April1962 Consumers‘ Image of // L\ F OUR-POINT PROGRAM Developing New or Improved Products Consumer Education Advertising Program Point-of-sale Promotions THE AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS I College Station, Texos TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION I R. D. Lewis, Director Summary The Research Objective: The consumer’s ideas about a food product are made up of several sub-images or attitudes toward the characteristics which they feel the product possesses. This research was designed to determine consumers’ favorable and unfavorable images as to broilers, both in making purchases in stores and in serving them as a meat dish. These images, summarized briefly here, influence the con- sumer demand for broilers more than producers and processors often realize. Marketing Appearance Image: The 434 housewives interviewed in Houston, Texas, indicated that the appearance of broilers is extremely important when selecting meat. Skin color is a key factor and most housewives preferred a broiler with a moderate to medium yellow-skin. This color conveys an image of a healthy, well-fed, juicy and flavorful broiler; whereas, white skin projected the image of a less healthy, flavorless bird. Housewives believe chicken to be a wholesome product, but half of them did not know what a grade label meant and few recalled seeing one on broilers. Confidence in the quality of cut-up broilers might be enhanced by prominent use of grade designations. Package and Convenience Image: There was a poor image associated with prepackaged, cut-up chicken. Objections were to the added cost, but perhaps more importantly the poor image related to skepticism re- garding the broiler’s freshness, dissatisfaction with the number and shape of pieces, as well as complaints that the bones are usually splintered. Housewives, in the interviews, emphasized ease of preparation as a factor in selecting meats. There- fore, a pack of cut-up chicken which can be bought with confidence would help considerably to improve consumers’ opinions of broilers. Weight versus Cost: Consumers selected broilers on the basis of the weight of the bird and not by total cost. The price range tested wasafrom 29 to 43 cents per pound. Broilers weighting 2 to 3 pounds were preferred; those weighing 4 pounds or more conveyed an image of an older and also, tougher, chicken. The Economy Image: The consumer image of broil- ers as an economy meat is excellent. It is not con- sidered a “cheap” makeshift meat to stretch the food budget. v has not. The Nutrition Image: Although three out of housewives interviewed had no formal nutritio home economics training, they had their own n, tion image of various meats? 3» . They believed chicken to be lower in pr than beef, that it has less B vitamins and is h’ in calories than beef. On the contrary, food nologists’ analyses indicate that chicken is super' most popular beef cuts in protein and B vitamin is lower in calorie count. The Preparation and Cooking Image: The hi wife’s image of broilers focuses on one met frying. The major deterrent to preparing t dishes was that these are either too difficult or c be prepared satisfactorily. This necessarily limi v use image of chicken. ‘ The Weight Reducing Image: Most consume not have a favorable weight reducing image for l" ers. Chicken was thought to be higher in cal and lower in protein than beef, whereas, as com with most beef cuts, the reverse is true. Althoug beef industry has successfully created a high-pr low calorie image for its product, the broiler ind The Purpose Image: The concensus of the I wives interviewed was that broilers are a good, ty family meal for the medium and low socio-econ groups. For higher socio-economic groups, more appropriate. However, most thought a broilers for Sunday in higher socio-economic _i was not ruled out entirely. t Broilers were not considered to be as accep as beef for formal entertaining. Broilers were} ferred for less formal and more frequent entertai situations. — For entertaining women friends, chicken was A ferred by one respondent in four, fish by one in and beef by one in six. Evidently fish, particu tuna fish, has a close competitive image to chi’ for light luncheon salads and sandwiches. Conclusions: These research findings indicate. the broiler industry should improve the prod, image among consumers. There is a need for pr improvement, development of new and ready-c . product forms, development of prestige recipes chicken, and education and promotional inform as to the product's desirable nutritional qual Suggestions for accomplishing these objectives more detailed results of the research are pres in the following pages. ' (‘Sr-Fc-rwh iIPLWWESWl-Pfi. IlllllllllllllllllIIIllIllllllllIlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllIIlllllIllIllllllllllllllllllllllllIlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllIlllllllllllllilllllllllllllllllIllllllIIIIIIllllllllllilllllllllllIllIlllllllllllllllllllllllllIllIIIlllllIllllIllIIIIllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllIlllllilIlllllllllll[IlllllIIlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 1 retail prices. f cutely evident is the fact that productive pity for broilers far exceeds the expanded con- tion rate. Underlining this situation has been e0 to 13 cents price per pound to producers for during 1961 and retail supermarket prices ut 23 cents to consumers. oreseeing the impending and growing market i lties for broilersfi-the Department of Agricul- Economics and Sociology undertook a long- _, extensive and continuing program of consumer y research regarding poultry products. In iusly reported research, the objective was to late the size, scope and general nature of the tively, formerly assistant professor and professor, Depart- f’ of Agricultural Economics and Sociology. Summary ........................................................................................................................................... .. 2 Research Plan ........................................................................................................... .................... _- 3 L, Consumer Preferences and Motivations in Selecting Broilers and Other Meats ............ .- 4 s Meats Preferred for Selected Purposes, Occasions and Social Situations .......................... -- 4 1 Consumers’ Knowledge of the Nutritional Value of Chicken Compared to Other Meats ........................................................................................................................ -. 16 What Housewives Look for When Buying Chicken-and‘ Why ...................... ..' .............. -. 21 Methods of Preparing Chicken and Why Housewives Serve or Do Not Serve Selected Chicken Dishes ............................................................................................ ._ 29 Appendix ............................................................................................................................................ .- 31 Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................ __ 81 éaasuraers’ image o, Bron“, Henry V. Courtenay and Robert IE. Branson* osting of chicken consumption from 14 pounds t0 30 pounds per person within the past two decades has been a major achievement of the poultry industry. This expansion ‘has been the direct result of the ,' new technology of broiler production plus mass merchandising of the product by food supermarkets. As a t, consumers have been provided with a large, continuous supply of high-quality broilers at successively To an industry in such a position, the important and basic question inevitably arises as to whether any possibility exists for further market development and expansion. To Texas producers in particular—who are a major factor in the nation’s broiler industry- this became a high priority problem. Research Plan current consumer market for broilers.1r2 Emphasis, therefore, was primarily on (l) the existing level of consumer preference for chicken as compared with ‘Branson, Robert E., George Mountney, “Consumer Attitudes and Preferences Regarding Chicken,” Texas Agricultural Ex- periment Station Bulletin 895, March 1958. ’Mountney, George, Robert E. Branson, H. V. Courtenay, “Pref- erences of Chain Food Store Shoppers in Buying Chicken," Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Miscellaneous Publica- tion 348, April 1959. 3 other meats, (2) the number of times chicken dishes were served, (3) the forms in which chicken was served and (4) what particular criteria shoppers used in their selection of chicken when making purchases. The objective of the research reported in this publication was to go further and explore some of the important aspects of consumers’ motivations for buying and using chicken. Only with an adequate knowledge of these “whys” and “why nots” for using chicken can a meaningful, realistic and constructive market expansion plan for the broiler industry be formulated and effected. This research was conducted in Houston, Texas, in the summer and fall of 1958 among 480 households representing a probability sample cross-section of all Houston families. A comparison of the characteristics of the Houston population and that of the sam households is shown in the Appendix. All ho wives, or food shoppers, were interviewed in th homes by professional market research interview Several of the questions used in the intervii were presented in direct verbalvand in indirect pict frustration projective forms; Separate interview q tionnaires were used for the two types in interview' and these were randomly alternated among the ho wives. Market research psychologists, as well as th in other lines of specialization, have determined. t where emotional factors are involved, direct ver questions tend to evoke rational socially accepta answers. On the other hand, projective question techniques reveal the subconscious and emotio factors which often are more likely to accurat predict consumer behavior. i Consumer Preferences and Motivations in Selecting Broilers and Other Meats The preferences which consumers have among meats are only partially reflected in the amounts purchased or in the frequency with which they are served in the home. The consumer oriented factors prompting prefer- ences for a meat evolve largely from personally held attitudes toward its nutritive values, flavor character- istics, probable cooking success, family member accept- ance and tenderness of the meat plus equally im- portant class-cultural associations, concerning its rela- tive status and prestige position in the food hierarchy. Price in relation to other meats, availability at the food store, packaging and display are external, sometimes called exogenous, factors which influe the final purchases within the general prefere framework of the consumer. These external factors of display, packagi et al., are easily observed and may be changed. t, ever, inherent consumer attitudes are less obviol must be carefully researched and are not so eas altered.‘ The following series of charts and diagr present a convenient visual presentation of the pref ence and status position of chicken versus other m’ among Houston families. Research experience sf gests that the image found among Houston fami usually prevails among most other Texas city famil Meats Preferred for Selected Purposes, Occasions and Social Situations Research indicated that the preference position of meats varies considerably with the particular pur- poses and the occasion or social situations for which the meats are required. For example, there is one choice for a formal prestige situation, another for entertaining a friendly couple of approximately the same social status as the hostess; another when a housewife thinks of meats in terms of class-cultural associations; and others when a housewife entertains a group of women friends, wishes to control weight or practice economy. The following series of charts show the questi housewives were asked, the findings of the rese‘ and the marketing implications of these findings A‘ the broiler industry. The first of the series of ch - presents research findings concerning meats wh Houston housewives considered best for a typi family meal. ‘ THE QUESTION: “Which meat makes the best typical family meal?” PREFERENCES BY ALL HOUSEWIVES Chicken 32 % Other Beef 63% 5% €—J i One-third of all housewives interviewed favored chicken. 4 ‘r ENCES BY RACE Caucasian Non-Caucasian 24 °/ Beef . Chicken 72 % glzlléllen Olhrr/ i. ENCES BY INCOME?» Low High Chicken 39 % Beef 85 ‘Y. llkENCES BY EDUCATION Grade School High School College cliklw" Beef Chicken 4a % 44 % so y. am n u, ‘jisocio-economic and educational levels of housewives increased, their preferences for chicken decreased. TING IMPLJQQTIONS Vmilies in the higher educational and higher socio-economic groups often influence cultural trends in symbolic of status and associated with these higher socio-economic groups. a Elder $4,000; medium—$4,000 to $6,999; high-$7,000 and over. n-Caucasian housewives favored chicken, whereas, only one Caucasian housewife in four preferred it. i e poultry industry could improve the preference pattern for chicken by promoting prestige chicken . THE QUESTION: “An important business friend of my husband is coming to our home for din ’ evening. What should I select for the main dish?” ' PREFERENCES BY ALL HOUSEWIVES Other Chicken 25 % Beef 64 % '3 I; 11% Beef, particularly steak, was selected almost three times as frequently as chicken. PREFERENCES BY RACE Caucasian Non-Caucasian Chicken 41 % Chicken was selected more often by non-Caucasian housewives than by Caucasian housewives. Non-Caucasian housewives chose chicken and beef with similar frequencies. PREFERENCES BY INCOME Low Medium High Other Beef 50% Chicken 24 A Beef 79% PREFERENCES BY EDUCATION Grade School I High School College Other Beef 40 % Chicken 36 % Beef 74 % As the socio-economic and educational levels of housewives increased, their preferences for chicken and for beef increased. i 6 (j: one high-income housewife in ten selected chicken. ewives under 30 years of age did not favor chicken as much as those in the older age groups. RKETING IMPLICATIONS x important to note that chicken was relatively unpopular among the higher socio-economic housewives for ‘al entertaining. This is a further indication that stepped-up promotion of chicken as a prestige dish n necessary. Furthermore, if younger housewives retain their present attitudes toward chicken through idle and old age, such a trend could substantially affect the interests of the poultry industry a decade from I; even more than today. QUESTION‘: “An important business friend of my husband is coming to our home for dinner this i evening. What should I select for the main dish? Because. . . .” l‘ SONS FOR PREFERENCES OF DISH BY ALL HOUSEWIVES i to prepare 32% or everyone prefer it 23% i ess in cooking and tige impression ____________ 14% jvor i_____ 11% 2 omy i 10% er 10% i." of preparation and people liking the dish or being impressed by it were the major reasons given by house- ’ es for selecting a particular meat dish. - SONS BY INCOME .:_ Low 28% L to prepare Medium 31% High 43% p Low 23% fn or everyone liking it Medium 25% - High 21% Low 14% Medium 8% High 10% s Low 10% ccess in cooking and __m______i_ Medium 15% stige impression High 18% Low 13% mm Medium 10% __ High 3% onomy i? Low 12% Medium 11% _____ High 5% the socio-economic level of housewives increased, the importance of easy preparation, pleasing the man, the king success and the prestige impression the dish gave increased. iusewives under 30 years of age were less concerned with economy and more concerned with ease of prepara- 4 than those in older age groups. 7 MARKETING IMPLICATIONS Ease of preparation is a key consideration when a housewife is selecting meats. This factor has been ~ I elsewhere in the report. Pleasing people, success in cooking, giving an impression and desirable fla’ also important. Pleasing the man in this situation was given special emphasis. This may have impl’, beef steaks are more substantial than chicken for men. ~ THE QUESTION: “I met a new couple whom I like very much and I’ve invited her and her husbi for supper tonight. I wonder what meat would be best to serve?” > PREFERENCES BY ALL HOUSEWIVES Chicken 47 % Beef 37 % Other ‘l6 % Chicken, particularly fried chicken, was preferred by more housewives than other meats. PREFERENCES BY RACE Caucasian Nan-Caucasian Beef 26 % A slightly greater percentage of non-Caucasian than Caucasian housewives selected chicken. When non-Caucasian housewives did not select chicken, they tended to select pork, whereas Caucasians beef. PREFERENCES BY INCOME Medium High Low Beef i 33 "/0 Chicken 5i °/¢ More housewives in the low and medium socio-economic groups selected chicken than selected any 111C311. The high socio-economic group showed a preference for beef; nevertheless, a considerable proportion ~~_ preferred chicken. Chicken was quite popular among all age groups. 8 _1;NG IMPLICATIONS oythat when the entertaining occasion moved away from the formal toward the less formal and more p; tertaining situation, housewives preferred chicken over beef and other meats. The accent was on en. TION: “I met a new couple whom I like very much and I’ve invited her and her husband over ‘I er tonight. I wonder what meat would be best to serve? Because. . . .” FOR PREFERENCES OF DISH BY ALL HOUSEWIVES ippare ' 36% liliryone prefer it __i_____ 15% 15% 11% yrcooking and i pression _ 6% __5% 12% ivparation, economy and the fact that people had a general liking for the dish were main factors of if ian housewives attached more importance to the prestige and impression connected with the dish ; aucasians. under 30 years of age placed more emphasis on men's preferences and everyone liking the dish in the older age groups. BY INCOME ' Low 27% ‘Qpare Medium 41% Y High 46% 1 Low 18% peryone prefer it Medium 18% i High 19% Low 19% Medium 10% High 16% Low 17% ii Medium 8% Q ____ High 6% ‘cooking and ii Low 9% pression __________ Medium 10% i z __- High 4% i . Low 0% _i_ Medium 5% _§ High 5% Low 10% ____i Medium 8% ____ High 4% As the family income increased, the importance of easy preparation also increased and the importance f and the prestige impression of the dish decreased. A Economy and the idea of pleasing people did not vary significantly with income levels. MARKETING IMPLICATIONS Ease of preparation is of greatest importance for this occasion just as it was in the other situations. Al wives seemed to put less emphasis on pleasing the guests or creating a prestige impression in this ' situation than they did when entertaining formally. Economy was also more important when ent a couple than in formal entertaining. This setting could trigger ideas for broiler promotion. ' THE QUESTION: “I would like to have some of the girls over for luncheon this week. What s serve for the main dish?” ~ PREFERENCES BY ALL HOUSEWIVES o Pork Other Chicken 24 % Fish 39 % Beef 15 /o 14 o/Q a 0/. Chicken, either for salad or sandwiches, was the preference of one housewife in four. Fish, particularly tuna, was the choice of nearly twice this number of housewives. The preference patterns for both Caucasian and non-Caucasian housewives were similar. PREFERENCES BY INCOME low Medium High Chicken 20 % Chicken 24 % Chicken 34 % As the socio-economic level of the housewife increased, her preference for chicken increased. More housewives in all socio-economic groups favored fish, particularly tuna, than favored chicken. More housewives under 30 preferred chicken and beef. The preference pattern for meats among housewives with grade school, high school and college educatig similar to those of the low, medium and high income groups. MARKETING IMPLICATIONS Women engage in considerable entertaining among themselves; therefore, women’s luncheons represeni stantial market for meat products worthy of special attention. ‘ Furthermore, meat preferences for women’s luncheons tend to be of the salad type, which wome’ are acceptable to the calorie-conscious segment of society. Fish, either in salads or sandwiches, was p, preferred over chicken. Fish, especially tuna, although it is very high in calories, is a close com chicken for the above purpose. The poultry industry should consider the promotion of ready-cooked i products that can be used with the equal ease of tuna fish in the preparation and serving of saladsn l0 _ QUESTION: “I would like to have some of the girls over for luncheon this week. What should I , serve for the main dish? Because. . . .” SONS FOR PREFERENCES OF DISH BY ALL HOUSEWIVES ~ to prepare 39% i t—women like it 30% nomy I 16% 5% er 10% sewives of all races emphasized ease of preparation, lightness, suitability for women and economy. active ftige or attractiveness of the dish was relatively unimportant. ‘JVSONS BY INCOME Low 41% _y to prepare H_ h lgétélium 43% i‘ 1g o a Low 28% ; t-women like it Medium 27% High 45% Low 21% Medium 16% ____ High 3% __ Low 2% i Medium 5% High 13% Low 8% Mi Medium 9% _ High 2% ' of preparation was emphasized by housewives in all income groups. htness of the dish for women was another important factor, particularly among wives in the higher socio- .nomic group. l the family income level increased, the importance of economy decreased and attractiveness and prestige .1 eased. usewives over 30 were more concerned with the lightness of the meal than those under 30. IARKETINQ IMPLICATIONS p e of preparation continues to be the mos-t important reason for preferring a food dish for this type of ' sion. However, this appropriateness of the dish for women and its economy are also important reasons ’ preferences. A ready-cooked product similar to canned tuna fish or canned salmon is a favorite among .= en of all socio-economic groups when entertaining their women friends. Therefore, the poultry industry uld give thought to developing more fonns of ready-cooked chicken with convenience features similar to .1. of canned fish, because chicken is appropriate, is low in calories and high in protein. The upper-class fusewives, who are the pace~setters, had a higher preference for chicken when entertaining women friends. 11 THE QUESTION: “I’m trying to control my weight or even slim down a bit. Should I or should I eat meat i? I f I do, should I eat pork, chicken, beef, lamb or fish?” PREFERENCES BY ALL HOUSEWIVES Chicken B f s‘ , Fish Other 3pm" 11% °° /° 12 ~/. 11% 2:17" Q Beef was specified over chicken by three times as many housewives. Chicken and fish were preferred with similar frequencies. Nearly one housewife in ten did not know which meat was most suitable for weight control. PREFERENCES BY RACE Caucasian Non-Caucasian Chicken 21 °/. Beef 29 °/° Caucasian housewives had strong preferences for beef. Only one in seven preferred chicken. Non-Caucasian housewives tended to prefer chicken, beef, fish and other dishes with more similar frequen than did Caucasian housewives. PREFERENCES BY INCOME Low Medium High Chicken Chicken 23 % As the socio-economic level of housewives increased, their preferences for chicken and fish decreased, whe their preferences for beef increased substantially. it As the socio-economic level of housewives increased, the frequency 6f “don’t know” responses decreased. "j More housewives under 3O years of age than those in older age groups preferred beef over chicken. i Reasons given for preferring a meat for slimming and weight control were almost unanimous — low in cal and high in protein. 12 j: KETING IMPLICATIONS I 10w preference for chicken compared to that for beef when housewives select a meat for weight control portant. The younger, high-income, better educated housewife indicated a particularly weak preference icken compared with beef. This group exerts considerable influence on the behavior of the other groups _ on future trends of behavior for all groups. Le findings indicate the urgent need for a consumer education and promotion program emphasizing low calorie and high protein qualities of chicken. I QUESTION: A projective to his wife-question depicting a trucker talking to his wife-“Pll be home i; at six tonight-what are we having for supper?” (A week night dinner situation.) AGESTIONS BY ALL HOUSEWIVES chijken 5°?‘ 37 °/v Stew, meat loaf, etc. 34 % P°'k Om“ I‘ /o l3 °/q l0 '% cken was suggested by one housewife in ten compared to one in three suggesting beef. , meat loaf and specialty items such as liver, heart and kidneys were also suggested by one in three. acasian and non-Caucasian housewives demonstrated similar answer patterns. A the socio-economic levels of housewives increased, their associations of the stew or specialty items witha ker’s weeknight dinner strengthened. E QUESTION: Trucker-“Pll be home at six tonight-what are we having for supper?” (A Sunday r~ dinner situation.) NGGESTIONS BY ALL HOUSEWIVES Stew, _ Chicken 52 °/, Beef 27% ma” om" loaf 13% 3% a housewives of all races suggested chicken. put one in four suggested regular beef cuts. gGGESTIONS BY INCOME ' Low Medium High Stew, etc. Chicken i 47 % Stew, etc. ggestions by housewives in all socio-economic groups emphasized chicken. a. the income level increased, suggestions of chicken increased and those of beef tended to decrease. usewives in all age groups associated chicken with the Sunday dinner of a truck driver's family. .- the occupational level of the housewife’s husband increased, her association of chicken with the Sunday _nner of a truck driver's family strengthened. l3 MARKETING IMPLICATIONS Evidently most housewives consider chicken an economy meat that lower income people can afford. In ad I tion, assuming Sunday dinner as the occasion for the family’s best meal, it appears that chicken project a favorable image of being appropriate as well as economical. _ THE QUESTION: This class-cultural association question was structured around the opinioisis housewiv held regarding the meat dish a mechanic’s wife is likely to serve for Sunday dinner. SUGGESTIONS BY ALL HOUSEWIVES Stew, m.” Other Chicken a9 v. a“: 4a -/. I31‘ 1o % O Housewives associated both chicken and beef with the Sunday dinner of a mechanic's family with simil frequencies—about two housewives out of five in each instance. More non-Caucasian than Caucasian housewives suggested chicken for this situation. As the socio-economic level of the housewives increased, their associations of chicken with the situation d creased. Chicken was suggested by more housewives under 30 than by those in older age groups. THE QUESTION: This class-cultural association question was structured around the opinions housewiv ‘ held regarding the meat dish a mechanids wife is likely to serve for week night dinner. I SUGGESTIONS BY ALL HOUSEWIVES Icglgw“ Beef 28 % Stew, meal loaf 34 “l, Other 23 % Chicken was suggested by one housewife in seven compared to one in four suggesting beef. Stewfmeat loaf and specialty items such as liver were suggested by one in three. As the socio-economic levels of housewives increased, the percentage suggesting chicken also increased. MARKETING IMPLICATIONS Suggestions of meats for the Sunday dinner of a mechanic and his family indicated that chicken and beef we almost equally appropriate. It appears that the association of chicken with Sunday dinner weakens as t. socio-economic level of the family considered increases. ‘THE QUESTION: ”Tliis""£z¢?§f“2"iiiz¢i?3z iiailslslirciatioiifilqiulestionhwas structured around the meats housew' thought a company presidenfs wife was likely to serve for Sunday dinner. I SUGGESTIONS BY ALL HOUSEWIVES chum» 2s u, a”: 49 u. 151121!» om" , 8 % Chicken was suggested by one housewife in four, compared to beef being suggested by half of all housewiv’ Non-Caucasian housewives suggested chicken about as frequently as Caucasian housewives but they suggest: beef less frequently. l 14 ESTIONS BY INCOME Low Medium » High Chicken 24 °/, Chicken 3o % Chicken 34% (‘the socio-economic level of the housewives increased, their suggestions of chicken decreased and those of f increased. I er housewives under 30 than those in older age groups suggested chicken. " RKETING IMPLICATIONS meats suggested by housewives as likely to be served by the family of a company president at Sunday » er or on week nights were similar except that fewer suggested chicken for the week night situation. ificantly more housewives in the lower and medium socio-economic groups than in the higher socio- omic groups suggested chicken for the situations in question. It appears that chicken has greater prestige ng the lower and middle classes than it has among higher class groups. v2 E QUESTION: Suppose your food money had run a little short and you wanted to prepare an inex- pensive meat dish for your familyis evening meal, what would you select? ‘GGESTIONS BY ALL HOUSEWIVES Chicken Beef Slew, hamburger, weiners, elc. fish Q95" I 6 % 5 % 60 % 1 2 1/. 7 0/, ire housewife in six suggested chicken, compared to three in five suggesting a stew-hamburger-wiener type ldish. tGGESTlONS BY RACE Caucasian Non-Caucasian Chicken 26 % wice as many non-Caucasian housewives as Caucasian housewives suggested chicken. ucasian housewives suggested chicken and fish with similar frequencies. 15 SUGGESTIONS BY INCOME Don't know 3% __sl Low he‘ 2% Misc. 3 ‘,4, Chicken l a % 16% Chicken was suggested less frequently by the higher socio-economic groups than by the lower ones. Suggestions of stew-hamburger-wiener type of dish were given by nearly two out of three housewives in eve socio-economic group. THE QUESTION: “Which meat is the most economical buy?” RESPONSES BY ALL HOUSEWIVES High ¢—-—-— Don't know 2% Chicken 77 % Beef Fish Other ‘l ‘I % 7 % 5 % Chicken was suggested by more than three out of four housewives, compared with beef being suggested i one in ten. The pattern of suggestions was similar for all races and socio-economic levels of housewives. MARKETING IMPLICATIONS Chicken was not associated strongly with a low-budget “cheap” meal such as stew, hamburger, offals a wieners by any socio-economic group. However, it was almost unanimously acclaimed the most economi ~ meat buy. Therefore, it has the advantage of economy without the stigma of being a cheap makeshift ite only “resorted to when the housewife’s budget is almost exhausted. I This is important because it is easier to create a favorable prestige image of a product if it is not categoriz as a cheap, low-budget item. Consumers’ Knowledge of the Nutritional Value of Chiehen Compared to Other Meat Chicken is a high-protein, low-calorie meat which is rich in B vitamins. Calculations made by the authors in cooperation with the Department of Home Economics, The A8cM College of Texas, and based on the publication, “Composition of Foods," USDA Handbook No. 8, indicated that the approximate levels of protein, calories and B vitamins in the aver- age common cuts of chicken, beef and pork are as follows: Chicken is highest of the three in protein, lowest in calories, nearly twice as rich as beef in niacin and about equal to beef in B vitamins. Housewives were questioned concerning their knowledge about the nutritional value of chicken. The questioning involved the use of direct and in- 16 SELECTED FOOD VALUES OF THE AVERAGE CUTS l‘ CHICKEN, BEEF AND PORK PER 100 GRAMS RAW PORTION Meat Protein Calories B, B2 Ni ' (grams) (units) (grams) (grams) (gr 0 Chicken 22 10s 0.08 0.16 10.0 i Beef 18 234 0.07 0.16 4.3 - Pork 17 s42 0.75 0.19 4.1 direct projective questioning techniques. The follo ing series of charts show the combined results y housewives’ responses to these questions. Such A combination presents a conservative assessment of 1* housewives’ opinions. All QUESTION: “Check on the scale how much o f these things are in beef, pork and chicken.” (The e order of the three meats were rotated among the respondents.) A‘ RAGE OF RATINGS BY HOUSEWIVES WHO VOLUNTEERED ANSWERS‘ For Protein '-°W 6.5 Hi9“ qmk," I l l l I I I X I I l l ' a.s Beef I l I I I I l l l x l 4 6.5 Pork | J I I I L l ‘x I l I J l" 4.8 High Chicken l l l I L x J l l l I I 4.4 loaf l I I I I x I I l l I L 9.5 mu I I l l l I I I l l X l For B vitamins Low 6.6 High chug." | I 1 l l l I X l l l l 7.6 3“; | I I l I I L I x I l l 6.3 pull | l I I l l I X l l l 4 ARKETING IMPLICATIONS , ousewives ranked chicken lower than beef for protein, higher than beef for calories and lower than beef r B vitamins. These rankings indicate that housewives erroneously consider chicken nutritionally inferior l beef. More housewives were unable to rank chicken for these three nutrients than was true for beef. The housewives were evidently better informed about beef than about chicken. ‘he poultry industry should consider this lack of knowledge regarding their product as a matter requiring rgent attention through consumer education and promotional campaigns. “HE QUESTION: “Which of the following statements, if any, do you think applies to fried chicken?- a) Low calorie count per pound compared to other meats?”5 PINIONS BY ALL HOUSEWIVES Y“ 39% No 32 ‘Y: Don'I know 29% ;One housewife in three could not rate chicken for protein; one in five could not rate it for calories; and seven out of ten could not irate it for B vitamins. Statements b and c on pages 19 and 20, respectively. 17 OPINIONS BY RACE Caucasian Yo: 39% No 36% Don't know 25 ‘l. Non-Caucasian Yo: 39% No 23% Don't know 38 % OPINIONS BY INCOME Low Medium As the socio-economic level of the housewife increased, the proportion who said that chicken is not low i calorie count increased. I Housewives in the under 30 years of age group also expressed this opinion more frequently than those i . older age groups. A MARKETING IMPLICATIONS About two out of three housewives said chicken was not lower in calories than other meats or tha.t they di not know. Most upper class housewives said chicken was not lower in calories than other meats. These opinio , confirm the unjustified ranking given chicken for calories in the following chart. A The poultry industry should endeavor to emphasize the low-calorie attribute of chicken. ' . . N‘ ' Th’ ' Calories Protein Fat lacm lamm Item (number) (grams) (grams) 22:33‘; ($233) Chicken, fried 121 14.0 12.4 5.3 41 Beef Round 1 18 12.9 7.1 2.1 l0 Sirloin, broiled 149 11.6 11.0 2.4 30 Club steak, broiled 17 1 11.5 13.3 2.3 30 Chuck roast 155 13.0 11.0 2.0 25 Source: “Food Values of Portions Commonly Used,” by Bowes and Church. l8 a QUESTION: “Which of the following statements, if any, do you think applies to fried chicken? — 1 b) High usable protein compared to other meats?” EINIONS OF ALL HOUSEWIVES INIONS BY RACE Caucasian Non-Caucasian l PINIONS BY INCOME Low Medium High Don't know 60 % Don't know 28 % the socio-economic levels of housewives increased, their tendency to say fried chicken did not have higher A able protein also increased. , ore housewives over 30 years of age than those under 30 said they did not know the answer to this question. ARKETING‘; IlvIPLICATIONS wo out of three housewives were unable to properly answer the question as to the protein content of f icken. These findings confirm those shown in a previous chart, namely, most housewives do not have a vvorable image of chicken with respect to protein content compared to beef. ' he poultry industry should endeavor to project a high-protein image of chicken. 19 THE QUESTION: “Which of the following statements, if any,ldo you think applies to fried chicken? " c) Higher B vitamin content than other meats?” ~ RESPONSES BY ALL HOUSEWIVES Three out 0f four housewives said they did not know. RESPONSES BY RACE Caucasian Non-Caucasian . RESPONSES BY INCOME Low Medium As the socio-economiciand educational levels of housewives increased, the opinion that chicken is not high in B vitatmins than other meats also increased. A MARKETING IMPLICATIONS Most housewives in all socio-economic groups and all age groups do not know “the relative value of chick compared with other meats for B vitamin content. This is the third of the major attributes in chick (protein, calories and B vitamins) about which the housewives appeared either uninformed or misinfonn The housewives’ opinions concerning the general food value of chicken were only slightly better than n»- reported for these three attributes. However, two out of three housewives thought chicken was easier _ digest than other meats. In view of these findings, the poultry industry may wish to re-evaluate the writt materials on chicken packages, advertisements and other merchandising and promotional media being ~~ with a view to stepped-up consumer education regarding the nutritional value of chicken. i 20 S. _ SPONSES BY ALL HOUSEWIVES A E QUESTION: “Did you have any home economics training about foods?” Some 28 % None 72 % through a non-school agency. SPONSES BY INCOME None 82 ‘Y. _ creased. ARKETING IMPLICATIONS 'nished their formal education. The following series of charts deal with several physical aspects of chicken which affect consumer de- mand. These include such characteristics as skin color, weight of bird, form of product, what house- wives associate with these characteristics and why they ‘buy or do not buy the product. ,- ._ v The skini color of a chicken is extremely im- portant to shoppers.“ As far as housewives are con- cerned, skin color carries connotations of the bird's lhealth, fatness, flavor, tenderness and size. House- dearly three out of four housewives in the sample area had no formal training about foods either in school Low Medium ' High the socio-economic levels of housewives increased, the percentages having some formal training about foods The majority in all socio-economic and educational groups had no formal training about foods; this was par- _"cularly true for housewives 50 years of age and over. [s hese findings amplify the need for consumer education about foods, particularly for homemakers who have p The few housewives who had some nonschool training seemed to prefer e cook-school approaches of organizations such as the light and gas companies. The poultry industry may nefit from sponsoring a program of adult education concerning foods and nutrition in view of poultry ynd eggs having high nutritional values. The poultry industry may have more to gain by such programs an producers of other food products since housewives are not well informed on the relative food values of oultry products compared to other meats and foods. hut Housewives looh for When Buying Chicken-mud Why wives were shown a series of four 8" x l0" color prints of broilers with pigmentations ranging from white through medium yellow to determine the approxi- mate skin color they prefer. The four broilers were identical except for skin color variation. The se- quences of presenting the pictures to the respondents were alternated to avoid order bias. The first of the following charts shows what skin colors consumers want, why they want these colors and what various skin colors mean to them. ‘Branson, R. E., G. J. Mountney and H. V. Courtenay, “Preferences of Chain Food Store Shoppers in Buying Chicken,” Texas Agri- A cultural Experiment Station Miscellaneous Publication 348, April 1959. 21 THE QUESTION: “Suppose you were shopping for a chicken in your food store, which one of these, ' an)’, wvuld you buy?” (A series of 8" x 10" color photos of dressed broilers depicting variations fr white to medium yellow were shown.) 1 ‘ PREFERENCES BY ALL HOUSEWIVES 4a 1 <2" Moderate Light N‘, Medium yellow 36 °/. Yen“, ‘a % Yen“, l6 7; White 27 % gvw" - o More than two out of three housewives preferred a chicken with some degree of yellowness. Most preferred medium to moderate yellow. Non-Caucasian housewives preferred a greater degree of yellowness than Caucasians. As the socio-economic level of housewives increased, their skin-color preferences moved toward a moderate t light yellow-skinned bird. REASONS FOR PREFERENCES BY ALL HOUSEWIVES Good appearance or color 50% Right amount of fat 31% Cleaner looking _____________ 13% Other 6% Most reasons for selecting a particular bird from the four pictures were based on color or appearance. Distribution of reasons given by non-Caucasian housewives and Caucasian housewives were similar. Housewives under 30 years of age placed more emphasis on "color and appearance” than did older hou wives. THE QUESTION: “Apart from anything else, which chicken has the color of skin you like?” PREFERENCES BY ALL HOUSEWIVES First Choice Moderate Lighl +3“ Medium yellow 36% ‘ yellow yellew Whig. 23 % "MW" ~ 1 a % 1 s at 3 %. Second Choice MIdiUl“ N‘ _ yellow Mederqte yellow 4| % light yellow 30 % a % answer 1a at ° ‘f- Non-Caucasian housewives showed greater tendency to prefer medium or moderate yellow skin colors tha Caucasians. As the socio-economic and educational levels of housewives increased, their preference for a lighter yelloh also increased. ‘A 22 SONS FOR PREFERENCES BY ALL HOUSEWIVES v appearance or color 41% t amount of fat iii 13% inlooking _L____ 15% jvorful and tender 22% i er _____Z 9% it housewives preferred a certain skin color just for good appearance or because to them it denoted the yvor, tenderness and amount of fatness desired in the chicken. ire non-Caucasian than Caucasian housewives associated skin pigmentation as an indicator of the amount i fat on the bird. ' lthe socio-economic and educational levels of housewives increased, the reasons based on color and appear- Fce also increased. RKETING IMPLICATIONS host housewives preferred a medium to moderate yellow-skinned bird. Evidently, housewives associate the 'n color with other characteristics of the bird as well as its general appearance. These associations will discussed further in the charts that follow. i E QUESTION: “What does a yellow skin mean to you in a chicken?” LPINIONS BY ALL HOUSEWIVES Lacks flavor and iuiciness i Has flavor old" Pggfly Properly fed, healthy and "m! with" Mist. s 7 (__ fed or plump 5] % iuiciness 13 7 I2 % a "Mummy I7 % ° 2 y, wo out of three housewives associated yellow skin color with favorable factors. on-Caucasian housewives associated yellow skin color with favorable factors to an even greater degree than ucasian housewives. ousewives in higher socio-economic and educational groups tended to associate extremely yellow skin with A fatter or older chicken more frequently than did housewives in other socioeconomic and educational groups. HE QUESTION: “What does a white skin mean to you in a chicken?” PINIONS BY ALL HOUSEWIVES Has flavor and iuiciness locks Young ~ Properly Poorly fed or iuiciness and Clean fed and 5 % Mitot- unheauhy 3g 0/. and flavor fresh l2 7, healthy l l l. g, 1 A 12 % 12 u, 1o % 3 alf of the housewives associated white skin color with improper feeding, poor health or lack of tastefulness. a ore non-Caucasian than Caucasian housewives tended to associate white skin with lack of flavor and lack of 'uiciness. i,‘ thesocio-economic levels of the housewife increased, association of white skin with unfavorable character- iistics became even stronger. 23 MARKETING IMPLICATIONS A moderate to medium yellow-skinned broiler carries more favorable connotations in the minds ofihous wives than does a white-skinned one. However, some shoppers still think in terms of yellow birds bei old and white ones being young. A sufficient percentage of housewives associated white skin with cleanl ness which points out the need for consumer education concerning the skin color of broilers. a THE QUESTION: “Do any of these chickens seem fatter than the others, or does there lseém to be difference?” OPINIONS BY ALL HOUSEWIVES Ne! One is falter 46 % No difference 45 % sure 9 % As the socio-economic and educational levels of the housewives increased, the opinion that there was n “difference” in the fatness of the four birds shown also increased. More non-Caucasian than Caucasian housewives thought one bird was fatter or plumper than the others. THE QUESTION: “Since you think one seems fatter, which one is fatter?” OPINIONS BY ALL HOUSEWIVES I yellow Mod- w“ .' _ Medium yellow 30% 27:“! 2 % 7%‘ e No difference or not sure 52 % 9 % Non-Caucasian housewives tended to associate medium yellow with the “fattest” bird more often than Caucasia housewives. l THE QUESTION: “Why do you think it is fatter?” OPINIONS BY ALL HOUSEWIVES A f’ d I psi‘ 1:; x’: ,2‘. No-response 54 % Note: About half of the respondents thought one of the four birds was fatter. Evidently, yellow-skinned bir cause an optical illusion concerning plumpness, conformation and fleshing for some people. a MARKETING IMPLICATIONS Although a yellow-skinned broiler is preferred over a white-skinned one, caution should be exercised wit respect to the degree of yellowness, since housewives sometimes confuse extreme yellowness with an old, f bird. i 24 ly one in seven mentioned price or economy. g QUESTION: “If you were buying a chicken at the store and these labels described the cost, etc. of j them, which bird would you choose from each group? And what would your second choice be?” HOUSEWIVES’ FIRST AND SECOND CHOICE OF BROILERS ON THE BASIS OF THE PRICE, _ IGHT, TOTAL PRICE LABELS . 2 ounds 3 ounds Weight 2 pounds mpounces’ 3 pounds 6 gunces’ No answer _ — — — — — — — Percent and total cost — — — — — — — Percent i HI V“ pound Choice . l 27 28 23 l9 ' 3 f 29 $ .58 $ .76 $ .87 $ .98 i 2 9 37 37 l4 3 g l 27 28 28 l4 3 i 35 $ .70 $ -92 $1.05 $113 2 11 41 30 15 a 1 2s s7 27 11 2 1 43 $ .86 $1.13 $1.29 $1.45 1 2 ll 41 30 l4 4 QUESTION: “What was your reason for choosing the ones you selected as your first preference?” l SONS BY ALL HOUSEWIVES Economy and price MiSC. Size or weight 63 % post two out of three housewives said they selected the broiler described on the specimen labels because its weight or size. f ~ RKETING IMPLICATIONS ce the weight of chicken they would purchase did not diminish significantly as the price per pound and l 1 price increased, it appears that within the price range indicated, housewives will continue to select broilers 1 the basis of their preference for a particular weight rather than that of total price. It should be noted at there was a slight tendency to reduce the weight of bird preferred when the price was 43 cents per pound. owever, this was not statistically significant at the 95 percent level of confidence. rther research regarding the matter of price and its effect on the weight of chicken purchased, particularly en the consumer is faced with other meat alternatives at various prices, is a study that may have profitable ults for the pqultry industry. evertheless, the iiresults of this limited experiment indicate that, assuming a housewife has made a firm decision 1 buy a chicken, she still will select on a weight basis if the price per pound is within the 29 cents to 43 cgents ss- hree groups of four price and weight labels showing the weight, price per pound and total price were shown to each housewife. ‘he order of presenting them was randomly rotated for each interview. This question was designed to determine whether house- 'ves selected broilers primarily on the basis of weight, price per pound, total price or some combination of the three factors. 25 THE QUESTION: “If you were buying a chicken for frying, would you usually buy (a) one already cut (b) a whole one and have the butcher cut it up, or (c) a whole one and cut it up yourself?” RESPONSES BY ALL HOUSEWIVES TO (a) ONE ALREADY CUT UP Don't know or no answer s‘, Yes 29% No 63% 3% Fewer than one housewife in three preferred cut-up chicken. More non-Caucasian than Caucasian housewives said they would not buy a cut-up chicken. As the socio-economic and educational levels of housewives increased, there was some increase in the perce age preferring cut-up chicken, but even in the highest socio-economic groups, only about 40 percent preferr cut-up chicken. REASONS BY ALL HOUSEWIVES FOR THEIR RESPONSES TO (a) Don't like to cut Cut-up chicken mm" m” Can't Pmf" N, it up myself costs more shape 0nd examine “PM” fggpgngg 27% 24 % number of n % chicken H % pieces l4 % 1 3 % As the socio-economic and educational levels of housewives increased, the extra cost became less importa, ' and the factor of examination for freshness became more important. RESPONSES BY ALL HOUSEWIVES TO (b) A WHOLE ONE AND HAVE THE BUTCHER CUT IT Don't r5137. No 77% 10% g answer f Even more housewives opposed the idea of selecting a whole chicken and having the butcher cut it for them than opposed the idea of purchasing prepackaged cut-up chicken. The reasons given were that the butcher splinters the bones and does not cut it into the shape and num of pieces housewives prefer, as well as the extra cost. RESPONSES BY ALL HOUSEWIVES TO (c) A WHOLE ONE AND CUT IT UP YOURSELF Don't Yes 53 % No 39 % 8 % t-tx: answer Af Most housewives preferred to purchase a whole broiler and cut it up themselves. As the socio-economic and educational levels of housewives increased, their resistance toward cutting the broil up themselves also increased. MARKETING IMPLICATIONS Housewives have a poor image of cut-up chicken, particularly with respect to the number of pieces, shape g pieces, splintered bones and doubts regarding the freshness of the product. A prevalent thought among ho i wives is that stale pieces of chicken are hidden on the bottom of cut-up chicken packs and also that left-o y birds several days old are cut-up and pre-packaged as a means of ,“passing them off” on unsuspecting shopp Ease of preparation was, extremely important to housewives when selecting meats for most occasions. therefore seems important to provide a satisfactory eviscerated pack of cut-up chicken which should f 26 ‘the convenience of its preparation, particularly since fried chicken is the favorite chicken dish. IVhether "i housewife’s unfavorable image of cut-up chicken is based on fact or fancy is beside the point—the situ- n requires positive action on the part of the poultry industry. An attractive pack of cut-up chicken which ewives could buy with confidence may be a key factor in helping create a more favorable image of the -up product. i‘ QUESTION: “Have you, by any chance, seen these labels?” (Respondents were shown facsimiles of l» poultry inspection tags and grade labels.) I PONSES BY ALL HOUSEWIVES TO INSPECTION LABELS Ne! YOS 85% N0 13% sure 2 % the socio-economic and educational levels of the housewife increased, her ability to recall having seen an pection tag also increased. i all was poorer among housewives under 30 years of age and those over 50 years than among other age ps. AINIONS BY ALL HOUSEWIVES REGARDING THE MEANING OF AN INSPECTION LABEL £- Cenfused it with grade Inspected by D k _ q on‘! now Inspected for disease 57 °/, :'°':':r";';::cY°' 5 % 1 7 ‘l. 21 u, ‘ the socio-economic and educational levels of housewives increased, their knowledge of the meaning of an ' pection label increased. 1 , the age of housewives increased, their knowledge of the meaning of inspection labels decreased. x SPONSES BY ALL HOUSEWIVES REGARDING WHETHER THEY HAD SEEN A GRADE LABEL Ne! Yes 55 % No 37% sure . a % A the socio-economic and educational levels of housewives increased, recall of seeing grade labels decreased. there was greater recall of seeing grade labels among houswives under 50 years of age than among those 50 ars and over. " I SPONSES BY ALL HOUSEWIVES REGARDING THE PRODUCT "PRODUCTS ON WHICH gHEY HAD SEEN GRADE LABELS 3‘ 1.. Milk Chicken Dos-q know 47% Eggs 20% Beef 17% 8 7 a 0/ the educational level of the housewives increased, their recall of having seen a grade label on food products creased. ore non-Caucasian than Caucasian housewives recalled having seen a grade label on poultry products. 27 OPINIONS BY ALL HOUSEWIVES REGARDING THE MEANING OF A GRADE LABEL Confused Fresh Don't know 46 Y, Highest quality 41 % with or safe inspectlori to buy 3 % 5 % As the educational level of the housewives increased, their knowledge of the meaning of grade labels increas Younger housewives had greater knowledge of the meaning of grade labels thanolder housewives. MARKETING IMPLICATIONS Since most housewives recalled having seen inspection labels and generally had some knowledge of wh these labels mean, it would appear that consumers can and do buy poultry with confidence regarding » product’s wholesomeness. However, not many housewives recall seeing grade labels on poultry and m housewives do not know what a grade label on any product means. These findings indicate a need for t_ sumer education regarding grade labels and what grade means. THE QUESTION: “When you buy whole or cut-up chicken at the food store, are the kidneys: (1) still - the chicken; (2) have been removed; or (3) don't know.” 1 RESPONSES BY ALL HOUSEWIVES Don't Still in 5O % Removed 37 % k"°w ‘l3 °/. More housewives in lower socio-economic and educational groups said the kidneys were “still in” than th in other socio-economic and educational groups. I RESPONSES BY ALL HOUSEWIVES REGARDING WHETHER THEY PREFERRED THE KIDNE REMOVED OR LEFT IN Don't Left Prefer them removed 5O % No preference 36 % know in 1 'l % 3 % More Caucasian than non-Caucasian housewives said they preferred the kidneys removed. As the socio-economic and educational levels of housewives increased, their preference for having the kidn removed increased. ~ RESPONSES BY ALL HOUSEWIVES CONCERNING THE PAYMENT OF AN EXTRA FEW CEN TO HAVE THE KIDNEYS REMOVED Don't Y” 1a u. i m 1a u. Iggzw As the socio-economic and educational levels of housewives increased, their willingness to pay a few ce l to have the kidneys removed increased. - As the ages of the housewives increased, their resistance to paying a few extra cents for the removal of 1 kidneys increased. I 28 ‘iRKETING IMPLICATIONS it housewives do not think the removal of the kidneys from broilers is a sufficiently important factor to 1 nt extra cost even if the cost is quite small. ‘\ hods of Preparing Chiehen and Why Housewives Serve or Do Not Serve tted Chieheni Dishes .' The following series of charts show the various The charts also show the respondents’ reasons for ; housewives prepare chicken and the relative preparing or not preparing selected chicken dishes. uencies with which each chicken dish is served. E QUESTION: “How do you prepare chicken for your family and how frequently do you prepare each i of the chicken dishes you have mentioned?” DEX SHOWING THE RELATIVE NUMBER OF TIMES PER HUNDRED THE TOTAL SAMPLE A‘ RESPONDENTS SERVED VARIOUS CHICKEN DISHES8 Index 50“ ed ii Index l2 I if -b-cued Index 9 i ed ______ Index 7 licken ’n Dumplings i Index 5 ' cellaneous _ Index 17 Ii ing was the most popular method of preparing chicken; nearly two out of three housewives said they served _ed chicken at least once weekly; only one in ten never fry chicken. I i least popular chicken dish was chicken ’n dumplings; nearly 80 percent of the respondents said they rarely 7y never make chicken ’n dumplings. »_ the socio-economic and educational levels of housewives increased, the frequency with which they barbe- ed and baked chicken increased and the frequency with which they fried and stewed chicken decreased. A E QUESTION: “Why do you serve or not serve the following chicken dishes?” it ASONS BY ALL HOUSEWIVES Family likes it and flavor 60% Economy 3% ___ Too fattening 5% Easy to prepare 21% Unpleasant features 6% Miscellaneous 5% Family likes it and flavor 36% H m Economy 8% ‘ ___ Too fattening 4% aked Can’t make—hard to prepare 28% Easy to prepare 5% Unpleasant features 11% Miscellaneous 8% Y he index is based on the following assumptions as to frequency of servings as related to the " indicated terms: frequently-twice a week; occasionally—0nce a month; seldom—twice a year; never, or no response—none during the year. 29 Family likes it and flavor 351 M Economy 5% _ Too fattening 3% Stewed Can't make—hard to prepare 10% i? Easy to prepare 8% Unpleasant features 31% Miscellaneous 8% ._ l!‘ " .2 ‘f’ Family likes it and flavor 8% Economy 14% - Too fattening 17% _ Chicken ’n Dumplings Can’t make—hard to prepare 3 Easy to prepare 17% Miscellaneous 5% Family likes it and flavor 35%’ __ Too fattening 4% . Can’t make—hard to prepare 31% i Barbecued Easy to prepare 10% , Unpleasant features 9% Miscellaneous 11% MARKETING IMPLICATIONS The index chart on the frequency of serving various chicken dishes shows that frying is the popular meth‘ of preparing broilers. Most housewives said they prepared fried chicken because the family likes the fla and also that it was relatively easy to prepare. Other chicken dishes such as baked and barbecued chic‘ were served less frequently because of difficulty in preparation. Frequent use of products depends, to large extent, on the number of acceptable methods of preparation. Consumer education, promotional c1 paigns and recipes attached to broilers would help motivate housewives to learn how to prepare chicken several ways. Such efforts by the broiler industry would help expand consumer demand for broilers increasing the utility of the product and thus help to improve the competitive position of broilers wi, respect to both sales volume and price. ' THE QUESTION: “At what weight, if any, does a chicken begin to get a little tough?” RESPONSES BY ALL HOUSEWIVES 21/; pounds-3 pounds 3 V: poqnds a % 13 l, 4 pounds and over 40% No response 39% Non-Caucasian housewives tended to set’ the weight at which chicken gets a little tough somewhat hig than Caucasian housewives. - As the socio-economic and educational levels of housewives increased, the weight mentioned tended to c: verge on the 4-pound mark. MARKETING IMPLICATIONS Most housewives considered 4 pounds the critical weight limit at which chicken begins to get a little tou This finding suggests that, when profitable, broilers could be grown to a weight approaching 4 pounds wi out significant consumer resistance. Conversely, these findings indicate that broilers heavier than 4 pou l might constitute a deterrent to broiler sales. ‘ 30 A ndix The survey was made among a random prob- sample of 480 households in Houston, Texas, A g the summer and fall of 1958. fThe composition of the survey sample with re- to race and income levels of the respondents similar to that of the total Houston population. v ED CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSTON FAMILIES PARED TO THOSE IN THE SURVEY SAMPLE, 1958 Houston‘ Sample — Percent of families — 'te (Caucasian)’ 79 76 . 21 24 Wu 3 3 i y Incomes ‘ than $4,000 38 40 , I. J I -$7,999 46 44 . I I I and over 16 l6 j Bureau of Vital Statistics, City of Houston Health De- fent and Houston Chamber of Commerce. Income-Sales iagement Survey of Buying Power, 1959. des Latin-Americans. than l percent. ; The. housewife was interviewed except in in- ces of single persons, widows or widowers living “ single household. f Field interviewers were professional personnel ex- 'enced in interviewing procedures and methods. attended a briefing and training session. They e also provided with a handbook of instructions , were required to take trial interviews before the ey began. Completed interviews were checked ‘to authenticity by a system of random selection vided to the field supervisor. Two hundred and forty of the 480 schedules had ect and indirect written questions (without pic- es). The other 240 had questions using both A hnowledgments The authors acknowledge the helpful consulta- ns given by {Bardin H. Nelson, Department of -; icultural Economics and Sociology, on the schedule ign and the psychological and sociological inter- etations of the research results. Appreciation also is expressed to George Mount- written questions and picture projective questions. The two types of schedules were randomly alternated among the respondents interviewed. The results of the analyses to determine the response variation en- countered when the two techniques were employed are available upon request from the Consumer Eco- nomics Section, Department of Agricultural Economics and Sociology, The Agricultural and Mechanical College, College Station, Texas. The survey schedule involved 33 questions com- prising approximately 170 parts. Respondents did not think the schedule which included pictures was shorter than the one which excluded pictures. How- ever, at the same time, they did not consider the one with pictures longer than the other. One respondent in three considered both types of schedules too long. The majority of respondents said the length was “just right.” Few considered either schedule short. Nearly all of the respondents said both schedules were interesting and fewer than 1 percent considered either boring. About one respondent in four said she had not had the experience of being interviewed previously. The topics they liked to be surveyed about were homemaking and foods. Only 6 or 7 percent of the respondents said they were hostile toward surveys. None considered either schedule “silly” or “childish” even though various types of simple pictures were used. More than half of all respondents gave edu- cational and interest value as their reasons for pre- ferring a particular kind of survey. Reports from The Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas, Data Processing Center, where the schedules were processed, indicated that the use of pictures in schedules did not impede accuracy of card punching nor did their handling appear to involve significantly different processing costs. The only sug- gestion offered by the data processing personnel was that a clear and consistent place be designated on the picture for code numbers. ney, formerly of the Department of Poultry Science, The Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas, now at Ohio State University; Marshall Miller and Floyd Beanblossom, poultry marketing specialist, Texas Agricultural Extension Service, who were associated with the study. 31 ORGANIZATION OPERATION i nmu nnrroon Q nu suunnons I nu "no Llwllwltl! 4 coorinnm snflblli Location oi field research units oi the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and cooperating agencies IN THE MAIN STATION, with headquarters at College Station, are I3 subj matter departments, 3 service departments, 3 regulatory services and administrative staff. Located out in the major agricultural areas of Texas 2O substations and IO field laboratories. In addition, there are 13 coopera stations owned by other agencies. Cooperating agencies include the Te Forest Service, Game and Fish Commission of Texas, Texas Prison Syst U. S. Department of Agriculture, University of Texas, Texas Technologi College, Texas College of Arts and Industries and the King Ranch. S0 experiments are conducted on farms and ranches and in rural homes. THE TEXAS STATION is conducting about 4-50 active research projects, grou I in 25 programs, which include all phases of agriculture in Texas. Am' these are: Conservation and improvement of soil Conservation and use of water Grasses and legumes Grain crops Cotton and other fiber crops Vegetable crops Citrus and other subtropical fruits Fruits and nuts Oil seed crops Ornamental plants Brush and weeds Insects Plant diseases Two additional programs are maintenance and upkeep, and central servic State-wide Research The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station is the public agricultural research agency oi the State oi Texas, and is one oi the parts oi the A&M College oi Texas. i Beef cattle Dairy cattle Sheep and goats Swine Chickens and turkeys Animal diseases and parasites Fish and game Farm and ranch engineering Farm and ranch business Marketing agricultural products Rural home economics Rural agricultural economics Research results are carried to Texas farmers, ranchmen and homemalcers by county agents and specialists of the Texas Agricultural Ex- tension Service AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH seeks the WHATS, the WHYS. the WHENS. the WHERES and the HOWS oi hundreds oi problems which confront operators oi farms and ranches. and the many industries depending on or serving agriculture. Workers oi the Main Station and the field units oi the Texas Agricultural Experi- ment Station seek diligently to iind solutions to these problems. joclay i5 fieziearcé .95 jomorrowii rogredd