/ 11/
Agricultural Economic It' /'f Series 16 00
March 1968

A4 1 U

"l /::

:. .......

I

::

::

::

::

::

MARKETING RE SEARCH II

Market Research Methods and Procedures Used in Southern Regional Beef Marketing Projects
Agricultural Experiment Station of Auburn University
E. V. Smith, Director Auburn, Alabama

Table of Contents Page Preface
The SM-19 Technical

Committee

Consumer Surveys Conducted by SM-19 Investigators

.

.

.

"
n

.

.

.

.

.

2
4

Table

I.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

,.

.

.

.

.

.

.

*

. **

"*

Methodeofample Selection

"..
. . . .....

..
.
...... ****

S
.......

Methods of Pretesting Questionnaires Interviewing Techniques . . .. Methods of Analyzing Data ." . . ".

"..".

.

.

.

.

6 6 8

Consumer Panel Studies Table IV.
" . .

.

"

.

.

.

13 14

.

.

.

.

41

"

.

Methods of Sample Selection

.

...

f

.....

15
.
.

Product Handling Procedures
Methods of Analyzing Data Retail Store Surveys
.

"...
.*..

.
.... . ..
. . . .

.
".

..

.

.

17
21

"

.

.

.

.

.......

"

23
.
.

Populations Studied and Methods of Sample Selection
Interviewing Techniques ... "... . .... Objectives of the Studies and Methods of Analysis
.

"
.

.
..

.
.

" "
. . .

23
24 25

f

"

Appendix
I. Example of

Projective
.
."
f ,.

Role Situation Technique Used by
""""...... ..
." .
,. f.

5M409
.

Investigators

.

."

.

f

.

.

"
"

.

.

28
29

Ii! III. IV.

Example of Picture Frustration Technique Used by SM-19

Investigators

.

..

"

"..f..

"

!

.

Example of Socioeconomic Score used by SM-19 Investigators . Example of Hedonic Scales used by SM-l9 Investigators " . .

. .

30 31

Preface This publication is a summary and description of the Marketing

Research Methods used by Agricultural Experiment Station Research personnel in the Marketing Research phases of Southern Regional Marketing Each member of the current SM-19 Technical Committee

Project SM-19.

made valuable suggestions that enhanced the development of the manuscript, and special recognition is due Dr. Jessie Mize of the University of Georgia for her contributions to the publication. Permission was given

by the SM-19 Technical Committee for this report to be published as a departmental report. Directors of Agricultural Experiment Stations currently cooperating in SM-19 are listed below, Requests for copies of this report should be

addressed to Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn University, 36830, E. V. Smith Director Alabama Agricultural Exp. Auburn, Alabama 0. B. Ross, Director Oklahoma Agricultural Exp. Stillwater, Oklahoma Auburn, Alabama,

Station

Station

J. H. Owen, Director Georgia Agricultural Exp. Station Athens, Georgia Doyle Chambers, Director Louisiana Agricultural Exp. Baton Rouge, Louisiana

H. 0. Kunkle, Acting Director Texas Agricultural Exp. Station College Station, Texas C. T. Wilson, Director Virginia Agricultural Exp. Blacksburg, Virginia

Station

Station

R. L. Lovvorn, Director North Carolina Agricultural Exp. Raleigh, North Carolina

Station

The SM-19 Technical Committee Administrative Advisor: John J. Mikell (1961.4967) H. A. Steward (1956-1961) Paul Jehlik

GSRS Representative: The following personnel have served as

voting members

of the Tech-

nical Committee at some time since its inception in 1956. are listed first. Alabama,

Most recent Jessie

R. S. Glover, M. J. Danner; Georgia,

J. Mize, Mary Speirs; Louisiana, Woods, Ruby Whitehead,

A. M. Mullins, Mary Fielder, Betty L. Clara Tucker; North Carolina, R. L. Hendrickson;

Dorothy Moschette,

H. B. Craig, T. N. Blumer; Oklahoma, Tennessee. (currently inactive), G. T. King,

L. E. Walters,

J. W. Cole, Bernadine Meyer; Texas, R. F. Kelley, N. B. Juillerat.

0. D. Butler, and Virginia,

MARKET RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES USED IN SOUTHERN REGIONAL BEEF MARKETING PROJECTS Robert S. Glover 1/ Motivating Factors and Con-

A southern regional research project 2 ,

sumer Purchases of Beef as Related to Objective Measurements Used to Predict Beef Acceptability was begun in 1956. This project was designreferred to as SM-19 by

ated as Southern Marketing Project 19 and is

Agricultural Experiment Station personnel throughout the Southern region. The objectives of the project at its beginning were: 1. To identify and evaluate decision-making factors in purchases. 2. To identify and evaluate characteristics eating quality of beef. 3. To integrate such characteristics into grades. suitable for predicting block beef

The regional project was revised in Factors Motivating Beef Purchases." jectives; 1.

1962 to "Quality of Beef and

The revised project has as its ob-

To determine quality of beef affecting market acceptability.

1/ Assistant Professor of Agricultural Economics,

Auburn University.

2/ State Experiment Stations originally participating in the project were Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, The Florida and Tennessee Experiment Stations no Tennessee and Texas. longer actively participate in the project.

a.

Characterize chemical, beef tissue.

physical, and sensory properties of

b.

Relate these properties to each other and to such factors as age, sex, conformation, post-mortem processing, and degree

of fatness. 2. To determine factors motivating purchases of beef in populations using various forms as: a. b. c. d. Conventional cuts closely trimmed. Boneless cuts closely trimmed following muscle structure. Varying composition of ground beef. Other variations in methods. A number of consumer marketing projects have been conducted in composition, cutting and merchandising consumer

accordance with objective one of the initial project and the second objective of the revised project. The purpose of this publication is to enumerate and summarize the

marketing research methods and procedures used pursuant to the Consumer Marketing phases of SM-19 and SM-19 revised. herein may be of interest to firms in engaged in market research, of market research. CONSUMER SURVEYS CONDUIJCTED BY SM-19 INVESTIGATORS Consumer (or household) surveys are widely used by social scientists and market research analysts as a technique to gather information from external sources. Typically information is obtained from a sample of The information included individuals

the meat industry,

and students concerned with the methodology

respondents that is which is

intended to be representative of a larger group, Attributes or charac-

referred to as a population or universe.

teristics of the population are frequently inferred from the information furnished by the sample of respondents. from surveys is While the information obtained or both, it is nonethe-

a combination of facts, opinions,

less often unavailable from other sources.

Consequently,

the survey may

provide the only source of pertinent information available relative to the population under study. The methodology used in collecting, analyzto

ing, and interpreting survey data is be avoided and correct statistical employed by investigators in

of crucial importance if inference assured.

bias is

The methodology

conducting seven consumer surveys pursuant summarized in this section

to the marketing research phases of SM-19 is of the report.

Results of five of these surveys have been published as

Experiment Station publications and two are reported in an unpublished dissertation. The aforementioned sources and the various techniques used by individual experiment stations are found in techniques used is as follows: Number of surveys using this technique Table 1 (page 4). A summary of the

Techinques and methods Sampling techniues: Random sample of the defined universe Pre-tested schedule in a pilot study Survey techn iques: Personal interviews Mail questionnaires Telephone interviews Schedule format: Direct and indirect questions Direct questions only Color photographs Projective role situations Picture frustration Disguised direct interview Open-end questions

3 2 5 I 1 5 2 2 4 2 1 I

',t

Table 1. Sampling and Questionnaire Procedures used in SM-19 Household Surveys State Experiment Station Studies*
d.3 r-4 Sv

Technique procedure

or
t-44r04 $4 cn$r.4
r ! "1

~
,0

-.11

it-~

$4

,0L1

r4r-4 cin

' t,)

?W4"'r -'<to

$

Q14
4

n r-(

14 4u

84

'14 V)

T-4

E1

ur

X 4c

;

H~~~C1

Number of households interviewed Random sample of the defined universe Schedule pre-tested in pilot study Survey technique Personal interview
Mail

5.15 Ii
529

47

973

588
X

271

200

Telephone

questionnaire
ques tionna ire

x
x

x

x x

2/ x x

x

x

x x

x x

Schedule format: Direct questions only Direct and indirect
questions

x

X Color photographs used Types of indirect ques tions:

x x x x x

x x x

x x

Projective

role

situations

x
x

Picture frustration Disguised direct interview Open-end questions Scale-type situations

*Studies are identified by the resultant research publication (s).
1/ Blocks were selected at random, households were

not.

2/ Households were required to satisfy eligibility requirements to be

included

in

the

study.

Methods of Sample Selection The definitions used in delineating populations to be studied and the methods of selecting samples for the seven surveys are outlined below: I. One study defined the universe to be hourly wage earners in a A list of all households comprising the universe was

selected mill town.

obtained and a random sample selected systematically from the list. 2. The membership lists of a professional women's club in two cities

comprised the universe of one study. drawn for inclusion in the study. 3.

A random sample of members was

Another study included 529 households in 5 selected cities.

An

area sampling technique was used whereby block segments were drawn at random. ple. 4. A systematic list of all households within the city limits of The first 10 occupied dwellings in each segment made up the sam-

each of the four survey cities was used to draw a probability cluster sample. There were three adjacent addresses in each cluster. 5. The sample was randomly drawn from households listed in the city

directory of each of the three cities surveyed. drawn in clusters of five. 6. One survey used mail questionnaires

Sample elements were

as part of an exploratory

procedure for a consumer panel study.

Questionnaires were mailed to 608

households that had been randomly obtained from the city directories of

four cities.

After three mailings, a total of 271 respondents returned

usuable questionnaires. 7. A survey of Dallas, Texas, households was conducted by telephone The sample was selected from Coles CrissTCross Directory of

interviews.

Dallas.

A systematic sampling technique was used in

selecting individual

household addresses.

The first household was selected at random and the (every 8th address

additional households chosen at regular intervals listed). Call Back Attempts

The procedure of three SM-19 surveys specified that three attempts would be made to contact nate. the household without replacing it with an alter-

In another survey four attempts

(three callbacks) were made to The two smallest studies

contact the household before it was replaced.

of 55 households and 47 households did not attempt callbacks while the mail questionnaire study sent three mailings to households that did not respond to original or second mailings, were not replaced. Methods of PretestingQuestionnaires Some effort was made to pretest questionnaires prior to the initiation of the field surveys. in The pretests were informal and samll scale These two formal pilot studies were and nonresponsive households

all except two of the studies.

conducted with 80 questionnaires completed in one test and 100 questionnaires in a second.

Interviewing Techniques Personnel. Although all household studies except the mail question-

naire and telephone interviews used personal interviews to obtain information, these: the personnel used to conduct the surveys differed. Examples are

1.

In two of the smeller studies of narrowly defined populations,

interviews were conducted by State Experiment Station personnel. 2. In four of the studies interviews were conducted by local women The interviewers had been trained by State

in each of the survey cities. Experiment Station personnel. 3.

A professional interviewing firm was engaged to conduct the tele-

phone interviews. Types of questions. The household questionnaires generally contained Only two surveys relied exclusively The other (1) a relative-

both direct and indirect questions. on direct questions.

One of these was the telephone survey.

was a study that used these three separate questionnaires:

ly unstructured questionnaire dealing with meal selection and preparation, (2) a one-week diary type report on meats purchased and served and time selection and preparation, and (3) a decision-making scale that

spent in

measured the homemaker's familiarity with various factors associated with meat purchase decisions. Projective role situations. is This is a method whereby the respondent construed to

confronted with a simulated situation and the response is

be indicative of the action the respondent feels likely to be taken in this situation and why he thinks this action would result. SM-19 investi-

gators have used this technique to obtain indications of the prestige associated with various meats and the reasons why a particular meat is preferred for a given situation. An example of the projective role format

used by these investigators iS found in Appendix I.

This

technique was employed

in

three studies

in

conjunction with

personal interviews and in the mail questionnaire Picture frustration techniques. of cartoon sketches to the respondent. the situation presented is an answer by filling Investigators

survey. a series

This technique presents The respondent's

reaction to to give

obtained by requiring the respondent in

a blank '!baLloon'

the series of cartoon drawings. to An ex-

at two State Experiment Stations used this technique in assumed situations.

record the respondent's indicated choices ample of this technique is found in

Appendix II. One study used disguised-direct format relative to the This technique

Other questionnaire techniques.

techniques with a highly structured agree-disagree factors underlying the housewives' attempts

meat-buying decisions.

to phrase questions or to structure the interview so respondents involved when confronted with the questions. Two

do not feel personally

State Experiment Stations used color photographs of beef to obtain indications of respondents' meat preferences. open-end questions Another Experiment Station used information.

to obtain consumer preference

Methods of Analyzing Data Statistical tables were used in all the household studies to describe

the demographic characteristics and consumer preferences of the sample families. dies. Socioeconomic variables were used to analyze data in five stu-

The socioeconomic variables most frequently analyzed were:

Number of surveys

Socioeconomic variable
Family income. .
. . . .

using this technique
. ...
. . . .

..

.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.

. .

5 3

Education of husband or head of household.

Number of surveys Socioeconomic variable (contin.)
or principal wage earner. .
. .

"

i

using

this

technique (contin. )
0

Occupation of husband, head of household,
.
. .
. .

.
. .* . . .

.

.
. .

.
. . . .

.
.

.
. .

.
. .

.
. .2

Size

of

family.

.

. .

.

3 2 2 2
2

Age of housewife. . . . Education of housewife. Occupation of housewife

.

.

. .

.
.

Level-of-living

(socioeconomic)

score

.

.

.

.

.

Family income.

These data were generally grouped into low, medium, Class limits assigned the

and high categories and subsequently analyzed.

income groups were not uniform from state to state and are given in 2, (page

Table cate-

10 ).

In addition to the data found in Table 2, one analysis

grouped income into six classes and not into low, medium, and high gories.

This study also contained analyses based on per capita income. One State Experiment Station made analyses based on eduwhile two used education of male head (or The following

Education.

cation of head of household,

husband) and education of housewife ina analyzing data.
classifications were

used:
Education of head of
household and houseEducation of head of

Education of head of
household and

house-

wife No formal education 1.4 grade 5-8 grade 9-11 grade

wife Elementary High school College No wife (husband in house)

household Grade school High school College No male head

High

school graduate

No response, don't know

Some schooling after high school

10

Table 2. Class Limits Assigned to Income Groups in Various Studies and Number of Studies using Specified Income Levels as Class Limits

Income group and limits

Number of studies using ".limits

Income group and limits

Number of studies using limits

Income group and limits

Number of studies using limits

Low:

Medium:

High:

Under $3,000
Under

2
2

$3,000-4, 999

1
1

$5,000 and above
$6, 000 and above

I
2

$4,000

$3)000'-5,999
$4, 000-5, 999 $4,000-'7,999
$5,

Under $5, 000

2

1 1
2

000 and above $8, $10,000 and above

1 2

000-931999

11

Occupation.

Occupational classifications were used for analytical Classifications were diverse and are listed

purposes by several states. in Table 3 (page 12 ).

Age of housewife and size of family. both age of housewife and age of family in Experiment Station used age of housewife, of family (number of children in family). cated below: Age of housewife Years Under 30 30 - 49 50 - 69 70 and over Years Up to 35 36 - 50 51 - 65 Over 65 Number in 1 2 3 - 4 Over 6

One Experiment Station used analyzing household data. One

and a third Station used size Classifications used are indi-

Size of family Number of children family in family None 1 - 2 3 or more

Level-of-living score. living (or socioeconomic)

Two Experiment Stations developed a level-ofThe

score for use as an analytical device.

score was developed by weighting the various consumer durable goods, consumer nondurable goods, holds. and services available for consumption by house-

Items comprising the score and methods of weighting differed On one scale, households An

somewhat between the two Experiment Stations.

could attain a score ranging from 0 to 20 and on the other 0 to 24. example of one of these devices is Other socioeconomic variables. found in Appendix III.

Other socioeconomic variables used in

single instances by one State Experiment Station were: Dietary meat allowances Home background of housewife Housewives' participation in outside activities Magazine reading habits Meal cost per capita Newspaper reading habits Radio and television ownership

12 Table 3. Occupational Classifications of HusbandL'ow in Analyses of Data and Wife Used

Number

of

Number of

Occupational
P - ----- - -.- -0--m - - --- .

Classification

studies using this classification for husband
I--- - W.I -I --- -- --I

studies using this class ification for housewife
. -.

- -- ,-

.-

- -

Professional and executive.

.

.

.

. .
0

.
S

.
f

.
f

.
. "

.
. .

Professional,
Professional

self--employed and managerial...
. . .
.

.
.

. .
.

" "
+ 0

White collar . Clerical and sales Clercial . . . Ski lled . . . . .
.

"

"

. .
.

"

0

0

.

.

" "

" "

" "

" "

" "

" "

I
9

" I

Skilled and semi skilled. Service . . . . *.*.*. * Domestic and janitorial...
Unskilled. .*.*., .. *.*.* Housewife. . ., . . . Welfare and retirement Unemployed. . . . . .
.
. .
..

"
"

I
I.

"
"

f
*9

"
f9

"
"9
!C"
"

"
"
sV
fy

"

.

.

" s

" "

"
f

" i

.
.
9

.

"

"

"

Part-time.
No

.

.

.

.

.

male

head.
. *

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

" "

a
9

9

9

"
9

" "

"

No female head.
Other . ,. No answer.
*

.

.
.

.
.

.
.

.

.

0.

to
.

"

.

1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 0 1 3 1 2 0
" "

0 1 1. 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2/f 1 0 1

"
a

"
"

1

"

0. .

9

a

0

a

"

a
"

0
jn others as a principal

l/ Referred to wage earner. the home.

in

some studies as male head,

2/ In one study this included all housewives not employed outside

13

Statistical significance tests.

Investigators at three Experiment analyzing household data.

Stations used statistical significance tests in In these analyses,

one state used analysis of variance and chi-square, and a third t-tests. CONSUMER PANEL STUDIES

another only chi-square,

Consumer panel research inherently involves the securing of data two or more times from the same respondent. The survey and panel tech-

niques are similar in many respects, with the major difference being the number of contacts between the research agency and the respondent. addition, In

the panel technique presents several problems in research that it from the survey approach viz., but at least twice. The

further differentiate 1.

The respondent must cooperate not once,

requirement of more cooperation from respondents gives rise to serious questions concerning the representativeness of cooperative respondents. 2. The presence of conditioning effects. in Repetitive participation

the panel may result in altered attitudes or behavior in re-

gard to the question under study. Consumer panel studies have been conducted by four State Experiment Stations as contributing projects to SM-19. The consumer panel members

were families who agreed to cooperate with Experiment Stations by consuming the beef products for a given period under conditions approaching normal household consumption. Panel members furnished data by rating State Exand other

various product characteristics of each type of beef tested.

periment Stations conducting panel tests, beef products tested, pertinent data are given in Table 4 ( page 14 ).

14 Table 4. State Experiment Stations Conducting Consumer Panel Tests, Size of Sample, Products Tested, Length of Test Period, and Type of Rating Scale Used

State Experiment
--

Station Studies*
Th -

to

P CL 4
,BI

Procedure
.C:4 $L4 4

0

0

"r4

4J

"-r4 '-1

4 .r4

Ce

o

ON

co1Lr1

Sample size (no. of families):
Beginning

test

25 25
Ground

43 36

38 38 Frozen prefabricated beef cuts 12 weeks

122 110 beef
5 weeks

300 GoGo beef
5 weeks

Completing test Products tested

beef

and boneless rib steaks Length of test period

Freeze -dried beef in portion cuts

1-3 months 4 weeks ground beef 2 weeksboneless steak
7 point he-

Type of rating scale

donic scale (structured)

9 point hedonic scale (uns tructured)

5

point he-

donic scale (structured)

9 point 9 point hedonic hedonic scale scale (uns truc- (uns tructured) tured)

*Studies are identified by the resultant research publication(s).

15
Methods of Sample Selection Sampling procedures concomitant to selection of families to comprise the consumer panels did not differ appreciably from the procedures used in selecting families for the household surveys. the individual State Experiment Stations were: Alabama. The panel was composed of a sample of families residing in The sample of families was not The procedures used by

a moderate income housing development. randomly selected. Georgia. Georgia cities. Louisiana.

The panel was made up of selected households from two small Random methods were not followed in selecting sample. (1) Frozen prefabricated beef cuts study - Areas of a The panel was composed A table of

selected city were stratified by race and income.

of white families with an annual income of at least $7,000.

random numbers was used to select a sample of streets from areas of the city populated by the strata under study. each area. Ten families were selected from

More than 200 families were interviewed to select the 38 famPanel families were required to

ilies ultimately comprising the panel.

purchase 90 pounds of beef at a cost of $75 and to have freezer space sufficient to store this quantity of meat. random sample of streets in A list (2) Ground beef study - A

the city chosen for the study was selected.

of all residences on sample streets was obtained and a sample of

20 per cent of the households on each street selected via a table of random numbers. The maximum number of residences permitted from a single A similar procedure was used to obtain five alter-

sample street was 10.

16 nates for each address included in the primary sample. studies used Cole's Directory, Baton Rouge listings of streets and residences. Texas. Ground beef study - Dallas and Houston were chosen as cities A multistage area probability Large Both Louisiana

Louisiana1963 to obtain

from which to select the consumer panel. sampling technique was used in

selecting households for the panel.

scale maps of both cities were divided into squares. of these squares were chosen at random.

In each city 10

One small square was chosen at A list of all households in 15 of the households

random from each of the 10 larger squares. the smaller squares was obtained.

Subsequently,

located in each of these squares was designated as sample households; thus, a total of 150 households was used in each city. In addition, two

alternate households were designated as replacements if household, included in the original sample,

needed for each

Cole's DirectoryDallas of Dallas households,

Texas 1961 was used to obtain a listing served the same fun-

and the Houston City Director

ction in the Houston sample. Initial interviews. In each of the studies, sample households were

contacted and attempts made to obtain relevant data on family attitudes of the product to be tested and socioeconomic data. only were used in the initial each of the questionnaires. Direct questions

Station personnel conducted

interviews at two of the participating Experiment Stations.

Another Experiment Station obtained this information by means of a mail questionnaire and still conduct initial another had a professional interviewing service

interviews.

17
Follow-up interviews in one instance (the Louisiana Frozen Prefabricated Beef Cuts Study) were conducted upon the completion of panel tests to get the respondents' opinion of the test products. Product Handling Procedures The panel research conducted by SM-19 investigators involved problems that were partly logistical since the product was required to be fabricated in the form desired for the test, and thereafter stored until delivered In such pro-

to panel households according to a pre-arranged schedule. jects,

research design and procedures for handling the test product must Households must receive clear instructions on storing

be clearly defined. the product in

the home prior to testing, time of testing the product,

methods of preparing the product for testing, methods of testing the product, and how to record their reactions to the product. Fabrication procedures followed by indivi-

Fabrication procedures.

dual states conducting panel tests are as follows: Alabama. Ground beef and rib steaks were prepared at the Experiment

Station meats laboratory by Experiment Station personnel. Georgia. The test product, freeze-dehydrated beef servings, was Before distributing the

obtained from a commercial meat packing firm.

test product to panel households, the beef was repackaged in vapor proof freezer type bags and the air exhausted though a vacuum system before resealing the packages. This was deemed necessary to remove the processor's

name from the packages before delivering the beef to the family. Louisiana. (Frozen prefabricated beef cuts study) - Carcasses from

animals of known history, grading U.S. Choice and Standard, weighing from

18
500 to 700 pounds were fabricated to boneless round, rib, chuck, and brisket cuts. sirloin, short loin,

These whole cuts were further fabricated retaining the identity

to portion size steaks and family size roasts, of the cut and location within the cut.

All cuts were packaged and the broil-

packages were labeled according to four suggested cooking methods: ing steak, swiss steak, a total of 24 packages, oven roast, and pot roast.

Each family received

three from each of the Choice and Standard grades

for each of the four cooking methods. Louisiana. (ground beef for varying fat composition study) 25, - Ground

beef of three different fat levels - 15, by a commercial meat packer, ment Station.

and 35 per cent was prepared

under direction of personnel from the Experi-

The ground beef was fabricated from utility grade beef The 15 per cent

chuck, and suet from Good and Choice grade carcasses.

fat level was obtained without the addition of trim fat, the 25 per cent fat level by the addition of approximately 12 pounds of suet per 100 pounds of ground chuck, and the 35 per cent fat level by the addition of Fat

approximately 21 pounds of suet per 100 pounds of ground chuck.

levels were ascertained during the final grinding and mixing operations by a rapid method of fat determination utilizing the Babcock fat testing principle. The fat content was adjusted to within plus or minus 1 per One-half of each formulation

cent of the desired levels by this method. was made into patties - four per pound, bulk ground beef.

The remainder was packaged as

Each panel household received five packages of patties Each household received one pack-

and five packages of bulk ground beef.

19

age of each of the three fat level mixtures and in addition,

two randomly

selected replicas of two of the three fat levels, making the total of five packages. Texas. The ground beef tested was composed of lean cow beef blended Four

by a commercial meat company with high quality fat from fed beef. lean-fat mixtures were prepared. tained 16, 20, 25, By ether, extraction,

the mixtures con-

and 30 per cent fat, with fat being the only variable. Ground beef conThis type was

The panel tests were conducted during a 5 week period. taining 20 per cent fat was tested twice by the panel. tested by all panel households in

the first week and tested again by the fifth or final week.

approximately two-thirds of the households in Product delivery procedures.

Immediately after fabricating the pro-

duct, all Experiment Stations conducting consumer panel tests froze the test product and stored it in freezers until delivered to individual households. Two Experiment Stations delivered test products to panel households each week during the period of the study. One Experiment Station delivered the first test product to one-half The other

of the cooperating families at a cooking-school demonstration.

half received the samples delivered to their home by local field agents. Written directions were identical for all samples with respect to preparations and reporting.

20

Another Experiment Station delivered test products one time only -

this being at the beginning of the study and instructions were left to
panel households to consume a particular product in a specific week.

Two of the Experiment Stations sold the products to panel households at a reduced price, while the other two states conducting panel studies made the test products available to the households at no cost. Product rating procedures. Hedonic scales were used by all states

engaged in this work to record the reactions of members of the consumer panel toward the product. Although all states made use of hedonic scales,

the type of scale used varied in that some were more complicated and more highly structured than others. is illustrated in Appendix IV. One Experiment Station asked housewives to rate the product on a five point hedonic scale. was described. The scale was structured in that each point liked slightOne type of hedonic scale that was used

The descriptive terms were:

liked very much,

ly, neither liked nor disliked, disliked slightly, and disliked very much. In Louisiana, (ground beef for varying fat composition study) a nine point

unstructured hedonic scale was used and cooking as well as taste characteristics of the product were rated. color before cooking, shrinkage, The characteristics rated were: juiciness,

general cooking qualities,

flavor, and general acceptability. Another Experiment Station had a seven point hedonic scale in which

facial expressions were utilized to provide the respondent a visual concept of the degree of satisfaction associated with a particular rating. Respondents were asked to rate the product for flavor, tenderness characteristics. an overall rating. juiciness, and

In addition, one scale was used to obtain

21

An unstructured 9 point hedonic scale was used by one Experiment Station and each family member over 12 years of age was instructed to rate the product. ness, texture, Still Characteristics rated were: tenderness, flavor, juici-

fatty taste, and overall taste and odor.

another Experiment Station used a nine point unstructured

hedonic scale to rate both cooking and taste characteristics of the product. Housewives were asked to rate the product for the following cooking raw color, cooking aroma, shrinkage, cooked color, and

characteristics:

general cooking qualities.

Each member of the household over 16 years These characteristics and general liking. Two Experi-

of age was asked to rate taste characteristics. were: flavor, tenderness,

fatty taste, juiciness,

How rating forms were returned to Experiment Stations.

ment Stations had field enumeratorepick up the completed rating forms when the next week's test product was delivered to the households. The other two Experiment Stations instructed panel families to mail completed rating forms to the Experiment Station.

Mebhods of Analyzing Data
Methods of analyzing consumer panel data varied considerably from state to state and study to study. Alabama. These methods are outlined below:

The tests were designed as paired comparisons and analysis

was based upon a comparison of the consumer preference rating of the test

products with those of the control products.
socioeconomic variables was not undertaken.

Analysis according to

22

Georgia.

Family acceptance of a new market form for beef was describThese

ed according to scales such as socioeconomic and homemaker role.

scales and descriptive terms concerned with familiarity of beef cuts, information sources about new foods, and factors determining foods purchased were employed to study the mean palatability scores and probable purchase of the product if it were available in retail stores. Louisiana. (Frozen prefabricated beef cuts study) - Data were analyz-

ed to determine the effect of grade upon mean rating received by the particular beef cut and also the influence of cooking method on the rating of a particular cut within a grade. Chi-square tests were used to deter-

mine the statistical significance of the differences between ratings. Louisiana. (Ground beef for varying fat composition study) - The

influence of socioeconomic variables upon the mean rating of each type of ground beef was analyzed. income, Variables used in this analysis were family age of housewife,

education of housewife,

education of husband,

and age of husband.

Analysis of variance was used to analyze the statis-

tical significance of the observed differences. Texas. Comparisons were made of the mean ratings of the test proMean ratings

ducts according to various cooking and taste characteristics. between the two cities were also compared. said they would buy the product if it

Mean ratings of those who stores were com-

were available in

pared to mean ratings of people who said they would not buy the product. Mean ratings of the various family members were compared, ship of family income on mean ratings was analyzed. and the relation-

Observed differences

were analyzed for statistical significance via t-tests.

23 RETAIL STORE SURVEYS Surveys have been made of retail food stores or retail food serving establishments by three state Experiment Stations in conjunction with the Marketing Research Objectives of the regional project. conducting these studies and number of firms surveyed were: 185, Louisiana 8, and Texas 355 in two studies. Population Studied and Method of Sample Selection The initiation of a marketing research project necessitates a definition of the population to be studied. Populations of retail firms States Georgia

studied by SM-19 investigators and the methods of selecting samples within these populations are as follows: Georgia. All eating establishments within or not more than one mile

outside the city limits of three Georgia cities comprised the population. Hospitals, colleges, private clubs, and other institutions that served Institutions providing meals Data were obtained from

public customers were included in the study.

to members only were not included in the study.

185 establishments which comprised the defined population. Louisiana. The population was composed of retail food stores that A sample of eight

sold ground beef products in the city of Baton Rouge.

stores was selected so that all economic and socioeconomic sections of the city would be represented in the sample. Texas. (Institutional market for beef study) - Houston was selected A list of establishments serving food in the city

as the city for study.

was obtained from the Houston Health Department and these establishments were categorized as follows:

24

a. b. c. d.

Industrial plants Hospitals Private schools and colleges Restaurants, luncheonettes, drive-ins, and hamburger stands

A sample was drawn that included 50 per cent of the establishments in each of the groups. Texas. (Ground beef study) - Retail food stores that were units of the state com-

chain supermarkets operating five or more retail stores in prised the population. Stores operating in

the El Paso area were excluded Only those stores loThe sample

from the sample because of travel considerations. cated in

cities of 50,000 or more inhabitants were surveyed.

of 91 was selected by grouping all cities in

the state (except El Paso)

that had populations of 50,000 or more into three size groups - Group I, 50,000, but less than 100,000; Group 2, and Group 3, more than 200,000. 100,000;

All the cities in Group 3 were purposely each of

selected as sample cities and a random sample chosen of cities in the other size groups. The number of stores sampled in

each city size

group was proportional to the combined population of the universe of cities. For example, the large cities accounted for 66 per cent of the population Therefore, 66 per cent of the sample stores were selected

of all cities. from this group.

Interviewing Techniques The Experiment Stations conducting studies of retail firms all relied

on personal interviews with store managers or other store officials to obtain data. All states also used direct question techniques when conduct-

ing these interviews and 8 x 10 color slides of beef cuts were shown meat

25
buyers in the eating establishments sampled in the Texas institutional

market for beef study.

In all instances Experiment Station personnel

conducted the interviews. Objectives of the Studies and Methods of Analysis The information sought by the surveys and methods of analyzing the data were not identical among the Experiment Stations. An outline of the

survey objectives and methods of analyzing the survey data are as follows: CGeorgia. The study was designed to determine the relative demand

for various meats, and the selection criteria used by purchasers of beef for commercial and institutional food service establishments. ducting the interviews, Choice, Good, When con-

color photographs of rib cuts of USDA grades of

and Standard were used to obtain the preferences for amount The proprietors were asked the

of covering fat and the degree of marbling.

to recall information about the quantities of meats purchased in seven days preceding the interview. presented in the report.

The following relationships were

The influence of size of restaurant upon the influence of season on type of meat

quantity and type of meat purchased,

served, amount spent on meat and types of meat served at various meals, and average price of meals as related to types of meat served. In addi-

tion, various descriptive data were presented such as grades of beef purchased by the various restaurants, amount and form of neats and seafoods purchased by the food serving establishments, facilities of the sample firms, and similar data. availability of freezer These data were sub-

jected to F and t-tests by least squares analysis.

26
Louisiana. Meat market managers of the sample stores were inter-

viewed to obtain their estimates of fat content of ground beef products merchandised in their store. Samples of ground beef were obtained from

the stores and subsequently chemical analyses were performed and fat, protein, and ash contents of the samples were determined. Estimates of

the meat market managers were then compared to the chemically determined fat contents of the sample ground beef products. Texas. (Institutional market for beef study) - The primary purpose and other

of the study was to ascertain whether hotels,

restaurants,

commercial or institutional establishments prefer the same grades of beef as previous research indicated was preferred by most consumers (i.e., good and choice) or if these establishments considered higher In addition to the major objective the study

grades more suitable.

sought answers to the following questions: I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. How important is the market for beef among eating establishments?

From what supply channels is the beef obtained? In what form is beef purchased?

What buying procedures are used? To what extent are USDA meat grades used in ordering beef? What amount of fat is preferred? What methods are used for storing meat? To what extent is Is frozen beef used?

ready-cut beef used by very many establishments?

27

Texas.

(Ground beef study) - Meat market managers were interviewed

and information obtained on their methods of estimating the fat content of ground beef products. Meat market managers were questioned concerning

their attitude toward quality characteristics of ground beef and hamburger. They were also questioned concerning their opinions of consumer preferences for ground beef and hamburger. In addition information was obtained conSamples of ground beef

cerning the store's ground beef pricing policies.

products were purchased and analyzed by Experiment Station personnel. Fat content of these samples was ascertained by the ether extract method. Following this, the fat contents as indicated by the ether extract were estimates of the fat contents of the influence of

compared with the meat market managers' these same products.

Other relationships studied were:

the income clientele served by the store and ground beef and hamburger sales as a percentage of total sales.

28 APPENDIX I EXAMPLE OF PROJECTIVE ROLE SITUATION TECHNIQUE USED BY SM-19 INVESTIGATORS Now, we would like you to tell us what meats you think some homemakers would
serve in various situations. After I read you the kind of meal each homemaker was planning, tell me what kind and cut of meat you think she decided to serve and how she cooked it. Fred and Carol were having an important man guest for supper. meat do you think Carol would choose?
Kind of meat Cut Method of cooking

What kind of

Ellen has a large family with several young children. She wants a main dish that the whole family will enjoy. What kind of meat do you think she would

choose?
Kind of meat Cut Method of cooking

Barbara and her husband have invited a special woman guest for dinner. kind of meat would she serve?
Kind of meat Cut Method of cooking

What

Dorothy is going to be busy all day. For the main meal she wants a cut of meat that won't take too long to prepare and will be easy.
Kind of meat Cut Method of cooking

Alice is Uive.

planning the regular evening meal and needs something not too expen-

Kind of meat ...

Cut

Method of cooking

What kind of meat would Anne cook for dinner on Sunday for her family?
Kind of meat Cut Method of cooking

Helen and her husband are having a couple over for supper. thing to impress them. What kind of meat will she serve?
Kind of meat Cut

Helen wants some-

Method of cooking

SOURCE:

Louisiana Experiment Station Bulletin 557,

page 21.

29

APPENDIX II
EXAMPLE OF PICTURE FRUSTRATION TECHNIQUE USED BY

SM-19

INVESTIGATORS

I

I

t
i

I WONDER WHAT MRS* W ILL IAMS LOOKS FOR TO BE SURE GETTING TENDER

OF
,.

i2
\/

I

BEEF
t t i

.1

CL1G ZJE\
." .- " . , . L

1<

~-C' ., '''''' /' U~Ps ~,~:\h

JII' ~c~:: ~~~E~ZCi~~

SOURCE:

Louisiana

Experiment

Station

Bulletin

565,

page

25.

30
APPENDIX III Example of Socioeconomic score used by SM-19 Investigators

1.

Freezer

2. 3. 4.
5.

Hot and cold water Power washing machine Telephone
Radio

6.

Television

7. 8. 9.
10.

Newspaper Auto and/or truck (one, 5 years old or newer) Own home
Home improvements in past 5 years (if house was built in

Home freezer Freezer locker No Yes Water piped in No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Daily Weekly two one or two (both old models) No Yes No Yes No College graduate High school graduate Some schooling No All members 6 yrs. and over in 1 or more organizations other than church Some member in 1 or more organiŤ zations other than church In church organizations only or in no organization 3 or more 1 or 2 None Total
64,

2 1 0 2 1 0 2 0 1 0 I 0 2 0 2 1 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 3 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0
24

11.

last 5 years give 2 points) Education of either head or principal earner Participation of family members in organizations

12.

13.

Homemakers regular readingnewspapers and/or magazines

SOURCE:

Georgia Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin N.S.

page 30.

APPEND IX IV EXAMPLE

OF

HEDONIC SCALES USED BY SM-19 INVESTIGATORS

*ftX L YILi O
Steak Beef
Test
w w

MEAT ACCEPTANCE

TEST

Project No. 579
factor:.

Highly Satisfactcry Directions:
Please indicate opinion of each test sample marking the box be-

'DIE --

side the facial expression which most nearly indicates your reaction

by

your

to

the sample.

(Check only one in

each column.
ACCEPTABLE METHODS

X1LI:

(Please
1.

OF PREPARATION
steak

check the method which you followed.)

For

ground beef,
Broiled hamburger

n.,..

rtt..... f:

DLII
A"
iii

Hamburger on bun Ground meat patties (pan- fried) 4. Ground meat patties (broiled) For steaks

2. 3.

1. Broiled in oven

Lii

2. Pan broiled 3. Pan-fried 4. Braised
Additional Comments

--------

mT
---Name rrr y~a~

Address
Li6

~Highly Unsatisfactory
SOURCE: Agricultural Economics and Rural

t

'

Sociology

Department,

Auburn,

University

32 Bibliography
I. Crisp, Richard D. Inc. Ferber, Robert. mic Review. 1957. General References

Marketing Research, McGraw-Hill Book Company,

1962. Vol.

"Research on Household Behavior," LII, No. 1.

American Econo-

"The Reliability of Consumer Reports of Financial 1966. Ferber, Robert. Assets and Debts," Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Illinois. "Using Panel 1963. Brinser, Ayers, Harry Allison, and Charles Zwick. U. S. Department of Data in Analyzing Consumer Demand for Meat," Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Marketing Economics Division. Partin, Mildred. 1950. Surveys, Polls, andSamples, Harper and Brothers.

1956. "Accuracy of Response Obtained in a Milk ConsumpMetz, Joseph F. tion Study," Methods of Research in Marketing paper number 5, Department of Agricultural Economics, Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station.

II.

Literature Cited

Danner, M. J. 1959. Beef Preferences and Purchasing Practices, Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Station Circular No. 131. Consumer Preferences for Ground Beef and Impli1964. Glover, Robert S. cations for Cattle Producers and Beef Distributors, (Unpublished Texas A&M University. Ph. D. Dissertation). 1961. Decision Making in Meat Buying, Hudson, A. C., and M. J. Danner. Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Station Circular No. 139.

Hudson, A. C.,

and M. J. Danner.

1963.

Meat Buying and Preparation
Auburn University 144.

Practices of Professionally Employed Women, Agricultural Experiment Station Circular No.

Law, H. M., M. S. Beeson, A. B. Clark. A. M. Mullins and G. E. Murra. Consumer Acceptance Studies I, Frozen Prefabricated Beef Cuts, 1965. Louisiana State University Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 596. Law, H. M., M. S. Beeson, A. B. Clark, A. M. Mullins, and G. E. Murra, 1965. Consumer Acceptance Studies II, Ground Beef of Varying Fat Composition, Louisiana State University Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 597.

33

Mize, J. J., and W. C. Stringer. 1959. Choosing Beef for Household Georgia Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin N.S. 64.
Mize, J. J.,

Use,

and B. W. Bailey. 1961. Use of Beef and Meats at Public Eating Establishments, Georgia Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin N.S. 84.

Other

Mize, Jessie J. 1962. Determinant Factors and Motivations in Meat Choices for Household Use, Georgia Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin N.S. 91..
Woods, B. from

L.., and

Projective
No.

G. J. Nettles. 1962. Th ttso etsa ne ee Meal Situations, Louisiana State University Agricu1l-

tural Experiment Station Bulletin No.

557.

Woods, B. L., and M. C. Jenkins. 1962. Motivations in Consumer Purchases of Beef. Louisiana State University Agricultural Experiment Station
Bulletin 565.