Design refers to the conceptualization and formulation of a product's form or model, incorporating distinctive value elements intended to generate consumer appeal. Suharto (2010), as cited in Ivanko & Tunjungsari (2018), define design as a systematic process involving the planning of a product’s shape, structure, and visual appearance, with the objective of enhancing its functionality, aesthetic quality, and overall user appeal.

According to Kotler & Keller (2016), as cited in Jurnal et al. (2022), product design is a combination of visual elements aimed at creating added value and shaping customer perceptions of a product or brand. Furthermore, Chuang & Ma (2001) state that product design not only encompasses aesthetic aspects but also includes ergonomics and user experience, which affect consumer purchase intention. The indicators of design, according to Kotler, as cited in Eliya Putri Aprilia & Didit Darmawan (2025), are as follows:

Packaging is a container or vessel used to protect and preserve a product to extend its shelf life. In the present era, packaging has begun to evolve into a unique and attractive form, serving not only as a container but also as one of the key elements that enhance a product’s appeal. This is supported by Mubyl et al. (2021, p. 113). Kotler and Armstrong (2012) state that packaging involves the design and production processes aimed at protecting the product itself. Based on this view, the author asserts that with appropriate packaging design, a product becomes more attractive and serves as a valuable asset in promoting the product itself.

According to Kapriani et al. (2024), research shows that attractive and innovative packaging design can affect consumer perceptions of product quality

and value, which ultimately can increase their purchase intention (Pramezwary et al., 2022).

As cited in the journal by Stanton (1996), packaging is a form of product that can attract attention, provide information, and enhance consumer convenience in using the product. According to previous research in the journal by Silayoi & Speece (2007), packaging is not only a tool of protecting the product but also serves a strategic role in marketing, particularly in affecting purchasing decisions in retail or e-commerce. The packaging indicators, according to Dayanti (2021), are as follows

According to the journal by Kotler & Keller (2016), promotion refers to various marketing communication activities used by companies to inform, persuade, and remind consumers about their products. As stated by Gultom et al., sales promotion is a set of mostly short-term incentive tools designed to stimulate the purchase of specific products or services more quickly and in greater volume by consumers (Kotler and Keller, 2009, p. 219). According to Agustiani et al., as cited in Azzahra & Sabilla (n.d.), digital promotion is one of the marketing strategies commonly implemented to promote services and goods to customers by the utilization of various distribution channels.

Tjiptono (2015) in the journal states that promotion is the company's effort to convey information to consumers about a product or service, to increase demand, and to build brand loyalty. According to Shimp (2010), in the journal, promotion is a communication process used to build awareness, create an image, and enhance the appeal of a service or product to consumers.

From the opinions of several experts above, a conclusion can be made that promotion is a marketing strategy for a product that is used to provide product information to buyers through a unique and attractive delivery. In this case, the presence of promotion can increase consumer purchase intention. The indicators of promotion, according to Kotler, as cited in Fernando Tanata & Christian (2019) are as follows:

According to Kapriani (2024), purchase intention is a reflection of the consumer’s desire to buy a product, which is strongly affected by various factors, like product quality, price, brand image, promotion, as well as previous experience with the product or brand (Bakti & Septijantini Alie, 2020).

Meanwhile, according to Kotler in Azzahra & Sabilla (n.d.), purchase intention is a stage undertaken by consumers before planning to purchase a product. One of the stages includes AIDAS: Attention, Interest, Desire, Action, Satisfaction (Mufreni, 2016). The indicators of purchase intention according to Eliya Putri Aprilia & Didit Darmawan (2025) are as follows

The purpose of the validity test is to assess how well each indicator can measure the intended construct. Based on the data processing, all indicators, including design, packaging, promotion, and purchase intention, showed outer loading values > 0.70. Referring to the convergent validity criteria proposed by Chin and Dibbern (2010), a loading factor value > 0.70 indicates that the indicator is valid. Therefore, a conclusion can be made that all of this study’s indicators passed the validity test. This means that each question in the questionnaire is statistically capable of accurately representing the concept intended to be measured.

The convergent validity test is complemented by examining the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) value of each variable. The function of AVE is to evaluate how well a construct explains the variance of its indicators compared to the variance of the error. The analysis results show the following AVE values: Design is 0.679; Packaging is 0.596; Promotion is 0.675; and Purchase Intention is 0.762. According to Chin and Dibbern (2010), a construct is considered to have passed the AVE test when its value is > 0.50, whereas in this test, all constructs have values > 0.50.

The reliability test aims to ensure the internal consistency of indicators within a construct. In this study, reliability was tested using two main methods, which are Composite Reliability and Cronbach’s Alpha, with an acceptable threshold of greater than 0.70 as stated by Chin and Dibbern (2010). The analysis results show that all variables exceed the minimum threshold. The Design variable recorded a Cronbach’s Alpha value of 0.766 with a Composite Reliability value of 0.864, while Packaging obtained values of 0.830 and 0.880. Purchase Intention showed values of 0.896 and 0.928, and Promotion recorded 0.840 and 0.893. Thus, in this research model, all constructs can be declared as reliable, indicating that each indicator within these variables demonstrates strong internal consistency in measuring the intended concept.

The multicollinearity test is intended to ensure the absence of high correlations among independent variables that could affect the accuracy of model estimation. In this study, the multicollinearity test was conducted by calculating the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) and applying a maximum threshold of 10 (Hair et al., 2010). The outcomes show 3.108 for the VIF value for Design, for Packaging is 3.221, and for Promotion is 2.699, with each value remaining below the threshold of 10. This indicates that there is no indication of high correlation among the independent variables; thus, the model is considered to have passed the multicollinearity test and is suitable for further causal relationship analysis.

The overall model fit assessment was conducted by examining the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR), which is a measure of the average standardized residuals between the observed and predicted covariances. The analysis results show that the SRMR value of this model is 0.067. According to Hair et al. (2010), a model is considered to have a good fit if the SRMR value is

below 0.10. Therefore, the structural model in this study has met the criteria for goodness of fit, indicating that the model is capable of explaining the data well and is appropriate for further analysis of the relationships among variables.

The R Square test measures how much the independent variables contribute to explaining the dependent variable. The analysis results reveal that the Purchase Intention variable shows an R² value of 0.699, which means that the Design, Packaging, and Promotion variables collectively explain 69.9% of the variation in consumer purchase intention. Meanwhile, the remaining 30.1% is affected by other factors outside the model. As explained by Hair et al. (2010), an R² value of 0.699 falls into the moderate category, indicating that the model has a fairly high predictive ability in explaining purchase intention.

The F2 test (Effect Size) is used to measure how strongly each independent variable affects the dependent variable within the structural model. Based on the analysis, the F Square value for the Design variable on Purchase Intention is 0.085, for Packaging is 0.068, and for Promotion is 0.181. According to Hair et al. (2010), the F Square values are interpreted as follows: small effect (0.02), medium effect (0.15), and large effect (0.35). Therefore, Design and Packaging are considered to have a small effect on Purchase Intention because their values are less than 0.15, while Promotion has a medium effect as it falls between 0.15 and 0.35. These findings indicate that in the context of Tiya Fashion store, promotional strategies play a greater role than product design or packaging in shaping consumer purchase intention.

Based on the results of the partial T test for the three independent variables, the significance values obtained are 0.002 for the relationship between Design and Purchase Intention, 0.006 for Packaging and Purchase Intention, and 0.000 for Promotion and Purchase Intention. All p-values are below the significance threshold of 0.05, indicating that all three variables show a significant partial effect on consumer Purchase Intention. Therefore, hypotheses H1, H2, and H3, which state that product design, packaging, along with promotion each positively affect purchase intention, are accepted. These findings indicate that the more attractive the product design, the better the packaging, and the stronger the promotional strategy used, the higher the consumer purchase intention toward the products offered in the online store.

The result of the partial T test in this study shows a value of 0.002, which indicates that design significantly affects purchase intention. Meanwhile, in the F Square test, the design variable shows a value of 0.085, which suggests that the impact of design on purchase intention is relatively low. This means that although design is indeed proven to affect consumer purchase intention, its contribution remains limited compared to other variables. The test results support the research by Riyanto et al. (2023) with the title "The Effect of Packaging Design, Brand Image, and Price Perception on Consumer Purchase Intention," in which design was also found to affect purchase intention.

The result of the partial T test in this study shows a value of 0.006, which indicates that packaging significantly affects purchase intention. Meanwhile, in the F Square test, the packaging variable shows a value of 0.068, which suggests that the impact of packaging on purchase intention is relatively low. This means that although packaging is proven to affect consumer purchase intention, its contribution remains limited compared to other variables. The test results support the research by Ivanko & Tunjungsari (2018) with the title "The Effect of Packaging on Consumer Purchase Intention with Quality as a Mediating Variable in 'Legit' Products," in which packaging was found to affect purchase intention.

The result of the partial T test in this study shows a value of 0.000, which indicates that promotion significantly affects purchase intention. Meanwhile, in the F Square test, the promotion variable shows a value of 0.068, which explains that the impact of promotion on purchase intention is categorized as moderate. This means that in this study, promotion is the variable with the most significant effect in comparison to other variables. The test results align with the research by Ivanko & Tunjungsari (2018) with the title “The Effect of Promotion Strategies on

Consumer Purchase Intention at PT. Tiga Serangkai Pustaka Mandiri,” in which

promotion was found to affect purchase intention.