For the second day in a row, I’m going to talk about product packaging. Today’s question: Why aren’t more packages resealable? I’ve seen this feature on raisins, cheese, and other small items (both perishable and non-perishable), but never on bigger things like bags of pretzels or tortilla chips. Working on the assumption that the CPG companies don’t have a secret collaboration with whoever makes those “chip clip” things, there must be something else afoot.

Maybe these large packages are some sort of “family size”, designed to be eaten by a large group in one sitting. But this would suggest that the really, really big packages (which only a football team could finish) would be more likely to be resealable, and I haven’t seen any evidence of that. Or perhaps the manufacturer hopes that once they open the bag, consumers will transfer the contents into a large Ziploc or other storage container. This would provide additional margin (since the same CPG companies often make plastic bags), but I still find such a scenario hard to believe.

When it comes down to it, I think the presence or absence of resealable packaging is mainly a factor of product positioning. I’d speculate that the leading brand in a given segment is unlikely to introduce this, since it costs more to produce and erodes margins. But once a challenger brand steps in with the feature, along with labeling that promises the food will stay fresh longer, the others are more likely to follow.

Now that I think about it, some of the products I mentioned above — like pretzels and tortilla chips — do tend to be dominated by one or two companies. Even large retailers like Target may only carry one brand of each, aside from the store brand. So, my sad conclusion is this: Even if an obviously useful feature like resealable packaging costs very little to implement, it often gets left out of consumer products because it increases unit costs and there is little competitive incentive to include it, until someone else does so first.

On the other hand, if you add a simple and useful feature like this to your own products — especially when you’re selling software — you might find that sales increase a lot more than you expect. It may turn out that customers have been waiting for it all along, but no one ever had the guts to bring it to them.

Virtually every box of cereal, crackers, and other packaged foods has some sort of disclaimer that the box might not be “full” when you open it. Why? The contents may have “shifted” or “settled” during shipping. But since these items are sold by weight and not volume, the story goes, we as consumers shouldn’t concern ourselves with the empty space inside.

With that said, I’m left wondering why they don’t take this one step further. On the inside bag that contains the product, simply print a green line that says “Contents may shift during shipping, but should start out above this line.” That way, there is no confusion about what a “full” box might be, and I’ll bet that returns and exchanges would be reduced.

To generalize this a bit, don’t just tell customers that something might be different than they expect. Instead, give them a concrete way to verify that what they’re getting is correct. This might take the form of a fill-up line like I described above, a sizing guide, or a color chart. Regardless of how you do it, this approach should help you better manage customer expectations and reduce errant returns.

I read an article a while back about how some companies are paying design firms to make their billing statements easier-to-read. From what I recall, the goal is to reduce the chance that people will misunderstand the bill or miss key information like the due date. Thus, they will be more likely to pay the right amount and send their payment on time.

With this in mind, it occurred to me that while a lot of bills are quite well-designed these days, most companies just don’t have the systems in place to follow through on the experience. Case in point: my phone company has a number on the bill specifically for making a payment. Yet when you call, you have to go through a big, frustrating menu. Why even have the separate number at all? My guess is that no one bothered to program their PBX to match the billing statements.

Don’t get me wrong: I think it’s great that companies are improving the design and clarity of their customer-facing documents like order forms and monthly bills. But these measures can only do so much if the other parts of the customer experience are lacking. At a minimum, it pays to have some “mystery shoppers” send emails to your customer service department and call the various phone numbers on your billing statements, just to make sure that customers are getting the type of service you expect. Otherwise, you really don’t know if the right information is being provided at the other end of the line.

Some companies love to tell you what you can’t have. Northwest Airlines is one of them. When selecting a seat, you are presented with at least three different groups of seats that you can’t select. Some of these are only for special frequent flyers, other aren’t available until one day before the flight, etc. There’s no obvious way to upgrade to these seats, even for a fee. It’s like a candy store where all the bins are locked, with “Only for special customers” written on the top.

Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t get much value from an extensive list of things that I can’t have. Northwest should just show the seats in three categories: not available, available, and available at an extra cost. And for that last category, let customers see the cost and buy them right then and there. Otherwise, the experience is not only confusing and unproductive, but pretty demeaning as well.