Sensory Perception – its Role inMarketing and Purchasing DecisionsIsabelle LesschaeveConsumer Insights and Product Innovat...
Sensory experienceCulturalpractices    Processing    practices                          End product     End product sensor...
Determinants of Wine choice• “Taste” is one of the most important factors cited by  consumers for choosing wine (Thompson ...
Outline• Case studies investigating sensory attributes  driving consumer preferences• Findings and discussion• Other facto...
Case studies• White wine sensory preferences  – Lesschaeve, Neudorf & Bruwer, 2009• (Research) Riesling sensory preference...
Study 1- White wine preferencesObjective:   Define Ontario consumers preference of white wineMethod:                    Sc...
Wines selected and includedin sensory tests  Study Code   Grape varietal    Country of Origin   Vintage    Price $        ...
Protocol to determine consumersensory preferences
Sensory Analysis of 18 wines• 10 members of Vineland trainedpanel participated in twelve 2-hoursessions:  o 6 sessions for...
Sensory map- Synthesis                                    Observations (axes F1 and F2: 65.43 %)                          ...
Hedonic analysis of 12 wines                                                                                      • 120 pr...
Consumer tests     A wine sample coded ____________ is now presented. Please make sure the     code on the glass is the sa...
Hedonic scores of 12 white wines   • Liking scores varied between consumer cells     • 18 moderately liked by cell B but d...
Liking score synthesis:                      Preference Map                                                               ...
Variables (axes F1 and F2: 48.18 %)                  1                                                            Cluster2...
Summary of Case study 1• Sensory preferences are not explained by  demographics-psychographics segmentation• Sensory prefe...
2- Sensory Preferences of Riesling(Research) Wines• Six dry Riesling wines• 80 consumers (29 males, 51 females), involved ...
Riesling Preference map                                          Variables (axes F1 and F2: 58.26 %)                      ...
YES BUT THIS IS ONTARIO, ISN’T IT?
Intense Smell and Flavor                               Some Vanilla                          Chardonnay (USA)             ...
Sauvignon blanc (New Zealand)• “Consumers in this study preferred wines that  presented sweet sweaty passion fruit,  capsi...
YES BUT THESE ARE WHITES
Red Wine Preference Map (USA)                                                        ASTRINGENT                      TOAST...
Red wine preferences ofChinese consumers(Osidacz and Francis,2009)
Key message is NOTMake sweet, fruity, and unoaked wines and be successful
Key messages• Blind preferences for 50-80% consumers are driven  by sweetness (or perceived sweetness), fruitiness,  less ...
Interpretation of blind preferences• Even involved wine drinkers prefer simple  wines when presented blind.• Consistent wi...
How do we learn to like wine? • Introduction to wine in early adulthood • Sensory properties of wine:    – Taste sour and ...
How do we learn to like less familiarflavours?• Results in desirable post digestive effects• Is developed by associative l...
Real wine preferences: it’s morecomplex than just “sweet and fruity”                                                      ...
Consumer variability• Consumer personal characteristics  – Gender, Age group, Generation• Consumer psychological character...
Wine Involvement• “Higher involvement consumers utilise more information and  are interested in learning more, while low i...
Consumer MotivationSelf-Concept          Personal                      RelevanceTypes of Needs                      Values...
Consumer Motivation - Needs           TYPE OF NEED                    E.g., with wine purchaseFunctional: needs that satis...
Consumer Motivation - Perceived Risk  The extent to which a consumer is uncertain       about the personal consequences of...
Consumer Motivation - Perceived Risk• Confusing factors (Casini et al. 2008)   –   Unprecedented levels of product prolife...
Extrinsic Cues Consumers use toMinimize Risks•   Price•   Awards•   Third party recommendations•   Front label attributes ...
Expected versus experience quality• Prevalence of extrinsic cues over the sensory experience has  been shown by Lange (200...
Effect of Information on SensoryExperience                  100.000                   90.000    *                   80.000...
Summary• Majority of consumers like simple, fruity, “sweet”  wines in blind condition• Wine is learned to be acceptable by...
Acknowledgements• Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural  Affairs• Canada-Ontario Orchard Vineyard Transition Pro...
To stay in contact:Email: isabelle.lesschaeve@vinelandresearch.comBlog (incl. presentations):      www.ilesschaeve.wordpre...
© 2009 Vineland Research and Innovation Centre
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Nzwbs Sensory preferences

726

Published on

Invited presentation at the NZ wine Business Symposium - June 2010

1 Comment
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • very nice presentation
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Views
Total Views
726
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
1
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Nzwbs Sensory preferences

  1. 1. Sensory Perception – its Role inMarketing and Purchasing DecisionsIsabelle LesschaeveConsumer Insights and Product InnovationJune, 2010 © 2009 Vineland Research and Innovation Centre
  2. 2. Sensory experienceCulturalpractices Processing practices End product End product sensory composition profile: Intrinsic quality Extrinsic cues and other factors triggering quality End product Acceptability
  3. 3. Determinants of Wine choice• “Taste” is one of the most important factors cited by consumers for choosing wine (Thompson and Vourvachis, 1995; Charters, 2003)
  4. 4. Outline• Case studies investigating sensory attributes driving consumer preferences• Findings and discussion• Other factors contributing to the overall sensory experience• What does it all mean
  5. 5. Case studies• White wine sensory preferences – Lesschaeve, Neudorf & Bruwer, 2009• (Research) Riesling sensory preferences – Lesschaeve, Mathieu, Willwerth and Reynolds, 2008
  6. 6. Study 1- White wine preferencesObjective: Define Ontario consumers preference of white wineMethod: Screening for representative wines ($15-20) 23 Riesling, 34 Chardonnay, 34 Sauvignon Blanc Sorting and Matching Task 18 wines Descriptive Analysis Consumer Test 12 wines
  7. 7. Wines selected and includedin sensory tests Study Code Grape varietal Country of Origin Vintage Price $ 1 Chardonnay Australia 2007 15.75 2 Chardonnay Ontario 2007 15.00 3 Chardonnay USA 2007 18.70 4 Chardonnay Ontario 2007 16.75 5 Chardonnay Australia 2006 18.75 6 Chardonnay Ontario 2006 19.75 7 Riesling Ontario 2008 15.95 8 Riesling Ontario 2008 18.50 9 Riesling Germany 2007 18.75 10 Riesling Ontario 2006 16.95 11 Riesling Ontario 2008 17.20 12 Riesling France 2007 22.75 13 Sauvignon blanc New Zealand 2008 13.35 14 Sauvignon blanc Ontario 2007 15.95 15 Sauvignon blanc New Zealand 2008 18.75 16 Sauvignon blanc New Zealand 2008 15.75 17 Sauvignon blanc Ontario 2006 15.75 18 Sauvignon blanc South Africa 2008 17.75
  8. 8. Protocol to determine consumersensory preferences
  9. 9. Sensory Analysis of 18 wines• 10 members of Vineland trainedpanel participated in twelve 2-hoursessions: o 6 sessions for vocabulary development and alignment; o 6 sessions for measurements in duplicate, 29 attributes 80 70• Wines evaluated in clear ISO wine Average Intensity Scores 60glasses at 13-14C /55-57 F without any 50 40marketing information 30 20• Sensory tests were conducted in the 10 0Vineland tasting room Flychee Burning Puckering Otinpeas Fgreenapple Foak OorangBlos Oblkpepper Fpetroleum Ooak Opetroleum Fapricot Smooth Opeach Oily Prickly Omelon Sweet Wine Descriptors
  10. 10. Sensory map- Synthesis Observations (axes F1 and F2: 65.43 %) Variables (axes F1 and F2: 65.43 %) 60 1 09 0.75 40 FOak Smooth 09 OOak 03 Sweet 0405 05 0.5 04 03 06 20 02 07 0.25 Oily 07 06 11 FLychee Prickly F2 (20.52 %) 02F2 (20.52 %) 0 OPeach 01 10 15 OBlkPepper 0 14 15 OPetroleum OOrangeBlo 17 13 11 Burning 14 13 08 10 12 -0.25 18 17 16 12 FPetroleum -20 16 08 -0.5 OTinPeas 01 18 FGrApple -0.75 -40 Puckering -1 -1 -0.75 -0.5 -0.25 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 -60 F1 (44.91 %) -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 White wines positioning on the F1 (44.91 %) Sensory attributes describing the white wine sensory space in duplicate the white wine sensory space The prefixes O and F used on the correlation circle of Wines are coded from 1 to 18; 1-6: attributes signals that the attribute was evaluated as an Chardonnay; 7-12: Riesling; 13-18: Sauv. Blc odour or a flavour © 2009 Lesschaeve
  11. 11. Hedonic analysis of 12 wines • 120 pre-recruited white wine consumers – VQA drinkers (Cell A): • consumed at least 20% VQA wines in last 6 months – Imports Drinkers (Cell B): • consumed at least 85% imported wines in last 6 months; consumed 1- 3% of VQA 9.000 – Millenials (Cell C): 19-34 y.o.Average Liking Scores 8.000 7.000 6.000 • Two sessions 5.000 – Liking score on 9-pt hedonic scale 4.000 3.000 – Attitude questionnaire 2.000 1.000 – Wines were presented coded in clear 1 10 11 12 14 16 18 3 5 6 7 9 wine glasses at 13-14C, without Wines marketing information – Outsourced in Great Toronto Area
  12. 12. Consumer tests A wine sample coded ____________ is now presented. Please make sure the code on the glass is the same as the code on the questionnaire. Please taste the wine sample as if you tasted this wine casually at home. Then indicate how much you enjoy it on the following scale:  Like extremely (9)  Like very much  Like moderately  Like slightly  Neither like nor dislike  Dislike slightly  Dislike moderately  Dislike very much  Dislike extremely (1) Instructions and hedonic scale used for the hedonic assessment
  13. 13. Hedonic scores of 12 white wines • Liking scores varied between consumer cells • 18 moderately liked by cell B but disliked by others. • 11 was preferred by cell C but less liked by cell A 9.000 8.000 7.000 Average Liking Scores 6.000 5.000 4.000 3.000 2.000 1.000 5 16 6 18 14 3 12 1 10 7 9 11 Wines CellA Cell B Cell C© 2009 Lesschaeve VQA drinkers (Cell A); Imports Drinkers (Cell B); Millenials (Cell C)
  14. 14. Liking score synthesis: Preference Map Observations (axes F1 and F2: 48.18 %) Variables (axes F1 and F2: 48.18 %) 15 1 6 10 0.75 15 54 55 37 14 10 63 49 115 32 1 109 74 82 110 0.5 90 21 75 11 19 5 3 4 79 113 78 106 7 119 120 24 33 31 7 0.25 68 96977 52 25 44 0 12 F2 (12.27 %) 93 103 116 73 97 1 9260 27 8 6 13 11 67 14 16 38F2 (12.27 %) 72 87565 41 43 91 2 50 30 112 105 42 0 58 23 70 104 20 40 3 5 18 9 76 34 86 35 95 98 53 62 117 99 51 65 -5 17 114 107 101 102 28 83 66 89 59 -0.25 36 57 64 100 39 111 81 18 48 26 -10 85 29 46 71 4712 -0.5 22 10 61 80 108 16 45 88 94 118 96 -15 84 -0.75 -20 -1 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 -1 -0.75 -0.5 -0.25 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 F1 (35.91 %) F1 (35.91 %) Consumers’ position on the White wines positioning on the the white wine preference space the white wine preference map Each point represents the liking direction of a consumer Wines are coded from 1 to 18;1-6: Chardonnay; 7-12: Riesling; 13-18: Sauv. Blc Majority of consumer liking directions point towards wines 7, 11, and 9 © 2009 Lesschaeve
  15. 15. Variables (axes F1 and F2: 48.18 %) 1 Cluster2 2 2 1 2 2 2 0.75 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 Observations (axes F1 and F2: 48.18 %) 2 2 2 1 0.5 2 Fpetroleum 2 A 1 15 2 1 2 1 6 Foak Opetroleum 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 11 Ooak 1 1 1 10 14 10 0.25 1 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 11 1 1 Burning 3 Oily 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 Fapricot 1 1 C 5 3F2 (12.27 %) 3 1 0 1 3 Fgreenapple 1 1 1 1 B 12 7 F2 (12.27 %) 3 Puckering 3 11 11 1 1 1 1 1 Cluster 1 0 11 33 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 18 9 3 Otinpeas 1 1 1 Smooth -5 -0.25 Omelon 1 1 Sweet 3 1 1 Opeach Cluster 3 3 OorangBlos 1 1 1 -10 3 11 1 1 1 16 1 -0.5 1 1 1 -15 1 1 Prickly Oblkpepper 1 Flychee -20 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 -0.75 F1 (35.91 %) -1 -1 -0.75 -0.5 -0.25 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 F1 (35.91 %) Liking + Sensory = Active variables Supplementary variables Sensory segmentation © 2009 Lesschaeve
  16. 16. Summary of Case study 1• Sensory preferences are not explained by demographics-psychographics segmentation• Sensory preferences are driven by winemaking styles: oak to sweet (RS)• Grape varietal attributes: tropical fruits petroleum 2nd preference dimension
  17. 17. 2- Sensory Preferences of Riesling(Research) Wines• Six dry Riesling wines• 80 consumers (29 males, 51 females), involved in wine and Riesling drinkers• Eleven trained panelists from Brock – 21 attributes, 2 replicates – Wines served in ISO clear glasses at 14C+/-2C
  18. 18. Riesling Preference map Variables (axes F1 and F2: 58.26 %) 1 Vegetal Aroma Liking Vegetal Flavour 0.75 Petrol Flavour Mineral/Flint Aroma 0.5 Citrus Aroma Sweet 0.25 F2 (25.20 %) Mineral/Flint Flavour 0 Citrus Flavour Astringency -0.25 Tropical Fruit Flavour -0.5 Sour Honey Flavour Apple/Pear Flavour Baking Spice -0.75 Aroma Honey Aroma -1 -1 -0.75 -0.5 -0.25 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 F1 (33.06 %)
  19. 19. YES BUT THIS IS ONTARIO, ISN’T IT?
  20. 20. Intense Smell and Flavor Some Vanilla Chardonnay (USA) Toasted Oak FlavorSweet TasteFruity Smell and Flavor AlcoholSmooth H ISmell and A Flavor F J G N K RBerry V Lingering W M O T D Aftertaste C S P E L Spicy oak Q U BLiking Sour Taste Bitter TasteLesschaeve et al, 2001 Dry, Puckery
  21. 21. Sauvignon blanc (New Zealand)• “Consumers in this study preferred wines that presented sweet sweaty passion fruit, capsicum, passion fruit skin/stalk, and fresh asparagus overtones. “ Lund et al Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 60:1 (2009)
  22. 22. YES BUT THESE ARE WHITES
  23. 23. Red Wine Preference Map (USA) ASTRINGENT TOASTED OAK VANILLA W8 W10 W12 BACK LPEPPER VISCOUSW9 G3 W13 BUTTER W6 W7 W5 W14 W4 W15 BERRY JAM W3 HOT BITTER AT BANDAIDSMOOTH W2 W16 W1 RASPBERRY GRASSY G2 SMOKY ASPARAGUS G1SWEET CASSIS COOKED FRUIT Lesschaeve et al , 2000
  24. 24. Red wine preferences ofChinese consumers(Osidacz and Francis,2009)
  25. 25. Key message is NOTMake sweet, fruity, and unoaked wines and be successful
  26. 26. Key messages• Blind preferences for 50-80% consumers are driven by sweetness (or perceived sweetness), fruitiness, less oak, less burning, i.e. less “complex” wines• Blind preferences were measured in lab conditions ≠ Real life• Value of measuring preference blind: Measure the impact of non sensory factors on consumer behavioural choice
  27. 27. Interpretation of blind preferences• Even involved wine drinkers prefer simple wines when presented blind.• Consistent with current knowledge of development of food preferences – Innate likes for sweet and innate dislikes for bitter and sour foods (Birch, 1982) – Like familiar foods, neophobic beings
  28. 28. How do we learn to like wine? • Introduction to wine in early adulthood • Sensory properties of wine: – Taste sour and bitter – Smell unfamiliar (food) aromas • Oak, floral, petroleum – Feel astringent and irritating • Wine could fit the “unpalatable substance” category (Rozin, 1986)
  29. 29. How do we learn to like less familiarflavours?• Results in desirable post digestive effects• Is developed by associative learning – Environmental and socio-cultural factors – Positive sensory experience each time• Preference increases with exposure and familiarity; the “mere exposure effect” (Zajonc, 1968)
  30. 30. Real wine preferences: it’s morecomplex than just “sweet and fruity” Socio-Economic Wine Consumer context Perception of Price, availability, Physical and Chemical Sensory Attributes Brand, Region of characteristics Origin Nutritional Value Social-cultural factors Psychological Factors: Involvement, knowledge, perceived risks, attention Physiological effects: Attitudes towards Sensory Attributes, Satiety, hunger, thirst, Health/Nutrition, appetite Choice/Consumption /Preference Price/value (Adapted from Shepherd, 1985)
  31. 31. Consumer variability• Consumer personal characteristics – Gender, Age group, Generation• Consumer psychological characteristics – Involvement – Motivation – Self-confidence• Socio-cultural and environmental factors – Lifestyle
  32. 32. Wine Involvement• “Higher involvement consumers utilise more information and are interested in learning more, while low involvement consumers tend to simplify their choices and use risk reduction strategies”. (Lockshin, 2006) – Highly involved consumers in New Zealand tended to use extrinsic quality cues other than price to lead their choice (Hollebeek et al. 2007) – Highly involved Australian consumers conceptualized wine quality more objectively, by using more cognitive dimensions (interest or complexity) (Charters and Pettigrew, 2006)• Low involvement consumers: – “No thrills”: loyal to a wine style or a wine brand – Low confidence: price, award or recommendations
  33. 33. Consumer MotivationSelf-Concept Personal RelevanceTypes of Needs Values, Goals,Identifying Needs NeedsTypes of RiskInvolvement Perceived Risk 33
  34. 34. Consumer Motivation - Needs TYPE OF NEED E.g., with wine purchaseFunctional: needs that satisfy a It pairs well with this food. consumption-related problem.Symbolic: needs connected to the To fit in with my friends; sense of self (how we are perceived everybody buys local. by others).Hedonic needs: needs that fill a desire To feel the sensation of for sensory pleasure and emotional taste; to experience the arousal. hedonic and sensory qualities.Cognition or stimulation needs: need To perform a challenging for mental and sensory challenge. taste test, and compare it with another wine. 34
  35. 35. Consumer Motivation - Perceived Risk The extent to which a consumer is uncertain about the personal consequences of buying or drinking a wine. 35
  36. 36. Consumer Motivation - Perceived Risk• Confusing factors (Casini et al. 2008) – Unprecedented levels of product proliferation – Available access to increasing amounts of information – Increasing use of imitation strategies – Consumers shopping in new or unfamiliar environments 36
  37. 37. Extrinsic Cues Consumers use toMinimize Risks• Price• Awards• Third party recommendations• Front label attributes – Design – Region of origin, Appellation of Origin – Brand name• The type of cues chosen as a RSS depends on consumer involvement, knowledge and self- confidence 37
  38. 38. Expected versus experience quality• Prevalence of extrinsic cues over the sensory experience has been shown by Lange (2000) on Burgundy wines and Lange et al. (2002) on Champagne wines. Wines were different.• D’ Hauteville et al. (2007) showed that the region effect on perceived quality could vary with the type of wines and the level of respondent expertise.• Price also moderated the quality experienced by consumers when tasting similar wines – Positively for Cluster 1, negatively for Clusters 2 and 3 – Almenberg and Dreber (2009) reported that disclosing the high price of a wine before tasting increased quality rating by women
  39. 39. Effect of Information on SensoryExperience 100.000 90.000 * 80.000 ** ** (*) Liking scores 70.000 60.000 MeanExp 50.000 MeanBli 40.000 MeanInf 30.000 20.000 10.000 0.000 CS HOP WB WI Wines
  40. 40. Summary• Majority of consumers like simple, fruity, “sweet” wines in blind condition• Wine is learned to be acceptable by repeated exposures, positive effects, and associative learning• Every sensory experience with wine is encoded in consumer memory along the contextual factors, emotions and feelings• Cueing these positive effects is key for triggering consumer repurchase of the brand, varietal, or region.
  41. 41. Acknowledgements• Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs• Canada-Ontario Orchard Vineyard Transition Program• Wine Council of Ontario and Grape Growers of Ontario• Collaborators: – Dr. Mantonakis (Brock), Dr. Johan Bruwer (U. Adelaide) – Erika Neudorf, Nicolas Mathieu, Jim Willwerth, Amy Bowen
  42. 42. To stay in contact:Email: isabelle.lesschaeve@vinelandresearch.comBlog (incl. presentations): www.ilesschaeve.wordpress.comTwitter: @innovinum
  43. 43. © 2009 Vineland Research and Innovation Centre

×