. Y. . i. h.‘ .. .”"ge°,“u §§ Q @fl P..v ,¢ %V ,[%fi% .H %00o0§0oa0oo Summary and Conclusions A market test of deboned, prepackaged, frozen meats was conducted in retail food stores of Waco, Texas, in the summer and fall of 1956. A further check on the marketing of frozen prepackaged meats in Waco was conducted during the summer of 1959. The results of the 1959 survey verified the findings of the 1956 market test. The retail market test indicated that these prod- ucts probably will not be attractive to most food stores from a sales and profit viewpoint at the present time. Despite a strong 4-week promotion campaign conducted in a 1956 market test, total sales of de- boned frozen beef and veal steaks and roasts were only 1 percent of the total meat sales in Waco. Sales of frozen prepackaged red meats during the test were less than those of either frozen fish or frozen poultry. The specific items that showed a market potential were convenience types such as prefabricated sand- wich steaks, luncheon meats and hamburger patties or steaks. CONSUMER ACCEPTANCE. A survey of approxi- mately 1,800 Waco families following the 1956 mar- ket test revealed that half of them had heard about the brand of prepackaged frozen beef used in the test. The advertising media through which the families learned of the product, in terms of order of impor- tance, were in-store displays and demonstrations, television, newspapers and radio. About 3O percent of the Waco families had pur- chased prepackaged frozen beef. Seven out of 1O of these families made a repeat purchase. However, purchases were infrequent and confined to the less expensive items such as sandwich steaks. The major reason reported for not buying frozen prepackaged beef was a preference for fresh meat. Only 7 percent said voluntarily that the price was too high and only 1 percent made comments against the package. In response to direct questions, one in three con- sidered the price of frozen beef satisfactory, almost one in five thought it too high. The others had no comment, probably because they bought the smaller items which have no counterpart at fresh meat counters. ' Direct questions concerning the package met with a favorable response as to its attractiveness, size and ease of opening. RESURVEY RESULTS. A resurvey of Waco super- market food stores in the summer of 1959 indicated that the earlier market test finding were accurate. With the exception of drive-in food stores that handle bone-in frozen steaks and roasts, because they have no fresh meat market, no stores stocked any frozen steaks or roasts. However, the convenience items, such as luncheon steaks, sandwich steaks and ham- burger patties were carried by most of the chain supermarkets. CONSUMER MEAT PURCHASING PREFE More than half of the consumers shop for chain food stores and about one in three l independent food stores. Others use both Selfservice meat markets-llare patronized o‘ of the housewives. Howevelrl, about half of a interviewed said they would prefer one open f service unit in a selfservice meat market. l As in an earlier survey in Houston, most families preferred U. S. Good grade beef (T letin 856, "The Consumer Market for Beef," -_ Branson). Among white families the prefer Waco were; U. S. Good, 41 percent; U. S. a 31 percent; U. S. Choice, 2O percent; and U. S. only 8 percent. Among Negro families, the¢ ences were U. S. Standard, 44 percent; U. S. 11 percent; U. S. Choice, 11 percent; and U. S 7 percent. . Forty-one percent of the homemakers own sure cookers, but only 25 percent used them fl ing beef or other meats. They feel that ~ cooking adversely affects the taste or flavor - ture of the meat. Thirty-two percent of the homemakers‘- Dutch ovens which most of them used for ery. Therefore, it appears best to encour purchase and use of beef that can be pre Dutch ovens during the hot weather season? Southern and Southwestern States. l The most popular beef cuts, in order of-l frequency were: steaks-—T-bone, 52 percent 38 percent; sirloin, 28 percent; and 7-steak, cent; roasts-—rump, 29 percent; Pikes Peak,_i cent; chuck, 13 percent; rib, 11 percent; and s 1O percent. Veal cutlets were used frequentl’ percent and hamburger by 22 percent. l FACTORS AGAINST FROZEN BEEF. Fresh r rather than frozen generally are preferred. The price of deboned, frozen prepackag was considered high by one out of five co However, it is probable that all the steaks a were considered too high. A Consumers have difficulty in properly es_ the percentage waste (bone and extra fat) i and roasts. Errors result in the opinion th prepackaged meat prices are too high. l Although the closed opaque package _ brand A frozen beef met with good accepta believed that consumers still doubt the quali j product unless they can see it before they b . Butchers were unfavorable toward fro packaged meats because they feared that J kets could be displaced by freezer cabinetl sequently they tend to discourage custome possible, from purchasing frozen meats. Meat markets tended to make the ma high on frozen beef. The economics of frozen meats compared with handling fresl were not given proper consideration. l5 j_ CASSES FOR THE PREPARATION of retail cuts fhandled mainly in central warehouse facil- la large chain food stores instead of in the ye butcher departments as they formerly is centralized system increases efficiency eater mechanization and labor organiza- zen prepackaged beef was developed mainly e reasons by one of the large meat pack- ns in the United States. In addition to yient mechanization, all residue inherent in Z ation of deboned, fully trimmed, retail utilized more advantageously at a central or example, bones removed from the meat “nsportation and handling costs because of 'ness and weight. Bones removed at a cen- _ g plant may be utilized in by-product al- such as fertilizers or as protein elements ‘p feed preparations. ket test of deboned, prepackaged, frozen conducted in retail food stores of Waco, ‘the summer and fall of 1956. A further ‘f, e marketing of frozen prepackaged meats ‘as conducted during the summer of 1959. A ~ of the 1959 survey verified the findings g market test. Lition to the information pertinent to the acceptance or rejection of the test product iderable information was obtained regard- ectiveness of various means of product pro- i‘ as newspapers, radio, television and in- nstrations. ition of the Market Test i aracteristics of various Texas cities were go determine a suitable location for a mar- cause a market test may be conducted at a smaller city than in a large metropolitan bjective was to find a medium-sized city characteristics comparable to the larger ; areas. Exanfjliriation of the various med- 'ties revealed "that Waco, Texas, most i‘ the market test requirements. The in- bution of its population as well as their , professor, Department of Agricultural Economics _ ; and assistant professor, Department of Animal onsumer and Retail Market Test of repackaged Deboned Frozen Beef ROBERT E. BRANSON and G. T. KING* occupations, did not differ appreciably from those in Dallas and Houston_..the two largest metropolitan areas in Texas. Waco also is sufficiently distant from other large cities to make its citizens dependent for news and advertising mainly on its own local news- papers, radio and television stations. Therefore, these media could be used to maximum advantage. Cooperation of all of the local chain food stores is necessary for a city-wide test. Therefore, agree- ment for the test was made with the Safeway Stores, Inc.; Atlantic 8c Pacific Tea Company; H. E. B. Food Stores; and the Piggly-Wiggly Food Stores. The co- operation of the major independent food stores also was secured since they too probably would handle at least some frozen meats. The processor shipped the necessary supplies of frozen meat to its Waco sales CONTENTS Summary and Conclusions ............................................ __ 2 Introduction _______________________________________________________________________ __ 3 Description of Market Test ___________________________________________ __ 3 Results of the Retail Store Test __________________________________ __ 4 Total Frozen Meats Sales ______________________________________ __ 4 Sales during Various Stages of the Test ____________ __ 5 Adverse Factors in Market Test __________________________________ __ 5 Prices ___________________________________________________________________________ __ 5 Consumers’ Inability to Estimate WVaste in Meats ..................................................... __ 5 Objections to Closed Opaque Packages ____________ __ 6 Butchers Opposed to Prepackaged High Markup on Frozen Meats ............................ __ 6 Frozen Beef ............................................................ __ 6 Effectiveness of Promotion Program __________________________ __ 7 Campaign . . . . . . . . . . _ . __ 7 Consumers’ Awareness of Test Product ____________ __ 7 Influence of Promotion on Sales of Specific Items.... . . 7 Effectiveness of In-store Demonstrations .......... __ 8 Results of Consumer Survey ......................................... __ 9 Design and Purpose __ 9 Proportion That Did Not Buy and Reason ...... .. 9 Opinions Regarding Frozen Meat Package ...... .. 9 Opinions Regarding Test Product Prices ........ .. l0 Popular Fresh Beef Cuts ....................................... __ l0 Beef Grade Preferences ll Methods of Cooking Beef Roasts in Summer.... l2 Type of Store and Meat Market Patronized .... ._ 12 Type of Food Store Patronized ............................ __ l3 Type of Meat Market Preferred .......................... .. l3 Resurvey of Frozen Beef Marketing ............................ __ l4 Acknowledgments ............................................................. .. l4 TABLE l. ESTIMATED RETAIL FOOD STORE SALES OF SELECTED MEATS, JUNE 9—SEPTEMBER 15, 1956, WACO M e at Sales Proportion of sales Pounds Percent Fresh Veal 7 16,177 30 Beef 682,477 28 Pork 337,351 14 Poultry v 573,146 24 Fish 10,436 1 Frozen Poultry 31,458 l Fish 45,327 2 Beef 1 1,21 1 1 Veal 2,829 1 Pork 1,325 1 Total 2,411,737 100 1Less than 1 percent. office where it could be distributed as needed to the retail food stores. a Waco food stores were each asked to handle as much of the frozen meat line as was practicable con- sidering the amount of frozen food cabinet space available to them. This was a departure from the previous market tests made by the processor's own market research department, which had conducted tests only in stores handling the complete line of frozen meats. This generally involved the utiliza- tion of a considerable amount of footage in frozen food cabinets which most stores could not provide. With the rapid expansion of frozen foods only the most recently constructed supermarket food stores have a sufficient amount of frozen food cabinet space to consider stocking a full line of frozen meats. The market test plan was the same as that de- veloped previously for another frozen food product. The first stage consisted of auditing fresh meat sales in Waco stores for a 5-week period prior to the in- troduction of the new product. Base mark informa- tion on the level of meat sales in the city was thus 4°00 ' 360° - FROZEN FISH 3200 ' zeoo ~ . , FROZEN POULTRYfQ," 24 O0 ' \ \\‘ ‘epmv ""Inn ~ \‘v"'|| f 0‘ "I: n? \I!||| ‘0 u, o _ ||||||||“""""“‘\\\ \\\ u," n '“""n|m\\‘ S LES IN POUNDS FROZEN BEEF ‘,|_'—l_|—|_|_ A i5 o o I ‘Q |§ aoo _ .-. '~----"“ '~.. fi ’\ u—u-'-'—'—. 400 - o | I I 1 | | 1 1 l I l l I I WEEK us 2a so 9 :4 2| 2e 4 n 1a 25 | a us ENDmG JUNE J ULY AUGUST SEPT. Figure 1. Frozen beef sales compared with sales of frozen poultry and fish, chain-food stores, Waco, Texas, for specified weeks, 1956. 4 A provided. The second phase was the in of the frozen, deboned, prepackaged meat- and lamb-into the Waco food stores tog an advertising and promotion program. The market test promotion program t- had four components. Thetfirst was news vertisements used on each‘ Thursday, the, food stores place their weekend food ads. ‘< announcements, the second media, were u the 4-week period on the two Waco radi Television, the third phase, was used both f: nouncements and mention of the produ home demonstration programs originating ‘ final and fourth part of the promotional pr tailed the use of “in the store” demonstrat three largest volume chain food stores. 0' tors were not placed in all stores because t sire to obtain some measure of their effect compared with other stores not using demf The third phase of the market test tinuation of store sales audits for several w the promotion program in order to det; what level sales would stabilize. The tim for the promotional effect to wear off vari type of product. Consequently, no accurat can be made. In this case it was necessary store sales for approximately 6 weeks folli‘ promotion period. ‘ The fourth and final phase of the Y was a consumer survey. This involved a I approximately 1,800 Waco families selected dom probability sample basis. Each family i if it knew of the availability of frozen, pre deboned meat in Waco and, if so, from w The family also was asked if it had pur t, product, the particular cut and kind of me and their satisfaction with it. Of major u was information as to whether any repeat Q had been made. Results of the Retail Store TOTAL FROZEN MEATS SALES In order to determine the volume of f t sold by food stores in Waco, compared t? other meats, separate records were kept on .7 major meat market items. This included frozen beef, veal, pork, poultry and fish. V, audits were obtained from all 16 chain sto‘ city: Six Safeway stores, four H. E. B. st Piggly-Wiggly stores and two A 8c P stores. also were obtained from a rotating sample pendent food stores in the area. Twenty in Y stores were audited each week; at the en week, ten of the stores were dropped and q ones added. Thus, the total test period of included about 150 independent stores in A This compares with the slightly more than "'5 i: retail food stores operating in Waco at the f» the test. tail store audits were operated on the basis ’ ventory of the store's stock at the beginning I week plus a record of deliveries received dur- week. Thus, opening inventory plus deliv- iceived minus closing inventory equalled net r the week. I ing the 14-week market test period, sales of ‘t prepackaged beef totaled 11,211 pounds, fro- 12,829 pounds and frozen pork 1,325 pounds, . For each of these, sales represented less than 7 It of total meat sales during the test. Con- fresh beef and veal purchases by comparison, ed to almost 1,400,000 pounds and accounted rcent of the total consumer meat purchases l food stores, Table 1. of a food product should achieve at least “even minimum level in order to be carried 1 food stores. Frozen prepackaged poultry has icessfully sold for several years, but it is more marginal volume product. Figure l shows en prepackaged beef sales did not exceed g frozen poultry or frozen fish during the en- ‘h period. With volume that small, it appears en prepackaged deboned beef would have Q in being a profitable item and, therefore, likely to be carried by many food stores. mus VARIOUS STAGES o|= THE TEST ' market test involving a promotion program pattern is for a sizeable sales volume to ed within the promotion period, after which Vine to a stable rate which may be expected the future. It is necessary, of course, that rchases are being made. In the case of the '_; frozen beef, sales increased from the .451 pounds during the week it was intro- l the stores to a maximum of 1,043 pounds Fond week of the 4-week promotion period, s, In the subsequent weeks, (week ending Au- ough September l5) sales declined to a i ut 780 pounds. This was imuch less than fluctuation observed in market tests. ,during a promotion period are often many F- than in the postpromotion phase. The i ion of the frozen beef market test is that ypotential demand for the product was ex- W. Therefore, the initial volume of large might have been expected simply did not , and sales after the test contracted in- panding. i” e Factors in Market Test arious reasons consumers failed to be in- prepackaged frozen beef are evident from _of the consumer survey which followed 58 “ 4 0:0} Q Q I - BRAND 'A‘ 5° i g BRAND ‘a’ -~..--.. 0'¢'0‘0'0‘0'0‘0°0°0 .¢.0.¢.0.0.0.0.0 ‘¢‘¢.0.0.0.0.0‘0 1F O 00M 00 0.0‘O Pencarr OF PURCHASES '3 8' .Q.Q.Q.Q.O.Q.Q.Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000000000 . -~.~f~f~i~f~f~f~f»f»i~f~f$35.». s: 0 > 0 . 0 . 0 > _0 0 . 0 > 0 . 0 » 0 . _0 0 . _0 _0 3 _0 _0 _0 :0 00 O PRICE SATISFACTORY PRICE HIGH PRICE LO DON' N Figure 2. Purchasers’ opinions on price of brand “A” and brand “B” frozen beef, Waco, Texas, 1956. the retail store test. However, several factors became evident even during the process of the survey. Store managers and managers of the meat departments in the test stores observed consumers’ comments during the promotion period. One basic objection was that the frozen beef price seemed to be extremely high, Figure 2. This was a somewhat natural conclusion because apparently most housewives were unable to estimate in their own minds the amount of weight loss due to bone and trim in the steak or roast cuts. Prices prevailing during the market test are shown in Table 2. CONSUMERS’ INABILITY TO ESTIMATE WASTE IN MEATS Generally it is estimated that approximately one- third the total weight of a standing rib beef roast is bone and other nonusable portions. Thus, a standing rib roast selling at $1 per pound would cost a total of $3 for a 3-pound size. In terms of the net quantity of meat available, which would be 2 pounds, the price would be $1.50 per pound. Thus, the housewife was faced with the situation of buying a 3-pound fresh beef rib roast for $3 or a 2-pound frozen prepackaged TABLE 2. PRICE PER POUND OF SELECTED FRESH AND FROZEN BEEF CUTS DURING FROZEN BEEF MARKET TEST, WACO, 1956 is.“ Pass?‘ —————D0llars————— Steaks Round .83- .97 .98 Sirloin .69-l.25 1.49 T-Bone .85-l.l9 2.34 Roasts Rib 59- .79 1.18 Pot 39- .49 .77-.79 Miscellaneous Sandwich steaks 1,19 Hamburger patties ,76 Chopped beef steak .98 Veal cutlets .79 roast at the same price. Viewed differently, is the combination of $3 for a 3-pound fresh beef rib roast compared with a cost of $4.50 for a 3-pound frozen, prepackaged, deboned one. Consumers were asked. to estimate the proportion of waste in several of the popular steaks and roasts, Table 3. The average estimate of 31 percent waste in a rib roast for example, is reasonably accurate. At least half of the housewives underestimated the waste. Thus, these potential customers can be lost for this reason alone because they would think the price too high. Errors in consumers’ estimates for some of the other cuts were also considerable, Table 3. OBJECTIONS TO CLOSED OPAQUE PACKAGES The use of an opaque package was another detri- ment to achieving a greater sales level of frozen beef. The purchaser was thereby prevented from seeing the meat. Since all meats are relatively expensive, the housewife prefers that she be able to see what she is buying. The opaque package was used because fro- zen meats lack the attractive color that characterizes the fresh product. Freezing sharply reduces the red color and also frost particles that form on the meat ‘ 18° ‘I /' j i __ _ Q / will” // are”; -- A_' g‘ ‘s, I.’ I \ - ‘ ‘ g . g _. ,7 I " ply.‘ ‘ . , 1 Fl: . 5 i i i ‘ s: -‘- i. f‘ i i 1 _ I ' , 0 i ° ," - - ' " l’ N E W PR EM | UM , - s s tender-FROZEN Steaks! I - 2.4." ‘I ' AMERICA'S FIRST FAMILY IN FROZEN MEAT, MEAT PIES AND POULTRY! i‘ m? Figure 3. Example of the newspaper ad which closed out the 4-week promotion program. 6 TABLE 3. CONSUMERS’ ESTIMATES OF BONE TRIM WASTE IN SELECTED BEEF CUTS, WACO,’ Estimated Steak Roast waste ’ percent T-bone Sirloin Round Rib Sh,‘ — — - — Percentage of respondents — 1- 4 2 3 2s 1 5- 9 s ‘ 6e s9 2 10-14 l6 l8 l7 8 15-19 14 13 4 8 20-24 17 18 4 13 25-29 17 l5 3 17 30-34 18 l6 4 24 35-39 2 4 l 40-44 2 2 4 45-49 1 1 5O and over 5 5 1 21 Total 100 100 100 100 Average estimate of waste, percent 24 23 4 31 Actual waste, » percent” 25 23 20 33 ‘Less than l percent. zAverage for US Good grade beef. make it appear much less appetizing. Althou pictures of the meat used on the outside i}. wrappers were excellent representations of y duct, the housewife hesitated to make an initii chase. ” BUTCHERS OPPOSED TO PREPACKAGED FROZE The managers and workers in the meat f ments of the food stores were not enthusiastic the introduction of a frozen prepackaged meat. visualized it as a potential competitor which; eliminate the traditional meat market. In one; store, at least, the head of the meat departm tively discouraged the purchase of the frozen .’ his better meat customers. The argument '_ lower cost of the fresh meat, compared with if, zen, was used to turn the consumer against an purchase of the test product. a All frozen meat sales were credited to th department. Consequently, salaries, or com of butchers, when dependent on the volume o , sales, were not affected. i HIGH MARKUP ON FROZEN MEATS The proper markup for a new food pr always a problem. Frozen prepackaged be other meats shared this problem. The meat ment had a tendency to mark up the frozen ’ aged product as much as fresh meat, despite t that there was no labor by butchers in hand A 30 percent markup was not uncommon. ' any new item is looked on more or less as a I food during the introductory period, and suc carry much larger markups than the standar sales volume commodities. 7 a eetweness of Promotion Program 4-week promotion program total expendi- ij known but it was a fairly intensified pro- mpaign costing an estimated $7,500. On pi 640-line ad featuring the prepackaged fro- loin steaks was the introductory newspaper ient. This was followed by the same size i roast and on July 30 for strip sirloin steak. g-newspaper ad appeared on August 6 un- ' ding of “Barbecue Special” which featured e strip steak, tenderloin steak and top sir- V, ‘, Figure 3. Besides the newspaper adver- gjere were spot announcements throughout {ion the two radio stations serving the area— ACO and KWTX. This was supplemented ing on television station KWTX. In addi- se TV spots, personnel working on the pro- l gram appeared on live broadcasts of ladies onstration programs on both television sta- x and KCEN. bove campaign was supplemented by in- gtion signs and display markers, together "se of demonstrators in three of the largest igkets, Figure 4. The demonstrators were Jsday through Saturday during the first two weeks. ' AWARENESS OF nest PRODUCT ' isult of the intensive promotion program, '_ ely half of the Waco residents, according ehold survey, knew about the availability --the market test frozen prepackaged beef, ptnother brand, known as brand B, which in the market for several years was sold by ‘drive-in grocery stores. It was known by ' ent of the Waco families. However, the ‘fin these drive-in grocery stores were frozen of steaks or roasts overwrapped with a éThis left the product visible; furthermore eboned, although it was reasonably trim- , made the comparative price lower for ‘lives’ sources of knowledge about brand I: frozen beef covered the full span of in the promotion program, Figure 5. The e were, in order of importance, in-store i demonstrations iand television. News- adio were less effective in the particular iFof promotion used for this market test. ‘is was a memory recall answer without ting as an aid to verify the respondent’s ious research by others has shown the Yinemory tranference by consumers in re- es of advertisements they have encoun- Figure 4. Retail store display of frozen prepackaged beef. For the Waco consumers as a whole, knowledge of brand A frozen meat covered a broad range of available cuts and items, Table 5. However, knowl- edge of the pot roast was certainly small considering that it was featured in one of the promotion ads. Knowledge of brand A frozen prepackaged beef did not always induce consumers to make a purchase. In fact, only about a third knowing about it did, Figure 6. Higher income white families, as would be expected, were more inclined to purchase the pro- duct—one fourth did-than those in the lower income bracket. Less than a tenth of the low income white families purchased. The knowledge of the product as well as the proportion of families buying it in- creased with income. Higher income families have both more exposure to the types of news media used plus greater buying power. Also many of the low- income families do not have any refrigerators with freezer compartments or deep freeze cabinets in which to keep frozen food items. INFLUENCE OF PROMOTION ON SALES OF SPECIFIC ITEMS Reference has already been made to the rela- tively small volume of total sales of frozen prepack- aged beef in retail stores in comparison with that of TABLE 4. KNOWLEDGE OF AVAILABILITY OF FROZEN PREPACKAGED BEEF, BY BRAND AND FAMILY INCOME, SUMMER, 1956 Knew of brand Family Families and iIICOmC interviewed A B Totap Number — Percent of all families — White Low—under $3,000 356 35 l6 51 Medium—$3,000-$5,999 804 57 23 80 High—$6,000 and over 252 69 23 92 Average 54 21 75 Negro LoW—under $3,000 273 30 l2 42 Medium—$3,000-$5,999 46 35 26 61 High—$6,000 and over . 6 100 100 Average 30 16 46 Total or average 17 37 49 20 69 lExcludes a few families who knew about both. brands. STORE DISPLAY TELEVISION NEWS PAPERS I373 Figure 5. How consumers learned about brand “A” frozen prepackaged meat, Waco, Texas, 1956. fresh meats. It is important nevertheless to consider the relative volume of the individual cuts and items sold during the test period. Sales of the more im- portant ones are given in Table 6 for the pretest, promotion and postpromotion period. The only beef cut among the standard steak and roast items that sold in any appreciable volume was the top sirloin steak. A total of 308 packages, 308 pounds, were sold during the 4 promotion weeks. During the 5 postpromotion weeks an additional 199 packages, averaging 1 pound, were bought. Although initial sales during the promotion period were low, though better than for any of the major cuts, the volume did not hold during the postpromotion weeks. I Marketing of a line of frozen prepackaged beef cuts, if it is to be successful, needs to encompass a IOO - , V” BOUGHT BRAND '1! Q 8O - I KNEW ABOUT BRAND'A' Q .. E g so I 3 u 4O O l- 5 2 u: 2O m MEDIUM INCOME HIGH INCOME $3,000 " $5,999 $5,000 AND OVER LOW INCOME ALL INOOMES UNDER $3.000 Figure 6. Percentages of white families buying in relation to their knowledge of brand “A” prepackaged frozen beef, by income, Waco, Texas, summer, 1956. 8 comparatively full line of the various cuts carcass. Since the sales of the other cuts, roasts did not reach a satisfactory level, t i bility of a coordinated and integrated froz merchandising program is considerably imp In contrast to the low sales volume of th beef cuts, the fabricatedz sandwich and 1 I steak items sold moderately well, Table 6. cluded, as well, prepackaged frozen hamburi ties and chopped beef steaks. The fabricatio lems for these products are not as difficult for the major beef cuts. Consequently, a so; production and marketing program is feasib; smaller volume basis. Sales of all four of "s not only attained reasonable levels during a motion period, but also increased volume-wi‘ postpromotion period. a Five brands of ready-prepared frozen bee and steak were available in Waco retail u at the time of the market test. The volume each of the brands (brand A being the test bl the retail food outlets audited is indicated o‘ 7. This was by no means the total amount the Waco area. Only about l0 percent of the if’ independent stores were included in the ret- audits each week and consequently the amo the others sold would have to be added to {i EFFECTIVENESS OF IN-STORE DEMONSTRATI The question still remains as to whether store demonstrations were of any assistant: creasing sales of the frozen prepackaged mea onstrators were used in only 3 stores comp p, l3 chain stores where they were not. Sales 0, beef, which was the item demonstrated, y fourfold in the three demonstration stores d promotion period. Sales in the nondemo é’ stores increased by a little less than threefol sequently, it can be concluded that the w tors are helpful in introducing the product achieving a higher level of sales. The mani of the Waco chain stores preferred to have g onstrators in their larger and newer supe Consequently, the sales per store for demo stores cannot be compared directly with t f on a per store basis. The relative sales gain A onstration as compared to nondemonstratio however, is a valid comparison, Figure 7. Considerable care is necessary in select; sonnel as store demonstrators. It is best to s - men who might be taken as typical mi housewives, rather than selecting on the e beauty contest criteria. Chain store personn, city usually can supply names of experien store product demonstrators. Demonstrators be placed in stores outside their own local re area since friends may take time at the stor cuss personal and neighborhood affairs. I flts of Consumer Survey j o PURPOSE imately 1,800 families, comprising a prob- er sample, were interviewed in Waco dur- fand November following the conclusion f store market test for prepackaged frozen j principal objectives of the consumer sur- A determine what percentage of the Waco i made a purchase of the test product and i important what proportion of those who thought enough of it to make a re- it is also possible to obtain additional in- a consumer survey concerning the con- tudes toward the new product and infor- Vt their own personal habits and practices ‘t affect their purchasing of beef products. jf frozen beef were not as large as desir- t the objectives was to learn why more ‘f not make a purchase. e THAT DID NOT BUY AND REASON iapproximate 1,800 families interviewed, lot made a purchase of packaged frozen most common reason given for not pur- a preference for fresh beef. This, to- Ta small number who raised their own ivery little beef, accounted for 28 percent ying families. An additional 5 percent "d not purchase because they had no -l or they bought their meat at a freezer- Seven percent of the families with in- $6,000 per year had freezer-lockers and meat fresh through related suppliers. I ttt of all the families indicated that the _* they shopped did not have the product TABLE 5. CONSUMERS’ KNOWLEDGE OF BRAND A FROZEN PREPACKAGED MEAT CUTS, WACO, 1956 Proportion of Proportion of Meat cut families Meat cut families knowing knowing Percent Percent Sirloin steak 9 Pork cutlet 1 T-bone steak 9 Lamb chop 1 Round steak 5 Hamburger patties 15 Veal cutlets 10 Rib roast 2 Loin luncheon steak 3 Pot roast 2 Sandwich steak 7 Pork roast 2 Chopped beef steak 3 Beef sirloin roast 2 Pork chops 1 Leg of lamb 1 Total number of survey families 1,872 ‘Less than 1 percent. or at least they did not find it during their shopping. Only 7 percent mentioned that the price discouraged them from buying and less than 1 percent commented adversely about the package. ‘Almost half of the res- pondents were unable to give any particular reason they did not purchase other than they simply forgot about it or had not thought about it at the time they were in the food store. OPINIONS REGARDING FROZEN MEAT PACKAGE Most of the purchasers of frozen prepackaged beef were satisfied with the type of package used. Although 60 percent of the 532 purchasers expressed no particular opinion regarding the package, it is significant that no derogatory comments were made. The package was considered attractive, a convenient size and easy to open. These comments pertain pri- marily to the type of item that the Waco housewives bought. As the retail store audit figures reveal, the most commonly purchased items were the luncheon TABLE 6. BRAND A FROZEN BEEF SALES BY ITEM AND TEST PERIOD, WACO, 1956 Sales period _ _ Total sales Pretest Promotion After promotion i - Pack ages Pounds Packages Pounds Packages Pounds Packages Pounds 4 16 23 92 21 84 48 192 ’ t d 4 16 27 108 25 100 56 224 d 1 6 3 18 4 24 ' 11 11 32 32 29 29 72 72 pound 2 6 2 6 308 308 199 199 507 507 1t 4 pound 20 25 69 s6 19 24 10s 13s " 21 27 11s 11s ss s3 ' 22s 226 . ,_ 21 31 21 31 H67 101 601 797 s76 519 1044 1417 f- 12 ounces 229 171 395 295 587 438 1211 904 64 32 358 179 438 219 860 430 65 48 209 156 264 198 538 402 75 38 312 156 274 142 661 336 165 83 412 206 507 . 253 1084 t 542 598 372 1686 992 2070 1250 4354 2614 665 473 2287 1789 2446 1769 5398 4031 TABLE 7. SALES OF SELECTED READY PREPARED, PREPACKAGED FROZEN BEEF ITEMS BY FOOD STORES AND BRAND, WACO, WEEK ENDING JUNE 16—SEPTEM- BER 15, 1959 Brand of package Meat item Total A B C D E sales — — Number of pounds — — Hamburger patties 904 680 12 12 I596 Luncheon steaks 430 916 211 732 l3 2302 Sandwich steaks 738 302 73 27 78 1218 Chopped beef 542 230 1081 1853 Total 2614 2128 296 1840 91 6969 steaks, hamburger patties and similar items that were easily handled and quickly prepared for lunch or other convenience meals. Therefore, it is not as- sumed that these favorable replies would necessarily pertain to all of the items in the frozen meat brand A line. In any further attempts to prepackage fro- zen beef, it is suggested that the package itself be '5° ' E PRE'PROMOTION PERIOD 7/, PROMOTION PERIOD 6 o --POST PROMOTION PERIOD x LESS THAN s PACKAGES NUMBER OF PACKAGES m O BEEF VEAL PORK |5O l" (D 3 4 Z O E IOO ll- O m 5 g 5Q 3 Z o . BEEF VEAL PORK Figure 7. Effect of promotion and average weekly sales of frozen prepackaged meats per store in 13 nondemonstration stores (top) and three demonstration stores (bottom), Waco, summer, 1956. 10 subjected again to pretesting among cons g order to detect any aspects of its design of c tion that might meet with consumer disappro i present survey was not designed to give co L sive answers regarding the package design. OPINIONS REGARDING TEST PRODUCT PRICE There is no doubttftat the prices of th steaks and roasts were higher than the p .1 equivalent price levels for fresh beef and . T/Vaco at the time of the market test. For th' an effort was made in the survey to obtain ers’ opinions about the price of the frozen I ure 2. It was considered satisfactory by 38 u.‘ those who purchased the brand A (market zen beef and high by only 18 percent. other purchasers did not feel that they cou an adequate comparison or felt that it was I ical. Caution again must be exercised howev terpreting these answers in view of the fact I of the items bought were sandwich steaks d, items for which frequently there is no cou in the fresh meat department. a The opinions of the prices of brand A . too different from the opinions of brand B, ter being sold at drive-in food stores. T percent of the purchasers of brand B consid prices satisfactory and only 12 percent them too high. 1t is to be expected that the , be less comment about high prices on the ' product since it was not deboned and therefo: be sold at prices more comparable to those 0 cuts in the fresh meat market. I Considering the low volume of total r 0f frozen prepackaged beef, it normally wou sumed that a very small percentage of the buyers had made a repeat purchase. How cording to the consumer survey, this was not l Of the 561 families buying prepackaged fro 71 percent made a repeat purchase. The pr making additional purchases did not vary j ably by either income or age of the housewi is not usually the case, because often olde are more reluctant than younger ones to products. Results of the retail store tests and sumer survey showed that consumers confi 5' of their purchases to the less expensive fro‘ items: hamburger steaks, luncheon steaks I wich steaks. Furthermore, those who my chases apparently did so on a relatively =2’ basis. Otherwise, the sales of frozen meat wo, been considerably larger during the survey. POPULAR FRESH BEEF CUTS g A question that could be raised conce A marketing of prepackaged frozen beef w: whether the most popular cuts were offered tion to those usually purchased. by TVaco ho i question of the steaks and roasts packaged beef was not as good as it might have been. “'52 percent of the housewives indi- The only one featured in the promotion advertising iFT-bone was most popular. Next in in newspapers was the pot roast. Only 3 percent of ng steaks were round, by 38 percent the families indicated that they usually buy the pot j ers, and sirloin steak by 28 percent. roast. Therefore, this did 11ot give much of a con- j were veal cutlets which were used sumer preference base from which to merchandise l.’ percent of the families and ham- frozen pot roast. Less than 1 percent of the families (22 percent. On the basis of the pop- indicated use of the sirloin roast which also was fea- it appeared that sirloin steak was a tured though to a lesser extent. Therefore, together choice in the frozen prepackaged with the problem of pricing, the lack of proper as- 4 ever, the use of the T-bone steak was sociation of the brand A frozen prepackaged cuts since the T-bones were separated with the type usually bought also hampered sales of ts; one was marketed as sirloin strip the new product. other was marketed as tenderloin ' ck of association of these with a T- BEEF GRADE PREFERENCES ,ibly hampered the demand for them As in previous research by the Consumer Eco- {The tenderloin was similar in appear- nomics Section of the Department of Agricultural '1 ub steaks, which were purchased usu- Economics and Sociology, consumers evidenced a pref- percent of the families. erence for U. S. Good grade beef. The proportion of white families preferring the respective retail grades were: U. S. Standard, 31 percent; U. S. Good, 41 percent; U. S. Choice, 20 percent; and U. S. Prime, only 8 percent. Among Negro families the prefer- ence was U. S. Standard, 44 percent; U. S. Good, 38 percent; U. S. Choice, 11 percent; and U. S. Prime, 7 percent, Table 9. _ not as much need for a frozen round p“ cut has little waste and was the second cut of beef purchased. Consequently, parallel between the frozen prepack- iiffresh meat cuts left a void in the usual i by which housewives shop for beef p mast was the most frequently put; In determining grade preferences, only 470 ran- ught by Waco families_ Twenty/nine domly selected families in the sample of 1,800 were ased this cut; next in popularity were shown colored 8 x l0 photographs of the ribeye sec- ‘k and chuck roasts, being bought by 14 tion of a beef carcass. These were the same pictures I‘- t, respectively. Rib and shoulder roasts used in comparable consumer surveys in Houston, by 11 and l0 percent of the families, Phoenix and Denver. Results, in terms of consumer ire again the selection of cuts for pre- preferences, were generally about the same. Results S OF FRESH OR FROZEN BEEF CONSUMERS USUALLY BOUGHT, BY INCOME GROUP, WACO, 1956 Family income group Low Medium High All under $3,000 353,000-355,999 $6,000 and over incomes Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 123 18 262 30 123 47 508 28 306 46 485 56 143 55 934 52 335 50 216 25 130 50 681 38 92 14 56 6 1 1 4 159 9 20 3 24 3 18 7 62 3 2 1 2 1 ll 2 l5 2 l0 4 36 2 132 20 220 25 60 23 412 23 4 1 5 1 9 5 164 25 168 19 53 20 385 22 84 13 68 8 40 15 192 1 1 19 3 33 4 8 3 60 3 ;,- I _ 4 1 9 l l3 1 50 8 134 15 59 22 243 14 131 20 288 33 104 40 523 29 121 18 167 19 40 15 228 13 50 8 92 1 1 30 ll 172 l0 ’~ 20 3 40 4 4 2 64 4 _ | 41 6 68 7 l4 5 123 7 y I: 16 2 8 1 2 1 26 1 g- 6 1 16 2 8 3 30 2 p .of families in sample 664 862 261 1787 2' ' I CCIIL 11 TABLE 9. U. S. BEEF GRADE FIRST PREFERENCE OF i HOUSEWIVES, BY FAMILY INCOME, WACO, 1956 Family income group “Jail” “$212,? £3???) preference under ’ ’ incomes to and $34M“) $6,000 over — — — Percent of housewives — — — White families Standard 36 29 32 31 Good 39 43 39 41 Choice ll 21 25 20 Prime l4 7 4 8 Total 100 100 100 100 Number of families 56 196 72 324 Negro families Standard 41 52 44 Good 40 35 38 Choice 13 4 67 ll Prime 6 9 33 7 Total 100 100 100 100 Number of families 97 46 3 146 of these surveys are summarized in the publication, TAES Bulletin 856, “The Consumer Market for Beef,” April 1957. The preference for lean beef by Texas families also has been indicated by consumer panel and retail store tests conducted by the Department of Animal Husbandry and the Consumer Economics Section of the Department of Agricultural Economics and So- ciology. As family income rises, the proportion favor- ing Choice beef increases, but the majority still pre- fer the U. S. Good grade, Table 9. METHODS OF COOKING BEEF ROASTS IN SUMMER Cooking of beef roasts is hampered somewhat in the summer because of the very warm climate. Com- mon procedure for cooking roasts is to place them in a roaster in the kitchen stove oven. A great deal of heat is thus generated which is undesirable during the summer. One alternative to preparing beef roasts in this manner is to use either a pressure cooker or a Dutch oven. Pressure cookers retain the heat inside the vessel as does the Dutch oven, to a considerable extent. Forty-one percent of the Waco families had a pressure cooker, but only 25 percent of them used it for cooking beef. Therefore, 16 per- TABLE l0. NUMBER OF OWNERS OF DUTCH OVENS USING THEM FOR COOKING BEEF, BY AGE GROUP, WACO, 1956 Owners Age gmuP Using Not using Percent of each for beef for beef age group owning — - Percent of housewives — -—- Under 30 92 8 30 30-39 92 8 39 40-49 29 8 36 50-59 93 7 37 60 and over 88 12 22 Percent of all families owning 32 12 cent of the families, although they had g ment, did not use it for this purpose. w’ expected that a number of families wou using it, the question was asked as to the for not cooking beef in pressure cookers. _l important reason, given by 48 percent of . makers, was that they simply prefer to r by other methods. However, this was .- unsatisfactory answer and one in which A viewer should have probed further to det reason for preferring to cook meats by 0 f ods. Some indication of what these ans have been, however, is provided by anoth cent of the families who indicated that p_ of beef roasts in a pressure cooker resulte sirable taste, texture or flavor. A few of t A did not use pressure cookers for this pur similarly small percent said they simply w the habit of doing it. i Dutch ovens were owned by 32 perc’ IVaco housewives and practically all of used them for preparing beef roasts, Table fore, this latter method would seem to be promising one for promoting greater use r the Southwest during the summertime. TYPE OF STORE AND MEAT MARKET PATR, As a part of the consumer survey, in j was also sought as to current buying p Waco families concerning meat products. v vey as well as several others made by th' ment of Agricultural Economics indicates , of the meat merchandising practices pri chain food stores require re-evaluation. Most Wacoans—58 percent-usually _ meat at chain food stores although about; still use independent stores, Table ll. T tion buying at independent stores is sizea ering the fact that many of the indepen stores do not stock fresh meats. The old. meat market is used most by only 2 perch families. Some may assume that customers of Y stores represent the middle to lower inco whereas the higher income families patro pendent stores that provide more service. the reverse situation prevails according to survey. Sixty-five‘ percent of the colle housewives patronize chain stores and it is l ilies that generally have the highest in =6 comparison with this, only 50 percent of l school-educated housewives were chain sto i Twenty-seven percent of the grade _ cated housewives usually bought at small; ent stores compared with only l0 percent g; lege-educated homemakers. It must be that chain stores, on the average, not o more discriminating clientele than in ‘_ TYPE OF OUTLET WHERE HOUSEWIVES ' PURCHASED BEEF, WACO, 1956 7» I of store Percent of families using v _ 58 q dependent l0 independent 25 {and independent 4 f . ket 2 7| er 1 1 1 100 percent. {also their customers are better educated 3v more cautious of merchandising de- they might construe as being deceptive. are finding it increasingly important t0 jerchandise quality rather than price. ‘- STORE PATRONIZED iwough two-thirds of the college-educated ?are buying at self-service meat markets, l cent preferred patronizing them, Table lousewives are thus being forced, through niences of the chain stores, to buy at self- _t markets when it is not their personal attention, fresher meat and better abil- meat that is being bought were the out- j ons for preferring the service type of These reasons prevailed among all in- and races in Waco. jor reason families preferred the self- jfof meat market also was the ability to better. This raises a point of difference i_ mers as to which method of service al- To see the product better. From poultry iudies we have observed also that many press an inability to judge properly the eat in the prepackaged form. Inability f mer to judge meat quality adequately, Off-the major remaining obstacle to satis- l_..self-service meat departments. Ian a third of the housewives reported i: convenience cause them to prefer self- {markets A great disadvantage of the h‘ meat market is having to wait to be teen percent also felt that they had a ount of personal attention when buying ‘ice counter. v MARKET PREFERRED h, responsibility of marketing research is Li; at the right questions are asked in the A and that the proper techniques are 'ng information pertaining to any par- i‘ t. An excellent example of the varia- nse according to the approach used is TABLE 12. TYPE OF MEAT MARKET SERVICE PRE- FERRED, BY EDUCATION AND INCOME OF HOUSEWIFE, WACO, 1956 Education Market type and income _ Total Self service Service Both - Percent of housewives — Number Percent Education Grade school 49 48 3 491 100 High school 42 55 3 836 100 College 43 53 4 339 100 Income Low- under $3,000 45 . 52 3 616 100 Medium— ‘ $3,000-$5,999 42 55 3 809 100 High- $6,000 and over 49 46 5 241 100 provided by the present study with respect to con- sumer use of the bell-ringing system for the butcher versus the use of the open butcher unit in a self- service meat market. In an effort to determine whether the bell-ringing system is acceptable, the fol- lowing question was asked: “Do you like bell-ring- ing for personal service at a self-service meat mar- ket?” The answers indicated overwhelming approval, Table 13. An average of 64 percent of the Waco housewives gave a “yes” reply and 32 percent said they were indifferent. This latter group undoubtedly find the cuts they need presently offered at self-serv- ice counters. Only 4 percent of all families answered “no” and the highest percent among any of the in- come groups was the 9 percent reported by high in- come families. On the basis of this question alone, it obviously would be decided that such a system for handling special needs of customers was entirely sat- isfactory. However, an entirely different point of view is indicated when the matter is restated another way. Waco housewives also were asked, “Would you prefer at least one open-butcher-service unit in a self- service meat market?” In reply to this type of a question, 56 percent of the white families and 47 TABLE 13. HOUSEWIVES’ PREFERENCES REGARDING BELL-RINGING SERVICE AT MEAT MARKET, BY EDU- CATION AND INCOME GROUPS, WACO, 1956 Personal Preferences characteristics of housewives Do like Don’t like Indifferent Total — — — — Percent of housewives — — — — Education Grade school 49 4 47 100 High school 68 4 28 100 College 72 4 24 100 Income Low- under $3,000 45 6 49 100 Medium— $3,000-$5,999 65 3 32 100 High- $6,000 and over 74 9 17 100 - All families 64 4 32 100 l3 TABLE 14. HOUSEWIVES PREFERRING AT LEAST ONE l OPEN-BUTCHER-SERVICE UNIT IN A SELF-SERVICE MEAT MARKET, BY INCOME, RACE AND AGE GROUPS, WACO, 1956 Characteristics Preferences To t a1 of housewives D0 like Don’t like Don’t know — — — — Percent 0f housewives — — — — White by income Low 43 l4 43 100 Medium 61 14 25 100 High 59 17 24 100 Negro by income Low 43 14 43 100 Medium 63 l 1 26 100 High 83 17 100 White by age Under 30 61 l5 24 100 30-39 59 18 23 100 40-49 57 17 26 100 50-59 61 1 l 28 100 60 or over 42 ll 47 100 Negro by age Under 30 56 17 27 100 30-39 57 7 36 100 40-49 57 17 26 100 50-59 32 14 54 100 60 or over 30 14 30 100 All white families 56 l4 30 100 All Negro families 47 l3 40 100 percent of the Negro families said “yes.” All income groups and all ages of housewives, regardless of race, gave similar replies. About one-third were indiffer- ent. Only about 14 percent of white families and l3 percent of Negro families said that they would not desire one, Table 14. The preceding example points up the wide difference in the results of different ap- proaches to the same subject. One gave an answer from 4 percent of the families who said they did not like the bell-ringing service as compared with prac- tically half of the families who said that they would prefer having one open-butcher-service unit in a self- service meat market which they could call upon for special service. Resurvey of Frozen Beef Marketing During the summer of 1959, a survey of Waco food stores was conducted to ascertain how many were carrying the type of frozen meats used in the market test, and if so, what items. The results con- firmed the findings of the 1956 test. As indicated in Table 15, only the convenience items such as lunch- eon steaks were stocked. The sirloin steak was com- 14 TABLE 15. CHAIN roon STORES STOCK _l BEEF, BY ITEM, DURING RESURVEY PERIO »_. Frozen meat Chain food s items stocked Safeway A 3c p piggly Luncheon steak No Yes Y g Veal cutlet Yes Yes Yei Pork choppette Yes 1‘- Yes Y6‘ Hamburger Yes Yes Yes Sandwich steak No Yes Yes Sirloin steak N0 No No T, pletely unavailable. Roasts, though not f were not stocked. l The exception to the above was th frozen but not deboned, prepackaged beef ~’ were still carried by the drive-in grocery; had them during the 1956 market test. i‘ stores have no meat market, frozen cuts they can handle. i Acknowledgments The market test of frozen prepackag‘ made possible with the assistance of s; panics in the food industry. Swift and C0 vided the product and promotion camp 5 as the distribution of the product to the g stores. The management and personnel p way Stores, Inc.; Atlantic 8c Pacific Tea- Piggly-lviggly Stores of Waco, Texas, and; Food Stores are thanked for their cooperat ing the test possible. Appreciation also ' to the Southland Company operators of th Stores for their excellent cooperation. independent food stores in Waco gave '4 operation to the field staff in obtaining audits of meat product sales. ’ Appreciation is expressed to the Wa and to television stations KWTX and l to radio station KWTX for their cooperat viding publicity during the promotion p DETAILED TABLES AVAILAB ‘ Detailed tables from which much information in this publication was d ed are available 0n request t0 the I ment of Agricultural Economics and ogy, College Station, Texas. ‘ [Blank Page in Original Bulletin] i mm STATION nrs sunsnnous : nrs nru: unomroruss A coomu-nsc sn-noxs Location of field research units oi the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and cooperating agencies ORGANIZATION OPERATION Research results are carried t0 Texas farmers, ranchmen and homemakers by county agents and specialists of the Texas Agricultural Ex- tension Service joa/ay i’! WQJQLZPCA ~95 flOlTllTlOffOlll :5 F09 State-wide Iflesear The Texas Agricultural Experiment is the public agricultural research a oi the State oi Texas. and is one parts oi the Texas A6=M College S IN TIIE MAIN STATION, with headquarters at College Station, are matter departments, 2 service departments, 3 regulatory servi administrative staff. Located out in the major agricultural areas I 21 substations and 9 field laboratories. In addition, there are I41 stations owned by other agencies. Cooperating agencies inclu Forest Service, Game and Fish Commission of Texas, Texas P ' U. S. Department of Agriculture, University of Texas, Texas T_ College, Texas College of Arts and Industries and the King ': experiments are conducted on farms and ranches and in rural -I THE TEXAS STATION is conducting about 400 active research proj in 25 programs, which include all phases of agriculture in Te these are: I Conservation and improvement of soil Beef cattle Conservation and use of water Dairy cattle Grasses and legumes Sheep and goats Grain crops Swine , Cotton and other fiber crops Chickens and turkeys‘ Vegetable crops Animal diseases and Citrus and other subtropical fruits Fish and game V Fruits and nuts Farm and ranch engi Oil seed crops Farm and ranch busi Ornamental plants Marketing agricultural Brush and weeds Rural home economii Insects Rural agricultural --,_ Plant diseases Two additional programs are maintenance and upkeep, and cen AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH seeks the WHA 1 WHYS. the WHENS. the WHERES and the HO hundreds oi problems which confront operat iarms and ranches, and the many industries d {_ ing on or serving agriculture. Workers oi the Station and the tield units oi the Texas Agri -~ Experiment Station seek diligently to find soluti these problems. ».