10-04-29-10-3perpageBWconsumersensory

10-04-29-10-3perpageBWconsumersensory - 5/10/2010...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–6. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
5/10/2010 March 12 2002 ven 125 ACN 1 Many factors influence or “drive” preference: Flavor, price, image, label appearance, What does the consumer want? brand, celebrity endorsement, etc. Consumer Sensory Evaluation not marketing research f t tt i preference versus acceptance testing usually done blind usually just overall liking flavor, appearance, texture… Who are the target consumers? What questions to ask? -preference or liking or purchase intent preference or liking or purchase intent Where and how to conduct tests? How many wines? (blood alcohol)
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
5/10/2010 March 12 2002 ven 125 ACN 2 Test locations Laboratory Advantages: CONTROL Disadvantages: BIASES Home-use tests Advantages: natural use repeat use need not test blood alcohol Disadvantages: Central location Advantages: end users high return Disadvantages: limited questions expensive time expensive high non response limited # wines large variability Who to sample: Target: Buyer or user** Age Employees or locals or general? Gender Income Location Education etc. . Employees… no DA judges ever! Employee versus “real” consumers Asking consumers about why they have a specific preference must be done indirectly Will i t j tif f lik l t Will give reasons to justify preference, likely not the basis for them… probably do not know Consumers usually cannot describe why they like or dislike wines or products
Background image of page 2
5/10/2010 March 12 2002 ven 125 ACN 3 Pair tests: Two Tailed! Ranking tests Preference and hedonic tests Rate on 9 point hedonic scale: Like extremely Neither like nor dislike to Dislike extremely “Preference mapping” : statistical methods relating preference data to flavor profiles from descriptive analysis (or other information) PREFERENCE MAPPING Internal preference mapping PCA of hedonic scores by consumers Develop “product spaces” to segment (and find out who are) typical consumers of a particular style and type of wine Low sugar apple juice; Consumer preferences; Internal Prefernec Map Varied sugar level (3 levels) Varied acid level (2 levels) 120 consumers scored liking for 6 samples Tormod Naes; Nofima Food, Matforsk Ås, and University of Oslo, Norway
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
5/10/2010 March 12 2002 ven 125 ACN 4 First letter: sugar level Last letter: acidity level External preference mapping Relate hedonic scores to DA space Advantage: PREFERENCE MAPPING cont. Shows which wines different consumers liked Disadvantages: Need large numbers of wine samples Each consumer should rate all wines Many consumers can’t be modeled N samples Relate and interpret L consumers K sensory attributes Tormod Naes; Nofima Food, Matforsk Ås, and University of Oslo, Norway
Background image of page 4
5/10/2010 March 12 2002 ven 125 ACN 5 Sensory data PCA plot of sensory data, External PREFMAP sensory scores and sensory loadings Relate each consumer to these directions Consumer loadings Segments?
Background image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 6
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 09/29/2010 for the course VEN 91863 taught by Professor Hildergardheymann during the Spring '09 term at UC Davis.

Page1 / 16

10-04-29-10-3perpageBWconsumersensory - 5/10/2010...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 6. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online