RETAIL TEST MARKETING AND CONSUMER EVALUATION OF …afcerc.tamu.edu/publications/Publication-PDFs/MRC-71-4 Retail Test... · RETAIL TEST MARKETING AND CONSUMER EVALUATION OF FROZEN

RETAIL TEST MARKETING AND CONSUMER

EVALUATION OF FROZEN LAMB

Thomas L. Sporleder

and

Robert E. Branson

OCTOBER 1971

Texas Agricultural Market Research and Development Center

in cooperation with The Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology

Texas A&M Universityand the

Market Performance and Development Branch Economic Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture

THE TEXAS AGRICULTURAL MARKET RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER

An Education and Research Service of the

Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and the

Texas Agricultural Extension Service

The purpose of the Center is to be of service to agricultural producers, groups and organizations, as well as processing and marketing firms in the solution of present, and emerging market problems. Emphasis is given to research and educational activities designed ta improve and expand the markets for food and fiber products related to Texas agriculture.

The Center is staffed by a basic group of professional agricultural and marketing economists from both the Experiment Station and the Extension Service. In addition, support is provided by food technologists, statisticians and special ized consultants as determined by the requirements of individual projects.

Robert E. Branson, Ph.D. Coordinator

Wi 11 iam E. Black, Ph.D. John P. Nichols, Ph.D. Associate Coordinator Carl E. Shafer, Ph.D.

Charles Baker, M.S. Thomas L. Sporleder, Ph.D. Chan C. Connolly, Ph.D. Randall Stelly, Ph.D. Robert L. Degner, M.S. Edward Uvacek, Ph.D. Johnny Feagan, M.S. Will iam J. Vastine, Ph.D.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to acknowledge the many cooperators involved in this research. Our appreciation is expressed to the manufacturer in Greeley, Colorado, of the new frozen lamb product, and to the wholesalers and retail chains in each of the test cities, Tyler, Texa~ and Tulsa Oklahoma, and the personnel of the respective firms. All gave incessant cooperation which made this study possible.

Special appreciation is expressed to Mr. Lou Havrilla, MerchandisingManager, and Mr. Brian Hoffman, Market Analyst, of the American Sheep Producers Council, Inc. for their guidance and cooperation throughout the entire study.

Thanks are also due to Mr. Robert Degner, Research Associate of the Texas Agricultural Market Research and Development Center, for his untiring effort in field operations and data tabulation and analysis.

This research was partially supported by a grant from the American Sheep Producers Council, Inc., Denver, Colorado.

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..................................................... .

RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••.•••.•..•

INTRODUCTION •••...•••.••••••..••.•.•••.••••••.•••••••••.•••• "....... 7 Toward a New Market! ng Concept for Lamb............. ............ 7 Previous Research ••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••.•••.•••.• 8 This Re po r t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . .. 1 0

THE RETAIL MARKET TEST••••••••••••••••••••••.•••• : •••••••••••••.••.• 13 The Research Design •••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••.•••••••• 13 Frozen Lamb Sa les •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••.••••••• J 5 Frozen Lamb Sales and Income................................... 16 Price...............•..........•............................... 20

Fresh Lamb Sa 1eS ••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••.•••••••• 20 Frozen Lamb Versus Other. Product Sa les •.•••••••••••••.••.•••••• 24·

CONSUMER EVALUAT ION ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 29 Survey Results--Phase One--Consumer Survey ••••••••••••••.•.•... 30

Proporti'on of Lamb Buyers in the Test Cities •••••..•••..••. 30 Adverti sing Awareness •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 33

Product Eva 1 uat i on Resul ts ••••••••••••••.•••••••••••.•••••••••• 36 The Samp 1e ...................... ~ •...•..................... ' 36 Cook i ng I nformat ion ••••••••••••••.••••••••.•••••••••••.•.•• 37

Ratings of Product Characteristics ............................. 39 Consumer Repeat Purchasers Survey •••••••••.•••.••••••••••••••.. 50 Buying Intentions •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••• 53 Househo I d Income Leve 1••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• '.' 58

CONCLUS IONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............... ~ ..................... 59

APPENDIX A •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••.• 63

APPENDI X B ............................................................ 67

APPENDIX C••..•••.. • ',' ••••.••••.••••••••••.•••••••.••.••.••••.•.•... 83

APPENDI X D ..•..•....•••••••••••.•••.•.•••.••..••.•.•••...•..•.... 89II ••

APlJENO I X E ......••...•.••••••••.••••••.•••••.•••..•..••••.•••.•.•.•.107

iii

LI ST OF TABLES

Table Page

Time Periods of Analysis for Test Marketing Frozen Lamb

in Tyler, Texas and Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1970-71 .............. 14

3 Percentage of Total Sales of Frozen Lamb, by Item, Tulsa

4 Average Frozen Lamb Sales by Income Area Classification of

7 Average Fresh and Frozen Lamb Sales by Period, Tulsa and Tyler

2 Average Frozen Lamb Sales by Market Test Period, Tulsa

and Tyler, 1970-71 •••.............•......•....•......•.... 17

and Tyler Market Test, 1970-71 .•..•....•.............•.... 18

Store Location, Tulsa and Tyler Market Test, 1970-71 .....• 19

5 Range in Retail Price per Pound for Lamb-in-a-Box in Audit

Stores, Tulsa, Oklahoma ........••••.............•......... 21

6 Range in Retail Price per Pound for Lamb-ir.-a-Box in Audit

Stores, Ty 1 e r, T exa s . • . • • • • . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . .. 22

Combined, 1970-71 Market Tests •.•........•................ 23

8 Average Sales of Selected Meat Items by Market Test Period,

Tulsa, 1970-71 ............................................. 25

9 Average Sales of Selected Meat Items by Market Test Period,

Tyler, 1970-71 ..•.....••.••..•....................•....... 26

10 Average Sales of Selected Meat Items, Tulsa and Tyler

Combined, by Market Test Period, 1970-71.................. 28

11 Household Purchase Frequency of Lamb, Fresh or Frozen,

Consumer Survey, Tulsa and Tyler, November, 1970.......... 31

12 Advertising Recal I, Frozen Lamb Market Test, Tulsa and

Tyler, November 1970 .....••.•....•....•................... 34

13 Where Consumer Recalled Frozen Lamb Market Test Advertising

Tyler and Tulsa, November 1970•.......•.•......•......•... 35

14 Method Interviewed Buyers Used for Thawing Frozen Lamb,

Tulsa, Oklahoma, March 1971 ............................... 38

v

Table Page

15 Consumer Evaluation of Flavor, by Item, with Mean Hedonic

Score, First and Second Interview Phases Combined •......•. 40

16 Consumer Evaluation of Tenderness, by Item, with Mean Hedonic

Score, First and Second Interview Phases Combined •........ 41

17 Consumer Evaluation of Juiciness, by Item, with Mean Hedonic

Score, First and Second Interview Phases Combined .•...•..• 42

18 Consumer Evaluation of Appearance before Cooking, by Item,

with Mean Hedonic Score, First and Second Interview

Phases Combined........................................... 43

19 Consumer Evaluation of Meat Color, by Item, with Mean Hedonic

Score, First and Second Interview Phases Combined •....•... 44

20 Consumer Evaluation of Lean vs. Fat, by Item, with Mean Hedonic

Score, First and Second Phases Combined•..•..•.......•••.. 45

21 Consumer Evaluation of Overall Quality, by Item, with Mean

Hedonic Score, First and Second Interview Phases Combined. 46

22 Consumer Evaluation of Box for Convenience of Use, by Item,

with Mean Hedonic Scores, First and Second Interview

Phases Comb i ned. • . • • • • . • • • • . • . . • • • . .. • . • • • • . • • . • • • . . . . • • .. .• 47

23 Consumer Evaluation of Box for Appearance, by Item, with Mean

Hedonic Scores, First and Second Interview Phase Combined. 48

24 aVera 11 Rat i ngs of Frozen Lamb I tems by Frequency of Fresh Lamb Use.................................................. 49

25 Consumer Ratings of Specific Attributes of Market Test Frozen

Prepackaged Lamb Products, Tulsa, March 1971 .............. 51

26 Repeat Purchases of Frozen Lamb, by Lamb User and Non-User Households Making a Coupon-Deal Purchase, Tulsa, June 1971 52

27 Buying Intentions of Repeat Frozen Lamb Purchasers Among

Lamb Users and Non-User Households. Tulsa, June 1971 •••••• 54

28 Buying Intentions of Non-Repeat Frozen Lamb Purchasers. by

Lamb User and Non-User Households, Tulsa, June 1971 •••••.• 55

29 Buying Intentions of Repeat and Non-Repeat Purchasers of

Frozen Lamb, Tulsa, June 1971. ............................ 56

vi

Table Page

30 Reasons Given for Not Buying Frozen Lamb AgainJ by Lamb User and Non-User Households J Tulsa J June J 1971 ........... 57

31 Number of Packages of Frozen Lamb Sold During Delayed Period of Sales Audits by CitYJ March, 1971 ....•................. 61

vii

LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES

Table Page

32 Test City Characteristics ..••...•....•.....•................... 65

33 Average Sales of Selected Meat Items, Pounds per 1,000

Customers, High Income Stores, Both Cities, by Period ...... 85


Customers, Medium Income Stores, Both Cities, by Period .... 86


Customers, Low Income Stores, Both Cities, by Period ....•.. 87


CUstomers per Square Foot of Display Space, Both

Cities, by Period •..•....••..•.................•..•........ 94


Customers per Square Foot of Display Space, All

Income Stores, Tulsa, by Period ...••...•..••......•...•.... 95


Customers, per Square Foot of Display Space, All

Income Stores, Tyler, by Period............................ 96


Customers, per Square Foot of Display Space, High Income

Stores, Both Cities, by Period ............................. 97


Customers, per Square Foot of Display Space, Medium

Intome Stores, Both Cities, by Period...................... 98


Customers, per Square Foot of Display Space, Low Income

Stores, Both Cities, by Period .....•..•.•.................. 99



Stores, Tulsa, by Period ................................... 100



Stores, Tyl er, by Peri od ................................... 101

ix

Table Page

44 Average Sales of Selected Meat Items, Pounds per 1,000 Customers, per Square Foot of Display Space, Medium Income Stores, Tulsa, by Period ............................ 102

45 Average Sales of Selected Meat Items, Pounds per 1,000 Customers, per Square Foot of Display Space, Medium Income Stores, Tyler, by Period ...•..••..•....••.•.•.•.•..• 103

46 Average Sales of Selected Meat Items, Pounds per 1,000 Customers, per Square Foot of Display Space, Low Income Stores, Tulsa, by Period•••..•••..•.•.•.•..•...••...••••.•• 104

47 Average Sales of Selected Meat Items, Pounds per 1,000 Customers, per Square Foot of Display Space, Low Income Stores, Tyler, by Period •.••..••••.•.•.......•..•.......•.. 105

48 User and Non-User Households by Income Level, Questionnaires 2 and 3 Comb I ned •.....••.•.•.•....•..............•...•....• 109

x

RES EAR C H H I G H L I G H T S

Purpose of Research

Research Methods

Test market new line of frozen, boneless, boxed lamb products in low lamb consumption area

Analysis of sales of frozen lamb, fresh lamb, and selected competingproducts in 20 supermarket food stores in Tulsa, Oklahoma and Tyler,Texas for 11 weeks

City-wide consumer surveys of approximately 600 households to determine:

1. Consumer awareness of frozen lamb from media advertising or in-store promotions

2. Consumer evaluation of the new product and rate of repeat purchases

2

Reo e.aJ/.eh HighUghU . . . TIME PERIODS FOR THE TEST

1. Pre-product introduction - 4 weeks, September 14 to October 12, 1970.

2. Product introduction and promotion 4 weeks, October 12 to November 9, 1970.

In-store demonstration plus mass media advertising - 2 weeks

Media advertising only - 2 weeks

3. Post promotion period - 4 weeks, November 9 to November 30, 1970.

4. Delayed time period - 3 weeks, March 1 to March 22, 1971.

COMPOSI TI ON 0 F SALES

Five basic cuts of frozen lamb, prepackagedin a box, were test marketed. Percentage of total sales by item were:

Shoulder steak--29.2%

Average weight per package 1.5 pounds

Loi n chop--2.4%


Rib chop--18.8%


Shoulder roast--16.2%

Sold in 2.5 and 4.0 pound size packages

Leg roast--ll.6%

Sold in 2.5 and 4.0 pound size packages

http:e.aJ/.eh

3

Re6 eMc.h HighUgh:t6 • • •

FROZEN LAMB - AVERAGE SALES - BOTH CITIES

DUring the two-weeks of mass media advertising and in-store demonstration period frozen lamb sales were highest-S.B lbs. per 1,000 customer store visits.

During the four-week post-promotionperiod sales were 1.0 lbs. per 1,000 customer store visits.

During the three-week delayed time period sales were 1.1 lbs. per 1,000 customer store visits.

FROZEN VERSIS FRESH LAMB SALES - AVERAGE - BOTH CITIES

During promotion period total lamb sales (fresh and frozen) averaged 0.37 carcass equivalents per 1,000 customer store count.

Frozen lamb was 48% of total carcass equivalentsales during the promotion period.

Average sales of frozen lamb over entire test was about one-half the volume of fresh sales, and one third the volume of total sales. Sales of frozen lamb, however, were somewhat adverselyaffected by out-of-stock periods in some retail stores for the more popular cuts and packagesizes.

4

Ru eaJLc.h High-Ugh:t6 • • •

OTHER SALES INFORMATION

High income neighborhood stores generallysold more frozen lamb then either middle .or low income stores.

Sales of frozen lamb in Tulsa, over the total test period, averaged 2.6 lbs. per 1,000 customer store count and in Tyler averaged 2.3 lbs. per 1,000 customer count.

During the delayed time period frozen lamb sales averaged 0.73 1bs. per 1,000 customer store count in Tulsa, and 1.7 lbs. per1,000 customer count in Tyler.

CONSUMER AWARENESS OF PRODUCT ADVERTISING

In response to an unaided recall question, 44% of all households surveyed remembered some form of advertising for frozen lamb.

The most frequently recalled media was television, followed by newspapers, and radio.

Nearly 53% of all households, recalling advertising for frozen lamb, mentioned seeing in-store advertising materials.

Newspaper advertisements were reported by26% of all households that recalled advertising.

Radio advertisements were noted by about 20% of the households that recalled the frozen lamb promotion.

5

Re& £aJtch HighUgh:C6 • • •

CONSUMER PRODUCT EVALUATION

Between 70 and 80% of all buying households rated the overall quality of the frozen lamb item purchased as good.

There was no significant difference in overall rating of the frozen product as between user and non-user households of frozen lamb.

Meat color of frozen 1 amb before, cooki ng was rated excellent.

The box in which the product was packaged was rated exce1ient for appearance and convenience of use.

Lowest consumer ratings were given to lean vs fat evaluation. Some consumers thought some items had too much fat. Ratings on this factor, however, were still good.

Item with highest overall quality rating was thick 10i n chops.

Next highest rating was on 4 lb. shoulder roasts.

REPEAT PURCHASERS RECORD

A special repeat purchase study was conducted involving introductory sales coupon as a consumer sample generator of 127 product buyers.

About 28% of all households receiving a couponfor initial purchase of frozen lamb purchased it again within 9 to 12 weeks.

44% of those who said they normally buy fresh lamb repeat purchased frozen lamb.

About 14% of househo1 ds that normally do not buy fresh 1 amb were re.peat purchasers of frozen lamb. These are new converts to lamb use.

6

ReoeaJLc.h Highlightb • • •

REASONS FOR ~O REPEAT PURCHASE

Reasons given by households that normallybuy fresh lamb for not repeat purchasing frozen lamb include:

to expensive -- 36%

don't like taste -- 12%

Reasons given by households that normallydo not buy fresh 1 amb for not repeatpurchasing frozen lamb include:

don't like taste -- 33%

too expensive -- 32%

too fat -- 9%

FUTURE INTENTIONS TO BUY FROZEN LAMB

27% of households that received coupon toward initial purchase intend to continue buying only frozen lamb.

Another 39% intend to continue buyingboth fresh and frozen lamb.

42% of households that normally buy fresh lamb intend to continue buying only frozen lamb.

Conclusion is that frozen lamb is readilyacceptable to many fresh lamb buyers.

RETAIL TEST MARKETING AND CONSUMER EVALUATION OF FROZEN LAMB

Thomas L. Sporleder and Robert E. Branson*

INTRODUCTION

Toward a New Marketing Concept for Lamb

Lamb as a meat in man's food consumption has been known for centuries. In Biblical writing it is frequently mentioned and was used for feast and sacrificial occasions. Sheep served then, as now, the dual pur,pose of producing wool for garments and household fabrics, as well as meat for human consumption.

Movement away from a rural agrarian economy to an urban industrial life for the large majority of today's populus brought with it the necessity of preparing meats at central processing faci lities. From there the dressed carcasses are wholesaled to neighborhood retail food stores, and thence prepared into retail cuts and sold to consumers. For all red meats-lamb, beef, po~k and chicken--the transition to an urbanized society introduced problems of maintaining meat flavor, quality and eye appeal in the necessary time span of a three or four stage marketing system. Consumers lack knowledge as to the condition of the specific live animal involved, the carcass processing and handling methods used, and any technical knowledge for judging meat cuts. Lamb, because of inherent characteristics, is one of the more difficult meats to market from the standpoint of maintaining shelf-life or eye-appeal of the retai I product.

A second difficulty confronts lamb. Per capita marketing is equivalent to about 3.5 pounds annually per person. This compares with 81.0 for beef, 61.0 for pork, and 37.0 for chicken. These figures indicate the comparatively small quantity of lamb involved. This is one result of the inability to maintain a full product display in all retail meat counters at all times. Thus, productavaf1ability has been a p rob lem.

Additional circumstances impede lamb retail marketing. One is consumer unfamiliarity with the product since it is not widely

*Assistant Professor and Professor, respectively, Texas Agricultural Market Research and Development Center and Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Texas A&M University.

8

available, and another is apathy toward lamb by some retail store meat personnel since it is not a major volume item in their store.

Confronted with the foregoing marketing environment, the lamb industry has need to develop an effective counter strategy. Toward that end, the Texas Agricultural Market Research and Development Center, along with others, has been endeavoring to assist the American Sheep Producers Council in seeking new directions in lamb marketing. These directions may improve lamb's market position, and thereby producers I dollar returns, as well as consumer availability and satisfaction with the product.

Previous Research

The in it i a 1 effort in the search for a new Iamb market i ng concept was built around three priorities:

1. Put lamb into a frozen or semi-processed form that could provide a more durable and stable quality product at the retai 1 store I eve I .

2. Develop a reliable means of processing, with quality control, which could be carried on at the processing plant, or at the retai I store.

3. Deve 1op a conven i ent use form of the product from the consumer's viewpoint as added enticement for shoppers to buy, try, and enjoy lamb.

Adoption of the foregoing objectives initiated a series of sequential research efforts which have been underway for several years. As is typical of innovative research, each step provides new information and often surfaces new problems that must be overcome before achievement of th e f ina 1 goa 1 •

Fi rst the concept of the boneless netted lamb roast was developed through the research program of the American Sheep Producers Council. After de-boning the lamb shoulder or leg, the interior sides of the meat are sprinkled with powdered egg white. The meat is then placed through a butcher1s stuffing horn and enmeshed in a stretch netting such as is often used for rolled beef roasts. This product version was subjected to a laboratory panel test at Texas A&M University, a

9

consumer panel test in Waco, Texas, a~?, therafter, to a pilot market test in Bryan-College Station, Texas.

Consumer acceptance of the product from quality standpoint was sufficient to indicate that the market for lamb could be expanded via this new product concept. Difficulty was encountered in getting retai I meat departments to prepare the product. For the test, netted lamb roasts were supplied through specially arranged facilities. It was suggested that the new product version of lamb needed to be prepared at a central processing facility, as are hams, for example, rather than at the retai I store. This would assure J) a continuing supply source as well as 2) a uniform product quality.

The American Sheep Producers Council, in cooperation with Kansas S~e University researchers, evaluated various prototypes of commercial processing methods for frozen lamb. Laboratory evaluations and pilot consumer tests indicated that a pre-packaged frozen lamb product was the most suitable form for the consumer retail market, if fresh cuts could not be kept readily available at all times. The next step was a market test to determine the product's market potential, the subject of the present report.

While the retail market test of frozen, pre-packaged lamb was in progress, another avenue of marketini/was explored by the Animal Science Department at Texas A&M University.- Considered was whether it was feasible to process and vacuum package lamb at the packing plant for shipment through marketing channels to the retail markets. There the product would be prepared into retail cuts and merchandised to consumers in fresh form. Generally, results indicate that this is not a viable alternative. Shelf life of the product is reduced even further, and is already too short. Possible indications of other problems were also evident such as odor, flavor and eye appeal variations. Therefore, it is still imperative that a workable model of improved lamb marketing be found.

Another market analysis made during the course of the aforementioned research dealt with cost. Lamb, on a per pound basis, is higher priced at retail than popular forms of most other meats. When de-boned as in the case of the netted lamb rolls or the frozen, pre-packaged form, the price differential appears even larger. Consequently, the question arose as to whether consumers were interested in a cost-per-serving

lIw. Bernard Lester and Robert E. Branson, "A Summary Report, Netted Lamb Roasts Texas Consumer Market Test," Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, MP-821, Texas A&M University, December 1966.

Y Z• Carpenter and G. Smith, "Evaluation of Concepts for Possible Improvements in Marketing Distribution and Merchandising of Lamb,1I Department of Animal Science, Texas A&M University, September 1970.

10

comparison for lamb versus other meats. Depth interviews revealed that housewives have too wide a variance in ability to judge the cost per serving among meat cuts a9Y among different meats for this to be a viable marketing concept.- Therefore, any marketing program built around a cost per serving approach would likely not gain any advantage.

Th is Report

Results from the test marketing and consumer evaluation of a new line of frozen, boneless, pre-packaged lamb products is presented in this report. The new line consists of five basic cuts--shoulder roast, leg roast, shoulder steak, rib chop, and loin chop. These five basic cuts are processed and marketed in eight different packages or items as fo 11 ows:

Average Retai 1 Item Package Weight

Shou I de r Roas t pound

4.0 Shoulder Roast 2.5 Leg Roas t 4.0 Leg Roast 2.5 Shou I de r Steak 1.5 Rib Chop 1.5 Regular Loin Chop 1.4 Thick Loin Chop 1.5

. Each item was processed, frozen, over-wrapped and pre-packaged in an opaque box. The product was introduced into two test markets simultaneously. All eight products were stocked by many of the supermarket retai I grocery stores of the leading food chains in the two test cities.

Throughout the entire report, the new product is referred to simply as frozen lamb. In some instances, retailers cut lamb carcasses in their meat department and freeze some or all of the cuts. This type of "frozen lamb" is not to be confused with the market test product referred to in this report. All other lamb is referred to as fresh lamb.

Test results are reported in two major sections: 1) retai I test marketing and 2) consumer evaluation. Retail test marketing was accomplished through sales information collected in a sample of retai I

.!!Robert E. Branson and W. Bernard Lester, !lCost per Serving as a Consumer Concept in Buying Meats," Texas Agricultural E:xperiment Station and Economic Res~arch Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Col lege Station, Texas, September 1966.

11

food supermarkets while consumer evaluation, and,advertising awareness, was accomplished through consumer telephone surveys. The research purpose was solely to market test the retail sales potential of the new product. It was not the intent to evaluate the effectiveness of product promotion, either by advertising or by in-store promotion activities. The latter would have required a different research design.

THE RETAil MARKET TEST

The Research Design

The cities chosen for the test marketing of frozen lamb were Tulsa, Oklahoma, and Tyler, Texas. These cities were selected because they are both relatively low lamb consumption areas and have income profiles among their households that are typical among large urban areas. If success in marketing can be attained in a relatively low lamb consumption area, then success is even, more likely in relatively high lamb cons.umption areas. It was the specific desi re of the National Lamb Counci I to test the product in a low lamb purchasing area.

TulST/has about 115,000 households compared with 19,400 households in Tyler.- Dollars spent for food in relation to total retail sales are comparable in the two cities--21 percent. Other selected characteristics of the two cities appear In Appendix A of this report.

Store audits were taken in a sample of supermarket grocery stores in bath cities during the test. The new product was introduced in each market the week of October 12, 1970. Audits were taken in II retail stores in Tulsa and 9 in Tyler, or a total sample of 20 stores among the two cities which is a sufficient sample to reasonably measure new product sales potentials.

Each sample store was audited on Monday or Tuesday for inventories of frozen lamb, frozen turkey rolls and roasts, frozen steakettes, all fresh beef, and fresh lamb. Audits of shelf space, price, and any special displays for each of the above items were taken in each store on Fridays and Saturdays. Newspaper advertising for each of the above meat items were monitored in both cities.

The market test period consisted of 15 weeks from September 14 through December 7, 1970, and March I through March~22, 1971. It was broken into six time segments for analysis purposes: A) preproduct introduction; B) product introduction with in-store demonstrations plus media advertising; C) product with media advertising only; D) an advertising effect decay period; E) post decay period; and F) a delayed time period (Table 1).

Time period A was used to establish a sales base for selected competitive food products. Included were frozen turkey rol Is and roasts, frozen steakettes, all fresh beef, and fresh lamb. Upon introduction of the new frozen lamb product, a promotion campaign

lIDecember 31,1970, estimate from 1970 "Survey of Buying Power," Sales Management Magazine, New York, New York, pp. 0-111 and 0-137.

z:Table 1.

Time Periods of Analysis for Test Marketing Frozen Lamb In Tyler, Texas and Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1970-71.

PERIOD CODE

RESEARCH PHASE CITY TULSA TYLER

A Pre-Product Introduction (4 weeks) Sept. 14-0ct. 12, 1970 Sept. 14-0ct. 12,1970

Product Introduction and Promotion (4 weeks)

B In-Store Demonstrations plus Media Advertising* (2 weeks) Oct. 12-0ct. 26, 1970 Oct. 26-Nov. 9, 11197~

C Media Advertising Only (2 weeks) Oct. 26-Nov. 9, 1970 Oct. 12-0ct. 26, 1970

Post Promotion Period (4 weeks)

D Advertising Decay Period (3 weeks) Nov. 9-Nov. 30, 1970 Nov. 9-Nov. 30, 1970

E Post Decay Period (1 week) Nov. 30-Dec. 7, 1970 Nov. 30-Dec. 7, 1970

F Delayed Time Period (3 weeks) March I-March 22, 1971 March I-March 22, 1971

*In-store demonstrations were in 6 stores, 3 on each of two weekends, in each city.

!lIn-store demonstrations occurred during the first two weeks of media advertising in Tulsa, but were in the second two weeks of advertising in Tyler.

15

was conducted in both test cities for four weeks. This period had two segments-time segment S, two weeks involving both in-store demonstrations and media advertising, and time segment C, another two weeks of media advertising only. Newspaper and radio advertisements, supporting the new product were sponsored by the American Sheep Producers Council, Inc. In each city there were numerous tie-in "advertisements" such as point-of-purchase display materials and retai 1 store features in newspaper advertising or television spots.

In period D, the pattern of sales declines, which usually follows a promotion program, was measured. Period E, the fourth week after promotion, was regarded as an indicator of the likely basic future sales rate the product would hold. Previous experience with new product tests suggested that the fourth week post promotion sales would near the long term expectancy.

assume a level

Finally, a three week period was included during March, 1971. period (F) served as a further check on the longer term sales rate. research data, as wi 11 be noted later, confi rmed a relatively closrelationship between overall average sales in periods E and F.

e

This The

Pur~osely no variables were directly controlled during the test. That is, such factors as price or store advertising of frozen or fresh lamb were not controlled, nor were any controls put on any other potentially competing products. The desire was to monitor sales of the new product under normal or typical conditions, thus as few variables as possible were controlled. The only requisite was that all of the stores included in the sales audit stocked the new frozen lamb product.

As a separate phase of the research, during March, 1971, in-store couponing was used, in selected stores in Tulsa, as a device to generate a special consumer sample of frozen lamb purchasers. Retai 1 stores used in this phase did not include those in the sales audits for the market test. The purpose-of the special consumer panel was to test repeat purchase behavior regarding the new product.

Frozen Lamb Sales

Sales results were analyzed on the basis of the test market time segments and are noted in Table 1. Sales of a new product are expected to be relatively high during the promotion period and then taper off during the post promotion carry-over period.

Frozen lamb promotion period sales during in-store demonstrations, period S, were 5.8 pounds per 1,000 customer store count, and were 3.1

16

in period C, advertising only, and declined to about 1.0 pound In period 0, or after the promotion effects were judged to have essentially decayed, Table 2.

Of the eight different frozen lamb items offered for sale, the three best sellers were the shoulder steak, the rib chop, and the regular loin chop, Table 3. These accounted for about 64 percent of all sales during the test. As would be expected, the largest selling items were the lower priced items per package and per pound. Shoulder roasts, for example, sold better than leg roasts, which is likely attributable to price differences.

For analysis purposes, sales of frozen lamb by time peri9?' were converted to pounds per 1,000 customer store visits, Table 2.- This conversion permits comparisons between test cities and among 2}me periods, even though the time periods are of varying lengths.- For example, in Table 2, test period B, the 6.9 under Illn-store derronstration and media advertising period--Tulsall means that for every 1,000 customer visits to an audit store during the specified period an average of 6.9 pounds of frozen lamb were sold. Other figures in the table have a similar interpretation.

Sales were highest in both test cities during the heaviest promotion, or B, period: 6.9 in Tulsa and 4.5 in Tyler. They were lower during the C period of media advertising only, 3.3 and 2.8 respectively. After the promotional effects decayed, or period E, sales were around 1.0 pound per 1,000 customer store visits. Thus, over the entire test period sales in the two cities were reasonably similar.

Frozen Lamb Sales and Income

Previous studies have shown that household incoffij/can be a significantdetermi nant of househol d food purchase behavi or.- The effect of income on market test sales of frozen lamb was indicated in part by comparing sales arrong audit stores which were located in high, middle, and low income neighborhoods, Table 4. Sales averaged, for the two cities, 2.7,0.4 and 1.0 pounds per 1,000 customer store visits in that order amoung high, medium and low income area stores. This follows the sales pattern of fresh lamb according to meat merchandisers in the two test cities. Although the sales differences shown between middle and low income stores were not statistically significant, differences between

lITwenty five retail pounds of frozen boneless lamb equal one carcass equivalent (conversion from Dr. G.C. Smith, Meats Technologist, Animal Science Department, Texas A&M University).

~This is because stores and weeks as dimensions cancel in conversion.

liFood Consumption in Households in the United States, Household Food Consumption Survey, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture July. 1968.

Table 2.

Average Frozen Lamb Sales by Market Test Period, Tulsa and Tyler, 1970 - 71

City

Test Period

6 C D E F

Promotion POSt Promotion

Delayed Time Period Sales Check

In-Store Demonstration

and Media Advertising

Media Advertising

Only

Advertising Decay Per iod

Post Decay

Period

---Pounds per 1,000 customer store visits--

Tulsa 6.9 3.3 1.1 1.0 O.,]a/

Tyler 4.5 2.8 1.3 1.0 1.7

Both Cities b/ 5.8 3.1 1.2 1.0 1.1

a/Some stock-outs of popular priced items in some stores this period.

£!Weighted average.

-.!

18

Table 3.

Percentage of Total Sales of Frozen Lamb, By Item, Tulsa and Tyler Market Test, 1970 - 71

Approximate Share of Typical Minimum 1/Item Average Weight A II Sa les Retail Price per Pound-

Pounds Total Items 2/Percent- Do lIars

Shoulder Roast

4 lb. 4.0 146 7. I 1.39 2.5 lb. 2.5 185 9.0 1.44

Lp.g Roast

4 lb. 4.0 101 4.9 1.94 2.5 lb. 2.5 143 7.0 1.95

Shoul de r Steak 1.5 597 29.2 1.59

Rib Chop 1.5 366 17.9 1.99

Loin Chop

Regular 1.4 318 15.5 2.29 Thick 1.5 190 9.3 2.29

Total 2046 99.91'

!!Typical, or usual, low side of price range for the item among chains and over weeks of the market test.

YPercent of total sales in terms of number of packages sold.

1'Not equal to 100 percent due to rounding error.

19

Tab Ie 4.

Average Frozen Lamb Sales by Income Area Classification of Store Location, Tulsa and Tyler Market Test

1970 - 71

CITY

Tulsa Ty lerPERIOD

Income Category

High Middle Low High Middle Low

Pounds per 'I ,000 customer store visits

In-Store Demonstration and Media Advertising 8.4 9. I 2. 1 7.3 3.0 2.9

Media Advertising 5.6 2.8 1.4 4.6 1.3 2.5

Advertising Decay Peri od 2.3 0.5 1.1 1.9 0.9 1.1

Post Decay Period 2. I 0.5 0.9 1.4 0.4 1.1

De I ayed pe ri od 0.9 0.6 0.7 1.1 0.7 0.7

20

high income neighborhoods and the other two are statistically significant. The food chains in the market test reported that fresh lamb sales were generally highest in high income stores and lowest in middle income areas which is in accordance with the audited frozen lamb sales results.

Pri ce

During the market test, the price of the test products were not control led. Each store was allowed to set its own retail price. The average price for each of the eight products in the two cities remained relatively stable over the 12 week market test, Tables 5, 6. However, the price range tended to narrow over time. Stores were encouraged to price the product at what would be considered "norma]!1 mark-ups. Since it is a meat item, and was handled through the meat departments, there was an inclination to apply fresh meat mark-ups rather than those for frozen foods. In the longer run, it is felt that adherence to fresh meat pricing policies would diminish. Slightly lower retail prices for the frozen lamb items would result.

Fresh Lamb Sales

Sales of fresh lamb were also monitored during the market test for frozen pre-packaged lamb. Not all of the 20 audit stores regularly stocked fresh lamb. In order to make fresh sales comparable with frozen, the latter was converted to fresh carcass e~~ivalents. since fresh lamb is bone-in and frozen is boneless, Table 7.

Fresh lamb sales during the four-week market test period A, before frozen lamb introduction, average 0.21 carcass equivalents per 1,000 customers, Table 7. Note that fresh lamb sales were at the same or higher levels in periods E and F, the post advertising decay period and the delayed time period, averaging about 0.21 carcass equivalents and .21 and .30 per 1,000 customer store visits respectively. Higher fresh lamb sales in period F could be due to lamb use seasonality since this delayed period was in March. Lamb slaughter nationally was at an index of 116 in March 1971 compared with 107 in September 1970.

Frozen pre-packed lamb sales declined from the promotion period high of about 0.23 carcass equivalents per 1,000 customer store visits to a level of about 0.04 carcass equivalents in the post promotion period and the delayed time period sales check. The market test suggests that fresh lamb sales were not adversely affected by the

lITwenty five pounds of boneless lamb equal one carcass equivalent and 45 retai 1 pounds of bone-in lamb equal one carcass equivalent, on the average. (Conversion from Dr. G.C. Smith, Meats Technologist, Animal Science Department, Texas A&M University.)

TABLE 5.

RANGE IN RETAIL PRICE PER POUND FOR LAHB-IN-A-BOX IN AUDIT STORES, TULSA, OKLAHOMA

WEEK OF OCT. 12-17 OCT. 19-24 OCT. 2b-31 I NOV. 2-7 NOV. 9-14 NOV. Ib-21 I NOV. 23-2ij I NOV. j8eDEC. 5 PRODUCT ---------------------------------------------- range ----------------------------------------------------

4# Shoul der I " Roast I $1 .39-1. 59 $1.39-1.94 $1.39-1.59, $1.39-1.59 $1. 39-1.94 $1.39-1.99 $1.)9-1.59 $1. 39-1.99 I

2 1/2# Shoul- I$1. 44-1.69 der Roast $1. 39-1.59 $1.39-1. 59 $1 .39-1.59 $1. 39-1. 59 $1. 39-1.59 $1.39-1.65 $1 .44-1 .69 4# Leg Roast $1.94-2.19 $1.94-2. 19 $1.94-2.19 $1.94-2.19 $1 .39-2. 19 $1.94-2. 19 $1 .94-2.19 $1 .94-2. 19

2 j/2# Leg Roast $1 .99-2. 19 $1.94-2.19 $1.99-2.19 $1.99-2.19 $1.94-2.19 $1.94-2.19

I $1 .94-2. 19 , $1.99-2. 19

Shoulder Steak $1.59-1. 65 $1.59-1.65 I $1.59-1.65 $1.59-1.65 $1.59-1.65 $1.59-1.65 $1 .59-1 .65 $1.59-1.65

I

Ri b Chops i

$1.17-2.19 1$1.99-2.19 $1 .89-1.99 $1. 89-2.39 ,$1.89-2.65 $1.89-2.39 $1 .99-2.39 $1.99-2.39 I !

Regular Loin I ' $1.16-2.65 I $1.99-2.65 I $2.29-2.65 -Chops $2.29-2.69 $2.29-2.79 $2.29-2.69 $1 .99- 2.69 $1.99-2.69

! , i

Thick Loin $1.27-2.65 i $1.27-2.65Chops $2.29-2.65 $2.29-2.69 $2.22-2.69 $2.29-2.69 $2.29-2.69 1$2.29-2.69

N

TABLE 6. N N

RANGE IN RETAIL PRICE PER POUND FOR LAMB-IN-A-BOX IN AUDIT STORES, TYLER, TEXAS

WEEK OF IOCT. 12-17 IOCT. 19-24 OCT. 26-311 NOV. 2-7 INOV. 9-14 INOV. 16-21 I NOV. 23-28 f NOV. 30-DEC. 5 PRODUCT ------------------------------------------------ range ------------------------------------------------

4# Shoul de r I Roast $1. 39~ $1.39-1.59 $1.39al $1.39-1.59 $1 .39-1 .59 $1.39-1 .59 $1 .39-1 .59 $1 .39- 1.59

2 1/2# Shoul de r $1 .44-1 .59 $1.44-1.99 $1.44-1 .99 $1.44-1.99 $1.44-1.45 $1 .44-1 .45 $1.44-1 .45 $1 .44-1 .45 Roast

4# Leg $1.94-1.95Roast $1.94-1.95 $1.94-1.95 $1.94-1.95 $1.85-1.95 $1.94-1 .99 $1.94-1.95 $1 .94-1.99

2 1/2# Leg Roast $1.45-1.99 $1.45-1.99 $1.95-1.99 $1 .99-2.00 $1.95-2.00 $1.95-2.39 $1.95-1.99 $1.95-1.99

Shoulder $1.59~ $1.59al $1.59al $1.59al $1 .59al $1.59~ $1 . 59~Steak $1.59.. 1.99

Rib Chop $1.99-2.49 $1.99-2.49 $1.99-2.49 $1.99-2.39 $1.99-2.39 $1.99 al $1 .99~ $1.99al

Regu 1 arLo in Chop $2.29-2.39 $2.29-2.49 $2.29-2.49 $2.29-2.95 $2.29-2.49 $2.29-2.49 $2.29-2.49 $2.29-2.49

Thick Loin Chop $2.29-3.19 $2.29- 3. 10 $2.29-3.10 $2.29-3.10 S2.29-3.10 $2.29- 3. 10 $2.29-3.10 $2.29-3.10

--_......... --

~Price of this product was the same in all stores that carried it, therefore the range was zero.

Table 7.

Average Fresh and Frozen Lamb Sales by Period, Tulsa and Tyler Combined, 1970-71 Market Tests.

Type of Lamb

A B

Period

C 0 E F

Pre-Product Introduction



Media Advertising

Advertising Decay

Post Decay

Delayed Time

Period

---Carcass equivalents per 1,000 customer store visits--

Fresh 0.207 0.237 0.146 0.135 0.209 0.298

Frozen at-" 0.234 0.124 0.048 0.041 0.044

All Lamb 0.207 0.471 0.270 0.183 0.250 0.342

a/Dashes indicate no audit data were obtained.

N UJ

2.4

introduction of the new product. A simple linear regression between fresh and fyozen sales did not yield a slope significantly different from zero.- From this, it can be concluded tha~ at least, fresh and frozen sales were not strongly competitive.

As usual, caution should be used in interpreting the sales data in Table 7, particularly under the "delayed" period. Sales of fresh during this period are confounded with somewhat higher national seasonality of sales during March. In addition, sales of frozen lamb were confounded by some stock-outs of popularly priced frozen lamb items in some stores during this audit period. Thus, frozen product sales during the delayed period are biased downward.

Frozen Lamb Versus Other Product Sales

Sales of other selected meat items were monitored during the test period to obtain an indicator of relative success or fai lure for sales of the new product in comparison with established frozen food products of a simi lar nature. If the new lamb product can perform as well or better than existing products, it has potential for the longer run.

Comparative items selected for this purpose were frozen turkey rolls and roasts, frozen turkey and gravy, frozen steakettes and frozen shrimp. All except shrimp are marketed in an opaque carton of some type. Shrimp sales were monitored only during the delayed period.

In addition, all fresh beef sales were recorded from September 14 to December 7, 1970, or the A through E test design periods. This was done simply to provide a comparison between lamb and beef sales, one that could serve as a guide to stores now handling beef but not lamb.

Sales of the selected items varied between Tulsa and Tyler, particularly with respect to frozen steakettes (Tables 8 and 9). Frozen turkey rolls and roasts and the turkey and gravy sales were generally higher during test period 0 which included the Thanksgiving holiday peri od.

Turkey rolls present perhaps one of the most simi lar established products to frozen lamb on the market today. Comparing sales of frozen lamb with turkey rolls is revealing. In Tulsa and Tyler sales of frozen pre-packaged lamb, during the post decay period,were about 1.0 pound per 1,000 customer store visits, or about the same sales volume as for turkey rolls Tables 8 and 9.

lIAt the .05 level. Slope was +0.27 with t 0.81.

Table 8

Average Sales of Selected Meat Items by Market Test Period

Tulsa, 1910-71

Item

A B

Period

C D E F




Media Advertising

Advertising Decay

Post Decay

Delayed Time

Period

---Pounds per 1,000 customer store visits--

Frozen lamt>!i 6.9 3.3 1.1 1.0 0.1

Fresh la~ 7.8 11.6 0.7 4.9 6.5 9.8

Turkey Rolls & Roasts 1.5 0.9 1.1 2.5 0.4 1.0

Turkey & Gravy 2.0 3.2 5.0 2.2 1.6 1.4

Steakettes 1.7 1.7 2.7 1.9 2.5 4.8

Shrimp

A11 Fresh Beef 485.9 493.7 595.1 425.5 605.9

0.7 c/

al N - Boneless V'1

bIB .- one-In

c/Oashes indicate no audit date was obtained.

Table)

Average Sales of Selected Meat Items by Market Test Periods N Cl'

Tyler, 1970-71

Per iod

Item

A B C D E F




Media Advertising

Advertising Decay

Post Decay

Delayed Time

Period

Frozen Lam~ ---Pounds per

4.5

1,000 customer store visits--

2.8 1.3 1.0 1.7

Fresh Lam~ II .4 6.7 8.8 7.8 14.7 18.8

Turkey Rolls & Roasts 1.6 2.5 2.4 2.7 1 .2 0.8

Turkey & Gravv 1.0 2.3 0.8 0.6 2.2 2.8

Steakettes 10.0 13.4 18.0 10.8 8. 1 15. 1

Shrimp

All Fresh Beef 561.0 774.3 849.5 606.3 741.1

14.4 c/

~Boneless biB .- one-In

c/Dashes indicate no audit data was obtained.

27

Frozen steakette sales over the test period E and F in Tulsa averaged about four times that of frozen lamb, while in Tyler steakettes averaged nearly eight times the sales of frozen lamb (Tables 6 and 7). Periods E and F are combined because a price drop on steakettes occurred in period F. The considerable city differences in steakette sales appeared to perhaps reflect some quality differences in the product in the two markets. The average observed price in period E and F combined was 88 cents per pound in Tulsa and $1.00 in Tyler.

Shrimp was considered as another product with possible similar marketing characteristics to the new product. During the period F, shrimp sales were audited in both cities. Again however, sales were quite variable between test cities. In Tulsa, shrimp sales averaged only 0.7 pounds, the same as for frozen lamb. In Tyler, the comparable figure was 14.4 pounds. The observed prices per pound were $2.50 and $2.23 respectively. Being a Gulf Coast state, seafood is more readily accepted in Texas than in most interior states.

Fresh beef sales were audited in the test supermarkets during all of the test with the exception of period F, the delayed time period in March, 1971. Of course, beef is the largest selling meat item, averaging about 596 pounds per 1,000 customer store visits in both cities during the first 12 weeks (Table lol. On a bone-in basis, for each pound of frozen lamb sold beef sales averaged 119 pounds. For each pound of fresh lamb sold beef sales averaged 71 pounds, and for each pound of all lamb sold beef sales averaged 44 pounds.

The amount of display space given to a product in a retail store is normally related to sales per customer. For a discussion of the effects of display space on sales of frozen lamb, see Appendix D. Appendix C presents detailed sales data, by item, according to the income neighborhood of the store.

Table 10 N

Average Sales of Selected Meat Items, Tulsa and Tyler Combined, (Xl

By Market Test Period, 1970-71.

Item

A B

Per iod

C D E F


In-Store Demons t ra t ion


Media Advertising

Advertising Decay

Post Decay

Delayed Time

Peri od

Frozen al Lam~ ---Pounds per

5.8 1,000 customer

3.1 store visits--

1.2

Fresh Lam~ 9.3 10.7 6.6 6. I

Turkey Rolls Roasts

&

1.5 1.4 1.5 2.6

Tu rkey & Gravy 1.7 3.0 3.8 1.7

Steakettes 5.2 6.3 9.0 5.5

Shr imp

All Fresh Beef 518.2 604.2 698.6 498.7

al - Boneless

biB .- one-In

~Dashes indicate no audit data was obtained.

29

CONSUMER EVALUATION

The consumer survey phases of the frozen larm market test had several objectives. Phase one was a clty"';~(ide survey conducted in each test city to determine advertising awareness for frozen lamb and the proportion of households in each test city that had purchased the new product.

A second phase consumer telephone survey was conducted only among market-test store customers that purchased frozen lamb. The primary objective was to obtain consumer evaluations of various characteristics of the new product. This survey was conducted approximately 2 to 3 weeks after a product purchase in order to provide time for product usage yet av~}d undue consumer memory decay as to opinions cif the new product.

A third and final consumer telephone survey was conducted among a specially generated sample of households that purchased frozen lamb. These households participated in a special coupon cents-off sale conducted in selected non sales audit stores. This final set of consumer interviews~ complett::d within 9 to 12 weeks after original purchase of the new frozen lamb product, was used to determine product repurchase behavior. The 9 to 12 weeks time lapse from original purchase was necessary to allow households reasonable time to repurchase.

Several terms or phrases need precise definition.

Users -- Households that normally purchase any type of lamb

(fresh or frozen) at least once every 3 months.

Non-users -- Households that normally purchase any type of lamb (fresh or frozen) less often than once every 3 months (less often than 4 times per year).

Repeat purchasers -- Households that purchased the new frozen Jamb product at least once and purchased it again (at least once) within 9 to 12 weeks from original purchase.

i factor to be des lt wi th in consumer response to a test stlmul us. See, for examp Ie,

30

Non-repeat purchasers -- Households that purchased the new frozen lamb product at least once but did not purchase it again within 9 to 12 weeks from original purchase.

Intention to buy -- Households that purchased the new frozen lamb product at least once and ~ they intend to follow one of the indicated buying patterns

J. Buy only the new frozen lamb products. 2. Buy only fresh lamb. 3. Buy both the new frozen lamb and other Jamb. 4. Buy ne i ther.

The primary distinction between "repeat or non-repeat purchasers" and IIj ntent ion to buyll is that the forme r is based on actua 1 behavi or while the latter is solely an intention of the household.

Questionnaires used in the three consumer surveys are reproduced

in Appendix B.

Survey Results--Phase One--Consumer Survey

A city-wide clustered random samplel?f households was drawn from the Criss-Cross directory for each city.- There were 300 completed interviews in Tulsa and 294 in Tyler during the week of November 10, 1970. After checking each respondent for memory reliabi lity, through a built-in check question, the survey results are based on a net of 293 interviews in Tulsa and 294 in Tyler for a total of 587.

Proportion of Lamb Buyers in the Test Cities

As expected, in Tyler and Tulsa. few households are frequent lamb purchasers (Table 11). Only about 5 percent of the households in either test city purchase lamb as often as once a month. Approximately another 5 percent buy lamb about once in three months. No significant difference was found between the two cities except that about 1 in 7 in Tyler are very infrequent users of lamb compared with I in 20 in that classification in Tyler. About 72 percent interviewed in Tulsa and 86 percent in Tyler said they never purchased lamb. About 13.3 percent of the Tulsa sample of households ar~ lamb users compared with 9.2 percent in Tyler. However,

lICriss-Cross directortes were used in order to assure that sample replacements were from the same neighborhood as original sample households that could not be reached on three or more calls covering morning, afternoon and evening time segments.

Table 11

Household Purchase Frequency of Lamb, Fresh or Frozen. Consumer Survey, Tulsa and Tyler, November 1970

...........

Household Purchase Frequency

~---.- ~---.-.- ~

Tulsa Tyler Total

Purchase Lamb

Std. Error

Purchase Lamb

Std. ErrDr

Purchase Std. Lamb Error

Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pts. Pts. Pts.

Hore often than once 3.8 I. III 2.4 0.9 3. I 0.7

About once per month 2.7 0.9 2.0 0.8 2.4 0.6

About once every three months 6.8 1.4 4.8 1.2 5.6 0.9

Less often than once every !i:.# 1.8 iJ. 1.3 10. 1 1.2 three months

Never ll.J. 2.6 ~ 2.0 78.8 1.7

Sample number of households 293 294 587

t/one standard error should be multipl ied by 1.65 to obtain 95 percent confidence level when using a sing~e-tail distribution comparison against another figure within the table. A more precise test is that of significance of difference between percentages which is PI - where P is the firstP2 jt = --=----=a

PI - P 2

v.J

Tab I e I j ( con t . )

v.l N

percentage in the comparison and P the second percentage, The standard error of the difference2between two survey percentages is given by

P x Q~ {PIX QI 2 2 cr P - P -\J N 1 + N2l 2

where PI is the proportion in the first sample group having the attribute and is 100 - PI' P2 and QQj 2

refer correspondingly to sample group .two. Nl and N2 are the sample size from which the percentages are based.

~Underl ined figures are statistically significantly different at the 99 percent level in Tulsa compared with Tvler. All other figures for the two cities are not sufficiently different to be beyond the range of expected errors.

33

there is no significant statistical difference in the two figures.l! Thus, the best estimate is that about I household in 10 are lamb users in both cities.

The city-wide surveys indicated that frozen lamb ~~rchasers averaged 2.4 percent of the households in either ctty.- This survey was only 7 weeks after product introduction. Obviously, the proportion of households purchasing is partly a function of time. A further delayed survey would likely find a greater proportion of households that purchased the product. Also, it should be noted that not all retail food stores in both cities were carrying the neW product, so exposure to all households were not complete. This also downward biases the estimated proportion that would buy.

Advertising Awareness

Consumer advertising awareness is traditionally broken into two parts: I) una i ded reca II and 2) aided reca II. The una i ded reca II figures are the proportion of consumers that specifically remembered advertising for the new frozen lamb product without it first being mentioned to them (see questions 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b of questionnaire I of Appendix B). Aided recall is the proportion that remembered the advertising only in response to a direct question involving frozen lamb.

The general advertising awareness level achieved in both cities for frozen lamb was good, Table 12. About 25 percent of the consumers surveyed In Tyler and 10 percent in Tulsa could recall some advertising for frozen lamb unaided. The aided recall average was 22 and 31 percent, respectively. Higher unaided recall in Tyler is attributed to the inc3~sion of a larger share of that city's stores than was the case in Tulsa.

Of those consumers who recall seeing or hearing some advertising for frozen lamb, some type in-store display was the most frequently reca lIed (Tab Ie 13). The next mos t frequent4Y reca lIed medi a was television, followed by newpapers and radio.- The fact that nearly 53

p - p -1/The rel.vant significance test t = 1 2 , Yielded t . = 1.57.a _ p

p 2/Statistica11y, the 2.4 percent has a g5 p~rcent confidence interval

of +1.2 percent. That Is, if this survey were repeated, 95 percent of the time this ratio would be between 1.2 and 3.6 percent.

3/Nlne out of 16 supermarkets in Tyler were involved in the promotion program and sales audits; 11 Ilut Gf~124 supermarkets ,In.Tulsa were included in the promotion program and store audits.

4/,ven though there was no American Sheep Producer's Council sponsored televis'on advertising, some publicity was gained through this media by store sponsored advertising and/or Informationai programs.

w .... Table '2

Advertising Recal1, Frozen Lamb ~arket Test, Tulsa and Tyler November 1970

City Sample Percent of Recall Size Unaided Std. Error Aided Std. Error Total Std: Error

No. households ---percent--

Tulsa 293 9.9 1.1l! 31.1 2.1 "'1.0 2.. 9

Tyler 294 25.5 2.5 22." 2.... "'1.9 2.9

AVERAGEa/ 587 17.1 1.6 26.1 1.8 ".... 5 1.8

a/See footnote of Table 11 for interpretation of standard error.

35

Table 13. Where Consumers Recalled Frozen Lamb Market Test Advertising,

Tyler and Tulsa, November 1970.

Percent Recalling Source Source

alTul sa-Std.

Error Ty 1e,Y Std.

Error Average for Both Cities

Std. Error

T.V. 38 4.4 45 4.2 42 3. 1

Radio 22 3.8 19 3.3 20 2·5

Newspaper 21 3.7 31 3.9 26 2.7

In-store 65 4.4 43 4.2 53 3. 1

Other 2 1.3 4 1.6 3 1.1

Sub-sample size: 587 120 141 261

al - Percentages do not add to 100 percent for a city because the consumer could see or hear advertising for the product from more than one source. The percentages are computed using a base of all those who saw some advertising for frozen lamb, whether or not it was sponsored by the American Sheep Producer's Council, Inc.

36

percent of all consumers who remembered some advertising for frozen lamb

recalled in-store advertising supports the conclusion that it received

good shelf space exposure.

Product Evaluation Results

An important component of new product test marketing is consumer evaluation of various characteristics of the product. Ratings were obtained on flavor, tenderness, juiciness, appearance before cooking, lean vs. fat and over-all rating of the meat. In addition, ratings of the packaging were obtained as to convenience in use and its attractiveness.

The Sample

In order to generate an adequate size statistical sample of only households that had purchased frozen lamb, coupons were offered to store customers in Tulsa during March 1971 entitling them to price reduction if they purchased frozen lamb. Field personnel were stationed in four stores during three week-ends in March, 1971 to make this unadvertised offer available. The four stores used for this purpose were not those included in the store audits of frozen lamb sales .. This obviously was necessary so that sales audit data were not biased by the couponing effects. When a customer accepted a coupon, field personnel recorded their name and telephone number. Customers were told they would be later interviewed by telephone for their evaluation of the product.

Couponing was the method used so that a sample of buying households could be generated at a reasonable cost. Although the sample generated through cou~ing is not random, the technique does allow for a larger sample to be generated for the same cost compared to a random sample. Purchasers of any particular product would not constitute a random sample of the total population, unless that product was an outright necessity.

Two denominations of coupons were offered to customers. One offered 50 cents off the purchase price of anyone of the following frozen lamb items: regular or extra thick loin chops, rib chops or shoulder steaks. The other coupon offered the customer $1.00 off the purchase price of anyone of the following frozen lamb items: 4 lb. or 2.5 lb. leg roast, or 4 lb. or 2.5 lb. shoulder roast.

Both the second and final consumer telephone surveys utilized the sample obtained through couponing. A total of 232 coupons were given to customers while another 23 customers who had previously purchased the new frozen lamb volunteered to be included in the sample. Thus, a total of 255 buying households constituted the sample, and had purchased a total

37

of 267 frozen lamb items. Of the items purchased by these households, 21.0 percent were shoulder roasts, 16.2 percent were leg roasts, 14.2 percent were shoulder steaks, 21.3 percent were rib chops and 27.3 percent were loin chops. Product ratings were obtained on an item by item bas is.

Since questionnaires 2 and 3 were identical up to question 8 (see Appendix B), a chi-square test for significant difference between the two samples was performed on each question. In no case were the chisquare statistics significant, indicating that the responses could be combined into one analysis. Thus, all of the data reported for the first 8 questions (see Appendix B) represent responses from 255 households that purchased a total of 267 frozen lamb items.

Cooking Information

Of the total households interviewed, 71 percent had cooked lamb previous to their purchase of the new frozen lamb product. Of the 255 households, 91 percent read the cooking instructions on the frozen lamb box befcre cooking. However, only about 73 percent of the households said they followed the instructions on the box. The remaining households reported using their own instructions (22 percent) or no instructions at all (5 percent~. In general, the cooking instructions on the box received good acceptance and use among households.

In terms of how the new product was cooked, 51 percent reported broiling, 36 percent roasted it in an oven, 5 percent pan fried, while 3 percent bar-b-qued. The remaining 5 percent cooked by some other method.

Approximately 60 percent of the new frozen lamb items were thawed prior to cooking. The most popular method was thawing on a counter wi th the product outsJ'de the box and its inner wrap, Table 14. Other popular ways were thawi ng outs i de the box, but in the inner wrap, and a I so in the box in the refrigerator, Table 14.

Consume rs were asked if the numbe r of items per package (or pounds per package in the case of roasts) were right for their family. About 90 percent of all households agreed that the size of the item they tried was about right. The other 10 percent were about evenly divided between a desire for a smaller package and a larger package.

38

Table 14

Method Interviewed Buyers Used for Thawing Frozen Lamb Tulsa, Oklahoma, March 1971.

Method of

Thawing

I n wrap in

refrig.

In wrap on

counter

In box in

refrig.

, n bo;( on counter

In wrap in

water

Outs ide wrap in water

Outside wrap on counter

Outside wrap in refrig.

Total

Shoulder Roast

4 lb. 2.5 lb.

Frozen Prepackaged Lamb Item

Leg Shld. Rib Reg.Roast Steak Chop Loin

4 lb. 2.5 1 b.

--Number of households--

Th i cK Loin

0 2 3 0

4 2 3 3 13 10 2

5 5 4 5 0 7 3

2 2 3 2 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 4 2 2 26 20 2

16

...l.

20

0

11 14

0

8 44

0

41

0

7

Total

12

38

30

12

61

6

161

39

Ratings of Product Characteristics

Consumers were asked to rate the frozen lamb item they purchased on a 9 point hedonic scale. A rating of I represents excellent and a rating of 9 represents very poor. This 9 point scale was collapsed so that ratings of I to 3 were regarded as good, 4 to 6 were regarded as averageand 7 to 9 we re rega rded as poo r.

The product characteristics rated were:

1. flavor 2. tenderness 3. jui ci ness 4. appearance of the item before cooking5. meat color before cooking 6. lean vs. fat 7. overall quality of the meat.

In addition, the box was rated for convenience of use and appearance.

A mean hedonic consumer rating score was computed for each item by characteristic (Tables 15 through 24). This consumer rating score allows comparisons to be made among items for the same characteristics, as well as to determine level of acceptance of each product by product characteristics.

Over all items, the cba-racteristic with the highest mean hedonic score was meat color before cooking. Also rated excellent among all items was appearance before cooking and the box for convenience of use and appearance. The lowest rating, but yet an acceptable one, was given to the characteristic lean vs. fat. Some consumers thought that some i terns had too much fat. However, the rat ing on this factor was still generally good.

The mean hedonic score for overall quality was very good for the thick loin chop (Table 19). Other good ratings on overall quality were for the 4 lb. shoulder roast, 2.5 lb. leg roast and the medium thick loin chop. The shoulder steak had the lowest but still an acceptable mean hedonic score (3.6).

The overall ratings of frozen lamb were also categorized by the frequency of fresh lamb use of the household (Table 221. There was no significant difference in overall ratings given the frozen lamb product between fresh lamb user and non-user households. About 75 percent of all households rated the overall quality of the item they purchased as good.

40

. Table 15. Consumer Evaluation of Flavor, by Item, with Mean Hedonic

Score, First and Second Interview Phases Combined

Item N %of Respondents That·

Rated the Factor

Good Average Poor

4 lb. Shou 1 der. Roas t 28 92 4 4

2 112 lb. Shoulder Roast

4 lb. Leg Roast

2 1/2 lb. Leg Roast

Shoulder Steak

28

24

19

38

75

67

79

65

25

29

16

24

0

3

5

11

Rib Chop

Regular Loin

Thick Loin

57

56

16

79

90

81

14

5

19

7

5

0

Total 266 79 16 5

*A score of 1.0 is excellent and a score of 9.0 is very poor. Sou rce: Survey data. .

Mean Hedonic Score*

1.9

2.5

2.5

2.7

3.0

2.4

2.0

1.9

2.4

41

Table 16. Consumer Evaluation of Tenderness, by Item, with Mean Hedonic

Scores, First and Second Interview Phases Combined

%of Respondents That Item N Mean HedonicRated:,tn.e·facfer Score~~

Good Average Poor

4 1 b. Shoulder Roast

2 112 lb. Shoul der Roast

4 lb. Leg Roast

2 112 1 b • Leg Roast

Shoul der Steak

Rib Chop

Regu IarLo Jn

Thick Loin

Total

29

27

24

19

38

57

56

17

2.67

83

89

71

100

71

84

93

88

85

10

I I

21

0

18

12

2

12

10

7

0

8

0

II

4

5

0

5

2.2

1.9

2.6

1.8

3.0

2.0

1.7

1.7

2. I

*A score of 1.0 is excellent and a score of 9.0 is very poor. Source: Survey data.

42

T~ble 17. Consumer Evaluation of Juiciness,

by Item, with Mean Hedonic

Scores, First and Second Interview

Phases Cormined

Item

4 1 b. Shoulder Roast

2 1/2 lb. Shoul de r Roast

4 1 b : Leg Roast

2 1/2 1 b. Leg Roast"

Shoulder Steak

Rib Chop

Regular Loin

Thick Loin

Total

%of Respondents That N Rated the Factor

Good Average Poor

28 82 18 0

28 96 4 0"

24 63 29 8"

19 78 II 11

36 72 2"2 6

57 79 17 4

56 95 4

17 88 12 0

265 83 14 3

Mean Hedonic

Score}\'

2.0

1.8

3.0

2.5

2.9

2.3

1.5

1.7

2.1

.... "A score of 1.0 is excellent and a score of 9.0 is very poor. Source: Survey data.

43

Table 18. Consumer Evaluation of Appearance Before Cooking,



Phases COnD i ned

%of Respondents ThatItem N Mean HedonicRated the Factor Score* Good Average Poor

It lb. Shoulder Roast

2 112 lb. Shoulder Roast

4 lb. Leg Roast

2 1/2 i b. Leg Roast

Shou1de r Steak

Rib Chop

Regular Loin

Thick Loin

Total

27

27

24

19

38

57

56

17

265

100

100

88

95

76

86

95

76

89

0

0

8

5

19

11

4

12

8

0

0

4

0

5

3

2

12

3

1.3

1.3

1.8

1.6

2.4

1.8

1.4

2.2

1.7


44

Table 19. Consumer Evaluation 0f Meat Color, . by I tern, wi th Mean Hedon i c

Scores, First and Second Interview Phases Corrbined

%of Respondents That Item N Mean Hedon i cRated the Factor Sco re'~ Good Average Poor

4 lb. Shoulder Roast

2 1/2 1 b. Shoul der Roast

4 1 b • Leg Roast

2 1/2 1b. Leg Roast

Shoulder Steak

Rib Chop

Regular Loin

Thick Loin

Total

27

27

24

18

38

56

56

17

263

100

100

84

94

82

88

98

S8

92

0

0

8

6

13

12

2

12

6

0

0

8

0

5

2

0

0

·2

1.3

1.5

2. 1

1.5

2.2

1.8

1.3

1.5

1.6


45

Table 20. Consumer Evaluation of Lean vs. Fat, by Item, with Mean Hedonic

Scores, First and Second Interview Phases Comb i ned

%of Respondents That Item N Mean HedonicRated the Factor Score* Good Average Poor

4 1b. Shou 1de r Roas t 28 96 0 1.6

2 112 lb. Leg Roast 28 75 11 14 3.3

4 1 b. Leg Roast 24 67 21 12 3.0

2 1/2 lb. Leg Roast 19 95 0 5 1.9

Shaul der Steak 38 68 11 21 3.3

Ri b Chop 57 62 19 19 3.4

Regular Loin 56 73 16 11 2.8

Thick Loin 17 82 12 6 2.2

Total 267 74 13 13 2.9

* A score of 1.0 .IS excellent and a score of 9.0 is very poor. Source: Survey data.

46

Table 21. Consumer Evaluation of Overall Quality, by Item, with Mean Hedonic

Scores, First and Second Interview Phases Combined

Item N %of Respondents That Rated the Factor Mean Hedonic Scores )': Good Average Poor

4 lb. Shou I de r Roas t 28 90 10 0 2.0

2 1/2 lb. Shoulder Roast 28 82 II 7 2.7

4 lb. Leg Roast 24 67 25 8 3.0

2 1/2 lb. Leg Roast 19 89 I 1 0 2.2

Shou Ide r Steak 38 66 1a 16 3.6 Rib Chop, 57 65 26 9 3.0

Regular Loin 56 88 7 5 2.3

Thick Loin 16 87 13 0 1.9

Total 266 78 15 7 2.7

"i~ A score of 1.0 is excel lent and a score of9.0 is very poor. Source:Survey'data.

47

Table 22. Consumer Evaluation of Box for Convenience of Use,



Phases Comb i ned

Item N %of Respondents That Rated the Factor Mean Hedonic Score* Good Average Poor

4 lb. Shou Ide r Roas t 28 100 0 0 1.2

2 1/2 1 b. Shoul der Roast 28 92 4 4 1.6

4 lb. Leg Roast 24 92 4 4 1.6

2 1/2 1 b. Leg Roast 19 89 11 0 1.6

Shoulder Steak 38 89 8 3 1.6

Rib Chop 57 93 2 5 1.6

Regular Loi n 55 98 0 2 1.3

Thick Loin 17 88 12 0 1.7

Total 266 93 4 3 1.5


48

Table 23. Consumer Evaluation of Box for Appearance,



Phases Combined

%of Respondents ThatItem N Mean HedonicRated the Factor Score": Good Average Poor

4 1 b . Shoulder 28 96 0 4 1.4

2 112 lb. Shoul de r Roast 28 100 0 0 1.1

4 lb. Leg Roast 24 100 0 0 1.3

2 112 1 b. Leg Roast 19 95 5 0 1.4

Shoul d~r Steak 38 97 3 0 1.3

Rib Chop 56 98 2 0 1.3

Regular Loin 55 100 0 0 1.3

Thick Loin 17 100 0 0 1.2

Total 265 98 1.1

,':A score of 1.0 is excellent and a score of 9.0 is very poor. Source: Survey data.

Table 24. Overall Ratings of Frozen lamb

Items by Frequency of Fresh lamb Use

b/Overa 11 Rating Usersa/ Non-users

--------------- percent ---------------------Good 78.7 71.2

Neut ra 1 14.8 18.3

Poor 6.5 10.5

Total 100.0 100.0

a/- "Users" - Households that normally purchase ~ type of Jamb at least once every 3 months.

b/IINon-usersli - Households that normally purchase any type of lamb less often than once every 3 months (less often than 4 times per year) .

Source: Survey data.

50

The product ratings are summarized in Table 25. Provided also are

data regarding the sampling errors associated with the ratings.

Consumer Repeat Purchasers Survey

The final consumer household telephone survey was conducted from 9 to 12 weeks after the household's coupon purchase of frozen lamb. These interviews were completed the latter part of May and the first week of June, 1971 for the purpose of determining the number of repeat purchasers of frozen lamb.

New product success obviously depends on repeat purchases. In market research repeat purchases are an indication of the 1ikely longrun success of the product.

A Sample of 127 households were used to estimate repeat purchase behavior. About 30 percent of the sample made repeat purchases of frozen lamb (28 percent ± 8 percent sampling error) within a 9 to 12 week period after their initial purchase (Table 26).

Caution must be exercised in interpreting the figures in Table 26. First, the sample was comprised only of those households induced, through a price discount, to try the product. Secondly, repeat purchase behavior is a function of the time elapse between initial purchase and repurchase. Had the interview been taken at more or less than 9 to 12 weeks after initial purchase, repeat purchase figure would have been different. However, a general statement can be made that somewhere between 20 and 36 percent of those households that initially purchase f~ozen lamb may be expected to repurchase the product in 9 to 12 weeks.l

Approximately a third to a half of the lamb users households in Tulsa would continue to buy at least part of their needs in the form of frozen prepackaged lamb .. The percentage of repeat purchasers from nonuser households is reasonably encouraging, considering the nature of and the relatively high retai 1 price of the product. It indicates that of those among non-user households initially purchasing frozen lamb, 14 percent could be expected to continue buying frozen lamb. Again, however, caution needs to be exercised in interpreting this

11 - Based on a 95 percent confidence interval of ± 8 percent around the mean of 28 percent.

--

-------

---------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------- -------

TABLE 25. CONSUMER RATINGS OF SPECIFIC ATTRIBUTES OF MARKET TEST FROZEN PREPACKAGED LAMB PRODUCTS,

TULSA, MARCH 1971.

TING ITEM EHOLDS

. OVERALL

RATING FLAVOR TENDERNESS JUICINESS PRE-COOKING LEAN VS

FAT RA

HousAPPEARANCE MEAT COLOR

2/ ---NuMBER----------------------------------- AVERAGE CONSUMER RATING -------------------------------

SHOULDER ROAST

2 1/2 POUND 2.7 3/ 2.5 1.9 1.8 1.3 1.5 3.3 28

(O.at.)- (0.30) . (0.25) (0.17) (O.lll (0.13) (0.47)

4 POUND 2.0 1.9 2.0 2.0 1.3 1.3 1.6 28 (0.28 ) (0.26) (0.30 ) (0.26) (0.09) (0.111 (0.17 )

LEG ROAST

2 1/2 POUND 2.2 2.7 1.8 2.5 1.6 1.5 1.9 19 (0.28) (0.37) (0.23) (0.50) (0.23) (0. 21 ) (0.41t)

4 POUND 3.0 3.0 2.6 3.0 1.8 2.1 3.0 24 (0.511 (0.49) (0.49) (0.49) (0.37) (0.43) (0.55)

RIB CHOP 3.0 2.4 2.0 2.3 1.8 1.8 3.4 57 (0.30) (0.28 ) (0.23) (0.25) (0.23 ) (0.20) (0.36)

LOIN CHOP

1 1/2 II TH ICK 2.3 2.0 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.3 2.8 56 (0.25 ) (0.25) (0. 25) (0.17 ) (0.17) (0.09) (0.351

2 1/2 " THICK 1.9 1.9 1.6 1.6 2.2 1.5 2.2 16 (0:33) (0.38) (0.33) (0.33) (0.63) (0.3) (0.58)

SHOULDER STEAK 3.6 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.4 2.2 3.3 38 (0.42) . (0.37) (0.37) (0.34 ) (0.34) (0.31) (0.49)

AVERAGE TOTAL 2.7 2.4 2. 1 2.1 1.7 1.6 2.9 266

11 A HEDONIC NUMERICAL SCALE OF 1 TO 9 WAS PROVIDED TO CONSUMERS TO RATE EACH NOTED ASPECT OF THE PRODUCTS. A RATING OF 1 IS

EXCELLENT AND A RATING OF 9 IS VERY POOR.

THESE RATINGS WERE MADE BY PURCHASERS OF THE MARKET TEST PRODUCTS DURING AN INTRODUCTORY COUPON CENTS-OFF PROMOTION IN

FOUR TULSA, OKLAHOMA SUPERMARKET FOOD STORES DURING MARCH, 1971.

V - INDICATES NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS THAT PURCHASED AND RATED THE INDICATED PRODUCT IN CONNECTION WITH THE COUPON OFFER PROMOTION

PERIOD OF MARCH 1971.

31 U'1 - FIGURES IN PARENTHESES ARE STANDARD ERRORS APPLICABLE TO THE RESPECTIVE RATINGS.

http:O.at.)-(0.30

\.l"I N

Table 26. Repeat Purchases of Frozen Lamb, by Lamb User and Non User Households Making a Coupon-Deal Purchase, Tulsa, June 1971.

Frozen Lamb All Purchasins Repeat Purchase Behavior LanD User Households Lamb Non-User Households Sample Households

-Numb-e-r- -P~~~enta/ Number Percent£! Number Percentc1

Repeat Purchasers 27 44. #I 9 13.6dl 36 28.3

Non- repeat Purchasers 34 55.7 57 86.4 91 71.7

Total 61 100.0 66 100.0 127 100.0

YThe 95 percent confidence interval is ±10.5 percent for comparisons employing single-tailed distribution analyses.

b/The 95 percent confidence interval is ±7.0 percent for single-tail comparisons. c/The 95 percent confidence interval is ±6.6 percent for single-tai I comparisons and 8.0 for double-tail

comparisons.

E!The percentage of repeat buyers among lanD user households is significantly higher than among non-user households. Test of difference between the percentages yields a t value of 4.0, or significance beyond the 99 percent probability level.

53

statistic. Sample size and possible sampling error are such that the estimated percent for the universe of non-lamb users in Tulsa may be as low as 5 percent or as high as 22 percent.lI

Buying Intentions

The final consumer survey also included questions concerning the buying intentions of the household with respect to frozen lamb (see questionnaire number 3 in Appendix B). Participants were asked if they intended to continue buying only frozen lamb, only other (fresh) lamb. both fresh and frozen lamb. or neither.

Of the 36 repeat frozen lamb purchasers, about half intend to continue buying only frozen lamb while the other half intend to continue buying both fresh and frozen, Table 27. There was no statistically significant differences between buying intentions of user and non-user households in this respect.

Of those sample households not repeat purchasing frozen lamb within two to three months after the coupon offer, about 17 percent indicated that they intend to continue buying only frozen lamb, Table 28. Another 33 percent intend to continue buying both fresh and frozen lamb. Thus, about 50 percent of all non-repeat purchasers said they intend to continue buying some frozen lamb.

Among non-repeat test product buyers there was a significant difference between lamb users and non-users as to their intentions regarding the form of the product they would buy in the future, Table 28. A higher proportion of lamb user households intend to continue buying frozen lamb than was true of non-user households.

In summary. of all households interviewed, about two out of three intend to continue buying some frozen lamb. The other one-third intend to either buy only fresh lamb. or no lamb at all.

Reasons were asked for not repeat purchasing frozen lamb. About 33 percent of these households, either lamb user or not, said frozen lamb was too expensive, Table 30. Another 33 percent of the non-lamb user households not repeat buying frozen lamb said they did not like the taste, whereas only about 12 percent of the user households so replied. Thus, the main reasons for not buying were too high priced and dislike of the taste.

lIBased on a 95 percent confidence interval of ± 8.4 percent around a mean of 13.6 percent.

http:percent.lI

\J1 ~

Table 27. Buying Intentions of Repeat Frozen Lamb Purchasers Among Lamb Users and Non-User Households, Tulsa. June 1971.

Household All 5amp Ie

Buying Intention Lamb User Households Lamb Non-User Households Purchas~ Households

Number Percent- Number Percent alNumber- Percent

Only Frozen Lamb 12 44.4 5 55.6 17 47.2

Only Other Lamb 3.7 0 0.0 2.8

Both Fresh and Frozen 14 51.9 4 44.4 18 50.0

Nei ther 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Total 27 100.0 9 100.0 36al 100.0

2!l x = 0.584, not significant.

Table 28. Buying Intentions of Non-Repeat Frozen lamb Purchasers, By lamb User and

Non-User Households, Tulsa, June 1971

Household Ai 1 Sample

Buying Intention lamb User Households lamb Non-User Households Non-Repeat Households

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

On 1 y Frozen lamb 11 39.3 2 4.3 '3 17.3

On ly Othe r lamb 4 14.3 13 27.7 17 22.7

Both Fresh and Frozen 13 46.4 12 25.5 25 33.3

Ne i ther a 0.0 20 42.6 20 26.7

Total 28 100.0 47 100.0 75 100.0

a/ 2 -x = 28.020, significant at 0.01 level.

U'1

U'1

VI (T\

Table 29.

Buying Intentions of Repeat and Non-Repeat Purchasers of Froz.en Lamb, Tulsa, June 1971.

Household Re2eat Purchasers Std. Non-Reeeat Purchasers . Std. AU Purchasers Std. Buying Intention Error Error Error

On I y Frozen

Number

17

Percent

47 8.3

Numbe r

13

Percent

17 4.3

Numbera/

30 Percent

27 4.2

Only Other

Documents

RETAIL TEST MARKETING AND CONSUMER EVALUATION OF …afcerc.tamu.edu/publications/Publication-PDFs/MRC-71-4 Retail Test... · RETAIL TEST MARKETING AND CONSUMER EVALUATION OF FROZEN