Food labels do consumers perceive what semiotics want to convey

Food labels: Do consumers perceive what semiotics want to convey?
Gastón Ares a,⇑
, Betina Piqueras-Fiszman b
, Paula Varela c
, Ricardo Morant Marco d
,
Arantxa Martín López d
, Susana Fiszman c
a
Sección Evaluación Sensorial, Departamento de Ciencia y Tecnología de Alimentos, Facultad de Química, Universidad de la República (UdelaR), General Flores 2124,
C.P. 11800, Montevideo, Uruguay
b
Departamento de Proyectos de Ingeniería, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera s/n, 46022 Valencia, Spain
c
Instituto de Agroquímica y Tecnología de Alimentos (CSIC), Apartado de correos 73, 46100 Burjassot, Valencia, Spain
d
Departamento de Teoría de los Lenguajes y Ciencias de la Comunicación, Universitat de València, Av. Blasco Ibáñez 32, 46010 Valencia, Spain
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 20 January 2011
Received in revised form 14 May 2011
Accepted 16 May 2011
Available online 20 May 2011
Keywords:
Consumer studies
Semiotic analysis
Word association
Yogurt
Food labels
a b s t r a c t
In this research work, a multidisciplinary approach was applied to answer the question: do consumers
perceive what semiotics want to convey? The idea behind was to determine if consumers’ expectations
and associations raised by simulated yogurt labels, designed with different sign combinations frequently
applied in commercial products, were in agreement with results from a semiotic analysis, and to check
for cultural differences, comparing results from two Spanish-speaking countries (Spain and Uruguay).
A survey of the plain yogurt market was performed, followed by a semiotic analysis of the gathered
labels performed by a team of semiotics experts. Only the non-verbal elements such as images, visual
structure, colors, typography and their combinations, were considered; so brand, price, nutritional infor-
mation, composition, etc. were nor taken into consideration. The main messages conveyed by the labels
were summarized and based on that, five yogurt model labels were designed and subsequently used as
stimuli in a consumer study. An online consumer questionnaire, based on a word association task, was
performed in both countries to understand the words, descriptions, associations, thoughts or feelings
generated by the model labels.
The approach was successful, and the results obtained showed that the main messages conveyed by the
model labels were well understood in Spain and Uruguay; however some cultural differences in the per-
ception of the messages could be highlighted.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
A product’s package is the container that holds, protects, pre-
serves and identifies the product, and which also facilitates its han-
dling, storage and commercialization (Rodríguez Tarango, 2003).
Consumers usually actively scan packages before purchase (Ulrich
& Malkewitz, 2008) and therefore packaging also plays a major role
in attracting their attention and largely influence their purchase
decisions (Crilly, Moultrie, & Clarkson, 2004; Fenko, Schifferstein,
& Hekkert, 2010). Consumers have to trade several sensory and
non-sensory factors when making their everyday food choices
(Jaeger, 2006). For this reason, in many companies great debates
exist on whether a product’s performance in the marketplace is
due to its sensory characteristics or to its associated imagery
(Rousseau & Ennis, 2008). Consumers draw important information
about the product and its attributes from the package’s aesthetic
and graphic design (Moskowitz, Porretta, & Silcher, 2005; Moskowitz,
Reisner, lawlor, & Deliza, 2009). Packaging is also a source of
product recognition and serves as an extrinsic quality cue and
provides consumers with information about brand image and lifestyle
(Dano, 1996; Steenkamp, 1989; van Dam & van Trijp, 1994).
Furthermore, food packaging creates sensory and hedonic
expectations in the consumer (Ares & Deliza, 2010; Becker, van
Rompay, Schifferstein, & Galetzka, 2011; Deliza, MacFie, & Hedderley,
2003; Lange, Issanchou, & Combris, 2000; Rodríguez Tarango,
2003). Expectations could be regarded as pre-trial beliefs about a
product (Olson & Dover, 1979), affecting decisions both con-
sciously and subconsciously (Deliza & MacFie, 1996). There are
two types of expectations: sensory-based and hedonic-based
(Cardello, 1994). Sensory expectations are related to consumers’
beliefs about the sensory characteristics of the product, whereas
hedonic expectations refer to how much the product will be liked
or disliked. These expectations are created through consumers’
previous experiences with the product, information presented on
the label, packaging characteristics and the product itself, particu-
larly through its appearance. If the sensory and hedonic expecta-
tions shaped by the packaging are high, consumers may be
interested in the product and would choose to buy it. However, if
these expected sensory and hedonic characteristics are not
0950-3293/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.05.006
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +598 29245735; fax: +598 29241906.
E-mail address: gares@fq.edu.uy (G. Ares).
Food Quality and Preference 22 (2011) 689–698
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Food Quality and Preference
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodqual

perceived when consumers try the product, they will probably not
buy the product again (Deliza & MacFie, 1996). A mismatch be-
tween expectations raised for example by the pack or label, and
the actual perceived characteristics of the product would lead to
positive or negative disconfirmation, depending if the product is
better or worse than expected (Cardello, 1994).
Therefore, all the characteristics of the package should be dee-
ply regarded in the design process to attract consumers’ attention
in order to generate sensory and hedonic expectations that match
the product’s real characteristics and to increase their interest in
buying the product.
Although food companies usually invest large amounts of
money on packaging design for marketing reasons there are not
many published studies about the influence of the package’s visual
components, specifically signs, on consumer sensory, hedonic and
emotional expectations of food products (Ares & Deliza, 2010;
Becker et al., 2011; Deliza & MacFie, 1996; Lange et al., 2000;
Moskowitz et al., 2009; Murray & Delahunty, 2000).
According to Opperud (2004), when consumers first perceive a
product the attention is drawn to signs that can help them identify
and categorize the product. In the case of packaged products, all
this information is gathered from the signs present in their pack-
age, i.e. package’s appearance and its several visual elements (col-
or, size and shape). Food packages and labels could communicate
information to consumers in two main forms: linguistic signs
(symbols based entirely on social convention), or signs that are
based on resemblance (drawings, pictures, signs, colors, shapes
and textures) (Smith, Mogelvang-Hansen, & Hyldig, 2010).
In addition, under the assumption of the social construction
theory (Dittmar, 1992), physical objects are communicators of so-
cial meaning between people; therefore, food packages and labels
not only retrieve information about the qualities of the product it-
self but also about the people who consume it.
The object of a semiotic analysis is to describe the mechanism
by means of which a sign system produces meaning (Kehret-Ward,
1988). The semiotic theory states that a specific product design
evokes thoughts, emotions, impressions and associations because
they display signs that are consciously and unconsciously inter-
preted as such. In this model, the stimuli evoke a series of sponta-
neous impressions in the consumer, which are subjectively
represented in his mind, given a certain context (Opperud, 2004).
Morris’s pioneering model of semiotics (Morris, 1939) defined a
3-way relationship among a sign, being anything that stands for
something (the product) to somebody (consumer). Semiotic analy-
sis use objective, standardized and recognized methods of study to
‘‘decompose’’ a label in its signs and symbols involved in conveying
a certain message. This type of analysis has been applied to several
areas that involve communication and the transfer of information,
such as films, theater, fashion and architecture (Berger, 1995).
Products are designed as a construct of signs capable of represen-
tation which would be interpreted by users, thus the consumer re-
sponse to the product appearance would be an important stage in
the understanding of the process of communication. Theoretically,
the designer would produce a message which would be encoded
into a signal that the receiver should decode to receive the message
(Crilly et al., 2004). However, a lack of knowledge about the rela-
tionships between key parameters on product designs and how
these actually stimulate the consumer response, leads to uncer-
tainty when it comes to determine what combination of signs
should be used to stimulate desired responses. Many times this
makes companies/brand objectives difficult to achieve (Ulrich &
Malkewitz, 2008).
In the case of food packaging, the interplay of its many possible
visual elements makes this interpretation a complicated process;
and though in many cases rules of thumb relating to visual re-
sponses have been correct, they have not been scientifically tested
and their behavioral underpinnings have not been investigated.
Consequently, a semiotic analysis of food packages and labels
could help to understand and interpret consumers’ associations
and expectations of the content, and hence to design packages that
arouse specific reactions in the consumer.
In addition, different cultural backgrounds and past experiences
of consumers are key parameters influencing their response to
products; thus, the context or environment of consumption would
be an important consideration in how the message would be inter-
preted (Crilly et al., 2004).
The aims of the present work were: (i) to determine if consum-
ers’ expectations or associations raised by simulated yogurt labels,
designed with different sign combinations frequently applied in
commercial products, are in agreement with results from a semi-
otic analysis, or in other words, whether labels successfully convey
their intended meaning; and (ii) to check for cultural differences
comparing results from two Spanish-speaking countries.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Information-gathering stage
The natural yogurt packaging markets of, Uruguay, Spain and
two other European close countries (France and UK) were sur-
veyed. France and UK were included in the survey, as they are very
important markets in terms of dairy products, and together with
the high mobility of European consumers nowadays, their products
were considered of interest for the study.
The objective of the survey was to have an overall picture of the
messages that natural yogurt packages contained, focusing only on
the signs (non-verbal elements such as images, visual structure,
colors, typography and their combinations). Various big-surface
supermarkets were visited – at least three in each country – and
all natural yogurts available (brands and off-brands) were pur-
chased. The labels were subsequently scanned for their analysis
by the semiotic team. Thirty-two labels were evaluated in total.
Products were manufactured and sold in each of the countries sur-
veyed (Spain, Uruguay, France and UK).
In the four countries, the colors, main image and general design
of the yogurts labels were similar. The most common colors used in
the labels were blue, white, grey, black, lilac and green. The main
images found on the labels included the product itself (in different
types of containers or served on a spoon), natural landscapes (sky,
mountains and countryside, daisies, and cows), and a female sil-
houette, depending on the type of yogurt. Yogurt labels with bright
colors that included images related to natural landscapes and
images of the product were found in the four countries, whereas
those yogurts with predominantly grey or black labels were only
encountered in England.
2.2. Semiotic analysis of the commercial labels
A team of semiotic experts from the Departamento de Teoría de
los Lenguajes y Ciencias de la Comunicación [Department of Lan-
guage Theory and Communication Sciences] (Universitat de Valèn-
cia) reviewed the labels surveyed from the four markets. They
elaborated a report highlighting the main symbols contained in
the labels; these non-verbal elements were analyzed taking into
consideration the typographic codes (Friedl, Ott, & Stein, 1998),
the chromatic codes (Verichon, 2007; Zelanski & Fisher, 2006),
the graphic codes and their distribution (Samara, 2007, 2009),
and the messages they were intended to convey. The brand and
any other information such as price, nutritional information, com-
position, etc., were not considered. The analysis included two as-
pects: a denotative or objective reading of the symbols, that is
690 G. Ares et al. / Food Quality and Preference 22 (2011) 689–698

the direct, rational, neutral message transmitted, and a connotative
reading, based on the interpretation of the subliminal or latent
messages that are directed to produce reactions and emotions in
the consumer. The detailed semiotic analysis of the commercial la-
bels has not been included in the present article because it was
similar to that of the model labels, described in Section 3.1.
2.3. Design of the model labels
Five simulated yogurt label were designed by an expert indus-
trial designer engineer from the Departamento de Proyectos de
Ingeniería of the Universitat Politècnica de València. The designs
were based on the previous semiotic analysis, specifically, by com-
bining some representative elements of the main messages present
in the commercial yogurts of the four surveyed markets. The objec-
tive was to create five labels capable of conveying very distinct
messages.
The labels comprised different combination of non-verbal ele-
ments; the only text included was ‘‘Plain Yogurt’’ (Yogur Natural
in Spanish), in different typographies and colors depending on
the message and taking into account the semiotic analysis. The five
designed model labels are displayed in Fig. 1. The labels were used
as stimuli for a consumer survey.
2.4. Semiotic analysis of the model labels
The semiotic experts reviewed the yogurt model labels created
in order to confirm that the messages involved were in line with
the main messages highlighted by the survey of the plain yogurt
previously analyzed.
2.5. Consumer test
2.5.1. Participants
The study was carried out in the cities of Montevideo (Uruguay)
and Valencia (Spain). Both cities have similar sized populations
(around 1 million people) and correspond to the national capital
city and a regional capital city, respectively. One hundred partici-
pants answered the survey in each country. Participants were re-
cruited in each city using a convenient, intentional and reasoned
sampling. Convenience consumers’ samples are usually used in
qualitative studies when the aim of the research is to get an
approximation to a research subject and involves recruiting avail-
able participants who meet specific criteria (Kinnear & Taylor,
1993).
Instead of randomly recruiting participants, specific age and
gender quotas were defined to balance the sample and to avoid dif-
ferences in the participants’ age and gender distribution between
the countries. Participants’ age ranged between 18 and 60 years
old. Besides, in each city a minimum of 25 males and 25 females
should be more than 35 years old and a minimum of 25 males
and 25 females should be 34 years old or less (see Table 1).
Consumers were recruited via e-mail using databases in the two
countries. Apart from the age and gender requirement, they had to
be frequent consumers of natural yogurt (at least once a week).
There was no requirement about brand usage. At recruitment
Fig. 1. Model labels of plain yogurt used in the study. (1) Yogurt 1; (2) Yogurt 2; (3) Yogurt 3; (4) Yogurt 4 and (5) Yogurt 5.
G. Ares et al. / Food Quality and Preference 22 (2011) 689–698 691

stage, no information about the specific aim of the study was
provided.
As expected, no significant differences were found in the gender
and age distribution of the consumer samples recruited from Mon-
tevideo and Valencia (v2
= 4.7, p = 0.20).
2.5.2. Consumer survey
The consumer survey was designed by the sensory-consumer
experts from the Universidad de la República (Uruguay) and the
Instituto de Agroquímica y Tecnología de Alimentos (Spain) co-
authoring the present study.
The survey was delivered through online questionnaires in
which consumers were given written instructions of the tasks.
The questionnaires were self-completed at home.
Consumers were asked to complete a word association task.
Word association is a quick, simple and useful qualitative method-
ology commonly used in psychology and sociology (Ares, Giménez,
& Gámbaro, 2008), and is based on the assumption that providing a
stimulus to a respondent and asking him/her to freely associate
what ideas come to his/her mind could give relatively unrestricted
access to the respondent’s mental representations of the presented
stimulus. The stimuli in this case were the designed model labels.
The five labels were randomly presented to the participants fol-
lowing a complete block experimental design (William’s Latin
Square). Each label was presented in an individual screen, together
with the task: ‘‘Please write down the first words, descriptions,
associations, thoughts or feelings that come to your mind when
you see the following image of a plain yogurt label’’. An open blank
space was provided were they could fit as many words or phrases
they required (maximum 3000 characters).
2.6. Data analyses
All the associations provided by the participants were written
down and analyzed. For each model label and country (Spain and
Uruguay), the frequency in which each association was mentioned
was determined by counting the number of participants that men-
tioned that particular association. Words mentioned by more than
5% of the consumers were considered for the data analyses. The
grouping procedure was performed independently by three of
the researchers who authored this study, considering personal
interpretation of the meaning of the words and word synonymy
as determined by the same Spanish dictionary (Real Academia
Española, 2006). After individually evaluating the data, a meeting
of the researchers was undertaken in order to check the agreement
between their classifications.
Significant differences between the frequencies of each associa-
tion related to the model labels within each country were evalu-
ated using Friedman’s Test. This test is a non-parametric
alternative to ANOVA where the assumption of normality is not
acceptable (Friedman, 1937). Friedman’s test was used instead of
chi-square test because the aim was to check for significant differ-
ences in the frequency of mention of each of the elicited terms and
not global differences in the frequency distribution of all the elic-
ited terms.
A multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) was performed on
the frequency table of the terms mentioned for each country. Also,
a multiple factor analysis (MFA) was run on the data coming from
the two countries as independent frequency data tables, to under-
stand the comparative positioning of the five samples as perceived
by the consumers in the two markets.
FactoMineR was used to perform MCA and MFA (Husson, Josse,
Lê, & Mazet, 2007; Lê, Josse, & Husson, 2008) in R language (R
Development Core Team, 2007). The rest of the analyses were per-
formed with XLStat 2009 (Insightful, NY).
3. Results
3.1. Semiotic analysis
There are four main aspects of a label which can generate asso-
ciations, and expectations in consumers’ mind: drawings (includ-
ing the background and its texture), visual structure (relative
positioning of the elements), colors and typography. According to
Spang (2010) considering that consumers’ purchase decisions are
based on emotional aspects rather than on rational considerations,
the symbolic meaning of images play a key role in determining
consumers’ associations of a food label.
Results of the semiotic analysis of the images of the labels are
detailed bellow:
Yogurt 1- The main image of the label referred to a traditional,
artisanal production process and to a natural environment, stress-
ing the freshness and naturalness of the product (Gracia, 1998).
Yogurt 2- The main image (daisies) also referred to nature and
the countryside, stressing the naturalness of the product. More-
over, in some UK’s yogurts daisies and other flowers are commonly
used to represent organic products. In Uruguay, daisies are used in
plain yogurt labels. Thus, the main image of this label tried to con-
vey that it is a natural and organic product. In the back of the label
there are two rounded mountains, which might communicate per-
fection, calm and peace.
Yogurt 3- The main image in this label was the product itself,
which tried to indicate that it is an authentic yogurt and that con-
sumers would find exactly that product inside the package. The use
of a non-conventional picture of the product is also used to com-
municate the idea of a different, special and high quality product.
Yogurt 4- The principal image was an arrow pointing down-
wards, suggesting that the product would have a positive effect
on gastrointestinal health. The fact that the arrow is made of little
spheres could be associated with the idea of an effective product
made with high technology.
Yogurt 5- It had two main images: one related to the product it-
self, stressing the sensory quality of the product and its authentic-
ity (reference to a traditional yogurt glass container), and the other
one a slim, stylized silhouette, stressing the relationship between
the product and a good body figure. Therefore, the label tried to
indicate that the yogurt is a high quality product which contributes
to weight control and fitness.
The visual structure of the label is mainly influenced by culture.
In western cultures, reading is done from left to right, which sug-
gests that the main elements would be placed on the middle or
on the right side (Acaso, 2009). In the case of the labels considered
in the present work, all the images had a central location.
The types of lines that are used in the label communicate a lot of
information to consumers and evoke different associations
(Dupont, 2004). A horizontal straight line as the one used in
Yogurts 3 and 4 suggests calm, tranquility, security and stability
(University of the State of New York., 1910), which may suggest
Table 1
Demographic distribution of the participants.
Spaniards (n = 102) Uruguayans (n = 100)
Mean age (years) 35.6 36.57
Gender distribution
Men (%) 49 41
Women (%) 51 59
Yogurt consumption frequency
Every day (%) 26.5 28
Many times per week (%) 41.1 43
Once a week (%) 32.4 27

that these feelings might a be a result of the improvement in health
status reached through the consumption of this product. Curved
lines, as in Yogurt 5, suggest smoothness, elegance, happiness, fan-
tasy and youth, association that could be related to weight control.
According to Vidales Giovannetti (1995) curved lines are also asso-
ciated with femininity.
Colors in a food label are usually used to differentiate between
products and make them more attractive to consumers. Attractive
colors are able to catch consumers’ attention even when seen from
a long distance. However, colors have an important symbolic
meaning, communicating different emotions and ideals, and mak-
ing the product identifiable and memorable (Hine, 1995; Vidales
Giovannetti, 1995). Díaz Rojo, Morant Marco, and Westall Pixton
(2006) state that the symbolic meaning of color is used by consum-
ers to associate, differentiate, classify and rank food products.
The main colors used in the label of Yogurt 1 were green, blue
and white. Green is commonly used to express healthiness, fresh-
ness, naturalness and life (Díaz Rojo et al., 2006; García Fernández,
2000; Grande Esteban, 2006). Blue refers to calm, relaxation,
safety, freshness, cleanness and peace, particularly in this case
in which it was used in the representation of the sky (Vidales
Giovannetti, 1995); whereas white suggests purity, tranquility
and cleanness (Acaso, 2009).
Green, blue and white were also used in Yogurt 2, but in this
case with a different purpose. Green was only used in the typogra-
phy, which tried to suggest that the naturalness of the product was
not the central idea that the label is trying to convey. The main col-
ors were white, related to purity and cleanness, and sky blue,
stressing the freshness and purity of the product. The combination
of colors is usually used to convey the idea of well-being, health,
being commonly used in light, low-calorie or healthy food prod-
ucts. An interesting feature of this label was that sky blue was used
in the mountains and that white was used in the sky. This might be
associated with the fact that the designer wanted to create an
imaginary world, presenting the product as different, dreamy and
modern (Vidales Giovannetti, 1995). Orange and yellow were also
used in this label, communicating optimism, joy, vitality and light-
ness, as the flowers themselves did (Dupont, 2004).
Yogurt 3 used a range of colors that widely differed from those
commonly used in yogurt labels. In this case serious, dark colors
such as grey and black were used, which tried to communicate
the idea of an elegant, luxurious, special product for a specific
group of people (Acaso, 2009; Vidales Giovannetti, 1995). Accord-
ing to García Fernández (2000) black represents the maximum
sophistication and the highest social class. However, it is interest-
ing to notice that this color has been also associated with negative
ideas such as illness and death, suggesting that some consumers
might not like this type of label (Acaso, 2009; Vidales Giovannetti,
1995).
Green clearly dominated the label of Yogurt 4, stressing the idea
of a natural and healthy product. Moreover, green could also be
associated to calm, peace and tranquility. The yellow color of the
arrow is associated to optimism, joy and dynamism (Dupont,
2004), which could be associated to the fact that these feelings
might be a consequence of consuming this type of product due
to its effect on health. White was used in the typography to com-
municate the idea of purity, freshness, calm and peace.
The main color in Yogurt 5 is lilac, which is associated with wo-
men, dreams and relax (Vidales Giovannetti, 1995). The use of yel-
low and orange gamuts in the curved lines tried to communicate
optimism, energy and joy, which could be a consequence of weight
control through the consumption of this product. White once again
was present in the typography of this yogurt, conveying the idea of
natural and pure product.
Typography is another important visual element in a food label,
being able to express, evoke and communicate sensations and
emotions to consumers. According to Dupont (2004) typography
determines whether the message is successfully conveyed to con-
sumers or not.
A first aspect is the use of lowercase or capital letters. Capital
letters are usually used when a word wants to be emphasized
(Aicher, 1988). In this sense, Yogurts 1–4 used capital letters in
the word ‘‘natural’’ (‘‘plain’’ in English) stressing the type of yogurt
over the food category. Particularly, in the case of Yogurt 1 the size
of the word ‘‘natural’’ was larger than the size of the word ‘‘yogur’’,
which intended to put emphasis on the fact that it is a plain and
natural yogurt (in Spanish ‘‘natural’’ is a polysemic word that in
this context means both ‘‘plain’’ and ‘‘natural’’ in English) (Aicher,
1988).
The main message, product characteristics, feelings and emo-
tions that are conveyed by the labels according to a professional
semiotic analysis are summarized in Table 2.
3.2. Word association – Frequency of elicitation
In order to analyze results from the word association task, all
the elicited words were grouped into categories in order to over-
come the possible bias of considering individual words. Only those
categories mentioned by more than 5% of the consumer sample for
at least one yogurt in one of the countries were considered for fur-
ther analysis.
3.2.1. Comparison of the two countries
As shown in Table 3 56 categories were identified, of which 49
had at least a number of mentions equivalent to 5% of the consum-
ers for at least one yogurt label for Spanish consumers, whereas 47
categories were relevant for Uruguayan consumers. This suggests
that some differences existed between Spanish and Uruguayan
consumers’ associations regarding the evaluated yogurt labels.
Frequency of elicitation has been related to the importance of a
concept in consumers’ mind and therefore the most frequently
mentioned categories might be those more relevant for consumers’
perception of the evaluated yogurt labels (Guerrero, Colomer,
Guàrdia, Xicola, & Clotet, 2000). The most frequently elicited cate-
gories in Spain were Probiotics (n = 94), Natural (n = 86), Healthy
(n = 81), Commercial brands (n = 64), Nature/Countryside (n = 61),
and Diet/Slimming (n = 53). Thus, in general Spanish consumers’
associations of the evaluated labels were mainly related to aspects
related to health, naturalness and interestingly the recall of com-
mercial brands of yogurt. In Uruguay the most frequently men-
tioned categories were Yummy/Pleasant (n = 66), Fresh (n = 62),
Healthy (n = 61), Probiotics (n = 58), and Nature/Countryside
(n = 50); suggesting that for Uruguayan consumers the most sali-
ent associations were related to health, naturalness, and expected
sensory and hedonic characteristics of the yogurts. It is interesting
to notice that although the majority of the categories were relevant
Table 2
Summary of results from semiotic analysis of the five yogurt labels considered.
Yogurt Main message Product characteristics, feelings and
emotions conveyed by the label
Yogurt
1
Natural, artisanal product Freshness, naturalness, calm,
relaxation, peace and purity
Yogurt
2
Natural, ecological or
organic product
Light or low-calorie, freshness, calm
and relaxation
Yogurt
3
Premium, high quality
product
Exclusive, authentic and elegant
Yogurt
4
Natural, positive effect on
gastrointestinal health
Dynamism, joy, naturalness and
optimism
Yogurt
5
High quality product,
positive effect on weight
control
Feminine, weight control, authentic,
dynamism and joy

for both countries, some of them were only mentioned in only one
of the countries, suggesting cross-cultural differences in consum-
ers’ associations of the model labels.
The evaluated labels raised different associations in consumers’
minds in both countries. As shown in Table 3, according to Fried-
man’s test significant differences were found in the frequency of
mention of 39 categories in Spain and for 35 categories in Uruguay.
Some differences were found in the categories that were signif-
icant in discriminating between the labels, suggesting differences
between Spanish and Uruguayan consumers. Uruguayan consum-
ers not only mentioned more frequently words related to pleasure
and hedonics than Spanish consumers but they also used them to
differentiate the labels in a larger extent (Table 2).
Despite differences in some of the categories elicited in both
countries, in general consumers’ associations for the main message
of each model label were similar in Spain and Uruguay.
3.2.2. Consumers’ perception of Yogurt 1
When thinking of Yogurt 1 (c.f. Fig. 1) Spanish consumers
mainly elicited the categories Natural (n = 41), Nature/Countryside
(n = 30), Healthy (n = 25), Cows (n = 19), Traditional (n = 15), Home-
made (n = 14) and Fresh (n = 13); whereas Uruguayan consumers
mentioned the categories Nature/Countryside (n = 34), Natural
(n = 27), Fresh (n = 27), Yummy (n = 19), Healthy (n = 18), Home-
made (n = 17), Milk (n = 16), Cows (n = 14) and Tranquility (n = 14).
Most mentioned categories in both countries were, as expected, re-
lated to a traditional, artisanal, fresh product and to a natural envi-
ronment, conveyed by the blue, white and green design of label 1
(Díaz Rojo et al., 2006; García Fernández, 2000; Gracia, 1998;
Grande Esteban, 2006; Vidales Giovannetti, 1995).
In the case of Yogurt 2 the categories mostly mentioned in Spain
and Uruguay were Nature/Countryside (n = 27, n = 11), Healthy
(n = 21, n = 15), Fresh (n = 13, n = 21), Spring (n = 10, n = 14), and
Flowers (n = 11, n = 11). Spanish consumers also mentioned the cat-
egories Natural (n = 17), Herbal tea (n = 14), Happiness (n = 10) and
Tacky (n = 10); whereas Uruguayan consumers used the categories
Yummy/Tasty/Pleasant (n = 11) and Skimmed (n = 10). References
to naturalness, freshness and healthiness were also made in this
case but mentions of happiness became important in this label, as
expected by the appearance of flowers and orange and yellow col-
ors in the design (Dupont, 2004). It is worth highlighting that no
mention to organic was made, suggesting that the association that
exists between flowers and ‘‘organic’’ observed in English yogurts
does not exist in Spain or Uruguay. On the other hand, Herbal Tea
mentions in Spain probably came from the association with the
flowers normally showed in this kind of teas’ packaging in that
country. It is worth noting that the offer of organic yogurts in Spain
and Uruguay is much lower that in the UK or in France, so it is
expectable that with the raise of this type of products, and if the
image of daisies/flowers is linked to them, in a few years this asso-
ciation could be made by consumers in the two target countries.
Yogurt 3 was perceived as a premium product by Uruguayan
consumers (n = 18) and as modern by Spanish consumers (n = 26),
being the idea of a ‘‘luxurious’’ product positioning, successfully
conveyed by the dark color of the design (Acaso, 2009; García
Fernández, 2000; Vidales Giovannetti, 1995). Moreover, consumers
in both countries expected this yogurt to be Runny/liquid (n = 16 in
Spain and n = 24 in Uruguay), Creamy (n = 22 and 10). Many men-
tions for the category Milk (n = 15 and 16) were made when think-
ing of this label, whereas consumers in Uruguay mentioned the
hedonic-related categories Yummy/Tasty/Pleasant (n = 11) and
Unpleasant/Disliking (n = 10), which indicated a clear segmentation
in consumers’ hedonic perception of this label. The dislike may
have been potentially generated as a negative response to black,
as suggested by some authors (Acaso, 2009; Vidales Giovannetti,
1995).
Table 3
Categories identified in the word association task and p-value of the Friedman test for establishing differences between the frequencies of the associations related to the model
labels within each country.
Category Spain Uruguay Category Spain Uruguay
Acid 0.061 0.085 Maternal <0.001*
<0.001*
Advertising <0.001*
– Milk <0.001*
<0.001*
Artificial 0.035*
0.061 Modern <0.001*
–
Attractive – 0.008*
Natural <0.001*
<0.001*
Bland flavor 0.502 0.349 Nature/Countryside <0.001*
<0.001*
Cheap 0.004*
– Not attractive – 0.014*
Childhood 0.001*
0.517 Odd 0.092 0.274
Classic/Old-fashioned 0.003*
0.219 Organic/Environmentally friendly 0.458 –
Commercial brands <0.001*
<0.001*
Premium 0.004*
<0.001*
Cosmetic products <0.001*
– Probiotics <0.001*
<0.001*
Cows <0.001*
<0.001*
Purity 0.004*
0.024*
Creamy <0.001*
<0.001*
Tranquility/Peace 0.511 <0.001*
Diet/Slimming <0.001*
<0.001*
Rejection to try/purchase – 0.007*
Feminine <0.001*
<0.001*
Runny/Liquid <0.001*
<0.001*
Firm – <0.001*
Tacky <0.001*
–
Flowers <0.001*
<0.001*
Simple 0.406 0.287
Freedom 0.001*
– Skimmed <0.001*
<0.001*
Fresh 0.033*
<0.001*
Smooth 0.019*
0.009*
Fruits 0.071 0.004*
Spanish regions <0.001*
–
Full fat 0.001*
0.072 Spring <0.001*
<0.001*
Happiness 0.001*
0.005*
Sugar – <0.001*
Healthy 0.011*
0.120 Sweet 0.429 0.675
Homemade <0.001*
<0.001*
Thick <0.001*
<0.001*
Indifference 0.427 0.282 Traditional <0.001*
<0.001*
Herbal tea <0.001*
– Unpleasant/Disliking – 0.076*
Light 0.394 0.084 Willingness to try/purchase 0.458 0.305
Liking – 0.030*
Without additives 0.001*
0.008*
Low calorie <0.001*
<0.001*
Yummy/Tasty/Pleasant 0.019*
<0.001*
Categories identified by ‘–’ were mentioned by less than 5% of the participants for all the evaluated labels.
*
Indicates significant differences between the frequencies of the associations related to the model labels within each country, for a significance level of 0.05.

It is worth mentioning than black labels per se did not exist in
Uruguay or Spain at the time of the survey in yogurts. However,
other premium products in both countries were using this king
of aesthetics (ice-cream, crisps, chocolate, etc.). The fact that some
consumers have negative hedonic expectations regarding this la-
bel, might be related to that, they did not link the use of black to
the category, so they reject it. However, in general, the principle
of premium/modern/designed was successfully conveyed.
Yogurt 4 was associated with commercial brands of probiotic
yogurts and therefore the most elicited categories in both countries
were Probiotics (n = 77 and 53 in Spain and Uruguay, respectively),
Commercial brands (n = 35 and 15) and Healthy (n = 14 and 14). This
label was the most straightforward for consumers, they agreed in a
great extent, generating fewer associations with high frequencies
of mention.
In the case of Yogurt 5, Spaniards’ and Uruguayans’ associations
were related to the categories Diet/Slimming (n = 36 and 10), Low-
calories (n = 16 and 15), Feminine (n = 16 and 13) and Healthy
(n = 13 and 11), confirming the message suggested by the curved
lines and lilac color were successfully conveyed in both countries
(Vidales Giovannetti, 1995). Uruguayan consumers also used the
categories Yummy (n = 24), Firm (n = 15) and Creamy (n = 12),
whereas Spanish consumers mentioned categories such as Com-
mercial brands (n = 13) and Skimmed (n = 12) when thinking of this
product. Firm and creamy were relevant for Uruguayans, probably
because of the image of the spoon, picturing a firm-set yogurt,
not that common in Uruguay, as most yogurts are stirred in that
country. In Spain, however, the most common offering is within
the firm-set yogurt type, so that might be why it was not necessary
for them to point out textural characteristics in this case.
3.3. Word association – Multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) and
multiple factor analysis (MFA)
MCA was used to study the relationships between the yogurt la-
bels and consumer associations in each country.
The representation of the categories and the labels in the four
dimensions of the MCA enabled the identification of the profile
of each label according to consumers’ associations. As shown in
Figs. 2 and 3, the five yogurts were clearly differentiated, corre-
sponding to different product categories and raising different
expectations in consumers in both countries.
In the MCA of Spaniards’ data, Yogurt 1 was located at positive
values of the second dimension, and at negative values of the third
and fourth dimensions of the MCA, being associated with the cat-
egories Traditional, Natural, Homemade, Without additives, Spanish
y1
y2
y3
y4
y5
-1
0
1
2101-
Dim 1 (34.5%)
Dim2(27.8%)
y1
y2
y3
y4
y5
-1
0
1
101-
Dim 3 (20.4%)
Dim4(17.2%)
Healthy
Natural
Artificial
Without aditives
Homemade
Fresh
Full fat
Skimmed
Diet Slimming
Low calorie
Creamy
Acid
Thick
Runny
Bland flavour
Smooth
Light
Yummy
Attractive
Liking
Willingness to try
Unpleasant
Not attractive
Rejection to try
Milk
Sugar
Cows
Nature Spring
Maternal
Classic
Happiness
Quietness
Purity
Modern
Premium
Simple
Feminine
Probiotics
Indiference
Organic
Freedom
Childhood
Traditional
Cheap
Commercial
brands
Spanish regions
Flowers
Shabby
Herbal tea
Fruits
Sweet
Cosmetic
productsOdd
Advertising
-2
-1
0
1
2
-2 -1 0 1 2
Dim 1 (34.2%)
Dim2(27.4%)
Healthy
Natural
Artificial
Without aditives
Homemade
Fresh
Full fat
Skimmed
Diet Slimming
Low calorie
Creamy
Acid
Thick Runny
Bland flavour
Smooth
Light
Yummy
Attractive
Liking
Willingness to try
Unpleasant
Not attractive
Rejection to try
Milk Sugar
Cows
Nature
Spring
Maternal
Classic
Happiness
Quiteness
Purity
Modern
Premium
Simple
Feminine
Probiotics
Indiference
OrganicFreedom
Childhood
Traditional
Cheap
Commercial
brands
Spanish regions
Flowers
Shabby
Herbal tea
Fruits
Sweet
Cosmetic
products
Odd
Advertising
-2
-1
0
1
2
2101-2-
Dim 3 (21.9%)
Dim4(17.4%)
Fig. 2. Multiple correspondence analysis representation of categories and labels for Spanish consumers.

milk producer’ regions, Full fat, Freedom, and Cows. Yogurt 2 was lo-
cated at positive values of the second and fourth dimensions and
was differentiated from the rest for being associated with the cat-
egories Cheap, Flowers, Spring and Herbal tea.
Yogurt 3 showed a clearly different profile. This yogurt was lo-
cated at positive values of the first dimension and negative values
of the second, and it was related to the categories Runny/Liquid,
Maternal, Creamy, Modern, Premium, Thick and Milk. It is interesting
that both Liquid and Thick were mentioned for the same label,
probably due to the different expectations raised by the yogurt
photograph.
Yogurt 4 was associated with categories such as Probiotics, Acid,
Commercial brands and Advertising. Meanwhile, the third dimen-
sion of the MFA separated Yogurt 5 from the rest due to the corre-
lation of this dimension with the categories Classic, Low calories,
Diet/Slimming, Feminine, Sugar, and Artificial.
As shown in Fig. 3, the MCA of Uruguayan consumers’ data was
similar to that of Spanish consumers’ data, being the differentiation
and characterization of the yogurts similar. This similarity in the
position of the evaluated labels in the two countries is shown in
Fig. 4, through the representation of the labels in the first and sec-
ond dimension of the MFA ran on the data of the two countries as
independent frequency data tables. The representation of the cate-
gories in the MFA showed agreement in most of the categories that
were used by consumers in both countries (data not shown). These
results mean that the general understanding of the messages con-
veyed by the five model labels was the same in both countries, and
that the differences pointed out in the five detailed cases, relative
to cultural or exposure differences in both countries did not deter-
mine overall perception.
4. Discussion
According to the semiotic analysis, the evaluated yogurt model
labels tried to convey different messages regarding the type of
product they represented and particularly about product charac-
teristics, feelings and emotions (Table 2). According to the word
association task, some of the messages that the label tried to com-
municate to consumers were conveyed, whereas others were not.
As shown in Table 2 and Figs. 2 and 3, the main message regard-
ing the type of yogurt each label represented was successfully
communicated to consumers. They associated Yogurt 1 with a nat-
ural, homemade o artisanal product, Yogurt 2 with a natural prod-
uct, Yogurt 3 was regarded as a premium yogurt, whereas Yogurts
4 and 5 were associated with gastrointestinal health and weight
control, respectively.
These main messages were understood in a very similar way by
consumers in Uruguay and Spain, suggesting agreement in the
y1
y2
y3
y4
y5
-1
0
1
2
101-2-
Dim 1 (36.7%)
Dim2(25.5%)
y1
y2
y3
y4
y5
-1
0
1
101-
Dim 3 (21.9%)
Dim4(15.8%)
Healthy
Natural
Artificial
Without aditives
Homemade
Fresh
Full fatSkimmed
Diet Slimming
Low calorie
Creamy
Acid
Thick
Firm
Runny
Bland flavour
Smooth
Light
Yummy
Attractive
Liking
Willingness to try
Unpleasant
Not attractive
Rejection to try
Milk
Sugar
Cows
Nature
Spring
Maternal
Classic
Happiness
Quiteness
Purity
Modern
Premium
Simple
FeminineProbiotics
Indiference
Freedom
Childhood
Traditional
Cheap
Commercial
brands
Flowers
Shabby
Fruits
Sweet
Odd
Advertising
-1
0
1
2
101-2-
Dim 1 (36.7%)
Dim2(25.5%)
Advertising
Odd
Sweet
FruitsShabby
Flowers
Commercial
brands
Cheap
Traditional
Childhood
Freedom
Indiference
Probiotics
Feminine
SimplePremium
Modern
Purity
Quiteness
Happiness
Classic
Maternal
Spring
Nature
Cows Sugar
Milk
Rejection to try
Not attractive
Unpleasant
Willingness to try
Liking
Attractive
Yummy
Light
Smooth
Bland flavour
Runny
Firm
Thick
Acid
Creamy
Low calorie
Diet Slimming
Skimmed
Full fat
Fresh
Homemade
Without aditives
Artificial
Natural
Healthy
-2
-1
0
1
2
2101-2-
Dim 3 (21.9%)
Dim4(15.8%)
Fig. 3. Multiple correspondence analysis representation of categories and labels for Uruguayan consumers.

understanding of the basic symbols used in the evaluated model
labels despite cultural differences.
It is interesting to notice that in the case of Yogurt 2 consumers
did not associate the flowers with an organic and ecological prod-
uct in any of the countries, despite the fact that this was one of the
messages that the semiotic analysis identified for this label in
Europe; however this could be due to the fact of the low exposure
to organic yogurts in the two countries target of this study. For
Yogurt 3, associated with a premium quality in both markets, dark
colors were negatively appreciated by some Uruguayan consumers
(dislike/unpleasant associations) probably due to the absence of
these colors in milk product packaging in their country, leading
to an incongruence of meaning.
Consumers’ responses to the word association task were mainly
related to product status, sensory and hedonic characteristics of
the yogurts, being terms related to feelings and emotions men-
tioned in a much lower frequency, particularly in Spain. Thus, most
consumers did not seem to spontaneously think of emotional is-
sues when evaluating the label of different types of yogurts, or
emotions were more difficult to verbalize or made conscious. For
this reason, it would be interesting to specifically investigate the
emotional issues related to the evaluated model labels, and to
compare these emotions with the ones that were identified in
semiotic analysis.
5. Conclusions
The multidisciplinary approach developed for this study proved
to be highly successful. A consumer study was proposed, based on
word association, using as stimuli model labels originated by the
interaction of tools as semiotics, design and consumer research.
The results obtained in the word association task indicated that
the main messages conveyed by the model labels were well under-
stood in Spain and Uruguay. Furthermore, the overall perception of
the yogurt labels was very similar in both countries.
However, some cultural differences were noted between the
two countries. In general, Uruguayan consumers used more
frequently hedonic terms while commercial brands were more
relevant to Spaniards. In particular, the use of flowers in a yogurt
label to convey ‘‘organic’’ was not successful in none of the
countries, probably due to a low exposure to this sign because of
the low penetration of organic yogurts. In addition, the use of black
color to convey the meaning of high quality, premium or exclusive
was successfully understood in both, even if this color is not used
in yogurt labels in none of the countries. However this concept was
rejected by some Uruguayan consumers, probably because of the
absence of these colors in milk product packaging in their country,
leading to an incongruence of meaning.
More research is needed in the field of semiotics and percep-
tion, particularly focusing in sensory/hedonic expectations and
also in the emotions generated by products labels. Also, it might
be interesting to study the interaction of labels, package materials
and shape in consumers’ perception and expectations.
References
Acaso, M. (2009). El lenguaje visual. Barcelona: Paidós Ibérica.
Aicher, O. (1988). Tipografía. Valencia: Campgràfic.
Ares, G., & Deliza, R. (2010). Studying the influence of package shape and colour on
consumer expectations of milk desserts using word association and conjoint
analysis. Food Quality and Preference, 21, 930–937.
Ares, G., Giménez, A., & Gámbaro, A. (2008). Understanding consumers’ perception
of conventional and functional yogurts using word association and hard
laddering. Food Quality and Preference, 19, 636–643.
Becker, L., van Rompay, T. J. L., Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Galetzka, M. (2011). Tough
package, strong taste: The influence of packaging design on taste impressions
and product evaluations. Food Quality and Preference, 22, 17–23.
Berger, A. A. (1995). Semiotics and Cultural Criticism. In Cultural Criticism. A primer of
key concepts. London: SAGE Publications Ltd., pp. 73–77.
Cardello, A. V. (1994). Consumer expectations and their role in food acceptance. In
H. J. H. MacFie & D. M. H. Thomson (Eds.), Measurement of Food Preferences
(pp. 253–297). London: Blackie Academic and Professional.
Crilly, N., Moultrie, J., & Clarkson, P. J. (2004). Seeing things: Consumer response to
the visual domain in product design. Design Studies, 25, 547–577.
Dano, F. (1996). Packaging: une approche sémiotique. Recherche et Applications en
Marketing, 11, 23–25.
Deliza, R., & MacFie, H. J. H. (1996). The generation of sensory expectation by
external cues and its effect on sensory perception and hedonic ratings: A
review. Journal of Sensory Studies, 11, 103–128.
Deliza, R., MacFie, H., & Hedderley, D. (2003). Use of computer-generated images
and conjoint analysis to investigate sensory expectations. Journal of Sensory
Studies, 18, 465–486.
Díaz Rojo, J. A., Morant Marco, R., & Westall Pixton, D. (2006). El culto a la salud y la
belleza. La retórica del bienestar. Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva.
Dittmar, K. (1992). The Social Psychology of Human Possessions. New York: St
Martins’ Press.
Dupont, L. (2004). 1001 trucos publicitarios. Barcelona: Ediciones Robinbook.
Fenko, A., Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Hekkert, P. (2010). Shifts in sensory dominance
between various stages of user-product interactions. Applied Ergonomics, 41,
34–40.
Friedl, F., Ott, N., & Stein, B. (1998). Typography: An encyclopedic survey of type design
and techniques throughout history. New York: BlackDog & Leventhal.
Friedman, M. (1937). The use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality implicit
in the analysis of variance. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 32(200),
675–701.
García Fernández, J. L. (2000). Comunicación no verbal. Periodismo y medios
audiovisuales. Madrid: Editorial Universitas.
Gracia, M. (1998). El significado de los colores en la publicidad alimentaria. In A.
Barusi, F. X. Medina, & G. Colesanti (Eds.), El color en la alimentación
mediterránea (pp. 171–182). Barcelona: Institut Català de la Mediterrània.
Grande Esteban, I. (2006). Conducta real del consumidor y marketing efectivo. Madrid:
ESIC.
Guerrero, L., Colomer, Y., Guàrdia, M. D., Xicola, J., & Clotet, R. (2000). Consumer
attitude towards store brands. Food Quality and Preference, 11, 387–395.
Hine, T. (1995). The total package: The secret history and hidden meanings of boxes,
bottles, cans, and other persuasive containers. New York: Little Brown.
Husson, F., Josse, J., Lê, S., & Mazet, J. (2007). FactoMineR: Factor analysis and data
mining with R. R package version 1.04. URL http://cran.R-project.org/
package=FactoMineR.
Jaeger, S. R. (2006). Non-sensory factors in sensory science research. Food Quality
and Preference, 17, 132–144.
Kehret-Ward, T. (1988). Using a semiotic approach to study the consumption of
functionally related products. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 4,
187–200.
Kinnear, T. C., & Taylor, J. R. (1993). Investigación de Mercados. Un enfoque aplicado.
Colombia: McGraw-Hill Interamericana S.A, pp. 361–371.
Fig. 4. Representation of the labels in the multiple factor analysis performed on the
data of the two countries as independent frequency data tables.

Lange, C., Issanchou, S., & Combris, P. (2000). Expected versus experienced quality:
trade-off with price. Food Quality and Preference, 11, 289–297.
Lê, S., Josse, J., & Husson, F. (2008). FactoMineR: An R package for multivariate
analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 25(1).
Morris, C. W. (1939). Esthetics and the theory of signs. Erkenntnis, 8, 131–150.
Moskowitz, H. R., Porretta, S., & Silcher, M. (2005). Concepts as combinations of
graphics. In H. R. Moskowitz (Ed.), Concept research in food product design and
development (pp. 105–121). Ames: Blackwell Publishing.
Moskowitz, H. R., Reisner, M., lawlor, J. B., & Deliza, R. (2009). Packaging research in
food product design and development. Ames: Wiley-Blackwell.
Murray, J. M., & Delahunty, C. M. (2000). Mapping consumer preference for the
sensory and packaging attributes of Cheddar cheese. Food Quality and
Preference, 11, 419–435.
Olson, J. C., & Dover, P. A. (1979). Disconﬁrmation of consumer expectations through
product trial. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 179–189.
Opperud, A. (2004). Semiotic Product Analysis. In D. McDonagh, P. Hekkert, J. van
Erp, & D. Gyi (Eds.), Design and Emotion (pp. 137–141). London: Taylor and
Francis.
Real Academia Española. (2006). Diccionario de la Lengua Española. Madrid: Espasa
Calpe S.A.
Rodríguez Tarango, J. A. (2003). Introducción a la Ingeniería en Envase y Embalaje.
In J. A. Rodríguez Tarango (Ed.). Manual de ingeniería y diseño en envase y
embalaje para la industia de los alimentos, farmaceútica, química y de cosméticos
(pp. 1:1–1:6). México: Instituto Mexicano de Profesionales en Envase y
Embalaje S.C.
Rousseau, B., & Ennis, D. M. (2008). An Application of Landscape Segmentation
AnalysisÒ
to Blind and Branded Data. IFPress, 11, 2–3.
Samara, T. (2007). Design Elements: A Graphic Style Manual. Minneapolis, MN:
Rockport Publishers.
Samara, T. (2009). The Designer’s Graphics Stew: Visual Ingredients, Techniques, and
Layout Recipes for Graphic Designers. Minneapolis, MN: Rockport Publishers.
Smith, V., Mogelvang-Hansen, P., & Hyldig, G. (2010). Spin versus fair speak in food
labelling: A matter of taste? Food Quality and Preference, 21, 1016–1025.
Spang, K. (2010). Vender con ﬁguras. In S. Robles & M. V. Romero (Eds.), Publicidad y
lengua española (pp. 40–53). Sevilla: Comunicación Social Ediciones y
publicaciones.
Steenkamp, J. E. B. M. (1989). Product quality: an investigation into the concept and
how it is perceived by consumers. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Ulrich, R. O., & Malkewitz, K. (2008). Holistic package design and consumer brand
impressions. Journal of Marketing, 72, 64–81.
University of the State of New York. (1910). Free Hand Draqing Introduction. In:
Design and Representation. A Handbook for Teachers. Albany, NY State.
van Dam, Y. K., & van Trijp, H. C. M. (1994). Consumer perceptions of, and
preferences for, beverage containers. Food Quality and Preference, 5, 253–261.
Verichon, A. (2007). Colors: what they mean and how to make them. New York: Harry
N. Abrams, Inc.
Vidales Giovannetti, M. D. (1995). El mundo del envase. Manual para el diseño y
producción de envases y embalajes. Barcelona: Editorial Gustavo Gili.
Zelanski, P. J., & Fisher, M. P. (2006). Color. Upper Saddle River. NJ: Prentice Hall.

Food labels do consumers perceive what semiotics want to convey

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Food labels do consumers perceive what semiotics want to convey

Similar to Food labels do consumers perceive what semiotics want to convey (20)

More from Aida Md Saad

More from Aida Md Saad (6)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Food labels do consumers perceive what semiotics want to convey