B-1062 December 1966 Market Performance of Overwrappecl Egg Cartons TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION R. E. Patterson, Director, College Station, Texas Preface Contents Eggs have been marketed in substantially the same. for many years. Packaging and merchandising of m0 Y foods have been changed to improve their merchandising: The following report pertains to researeh designed to L the possibility of improving the packaging and merc I of fresh table eggs in order that they may better keep 7 with other innovations in food marketing. ‘ Successful overwrapping of egg cartons is highly de\ upon the availability of satisfactory machinery to accomp: wrapping. The problem is of a more critical nature most foods because of the breakage of egg shells when s I to pressure. Proper overwrapping equipment was not a when this research was initiated. Such equipment, ho ,1; now available. There has been heightened interest in the g potential for eggs in overwrapped cartons as a result. A Continuing research regarding the marketing of ta; is underway in the Market Development Section of the ment of Agricultural Economics and Sociology and by t! technologists in the Poultry Science Department at Tex University. This report presents research results up to |_ of this publication. " Preface .......................................................................................... .. ~ Summary and Marketing Implications .................................. .. Introduction ................................................................................. .. Research Plan ......................................................................... .. A Protection Against Unfavorable Temperatures .............. .. Overwrapped Eggs Outsell Unwrapped Product. ........... _. Overwrapped Cartons Rated Favorably ........................... .. Consumer Evaluation of Eggs ............................................. .. .p Willingness to Pay for Overwrapping ................................... Repeat Purchases ........................................................................ .. Responses to Indirect Projective Questions About Overwrapping ................................ -. Egg Shoppers’ Purchasing Behavior .................................. -. .- Frequency of Egg Purchases ............................................... Time Lapse Between Purchase and Home Refrigeration. Length of Home Egg Storage ...................................... ........ .. I’ Frequency of Serving and Usual Egg Uses .......................... .. Packaging and Promotional Materials .................................... i Display Cabinets .................................................................... Appendix --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ;. t Market Analysis Objectives A retail store market test and a study of consumer preferences for overwrapped versus unwrapped cartons of eggs was the primary objective of this research. A further objective was to analyze consumer egg buying and use patterns. This report is designed to aid the egg industry in evaluating packaging innovations and improvements before crucial business decisions are made. Retail merchandisers also can benefit from a better understanding of consumers’ shopping habits, buying behavior and use patterns for table eggs as summarized in this report. r Research Findings l. The efficiency of film overwrap in retaining egg quality is directly related to the film’s ability to retain CO2 within the overwrapped carton, according to laboratory findings of the Department of Poultry Science, Texas A8cM University. Laboratory tests reveal that when eggs are stored at 55° F. and 73° F., quality (in terms of Haugh units) drops more rapidly in unwrapped cartons than in film overwrapped cartons. If eggs are stored for periods of 4, 7 and 8 days in retail store facilities at a temperature of 39° F. i 5°, overwrapping does not affect egg quality nearly as much. ' W“ 2. In a retail store test, about 60 percent more overwrapped than unwrapped eggs were purchased in three Houston supermarkets. Sales were still increasing at the end of the 4-week test. Overwrapped and unwrapped cartons of eggs were displayed side-by-side with no price differential. 3. Purchasers of eggs rated the package appear- ance of overwrapped cartons significantly better than unwrapped ones. This was especially so for medium- and high-income shoppers. Overwrapped cartons of eggs were rated signifi- cantly better than unwrapped ones for: ' Safety and convenience in transporting eggs from the store to the home. ' Quality and cleanliness ratings by respondents for overwrapped and unwrapped cartons of eggs showed no significant difference, but three out of five respondents commented favorably on the overwrapped 3 ¢ product largely because of a sanitation, freshness and higher quality image. ' Ease of handling and opening for overwrapped cartons was rated as good as that for unwrapped cartons. ° Eggs in the overwrapped cartons were not sig- nificantly better than those in unwrapped cartons for internal appearance, flavor and general impressions of egg quality. However, responses to projective questions revealed a better “quality image” for the overwrapped product. 0 Half of the respondents who purchased over- wrapped cartons of eggs said overwrapping would be worth an extra price. Slightly more resistance was noted as incomes increased. The major reasons for saying “yes” were “less breakages,” “fresher” and “cleaner.” About l in 5 respondents who purchased only unwrapped cartons of eggs said they would pay extra for overwrapped ones. Most respondents who were not willing to pay extra said “just wouldn’t pay Unfortunately, during the store test and the following interviewing period, egg prices were rising sharply. This probably created more resistance to suggestions of further price extra” or “wrapping isn’t necessary.” increases than would otherwise occur. ' Repeat purchases would be made by more than 8 out of 1O interviewed buyers of overwrapped cartons of eggs. Most of those not buying overwrapped cartons of eggs are receptive to positive suggestions about the overwrapped pack. Point-of-sale materials enumerating the benefits of overwrapping would stimulate this group toward the overwrapped carton. Egg Shoppers’ Purchasing Behavior “Two dozen for” pricingtwould have consumer appeal, since two out of three interviewed buy two or more dozen eggs at one time. More than 7 out of l0 interviewed purchase eggs once a week. A further 2 in l0 purchase more fre- quently. About 15 minutes elapsed between the time egg buyers left the store and the time they placed the A further one in three For a few it was l to 2 hours. eggs in their refrigerator. said 30 minutes. Home Storage of Eggs Most households store one dozen out of a two- dozen purchase for 3 to 4 days before starting to use 4 them. This means a 7- to 8-day storage time production to use under the best of timetables. here that overwrapping of cartons can be effectiv retaining egg quality. i Uses of Eggs and Serving Frdguency About 8 out of l0 egg buyers served eggs in t form at least once a day. This pattern was si_ for purchasers in all income groups. 5,. z» ~ Two out of three mentioned eggs for a brea, dish. One in four uses was for baking and gen cooking. Fewer than one in 20 mentioned des salads or casseroles. ' Declining per capita consumption of eggs may; associated, in part, with the single-use (breakfast) u.’ of eggs and increased competition from other b fast foods. A sizing other uses for eggs, such as salads, desserts Demand expansion may require u? main dishes. Package Design and Promotional Materials Consumers appeared to be striving to get r: l from the traditional barnyard image. Thus pict g of chickens and farm scenes do not appear in o,’ with consumers’ ideas. l‘ Popular thought associations were a plate two eggs and bacon,” “baking cakes” and other c o forms. Pictures on cartons depicting cooked forms‘ the product such as eggs and bacon, salads, des home baked cakes, main dishes and other egg delic r are suggested. A message emphasizing the high-protein, H, calorie merits of eggs plus the iron, riboflavin Q vitamin A content also seems warranted. Pictures also might be alternated for diffe g seasons and foods appropriate to them. Egg Display Cases Nearly 6O percent of the consumers intervie preferred upright display cabinets with doors. u than 1 in 3 preferred the horizontal open-top cabi However, the upright closed cabinet poses a disp problem. Perhaps this can be overcome partially i effective use of the new air-curtain upright cases. arket Performance f Overwrapped Egg Cartons if“ ‘ w; ROBERT E. BRANSON AND HENRY CoURTNEY* APID EXPANSION of large producer-wholesaler firms for table eggs is occurring in the Southwest. Eggs are marketed directly to the retail food chains and are often prepackaged at the production center. As a consequence of such vertical integration, the success or failure of a firm can depend upon how well it handles its marketing functions. Thus, accurate evaluations of all aspects of egg marketing become essential to survival in the competitive race. One important facet of market information is adequate knowledge of consumer preferences concern- ing egg packaging. Packaging by the table egg in- dustry has remained nearly static for about 30 years. During this period, the industry primarily has filled the singular role of delivery boy for eggs. Food pack- aging for other products has meanwhile graduated to the role of consumer motivator and traveling sales- man. The question arises as to whether egg packaging should move in the same direction. If so, what kind of packaging is needed, and what are the possible consequences of such innovations? Some table egg processors and merchandisers already are moving egg packaging in the direction of being a sales agent. Various package shapes, designs, colors and overwraps are appearing. One innovation is the wrapping of egg cartons in airtight waxed paper or cello-film. A major objective of this research is to evaluate this particular kind of packaging. RESEARCH PLAN Four supermarkets of a major food-store chain in Houston were selected for the research test. One supermarket was evaluated by the researchers and the food chain management as patronized primarily by low socio-economic customers. Two others selected were medium socio-economic stores, and a fourth had a high socio-economic clientele. Thus, observation of egg-sales behavior and consumer acceptance of the test packaging was possible among consumers typifying three socio-economic strata. Shoppers in the stores were almost exclusively Caucasian. Two brands of large-size grade A and grade AA eggs were selected for the test. Arrangements were made for a constant supply of each brand and grade in unwrapped cartons and in cartons overwrapped with clear cello-wrap. Both types of packaging were to be displayed side by side in each store during a 4-week test period. No price differentials were to exist between the wrapped and unwrapped cartons. Each store manager was asked to record egg sales during the 4-week test. Provision was made also for records of shipments to the test stores as a check upon the accuracy of the store records. Professional consumer interviewers were assigned to each of the four stores at prearranged, randomly *Respectively, professor and former assistant professor, Depart- ment of Agricultural Economics and Sociology. staggered hours for the test period. As shoppers pur- chased cartons of the eggs, in either the unwrapped or overwrapped cartons, a random sample of egg pur- chasers were contacted by interviewers. Each egg- purchasing shopper was given a rating form on which to record their opinions of the packaged eggs. They were requested to rate them in their homes immedi- ately before and after opening the egg carton and again after using all or some of the eggs. The respondents were informed that the inter- viewer would call fortheir ratings at a mutually convenient time within 4-5 days following the in-store purchase. When the interviewers called the respondents, they also conducted a survey concerning aspects of the respondents’ behavior practices in buying and using eggs. The consumer research used both direct and indirect methods of questioning. More detailed in- formation concerning the characteristics of the sample obtained and the research methodology are reported in the Appendix. PROTECTION AGAINST UNFAVORABLE TEMPERATURES In order to evaluate properly consumer opinions concerning the overwrapping of egg cartons, it was advisable to run laboratory tests of the effect, if any, of overwrapped cartons upon egg quality and appear- ance. Such tests were run both before and during the retail market test. Research before the store test revealed that certain types of egg-carton wrapping can retain CO2 (carbon dioxide) within the package. Research has shown that holding a CO2 atmosphere around eggs influences the retention of egg quality as measured by Haugh units. USDA I H i Grade Cellotex Wrapped ~ \ _ fln-_ Unwrapped (control) I 10 uv-J 9-‘ m- n o n u..- u- o Days in Storage at 55° F. Figure 1. Influence of cellotex overwrap for egg cartons on egg quality, as measured by Haugh units, during storage. 6 Haugh units measure egg quality in terms physical height of the top of the egg albume the base surface upon which the egg lies. F V‘ nologists have found a high correlation betw freshness and albumen height. Therefore, the is now serving as one of the recognized methyl measuring egg quality. The relationship is L‘ Figure l. Eggs at 55° F. storage temperature -, cellotex-film, overwrapped cartons lost only 15 units (75 down to 60), whereas unwrapped cart‘ lost 27 Haugh units (falling from 75 to 48). l Temperatures at which the eggs are bei considerably influence the relative efficiency" use of carbon dioxide retention overwraps. In f 2, two wraps, Cry-O-Vac and waxed paper, a ‘ pared against no wrap at 55° and 73° Fahren Q For eggs held at 55° F., the advantages of a g overwrap are not as great as at the 73° tempe It is significant, however, that quality loss ' wrapped cartons occurs mostly within the fi if days, which is the period within which most probably sold and consumed. The protection a against either temporary loss of optimum s, temperatures or the rise in temperature as th V tomer shops and takes eggs home also deserv sideration. To test, under actual marketing conditioi effect of overwrapping egg cartons on interiri quality, 80 one-dozen cartons of eggs were pre This lot was overwrapped with a cello-wrap fil; another comparable lot was not. The cartons. coded at the food chain's egg grading station to % tate tracing them through to the point-of-sale u. in the stores. In order to minimize possible and environmental variations, all 60 dozen eggs; in this phase of the experiment were from on, producer and candled by the same grader. A 1 formed rigidly to USDA grade AA standards. 80- Cry-O-Vac 55° F. \ \\ . 7o—i\ \\ "ax Paper 55° F. - \ \ x \ \ \ \\ \ x 60- \ \ \ m \ r: \ 5 \ ~\ -= 5°“ \ T*~__ a" \ N H: 40- ‘ \ ‘ ‘Control (no wrap) 73° 1g _ ., 30 _. ‘ ~ \ _ T § §_- . 20-1,’ I I I I 5 10 15 20 Z5 Days in storage Figure 2. Effect of two wraps and two holding temperatu egg quality. A a temperatures. a _ conditions may not be ideal. Especially when two Both the unwrapped and overwrapped cartons of f eggs were delivered to the test stores under normal operating conditions using the food chain’s usual transportation and handling facilities. The internal quality of egg samples taken from the test overwrapped and unwrapped cartons were determined at the following intervals and handling ~ points: at the processing plant immediately after the _ eggs were graded, upon arrival at the retail stores and after storage periods in all test stores of 4, 7 and 8 days. Both lots of eggs were held at 39° i 5° F., the usual temperature maintained in retail store storage and display facilities. The results of this controlled experiment, con- ducted within the actual marketing channel, revealed that where the temperature range is maintained at 39° F. 1t 5° F., overwrapping with the cello-type film had less effect on maintaining interior egg quality; however the quality curve for the unwrapped declines more rapidly than that for the wrapped eggs, Figure 3. The parallel laboratory research also showed that if temperature should not be optimum, protection against loss of egg quality (as measured by Haugh units) is significantly improved by overwrapping egg cartons. Not explored in this test is the equally important problem of maintenance of egg quality by the con- sumer after the store purchase. The trip home from the store often encounters delays and unfavorable Furthermore, the home refrigerator dozen eggs are purchased at a time, the second dozen could face considerable quality loss in home refrig- i , erators, if good temperature levels are not maintained. Technical Research Implications for Egg Marketing Although the film overwrapping of egg cartons did not appear to significantly affect in-store egg 80-1 70" Haugh units 65- quality under conditions of 39° F. i 5° F., this innovation has other important retail marketing im- plications. There are definite merchandising advan- tages of overwrapped cartons as will be revealed in this report. OVERWRAPPED EGGS OUTSELL UNWRAPPED PRODUCT Overwrapped egg sales totaled 10,342 dozens in the test stores for the 4-week market test. This was 60 percent above the sales of unwrapped eggs in the same stores. Wrapped and unwrapped cartons were equally displayedin the test stores for both AA and A grades and two brands. Shipment records from the egg grading plant confirmed the sales data. The two packs were displayed side by side with no price differential. The record of sales, by weeks, is summarized in Figure 4. The margin of preference for the wrapped carton was still rising at the close of the market test. Which income group bought the overwrapped eggs? Analysis revealed that about 2 out of 3 in the low- and high-income households purchased the over- wrapped eggs, Figure 5. More than half the medium- income families bought the overwrapped eggs. OVERWRAPPED CARTONS RATED FAVORABLY The professional interviewer succeeded in inter- viewing 86 percent of the 439 egg buyers initially contacted in the four test stores. Of these, 137 re- spondents had purchased unwrapped cartons of eggs, and 340 purchased overwrapped cartons. The first section of the rating form requested buyers to rate the egg carton immediately before and just after the initial opening of the egg package in Overwrapped — — - Unwrapped Figure 3. Effect of cellophane overwrapping on the interior quality of eggs held at 39° F. in \/ retail store display case. Days in storage Dozens my [Ugly ‘III l, 240W 15‘? ,244§ % % i333: iigiiizifsliii.iizi KZZI / / / f 120% % 1385 % % ket did not measure u’ / / % / isazeiszszizitdzafm‘ / / / / ZZZI Z Z Z é 4 a / / Sei/t- 24 {/11 1 (g. 3 é. 15 l/ Percentage lead of wrapped over unwrappedweek en mg ( ) their homes. Ratings were requested for the following ANALYSIS: The high- and middle-income I characteristics: package appearance; safety and con- venience in transporting the eggs from the store to their home; consumers’ confidence regarding the ex- pected quality and cleanliness of the product in the package before opening it; and ease of handling and opening the package. Ratings by the various factors were based on a 9-point hedonic scale. Numbers 1 and 2 were “best,” 3 and 4 were “above average,” 5 was “average,” 6 and 7 were “below average,” and 8 and 9 were “worst.” QUESTION: How would you rank this package for eggs as to appearance? 7O W Wrapped cartons a Unwrapped cartons 60- \\\\N Q / \\\\\\ Zr High Medium income income income incomes 5m \ xm \\ Figure 5. Proportion buying wrapped egg cartons, by income class, Houston, 1960. 8 ranked the overwrapped egg carton as ‘ r,‘ appearance on the 9-point hedonic scale, The same egg carton unwrapped was general ‘, sidered to be just “above average” in appearanc low income group considered both packages i‘ good. For all income groups combined, the carton was rated “best” and the unwrapped ' “above average.” Ratings of the wrapped ca , the high, medium and all income groups P, significantly higher by statistical tests. i Market Implications Medium- and high-income families repre major segment of the market for table eggs. ;p families in Houston apparently preferred ove i egg cartons. ' QUESTION: How would you rank this egg for safety and convenience in transporting e ~ ANALYSIS: All income categories, except tho HedTd-C W/I; Overw-rapped egg carton sca e C3 Unwrapped egg carton 1.7 1.7 23:22,. 3 ' // i High Middle income income income Best: 1 L‘: 4 .7 I /% 2.5 Figure 6. Consumer ratings as to appearance of ove egg cartons, by income class. 1.9 1'9 2.0 I 2 2 2.5 2.8 .6 Above 3 average 4 . Average 5 V Hedonic ' scale m Overwrapped carton Best 1 E Unwrapped carton 1 _ 7 1.9 High Middle Low ,Al1 income income income incomes y" Figure 7. Consumer ratings as to safety and convenience in transporting egg cartons, by income class. low incomes, ranked the overwrapped egg carton as “best,” Figure 7. The same carton unwrapped was ranked only as “above average.” In each of these instances, the higher ratings of the overwrapped cartons are significant by statistical tests. Market Implications A latent fear persists of breaking eggs sacked along with other food items. Consumers felt that overwrapping gave the carton greater strength and thereby the eggs more protection. Furthermore, should there be accidental breakage, the egg contents could not escape the package and damage other foods. Since most consumers shop for food once a week, package safety is an important consideration. QUESTION: What rating would you give these eggs for quality and cleanliness? ANALYSIS: There was no significant difference in quality and cleanliness ratings by any income group, for the wrapped versus unwrapped eggs, Figure 8. However, when projective questions were used, con- sumers’ spontaneous comments were that overwrapped eggs were “cleaner, more sanitary, fresher and better.” Therefore, this is a case in which hedonic scales apparently failed to elicit as much of the inherent consumer feelings toward overwrapped cartons as was possible by projective techniques. - Market Implications If we accept the view that the projective tech- nique questions’ answers are more valid, then over- wrapped cartons have a purchase appeal from the sanitation and quality viewpoint. On the other hand, the hedonic scale test clearly demonstrates that over- H a if" SLR“ YI/l Wrapped carton S Unwrapped carton Best 1 -4 1.2 1-6 L8 1.7 1'4 1.7 L9 2- 2.2 Above 3_ average _ A‘ | Average 5 High Middle Low A11 income income income incomes Figure 8. Consumer ratings as to quality and cleanliness of eggs, by income class. Hedonic scale Overwrapped carton Best 1 Qllnwrapped carton 1'6 2.2 2.0 2.0 z A 2'2 2 2.6 ' Above 3 3'0 average 4 Average 5 High Middle Low All ' income income income incomes Figure 9. Consumer ratings as to ease of handling and opening egg cartons, by income class. wrapped cartons are not viewed skeptically from the cleanliness and quality associations standpoint. QUESTION: How would you rate ‘the ease of han- dling and opening of this egg carton? ANALYSIS: Although the unwrapped carton is rated slightly easier to handle and open than wrapped cartons, the differences shown are not found statis- tically significant for any of the income groups, Figure 9. The tendency to recognize a little extra effort in opening the package reflects well on the care given by consumers in making the product ratings. Market Implications There was little, if any, objection to opening a wrapper on the egg carton. So many foods are wrapped in containers to preserve freshness that the consumer apparently takes it as a matter of course, when there appears to be a reason for it. CONSUMER EVALUATION OF EGGS A second section of the rating form given pur- chasers in the test stores concerned the homemaker’s evaluation of the eggs after having used most, if not all, of them. Ratings were requested as to the follow- ing factors: appearance of the egg yolk, appearance of the egg white, freshness, flavor and general over- all impressions of the egg quality. A statistical analysis revealed no significant differ- ence, at the 95 percent confidence level, between ratings given eggs in the wrapped versus unwrapped cartons. Nonetheless, there was a constant tendency to rate more favorably those in the wrapped cartons. This suggests that the differences were not of a random TABLE l. EGG QUALITY, RATINGS FOR WRAPPED AND UNWRAPPED CARTON EGGS, HOUSTON, 1960 Average rating‘ Product characteristic Wrapped Unwrapped Egg yolk appearance 2.3 2.6 Egg white appearance 2.3 2.7 Freshness 2.3 2.5 Flavor 2.3 2.5 General quality impression 2.3 2.5 Number of sample households 246 136 ‘Hedonic scale with “l" as superior and “9” as extremely poor. 9 sample nature, Table 1. Such an indication is sup- orted further by the res onses to ro'ective uestion P _ _ P _ P J _ q _ techni ues, which revealed a h1 her ual1t associa- _ g q Y t1on with overwrapped carton eggs. There apparently was a minimum of “carryover” effect from ratings of the packages t0 that of the product itself. Efforts to avoid “carryover” effects were enhanced by rating the package and product at different times; furthermore, the package and the egg quality ratings were recorded on separate pages of the consumer schedule‘. WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR OVERWRAPPING A critical question for marketers is, “If we over- wrap eggs, are consumers prepared to pay extra for the new packaging?” In the market test, overwrapped and unwrapped cartons of eggs were sold at the same price. A few days after the start of the market test, egg prices increased and continued to increase sharply throughout the test and part of the interviewing period. This would be expected to create definite consumer resistance to suggestions of any further price increases. Nonetheless, more respondents who purchased overwrapped cartons of eggs said they were worth a few cents more than those who bought unwrapped ones. However, among purchasers of overwrapped cartons, only about half of all the respondents said they would pay extra, Figure 10. About 4 in 10 said 70 Egg; Yes No [:::]Don't Percentage of respondents Low income Middle income 1O they would not, and one in ten was undecided income increased so did the opinion among purcr of overwrapped cartons that this carton of ;; not worth l or 2 cents more. Apparently high come housewives wanted the store to pay for wrapping. I Respondents were also asked their reason feeling that the overwrapped cartons were worth i! The middle-income group put” prime emphasi less egg breakage, Figure ll. However, all in groups considered less breakage an important jg sideration. High- and low-income groups put v weight on freshness. As income levels increased, , was also a gain in emphasis on “cleaner” as a for paying more for overwrapped cartons. Purchasers of overwrapped cartons of eggs. said “No" to overwrapping being worth a ce ' two more gave negative reasons, Figure l2. Among the “No” responders a relatively percentage indicated that broken or cracked eggs A found in the overwrapped cartons. This was pri y due to the fact that the overwrapping equip ‘ installed on a temporary basis, was not working -' factorily. This problem was discovered during interviewing period. a REPEAT PURCHASES More than 8 out of l0 respondents who purc 5 if overwrapped eggs said they would purchase 51g wrapped eggs again. About l in 20 was undec' and only l0 percent said “No.” The majority 0- Figure l0. Respondentsa‘ to the question: “Would é housewives feel that L, eggs overwrapped with fi l worth a cent or two more; unwrapped ones?” High income “respondents who said they would purchase over- wrapped cartons of eggs again gave as their reasons: “good eggs-satisfied,” “fresher,” “cleaner” and “less who purchased the unwrapped cartons of eggs said they would purchase unwrapped ones again. Among reasons to repurchase, those who bought unwrapped breakage.” cartons said “habit” about five times more often than i More than 9 out of l0 of all respondents the overwrapped carton group. 50- _ 457. U) U 5 '3 41% g 4°" ssz m g U H i; - 33% d) b0 I3 30- - - 5 Figure ll. Reasons given by v purchasers of overwrapped car- 31 25% 25% - - p‘ - a i i tons of eggs for willingness to £4‘ pay for overwrapping. 20- 1 / 16% 16% 5°. 14% 22 21> 2i» 10- 33 $3 i’ 97‘ (U i0 Id (D OJ U) H H H H H H H H H Q) 4) l!) <1) OJ CG d) <1) on l5. J: H C1 S H C! J: H -' u: 1h I!) a) m u: m q) (d u: m q; cu <9 m ,1: u) u) m ,1: Q1 a) m ,1: v-I H <1) u -i H a) 4.: r-l H o) u o FI-a .4 o 0 m .4 o u n. .4 o Low income Middle income High income 60- 50- 1/] i U s: (U ‘U é a. 40- U) (U H ‘H 1 O (l) co 3 3o c. E,’ c: s B = 5 s m -— h o 4" u “s u H c1 U H u <6 n H o n m <11 o - o) "5 4-1 u o) "' 5 U Q E c: ‘<3 i?» F“ U :3 3 5 2O n! >1 "4 W q) p‘ C1 >~i n-l D4 C‘- fi I3 U Q, g; - u s-a V, u n, m m s-i o. n: w m "H m (U u m m -.-| q} H w m a: m >4 w <11 H >4 U‘) w m i. 0 4-1 w on '0 u 0 u w w ‘U 3 o u: m u, p: 3 C1 >4 8 on --I B c1 >4 U % t: ? :>. 3 "' n w o m g o1 a a’ "1 w a °’ _. i=1 <1’ c. . > '"* -~ cu u: a, q) ;> 0 >> w c: --4 ;> o :>~. n P‘ o o p. 5:.‘ x q) o w! r: o) o nS_ 5 5 » 5 c: o rn g 3 o. s: x 1 a :1: e ‘i: or: N a 2 S t ~\ *2 *2 Low income l/Less than 1% Middle income AHigh income Respondents who purchased overwrapped cartons of eggs. Figure l2. Reasons given by purchasers of overwrapped cartons of eggs for unwillingness to pay for overwrapping. 11 opinion . Marketing Implications Purchasers of overwrapped and those of un- wrapped eggs were apparently about equally satisfied with their purchase. However, since about 60 percent more overwrapped than unwrapped cartons of eggs were actually sold during the test, purchase actions are that over-all consumer preference was in favor of the overwrapped product. This preference pattern could strengthen over time as more consumers who buy the unwrapped product out of “habit” gradually decided to change. RESPONSES TO INDIRECT PROJECTIVE QUESTIONS ABOUT OVERWRAPPING The indirect projective question used in the study was a tape recorded simulated conversation between five women about overwrapped cartons of eggs. Two of the speakers in the hypothetical conversation made favorable comments about the packaging, two made unfavorable comments, and the fifth left her con- clusions unfinished. The latter said, “Well, in my ” and the respondent was asked what opinion she thought the speaker held. The projective technique of conditioning re- spondents with respect to the pros and cons of a situation tends to evoke a definite stand by respond- ents either for or against a particular issue and permits her to take this stand comfortably by projecting her- self into the third person rather than making a direct personal commitment. The results of this question indicated that respondents were quite receptive to the positive ideas regarding overwrapped cartons of eggs. About 60 percent of the respondents completed the fifth speaker’s comments along the following lines: “cleaner, sanitary, keeps others out of carton,” 29 per- cent; “more secure and safe,” 16 percent; “fresher or better quality,” l3 percent, Table 2. One respondent in ten said “wrapping makes no difference.” One in five made unfavorable comments such as “hard to open” or “I like to look into carton.” Only 8 percent did not respond or said they did not know what opinion to state. TABLE 2. GENERAL OPINIONS REGARDING TONS WRAPPED WITH CELLO-FILM AS EXP J PROJECTIVE INTERVIEWS ‘ Family in - c, . Opinions Total Low Middlé‘ — Percent of respon Favorable comments r - More secure and safe 16 l4; 19 Cleaner and n1ore sanitary 20 17 21 Likes sealed or wrapped cartons 2 1 2 Keeps others from handling 9 10 l0 Fresher, better taste and quality 13 19 l0 More attractive—like fancy grade 3 6 2 Subtotal 63 67 64 Unfavorable comments Likes to look into carton before purchase of eggs 9 4 l0 Trouble opening package 5 3 5 Unnecessary 1 4 Not fresh-smell spoiled- bad taste 3 l 4 Will not pay more 2 1 2 Subtotal 20 13 21 No difference-no advantage 9 6 8, No answer—don’t know 8 l4 7 Total 100 100 I00 Number of sample households 382 92 198 ‘Income levels for the study were: $4,000 to $7,999; high, $8,000 and over. As income increased, the incidence of comments decreased slightly, and the inci answers saying “no difference” in overwrap unwrapped or “trouble opening package” if; Almost twice as many favorable comments w by all income groups who had tried the ove product compared to those who had not. p of the product apparently increased belief a support of it. 41% 40- 3 357. W: _ 0 ‘U s: O 5i‘ 3o- U u ‘H o Z U co w ‘é g 20- 3 m 16% —l 10— 5% 1.5% l, [i] _ 1 dozen 2 dozens 3 dozens 4 dozens 5 dozens 6 dozens l/ Less than 17. 12 Figure l3. Responde w, to the question: "How ' do you usually pur » time?” i; low, under $4, EGG SHOPPERS’ PURCHASING BEHAVIOR Quantity Purchased at One Time The distributions of respondents buying various quantities of eggs per purchase are shown in Figure l3. More respondents purchased 2 dozen eggs at one time than any other quantity. Two out of three respond- ents purchased a multiple number of dozens at one £11116. Marketing Implications These findings indicate that multiple packs of eggs or “two for” pricing may be worth consideration. Specials on eggs at a “two for” price may be particu- larly attractive to consumers. FREQUENCY OF EGG PURCHASES More than two out of three of the egg buyers said they purchase eggs about once weekly. One in five said he purchases them two or three times weekly. Only 12 percent purchase eggs every 2 or S weeks, Figure 14. There was no significant difference in the frequency of purchasing eggs among the various income groups. Marketing Implications Nine out of l0 consumers purchase eggs weekly or more frequently. If the food store gets fresh deliveries two or more times per week, the likelihood of consumers finding low quality eggs is small. Further- more, a product purchased that frequently and stored for short periods is a desirable price “special” in 70 T 69% Percentage of respondents -l> o I 12% 2 - 3 times Once weekly Once every weekly 2-3 weeks Figure 14. Respondents’ frequency of purchasing eggs. that it does not tend to suppress sales in the succeed- ing period. TIME LAPSE BETWEEN PURCHASE AND HOME REFRIGERATION Nearly half of the respondents reported that about 15 minutes elapse between their leaving the food store and placing the eggs in their refrigerator. A further one in three said 30 minutes. The others, l7 percent, reported varying periods from 45 minutes to 2 hours. Assuming that women may tend to underestimate the time by as much as 100 percent, then 8 out of l0 consumers possibly keep eggs in their autos between 30 to 6O minutes. Marketing Implications The period elapsing between leaving the store and placing egg purchases in the home refrigerator, reported by 8 out of l0 respondents as 15 minutes to 3O minutes, may impair egg quality if there are high temperatures in the car. On a QOO-day it is not unusual for a parked car to register 110° to 130° in the passenger area. This may mean that the eggs could drop appreciably in quality. Further research is underway on this aspect. LENGTH OF HOME EGG STORAGE About one-fourth of the respondents store eggs 3 days or less. Another fourth keeps eggs 4-6 days. The remaining half of the consumers usually keep eggs 7 or more days. The storage pattern according to family income is summarized in Figure l5. Marketing Implications Most eggs are 4 days old at the time of purchase in retail stores. Since many families buy two cartons at a time, this means that the second carton spends another 3 to 4 days in storage before being opened. This totals 7 to 8 days of storage—the period when quality can deteriorate fastest, Figures l and 2. For this reason overwrapping egg cartons can provide product quality benefits. FREQUENCY OF SERVING AND USUAL EGG USES Frequency of Serving Nearly 8 out of l0 respondents said they serve eggs at least once daily. About l in 8 serves them l to 3 times weekly. The others serve them 4 to 6 times weekly. This pattern was similar for all income groups. Usual Uses of Eggs Two out of three of the uses of eggs mentioned were in the “breakfast categ0ry”—fried, scrambled, poached and boiled. About one suggestion in four l3 Figure l5. Respondents’ to the question: “How l___ you usually store eggs home refrigerator?" is) ‘l e17. 60- 58% 51% 5U- w _ U : U '3 3 40- m U H M _ Q ‘all: 3 3o- 5 § 257. 25% ,, m - 24% 24/- 2Q"! 177» g 137. E g 10- °’ é E °’ E’ E 2 3 g 5 r a § '" a s "" a E, .3 "' f. 3 "‘ E. .3 "‘ - 3 3 '5 2 § '5 s 3 '§ .3 E BE‘ .3 s: E S E ‘n: l - 3 days 4 - 6 days 7 days and over was for baking and general cooking. Fewer than 1 in 20 mentioned for desserts, salads and casseroles, Figure 16. The use pattern was comparable for all three income groups. Marketing Implications Traditionally, eggs are considered a breakfast food and single-use product. This image limits de- mand expansion for the product. It is possible that egg cartons and display material should emphasize other numerous egg uses and stress the product's versatility. Recommended are promotional materials based on the theme, “Eggs Are a Convenience Food With 1001 Uses,” that is, eggs in salads and salad dressings, in sauces and soups, in ‘desserts, for garnish- ing dishes, for frozen desserts and candies, and eggs in main dishes with cheese, fish, meats, vege fruits and cereals. For two reasons this shou given serious thought: the demand for a mull product probably can be expanded more readilyI for a single-use product, and breakfast cereals are? peting strongly with eggs for breakfast, the single use of eggs. PACKAGING AND PROMOTIONAL MATERIALS "a Overwrapping of egg cartons is only one in the total packaging job. Another important i is the pictorial and written material on the cart: carton overwraps. To seek information about pictures that be in harmony with consumers’ ideas, a section x ~< 30-W i? “ . E g 207 22/. l: __ ° 19% g 20 i}; U) B. cu ~t u Q8 ._ 14% q) i1 m p. i; 10- 3 "U 6G5 o 40o u _fi __ 44 H , - ,1’, .0 -u E n on “i 4A v 4% i " '2: s 2 s s .. s ‘g 3‘ 1, u. s "s :2 s a g g | | ' m v: m m m ‘H . Breakfast-type dishes Baking and general Desserts Salads Casseroles; (total - 63%) Figure 16. 14 cooking (total - 26%) Respondents’ usual uses for eggs. research was devoted to a picture / thought association test for table eggs. An indirect projective question, built around a tape recorded conversation among four housewives, was used to determine consumer picture / thought associations when they “pictured” excellent table eggs. Test results revealed that 44 percent of the re- spondents thought of some “cooked-egg” aspect. Pre- dominant thoughts were of “a typical American break- fast” and “baking cakes and other delicacies with eggs,” Table 3. About one in seven thought of eggs in the shell; however, these eggs were mentioned as “big,” “white,” “fresh” and “clean.” Only one respondent in five actually thought of eggs in terms of “chickens,” “farms” and “barnyards.” Among this group common qualifications were: “a big, clean farm” or “the barn was a good one.” As income levels increased the association of the cooked-egg idea also increased. Marketing Implications For many years egg cartons often have carried pictures depicting chickens, barnyards or other farm scenes. The foregoing research results indicate a need to get away from the traditional barnyard image of eggs. Suggested are pictures of a typical American breakfast plate, baked cakes, salads, desserts and other egg delicacies. In addition, since only 3 percent of the respond- ents were sharply conscious of the nutritional value of eggs, the carton could carry information regarding the high-protein low-calorie nature of eggs plus the TABLE 3. RESPONDENTS’ ASSOCIATIONS OF EGGS WITH PICTURES OR SITUATIONS Family income Associations Low Middle High — Percent of respondents — Cooked food aspect Typical breakfast 25 32 34 Fixing eggs at stove 2 Food value of eggs 6 3 6 Baking cakes, etc. 3 4 2 General cooking 3 10 Taste good 2 Subtotal 37 41 54 Nonfood and nonfarm Attractive package or display 3 1 2 Shopping 4 2 Easter 1 1 High cost 2 Ba.d eggs I’ve bought 1 1 Subtotal 9 5 3 Big, fresh, white, clean eggs l5 20 l0 Chicken, farm, barn i‘ 22 22 22 Internal appearance 6 3 Don’t know 5 7 No response 6 5 3 Other 1 Total 100 I00 100 Number of sample households 92 198 92 TABLE 4. RESPONDENTS’ PREFERENCE FOR UPRIGHT OR HORIZONTAL DISPLAY CABINETS Type of egg display cabinet preferred Low Family income Middle High — — Percent of respondents — — Upright 61 57 53 Horizontal 24 36 37 Other 6 4 8 No answer 9 3 2 Total 100 I00 I00 Number of sample households 92 198 92 iron, riboflavin and vitamin A content. Another possible sales incentive may be to use different pictures on the egg cartons at different seasons of the year—appropriate to the season. For example: salads and salad dressings in summer; sand- wiches, soups and main dishes in winter; hard-cooked and deviled eggs for summer and early fall cook-outs and picnics; and baking, candies and frozen desserts for festive occasions. This same idea applies to adver- tising and point-of-sale display materials. Eggs should be emphasized as versatile and exciting rather than only as a breakfast food. DISPLAY CABINETS Respondents were interviewed using an indirect projective question, similar to the other projectives outlined, to determine whether they preferred a hori- zontal open-top egg display cabinet or upright ones with doors. Results indicated that a majority prefer upright egg display cabinets with glass doors, Table 4. As income levels increased, the preference for horizontal cabinets also gained somewhat. However, the majority still preferred the upright, Table 4. Reasons given for preferring the upright were primarily “convenient—do not have to reach down” and “like my refrigerator—colder and more protec- tion.” Reasons were similar for all income groups, Table 5. Those preferring the horizontal open-top display case said they prefer it because “convenient-easy to pick up cartons;” “keeps the eggs better and fresher;” I 77 “no doors, saves time; wets cartons.” and “milk in upright cabinets Marketing Implications In upright egg display cabinets the egg cartons are generally stacked with their end view to the front. This has disadvantages with respect to shoppers being able to see price markings readily, and it also obscures “eye appeal” design of the top panel on the carton. On the other hand, with a premium on shelf space, more eggs can be stored within a smaller number of shelf-space feet than is possible with a horizontal open- top display. The decision here depends on the degree to which the marketer is interested in sales of eggs versus other products. Most products generally get 15 TABLE 5. RESPONDENTS; REASONS FOR PREFERRING INDICATED TYPE OF EGG DISPLAY CABINETS Family income Middle High Type of cabinet and reasons Low — Percent of respondents —- Horizontal cabinet Keeps better, colder, fresher and more protection 15 7 4 Easy t0 pick up, more convenient 49 32 48 N0 doors, saves time and l consumer congestion 28 47 29 Can see cartons and prices better 5 9 Wets cartons 3 1 4 No difference 1 2 N0 answer 4 Other 3 j Total 100 100 100 Upright cabinet Keeps better, colder, fresher and more protection 43 43 41 Doors on cabinet like my refrigerator doors 3 2 Convenient, do not have to reach down 28 26 27 Can see cartons and price better l9 21 18 No wet cartons 2 Habit 4 Neater 2 2 No difference 4 No answer 4 1 7 Other 2 l Total 100 100 100 Number of sample households 92 198 ‘ 92 the consumer’s eye for about one-fifth of a second. If only a dull end view of the carton is visible to consumers, the enclosed upright is probably a less effective “salesman” than the horizontal. This prob- lem, however, is probably solved by the new upright air-curtain type of cabinet. Appendix The retail store tests were conducted over a 4-week period in four selected Houston supermarkets of a single food chain September 17-October 15, 1960. One of the four stores was patronized primarily by low-income consumers, two by medium-income consumers and one by high-income consumers. Throughout the study, income groups are desig- nated as follows: low—under $4,000 per year; medium, $4,000 to $7,999; and high, $8,000 and over. The income levels of the survey respondents were similar to those of the total Houston population, Appendix Table 1. A close agreement would not be expected from research among customers of only four food chain stores. Professional consumer interviewers were placed in each store at preselected, randomly staggered hours during the 4-week test. As shoppers purchased eggs, 16 é 7-27 APPENDIX TABLE 1. INCOME LEVELS OF HOUST FAMILIES COMPARED TO THOSE OF THE SUR - SAMPLE, 1960 A Sample Houston Less than $4,000 24% 35% $4,000 to $7,999 52% 45% $8,000 and over 24% a 20% lSurvey of Buying Power, Sales Management,“ May 1961. a random sample of 439 shoppers were contact; Each of these shoppers was given a form to use home for the purpose of rating her purchase :1; several characteristics. A nine-point hedonic rati F scale was used. 2 The respondents were later contacted at the' homes to obtain the product ratings, and, at the sam time, they were interviewed regarding other are pertinent to the study. All interviews were conducted by telephone} Interviews were completed with 382 of the 43 shoppers initially contacted in the food stores. Tw hundred and forty-six of the interviewees were pur chasers of overwrapped cartons of eggs, and l3 purchased the unwrapped ones. Direct and indirect projective questioning wa employed in the attitude survey. Tape recorded audio- projectives were developed for the study. Approxi mately half of the respondents were interviewed usin a tape recorded schedule of questions. The other half i. were interviewed “live voice.” In both cases, profes- sional interviewers wrote down the respondents”. . answers. Egg sales records were kept by the store managers‘ » “t in the test stores for both overwrapped and unwrapped cartons of eggs. The records were verified with ship- ments from the egg processing and grading plant. Differences in averages of ratings for overwrapped f’- versus unwrapped cartons of eggs, for the various characteristics researched, were subjected to statistical tests for differences between means. Distributions of respondents’ ratings for the two types of packages were subjected to Chi-square analyses. Significance in these tests were measured at the 0.95 probability level. The research methods study associated with this s," problem-solving research project involved experi- mental use of a tape recorded schedule of questions ' versus “live voice” interviewing. Copies of question- naires, instructions to interviewers and other survey l i materials used are available to other researchers. l Results of the research methods study pertaining to i audio-projectives are also available from the Market Development Section of the Department of Agricul- tural Economics and Sociology, Texas A8cM University, College Station, Texas. i ‘For an appraisal of telephone versus personal interviewing see “Response Variations Between Telephone and Personal Inter- * views in Consumer Market Survey,” a research methodology report of the Market Development Section, Dept. of Ag. Eco. 8c Soc., Texas A8cM University.