CONCLUSION

It was shown by the ideal profile testing results that inputs from the two focus groups, each comprised of a specific type of experienced members, were successfully used in guiding the optimisation process for the formulation of the meatballs. Ideas given by these participants helped improve sensory characteristics especially flavour and aroma. Only the contents of garlic and onion were raised, both by 0.2%, in the formulation developed in New Zealand. As a result of the focus groups, a prototype formulation was identified -75% mutton lean, 20% pork lean, 5% pork fat; with 4% tapioca starch, 2.5% salt, 0.25% STPP, 0.75 % white pepper, 1 .0% garlic, 0.8% onion and 0.6% ginger (based on the total meats and fat weight) .

This was subsequ ently used in a production trial to make the meatballs for t h e final ·

consumer testing in the Bangkok area. The next chapter discusses the production trial of the crumbed meatballs made with the prototype formulation, and the consumer testing of

CHAPTER 9

TESTING OF THE DEVELOPED PRODUCT

At this stage of the research project, a prototype formulation was developed and it was used in a production trial. The product was then tested by consumers in the Bangkok area. This was the final stage of the product development process in this study.

Consumer testing at this phase of the project was performed as a 'home use' test a mong several hund reds of respondents. Hedonic scaling was used to determine the degree of liking/disliking towards the mutton-based meatballs. Other i nformation related t o the developed product was also given by representatives of the households.

9.1 LITERATU RE REVIEW

Test marketing (or market testing) has fou nd widespread comme rcial acceptance (Lai, 1 987) . The purposes of conducting a te st market are to test a new product o r a new marketing plan u nder realistic market conditions to obtain a measure of sales o r profit pote ntial (Zikmu nd , 1 982 ) . The technique can also be used to improve adve rtising, promotion, and price, i.e. marketing strategies (Urban and Hauser, 1 980).

Test marketing is a well established and recommended procedure for product testing in marketing texts ( Rosenberg, 1 977 ; Kotler, 1 986) , and numerous papers have been published on the subject (Stanto n, 1 967; Cadbury, 1 975 ; Klo mpmaker et a l . , 1 976). However, the market testing is carried out after the product has passed functional and consumer tests (Kotler, 1 986). Therefore, it is essential that the product has successfully performed in the consumer tests before it is carried on to test marketing.

I n p roduct development, it is the consu mer pane lists who are impo rtant in determining acceptabil ity. Afte r a p rototype product is developed and tech nically tested by the experienced judges, the product developer turns to the final judge , the consumer ( Urban and Hauser, 1 980) . The success of a newly developed food product has always relied on acceptance by the consumers, therefore, formal studies of consumer acceptance or preference are very vital.

9.1 . 1 Consumer Tests

Consu mer test ing selects samples of consu mers from the m arketplace to d et e rm ine whether they like or will buy the food (O'Mahony, 1 986). Earle ( 1 98 1 ) stated that various types of people have been used in consumer panels for food product testing. These people can be representative consumers in the target market or they can be randomly sampled.

Anderson (198 1 ) noted that a large number of consumers, 200-300, was used for consumer testing in a market trial phase before the final product was released. Earle (198 1 ) indicated that the 1 00-member consumer panel was used for testing acceptability of the produ ct and the product attributes.

Gatchalian ( 1 98 1 ) outlined the use of two types of consumer tests, the field test and the home use test, which could be used to measure the acceptance of the product. The field test involves evaluation of the product at the market site where consumers conglom erate. The goal is to determine product acceptance or preference in the actual purchase s ituation (Caul and Raymond, 1 965). The field test may basically be either controlled as in a c entral location test or free-wheeling by random sampling of consumers as in a marketplace test. Home use test (or home placement method) allows for the products to be evaluated u nder natural use or home conditions (Eastlack, 1 964).

Advantages and disadvantages of the two types of consu mer tests for acceptance are summarised in Table 9.1 .

Table 9 . 1 Advantages and disadvantages of field and home u se tests

Field Test

* _{maximum concentration of respondents.} * validity of the acceptance test is assured. * _{great possibility for high returns of responses.} * quicker and more efficient.

* _{less costly and greater assurance that the product is actually evaluated.}

* the central location type of field test is most useful; more samples for preference can

be tested in a comparative situation.

* the p roduct is not consumed under the natu ral use situation ; the decisio n of the

respondents may be biased.

* _{especially in the marketplace test, the consumer's responses may be biased for or}

against the product depending on his/her physical or emotional state at the time of judgement.

* impossibility to allow for cumulative effect on consumers' reaction to the product. * _{difficulty in obtaining representative population samples.}

Home Use Test

* natural use conditions, respondents can see how the product performs during actual

home preparation.

* _{information about preference or acceptance can be based on stabilised reactions}

(from repeated use) rather than on first impreSSion alone as in field tests.

* _{cumulative effect from repeated use can provide information regarding potentials of}

the repeat buyer.

* _{the economic level of target users can be identified.}

* more questions and information can be obtained toward product's price, package

label, etc., since the respondents have enough time to answer the questionnaire/interview.

* can be very time-consuming.

* _{lengthy and expensive if including many households.} * greater possibility of non-responses.

* where four or more samples are involved, the test is impractical and may give

misleading results. From Gatchalian (1981)

9.1 .2 Evaluation for Consumer Tests

Cooper ( 1 981 ) indicated that consumer evaluation of the quality of any food product was based mainly on its sensory properties. Therefore, the sensory properties of a food are important, if not crucial, to its acceptance (Lai, 1 987) .

The vital role which sensory evaluation plays in product development has long been recognised (Oixon, 1 970 ; Ellis, 1 970; Blair, 1 978; Civille , 1 978; Erhardt, 1 978; 1FT, 1 98 1 ; Radtke and Rodriguez, 1 98 1 ) . Sensory evaluation represents the first opport unit y the product developer has for feedback on his or her product (Blair, 1 978). Lai ( 1 987) reviewed extensively the functions of sensory evaluation in the product development process.

According to the Institute of Food Technologists (1FT, 1 98 1 ) . a large number of u nt rained respondents selected to represent target or potential target populatio n can be u sed to determine acceptance of the food product . Acceptance may be defined as ( 1 ) an experience, or feature of experience, characterised by a positive attitude; and/or (2) actual utilisation (e.g., purchase or eating). Acceptance may be measured by preference o r liking for a specific food item (Amerine et al., 1 965). In its simplest form, acceptability is inferred from scale ratings (1FT, 1 981 ) .

Scale" ratings reflect respondents' perceived intensity of a specified attribute under a g iven set of conditions. Hedonic rating test is o ne type of rating test. It is used to measu re the level of liking for food products by a population. It may be applied in testing for prefe rence or acceptance, i.e. preference is inferred f rom hedonic ratings. The method relies o n test subjects' capacities to report, directly and reliably, their feelings of like and dislike.

Several variations of the traditional nine-point wo rd hedonic scale have been u sed effectively. These include: ( 1 ) a reduced number of rating categories, although not fewer than five is recommended; (2) a greater number of 'like' rating categories than 'dislike'; (3) omission of the 'neutral ' rating category ; (4) su bst itution of the verbal categ o ri e s by caricatures representing degrees of pleasure and displeasure (facial hedonic scale) ; and (5) use of a non-structured, no n-numerical line scale anchored with 'like' and 'dislike' on opposite ends (1 FT, 1 981).

Hedonic scale ratings are converted to numerical scores, and statistical analysis is a pplied to determine difference in degree of liking between or among samples. A hedonic rating test can yield both absolute and relative information about t he test samples. Absolute information is derived from the degree of liking (or disliking) indicated for each sample, and relative information is derived from the direction and degree of difference between o r a mong the sample scores.