Potato Chips Powerpoint

14,967 views

Published on

An experiement done on Potato Chips and if people could tell the difference between brands.

0 Comments
4 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
14,967
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
35
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
612
Comments
0
Likes
4
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Potato Chips Powerpoint

  1. 1. POTATO CHIPS
  2. 2. About Our Experiment Four brands of chips  Blind and non-blind  taste tests
  3. 3. Hypotheses Hypothesis 1 – Consumers' taste ratings  for the same potato chips will differ when the product brand is made apparent and when not. Hypothesis 2 – The majority of consumers  will not be able to distinguish the difference between brands purely through a taste test.
  4. 4. Variables Independent Dependant  Flavor  Taste Preference  Brand  Brand Preference  Packaging  Characteristic Preference  Texture/Structure of Chip
  5. 5. Procedure Experimentation set-up: Samples were  placed on numbered paper plates (numbers 1 to 4) in order from left to right.  Pre-experiment debriefing: Participants in groups of 4 or 5. Experiment done.  Experiment execution: After concluding the second tasting, surveyors were asked to complete the final form.
  6. 6. Surveys
  7. 7. Survey #1 1) How would you rate the aroma of the chip? Very Bad Very Good Chip 1: 1 2 3 4 5 Chip 2: 1 2 3 4 5 Chip 3: 1 2 3 4 5 Chip 4: 1 2 3 4 5 2) How would you rate the thickness of the chip? Don’t Care Chip 1: Too thin Just Right Too Thick Don’t Care Chip 2: Too thin Just Right Too Thick Don’t Care Chip 3: Too thin Just Right Too Thick Don’t Care Chip 4: Too thin Just Right Too Thick
  8. 8. Survey #2 What brand of chips do you usually purchase? Why? Lays Old Dutch Tim’s No Name Other, Please specify: __________________ _____________________________________________________________________ Rank the top 3 factors that would influence your purchase:  Physical Appearance of the Chip Variety of Flavors  Thickness Packaging  Crispiness Convenience  Taste Pricing  Sound Nutrition Levels  Smell Others, Please Specify
  9. 9. Results Results without seeing brand Generally high scores  Scores are scattered  Difficult to distinguish  preference  Results with seeing brand Scores are closer to each  other Change in aroma and  thickness scores  Pattern in the scores 
  10. 10. Purchase Intention Purchase Intention Chip 1 Purchase Intention Chip 4 (No- (Lays) name) 5 5 4.5 4.5 4 4 3.28 3.19 3.5 3.5 2.96 3 3 Rating Rating 2.50 2.5 2.5 Blind Test Blind Test 2 2 Non-Blind Test Non-Blind Test 1.5 1.5 1 1 0.5 0.5 0 0 Purchase intention scores are based on survey questions 6 & 9  Scores from the blind and non-blind test are compared  Slight increases in purchase intention for the Lays brand  Similar results for other branded chips such as Old Dutch  Intention decreases for generic branded chips  Respondents are less likely to purchase generic branded chips
  11. 11. Brand Identification Brand Identification (Of consumer-indicated favorites included in survey) 38% Incorrectly Identified 62%
  12. 12. Limitations Population:  Sample size   Population uniform Participants:  Hypothesis guessing   Un-isolated participants Experiment set-up:  Variety of Brands   Tasting order  Flavor variety
  13. 13. Experiment Recap Results Inferences Increasing purchase Consumer preference is   intentions for heavily reliant on the brand Lays, decreasing purchase intentions for Tim’s and no- name Consumers can’t  Participants could not distinguish chip brands by  identify their preferred taste alone brand when blindfolded
  14. 14. Managerial Implications
  15. 15. Thanks for Listening!

×