User experience (UX) plays an important role for products that tend to win in a competitive worldwide market. For more than a decade, practitioners and researchers have contributed to the rapid development in the field of UX. On the other hand,packaging design has been, for a long time, regarded as a link between a customer and the brand. However, until recently, there is little attention given to the packaging user experience. The form is one of the factors that influences customer’s emotional preference (Barnes, Southee, & Henson, 2003). Additionally, recent study provides evidence that customer’s willingness to pay can increase after interaction experience with the packaging (Joutsela, Latvala, & Roto, 2017).Through this thesis, I will be exploring the differences between two packaging, which interaction experience is focused on different design mediums. Interaction for one packaging is focused on visual aspects, and for the other it is focused on three-dimensional object. User experience with the packaging does not refer only to the esthetics of the packaging but as well to how does the interaction with the packaging feels.

The exploration will be conducted as a part of the case study. The case study is undertaken in Finland regulated by Reima, globally leading brand in functional kids wear. The product, used to explore this topic, is the packaging for Reima’s first digital innovation, ReimaGO activity tracker for children. Through the case study, the main aim was to improve retail experience by enhancing packaging user experience. The case study utilized emphatic design methods to conduct research with users. By applying user experience goals, two concept design solutions were generated: the cardboard kit and the soft ball. Those concepts were further framed through moodboards and customer experience cycle. Customer experience cycle and interaction vocabulary scale were utilized for exploration of differences between two concepts.

Interaction vocabulary scale is used to evaluate possible interaction qualities of the two concept designs at the “second moment of truth”. Results show no major differences on the lower level interaction qualities between the two packaging design concepts. However, there could be differences in the speed of interaction. Additionally interaction of one packaging would be stepwise while other would feel more fluent. Other finding was reflected through the customer experience cycle and differences in the “first moment of truth”. For instance, soft or elastic attributes of packaging could slightly involve user in interaction before the point of the purchase.