When the cost to create and print engaging packaging is minimal, then of course it’s a good use of the brand’s resources. If the cost is relatively large, then do the research to see if it makes a difference. A virtual reality test for CPG products or an A/B test for online shopping are inexpensive ways to determine the potential payback for innovative packaging.

And caution regarding the Progressive Grocer study. It’s very rare that we have products that are equally evaluated, leaving sustainable packaging as the differentiator. That’s why we have marketing — to create differentiation, whether it is real or not.

The big question is that, while something is reusable, is it actually reused in any meaningful way? And what qualifies as “engagement?”

The intention is probably admirable, but much of this is like the toy in a kid’s meal. The engagement lasts what … 60 seconds and then it’s more plastic into the landfill. More meaningful would be that the shoe box could be cut into pre-addressed postcards kids could write on and mail to the troops or into a coupon for a free cup of coffee you give to a homeless person.

Finally, I’d advocate for chemical-free packaging both in the material itself and in inks used. That would engage me.

Any initiative that enhances the experience, and this is a form of surprise-and-delight, is worth an investment. E-commerce companies and brick-and-mortar retailers are pressured to continuously come up with some form of differentiation because the competition is plentiful. If packaging is one of those points of differentiation, do it. It is a very good innovation. Eventually, most CPG companies and brands will have developed some iteration of the concept.

Packaging is integral for every brand because everything communicates. The only universal right answer is to always reinforce your brand DNA.

I’d bet that far fewer people actually use these gimmicks than marketers believe. If you can’t do it with a bright, distinctive and informative package, don’t just go adding more crap to the landfill. A little box for my cell phone? Are you kidding me? And while I’m at it, yesterday I received the two toothbrush heads I ordered online from Phillips. In a 12x12x12 box, with those little air-inflated plastic pillows. The toothbrush heads themselves were in bomb-proof blister packs. I was tempted to fire up the chainsaw. As online ordering explodes, this is the kind of “packaging” that also deserves attention. I’d be reluctant to order from Phillips again.

Folks have been storing stuff in cardboard shoe boxes for well over a century. (I looked it up.) They are a triumph of functional design. How many of us are old enough to remember making dioramas out of shoe boxes in elementary school? Some white glue; a little plastic dinosaur; some leftover Easter grass; voila! Perforated cardboard packages that can be converted into whimsical toys or art are fun too, but not a strong reason to buy the product inside. Those un-openable welded plastic blister packages, however, are useless for any secondary purpose except cutting your fingers. They are a good reason NOT to buy what’s inside. Functional packaging is not exactly a new idea. The old Barnum’s Animal Cracker boxes came with a string handle and lively decorations that gave them temporary play value. And don’t forget those single-serve cereal cartons, with the flaps that punch out of one side so you can make a “bowl.” Adding electronics seems a little weird on first thought, but then again, those greeting cards that play music… Read more »