MEAT BUYING AND PREPARATION PRACTICES OF ROYAL OAK, MICHIGAN, HOMEMAKERS Thesis. far {he Degrea cf A65. 3. MICHifiA-N Si‘ATE UNWERSETY Jasephfine Lawyer 1.963 LIBRARY Michigan State University ABSTRACT MEAT BUYING AND PREPARATION PRACTICES OF ROYAL OAK, MICHIGAN, HOMEMAKERS by Josephine Lawyer This is a study of the meat buying and preparation practices of urban Michigan homemakers. Four areas of investigation include factors in- fluencing homemakers' meat buying and preparation practices, home- makers' use of available information about meat buying, homemakers' interpretation of information about meat buying, and the kinds of informa- tion about meat buying homemakers want. Data for the study were obtained from 304 homemakers in Royal Oak, Michigan, by personal interview. Many of the responses were cross tabulated with the following characteristics: homemakers' age and education, family income and size of family. The majority of the homemakers reported they made most family meat purchases in a large food store on Thursday, Friday or Saturday. Purchases were made in stores that provided "quality” meat. Homemakers purchased and prepared more beef than other red meats, poultry, fish, or other meat products. Dishes most frequently prepared included those made with ground beef, beef roast, chicken, and pork chops. Jo s ephine Law ye r There was evidence that some homemakers plan meat purchases before shopping. Approximately half made written shopping lists and about 60 percent of this group listed intended meat purchases by kind and cut. Seventy percent of the sample were aware that the stores in which they shopped advertised meat specials at the end of the week. Forty percent of this group reported buying a meat special every week. Meat buying and preparation practices were influenced by the homemakers' knowledge of selection and preparation. Color of the lean, more lean and less fat, and marbling were guides most often used for beef selection. Preparation terminology and temperatures used for beef, pork, poultry, and fish items indicated that approximately half the sample lacked basic knowledge of meat cookery. Homemakers indicated that family preference, nutrition, cost, and quality were factors influencing meat purchase decisions. The size of the package or piece, the quality or appearance, and price were listed as factors influencing purchase at the store. Homemakers reported using store advertising, various media, and the meat departments in retail stores as sources of useful infor- mation about meat buying. Sixty-two percent checked store adver- tising in newspapers weekly and 72 percent had checked store circulars within six weeks prior to the survey. Newspapers were judged the most useful media for information about meat other than that carried in ads. Half the homemakers Jos ephine Law ye r reported finding useful information about meat buying in newspapers during the six weeks prior to the survey, compared to 18 percent for television and 14 percent for radio. Homemakers using these media judged price information most useful. Supply information ranked second. Planning before going to the store was judged the most im- portant applied use of the information gathered via media. Half the homemakers reported using store displays for useful in- formation about meat buying during the two or three months prior to the survey. One-third used meat labels, and one-fourth secured in- formation about meat from store personnel. Homemakers varied in ability to interpret news writing provid- ing information about meat. Those under 40 years of age scored higher than other age groups. Less than half the sample interpreted the information in the same manner as did the writer. Information on cost comparison was more accurately interpreted than information on grades, seasonality or outlook. Homemakers indicated that news releases including information on meat grades, cost comparison, seasonality, and outlook would be useful. Information on meat grades was judged most useful. Cost comparison information ranked second and outlook information was scored least useful. When asked which releases they would look for if they knew they were in the paper, the rank remained the same. Jo s ephine Law ye r When asked to express opinions as to kinds of information about meat buying other homemakers want, the respondents listed meat cookery, meat costs and guides for selection as primary concerns. These were scored by half to two-thirds of the sample. MEAT BUYING AND PREPARATION PRACTICES OF ROYAL OAK, MICHIGAN, HOMEMAKERS BY Josephine Lawyer A THESIS Submitted to the College of Agriculture Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Agricultural Economics 1963 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express appreciation to all who made the completion of this thesis possible. Special gratitude is extended Dr. James D. Shaffer, Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics at Michigan State University who guided and directed the study. The author is grateful for the cooperation and assistance in plan- ning and construction of the questionnaire by Dr. Robert C. Kramer, _ Director, Agricultural Marketing and Utilization Center, Michigan State University, and Miriam J. Kelley, Assistant Director, Home Economics, Cooperative Extension Service, Michigan State University. The author is also appreciative of the assistance given in re- viewing the purpose of the study and the pretest of the questionnaire by: Dr. Alice C. Thorpe, Professor and Chairman, Home Manage- ment and Child Development, Home Economics, Michigan State University; Marie Ferree, Specialist, Consumer Marketing Information, Home Economics, Michigan State University. Special gratitude is expressed to the Cooperative Extension Ser- vice for granting sabbatical leave and additional time to complete the survey and thesis. >{c ::: ::< >1: >§< z}: >:< >:< >§< >:< >:< >‘,< TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ................................ Objectives of the Study Survey Method and Sample Characteristics Selection of the Sample Background Data Description of the Sample Age Distribution of the Homemaker Size of Households Income of the Household Units Education of the Homemaker Occupation of Breadwinner Employment of Female Homemakers Household Type Other Characteristics Indications of Sample Bias MEAT BUYING AND PREPARATION PRACTICES Meat Buying Practice 3 Stores in Which Meat Was Purchased Homemakers' Reasons for Buying Meat at Stores Where Purchased Day of Last Meat Purchase Person Making Last Meat Purchase Amount Spent for Food Used at Home Family Meat Expenditure Meals Eaten Away from Home Use of Shopping Lists Influence of Meat Advertisement by Retail Stores Homemakers' Opinions of Why Stores Feature Certain Meat Cuts Influence of Trading Stamps Homemakers' Opinions Concerning Prepackaged Meat Meats Most Frequently Purchased iii l4 l4 l4 l4 16 16 17 21 24 25 28 29 30 3O 32 CHAPTER III. Homemakers' Reasons for Recent Meat Choices Factors Influencing Beef Purchases Reasons for Changing Intended Meat Purchase in the Store Homemakers' Opinions Concerning Certain Meats Homemakers' Opinions Concerning Meat Purchases of Others Meat Preparation Practice 3 Meat Dishes Most Often Prepared Preparation Method Used for Certain Meats Homemakers' Knowledge of Meat Cookery Temperatures Meats Avoided Because of Lack of Preparation Knowledge HOMEMAKERS' USES AND REACTIONS TO INFORMATION ABOUT MEAT BUYING Use of Information About Meat Buying Use of Newspaper Advertising for Information About Meat Buying Newspapers Checked for Meat Advertisements Use of Store Circulars for Information About Meat Buying Useful Information About Meat Buying (Other than Ads) Read in Newspapers Comparison of Useful Information About Meat Buying in Newspapers, on Radio, and on Television Other Sources of Information About Meat Buying Homemakers' Interpretation of News Information About Meat Buying iv Page 33 34 37 38 42 46 46 48 50 54 55 55 55 58 6O 6O 64 67 68 CHAPTER Page Food Marketing Information Homemakers Think Most Useful 72 News Information About Meat Buying Which Homemakers Think Useful 73 Information About Meat Buying Homemakers Would Look for if They Knew It Was in the Newspaper 76 Information About Meat Buying Homemakers Want 80 IV. SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS ............... 82 Factors Influencing Homemakers' Meat Buying and Preparation Practices 82 Homemakers' Use of Available Information About Meat Buying 92 Homemakers' Interpretation of Information About Meat Buying 97 Information About Meat Buying Homemakers Want 98 BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................... 104 APPENDICES ............................................ 107 TABLE 10 ll 12 13 14 LIST OF TABLES Familes with Children at Home, Related to Homemakers' Age .............................. Family Income, Related to Family Size ........... Stores in Which Most Family Meat Purchases Were Made ................................... . Weekly Expenditure for Food Used at Home, Related to Age .................................. Weekly Expenditure for Food Used at Home, Related to Family Size .......................... Weekly Expenditure for Food Used at Home, Related to Income ............................... Weekly Expenditure for Food Used at Home, Related toEducation Family Meat Expenditure of Previous Week, Related to Family Size .......................... Family Meat Expenditure of Previous Week, Related to Income .............................. Family Meat Expenditure of Previous Week, Related to Age ................................. Families Eating Meals Away from Home Each Week Factors Influencing Beef Purchases .............. . Reasons for Selection of One Beef Roast Rather than Another of the Same Kind ........................ Frequency of Purchase of Certain Meat Cuts ........ Vi 10 15 18 19 20 20 22 23 24 25 35 36 39 TABLE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Temperature, Method or Equipment Used for Cooking Various Meat Cuts ....................... Homemakers' Use of Meat Advertising in Newspapers, Related to Age ...................... Homemakers' Use of Meat Advertising in Newspapers, Related to Education ................ HomemakersI Use of Meat Advertising in Newspapers, Related to Income .................. Homemakers Reading Useful Information About Meat Buying in Newspapers, Other than in Ads, Related to Age ................................. Homemakers Reading Useful Information About Meat Buying in Newspapers, Other than in Ads, RelatedtoFamilySize ..... ...... Homemakers Reading Useful Information About Meat Buying in Newspapers, Other than in Ads, Related to Income ............................... Information About Meat Buying Found Useful, Through Various Media ......................... Homemakers' Use of Information About Meat Buying Found Through Various Media .................... Homemakers' Interpretation of News Information About Meat Buying .............................. News Information About Meat Buying Which Homemakers Think Most Useful .................. Information About Meat Buying Homemakers Would Look for if They Knew It Was in the Newspaper ..... vii Page 52 57 57 59 61 62 63 66 67 71 73 77 SUPP LEMENTARY TAB LES APPENDIX TABLE Page 1 Family Meat Expenditure of Previous Week, Related to Education ................. . .......... 108 2 Homemakers Reading Useful Information About Meat Buying in Newspapers, Other than in Ads, Related to Education ............................ 108 3 Rank Given Useful Information About Meat Buying Read in Newspapers, Other than in Ads ........... 109 4 Homemakers' Use of Information About Meat Buying in Newspapers, Other than Ads ............ 110 5 Homemakers' Interpretation of News Information About Meat Buying, Related to Age ............... 111 6 Homemakers' Interpretation of News Information About Meat Buying, Related to Education .......... 112 7 News Information About Meat Buying Which Homemakers Think Most Useful, Related to Age . . . 113 8 News Information About Meat Buying Which Homemakers Think Most Useful, Related to Education ...................................... 114 9 News Information About Meat Buying Which Homemakers Think Most Useful, Related to Income . 115 10 Information Homemakers Would Look for if They Knew It Was in the Newspaper, Related to Age ..... 116 11 Information Homemakers Would Look for if They Knew It Was in the Newspaper, Related to Education ...................................... 117 12 Information Homemakers Would Look for if They Knew It Was in the Newspaper, Related to Income . . 118 viii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION This study was planned to learn more about meat buying and preparation practices of urban homemakers. The findings add to pres- ent knowledge of consumer food buying behavior and should be of as- sistance to workers in marketing information for consumers programs. The implications should also be of value to meat producers, proces- sors and retailers. Since the Michigan marketing program was expanded in 1954, five similar studies have been conducted by the Agricultural Economics Department and the Extension Service of Michigan State University. These studies have made contributions concerning the mass media . . 1 . . audience for releases of marketing workers, evaluation of marketing . . . . . 2 . information for institutional food users, consumer evaluation of food marketing information, 3 homemakers' knowledge about food buying and 1R. E. Borton, ”Consumer Use of Mass Media for Food Infor- mation" (unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Agricultural Eco- nomics, Michigan State University, 1957). 2M. D. Boyts, "An Evaluation of Marketing Information for Restaurants, Hospitals and Schools" (unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, 1957). 3M. M. Gillespie, ”An Evaluation of Selected Releases of Mar- keting Information for Consumers Prepared by the Michigan Coopera- tive Extension Service" (unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, 1958). attitudes toward food buying information,1 and attitudes and approaches of homemakers to food buying. A review of literature related to this study indicates many sim- ilarities in consumer food buying behavior in different areas of the nation. This was particularly true concerning use of media, food marketing information consumers want, homemaker's level of knowl- edge of marketing information, influence of store specials, use of shopping lists, sources of food buying information, and the influence of family preference upon the homemaker's choice. Some of the more recent studies include evaluations of consumer marketing information programs in the Wheeling-Steubenville area and Lake Charles, Louisiana. Particular reference to consumer meat buying practices is shown in three contributions to the southern regional projects concerning 1M. S. Holmes, "Some Indications of Level of Knowledge and Opinions of Michigan Homemakers About Food Buying" (unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, 1958). 2M. D. Zehner, "An Exploratory Study of Consumer Food Buy- ing Decisions, Lansing, Michigan" (unpublished Master's thesis, De- partment of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, 1961). 3Ward F. Porter et a1. , Food BuLing--Knowledge--Concerns-- Practices (Morgantown: College of Agriculture, Forestry, and Home Economics, West Virginia University, 1961). 4 Esther Cooley et al. , Informing Consumers in Lake Charles (Baton Rouge: Division of Agricultural Extension, Louisiana State University, 1958). 1 . . . consumer purchases of beef, motiv1ation and use of polultry, and meat choices of families in Alabama—Georgia. Objectives of the Study The objectives of this study were to: 1. Show factors influencing homemakers' meat buying and preparation practices. 2. Indicate homemakers' use of available information about meat buying. 3. Determine how effectively homemakers interpret information about meat buying. 4. Determine what information about meat buying homemakers want. This report is divided into four chapters. Chapter II, titled "Meat Buying and Preparation Practices, " deals with factors influ- encing the selection and use of meat. It concerns homemakers' habits, opinions, and knowledge concerning meat. Chapter III, titled ”Homemakers' Uses, Attitudes and Interpreta- tion of Meat Buying Information, " indicates how current sources of information about meat buying are interpreted and used. It also reveals 1Jessie J. Mize and William C. Stringer, Choosing Beef for Household Use (Athens: College of Agriculture, University of Georgia, 1959). 2Frankye E. Bland and Jessie J. Mize, Consumer Motivation and Use of Poultry (Athens: College of Agriculture, University of Georgia, 1960). 3Mildred S. Van de Mark and Jessie J. Mize, Meat Choices for Family Meals in Selected Cities Alabama-Georgia (Auburn: Agri- cultural Experiment Station, Auburn University, 1961). the kinds of information about meat buying which homemakers think most useful. Chapter IV summarizes the findings and makes implications con- cerning their use. Survey Method and Sample Characteristics Selection of the Sample The sample was obtained by selecting from the resident addresses listed in Bresser's Cross-Index Directory for South Oakland County, 1959-1960. 1 A systematic sample with a random start was selected to yield 336 familes. The twenty-third resident and every tenth res— ident thereafter was selected from each of 48 pages for Royal Oak in the directory. Three addresses, one original and two alternates were selected. The resident immediately above the original was listed as the first alternate. The resident immediately below the original was selected as second alternate. If the original was not at home at the time of the first call, neighbors were contacted to determine when the interviewer might find the original at home. If the second call on the original did not yield a response, the interviewer tried the first al- ternate. For the third call, the interviewer first tried the original 1 Published by the Bresser's Cross-Index Directory Company, Detroit, Michigan. and then the first alternate. If there was no response, the inter- viewer then called on the second alternate. A total of 336 original respondents were selected from 92 streets. Of these, 321 interviews were made. A total of 304 were completed for tabulation and use in this study. The sample included 66 percent original respondents; 23 percent, first alternates; and 11 percent, sec ond alte rnate s . Background Data Fourteen women in the Royal Oak vicinity were trained to con- duct the 93 question interview. From the period May 2-13, 1960, 280 interviews were completed. The balance of 24 interviews was completed during the following week, May 16-20, 1960. Each inter- view was approximately one hour in length. The questionnaire was divided into five parts. 1 The first sec- tion checked sources the respondent used for information about meat buying. The second part asked questions to determine homemakers' meat buying and preparation practices and to obtain opinions con- cerning specific meats. 2 The third section was planned to determine the homemakers' accuracy in interpreting information about meat 1A copy of the complete questionnaire is included in the Ap- pendix B. 2Homemaker or respondent is defined as the person in the family with major responsibility for buying and preparing the food used at home. buying which might be found in newspaper writing. The fourth sec- tion included background information concerning family, age, income, etc. The fifth section asked homemakers to rank information about meat buying they thought most homemakers want. Description of the Sample According to city records of January 1960, there were 22, 475 resident dwellings in Royal Oak. Of these, 20, 669 were single and l, 806 were multiple dwellings. The census reported 3. 58 persons per dwelling compared to 3. 83 persons per household in Michigan. Age Distribution of the Homemaker About one-half the sample was made up of homemakers under 40 years of age, with those between 30 to 39 years constituting the largest group. Twelve percent of the homemakers were 60 years of age or older. The following shows the percentage distribution of homemakers by age: Under 30 15 30 - 39 34 40 - 49 22 50 - 59 17 60-69 9 70 and over 3 1 U. S. Bureau of the Census, U. S. Census of Population: 1960, I. Size of Households Family size ranged from one to 11, excluding boarders. Twenty-eight percent of the 304 families consisted of one or two per- sons, 40 percent had three to four persons, and 33 percent had over four family members. The sample represented a total of 1, 155 family members. Fifty-two percent were adults and 48 percent were children under 18 years of age. Seventy-two percent of the families interviewed had one or more children at home. According to the U. S. census, 64. 2 percent of the Royal Oak families had children of their own under 18 years of age and 36. 6 percent had children of their own under six years of age. Eighty-three percent of the children were located in 66 percent of the families. These families had a total of one to four children at home. Table 1 indicates the families with children at home in rela- tion to homemakers' age. Eighty-nine percent of the homemakers under 40 years of age had children at home compared with 63 percent of those homemakers between 40 to 60 years of age and 20 percent of the homemakers over 60 years of age. 1 Household or family is defined as a person living alone or a group of persons who share food supplies. 2Ibid . Table 1. Families with Children at Home, Related to Homemakers' Age Distribution related to age of h ake Number of omem r Total h'ld t sample C 1 ren a Under 40 40 - 60 Over 60 home Percent Percent l 15 26 14 19 2 27 21 0 21 3 23 6 6 15 4 l7 6 0 ll 5 4 2 0 3 6 3 l 0 2 7 0 0 0 0 8 0 1 0 0 9 0 O 0 1 None 11 37 80 28 Total 100 100 100 100 Number of re spondents 150 118 36 304 TOtal respondents = 304 Sixty-nine percent of the children resided in homes where the homemakers were under 40 years of age. Twenty-nine percent of the Children lived in families where the homemakers were 40 to 60 years of age. Only 2 percent of the children lived in homes where the home- makers were over 60 years of age. Income of the Household Units The largest number of families was in the $5, 401 to $7, 000 in- come level, after deduction of federal taxes. According to the 1960 census, the median Royal Oak family income before federal tax de- duction was $8, 184 compared to $7, 576 for Oakland County and $6, 256 for Michigan. 1 The following indicates the percentage distribution of home- makers by income, after deduction of federal taxes: Under $2,000 4 $2,001 - 4,000 5 $4, 001 - 5,400 11 $5,401 - 7,000 34 $7,001 - 10,000 28 Over $10,000 14 No answer 4 Generally, those families with more family members received higher incomes. Seventy percent of the families with two to three members and 72 percent of the families with four or more members received incomes of between $5, 401 to $10, 000. Only 40 percent of the families of one to two persons received such income. Table 2 shows family income, related to family size. lIbid. 2 . . . Family income refers to money income after federal tax de- ductions of all persons who were members of the family. 10 Table 2. Family Income, Related to Family Size Family size Total Income 1-2 persons 3-4 persons Over 4 Persons sample Percent Percent Under $2, 000 11 2 0 4 $2,001 — $4, 000 11 3 4 5 $4,001 -$5, 400 15 5' 10 11 $5,401 - $7, 000 21 40 38 34 $7, 001- $10, 000 19 30 34 28 Over $10, 000 15 1.7 12 14 No answer 8 3 2 4 Total 100 100 100 100 Number of respondents 84 123 97 304 Total respondents = 304 Education of the Homemaker Nine percent of the homemakers had no more than elementary school education, 55 percent had more than elementary but no more than high school education, and 36 percent indicated more than high school education. 1 Six percent had finished eight grades in elementary school, 45 percent had finished high school, and 16 percent had four or more years of college training. Elementary school education is defined as any education below grade nine. High school education is any training in grades nine through 12. More than high school education is any training beyond high school graduation (business school, nurses training, college, etc. ). 11 Occupation of Breadwinne r Approximately 88 percent of the families interviewed indicated that the breadwinner was employed and gave occupation information. Six percent of the respondents were retired, 6 percent declined to give information concerning occupation, and one widow listed herself as unemployed. About 50 percent of breadwinners were employed in oc- cupations demanding special training and skill. The following shows the percentage distribution of breadwinners' occupations: Retired 6 Factory worker 9 Construction or laborer, nonfactory 4 High level salesman or business manager 15 Professional 6 Other white collar worker 29 Other blue collar worker 16 Owner or self-employed 9 No answer 6 Employment of Female Homemakers Seventeen percent of the 299 female homemakers were women employed outside the home. Of these, 50 percent worked full time, 27 percent worked half time, and 23 percent worked less than half time. The U. S. census indicated that 32 percent of the Royal Oak fe- males 14 years old and over were in the labor force. Twenty-five percent of the married women with husbands present, and 12 percent 12 with their own children under six were employed. Household Type Ninety-two percent of the sample consisted of households in which there was a husband and wife. A woman was the only head of the family in 7 percent of the homes. The balance of the sample included two households where a male was sole head, and two households where more than one female shared head responsibility. This checked closely with that of census reports which showed that 93 percent of the 20, 446 Royal Oak families were headed by a hus- band and wife. Other Characteristic s All respondents in this sample were white. Five respondents interviewed were men, 299 were women. Indications of Sample Bias Two differences in data gathered in this survey and in census in- formation indicated sample bias. Seventy-two percent of the sample had one or more children at home compared to 64. 2 percent in census reports. Seventeen percent of the female homemakers were employed Ibid. 2'Ibid. 13 compared to 25 percent of the married women (with husbands present) reported by the census. This would indicate that employed wives were more likely to be away from home and were more difficult to contact by the interviewers. The type of sampling followed would allow this type of bias. 13 compared to 25 percent of the married women (with husbands present) reported by the census. This would indicate that employed wives were more likely to be away from home and were more difficult to contact by the interviewers. The type of sampling followed would allow this type of bias. CHAPTER II MEAT BUYING AND PREPARATION PRACTICES Part of this study was designed to learn more about the meat buying and preparation practices of urban homemakers. Meat BuyinLPractices Stores in Which Meat Was Purchased To determine the type of store in which meat purchases were most often made, the respondents were asked to report the kind of store in which they bought most of their meat the last time. Table 3 shows that 70 percent of the homemakers made most meat purchases in a large grocery store. Approximately 20 percent of the homemakers purchased meat in small neighborhood stores. A slightly higher percentage of homemakers under 40 years of age purchased meat in more than one store than did those over 40 years of age. All age groups were very similar in the choice of stores in which meat purchases were made. A smaller percentage of home- makers between 40-60 years of age made meat purchases in small size stores than homemakers of other ages. Homemakers' Reasons for Buying Meat at Stores Where Purchased The respondents considered the quality available as the most 14 15 Table 3. Stores in Which Most Family Meat Purchases Were Made Age group Total Stores sample Under 40 40-60 Over 60 Percent Percent One store Small neighborhood store 20 16 22 18 Large store in shopping center 29 30 33 30 Large store not in shopping center 37 41 42 40 Other store 5 6 5 More than one store 8 5 3 6 Have freezer plan 1 2 0 1 Total 100 100 100 100 Number of respondents 150 118 136 304 Total respondents = 304 important reason for buying meat at stores where purchased. Con- venience and price ranked second and third as reasons for store loyalty relative to meat purchases. The following shows homemakers' reasons for buying most of their meat at stores where purchased: Percent Quality 58 Convenience 40 Price or economy 38 Freshness 23 Easy to select 19 Store guarantee or confidence in the store 17 16 Variety or selection 17 Flavor Store personnel U10 Day of Last Meat Purchase The respondents were asked on which day they bought meat the previous week or the last time they bought meat. Seventy-three per- cent of the meat purchases were made on Thursday, Friday or Saturday. The following shows the day of the last family meat purchase: Percent Monday 4 Tuesday 3 Wednesday 6 Thursday 20 Friday 29 Saturday 25 Sunday 2 No special day 11 Person Making Last Meat Purchase Approximately two-thirds of the last meat purchases were made by the wife. Less than 20 percent of the last meat purchases were by the wife and husband together or by other family members. The following indicates the person or persons making the last family meat purchase: Percent Wife alone 66 Husband alone 13 Wife and husband together 16 17 Daughter 1 Other adult female (unmarried or widow) 3 Have freezer plan instead 1 Amount Spent for Food Used at Home The respondents were asked to estimate what they spent for food used at home each week. 1 They were reminded to include all pur- chased food and drinks (excluding alcoholic beverages and soft drinks) used at home during the week preceding the interview. This included purchases made at stores and food and drink delivered to the residence. Approximately 60 percent of the homemakers spent between $15. 00 to $30. 00 for the food used at home each week. The amount spent was related to the homemaker's age, family size, family income, and ed- ucation of the homemaker. Table 4 shows that over 50 percent of the homemakers within each age group spent between $15. 00 to $30. 00 for purchases of food used at home each week. Over one-third of the homemakers under 60 years of age spent over $30. 00 while 40 percent of those over 60 years of age spent less than $15. 00. Food ”used" at home includes food eaten, thrown away as waste, or fed to pets. (Pet foods not bought for human consumption are not in- cluded.) It includes food served to family members, guests, boarders or hired help or food carried from home in packed meals. 18 Table 4. Weekly Expenditure for Food Used at Home, Related to Age A ge group Total Expenditure Under 40 40 - 60 Over 60 sample Percent Percent ' Under $15.00 5 11 39 12 $15. 00 - $30. 00 59 56 53 57 Over $30.00 36 33 8 21 Total 100 100 100 100 Number of respondents 150 118 36 ~ 304 Total respondents = 304 The weekly food expenditure in relation to family size showed that approximately 70 percent of the families of three to four persons and 50 percent of the families of one to two persons spent between $15. 00 and $30. 00 for food used at home each week. Table 5 indicates that only 41 percent of the families with over four members spent within this price range while over 50 percent spent more. Approximately 40 per- cent of the families with one to two persons spent under $15. 00 per week compared to 2 and 3 percent in other groups. Family income influenced the amount spent for food used at home each week. Table 6 shows that approximately 60 percent of the home- makers with over $5, 400 spent between $15. 00 to $30. 00 per week compared to about one-third of those with below $2, 000. From 30 to 19 Table 5. Weekly Expenditure for Food Used at Home, Related to Family Size Family size Total Expenditure 1 -2 persons 3 - 4 persons Over sample 4 persons Percent Percent Under $15. 00 39 3 2 12 $15. 00-3530. 00 55 73 41 57 Over $30. 00 6 23 56 21 No answers 0 1 l 0 Total 100 100 100 100 Number of respondents 84 123 97 304 Total respondents = 304 40 percent of the homemakers with over $5, 400 income spent over $30. 00 per week compared to 15 to 20 percent in the $2, 001 to $4, 000 income group and none in the lowest income group. Respondents with education above the elementary grade level were very similar in expenditures for food used at home. Sixty percent of those with more than elementary school education spent between $15. 00 and $30. 00 each week compared with 46 percent of the homemakers with less education. Table 7 indicates that approximately 30 percent of the respondents with more than elementary school education spent over $30. 00 per week for these purchases compared with 15 percent of the homemakers in the lower education group. 20 Table 6. Weekly Expenditure for Food Used at Home, Related to Income Income group I I , I Total 1. 8 3 8 8 8 3 8 ES 8 8 sample Expenditure ,3 o o o o v er 0 o o 3 o c: .. . .. . .. .. .. . .. . :33») 3:16: $.32 $5 53 52 Percent 94 93 Percent 'Under’$15.00 64 37 27 7 5 5 12 $15.00-$30.00 36 44 58 61 55 59 57 Over $30. 00 0 19 15 32 40 36 21 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 *Number of respondents 11 16 33 103 85 44 304 Total respondents = 304 *4 percent of the sample did not give income. Table 7. Weekly Expenditures for Food Used at Home, Related to Education Education group Total E enditure Less than 9 - 12 More than sample XP 9 grades grades 12 grades Percent Percent Under $15. 00 39 9 11 12 $15. oo-$30. 00 46 6o 61 57 Over $30. 00 15 31 28 21 Total 100 100 100 100 Number of respondents 26 169 109 304 Total respondents = 304 21 Family Meat Expenditure The respondents were asked to report family meat expenditure for the week prior to the survey. 1 In instances where they could not remember total cost of a cut, prices of the week of the survey were used in estimating expenditure. Fifty-eight percent of the homemakers reported they had spent less than $10. 00 for meat purchases during the previous week while 38 percent spent more than $10. 00. The amount spent for meat was re- lated to family size, income, and age of the homemaker. The home- maker's education had no apparent influence on the expenditure. Table 8 indicates that half the families of less than four persons spent between $5. 00 to $9. 99 for weekly meat purchases. Approximately one-third of the families of over four persons spent within that price range while over one -half of these families spent over $10. 00 per week for meat. Almost 20 percent of the families with over four persons spent over $15. 00 per week for meat. Income was related to the amount the respondents spent for meat. Although the number of respondents with incomes under $4, 000 was too small to be statistically useful, the results show that 64 percent of those with incomes under$2,000 and 20 percent of those with incomes Meat expenditures represent total expenditures for purchased red meats, poultry, fish, and other meat products used at home during the week preceding the interview. 2See Appendix A, Table l. H 7. .\- .\v. V. c .. ~ \- .1 4 \ 1 . ‘ Ti 1 . Ed 111—. 11 AV T 6 4L 22 Table 8. Family Meat Expenditure of Previous Week, Related to Family Size Family size Total Expenditure 1 - 2 persons 3 - 4 persons Over sample 4 persons Percent Percent Under $5. 00 25 9 7 12 $5.00 - $9. 99 57 51 32 46 $10.00-$14.99 13 25 37 26 Over $15.00 4 14 19 12 No answers 1 l 5 4 Total 100 100 100 100 Number of respondents 84 123 97 304 Total respondents = 304 between $2, 001 to $4, 000 spent less than $5. 00 for family meat purchases the week before the survey. Table 9 shows that 80 to 100 percent within these income groups spent less than $10. 00 per week for meat while only 52 to 64 percent of the families in other income groups spent with- in that price range. According to the U. S. Department of Agriculture, a 10 percent difference in income of consumers makes a l. 0 percent difference in the U. S. average quantity of meat consumed at home. This response to income varies from 0. 4 percent in the north central region to 2. 1 23 percent in the west. Table 9. Family Meat Expenditure of Previous Week, Related to Income Income group 88 218 238 31°40 C Total Expenditure ,8 o o o G <11 v' 8 8 8 8 8 sample a: “ “ “ “ “ “ “ “ “ > “ :33; $3; 34:2 235 5-23 0.9. Percent £6- 99- Percent Under $5.00 64 20 16 10 8 7 12 $5. 00-$9. 99 36 60 48 42 57 41 46 $10. 00-$14. 99 0 6 26 30 19 34 26 Over $15. 00 0 14 10 15 15 18 12 No answers 0 0 0 3 1 0 4 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 *Number of respondents 11 16 33 103 85 44 304 Total respondents = 304 *4 percent of sample did not give income. Table 10 shows that families in which the homemakers were under 60 years of age were very similar in the amounts spent for meat. Over 80 percent of the respondents in these age groups spent less than $15. 00 per week for meat and 12 to 17 percent spent more. Home- lU. S. Department of Agriculture, Consurggtion Patterns for Meat, 1958. 24 Homemakers over 60 years of age spent significantly less than re- spondents in other age groups. Table 10. Family Meat Expenditure of Previous Week, Related to Age =‘_—=__ A . ge group Total Expenditure Under 40 40 - 60 Over 60 Sample Percent Percent Under $15. 00 84 82 97 84 $15. 00-$30. 00 12 17 3 13 No answers 4 l 0 3 Total 100 100 100 100 Number of respondents 150 118 36 304 Total respondents = 304 . Meals Eaten Away from Home Eighty-three percent of the respondents reported that one or more family members ate one or more meals away from home each week. Table 11 shows that 72 percent of the families had children who ate lunch away from home and 47 percent of the households reported that the husband ate lunch away from home. Twenty-five percent of the husbands had one or more dinner meals away from home each week and 12 percent of the wives did. The number of lunches children ate away from home each week varied from one to 20. The following shows the percentage of families Table 11. Families Eating Meals Away from Home Each Week Range in number Person Families Meal of meals Percent Breakfast Husband 6 l to 6 Wife 1 1 to 6 Others 0 Lunch Husband 47 1 to 7 Wife 8 l to 7 Others 72 1 to 20 Dinner Husband 25 1 to 6 Wife 12 1 to 7 Others 6 1 to 4 No meals eaten away from home 17 Total respondents = 304 reporting and number of lunches children from those families ate away from home each week: 1 to 5 lunches 6 to 10 lunches 11 to 15 lunches 16 to 20 lunches Use of Shopping Lists Nib Two questions were designed to determine how often the respond- ents used written shopping lists and the system or order followed in making them. 26 The homemaker was asked, "In the past year, how often would you say you had a written 1ist_before going to shop for groceries ?" The responses indicated the following use of shopping lists: Percent Always 52 More than half the time 6 Half the time 5 Less than half the time 7 Never 30 Although only 211 indicated that they used written market lists, 244 voluntarily submitted one. Those who did not have a copy of their last week's shopping list were asked to make a list for the current week. An analysis of the market lists showed the following listings of the meat order: Percent Specific meats listed by kind and cut 57 Meat order listed as ”meat" only 16 No meat listed in the order 13 Meat listed as "meat" and one cut of meat 11 Meat listed as ”fish" only 3 Of the 57 percent submitting market orders and listing specific meats by kind and cut, the following placement within the market lists was followed: Percent Meat order at top of the list 19 Meat order listed in one area within the list 16 Meat order listed in two different areas within the list 9 Meat order given at bottom of the list 7 27 Meats listed more than two places within the list 3 Only meats listed, no other foods shown 3 Fifty percent of the homemakers who usually made a shopping list mentioned the meat order by kind or cut compared with 66 percent of the homemakers who said they never made such a list but submitted one for the interview. Otherwise, the shopping lists of these two groups were very similar. The meat orders were listed as follows: Homemakers who Homemakers who said usually made they did not make shopping lists shopping lists Percent At top of list 27 24 In one area in the list 15 20 In two areas in the list 14 6 At bottom of list 8 6 More than two places in list 3 0 Only meats listed 4 3 The meat orders of both groups varied from one to eight meat items. An analysis of the market orders of the 57 percent specifying kinds and cuts of meats showed the following: Percent Beef 70 Ground beef 56 Roasts 27 Steaks 19 Round steak 10 Other beef cuts 13 28 Pork 66 Bacon 38 Chops 23 Ham 12 Sausage 9 Roast 5 Spareribs 5 Steaks 1 Poultry 46 Chicken 26 Fryers 11 Parts 8 Lamb 6 Veal 7 Fish 21 Tuna Other 40 Luncheon meat 26 Hotdogs, franks, weiners 26 Other specific cuts 1 Roast (unidentified as to kind) 6 Other meat cuts (unidentified as to kind) 10 Influence of Meat Advertisement bl Retail Stores Most retail stores in the area advertise meat features at the end of the week and many of the large chain stores also feature meats each Monday and Tuesday. The respondents were asked whether the store in which they bought the most meat had meat specials the last part of the week. 29 Seventy percent of the respondents said these stores had meat features at the end of the week. Twenty-five percent said they did not, and 5 percent gave no response. This would indicate that most homemakers shopping in a large store were aware of the firm's merchandising practices during the last half of the week. The small stores did not advertise special prices at the end of the week, or homemakers shopping in these stores were unaware of such emphasis. Eighty-seven percent of the homemakers aware of meat advertising in stores where they bought most of their meat indicated they were influenced by it. They reported the following frequency of purchase of meat specials: Percent Every week 42 Every two weeks 23 Every three weeks 3 Once a month 5 Hardly ever 14 Never 13 Homemakers' Opinions of Why Stores Feature Certain Meat Cuts Most homemakers gave more than one reason why they thought stores featured certain meat cuts. They recognized competition between stores and the effort to attract customers through advertising, but only one-third recognized the importance of supply available to meat specials. The following opinions were given as reasons why stores feature certain meat cuts as specials: 30 *Percent To bring more customers in the store 59 Because meat supplies are plentiful and prices are low 32 Because store could get a large quantity 30 To sell an oversupply which the store has on hand 21 Because store bought it at a low wholesale price 14 Don't know 7 Because quality is inferior 5 *The percentages add to more than 100 because respondents sometimes gave more than one reason. Influence of Trading Stamps The respondents were asked to recall whether the store in which they bought the most meat during the last month gave trading stamps. Fifty-three percent answered affirmatively. This group was then asked whether they always took the stamps, and 97 percent indicated that they did. Although 97 percent of the respondents offered stamps took them, 90 percent of this group said they would continue to buy most of their meat in the same store if the stamps were discontinued. Five percent of this group said they would discontinue buying most of their meat in the same store, while 5 percent said they did not know whether they would or not. Homemakers' Opinions Concernig Prepackaged Meat Much of the meat sold in the area is prepackaged. Since 31 homemakers continue to raise questions concerning prepackaged meat, they were asked to give suggestions for improvement. The largest number of suggestions for improvement pertained to a desire to see all sides of the package. Over 20 percent expressed satisfaction with present prepackaging of meat while over 10 percent indicated bias against it. The homemakers listed the following suggestions concerning im- provement of prepackaged meats: Percent Wish to see all sides of the package 36 No suggestions, satisfied 22 Want more choice in package size 10 Don't like prepackaged meat 7 Criticism of the cardboard bottom 7 Never use prepackaged meat 6 Should not hide fat 3 Date the packages 3 Not as fresh as other meats 2 Dislike need to rewrap for freezing 1 No comments 3 These figures show that 13 percent of the homemakers expressed bias against use of prepackaged meat. Six percent said they never used it and 7 percent said they did not like it. The opinions of these homemakers indicate there is room for im- provement of prepackaged meat 8. Greater visibility of product is de- sired and there could be improvement in size of package to better satisfy customer needs. 32 Meats Most Fregiiently Purchased The respondents were asked to report the kind and cuts of meat purchased when they did their last week's food shopping. Beef was purchased by 91 percent of the families; pork was purchased by 75 percent; and poultry was purchased by 55 percent. Other meats in- cluding hot dogs, luncheon meats, and cold cuts were bought by 34 percent of the respondents. Specific cuts most frequently purchased were: ground beef, 63 percent; chicken, 46 percent; beef roasts,43 percent; beef steaks, 40 percent; bacon, 33 percent; and pork chops, 31 percent. The meats which the respondents said they bought the week prior to the survey were classified as follows: Percent Beef 91 Roast 43 Steak 40 Ground beef 63 Stew beef 10 Round steak 7 Beef liver 8 Other beef cuts 9 Pork 75 Bacon 33 Chops 31 Roast l6 Ham 13 Sausage 10 Spareribs (regular) 6 Other pork cuts 11 Veal ll 33 Lamb 8 Chops 5 Other lamb cuts 5 Poultry 55 Fryers 38 Chicken (unidentified) 18 All other poultry 2 Fish and shellfish 14 Fish(other than shellfish) 10 Shellfish 4 Other meats 34 Hot dogs 22 Lunch meat 17 Other cold cuts 13 All other cuts 6 Following the question relative to meat purchases of the previous week, the respondents were asked to recall the kind and cuts of meat they had bought most often during the past two months. The recall showed the same high preference for beef cuts and the same order of preference for all other meats, except the various sau- sages and cold cuts. Apparently, it was difficult for the homemakers to remember specific kinds of sausages and cold cuts, and they failed to relate such purchases of the previouw week to those of the past two months. Homemakers' Reasons for Recent Meat Choices Ninety-one percent of the respondents gave family preference as the main reason for selecting the meats purchased most often within the 34 past two months. Price or economy ranked second with 35 percent of the respondents giving this as a main reason for recent meat purchases. Ten percent of the sample mentioned family health or nutrition as a factor in making meat buying decisions. Eight percent said variety or versatility influenced their meat selections. This would indicate interest in varying meals and interest in meats that serve more than one meal. Fifteen percent of the respondents indicated that today's home- maker is interested in time saving and convenience. Ten percent of the homemakers selected their recent meat purchases because they were easy to prepare. Another 5 percent selected certain meats because they were quick to prepare. Factors Influencing Beef Purchases Since Americans use more beef than any other meat, 1 one ques- tion was planned to check homemakers' knowledge of beef quality factors. The respondents were asked, "What do you look for when buying beef?" Most gave two or more answers, and the interviewers recorded answers in the order they were given. Table 12 indicates the various quality factors the respondents used when buying beef and shows the rank given these. The color of the 1U. S. Department of Agriculture, A Review of 1955 Survey Data on Household Meat Consumption, 1957. Table 12. Factors Influencing Beef Purchases 35 Rank , Total *Percent of InfluenCing factor scores total responses lst 2nd 3rd Color of lean 69 47 23 139 46 More lean, less fat 63 44 29 136 45 Marbling 43 25 29 97 32 Size of package or piece 24 24 35 84 28 Amount of bone 9 35 18 62 21 Price of package or piece 22 22 17 61 20 Color of fat 3 34 20 57 19 Grade 32 12 ll 55 18 Texture 10 9 4 23 8 Thickness or plumpness 2 4 4 10 3 Color of bone 3 3 3 9 3 Firmness l 2 2 5 2 Label 1 1 0 2 1 Brand 1 0 0 1 0 No answers 1 Total respondents = 304 *Percentages add to more than 100 because more than one influenc- ing factor was sometimes given. lean, the amount of lean in relation to fat, and marbling were listed as the three major guides. The amount of bone, the size of the package or piece, and the price of the package or piece were other important factors influencing beef purchases. To further check knowledge of beef quality and to check decision making in the store, the respondents were asked why they might choose one beef roast rather than another of the same kind and cut. 36 The answers given were much the same as for the previous ques- tion, except that the size of the package or piece was the main reason why the homemakers chose one beef roast rather than another. Table 13 shows that 48 percent of the respondents listed this as the main reason, indicating that they think in relation to a particular family's need. More lean and less fat ranked in second place as before and color of the lean ranked third. Table 13. Reasons for Selection of One Beef Roast Rather than Another of the Same Kind Rank Total *Percent of Reason 1st 2nd 3rd scores total responses Size of package or piece 84 34 23 141 48 More lean, less fat 56 43 34 133 45 Color of the lean 42 43 22 107 36 Marbling 28 24 16 68 23 Less bone 11 28 21 60 20 Price of package or piece 11 25 15 51 17 Grade 27 ll 7 45 ‘ 15 Color of the fat 6 14 15 .35 12 Texture 8 9 8 25 8 Thickness or plumpness 3 9 2 12 4 Firmness 0 2 0 2 1 Brand 0 0 0 0 0 Label 0 0 0 0 0 No answers 2 Total respondents = 304 *Percentages add to more than 100 because more than one reason was sometimes given. 37 Reasons for Changinglntended Meat Purchase in the Store Although some homemakers read ads and other marketing infor- mation, make shopping lists, etc. , they often change their minds about meat purchases after reaching the store. Sixty—three percent of the sample reported they had done so recently and gave reasons for chang- ing their intended plan. Quality or appearance factors related to quality, and price constituted the main reasons why homemakers changed in- tended meat purchases after arrival in the store. Seventy-seven percent stated that quality of the meat they intended to buy was not up to expectation, that appearance was not up to expecta- tion, or that quality or appearance of another cut in the store looked better. Price influenced approximately 50 percent of the homemakers who changed their intended meat purchase in the store. Lower price on some other cut, price higher than they expected, or selection of another meat cut featured as a store special that week were reasons concerning price which resulted in a change. The reasons given for changing the intended meat choice in the store were as follows: *Percent Lower price on some other cut 26 Quality not up to expectations 22 Appearance did not meet expectations 21 Quality of another cut looked better 19 Package size (too large, too small, etc.) 18 38 Appearance better on some other cut 15 Another cut on"special" chosen instead 14 Display caused a change in mind 10 Price higher than expected 9 Sold out of cut shopper intended to buy 8 Too fat 4 Too much waste 2 *The percentages add to more than 100 because more than one reason was sometimes given Homemakers' Opinions Concerning Certain Meats Seven meat cuts, including items bought frequently and infre- quently, were chosen to test homemakers' opinions concerning their use. The respondents were asked to report frequency of purchase of liver, picnic ham, 1 pork shoulder roast, lamb shoulder roast, fish, frying chicken, and hamburger, and were then asked why they did not buy these cuts more often. Table 14 indicates frequency of purchase of the meats as reported by the homemakers. Ninety percent of the respondents said they bought hamburger more than once a month. Almost 80 percent reported buying frying chicken more than once each month. Sixty percent bought fish and 35 percent bought liver that frequently. Pork shoulder roast, picnic ham and lamb shoulder roast were bought more than once a month by 8 percent, 7 percent and 6 percent of the respondents, respectively. Seventy-seven percent said they never Picnic ham was the terminalogy used to help respondents iden- tify this cut. Michigan law requires this cut be labeled picnic. 39 vom u mua0pcomm0h H908 2: OH: OCH OCH OCH OCH 2: H038 o H N N H N H .0393 OZ m Hm mH 2. mm pm pm n0>0Z o H m 5 0H pH H. mcHuGoENH Cu 0 >u0>0 00:0 0 o m N w H4 m mficoa 0 cu m >p0>0 00:0 H m 0H m o o o 93:08 m .8 N >H0>0 00:0 m S m m o 0 5H £308 0 0ocO Hm on om o m. 0 mm 5:55 0 00:0 G03» 0HoH>H HG0UH0nH £00330 ammon fl ammon n0w§5§0$ magmah HmHh _ Ems UHCUHnH H0>H1H 0m0£ouzm Ho >0G05Hu0nh .3039on £98 1H0 30:0 no 1: E 0H m 3.90 6.00.2 50:00 .Ho 0mmgondnm Ho >oc0dw0nh .3 633. 40 bought lamb shoulder roast; 58 percent never bought pork shoulder roast; and 57 percent never bought picnic ham. The main reasons for not buying liver more often were mostly related to flavor and family preference. Forty-four percent of the respondents said that they disliked the flavor; 14 percent said that one or more family members disliked liver. Nine percent said that they had liver once a week and that was often enough. Factors related to waste and flavor were the major reasons given by the homemakers for not using picnic ham more often. An enumera- tion of their reasons follows: *Percent Too much waste 49 Too much fat 28 Dislike flavor 19 Too salty 17 Too large 7 Difficult to carve 5 Prefer other kinds of ham 5 Dislikes 3 Would tire if bought more often 2 Never knew about it 2 Prefer other cuts 1 Health reasons 1 *The percentages add to more than 100 because more than one reason was sometimes given. Thirty-eight percent of the homemakers listed too much waste as the main reason for not buying pork shoulder roast more often. This would indicate their lack of knowledge that the pork shoulder is the leanest of all pork cuts with bone, or that they are not familiar with the whole Boston butt. 41 The respondents gave the following reasons for not buying pork shoulder roast more often: *Percent Too much waste 38 Dislike flavor 16 Do not like 10 Too fat 10 Prefer other cuts 8 Health reasons Too large Would tire if bought more often Afraid of pork Too expensive NNU‘IWCD *The percentages add to more than 100 because more than one reason was sometimes given. The respondents listed flavor as the main reason for not buying lamb shoulder roast more often. Other reasons were minor in compar- ison. The homemakers' reasons for not buying lamb shoulder roast more often included: *Percent Dislikes flavor 52 Too much waste 14 Some family member dislikes 11 Do not know how to prepare 9 Prefers leg (leg has more lean) 7 Price 6 Too large for the family 3 Difficult to carve 2 *The percentages add to more than 100 because more than one reason was sometimes given. That meats have diminishing marginal utility with increased use was indicated by the respondents' replies to why they did not use more fish, chicken, and hamburger. 42 Forty-two percent of the respondents said they would tire of fish if they bought it more often. Nineteen percent said they would tire of chicken if it were bought more often. Another 19 percent said they had chicken often enough, and 13 percent said they had chicken once a week. Twenty-four percent said they did not buy chicken more often because they wanted variety in menus. Sixty-six percent of the respondents said the family would tire of hamburger if it were bought more often, and 26 percent indicated they did not buy it more often because they were seeking variety in meals. Family preference or bias concerning flavor influenced fish se- lection as shown by 32 percent of the respondents who said the family did not like fish, and 9 percent who said they disliked fish flavor. The respondents gave the following reasons for not buying fish more often: *Percent Would tire if bought more often 42 Family does not like fish 32 Does not like to cook fish 11 Dislikes flavor 9 Other miscellaneous reasons 13 *The percentages add to more than 100 because more than one reason was sometimes given. Homemakers' Opinions Concerning Meat Purchases of Others Weekly meat orders for four families were presented to the re- spondents to obtain their opinions relative to cost, preference, nutrition 43 or meal planning, and personal judgment and acceptance. The home- makers were told that the meat cuts on four cards were bought by four different families during one week. They were asked to study each card and make any comments they wished about each family. The meat orders were as follows: Family A - ham, chicken parts, hamburger, beef chuck roast, and beef liver. Family B - round steak for Swissing, heart, picnic, pork loin roast, and pork sausage. Family C - T-bone steaks, lamb chops, shrimp, center cut pork chops, frozen-fried chicken, and calf liver. Family D - pork liver, hamburger, hot dogs, whole fryer, and rib-end pork roast . The homemakers' expression of opinions concerning the sample meat orders further emphasized the complexity of meat purchase decisions. Certain meat orders were average in cost to some, expensive to others. Meat orders judged a good combination or good planning by certain home- makers were thought poor planning by others. The ability to comment upon meat orders of others related to homemakers' experiences and family preferences. Twenty-eight percent of the respondents felt that the meat order of Family C was too expensive while only 5 percent felt this meat order that of an average family. Twenty-three percent stated that the meat order of family D was the least expensive and 17 percent listed the meat order of Family C as the most expensive of the four . 44 The homemakers were more vocal about family preferences con- cerning the meat order for Family B and Family D than the others. Sev- enteen percent said the order for Family B would not be their family choice while 11 percent stated the same for the order of Family D. Twelve percent made preference statements concerning liver, 6 percent concerning lamb chops, and 4 percent concerning heart. Eight percent of the respondents stated a preference for fresh rather than frozen fryers. Three percent said they never bought hotdogs. The homemakers used such words as "variety, " "balance," "nour- ishing, " "good menu, " and "good diet" to describe their concepts of nutritious well-planned meat orders. Forty-one percent judged the meat order of Family C nutritiously balanced compared to 36 percent for the order of Family A, 8 percent for the order of Family D, and 6 percent for the order of Family B. Thirteen percent said the meat order of Family B and 9 percent said the order of Family D was "not well planned," "not well balanced, " or "did not have enough variety. " "Good, " "nice," "fine," and "O. K. " were words generally used to describe the re spondents' personal judgment and acceptance of the various meat orders. Thirteen percent listed the meat order of Family A, and 11 percent listed the meat order of Family D in this regard. Statements relating to chicken indicate that homemakers were more satisfied with fresh poultry than with the frozen-fried product. The homemakers' opinions concerning meat purchases of others follow : 45 Family list Percent A B C Opinions relating to cost Low cost, low income, budget minded 14 8 Average family diet, average shopping list, average people, typical family 5 Chicken parts wasteful, chicken parts more expensive, whole chicken cheaper 4 Too expensive Expensive, large income, rich family, cost not important, not trying to save money Limited budget, skimpy, meager, cheap, below average family, lower income bracket Least expensive Opinions relating to preference Just about what I'd buy, similar to own, looks like my list, average family 6 Does not like menu, not appealing, wouldn't buy, not for me or us, not my choice 17 Wouldn't use heart, never buy heart 4 Leave out lamb chops, like except lamb chops Would buy fresh chicken, would buy fresh fryer, doesn't buy frozen chicken, doesn't buy frozen meat Never buys pork liver, no liver, all O. K. , except pork liver, dislike liver 4 No hotdogs, don't eat hotdogs Opinions relating to nutrition or meal planning Good variety, good balance, good diet, good planning, good menu, good selection 36 6 Too much pork 46 Not enough variety, not well planned, not well balanced, not adequate, not nourish- ing, bad nutrition 13 Too much fried food Opinions relating to personal judgment and acceptance 0. K. , all right, good, nice, fine 13 2 Fair, not bad, pretty good 4 Bad, not good What families with children buy, lots of children 28 17 41 ll WC!) O‘CD NrP-UOH 46 Meat Preparation Practice s Because meat cuts are versatile in use, several questions were designed to learn more about the homemakers' meat preparation practices. The meat dishes most often prepared, cookery methods most often used for certain meat cuts, knowledge of meat cookery tem— peratures, and meat cuts avoided because of lack of preparation knowl- edge were checked. Meat Dishes Most Often Prepared The respondents were asked, "What meat dishes do you most often prepare for your family?" The answers corresponded with the responses concerning the meats most frequently purchased. Ninety- three percent of the homemakers reported frequent preparation of dishes using beef. Sixty-eight percent of all the meat dishes listed were made with beef. There were only 25 percent as many pork dishes listed as beef, and only 19 percent as many poultry dishes as beef. Other dishes made with veal, lamb, and fish were negligible in number. Dishes made with ground beef were listed most frequently by 67 percent of the respondents. Thirty percent of these were dishes with meat balls, 27 percent were meat loaf, 22 percent were hamburgers, 12 percent were casseroles made with hamburger, and 9 percent were chili. 47 Beef roast ranked second as the meat dish most frequently prepared by 41 percent of the respondents. Pork chops ranked third and was given as the dish most frequently prepared by 23 percent of the re- spondents. Fried chicken was listed in fourth place by 17 percent of the homemakers. The meat dishes which the respondents said they most frequently prepared for their families follows: Percent Meat Dish Beef 93 Roast 41 Dishes with meat balls (spaghetti, macaroni, etc.) 20 Meat loaf 18 Steak l7 Hamburgers 15 Casseroles and variety dishes with hamburger 8 Stew 7 Swiss steak 6 Chili 6 Beef pie 2 Goulash 2 Hash 1 Round steak (fried) 1 Pork 34 Chops 23 Ham 6 Roast (loin) 5 Spareribs 2 Veal 3 Lamb 4 Fish and seafood 5 Tuna casseroles l 48 Meat Dish Percent Poultry 32 Fried chicken 17 Roast chicken 6 Chicken (dish unidentified) 2 Broiled chicken 2 Chicken soup 1 Preparation Method Used for Certain Meats The respondents were asked to tell how they most often cooked hamburger, round steak, chuck roast, cured ham, fresh pork roast, pork chops, turkey, and fryers. Approximately half the homemakers listed frying as the method most frequently used in preparing hamburgers and pork chops. Forty-eight percent of the respondents gave Swissing as the most frequently used method for round steak preparation while about 20 per- cent pan-fried this cut. Eighty percent said they "baked" ham. Twenty-six percent said they "baked" turkey while 63 percent referred to the method as roasting turkey. Fresh pork roast was cooked in the oven by all those homemakers reporting use of this cut, however, they did not refer to the method as roasting. Chuck roast was prepared in the oven by 42 percent of the respondents compared to 37 percent who prepared it as pot roast. Forty-six percent of the respondents reported using a frying meth— od for cooking fryers compared to 28 percent who reported "baking" fryers. 49 The results indicate that the majority of the homemakers used the obvious, most usual methods when preparing these meats. The answers show there is some confusion in preparation terminology, especially between roasting and baking, and in braising. These re- sults should be of value when selecting variations and when developing new recipes using the most frequently used preparation methods for these cuts. The preparation methods most frequently used for these various meat cuts were as follows: Percent Cut Method Hamburger Fry 47 Broil 16 Meat loaf 8 Meat balls 2 Casseroles 2 Round steak Swiss 48 Pan-fry l9 Tenderize and broil 9 Oven 4 Chuck roast Oven 42 Pot roast 37 Ham (cured) Bake 80 Fry 4 Boil 3 Fresh pork Oven 51 roast Bake 2 Pork chops Fry 50 Bake 20 Broil 9 Breaded 4 Braise 2 50 Cut Method Percent Turkey Roast 63 Bake 26 Fryer Fry 44 Bake 28 Broil 5 Barbecue 2 Deep fat fry 2 Homemakers' Knowledge of Meat Cookery Temperatures The homemakers' knowledge of meat cookery temperatures was checked for nine meat cuts. They were asked to tell the approximate temperature used when cooking chuck roast, round steak, hamburger, fresh pork roast, pork chops, cured ham, turkey, fryers, and fish. There was a wide range of temperatures given for each meat cut. Rather than reporting exact temperature, some respondents estimated the temperature using such words as "high, " "medium, " "low, " etc. Others reported the part of the range or equipment used for cooking these meats. Depending upon the cut, 10 to 20 percent of the respond- ents stated they did not know the approximate temperature they used for the nine meat cuts. Depending upon the cut, 35 to 86 percent of the homemakers gave exact cooking temperatures for the various cuts. A larger percentage of exact temperatures were stated for cured ham, turkey, chuck roast, and fresh pork roast. A larger percentage of approximate temperatures were given for hamburger, round steak, fish, pork chops, and fryers. 51 The respondents reported using 350 degrees Farenheit for cook- ing the various meat cuts more often than any other temperature. This was followed by 325 degrees and 350-400 degrees. Table 15 shows that less than half the respondents reported using the suggested temperature range of 300-325 degrees for meat cookery. Forty-two percent reported using these temperatures for turkey and cured ham; 30 percent, beef chuck; 25 percent, fresh pork roast; 12 percent, pork chops; and 10 percent, fryers. Most homemakers cooked these meats at temperatures above 325 degrees. Approximately 40 percent cooked fryers, cured ham, beef chuck, and turkey at higher temperatures. Fresh pork roast, fish, pork, round steak, and hamburgers were cooked at temperatures over 325 degrees by approximately 30 percent of the sample. These answers indicate that approximately half the respondents lacked basic meat cookery knowledge. This is shown by the following: a) depending upon the cut, 10 to 20 percent said they did not know the temperature they used, b) many did not relate the temperature used for cooking one meat cut with that used for other meat cuts, c) 20 to 40 percent, depending upon the cut, reported use of temperatures over 350 degrees, and 1Cooking temperature refers to the Farenheit scale. Temperature recommended by Department of Animal Husbandry, Michigan State University. 52 Table 15. Temperature, Method or Equipment Used for Cooking Various Meat Cuts Temperature, method or equipment Cut Chuck roast Round 3 te ak Hamburger Fresh pork roast Pork chops Cured ham Turkey Fryers Fish Percent Exact temperature 2250-300O 300° 3000-3250 325° 3250-3509 350° 3500-4000 4009-5000 4500-5500 broil 400°, to lower 425°, and lower Approximate temperature High High, then lower Medium Medium, then low Low, slow, Simmer N N OOOOQQOD—‘OQpb .\1 N 0100000 5—: OWUTH'NIOONONU'I 00 U1 OCDO 1000 26 O—i OOKIt-‘CDOOMPAOI—i L» W \ONN lee 30 p—a N NOOOi-AU'IUJKIQQUJ «I N oxlwowmo .—a OOUOHUOO‘i-P‘O‘OO‘hP 4:. L» 0001- '00 23 N 00 Do 0‘ OOOifitrbNOO‘OOrb olooooo N H (D N U"! OOOi-h-U'lei—‘U'IOKIO‘ olooooo F-‘N OOHO‘rbONO‘b—‘UJN U'l U‘l |o~o~omm 22 OOUJCDOOOUJUDOr—I DJ 0‘ HU'IN In... 24 53 Table 15. (Continued) Cut Temperature, method or 4.: H . U) (U H 4.: U) 8 equipment 8 3 iii) .c: g 3* m 14 U: H m 0 £1 .53 >‘ m :5 q) H U .54 "U 'Q "U G) H U C: H M .14 0 M Q) .5: :3 :J E in 1.. H H 14 >~ m .1: O (0 O O :3 :3 H .H U ad :I: a. (L U [-1 In In Percent Method or equipment used Pressure cooker 1 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 Oven 0 0 0 0 l 0 0 0 0 Surface burner 11 10 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 Grill 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Deep fat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 Pan-fry 0 2 10 0 4 0 0 3 8 Broil 0 1 6 0 4 0 0 3 3 Sear and steam 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 Boil 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 12 16 17 2 17 2 0 10 13 Miscellaneous 2 4 l 0 1 l l 2 0 answers — — — — — — — — 2 4 l 0 l 1 l 2 0 Other comments Never use 0 3 2 9 2 0 0 1 7 Do not know 14 16 15 11 14 ll 14 10 20 l4 19 17 20 16 ll 14 ll 27 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Total respondents = 304 54 (1) less than half reported use of 300-325 degree temperatures for the various cuts. 1 Meats Avoided Because of Lack of Preparation Knowledge The respondents were asked, "Are there cuts or kinds of meat you avoid because you are not sure about how to prepare them ?" The organ meats of beef, pork, lamb, and veal were most often listed. The meats homemakers avoided because of lack of preparation knowledge were as follows: Meat Cut Percent Beef Heart Kidney Flank Tongue Liver Brains Tripe Corned beef Pork Kidney Heart Brains NNUO NNWI-Psi-hmO‘xl Veal Sweetbreads l Kidney Heart Lamb All cuts Leg Breast Heart NUJLDCD NWH 1 Meat cooked at 300-325 degrees temperature results in a finished product with less shrinkage or weight loss, more uniform doneness, that is easier to carve, and that has better flavor. CHAPTER III HOMEMAKERS' USES AND REACTIONS TO INFORMATION ABOUT MEAT BUYING Part of this study was planned to determine the sources home- makers used for information about meat buying with emphasis directed to use of store advertising and mass media. Those receiving informa- tion about meat buying through various media were checked to determine application of such information. One question was designed to determine accuracy with which the respondents interpreted news writing on meat grades, cost comparison, seasonality, and outlook. Three questions were planned to discover homemakers' opinions concerning information on meat buying that they judged useful, would look for if they knew it was in the newspaper, and thought other homemakers want. Use of Information About Meat Buying Use of Newspaper Advertising for Information About Meat Buying Homemakers were asked how often they checked store advertising in newspapers before buying meat. Sixty-two percent of the respondents said they always checked store advertising before buying meat while 27 percent said they never did. An additional 3 percent reported they 55 56 checked meat advertising in newspapers more than half the time, an- other 2 percent about half the time, and the final 6 percent less than half the time. Tabulation of data relating to age, education, and income shows that slightly more homemakers over 40 years of age always checked store advertising of meat than did those in other age groups. A higher percentage of those with elementary education always checked than did those in other education groups. Those homemakers with higher incomes checked advertisements less frequently than others. Comparison between age groups indicates that a slightly higher percentage of homemakers over 40 years of age always checked news- paper advertising before buying meat than those under 40 years of age. Table 16 shows that 31 percent of the homemakers over 60 years of age said they never used this source of information about meat buying compared to 24 to 27 percent of the homemakers in other age groups. A check of the homemakers' education indicated that a higher percentage of those with elementary education read newspaper adver- tisements than homemakers in other education groups. Table 17 shows that those with high school education and those with more than high school education were very similar in response to this question. Approximately 10 percent of those with elementary education reported that they never read meat advertisements in newspapers compared with about 30 percent in the other groups. 57 Table 16. Homemakers' Use of Meat Advertising in Newspapers, Related to Age Age group Use Under 40 4O - 60 Over 60 Total sample Percent Percent Always 60 63 69 62 More than half the time 3 5 0 3 Half the time 3 2 0 2 Less than half the time 7 6 0 6 Never 27 24 31 27 Total 100 100 100 .100 Number °f 150 118 36 304 respondents Total respondents = 304 Table 17. Homemakers' Use of Meat Advertising in Newspapers, Related to Education Education group Total U53 Less than 9 - 12 More than sample d 1 9 gra es grades 2 grades Percent Percent Always 85 64 63 62 More than half the time 0 2 2 3 Half the time 0 2 l 2 Less than half the time 4 5 5 6 Never 27 29 27 Total 100 100 100 100 Number of respondents 26 169 109 304 Total respondents = 304 58 This study shows that homemakers in higher income levels used store ads less frequently than others for information about meat buying. Table 18 shows that only 46 percent of those with incomes over $10, 000 had checked meat advertising within six weeks prior to the survey com- pared to 82 percent of the homemakers with incomes of $2, 001 to $4, 000. Others reading meat advertising for meat buying information ranged from 58 percent of those with incomes from $7, 001 to $10, 000 to 68 percent of those with incomes from $5, 401 to $7, 000. Those with income under $2, 000 were quite different from those in the next higher income group. Sixty-four percent of the lower income group said they read advertisements for information about meat buying compared to 82 percent in the next income level. Twenty-seven percent of the lowest income group said they never read meat ads compared to only 6 percent in the next income level. This wide difference could be due to several reasons particular to this low income group where: a) little meat was bought, b) few alternative choices were possible, and c) the meat order varied little from one week to another. Newspapers Checked for Meat Advertisements The homemakers were asked, "If you have checked meat adver- tising within the last six weeks, in which papers did you find it ?" Seventy-three percent of the respondents indicated they had checked meat advertising in newspapers within that time period. Almost 60 59 Table 18. Homemakers' Use of Meat Advertising in Newspapers, Related to Income Income group I I I I O O 1* 8 S g 3 8 o 8 o o 0 Total Use ‘1’ o o o 0 tr <11 0 o o H o “O . .. . .. .. .. . . . ‘1’ . sample G N N 51* v in in (- I~ o > o D 93- 8489- {£- e-i- 69-66- 69- H O H 99- ” Percent A Percent Always 64 82 67 68 58 46 1’ 62 More than half the time 0 6 0 3 5 2 3 Half the time 0 6 6 2 1 2 2 Less than half the time 9 0 6 7 9 6 Never 27 6 27 21 29 41 27 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 *Number of respondents 11 16 33 103 85 44 304 Total respondents = 304 *4 percent of sample did not give income. percent of this group found it in the local newspaper. Newspapers checked by 73 percent of the homemakers for meat buying information included: Percent The Daily Tribune, Royal Oak 59 The Detroit News 40 The Detroit Free Press 20 The Detroit Times 12 Forty-three percent of all the homemakers in this survey had checked meat advertising within the six weeks prior to the survey in The Daily Tribune, 30 percent in The Detroit News, 14 percent in The Detroit Free Press, and 9 percent in The Detroit Times. 60 Use of Store Circulars for Information About Meat Buying Seventy-two percent of the respondents said they had read meat advertising in store circulars within six weeks prior to the survey. Those mentioned most often included four chain stores located in the area. Food Fair was mentioned 54 times, Kroger was listed 17 times, and Wrigley and A. g P. were listed 14 times each. Useful Information About Meat Buying_ (Other than Ads) Read in Newspapers The homemakers were asked, "Within the last six weeks, have you read any useful information about meat buying in papers other than that carried in the ads ?" Forty-eight percent replied affirmatively. Sixty percent of the respondents reading useful information about meat buying in newspapers, other than in ads, found it in the local news— 1 paper. Fifty percent said they found the information in The Detroit News, 32 percent in The Detroit Free Press, 13 percent in The Detroit Times, and 4 percent in other papers. Generally, a higher percentage of homemakers under 60 years of age, in families of over two persons, with higher than elementary edu- cation, and with incomes over $5, 400 read useful information about meat buying in newspaper s . l The Daily Tribune, Royal Oak. 2 The Detroit News later bought The Detroit Times. 61 Table 19 shows that half the homemakers under 60 years of age reported reading useful information about meat buying prior to the survey. Only one-third of those over 60 years of age had read such information. Table 19. Homemakers Reading Useful Information About Meat Buying in Newspapers, Other than in Ads, Related to Age Age group Total 4 4 - Reading useful information Under 0 O 60 Over 60 sample Percent Percent Yes 51 51 ‘ 34 48 No 39 42 58 44 No answer 10 7 8 8 Total 100 100 100 100 Number of respondents 150 118 36 304 Total respondents = 304 Table 20 indicates that one-third of the respondents in families of one to two persons had found useful information about meat buying in newspapers prior to the survey. Over half the respondents in larger size families had found such information. Approximately 40 percent of the homemakers with elementary school education had found useful information about meat buying in news- papers compared with 50 percent of those with more education. 1 See Appendix A, Table 2. 62 Table 20. Homemakers Reading Useful Information About Meat Buying in Newspapers, Other than in Ads, Related to Family Size Family size - .. T tal Reading useful information 1 2 3 4 Over 4 0 persons persons persons sample Percent Percent Yes 33 55 55 48 No 63 42 40 44 No answer 4 3 5 8 Total 100 100 100 100 Number of respondents 84 123 97 304 Total respondents = 304 Table 21 indicates that approximately 50 percent of all the respond- ents, except those in the $4, 001 to $5, 400 group and those with less than $2, 000 income, read useful information about meat buying in newspapers. Only 39 and 36 percent of these respective groups had. A larger percentage of homemakers within the $2, 001 to $4, 000 income level reported using meat advertising and reading other useful information about meat buying found in newspapers than did homemakers in the income groups immediately above or below. This would indicate that homemakers in this income range are consciously seeking informa- tion about meat to assist with planning and buying decisions. Those respondents finding useful information about meat buying 63 Table 21. Homemakers Reading Useful Information About Meat Buying in Newspapers, Other than in Ads, Related to Income Income group 1.. o J. o .1. o —-'« :3 Jo o 0 8 8 8 8 8 53 8 88 8 Reading useful "a , . ,, , , , ,, ,, , ii ,, Total information :3 31+ 212.; {:22 $5 5.9. 5 2 sample . re 69 Percent Percent Yes 36 56 39 52 51 50 48 No 55 38 55 45 42 46 44 No answers 9 6 6 3 7 4 8 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 *Number of respondents 11 16 33 103 85 44 304 Total respondents = 304 *4 percent of sample did not give income. in newspapers within six weeks prior to the survey were asked to clas— sify it as to type and usefulness. Most homemakers listed more than one type of information as 1 . . . . useful. Fifty-three percent thought price the most useful information while 36 percent listed information about supply as useful. Information on selection was judged useful by 23 percent, and 22 percent thought information about grade useful. Information about preparation or use was listed by 15 percent of these homemakers and information about meat cuts was scored by 11 percent. 1See Appendix A, Table 3. 64 These results do not specifically indicate the respondents' pref- erences as to kinds of information about meat buying they want in news— papers, only what they found to be useful. These answers were de - pendent upon the information made available by news editors and consumer marketing information agents during the period before the survey. After the respondents classified news information about meat buying according to usefulness, they were asked how they applied this information. Interviewers recorded answers in the order given, and most homemakers listed more than one use. Fifty - two percent of the homemakers reading such information in newspapers said they used it in planning before going to the store. Use as a guide to economy or thrift was scored by 39 percent of the group. Use in selection at the store, as an addition to the homemakers' knowledge, and in preparation or use at home were given as applica- tions of the information by 22, 19, and 16 percent of these respondents, respectively. Comparison of Useful Information About Meat Buying in Newspapers, on Radio, and on Television Since effectiveness of various methods of reaching consumers is of value to extension workers, retailers, and others, checks were made of homemakers' use of newspaper, radio, and television. 1 See Appendix A, Table 4. 65 Following the questions relative to newspapers, the respondents were asked, "Within the last six weeks, have you heard any information about meat buying on radio ?" They were then asked what information they heard, what was most useful, and how they had used the informa- tion. The same questions were repeated concerning television viewing. Generally, a larger percentage of homemakers said they used newspapers for information about meat buying than the other media. Forty-eight percent of the homemakers indicated they had read useful information about meat buying in newspapers. Eighteen percent re- ported they had seen useful information about meat buying on television and 14 percent indicated they had heard useful information about meat buying on radio. Information on price was judged the most useful information about meat buying gained through all media. Supply information ranked sec- ond in usefulness and information on selection ranked third. Table 22 shows that while price information was important to half or more of the homemakers reached by these media, supply infor- mation was voted useful by about one-third. Selection and preparation or use were listed by approximately 20 percent of these respondents. Grade information was deemed useful by about 15 percent of those reading newspapers and seeing meat buying information on television, and to 30 percent of those hearing such information on radio. About 66 Table 22. Information About Meat Buying Found Useful, Through Various Media - #- Media Newspaper Radio Television Information Readers Total Listeners Total Viewers Total found sample sample sample useful Percent Percent Percent Price 53 26 67 9 49 8 Supply 36 17 35 5 33 6 Selection 23 ll 21 3 22 4 Preparation or use 22 10 16 2 24 4 Grade 15 7 30 4 13 2 Cuts 11 3 9 1 29 5 Other 0 0 12 2 0 0 Number of respondents 148 304 43 304 55 304 Total respondents = 304 10 percent listed information on meat cuts useful in newspapers and on radio while about 30 percent of those viewing such information on televi- sion listed it as useful. When asked how they had used information about meat buying found through various media, the respondents listed planning before going to the store the main use for all media. Table 23 shows that the home- makers ranked guide to economy or thrifty choice second on all media. Use in selection at the store was scored third for those finding such in- formation in newspapers and on radio, and use in preparation was ranked third by those viewing television. 67 Table 23. Homemakers' Use of Information About Meat Buying Found Through Various Media Media Use of Newspaper Radio Television information T Readers Total Listeners Total Viewers otal sample sample sample Percent Percent Percent In planning before going to store 52 25 47 .15 16 ' 5 As a guide to econ— omy or thrifty choice 39 ' 16 37 12 16 5 In selection at the store 22 7 l9 6 6 2 Just added to home- maker's knowledge 19 6 19 6 6 2 In preparation or use at home 16 5 12 4 13 4 In care at home 5 2 5 2 0 0 Other 3 1 0 0 0 0 Number 0f 148 304 43 304 55 304 respondents Total respondents = 304 Other Sources of Information About Meat Buying Since homemakers use sources other than media for information about meat buying, they were asked to indicate those used within the last two or three months. Eight-three percent of the respondent said P 68 they had used the following: Percent Store displays of meat 52 Friends and neighbors 46 Labels on meat 34 Magazines 25 Manager or clerks in store 25 The results indicate the importance of the store in providing information about meat buying. The prepackaged store display pres- ently shows name of the cut, net weight of the package, price per pound, and the total cost of the package. Brand and other information is often given. One-fourth of the respondents, using sources other than mass media for information about meat buying, said they had received infor- mation from the manager or store clerks. This implies that a number of meat shoppers want further information or want merchandise in ad- dition to that found in meat displays. Homemakers' Intefloretation of News Information About Meat Buying_ Four paragraphs on seasonality, grades, cost comparison, and outlook were prepared to check the respondents' accuracy in interpreting information about meat buying which they might read in the newspaper. The paragraphs read as follows: 69 1) SEASONAL -- Steak prices may be as much as 15 to 30 cents per pound higher in midsummer than in midwinter. Two important reasons for this are that there are fewer steaks available in summer, and more shoppers wanting them make supplies still smaller. 2) GRADES -- All beef is not federally graded, but if the grade is found on the cut or package, it is a guide to tenderness and flavor. U. S. Prime beef is the top quality. U. S. Choice beef is of high quality and usually has less fat than Prime beef. U. S. Good grade beef pleases thrifty shoppers who seek beef with little fat but of fairly good quality. 3) COST COMPARISON -- You'll want to compare more than price per pound when buying ham. Canned ham, with no bone, will serve four persons from each pound. Whole ham, with the skin and most of the outside fat removed, will serve two and one-half to three portions per pound. A half of ham will yield two and one -half servings per pound. A portion of ham, with the center slices removed, will yield two servings per pound. Price per serving tells how far your ham dollar will go. 4) OUTLOOK INFORMATION -- During the first three months of 1960 pork supplies will be 2 percent larger than a year earlier. During the rest of 1960, pork supplies will be smaller than a year ago, and shoppers can expect higher pork prices. 70 Answers were scored correct when the respondent repeated the information as it was given in the paragraph, or correctly related the information to his buying decisions. Answers were scored partly correct when the respondent repeated part of the information, or showed some knowledge of its use. Answers were scored incorrect when the respondent failed to answer the question, failed to repeat any of the information given in the paragraph, or failed to relate it to his buying decisions. The cost comparison information was correctly interpreted by a larger percentage of the respondents than were other types of infor- mation. This was true regardless of age or education, with the ex- ception of those with less than high school education. Almost equal percentages of the respondents correctly interpreted outlook and grade information, while a smaller percentage correctly interpreted the paragraph of seasonal information. Table 24 indicates that 45 percent of the homemakers correctly interpreted cost comparison information while only 26 percent cor- rectly interpreted seasonal information. Cost comparison information was scored correct or partly correct by 79 percent of the respondents compared to 76 percent for grades, 71 percent for seasonal, and 64 percent for outlook. Thirty percent of the sample incorrectly inter- preted outlook information compared to 16 to 25 percent for the other type s of inform ation. 71 Table 24. Homemakers' Interpretation of News Information About Meat Buying Type of information . , Cost Interpretation Seasonal Grade . Outlook comparison Percent Correct 26 33 45 38 Partly correct 45 43 34 26 Incorrect 25 18 16 30 No answers 4 6 5 6 Total 100 100 100 100 Total respondents = 304 A study of homemakers' interpretations related to age shows that 39 to 47 percent of the homemakers correctly interpreted cost com- parison information with those under 40 years of age scoring more accurately than those in other age groups. 1 Thirty six to 39 percent of the respondents correctly judged outlook information with those in the 40 to 60 year age group accurate most often. Twenty-eight to 38 percent of the homemakers correctly interpreted grade information, and those under 40 years of age scored most accurately. Only 24 to 28 percent of the respondents correctly interpreted the paragraph of seasonal information, and those under 40 years of age were accurate most often. 1See Appendix A, Table 5. 72 A tabulation of results relating to education shows that respond- ents with elementary school education had most difficulty with inter- pretation of the four types of information. 1 Only 15 to 19 percent of this group gave correct interpretations compared to 28 to 42 percent of those with high school training, and 26 to 54 percent of those with more than high school education. Food Marketing Information Homemakers Think Most Useful Three questions were planned to determine the information about meat buying the respondents felt most useful. After the respondents completed interpretation of the four para- graphs of information on seasonality, grades, cost comparison, and outlook, they were asked to rank the information in the order in which they found it most useful. Following this, they were asked which of these releases they would look for if they knew they were in the paper. The third question was given at the conclusion of the interview. The interviewer explained that one purpose of the survey was to find what information homemakers would like to know about meat . The respondents were given twelve cards with statements relative to meat and asked to select six which they felt homemakers would like to know more about. They were then asked to rank the cards in order, one through six. 1See Appendix A, Table 6. 73 News Information About Meat Buying Which Homemakers Think Useful When the homemakers were given a choice between kinds of in- formation about meat buying they felt most useful, the paragraph on grade ranked first. Cost comparison information ranked second, seasonality third, and outlook information fourth. Table 25 shows that 37 percent of the respondents listed infor- mation on grades in first place. This compared to 28 percent for cost comparison information, 21 percent for seasonal information, and only 8 percent for outlook information. Table 25. News Information About Meat Buying Which Homemakers Think Most Useful Type of information Rank Seasonal Grade coat. Outlook comparison Percent 1 st 21 37 28 8 2nd 19 23 35 13 3rd 34 19 19 19 4th 16 15 9 50 No ansWer 10 6 9 10 Total 100 100 100 100 Number of respondents = 304 74 When first and second places were combined, scores for infor- mation on cost comparison and grades were very similar. Only two- thirds as many ranked seasonal information in the first two places and only one-third as many ranked outlook information in these places. Fifty percent of the homemakers ranked outlook information in fourth place. Comparisons between age groups showed that homemakers under 40 years of age listed cost comparison information most useful. Homemakers 40 to 60 years of age and those over 60 listed grade in- formation most useful. Cost comparison information was listed in first place by 32 percent of the homemakers under 40 years of age, while about 40 percent of the homemakers in the other age groups listed grades in first place. Seasonal information was ranked third in usefulness by 29 percent of those under 40 years of age, by 38 percent of those between 40 to 60 years, and by 39 percent of those over 60. The respondents with high school education ranked grade infor- mation of greatest value. Those with more than high school training ranked information on grades, cost comparison, and seasonality about equal in usefulness. Those with elementary school education ranked information on cost comparison most useful. Forty-three percent of the homemakers with high school education ranked grade information 1See Appendix A, Table 7. 75 most useful while 42 percent with elementary school education ranked cost comparison information of greatest value. 1 Twenty-nine percent of the respondents with more than high school education ranked cost comparison information first, 28 percent ranked grade information first, and 28 percent voted seasonal information first. Forty-six per- cent of the respondents with elementary school education placed seasonal information third in usefulness compared with 32 percent of those with high school education and 34 percent of those with more training. Out- look information was voted least useful by 25 percent of the home- makers with more than high school education, 52 percent of those with high school education, and 58 percent of those with elementary school education. Homemakers of all income groups judged cost comparison infor- mation very useful with the exception of those with income under $2,000 .2 Only 18 percent of the homemakers in this income group judged cost comparison information in first and second places compared with 59 to 75 percent of homemakers in other groups. Fifty-five percent of the homemakers in the lowest income group scored seasonal information in first and second place compared to 39 to 44 percent of the homemakers in other groups. Grade information was judged most useful by the 1 See Appendix A, Table 8. 2 See Appendix A, Table 9. 76 homemakers in the lowest income group with 64 percent scoring it in first and second place. Eighty-one percent of the homemakers in the $2, 001 to $4, 000 income range voted information on grades in first and second place compared to 49 to 68 percent of the homemakers in higher income groups. Information About Meat Buying Homemakers Would Look for if They Knew It Was in the Newspaper After the homemakers ranked information on seasonality, grades, cost comparison, and outlook in order of usefulness, they were asked which releases they would look for if they knew they were in the paper. This question was similar to the one preceding it and was planned to determine the homemaker's interest in such food information. The homemakers again rated grades and cost comparison infor- mation higher than other types of information. Seasonal information ranked third, and there was least interest in outlook information. Table 26 shows that 31 percent of the respondents ranked cost com- parison information in first place compared to approximately 25 per- cent for grade and seasonal information and only 12 percent for out- look information. Addition of the first and second places shows that 58 percent of the homemakers ranked cost comparison information in these places compared to 51 percent for grade information and 41 percent for seasonal 77 information. Only 29 percent ranked outlook information in these places and 40 percent placed it in fourth place. From 11 to 18 percent said they would not read this kind of information if they knew it was in the paper. Table 26. Information About Meat Buying Homemakers Would Look for if They Knew It Was in the Newspaper Type of information Cost Rank Seasonal Grade . Outlook comparison Percent lst 24 25 31 12 2nd 17 26 27 17 3rd 31 20 19 13 4th 13 18 9 40 Would not read 15 ll 14 18 Total 100 100 100 100 Number of respondents = 304 A higher percentage of homemakers under 40 years of age were in- terested in the four types of information than those in other age groups. Homemakers over 60 years of age showed less interest in outlook in- formation than did those of other ages. The scores between cost com- parison and grade information were close in all age groups. Sixty 1See Appendix A, Table 10. 78 percent of the homemakers between 40 to 60 years of age ranked cost comparison in first and second place compared with 59 percent in the younger age group and 48 percent in the older age group. Sixty-four percent of the respondents over 60 years of age scored grade informa- tion in first and second place compared with 52 percent in the 40 to 60 year age group and 46 percent in the group under 40 years of age. Tabulations relating to education also showed that homemakers were more interested in reading information on cost comparison or grades, than on seasonality or outlook.1 A higher percentage of home- makers with elementary school education said they would look for cost comparison and grade information than homemakers with higher edu- cation. A higher percentage of homemakers with more than high school education said they would look for seasonal and outlook informa- tion than those in other groups. Homemakers with elementary school education indicated least interest in seasonal and outlook information. Comparisons relating to income show that a larger percentage of homemakers in each income group said they would look for informa- tion on cost comparison and grades than for information on seasonality or outlook. 2 Homemakers with less than $2, 000 income were more in- terested in seasonal information than homemakers in other income groups. 1 See Appendix A, Table 11. 2See Appendix A, Table 12. 79 A higher percentage of homemakers in the $4,000 to $10, 000 income range ranked cost comparison information in first and second place than grade information. Forty-three percent of the homemakers with incomes over $10, 000 listed cost comparison information in first and second place while 49 percent ranked grade information in these places. Sixty- nine percent of the respondents with $2, 001 to $4, 000 income listed cost comparison information in first and second place while 81 percent ranked grade information in first and second place. Only 9 percent of the homemakers in the lowest income level ranked cost comparison information in first and second place compared with 55 percent for grade information. Sixty-four percent of the homemakers in the low- est income group placed seasonal information in first and second place. Twenty-seven percent of the homemakers in the lowest income group and 21 to 23 percent of the homemakers in the highest income group said they would not read this type of information. A smaller percentage of respondents with incomes between $2, 001 to $7, 000 said they would not read the various kinds of information than homemakers in lower or higher income groups. These results imply that young homemakers are interested in these types of information about meat buying. However, less interest was shown in outlook than the other information. One reason could be 80 the homemaker's inability to relate outlook information to supply and price. Another reason might be that homemakers are primarily inter- ested in the current food situation, not that of future months. Home- makers in the lower income groups were very conscious of seasonal supplies. Perhaps their experience in shopping within a low budget helped them relate seasonality to availability and price. Information About Meat Buying Homemakers Want In order to determine information about meat buying homemakers want, the respondents were given twelve cards with statements relative to meat. They were asked to choose six which they thought homemakers would like to know more about and rank them in order of importance. Approximately two-thirds of the homemakers indicated that how to cook meat was a primary concern. Suggestions on how to spend less money for meat and comparing costs between meat cuts was judged im- portant by about 60 percent, respectively. Factors relating to selec- tion, care and supplies for the current week were other areas of inter- est to these homemakers. The meat information which the respondents felt homemakers would like to know more about included: Percent How to cook different meat cuts 66 Suggestions on how to spend less money for meat 61 81 Comparing cost between different cuts of meat Learning to recognize different meat cuts How to choose or select beef, pork, veal, lamb, etc. Meat grades and what they mean Proper care of meat in the refrigerator and freezer Information on meat supplies for the week Changes in meat supplies expected in the next few weeks Suggestions for buying meat for the freezer Reasons why meat prices and supplies change Percent 57 54 51 51 51 49 34 32 26 CHAPTER IV SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS This research was undertaken to increase present knowledge of the meat buying and preparation practices of urban Michigan home- makers. One section of the study was devoted to determining factors influencing homemakers' selection and use of meat. A second part was planned to determine homemakers' interpretations and uses of available information about meat buying. Other questions were asked to learn the kinds of information about meat buying homemakers want. The respondents were asked to select information about meat buying they considered most useful and to rank information they thought other homemakers would like to know more about. The study was designed to provide further information for workers in marketing information for consumers programs and others interested in meat buying and preparation practices. Factors Influencing Homemakers' Meat Buying and Preparation Practices 1. A study of the buying practices of the 304 homemakers in- terviewed revealed that 74 percent made their family meat purchases on Thursday, Friday or Saturday. Seventy percent bought most of their meat in a large food store and 66 percent shopped alone. 82 83 The quality available was given as the reason for selecting meat at stores where purchased by 58 percent of the homemakers. Forty per- cent stated these stores were convenient, while 38 percent mentioned price or economy as another reason for store loyalty. Homemakers' recall of meats purchased the week prior to the survey indicated that approximately half were beef cuts. Sixty-three percent reported buying ground beef; 56 percent, chicken; 43 percent, beef roast; 40 percent, beef steak; 33 percent, bacon; and 31 percent, pork chops. Approximately 60 percent of the families spent from $15. 00 to $30. 00 weekly for food prepared at home. Forty-six percent of the families spent between $5. 00 to $9. 99 for meat purchases. Eighty-three percent of the families reported that one or more members ate meals away from home during the week. These data indicated that family characteristics of income and size, and age of the homemaker influ- enced these expenditures. These findings suggest that weekly information about meat buying would be of greater value to homemakers if received before the three major shopping days. This would apply to individuals, organizations or firms wishing to reach consumers with such information. Those providing information about meat for consumers might give more program emphasis to kinds and cuts of meat most frequently purchased. 84 The homemakers' willingness or desire to buy in stores which sold "quality meat" is important to firms selling meat. Maintaining a store image for quality meat would be helpful in securing and keep- ing customers. 2. ' The kinds of meat dishes prepared correlated with the kinds of meats the homemakers purchased. When asked to list meat dishes most frequently prepared, 68 percent were made with beef. Various dishes made with ground beef were listed by 67 percent of the homemakers. These included dishes with meat balls, 30 per- cent; meatloaf, 27 percent; hamburgers, 22 percent; casseroles, 12 percent; and chili, 9 percent. Beef roast was listed as a frequently prepared dish by 41 per- cent, pork chops by 23 percent, and fried chicken by 17 percent. Since beef was the meat most frequently used, perhaps more emphasis could be devoted to recipe development using this meat. New and improved recipes for use of ground beef and cooked beef roast would possibly increase consumer satisfaction in use of beef. Other recipes using chicken and pork chops would provide menu vari- ety in which homemakers stated an interest. Information on selection and preparation of meat cuts less frequently used might stimulate greater consumer use of them. Many meat purchases were tentatively planned before the home- maker arrived at the store. Approximately half the respondents 85 said they always made a written list before going to shop for groceries. Thirty percent said they never made a written list. An analysis of market lists submitted showed wide variation in depth of advance planning. Fifty—seven percent of those submitting market lists indicated specific meats by kind and cut. Sixteen percent indicated the meat order using the word "meat." Eleven percent listed "meat" and one cut of meat; 3 percent listed "fish" only; and 13 percent listed no meat on their shopping lists. The majority of homemakers were aware of and influenced by store advertising of meat. Seventy percent said the stores where they shopped had weekend meat specials. Of these, 42 percent reported they bought one such meat item every week; 23 percent said they bought one every two weeks; and 13 percent said they hardly ever or never bought a featured meat item. Although 70 percent of the homemakers indicated they did some advanced planning of meat purchases by use of meat advertising infor- mation or shopping lists, approximately 30 percent lacked interest or knowledge about planning meat purchases prior to shopping. Only 30 percent of the sample, 57 percent of those making written shopping lists, itemized intended meat purchases by specific kind and cut. 86 Relating food shopping to current supply and retail merchandising plans would prove advantageous to many shoppers. Information of this type should be provided by workers in marketing information for con- sumers programs to increase homemakers' knowledge and to contribute to the efficiency of the food distribution system. 4. Homemakers had little knowledge of how supply and demand influence meat merchandising at the retail level. Although 60 percent of the homemakers were aware of retail store competition and its in- fluence on meats being advertised at below usual prices, less than one- third were aware of the relationship of total supply to featured meat cuts. Thirty percent thought meat features were possible because a particular store could get a large quantity of meat. One-fifth of the respondents felt that meat features constituted a merchandising plan to sell an over- supply which the store already had on hand. 5. Homemakers' meat purchases were influenced by their knowl- edge of selection and preparation. The respondents indicated that color of the lean, more lean and less fat, and marbling were the important factors influencing their beef purchases. Forty-six percent said they looked at the color of the lean when shopping for beef; 45 percent looked for beef with more lean and less fat. Marbling was listed as a buying guide by 32 percent of the homemakers. The amount of bone, color of fat, and grade were each mentioned by 20 percent of the respondents. 87 Methods of meat cookery were checked for seven cuts. Approx- imately 50 percent of the homemakers pan-fried hamburgers and pork chops, braised round steak, and roasted fresh pork roast. Eighty-nine percent cooked turkey in the oven and 80 percent prepared ham in the oven. Approximately half those preparing chuck roast used the roast- ing method and half used the braising method. Twenty- six percent of the homemakers said they "baked" turkey, 20 percent "baked" pork chops, 37 percent "pot roasted" chuck, and 48 percent "Swissed" round steak. This indicates that the homemakers were familiar with methods for preparing these cuts, but that 30 to 50 percent, depending upon the cut, did not use the correct terminology in describing the cookery method. Lack of preparation knowledge was given as one reason why ap- proximately 10 percent of the homemakers did not use organ meats and lamb more often. Homemakers were asked what temperatures they used for cooking nine meat cuts. A wide variation in temperatures was given in most instances and, depending upon the cut, 10 to 20 percent of the home- makers said they did not know the correct temperature. More homemakers cooked meats at over 325 degrees than at lower temperatures. A range of 20 to 40 percent of the respondents reported using temperatures over 350 degrees for the nine cuts. Only 88 42 percent reported using the suggested temperatures of 300-325 de- grees for cured ham and turkey, 30 percent for beef chuck, 25 percent for fresh pork roast, and even smaller percentages were reported for the remaining cuts. These results show that homemakers could not recall meat cook- ery temperatures without assistance of cookbooks or recipes which they might normally use. The temperature variations given for the various cuts indicated homemakers did not generally relate low tem- peratures with meat cookery. At least half the sample did not recog- nize that low temperatures for meat cookery result in greater yield, more uniform doneness, better flavor, and easier carving. These findings verify a need to upgrade homemakers' knowledge of meat buying and preparation. Beef grades and quality factors for selecting red meats, poultry, and fish should receive more emphasis in educational programs, in store advertising, and at the point of sale. Information concerning methods of meat cookery and suggested tem- peratures for increasing yield and palatability would increase consumer satisfaction with meat purchases and result in better use of economic resources. 6. The homemakers' reasons for recent meat purchases, opinions about weekly meat orders, and reasons for changing intended meat purchase plans indicate that buying and preparation practices are 89 complex, and that they are influenced by past experiences, present concepts, and family preferences. Ninety-one percent of the sample showed concern for family approval and acceptance when they listed "family preference" as the reason for their recent meat purchases. Thirty-five percent stated that price or economy was a reason, and health or nutrition was listed as a reason by 10 percent. The respondents were asked to read weekly meat orders of four families and make any comments they wished. These comments were categorized as they related to nutrition or meal planning, cost and family preference. Opinions relating to nutrition or meal planning were described as "good variety, " "good balance, " "good diet, " etc. Forty-one percent selected one meat order for these reasons while 36 percent chose another for the same reasons. Forty-six percent stated that one order contained too much pork. Forty-five percent of the homemakers identified the most ex- pensive meat order and made comments concerning it. These included statements of "too expensive, " "expensive, " "large income," etc. Twenty-three percent made comments concerning the least expensive meat order. Twenty-eight percent of the respondents indicated that one meat order was "not their choice, " that "the order was not appealing, " that 90 "they would not buy, " or that they "did not like the menu. " Over 60 percent of the homemakers said they had recently changed their plans about an intended meat purchase after arrival in the store. Seventy-seven percent of this group gave quality or factors relating to quality as the main reason for selecting another meat. Fifty percent were influenced to make a change either by the price of the intended purchase or an alternative choice. Homemakers' interests in pleasing the family and opinions re- lating to nutrition, meal planning, and quality may be used to better understand their concepts of food selection and preparation. Food in- formation which provides assistance in these areas of interest to home- makers should be readily accepted. Personalizing and relating factual information to the homemaker or the family should gain greater audi- ence for food advertisers, retailers, and educators. 7. The size of the package or piece influenced homemakers' meat buying decisions. Twenty-eight percent indicated that size of the package or piece influenced their decision when buying beef and 20 per- cent referred to the package price as an influencing factor. Forty-eight percent of the respondents said the size of the pack- age rated as the main reason they selected one beef roast rather than another in the same display. Sixty-three percent of the sample stated they had recently changed an intended meat purchase after arrival in the store. Package size, 91 whether too small or too large, was mentioned by 19 percent of this group and was ranked fifth in importance as a reason for changing purchase plans. This would indicate that homemakers judge the size of the piece in relation to whether it meets preparation plans and the amount of money they want to spend. Recognizing needs of various size families by retailers would better satisfy customer wishes. Meat preparation suggestions or recipe development should be simple enough so that homemakers are willing to adjust them to their family's size. 8. Trading stamps were given in stores where over half the re- spondents bought meat. Ninety percent of this group said they would continue to buy most of their meat in the store if trading stamps were discontinued while only 5 percent indicated they would discontinue meat purchases in that store. 9. Multiple sources provide information about meat buying and influence homemakers' buying and preparation practices. In addition to mass media, which will be discussed in the following section, 83 percent of thesample reported using other sources of information within two or three months prior to the survey. Store displays were listed as an influencing factor by 52 percent, friends by 46 percent, labels by 34 percent, and store managers or clerks by 25 percent. 92 This indicates that improvement in meat purchase and prepara- tion practices might be achieved with educational information at the store level where display, labels, and personnel afford such an op- portunity. Meat cookery method, preparation terminology, informa- tion on yield, etc. , would up-grade present consumer knowledge and contribute to more effective use of livestock, poultry, and fishery products. Homemakers' Use of Available Information About Meat Buying 1. A significant number of the homemakers in this sample checked store advertising before buying meat. Sixty-two percent said they always checked meat advertisements in newspapers while 27 per- cent reported they never did. Sightly more homemakers over 40 years of age checked this source of information about meat buying than did those in other age groups. A higher percentage of homemakers with elementary school education checked store advertising than did those in other education groups. Homemakers with incomes over $10, 000 used store adver- tising less frequently than those in other income groups. Approximately 60 percent of the respondents looked for meat advertising in local newspapers while 72 percent mentioned store circulars as a source of such information. 93 The number of homemakers checking store advertising of meat and their use of the information, as discussed under factors influencing purchase, attests to its value in meat marketing. These responses in- dicate that approximately 30 percent of the shoppers did not use this source of information. Younger homemakers may lack shopping ex- perience or may not recognize the value of meat advertising for con- sumers. Those in higher income groups had greater freedom of se- lection and correspondingly expressed less interest in such information. 2. Forty-eight percent of the homemakers reported they had read useful information about meat buying in newspapers (other than that carried in ads) within six weeks prior to the survey. Again, 60 percent of these homemakers found this information in their local newspapers. Generally, a higher percentage of homemakers under 60 years of age, in families with more than two persons, with higher than el- ementary school education, and with over $5, 400 income read useful information about meat buying in newspapers. Fifty percent of the respondents under 60 years of age, with over two persons in the family and in most income groups, had read such information, and about one-third of the homemakers over 60 years of age and in families of one or two persons had. These findings indicate that about half the homemakers looked further than newspaper ads for information about meat buying, and that 94 such information was available in local papers. Families of over two persons in which the homemaker was under 60 used such information more often than other homemakers. This would suggest that families with children are consciously seeking information to assist with meat purchase and preparation decisions. Those supplying information about meat for newspapers might spend a larger proportion of space and content toward meeting needs of families with children at home. 3. The homemakers in this study used newspapers for informa- tion about meat buying more frequently than other media. Forty-eight percent said they had read such useful information in newspapers with- in the six weeks prior to the survey. Eighteen percent reported seeing useful information about meat buying on television during that period and 14 percent had heard such information on radio. The homemakers' use of various mass media indicates that those wishing to reach consumers with information about meat buying should emphasize use of newspapers. The responses do not indicate that television and radio are not successful, for the amount of time allowed by stations for such information is limited to commercials and public service time. It is evident that use of the three mass media would result in reaching more consumers than use of one or two. 4. Homemakers securing information about meat through mass media, within six weeks prior to the survey, judged price information most useful. Forty-nine percent of those seeing information about meat 95 buying on television, 53 percent of those reading such information in newspapers, and 67 percent of those hearing such information on radio listed price information most useful. Approximately one-third of the respondents ranked supply infor- mation second in usefulness. Information on selection and information on preparation or use were each judged useful by about 20 percent of the respondents. Information about grades was deemed useful by about 15 percent of those reading newspapers and seeing television for infor- mation about meat buying, and by 30 percent of those hearing such in- formation on radio. These responses indicate the information homemakers received through various mass media during the six weeks prior to the survey and how they scored its usefulness. Their statements concerning the type of information they would look for if they knew it was in the paper and the kinds of information about meat buying homemakers want were more indicative of the information they judged most useful. 5. About half the homemakers receiving information about meat buying through newspapers and radio used it in planning before going to the store. Almost 40 percent of these homemakers used the infor- mation as a guide to economy or thrifty choice. Approximately 20 per- cent reading such information in newspapers, or hearing it on radio, used it as an addition to their knowledge. 1 See pages 98 and 99. 96 Only 16 percent seeing useful information about meat buying on television reported using it in planning before going to the store or as a guide to economy or thrifty choice. Thirteen percent viewing such information on television used it in preparation or use at home. These findings re'émphasize the facts that many homemakers tentatively plan meat purchases before shopping and that there is in- terest and awareness concerning price or cost of meat. This inter- est in cost of meat is again shown in their response to information about meat homemakers want.1 Those using media to reach homemakers with information about meat buying have an opportunity to assist with ideas for meat selection prior to store shopping. Information on meat pricing methods and cost comparisons should prove of interest and value to homemakers using mass media for shopping information. Although half the respondents reported using information about meat buying obtained through newspapers, this represented only one- fourth of the sample. Percentages of homemakers finding and using such information through radio and television were much smaller. Those reached were small compared to potential numbers. Educators might devise additional methods to: interest more homemakers in the value of food information provided through mass media, and 1 See page 101. 97 develop other methods to reach homemakers in the community. Homemakers' Interpretation of Information About Meat Buying Homemakers varied in their ability to interpret four paragraphs of news writing providing information on seasonality, grades, cost com- parison, and outlook. When scores that were correct or partly correct were added, the results showed homemakers had a better understanding of cost com- parison information than the other types. Seventy-nine percent scored cost comparison information correct or partly correct compared to 76 percent for grade information, 71 percent for seasonal information, and 64 percent for outlook information. Respondents with less than high school education were least accurate in interpreting the news writing. Less than half the homemakers interpreted the news information about meat the same as the person writing it. 1 Forty-five percent gave correct scores for cost comparison information compared to 38 per- cent, outlook information; 33 percent, grade information; and 26 per- cent, seasonal information. These responses indicate that homemakers' perceptions and in- terpretations were influenced by their past experience, knowledge, and In an evaluation of selected releases of marketing information for consumers, a thesis by Marcia M. Gillespie (1958), consumers and specialists differed markedly in their evaluation of "useful information. " 98 present concepts. This would imply that those writing for consumers should do so in terms of the experience and interests of the readers. Sentence structure should be clear and concise. Explanation, com- parison, etc. , should be short and easily understood by readers with less than high school education. Information About Meat Buying Homemakers Want l. Homemakers indicated that news releases including informa- tion on meat grades, cost comparison, seasonality, and outlook would be useful. Given an opportunity to express opinions relative to useful- ness, 37 percent listed grade information first. Cost comparison in- formation was ranked first by 28 percent, seasonal information by 21 percent, and outlook information by 8 percent. When scores for first and second places were added, cost com- parison and grade information were very similar. Only two-thirds as many respondents ranked seasonal information in these places and only one-third as many scored outlook information in these places. Fifty percent placed outlook information in fourth place. The information on grades was first choice of 31 to 45 percent of the homemakers in various age, education, and income groups. Homemakers with high school education listed information about grades most useful while those with more than high school education rankedin- formation about grades, cost comparison, and seasonality about the same. 99 Information about cost comparison was ranked most useful by homemakers under 40 years of age. Thirty-two percent of this age group listed it first while approximately 40 percent of the homemakers in other age groups ranked information about grades first. Information about seasonality was judged most useful to those with the lowest income, 55 percent compared to 39 to 44 percent in other income groups. These results correlate with others relative to interests of home- makers with children at home. These homemakers were consistently interested in cost or price of meat and in cost comparison. Informa- tion on grades and cost comparison relates to immediate needs and may have appeared more useful to these homemakers. Information on supply and seasonality relates to the future food situation and did not rank as useful. These responses may also imply that the respondents were more familiar with grade and cost comparison information and this may have weighted their choice of useful information. This does not imply that information which homemakers voted less useful should be removed from consumer programs. Information about seasonality and outlook will improve knowledge of the food mar- keting system and assist homemakers to make more intelligent buying decisions over time. 2. After ranking the usefulness of news information about meat buying, homemakers were asked which releases they would look for if 100 they knew they were in the paper. Thirty-one percent scored informa- tion about grades in first place compared to 25 percent for cost com- parison information, 24 percent for seasonal information, and 12 per- cent for outlook information. Sixty-one percent of the respondents ranked grade information in first and second places while 58 percent ranked cost comparison in these places. Forty-one percent ranked seasonal information in the top two places and only 29 percent scored outlook information in these places. A higher percentage of homemakers under 40 years of age were interested in these types of food information. Those over 60 years of age showed less interest in outlook information than homemakers in other age groups. A higher percentage of homemakers with less than high school education said they would look for information on cost comparison and grades than homemakers with higher education. A higher percentage of homemakers with more than high school eduation said they would look for information about seasonality and outlook than those in other groups. Homemakers with less than high school education indicated least interest in information on seasonality and outlook. Generally, a larger percentage of homemakers in each income group said they would look for information on cost comparison and grades than for information on seasonality or outlook. Information on 101 cost comparison was scored in first or second place by a larger per- centage of homemakers in the $4, 000 to $10, 000 income range than other types of information. Homemakers with under $2, 000 indicated more interest in information about seasonality than did homemakers in other groups. Eleven percent of the respondents indicated they would never read information on grades compared to 14 percent for cost comparison information, 15 percent for seasonal information, and 18 percent for outlook information. The response to this question verifies the homemakers' pre- viously stated opinions concerning useful information about meat buying. The four types of information about meat were in the same rank order as previously. The implications are the same as for the preceding findings. The economic and social needs of families in which the homemaker is under 40 years of age and children are at home differ from other families. 1 (Half these homemakers were under 40 years of age and 89 percent had children at home). 3. When asked to express opinions as to kinds of information about meat buying which other homemakers want, the respondents 1Elizabeth E. Hoyt et a1. , American Income and Its Use (New York: Harper 1; Brothers, 1954), p. 115. The peak of family in- come tends to come when the head of the family is around 50. Stages in the family income cycle are accompanied by important changes in the size and composition of familes. To some extent increased need is matched by increased income. 102 listed meat cookery, meat costs, and guides for selection as primary concerns. Given 12 statements relative to meat, they were asked to select and rank six they thought other homemakers would like to know more about. Sixty-six percent indicated that homemakers were interested in how to cook different meat cuts. How to spend less money for meat was selected by 61 percent of the homemakers and comparing costs be- tween different meat cuts by 57 percent. Learning to recognize differ- ent meat cuts, how to choose various kinds of meat, meat grades, proper care of meat in the refrigerator and freezer, and information on meat supplies for the week were each judged important by approx- imately 50 percent of the sample. This study indicates that homemakers want or recognize a need for various kinds of information about meat buying. They want infor- mation to assist with plans prior to shopping, in-store selection, and care and use of the product at home. The expressed desire for information on how to cook meat im- plies that homemakers are looking for additional methods and recipes to satisfy family needs. Recognition of the cost of meat in relation to other food products may be one reason the respondents were inter- ested in ways to extend meat dollars. Their expressed wishes for in- formation on selection of different meat cuts and grades implies a need for greater knowledge in these areas. The desire for information 103 about weekly meat supplies implies that homemakers want assistance with current buying decisions which they may use to their advantage. 10. BIBLIOGRAPHY Agricultural Marketing Service. A Review of 1955 Survey Data on Household Meat Consumption. Washington: United States Department of Agriculture, 1957. Agricultural Marketing Service. Consumption Patterns for Meat. Washington: United States Department of Agriculture, 1958. Agricultural Marketing Service. Income and Household Size . . . Their Effects on Food Consumption. Washington: United States Department of Agriculture, 1959. Agricultural Marketing Service. Meat Consumption Trends and Patterns. Washington: United State Department of Agriculture, 1960. Agricultural Marketing Service. Urban and Farm Use of Meat. Washington: United States Department of Agriculture, 1958. Bland, Frankye E. , and Mize, Jessie J. Consumer Motivation and Use of Poultry. Contribution to Southern Regional Research Project SM-13. Athens, Georgia: College of Agriculture, University of Georgia, 1960. Borton, R. E. "Consumer Use of Mass Media for Food Informa- tion. " Unpublished Master's Thesis, Department of Agricul- tural Economics, Michigan State University, 1957. Boyts, M. D. "An Evaluation of Marketing Information for Res- taurants, Hospitals and Schools." Unpublished Master's Thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State Univer- sity, 1957. Burk, Marguerite C. "Significance of Current Developments in Food Statistics. " Paper read before the American Marketing Association, June 18, 1959, Cleveland, Ohio. Bresser, Walter and Sons. Bresser's Cross-Index Directory for South Oakland County. Detroit: Walter Bresser g Sons, 1960. 104 ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. l6. l7. l8. 19. 105 Cooley, Esther; Powe, Dorothy D. ; Matthews, J. L. ; and Ueland, Gale. Informing Consumers in Lake Charles. Evaluation of the Marketing Information Program for Consumers. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Division of Agricultural Extension, Louisiana State University, 1958. Du Pont De Nemours and Co. TodaL's Buying Decisions. Sixth Consumer Buying Habits Study. Wilmington, Delaware: Du Pont De Nemours and Co. (Inc. ), 1959. Economic Research Service. Demand and Prices for Meat, Fac- tors Influencing Their Historical Development. Washington: United States Department of Agriculture, 1961. Fessenden, Jewell G. and Spindler, Evelyn B. Problems in Feeding the Family. A report of a nationwide study of home- makers enrolled in home demonstration organizations. Wash- ington: Federal Extension Service, 1957. Gartner, Joseph and Kolmer, Lee. Economic Information for ‘ Consumer Marketing Programs, Consumer Marketing Bulletin I_I_. Ames, Iowa: Cooperative Extension Service, Iowa State University, 1961. Gillespie, Marcia M. "Consumer Evaluation of Food Marketing Information. " Unpublished Master's Thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, 1958. Holmes, Mary S. "Some Indications of Homemakers' Knowledge About Food Buying and Attitudes Toward Food Buying Informa- tion. " Unpublished Master's Thesis, Department of Agricul- tural Economics, Michigan State University, 1959. Hoobler, S. Q. Homemakers' Values, Motivations, and Knowl- edge in Food Buying. Summary of an exploratory study with some implications for Extension Consumer Marketing Programs. Washington, D. C.: Federal Extension Service, 1959. Hoyt, Elizabeth E.; Reid, Margaret G. ; McConnell, Joseph L. ; Hooks, Janet M. ; and Muelder, Walter G. American Income and Its Use. New York: Harper .15, Brothers, 1954. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 106 Mize, Jessie J. and Stringer, William C. Choosing Beef for Household Use. Contribution to Southern Regional Research Project SM-19. Athens, Georgia: College of Agriculture, University of Georgia, 1959. Perdue, E. J.; Franzmann, J. R.; Judge, G. G. ; and Walters, L. E. Some Results from a Pilot Investigation of Consumer Preferences for Beef. Processed Series P-304. Stillwater, Oklahoma: Department of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State University, 1958. Porter, Ward F. ,; Armentrout, W. W. ; Conrad, Mary K.; Dimit, Robert; Lyon, Gale; Swank, Chester E.; and Ueland, Gale. Food Buying--Know1edge--Concerns--Practices. An evaluation of the Marketing Information for Consumers Program in the Wheeling-Steubenville Area. Morgantown, West Virginia: College of Agriculture, Forestry, and Home Economics, West Virginia University, 1961. Rhodes, V. James; Kiehl, Elmer R.; and Brady, D. E. Visual Preferences for Grades of Retail Beef Cuts. Columbia, Missouri: College of Agriculture, University of Missouri, 1955. Shaffer, James D. Frequency of Purchase of Particular Items of of Meat, PoultrLand Fish. A Consumer Panel Report. East Lansing, Michigan: Agricultural Economics Department, Mich- igan State University, 1958. U. S. Bureau of the Census. U. S. Census of Population: 1960. Vol. I. U. S. Department of Agriculture. Household Food Consumption Survey: 1955. Food Consumption of Households in the North Central Region. Report No. 1 and 3. Van de Mark, Mildred S. and Mize, Jessie J. Meat Choices for Family Meals in Selected Cities Alabama-Georgia. Contribution to Southern Regional Research Project SM-l3. Auburn, Alabama: Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn University, 1961. Zehner, Mary D. "An Exploratory Study of Consumer Food Buy- ing Decisions, Lansing, Michigan. " Unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan State University, 1961. APPENDIX A SUPPLEMENTARY TAB LES 107 108 Appendix Table 1. Family Meat Expenditure of Previous Week, Related to Education Education group Ex enditure Less than 9-12 More than ixalle p 9 grades grades 12 grades P Percent Percent Under $15. 00 88 85 88 87 $15. oo-$3o. 00 12 15 12 13 Total 100 100 100 100 Number of 26 169 109 304 respondents Total Respondents = 304 Appendix Table 2. Homemakers Reading Useful Information About Meat Buying in Newspapers, Other than in Ads, Related to Education Education group Reading T l useful Less than 9-12 More than 83:: 1e information 9 grades grades 12 grades p Percent Percent Yes 38 50 50 48 No 58 46 45 44 No answer 4 4 5 8 Total 100 100 100 100 Number 0f 26 169 109 304 respondents Total re spondent s 304 109 Appendix Table 3. Rank Given Useful Information About Meat Buying Read in Newspapers, Other than in Ads Rank :1: Useful information Litfis tOPt::'cIe:t :f ses lst 2nd 3rd Sp n Price 34 18 1 78 53 Supply 13 16 7 53 36 Selection 9 7 7 34 23 Grade 5 4 13 32 22 Preparation or Use 9 3 3 22 15 Cuts 2 5 4 16 11 **Number of respondents 148 Total respondents 304 ' *Percentage 3' add to more than 100 because more than one kind of useful information was sometimes given. ** 148 respondents indicated they had read such information within six weeks prior to the survey. 110 Appendix Table 4. Homemakers' Use of Information About Meat Buying in Newspapers, Other than in Ads _ .—_ — Rank Total *Percent of scores total responses Use of information lst 2nd 3rd In planning before going to the store 68 7 2 77 52 As a guide to economy or thrifty choice 23 26 9 58 39 In selection at the store l4 l8 1 33 22. Just added to homemak- er's knowledge 16 6 4 26 19 In preparation or use at home 7 9 7 23 16 In care at home 2 2 4 8 5 Other ways 3 l 0 4 3 **Number of respondents 148 Total respondents = 304 *Percentages add to more than 100 because more than one use was some- times given. **148 respondents indicated they had read such information within six weeks prior to the survey. 111 Appendix Table 5. Homemakers' Interpretation of News Information About Meat Buying, Related to Age Type of information Age Interpretation Seasonal Grade 0081:. Outlook comparison Percent Under 40 Correct 28 38 47 37 Partly correct 48 39 36 25 Incorrect 21 20 13 33 No answers 3 . 3 4 5 Total 100 100 100 100 40-60 Correct 24 28 44 39 Partly correct 43 50 34 28 Incorrect 29 14 16 25 No answers 4 8 6 8 Total 100 100 100 100 Over 60 Correct 25 31 39 36 Partly correct 42 36 22 20 Incorrect 25 22 28 33 No answers 8 11 l 11 Total 100 100 100 100 Total respondents = 304 112 Appendix Table 6. Homemakers' Interpretation of News Information About Meat Buying, Related to Education Type of information Education Interpretation Seasonal Grade Cost. Outlook comparison Percent Less than Correct 16 19 15 19 9 grades Partly correct 42 38 46 19 Incorrect 42 38 35 58 No answers 0 5 4 4 Total 100 100 100 100 9-12 Correct 28 32 42 34 grades Partly correct 43 44 36 27 Incorrect 24 17 15 30 No answers 5 7 7 9 Total 100 100 100 100 More than Correct 26 38 54 43 12 grades Partly correct 48 42 28 27 Incorrect 22 16 14 26 No answers 4 4 4 4 Total 100 100 100 100 Total respondents = 304 113 Appendix Table 7. News Information About Meat Buying Which Homemakers Think Most Useful, Related to Age Age group U d 40 40-60 0 60 Type of information Rank n er ver Percent Seasonal 1st 25 16 25 2nd 23 17 19 3rd 29 38 39 4th 14 19 17 No answers 9 10 0 Total 100 100 100 Grade lst 27 42 44 2nd 23 20 28 3rd 21 18 20 4th 20 10 3 No answers 9 10 5 Total 100 100 100 Cost comparison lst 32 24 31 2nd 32 41 28 3rd 21 15 22 4th 5 10 19 No answers 10 10 0 Total 100 100 100 Outlook lst 9 10 0 2nd 15 10 25 3rd 18 20 19 4th 48 50 36 No answers 10 10 0 Total 100 100 100 Number of respondents 150 118 36 Total respondents = 304 114 Appendix Table 8. News Information About Meat Buying Which Homemakers Think Most Useful, Related to Education Education group Type of Less than 9-12 More than . . Rank information 9 grades grades 12 grades Percent Seasonal lst 15 19 28 2nd 12 23 16 3rd 46 32 34 4th 15 17 14 No answers 12 9 8 Total 100 100 100 Grade 1st 38 43 28 2nd 27 24 22 3rd 19 16 24 4th 8 11 21 No answers 8 6 5 Total 100 100 100 Cost comparison lst 42 24 29 2nd 38 33 40 3rd 4 24 14 4th 4 9 11 No answers 12 10 6 Total 100 100 100 Outlook lst 0 6 12 2nd 15 12 17 3rd 15 19 18 4th 58 52 45 No answers 12 ll 8 Total 100 100 100 Number of respondents 26 169 109 Total Respondents = 304 115 Appendix Table 9. News Information About Meat Buying Which Homemakers Think Most Useful, Related to Income m; m Income group I I I 5—: o e 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 e 8 , 8 Type of information Rank '8 o o o. o 7‘. 7: o. 0. °_ 0 o‘ ‘3 N. N. <11 7:1“ in in [- I~ o > o Dea- ee- m- 65- ea- 68- ea- 89- -« O H en- 68- Percent Seasonal lst 37 25 24 25 19 9 2nd 18 19 18 14 22 32 3rd 9 44 34 34 33 40 4th 9 12 12 21 15 13 No answer 27 0 12 6 11 6 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Grade 1st 27 37 , 31 34 34 45 2nd 37 44 18 27 19 23 3rd 9 19 24 20 21 14 4th 0 0 18 17 16 11 No answer 27 0 9 2 10 7 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Cost comparison 1st 9 38 27 29 26 32 2nd 9 37 46 41 35 27 3rd 37 25 15 19 13 21 4th 18 0 0 7 16 11 No answer 27 0 12 4 10 9 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Outlook lst 0 0 9 8 12 7 2nd 18 0 45 17 15 11 3rd 9 12 9 22 19 18 4th 46 88 28 47 44 55 No answer 27 0 9 6 10 9 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 *Number of respondents 11 16 33 103 85 44 Total respondents = 304 *4 percent of sample did not give income. 116 Appendix Table 10. Information Homemakers Would Look for if They Knew It Was in the Newspaper, Related to Age Age group ' 4 4 - Type of information Rank Under 0 O 60 Over 60 Percent Seasonal lst 23 23 28 2nd 20 16 6 3rd 29 31 36 4th 13 15 8 Would not read 15 15 22 Total 100 100 100 Grade lst 21 31 19 2nd 25 21 45 3rd 21 21 11 4th 23 17 6 Would not read 10 10 19 Total 100 100 100 Cost comparison lst 34 29 31 2nd 25 31 17 3rd 23 15 19 4th 6 10 11 Would not read 12 15 22 Total 100 100 100 Outlook lst 16 9 3 2nd 20 17 11 3rd 10 17 11 4th 39 38 53 Would not read 15 19 22 Total 100 100 100 Number of respondents 150 118 36 Total respondents = 304 117 Appendix Table 11. Information Homemakers Would Look for if They Knew It Was in the Newspaper, Related to Education M Education group Type of Less than 9-12 More than . . Rank information 9 grades grades 12 grades Percent Seasonal 1st 11 '23 27 2nd 4 16 20 3rd 50 30 27 4th 11 15 11 Would not read 24 16 15 Total 100 100 100 Grade lst 35 29 16 2nd 35 24 26 3rd 11 19 21 4th 4 15 26 Would not read 15 13 11 Total 100 100 100 Cost comparison lst 35 32 31 2nd 38 25 25 3rd 8 19 24 4th 4 9 7 Would not read 15 15 13 Total 100 100 100 Outlook lst 4 10 18 2nd 8 l7 19 3rd 8 15 11 4th 58 41 38 Would not read 22 17 14 Total 100 100 100 Number of respondents 26 169 109 Total respondents = 304 118 Appendix Table 12. Information Homemakers Would Look for if They Knew It Was in the Newspaper, Related to Income Income group I I I I o H o --c o -I o -I o O H a o o o o o o o o o Typeof Rank go oo ow «0 oo 3o information :9) g $139.... :3. 3: (i2. 5 S. a 619- A - _ Percent Seasonal lst 37 25 21 24 24 19 2nd 27 19 18 13 21 16 3rd 9 31 37 33 26 30 4th 0 19 15 18 ll 12 Would not read 27 6 9 12 18 23 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Grade 1st 18 38 24 26 20 18 2nd 37 43 21 28 17 31 3rd 18 19 25 20 28 9 4th 0 0 18 21 22 21 Would not read 27 0 12 5 13 21 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Cost comparison 1st 9 31 40 33 26 36 2nd 0 38 27 31 33 7 3rd 46 25 15 18 18 29 4th 18 6 6 8 11 7 Would not read 27 0 12 10 12 21 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Outlook 1st 0 6 6 13 17 9 2nd 9 0 24 20 15 25 3rd 9 19 12 14 14 7 4th 55 69 49 39 37 36 Would not read 27 6 9 14 17 23 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 *Number of respondents 11 16 33 103 85 44 Total respondents = 304 *4 percent of sample did not give income. APPENDIX B Q UESTIONNAIRE 119 CONFIDENTIAL Michigan State Univer sity Marketing Information for Consumers Program Call Number Respondent Date Time. Time likely to be home Remarks First Original Second Original First alternate Third Original First alternate Second alternate Fourth Original First alternate 1 Second alternate 1 Respondent Name Street Adress Apt. No. Telephone Original 1 Fir st alternate Second alte rnate Interviewer's name Inte rview num be r 120 121 CONFIDENTIAL First, let's check to see where you get information about meat buying. 1. Within the past 6 weeks, how 4. Do you look for information about often have you checked store adver- meat buying other than what you find in tising in newspapers before buying the ads? meat? yes 1 always 1 no 2 more than half the time 2 yes, but never find 3 half the time 3 other comments 4 less than half the time 4 never 5 If yes in 4, ask: I? If never, SkLEto question 4 5. How often do you look. 2. If you have checked meat adver- Would you say that you 100k tising within the last 6 weeks, in every week 1 which papers did you find it? about twice a month 2 Royal Oak Tribune 1 ifouttlpnce a mznth th 2 Detroit Free Press 2 $8 an once mon 5 Detroit News 3 never Detroit Times 4 Any other newspapers If the answer to 5 is yes, ask: 5 . . . Store circular 6 6. In which papers do you find informa- tion about meat buying other than adver- tising? 3. If you check meat ads in papers . Royal Oak Tribune 1 . 9 which days do you look for the ads. Detroit Free Press 2 Monday 1 Detroit News 3 Tuesday 2 Detroit Times 4 Wednesday 3 Any Others 5 Thursday 4 Friday 5 7. Within the last 6 weeks, have you Saturday 6 . . read any useful information about meat Sunday 7 bu ‘n i a the th th t ' d no special day 8 yi g n p pers o r an a carrie in the ads? H Ye S . no 2 122 If answer to 7 is yes, ask: 8. What information ? Price Supply Grade Selection Preparation or use Cuts Other \lO‘U’IAWNH If more than one thing mentioned in 8, ask: 9. What was most useful? order ranked Price Supply Grade Selection Preparation or use Cuts Other CONFIDENTIAL If answer to 7 is yes, ask: 10. How did you use this informa- tion about meat buying? order listed In planning be- fore going to Just add to homemaker's present knowledge Other: store 1 In selection at the store 2 (JO In care at home In preparation or use at home 4 As a guide to economy or thrifty choice 5 123 11. Do you have a radio in working order? yes 1 no 12. Do you get any information about meat buying on radio? ye s 1 no If answer to 12 is yes, ask: 13. Which programs give you this kind of information? Station I Program Spots Day of week Proper Identification Yes ' No l. 2. 3. I 4. I 5. 14. Within the last 6 weeks, have If answer to 12 is yes, ask: you heard any information about meat buying on radio-p 15. Can you tell me what information. about meat buying you heard on radio? yes no Price Supply Grade Selection Preparation or use Cuts Others NH «IO‘kflrbUJNI-a 124 If more than one thing mentioned in 8, ask: 16. What was most useful? order ranked Price Supply Grade Selection Preparation or use Cuts Others 19. Do you get any information about meat buying on television? yes 1 no If answer to 14 is yes, ask: 17. How did you use the information about meat buying which you heard on radio? Order listed In planning before to store 1 In selection at the store 2 In care at home 3 In preparation or use at home 4 As a guide to econ- omy or thrifty choice 5 Just added to home- maker's present knowledge 6 Other: 7 18. Do you have a television set in working order? ye s 1 no 2 125 If answer to 19 is yes, ask: 20. Which programs give you this kind of information? Station Program Day of Week Pr ope r Identification Yes No ._f 91 re 9’ 9° !‘ 21. Within the last 6 weeks, have you seen any information about meat buying on television? ye s no NH If more than one thianentioned in 22, ask: 23. What was most useful? Price If answer to 21 is yes, ask: 22. Can you tell me what informa- tion about meat buying you saw on television? Price Supply Grade Selection Preparation or use Cuts Other «ICI‘U'lrwan—I 'Supplv Grade Selection Preparation or use Cuts Othe r Order ranked 126 If answer to 21 is yes, ask: 24. How did you use the information about meat buying you saw on television? Order listed In planning before going to store 1 In selection at the store 2 In care at home 3 In preparation or use at home 4 As a guide to economy or thrifty choice 5 Just added to home- maker's present knowledge 6 Other: 7 25. There are other ways besides newspapers, radio and television that homemakers get information about meat buying. Would you look at this list and tell me which of these you have gotten information about meat buying from within the last 2 or 3 mo ths. . n order listed neighbors and friends 1 manager or clerks in store labels on meat store displays of meat magazines Other O‘U‘lrhIUON 127 Next, I, d like to talk with you about the meat you buy. This will include beef, pork, veal, lamb, poultry, the fish and seafood you buy. 26. On which day did you buy most 29. What are your reasons for of your meat last week or the last buying meat where you do rather time you bought meat? than at other places? Monday 1 Order listed Tuesday 2 convenience 1 Wednesday 3 quality 2 Thursday 4 easy to select 3 Friday 5 price or economy 4 Saturday 6 freshness 5 Sunday 7 store personnel 6 No special day 8 no special reason 7 variety or selection 8 27. Who did the meat shopping last storefgiuarantee or week or the last time you bought meat? flcon 1 ence In store 9 avor 10 Wife alone 1 other reasons 11 Husband alone 2 Wife and husband together 3 Daughter 4 Other adult, male, unmarried 5 30. Does the store where you bought or widower 6 the most meat last month give trading . stamps? Other adult, female, unmarried or widow 7 yes 1 no 28. In what kind of store did you buy most of your meat last time? If the answer to 30 is Les, ask: small neighborhood grocery store 1 31. Do you always take the stamps? neighborhood meat market 2 yes 1 large food store in shopping center 3 no 2 large food store, not in a shopping center 4 other store 5 If answer to 30 is yes, ask: 32. If trading stamps were discon- tinued, would you continue to buy most of the meat in this store ? ye s 1 no don't know 3 128 33. Does the store where you buy the most meat have meat "specials" the last part of the week? ye s no NI—I If the answer to 33 is yes, ask: 34. How often do you buy one of the meats on "special"? every week about once every 2 weeks every 3 weeks once a month hardly ever never O‘U‘lrhkaolvtmI 35. Does the store where you buy the most meat have meat "specials" on Mondays and Tuesdays? ye s 1 no 2 don't know 3 36. Why do you think stores feature certain meat cuts as"specials" ? Order listed because store could get a large quantity don't know because store bought at a low wholesale price 3 because meat supplies to sell an over supply are plentiful and price which the store has is low 4 on hand because the quality is Other reason Ni—I inferior 5 to bring more customers in the store 6 K} 129 37. In the past year, how often would 41. What are your main reasons you say you made a written list before for buying these? going to shop for groceries? Order listed never 1 family preference 1 less than half the time 2 Price or economy 2 half the time 3 easy to prepare 3 more than half the time 4 quick to prepare 4 always 5 other reasons_ 5 38. Do you have a shopping list that I might have? Perhaps the one you used last week or the one for this 42. What meat dishes do you most week? If you don't have one on hand often prepare for your family ? would you take this paper and write a shopping list as you usually do. Just list the things you plan to buy when you do this week's food shopping. U'lvP-UDNF" 39. What meats did you buy when you did last week's food shopping? 43. Are there any cuts or kinds of meat which you believe some women 1 you know do not buy because they do 2 not know how to properly prepare 3 them ? 4 5 yes 1 6 no 2 7 If answer to 43 isyes, ask: 40. What cuts of meat have you 44. What? bought most often Within the last 2 months ? Cuts Kinds mumeH rp-UNH rthI-d 130 45. Are there cuts or kinds of meat you avoid because you are not sure about how to prepare them ? ye s no NH If yes to 45, ask: 46. What ? Cuts Kinds l l 2 2 3 3 4 4 47. Tell me how you most often cook the following meats. 1 round steak 2 chuck roast 3 pork chops 4 fresh pork roast 5 cured ham 6 fryer 7 fish 8 hamburger 9 turkey 48. Tell me the approximate temperature you use when cooking these meats. Temperature 1 round steak 2 chuck roast 3 pork chops 4 fresh pork roast 5 cured ham 6 fryer 7 fish 8 hamburger 9 turkey 131 49. How often would you say that you buy? f Months More than 1 2_3 3-6 6-12 Never once a month 1 liver 2 picnic ham 3 pork shoulder roast 4 lamb shoulder roast 5 fish 6 frying chicken 7 hamburger 50. What are your main reasons for 52. What are your main reasons not buying liver more often? for not buying pork shoulder roast 9 Order listed more often. , dislike flavor 1 Order listed don't know how to dislike flavor 1 prepare 2 too much waste 2 other reasons 3 difficult to carve 3 don't know how to prepare 4 other reasons 5 51. What are your main reasons for not buying picnic (ham) more often? Order list ed dislike flavor I too much waste difficult to carve don't know how to prepare too salty too much fat other reasons DON «10‘th 53. What are your main reasons for not buying lamb shoulder roast more often? Order listed dislike flavor 1 too much waste 2 difficult to carve 3 don't know how to prepare 4 price 5 other reasons 6 55. What are your reasons for not buying frying chicken more often? Order listed dislike flavor 1 too much waste 2 difficult to carve 3 don't know how to prepare 4 U1 Other reasons 54. What are your reasons for not buying fish more often? Order listed dislike flavor I too much waste 2 difficult to carve or serve 3 don't know how to prepare 4 don't like to cook it 5 family doesn't like fish 6 would get tired of it if served more often other reasons 8 «l 56. What are your reasons for not buying hamburger more often? Order listed dislike flavor 1 family would tire of it 2 want variety of cuts 3 need more ways to prepare it 4 U1 other reasons 57. Are there some meats you have not bought within the last year? ye s 1 no files to 57, ask: 58. What are they? U'IthONH If 58 answered, ask: 59. What are your reasons for not buying? 1 133 62. What were your reasons for changing your mind? Order listed quality did not meet expectations 1 price lower on some cut 2 quality of another cut looked better 3 appearance did not meet expectations 4 size of package did not fit intended purpose 5 appearance better on 60. Sometimes shoppers buy meat other than that they first planned to buy. Sometimes they change their mind even after they are in the store. If you have done this recently, what meat did you first plan to buy? some other cut 6 sold out of cut shopper expected to buy 7 price higher than expected 8 display caused a change of mind 9 another cut on "special" chosen instead 10 other reasons 11 61. What meat did you buy instead? 134 63. What do you look for when buy- 65. Why do you choose one beef roast ing beef? rather than another of the same kind Order listed and cut beside it? ' Size of package or Order listed piece '1 Size of the package or Price of package or piece 1 piece 2 Price of the package or Grade 3 iece 2 Color of the lean 4 p Grade 3 Color of the fat 5 Th' k 0 Color of the lean 4 11C ness r 6 Color of the fat 5 p umpness Thickness or plumpness 6 Texture 7 Texture 7 Label 8 Label 8 More lean, less fat 9 More lean, less fat 9 Amount of bone 10 Less bone 10 Color of the bone 11 Marbling 11 Marbling 12 Firmness 12 Firmness 13 Brand 13 Brand 14 Other 14 Other 15 66. Are there any particular brands of meat that you have bought within the last 6 weeks? 64. What grade or grades of beef steak do you find in the store where you buy most of your meat? Store Grades yes 1 no Prime 1 2:22:26 i If answer to 66 is yes, ask: Standard 4 67. What brands and what kinds of Don't know 5 meat? Other 6 Brand Meat thJNH 135 If answer to 66 isles, ask: 68. Is there any special reason why you chose these brands? Brand 1 Brand 2 Brand 3 Brand 4 69. What suggestions for improvement 73. Was this the usual amount? more than usual 1 less than usual 2 about as usual 3 74. The meat cuts on these cards were bought by four different fam- ilies during one week. Would you study these and make any comments you wish about each family. would you make concerning prepackaged Family A meat? 1 3 70. How much money do you spend for Famil B food each week? Include all the meats, __Y__ fruits and vegetables, breads and cereals, milk and other dairy foods, sweets, fats and oils that are bought at the store or delivered to your home. Look at this chart and tell me the group that best fits what your family spends for food F 'ly C under $15. 00 l ami $15.00—30.00 2 over 30. 00 3 71. In addition to food, how much would you say you spend at the grocery store each week for non-food items such as . Family D soaps,paper products, drugs, cosmetics, magazines, alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages, cigarettes, etc. Non-food items (weekly estimate) 72. How much money did you spend for meat last week? 136 Next, I have four samples of information about meat buying which you might find in a newspaper. Would you read these one at a time and answer questions about them. Seasonal 75. What does this information mean to you? Correct interpretation 1 Incorrect interpretation 2 Partly correct 3 Grades 76. What does this information mean to you? Correct interpreation 1 Incorrect interpretation 2 * Partly correct 3 137 Cost Comparison 77. What does this information mean to you? Correct interpretation 1 Incorrect interpretation 2 Partly correct 3 Outlook Information 78. What does this information mean to you? Correct interpretation 1 Incorrect interpretation 2 Partly correct 3 138 79. Now, would you rank the four kinds or types of information in the order in which you find them most useful? Rank given Seasonal Grades Cost comparison Outlook information 80. Which of these types or kinds of information releases would you look for if you knew they were in the paper? Order Listed Seasonal Grades Cost comparison Outlook information 139 I would now like some information about your family. No names will be taken and all information will be confidential. It will be necessary for me to group families according to age, education, income and so forth. 81. Approximately how many meals are 83. Household Composition eaten away from home each week? We Household members Sex Age would like to know which members of relationship to last the family eat away from home and which household head birth- meals they eat away from home. (wife, son, ward, day Brk. Noon Night boarders, etc.) Husband 1 Wife 2 3 Others 4 Total 5 6 82. Altogether, how many people are in 7 your household including persons who may board here? 8 number 9 10 84. Household type: I—-' husband and wife other female head other male head DUN 85. In what kind of industry or bus- iness is the head of household employed? 140 86. What is his (or her) occupation? retired I factory worker 2 construction or laborer, non-factory 3 high level salesman or business manager 4 professional 5 other white collar worker 6 other blue collar worker 7 87. Are you employed outside the home? yes 1 no 91. Would you study this card and tell me which income group you think best fits your family. Include the earnings of all members of the family during the last year and in- come from all sources after federal income taxes. ' This card lists other kinds of income besides wages. Be sure to include all income in your estimate. $ 2000 or under 2001--4000 4001--5400 5401--7000 7001-10, 000 over $ 10, 000 O‘U‘IrF-UJNH If answer to 87 is yes, ask: 88. What is your occupation? If answer to 87 is yes, ask: 89. Do you work full time 1 Do you work half time 2 Do you work less than half time 3 90. What was the highest grade you completed in school or college? 92. One purpose of this survey is to find what information homemakers would like to know about meat. Look at these cards and choose six which you feel homemakers would like to know more about. Rank these and read the card numbers to me. Rank Card Number 1 omoww 2345678 9101112 Elementary 1 High School Business School 1 2 Colle ge 1 2 3 4 Interviewer Will check: Race: 93. white 1 non-white 2 ROOM USE omy luwumumm llllllll I III I l l l l I I I 9 5