1 / 31

Taste Seminar Jerry Thomas 14 th June 2006

Taste – THE ultimate test?. Taste Seminar Jerry Thomas 14 th June 2006. MSTS background. Established over 20 years ago Specialise in product development in the food and drink sector Leading sensory research company Offer both sensory and consumer research

aislin
Download Presentation

Taste Seminar Jerry Thomas 14 th June 2006

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Taste – THE ultimate test? Taste Seminar Jerry Thomas 14th June 2006

  2. MSTS background • Established over 20 years ago • Specialise in product development in the food and drink sector • Leading sensory research company • Offer both sensory and consumer research • Guide manufacturers and retailers in product improvement • Work both in UK and Internationally

  3. The Product Development Lifecycle Brand stretch/line extensions/ pack formats Quality control/bench-marking/product testing/ competitive tracking MATURITY Product optimisation GROWTH Cost reduction THE NPD PHASE DECLINE Concept/ product development Product screening INTRODUCTION Market map (portfolio opportunities)

  4. MSTS background • We “bridge the gap” to enable our clients to really use the results and recommendations Research ConsumerMarketing Product development/ Production

  5. Is TASTE making a comeback?

  6. Is TASTE making a comeback? • More discerning and sophisticated consumers – wanting something new and different • More fragmentation and segmentation of markets • Need for differentiation and innovation - me too’s, own label and shelf space pressure

  7. Is TASTE making a comeback? • More discerning and sophisticated consumers – wanting something new and different • More fragmentation and segmentation of markets • Need for differentiation and innovation - me too’s, own label and shelf space pressure • Keeping one step ahead of the competition • Following the trends – “healthy” is driving a reduction in some ingredients and the addition of others

  8. How to improve taste • Important for trial, and vital for repeat • Need to be careful not to change too much/too rapidly • Fit time and cost objectives (i.e. keep the accountants and retailers happy) • Use external means to guide and assess changes (e.g. consumers/sensory panel)

  9. Why do sensory testing?

  10. Sensitivity of 3000 Consumers

  11. Why do sensory testing? • To identify and profile the attributes in a product, covering: • Taste/flavour • Appearance • Aroma • Mouthfeel/texture • Aftertaste • Tactile properties • To establish the key attributes and measure differences between products • Tracking over time – competitors and/or QA • Shelf life testing

  12. Sensory Research • We have approx. 80 sensory panel members and, for each project, we select 10-12 of them to assess a set of products using the industry standard method of QDA (Quantitative Descriptive Analysis) • Each project consists of: • Vocabulary generation to list all of the sensory sensations identified in the products (usually 40-60 attributes). We encourage our clients to attend these sessions to fully understand the terms used by our panel. • Vocabulary rationalisation to determine a list of core characteristics with definitions • Scoring of the products assessed in controlled conditions. Products are assessed blind and rotated. Each panelist assesses the products three time to ensure robustness of scoring

  13. Sensory flavour profiles – Cereal Product

  14. Brand X Brand Y 100 100 90 90 80 80 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 treacle Onion Fl Thick Mf Unripe Fl crunchy Cheesy Fl Vinegar Fl Smooth Mf Coating Mf Tinned/Cooked Tomatoes Fl Cooked Butter Fl Sensory profile showing key significant sensory differences between Brand X (client brand) and Brand Y (market leader) Brand X has a stronger treacle flavour note. Brand Y has a more crunchy texture.

  15. Pros Provides a very detailed “blueprint” of products Shows importance of attributes Measures significant differences Can explain reasons for consumer liking Sensory research

  16. Pros Provides a very detailed “blueprint” of products Shows importance of attributes Measures significant differences Can explain reasons for consumer liking Cons Does not reflect consumer liking Does not give real guidance alone Sensory research

  17. Consumer Research • A sample of appropriate respondents are recruited (often to a central location) • Each respondent tries/sniffs, sequentially monadically, all of the products in the test under controlled conditions • Order of trial is rotated to avoid bias • All products are scored on overall opinion, taste, aroma and appearance on a 9 point scale • This data is used to determine the relative appeal of each of the products tried

  18. 9 8 6.86 6.75 6.61 7 6.57 6.41 6.28 6 5.39 5.30 5.17 4.99 4.96 4.94 4.89 5 4.56 4.00 4 2.61 3 Score (1= Dislike Extremely, 9 =Like Extremely) 2 1 0 Brand N Brand E NPD 1 NPD 2 Brand I Brand G Brand J Brand L Brand A Brand M Brand B Brand H Brand D Brand F Brand C Brand K LSD 95% = +/- 0.42 Overall Opinion

  19. Pros Shows consumer liking Scores basic attributes Measures significant differences Can show preference Consumer research

  20. Pros Shows consumer liking Scores basic attributes Measures significant differences Can show preference Cons Cannot give real product development guidance alone “Don’t know/don’t care” issue Consumer research

  21. Product Optimisation • Designed to give firm guidance on product improvement • Identifies “best in class” and what attributes drive consumer liking (from combining with sensory data) • Can easily be used by NPD/Product Developers

  22. Product Optimisation • Designed to give firm guidance on product improvement • Identifies “best in class” and what attributes drive consumer liking (from combining with sensory data) • Can easily be used by NPD/Product Developers • Offers an iterative process to reach your target product • Will guide further development for up to 3 years • Highly cost effective and reliable

  23. Brand A Brand B Brand C Brand D s NPD 1 Brand E Taste & Ov. Opinion NPD 2 Brand L Brand F Brand M Brand N Brand H Appearance Brand G Brand J Brand I Brand K Position of Respondents

  24. Significance of Correlation Target for a Better Product Correlation Coefficient Sign of Correlation Sensory Group Significance Brand M Brand G Brand C Brand H Brand N Brand A Brand B Brand D Brand K Brand E Brand F Brand L Brand J Brand I NPD 1 NPD 2 lsd95 Attribute Description Overall Opinion 6.86 6.75 6.61 6.57 6.41 6.28 5.39 5.30 5.17 4.99 4.96 4.94 4.89 4.56 4.00 2.61 0.42 3* Sweet AT + 0.746 3* >36 36 35 26 34 17 25 26 29 13 18 28 19 19 11 19 9 6 3* Sweet Fl + 0.721 2* >39 39 39 30 39 18 27 29 31 17 20 31 17 25 15 20 12 6 3* Treacle Fl + 0.610 1* >13 13 10 2 8 2 6 6 3 4 5 8 0 3 1 3 0 5 3* Sweet Ar + 0.588 1* >41 32 32 25 41 24 18 28 19 20 18 30 17 26 18 27 12 8 3* Crunchy Mf + 0.550 1* >51 39 51 20 49 40 29 44 30 40 38 34 36 20 40 26 12 8 3* Treacle Ar + 0.464 (*) >9 7 9 3 4 3 1 5 1 4 3 3 1 7 4 3 0 4 2* OatFlakes Ar + 0.435 (*) >38 23 2 8 38 0 16 18 8 0 0 23 1 6 5 0 0 6 3* Oat Flakes Ap + 0.433 (*) >61 28 6 20 61 0 29 21 30 0 0 39 1 16 13 0 0 9 3* Rice Puffs Ap + 0.431 (*) >23 2 23 1 7 3 3 9 0 0 0 5 0 1 2 0 0 5 3* Oat Flakes Fl + 0.428 (*) >53 41 2 11 53 0 35 34 14 0 0 40 0 8 8 0 1 6 3* Drying AT - -0.449 (*) <25 30 26 28 25 26 27 27 26 33 33 39 28 26 30 27 34 6 3* Product Optimisation Sheet

  25. Taste-based cluster groups - Mayonnaise Group A = 41% respondents Like a certain level of egg aftertaste and sweet flavour Dislike sweet aftertaste Group B = 21% respondents Like oily flavour Brand A Brand B Brand C Group C = 22% respondents Like certain level of rancid flavour and aftertaste Like lemon and sweet favours Dislike salty flavour and aftertaste/ smoked cheese and lasting aftertaste Brand D Brand H Brand E Brand F Brand G Group D = 15% respondents Indiscriminate – no strong likes or dislikes

  26. Some new techniques • Product Development Workshop – using a sensory panel as consumers to give real guidance to developers

  27. Product Development Workshop

  28. Some new techniques • Product Development Workshop – using a sensory panel as consumers to give real guidance to developers • KidSpeak – as above but using 8-12 year olds with better than average sensory acuity • Expert panel – getting robust consumer feedback, but from a group who can really help the development process (i.e. more discerning than “normal” consumers)

  29. Which group can help you best? • Sensory panel for real insight into product attributes and differences • Expert panel for consumer liking and feedback on improvements • Included in broad consumer sample for liking amongst real target market (pre-launch) Sensory/PDW 15 Expert/Kids 40-55 “Normal” 30-45

  30. Summary • Taste will always be a key driver of liking • It can always be improved • Art and science can combine to deliver great tasting products (cf. Heston Blumenthal) • You can all do it too!

More Related