AN EVALUATEON OF MERCHANDISENG CUTsUP TURKEY IN THE DETROIT MARKET AREA Thesis for the Degree of pin. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Charles C. Sheppard 1958 HESIS IMHTWIHill]llllfllflllfiifllllfilll 3 1293 01754 3467 This is to certify that the thesis entitled AN EVALUATTCI“. CF I‘EECHMTDIFBING CT TT..UP TURKEY IN TFE DETRF‘IT lviAQKET AREA presented hg Charles C. ghetpard has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ih.D. in Poultry Science degree Date December 1, 1958 0-169 L I B R AR Michigan State Umvcrsity PLACE IN REFURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE JAVi (1145265? 2/05 cJCfiC/DateDueJndd—p. 1 5 AN EVALUATION OF MERCHANDISING CUT-UP TURKEY IN THE DETROIT MARKET AREA By Charles C. sheppard AN ABSTRACT Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Poultry Science 19 8 Approved Charles C. Sheppard 1 ABSTRACT The seasonal production and consumption of turkeys has resulted in a problem for the turkey industry. The consump— tion of cut—up turkey parts was considered a possible way to promote the use of turkey during times other than the major holidays. This study was directed toward exploring that idea by offering cut—up turkey for sale in commercial retail channels. The Wrigleys' Stores, the National Turkey Federation, and Michigan State University, cooperated in developing a processing, merchandising. and advertising program for the sale of cut—up turkey. The first thing developed in this program was a motion picture which demonstrated a method of cutting up turkeys in order to develop a uniform method for cutting. After a few months of merchandising cut-up turkey, a survey was made utilizing post cards in packages of cut—up turkey. The replies indicated that these consumers preferred dark meat (drumsticks and thighs) to white meat (breast). The replies also indicated that the turkey parts purchased replaced beef and chicken pound for pound with pork and lamb in lesser amounts. Results from a second survey showed that 83 percent of the respondents had repeatedly purchased turkey pieces since the first survey. These respondents reported that (1) con- Charles C- Sheppard 2 venience, (2) price, (3) quality, and (4) flavor, were the primary reasons for purchasing turkey pieces. Five hundred and seventy—five respondents reported that only 44 percent had seen turkey pieces for sale in the markets in which they shopped. Twenty-one percent had pur- chased turkey pieces, while 70 percent had heard or read about their availability. Turkey pieces were very satisfac— tory and convenience and price.were again the major reasons for buying out—up turkey. These consumers learned about cut—up turkey through store display, radio, and newspapers. Half of those who had not purchased turkey pieces reported that parts were not available where they shopped. A Consumers' Panel, operated by the Michigan State University Agricultural Economics Department, was asked to choose between various combinations of chicken, chicken parts. turkey and turkey parts. Chicken was preferred to turkey and white meat to dark meat. Eighty—seven managers of the meat departments gave their evaluation of the turkey merchandising program. Most of them reported that they thought merchandising cut-up turkey was a ‘good idea and that these saks did not affect the sale of other meats. One problem encountered was parts which were left un- sold at the end of the day. This caused a problem of rewrapping. Charles C. Shepparg A total of 5,652 birds were reported cut—up and merchandised during this study. The volume sold per store increased steadily as parts were made available on a regular basis in these stores. The major variations in volume sold were influenced by advertising in newspapers, Mid—Summer Turkey Time pro— motion, plus instructions and conferences with meat merchandisers. AN EVALUATION OF MERCHANDISING CUT—UP TURKEY IN THE DETROIT MARKET AREA By Charles C. Sheppard A THESIS Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Poultry Science 1958 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author is indebted to Dr. H. C. Zindel, Professor of Poultry Science, under whose direction this study was conducted, and to Dr. L. E. Dawson, Associate Professor of Poultry Science. Their interest in this problem and effort in supplving materials, facilities, and assistance were greatly appreciated. An expression of thanks is also extended to Dr. H. E. Larzelere, Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics, who directed the preference panel meetings, and to Mrs. M. J. Bostick and Mrs. D. Place, of Wayne State University for their help at the panel meetings, and to Mrs. Marjorie Gibbs, Michigan State University Consumer Information Agent in Detroit, who supplied much help. Appreciation is also acknowledged to the National Turkey Federation, Mount Morris, Illinois, for their assis— tance in supplying partial funds and direction, and to the administrators of the Wrigley's meat merchandising program for their interest and use of their stores in which much of this work was done. An expression of gratitude is also extended to my daughters, Dianne and Suzanne, who did much of the clerical work of this thesis. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . PURPOSE OF THE STUDY PROCEDURE . POST CARD SURVEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . RESULTS OF POST CARD FOLLOW-UP SURVEY RESULTS OF THE CONSUMER INFORMATION SURVEY RESULTS OF THE DETROIT CONSUMER PREFERENCE PANEL . RESULTS OF MEAT DEPARTMENT MANAGERS' SURVEY RESULTS OF TURKEY SALES SURVEY DISCUSSION A. Meat Preference B. Consumer Satisfaction C. Distribution of Out—up Turkey D Size of Purchase E. Cooking Satisfaction . F Total Turkey Consumption . G Meat Managers' Comments H. Merchandising Problems APPENDIX . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY ii Page 21 22 38 43 57 76 89 100 106 107 108 109 109 110 110 110 112 . 1 27 (1,, LIST OF TABLES TABLE Page Post Card Survey 1. Location of stores and respondents . . . . . . . 38 2. Turkey pieces bought by first time purchasers . 40 3. Number and percent of the various turkey parts purchased by the post card survey respondents 41 4. Did you purchase turkey instead of ? . . . 42 Consumer Information Survey 5. Have you seen or used turkey halves, quarters, or pieces? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 6. How did you like turkey halves, quarters, and pieces? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 7. Which holidays did you purchase whole, half, quarter, or pieces of turkey? . . . . . . . . 67 8. Other than the holidays of Thanksgiving, Christ- mas, and Easter, when did you buy whole, halves, quarters, or pieces? . . . . . . 68 9. Reasons why turkey parts were first purchased, as related to size of family . . . . . . . . 69 10. Why working and non-working wives buy turkey parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 11. The influence of price and convenience on the purchase of turkey pieces and their relation— ship to annual income . . . . . . . . . . . . 7O 12. Consumers who had or had not purchased and would or would not buy turkey pieces more often . . 71 13. Relationship between size of family and purchase of turkey parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 14. Relationship between occupation and purchase of turkey pieces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 15. Relationship between employment habits of women and purchase of turkey pieces . . . . . . . . 72 iii TABLE 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. LIST OF TABLES (continued) Consumer Information Survey (continued) Relationship between annual income and purchase of turkey pieces Relationship between annual income and accep- tability of frozen turkey pieces Family size in relation to whether or not turkey would be purchased more often if available in smaller sizes Detroit Consumer Preference Survey Series I. Comparison of preference scores and their rankings for the afternoon and evening Consumers Panel Series II. Comparison of preference scores and their rank with the various large cuts of whole turkey when priced Series III. Comparison of preference scores and their rankings for turkey parts and a whole chicken for the afternoon and evening panel Series IV. Comparison of preference scores and their rankings for turkey parts and a whole chicken when priced. . Series V. Comparison of preference scores and their rankings for turkey and chicken parts Series VI. Comparison of preference scores and their ranks for selected chicken and turkey parts when priced. Meat Managers' Survey Meat sales that managers said were "hurt" due to the sale of turkey pieces The turkey parts which sold first according to managers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Page 73 73 74 76 80 80 83 87 87 90 91 TABLE 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. LIST OF TABLES (continued) Meat Managers' Survey (continued) Pieces which managers indicate are left until last . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reasons given by managers for turkey pieces being left over . . . . The frequency that meat department managers have to throw away cut-up turkey pieces Replies by store managers to the usual week and last week September 23 — 28, 1957 volume of whole turkey sold . . . . . . . . . Managers reported number of cut—up turkeys sold during a usual week and last week (September 23 - 28, 1957) . . . . . . . . . . . Why do you prefer the wrapping material that you use? . . . . . Sales of Cut—up Turkey Number of turkeys, cut-up and stores reporting for the period April 13 — October 5, 1957 Stores, number of turkeys cut up, number of weeks sold, and average weekly sales for the period April 13 to October 5, 1957 Page 91 92 92 93 94 98 102 104 105 FIGURE II. III. IV. VI. VII. VIII. IX. XI. XII. XIII. LIST OF FIGURES Turkeys raised in the United States from 1937 to 1957 Total live weight sold in the United States from 1937 to 1957 . . . . . . . Light and heavy breeds raised 1950 to 1957 Population of the United States Turkeys: Per capita civilian consumption ready-to-cook equivalent weight, 1937 to 1957 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Turkey breeders on farm, January 1, 1937 to 1957 . . One of Wrigleys' meat cutters or merchandisers cutting turkey wing to get the most meat on the most expensive cuts . . . . . . . One of Wrigleys' meat cutters or merchandisers packaging turkey thighs Page 10 11 12 25 26 Location of Wrigleys' stores by counties, 1957. Numbers refer to the number of retail outlets in that county Mrs. D. Place (Heme Economist) of Wayne State University, briefing several of the Detroit Consumer Panel members Detroit Consumers Panel members making their selections from diaplayed samples . A 9 x 30 inch streamer in color introduced to promote cut-up turkey A consumer standing in front of the cut—up turkey parts case with some of the "point of sale" merchandising material that Wrigleys developed vi 27 29 31 34 35 FIGURE XIV. XVII. XVIII. XIX. XXII. )CXIII. XXIV. IXXVI. EUKVII. LIST OF FIGURES (continued) A Wrigleys' meat department manager stocking the cut-up turkey parts case. In their point of sale advertising, Wrigleys called attention to the barbecuing possibilities of cut-up turkey parts. A sample of some of the newspaper advertise— ments used . . . . . . . . . . . Location of stores and respondents to post card survey. . . * Number of respondents ** Number of cooperating chain stores Have you purchased turkey pieces before? Number of persons per family reported by the respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Location of wrigleys' stores and respondents to the post card follow- -up survey . * Number of respondents by counties ** Number of Wrigleys' cooperating stores Have you purchased cut—up turkey since the survey last fall? How often did you purchase turkey parts? Which piece do you prefer? Your family prefers white meat, dark meat, some of both? How many pounds of cut—up turkey do you usually buy at a time? . . . . . . How many people do you figure the amount of turkey parts you buy will serve? . Were turkey parts difficult to cook satis- factorily? . . How did you cook your turkey parts? vii Page 36 37 39 40 43 45 46 46 47 47 48 49 50 50 FIGURE XXVIII. XXIX. XXX. XXXI. XXXII. XXXIII. XXXIV. XXXVI. XXXVII. XXXVIII. XXXIX. XXXXI. XXXXII. XXXXIII. XXXXIV. LIST OF FIGURES (continued) Do you serve more turkey now that you are able to purchase pieces? Have you noticed cut-up turkey for sale in stores other than Wrigleys? Do you use whole turkey for special or party occasions? Do you use cut-up turkey for special or party occasions? Approximately how many times a year do you buy whole turkey? How did you first become aware of the avail— ability of turkey pieces? Why did you buy your first turkey parts? What were your impressions of the method of packaging materials used for turkey pieces? What were your impressions of the display of turkey parts? The size of family of the respondents Occupations of the "man of the house" Does the woman of the home work? Income reported by respondents Have you noticed cut—up turkey for sale in any of the stores in which you shop? Have you heard of cut-up turkey pieces before this survey? Have you ever purchased cut—up turkey pieces? Number of purchases of the various parts of turkey viii Page 51 51 52 52 53 53 54 56 57 59 59 6O 60 61 61 63 FIGURE XXXXV. XXXXVI. XXXXVII. XXXXVIII. XXXXIX. LI. LII. LIII.‘ LIV. LV. LVI. LVII. LIST OF FIGURES (continued) Reasons for not purchasing turkey parts expressed in percentages (a total of 408 answers represented). Reasons for purchasing turkey parts expressed in percentages (a total of 198 answers represented). . . . . . . The source of information concerning turkey parts expressed in percentages Would you buy cut-up turkey if it was frozen? Replies (in percentages) to how many pounds of turkey pieces would you like to buy at one time . . . . . . . . . . . . Would you serve turkey more often if it was regularly available in the smaller size? Consumers who had or had not seen and had or had not purchased turkey pieces Location of respondents to the WJR Consumers' Information Survey. Each figure rep- resents number of respondents from that county Series 1. Turkey products: Whole, half, quarter (white and dark), and breast Series II. Turkey products: Turkey half, whole, quarter and breast, as displayed with price per pound and per unit Series III. Turkey drumsticks, wings, breast, thighs, and chicken . . . . . . Series IV. Turkey drumsticks, wings, thighs, breast, and whole chicken, as displayed with price per pound and unit price Series V. Turkey breast, drumsticks, thighs, and chicken drumsticks, thighs, and breast ix Page 64 64 65 66 67 67 70 75 77 79 82 84 85 FIGURE LVIII. LIX. LXII. LXIII. LXIV. LXVI. LXVII. LIST OF FIGURES (continued) Series VI. Turkey breast, drumsticks, thighs, and chicken drumstick, thighs, and breast as displayed with price per pound and per unit . . . . . Does the sale of turkey parts "hurt" the sale of other meats? Managers' replies to "Do you consider selling turkey parts a good idea?" . . . . . . . Managers' replies to "During ordinary weeks (no city wide advertising) do you sell turkey parts below the suggested price per pound?" . . . . . . . . Does the sale of turkey parts affect the sale of other meats? . . . . . . . . . . . . Managers reporting time necessary to cut up turkeys Managers' reports on time necessary to wrap cut—up turkey pieces . . . What kind of wrapping paper do you use? Is rewrapping a serious problem in your store? How many packages do you have to rewrap after each Friday's business? Page 86 89 93 95 95 96 96 97 99 Table 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. APPENDIX Comparison of turkey in various sizes and forms Comparison of whole chicken and turkey parts in approximately three pound packages Comparison of turkey and chicken parts in approximately three pound packages Comparison of turkey in various sizes and forms Comparison of whole chicken and turkey parts in approximately three pound packages Comparison of turkey and chicken parts in approximately three pound packages Comparison of whole chicken and turkey parts in approximately three pound packages Comparison of turkey and chicken parts in approximately three pound packages Comparison of turkey in various sizes and forms Comparison of whole chicken and turkey parts in approximately three pound packages . Comparison of turkey and chicken parts in approximately three pound packages Comparison of turkey in various sizes and forms Computation of the Preference Score Poultry Series I, Afternoon, May 20, 1958 Computation of the Coefficient of Concordance Turkeys raised in the United States from 1937 to 1957 . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . Total live weight sold in the United States from 1937 to 1957 . . . . . . . Light and heavy breeds raised 1950 to 1957 Population of the United States (estimate) . Turkeys: Per capita civilian consumption, ready— to-cook equivalent weight, 1937 to 1957 xi Page 113 113 113 114 114 114 115 115 115 116 116 116 117 118 119 119 120 120 120 APPENDIX (continued) Table Page 20. Turkey breeders on farm, January 1, 1937 to 1957 . . . . 121 Figure 1. This is the form used in the Post Card Survey . 120 2. Turkey Survey Letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 3. Consumer Survey Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . 124 4. Meat Department Managers Survey . . . . . . . . 126 . xii INTRODUCTION The turkey industry has always been faced with the problem of seasonal consumption of its product, although in recent years consumption throughout the year has increased. Turkey has been a traditional part of the Thanksgiving menu in the United States, a tradition which started in the days of the Pilgrim Fathers in the early 1600's and has remained xvith us to this date. As more and more birds were raised (iomestically, turkey became a popular main course food on ‘the Christmas dinner table. Nature originally cooperated with us in furnishing the fully grown birds at the correct time for the Thanksgiving 21nd Christmas holidays. Poults (young turkeys) were normally laatched in May and June. These turkeys became of market age .in November and December. When turkeys were domesticated, .it became advisable to market them when they were mature and (earried an acceptable degree of finish. The producer usually lfeceived a lower net return from sales if he did not sell or Ixrocess his live birds when they were in market condition. (This often caused low prices, since refrigeration and storage EBpace were not adequate. An increase in turkey meat consump- ‘bion in the fall months resulted. The National Turkey Federa— ‘tion has done much to promote the sale of turkey as well as to help to solve the problems of producing, processing. and Inarketing of turkeys. 2. The problems associated with producing, processing, and marketing a large perishable crop each year during the six weeks period in November and December were many and varied. The uncertain numbers of turkeys raised, buying and selling price, processing facilities, and merchandising programs in the store, were but a few of the problems that were faced each year. As the population of the United States increased, a smaller percentage of people could buy live turkeys to kill and dress at home. Most people attempted to get fresh dressed turkey. Hucksters sold live turkeys from door to door in competition with the New York1 or Hog1 or Blood and Feather1 dressed bird. With an expansion in refrigeration and cold storage facilities in the early 1900's and its gradual adaptions to the merchandising of meats in the late 1920's and 1930's, a movement away from the seasonal market— ing and consumption was made possible. Along with these changes in turkey marketing and mer- chandising practices, turkey growers have experienced many production changes. Improved feeds and feeding systems, and improved production efficiency and management have resulted in the production of more turkey meat being raised on less feed. The turkey breeders and hatchery men have also cooper— ated by extending the turkey poult production the year around. 1 All three of these terms, New York, Hog, and Blood and Feather, refer to the same method of dressing turkey. It means that the bird has been killed and the blood and feathers have been removed. 3. Since most of these factors effected a reduction in the cost of producing turkey meat, the market price has declined to a level where turkey competes more successfully with other low priced meats. A recent retail price of 39 cents a pound has had a tendency of really speeding up the progress of merchan— dising turkey meat at seasons other than Thanksgiving and Christmas. Another major problem has resulted from the trend of producing heavier and heavier turkeys. These heavy turkeys are much too large for many families, consequently, they do not purchase a turkey very often. Therefore, ways must be explored to make this meat more readily available to the consumer in sizes and in quantities that satisfy their desires or demands. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Number of Turkeys In the last twenty years, (1937 to 1957) the turkey industry has expanded rapidly. Almost three times as many turkeys were raised in 1956 as in 1937. The increase has been steady through the 20 year period as reported in Fig— ure 1. The most spectacular increase in turkey production occurred since 1947. It is probably well to remember that after the cessation of meat rationing the demand for non- rationed meats (turkeys) might have suffered for a little while. After two years the steady increase again asserted itself to become a 198.6 percent increase in numbers of turkeys raised from 1937 to 1957. Total Live Weight Sold During this period from 1937 to 1957 the total pounds of turkeys sold has also increased. In 1937, only 359,000,000 pounds of live turkey were sold, while 1,249,000,000 were sold in 1956 (Figure 11), This represents an increase of 247.9 percent in number of pounds of live turkey sold during this period. These data actually show a slight increase in the average weight of turkeys sold. The average weight was 13.9 pounds per turkey in 1937, while in 1956 the average had increased to 14.4 pounds per turkey. During this period when numbers of live turkeys sold increased, the average weight per bird sold also increased. Turkeys Raised (000) 80,000 75,000 - 70,000 65,000 60,000 55,000 50,000 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 1937 38 39 1940 41 42 43 44 1945 46 47 48 49 1950 51 52 53 54 1955 56 YEARS Figure I. Turkeys raised in the United States from 1937 to 1957. Since 1950, there has been an increase in numbers of light breed turkeys raised. As reported in Figure 3, the number of the light breed birds has declined slightly since 1954, when the largest number of light breed turkeys was produced. Population of the United States The population of the United States has increased from 128,877,000 people in 1937 to 168,174,000 in 1956 (Figurelv), This represents an increase in the population of 31 percent. Per Capita Consumption The per capita consumption of turkey has increased from 2.2 pounds per person in 1937 to 5.4 in 1956. In 1957 consumption reached 5.8 pounds per person (Figure V). This steady increase in consumption is the result of changing food habits as well as the availability of high quality birds at reasonable prices. Since almost six pounds of turkey meat is consumed per person each year, turkey is eaten more often than at Thanksgiving and Christmas, Very few people would either eat or order 3 pounds of turkey per person for a holiday meal. Recent Technological Gains or Changes The number of turkey breeders on farms has remained relatively stable. In 1937 there were 3,481,000 breeders on farms on January 1, and in 1956 there were only 3,231,000 breeders on farms on the same date. Three times as many poults were produced in 1956 as in 1937 from the same number of breeder turkeys (Figure VI). Pounds Live Weight Sold (000,000) 1,200 1,100 1,050 950 900 850 800 750 700 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 1937 38 39 1940 41 42 43 44 1945 46 47 48 49 1950 51 52 53 54 1955 56 YEARS Figure II. Total live weight sold in the United States from 1937 to 1957. Number Raised 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 (000,000) 1950 H on co ¢ m u: no m YEAR Figure III. 1950 to 1957 1955 Light and Heavy Total turkeys raised Heavy breeds. Light breeds. Breeds Raised Marsden (1957) reported that with proper management, especially with lights, turkey egg production has been stepped up from 116 to 142 eggs per hen. Turkeys are headed for mass production. Zapata, who tells of (1957) one family that raised and marketed 10,000 turkeys in a year, spread out over the four seasons with four different groups of turkeys. Recent Marketing Changes Karpoff (1957) predicted that a new record crop of turkeys would be produced in 1957. He based this prediction on the fact that a large number of turkey breeder hens were held over from fall.. He stated that farmers usually produce all the eggs they can; that a majority of eggs are incubated; and that most of the resulting poults are sold. Along with this larger anticipated crop, the storage stocks January 1 were also high, thus a record number of pounds of turkey meat was expected for market. Mortenson (1957) asked the question, "Will competition tighten in the years ahead"? He reported that it is clear that we are raising too many turkeys for the good of the producers that are growing them- He suggested three methods for controlling this over production: 1. Voluntary production control. 2. Government control through an allotment to indi— vidual growers. 3. Typical American free competitive system. 10. People (000,000) 165 r 160 155 150 145 140 w 135 130 125 1937 38 39 1940 41 42 43 44 1945 46 47 48 49 1950 51 52 53 54 1955 56 YEARS Figure IV. Population of the United States. Pounds per Capita 6.5 ---"- 4'.- ..o-n... v. “-u-v. i 53 54 1955 56 i i l i Fwd} '4va £0th gram fi‘flfi'x'l‘ V‘flfi‘fii .—q 1940 1945 1950 51 52 YEARS Figure V. Turkeys: Per Capita civilian consumption, ready-to—cook equivalent weight, 1937 to 1957. 11. 12. Breeders (000) 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 V l CDC: qt coco v.10 54 1955 56 u-iNm toe-coo: V‘V‘v we've 1937 1940 1945 1950 51 52 53 YEARS Figure VI. Turkey Breeders on Farm, January 1, 1937 to 1957. 13. He reported: "Since World War II, the turkey industry has gone through a transition period. Before then, consumers considered turkeys largely as a luxury item to be served mostly on Special holidays. They are now becoming a staple item on the family table and in the public eating houses not merely as a holiday item". Gordeuk (1957) made an important statement when he wrote, "Producing the market is the big problem". (The problem is not how to produce turkey, this we know.) Some of the sixteen questions which he asked were: How much would consumers accept if it were available in the local meat counter every day, and in different forms? How much would price affect consumers' choice? In what form would the consumer prefer to have turkey offered other than the whole bird? The answers to these and other questions would help the marketing of turkeys. One of the recent develop- ments in marketing has been the national promotional campaign, "Easter Turkey Time" which was organized and started in 1945. Marshall (1958) found that in a twelve year period (1945 - 1957) from very little (a few thousand pounds) to over 63,000,000 pounds of oven ready turkeys were sold at Easter time. He estimated that turkey amounts to 46 to 50 percent of the consumers' meat dollar at Easter time. Naden (1957) described the big change from service to self service as one of the big transformations in the retail food industry. He reported that the poultry industry changed from merchandising live chickens to New York Dressed to ready-to-cook, and included merchandising cut—up—birds in 14. this transformation. In meeting the challenge, the turkey industry had already developed the small turkey, developed the turkey pie (frozen), and produced frozen turkey for year around sales. Cut—uprhicken Fryers Since few reports are available on merchandising cut— up turkey, some of the problems and techniques found in similar studies with chicken should be of value. Sweet (1952) reported that one chain of 31 stores from Wilmington, Dela— ware and Piladelphia, Pennsylvania, to Cleveland and Akron, Ohio, sold 100,000 ready—to-cook chickens each week. Most of these (90%) were sold as cut-up chicken parts. A program whereby freshly killed and cut—up fryers merchandised in clean stores using continuous quality control has helped sell chicken broilers. McAllister and Bausman (1948) reported: "Even during a period when the price differential between fryers and red meats was the narrowest in many years more than a third of the retailers re— ported that their customers considered fryers a luxury food". According to Flinn (1952) during the four year period 1948—1952, the tonnage of poultry handled by the Kroger Company had tripled. As Kroger's poultry merchandiser, he credited this increase to: first, advertisements; second, a price chart that helped meat managers handle slow moving items; third, display ideas and equipment to build them; and fourth, self-service packages of two or three pieces of a particular part. 15. Smith (1953) concluded from his findings on consumer purchases of fryers, in two large retail firms studied, that more pounds of beef were sold than any other meat. Poultry sales were one-third of the total meat sales (fryers were most of the poultry volume). Another observation which he made was that retail stores did not devote as much time or effort to poultry as might have been warranted since poultry constituted approximately one—third of total meat sales. Ready to Cook Turkeys The production and merchandising of eviscerated tur— keys was expanding as early as 1939 according to Poffenberger and DeVault (1939). They indicated that the quick freezing process of preparing and preserving turkeys was also in- creasing. In relation to turkey sizes, they recommended that: "When the size of the turkey produced at present is too large at maturity, the producer should change to a different variety or select his stock more carefully, specifically for size and market quality". Dawson (1957) traced some of the recent history of _ turkey marketing. He reported that after the large 1945 crop which caused a lot of concern in the industry, promo— tional programs were developed to merchandise halves, quar— ters, and steaks. Merchandising turkey on a year around basis was given added impetus. In spite of the large 1945 crop, production expanded and then Mid-Summer Turkey Time, a special turkey promotion campaign sponsored by the National Turkey Federation, evolved. He suggested that in view of 16. the large 1957 crop, more emphasis and effort should be made to merchandise these birds. New Turkey Product Ideas New products and new methods of marketing turkeys might help to profitably merchandise the increasing production. Cutting up turkeys so that smaller amounts might appeal to consumers on a year around basis, instead of for holiday occasions was recommended by Fitzgerald (1947) and Clarke (1947), Evans (1950), Biddinger (1956), and Joule (1957). Boned rolled turkey is being used by hotels, restaurants, and the armed forces because the rolls take less space, less labor, less waste, Tess time to serve, and have good portion control. Davidson and Dawson (1953), Vogel(l956), and Hines and Marsden (1957) all/reported the possibility of smoked turkey as a new item that could be developed. These workers reported on how the meat should be handled and some experiences in selling smoked turkey. Stratton (1955), Elam (1957), and Stratton (1957) discussed recent developments in merchandising turkey broil- ers or fryers. Until recently almost all turkeys were roasted or stewed, but many are now marketed as fryers for barbecuing, broiling or frying. Smith (1948) reported that a new development in the Eastern United States was thé stuffed oven ready turkey. Pappalaso (1955) and Jasper (1957) reported a growth in sales of stuffed turkey from none, ten years ago, to 34,300,000 ‘1' pounds now being sold each year. 17. Williams and Wiegers (1947) and Small (1946) described procedures for making turkey steaks. Williams and Wiegers also reported that most consumers readily accepted these steaks. Pellow (1946) described another new item, ready—to— serve turkey. He marketed numerous cooked turkey items from whole to pieces. Barnes (1954) described Swansons' "ready— for—the-oven" turkey dinner, a new turkey meat item. There have been many other attempts since 1945 to interest the processors and merchandisers in new ways to market turkey products. Beanblossom (1948) reported on the many different ways that turkey can be cut up as well as the possibility of frying, smoking, barbecuing, and canning. Swickard et a1 (1949) discussed one of the newer ideas and recommended that the large turkeys be cut to fit the size of the group for which it was purchased. Leicht (1952) reported that the Poultry and Egg National Board had devel- oped a merchandising program to help retailers learn how to cut up and display both chickens and turkeys. Cowan (1947), Durham (1951) and Galer (1952) tried to interest turkey merchandisers in the possibilities of cutting up turkeys. From his studies Pollock (1948) wrote that "It doesn't appear that cut up turkey is a substitute for the holiday bird." In Minnesota, California, Utah, and Oregon, sales were increased by cutting up turkey and the use of better merchandising methods, Galer (1950). 18. Turkey Quarters Hobbs (1947) described a pilot merchandising program for selling frozen turkey quarters. He pointed out that sales jumped from 5 to 50 percent in the top retail outlets. It was estimated that 70,000 pounds of turkey was consumed in Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Duluth, that September. One distributor increased his sales by 12,000 pounds over the year previous. In a survey made, 80 percent of the women interviewed would serve turkey more often if it could be purchased in smaller than whole turkey amounts. Dawson (1949) found that turkey quarters could be sold if offered in retail stores. In 11 different retail stores in Lafayette and Indianapolis, 300 tom turkeys, or about 7,000 pounds, were merchandised in this part of the study. The sales in commercial channels were then studied. He found that lack of freezer space, lack of quality con— trol and attractiveness of package were some of the factors that influenced sales of turkey quarters. A different survey showed that 90 percent of the people who purchased turkey roasts (quarter turkeys) liked them and that 96 percent of the purchasers planned to buy again (Anonymous, 1958). Cut Uprurkey Parts There has been very little research work done on the sale of cut—up turkey since there are only a few reports in the literature concerning this process. A study in Pennsylvania showed the turkey quarters were being sold 19. and consumer demand could be expected to increase steadily for even smaller pieces (Anonymous, 1947). The interest in parts was reported to be due to the declining prices of whole turkeys. The Minnesota Turkey Growers Association conducted a survey among retailers concerning the sale of turkey parts (Clarke 1947). They found that two-thirds of the retailers were confident that they could sell more turkey as parts. These retailers wanted to be able to display the turkey parts in open face cartons. One meat department manager reported, "Three out of six houSewives who bought packaged turkey parts told him the meat was far from tender and they were disappointed". Fischer (1949) wrote that, "A demand does exist for cut-up turkey". This came as the result of a ten-week study by DeLoach and Fischer. They studied the movement of halves, quarters, and parts, during the period February 2, to April 10, 1948. In this trial, parts sold better than either halves or quarters. Ninety—two percent of the consumers were satisfied in every way, while 94 percent said that they would buy more often if smaller portions were available. Sweet (1957) reported that H. L. Brown and Sons, have been selling cut—up turkey in the Chicago area for the past two years. They started to cut up turkeys in March of 1956, and expected to sell 1,000,000 pounds the first year in retail and wholesale packs. Mr. H. Terman, President of H. L. Brown and Sons, was quoted as saying, 20. "Turkey parts must be promoted and advertised or they will die. You can't just put them in the show case without promotion". A year around market exists for turkeys in the home freezer according to Hartley (1952). She found that 163 people out of 356 interviewed, planned to store half turkeys or turkey pieces, or both half turkeys and pieces. Larzelere and Shaffer (1955) reported that about 23 percent of the expenditures for turkey meat, in 1952 were made by families buying three or more times per year. In 1953, this percentage increased to 34 percent and in 1954 to 42 percent. Larzelere and Shaffer (1956) also reported that the average amount of turkey purchased by families was 4.30 pounds per purchase from September 1st to December 3lst, 1954, excluding the two weeks before Thanksgiving and the two weeks before Christmas. In 1955, this had changed to 3.39 pounds during these same months. During the period from January 1 to August 31, purchases averaged 2.71 pounds in 1954 and 3.04 pounds in 1955. In the two weeks before Thanksgiving in 1954, 13.83 pounds was the average size of purchase while in 1955, it was 12.38 pounds. These figures show that there is a demand for smaller amounts of turkey than the whole bird at times other than at Thanksgiving and Christmas. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The purpose of this study was to discover and evaluate the factors which affect the merchandising of cut-up turkey through retail channels. Specific objectives were: 1. To appraise the consumer acceptance of turkey parts. 2. To evaluate the sales potential of turkey parts. 3. To discover some of the problems of merchan- dising turkey parts. 4.‘ To develop a program for teaching meat cutters proper ways of cutting turkeys. This study was planned for the period of April, 1957 to April, 1958, in order to evaluate the sale of turkey at times other than Thanksgiving, Christmas, Easter, and "Mid—Summer Turkey Time", when national promotional programs are conducted to increase sales of whole turkeys. PROCEDURE With the cooperation of representatives from Wrigleys' chain of super—markets, a series of surveys were planned to evaluate consumer purchases of, and preferences for, turkey pieces. Four consumer surveys were conducted: The data for the first survey was obtained by use of postcard ques— tions, which were inserted in cut—up turkey packages sold through the Wrigleys' stores. During the first survey, a list of names and addresses was obtained to whom a second, more extensive questionnaire was mailed. It was then de— cided that a survey should be taken of consumers more rep— resentative of the consumers in the Detroit area. Up until this point, all of the people questioned had already pur- chased turkey pieces. A questionnaire was mailed to con-. sumers whose names and addresses were available to the Michi- gan State University Consumer Information Service and had been compiled from their W.J.R. radio listening audience. These people represented a wider cross—section of the popu- lation. The fourth consumer survey was conducted using the Detroit Consumers Preference Panel. This group of consumers selected as representative of the Detroit Metropolitan Area, was asked their preferences of various cuts of poultry. A survey was also made of the meat managers of Wrigleys' Super—markets to determine their reactions to such a mer— chandising program. They reported weekly sales volume or 23. sales records which were analyzed to evaluate the actual sales of turkey parts in the various areas of Detroit as well as in out—state cities. Since uniform cutting pro- cedures would be desirable to adequately analyze sales records, a training film was planned and developed to help meat managers become familiar with one recommended cutting procedure. Development of Training Film Many of the meat managers in the cooperating stores did not do either a good or an economical job of cutting up turkey. A motion picture of about 6 minutes in length, depicting a recommended method of cutting turkey for retail merchandising was made (Figures VII and VIII). This pro— cedure, while not new, was not generally used in commercial channels. Fred Buzen, who was formerly employed by the Poultry and Egg National Board, to demonstrate cutting and pricing chickens and turkey, was contacted to assist in the film development. Mr. Buzen also demonstrated the proper method of cutting, weighing, and packaging turkey parts to the Wrigleys' area meat supervisors. The film, produced by Mr. Robert Worrall, of the Michigan State University Ex— tension Staff, has been used by the Agricultural Economics Department, in meat retailing programs. Survey of Consumers of Turkey Pieces After turkey pieces had been offered for sale in Wrigleys' stores for several months (Figure IX), 5,000 self addressed, return post cards were included in packages 24. of turkey parts in all 98 stores. These post cards contained several pertinent questions regarding the purchase and use of turkey pieces by shoppers visiting these stores. A sample of this post card is shown in the Appendix on page 120. A second questionnaire was mailed in January to all of those persons who returned the post cards (204) and who of— fered their names and addresses for such a follow-up survey. This second questionnaire contained 17 more detailed ques— tions regarding the purchase, preparation, and consumption of turkey pieces. See Appendix, page 124. Survey of Persons on Detroit Consumer Information Mailing List Since the first two questionnaires were received from persons who had purchased turkey pieces, the results could not be interpreted to indicate preferences by the entire population of these areas of Michigan. In order to discover more about the widespread use of cut—up turkey, a questionnaire was mailed to 1,395 persons whose addresses were on the Detroit Consumer Information Service mailing list. This list of names was compiled by Mrs. Marjorie Gibbs, Consumer Infor— mation Agent in the Detroit area. These people had requested information from Mrs. Gibbs at one time or another as a result of the information that she gives consumers on W.J.R., a Detroit radio station. 25. Figure VII. One of Wrigleys' meat'cutters or merchandisers cutting turkey wing to get the most meat on the most expensive cuts. 26. Figure VIII. One of Wrigleys‘ meat cutters or merchandisers packaging turkey thighs. OICNINSON 03' "L, f Figure IX. Location of Wrigleys' stores by coun- ties, 1957. Numbers refer to the number of retail outlets in that county. CID MAI! C NANLE. OTSCCO ANTHA' A“ ‘v' ’KALNASNA CNAWF'O OSCOOA .WONO NISSAN“! ROCCO". OCEMAW ALCONA IOSCO LANC OCCE OLA CLARE [MOWIN NEH YCO MICOSYA ISABELLA MONTCALM OTIAWA NEN7 6AA TIOT [OLA NO “(MAC TY # SAGINAW LAPEEN CINE!!! IONIA CLINTON SNIA NA . 1 703C OLA SANILAC WNY CA TON INONAA' LIV/min 1 OAKLAW 2 NALAA‘A. CALHOUN 2 JACKSON msfimuw 2 WA YNE 70 ”JOSEPH MANCN NILLSDALE pi #— LINAWEI 1 1 MONROE 0-1219 ‘7’ 83° 28. Survey of The Consumers Preference Panel The Detroit Consumer Preference Panellwas used to determine consumer reactions to merchandising turkey pieces. Eighty-three consumers were asked to indicate their prefer- ences for samples composed of whole turkey, turkey parts, whole chicken, and chicken parts. Thirty—five persons evaluated these products during the afternoon and forty— eight made their choices during the evening. This consumer panel was operated by Michigan State University in cooper— ation with Wayne State University. After a brief discusSion (Figure X) on the recommended procedure to follow in recording preferences, the members were asked to rank (1 to 5) the samples of turkey and chicken that were displayed (Figure XI). The various products in each series were to be ranked independently from the pro— ducts in other series. The panel members were urged to rank the products in the same order that they would if they were to buy them. If price was not mentioned it should be disre— garded, and if price was mentioned, it might, could, or should, influence the ranking. Where possible the products were placed on paper trays and over wrapped with cellophane, a procedure which is com- mon practice in retail stores. Typewriter symbols, *, (), 1 For details of panel selection and operation see, Larzelere, H. E., and R. D. Gibbs. 29. Figure X. Mrs. D. Place, (Home Economist) of Wayne State University, briefing several of the Detroit Consumers Panel members. 30. #, &, and %, were used to identify each product in each of the six series, but were selected at random for each product within a series so that there was no chance for a panel mem— ber to select a symbol instead of a product. A preference score was calculated for each product in each series. This score provided a numerical score of the mean preference of all panel members for each product. The percentage of persons ranking a product first, second, third. fourth, and fifth, was calculated for each product in each series.“ The first place percentage was multiplied by five, the second place percentage by four, the third place per- centage by three, the fourth place percentage by two, and the fifth place percentage by one. These results were then totalled, giving each product a composite preference score. This preference score indicates a relative preference by the panel for a particular product. The highest score indicated the highest degree of preference while the lowest score in- dicated that the sample was the least preferred by the panel members. Calculation of the preference scores for each product in series 1, (afternoon) is shown on page jLHlof the Appendix. Six series of five products each were evaluated in this survey. The afternoon and evening panel members eval- uated the same products in each series. Meat Manager's Survey The success or failure of a merchandising program is frequently influenced greatly by the enthusiasm and effort 31. Figure XI. Detroit Consumers Panel members making their selections from displayed samples. 32. expended by those directly in charge of sales. Since meat managers were directly in charge of cutting, packaging and displaying the turkey pieces, their opinions regarding this program were desired. A questionnaire was distributed to all meat managers by their supervisors and were returned to the Michigan State University Poultry Department for summary and analysis. A copy of the questionnaire that was sent to the ninety—eight meat department managers is found in the Appendix. Volume of Sales Weekly data were obtained for the sales of cut—up and whole turkey from April to October 1957. Although a majority of the ninety-eight stores in the chain reported sales of cut-up turkey, a few either did not sell cut-up pieces, or did not report such sales. Promotion In an effort to get people to think about eating turkey on a year around basis some promotional material was released. 1. A number of 9 inch by 30 inch streamers promo- ting cut—up meal size turkey, low in fat and high in protein, were made available to the chain store. Other information that was made available was a hand—out containing information on cooking instructions. These were available for distribution to each of the stores. (Figure XII) 2. Several statements were made over the radio indicating that this new turkey item was a "good buy". These programs were presented by the Michigan State University Consumers Information Staff, in Detroit. 33. "For the latest helpful food tips, dial telephone number TR 3—0151". This tele— phone answering device was used by the Michigan State University Consumers In- formation Service to inform consumers about turkey parts being a good buy. News releases to the Detroit papers gave information concerning cut—up turkey. Most important was the "how to cook" information that wasincluded. Several television shows were presented to inform the public about the possibilities of using the cut-up turkey parts. These described the parts that were available and also gave easy methods of preparation. Wrigleys' representatives developed point of sale display material (Figures XIII and XIV) as well as placed sales advertisements about turkey parts sales in the newSpapers (Figure XV). 34. High." In Low In PROTEIN CALORIES Figure XII. A 9 x 30 inch streamer in color introduced to promote cut- -up turkey sales. 35. I'VE—C.fi I" - an! I ' 4 .~ TURKEY PARTS Buy the Parts you like. BREASTS I THIGHS DRUMSTICKS BACKS-HICKS LEGS-Drun-Ihiqh 6.69% 16.59% I39¢ “0% 5.49% I ALI. "OM II.S GRADE-A YOUNG TURKEYS fl’llz‘FI‘J} . ’ 4* I (I, E’- ‘ a .3 ‘BREAS . ‘ "1.43m ‘ 7:? “:1 . f.” [69‘ - ~ :59 m «a, .0. . .. L .. .- 59 IO- .; ‘ ”EMMA: ,1, . v Lei-1""! “T’erlmz I Figure XIII. A consumer standing in front of the cut—up turkey parts case with some of the "point of sale" merchandising material that Wrigleys developed. 36. constrain; (on; ”‘7' ”WE’MI, 9x \ . V. a I _ {I . ' / '/ Figure XIV. A Wrigleys' meat department manager stocking the cut—up turkey parts case. In their point of sale advertising, Wrigleys called atten— tion to the barbecuing possibilities of cut—up turkey parts. 37. 'lu- 1m 'l * l! l i ll: >:n‘ ‘ l “lll .v , » 1...;Lu-‘v n; ‘ , . a \nu Iho(hp l Naturally Tcmlcr - Table Trimmed - H”, (“Mummy \4"m\e , \I\ER luxlrl ‘ I.I\l(‘d 1h.“ ’vwrhl a l e ilmmpmn rropx. RH: . ‘ _ ‘ I mu. \||n~lnnl'd cenlcr . \ i-u'll we uln‘ Krism lllzulv u.» m) llf—lhr) re in Chuck (in! . II). (:{lllitlrlllll F‘lr :-__1 Wills I Hi 1mm x lll .xl Ttlli‘lEF I rulcu 3:3" ‘ . Boneless Leg-051ml ".'T‘.'.i‘l““‘ 571i; ' Cg °“"‘°- ‘ . T urkev Parts Sale ; w Bin the Pan; \uur Fa milx Lllflx lint lorl nlrlulifle lr l‘umc (hmlonr Grown All Turkeys (.‘mernmcnl (.r ml Vl‘OIIIiIlIN'S “‘r " I '( DRI “5TH K‘ ,-")clh. IIII‘VII! l’t'”:| “KEVII v) ))f B .hfunn.‘ \ll (ireen . ., .ii , nun or \l'ki ”llllm. um! ,,,,,,,, .pfm mmrn )"zb ll‘l'ul (.(‘lr‘m ’1 , I, VvI-uuunnl we“: — A "urge-Eu- v uuuncu Boneless Canned Ham 5C Duliuqm- Bum-less Cooked ( armed [lam U 5' (”860 ix \‘ t Dulluque Bandeau Cooked Turkey Par T Canned Picnic ‘ incl—(firth Dcllglu 69 “l Skill; [lunelrs- Frozen 2., reaSIS . _ ese ill, 590 B 59,“. Bib Boasl ' “115 ‘ Iran, I ro-h T111:— 49.“ Ground “09 11:22: " figs varade fresh or Smoked 1101131110 39’“. Liver Sausage “3" 9 9c DrumSliCkS 1‘ Glendale or Pesthke & Backs 10“,. . . ~ Skmless hanks . . ., - T ~ nn\ BH-l .) .231; 81.00 heckb ni&(hewc ill? an l”T'Dm““V C r) s.n'.';:‘- 99C ' fries-2” em: .... Lake ‘T hiwfiSh I "‘ in I'I-l, -' Sn un serve Ih‘eh riulhu in llmil harm... 15.0; Ugh!" lov Dun Fryi In Gallon on an um um u oliy werWulers 2 Jan 39c New Golden Metals Oil c... $219 Stronéhe‘artobog Food , Pi Funni- ul All Good (oaks 1.“, Islwn 6 luhli lor FRI! Coupon illayonnqise lur 47c ARGO Corn SIIII'ClI "9 '7‘ 9-lIVGS TUM Cal FOOU tn “ Figure XV. A sample of some of the newspaper advertisements used. POST CARD SURVEY The first survey was conducted by placing 5,000 self— addressed postage guaranteed post cards in packages of cut— up turkey as they were packaged for sale. This was done in September, 1957, and 205 cards were returned by purchasers of cut-up turkey. The replies from the post card survey came from ele— ven counties in Michigan (Figure XVI). As reported in Table 1, the greatest number, 132 (65.6%) came from Wayne County where approximately 70 percent of the cooperating stores were located. Oakland County accounted for the next highest number of replies with 21 (10.4%), where approxi— mately 12 percent of the stores are located. Macomb County was third with 13 (6.5%) of the respondents, while approxi— mately 7 percent of the stores were located in this county. There was a direct relationship between the number of stores in the county and the number of respondents from that county. Table 1. Location of stores and respondents County Number Percent Stores Replies Replies Genesee 0 0 1 Hillsdale l .5 O Lenawee 3 1.5 1 Jackson 4 2.0 2 St. Clair 4 2.0 0 Monroe 5 2.5 1 Washtenaw 5 2.5 2 Ingham 6 3.0 _1 Bay 7 3.5 1 Macomb 13 6.5 7 Oakland 21 10.4 12 Wayne 1§§ 65.6 70 TOTAL 201 100.0 .55 \\ 0.1219 gure XVI. Location of tores and respondents to st card survey. Number of respondents. Number of cooperatin chain stores. g 0 77A WA ALLIGAN 1* 5** 2* 3** 1* 21** 12* ** .x. 32* 7O ** 13 * 40. A large number of the respondents had purchased turkey pieces previous to this survey since 114 or 55.6 percent were repeat purchasers. Only two did not reply to this particular question, while 89 or 43.8 percent of the people who replied were first—time purchasers of turkey pieces (Figure XVII). 55.6% YES 1 43.8% NO I Figure XVII. Have you purchased turkey pieces before? A majority of those people who purchased turkey for the first time, preferred white meat. White meat preference was indicated by thirty—five persons (60.4%) of those who pur- chased either white or dark meat. Dark meat was preferred by twenty-two persons (37.9%) while two, or only 3.4 percent purchased backs or giblets. There were twenty-seven first time purchasers who bought more than one(cut-up) turkey part(Tab1e 2). Table 2. Turkey pieces bought by first time purchasers. Thigh and Breast Thigh and Drumstick Drumstick and Back Thigh and Wing Back and Wing Thigh 11 Thigh, Drumstick, Back, Breast and Wing l Drumstick 10 Drumsticks, Back, Breast, and Giblets 1 Breast 35 Thigh, Drumstick, and Breast 2 Giblets 1 Drumstick, Breast, and Giblets 1 Back 1 Thigh, Drumstick, and Giblets 1 No answer _4_ Thigh, Back, Breast, and Wing l Thigh, Drumstick and Wing 1 TOTAL 62 Drumsticks and Breast 4 8 4 l 1 _1 TOTAL 27 41.. Dark meat (thigh and drumstick) was purchased more often than white meat when all (205) of the answers were considered. The repeat purchasers increased the total for thigh (91) and drumsticks (78) to 169 or 45.7 percent of the 370 parts purchased. Breast or white meat was purchased 132 times representing 35.7 percent of the 370 parts pur— chased (Table 3). This was probably influenced by the price at which the various parts were selling. The usual sugges— ted selling price was 39 cents per pound for drumsticks, 49 cents per pound for thighs and 59 cents per pound for breast meat. Table 3. Number and percent of the various turkey parts purchased by the post card survey respondents. Part Number Per Cent Thighs 91 24.6 Drumsticks 78 21.1 Backs 24 6.5 Breasts 132 35.7 Giblets 17 4.6 Wings 28 7.5 TOTAL 370 100.0 The respondents indicated that they purchased turkey parts to replace beef and chicken in almost identical num- bers. Beef was replaced by turkey 82 times or 35.1 percent of the total while chicken was replaced 81 times or 34.8 percent of the respondents. Pork was replaced 47 times (20.2%) while lamb was replaced 23 (9.9%) times (Table 4). Table 4. Did you purchase turkey instead of ? Meat Number Per Cent Beef 32 35.1 Pork 47 20.2 Lamb 23 9.9 Chicken 81 34.8 TOTAL 233 100.0 42. RESULTS OF POST CARD FOLLOW UP SURVEY A second questionnaire was mailed to the 205 persons who returned the post cards which had been inserted in packages of cut-up turkey purchased from the Wrigleys' stores in Septem— ber. These questionnaires were mailed in January and contained questions concerning cooking procedure, part preference, avail— ability, and package impressions. Eighty-two people completed and returned their questionnaires. The average size of family from which these question— naires were returned was 3.5 persons. Only three respondents reported one person in the family, while two respondents re- ported seven persons, and one reported eight. One respondent failed to fill out the answer to this question. Those fam- ilies with two and four persons were reported by the largest number of respondents (22 each), while sixteen reported three jpersons per family. Families of five and six persons were reported by ten and five respondents respectively.(Figure XVIII). Persons per Fami 1y 3 ll 22 3 A 1§_ 4L 22 5I 6 7a.... 8.1 No answer—1 M I-INmfilmcob'mmOI-INC’DQIIOQDPCDGOHNOOQ‘IO HHHHHHHHHHNNNNNN Number of Respondents Figure XVIII. Number of persons per family reported by the respondents. 44. These questionnaires were returned from nine counties in Southeastern Michigan. Figure XIX gives the location by counties of the Wrigley stores as well as the location of the respondents. There is a close relationship between the number of stores in a county and the number of respondents in that county. The persons receiving the questionnaire were asked if they purchased cut-up turkey parts since the survey last fall. Seventy persons (83.3%) replied that they had purchased cut— up turkey since the last survey (Figure XX). The other twelve of course, had not been repeat purchasers. Eight of these twelve non-repeaters reported that cut-up turkey pieces were "not available" to purchase where they shop, thus this 'was the reason why they had not used cut—up turkey again. Another wrote the following comment, "Bought whole turkeys at special price and put in freezer". Three-quarters of the respondents that did not buy after the first survey had reasons (other than dissatisfaction with their first cut-up purchase) for not being repeat purchasers. The repeat buyers were asked how often they bought cut—up turkey. Forty-six people reported a specific number of times for their purchases. Seven reported that they purchased cut—up turkey once a week, while twelve purchased parts every two weeks. There were seventeen who indicated they were once a month purchasers, and ten, every six weeks (Figure XXI). Figure XIX. Location of Wrigleys' stores and res- ents to the post card follow—up survey. ** Number of respondents by counties. Number of Wrigleys' cooperating stores. ALLIGAN . CALHOIM 04219 11M ALCONA 45. 46. f 85.3% YES [14.7% NO Figure XX. Have you purchased cut-up turkey since the survey last fall? Once a week Eyery two weeks I 12 Once a month 17 Every six weeks 10 —chmw¢u>©t~a)m 10) Hmmfimobwmo I-Ip-(Hy-I—II-tr-II-II-IN Respondents Figure XXI. How often did you purchase turkey parts? Figure XXII shows that 54 respondents reported that they preferred breast meat while thirty-eight preferred (irumsticks and thirty—three, thighs.. Of the more "meaty" Ilieces, dark meat (71 preferences) was preferred more often tJJan white meat (54 preferences) This was true even when the wing (10 preferences) was included with the breast meat ‘Wilich made a total of sixty-four in favor of the dark meat. Fkaur persons did ndsreply while two reported that they pur— <1hased all of the different cuts. The bony pieces (backs E1nd necks) had been purchased by six respondents, while four Treported that they purchased giblets. The preference of the family for white meat, dark meat, or some of both.was asked. Twenty respondents indicated that their families preferred white meat and seventeen preferred dark meat (Figure XXIII). Forty-eight indicated that they 47. Drumsticks # A Thighs Wings In” Breasts , up _ Giblets Backs & Necks All Pieces No answer 5 10 15 20 25 3O 35 4O 45 50 Respondents Figure XXII. Which piece do you prefer? White Meat Dark Meat 17 Some of Each 48 No Answer 3 5 Thvo Answers 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Respondents Figure XXIII. Your family prefers white meat, dark meat, some of both? 48. wanted some of both kinds of meat. There were two who did not answer and five who checked two answers. The preference for white meat (as compared with the preference for actual parts on the previous question) may indicate a shift from preference to actual purchases due to price, as white meat was usually higher in price than dark meat. Some of the respondents checked two answers. The average size of purchase was 3.8 pounds for the sixty—eight respondents. The modal class of 19 respondents purchased three pounds while the next largest group of 18 purchased four pounds. The group which purchased five pounds of turkey pieces consisted of thirteen families, while the group purchasing two pounds consisted of eleven families. 'There were fourteen who did not respond to this question. 'Those families purchasing six and seven pounds were represen— ted by five and two respondents respectively (Figure XXIV). Pounds 4 l1 r we...- s,_LM 4......43 a _ L 5 1.31 __ 6 5 7.u-— 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 ‘7‘ 8 ’9' IO 11 12’13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Number of Respondents Figure XXIV. How many pounds of cut—up turkey do you usually buy at a time? 49. The average number to be served from this purchase was 4.1 persons for the 3.8 pounds of cut—up turkey meat (70 replies). This is just a little more than the three quarters of a pound per person that is usually recommended. Those reSpondents who reported that four people would be served were in the modal group consisting of 24 replies. The groups ‘who reported three and five people to be served had 12 re- spondents each while the groups who reported two and six people to be served had 10 each. There were only two re— spondents that usually served as many as eight people at a time (Figure XXV). Number of persons served per purchase 2H)‘ 12 3 4 24 5 12 a —— l°_e,_:.__ 7 0 ‘W 3.31: ‘;W 2 3 4 ‘ . 7 :'9 11 1 12'"~ 14 15 6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Number of people reporting Figure XXV. How many people do you figure the amount of turkey parts you buy will serve? 50. Figure XXVI shows the results of the question, "Were they difficult to cook satisfactorily?" Many housewives will often make the statement that they do not use a new item be— cause they don't know how to cook it. Even though cut-up turkey is a relatively new item over 95 percent (77 out of the 80 who replied) reported that these parts were not dif- ficult to cook satisfactorily. Only 3 reported that they *were difficult to cook, one wrote that, "Had a tendency to over cook." A 96. 2% NO E27 v Figure XXVI. Were turkey parts difficult to cook satisfactorily? Seventy—seven persons reported their method of cooking. 1% majority of them (55) reported that they roasted the turkey jparts, while 7 boiled them, 6 oven fried them, and another :3 pressure cooked them. Braising, frying and broiling were each checked 2 times. (Figure XXVII) Oven Fried 6 Roast 55 Braise Boil Pressure C00k BOil & Fry Fry Broil Figure XXVII. How did you cook your turkey parts? 51. Over 90 percent of the respondents reported that they serve more turkey since they are able to purchase turkey pieces and only 4 out of 76 checked that they did not serve more turkey at this time (Figure XXVIII). Two of those 4 replied that they couldn't find the parts available in the stores. 94.7% YES F371 'NO Figure XXVIII. Do you serve more turkey now that you are able to purchase pieces? "Have you noticed cut-up turkey for sale in stores other than Wrigleys' ", was the next question. Sixty re— spondents had not seen turkey pieces in other stores, 20 had, and 2 did not reply (Figure XXIX). Thirteen stores other than Wrigley's were mentioned by the respondents as having turkey parts for sale. L 75% NO ' 35% YESJ Figure XXIX. Have you noticed cut-up turkey for sale in stores other than Wrigleys'? Figure XXX gives the results of the answers to the Cluestion "Do you use whole turkey for special or party 00- Clasions?" Seventy—nine percent reported that they did use 1Jurkey for a special or party occasions and 17 of the 81 “that answered replied that turkey was not used for a special occasion. 52. [_ 79% YES I 21% NO Figure XXX. Do you use whole turkey for special or party occasions? Over 60 percent of the respondents do not use cut—up turkey for special or party occasions while 28 of the 74 who responded use turkey parts for special or party occasions. l 38% yes 62% N0 Figure XXXI. Do you use cut-up turkey for special or party occasions? Figure XXXII shows the frequency of purchasing whole turkey by the respondents. Twenty eight (34.1%) of the 82 respondents reported that they purchased whole turkey 3 to 4 times a year and 27 had purchased turkey 1 to 2 times a Brear. Thirteen reported that they purchased turkey 5 to 6 1zimes per year while 10 responded that they never buy turkey. All of the respondents checked answers to the question, "How did you first become aware of the availability of turkey 1)ieces?” Over 85 percent were first attracted to the sale of turkey parts by the store display whereas 8 of the respondents llad seen turkey parts advertised in the newspaper and 1 had Ileard of them over the radio. In the other classification, one respondent reported that her husband was a Wrigley Meat Department Manager, another had a friend tell her, and the 53. Times per year 0 l — 2 3 — 4 5 - 6 7 — 8 9 — 10 Many Times Rarely No Answer Figure XXXII. [\3 [\3 UuUuu N Number of Respondents Approximately how many times a year do you buy whole turkey? Radio Newspaper S tore Display Others Figure XXXIII. Number of Respondents How did you first become aware of the availability of turkey pieces? 54. third lady's husband brought some turkey parts home one night (Figure XXXIII). Figure XXXIV shows the reaction to the question concern- ing why turkey parts were first purchased. Many respondents ;indicated 2 reasons for the first purchase, thus there were Ll57'replies to the question about why the respondent first {Nirchased turkey parts. Over 40 percent of all the answers Iwaported that convenience was a reason for the first purchase, Ifhile 21 percent purchased because of price. Eight and three tenths percent purchased because of quality and flavor and '7 percent because of the display. Other reasons were given thar purchasing turkey pieces such as: "Can have turkey more (xften; Something different; Can choose parts; and, Fresh and just right size." lfirice Quality Convenience Flavor Display Others 18 Figure XXXIV. Why did you buy your first turkey parts? Ten of the respondents thought that the packages of turkey parts were either unattractive or readily broken. One respondent reported that the turkey parts were displayed in bulk or they were not wrapped. Sixty-two reported that the packages were satisfactorily wrapped while 19 reported that 55. they were very attractive. Some respondents checked 2 an- swers to this question giving a total of 92 answers instead of 82. (Figure XXXV). 'Very Attractive | 19 Satisfactory ] 62 Ft“ Unattractive F] 2 Iieadily Broken ‘ I 8 Number of Respondents Figure XXXV. What were your impressions of the method of packaging materials used for turkey pieces? There were 97 answers to the question, "What were your :impressions of the display of turkey pieces?" Answers other ‘than those suggested were given and several combinations :iuch as too small and crowded were reported. Over half (53) ()f the 97 reported that the display was adequate while 16 :Lndicated that the display was very attractive. Eleven :respondents thought the display was crowded and 6 thought it 'too small (Figure (XXXVI). Several of the comments written in were: ”Messy; Not always available; Found by accident almong chicken parts; Not enough choice; and Husband didn't Say". 56. Very Attractive Adequate 53 Too Small Crowded 11 Others 11 Number of Respondents Figure XXXVI. What were your impressions of the display of turkey pieces? RESULTS OF THE CONSUMER INFORMATION SURVEY A questionnaire was mailed to 1395 shoppers in the VVJR (Detroit) radio listening area. Nearly 42 percent (575 jpersons) completed and returned the questionnaires. The :following discussion gives the results of this consumer sur- ‘vey that was conducted in January 1958. l)escription and Location of Respondent Families The average size of family represented by those who 'returned the questionnaire was 3.7 persons, and the size :ranged from 1 to 10 persons. More cards were received from families with 2, 3, and 4 persons than any other size groups. 'These family groups (2, 3, and 4 persons per family) had 23.5 percent, 22.1 percent, and 24.2 percent respectively of ‘the total number of respondents (Figure XXXVII). I’ercent of Families 24.2 25 23.5 22.1 220 16 L15 1'6 1 7 1.0 .5 .5 0 ____ L ’ 1 I in l __1 Number of persons per family Figure XXXVII. The size of family of the respondents. 58. General groupings were made of the answers to the ques— tion about the occupation of the "man of the house", these tvere classified as professional, sales, skilled, semi—skilled, laborer, retired, deceased, unemployed, management, student, zand no answer. The professional group included such occu- jpations as doctors, lawyers, engineers, professors, and tea— chers. The sales category included persons who were sales— Inen or clerks. The skilled workers included pattern makers, :steam fitters, mill wrights, and tool and die makers. The ssemi—skilled classification included carpenters, plumbers, ‘truck drivers, policemen, firemen, and farmers. The laboring ggroup included those who were listed as factory workers and .gas station employees. The management classification inclu— (ied those with supervisory positions. The largest number ()f respondents represented families of semi—skilled workers, :from which 173 questionnaires or 30.1 percent of the total Vvere received, while 115 questionnaires (20%) came from 13rofessional class and 74 or 12.8 percent came from families ()f the skilled workers classification. Over 60 percent of 13he questionnaires were returned by families from these 13hree classifications. In most cases the women of the household do not have giobs away from home, since only 71 or 12.4 percent of the ‘VVomen work outside the home, and 489 or 85 percent do not work outside of the home while 15 or 2.6 percent did not Einswer (Figure XXXIX). 59. jProfessional Sales Skilled Semi—Skilled 30. l Laborer Retired Deceased Unemployed Management Student No Answer Percent Figure XXXVIII. Occupations of the "man of the house". 2. 6% / NO ANSWER 12.4 85% NO , I YESfl fl Figure XXXIX. Does the woman of the home work? Over 90 percent of the people surveyed reported their Eipproximate annual income. As reported in Figure XXXX, the Llargest group of respondents received from $3,600 to $6,000 einnually, 260 or 45.2 percent of the people were in this ggroup. Nearly 30 percent (168 families) reported an income ()f between $6,000 to $10,000, while 45 families or 7.8 per- <3ent reported an income of over $10,000. A relatively small lllumber, only 48 (8.3 percent) indicated an income of less “than $3,500. Most of these were retired, or unemployed. 60. Income Up to $3,500. $3,600 — 36,000 $6,000 — $10,000 $10,000 up No Answer Percent Figure XXXX. Income reported by respondents. .Acquaintance with Turkey Parts Turkey pieces must be readily available before a sig- nificant volume can be merchandised. To the question "Have jyou.notice cut-up turkey for sale in any of the stores in tvhich you Shep?" 252 marked yes, 316 marked no, and the re- lnaining 7 did not answer (Figure XXXXI). This means that ‘13.8 percent of the respondents had already seen turkey parts :for sale in the stores in which they shop. For a new mer- <3handising program this shows rather wide distribution since ‘the respondents indicated that they had seen turkey parts on (iisplay in many different stores. Forty-five different store Ilames were mentioned, including large and small chains, and Zlarge and small independent stores. J/ 1 . 2% NO ANSWER 43.8% YES , 55% NO v Figure XXXXI. Have you noticed cut-up turkey for sale in any of the stores in which you shop? 61. In reply to the question "Have you heard of cut-up turkey (pieces) before this survey?", 400 persons reported that they had previously heard of such products as reported in Figure XXXXII. One hundred seventy one replied that they had not heard of turkey pieces, however, nearly 70 percent of the respondents had heard of this method of merchandising turkeys. .7% NO ANSWER 69.6% YES 29.7% N Figure XXXXII. Have you heard of cut-up turkey pieces before this survey? To the question, "Have you ever purchased cut—up turkey (pieces)?", 121 respondents marked yes and 9 marked no. Fifteen did not answer. Over one—fifth of the 575 re— spondents had purchased cut—up turkey parts (Figure XXXXIII). .9% NO ANSWER / _ 7 21% YES . 78.1% ml A fi Figure XXXXIII. Have you ever purchased cut-up turkey pieces? Another interesting group of replies was received con— (zerning whether or not the people had used or seen turkey laalves, quarters, or pieces. One hundred seventy seven people .indicated that they had seen turkey halves and (87) or 49.1 loercent of them had purchased turkey halves. Only 72 re- sspondents replied that they had seen turkey quarters, and 317 families or 23.6 percent had used them. There were 180 Vvho reported that they had seen turkey pieces and 97 of these 62. people or 53.9 percent had used turkey pieces (Table 5). It is interesting to note that more people had seen both halves Iand pieces than quarters and also a higher percentage of those tvho had seen turkey halves and pieces had purchased them. Table 5. Have you seen or used turkey halves, quarters, or pieces? Have Seen Have Used Turkey Halves 177 87 Turkey Quarters 72 17 Turkey Pieces 180 97 A majority of people liked turkey halves, quarters, and pieces: since 90 out of 98 respondents reported that they liked turkey halves, while 18 out of 23, or 78.3 percent, liked turkey quarters. There were 112 out of 118 respondents (94.9%) ‘Mho liked turkey pieces (Table 6). In all 3 products, (halves, (quarters, and pieces) only 19 people out of 339 or only 7.9 jpercent did not like the turkey halves, quarters or pieces- Table 6. How did you like turkey halves, quarters, and pieces? Like Well Like Fair Do Not Like Turkey Halves 72 18 8 Turkey Quarters l7 1 5 Turkey Pieces 96 16 6 63. The answer to the question "Which part did you buy?" seems to refute the popular idea that white meat is the most desirable. As reported in Figure XXXXIV, more than two times as many purchased dark meat as purchased white meat. .Drumsticks Breasts Legs 'Thighs Wings Backs Necks Giblets Number of Purchasers Figure XXXXIV. Number of purchases of the various parts of turkey. Apparently turkey parts are not available in many Inarkets since over half of the respondents indicated that asuch pieces were not available where they shopped. This teas the major reason given for not buying turkey pieces. 31 preference for other meats and for buying whole birds were ‘the other reasons most often expressed (Figure XXXXV). The reasons most often given for purchasing turkey lpieces were convenience and price. Convenience was checked 13y 47.4 percent of the respnndents while price was checked ()n 30.3 percent of the returned questionnaires (Figure XXXXVI). 64. Not Available 51.2 Prefer Other Meats Purchase Whole Bird Too Expensive Never Cared to Try 4.9 'No Particular Reason .9 Others 6.4 Percent Figure XXXXV. Reasons for not urchasing turkey parts expressed in ercentages fa total of 408 answers represented . Convenience AJ 47.4 A... Price 30.3 Flavor Display Qual ity Variety Percent Figure XXXXVI. Reasons for purchasing turkey parts expressed in percentages (a total of 198 answers represented). There were 520 answers to the question "If you have purchased or heard of turkey pieces, how was this brought 1bo your attention?" Store display, radio, and newspapers ‘vere the most often selected answers to this question. The Estore display was checked 200 times while radio was checked 3124 times. Newspaper as a source of such information was 65. indicated on 107 replies. Conversation (41), television (23), magazines (16), and others (9), were the other sources for this information (Figure XXXXVII). Store Display Radio Newspaper Conversation Television Magazine Others Percent Figure XXXXVII. The source of information concerning turkey parts expressed in percentages. Pu‘rchasing Turkey Parts Some stores are now handling frozen turkey quarters arui in recent years many frozen foods have appeared on the market. In order to find out the reaction of consumers to fru>zen turkey parts the question "Would you buy cut—up turkey if it was frozen?" was asked. Three different answers were gi‘ren: 'Yes, 358 times; No, 152 times; and Maybe, 31 times. Ill View of these replies it appears that an educational pro— glwim for frozen poultry might be recommended to help decrease thug prejudice shown since 26.4 percent of the respondents ‘chlld not buy frozen turkey (Figure XXXXVIII). 66. 5.7% MAYBE / , 1 [28.1% NO Y 66.2% YES Figure XXXXVIII. Would you buy cut-up turkey if it was frozen? "How many pounds of turkey pieces would you like to buy at a time?" was the next question. Preference for a 4 pound purdnase was listed 103 times, 3 pounds, 96 times, 5 pounds, 62 times, and a 2 pound purchase, 51 times (Figure XXXXIX). These sizes are considerably less than the approximate 12 pound turkey purchased by the average family in Lansing in 1955. The average purchase preference was 4.12 pounds for the 371 people who replied to this question. It is interes— ‘ting to note that on the average these people thought that ‘1.13 pounds would serve 4.39 people, which is slightly high- 61‘ than the 3/4 Of a pound per person frequently recommended. Over 500 persons answered the question, "Would you serve turnkey more often if it was regularly available in the smal— ler? sizes (turkey pieces, quarters, or halves)?". The an— Sbnars were very much in the affirmative, since 416 or 82.7 'Pel?cent indicated that they would use turkey more often if it ‘was available in smaller pieces. Only 74 or 14.7 percent replied no and 13 or 2.5 percent answered maybe (Figure L). The seasonality of turkey consumption was pointed out V‘Ery clearly. As Shown in Table 7, 381 people purchase ‘wkhble turkey for Thanksgiving, 301 purchased whole turkey kar Christmas, while only 53 purchased whole turkey for Easter. 67. Pounds coco-4010190910 Percent Figure XXXXIX. Replies (in percentages) to how many pounds of turkey pieces would you like to buy at one time. 2.5% MAYBE I 82.7% YES 7I14.7% ,No Figure L. Would you serve turkey more often if it was regularly available in the smaller size? Relatively few families purchased turkey halves during the Saune holidays, (13, 10, and 3 respectively), with no one Pttrchasing quarters. A few people purchased turkey pieces ditring these holidays (14, 9, and 4, respectively). Table 7. Which holidays did you purchase whole, half, quarter, or pieces of turkey? Whole Half Quarter Pieces Thanksgiving 381 13 0 14 Christmas 301 10 O 9 Easter 53' 3 O 4 68. When asked to list times when turkey was purchased other than the three holiday dates of Thanksgiving, Christ- mas, and Easter, a relatively uniform pattern or turkey consumption was apparent for pieces and whole turkey except in June and July (Table 8). Both whole turkey and turkey pieces were purchased least at this time. No apparent season— al pattern exists for the purchase of either halves or quarters. Table 8. Other than the holidays of Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Easter, when did you buy whole, halves, quarters or pieces? Whole Half Quarter Piece January 27 3 l 9 February 26 4 l 15 March 23 l 2 10 April 15 1 11 May 23 3 4 June 11 5 July 9 1 6 August 12 9 September 22 1 9 October 16 13 November 9 10 December 2 6 833! Purchase Turkey Pieces Various sorting of answers to questions were made in OIWier to discover why the respondents answered as they did. Tlhe first sort concerned various relationships concerning a treason for purchasing the first turkey parts. Convenience at“: price were the reasons most often given for purchasing tale pieces. These answers were sorted accoring to family Sidze, and wives working. Convenience outranked all of the 69. other reasons for purchasing turkey pieces (it outranked price by 1% times). It appears that the smaller sized turkeys appeal to smaller families.- In families of 2 and 3 people, convenienaa 'was given twice as often as price, while in families of 5, they were given equal importance. Table 9. Reasons why turkey parts were first purchased as related to family size. Members in Family 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Price 1 17 9 9 l6 4 Convenience 1 34 18 16 16 9 Womalwho work outside of the home probably have less time to prepare meals, thus convenince might be more impor— inxnt than price where time is limited. Working wives pre— karred turkey pieces 2% times more often than non—working Wihves because of convenience rather than price, while non— Wrxrking wives selected convenience only about 1% times as Often as price (Table 10). Table 10. Why working and non—working wives buy turkey parts. Woman Works Yes No Price 5 5O Convenience 13 80 70. Income also appears to make a difference where price and convenience of turkey pieces are considered. People whose income was between $3,600 to $6,000 selected convenience and price at almost the same rate (37 — 30 respectively), whie those receiving $6,000 — $10,000 selected convenience over price 34 to 15 times or at a better than 2 to 1 ratio. Those Ifho earned less than $3,500 selected convenience and price equally and those earning over $10,000 bought turkey for convenience 6 to 1 over price (Table 11). Table 11. The influence of price and convenience on the purchasing of turkey pieces and their relationship to annual income. Price Convenience To $3,500 6 6 $3,600 — $6,000 30 37 $6,000 — $10,000 15 34 $10,000 and up 1 6 The second sort was made on the basis of whether or nrrt turkey pieces had been purchased. Over (30%) of the Peeple who had not purchased turkey pieces had seen them Oififered for sale, whereas 68.9 percent had never had the oPportunity to buy as they had not seen them for sale (Fhigure LI). 68.9% HAD NOT SEEN 31.1% HAD SEEN OR PURCHASED OT PURCHASED Figure LI. Consumers who had or had not seen and had or had not purchased turkey pieces. 71. For those who had purchased turkey parts, approximately 9 reported yes, to only 1 no in reply to the question, "Would you serve turkey more often if regularly available in smaller pieces?" For those who had not purchased turkey parts the ratio was about 5 yes to 1 no that they would purchase tur— key more often if smaller pieces were available (Table 12). Table 12. Consumers who had or had not purchased and would or would not buy turkey pieces more often. Would Buy Would Not Buy More Often ‘More Often Have Purchased 99 8 Have Not Purchased 314 66 There seems to be a relationship between family size arui purchase of turkey pieces. The average size family which haul purchased turkey parts was 3.48 persons with the modal gluoup at 2 persons per family. The average size for those faunilies which had not purchased turkey pieces was 3.78 persons with the modal group at 4 (Table 13'). Table 13. Relationship between size of family and purchase of turkey parts. Number in Family 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Have Not Purchased 7 94 1031K567 4O 10 6 2 1 Have Purchased 2 40 22 22 25 10 Families whose wage earner was employed in management, SItilled labor, semi—skilled labor, or were retired, purchased cIl't—up turkey in greater proportion than the other surveyed. 72. Retired people purchased more turkey pieces than any other group since about one third of them had previously purchased turkey pieces (Table 14). Table 14. Relationship between occupation and purchase of turkey pieces. % Have Have Have Not Purchased Purchased Purchased Professional 15.9 18 95 Sales 16.6 6 3O Skilled 22.9 17 57 Semi-skilled 23.2 40 132 Laborer 16.6 8 4O Retired 36.3 8 14 Deceased 16.6 1 5 Unemployed 16.6 1 5 Management 23.7 14 45 Student 14.2 1 6 As reported in Table 15, more non-working wives on the average (22% of the total) purchased cut—up turkey pieces than did working (15% of total). This appears to be contrary to expectations as the smaller more easily cooked pieces might attract the working wife. Table 15. Relationship between employment habits of women and purchase of turkey pieces. Have Not Have % Have Purchased Purchased Purchased Working Wives 60 ll 15 Non—working Wives 379 106 22 73. Annual income did not seem to have much effect upon whether a particular group purchased turkey pieces. In all but the highest income group (over $10,000) there is roughly a ratio of 1 person purchasing to 4 persons not purchasing. In the top income group it is approximately a 1 to 6 ratio (Table 16). Table 16. Relationship between annual income and purchase of turkey pieces. Have Have Not Approximate Purchased Purchased Ratio Up to $3,500 10 37 1 — 4 $3,600 _ $6,000 51 208 l — 4 $6,000 — $10,000 36 131 1 — 4 $10,000 — up 6 38 1 — 6. The third sort concerned the opinions regarding fresh and frozen turkey. Annual income did not seem to affect the Opinion concerning the purchase of frozen turkey meat except for the lowest income group where relatively small numbers occur. The other three groups reported that they would pur— chase frozen turkey at the ratio of approximately 2 t0 1 (Table 17). Table 17. Relationship between annual income and the acceptability of frozen turkey pieces. Yes No Approximate Frozen Frozen Ratio Up to $3,500 35 9 1 - 4 $3,600 _ $6,000 160 68 1 — 2.5 $6,000 —-$10,000 100 48 l — 2 $10,000 — up 30 14 l — 2 74. The fourth sorting concerned whether or not the person questioned would serve turkey more often if it were regularly available in smaller sizes. This was then checked against family size. In families of 6 people or less there are con—. siderably more people who would purchase turkey more often. In families of 7 or more, very few reported that they would purchase more turkey if available in smaller units while only 17 indicated that they would not (Table 18). Table 18. Family size in relation to whether or not turkey would be purchased more often if available in smaller sizes. Number in Family 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 wWould Buy 6 94 90 105 75 39 4 3 1 Would not Buy 1 17 21 17 9 8 3 2 O The distribution of the 575 respondents was concen— tratedin Wayne County, from which 297 or 51.6 percent of the replies were received. Twelve percent of the replies came from Oakland County and 5 percent from Washtenaw. Figure LII shows the geographical location of the 575 respondents by counties. “O \ Mon 75. or 444.. 43' "C AKWMMON Dflflfl O. mar ‘ IMAflWWMC Al. 4%“ . 4&- /.r 1 ”'41. a // cum: omen mm 4mm ‘1;;;;==r___, ANMIWI Figure CII. Location of ’uuum cuwr'o 03:00.4 “com respondents to the W.J.R. 1 Consumers' Information Survey. Each figure 4mm] 203cm. man [0360 represents number of 1 1 h respondents from that M“ county . mou can: runny M! 1 "”30“ JAY 1- mama mama mum mouxo 2 1 6 3 rustou [LAC mmuu cur/or 3.4mm new . ,fi 2 l 2 GENE!!! “pm 0mm lam amen 5m m. 7 2 4 5 mum ALLEGAN may EATON menu uvmssr‘u 1 3 1 2 7 7O mum/1m mum. cuuowv JACKSON mart/«w mm: a. a 4' 1 2 s 7 3 a as: snow»: nut» mum: mun: M01720: 4 1 0 14 1 1 1 89. 00° 87' I" 85' 84' 83' 1219 RESULTS OF THE DETROIT CONSUMER PREFERENCE PANEL The Detroit Consumers Preference Panel evaluated and ranked 6 series of 5 products each of cut-up turkey and chi— cken. As indicated earlier, a preference score was calcula— ted for each product in each series. This preference score is based on the rank given a product by all panel members. The higher scores indicate a higher degree of preference. The products evaluated in Series I, as shown in Figure LIII were a whole turkey, one—half turkey, two quar— ter turkeys, and a turkey breast. According to the mean preference scores for products in this series, whole turkey ranked first by both afternoon and evening panel members, with a score of 416 in the afternoon and 413 in the evening (Table 19). Half turkey ranked second, turkey breast third, white quarter fourth, and dark quarter last. These rankings were the same for both the afternoon and evening panel members. Table 19. Series 1. Comparison of preference scores and their rankings for the afternoon and evening Consumers Panel. Preference Preference Score Rank Score Symbol Product Afternoon Even. Afternoon Even. & Ongrfigple 416 412 l l () One Half 414 381 2 2 Turkey * One Quarter' Turkey (white) 201 186 4 4 % One Quarter Turkey (dark) 198 176 5 5 ## One Turkey Breast 270 344 3 3 flfir/fly 77. Figure LIII. Series 1. Turkey products: half, quarter (white and dark), and breast. Whole, 78. Figure LIV shows the products which were evaluated in Series II. The products were similar to those in Series I, but a differential in price was indicated ranging from 69 cents a pound for breasts to 39 cents a pound for whole turkey and dark quarters (see Table 20). The whole and half turkey in this series were ranked first and second respec— tively. The mean preference scores for white and dark quarters and breasts from the panel in the afternoon were almost identical, with scores of 240.4, 239.7, and 237.0 respectively. The mean preference scores of the evening panel members were 198.0, 246.2, and 244.2 for white quarter, dark quarter, and turkey breast respectively, thus the preference rank of the respective cuts were fifth, third, and fourth. When considering Series I and II (the same product with and without prices) whole and half turkey ranked first and second with very little difference between preference scores. The preference score for turkey breasts changed considerably after the 69 cent a pound price was added. The preference score in the afternoon series was 33.4 points lower when a price was considered (270.4 to 237.5) and 99.9 points lower in the evening (344.1 to 244.3). The actual rankings changed from third without price in Series I, to fourth by the evening panel with price in Series II, and to fifth by the afternoon panel in Series II. The products evaluated in Series III as shown in Figure LIV were turkey drumsticks, wings, breast, thighs, and whole chicken. Data presented in Table 21 shows another *— __-_‘ .A— -‘_ ____ 79. firkzr Bites—1' 44/5. e ‘71 I '1’. V7 2&7Zrkcr k'fiinkcy 3/6: @ :7/ 34; [1,, @ 494 J/ /7 fl /_ 7.2 Figure LIV. Series II. Turkey products: Turkey half, whole, quarter and breast, as displayed with price per pound and per unit. 80. Table 20. Series II. Comparison of preference scores and their rank with the various large cuts of whole turkey when priced. Preference Preference Score Score Rank Symbol Product Afternoon Evening Afternoon Evening * One Whole Turkey (39¢ lb.) 394 425 1 1 () One Half Turkey (43¢ lb.) 388 387 2 2 & One Quarter White Turkey (49¢ lb.) 240 198 3 5 # One Quarter Dark Turkey (39¢ lb.) 239 246 4 3 % One Turkey Breast (69¢ 1b.) 237 244 5 4 Table 21. Series III. Comparison of preference scores and their rankings for turkey parts and a whole chicken for the afternoon and evening panel. Preference Preference Score Score Rank Symbol Product Afternoon Evening Afternoon Evening () One Whole Chicken 350 320 2 3 % Two Turkey Thighs 314 325 3 2 # Two Turkey Drumsticks 262 . 277 4 4 * One Half Turkey Breast 392 408 1 l & Three-four Turkey Wings 180 168 5 5 81. close relationship that existed in mean preference scores between the afternoon and evening groups (Figure LV). Both groups placed the turkey breast first, the turkey drumsticks fourth, and the wings, fifth. The afternoon panel ranked whole chicken second and turkey thighs third, while the evening panel ranked thighs second and chicken third. The products evaluated in Series IV (Figure LVI) were the same as those in Series III (Figure LV) but they included a price stipulation. The preference data for this series is reported in Tables 21 and 22. Whole chicken received the highest preference score (first rank) by both the afternoon and evening groups while the turkey breast was second, thighs 'were third, drumsticks fourth, and wings fifth. The after— noon and evening groups ranked the products in the same order and with similar total preference scores. The 30 cents price differential between chickens at 39 cents a pound and turkey breast at 69 cents a pound re— sulted in a shift in preference scores. In Series III (With— out price) and in Series IV (with price) the rank according to preference score of turkey breast changed from second place to third place. The rank of whole chicken moved from third to Second. The drumsticks and wings were still ranked fourth and fifth respectively. ‘ Figure LVII shews the products evaluated in Series V. These products were chicken drumsticks and thighs, chicken breasts, turkey breasts, turkey drumsticks, and turkey thighs. Both the afternoon and evening groups ranked these products 82. —7;VkCY/7llok> —TE,—k¢7'BrC«§T Figure LV. Series III. Turkey drumsticks, wings, breast, thighs, and chicken. 83. Table 22. Series IV. Comparison of preference scores and their rankings for turkey parts and a whole chicken when priced, Preference Score Preference Score Rank Symbol Product Afternoon Evening Afternoon Evening % One Whole Chicken (39¢ lb.) 451 391 1 1 & Two Turkey Thighs (59¢ lb.) 280 293 3 3 # Two Turkey Drum— sticks (49¢ 1b.) 263 292 4 4 () One-half Turkey Breast (69¢ lb.) 321 388 2 2 * Three-four Turkey Wings (39¢ lb.) 184 183 5 5 in the same order according to preference scores. Chicken drumsticks and thighs were ranked first while chicken breasts were second. Turkey breast was the third choice while turkey thighs were fourth and turkey drumsticks were fifth choice (Table 23). It appears that dark chicken meat was preferred to white chicken but white turkey meat was preferred to dark turkey meat. Figure LVIII shows the products evaluated and scored in Series VI with appropriate prices. The products were the same as used in Series V. These products were chicken drum— sticks and thighs, chicken breast, one-half turkey breast, turkey drumsticks, and turkey thighs. Preference score data from Series VI are reported in Table 24. In the afternoon the rankings were the same as in Series V (chicken drumsticks and thighs, chicken breast, and half turkey breasts) for the ercy Draw ere? Wain-s Jyllse 79’ 3/(. e )7! 11.3:- TercY fire-“T TUI’K'CYTZHM: 4/632 ‘9‘ 34/43957‘ _ \ “'7 I. I! i I I _' 7;/’I(Cf Breast TU ritzy Oran/5 ()9 cf (0’anslv £11qu C/a IcA'c/v (orcnsT) Figure LVII. Series V. Turkey breast, drumsticks, thighs, and chicken drumsticks, thighs, and breast. 854 Inn- . ere), 81’6437' )4. 14; e (W lkfyz 86. Turkey Dru”: .7%/Ase V¢J Turkcy Dinar. I/Jr 329/4. e 5"; ' ’.(?2 C4,: ken (drum; q ,AIGNI) Ztldzé’ .571 [VI C/Ilcke” (arcarr) 2K/6sé’ ‘74 5’1 7 3 Figure LVIII. Series VI. Turkey breast, drumsticks, thighs, and chicken drumstick, thighs, and breast as displayed with price per pound and per unit. 87. Table 23. Series V. Comparison of preference scores and their rankings for turkey and chicken parts. Preference Score Preference Score Rank Symbol Product Afternoon Evening Afternoon Evening % Chicken Drumsticks (and thighs) 384 390 1 1 # Chicken Breasts 367 341 2 2 * Turkey Breasts - (one-half) 322 329 3 3 & Turkey Drumsticks (two) , 192 206 5 5 () Turkey Thighs (two) 234 233 4 4 Table 24. Series VI. Comparison of preference scores and their ranks for selected chicken and turkey parts when priced. Preference Score Preference Score Rank Symbol Product Afternoon Evening Afternoon Evening & Chicken Drumsticks (and thighs)(59¢ 1b.)379 359 1 1 * Chicken Breast (69¢ lb.) 345 279 2 2 % One—half Turkey Breast (69¢ lb.) 328 341 3 3 () Turkey Drumsticks (two)(49¢ lb.) 234 245 4 5 # Turkey Thighs (two) (59¢ lb.) 212 274 5 4 first three while the fourth and fifth (turkey drumsticks and turkey thighs) were reversed from the non-priced series. The evening group placed chicken drumsticks and thighs first but switched chicken breast to third and turkey breast to 88. second while the turkey thighs were fourth and turkey drum- sticks were fifth. Thus thcre was very little difference between the priced and non—priced series. Differences in preference scores between products in each of these six series were found to be significant at the five percent level when testing for the coefficient of con— cordance.l This means that the probabilities were less than one in twenty times that these rankings as recorded by both panels occurred by chance. lThese series were tested for significances by using the formula W: 12(d2) see Kendal M.G. (an mz(n3-n) example of the work on Series I is on page of the appendix.) RESULTS OF MEAT DEPARTMENT MANAGERS SURVEY After turkey pieces had been processed, packaged, and merchandised in wrigley stores during a period of approximately five months, the 98 meat department managers were asked to fill in a questionnaire regarding their evaluations of this program. Questionnaires were returned (in various stages of completion) from 87 (88.8%) of the managers. The managers were informed that completion of the questionnaire was en— tirely voluntary and that they could remain anonymous if they so desired, however, 60 of them identified themselves or their store. I 1 Most of the managers (68 percent) indicated that the sale of turkey parts did not "hurt" the sale of other meats, while only 27, or 31 percent replied that it did affect the sales of other meats (Figure LIX). 67.8% N0 ‘ 31771783 1‘ —L Figure LIX. Does the sale of turkey parts "hurt" the sale of other meats? As reported in Table 25, a majority of the 27 men who indicated that the sale of turkey parts does affect the sale of the other meats indicated that other poultry meat sales declined. The sale of chicken or chicken parts were desig- nated 17 times (63.0%) as the meat that was most affected. The product that was checked by the second largest number of managers was the combination of chicken and turkeys which was 90. reported four times (14.8%). There were no answers on three of the surveys. Table 25. Meat sales that managers said were hurt due to the sale of turkey pieces. Poultry Product Number Replies Percent Chicken and chicken parts 17 63.0 Poultry Sales 2 7.4 Turkeys l 3.7 Turkeys and Chickens 4 14.8 No Answer 3 11.1 TOTAL 27 100.0 A compilation of the managers' statements concerning which parts sold first showed that the drumsticks were listed most often (28.1% of the time) while the breast meat followed closely since 22.6 percent of the managers indicated that it sold first. The managers reported that backs (14.6%), thighs (13.1%) and wings (12.8%) were closely grouped and that the necks were sold first only 8.8% of the time. The giblets (heart, liver, and gizzard) were not selected by the manager as being one of the parts that moved out first (Table 26). As reported in Table 27, an unusual situation developed when the parts that were usually left until last were repor— ted. All of the parts were mentioned as being left over by one or more managers. The part most often mentioned was the back which was checked by 15.2 percent of the respondents. The one least often checked was the heart with 6.5 percent of the replies so marked. The breast and thigh parts were 91. also left fairly often which indicates that higher priced cuts are frequently not sold. Table 26. The turkey parts which sold first according to managers. Turkey Part Number Replies Percent Drumstick 77 28.1 Breast 62 22.6 Back 40 14.6 Thigh 36 13.1 Wing 35 12.8 Neck 24 8.8 TOTAL 274 100.0 Table 27. Pieces which managers indicate are left until last. Turkey Part Number Percent Back 35 15.2 Breast 31 13.5 Thigh 31 13.5 Wing 30 13.0 Gizzard 27 11.8 Liver 23 10.0 Neck 20 8.7 Drumstick 18 7.8 Heart 15 6.5 TOTAL 230 100.0 also left fairly often which indicates that higher priced cuts are frequently not sold. There were five possible reasons why the particular ,parts were left. The reason given most often (32 times) was ‘that the neighborhood was a "medium income area". The second 92. most often reported reason was that the price per pound was too high, which was given 22 times. "The neighborhood was a low income area", was given 14 times while "the high income area" was marked 11 times. Eight respondents checked that the pieces were too large (Table 28). Table 28. Reasons given by managers for turkey pieces being left over. Number Percent of Total Pieces too large 8 9.2 Price per pound too high 22 25.3 Neighborhood income low 14 16.1 Neighborhood income med. 32 36.8 Neighborhood income high 11 12.6 TOTAL 87 100.0 Table 29 gives the results of the question, "How often do you have to throw parts of turkey away?" It is gratify— ing to note that over 80 percent of the managers seldom or never have to throw away cut—up turkey pieces. Unsold turkey parts were discarded frequently by 13.8 percent of the mana— gers and always by 3.5 percent. Table 29. The frequency that meat department managers have to throw away cut—up turkey pieces. Number Percent of Total Never 13 14.9 Seldom 59 67.8 Frequently 12 13.8 Always 3 3.5 TOTAL 87 100.0 93. The managers were asked, during the week of September 30 to October 6, 1957, what was the usual weekly sales volume of whole turkeys? A question was also included regarding their last weeks sales volume of whole turkey. Table 30 shows the remarkable consistancy that the sales of a usual week have with the week of September 23 to 28. Over 50 of the stores usually sell up to 20 turkeys per week while during the week before the survey 49 stores were in this classification. Only three stores usually sell more than 50 turkeys per week while during the last week it was 9 stores. Table 30. Replies by stores managers to the usual week and last week September 23 - 28, 1957 volume of whole turkey sold. Volume of Up to 11 '21 31 41 51 61 71 80 & Birds Sold 10 20 30 4O 50 60 7O 80 up Usual Sale Weekly 32 25 12 3 10 1 l l 0 Last Weeks Sale 26 23 13 4 8 4 3 O 2 Most of the store managers reported relatively low sales of cut—up turkey pieces per week. Table 31 shows that only 23 usually (22 last week) sold 10 or more turkey as cut-up pieces. 0n the law side (4 turkeys or less) there were 34 stores that usually and 38 stores last week that sold that many turkeys as cut—up pieces. 94. Table 31. Managers reported number of cut—up turkeys sold during a usual week and last week (September 23 - 28, 1957). Volume of 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 up Birds Sold Usual Weekly Sale 0 17 17 13 17 10 2 5 0 6 Last Weeks Sale 3 18 l7 l3 l4 9 5 2 O 6 A large percentage (91.9%) of the meat managers reported that selling turkey parts was a good idea (Figure LIX). One manager answered yes to the question, "Do you consider selling turkey parts a good idea?" and then went on to write "not in this store unless I can get parts that sell." It must be re- membered that cutting and selling turkeys was suggested by the Wrigley stores main office, it was not an order. The meat department managers wwre allowed the freedoms of choice. A 91.9% YES E.9% N0 Figure LX. Managers replied to, “Do you consider selling turkey parts a good idea?" The meat managers were also allowed some discretion on the price per pound for the various cuts of turkey. A sug- gested price list was issued each week from the main office. A large percentage (93.1%) of the managers used the main of— fice prices (Figure LXI). Two of the five who did not (there was one who did not answer) explained that they only changed ‘the prices of the breasts. 95. /.2% NO ANSWER 93.1% NO 5.7%J Yes Figure LXI. Managers'replies to, "During ordinary weeks (no city wide advertising) do you sell turkey parts below the suggested price per pound?“ In order to check the answers to the first question (Does the sale of turkey parts affect the sale of other meats? (67.8% yes, and 31% no) the following question was asked, "Do you think that your customers are substituting turkey for other meats?" Figure LXII shows that 43 managers (49.4%) checked no. One did not answer and one checked both answers. At least two explanations are possible for this discrepancy in answers: 1. The store is not selling enough volume of turkey parts to affect other meat sales; or 2. People are coming to the stores just to buy turkey parts. 2.3% NO ANSWER 49.4% YES H/ 48.3% N0 1 Figure LXII. Does the sale of turkey parts affect the sale of other meats? The average time Spent in cutting up turkey was from one and one—half minutes to five minutes. One manager did not answer this question. The largest group (39) replied that it took five minutes to cut up a bird and only one reported one and one—half minutes (Figure LXIII). 96. Minutes 1 1.5 2 3 REPLIES Figure LXIII. Managers reporting time necessary to cut up turkeys. There was a much wider difference of Opinion about the length of time necessary to wrap the cut-up parts. One man- ager replied that it took 18 minutes to wrap the bird, while eight reported that it took only two minutes (Figure LXIV). The average length of time necessary to wrap the cut up pieces was six minutes. There was a wide variation in time necessary to wrap birds. Three managers did not answer this particular question. Replies 35 3O 25 i 20 15 10 (5,1212 r 1 111 I 7 8 JLL 1 1 9 3 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 MINUTES Figure LXIV. Managers' reports on time necessary to wrap cut-up turkey pieces. 97. The wrapping material used by most (69) of the reporting stores was cellophane while the next most popular was plio— film (21). One store was using "Cryovac", one reported using rolled paper, and another one used paper towels (Figure LXV). Six stores reported using two different kinds of paper, giving a total of 93 answers (Figure LXV). Wrapping Material E]_ 1 Paper Towels Roll Paper :Jl. Cryovac :3 1 Pliofilm l 21 Cellophane 41 59 NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS Figure LXV. What kind of wrapping paper do you use? The answers to the question, "Which wrapping material do you prefer?" was almost identical to the answer to which wrapping material do you use? Here again, the managers have a choice and use the one they prefer. There were interesting results to the question about why they used that particular wrapping material. Sixty—three managers who used cellophane answered this question, 49 preferred cellophane due to the appearance of the package, 7 because it was easier, 6 because it was cheaper, and one because it was stronger (Table 32). Seven of the 14 managers who replied that they preferred plio-film liked it due to its strength, 4 because less re- wrapping was necessary, and 3 due to the better appearance. 98 Table 32. Why do you prefer the wrapping material that you use? Wrapping Appear— Easier Cheaper Stronger Less Re— Paper ance to Use wrap Cellophane 49 7 6 1 Plio-film 3 7 4 Figure LXVI shows the results of the question about rewrapping turkey pieces. Rewrapping turkey was a serious problem in 31 (35.6%) of the stores while 55 managers (63.2%) reported that it was not a serious problem. One manager replied that sometimes it was a problem (Figure LXVI). /1.2% SOMETIMES 63.2% NO , 35.6% Yes Figure LXVI. Is rewrapping a serious problem in your store? j The number of packages to be rewrapped was asked in another question. There were 43 respondents who gave definite answers to this question. The modal group, 16 in number, hai to rewrap from 5 — 10 pieces each Friday night or Saturday morning. The next largest group was 9 who indicated that they had to rewrap 16 — 20 packages. One manager reported that he had to rewrap 150 pieces after business each Friday (Figure LXXVII). 150 36 — 40 31 - 35 36 — 30 21 —-25 16 — 20 11 — 15 6 - 10 0 — 5 Number of Packages Figure LXXVII. > I: (t L ir‘r—‘H How many.packages do you have to rewrap after each Fridayfs business? 99. RESULTS OF CUT—UP TURKEY SALES SURVEY The volume and distribution of cut-up turkey merchandised during a period of 26 weeks was obtained for analysis. The data obtained which represented the results of these 26 weeks of selling turkey parts in Wrigleys' stores starting with the week of April 13 and continuing to the week of October 5, 1957 are reported in Table 33. Each week the store meat managers were requested to complete a short form on which they listed the number of turkeys cut up for sale that week. An average of 28.3 store managers per week reported selling cut—up turkeys, and an average of 7.6 turkeys per week per store were sold as cut—up parts during this 26 week period. The average sales per store fluctuated widely over the 26 week period. During the first week 47 meat department managers reported an average of 3.36 turkeys cut up and sold but this number of stores declined to 19 during the second week from which the same average number of turkeys (3.36) were reported sold. After the first two weeks of selling cut—up turkey, sales increased steadily to approximately 8 turkeys a week per store. During the week of June 30, a large increase both in sales and number of stores reporting were reported. This increase was influenced by an advertising campaign included in Wrigleys' weekly neWSpaper food advertisements. Barbecued turkey parts were promoted for July 4 (Thursday) and the long lOl. week—end following. More turkeys were reported cut up dur— ing this week than any other week studied. Except for the first week more stores (45) also reported on their cut-up turkey sales during this week. During the week of August 31 another large increase in sale of cut—up turkeys was reported. This was another "long week-end" including Labor Day (Monday, September 2). Turkey parts were advertised in the newspapers prior to this week—end. An increase in sales per store was reported for the two-week period of July 27 and August 3. This was the period of "Mid-Summer Turkey Time", a nation— wide advertising program to promote the use of turkey, spon- sored by the National Turkey Federation. During the last four weeks beginning September 14, 21, 28, and October 5, an increase in sales and also an increase in number of stores reporting were shown. On September 10 representatives of the Michigan State University Poultry Department presented an educational program to the Meat De- partment Merchandising Supervisors of Wrigleys. Mr. Fred Buzen, formerly with the Poultry and Egg National Board, gave a demonstration on the latest methods of cutting and packaging turkey parts. The meat supervisors were present at this meeting to learn the latest cutting and wrapping methods in order to instruct the meat department managers under their supervision. Data concerning the sales of turkey parts from each of the Wrigleys' stores are presented in Table 34. Managers from four stores (Numbers 26, 33, 37 and 69) each reported cutting up over 200 birds. Each of these store managers 102. Table 33. Number of turkeys cut up and stores reporting for the period April 13 - October 5, 1957. Date Number Stores Aver. Date Number Stores Aver. 4/13 158 47 3.36 7/20 113 21 5.38 20 64 19 3.36 27 187 15 12.46 27 158 35 4.51 8/ 3 230 15 15.33 5/ 4 109 14 7.78 10 142 15 9.46 11 133 24 5.54 17 108 16 6.75 18 110 24 4.58 24 202 27 7.48 25 85 19 4.47 31 504 29 17.37 6/ 1 43 9 4.77 9/ 7 239 30 7.96 8 91 16 5.68 14 359 , 46 7.80 15 109 20 5.45 21 617 78 7.91 22 25 6 4.16 28 544 77 7.06 30 686 45 15.24 10/ 5 388 56 6.92 Total 5,652 737 accomplished this by a continuous selling program as they re- ported cut-up turkey sales 22, 17, 19 and 19 times during the twenty-six weeks. From all four stores were reported relatively high average weekly sales of 12.9, 15.7, 15.6, and 12.1 birds per week. The average number of birds sold per store was 7.6 birds per week, and the "average" store reported selling out— up birds for 7.76 weeks during the twenty-six week period. 103. Eleven stores (numbers 4, 7, 9, 16, 24, 25, 34, 36, 42, 67, and 99) reported cutting up between 100 and 199 birds during the twenty-six week period. These large numbers of birds cut up were obtained by consistent reports (14, 14, 17, 21, 8, 16, 18, 16, 15, 4, and 15 weeks out of the twen— ty—six week period). The manager of store 67 only reported four times, but sold 106 birds cut—up for an average of 26.5 birds per week. The highest average (45 birds), for only one report, were sold from store 49. 104. Table 34. Stores, number of turkeys cut up, number of weeks sold, and average weekly sales for the period April 13 to October 5, 1957. Store Sold Weeks Weekly Store Sold Weeks Weekly Sold Sales Sold Sales 1 4 2 2 43 67 6 11.1 2 35 5 7 44 10 3 3.3 3 9 5 4.5 45 0 0 0.0 4 110 14 7.8 46 3 l 3.0 5 30 6 5 47 8 l 8.0 6 67 5 13.4 48 0 0 0.0 7 107 14 7.6 49 45 1 45.0 8 8 4 2 50 8 2 4.0 9 199 17 11.7 51 12 5 2.2 10 84 9 9.3 52 0 0 0.0 11 ll 3 3.7 53 40 6 6.6 12 29 5 5.8 54 33 8 4.1 13 9 7 1.3 55 39 6 6.5 14 42 8 5.2 56 54 11 4.9 15 48 7 6.8 57 38 5 7.6 16 193 21 9.2 58 40 6 6.6 17 67 17 3.9 59 57 16 3.6 18 84 10 8.4 60 0 0 0.0 19 38 8 4.8 61 74 5 14.8 20 68 9 7.6- 62 ll 1 11.0 21 23 4 5.7 63 0 0 0.0 22 19 2 9.5 64 10 3 3.3 23 56 12 4.7 65 20 6 3.3 24 110 8 13.8 66 25 4 6.2 25 149 16 9.3 67 106 4 26.5 26 285 22 12.9 68 0 0 0.0 27 59 9 6.6 69 230 19 12.1 28 64 9 7.1 70 80 15 5.3 29 17 5 3.4 71 18 3 6.0 30 53 10 5.3 72 64 11 5.8 31 63 7 9.0 73 18 ‘5 3.6 32 46 5 9.2 74 80 5 16.0 33 268 17 15.7 75 8 4 2.0 34 141 18 7.8 76 36 11 3.2 35 21 3 7.0 77 15 8 1.9 36 166 16 10.4 78 17 4 4.2 37 296 19 15.6 79 5 l 5.0 38 2 l 2.0 80 62 8 7.7 39 43 3 14.3 81 10 6 1.7 40 97 12 8.1 82 0 0 0.0 41 54 18 3.0 83 55 9 6.1 42 169 15 11.2 84 74 8 9.2 105. Cont'd. Table 34. Stores, number of turkeys cut up, number of weeks sold, and average weekly sales for the period April 13 to October 5, 1957. Store Sold Weeks Weekly Sold Sales 85 20 3 6.6 86 27 8 3.4 87 36 5 7.2 88 42 6 7.0 89 57 6 9.5 90 94 13 7.2 91 81 10 8.1 92 ll 3 3.7 93 30 9 3.3 94 9 4 4.2 95 18 5 3.6 96 83 13 6.4 97 9 2 4.0 98 69 7 9.9 99 105 15 7.0 100 4 2 2.9 101 38 4 9.5 102 32 7 4.6 103 18 3 6.0 104 27 4 6.7 DISCUSSION A. Meat Preferences In recent years there has been a tremendous increase in interest among turkey breeders for developing turkey strains with more and more breast or white meat. One of the reasons for this breeding emphasis had apparently been a demand for more white meat. In order to test this assumption, four different questionnaires contained questions on preference for white or dark meat. A majority of people on three of the surveys preferred dark meat to white meat when only breast meat and the thighs and drumsticks were considered. The post card follow-up survey respondents indicated a 20 to 17 preference for white meat over dark meat. However, when they actually purchased the product, they purchased 71 dark pieces to 54 white meat pieces. Nearly two—thirds "First time purchasers" of cut-up turkey preferred white meat as determined by the post card survey. However when the repeat buyers were considered along with the first time purchasers more persons preferred dark meat (45.7%) than white meat (35.7%). This might indicate more satisfaction with the dark meat, or it might reflect the fact that more people actually purchase the less expen- sive meat. The WJR consumers survey showed an almost 2% to 1 pre— 107. ference for the dark meat over white. These again were for actual purchases of cut—up turkey parts. The only survey that actually showed a preference for white turkey meat over dark was the Detroit Consumer Panel. This panel indicated this preference when the items were priced according to retail prices in use at the time, or not. However, when they had the choice of white or dark chicken meat they selected dark meat, whether the items were priced or not again made no difference in their choice. From these results, it would seem that turkey breeders might emphasize the quality and quantity of the dark meat as well as the white meat. B. Consumer Satisfaction More than half of the respondents who purchased cut-up turkey were satisfied if their repeat purchases can be used as a guide. Over 55 percent of the people who returned the post card questionnaire and over 85 percent of the people who returned the post card follow-up questionnaire were repeat buyers. 0f the 15 percent who were not repeat purchasers in the post card follow—up survey, two—thirds of the respondents reported that cut—up turkey was not available for repeat buying. Convenience seems to be the reason that most people elect to buy cut—up turkey parts. Over 40 percent of the respondents of the post card follow-up survey, and over 47 percent of the WJR consumers information survey, purchased cut—up turkey due to its convenience. Price and turkey flavor 108. were other less or important considerations. According to the Detroit consumers panel, most people would want to buy a whole turkey. This was true, whether the bird was priced or not. This did not prove to be the case in the other surveys. Perhaps an answer might be that many past festive occasions are associated with the sight and the purchase and the serving of a whole turkey. Some— times, the actual purchase of the whole bird involves such an outlay of money that the actual purchasers bought cut—up turkey. C. Distribution of Cut—up Turkey Twenty-one percent of the respondents to the WJR con— sumers survey had purchased cut—up turkey parts. The use of cut-up turkey appears to be fairly wide spread when one out of five have already used it. As reported in the WJR consumer information survey, 43.8 percent of the respondents had seen turkey parts for sale, while 70 percent had heard of them. This indicates a rather wide distribution of knowledge about a relatively new item. Another indication of the wide distribution of the sale of turkey parts is that thirteen stores, including large chain stores to small independent stores, in addition to Wrigleys', were reported by the respondents to the post card follow—up survey as having sold cut—up turkey. The WJR consumer information survey respondents reported 45 stores in addition to Wrigleys were now handling cut—up turkey. 109. D. Size of Purchase The consumers reporting in the post card follow—up survey indicated that they would like to buy on the average of 3.8 pounds of turkey for the average size of family of 4.1 persons. This was a purchase of .92 pounds per person. The respondents to the WJR consumer information survey in— dicated that they preferred 4.13 pounds for the average family of 4.39 people, or a purchase of .94 pounds per person. These purchases are considerably less than the average purchase of a whole turkey. Whole turkey averaged 16.2 pounds in 1956 so each of the average respondents to the post card follow—up survey would have purchased 3.95 pounds of turkey per person instead of .92 pounds per person, if they had purchased a whole turkey. Those of the WJR consumers infor- mation survey would have purchased 3.7 pounds per person instead of the .94 pounds that they would actually prefer to purchase. E. Cooking Satisfaction Over 96 percent of the respondents reported little or no trouble in cooking the turkey parts satisfactorily. It is not unusual for new products to receive some adverse cri- ticism due to the lack of knowledge about preparation for use. Cut—up turkey apparently does not have this problem as most of the respondents reported that they roasted the parts much as they would the whole bird. 110. F. Total Turkey Consumption People would tend to serve turkey more often, if it were available in smaller units as reflected by the answers to the questionnaire. Over 90 percent of the respondents to the post card follow—up survey, indicated that they plan to serve turkey more often now that cut-up turkey is available. 'Over 82 percent of the respondents to the WJR consumer information survey replied that they would also serve more turkey when available as cut—up pieces. Cutting up turkey seems to take it out of the holiday meat dish class. Seventy-nine percent of the respondents to the post card follow-up survey reported that they would purchase whole turkey for holiday or party occasions. Thirty—eight percent of the same peOple would purchase cut— up turkey for a holiday or party occasion. In view of these observations, it would seem that the turkey industry should cut up more birds, if they want turkey to become thought of as something other than a holiday meat. G. Meat Managers' Comments Most of the meat managers agreed (80 out of 87) that selling cut-up turkey parts is a good idea. Most managers agree (59 out of 86) that the sale of turkey parts will not affect the sale of other meats. However, less than 25 per- cent of the Wrigleys' stores reported the sale of turkey parts during most of the period under observation. H. Merchandising Problems Some problems develop in any new merchandising program. 111. One of the most important was that parts did not move out of stores in proportion to their existance at the cutting table. A central cutting and wrapping room, from which the meat managers could order, would certainly help to alleviate this problem. Another problem was that of the weight loss and re— wrapping of parts that remain from one day's business to the next. Parts would lose weight due to the cutting and over- night holding, thus making rewrapping a necessity in order to comply with weight_regulations. The materials used in wrapping were not strong enough to prevent some tearing, or breakage, with customer handling. This caused some rewrapping, due to soil, as well as weight loss. In some stores, inadequate display Space was given to the poultry sales. 112. APPENDIX 113. APPENDIX POULTRY May 1958 AFTERNOON Comparison of turkey in various sizes and forms. %:3 l 2 3 4 5 Preference lst. Score % One whole turkey 54 17 5 9 1 3 416 () One-half turkey 32 10 17 5 2 l 414 * One—quarter turkey —- —— 3 5 18 9 201 (white) % One-quarter turkey 6 2 4 3 8 18 198 (dark) # One turkey breast 6 2 5 17 6 5 270 Comparison of whole chicken and turkey parts in approximately 3 pound packages. %- l 2 3 4 5 Preference lst. Score % One whole chicken 39¢ lb. 77 27 4 1 l 2 451 & Two turkey thighs '59¢ 1b. 8 3 5 ll 12 4 280 # Two turkey drums 49¢ lb. 3 l 10 6 10 8 263 () One-half turkey breast, 69¢ lb. 8 3 13 9 7 3 321 * Three—four turkey wings, 39¢ 1b. 2 l 3 7 3 21 184 Comparison of turkey and chicken parts in approximately three pound packages. %:8 l 2 3 4 5 Preference lst. Score & Chicken drums (& thighs 59¢ lb. 45 16 6 5 5 3 379 * Chicken breasts 69¢ lb. 25 9 10 6 7 3 345 % Turkey breast (one half) 69¢ lb. 20 7 10 9 3 6 328 # Turkey thighs (two) 59¢ lb. 3 1 3 7 ll 13 212 () Turkey drums (two) 49¢ 1b. 5 2 7 5 8 13 234 114. APPENDIX POULTRY May 1958 EVENING Comparison of turkey in various sizes and forms. A %-—l 2 83* 4 5 Preference lst. Score & One whole turkey 58 28 9 3 5 3 412 () One-half turkey 25 12 20 13 1 2 381 * One-quarter turkey 2 l 4 3 20 19 186 (white) % One-quarter turkey — — 1 8 17 22 176 (dark) # One turkey breast l4 7 14 21 5 l 344 Comparison of whole chicken and turkey parts in approx— imately three pound packages. %; l 2 3 4 5 Preference lst. Score % One whole chicken 44 21 12 6 5 4 391 39¢ lb. TWO turkey thighs 12 6 9 15 11 7 293 59¢ lb. # Two turkey drums 10 5 9 14 17 3 292 49¢ lb. () One—half turkey 25 12 13 7 12 4 338 breast,69¢ 1b. * Three—four turkey 6 3 4 6 4 31 183 wings,39¢ lb. Comparison of turkey and chicken parts in approximately three-four pound packages. %— l 2 3 4 5 Preference lst. Score & Chicken drums (& 33 16 12 9 7 4 359 thighs, 59¢ lb. * Chicken breasts l2 6 15 6 5 16 279 69¢ lb. % Turkey breast(0ne 27 13 6 19 9 1 341 half,69¢ lb. # Turkey thighs(two)10 5 10 7 20 6 274 59¢ lb. () Turkey drums(two) 16 8 5 8 7 20 245 49¢ lb. Comparison of whole chicken and turkey parts in approximately three pound packages %- Preference lst. 1 2 3 4 5 Score ;) One Whole Chicken 32 ll 7 6 8 3 350 a Two turkey thighs ll 4 10 10 7 4 314 # Two turkey drums 6 2 6 10 10 7 262 * One-half turkey 47 16 9 3 2 5 392 breast & Three-four turkey wings 2 1 2 6 7 19 180 8. Comparison of turkey and chicken parts in approximately three pound pakcages %— Preference 1st 1 2 3 4 5 Score % Chicken drums (% thighs) 45 16 6 7 3 3 384 # Chicken breasts 28 10 12 3 10 — 367 * Turkey breast (l) 22 8 8 9 3 7 322 & Turkey drums (2) 3 l 1 10 5 18 192 () Turkey thighs (2) — _ 8 5 12 10 234 9. Comparison of turkey in various sizes and forms %? Preference 1st 1 2 3 4 5 Score * One whole turkey 39¢ lb. 57 20 5 3 2 5 394 () One—half turkey 43¢ lb. 25 9 19 2 4 l 388 & One—quarter turkey (white)49¢ lb. 3 1 3 12 12 7 240 # One—quarter turkey (dark) 39¢ lb. 5 2 4 9 11 9 239 % One turkey breast 69¢ lb. 8 3 4 9 6 13 237 116. 10. Comparison of whole chicken and turkey parts in approximately three pound packages %— Preference lst l 2 3 4 5 Score ;) One Whole Chicken 27 13 6 13 10 6 320 a Two turkey thighs 18 9 12 12 12 3 325 # Two turkey drums 10 5 9 12 14 8 277 * One—half turkey breast43 21 16 5 6 — 408 & Three-four turkey thighs — - 5 6 6 31 168 11. Comparison of turkey and chicken parts in approximately three pound packages %- Preference lst l 2 3 4 5 Score % Chicken drums (& 43 21 7 14 6 — 390 thighs) ** Turkey breast (5) 20 10 9 18 7 4 329 * Chicken breasts 20 10 22 3 4 9 341 3 Turkey drums (2) 4 2 4 6 19 17 206 () Turkey thighs (2) 10 5 6 7 12 18 233 12. Comparison of turkey in various sizes and forms %- Preference lst l 2 3 4 5 Score * One whole turkey 39¢ lb. 68 33 7 1 l 6 425 () One—half turkey 43¢ lb. 16 8 32 4 2 2 387 & One-quarter turkey (white) 49¢ lb. 4 2 — 11 17 18 198 % One turkey breast 69¢ lb. 6 3 2 19 13 11 244 117. 13. Computation of the Preference Score Poultry Series I Afternoon May 20, 1958 Sample 1 turkey giturkey whole turkey f turkey Total (white) turkey breast (back) Symbol * () & # % Rank 1 — 10 17 2 2 31 2 3 l7 5 5 4 34 3 5 5 9 l7 3 39 4 18 2 1 6 8 35 5 9 l 3 5 18 36 Sample % turkey % turkey whole turkey % turkey Total (white) turkey breast (back) Symbol * () & ,# % Rank % Pref. % Pref. % Pref. % Pref. % Pref. Factor Score Score Score Score Score 1 5 32 161 54 274 6 32 6 32 100 2 4 8 35 50 200 14 58 14 58 ll 47 100 3 3 12 38 12 38 23 69 43 130 7 23 100 4 2 51 102 5 ll 2 5 17 34 22 45 100 5 l 25 25 2 2 8 8 13 13 50 50 100 Total Preference Score 201 414 416 207 196 118. 14. Computation of the Coefficient of Concordance Poultry Series I Afternoon May 20, 1958 V} turkey % turkey whole turkey % turkey Sample (white) turkey (breast) (dark) Symbol * (7 a # %I Rank 1 0 10 17 2 2 2 3 17 5 5 4 3 5 5 9 l7 3 4 18 2 l 6 8 5 9 1 3 5 18 Symbol — Rank times number within each rank totaled. * 138 x Ranks of all samples + number of ranks. () 72 x 536 + 5 & 73 x 107 # 112 M Judges 35 % 141 N Classes 5 2 Symbol — X d d 138- 107 31 961 72- 107 -35 1225 73- 107 -34 1156 112— 107 5 25 141— 107 34 1156 4523 2 w 12( d ) 12 (4523) 54276 m (n -n) (35)2(53—5) 147000 W 3369224 x: Judges (ranks-1)(W) x2 35(5-l)(.369224) X 51.691360* * significant at 5% level 119. 15. Turkeys raised in the United States from 1937 to 1957 Year Turkeys raised Year Turkeys raised (thousand) (thousand) 1937 25,755 1947 33,975 1938 26,887 1948 31,541 1939 33,587 1949 41,266 1940 33,791 1950 44,393 1941 32,607 1951 53,298 1942 32,504 1952 62,327 1943 31,803 1953 59,822 1944 35,132 1954 67,693 1945 42,900 1955 65,598 1946 40,142 1956 76,893 The Poultry and Egg Situation, U.S.D.A. May, 1957: pp 45. 16. Total live weight sold in the United States from 1937 to 1957 Year Live weight sold Average weight (million) live turkeys sold POUNDS POUNDS 1937 359 13.9 1938 370 13.8 1939 444 13.2 1940 506 15.0 1941 491 15.1 1942 523 16.1 1943 485 15.3 1944 577 16.4 1945 715 16.7 1946 740 18.4 1947 634 18.7 1948 549 17.4 1949 748 18.1 1950 1808 18.2 1951 927 17.4 1952 1049 16.8 1953 999 16.7 1954 1149 17.0 1955 1079 16.4 1956 1249 16.2 The Poultry and Egg Situation, U.S.D.A. May, 1957: Pp 45 120. 17. Light and heavy breeds raised 1950 to 1957 Year Heavy Breed Light Breed Total (million) (million), 1950 39.1* 5.3* 44.4 1951 42.1* 1142* 53.3 1952 44.3* 18.1* 62.3 1953 43.4 16.4 59.8 1954 48.5 19.2 67.7 1955 48.8 16.8 65.6 1956 63.2 13.7 76.9 1957 67.3 13.3 80.6 * Derived The Poultry and Egg Situation, U.S.D.A. January, 1958 pp. 22. 18. P0pulation of the United States (estimate) Year Number of People Year Number of People 1937* 128,877,000 1947 143,480,000 1938* 129,818,000 1948 146,051,000 1939 130,642,000 1949 148,595,000 1940 131,820,000 1950 151,132,000 1941 133,098,000 1951 153,691,000 1942 134,498,000 1952 156,420,000 1943 136,297,000 1953 159,017,000 1944 138,027,000 1954 161,763,000 1945 139,583,000 1955** 165,270,000 1946 141,039,000 1956** 168,174,000 * U.S. Agricultural Statistics 1941 U.S. Agricultural Statistics 1954 ** World Almanac 1958 19. Turkeys: Per capita civilian consumption, ready—to-cook equivalent weight, 1937 to 1957. Year Pounds Year Pounds 1937 2.2 1948 3.0 1938 2.2 1949 3.2 1939 2.4 1950 4.0 1940 2.9 1951 4.4 1941 2.9 1952 4.6 1942 3.0 1953 4.7 1943 2.7 1954 5.2 1944 2.7 1955 5.0 1945 3.4 1956 5.4 1946 3.7 1957 5.8 1947 3.5 The Poultry and Egg Situation, U.S.D.A., November, 1956 pp. 35. 121. 20. Turkey breeders on farm, January 1, 1937 to 1957. Year Breeders Year Breeders (thousand) (thousand) 1937 3,481 1947 3,779 1938 3,222 1948 2,537 1939 3,914 1949 3,148 1940 4,607 1950 3,270 1941 3,848 1951 3,301 1942 3,962 1952 3,694 1943 3,897 1953 3,162 1944 4,198 1954 3,095 1945 4,505 1955 3,012 1946 4,841 1956 3,231 The Poultry and Egg Situation, U.S.D.A., May, 1957: pp 45. Figure 1. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY SURVEY September, 1957 Hil— Wrigley' s IIvae been trying to wake it convenient for you to eat turkey more often by so I turkey ieces. WI|I are studying the eltects of this new merchandising method on toto turkey sol es. We will be very happy to send you turkey cooking recipes it you will complete and mail this ca Have you purchased turkey pieces before? Yes D No El Which part did you buy? Thigh El Drumstick El Baal: E] Breast D Grebe El Wing I] Did you serve turkey instead oI. 3.4 C] Perl: [:1 Lamb [:1 Chicken I] We are interested in your opinion flI'concernini these turkey pieces. Would you allow us to phone you in orderth at we m t ask you a few more questions? Name Address Phone No.: This is the form used in the Post Card Survey. 122 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY or Aswan-mu AND APPLIED sermon . EAST LANSING TURKEY SURVEY DEPARTMENT OF POULTRY HUSBANDRY ‘we appreciated very much the post card which you mailed last fall. The cards were returned from 31 different cities, so it became impractical for us to phone each one of you. These few questions are asked in place of the phone call. Wauld you like more recipes on eggs , or poultry . YOur name and address please if you wish to get the recipes. Name: Street: 1. Have you purchased gategp turkey since the survey last fall ? Yes __ No . If no, why not 7 If yes, how often 7 2. Which pieces do you prefer 7 . Your family prefers white meat , dark meat , some of each ___. 3 u. How many pounds of gptrgp,turkey do you usually buy at a time ? 5. How many peeple do you figure this amount of turkey will serve 7 6 . What method of cooking do you use when cooking turkey pieces 7 7. were they difficult to cook satisfactorily 7 Yes , No 8. Do you serve more turkey now that you are able to purchase pieces ? Yes , No 1! U ’ ’9 > A I erfiiahnlol If .r— aituniuiti "IT IS (OR as m: LIVING . . . to as DEDICATED HERE to IHE UNFINISHED WORK . . . ." Tamil 1 toss-IOSS , .- -. y LINCOLN 10. ll. 12. 13. lb. 15. 16. 17. 123 Have you noticed cut—3p turkey for sale in stores other than Wrigley's ? Yes No . If "yes", in which stores 7 How many people are in your family ? Do you use whole turkey for special or party occasions 7 Yes __ No ___ Do you use gggagp Egrggy for special or party occasions 7 Yes fig No ___ Approximately how many times a year do you buy yhglg,tggk§y 7 How did you first become aware of the availability of turkey pieces ? a. Radio 0. Store diSplay b. Newspaper advertisement d. Other Why did you purchase your first turkey Qggggg ? a. Price c. Convenience e. DiSplay b. Quality d. Flavor f. Other What were your impressions of the method of packaging and packaging material used for turkey pieces ? a. Very attractive c. Unattractive b. Satisfactory d. Readily broken What were your impressions of the diSplay of turkey pieces ? a. Very attractive c. Too small b. Adequate d. Crowded e. Other We of the Poultry Industry would appreciate your opinion concerning this method of buying turkey. (Use other 3160 if more room is needed ). Sincerely, MW C. C. Sheppard Poultry Department CCS:mr .124 COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE IN AGRICULTURE no Hana ECONOMICS STATE OF MICHIGAN MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY CONSUMER MARKETING INFORMATION U. 8. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 318 Boulevard Building COOPERATING Detroit 2, Michigan May 6, 1958 Dear Consumer: This note will introduce a friend of mine, C. C. Sheppard of the Poultry Department of‘Michigan State University, East lensing, Michigan. Shep and I are making a study of the merchandising and consumption of ggt-up turkey. The reason for this study is that some of the stores which operate in the southern.Michigan-northern Ohio area have been selling __t-_p turkey during the last year. I have mentioned the desirability and availability of ggtegp turkey several times on the radio and in the news releases from this office. We would certainly appreciate it if you would complete the following questionnaire so that we might find out whether or not you have seen, heard of, or used this new method of purchasing and using turkey. ours truly, ) Marjorie 01 Co sumer Marketing Information Agent 1. Have you noticed ggt-gp turkey for sale in any of the stores in which you shop? Yes _____ No _____ Which store . (Name of store) 2. Have you heard of 233-pp turkey (pieces) before this survey? Yes_____ No . 3. Have you ever purchased QEEfEE turkey (pieces)? Yes No . a) If yes, which piece, or pieces, did you buy? . b) If no, why not; not available ____, too expensive, ____, prefer other meats ____, other . 4. Why did you purchase your first turkey pieces? a) price b) convenience c) display d) quality 8) flavor f) other 5. If you have purchased, or heard of, turkey pieces, how was this brought to your attention? Newspaper ad , TV , Radio , Store display Other . 6. Would you buy gkiakp turkey if it was frozen? Yes NO 's ;o 7. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 125 How many pounds of turkey (pieces) would you like to buy at a trme? . How many would this serve? . WCuld you serve turkey more often if it was regularly available in the smaller sizes (turkey pieces, quarters, or halves?) Yes No Have you ever seen or used turkey pieces? Have Have Acce tanc .S.e_e..r.1 Used Like wel Like—mm“ We a) Turkey halves b) Turkey quarters 0) Turkey pieces Please place a check mark to indicate when you purchased turkey in the last year (April 1st, 1957 - March 31, 1958) Whole Half Quarter Pieces Thanksgiving Christmas Easter Other — Approx. Date Your family consists of persons. What is the occupation of the man of your house? . Does the woman of your house work? Yes _____ No _____ Approximate annual income: up to $3500 $3600.6000 Mom—10,000 , over $10,000 . If you wish you may sign your name and address below. This is optional with you. Name Address - If you have any comments concerning the merchandising of gutagp turkey we would certainly appreciate them. Use the back of this page for comments. .-,.,-. 126. September, 1957 MEAT DEPARTMENT MANAGERS SURVEY - - TURKEY PARTS ‘we are trying to solidify some of our thinking on the cut~up turkey parts merchandising program. Some of the stores are doing things differently than others. Some ideas are good. we want your ideas as to why these things work. we want to know so we can tell the rest of the fellows. Please answer the following questions as completely as possible. You may Sign the survey or not as you wish. 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. Does the sale of turkey parts affect the sale of other meats? Yes__,No. If answer to "l" is yes, which meats Which parts move out first in your store ? , , and . Which parts are usually left until last ? , , and . Why do you think they move out last ? Pieces too large ____; Price per pound too high ____; Neighborhood income lOW'_.J Medium.__, High __. How often do you have to throw away parts of turkey ? Never ___, Seldom.___J Frequently'___J Always ___, How many whole turkeys do you usually sell (price 37-45¢ per lb.) per week ? How many cut-up turkeys do you usually sell per week ? How many whole turkeys did you sell last week ? How many cut-up turkeys did you sell last week ? How much do you usually sell per week of hamburg ? ___ lbs; roasts ____ lbs; steak _____lbs; and ham ____ lbs. What has been the recent average price of hamburg ____ ¢/lb., roasts __ ¢/lb; steak __ ¢/lb; and ham __¢/1b. Do you consider selling turkey parts a good idea ? Yes ___, No ___ During ordinary weeks (no city-wide advertising) do you sell turkey parts below the suggested price per pound ? 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. LED CCS:mr 9/16/5 127. If "yes" on number 14, how much below and on which pieces ? v... Do you think that your customers are substituting turkey for other meats ? Yes , No 0n the average, how long does it take to cut up a turkey ? minutes. 0n the average, how long does it take to wrap the parts 2 minutes. What wrapping material do you use 7 Cellophane , Plio-film. , Mylar , Cry—OAVac , Other . (name it) What is your cost per pound of wrapping (including labor and materials)? ¢/lb. Which wrapping material do you prefer ? Why do you prefer the wrapping material that you answered in No. 21 ? Is rewrapping a serious problem in your store ? Yes __, No How many packages do you have to rewrap after each Fridays business ? Following is a list of turkey parts. Check the parts that you get from cutting a turkey. A. Whole wing ; or Wing in parts B. ‘Whole leg ; or Drumsticks and thighs 0. Whole breast ______5 or Two half-breasts ____; Four quarter- breasts D. Neck ; Liver _____5Heart _____; Gizzard _____ E. Back: 1 piece _____5 2 pieces _____; or 3 pieces 7 127$! BIBLIOGRAPHY Anonymous, 1958. California Turkey Marketing Shows Consumption Can be Increased 30 to 50% with Quarter Turkey Roasts. Cry-O-Vac Printed Leaflet. Anonymous, 1947. Pennsylvanians Sell Cut—Up Turkeys. Turkey World, 22: (4), pp. 36. Barnes, D. H., 1954. A Quick Turkey Dinner. Poultry Processing and Marketing, 60: (12), pp. 14. Beanblossom, F. Z., 1948. 'Merchandising Turkeys. Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas Extension Bulletin 163. Biddinger, G. R., 1956. Boneless Turkey for the Armed Forces. Turkey World, 31: (9), pp. 19. Clarke, M. C., 1947. Will Turkey Parts Sell? U. S. Egg and Poultry Magazine, 53: (11), pp. 10. Clarke, M. C. 1947. Boned Turkey Makes Sales History' When Its Merchandised. U. S. Egg and Poultry Magazine, 53: (9), pp. 6. Clarke, M. C., 1947. New Ways of Marketing Turkeys May Open New Markets for Them. U. S. Egg and Poultry Mag— azine, 53: (5), pp. 8. Cowan, T. C., 1947. Good Merchandising Will Increase Poultry Sales. U. S. Egg and Poultry Magazine, 53: (10). Davidson, J. A.,and L. E. Dawson, 1953. Smoked Turkey Rolls. Turkey World, 28: (8), pp. 14. Dawson, L. Ef, 1957. We Must Put "Sell" into Turkey Marketing. Turkey World, 32: (8), pp. 15. Dawson, L. E., 1949. Merchandising Frozen Turkey Quarters. Ph.D. Thesis, Purdue University. Durham, W. W., 1951. I Get Behind the Counter and Show My Customers How to Sell More Turkey. U. S. Egg and Poultry Magazine, 57: (2), pp. 28. Elam, F. L., 1957. Oregon Grower Specializes in Fryers. Turkey World, 32: (3), pp. 12. 128. Evans, D. W. 1950. Turkey Logs — A New Way to Boost Sales and Cut Costs. U. S. Egg and Poultry Magazine, 56: (1), pp. 9. Fischer, C. M., 1949. Cut-up Turkey Sells Well in Oregon. Turkey World, 24: (2), pp. 46. Fitzgerald, G. A., 1947. New Poultry Products Can Expand Markets. U. S. Egg and Poultry Magazine, 53: (4), pp. 7. Flinn, P. J., 1952. We Tripled Our Poultry Sales. U. S. Egg and Poultry Magazine, 58: (5), pp. 8. Galer, F., 1952. Cut Up Your Birds for Increased Sales. Turkey World, 27: (1), pp. 21. Galer, F., 1950. Four States Have Proved Turkey Can be Sold Now. Turkey World, 25: (7), pp. 14. Gordeuk, A., 1957. Producing the Market is the Big Problem Today. Turkey World, 32: (8), pp. 9. Hartley, M. L., 1952. Year Around Market for Turkeys in Home Freezers and Locker Plants. Mimeo from Nevada Agricultural Experiment Station. Hines, R. L., and S. J. Marsden, 1957. Curing and Smoking Turkey. Turkey World, 32: (1), pp. 48. HObbs, R. W., 1947. Minnesota Pilot Merchandising Test Succeeds. Turkey World, 22: (11), pp. 15. Jasper, W., 1957. Highland Pioneer in Stuffed Poultry. Poultry Processing and Marketing, 63: (8), pp. 8. Joule, T. L., 1957. The Turkey Roll is Catching On. Turkey World, 32: (8), pp. 16. Karpoff, E., 1957. New Record Crop Expected in 1957. Turkey world, 32: (1), pp. 24. Kendall, M. G., Rank Correlation Methods. Charles Griffin and Company, Drury Lane, London, England. pp. 80—89. Larzelere, H. E., and J. D. Shaffer, 1956. Purchases of Turkey by Families of the Michigan State University Con- sumer Panel 1951—55. Michigan State University Quarterly Bulletin, 39: (1), pp. 139. Larzelere, H. E., and J. D. Shaffer, 1955. Purchases of Turkey by Families of the Michigan State University Con— sumer Panel 1951—1954. Michigan State University Quarterly Bulletin, 38: (12), pp. 106. 129. Larzelere, H. E., and R. D. Gibb, 1956. Consumers' Opinions of Quality in Pork Cho 3. Michigan State Univer— sity Quarterly Bulletin, 39: (2 , pp. 327. Leicht, B., 1952. Plus Business for the Retailer and for You. U. 5. Egg and Poultry Magazine, 58: (12), pp. 13. Marsden, S. J., 1957. How to Get Eggs the Year Around.. Turkey World, 32: (1), pp. 21. Marshall, R. J., 1958. Now Its Turkey for Easter Too. Turkey World, 33: (4), pp. 11. McAllister, W. T., and R. O. Bausman, 1948. The Retail Marketing of Frying Chickens in Philadelphia. University of Delaware Experiment Station Bulletin, (275). Mortenson, W. P., 1957. Will Com etition Tighten in the Years Ahead? Turkey World, 32: (12 , pp. 17. Naden, K}, 1957. How Changes in Food Retailin Are Affecting the Turkey Industry. Turkey World, 32: (8 , pp. 12. Pappalaro, S. J.,-1955. Frozen Stuffed Poultry. Poul- try Processing and Marketing, 61: (7), pp. 15. Pellow, R. J., 1946. Pellows Sell Their Birds Ready to Eat. Turkey World, 21: (11), pp. 11. Poffenberger, P. R., and S. H. DeVault, 1939. Marketing Maryland Turke s. University of Maryland Experiment Station Bulletin, (429). Pollock, C., 1948. Cut—up Turkey Has a Bright Future. Turkey World, 23: (3), pp. 14. Small, M. C., 1946. Turkey Filets Offer New Profit Outlet for Turkey. Turkey World, 21=(9), pp. 16. Smith, E. Y., 1948. Eastern Trends in Turkey Produc- tion and Marketing. Poultry Science, 27: (1), pp. 683. Smith, R. C., 1953, Factors Affecting Consumer Pur— chases of Frying. University of Delaware Experiment Station Bulletin, (298). Stratton, C. L., 1957. Schaller Finds That There Is Money in Good Broilers. Turkey World, 32: (4), pp. 13. Stratton, C. L., 1955. Let's Have a Turkey Barbecue. Turkey World, 30: (6), pp. 16. 130. Sweet, M. C., 1957. Merchandising Turkey Parts Helps This Distributor Keep Pace. Poultry Processing and Marketing, 63: (2), pp. 16. Sweet, M., 1952. Farmer's Pride Does a Wholesale Business in a Retail way. U. S. Egg and Poultry Magazine, 58: (8), pp. 17. Swickard, M. T., R. S. Carpenter, and S. J. Marsden, 1949. Turkey on the Table the Year Around, U.S.D.A. Farmers Bulletin (2011). Vogel, J., 1956. Students Sell Smoked Turkey. Turkey World, 31: (9), pp. 58. Williams, I. L., and H. L. Wiegers, 1947. Turkey Steaks. University of Nebraska Experiment Station Circular 84 . Zapata, J., 1957. Growers Figures Show that Turkeys are Headed for Mars Production. Turkey World, 32: (l), pp.56. HICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRRRIES WWWW(IWU||||"ml“WIIWINNIHIWI 31293017543467