Limits...
Consumer Acceptance of Dry Dog Food Variations.

Di Donfrancesco B, Koppel K, Swaney-Stueve M, Chambers E - Animals (Basel) (2014)

Bottom Line: The objectives of this study were to compare the acceptance of different dry dog food products by consumers, determine consumer clusters for acceptance, and identify the characteristics of dog food that drive consumer acceptance.The results indicated that appearance of the sample, especially the color, influenced pet owner's overall liking more than the aroma of the product.Overall liking clusters were not related to income, age, gender, or education, indicating that general consumer demographics do not appear to play a main role in individual consumer acceptance of dog food products.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: The Sensory Analysis Center, Department of Human Nutrition, Ice Hall, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA. briziod@ksu.edu.

ABSTRACT
The objectives of this study were to compare the acceptance of different dry dog food products by consumers, determine consumer clusters for acceptance, and identify the characteristics of dog food that drive consumer acceptance. Eight dry dog food samples available in the US market were evaluated by pet owners. In this study, consumers evaluated overall liking, aroma, and appearance liking of the products. Consumers were also asked to predict their purchase intent, their dog's liking, and cost of the samples. The results indicated that appearance of the sample, especially the color, influenced pet owner's overall liking more than the aroma of the product. Overall liking clusters were not related to income, age, gender, or education, indicating that general consumer demographics do not appear to play a main role in individual consumer acceptance of dog food products.

No MeSH data available.


Cluster 2: purchase intent (1 = definitely would not purchase by consumers, 3 = may or may not purchase, 5 = definitely would purchase), predicted cost (1 = not at all expensive to 5 = very expensive). Different letters within a variable indicate a significant difference among the samples (P < 0.05).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4494379&req=5

animals-04-00313-f002: Cluster 2: purchase intent (1 = definitely would not purchase by consumers, 3 = may or may not purchase, 5 = definitely would purchase), predicted cost (1 = not at all expensive to 5 = very expensive). Different letters within a variable indicate a significant difference among the samples (P < 0.05).

Mentions: Purchase intent and cost prediction within each of the six clusters also was analyzed confirming that for most of the clusters, purchase intent and cost prediction were linked with overall liking. For example in cluster 2 (Figure 2) both purchase intent and cost prediction followed the overall liking scores of the cluster, with sample C and A earning the highest scores and sample D, F, and G the lowest for purchase intent. In Cluster 6 (Figure 3), although there was not a significant difference related to cost prediction among samples, samples were significantly different for purchase intent and showed a trend similar to the overall liking scores of the cluster. This cluster was the only one where sample C was not preferred over the other samples and, thus, it was possible to observe an potential relationship to purchase intent. The other multiple kibble product (sample A) that earned the lowest overall liking score in this cluster, also earned the lowest purchase intent score.


Consumer Acceptance of Dry Dog Food Variations.

Di Donfrancesco B, Koppel K, Swaney-Stueve M, Chambers E - Animals (Basel) (2014)

Cluster 2: purchase intent (1 = definitely would not purchase by consumers, 3 = may or may not purchase, 5 = definitely would purchase), predicted cost (1 = not at all expensive to 5 = very expensive). Different letters within a variable indicate a significant difference among the samples (P < 0.05).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4494379&req=5

animals-04-00313-f002: Cluster 2: purchase intent (1 = definitely would not purchase by consumers, 3 = may or may not purchase, 5 = definitely would purchase), predicted cost (1 = not at all expensive to 5 = very expensive). Different letters within a variable indicate a significant difference among the samples (P < 0.05).
Mentions: Purchase intent and cost prediction within each of the six clusters also was analyzed confirming that for most of the clusters, purchase intent and cost prediction were linked with overall liking. For example in cluster 2 (Figure 2) both purchase intent and cost prediction followed the overall liking scores of the cluster, with sample C and A earning the highest scores and sample D, F, and G the lowest for purchase intent. In Cluster 6 (Figure 3), although there was not a significant difference related to cost prediction among samples, samples were significantly different for purchase intent and showed a trend similar to the overall liking scores of the cluster. This cluster was the only one where sample C was not preferred over the other samples and, thus, it was possible to observe an potential relationship to purchase intent. The other multiple kibble product (sample A) that earned the lowest overall liking score in this cluster, also earned the lowest purchase intent score.

Bottom Line: The objectives of this study were to compare the acceptance of different dry dog food products by consumers, determine consumer clusters for acceptance, and identify the characteristics of dog food that drive consumer acceptance.The results indicated that appearance of the sample, especially the color, influenced pet owner's overall liking more than the aroma of the product.Overall liking clusters were not related to income, age, gender, or education, indicating that general consumer demographics do not appear to play a main role in individual consumer acceptance of dog food products.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: The Sensory Analysis Center, Department of Human Nutrition, Ice Hall, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA. briziod@ksu.edu.

ABSTRACT
The objectives of this study were to compare the acceptance of different dry dog food products by consumers, determine consumer clusters for acceptance, and identify the characteristics of dog food that drive consumer acceptance. Eight dry dog food samples available in the US market were evaluated by pet owners. In this study, consumers evaluated overall liking, aroma, and appearance liking of the products. Consumers were also asked to predict their purchase intent, their dog's liking, and cost of the samples. The results indicated that appearance of the sample, especially the color, influenced pet owner's overall liking more than the aroma of the product. Overall liking clusters were not related to income, age, gender, or education, indicating that general consumer demographics do not appear to play a main role in individual consumer acceptance of dog food products.

No MeSH data available.