AN EVALUATEQN OF SELECFED RELEASES OF MARKETING SWORMAHGQ FOR CONSUMERS PREPARED BY THE MICHIGAN COOPERATIVE EXTENSlON SERVICE Thesis for ”19 Degree of M. 5. MICHIGAN STATE UNWERSITY Marcia May Gillespie 1958 THES'S LIBRARY Michigan State University AN EVALUATION OF SELECTED RELEASES OF MARKETING INFORMATION FOR CONSUMERS PREPARED BY THE MICHIGAN COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE by Marcia May Gillespie A THESIS Submitted to the College of Agriculture of Michigan State ' University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Agricultural Economics 1958 (4:2 ‘7“ (5“ \J‘ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express her appreciation to some of those from whom she received help in making this study. The experience of working under the direction of Dr. J. D. Shaffer, Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics at Michigan State University, was felt to be particularly benefiCial. The cooperation given the author, and the interest expressed in this project by Mrs. Miriam Kelley, Assistant Director of Extension in charge of Michigan's Marketing Information for Consumers Program, was greatly appreciated by the author. The ten Consumer Marketing Information Agents supplied materials used in the study and were helpful also in providing additional data. Dr. R. C. Kramer, Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics at Michigan State University, gave helpful advice re- garding the consumer survey and the questionnaire used in the survey. Finally, the author wishes to thank Mrs. Lou Ritchie of the Agricultural Economics Department at Michigan State University, who conducted the homemaker interviews so competently. AN EVALUATION OF SELECTED RELEASES OF MARKETING INFORMATION FOR CONSUMERS PREPARED BY THE MICHIGAN COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE by Marcia May Gillespie AN ABSTRACT Submitted to the College of Agriculture of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements ~ for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Agricultural Economics 1958 Approved by W (a '0 561 Marcia May Gillespie ABSTRACT I The purpose of this study was to evaluate the information released to consumers by the Marketing Information Agents Of the Michigan COOperative Extension Service. The major consideration in the evaluation was to determine the potential value or usefulness of the information to consumers. The information was also evaluated specifically in terms of the potential contribution made to the accomplishment of four objectives of the Marketing Information for Consumers (MIC) Program. A sample of MIC releases was obtained by asking each Of the ten MIC Agents to select four different issues of each of three kinds Of printed releases which she had prepared during a one—year period ending in the summer of 1957. The sample of information used in this study probably represented better-than-average kinds of reJeases due to this method of selection. The sample of releases was subjected to a content analysis to determine the types Of information in MIC releases and the areas emphasized. Following this, the releases were evaluated by the author. The author's evaluation was based primarily upon findings from some current studies concerning consumer needs, interests, be- havior, and other characteristics relevant to the consumer's food buying experience. In order to validate the author's evaluations and to get a wider range of opinion concerning the potential value Of the information, two panels were selected. One-panel consisted of fourteen professional workers including home economists and agricultural economists. The -. second panel_was a group of one hundred and five homemakers (consumers) Marcia May Gillespie 2 consisting Of those willing to COOperate from a random sample of Lansing, Michigan, homemakers. The panel members were presented with several examples of information releases and a number of excerpts. and were asked to evaluate and comment upon the information. In general the author tended to agree with the members of the two panels in evaluating the information. However, in total, the author was more critical than the professional panel and the pro- fessional panel was more critical of the releases than the consumers. ’A high proportion (88 percent) of the MIC releases sampled contained some information of potential value to consumers. Both the homemakers and professional workers who participated in the survey expressed interest in food marketing information. A majority of the _ consumers said they would look for and read MIC releases and a majority of the professionals said they would like to be supplied with MIC releases for use in their work. The mOst useful types of marketing information appeared to be current market situation information (the foods in season, the price and quality). and buying guide information. In this latter area, the specific emphasis should be on guides Wh;Ch aid the selection of the most suitable kind, form, size,,or quality Of food. Marketing information presented in a concise form, with food features listed and prices and price comparisons in table form, is preferred to lengthy narrative. Homemakers want food prices. They want suggestions for what to serve and how to prepare the featured foods. They are particularly interested in "economy" meats. They prefer short-range forecasts (weekly or seasonal) to long-range fore- casts (yearly) regarding what to expect in the food situation. in da Marcia May Gillespie 3 A very high proportion (88 percent) of the releases contained information with some potential for achieving the Program objective to "encourage the consumption of foods in season and/or help move plentiful foods." In contrast to this, just over one-half of the releases contained information with some potential for achieving the PrOgram Objective to "help consumers understand the production and marketing process." One-half or more Of the MIC releases sampled could be sub- stantially improved. Greater emphasis on practical ways in which homemakers can make adjustments in spending for food would appear to be one means of improving the value of the information for consumers. The content analysis indicated that some commodity groups, especially dairy products, cereal products, and fats and oils, received much less attention in relaticn to their importance in the average food budget than certain other groups, particularly fresh fruits and vegetables. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION II. REVIEW OF RELATED CONSUMER STUDIES III. (THE CONTENT OF PRINTED RELEASES Kinds of MIC Releases Market Situation Releases 'Feature Articles Commodity or Store Sheets Other Types of Printed Releases The weekly Communication Schedule for Printed Releases The Sample of MIC Releases The Content Analysis Method The Content Analysis Data The Types of Information and the Emphasis on These Types of Information in MIC Releases The Number and Proportion of MIC Releases Containing Different Types of Appeals Summary IV. THE CRITIQUE OF MIC INFORMATION The Evaluation Process The Value to Consumers of MIC Information The Extent.to Which the Information in the Sample Met Four Program Objectives V. THE EVALUATION OF MIC INFORMATION BY TWO GROUPS OF RESPONDENTS The Survey Method Consumer Interest in Food Marketing Information The Value of Information in MIC Releases The Extent to Which the Information in MIC Releases Met Four Program Objectives Suggestions for Improving the MIC Releases The Kind Of MIC Release Consumers Prefer Types of Information MIC Releases Should Include and Emphasize PAGE 19 19 19 20 2O 20 21 21 22 25 25 42 43 46 46 47 62 67 67 72 73 75 81 85 85 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) CHAPTER PAGE V. (Continued) The Demand for MIC Releases by Professional Respondents 86 Evaluation of Price Information 87 Evaluation of Outlook Information 92 Evaluation of General Food Marketing Information 95 Evaluation Of Nutrition Information 99 The Hypotheses 103 VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 111 Conclusions 111 Recommendations 114 Areas for Further Study 116 Concluding Remarks 117 BIBLIOGRAPHY 118 APPENDIX 119 TABLE 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16, LIST OF TABLES PAGE The Number and Proportion of Three Kinds of MIC Releases Containing Different Types of Information ..... 26 The Frequency of Mention of Seven Major Types of Information in Three Kinds of MIC Releases ..... 27 Frequency of Mention of Each of Three Major Types of Information in Market Situation Releases by Food Groups ..... 29 Frequency of Mention of Different Types of Price Information in Three Kinds of MIC Releases..... 31 Frequency of Mention of Different Types of Buying Guides in Three Kinds of MIC Releases..... 33-34 Frequency of Mention of Different Types of Management Guides and Practices in Three Types of MIC Releases .... 36 Frequency of Mention of Different Types Of Storage, Use and Nutrition Information..... 38 Frequency of Mention of Different Types of Production and Marketing Information in Three Types of MIC Releases..... 39 The Number and Proportion of Three Kinds of MIC Releases Containing Different Types of Appeals..... 42 Number and Proportion of Three Types of MIC Releases Meeting Adequately Ten Evaluation Criteria..%.. 48 Extent to Which the Information in Three Kinds of Releases Met Four MIC Program Objectives..... 63 The Characteristics of the Consumer Group..... 69' The Value of Information in Two Market Situation Releases.....73 The Rating of Two Market Situation Releases with Respect to the Achievement of a Program Objective (1).. .. 75 The Rating Of Two Kinds of MIC Releases with Respect to the Achievement of a Program Objective (II)..... 76 The Rating of Two Kinds of MIC Releases with Respect to the Avhievement of a Program Objective (III)..... 78 LIST OF TABLES (Continued) TABLE ' PAGE 17. The Rating of Two Kinds of MIC Releases with Respect to the Achievement of a Program ObjectiVe (IV).... 80 18. Scores Assigned to Different Aspects of Market Situation Releases ..... 81 19° Types of Information MIC Releases Should Include and Emphasize..... 85 20. Evaluation of Price Excerpt I ..... 88 21. Evaluation of Price Excerpt II ..... 89 22. Evaluation of Price Excerpt III..... 89 23. Evaluation of Price Excerpt IV ..... 91 24. Evaluation of Price Excerpt V ..... 92 25. Evaluation of Outlook Excerpts I A, IIB ..... 93 26. Evaluation of Outlook Excerpt II..... 94 27. Evaluation of General Food Marketing Excerpt 1..... 95 28. Evaluation of General Focd Marketing Excerpt II ..... 96 29. Evaluation of General Food Marketing Excerpt III ..... 97 30- Evaluation Of General Food Marketing Excerpt IV ..... 98 31. Evaluation of Nutrition Excerpt I ..... 100 32. Evaluation of Nutrition Excerpt II ..... 101 33. Evaluation of Nutrition Excerpt III ..... 102 34. Evaluation of Nutrition Excerpt IV.... 103 35. A Comparison of the Author's Evaluation of Information with the Evaluations by Two Groups of Respondents ..... 109 36. A Comparison of the Two Responding Grovps' Evaluations ..... 109 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The Purpose of This Study This study was undertaken to evaluate some of the information released by the Michigan Marketing Information Program for Consumers-— a Program organized under the Cooperative Extension Service. The in- formation was evaluated primarily from the standpoint of its possible value to homemakers in food buying. The releases prepared for the printed medimeere used as the basis Of this study. No attempt was made to evaluate the information presented via the media Of radio, television, lecture-demonstration, or display, all of which, together with the printedmefium, are used in this Program to disseminate food marketing information to consumers. Findings from this study and recOmmendations should be ap- plicable, at least in part, to all of the Program's information, however. The information prepared for all media is similar in many respects, although each mefium imposes certain limitations.1 It is recognized that each Consumer Information Agent Operates in an institutional environment under conditions over which she has little control. The Agent often does not have wide latitude in writing 1The information must be adapted to suit the limitations of the particular medium, such as programming atmosphere and the require- ments Of editors and others. the releases, and must adapt the information tO suit the particular biases of food editors and others. This study undertook specifically to answer the following questions: 1 What is the content of the printed releases? 2. How helpful is the printed information to consumers? 3. What is the attitude of consumers toward this kind of service? 4. What is the relationship between the Program's stated ob- jectives and the information released? 5. Can the information be improved? If so, how? The Michigan Marketing Information for Consumers Proggam This Program, henceforth referred to as the MIC Program, is part of the Cooperative Extension Service, and supported jointly by Federal, State, and County funds. The Program was established in 1948. Its scope was expanded in 1954 as a result of a special ap- propriation from the State. By 1956, MIC projects were established in ten cities in Michigan. The objectives of Michigan’s MIC Program were established by law and administrative action and may be summarized as follows: A. To aid in the orderly marketing of agricultural commodities by:- 1. Helping to move normal and abnormal supplies. 2. Encouraging the acceptance of new and improved marketing practices. 3. Reporting consumer wants and needs to producers and handlers. B° To assist in the more effective use of agricultural products by:- l. Encouraging consumption of foods in season and in abundant supply. 2. Informing consumers of availability, relative costs, selection, care, value, and use of agri- cultural products. 3. Informing consumers about new products. C. To help consumers get maximum satisfaction from their purchases of agricultural products by pro- viding them with timely marketing information and economic principles as a basis for decision making in selection, purchase, care and use of agricultural products with regard to consumer needs and resources. D. To help consumers develop a better understanding of the marketing system, functions, and problems by pro— viding them with information on such subjects as production situation, economic trends, marketing services, marketing costs, marketing margins, and changes in the marketing system. E. To motivate people to adopt improved buying practices.2 The MIC Agents serving the ten Michigan projects work closely with other extension personnel, and also with retailers, wholesalers, processors, and producers in assessing, interpreting, and relaying food marketing information to consumers. The MIC Evaluation Prgject Michigan's MIC Program is seeking ways to improve its service to consumers. Fer this reason an evaluation study of the Program was initiated in 1956 in the Department of Agricultural Economics at Michigan State University in COOperation with the Extension Service. Four graduate students, under the direction of Dr. J. D. Shaffer, were assigned areas of the Program to study and evaluate and to make recommendations as they seemed appropriate. 2Annual Report of AMA Project - Michigan 4525-6, Marketing Information for Consumers, (East Lansing, Michigan: Cooperative Extension Service, Michigan State University, 1956), p. 50 One of these studies, a counterpart of the immediate study, was an evaluation of marketing information written for restaurants, hospitals and schools.3 A second study dealt with consumer use of mass media for food information.4 A third study is currently underway and is an attempt to establish some indications of the current level of consumer knowledge of food buying. The Procedure Used in This Study The author5 reviewed a number of studies related to consumer food buying as an aid in developing standards for judging the informa— tion in MIC releases. Highlights of some Of these studies are given in the following chapter. A content analysis was used to determine the subject matter content of a sample of the MIC releases. The data from the content analysis were related to the findings in the consumer studies in the evaluation process. This evaluation was primarily a critical review of the MIC releases. The emphasis was not placed on reporting the particular strength of the information. 3M. D. Boyts, "An Evaluation of Marketing Information for Restaurants, Hospitals, and Schools," (unpublished Master's Thesis, Impartment of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, 1957). 4R. E. Borton, "Consumer Use of Mass Media for Food Informa- tion," (unpublished Master's Thesis, Department Of Agricultural Ekonomics, Michigan State University, 1957). 5The author is a graduate in home economics and has been euployed as a home economist and as a college teacher of home management. A small panel of home economists and agricultural economists, and a group of homemakers evaluated some of the same material evaluated by the author. Their evaluation was used to verify some of the premises made by the author. The respondents also answered other questions related to consumer preference in food marketing in- formation. This was the background out of which recommendations were made for the Michigan MIC Program. CHAPTER 11 REVIEW OF RELATED CONSUMER STUDIES The highlights of some of the available current studies related to consumer food buying are outlined in this chapter. A complete review of related consumer literature was felt to be beyond the scope of this thesis. The author was particularly fortunate. how- ever, in having M. B. Minden's study,1 in which over one hundred consumer publications were reviewed, as a reference. The findings reported in Minden's work were of greater influence than it is possible to indicate in this chapter. They were drawn on heavily by the author as guides and standards against which to measure the value to con— sumers of the information in MIC releases. The printed MIC releases written for the "ultimate consumer" -—"the person who eats, wears, lives in, or uses up the things which industry and agriculture have made or grcwn for him"2--were the basis of this study. The following terms were used in the study to describe or identify the ultimate consumer and/or the person who represents a consuming unit, namely, "consumer," "food buyer," "homemaker,” and "food shopper". 1M. B. Minden, "The Consumption Decision and Implications for Consumer Education Programs,” (unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Purdue University, Indiana, 1957). 28. Chase and F. J. Schlink, Your Money’s WOrth, New York: Macmillan Company, 1927, p. 5. Consumers' Food Buying Problems The two outstanding food buying problems which homemakers say they have both relate to menu planning, according to a study by M. B. Minden. The two problems are: (1) how to add variety to menus within the average budget, and (2) how to satisfy food prefer- ences of individual family members, where there is Often a conflict in preference.3 Homemakers in Muskegon, Michigan, were asked if they had any particular queStions (problems) about food buying and meal planning which they would like to have answered. The majority (53 percent) of these consumers said they did not have any particular problems.4 Of those responding, the two most common problems were: (1) diffi- culty in adjusting to increasing food prices, and (2) the lack of ideas for variety in planning meals, with family preferences to con- sider.5 . Buying meat is another problem for many consumers. In both the Muskegon study6 and Barton's study,7 consumers expressed greater concern about buying meat than about buying any other one food. This problem has added significance in view of the fact that consumers, on the average, spend a higher proportion of their food dollars on 3 M. B. Minden, op. cit., p. 222. 4M.-Boyts,'M- Gillespie, M. Strickland, "Attitudes and Behavior of Muskegon Homemakers as Related to Consumer Food-Buying Information," (a progress report from a consumer information evaluation study, Dept. of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, March, 1957), p. 5. (Mimeographed.) 51bid., p. 4. 61bid., p. 5. 7R. E. Barton, op. cit., p. 129. meats, fish, and poultry than on any other single food group. Un- published data from the Michigan State University Consumer Panel for the period 1951-1954 showed that approximately 30 percent of the food dollar was spent on meats, fish and poultry. The amount spent on the other food groups gives an indication of the relative impor— tance of the different food groups in the food budget: Dairy (not including butter) ......... 17.8 Bakery and cereal products............ 11.9 Vegetables . ....... .. .............. .. 9.5 Fruits ............. ‘.' ............... . 8.9 Beverages ........................... 8.0 Fats and oils ....................... 4.9 Eggs ...... .......................... 3.8 All other ......................... .. 5.2 The Level of Consumers' Food Buying:Know1edge. The Muskegon study tested consumer knowledge and under- standing Of such fundamentals as: specific grades Of eggs and meat; differences in can sizes; reasons for price differences be- tween producers and consumers; terms used in connection with food, such as "marbling in meats," "pot roast," "protein foods," and others. The results indicated that a good deal of background in- formation must be supplied to consumers to help them become more familiar with terms commonly used in food marketing information; for example, only one consumer in four correctly described a grade "A" egg; only one in four had a clear understanding of the term "marbling in meat"; almost half said they didn't know what "marketing costs" were, and another 43 percent thought marketing costs referred to the amount it cost for their food shopping. Only 3 percent had a reasonably adequate understanding of the grade "U. S. Choice Beef."8 Minden tested consumer understanding of the term "basic seven," a term frequently used in nutrition information. The term had no meaning for 58 percent of the consumers; they did not even associate the term with food. Even though the terminology was not well understood, however, about two-fifths of the homemakers, when asked to describe an adequate diet, included four or more of the seven basic food groups.9 Some consumer studies indicated that consumer knowledge Of specific prices of foods is limited. The Muskegon study reported that only 13 percent Of the consumers answering knew the price of both large and small eggs at the time of the survey.10 Minden found that, although consumer knowledge of price was limited, a high per— centage of homemakers could report total food costs for a recent period Of time. This study pointed out too that the consumers with higher incomes had less knowledge of food prices.1 Minden's findings also indicated that consumers' knowledge of price-making forces was limited. About one-half of the consumers felt that food prices were out of line.12 When a particular food 8M. Boyts, M. Gillespie, M. Strickland, op. cit., pp. 1-2. 9Minden, op. cit., p. 153. loBoyts, Gillespie and Strickland, Op. cit., p. 3. llMinden, op. cit., p. 217. 12Ibid., p. 222. 10 was described as being "in plentiful supply," about three-fifths of the Indiana consumers surveyed associated a lower price with this information, however.13 Consumer Behavior and BuyinggHabits Three factors are important to consumers in making their food buying decisions Minden reported. These are quality, price, and convenience, and generally in this order of importance. Family preference was another top-ranking consideration in the purchase decision for these Indiana homemakers.l4 Muskegon homemakers, too, indicated that family preference was a prime consideration in buying most foods.15 How does price enter into the decision making process? Minden reported that the consumers studied did not weigh individual prices so much as they used price as a frame of reference with their more or less fixed total food budget in mind,16 and also as a means of lmking adjustments in spending.17 When planning and buying foods, homemakers appear to think first in terms of the total week's fcod needs and the total cost, next in terms of one day's menus, and finally, in terms of the individual foods at one meal. The cost- per-serving approach to price information is of little use then, 13Ibid., p. 170. 14Ibid., p. 220. 15 Boyts, Gillespie and Strickland, op. cit., p. 4. l6Minden, op. cit., p. 217. l71b1d., p. 225. 11 unless related to the total week's food buying experience, Minden concluded. As an alternative, she suggested lumping cost considera- tions on the basis of menus or costs per meal.18 Muskegon home- makers, too, showed less interest in costs per serving than in other types of food buying information.19 What effect have price forecasts (outlook) on consumer buying behavior? The majority (62 percent) of Muskegon consumers studied, when asked if they would have postponed a particular meat purchase if they had known it would be cheaper in one week, said "no." Only 14 percent said they would have postponed the purchase.20 About one-quarter of this consumer sample said that before canning or freezing, however, they looked for information as to whether prices would be higher or lower.21 The author interpreted these results to mean that outlook information would influence the timing of quantity purchases (where savings are more likely to be signifi- cant) more than it would influence the timing of small-sized pur- chases bonght for immediate consumption. Many consumers do preserve foods and would be able to benefit from outlook information. The Muskegon study found that at least half of the consumers interviewed did some home canning in the period of the survey. Comparatively few foods were canned. The most * 18Ibid., p. 226. 19Boyts, Gillespie and Strickland, Op. cit., p. 4. 20Ibid., p. 4. 21 Ibid., p. 9. if. E, All» o vlv. ...I.w..’.r- 'vb- l2 commonly canned items were peaches, tomatoes, pears, pickles, and applesauce. The amount spent on foods for canning was small in re- lation to the total food budget, however. Only about one-fifth of the homemakers did any home freezing. Something less than one-third of the Muskegon homemakers owned or had access to home freezers. A small proportion (again about one-third) of those with freezer space had made quantity purchases of food for freezing in the most recent 12-month period.22 Similar results to these were shown in a National Food Consumption Survey taken in 1955. Additional data in this latter study showed that those households in which food was frozen, froze an average of 353 pounds per year per household. Eigny-five percent Of the food frozen was meat, and beef was the chief meat. Those households in which cannning was done, averaged 209 pounds of food canned per year. In total, however, more food was canned than frozen. IDO consumers plan their food shOpping? The majority (53 percent) of the Muskegon homemakers interviewed used a shopping list of some kind.24 The Indiana consumers in Minden's study indicated that prior planning was important to them.251 The written shopping list was only one of several methods Of planning mentioned in both 22Ibid., pp. 8-11. 23U. S. D. A., "Home Freezing and Canning by Households in the United States," Report No. 11, Household Food Consumption Survey, 1955, p. l. 2 4Boyts, Gillespie and Strickland, Op. cit., p. 6. 25Minden, Op. cit., p. 219. 13 studies. There was little indication in Minden's study that shopping plans were made with direct consideration for single and specific meals, although one out of two homemakers said she planned meals one day or more in advance.26 There is seeming contradiction in this latter. One interpretation might be that the majority of con- sumers do some kind of planning before food shopping, but not in relationship to planned meals. A day's meals are planned around the foods on hand after shopping. Once a week shOpping trips were most common in Minden's study, with Friday and Saturday the preferred days.27 More women than men do the shOpping for food. Sixty-eight percent of 2,104 households in Lansing reported that the homemaker (female head) did the food shopping. An additional 13 percent of the households re- ported that the food shopping was done by the husband and wife to— gether.28 Do consumers select different grades and qualities of food according to the intended use? Forty-two percent of the consumers in Minden's study felt that the best grade should be bought at all times. while only 25 percent felt that a second grade was often quite satisfactory.29 The data were too limited, Minden felt, to conclude 26Ibid. 27Ibid., p. 220» 28J. D. Shaffer, "Profile of Lansing Consumers," Quarterly Bulletin, Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State University, E. Lansing, Vol. 39, No- 4, May, 1957, pp. 578-582. 29Minden, o . cit., p. 222. 14 how important this quality-use relationship is to consumers. Minden concluded, that the importance of the relationship probably differs widely from item to item and that a multipurpose product may be the . . . 3 one des1red in many instances. Consumer Interest in Food Marketing Information Consumers appear to be interested in all kinds of information related to foods A very high percentage (91 percent) of the Muskegon homemakers who took a newspaper, said they looked for food information (either regularly or occasionally).31 Barton's study indicated that consumer interest in food marketing information is high. 0n the average, one—half of all homemakers in the Michigan areas surveyed was reached by the MIC Program through the combined media. at some time. In one specific week, in the cities with MIC Programs, almost one-third of the home— makers, on the average, was reached.:32 Barton's results, too, re- inforced findings reported in other studies,that the printed medium is the medhmlconsumers prefer for food marketing information. Borton pointed out, however, that "newspaper readership of Michigan's MIC releases leaves much room for expansion."33 Consumer interest in five subject areas was tested by Minden. namely, time management, food buying (foods available, the price and 30Ibid., p. 227. 31Boyts, Gillespie and Strickland, op. cit., p. 6~ 32R E. Borton, op. cit., p. 131 33Ibid., p. 135. 15 quality), food selection (quality considerations in buying foods), economizing, and nutrition. Interest appeared to be quite high and about equal for the first four topics, with slightly more interest shown in time management. Considerably less interest, however, was shown in nutrition information than in the first four topics. The results are labelled "tentative" in view of the fact that "selected but limited questions were used."34 Minden concluded that nutrition information, if included, would have to "ride along" with other more "interesting" kinds of information to be acceptable to consumers.35 The Appeals to Which Consumers Respond How is consumer interest tapped? How are consumers motivated to adopt new practices, to try new foods? Minden found that con- sumers respond to three kinds of appeals, namely, prestige, creative, and social.36 On the basis of this, information which would be useful and yet "appeal" might include some of the following: ideas of what to serve to be the best hostess, wife, or mother in town, suggestions to help consumers be more creative in planning, buying, and preparing foods, or up-to—date information on new foods, food trends, and fashions.. 34Minden, op. cit., p. 213. 351bid., p. 224. 36Ibid., p. 224. 16 Summary This survey of consumer studies gives some insight into the nature and buying habits of consumers. The findings from these studies are not conclusive but the writer was guided by them in evaluating the MIC information. A summary of the findings follow: 1. Consumers are interested in food marketing information, as indicated by the size of the audience contacted by Michigan's MIC Program over a period of time, and by the numbers who read newspapers for food information. 2. Consumers say that they are more interested in information related to the management of time, and to information on food buying, food selection, and economizing than they are in nutrition informa- tion. The latter, if included, will have to "ride along" with other "more interesting" kinds of information if it is to be read. 3. Consumers regard meal planning as one of their chief problems associated with food buying and preparation. Menu sugges— tions to fit the "average" budget/and ideas for adding variety to meals would help consumers with this problem. 4. Consumers say they have more problems in buying meat than any other food, and consumers, on the average, spend more on meat than on other food groups. 5. Consumers do not have a good understanding of some words and terms commonly used in food buying information. Grades in meats and eggs are not well understood. 6. Individual food prices are used mcst generally by consumers as a frame of reference with the total (weekly) food budget in mind. 17 Information which helps the consumer to relate individual price to total food costs and suggests how adjustments can be made, should be helpful to consumers. 7. Consumer knowledge of price—making forces is limited as is consumer understanding of marketing costs. Information which will help consumers understand the economics of price, and information which describes the services and costs involved in marketing foods, will develop a greater appreciation of the whole marketing process, and of the part in it which consumers play. 8. The factors which influence consumers"food buying decisions most commonly are quality, price, convenience, and family preference. 9. Outlook information is more likely to influence the timing of quantity purchases than it is the timing of small-sized purchases. 10. ,More homemakers are canning than freezing. The total amount, by weight of food canned,is greater than the amount of food frozen. About 85 percent of the food frozen is meat. Information related to home canning of such foods as peaches, tomatoes, pears, apples, and pickling items, and to home freezing of meats, in particular, will interest that segment of homemakers (50 percent or more) who preserve foods. 11. Most food buyers do some type of pre-planning, thinking first in terms of the total week's food needs, next in terms of one day's menus, and then in terms of the individual foods to be served at a meal. Planning can be made easier for consumers if they have access to a concise outline of the seasonally plentiful meats, vege- tables, fruits, and other foods. 18 12. Consumers are motivated by prestige, creative, and social appeals. Food marketing information which incorporates these ap- peals will encourage consumers to make changes in buying habits, and in other ways, motivate them to change behavior or attitudes. 19 CHAPTER III THE CONTENT OF PRINTED MIC RELEASES The content of the sample of MIC releases is outlined in detail in this chapter. These data were compared with the findings in the reviewed consumer studies, in the process of assessing the potential V8109 to consumers of the'information in the MIC releases. Kinds of MIC Releases Market Situation Releases Market situation releases1 are written for newspapers and generally appear weekly. Each release is a run-down of the current local market situation, and intended to be a shopping guide for consumers. Not all Consumer Information Agents write this type of release, whereas some Agents write more than one such release weekly for different newspapers in their areas. Food fillers (es— sentially abbreviated market situation reports) appear daily in newspapers in some of the Program areas. Food fillers and market situation releases were combined in this study to make a sample of forty-seven issues representing nine cities. See copies of market situation releases in Appendix, PP. 120—121. 20 Feature Articles This type of release is also written weekly in some centers for local and district newspapers. This kind of release covers buying information for one or two food commodities. Thirty feature articles from 7 cities made up this sample. Commodity or Store Sheets Weekly commodity sheets2 generally feature one product in season locally. They are supplied to some food stores in limited quantities for distribution to customers. They are also distributed by mail, to consumers (a service discontinued in 1957L,and by home demonstration agents, food handlers, and others in touch with con- sumers. On occasions, the information has been written cooperatively with other agencies such as the Poultry and Egg National Board. Not all of the Agents write this type of release. Twentyéeight commodity sheets from seven cities made up this sample. Other Types of Printed Releases The three kinds of releases, previously mentioned, make up the largest proportion of printed material written by the Consumer Information Agents. In addition, some of the Agents write special releases for home demonstration agents and teachers, and special outlook reports. These releases were not sampled. 2See copy of commodity sheet in Appendix, p. 122. 21 - The weekly Communications Schedule for Printed Releases The total number of printed releases distributed weekly was given in the 1956 annual report as follows:3 Newspaper: 18 daily papers in 10 city projects 55 weekly newspapers in 5 city projects 1 monthly newspaper in 1 city project Commodity Sheets and Store Sheets: 21,650 per week in 228 stores in 6 city projects Information is also supplied to home economics teachers, to home demonstration agents, to food editors, and to home economists in business,who in turn relay the information to homemakers. The Sample of MIC Releases The three major kinds of MIC releases. namely, market situa— tion releases (with which food fillers were included), feature articles, and commodity or store sheets made up the sample for this study. The information evaluated was that prepared by the Agents for print, but not necessarily the same information which appeared in print after editing; The Consumer Information Agent in each of the ten city projects selected four representative issues of each type of printed release, written between June, 1956 and June, 1957. Combined, these made up a total sample of one hundred and five issues. The Agents selected the issues on the basis of those best representing g 3Annual Report - 1956. op. cit., p. 13. 22 the approach used in the area and those which, in their opinion, best fulfilled the Programls objectives. This method of sampling was used rather than a random system because of the varying circumstances in each area which influence the writing of the releases. An over-abundant local crop may ex— plain several references to a particular commodity in a local re- lease. A special community project may explain the theme in a particular marketing release. Some issues represent the general pattern of information better than others, it appears. For this reason, the Agents made the selection of "typical" releases. The author assumed that better-than-average types of releases were included in the sample as a result of this method of selection. It should be kept in mind that in all likelihood this evaluation study deals with a sample of releases superior to a sample selected at random. The sample represented just less than 10 percent of the total number of issues written by all of the Agents in one year (eleven hundred and fifty is approximate total). It was believed to be a Pruictica] size of sample in view of the time requirement for analyzing l the content of each issue. The Content Analysis Method The instrument found useful for describing the content of the information was the content analysis. This method breaks in— formation down into its component parts for measuring the frequency 23 of mention and the relative emphasis on the different types of in- formation. Categories and sub-categories were set up to represent the different types of information occurring in Michigan's MIC printed releases. These categories and sub-categories were intended to be as nearly as possible mutually exclusive and exhaustive. Some in- formation was scored under more than one category, however, and these exceptions will be explained. The following categories and sub-categories were established to represent the principle types of information: 1. Current market situation 2. Outlook. 3. Buying guides. (a) Identification of product. (b) Quality characteristics. (c) Quantity guides. . (d) Guides for selecting the most suitable kind or form, size, or quality of a food. 4v Management guides and practices. 5.°Storage and use (a) Care and storage. (b) Use and preparation. 6. Nutrition. 7. Production and marketing. These categories and sub-categories were in turn broken down into forty-eight sub-divisions describing the type of informa— tion in detail. They will be discussed later. The information in the three kinds of MIC releases was scored according to the numbers of each kind of release in which each 24 of the various types of information occurred, regardless of the amount of such information in each issue. In addition, data were collected to show the frequency with which each different type of information occurred in the three kinds of MIC releases. The information content in the first three categories of in— formation was recorded by food groups. An example of the scoring of an excerpt of current market situation information follows. Red apples in abundance bring a Fall look to fruit counters, and plums and peaches make room for them. Grapes are abundant. Chicken and turkey are good eating at low cost. A; Meat, Fruits Total Type of Information Occurrence Poultry. and Dairy Eggs Fish Vegetables FrequenCy k Number Mentioned Current market situation X 2 4 O . O 6 information Where several varieties of food were mentioned, they were Scored only once under current market situation (e.g. , Spanish ("tions and globe onions were scored as "one" under "fruits and vege- tables"). Both fresh and the processed forms were scored under "fruits and vegetables." The content analysis, as a method, is criticized because of the extent to which subjectivity enters into the scoring. The writer attempted to overcome this by defining the categories and sub-categories as specifically as possible and also by making them, as nearly as possible, mutually exclusive. 25 Three other graduate home economists scored and evaluated independently some of the same material as the author. When the scores and evaluations were compared, they were found similar in most instances, with no serious conflicts of judgment. All of the issues were scored a second and some a third time by the author, at intervals, to determine the amount of consistency over time. The scoring method showed a high degree of consistency over time. The Content Analysis Data The information in each issue was analyzed for the types of information contained and the frequency of mention of the differ- ent types of information. The data for the three different kinds of releases were recorded and discussed separately. Types of Information and the Emphasis on These Types of Information in MIC Releases The data in Table 1 gives a comparison of the types of in- formation which occurred in the three kinds of MIC releases. These data will be discussed with the data in Table 2, in which the em- Phasis on the different types of information, by frequency of occur- rence in the different releases, is shown. The data in Table 2, it Should be pointed out, gives the relative (not absolute) emphasis on the types of information. No attempt was made to count the number 0f lines, phrases, or in other ways to determine the absolute em- phasis in the information. a... Im-<.~. 26 om nv mm mm .vo an on ww an or vH do mm mm NH mm mm ma HA ma ma MN ma m 6H Co Hm mm mm Hm he mm mm mm mm on em he mN ¢N He ma mm mm «N am av mm mm mm commando momma“ no amass: moaeoxasfi use sowuoamoam ooaoaoosz soaHsAdnoam use on: omshoum use when om: use owsaoum mooaaosha one nomasw asofiowssez moon «0 haaaosu so .ouum .anm .msmx oHnsaasm .umoe wswooomom hon seesaw mucous masseuse mowumwaoaoehono hemaoso posuoam «o sofiasowmaasomu momwsw mswhsm Aooaamv xooauso :oaossuao aoxhsa «cognac oHQEsm mo mosmmm uo :ofiasoaosm Loaasz «ooem soaeossou on mm mm no ma mm am On mg no on no nu oe Nu nn 0H Ow ma hm om en AH no on wag—am Ho awn—mam HO soausomoam sonasz ohsosom oHnEsm no mosmmn mo somehonoam hoassz :oaoozoam hogan: omeoaom no mas: acqaofihousn no momma J L ZOHHHm ho ZOHBZHS ho MUZHDOmmh HEB N HAQ<8 28 The data in Tables 3 to 8 inclusive, will be discussed with reference to the emphasis on the different types of information in the three kinds of releases. Value judgments regarding the optimum proportions for the different types of information in each kind of release entered into the author's evaluation of the information, presented in Chapter IV. Market Situation Releases Current market situation information was given in a high proportion of these releases, according to the data in Table l, and for an average of seventeen food items per issue for the total sample as seen by the data in Tables 2 and 3. All but two issues of the market situation releases contained this type of information. One of these two issues contained outlook only and another was a novelty-type issue. Information described as "current market situation" included any of the following: the foods which are in season; the extent of the'supply, the quality, and the current local prices The information in the market situation releases was scored also by food groups and these data are given in Table 3. In market situation releases, the two food groups, meats, Poultry, and fish; and fruits and vegetables, accounted for a very high proportion (over 90 percent) of the food products mentioned One-third more fruit and vegetable items were mentioned than meat, fish, and poultry items in this kind of release. The proportions of dairy products. cereal products, and eggs mentioned in market situa- tion releases were low_ 29 be mosmmw «o Lamasz coon e no haaumsa so mm o ,m o ca as .ouao .Ehoo .ooaa oanooaah N «mos wsaaoouom sou momasc as o a o ma Hm ooeasm masseuse mm o o ,o on s moaaoahoooohoeo shampoo w new 5 ee A mam or «escape mo sowosUaMHucomH mamas» wswhsm ma ewe n so am nan own Aoowamv cm H v N on on moouaso us who m an :om who no» ooaoosoao soaps: «cognac codewasoa esoufi mo honasz moanooomo> some hon “HMMM moccaasoz momma mmmm human use .hhadaom honasz Lonssz newshh use: sesamssomsu no make omsao>< Hooch Boon mock no team I) “HIM l I i (I) I! )I‘)" I) I I) i I) (I mmDomU Doom wm mmmsom son uaou o o o o as ons use: hos moses so s no as no son guanoooooosz .=Hoosso:ooo: ..m.o .monssomoc oofism usoosom hososaosm asoosom hososvosh «coosom homosuosh oooom sosooasoo assaoos :osoooosm «axon: cowasasossm oossm so 0959 omoodom so was: osmosass us: so mozss asses zs ons< o a eu oases osno> so\ooo haoooom e n e masonsossn hasaoooo omsdu on _ as NN mow>som son oosssoaao so was: sea muss>sow mousse sosooooo a NN as NH s an accuses use aoaoa now N llll. H IIII. alll! masocsoam was mooosu o o H savanna sows headooaucsommsonaoo N N o seaflooo soon: NH a oN huwuoso ooowuoosuAssomon mosamasoaoososo hasaoao mo was an on as son oooosos ooo soooo now kg N o aoswosn 0 HA an ossoooam cos ooosu on m cm haowso> use ooosm n m on mosonosn so com: Iona nN n NH .oao .musouooswsw .usopooou wN e N mason oaaeaso>ou on mH on .ooo .so>ous .oNsmuooaumssomon o n no oosouoosssofi so :wosu oos< m s ns gaseous =soz: «osmosm so sowaoowssaooom wooosom hooosvosh «causes hocoooosh aooosom hososoosk soonm wasoossoo assumes :osoeoasm posse: as: :osuossosos assoc mossom so moss omoouom no 6 J ammomqsm as: so mosz mamas 2s mmosoo oszom so amass szmmmssun n mqm.R-= .u J am' “.mnlfifl ) lid: Hr iii-T... (d m a moava‘ihw-v . . l. ) I Ill ,. .I I I ll 1, 5) '“Ill... 3))...NVIII .).I)llw| lw‘wm m V... I I,.||Il.|||| -I|)||I.- I III It.) )I) 34 la 0-1 If) [a V‘ n CwOIn' I?“ IS" F! IE" '9 r: h m It." o fl' AH ’l OMfi‘fi‘ ooohuos< mosmmm so sonaoz Hooch ooosc «season one Hoaou now masou osao>nbeosoom muoommo oooosso>soo oo~s> oooh om: ow mousaos oooosoonno .ossaxou .so>sHh moososomosm hasfidk sees a so sassoso soossmisos .25. manoussm who: mcwuoonom sou mousse sooosom hoooouosh (lhll, asoosom hocozvosh «mogm sasoossoo cowoozawm aoxsoz usoosom hooooaosh osmamoh as so oosu oosuossocoa ensue mosssm so onba ahead (I!!! 4/ oozzsuaoo .: n fian mo wcwauoaom wuaosusxo use oaosnsoo as am «sowpmshomsw oasasoo< «sowusaaomsw seaweeds; emsofiaoohwo Amado «Havana was «mosoucw as us: avocados asammm «vooumaocss can pooh magnum essmaoa oaaoeasm «Ho>ou holsmsoo as sewasaa0msm mans—mm .«o mozmmm no seashosoam amassz scaaaomoam woo oasesm mo.mo=mmn no cans—mm mo season we honasz seawaoaoamn aonasz cm seaoossao osseasm so seam cassava assessssm sexes: assesses m zms samecsamme ozHammz mmmH o>oooosoo Hm e um m w n Hooosoooo oz so so so «H mm on asooooooo osom mo m em m on ma ooom zaaooosoood moowuoosm asoaomoosi coo masks: season enema o» oum>fieoz HHH o>oooofioo we NH mm s m o Hoaoooooo oz so as oo so no Hm zoooooooo snow as n ma n no «N ooom zasooosoooo mCmewooo shoueGHMMvom anon on news! so mosmwo ucwpm owsocooo omm mosaoxhoa so codasshomoa ooszcooo oom>osm Hm o>oooosoo on OH OH n o m zsoosoooo oz mm o on o em as Hoooooooo osom an o on Hm on an ooom zzaooosoooo mooom quwasosm o>oE ado: ho\o:o common :a mecca no cowumsswsoo ouchsoocm H o>oooowmo osmsom no mosmmm no oasesm mo mosmmu mo osmesm no mosmmu mo sowosomoom Lenssz newonomosm Lonssz :ofiesomoam Lonfisz mo>aooonno sooam hufioossoo ogsuoom cameoseam «expo: omsoHom so as“: '( wm>usose. mo z