** 0.02* 0.00**
 
 




Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
35

Table 8. (continued...)


ACT AS A
PROTECT THE
PROTECTS THE
PROVIDE
SUPPRESSES

BARRIER TO
PRODUCT
INGRESS OF
RESISTANCE TO
ODOUR OF THE

MOISTURE

ODOUR
PHYSICAL
PRODUCT
DAMAGE
Mean Description Mean
Description Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description
Gender






















Female
4.84
HA
4.86
HA
4.86
HA
4.89
HA
4.88
HA











Male
4.93
HA
4.96
HA
4.92
HA
4.92
HA
4.93
HA
x²
0.05*

0.01* 0.23 0.49 0.22
Educational










Attainment











Col. Level
3.36
A
3.59
A
3.67
A
3.89
A
3.96
A
Col.










Graduate
4.18
A
3.90
A
3.51
A
3.73
A
4.04
A

Vocational 4.47 HA
4.05 A 3.32 A 3.63 A 4.05 A

High
3.86
A
3.86 A 3.00 A 3.86 A 3.86 A
School

Grad.
Graduate
4.50
HA
4.00
A
4.00
A
4.00
A
4.00
A
School

x²
0.79
0.90
0.65
0.99
0.99


Occupation











Student
3.77
A
3.31
A
3.62
A
3.77
A
3.77
A











Unemployed
4.12
A
3.88
A
3.25
A
4.00
A
4.25
HA











Blue Collar
3.88
A
3.75
A
3.25
A
3.25
A
3.81
A











White
3.97
A
3.52
A
3.45
A
3.65
A
3.71
A
Collar











Gov.
4.64
HA
4.45
HA
3.55
A
4.09
A
4.27
HA
Employee





















Self
4.47
HA
4.06
A
3.59
A
3.94
A
4.24
HA
Employed





















Retiree
4.56
HA
4.56
HA
4.33
HA
4.33
A
4.33
HA











Health
4.00
A
3.33
A
3.33
A
3.78
A
4.00
A
Worker











Farmer
4.23
HA
3.77
A
3.15
A
3.46
A
3.92
A











Engineer
3.00
A
3.00
A
3.00
A
3.00
A
3.00
A











Sales
4.28
HA
4.20
HA
3.72
A
3.96
A
4.20
HA




Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
36

Table 8. (continued...)


ACT AS A
PROTECT THE
PROTECTS THE
PROVIDE
SUPPRESSES

BARRIER TO
PRODUCT
INGRESS OF
RESISTANCETO
ODOUR OF THE

MOISTURE

ODOUR
PHYSICAL
PRODUCT
DAMAGE
Mean Description Mean
Description Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description
Occupation

Public
4.67
HA 4.33 HA 4.00 A
3.67 A 4.33 HA
Security





x²
0.50
0.04*
0.13
0.13
0.01*



Income





















< 10,000
4.16
A
3.88
A
3.41
A
3.65
A
3.96
A










10,000 –
4.30
HA
3.97
A
3.70
A
3.85
A
4.12
A
20,000











3.97
A
3.65
A
3.39
A
3.90
A
4.03
A
21,000 –
30,000
x²
0.278
0.32*
0.09*
0.28*
0.48*


*
*
Household Size
1 – 4
4.21 HA 3.89
A
3.48
A
3.76
A 4.02 A








5 – 7
4.07
A
3.84
A
3.62
A
3.80
A
4.07
A










8 – 10
4.18
A
3.82
A
3.35
A
3.59
A
3.94
A










More
4.00
A
4.00
A
4.00
A
4.00
A
4.00
A
than 10
x²
0.96
0.99
0.87
0.97
0.99


Ethnicity












Kankana-
4.28
HA
3.93
A
3.74
A
3.80
A
4.11
A
ey










(Mt. Prov.)










Kankana-
4.05
A
3.76
A
3.19
A
3.95
A
3.95
A
ey










(Benguet)





















Ibaloi
4.18
A
3.82
A
3.12
A
3.59
A
4.06
A











Ibalio –
4.18
A
4.18
A
3.36
A
3.82
A
4.09
A
Kankanaey












A
3.60
A
3.40
A
3.80
A
3.80
A
Ifugao
4.00











A
3.75
A
3.25
A
3.38
A
3.88
A
Kalinga
3.88











A
3.00
A
3.00
A
3.00
A
3.00
A
Itneg
3.00









Pangasi-
4.00 A 4.00 A 3.00 A 4.00 A 3.00 A
nanse

Tagalog
3.80 A 3.40 A 3.00 A 3.40 A 3.80 A

 
 




Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
37

Table 8 (continued…)

ACT AS A
PROTECT THE
PROTECTS THE
PROVIDE
SUPPRESSES

BARRIER TO
PRODUCT
INGRESS OF
RESISTANCETO
ODOUR OF THE

MOISTURE

ODOUR
PHYSICAL
PRODUCT
DAMAGE
Mean Description Mean
Description Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description
Occupation









\\

Ilocano
5.00
HA
3.00
A
4.00
A
4.00
A
4.00
A
OVER
4.18
A
3.87
A
3.51
A
3.75 A
4.02 A
ALL
AVE-
RAGE
x² 0.97
0.97
0.27
0.99
0.99

*Significant
**Highly Significant
Legend:
Highly Acceptable (HA)
Acceptable (A)

Rating of sanitation for Styrofoam with cling wrap. Table 9 shows that the
respondents gave an overall of rating of moderately acceptable for the Styrofoam box in
terms of its ability to be a barrier to moisture but a rating of Acceptable for its qualities of
being able to protect the product, protect against ingress of odorous, physical resistance
to physical damage, and suppression of the odor of the product.
Results of the computed chi-square for each aesthetic category as to respondents’
demographics significant differences particularly in the gender and educational
attainment groupings. The null hypothesis is hence rejected for these categories. This
means that there are significant differences in ratings given by respondents when grouped
by gender and by educational attainment.
Females gave consistently higher ratings on the Styrofoam box’s ability to keep
the product’s sanitation than the male respondents. Likewise, those who have finished
their high school education, have reached college or have graduated from college gave a
higher rating than those with higher or lower level education.




Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
38


Table 9. Rating for sanitation on styrofoam box

ACT AS A
PROTECT THE
PROTECTS THE
PROVIDE
SUPPRESSES

BARRIER TO
PRODUCT
INGRESS OF
RESISTANCETO
ODOUR OF THE

MOISTURE

ODOUR
PHYSICAL
PRODUCT

DAMAGE
Mean
Description Mean
Description Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description

Age











< 30
3.20
A
3.52
A
3.52
A
3.52
A
3.52
A










31– 40
3.13
A
3.60
A
3.60
A
3.60
A
3.60
A










41– 50
3.24
A
3.52
A
3.52
A
3.52
A
3.52
A










51– 60
3.26
A
3.78
A
3.78
A
3.78
A
3.78
A










61 - >
3.19
A
3.65
A
3.65
A
3.65
A
3.65
A





x²
0.04*
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93


Gender

Female
2.95 MA 3.44 A
3.44
A
3.44
A
3.47
A









Male
3.29
MA
3.65 A 3.65 A 3.65 A 3.64 A
x² 0.00*
0.02*
0.02*
0.02*
0.07

*

Educational










Attainment











Col. Level
3.19
MA
3.59
A
3.59
A
3.59
A
3.59
A

College
3.23
MA
3.63
A
3.63
A
3.63
A
3.62
A
Grad.











Vocational 3.05 MA
3.53
A
3.53
A
3.53
A
3.53
A










High
3.29
MA
3.57
A
3.57
A
3.57
A
3.57
A
School










Grad.









Graduate
2.50
LA
2.50 LA 2.50 LA 2.50 LA 3.00 LA
x²
0.94
0.00**
0.00**
0.00**
0.96

Occupation











Student
3.15 MA 3.77
A
3.77
A
3.77
A
3.77
A









Unemployed
2.27
MA
3.31
MA
3.31
MA
3.31
MA
3.31
MA










Blue Collar
3.09
MA
3.63
A
3.63
A
3.63
A
3.63
A











White Collar
2.94
MA
3.42
A
3.42
A
3.42
A
3.35
A
Gov.










Employee
3.64
A
3.55
A
3.55
A
3.55
A
3.73
A











Self
3.21
MA
3.59
A
3.59
A
3.59
A
3.59
A
Employed





















Retiree
3.00
MA
3.67
A
3.67
A
3.67
A
3.67
A




Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
39

Table 9. Rating for sanitation on styrofoam box

ACT AS A
PROTECT THE
PROTECTS THE
PROVIDE
SUPPRESSES

BARRIER TO
PRODUCT
INGRESS OF
RESISTANCETO
ODOUR OF THE

MOISTURE

ODOUR
PHYSICAL
PRODUCT

DAMAGE
Mean
Description Mean
Description Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description

Age











< 30
3.20
A
3.52
A
3.52
A
3.52
A
3.52
A










31– 40
3.13
A
3.60
A
3.60
A
3.60
A
3.60
A










41– 50
3.24
A
3.52
A
3.52
A
3.52
A
3.52
A










51– 60
3.26
A
3.78
A
3.78
A
3.78
A
3.78
A










61 - >
3.19
A
3.65
A
3.65
A
3.65
A
3.65
A





x²
0.04*
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93


Gender

Female
2.95 MA 3.44 A
3.44
A
3.44
A
3.47
A









Male
3.29
MA
3.65 A 3.65 A 3.65 A 3.64 A
x² 0.00*
0.02*
0.02*
0.02*
0.07

*

Educational










Attainment











Col. Level
3.19
MA
3.59
A
3.59
A
3.59
A
3.59
A

College
3.23
MA
3.63
A
3.63
A
3.63
A
3.62
A
Grad.











Vocational 3.05 MA
3.53
A
3.53
A
3.53
A
3.53
A










High
3.29
MA
3.57
A
3.57
A
3.57
A
3.57
A
School










Grad.









Graduate
2.50
LA
2.50 LA 2.50 LA 2.50 LA 3.00 LA
x²
0.94
0.00**
0.00**
0.00**
0.96

Occupation











Student
3.15 MA 3.77
A
3.77
A
3.77
A
3.77
A









Unemployed
2.27
MA
3.31
MA
3.31
MA
3.31
MA
3.31
MA










Blue Collar
3.09
MA
3.63
A
3.63
A
3.63
A
3.63
A











White Collar
2.94
MA
3.42
A
3.42
A
3.42
A
3.35
A
Gov.










Employee
3.64
A
3.55
A
3.55
A
3.55
A
3.73
A











Self
3.21
MA
3.59
A
3.59
A
3.59
A
3.59
A
Employed





















Retiree
3.00
MA
3.67
A
3.67
A
3.67
A
3.67
A
 
 




Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
40

Table 9. (continued…)


ACT AS A
PROTECT THE
PROTECTS THE
PROVIDE
SUPPRESSES

BARRIER TO
PRODUCT
INGRESS OF
RESISTANCETO
ODOUR OF THE

MOISTURE

ODOUR
PHYSICAL
PRODUCT

DAMAGE
Mean
Description Mean
Description Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description

Occupation












Health










Worker
3.22
MA
3.44
A
3.44
A
3.44
A
3.44
A











Farmer
3.62
A
3.62
A
3.62
A
3.62
A
3.62
A











Engineer
2.00
LA
3.00
MA
3.00
MA
3.00
MA
3.00
MA











Sales
3.48
A
3.80
A
3.80
A
3.80
A
3.80
A











Public
3.50
A
4.00
A
4.00
A
4.00
A
4.00
A
Security

x² 0.35
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.43


Income











< 10,000
3.28
MA
3.62
A
3.62
A
3.62
A
3.64
A











10,000 –
3.12
MA
3.57
A
3.57
A
3.57
A
3.54
A
20,000





















21,000 –
3.06
MA
3.55
A
3.55
A
3.55
A
3.55
A
30,000
x²
0.09
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.78


Household










Siz











1 – 4
3.21
MA
3.59
A
3.59
A
3.59
A
3.57
A




5 – 7
3.13
MA
3.67
A
3.67
A
3.67
A
3.67
A






8 – 10
3.18
MA
3.35
MA
3.35
MA
3.35
MA
3.47
MA






More than
4.00
A
4.00
A
4.00
A
4.00
A
4.00
A
10
x²
0.94
0.60 0.60 0.60 0.95
Ethnicity

Kankana-ey










(Mt. Pro.)
3.06
MA
3.52
A
3.52
A
3.52
A
3.50
A




















Kankana-ey
3.05
MA
3.48
A
3.48
A
3.48
A
3.48
A
(Benguet)





.



Ibaloi 3.12 MA 3.35 A
3.35
A
3.35
A 3.35 A








Ibalio –










Kankanaey
3.64
A
3.91
A
3.91
A
3.91
A
4.00
A











Ifugao
3.20
MA
3.80
A
3.80
A
3.80
A
3.80
A















Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
41

Table 9. continued…


ACT AS A
PROTECT THE
PROTECTS THE
PROVIDE
SUPPRESSES

BARRIER TO
PRODUCT
INGRESS OF
RESISTANCETO
ODOUR OF THE

MOISTURE

ODOUR
PHYSICAL
PRODUCT


DAMAGE
Mean
Description Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description

Ethnicity











Kalinga
3.63 A 4.00 A 4.00 A 4.00 A 4.00 A











Itneg
5.00
MA
3.00
MA
3.00
MA
3.00
MA
3.00
MA
















Pangasinanse
3.00
MA
3.00
MA
3.00
MA
3.00
MA
3.00
MA

















Tagalog
3.20
MA
3.40
A
3.40
A
3.40
A
3.40
A











Ilocano
3.50
A
4.00
A
4.00
A
4.00
A
4.00
A

OVERALL
3.20 MA 3.59 A 3.59 A 3.59 A 3.59 A
AVEREAGE












x²
0.72
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.86
*Significant
**Highly Significant

Legend:
Moderately Acceptable (MA)
Acceptable (A)


Rating of sanitation for the zipper storage bag with card board. Table 10 shows an
overall Acceptable rating by respondents on the zipper bag in terms of its ability to act as
a barrier to moisture, protect the product, protect against ingress of odorous, provide
resistance to physical damage, and to suppress the odor of the product.
Results of the computed chi-square show significant differences in ratings given
when grouped by age, gender and income. When grouped by age, there are differences in
ratings in the product protection and protection against ingress of odors categories. When
grouped by gender, there are differences in ratings on the package’s acting as a barrier to
moisture, product protection and protection against ingress of odors categories. And
when grouped by income, there are differences in ratings on protection on the product’s




Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
42

physical form and the suppression of the product’s odor. The null hypothesis is rejected
under these demographics and categories.
Respondents in their middle ages (41-50) gave lower ratings than other age
groups. Females gave lower ratings than males. And those with more than Php21,000
monthly income gave lower ratings than the lower income groups.

Table 10. Rating on sanitation for zipper bag

ACT AS A
PROTECT THE
PROTECTS THE
PROVIDE
SUPPRESSES

BARRIER TO
PRODUCT
INGRESS OF
RESISTANCE TO
ODOUR OF THE
MOISTURE

ODOUR
PHYSICAL
PRODUCT
DAMAGE
Mean Description Mean
Description Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description
Age




















< 30
3.32
MA
3.30
MA
3.30
MA
4.03
A
4.10
A








31 –
3.53 A 3.53 A 3.53 A 4.11 A 4.09 A
40











41 –
3.73
A
3.73
A
3.70
A
4.09
A
4.12
A
50











51 –
3.13
MA
3.13
MA
3.13
MA
4.00
A
4.00
A
60

61 - >
3.71 MA 3.71 A 3.17 A 4.03 A 4.03 A

x² 0.33

0.00**
0.00**
0.15
0.09


Gender











Female
3.33
MA
3.33
MA
3.32
MA
3.98
MA
3.98
MA



Male 3.54 A 3.53 A 3.53 A 4.09 A 4.12 A
x² 0.00**

0.00**
0.00**
0.16
0.19


Educational










Attainment











Col. Level
3.41
A
3.37
A
3.41
A
3.96
A
4.04
A










Col.
3.45
A
3.45
A
3.45
A
4.06
A
4.08
A
Graduate



















A
Vocational
3.68
A
3.68
A
3.68
A
4.26
A
4.21











High
3.71
A
3.71
A
3.57
A
4.00
A
4.00
A
School









Grad.





















Graduate
3.50
A
3.50
A
3.50
A
3.75
A
3.75
A
School

x²
0.49
0.24
0.32
0.07
0.22






Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
43

Table 10. continued….


ACT AS A
PROTECT THE
PROTECTS THE
PROVIDE
SUPPRESSES

BARRIER TO
PRODUCT
INGRESS OF
RESISTANCETO
ODOUR OF THE
MOISTURE

ODOUR
PHYSICAL
PRODUCT
DAMAGE
Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description

Occupation











Student
3.31
MA
3.23
MA
3.31
A
3.92
A
4.08
A










Unemployed
3.50
A
3.50
A
3.38
A
3.88
A
3.87
A











Blue Collar
3.50
A
3.50
A
3.50
A
4.12
A
4.12
A











White
3.52
A
3.52
A
3.52
A
4.13
A
4.23
A
Collar











Gov.
3.55
A
3.55
A
3.55
A
4.00
A
4.00
A
Employee











3.44
A
3.44
A
3.44
A
4.00
A
4.00
A
Self
Employed
Retiree
3.89
A
3.89
A
3.89
A
4.00
A
4.00
A











Health
3.33
A
3.33
A
3.33
A
4.22
A
4.22
A
Worker







Farmer
3.46
A
3.46
A
3.46
A
4.15
A
4.08
A











Engineer
3.00
A
3.00
A
3.00
A
4.00
A
4.00
A











Sales
3.44
A
3.44
A
3.44
A
4.08
A
4.08
A











Public
3.50
A
3.50
A
3.50
A
4.17
A
4.17
A
Security
x²
0.15
0.60
0.15
0.09
0.98


Income












<
3.45
A
3.45
A
3.45
A
4.05
A
4.06
A
10,000





















10,000
3.55
A
3.55
A
3.55
A
4.15
A
4.16
A
–










20,000











3.42
A
3.39
MA
3.35
MA
3.90
A
3.97
A
21,000
–
30,000
x²
0.13
0.20
0.24
0.00**
0.00**


Household Size











1 – 4
3.48
A
3.47
A
3.46
A
4.07
A
4.10
A










5 – 7
3.49
A
3.47
A
3.49
A
4.07
A
4.09
A











8 – 10
3.41
A
3.47
A
3.47
A
4.00
A
3.94
A











More
4.00
A
4.00
A
4.00
A
4.00
A
4.00
A
than 10

x² 0.81
0.79
0.85
0.99
0.68





Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
44

Table 10. (continued…..)


ACT AS A
PROTECT THE
PROTECTS THE
PROVIDE
SUPPRESSES

BARRIER TO
PRODUCT
INGRESS OF
RESISTANCE TO
ODOUR OF THE
MOISTURE

ODOUR
PHYSICAL
PRODUCT
DAMAGE
Mean Description Mean
Description Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description
Ethnicity











Kankana-










ey
3.56
A
3.56
A
3.54
A
4.09
A
4.10
A
(Mt. Prov.)





















Kankana-










ey
3.19
MA
3.14
M A
3.14
M A
3.95
A
3.90
A
(Benguet)





















Ibaloi
3.47
A
3.41
A
3.47
A
4.06
A
4.12
A











Ibalio –










Kankanaey
3.45
A
3.45
A
3.45
A
4.14
A
4.23
A











Ifugao
3.30
MA
3.40
A
3.40
A
4.00
A
3.90
A











Kalinga
3.44
A
3.44
A
3.44
A
4.00
A
4.00
A











Itneg
3.00
A
3.00
MA
3.00
MA
4.00
A
4.00
A











Pangasi-
3.50
A
3.50
A
3.50
A
3.50
A
4.00
A
nanse











Tagalog
4.00
A
4.00
A
4.00
MA
4.20
A
4.40
A











Ilocano
3.00
MA
3.00
MA
3.00
MA
4.00
A
4.00
A

OVERALL
3.48 A 3.47 A 3.47 MA 4.06 A 4.08 A
AVE-
RAGE

x²
0.20
0.20
0.21
0.99
0.17


*Significant
** Highly Significant

Legend:
Moderately Acceptable (MA)
Acceptable (A)


Rating of sanitation for hard plastic with card board. Table 11 shows that the
respondents gave an overall rating of Acceptable for the hard plastic cardboard packaging
material in terms of its ability to act as a barrier to moisture, protect the product, protect
against ingress of odorous, provide resistance to physical damage, and suppression of the
odor of the product.




Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
45


Results of the computed chi-squares for each aesthetic category as to the
respondents’ demographic show a significant difference in ratings given under gender
grouping but only for the packaging material’s ability to act as a barrier against moisture
and protect the product. Females gave lower ratings than the male respondents.

Table 11. Rating for sanitation on hard plastic with card board

ACT AS A
PROTECT THE
PROTECTS THE
PROVIDE
SUPPRESSES

BARRIER TO
PRODUCT
INGRESS OF
RESISTANCE TO
ODOUR OF THE

MOISTURE

ODOUR
PHYSICAL
PRODUCT
DAMAGE
Mean Description Mean
Description Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description
Age





















< 30
4.93
HA
4.92
HA
4.87
HA
4.88
HA
4.90
HA











31 –
4.96
HA 4.94 HA 4.94 HA 4.98 HA 4.98 HA
40






41 –
4.85
HA 4.85 HA 4.88 HA 4.88 HA 4.85 HA
50






51 –
4.87
HA 4.96 HA 4.87 HA 4.87 HA 4.87 HA
60






61 -
4.84 HA 5.00 HA 4.94 HA 4.94 HA 4.94 HA
>
x² 0.22
0.18
0.61
0.54
0.21

Gender

Female 4.84 HA 4.86
HA 4.86 HA 4.89
HA 4.88 HA




Male
4.93 HA
4.96 HA 4.92 HA 4.92 HA 4.93 HA
x² 0.05*
0.01*
0.23
0.49
0.22

Educational









Attainment











Col. Level
4.96
HA
4.96
HA
4.93
HA
4.96
HA
4.93
HA
Col.
4.90
HA
4.92 HA
4.89 HA
4.90 HA 4.92 HA
Graduate

Vocational
5.00
HA
4.95 HA
5.00 HA
5.00 HA HA

4.95
High.
4.71 HA

HA HA HA HA
School
4.86
4.86
4.86
4.86
Grad.

Graduate
4.75
HA
5.00 HA
4.75 HA
4.75 HA 4.75 HA
School
x²
0.12
0.82
0.45
0.76
0.73






Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
46

Table 11. (continued . . . .)


ACT AS A
PROTECT THE
PROTECTS THE
PROVIDE
SUPPRESSES

BARRIER TO
PRODUCT
INGRESS OF
RESISTANCE TO
ODOUR OF THE

MOISTURE

ODOUR
PHYSICAL
PRODUCT
DAMAGE
Mean Description Mean
Description Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description
Occupation

Unemployed
4.81 HA 4.75 HA 4.75 HA 4.69 HA 4.81 HA





Blue
Collar
4.97 HA 4.97 HA 4.97 HA 4.97 HA 4.97 HA

Self
4.94
HA
4.91
HA
4.94
HA
4.97
HA
5.00
HA
Employed





















Retiree
4.78
HA
5.00
HA
5.00
HA
5.00
HA
5.00
HA











Health
5.00
HA
5.00
HA
5.00
HA
5.00
HA
5.00
HA
Worker





















Farmer
4.92
HA
4.92
HA
4.92
HA
4.92
HA
4.92
HA






Engineer
5.00
HA
5.00
HA
5.00
HA
5.00
HA
5.00
HA










Sales
4.96
HA
5.00
HA
4.96
HA
4.96
HA
4.96
HA










Public
5.00
HA
5.00
HA
5.00
HA
5.00
HA
5.00
HA
Security
x² 0.33
0.16
0.11
0.33
0.05

*
Income




















< 10,000
4.16
A
3.88
A
3.41
A
3.65
A
3.96
A










10,000 –
4.30
HA
3.97
A
3.70
A
3.85
A
4.12
A
20,000





















21,000 –
3.97
A
3.65
A
3.39
A
3.90
A
4.03
A
30,000





x²
0.27
0.32
0.09
0.28
0.48


Household Size











1 – 4
4.21
HA
3.89
A
3.48
A
3.76
A
4.02
A










5 – 7
4.07
A
3.84
A
3.62
A
3.80
A
4.07
A










8 – 10
4.18
A
3.82
A
3.35
A
3.59
A
3.94
A










More
4.00
A
4.00
A
4.00
A
4.00
A
4.00
A
than 10

x²
0.96 0.99 0.87 0.97
0.99

Ethnicity

Kankana-ey
4.28
A
3.93
A
3.74
A
3.80
A
4.11
A
(Mt.









Province)





















Kankana-ey
4.05
A
3.76
A
3.19
A
3.95
A
3.95
A
(Benguet)

















Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
47

Table 11. (continued…..)


ACT AS A
PROTECT THE
PROTECTS THE
PROVIDE
SUPPRESSES

BARRIER TO
PRODUCT
INGRESS OF
RESISTANCE TO
ODOUR OF THE

MOISTURE

ODOUR
PHYSICAL
PRODUCT

DAMAGE
Mean
Description Mean
Description Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description

Ethnicity

Ibaloi
4.18 A 3.82 A 3.12 A 3.59 A 4.06 A

Ibalio –










Kankana-
4.18
A
4.18
A
3.36
A
3.82
A
4.09
A
ey





















Ifugao
4.00
A
3.60
A
3.40
A
3.80
A
3.80
A











Kalinga
3.88
A
3.75
A
3.25
A
3.38
A
3.88
A











Itneg
3.00
A
3.00
A
3.00
A
3.00
A
3.00
A











Pangasi-
4.00
A
4.00
A
3.00
A
4.00
A
3.00
A
nanse

Tagalog
3.80
A
3.40
A
3.00
A
3.40
A
3.80
A











Ilocano
5.00
A
3.00
A
4.00
A
4.00
A
4.00
A
OVER-
4.18 A 3.87 A 3.51 A 3.75 A 4.02 A
ALL
AVE-
RAGE
x²
0.97
0.26
0.27
0.99
0.99


* Significant
** Highly Significant

Legend:
Highly Acceptable (HA)
Acceptable (A)


Rating for sanitation of aluminum. Table 12 shows that respondents gave an
overall rating of Moderately Acceptable for the aluminum foil packaging material in
terms of its ability to act as a barrier to moisture, protect the product, protect against
ingress of odor, provide resistance to physical damage, and suppression of odor of the
product.
Result of the computed chi-squares for each sanitation category against the
demographics show significant differences in the ratings given by the age, occupation,




Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
48

and income groupings. The null hypothesis is rejected for these demographic variables.
Respondents younger than 30 years old and those from 31 to 40 years of age
consistently gave higher ratings for the packaging material than those from older age
groups. Likewise, those with no source of income gave consistently higher ratings than
those with income of any bracket.
When evaluated for their ability to keep the product sanitary, only the aluminum
foil received a Moderately Acceptable rating while the other 4 packaging materials got an
average rating of Acceptable.

Table 12. Rating of sanitation for aluminum

ACT AS A
PROTECT THE
PROTECTS THE
PROVIDE
SUPPRESSES
BARRIER TO
PRODUCT
PRODUCT
RESISTANCE TO
ODOUR OF THE
MOISTURE
PHYSICAL
PRODUCT
DAMAGE
Mean Description Mean
Description Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description
Age










30 and
4.77 MA 2.92 MA 2.93 MA 2.90 MA 2.90 MA
below


MA MA MA MA MA
31 - 40
2.94
2.98
2.98
2.98
2.98


MA MA MA MA MA
41 – 50
2.82
2.82
2.82
2.82
2.18


MA MA MA MA MA
51 – 60
2.61
2.78
2.78
2.78
2.04


MA MA MA MA MA
More
2.23
2.84
2.84
2.84
2.00
than 10
x² 0.00*
0.02* 0.03* 0.13 0.00*

*
*
Gender










Female
2.74 MA 2.84 MA 2.86 MA 2.86 MA 2.86 MA











Male
2.17
MA
2.91
MA
2.91
MA
2.90
MA
2.90
MA
x²
0.80 0.41 0.33 0.46 0.46









Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
49

Table 12. (continued . . .)

ACT AS A
PROTECT THE
PROTECTS THE
PROVIDE
SUPPRESSES
BARRIER TO
PRODUCT
PRODUCT
RESISTANCE TO
ODOUR OF THE
MOISTURE
PHYSICAL
PRODUCT
DAMAGE
Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description
Educat’nal










Attainment

Col. Level
2.56 MA 3.00 MA 3.00 MA 2.96 MA 2.41 MA

Col.
2.74 MA 2.86 MA 2.87 MA 2.86 MA 2.19 MA
Graduate

Vocational

2.95 MA 3.00 MA 3.00 MA 3.00 MA 2.26 MA
High
2.57 MA 3.00 MA 3.00 MA 3.00 MA 2.57 MA
School
Grad

High
2.25 MA 2.50 MA 2.50 MA 2.50 MA 2.00 MA
School
Level
Graduate
2.72 MA 2.89 MA 2.90 MA 2.88 MA 2.23 MA
School

X²
0.18 0.12 0.11 0.21 0.32
Occupat’n











Student
2.15 MA 2.08 MA 2.00 MA 2.92 MA 2.92 MA

Occupation











Unemploye
2.13 MA 2.19 MA 2.13 MA 2.88 MA 2.88 MA
d
Blue
Collar
2.06 MA 2.03 MA 2.06 MA 3.03 MA 3.03 MA
Government
2.00 MA 2.91 MA 2.91 MA 2.91 MA 2.91 MA
Employee

Self
2.00 MA 2.91 MA 2.91 MA 2.91 MA 2.91 MA
Employed

Retiree
2.65 MA 2.89 MA 2.89 MA 2.89 MA 2.89 MA
Health
2.91 MA 2.78 MA 2.78 MA 2.78 MA 2.78 MA
Worker

Farmer 2.71 MA 2.85 MA 2.85 MA 2.85 MA 2.85 MA
Engineer 1.89 MA 3.00 MA 3.00 MA 3.00 MA 3.00 MA
Sales 2.67 MA 2.92 MA 2.92 MA 2.92 MA 2.92 MA
Public
2.69 MA 3.00 MA 3.00 MA 3.00 MA 3.00 MA
Security

X² 0.00*
0.00*
0.00*
0.02* 0.02*
*
*
*
Income










<
10,000
1.99 MA 2.89 MA 2.89 MA 2.89 MA 2.18 MA
10,000 –
1.97 MA 2.85 MA 2.87 MA 2.87 MA 2.87 MA
20,000





Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
50

Table 12. (continued . . . .)

ACT AS A
PROTECT THE
PROTECTS THE
PROVIDE
SUPPRESSES
BARRIER TO
PRODUCT
PRODUCT
RESISTANCE TO
ODOUR OF THE
MOISTURE
PHYSICAL
PRODUCT
DAMAGE

Mean Description Mean
Description Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description
Income










No
2.13 MA 2.97 MA 2.97 MA 2.90 MA 2.90 MA
source
X² 0.62 0.00*
0.00*
0.00*
0.00*

*
*
*
*
House










hold Size

1
–
4
2.76 MA 2.88 MA 2.88 MA 2.88 MA 2.88 MA
5
–
7
2.64 MA 2.98 MA 2.98 MA 2.96 MA 2.96 MA
8 – 10
2.65
MA
2.76
MA
2.76
MA
2.76
MA
2.76
MA
More
2.00 MA 3.00 MA 3.00 MA 3.00 MA 3.00 MA
than 10

X² 0.19 MA 0.91 MA 0.91 MA 0.93 MA 0.93 MA
Ethnicity


Kankana-
2.69 MA 2.90 MA 2.90 MA 2.89 MA 2.89 MA
ey (Mt.
Province)

Kankana-
2.81 MA 2.86 MA 2.90 MA 2.90 MA 2.90 MA
ey
(Benguet)

Ibaloi
2.94 MA 3.06 MA 3.06 MA 3.00 MA 3.00 MA
Ibalio –
2.50 MA 2.77 MA 2.77 MA 2.77 MA 2.77 MA
kankana-
ey

Ifugao
2.70 MA 2.60 MA 2.60 MA 2.60 MA 2.60 MA
Kalinga
2.75 MA 2.88 MA 2.88 MA 2.88 MA 2.88 MA
Itneg
3.00 MA 3.00 MA 3.00 MA 3.00 MA 3.00 MA
Pangasi-
2.50 MA 3.50 MA 3.50 MA 3.50 MA 3.50 MA
nanse
Tagalog
3.00 MA 3.00 MA 3.00 MA 3.00 MA 3.00 MA
Ilocano
2.00 MA 3.00 MA 3.00 MA 3.00 MA 3.00 MA

OVE-
3.00 MA 2.89 MA 2.90 MA 2.88 MA 2.88 MA
RALL
AVE-
RAGE
X² 0.70 0.10 0.01* 0.00** 0.00**
*Significant Legend:
**Highly Significant Moderately Acceptable (MA)






Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
51

Respondents’ Ratings on Convenience of Packaging Materials.

Respondents rated the convenience of handling the different packaging materials.
These are presented in Tables 13 to 17.
Rating of convenience for card board with wax paper. Table 13 presents the
overall rating of Very Convenient for the cardboard packaging material.
Result of the computed chi-square indicate significant differences in the ratings
given by gender. For this demographic variable, the null hypothesis is rejected. Female
respondents gave lower ratings on convenience than male respondents.

Table 13. Rating for convenience on card board box with wax paper

EASY TO OPEN
CONVENIENCE TO
EASY TO STORE


HANDLE

Mean
Description Mean
Description
Mean
Description

Age







< 30
4.63
VC
4.58
VC
4.70
VC







31 – 40
4.70
VC
4.70
VC
4.75
VC







41 – 50
4.73
VC
4.73
VC
4.76
VC







51 – 60
4.65
VC
4.65
VC
4.65
VC







61 - >
4.77
VC
4.61
VC
4.81
VC
x²
0.86
0.82
0.84


Gender







Female
4.82
VC
4.82
VC
4.82
VC







Male
4.97
VC
4.97
VC
4.97
VC
x²
0.00**
0.00**
0.00**






Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
52

Table 13. (continued…….)


EASY TO OPEN
CONVENIENCE TO
EASY TO STORE

HANDLE

Mean Description
Mean
Description Mean Description
Educational






Attainment







Col. Level
4.78
VC
4.74
VC
4.81
VC







Col. Graduate 4.69
VC
4.65
VC
4.74
VC







Vocational
4.63
VC
4.58
VC
4.68
VC







High School
4.57
VC
4.57
VC
4.57
VC
Grad.













Graduate
4.50
VC
4.50
VC
4.50
VC
School

x² 0.93
0.96
0.86

Occupation







Student
4.85
VC
4.77
VC
4.85
VC







Unemployed
4.81
VC
4.75
VC
4.88
VC







Blue Collar
4.56
VC
4.56
VC
4.66
VC







White Collar
4.58
VC
4.58
VC
4.65
VC







Gov. Employee
4.82
VC
4.82
VC
4.82
VC







Self Employed
4.76
VC
4.65
VC
4.76
VC







Retiree
4.67
VC
4.33
VC
4.67
VC







Health Worker
4.44
VC
4.44
VC
4.44
VC

Farmer
4.77
VC
4.77
VC
4.77
VC







Engineer
4.00
C
4.00
C
4.00
C







Sales
4.68
VC
4.72
VC
4.80
VC







Public Security
5.00
VC
5.00
VC
5.00
VC
x² 0.03*
0.26
0.06





Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
53

Table 13. (continued . . .)

EASY TO OPEN
CONVENIENCE TO
EASY TO STORE


HANDLE

Mean Description
Mean
Description Mean
Description
Income

< 10,000
4.68
VC
4.65
VC
4.74
VC







10,000 –






20,000
4.66
VC
4.61
VC
4.69
VC







21,000 –






30,000
4.81
VC
4.74
VC
4.84
VC
x² 0.40
0.53
0.42

Household






Size







1 – 4
4.71
VC
4.67
VC
4.76
VC







5 – 7
4.64
VC
4.67
VC
4.71
VC







8 – 10
4.65
VC
4.47
VC
4.65
VC







More than
4.50
VC
4.50
VC
4.50
VC
10
x² 0.90
0.71
0.84

Ethnicity
Kankana-ey






(Mt.Province) 4.72
VC
4.66
VC
4.76
VC







Kankana-ey
4.71
VC
4.71
VC
4.86
VC
(Benguet)













Ibaloi
4.76
VC
4.71
VC
4.76
VC







Ibalio –
4.59
VC
4.64
VC
4.68
VC
Kankanaey













Ifugao
4.70
VC
4.60
VC
4.60
VC










Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
54

Table 13. (continued . . . . .)


EASY TO OPEN
CONVENIENCE TO
EASY TO STORE


HANDLE

Mean Description
Mean
Description
Mean
Description
Ethnicity







Kalinga
4.63
VC
4.56
VC
4.63
VC







Itneg
4.00
C
4.00
C
4.00
C







Pangasinanse 4.50
VC
4.50
VC
4.50
VC

Tagalog
4.40
VC
4.40
VC
4.60
VC







Ilocano
5.00
VC
5.00
VC
5.00
VC

OVERALL
4.69 VC 4.65 VC 4.74 VC
AVARAGE

x²
0.95
0.98
0.91


*Significant
**Highly Significant
Legend:
Very Convenient (VC)
Convenient (C)


Rating of Convenient on Styrofoam box and cling wrap. Table 14 shows that the
respondents gave an overall rating of very convenient for the Styrofoam box and cling
wrap packaging material in terms of its easiness to open, convenience to handle, and easy
storage.
Result of the computed chi-squares for each convenience category as against
respondents’ demographics show significant differences in ratings given by gender,
educational attainment, occupation, income and household size. The null hypothesis is
rejected for these categories.




Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
55

Females gave lower ratings on convenience than males. Those who have gone to
college, finished college or vocational courses tended to give higher ratings than others.
Respondents with income more than Php21,000 a month gave lower ratings on
convenience for this packaging material than those from the lower income levels. And
those from households of more than 8 members gave lower ratings than others.

Table 14. Rating in convenience on styrofoam box





EASY TO OPEN
CONVIENCE TO
EASY TO STORE


OPEN
Mean
Description Mean

Description Mean Description


Age








< 30
4.87
VC
4.78
VC
4.75
VC







31 – 40
4.87
VC
4.87
VC
4.91
VC







41 – 50
4.73
VC
4.73
VC
4.76
VC







51 – 60
4.78
VC
4.78
VC
4.78
VC







61 - >
4.94
VC
4.94
VC
4.94
VC
x²
0.52
0.49
0.40


Gender







Female
4.77
VC
4.68
VC
4.70
VC







Male
4.94
VC
4.87
VC
4.87
VC
x²
0.01*
0.02*
0.03*








Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
56

Table 14. (continued……)






EASY TO OPEN
CONVIENCE TO
EASY TO STORE

OPEN
Mean Description Mean Description Mean
Description
Educational






Attainment







Col. Level
4.69
VC
4.89
VC
4.89
VC







Col.
4.90
VC
4.84
VC
4.83
VC
Graduate













Vocational
5.00
VC
4.84
VC
4.95
VC







High School
4.43
VC
4.43
VC
4.43
VC
Grad.













Graduate
4.25
VC
4.25
VC
4.25
VC
x² 0.00**
0.03*
0.05*

OCCUPATION







Student
4.92
VC
4.85
VC
4.85
VC







Unemployed
4.62
VC
4.50
VC
4.44
VC







Blue Collar
5.00
VC
4.94
VC
4.94
VC







White Collar
4.90
VC
4.87
VC
4.87
VC







Gov.






Employee
4.73
VC
4.73
VC
4.73
VC







Self






Employed
4.91
VC
4.85
VC
4.85
VC







Retiree
4.89
VC
4.89
VC
4.89
VC

Health
4.78
VC
4.67
VC
4.78
VC
Worker













Farmer
5.00
VC
4.69
VC
4.85
VC







Engineer
4.00
VC
4.00
VC
4.00
VC




Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
57

Table 14 (continued…)

EASY TO OPEN
CONVIENCE TO
EASY TO STORE

OPEN

Mean Description Mean Description Mean
Description
Occupation







Sales 4.92 VC
4.88
VC
4.84
VC






Public
5.00 VC 5.00 VC 5.00 VC
Security
x² 0.02*
0.09*
0.04*

Income







< 10,000
4.91
VC
4.84
VC
4.86
VC







10,000 –
4.91
VC
4.87
VC
4.88
VC
20,000







4.77
VC
4.65
VC
4.58
VC
21,000 –
30,000
x² 0.48*
0.21*
0.02*

Household






Size







1 – 4
4.90
VC
4.85
VC
4.83
VC




5 – 7
4.93
VC
4.84
VC
4.89
VC




8 – 10
4.76
VC
4.65
VC
4.71
VC




More than
4.00
C
4.00
C
4.00
C
10
x²
0.00**
0.00**
0.00**


Ethnicity
Kankana-ey






(Mt.
4.91
VC
4.87
VC
4.87
VC
Province)













Kankana-ey
4.90
VC
4.86
VC
4.81
VC
(Benguet)













Ibaloi
4.94
VC
4.76
VC
4.82
VC







Ibalio –






Kankanaey
4.68
VC
4.64
VC
4.68
VC




Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
58

Table 14. (continued . . . .)






EASY TO OPEN
CONVIENCE TO
EASY TO STORE

OPEN
Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description


Ethnicity








Ifugao
4.80
VC
4.60
VC
4.60
VC







Kalinga
5.00
VC
4.88
VC
4.88
VC
Itneg
5.00
VC
5.00
VC
5.00
VC







Pangasinanse
4.50
VC
4.50
VC
4.50
VC







Tagalog
5.00
VC
5.00
VC
5.00
VC







Ilocano
5.00
VC
4.50
VC
4.50
VC
OVERALL
4.89 VC 4.82 VC 4.83 VC
AVARAGE

x²
0.10
0.13
0.22


*Significant
** Highly Significant

Legend:
Very Convenient (VC)
Convenient (C)


Rating to convenience on Zipper bag with Cardboard. Table 15 shows that the
respondents’ gave an overall rating of Convenient in terms of ease to open the zipper bag,
but only a Moderate Convenience in terms of convenience of handling and ease of
storage.
The result of computed chi-squares at the 5% level of significance indicate no
significant differences in ratings given across the various demographics across each
category of convenience. The null hypothesis is thus rejected for all these demographics.




Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
59

Table 15. Rating of convenience zipper storage bag with card board





EASY TO OPEN
CONVIENCE TO
EASY TO STORE

OPEN
Mean
Description
Mean Description
Mean
Description

Age







< 30
3.43
C
3.33
MC
3.30
MC







31 – 40
3.30
MC
3.30
MC
3.30
MC







41 – 50
3.48
C
3.36
MC
3.42
C







51 – 60
3.00
MC
3.00
MC
3.00
MC







61 - >
3.71
C
3.58
C
3.71
C

x²
0.09
0.21
0.21


Gender







Female
3.35
MC
3.32
MC
3.32
MC







Male
3.42
C
3.34
MC
3.36
MC
x² 0.27
0.27
0.28


Educational






Attainment







Col. Level
3.30
MC
3.30
MC
3.30
MC







Col.
3.29
MC
3.29
MC
3.32
MC
Graduate













Vocational
3.53
C
3.53
C
3.53
MC







High School
3.57
C
3.29
MC
4.00
MC
Grad.













Graduate
4.00
C
4.00
C
3.35
MC
School
x²
0.87 0.75
0.81






Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
60

Table 15. (continued . . .)





EASY TO OPEN
CONVIENCE TO
EASY TO STORE

OPEN
Mean Description
Mean
Description Mean
Description
Occupation









Student
3.46
C
3.46
C
3.46
C







Unemployed
3.38
MC
3.13
MC
3.13
MC







Blue Collar
3.31
MC
3.25
MC
3.25
MC







White Collar
3.58
C
3.52
C
3.52
C






Gov.
3.18
MC
3.00
MC
3.18
MC
Employee







Self
3.18
MC
3.18
MC
3.18
MC
Employed












Retiree
4.78
C
4.33
C
4.78
C

Health
3.44
C
3.44
C
3.44
C
Worker












Farmer
3.31
MC
3.31
MC
3.31
MC






Engineer
3.00
MC
3.00
MC
3.00
MC






Sales
3.24
MC
3.24
MC
3.16
MC






Public
3.33
MC
3.33
MC
3.33
MC
Security
x² 0.0
0.17
0.00**

Income







< 10,000
3.25
MC
3.22
MC
3.22
MC







10,000 –
3.60
C
3.51
C
3.60
C
20,000







3.45
C
3.32
MC
3.26
MC
21,000 –
30,000
x² 0.11
0.18
0.03*





Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
61

Table 15. (continued . . . .)


EASY TO OPEN
CONVIENCE TO
EASY TO STORE

OPEN

Mean Description
Mean
Description Mean Description
Household






Size







1 – 4
3.38
MC
3.31
MC
3.31
MC







5 – 7
3.44
C
3.36
MC
3.44
C







8 – 10
3.35
MC
3.35
MC
3.35
MC







More than 10
4.00
C
4.00
C
4.00
C
x² 0.94
0.91
0.84

Ethnicity







Kankana-ey
3.44
C
3.37
MC
3.42
C
(Mt. Prov.)













Kankana-ey
3.19
MC
3.10
MC
3.10
MC
(Benguet)













Ibaloi
3.47
C
3.35
MC
3.35
MC







Ibalio –






Kankanaey
3.64
C
3.55
C
3.55
C







Ifugao
3.40
C
3.40
C
3.20
MC







Kalinga 3.00 MC 3.00 MC 3.00 MC







Itneg
3.00
MC
3.00
MC
3.00
MC
Pangasinanse
3.00
MC
3.00
MC
3.00
MC







Tagalog
3.80
C
3.80
C
3.80
C







Ilocano
3.00
MC
3.00
MC
3.00
MC
OVERALL
3.40 C 3.33 MC 3.35 MC
AVARAGE
x² 0.48
0.50
0.45

*Significant Legend:
** Highly Significant Moderately Convenient (MC)
Convenient (C)




Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
62

Rating of Convenience on hard plastic with cardboard. Table 16 show that the
respondents gave an overall rating of 4.23 or very convenient for the hard plastic and
cardboard packaging materials in terms of its easy to open, convenient to handle and easy
to store.
Result of the completed chi-square indicate significant differences in ratings given
by gender and educational attainment demographic groupings for each category. The null
hypothesis is rejected for these demographics.
Females gave lower ratings than male respondents. Likewise, respondents who
either have reached the college level, have finished college or vocational courses
consistently give higher ratings on convenience of the packaging material.

Table 16. Rating for convenience on hard plastic with card board





EASY TO OPEN
CONVIENCE TO
EASY TO STORE

OPEN
Mean
Description Mean Description Mean
Description

Age







< 30
4.95
VC
4.95
VC
4.95
VC







31 – 40
4.96
VC
4.96
VC
4.96
VC







41 – 50
4.76
VC
4.76
VC
4.76
VC







51 – 60
5.00
VC
5.00
VC
5.00
VC







61 - >
4.97
VC
4.97
VC
4.97
VC
x²
0.10
0.10
0.10









Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
63

Table 16. (convenient . . . . .)





EASY TO OPEN
CONVIENCE TO
EASY TO STORE

OPEN
Mean Description
Mean Description Mean
Description
Gender












Female
4.82
VC
4.82
VC
4.82
VC







Male
4.97
VC
4.97
VC
4.97
VC
x²
0.00**
0.00**
0.00**


Educational






Attainment







Col. Level
4.93
VC
4.93
VC
4.93
VC







Col. Graduate
4.96
VC
4.96
VC
4.96
VC







Vocational
4.95
VC
4.95
VC
4.95
VC







High School
4.86
VC
4.86
VC
4.86
VC
Grad.













Graduate
4.00
VC
4.00
VC
4.00
VC
x² 0.00** 0.00**
0.00**
Occupation







Student
4.85
VC
4.85
VC
4.85
VC







Unemployed
4.81
VC
4.81
VC
4.81
VC







Blue Collar
5.00
VC
5.00
VC
5.00
VC







White Collar
4.87
VC
4.87
VC
4.87
VC







Gov.
4.64
VC
4.64
VC
4.64
VC
Employee





Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
64

Table 16. (convenient . . . . .)


EASY TO OPEN
CONVIENCE TO
EASY TO STORE

OPEN

Mean
Description Mean Description Mean Description

Household






Size







Self Employed
4.97
VC
4.97
VC
4.97
VC







Retiree
5.00
VC
5.00
VC
5.00
VC







Health Worker
5.00
VC
5.00
VC
5.00
VC







Farmer
5.00
VC
5.00
VC
5.00
VC







Engineer
5.00
VC
5.00
VC
5.00
VC







Sales
5.00
VC
5.00
VC
5.00
VC







Public Security 5.00
VC
5.00
VC
5.00
VC

x² 0.34
0.34
0.34

Income







< 10,000
4.68
VC
4.65
VC
4.74
VC







10,000 –
4.66
VC
4.61
VC
4.69
VC
20,000







4.81
VC
4.74
VC
4.84
VC
21,000 –
30,000
x² 0.40
0.53
0.42


Household






Size







1 – 4
4.71
VC
4.67
VC
4.76
VC







5 – 7
4.64
VC
4.67
VC
4.71
VC







8 – 10
4.65
VC
4.47
VC
4.65
VC







More than 10
4.50
VC
4.50
VC
4.50
VC
x² 0.90
0.71
0.84






Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
65

Table 16. (convenient . . . . .)


EASY TO OPEN
CONVIENCE TO
EASY TO STORE

OPEN

Mean
Description Mean Description Mean Description

Ethnicity







Kankana-ey
4.72
VC
4.66
VC
4.76
VC
(Mt. Prov.)













Kankana-ey
4.71
VC
4.71
VC
4.86
VC
(Benguet)













Ibaloi
4.76
VC
4.71
VC
4.76
VC







Ibalio –






Kankanaey
4.59
VC
4.64
VC
4.68
VC







Ifugao
4.70
VC
4.60
VC
4.60
VC







Kalinga
4.63
VC
4.65
VC
4.63
VC







Itneg
4.00
VC
4.00
VC
4.00
VC







Pangasinanse
4.50
VC
4.50
VC
4.50
VC







Tagalog
4.40
VC
4.40
VC
4.60
VC







Ilocano
5.00
VC
5.00
VC
5.00
VC

OVERALL
4.69 VC 4.65 VC 4.74 VC
AVARAGE

x² 0.95
0.98
0.91

*Significant
** Highly Significant

Legend:
Very Convenient (VC)








Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
66

Rating of Convenience for Aluminum Foil. Table 17 shows an overall Poor rating
given by respondents on the convenience of aluminum foil packaging.
Results of the computed chi-squares for each category as to the respondents’
demographics show significant differences in terms of age, gender, and income
demographics. The null hypothesis is rejected for these demographic variables.
Respondents younger than 30 years old gave higher ratings on convenience of the
aluminum foil than older respondents. Female respondents gave higher ratings than male
respondents. The respondents earning Php10,000 to Php 20,000 a month gave lower
ratings on convenience than those earning more or lesser than this range.
When evaluated for handling convenience, the cardboard box, Styrofoam tray,
and the hard plastic received an average rating of Very Convenient. Additionally, the
zipper bag received an average Moderately Convenient rating while the aluminum foil
received a Poor rating.

Table 17. Rating of convenience for aluminum
EASY
TO
OPEN
CONVENIENCE
EASY TO STORE

TO HANDLE
Mean Description
Mean Description Mean Description

Age

30
and
below
2.50 P 2.62 P 2.58 P
31
-
40
2.19 P 2.19 P 2.15 P
41
–
50
2.18 P 2.18 P 2.18 P
51
–
60
2.04 P 2.04 P 2.04 P
6O
and
above
2.00 P 2.00 P 2.00 P
x² 0.00** 0.00** 0.00**




Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
67

Table 17. (continued . . . .)

EASY
TO
OPEN
CONVENIENCE
EASY TO STORE

TO HANDLE
Mean Description
Mean Description Mean Description

Gender
Female
2.49 P 2.44 P 2.39 P
Male
2.13 P 2.20 P 2.20 P
x² 0.00** 0.00** 0.00**
Educational






Attainment

Col. Level
2.41
P
2.52
P
2.41
P
Col. Graduate
2.19 P 2.20 P 2.22 P

Vocational

2.26 P 2.37 P 2.16 P
High School
2.57 P 2.71 P 2.71 P
Grad
High School
2.00 P 2.00 P 2.00 P
Level
Graduate
2.23 P 2.27 P 2.25 P
School
X² 0.32
0.00** 0.12
Occupation






Student
2.69 P 2.85 P 2.69 P
Unemployed
2.63 P 2.63 P 2.63 P
Blue
Collar
2.19 P 2.19 P 2.22 P
White
Collar
2.16 P 2.29 P 2.29 P
Government
2.18 P 2.27 P 2.27 P
Employee

Self
Employed
2.24 P 2.24 P 2.24 P
Retiree

2.00 P 2.00 P 2.00 P
Health
Worker
2.22 P 2.22 P 2.22 P




Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
68

Table 17. (continued . . . .)


EASY TO OPEN
CONVENIENCE TO
EASY TO STORE

HANDLE
Mean
Description Mean
Mean
Mean
Description


Occupation
Farmer 2.08 P 2.15 P 2.15 P
Engineer
2.00 P 2.00 P 2.00 P
Sales 2.16 P 2.12 P 2.69 P
Public
Security
2.00 P 2.00 P 2.00 P
X² 0.15
0.10 0.04*

Income

< 10,000
2.18
P
2.21
P
2.21
P
10,000 – 20,000
2.09
P
2.12
P
2.09
P
No source
2.74
P
2.81
P
2.74
P
X² 0.00*
0.00** 0.00**
*
Household Size







1 – 4
2.21
P
2.28
P
2.56
P
5 – 7
2.27
P
2.24
P
2.22
P
8 – 10
2.29
P
2.24
P
2.24
P
More than 10
2.50
P
2.50
P
2.50
P
X² 0.89
0.72 0.72








Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
69

Table 17. ( continued . . . .)
EASY
TO
OPEN
CONVENIENCE
EASY TO STORE

TO HANDLE
Mean
Description Mean Description Mean Description


Ethnicity
Kankana-ey
2.13 P 2.16 P 2.13 P
(Mt. Province)
Kankana-ey
2.52 P 2.48 P 2.38 P
(Benguet)
Ibaloi 2.35 P 2.35 P 2.41 P
Ibalio –
2.27 P 2.36 P 2.36 P
kankana-ey
Ifugao 2.60 P 2.50 P 2.580 P
Kalinga 2.00 P 2.06 P 2.19 P
Itneg 2.00 P 2.00 P 2.00 P
Pangasinanse 3.50
P
3.50
P
3.50
P
Tagalog 2.20 P 2.40 P 2.40 P
Ilocano
2.50 P 3.00 P 2.50 P

OVERALL
2.23 2.27 2.25

AVERAGE
X² 0.00** 0.00** 0.00**
*Significant
**Highly Significant

Legend:
Poor (P)


Additional Packaging Features.

Respondents determined the other features they would like to see on a product
package. Table 18 shows that all respondents would like to see the brand (name and logo)
and product name, nutritional facts, product weight, processor’s address and contact
number on the packaging material.




Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
70

Table 18. Additional Features Needed on Packaging Materials
FEATURE N
Percentage
(%)
Brand 200
100.00
Nutritional Information
200
100.00
Net Content
200
100.00
Name of the Product
200
100.00
Address of the Processor
200
100.00
Contact No. of the Processor
200
100.00
Other Information
3
1.50

Other Reasons for Choice of Packaging Material.
As respondents have indicated their preferred packaging materials in Table 2,
Table 19 presents the other reasons for their choice of these packaging materials.
Majority (85.50%) of the respondents have indicated their preference as influenced by its
recyclability more than its being environmental friendliness, thus the popularity or
preference of the hard plastic packaging over the other packaging materials.

Table 19. Other Reasons for Choice Packaging Materials

REASONS N
Percentage
(%)
Environment Friendly
29
14.50
Recyclable 171
85.50





Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
lxxi

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATION

Summary
The choice of packaging material for any product is crucial to the success of
marketing it as it protects the product, gives convenience to the buyers, and sells itself to
the buyers. This study was conducted to evaluate five different easily accessible
packaging materials for etag and to determine what demographic variables could be
associated to the preference on packaging materials. Two hundred respondents in Baguio
and La Trinidad, Benguet were randomly selected to evaluate the features of the
packaging materials.
Packaging materials were rated by the respondents as to the appearance,
convenience of handling and sanitation.
Results showed that hard plastic with cardboard packaging is the highly preferred,
over other packaging materials. The second preferred packaging material is the cardboard
box with wax paper while the least preferred was the aluminum foil wrapping.
When evaluated by aesthetic features, the Styrofoam had the highest average
rating of Very Good. Additionally, The cardboard and hard plastic received an average
rating of Good. The aluminum foil received a Poor rating.
When evaluated for their ability to keep the product sanitary, only the aluminum
foil received a Moderately Acceptable rating while the other 4 packaging materials got an
average rating of Acceptable.
When evaluated for handling convenience, the cardboard box, Styrofoam tray,
and the hard plastic received an average rating of Very Convenient. Additionally, the




Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
lxxii

zipper bag received an average Moderately Convenient rating while the aluminum foil
received a Poor rating.
The chi-square computations done reveal inconsistency of demographics being
associated to the various factors evaluated. The null hypothesis stating that there is no
relation between demographic variables with the factors evaluated is often accepted.
Additionally, respondents choose the recyclability of the material over
environmental friendliness as a factor in their choice of preferred packaging material.
They also would like to see other important features and facts placed on the packaging
material such as brand, nutritional and weight information as well as production address
and contact number.

Conclusions
Based on the findings of this study, the following are deduced:
1. Hard plastic with cardboard is the respondents’ most preferred packaging
material for etag over other materials. It consistently rates high with
respondents in terms of aesthetics, ability to keep the product sanitary, and
handling convenience. The Styrofoam, however, rates higher in terms of
aesthetics. The aluminium foil consistently rates low in these factors, hence,
its being the least preferred packaging material for etag;
2. The demographic profile could not be consistently used to define market
segments as to choices of packaging materials for etag;
3. There are other factors to consider, other than aesthetics, sanitation, and
convenience, in determining the most appropriate packaging material for the
aggressive marketing of etag.




Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
lxxiii

Recommendation
If an entrepreneur is left to use the most available and cheaper packaging
materials for etag marketing, hard plastic would seem to be the wiser choice. However,
creativity in packaging the product should not be discounted. Entrepreneurs are hence
encouraged to explore, along with the aid of concerned government institutions such as
the DTI, other options for the packaging material of etag if aggressive marketing for this
product would be done.


























Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
lxxiv

LITERATURE CITED


BEARDEN, W.O. 2007. Marketing Principle and Perspective, Published by McGrow-
Hill Companies Inc., 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York,NY, 10020
Pp.198-199

BOLINAO, A. 2008. Comparative Analysis on the Consumers Acceptability of Sun
Dried Etag and Smoked Etag among consumers in La Trinidad, Benguet.
BS Thesis-Benguet State University, La Trinidad Benguet. Pp.1-2

DICHTER, E. 1983. The Encyclopedia Americana International Edition Vol.21 P. 189.

FELLOWS, P. and B. Axtell. 1993. Appropriate Food Packaging. Tool Publications,
Sarphatisraat 650, 1018 AV Amsterdam, The Netherlands P. 3

HUI, Y. H. 1991. Encyclopedia of Food Science and Technology. Vol. 3, A Wiley-
Interscience Publication John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Canada P. 1971.

KOTLER, P. 1984. Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning and Control 5th Edition
P. 478.

McCARTHNY, J. E. and W. D. PERREAULT. 1990. Basic Marketing, Irwin
Homewood, IL60430, Boston, MA 02116 Pp. 241-243

O’SHUGHNESSY, M. R. 1995. Marketing: Real People, Real Choices 3rd Edition
Pp.258-259

PARKER, R. 2003. Introduction to Food Science, Copyright 2003 by Delmar, a division
of Thompson Learning, Inc. P. 230

PRIDE, W. M. 1989. Marketing, Basic Concept and Decisions Hougton Mifflin
Company Boston, Dallas Geneva, Illinois Hopewell, New Jersey Pp.242-
246

SACHAROW, S. 1970. Food Packaging: A guide for the supplier processor and
distributor, The AVI Publishing Company. 1970, Westport, Connecticut
Pp.50-52









Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
lxxv

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A


Sample of Cardboard and Wax Paper Packaging












Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
lxxvi



APPENDIX B


Sample of Styrofoam Box covered of Cling Wrap










Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
lxxvii



APPENDIX C

Sample of Zipper Bag Packaging with Cardboard inside










Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
lxxviii



APPENDIX D

Sample of Hard plastic Packaging with Cardboard inside










Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
lxxix



APPENDIX E

Sample of Aluminum Foil Packaging










Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
lxxx



APPENDIX F

CONSUMER EVALUATION OF DIFFERENT PACKAGING MATERIALS FOR
“ETAG” MARKETING

Dear Judges/Evaluator,

Kindly evaluate the different packaging materials used in “Etag” products.



Jack S. Aprog
Researcher

Name of Judge/Evaluator (Optional):

Age; Sex; Educational Attainment:

Occupation:

Monthly Income: (please check) Household Size: (please check)

Less than 10,000 1-4

10,000-20,000 5-7

21,000-30,000 8-10
Others (specify)

Frequency Ethnic Origin: (please check)
Once a week Kankana-ey (Mt. Province)
Once a month Kankana-ey (Benguet)
Occasional Ibaloi
Twice a year Ibalio – Kankana-ey
Once a year Ifugao
Lesser Kalinga
Other (specify) Itneg
Pangasinanse
Using of “Etag”. (please check) Tagalog
For seasoning of vegetable Ilocano
For flavoring pinikpikan
For viand
For soup savoring:




Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
lxxxi


Others (specify)



CRITERIA EVALUATION FOR (A.) CARDBOARD WITH WAX PAPER


RATING
APPEARANCE
Very Poor
Poor
Moderately Acceptable Very
Acceptable
Acceptable
1.Looks attractive






2.Looks clean






3.Looks presentable






4.Pleasing to look at






5.Ability to invite





buyers


RATING
SANITATION Not Less
Moderately Acceptable Highly
Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable
Acceptable
1.Act as a barrier to





moisture
2.Protect the





product
3.Protect against





ingress of odors
4.Provide resistance





to physical damage
5.Suppressing the





odor of the product


RATING
CONVENIENCE
Very Poor
Poor
Moderately Convenient Very
Convenient
Convenient
1.Easy to open






2.Convenience to





handle
3. Easy to store










Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
lxxxii




CRITERIA EVALUATION FOR (B.) STYROFOAM BOX COVERED WITH CLING
WRAP

RATING
APPEARANCE
Very Poor
Poor
Moderately Acceptable Very
Acceptable
Acceptable
1.Looks attractive





2.Looks clean





3.Looks presentable





4.Pleasing to look at





5.Ability to invite





buyers


RATING
SANITATION Not
Less
Moderately Acceptable Highly
Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable
Acceptable
1.Act as a barrier to





moisture
2.Protect the





product
3.Protect against





ingress of odors
4.Provide resistance





to physical damage
5Suppressing the





odor of the product


RATING
CONVENIENCE
Very Poor
Poor
Moderately Convenient Very
Convenient
Convenient
1.Easy to open






2.Convenience to





handle
3.Easy to store









Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
lxxxiii




CRITERIA EVALUATION FOR (C.) ZIPPER STORAGE BAG WITH CARD BOARD

RATING
APPEARANCE
Very Poor
Poor
Moderately Acceptable Very
Acceptable
Acceptable
1.Looks attractive






2.Looks clean






3.Looks presentable






4.Pleasing to look at






5.Ability to invite





buyers


RATING
SANITATION Not Less
Moderately Acceptable Highly
Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable
Acceptable
1.Act as a barrier to





moisture
2.Protect the product






3.Protect against





ingress of odors
4.Provide resistance





to physical damage
5.Suppressing the





odor of the product


RATING
CONVENIENCE
Very Poor
Poor
Moderately Convenient Very
Convenient
Convenient
1.Easy to open






2.Convenience to





handle
3.Easy to store












Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
lxxxiv




CRITERIA EVALUATION FOR (D.) HARD PLASTIC WITH CARD BOARD

RATING
APPEARANCE
Very Poor
Poor
Moderately Acceptable Very
Acceptable
Acceptable
1.Looks attractive






2.Looks clean






3.Looks presentable






4.Pleasing to look at






5.Ability to invite





buyers


RATING
SANITATION Not Less
Moderately Acceptable Highly
Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable
Acceptable
1.Act as a barrier to





moisture
2.Protect the product






3.Protect against





ingress of odors
4.Provide resistance





to physical damage
5.Suppressing the





odor of the product


RATING
CONVENIENCE
Very Poor
Poor
Moderately Convenient Very
Convenient
Convenient
1.Easy to open






2.Convenience to





handle
3.Easy to store












Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
lxxxv




CRITERIA EVALUATION FOR (E.) ALUMINUM FOIL

RATING
APPEARANCE
Very Poor
Poor
Moderately Acceptable Very
Acceptable
Acceptable
1.Looks attractive





2.Looks clean





3.Looks presentable





4.Pleasing to look at





5.Ability to invite





buyers


RATING
SANITATION Not Less
Moderately Acceptable Highly
Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable
Acceptable
1.Act as a barrier to





moisture
2.Protect the





product
3.Protect against





ingress of odors
4.Provide resistance





to physical damage
5.Suppressing the





odor of the product


RATING
CONVENIENCE
Very Poor
Poor
Moderately Convenient Very
Convenient
Convenient
1.Easy to open






2.Convenience to





handle
3.Easy to store












Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

 
lxxxvi



Kindly indicate also what more would you like to see/have on the packaging materials
such as:

Product information: (please check)
Brand
Nutritional info
Content (wgt.)
Other please specify

Source of the product: (please check)
Name of producer
Address
Contact No.
Other please specify

Which package would you prefer to buy?

Preference of the packaging if you are going to buy?


Rating

Not
Less
Fairly
Preferred
Highly
PACKAGING
Preferred
Preferred Preferred
(4)
Preferred
(1)
(2)
(3)
(5)
1.) Card board box





2.) Styrofoam Box





covered with cling
wrap
3.) Zipper storage






4.) Hard plastic





5.) Aluminum foil






Reason of choosing the packaging?



 




Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materials
for Etag Marketing / Jack S. Aprog 2011 

---

Document Outline

• Consumer Evaluation of Different Packaging Materialsfor Etag Marketing
  • BIBLIOGRAPHY
  • ABSTRACT
  • TABLE OF CONTENTS
  • INTRODUCTION
  • REVIEW OF LITERATURE
  • METHODOLOGY
  • RESULT AND DISCUSSION
  • SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATION
  • LITERATURE CITED
  • APPENDICES

---