.y 3333

.......

5TOR£ MERCHANDISING OF CHEESE AND
CONSUMER REACTIONS

Thesis for £119 Dam. of Ph. D.
WCHIGAN STATE UNWERSITY
Robert M. Williams
1961

. 12—» .. ' : 0‘6

{4 O 71““.<“I';/
x.) J
‘ a. .I I- .

 

.STORE MERCHANDISING 0F CHEESE
AND CONSUMER REACTIONS

BY

Robert M. Williams

AN ABSTRACT OF A THESIS

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Dairy

1961

ABSTRACT

STORE MERCHANDISING OF CHEESE
.AND CONSUMER REACTIONS

by Robert M. Williams

The objective of this study was to provide the cheese
industry with factual information concerning consumers'
likes, dislikes and attitudes toward cheese and cheese
merchandising practices. Four areas were selected for
extensive investigation: (a) the evaluation of consumer
acceptance and preference for various shapes, sizes,
colors and_types o£.packages; (b) the development of a
practical package which would answer the need for a re-
closable package that would also prevent loss of moisture
from the packaged cheese; (c) the determination of the
consumer image of cheese and cheese purchasers and con-
sumer attitudes toward cheese merchandising and (d) the
evaluationpo£.cheese merchandising techniques used by food
retailers.

Cheese cut into various shapes and packaged in various
materials was tested by consumer panels. A list of names
of 5,000 persons was prepared from current telephone
directories of Michigan cities. An Open-end questionnaire
was mailed to each name. Thirty telephone or personal
interviews were conducted with market managers of grocery
stores and supermarkets in the Lansing area to determine

the techniques used in merchandizing cheese in the store.

Robert M. Williams

A re-closable plastic container was designed and
vacuum molded from 0.02h inch clear modified polystyrene.
The container was a two piece box, 3% x 3% x 2 inches with
a tear-tape seal. Cheese packaged in the plastic con-
tainer, saran and aluminum foil was subjected to 5-week
keeping quality tests to determine the ability of the
various materials to preserve freshness of the cheese. A
series of matched-lot merchandising trials were conducted
in the Michigan State University Dairy Store to compare
actual sales preferences for color, shape and type of
packaging material.

Results from the consumer panel tests showed prefer-
ence for block and bar shapes of cheese. Saran was the
preferred wrapping material with results significant at
the l-percent level. No preference was found among the
different colors of foil and wax.

Results obtained from questionnaires showed that the
most frequently purchased cheese was mild Cheddar and the
most frequent uses of cheese were in snacks and sandwiches.
Swiss was the most frequently purchased foreign type of
cheese. When cheese and luncheon meat were equally priced
at $0.49 per pound, 58 percent of the respondents said
they would purchase luncheon meat.

The reasons listed for buying cheese were as follows:
#6 percent "just liked it", #0 percent for nutritional
value, 18 percent because of the wide variety of uses and

10 percent as a substitute for meat. As income of the

Robert M. Williams

family increased the quantity of cheese purchased also in-
creased. When size of family increased total quantity of
cheese purchased increased, but consumption per person
decreased. Quantity of cheese purchased increased as the
amount of formal education increased. Food sampling in
supermarkets impressed 47 percent of the respondents, 5
percent were opposed to the practice and #8 percent were
indifferent to food sampling.

The major complaints against cheese were: quality
not uniform, drying of the product and inconvenient pack-
aging. The most frequent suggestion given for increasing
the sale of cheese was consumer education. Unfamiliarity
was the reason given most frequently for not purchasing
foreign types of cheese. The consumer image was favorable
for users of Cheddar cheese but unfavorable toward users
of foreign types of cheese.

Grocery store managers in the Lansing area practiced
no formalized procedure as a basis for the decision of how
much and what type of cheese to stock. None of the
managers surveyed used return-per-square-foot of display
area as a means of allocating space.

Matched-lot trials in store saleSocorroborated the
results found through the consumer panels and mailing
questionnaires. .A significant preference at the l-percent
level was shown for block and bar shaped cheese cuts
packaged in transparent material.

Results showed that cheese freshness can be retained

Robert M. Williams

at least 5 weeks by wrapping the cheese in moisture proof

materials.

STORE MERCHANDISING OF CHEESE
AND CONSUMER REACTIONS

BY,
ROBERT Mi {€411.me

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Dairy
1961

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Dr. T. l. Hedrick, Professor of Food Science, is
gratefully acknowledged by the author for guidance in both
the work covered by this manuscript and the entire graduate
program.

Sincere thanks are also extended to Dr. L. G. Harmon,
Professor of Food Science, for his ready counsel and
friendship. The author wishes also to express his grati-
tude to Drs. Harold Raphael, Glynn McBride and E. A. Brand
for their assistance in the direction of this research
problem.

Dr. H. E. Larzelere is gratefully acknowledged for
his assistance in the Detroit Consumer Panel studies.

The author wishes to recognize Ruth, his wife, for
her encouragement and assistance in compiling data in the

preparation of this manuscript.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTIONOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.0.0.0... 1

REVIEW OF LITERATUREooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo u
ImPUISC Buyingoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo u
AttitUdes and MOtIVCSooooooooooooooooooooooooo 7
Merchandising and Point-of-Purchase Display... 11
PaCkaging..................................... 12
ExperEment‘l TeChniunSooooooooooooooooooooooo 16
Statistical Analysis.......................... 2h

PROCEWRES....C.C.C..........C..................... 26
Consumer Preference Panel..................... 26
consumer survey................O.............. 31
survey or Grocerymen....0..................... 32
PaCkage DCSIQHoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 33
KCCping Quality 733‘3ooooooooooooooooooooooooo 33
Dairy Store PurChase Dataooooooooooooooooooooo 3s

RESULTSOOOOOOOCOCOOOOO00.00.00.00000COOOOOOOOOOOOOO 36

Consumer Preference Panelooooooooooooooooooooo 36
Milling QUCSt‘onnaireooooooooooooooooooooooooo ul

Gracefy Survey................................ 70
Keeping Quality TCStSooooooooooooooooooooooooo 71
Dairy Store PUTChCSC Datiooooooooooooooooooooo 72
IMPLICATION OF RESULTSooooooOoooooooooooooooooooooo 73
SUMMARYEAND CONCLUSIONooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 78
LITERATURE CITEDooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 8o

APPENDIXOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. 85

ii

Table

II

III

IV

VI

VII

VIII

IX

XI
XII

XIII

XIV

LIST OF TABLES

Acceptance of shape of cut as
determined by consumer panel tests

Preference for shape of cut preferred
by the consumer panel

Acceptance of packaging materials as
determined by consumer panel tests

Type of wrapping material preferred
by the consumer panel

Preference for wrapping materials at
equal prices and at $0.02 per pound
premium for plastic and foil

Color of foil wrapping material
preferred by the consumer panel

Preference for color of wax coating
of cheese as determined by consumer
panel tests

Acceptance of specialty items as
determined by consumer panel tests

Preference for specialty cheese items
as determined by consumer panel tests

Reasons for purchasing cheese
Major complaints against cheese

Consumer suggestions for increasing
sale of cheese

Reasons for not buying foreign types
of cheese

Reasons given for never purchasing
cheese

iii

Page

36

37

38

38

39

ho

ho

hi

hi
64
66

67

67

69

7.

10.

11.

12.

13.

1“.

LIST OF FIGURES

Example of reporting card used by members
of the Detroit Consumer Panel.

Various shapes used in Detroit Consumer
Panel tests.

Specifications for a re-closable plastic
package for cheese.

Demographic factors influencing frequency
of consumption of cheese in snacks.

Demographic factors influencing frequency
of consumption of cheese in sandwiches.

Demographic factors influencing frequency
of consumption of cheese in macaroni and
cheese.

Demographic factors influencing frequency

of consumption of cheese in pizza and other

foreign dishes.

Demographic factors influencing frequency
of consumption of cheese in relish trays.

Demographic factors influencing frequency
of consumption of cheese in salads.

Demographic factors influencing frequency
of consumption of cheese as a complement
to drinks.

Demographic factors influencing frequency
of consumption of cheese as a sauce.

Percentage of respondents who used cheese
frequently in various ways.

Demographic factors influencing frequency
of use of mild Cheddar cheese.

Demographic factors influencing frequency
of use of Swiss cheese.

iv

Page

28

30

3h

#3

#5

#7

48

#9

SO

51

52

53

Figure
15.

16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.

2“.

LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED)

Demographic factors influencing frequency
of use of Brick cheese.

Demographic factors influencing frequency
of use of aged Cheddar cheese.

Demographic factors influencing frequency
of use of Frankenmuth cheese.

Demographic factors influencing frequency
of use of Mozzarella cheese.

Demographic factors influencing frequency
of use of Colby cheese.

Demographic factors influencing frequency
of use of Blue cheese.

Demographic factors influencing frequency
of use of Gouda cheese.

Demographic factors influencing frequency
of use of Edam.cheese.

Percentage of respondents who were frequent

.purchasers of a selected list of cheeses.

Percentage of respondents who never pur-
chased any of the cheeses on the selected
list of cheeses.

Page

54

55

S6

S7

58

59

60

61

62

63

LIST 0? APPENDIX FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Mailing questionnaire used in the

consumer attitude survey. 86
2. Answers to questionnaire selected for

the purpose of coding. 92
3. Telephone questionnaire for cheese

retailers. 97

vi

INTRODUCTION

Many articles have been written on the subject of
cheese merchandising. Some of these articles have had
supporting research while many others have been based on
opinion. The objective of this study was to test the
results of previous, less extensive studies and to provide
the cheese industry with additional information concerning
likes, dislikes and attitudes_toward cheese and cheese
merchandising practices.

In 1959 cheese was the third most important use of
fluid milk in the United States, utilizing approximately
11 percent of the milk produced. Cheese was made in l,h69
factories with an average annual production of 9h6,000
pounds per plant (17). Cheese accounted for $838,550,000
or approximately 7 percent of the total income from the
sale of all dairy products in 1957 (10).

The per capita consumption of cheese in the United
States has increased steadily from about 3.2 pounds in
1839. 3.5 in 1920, 5.6 in 1938, to approximately 8 pounds
per year in 1960 (2). However, consumption in the U. $.<
in 1960 was still far below that of the other major cheese
producing countries of the world. Per capita consumption
in the EurOpean countries in 1960 was approximately 17
pounds per year (2).

The consumer dictates quality and price and to some

I

extent the style of successful products. Processed cheese
and pro-packaged consumer sized portions were responsible
for the increased consumption of cheese in the 1930's (5).
However, figures published in l9h5 (3) showed that 80
percent of the cheese was consumed by 20 percent of the
population. Therefore, it appears that the cheese industry
has not given adequate attention to fashioning their product
according to consumer desires.

Possible solutions to many of the merchandising prob-
lems facing the cheese industry were preposed for testing
in the study. The study sought answers to the following
questions:

1. Which varieties of cheese are purchased?

.. How is cheese used?

What are the dissatisfactions with cheese?

Why are so few varieties of cheese purchased?

“FUN

What can be done to make cheese more appealing to

the consumer?

6. Can the market be increased by making available
convenience items?

7. Is the consumer willing to assume a share of the
additional expense in merchandising to his desires?

8. To what segment of the market should future
advertising be directed?

9. What advertising appeals should be stressed?

Definition of terms used in this study:

1. Cheese-~This study was confined to natural ripened

2.

3.

cheese as opposed to processed.

Consumer Acceptance—~The expression of positive or
negative attitudes toward different types of wrapping
materials for cheese.

Consumer Preference--The appeal of one package or
product over another package or product.
Papulation--Any group of individuals having a common

observable characteristic.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

This review is divided into six areas. -These are
impulse buying, attitudes and motives, merchandising and
point-of-purchase display, packaging, experimental
techniques and statistical analysis.

Impulse Bgying

According to a survey made in l9h8 (h) 30 percent of
the items purchased in service grocery stores were bought
on impulse. In addition, 22 percent were partially impulse
in that they were only generally planned with no preference
for brand designation and 2 percent were substitutes for
planned items which were not available. In self-service
stores 38.2 percent of the purchases were in response to
impulse. Packaging was believed to be the greatest single
factor contributing to impulse buying.

In 1959 a survey (20) showed that unplanned purchases
accounted for 69.5 percent of total grocery store purchases
and only 30.5 percent of the purchases were specifically
home-planned decisions. According to this survey 77.2
percent of the cheese purchases were impulse decisions and
over 50 percent of the cheese purchases were completely
unplanned.

Alderson (l) tended to minimize the importance of
impulse buying. He said, WA woman shopping tries to use

her head to achieve a specific goal." Alderson pointed

h

out that three factors tend to influence the buying motives.
These were: "the total assortment of goods the housewife
already owns, the family outlook for the future and the
family goal structure or its particular set of values.‘

Courtney (3S) emphasized that the whole myth of im-
pulse buying ought to be reconsidered in terms of customer
intelligence. The housewife cannot be stimulated indefi-
nitely to buy on impulse. She knows how'much she can spend
and her impulses are well controlled within those limits.

Bauer (23), in discussing the limits of persuasion,
stated that the individual's resistance to persuasion
probably increased in proportion to the efforts made to
persuade him against his own perceived interest. Bauer
pointed out that impulse operated only in rather limited
degrees, economy being the greatest single limiting factor.

Bursk (30), in much the same manner as Bauer, said
that persuasion was more a matter of strategy than of
manipulation. The seller needed to take the buyer's motives
into account in order to outomaneuver him and get him to
move in the desired direction. The best way to sell was
along these suggested lines: realize that it is normal for
people to like to buy, employ a strategy that makes use of
our best understanding of the psychology of the selling-
buying relationship and minimize resistance and maximize
the urge to buy through selling conducted on the rational
goals for people which will lead them to a particular

product or brand. Bursk concluded by saying that one of

the biggest components of a person's self-image was the
picture of himself as a reasonable, thinking man.

Lawler (h?) agreed with Bursk by saying that marketing
and advertising men should appeal to the “reasonable,
thinking man” and motivate fine eating as a sensible thing
to do.

Lowry (SO) concluded that "status” was the prime mover
in the consumer's selection of almost any item. "The
experts claim that the stores in which you shep, the
cigarette you smoke and the drinks you consume are clues
not only to whom you are but also who you want to be.”

Seldin (61), like Lowry, said, "We have entered a
'psycho-economic' age in which emotional rather than
technological factors determine the consumers' purchases.
we must sell emotional security or go under." He continued
by saying that it was the price of articles that determined
the buying actions of more than half the families in the I
‘United States--those with annual incomes under $h,000.

In a contrasting discussion of impulse buying the
writers of Time (13) pointed out a number of very interest-
ing statistics. ."Despite all the talk about price as a
determinant, low cost is the major factor for barely 16
percent of all shoppers; studies also show another 16
percent shop only for heavily advertised brands. A couple
shopping together buys 60 percent more than the man alone
and 30 percent more than the wife alone.“ The author

continued by saying, ”What sells is what appeals to the

shoppers' impulse: the size, the color, the shape, even
the shelf position of the package.”

An article in Food Merchandisigg (18) further pointed
out the influence of shelf position on impulse buying.
Balance the case according to customer demand. Good layout
can induce the customer to shop the whole case. According
to the article, this was accomplished by strategically
locating products with tremendous pulling power, such as
milk and eggs.

As a summary on impulse buying Shaffer (63) concluded
that even though unplanned purchases accounted for a high
percentage of store purchases, total food expenditures and
the allocation of expenditures among particular foods for
the population as a whole, were not substantially altered
by store decisions.

Henry (uh) made the statement that it was virtually
impossible to lay down any general distinction between
premeditated and impulse purchases.

Attitudes and jiot ives

Leighton (hB) said, "Motivation research is used in
situations where the so-called rational buying factors such
as price do not provide a full explanation of consumer pre-
ferences. It should be used only as a source of ideas to
supplement market surveys, sales tests, copy tests or other
traditional tools of market research.”

Frederick (he) said that there are two classes of

motives: transient (impulse buying) and persisting

(homemaking, saving, display and love). He continued by
saying that an economy of plenty will not be able to secure
the sales needed to distribute such large quantity, unless
first, the goods be designed, planned, priced and produced
according to authentic 'consumer demand'; second, that to
be authentic, demand must not be only a conscious articu-
late motive voiced directly and clearly by consumers--

but must also include deep and true sub-conscious human
feeling and motivation. Frederick listed 29 appeals to
human behavior, which he considered most important, from
an advertising and promotional standpoint. In order of

relative persuasiveness the appeals were:

1. health 15. medicinal

2. cleanliness 16. imitation

3. scientific lg. elegance

h. time saved 1 . courtesy

S. appetizing 19. economy

6. efficiency 20. affirmation

7. safety 21. sport

8. durability 22. hospitality

9. quality 23. substitutes
10. modernity 2h. clan feeling
11. family affection 25. nobby

12. reputation 26. recommendation
13. guarantee 27. social superiority
1h. sympathy 28. beautifying

Katona (hS) pointed out that attitudes are not
permanent and that they change frequently because of widely
transmitted information of a general nature, because of
personal experiences and because of errors in measurement
of values.

Duffy (38) noted five basic questions that assist the

market researcher in defining and describing what the

consumer thinks:

1. Who? Who are the peOple who buy the product?
2. What? What are the satisfactions and dissatisfactions
with the product?

3. where? Where do people buy it?
b. When? ‘When do people make up their minds to buy?
5. Why? Why do people buy a particular brand or product?

Perhaps the most extensive work in determining
attitudes toward cheese was the research conducted for the
American Dairy Association in l95h (7). The study revealed
the following attitudes: pro-sliced cheese was a favored
way of packaging, keeping quality of the cheese was most
important, and cheese was considered hard to digest and
constipating to children. Less than half the housewives
had tried any cheese other than Swiss and Cheddar (the
reason for not trying other cheeses was largely "never
heard of it"). The study further pointed out that cheese
was used most often in sandwiches and that the lower
economic group used cheese as a meat substitute to a great
extent. Recommendations made from the study were that
housewives must be educated to the keeping quality of
cheese, that cheese be promoted to the lunch pail group
and that cheese be promoted as a weekend easy-to-prepare
food.

Moss (Sh) found that dairy products were second only
to meat as a part of the food bill. He said that total
dairy products accounted for 17.3 percent and cheese

accounted for 2.8 percent of the total food bill. He

IO

placed the weekly consumption of cheese at l.u pounds per
family or o.u3 pounds per person. In relating socio-economic
factors to food consumption and expenditures for cheese he
listed the following results. income groupings showed very
little variation in per capita consumption or expenditures.
As size of family increased both cheese consumption and
expenditures for cheese decreased per person, dr0pping

from $0.27 to $0.11 as size of family went from one to
seven persons. As age of the housewife increased cheese
consumption rose slightly and the more formal education the
housewife had the higher the consumption of cheese.

Rojko (59) showed that in 19h3 price elasticity of
demand for cheese was -.69, income elasticity was -.62
and cross elasticity of cheese and substitute items was .86.

Pirie (56) said that anthropologists divide our
society into three income classes: upper, middle and
lower. Within each class people possess similar emotions,
values, ambitions, likes and dislikes--all of which in-
fluence buying habits. To be truly effective the marketing
and advertising program must be tailored to reach the
social class that the product fits.

In an English study Sheppard and Carrinci (6h) and
Sheppard (65) interviewed 333 housewives to determine
attitudes toward dairy products and what influenced the
housewife when the purchase was made. Results of the
survey were summarized as follows: 65 percent said they

bought cheese because they liked it, 32 percent because

11

of nutritional value and 12 percent for cooking purposes.
way (68), in a Canadian study of 967 respondents, showed
that bl percent bought cheese because they liked it, 25
percent because of its food value, 10 percent because of
taste and flavor and.9 percent because of diet and health.
Merchandising and Point-of-Purchase Display

A staff writer for Meat and Food.Merchandising (ll) (19)
indicated that techniques and procedures for selling cheese
were the same for large or small stores. These included an
emphasis on variety, the giving of samples, the use of
demonstrators mad a tie in with related products. Bergren
(24) said that consumer education was one of the most im-
portant elements in cheese merchandising.

A writer for Printer's Ink (1h) listed 17 uses of

point-of-purchase displays. They were:

1. .expose lO. secure good store
2. demonstrate ‘ location
3. sell ll. establish point-of-sale

A. show product detail 12. establish associations
5. attract attention 13. institutionalize

6. dispense 1h. solve dealer problems
7. make news 15. spotlight

8. emphasize features 16. special appeal

9. prove benefits 17. remind shoppers

Groesbeck (#3) stressed the proposition that most
peOple spend a large percentage of their time in an
"uninteresting, resting, relaxed, oblivious, blind and
deaf state." That condition of the mind, he said, is a
defense mechanism which is essential for survival. He
emphasized the need to stress two stimuli in point-of-

purchase or advertising materials to penetrate the minds

l2

and emotions of the consumer. Those were self-preservation
and emotional likes and dislikes. I

Ludgin (51) stressed the difficult task of reaching
the consumer. He said, 'The consumer sees and hears so
much advertising that he conditions himself against it.
He turns his mind off to most of it.” Ludgin continued by
saying that advertising could break through to the con-
sumers' consciousness if it was unexpected and believable.

Roper (60), in showing the value of image research,
said, "The meat industry was suffering a few years ago.
Research found people did not know much about meat except
that it tasted good. A shift in advertising to 'Meat is
the yardstick of protein value' has helped put meat sales
on the rise.“

Stryker (67) stressed the need for believability of
point-of-purchase material.

Merriman (53) in a discussion of the effect of display
on impulse purchasing, stated that in a test involving 22
stores soup was arranged in horizontal display for a month
and then changed to a vertical display in 11 stores for a
month. The test stores showed an average increase in sales
of 21 percent over control stores.
Packaging

From the manufacturers' and retailers' point of view
the greatest problem in merchandising cheese has been
contamination of pre-packaged cheese. Estimates of the

amount of cheese wasted ranged as high as 10 million

13

pounds each year as a result of mold contamination (6).
Considerable work has been done in an effort to overcome
the mold problem. wrapping materials treated with sorbic
acid or dipped in thermoplastic wax have helped decrease
the problem (9).

One Boston packer (16) of custom cut cheese asked con-

sumers what they wanted in cheese packaging. The answer

was "small chunks of good cheese that can be served as is
without fuss, and a cheese that doesn't need to be re-wrapped
and that won't spoil in the refrigerator even though kept
there a long time.” The solution was pre-cut, bite size
wedges of quality aged Cheddar cheese which were inter-
laced with a cellophane pull-tab for easy extraction of
ddesired amounts and put into a vacuum pouch. Bash package
<:ontained ll oneghalf-ounce packages.

A packaging survey by National Family Opinion, Inc.

( 21) indicated, "The housewife is fed up with old-style
packages that are difficult to open, inconvenient to use or
Store and impossible to close tightly for storage." Sixty
Pcrcent of the housewives in the survey indicated a will-
iltngness to pay more for convenience in opening and closing.
other results of the survey included: 58 percent of the
‘iiousewives suggested variety packs, 39 percent wanted strip
Packages, 80 percent suggested information as to the

<=alorie and vitamin contention labels of all foods.

1\lthough cheese was not mentioned specifically, a major

criticism of packages, which certainly had direct

111

application in cheese merchandising, was that plastic film
was most disliked as a packaging material for all products.
Objections to the package were that it was hard to open and
once open could not be re-closed. Eighty-six percent of
those responding said that keeping the product fresh was
very important and 13 percent said it was important.
Seventy percent said a re-closable feature was very impor-
tant and 26 percent said it was important.

Deane and Downs (36) in work on moisture loss from
natural cheese tested paraffin coating, uncoated aluminum
foil and paracote. The results showed that uncoated
aluminum foil was not practical as a protective package for
cheese as it disintegrated during the ripening process.

Wax coated cheese lost the most weight and paracote-wrapped
«cheese lost the least amount of moisture during ripening.
l.itt1e or no mold growth occurred as long as the wrapper
was in contact with the surface to exclude air.

Eldred (hO), in an article on the value of new
{IDaackaging methods, said that processed cheese in consumer-
=Iiize packages resulted in a doubling of cheese consumption
during the 1920's. Convenience packaging of natural cheese
received almost no attention until the advent of self—
Service food stores. Eldred said, ”Cheese possesses the
Qreatest number of desirable merchandising characteristics
0! any food item. It has variety of color, texture, flavor,

Shape, size, usage and keepability. However, a continuous

problem pertains to the number of varieties of cheese

l5

necessary to present greatest efficiency of the dairy case?
Henry (uh) pointed out that package design functioned
in the selling operation in three different ways: (a)
insofar as it affected the way in which the product was
used it became a constituent of the reality of the product,
(b) whether or not it had some physical funCtion, it in-
variably had some effect on the brand-image of the product
and (c) the package had a major task to perform at the
point-of-sale in attracting the attention of the potential

customer and in conveying the idea that it was a desirable

purchase.

MacNeil (52) in a study of consumer preference for

various packaging materials showed that polyethylene

received h0.h percent of nhe first place selections. Saran

\was second with 23.3 percent and cellophane and cryovac
received 22.1 and 15.2 percent, respectively.

In a study on moisture loss in pro-packaged consumer
xaortions of cheese kharmouth and Jackson (69) found

<:ryovac showed dehydration losses well below 1 percent by

‘Ioeight after a 3-month storage at 55° F. Standard moisture

:xaroof cellulose (MSAT 300) or pliofilm B. F. 75 both gave
manly a short-term shelf life for the packaged portions. One
estatement of interest was that most exponents of pre-
laackaging methods believe that the housewife prefers a

‘wedge-shaped portion of cheese. When properly applied,

'wmxes and resins were found to prevent mold growth but did

not prevent dehydration.

16

Experimental Techniques

Market researchers are divided into two separate
schools of thought as to the most effective way of gaining
factual information from the consumer. Followers of the
small-sample technique (clinical-qualitative research) used
projective techniques, depth interview and sentence comple-
tion. The expense involved in that type of research
demanded that a small sample be used. The large-sample
technique (quantitative approach) employed statistical
measurement of very large samples (8) (28).

A staff writer for Printer's Ink (15) pointed out the
weakness of both systems of market research and stressed
the need for a merger of the two methods. The advantages
shown for a merger of the two schools were that sampling
research provided a sample of a large percentage of the
mnarket segment and that consumer trends could be recognized

vvith almost positive assurance of their validity; while
motivation research gave more positive meaning to the study
1.n that the questions sampled the individual experiences of
leeach respondent, and reasons given for buying a product
could be arranged on a scale of most to least significant.

Baeza (22) experimented with the telephone interview,

‘Lhe personal interview and the mailing questionnaire as
alampling methods. He determined that the cost per com-
Ioleted interview was $2.72 for personal interview, $0.hh
:for telephone interview and $0.5h per mailing questionnaire..

Percentage returns from the three methods were 97 percent

17

for personal interview, 78 percent for telephone interview
and h.2 percent from the mailing questionnaire. At the
conclusion of his study he stated that the results indicat-
ed it was possible to obtain comparable information by the
three sampling methods.

Blankenship (25) indicated an expected return from
mailing questionnaires of about 10 percent. He stated

that the disadvantage of a mailing questionnaire was that
the researcher never knew whether the people who answered
a mailing questionnaire were or were not typical of his
total market. There was usually a tendency for people
most interested in a product or service or problem to
answer mailing questionnaires about it.

Brooks (26) analyzed a study conducted by the New York
VVorld Telegram in which the original sample was picked from
a list of registered voters. He found that the respondents
weere not representative of the sample. There was too high
as preportion of certain age, income and educational groups.
IPie concluded that mailing questionnaires were not reliable
t. 0 cover a heterogenous universe.

Brown (27), in a discussion of research methods,
1.isted the advantages and disadvantages of personal inter-
‘Oiewg telephone interview and mailing questionnaire. He
ssaid the personal interview allowed better control of the
sample, permitted more questions, faster field work and

Inade it possible to cover a wider range of subjects than

could be covered in a mailing questionnaire. The‘

l8

disadvantages were listed as personal bias of interviewer
and the possibility of interviews being given too hastily.

Advantages of the telephone interview, according to
Brown (27), were large numbers at low cost and random
sampling. Major disadvantages were related to the restrict-
ed amounts of information which could be secured and the
difficulty in determining age and income. In addition, not
everyone has a telephone.

Mailing questionnaires have exhibited the advantage of
avoiding the bias of the personal interview, while allowing
for a wide distribution of the sample. Also, respondents
may take more care in providing information.

Cheskin (31) said that generally a sample size of 600
(persons was sufficient for a national brand. Clausen and
l=ord (32) suggested the following as a means of obtaining
a better return: a letter with full explanation of the
survey, air mail special delivery, several follow-up
letters‘ and maximize interest by asking questions that
(:over several different subjects in the survey.

A general belief was that greater response could be
(obtained from unsigned than from signed questionnaires.
ldowever, Corey (3h),after a study on cheating in college
exams, concluded that it would appear that in certain
instances at least, even though the attitudes involved
‘were subject to considerable censure, students were about
as forthright in their expression when questionnaires were

I

signed as when they were not signed. It would not be

 

 

 

mi. ,r_

i9

justifiable, of course, to infer that the presence of
signatures on attitude questionnaires, no matter what the
circumstances, had no effect upon their validity. The
results do indicate that the concern of investigators over
the invalidating effects of a signature may have been
exaggerated.

Drayton (37), in a discussion of the variation of
results obtained in using different methods of collecting
data, noted considerable difference between the amount of
cheese consumed in Canada as reported by the wholesale
audit and the consumption reported by questionnaires sent
to a sample of the population. ‘Wholesale audit showed 2.5
ounces of cheese per week per person while questionnaire
results showed 3.h ounces per week per person. Drayton
[sointed out that at least three factors appeared to in-
:fluence the bias on questionnaires. Those were a willful
maisrepresentation to impress the interviewer, a natural
tendency to telescope time when reporting purchase data
sand a tendency to report as pounds any weight within
aseveral ounces of that amount. To reduce bias Drayton
suggested asking for purchase data before the respondent
knows which is of prime importance to the study and
'shorten the time period. .Also avoid the use of such
<questions as "About how often do you use 7”

Eastman (39) listed five ”don'ts” concerning mailing'
questionnaires in order to reduce bias. He advised, "Don't

use a mailing questionnaire if there is the slightest

20

likelihood that the factor of responsiveness will have any
,bearing on the result. Don't attach any significance to a
mailing questionnaire unless you know the percentage
response from different territories and classes of people
or business. Don't rely on any aggregate or composite
result from a mailing questionnaire, significance, if any,
will be in the contrasts between these groups. Don't
struggle for simplicity rather for clarity. Don't use
mailing questionnaires if you can possibly avoid it. A
handful of competent and comprehensive personal interviews
are worth more than a room full of mailing questionnaires.”

Link (h9) concluded that the depth interview gave no
more valid responses than other less formal types of inter-
views. Link said, "There is little or no evidence to
support the tacit assumption that the so-called depth
:interview obtains more valid responses or truer responses
from peoplethan do other types."

Payne (55),in.his book,”The Art of Asking Questions",
stressed the need for careful selection of every word used
:in the questionnaire. He said the most critical need for
eattention to wording was to make sure that the particular
issue which the questioner had in mind was the particular
issue to which the respondent gave his answer. Payne
tiiscussed the advantages and disadvantages of four types
‘of questions: free answer, two-way, multiple-choice and
‘nine miscellaneous types. He concluded that there was no

one best type for all occasions and that the questioner

21

had to make the final decision as to which type to use
in his particular case.

Reuss (57) discussed the differences between res-
pondents and non-respondents to mailing questionnaires.
Using a pOpulation of known background (college students
whose records showed such information as family back-
ground, intelligence, grades and outside interests) he
concluded that respondents were more intelligent and had
been in college a longer period of time than non-
respondents. He also concluded that persons from rural
areas responded better than persons from urban areas and
that persons with farm backgrounds replied most often,
had more initiative and ability and were more sociable
while in school.

Generally replies from mailing questionnaires were
small being only 10 to 12 percent. However, Robinson (58)
combined five so-called essential features to obtain from
60 to 70 percent return. Those features were: a care-
fully prepared and tested letter, enclosure of 25 cents,
and follow-up postcard 5 to 6 days after the original
mailing and again about 1h days after the original
mailing.

‘Weilbacher and walsh (70) concluded from a study
conducted among graduates of a university that personal-
ization of the salutation and signature of the '

transmittal letter had no significant effect on rate of

return.

22

Festinger and Kate (hi) said that regardless of the
type of survey conducted (whether personal interview,
telephone interview or mailing questionnaire) there must
first be a decision as to the specific pattern or design
which the data collecting will follow. According to these
, writers basic types of survey designs included the un-
weighted cross section, the weighted cross section,
contrasting samples, successive cross sections and re-
interviews.

The unweighted cross section was described as the
systematic selection of every nth card from the register

of the undergraduates of ,_h__ _ college which provided

 

the basis for a description of that body as to age, sex,
high school record, college entrance test scores, college
grades or any of the other items of information which
appeared on the sample cards.

Weighted sampling by cross section involved the
deliberate oversampling of some sub-group of the
designated universe which had Special importance for the
objectives of the survey but was known to be a relatively
small fraction of the total pOpulation.

Contrasting samples were drawn from sub-groups which
contrasted in the variable most important to the study.

Successive cross sections were used in studies of I
change. Characterized by before-after and trend studies
successive cross section samples require measurements of

the same pOpulation at successive points in time.

.23

Re-interviews were used when it was necessary to
follow the activities or attitudes of the same individuals
through a Specified time period.

Cochran (33) reported that the advantages of sampling
as compared with complete enumeration included reduced cost,
greater speed, greater scope and greater accuracy.

Besides the various types of questionnaires used in

gathering market information, consumer panels have become

very popular as research techniques. Shaffer (62) reported

that there were two types of consumer research panels.

They were the product Opinion and attitude panel and the
consumer purchase panel. He defined a consumer research
panel as "a group of consumer-reporting units organized for
the purpose of serving with some continuity in an advisory,
judiciary or fact-finding capacity." In the Opinion and
attitude panel, Shaffer said, members merely indicated
acceptance or preference for certain products. The
purchase panel, on the other hand, reported on a periodic
basis actual purchases giving the quantity purchased and
the price paid for that product.

Store tests of various types have also been quite
pOpular with market researchers. They range from-very
simple matched-lot tests to very complex Latin-square
designs. Brunk (29) described Latin-squares as a technique
for minimizing the time and store variable by rotation of
goods rather than side-by-side offerings. The Latin-square

design is well suited to measuring those practices which

211

stimulate sales in the short run. The Latin-square does
not measure long-run effects. Brunk concluded his dis-

cussion by saying that combining surveys and controlled

.store experiments was probably the best arrangement.

Smith gt 21. (66) studied four methods of cheese dis-
play using matched-lot store tests. The four methods
tested were in-store packaged cheese in four weight ranges
(6 to 10 ounce, 10.1 to in ounce, 16.1 to 22 ounce and 22.1
to 32 ounce); and both in-store and pre-packaged cheese in
five weight ranges. Formal and jumbled displays were used
in the tests. Results of the tests showed that the com-
bination in-store and pre—packaged display with five
weight ranges was the most effective with 20 percent greater
sales volume than the average for the other three methods.
The most popular pro-packaged weights ranged from 6 to 10
ounces. Type of display, formal or jumbled, showed no
effect on sales of cheese.

A staff writer of Food Merchandising (12) recommended
that retailers conduct continuous research on sales by a
process known as "Shelf-Rent”. The formula given for
figuring Shelf-Rent was:

gross profit per week = cents mark;up_x uglts_sold then
square feet of shelf space

gross profit per square feet = grgss profit_per week
square feet of space

StatisticalAnalysis
Festinger and Kate (hi) suggested the following forms

of analysis for information dealing with the behavioral

3‘ 25

sciences: a comparison of the behavior and attitudes
exhibited by the different groups within the sample (low-
high income, young-old age groups, and various educational
levels) and a comparison of the attitudes between high-low
consumers of the product under study. They then advocated
the use of correlation analysis and of the direct question
"Why?" in explaining action taken by the various groups.
Larzelere (#6), working with consumer opinion and
attitude data from consumer panels, used weighted per-
centages to indicate degree of preference for one sample
over another. Those results were then compared for
various income groups to determine correlation. The
weighted percentages were derived by assigning values to
the placing given each sample. In a series with five
samples the percentage of first place votes would be

multiplied by 5, second by h, third by 3, etc.

PROCEDURES

The presentation of procedures used in this study is
divided into sections devoted to consumer preference panels,
consumer survey, survey of grocerymen, package design,
keeping quality tests and purchase data from a dairy store.
Consumer Preferengg_Pane1

Michigan State University in cooperation with Wayne
State University of Detroit, Michigan,conducted a consumer
preference panel which met once per month or once per
quarter during January, 1956, through February, 1961. Panel
members were selected on the basis of questionnaires sent
to about 11,700 persons whose names were obtained at
random from the Detroit telephone directory. Approximately
2,300 recipients were willing to take part in the panel
and their visits were scheduled by telephone. Selection
was on the basis of income, age and education in order to
give a representative sample of the pepulation of Detroit.
Panel members were rotated each meeting to reduce the
possibilities of atypical panels. About 70 persons
participated at each meeting of the panel.

Panel meetings were conducted at 2 p.m. and 7 p.m.
on the same day. After a briefing on the general purpose
of the project the panel was asked to rank the samples
either in order of preference or on the degree of accept-
ability of each sample.

Symbols were used to identify each sample such as
26

27

f, %, s, a and (). in some trials the panel members were
asked to show acceptability rather than preference for
certain products. In these trials samples were ranked
according to the following terms: (a) like very much,

(b) like, (c) neither like nor dislike, (d) dislike and
(e) dislike very much. Figure l is an example of the type
of card used for reporting by the panel members.

‘A weighted score was used in tabulation of the data.
That score was derived by assigning a value to each
placing or ranking. For example, in a series of five
samples, the number of first place votes was multiplied by
5, second by h, third by 3, fourth by 2 and fifth by 1.

When degree of acceptance was the desired information,
weighted scores were derived by multiplying the number
of panel responses under each of the five degrees by the
appropriate value. The values used were 5 points for
"like very much", u points for "like", 3 points for
"neither like nor dislike", 2 points for "dislike" and 1
point for "dislike very much". These values were added to
give the weighted score.

Samples were prepared and presented to the panel to
test consumer acceptance of shape of cut, type of coating
or wrapping material and various specialty cheese items.
Tests were conducted during 16 meetings of the consumer
panel and all samples used in testing were controlled to
1-pound sizes.

Seven cuts of cheese were presented for selection on

28

.qocom uoasacoo
uuonbon on» «o unanoE kn no»: uemu mamanoaon mo o~afimxm::.~ .mum

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

R

 

mucoaaoo oEmz
&
code huo> oxnflmmo AV
1 visas (Ills
oxuammu noc oxfifl cocmwoz * .~H
ox“;
a C
code has: exam
is C .2 a 4: a .H

mwmmzo

hum~mso cosponm mo consume m.uoasmcoo
>9Hmmm>uza whde zqdaonE

 

 

29

the basis of acceptance of shape. The shapes were oval,
bar, block, wedge, rectangle, half-moon and sausage (Figure
2). Cheese packaged in the following six different coating
or wrapping materials was displayed for ranking according
to acceptance. These materials included wax, saran,
cryovac, aluminum foil, polyethylene and cellophane.
Specialty cheese items in this study were individually
wrapped slices, one-half inch cubes of cheese, cheese
designed in a holiday motif (Christmas trees, bells and
stars), shredded cheese and cheese disks one-inch in
diameter (sliced one-quarter inch thick from a sausage
shaped cut).

Following the tests to determine acceptability
samples were prepared and presented to the panel for
selection on the basis of preference for one sample over
other samples. Preference studies were conducted using the
seven shapes mentioned above. Samples of cheese used to
test preferences for coating or wrapping materials were
packaged in wax, saran, cryovac, aluminum foil, polye—
thylene and semi-rigid plastic. Cheese wrapped in red,
gold and silver aluminum foil and coated with red and gold
wax was used in color preference studies. Cheese specialty
items used in the preference studies consisted of é-inch
cubes of cheese, 1% x i-inch disks, miniature wedges and
variety packs containing three types of cheese (mild
Cheddar, Swiss and Dagano).

Cheese packaged in aluminum foil, saran, cryovac and

 

30

 

 

 

 

k v—.—
_
I
II I! —/
Block Bar Rectangle
3& x 3% x 2 2 x 2 x 5 3% x 1 x 5
inches inches inches
Sausage Oval Half—moon
1% x 7 1 3/u x u 31 x 5% x 1%
inches inches inches
Wedge
32 X 5 x 1% inches
Ff j __

 

 

 

Fig. 2.-4Various shapes used in Detroit Consumer Panel
tests.

31

semi—rigid plastic was presented to the panel to determine
influence of price on consumer preference. For the after-
noon panel meetings price per pound ($0.65) was held
constant on cheese in the four types of packages. However,
for the evening panel a $0.02 per pound premium was placed
on cheese packaged in the semi-rigid plastic container.
During the next two meetings of the panel a premium of
$0.05 per pound was charged for cheese in the semi-rigid
plastic container over cheese packaged in saran. The
prices were $0.65 per pound for cheese packaged in saran
and $0.70 per pound for cheese in the plastic container.

Two display cabinets, one arranged with the cheese
placed horizontally on one shelf the entire length of the
cabinet, and the other with cheese placed vertically on
several shelves in one section of the cabinet were pre-
sented to the panel for placing according to preference.

Four grades, AA, Fancy, 93 score and No. 1, were used
as identification on l-pound blocks of cheese packaged in
saran and were submitted to the panel for placing in order
to determine the extent of consumer knowledge of cheese
grades.
Consumer Survey

A mailing list of 5,000 names was compiled by selection
of names from current telephone directories of the county-
seats and surrounding areas of the 68 counties in lower
Michigan. The names were selected by determination of the

number required from each directory based on county

 

 

{i’\n\l

32

pOpulation, and then every nth name was chosen to give
the desired number out of each directory.

Individuals selected were sent an open-end question-
naire of four pages and an introductory letter which
described the purpose of the study. An incentive for
return of the completed questionnaire was offered. A
postage paid, self-addressed return envelope was included.
Appendix Figure 1 shows a copy of the letter and
questionnaire. The questionnaire was pre-tested by send-
ing it to 100 persons in the Pontiac area. Six weeks
were allowed for response after the final mailing and then
the information was coded and tabulated for analysis on
IBM electronic data processing equipment.

Answers for coding were selected by using the 12 most
frequent answers to each of the questions (Appendix
Figure 2). As all reSpondents could give all 12 answers
percentages will not necessarily be equal to 100. Rather,
the percentages for each answer were based on the number
of respondents replying. Tabulation was on the basis of
age, income, education, sex and number in the family.
Survey of Grocerymen

Thirty telephone and personal interviews were conducted
with a stratified random selection of the market managers
of grocery stores and supermarkets in the Lansing-East
Lansing area. A representative from all large super-
markets and from approximately 20 percent of the grocery

stores were contacted. The questions used are shown in

33

Appendix Figure 3.
Package Design

A semi-rigid package of clear plastic was designed.

It consisted of a two-piece box, 3% x 3% x 2 inches, with
a tear-tape seal. After opening the top and bottom pieces
could be re-closed with a friction seal to reduce moisture
loss from the cheese. The package was vacuum.molded from
0.02h inch clear modified polystyrene. Figure 3 is a
drawing of the re-closable package.

Keeping Quality Tests

Four groups of seven cheese samples each were stored
at 33°, 48° and 65° F. for 3 weeks to determine moisture
loss from cheese packaged in cellophane coated foil, saran,
plastic and with no wrap. One-pound block cuts of cheese
were made from a hO-pound block of mild Cheddar cheese.
Three of the samples were not wrapped; three were wrapped
and heat-sealed in saran; three were wrapped in saran but
not heat sealed; three were wrapped and heat sealed in foil;
three were wrapped in foil but not sealed; three were sealed
in the re-closable plastic containers with tear tape and
three were placed in re-closable plastic without the tear-
tape seal.

At the end of 3 weeks all samples were removed from
storage and observations were made as to mold growth. All
samples held at “8° and 65° F. were discarded at the end of
this trial period because of surface mold. The 33° F.

samples were transferred to the h8<>F. temperature for 2

314

 

 

 

 

 

I !
L._3.L " kl

BOTTQm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOP

 

 

(

312:

II

 

 

 

 

gee xx

 

Fig 3.--Specifications for a re-closable plastic

package for cheese.

 

w

 

35

more.
Dairy Store Purchase Data
A series of matched-lot trials were conducted in the
M. S. U. Dairy Store. Cheese packaged in red, gold and
silver aluminum foil was placed on sale in order to compare
the actual purchase preference among the three colors.
Tests were conducted for 3 weeks using l-pound blocks of mild
(Cheddar cheese wrapped in the three colors of foil.
Matched-lot trials-were also conducted to compare the
buying choice for foil or clear wraps. AAfter development
of the re-closable plastic container other matched-lot
trials were made to compare consumer purchasing preference

for clear films or the re-closable package.

 

 

 

RESULIS

Consumer Preference Panel

Results recorded in Table I show the consumer accep—
tance of various shapes of cheese rated on a five point
scale. In order of increasing acceptability the shapes
were rectangle, oval, half -moon, wedge, sausage, bar and
block. ‘All shapes received some "like very much" and
some "dislike very much" ratings.
TABLE I-chceptsnceiof shape of cut as determined by

consumer panel tests
avera;e of four trials

 

l-_.__.._._ _1cj__4—_.q -..__~— u-

H___m—.. —_._-._—.._._ ._,-_~ —— ~M_—_ _.

 

till: 8: ‘
shape We‘like no 5r ’6‘ s e - s e weighted
oery like very_ score*
-n ch nor much
dislike

rectangle 10 22 an 3“ 27’ 365
oval ‘7' _37 55 27 11 uis
half-moon 1h 33 #5 32 13 #1“
wedge 26. #7 33 23 s #71
sausage 32 #6 2h 27 8 478
bar as 51 26 6 5 she
block «2 59 25 5 a sea

 

 

 

 

 

 

v v—

Highest possible weighted score - 685
* x2: 195.8 Significant at the 1 percent level

Results presented in Table 11 show the consumer
preference as indicated by the panel for shape of cheese
cut. The data are presented in the table in order of -
increasing preference. The rectangle shape was least

36

37

preferred. The traditional wedge ranked third, behind the
more convenient bar and block shapes.
TABLE II--Preference for shape of cut preferred by the

consumer panel
(average of four trials)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

shape _ 131801“ b Jean 1 wgégggid
l 2 3_ k .5 i;
rectangle 2 h 11 7 2h 81 226
oval 13 8 29 31 25 23 #00
half-moon 18 25 ‘2H 21 25 16 #58
wedge 17 .32 3o r31+ ’13 .3 513
bar 35 21 12 26 32 6 523
block an phi 2ue 16 2 2 ' 619

 

 

 

 

 

 

Highest possible weighted score = 77% p
* X2 3 199.9 Significant at the 1 percent level

Acceptability of various packaging materials and
paraffin wax is recorded in Table III. The least accept-
able packaging material was wax and the most acceptable
was cryovac. _

According to the information presented in Table IV,
saran was the most popular of the wrapping materials
tested. Polyethylene was second and aluminum foil was
third. Least desirable of all packaging materials tested
was the colored wax coating which has been traditional on

many of the foreign types of cheese.

38

TABLE III-chceptance of packaging materials as determined
‘by consumer panel tests

 

(average of eight trialsl

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

rating_scale

packaging like ike neither {Elike dielfke weightgd

material very like very score

much nor much
dislike

wax 17 22 35 “2 21 383
cellophane 1H 23 #8 #1 11 399
foil 37 31 h3 17 h81
saran 36 63 31 3 u 535
polyethy- ,

lene #2 70 l7 1 7 550
cryovac #8 57 _2§_ ii. ._2 .4253

Highest possible weighted score = 685

2 = ll+8.2 Significant at the 1 percent level

TABLE IV--Type of wrapping material preferred by the
consumer panel

£averagg_og:gour trialsl

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

type of placing by panel weightgd

wrap *T_ 22 2; a #_score
wax ll 27 35 50 2%5
cryovac 20 1h uh h5 255.
foil 3% 16 21 52 278
polyethylene 3O 55 29 9 352
saran QLJ3___2§__L_£ J79

*2 Highest possible weighted score = #92

*x = h7.h Significant at the 1 percent level

Table V shows a comparison between consumer preference

for the cheese with different packaging materials at the

39

same price and at-a $0.02 per pound premium for re-

closable plastic containers and foil wraps. The only

change noticed was that at the $0.02 per pound premium the
number of first place selections for both re-closable
plastic and foil declined. However, the overall placing
remained the same with foil least preferred and re-

closable plastic most preferred but sharing the top position

with saran wrap

TABLE V--Preference for wrapping materials at equal prices

and at 0.02 er 0 d premium for plastic and foil
fi acingbr Sahel ,

 

 

 

 

. premium

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

nan ~ em page "PTiai'? mil—eggs?
cryovac 19 '18 25 16 196 20 23 15 5 18h
saran 17 25 2% 12 203 22 20 12 9 181
re-closabl .

plastic

container 38 ll 18 11 232 22 9 18 1% 165
foil 10 25 13 39 171 3, 13 .18 29 116
Highest possible weighted score 3 312 252
x2 "= 10.3 18.7
* Significant at 5% level 1% level

Color preferences for foils and waxes are presented
in Tables VI and VII. Gold color was selected over both
red and silver, although the preference was not signi-

ficant and could have been due to chance.

hO

TABLE VI--Color of foil wrapping material preferred by the
consumer panel
_Laverage of four trials)

 

 

 

 

 

 

color _placin b anel 3 wgéghzgd*‘
red 90 6% 100 [#98
silver 91 66 3 97 502
961d 10; 112 , 35 __ 580

 

 

 

 

Highest Bossible weighted score = 762
*X2 = 10. Significant at the 1 percent level

TABLE VII--Preference for color of wax coating of cheese
as determined by consumer panel tests
iavergge of four trials)

A

 

 

 

 

 

 

* _ placing by panel weightTd—
color I pg, ‘2I __ score* .

red wax .58 ‘ 72 , 138

ggld wax __g 82 __ h8 . 312

 

 

*Héghest possible weighted score = 260
X =.- .52 Not significant at the 1 percent leveL

In Table VIII are the results showing consumer ac-
.ceptance of various types of specialty cheese items.
The most acceptable item was individually wrapped slices
and fi-inch cubes of cheesegwas secpnfl.

The miniature wedges packaged in.a re-closable rigid
plastic container were preferred above cheese disks, cubes
‘and a variety pack (Table Ix). Attention is called to the
fact that the variety pack received the greatest number of
first place votes but the concentration of third and fourth

_place votes brought its weighted score down to third

hi

I ‘9

position.
'i?

TABLE VIII-eAcceptance of specialty items as determined

by consumer panel tests
(averagg_of two_trials1_

 

 

 

 

 

‘ L13? scal_e_
*Iike liké ne t er dislike dislike Weighted
item very like very score*
much nor much
dislike
shredded 19 17 13 15 7 239
sausage 9 ‘ 25 29 7 1 297
designed 18 28 16 8 1 267
cubed 21 31 17 2 0 28%
individual -
sliced #0 22 .5 ' jgi _2£L___L_JUJ____.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Highest possible weighted score = 355
*X2 s 96.? Significant at the 1 percent level

TABLE IX--Preference for specialty cheese items as deter-
mined by consumer panel tests
(avera e of two trials

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_‘ specialty' P ac n9 y pane welgfi€§§"
item I _f} 13. ‘_“§f score
cubed ll 29 38 66 273
variety pack 51 19 35 39 370
disks hl 53 38 12 411
2222321 u9 AS 13:; 17 hlg

 

Héghest possible weighted score ==576
*X s36.5 Significant at the 1 percent level

Mailing Questionnaire
Questionnaires returned from the mail survey totaled
891, or 17.8 percent of the 5,000 mailed. Analysis of the

questionnaires showed the most frequent use of cheese was

in snacks. Results in Figures h through 11 indicate

the use of cheese according to demographic factors of age,
income, education, sex and number in family. These results
are summarized in Figure 12.

Other than in pizza or macaroni and cheese, very
little cheese was used for cooking purposes. Only 10
percent of the reapondents used cheese tOppings for
potatoes, 16 percent made cheese sauce, u percent used
cheese in souffle and 3 percent in Welsh rabbit. Ten
percent indicated a frequent use of cheese with pie.

Results recorded in Figures 13 through 22 in-
clusive indicate the users and non-users of the various
types of cheese according to the demographic factors.
Figures 23 and 2h summarize the percentage of "frequent“
and "never" users of the various cheeses.

Answers to the question, "Why do you buy cheese", are
recorded in Table X. The group below 20 years of age was
least concerned with nutrient value and most often "Just
liked it". They were also most concerned with price and
meat substitution.

Within the group with income below $5,000 per year
only 2 percent purchased cheese for convenience but 11
percent in the group with incomes above $10,000 said
convenience was the reason for buying cheese. A positive
trend was exhibited when education was used as the
criterion for stressing nutrient value. The greater the

amount of formal education the more stress was placed on

Q3

 

Size Family

Over 5

 

 

Sex

 

Male

 

Education

L

ColleggAdegree

 

Some college

I

Hégh school degree

Below high school

 

Income

1

Over $10,000

1 ,g_ .
h-S
1-3

_ 1 Female

J

$7,500-;1o,ooo

 

 

 

Below $5,000

 

Age

 

Over 60

 

 

1 50-60

7 J 10-50

 

 

in snacks.

 

h.-Demographic factort in‘luvncing frequency of consumption of cheese

 

‘ 3o.uo
E a 20-30
I Below 20

v I I fl f I U fl I T l I

 

80 m

I
In <3 U\ (D In C) U\ c)
b- b-xo ~o In LA :T :r a} 5% K} E319

Percent of 891 respondents

Fig.

 

Size Family

Sex

*7

Education

Income

Age

 

Over 5
h—S

 

1-3
Female

Male

 

 

1 College degree

Some collgge

 

 

High school degree

 

 

Below high school

 

T

T

Over 310,000

g-

 

s7,soous10,ooo

M

 

Below $5.000

ss,ooo£§1,500 [”

r-e

 

 

Over 60

D

 

rL

+ 1

1.. %

L I
1 :21:

[ jean
Below 20

 

T U U U V ‘ I V V I V I r V f 1

momomo

pwogmmzl-rmmxam-«m

Percent of 891 respondents

 

1cheo.

ndw

1‘0 88

S.-Demographic factors influvncing frequency of consumption of cheese

Pig.

I ll I'll III III Ill,‘ Ilcllnllll lli il I .

#5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Percent of 891 respondents

m
l 1 Over 5
cu
J 11-5
I
I - Female ‘V
l _ Male "
J College degree ‘3
c
3 _l Some college f"
.3
'3 [ High school gegred‘“
33 a
9 Below high school
.3
_Over $10,000
3 l 11.59. 1 .9. [3
o _ - 10 O
O
c
H g‘ 000- 00
l 1.
Below $5,000
[ 6
_ 3 Over 60
l m
- - 50—60
SJ _ [ 110-50 '3
“ [ 30—110 J“
L 3 20-30 J”
Below 20 9;_]"
I T I V I I ‘ 1 V I V T ' V T r
apsasusssasneaam

umption of cheese

Fig. 6.-Demographic factors influencing frequency of cons
in macaroni and cheese.

k6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I: L Over 5 m
5 ' l
a. N
U h-s A
N H
w 1 LL
(V
x 1 Female
0
(I) we
I Male
_‘1‘
1 College degree
c I m
.3 _ Some college
‘“ «u
g High school degree
'6
‘“ Below high school
.:r
‘1 Over $10,000
m
E
0 Cu
3 $5,000-i7.500 ‘
H
Below $59000 F.
Over
, 60 ‘°
1 50-60 ‘9
110-50 3
0
<0)
< 30—110 "‘
a I 20-30 “’
1 Below 20 "‘
l I I v 1 '1 I T 1 I T ' ' ' ' '
speesae‘ssa an seam
Percent of 891 respondents

frequency of consumption of cheese

in pizza and other forrign dishes.

Fig. 7.-Demographic factors influencing

47

j-

 

 

Size Flmll

I Over 5

 

k

h-S

 

 

1-3

 

Sex

L

Female

 

L M...

 

Education

Income

L

1 College degree
Some college

Higggschool de re

 

L

Below high school

Over4510,000

 

 

I $7.500-310.000

 

$5.000-37.500

 

I Below $5,000

 

Age

 

Qggr 60

 

£3-60

 

 

 

uo-So

 

 

30 .110

 

20-30

 

 

 

CIAO
xomm

I

l 1
Ln 0 In
:1- .:r M M

O O
H} (U 3}

Percent of 891 respondents

O
o-s

Below 20 L

In

 

Fig. 8.-Demographic factors influencing frequency of consumption of cheese
in relish trays.

48

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

é? CNer 5 to
h‘ - cu
m f h 5
.53
to l 1-3 -
' Fhmale ‘“
x ,
0 o-o
no I Male
[College degree I:
c
.3 LSome college on
3 High school :0
'8 de ree
m Below high schooF‘
[ Over $10,000 L3
8
o
o
c
H
0-60 L“
110-50 a
o
no to
1< 0- 0
20-30 F“
Below 20 "
I T I 1 I 'I I I i I I I r I s u
seasonsssaansusm

Percent of 891 respondents

ion of cheese

frequency of consumpt

ing

lads.

in 88

Fig. 9.-Demographic factors influenc

#9

 

Over 5

 

 

 

h-S

 

Size Familz

 

1-3

 

Female

 

Sex

 

Mole

 

College

 

Some

 

High schoo

degree
Below high 0
School

 

Education

 

 

1; degree ,
m college ‘

 

 

Over $10,000

 

 

$7.500—

 

 

$5.000—
$7.500

issues

 

Below

£54000

 

 

 

 

Over 60

 

 

50-60

 

ho-So

 

 

69$

30-h0

 

 

20-30

 

 

 

Below 20
V I I

 

 

‘ V I U V T r I
In 0 In 0
In LA :3 :1 ER 5% E0 ‘3 U‘ ‘3 ““

Nae—a

80..
75

65 l
60 .

70

Percent of 891 respondents

fluencing frequency of consumption of cheese

1n
as a complement to drinks.

.-Demographic factors

Fig. 10

50

 

Over 5 ’i

 

 

 

h-S

 

 

1-3

 

4.9.me

 

Female

 

pm

 

 

Educ lion

   

College

 

 

  

 

3'4:

2

 

Income

1

 

6

 

5

 

Age

 

h

 

3

 

2

 

l

 

 

Percent of 891 respondents

 

Pig. 11.-Demographic factors influencing frequency of consumption of cheese

88 8 sauce.

.mhms
waowum> aw haufionuopm omomfiu vow: 0:3 mucovaoamou mo owcufioOHomca.~H .wwm
, omooco mo no»:
ms as o" o m s e m a. m m H

 

Sl

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

”sagas nus»: .ms .
o~uusom .- a

o.a ass; .0”
mcmauou omooco .o
ovum» smoocu .m
nxcucv can: .> t

mumuwm .0
names sussom .m ‘
cumum .:
“cocoons can onooco .m r
monouavcam .m
axoccm .H
"acumen

 

 

 

 

Percent of 891 respondents

F

Over 5 ‘“

 

 

ng ize

h-S ‘“
1-3 "
cw
L Female

 

 

 

sfidnsalino

 

Incomes

I, Male fi+fi‘

College degree ‘1

 

Some college

High school degree

I Below high school
Over $10,000 I}:
Ln

$7,500-$10,000

 

$5,000-i7.500

 

Below $5,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

L to
f 0 Over 60
in
- 50-60
:7
. ho-SO
M
30-h0
In
7 20-30
H
A Below 20
sssssnssgsshssem

Percent of 891 respondents

Fig. 13.-Demographic factors influencing frequency of use of mild Cheddar

cheese.

53

 

.Sizssiamilx.

Over 5

 

h-S

 

 

l-3

 

Sex

_-

 

Female

 

Male

 

Education

College degree

 

Some college

 

 

Hi h school degree

Below high school

 

Income

Over $10,000

[ _$7.500-$10.ooo

 

$5.000—57,Soo

 

Below $5,000

 

Ages

 

I Over 60

 

50-60

 

hO-SO

 

 

30-h0

 

20-30

 

 

Fig. lh.-Demographic factors influencing frequency of use of Swiss cheese.

5Q

 

3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5% I_ Over 5
a
a? l
” 14-5
.2
m l 1-3
x I Female
0
v)
I Male
k_ I Collegedegree
c
‘3 I Some college
I;
g I High school degree
'0
“4 I Below high school
_, I Over $10,000
3 I $7.500-g10,ooo
3 l
8910“! $5,000
I Over 60
_ I 50-60
L o- o
g,[ h 5
<1: L 30-h0
I 20—30
I Below 20
1 I I I

'1' "f
momo O O
Jamm‘er‘Q-«m

80 «
75-
70.
65«
60.
SS.
50.

Percent of 891 respondents

 

Fig. 15.-Demographic factors influencing frequency of use of Brick cheese.

55

 

Ae

 

 

 

I Over 5 ‘0
u-s N
r g;

 

L p.m.

 

 

I Male I
I College degree :3

 

I_ Some college

Igigh school degree

3

EN

 

IBelow high school

I Over $10,000

fl

 

 

37.500.310.000

 

 

Below $5,000

 

 

I ? Over 60

I 0 50-60

I hO-So

 

’ L ooo

I 20.30

I Below 20

IIVI VITVI’
c: C) In
esmssshmhael
Percent of 891 respondents

 

|~

1

ing frequency of use of aged Cheddar

Pig. 16.-Demographic factors influenc

cheese.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eji Over 5 In
a
Z
. o-s Iv
‘3 -
h | 1-3 s
I Female ‘“
I Male "
ICollege degree ‘3
c
° 1
" Some colle e m
’5 4—1
5 Iliigh school degree N
IBelow high school‘”
Over $10,000 4’
M
g 37500-310300
O
0 cv
g $5,000-37,500
Below $5.000 '*
I o
Over 60
50-60 m
% hO-So ‘3
I 30-110 to
(v
20-30
I Below ~
20
l I f r I 1 T f‘f I fi fi w T r I
sBeBsBsBBB share to
Percent of 891 respondents

Fig. l7.-Demographic factors influencing frequency of use of Frankenmuth

cheese.

57

 

 

 

Asa—W

 

Female

 

Male

 

Education

 

Eigh school degree

College
I degree ,

Some

college

 

Below
high school

 

Income

 

Over $10,000

 

 

$7.500-$10,000

 

‘Iss.000-s7.soo

$5.000

Below

 

Age

 

Over o
60

 

I

50-60 I”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ho-So
30-h0
30-30
Below
20
‘?-1-1

 

80..

754

V
O
h

T
‘3

I I é I I ‘1‘ I
O m m O
o In M .:r .3 N 8

Percent of 891 respondents

35..
30‘

V

mom
o-c—o

Fig. 18.-Demographic factors influencing frequency of use of Mozzarella

cheese.

58

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sex

I 0m 5

_ h-S
1-3

I Female
Male

 

 

 

 

    

Some
collegg

 

 

High school

 

high
school

 

 

 

BJUBHNML_ ofinnnalinn_

IBelow $5,000

 

 

$7.500-
310.000

 

35:00.1.

 

h5,000-$7.500

 

 

IOver 60
_ I— 50-00
I IO-So
I 30-h0

 

20-30

 

 

 

ITIII
om o
F08mm

Percent

80-
75.

I
In
:3
of

891 respondents

Fig. 19.-Demographic factors influencing frequency of use of Colby cheese.

59

 

Over 5

 

 

h-S

 

 

1-3

 

$£x___Size_£amiJJfi

 

Female

 

Male

 

n

 

I!

 

College degree

 

 

Some
college

 

High
school

 

 

Igflgw
scgool

 

income

I Over $10,000

 

 
  

$7,500—
10.000

  

$5.00d

Below

 

Ea

 

Over
60

 

 

 

50-60

 

I

hO-SO

 

 

does

COF-

<5 {K ci 1%

Percent of 891 respondents

 

30-h0

 

I I
~o 1n no a: 5% 5% 5% K} El

 

20-30

 

Below

 

 

20
UV
mom

p.

1..

Fig. 20.-Demographic factors influencing frequency of use of Blue cheese.

60

.oeoono «U306 no own no nonofivohm wcwoaonaucw whouomm canamhwoeonln.aw .wwm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m m s m _ a , m m a a m w m a e m a m - m - s

_ _ _ C -1

- - o_

-1111 , - . ms

. om

. mm

..om

1mm

..o:

..m:

TOM

..mm

..oo

-mo

ooo.ose . s

oopmoc eo>O .2 oo eo>o .o o

omo~_oo .: ooo.ose oo10m .m. 1m;
omoufloo oEow .m loom.>a .m omao: .:

. ooumou oom.>a canon .m Tom
m oooo .m oseaoe “oozes one: .m -ooo.ma .m om-om .m
m.: .N .m sooaoo ooo.ma om sosom .s

m-" .s one: .s no.5 sesom .s sosom .s "ooomos oooeo
_~«Eam owum xom couunuacm oaoocH ou<

Percent of 891 respondents

61

.ooooao Scum no am: no zoaodvohu wcwocoaamaw muouomu ownaonwoaooa1.wm .wam

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m m _ w a a m- m s m s o MI ; m , m s
L _ - _ _ r H _I, ,m
rlll Illl_ _
.os
.11111ms
- -om
rmm
ION
.mm
Io:
.m:
Tmm
.oo
sme
oocmou . 10>
omossou .: ooomwmm .m
omofiuoo oaow .m omao: .: .ms
. ooemoo ooo.o~a eooo.+ o:.om .m .
m eooo m oses _eoeoo ems: .m ooo.ose-oom.se.fi om1o~ .w om
m.: .m -oe.~ season oom.se-ooo.ma. om sosom .s
M-" .s onus." ca.z aesom .~ ooo.ma sesom. ”scones ooooo
* i -

mammmm1,1

om<

Percent of 891 respondents

.momomno mo page couooHMm
m mo showmnohsn uaonqohu ones 0:3 musoccoamoh mo ammuncosomlu.mm .mHm
snooze mo momuouum>

62

Na

an

as

m

u

o

m

a

m

N

H

 

 

ooososse

Boom

ocsoo

umccoco voxoam

oosm

sosoo

m-ocmnuo§

:uuacoxcmum

oeoooco eom<

xosom

nnq3m

oeoooco oa.:
”acumen

IT

 

I

.N~
.-

 

L

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OH
mu
om

mm
on
mm
o:
m:
om
mm
oo

me
on

me
om

Percent of 891 respondents

63

- .wowoono mo umgH poucoaom ofiu ac
mowoo£o_o:u mo 5cm comeOHBQ ho>on 0:3 mucoccoccoe uo owmpcoouom11.:N .wwm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

we as o" o m s o m z m m _
eooeosse .m~
Boom .ss
.oooocc ooonm .ms ,r1111111
«coco .
soaoo .m 111LT_1L
oo_m .s
cusecoxcecm .o
ooooogu oom< .m fille
mfiaocmuuofi .:
xosem .m
eoooozo on“: .m
no.3m .e

”ocomoa

 

 

Ln

o~
m~
ON

on

mm
o:
m:
om
mm
cc
me
on
m»
om

Percent of 891 respondents

64

nutrition. Other positive trends were for convenience,
taste and variety. On a percentage basis males were more
concerned with taste and convenience than were females.
As size of family increased, price, meat substitution and
use in cooking all increased as important factors.

TABLE X--Reasons for purchasin cheese
-L891 tota respondents)

 

 

 

_— ozefiihaaars
reason number_of responses (percent)
Just like it hlo B6
nutrient value 356 no
variety of uses 160 18
variety in meals 89 10
sgbstitute for meat 89 10 -

 

 

 

The incidence of the response "variety of uses"
declined as the size of the family increased.

Question 2, which asked for the quantity of cheese
purchased per month, showed that 27 percent of the
respondents purchased 5 or more pounds of cheese per
month. Age had no influence on the quantity of cheese
purchased. As income increased, the quantity of cheese
purchased was also found to increase. However, the in-
crease was not directly proportional to the increase in
amount of income. No significant difference existed
between the quantity of cheese purchased by men or women.
A positive relationship existed between quantity of cheese
purchased and size of family. However, the quantity per

person declined as family size increased.

65

Results from Question 3 showed u? percent of the res-
pondents impressed by, u? percent indifferent to and 6
percent opposed to food sampling in supermarkets.

The major complaints against cheese are recorded in
Table Xi. Of those responding to the questionnaire 36
percent either said they had no criticism of cheese or
omitted an answer.

Questions 5, 8 and 11 which asked for a selection of
either meat or cheese at equal price, a premium price for
meat, or a premium price for cheese, gave the following
results. When sandwich meat and cheese were offered at
equal prices ($0.h9 per pound), 58 percent chose meat and
h2 percent chose cheese. The reasons listed for choosing
meat were: taste preference, M9 percent, and wider variety
in luncheon meats, 12 percent. Those individuals pre-
ferring cheese listed as their reasons: better nutrient
value, 15 percent; taste preference, ho percent; better
keeping quality in lunches, 18 percent and wider variety
of uses, 8 percent.

in Question 8, when the price of cheese was increased
to $0.70 per pound and meat retained at $O.u9 per pound,
96 percent of those individuals listing meat as their
preference in answer to Question 5 continued to prefer meat.
Their reasons were: price, 22 percent, and taste preference,
R2 percent. Sixty-six percent of the respondents chose
meat in Question 8 with price accounting for 22 percent of

their reasons.

66

Question 11, which listed meat at $0.70 per pound and
cheese at $O.u9 per pound, resulted in a reversal of the
previous choices--only 35 percent chose meat with 65 per-
cent choosing cheese. Price accounted for 29 percent of
the reasons given for selecting cheese and taste preference
dropped to 3b percent of the reasons listed. Of those who
preferred cheese when the price was equal with that of
meat, 29 percent said they would purchase meat at the $0.21
per pound differential. Of those who preferred cheese
when the price was equal with that of meat, 8 percent said
they would buy meat at a $0.21 per pound premium.

When cheese was lower in price than meat, 31 percent of
those who originally preferred meat changed their preference.

TABLE XI--Major complaints a ainst cheese
(570 otal_pespondents)

 

 

number of respondents
complaint responses (percent)
dries out too fast 160 28
quality variation 125 ' 22
poor packaging 125 22
mold contamination 62 11
too expensive 53 9
miscellaneous 53 A_, ?_p

 

 

 

Mild, sharp, or smoked Cheddar cheese was listed as the
favorite variety by 55 percent of those responding. Swiss
was second with 13 percent. Colby or Frankenmuth were each

listed as favorites by 5 percent of the respondents.

67

The more salient answers to the question, "What, in

your opinion, could the cheese industry do to sell more

cheese?" are recorded in Table X11.

TABLE XII-~Consumer suggestions for increasing sale of

 

 

 

cheese
(891 total respondents)
number 61 respondents
suggestions responses jpercent)___

educate the consumer 232 ‘ 26
package more conveniently 232 I 26
more advertising 151 17
give samples 106 12
reduce price 106 12
better displays‘ 53 6
standardize flavor within

varietz _p __,36 __ hi

 

 

 

The most frequent reasons listed for not buying

foreign types of cheese are recorded in Table Xiil.

TABLE XIII--Reasons for not buying foreign types of cheese
__ pp __jB9l total respondents)p_

 

 

 

.__ number of:_ ffispondentsm

_reason ‘_ responses_g (percent); _
unfamiliarity h5u 51
too expensive 29h 33
don't like the taste 89 10

not available in all ‘

stores 62 7
lack of advertislgg' __-ZY,_- _3

 

 

 

Question l0, which asked for suggested changes in

packaging of cheese, received the following answers. The

68

most frequent suggestion was "make the package easy to

Open and re-close", 32 percent; h percent suggested using
some type of container that can be used on the table; u
percent said, "put all cheese in clear wrappers"; 9 percent
said, "package in sliced squares" and 3 percent suggested-
that more large cuts be made available.

Section Two of the questionnaire described certain
food habits of four different ladies and asked that the
respondents give their impression of each lady. Mrs. Brown
(a frequent server of cheese and macaroni) was described
by respondents as a thrifty, middle aged woman who was a
good housewife, mother of a large family and operating on
a low income. All respondents regardless of age, income,
education, sex or size of family regarded Mrs. Brown as
thrifty. Persons, who according to the personal data given
on the questionnaire were frequent users of cheese and
macaroni, saw Mrs. Brown no differently than did those who
seldom prepared this food.

I The demographic factors of respondents answering that
they frequently served cheese and macaroni were: 30-50
years old, between $5,000-$7,SOO income, high school
graduates and had four or five members in the family.

Mrs. Jones (the mother who used cheese for between
meal snacks for her children) was considered to be a young,
well-educated woman who was concerned with the nutrition
of her children. She was regarded as having an above

average income.

69

Mrs. Adams (a lady who frequently served cheese hors
d'oeuvres to her guests) was thought to be a late middle-
aged woman who had above-average income, was a good hostess
and frequent entertainer. Respondents who indicated they
frequently served cheese hors d'oeuvres to their guests had
the demographic factors: uO-SO years of age, $5,000-$7,500
income and were from families with approximately four
members. I

Mrs. Smith (likes foreign type cheese such as Edam,
Gouda, Swiss) was described as a woman of foreign extraction
who liked to be different. She was regarded as wealthy,

a gourmet, well-educated, well-travelled. in addition
she was regarded as snobbish or as a social climber by 10
percent of respondents.

Demographic factors of respondents preferring a foreign
type of cheese were: 50 to 60 years of age, over $7,500
per year income, small families and a college degree.

The most frequent reasons given to the question "Why

do some people never buy cheese?" are recorded in Table XIV.

    
  
 

TABLE XIV--Reasons given for never purchasing cheese
0 d n ’

    

 

 

 

__~ _ total - _
responcen 5
reason ___ resppnses (percent)
unfamiliarity 37h h2
Just don't like it 339 38
dietary I 98 11
too expensive p_ __ MS :1

 

 

 

70

Grocery Survey

Results obtained from telephone or personal interviews
with grocerymen indicated that the average "corner grocery"
stocked two varieties of bulk cheese. Those were usually
Cheddar and one other variety. Six supermarket chains
stocked an average of 16 varieties of natural cheese.
Decisions as to how many and what varieties to carry were
usually based on customer request or chance.

Only one market manager indicated that he knew the
gross return from the various varieties stocked. Others
indicated that returns from all cheeses were lumped together
with no distinction between varieties. None of the managers
interviewed used gross profit per square foot as the basis
for allocating shelf space to cheese. The managers expressed
the attitude that their only criterion for stocking cheese
was that if turnover was satisfactory they continued to
stock it. Otherwise, they reduced the quantity stocked or
discontinued selling that type.

I Most market managers said natural cheese accounted for
approximately 50 percent of sales with processed cheese
making up the other 50 percent. However, more than half the
managers did not have more than a guess as a basis for the
answer.

Only one market manager said he ordered cheese by grade.
Others said it was possible that the warehouse for their
company ordered by grade, but, if so, they did not know
about it. Most managers indicated that they did not know

71

that cheese was graded.

Most market managers said that they tried to put
packages on the shelf at between 12 and 16 ounces. Some
said they aimed at $0.49 cuts as that seemed to be the
fastest mover.

All of the large supermarket managers said they could
get all the point-of-purchase advertising they wanted from
Kraft, Bordens and other large cheese companies. About 50
percent of the small grocery managers said they were pro-
vided with no advertising material but would like to have
the material available.

The major problems claimed in handling bulk cheese
were mold growth, surface drying and the amount of labor
involved with in-store packaging. One manager of a chain
said getting local managers to promote cheese was his major
problem.

Keeping Quality Tests
Results from keeping quality tests indicated that

 

aluminum foil, saran and the re-closable semi-rigid plastic
were adequate to maintain the moisture content of cheese

at a level sufficiently high to retain the desirable eating
qualities of the cheese. No rind formation was noted on any
of the wrapped samples stored at 33°, h8° or 62° F. after

5 weeks of storage. Samples stored at 33° F. showed no

mold growth after 5 weeks: however, all samples stored at
h8° and 62° F. were moldy after a 3-week storage. Control

samples which were not wrapped were cracked and dried after

72

a 2-week storage at u8° and 62° F. The control samples
stored at 33° F. had considerable rind formation but still
retained sufficient moisture in the center of the piece to
be edible.
Dairy Storp Purchase Data

Results from Dairy Store sales showed that red foil
was the most popular with 35.h percent of sales. Gold was
35.1 percent of sales and silver was 29.5 percent of sales.
These percentages were not significiant at the l-percent
level of Chi square and thus may be due to chance.

Matched-lot comparisons of cheese sales of cheese
wrapped in foil or saran revealed a very significant pre-
ference for the clear film. Cheese wrapped in saran
accounted for 90 percent of the purchases. Matched-lot
samples comparing the plastic re-closable package and saran
showed almost a 50-50 choice between the two packages.

Blue cheese packaged in bar and block form more than
doubled in sale in comparison with that normally packaged
in wedges. This occurred during a period when other types

of cheese dropped slightly in sales.

IMPLICATION OF RESULTS

The-cheese industry has been successful in stressing
at least five of the 29 appeals listed by Frederick (h2).
The consumer was aware of the health, appetizing, family
affection, economy and substitution aspects of cheese.

This study found that the Cheddar cheese industry has

been very successful in filling these basic appeals to the
consumer. However, it is apparent that the consumer does
not think of cheese as one big group within the list of
possible foods, but that a clear distinction is made
between the ”foreign” types and Cheddar.

There appeared to be two distinct images of cheese.
Cheddar cheese was considered an economical, very healthful
food, unimaginative and adaptable while foreign types of
cheese were seen as an expensive, sophisticated delicacy.

The consumer images of cheese and cheese users
established through the questionnaire proved to be fairly
accurate. For example, respondents who were frequent
servers of cheese and macaroni had the same characteristics
ascribed to "Mrs. Brown" (Question 1 of Section 2). Also,
respondents who purchased foreign type cheeses were of high
income and better education just as Mrs. Smith (Question
h of Section 2) was described. Katonai(h5) Pointed out
that attitudes are based largely on past experience and
widely distributed information; therefore,it is logical

that the consumer image of cheese and cheese users would

73

7“

be fairly accurate because of individual experiences. Many
of the respondents probably attributed to the fictitious
ladies those characteristics which they thought were
possessed by themselves. Others, perhaps, visualized in
each of the ladies someone they knew and ascribed those
characteristics to the ladies listed.

Before the cheese industry can expect to increase its
sales potential of foreign type cheeses certain decisions
must be made. One possibility would be to segregate the
market and appeal to the status enhancement for consumers of
foreign type cheeses, utilizing the basic appeals of
modernity, good reputation, elegance, hospitality, imported
and social superiority. Another decision could be to make
changes in the traditional manner in which foreign type
cheese has been marketed. The latter would have the effect
of putting foreign type cheese into the common market. The
correct decision is outside the scope of this study but
information provided by this research would be useful
regardless of the decision.

A decision for status enhancement would suggest that
advertising be directed toward the group of over $7,500
income, to years or older, with at least some college
training and with-relatively small families. This was the
group which showed the greatest inclination toward the
purchase of foreign types of cheese. This group normally
would be the social leaders in a community and, therefore,

the logical target for prestige appeal. if social

75

enhancement is the objective the appeal should be directed
to a well-travelled, well-educated, gourmet type of
customer.

A decision to put foreign types of cheese in the
common market would be best accomplished by changing the
package to one that is more conventional and convenient.

Almost without exception the merchandisers of foreign
type cheese violate all of the consumer desires according
to the results of this study. The cheese is in odd, in-
convenient shapes and much is traditionally covered with
a wax coating or other non-transparent materials.

This research indicates the package for cheese should
be transparent, easy to open and close, block shape and
contain approximately 1 pound. in addition, the consumer
would need to be educated to the taste and uses of the
various types. The results show that the consumer is
consistent in his cheese wants. The major uses of cheese
were as snacks and sandwiches. The preferred shape is
logically block or bar for convenient slicing to go on
bread or crackers. Even large users of cheese indicated
that they tired of the taste quickly. This would lend
weight with the request for a variety-pack combining two
or three types of cheese.

The results of this study pointed out that two groups
(below 30 years and over 60) are the non-users of cheese.
That result indicates the groups to which advertising might
profitably be directed.

76

While other competitive industries have introduced
many new convenience and luxury items to boost their market,
the cheese industry often has been too reluctant to change
the merchandising methods. This study has shown that the
consumer would like to have, and would be willing to pay
for innovations such as table-type containers, variety
packs and ready-to-serve items. Other suggestions for
boosting the sale of cheese that appeared to have merit are
the inclusion of recipes on cheese packages and more com-
plete labeling along with standardization of cheeses by
appropriate grades and labels. The consumer desires some
method for assuring a selection of uniform cheese among
successive purchases. This might take the form of reliable
federal or state grading and labeling of consumer portions.

One of the basic pleas by the consumer was for in-
creased keeping quality of cheese. This investigation
showed that any of the tested wrapping materials were
adequate to maintain cheese in a satisfactory condition
over an extended period of time. The housewife needs to
be educated to the fact that all she need do to keep her
cheese fresh is to re-wrap it in foil or film. This, of
course, does not eliminate the mold. She should be told
that surface mold is not serious; it can be removed
and the cheese used without deleterious effects.

Most dairy display cases are designed for horizontal
display of the various products. Yet research showed the

vertical display was preferred over the horizontal.

77

Comments from.members of the Detroit consumer panels help
explain the reasons for their preference. They indicated
that the vertical display was more convenient for making
selections and all available types of cheeses could be
seen at one time.

The development of the plastic Container made possible
the easy opening and re-closing of cheese packages for
which the consumer had expressed a strong desire. Other
characteristics which were incorporated into the plastic
container included transparency, approximately 1 pound of
cheese and the block shape which had the approximate
dimensions of a slice of bread. These features made
cheese packaged in the container very convenient for use
in sandwiches as well as for snacks and for cooking pur-

poses.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The objective of this research was to provide the
cheese industry with factual information concerning
consumer likes, dislikes and attitudes toward cheese and
cheese merchandising practices. Four common research
techniques, consumer panels, mailing questionnaires,
telephone and/or personal interviews and sales in a dairy
store were employed in gathering the data.

The cheese market could be expanded by use of more
convenient shapes of cuts and by more convenient packaging.
Significant preference was shown for block and bar shaped

cuts of cheese and for transparent, re-closable and easy
to open packages. Consumer interest in convenience cheese
items such as cubed, shredded, disks\and variety packs was
significant. The consumer indicated a willingness to pay
at least $0.02 per pound premium for the convenience and
packaging desired. There was no preference for color of
cheese wrapping materials .

Approximately 17.8 percent of the mailing question-

naires were completed and returned. The major complaints

aSlainst cheese or cheese marketing could be alleviated by
imaginative packaging and by consumer education as to the
taste and uses of the various cheeses. The consumer
”pressed a desire for a grading system to insure
Standardization of quality and flavor within a variety.
TWle consumer image of cheese users corresponded very

78

79

closely with reality. Two fairly distinct cheese images
exist: (a) in general, a complimentary image for Cheddar
and (b) a somewhat derogatory image for foreign types.

When tightly wrapped or sealed, all of the packaging
materials tested retained desirable freshness in the cheese
during the 5-week test period. No rind formation was
evident in any of the samples tested.

Grocerymen employed no systematic or factual approach
to planning their cheese displays. Also, the consumer
chose a vertical display case arrangement over the hori-
zontal display which is normally employed.

The conclusion based on this study was that the
cheese industry has not effectively merchandized its
product, especially the foreign types of cheese. Consumer
education as to the taste and use of these Cheeses has
been neglected. In addition, packaging of cheese has

been inconvenient and unimaginative.

1.

2.

10.

11.

12.

13.

11+.

15.

L ITERATURE C ITED

Alderson, W. (1955). Getting inside the Shopper's mind.
Bus. Wk. (1367) November 12. pp. 58-616.

Anonymous (19h0). Cheese gets bigger. Bus. Wk. (550)
February 2h. pp. 26-27.

Anonymous (l9hh). Business at war. Fortune 30: (1)

Anonymous (l9h8). Urge to splurge. Bus. Wk. (977)
my 22. p.72.

Anonymous (1950). Strip-cheese production. Bus. Wk.
(1072) March 18. p. 75.

Anonymous (1953). Anti-mold wrapping. Bus. Wk. (12h?)
July 25. p. 72.

Anonymous (l95h). Public attitudes and uses of dairy
products. Highlights Study. No. 3, h, 5, 6, 7, 8.
Am. Dry..Assoc.

Anonymous (1955). Research rivals trade blows. Bus.
Wk. (1365) October 29. pp. 56-60.

Anonymous (1955). Dip coating puts cheese wedges back
up front. Food Engineering 27: (11) 70.

Anonymous (1958). Dair products sales break-down.
Food Topics l3: (1?) 6K.

Anonymous (1958). went to catch a pantry-full of
profits, Bait a tempting trap with cheese. Meat and
Food Merchandising 3h: (2) 30.

Anonymous (1958). Shelf Rent. Food Merchandising
3h: (7) 28. .

Anonymous (1958). impulse buying: new assault on the
consumer. Time 72: (I) 66.

Anonymous (1958). Advertisers' guide to marketing for
1959: point-of-purchase. Printer's Ink (Section 2.)

265: (5) 311, 312.

Anonymous (1958). Sampling-motivation research merger:
how will it aid ad men? Printer's Ink 265: (9) 23-26.

80

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

2‘1.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

81

Anonymous (1958). Pull-tab cheese scores merchandising
first. Food Engineering 30: (12) 58,59.

Anonymous (1959). Competition in the retail food,
butter, cheese and evaporated milk industries. Dept.
of Agr. Econ., Univ. of 111., Mkt. Pam. 16.

Anonymous (1959). Dairy space. Food Merchandising
35: (2) 28,29.

Anonymous (1959). Sell cheese-~one way or another.
Food Merchandising 35: (2)'69.

Anonymous (1960). A look at the buying habits of
supermarket sheppers--ice cream, cheese most subject
to in-store buying decisions. Amer. Milk Review

22: (3) 68.

Anonymous (1960). Food packs es as housewives see
them. Sales Management 85: 10) 37-45.

Baeza, Marco A. (1950). Sampling and response
differences for three methods of enumeration obtained
in a study of consumer potato preferences. Thesis
for degree of Ph. D., Mich. State Univ., East Lansing.
(Unpublished)

Bauer, R. A. (1958). Limits of persuasion. Harvard
Bus. Review 36: (5) 105-110.

Bergren, H. L. (1950). The role of packaging in
introducing a new product. Modern Packaging 23: (10)
132'133o

Blankenship, Albert B. (l9h6). How To Conduct
Consumer.And O inion Research. Harper 5 Brothers
FEETisfiere, New York, N. Y. 312 pp.

Brooks, V. (l9h7). Can you trust mail questionnaires?
Printer's Ink 220: (12) 86-104.

Brown, L. 0. (1937). Market Research and Analysis.
Ronald Press, New York, N. Y. 537 pp.

Brown, S. (1955). Inside the consumer. Newsweek
#6: (15) 89-93.

Brunk, Max B. (1953). Controlled experiments in
merchandising. Jour. of Mkt. 35: (5) 916-923.

Bursk, E. C. (1958). Opportunities for persuasion.
Harvard Bus. Review 35: (5) 111-119.

31.

32.

33-

35.

36.

37-

38.
. 39.
no.

hi.

h2.

h3.

uu.

AS.

82

Chcskin, Louis (1957). How To Predict What Peo 1e
Will Buy. Liveright Pub. Co., New YorR, N. 7. EH! pp.
Clausen, J. A. and R. N. Ford (19h7). Controlling

bias in mail questionnaires. Jour. of Am. Statistical
Assoc. ha: (217) u97-Sll.

Cochran, WilliamLG. (1953). Sam lin Techni ues,
John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York, N. Y. 50% pp.
Corey, Stephen M. (1937). Signed versus unsigned
attitude questionnaires. Jour. of Ed. Psychology.

28: (2) 11114-1148.

Courtney, Douglas (1959). Are products psychologized
to death? Printer's Ink 266: (7) 75.

Deane, Darrel D. and P. A. Downs (1951). Flexible
wrappers for cheddar cheese. Jour. Dry. Sci. 3h:

Drayton, Leslie E. (l95h). Bias arising in wording
consumer questionnaires. Jour. of Mkt. 19: (2)

Ibo-1&5.

Duffy, Ben (1956). Why we buy what we buy. Look
20: (12)9h-102.

Eastman, R. O. (19h3). Don'ts about mail question-
naires. Printer's Ink 202: (ll) 2h-29.

Eldred, R. E. (1957). New packaging methods and
their value. Jour. Dairy Sci. to: (3) 323-328.

Festinger, Leon and Daniel Katz (1953). Research
Methods In The Behavioral Sciences, The Dryden Press,
CW or , s 0 pp.

Frederick, Justus G. (1957). Introduction to
Motivation Research, Bus. Bourse,New‘Ybrk,‘N. Y.

'235kpp.

Groesbeck, K. (1958). Stress two stimuli in your
advertising to penetrate the minds and emotions of
consumers. Advertising Agency Magazine SI: (12) 3h.

Henry, Harry (1958). Motivation Research--Its Practice
and Uses for.Advertisin fiErRetin and 5ther Business
Pirgoses. F.‘Ungar_PBB. 50., New eorfi, N. Y. EEG pp.
Katona, George (1958). Attitude change; instability
of response and acquisition of experience. Paper 10

pp. 1-26. Norman L. Munn, ed. Ps cholo ical Mono ra hs,
The Am. Psychological Assoc. Inc., New or , . . pp.

 

h6.

LL70

M8.

D9.

50.

51.

52.

5h.

55.

56.

57-

83

Larzelere, H. E. and R. D. Gibb (1956). Consumers'
opinions of quality in pork chops. Mich. Agr. Expt.
Sta. Quart. Bul. 39: (2) 327-333.

Lawler, Frank K. (1958). Motivate fine eating as a
senséglggthing to do. Engineering Opinion, August.
PP- - ,

Leighton, D. S. (1958). Using MR in your marketing
program. Management Review A7: (7) h7-h9.

Link, Henry C. (19h3). An experiment in depth inter-
viewing on the issue of internationalism vs.
isolationism. Public Opinion Quarterly 7: (2) 267-

279.

Lowry, Cynthia (1959). Psychological sell, the big
word on Madison Ave. is "status". The State Journal,
Lansing, Michigan. February 21. pp. 89, SO.

Ludgin, Earle (1959). Advertising must be unexpected
and believable to break through subliminal barrier.
Advertising Age 30: (3) 81, 82.

MacNeil, Joseph H. (1958). Influence of packaging
material and freezing temperatures on consumer pre-
ference for turkey. Thesis for degree of M. 5.,
Mich. State Univ., East Lansing, Mich. (Unpublished)

Merriman, James (1955). Up and down, or all across--
how should you stock soup? Paper 27, pp. 237-2u7.
Henry Brenner, ed. Marketing_Research Pays Off,
Printer's Ink Pub. C., PleasantVille, NTPYifi

Moss, Thomas Neil (1952). Some relationships of
selected socio-economic factors to food consumption
and expenditures. Thesis for degree for Ph. D.,
Mich. State Univ., East Lansing, Mich. (Unpublished)

Payne, Stanley L. (1951). The Art of Askinggguestions.
Princeton Univ. Press, New Jersey. 289 pp.

Pirie, Margaret C. (1960). Marketing and social
classes--and anthro ologist's view. The Management
Review 1.9: (9) 15-138.

Reuss, Carl F. (19h3). Differences between persons
responding and not responding to a mailed question-
naire. American Sociological Review 8: (h) h33-h38.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

6140

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

84

Robinson, Ray (1986). Five features helped this
questionnaire pull from 60-70 percent. Printer's
Ink 21h: (8) 25, 26.

RoJko,.Anthony S. (1957). The demand and price
structure for dairy products. Tech. Bul. No. 1168.
U. 5. Dept. Agr., Washington. 252 pp.

Roper, Elmo (1959). The tales they tell tell the
tale. Saturday Review h2: (16) 25, 26.

fifildin, J. (1955). 5e111hg the id. Nation 180: (21)
2.

Shaffer, James D. (1952). Methodological basis for
the operation of a consumer purchase panel. Thesis
for Ph. D., Mich. State Univ., East Lansing, Mich.
(Unpublished)

Shaffer, James D. (1960). The influence of impulse
buying or in-the-store decisions on consumer food
purchases. Jour. Farm Econ. AZ: (2) 317-325.

Sheppard, D. and Salma D. Carrinci (1955). A survey
of housewives' attitudes to dairy products. Dairy
Industries 20: (5) 399-hon.

Sheppard, D. (1955). The questions on cheese. Dairy
Industries 20: (6) h90-u9h.

Smith, Hugh M., Wendell E. Clement and William S.
Hoofnagle (1956). Merchandising natural Cheddar
cheese in retail food stores. Marketing Research
Report No. 115. U. 5. Dept. Agri.

Stryker Perrin (1956). Motivation research. Fortune
s (65 lat-117. -

way, W. C. (1951). Consumer attitudes to cheese.
Canadian Dairy and Ice Cream Journal 30: (9) ho.

Wearmouth, W. G. and M. JaCkson (1958). Cheese
packaging: prepacked consumer portions for retail
distribution. Dairy Industries 23: (2) 108-116.

Weilbacher, William M. and H. Robert Walsh (1952).
Mail questionnaires and the personalized letter of
transmittal. Jour. of Mkt. l6: (3) 331-336.

APPENDIX

85

86

Appendix Fig. 1.--Mai1ing questionnaire used in the
consumer attitude survey.

87

Sept. 21, 1960
Dear Consumer:

How often have you wished for the opportunity to re-
design displays or the packages for food items which you
purchase in the supermarket? This is an opportunity for
you to help make one of these items more convenient.

The enclosed questionnaire'is for the purpose of
assisting in the evaluation of present methods of cheese
displays and packaging. The information which you provide
will be used in a research project by the Department of
Food Science, Michigan State University. All information
will be handled in strict confidence and will not reveal
you as an individual. No signature is needed on the
questionnaire.

Please complete the statements as fully as possible
and return within the week in the postage paid enveIOpe
provided.

Names of persons returning the questionnaire will be
used in a drawing for a five pound gift variety box of
Michigan State University cheese.

Sincerely,

fiaolhbJPJZV,Zkiéézgofwvss

Robert M. Williams

Dairy Plant

Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan

Enc: Questionnaire
Reply Envelope

88

Page 1
Please check the ways in which you use cheese:

Use Often Occasionally

 

Sandwiches.........................2_____.......a_____
Macaroni and cheese................”_‘___.......3_____
Topping for potatoes, etc..........u___;_.......n_____
Cheese sauce.......................r_____.......n_____
Cheese souffle.....................5_____.......5_____
Welsh Rabbit.......................n_____.......n_____
Topping for pie....................2_____.......2_____
Salads.............................._____,......._____
Pizza and other foreign foods......5_‘___.......5_____
Cheese and crackers or as snacks...._____.......n____.
Relish trays........................_____.......n_____
With drinks........................._____.......n_____

Others: Please list

OOOOOOOOOOOOOD 00......

 

i

OOOOOOOOOOOOOO 00......

 

89

Page 2

Please check the cheeses which you purchase:

 

Variety Often Seldom
SWISS...ssoss00009000000000.0000. cocooocssos

BPICRCO........................C.
Tilsiter.........................

Edam.............................

Gouda............................ .... .. ...

Cheddar (American)

Mild...0.00.00.00.0000....0.0.

Aged.0.00.00.00.0.00000..0...0 0.0.0.00...

sm0k8d00000000000.00000000000. .00....0...

COlby0000.0..00000..000000.00.00. 0.0.0.0....

FraHRCHNUthsoosososssssossoosssos
Mozzarella.......................

Blue.....0.00000.000.0000....0...

Others: Please List

HHIH HIH

“_ “

000000000000 00000.00...
w ‘ “ nu.-

Please answer the following questions as completely
as possible.

1. Why do you buy cheese?

 

2. Approximately how many pounds of cheese do you buy per
month?

3. Are you (I) opposed to (2) indifferent to (3) impressed
by free samples of food in grocery stores? (1) (2)

 

 

A. What is your major complaint about cheese?

 

m A

5. Sandwich meats are about $0.h9 per pound, cheese is about
$0.h9 per pound. If you could only buy one for use in
lunches which would you buy and why?

 

Ah...-
!‘

6. What is your favorite variety of cheese?

 

90

Page 3

7. What, in your opinion, could the cheese industry do to
sell more cheese?

 

8. Sandwich meats are about $0.h9 per pound, cheese is
about $0.70 per pound. If you could buy only one for use
in lunches which would you buy and why?___

9. Only small quantities of foreign type cheese (Edam,
Gouda, Swiss) are sold in the United States. In your
opinion what is the probable reason for this?

 

10. If you could make one change in the way cheese is
packaged, what change would you make?

 

11. Sandwich meats are $0.75 Per pound, cheese is $0.89 per
pound. If you could buy one for use in lunches which
would you buy and why?__,

 

In the following section of this questionnaire some
statements will be made about various people. Will you
please describe what type of individual you think this
person is. (As to income, age, or personality, etc.)

1. Mrs. Brown serves cheese and macaroni very often in her
home. Please describe Mrs. Brown

2. Mrs. Jones gives her children cheese as a snack. Mrs.
Jones is a

" L‘

3. This lady, Mrs. Adams, often serves cheese to her
guests. Mrs. Adams is a

 

91

Page h

h. Mrs. Smith's favorite cheese is a foreign type (Edam,
Gouda, Swiss). Mrs. Smith is a

 

5. Some people almost never buy cheese. What, in your
opinion, would be the reason for this?g_

The following information is needed to help classify
the answers given in the questionnaire. Please check the
answer which applies.

1. Age Group: Under 20
20-30
30-u0
MO-So
50-60
Over 60

 

 

 

 

 

2. Income Level: Below $5,000
(Family) 5,000-7,500
7,500-10,000

Over 10,000

 

 

 

3. Educational Level: Less than high school
High school degree
Some college work
College degree

h. Sex: Male
Fema e

5. Size of family 2
3

h

S

6

Over 6

 

 

 

 

 

92

Appendix Fig. 2.--Answers to questionnaire selected
for the purpose of coding.

93

 

Section I

Question I

1. price

2. convenience

3. prestige

u. nutrient value

5. taste

6. Just like it

7. variety of uses

8. sandwiches

9. keeps well

10. meat substitute

11. use in cooking

12. as a change of pace
Question 2

1. one pound or less

2. two pounds

3. three pounds

h. four pounds

5. five pounds

6. six pounds

7. seven pounds

. eight pounds or more

Question 3

l. opposed to

2. indifferent to

3. impressed by

Question h

1. too large packages

2. slices too thin

3. Just don't like cheese

h. flavor varies within variety
5. too expensive

6. dries out too fast

7. variety desired not readily available in all stores
8. odd-shaped packages

9. wrapper does not allow inspection
10. mold
ll. dietary reasons
12. packaging not re-closable
Questions 5, 8, ll

1. meat

2. cheese

3. price

u. nutrient value

5. taste preference

6. cheese dries out too fast
7. variety pack

8. more filling

9. better keeping quality and reliability
10. variety of uses
11. convenience

9Q

Question 6
l. Cheddar
20 SWiss
3. Brick
. Frankenmuth
. Edam
. Colby
g. Gouda
. Limburger
9. Others
Question 7
l. educate the consumer
2. better displays
3. more advertising
u. give samples
5. package more conveniently
6. provide variety packs
3. reduce price
. smaller sizes of foreign type cheese
9. package to prevent drying
10. standardize flavor within varieties
ll. put all cheese in blocks
12. label with age, grade, etc.
Question 9
l. unfamiliarity
2. don't like the taste
3. too expensive
u. not available in all stores
5. lack of advertising
6. odd-shaped packages
Question 10
I. use aluminum foil for all packages
2. make packages easy to open and re-close
3. package smaller pieces of expensive types
A. package all cheese in block cuts
5. make package more appealing, giving recipes, etc.
6. package all cheeses in transparent wrappers
7. individually wrapped slices
8. larger packages
9. re-closable packages
10. variety pack
11. content or composition on label
12. table type containers

9S

 

Section 11
Question 1
l. thrifty
20 plump

3. middle aged

u. likes easy to prepare foods

5. catholic ‘

6. good housewife and mother

7. large family

8. lacks originality

9. low income

10. young

11. middle income bracket

12. busy woman (outside activities)

Question 2
l. concerned with nutrition
2. lazy

3. wise mother
u. likes easy to prepare foods
5. young
6. busy with outside-activities
g. well educated
. thrifty
9. above average income
10. middle aged
11. middle income
12. poor mother

Question 3

l. thrifty

2. older woman

middle aged

frequent entertainer
likes to be different
wealthy

s0phisticated or well-educated
poor hostess

9. good hostess

IO. convenience minded
11. middle income bracket
12. gourmet

Co-q O‘W\u

96

Question h

l.

11.

of foreign extraction

2. well-educated, widely travelled, sophisticated
3. parental influence
. frequent entertainer
. likes to be different
6. older person
6. snob, social climber
. middle aged
9. middle income
10. particular
11. wealthy
12. gourmet
Question 5
1. unfamiliarity
2. lack of information
3. Just don't like cheese
h. allergy
5. too expensive
6. dries out too fast or molds too rapidly
g. indigestible
. lack of advertising
9. tried aged cheese, disliked it
10. lack of quality

habit

97

Appendix Fig. 3.--Telephone questionnaire for
cheese retailers.

9.
10.

11.

12.

Name

98

How many varieties of cheese do you order by bulk?

How is decision made as to how many varieties are
carried?

Do you know the gross return from the various varieties
carried?

What is your gross profit per square foot of cheese
display case area?

Do you allocate shelf space in the dairy case on the
basis of return per square foot?

If not , how?

What percentage of your sales are processed, domestic
and foreign types?

Do you purchase your cheese from wholesale grocers,
from cheese manufacturers or through the cheese
exchange? Do you stipulate grade for cheese? What

_grade?

How many sizes of package do you normally display?

Do cheese companies make available any point-of-purchase
advertising material? If so, do you use the materials
supplied? Do you want more or less?

What do you consider your major problem of handling
cheese?

Does the entire chain of stores have the same operation?

_Store

 

((MHIMIIIIMHIWIMIIIIM

312