R. n? LEWIS, n i;e¢:or,E cQ11ege % s1<1z:on T ¢xqs m ¢o@pera *i @=1 UNITED STATES; DEPAR TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION E A. s. M. COLLEGE OF rams M“ . n14 / The AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE SYSTE1V I c133 cucnmsw, Chancellor [Blank Page in Original Bulletin] Digest Texas citrus growers, shippers and processors are confronted with a competitive struggle if they are to maintain a fair re- turn on their investment, in comparison with other citrus pro- ducing areas. If the expansion of the frozen orange juice con- centrate industry continues as recently evident, canners of single strength juices and handlers of fresh fruit will face stronger competition for consumer sales. Maintenance of quality citrus highly acceptable to consumers will be a. prime require- ment for obtaining a normal share of the consumer’s citrus dollar in the years ahead. Knowledge of consumers’ preferences and buying behavior under changing conditions of supply, price, quality and family income are useful to the citrus industry from grower to retailer. This is a report of consumer preferences and buying behavior for a selected area in Houston, Texas. Of the several studies undertaken cooperatively by public research agencies, this is one of the few that have integrated the results of a consumer preference survey of households in a selected area with retail sales data from stores supplying the same area. In this way in- formation was obtained as to shoppers’ likes and dislikes of the citrus products available to them, consumers’ stated buying behavior, and consumers’ actual buying behavior when con- fronted with a wide range of citrus products. In addition, con- sumers’ opinions as to the relative values of citrus foods avail- able in fresh and processed forms were checked against lab- oratory tests. This study is a phase of the Southern regional citrus market- ing research program under the Research and Marketing Act of 1946. Cooperating agencies are the Texas Agricultural Ex- periment Station and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U. S. Department of Agriculture. Other agencies who are co- operating in the Southern citrus marketing research program are the Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, the Produc- tion and Marketing Administration and the Farm Credit Ad- ministration. M45-750-4M-L170 CONTENTS Page Digest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 Analysis of Sales in Retail Stores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 Choice of Citrus Available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Comparison of Sales of Citrus Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 Analysis of Household Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 General Use of Citrus Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13 Extent of Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13 Consumption of Citrus Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Family Characteristics and Use of Citrus Products . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14 Reasons for Using Citrus Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15 Reasons for Not Using Citrus Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Competition Between Citrus and Other Fruits and Their Juices . . . . . .. 19 Specific Citrus Preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22 Size of Can . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22 Sweetened and Unsweetened . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23 Fresh Citrus—Packaged and Loose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23 Pricing by the Pound versus Count . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Color of Grapefruit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24 Color of Grapefruit Juice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25 Decision-making in Purchasing Citrus Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25 Convenience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25 Advertising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25 Determination of Amount to Be Bought . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Factors Causing Change in Buying Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26 Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27 Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29 Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29 Summary of Replies to Questions Asked Homemakers . . . . . . . . . . .. 29 Paired Comparisons of Taste Preference . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Taste Test Ballot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 48 BULLETIN 722 JUNE 1950 Citrus Preferences Among Customers oi Selected Stores KENNETH A. FUGETT, JAMES A. BAYTON and H. WAYNE BITTING* ITRUS IS ONE of the chief fruit crops of the United States. In terms of tonnage, oranges ranked first among the fruits and grapefruit fourth during the 1948-49 season. Citrus con- stituted 44 percent of the total tonnage of the important fruit crops for the period 1943-47. Citrus juices represented 60 per- cent of the total fruit and vegetable juice pack for the same period. Production of citrus fruit nearly doubled in each decade from 1910 to 1940. It has increased since 1940, but at a slower rate. The present trend in national production should continue up- ward with the increases in age of citrus groves and new plantings. The full effect of increased citrus production combined with a sharply reduced demand from the wartime level was demon- strated when prices paid to citrus growers became adjusted to prewar relationships in advance of most other agricultural commodities. Prices to growers fell to distress levels and re- mained there until the freeze in 1948. As a result supplies were reduced and prices rose. Freezing weather in Texas and a hur- ricane in Florida in 1949 sharply reduced the orange and grapefruit crops; prices and returns again increased. Adverse weather conditions in the producing areas, however, cannot be relied upon in the long run to eliminate burdensome supplies. Improvement in quality and merchandising will become more essential with a return to a normal production pattern. The major objective of this study of consumers’ preferences is to discover possible opportunities for expanding the market for citrus, both in fresh and processed forms. The citrus prod- ucts investigated were fresh oranges and grapefruit, canned orange juice and orangeades, grapefruit juice and blends, and frozen orange juice concentrate. *Respectively, associate professor, Department of Agricultural Economics and Sociology, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, College Station; and social science analyst, Division of Special Surveys, Bureau of Agricultural Economics; and agricultural economist, Division of Marketing and Trans- portation Research, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, United States De- partment of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. 6 BULLETIN 722, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Consumers’ likes and dislikes of available citrus products are extremely significant if retail sales are t0 be expanded in line with production. Since homemakers are the purchasers at the retail level, their reactions to quality, price and merchan- dising methods have a direct bearing on quantities sold. The information obtained both from the homemakers and from the retail stores represents an adequate sample of the groups for the period studied. Undoubtedly, some differences may prevail among consumers shopping in retail stores in other parts of Houston and in other cities; likewise, consumer be- havior may also differ under changed conditions of supply, quality, price and family income. For these reasons it is es- sential to expand consumer preference studies on a national level. The information obtained through this type of research should provide a basis for effecting improvement in marketing prac- tices and should serve as a basis for educational and promotional programs for consumers. If growers, shippers and retailers are aware of consumers’ preferences in a given market, they can more intelligently supply the area with the type, size and quality of citrus which consumers desire and are willing to buy. Like- wise, if the industry is aware of the competitive relationships existing among citrus products and non-citrus fruit and juices, they will be more adequately informed on opportunities of maintaining or improving their position against competitive products. Procedure Houston was selected for this study as it is one of the major centers of consumer buying power in Texas. A heavily populated area in the southwestern part of the city was selected as it is an isolated market area. This community is supplied largely by two supermarkets. These stores are located on the same side of the street in the major shopping district for the area. They are separated by a narrow side street and adjoining parking lots. Both outlets have large parking facilities. The area surrounding the stores from which the sample of homemakers was drawn includes. approximately 5,900 dwelling units and is bounded on two sides by open land; a railroad bounds a third side, and the fourth side is partially bound by a large institution. Therefore, the area appears to be ideal for purposes of locating homemakers who patronize specific stores from which sales records could be obtained. The purpose of the household survey was to obtain informa- tion on the extent of consumer knowledge of citrus products, the reasons for likes and dislikes, consumers’ preferences among citrus products, consumption and purchasing practices and family income and composition. CITRUS PREFERENCES AMONG CUSTOMERS OF SELECTED STORES 7 The purpose of obtaining retail sales data from these two stores was to study the influence of the household characteristics upon the pattern of citrus sales. The quantity of Weekly sales of citrus products was obtained from the two stores by the project leader. The sales were computed by the inventory method. The household survey was planned by drawing a random sample of blocks in the area; the sampling rate was designed to yield approximately 300 homemakers who had shopped at each store within the 2 weeks prior to the interview. All dwell- ing units within each sample block were visited to locate these customers. The person interviewed was always the member of the household with the greatest responsibility for buying and preparing the food. This person is referred to in this report as the “homemaker.” The Division of Special Surveys, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, selected and trained the enumerators in Houston. Most of these enumerators were women who special- ized in part-time survey work. A trained supervisor from the Division assisted in the field work as a means of insuring de- pendable data. Replies obtained from the questionnaire are shown in the Appendix. It should be noted that the persons interviewed were a sample of homemakers from a particular area who had shopped at one or both of the stores within a two-week period, not a sample of the entire list of homemakers who were customers of the two stores. Some of the latter customers came from outside the area from which the sample was drawn. The families comprising the sample were of relatively high socio-economic status. The median family income per year was $7,200 (half of the families had incomes from $7,200 up and half had incomes below $7,200) although incomes ranged up to $23,400. Sixty percent of the heads of these households were either professionals, self-employed businessmen or managers. The household interviews were made from May 15 to June 15. 1949. Price and sales data for the six citrus products and for to- mato, pineapple, apple and prune juices were obtained weekly from the two retail stores supplying this area. This information was tabulated by U. S. grades, brands and sizes for the exact period during which the household survey was made. As a separate phase, similar data were also obtained from March 1 to June 1, 1949 for the same 2 stores and 10 other super- markets in Houston. These stores were selected by location in high, medium and low income areas, with the aid of supervisors from the four major food chains. The two stores in the household survey area were a part of the four stores selected for high income areas. This provided a basis for comparing the pattern of citrus sales among high, medium and low income areas and a means of comparing the sales for the two stores in the house- hold survey area with other stores in similar income areas. 8 BULLETIN 722, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION The laboratory tests were made in the Fruit and Vegetable Laboratory, Department of Horticulture, at College Station. The samples of‘ the processed citrus juices were selected at random from the stores in the household survey area. Samples of each of the brands were taken from the floor displays of both stores. The purpose of the laboratory work was to relate the physical characteristics of citrus juices available in retail stores to the statements made by consumers about these characteristics. Comparisons were made in the laboratory of the vitamin content of fresh and processed citrus; and the relative cost of fresh citrus, canned citrus juices and frozen orange juice concentrate. A “taste test” panel was also conducted in the laboratory to compare the known physical differences in the samples of grapefruit juice with a taste rating on color, flavor and ac- ceptability. The panel consisted of 8 to 16 people. The samples were tested at 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. only, on two separate days. The lot for each brand to be sampled was at room temperature and was composed of six 46-ounce cans of the same code num- ber. The taste test and procedure consisted of setting up four samples, one of which is duplicated thus: Sample A—-1 Sample C—-—3 Sample B—2 Sample A—4 The requirement of the ballot (taste test ballot in appendix) necessitated the identification of the duplicate sample by the individual. If a person did not give the same scores on color, flavor and acceptability for the duplicates their results were eliminated from the summation of the scores for any given series of tests. Analysis of Sales in Retail Stores Data obtained from the 12 retail stores provided a quantitative measurement of the relative importance of sales among fresh oranges, fresh grapefruit, canned orange juice, canned grape- fruit juice, canned blends, frozen orange concentrate and canned juices other than citrus—tomato, pineapple, prune and apple. Information on sales by retail stores was obtained both in dollar value and in physical volume from March 1 to May 1, 1949. This period reflects the pattern of consumer purchases during the spring months. The quality of fresh citrus declined in the late spring while prices increased because of the limited supply remaining to be shipped from the producing area. Thus, this study provided some measurement of the kind and extent of substitutions which are made for citrus as quality declines or prices increase. Consumers spent twice as much for fresh citrus as for either processed citrus juices or fruit juices other than citrus. The breakdown of the consumer dollar among the various groups of products was as follows: fresh citrus, 50 cents; processed CITRUS PREFERENCES AMONG CUSTOMERS OF SELECTED STORES 9 ‘l1 juices, 24 cents; and non-citrus juices, 26 cents. Fresh _ s was equally as important in the consumption pattern in f‘ medium and low-income areas as in the high-income area _ able 1). i; Consumers spent four times as much for fresh oranges as for “sh grapefruit despite the fact that the cost of equivalent j vings was the same. For this comparison, 6 ounces of fresh ange juice were considered to be equivalent to a serving of j: a grapefruit. During May, the cost of fresh oranges neces- y to yield 6 ounces of juice was 8 cents as compared with cents for a half grapefruit (size 96). Dollar sales for canned grapefruit juice and canned orange uice were about the same. Orange juice was priced higher _r equivalent volume than grapefruit juice. It is evident that "nsumers were buying a relatively larger volume of grapefruit ice. Fewer dollars were spent for frozen orange juice and nge-grapefruit blend than for other processed citrus juices. ¢iensumers spent their dollars for processed citrus juices as llows: canned orange juice, 33 cents; canned grapefruit juice, é! cents; frozen orange juice, 19 cents; and blended juice, 19 Distribution of consumer dollar between citrus and non-citrus products for selected stores, March 1-May 1, 1949* High-income a area, 2 stores High-income Medium- Low-income ‘ u of product in household area, 4 stores income area, 4 stores ~ survey area area, 4 stores , j Cents Cents Cents Cents * ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 40 39 4a f» 1t . . . . . . . . . . . 12 12 11 5 '1 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 52 5O 48 i‘... it juice ..... .. 7 s s 9 _ = ‘uice . . . . . . . .. 6 8 8 13 =- juice . . . . . . . . 4 3 5 5 s» . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 19 21 27 lorange yoncentrate. . . . . 5 5 1T 11 juice . . . . . . . .. 9 10 11 9 ' -_p e juice . . . . . . . 9 9 12 9 '1Juice........... 3 2 2 4 juice . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 3 2 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 24 28 24 100 100 100 100 Iota were obtained from four representative supermarkets in each of the income areas. than 1 percent. * ~ 1 percent. 10 BULLETIN 722, TEXA_S AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION cents. Consumers spent as much for fruit juices other than citrus as for processed citrus juices. The two most important of these juices were tomato and pineapple. Choice of Citrus Available Consumer preferences must be evaluated by first considering the range of products readily available in a specific market. Texas is normally the source of fresh citrus for the Houston market. However, a severe freeze eliminated all fresh citrus from Texas after February 15, 1949. Fresh oranges were avail- able from Florida and California. All fresh grapefruit came from Florida. The sources of canned citrus juice were Texas and Florida, while the frozen orange concentrate came from Florida and California. Nearly half the homemakers who used fresh oranges or grapefruit thought that the “freeze” which occurred in Texas had affected these products, most saying that the fruit was of poorer quality. Inasmuch as the freeze had eliminated fresh citrus from Texas, it was apparent that many consumers did not know the source of the fruit. Texas citrus usually is sold in Houston retail outlets in both consumer-packages and bulk. However, Florida citrus was sold only in bulk at the stores in the household survey area during the period of the study because of the high level of prices. The retail price of fresh oranges during the period of the household survey was 10 cents per pound. An 8-pound consumer size bag would have retailed for 80' cents. Such a large unit price on citrus in bags would have sharply curtailed sales; therefore, fruit was sold only in bulk. Fresh citrus was sold both by the pound and the count. The smaller sizes were sold by the count while the larger sizes were sold by the pound. This merchandising technique was followed as a means of presenting the lowest possible “unit” price to the shopper. The price per equivalent weight was similar for both pound and count selling. Processed citrus juices were available in both the 46 and 18- ounce can. Grapefruit juice was also available in the l5%-ounce can, while frozen orange juice concentrate was available in 6- ounce cans. Nationally advertised, private and canners’ brands of citrus juices were available in the stores. Citrus juices were available in natural, sweetened and sugar- added forms. Sweetened grapefruit juice was 5 cents per unit higher than unsweetened, although orange juice in the various forms sold at approximately equal prices. Multiple pricing, such as 2 cans for 21 cents, was practiced by both stores for processed citrus juices. However, this prac- t1ce appeared more effective in sales of frozen orange juice than for other citrus juices. CITRUS PREFERENCES AMONG CUSTOMERS OF SELECTED STORES 11 parison of Sales of Citrus Products ..The comparison that follows was made to investigate the ure of the differences, if any, between the pattern of sales * stores in the household survey area and in selected stores "Yother income areas. Three types of income areas-high, ium and low—were selected. Selection of income areas was fed upon census data, recent studies on rentals and family ome made by Houston papers, and consultation with officials the Chamber of Commerce and the chain stores. Sales data re obtained from four supermarkets in each of the income “as (Table 2). " ‘ Several significant points are noted when the pattern of 1 chases in the stores of the high-income areas is compared th the purchases in the stores in other income areas. The lative share of the consumer’s citrus dollar spent for fresh linges did not materially differ among stores located in the xgh, medium and low-income areas. Consumers spent about _ cents of their “citrus dollar” for fresh oranges in the stores " the household survey area, and a similar amount in the stores 5 the high, medium and low-income areas. However, consider- ly less fresh grapefruit was purchased in the low-income eas. A striking difference also appears in the relative im- lrtance of frozen orange juice among the stores in the three come areas. Consumers spent 6 cents of their citrus dollar r frozen orange concentrate in the stores in the high-income but only 1 cent in the stores in the low-income area. A other difference was that consumers spent a larger share of Breakdown of consumer’s citrus dollar for selected stores, by income area March l-May 1, 1949 High-income a household Medium- _ i- of product survey area, High-income income area, Low-income ’ 2 stores area, 4 stores V 4 stores area, 4 stores Cents Cents Cents Cents -~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 54 53 57 j-lruit . . . . . . . . . 16 ~15 15 6 Ital . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 69 68 63 ‘ruit juice . . . . . . . 9 10 11 12 juice . . . . . . . .. 8 10 11 17 T- juice . . . . . . . . 5 5 8 7 a al . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 25 30 36 forange gconcentrate. . . . . 7 6 2 1 a total . . . . . . . . 10o 100 10o 10o 12 BULLETIN 722, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION their citrus dollar for canned orange juice and grapefruit juice 1n areas where the share for frozen orange concentrate was l0W. The proportion of sales among fresh citrus, processed citrus, and non-citrus juices did not vary significantly between stores in different income areas (Table 1). However, the proportion of sales among individual citrus commodities did vary considerably among stores in different income areas (Table 2). Analysis of Household Survey A large proportion of homemakers in the sample area shopped at the two stores and bought citrus products there. In addi- tion, a considerable proportion of these homemakers bought other kinds of fresh and processed fruit at the two stores. Some citrus products, as well as other kinds of fresh and processed fruits, were bought at other stores. During the 2 weeks before the interviews, 69 percent of the homemakers living in the sample area had shopped at one or both of the stores. (Unless otherwise specified the term “the stores” is used in the remainder of this bulletin to refer to the two stores located in the household survey area.) Among those who had shopped at “the stores,” 86 percent bought some of the citrus products considered in this survey. This percentage was not materially affected by differences in family income or the number of years of formal schooling of the homemaker. Seventy-one percent bought fresh oranges at the store; 31 percent, fresh grapefruit; 44 percent, canned grapefruit juice; 39 percent, canned orange juice; and 25 percent, canned blend. Frozen orange juice was bought by only 28 percent of the homemakers (Table 3). Table 3. Products bought by homemakers who had purchased citrus products at the stores during the 2 weeks before the interviews Percentage of homemakers buying some citrus At Not at Total v Products bought during At stores stores Total not Total i 2 weeks prior to interviews stores and but buying buying buying‘ only else- else- a given a given some i where where product product citrus Fresh: oranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 16 4 75 25 100 h. grapefruit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 5 4 35 65 100 Canned: orange juice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 6 3 42 58 100 I grapefruit juice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 4 2 46 54 100 = orange and grapefruit 1 blended juice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3 1 26 74 100 , Frozen orange juice concentrate . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 4 2 30 70 100 i _______________ CITRUS PREFERENCES AMONG CUSTOMERS OF SELECTED STORES 13 Citrus products Were also bought at other stores, outside the household survey area by some of these homemakers. Fresh oranges were purchased elsewhere by 20 percent of the home- makers; fresh grapefruit was bought by 9- percent at other places. Canned orange juice was bought elsewhere by 9 percent; canned grapefruit juice by 6 percent, and canned blends by 4 percent. Frozen orange juice concentrate was bought at other stores by 6 percent of the homemakers. Ninety-seven percent of the homemakers who bought other fresh fruits, canned fruits, and canned juices, bought them at “the stores.” Ninety percent of the homemakers who had bought some citrus products at (‘the stores” also purchased other kinds of fresh fruit during the 2 weeks before they were interviewed. The order of rank for the fresh fruits most frequently pur- chased was bananas, apples, berries, lemons, pineapple and cher- ries. Sixty-four percent bought canned fruit in addition to some citrus product. The order of rank for the canned fruit pur- chases of the more popular items was peaches, pears, pineapple and mixed fruit. About half the homemakers also bought some type of non-citrus juice. Tomato juice was more frequently mentioned; about 40 percent of the homemakers bought this item. General Use of Citrus Products Extent of Use Among the homemakers who had bought some citrus products at the stores during the 2 weeks before the interview, 95 per- cent said they used fresh oranges at some time, 93 percent used fresh grapefruit, 71 percent used canned grapefruit juice, 53 percent used canned orange juice, 45 percent used canned blends and 41 percent used frozen orange juice concentrate. Only 26 percent of the homemakers who used frozen orange juice concentrate said they had done so for more than 6 months. Among the users of this product, 21 percent had started to use Table 4. Consumption of citrus products during 2 weeks among ' families using the respective products I I Consumption Products Per family Per capita Fresh (pounds): oranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.1 4.3 grapefruit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 1.7 Canned (ounces): grapefruit juice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92.6 30.4 orange juice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91.8 28.0 blends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.1 26.4 Frozen orange juice concentrate* (ounces) . . . . . . . 81.8 32.0 ‘Converted to single-strength basis. 14 BULLETIN 722, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION it within the last month, and about half had used it from 1 to 6 months. _ Consumption of Citrus Products The amounts of citrus products consumed during the 2 weeks prior to the interviews by the families using the respective products are shown on a per-family and per-capita basis (Table 4). Family Characteristics and Use of Citrus Products With the exception of frozen orange juice concentrate, there was no direct relation between family income and whether a given citrus product was consumed. In contrast, the amounts of the products consumed per family increased when the family income increased (Table 5). Forty-eight percent of the home- makers with incomes of more than $7,200 used frozen orange juice concentrate; whereas, only 35 percent of those with in- comes under $7,200 used this product. With the exception of fresh grapefruit, per capita consumption of a given product tended to decrease as the number of people in the families increased. The publication, “Citrus Preferences Among Household Consumers in Louisville and in Nelson County, Kentucky,” USDA Agricultural Information Bulletin 2, 1949, reported that homemakers tend to have the habit of buying a given quantity—a dozen oranges or 46-ounce can of juice ir- respective of family size. Per capita consumption of fresh grapefruit was lowest when the children in the families were 6 years of age or younger. No apparent relationship between Table 5. Relation between annual family income and consumption of citrus product l $7,200 and under Over $7,200 Median Median Proportion amounts Proportion amounts Product of families consumed of families consumed using per family* using per family* Percent Pounds Percent Pounds I Fresh: oranges............. 95 10.2 96 12.2 grapefruit........... 92 4.8 94 5.6 Ounces Ounces Canned: Orange juice . . . . . . . . . 54 64.0 52 92.0 grapefruit juice... . . . . 70 64.0 73 95.9 blends . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41 50.2 47 91.4 l Frozen orange juice concentratej‘. . . . 35 48.0 48 88.0 j ‘l less than this amount, half used more). *The amounts consumed per capita and per family are “median” amounts (half of the families n4 l ‘(Converted to single-strength basis. CITRUS PREFERENCES AMONG CUSTOMERS OF SELECTED STORES 15 years of formal schooling of the homemaker and the consump- tion of citrus products was found. Reasons for Using Citrus Products Health-promoting values and pleasing taste were the out- standing reasons given by homemakers for the general ac- ceptance of citrus products. This was especially true for fresh oranges and fresh grapefruit. “Convenience” was an additional important reason given for canned citrus juices. Although health-promoting values and convenience were also important reasons for using frozen orange concentrate, “taste” was given as the outstanding reason. The presence of vitamin C was specifically mentioned by many homemakers as their reason for using fresh citrus. The em- phasis placed upon vitamin C raises a question as to the amount of this vitamin in the various orange products. This is espe- cially important because homemakers make relatively large purchases of canned orangeades. Orangeade is offered for sale by the stores in the same type of container and on the same shelves with orange juice. Orangeade is also priced competitively with canned orange juices. The particular brand of orangeades investigated had a higher sugar content and a less satisfactory flavor than canned orange juice, frozen orange juice concen- trate or fresh orange juice. The laboratory tests revealed that the orangeades had only a third as much vitamin C content as either fresh oranges or orange juices. Consumers thought that fresh citrus was particularly good for children as a means of preventing colds. Fresh citrus was considered more healthful than either canned or frozen citrus juice, as shown by the frequency of reasons given for using each product. ' Taste, as well as health-promoting values, is one of the im- portant attributes of citrus products. However, not all citrus products are equal in terms of taste acceptance. The method of “paired comparisons” was used in the household survey to establish the order of taste preference for the six items. This method permits not only the establishment of an order of rank, but also indicates the relative “preference differences” between the items insofar as people’s judgments of these items are concerned (Appendix). From the point of view of taste, fresh oranges were preferred and they were assigned a scale value of 40.00. Fresh grapefruit was second in preference, with a scale value of 35.93. Thus,’ the difference in taste acceptance between fresh oranges and fresh grapefruit is represented by 4.07. The third item in rank was frozen orange juice concentrate, with a scale value of 22.15. Apparently the “preference difference” between fresh grapefruit and frozen orange juice concentrate (13.78) is con- 16 BULLETIN 722, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION siderably greater than between fresh oranges and fresh grape- fruit (4.07). Figure 1 presents the six items in order of rank and indicates the relative “preference difference” among the respective items. It is apparent that the intensity of taste pref- erences among the fresh and processed items differed consid- erably, and that among the processed items frozen orange juice concentrate Was preferred. Canned citrus blends were least 40.00 —— Fresh orange (Most Preferred) _... Fresh grapefruit 35.00 30.00 25.00 -- Frozen orange juice concentrate we» "-'--8:'.:2:2 %:22;:";L'..i."‘°° I500 --- Canned blends (Least Preferred) Figure 1. Order of taste preference for six citrus products. Numerical scale of values were assigned on the basis of scale separations obtained by the method of paired comparisons. CITRUS PREFERENCES AMONG CUSTOMERS OF SELECTED STORES 17 preferred. This is borne out in general by the retail store data (Table 2). Reasons for Not Using Citrus Products It should be noted that only 5 percent of the homemakers said they did not use fresh oranges. This minority stated it was too much trouble to prepare this product. A few said that they did not use fresh oranges because of doctors’ orders; others said they did not like the taste of the product. A small percent of the homemakers did not use fresh grape- fruit; the most outstanding reason was dislike of its taste. The unsatisfactory taste qualities usually were expressed in terms of “bitter,” “acid” and “sour.” Several of these particular home- makers said that fresh grapefruit was too much trouble to prepare and some said they did not use the product for health reasons. Among those homemakers who did not use the various canned citrus juices, the overwhelming objection was to the taste. Ap- proximately 95 percent of those Who did not use canned orange juice and canned grapefruit juice said that they disliked the taste of these items. Of the group that did not use canned blends, 82 percent disliked the taste. This dislike of the canned juices was expressed most often in terms of “tinny” or “arti- ficial,” although many objected to a bitter taste in these prod- ucts. Consumers’ reasons for disliking the “taste” are extremely significant since they are directly reflected in the amount of use of a given item. Disliking the taste of citrus products also becomes a direct cause of substitution in the purchases of non- citrus juices. As a means of evaluating consumers’ likes and dislikes, samples of the various brands of grapefruit juice sold in “the stores” were analyzed in the laboratory. The purpose was to discover the factors that might influence consumers’ purchasing prac- tices and to determine to what extent these stated “undesirable flavors” actually existed in the canned citrus juice. These brands were examined on the following points: color, percent pulp, brix, percent acid, brix-acid ratio, ascorbic acid (vitamin C) and percent volatile oil. As the household survey had revealed, some of the canned juices were objectionable because of a “tinny” taste. Previous studies revealed that this undesirable flavor in canned citrus juices may result from high temperature during storage. These studies also showed that storage of the juice beyond a certain length of time at certain temperatures can also cause a “tinny” or off-flavored product (Table 6). The ages of the four brands of grapefruit juice were in- vestlgated to compare length of storage to the consumer panel ratings on flavor, color and acceptability. This was done by ob- l8 BULLETIN 722, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Word description of taste test levels are: 10—ideal 8--very goou Sl-excellent 7—good 6-—fairly good 4—fair 5-acceptable taining the code number on the cans of juice used in the test. The canner of each brand of juice was asked to provide the date of production of his code number. The canners Were not aware of. the laboratory tests being made. Brand C grapefruit juice was over a year older than the other brands being sold in the stores in the household survey area. It is interesting that many consumers made strong criticism of this brand of grapefruit juice to the manager of the store at the time of the laboratory tests. The content of vitamin C Was also much lower in this older juice than in the other brands. In addition, the consumer panel rated this juice very low in flavor, color and acceptability in comparison with the other samples of grapefruit juice (Table 6). Table 7. Relative costs in sample stores of citrus products Cost per ounce single-strength Cost for 46 basis for canned ounces juices Cents Cents Fresh oranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.30 60.00 Frozen orange juice concentrate. . . . . . . . . 1.17 54.00 Canned: orange juice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.65 30.00 orangeade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.63 29.00 orange and grapefruit blended juice. . . 0. 54 25.00 grapefruit juice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.46 21.00 Samples of fresh Florida oranges vvere juiced in the laboratory and used for this comparison. The oranges were size 176-200 and were priced at 4 pounds for 39 cents. Table 6. Laboratory tests of grapefruit juice Brands A B C D Date of processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Feb. 1949 Dec. 1948 Jan. 1947 Jan. 1949f? Color (20 points perfect) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.00 18.00 16.00 19.00 1 Percent pulp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.00 6.00 10.00 7.00 Brix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.70 11.50 11.00 12.20 . Percent acid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.03 1.04 1.01 1.02 Brlx-acid ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.58 11.05 10.89 11.96 Ascorbic-acid, mgs. per 100 c.c . . . . . . . . . . . 32.41 30.62 26.16 34.24 Percent volatile oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0087 0.0025 0.0036 0.0087T§ Consumer panel taste test scores é Brands A B C j D Color level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.48 6.28 5.80 8.57% Flavor level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6. 81 7.88 4.12 8.20 Acceptability level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 .20 8. 00 4. 56 8.38 Average quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.16 8.05 4.82 8.38 CITRUS PREFERENCES AMONG CUSTOMERS OF SELECTED STORES 19 Sixty percent of the homemakers did not use frozen orange juice concentrate. Conservatism in accepting a new product (“I just haven’t used it.”) apparently accounted for most of this group (4 of 6 of those who had not used the product). About 20 percent of the homemakers who did not use the item stated it was too expensive. To make a factual determination as to the relative costs, samples of all citrus products (both fresh and processed) were purchased from the stores in the household survey area and taken to the laboratory. The fresh oranges were carefully juiced and the cost per ounce of juice was determined. Results in- dicated that at the time of the survey consumers were mistaken in considering frozen orange juice more expensive than fresh oranges. At that time frozen orange juice was selling for 28 cents per 6-ounce can (equivalent to 24 ounces single strength), while the quantity of fresh oranges required for an equivalent amount of juice cost 31 cents (Table 7). Competition between Citrus and Other Fruits and Their Juices To What extent do sales of processed citrus juice compete with sales of fresh citrus? A satisfactory answer to this ques- tion cannot be given, but from the seasonal pattern of use as shown by both retail store sales and the household survey, it appears that some competitive relationship exists between the fresh and processed citrus items. Consumers said they used more fresh citrus in winter and more processed citrus juices during the summer when fresh citrus was out of season. The sales from retail stores from March 1 to June 1, 1949, tend to confirm this relationship (Table 8). As a reason for this, homemakers emphasized the fact that as the quality of fresh oranges and Table 8. Comparison of breakdown of consumer’s citrus dollar from March 1 to May 1 and May 1 to June 1, 1949 Form of product March 1 to May 1 May 1 to June 1 Cents Cents Fresh: oranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 49 grapefruit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 9 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 58 Canned: grapefruit juice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 11 orange juice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 17 blended juice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 36 Frozen orange juice concentrate . . . . . . . . 7 6 Grand total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 100 20 BULLETIN 722, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION grapefruit declines they tend to shift to the processed items. Also, about 10 percent of the homemakers who reported using more of a given processed item at the time of the survey at- tributed this to the relative low cost of the product. Therefore, when the quality of fresh citrus declines, or prices of fresh oranges and grapefruit become high relative to processed citrus juices, consumers shift some of their purchases of fresh citrus to processed citrus juices. Retail store sales from March 1 to June 1 showed that the total money spent for all citrus products was relatively stable for each of the 3 months. A significant change in the pattern of consumption was a decline in the proportion of citrus dollars spent for fresh oranges and grapefruit in May. The records of retail sales show that apparently consumers shifted to canned orange juice, blended juice and grapefruit juice when they de- creased their purchases of fresh citrus. However, the proportions of citrus dollars spent for frozen orange juice concentrate remained fairly constant during the 3 months. This could be expected as the household survey revealed that most people considered the price of frozen orange juice relatively high. It would be erroneous to leave the impression that as home- makers decrease the amounts of fresh oranges or grapefruit used in their households they shift only to processed citrus juices. A shift away from fresh citrus meant also a shift to non- citrus fruit, other canned fruit and juices and canned vegetable juices. A few homemakers said they made no substitution for fresh citrus. The retail store data and the household survey data may ap- pear inconsistent because the total store sales for all citrus products remained relatively stable even though the sales of fresh citrus declined to some extent, whereas the homemakers reported that they shifted to non-citrus fruit and other canned fruit and juices when their purchases of fresh citrus declined. However, the retail store data cover only March, April and May during which the supply of competing non-citrus fruit was not abundant. Also, during this period Florida oranges were still plentiful; whereas, later in the summer they are not readily available. The major shift from fresh citrus occurs dur- ing the summer when homemakers shift their purchases to non-citrus fruit, other canned fruit and juices and canned vege- table juices, as well as to processed citrus juices. Reasons given for selection of the specific substitutes during the period of decreased consumption of fresh oranges or grape- fruit again reflect the importance of seasonal variation in quality of fresh citrus during the period when other fresh fruit is coming into season. The comparative prices of the fresh citrus and their substitutes were also factors in this shift. A Approximately 2O percent of the homemakers who made CITRUS PREFERENCES AMONG CUSTOMERS OF SELECTED STORES 21 substitutions when using fewer fresh oranges or grapefruit mentioned cost. These homemakers were asked, “About how much do fresh oranges and fresh grapefruit have to cost for you to make a change?” From the replies, the average price at which a substitution for fresh oranges would be made was 10 cents a pound, while substitution for grapefruit would occur at about 14 cents a pound. The average price of the last purchase of oranges reported by the homemakers was about 10 cents a pound. The reported average price of the last purchase of grapefruit was 13 cents a pound. Apparently prices of both items were either at or ap- proaching the level at which this factor operates to cause many of the homemakers to decrease their purchases because of cost. Average retail prices charged for fresh citrus and volume of sales by the stores are shown in Table 9. These prices did not exceed the prices consumers reported they were willing to pay before substituting other purchases for fresh citrus. At the time of the household survey, the homemakers were buying non-citrus fruit as well as citrus products. Furthermore, homemakers reported that during a seasonal decline in pur- chases of fresh citrus they shift to non-citrus as well as proc- essed citrus juices. This indicates that citrus fruit needs to be studied within the framework of the homemakers’ general fruit purchases. The question immediately arises: Do homemakers view citrus products as a distinct class within all fruit or do they have simply a broad concept of fruit, within which citrus products are merely additional items? If homemakers tend to think of citrus products merely as more items within the general class of fruits, they will probably be relatively susceptible to shifting their purchases from citrus to other fruit in response to changes in quality and price. But, if homemakers view citrus as a separate category of fruit, they might be expected to resist a shift from purchases of citrus in response to changes in quality and in price. Of the homemakers interviewed, 70 percent said they made it a point to include citrus in their menus, as distinct from merely including some kind of fruit. These homemakers ap- parently regarded citrus products as a separate entity within the general class of fruit and this attitude affected their pur- chases. Of those who made it a point to include citrus with their Table 9. Monthly sales of fresh citrus in sample stores in relation to prices Month Oranges Average price Grapefruit Average price Boxes Cents per pound Boxes Cents per pound March . . . . . . .. 374 7.7 182 7. 5 April . . . . . . . . . 405 8.5 130 10.4 May . . . . . . . . . . 341 10.2 66 12.0 22 BULLETIN 722, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION meals, 65 percent said they decided upon the kind of citrus product they Wanted before going to the store. This would ap- pear to indicate a relatively strong resistance to substitution for the citrus product preferred. However, 51 percent of those who decided upon the kind of citrus desired before going to the store said that poor quality or undesirable appearance of the fruit might alter their purchases. Another 20 percent in- dicated that the price of the fruit could change their plan of purchasing. Thirty-two percent said they did not change their minds. The supposition that those homemakers who consider citrus within the general class of fruits will shift their purchases more readily from citrus in response to poorer quality or higher prices than would those who view citrus as a separate category of fruit is substantiated by the following data. Among homemakers who considered citrus as a general class of fruit and who usually planned their purchases before going to the store, 68 percent, said the quality and appearance of the fruit could make them change their minds, whereas 51 percent of the homemakers who viewed citrus as a separate category of fruit and who planned their purchases before going to the store said that quality and ap- pearance of the fruit could make them alter their plans. In the first group, 29 percent said that price could make them change their minds; in the latter group, 2O percent said that price could make them change their plans. Specific Citrus Preferences Size of Can In their buying of canned citrus juices, most consumers were price conscious, as indicated by their preference for the 46-ounce can because it was the most economical purchase. About 65 percent of the homemakers who had used the various canned citrus juices said they preferred the large cans. For those who preferred the 18-ounce can, the chief reason was the adequacy of this size for single servings. Here again, economy of purchase in relation to use was the major reason. The relationship in price between citrus juices retailed through the 46-ounce can and the 18-ounce can is illustrated in Table 10. Table l0. Relation of purchases of large-sized can to price advantage, May l-June 1, 1949 (stores in household survey area) Percent of total Price advantage Item volume of each 46-ounce over juice purchased 18-ounce cans* in 46-ounce cans Percent Cents Blended juice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 2.9 Grapefruit juice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 3.7 Orange juice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 7. 0 I *The price advantage was computed by comparing the cost of purchasing 46 ounces of juice in 18-ounce cans with the cost of 46-ounce cans. CITRUS PREFERENCES AMONG CUSTOMERS OF SELECTED STORES 23 Relationship appears to be close between the degree of price advantage of the large over the small-sized cans and the volume of store sales according to size of container. ~ The greater the price advantage of juice bought through 46-ounce cans the greater the relative volume of sales of the larger size. Sweetened and Unsweetened Among the users of the respective canned juices—-orange juice, grapefruit juice and blend—a greater number of home- makers preferred the unsweetened types to the sweetened. Preference for the unsweetened juices was greatest among the homemakers who used canned grapefruit juice. In explaining their preference for an unsweetened canned citrus juice, most homemakers said that the unsweetened has a “natural” flavor. Many of the homemakers who preferred unsweetened citrus juice objected to the sugar content of the sweetened types for health reasons. In the groups of homemakers who preferred the sweetened brands of these canned citrus juices, some maintained that this was the “natural” flavor. Several of the homemakers in these groups said that buying the sweetened juices saved sugar. Still others stated that the unsweetened juices were bitter and had an artificial taste. The fact that most of the brands of grapefruit juice offered for sale in the two stores in the household survey area was un- sweetened undoubtedly affected the consumer’s purchases. In addition, sweetened grapefruit juices retailed 5 cents higher in unit price. Data on purchases cannot be used to measure preference in this case because of the difference in price of sweetened and unsweetened juices and the difference in dis- play space given to each type of juice in the stores. Fresh Citrus-Packaged and Loose Seventy-six percent of the users of fresh oranges and 81 percent of the users of fresh grapefruit preferred to buy the A fruit in bulk rather than in bags. Approximately 10 percent of the users of these products preferred to buy them packaged. The main reason for preferring the fresh citrus in bulk was the opportunity to select fruit of better quality. Other main factors were the desire to select the size and number of fruit needed. The desire to be free to select the number needed was given by a greater proportion of users of fresh grapefruit than of fresh oranges. Among the homemakers who preferred to buy either fresh oranges or fresh grapefruit packaged, the reason given more frequently was that the packaged fruit was less expensive. Many of the homemakers with this preference said this method of selling made the fruit easier to handle. Only 20 percent of this group of homemakers said that the packaged fruit was of better quality. Some consumers reported a preference at the beginning of 24 BULLETIN 722, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION the season for fresh citrus sold in bags. Later in the season they preferred fresh oranges and grapefruit sold in bulk as a means 0f selecting fruit free from poor keeping qualities, dryness, seediness and shrunken appearance. The majority of homemakers who favored packaged fresh oranges and grape- fruit preferred the fruit in five-pound bags. Pricing by the Pound versus Count Sixty percent of the homemakers using fresh oranges and grapefruit preferred pricing by the count rather than by the pound, 10 percent preferred pricing by the pound and 30 per- cent Were indifferent. The major reason for Wanting these products priced by count was the homemaker’s Wish to select an exact number of either oranges or grapefruit. This point seemed to be more important with respect to fresh grapefruit; 65 percent of those who preferred this product priced by the count gave that reason, While the same reason was given by only 48 percent of the comparable group of users of fresh oranges. Twenty-five percept of the homemakers who preferred either fresh oranges or grapefruit priced by the count said that this Was more convenient and took less time than Weighing their selection. Among those who preferred to have either of these fresh citrus products priced by the pound, the primary reason given Was that this method Was less expensive. The extent to which the desire (or the habit) to select fresh oranges or grapefruit by the count rather than by weight Was ingrained in homemakers was seen in their actual behavior when these products were sold by the latter method. Nearly 90 percent of the homemakers Who purchased these products said that when the pricing method is by Weight they still select the num- ber of fruit they Want. Preferences in this case do not indicate Whether consumers would buy a greater quantity of oranges or of grapefruit if they were sold by the count. Color of Grapefruit Of the homemakers Who used fresh grapefruit, 63 percent said they preferred the “pink and red type” fruit, 26 percent preferred white and 11 percent had no preference. Regardless of the color preference, reasons given for the choice usually referred to flavor. These reasons were especially prominent in explaining the preference for pink and red grapefruit. Most of the homemakers Who preferred one or the other of these colored grapefruit said they were sweeter. In each instance, about a third of those who liked the colored grapefruit said that the color made the fruit more appetizing, also 25 percent of the homemakers who expressed such a preference said that it was because of better quality. " _ Although 90 percent of the homemakers Who preferred either pink or red grapefruit gave reasons of taste for their choice, CITRUS PREFERENCES AMONG CUSTOMERS OF SELECTED STORES 25 only 46 percent of those who preferred white grapefruit gave similar reasons. Of the homemakers who preferred white grape- fruit, 36 percent said they did so because it was less expensive, while 33 percent stated that the white grapefruit was of better quality. Color of Grapefruit Juice Sixty percent of the homemakers who used canned grapefruit juice said they preferred the juice from white grapefruit rather than from the pink fruit. Thirty percent of the group had no preference in the matter and only 8 percent preferred juice from the pink type fruit. In judging the reliability of these stated preferences, it should be noted that nearly 70 percent of those who preferred white grapefruit juice said they had never used the juice from pink grapefruit, many saying they had never seen it. Among the small group who preferred pink grape- fruit juice, most said they preferred the product because it was sweeter. Decision-making in Purchasing Citrus Products Convenience Factors contributing to convenience, so long as the quality and price of products are similar, are quite important in the selection of where the shopping is done. Convenience may be viewed in at least three ways: geographical—proximity to residence; location of stores within a general shopping area- proximity to banking facilities, post ofiice, clothing store and theater; services ofiered by the store——adequate parking fa- cilities, large number of checkout counters, extensive range of products offered, air conditioning, restaurant, service for paying utility bills such as gas, light and water, store hours ex- tended into evening, store facilities such as bakery, hardware and drug department in addition to grocery, meats and produce. Distinction among the different types of conveniences was not made. Of the homemakers who shopped at the sample stores but bought citrus products elsewhere, 81 percent said they did so because of convenience. Advertising The total number of bargain sales listed in local newspapers often is the deciding factor as to the store in which the house- wife does her shopping when competing stores are conveniently located. Of the homemakers who reported shopping at both stores in the household survey area, 61 percent said they usually followed advertisements of both stores. Of this group, 83 per- cent said they decided in which store to shop on the basis of the advertisements. The stores are located so near each other and the services are so similar that the factor of convenience should not affect patronage so far as these two stores are concerned. 26 BULLETIN 722, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Half of the homemakers who usually follow advertisements of one or both stores decide what citrus product to buy 0n the basis of the advertisements. Prices are the chief reason given by those persons who decided at which of the two stores to shop or what citrus product to buy on the basis of the advertise- ments. Specials on the products and favorable prices mentioned in the advertisements, therefore, appear to be a vital factor in the decision of the homemaker as to where to shop and what to buy. The advertisement also informs the homemaker of the types and brands of citrus products available at the stores. A few consumers volunteered the information that price, quality and selection of meats sometimes determine the store in which all shopping is done. “Word-of-mouth” advertising was a factor in introducing homemakers to frozen orange juice concentrate-—42 percent of the users of this product said they had been told about it by friends and neighbors. Thirty-nine percent said they began their use of the item as a result of hearing or reading about it in advertisements or Watching store demonstrations. Only 4 per- cent of this group saidthey started using frozen orange juice concentrate because fresh oranges were too expensive. Determination of Amount to Be Bought Several factors are considered when a homemaker determines the amount of fresh oranges or grapefruit to be purchased. Forty-two percent of those who use fresh oranges said they determined their needs from the frequency with which the fruit is to be served. This reason was also given by 53 percent of the homemakers in determining the quantity of fresh grape- fruit to buy, although 25 percent of the persons said the amount of each fresh citrus product they bought was influenced by the frequency of their shopping. About the same proportion mentioned size of family as a factor in determining the amount of each fresh product to be bought. Habit, or custom, the fact that the homemaker consistently bought a certain amount of the fruit when she shopped, was given as a reason by a smaller proportion. Still other reasons given as helping to decide the amount of fresh oranges or fresh grapefruit to be bought in- cluded quality of the fruit in the stores, price and the use to be made of it. I Factors Causing Change in Buying Plans “Impulse buying” or buying after a visual check of the o quality and appearance of produce is the chief determinant of homemakers in purchasing citrus. Eighty-five percent of the homemakers followed this principle, regardless of Whether they decided what kind of fruit they wanted to buy before or after reaching the store. Prices of the products available were also mentioned by many of these groups. The proportion mentioning CITRUS PREFERENCES AMONG CUSTOMERS OF SELECTED STORES 27 price was somewhat higher among those Who decided which citrus product to buy after reaching the store. Desire for va- riety was also given as a reason by 24 percent of those who de- cided what fruit to buy after arriving at the stores. Summary and Conclusions The study upon which this report is based shows that prac- tically all homemakers use some citrus products. At the pre- vailing level of prices for citrus and competing products (May 15-June 15, 1949), consumers were more sensitive to changes in quality of citrus products than to changes in price. Consumers, both in their buying behavior, as revealed by the retail store sales, and in their stated preferences, as obtained from the household survey, make a distinction in their evalua- tion of the various citrus products. The primary distinction is between fresh citrus and processed citrus juices. Consumers apparently are convinced that fresh citrus excels in health and, taste properties. Twice as much was spent for fresh citrus as for either processed citrus juices or fruit juices other than citrus. According to the household survey, about 95 percent of all homemakers reported using both fresh oranges and fresh grape- fruit. However, the retail store data show that they spent ap- proximately four times as much for fresh oranges as they did for fresh grapefruit. The proportion of sales among fresh citrus, processed citrus juice and non-citrus juices did not vary greatly between low, medium and high income areas. Sales of fresh grapefruit were relatively less in low-income areas than in the medium and high-income areas, while sales of canned orange juice were relatively more important. Sales of frozen orange juice were relatively greater in the high-income stores than in the medium and low-income stores. Frozen orange concentrate is preferred over canned citrus juice, primarily because of taste, by those who have used both products; however, many homemakers have never used frozen orange concentrate. Citrus is a separate class of fruit to most consumers. Because of this, many indicate some reluctance to shift their purchases to competing fruits and non-citrus juices. The retail store data show that during May when the quality of fresh citrus declines, fresh citrus sales also decline, while sales of processed citrus juices increase and sales of non-citrus juices do not change. . The household survey indicated that shifts are also made from citrus and non-citrus products when other fresh fruits are in p season. Homemakers prefer pink grapefruit over the white or red; white grapefruit juice over pink; unsweetened juices over 28 BULLETIN 722, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION sweetened; large-sized cans of juice over small; bulk fresh citrus over packaged and pricing by count over pricing by the pound. Consumers are constantly seeking high quality fresh citrus. If citrus growers are to expand their sales of fresh citrus they must first provide consumers with the qualities desired. The maintenance of quality is important as expansion of sales must come largely through increased sales to consumers who already use fresh citrus but who now consume it on a limited scale. Grapefruit “sweeter and less bitter” in taste was the quality most desired. This should be considered when growers and shippers are inclined to market early shipments of immature fruit which may be lacking in the desired taste attributes. This fact should be of particular importance to citrus growers in Texas because of their specialization in grapefruit production. Undesirable taste is the major objection to canned citrus juices. This may explain why approximately half the home- makers do not use canned orange juice and canned blends. This large proportion of non-purchasers is significant because the expansion in sales of citrus juice must come largely from the homemakers who are now not purchasing processed citrus juices. Consumers in all income levels are “fresh-citrus” conscious during the spring and winter months. This is clearly supported by the large share of the consumers’ citrus dollar which is spent for fresh citrus in all income groups. The household sur- vey also corroborates the retail-store findings. Homemakers emphasized fresh citrus as an important health-promoting item from the points of view of vitamins and prevention of colds. The share of the consumer’s citrus dollar spent for canned juices and frozen orange concentrate was very stable on a monthly basis. Thus, it appears that if consumers buy a larger quantity at one time during the spring, they will reduce their subsequent purchases. During the period of this survey, many of the stores included in the study sponsored “special sales” for canned citrus juices and frozen orange concentrate. Such sales may prove conducive to increase “trafiic” to a specific store, but it appears doubtful whether they sustain purchases of canned citrus juices over a period of time. The summer months are preferred periods for promoting consumption of canned citrus juices and frozen orange con- centrate. From this study, it appears desirable to concentrate sales efforts of fresh citrus during the fall, winter and spring when these fruits are in large supply. Appearance of fresh produce in the store is also an important factor in promoting customers’ purchases. This reflects the consumer’s desire for high quality products. In addition, re- tailers should beware of obtaining processed citrus products which have been stored at high temperature or have reached an age of deterioration. CITRUS PREFERENCES AMONG CUSTOMERS OF SELECTED STORES 29 Acknowledgments The authors Wish to express their appreciation to the officials of the Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, Henke and Pillot, Incorporated, Minimax Food Stores and J. W. Wein- garten, Incorporated; to the homemakers Who participated in the study; and to the following persons who provided the assistance and cooperation to make this study possible: Robert F. Cain, Department of Horticulture, Texas Agricultural Ex- periment Station; Forrest E. Clements, Division of Special Surveys, Bureau of Agricultural Economics; John Manger, Bu- reau of Agricultural Economics; Florence K. Nierman, Bureau of Agricultural Economics; W. E. Paulson, Department of Ag- ricultural Economics and Sociology, Texas Agricultural Experi- ment Station; Bennett S. White, Jr., Division of Marketing and Transportation Research, Bureau of Agricultural Economics; and Shepherd Wolman, Division of Special Surveys, Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Appendix The appendix has three parts: (I) summary of replies to ques- tions asked the homemakers; (II) description of the taste preference comparison and the procedure used in determining the taste pref- erence scale, and (III) the taste test ballot which was used in the laboratory analysis of the brands of grapefruit juice. It should be noted that the taste preference scale (Figure I) was derived from the household survey phase. I. Summary of Replies» to Questions Asked Homemakers Table 11. General use of fresh oranges andl fresh grapefruitl Extent of use Fresh oranges Fresh grapefruit Percent Percent Use: 3 less now. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 74 more now . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4 same amount all year . . . . . . . . . . 39 15 Do not use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5 7 7 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 100 100 100 lReplies to the question, “Now would you say that the amount '01’ —- you are using at this time of the year is more, less, or about the same as that you use all the year round?” Data obtained from 388 homemakers. 30 BULLETIN 722, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 12. General use of canned citrus fruit juices and frozen orange juice concentrate‘; K Homemakers. Canned Canned Canned Frozen Type of use grapefruit orange blended orange juice » Juice Juice Juice concentrate Percent Percent Percent Percent Use: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 5 41 more now . . . . . . . . . . . 33 28 20 18 J less now . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5 3 4 “ same amount all year. 31 20 22 19 ‘ D0 not use . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 29 47 47 55 55 59 59 p Total . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 lReplies to the question, “Now would you say that the amount of you are using at this ti of the year is more, less, or about the same as that you use all year round?” Data obtained from 1' Table 13. Re-plies to the question, “Why do you use fresh oranges or fresh grapefruit?” Percentage of homemakers Reasons given giving reasonsl Fresh oranges’ Fresh grapefruit“ Have vitamins, minerals, etc . . . . . . . . . . . 71 52 Good for children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Good for the body; build bones, teeth, etc. 12 Aids digestion; acts as a laxative . . . . . . . . ' 11 1 Because of doctor’s orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Helps make a balanced diet . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Contains food value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Good for you; need them for health. . . . . 4 Nutritious, but not fattening; good for reducing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Counteract acidity; produces alkaline reaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Percent giving health reasons . . . . . . . . . 89 75 N) 0h IPUKGMBOWOIIF Family like the taste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 15 Like the tangy taste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Like the sweet taste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Good in combination with other foods. . . Like the refreshing, invigorating taste. . . Taste better than canned orange juice. . . Good as an appetizer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Like to have taste variety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Percent giving taste reasons . . . . . . . . . . 43 55 Ofirkrkrkdb 0O Variety; “We like to change” . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 They are good in cold (cool) weather. . . . . . 7 Have used them, but dislike . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 Habit; “We always have them”. . . ; . . . . 2 . . Substitute them for other citrus fruit. . . . . 2 Miscellaneous other reasons . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8 Percent giving other reasons . . . . . . . . . . 9 30 lPercentage total more than 100 since many homemakers gave more than one reason. 2Data on reasons for using fresh oranges obtained from 370 homemakers. 3Data on fresh grapefruit obtained from 361 homemakers. CITRUS PREFERENCES AMONG CUSTOMERS OF SELECTED STORES Table 14. Replies to the question, “Why don’t you use fresh oranges and grapefruit ? ” 31 Reasons given Percentage of homemakers giving reasonsl Fresh oranges’ Fresh grapefruit“ Because of doctor’s orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Don’t agree with me . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Miscellaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percent giving health reasons . . . . . . . . . Too acid or sour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Too bitter . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . Don’t taste good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Are too tart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Don’t taste as good as other non-citrus ruit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Don’t have any taste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Are too sweet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percent giving taste reasons . . . . . . . . . . Are too expensive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percent g1v1ng price reasons . . . . . . . . . . Are too much trouble to prepare . . . . . . . . Got tired of using this citrus product. . . . Prefer fresh non-citrus fruit . . . . . . . . . . . . Prefer other canned citrus fruit . . . . . . . . . Prefer other fresh citrus fruit . . . . . . . . . . . Percent giving other reasons . . . . . . . . . . 14 9 5 27 45 13 67 27 3 7 3 27 000000 00-51 23 lPercentage total more than 100 since many homemakers gave more than one reason. 2Data obtained from 22 homemakers. BData obtained from 30 homemakers. 32 Table 15. Replies to the questions, “Why do you use canned orange juice, grape ~ BULLETIN 722, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION juice, blended juice and frozen orange juice concentrate?” Reasons given Percentage of homemakers giving re ‘ Orange 1111662 Grapefruit juice“ Blended juice‘ Has vitamins, minerals, etc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aids digestion; acts as laxative . . . . . . . . . . . . . Good for body; builds bones, teeth etc . . . . . . Nutritious, good for reducing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contains food value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Because of doctor’s orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Counteracts acidity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Good for you; need it for health . . . . . . . . . . . . Good for children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Helps make a balanced diet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Miscellaneous health reasons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percent giving health reasons . . . . . . . . . . . . Family like the taste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tastes like other citrus fruit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Like the refreshing, invigorating taste . . . . . . . Like the tangy taste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Good in combination with other foods . . . . . . . Good as an appetizer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Like to have taste variety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Like sweet taste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tastes better than canned grapefruit juice. . . Tastes better than canned orange juice . . . . . . Tastes better than fresh oranges . . . . . . . . . . . . Other taste reasons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percent giving taste reasons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Easy to prepare; convenient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Substitute it for other citrus fruits . . . . . . . . . . Have used it, but dislike . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Variety: “We like to change” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inexpensive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Good in hot (warm) weather . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percent giving other reasons . . . . . . . . . . . . . -wmiiwwwmqw 48.. l-l OEIADN) w l-A w» I dnbrboowm no:- 71 . I N, -wwmmmwwm 52 65 -miwiiwwwww 36.. 52 71 70'“ lPercentage total more than 100 ince many homemaker-s gave more than one reason. 2Data obtained from 207 homemakers. 3Data. obtained from 277 homemakers. 4Data obtained from 174 homemakers. 5Data obtained from 162 homemakers. f asons given Percent of homemakers giving reasonsl CITRUS PREFERENCES AMONG CUSTOMERS OF SELECTED STORES Replies to the question, “Why don’t you use canned orange juice, grapefruit 5 juice, blends or frozen orange juice concentrate?” Frozen Orange Grapefruit Blended orange juice juice’ juice“ juice‘ concentrate‘ g y”, “artifical” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 43 34 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 41 23 2 taste as good as fresh citrus . . . . . . . . 18 12 '8 4 Itaste good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6 12 3 i’; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 13 4 ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . 2 g .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2 f-ave any taste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ataste as good as other canned citrus cts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 reasons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. 3 f! giving taste reasons . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 95 82 14 have the food value of the fresh uct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9 4 6 w 1 ee with me . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 2 2 f= th reasons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 1 2 giving health reasons . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 17 7 9 avg/keep well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3- or quality of product . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 4 1 i- giving quality reasons. . . . . . . . . . 3 2 4 3 1=sive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 1 19 ‘ce reasons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... .... ... 2 g= giving price reasons . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 1 21 g»: citrus fruits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3 3 11 ; Just haven’t used it ;” never ht it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 41 er canned citrus fruit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 E dofit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 2H 11S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 3 6 t giving other reasons . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4 17 67 ' ~ ned from 181 homemakers. v ed from 112 homemakers. f - ined from 213 homemakers. ‘- ‘ned from 227 homemakers. 1' e total more than 100 since many homemakers gave more than one reason. 34 BULLETIN 722, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 17. Reasons for using less fresh oranges or fresh grapefruit now than at some other time of year Reasons given Percentage of homemakers giving reasons‘ _ Fresh oranges? Fresh grapefruit“ Quality is poor now . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Too expensive now . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Is out of season now . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Is less available now . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Less of product used in warm weather. . . Miscellaneous reasons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 28 19 8 7 16 74 23 20 9 5 13 lPercentage total more than 100 since many homemakers gave more than one reason. 2Data obtained from 187 homemakers. 3Data obtained from 288 homemakers. Table 18. Type and importance of products substituted when homemakers use less fresh oranges or fresh grapefruit now than at some other time of the year Products substituted Percentage of homemakers making substitutionsl Fresh oranges? Fresh grapefruit“ Fresh fruit (non-citrus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Canned orange juice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frozen orange juice concentrate . . . . . . . . Canned grapefruit juice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Canned vegetable juice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Canned fruit juices (non-citrus) . . . . . . . . . Canned blends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fresh grapefruit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fresh oranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other citrus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other canned juices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lPercentage total more than 100 since Vmany homemakers gave more than one reason. 2Data on substitution for oranges obtained from 219 homemakers. 3Data on substitution for grapefruit obtained from 303 homemakers. CITRUS PREFERENCES AMONG CUSTOMERS OF SELECTED STORES 35 Table 19. Homemakers’ reasons for making substitutions for fresh oranges or fresh grapefruit Percentage of homemakers glvmg reasonsl Reasons given Fresh oranges’ Fresh grapefruit“ Poor quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 19 Substitute product in season; . . . . . . . . . . 12 7 Not in season . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10 More of substitute product used in warm weather . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3 Miscellaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 11 Percent giving seasonal orquality reasons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 48 Expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 12 Substitute product less expensive . . . . . . . 10 5 Miscellaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Percent giving expense reasons . . . . . . . 23 20 Substitute product (s) as high in food value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 31 For variety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 19 Substitute more convenient to use . . . . . . 7 5 s~ Doctor’s orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3 ' Miscellaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 13 Percent giving other reasons. . , . . . . . . . 69 57 1Percentage total more than 100 since many homemakers gave more than one reason. 2Data obtained from 153 homemakers. g 3Data obtained from 229 homemakers. le 20. Reasons given for using more canned orange juice, grapefruit juice, blends a or frozen orange Julce concentrate now than at some other time of yearl Percentage of homemakers giving reasons’ y Canned Canned Canned Frozen ons given ‘ orange grapefruit blended orange juice v juice“ juice4 juice5 concentrate“ re used in warm weather . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 49 65 32 lity of same fresh fruit poor . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 24 17 13 .1; fruit out of season now . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 12 12 11 i" product fresh not available . . . . . . . . . . . 5 11 3 13 »; ity of product good . . . . . . .-. . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2 . . . 3 n; llaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 4 8 7 ercent giving seasonal and quality reasons. 86 98 91 72 _; in food value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 17 12 14 ‘iatively inexpensive now . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 9 10 15 e convenient to use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5 3 8 l variety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 12 1 _nt1y started using . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 llaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5 6 7 percent giving other reasons . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 25 37 54 .1110 data for fresh oranges and fresh grapefruit are not presented because of the small number of _akers who were using more of these products at the time of the interview. ercentage total more than 100 since many homemakers gave more than one reason. ' ta obtained from 109 homemakers. 4- ta obtained from I28 homemakers. = ta. obtained from 78 homemakers. p‘ ta obtained from 71 homemakers. 36 BULLETIN 722, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 21. Occupational distribution of heads‘ of households among homemakers from the sample area who shopped at the stores during the 2 weeks prior to interviewl Occupation of head of household Percentage of homemakers from the sample area who shopped at the stores Percent Self-employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Salesman, clerk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Professional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Skilled or semi-skilled worker . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Retired, student, unemployed . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Unskilled Worker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Housewife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 lData obtained from 446 households. Table 22. Relationship between family income and general use of citrus products Families consuming citrus by amount of income Products $7,200 and underl Over $7,200“ Percent of families Percent of families Not Not Using using Total Using using Total Fresh: oranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 5 100 96 4 100 grapefruit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 8 100 94 6 100 Canned: orange juice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 46 100 52 48 100 grapefruit juice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 30 100 73 27 100 blended juice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 59 100 47 53 100 Frozen orange juice concentrate . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 65 100 48 52 100 lData obtained from 185 families. 2Data obtained from 194 families. CITRUS PREFERENCES AMONG CUSTOMERS OF SELECTED STORES 37 .\ Relationship between family income and amount of citrus products used per ‘ family in 2 weeks prior to interview i-Products Median amounts used in 2 weeks prior to interview $7,200 and under Over $7,200 Number Per family, Number Per family, families using pounds families using pounds 1- . . . . . . . . . . . .. 132 10.2 158 12.2 fruit . . . . . . . . . .. 64 4.8 72 5.6 Ounces Ounces Izéjunm . . . . . . . .. 7s 64.0 82 92.0 fruit juice . . . . . . . 85 64.0 91 95.9 ‘ded juice . . . . . . . . 43 50.2 49 91.4 , orange concentratel. . . . 42 48.0 74 88.0 size of family. . . 3 . 5 4.0 strength basis. i“ 24. Relationship between family income and per capita consumption of citrus * products during the 2 weeks prior to interview ' Median amounts used in 2 weeks prior to interview icts $7,200 and under Over $7,200 Number Per capita Number Per capita people using pounds people using pounds ges . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41s 3.7 56o 4.4 pefruit . . . . . . . . . . . 199 1.5 246 1.9 Ounces Ounces “d. g ge juice . . . . . . . . . 253 26.4 283 28.3 pefruit juice . . . . . . . 268 29.8 321 31.3 Mded juice . . . . . . . . 136 22.7 176 26.9 ' in orange ce concentratel. . . . 139 30.8 268 33.2 lestrength basis. 38 Table 25. Relationship between education of homemakers an at the stores Education of homemakers who shopped at the s - BULLETIN 722, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION d buying citrus pr r _ Some high Finished §- Replies given school high Some Finish or lessl schoolz college“ colle; g Percent Percent Percent Percen Bought some citrus product ~ _at the stores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 86 87 88 Dld not buy any citrus product at the stores. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 14 13 12 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 100 100 100 1Data obtained from 25 homemakers. 2Data obtained from 146 homemakers. 3Data obtained from 165 homemakers. 4Data obtained from 102 homemakers. Table 26. Relationship between famil citrus products during t Family composition and per capita consumption y composition and per capita consumption V’ he 2 weeks prior to interviewing Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Products Adults with Adults with Adults with ‘ Adults children 6 children 7- children in _ only years and 19 years both age under only only groups Per Per Per Per. Number capita Number capita Number capita Number capi consum- consump- consum- consump- consum- consump- consum- consu ers tion, ers tion, ers tion, ers tion, pounds pounds pounds poun w Fresh: . oranges . . . . . . . . . . . 248 4 . 9 254 3.9 327 3. 8 163 3.9 1 grapefruit . . . . . . . .. 154 1.9 94 1.4 149 2.0 1 . Ounces Ounces Ounces Canned: orange juice . . . . . . . 152 34. 5 113 22. 4 185 27.1 1 grapefruit juice. . . . 178 44. 1 117 29.3 198 27.8 1 blended juice . . . . . . 90 35. 3 1 . . . . . . . . . . 105 24- 7 1 . . . . . . . .» Frozen orange juice concentrate? . 79 51 . 6 94 28 . 8 118 25. 2 115 1These data not reported because of th given products. 2Single-strength basis. e small number of families in the particular types using - CITRUS PREFERENCES AMONG CUSTOMERS OF SELECTED ‘STORES 39 I Table 27. Median amounts of citrus products consumed per family during the 2 weeks prior to interviewing Number Percent "of Form of product Amount of families families using h: Pounds oranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 . 11 298 77 grapefruit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.22 140 A 36 q Ounces ned: _ grapefruit juice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92.6 181 j 47 orange juice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91.8 \ 165 43 blends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . 62.1 96 25 p ozen orange juice concentrate“. . . 81.8 117 30 . lConversion ratio: 1 dozen oranges=6 lbs. wonversion ratio: 1 grapefruit=0.8 lb. flSingle-strength basis. Table 28. Per capita consumption among families using citrus products during 2 weeks prior to interview r Number of iroducts Amount people using esh: Pounds oranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 1000 grapefruit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7 458 Ounces Canned: grapefruit juice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.4 599 orange juice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.0 544 blended juice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.4 325 ozen orange juice concentrate‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.0 409 lflingle-strermth basis. 40 BULLETIN 722, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 29. Replies to the question, “Have you bought other kinds of fresh fruit during the last 2 weeks? If so, what kind?”1 Proportion of homemakers Not Total, Replies Buying buying percent Other fresh fruits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 7 100 Bananas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 36 100 Apples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 49 100 Berries (in season) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 60 100 Lemons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 70 100 Pineapples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 79 100 Cherries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 84 100 Plums . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 92 100 Cantaloupes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 94 100 Limes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 94 100 Pears . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 94 100 Grapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . 3 97 100 Melons (other than watermelons) . . . . . . . . . 2 98 100 Avocados . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 99 100 Peaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 99 100 Tangerines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 2 Miscellaneous fruits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 97 100 lData obtained from 388 homemakers. 2Less than é of 1 percent. Table 30. Replies to the question, “Have you bought any other kinds of canned juices during the last 2 weeks? If so, what kind?”1 Proportion of homemakers Replies Not Total, Buying buying percent Other canned juices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 49 100 Tomato . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 61 100 Pineapple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12- 88 100 Apple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 94 100 Apricot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 94 100 Vegetable juice; V-8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 95 100 Grape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 97 100 Prune . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 97 100 Lemon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 99 100 Miscellaneous canned juices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 96 100 lData obtained from 388 homemakers. CITRUS PREFERENCES AMONG CUSTOMERS OF SELECTED STORES 41 Table 31. Replies to the question, “Have you bought any canned‘ fruit during the last 2 weeks? If so, what kind?”1 Proportion of homemakers Not Total, Replies Buying buying percent Bought canned fruit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 36 100 Peaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 56 100 Pears . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 77 100 Pineapple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 77 100 Mixed (fruit cocktail) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 84 100 Apples (including applesauce) . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 94 100 Cherries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 94 100 Prunes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 97 100 Berries (general) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 98 100 Grapefruit segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 98 100 Plums . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 98 100 Figs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 99 100 Miscellaneous canned fruits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 85 100 1Data obtained from 388 homemakers. Table 32. Replies to the question, “Why do you prefer white grapefruit or pink grapefruit?” Percentage of homemakers giving reasonsl Reasons given White grapefruit? Pink grapefruit“ More tart; less sweet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 . . . . Have better flavor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5 Sweeter; less bitter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 85 Have a natural flavor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . Other reasons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Percent giving flavor reasons . . . . . . . . . 46 91 More juice; heavier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 12 Better texture; less seeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8 Better quality; general . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2 Have the same food value as other types of grapefruit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . Larger sections . . . . . . . .~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Percent giving quality reasons . . . . . . . . 33 23 Color is appetizing; pretty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Children like the color .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Like the color . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 Percent giving color reasons . . . . . . . . . . 3 33 Less expensive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Habit; “We always buy it” . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . More available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . Miscellaneous other reasons . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2 Percent giving other reasons . . . . . . . . . . 40 2 lPercentage total more than 100 since many homemakers gave more than one reason. 2Data obtained from 92 homemakers. BData obtained from 175 homemakers. 42 BULLETIN 722, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 33. Replies to the question, “Which do you like best—the pink, the red or the white grapefruit?“ - Percentage of homemakers Preference who use fresh grapefruit Pink . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Red . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 No preference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 1Data obtained from 361 homemakers. Table 34. Replies to the question, “When you buy fresh oranges or fresh grapefruit, do you prefer buying them loose out of a bin or those that are already sacked or bagged?” Percentage of homemakers who use Preferences Fresh oranges‘ Fresh grapefruit’ Buy them loose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a 76 81 Buy them sacked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 10 Loose sometimes and sacked other times" 3 3 No preference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 100 lData obtained from 370 homemakers. 2Data obtained from 361 homemakers. f3Some homemakers said they preferred to buy sacked fruit in season and loose fruit out o season. Table 35. Replies to the question, “Why do you prefer buying fresh oranges or fresh grapefruit loose?” Percentage of homemakers who prefer buying loose fruitl Preferences Fresh oranges’ Fresh grapefruitB Can select for better quality . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 77 Can select according to the number desired . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 32 Can select for the size desired . . . . . . . . . . 11 10 Less expensive than sacked fruit . . . . . . . . 3 1 Habit, custom; “Have always bought them” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 l lPercentage total more than 100 since many homemakers gave more than one reason. 2Data obtained from 294 homemakers. 3Data obtained from 302 homemakers. CITRUS PREFERENCES AMONG CUSTOMERS OF SELECTED STORES 43 Table 36. Replies to the question, “What size sack of fresh oranges» or fresh grapefruit do you like best?” Percentage of homemakers who prefer buying sacked fruit Size of sack, pounds Fresh orangesl Fresh grapefruit? 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 58 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 21 50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Not ascertained . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 11 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 100 lData obtained from 64 homemakers. 2Data obtained from 48 homemakers. Table 37. Replies to the question, “When you buy fresh oranges or fres-h grapefruit, do you prefer having them priced by the dozen (count) or by the pound?” Percentage of homemakers buying Preference Fresh orangesl Fresh grapefruit’ Priced by the dozen (count) . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 60 Priced by the pound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10 No preference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 30 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 100 1Data obtained from 370 homemakers. 2Data obtained from 361 homemakers. Table 38. Replies to the question, “Why do you prefer having fresh oranges or fresh grapefruit priced by the dozen (count)?” Percentage of homemakers who’ prefer buying fruit by the count‘ Reasons given Fresh oranges’ Fresh grapefruit“ Can select the exact number needed; easier to determine needs . . . . . . . . . . 48 65 Less expensive; know what they pay for. 30 24 More convenient; takes less time than weighing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 24 Habit, custom; “Have always bought that way” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 10 lPer-centage total more than 100 since many homemakers gave more than one reason. 2Data obtained from 223 homemakers. 3Data obtained from 217 homemakers. 44 BULLETIN 722, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 39._ Replies to the question, “When loose oranges or grapefruit are priced! by the pound, do you count the number that you want or do you select what you think will weigh a certain amount?” Percentage of homemakers using Preference Fresh orangesl Fresh grapefruit” Select by number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 89 Select by weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 10 Don’t remember . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 Not ascertained . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 100 1Data obtained from 370 homemakers. 2Data obtained from 361 homemakers. ' Table 40. Homemakers’ references for size of can of citrus 'uices.1 D J Percentage of homemakers using canned Preferences Qrange Grapefruit Blended 1111082 juices juice‘ Large (46 oz.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 62 - 61 Small (18 oz.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 34 35 None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 4 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 100 100 lReplies to the question, “What size can of each of these three products do you prefer (canned orange juice, canned grapefruit juice and canned blends)?” 2Data obtained from 207 homemakers. sData obtained from 277 homemakers. 4Data obtained from 174 homemakers. Table 41. Replies to the question, “Which do you prefer, the sweetened or unsweetened canned orange juice, grapefruit juice and blended juice?” Percentage of homemakers using canned Preference Orange Grapefruit Blended juicel juice? juice3 Unsweetened . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 73 58 Sweetened . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 16 21 None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 11 21 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 100 100 iData obtained from 207 homemakers. 2Data obtained from 277 homemakers. 3Data obtained from 174 homemakers. CITRUS PREFERENCES AMONG CUSTOMERS OF SELECTED STORES 45 Table 42. Length of time homemakers had been using frozen orange juice concentratel Percentage of homemakers who Length of time use frozen orange juice concentrate Less than 1 month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 One to 6 months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Seven to 12 months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 More than a year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 lData obtained from 162 homemakers. Table 43. Replies to the question, “How did you happen to start using frozen orange juice concentrate?“ Percentage of homemakers Reasons given giving reasonsz Told about it by friends, neighbors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Heard or read about it through advertisements (including store demonstrations) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Wanted to experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Fresh oranges were too expensive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Other reasons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 lData obtained from 162 homemakers. 2Percentages total more than 100 since many homemakers gave more than one reason. Table 44. Replies to the question, “When you think about the food you are going to serve, do you usually try to include some kind of fruit, of which citrus may or may not be one, or do you make it a point to have some kind of citrus fruit?”1 _ Percentage of homemakers who Replies given had bought some kind of fruit at the stores Usually try to include: some kind of citrus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 some kind of fruit, of which citrus may or may not be one . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Do not make it a point to include any kind of fruit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 lData obtained from 388 homemakers. 46 BULLETIN 722, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 45. Replies to the question, “Why do you include some kind of fruit, of which citrus may or may not be one, when you think about the food you are going to serve?” Percentage of homemakers giving reasons includingl Reasons given i Some kind Citrus fruit? of fruita Contains vitamins, minerals, etc . . . . . . . . 63 43 Helps balance the meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 18 Acts as a laxative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 17 Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 11 Necessary part of the diet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 10 Because of doctor’s orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3 Percent giving health reasons . . . . . . . . . . . 88 76 Family likes it, refreshing, tastes good. . . 18 15 Adds flavor, taste, to the meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Use in salads and desserts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6 Use as an appetizer during meals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Use as a snack, eaten between meals. . . . 2 5 Percent giving taste reasons . . . . . . . . . . 24 32 Habit, custom; “Always include some fruit” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3 Percent giving other reasons . . . . . . . . . . 10 3 lPercentage total more than 100 since many homemakers gave more than one reason. 2Data obtained from 273 homemakers. 3Data obtained from 109 homemakers. Table 46. Replies to the question, “What sort of things help you make up your mind after you get to the store?” Percentage of homemakers giving reasonsl Reasons given Group A” Group B“ Quality and appearance of the fruit. . . . . 84 86 Price of the fruit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 47 Desire for variety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 5 lPereentage total more than 100 since many homemakers gave more than one reason. 2Group A—75 homemakers who intend to purchase some kind of fruit, not necessarily citrus, and decide what kind after arriving at the store. 3Group B—96 homemakers who intended to purchase some kind of citrus fruit and decide what kind after arriving at the store. CITRUS PREFERENCES AMONG CUSTOMERS OF SELECTED STORES 47 Table 4'7. Replies to the question, “I suppose there are times when you change your mind and don’t buy what you planned to buy. What sort of things make you change your mind?” Percentage of homemakers giving reasonsl Reasons given ’ Group C” Group D3 Quality and appearance of the fruit. . . . . 68 51 Price of the fruit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 20 T Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 ‘ 10 t. Do not change their minds . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 32 lPercentage total more than 100 since many homemakers gave more than one reason. 2Group 0-34 homemakers who intend to purchase some kind of fruit, not necessarily citrus, and decide what kind before going to the store. 3Group D—-177 homemakers who intend to purchase some kind of citrus fruit and decide what kind before going to the store. II. Paired Comparisons of Taste Preference Taste preference comparisons used were: 1. Fresh oranges g. Fresh grapefruit or or Fresh grapefruit Frozen orange juice 2. Fresh oranges 1o. Canned orange juice or Canned grapefruit juice or Canned orange juice 3. Fresh oranges or _ _ _ 1 1. Canned orange juice Canned grapefruit julce or 4- Fresh Oranges Canned blends or Canned blends 12. Canned orange juice 5. Fresh oranges F 0T _ _ or rozen orange juice Frozen Orange jnree 13. Canned grapefruit juice 6. Fresh grapefrult or or _ _ Canned blends Canned orange juice . . . 7_ Fresh gTapefruit 14. Canned grapefruit juice or or . . Canned grapefruit juice Frown Orange Jul“: 8. Fresh grapefruit 15. Canned blends or or Canned blends Frozen orange juice The six citrus products which were evaluated in this study were fresh oranges, fresh grapefruit, frozen orange juice, canned grape- fruit juice, canned orange juice and canned blended juice. One of the objectives of this study was to determine the taste preferences ‘fl (degree of popularity) for the more important citrus products. 48 BULLETIN 722, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Each homemaker was asked to give preference judgments in terms of comparing each citrus item independently with every other item. As an example the homemaker was asked to state her preference of fresh oranges compared with fresh grapefruit, fresh oranges com- pared with frozen orange juice and so on. This procedure is termed the method of paired comparisons. The proportion of times that each product was preferred to every other product was determined. The proportion for each product compared with itself was assumed to be .50. Each column was totaled and the columns were arranged in descending order from left to right. This gave order of rank for the taste preferences. Other statistical analysis established the degree of difference between taste preferences for the six products. The use of the method of paired comparisons is particularly applicable to the problem of consumer reactions to citrus products. For one thing, we can determine the nature of the scale in different groups within the population, upper-income families vs. low-income families, for example. Since frozen orange concentrate is a relatively new product, a time series could be established which would in- dicate how this product changes in terms of psychological acceptance among consumers. At the same time such a time series would show how a change in acceptance of frozen orange concentrate affects the psychological position of other citrus products. A detailed description of the statistical technique used in this method of paired comparisons may be obtained from the Depart- ment of Agricultural Economics and Sociology, College Station, Texas. III. Taste Test Ballot Test number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tester . . . , _ _ , _ _ , _ _ _ , _ Sample Score Comments Score: l0 - ideal 6 - fairly good 2 - poor 9 - excellent 5 - acceptable 1 - very poor 8 - very good 4 - fair 0 - repulsive 7 - good 3 - poorly fair The numbers from 0 to 10 indicate quality. Give word description of sample under “Comments.”