PackCheck Chewing Gum – 10 Packagings Compared

In our fourth PackCheck, we focus on chewing gum packaging from various well-known brands such as Mentos, Airwaves and Hubba Bubba. How do the individual packages perform in terms of the three evaluation criteria of performance, design and sustainability? And which chewing gum packaging is the overall winner?

Requirements and brands analysed

Chewing gum is a classic “on-the-go” product. That’s why our PackCheck only considers small, easily transportable packaging containing a maximum of 20 pieces. Here is an overview of the ten brands analysed:

– Wrigley’s extra for kids
– Hubba Bubba
– Airwaves
– Barkleys
– Gamer Gum
– Forest Gum
– Chicza
– Jawliner
– Mentos
– Birkengold

The bar chart shows how many points each chewing gum packaging received in each evaluation dimension. If you want to find out how these ratings were determined, simply read on. Below, we go into detail about the decisive characteristics of the packaging.

Findings from the performance comparison

Performance winner: Barkleys

In terms of performance, Barkleys chewing gum packaging is the most impressive – above all thanks to its combination of reliable protection and high-quality appearance. The aluminium tin is compact, yet sturdy and durable enough to be easily stored and transported in a pocket. Thanks to the robust casing, the chewing gum inside remains intact.

Another plus point is the practical folding mechanism. It ensures that the packaging can be resealed conveniently and securely. However, we must add that opening it requires a little dexterity, as the narrow, smooth edge does not offer much grip.

The rectangular shape with rounded corners fits comfortably in the hand and underlines the premium character that Barkleys chewing gum packaging exudes. With its elegant metal look, the aluminium tin stands out clearly on the shelf. It appears very high-quality, even luxurious.

Further observations

The range of chewing gum packaging is considerably more diverse than one might initially assume. In addition to genuine classics such as Airwaves and Hubba Bubba, which have relied on tried-and-tested formats for years and have thus almost achieved cult status, there are also modern and, in some cases, very special concepts.

Some brands aim to differentiate themselves through their ingredients and positioning. One example of this is Chicza’s organic chewing gum, which uses environmentally and tooth-friendly ingredients and promotes itself with a sustainable brand message. The brand uses an envelope solution for its packaging, which offers plenty of design space but is not very practical to use and therefore ranks in the middle of the pack in terms of performance.

Other brands use packaging forms and product features that address a specific lifestyle or use case – one example is Gamer Gum in a flexible stand-up pouch with added vitamins and caffeine. The packaging is easy to open, allows for easy removal of the chewing gum and can also be resealed easily – extremely practical for on the go.

Simple cardboard packaging with flip-top or click closures is also represented, for example in Forest Gum or Wrigley’s extra for kids. Speaking of Forest Gum: thanks to cleverly integrated perforation, the lid ensures secure tamper-evident protection and at the same time blends seamlessly into the overall design. In general, the packaging impresses with its lightness – the handy cardboard box is ideal for short trips. However, longer journeys could be problematic because the packaging is not particularly resistant to moisture and pressure.

With the blister pack in a cardboard envelope, Birkengold has deliberately opted for a retro format that is rarely seen today. Although this packaging solution in itself provides very good product protection, it has clear weaknesses in practical use: when pressing out individual chewing gums, the aluminium plate may tear, causing several compartments to open unintentionally. In addition, the gums are squashed by the pressure when removed.

Mentos stands out with its distinctive corrugated PP tin, which is both recognisable and offers solid handling with a secure closure system.

Jawliner combines a folding box and wrapper, which is visually appealing but, in practical terms, does not match the user-friendliness of the frontrunners in the performance comparison.

And then there are the compact wrappers from Airwaves and Hubba Bubba. Although they are space-saving and fit easily into a pocket, they immediately lose their stability after opening because they can only be closed provisionally. This also makes them somewhat impractical in further handling.

Findings from the design comparison

Design winner: Forest Gum

Minimalist, cool and immediately recognisable as chewing gum: the packaging design of Forest Gum impresses with its modern, reduced aesthetics and striking typography. Also worth mentioning is the high-quality closure solution, which not only fits perfectly into the design concept, but also impresses from a performance perspective, as it allows for easy handling on the go.

Further observations

Birkengold follows closely behind our design winner. While the simple, hygienic-looking blister pack, reminiscent of a pharmacy, appears particularly trustworthy, the friendly vintage-look colour adds a light and airy touch – a successful relaunch that harmoniously combines functionality and brand image.

Gamer Gum occupies the performance pole: the metallic surface, dark colour palette and tech codes appeal to the ‘nerdy’ target group and give the packaging a high degree of individuality, even if the handling of the bag does not have much to do with premium quality.

Hubba Bubba remains the iconic antithesis – consistently childlike, colourful and instantly recognisable. What we find lacking here, however, is genuine creative development over the years, over decades.

Jawliner scores with its creative collage style and youthful expression, but fails to clearly visualise the promised effect of strengthening the jaw muscles – ‘jaw training’. In short: the idea is good, but the storytelling could be improved.

Barkleys relies on nostalgic tin aesthetics and heritage typography. The design of our performance champion appears very high-quality, but it has a certain ‘pastille touch’ – a category break.

Wrigley’s extra for kids, Mentos and Airwaves embody the familiar mainstream image: solid codes, high recognisability of the chewing gum category. However, they lack differentiation and modernity.

Finally, Chicza credibly communicates its organic positioning, but lags significantly behind in terms of legibility, hierarchy and shelf impact. As classic gum codes are completely absent, the chewing gum product is relatively difficult to identify as such for consumers who are not yet familiar with it.

Let’s note that in terms of design, the brands that come out on top are those that clearly target their audience(s), make the chewing gum category instantly recognisable and, at the same time, combine a contemporary, independent design language with functional handling. Forest Gum succeeds in this best; Birkengold also impresses with a clean, high-quality implementation; and Gamer Gum shows how performance narratives can be staged in a visually expressive way.

Findings from the sustainability comparison

Sustainability winner: Forest Gum

Forest Gum is the benchmark in our comparison of ten chewing gum packaging designs, not only in terms of design but also in terms of sustainability. The compact flip box made of single-sided coated fresh fibre cardboard does not require secondary packaging and is made entirely of monomaterial. The tamper-evident feature is also cleverly designed – namely, through an integrated perforation in the cardboard. This distinguishes the packaging from similar concepts: Wrigley’s extra for kids, for example, uses an additional plastic wrapper with a tear-open strip.

By dispensing with unnecessary material and colour inserts, Forest Gum’s packaging is highly recyclable. It functions as a minimalist, resource-saving solution with a solid ratio between packaging and product weight. We are talking here about an authentic keep-it-simple approach that is clearly ahead of competing products in a direct comparison.

Further observations

The field of chewing gum packaging also reveals a wide range in terms of sustainability. Some brands rely on compact, lightweight solutions that use only a small amount of packaging material in relation to the product. This is particularly true of Airwaves and Hubba Bubba with their paper-based wrappers. However, as positive as the low use of material is, the combination of materials must be viewed critically: The metallised composites are heavily coated, leaving hardly any usable paper fibre at the end, which of course massively limits recyclability.

Similar to Forest Gum, Wrigley’s extra for kids also uses a cardboard flip box, but as we mentioned above, a plastic wrapper with a tear-open thread is also used here for tamper-evident protection. Although the materials are clearly separated from each other when opened, this approach increases material consumption compared to a purely cardboard-based solution such as Forest Gum and logically reduces recyclability to a certain extent because consumers have to separate the materials when disposing of them, which still happens too rarely for reasons of convenience.

Gamer Gum’s packaging is a stand-up pouch that is moderately lightweight but consists of a composite material made of several plastics with an integrated pressure seal, full-surface printing and gloss effects. A metal layer is also integrated. All of this together greatly reduces recyclability.

Chicza combines envelope packaging made of cardboard and recycled fibre with a metallised flow pack. The non-recyclable composite of this flow pack significantly reduces the overall recyclability – despite the resource-saving cardboard content, the organic brand Chicza does not even make it into the top 3 in the sustainability rating.

With its cardboard coating made of recycled fibre, Birkengold appears sustainable at first glance. However, the PVC-aluminium composite blister inside is problematic because it is practically non-recyclable. To explain: PVC and aluminium are not usually completely separated from each other, because consumers often only partially remove the aluminium plate after use. When disposed of, the blister pack therefore usually remains an inseparable composite.

Mentos, Jawliner and Barkleys are at the bottom of the sustainability scale. Mentos has a relatively small filling quantity in a two-part plastic tin made of PP and LDPE with a shrink sleeve. Even though the components are theoretically separable, this hardly ever happens in practice – in most cases, consumers throw away the packaging as a whole, i.e. without separating the individual components beforehand. The fact that the sleeve encloses the entire can makes it difficult to identify the base material in the sorting process. As a result, the materials are not sent to the correct recycling stream.

Jawliner is particularly material-intensive: from the double-sided printed folding box and the plastic wrapper with tear-off strip to the individually packaged chewing gum strips in metallised paper wrappers and the additional inlays for separation – these numerous individual components mean a lot of material is used and there is little chance of recycling.

Barkleys combines aluminium and paper. Both materials are actually easily recyclable in practice; however, the packaging is too material-intensive and heavy in relation to the manageable product quantity. In addition, aluminium production involves enormous resource and energy consumption and causes high emissions. The elegant aluminium can is reusable and therefore theoretically durable – but in relation to its contents, it is clearly overkill.

Summary and winner of our chewing gum packaging check

The current chewing gum landscape ranges from well-known mainstream solutions to clearly positioned concepts: In addition to the classic, playful confectionery codes used by Hubba Bubba or Airwaves, functional gums are increasingly coming to the fore – for example, with added caffeine for gamers, organic narratives or fitness promises of a slightly different kind.

In our PackCheck Chewing Gum, we analysed and evaluated the products holistically in terms of performance, design and sustainability. Forest Gum emerged as the overall winner of our comparison by a clear margin. It is a rarity for packaging to break the 1000-point mark – this speaks for an all-round successful packaging concept. And indeed, the packaging of the creatively named brand is convincing in every respect.

The compact flip box made of monomaterial cardboard does without secondary packaging and unnecessary effects. The tamper-evident feature is elegantly solved by an integrated perforation.

Design features such as the minimalist typography and clear colour scheme appeal to modern consumers and ensure that the packaging attracts the desired attention on the shelf. The handy format is also appealing – perfect for on the go. Forest Gum is therefore at the forefront in terms of design.

At the same time, the packaging is environmentally friendly: it consists of little material, is not a composite and is highly recyclable. These characteristics also make Forest Gum our sustainability winner. The packaging has only one minor functional weakness: the cardboard is not as robust as a tin when it comes to moisture and pressure; nevertheless, it remains the ideal solution for short trips.

In terms of performance, Barkleys sets the benchmark: the aluminium tin reliably protects the contents, is durable and, with its rectangular shape and rounded corners, fits comfortably in the hand. The hinged lid closes securely, but requires a little dexterity to open. Visually, the packaging exudes premium quality – however, the amount of material and energy used to produce it is excessive in relation to the filling quantity and product type.

The other chewing gum packaging from our PackCheck reveal different strengths and weaknesses:

– Hubba Bubba in second place and Airwaves in seventh place use very little material and fit in your pocket, but are difficult to reseal after opening. What’s more, metallised composites reduce recyclability. The fact that Hubba Bubba is relatively far ahead of Airwaves in terms of similar performance and sustainability values is due to its iconic, colourful design.

– Birkengold, in third place, conveys hygienic value with its blister pack in a cardboard box and is also visually appealing with its charming retro touch, but it has practical drawbacks: the chewing gum is easily squashed when pressed out; in addition, the aluminium foil can tear, which may result in several compartments opening unintentionally.

– Gamer Gum in fourth place scores points with an easy-to-open and resealable pouch that performs excellently on the go; however, the packaging lacks sustainability due to its multi-layer composite with zipper and gloss effects.

– Wrigley’s extra for kids in fifth place performs very solidly, but its overall result is undermined by its design, which could be improved for the target group, and unnecessary material additives.

– Jawliner in eighth place stands out for its individual design, but it is material-intensive due to the use of several individual components and is also not top-notch in terms of usability.

– Mentos, in ninth place, offers very good handling of the PP can; however, the surrounding shrink sleeve makes sorting in the recycling plant more difficult, which is why the packaging received the most deductions in the sustainability assessment dimension.

– Chicza in 10th place combines recycled cardboard with a metallised flow pack – the cardboard is a positive feature, but the composite material lowers the ecological balance. There are also significant design flaws.

What we conclude from all this: the best results are achieved by packaging that is visually clear and, in addition, suitable for everyday use and material-efficient. Forest Gum demonstrates how the ‘keep it simple’ concept in design and materials leads to the strongest overall performance. Barkleys sets the performance benchmark – but pays the price of a generally poor ecological balance.

Those who want to secure pole position think of packaging as an integral system instead of focusing too much on one discipline and neglecting other aspects to a certain extent. Incidentally, this applies not only to the chewing gum category, but to every type of product.

Three statements from our managing director Christoph Waldau

“If you only optimise one discipline, you jeopardise the overall result. Our PackCheck clearly shows that although Barkleys sets the standard in terms of application, Forest Gum wins our comparison because design, material and user guidance work together as a system. Individual victories do not constitute an overall victory.‘

’Simplicity is sometimes the most powerful innovation. Monomaterial, integrated opening protection, no composites – Forest Gum proves that “keep it simple” can simultaneously improve design impact, recyclability and cost-effectiveness.”

‘The future belongs to clear systems that either ensure genuine reusability – for example, in the form of high-quality cans with planned secondary use – or appear as lean mono-material solutions. And: anyone who uses functional promises as USPs must make them credible and intuitively tangible on and/or in the packaging.’