. .nr. . . . u I.“
, . I. y
. , n... my? 2.

a; Lynn... :«mww

I _ <
Lalfl‘Mvnflfl

...r 1..

5.

._
ufiwrau.
. 4 n n

x. .h v .
4 l o <..lv..‘

\ .
xiii“), ... uni? .
. ..:.¢.u..nlrf.n.

A . I .
defnsnm4l
Jdmwiuauhnfi lite":

.01.!!! It.

..:|1.H.J'n H
. llhflvrlu.

 

 

                                

Illlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

31293 0155 960

 

LIBRARY

Michigan State F
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Consumer Preferences for Fresh Market Apples

‘ presented by

Jane Louise Beggs

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M.S. degree in Agricultural Economics

 

 

Major professor

Date L/dj O [C] (0

 

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

PLACE ll RETURN BOXto roman thi- chockout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or baton data duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE“ DATE DUE
» JNMLOQEJ l

m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU IoAn Afflnndivo Action/Equal Oppdrhrnlty Instituion
m1

CONSUMER PREFERENCES FOR FRESH MARKET APPLES
By

Jane Louise Beggs

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Agricultural Economics

1996

ABSTRACT

CONSUMER PREFERENCES FOR FRESH APPLES

By

Jane Louise Beggs

To meet consumer demand for fresh apples, the Michigan apple industry needs accurate
information about consumer preferences for apples. A market research project about consumer
preferences for and attitudes about fresh apples was conducted to add to existing market
information. This project included three phases: a review of background information, a series
of consumer focus groups about fresh apples, and a telephone survey of consumers in Detroit
and Chicago.

Survey results indicate that flavor, freedom from bruises and blemishes, and crispness
are very important to 80-90% of the surveyed consumers. Color, variety, and price are very
important to 36-46% of the consumers. Apple size and origin were indicated to be of lesser
importance.

Most of the consumers (57%) said they usually buy fresh apples from bulk displays.
Only 23% said they prefer to buy bagged apples. This is important to the Michigan apple

industry, which has traditionally packed most of its apples in bags.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my major professor, Dr. Donald Ricks, and my other committee
members, Dr. Kirk Heinze and Dr. Tom Pierson, for their patience and sincere interest in this
research. I appreciate all that they have done to provide me with an outstanding graduate
school experience. Thanks also go to the Michigan Apple Committee, who provided much of
the funding for this project.

I am also indebted to many Spartan friends. especially Dave, Jacqueline, Jim, Kristin,
Susan, and Dave, who were great moral support to me throughout the classwork, research and
thesis-writing of this Master's degree program. Last, but certainly not the least, thanks to

Anne, Mom, Dad and Dennis. i couldn't have done it without you.

0..

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables .................................................... viii
List of Figures ................................................... xiii
List of Exhibits ................................................... xiv
Chapter 1: Introduction to The Research Project ........................... 1
1 .1 Introduction. ........................................... 1

1.2 Research setting ......................................... 1

1.3 Purpose and objectives of this study ........................... 2

1.4 Economic rationale ....................................... 3

1.5 Elements of the research project .............................. 3

1.6 Organization of the thesis ................................... 5
Chapter Two: Background on the Research Topic ........................... 6
2.1 Introduction ............................................ 6

2.2 The Michigan Apple Industry ................................ 7

2.2.1 Characteristics of the Michigan apple industry .............. 8

2.2.2 Structure of the Michigan apple industry ................. 11

2.3 The need for market information ............................. 14

2.4 Basic consumer trends .................................... 16

2.4.1 More food is being eaten away from home ............... 16

2.4.2 The population is growing older ....................... 17

2.4.3 Household size is declining .......................... 19

2.4.4 The ethnic make-up of the United States is changing ........ 20

2.4.5 There are new challenges for the U.S. food system ......... 20
2.5 Consumer Preferences for Fresh Apples ........................ 20
2.5.1 Appearance ..................................... 23
2.5.2 Taste ......................................... 25
2.5.3 Firmness or Texture ............................... 26
2.5.4 Crispness ...................................... 27
2.5.5 Consistency .................................... 27
2.5.6 Convenience .................................... 28
2.5.7 Health and Nutrition ............................... 28
2.5.7 Distinctiveness .................................. 29
2.5.9 Purchasing Behavior ............................... 31
2.5.10 Price ........................................ 31
2.7 Conclusions ........................................... 33
Chapter 3 - Focus Groups and Development of the Telephone Survey ............ 35
3.1 Introduction ........................................... 35
3.2 General Research Strategy ................................. 35
3.3 Setting up the focus groups ................................ 36
3.4 Results of focus group questions ............................. 37
3.4.1 The importance of apple characteristics ................. 38
3.4.2 Purchasing Influences in the retail store ................. 41
3.4.3 Bagged or bulk display apples ........................ 43
3.4.4 Variety awareness ................................ 45
3.4.5 How apples are usually used ......................... 50
3.4.6 Consumers' perceptions of and associations with apples ...... 50

3.4.7 Consumers' opinions of the Empire, Gala, and Jonagold
varieties ...................................... 52
3.4.8 Summary of the focus group data ..................... 54

3.5 Some Considerations When Writing the Telephone Survey ........... 55

3.6 Developing the survey instrument ............................ 57
3.6.1 Screening for the appropriate population ................. 58

3.6.2 Identifying important apple characteristics ................ 59

3.6.3 Are most apples bought from bulk displays or in bags? ....... 62

3.6.4 How are fresh apples used? ......................... 63

3.6.5 Variety awareness ................................ 64

3.6.6 How many apple varieties should grocery stores carry? ....... 65

3.6.7 Consumers' impressions of Michigan apples .............. 66

3.6.8 Comparing Michigan apples to those from Washington ....... 66

3.4.9 Demographics ................................... 67

3.5 Summary ............................................. 71
Chapter Four - Results of the Telephone Survey ........................... 73
4.1 Introduction ........................................... 73
4.2 Apple purchases ..................................... .' . . 74
4.3 Importance of various apple characteristics ...................... 75
4.4 Important characteristics for apple varieties ..................... 85
4.5 Apple buying behavior regarding type of pack .................... 86
4.6 Apple use ............................................ 89
4.7 Demand for apple varieties ................................. 90
4.8 Familiarity with apple varieties .............................. 91
4.9 The image of Michigan apples ............................... 95
4.10 Perceptions associated with Michigan apples ................... 96
4.11 Demographics of the surveyed consumers ..................... 96
4.8 Conclusions ........................................... 98
Chapter Five - Analysis and Implications for the Michigan Apple Industry .......... 101
5.1 Introduction ........................................... 101

vi

5.2 Apple Characteristics And Their Importance to Consumers ........... 101

5.2.1 Flavor ........................................ 102

5.2.2 Freedom from bruising and blemishes ................... 103

5.2.3 Crispness ...................................... 104

5.2.4 Color ......................................... 105

5.2.5 Variety ........................................ 106

5.2.6 Size .......................................... 108

5.2.7 Price ......................................... 110

5.3 The relative unimportance of apple origin ....................... 114
5.4 The indicated preference for bulk display apples .................. 116
5.5 Suggestions for future research .............................. 117
5.6 Closing comments ....................................... 1 17
APPENDIX ..................................................... 1 19
Crosstabs ................................................ 120
Focus Group Questions ...................................... 150

vii

List of Tables

Table 1 Total Population Projections. .................................. 18
Table 2 Median U.S. Household Income - By Age Groups .................... 18
Table 3 Connecticut Apple Consumers. ................................ 22
Table 4 01. Does your household purchase apples? ....................... 75
Table 5 012. Do you buy Michigan apples? ............................. 75
Table 6 03. Which apple characteristics are most important to you? ............ 76
Table 7 03. Which apple characteristics are most important to you? ............. 78
Table 8 Importance of Apple Price to Consumers .......................... 79
Table 9 Importance of Price Across Income Segments ...................... 81
Table 10 Importance of Price Across Age Groups ......................... 82
Table 11 Importance of Apple Size ................................... 83
Table 12 Importance of Apple Size Across Age Groups ..................... 84
Table 13 Importance of Where Apples Are Grown ......................... 85
Table 14 Why Apple Varieties Are Preferred ......... ' .................... 86
Table 15 How Apples Are Usually Purchased ............................ 86
Table 16 How Apples Are Purchased Across Income Segments ............... 87
Table 17 How Apples Are Purchased Across Age Groups ................... 88
Table 18 How Fresh Apples Are Used By Consumers ...................... 90
Table 19 Apple Varieties Consumers Think Of ........................... 92
Table 20 Varieties Consumers Are Familiar With .......................... 94
Table 21 Comparing Michigan Apples to Washington Apples ................. 95

viii

Table 22
Table 23
Table 24
Table 25
Table 26
Table 27
Table 28
Table 29
Table 29
Table 30
Table 31
Table 32
Table 33
Table 34
Table 35
Table 36
Table 37
Table 38
Table 39
Table 40
Table 41
Table 42
Table 43
Table 44
Table 45
Table 46

Table 47

Perceptions of Michigan Apples ............................... 96
Telephone Survey Income Distribution .......................... 98
Telephone Survey Age Distribution ............................ 98
Importance of Variety Across Age Groups ....................... 108
Importance of Size Across Age Groups .......................... 110
Importance of Price Across Income Segments ..................... 111
Importance of Price Across Age Groups ......................... 112
Variety by Age - Detroit .................................... 121
Variety by Age -- Chicago ................................... 121
Variety by Age -- Both Markets ............................... 122
Variety by Income -- Detroit ................................. 122
Variety by Income -- Chicago ................................ 122
Variety by Income -- Both Markets ............................. 123
Variety by Gender -— Detroit ................................. 123
Variety by Gender -- Chicago ................................ 123
Variety by Gender -- Both Markets ............................. 124
Color by Income -- Detroit .................................. 124
Color by Income -- Chicago .................................. 124
Color by Income -- Both Markets .............................. 125
Color by Age -- Detroit ..................................... 125
Color by Age -- Chicago .................................... 125
Color by Age -- Both Markets ................................ 126
Color by Gender -- Detroit ................................... 126
Color by Gender -- Chicago .................................. 126
Color by Gender -- Both Markets .............................. 127
Size by Age -- Detroit ...................................... 127
SizebyAge--Chicago............................: ........ 127

Table 48
Table 49
Table 50
Table 51
Table 52
Table 53
Table 54
Table 55
Table 61
Table 57
Table 58
Table 59
Table 60
Table 61
Table 62
Table 63
Table 64
Table 65
Table 66
Table 67
Table 68
Table 69
Table 70
Table 71
Table 72
Table 73

Table 74

Size by Age -- Both Markets ................................. 128
Size by Income -- Detroit ................................... 128
Size by Income -- Chicago .................................. 129
Size by Income -- Both Markets ............................... 129
Size by Gender -- Detroit ................................... 129
Size by Gender -- Chicago .................................. 130
Size by Gender -- Both Markets ............................... 130
Size by Children in the Household -- Detroit ...................... 130
Size by Children in the Household -- Chicago ...................... 131
Size by Children in the Household -- Both Markets .................. 131
Price by Income -- Detroit ................................... 131
Price by Income -- Chicago .................................. 132
Price by Income -- Both Markets .............................. 132
Price by Age -- Detroit ..................................... 132
Price by Age -- Chicago .................................... 133
Price by Age -- Both Markets ................................ 133
Price by Working Outside of the Home -- Detroit. ................... 134
Price by Working Outside of the Home -- Chicago. .................. 134
Price by Working Outside of the Home -- Both Markets ............... 134
Price by Gender -- Detroit ................................... 135
Price by Gender -- Chicago .................................. 135
Price by Gender -- Both Markets .............................. 135
Price by the Presence of Children -- Detroit ....................... 136
Price by the Presence of Children -- Chicago ...................... 136
Price by the Presence of Children -- Both Markets .................. 136
How Apples Are Purchased by the Presence of Children -- Detroit ....... 137
How Apples Are Purchased by the Presence of Children -- Chicago ...... 137

Table 75 How Apples Are Purchased by the Presence of Children -- Both Markets . . . 137
Table 76 How Apples Are Purchased by Age -- Detroit ..................... 138
Table 77 How Apples Are Purchased by Age -- Chicago ..................... 138
Table 78 How Apples Are Purchased by Age -- Both Markets ................. 138
Table 79 How Apples Are Purchased by Gender -- Detroit ................... 139
Table 80 How Apples Are Purchased by Gender -- Chicago ................... 139
Table 81 How Apples Are Purchased by Gender -- Both Markets ............... 139
Table 82 How Apples Are Purchased Across Income Segments -- Detroit ......... 140
Table 83 How Apples Are Purchased Across Income Segments -- Chicago ........ 140
Table 84 How Apples Are Purchased Across Income Segments -- Both Markets . . . . 140
Table 85 How Apples Are Used By Gender -- Detroit ....................... 141
Table 86 How Apples Are Used by Gender -- Chicago ...................... 141
Table 87 How Apples Are Used by Gender -- Both Markets .................. 141
Table 88 How Apples Are Used by Employment -- Detroit ................... 142
Table 89 How Apples Are Used by Employment -- Chicago .................. 142
Table 90 How Apples Are Used by Employment -- Both Markets ............... 142
Table 91 Use by The Presence of Children in the Household -- Detroit ........... 143
Table 92 Use by the Presence of Children in the Household -- Chicago ........... 143
Table 93 Use by the Presence of Children in the Household -- Both Markets ....... 143
Table 94 Use by Income -- Detroit ................................... 144
Table 95 Use by Income -- Chicago ................................... 144
Table 96 Use by Income -- Both Markets ............................... 144
Table 97 Use by Age -- Detroit ...................................... 145
Table 98 Use by Age -- Chicago ..................................... 145
Table 99 Use by Age -- Both Markets ................................. 145
Table 100 Familiarity With Jonathan by Age ............................. 146
Table 101 Familiarity \Mth Rome by Age ............................... 146

xi

Table 102
Table 103
Table 104
Table 105
Table 106
Table 107
Table 108
Table 109

Table 1 10

Familiarity With ldared by Age ............................... 146
Familiarity With Empire by Age .............................. 147
Familiarity Wlth Empire by Income ............................ 147
Familiarity Wlth Paulared by Age ............................. 147
Familiarity Wlth Jonagold by Income .......................... 148
Familiarity With Jonamac by Income .......................... 148
Familiarity With Fuji by Age ................................ 148
Familiarity With Fuji by Income .............................. 149
Familiarity With Braeburn by Age ............................. 149

xii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Michigan's Average Fresh Apple Production ....................... 10
Figure 2 Fresh Apple Marketing Chain ................................. 13
Figure 3 Importance of Apple Variety Across Age Groups .................... 79
figure 4 Choice of Apple Varieties Desired by Consumers ................... 91
ngre 5 Statistical Equality of Apple Characteristics ....................... 113

xiii

List of Exhibits

Exhibit 1 Ineffeciencies of relying on prices as signals.

Exhibit 2 Targeting of consumer preferences by agricultural producers.

Exhibit 3 Consumer Value Perception Relationship

Exhibit 4 Consumer Interest in Apple Varieties.

xiv

16

17

29

59

Chapter 1: Introduction to The Research Project

1.1 Introduction. The research project reported in this thesis concentrates on market
research on consumer preferences and buying behavior concerning fresh apples. This research
included a review of previous consumer market research about apple buying behavior, industry
information, focus groups, and telephone surveys of consumers in two major metropolitan
market areas. All of these components can contribute to the understanding of consumer
preferences for fresh apples. The information collected and analyzed for the research is
intended to contribute to the planning and marketing strategies of the Michigan apple industry.

1.2 Research setting. An objective of this research project is to provide consumer
market behavior information to aid the Michigan apple industry. Therefore, many elements in
the research project were designed to yield information which is particularly relevant for the
Michigan apple industry, including growers, packers and shippers. Several important trade
organizations, especially the Michigan Apple Committee, were involved in the design of this
research project and have expressed strong interest in the results.

The Michigan apple industry is a significant contributor to apple production in the United
States, in some years ranking as the second most important apple producing state. Although
Washington is the nation's leading apple producing region, Michigan, New York and California
are also major apple growing states.

Red Delicious is the most prominent apple variety in these states, although Michigan
also has large acreages of other varieties. This diversity of apple varieties, along with its close
proximity to many major markets, are two of Michigan's competitive advantages in the fresh
apple market. Michigan also markets a large portion of its apple crop for processing into
applesauce, apple slices, juice, baby food and pie filling.

Michigan has many apple growers, many of whom have their fresh market apples

packed by another packer firm. Some of these packers are shippers as well, although many

2

smaller packers ship their apples through separate shippers. Retail grocery stores sell most of
Michigan's fresh apples. Only a very small portion of Michigan's apple crop is sold directly
to consumers through farm markets or roadside stands. This significantly limits the direct
contact that growers might have with the consumers who purchase their apples. Thus,
information about consumer preferences needs to be relayed through several levels of the fresh
apple marketing system before it reaches growers, packers, and shippers. Consumer market
information is also important to apple industry organizations and others in the industry.

Some broad-based surveys of consumer preferences, opinions and behavior about
produce in general (such as the surveys made annually by me Backer). provide useful
information about certain important aspects. On the other hand, existing market research
information about consumer preferences for fresh apples is not as comprehensive as is desirable
for informing current marketing decisions. Existing information about apple consumers does
not primarily relate directly to the Michigan apple industry.

A problem faced by industry decision makers is the need for more relevant information
about current consumer preferences for fresh Michigan apples. Up to date information about
consumer preferences may help the industry adapt to the changing preferences of fresh apple
consumers. A better understanding of these preferences may help the Michigan apple industry
in its marketing activities. It can also help the industry plan its strategies to market the most
desirable product to the consumer.

1 .3 Purpose and objectives of this study. The general objective of this research study
is to provide information about consumer preferences for fresh apples to the Michigan apple
industry and other interested parties. Some specific objectives for this project include:

1. To determine the relative importance of various apple characteristics to consumers'

apple buying decisions. This information may help industry decision makers identify

apple characteristics which should be emphasized in marketing and planning activities.

2. To assess consumers' awareness of and interest in apple varieties. Consumers'
Opinions of specific apple varieties will also be investigated.

3

3. To gauge the image and identity of the Michigan apple industry among consumers.
This includes consumers' comparisons of Michigan apples to those from Washington.

4. To investigate how consumers prefer to buy fresh apples (i.e. bags or bulk.)

5. To find out how consumers are using the fresh apples, for fresh eating, cooking, or
both purposes.

These individual objectives are expected to contribute to the overall goal of generating a useful,
realistic assessment of consumer preferences for fresh apples. Such information may aid
industry planners in their long term strategies.

This research may also serve as a basis for future research. Findings from this project
might contribute to the design of subsequent market research projects about fresh apples.
Analysis of the information generated by this research may reveal topics which are worth
investigating further. This data may also contribute to future forecasts of fresh apple demand.

1 .4 Economic rationale. The economic rationale for this research project is to provide
market information to industry participants in a subsector that is comprised of many small firms.
Small firms, such as apple growers, often do not have the resources to independently collect
information about consumer preferences. Public institutions, especially land-grant universities
like Michigan State, have a long history of providing market information to agricultural firms.‘
This research project is intended to provide additional information to industry decision makers
to facilitate the delivery of the most desirable product to the consumer.

1.5 Elements of the research project. This project consisted of three main stages of
research - a review of previous market research studies about apples and other relevant
literature, focus groups, and a telephone survey of consumers. All of these parts of the project
contribute to the study as a whole. The inclusion of a background literature review, focus
groups, and telephone survey in a consumer market research project is a common process of

assessing consumer preferences.

 

‘Bruce W. Marion and VlfIlIard F. Mueller, “Industrial Organization, Economics and the Food

System,“ in Wing, ed. Paul Farris IAmes: Iowa State
University Press, 1983), 30.

4

The first stage of the research project was a review of previous research and relevant
background information related to consumer preferences for fresh apples. This includes an
overview description of the Michigan apple industry and some basic trends in the United States
food system. There is also a review of existing research about consumer preferences for
produce, especially those focusing on apples.

After reviewing the available background information and studying the appropriate
methodology, a plan for conducting a series of consumer focus groups was developed. A list
of subjects for the participants to discuss in the focus group sessions was developed with the
input of industry groups and with consideration of the information desired for the results. Three
consumer focus groups about fresh apples were conducted.

After considering the results and information generated by the consumer focus groups,
the telephone survey questionnaire was developed. As with the focus groups, industry experts
were involved in the design of the survey instrument to enhance its usefulness for industry
priority needs. The resulting survey questionnaire was used to interview a large sample of
several hundred consumers in Detroit and Chicago. These metropolitan areas were chosen
because of their significance as major markets for the Michigan fresh apple industry.

This particular combination of focus groups and a broad sample telephone survey was
chosen for its overall effectiveness and its efficiency. The focus groups provided detailed
discussion of topics related to consumer perceptions, rationale, and behavior regarding fresh
apples. Such discussion revealed more in-depth attitudes, thought processes or opinions which
could not be obtained with the more specific, structured type of questioning and the limited
time per interview of a telephone or written survey. The focus groups, however, involved only
a very small sample of consumers. Such a limited sample size may not result in very reliable
conclusions about broad-based consumer preferences for fresh apples.

In order to survey a larger sample of the population about their preferences and behavior
for fresh apples, another type of methodology was also needed. Both mail and telephone

surveys can be used to survey a large number of consumers, and were considered.

5

A telephone survey was chosen for this research project because it is comparatively low
in cost and has high response rates in a relatively short period of time. There are some
limitations to telephone surveys, e.g., the interview must be relatively short and visual aids
cannot be used. These limitations affected the design of the questionnaire. However, the
limitations are more than compensated for by the rapid response rates along with the wide
sample size possible using telephone interviews.

1 .6 Organization of the thesis. The rest of the thesis is divided into four chapters. The
order of these chapters mirrors the course of the research project.

The next chapter (Chapter 2) includes a more detailed description of the Michigan apple
industry. Chapter 2 also contains a review of relevant literature, previous research and
background information which contributed to the design of the market research study.

This is followed by Chapter 3, which summarizes the findings of the project’s consumer
focus groups about fresh apples. The information generated by these in-depth consumer focus
groups was used, along with information from the literature review, background information and
industry recommendations, to develop a telephone survey. A review of the process for the
development of the telephone survey instrument is presented in the second half of this chapter.
The rationale for including the specific questions is also included in this section.

Chapter 4 presents a summary of the results of the telephone survey. A report and
analysis of the results from each individual question are included, as well as some
crosstabulations across demographic segments of the population. This part of the thesis
research results includes a great deal of information of interest to industry leaders.

The final chapter of the thesis, Chapter 5, is an analysis of the implications of the

research for the Michigan apple industry. Some future research topics are also suggested.

Chapter Two: Background on the Research Topic

2.1 Introduction. A key component of any market research study is a thorough
investigation of background information including previous research results. Background
information provides researchers with a base for developing the research project. Such
preparation prevents duplication of existing information and helps to define and shape the
research agenda.

For this research, an understanding of the structure of the apple marketing system is
important to position the research in the appropriate context. The first section of this chapter,
section 2.2, presents an overview of the fresh apple marketing system, including major
participants in the marketing chain. The Michigan fresh apple industry includes a dynamic fresh
apple marketing system of growers, packers, shippers, wholesalers and retailers.

Because fresh market apples pass through so many stages on their journey from orchard
to consumer, industry decision makers may not always have clear signals about consumer
preferences. Information about consumer preferences which may be indicated by prices and
demand at the retail level must trickle down through several firms before reaching shippers,
packers and growers. Apple growers, packers and shippers often make important decisions
without first-hand information, or with only partial information about consumer preferences for
their products. Although relative prices received for different varieties and qualities provide
some indications about overall consumer preferences, this price information is often incomplete
and fragmentary. A consumer market research study may help to alleviate this information
shortage.

Basic consumer food trends may impact the future needs of the Michigan apple
industry. Changing demographics have caused shifts in how the nation eats and hence the

buying behavior of many consumer segments. These changes have affected apple consumption

7

in the past, and may continue to influence future purchase preferences and behavior related to
fresh apples.

This brief summary of general consumer food trends provides a backdrop for a
discussion of issues focusing particularly on apples. In Section 2.5, some of the existing
research on consumer preferences for fresh apples is presented along with some information
about general preferences for produce.

The research project itself has drawn upon background information in several ways.
The background research revealed topics which needed further research, and it helped to
identify subjects which are lower priority. A review of previous research projects can also help
the researchers to design an effective research instrument. Background research may aid in
the interpretation of new research findings and to set an overall perspective for the project and
its results.

2.2 The Michigan Apple Industry. Understanding the current situation of the Michigan
apple industry, including growers, packers, and shippers, provides a setting for the market
research of this project. Because an important goal of this research is to provide useful
information to the Michigan apple industry, understanding the current position of the industry
and future challenges it faces is important.

In this section, the marketing system of the Michigan apple industry is described. Some
of the characteristics of this marketing system, such as the distance between producers and
consumers, contribute to the need for this type of consumer market research. Very few apple
producers have frequent contact with consumers to develop an informal sense of consumer
preferences for their product.

Many different firms in the apple industry make decisions affecting how fresh apples
are marketed. When considering consumer preferences for apples, it is important to consider
which firms in the marketing chain are responsible for what aspects in order for the industry
to meet those preferences. For example, consumer preferences for bagged or tray packed

apples may be especially relevant to packers and shippers.

8

2.2.1 Characteristics of the Michigan apple industry. The Michigan apple industry
produces an average of around 21 to 22.5 million bushels annually. Of this crop, an average
of 7.1 million bushels in recent years has been sold in the fresh market. Apples are the largest
of the state's fruit or vegetable crops in terms of both acreage and value. Both total apple
production in Michigan and fresh sales volume are expected to increase somewhat in the future.
This increase is expected to come from increasing yields rather than new plantings.’z

Approximately 35% of Michigan's apple crop is sold for fresh consumption. This makes
the fresh market the largest single outlet for Michigan apples. On the other hand, the
proportion of Michigan's apples going to the fresh market is below the national average.
Nationally, about 56% of apples are sold in the fresh market.3 The remainder of the Michigan
apple crop is sold for processing, either into sauce, slices, or juice. Although Michigan has
some competitive advantages in these markets, there is also increasing competition in the
processing markets from certain other growing regions.‘

While some varieties of apples are particularly suited to slicing or other processing uses,
and a premium might be paid for these apples compared to other varieties for processing,
grower prices for fresh market apples are generally somewhat higher than those for processing
apples. There are, however, considerable variations in prices received depending on quality,
variety, year, specific market, etc. The five year average of Michigan grower prices for fresh
apples from 1989 to 1993 was $0.132 per pound. This is considerably higher than the
comparable average of prices received for Michigan processed apples, $0.073 per pound.I5 For

a number of reasons, including, in part, the potential for higher prices received for fresh market

 

2Donald Ricks. "Competitive Marketing of Michigan Apples," a paper presented at the
International Dwarf Fruit Tree Association Conference, Grand Rapids, MI, February 21, 1994.

3Ricks, ”Competitive Marketing of Michigan Apples.”
‘Ricks, “Competitive Marketing of Michigan Apples."

I‘Compiled from Marketing Michigan Fruit (1991, 1992, 1993), Michigan Department of
Agriculture.

9

apples, some segments of the industry are especially interested in strategies that would expand
this market.

The total volume of U.S. apple production has increased in the past two decades. In
the early 1970’s the average annual production of the U.S. apple industry was 149.6 million
bushels. By 1980-84, annual production had reached 196.9 million bushels, and the estimated
average of U.S. apple production between 1990 and 1993 is around 242 million bushels.

During this period, Michigan's apple production has also increased from an average of
15.7 million bushels per year in 1970-74 to around 19 million bushels annually in the early
1980's. Estimates of Michigan's annual apple production between 1990 and 1993 are 22.2
million bushels.

As the total amount of U.S. apple production utilized for fresh apples has increased from
83.8 million bushels in the early 1970’s to an estimated 136.7 million bushels between 1990
and 1993, the volume of Michigan's apples sold in the fresh market has also increased (see
Figure 1). However, it should be noted that Michigan's share of the fresh apple market has
declined somewhat in recent years. Between 1970 and 1974, Michigan averaged around 6.8%
of the nation's fresh apple utilization. It is estimated that, in 1990-93, 5.6% of the domestic
fresh apple supply came from Michigan. During this time period other geographic regions, such
as Appalachia, North Carolina and New England, have seen more severe reductions in their
share of the fresh apple market. Western apple producing regions, especially Washington, have
realized large increases in their share of the U.S. fresh market apple supply.‘ Increasing
Michigan's volume of fresh apple sales and, if possible, its share of the U.S. fresh apple market
would be desirable for the Michigan apple industry.

In the fresh apple market, supply is influenced by the amount of the season's apple

production, and prices are significantly affected by this factor. The frequent oversupply of

 

0Donald Ricks, Timothy Woods, and Donald Hinman, ”Changing Competitive Position and
Key Market Trends of the Michigan Apple Industry,” lEast LAnsing, MI: Michigan State
Univeristy, Department of Agricultural Economics, November, 1994), photocopied.

10

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

O I ' I
Michigan 3 Average Fresh Apple ProductIon
" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 726"""""'I7,-.7f """
1:2,- E§3§3§3§5§5§5§5§5 ‘
7- --------------------------------------- (55333553235533; --------- EgigigigisisEgisi - - - - - - - - . 23553535355552; - - --
”9.3...
v ------- s .7 ---------- ---------
g s - - - -- i - - -- - - - - --------- E - - - - - - -- -------- « - - ~-
3
‘5 ‘I _...- 35535555533355? " - -- 35335535253553}? - - - ' - - - - ‘EEEEEEEEEESEESEEE ’ - - ‘ - - : - ' 55355255525555525 -------- i 3553555555555555 -
g 53353323555535553 35555355525553535 53555553535555533 Esisisisisisisisi 33553555555525:
8 s - - - -- - - - - - - - - --------- --------- --------- - - - -
§ E=E=E=E=E:E=E:E=S 5:332:32??? 5:3:5:§:5:E:E:S:E 5235:3523: 52223553
2---- ......... - - - - - - -. . - - - - - - -.
l a ‘ ' " 35555535535535? " ' ' ' ‘ ' ‘ 55555533555335355 ' ' ‘ ' ' ' ' ' '55333555335533553 """"" ESEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE " ' ' ' ' ' " 53555353555555? ' ' ' ‘
O :-:-:-:-l:-:-:-:-‘ -:-:-:-:i:-:-:~:- :-:-:-:-i-:-:-:-: -:-:-:-:-[:-:-:.:- .;.;.;.;].;.;.;.;
1970-74 1975-79 1980-84 1985-89 1990-93

 

 

 

Figure 1. Michigan's Average Fresh Apple Production

apples in the national market may depress apple prices to growers. Very low apple prices may
result in financial challenges to many applegrowers.7

In part to alleviate some of the problems caused by overproduction, the apple industry
is working to expand demand for fresh apples. This can include consumer promotions which
encourage greater consumption for fresh apples. It may also involve a number of other
adjustments including plantings of preferred varieties, strains and qualities to reflect newer
consumer demands for varieties and quality.

Red Delicious is the variety with the largest commercial acreage in Michigan, but other

varieties are also produced in significant commercial volume. Some of these important varieties

 

7Donald Ricks, i hi n A I In -- A Markeiing Overview (East Lansing, MI:
Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural Economics, 1991) Staff Paper 91-4, 13.

11

include Jonathan, McIntosh, Golden Delicious, Ida Red, Rome, Northern Spy, Empire, Paula
Red, and \Mnesap.’ Newer varieties being planted by some Michigan growers include
Jonagold, Gala and Fuji.

The Michigan apple industry has substantial promotional programs designed to increase
the demand for Michigan's fresh market apples as well as for processed apples. These
promotions emphasize some of the advantages of Michigan apples, especially the wide selection
of apple varieties grown in the state. Michigan, "The Variety State,“ uses the theme "Michigan
Apples -- More Than Just Delicious" on some point of purchase materials and some advertising
and promotions. This message emphasizes the choice of apple varieties that Michigan offers
to consumers.

In addition to emphasizing its wide selection of apple varieties, the Michigan apple
industry has promoted another of its strengths, which is Michigan apples’ exceptional taste.
The 'Flavorbest' theme is used in marketing advertising, promoting, etc. for Michigan apples.
Informing consumers of the excellent flavor of Michigan apples is seen as an important way of
boosting demand for the state’s apples.

2.2.2 Structure of the Michigan apple industry. Michigan has a relatively large number
of apple growers. Most of these growers do not sell their produce directly to consumers. At
most, only about 10% of fresh apples are sold through farm markets or U-Pick operations.“
Thus very few growers have the direct contact with consumers thatmight enable them to get
an informal perception of what consumers want in fresh apples. Apple growers must rely upon
firms at other stages of the apple marketing chain for information about consumer preferences.
To some degree, this also applies to other industry segments such as packers and shippers.

An important early link in the fresh apple marketing chain is that between growers and

packers. (See Figure 2) Most apple growers send their fresh market apples to a packer for

 

'Donald Ricks. r n in . A I Pr ' n ' M rk . (East Lansing, MI:
Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural Economics, 1991 I, Staff Paper 91-2.

'Ricks. "The Michigan Apple Industry -- A Marketing Overview.”

12

sorting and packing into bags, tray packs, etc. for sale to the retailer-wholesaler. The packer
is responsible for the removal of any apples not suitable for fresh market sales, and for the
sorting of fresh apples into the appropriate grades and qualities as demanded by the market.
Many of these packers are apple growers themselves. Some of the packers are also responsible
for the shipment and sale of apples to retail produce buyers. Others have the apples they pack
shipped by another firm. Packer-shippers often store the fresh apples in regular or controlled
atmosphere storage until the fruit are to be packed and delivered to the retailer-wholesaler.

A portion of the fresh apple crop is also sold to food service markets. Most food
service companies acquire fresh apples through wholesale produce firms who buy from
Michigan shippers.

Most apples are sold directly from shippers to large retailer-wholesaler chains or to co-
op wholesale buyers. Independent wholesale produce buyers also acquire some fresh apples
for retail stores, although this is relatively minor. Brokers may negotiate the sales between
apple shippers and wholesale buyers. Wholesalers may be owned by the grocery stores, either
wholly or c00peratively, or they may be independent firms. Individual grocery stores then take
delivery of fresh apples from these wholesalers. In order to successfully sell their apples, apple
shippers must meet the buyers' expectations for fresh apples.

Trade buyers require apples which meet their physical standards. Most fresh market
apples are expected to have high color and size standards, and to be free from defects and
bruising. Absence of any damage from diseases or pests has been expected for some time.
Red varieties which do not have a high percent of red color, or are smaller to medium sized, are
typically viewed as inferior products by produce buyers. Michigan apples, which tend to be
smaller and not as highly colored as those from Washington State, are sometimes not priced
as high by produce buyers as apples from Washington. Evidence that these characteristics of
high red color and large size are not extremely important to many consumers might aid the

Michigan apple industry in its marketing activities.

13

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fresh Apple Marketing Chain

Consumers

 

 

 

 

 

/ A \
Food Service
Grocery .
Retailers Retailers
I |
Food Service
Wholesalers Wholesalers

 

 

 

 

 

\(

Fresh Apple ]/

Shippers

 

‘ I

 

 

C Packers D

1

(Apple Growers D

 

 

 

Figure 2 Fresh Apple Marketing Chain

 

l4

Crispness is another apple attribute which is becoming increasingly important for the
successful marketing of fresh apples. In response to the desire for crisp apples, the
Washington state apple industry introduced minimum firmness standards for its fruit.‘°

Although such regulations may keep softer fruit from being shipped, they do not control
the firmness of the apples once they reach the retail store. Poor storage and handling practices
at the retail level may compromise the overall quality of apples which were highly crisp when
shipped. Apple growers and shippers may have little control over the storage practices of the
retailers who sell their apples. Many of these retailers do not display apples in refrigerated
display.

Retailers, who, from the consumer's viewpoint, are responsible for the most visible part
of apple marketing, have a significant impact on fresh apple sales. The retailer's choice of
display method and positioning in the produce department may affect consumer purchases of
apples. Information about consumer preferences for display and information in retail stores may
be useful to grocers.

2.3 The need for market information. Market information must often pass through
several entities before it reaches decision makers at the production level. For fresh apples, this
means that accurate consumer preference information about fresh apples must be relayed
through retailers, wholesalers, shippers and packers before it is received by the growers who
produce the apples.

Conventional economic theory indicates that prices reveal preferences, and that the sale
of a product such as apples indicates consumer demand for such a good. Higher prices for an
apple variety should indicate stronger consumer preferences for the characteristics which that
apple displays. To some extent, prices do reflect consumers" willingness to pay for different
varieties, qualities, packs, etc. of apples. In the case of fresh apples, however, price may be

influenced more by the supply of apples than by consumer demand (preferences) for apples.

 

1°Geraldine Warner, “New Firmness Standard Eliminates U.S. No.1,“ ihg Paging, 21
October, 1989, Washington Apples Section, 4C.

15

Theoretically, a high price for a variety should indicate consumer preferences for that
variety, signaling producers to grow more of that apple variety. However, the increased prices
which a consumer might pay for a preferred apple are not always transferred back to growers
as higher farm prices. The farm value as a percent of the total retail price of apples is rather
small. For Red Delicious apples, the farm value is often less than 30% of the total retail
price.“ Premium prices paid at the grocery store might result in only a much smaller increase
in the price to the grower, an increase which may not justify the large cost of replanting an
orchard. Similarly, a very low price for apples at the farm level might not be translated into low
retail prices. Price signals are often muffled by the large spread between farm and retail prices
and many other practices and behavior in the markets between grower and consumer. Exhibit
1 is an example explaining some of the inefficiencies of relying only on prices to signal

consumer preferences.
Exhibit 1 Ineffeciencies of relying on prices as signals.

“The price differentials that consumers pay or would be willing to pay for different
qualities of a product, in many cases, are not reflected fully through the marketing
system to producers; they are narrowed down or eliminated on the way. Producers
do not getthe right price signals from consumers.”

-Geoffrey S. Shepherd and Gene A. Futrell. Mnrkniing mm W
MAM I ' . p.20.

Producers and other decision makers in the apple industry can study which types of
apples receive premium prices and try to supply apples with similar characteristics. However,
the farm price may give growers partial or unclear signals about consumer preferences. One
way to add to information about consumer preferences for fresh apples can be to ask them
through some type of large sample survey.

If prices are not a completely reliable source of information about all aspects of

consumer preferences, and direct communication between the apple industry and consumers

 

"Denis Dunham. Enng fins; Review, 1993. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Commodity Economics Division, 1993) Report 696.

16

is rare, and hence difficult, some other means of understanding consumer preferences needs
to be used. A common tool of other food industry firms and associations is consumer market
research. Large food companies such as Kraft Foods, Inc. and PepsiCo have extensively utilized
market research for years. The markets of the future may demand a similar use of market
research by industries which have traditionally had a commodity orientation, including the apple
industry.

As Exhibit 2 suggests, the astute targeting of consumer preferences by agricultural
producers may reveal opportunities for profit. The identification of specific demands by
consumers may provide producers with some profitable market niches in the future.

Exhibit 2 Targeting of consumer preferences by agricultural producers.

'Start with the pickier consumer. Where there are strong preferences, there
are opportunities for profit through differentiating the product...Producers need to
look beyond production to marketing, taking an interest in consumer demands and
tailoring the production process to meet these demands.”

-Christopher Peterson and Scott Swinton. “Agribusiness Opportunities in the
21st Century” in Choices. Third Quarter, 1992.

2.4 Basic consumer trends. Much work has been done to understand how consumers
make their food purchasing decisions. The following section provides a base of consumer
market research information about general trends in food consumption.

The U.S. food system has undergone significant changes in recent decades. Some of
these changes are a direct result of changing demographics, including the involvement of a high
percentage of women in the paid work force. An aging population, smaller family/household
size and increasingly heterogenous ethnic mix have also influenced how U.S. citizens eat."

2.4.1 More food is being eaten away from home. The involvement of many women
in the paid workforce has placed increased time pressures on many households which, in turn,

influences food purchases and preparation behavior. Because of these time pressures, there

 

"Ben Senauer, Elaine Asp, Jean Kinsey. Ennn Trends mg m Changing gnnsnmer. (St.
Paul, MN: Eagan Press, 1991), pp.2-5.

I7

is less time available for meal preparation. As a result, many consumers prefer to purchase
considerable prepared or semi-prepared foods rather than raw ingredients for meals.
Consumers are also purchasing a higher percentage of their meals from restaurants rather than
cooking at home. In 1993, 60% of the money spent on food in the United States was spent
in the grocery store. The other 40% was spent at food service establishments." The
proportion of food expenditures that is spent on away-from-home eating is growing faster than
that spent in grocery stores.“

2.4.2 The population is growing older. The age groups which are projected to show
the greatest increases in population in the next twenty years are those between the ages of 45
and 64 (See Table 1). The percentage of the population older than age 75 is also expected to
grow. An increase in the average age of the population may have some important impacts on
food demand. Food products which meet the needs of consumers in these age groups may be
increasingly successful as these population segments grow.

Consumers between the ages of 55 and 64 tend to spend the most per capita on
food.“ Consumers between the ages of 45 and 54 also have relatively high per capita
expenditures on food. The higher per capita food expenditures of people in these age groups
suggest a special willingness to spend more for products with desirable attributes. As these
age groups grow in relation to the rest of the population, there may be more of a demand for
“premium“ products, including apples.

The increased per capita expenditures on food by consumers between the ages of 45
and 64 may be a result of the higher incomes of these age segments relative to many other age

groups. Middle-aged consumers tend to have higher incomes than younger people and retired

 

“’Denis Dunham. ang 9951 Review, 1993.

“Dunham, ”Food Cost Review, 1993.”

“James R. Blaylock, David M. Smallwood, and W. Noel Blisard. ng Dig Hggsnhglg
gngnaggri rigging Aging; ang Sgengiing' In 1980- -?88. (United States Department of Agriculture,

Economic Research Service, February, 1992), Bulletin 643.

18
Table 1 Total Population Projections.

Total Population Projections

Percent Change

age 1990-2000 20 -2 1
18-24 -3.5 7.6
25-34 -15.4 1 .1
35-44 15.9 -15.3
45-54 46.0 16.1
55-64 13.1 46.7
65-74 -0.7 15.3
75 + 26.2 10.1
-§_teii_s_Liea_l Me nf ine United Sjetee, ed. James E. Person, Jr. p. 602.

 

Table 2 Median U.S. Household Income - By Age Groups

Median U.S. Household Income - By Age Groups

1991 dollars
Total Population $30,126
15-24 $1 8,31 3
25-34 $30,842
35-44 $39,349
45-54 $43,751
55-64 $33,304
65 + $1 6,975
-from the WW, 1993 edition.

pe0ple (see Table 2). People above the age of 64 spend less per capita on food than those

19

between the ages of 45 and 64, perhaps reflecting the decrease in income after retirement for
some peeple.

Older people may be more concerned with their health than are younger people, and
thus demand more nutritious foods. The 1993 Fresh Trends consumer survey found that
consumers above the age of 50 are more likely than younger people to buy a produce item
because of concerns about nutrition. These older consumers are especially concerned with
getting enough fiber in their diets. This could be very beneficial to the fresh apple industry,
because apples are a food which provides dietary fiber with no fat and few calories.

2.4.3 Household size is declining. Along with the rise in the median age of the
American population may come a continued decline in household size. Over half of the
population lives alone or only with one other person. While the average number of people per
household in 1970 was 3.14, by 1980 it had declined to 2.76 people per household, and by
1993 the average household size had shrunk to 2.63 members. Family size also declined from
an average of 3.58 family members in 1970 to 3.16 people per family in 1993."

Between 1980 and 1993, the percentage of the population composed of married
couples with children declined from 31% to 26%.17 The percentage of the population living
alone or with one other person has risen from 46% in 1970 to 54% in 1980, and up to 57%
in 1990." Single parent and non-family households are expected to continue to increase as
a percent of the total population." These numbers all describe a population living in smaller

and smaller household units. Smaller households may be less inclined to buy large packages

 

"U.S. Bureau ofthe Census, i i IA r f h ni e 1 4(114th edition)
(Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1994), Chart No. 66.

1’Census Bureau, 1994, Chart 67.

"Census Bureau, 1994, Chart 67.

1“James E. Person, ed., §I§Ii§ti§§| Ferecaets ef ihe Uniiee Sietee, (Detroit: Gale Research,
Inc., 1993). p.651.

20

of food for fear that the food will spoil before it can be eaten. This could affect the demand
for perishable food packed in large quantities, including bagged apples.

2.4.4 The ethnic make-up of the United States is changing. A great deal of the
nation's future population growth will come from Hispanic and Asian American populations.’o
Identifying particular apple characteristics which are especially valued by these ethnic groups
could help the Michigan apple industry to target them in promotions.

2.4.5 There are new challenges for the U.S. food system. The changing lifestyles of
consumers have resulted in new demands on the food system. Some general trends in the
contemporary food system include the increasing importance of convenience, quality, variety
and excitement, nutrition, safety and health, and environmental and social concerns." The
success of food products, including fresh apples, will depend upon the food systems' ability
to provide these desired characteristics to the consumer to meet these needs. The degree to
which food products possess these qualities of convenience, quality, etc. helps to determine
the food product’s value to consumers and hence their demand.

2.5 Consumer Preferences for Fresh Apples. Supplying consumers with fresh apples
that meet consumer preferences will likely require adaption to new consumer demands by
shippers, packers and growers working together. These firms are responsible for many of the
production and packaging decisions which affect the characteristics of fresh apples at retail.
These participants in the Michigan apple industry have the responsibility of recognizing which
attributes need to be provided to meet consumer demand. This is important to building the
consumer demand for Michigan apples.

Food marketers are placing a renewed emphasis on delivering value to consumers.

While many of the programs and articles written about the importance of value are aimed at

 

20James E. Person, isi IA r f h ni .

"John W. Allen and Thomas R. Pierson. F M rk in n ' ri ' ° Im ' ‘
Agnegmne, (East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Food Industry Institute, 1993),

Report 9301.

21

food manufacturers and retailers, the fresh apple industry also needs to be alert to the
importance of value to consumers. Because some of the characteristics of fresh apples are
influenced substantially by producers and packers, these firms have a large stake in
understanding consumer preferences in order to effectively serve changing demand for apples.

Allen and Pierson of Michigan State University have developed a consumer value
perception relationship illustrating some of the decision processes of consumers as they shop

for food. This is summarized in Exhibit 3.
Exhibit 3 Consumer Value Perception Relationship

Consumer Value Perception = Benefits + Price

Benefits include:

Appearance Excitement Taste
Consistency Freshness Trust
Convenience Nutrition Information
Environment Ouality Distinctiveness
Social Safety Variety

Successful marketing of food products will increasingly depend upon the producers' ability to
incorporate these consumer benefits into the product.” The fresh apple industry will have
opportunities and challenges in meeting consumers' desire for value.

The results of several consumer studies are reviewed in this section. Several editions
of Ine Eagken’e fleet; M consumer survey are also cited as an important source for this
section.

Another major source of background information is a study of consumer preferences
for apples conducted by researchers at the University ofConnecticut.23 As part of this

research project, consumers at a variety of retail markets were surveyed about the relative

 

22Ibitl.

”Robert J. Leonard and James J. Wadsworth, W
W. (University of Connecticut: Department of Agricultural

Economics and Rural Sociology), Report 4.

22
Table 3 Connecticut Apple Consumers.

Percent of Connecticut Apple Consumers Considering a Factor to be Very

Important
Appearance 76.5%
Texture 72.2%
Sweetness 61 %
Price 23.6%
CT Grown 16.8%

importance of several apple characteristics to their apple purchasing decisions (see Table 3).
These consumers also were presented with several pairs of apples and asked to select one over
another. The results indicated that consumers tended to choose highly red, larger, waxed, and
unbruised apples.

Washington State University researchers also conducted a consumer survey about
preferences for fresh apples." Untrained consumer panelists were asked to identify the most
important of a series of pre-purchase and post-purchase apple attributes affecting their
purchasing decisions. Apple characteristics which consumers can evaluate before actually
buying the fruit were in the pre-purchase category. These included the price, color, size, and
shape of the apples. Color was said to be the most important factor by 41 % of the consumers,
and price was the most important to 38% of the panelists. Size and shape were not said by
many panelists to be the most important pre-purchase apple characteristics. There were some
indications from this study that younger consumers were more likely than older consumers to
consider color to be an important apple attribute.

Apple characteristics which consumers can judge only after purchasing the apple were
evaluated separately as post-purchase characteristics. The post-purchase attributes which the
panelists evaluated were texture, flavor, sweetness, and tartness. Texture was the most
important post-purchase characteristic to 39% of the Washington state panelists while flavor

was the most important attribute to 35% of these consumers. The remaining post-purchase

 

"Vicki McCracken, Bernd Maier, Terri Boylston, and Thomas Worley, “Development of a
Scheme to Evaluate Consumer Apple Variety Preferences," in Wm
amp, February 1994. pp. 56-63.

23

characteristics of sweetness and tartness were indicated to be important, but not the meet
important attributes to most consumers' post-purchase ratings of apples.

Due to the design of this project, pre-purchase characteristics cannot be compared with
post-purchase characteristics for their relative importance to consumers. Because the
characteristics were evaluated separately, one cannot draw conclusions, for example, about
whether or not price is more important to consumers than flavor.

The results of the previous studies about consumer preferences are presented in the
following sections in the framework suggested by Pierson and Allen's value relationship.

2.5.1 Appearance. There are a number of attributes of appearance of apples which are
highly emphasized by many in the produce trade. The several components of apple appearance
include color, size, freedom from bruising and blemishes, the overall shape of the fruit, and
others.

Some in the trade give a special emphasis to bright red fruit when considering red-
skinned apple varieties. Larger fruit have also been given special emphasis. Absence of defects
and damage from pests and diseases has been demanded for some time by produce buyers.

Several consumer surveys have documented that the appearance of produce is an
important traditional and current attribute to consumers. In 1992, Ine Peekere'e flesnl'cenge
survey revealed that 97% of consumers feel that the appearance of produce is extremely or
very important to them.

Studies which have focused specifically on apples have confirmed that apple
appearance is indeed important to consumers. Researchers at the University of Connecticut
conducted a series of interviews with consumers at supermarkets and other retail stores where
fresh apples were sold. About 77% of these consumers said that the appearance of apples was

very important to them."

 

”Leonard, et al.

24

In addition to being questioned about the importance of various apple characteristics,
the Connecticut consumers were asked to choose one apple over another in a series of pairs.
The apples were paired with each other to reflect several apple characteristics, including
appearance. When asked to choose between apples which varied in their degree of redness,
the consumers showed a preference for the more completely red fruit. This confirms the
traditional emphasis on highly colored apples.

In addition to preferring fully red colored apples, the Connecticut consumers also
showed a preference for waxed apples. The preference for waxed apples contrasts with some
of the flee/1m surveys, in which a substantial percentage of consumers indicated that wax
is a subject of concern to many consumers. Over a third of the consumers who were surveyed
for the 1315 flesn Lrenne report said that they probably or definitely would not eat produce
it they knew it was coated in a food grade wax."6 Nevertheless, when faced with an actual
choice between waxed and unwaxed apples, the pleasing appearance of waxed apples appears
to be preferred by many consumers.

When choosing among pairs of apples, the Connecticut consumers showed a preference
for unbruised fruit. This supports the historical attention given to providing undamaged fruit
for retail sales.

The relative unimportance of fruit size to the panelists in the Washington State research
project draws into question the importance of apple size to U.S. consumers. However, other
consumer research projects indicate that size may indeed by an important factor to some or
many consumers.

The importance of apple size is a particularly important issue to the Michigan apple
industry. Due, in part, to the growing conditions in the state, Michigan apple growers tend to

produce a somewhat higher percentage of smaller fruit than is produced in western growing

 

W “Fresh Trends”, 1992.

25

regions. The traditional emphasis on larger fruit provides challenges for the Michigan apple
industry as it works to position its apples competitively in grocery stores.

Some recent consumer surveys, including £r_es_h £91115. have indicated that larger fruit
may not always be preferred by consumers. In the 1994 Enesn M consumer survey, 39%
of the consumers said that they perceive no difference in the taste of smaller or larger fruit.
Of those who said that size does make a difference in the taste of the fruit, more preferred the
taste of smaller fruit to that of larger fruit. While 36% of the consumers said that smaller fruit
tastes better, only 19% said that larger fruit tastes better.

To the consumers surveyed for the flesn [Limes study, apples were the fruit for which
size was most likely to matter to taste. 36% of the consumers who felt that size influences
fruit flavor said that apples are the fruit for which size affects the taste the most. Based on the
large number of people who said that smaller fruit has better taste than larger fruit, one can
infer that some consumers prefer the taste of smaller apples.

Evidence from the Connecticut survey, however, supports the hypothesis that larger
apples are preferred by consumers. When the consumers were asked to choose between two
apples, many selected the larger of the two fruit. The Connecticut authors noted that the
implied preference for larger fruit was not held by all of the consumers. There was a
percentage of the consumer sample who said that large apples are not desirable for children
because the children cannot eat an entire apple, and it ends up being thrown away.27 These
consumers seem to provide a potential market for smaller apples.

2.5.2 Taste. How important is taste to consumers? Almost all consumers (96%)
polled for the 1992 green Lrengs survey said that taste/flavor is extremely to very important
to them.

The study performed by the University of Connecticut did not obtain information about

the importance of general flavor in the consumer's buying decision, but it did investigate the

 

”Leonard and Wadsworth.

26

importance of sweetness. In the Connecticut study, sweetness proved to be less important
than appearance and texture, and more important than price or being Connecticut grown. A
majority of the consumers (61%) said that sweetness was very important to them.”

The Washington State research project was more detailed in its investigation of the
importance of apple flavor to consumers. The Washington State panels were questioned about
apples' sweetness, tartness, and general apple flavor. Flavor was contrasted with the other
characteristics grouped as “post-purchase attributes.“ Flavor was slightly less important than
texture (39%) and more important than sweetness and tartness. Of the consumers surveyed,
35% said that flavor was the most important "post-purchase attribute."°

2.5.3 Firmness or Texture. The Washington State study investigated the importance
of flavor relative to texture. Texture was found to be very important to about 72% of the
Connecticut consumers. Another 22% said that it was somewhat important. Only appearance
was indicated by these consumers to be more important than texture.”

Many of the panelists who rated apple attributes at Washington State University said
that the firmness of the apple was the most important post-purchase apple characteristic.
Texture was very important to slightly more people (39%) than flavor (35%.) The panelists in
the Washington State study were not directly asked to compare post-purchase characteristics
with pre-purchase characteristics. However, the percentage of consumers who said that
texture is the most important post-purchase characteristic is similar to the proportion saying
price (38%) and color (41 %) are the most important pre-purchase characteristics affecting their
apple purchases. Therefore, texture may be as important to consumers as the frequently

emphasized characteristics of price and color.

 

”Leonard and Wadsworth.
"McCracken, et al.

”Leonard and Wadsworth.

27

2.5.4 Crispness. Neither the Connecticut or Washington State surveys asked
consumers directly about the importance of crispness. However, there is an indirect indication
from the Washington State project that crispness or firmness is important to consumers.

The Washington State panelists were asked to perform sensory evaluations of several
different apple varieties. The consumers' evaluations were then compared with quantitative
tests to confirm the importance of factors which can be measured by laboratory instruments.
When these consumers rated several apple varieties, they tended to prefer firmer apple
varieties."

2.5.5 Consistency. Consistency is a value component in the Pierson-Allen framework
which poses challenges to the fresh produce trade, including the apple industry. Due to the
variances which are present in the production of any agricultural commodity, uniform
consistency cannot be guaranteed by the grower. For products which are processed before
being sold to the consumer, the inconsistencies of the raw product are not especially noticeable
to consumers. Processing of food usually results in a relatively uniform product. For items
such as fresh apples, which undergo minimal processing on the way from farm to consumer,
the issue of consistency poses more of a problem.

Ensuring consistent overall quality is important because produce buyers place a great
deal of emphasis on consistent quality of the apples that they buy.“’2

In the 1993 am M consumer survey, consumers were asked which year-round
produce items they are the most consistently satisfied with. 39% of the consumers named
bananas and apples, making apples one of the two most consistently satisfying fresh fruits to
consumers. Only 8% of the consumers mentioned dissatisfaction with the consistency of apple

quality.” The percentage of consumers who are not satisfied with the consistency of apples

 

"McCracken, et al.

’W. “Meeting Retail Demand," 20 October, 1990, Washington Apples Section,
p.48.

’W “Fresh Trends“, 1993.

 

28

is quite a bit smaller than the proportion of consumers who feel that apples are consistently
satisfying.

Consistent satisfaction with fresh produce may become increasingly important to a
population which has become accustomed to the standardized food produced by fast food
restaurants and frozen dinner manufacturers. As consumers come to expect uniform,
processed food without variations in quality, they are becoming less tolerant of the inherent
variation of fresh produce. .

2.5.6 Convenience. The push for more convenient foods has spurred the development
of many new items in the produce department, most notably pre-cut salads. Fresh fruits, such
as pro-cut melons and pineapples, have also been adapted to meet consumer demand. Of 1993
fleet: fiends consumers, 42% report that they would buy a fresh fruit, or would buy it more
often if it were easier to eat or prepare.34 Pineapples (15%) and melons (13-14%) are named
the most frequently as items for which improved convenience could stimulate increased
purchases.“5 Compared to these fruits, fresh apples are named relatively infrequently; only
5% of the L925 flee/1 fiends consumers said they would buy apples more often if they were
easier to eat or prepare. More consumers (15%) in the L995 m M survey said they
would buy apples more often if they were more convenient to eat. This is an indication that
convenience is of high importance to consumers and that there may be a portion of consumers
with an interest in fresh-cut apples.

2.5.7 Health and Nutrition. The interest in health and diet has encouraged greater
consumption of fruits and vegetables, including more fresh produce. The aging population may
also spur an increase in the consumption of fruits, as older people are often interested in

obtaining the vitamins and fiber provided by fruits and vegetables.

 

“IBM. "Fresh Trends”, 1994, p.58.

“W, “Fresh Trends“, 1994, p.58.

 

29

_1_9_9§ ELM fiend; consumers who were asked which fresh fruits they perceive to be
most nutritious often named apples and bananas. Both of these fruits were mentioned as being
nutritious by 62% of the consumers interviewed. The second most frequently named fruit was
oranges (46%.) Thus apples are viewed as a nutritious, healthful food by a high percentage
of consumers.

Apples were named by a large number of people (39%) as a good source of fiber.
While apples are generally viewed as healthful, the main specific reason given for this image
in this study is that apples are a source of dietary fiber. In fleLh fiends L992, fiber was also
a common health reason for buying apples, and so was a general belief in the vitamin or mineral
content of apples. Apples were also considered to be a good food for people who were
counting their calories by the 199; flesn fiends consumers.

When consumers were probed more thoroughly about nutrition, however, apples were
not often named as a fruit purchased to obtain specific vitamins or other nutrients. Less than
10% of consumers named apples as a preferred source of beta carotene, complex carbohy-
drates, vitamin A or C, or as a preferred food for cancer prevention.

2.5.7 Distinctiveness. Consumers often distinguish fresh apples by variety. Where
the apple was grown is also sometimes considered to be a distinguishing characteristic. Fresh
apples in grocery stores are often identified by variety, and sometimes by their region or state
of origin. Washington State, the leading producer of fresh apples in the United States, has
developed major consumer promotions for its apples identified as being grown in Washington.

The varieties of apples that Washington promotes show high consumer awareness. In
the 1932 Em fiends survey, consumers were asked if they have ever purchased four specific
varieties, Red Delicious, Golden Delicious, Granny Smith and McIntosh. The two varieties with
the highest response rates were Red (79%) and Golden Delicious (68%). These varieties are
the predominant varieties of the Washington State apple industry. Red Delicious is also

important to Michigan. McIntosh, another prominent Michigan variety, had been purchased by

 

30
57% of the 1292 Fresh Trends consumers. This is somewhat less than the 79% and 68%

response rates for Red and Golden Delicious.

The 1_9_9_2 fleet; fiem report provides evidence that consumers' variety preferences
depend somewhat on the part of the country where they live. For instance, while the Red
Delicious variety was familiar to a large proportion of consumers in all parts of the country,
people in the West were even more likely than other groups to have purchased that variety.
Another important variety for Michigan, McIntosh, was much more likely to have been
purchased by people in the Northeast and North Central regions than in the South or the West.

In a research project of the University of Connecticut, Connecticut consumers were
asked to name their three favorite apple varieties. Customers of farm markets, warehouse
stores, and pick-your-own operations named McIntosh the most often, followed by Red
Delicious and Macoun, a traditional Connecticut variety. Supermarket consumers named Red
Delicious the most often, with McIntosh and Golden Delicious being the next most popular
varieties.“ The popularity of McIntosh and Macoun in their growing region supports the
premise that variety preferences are influenced by market location.

Michigan faces stiff competition from Washington State in the fresh apple market. The
1995 flesn fiends study shows that the intensive advertising campaign by Washington State
has made an impact on consumers. When asked what brand or region they associated with
fresh apples, 56% of the consumers mentioned Washington. “Delicious“, “New York”, and
“Michigan” trailed far behind Washington State in consumer association. Ten percent or less
of consumers recalled these ”brands.“ Michigan is far behind Washington State with respect
to top-of-mind consumer name recognition.

Only 10% of the L93; M fien_ds consumers said that the brand name of a produce
item was an extremely or very important characteristic to them. Somewhat more consumers,

19%. said that the growing region, state or country of origin was this important.

 

”Leonard, et al.

 

31

In 1995, firesn fiends consumers were asked which brands they prefer for various
produce items. Only 23% of these consumers remembered some advertising about apples, but
those who remembered some advertising were more likely to remember a variety or a growing
region rather than an actual brand. Many of these consumers thought of Washington apples
when asked about a favorite brand. 3

The Connecticut consumers who were surveyed did not consider whether an apple had
been grown in Connecticut to be very important. Less than 17% of the consumers said that
Connecticut grown was an important issue to them.’7 While Fresh Trends research
demonstrates that consumers are somewhat aware of growing regions, both this survey and
the Connecticut study indicate that where apples are grown may not be an especially significant
factor in the buying decision. It is also possible that consumers in Connecticut and other minor
apple producing states are not especially loyal to their state's produce.

2.5.9 Purchasing Behavior. To many consumers, apples are a weekly or monthly
purchase item at the grocery store. Of consumers who had purchased apples in the 12 months
preceding the 1995 flee}; fiends; telephone survey, 32% said that they purchase some variety
of apples every week. 85% of consumers who had purchased apples in the year preceding the
survey said that they purchase apples at least monthly. Thus, even though apples have a long
shelf life relative to many other produce items, they are eaten frequently enough to spur a
relatively frequent purchase pattern.

The fleet: fiends surveys did not ask specific questions about consumer preferences
for bulk display or bagged apples. However, in the 1991 flee/1 fiends consumer survey, 37%
of the consumers said that having produce displayed loose is extremely or very important to
them.

2.5.10 Price. Price is usually considered to be a major element of the value equation

of most consumers. Many experts in the produce trade place a great deal of emphasis on price.

 

”Leonard, et al.

 

32

These are indications, however, that the relative importance of price to many consumers in
comparison to other characteristics may be becoming a less important factor.

Consumer panelists in the Washington State University research project did indicate that
price is very important to 38% of the consumers when compared to the other pre-purchase
characteristics of color, size and shape. Color (41%) was said by slightly more people to be
the most important pre-purchase apple characteristics. 1

Connecticut consumers were asked to rate the importance of price along with several
other apple characteristics, including appearance, texture, sweetness, and being Connecticut
grown. Price was not one of the more important items on the list. About 33% of the
consumers said that price was very important to them when they were deciding which apples
to buy, and another 42% said that it was somewhat important to them. Almost 23% of the
consumers said that price was not important to them. When choosing among apples, price
was not important to about 22% of the consumers. Price was less important than appearance,
texture, and sweetness. Only being Connecticut grown was indicated to be less important to
consumers than price.”

The relative unimportance of price to Connecticut consumers was surprising given the
high importance of price to the fleLh fiflds consumers. Of those surveyed in the 1992 flesh
fiends survey, 70% said that price was extremely or very important. This figure, however, is
for all produce items, not just apples.

When 1994 flesnfignds consumers were asked about why they sometimes do not buy
a type of fruit which they like, the most common reason given for not buying an otherwise
desired fruit was theprice. Price was also the most prevalent reason given for not buying fruit
in the 1993 green fiends survey. However, only 34% of the 1994 Fresh Trends consumers
who answered this question named apples as a fruit that is passed up from time to time

because of price or other reasons.

 

”Leonard, at al.

33

2.7 Conclusions. The background information and results of recent market research
studies reviewed in this chapter serve as an important and relevant base on which to build for
the current project. Such a review helps the researcher to target the research emphasis and
to add to previous research results.

The Michigan apple industry is a complex and dynamic one. Growers, packers, shippers
and retailers all need to work in a somewhat coordinated manner to deliver quality products to
consumers. All segments of the apple industry need up-to-date, accurate and extensive
information about the changing preferences and buying behavior of modern consumers. While
prices can provide some information about consumer preferences, prices alone are only partial
and inadequate to reflect all of the needed information about consumer preferences and
behavior. Other means of communication regarding consumer preferences are needed for the
industry to understand what fresh apple characteristics are most desired by today's consumers.

Traditionally, produce trade buyers and the apple industry have emphasized highly
colored, relatively large apples with a minimum of bruises and blemishes sold at low prices.
This implies that these are the most important apple characteristics.

Some of the recent research calls into question these assumptions about the relative
importance of various characteristics to many consumers. Price was very important to many
of the Washington State University consumer panelists, but it was not one of the more
important apple attributes to the consumers surveyed by researchers in Connecticut.

The information about size preferences is not clear. Many consumers say that they do
not care about the size of produce, in general, and apples, in particular. However, when asked
to choose between two apples, consumers tend to pick the larger apples. This illustrates that
what people say influences their purchase decisions and how they act in a grocery store when
making their purchases may be somewhat different.

Appearance is said to be very important to consumers. There are indications that red
color is important to peeple as well, at least for varieties like Red Delicious. Texture and flavor

are important to consumers, although these characteristics cannot be evaluated before the

 

34

purchase. In two recent surveys, texture was shown to be more important than sweetness and
overall apple flavor.

Consumers are aware of some varieties and regions more than they are others, but their
loyalty to them is not clear. Consumers do not seem to place a great deal of importance on
regional 'brands.‘ Consumers may be more likely to buy apple varieties which are grown in
their region, although consumers throughout the country are familiar with the Red and Golden
Delicious varieties.

Michigan apple growers and shippers need more detailed, timely information about
changing consumer preferences. Using this information, they can work to meet these
preference effectively and hence enhance demand for Michigan apples. The issues of size and
color of apples are particularly important. Michigan's climate creates challenges to apple
growers who try to produce apples with perfect size and color. Obtaining additional information
about consumer preferences regarding appearance, flavor, crispness and other quality factors
may help the Michigan apple industry develop effective, long term strategic plans to improve

consumer satisfaction with their products.

 

Chapter 3 - Focus Groups and Development of the Telephone Survey

3.1 Introduction. As part of the research project, consumer focus groups were
conducted during November 1993. The consumers discussed a variety of topics related to
fresh apples, including the importance of various apple characteristics, their normal apple
purchasing patterns, and their general mental associations with fresh apples.

For the most part, the focus group consumers seemed to have very positive thoughts
about apples in general and Michigan apples in particular. The apple characteristics which were
said to be very important to these consumers included crispness, freedom from physical
defects, and good flavor. Many of the consumers expressed some preference for medium sized
rather than large apples.

The awareness of apple varieties varied among the focus group consumers, although
most expressed an interest in learning more about apple varieties. Many of the participants said
that they would like more apple variety information available in their retail stores.

The focus groups also taste-tested three newer apple varieties, Gala, Jonagold and
Empire. Most of the participants had very favorable comments about these varieties.

Although the focus groups provided considerable useful information, a larger sample of
consumers is needed for a more reliable estimation of consumer preferences for fresh apples.
The information collected by the focus groups was used to develop a telephone survey
instrument for a large sample of consumers. The development of the telephone survey is
described in the second half of this chapter.

3.2 General Research Strategy. Focus groups were an important component of the
research project. They are commonly used to gain in-depth insights into consumer thinking and
behavior as well as to aid in the development of survey instruments for sampling larger numbers
of consumers. Focus groups can help the researchers develop effective questions for

communicating with the surveyed pepulation. Participants in the focus groups may move the

35

36

discussion to tepics that the researchers had not expected, and thus reveal issues that may
require further investigation.”

Focus groups are also useful research tools in their own right. They may reveal
subconscious attitudes or feelings that more structured forms of questioning do not. However,
focus groups involve only a very small sample of the population. A more thorough investigation
of consumer preferences requires a larger sample, such as that which might be done with a
telephone survey. Therefore, when reviewing the information from the focus group sessions,
it is important to consider that only a few consumers were involved, and conclusions about all
consumers should not be formulated based on this small sample.

3.3 Setting up the focus groups. Three focus groups sessions were conducted as part
of this project. The first two were composed solely of women, and the third included both men
and women. The decision to weight the focus group research towards women was made
because it was hypothesized by the researchers that much grocery shopping is done by adult
women. It was anticipated that the telephone survey would include more women than men for
this reason. Men were included in the final focus group to sample the opinions of men who do
grocery shopping.

There were two female-only focus groups. One focus group consisted of woman who
were employed outside of the home, and the other consisted of participants who were full-time
homemakers. They were segregated in this fashion because it is thought that homogenous
groups discuss topics more openly than do groups with more diverse participants.“o There
may be some differences of opinion between working mothers and those who are full time
homemakers, and it was speculated by some of the researchers that separating these groups
might result in the most effective focus groups. In the other focus group, which included men,

both employed women and full time homemakers were included.

 

"William R. Dillon, et al. ni l f rk in R r , (Homewood, IL: lrwin,1993),
p.140.

”Dillon, p.137.

 

37

A list of Lansing area households was purchased from a company specializing in the
development of mailing lists for market research and other uses.“ The Lansing area was
chosen for the focus groups because of the relative ease of traveling to Michigan State
University for the interviews. Due to budget constraints, conducting focus groups in the
subsequent telephone survey market cities was judged to be of low priority and not needed for
the study.

Potential focus groups participants were initially contacted by telephone and asked if
they would be interested in participating in a focus group on apple buying decisions to be
conducted on the campus of Michigan State University. Consumers who expressed a
willingness to be involved with the project were mailed more information about the time and
meeting place, and asked to inform the organizers if they would be unable to attend the
session.

The focus group sessions were conducted in meeting rooms that were arranged in a
manner similar to a board room, and were equipped with a tape recorder to document the
discussion. The moderator (Jane Beggs) directed the participants through a series of carefully
planned questions. Other researchers and industry representatives who were present during
the session were also involved in guiding the discussion.

3.4 Results of focus group questions. The same series of questions was used in each
focus group. Main lines of questioning included what quality characteristics are especially
important to consumers in their buying decisions about apples. Participants were also asked
what words they associate with apples, in general, and Michigan apples, in particular. There
were also several questions related to apple varieties. Both the familiarity which consumers
have for different apple varieties, and their impressions of various apple varieties were
investigated. The participating consumers also sampled three newer apple varieties: Gala,

Empire and Jonagold.

 

“'Hot Prospects"

38

The order of the questions varied from group to group as the moderator adapted to the
direction that the discussion took. If a particular group was actively discussing a subject, that
topic was pursued. Having a flexible pattern of questioning was important to get the most
information out of the focus group sessions. A complete list of focus group questions is
provided in the appendix.

3.4.1 The importance of apple characteristics. A principle objective of the focus
groups was to explore how consumers judge the quality of apples. Consumers were asked
what apple characteristics are most important to them when they decide which apples to buy.
Various apple characteristics, such as sweetness, crispness and juiciness were discussed by
the focus group participants in response to this question.

There was also an informal taste test of several apple varieties. In addition to
generating information about these specific varieties, the comments that consumers made as
they evaluated these apples provide some additional insights as to what characteristics are
noticed by consumers.

Firmness was stated by the focus group consumers to be extremely important to them.
Some said they would squeeze the fruit to see how it “feels.“ The consumers said they expect
apples to be crunchy, although specific expectations were not the same for all varieties. The
focus group members who were familiar with many apple varieties, for example, said they
expect Red Delicious apples to be firm, but that they expect McIntosh apples to be somewhat
softer. However, most people expressed a dislike of soft apples, and said they want crisp,
crunchy apples. Apple crispness was clearly attractive to most of the focus group consumers.

When tasting the newer apple varieties, many people commented on the 'crunch' of
the apple. The size of the 'chunk' of apple that could be bitten off was considered by some
of the focus group members - - the bigger, the better. The appearance of apples was
important to most of the focus group participants. These consumers indicated that they expect
near-perfect looking fruit. Most focus group consumers said they want a shiny, smooth skin.

At the same time, many of the participants were concerned about wax and claimed that they

39

would prefer apples without it. This contradicts the desire for a cosmetically perfect apple.
Almost all of the participants said that they would not purchase apples with defects such as
bruises, rot, or insect damage. Absence of bruises was exiremely important to the focus group
participants.

Consumers were divided about which color of apples they prefer. A few people said
they only eat apples of a particular color, or avoid a particular color. Several participants
expressed a preference for red apples, but did not know why they felt that way. Others said
that they do not trust a really ”pretty” red apple because of concerns about the taste. This was
especially associated with the Red Delicious variety. The consumers who had negative opinions
of the Red Delicious variety said that they look for an apple with some variation in color,
although several pointed out that they still prefer red apples to yellow apples.

An interesting comment was made by one participant who had been raised in South
America. To her, yellow skinned apples were the standard and the red skinned varieties so
common in North American supermarkets took some getting used to. While this cultural
difference could not be explored given the constraints of the research study, it is worth noting
for future studies that may focus on export of apples to Latin America. If NAFTA and other
trade agreements increase international trade, such market research may become increasingly
valuable.

Some consumers did not specifically say that the appearance of apples is important to
them, but as they taste tested the various apple varieties they often commented on how the
apples looked. Having red, solid color, as the taste-tested Empire apples did, was not especially
important to these consumers. In fact, one consumer commented that she would not have
picked such a dark red apple in the grocery store for fear that it might be overripe.

Some focus group members said they like the distinct 'dots' (lenticels) on the Jonagold,
and felt that it was a “pretty“ apple. A few participants said that the variation in the

Jonagold's color made it interesting to look at.

40

Size was discussed by the participants as an important feature. In general, they said
that apples should look substantial, but should not be too big. For most of the consumers, a
more moderately sized apple is preferred, particularly for snacking or school lunches. The focus
group consumers said that apples should be easily held in one's hand and should be able to fit
into a lunch box. Several people with children expressed a concern that the food was wasted
if an apple was too big for a child to finish.

One clearly expressed desire for larger fruit was for cooking. People said they prefer
a larger apple for anything requiring peeling.

There was also a desire for larger fruit by a consumer who was dieting. Her rationale
was that if she was going to ”cheat” on a diet by eating an apple, it might as well be a large
apple. She also said that some days the apple is her entire lunch, and so the bigger the fruit
the better.

Focus group participants said that the flavor of the apples is very important. Flavor
preferences varied among individuals and with how the apple was to be used. An apple that
was a favorite for fresh eating might not be a preferred variety for cooking. There were also
differences among individual tastes for fresh apples. Some said they like tart apples and some
like sweeter apples. As the focus group members evaluated Gala, Jonagold and Empire apples,
they frequently commented about the flavor of these varieties. They judged the apple not only
on its type of flavor, but on its flavor intensity. Some consumers, for example, said that the
flavor of the Jonagold variety was nice, but that it was rather bland.

Texture was another extremely important characteristic to the focus group members.
Apple texture was said to be an important factor for these consumers, although they had
difficulties describing what exactly they meant be texture. The consensus was that mealy or
mushy apples are unacceptable, as is graininess in the flesh of the fruit.

Juiciness of the apple was also said to be very important. As the focus group
consumers tasted apples, they often commented on the juiciness of the apples, and said that

they were glad that the fruit were not grainy or dry.

41

Several consumers criticized apple varieties with thick skins, especially Red Delicious.
A few said the Empire variety that they tasted had a thick skin, too. Some consumers with a
sensitivity to thick skinned apples reported a strange sensation on their teeth after they bit into
such an apple.

As consumers evaluated apple varieties, some of them commented on the flesh of the
apple fruit. Some said that they like the white flesh of the Empire and commented on how long
its flesh remained white. As one participant commented, it was unlikely that she would pay
so much attention to the apple if she was just eating it at home, but the slower browning of
the Empire variety was appreciated. Some of the participants commented that the browning
of an apple would not stop them from eating it for a snack.

Keeping quality was said to be important to several focus group participants. Several
mentioned being bothered by having to throw out spoiled food. When the consumers were
taste-testing the newer varieties, they frequently asked about the keeping quality of the apples.

Season was also mentioned by some participants. Many people said they use several
different varieties in the fall, but switch to Red Delicious or Granny Smith in the spring because
they believe that these varieties are better than others at that time of the year. Some
commented that they would buy a new variety in the fall, but might go back to more familiar
varieties later in the year to be assured of good quality.

3.4.2 Purchasing influences in the retail store. Focus group members were asked
about steps that could be taken in grocery stores to encourage them to buy more apples. They
were also asked what store characteristics are important to them as they shop for apples.

Many focus group consumers expressed a desire to know about the characteristics of
an apple variety before buying it. As the focus groups discussed apple characteristics, they
pointed out that taste and crispness or condition cannot be evaluated in the grocery store. For
these characteristics, some of these consumers said that they make their judgements based on
their previous experience with the variety or, in some cases, on what the produce clerk says.

Some said they might buy just one or two apples to try a new variety.

42

When asked specifically what it would take to get them to try a new variety, many
participants responded that samples were a good idea. Signs describing the variety were also
suggested. Information about the uses for the variety and whether it is sweet or tart were
greatly desired by many of the focus group participants. Some emphasized that knowing that
an apple was crisp would encourage them to try that variety.

Many focus group members expressed a desire to know more about new or unfamiliar
varieties. They suggested point of purchase signs or posters that describe the apple and what
it can be used for. Some of the consumers suggested in-store signs describing a variety
regarding its sweetness or tartness, softness or crunchiness.

Several of the focus group members described the differences between going to a
supermarket and shopping at a farmer's market. Some of the consumers indicated that the
education about apple varieties which they had received at the farmer's markets had made a
very positive impression on them. A few of the consumers had not been aware of the
differences among apple varieties until it was explained to them by knowledgeable personnel
at the farmer's market. Exhibit 4 illustrates how the education from farmer's market or orchard

employees can influence consumers' decisions to purchase apples.
Exhibit 4 Consumer Interest in Apple Varieties.

'...before I went to that orchard, it was 'an apple is an apple.’ Sometimes I bite into
[it] and I like them - sometimes I don't. And I didn't know why. Because I didn't
know that different apples had different textures. Some are sweet, some are sour.
I just thought that if I got one that I liked I just happened to get a good bunch... They
said, 'No, apples each have their own history.’ "

Most of the focus group participants said that they enjoy the atmosphere of farmer's
markets, and many said they would like the displays and information of such markets available
in their regular grocery stores, too.

Going to apple orchards, especially in the fall, was mentioned as the best way to buy

apples. Not only were these apples judged to be the freshest by focus group participants, but

43

these consumers said they like the advice about varieties that was often available from orchard
market personnel.

Freshness was said to be extremely important to the focus group consumers. Some
of these consumers speculated that Michigan apples would be fresher than those shipped from
Washington state. They felt that farmer's markets have fresher apples than grocery stores.
There was a strong desire for "farm-fresh” apples. To many of the focus group consumers, this
implies a clean, unbruised apple. Individually displayed apples, or apples in bins were also
perceived by some of the participants as being especially fresh. Many of the consumers said
that apples chosen from displays of individual fruit seem fresher than those sold in bags.

Price varied in importance among the focus group participants. Those who do not work
outside of the home seemed to be more concerned with price than those who are employed
outside of the home. For the group with both employed consumers and full-time homemakers,
price was not quite as important. With the primary shoppers who work outside of the home,
price was not indicated to be a primary consideration, although they said that m high prices
might keep them from buying a particular variety. Many participants said that they would not
buy a large quantity of premium priced apples all at once, especially for children, but they might
try one or two apples of a new variety if it was on special. Very low prices for a soft or
otherwise poor quality fruit would not convince most of the participants to buy such apples.

Focus group consumers were asked if apples are usually a planned purchase on their
grocery lists, or if apples are usually bought as an impulse item. The responses to this question
varied a great deal. In many households, apples are regarded as a staple food, and are
purchased regularly. For a few people, apples are an occasional purchase that are bought when
they look good or have an especially good price. Some consumers explained that which fruit
they purchase depends upon what is in season, and that after fall has passed they do not buy
apples frequently.

3.4.3 Bagged or bulk display apples. Many of the focus group participants said that

they prefer to buy apples from bulk displays in the store. They expressed several complaints

44
about the quality of bagged apples which they had purchased -- that bagged apples are more
likely to be mushy or bruised.

The preference for bulk display apples seemed stronger among the focus group
members who were employed outside of the home. These consumers tended to be less price
conscious than the full-time homemakers, and many indicated that they were shopping for only
a few family members. These factors may help to explain their greater interest in bulk display
apples.

Some of the consumers who said they prefer bulk display apples said that they enjoy
selecting several different apple varieties for a variety of flavors. They might buy a selection
of apple varieties so that they can try something different from day to day.

Many of the participants said they like to choose their own individual apples to ensure
themselves that they are getting the best fruit that is available. They also expressed concern
about buying only as much fruit as they can eat, and that bags contain more apples than they
really want. Some said that buying an entire bag of apples only to throw half of the fruit away
bothers them. The considerable amount of refrigerator space which a bag of apples takes up
was also expressed as a negative aspect of bagged apples compared to bulk apples.

Some of the focus group shoppers who were not employed outside of the home were
more positive about bagged apples. These consumers seemed to be more price conscious than
the employed consumers, and some indicated that the lower price of bagged apples is an
attraction for them.

The focus group members who were not employed outside of the home tended to talk
about buying apples for larger families more often than the employed consumers. They
emphasized the benefits of bagged apples for families with children. The price economy of
bagged apples, combined with their convenience, was appealing to some of these consumers
who were buying for larger families.

One participant mentioned that the bulk display apples do not have as good a flavor as

do bagged apples, although many indicated that bulk display fruit are a more premium product.

45

Several people in the focus groups explained that they purchase bags of apples for
baking because their preferred varieties for baking are packed in bags. They also said that if
there were some bruises on bagged apples, it would not make a great deal of difference once
they were cooked. For eating fresh, however, especially in late winter, many said that bulk
display apples are preferred because they are perceived by these consumers to be in better
condition than those in bags.

Some consumers said that they buy bagged apples in the fall, but later, in winter and
through the summer, they switch to buying apples from bulk displays. They explained that the
quality of bagged apples is fine soon after harvest, but they perceive that the bagged fruit does
not store well. These consumers said that later in the year the bulk display apples seem to be
in better condition than bagged apples.

3.4.4 Variety awareness. Many of the focus group consumers showed a real interest
in apple varieties and wanted to know more about them. There were also consumers who are
largely uninformed about the differences among apple varieties.

As part of the focus group sessions, participants were asked to write down which
varieties they could think of, and to indicate which ones they regularly purchase. The most
frequently mentioned varieties that they could think of were Red Delicious, Granny Smith,
McIntosh, Golden Delicious, and ldared. Jonathan, Empire, and Northern Spy were also
mentioned by several people.

The varieties which people most frequently said that they regularly purchase are Granny
Smith, ldared, and McIntosh. Northern Spy, Jonathan, Golden Delicious, and Red Delicious
were also purchased by several participants. Although Red Delicious was the variety with the
greatest amount of name recognition, several focus group participants expressed very negative
opinions about the variety.

The consumers were also given a list of apple varieties and asked to write down any
comments or impressions that they have of these varieties. This approach also gauged the

familiarity which consumers have for the varieties. Granny Smith, Red Delicious, Golden

46

Delicious and McIntosh were familiar to all of the focus group participants. Most of them were
familiar with Paulared, Rome, ldared and Jonathan. Less than half of the consumers were
familiar with Empire, and none of them was familiar with Braeburn or Jonamac. A summary
of comments related to each variety is featured below.

Red Delicious

0 Firm, shiny, crunchy, caramel apples. 0 Sweet, crunchy, caramel apples.

0 Healthy and delicious. 0 Sweet.

0 Firm, red. 0 Son likes it - so I buy them.

0 Always available. 0 Bitter skin, crisp, large, tall shape, deep
red, poor flavor, grainy, pulpy, hard, keep
well.

0 Yucky. 0 Don't like the flavor.

0 I don't particularly care for the texture, - Wax.
flavor or skin - rarely buy.

0 Tough skin, tasteless.

McIntosh
0 Good for eating/baking, fall. 0 Apple pie.
0 Firm, red. 0 Johnny Appleseed.

0 A favorite for cooking - pies, applesauce, 0 Great in the fall, good for pies and fresh

etc. applesauce.

0 Good cooking apple, tart, goes soft fast. 0 Salt - for sprinkling on this particular
variety.

0 Soft, bruises easily, flavorful. 0 Small, round, red and green, baking, soft,
sweet.

0 Sweet - good if fresh, 0 My favorite in season.

Golden Delicious

0 Sweet, yellow with polka dots. 0 Snack apples, yellow with red blush.
0 Yellow, sweet, large, tall shape, hard. 0 Juicy, semi-crisp, sweet.
0 My favorite. 0 Good winger snack.

Good for eating. - Always available.

0 Yellow, soft.
- Not interested - too soft.

0 Don't like.

0 Eating apple, softer.
0 Soft, mushy.

0 Don't care for texture, flavor or skin -
rarely buy.

Granny Smith

0 Green, tart, great pies.
0 Green, tart, firm.
0 Tart, good with apple dip.

0 Green, crisp,
roundish, good flavor.

0 Yummy tart snack.

fresh, medium sized,

0 Tart and delicious.
0 Pies.
0 Crisp, tart, sour.

- Great - a favorite.

0 Tend to buy in late spring or summer, great

flavor, firm, "don't have to peel for my kids.“

0 Eating, sour-tart. 0 Sour.
Jonathan

0 Good for sauces. o Baking/fall.

0 Eating apple. 0 Firm, red.

0 Small tasty apples for lunch boxes. 0 Buy often.

0 Never used - good for pies?
0 Semi-sweet, soft, bruises easily.

0 Don't use often.

0 O.K., haven't bought recently.

0 Don't buy often - good flavor.

Rome

0 Mixes well with others for cooking.
0 Firm - O.K.

0 Tomatoes - small.

0 Used for something but I don't know what.

0 Rounder apple.

0 Baking/orchards.
0 Red, kind of firm.

0 Small, round, red and green, don't store
long- soft.

0 Good if look OK.

48

ldared
0 Used for cooking/canning. 0 Baking, pies, fall.
0 Firm, partially red. 0 Pies, applesauce.
0 Crisp, good, versatile, good cooking 0 Small, red and green, crisp, sweet, keep
very well

- Good for eating, lasts longer than 0 Good in season for eating, cooking and

McIntosh. Waldorf salad.
0 Buy often. 0 Great in the fall - I buy these a lot for
eating.
0 Not much taste. 0 Smaller apple - haven't eaten in a while.
Empire
0 Cooking. 0 Good, excellent,

0 Not sure, followed by "since I've tried 0 Semi-crisp, tasty.
they’re great!“

0 Buy often. Great in the fall.

0 Usually buy if McIntosh or ldareds aren't 0 Small, round, red.
available.

0 Haven't tried, don't know. No opinion.

0 Probably the brand you buy in bags that 0 Never used.

are bruised!
Paulared

0 Cooked. 0 Eating apple.

0 Buy often, versatile. - OK. for eating.

0 Use for pies, baked apples, etc.. 0 One of my favorites - buy often

0 Will buy on sale. 0 Not a lot of taste, soft, bruises easily.
Jonamac

0 Never used but sounds like a combination 0 Must be cross between Jonathan and
of two of my favorites. McIntosh - I would try them.

0 A combination of Jonathan and McIntosh?
An effort to sweeten McIntosh?

49

Fuji
0 Sweet. 0 Round and yellow.
0 Too expensive - never had. 0 From the islands?
0 Cameras? 0 Film?
0 An apple from China?
Mutsu
0 Good flavor, crisp, one of my favorites 0 Very crisp, semi-tart, very juicy
0 Oriental. 0 Sounds like ”mush.“
Braeburn
0 No one had heard of this variety. 0 From Scotland?

The familiarity with apple varieties varied greatly among the focus group participants.
Some of the focus group consumers, particularly those who use apples for cooking, showed
a great deal of knowledge about apple varieties, including which are good for baking, etc.
There were also consumers who are used to buying only a limited few varieties, such as Red
Delicious and Granny Smith. Many of the consumers were surprised by the great differences
among apple varieties. Some seemed to be accustomed to choosing between red and green
varieties, and did not reveal much knowledge about the variety names. Others seemed to be
much more knowledgeable about different apples, and showed an understanding of many
different varieties.

Most of the consumers who did not appear to know a lot about apple varieties said that
they would like to learn about them. Some said that they would like to know which varieties
are good for baking. They said they are afraid of going to a lot of trouble to bake a pie, for
instance, only to find out that they had chosen a poor apple variety for baking. Even those

who are unlikely to use apples for cooking indicated that they would like more variety

 

50

information in the stores. They would like to know if an apple is sweet or tart, and, most
importantly, if it is crisp.

3.4.5 How apples are usually used. Although many focus group participants said that
they are interested in knowing which apples are good for baking or other cooking uses, most
of the consumers said that they primarily eat apples fresh. Apples were said to be a very
popular lunch item, and are included in children's lunches and taken to the office by adults.

Some of the consumers who cook with apples mentioned having large families.
Shoppers who do not work outside of the home seemed to be more inclined to cook with
apples. Other consumers said they do cook with apples, but not regularly. They said that they
might get ”inspired" to bake a pie once or twice during the fall, but day to day consumption of
apples was said to be primarily for fresh eating.

3.4.6 Consumers' perceptions of and associations with apples. The image of Michigan
apples among consumers is of interest to the researchers and to the Michigan apple industry.
While the other questions might give specific information about characteristics that consumers
want and how well-informed consumers are about apple varieties, opinions of Michigan apples
provide some indication of the success of the Michigan apple industry at achieving overall
consumer satisfaction. For this reason, the focus group consumers were asked to compare
Michigan apples to apples from other growing regions. The participants were asked about
words that they associate with apples in general, and with Michigan apples in particular. These
questions give some indication of the image that Michigan apples have in the mind of
consumers.

Many participants said that they associate apples with fall. Baking, such as pies and
crisps, was another common association that consumers have with apples. Various apple
characteristics, such as tartness, crispness, and juiciness were also mentioned.

Consumers seemed to have a general perception of healthiness and good feelings about
apples. The focus group participants said that they think of apples as “American“ and as a

healthy snack.

 

51

The participating consumers were specifically asked about how they think apples fit into
a nutritious diet. They overwhelmingly said that they view apples as an important part of a
healthy diet. Mothers said they encourage their children to eat apples, and that apples are a
food that kids can have as much of as they would like. Many people said that apples remind
them of folk sayings such as ”An apple a day keeps the doctor away.”

The focus group consumers said that they view apples favorably in comparison to other
fruits. They indicated that they consider apples to be more nutritious or equally nutritious as
other fruits. The consumers said that apples are a good source of fiber and vitamins, and a
good food for people on a diet, although most people said that they are not really sure why
apples are nutritious. Along with this view of apples as generally being healthy, came a request
for more nutritional information about apples. The consumers said that they would like to see
such information displayed in their grocery stores.

When specifically asked about perceptions or associations with Michigan apples,
participants also said that they think of family outings like cidermills and hayrides. Some of the
consumers also said that they are reminded of the McIntosh apple variety. Many of the focus
group consumers said they have fond memories of picking apples with their children or parents.
Michigan apples are thought of as a red apple by some, as opposed to being green or yellow.

A number of focus group consumers were unsure how to compare Michigan apples to
those from Washington state. Many said that they are unaware of the origin of their apples,
or that they perceive no real difference between apples from different growing regions. Many
did not recall seeing signs in grocery stores identifying the region where apples were grown.
Some said that they would like to see labels on the individual apples telling where they were
grown. This was mentioned by a few people who said that they would try to support their
state and buy its apples if the fruit were identified as being grown in Michigan.

Most of the participants who could compare Michigan apples to those from Washington
state communicated favorable impressions of Michigan apples. However, many also said that

they view Washington apples as a more premium product. Many people said that they like

52

Michigan apples because of the varieties and the convenient size of the fruit for lunches.
Michigan apples are also especially popular with people who use them for cooking. Participants
did say that they perceive that perhaps Michigan apples do not travel or keep as well as the
fruit from Washington.

Many of the Michigan residents said that they associate their state with apple
production, although a few said that they are unaware of Michigan’s prominence in the apple
industry. One focus group in particular was very interested in the promotion of Michigan
apples, and wondered if there is a Michigan apple festival similar to the Michigan cherry
festival. This group also suggested promoting Michigan apples at airports and highway
welcome centers. They seemed to feel that Michigan apples do not have a strong state
identity, and that more promotion of the state’s apples is needed.

The focus groups indicated a number of generally favorable words and ideas that they
associate with apples. This is not surprising, because participation in the focus group was
likely to be somewhat self-selecting for people who like apples. That is, consumers who do not
particularly appreciate apples would be unlikely to agree to participate in such a time intensive
interview, particularly since there was no monetary compensation. Although not all of the
focus group participants were consumers with a wide knowledge of apple varieties, all of the
people who agreed to participate in the study said that they purchase apples and enjoy eating
them.

3.4.7 Consumers' opinions of the Empire, Gala, and Jonagold varieties. At the end of
the focus group sessions, the focus group participants were asked to taste each of the
relatively new varieties of Empire, Gala and Jonagold and tell the researchers what they thought
of these varieties. Although this was not a formal taste test, it provided useful information
about how consumers evaluate an apple, and what they perceive as desirable qualities of these
specific apple varieties.

Almost all of the consumers seemed to be impressed by the Empire apple's crispness

and juiciness. On the whole, the opinions expressed about the Empire apple were very positive.

53

Many participants said that they were struck by the fully red appearance of the Empire
apples which they tasted. This box of Empires was a darker red than what is often found in
grocery stores. The deep color was unappealing to some people, who felt that such a dark red
color was an indication of over ripeness. However, after tasting the fruit, most of the
consumers seemed to be very favorably impressed by the apple.

The attractive white flesh of the Empire, and its resistance to browning were
appreciated by the participants. This apple was enjoyed by some of the consumers who had
a preference for tarter apples. Some of the consumers, though, did not feel that the Empire
was much different from a Red Delicious.

One of the consumers had arrived at the focus group very excited about a new apple
variety which she had recently discovered, the Jonagold. She said that she loved the crispness
of the apple, and its sweetness. She likened the variety's sweetness to that of a candy bar,
while its ”crunch“ was ”liking eating a potato chip." After hearing this woman's enthusiastic
description of the Jonagold, her fellow focus group members were eager to try the variety.
Most of them had favorable reviews of the Jonagold. The crispness of this variety impressed
many of the people who tried it, although some said that the flavor was 'a bit bland.” Some
people commented on the yellow flesh of the variety, and were surprised by it, although not
necessarily in a negative way.

Many of the participants were intrigued by the Jonagold name, and asked if it was
indeed a cross between the Jonathan and the Golden Delicious. Some suggested marketing
the Jonagold as a combination of two of many peoples' favorite varieties.

Some of the focus group consumers were not as impressed by the Gala name. A few
said that they did not like the name. However, opinions of the apple itself were generally good.
Many participants commented on the attractive coloration of the Gala, and said that the apple
was quite pretty. This apple was especially popular with the focus group consumers who liked

sweeter apples, and most of the consumers liked its juiciness.

54

3.4.8 Summary of the focus group data. There are several main points which can be
drawn from the focus group discussions. One is the indicated importance of crispness as
expressed by this small sample of consumers. This is an apple characteristic that was indicated
to be extremely important to the focus group consumers. Juiciness was another apple
characteristic to which the focus group consumers seemed to attach a great deal of importance.
Absence of bruises on the apples was also expected by these consumers, as was an attractive
appearance. Soft, grainy apples or bruised apples were not tolerated by these consumers. The
participants’ expressed desire for an attractive, smooth skin contrasts with the stated dislike
of wax on apples by some. .

Taste was stated to be extremely important to the focus group participants, although
specific taste preferences vary among individuals. Some prefer sweet apples, and others like
tart apples. The flavor of one apple is unlikely to appeal to all consumers because of this range
of taste preferences. Although the average focus group member is not an expert on apples,
he or she is interested in the different varieties available. Many of the consumers said that they
want to know how an apple tastes before they buy it, and they want the apple to meet certain
quality standards of crispness and juiciness. While the focus group consumers did not indicate
that size and color are of overwhelming importance, an absence of physical damage to the
apple fruit was said to be vital. Bruises were said to be unacceptable to the consumers who
were interviewed. ‘

The participants asked for information in grocery stores telling them if a variety is sweet
or tart. The focus group consumers also showed an interest in other information, such as the
uses for an apple variety, and whether or not it is crisp. Although there were a few consumers
who had a wide knowledge of different apple varieties, many of the focus group members did
not know a lot about apple varieties, and wanted more variety information displayed in the
grocery store.

Many of the consumers said they prefer to buy their apples from bulk retail displays

rather than bags. People who said they purchase bagged apples tended to be those who are

55

more concerned about the price of the apples. To most people, however, price does not appear
to be the most important factor in their decision to buy apples.

While most of the consumers do not have a clear impression of Michigan apples, they
are generally positive about the state’s apples, and many said that they want to support their
state by buying Michigan apples.

3.5 Some Considerations When Writing the Telephone Survey. Information generated
by the focus group sessions and from background research were used to develop the telephone
survey instrument. When developing the telephone questionnaire, some general principles were
used as guidelines.“2 These principles helped to guide the researchers in the development of
an effective survey instrument.

Clarity and precision in the research instrument are critical in order to gather useful
data. The questions must be clearly understood by both the interviewer and the person being
interviewed. If either person is confused about the questions, the answers generated may not
be accurate. The focus group sessions enhanced understanding of consumer reactions to
various topics, such as words or perceptions which they associate with Michigan apples. This
better understanding of consumers helped the researchers to select and appropriately phrase
survey questions.

A key aspect of a telephone interview is to avoid a questionnaire which is unduly long.
Otherwise, there could be a problem of the consumer interviewees refusing to complete the
interview. Questionnaires were timed to ensure reasonable brevity for a telephone interview
and to aid in interviewee cooperation.

Training for interviewers included coaching on techniques and trial runs before actually
interviewing consumers over the telephone. Several questions required probing, so interviewers

were instructed on how to elicit the kinds of desired information.

 

“Principles are drawn from Dillon, et al, Eeeentiele ef Merketing Reeeereh.

 

56

Categories provided for answers should be mutually exclusive. Income, age, and ethnic
categories were designed in a way that a consumer could not be classified in more than one
category (mutually exclusive categories.) A question asking consumers about the importance
of several apple characteristics also uses mutually exclusive categories of vary, somewhat or
not important.

For other questions, mutual exclusivity is not relevant. Several open-ended questions
were posed to consumers, and several answers to these questions could be provided by one
respondent. For example, when asked which apple varieties come to mind, a consumer might
think of several varieties.

Appropriate language must be used. This is especially relevant when asking consumers
about food. Professionals in the food business, including the apple industry, use jargon and
technical terms that are not readily understandable by the average consumer. If we had asked
a consumer about preferring tray-packed or poly-bagged apples, for instance, most consumers
would have needed a detailed explanation of the question. The focus group sessions were
helpful in indicating to the researchers the words and phrases that consumers are familiar with
and areas of possible confusion.

Questions should not show or introduce bias. Care was taken in writing questions
which are not biased. For instance, it would have been inappropriate to ask consumers to
agree or disagree about whether or not ”Washington apples taste like wood.“ Questions were
worded in a way that would not give consumers the impression that they should answer in a
certain way. Open ended questions were neutrally phrased.

There is some evidence that respondents may begin to answer without thinking after
having been asked several items on a list. For instance, after being asked if they were familiar
with four or five apple varieties, consumers might begin to automatically answer 'yes' to the
remainder of the varieties listed. In order to reduce this ”order bias,“ the order of lists in
questions involving them was rotated to give several different versions of the order of the

questions. The interviewers used several different questionnaires, each with a different version

57
of the various list questions. The order of the different guesiiene was not varied, however,
because that would have disrupted the "flow” of the questionnaire.

Avoid questions where two issues are addressed at the same time. Care was taken to
ask about only one subject at a time. That is, when asking people how they buy and use
apples would have combined two separate behaviors and could have confused both the
consumers and the person tabulating the questionnaire. Separate questions were asked in such
situations.

Clear alternatives were provided as responses to questions. For example, when
consumers were asked whether or not they purchase Michigan apples, they were prompted
with the response categories "yes,” ”no,“ and "don't know.”

Validity and reliability are important to the survey. To increase the validity of the
information as useful data for the apple industry, screening questions were utilized to isolate
the population desired, namely people who buy apples. In order to help insure the reliability of
the answers, only those people who were responsible for part or all of their household's grocery
shopping were interviewed. For example, an interview with a teenaged son who occasionally
accompanies his mother to the grocery store would not result in a very accurate picture of how
household grocery decisions are usually made.

Interviewers were carefully trained to elicit accurate responses. The interviewers were
also trained in how to effectively probe consumers with a follow-up question for certain issues.

3.6 Developing the survey instrument. Following the criteria described in section 3.5,
and considering the information gathered by background and focus group research, the
telephone survey questions were developed. It should be noted that industry organizations
were involved in the development of the telephone survey questionnaire and were consulted
to ensure the relevance of the questions.

The focus groups helped clarify consumer concerns which might be investigated more
thoroughly and also indicated which subjects might be investigated effectively over‘ the

telephone. Subjects of particular interest to the Michigan apple industry were also stressed.

 

 

58

However, the number of subjects that could be investigated was limited by the time constraints
of the telephone interview.

In this section, discussion of the telephone survey questions is followed by the actual
questions used for the telephone interviews.

3.6.1 Screening for the appropriate population. The opinions of consumers who do
not buy apples were deemed to be of relatively low priority for this survey. Therefore, only
consumers who purchase apples (Question 1) were interviewed about their apple preferences.

The number of households whose members do not purchase apples was noted.

Question 1. Does your household purchase apples?

Yes No

Note for interviewer: If the person answers no, ask why not. Then thank the person

and terminate the interview.

Only consumers who are responsible for a significant proportion of their household's
grocery shopping, as identified by Question 2, were interviewed. A person who does not
regularly go to the grocery store is not likely to be the most reliable gauge of purchasing
behavior. Such a consumer is not likely to be aware of apple varieties other than those

regularly kept in their household.
Question 2. Are you the primary grocery shopper in the household?

Yes No

Note for the interviewer: If no, ask if the primary shopper is available; if he/she is not,
thank the person and terminate the interview.

Both of the first two items in the questionnaire are screening questions designed to
ensure the appropriateness of the sample population. Both of the screening questions were
intended to improve the validity and reliability of answers regarding apple behavior and

consumer preferences for apples.

 

l:

(he

COI

 

59

3.6.2 Identifying important apple characteristics. Industry organizations are interested
in finding out more about what apple characteristics are most important to consumers for
making their apple purchasing decisions. Therefore, an important part of this project was to
research this topic.

During the focus group discussions, several characteristics were mentioned frequently
when consumers described apples that they prefer and discussed what factors influence their
apple buying behavior. Therefore, an objective was to test these preliminary indications against
the larger sample size of the consumer telephone survey.

Greater knowledge of factors that are high priority to consumers in their apple buying
decisions may help the industry determine its most effective marketing strategies. Such
information may also help the industry identify apple characteristics to emphasize in its
production planning.

Many factors or apple characteristics were indicated to influence consumer purchases
of apples based upon the literature review and the focus group discussions. The number of
factors or characteristics which can be questioned in a limited time telephone interview, is,
however, constrained. Based in part on the focus groups, input from industry groups, and
previous studies, a decision was made to poll consumers about the importance of the following ‘

eight factors or apple characteristics:

1. taste 5. freedom from bruising and blemishes
2. crispness 6. price

3. color 7. variety

4. size 8. where the apple was grown

There are many other apple characteristics with a potential influence on consumers'
apple buying behavior which could have been included in this question, such as shape of the
apple, texture etc. Due to practical time limits of the telephone interview, however, not all of
the potential factors or apple characteristics could be explored. The eight apple attributes
included in this question were chosen for the preliminary indications of importance to

consumers from the focus groups and the literature review, as well as for their indicated relative

60

higher priority to the Michigan apple industry. The relative importance of these factors to the
consumers in their apple buying decisions were explored in Question 3.
Question 3. When you are deciding which apples to buy, which apple characteristics
are most important to you? Would you say that they are very important, somewhat

important, or not important to you?

m Mam LLM w b not Moment
variety imgogen;

color

where grown
flavor

cnspness

size

freedom from
b r u i s i n g /

blemishes

price
Freedom from bruising and blemishes was originally planned to be included as two

separate questions during the preliminary development of the consumer questionnaire. Bruising
and blemishes from insects and diseases arise from two entirely different causes. To
consumers, however, a bruise may be considered a type of blemish. Because of this similarity
to consumers, and to help keep the time required for the telephone interview to a manageable
length, the two factors of bruises and blemishes were combined into the one item in the
composite question.

Crispness was another apple characteristic which the focus group consumers said is
very important to them. Some said that crispness is an apple characteristic which strongly
influences their enjoyment and willingness to repeatly buy fresh apples. There was a need for
the research to provide more information on this factor with a large sample of consumers.

Since Michigan positions itself as ”The Variety State,” and uses the “Flavorbest' theme,
the issues of flavor and variety are especially important to Michigan. If these items are very

important to consumers, then Michigan's current positioning would appear to be appropriate.

61

If, however, flavor and/or variety are relatively unimportant to most consumers, the Michigan
apple industry might want to re-direct some of its promotional emphasis.

Similarly, the of state origin of the apple may or may not be important to consumers.
If where the apple was grown is very important to many peeple, then increasing awareness of
high quality apples from Michigan might be beneficial. Successfully identifying Michigan apples
in the grocery store may attract some of these consumers. If consumers do not show a
substantial concern about where their apples are grown, than less emphasis on state-specific
promotions for Michigan (or other states) may be warranted.

Although retailers and other trade buyers have traditionally emphasized price, color, and
size as the most important apple aspects, most of the focus group participants seemed to place
a higher priority on crispness, flavor, and an absence of physical defects on the fruit. Thus,
one objective of the telephone survey was to determine the priorities from a larger sample of
consumers regarding various apple purchasing aspects such as price, color, size, crispness,
flavor, variety, etc.

The importance of the several factors or characteristics affecting apple purchases was
addressed in one question. Using a common framework in the investigation of several factors,
as was done in Question 3, facilitates easier comparison of the relative importance of these
aspects. It also streamlines the questionnaire.

In addition to identifying the appropriate number of apple buying factors or
characteristics to include in the composite question, choosing the most appropriate response
categories was also important. The number of potential response categories describing the
importance of the various characteristics was deliberately limited to three ('very important',
"somewhat important", or ”not important”) in order to simplify interviews. Pre-tests revealed
that larger numbers of potential response categories were difficult to work with in a telephone
interview. The researchers also considered using a numerical scale for rating the importance
of the various apple characteristics. However, numerical scales attempted in pre-tests proved

to be difficult to communicate clearly over the telephone.

62

Although the relative importance of the apple characteristics discussed can be estimated
by comparing percentages of responses in the various categories, the scale itself is non-
comparative. That is, the characteristics are not ranked or compared to an ideal baseline. The
resulting question is an itemized scale with three categories for responses.

Another question (Question 7) that was somewhat related to the importance of apple
characteristics was also included in the survey. Although Question 7 was primarily intended
to determine what consumers like about specific varieties, secondary reasons for including this
question were to confirm the importance of the characteristics listed in Question 3, as well as

to capture any underlying apple characteristics which are not covered in Question 3.

Question 7. Why do you prefer the varieties that you regularly purchase?

3.6.3 Are most apples bought from bulk displays or in bags? Consumers' preferred
choices between bagged and bulk apples are especially important to the Michigan apple
industry. The focus group members provided some indications of why consumers choose one
type of pack rather than the other. Because of the importance of this issue, it was decided to
include this as a tepic in the telephone survey of a larger sample of consumers.

Whether apples are usually purchased in bags or from bulk displays was investigated
using Question 4. Instead of being open-ended, two categories of response (bags or displays
where one chooses the individual fruit) were included to clarify what the question was about.
Providing response categories also facilitated tabulation of the questionnaires. Although there
was no category provided for consumers who purchase apples both in bags and from bulk
displays, interviewers wrote in 'both" for any consumers who indicated both types of purchase.

Interviewers were asked to probe why consumers usually buy apples in bags or from
bulk displays. Identifying perceived problems or benefits associated with either type of pack
could be useful information to apple marketers, especially packers and shippers. This

information might contribute to improved industry marketing strategies for fresh apples.

 

63

Question 4. Do you usually purchase apples:

in bags or

from displays where you choose the individual fruit?

Note to interviewer: If they hesitate, ask them if they buy them in some other way.

Why?

3.6.4 How are fresh apples used? Use of fresh apples varied among the focus group
consumers. Not all consumers used their fresh apple purchases only for fresh eating. Because
of the different habits of the focus group consumers regarding fresh apple eating and cooking
with apples, the researchers felt that additional clarification of the use of fresh apples through
the telephone survey of consumers might be useful to the apple industry.

Some of the focus group members said that they cook with apples regularly, and others
not at all. A few said that they cook with apples occasionally, but not frequently. More
research was needed to see if this usage pattern is common among a broad sample of
consumers.-

The issue of apple use was addressed (through Question 5) by providing a choice of
responses (eating fresh, cooking, or both). As was the case with the question about apple
purchases, indicating categories of possible responses was felt to be necessary for consumers
to understand what the question was about. Simply asking consumers what they use fresh

apples for was likely to result in a response such as, 'why eating, of course!“

Question 5. How do you My use fresh apples?

For eating fresh or for cooking (or both)

Information about how apples are used by consumers can aid the apple industry in the
development of promotional materials. It may also be helpful in the positioning of some dual

purpose varieties in retail stores.

 

64

3.6.5 Variety awareness. The Michigan apple industry has an interest in consumer
awareness of their varieties, especially newer ones like Empire and Jonagold. Knowledge of
and familiarity with apple varieties varied considerably among focus group participants.

Name recognition can be the stimulus for purchase of a product.‘3 In the case of
apples, perhaps one apple variety rather than another is important to consumers. The Michigan
apple industry has long emphasized the importance of a number of varieties. Therefore,
consumer perceptions and behavior regarding varieties is especially important to the Michigan
apple industry. Knowing which varieties have high consumer awareness may help industry
decision makers to appropriately target their marketing efforts.

To address the question of consumer awareness of apple varieties, two separate
questions were used. One was a "top-of-mind" response (Question 6), the other an “aided
recall“ question (Question 8).

From a marketing standpoint, it is interesting to compare consumers' aided vs. unaided
recall of brands or different products. For apples, this can translate into the recall of variety
names. Investigating consumer familiarity with apple varieties specific to Michigan may provide
the Michigan apple industry with some indication of the effectiveness of advertising, promotion,

and merchandising efforts.

Question 6. When you think of apple varieties, which ones come to mind?

While having a consumer recognize a name is beneficial, for a person to specifically
remember an apple variety unaided indicates a greater familiarity with the product than does
a positive response to an aided question. Question 6 was asked to see what apple varieties

consumers think of (a "top-of-mind' response) without prompting.

 

"David A. Aaker. Streiegie Merkei Menegemeni, second edition. (New York: John Wiley
& Sons) 1988, 212.

 

65

Question 8. Which of the following varieties are you familiar with?

Mutsu/ Crispin Gingergold
Red Delicious Granny Smith
Paulared Braeburn
Golden Delicious ldared
Empire Fuji

McIntosh Rome
Jonagold Jonamac
Jonathan Gala

While writing the aided recall question about apple varieties, care was taken to reduce
order bias. The list of variety names (as shown in Question 8) was rotated among different
versions of the telephone questionnaire so that the same variety name was not mentioned first
in every interview. Care was taken while assembling the list to alternate varieties that are
somewhat unique to Michigan with more widely grown varieties like Red and Golden Delicious.
Common and more unusual varieties were also alternated so that consumers would not be
confronted with a long series of unfamiliar variety names. Including some items that the
consumer is familiar with in a list of terms may increase the comfort level of the person being
interviewed.

Some varieties which are newer and less likely to be familiar to many consumers were
included in the list. This was due in part to industry leaders' interest in the newer varieties.

These new variety names may also be an approximate indicator of the level of
automatic 'yes" answers received for the question. That is, the number of people who respond
positively to a query about an apple that is not usually available in supermarkets (such as
Gingergold) is a gauge of the number of questionable positive answers received for the entire
question.

3.6.6 How many apple varieties should grocery stores carry? Because a comparative
advantage of the Michigan apple industry is its production of many different apple varieties,
getting grocery stores to stock as many varieties as possible is a goal of the Michigan apple
industry. Clarifying the effect of demand by consumers for a wide selection of apple varieties

in stores may provide the industry with useful information for marketing work with retailers.

66

The number of varieties that consumers would like to see in retail stores was asked in
an open-ended question (Question 9). There was some consideration of using a prompted,
category-type question for this topic, for example, ”one or two varieties, or three to four
varieties,“ etc. However, industry consultants and others involved in the development of the
questionnaire thought that the consumers' own responses would be more informative than

answers from pro-determined, categorical question.

Question 9. How many varieties would you like your grocery store to carry regularly?

3.6.7 Consumers' impressions of Michigan apples. The focus group members generally
had expressed very positive images of Michigan apples, and there was a desire to test this
image aspect with a larger sample of consumers. Therefore, telephone survey consumers were
asked what words they think of with regard to Michigan apples. Because consumers' top of
mind reactions were desired, an open-ended question was designed (see Question 10) to
provide information about the image of Michigan's apples. Responses to this question might

also provide ideas for possible promotional activities for the Michigan apple industry.

Question 10. When you think of Michigan apples, what words come to your mind?

3.6.8 Comparing Michigan apples to those from Washington. The strategic position
of the Michigan apple industry, especially with regard to Washington state, was an important
reason for the study as a whole. Some of the focus group participants said that they did not
recall a strong Michigan identity in their local stores, but most of them seemed to feel that
Michigan apples are probably just as good as those from Washington. The researchers felt that
a broader sample population, such as that of the telephone survey, might confirm the focus
group consumers' favorable comparison of Michigan apples to those from Washington state.
Consequently, some questions were included in the telephone survey to examine consumers'

comparative perceptions of apples from the two states.

67

In order to record consumers' specific feelings about apples from Michigan compared
to apples from Washington, an open-ended question comparing the two state’s apples was
asked (see Question 11). As consumers commonly face a choice between Michigan and
Washington apples in the grocery store, understanding the decision can help the Michigan apple
industry to compare itself effectively to Washington and to undertake appropriate marketing
strategies. Responses indicating poor comparison of Michigan in the minds of consumers may

identify challenges to Michigan apple growers and shippers that need special attention.

Question 11. How would you compare Michigan apples to those from Washington
state?

A follow-up to the comparison question was one on whether or not consumers buy
Michigan apples (see Question 12). This question may reveal the recall of the origin of apples.

It may, in part, gauge the effectiveness of Michigan promotional campaigns.

Q12. Do you buy Michigan apples?

3.4.9 Demographics. The final portion of the telephone survey was a series of
demographic questions. Consumers were asked about various characteristics such as their age
and income so that differences in responses among various demographic segments could be
explored. For example, identifying one age group who is especially likely to buy bagged apples
frequently may help the Michigan apple industry target promotions for its bagged fruit.

Many of the demographic questions used similar categories as those used in the fcesn
fiends survey conducted for file fleeing so that comparisons could be made. Because the
flesn fiends survey is widely read and well-established publication used by many produce
industry leaders, ease of comparison with the ma fiends results was desired. Several
demographic items were investigated. Income, age, ethnicity, employment status, and the

presence of children in the household were included in this section.

68

Consumers were asked about their age because some flefi fimds reports have
indicated that consumer habits and preferences vary somewhat with age. Older consumers,
for instance, seem to be more concerned about their health and nutrition than younger
consumers. Identifying differences in apple preferences among age groups may become
important as the population ages. The preferences of the age groups which are projected to
grow in population may require more emphasis in the future. In Question 15 consumers were

asked their approximate age using the same categories as Fresh Trends surveys.

Question 15. Which of the following age groups describes you?
18-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60+
A question about income (Question 17) was included because consumers' buying
behavior may be significantly influenced by their household income. For example, one might
expect lower income households to be more price-conscious than higher income households.
A clear difference between the preferences of lower and higher income consumers could help

the Michigan apple industry to target market strategies by income group.

Question 17. Which of the following categories approximates your household income?
Under $12,500
$ 1 2,500-$ 22.499
$22,500-$34.999
$35,000-349.999
Over $60,000
During the telephone survey, categories for both age and income were read to the
consumers. It was believed that individuals would be less reluctant to reveal such information
about themselves if it was aggregated somewhat by grouping into categories. People who

would be hesitant to reveal their exact income to an interviewer might be more comfortable

placing their income in a general income range.

 

69

The question of ethnicity was approached differently than the questions about age and
income. Although designated categories of ethnicity were printed on the survey, consumers
were asked to describe their ethnic background in their own words. The interviewer was then
responsible for translating this description into the categories utilized on the survey, as seen in
Question 16. Interviewers were instructed to avoid stating the categories unless the consumer
displayed confusion with the question. The rationale for this protocol was to avoid the
sensitive issue of preferred ethnic classification. There was concern on the part of the
researchers that any classification system used might be objected to by at least some of the
population, and possibly result in a denial of the question. Some consumers might object to
having their ethnicity classified in a certain way, so allowing the consumer to describe his or

herself was thought to relieve some of the potential problem.

Question 16. How would you describe your ethnic background?
Caucasian
African-American
Hispanic
Asian or Pacific Islander
American Indian
Other
Some household characteristics were probed in the demographic section, including the
presence of children in the household and the employment status of the primary shopper.

Because the range of potential answers was limited to yes or no, a closed-ended question was

used for each of these subjects.

70

Some of the focus group participants who were parents described how their children's
tastes and needs affect their apple purchases, for example, in the decision to buy bagged
apples or bulk. Further investigation of this topic with the larger sample of the telephone
survey might reveal a potential market to target for Michigan bagged apple promotions.

Some probing was included in the question about children being present in the home
to determine the number of children present (see Question 13). There were expectations,
based in part upon the focus group discussions, that households with many children might be

more likely to buy bagged apples because of the convenience and economy of bagged apples.

Question 13. Do you have children under the age of 18 living in your home?
Yes No

If yes, how many?

Some shoppers in the focus groups who were not employed outside of the home said
that they tended to be more price conscious than those who were employed, and they were
also more likely to cook with apples. Therefore, it was hypothesized that employment status
might affect how apples are bought and used. Question 14 was used to elicit this information
from consumers in the telephone survey.

A decision was made to distinguish between full-time and non-full-time employees, as
primary shoppers who are employed only part-time might have different apple purchasing
behaviors than those who hold full time jobs outside of the home. Differences in consumption
habits, especially using apples to cook rather than only eating them fresh, was expected to be

found between full-time and non-full-time employees with jobs outside of the home.

Question 14. Do you work full-time outside of the home?

Yes No

71

The final demographic characteristic was the gender of the consumer being interviewed.

This information was inferred from voice and recorded in Question 17.

Question 17. Gender. Note to the interviewer: lnfer from voice

Male Female

The demographic questions came at the end of the survey because of the potential
reluctance of some people to answer questions about age, ethnicity and other sensitive
subjects. By positioning these questions at the end of the survey, one minimizes the chance
of a consumer terminating the interview before completing all of the apple-related questions,
which were of highest priority in this survey.

3.5 Summary. As discussed in this chapter, focus groups can play an important role
in a consumer market research project. The consumer focus groups conducted for this research
provided information which aided in the development of the telephone questionnaire. They also
revealed some consumer attitudes and opinions which might not be generated by the more
structured interviews of the telephone survey.

Although the focus groups provided some indication of consumer preferences for and
attitudes towards apples, they reflect the beliefs of only a very small number of consumers.
A larger sample of consumers, such as that of the telephone survey, provides a stronger base
for conclusions about consumer preferences. In order to test some of the preferences and
attitudes implied by the focus group participants, similar questions were incorporated into the
telephone survey.

The consumer focus groups discussed many topics which were later pursued across a
broader base in the telephone survey component of the market research. One subject
discussed by the focus group participants was the importance of various apple characteristics,
such as flavor, size and condition. A question about the importance of apple characteristics

is a very important part of the subsequent telephone survey. Other important subjects

72

investigated by both the focus groups and the telephone survey include how the apples are
usually purchased (bags or bulk) and how fresh apples are used, for eating fresh or for cooking.

The focus group consumers were asked to taste test a few newer apple varieties. This
provided both an indication of consumer opinions of these varieties and illustrated to a degree
how consumers evaluate apple varieties. Obviously, a taste test could not be included in the
telephone survey. However, a question about what consumers like about their favorite varieties
reveals some desirable attributes of apple varieties, as well as indicating what characteristics
are important to consumers.

The subject of apple variety was explored by the focus groups in some detail. The
focus group participants seemed to vary in their knowledge of apple varieties. However, most
of the focus group members indicated a desire to learn more about apple varieties. They
expressed a desire to know the characteristics of a new variety (i.e. sweet or tart.)

Time constraints prevented such in-depth discussions on variety with the larger sample
of the telephone survey. However, consumers surveyed by telephone were asked to name
varieties off of the top of their head as well as asked about their familiarity with several specific
varieties.

Another subject which was explored in some detail by the focus groups was the image
of Michigan apples among consumers. The focus group participants overall expressed favorable
views about apples in general. They also seemed to have most positive views about Michigan
apples. Many of these Michigan residents recalled family outings to orchards or cidermills.
However, some of the consumers said that Michigan apples do not have a very strong 'brand
identity“ in their minds.

A main advantage of focus groups is the opportunity for in-depth discussion among a
few consumers. A major advantage of a telephone survey is the possibility to query a broad
sample of the population. However, in a telephone survey only a limited number of important
aspects can be discussed. The combination of focus groups and telephone survey information

gives this project both detailed information and the breadth of a large sample.

Chapter Four - Results of the Telephone Survey

4.1 Introduction. An extensive telephone survey of apple consumers was conducted.
Consumers were asked a number of questions to add to recent information about consumers'
preferences and behavior regarding apples.

Based on the recommendation of the Michigan Apple Committee, consumers in the
Detroit and Chicago metropolitan areas were surveyed. These regions are two of the important
metropolitan markets for Michigan fresh apples. 782 consumers were surveyed, 467 in Detroit
and 315 in Chicago. This sample size compares favorably with key trade surveys such as fine
fineness; Fresh Trends consumer survey, which typically polls about 1,000 consumers
nationwide for all commodities.“ The survey was conducted in early 1994 (between February
and April.)"‘

In this chapter, the information gathered by the telephone survey is presented. Survey
results on consumer preferences for and purchase behavior for apples in general and Michigan
apples in particular are discussed. There were some differences shown among the two
metropolitan areas with regard to the purchase of Michigan apples. These are also summarized.

One important subject that was covered in the survey, which is discussed in section
4.2, is the importance of various apple characteristics and other factors to consumers in their
buying decisions. These include flavor, absence of bruises and blemishes, crispness, color,
variety, price, size, and the state of origin of the apple. Consumers were asked if these apple
attributes are 'very important", "somewhat important” or "not important" to them in making
their decisions about apple purchases. It was found that the importance of some of these apple
characteristics varies somewhat among certain demographic segments of the surveyed

consumers.

 

“W. Fresh Trends 1994.

“The researchers would like to thank the Michigan Farm Bureau, which provided its WATS
lines for this project.

73

74

Another part of this chapter, section 4.4, presents information related to apple buying
behavior regarding the choice between bulk display and bagged apples. Some demographic
relationships and stated reasons behind a preference for one pack rather than another are also
included in this section.

In section 4.5, consumer use of fresh apples is discussed. Consumers were asked if
they use fresh apples for eating fresh or for cooking, or for both purposes.

This is followed by two sections about apple varieties. Section 4.6 contains information
about how many apple varieties consumers would like in grocery stores. The next section (4.7)
deals with consumer familiarity with apple varieties. Consumers were asked to name apple
varieties off of the top of their heads. They were also asked if they were familiar with several
varieties.

Sections 4.8 and 4.9 address the image of Michigan apples with consumers. In section
4.8, the results of a question asking consumers to compare Michigan apples to those from
Washington state are presented. Section 4.9 summarizes the words and images which the
surveyed consumers said they relate to Michigan apples.

A summary of demographic characteristics of the survey participants is included.

4.2 Apple purchases. One question that was asked was ”Does your household
purchase apples?“ Almost all (96%) of the consumers surveyed indicated they buy apples at
least some of the time (see Table 4). A very high percentage of consumers in both Detroit and
Chicago said they purchase apples. 97% of Detroit consumers indicated that they purchase
apples, while 94% of Chicago consumers said that they buy apples. This is a positive finding
for the fresh segment of the apple industry, including Michigan.

Consumers were also asked, 'Do you buy Miehigen apples?“ Not all consumers who
purchase apples buy Michigan apples. While only a small number of those interviewed said that
they do not buy Michigan apples (3% of the total sample) a portion of the sampled population

(22%) said that they do not know if they buy Michigan apples or not (see Table 5).

75
Table 4 01 . Does your household purchase apples?

01. Does your household purchase apples?

291L911 hi 0 gemnined
97% 94% 96%

Table 5 012. Do you buy Michigan apples?

Q12. Do you buy Michigan apples?

ensue: 9:191: 9319299 9.9_b_e_dm in
yes 84% 63% 75%

no 2% 3% 3%

don't know 14% 34% 22%

Detroit consumers were more likely to indicate that they purchase Michigan apples
than were Chicago consumers. As shown in Table 5, 84% of the Detroit consumers said that
they buy Michigan apples, while 63% of Chicago consumers indicated that they buy Michigan
apples. This is consistent with certain previous surveys, which have shown that people are
more familiar with, and more likely to buy products from their own state or region.“

4.3 Importance of various apple characteristics. Consumers were asked about the
importance of several specific apple factors or characteristics with respect to their apple buying
decisions. These factors included flavor, crispness, freedom from bruising and blemishes, color,
size, variety, where the apple was grown, and price.

The results show that the most important factor affecting apple purchases, as indicated
by the most consumers surveyed, was the flavor of the apple, with a very high 90% of the
consumers indicating this to be a very important factor to them (see Table 6). This was

followed by freedom from bruising and blemishes, which was indicated to be very important

 

"Inn Basket. Fresh Trends 1994. page 70.

76

Table 6 Q3. Which apple characteristics are most important to you?

Q3. When you are deciding which apples to buy. what factors or apple
characteristics are most important to you? Would you say that they are very

important, somewhat important, or not important?

rating

very impor-
tant

somewhat
important

not important

Latins

very impor-
tant

somewhat
important

not important

Latins

very impor-
tant

somewhat
important

not important

Flavor
Detreit hic
91 % 89%
7 % 5%
2% 5%

Freedom from bruising and blemishes

_et_o_D r it Cutlass
84% 89%
13% 7%

3% 4%

Crispness

Detroit Emacs
81% 79%
14% 14%
5% 8%

Combimd
90%

6%

3%.

86%
11%

3%

80%
14%

6%

by 86% of those surveyed. Eighty percent of the consumers said crispness is very important

to them. Only 2-8% of the consumers surveyed said that any of these three factors are

77

unimportant (see Table 6). For these attributes, the percentage of consumers indicating high
importance was fairly consistent in both Detroit and Chicago.

According to the survey results, crispness is also an extremely important apple
characteristic. Crispness was considered to be very important by 80% of the consumers in
the survey, and was stated to be somewhat important to another 14% of the consumers (see
Table 6). The high ranking of crispness indicates that most consumers want a crisp, crunchy
apple instead of soft apples.

Color was indicated to be very important to somewhat less than half (47%) of those
surveyed (see Table 7) This is a much lower ranking of importance than for flavor, freedom
from bruises, and crispness. Another 27% of the surveyed consumers said that color was
somewhat important.

Variety was stated to be very important by 44% of the surveyed consumers (see Table
7). Another 34% rated variety as somewhat important. Thus variety rates near, but somewhat
higher than color in overall importance. Although variety was not indicated to be one of the
most important apple characteristics to these consumers, it was shown to be somewhat or very
important to most (78%) of the consumers. Only 22% of the consumers surveyed think that
variety is not important in their decision of which apples to buy.

Detroit consumers were somewhat more likely than Chicago consumers to say that the
variety of the apple is an important factor. There were 47% of Detroit consumers who said
that variety is very important to them compared to 40% of Chicago consumers.

The survey results show a general increase in the importance of variety for older age
groups (see Figure 3). This is especially noteworthy for the oldest category of consumers.
53% of the consumers aged 60 or older said that variety is very important to them, compared
with 44% of the entire sample and only 34% of those aged 18 to 29. The youngest age group,

those aged 18 to 29, had the largest proportion of people who said that apple variety was not

78

Table 7 03. Which apple characteristics are most important to you?

Q3. (continued) When you are deciding which apples to buy, what factors or apple
characteristics are most important to you? Would you say that they are very
Important. somewhat important, or nor important?

Color
(3.15.0.9 _e.t_<2_iD r i Mica Combined
very 47 % 45 % 46%
important
somewhat 27 %
important 28 % 25 %
not important 26% 29 % 27%
Variety

ration Detach Chicane Combined
very
important 47 % 40% 44%
somewhat
important 35 % 32 % 34%
not important

1 8% 28 % 22%

important to them (34%).“7

The survey data show price as the sixth most important factor as rated by the surveyed
consumers' in their decision to buy apples (see Table 6). As shown in Table 8, only 36% of
the consumers said that price was very important in their apple purchasing decision. Five other
factors or characteristics, flavor (90%), absence of bruising and blemishes (86%), crispness
(80%), color (46%) and variety (44%) were considered to be very important by larger

percentages of people. Only size and origin of the apple were less important to the consumers

 

"The crosstabulation tables located in the Appendix provide detailed breakdowns of
demographic responses to various questions.

79

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Percent to Whom Apple Variety
ls Very Important
”.
‘3 3353555553535535
8 35355355355535;
§”‘ 55553325552525:
Io- 55§E§3§5§§E§E§E
D :I;:::::I:I;I:I:I
60+
Figure 3 Importance of Apple Variety Across Age Groups
who were interviewed.
Table 8 Importance of Apple Price to Consumers
Importance of Price to Consumers
rating _9_t__tD roi Queens mum
very important 34% 38% 36%
somewhat 43% 37% 40%
important
not important 24% 25% 24%

Price was shown to be very or somewhat important to a fairly similar proportion of the
population in both Detroit and Chicago. 34% of the Detroit consumers said that price was very

important, a figure similar to the 38% of Chicago consumers who said that price was very

80

important to them. Forty-three percent of Detroit consumers versus 37% of Chicago
consumers reported that price was somewhat important (see Table 8).

The relative importance of price to consumers might be considered a rough measure of
price sensitivity. Consumers who are very price sensitive would presumably rate price as being
very important, while those who are reasonably insensitive to apple price might view it as being
not important. Consumers who said that apple price was somewhat important have some
sensitivity to apple prices, but not as much as those who said that price is very important to
their buying decisions.

There was a percentage of the surveyed consumers who said that price is very
important to them, but many of these very price conscious consumers said that they consider
other apple characteristics as much or more than price when deciding whether or not to buy
apples. Many of the consumers who said that price is very important to them also said that
other apple characteristics are very important as well. For example, of the consumers who said
that price was very important, 81% also said that crispness was very important. This is quite
similar to the percentage of the total sample who said that crispness is very important (80%).
About 90% of the consumers who said that price is very important also said that flavor is very
important, which is the same proportion of the total sample who said that flavor is very
important to them. Of all of the surveyed consumers, 86% said that freedom from bruising
and blemishes is very important, and about 87% of the consumers to whom price was very
important also said that freedom from bruises and blemishes is very important. These data
show that although price is a very important factor to these consumers, there are other apple
characteristics which are equally important to them.

The most frequent rating of the importance of price by survey consumers was that it
is somewhat important. About 40% of the consumers who were interviewed said that price
is somewhat important. These consumers probably consider price to some degree when they
choose apples in the grocery store, but not to the exclusion of other characteristics such as

crispness and color. Of the consumers who said that price is somewhat important to them,

81

92% said that flavor is very important, 79% said that crispness is very important, and 83%
said that freedom from bruises and blemishes is very important. Consumers who consider price
to be somewhat important may be those who will not buy apples if the price is extremely high.
On the other hand, a very low price will probably not convince them to buy an apple of
unsatisfactory quality.

Crosstabs of the importance of price across income segments indicate that lower
income groups are more likely to consider price to be very important than are median to higher
income groups (see Table 9). 46% of the consumers with incomes below $12,500, and 54%
of the consumers with incomes between $12,500-$22,499 said that the price of apples is very
important to them. In contrast, less than 35% of the higher income groups ($25,000 and
greater) said that price is very important. However, as incomes rise, there is an increase in the
proportion of consumers who consider price to be somewhat important. While 26% of the
consumers with incomes below $12,500 said that price was somewhat important to them, the
proportion rises with increasing incomes to where 50% of consumers with incomes higher than
$50,000 say that price is somewhat important.

Table 9 Importance of Price Across Income Segments

Importance of Price Across Income Segments

Latino
M124 ms - Lfl“ - m mom;
$22.422 £33.92 £229.93

very 46% 54% 34% 33% 25%
important

somewhat 26% 28% 41% 43% 50%
important

not 28% 18% 25% 24% 25%
important

There is a fairly similar proportion of consumers in each income bracket who rated price

as not important. Although 18% of consumers with incomes between $12,500 and $22,499

82

said that price was not important, only 24% to 28% of consumers in the other income
segments said that price was not important to them. This indicates that in all income groups
there are some consumers who are not especially sensitive to apple prices. The remainder of
the population in each income group displays some degree of price sensitivity. At lower income
levels, a higher percentage of this group is very price sensitive; they consider price very
important. At higher incomes, more people have a moderate price sensitivity; to them, apple
price is only somewhat important.

Crosstabs of the importance of price in apple buying decisions were also performed
across age groups. Consumers below the age of 59 were less likely than consumers over the
age of 60 to consider price to be very important (see Table 10). In the 18-59 age range,
between 28% and 34% of the consumers said that price is very important to them, while 44%

of consumers over the age of 60 said that price is very important.
Table 10 Importance of Price Across Age Groups

Importance of Price Across Age Groups

mm mas m 29.-1a 51-52 59;
very 28% 34% 33% 28% 44%
important
somewhat 46% 43 % 44 % 47 % 31 %
important
not 26% 22% 23% 25% 25%
important

This could partly be related to the lower, often fixed incomes of some senior citizens.
0f the surveyed consumers above the age of 60 who revealed their income, 13% had incomes
below $12,500 while only 6% of the total sample had incomes in this range. (Over 40% of
the consumers over age 60 did not reveal their income, often just saying that they are retired,

while about 26% of the total sample chose not to reveal their income.) The lower median

83

income of senior citizens also supports the hypothesis that the lower income of many senior
citizens may lead them to be more sensitive to price.“

The telephone survey results tend to substantiate the indications from the focus groups
that a significant percentage of consumers do not regard apple size as a very important aspect
of their apple purchasing decision. Apple size was said to be very important to only about a

fifth (20%) of the consumers surveyed (see Table 11).
Table 11 Importance of Apple Size

Importance of Apple Size

mm M thgagg ngbingg
very important 1 8% 22 % 20%
somewhat 40% 37 % 39%
important

not important 42 % 41 % 41 %

Detroit consumers (18%) were about as likely as Chicago consumers (22 %) to say that
size is very important. Apple size was somewhat important to 39% of the overall consumers
and not important to 41% of the people surveyed.

Unfortunately, the telephone survey data does not clarify which size of apple is
preferred by consumers. Subsequent surveys are planned that will investigate consumer
preferences for apple size in more detail.

There appears to be some variation in the importance of size among age groups (see
Table 12). Consumers aged 60 and older are more likely than other age groups to consider
apple size to be unimportant. 0f consumers above the age of 60, almost half (48%) said that
apple size is not important. The youngest group of consumers, those 18-29, are the most likely

to consider size to be very important. 0f the consumers in this youngest age group, 30% said

 

"As shown in section 2.4.2, the median income of people over age 65, $16,975 is lower
than that of the population as a whole ($30,126.)

84

that apple size is very important to them, compared to 14% to 23% of the consumers in older
age categories. Consumers in the age brackets between 30 and 59 are about equally likely to
regard apple size as a somewhat or not important factor. Less than 20% of consumers aged
30 to 59 said that apple size is very important to their apple buying decisions.

Table 12 Importance of Apple Size Across Age Groups

Importance of Apple Size Across Age Groups

very 30% 14% 15% 19% 23%
important
somewhat 45 % 43 % 42 % 41 % 30%
important
not 25% 42% 43% 40% 48%
important

The results of the composite question about the importance of factors which affect
apple purchasing behavior indicate that the state of origin of apples is not particularly important
to most consumers. When consumers were asked if where the apple was grown was vary,
somewhat, or not important in their decision to buy apples, the consumer responses indicated
that this factor is the least important to them of all of the aspects considered (see Table 13).
Only 16% of the people interviewed said that where the apple was grown was very important
to them. Over two-thirds said that it was not important, and it was somewhat important to
about 19% of those surveyed.

Chicago consumers were more likely than Detroit consumers to indicate that the origin
of an apple is not important. While 60% of the Detroit residents who were interviewed said
that where the apple was grown is not important, 76% of the Chicago consumers said that the
origin of apples is not important to them.

Although the composite question about the importance of several apple characteristics

and other factors did not ask consumers to rank these factors relative to one another, it does

85
Table 13 Importance of Where Apples Are Grown

Importance of Where Apples Are Grown

very important 1 9 % 1 2 % 16%
somewhat 22 % 1 5 % 1 9 %
important

not important 60 % 76% 65 %

provide some indication of what apple attributes are the most highly valued by consumers.
Based on the results of this question, one can conclude that a flavorful, crisp apple is preferred
by consumers rather than a soft one with less desirable flavor, even if it is brightly colored.

4.4 Important characteristics for apple varieties. Consumers were asked what they
especially like about the apple varieties which they normally purchase. Their responses to this
question were largely consistent with the replies to Question 3. Taste and crispness were the
most frequently named apple attributes that they like about their favorite varieties. Taste was
named the most frequently, as 55% of the consumers mentioned the taste of the apple variety
(see Table 14). In addition to taste in general, a number of people (9% of the sample)
specifically mentioned tartness as a reason for liking the apple variety that they usually
purchase, and 9% simply said that the apple variety is ”good.“ Crispness was mentioned by
17% of the respondents, and how the apple variety would be used (eating or cooking) was a
reason given by 13% of the consumers surveyed. No mention was made of the degree of
bruising or blemishes; these attributes are probably not clearly associated with apple varieties
by the consumers. Interestingly, color or redness were not mentioned by many consumers.
In fact, appearance characteristics of any kind were not prominent reasons given for liking an
apple variety.

Since good flavor was indicated as the most important reason for liking an apple variety,
and it was also the most highly rated apple attribute in Question 3, one can conclude that

desirable apple taste is important to consumers. Crispness is also important to consumers, and

86
Table 14 Why Apple Varieties Are Preferred

07. Why do you prefer the varieties that you regularly purchase?

reason 291ml: £111,299 m in
taste 54% 56 % 55 %
crispness 1 8 % 1 7 % 1 7 %
how the apple 14% 12% 13%
will be used

good; like it 9 % 9 % 9 %

tart 1 0% 7 % 9 %

was highly ranked as an apple characteristic.

4.5 Apple buying behavior regarding type of pack. How consumers decide to buy their
apples is an important issue to the Michigan apple industry. A large proportion of Michigan
apples sold in the fresh market are bagged apples. In contrast, much of Washington state's
fresh apple crop is sold at retail in large bulk displays. Understanding what pack consumers
prefer to buy their apples can help the apple industry to market the product to the consumer

in the preferred manner.
Table 15 How Apples Are Usually Purchased

04. Do you usually purchase apples in bags or from displays where you choose the
individual fruit (or both)?

bags 28% 16% 23%
bulk 55% 62% 57%
both 17% 23% 19%

When questioned about how they prefer to buy their apples, the majority of consumers
in the recent survey said that they prefer apples from bulk displays. As shown in Table 15,

substantially more consumers prefer bulk apples (57%) than prefer bagged apples (23%).

87

There is also a part of the population (19% of those surveyed) who said that they buy both
bagged and bulk apples.

The most frequent reason provided by the surveyed consumers for preferring bulk
display apples was ”quality." Another common explanation for the decision to buy bulk rather
than bagged apples was a desire to choose or look at the individual fruit. The most common
reason stated for preferring bagged apples was the price.

Because of the apparent price sensitivity of bagged apple consumers, one might expect
demographic segments who rate price as especially important to purchase a greater proportion
of bagged fruit. Crosstabulations of the importance of apple characteristics across age
segments did not show a strong link between the importance of price to consumers and their
decisions to buy bagged apples. As shown in Table 9, consumers with incomes below
$22,500 were somewhat more likely than higher income groups to say that apple price is very
important to them. Table 16 shows that only the very lowest income group is especially likely
to buy bagged apples. There is, however, an indicated trend toward purchases of bulk apples
as incomes rise. The link between price sensitivity and apple purchasing behavior may need
further investigation.

Table 16 How Apples Are Purchased Across Income Segments

How Apples Are Purchased Across Income Segments

22.4.22 33.2.22 $2.222
bags 34% 21% 30% 24% 17%
bulk 45% 53% 52% 58% 63%
both 21% 26% 18% . 17% 20%

The older age groups, shown earlier as more likely to view price as a very important
factor (see Table 10), do not appear to purchase more bagged apples than other age groups

(see Table 17). In fact, consumers over age 60 showed a likelihood of buying bulk apples that

88

is approximately the same as that of the total population. Only 21% of surveyed consumers
over age 60 said that they usually purchase apples in bags while a much greater 59% of these
older consumers said that they usually buy apples from bulk displays where they can choose
the individual fruit. This is fairly consistent with the 23% of the overall population who say
they buy apples in bags, and the 58% who say that they buy apples from bulk displays. Older
people with smaller households may buy more from bulk displays because they want to buy in
smaller quantities.

Table 17 How Apples Are Purchased Across Age Groups

How Apples Are Purchased Across Age Groups

mm m2 2&2 M2 52:52 5.0;
bags 22% 28% 25% 18% 21%
bulk 66% 50% 57% 59% 59%
both 12% 32% 18% 22% 20%

Consumers in the youngest age group, 18-29, were the most likely to say they
purchase apples from bulk displays. 66% of these consumers said that they buy apples
individually selected from bulk displays. This is somewhat higher than the proportion of the
total sample indicating a preference for apples from bulk displays, which was 57%. Only 22%
of the consumers aged 18-29 indicated that they usually buy apples in bags. As with the
oldest age group, this is somewhat lower than but similar to the figure for the population as a
whole. Consumers between the ages of 18 and 29 were the least likely to say that they
sometimes purchase apples in bags, and sometimes buy apples from bulk displays. Only 12%

of this age group said that they buy apples in both of the two ways.

89

Consumers aged 30-39 were the least likely to buy apples from bulk displays (50%).
They were also the most likely to usually buy apples in bags. 28% of these consumers said
that they primarily buy bagged apples.

Households including children were somewhat more likely than those without children
to purchase apples in bags. 28% of the households with children said that they usually
purchase apples in bags, compared with the 21% of households without children who buy
bagged apples. 51% of households with children said that they usually buy apples from bulk
displays compared with 61% of households without children. There appears to be a slight
preference for bagged apples by shoppers of households containing children.

4.6 Apple use. Determining how apples are commonly used by consumers may also
be useful information for industry planners. Knowing how consumers use fresh apples can help
the Michigan apple industry to develop consumer promotions and merchandising such as recipe
cards, etc.

Consumers were asked how they usually use the apples that they buy fresh. In each
metro market, the majority of consumers said that they usually use fresh apples for eating out
of hand (see Table 18). Chicago consumers are somewhat more likely than Detroit residents
to use apples for fresh eating, but Detroit consumers also eat most of their apples fresh. While
67% of the Chicago consumers said that they eat their apples fresh, 60% of the Detroit

residents said that they usually eat their apples fresh.

90

Table 18 How Fresh Apples Are Used By Consumers

How do you usually use fresh apples? For eating fresh or for cooking?

us: 291L911 mags: mum
eating 60% 67% 63%
cooking 4% 3 % 3%

both 36% 30% 34%

Only a very small number of the consumers surveyed say they use fresh apples primarily
for cooking. These represented only about 3% of the survey population.

On the other hand, about a third of consumers in Detroit and Chicago said they use
their fresh apples both for eating and cooking. Detroit consumers were somewhat more likely
than Chicago consumers to say that they sometimes use apples for cooking, 36% in Detroit
versus 30% in Chicago. Detroit consumers are also more likely to buy some bagged and some
bulk apples depending on how the apples were to be used. While 24% of the Detroit
consumers who explained their decision to buy apples in both ways mentioned the use for
which the apples was intended as a reason, none of the Chicago consumers did.

4.7 Demand for apple varieties. When asked how many varieties of apples they would
like to see carried in their grocery store, the most common consumer response in the telephone
survey (21%) was 3 or 4 varieties (see Figure 4). Another 18% of consumers said that they
would like to see 4 or 5 apple varieties carried in the grocery store, and 12% said that they
would like to choose among 5 to 6 types of apples. While the Michigan apple industry would
prefer consumers to want even more varieties in grocery stores, it is positive for an industry
which emphasizes marketing a number of varieties that consumers say that they like a selection
of several apple varieties to choose from at retail.

Although some consumers did not say that they want an especially large choice of

apple varieties in their grocery stores, they did express that apple variety is relatively important.

91

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How Many Apple Varieties
Consumers Would Like in Stores
25 _
21%
20- 2:232:25;
5:55:55 1%
1515- m m
Z?"
5~ 5555553 4% f§f§f§§§§
o _ "rd-5353:3331 -:i-:-: :-:-:-: :~:-I:-:- #523 .;.i.;.; 5:35:51
2 to 3 4 to 5 6 to 8 don‘t care
1 to 2 3 to 4 5 to 6 8 or more other

 

 

 

Figure 4 Choice of Apple Varieties Desired by Consumers

When asked how important apple variety is to them, 44% of consumers indicated that variety
is very important, and another 34% said that it is somewhat important (see Table 7). Thus
78% of consumers said that apple variety is at least somewhat important; perhaps these
results indicate that they are only concerned that the grocery stores stock the varieties which
they themselves enjoy. In fact, about 7% of the people interviewed said that as long as the
produce department carries the apple variety which they prefer they do not care how many
other varieties were available.

4.8 Familiarity with apple varieties. In addition to the composite question about the
importance of various apple characteristics, two questions specifically about apple varieties
were included in the survey. These questions were intended to gauge consumer awareness of

apple varieties. Consumers were asked to name apple varieties off of the top of their heads.

92

This investigates the top of mind awareness of apple varieties. Respondents were also asked
in a different question if they were familiar with a number of specific varieties which were read
to them. This aided recall question reveals which varieties have been noticed, even though the
varieties may not be immediately thought of by consumers.

When consumers were asked to name apple varieties off of the top of their heads, the
most frequently named variety was Red Delicious (52%) (see Table 19). This is not surprising,
given the dominant position of Red Delicious in most grocery stores. The next most commonly

recalled varieties included McIntosh (43%), Granny Smith (33%), and Golden Delicious (27%.)

The frequency with which these varieties were named varied somewhat between Detroit

and Chicago. McIntosh was clearly the second most frequently named variety in Detroit, with

Table 19 Apple Varieties Consumers Think Of

06. When you think of apple varieties, which ones come to mind?

v ri 99.11911 mm Combined
Red Delicious 53% 51% 52%
McIntosh 50% 33% 43%
Granny Smith 38% 27% 33%
Golden 22% 33% 27%
Delicious

Jonathan 1 5% 26% 19%
Washington 9% 5% 8%

Rome 7% 6% 6%
ldared 5% 0% 3%

Empire 4% 0% 3%

93

50% of the consumers mentioning it, while it was tied with Golden Delicious for second place
in Chicago at a considerably lower 33%. In Detroit, Granny Smith was named more often
(38%) than was Golden Delicious (22%.) In Chicago, Granny Smith was named less frequently
(27%) than McIntosh (33%) and Golden Delicious (33%). Jonathan was a commonly named
variety in Chicago (26%), much more so than in Detroit (15%).

The degree of aided recall for the most popular varieties was very high. Red Delicious
(98%). McIntosh (96%). and Golden Delicious (96%) were familiar to almost all consumers.
Residents of both Chicago and Detroit were also very familiar with Granny Smith (89%),
Jonathan (85%), and Rome (69%) (see Table 20). These varieties, especially Red and Golden
Delicious, McIntosh and Granny Smith, are all very common apple varieties in grocery stores.
Jonathan and Rome, while they may not have the prominent shelf location of Red Delicious,
are both well-established apple varieties that many consumers are familiar with in these
metropolitan markets. These varieties are also very important to Michigan. That many
consumers recognize these varieties is probably good for Michigan.

For all of the other apple varieties named, Detroit consumers showed a higher degree
of familiarity than did Chicago residents. This is consistent with the indicated greater
importance of apple variety to Detroit residents. It will be interesting to gauge the familiarity
that consumers from more distant markets have with various apple varieties, as is planned in
later research. Residents of areas which are far from major apple producing regions may be
less aware of the wide number of apple varieties that are grown. Consumers in such areas may
require additional education about apple varieties in order to fully appreciate the selection
offered by the Michigan apple industry.

When examining the percentages of consumers who claim that they are familiar with
a given variety, it is worth considering the possibility of people indicating a variety familiarity
when in fact they are not familiar with that variety. The number of people who replied that
they were familiar with Gingergold is an indication of how often people said they were familiar

with a variety when probably they are not, because it has very limited availability. While

94

Table 20 Varieties Consumers Are Familiar With

08. Which of the following varieties are you familiar with?

M hi 3 m in

Red Delicious 98% 98% 98%
McIntosh 97% 94% 96%
Golden 95% 97% 96%
Delicious

Granny Smith 90% 88% 89%
Jonathan 85% 86% 85%
Rome 72% 66% 69%
ldared 61 % 32% 50%
Empire 58% 29% 46%
Paulared 37% 20% 30%
Jonagold 28% 27% 27%
Jonamac 25% 13% 20%
Fuji 18% 20% 18%
Gala 17% 16% 16%
Mutsu 12% 8% 1 1%
Braeburn 9 % 1 2% 10%
Gingergold 6% 3% 5%

Gingergold is an actual variety, it has yet to reach a large level of commercial production, and
it is quite unlikely that it is available in many grocery stores. About 5% of all consumers
surveyed said that they were familiar with this variety. A few of the consumers may be familiar
with Gingergold, but for others this figure might possibly be viewed as an informal measure of

the validity of responses.

95

4.9 The image of Michigan apples. Of those consumers in the telephone survey who
were able to compare Michigan apples to those from Washington state, many expressed
positive views about Michigan apples (See Table 21). 43% of those interviewed said that
Michigan apples are better than or the same as Washington state apples. Less than 10% of
those interviewed said that Michigan apples are clearly worse than the fruit from Washington.
However, another tenth of the people expressed mixed opinions about Michigan apples, saying
that they are good only in certain seasons or for purposes such as baking. This indicates
Michigan apples have a less that ideal image with at least 20% of consumers. Overall,
however, the survey results indicate that the image of Michigan apples is a generally positive
one as compared to Washington State apples.

Table 21 Comparing Michigan Apples to Washington Apples

011. How would you compare Michigan apples to those from Washington State?

ggmggrison Detrgit hic mull!
don't know 32% 46% 38%
better or 26% 15% 22%
favorable

comments

same 21% 20% 21%
mixed reac- 10% 8% 9%
fions

w o r s e o r 10% 9% 9%
unfavorable

comments

A large number of consumers said that they perceive no definite differences between
Michigan apples and those from Washington state. Overall, only a little more than 40% of the
consumers surveyed were able to clearly say that Michigan apples are better than or worse than

apples from Washington. The rest of the consumers said that Michigan and Washington apples

96

are about the same, or they did not know which are better. Many people, 21% of the sample,

said that they perceive apples from Michigan and Washington to be the same.
Table 22 Perceptions of Michigan Apples

010. When you think of Michigan apples. what words come to your mind?

mm M git—asap 9___b_9.dom in
don't know 19% 34% 25%
good 14% 11% 13%
delicious 10% 3% 7%
a specific vari- 10% 8% 9%
6W

McIntosh 10% 4% 8%
fresh 10% 8% 9%
orchards 1 0% 9 % 9%
crisp 8% 6% 7%
red 8% 6% 7%

4.10 Perceptions associated with Michigan apples. Consumers were also asked what
words or phrases they associate with Michigan apples. The positive words and images that
were mentioned support the hypothesis that Michigan apples are viewed favorably by many
consumers. Of the 75% consumers who thought of a particular word or phrase with regard
to Michigan apples, many made positive remarks (see Table 22). However, 25% of the people
interviewed could recall no words or phrases when asked about Michigan apples. This is
consistent with the large number of consumers who answered 'don't know" to similar
questions about the origin of the apples that they buy.

4.11 Demographics of the surveyed consumers. A total of 782 consumers were
interviewed for this study. 467 Detroit residents completed the telephone interview, and 315

Chicago consumers answered the questionnaire. Statistical reliability guides which were

97

consulted" indicated that this sample size is large enough to provide a statistically reliable
estimate of the population.60 According to tables identifying appropriate sample sizes for
various populations, a population size of over 100,000 can be estimated (with a 95%
confidence interval) with a sample size of 400 (a = +5%) or a sample size of 100 (a =
+10%). Trade surveys such as The Packer's Fresh Trends consumer survey have used about
1,000 consumers for nationwide surveys about produce in general, so this survey should be
at least as accurate an indicator of consumer behavior as that widely read trade publication.

The median income of the Detroit area residents interviewed was in the $35,000-
$49,999 category. The median income of Chicago area surveyed consumers was over $50.0
00. The Department of Housing and Urban Development estimates that the median income of
Detroit M.S.A. residents in 1994 was $47,000, and the estimated income of Chicago residents
was $51,300.“1 These figures suggest that the survey respondents are a representative
sample of income level in these regions.‘52 Table 23 shows a breakdown of the income
distribution of the population sample.

As shown in Table 24, there is a satisfactory sample from all of the age groups to draw
some conclusions about differences in behavior and preferences between age groups.

The number of respondents in various ethnic categories was not large enough to draw

any conclusions about the preferences and behavior between different ethnic groups.

 

"M.S. Grosof and H. Sardy, R e r h Prim rf r h i l n vi
(Orlando: Academic Press, 1985).

“According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, “Table 2: Metro
Area Rankings - Population and Households,” State and Metrggglinn Data figgk. 1991, (p.XXI),
the Detroit-Ann Arbor area has a population of 4,665,236 and the Chicago-Gary-Lake County
area contains 8,065,633 residents.

“from Document 001800 ”Median Family Incomes for Fiscal Year 1994' from the H.U.D.
User's Document Reproduction Service.

l5"’107 of the 467 Detroit residents interviewed did not reveal their income, and were not
counted in the determination of median income. Similarly, 99 of the 315 Chicago consumers
did not answer the income question.

98
Table 23 Telephone Survey Income Distribution

Telephone Survey Income Distribution

in m _D_e;r_oit §_hic_ag_g m in i n
$0-$12,499 5% 7% 6%
$12,500-$24,499 8% 9% 8%
$24,499-$34,999 17% 13% 15%
$35.000-$49,999 19% 17% 18%
$50,000 29% 23% 26%

no answer 23% 31% 26%

Table 24 Telephone Survey Age Distribution

Telephone Survey Age Distribution

Age M was: m in i n
18-29 13% 13% 13%
30-39 25% 21% 23%
40-49 21% 19% 20%
50-59 13% 13% 13%
60+ 27% 33% 30%

4.8 Conclusions. This chapter presents the results of a telephone survey of 782
consumers in the Detroit and Chicago metropolitan areas. The consumers were surveyed about
a number of important subjects related to their preferences for fresh apples.

A key component of this survey was an investigation of the importance of eight
selected factors or apple characteristics which impact apple buying behavior. Consumers were
asked if flavor, freedom from bruising and blemishes, crispness, color, variety, price, size and
where the apple was grown were very important, somewhat important or not important to their

apple buying decisions. Flavor, freedom from bruising and blemishes and crispness were

99

expressed to be the most important apple attributes to the consumers surveyed. Size of the
apple and where it was grown were said to be very important to only a small percentage of the
surveyed consumers.

A related question asked consumers what they like the most about the apple varieties
which they usually buy. The most common response to this question was taste. This
reinforces the importance of taste as indicated by the question about the importance of apple
characteristics.

Another important part of the survey was the degree of familiarity and interest in
varieties among consumers. Variety was said to be either very important or somewhat
important to a majority of the telephone survey participants. The apple varieties which these
consumers named most frequently were Red Delicious and McIntosh. Granny Smith and Golden
Delicious were also mentioned by many consumers in the survey.

As part of the telephone survey, the consumers were also asked if they were familiar
with several specific varieties. Most consumers said they are familiar with common apple
varieties, especially Red Delicious, McIntosh, Golden Delicious, Granny Smith, and Jonathan.
Many are also familiar with Rome. ldared, and Empire. Newer varieties, such as Fuji, Gala, and
Mutsu, were said to be familiar to a smaller percentage of consumers. More Detroit consumers
are familiar with some varieties, such as ldared, Empire, and Paulared than are Chicago
consumers.

Consumer purchases of apples in bags or from bulk displays were also investigated.
A majority of consumers (57%) indicated that they prefer to buy apples from retail displays
where they choose the individual fruit rather than in bags. However, there is a significant
minority (19%) of the surveyed consumers who buy apples in both ways.

The consumers who participated in the survey were also asked how they usually use
the fresh apples they buy. Most (63%) said they usually eat these apples fresh. Only a very

small percentage of the consumers surveyed said that they primarily cook with fresh apples,

100

although about 34% of the participants said that they use fresh apples both for eating fresh and
for cooking.

Several questions were included to investigate the overall consumer perceptions of
Michigan apples. When asked what words came to mind when they thought of Michigan
apples, many consumers thought of positive images or comments. When asked to specifically
compare Michigan apples to those from Washington, a majority of consumers indicated that
Michigan apples are the same or better than Washington apples.

The results of this survey combined with the information from the focus group sessions
and previous consumer surveys can contribute useful information for marketing strategies and

future planning and positioning of the Michigan apple industry.

Chapter Five - Analysis and Implications for the Michigan Apple Industry

5.1 Introduction. The results of the consumer telephone survey and the consumer
focus groups suggest some interesting implications for the Michigan Apple Industry (MAI). In
this chapter, the information gathered by the focus groups and telephone surveys is analyzed
for its importance to the MAl’s strategic planning. The information generated by this research
is considered with respect to the results of previous studies and the current conditions of the
markets and the produce trade, especially as related to the Michigan growers, packers, and
shippers. Some possible directions for the Michigan Apple Industry are suggested.

The importance which consumers said they place on various apple characteristics in
their buying decisions is a major part of the findings of this research. The factors affecting
apple buying decisions, which were discussed in Section 5.2, include apple flavor, crispness,
freedom from bruising and blemishes, color, variety, size and price.

The responses to several different questions in the survey suggest that consumers
consider apple origin to be relatively unimportant to their buying decisions (as discussed in
Section 5.3.) This apparent indifference to where apples are grown may have some
implications for the promotional strategies of Michigan and other apple producing regions.

Implications of the expressed preference by many consumers for bulk display apples are
discussed in Section 5.4. The MAl's traditional emphasis on bagged fruit makes the apparent
preference for bulk display apples important to future plans.

The final section of this chapter proposes some topics of future research suggested by
the results of this project.

5.2 Apple Characteristics And Their Importance to Consumers. When asked how
important various factors and apple characteristics are to their apple buying decisions, 80-90%
of the consumers surveyed indicated that flavor, freedom from bruising and blemishes, and

crispness are very important to them. Many consumers also said that color, variety and price

101

102

are very or somewhat important to them. Fewer people attached a great deal of importance
to size or to where the apples were grown.

Historically there has been a large emphasis in apple marketing on fruit size, color, and
price as characteristics which are highly desirable to consumers. This survey's results indicate
that these characteristics of historically large significance may be becoming less important to
consumers than some other characteristics such as flavor and crispness. However, previous
studies have indicated that color and size remain important to consumers.“3 Therefore, the
results from this research project must be interpreted with consideration of other evidence as
well.

5.2.1 Flavor. Flavor was indicated to be very important to 90% of the consumers who
were interviewed as part of this telephone survey. Another 6% said that flavor is somewhat
important to them, and only 3% of the consumers surveyed indicated that flavor is not
important to them.

The very high indicated importance of flavor to consumers may be an especially
important finding for the Michigan Apple Industry because the good flavor of Michigan's apple
varieties is considered to be one of the MAI's competitive strengths. The Michigan Apple
Industry has promoted this advantage by using its "Flavorbest' theme. The consumer survey
results tend to confirm that such a positioning is well-targeted since it emphasizes the indicated
important characteristic of apple flavor.

Although flavor was said by the surveyed consumers to be more important than many
appearance characteristics, flavor is not an attribute which consumers can evaluate in the store.
This brings up an important factor in considering the importance of the various apple
characteristics about which consumers were polled. Some characteristics can be evaluated in
the retail store -- these may be considered "pre-purchase' apple characteristics. Others cannot

be evaluated in the store, and may be called "post-purchase“ attributes. The difference

 

s“'Leonard, et al.

103

between pre-purchase and post-purchase apple characteristics was used by McCracken in her
panel study of consumers.“ Flavor was said by McCracken's consumer panelists to be an
important characteristic in that study, and was second only to texture in the number of
consumers who said that it is the most important post-purchase factor in their apple buying
decisions. However, as the ”post-purchase" designation implies, these characteristics are those
which consumers can evaluate only after they have purchased the apples. 'Pre-purchase'
characteristics, however, may entice the consumer to buy the apple in the first place.

While flavor was indicated in the survey of Detroit and Chicago consumers to be the
most important factor to consumers, characteristics that can be observed in the store are also
very important to attract consumers to buy the apples, especially for impulse purchases.

Emphasis on freedom from bruising and blemishes. which consumers indicated to be
the next most important characteristic after flavor, or perhaps color are pre-purchase
characteristics which may attract consumers to try the apples and discover their flavor.
Another tactic to influence consumers to buy certain apples may be to promote the flavor of
the apples, as the MAI does.

The focus group participants were very positive about sampling in grocery stores as a
way to promote the flavor of apples. In addition, some means of attracting consumers with an
important, highly rated pre-purchase factor may be needed to get the consumers to appreciate
the important characteristic of flavor.

5.2.2 Freedom from bruising and blemishes. Freedom from bruising and blemishes was
another attribute to which a high percentage of the surveyed consumers attached a great deal
of importance. Many of the consumers surveyed (86%) said freedom from blemishes and
bruising is very important to them, and another 11% said that this is somewhat important in
their decision to purchase apples. Only 3% of the people interviewed said that freedom from

bruising and blemishes is not important to them. Only slightly less important to the consumers

 

“Vicki McCracken, at al, "Development of a Scheme to Evaluate Consumer Apple Variety

Preferences,” in ,lggrnal gf Fggg Distribggign Research. February 1994, pp.56-63.

104

surveyed than flavor, freedom from bruising and blemishes was an aspect indicated in the
survey to be the most important apple attribute that consumers can observe in the grocery
store before purchasing the fruit.

The high ranking of freedom from bruising and blemishes shown in the telephone survey
emphasizes the importance of blemish-free apples. While blemishes from insect and disease
pests have been effectively controlled by Michigan growers, future control of these problems
may be difficult if adequate pesticide and integrated pest management tools are not available.
The possible restrictions of many crucially needed chemical inputs may challenge the future
ability of orchard managers to supply the blemish-free fruit demanded by the market.

Michigan growers, packers and shippers have made significant improvements in
reducing apple bruising, and the survey results suggest that these efforts need to be continued,
because freedom from bruises appears to be of high importance to many consumers. Bruises
are unappealing to most consumers, and can be noticed in the store. Ensuring the absence of
physical damage such as bruises and blemishes on apples may entice consumers to try the fruit.
Once the apple fruit have been tasted, the highly important apple characteristic of flavor can
be evaluated.

5.2.3 Crispness. Crispness is another apple attribute which a very high percentage of
the surveyed consumers said is very important (80%) or somewhat important (14%) to their
apple buying decisions. Flavor and freedom from physical damage are the only two apple
characteristics which were said by the surveyed consumers to be somewhat more important.
Crispness was said to be very important by many more peOpIe (80%) than color (46%), which
was the next most highly rated apple attribute. This suggests that production, harvest timing
and post-harvest practices emphasizing crispness rather than color may result in apples which
are consistent with consumers' strong preference for crisp apples.

As a characteristic which is apparently important to consumers' apple purchasing

decisions, crispness is a trait which needs to continue to be emphasized by the Michigan apple

105

industry. Pressure tests and ether measures of apple firmness can help the Michigan Apple
Industry to deliver the desired crisp product to consumers.

The relative importance of crispness to the consumers who were surveyed suggests
that promotions emphasizing this apple characteristic may effectively target an important issue
for consumers. Washington state apple organizations emphasize the crispness of that state's
apples in consumer promotions. Incorporating a similar message about apple crispness into the
MAI's existing promotional strategy, coupled with continued emphasis on delivering crisp apples
to consumers, may augment the marketing efforts of the Michigan Apple Industry.

5.2.4 Color. Color is an apple characteristic which has traditionally been given great
emphasis in apple marketing. Fully red apples are often more highly valued by produce buyers
than fruit with mixed red and green color. Other consumer oriented research projects have
indicated that consumers have an implied preference for full red color.“

Many of the consumers who were interviewed for this telephone survey did not attach
a great deal of importance to color relative to several other apple characteristics. Of the
consumers who were interviewed for the telephone survey, 46% said that color is very
important to them, and 27% said that it is somewhat important to them. Another 27% said
that color is not important to their apple buying decisions. Compared with the apple
characteristics of flavor, freedom from bruising and blemishes, and crispness, color is not
indicated to be an especially important factor in consumers' apple buying decisions. These
results suggest that although 73% said color is at least somewhat important, color may not be
the most important factor affecting apple purchases. However, the subconscious preference
for bright red color indicated by the Connecticut study suggests that color is not an unimportant
influence on consumers' apple buying decisions. It may just be relatively less important than

some other factors. Given the relatively lower ranking of color as compared to some other

 

“Leonard and Wadsworth.

106

attributes as shown in this consumer survey, less emphasis on color and more attention to
condition and flavor may be worth considering by the apple industry.

5.2.5 Variety. The importance of apple varieties to consumers is a topic of especial
importance to Michigan, "the Variety State." The wide selection of apple varieties grown in the
state of Michigan is considered a comparative strength of the Michigan Apple Industry. Strong
consumer interest in apple varieties could help the MAI market its apples.

Relative to some other apple characteristics, variety was rated in this survey as being
of somewhat moderate importance. Less than half of the consumers, 44% of those surveyed,
said that it is very important. However, a considerable majority (78%) of the consumers
surveyed did say that variety was either very important or somewhat important. Only 22%
said that variety is not important to them. The large proportion of the population with at least
a moderate interest in apple varieties may make a good audience for further education about
Michigan apples.

A review of crosstabulations of the importance of variety across demographic segments
has some interesting implications for the Michigan Apple Industry. Some demographic
segments, most notably Detroit residents and older consumers, are more likely than others to
value apple varieties highly. Those population segments without a strong interest in apple
varieties may be especially good targets for educational programs about apple varieties. It may
also be important to target the 78% of consumers who are at least moderately interested in
varieties to take advantage of their positive receptivity to this aspect.

Since the variety is an apple attribute which can be observed in the retail store (pre-
purchase), emphasizing apple varieties may be a good vehicle for promoting the excellent flavor
of Michigan apples. This may be especially appropriate since flavor was shown to be the most
important apple characteristic to the consumers who were interviewed.

Chicago consumers were somewhat less likely than Detroit consumers to say that apple
variety is very important to their apple purchasing decisions. There were 40% in Chicago

versus 47% in Detroit who indicated that apple variety is very important. The array of apple

107

varieties offered by the Michigan apple industry may therefore be less important to Chicago
consumers than it is to Detroit consumers. Education about the differences and importance of
apple varieties may be especially needed in Chicago in order to increase the appreciation of
Michigan apple varieties in this market.

The greater importance of apple varieties to Detroit consumers could be a result of
Michigan consumers having some innate loyalty to Michigan apples because Michigan positions
itself as ”the Variety State." The availability of local cidermills and direct market orchards near
Detroit may also contribute to a greater appreciation of apple varieties by some consumers.
Michigan consumers who visit U-Pick and other orchard operations are often exposed to more
apple varieties than are consumers who have only purchased apples from grocery stores. This
idea was supported by' the anecdotes of some focus group participants who said that they
greatly increased their knowledge and appreciation of apple varieties after visiting local orchards
and talking with orchard personnel.

Different age groups also showed different levels of interest in apple varieties (see Table
25). Consumers in the oldest age group were the most likely to say that apple variety is very
important to them in their apple purchase decisions. While 53% of the consumers over age 60
said that variety is very important, only 39% of all consumers under age 60 attached that much
importance to variety. The percentage of consumers over age 60 who said that apple variety
is very important is statistically significantly higher than the rest of the sample at a significance
level of 99%.

The greater importance of apple variety to older consumers suggests that this older age
group may be especially interested in the wide variety selection offered by the Michigan Apple
Industry. Consumer promotions about Michigan varieties which are targeted at this older age
group may be particularly effective.

While older consumers may be more likely to consider variety very important to their
decision to buy apples, consumers in the youngest age group were especially likely to say that

apple variety-is not Important (see Table 25). Of the surveyed consumers between the ages

108
Table 25 Importance of Variety Across Age Groups

Importance of Variety Across Age Groups

r in 18-29 M 40-49 532-319 60+ mg)
very important 34% 38% 42% 41% 53% 44%
somewhat 33% 41% 37% 36% 26% 34%
important

not important
34% 21% 21% 21% 20% 22%

of 18 and 29. 34% said that variety is not important to them which compares to only 21 % of
consumers in other age categories who said that apple variety is not important. This
percentage of young consumers who said that variety is not important is statistically
significantly greater than that of the rest of the sample (significant to 99%).

The larger proportion of younger consumers who said that variety is not important to
them implies that these consumers may be less appreciative of the wide selection of apple
varieties offered by the Michigan Apple Industry. They may be content with the two to three
apple varieties marketed in large volumes from other growing regions. With the indicated lesser
importance of apple varieties among younger consumers, the MAI may want to provide
education about the state's varieties to this age group. This may help to build more
appreciation of the MAI's apple variety selection with these young consumers who are
potentially long term consumers. Variety education programs in schools may also contribute
to a long-term market for the MAI's distinctive apple varieties. However, concentrating
educational efforts on age groups which are more pre-disposed to appreciating apple varieties
(such as older consumers) may be more effective, especiallygiven the increase in population
expected for older age groups (see section 2.4.2).

5.2.6 Size. The issue of fruit size is a particularly important one for the Michigan Apple
Industry. Due in part to the climatic conditions of Michigan, apple growers in the state tend

to produce a higher percentage of medium sized fruit compared to Washington. Because many

109

retailers emphasize large fruit, Michigan apples are at somewhat of a disadvantage in this
respect.

Previous research projects and focus group sessions indicated that there may be a
segment of the population that prefers smaller or medium sized fruit rather than larger fruit.
In particular, some consumers in the focus groups with small children expressed concerns about
their children's ability to eat an entire large apple. Several consumers in the focus group
sessions said that their children could not finish eating a very large apple, and that it would end
up being wasted. This may be a good market for Michigan to target.

The consumers who were interviewed during the telephone survey did not seem to
place a great deal of importance on the size of apples. Only 20% of the consumers who were
interviewed said that size is very important, and another 39% said that it is somewhat
important. Fully 41 % said that it is not important to them in their decision to buy fresh apples.
This size characteristic was one of the lowest rated attributes of any explored in the telephone
survey. To the rather significant group to whom size is not important, the large fruit which are
emphasized by many produce buyers would not seem to be especially important. Since apple
size when compared to other apple characteristics was shown to be relatively less important.
perhaps less emphasis on the largest sizes should be considered in apple marketing. advertising
and promotions.

In this discussion about the relative unimportance of size to the consumers surveyed,
it is important to note the implied preference for large sized apples that was observed by
Connecticut researchers. Consumers in that study who were asked to choose one apple from
a series of pairs tended to choose the larger of the two fruit.“ This supports the traditional
emphasis which much of the trade places on larger apples.

In our recent survey, there appears to be some difference in the importance of apple

size among certain age groups (see Table 26). Younger consumers were more likely than

 

”Leonard and Wadsworth.

110

others to say that apple size is very important to them for their apple purchase decisions. While
30% of the consumers aged 18 to 29 said that size is very important, only 18% of the
consumers over age 30 said that size is very important. These differences in responses by
consumers aged 18-29 is statistically significantly higher than that of consumers over 30 who
said that apple size is very important (statistically significant at over the 99% level). Satisfying
the strong size preferences of the youngest group of consumers may require more attention to
larger sized apples.

Table 26 Importance of Size Across Age Groups

Importance of Size Across Age Groups

mm 1.2-2—9 3&32 4_0:.&2 5.0;22 22:. 191:!
very important 30% 14% 15% 19% 23% 20%
somewhat 45% 43% 42% 41 % 30% 39%
Important

not important 25% 42% 43% 40% 48% 41 %

5.2.7 Price. Price is another product attribute which has traditionally been emphasized
in apple marketing. Results of this survey indicate that a number of other apple characteristics
are more important to consumers than price. Of the consumers interviewed, 36% said that
price is very important to them, and another 40% said that price is somewhat important. Thus
76% of the consumers surveyed said that price was at least somewhat important. However,
flavor, crispness, and freedom from bruising and blemishes was said to be very important to
80-90% of the consumers surveyed.

The study results show a large portion of the sample of consumers who rate flavor and
condition as being more important to their purchasing decisions than price. In addition, most
of the consumers who said that price is very important also said that flavor, freedom from
bruises and blemishes, and crispness are also very important to them. This suggests that while

price is an important consideration for these consumers, it is only one of several important

 

111

aspects. These consumers may not want to sacrifice the flavor or condition of their apples for
the sake of lower price. There appears to be a large portion of the sampled consumers who
rate flavor and condition as being as important or more important to them than price.
Competing with heavy emphasis on the price with less emphasis on these other, apparently
more important, apple attributes may not be the most effective strategy for apple marketers.

There is also a group of consumers, 24% of the sample, who said that price is not
important to their decision to buy apples. This group of consumers may pay a premium price
for apples with more desired attributes such as flavor and crispness.

Crosstabulations of the importance of price across some demographic segments suggest
that some groups of consumers are more concerned with apple prices than are others. There
are some differences in the importance of price across income segments and age groups.

Table 27 Importance of Price Across Income Segments

Importance of Price Across Income Segments

 

imam: .29: §_.__12 500- .$._.__22 500- M £529.02 19.15!
m 12,499 22 499 34,999 49,992 i

very 46% 54% 34% 33% 25% 36%
some- 26% 28% 41 % 43% 50% 40%
what

not 28% 18% 25% 24% 25% 24%

One might expect that consumers in the lowest income segments would be the most
likely to say that price is very important. That pattern was confirmed by the telephone survey
results. Consumers with incomes less than $22,499 were in fact more likely than others to say
that apple price is very important to them (see Table 27). In all income segments, however,
there is a significant proportion of consumers who said that apple price is not important to them

in their decisions to buy apples.

112

While a fairly constant percentage of consumers across all income groups attach some
importance to apple price, it seems to be less important to consumers with higher incomes.
As incomes rise, consumers may still notice the price of apples, but it is likely to be only
somewhat important rather than very important to them. To wealthier customers, in particular,
price seems to be less important than a number of other apple characteristics. In marketing to
wealthier areas, price may be less important to emphasise in marketing strategies than other
apple characteristics. Lower income areas may be the most receptive to a lower price
positioning.

Crosstabulations across age groups show that price is more important to more of the
oldest age group of consumers. Consumers over the age of 60 were especially likely to say
that price is very important to them (see Table 28). The lower median income of consumers
over age 65 (see Table 2) may help to explain this indicated greater concern with apple size.

This group of consumers may be especially receptive to value priced apple promotions. As with
Table 28 Importance of Price Across Age Groups

Importance of Price Across Age Groups

Latina 12:22 2932 59:12 59:52 20; 19131
very 28% 34% 33% 28% 44% 36%
important
someowhat 46% 43 % 44% 47% 31 % 40%
important
not 26% 22% 23% 25% 25% 24%
important

the income segments, there is an indicated group of 22%-26% of consumers in all age
categories who said that apple price is not important to them.‘

The composite question about the importance of apple characteristics to consumers
suggests that certain attributes which have traditionally been emphasized the most, Such as
price, color and size, are not necessarily those apple characteristics which consumers say that

they now value the most. Further observation of consumer preferences for fresh apples may

113

show a changing market currently and in the future for apples with less emphasis on large size,
full red color and low prices and more emphasis on flavor, crispness, and freedom from bruising
and blemishes.

A McNemar test of related samples reveals that the percentage of consumers who said
that various apple characteristics are very important to them varies significantly from attribute

to attribute. Figure 5 illustrates the statistical differences between the various apple

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Statistical Equality of Apple Characteristics
(99% slgnlflcanoe)
100
A
m.’ 8
#4555553: ;353535253 9°”
533351 $333331: $352515
: : :':3:1 :5: : : : 3.3.1.3:3:
5553555553 :353535355 5555335555
m—sfsfsfsfsi E52???
E 53232323: 2:232:25 o p
3:355:35 5:32:35: 33355: 4391.
n. 55523525: 2525255535 s's's'sisi $323532 41"
4° - 7 53515-3:- -:-:-:-:-: 3.13.3.3: 5:131:15: »: : : : 5‘
3:35:35 5:35:53: 2333-5: 5255535355 5.5.5.553
3‘3‘3‘553§ 5553532323 2????
”-5
::s:.:.:.: 5:52:22 2:52:22: 5:22:32: 2.2.5.55:
:3:1.-.-.1 l:3:':=:3: 3:23:21: :3:3:3:3:1 :':':':‘:l
o c e .I. e eeeeeee I. e o
I mulled l color I
Orlap Variety

 

 

 

 

Figure 5 Statistical Equality of Apple Characteristics

characteristics. Flavor, which is in the "A' group statistically, was said to be very important
to more people (90%) than freedom from bruising and blemishes (86%), which is in the '8'

category. However, color and variety, which are both in the 'D' category, have statistically

114

equal percentages of consumers who said that they are very important to apples buying
decisions.

Flavor is clearly the characteristic which was given the most 'very important” ratings
by the consumers surveyed. Freedom from bruising and blemishes and crispness are also rated
significantly higher than many other characteristics. Evidence from this question helps to
support the conclusion that these apple characteristics may deserve more emphasis in apple
marketing.

The statistically higher rating of apple condition (crispness) suggests that this apple
characteristic may deserve somewhat more attention than the less highly rated characteristics
of color and size, although because large percentages of consumers rated these attributes as
"somewhat important” these warrant some continued emphasis.

The fact that the percentage of surveyed consumers who said that price is 'very
important" is significantly higher than the percent rating size as ”very important“ is interesting
because it implies that a low price may draw some consumers away from apples which have
a larger size but higher price. In fact, the importance of size and apple origin, as rated by the
surveyed consumers, is statistically significantly lower than the importance of many other apple
characteristics.

A challenge to the fresh apple industry segment will continue to be to communicate the
desirable post-purchase characteristics of apples, such as flavor and crispness, to consumers
in the grocery store. This may involve continued attention to important pre-purchase apple
attributes, especially freedom from bruising and blemishes, color, and variety along with high
performance and information on flavor and crispness.

5.3 The relative unimportance of apple origin. Michigan and other apple producing
states devote some promotional efforts to establishing their names as a type of 'brand' with
apple consumers. Point of purchase materials in supermarkets often promote a particular

state's apple, and some consumer advertising on radio or in newspapers has also been used.

115

The responses from this consumer survey indicate that promoting apples by their growing
region focuses on an issue that is relatively unimportant to most consumers.

When consumers were asked about the importance of several apple characteristics to
their buying decisions, where the apple grown was the most likely to be considered not
important by the consumers. Of the consumers surveyed, 65% said that where an apple was
grown is not important to them. Only 16% said that it is very important to them, and 19% said
that the origin of apples is somewhat important to their purchasing decision. There were many
other apple attributes which appear to be more highly valued by consumers. Promotional
strategies emphasizing these characteristics rather than where the apple was grown may target
issues which are more important to consumers' buying decisions.

The responses to other questions related to the origin of apples also suggest that
consumers are not particularly concerned with where their apples are grown. In response to
questions about purchasing or impressions of apples from different growing regions, many
consumers said "don't know.“ The high levels of "don't know" responses to questions about
apple origin suggest that some consumers are not accustomed to thinking of apples in terms
of where the fruit was grown.

When consumers were asked what words or images they thought of in connection with
Michigan apples, 25% of the consumers answered "don't know." The percentage answering
'don't know“ was higher in Chicago than it was in Detroit, with 34% in Chicago versus 19%
in the Michigan sample. This suggests that Michigan may not be established in many
consumers' minds as a brand of apples.

In another question related to the origin of apples, consumers were asked to compare
Michigan apples to those from Washington. A substantial proportion of the consumers (38%)
replied “don't know' to this question. As with the question about words associated with
Michigan apples, more consumers in Chicago replied “don't know” than did Detroit consumers,

46% in Chicago compared with 32% in Detroit. The high rate of 'don't know" responses to

116

this question suggests an inability to differentiate between the two regions' apples, or perhaps
that the origin of an apple is not a distinguishing characteristic.

Given the apparent disinterest in the origin of apples by most consumers, promotional
campaigns focusing on a more important characteristic such as flavor, crispness or variety may
be more effective. However, the Michigan Apple Industry may wish to continue to promote the
name "Michigan" in association with their apple promotions. Associating the Michigan 'brand'
with one or more of the highly important apple characteristics may tie Michigan in with an apple
attribute which is already established in the minds of consumers as being important. This may
be easier than trying to establish the state of origin as an important factor in the decision to buy
apples.

Another conclusion which can be made on the basis of responses to the questions
about growing regions is that consumers who do have opinions about the origin of apples tend
to be positive about Michigan apples. 0f the consumers who were able to compare Michigan
apples to those from Washington state, many said that Michigan apples were the same or
better than Washington apples. This is good news for the Michigan Apple Industry. The MAI
may be able to build on this positive image in future promotions.

5.4 The indicated preference for bulk display apples. Many of the consumers surveyed
by telephone indicated they usually purchase apples from bulk retail displays where they choose
the individual fruit. About 57% of the consumers surveyed said that they prefer to purchase
apples from such bulk displays. Only 23% indicated a preference for buying bagged apples
while 19% of the consumers surveyed said that they buy apples both ways. The MAI packs
most of its fresh apples in bags rather than tray packs for bulk display, although there has been
recent movement into more tray packs. The apparent preference of many consumers for bulk
display apples suggests that even further emphasis on tray packed apples for this market may

be justified.

1 17

Certain parts of the population may be more inclined to purchase the bagged apples
which the MAI has traditionally produced. Promotions on which are targeted toward these
market segments may be useful for the Michigan fresh apple industry.

Households including children may be more inclined to purchase apples in bags than
households without children. There were 49% of the surveyed households with children who
indicated they purchase bagged apples at least some of the time while 39% of households
without children said that they buy bagged apples most or some of the time. Promotions
focused on children may target an especially receptive audience for bagged apples.

5.5 Suggestions for future research. The consumer market research described in this
thesis provides some useful information for the Michigan Apple Industry. It also illuminates
some issues which may deserve attention in future research.

One point which could be explored by subsequent research is the importance of apple
variety to consumers. Detroit area residents showed more of an interest in apple varieties than
did Chicago consumers. Future consumer studies of markets farther from major apple
producing regions may show even less interest in apple varieties. Markets more distant from
Michigan may also be less familiar with the state's apple varieties.

The relative importance of apple characteristics, and the specific preferences for these
characteristics could also be investigated in more detail. The consumer telephone survey
indicates that apple size and color are not especially important to consumers. This is not
consistent with the traditional emphasis on large sized, highly red apples. More research on
this issue could help to explain this situation, which may be changing substantially in the future.
Consumer preferences information related to more specific sizes, such as medium rather than
large fruit would be interesting to apple producers, as would greater detail on color preferences.

5.6 Closing comments. Market research about consumer preferences for fresh apples
may help the fresh apple industry to deliver a product that best meets consumer demand.

Some of the information generated by this research project can help the Michigan Apple

 

118

Industry as it plans for the future. It may also aid the development of future research studies
about consumer preferences, particularly for apples.

The consumer research presented in this thesis provides some information for the MAI
as it faces the challenge of satisfying modern consumers. Espcially for an agricultural
commodity such as fresh apples, which are not greatly transformed on the journey from farm
to table, a solid understanding of changing consumer preferences is quite important to all
segments of the industry, including producers, packers, shippers and other participants. These
elements of the apple marketing chain shoulder much of the burden of delivering desirable fruit
to the consumer. Unlike producers of commodities such as grains and oils, fresh apple
producers and packers cannot rely on refining and processing to smooth over quality
inconsistencies in their product. These producers may face increasing challenges in coming
years as consumers continue to demand consistently high quality produce and competing
supply regions continue to improve the quality of apples provided to meet these consumer
demands.

This market research project has indicated the relative importance of some apple
attributes to consumers. Apple industry participants who are keeping their eyes on consumer
demand for their product may wish to increase their emphasis on those qualities which were
indicated by consumers to be of the greatest importance to their apple buying decisions.
Further research may be needed to clarify some of these preferences, particularly for size and
for other aspects of consumer behavior related to apple purchases.

As the Michigan Apple Industry moves into the future, it may face increasing challenges
from consumers who desire consistently high quality fruit. Other growing regions. especially
Washington, will also adapt to meet these changing demands. The dynamic MAI, with the help
of market research such as that reported in this thesis, will need to continue to adjust to meet
consumer preferences. This responsiveness to the desires of consumers can add to the

continued success of the Michigan Apple Industry in the fresh apple market.

APPENDIX

Detroit Metro Area and Chicago

Consumer Phone Survey

Crosstabs

 

121
O3. When you are deciding which apples to buy, what factors or apple characteristics are

most important to you? Would you say that they are very important, somewhat important
or m; important?

Varign

Table 29 Variety by Age . Detroit

 

     

   

- 1§~29 30-39 40-49 50-59

37% 43% 45%

some- 30% 41 % 37% 37%

what

not 33% 18% 20% 15% 11%

Table 29 Variety by Age -- Chicago

1 8-29 39-39 49-49 §_O_-I-_
29% 34% 41% 48%

some- 37% 42% 36% 34% 21 %

what

not 34% 25% 22% 32% 31%

 

Table 30

imam:

very

some-
what

not

Table 31

very

some-
what

“0t

Table 32

VOW

some-
what

not

Variety by Age -- Both Markets

19-29 90-39
34% 38%
33% 41 %
34% 21 %

Variety by Income -- Detroit

§_Q;g 12 5 0
$12 4 ;
$22,499
46% 60%
33% 26%
21% 14%

Variety by Income -- Chicago

‘ £2 19 2.12.220
212.122 :
M
27% 44%
27% 33%
46% 22%

122

42%

37%

21%

$22,999

$34,999
42%
38%

18%

40%

25%

35%

41%

36%

21%

$2.292
41%

42%

17%

$2.222
40%

35%

25%

53%

26%

20%

42%

35%

23%

37%
35%

28%

 

123

Table 33 Variety by Income -- Both Markets

 

im - 99m $12,500 $22,500

m 12 4 9 ; ;
$22,499 $34 999

very 37% 53% 41 %

some- 30% 29% 33%

what

not 33% 18% 24%

Table 34 Variety by Gender -- Detroit

tall—".9 ELIE.
very important 42%
somewhat important 3 5 %
not important 22%

Table 35 Variety by Gender -- Chicago

Latins mam
very important 33%
somewhat important 31 %

not important 36%

$35,000
$45,925
41 %

39%

20%

$50
+

40%

35%

25%

O

124

Table 36 Variety by Gender -- Both Markets

rati g

very important

somewhat important

not important

9.9.9;

3
2’.
m

38%
33%

28%

Table 37 Color by Income -- Detroit

Latina
very
important

somewhat
important

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

£9 19 12 500-
‘2 4 m
38% 43%
29% 26%
33% 3.1%,

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

Table 38 Color by Income -- Chicago

Latim

very
important

somewhat
important

 

_$_Q IQ §12,§OQ-
£12,499 £22,499
29% 52%
24% 11%

 

§22,§QQ-
§34,999

53%

mm
46%
34%

20%

 

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

125

Table 39 Color by Income -- Both Markets

 

 

rating $Q-§12,4999 $12,500- $22,500- $35 000- $90M
$34,999 $34,999 $49 999

very 33% 47% 51% 44% 42%

important

somewhat 27% 19% 21 % 26% 33%

important

not important 40% 34% 27% 30% 25%

Table 40 Color by Age -- Detroit

very 47% 44% 48% 40% 50%
important
somewhat 28% 28% 28% 34% 23%
important
not important 23% 28% 24% 24% 28%

Table 41 Color by Age -- Chicago

rating 1 5-23 gg-gg 4045 5.0.52 5.0m
very 52% 49% 39% 42% 46%
important
somewhat 24% 20% 32% 27% 26%
important

not important 24% 32% 30% 32% 28%

Table 42 Color by Age -- Both Markets

mtmn _8_21 -2 3939.
very 49% 46%
important

somewhat 27% 25%
important

not important 23% 29%

Table 43 Color by Gender -- Detroit

mm mile
very important 43%
somewhat important 28%
not important 28%

Table 44 Color by Gender -- Chicago

ration __a_em I
very important 40%
somewhat important 24%

not important 36%

126

27%

48%

24%

28%

127

Table 45 Color by Gender -- Both Markets

   

ragi g male female
very important 41 % 47%
somewhat important 27 % 27 %
not important 32 % 26%
§i_ze 91 me mm

Table 46 Size by Age -- Detroit
rgti g 1 9-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 99 +
very 30% 14% 16% 23% 16%
important
somewhat 43 % 44% 43 % 42% 31 %
important

27% 426 41% 36%

Table 47 Size by Age -- Chicago
very 30% 15% 14% 15% 31%
important
somewhat 48% 42% 41 % 39% 28%
important

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

 

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

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

 

128

Table 48 Size by Age -- Both Markets

ration 12.22 1mm 5mm
very 30% 1 4 % 1 5 %
important

somewhat 45 % 43 % 42 %
important

not 25 % 42 % 43 %
important

Table 49 Size by Income -- Detroit

mine .12 ; L221 2 4 L2.5_0_9_1 - 1m -
$24,499 $14,999

very 17% 6% 21 %

important

somewhat 33% 44% 37%

important

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

“MWWMM 50% 50% 42%

19%

41%

40%

23%

30%

48%

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

Table 50 Size by Income -- Chicago

fall 9 _$_; §12,439
very 27 %
important

somewhat 27 %
important

not important 26%

Table 51 Size by Income -- Both Markets

 

rating $0-$12 499
very 22%
important

somewhat 30%
important

not important 48%

$12 500-
$24 499

 

 

11%

44%

44%

912,500-
$24 499

 

8%

44%

48%

Table 52 Size by Gender -- Detroit

mtmn
very important
somewhat important

not important

mm
17%
41%

42%

129

$24,500-
$34,999

33%

33%

35%

$24 500-
$34,999

25%

 

36%

40%

§9§,090-
$49,999
27%

27%

46%

232.299.:

18%

39%

44%

11%

50%

39%

17%

44%

39%

130

Table 53 Size by Gender -- Chicago

mint:
very important
somewhat important

not important

male
22%
41%

37%

Table 54 Size by Gender -- Both Markets

Latina
very important
somewhat important

not important

Table 55 Size by Children in the Household -- Detroit

mm

very important
somewhat important

not important

mil r nmmelmusmqld

18%
44%

38%

23%
35%

43%

mcfldflniflmfi
MM

18%
38%

44%

131

Table 61 Size by Children in the Household -- Chicago

rating

very important
somewhat important

not important

 

21%

43%

38%

Table 57 Size by Children in the Household -- Both Markets

rati g

very important
somewhat important

not important

children jg th household

 

19%
42%

39%

Table 58 Price by Income -- Detroit

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

 

somewhat 30%
important

not important 26%

 

222.222
6% 42%
20% 26%

{Lo chilgrgn E 1.112

hggsehold
20%

37%
43%

...........

26%

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

22%

132

Table 59 Price by Income -- Chicago

.atJr i 2M 12 4 §._._12 500- .$__._9_222 5 - 2.32.299.- 222.920;
§_._9_22 4 9 1321.322 meme

very 48% 54% 41 % 44% 18%

important

somewhat 22% 31 % 39% 35% 50%

important

noumportam % 15% 2M»

   

Table 60 Price by Income -- Both Markets

Latins M122 12 500- 5122.522; 222.929.- 252.209;
§22,499 225.222 242.222

very 46% 54% 34% 33% 25%

important

somewhat 26% 28% 41 % 43% 50%

important

not important 28% 18% 25% 24% 25%

Table 61 Price by Age -- Detroit

     

18.22 10.12 _0_a4 -4
28% 31% 31%
somewhat 47% 48% 43% 50% 33%

important

not important 25% 21 % 26% 26% 23%

Table 62 Price by Age -- Chicago

 

somewhat 45%
important

not important 28%

Table 63 Price by Age -- Both Markets

rati 9 18-29
very 28%
important

somewhat 46%
important

not important 26%

 

133

 

23%

28%

47%

25%

 

28%

44%

31%

25%

134

Table 64 Price by Working Outside of the Home -- Detroit.

 

Lain M319 92% at 21.62 09! mm m 91
ho_me 3.1112 Mme
27% 40%

somewhat important 46% 39%

not important 27% 21 %

Table 65 Price by Working Outside of the Home -- Chicago.

 

Latino MLOf—kifln M Di 1'12 not mention 911121519 21
(moms m: M
3.25% #395

somewhat important 42 % 33 %

not important 27 % 24 %

Table 66 Price by Working Outside of the Home -- Both Markets

13th _9__Qwrkin mam 052141.339er 99.120991
home 1115th m

very important 29% 42%

somewhat important 45% 37%

not important 27% 22%

Table 67 Price by Gender -- Detroit

rating

very important
somewhat important

not important

Table 68 Price by Gender -- Chicago

rating

very important
somewhat important

not important

male
37%
38%

26%

135

Table 69 Price by Gender -- Both Markets

thnn

very important
somewhat important

not important

male
31 %
40%

29%

37%
41 %

22%

136

Table 70 Price by the Presence of Children -- Detroit

 

[911119 children i_e th_e household m Mm i_n me
hoesehele

very important 34% 33%

somewhat important 44% 42%

not important 22% 25%

Table 71 Price by the Presence of Children -- Chicago

[11109 20er i2 311.6 _9.U_$__9_dh eh l .19 MM is me
mum:

very important 42% 36%

somewhat important 37% 37%

not important 21 % 27%

Table 72 Price by the Presence of Children -- Both Markets

reti g children m th_e houeehelg Q9 hil r n jg th_e
11.925.111.010

very important 37% 34%

somewhat important 42% 40%

not important 21 % 26%

137

04. Do you usually purchase apples in bags or from displays where you choose the
individual fruit [or both]?

Table 73 How Apples Are Purchased by the Presence of Children -- Detroit

 

 

n w r children 32 the household _l'_I_Q hil r n i_tne
h h I

bulk 49% 59%

both 20% 16%

Table 74 How Apples Are Purchased by the Presence of Children -- Chicago

 

 

3.03m; children in m M0 0.0 9__.d_e_hi| r n i. the
h h I
23% 13%
bulk 55% 65%
both 23% 22%

Table 75 How Apples Are Purchased by the Presence of Children -- Both Markets

n w r ehildren jg th_e hegsehelg gg ehilgren jg the
new
bags 28% 21 %
bulk 51 % 61 %

both 21 % 18%

138

Table 76 How Apples Are Purchased by Age -- Detroit

m me 039 40-4 M §_Q_+_
bags 23% 35% 30% 23% 25%
Wk 35% 47% 49% 60% 53%
both 12% 18% 21 % 18% 16%

Table 77 How Apples Are Purchased by Age -- Chicago

Lama 12-_2_2 M M 50319 59;
bags 21% 15% 15% 12% 15%
bulk 67% 55% 71% 59% 60%
both 12% 30% 14% 29% 25%

Table 78 How Apples Are Purchased by Age -- Both Markets

mm 1.822 29.-22 59.92 5.1252 22:
bags 22% 28% 25% 18% 21 %
bulk 66% 50% 57% 59% 59%

both 12% 32% 18% 22% 20%

Table 79 How Apples Are Purchased by Gender -- Detroit

bags
bulk

both

Table 80 How Apples Are Purchased by Gender -- Chicago

n w r
bags
bulk

both

Table 81

3mm;
bags
bulk

both

 

al

3
co

 

14%
58%

28%

LE:-

22%
58%

20%

139

How Apples Are Purchased by Gender -- Both Markets

Table 82

bags
bulk

both

Table 83

new

bags
bulk

both

Table 84

bags
bulk

both

140

How Apples Are Purchased Across Income Segments -- Detroit

99; 912,599- 922,500- 0 0- $5 +
12 4 922,499 $94,999 $49,999

33% 23% 30% 32% 23%

50% 57% 51% 51% 59%

17% 20% 18% 17% 19%

How Apples Are Purchased Across Income Segments -- Chicago

9% 912,500- $22,590- $35,900- 159,999
912,499 $22,499 $34,999 $4 9

35% 19% 30% 11% 7%

39% 48% 53% 70% 71%
26% 33% 18% 19% 22%

How Apples Are Purchased Across Income Segments -- Both Markets

32 £2220. $29.0. 222.929.- 222.2%
§.].2A2.2 £22.02 §2_.222 24.2.222

34% 21 % 30% 24% 17%
45% 53% 52% 58% 63%

21% 26% 18% 18% 20%

141

05. How do you usually use fresh apples? For eating fresh or for cooking (or both)?

Table 85 How Apples Are Used By Gender —- Detroit

0 W r mam £12181:
fresh 75% 54%
cooking 3 % 5 %
both 22% 42%

Table 86 How Apples Are Used by Gender -- Chicago

   

w
cooking 0% 4%
both 1 9% 35%

Table 87 How Apples Are Used by Gender -- Both Markets

30mm 4.5m I female
fresh 77% 60%
cooking 2% 4%

both 21 % 39%

Table 88 How Apples Are Used by Employment -- Detroit

 

cooking

both

Table 89 How Apples Are Used by Employment -- Chicago

..........

. - a
............
............

cooking

both

142

werking eutsige g_f_ me
home

werking eutside 9_f me
home

 

101me rkin pmsidepi
menszme

 

mmofldmmsidenf
meheme

..........

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

Table 90 How Apples Are Used by Employment -- Both Markets

fresh
cooking

both

_.L_QW rkin amide 91 the
heme

71%
2%

27%

nmmkhnmnsisleef
1mm

55%
5%

40%

Table 91

answer

fresh
cooking

both

143

ghildren i_n th household

62%
1%

37%

Use by The Presence of Children in the Household -- Detroit

2
q
3

n9 mm
h

u h l
59%
6%

35%

Table 92 Use by the Presence of Children in the Household -- Chicago

§fl§W§f

fresh
cooking

both

 

30%

Table 93 Use by the Presence of Children in the Household -- Both Markets

am

fresh
cooking

both

2.__e_hi|dr n m the Lumbar!

65%
1%

34%

no ghilgrgn in th_e
Museum

62%
5%

33%

Table 94 Use by Income -- Detroit

 

n w r
£22,499

fresh 29% 57%

cooking 33% 6%

both 38% 37%

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

Table 95 Use by Income -- Chicago

angwgr £Q-£12,499 £12,509-
£22,499

fresh 83% 78%

cooking 4% 4%

both 13% 19%

Table 96 Use by Income -- Both Markets

M £O-£12,499 £12,999-
£22,499

fresh 55% 66%

cooking 19% 5%

both 26% 29%

144

$22,500-
334.999

62%
1%

37%

$22,999-
games

55%
3%

43%

£22,990-
£34,999

59%
2%

39%

65%
3%

32%

26%

30%

68%
2%
31 %

67%
1%

32%

68%
1%

31%3

145

Table 97 Use by Age -- Detroit

am 1&29 3M 40_-4& M2
fresh 75% 69% 60% 66%
cooking 3% 2% 1 % 2%
both 22% 29% 39% 32%

 

Table 98 Use by Age -- Chicago

0 W r 1.812 M M 5.9;59 5.0;
fresh 74% 68% 78% 61% 59%
cooking 2% 2% 2% 5% 3%
both 24% 30% 20% 34% 38%

Table 99 Use by Age -- Both Markets

n w r m2: m M 59:52 on
fresh 75% 69% 67% 64% 50%
cooking 3% 2% 1 % 3% 7%

both 23% 30% 32% 33% 43%

146

08. Which of the following apple varieties are you familiar with?

Table 100 Familiarity With Jonathan by Age

midget

Detroit

Chicago

All Markets

Table 101

mm

Detroit

Chicago

All Markets

Table 102 Familiarity VWth ldared by Age

masses

Detroit

Chicago

All Markets

J_8;2_9
63%
62%
63%

Familiarity With Home by Age

1812
38%
33%

36%

18:22
57%
31 %
46%

99-99
83%
85 %

84%

3953.3
72%
62%

68%

m
62%
32%

51%

4 -49
87%
90%

88%

84%
98%
89%

76%
71%

74%

57%
22%
43%

95%
90%
93%

82%
78%
80%

71%
35%

55%

147

Table 103 Familiarity Wlth Empire by Age

market 1&29 M9 M9
Detroit 33% 60% 64%
Chicago 19% 39% 27 %
All Markets 28% 53% 51 %

Table 104 Familiarity Wlth Empire by Income

m £Q-£12,599 $12,500- 22
£22,499 M

Detroit 79% 54% 58%

Chicago 30% 30% 30%

All Markets 55% 44% 48%

Table 105 Familiarity Wlth Paulared by Age

market 13.-.22 323.2 M9
Detroit 32% 35% 32%
Chicago 12% 21 % 20%
All Markets 24% 30% 28%

50-59
52%
22%

40%

36%
27%

32%

65%
29%

49%

59%
40%
52%

47%
20%

35%

148

Table 106 Familiarity Wlth Jonagold by Income

MEGS £Q-£12,499 £12,500- $22,509-
$22,499 $34,999

Detroit 42% 23% 22%

Chicago 17% 30% 23%

All Markets 30% 26% 22%

Table 107 Familiarity With Jonamac by Income

maflsaj W $2.599; £25.02
£22,499 $34,999

Detroit 8% 29% 27%

Chicago 0% 19% 15%

All Markets 4% 24% 23%

Table 108 Familiarity Mth Fuji by Age

mm M 3.9.3.2 M9
Detroit 12% 15% 14%
Chicago 10% 26% 1 5%
All Markets 1 1% 19% 15%

$3 0-
$4 9

27%
26%

27%

24%
24%

24%

33%
30%

32%

26%
15%
22%

22%
22%

22%

 

149

Table 109 Familiarity With Fuji by Income

£Q-£12,499 £12,500- £22,509-

mkit £22,499 $34,999
Detroit 1 7% 9% 14%
Chicago 9% 1 5% 20%
All Markets 13% 1 1 % 16%

Table 110 Familiarity With Braeburn by Age

m 1.8;2_9 £3.12 40_-49
Detroit 3 % 5 % 1 1 %
Chicago 5 % 8% 1 4%
All Markets 4% 6 % 1 2 %

£35,990-
$49,999

14%
28%

19%

19%
15%
18%

24%
16%

21%

10%
15%
13%

150

Focus Group Questions
1. When you think of apples, what words come to mind?

2. When you are deciding which apples to buy, what characteristics of the apple are most
important to you, such as size, color?

3. What MEI! characteristics are most important to you in your apple purchase decisions?

4. When you are deciding which apples to buy, what aspects of the store are most
important to you, such as price, display, etc.?

5. When you think of Michigan apples, what words come to mind?

6. How do you compare Michigan apples to apples from other growing regions, such as
Washington state? Why?

7. What are your perceptions about apples as part of a nutritious diet?

8. When you think of apple varieties, which ones come to mind? Please write them down
on a piece of paper...please check the varieties that you purchase regularly.

9. Now, would you please tell us which varieties you checked as those that you regularly
purchase? Why do you prefer these varieties? That is what characteristics do you
especially like about these varieties?

10. What would it take to get you to purchase a new variety?

11. Why don't you purchase the varieties that you don’t? Why don't you like them?

12. Now I am going to pass out a list of apple varieties. I would like you to talk amongst
yourselves and write down what words come to mind when you think of each variety.

13. How many varieties would you like your grocery store to carry? Why?
14. Do you usually purchase apples in bags or bulk? Why?
15. Are your apple purchases planned before entering the store or an impulse purchase

after you are in the store? Do you sometimes plan to buy apples and sometimes just pick
them up on impulse?

151

Bibiliography
Aaker, David A. Sttategie Market Management, 2nd Edition. New York: John VVIIey &
Sons, 1988.
Allen, John W. and Thomas R. Pierson. F09_d Marketing am! W Lmegeatjgge 1.9!

W- East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Food Industry Institute,
1993. Report 9301.

Blaylock, James R., David M. Smallwood, and W. Noel Blisard. Hm mg liegeehelg
W Affeet fleet! §eending i_n 1980-89? Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Division, 1992. Agriculture

Information Bulletin 643.

Department of Housing and Urban Development. ”Median Family Incomes for Fiscal Year
1994.“ in H.U.D. User's Document Reporduction Service Document 001800.

Dillon, William R., et al. Eeseefiais at Marketing Reeeareh. Homewood, IL: Irwin Press,
1993.

Dunham. Dennis. £9951 fleet Beview 1999. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Economics Research Service, Commodity Economics Division, 1993.
Agricultural Economics Report 696.

Grosof, M.S., and H. Sardy. A Reeeareh Primer t9_r tee geefl a_n_q m We.
Orlando: Academic Press, 1985.

Leonard, Robert J, and James J. Wadsworth. Qensemer _P_refe.r_eeeee:_ A ewe te
geeeeetieet Angle Marketing. Storrs, CT : University of Connecticut, Department of
Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology. Food Marketing Policy Center. Research
Report 4.

Marion, Bruce W. and Willard F. Mueller, “Industrial Organization, Economics and the Food

System," in EettLre Frentiere i3 Agrieulteral Marketing, ed. Paul Farris (Ames: Iowa
State University Press, 1983), 30.

McCracken, Vicki, Bernd Maier, Terri Boylston, and Thomas Worley. “Development of a
Scheme to Evaluate Consumer Apple Variety Preferences.“ iemal 91 [age
Wm 3mm. February. 1994.

Michigan Department of Agriculture, Marketing Miehigae Fte't, 1991-1993.

Person, James E., ed. 51111111931 mete 9_f tee waited statee. Detroit: "Gale Research,
lnc., 1993.

152

Peterson, Christopher and Scott Swinton. "Agribusiness Opportunities in the 21st
Century.“ Qheicee, Third Quarter, 1992.

Ricks, Donald. file Miehigan Aeele Ineesttx _-; A Marketing Qverview. East Lansing, MI:
Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural Economics, 1991. Staff Paper

91-4.

Ricks, Donald. Trenee ie 9.9. Aeele Preeuetien aeq Maier Marketa. East Lansing, MI:
Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural Economics, 1991. Staff Paper

91-2.

Ricks, Donald. Qemeetitive Marketing o_f Michigan Amie; a paper presented at the
International Dwarf Fruit Tree Conference, Grand Rapids, MI, February 21, 1994.

Ricks, Donald, Timothy Woods, and Donald Hinman. Changing Cemeetitive floemee aee

Bey Matket Trenee ef m Miehigan Aeele Induetry. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State
University, Department of Agricultural Economics, 1994.

Senauer, Ben, Elaine Asp, and Jean Kinsey. Feed Trenee an_d tee Qhanging M. St.
Paul, MN: Eagan Press, 1991.

Shepherd, Geoffrey S. and Gene A. Futrell. Marketing Farm Mme: Eeenemie m.
Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press, 1982.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. §tati§tical Abstract ef m Unitee State; 1994 l114th edition.)
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1994.

Ilae Paeker. ”Meeting Retail Demand.” 20 October, 1990, Washington Apples Section, p.
48.

Lhefiaeket. 'Fresh Trends.“ 1993.
Inefiacket. 'Fresh Trends.” 1994.

Warner, Geraldine. 'New Firmness Standard Eliminates U.S. No. 1." flue Paeket, 21
October, 1989, 4C.