How to Test a Refundable Deposit for Reusable Packaging
A deposit changes what shoppers pay today and what they have to do later. Test both parts of the offer before expanding a reuse program.
Test a refundable deposit from the first purchase through the second purchase. A higher deposit might bring more containers back among people who buy, while discouraging more people from buying in the first place. You need both counts before choosing the offer.
A fictional café chain is introducing a reusable jar for its take-home soup. It can collect either a $2 or $4 refundable deposit. The soup price, jar, refund process and return locations are the same. The chain needs to choose an offer that shoppers can understand and its stores can operate. Zappi's overview gives examples of how packaging sustainability decisions intersect with convenience and affordability. Zappi’s CPG sustainability overview
Make the refund part of the purchase decision
Show the product price and refundable deposit separately and state the total due at checkout. Describe exactly where, when, and how people can return the jar. Ask shoppers what they would pay today and how they would get the deposit back before asking them whether they would buy. If they expect a different refund process, fix the explanation before reading their choice as demand for the intended offer.
Then run a small live pilot where you can observe actual purchase and return behavior. Assign comparable stores or time blocks to the two offers using a design that avoids exposing the same shoppers to changing terms where possible. Keep the refund and return process steady and log exceptions. If you want to know the effect of opening more return locations, test that change separately.
Use one cohort from purchase through repeat
Stage | What to record |
|---|---|
First purchase | Offer exposures when measurable, completed purchases, jars issued, and price or deposit misunderstandings. |
Return attempt | Location, days since purchase, unsuccessful attempts, and the reason for any failure. |
Completed return | Eligible issued jars returned within a fixed window. Keep cohorts with unfinished windows out of the completed-window rate. |
Refund | Refund completion, time, and support needed. A return attempt and a successful refund are separate events. |
Second purchase | Paid purchases after the first purchase, split by return status if the data permits it. Report repeat among the original eligible purchasers. |
Operations | Staff time, cleaning or loss, and how many returned jars can go back into circulation. |
Read all the way back to the first purchase
Suppose the $2 offer sells 100 jars and gets 60 back, while the $4 offer sells 70 and gets 49 back in comparable store periods. The higher deposit has a higher return rate among sold jars, 70% against 60%. It also returns fewer jars in total. These example numbers show why the decision depends on first purchase and operational outcomes as well as the return rate.
If a larger deposit improves returns and buyers keep purchasing, compare the resulting economics with the lower deposit. If shoppers report failed returns or missing refunds, fix those before changing the amount. A separate assessment of cleaning, transport, and reuse can inform the environmental case for the program. Sustainability market research