7". 'vw—vvw COi’éSUfiER PREFERENCES FOR POTTED CHMS‘RE’E HEfiéu M TY? 93 a'u.° I"- :53”... n {M i! 3313?: x 1.5 ,sg es- 0%: $21.3. 1,3: m r. )3 ““9“" zift?*‘.:.“" '4"; 5“ iv “£2440: biALE wfil‘-\':'h‘ fizzy- #:Pv‘gnar a r.- J :1'311‘6;§ unb‘ifiUJL-n S?El‘{; t- 1375 JHESIS ‘ .. .‘fi ‘13. *u ..- 7:. J u: !'..:i'.‘b.sL .fiflfi‘l a". K, -" "~33 ,I 3 E. 231,1: M. A I\ 1 C9 :A-‘xfl‘l..":.. -n iva‘iik'il.3arl 5" v0- Umversszy S6 1 a? .21, E! a uEmno m} 7 MAG GWIS’ 800K BINDERV, ummr mu _ . I‘L h... 12...?T = .4‘k.d.f - 4.- V “II 0.)} ~.J.J. .‘ 1L..i.t. ‘ Lt ABSTRACT CONSUMER PREFERENCES FOR POTTED CHRYSANTHEMWM TYPES BY Janet Gertrude Spence Consumer preferences for the incurved.mum, daisy mum, spider mum, decorative mum, and feather decorative mum were evaluated througthichigan State University's Consumer Panel. Information concerning consumer potted mum buying behavior, and consumer socio- economic background, was gathered. In an effort to determine consumer motivation, five group interviews were held concerning consumer sub- jective reactions to Chrysanthemums. A second followeup study was conducted to investigate relationships between grower and retailer opinions concerning consumer preferences, and actual consumer pre- ferences. It was found that marketing a more diverse selection of potted mum types would increase potted mum sales. The most desirable ratio of the five mum types studied from the consumer's point of view lies within the range of: 36-29 incurved mums; 25-21 decorative mums; 20-19 spider mums; 18-17 daisy mums, and 9-6 feather decorative mums. The preference for the different mum types was related to the consumer's socioeconomic background, and it is possible the ratio of Janet Gertrude Spence mum types must be modified in accordance with the neighborhood in which they are sold. No relationship was found between.what the potted.mum type growers and retailers think the consumers like best, and the mum types consumers indicated they liked best. CONSUMER PREFERENCES FOR POTTED CHRYSANTHEMUM TYPES BY Janet Gertrude Spence A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State university in partial fu1fillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Horticulture 1976 1i,» (2:? (,A K, ") k ,. C”. c. ; 1 .ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express sincere appreciation to Dr. William.H. Carlson for his insight, support, advice, and ready council during this study. The author expresses appreciation to Dr. R. Spangler, and Ms. M. Zehner for their suggestions relating to this study. Acknowledgment is given to the John Henry Company for financial assistance, and supportive interest in this study. The author is grateful for the plant material, and helprl suggestions contributed by Yoder Brothers. A.specia1 acknowledgment of appreciation goes to the author's parents, Dr. and Mrs. R. D. Spence, for their enduring and unselfish assistance and encouragement. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Limitations of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 The Potted Chrysanthemum Industry . . . . . . . . 3 The Retail Floriculture Industry From the Consumer's Point of View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Who are the Floral Consumers? . . . . . . . 3 Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Psychographics . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 For Whom do Consumers Purchase Flowers? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 When do Consumers Purchase Flowers? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Occasions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Seasonability . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Frequency of Floral Purchase . . . . . 8 Where do Consumers Purchase Flowers? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 The Shop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 The Developing Mass Market Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Advertising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 iii What Kind of Flowers do Consumers Buy? . . . . Type of Flower . . . . . . . . . Arranged Cut Flowers, Bunches of Flowers, or Flowering Potted Plants . . . . . . . . . . . Consumer Preferences for Specific Types of Flowers . . . . . . Consumer Preferences for Potted Chrysanthemums . . . . Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . METHODS AND MATERIALS . . . . . . . . . . The Consumer Panel Opinionnaire Consumer Group Interviews . . Grower and Retailer Opinionnaire . . . . . RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . The Consumer Panel Opinionnaire . . . . . . The Mum Types Panelists Liked Best and the Mum Types Panelists Liked Least . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Percentage of the Panelists Who Recognized each of the Five Mum Types as Mums . . . . . The Percentage of the Panelists Who would Buy each of the Five Mum Types . . . . . . . . . . . . The Percentage of the Panelists Who would Pay Most or Least for each of the Five Mum Types . . . . . The Relative Amount of Care Panelists Thought each of the Five Mum Types Required . . . . . iv 15 15 15 16 17 18 20 20 23 25 26 26 26 28 29 31 Number of Times Panelists Bought Flowers in the Year Prior to the Panels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number of Times Panelists Bought Potted Chrysanthemums in the Year Prior to the Panels . . . . . . . . . . Occasions for Which Panelists Would Buy Potted Chrysanthemums . . . . . . Panelists' Usual Price Range for Potted Mums . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Who Decides What Type of Flower to Buy? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Where Panelists Buy Potted Mums . . . . . Family Income of the Panelists as it Related to the Mum Type Panelists Liked Best . . . . . . . . Size of the Panelists' Families as it Related to the Mum Type Panelists Liked Best . . . . . . . The Ages of the Female Heads of the Panelists' Families as it Related to the Mum Type the Panelists Liked Best . . . . . . . The Panelists' Families' Life Cycle as it Relates to the Mum Type the Panelists Liked Best . . . . . . Renormalization of the Sex of the Panelists as it Related to Several variables 0 O I O O O O O O O O O O 0 O A Comparison of the Percent of Male and Female Panelists Who Would Pay Most for each Mum Type . . . . . . . . A Comparison of the Number of Times Male and Female Panelists Bought Potted Mums in the Year Prior to the Panels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V 32 33 34 36 36 37 38 39 39 39 40 42 43 A Weighted Estimate of the Percent of Consumers Who would Pay Most for each MUm Type . . An Estimate of the Ideal Marketing Mix of the Incurved, Decorative, Spider, and Feather Decorative Mums from the Consumer's Point of View . . . . . . . . . . The Group Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Consumers' Attitudes Toward Potted Mums in General . . . . . . Consumers' Attitudes Toward Different Mum Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Consumers' Attitudes Toward the In- curved Mum . . . . . . . . . . . . . Consumers' Attitudes Toward the Daisy Mum O O O O O C O .7 O I O O O O C 0 Consumers' Attitudes Toward the Spider Mum . . . . . . . . . . . . Consumers' Attitudes Toward the Feather Decorative Mum . . Consumers' Attitudes Toward the Decorative Mum . . . . . . Grower and Retailer Opinionnaire Buying Preferences that the Growers and Retailers Expected Consumers to Exhibit Compared to the Buying Pre- ferences that the Panelists Exhibited . SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . The Typical Buyer of Potted Mums . Potted Chrysanthemum Market Segments The Typical Incurved Mum Buyer vi 44 45 47 49 49 50 50 50 51 51 51 51 54 54 54 55 The Typical Decorative Mum Buyer . . . . . 55 The Typical Spider Mum Buyer . . . . . . . 55 The Typical Daisy Mum Buyer . . . . . . . 56 The Typical Feather Decorative Mum Buyer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . 57 LIST OF REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 APPENDICES CONSUMER PANEL OPINIONNAIRE DIRECTIVE QUESTIONS FOR GROUP INTERVIEWS OPINIONNAIRE FOR POT MUM GROWERS AND RETAILERS SUMMARY TABLES CONSUMER PANEL SERIES SPRING 1974 CHI SQUARE TABLES FROM THE CONSUMER PANEL OPINIONNAIRE "TilTJUOWCD RESULTS FROM GROUP INTERVIEWS vii 10. 11. 12. 13. LIST OF TABLES FOR WHOM DO CONSUMERS PURCHASE FLOWERS? WHERE DO CONSUMERS PURCHASE FLOWERS? WHAT DO CONSUMERS LIKE ABOUT THEIR REGULAR FLOWER STORES? . . . ILLUSTRATIONS OF POTTED CHRYSANTHEMUM VARIETIES DISPLAYED DURING THE CONSUMER PANELS THE PERCENTAGE OF THE PANELISTS WHO LIKED EACH OF THE FIVE MUM TYPES BEST AND LEAST . . THE PERCENTAGE OF THE PANELISTS WHO RECOGNIZED EACH OF THE FIVE MUM TYPES AS MUMS THE PERCENTAGE OF THE PANELISTS WHO WOULD BUY EACH OF THE FIVE MUM TYPES THE PERCENTAGE OF THE PANELISTS WHO WOULD PAY THE MOST FOR EACH OF THE FIVE MUM TYPES . . . . . . . THE PERCENTAGE OF PANELISTS WHO THOUGHT EACH OF THE FIVE MUM TYPES REQUIRED MOST OR LEAST CARE . . . . NUMBER OF TIMES PANELISTS PURCHASED FLOWERS IN THE YEAR PRIOR TO THE PANELS NUMBER OF TIMES PANELISTS PURCHASED POTTED CHRYSANTHEMUMS IN THE YEAR PRIOR TO THE PANELS . . OCCASIONS FOR WHICH PANELISTS WOULD BUY POTTED MUMS . . . . . PERCENTAGE OF THE POPULATION WHO BUY IN A PARTICULAR STORE TYPE viii 10 22 27 29 3O 31 32 33 34 36 38 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. MUM TYPE PANELISTS LIKED BEST . A RENORMALIZED TABLE OF THE SEX OF THE PANELISTS COMPARED TO THE MUM TYPE PANELISTS LIKED BEST . . . THE MUM TYPES . . . . . . . EACH OF THE MUM TYPES . . . . . . IN THE YEAR PRIOR TO THE PANELS . . RELATIVE STRENGTH OF CONSUMER ATTITUDES TOWARDS SUBJECTS DISCUSSED DURING THE GROUP INTERVIEWS . . . . . . . . POTTED MUM BUYING PREFERENCES THAT THE C COMPARISON OF THE PERCENT OF MALE AND FEMALE PANELISTS WHO WOULD BUY EACH OF COMPARISON OF THE PERCENT OF MALE AND FEMALE PANELISTS WHO WOULD PAY MOST FOR COMPARISON OF THE NUMBER OF TIMES MALE AND FEMALE PANELISTS BOUGHT POTTED MUMS CHI SQUARE TEST OF THE INTERRELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE SEX OF THE PANELISTS AND THE 40 41 42 43 44 48 GROWERS AND RETAILERS EXPECTED CONSUMERS TO EXHIBIT COMPARED TO THE POTTED MUM BUYING PREFERENCES THAT THE PANELISTS EXHIBITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX E A CHI SQUARE OF THE MUM TYPES PANELISTS LIKED LEAST (QUESTION 2) COMPARED TO THE MUM TYPES PANELISTS LIKED BEST (QUESTION 1) . . . A CHI SQUARE OF WHETHER PANELISTS RECOGNIZED ALL THE MUM TYPES (QUESTION 8) COMPARED TO THE MUM TYPES PANELISTS LIKED BEST (QUESTION 1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . A CHI SQUARE OF WHETHER PANELISTS RECOGNIZED THE SPIDER MUM AS A MUM (QUESTION 5) COMPARED COMPARED TO THE MUM TYPES PANELISTS LIKED BEST (QUESTION 1) . . . . ix A4. A5. A6. A7. A8. A9. A10. A11. A12. A13. CHI SQUARE OF WHETHER PANELISTS RECOGNIZED THE DECORATIVE MUM AS A MUM (QUESTION 6) COMPARED TO THE MUM TYPES PANELISTS LIKED BEST (QUESTION 1) . . . . . . . . . . . CHI SQUARE OF WHETHER PANELISTS RECOGNIZED THE FEATHER DECORATIVE MUM AS A MUM (QUESTION 7) COMPARED TO THE MUM TYPES PANELISTS LIKED BEST (QUESTION 1) . . . . . . . . . . . CHI SQUARE OF WHETHER PANELISTS WOULD BUY THE INCURVED MUM (QUESTION 21) COMPARED TO THE MUM TYPES PANELISTS LIKED BEST (QUESTION 1) O O O O O O I O O I O O O O O O O O O O O CHI SQUARE OF WHETHER PANELISTS WOULD BUY THE DAISY MUM (QUESTION 28) COMPARED TO THE MUM TYPES PANELISTS LIKED BEST (QUESTION 1) CHI SQUARE OF WHETHER PANELISTS WOULD BUY THE SPIDER MUM (QUESTION 35) COMPARED TO THE MUM TYPES PANELISTS LIKED BEST (QUESTION 1) . . CHI SQUARE OF WHETHER PANELISTS WOULD BUY THE DECORATIVE MUM (QUESTION 42) COMPARED TO THE MUM TYPES PANELISTS LIKED BEST (QUESTION 1) . . . . . . . . CHI SQUARE OF WHETHER PANELISTS WOULD BUY THE FEATHER DECORATIVE MUM (QUESTION 49) COMPARED TO THE MUM TYPES PANELISTS LIKED BEST (QUESTION 1) . . . . . . . . CHI SQUARE OF WHETHER PANELISTS WOULD PAY EITHER THE MOST OR THE LEAST FOR THE IN- CURVED MUM (QUESTION 10) COMPARED TO THE MUM TYPES PANELISTS LIKED BEST (QUESTION 1) CHI SQUARE OF WHETHER PANELISTS WOULD PAY EITHER THE MOST OR THE LEAST FOR THE DAISY MUM (QUESTION 11) COMPARED TO THE MUM TYPES PANELISTS LIKED BEST (QUESTION 1) . . . CHI SQUARE OF WHETHER PANELISTS WOULD PAY EITHER THE MOST OR THE LEAST FOR THE SPIDER MUM (QUESTION 12) COMPARED TO THE MUM TYPES PANELISTS LIKED BEST (QUESTION 1) 82 83 84 87 88 89 90 91 .Al4. A CHI SQUARE OF WHETHER PANELISTS WOULD PAY EITHER THE MOST OR THE LEAST FOR THE DECORATIVE MUM (QUESTION 13) COMPARED TO THE MUM TYPES PANELISTS LIKED BEST (QUESTION 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 1x15. A CHI SQUARE OF WHETHER PANELISTS WOULD PAY EITHER THE MOST OR THE LEAST FOR THE FEATHER DECORATIVE MUM (QUESTION 14) COM- PARED TO THE MUM TYPES PANELISTS LIKED BEST (QUESTION 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 A16. A CHI SQUARE OF WHETHER PANELISTS THOUGHT THE INCURVED MUM REQUIRED EITHER THE MOST OR THE LEAST CARE (QUESTION 15) COMPARED TO THE MUM TYPES PANELISTS LIKED BEST (QUESTION 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 [\J.7. A CHI SQUARE OF WHETHER PANELISTS THOUGHT THE SPIDER MUM REQUIRED EITHER THE MOST OR THE LEAST CARE (QUESTION 17) COMPARED TO THE MUM TYPES PANELISTS LIKED BEST (QUESTION 1).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 £\].8. A CHI SQUARE OF THE NUMBER OF TIMES PANELISTS BOUGHT FLOWERS IN THE YEAR PRIOR TO THE PANELS (QUESTION 67) COMPARED TO THE MUM TYPES PANELISTS LIKED BEST (QUESTION 1) . . . 96 I\LLS9. A CHI SQUARE OF THE NUMBER OF TIMES PANELISTS BOUGHT POTTED MUMS IN THE YEAR PRIOR TO THE PANELS (QUESTION 68) COMPARED TO THE MUM TYPES PANELISTS LIKED BEST (QUESTION 1) . . . 97 £\23(). A CHI SQUARE OF WHETHER PANELISTS WOULD BUY THE INCURVED MUM FOR A HOLIDAY (QUESTION 22) COMPARED TO THE MUM TYPES PANELISTS LIKED BEST (QUESTION 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 A2 1 . A CHI SQUARE OF WHETHER PANELISTS WOULD BUY THE DAISY MUM FOR A HOLIDAY (QUESTION 29) COMPARED To THE MUM TYPES PANELISTS LIKED BEST (QUESTION 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 A2 2 . A CHI SQUARE OF WHETHER PANELISTS WOULD BUY THE SPIDER MUM FOR A HOLIDAY (QUESTION 36) COMPARED TO THE MUM TYPES PANELISTS LIKED BEST (QUESTION 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 xi A23. A24. A25. A26. A27. A28. A29. A30. A31 0 A32. CHI SQUARE OF WHETHER PANELISTS WOULD BUY THE DECORATIVE MUM FOR A HOLIDAY (QUESTION 43) COMPARED TO THE MUM TYPES PANELISTS LIKED BEST (QUESTION 1) . . . . . . . . . . . CHI SQUARE OF WHETHER PANELISTS WOULD BUY THE FEATHER DECORATIVE MUM FOR A HOLIDAY (QUESTION 50) COMPARED TO THE MUM TYPES PANELISTS LIKED BEST (QUESTION 1) . . . . . CHI SQUARE OF WHETHER PANELISTS WOULD BUY THE DECORATIVE MUM FOR A FUNERAL OR MEMORIAL (QUESTION 47) COMPARED TO THE MUM TYPES PANELISTS LIKED BEST (QUESTION 1) . . . . . CHI SQUARE OF WHETHER PANELISTS WOULD BUY THE INCURVED MUM FOR A GIFT TO A SICK PERSON (QUESTION 25) COMPARED TO THE MUM TYPES PANELISTS LIKED BEST (QUESTION 1) . . CHI SQUARE OF WHETHER PANELISTS WOULD BUY POTTED MUMS FOR NO PARTICULAR REASON (QUESTION 72) COMPARED TO THE MUM TYPES PANELISTS LIKED BEST (QUESTION 1) . . . . . . . . . CHI SQUARE OF WHETHER PANELISTS WOULD BUY THE DAISY MUM FOR NO PARTICULAR REASON (QUESTION 31) COMPARED TO THE MUM TYPES PANELISTS LIKED BEST (QUESTION 1) . . . CHI SQUARE OF WHETHER PANELISTS WOULD BUY THE SPIDER MUM FOR NO PARTICULAR REASON (QUESTION 38) COMPARED TO THE MUM TYPES PANELISTS LIKED BEST (QUESTION 1) . . . CHI SQUARE OF WHETHER PANELISTS WOULD BUY POTTED MUMS FOR EVERYDAY USE (QUESTION 71) COMPARED TO THE MUM TYPES PANELISTS LIKED BEST (QUESTION 1) . . . . . . . . . CHI SQUARE OF WHETHER PANELISTS WOULD BUY THE SPIDER MUM FOR EVERYDAY USE (QUESTION 37) COMPARED TO THE MUM TYPES PANELISTS LIKED BEST (QUESTION 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHI SQUARE OF WHETHER PANELISTS WOULD BUY THE FEATHER DECORATIVE MUM FOR EVERYDAY USE (QUESTION 51) COMPARED TO THE MUM TYPES PANELISTS LIKED BEST (QUESTION 1) . xii 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 A33. A34. A35. A36. A37. A38. A39. A40. A41. CHI SQUARE OF THE PRICE PANELISTS WOULD PAY FOR A POTTED MUM (QUESTION 83) COM- PARED TO THE MUM TYPES PANELISTS LIKED BEST (QUESTION 1) . . . . . . . . . . CHI SQUARE OF WHETHER PANELISTS WOULD BUY POTTED MUMS AT A FARMERS MARKET (QUESTION 81) O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O CHI SQUARE OF THE PANELISTS FAMILY INCOME (QUESTION 65) COMPARED TO THE MUM TYPES PANELISTS LIKED BEST (QUESTION 1) CHI SQUARE OF THE SIZE OF THE PANELISTS' FAMILIES (QUESTION 57) COMPARED TO THE MUM TYPES PANELISTS LIKED BEST (QUESTION 1) . . CHI SQUARE OF THE AGES OF THE FEMALE HEADS OF THE PANELISTS' FAMILIES (QUESTION 62) COM- PARED TO THE MUM TYPES PANELISTS LIKED BEST (QUESTION 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHI SQUARE OF THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF THE PANELISTS' FAMILIES WHO ARE TWELVE YEARS OLD OR YOUNGER (QUESTION 58) COMPARED TO THE MUM TYPES PANELISTS LIKED BEST (QUESTION 1) CHI SQUARE OF THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF THE PANELISTS' FAMILIES WHO ARE BETWEEN THE AGES OF THIRTEEN AND NINETEEN (QUESTION 59) COM— PARED TO THE MUM TYPES PANELISTS LIKED BEST (QUESTION 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHI SQUARE OF THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF THE PANELISTS' FAMILIES WHO ARE BETWEEN THE AGES OF TWENTY AND THIRTY-NINE (QUESTION 60) COMPARED TO THE MUM TYPES PANELISTS LIKED BEST (QUESTION 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHI SQUARE OF THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF THE PANELISTS' FAMILIES WHO ARE FORTY YEARS OLD OR OLDER (QUESTION 61) COMPARED TO THE MUM TYPES PANELISTS LIKED BEST (QUESTION 1) xiii 111 112 113 114 115 117 118 119 120 INTRODUCTION For many years, most of the floriculture industry has taken a hit or miss approach to new product sales. In the past, the quantities in which new products were first offered to the market were based on conjecture. After a period of time, the growers and retailers would reevaluate customer demand for the new product and adjust the amount they marketed accordingly. Gradually, the sales of the new product would reach a plateau. At this point, the amount of the new product offered to the market would be frozen until sales indicated further adjustment was needed. The problem with this approach to new product marketing is that a great deal of money must be risked initially, when offering the new product to an unsure market. .Also, during the gradual pro- cess of evaluating market demand, money is lost approximating market size, and in slowly readjusting the quantities of the new product offered to the market. The actual monetary value of losses due to poor estimates of new product sales, the time lag between demonstrated consumer interest in a product, and the re- flection of that interest in the market, has never been.measured. Pkmvever, it has become increasingly clear that consumer research is; necessary to maximize new product marketing efficiency. The purpose of this study is to provide information con- cerning consumer preferences for different types of potted Chrysanthemums. Three of the five types of potted Chrysanthemums studied are relatively new to the Michigan market. Consequently, their future sales estimates have been based on scanty sales records. It is hoped that this study may provide information from which more accurate sales projections of the future pOpu- larity of these types of potted Chrysanthemums may be made. Limitations of Study The major limitation on the validity of this study is that the Chrysanthemum types were selected to show distinct variations in shape. Further limitations reside in the fact that only ap- proximately a hundred male panelists were available, and, there- fore, conclusions drawn about male preferences are of limited validity. REVIEW OF LITERATURE The Potted Chrysanthemum Industry The popularity of potted Chrysanthemums in the United States has increased from 4.0 percent of the wholesale value of the flori- culture crops in 1959 to 7.3 percent in 1970. During this period of time, the wholesale value of the average potted Chrysanthemum in- creased from $1.20 to $1.64. .Also, the total number of pots sold in the United States more than doubled (Fossum, 1973). The Michigan potted Chrysanthemum industry also grew from 1959 to 1970. The wholesale value of potted chrysanthemums increased from 3.3 to 8.4 percent of the Michigan floricultural crops. .Also, the average wholesale value of each pot increased from $1.34 to $1.65 (Fossum, 1973). In addition, the number of pots sold more than tripled (U.S. Dept. of Agr., 1971). The Retail Floriculture Industry From The Consumer's Point of View Who are the Floral Consumers? Demographics. Several studies have defined the demographic characteristics of the flower buyers. Sixty percent of the adult population of the Lhrited States purchase flowers GMitchell, 1973). Fifty to 60 percent of"this flower buying public are women (Denby, 1973; Trotter, 1955). Consumer frequency of flower purchase has been related to the cxnnsumer's educational level. High school educated consumers make 46 3 percent of the total number of flower purchases, while college educated consumers make up 40 percent of the flower purchases. The remaining purchases are made by consumers with grade school educations (U.S. Dept. of Agr., 1969). Results from a 1968 survey indicated consumers with family incomes between $5,000 and $9,999 spend more per capita on flowers than consumers with larger or smaller incomes (U.S. Dept. of Agr., 1969). Zawadzki 93 31. (1960) reported 40 percent of flowers sold in Rhode Island supermarkets were purchased by consumers who had annual family incomes in excess of $6,000. In addition, flower sales per customer was greatest in stores located in high income areas. Middle aged consumers buy the most flowers per capita. Persons forty to forty-nine years old buy flowers more frequent- ly than the average consumer; while persons under twenty-five or over sixty-five buy flowers significantly less often than the average consumer (U.S. Dept. of Agr., 1969). Psychographics. Consumer attitudes toward flowers have influenced their frequency of flower purchase, and the amount spent per purchase. Demby (1973) divided the floricultural market into nine market segments.1 Five of these segments involve female customers. —‘ 1"Market segment--a specific present or potential group of buyers RUM) share some characteristic(s) in common, such as geographic location oI"buying power." H.A. Lipson and J.R. Darling, Introduction to Marketing, Au1.Administrative Approach, New York: John Wiley 8 Sons,'Inc., 1971, p. 813. These are designated as: the ”Flower lovers, pragmatic indulgers, wishful thinkers, uncommitted, and elderly dispirited." Of these groups, "Flower lovers" and "Pragmatic indulgers" are the most frequent consumers. "Flower lovers" spend more per floral pur— chase than the average consumer. Unlike other market segments, they see flowers as a legitimate everyday expense, and feel no guilt about buying flowers for themselves. The "Pragmatic indulgers" buy flowers relatively frequently, but are very price conscious. They tend to favor plants, particularly the flowering types. Demby divided male flower buyers into four market segments entitled: "Impulsives, nature lovers, obligated, and traditional- ists." The two male market segments that buy the most flowers were the "Impulsives" and the "Nature lovers." The "Impulsives" purchase flowers often as everyday gifts, but generally pay less per purchase than the average consumer. They see flowers as an affectionate gift to women. The "Nature lovers" personally enjoy flowers, and are very sensitive to the aesthetic attributes of flowers. They see them as suitable for everyday occasions, and buy flowers more than other gift items, spending more per purchase than the average male. For Whom do Consumers Purchase Flowers? MOst cut flowers and potted plants are purchased for a finnale friend or relative. .As illustrated in Table 1., female cxn1$umers purchase flowers most often for their friends, themselves, and other female relatives. .Male consumers purchase most often for their wives, friends, or other female relatives (Nfitchell, 1972). TABLE 1 FOR WHOM DO CONSUMERS PURCHASE FLOWERS? For Whom are Female Male the Flowers? Consumer Consumer Wife . . . 45% Husband 5% . . . MOther 14% 8% Friend 27% 21% Yourself/Your home 25% 7% Other Female Relative 25% 14% Other 4% 5% Adapted from: Mitchell, H. 1973. A complete overview of’the future of the retail flower industry. Teleflora, El Segundo, California. When do Consumers Purchase Flowers? Occasions. In 1967, 27 percent of the value of all United States commercial floriculture and related products were sold for fUnerals and memorials, 23 percent for garden use, 12 percent kar home use, 10 percent for special occasions, 7 percent for PITesents to the sick, and 2 percent for weddings (U.S. Dept. of (MEI‘., 1969). Demby (1973) reported 55 percent of the flower Purchases made in 1972 were for private and public special ‘3"€311ts. Future flower sales potential appears good for all mar- kets, except the sympathy market. The sympathy flower market declined between 1958 and 1973, and is expected to continue to decline in the future. However, get well flower sales are increasing. Hospital administrators reported that the number of get well flowers sent to patients increased by 20 to 30 percent each year from 1963 to 1973. This growth in the get well flower market is predicted to continue until 1983. The traditional holiday flower market was also reported to be growing quite substantially. IMother's Day sales are growing most rapidly. About a 1.5 percent growth rate per year is anticipated in the wedding flower market from 1973 to 1983, with a trend for more medium-sized weddings expected. Every- day special occasions, such as birthdays and anniversaries, are also seen as a high growth market OMitchell, 1973). Seasonability. The sales of cut flowers and potted plants fluctuate seasonally. Total flower sales are lowest from July to Septem— ber (U.S. Dept. of Agr., 1969; Kiplinger and Sherman, 1962). ‘This may be due to the increased availability of home grown iiiowers. Highest percent total sales occurs in April and May Itaflecting special purchases made for MOther's Day, Memorial IDEEV, and outdoor gardens (U.S. Dept. of Agr., 1969). Sullivan £1r1c1 Carpenter (1969) found neither funeral, nor hospital, flOwer sales contributed significantly to this fluctuation. However, wedding and holiday flower sales do contribute to the seasonal fluctuation. In addition, they suggested that the current trend toward reorganizing the florists' merchandising structure, to emphasize untraditional floral sales, has only aggravated these fluctuations. Frequency of Floral Purchase. Sixty percent of the public buy at least one floral product a year. Fifteen percent of the public buy floral pro— ducts one or two times a year, and 22 percent buy floral pro- ducts three to five times a year. Finally, 22 percent buy floral products six to seven times a year (Demby, 1973). Consumer frequency of floral purchase is related to the consumer's reason for purchase. If consumers primarily purchase flowers for special occasions, they are apt to buy flowers from three to five times a year. On the other hand, if they purchase flowers for both special occasions and for everyday occasions, they are apt to buy flowers six or seven times a year (Demby, 1973). Where do Consumers Purchase Flowers? The Shop . As demonstrated in Table 2, one major difference between heavy and light floral purchases is that a larger percentage of heavypurchasers, than light purchasers, have bought flowers £11: ()ne time in their lives at a store other than a florist (Demby, 1973). TABLE 2 WHERE DO CONSUMERS PURCHASE FLOWERS? Place of Purchase Total Heavy Light Purchasers Purchasers Florist 93% a 95% a 90% a Nursery/Greenhouse 42% 56% 31% Outdoor Stand/vendor 39% 53% 21% Supermarket 38% 50% 28% Department Stores 11% 17% 9% variety Stores 8% 11% 4% Local Grocery 7% 11% 5% Adapted from: Demby, E. 1973. A.psychographic stfidy of the market for flowers. American Florists Marketing Council, Alexander, Virginia. 3The totals do not equal 100% because many of the inter- views had.multiple responses. Seventy—five percent of the flower buying public patron- ize both a traditional florist and untraditional retail flower stores. The remaining 25 percent buy only at untraditional outlets. Sixty-six percent of the flower buying public have a regular place to buy flowers. Fifty-three percent of the con- sumers rely totally on a traditional florist (Mitchell, 1973). The location of a flower ship helps to determine who are itxs patrons. Sixty-one percent of the floral consumers purchased iflcnwers in stores near their homes. Fourteen percent purchased f1<3|Wer5 near their place of work. Only 7 percent purchased f 10Wers out of town, and 18 percent purchased flowers in other 10 locations (Mitchell, 1973). Consumers who regularly buy flowers at traditional out- lets are primarily interested in the price and quality of the flowers, while those who buy at a traditional florist are pri- marily interested in the service they receive in the shOp. Table 3 illustrates other differences between the floral shop preferences of regular patrons of untraditional floral outlets, and those of regular patrons of traditional floral outlets (Demby, 1973). TABLE 3 WHAT DO CONSUMERS LIKE ABOUT THEIR REGULAR FLOWER STORES? Regularly Shop at a Regularly Shop at an Traditional untraditional Florist Floral Outlet 1. Service is good 1. Reasonable prices 2. People are helpful/make 2. Flowers are fresh suggestions 3. Flowers are fresh 3. Service is good 4. Arrangements are beauti- 4. Large variety and selec- ful tion 5. Large variety and selec- 5. People are helpful/make suggestions 6. Reasonable prices 6. Closest/convenient 7. Closest/convenient 7. Like the people/know them 8.. Like the people/know them 8 Arrangements are beauti- ful mpted from: Demby, E. 1973. A psychographic study of the market for flowers. American Florists Marketing Council, Alexander, Virginia. 11 The Developing Mass Market Trade. Recently there has been considerable interest in the mass marketing of floral items. Growers favor mass marketing as one possible means to increase flower demand. However, 64 percent of the traditional florists fear that mass marketing of floral items might detract from their business (Bunkand and Hampton, 1953) . Some florist groups have promoted legislation which would prohibit the sale of flowers in places other than conven- tional flower shops (Trotter, 1955) . This fear seems to be unfounded since Hampton (1955) found that sales in traditional florist shops are not affected by sales of flowers in nearby untraditional florist shOps. Gradually, the industry as a whole is becoming aware of a place in the market for untradi— tional floral outlets. There are several advantages to selling floral products in a large grocery supermarket. Brunk and Hampton (1953) noted that grocery supermarkets had a steady, high traffic business. A large West Coast food chain estimated that only 7 percent of the consumers who purchased food weekly in this chain also purchased floral items weekly. To successfully market floral items in a supermarket, they concluded a supermarket should have a gross annual sales of between four to five million dOllars (Daykin, 1972). Campbell and Kress (1972) found that most supermarket managers are satisfied with the floral sales in their store. T116)? found potted plants marketed by supermarkets more often 12 than cut flowers, because they are less fragile, longer lasting, and have a larger unit profit. Sixty—five percent, of the near- ly 8,000 store managers questioned, said they planned to continue selling flowers at their present rate. Twenty-three percent were planning to significantly increase their floral items, and 10 percent were planning to develop a special section in their store for floral items. Advertising. Although florists frequently use promotional materials in their stores, very little exterior promotion has been done in the past. In a recent study 58 percent of the florists surveyed thought promotional materials in their store_increased sales. However, among retail florists there was little agreement as to whether exterior promotional programs yielded returns commensur- ate with costs (U.S. Dept. of Agr., 1969). Gatty (1961) suggested the instrumentation of a youth education program. He contended that sales could be increased, by the use of consumer education programs that were designed to inform the consumer about the use and care of flowers, instill- ing in the consumer a desire for flowers. This program would be Similar to the activities of the American Dairy Council's use of SChool programs to teach students the place of dairy products in the diet. The annual advertising expenditures of Rhode Island R~<3"t:ail Florists were studied by Bartner and Brewer (1956). They 13 found that donations accounted for more than half of the average total florist's advertising budget in 1956, and were used by al- most all Rhode Island florists. Although there are no statistics on the distribution of the florists' annual advertising expendi- tures in the 70's, it is evident that florists are spending a larger percentage of their advertising dollar on newspaper, radio, and television advertising. W. R. Knight indicated that advertising alone was not the key to sales expansion (1952). He found no relationship between retail florists' advertising expenditures and the growth rate of their shops in 1950. In fact, he concurred with Gartner and Brewer's finding (1956) that donations are not an effective way for florists to advertise. Mere recently, trade associations have started advertis- ing. This may prove to be successful since funding for large scale advertising is more likely to be obtained by a trade association than by a florist. However, since trade associa- tions must advertise for a multitude of florists, the nature of the advertisement must be general. Dewey (1963) found florists lacked faith in local florist <:ooperative promotions in the early 60's. But, since that time there has been a great deal of cooperative advertising through time local Allieds and through.American Florists Marketing COuncil. 14 Packaging. Early attempts at packaging flowers were made at Ohio State University (Early; Hague, 1947). These boxes, with cellophane windows, were not widely accepted by florists. Nb y more studies concerned with other prepackaging techniques have been conducted. Recent studies have emphasized packaging for mass marketing. Several researchers have attempted to perfect packaging methods. Dewerth and Sorenson (1956) found that, generally, smaller pots and shorter stems are preferable for convenient packaging. It was suggested that potted plant items should not be over 15 inches high, and that cut flowers should not have stems over 15 inches in length. Brunk and Hampton (1953) found that consumers preferred roses boxed in units of one dozen. Hampton and Kupka (1955) introduced a wax treated paperboard tray, or box, with a cellophane overwrap. This type of packag- ing had the advantage that it could be stacked for display with- out bruising the flowers. They found that increased rose sales covered the added price of rose packaging. Carnations sold better in plain cellophane, rather than display boxes. Pompoms snold equally well in cellophane, or boxes. Gatty and WOff (1961) designed an unrefrigerated display rack to hold either packaged <3Lrt flowers, or potted plants. The packages, which were design- GPCI 'to go with the display rack, had Oasis at the bottom. From £1 Irreliminary sales experiment it was concluded that even a 15 small grower could properly service local supermarket displays. The "aqua-pak" has drawn considerable attention. It is made of a large double waxed cardboard cup, with a water absor- bent medium and a cellophane overwrap. Burrell (1957) tested the homeowner's response to the "aqua—pak” and found it to be very favorable. Further studies with similar types of packag- ing have been conducted by Jensen et_al, (1974) at Rutgers. What Kind of Flowers do Consumers Buy? Type of Flower. From 1949 to 1970 the cut flower market declined from 62 to 49 percent of the total value of the floriculture crops. How- ever, the flowering potted plant market increased from 19 to 33 percent during the same period of time. In 1970, 43 percent of the total value of the floriculture CTOpS‘WaS accounted for by cut roses, carnations, and Chrysanthemums. The seven most valuable floriculture cr0ps in 1970, from most to least valuable, were: cut Chrysanthemums, cut roses, cut carnations, potted Chrysanthemums, cut gladioli, potted poinsettas and potted azaleas (Fossum, 1973). Arranged Cut Flowers, Bunches of Cut Flowers, or Flowering_Potted Plants. Demby (1973) tabulated the frequency at which consumers purchase arranged cut flowers, bunches of cut flowers, and flower- ing potted plants. He found 35 percent purchased arrangements of 16 cut flowers already in a vase, 23 percent purchased a bunch of cut flowers, and 17 percent of the purchases were a bouquet, or box, of flowers. According to Demby (1973) only 15 percent of the purchases were flowering plants. However, in a study of four Ohio supermarkets, Kiplinger and Sherman (1962) re- ported that potted plants accounted for 83.5 percent of the units sold, while cut flowers accounted for 16.5 percent of the units sold. Differences between the Demby (1973) statistics, and Kiplinger and Sherman's (1962) statistics, can be attributed to the fact that Demby got a larger percentage of his informa- tion from traditional florist patrons than Kiplinger. The Demby report (1973) found consumers tend to buy arranged flowers, already in a vase, for special occasions, when they buy at a florist. Consumers tended to buy bunches of cut flowers for other occasions. Consumer Preferences for Specific Types of’Flowers. Several studies have been done on consumer preferences for specific floricultural crops. Sherman et 31, (1956) found that participants in an Ohio home panel initially liked roses slightly more than carnations, and a great deal more than Chrysanthemums. However, after five days of home trial, the order of preference was: Chrysanthemums, carnations, and roses. This change seemed to be due to the longer lasting qualities of the Chrysanthemum and carnation. 17 In this study, consumers were found to prefer red roses, red carnations, and yellow Chrysanthemums. It is possible that color preferences may have been influenced by the color of the flowers received by the housewives to test at home. Coleman.et_al. (1968) found consumers preferred orange and yellow roses over pink and red roses. In a study on cattleya orchids, Coleman et 31. (1967) found that nearly 60 percent of the consumers preferred purple colored orchids to white, orange, or white/purple orchids. In addition, she found consumers pre- ferred medium sized poinsettias with foliage extended well over the sides of the pot (Coleman et El-: 1967). Zehner (1968) evaluated Michigan consumer attitudes to- ward tulip color. She found 28 percent of the consumers pre- ferred red tulips, 22 percent preferred pink tulips and 13 percent preferred yellow tulips. Also, 75 percent of the parti- cipants liked tulips with full tunics better than tulips with broken tunics. Consumer Preferences for PottedTChrysanthemums. Potted chrysanthemums have been the subject of several consumer preference studies. van Eman (1974) examined the sales potential of potted Chrysanthemums in supermarkets. He found that the best pot size mix was 65 percent four inch pots, 20 percent five inch pots and 15 percent six inch pots. Yellow was the color preferred by most consumers, followed by bronze 18 and white. walters (1972) used a ”home cooperators panel” to determine the most desirable stage of Chrysanthemum flower maturity at the thme of sales. ”Home cooperators believed that flowers slightly less than full size, with centers not yet opened, were the most long lasting. Mattson (1974) tested Chrysanthemum variety preferences in a Kansas State University class. Given the choice of a decora- tive, daisy, or incurved mum; female students preferred the daisy, and male students preferred the incurved. Pricing studies have shown flower prices to be slightly inelastic.2 Hampton and Kupka (1955) examined the price elastic— ity of roses, carnations, and Chrysanthemums in.mass marketing retail outlets. They varied the price of roses and carnations by 20 cents per week for five weeks, resulting in a price range from 99 cents to $1.79 per dozen. The price of pompom Chrysanthe— mums was varied by ten cents a week resulting in a price range of 39 cents to 79 cents per bunch. They found that the overall price elasticity of demand was —.8. The slightly inelastic nature of the coefficient indicated that other factors such as display, packaging, and type and color of flowers are fundamental in 2"The price elasticity of demand is defined to be the percentage change in quantity resulting in a one percent change in price . . . The demand for a commodity is said to be price elastic if price elasticity of demand is more than one." The demand for a commodity is said to be price inelastic if the elasticity of demand is less than one." IMansfield, E. Microeconomics: Theory and Applications, W. W3 Norton 8 Comp. Inc., New YOrk, 1970, pp.60-6I. 19 influencing the consumer's decision to purchase floral items. Furbay (1960) studied price variance on 3-1/2, 4, 5 and 6 inch potted chrysanthemums. He found that there was an in- elastic demand for 3-1/2 inch potted Chrysanthemums when the price was changed from 55 to 50 cents, or from 45 to 40 cents. However, there was a strong elastic demand when the price was changed from 50 to 45 cents. He also reported that one-third of weekly sales occurred in the first half of the week and two- thirds occurred in the last half of the week. Zawadzki, Larmie and Owens (1960) studied the price elasticity of roses and carnations in several eastern super- markets. They reported that within the price range of 79 to 99 cents there was a slightly inelastic coefficient of -0.8. Baker (1961) found no cross elasticity of demand for four inch and five inch potted chrysanthemums. They neither sub- stitute for each other, nor compliment one another. Reduction of floral prices, and a corresponding reduction of services, does seem to meet with customer appeal. Oppenfeld et a1, (1957) reported that floral consumers in Grand Rapids, Michigan, responded positively to lower prices corresponding with fewer services. He found that short-stemmed flowers and smaller plants sold well at lower prices. Goeppner (1951) suggested that the sales of short-stemmed flowers, from street stands, substantially augments the average level of retail sales in San Francisco. METHODS AND MATERIALS The Consumer Panel Opinionnaire. Consumer preference panels are a coordinated statewide activity of the Consumer Marketing Program of Michigan State University's Cooperative Extension Service. These panels were organized by Ms. Mary Zehner, of Michigan State University's Department of Agricultural Economics, in conjunction with district consumer marketing agents. A.tota1 of thirty-six panel sessions were held in six cities in central Michigan.‘ The panelists met in the community rooms of shOpping centers, and in other public buildings. Several products, in addition to potted chrysanthe- mums, were tested through the 1974 consumer panels. Each of the panelists was given an Opinionnaire designed to detenmine their preferences for chrysanthemums types, potted mum buying behavior, and socioeconomic background. Care was taken to prepare the Opinionnaire in a form that could be easily understood and quickly answered. Further precautions were taken against influencing the panelist's responses by identifying the various mum types involved in the Opinionnaire with a symbol, which was neither numerical nor alphabetical. Due to time limita- tions, the section of the Opinionnaire to be filled out while the panelists viewed the Chrysanthemum display was limited to a page 20 21 and a half in length. The section of the Opinionnaire pertaining to customer buying behavior was limited to a page in length (Mp- pendix A. Consumer Panel Opinionnaire). The potted Chrysanthemum display was set up before each panel began. From a total of 10 to 20 mums, the best pot of each different type of mum was selected for display. Spent blossoms and browning leaves were removed. The pots were arranged in a row down the center of the table in the following order: incurved mum, daisy mum, spider mum, decorative mum, and feather decorative mum. The following varieties of potted mums were displayed dur- ing the panels: Golden Mefo, Bright Golden Anne, Golden Crystal, D-48 Yellow Spider, Yellow Bonnie Jean; and Improved Bonnie Jean replaced Yellow Bonnie Jean during one panel session. These varieties are pictured in Table 4. There were three major factors involved in the selection of the varieties to be used. These factors were: 1) the varieties had to be representative of a general type of Chrysanthemum, 2) they had to be golden yellow in color, and 3) they had to be in bloom during the spring panel session. .All the mum varieties were the same color to avoid any color variety consumer preference interactions. The plants were growing in azalea pots with gold foil wrapped around them. The Golden Mefo, Bright Golden Anne, and D—48 Yellow Spider had been disbudded. The terminal buds of the Yellow Bonnie Jean and Ime proved Bonnie Jean were removed. All the buds on the Golden 22 TABLE 4 ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE POTTED CHRYSANTHEMUM VARIETIES DISPLAYED DURING THE CONSUMER PANELS Golden MEfo Bright Golden Anne (Incurved) (Decorative) Yellow Bonnie Jean (Daisy) D-48 Yellow Spider Golden Crystal (Spider) (Feather Decorative) 23 Crystal had been allowed to develop. At the beginning of each.panel, the coordinator reviewed the procedures to be followed by the panelists, and explained the Opinionnaire. Next, the panelists were instructed to View the different product displays, and complete the section of the Opinionnaire pertaining to each display immediately after viewing it. No talking was permitted during the session. Up to four supervisors were present during each panel session. When the panelists had finished viewing the products, the opinionnaires were collected. Then the purpose of each of the studies being conducted through the consumer panel was explained, and some of the early findings of the different studies were discussed. Finally, the take-home product was passed out. Consumer Group Interviews. .A qualitative followeup study was conducted to investigate consumer ideas and feelings about chrysanthemums. The objective was to correlate the ideas and feelings of the consumers inter- Viewed with those of the consumer panelists who completed the Opinionnaire. Due to the necessary brevity of the consumer panel Opinionnaire, quantitative data had been gathered prior to the beginning of the study. Through this follow-up study, further insights were gained into the reasons behind the panelists' responses to the Opinionnaire. Five group interviews were conducted. From three to twelve 24 women participated in each group interview. Participants in the first group interviewed were selected randomly from the telephone book. HOwever, participants in all the following groups were contacted through local clubs and organizations. mebers of the organizations were encouraged to urge their neighbors and friends, who were not members, to attend a group interview. No remittance Ems offered to participants. The interviews were held in the participant's homes, and in a conference room in Eppley Center of Michigan State University. The location of each interview was dependent on its convenience to the interviewees. A relaxed in- formal atmosphere was maintained during the interviews. .All inter- views were taped to avoid taking notes. The interviewees were asked a series of directed questions. These questions outlined the nature of the qualitative data gathered. Although prior to the session, the interviewer had formulated a series of specific questions, during the interview these questions were frequently rephrased. No attempt was made to get all of the interviewees to answer all the questions. verbal interaction between the interviewees was encouraged. At all times the interviewer attempted not to imply with.words, or facial expressions, any personal partiality to certain ideas or feelings. If the interviewees mentioned subjects that the inter— viewer had not previously considered, they were encouraged to expound on their feelings and ideas (Appendix B, Directive Questions for the Consumer Group Interviews). 25 Grower and Retailer Opinibnnaife. The purpose of the grower and retailer Opinionnaire was to evaluate the differences between the potted mum preferences the growers and retailers expected the consumers to demonstrate, and the potted mum preferences the consumers actually demonstrated. This Opinionnaire was distributed to twenty-eight potted mum grower and retailers during two educational events held for the benefit of Michigan floricultural growers and Michigan florists. The purpose of the Opinionnaire was briefly discussed prior to distributing it. The types of potted Chrysanthemums that have been.marketed are easily discovered by examining past sales re- cords. However, the underlying criteria for the growers and retailers selection of the mum type marketed is more elusive. Since this study was viewed as a secondary, followeup study, the information gathered was not of a quantitative nature. Despite this fact, it is felt that this study might give some indication of the divergence of Opinion between growers and retailers of mums, and purchasers of mums (Appendix C, Opinionnaire For Pot MUm Growers And Retailers). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The Consumer Panel Opinionnaire Over 2,000 consumers participated in the 1974 Michigan State University Consumer Panel. Only 102 of the participants were men. Panelists tended to be between the ages of thirty and fifty-nine, and came from slightly higher than average income and educational back- grounds. In addition, a smaller percentage of the female panelist heads of households were full-time employees, and a larger percentage were part-time employees, compared to women in the United States as a whole (Appendix D, Summary Tables Consumer Panel Series, Spring, 1974). The information gathered from the consumer Opinionnaire was evaluated through a series of chi square tests. The results of these chi square tests are summarized in the fOllowing discussion. .All of the interrelationships mentioned in this discussion are significant at .05 or less. The MUm Types Panelists Liked Best and the MUm Types Panelists‘LikediLeast. As shown in Table 5, thirty-two percent of the panelists liked the incurved.mum best. The daisy, spider and decorative mums were liked best by almost equal numbers of panelists. Only four percent of the panelists liked the feather decorative mum best, and over fifty percent of the panelists liked it least. 26 27 TABLE 5 THE PERCENTAGE OF THE PANELISTS WHO LIKE EACH OF THE FIVE MUM TYPES BEST AND LEAST Mum Percent of Panelists Who Percent of Panelists Type Liked each of the MUm Who Liked each of Types Best the MUm.Types Best Incurved 32% 7% Spider 24% 15% Decorative 20% 6% Daisy 20% 17% Feather Decorative 4% 55% There are several significant interrelationships between the type of mum.panelists liked best, and the type of mum the panelists liked least. It is probable that panelist taste preference is re- lated to mental images, based on subconscious associations, of the flowers. For example, panelists who liked the incurved mum.best were not apt to like the decorative mum least, and panelists who liked the decorative mum.best were not apt to like the incurved mum least (Appendix E, Chi Square Consumer Panel Opinionnaire, Table A1). Since these two mum types were the most readily recognized as mums by the panelists (See p. 29), perhaps this relationship represents a mutual desire of these two groups of panelists for a "normal" looking potted mum. Secondly, panelists who liked either the spider mum or the feather decorative mum best were more apt to like the daisy mum least (Appendix E, Chi Squares From.Consumer Panel Opinionnaire, Table.A1). From the group interviews, it seems 28 that consumers who liked the feather decorative, or the spider mum, thought of them as exotic or unusual. On the other hand, most con- sumers thought of the daisy mum as fresh and natural. These two floral images appear to be contradictory. Finally, panelists who liked the feather decorative mum best were not apt to like the spider mum least (Appendix D, Chi Squares From Consumer Panel Opinionnaire, Table A1). However, panelists who liked the spider mum.best were as apt as the average panelist to like the feather decorative mum least. The fact that the panelists who preferred the feather decorative mum did not dislike the spider mum is understandable since both of these mum types would tend to project similar mental images. The taste motivating factors behind the panelists who preferred the spider mum, yet disliked the feather decorative mum, are less apparent. The Percentage of Panelists Who Recogfiized'eaCh of the Five MUm Types as Mhms. Forty-four percent of the panelists recognized all the mum types as mums. .As Table 6 indicates, panelists who did.not recognize some of the mum types as mums were most apt not to recognize the daisy mums as mums. This was probably because the daisy mum is the mum type most recently marketed. It is surprising that more panelists recognized the incurved.mum than the decorative mum, since the decorative mum commands the majority of the potted chrysan- themum market. Panelists who liked the incurved or daisy mum.best were less likely to recognize all the mum types as mums. In addition, panelists who liked the spider or feather decorative 29 mum best were more likely to recognize the spider mum as a mum, and those who liked the decorative or feather decorative mum best were less likely to recognize the decorative mum as a.mum (Appendix E, Chi Squares From Consumer Panel Opinionnaire, Tables A2-A5). TABLE 6 THE PERCENTAGE OF THE PANELISTS WHO RECOGNIZED EACH OF THE FIVE ‘MUM TYPES AS MUMS Mhm Type Percent of the Panelists Who Recognized each of the Mhm.Types Incurved 91% Decorative 79% Spider 71% Feather Decorative 67% Daisy 49% The Percentage of the Panelists Who wou1d Buy eaéh of the Five Mfim.Iypes. From Table 7, it can be observed that most of the panelists would buy the incurved mum, and very few of the panelists would buy the feather decorative mum. .As might be expected, panelists had a strong tendency to buy the mum types they liked best. In addition, panelists who liked the incurved mum best were also very likely to buy the decorative mum, and panelists who liked the decorative mum best were also very likely to buy the incurved mum (Appendix E, Chi Squares From Consumer Panel Opinionnaire, Tables A6eA10). As previously mentioned, this mutual acceptance of their 30 favorite mum types may be due to desire in both groups of panelists for a "normal" appearing mum. TABLE 7 THE PERCENTAGE OF THE PANELISTS WHO WOULD BUY EACH OF THE FIVE MUM TYPES Mum Type Percent of the Panelists Who would Buy each of the Mum Types Incurved 74% 3 Decorative 64% Spider 56% Daisy 52% Feather Decorative 21% a’I‘he percentages listed above do not total 100 percent because most panelists gave multiple responses to this question. The Percentage of the Panelists Who would Pay Most or Least for Each of the Five an Types. Thirty-nine percent of the panelists would pay most for the incurved mum. But, as Table 8 illustrates, only five percent of the panelists would pay the most for the feather decorative mum. Panelists were likely to pay the most for the mum type they liked best. Furthermore, panelists who liked the incurved mum were not apt to pay the least for the decorative mum, while panelists who liked the decorative mum best were not apt to pay the least for the incurved mum. Also, panelists who liked the feather decorative mum best were not apt to pay least for the spider mum, and panelists who liked the spider mum best were not apt to pay least for the 31 feather decorative mum (Appendix E, Chi Squares From Consumer Panel Opinionnaire, Tables AlleAlS). .A possible cause for these inter-relationships has been discussed previously (p. 27). TABLE 8 THE PERCENTAGE OF THE PANELISTS WHO WOULD PAY THE MOST FOR.EACH OF THE FIVEIMUMITYPES IMUm.Type Percent of the Panelists Who would Pay the Most for each Mum Incurved 39% Spider 28% Decorative 15% Daisy 13% Feather Decorative 5% The Relative Amount of Care Panelists Thought eaCh Ofithe Five Mfiijypes Required. As Table 9 illustrates, fifty-one percent of the panelists thought all the mum types required equal amounts of care. If the panelists did not think all the mum types required equal amounts of care, they were most likely to think the spider mmm.required the most care and the decorative mum required the least care. Perhaps, the panelists' image of spider mum as exotic contributed to their belief that it would require the most care. In the same respect, they may have thought the decorative mum would require the least care because it is the most common mum.type. There was a slight tendency for panelists who liked the spider and incurved mum to think the mum types they liked best required the least care (Appendix 32 E, Chi Squares From Consumer Panel Opinionnaire, Tables A16- A17). This belief may be part of the reason they preferred the spider or incurved mum, or it may be a defensive reaction to their preferred_mmm.type. TABLE 9 THE PERCENTAGE OF PANELISTS WHO THOUGHT EACH OF THE FIVE MUM TYPES REQUIRED MOST OR LEAST CARE kalType Percent of Panelists Who Percent of Panelists Who Thought each of the Mhm Thought each of the Mum Types Required Types Required Least Care Least Care Decorative 21% 2% Daisy 12% 8% Incurved 10% 12% Feather Decorative 3% 8% Spider 3% 19% Fifty-one percent of the panelists thought all the mum types required equal amounts of care. Number of Times Panelists Bought Flowers in the Year Prior to the Panels. Ninety-one percent of the panelists bought flowers at least once in the year prior to the panels. As can be observed in Table 10, forty percent of the panelists bought flowers from three to five times in the previous year. Panelists who liked the spider or feather decorative mum best were more likely to have bought flowers three or more times. Also, panelists who liked the daisy or incurved mum best were more likely to have bought flowers two 33 or less times (Appendix E, Chi Squares From.Consumer Panel Opinionnaire, Table A18). TABLE 10 NUMBER OF TIMES PANELISTS PURCHASED FLOWERS IN THE YEAR PRIOR TO THE PANELS Number of Times Flowers were Percent of the Panelists Who Purchased Flowers Purchased a Number of Times Never 9% Once or twice 28% Three to five times 40% Six or more times 23% NUmber of Times Panelists Bought Potted Chrysan- fhemums in the Year Prior to the Panels. From Table 11, it may be observed that 58 percent of the panelists bought at least one potted.mum in the year prior to the panels. Panelists who liked the spider or feather decorative 'mum best were more apt to buy potted.mums (Appendix E, Chi Squares From Consumer Panel Opinionnaire, Table A19). 34 TABLE 11 NUMBER OF TIMES PANELISTS PURCHASED POTTED CHRYSANTHEMUMS IN THE YEAR PRIOR TO THE PANELS Number of Times Potted.MMms Percent of the Panelists Who Were Purchased Purchased Potted.Mhms a Number of Times Never 40% Once or twice 40% Three or more times 13% Occasions for Which Panelists WOuld Buy Potted‘Chrysanthemums. Mbst of the panelists who bought potted mums in the year prior to the panels would buy them for a holiday. The panelists had a strong tendency to buy the mum.type they liked best for this occasion (Appendix E, Chi Squares From Consumer Panel Opinionnaire, Table A20-A24). Probably they simply wanted the mum type they liked the best in their home. .As may be observed in Table 12, fOrty-one percent of the panelists who bought potted.mums in the year prior to the panel, would buy them for a funeral or memorial, and about the same percent of these panelists would buy potted mums for a gift to a sick person. Only the panelists who liked the decorative mum.best preferred to buy the mum type they liked best for a funeral or memorial and only panelists who liked the incurved.mum.best preferred to buy the mum type they liked best for a gift to a sick person (Appendix E, Chi Squares From Consumer Panel Opinionnaire, Tables.A25mqmm Hoz mmm<30m H30 Aqo HEHH Hm Ham mwe Ham «mo Hmpoa aesHou ®>flHMHOU®Q HHOH H HHN mmm mmH mom HEHHHEH HHH EH H ma om EH 6>HHHH666m Ham OH mu H ER omH HmeHam onHmmso 4mm EH Ho HHH m oHH HmHam mmH EN mH m4 m4 H eo>HsueH Hence 30m o>HHmHooom o>HumHoooQ HoeHmm zmwwm eo>HsooH Hegemom H onHmmso 5H onhmmDOV Hmmm QmMHA mHmHAmze 2:2 mmh mo mmHpmHouon Hogummm m>fiuwhouom Hmwfimm xmflma ©m>nsucH H onemmao HH onHmmsoV Hmmm amHHH mHmHHmzHpmHoumn m>wumuoumm Hmwflmm xmflmo wm>H:u:H Hmauwmm H onemmao HH onemmsov Hmmm QmMHq mHqumZMHQHOU®Q o onHmmso HHMH mm owm Hmm OHM Ham as: a p02 ma o>flumyouom HmpOH 30m o>Hpmnoumn m>HpmHouom Hmvwmm zmfimm wm>H3ucH Hospwom H onemmpo HH onHmmaov Hmmm omHHH memHHmzHHHHwHOU®Q Rona—mom H onHmmao HmmH co 5mm mum HmN Now as: a p02 mH ®>fiHMHOUOQ Hoaummm HmHOH 30m o>Hpmpouom m>HpmHouon Hmvflmm kmfimn ©®>hSUaH Hmnumom H onemmoo HH onHmmsoV emmm amHHH memHHmzHHHumHoqu m>wuwyouon Howwmm memm wo>HnocH nonpmom H onHmmso ma ZOHHmmDOV Hmmm QmMHA mHqumzk 2:2 mmh OH QmmMDUzH mmh >Dm ©4303 mHqumZHpmHoomm m>Humpoumm Hmufimm zmwmm wo>HsuaH Hogummm H onommoo ma ZOHHmmDOV Hmmm mmxHq mHqumZmHDm 94:03 mHmHAmzwumhouom o>HpmHoumm Hmwfimm xmwma wo>HsonH Hocpmom H onemmoo HH onHmmooo ammo omHHH memHHmzwumhouom o>oumpouoo Houfimm zmomm vo>HsuaH Honpwmm H onommoo AH onommooo Homo omxHH momHHmzHoom oHooz momHomzfiuwhoomm o>oumhooom Howwmm xmwmm wm>gsucH Honummm 5H onommooo Bmmm mmxHA mHmHAmzH 2:2 mme OB DmmHHDm Q4303 mBqumzopmgouon o>ouwuoomm Hmuomm xmwmn wm>nsunH Honpmmm H onommoo HH onemmooo ommm omzHH momHHmzooqu mzo moo omopmhouoo o>opmhouoa powflmm zmowo wm>psucH hogumom H onommoo HH onommooo Homo omoHH mooHomzooozH moo ooo oofipwhoumm o>ouwuouoa Hmwoam Amomm Um>psocH yonpmmm H onoomoo HH onommooo Homo omxHH oooHHmzo 2:2 mmo op omoopmaouom o>oumhoumm Howomm zmomm wo>nsusH nguwmm H onoomoo ma ZOHBmmDOU Hmmm QmMHA mBmHAmzouwpouom m>wpmhouom nmwomm xmomm wo>H=unH ngumom H onoomoo 5H onoomaoo Homo omgoo oooHHmzHoopmnoumn o>oumhouom Howomm zmomm ©o>H=unH Hmnummm H onommoo ma ZOHHmmDOV Hmmm QMMHA mHmHAmzHHwumuoumo m>wumhoumm Howwmm xmomm wm>HsucH umgumom H onommoo HH onoomooo Homo omHHH oomHHmzooqu mzo omooomo momHHmzopmnouon m>flumwouoa Hovomm xmoma wo>psucH Nocpmom H onommoo HH onommooo oomm omHHH oooHHmze 2:2 mzo oe omoom on ompah oom NN ooH oHH omH ooH oqup Ho mono No onommoo mNH m om NN Nm No No>oz HmuOH 30m m>HpmHoumm m>ouwuouom Hmwomm xmomm vo>HsucH Nogummm H onommoo HH onommooo Homo omxHH mHmHAmz mmH zH mmmSOAm szbom mHqumz®Z HNHOH 30m ®>MHNHOU®Q ®>HHMHOUOQ oQAoomm omwomm xmomm om>osuaH H onommoo HH onommooo oomm ommHm momHHmzopoooumm o>oumoouom oowomm omomo oo>osuco oonomom H onommoo flH onoomooo ommm omon oomHmmzoo mmooo zoo moo oo mmooono oNN onommooo ooouzo moo oom mmooo mommmmzom mmoomoo oo moooom Hoo <--oN< mmmoo mm moo. n mucoUHmoaooo N.mo n ooosom ooo moHH No HoN NNH on moN Hoooo oezHoo oom NH No oo omN HHH oom oHsoo oN onommoo omm mN ooH NmH NmH NmH oom ooz oHsoz Hmooo 30m m>oomoouom o>oomooumm oowoam omomm ©o>osuco omnooom H onommoo 5H onoomooo ommm ommHm momHHmzoo mmooo on: moo oo mmmoozoo ooN onoomooo ooomooumm m>ooooouom oocomm omoom wm>o=uco omnumom H onommoo oH onommooo oomm mmmHH momHHmzoo mmooo 2o: moo oo ommoozoo oom onommooo ooumooumm o>oooooumn omwomw omoon om>osucH ooAHmom H onoomoo oH onommooo ommm ommHm momHmmzoo mmooo zoo moo oo mmoooooo omo onommooo oooHHoo o moo 2oz m>Hoooooouoa m>ouooouoa omwoam Amooa vo>osucH omnomom H onommoo flH onommooo ommm mmmHm momHmmzoo mmooo 2oz moo oo omoHHDm @4303 mHqumzoomoouom m>oomoouon oowomm xmomm wo>ozoco omgomom H onommoo flH onommooo ommm mmon momHmmzoo mmooo 2oz moo oo mmmHooomoouom m>oomooumm omwomm xmoom vo>o=uaH oonomom H onommoo mH zooommooo ommm mmmom momHmmzHooomooumm m>oumoouoa oowomm omoom wo>osuoH oonoomm H zeooomoo oH onommooo ommm mmon momHmmzoo omooo ooo moo oo mmooonu ooN onoomooo zomomo muHo < oo ooHo < ooo ooo mm>ooqu moo oom mmooo ooommmzoo omoomoo oo mooomoouma m>ooooooom omcogm xmoom oo>osuoH omgommm H onoomoo fiH onoomooo ommm mmmHm moonmzoo mmooo ooo moo oo mmmoozou oNN onoomooo zooomo oooouHomoo oz oom ooo: omoooo oom mmooo moonmzoo mmoomoo oo moouooouon o>ooooouom oovomm omoom om>osuco oonoom H onommoo oH zomoomooo ommm omon ooonmzoooooumm o>ouoooomm oowomm omooo wo>osuoH ooaooom H onoomoo flH onommooo oomm ommHm oomHmmzoo omooo zoo moo oo omooozoo mom onoomooo zooomo momooHoooo oz moo 2oz mmoHoo moo oom ooooo momHmmzoo mmoomoo mo mooooo moo <--oN< mmmoo woa mo. u mucwquo:Mom o.HH n ooosom ooo ooHH Hm NoN on ooN Nom Hoooo ossHoo ooH NH mm Nm oo oo oom oHsoo HN onommoo Noo om NoH NoN NmH Nom oom ooz oHsoo Hoooo 30m m>oowooumo m>oomoouma oooomm xmoon oo>osucH oosooom H zooommoo oH onoomooo oomm omoom moonmzoo omooo 2oz moo oo ommm ooo moo: omoooo oom omooo moonmzoo omoomoo oo mmoomoouom o>oomoouoo omoomm xmoom om>osuoo omaoomm H onoomoo mH onommooo oomm ommHm momHmmzoo omooo zoo moo oo ommoozoo on onoomooo moo om mom 2:: mmoooo moo oom omooo oomHmmzoo omoomoo oo moooooouoo o>ooooouom omwomm xmoon wo>osuao omcomom H zooommoo AH onoomooo oomm omoHo oomHomzoo mmooo 2oz moo oo omoo omo oN NmH mNH moH oNN oo.oo oo oo.oo mo onoomoo mNo om mo HoH mo oHH oo.oo oowa: Hmooo 30m m>ooooouom o>oomooumm oowomm omoom oo>osuco oooooom H onommoo nH onommooo ommm omomm mooHomzoo omooo 2oz moo oo omoooooo omo onommooo zoo omoooo < oom ooomoouon o>ooooouom omoomm omomm oo>o30co ooaooom H onommoo nHo onommooo omomoz momzooo < o< mzoz omoooo oom omooo ooonmzoo omoomoo mo mmoooo Hoo <--om< mmmoo MHH How u monocothmmm m.om u moowscm omo omoH mo moo ooo Nom oNo Hoooo ossHoo oom NH mo oNH oN moH oooo oo -ooo.oNo moo HN oo NHH NoH omH ooo.oHo -ooo.mHo mNo mN omH omH oNH ooN ooo.oHo -ooo.oHo mo zomommoo ooH N Ho om oo om ooo.oo -ooo.No HoH o mm mm oN oo ooo.oo -ooo.oo mo o oN oH mH mo oo.oo owns: Hmooo zoo o>ooooouma m>oooooumm oooomm omoom wo>osuoH omaomom H onommoo mH onoomooo ommm omon oomHmmzoo mmooo zoo moo oo omoooooouom o>ooooooon oowomm omoom Uo>ozuco omnoomm H onoomoo ha ZOHHmMDOV Hmmm QmMHA mHmHAmz9 2:2 mmH OH ommoooooumm m>oomoouom omoomm omoom wo>osuoH omaoomm H zomommoo 5H onommooo ommm ommHm oooHomzoo mmooo 2oz moo oo omoooooo oNo onommooo mmHmHooo .moonmzoo moo oo ooomo mmoomo moo oo omo< moo oo moooom Hoo o--Nm< mmmoo 116 HYPOTHESIS 1: The number of panelists who have zero or three family members who are twelve years old or younger is independent of the mum types panelists liked best (Appendix B, Table A38, p. 117). This hypothesis is rejected. Chi Square = 11.0. Significance = .05. oHH .Hzo oooH mm omm Hoo Hmm omo Hmooo asooou HHN o oo mm om oo ooo: oo oooco mmm mo mo oo Hm moo 03o mm onommoo oom oH mo ow mo oOH ooo NNHH mo mmm omm mmH omm oooz Hoooo 30m o>oooooooo o>ooooooom ooooom omoom oo>o5o:H ooaooom H zomoomoo oH onommooo ommm ommom momHmmz mo GAO mm m>qm3H mm< on? mmHAH2oomoooom o>oomoooon ooooom omoom oo>osuoH oonomom H onoomoo 0:3 mmHAH2ouooooom o>ooooooom ooooom omooo oo>ooooH oonooom H zoooomoo ma ZOHHmmDOV Hmmm QMMHA mequzHmHEH Qz< >Bzm39 mo mmo< mmH zmmzhmm mm< om: mmHAHZooooooom o>ooooooom ooooom omooo oo>ooooH oooooom H onommoo oH onommooo oomm ommmm momHmmzoo mmooo ooo moo oo omooozoo oHo onoomooo omomo oo omo moomo oooom moo ooo mmomHzoo .moonmzoo moo mo mmmmzmo mo ommzoz moo oo moooom Hoo o--Ho< mmmoo APPENDIX F RESULTS FROM GROUP INTERVIEWS Positive Attitudes Toward Flowers. (3) (2) (l) (2) "It gives life to the house. With all the dullness in life, you need flowers." "It's a challenge to see if you can grow it." "I like my indoor plants better than my outdoor plants. I have my indoor plants all year, and I've become an indoor person out of necessity-- with the kids and all." "I got these real cravings for flowers we used to have when I was a child--like gardenias or holly- hocks." Negative Attitudes Toward Flowers. (6) (1) (2) "I feel less inclined to give flowers for funerals because--what happens to the flowers after the funerals? They either take them home and they (the flowers) are just a sad memory or they throw them (the flowers) out." "I don't like to buy lilies at Easter or mums at Thanksgiving because I don't like that 'have to' feeling." "I don't have time to think about flowers." Seasonability of Flowers. (5) "It depends on the time of the year. In the spring I like daffodils and tulips, in the fall there's mums, and of course around Christmas time you have 121 (2) (3) (2) Price. (7) (5) (3) (2) your poinsetteas and cyclamen." "An azalea for Christmas would be a lovely thing, but you can't find them." "From the time the snow melts to the time it falls again I can pick flowers in my own garden." "I feel guilty about cutting flowers from my garden. So, I might buy flowers during the summer even if I had flowers in my garden." "Expense-—that's why I don't buy very many flowers." "I think one reason I buy potted plants and not cut flowers is that at the grocery you can get a big potted plant for $2.50, but you can only get six or seven cut flowers for $1.75." "For special occasions, I would pay more. Also, if I were buying them for someone else." "If I just want to take a little something to a friend I don't want to pay too much." Decorating with Plants and Flowers. (4) (2) "Every picture of every room in the women's magazines these days have plants in them--more the green plants than the flowering plants." "Mostly if I give flowers I try to get something that will go with their color scheme." 122 (1) (2) "When I go down to the farmers market, I just buy the prettiest flowers I don't think of how it will look in the room." "Sometimes the house is torn up. You are making throw pillows or something. I think that's (buy- ing flowers) the last think you do when your house is completely settled." Lasting Qualities of Flowers. (6) (3) (3) "I like flowers to last. I'll admit that I'm cheap and I want my money's worth. If I am paying 'five or ten dollars for it, I want it to last more than five or ten minutes." "I've stopped buying plants. They just don't like me as soon as they get in my house they wilt." "I like cut flowers. I don't have the time or the patience for plants." Shape of Flowers. (2) (2) (3) "I like the flowers that grow singly on a stem. You can control them better in an arrangement." "Orchids just fascinate me. They're so frilly-- light--beautiful." "There's just something about the perfect shape of a rose bud just the way God made it." 123 Smell of Flowers. "I like the smell of lilacs. I'll carry them around from room to room with me just so I can "I love the smell of roses. There's nothing else (2) smell them." (2) like it." Buying Flowers for Themselves. (3) "When I was working I'd stop at Joslines and I'd buy a whole bunch of flowers for thirty cents. But now days, there are so many expenses with the kids growing up that I just don't feel I can treat myself like that." Buyinnglowers for Someone Else. (2) (2) "I'll send flowers to my mother-in-law every Christmas because she has everything else." "Once in a while I'll take a single rose to one of my friends. It makes me feel good as well as making her feel good." Receiving Flowers. (4) (3) "I'd be tickled pink if Tom just brought me dandelions. Men can buy anything." "Every once in a while Joe will bring home some mums or roses and I'll get all weepy eyed and that sort of thing." 124 (2) "The kids were buying them (colored carnations) last week for their mothers (for Mother's Day). My kids brought me six all different colors, and they were all bright colors. But what mother would turn down flowers from her kids." Daisies. (l) "I don't like them. To me daisies are just plain-- ordinary." (3) "I see daisies coming into the house in some little kid's hand." (4) "It's a cheerful feeling of summer, sunshine, running through the fields, breezy . . . " (2) ”Pure, simple, refreshing, springtime . . . " (2) ”I picture a yellow kitchen, a sunny yellow kitchen." (3) "I used them in my wedding." Mums. (4) (I think) "Keep them (mums) as long as you can be- cause they're the last flower you'll see 'til spring." (4) "I like mums because of their warm colors--the oranges and golds." (3) ”They're easy to arrange. They come in so many kinds and colors." (5) "Mums last a long time." 125 (3) "I don't really care for mums because mums--every- body has mums. I like something that's different." (1) "That is the one think wrong with mums-4they make such a mess of the water." (3) "Sometimes I'll ask if the mum will make it out- side, and they'll (the florist) say sure--sure. But they don't, (make it outside)." Mum Types Incurved. (10) "I have a good feeling about them because they bring back memories of high school football games." (2) "Sunshine--sunburst." (4) "It's stocky--more masculine." (5) "I would like it because it looks like a daisy, and I happen to like daisies. It's a spring- fresh--clean type flower." (2) "First time around I'd buy one (daisy mum) just because it was new." (2) "It looks feminine, like you should use it in a wedding shower or baby shower." (2) "I would honestly expect to pay more for it (daisy mum) because it's unusual." (3) "A mum's not supposed to have an eye in the center of it like a daisy." 126 Decorative. (3) "That's (the decorative) what a mum should look like." (2) "It looks like summer--wholesome." Spider. (3) (Spider mums) "Remind me of fireworks on the fourth of July." (2) "It's reaching out." (1) "It looks like it's got little fingers." (3) "Reminds me of oriental. It's (spider mums) sophistocated.” (4) "I like the unusual." Feathered Decorative. (3) "It was all shrivelled. It looked like it was dying." (2) "That mum looks too scraggly. When you get close it looks torn." (l) "I think it's more exotic than scraggly. It's light and airy." 127