AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF PREPACKAGED MEAT MERCHANDISING WITH PARTICULAR EMPHASIS UPON SALES, CONSUMER REACTION AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY byRobert C. Kramer A THESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Agricultural Economics 1951 ProQuest Number: 10008356 All rights reserved INFORM ATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete m anuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest. ProQ uest 10008356 Published by ProQuest LLC (2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This w ork is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQ uest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 - 1346 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to express his gratitude to all those who helped with the completion of this study and the preparation of the manuscript* Dr* C* M* Hardin, Director of the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, helped initiate the study* Valuable guidance was given by Professor Lawrence W. Witt of the Agricultural Economics Department in supervising the study as well as in reading the manuscript* Professor Arthur Mauch gave generously of his time and critically reviewed the manuscript. Without the cooperation of two food retailing organizations this study could not have been made* These companies were the Kroger Company and the Market Baskets, in Lansing* Their cooperation was truly appre­ ciated* Miss Iva Mae 0 fBryant, an undergraduate student at Michigan State College, assisted greatly in the preparation of illustrations and tables. Mrs* Ida Hammond, of the secretarial staff of the Agricultural Economics Department, assisted with the typing of the original manuscript* The contributions by interested people have been many, but the author assumes full responsibility for any errors that may still be pre­ sent in this manuscript. ROBERT CHRISTIAN KRAMER o o o n q -| ABSTRACT OF THESIS AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF PREPACKAGED MEAT MERCHANDISING WITH PARTICULAR EMPHASIS UPON SALES, CONSUMER REACTION AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY By Robert Christian Kramer One of the most recently introduced ways of retailing fresh meat is the 100-percent self-service method. Retailers using 100-percent self-service operate their meat department as follows* wholesale cuts are delivered to the store as usual. Carcasses and In the store the meats are cut into retail cuts, then the employees wrap, heat-seal, weigh, price, and display these cellophane wrapped packages of meat in open-top refrigerated meat cases. Shoppers select their meats from these cases and do not have to talk with the butcher or his helpers. Merchandising meat by self-service has developed very fast since World War II. On April 1, I 9I4.6 there were 28 100-percent self-service meat stores in the United States. On April 1, 19^1 there were 3>972 such stores in the United States. This study was designed to analyze this new method of retailing meat. The analysis was divided into three parts. The first part con­ sisted of a comparison of meat sales, meat wages and total store sales in two self-service meat stores and two butcher-service meat stores for a period of one year. The second part was an analysis of customer re­ actions to prepackaged meat. The data for the second part was obtained by questionnaire from 1,100 families who had shopped in one of four 100—percent self-service meat stores. The third part was an efficiency analysis of the labor force which was employed in one self-service meat store. Robert Christian Kramer 2 It was found that the stores which shifted to prepackaged meats increased their sales of meat and other foods. tracted to these stores. New customers were at­ However, the labor cost of merchandising meat in packages was not reduced as had been expected. It remained about the same in self-service and butcher-service stores. The respondents in this study definitely preferred self-service over butcher-service. shop quicker; meat; and They liked self-service because: 1) They could 2) The weight and price were given on each package of 3) They could pick up the package and examine the meat more closely than if they bought meat from a butcher. Not all of the cus­ tomers liked prepackaged meat, and from some of those that did, several complaints were received. Some respondents said packaged meat was not as fresh, some had been fooled by excess fat or bone hidden in the package, and some objected to different sizes, thicknesses and types of cuts in the same package. This study showed that labor efficiency could be increased 2$ to 30 percent with no change in the physical layout of the processing room in a self-service meat store. It was thought that labor efficiency could be further increased if the physical layout in most stores were rearranged. Approved Major Professor TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE LIST OF TABLES................................................. LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS........................................ vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ........................................ II The problems s t u d i e d ............................ 2 The typical 100-percent self-service meat store . . . 3 Importance of meat in the U. S. economy........... 5 Importance of meat in the family d i e t ............. 8 REVIEW OF LITERATURE................................ 11 Meat merchandising in ancient times ......... 11 Early A m e r i c a n ......... 13 Intermediate American.................... lij. Recent American............... 16 The National Provisioner.................... 33 The Progressive Grocer 33 .......................... Summary............... III 1 33 THE DATA USED FOR STORE COMPARISONS................. When data were collected . . • • • • • • Where stores were located .......... ........... 35 35 36 Description of the stores • • • • • ............... 36 Beliefs and hypothesis tested 37 ••••• Comparison of Stores h and 5 before Store h was con­ verted to 100-percent self-service .............. . 38 Description of Stores 2 and 6 . ......... U5 Equipment in the stores.......................... U7 Identification of periods used in the study ........ k7 i TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) CHAPTER IV PAGE COMPARISONS BETWEEN SERVICE AND SELF-SERVICESTORES . . . 50 Amount of non-merchandisable product.............. 50 Labor supply per s tore................. $1 Changes noted in meat volume in Stores H and 5 • • • • 53 Changes in selected items in Stores 1; and5> during the year studied.....................................55 Changes in sales and wages in Stores 1* and..5 ..... 73 V Comparison of data gathered from Stores 2and 6 . . . 82 Comparison of Stores 2 and li which were both self-ser­ vice meat stores .................. 88 Comparison of Stores 5 and 6 which were both service stores............... 91 Some comments on the operation of all four stores 98 • * METHODOLOGY USED TO GET CONSUMER RESPONSE ANDGENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE....................... 10k Extent of self-service meat merchandising when con­ sumer reaction study was m a d e ................... 10U Description of the sampling p r o c e d u r e ............10£ Beliefs and hypotheses tested ..................... 106 Methods employed in the analysis VI ............. 106 Size of family......... 107 Average weekly i n c o m e ........... 108 Amount spent for food per w e e k ............. ... 110 Amount spent for meat per w e e k ............. .. 110 CONSUMER REACTION TO PREPACKAGED M E A T ................113 Age of respo n d ent ...................... .......... 113 Who did the meat b u y i n g ......... lilt TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) CHAPTER PAGE How often meat was purchased......... * ............ Ilk How meat was stored in the h o m e ................... 116 Mode of travel used to get to the stores......... . 116 * Overfall preference for meat merchandising method • • 119 Why respondents like prepackaged m e a t ..............120 Why some respondents did not like prepackaged meat . . 120 Length of time customers had bought meat in the sample stores * ................................... 125 Proportion of meat purchased in the self-serve stores 125 Customer meat eating habits since they started buying prepackaged m e a t .................................. 126 Amount of other foods purchased in the prepackaged meat s t o r e s ..................................... 126 Number of pork chops preferred per package......... 127 Thicknesses preferred for beef s t e a k s ........... 129 Weight preferences for beef roasts ................. 131 Customer reaction to different methods of prepackaging f i s h ............................................. 131 VII THE EFFECTS OF FAMILY SIZE* INCOME * AGE* AND FOOD EXPEND­ ITURES ON BUYING HA BITS.............................. 135 Who bought the m e a t .............................. 136 The method preferred for buying m e a t ............... 137 Frequency of meat p u r c h a s e s ................... . 138 Mode of transportation used to get to the stores• . • 139 Beliefs concerning the cost of prepackaged meat . . *lUO Changes in the quantity of meat consumed........... lip. How meat was stored at home iii ......... lip. TABLE OF CONTENTS (concluded) CHAPTER PAGE Consumer reactions regarding the weightof beef roasts li;2 Consumer reactions regarding the numberof pork chops per package...................................... Ik3 Consumer reactions toward beef steaks............. Ik3 JWhy respondents bought prepackaged meat . ........ lk5 Proportion of meat bought in the sample stores * • . Ik5 Proportion of groceries bought in the sample stores • 11*6 Proportion of fruits and vegetables purchased in the sample stores . * . * . • ......................... lk7 Some observations on the characteristics of the respondents...................................... Ii|8 VIII INCREASING EFFICIENCY IN PREPACKAGED MEAT STORE OPERATIONS..........................................l5l Description of the operation s t u d i e d ............. 152 Labor required to merchandise a side of beef Why production in sample store was not greater • • . . 153 • • . 156 Fhysical layout in self-service meat store process­ ing rooms ............................ 159 A note on centralized meat p a c k a g i n g ............. 161 Frozen meat could bring great efficiencies in meat distribution................... * ...............162 EC SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS............................ 163 APPENDIX A ..........................................170 APPENDIX B ..........................................17k BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................187 LIST OF TABLES TABLE I PAGE Identification of Stores Used for Various Phases of the Study • • • • « » • • « • * • • • • • • • • • 37 Equipment Required for Self-Service Meat Store with Five Meat Cases * • * * » « • • • * • « ♦ * • » * • ii8 Periods Used in This Study « • • » « * • * * » • • • h9 IV Period Purchases of Meats for Store h 56 V Period Purchases of Meats for Store 5 II III VI VII VIII IX X XI • • • • « • • • • • • • • « 57 Percentage Distribution of Number of People in Family.................................... 109 Percentage Distribution of Average Weekly Income • « 109 Percentage Distribution of Average Amount Spent for Food per Week • • « . * • • • • • • • • • • • • • « HI Percentage Distribution of Average Amount Spent for Meat per Week • • * • » * • • • • « • • « * • • • • 111 Percentage Distribution of Age of Respondents 115 • • • Percentage Distribution of Who Did Most of the Meat Buying ............... 115 XII Percentage Distribution of How Often Meat Was Bought 117 XIII Percentage Distribution of the Way Meat was Stored * 11? Percentage Distribution of Mode of Travel Used to Shop for Meat • • * * • « . ♦ * • . * » « 116 Percentage Distribution of Why Prepackaged Meat Was Bought • . . . ........... 116 Percentage Distribution of Number of Porkchops Pre­ ferred per Package • • « • * • • • « » » • * « • • • 130 Percentage Distribution of Preference for Thickness of Hound Steak • • « « • * • * • • • * » • • » 130 XIV XV XVI XVII XVIII XIX Percentage Distribution of Preference for Thickness of Beef T-bone and Sirloin S t e a k s .............. Percentage Distribution of Preference for Weight of Beef Roasts • v 132 132 LIST OF TABLES (continued) TABLE XX XXI PAGE Percentage Distribution of Preference for Buying Prepackaged F i s h ............................. Cutting Test on a Side of Beef » • • • • * « • •• XXII Theoretical Yield From a 270-Pound Side of Beef XXIII Summary of Time Consumed in Processing and Mer­ chandising One 270-Pound Beef Side v± 133 « V~>$ 1^7 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS FIGURE 1 PAGE Head Meat Cutter and Butcher Preparing Meat for Wrappers ...................... 1* 2 Hostess Stocking Meat Case 1* 3 Wrappers Working in the Processing Room of a SelfService Meat Store • • • • • • . * • • • • • • * • 6 1* Holding Cooler for Prepackaged Meat 6 5 Meat Production in the United States, 1910-1950 • 7 6 Percentage Distribution of Consumer's Meat Dollar at Low, Medium, and High Price Levels, 1932, 1939* and 19l7 • • * • • • • « • * • » • • « • ........ 9 • • • • * • « 7 Meat Consumed Per Person, 1900-1950 8 Growth of Complete Self-Service Meat Case • * ♦ « 23 9 Typical Front-Fill Self-Service Meat Case * * . * 29 An Example of a Meat Case Which is Filled From the Rear » « • • • • • * .......................... 30 Seasonal Variation in Production and Consumption of Meat, United States, by Quarter-Years • • . » « 39 Consumers' Price Indexes for Meat and Competing Products Based upon Sales to Moderate Income Fami­ lies for Large Cities Combined, by months, 19i*8-4*9 2*1 Seasonal Variation in Average Retail Prices of Meats, United States • • • • » • • « • • * • • » » 1*2 10 11 12 13 12* 15 10 Total Meat Sales in 192*8 by Periods in Stores 2* and 5 • • • • • • • * • • • • • • • • * 1*3 Total Store Sales in 192*8 by Periods in Stores 1* and 5 • 2*1* Wages Paid per Period in Meat Departments of Stores 2* and 5 in 192*8 • • • • • • • • • • • • • « 2*6 17 Total Meat Sales by Periods for Stores 2* and 5 # * 51* 18 Total Meat Purchases by Periods for Store 1* • * • 58 19 Total Meat Purchases by Periods for Store 5 * * • 59 16 vii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (continued) FIGURE PAGE 20 Period Pork Purchases for Stores 1* and 5 • • . ♦ 60 21 Period Beef Purchases for Stores 1* and 5 ♦ • • ♦ 62 22 Period Sausage Purchases for Stores 1* and 5 ♦ * 63 23 Period Fish Purchases for Stores 1* and 5 • • • * 65 22* Period Poultry Purchases for Stores 1* and 5 • • 66 25 Period Veal Purchases for Stores 2* and 5 ♦ * * * 6? 26 Period Lamb and Mutton Purchases for Stores 2* and 5 . • • • • 69 Period Cheddar Cheese Purchases for Stores 2* and ...................................... 5 • ♦ 70 Period Cottage Cheese Purchases for Stores 1*and. 5 ................ ......................... 72 29 Period Bacon Purchases for Stores 2* and 5 •* * 7U 30 Period Lard Purchases for Stores 2* and 5 * ♦* * 75 31 Total Store Sales by Periods for Stores i* and 5 77 32 Wages Paid per Period in Meat Departments of Stores h and 5 • • • • • • • • • • • • ........ 79 Labor Cost per Pound of Meat Merchandised by Stores 2, 2*, 5 and6 . 81 27 28 33 32* Total Meat Purchases by Periods for Store 2 ♦ * 83 35 Total Meat Purchases by Periods for Store 6 ♦ # 85 36 Total Meat Sales by Periods for Stores 2 and 6 * 86 37 Total Store Sales by Periods for Stores 2 and 6 87 38 Total Meat Purchases by Periods for Stores 2 and 2 * .......................................... 89 39 Total Meat Sales by Periods for Stores 2 and 2* . 90 2*0 Total Store Sales by Periods for Stores 2 and 1* 92 viii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (continued) FIGURE 1*1 PAGE Wages Paid per Period in Meat Departments of Stores 2 and 1* 93 1*2 Total Meat Purchases by Periods for Stores 5 and 6 * 95 1*3 Total Meat Sales by Periods for Stores 5 and 6 • • • 96 1*1* Total Store Sales by Periods for Stores 5 and 6 9? 1*5 Wages Paid Per Period in Meat Departments of Stores 5 and 6 • • « • • • * « • » • » • • • • * • • * « « 1*6 1*7 • • 99 Meat Sales as a Percentage of Total Store Sales in Stores 2, 1*, 5 and 6 for 191*8 and 19l*9......... • 101 Physical Layout of the Meat Processing Room in Store 2 160 ix 1 CHAPTER X INTRODUCTION Research in the marketing of agricultural products has been conducted for a number of years • It started because farmers thought that their share of the dollar which consumers spent for food was too small. Many farmers feel this way today. The early research was naturally, it seemed, done on agricultural products in the marketing channel between the farm and the processor. Many improvements re­ sulted from this original research, but as our United States* economy progressed, more and more services were required to satisfy the desires of the consumer. The economies which were developed from the early research were offset by the increased demand for services* So, despite the good results of many earlier research projects the farmer continued to receive about the same share of the consumer*s dollar spent for food. Immediately after World War II new demands were expressed for more research on the marketing of agricultural products. Realizing that prospects for improving the marketing of farm products from the farm to the processor were limited, researchers and administrators pointed to the other areas in the marketing channel which were vir­ tually virgin territory. They said research was needed in the pro­ cessing industries, in wholesaling and in retailing. Next to the returns to producers retailing takes the largest share of the consumer's dollar. This does not mean that the greatest inefficiencies exist in this area of distribution$ the retailer per­ forms a great number and variety of marketing services. Consumers de­ mand these services, which determine to a large extent the costs of re­ tailing* 2 It was because retailing did take such a large share of the consumer's dollar that the writer was interested in doing work in this area. It appeared that the introduction of self-service mer­ chandising of prepackaged meats offered possibilities for reducing the expenses of retailing meat and still permit the retailer to make his usual profit* With possible reduced retailing expenses the con­ sumer as well as the producer should benefit* This leads us to the problems studied* The problems studied* This study was divided into three parts* One dealt with the change in meat sales that was evidenced when a super-market converted its meat department from service to selfservice meat merchandising* To make the comparison two super-mar­ kets within the same organization were chosen* Data were obtained from each store by weeks for a period of one year* before the one store was converted to prepackaged meat merchandising* These data included weekly meat sales* weekly total store sales, and the labor bill in the meat departments of each store. Then* after the one store converted, weekly data were collected on all the meat products purchased and sold from the two stores* These two stores were as alike as it was possible to obtain. The second meat* part dealt with consumer reactions to prepackaged Consumer likes and dislikes for prepackaged meats were studied as were some sociological and economic factors which possibly in­ fluenced family meat buying behavior. Reactions of 1100 families who patronized four super-markets which sold all meat prepackaged were analyzed for this section of the study. One of these super­ markets was in Lansing, Michigan, and the other three were in Detroit* 3 The third, part of the study dealt with operations xn the meat department of a store which packaged and merchandised prepackaged meat* This store was a 100-percent prepackaged meat store* In other words, all meat that was sold was packaged ahead of the time of sale and dis­ played in an open refrigerated meat case* The term used in this study t6 denote a store with the usual method of meat merchandising was service store* The service store has a butcher and/or meat clerks be­ hind an enclosed meat case* mow The customer asks the butcher or clerk to him a piece of meat and if the customer decides to purchase the i at, the butcher or clerk weighs it, wraps and prices it while the ostomer waits and watches* The typical 100-percent self-service meat store* In the typical 100-percent self-service meat store, there is a meat cutter, ahostess, and one or more wrappers* always a man but the The meat cutter is hostess and wrappers are usually women* heavy lifting* The meat cutter does all the He breaks the sides of beef, carries and opens the boxes of meat, and does the cutting* In large stores the head meat cutter usually has an assistant, a man, who has the classification of butcher and the butcher does the same type of work as the meat cutter* Figure 1 shows the head meat cutter and the butcher preparing meat for the wrappers* The hostess spends most of her time stocking the meat case, re­ arranging packages after the customers have pawed through them, and advising customers on meat buying and meat preparation. The wrappers put the cut meat on backing wrap and seal the packages. each package* They then label, See Figure 2* boards or intrays, then weigh, mark, and price "When they have prepared the package for sale, they usually k Figure 1, Head Heat Cutter and Butcher Preparing Meat for Wrappers* LCH MEAT Figure 2. Hostess Stocking Heat Case* 5 carry the packaged meat to a holding cooler* pers wrapping, sealing and pricing meat# Figure 3 shows the wrap­ Figure b shows a holding cooler where the packaged meat is kept on aluminum trays before it i taken by the hostess to the meat cases# Importance of meat in the Ut S. economy# Meat is the basic food around which most meals are prepared# In Figure 5 one can see that during the past ten years over 20 billion pounds of meat has been pro­ duced each year# Meat is a perishable food and all meat that is pro­ duced moves into consumption at some price. If necessary, prices of ‘ V. meat are adjusted so that the supply will be taken# Some meat is fro­ zen and stored for short periods by commercial concerns but the amount is negligible, only one-half billion pounds per year# The United States has a small import balance of meats and this balances the loss of weight from shrinkage and spoilage in our domestic production. So, domestic meat production equals domestic consumption. The problem presents itself* If efficiencies can be found for our meat distribution systems, savings can be had for our consumers— if we actually have a competitive economy* The writer believes that the meat distributive industry, especially the meat retailing indus­ try, is very competitive* Look at the savings for the economy if the cost of retailing meat could be reduced only one penny per pound| over $>200,(XX),000 per year* If two cents could be cut from the retailing charge, over $1*00,000,000 could be saved each year* Retailing is the most costly function in moving meat from the pro­ ducer to the consumer* Of course, returns to producers is the largest single item in the cost of a dollar’s worth of meat, but retailing is the most costly marketing function. prices are low# The retailing margin is larger when In 1932, 33 cents of each consumer meat dollar went for 6 Figure 3. Figure U* Wrappers Working in the Processing Room of a Self-Service Meat Store* Holding Cooler for Prepackaged Meat, BIL. LBS TOTAL MLa T 10 LAMB & MUTTON 1930 1920 CARCASS WEIGAT EQUIVALENT 1910 Figure 5* 19UO --LXCLUDiiiS .un-RD Meat Production in the United Statesf 1910 - 1950. 1950 8 retailing* In 1939* nearly 26 cents of each consumer meat dollar went for retailing* In 19l;7* only 16 cents went for retailing* The retailing margin shrinks as the price level rises but so do all / other marketing margins* Returns to producers increase as the price level rises and make up for much of the decrease in the marketing margins* Figure 6 shows these relationships* It was because re­ tailing takes such a large share of the consumer’s meat dollar that this study seemed very important* Importance of meat in the family diet* For the past fifty / / years each person in the United States has consumed about 150 pounds of meat per year. In 1908, the year of the largest meat consump­ tion, 163 pounds was the per capita meat consumption* The low year in the last half-century was 1935 when 117 pounds were consumed. Beef and pork are the two meats which make up the major share of the total meat consumed* Sixty to seventy pounds of both beef and pork are usually consumed by the average person each year. In Figure 7 one can see the trends in the consumption of all meats* In the United States from 2$ to 30 percent of the total dispos­ able income is spent for food for human consumption* About one- fourth of the amount spent for all foods goes for meat. Meat, then, is very important in the family budget— about six percent of the to­ tal disposable income of the average family is spent for meat. 9 :'7~: "— :yiy... PERCENT' •yyyyyyyyyyy \ yyyyyyyyyyy.y l”.'"V.^vvav: v ■yyyyyyyyyyyyy. ■\yy. yyy v m\y-yy . uy-y.yyy. :-.y-yy.-:y.-:yyy.y ■ yyyyyyyyyyyyy: yyyyyyyyyyyyy yyyyyyyyyyyy-. -‘yy-.-'yy yy. ,-y. \yyyyy it.2 Meat packing 6.2 8.0 ::-X5.9 :: :2 0 .o :: : 3holes aling., ■.y-‘.y .y y '.y ...■ yyyyyyy.yyyy 60 Retailing ■ yyy. m3-o:m yyyyyy-y.-y.yyy. iyy- yy.-yyyyyy-. y-y■.y y y sy-yy. 777 ‘ryy—y-y-.-y. ' ‘V-1 •■^ *-1V* Marketing live­ stock h.7 ho 20 63.9 Returns to pro- } ducers U7.5 0 1932 Figure 6. 1939 19)47 Percentage Distribution of Consumer’s Meat Dollar at Low, Medium, and High Price Levels, 1932, 1939, and 19U7. 10 i5o 100 PORK LAMB a ND RUTTON r rrnTrrTT'171 1900 Figure 1910 7. 1920 1930 Meat Consumed per Person, 1900 — 1950- 19U0 1950 11 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE While this report is primarily concerned with the economics of prepackaged meat merchandising, it is helpful to consider some of the earlier methods of selling meat and changes which have occurred over the years* The ancient and early American methods will be re­ viewed as a backdrop for the substantial changes which have occurred in the last 100 years* The literature pertaining to prepackaged meat will be considered under the heading ”Recent American” and, of course, receives major emphasis* Meat merchandising in ancient times* We must go back to Bib­ lical history to trace the ancestry of our present retail meat merchant* 1/ Schueren—/ says that Adam was perhaps the first real butcher* He was the predecessor to the old time ”butchern, who precedes our modern retail meat merchant* Primitive man found it necessary to kill wild game to provide meat for his family. As the people grouped together in little villages, organized hunts were started in which the meat was con­ sumed on a share and share alike basis* with civilization* Domesticated animals came The appearance of villages and towns and the division of labor brought on the need for industrial production and the distribution of meats. 2/ According to Corey— in ancient civil- 1/ Arnold C* Schueren, Meat Retailing, Vaughn Company, Chicago, 1927* 2/ Lewis Corey, Meat and Men, The Viking Press, Hew York, 1950* iz&tion the slaughter houses were located in the crowded city streets with the waste products being allowed to flow into the gutter* This became a public nuisance and in Rome, by Nero’s time, the slaughter houses had been grouped together in one of the city’s most imposing market structures* The live animals were transported to the slaughter houses where they were slaughtered and sold to the public* One of the purposes of the construction of the ancient Roman Forum was that it should be used as a public market place where the city population could buy meat and other food* The meat consumed in lome was often of bad taste and had to be flavored with spices* that the meat production and distribution in dustry was very important and profitable in Western Europe* The herdsmen drove the livestock to the public market places where they were sold to the butcher or public* Many of the same market places are in use today* In Florence, in the fifteenth century, there were JO butcher shops and 8 shops which retailed fowl These shops bought the livestock which the herdsmen had driven into the city, slaugh­ tered it, and sold it to the people* In Paris, until the year 1818, when model slaughter houses were built, the animal slaughtering and meat merchandising had taken place on the principal streets as in the early civilization 3/ 0£* Cit* Chapter I. il/ Corey, op* cit*, Chapter II. 13 times* The gutters contained waste products which contaminated the atmosphere as they flowed on to the River Seine, while weary, noisy animals blocked the traffic* London* Conditions were not much better in Meat and other products were sold from street markets or 5/ by peddlers v-* Early American* The early colonies produced their own livestock and meat merchandising was strictly a local business* But in 1662, John Pynchon found it profitable to pack hogs and ship the meat from Springfield, Massachusetts to Boston, because the countryside around Boston did not produce enough meat for the growing city and the 6/ supplying of ships.- The early meat packers packed cuts of pork and beef in barrels of brine* They had no refrigeration to keep the meat from spoiling until the action of the salt had cured it so their operations were confined almost entirely to the winter months* They piled the barrels outside their plants on the ground and sold them in the 7/ spring.—' During the winter months, farmers supplied plentifully the larger towns with fresh pork by slaughtering one or more hogs at a time and hauling them to town* This method is still used in sections of the South today and in many less developed parts of the world. 3/ Ibid* 6/ Edwin L. Heckler, The Meat Packing Industry, Bellman Publishing Company, Inc., BostonT”!?!!^ l/ Ibid> Chapter I. Hi Before modern transportation was available, the small livestock producer had to sell his products as beat he could* When cities and towns grew too large to be supplied entirely by local farmers, the ”drover” became important. The drover went out into the country and bought a steer at one farm and a cow or bull at another farm. He collected together a small group of cattle and drove them to the city where they were sold to the butcher or to the public. The drover provided an outlet to the farmer and a source of meat to the con­ sumer. It was not unusual for the drover to drive cattle over a route 800 miles long. to market. The cattle gra2ed along the way on the trip As late as I8I4O livestock fouled most American cities, 8/ including New York.—' The butcher had his slaughter house in back of his shop. Later, for sanitary reasons he was forced to move his slaughter house out­ side of the city or buy livestock already slaughtered. Such well- known names as Armour and Swift had their origins in these humble butcher shops and slaughter houses. Intermediate American. The great development of the meat pro­ duction and distribution industry came after the Industrial Revolution, the spread of the factory system and free enterprise. The develop­ ment of railroads and other means of transportation furnished better methods of meat distribution which was largely limited to the mer­ chandising of cured meats. 8/ It was not until 1852 that any attempt Corey, oip. cit., Chapter II. 15 was made to ship cattle by rail even in an experimental way* The Civil War caused more livestock to be shipped this way « meat being necessary to feed the soldiers. The refrigerated car, a very important factor in retail meat distribution, made its appearance about 1870* a change in the distribution of meat* This greatly influenced If the butcher did not want to buy dressed meat from his local slaughter house or packer, he could buy it from other packers who operated quite some distance away* The old time eastern butcher did not favor "western dressed” beef, and in certain eastern cities even today, some retailers still have objections toward western dressed beef. They proudly display their signs reading they sell only "city dressed” beef. About the same time that the refrigerated oar appeared, mechan­ ical refrigeration was installed in ships and in storage warehouses. Meats could be held or shipped around the world and the quality was maintained. Another important discovery at this same period was the method of hermetically sealing meat in tin cans. The first canned meats were better than no meat at all - they were not very good. With all these developments the functions formerly performed by the "master” butcher were now being done by the packer and the butcher only mer9/ chandised the meat.—' The many small, unsanitary slaughter houses were replaced by a centralized, well equipped, refrigerated abattoir. 9J Schueren, op. cit., Chapter I. 16 Recent American* When the "master” butcher devoted all of his time to retailing meat, he found one of his major problems to be that of displaying the products he had for sale. During cold weather, quarters of beef were hung in store windows or out on sidewalk stands, to show the type of merchandise offered for sale. When the meat was hung in quarters, the customer had little choice as to the kind cut he would get. of If he arrived when steaks were being cut, he got a steak, when chucks were cut he got a ohuck roast; in other words, he got the next cut exposed. It is easy to understand that the customer had a very limited selection with this type of merchandising. With the development of health regulations, the unprotected hanging of meat was stopped and the retailer was required to protect his products from dirt and filth. This brought about the develop­ ment of the meat counter or case. The first meat cases were very crude; they were enclosed on two sides with glass and usually had a stone or metal bottom. Later, the cases were entirely enclosed and were refrigerated with ice. Refrigerated glass cases were adopt10/ ed by the most progressive meat retailers around 1920.—' These were more sanitary and the customer had a much wider choice of cuts. The butcher cut up his meat into retail cuts ahead of the rush hour and stored it in the cases. The development of refrigerated meat cases proved to be a great milestone in meat merchandising. 10/ Anonymous, The National Provisioner, January 2l+, 1920. 17 In 1920, a new idea in meat retailing was experimented with by the Rittenhouse Bros., Philadelphia, Pa.— retail markets They sold meat in their at a uniform profit of a penny per pound. They thought they could run a meat market successfully on that margin of profit. basis. They offered the best grades of meats on a cash and carry The meats were arranged on large platters in quantities which had been weighed and priced. When the customer selected some meat, it was put in a bag and handed to her. If she doubted the weight of it, she could weigh it on the scales provided for that purpose. The writer thinks this was the forerunner of our modern self-service meat markets. Grocery stores did not retail meat, except cured meats as an unprofitable sideline, until after World War I when chain stores made their great development. The merchandising of fresh meats was 12/ left to the local butcher.— f Chain stores were able to realize a profitable margin on meat retailing because they made a more efficient utilization of labor, coupled with the fact that consumers wanted a one-stop store. During the depression years of the 1930*s, the chain store organizations developed self-service merchandising. operation the customer served himself* With this type Self-service merchandising was first used for dry groceries that had a long shelf-life and few ll/ Anonymous, The National Provisioner, January 17, 1920. 12/ Anonymous, The National Provisioner, February 25, 1920. 16 storage problems« Later it grew into fruit and vegetable sections with the development and production of open refrigerated cases* Evidently the experiment tried by the Rittenhouse Brothers in Philadelphia was not successful because they are not mentioned again in the literature* They were not the only ones who thought meat could be merchandised the self-service way, however* Meat Merchandise < 13/ ing-— gives an excellent discussion of the early experiments with self-service meat merchandising? "As far back as 1923> pre-packaging of meats imported from France was tried by Hudson Bay Company in Winnipeg, Man*, Canada* The meats were wrapped in cellophane and sold by service clerks, but the experiment was shortly discontinued* "This operation had been conducted by Mr. T. R* Ronaldson. Five years later, he still thought the idea was good, and convinced Frank L* Parsloe of H* C. Bohack Co., Brooklyn, N. Y. By 1929* this firm was serving pre-wrapped meats to 50 stores from a central plant* "The stores were those too small to have full meat departments, and the pre-packed meats were sold by clerks, generally from dairy cases* A number of factors caused this attempt also to be dropped? improper refrigeration and display equipment, lack of meat knowledge by the clerks, inadequate wrapping materials, and a high percentage of returns to the central plant* "In the early *30s similar experiments in Philadelphia and Detroit areas by A A P were likewise not continued because of the same difficulties. "About 1933, Sam Slotkin of Hygrade Food Products Corp. conceived the idea of putting pre-cut meat into cardboard bread trays and over-wrapping them with cellophane on a bread-wrapping machine. A packaging plant was set up to serve a store in New York City and it was hoped to have other stores in New York as well as in Chicago* 13/ Anonymous, Meat Merchandising, Meat Merchandising, Inc., St. Louis, Mo*,19l+9• 19 "But again the project was defeated by inadequate wrappings, ex­ cessive returns from the store, and the difficulty of gauging demand from a remote plant. wThe next experiment, also unsuccessful, was about 1955 by the Loblaw chain in Canada, which tried a fixture with a display top atid stock drawers below, somewhat similar to some candy cases* The refrigeration was unable to do the job. "By 1958# Sanitary Grocery Co. of Washington, D. C. was pushing a cod-fatted rolled roast with an outer cellophane covering. The cellophane held the cod fat in place and was not to be removed before cooking* It wascalled a "Cello-Roll Roast" or a "SelfBasting Roast" and advertisements proclaimed that the cellophane forced the fat into the meat to make it juicier and tastier. "This meat product became successful in Washington, and was like­ wise featured in Boston by First National Stores, Economy Grocery Co., and A & P. Charles Adams (then head of the A & P meat de­ partment at Boston, and sinoe retired) and Walter Zink, merchan­ dised legs of lamb, wrapped in cellophane and placed on top of meat cases. This created much comment from customers and stim­ ulated lamb sales tremendously. Pre-wrapped roasts were selling well. "Finally, in 191+0, it was decided to pre-pack chickens and a variety of items in addition to the roasts. The selected store in the well-to-do Belmont district enjoyed good sales on pre­ wrapped meats - from a service case. "It was but a step to a full-scale self-service test. The store at I4.67 Center Street, Jamica Plain, was chosen — principally because it was in a neighborhood where customers were likely to be exceedingly critical. "Pre-wrapped meats were sold in this store for a month or more before the historic day - February i+, 19i*l * when the first selfservice meat case went into operation. "It was an old fish-and-delicatessen case . . . hurriedly read­ justed to what seemed to be proper design. In the first week, ll+OO packages of pre-wrapped meat were sold from the self-service case - and A & P decided the idea was good I The test store showed a 30 percent meat volume increase without additional labor cost, a figure which was fairly well upheld in later operations. "Things happened rapidly after that. Plans were drawn, and a few cases ordered to specifications — which refrigeration men refused to hook up, because they thought open cases couldn’t possibly do a job. 20 "A & P in Boston was ready to go to 100-percent self-service meat, but the war interfered* At Pittsburg, A & P ordered 123 oases for self-service meat* In Schenectady, N* Y., Empire Markets opened a self-service meat department which was described and pictured in the July, 191+1» issue of Meat Merchandising* "This period marks the beginning of efforts by manufacturers to develop open-type, refrigerated cases especially adapted to the display, preservation and sale of self-service meats* wTheir engineering efforts have been successful* The case makers take their place in the industry with the makers of transparent films as the pioneers without whose work this new selling system could never have succeeded* "The self-service meat idea was picked up by Caler’s of Los Angeles in 191*2. Once it hit the fertile imaginations of inde­ pendent West Coast retailers, the idea spread quickly* Nelson of Inglewood, Lewis of Riverside, Berk and Sage of San Bernardino established it early as a means of meeting war-time labor short­ ages* "These west coast merchants carried the ball faster and farther than others* During the war years when only an occasional mar­ ket in the Middle West and East established self-service meats, the system made rapid strides in California." The first non-industry analysis of retailing prepackaged meat was made by Franklin W* Gilchrist.■ Gilchrist’s Journal states that consumers did prefer to buy their meats prepackaged, stores using self-service for merchandising meats experienced increases in meat sales in almost all instances, and operating costs for stores 1U/ Franklin W. Gilchrist, An Analysis of Pre-Packaging and SelfService as a Means of Lowering Costs of Retailing Meat and Del­ icatessen Products, with Special Reference to Southern Cali­ fornia. This was a dissertation presented to the faculty^of the Department of Economics, University of Southern California, in June, 191+8* !;?/ Franklin W. Gilchrist, "Self-Service Retailing of Meat," The Journal of Marketing, Volume XIII, January, 191+9* 21 using self-service were lowered as a result of s&vings in labor and space following conversion# One limitation to Gilchrist's study was that he did not study the records of stores with meat departments which had weekly meat sales under $3 #500* only larger meat departments# lu other words, he studied Gilchrist stateds "More data are needed before a final appraisal of the efficiency of Pre-Packaged, ,,16/ | Self-Service is possible# 7 // < Armour and Company has been very interested in the developments taking place in the United States in the merchandising of prepack­ aged meats# In 19U3 Armour and Company started research projects dealing with the preparation and packaging of meats for self-service sale# C# K# Wiesman, Director of Development and Quality Control in Armour Laboratories, guided the research in the technical field# In 19U7 Armour published its first technical report, "Technical Aspects of Self-Service Meats"# It was reported that this manual was well received by the trade# In 1914-9 "Technical Aspects##." was revised and brought up to date# The rapid progress made in the general area necessitated another revision which was published in 1950# The 1950 edition was also entitled, "Technical Aspects of Self-Service Meats#” In 19U8, Armour published its first of four nation-wide surveys of self-service meat operations* Self-Service Meats, 16/ Ibid#, p. 30k* The 19U8 manual, Pre-Packaged PP* dealt with whether self-service was 22 successful, whether consumers liked self-service and what happened when retailers went into self-service * This report stated that in most cases self-service was successful, most consumers liked self-service meat merchandising, and in most cases stores going into self-service experienced an increase in meat sales* The 19b9 Armour report, Prepackaged Self-Service Meats, 31 PP** concerned itself with the growth of the merchandising of meats by self-service, improvements in production and layout, ways and means of reducing costs and more efficient and better controlled operations in every, phase of self-service* The 19U9 Armour report stated that all but two states had 100-per­ cent self-service meat stores on April 1, 19U9 and that there were 878 100-percent stores spread over the United States* The report stressed the fact that meat departments should be organized on a continuous-flow basis to utilize labor and equipment most efficiently* Also, that costs per pound of meat seemed then to be a little higher in the self-service stores. Consumers continued to prefer self- service and many stores were converting their meat departments to self-service because of competition* In 1950 a*id 1951 Armour again published reports on self-service meats* These reports gave the results of nation-wide studies of the developments in meat retailing. The 1951 study showed that the number of 100-percent self-service meat stores was continuing to increase* Figure 8 shows the growth of 100-percent self-service meat stores in the United States* The 1951 Armour report estimated 23 No. of Stores 1*,000 i----3,500 3,000 2,500 2.000 878 500 178 0 19U5 I9h6 19U7 191+8 ±9h9 1950 1951 FIGURES AS OF APRIL 1st EACH YEAR Figure 8* Growth of Complete Self-Service Meat Stores 2k that there were over 1*,000 100-percent self-service meat stores In May, 1951. On April 1, 1951# every state had at least one self-service meat store. Michigan, at that time, had 127. states with 32*6 self-service meat stores. New York led all the other California, which led the states in 192*9# was sixth on April 1, 1951# with 191 stores. The 2*,000 self-service meat stores represented only about two percent of all stores handling fresh meats but these stores did a little over ten percent of the total retail meat business in the United States. Nevada was the last state to add a self-service meat store. The discussion has been on 100-percent self-service meat stores but there are also partial self-service meat stores. These stores sell part of their meats from the usual service meat cases where the customer asks to see a particular cut of meat, and if he decides that it is the cut he wants, the butcher or clerk weighs and wraps the meat while the customer waits and watches. Partial self-service stores have these service meat cases and also self-service cases. The cus­ tomer can serve himself to some meat items but has to deal with the butcher for the others. The 1951 Armour report said that on April 1, 1951# there were 10,362 of these partial self-service meat stores. Armour and Company did an excellent job for the meat industry and especially for meat retailers. Their reports were very readable and kept the public up to date on the changes and new developments in the field of prepackaging and self-service of meats. Their non­ 25 technical reports showed the growth of self-service in meats, re­ ported consumer reaction to prepackaged meats, and gave hints to meat retailers as to procedures they should follow in merchandising their meats* The technical reports discussed packaging, quality retention, and physical layout of the cutting and wrapping rooms in a selfservice meat store* The Consumer Service Department of Armour and Company devoted a lot of research to polling and interviewing consumers about their likes and dislikes of prepackaged meats* Ester Latzke, Director of Armour’s Consumer Service Department delivered papers to the Super Market Institute and contributed to the Armour non-technical reports 17/ mentioned above* One paper— showed that women in general did like self-service meats but they did not like to be fooled or gyped by shady merchandising practices * All of the national food chain organizations and many of the local food chains have their research departments busily engaged in research on problems of packaging or merchandising prepackaged meats* The Kroger Company and the Kroger Food Foundation have both con­ ducted numerous research projects into the problems involved in sell­ ing prepackaged meats. Market Institute. George Garnatz gave a paper to the 19i+9 Super He discussed the technical problems in pack- 17/ Ester Latzke, ’’Self-Service Meats From the Woman’s Standpoint”, a paper read to the Super Market Institute, 191+9• Miss Latzke is Director of Armour’s Consumer Service Department. 19/ George Garnatz, ”A Review of Packaging in Connection with Retail­ ing Meats.” Mr* Garnatz is with the Kroger Food Foundation and presented this paper to the 191+9 Super Market Convention • 26 aging the various types and cuts of meat* James Cooke read a paper 19/ to the same Institute* He related experiences -which his company had had in merchandising prepackaged meats* He said that there were many customers who did not like prepackaged meats because of nonfreshness, excessive waste, and complaints on size and type of cuts* He stressed the merchandising of fresh meat* Swift and Company has also done research on prepackaged meats* In the opinion of the writer, Swift lagged behind Amour* 3ut Paul Goeser, research laboratories. Swift and Company presented a paper 20/ to the I9k9 Super Market Institute in Chicago*— f In this paper he said that each prepackaged meat package must identify itself, price itself, withstand handling, be competitive, and be actively attract­ ive. He said there were four basic facts to consider when merchan­ dising meat in packages: l) The bright color and fresh appearance of unfrozen meat is best maintained at a temperature of 30 "bo 31 degrees; 2) Meat that has been aged does not have as long a case life as fresh meat; 3) Meat packages when stacked give increased pressure on the lower packages* Excessive stacking causes unsightly accumulation of meat juices in the lower packages; and U) No style of packaging improves the original quality or condition of the meat* He summarized his paper with the above four points and said that 19/ James Cooke, ”How to Merchandize Self-Service Meats'1* Mr* Cooke is with the Penn. Fruit Company* He presented this paper to the 19J+9 Super Market Convention. 20/ Paul Goeser, ”Self-Service Meats Present Several Technical Problems,” The National Provisioner, July 2, 19U9« 27 packaging films (cellophane or pliofilm, etc*) vary widely in their moistureproofness, fresh meats need oxygen and a minimum of moisture loss, and cured and table-ready meats discolor when exposed to light in the presence of air* Most of the industry studies dealt with technical problems. This dissertation deals primarily with economic problems but the technical and economic problems are so closely entwined at points that the com­ plete separation and identification were practically impossible. The brief discussion above was included because this study will later re­ fer to some of the technical problems mentioned. While mentioning industry studies it should be pointed out that all of the paper com­ panies are constantly trying to develop better films to be used for packaging meats* The two leading companies, duPont and Sylvania, have done much research and have worked very closely with the meat industry. The self-service .refrigerated case companies have also done much research. They are constantly trying to design better cases. Some of the leading companies are: 2) Super-Cold Corp*; ij.) C* V. Hill and Co*; l) Hussman Refrigeration, Incf 3) Frigidaire - Div. of General Motors Corp.; and 5) McCray Refrigeration Co. One of the most recent developments made by these companies was a self-service meat case which can fee re-stocked from the rear. The older cases had to be stocked from the front and restocking was quite a task when there was a large number of customers milling around the meat cases* Figure 9 shows one of the older self-service meat cases and Figure 10 shows one model of the newer rear fill self-service meat caf-es*. ■ There have not been many studies on problems involved with mer­ chandising prepackaged meat which were not industry studies* One of the few was published by the Production and Marketing Administration i 21/ in 19i4.9* This report was the result of a nation-wide study* Workers from the FMA interviewed owners or managers of 97 stores located in 80 cities in 27 states and the District of Columbia. The survey contacted about 25 percent of the 1+00 stores in operation at that time* 191+8* The report described the meat departments in oper­ ation* labor production and costs* packaging materials used* equip­ ment used* case life of meats* consumer acceptance, and merchandising practices in use at that time. This report showed that 100-percent self-service meat stores were increasing in number rapidly and that only 9 percent of the stores had weekly meat sales under $2 *000. Almost all meat items except frosen meat and poultry were packaged in the stores* per man. As the dollar sales volume increased so did output Total labor costs of all self-service departments averaged I4..5 cents per pound of meat handled, and 5*2 cents per package* Film M3AT-80 was used by all stores packaging fresh meats and LSAT film was used for luncheon meats. Lastly, handling by customers was the principal oause for rewrapping packages. 2]/ A. T* Edinger et. al* Retailing Prepackaged Meats* U.S.D*A., Production and Marketing Administration, Marketing Research Branch* Washington 25, D. C., December 191+9, 27 PP* 79 Figure 9* Typical Front-Fill Self-Service Meat Case. CROSS SECTION AND PLAN MODEL O-5Y70 AND O1IY70 a u X 4) a G H © cn I © 3 +gj o i. bfl G = ot m G On t3 O T JL) “2 S G (/) 3-m ft. CO x 4-4 0 © U ) O .5? © X 05 _c *■ £ Z) X O Q c : * ° 'T O ^ -oZ c ■+-• U) i- © Q . D Q> co O £ O HH o O CO O) I jc - V LO I o o io tfl 3 Is o cq < 3 C ^ a M 33 a G g G 3 « ^ bJ3- 3 03 a x n 34-1 CL) X a '5 X ^ 2 0) *•* a o, X P •a a 03 u G +4 G 'g 3 tx 3 W 'I w 8 . 3 CN 4-> ^ M oT jg W 4-> GX >4-1 53 -4 o c o 0) IV ’t HH co £ &H s K O HH « W H X aj w Q l-H CO H D O >4 0) - "G ^ *j xbe x> 3 ro ‘C ■0o x bo s 1 CO 0) o £ X t-' o O - OT S5 G O.2 O TG G 03 a6 U oo 3 - h oT 3 « > ■> G (-. Ot O •3 W> a t 3 x -r ^ o O w d<“ « 0) « & t*s ^ xbO +4 O 0) -13 G T-1 X 03 T3 3 *5 N’ W d: o E CO a I ^ I S 2c co > w a D H u * -V >4 G G 1-H G (A a o . OT H OT (V G o Oh Tj D ^ S -4-J « § -a ° £ -g S 3 o S -S ffi e o CO ° £? 3 c X G o ^4 CA S 50 X jj H X 2 S W ,c TJ S 1 0b3J) « 03 G <3x £ « « S ’S G ?03K* I— I ° i :■ a CO o P W > O ^ < as (K O H co O’ 03 3 J2 o G -4_i GT o — O O LO 8 ^ G G G <3 'G G !-< 1-4 a „ o G 4-1 G X3 o Z G _ ’S '£ > u< w ■c O X 'C < K O t-1 CO U, OT X bJD 3 o 5? lL G -G ' ot P G K o d c>o> X 0} b£ C bD o O G O ■g 0* x y g G i-i -n bO 3 G G £ G o -a ■n Q TX W G G 2 e X ^ a c S p G ® CO X G . G O 43-> 2 52 X G 3 X >> X X G X X > 4-> >■* 5 w X w ” X O CO LO X a o o •a a 03 G 4-1 O 3 O C t-1* X c a G © u XG 1 :8 G O M «tl >d £ .5 5 E-* — G CO £ P 3 O *J u Q V 'p OX) J. 3 o Z G n x « H o U o W >4 u ° K w CO o o X IS JS2 . •f-i G < *> 5s *p a o « ° X t: 4J- 4-1 f-4 4-1 X a X bX>,«> S' X -3 r! 3 4^ O •a a w | o a p w « X £3 G o X 4-. G G G t- o G r^ .“ >4 X LO o X a 0 4S 0 G I—* u G OT G O 3 OJ 1-4 3 w ’oCO £ 3 o X bC _G .a § Co o w X G O OT — 03 W T3 r P?v ° O G rC » l-H i G <+ 3 rV'x: ■4-* b0 G ■s u G 03 G G z o' Ut O X Eh to O G M G < CO G a x4-4 G G > 0 u 04 X G 03 o ^ ~ X S 4 4 *P OT X O U a a G o !>• § O ’H £ G x G O C G X 4-4 G bn X G G 3 4-1 G ►— CO '0- o ot 03 G **H ■— 1 o xt .S T) 5b 03 3 g -a -a « o g o G c o Lh X > X ^P G ^ G G § 3 3 O 03 s X CO G G b£l G t'. CN f-i 3 d CO . a G M ot u. CU 3 3 o u. O J ^ ” 'O' - CN X w o l> a V-* o«> *-< G "P X a =33 G G CJ 1-1 U c +J G .3 G O 5 G *3 co o G X £ - ca | S £ S m *fH bii^^ G G 1-1 o ■*}■ 2 2 *>■ x_r a ai O X bJD X « G G _G 4-> G i a g bo g a s C D— . - 03 c » w® e 3 bO £ £ o x X a o u 'XI 5 g1“ *r g -*-4 £2 X > I l/> 8 cn 3 q 'o ^ $ — XX X G G o a >> a> G 2 ft co X C/3 4> xCb « K - « o 34-> *§ 03 u a 3 K |>x X >w O w A< 03 X G a, K, OT 03 OT bi) 03 OT c G G X 4-- ■3 u ot G G ^ p ^ CX G G (J § a ot._j T) 3 X tn 'g J* u G■ 'g g M sS '« o o T3 3 PS X G o c o U o N X G G X G CO u 3 t o £ w V) VO t o x JC * 3 Q © 3 < o 1 Q . z X o ' © 5 | 1 CO o ft. > G rH 4J O ’ G - o o O 'I""* X zp 0 z t-4 >4 X Ph 04 < zo l-H Eh u w CO 00 P ® s X w o s a 3 g a -3 1 a CO ■S3 » o X _ ^ G ° ^ 1§ W a Eh o z Figure 10* An Example of a Meat Case TEhich is Filled from the Hear* 31 Michigan State College was one of the first colleges to do re­ search on problems connected with prepackaged meats# The Departments of Animal Husbandry and Agricultural Economics began work in 19^7♦ They realized the economic and technical problems were closely re­ lated and did their research from a Joint project outline# The Department of Animal Husbandry studied wrapping films, the effect of temperature on drip-loss, the bacteria counts on meat hand­ led and packaged under normal retail store conditions, and the re­ lation of bacteria count to case live# Charles C# Chamberlain and 22/ L# J# Bratzler stated that fresh prepackaged meats showed the superiority of DuPont #80 cellophane over DuPont #87 cellophane in tightly wrapped packages and that constant refrigeration at relatively low temperatures is a "must" in case life of prepackaged meats is to 25/ be prolonged# Joseph S. Gowland— 1 concluded that aluminum foil was a very efficient wrapping film but its advantages are outweighed be­ cause of its non-transparency. Stacking and handling packages in­ creases the percent of shrink or drip loss# Cutting and wrapping should be done in a refrigerated room and if refrigeration is not available the cutting and wrapping should be done with dispatch# Rewrapping and remerchandising are the main problems in self-service 22/ Charles C# Chamberlain and L# J# Bratzler, unpublished mimeographed report, "Report on Hope-Flanagan Project 1-A, I9I4.7-I9U 8 #" Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, 19^8# 23/ Joseph S# Gowland, Technical and Operational Problems of SelfService Meat Merchandising, unpublished Master of Science thesis, Michigan State College, 1§U9* 32 meat stores* The average meat purchaser purchased 2*5 packages of meat* The third study completed in the Department of Animal Husbandry at Michigan State College was conducted by Marvin Voegeli• In his study Voegeli identified the bacteria which are present on all meat and on equipment in meat stores* He showed how rapidly these organisms multiplied unless temperatures were controlled and anti­ septic conditions were met* Voegeli concluded that equipment offers the greatest source of contamination for fresh meat and that equip­ ment should be kept clean* During the first three days of display of prepackaged meat the increase of micro-organisms is small, but after the first three days the micro-organisms multiply very, very rapidly, and if meat is purchased after it has been packaged and displayed for three days it should be consumed irnmedlately* The writer published the results of a consumer reaction study , 25/ in August, 19U9* Customers of one super-market which sold pre­ packaged meats were polled as to their likes and dislikes concern­ ing prepackaged meats* A majority of those polled in the study espressed a like for prepackaged meats* They gave many reasons why they liked prepackaged meat but the three most important reasons were* 1) The weight and total price were given on the packages; Marvin M* Voegeli, Flow Sheets of Prepackaged EVesh Meat, an unpublished Master of Science thesis, Michigan State College, 1950* Robert C* Kramer, "Consumer Response to Prepackaged Fresh Meats," Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station Quarterly Bulletin, August, 191$ ♦ " 33 2) They could shop quicker; and 3) They could examine the meat more closely than they could when they bought meat over the service meat case* There were some customers who expressed dislikes and these were usually about freshness, the price being somewhat higher, (this point was never proved in a series of interviews which the writer made with retailers) the lack of variety of meat cuts - such as types, sizes, thicknesses, and counts, and being fooled about excess fat or bone which was hidden in the package* More recent studies provide the data for the present report* The National Provisioner has published numerous articles on pre­ packaged meat* Most of them were reprints of papers which were pre­ sented at annual conventions of the meat industry, and these were reviewed above* This magazine has been a very fertile source of information on self-service prepackaged meat merchandising and is mentioned here as a reference for those interested in keeping in touch with recent developments in prepackaging of meats* The Progressive Grocer is another good magazine which publishes articles on prepackaged meats* The magazine has articles dealing with all types of foods, so meats receive only their share of the space in the magazine* Those interested in prepackaged meats should review this magazine to keep abreast of recent developments* Summary. The literature pertaining to meat merchandising is not voluminous* The literature pertaining to self-service meat merchandising is much less since self-service meat merchandising is less than ten years old* This study deals primarily with self­ 3h service meat merchandising and the literature available was almost entirely from reports, articles in trade papers, and from papers presented to industry officials* Armour and Company provided the best source of information on the subject* Most of the literature was descriptive. Gilchrist*s study at the University of Southern California was perhaps the best analytical study found in the literature. There were many problems the industry had not encountered when Gilchrist made his study. To the writer’s knowledge Gilchrist was the first college man to make a study in the general area. His study was conducted in 19b& and 19U7* Four United States colleges were studying problems in the area in 1950. Most work, however, 7ms on technical problems. All the recent literature has pointed out gaps in the infor­ mation and stated that many problems needed solutions. This study was designed to give answers to several of the questions needing answers * 35 CHAPTER III THE DATA USED FOR STORE COMPARISONS The groundwork for the analysis of self-service versus service meat merchandising is laid in this chapter. The methods used in ob­ taining the data are given as -well as a description of that data. bookkeeping 5fperiodu is described. The Important data for two stores In the study are compared for the year preceding the conversion of one of the stores to 100-percent self-service. Seasonality of both meat pro­ duction and consumption are examined as are meat prices for the period under investigation. ter. This chapter could be termed a descriptive chap­ The next chapter contains the analysis of the changes which oc­ curred after the conversion to self-service meat merchandising. When data were collected. The data ■which were used for the com­ parison of meat and total store sales between two sets of two super markets, one which sold all its meats by self-service and the other which sold its meats by the service method, were collected by weeks from October 23, 19U8 to October 22, 19h9• It was necessary for the writer to visit the central office of one set of two super markets in the study each Thursday and copy from the delivery slips (which the suppliers furnished when meats were delivered) the type of product pur­ chased and the weight of each item. Approximately 200 meat, poultry, cheese, and fish items were purchased and sold by each of the two stores. Meat, poultry, cheese, and fish items all were included because this organization rang up on their cash registers all these items under meat sales. The other chains rang up cheese sales as dairy sales. So, for analytical purposes, it wasnecessary to record purchases of all items which were rung up as meat sales in two stores* Virtually all super market organizations use the “period11 for keeping their books. A period is four weeks and there are thirteen periods in each year* Periods are better than months for record keep­ ing and for comparisons because each period is exactly the same length as the other* This, of course, is not true with months. Periods are better adapted than weeks when making comparisons of purchases and of sales. For example, some meat items can be kept on hand for over a week and so this item may not be purchased each week. Purchases over a period of four weeks average out fairly well and for these reasons the period analysis was used in Where stores were located. this study. Two of the stores used forthis part of the study were located in Detroitj two were located in Lansing. In order to obtain the data used, the writer promised the management of each super market that the identity of his store would not be disclosed. There were four super markets in this part of the study. report contains data from six super markets. a number designation - Store 1 for example. But the entire Each store has been given These number designations are used when the writer speaks of a specific store. Description of the stores. This part of the study contains data from four stores, Store 2, Store U, Store 5, and Store 6 . Stores f> and 6 merchandised all of their meats the service way. 100—percent self-service meat stores. are Stores 1± and 5. Stores 2 and 1; were Stores 2 and 6 are compared as A more detailed comparison was made between Stores and 5 than was made between Stores 2 and 6 . (See Table I) All of these super markets were considered large stores. The 37 Table I. Identification of Stores Used for Various Phases of Study* Store to Store Comparison Store 1 Store 2 Consumer Reaction Study Complete Meat Self-Service Conducted Time Study X X X Store 3 Store k X Store 5 X Store 6 X X X X X X X X weekly meat sales from these four stores ranged from five to ten thou­ sand dollars per week. Meat sales varied from 20 to 35 percent of total store sales so these stores each sold around a million dollars worth of foods in a year. Beliefs and hypothesis tested. The writer believed that efficien­ cies can be increased in the merchandising of meats. He has pointed out that retailing is the most costly function in the merchandising pro­ cess and that retailing seemed like the logical point to try and find a better and less costly way of moving meat to consumers. At rush periods in a super market, customers have often spent more time buying their meat supply than in buying all the rest of their groceries. The writer believed that waiting to be sold meat was an unnecessary waste of the consumer *s time and that customers often avoided stores which had meats to their liking but required the customers to take a number and stand in line. It was believed that stores which merchandised their meats prepack­ aged and used self-service could increase their meat sales and probably 38 their total store sales and do this -with the same expenditure for labor in the meat department as they had before converting to self-service meat merchandising. This was the hypothesis which was tested in this part of the study. Comparison of Stores and £ before Store h was converted to 100- percent self-service. Stores It and 5> were located in the same city; they were owned by the same corporation; they were about the same size; their customers were from similar stations in life, and there was about the same amount of traffic in front of each store. In other words, these two stores were similar in all characteristics which were observed. Store h had a slightly larger volume of business than Store The collection of weekly data started October 23, lpln8 as this was the date Store started merchandising prepackaged meat* To get an idea of the volume of business done by each store before the conversion of Store h> the writer went to the central office and obtained dollar meat sales, meat wages and total dollar store sales for 19l;8 from Jan­ uary 10 up to October 23. It might be pertinent to add that Store I* was open for usual business all the time its meat department was being converted to self-service. At this point it should be added that there is a seasonal variation in meat purchases by consumers - not only in meat purchases but also in production. In Figure 11 it can be seen that the variation in produc­ tion through the year is more pronounced than is consumption and it can also be seen that more meat is consumed at the beginning and end of a year than in the summer months. It was not possible to get the actual pounds of meats sold but dollar meat sales were available. These gave a good comparison because 39 1 PERCE i-jT BEEF 120 1 --- — LAMB ilND MUTTON VEAL - PORK (ex- cluaing larc -— Pro duct ion- -.0onsumptior 110 100 \ 90 30 7° Quarter— 1 Figure 11. 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Seasonal Variation in Proauction ana Consumption of Meat3 United States, by Quarter-Years. U Uo the pricing system used in both stores was identical as were the other important characteristics mentioned above. Before comparing dollar sales in one year with dollar sales in another year, an index of retail meat prices was studied. These index figures showed there was very lit­ tle difference in the yearly average level of meat prices in 19U8 and 19h9 (see Figure 12) but the monthly variation was large. Yearly sales seemed to be better for comparison than monthly. There is a seasonal variation in the average retail prices of meats in the United States. Meat prices normally reach their low point in March and their peak in September. Figure 13 shows this annual var­ iation in retail meat prices. In 19U8, before Store I4. converted to self-service, there v/as the usual variation in meat sales in both Stores I4. and 5>. After the first part of the year, when meat prices are normally low and consumption normally increases, there was an increase in meat sales in both stores. These meat sales increased at the end of the year to a figure higher than at the start of the year. Although Store U was converted to self- service for the sale of its meats by October 23* the company did not ad­ vertise this fact until after the first of the next year so there was not a large influx of new customers in 19l|8. Figure ll± shows the I9I48 meat sales in Stores i± and 5>. Total store sales follow about the same pattern through the year as meat sales, TftJhen plotted on a graph, total store sales are high at the beginning and end of a year, and low in the summer months. These facts were true for Stores U and $ as is shown in Figure 15. Meat wages do not vary through the year as do meat sales. The main reason for this is the fact that meat personnel want steady employment la 3h0 300 260 220 Immts , 180 lUO 19h9 100 vrxvoi u> ^ i —li —I i—! rH • XT\ XT> i —I i —I ■ Q) £»;, • u-s. V O 4s * h h i > » c i H f i c P t - i j s « (S ^ PR ^ Figure 12. ft Jj fJ ^ fj | -d fi \T\ ITi \Ti \T\ XT, H <—I i —I 0> O too * t> O i— I * o © • • e J c Q f* O 8ll It sold 1,283 pounds of material to Tenderers. There were 1,120 pounds of bones and 163 pounds of fat, suet and scraps* 51 In Store 6*2 percent of its meat purchases was sold as bones, suet and fat to Tenderers* In Store 5, 5*0 percent of its meat purchases was sold to Tenderers. Of the total pounds sold to Tenderers, 73 percent was bones, 17 percent was fat and 10 percent was suet in Store lj.« In Store 5, 87 percent was bones, 8 percent was fat and 5 percent was suet* These percentages lead one to con­ clude that this self-service store was not able to merchandise quite as much of its purchases as the service store, 1*2 percent less* Also, the self-service store had to remove more bone than the ser­ vice store* The service store, contrariwise, was able to leave more fat and suet on its meat cuts and sell them at meat prices* The bones, suet and fat which these stores sold to Tenderers brought a little less than two cents per pound* The 2,761* pounds that Store U sold to Tenderers brought $51*19 and the 1,283 pounds Store 5 sold brought $19*20* Isdth approximately five percent of the meat stores* meat purchases sold to Tenderers at two cents per pound and with the average cost around 1*5 cents per pound one can see one reason why the retailer must charge a price higher than the one he paid for the product* From the above discussion we saw that assuming that the meat purchased is all retailed was in error by about five percent* But, we also saw that there was only one percent difference in the pounds of material sold by the self-service store and the service store. And since the purpose was to note the trends or changes in meat vol­ ume when a store converted to self-service, no corrections were made in the actual data collected— it did not seem necessary. Labor supply per store* Stores 1* and 5 were not unionized and 5? each employee worked a U8-hour week* Stores 2 and 6 were unionized and regular employees worked U5-hour weeks* normally hire part-time help* employees* Stores it and 5 did not Store 2 regularly hired two part-time Store 6 did not usually hire any part-time help* these stores were open six days a week* All The noraal store hours were from 9 a*m. until 6 p*m* but on Thursday and Friday nights all these stores stayed open until 9 p*m. In all of these stores the employees worked five days a week-they were off one working day and Sunday each week* The usual schedule called for the regular employees to work Mondays, Thurs­ days, Fridays and Saturdays* The days off were taken either-on Tuesday or Wednesday of each week* Store 2 had a head meat cutter, a meat cutter, a butcher (all men), a hostess, three wrappers who worked full time and two wrap­ pers who worked part time* each week in Store 2* course, which were Store it had a five wrappers* An average of 370 man-hours were worked There were variations through the year, of caused by several factors* head meat cutter,a meat cutter, a hostess, and Store it was able to utilize more female help because it was not unionized* An average of 380 man-hours were worked each week in Store it* Store f> had a head meat cutter, a meat cutter and four fenale clerks* An average of 290 man-hours were worked each week in Store 5. Store 6 had a head meat cutter, a meat cutter and threeclerks* An average of 2lt0 hours were worked each week in Store 6* The union wage scale for unionized workers in late 19U9 was as 53 follows: Head meat cutter - $1*83 per hour; meat cutter - $1*55 per hour; butcher - $1.10 per hour; hostess - $1.03 per hour; and wrap­ pers - $1.03 per hour. Changes noted in meat volume in Stores Ij. and 5* For both Stores U and 5 the weights of all cuts of beef, veal, pork, lamb and mutton that were purchased during the year of the study were col­ lected each week as were the weights of all sides and carcasses. The weights of sausages, cheese, poultry and fish purchased were also collected each week for one year. Gross classifications of different types of meat were found to be very cumbersome to handle in the analysis, so groupings were made* Tables showing weekly pur­ chases of these meat items are placed in Appendix B, see Table 1* In this chapter are shown period purchases of these same items. It seemed appropriate to show total meat sales in both Stores I4. and 5 on the same graph for both 191:8 and 19h9 and this was done in Figure 17. In this graph one can see that total dollar meat sales for Store h were above total dollar sales for Store $ in 191:8 before Store k converted to self-service meat merchandising. But, after period 11 in 191:8 when Store Ij. converted, the spread widened between Store h and Store 5 total meat sales. curred in February, 19U9. The largest difference oc­ During February, 19U9, Store h conducted an extensive advertising program which told of the self-service mer­ chandising of meats. Prior to February the radio and newspaper ads had not mentioned that Store 1: had converted although the conversion had actually been accomplished the previous October. After February, 19U9, meat sales and purchases showed a downward trend. was caused by at least three reasons. This trend Wholesale and retail meat 5k Thousand Dollars Adjusted! to! •IQte Meat Pf igijs 28 22 21 20 Meat prices 18 10 Figure 17. Total Meat Sales by Periods for Stores t and 5 . 55 prices began rising, Store it's advertising campaign was lessened, and Store b ©3cperienced difficulty holding meat quality up to previ­ ous levels. Despite the downward trend, Store U continued to sell more meat than it had prior to conversion. Tables XV and V show a grouped breakdown of the meats that Stores U and S> purchased during the year of the study. When one compares the purchases at the end of the year's study with those at the beginning he will notice that Store 5 was selling about the same amount of meat as before while Store h was selling more at the end than at the beginning despite the fact that apparent large gains in volume had partially evaporated. Perhaps graphs showing meat purchases are more appropriate for actually showing differences apparently brought about by the mer­ chandising of self-service meats* Figure 18 shows how the purchases of the different meat items varied through the year under study. One can notice increased purchases of beef as the large difference* However, a close examination will show that more veal and lamb were also sold. The other meats remained about the same. Figure 19 shows that there was not nearly as much variation in the meat pur­ chases by Store 9 during the year. After the initial increase in purchases, there was a general downward trend and at the end of the year total purchases were almost exactly the same as they were at the beginning. Changes in selected items in Stores It and 5 during the year studied. For the year as a whole, pork made up between 35 and 1*0 percent of the meat purchased and sold in Stores 1* and S* a close second and made up between 30 and 35 percent. Beef was In Figure 20 56 OOIAO co P t C O rH O n CO co uN Pt rH NO OO CO c*— O n c m O O P t co in­ 's CO CM Pt CO U N oo O n in- O n u n o n in­ 's »s *s CM nO rH CM H CM ON NO U N CM Os r— O p H C30 UN UN •s CM U N CO O NO CM cO C— vQ CO NO NO CO IN-Pt U N CM C— CO •s * \ It— CM COO rH CM co SN- CO o O P^ "UN NO CNJ rH U N p f CO CM NO ON co CO IN­ 'S *\ IN- CO NO ptpfNO pt c-~-c— Ptf CM «\ CM o CM *\ On \0•v W»s P«s i —1i —1 CO CO O n O n nO »H cm _4 no H o o *S *S »S «\ ^ NO rH co rH C- CM i— 1 nO O O in- on co pt r— NO 0 4 ® It- NO U N CM rH ON •S *1 C— CM i —ii—I UN On co rH UN CM *s rH CM rH On •s CO Pt i— 1 CO On CO CO CO *s CO CO O NO CO CO On rH •s x) o •H © PH *\ *s *s rH rH U N CM H co co Pt *s rH O o «s »s «s «s O Pt H rH rH CM Pt co CO Table IV. Period Purchases of Meats for Store Pt CO rH OJ i —I U N Os H CO CM ON COPJ- CO NO no rH NO U N CO r— CM UN CO C— »\ »S »\ Pt rH•SU N's On co CM OO (H i—i rH Pt •s i—1 NO Pt pt On co IN- CO O nO CO CM NO UN UN NO *\ ir, r\ CO CM rH rH nO n o r— rH C— CO «s is UN rH pt co co O On *s O CO nO NO H rH rH -CT rH On O O rs »» *s rH P t CM C— NO CO Os U N p f CM U N O pfUy On U N CO C— On On ^ ^ lAO^t NO -Zf CO CO CO C"•s *S •s _rf rH rH UN I—I CO O Pt CO CO •s NO C"-pt i —Ii —) 'UN «s NO NO CO CM i —1i —1 rH rH co rH Pt C2 o p p © © ^ U CD O CQ Ph rH ro P CO •H iH i —] rt i —Irl ffl <*! •< > CO P h Ph rH ctl P o Ph © o PQ P h rH cfl i —I © SJ «sj > CO CO P •H h Ph r—I ct! P O 5>7 ca CM CO T3 o •H U a> co t>~xa c\ _cjco m3 CM•s On On »1 On CM rH -=tCO rH co CO XAM3 rH -r* j\ca•> O n •V "LA rH 1 —1 O C3 C-~ •% •> i —1i —I i —1i —I -CtrH CM -=t M3 CAlA rH co M3 rH _zf On M3 -=« t\ M3 i —I rH CA fA A- A-XA O CO CM C*O V H O^ CM O rH rH iH XAXA-Ct CA rH -H" CM CM XA NO rH A- i —ir—1 O— M3 o C C ft MftCO rH rH rH rH NO CO CAco O CA O O co M3 CA Of np3 t ft a- CM*\ CM XA rH CA On CM O•k H CM CM O CM CA CM ON On•v CM CA nO On A- XA CO On ca *LA rH CMftOft M3 XA CM rH rH CO XA CM CM CM A- M3 rH CM CO CM Gnxa AC\I A H "LACO OJlAO ft ft ft ft ft XA CO CO rH ■LArH CO O H co A- O NO CO rH M3 •k *N a -on On co no ACA Ar-HtA OftOftCO CO O rH C ~4 O On On On CO On XAftrH*\ in XA rH XA nQ M3 CM M3 XA CO ftrHftCO NO o rH CO CM CM CM NO O nQ CM OftCMft 1A XA rH O pj-lA O On_ct o o •k M3 CM 3«N M3 CM rH O CM Table V* Period Pi^chases of Meats for Store 3A ca rH CM rH CO i—ICO i —I rH co CO CKCO rH CM oo AC M XA C M "L* A\rH —*I ft ft On «\i s M3 CM C A - c f rH On M3 -C4 XA ca rH On On CM On 'LTvAO M3 O H 0-4 •% ft co On i —\ XA CM « CO XA ON•N CA 5 NO ** M3 CM M3 XA ■LA a- cm CAPt CA ft ft ft O O rH i —1t—1 C— A-XA A- rH CM _4ft ACN ft> rH rH rH rH u Q) O PQ Pk i—Ii —1 td 33 >0) ■O & h-, tio t cd P §3 1 CrOd POh O ~=t CA M3 CM CM CO CO o CA M3 CM o- M3 ■M3 A- CA M3 NQ rHftON ft NO pH O NO "L• A> CM CA £ O P P p 8 -P P <0 O CA •\ ft PC0 •H Ph rH P O E-h o p . rH rH I— 1 — <*{ a S *5 uf p c d to •i 2 3 cd cd O rH CO P-r dt I—i c d (D i1 > CD W) rH CO 3 O Eh 58 Thousand Pounds 56 SSslSSS U8 m hO XvSSM /vk% 32 Wm ! :rK M ' k m m ip s m ailiMlis 2k • V /..-^tiy^i•»»|V/V‘ *n’- LRJ^fijHy^ -^< '^/l|>rtV ^ / 1 '\' ^ *"' ~v^. >X0AW.v{~-y7:# 16 $W, 0 Figure 18. EaleSjB^^ ^ TggSg^&a&^ i &ll^^.r^-zassS^ g g S ^ Total Meat Purchases by Periods for Store h* ■ 59 Thousand Pounds Uo BEEF;!:!:; &r:£4^u 0<~r& 5?W! V,V.w,,r.•**«*.•«!A Sv$&< *.“fS-*.-. ,i^?~K- 5& isfllif £>i^Aiy.*?F:fc^7Et3>: moked-bared . , . |.. PORK* ?resh$_.i:..W-jVr. '.'S-f.— A1 n^:-*;53?,Jr-3tt-:r:’i:i- :■*:- >7?BAt >7Vtoflju.i' '©aibVe_ -bffal! - y ,r js .-j.-_ t ■; J ..:al— ! 4 1l£‘T®',edi-ble''ofr i - SERF,I toneless. l/W U W ^ O l r —j ;-vr*y>, 3 U 5 PERIODS Figure 19* Total Meat Purchases by Periods for Store 5* rf TT- 1 60 Thous and Pounds PERIODS Figure 20* Period Pork Purchases for Stores U and 5>. 6l we can see that there was more variation in the pork purchases by Store through the year than in the pork purchases by Store The pork purchases at the end of the year by Store it were almost exactly the same as at the beginning, while the pork purchases by Store 5 at the end of the year were almost 1,000 pounds less per period* From these data one cannot say that the self-serving of pork increased the sales of pork* In Figure 21 are shown period purchases of all beef by Stores it and $• Again there was more variation in the purchases of beef by Store it than by Store 5* The data in the case of beef would lead one to conclude that more beef was sold in the store which merchan­ dised prepackaged meat and the graph shows that almost it,000 pounds more beef were being sold per period at the end of the year than at the beginning* In Store £, however, the same amount was being sold at the end of the year as at the beginning. The third largest meat item in terms of tonnage was sausage. From IS to 20 percent of the total tonnage of meats sold in Stores I4. and S was called sausage. This group includes all of the luncheon meats, bolognas, salamis, weiners and frankfurters# Someone once estimated that there are over 200 different sausage items. In Fig­ ure 22 one can see that the variation in sausage purchases in both Stores U and S was much less than for either beef or pork. One can also notice that both stores were selling more sausage when the year ended than when it began. prior to this study. Both these stores had large sausage sales It appeared, however, that Store i|. had a larger increase in sausage sales than did Store S9 and this was probably due to the conversion to 100 percent self-service. 62 Thousand Pounds 22 20 Storej U xj Storei 5 10 12 I9h9 1 2 3 5 U PERIOD 6 Figure 2X* Period Beef Purchases for Store 1* and £>. n I 8 9 10 63 Thousand Pounds 11] 10 Store] 1* Store f> 1 6 2 PERIODS Figure 22* Period Sausage Purchases for Stores U and 8 10 6k Particular notice should be made that the vertical index ori the beef, pork and sausage graphs was in thousands of pounds and that the following graphs have vertical indexes in hundreds of pounds. In Figure 23 it can be seen that fish purchases had wide variations through the year in both stores. It appeared that fish sales were higher in both stores at the end of the year than at the beginning, yet they were much higher in Store 1* than in Store 5. It is there­ fore concluded that the store merchandising meat prepackaged sold more fish than did the service store. Individual pieces of poultry can easily be merchandised in a self-service store. conversion. This practice was followed in Store 1* after its In Figure 2k one can see that Store U had an upward trend in its poultry purchases while Store 5 had a downward trend. There did not seem to be any other conclusion to draw here but that the self-service store purchased and sold more poultry than did the service store. The writer would like to reiterate that the same pricing policies were followed in both Stores k and 5* Veal sales in the two stores were less important than poultry sales| however, Store k sold almost a ton per period and Store 5 sold almost one-half ton per period. In Figure 25 it can be seen that veal sales held about steady in Store 5 while there was an up­ ward trend in veal sales in Store 1;. As with poultry, it appeared that the introduction of self-service meat merchandising caused veal sales to increase* Lamb and mutton sales in most stores in the midwest are usually veiy small* The annual per capita consumption of lamb and mutton in the United States averages about five pounds. People in the New 65 Himar ed Pounds 36 - Store iU \Store I5 12 13 h 5 PERIODS Figure 23* Period Fish Purchases for Stores U and 5* 66 Uo 38 36 tore 1; 3U 32 30 28 26 2h 22 20 Store 5 18 16 III. 12 10 PERIODS 2lu Period Poultry Purchases for Store Ij. and 5. 67 Store i* Store 5; 10 12 19itd 1 1$u9 13 1 2 3 I PERIODS i: 6 Figure 2£* Period Veal Purchaser for Store:-', h arid 5. 7 o o y o 68 England States and in the Pacific northwest eat about three times as much lamb and mutton as the national average so one can easily see that not much lamb and mutton are consumed in Michigan* Stores U and 5 did sell lamb and mutton as ure 26, can be seen in Fig­ Each store was selling practically the same amount at the end of the year as at the beginning* The trend of purchases by Store 5 was slightly downward while in Store 1* there was no decided trend* The conversion to self-service meat merchandising did not seem to have any significant effect on lamb and mutton sales. Weekly data for the year were collected for all cheese items* When all ofthe processed and glass cheeses are a long list* enumerated, one has It was apparent that Cheddar cheese made up the bulk of the cheese purchases and that both cured and processed Cheddar cheeses were important* The three cheeses which bulked large in the total cheese purchases were longhorn, flat and American processed* These three were used to portray the trend in cheese sales for the year studied* The purchases plotted in Figure 27 show cheese purchases to be quite erratic through the year. Both stores purchased iincreasing amounts of these cheeses during the first period of the study; then purchased less the next period. There were peaks and troughs in the purchases by Store h through the year, but less variation in pur­ chases by Store £• There did not seam to be important trends in the purchases by either store and the conversion of Store 1* apparently had no significant effect on cheese sales* more cheese at the end of the year. Both stores were selling It might well be remembered that processed American cheddar cheese is packaged in 1- and 2-pound 69 Hundred Pounds 11 10 Stojre U Store! f? 12 13 19k9 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 PERIODS Figure 26. Period Lamb and Mutton Purchases for Store U and 5. 10 70 Hundred Pounds 22 20 Store h 12 10 Store 10 PERIODS F ig u re 2?' . P e rio d Cheddar Cheese Purchases f o r S tore s U and 71 boxes and almost all stores self-serve it* Also, this particular cheese accounts for most of total cheese sales and it has a fairly long shelf life* One seldom thinks of fresh cheese or cottage cheese as being very important either in pounds or dollar sales in a meat depart­ ment* When considered with beef or pork, cottage cheese is much less important but Figure 28 shows that Store ij sold almost one-half ton in period 3* Figure 28 also shows that Store k sold much more cottage cheese during the year than did Store 5* Most of the gains made during the middle of the year were lost at the end of the year, but it appeared that self-service increased cottage cheese sales considerably* In most of the above graphs Store 1* seemed to have made large gains during the first six months that it had self-service meat mer­ chandising* After the first six months, purchases and consequently sales dropped off* Whether the newness to some customers had worn off and they returned to their old shopping patterns or whether they were discouraged with quality and made their purchases elsewhere was not determined* The writer thought that meat quality did fall when Store h was merchandising its largest meat volume and that this fact was one of about three which caused sales to decline* With a prod­ uct like cottage cheese the quality should have remained the same, and the only explanation which seemed to explain the year-end de­ crease in sales of cottage cheese and some of the other items was that some customers just were not returning to purchase meat and therefore were not making a special trip to buy meat products and cheeses* 72 Hundred Pounds 12 v— 11 .. 10 PERIODS Figure 23# Period Cottage Cheese Purchases for Stores h and 5- 73 In Figure 29 purchases of bacon are shown* and 5 bacon purchases fluctuated widely* For both Stores 1* Store 5 was buying just about the same amount of bacon at the end of the year as at the be­ ginning. Store It, though, was buying more bacon at the end of the year than at the beginning and the trend for the year was up* With bacon, as with several other products, purchasesdeclined near the end of the year of the study, which was October. The chart in Chap­ ter III showed that meat production and consumption was normally lowest in the second or third quarter of the calendar year. So, a drop in purchases for most of the products discussed above in peri­ ods h to 9 could have been seasonal* But, for the same product sold by two stores within the same organization and in similar areas in the same city dissimilar patterns in purchases were probably caused by the difference in merchandising methods, namely self-service ver­ sus service. The meat packers now package many products so that these prod­ ucts can be self-served* Two products which packers package in con­ sumer size units are bacon and lard* We saw where Store h increased its purchases of bacon the first year it had complete self-service merchandising and the writer attributed the increase to its new mer­ chandising method. Lard purchases were charted in Figure 30 and there we see a slightly different picture* In Figure 30 both stores were selling more lard at the end than at the beginning of the year* The self-service store had two peak purchase periods but no conclu­ sion could be drawn saying that self-service increased lard sales* Changes in sales and wages in Stores h and 5* Figure 17 showed total dollar meat sales in 19l|8 and in 19l*9 for both Stores i* and 9* 7k Hundred Pounds Store U 22 10 10 PERIODS Figure 2?• Period Bacon Purchases for Stores U and 5. 75 Hundred Pounds 22 20 Store 16 10 Store 6 2 PERIOD Figure 30* Period Lard Purchases for Stores U and 5. 76 This figure showed that Store 1^ sold more meat than Store 5 in 191*8 before conversion to self-service, and that after converting, its meat sales increased so that the spread was even wider between the two stores* It has often been said that meats are drawing cards in super markets* If customers come to a store to purchase meats, they will probably also buy fruits, vegetables and other groceries. The main reason meat counters are in the back of stores is that in order to purchase meats, customers must pass the fruit, vegetable and gro­ cery counters either on their way back to the meat counters or on their way to the check-out stalls. It seemed important to learn the effect conversion to complete self-service had on total store sales. It has already been shown that Store 1* did sell more meat after con­ version and it was expected that total store sales would also show increases. Figure 31 shows total dollar store sales for both Stores 1* and 5 for 19U8, before Store k converted, and 19l*9, after the conver­ sion. The spread in total dollar store sales averaged about $10,000 in I9I4.8 before Store 1* converted in period 11* After period 11, one can notice the increased spread which averaged close to $30,000. These facts lead to the conclusion that the store with complete self-service did experience an increase in total dollar store sales* To eliminate any influence the changing price level may have caused, the 19l*9 total store sales were corrected to the 191*8 level. These corrected values are shown by the dotted lines in Figure 31* Total dollar store sales in Store 5 averaged about the same in 19l*9 as in 19l*8 when corrected to the 191*8 level while in Store U the av­ erage was higher in 19h9 although the trend was down after the peak 77 Thousand Dollars 1U0 130 tjsd Jbo JL?U3 ;Meiat Pribesi 120 110 100 Vjjddjiustled■;to \ ^ i i. -£ i i. 10 11 12 13 PERIODS Figure 31* Total Store Sales by Periods for Stores U and $. 10 76 in period 2. This was the period when the large advertising cam­ paign was conducted by Store 1*. Wages paid the employees in the meat departments in Stores 1* and 5 were obtained and charted for 191*8 and 19l*9 in Figure 32. Consistent with the tonnage of meat merchandised Store i**s wage bill was always higher in 192*8 than the wage bill of Store 5. In period 11, when Store 1* converted, its wage bill rose considerably more than Store 5 ’s wage bill. This was caused by an over-supply of la­ bor and the fact that it was a training period for the employees of Store 2** After the shakedown period, it was found that one employee in Store 2* was not needed. The release of this one employee helped lower the meat wages in Store 1*. The wage bill in Store 2* after conversion was quite a bit higher through 192*9 than Store £*s wage bill. was Most of the increase due to the increased volume of meat merchandised by Store 2*. The shift to prepackaged meat did not, however, seem to lower Store l**s labor cost per pound of meat merchandised. In 192*8 the meat wage bill in Store 2* averaged 7*51 percent of dollar meat sales. Store 5 was more efficient and its meat wages averaged 7*02 percent of its dollar meat sales. After conversion and with an equal in­ crease in wages for the meat department employees of both stores, Store 2*'s wage bill averaged 8.60 percent of its dollar meat sales and Store 5*s wage bill averaged 7*77 percent of its dollar meat sales. Assuming the increase in wages or the drop in meat prices caused the percentage to rise 0.7 percent, Store it was still less efficient in merchandising its meat practically all of its first year. 79 Hundred Dollars 20 Dilore t* Adjusted jto 119118 j$dai^Prit:es |j M ^ 1 2 3 U j j M 9 6 7 8 I 1 | 191*8 9 10 11 12 13 1 PERIODS li9k9 j 2 3 ; i U 9 : 6 I ; 7 8 ; 9 10 Figure 32* Wages Paid per Period in Meat Departments of Stores U and 5. 80 The physical layout of Store 2j.*s meat department was modernized when Store 1* was converted to merchandise prepackaged meat but most of the modernization dealt with the packaging room only* The loca­ tion of the holding cooler was not changed nor were two of the meat blocks. The over-all meat department equipment was not arranged for most efficient work. This inefficient layout probably accounted for the increased labor costs. Figure 33 shows the labor cost per pound of meat merchandised in Stores It and $. In the year studied Store 5>'s labor cost per pound of meat merchandised ranged from four to almost five and one-half cents a pound. When Store it first started selling prepackaged meat it had a labor cost per pound of slightly over seven cents* This cost per pound dropped to four and one- quarter cents in period 2 when it merchandised its largest volume of meat. six. Then it rose to five and one-half cents per pound in period From period 6 through period 10 the labor cost per pound fluc­ tuated between five and five and one-half cents. At the end of the year* Store l^s labor cost per pound dropped below Store 5 ’s labor cost per pound for the first time. The data presented in Figure 33 show that this was probably caused more from rising labor costs per pound in Store $ than from Store 1 becoming more efficient in its prepackaging operations; however* Figure 33 shows that Store h did lower its labor costs per pound from one and one-half to two cents from the time it til the end of the year. The year-end started prepackaging meat un­ laborcost of five and three- tenths cents per pound was eight-tenths cents per pound higher than the four and one-half cents which the P.M.A. found was the average 81 Cents Per Pound 7*0 _ 5.5 Stored h 5.0 U.o Stdre 6 Store 2 10 12 PERIODS Figure 33. Labor Cost per Pound of Meat Merchandised by Stores 2,14,5 and 6. 82 of the eighty prepackaged stores included in its stud Comparison of data gathered from Stores 2 and 6# Stores 2 and 6 were owned by the same organization and were located in similar areas# Store 2 was a self-service meat store and Store 6 was a ser­ vice meat store. 5# These two stores are compared as were StoresIj. and The data analyzed for these two stores were for the same time periods exactly as those used for the analysis of changes in Stores 1* and 5* Variations in purchases of specified meat items are shown in Figure 3U for Store 2* There was not as much variation in these purchases as there was in the purchases by Store k* Store 2 had been prepacking meat for about six months before the collection of the year ’s data began. in its purchases. This fact probably accounts for the evenness Store 2 had some changes in tonnage purchased but practically all the change could be accounted for by the usual sea­ sonal variation found in the production and consumption of meat. The gains that are made in dollar meat sales, when meat stores shift to prepackaged meat, have usually come in the first few months after converting# If this were true for Store 2, it was natural that the data presented in Figure 3U would not show any increase in purchases. Heat men have told the writer that holding meat sales up to the level attained during the first few months was the big prob­ lem. Store 1| was not dD le to do this, but Store 2 was* There was not much change in the total purchases at the end of the year. was there any significant change in any particular meat items. £&Sdinger, et# al., Retailing Prepackaged Meats, op. cit., p 13* Nor 83 Thousand Pounds lit lf S iii fPORK— -smoked, dured'fg :' & « R K 5fre mm :y;.y:\-.y-‘ m m __ ■ A V*\"-VV\v^.Y-.- :T-‘ -:^v: :=--. .V .vw:M -\v ”.-VVVVVV: ~ r -■^liEF -.V.: ~ y . r . < jfc'Vl-." - y - 4'-.vv:;v^-v.v-'-v' -v -vv.v*- ^=V.v\ .'.'.■■.•.iV.-'s-i-.'!-.h «i’i -v>-- VrVV .■v:w vv.^1 .v. <-y lv ^■.vVVwr.-"-.'^.v/ivr "V ~V^Vf?WW-W- .-■-VV.VVrV It PERIODS Figure 3I4.. Total Meat Purchases by Periods for Store 2. li-VXVVv-Iv 81* Store 6 was a service store. It was not possible to get data on purchases broken down into specific meats. All that was obtained was a series of figures giving total meat purchases by periods for the year. In Figure 35 one can see that total purchases by Store 6 varied very similarly to total purchases by Store 2. At the end of the year, Store 6 was buying less meat than at the beginning* This fact was not true with any of the other three stores in the study and indicated that Store 6 had lost some of its volume. The manage­ ment told the writer that a surly meat manager in Store 6 had lost quite a few of his customers and that the meat volume suffered be­ cause of this. There was a prepackaged meat store in the area which was not in the sample of stores. this self-service store. Business could have been lost to If the surly butcher were the reason for losing business, this points out one of the advantages of prepackag­ ing and self-serving meat. In self-service stores customers do not deal with butchers* Do liar meat sales, plotted in Figure 36, show that Store 2 maintained about the same volume through the year. Again the 19h9 data was converted to the 1$?1*8 base and the corrected values are shown by the dotted lines in the graph. Store 6, however, had smaller dollar meat sales at the end of the year, even when 191*8 prices of meat were used. In Figure 37 one can see how total dollar store sales changed through the year. Store 2 had a slightly downward trend in total store sales while Store 6 had a distinct downward trend in total dollar store sales. The reader should notice how closely total dol­ lar store sales vary with total dollar meat sales. 85 Thousand Pounds 10 12 PERIODS Figure 35- Total Meat Purchases by Periods for Store 6. 11 86 Thousand Dollars 22 ^Adjus-tied to 119^8 meat prfices Store 2 "‘U, \ H , Adjusted t<| 19^8|meat prices j ....... ......... ,, torh 6 12 13 1 2 3 h 5 PERIODS 6 7I 8 Figure 36 » Total Meat Sales by Periods for Stores 2 and 6, 9 10 11 67 Thousand Dollars •Md'at‘"’'Pr±;ees' •AdJust'Q-d"”t-d |. 19U8 Meat Prides 1?L8 I19h9 11 PERIODS Figure 37* Total Store Sales by Periods for Stores 2 and 6. 88 Upon re-examination of Figure 33 one thing stands out. It is that Stores 2 and 6 used their labor more efficiently than did Stores U and 5>, Stores 2 and 6 merchandised a pound of meat about one cent per pound cheaper than did Stores 1* and 5* This indicates that costs are determined in a large part by the way in which the company is administered and not entirely by the method of merchan­ dising the goods. Comparison of Stores 2 and It which were both self-service meat stores* Stores 2 and 1; were operated by different companies and were located in different cities in Michigan, They were both self- service meat stores, they were of approximately the same size and they had similar operating characteristics. The following discus­ sion gives an inter-company analysis of the two self-service stores* Store i;, after its conversion in 19^8, increased its meat pur­ chases, and after period 13, bought more meat during all of 19^9 than did Store 2, In period 2 there was a wide spread in meat pur­ chases in favor of Store 2, But, as has been pointed out, Store 2 lost some of its volume and purchases declined. Generally, the trend of total meat purchases in pounds for both stores was quite similar* Figure 38 shows the variations in meat purchases for the two stores. Total dollar meat sales for Stores 2 and I4. showed even more similar changes as is shown in Figure 39* As would be expected, the dollar meat sales of Store h were higher than those of Store 2, Dollar meat sales fell off more for Store k than did those for Store 2 but remained larger through all of the periods studied* Total dollar store sales exhibited similar variations through 89 Thousand Pounds iore Store 19U9 10 12 PERIODS Figure38. Total Meat Purchases by Periods for Stores 2 and 1** 90 Store 27 Store 22 21 20 12 ■lflifl. 13 Figure39* 2 Total Meat 6 8 h 7 $ PERIODS Sales by Periods for Stores 2 and.!*. 3 10 91 the year of the study. ure 1*0. But one significant fact stands out in Fig­ Total dollar store sales were not as variable in either store as were pounds of meat purchased or total dollar meat sales* This meant that other food sales compensated for losses in meat sales at different times of the year and that meat sales compensated for decreases in other food sales in a somewhat similar manner* It should be noticed that total dollar store sales for Store h were larger proportionately over Store 2 than either meat purchases or meat dollar sales* This occurred because meat sales were a smaller percentage of total store sales in Store h than they were in Store 2* More will be said on this point later* In Figure 33 the labor cost of merchandising a pound of meat in the four stores was shown* It was pointed out that Store 2 was op­ erating at a lower cost than Store 1*. this was true* In Figure i+l one can see why The two stores started out the year paying about the same total meat wages* Store J4. added an employee for one period then discharged that employee* wages were fairly constant* During the rest of the year, meat Store 2, however, showed a downward trend in meat wages for the first nine periods. This was accom­ plished by releasing employees, both full and part-time, and by eliminating over-time employment. It can easily be seen why Store 2 did have lower labor costs per pound of meat when the total wages and total meat purchases are examined for the two stores. Comparison of Stores 5 and 6 which were both service stores* Stores 5 and 6 were owned and operated by different companies in different Michigan cities. Both stores had butcher service, were of about the same size and used similar methods for merchandising their 92 Thousand Dollars 1M> 130 Adjjustecf to 19it8 Meajt Prices 120 \ Storie 110 100 Adjusted to l probably lost some customers* After period 2, purchases in the two stores moved consistently together* The trend was downward for both stores* When one takes a look at total dollar meat sales in Figure b3>, he sees again that meat purchases and sales follow similar patterns* In this figure one can see that Store 6 had sharply reduced dollar meat sales. The yearly trend was down but when the dollar sales in 19h9 were adjusted to 191*8 meat prices much of the losses were cor­ rected. It appeared that no matter how the writer approached the prob­ lem Store 6 went downhill during the period studied* Not only did meat purchases and sales decline but also total store sales as one can see in Figure U** When Store 5*s total store sales were all corrected to 191*8 meat prices, there was only a slight difference in total store sales at the end of the year as compared with the begin­ ning* Store 6, however, was taking in only 50 percent of the dol­ lars it took in in 191*8 at the beginning of the study. But even if Store 6 found itself receiving fewer dollars through 191*9, it continued to pay out about the same amount for meat wages all through 19l*9. One less employee was used in 19i*9, but even so, with the declining volume of business it appeared that even 95 Thousand Pounds Stojre 5 20 12 F ig u re U l . 2 6 PERIODS 7 8 T o ta l Meat Purchases by P erio ds f o r S to re s 5 and 6 . 9 10 96 Thousand Dollars 22 21 ‘ tore 20 /"AdjUsted tbo l^Ljis Meat; Pricei 18 Store! Meat Prices 12 11 6 2 PERIODS Figureli3. Total Meat Sales by Periods for Stores 5 a^d 6. 10 97 Thousand Dollars 100 Adjusted tcj> 19U8 ‘Meat prices 60 Store 6 4-Ad jus ted t$ 191-1-8[Meat prices 12 Figure UU. Total Store Sales by Periods for Stores 5 and 6. 10 93 another employee should have been transferred* Figure hS shows the relatively constant meat wages paid in Store 6 after the holidays and after the employee was released* meat wages* Store 5 had slightly rising It, too, should have used its labor more effectively since the volume of meat it handled decreased* Both these stores had increased labor costs on a per pound basis in 19h9* Some comments on the operation of all four stores* Referring again to Figure 33, we can see that the labor cost per pound for merchandising meat varied considerably in all four stores* Stores 2, 1; and 5 made quite a bit of progress reducing labor costs the first four or five periods of the study* reductions after the first of the year. Even Store 6 showed some The latter few periods found the stores having rising per unit labor costs* We must remem­ ber that per unit labor costs vary inversely with the tonnage han­ dled, if the labor force is fixed* With a given force and the nor­ mal seasonal variation in the consumption of meat the per unit labor cost would naturally change. This seasonal variation in per unit labor cost was present in this study. And not only that, vacations were taken in the summer and fall months* contribute to the yearly variations. These paid vacations also But even if the seasonal vari­ ations were adjusted or evened out there would still have been changes in the per unit labor costs through the year of the study* Labor in the self-service stores became more efficient as the year moved along. There was no reason to believe that the labor in the service stores became any more efficient. Another reason for the changes in per unit labor costs was the change in business volume which was not paralleled by a change in the labor supply. Labor in 99 Dollars 2000 1900 iStjore 1800 1700 1600 II4OO 1300 1200 1100 1000 900 800 700 19U9 10 12 PERIODS F ig u re Wages P a id P er P e rio d i i Meat D epartm ents o f S to re s 5 a*id 6. 100 a meat market is usually an indivisible factor* has to hire a worker for full-time work. are employed. The manager usually Some high school students But the point is that if the meat tonnage falls 10 percent it is difficult to reduce labor by 10 percent exactly unless 10 persons were employed. One of the important reasons why Store 2 was more efficient in using labor than was Store k was that its meat department was laid out more efficiently. This fact points out the importance of meat department layout and arrangement when a company or manager antici­ pates conversion to prepackaged meat merchandising. A poor physical layout or arrangement may often prohibit a meat manager from using his labor efficiently. He may even need to keep an additional em­ ployee because of this fact, even though he realizes his per unit labor costs are too high. A rearrangement may often be less expen­ sive in the long run than paying for inefficient labor. In the writer1s opinion Store 1; could have operated with one less employee if physical layout in the store were better arranged. The difference in the policies of management were very apparent in this study. There were two companies as has been mentioned. One company stressed meats in its advertisements and to its employees* The other company did not stress any one food line. The company which stressed meats consistently had a higher ratio of meat sales to total sales. The reader can see the difference in the policies of the two companies by looking at Figure 1±6* Percentages were obtained for Stores U and 5 Tor 19l*8 and 19^9 but only for the periods of the study for Stores 2 and 6. In 19l|8 when both Stores h and 5 were 101 bore-2 j. 4 . 1 2 3 u 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 i 2 3 Ij. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 PERIODS Figure lid Meat Sales as a Percentage of Total Store Sales in Stores 2, [>., 5 and 6 fox: 19U8 a*id 19U9* 102 service stores meat sales made up from 20 to 2k percent of total store sales* After the Christmas holidays of 191*8, both stores re­ turned to their usual percentages even though Store b was a selfservice meat store in 19l*9® In 19h9 Store 2 showed increasing percentages of meat sales to total store sales, but Store 6 showed decreasing percentages* The trend was not down much for Store 6 and this was because total store sales and total meat sales fell about proportionately. We saw ear­ lier that Store 2 experienced some drop in total store sales but that meat sales held steady through the year* These facts account for the rising trend line of Store 2 fs percentage ratios* The significant fact here was that both Stores 2 and 6 were able to sell a higher percentage of meat to total store sales than were Stores 1* and 5>. above Store Store 6 averaged about seven percentage points and Store 2 averaged about ten percentage points above Store [j.* The stress given meat by the management seemed to be the reason why these two companies had different percentage ratios. In this chapter comparisons between service and self-service meat merchandising have been made* Changes that occurred in indi­ vidual meat items were examined as were changes in meat purchases, meat sales, total store sales and labor costs. cludes this section on sales* This chapter con­ 10b CHAPTER V H METHODOLOGY USED TO GET CONSUMER RESPONSE AND GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE A new merchandising technique will become a success if the general public accepts it# If the public does not, it is doomed to failure# With little knowledge of their consumer*s reactions, many organizations introduced self-service meat merchandising# The conversion of a ser­ vice meat store to self-service involves an outlay of considerable mag­ nitude# Consumers may prefer self-service but still not like certain practices# This section of the report deals with the reactions of a sample of consumers to prepackaged meat in general and to specific practices in particular# This chapter deals with the methods employed to get the consumer reactions# Extent of self-service meat merchandising when consumer reaction study was made# Mention has been made of the rapid growth of pre­ packaging meat# When this study was planned in the Spring of 19h9, there were seventeen 100-percent stores in Michigan and these seventeen stores were located in nine cities# than 100,000 customers# These stores probably served less The population in the nine cities was around 3,000,000 so only one person in thirty in these cities have been ex­ posed to prepackaged fresh meat# These facts seemed to rule out any usual sampling procedures because it was felt that not enough people in an ordinary sample would have sufficient knowledge on prepackaged meat to make worthwhile criticisms# It was decided that the people to contact were the ones who were shopping in stores which merchandised prepackaged meats# 105 Description of the sampling procedure. Four stores offered their cooperation in this study* They were Store 1, Store 2, Store 3, and Store U* One store was located in Lansing and the other three were in Detroit* The managers of these stores agreed to have their baggers place questionnaires in each shopper*s grocery bag for a period of one week. The questionnaires were folded and stuffed in business reply envelopes which were addressed to the writer* When the shopper reached home she found this envelope among her groceries* Accompanying the questionnaire was an introductory letter which told the homemaker the purpose of the questionnaire* Each shopper, regardless of whether meat had been purchased, was given the questionnaire* (See Appendix A) To decide the number of schedules to prepare each store manager was asked to give us his estimated customer count for the week when the survey was to be made* The combined estimated customer count added to 15,000 for the week which was designated for passing out the question­ naires* In order to make sure that every customer received a question­ naire during the week, 16,000 were prepared and taken to the four stores* Nearly 15,000 were distributed during the week. There was no prize or money incentive offered to the shoppers for filling in and returning the schedule* A statement was made in the introductory letter that data from the returned questionnaires would help a graduate student write a report* There were actually lU,831 questionnaires distributed* able replies totaled 1075 or a 7»2 percent total return. The use- These 1075 gave enough replies in most of the cells for reliable conclusions* There was a return of 11*7 percent from Store U, 10.3 percent from Store 1, U*5 percent from Store 2, and 3*8 percent from Store 3* The 106 questionnaire was pretested by having secretaries and clerks in the department fill it out and make suggestions* After this first pre­ test, a second pretest was made under actual store conditions with a small sample of homemakers* Beliefs and hypothesis tested* It was believed that shoppers appreciated an opportunity to spend less time buying their meat supplies* One of the advantages given by store managers who had con­ verted to prepackaged meat was that customers could shop more quickly* One of the purposes of this section of the study was to find out if shoppers thought less time was needed when purchasing their meat in packages* It was believed that customers would say that they actually pre­ ferred to buy prepackaged meat* which was tested in this section* This was the principal hypothesis In the test it was expected that it would be possible to say something about the characteristics of the group which liked prepackaged meat and about the group which stated it disliked prepackaged meat* In the questionnaire questions were asked about shopping habits of the customers* They were asked how often they shopped, how they stored their meat at home, what mode of transportation they used be­ tween their home and the store and other personal questions which were thought might have a bearing on the answers given* Methods employed in the analysis* All data from the returned questionnaires were edited, coded and punched on International Busi­ ness Machine (IBM) cards* accuracy* columns* These cards were checked and verified for IBM’s were used to sort the cards on each of the punched These first sorts were straight, simple sorts of the answers 107 ■bo each question on the questionnaires* These sorts gave the general characteristics of the population sampled "which are presented as simple frequency distributions* In this chapter the reader is given a chance to examine these characteristics* Five main questions were asked to obtain the general characteris­ tics* These five dealt with: 1) Size of family; 2) Income; 3) Weekly food expenditures; U) Weekly meat expenditures; and 5>) Age of respond­ ent* In a later chapter more complete analyses are presented* These were accomplished by cross tabulating or sorting on one column, say income, and then using income as a control, resorting on all the other columns* This two-way frequency distribution permitted conclusions to be drawn regarding the effect that the five basic control factors had upon the answers the respondents gave to the rest of the questions on the schedule* Size of family* The shoppers in these four super-markets gave the number of children, adults and boarders, who ate at least two meals per day in their home, as the answer to the question regarding the size of their family* Children were counted as adult equivalents* This procedure is open to question but it was impossible to arrive at any satisfactory solution whereby two or three children could be counted as one adult when a food study, as this, was concerned* dren age six eat as much as one adult? Do two chil­ Or is the age five or eight? There is a great variation among adults and the writer thought an answer to this question was impossible* Probably a satisfactory group­ ing system can be found for some items and for some foods in partic­ ular, say milk. 108 The respondents appeared to come from representative families# In Table VI it can be seen that families ranging in size from one through nine people answered the questionnaire* It should be mention­ ed here that there were a very, very few families having a total of more than nine people* Because of the small number and the difficulty of sorting IBM cards on two columns, families of nine or more were grouped together* Eighty percent of the families had either two, three or four people in them* There was no significant difference between any two stores nor between any store and the combined total# It was concluded that the respondents were typical in regards to family size because the average American family has between three and four members* Average weekly income* The four stores which were chosen were in middle income areas and were chosen as representative of super-markets frequented by families earning average size incomes* The questionnaires were distributed in the Spring of 19U9 so the income data pertains to that year# The families were asked to give their incomes, after tax and re­ tirement deductions, which included the income by everyone in the family* Four income divisions were tabulated* As Table VII shows the 60 to 89 dollar class contained the largest percentage of the families in Stores 1, 2, and 3* In Store !| there were a few more families in the 30 to 59 dollar class than there were in the 60 to 89 and also a few more in the lowest income class. These facts indicated that the customers of Store k had lower incomes on the average than did the customers in the other three stores; however, using statistical tests the difference was not significant and was probably due to chance# 109 Table VI, Percentage Distribution of Number of People in Family, Number of People All Stores in Family Store 1 Store 2 Store 3 Store li Combined percent percent percent percent percent 1 2 3 1 26 29 0 19 30 0 28 39 3 32 22 2 28 27 k 3 6 27 13 3 30 16 3 19 8 3 2k 12 h 25 13 3 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 3 0 0 2 Less than 1 Less than 1 7 8 9 and over Table VII. Percentage Distribution of Average Weekly Income. Average Weekly Income All Stores Combined percent Store 1 percent Store 2 percent Store 3 percent Store k percent Under $30 $30-59 1 12 1 9 0 Hi 10 liO 3 20 $60-89 Over $90 uu h3 58 32 48 38 36 lit U5 32 110 The chi-square test was used* The net income of the average of all the families was between $U000 and $U500. The income figures again substantiate the assumption that the families shopping in these stores were average middle income families« Amount spent for food per week* In the United States the average family spends between 20 and 30 percent of its disposable income for food* The percentage varies through the years as the price level and food prices change* It averaged 23 percent in the 1935-39 period but rose to 28 percent in both 19U7 and 19U8* Table VIII shows the percentage distribution of weekly food ex­ penditures in the four stores. Eighty-seven percent of all the re­ spondents spent from 11 to 30 dollars for food per week* Assuming 25 to 30 percent of the disposable income were spent for food would lead us to expect the two classes 11to 20 and 21 to 30 dollars to have the two highest percentages* Again, the sample seemed to give the repre­ sentative data which were desired* Amount spent for meat per week* percent of its food budget for meat* The average family spends 25 This means that 6 or 7 percent of a family’s disposable income is spent for meat in the United States* If the majority of the families in the sample had incomes ranging from 60 to 90 dollars a 4reek, we would expect the expenditures for meat to be about 6 or 7 percent of this range* In Table IX one can see that over one-half of the families spent between 6 and 10 dollars per week for meat and that one-third spent between 1 and 5 dollars per week for meat* The average expenditure Ill Table VIII. Percentage Distribution of Average Amount Spent for Food per Week. Average Amount Spent for All Stores Food per Week Store 1 Store 3 Store 2 Store U Combined percent percent percent percent percent $ 1-10 11-20 21-30 1 hh U5 0 U5 U7 1 £2 36 31-1*0 1*1-60 61-80 8 2 0 7 1 0 8 3 0 13 57 27 3 0 Less than 1 k h9 38 7 2 Less than 1 Table IX. Percentage Distribution of Average Amount Spent for Meat ______ per Week. ____________________________________________ Average Amount Spent for All Stores Store U Store 3 Store 2 Store 1 Combined Meat per Week percent percent percent percent percent $1-5 6-10 27 65 2h 68 31 57 56 ho 36 57 11-15 16-20 6 2 7 1 12 0 h 0 6 1 112 for meat by the average family in the sample was slightly over six dollars per week* Assuming six percent of the disposable income were spent for meat and knowing that the average weekly expenditure was six dollars, one arrives at a disposable annual income of $5200* This is higher than the above data indicated as the average annual dispos­ able income* If, however, it is assumed that seven percent of the in­ come is spent for meat, we find that the annual income would be a little over $hh00 and this figure comes within the range given above* Here again the data given by the respondents appeared to be reliable and conformed to published national averages* The writer has pointed out why it was impossible to use any stan­ dard sampling procedure* This was because too few in the total populations in the cities sampled had had contact with prepackaged fresh meat* To get back enough useable replies using any standard mail sampling procedure would have necessitated a larger budget than was available* It was then shown that the families represented by the returned schedules were middle income families who were of average size* These families spent the expected proportion of their incomes for food and for meato 113 CHAPTER VI CONSUMER REACTION TO PREPACKAGED MEAT In 'this chapter the reactions of the respondents to prepackaged meat are given major prominence# Reasons why this sample of custom­ ers liked or disliked prepackaged meats are examined# These respond­ ents had ideas about practices which they thought the meat managers should adopt to provide them with better services# These ideas are explored# The chapter begins with some general characteristics of the re­ spondents# The age of the respondents is examined as are methods of travel used in getting to the stores and the ways meat was stored in the homes« The frequency of meat buying is explored as well as the identity of the meat purchaser# Age of respondent# Each questionnaire contained a question which asked the age of the respondent. (See Appendix A) The writer felt that older-aged shoppers might have become so adjusted to buying meat the service way that they would not prefer prepackaged meat# There were no published age classifications for the two cities involved and so this factor was not used in the preceding chapter for judging the reliability of the sample# There were three age groups given to respondents to check# These classes were thought to be representative of the populations and it was hoped that an approximately equal number would fall into each class# However, the returned questionnaires showed over twice as many respondents in the 30 to 50 year group as in either other class# These facts did not rule out the use of the lower and upper age classes# nU There were sufficient numbers in each class for reliable reporting of their reactions* The age of the respondents was used as one of the controls for cross-tabulating* The results of the cross tabulations are presented later in the report* The simple frequency distribution of respondents1 ages for the four stores and for all stores combined is given in Table X* Who did the meat buying* Anyone who stops to notice the custom­ ers in a supermarket will see several men doing the shopping* If men are important in food buying for their own homes* this factor should have importance for store managers* not attract men and vice versa* Displays that attract women might To learn who purchased most of the family meat supply this question was included on the questionnaire* The results from the survey showed that women were still the im­ portant family meat buyers* Over four-fifths of the meat shoppers in the sample were wives or homemakers* Sons and daughters were not im­ portant meat buyers— they comprised less than two percent of the total* Men, however, made up one-sixth of the family meat buyers. These re­ sults showed that men must be considered when meat merchandising methods are established* The simple frequency distribution of meat buyers is given in Table XI* How often meat was purchased* All who frequent super markets know that the stores have more customers at the end of a week than at the beginning* But do the week-end shoppers buy a week's supply of meat, or a day’s supply? To be able to answer this question the shoppers were asked how often they purchased meat* 115 Table X. Percentage Distribution of Age of Respondents. Store 3 percent Store h percent All Stores Combined percent 16 26 27 23 66 73 59 he 60 13 11 15 27 17 Age of Respondents Store 1 percent Under 30 years 21 30 to 50 years Over £0 years Store 2 percent Table X I . percentage Distribution of Who Did Most of the Meat Buying. In Your Family, All Stores “Who Does Most of Store 1; Store 3 Combined Store 1 Store 2 the Meat Buying? percent percent percent percent percent Son Daughter Wife 0 1 85 k 0 83 0 0 87 1 1 75 1 Less than 1 82 Husband Single Adult 13 1 12 1 13 0 23 0 16 1 116 The results showed that one-half of the respondents purchased meat only once each week* Forty-five percent of those answering the question said they purchased meat two or three times a week* four percent said they bought meat daily* larger than many would have thought* supply of meat at one time* Only Four percent, however, was Fewer people bought a two—week1s Only one percent of the sample fell here* The percentage distribution is shown in Table XII for all stores* How meat was stored in the home* Another indication that the sample was composed of middle income families was given by the method used for meat storage* The mechanical refrigerator was used by about 90 percent of the respondents from each of the stores* The ice box was the second most important device for the entire sample; yet in two of the stores, the home freezer was more important* The ice box and the home freezer were used by only ten percent of the families in the sample* The window box was still used by some families* Table XIII shows the importance of mechanical refrigeration for storing meat* Mode of travel used to get to the stores* It was mentioned earlier that the stores which were used in this study were large super markets* Super markets usually draw customers from a large area and the writer wanted to find out how these shoppers got to the stores* Table XIV shows the method used by the respondents who shopped in the four stores* Over four-fifths of the shoppers drove automobiles to the super markets when shopping* This fact points out the importance for having a large parking area for use of super market customers* Inadequate parking space may cause super markets to lose business they otherwise would get* Customers who walked to the super market comprised the second 117 Table XII, Percentage Distribution of How Often Meat Was Bought. How Often Is All Stores Meat Bought? Store 1 Store 2 Store 3 Store U Combined percent percent percent percent percent Daily Weekly 3 h9 2 52 Two or Three Times a Week Every Two Weeks k7 1 US l Table XIII. h 5o 56 2 37 2 U5 i Percentage Distribution of the Ifey Meat Was Stored. How Is Meat Stored? Store 1 Store 2 percent^ percent Mechanical Refrigerator Ice Refrigerator Home Freezer Other 37 6 55 Store 3 percent Store 1± percent 91 3 93 1 9h 3 88 10 6 0 6 0 3 0 0 2 All Stores Conibined percent 91 5 h Less than 1 118 Table XIV. Percentage Distribution of Mode of Travel Used to Shop for Meat. Do You Usually Shop for Meat by? Auto On Foot Taxi All Stores Combined percent Store 1 percent Store 2 percent Store 3 percent 88 11 0 8U 15 0 86 16 0 86 10 1 86 12 Less than 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 3 0 2 Less than 1 Bus or Street Car Bicycle Store 2* percent Table XV. Percentage Distribution of Why Prepackaged Meat Was Bought. All Stores "Why Do You Buy Combined Store h Prepackaged Meat? Store 1 Store 2 Store 3 percent percent percent percent percent 5 8 k 5 7 k 6 8 h h 12 u Can Examine the Meat 16 Mo Particular Reason 0 Only Kind Sold In Store 3 15 l 15 0 20 1 7 5 7 5 h 3 2 2 3 16 16 16 22 17 6 5 6 6 6 15 9 15 9 22 Less than 1 17 7 13 Hi Less than 1 10 Less Bone and Waste Larger Selection Meat Is Fresher Meat Has Higher Quality Weight and Price Are Given No Talking With Butcher Can Shop More 16 Quickly More Sanitary 9 Convenient Selection 13 of Sizes 5 9 h 17 Less than 1 119 largest group# These customers were undoubtedly ones who lived near the super market# less than three percent of the shoppers used public transportation when shopping# Overall preference for meat merchandising method# Since these stores had merchandised prepackaged meat for several months, it was assumed that those customers who bought their meat in these stores had a preference for prepackaged meat. the questionnaire# However, all shoppers were given Those people shopping in these stores who did not like prepackaged meat had their opportunity to give their reasons why they preferred butcher service# Combining the answers given by all respondents it was found that 75 percent preferred to buy meat prepackaged. Seventeen percent stated they preferred to buy their meat supplies from a butcher* Eight per­ cent said it made no difference to them whether the meat was prepack­ aged or not* These data prove conclusively that the shoppers in the sample definitely preferred prepackaged meat# All the customers in the sample were asked if they thought they had to pay a higher price for prepackaged meat as compared with com­ parable meat sold the service way# Seventy-six percent said they did not think they had to pay more for prepackaged meat while 2h percent said that they thought prepackaged meat cost more# The writer had talked with several people, before doing the study, who thought stores selling prepackaged meat were charging more per pound than those stores selling comparable meat over the counter# He also talked with chain store executives who said that they were selling prepackaged meat for the same price as service meat* The results of 120 “this study indicate the majority of the shoppers in the sample felt that the chain store executives were correct* Why respondents like prepackaged meat* All customers given the schedule were asked to state why they liked prepackaged meat* swers were tabulated and are presented in Table XV* three reasons were given the most weight* packaged meat because: The an­ In all four stores The respondents like pre­ 1) They could examine the meat by lifting out the package and looking at the meat* on the label on the package* 2) The weight and price were given They could easily tell if the cut of meat fwere^arge enough by looking at the weight and they could tell if they could afford the cut by looking at the total price* 3) They felt that they could shop more quickly when they bought prepackaged meat* As one can see in Table XV, one-tenth of the respondents liked the larger selection offered in these self-service stores* also liked the displaying of different sized cuts* One-tenth Seven percent thought that these self-service stores were more sanitary than service stores* Six percent said they preferred prepackaged meat because they did not have to talk with a butcher* Why some respondents did not like prepackaged meat* The reasons given by the families in the sample as to why they did not like prepack­ aged meat were not tabulated as W9re the reasons for liking it* writer did select three reasons which were given quite often. three were: T^e These l) Some meats were off flavor* 2) Customers were sometimes fooled about excess fat or bone in the package; and 3) Some packages of chops or steaks had cuts which were not sawed uniformly. So that the reader could see for himself what this group of respondents had to say against prepackaged meat a selected list of actual statements is in­ cluded here* 121 "Can11 see how, when, or where they've been packaged. the weights." Can't trust "1 have not had good results with the packaged liver. It has not been as satisfactory as freshly cut liver that I have been able to select myself. Also I have found it necessary to have steaks (sirloin) cut thicker and Canadian bacon in the piece as these have not been packaged." "Perhaps the only objection to me is that prepackaging gives to the "just looking" type of customer the opportunity to handle items un­ necessarily." "One can't always get what one wants such as thick pork chops for stuffing (with pockets) and baking. I probably would discontinue buying packaged meats if for instance pork chops were packaged in such a way as to conceal excess fat. Today I bought a package of pork chops 90 cents — 5 unusually small thin chops - I never would have bought them that way, had I seen them cut off. I never would have. Another experience like that and I will buy my meat elsewhere." "ViTould like pork chops at least 1 inch thick." "Most meat is put up in 2 large quantities for small families of 2 or 3 In family. Now take weiners for one item there are 8 or more in a package where Ij. or 3 is enough fora family of 2." "On your standing rib package, I never buy them when the rib is cut. Also I like two ribs better than one." "The only objection I have to prepackaged meats is that often times the cardboard stiffner on the back of the package hides the fat and other waste that was not evident at thetime of purchase." "Meat is frequently handled toomuch by customers and torn badly." wrappings "I find most roasts a little too large for my needs, just 2 of us." "In packaged meat all the fat is on the bottom and you don't know what your're getting•" "Package smaller amounts of hot dogs." "I do think, at first, the prepackaged meat was better trimmed than at times later on that I've noticed. In fact several times I did not take loin lamb chops because there was too much fat left on. And they're expensive as is." "In large pkgs. of chops, (h to 6), all chops are not same cut. ladies, I believe, prefer all cuts same in pkg." Vfe 122 "Sometimes the meat lacks flavor." "My only objection to prepackaged meat is that I am afraid some had stood too long. The open self-serve counters aren’t particularly cold." "Would prefer having the worse side of the meat (roast beef* for instance) placed on top. Several times I have been quite disappointed to find when I arrived home and took the meat out of the package, that all that glitters is not gold. In other words, the packager had placed the sunny side up, and the fat side down and none of us likes fat. How about the cardboard tray - is that taken into consideration when weighing the meat? You might also tell the management we don11 like the practice of charging us tax on bottle deposits. It’s being donelli" "They do not replenish cabinets often enough on heavy shopping days." "Would like smaller packages of meat such as 2 pork chops and small roasts." "Prepackaged is preferred — providing manager of meat dept, is conscientious, having been stung twice now." "Meat could be prepackaged in smaller amounts for small families." "Sometimes I like special cutting such as pork chop pockets — chops to be stuffed, etc." two "The only objection to prepackaged meat is that you can see only one side, the other side being covered with cardboard." "We find more fat and bones than when examined while wrapped." "Would like smaller pieces of live sausage - about 1/2#. like smaller pkgs. ground beef - 1/2#." Would "Many times, one finds the top piece of meat is verychoice, the meat underneath Is cut too thin or it is all bones." but "I would like to see a scale placed so customers can check weightmaking allowance for paper in wrapping." "Can’t always get the weight or size wanted." "The only prepackaged meat I like or buy in your store Ischicken. It is the only meat that looks better that way." "I would like to see both sides of the meat." "I like prepackaged meats primarily for quicker shopping. I object to them when I need help in selecting good cuts and because I want cuts fresh." 123 "Only one comment — don11 cover up the packages by putting loin chops on top and end cuts underneath, When you get home and find that it is very disgusting. Messes up your dinner plans.11 "Don’t like to find undesirable pieces of lunch meat or boiled ham between the nice pieces.” ”1 like to have the butcher cut the meat in front of me.I do not like to see everyone pickingup the packages of meat and handling them. I do not think meat should betaken out of the case and fingered and poked and put back again. It should be kept on ice until sold to buyer.tl "Often find mistakes in price stamps on pkg.” ”1 have wondered if the liver was fresh and have questioned buying it for that reason, one package wasn’t fresh.” ,rThe only objection I have relates to the practice of making up weight by enclosing slices of fat, ends, etc. between two good looking slices of meat (happens regularly with boiled ham).” ’’Cold cuts have been a little less than fresh several times.” ”1 always like suet with beef roasts and do not like the delay in waiting to ask the butcher for a piece.” ’’Would suggest that poultry be examined more thoroughly, over Decoration day got turkey that was turning bad. Could not return it because I took some aboard our boat and smelled so bad I could not keep it aboard until Monday to return it.” ’’Sometimes I can't find the weight I am looking for. are usually larger than we can use for a family of two.” The packages ’’Suggest smaller packages of beef liver, also hamburger.” ’’Have found inferior pieces in the bottom of a package such as liver, sandwich meat, etc.” ”The counter is usually too crowded and each time you want an article you have to break thru a line.” ’’Cannot always get large enough roasts.” ’’Only two complaints - 1. Steaks cut too thick - reason - at present prices of meat and food in general, a family of 5> has to cut comers thnner slices means more individual servings - amount of servings means more to children than thickness. 2. Would like bulk pork sausage packed in smaller amounts l/h lb. and l/2 lb. packages for meat loaf making. Also ground veal.” 12k "I always wonder how long the meat has been packaged. Have had some link sausage that was stale. Other meat was ok. Don’t particularly care for packaged meats. I like the poultry packaged. Have found it excellent either frozen or freshly dressed." "Too expensive— pieces on top look nice but underneath you sure get fooled." "Does not taste fresh enough." "I found the fat folded under on the pork chops." "I like to buy beef and then have it ground for hamburger." "I don’t know how long it has been packaged." "Backing cardboard can hide excess bone and/or fat not visible on top or on sides of package." "Meat should be in a larger variety of weights per package." "I like to see the meat weighed." "I like to see both sides of what I am getting." "The packages are too flimsy— I sometimes feel that the meat might get contaminated from so much handling." "Cannot be completely sure of -absolute freshness." "Has the same impersonality of an automat." "I like to have advice of the butcher if I know him." "I never feel sure of its freshness and it does get handled more." "■When packaging chops, it would help if the no. of chops enclosed were also listed on the pkg. Several times Ihave taken apkg. I thought contained 5 chops and got home to find only k or elsesix.It doesn’t hurt when it is extra, but does complicate things when I ’m one shy." 125 Length of time customers had bought, meat in the sample stores* To obtain an Idea of how long each shopper had purchased prepackaged meat a question asking this was placed in the questionnaire* This information was wanted because comments and judgements were desired from seasoned prepackaged meat buyers rather than from shoppers who were buying their first packages of prepackaged meat* All of the stores had been merchandising prepackaged meat for six months or more* Seventy percent of the respondents had purchased meat in the selfservice stores for six months or more* ation between the stores* There was very little vari­ Fifteen percent had purchased meat from three to six months, nine percent had purchased prepackaged meat from one to three months and only six percent might have been considered new customers having bought prepackaged meat for less than one month® It appeared that the ninety-four percent who had purchased pre­ packaged meat for at least one month provided the seasoned shoppers that were desired and in large enough numbers to provide valid comments on prepackaged meat merchandising® Proportion of meat purchased in the self-serve stores* Not only was the length of time that meat had been purchased in these self-serve stores important but also the proportion of the families1 total meat supply that was purchased in these stores* It was found that one-third of the respondents purchased all of their meat supplies in these stores* Thirty-nine percent stated that they purchased most of their meat in the stores. Another one-quarter of the respondents said that they pur­ chased some of their meat in these self-serve stores* Four percent said that they did not purchase any of their meat in the stores® 126 Comments were desired from "this latter group because it was felt that their criticisms indicated why they did not purchase any of their meat in these stores# The writer and the store managers were anxious to learn why some customers were not buying any meat and thought comments by this group might give ideas on weaknesses which could be rectified# By reading the comments which the respondents gave and which are given above it was possible to suggest ways of improving the merchandising of prepackaged meat# These are given later# Customer meat eating habits since they started buying prepackaged meat# All of these stores witnessed increased meat sales after the conversion to prepackaged meat merchandising. The managers had thought this was all due to an increase in the number of customers# It would necessarily have had to have been this fact or, because the old custom­ ers were buying more meat than previously# Knowing that the impulse factor was prevalent when packages of meat were displayed in open cases the writer asked the shoppers if they were eating more, less or the same amount of meat since they had start­ ed buying prepackaged meat# Over four-fifths replied that they were eating the same amount as before# Four percent said they were eating less but fourteen percent said they were eating more# The increased tonnage appears to have come largely from new customers# Amount of other foods purchased in the prepackaged meat stores# If prepackaged meat attracted new customers into the stores, did they come to buy just meat or did they come to purchase all foods? The re­ sults from the returned questionnaires showed that only one-fifth of the respondents said that they purchased all of their groceries in the prepackaged meat store# This percentage was less than that given for 127 meat purchases# Forty-six percent said they purchased most of the groceries in the same store# Thirty—two percent said that they pur­ chased some of their groceries in the same store# When the total results were compared for groceries and meats there was no signifi­ cant difference# buy groceries# The shoppers came not only to buy meat but also to Or, if they came only to buy meat, they changed their minds and purchased groceries# These results bear out the findings reported earlier in the study on Store There, not only total meat sales rose, but also total store sales# The same results were found for fruits and vegetables# The re­ spondents stated that they purchased some fruits and vegetables in the same stores where they bought their meat# Twenty percent said that they purchased all of their fruits and vegetables in the same store# Thirty-six percent said that they purchased most of their fruits and vegetables there# Forty percent said that they purchased some fruits and vegetables there# The same number as with meat, four percent, said that they bought no fruits and vegetables in the self-service meat stores# These results indicated that most customers used the stores in the sample as one-stop stores# When in one of the stores, they shopped not only for meat but also for all other food items# Number of pork chops preferred per package# When the first selfservice meat stores began operations, they usually placed the same number of steaks and chops in each package, they cut all steaks and chops the same thickness and the packaged roasts of about the same weight# about The reader has already seen what the respondents have said these practices# These next pages show what the respondents thought should have been done about packaging various numbers of chops 128 per package, various weights of roasts, and various thicknesses of chops and steaks* Of course the number of pork chops that a particular customer de­ sires in a package depends upon the size of the family in most cases* We have seen that the families did vary in size* The number also de­ pends upon the number prepared for each person at each meal. In the next chapter the effect that the size of the family has on the number of pork chops desired per package is examined more fully. Here the simple frequency distribution for the entire sample of respondents is given neglecting size of family and any other factors# In Table XVI one can see that customers very definitely want packages with different number of pork chops. was the most popular number. Four chops per package There was very little difference be­ tween the stores or between any individual store and the average for all stores. The same number of customers wanted three and five pork chops in each package* There were, however, fewer customers that wanted three or five chops per package than there were who wanted six chops per package* These data show that for each package of pork chops that has either, three, five or six chops, there should be three packages containing four chops* For every eight four-chop packages, there should be one two-chop package. It would not be necessary to package seven chops in a package because the customer could buy two packages containing either three and four, or five and two chops. Of course, practically any combin­ ation of numbers can be obtained from two, three and four and one could suggest from this that only three different numbered .packages \ be packaged* However, some customers apparently are not proficient at \ 129 combinations* Often, though, one cannot find two packages of say loin chops that have the total number of chops he desires* We have seen how the respondents disliked a mixture of center cut chops with rib chops. The writer suggests that packages containing two through six chops be packaged and in the proportions given above* Thicknesses preferred for beef steaks* A similar situation ex­ isted in the first self-service meat stores in regard to round steaks as was mentioned with pork chops* The butcher in the processing rooan of the first prepackaged meat stores placed a beef round on the cutting stand of the band saw, set the saw to cut about one-half inch, turned on the saw and proceeded to cut all round steaks the same thickness* They had learned that many customers preferred round steak cut onehalf inch thick but they did not know how many preferred other thick­ nesses* In Table XVII one can see that round steak one-half inch thick was preferred by two-fifths of the respondents* there were preferences for other thicknesses* One can also see that Round steak cut three- fourths inch thick was next most popular* Slightly over one-fourth of the customers preferred this thickness. Nearly one-fifth of the shoppers wanted round steak cut one inch thick. There were a few respondents who either wanted their round steak one-fourth inch thick or over one inch thick* The frequency distributions shown in this report may not be applicable to any given store* There was not much variation between the four stores in this sample but it is possible for the customers of a given store to prefer different proportions. The data do show that it is important to vary the thicknesses of the round steaks* The 130 Table XVI. Percentage Distribution of Number of Porkchops Preferred ___________ per Package. How Many Porkchops Do You Prefer All Stores In a Package? Store 1 Store 3 Store i; Store 2 Combined number percent percent percent percent percent Two Three Four 5 15 U7 9 15 k2 Five Six Seven lit 17 2 15 17 2 5k 7 15 h2 6 lit U6 lit lit lk 19 h 3 lit 17 3 it 10 Table XVII. Percentage Distribution of Preference for Thickness of ____________ Round Steak._______________________________________ ___ How Thick Do You Like Beef Round Steak? Store 1 percent Store 2 percent Store 3 percent 1/it Inch 1/2 Inch 3/it Inch 9 39 26 10 8 29 3k 31 1 Inch 1 l/k Inches 1 1 / 2 Inches 19 2 5 13 1 3 22 2 3 Store 1; percent All Stores Combined percent 12 k2 26 10 to 27 15 2 3 17 2 it 131 one-half inch cut should be used the most and the three-quarter and one inch cut should be used regularly* too* Meat managers can readily tell what their customers will take by varying the proportions of the various thicknesses* And since the respondents have shown a desire for different thicknesses, the butcher should be instructed to change the saw setting when cutting the steaks* The discussion above is equally applicable with loin steaks* In Table XVIII are shown the desires of the respondents regarding beef loin steaks, T-bones and sirloins* The two popular thicknesses are three-quarter inch and one inch steaks* There were one-fifth of the customers who liked these steaks to be cut one-half inch thick* Only fifteen percent of the total wanted their beef loin steaks to be either one and one-quarter, one and one-half or two inches thick* These de­ sires should not be dismissed, however* Weight preferences for beef roasts* The three pound beef roast was the most popular of the nine weight groups* This weight was followed closely by the three and one-half and four pound roasts re­ spectively* Next most popular was the two and one-half pound roasts* Some respondents wanted to be able to purchase roasts weighing as little as one pound and as much as five pounds* Table XIX shows the frequency distribution of preferences for beef roasts* Customer reaction to different methods of prepackaging fish* Prepackaged fish in the frozen form have been found in food markets for a number of years* Some firms have attempted to package fish in packages of even weights while some firms have not been concerned about getting exact pound, two pound or even pound weights* The manager of 132 Table 3CVTII. Percentage Distribution of Preference for Thickness of ______ ___ Beef T—Bone and Sirloin Steaks* How Thick Do You Like Beef T-Bone All Stores and Sirloin Steaks? Store 1 Store 2 Store U Combined Store 3 percent percent percent percent percent 1/2 Inch 3/U Inch 1 Inch 16 31 32 28 31 32 23 29 30 28 38 29 22 32 31 1 l/h Inch l l / 2 Inch 2 Inches 11 7 3 3 3 1 9 8 1 5 0 0 8 5 2 Table XJDC. Percentage Distribution of Preference for Weight of Beef ___________ Roasts *__________ ______ What Weight Beef Roasts All Stores Store 1± Store 3 Store 2 Combined Store 1 Do You Prefer? percent percent percent percent percent 1 Pound l l / 2 pounds 2 Pounds 1 1 8 0 2 k 1 1 5 2 6 10 Less than 1 3 7 2 1/2 Pounds 3 Pounds 3 l / 2 Pounds 12 30 19 16 27 25 8 28 20 13 28 17 13 29 20 I4 . Pounds k 1/2 Pounds 5 Pounds 18 7 k 18 3 5 26 6 3 13 2 3 19 3 k 133 one of the stores had not been able to determine if one method were preferred over the other# A question was included on the questionnaire in an attempt to get the customer reaction to this problem# The answers given by the respondents are tabulated and presented in Table XX# By observing this table one can see why the manager had been undecided# In none of the stores was there a decided preference for either method# The conclusion here was very evident* Shoppers did not care particularly whether fish were packaged in even or random weights# This chapter has shown consumer reactions to prepackaged meat and fisho The likes and dislikes have been presented as well as reactions to particular practices# Preferences for different sized packages* different width cuts and different numbers of cuts have been shown# The shoppers in this sample, on balance, preferred prepackaged fresh meats; however, some of them had legitimate complaints about particular practices# The data presented were averages obtained from simple fre­ quency distributions# The next chapter presents the results obtained by cross tabulating the XBM cards# The effects of the five important factors mentioned above are shown# Table XX# Percentage Distribution of Preference for Buying Prepackaged Fish Do You Prefer To Buy Prepackaged Fish? Store 1 percent Store 2 percent Store 3 percent Store U percent All Stores Combined percent Even Weights 30 33 31 0 31 Random Weights 27 27 27 0 27 No Preference U3 hO h2 0 U2 135 CHAPTER VII THE EFFECTS OF FAMILY SIZE, INCOME, AGE, AND FOOD EXPENDITURES ON BUYING HABITS This chapter is a continuation of the previous chapter. Here, the analysis is based upon the influence that family size, family income, age of respondent, expenditures for all foods and expend­ itures for meats had upon homemaker1s reactions to prepackaged meats in particular and to shopping patterns and food buying habits in general# Using the five factors just mentioned as controls, the IBM cards were cross tabulated to obtain the data presented in this chapter# Family sizes ranged from one person through nine people. There were only a few families who had more than nine individuals. For case of computation and analysis families with more than nine members were grouped with those who had exactly nine members# It was felt that the eoonomies realized by larger-gcale purchases and larger-scale cooking justified placing these few families in the nine-member cell# All the respondents were asked to give their family income per week* These incomes were distributed into four groups. These four groups were under thirty dollars, thirty to sixty dollars, sixty to ninety dollars and over ninety dollars. After the IBM cards were sorted on the four income groups as the controls, tabulations were made on the variables* 136 Til© influence that the age of the respondents had on their reactions to prepackaged meats and buying behavior was also examined* All of the respondents were divided into three groups* The lowest age group included those under thirty years* The middle group in­ cluded those between thirty and fifty years. The third group includ­ ed those over fifty years. Food expenditures per week were divided into four groups* These four groups were ten-dollar groups; one dollar to ten, ten to twenty, twenty to thirty and thirty to forty dollars* The res­ pondents were asked to include all weekly food purchases, including milk, when they answered this question. The respondents1 expenditures for meat each week were divided into four groups* to six dollars. The lowest group included the expenditures up The second group was six to eleven dollars* third group was eleven to sixteen dollars* sixteen to twenty-one dollars. The The fourth group was There were not enough respondents in the last group for reliable reporting; this group was omitted in the analysis* Who bought the meat* The wife or homemaker bought most of the family meat supply. Husbands were second in importance. daughters were, in all cases, unimportant meat buyers. Sons and When all of the data were combined, homemakers bought eighty-two percent of the meat, husbands bought sixteen percent and sons and daughters combined bought two percent. As the size of the family increased, homemakers bought a smaller proportion of the family meat supply 137 and husbands bought a larger proportion. In the seven member families, homemakers bought two-thirds and husbands bought almost one-third of the meat purchased. Husbands in no other case bought such a large proportion of the family meat supply. In the lower income families husbands bought one—fifth of the meat supply. As incomes rose husbands bought less and homemakers bought more of the family meat supply. In the older families husbands bought a greater proportion of the meat supply. In the two groups of respondents under fifty years of age the homemakers bought eighty-six percent of the meat and husbands bought twelve percent. In the oldest age group home­ makers bought only seventy-five percent and husbands bought twentyfive percent of the meat supply* In the lowest food expenditure group husbands bought more of the meat supply than in the other food expenditure groups. As would be expected low incomes, low food and meat expenditures were very closely associated. However, there were no significant differ­ ences among the groups broken down on meat expenditures as to who bought the meat. Homemakers in the lowest meat expenditure group bought as much of the family meat supply as in the highest meat ex­ penditure group. The family member buying the meat apparently did not influence the amount spent for meat. The method preferred for buying meat. As family size increased and as age increased there was a decreasing preference for prepack­ aged meat. As incomes, food expenditures and meat expenditures in- 138 creased there was an increasing preference for prepackaged meat* The majority in all cases preferred to bay prepackaged meat. In the two to four member families about seventy-five percent preferred prepackaged meat while in the six to seven member families only fifty-two percent favored prepackaged meat. Seventy-eight percent of the respondents in the youngest age group preferred prepackaged meat while only sixty-four percent in the oldest group preferred prepackaged meat. Frequency of meat purchases. The respondents were asked whether they shopped for meat daily, two or three times a week, weekly or every two weeks. There were over ninety percent of the families who shopped for meat weekly or two or three times per week in every cross-tabulation. Daily and bi-monthly meat buying was done by only a few in every case. An average of four percent shopped daily for meat, and one percent shopped every two weeks for meat. As family size increased beyond six members, weekly meat buy­ ing became less important and buying meat two or three times per week exceeded weekly buying. In the families with one to six mem­ bers, weekly meat buying was most common. In the lowest income group weekly meat buying was twice as common as shopping for meat two or three times a week. In the highest income group there were just as many families who shopped for meat two or three times per week as who shopped only weekly. In the youngest age group over one-half of the respondents said they shopped for meat once a week. In the oldest group fewer 139 than one-half shopped weekly for meat* It appeared that the older the respondents were the more often they shopped for meat because daily meat purchases increased as did purchases two or three times a week* As food expenditures rose there was a definite shift from weekly meat purchases to buying more of the meat two or three times a week* There was also a difference in the frequency of meat pur­ chases as expenditures for meat increased* Meat was bought more often as meat expenditures rose* Mode of transportation used to get to the stores* The auto­ mobile was used for shopping much more often than any other form of transportation* Walking to the store was second in importance* Public transportation* taxis and bicycles were not very important in providing transportation for meat shoppers* The fact that an average of eighty-six percent drove automobiles stresses the im­ portance of adequate parking facilities* The percentage that drove cars increased from sixty-seven percent in one-member families to ninety percent in four-member families then declined to seventy-five percent in nine-member fam­ ilies* Those who walked ranged from a high of twenty-five percent in one-member families to a low of nine percent in five-member families. As incomes rose more people drove cars and fewer people walked when shopping for meat. In the highest income group ninety percent drove cars, nine percent walked and only one-percent used other means of transportation. come group* Taxis were not Important in any in­ lUo There was no significant difference among the age groups in the mode of transportation used to get to the sample stores* From eighty—five to eighty-eight percent of all respondents used auto­ mobiles * In the highest food expenditure group fewer respondents used cars than in the lowest food expenditure group* The one significant fact that stood out in this cross-tabulation was the number of res­ pondents in the lowest food expenditure group which used taxis* Over three times as many, percentagewise, in the lowest group used taxis as in any of the other groups. Beliefs concerning the cost of prepackaged meat* There was no difference among the families of various sizes in their beliefs about the cost of prepackaged meat. Regardless of the size of the family from two to three times as many families said they did not think they had to pay more for prepackaged meat than for comparable meat not packaged. There was a slightly higher percentage of the oldest respondents who thought prepackaged meat was more expensive. The number was not significant, however. As income rose there were fewer families who thought pre­ packaged meat was more expensive. There was no difference among the four food expenditure groups in their beliefs about the cost of prepackaged meat. As weekly meat expenditures rose there were fewer respondents who thought that prepackaged meat cost more than com­ parable meat not packaged* On the average three-quarters thought there was no difference in the cost and one-quarter thought pre- 1Ml packaged meat cost more. Changes in the quantity of meat consumed. There appeared to be no increase in family meat consumption since these families had begun buying prepackaged meat. There were no indications in any of the groups resulting from the cross-tabulations that more meat was being consumed. Consistently through the analysis there were a few more who thought they were eating more meat than thought they were eating less but the difference was not significant* Over eighty percent in all breakdowns thought they were eating the same amount. How meat was stored at home. The size of the family seemed to have no home. significance on the method used for storing meat at Incomes were important though. The higher the income the more often mechanical refrigerators and home freezers were used for stor­ ing meat* Ice boxes declined in importance as incomes rose* In the lowest income group eighty-two percent used mechanical refriger­ ation, thirteen percent used ice boxes and five percent used window boxes and other methods for keeping meat. In the highest income group ninety-eight percent used mechanical refrigeration, one percent used ice boxes and one percent used other methods. There was no difference in the method of storing meat as age varied. Between ninety-four and ninety-seven percent of the res­ pondents in the three age groups used mechanical refrigeration. As food expenditures and meat expenditures rose more of the respondents used mechanical refrigeration. In the lowest food ex­ penditure group eighty-six percent used mechanical refrigeration. In Ik2 the top food expenditure group all respondents used mechanical refrigeration• Consumer reactions regarding the weight of beef roasts* As family size increased, respondents indicated they wanted heavier beef roasts* This was expected since larger families have a need for more beef in order to give each member a serving equal to that given in the smaller families* The three pound roast was most pop­ ular ^vith the smaller families* The larger families favored four and five pound roasts* Families in the three highest income groups preferred three pound beef roasts over any other weight. Families in the lowest « income group preferred two pound beef roasts* This seemed natural because these families had less to spend for beef roasts and the lighter roast cost less* So, except for the lowest income group, an increase in income had no effect on the customer1s preference for beef roasts of different weights. Three pound beef roasts were preferred by all age groups. There was a slight trend toward heavier beef roasts as age increased. In the three lowest food expenditure groups three pound beef roasts were the first preference* As food expenditures per week increased there was a definite preference for heavier roasts. In the highest food expenditure group three and one-half pound roasts were the first preference. Four pound roasts were the second preference while in the lowest food expenditure group two and onehalf pound roasts were the second preference. As weekly meat ex- 1U3 penditures increased heavier beef roasts were preferred* Consumer reactions regarding the number of pork chops per pack— age. Four-chop packages were most popular. The larger families wanted more pork chops in each package than did the smaller families. In the smaller families the four-chop package was the first prefer­ ence and the two and three chop packages were usually the second preferences, In the largest families the six chop package was the first preference and the four chop package was the second preference* Income apparently had no effect on the number of pork chops preferred in each package. Nearly one-half of the respondents in each income group said they wanted four-chop packages* Packages with four pork chops were preferred by almost three times as many respondents as any other number in all three age groups* The middle age group wanted more pork chops in each pack­ age than either of the two other groups when the second and third preferences were considered* This seemed natural as this group had the largest families* As weekly food and meat expenditures increased more pork chops were wanted in each package* ference in most groups. Again four chops was the first pre­ The second and third preferences showed the trend* Consumer reactions toward beef steaks* Two kinds of beef steak were considered* sirloins and T-bones. beef round steaks and beef loin steaks, Thinner sirloin and T-bone steaks were pre­ ferred as family size increased. In the smaller families three- 1 Jl)l quarter and one inch steaks were most desired* With four or more people in the family one—half and three-quarter inch steaks were most desired• As incomes rose there was evidence that the respondents wanted thicker T—bone and sirloin steaks* However9 there was not a straight line toward thicker steaks as income rose* Over eighty-five percent of the families in each age group wanted T-bone and sirloin steaks one inch or less in thickness* did not influence the respondent’s preference for thickness* Age Three- quarter and one inch T-bone and sirloin steaks were preferred almost equally in the three groups* The one-half inch steaks were the third preference in all three groups. As family food expenditures increased thinner steaks were de­ sired* Three-quarter inch steaks were the first preference for the three lowest groups* One-half inch steaks were the first preference for the group with the highest food expenditures. true when weekly meat expenditures were considered* The reverse was The three- quarter inch T-bone and sirloin steaks were the first preference in the lower meat expenditure groups* In the highest group one inch steaks were preferred by the greatest number* One-half inch round steaks were desired by almost all families regardless of size* The three-quarter inch round steak was a little more popular than the one-quarter inch steak but there was no signifi­ cant difference contributable to size of family* lliS Regardless of income or age one-half inch round steaks were preferred# Three-quarter inch round steaks were second in prefer­ ence order# As expenditures for food and meat increased the respondents shifted from one—half inch round steaks as their first preference to three-quarter inch round steaks. Their preference in both cate­ gories was for one-inch round steaks# }f Why respondents bought prepackaged meat# The three reasons given most often why the respondents liked prepackaged meat weres l) Weight and total price were given; 2) Shopping could be done quicker; and 3) Meat could be examined# The size of the family, income, amount spent for food and amount spent for meat had no ap­ parent effect on the ranking of any of the reasons given for buying prepackaged meat* The youngest group indicated they were more interested in examining the meat and finding out how much it cost than in shopping quickly# The middle age group liked being able to shop more quickly and they considered weight and price second in importance# The older group considered having weight and price given most import­ ant, and being able to shop quicker second in importance* In all the tabulations the convenient selection of sizes was the fourth reason for buying prepackaged meat# Having a larger selection of meats was the fifth most important reason. v" " V Proportion of meat bought in the sample stores. The size of the family had an effect on the proportion of meat bought in the 1k6 prepackaged meat store* As family size increased a smaller pro­ portion of the family meat supply was purchased in the prepackaged meat stores in the study* The larger families tended to buy meat more often than the smaller families and it is conceivable that these larger families bought supplemental supplies of meat at the corner grocery store* Therefore, their purchases of prepackaged meat were a smaller proportion of their total meat supply than those families which bought all of their meat prepackaged. As the family size increased a much smaller percentage bought all of their meat prepackaged and a larger precentage said they bought no prepackaged meat in the sample stores* The lower income respondents bought a smaller proportion of their meat in the sample 100-percent self-service meat stores than did the higher income respondents* This goes along with the fact that the higher income families preferred prepackaged meat more than did the lower income families* There was no difference among the three age groups as to the proportion of meat bought in the sample stores* As total food expenditures and meat expenditures rose there was a higher proportion of the family meat supply purchased in the self-service stores* Proportion of groceries bought in the sample stores* Family size had no apparent effect on the proportion of groceries which these families purchased in these stores. The families did not pur­ chase as large a percentage of groceries in these stores as they did meat* 1U7 The lower income families bought a higher percentage of their groceries in the sample stores than did the higher income groups* There was no difference among the three age groups in the pro­ portion of groceries bought in the sample stores* As total food expenditures increased a smaller proportion of the family grocery supply was purchased in the sample stores* The proportion of groceries purchased increased as meat expenditures increased. Proportion of fruits and vegetables purchased in the sample stores. In all cases the respondents purchased a smaller proportion of fruits and vegetables than meats in these stores* did not change this proportion* Family size The lowest income group bought a larger proportion of fruits and vegetables in the sample stores than did the highest income group* The two oldest groups bought a smaller proportion of fruits and vegetables than the youngest group* As family food expenditures increased a smaller proportion of fruits and vegetables was purchased in the sample stores* There was no difference in the proportion of fruits and vegetables which the respondents bought in the sample stores as meat expenditures changed* The respondents bought a higher proportion of their meats in the four sample stores than they did groceries, fruits or vegetables* In most cases they bought more of their total grocery supplies than they did fruits and vegetables* Since the stores were self-service meat stores probably more attention was given to meats and the meat manager did a better job of merchandising meats than did the oroduce 1U8 or grocery managers* meats was proper* If the margin on meats were larger, stressing These data indicated that the store managers could have concentrated on their fruit and vegetable merchandising to induce their shoppers, who apparently came to their store pri­ marily for meat, to purchase a larger percentage of their fruit and vegetable supply in the sample stores* Some observations on the characteristics of the respondents* Several facts stated above were made more clear when four of the con­ trols were used as variables and tabulated with the fifth, food expenditures, as the control* In general the larger families, the higher incomes and the larger meat expenditures were directly associat­ ed with higher total food expenditures* In the lowest food expenditure group over one-half of the res­ pondents were over fifty years of age* Nearly one-half of the families were composed of only two members* Three-quarters of these families earned under sixty dollars a week. One-third earned under thirty dollars a week. All of this group spent under five dollars a week for meat. In the second lowest group, which spent between ten and twenty dollars a week for all of their food supply, the average family had three members. Over one-half of the respondents were between thirty and fifty years of age and there were more under thirty than over fifty. Nearly half of them earned between sixty and ninety dollars a week and there was the same number which earned over nine dollars a week as there was which earned between thirty and fifty- Ik9 nin© dollars a week* On©—half of "this group spent between six and ten dollars a week for meat and one—half spent under five dollars a week for meat* In this group which spent between twenty and thirty dollars a week for all food, over two-thirds were in the middle age group* Twenty percent were under thirty years and only ten percent were over fifty years* family* There was an average of four people in each One-half of the families earned between sixty and eighty- nine dollars a week* Over one-third earned over ninety dollars a week and only twelve percent earned under sixty dollars a week. This group, of course, spent more for meat each week* Three-fourths of these families spent between six and ten dollars for meat per week* Eight percent spent between eleven and fifteen dollars for meat each week* Seventeen percent spent under five dollars each week for meat* In the highest expenditure group, those that spent between thirty and forty dollars, there were almost five members in the average family* Eighty-six percent of the respondents were between thirty and fifty years of age. Over one-half of these families earned over ninety dollars a week* Over one-third earned between sixty and ninety dollars and only five percent earned under sixty dollars a week. In this group only nine percent spent under six dollars a week for meat. a week for meat. One-half spent between six and ten dollars One-third spent between eleven and fifteen dollars and seven percent spent between sixteen and twenty dollars a week i£o for meat* Those data help to explain the respondents* reactions to prepackaged meat and their food buying behavior. In this chapter cross-analyses were examined. Each of five control factors was tabulated with several other variable factors. A section explaining the outcome of the analyses of the variable with each of the five controls was presented. The writer recognizes that other factors such as education, occupation, nationality and religion may have important bearings on customer preferences. i£ l CHAPTER VIII INCREASING EFFICIENCY IN PREPACKAGED MEAT STORE OPERATIONS In an earlier chapter the -writer stated that he thought meat re­ tailing was competitive* He also assumed that the profit motive was the main driving force behind entrepreneurs1 business decisions* Food store owners, therefore, have converted to prepackaged meat merchandising with one primary end in mind: making larger profits* One of the easiest ways of increasing profits is to do a job more efficiently* In meat merchandising increasing labor efficiency is pro­ bably the key to increasing profits since labor is the major cost in meat selling* Time studies and motion studies are two methods used for deter­ mining the efficiency of labor and how that efficiency could be improved* Time and motion studies can show how work methods can be improved and how physical layouts can be improved* In the first section of this study it was shown how labor efficiency actually decreased during the first few months that a store merchandised all of its meat in packages* The reader saw proved after the 11shakedown” period, but did that labor efficiency im­ not improve to thepoint where the labor efficiency in the self-service store at the end of the year's study was any greater than in the sister service store. The reader also saw that labor efficiency in the stores operated byone com­ pany was greater than in the stores operated by the other company. The writer decided to make a short study of the operations of a selfservice meat department* He decided to make the study in the most efficient self-service store in the sample. The objectives were to: (l) Observe the operations and learn just what each of the laborers did; (2) Time the 152 operations performed, and determine average times for accomplishing specific tasks% and (3) Suggest improvements* Description of the operation studied* The packaging operation studied was in Store lu This store had a head meat cutter, a meat cutter, a butcher (all men), a hostess, three wrappers who worked full time and two wrappers who worked part time (all women)* each week in this store* An average of 370 man hours were worked Records kept in the store indicated that 7#797 packages of meat was the average output per week in this store. average was based on eight consecutive weeks prior to this study. This Divid­ ing the average total output by the total labor input the average output per man hour was obtained. This turned out to be between 21 and 22 pack­ ages of meat per man hour. During the eight weeks when records were kept, Friday was the day when the output of packages was greatest (seven times out of eight). day was second in importance. Thursday was third. Wednesday was fifth and Tuesday was sixth. Monday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday. nesday off. Mon­ Saturday was fourth. All of the full-time crew worked Each took either Tuesday or Wed­ The part-time help worked Thursday, Friday and Saturday. There were about twice as many packages packaged on Friday as on Tuesday. Jn a search of the literature it had been found that the average out­ put per worker per hour was around 30 to 3$ pounds. This sounded low to the writer so he decided to find out how long it took to perform the various operations ass removing shrouds, opening boxes, carrying car­ casses or cuts, breaking, cutting into wholesale then retail cuts, trim­ ming, traying, wrapping, weighing, labeling, marking, moving into the hold­ ing cooler and moving out into the meat cases. "Times'* were obtained on 153 each operation. computed. An average of several '•times11 on the same operation was These averages were then used to hypothetically determine how long it should take to move a given product through the meat market. Labor required to merchandise a side of beef. A cutting test was conducted in this store on a side of beef. From this cutting test it was found what percent of the carcass each cut represented. These per­ centages could then be applied to different weight sides or carcasses, within certain limits, to give the number of steaks, roasts, hamburger, etc., to be expected from a particular side or carcass. Table XXI shows the results of this cutting test on a side of beef. Using the results of the cutting test and the average of the times computed for the various operations a theoretical model was constructed. This model gave the total time that should be used in moving a 270 pound side of beef from the cooler to the meat case. This was done so that the output in this model could be compared with the output found in the literature • It was felt that this one example served the purpose of showing how this time data could be applied to all of the products handled in a self-service meat market. The percentages from the cutting test were used to determine the weight of the various cuts from the arbitrarily chosen 270 pound side of beef. The weight of the cuts, the arbitrary weight of the packages and the number of packages are given in Table XXII. For simplicity the times for the various operations performed on each cut were combined. These combined times were applied to the number of packages obtained from each cut. It was possible from this to obtain the total time which the merchandising of this beef side took. The total 15U Table XXI* Cutting Test on a Side of Beef. Cut of Meat Percent Weight of Side Sirloin Steaks 5 .1 Porterhouse Steaks 5 .3 Flank Steak .5 Beef Kidney .3 Rump Rolled U.o Back End Round 1 .9 Round Steak 6,6 Round Tip 3 .6 Round Swiss 1 .6 Square Cut Chuck 12.7 Rib Roasts 7.8 Short Ribs 2.0 Navel, Bone-in h.5 English Cut 3 .3 Hamburg 29.3 Bones, Waste, etc. 11.0 Total 100.0 155 Table XXII. Theoretical Yield From a 270-Pound Side of Beef,________ Number of Pounds Cut of Meat ___________per Side Approximate Weight of Packages in Pounds Number of Packages Sirloin 13.S 1 12; Porterhouse 1U.3 1 lU Flank Steak l.li 1 1 Beef Kidney .8 1 1 Rump Rolled 10.8 3 li 5.1 1 5 17.8 1 18 Round Tip 9.7 3 3 Round Swiss U.3 1 U Square Cut Chuck 3U-3 3 11 Rib Roasts 21.0 3 7 Short Ribs 5.U 2 2 12.2 3 U 8.9 3 3 Hamburg 80.5 1 80 Bones, Waste, etc. 29.7 Back End Round Round Steak Navel, Bone-in English Cut Total 270.0 171 156 time from this example was 220.1 minutes or 3 hours IjJ.l minutes, Table XXIII. There were 171 packages prepared in the 220 minutes or 1*29 packages per minute • This means that 75*9 packages per hour were obtained. This is over three times as much as the average output computed from records kept over eight weeks. It appears that without any change in work methods or in physical layout a much greater output could be obtained* If we use the average output gleaned from the literature, we get about the same results. It was mentioned above that between 30 and 35 pounds was the average output per worker per hour in self-service meat stores* If the output were 30 pounds per worker per hour it would take exactly nine hours to process this 270 pound side of beef. If the out­ put were 35 pounds it would take 7*7 hours, still more than double the time taken in the model. Why wasn't the output in the sample store greater? This is examined in the next section* Why production in sample store was not greater* A meat market must be kept clean. Quite a lot of time is spent cleaning the blocks, the saws and the other equipment each day* cases have to be kept clean. times collected. The packaging room, the coolers and the Cleaning time was not included in the average Unnecessary talking consumed a lot of valuable time* Although employees were told that they were to work normally, it was observed that their output was greater when they knew their work was being checked. Time records were kept the first two days spent in the store but these were not used since it was felt they were not typical. the records taken at the end of the study were used. the output to be less than the first two days. Only These records showed The employers were accustom­ ed to being timed and appeared to be working more nearly normally. During the end of the study there was much talking among the employees but it was 157 Table XXIII, __ Summary of Time Consumed in Processing and Merchandising One 270-Pound Beef Side, Cut of Meat Number of Packages In Minutes Time per Total Time Packa ge Remove Shrouds, Cut into "Whole­ sale Cuts, Move From Cooler to Processing Room 8.8 Sirloin 1U 1.6 22.U Porterhouse Hi l.U 19.6 Flank Steak 1 1.6 1.6 Beef Kidney 1 1.5 1.5 Rump Rolled U 1.2 U*8 Back End Round 5 1.6 8.0 18 l.U 25.2 Round Tip 3 1.1 3.3 Round S m s s U 1.7 6.8 11 1.1 12.1 Rib Roasts 7 2.3 16.1 Short Ribs 2 1.1 2.2 Navel, Bone-in U 1.1 u.u English Cut 3 1.1 3.3 80 1.0 80.0 Round Steak Square Cut Chuck Hamburg Total 171 220.1 3 hours and UO minutes 158 felt that there would have been much more had we not been there. Rest periods were not included in the average times used in the model* Rest periods are important but the writer felt that these were abused in the store in the study* Idle periods were observed when the wrappers stood and waited for the butcher or meat cutter to prepare meat for wrap— ping* Some of this idle time is undoubtedly necessary in an individual store and these idle periods were not timed and used in the averages* Even though the store was supposedly 100—percent self-service, some cus­ tomers still demanded and received special services. These special ser­ vices were not included in the average times used in the model* It was difficult for the writer to justify the great difference be­ tween the model and the published standards so a further search was made for possible explanations. It was learned that rewrapping and remerchandis ing had not been included* Customers sometimes puncture the packages and these have to be rewrapped. rewrapped. Some packages fade and these have to be Sometimes a package does not sell and it has to be trimmed or remerchandised. Of coarse these have to be rewrapped. of the study 1,31k packages were prepared. During one day Of this total USO were rewraps* This was not a typical or average day but during this one day 36*5 percent of the output was rewrapped packages. In a large study conducted by the PMA it was found that eight percent of the packages were rewrapped for some reason. Even with eight percent of the packages being rewrapped the writer felt that this did not explain, with the factors mentioned above, the difference between the model and the published average outputs. Assuming the model was not realistic because it did not include several necessary operations mentioned above, the writer felt that labor could have been used more efficiently in the sample store and in all 159 other stores which had an output of only 30 to 35 pounds per person per hour, and with the existing physical layout* A more efficient layout is very important and this subject is discussed in the next section# Physical layout in self-service meat store processing rooms. In Figure 1*7 the reader can see how the processing room in Store 2 was arranged* The rear door is on the left side of the Figure# cooler is in the upper left# by arrows# The main The general path of the meat is indicated Company officials agreed that the layout in Store 2 was not the most efficient# They have more efficient arrangements in their newer stores# Packaging meat is a production line process# part in preparing the package for sale* Specialists do their With this in mind it appears that a meat processing room should be set up like an assembly line in a modern factory* This is often difficult in a store that was once a service store, so much time should be devoted to planning the arrange­ ment in a completely new store# It is the belief of the writer that quite a lot could be done to improve the physical arrangement in selfservice meat stores which are now operating* The writer is aware of the fact tnat operating self-service meat stores have often been training grounds for employees which were to work in new prepackaged meat stores* Training these new employees decreases the efficiency but it is still a necessary and important part of a com­ pany's operation* After ai I of the possible reasons were examined as to why Store 2 was not producing as much per worker as the model indicated, it was real­ ized that special services, cleaning and rewrapping were very important* It does not seem possible that the factors not included in the model X60 Holding cooler for packaged meats---- Main cooler for carcasses Pass Window- i i— Wrapping table Scales— Rear door— Band sawMeat blocks Wrapping table Scales-— — -— Grinder — Pass Window— Cubing machine Supplies— —■ Figure Ii7* /\ Physical Layout of the Meat Processing Room in Store 2* 161 were more important than the factors included* Xf they were equally important, sizeable increases in efficiency still were possible* conclusion seemed to be obvious: can be made more efficient* The operations in self-service meat stores Increases of from 25 to 30 percent seem very possible without unduly driving the workers* Ignoring fatigue and work­ ing at top speed would provide outputs two or three times as high as at present, but would not be feasible in terms of worker relations* A note on centralized meat packaging* Nearly all of the red meat that is sold in packages today is packaged in the store where it is sold* This means that each store has all the equipment necessary for a complete operation* This seems like a waste of resources. It would appear that centralized packaging would be more efficient and a larger profit could be made this way* Machines could be used for packaging, too* Centralized meat packaging has been tried. The writer visited a centralized packaging operation in Detroit in 191*7• Six stores were sup­ plied from this central unit* an extended time* The central unit was discontinued after The problems that arose because of centralized pack­ aging were more than enough to offset any increased efficiencies. Meat is a perishable product* Changes in temperature and light affect its outward appearance, and meat must have a good appearance to sell well. Handling also causes meat to lose its best appearance. The meat that was packaged in the central place had to be transported to the stores. Moving the meat out of the packaging room into a truck and then from the truck to the store helped cause the meat to lose its sales appeal. These were the major factors causing the discontinuance of the central unit mentioned above. a t Also, a practical machine to package sizes and cuts of meat has not been invented. Rewrapping, remerchandising and special services are important as outlined above. A store being serviced from a central unit either had to have equipment to do remerchandising and rewrapping or send the meat back to the central unit. If equipment were on hand, this meant duplicate equipment, so that special services could be taken care of. customers would probably be lost. If not, For these reasons centralized pack­ aging exists in only two or three cities in the United States. If the meat technologists could learn how to care for the meat and have the meat keep its saleability, more centralized packaging would be used. Problems in this area are being investigated as this is being written. Frozen meat could bring great efficiencies in meat distribution. The writer believes that frozen meat is the answer to major reductions in the cost of retailing meat. for distribution. Meat could be centrally frozen and prepared The bones, scraps, and trimmings would all be available for use in some other product. Frozen meat has a much longer saleable life than fresh meat and the problems of rewrapping and remerchandising would be virtually eliminated. The general public is probably not prepared for a complete switch to frozen meat. Education can do a large part in preparing the home­ maker for this switch. Refrigeration facilities are probably not yet adequate or abundant enough in industry or in the homes to take care of frozen meat distribution. 163 CHAPTER IX ST.O-jVARY AND CONCLUSIONS On April 1, ly!i6 there were only 28 100—percent self-service meat stores in the United States* The number has more than doubled each year since, and on April 1, 1951 there were 3,972 100-percent selfservice meat stores in the United States* There are now more than U,000 100-percent self-service meat stores in the United States* ial self-service meat stores have also increased in number* Part­ On April 1, 1951 there were 10,362 partial self-service meat stores in the United States # Michigan had 127 100-percent self-service meat stores on April 1, 1951* Merchandising meat by self-service is hereto stay* There were four stores which supplied data for making a com­ parison of self-service versus service meat merchandising. Two stores, both within the same organization, were located in one Michigan city. One was a self-service meat store; the other a service meat store. Two other stores, both located in another city and owned by the same organization made up the four stores. One of these was a self-service meat store and the other was a service store. each case was used as the control. The service store in The self-service meat stores both had larger total store sales and larger meat sales after converting to prepackaged meat merchandising than they did prior to converting. They had larger total store sales and larger total meat sales than their sister service store* Prepackaged meat merchandising in­ creased the stores’ meat sales and total sales* 161* Labor costs per pound or meat; merchandised were much higher in the self-service shores "than they were in the service shore immed­ iately after hhe conversion* After hhree or four months, hhe labor cosh per pound of me ah merchandised in each of hhe hwo self-service shores had dropped ho a level equal ho or slighhly below hhe cosh in hhe sister service shore* However, neihher self-service store was using its labor any more efficiently at the end of the year’s comparison than was its sister service store* There was a differ­ ence in the labor efficiency between the two organizations* One organization was merchandising meat with a labor cost per pound of meat of 5*3 cents* The other organization was merchandising meat with a labor cost of U *1 cents per pound* Meat sales as a percentage of total store sales increased in one self-service meat store while it remained constant in the other self-service meat store* There was definitely a difference in the importance placed on meat sales within one organization as compared with the other organization. During the first year after converting to self-service, Store 2 ’s meat sales, as a percentage of total store sales, increased from 30 to 35 percent* Its sister service store* Store 6 , had a rather constant percentage of around 28 per­ cent meat sales to total store sales. In the other organization Store 1*, "tt*© self-service store, maintained about the same proportion of meat sales to total store sales as before conversion. This was between 22 and 23 percent. The similar proportion for Store 3 was between 20 and 21 percent. Meat sales are given different weights 165 among food chains* An efficient, progressive 100—percent self- service meat store can probably increase its meat sales as a per­ centage of total store sales by pushing its meats and offering its customers what they desire. Summaries of consumer responses to a mail questionnaire showed that they liked prepackaged meat* it were3 The three main reasons they liked 1) They could examine the meat by lifting out the package and looking at the meat; 2) The weight and price were given on the label on the package; and 3) They felt they could shop more quickly when they bought prepackaged meat* There were several other reasons given but the above three were by far most important* some who disliked prepackaged meat merchandising. disliked prepackaged meat because: meats in packages; There were They said they l) They had purchased off-flavor 2) They had been fooled about excess bone or fat hidden in the package; and 3) They had purchased chops or steaks in packages that were not cut uniformly* There were also other dis­ likes, but these three were most nre-iorous. Four pork chops per package was by far the first choice of oi < respondents in this sample. Almost one-half of all the respondents wanted four pork chops in each package. The next most popular number was six pork chops per package. One-third as many wanted six as wanted four* Almost as many wanted three and five pork chops per package as wanted six chops per package. Data obtained in this study indicate that for each package of pork chops that has either three, five or six chops, there should be three packages containing four chops. For every eight four-chop packages, there should be 166 on© two-chop package* Round steaks one-half inch thick were preferred by I4.0 percent of the respondents* Slightly over 25 percent preferred three-quarter inch round steaks• Seventeen percent wanted their round steak one inch thick* The Ten percent wanted round steak one-fourth inch thick. remaining small percentage preferred one and one-quarter or one and one-half inch round steaks* Three pound beef roasts were preferred by 29 percent of the sample* Three and one-half pound beef roasts were preferred by 20 percent. Four pound roasts were preferred by 19 percent* one-half pound roasts were preferred by 13 percent* wanted beef roasts over four pounds. Two and Nine percent Ten percent wanted beef roasts two pounds and under. Homemakers buy about 80 percent of the family meat supply. Husbands buy about 15 percent. Sons and daughters buy.the rest of the family meat supply. Purchasing meat once a week was done by one-half of the res­ pondents in the sample. Buying meat two or three times a week was done by h5 percent of the respondent*s families. Four percent bought meat daily and one percent bought meat once in two weeks. Ninety percent of the families in the study used a mechanical refrigerator for storing meat in their homes. ice boxes* Four percent used home freezers. Five percent used One percent had no mechanical or ice refrigeration for storing meat. Eighty-six percent of the respondents drove automobiles to the sample stores when purchasing their family meat supplies. Twelve 167 percent walked when they went to buy meat# transportation when shopping* Two percent used public One percent use either taxis or bi­ cycles when shopping for meat. The majority of the families in every size group preferred to buy their fresh meat prepackaged* However, as family size increased prepackaged fresh meat was less preferred* As family size increased? 1) Husbands bought a larger proportion of the family meat supply; 2) Meat supplies were purchased more frequently; 3) Heavier beef roasts, more pork chops per package and thinner T-bone and sirloin steaks were desired; I4.) There was no difference in the thickness of round steaks that was desired; 5) There was a smaller proportion of meat purchased in the 100-percent self-service meat stores in the sample; and 6 ) There was no change in the proportion of groceries, fruits or vegetables purchased in the sample stores. As family incomes roses l) There was a stronger preference for prepackaged fresh meats; 2) Meat was purchased more frequently; 3) Fewer thought that prepackaged meat cost more than comparable meat not packaged (the majority did not think it cost any more in any case); h) Mechanical refrigeration was used more for storing meat in the home; 5) There was no change in the preferences for beef roasts of different weights, the number of pork chops per package or the thickness of round steaks; 6 ) Respondents wanted thicker Tbone and sirloin steaks; 7 ) A larger proportion of the family meat supply was bought in the sample self-service stores; and 8 ) A smaller proportion of groceries, fruits and vegetables was pur­ chased in these stores* 168 As age increased; 1 ) Husbands bought a greater proportion of the family meat supply; 2) Meat was purchased more often; 3) There was no difference in the preferences for steaks of varying thicknesses; and I4.) There was no difference in the proportion of meats, groceries, fruits nor vegetables purchased in the sample stores• As weekly food expenditures roses l) Husbands bought a smaller proportion of the family meat supply; 2 ) There was a stronger pre­ ference for prepackaged meats; 3) Meat was bought more often; U) Mechanical refrigerators and home freezers were used by a greater proportion of the families; 5) There was a preference for heavier beef roasts and more pork chops per package; 6 ) A higher proportion of the family meat supply was purchased in the sample self-service meat stores; and 7) A smaller proportion of groceries, fruits and vegetables was purchased in the sample stores* As expenditures for meat increased; l) Meat was bought more often; 2) Fewer respondents thought that prepackaged meat cost more than comparable meat not packaged; 3) Heavier beef roasts and more pork chops per package were desired; and U) There was no difference among the groups in their belief that they were eating more meat since they had begun buying prepackaged meat* Labor efficiency in the self-service meat store in the study could have been improved from 23 to 30 percent without making any change in physical layout. their layout* Most self-service stores could improve Much thought should be given to physical layout be­ fore building a new 100-percent self-service meat store* 169 This study did not show that the cost of merchandising meat had been reduced by using self-service. Using self-service was a way of attracting more customers into the store, selling more meat and increasing total store sales. Possible increases in ef­ ficiency could reduce meat merchandising costs below the level in service stores. Customers liked 100-percent self-service meat merchandising and stores using this method are increasing yearly. At this time, however, less than 2 percent of the stores are 100-percent selfservice, but these stores retail 10 percent of the meat in the United States. 170 APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE USED FOR COLLECTION OF CONSUMER REACTIONS. Robert C. Kramer Graduate Student Agricultural Economics MICHIGAN STATE COLLEGE CONSUMER SURVEY - PREPACKAGED MEAT 1. How many people eat at least two meals per day in your home? (Include regular' boarders.) 1. Under six years of age _____. 2. Over six years of age . 2. How often do you buy meat? 1. Daily _______ 2. Weekly _______ 3. How do you 1. 2. 3. U. U. About what is the average amount spent for one week’s food supply for your family? (Include milk, meat - all the food.) $ __________________ 5. About what is the average meat bill for your family? $__________ 6. Please indicate the weekly income, after deductions, in your family by checking one of the groups below. (Check (vO one.) 3. 60 to 89 dollars _____ 1. Under 30 dollars ____ 2. 30 to 59 dollars U. Over 90 dollars 7. Do you believe you pay more for prepackaged fresh meat than for comparable meat not packaged? (Check (w) one. ) 1. No ____ 2. Yes ____ 8. Overall, do you prefer to buy your fresh meat: 1. Prepackaged_____ ____ 2. Butcher Service _____ 3. No Preference ____ 9. In your family, who does most of the meat buying? (Check (v) one.) 1 . Son U. H u s b a n d _____ 2. Daughter _ ____ 5. Single adult _____ 3. Wife or homemaxer ____ 10. (Check (o') one.) 3. Two or three times weekly ___ U. Every two weeks store your meat at home? Mechanical refrigerator Ice refrigerator Home freezer Other (Check (v) one. ) ____ ____ ____ ____ (Check (vO one.) Why do you buy prepackaged meat? (Check all reasons that apply.) 1. 2. 3. k* 5. 6. 7. 8. Weight and total price are given 9. No talking With butcher 10. Can shop more quickly 11* More sanitary 12. Convenient selection of sizes 13. Other _____________________ lU. Other Less bone Larger s election of items Meat is fresher Can examine the meat __ No particular reason __ Only kind sold in store __ Meat has higher quality __ (2) ' 11. I would like to know your approximate age. In which of the following age groups do you fall? (Check (vO one.) 1. Under 30 years ____ 2 . 30 to 50 years _____ 3. Over 50 years ____ 12. About what proportion of the following do you buy in this store? Meat (vO Fruits and Vegetables Other Groceries (y) 1. All ___ 1. All “ (I/J 1 / All 2. Most __ _ 2. 'Most ___________ 2.Most _____ 3 * Some ___ 3 • Some ___ 3. Some U. None ___ U. None ___________ U.None _____ 13. How thick do you like steak from a beef roundcut? (Check (vO the nearest one.) 1 . 1/U inch ___ U. One inch ___ 2. l/2 inch ___ 5* 1-l/U inch __ 3. 3/U inch ___ 6. 1-1/2 inch __ lU. How thick do you like T-bone and Sirloin steaks cut? (Check (v) the nearest one.) 1 . l/2 inch ___ U. 1-l/U inch ___ 2. 3/U inch __ £. 1-1/2 inch __ 3. One inch 6. Two inches 15. How many pork chop; do you like packaged in each package? (Check (vO one.) U. Five 1. Two 2. Three 5. Six 6. Seven 3. Four 16. What weight beef chuck roast do you prefer? one.) 1 * 1 pound ___ 2. 1-1/2 pound ___ з. 2 pounds и. 2-l/2 pounds 17. How long have 1. 2. 3. U. 5• 6. 7. 8. 9. (Check (**) the nearest 3 pounds __ 3-l/2 pounds __ U pounds U-l/2 pounds 5 pounds you bought meat at this store? (Check (/) one.) Less than one month ____ One to three months _____ Three to six months ____ Six months or more _____ meat by: __ ___ ___ (Check (/) one.) U. Bus or street car Bicycle 18. Do you usually shop for 1. Automobile 2. On foot 3. Taxi 19. How many blocks do you live from the nearest meat market? blocks 20. How many blocks do you live from a store which sells prepackaged meats? blocks (3) 21, Do you rent a frozen food locker? 1. Yes 2, No _____ 22, If so, about what proportion of the meat you use comes from the locker? (Check (v) one.) 1, Less than l/U 3- l/2 to 3/U_____ 2, l/U to l/2 U. Over 3/U___ ____ 23* Do you prefer to buy prepackaged fish: (Check (V) one.) 1. In packages of even weights, for example: 1 pound, 2 pounds, 3 pounds, etc. 2. In packages of random weights, for example: 1 pound 13 ounces, 2 pounds 7 ounces, 3 pounds 3 ounces, etc. 3. No preference as to weights of packages of fish. 2U* Since you have beenbuying prepackaged meats, has your family been eating: (Check (V) one.) 1, Less meat _____ 2, More meat 25. 3. The same amount as previously _____ Of the following, check (vO whether you would like more, less, or the same amount packaged and displayed in the meat case. 1. 2. 3. U. 5. 6. More Same Less Brains _____________ H e a r t s ______________ Pigs Feet _____________ O x t a i l s _____________ Suet or fat _____________ Spareribs _____________ 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. More Same Less Kidneys _____________ Sweetbreads _____________ Pork Liver _____________ Pork Neck B o n e s _____ _______ Beef Bones _____________ Other 172* APPENDIX B SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES (0 a PA ST' CM CM QO CM .-0 XA XA _0 PA PA "LA CO O -0 XA a PA to ~0 PA vO -0 On PA C— HI & vO CM | (0 73 $ J23 a PA a 0 a Os CM On 3 W a to a0 a PA to CM 73 • •P o o On CM XA PA CM H -0 vO CM 3 XA CM a ^ a CM C— CM O CM CM PA Is- 3 OO On CO PA XA H XA -0 CM CM CM 3 pa P— O CM XA CM CM H O H H XA XA H XA H C— -0 O PA H O PA O •* CM CM PA CM CO -0 On VO C— QO a w to 03 H 0) 0 O Q> (S I CH 0 0) PQ PA «N CM PA O- O On PA CM r— XA CO r=* XA PA o PA CM XA XA fCM CO On -0 O OO CO vO 3 vO 0 O O 0 i —1 ,0 •H 0 H xi •H 73 0 u I H 0 0 > i fq o Ph 73 9I o 0 PQ H 0 0 > S O PA CO PA OO On CO On -0 On PA Is- PA 3 XA -0 CM PA O NO CO o On CO H 8 ON On On e*O VO Ox PA VO PA vO H co CM CM ON CO CO XA H cm cm o* XA XA t t I CM VO PA t I 1 -0 H cm 0 to 703 Mg 0 H H 0 Ch *8 os CM CM £j CM IB 0 00 CM CO o :s XA CM o CM 7,185 Total Meat Purchases in Pounds in Store I4.by Weeks Appendix Table 1* O* PA CM W •a0 aCM CM O PA * ■P O O XA 00 a 55 vO XA 3 a) > o CM On O vO a 73 NO XA N M3 PA -0 a O O Is-0 3 CM o 0 <1> Q 0 C— CM H 10,182 ' CM H H 11,907 H vO 8,563 a 1 7,006 « 8,931 3 00 8,280 •a 8,989 CO to Total XA CM « o X0J 0 o 1 sq o pH C *1 H s-p 0 s 0 bo >» 0 to £ § CO § ph rH 176 CM 'S © UN C&, a on © a ja ss © TO a CM Ta>O TO txo •aCD © © 5* U o on on vO CO CM TO • © TO UN vO On CM On A UN © t3 co ON CM ♦ £ © on 3 CO «k VO TO On CM UN a •9 © CO r— rH UN ON 3 On vO CM 3 CM rH •% CM CM -3 CM (I I I O ON CO c— r-i 3 VO UN co ON UN -3 vO CM CM ON 3 CO UN o CO On n On CO CO CM -3 D— CM 3 On 3 CM ** OQ O o~ CM CM On CM •» CO CM i —I CM CO CO CM CM on CO O s * CM rH CM On on CM I I I d ON •V CM ON 3 rH CM O ON On vO CM -3 vO a £3 2 CM 3 CM •» CM rH vO CO 3 On I I I UN CM O CO o 3 Q 3 UN ON r*f* *\ CM s 3 UN CM CO O 0\ CM •> CM vO CM O ON vO C'- rH On UN O- O •s vO O sq rH UN C*— CM n CO CM © © © *S O CM © ■a S3 CM -• ct a ON CM o «N 3 O ON nO 3 vO CM C-~ C-rH O CM 3 rH UN P— ON O ** CM O ON vO UN vO *» CM ON i— 1 rH rH UN *\ CM ON CO OO rH ON -3 ON vO rH CM In ON •» CM 3 CM UN CM vO -3 o o On i—1 O CM 3 •s CM rH M_-f i O **» Jh CO © 1? CO CM 3 CO co rH rH ON 3 On UN OCM vO 3 rH ON on vQ UN vO O -3 C"Os vO $ *x> a CM •v o t © I— i NO rH ON CO ° A CM CM CM * sI rH CO ON (— i —1 rH TO •? C*-*! © © TO © © CO ON Os rH -3 rH CM rH O O © © TO •rl x> T TO © © TO i —I TO *ri X) rH © © > T © > O On CM *\ o- T©O «H tJ ON CM X* © a Ch ■a rH C— CM i —! m m © rH © c vO © TO © © v * iS © u V 15o TO EJ © W) © 5 © s © 03 -P & 52 o TO TO © *H TO rH © -P £ 177 o <0 ca * M At CM CO Q •v <*1 a ca C M• P ij XX to sO rH 0} •xi • Pi Qi Co CM r -i CM •X £ ps a (D X3 « s a XA CM XA A CM cco O •x CM CA CA co CA CM rH O', rH rH O sO XA CA PS a OS rH S3 a so *cf £ pi XA At CO -£■ XA At sO O CM CM •s CM -Pr co At ft SO «OS o 8•s c— rH -3 -=f CM XA CA CA CM CM iH rH CO O TS © a H f -P f CM sol -3- At O CO OO sol Os sO CM sO rH 8 I 1 Os CA 81 sO •x CM XA CQ (0 0) PQ rH A rH <0 £ f a! a> > A X> a> <8 W pi aj C/3 & -p rH P* O £H A m •H rH <6 -P O Eh 178 CM I (O wl 'S 0 H> a -= f CM CM •s CM o A CM © ri 'S I (0 CkO 5 % © 44 © O) JS; u <8 £3 •a0 a to § p» *"3 'd a Q\ rH O A 0\ CM rH CO rH c *- CO CA CO o On •s CA ~=t os sO O A rH r— c— A •s O rH A co 1A i —I A A CO co O A ~=t CO Os r*- O CM r-i -3 CM CM NO A sO c,» NO VO CO CM <*» CO Os QO £■*-d - os o vO sO Os «% rH -=r A C '- Os C*- A CO rH NO CM A A *> CM HJ \0 A CO -CJ 3 a o NO -GT A -H Os A A CM O Os •V •s Os O H f CM I—I O A NO rH A Os NO o A CM O A CO *s C"*- C*— CM rH IS O r-i O rH C"~ A vO A CO A CM *s -= r C"- NO A O- I—I Os NO CM i —•*I NO rH O Os O ^3" CM Os NO A *s CM Pi K» © to © 43 O OO CO CM 13 0 £2 a rH (0 NO CM CM a S > J2J a S* © % © A NO rH Os -3 f NO O- CM A CM A a A to NO CM QO rH C— *s CM CM CM CO CM rH NO NO CM A A A CA & OS CO rH •t 13 'C g «s CM CM © -3 f Os CM CM NO rH rH a A ao O i3 CM cA CM Os 3 rH -=t CM A «s rH ao ao ao *s iH CS CA A «s 1 1 8 1 1 CM A 1 3 i rH C-* CA CM A CM rH O A OO CO A OO OS •s o OS o ao rH o CM Os •s A O A A CM C*«- CM *s A O -3T a A A rH r— co O *» rH rH CO A A OS P"— •s O rH rH r**- Q i— I rH rH rH rH NO ao «v CM O CM O co sO NO OS A ao A O o t3 a •H O <3 £3 O o •3 e -i -=t 44 £ 10 43 03 'O a) a rH © © > ? rH © © E> V ° £ o3 44 P O Ph £3 O £ £ © SP © 3 CO & -P rH 2 o a* 43 © •H rH © -P O Eh 1 S. fr- oo CM d • CuO 0 *=»} o CM txO M a to IB § Pi CO rH d sp t• u) ■a a * vO % 18 £ 0 p « s On $ co r— oo CA -Cf a rH CM CM 3 -Cf XA c— C— vO CM CA XA CA CM vO fr- 3 rH CM CO On fr— CA XA O XA fA Q CA CO C— CA CO XA nO CM CO CA rH fr- frrH XA O fr- On CA 10,828 i 9,650 <0 8,656 CD **3 1 * t-s | a On vO CA vO On XA rH CO On vO frCA 8,1(56 On TJ vO CM to rH «S r-4 iS * (0 (0 Q> rH 0) G &PU 3 1 CD PQ ■s Eh c *H a> 0) PQ rH P d 0) M 0 & (0 cm O 0) rH ,P d CD 1 «H 0) CD PQ X) rC (0 ~ ON O- rH rH Pf CM UN On 8 rH oo o & CO c P o o (0 ■8 si a f —I CM CM rH on 6,751 CM CM CM •» ON • P O o 9,281* CM CM 9,593 180 i Q> CO CO % u O NO CM NO p rH 1 B 1 CM CM 11,087 0) CM (0 <0 CO 0*4 co a NO Pf PT ** rH 11,1*29 CO 11,065 £ p* CM Total i0 cd x: o •rl "8 O O XJ o> PQ cm a) a> *ai3 > JuJ t. O PH XJ 0J P3 O cj £5 f t a PoM c: o p p M 0) txD fc? to H cd 3 CO o PU •rl O rr\ i —9 C*~\ CM * CO o r-~ cr\ rH vO UN UN 3' US or\ c On CM 9 O CM o CM CM C-~ CM US O & O © Q bO c •H *> © © £ u Q «H a> a CO o a> Q CO UN c'N oo vO a QO XJ o CO CM rH ** o co vO a o us CO s o\ rH -=t co us CM vO o On f*s CM on 3 CM CM On C'S CO CM o o O 0'S * •P O o C"> us CO os vO a ON On CM O US o a -QI­ O CM P? > o SS NO On C'S ao CO •o cs CO co Q Cs— us -Ct 9 rH no 3 CN O n rH HO vO -H t NO vO NO O O us CM us On O Os CM co us NO us -nr o On O CM oo CfS VO 3 CM 6,002 > O ■O f*S CM 6,868 1 c— CM CM US a CO ■a I CO US «s rH P'S O rH rH C-~ CM rH rH TO to ■a © rH © *rH a © © PQ o X) © © © PQ © © PQ I © rH TO © > H H Q •rH X 1 rH TO © > us Us c*- rN rH 5 © 00 © © & +5 CO (U ,S i CO TO o © rH X I •rH o •9 I CO 5,318 to £ 0 7,083 © TO xs © «H e V © o tu IH O fU Cl -op t s o X! © •H Total Appendix Table 2* Total Meat Purchases in Pounds in Store 5 by Weeks •s © CO Xt C*- r-i © ao co CM & UN 8 6,772 rH 6,926 vO cvi 9 I I 9,632 0\ O ON 5,934 TO 'O 5,494 181 • ,0 CO tJ fS a On CO ♦ d rCQ D o C&t cx H CM i —•I ,o SB U 0 V p4 CO d a 1A •s CM 3 XA n CM C— o- aJ A> h a d XA rH t>* ft H Os r- vO ft a CM CO OO -=r " T? d ctf A> Os CM a 00 oo * Q 5 rH m —I 1 rH rH XA CM rH ~=t CA CM CA CM CM XA vO CM vO -=r CO O CM CO -St CA CM CM "if ri XA CA vO fA CO CA vO rH co vO rH o rH OO CA C'~ ■3 iH H? O CM CA CM XA fA JX A -=t XA 00 vO O fA O CO CM CA CM rA CO rH OCM GO 1 ~=t XJ CA CM q H O £ «J A> 1 I 1 VO XA CA rH vO XA rH CM XA C— o-=f XA vO CM CA XA ft CM fi CA CO CO CD i— 1 d a <0 *rl d 0 *9 1 Q> CL> PQ Vi CD Q> PQ rH M O a> rH X* d T a> 1 CD Q> CQ ta Xi CO 3 Vl rH *3 0 > rtt a> > 8,031 • 10,027 1 On CM 7,2)(2 0 Total 3 JG 6,969 CD ft II U o IX, d tuO 10 a CO Cti & -p r* O 0-, rH CO ■H Ph C OO l w • ■a Or I (0 H xf * £ &4 <*! a CO rH co CO * ~d Q* 1 o -=3 di * f-t UN OO CO 00 -d CM Os ♦ t— O Oi UN CO CO 0 01 Ol 8 o 58 Ol rH Os Ol c— O l -d sO sO O r- con -U -d sO UN CM UN i—I O CO CO sO sQ O CM OS CO co I I I co sO UN UN OS I—I S' CM P UN Ol rH CO C v— o 00 -d r— CO oi UN CO O -d 01 -d O o~ UN CO UN sO rH IS­ C 'S os sO Ol UN o *> -d •» CO O UN -d oOs os UN rH co O CO -d CM Ol UN cO CO CM UN d 01 O CM co CM r— Os i —I 01 0 UN O IS - UN -d CM O CM GO e— CM O r^» co sO CO PU (0 Appendix Table 2 (continued) CO O so eg S a CM CM (0 CO rH • § a co O f*® us o r— sO *k CO -d sO 3S co H C— C— sO C'— UN S co OS rH CM CO 0) •H rH * u CO sO UN rH CM 7,328 IH aj a -d CO 8,166 UN * Total Ol sO CM o cu rH OO sO CO UN sO sC 3CM -d CM sO CM sO CM sO sO ~d CO M i -d UN C— sO rH sO CM rH r - C- CM rH nf CO CQ 0) 01 *H O > 43 5 XI IQ CD v> 8,675 a o SO 00 «v 01 os ca 7,036 a. 3 8,932 o CO Ol 7,510 I US co co 8,SUU fr a ca 9,315 w C5 9,563 183 H O PH •O a> a Y t5 £ C .Q -P & rH PH Vi CO to CD ( —I CD a •H CD 0) CD CD PQ PQ Vi CD CD PQ CD rH -O •H CD & o Vi (0 O «s ? CD «H o C •¥ TCOD J rH CO a> > to Vt 1 M U o PQ •o CD CD ? -a H O PQ ao 9 .3 =3 c d to -P & I —i § -p CO PQ •H fQ fA CM rH rH XA CM O CM a c*— €0 • c p 0 1 O•V 1 1 rH CM rH rH O CA CM -P CM NO NO CM «\ CA XA CA 1 % § *1 -=$ O rH CO NO CM rH rH CO CO CO rH P «aJ a **} rH • 'S S so P -ft 0 ON fA ft 1 I 1 fi 1 1 co CM C*» XA «N CM XA rH fO rH NO O rH C— XA O rH rH O NO rH rH 1 i 1 On On On fNOn O «A nO co XA XA XA C* rH nO t— CM O On 0 rH r*H ON NO CM fA CO ON NO CM 3« I —I O *p ■"3 ft C XA fA O CA r*H NO *s rH nO On co CM t— XA on C-*** On O *> H XA CM a XA NO C^- On CM i NO CM ft A -4 XA CO 0) u ON 0 6,511 CA • r— ftf 7h a CO 0 rH CM O CM 6,827 hO P «*; CO 6,956 » Total NO 6,81(1+ a O G 1 Of t> rH (D ft 3ft £ SI 0) hfl <0 § C/J ft i —t P O ft o O & UN SQ -P O O ■a a CM ON OO •k vO UN VO rH ON ON OO i—1 •» CM Is- P— -ft UN O- • rH U \ CM O •* UN rH u\ r—4 O-- vQ ON CV1 os 1 I vO CO p *» ON On ON UN rH vO r*- vO on CM -=t 6,k7h -P Vl •o U\ CM CM CM P - CM CO CM r-i CM CM On CM v? UN CM vO UN NO -d CM O CO U\ on NO 6,1(18 • ft Total CM CM 7,031 186 vO ON CO CO un 0) •p IB rj vO riti o a •H ■a O o ON CM ON ON r—4 CM CM rH CK CO CO UN vO 5,3 1(9 &> c On On (0 co CO d a 2 P— o CM ON rH H rH ON CO CM CO d co ■ —i ON rH o -d CM 3 r~ i vC UN r—S CM CC UN 1 t UN ~=r S CO ! 1 o ft t On I I a on <*k rH •» rH —t CM o t rH 7,36? ft '•d 0) •rH -P a 8

m 1 ft © © ft ft ft ft ft O 0) rH ft CD r -i •H •o © 1 ft © 5 TO ¥ ■0)a > £1 (0 0) * Pi P o ft ;i2* The National Provisioner, Anonymous 191*8 Self-Service Meat* E* I* Du Pont de Nemours and Company, Wilmington, Delaware* 1*5 pp* Anonymous I9I4.8 How to Prepackage Meat* E. I* Du Pont de Nemours and Company, Wilmington, Delaware* 21* pp* Anonymous I9U8 Aluminum Foil Ham Wrappers* November• 20:35* The National Provisioner, 119, Anonymous 191*8 Meat Prepackaging, A New Try* Business Week* April 1?. p* 156* 188 Anonymous 15'U9 High Quality Key to Past-Future Gains for Sausage* A panel discussion at the American Meat Institute meeting reported in The National Provisioner* 121, October. lU;l60* Anonymous 19U9 Housev/ives Prefer Self-Service, USDA Survey Shows; Some Shoppers Miss Personal Contacts* The National Provisioner, 121, December* 25s19* Anonymous 19h9 Old Firm Has Young Ideas on Self-Service Packaging* The National Provisioner, 121, November. 21?20-22, 37* Anonymous 19U9 Processing and Packaging Get Emphasis in Denver Chain’s New Meat Plant* The National Provisioner, 121, December* 27?8-10, 20-22. ' “ “ ~~ Anonymous I9U9 Twist and the Sausage is Wrapped* 121, November* 19:28, 35* Anonymous 19U9 On With the New* 7 PP. The National Provisioner, E* I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company, Inc* Anonymoiis I9U9 Is The Meat Industry on A Threshold of A Market Revolution? Sales Management, 62, January* 15:37. Anonymous 1949 Prepacakged Self-Service Meats* 31 PP. Anonymous 19k9 Meat Merchandising* 19U9 Report, Armour & Company* Self-Service Meat Manual* 178 pp. Anonymous 19it9 The Progressive Grocer* No*~7, July*- P* 216. 161 Sixth Avenue, New York* Vol. 28, Anonymous 10^9 The Progressive Grocer* 161 Sixth Avenue, New York. No. 8, August* ^pr~”2oU* Vol. 28, Anonymous 1950 Boon Continues, Survey Shows* Reported by Amour & Company in The National Provisioner, 122, June* 23?lU* 189 Anonymous 1950 How Hunter Does the Job - Packaging Sausage for Sale by SelfService* The National Provisioner, 122, January* U:12,13,21* Anonymous 1950 Keeping Up with Prepackaged Meats. 122, April* l6s8l,8U,86. The National Provisioner, Anonymous 1950 More Meats, Other Items Sold in Super Markets Having 100$ Prepak Meat Units, Survey Shows. The National Provisioner, 122, March. 10: UO* Anonymous 195>0 Packaging Up-To-Date* 17:8-10, 15, The National Provisioner, 122, April* * Anonymous 19^0 Retail Trends Told in Survey* Reported by Armour & Company in The National Provisioner, 122, June. 25:19* Anonymous 1950 What Cleveland Shoppers Think of Prepackaged Meats* National Provisioner, 122, April. The Baker, Jim 19U9 Packaging Problems and Solutions. Reprint of a speech pre­ sented at the National Independent Meat Packers Association meeting reported in The National Provisioner, 120, June. 23:120-1U2. Bjorka, Knute 19U5 Marketing Margins and Costs for Livestock and Meat. United States Department of Agriculture I'echnical Bulletin No*932. Washingtons Government Printing Office, 19U7* 102 pp. Bonini, John 19U8 Improving Profits Through Packaging. Reprint of speech pre­ sented at the American Meat Institute Meeting, New York. September 20* 10 pp. Chamberlain, C.C. and Bratsler, J. J. I9U8 Report on Hope-Flannagan Project 1-A, 19^7-19^8. Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, Animal Husbandry Department, mimeographed publication* 13 pp. Clemens, 1923 R. A. The American Livestock and Meat Industry. NewTork* The Ronald Press, 190 Cooke, James 19h9 Our Experience in the Sale of Prepackaged Meats* Reprint of a speech presented at the American Meat Institute meet­ ing reported in The National Provisioner, 121, October* 111*170, 175, 1791 Dickie, Jack ¥* 19^8 The Future of Pre-Packaged Meat* Reprint of speech pre­ sented at the National Association of Retail Grocers1 Convention, Atlantic City, New Jersey, June 22* 8 pp* Dipman, Carl and Lucas, John D* 19U9 The Pros and Cons of Self-Service Meat Operations* gressive Grocer* Aprils 68. The Pro­ Dowell, A* A* and Bjorka, Knute 19U1 Livestock Marketing, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York* Edwards, J. D* and Strohm, D. E* 19U 7 Aluminum Foil* Aluminum Company of America, Pittsburgh, Pa* TTppI Carnats, George 19h9 A Review of Packaging in Connection with Retailing Meats. Reprint of speech given at the American Meat Institute meet­ ing, Chicago, Illinois, April 17* 8 pp* Gilchrist, F* W* ipUS An Analysis of Pre-Packaged and Self-Service As a Means of Lowering^^s'ts’^^f^Retaillng^Ifleat and Delicatessen Products* A copy of a dissertation presented to "the faculty of the Department of Economics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, June, 19^8* Gilchrist, F* W* 19U9 Self-Service Retailing of Meat. 13. (3) s 295-30li. The Journal of Marketing, Hall, J* B. 19U9 Packers Urged to be Alert to What Consumers Want* Reprint of a speech presented at the American Meat Institute meeting reported in The National Provisioner, 121, October. H i: 202-20iu Hinman, Robert B. and Harris, Robert B. I939 The Story of Meat* Swift and Company, Chicago* Hockman, Robert 0* I9I4.6 Problems in Packaging Meat Products. Reprint of speech pre­ sented at the National Independent Meat Packers* Convention, Chicago, April 12, 16 pp. 191 Kramer, R. C. 19U9 Consumer Response to Prepackaged Fresh Meats* Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station Quarterly Bulletin, 32, August* is12-16* Manion, Jack 19U9 Reviews Material and Machines for Prepackaging Job* Reprint of a speech presented at the American Meat Institute meeting reported in The National Provisioner, 121, October. Iij.;15>7-159* Nickerson, J. 19U8 Fresh Meat in Packages. Pp. 32-33. New York Times Magazine* August 15* ~ ~ Schueren, Arnold C* 1927 Meat Retailing* Vaughn Company, Chicago* Shafer, W* S. 19U8 Meat Packer Surveys Self-Service Meat Development* The National Provisioner, 119, October. 2:130, and Super Market Merchandising, June* 13:101. October: 77. Shepherd, Geoffrey 19U7 Marketing Farm Products* Iowa State College Press, Ames, Iowa* Pp. 1^9^57 * Steele, L. B. I9I4.6 Self-Service Spurs Pre-Packaged Trend. Reprint of speech presented at the Conference of the American Management Com­ mittee, Atlantic City, New Jersey, April 7, 19U6. 8 pp. Swift, Louis F* 1927 The Yankee of the Yards* A* W. Shaw and Company, London, England* Teitelman, Sam 19U8 Pre-Packaged Self-Service Meats* Armour and Company, Chicago. 36^pp* “ ~ Teitelman, Sam 19h9 Self-Service Meats* lU:36* The National Provisioner, 120, May. Teitelman, Sam 1914.9 Packer Surveys Trends in Self-Service Meats* Provisioner, 120, May* 21:lp. The National Teitelman, Sam I9U9 Pre-Packaged Self-Service Meats* Armour and Company, Chicago* 31 pp. 192 Teitelman, Sam 1950 Meat Retailing in 19^0. Armour and Company, Chicago. 29 PP* Teitelman, Sam 19E>1 Sell-Service Meats Today. Armour and Company, Chicago. 31 PP« USDA 19U9 USDA 19^0 Retailing Prepackaged Meats. Production and Marketing Administration, Marketing Research Branch, December* 27 pp* Marketing Activities* Production and Marketing Administra­ tion^ Washington, D. C., Vol* 13, Uo. 2* February* 2lu Whitmore, R. A. I9U8 Packaging Dehydrated Meat* Food Research, January* 13:19-28* Wiesman, C. K* 19U7 Packaging Supplies, Equipment, and Product Care of Meats for Retail Self-Service* Armour and 00., Chicago, Mimeographed publication. 12 pp. Wiesman, C* K* and Hagen, R. F. 19U9 Technical Aspects of Self-Service Meats* Armour and Co*, Chicago, mimeographed publication* 21 pp* Williams, E* E. 19U£ Merchandising Frozen Meats. Reprint of speech presented at a convention of the American Meat Institute, Chicago, October 30, 19^5. 8 pp*