A/B Testing Packaging: Methodology and Results
A/B testing packaging involves shipping identical products in different packaging configurations and measuring outcomes like damage rates, shipping costs, and customer satisfaction. A proper test requires: defining the variable to test (box size, void fill, carrier), establishing sample size for statistical significance (typically 100-500 shipments per variant), randomizing assignment, tracking outcomes consistently, and analyzing results. Key metrics include damage rate, shipping cost, customer feedback, and return rate. Most packaging A/B tests run 2-4 weeks. The methodology is straightforward but requires discipline—rushing to conclusions with insufficient data leads to wrong decisions.
You think your current packaging is optimal. But do you know? Without testing, you're relying on assumptions, vendor recommendations, or "what we've always done."
A/B testing packaging applies the same rigorous methodology used for website optimization to your physical shipping materials. The results can be surprising—and profitable.
This guide provides a practical framework for testing packaging variables, measuring results, and making data-driven decisions that improve both costs and customer experience.
Why A/B Test Packaging?
The Case for Testing
Assumptions vs. reality:
| Common Assumption | Often False Because |
|---|---|
| "Bigger box = safer" | Excess space causes product movement |
| "More void fill = better" | Can increase costs without reducing damage |
| "Customers don't notice packaging" | 72% cite packaging as brand impression factor |
| "All carriers handle packages the same" | Significant variation in damage rates |
What Testing Reveals
Typical testing outcomes:
| Test Type | Common Finding |
|---|---|
| Box size | 15-30% smaller boxes often work equally well |
| Void fill quantity | 40-50% reduction possible without damage increase |
| Material type | Different products need different protection |
| Carrier comparison | 10-30% variation in damage rates |
The Business Impact
ROI of packaging optimization:
| Optimization | Typical Savings |
|---|---|
| Right-sizing boxes | $0.50-2.00/package |
| Optimizing void fill | $0.10-0.30/package |
| Carrier selection | $0.50-3.00/package |
| Damage reduction | $5-50/incident avoided |
Testing Methodology
Step 1: Define the Hypothesis
Structure your test:
| Element | Example |
|---|---|
| Current state | "We use 14×10×8 boxes for Widget Pro" |
| Hypothesis | "12×9×6 boxes with modified void fill will work equally well" |
| Variable | Box size (control: 14×10×8, test: 12×9×6) |
| Expected outcome | "Same damage rate, lower shipping cost" |
Good hypotheses are:
- Specific (one variable)
- Measurable (define success criteria)
- Actionable (you can implement the change)
- Time-bound (test period defined)
Step 2: Determine Sample Size
Statistical significance requirements:
| Expected Difference | Baseline Rate | Sample Per Variant |
|---|---|---|
| Large (50%+ change) | 2% damage | 100-200 |
| Medium (25-50% change) | 2% damage | 200-400 |
| Small (10-25% change) | 2% damage | 400-800 |
Sample size calculator inputs:
- Baseline metric (current damage rate, cost, etc.)
- Minimum detectable effect (how small a change matters)
- Confidence level (typically 95%)
- Power (typically 80%)
Rule of thumb: 200-300 shipments per variant catches most meaningful differences.
Step 3: Randomize Assignment
Randomization methods:
| Method | How It Works | Best For |
|---|---|---|
| Alternating | Every other order gets test packaging | Simple implementation |
| Random number | Order ID mod 2 = 0 → control, 1 → test | True randomization |
| Day-based | Monday/Wednesday = control, Tuesday/Thursday = test | Easy tracking |
| Batch-based | First 500 = control, next 500 = test | Not recommended (confounds) |
Why randomization matters:
- Removes selection bias
- Distributes confounding variables
- Enables valid comparison
Step 4: Control Variables
Hold constant:
| Variable | Why Control It |
|---|---|
| Product | Different products have different needs |
| Carrier | Carrier handling affects damage |
| Route/zone | Distance affects damage opportunity |
| Season | Weather and volume affect handling |
| Packer | Different packers may pack differently |
When you can't fully control:
- Document the variation
- Analyze within segments
- Ensure random distribution across both groups
Step 5: Track Outcomes
Metrics to measure:
| Metric | How to Track | Timing |
|---|---|---|
| Shipping cost | Carrier invoice | At shipment |
| Damage rate | Claims, customer reports | 7-14 days post-delivery |
| Customer feedback | Ratings, surveys | Post-delivery |
| Return rate | Return requests | 30-60 days |
| Packing time | Time studies | During fulfillment |
Step 6: Analyze Results
Statistical analysis:
| Comparison | Statistical Test |
|---|---|
| Damage rate (%) | Chi-square test |
| Cost ($) | T-test |
| Rating (1-5) | T-test or Mann-Whitney |
| Time (seconds) | T-test |
What to look for:
- p-value < 0.05 (statistically significant)
- Confidence interval doesn't cross zero
- Effect size is meaningful (not just statistically significant)
Common Packaging Tests
Test 1: Box Size Optimization
Setup:
| Element | Details |
|---|---|
| Control | Current box size |
| Test | Smaller box with appropriate void fill |
| Metrics | Damage rate, shipping cost, customer feedback |
| Sample | 300 per variant |
| Duration | 3-4 weeks |
Example results:
| Metric | Control (14×10×8) | Test (12×9×6) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Damage rate | 1.8% | 1.5% | -0.3% |
| Avg shipping cost | $9.45 | $7.20 | -$2.25 |
| Customer rating | 4.3 | 4.4 | +0.1 |
Decision: Smaller box is better on all metrics—implement.
Test 2: Void Fill Quantity
Setup:
| Element | Details |
|---|---|
| Control | Current void fill (8 oz) |
| Test | Reduced void fill (4 oz) |
| Metrics | Damage rate, material cost, packing time |
| Sample | 400 per variant |
| Duration | 4 weeks |
Example results:
| Metric | Control (8 oz) | Test (4 oz) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Damage rate | 1.2% | 1.4% | +0.2% |
| Material cost | $0.45 | $0.25 | -$0.20 |
| Packing time | 25 sec | 20 sec | -5 sec |
Decision: Slight damage increase—test 6 oz as middle ground.
Test 3: Void Fill Material
Setup:
| Element | Details |
|---|---|
| Control | Air pillows |
| Test | Crinkle paper |
| Metrics | Damage rate, customer satisfaction, sustainability perception |
| Sample | 300 per variant |
| Duration | 3 weeks |
Example results:
| Metric | Air Pillows | Crinkle Paper | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Damage rate | 1.5% | 1.6% | +0.1% |
| Customer rating | 4.2 | 4.5 | +0.3 |
| "Eco-friendly" mentions | 2% | 18% | +16% |
Decision: Crinkle paper improves perception with minimal damage impact—implement for appropriate products.
Test 4: Carrier Performance
Setup:
| Element | Details |
|---|---|
| Control | UPS Ground |
| Test | FedEx Ground |
| Metrics | Damage rate, transit time, cost |
| Sample | 500 per variant (same zones) |
| Duration | 4 weeks |
Example results:
| Metric | UPS Ground | FedEx Ground | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Damage rate | 1.8% | 1.2% | -0.6% |
| Avg transit | 4.2 days | 4.0 days | -0.2 days |
| Avg cost | $8.50 | $8.75 | +$0.25 |
Decision: FedEx has better damage performance—worth $0.25 premium for fragile items.
Running Your First Test
Week-by-Week Timeline
Week 0: Preparation
| Task | Details |
|---|---|
| Define hypothesis | What are you testing and why? |
| Calculate sample size | How many shipments needed? |
| Prepare materials | Test packaging ready |
| Set up tracking | Spreadsheet or system |
| Train team | Consistent execution |
Weeks 1-3: Execution
| Task | Details |
|---|---|
| Randomize orders | Assign to control or test |
| Apply packaging | Per test protocol |
| Record assignments | Which order got which |
| Track shipments | Note any anomalies |
| Monitor early results | Check for major issues |
Week 4: Analysis
| Task | Details |
|---|---|
| Collect final data | Damage reports, costs |
| Calculate metrics | Per-group averages |
| Statistical tests | Significance testing |
| Document findings | What did we learn? |
| Make decision | Implement, iterate, or abandon |
Tracking Template
Spreadsheet columns:
| Column | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Order ID | Unique identifier |
| Test group | Control or Test |
| Ship date | When shipped |
| Box size | Dimensions used |
| Void fill | Type and quantity |
| Carrier | Who shipped |
| Zone | Shipping distance |
| Cost | Actual shipping cost |
| Delivery date | When delivered |
| Damage reported | Yes/No |
| Customer feedback | Rating if collected |
Analyzing Test Results
Calculating Statistical Significance
For damage rate (proportions):
` Chi-square test:
- Compare observed vs expected frequencies
- If p < 0.05, difference is significant
`
For costs (continuous):
` T-test:
- Compare mean costs between groups
- If p < 0.05, difference is significant
`
Interpreting Results
Decision framework:
| Statistical Significance | Practical Significance | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | Yes | Implement change |
| Yes | No | May not be worth operational change |
| No | Yes | Need larger sample |
| No | No | No change, hypothesis not supported |
Common Analysis Mistakes
| Mistake | Problem | Solution |
|---|---|---|
| Stopping early | False positives | Complete planned sample |
| Ignoring confounds | Invalid results | Control variables |
| Cherry-picking metrics | Biased conclusions | Pre-define success criteria |
| Small samples | Inconclusive results | Power analysis upfront |
Advanced Testing Strategies
Multi-Variate Testing
Testing multiple variables:
| Group | Box Size | Void Fill | Purpose |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | Current | Current | Control |
| B | Smaller | Current | Size effect |
| C | Current | Less | Void fill effect |
| D | Smaller | Less | Combined effect |
Requirements:
- 4× the sample size
- More complex analysis
- Reveals interactions between variables
Segmented Testing
Test within segments:
| Segment | Why Test Separately |
|---|---|
| Product category | Different fragility needs |
| Order value | Risk tolerance varies |
| Shipping zone | Handling exposure differs |
| Customer type | B2B vs B2C expectations differ |
Sequential Testing
Iterative optimization:
| Round | Test | Outcome | Next Step |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Box 14×10×8 vs 12×9×6 | Smaller wins | Test even smaller |
| 2 | Box 12×9×6 vs 10×8×5 | Smaller wins | Test even smaller |
| 3 | Box 10×8×5 vs 9×7×4 | Damage increases | Stop at 10×8×5 |
Documenting and Sharing Results
Test Documentation
What to record:
| Element | Details |
|---|---|
| Hypothesis | What you expected |
| Methodology | How you tested |
| Sample sizes | Per group |
| Date range | When test ran |
| Results | Raw data and analysis |
| Decision | What you changed |
| Learnings | What you learned for future |
Building Institutional Knowledge
Create a testing database:
| Test ID | Date | Variable | Result | Implemented? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PKG-001 | Jan 2025 | Box size | Smaller works | Yes |
| PKG-002 | Feb 2025 | Void fill | 50% reduction OK | Yes |
| PKG-003 | Mar 2025 | Carrier | FedEx better for fragile | Partial |
Sharing with Stakeholders
Results presentation:
| Section | Content |
|---|---|
| Executive summary | One-sentence conclusion |
| Business impact | Cost/quality implications |
| Methodology | How we tested |
| Results | Data and analysis |
| Recommendation | What to do next |
Frequently Asked Questions
How long should packaging tests run?
2-4 weeks minimum to capture variation in shipping conditions, carrier handling, and customer reporting. Longer tests reduce seasonal confounds but delay decisions.
What sample size do I need?
Depends on the baseline rate and minimum effect you want to detect. For typical damage rates (1-3%), 200-400 shipments per variant detects meaningful differences.
Can I test multiple things at once?
Yes, with multi-variate testing, but it requires larger samples and more complex analysis. Start with single-variable tests to build capability.
What if my test is inconclusive?
Inconclusive results mean the effect (if any) is smaller than your test could detect. Options: run a larger test, accept no meaningful difference, or refine your hypothesis.
Should I tell customers they're in a test?
Generally no—it can bias their behavior and feedback. If you're testing something that materially affects experience, consider post-delivery surveys without revealing the test.
Sources & References
- [1]A/B Testing Methodology - Optimizely (2024)
- [2]Statistical Significance Calculator - Evan Miller (2024)
- [3]Packaging Testing Standards - ISTA (2024)
- [4]E-commerce Experimentation - Shopify (2024)
Attribute Team
The Attribute team combines decades of e-commerce experience, having helped scale stores to $20M+ in revenue. We build the Shopify apps we wish we had as merchants.