Duration

2.5 months (2019)

Tools

Paper, Google Workspace apps

Role

Researcher

<aside> ‼️

Under A Non-disclosure Agreement

Some of the details in this case study may be vague to protect the client's intellectual property.

</aside>

When we set out to understand how people read packaging — and really read it, we weren’t just talking about labels. We were diving into a world where colours whisper, fonts suggest status, and the tiniest finish on a box can signal, this is worth your money (or not).

Challenge

Retailer house brands often live in this strange in-between: familiar, yet invisible. Cheaper, but not always loved. Sometimes they’re seen as smart buys. Other times, they’re default options, or worse, red flags.

Our job was to find out what makes a house brand work, not just as a cheaper alternative, but as a brand people choose, not settle for.

This meant unpacking:

• How shoppers recognise and rank house brands in a crowded retail landscape
• What names like Heartland, Meadows, and Farmstead evoke, and whether they feel trustworthy or too try-hard
• Whether packaging, names, and “reasons to believe” actually move the needle on purchase intent

Approach

We ran multiple 2-hour focus groups across shopper types and age brackets. Instead of pushing them toward answers, we sat back and let them talk, sometimes to us, sometimes to each other, about what they buy, why they don’t trust certain brands, and whether they'd believe a brand called “Simply Living” is better for home care or for food.