Upload
benedict-watkins
View
216
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
involving children in the product development
process
MS
TS
Ltd
tel
+4
4 (
0)
19
59
56
7 3
20
e-m
ail
info
@m
sts.
co.u
kw
eb
htt
p:/
/ww
w.m
sts.
co.u
k
Yvonne Taylor, MSTS Ltd
Page 2
Format of the presentation
Yummy vs Yukky– getting beyond this basic response mechanism
Helping product developers– how can we get detailed information, from children, for
product developers to use
KidSpeak case study– what can we learn from children?– do kids and adults really differ - why can’t we just get
adults opinions?– how important is appearance
Page 3
Yummy vs Yukky
getting beyond this basic response mechanism
Page 4
Poor levels of discrimination
> Frequently we find that children just aren’t very good at discriminating between products. In this example, there is little difference in liking of products 2 – 6. Product 1 is less well liked.
3.2
3.9
4.1
4.2
4.2
4.5
0 1 2 3 4 5
product 1
product 2
product 3
product 4
product 5
product 6
what is it about product 1 which isn’t liked?
what is it about product 6 which is liked?
Page 5
Poor descriptive abilities
So what was it about product 6 that they did like:
‘it tasted nice’
‘it tasted lovely’
‘it was just like my usual product X’
Page 6
Poor descriptive abilities
So what was it about product 1 that they didn’t like:
‘Didn’t taste nice’
‘it tasted funny’
‘it didn’t taste like my usual product X’
Page 7
What have we learnt
> Most of the products perform similarly with one product which isn’t liked.
> We have no idea why these products are or aren’t liked apart from it’s something to do with taste… or is it?
– In line with their overall lack of ability to discriminate, children will tend to indiscriminately up-rate or down-rate all aspects of a product if they do or conversely don’t like it. This is called the halo effect.
Page 8
The halo effect (dislike of one aspect influences all other attributes)
How much do you like the look of this product?
‘not very much’
How much do you like the taste of this product?
‘not very much’
How much do you like How much do you likethe saltiness of this product? The sweetness of this product?
‘too salty’ ‘too sweet’
How much do you like the texture of this product?
‘not very much’
Page 9
Making sense of the findings> What does the product developer do with this information?
– Very little because:• It’s not detailed enough• We don’t know what is actually wrong with the product
> How do we go about addressing the issues of:– Lack of discrimination– Inability to articulate what is actually yummy and what is actually
yukky about a product
Page 10
Helping Product Developers
how can we get detailed information for the product
developers to use?
Page 11
Addressing the inability to articulateApply the techniques of sensory to children to select those withbetter than average taste buds:
– MSTS have done this and have a product called which is a panel of 8-12 year olds.
– All children who are interested in joining the KidSpeak panel attend an hour long screening session which commences with a short verbal ‘presentation’ to the children as a group on sensory experiences.
– The children are encouraged to ask questions, provide answers – this gives an initial indication of their personalities, and abilities to interact with adults and peers.
Page 12
Sensory ScreeningThe children participate in the key elements of a sensoryscreening programme:
– Identification of the flavours of a number of drinks
– Ranking of a range of different products according to strength, sweetness etc (to identify basic taste recognition)
– Written description of a fairly complex food product – covering key sensory characteristics
– Odd one out/triangle taste tests
– Aroma recognition
– Reactions to unusual flavours to ascertain willingness to try unfamiliar tastes
Page 13
Panel composition
Not sufficiently discriminating for the panel
Good descriptive skills/lower end of discrimination scale
Good descriptive & discriminating skills
Page 14
Methodology
> Small groups of children – Minimum of 12 for any project
> Quali-quant approach– Questionnaire and one to one interviewing
> Individual evaluation and assessments
> Some group assessment/consensus– E.g. voting for top 3 products to go in lunchbox
> Clients can get involved/sit on workshops/ask questions
Page 15
Product Categories
> MSTS have successfully used the KidSpeak panel on the following product categories:
– Fruit based desserts– Milk based desserts– Meatballs– Fruit juices– Hand held snacks
Page 16
Considerations of this approach
> Low penetration product categories– they may not be consumers of a product/brand on our panel– Sometimes the best we can do is non rejectors
> Small sample size– should be treated as qualitative even though we get some
‘numbers’
Page 17
KidSpeakcase study
what can we learn from children?do kids and adults really differ - why
can’t we just get adults opinions?how important is appearance?
Page 18
Scope of the Project
> Mums and children
> Likers of product category – RTE sweet desserts in pot
> Non rejectors of flavours tested
> Evaluation of NPD products in the context of existing ‘on market’ products
> To find out:– Which NPD route to go down– Learn some lessons from existing products re: Best in Class– Understand mum’s and children’s product likes/dislikes with
reasons
Page 19
Overall Opinion – children
1.1
1.7
2.1
2.3
2.8
3.0
3.2
3.3
3.8
3.8
4.3
2.8
1 2 3 4 5
Product A
Product C
Product B
Product E
Product F
Product G
Product H
Product M
Product L
Product K
Product I
Product J
Rated significantly higher than all other products
Least liked products
Product J is the most liked product with products I and K also doing well against the rest of the products
tested. Products A, C, B and E disliked.
Liking scale 1= horrible 5 = very nice
Page 20
Overall Opinion – adults
1.3
2.6
3.3
3.6
5.1
5.4
5.8
6.1
7.5
7.6
8.3
5.3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
product A
product B
product C
product E
product F
product G
product H
product I
product J
product K
product L
product M
Rated significantly higher than all other products
Least liked products
Liking scale 1= dislike extremely 9 = like extremely
The winner
Product M is the most liked product with products K and L also doing well against the rest of the products
tested. Products A, B C and E are disliked.
Page 21
To summarise
mums childrenBest liked product M J
Where do children rate product M?5th – mid range of liking
Where do mums rate product J?4th – mid range liking
Least liked products E, C, B & A E, B, C & A
What is wrong with E, C, B & A – what can we learn from them?
No one productticks the box forboth mums and
children
Page 22
Adults vs children best liked comparisons
6.1
8.3
7.7
5.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Product J
product M
mums children
Product J had a sweeter and more syrupy flavour which children liked
Product M had a mouthfeel which children didn’t like
NB: Children liking scores re-worked to fit a 9 point scale
Page 23
Product M – descriptive vocabularyAPPEARANCE
Fruit pieces – non uniform shape
Dark colour
AROMA
Stronger on key flavour
Tinned fruit
TASTE
More fruity –esp. key flavour
Sweeter
Stronger
Tangy
Artificial
MOUTHFEEL
Firm
Smoother
More mouth-coating
Slower dissolving
Astringent
Children didn’t like this texture
Page 24
Product J – descriptive vocabulary
APPEARANCE
Fresh
Overripe – bitty/mushy pieces
SMELL
Key flavour
Syrup
Weak aroma
TASTE
Key flavour
Over-ripe
Sweet
Syrup
MOUTHFEEL
Fizzy tongue – acidic
Children liked this taste
Page 25
Product E, C, B and A – what is wrong with these products?
APPEARANCE
Unpleasant colour
Looks like it has too many bits
TASTE
Unrealistic ‘fruit’ flavours
Sour/bitter taste
TEXTURE
Bits too hard
More likely to be mentioned by children
Page 26
Summary
To maximise child appeal, the client should progress with product J and find other ways to satisfy mums through the concept proposition.
Product M would not have the required product appeal with children to ensure that repeat request rates are healthy.
Avoid products E, C B and A as they do not offer a commercial opportunity in their current form.
Learnings from children’s views on appearance and texture and how they affect liking should be borne in mind for future product development in this area.