化妝品是現代女性日常生活中不可或缺的用品，除了賦予女性美麗外更能增加自信。根據2014年調查臺灣化妝品市場有近2200多億台幣的消費需求（財政部關務署，2015），而在競爭激烈的化妝品市場中，品牌要如何脫穎而出被消費者所選擇呢？品牌可以透過包裝設計的創新性而影響品牌權益程度的改變嗎？為能瞭解化妝品包裝設計的創新性與品牌權益的關係，並建構其創新要素，本研究分為三階段進行：1. 以Nature Republic、The Face Shop、Etude House、Too Cool For School等4家韓國化妝品品牌的唇彩與眼彩包裝設計為樣本，透過多重資料搜集各品牌樣品的包裝設計要素，針對主色彩、圖像表現形式、編排與外包裝印刷表現等項目進行分析；2. 對包裝設計與品牌領域相關專家3位及化妝品銷售人員2位進行深度訪談，歸納訪談內容與文獻探討建構出包裝設計創新要素；三、根據前一階段包裝設計創新要素結果研製問卷調查題項，針對臺灣40歲以下女性消費者以網路進行問卷調查，回收共計238份問卷。

本研究結果摘要如下：

1. Nature Republic整體包裝設計的視覺應用簡單無複雜設計，材質與顏色選擇上亦皆符合自然純淨之品牌理念；The Face Shop的品牌理念崇尚自然主義，但在其包裝設計表現上關聯性較小，較難聯想到其品牌理念且缺乏一致性；Etude House整體包裝予人充滿女孩、公主等甜美的形象，符合其「讓所有女孩都夢想成真」的品牌理念；Too Cool For School整體而言，每款包裝有自己獨特的風格，符合其品牌理念之設定「擁有獨特品味，想要展現自我風格的族群」。

2. 化妝品的潛在包裝設計創新「要素（elements）」為：(1)提高包裝辨識性之設計創新（創造包裝視覺面的差異化）；(2)以情感的連結延續（傳遞）品牌DNA；(3)創造個人價值認同。化妝品包裝設計的潛在創新「因素（factors）」為：(1)吸引注意進而產生情感；(2)創造個人價值認同；(3)獨特性；而受影響的品牌權益因素有「品質認知與領導力」及「品牌個性與聲望」。

3. 潛在包裝設計創新因素與品牌權益有高度正相關（r > 0.7），同時對品牌權益整體亦呈現顯著影響，其中「創造個人價值認同」因子對品質認知與領導力的影響最大；「吸引注意進而產生情感」對品牌個性與聲望影響最大，「獨特性」為其次。調查結果顯示Too Cool For School（M=3.54）的潛在包裝設計創新性最高，其次為Etude House（M=3.25），The Face Shop（M=2.69）最低；Too Cool For School（M=3.43）品牌權益的認知程度最高，其次為Etude House（M=3.2），Nature Republic（M=2.61）最低。不同年齡層的受測者皆認為Too Cool For School的潛在包裝設計創新性最高，Etude House次之；20歲以下的受測者對Too Cool For School與Etude House的品牌權益認知程度同列為最高，21歲至40歲的受測者則認為Too Cool For School的品牌權益程度最高，Etude House次之。

4. 根據研究結果提出化妝品包裝設計的建議如下：(1)在包裝的色彩、造形與圖像上多著墨，或使用異材質結合與特殊加工處理，使該品牌與競爭品牌產生差異化，但仍需能適切的傳遞品牌DNA，不可偏離，使消費者感受到該品牌的個性而被吸引；(2)訂立良好的品牌策略，針對目標客群進行包裝設計，貼近目標客群的心，使其可以藉由包裝投射出自我價值認同並感覺參與其中，認為該品牌具有較高的品質而尊崇該品牌。

Nowadays cosmetic products are a necessity for the female population. Not only does it enhance female beauty also boots confidence. According to a 2014 survey, the cosmetics market demand surpassed NTD220 billion in Taiwan (Customs Administration, Minstry of Finance, 2015). In face of such a competitive market, what should brands do in order to stand out and get chosen by customers? Can the innovation of packaging designs bring about a significant change in brand equity? In order to understand the relationship between the innovation of cosmetics packaging design and brand equity, as well as construct the innovation elements of cosmetics packaging design required, this study shall proceed in 3 stages: (1) Use the packaging design of lipsticks and eyeshadows of 4 Korean cosmetic brands as example, including “Nature Republic”, “The Face Shop”, “Etude House” and “Too Cool For School”, and analyze the packaging design elements through collective data; including main theme colours, image representation, layout and the quality of the packaging printing. (2) Conduct in-depth interviews with 3 professionals of packaging design and branding background and 2 cosmetic salesperson. Through the evaluation of interview content and document reference; construct the potential innovation elements of packaging design. (3) Develop a questionnaire based on the results of stage (2) and conduct a web survey on Taiwanese female consumers under the age of 40. A total of 238 valid questionnaires were collected.

The following is a summary of the analysis of this study:

1. “Nature Republic”’s overall packaging design is simple and devoid of complexity. The packaging material and color of choice reflect their brand image of nature and purity. “The Face Shop” is a brand that advocates the importance of naturalism, yet one cannot relate to this based on their packaging designs. Their packaging also lacks a consistency in terms of style. “Etude House” adopts a more girly and princess-esque image, as if its company philosophy is to “make every girl’s dream come true.” “Too Cool for School” is a brand that shows a unique style in every one of their products. This goes accordingly with its “I have a unique taste and want to express it” brand positioning.

2. 3 Potential innovation elements of cosmetic packaging design are: “Increasing packaging recognition of design innovation” (creating differentiation in packaging visual surface), “To connect consumers with a brand’s DNA through the channeling of emotions”, and “Creating Individual Value”.
3 Potential innovation factors of cosmetic packaging design are: “Attracting the consumer’s attention and provoking emotional attachment”, “Creating individual value identification” and “Uniqueness”. The 2 factors of brand equity that are affected by the above are “perceived quality and Leadership” and “brand association and popularity”.

3. Potential innovation factors of packaging design have highly positive correlation with brand equity (r > 0.7), and have significant influences on the brand equity. Among them, “Creating individual value identification” has the greatest influence on “Perceived quality and Leadership”; “Attracting the consumer’s attention and provoking emotional attachment” has the greatest influence on “brand association and popularity”, while “uniqueness” is the second. The survey reveals “Too Cool For School” (M=3.54) has the highest level of potential innovation for packaging design, “Etude House” (M=3.25) comes second, “The Face Shop” (M=2.69) has the lowest potential innovation. In terms of brand equity identification level, “Too Cool for School” (M3.43) also ranks as the highest, “Etude House” (M=3.2) comes second while “Nature Republic” (M=2.61) is the lowest. Samples from all ages show that consumers consider “Too Cool For School” to have the highest potential innovation with ‘Etude House” lying in second place. For those under the age of 20, both “Too Cool for School” and “Etude House” hold the highest brand equity identification; while for those of ages 21-40, “Too Cool For School” holds the highest brand equity identification with “Etude House” after it.

4. Based on the analysis of this study, suggestions for optimum results are as follows:
A. Further emphasis on color usage, style and images choice or using alternative packaging materials combined with specific manufacturing processes. This will allow for easier differentiation from competing products. However, it is important to not sway from the brand’s DNA as the goal is to let consumers feel attracted to brand personality.
B. Establish a proper brand marketing strategy, with packaging designs aimed at specific consumer groups. The packaging design should reflect the consumer’s self-value identification and let consumers feel as they as if they are part of the brand which they appreciate for the quality premium branding.

一. 期刊、雜誌
田祖武、許家甄、鍾宜靜（2004）。品牌價值衡量模式建構分析。政大智慧財產評論，2(2)，109-132。
林金雀（2003）。臺灣化粧保養品產業發展現況與未來趨勢。化工資訊與商情，4，94-96。
張漢宜（2007）。專訪資生堂創意總監，揭開山形季央設計心法。天下雜誌，376，146-148。
許杏蓉（2004）。論商業包裝造形的設計美學。藝術學報，74，71-80。
陳振燧、洪順慶（1998）。顧客基礎的品牌權益建立之研究。管理學報，15（4），623-642。
曾光華（2014）。缺乏感知缺乏感知，行銷有障礙。天下雜誌，539，88。
嚴貞、林淑媛（2010）。包裝設計效益對品牌權益影響之變項探討。設計學報，15(1)，71-91。
Abernathy, W.J. & Clark, K.B. (1985) Innovation: mapping the winds of creative destruction. Research Policy, 14, 3-22.
Barwise, P. (1993, March) Brand equity: Snark or Boojum? International Journal of Marketing Research, 10, 93-104.
Biel, A.L. (1992). How brand magic drives brand equity. Journal of the Advertising, 31, 8.
Farquhar, P. H. (1990). Managing brand equity. Journal of Advertising Research, 30(4), 7-12.
Higgins, J.M. (1995). Innovation: The core competence. Strategy & Leadership, 23(6), 32-36.
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An Index of Factorial Simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 35.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of 
Marketing, 57(1), 1-22.
Kim, P. (1990). A perspective on brands. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 7(4), 63-67. 

Mike, B., Kalala, A. B., & Russell, A., (2004, July). Brand equity in the business-to-business market. Industrial Marketing Management , 33(5), 371-380.
Netemeyer, R. G., Krishnan, B., Pullig, C., & Wang, G., (2004, February). Developing and Validating Measures of Facets of Customer-Based Brand Equity. Journal of Business Research, 57(2), 209-224.
O’Brien, R. M. (2007). A Caution Regarding Rules of Thumb for Variance Inflation Factors. Quality & Quantity, 41(5), 673.
Park, C. S., & Srinivasan, V. (1994). A survey-base method for measuring and understanding brand equity 
and extendibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(2), 27-88.
Ranagaswamy, A., Burke, R., & Oliva, T. A. (1993). Brand equity and extendilbility of brand names. 
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 10(1), 61-75.
Simon, C. J. & Sullivan, M. W. (1993). The Measurement and Determinants of Brand Equity: a Financial Approach. Marketing Science, 4, 66-71.
Smith, J. M., (1991). Brand Equity and the Analysis of Customer Transactions (pp.91-110). Science Institute.

Srivastava, R. & Shocker, A., (1991). Brand Equity: A Perspective on Its Meaning and Measurement. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Marketing Science Institute, 91-124.
Yoo, B. & Donthu, N., (2001, April). Developing and Validating a Multidimensional Consumer- Based Brand Equity Scale. Journal of Business Research. New York: , 52(1), 1.

二. 書籍
朱陳春田（1991）。包裝設計。台北市：錦冠出版。
李娟（2005）。包裝設計色彩。南寧：廣西美術出版社。
周旭華（譯）（1980）。Competitive Strategy（原作者：Poter, M, E.）。台北市：天下文化。
邱永福（1996）。圖文編輯。台北市：藝風堂。
邱標麟（譯）（1991）。化粧品的實際知識（原作者：垣原高志）。台南市：復文。
洪慧芳（譯）（2016）。創新的10個原點（原作者：Larry Keeley, Ryan Pikkel, Brian Quinn & Halen Walters）。台北市：天下雜誌出版。
涂津堂（2009）。教育測驗與評量。台北市：三民。
張麗卿（1996）。現代化妝品概論。台北市：高立。
郭慧琳、林延德（譯）（2004）。包裝設計（原作者：Giles Calver）。新北市：視傳文化事業有限公司出版。
陳正平（譯）（2005）。後發制人：聰明企業如何不創新也能主宰新市場（原作者：Constantinos C. Markides & Paul A. Geroski）。台北市：臉譜出版。
陳永昌（2007）。品牌之價值。台北市：經濟部智慧財產局。
黃榮輝（1990）。商業包裝的圖形研究。新北市：大社會文化。
溫肇東（2005）。後發制人：聰明企業如何不創新也能主宰新市場專文導讀。台北市：臉譜出版。
廖志忠（譯）（1996）。包裝設計─夜晚和地球都是包裝（原作者：金子修也）。新北市：博遠圖書有限公司。
鄧成連（1990）。最新包裝設計實務。台北市：星狐出版社。
龍冬陽（1982）。商業包裝設計。台北市：檸檬黃文化。
藍美貞、高仁君（譯）（2004）。公民品牌，感性行銷（原作者：Marc Gobe）。台北市：天下雜誌出版。
顏鎮榮（1998）。設計字法。台北市：全華科技股份有限公司出版。
藝風堂編輯部（1986）。標準字設計。台北市：藝風堂。
譚天（譯）（2014），當代最具影響力14位大師談創新（原作者：Stuart Crainer ＆ Des Dearlove）。台北市：美商麥格羅希爾國際股份有限公司臺灣分公司。
蘇宗雄（1985）。文字造型與文字編排。台北市：檸檬黃出版。
Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing Brand Equity. New York: The Free Press.
Aaker, D. A. (1996). Building Strong Brands. New York: The Free Press.
Bettina von Stamm (2003). Managing, Innovation, Design and Creativity. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Bezerra, C., & Owen, C. L. (2000). Evolutionary Structured Planning Artificial Intelligence in Design. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Blackston. M. (1993). Beyond brand personality: Building brand relationships. In D. Aaker & A. Biel 
(Eds.), Brand equity and advertising: Advertising's role in building strong brands (pp. 113-124). Hillsdale, 
NJ: Erlbaum
Brasco. (1988). How Brand Name are Valued for Acquisitions. In: L Leuthesser, ed. Cambrige, MA: Marketing Science Institute.
Christensen, C.M., & Raynor, M.E. (2003). The Innovator's Solution: Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Ericsson K. & Simon H.A. (1993). Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data (Revised Edition). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Howard Milton (1991). Packaging Design. London, UK: The Design Council.
Lafley, G.A., & Chararan, R. (2009). The Game-Changer: How You Can Drive Revenue and Profit Growth with Innovation (pp. 8-15). New York: Random House.
Luecke, R., & Katz, R. (2003). Managing Creativity and Innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Oakley, M. (1990). Design Management: A Handbook of Issues & Methods. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Prahalad, C. K., & Krishnan, M. S. (2008). The New Age of Innovation: Driving Cocreated Value Through Global Networks. NY: McGraw-Hill.
Robbins, S. P. (1996). Organizational Behavior: Concepts, Controversies and Applications, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development. Boston, MA: Harvard.
Shocker, A. D., & Weitz, B. (1988). A perspective on brand equity principles and issues. In L. Leuthesser 
(Ed.), (pp. 88-104). Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.
Stevens, J. (2002). Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences (4th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stobert, P. (1989). Alternative Methods of Brand Valuation. In: J. Murphy, ed., Brand Valuation: Establishing a Ture and Pair View. London: The International Group.

三. 論文
王弘睿（2012）。重金屬樂團名合成文字設計意象研究（碩士論文）。國立雲林科技大學視覺傳達設計系碩士班，雲林縣。
王炳南（2013）。品牌識別與包裝識別之關係研究（碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學美術學系在職進修碩士班，台北市。
李麗華（2006）。品牌形象風格識別應用於包裝設計之研究（碩士論文）。銘傳大學設計管理研究所在職專班，台北市。
林淑媛（2012）。包裝設計效果對品牌權益之影響研究（博士論文）。國立雲林科技大學設計學研究所，雲林縣。
高香和（2014）。 國家形象與品牌形象對臺灣女性消費者購買意圖影響之研究—以韓國化妝品為例（碩士論文）。台北：國立臺灣師範大學管理學院全球經營與策略研究所。
張佩婷（2004）。東西方化妝品公司經營策略之比較—日本資生堂集團和法國香奈兒集團之個案探討（碩士論文）。國立政治大學企業管理學系碩士班，台北市。
張雅萍（2007）。開架式化妝品包裝意象對消費者行為影響之研究（碩士論文）。國立臺灣藝術大學視覺傳達碩士學系，新北市。
郭秋雯（2009）。韓流對臺灣的影響—以特徵與問題為中心。第一屆21世紀韓國與臺灣關係研究國際學術研討會會議論文，韓國翰林大學國際大學院大學校。
劉怡秀（1998）臺灣新興折扣化妝品專賣店消費行為研究（碩士論文），國立交通大學管理科學研究所，新竹市。
蔡俊志（2012）。產品外包裝設計對提升消費者自有品牌價值認知之影響（碩士論文）。國立成功大學企業管理研究所，台南市。

四. 網路訊息
化妝保養品產業資訊網（2012年11月12日）。臺灣2006年至2011年化粧保養品生產值及內外銷值。取自https://www.cosmetic.org.tw/info/industry/77-tw/531-2012-11-26-08
-43-43.html。
林金雀（2005年1月7日）。兩岸化妝保養品產業發展介紹。ITIS產業資訊服務網，取自 http://www.itis.org.tw/。
金真慶（2010年8月19日）。明洞化妝品品牌店外國「掃客」歸國後成回頭客【新聞群組】。取自http://china.joins.com/big5/article.do?method=detail&art_ id=
50003。
貿協全球資訊網（2012年12月31日）。韓國化妝品市場逆勢成長。取自http://www.taitraesource.com/page03.asp?mag_id=57715。
盧介華（2014年12月12日）。不容小覷的韓妝熱潮，全台發燒【新聞群組】。取自http://www.ettoday.net/news/20141212/438155.htm.。
Etude House官方網站（2015）。取自www.etudehouse.com.tw。
Nature Republic粉絲頁（2015）。取自https://www.facebook.com/NATURE REPUBLIC TAIWAN/。
The Dieline（2013年6月23日）。The Dieline Package Design Awards 2013: Health & Beauty, 3rd Place– Dinoplatz。取自http://www.thedieline.com/blog/2013/6/23/the-dieline- package-design-awards-2013-health-beauty-3rd-pla.html?rq=too%20cool%20for%20 school。
The Face Shop官方網站（2015）。取自http://www.thefaceshop.com.tw。
Too Cool For School官方網站（2015）。取自http://www.toocool.com.tw。