TEXAS ‘$331>~‘6‘*w.m3“€fgw - nghigflj $f;'<3{,‘,‘, ,9 v ‘f; fiJ-Yixh, ‘ufihlrl '" um m.“ . " 1 ~-",\»->X§‘ 1......" .. m‘ "Hm L‘ 2A .. e “Q; v “g1 1 . ‘$.53 3,21.“ “"“*%*~x¢-‘§¥-,a‘+ws,§* ° ,. v .,1\_"§.\_$w2.v o m *2‘. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS WHAT 1s FOUND i‘ Chicken is the first-choice meat of only 17 percent of the families in Houston.‘ Texas. Most of the families who bought chicken at the chain food stores included in the survey did not consider it their preferred meat. People usually buy chicken because it is preferred or because it is used for variety in the family menu. The lower a family's preference for chicken. the less likely it is to be served in the home, even though it may be a less expensive meat dish. An educational “rebound" apparently exists against chicken. The more educated the housewife. the greater the likelihood that her family will prefer some meat other than chicken. Chicken is the preferred meat only among low-income families. They also serve it more frequently. Negro families have a basic preference for chicken. apart from any influence family income may have. Few families think of chicken in terms of its food value and nutritional advantages. Baked chicken and chicken and dumplings appear to be declining in popularity. Most families that increased chicken purchases during the year did so because the family increased in size or because chicken is now considered more economical than other meat. Chicken is considerably more popular for weekday evening meals or Sunday dinners than it is for special occasion meals. Fifty-seven percent of the families that purchased frozen chicken recently said that they were dissatisfied with it. The major complaint against frozen chicken is that it is tasteless or flavorless. WHAT IS RECOMMENDED Greater promotion of broiler chicken for its food value and nutritional advantages—low calories (low fat content). high protein and high vitamin B. Chicken has more B vitamins than beef and is equal in protein value. Apparently few consumers know it. Promotion of chicken among medium and high-income families to increase its preference rating over other meat. i Greater advertising emphasis on baked chicken and chicken and dumplings as menu items to stimulate a broader consumer use for chicken. This would need to be supported by proved recipes for these dishes. Programs to stimulate greater use of chicken as a noonday meal or lunch box item. More, advertising or promotional material featuring chicken as the meat for special-occasion meals. ' More promotions and advertising built around the pieces of_ chicken preferred by consumers. THE COVER PICTURE The color transparency on the front cover is used through the courtesy of the Poultry and Egg National Board. 8 South Michigan Avenue. Chicago. Illinois. l CREASED COMPETITION among food products ,_ makes consumer marketing research as im- nt to the marketing of food as it is to the L» of television sets, refrigerators, automo- 1 or any other type of consumer goods. Con- ntly, producers, processors and retailers of ry are finding itincreasingly important that ’ know more about why consumers buy or do ;uy their product. his report is designed to answer some of the is” behind consumers’ buying of chicken, ‘h or frozen, and how they use the product. hasis is on an analysis and interpretation of umers’ attitudes toward chicken as a family This necessitates, to some degree, interpre- in of the psychology of consumers. Knowl- of their attitudes was obtained from inter- s with purchasers of chicken in selected l stores in Houston, Texas. fr’ hat are the advantages of chicken in con- ers’ minds? Where does it lack consumer ac- nce, and why? Are consumers misinform- i bout some of the characteristics of chicken? _' they prejudices that are obstacles to in- ‘ ed demand? What are the basic consumer 'vations in buying this meat? What are pos- appeals to increase consumer demand? The j-keting research reported here provides an- s to a number of these and other questions. her studies of consumers’ motivations in the 10f poultry and other meats are now in the _ ning stages. CONSUMER ATTITUDES Several research techniques can be used tode- 1 ine consumers’ attitudes toward a food prod- . One is to ask direct and indirect questions ch will reveal their opinion of the product. ther is to deduce their attitudes from the uses make of it. Both of these techniques were a in this study. Other methods are being de- ’ped for use in additional consumer preference arch. --' y Meat Preferences How does chicken rank as a family meat pref- ce? With the exception of beef, it is the first- 'ce meat of Houston households. A previous ehold survey of 1,000 representative families he city indifcated that 60 percent preferred J and only 17"percent chicken. Veal, the third ‘t preferred meat, was the choice of only 9 per- i 0f the families. Here, as in most marketing pectively, associate professor, Department of Agricul- ‘l Economics and Sociology, and assistant professor, artment of Poultry Science. . flensumer Attitudes and Preferences Regarding fllzieke/e ROBERT. E. BRANSON and GEORGE l. M0llNINEY* research reports, preference means that it is the first choice among the group of products consid- ered. i TABLE 1. MEAT PREFERENCES OF HOUSTON CONSUM- ERS, SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER 1955 Meat preferences Meat Auyamilies Families buying chicken” first preL First Second Third erences‘ preference preference preference — — — — Percent of families — — — — Beef & veal B9 53 27 15 Pork 8 4 12 34 Chicken 17 41 48 1U Fish 2 2 ll 36 Other 4 3 2 5 Total 100 - 100 100 100 ‘Survey among all Houston families during the summer of 1955. 2In selected chain stores. sLess than 1 percent. CONTENTS Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 What Is Found . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 What Is Recommended . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 The Cover Picture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 Consumer Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Family Meat Preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Ideas Associated with Chicken . . . . . . . . 4 Principal Reasons for Buying . . . . . . . . . . 6 Reasons for Not Serving More Often. . . 6 Reasons for Changing Purchases . . . . . . 7 Days and Meals Chicken Is Served. . . . 7 Number of Meals Chicken Is Served. . . . 8 Effect of Preference on Serving Frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Effect of Education on Serving Frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Frequency and Type of Meat Used for Picnics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Attitudes toward Frozen Poultry . . . . . . . . .10 Time Since Latest Purchase . . . . . . . . . .10 Opinions of Buyers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Opinions of Non-buyers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ll Consumer Preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ll Form Preferred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Type Preferred for Various Uses . . . . . . .12 Preferences of Way a Fryer Is Cut. . . . . 12 Pieces Preferred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Preferences for Mixed-parts Packages. .13 Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 ierred meat. _ _ Chicken a °/¢ of families Beef 80* Oil-er lllillilllii . 3 d’) O l - _ . _ - _ - _» Low income Medium income High income families families families (0-$2,999) ($3,000-5,999) ($6,000 8i over) Figure 1. Meat preference, according to iamily income, oi those buying chicken in selected Houston chain stores. Since this survey was conducted only among poultry purchasers contacted in a selected group of chain stores and families most likely t0 be con- tacted were those that bought chicken frequently, their preferences for chicken were higher than that of all Houston families. Forty-one percent of them preferred chicken and 53 percent preferred beef. Even among the majority of the poultry- buying families interviewed, chicken is not the preferred meat. However, it ranks close as a first preference, Table 1. When families were asked which meat was their second preference, chicken ranked far ahead of any other. Pork and fish were the most pop- ular third choices. Family income, through its influence on per- sonal behavior, is related to meat preferences. Chicken is definitely a second choice meat among both high and middle-income families. Only among‘ low-income families is chicken the pre- Similar indications were found in other recent research} Therefore, in most fami- lies, chicken is selected for variety when some- thing besides beef is desired, Figure 1. Two reasons why consumers buy chicken, therefore, become evident immediately. It is either preferred or it is a popular selection for variety in the meat diet. H3ranson, Robert E., “The Consumer Market for Beef,” Bulletin 856. Unskilled ‘:1 Semi-skilled I Clerical I Executive 8i 8 skilled sales 8i service - professional Families preferring Chicken Pork Beef Percent of total Figure 2. Occupational classification oi head oi household in families preierring indicated kinds oi meat. Houston. 4 The occupation of the head of the house largely reflects the socio-economic position of?’ family in the community. Figure 2 views‘ preference for beef, pork and chicken on basis of this classification and provides furt insight regarding the kind of families prefer e poultry. Families of executive, supervisory. professional people generallylprfefer beef. l~ among the semi-skilled or unskilled workers’ f ilies does the preference change to chicken. I apparent then that advertising and promoti, to increase the preferences for chicken need _ directed to the executive, professional and sui, visory group. This should lead to better res at less cost. ’ The survey also indicated that the more - cated housewives are, the more likely chicken i‘ be their second choice meat. This also pos marketing problem because the educational =5 of consumers is likely to continue to rise stea in the years ahead. f p What creates this educational “rebound” a’ from chicken? It may be that beef is considep the “prestige meat” while chicken is thought o’ the “poor man’s delicacy.” Changes in the id’ of the nutritional value of poultry as one beco more educated may be a factor. Further resea already in the planning stages, will be neces, to determine the kind and importance of the tors involved. The survey also indicated that most off Negro families preferred chicken over beef, i, the reverse is true among the white families. < is another important marketing factor. Lower. comes among Negro families is not the cause I some would suppose. Another recent Hou_ survey indicated that preferences for chicken, Negro families were little affected by upw, changes in family income? Social group attit toward particular foods apparently affect t, preferences much stronger than the influeno income. Religious affiliations, which influence thel lection of some foods, had little association y beef and chicken preferences. The possible}, ception was among Jewish families. Howe too few Jewish families were interviewed to i.’ mit reliable conclusions. a i . . p ._ Ideas Associated with Chicken Consumer attitudes toward a product are i. erally revealed by the spontaneous ideas the sociate with it. For this reason, families ' asked to indicate their thoughts when chi was mentioned as a food. Half of the 745 :5 lies thought first of some form in which chi‘ is prepared. Fried chicken was by far the 4 common thought association (39 percent of .' interviewed). Chicken‘ with dumplings it baked chicken and dressing outranked ei 20p. cit. u. roiled or barbecued chicken, particularly as a _ ond thought response. All four of these, how- er, were much lower in thought incidence level an fried chicken, Table 2. Personal reaction to eating chicken was the . rst idea association of about a fifth of the poul- j purchasers. Comments included a “tasty eal,” eating “light and White” meat or eating favorite parts.” Ten percent immediately began _ inking of matters related to meal preparation E “preparing meals with chicken,” and “vege- ybles to go with” or “protein and food value” of I icken. Special occasions—holidays, picnics and rge family dinners—came to the minds of j other 6 percent of the poultry buyers. p An interpretation of these replies shows two hings that are of particular interest. First, either chicken and dumplings nor baked chicken find dressing seems to be very popular today with Louston consumers. This may be because fried hicken is easier to prepare plus the fact that it robably is more photogenic as advertising copy. oo, the art of making dumplings is probably not l. well known as in previous decades. The ques- ‘on arises then as to whether more attention hould be given to these dishes that are points of ‘ABLE 2. THOUGHTS ASSOCIATED WITH MENTION OF ' CKEN AS A FOOD. HOUSTON. SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER 1955 5 . . F ' S d ~ Thought association thotiht thfilogrlht Percent of I — —— respondents — — v 7 'cken dishes: i, Fried chicken 39 20 l, Chicken and dumplings 4 11 p- Baked chicken and dressing 3 10 Broiled chicken 2 6 Barbecue chicken 1 3 f Chicken pie ‘ 1 ; Chicken salad 2 " Chicken soup 1 2 _ Sub-total 50 t 55 A ting chicken: c’ Tasty meal 19 11 111-19111 and white meat ‘ 3 _ Eating favorite parts 2 ‘ y’ Sub-total 21 14 u: eparing meals: "Preparing meals with chicken 5 5 ’ Vegetables that go with chicken 4 11 ‘ Protein and food value of chicken 1 ‘ Sub-total 1o 1s cial occasions: . Holidays — f Picnics 1 2 l Large family dinner 5 6 Sub-total s a cellaneous 13 7 Total 100 100 umber of families in survey sample 745 274 ss than 1 percent. TABLE 3. FOOD VALUES OF SELECTED FORMS OF CHICK- EN AND BEEF PER 50 GRAMS OF EDIBLE PORTION‘ Niacin Thiamine Milli- Micro- grams grams Item Calories Protein Fat Number Grams Grams Chicken. fried 121 14.0 12.4 5.3 41 Beef Round 118 12.9 " 7.1 2 1 10 Sirloin. broiled 149 11.6 11.0 2.4 30 Club steak. broiled 171 11.5 13.3 2.3 30 Chuck roast 155 13.0 11.0 2.0 25 ‘Source: “Food Values of Portions Commonly Used." by Bowes and Church. weakness in the consumer market demand for poultry. It probably deserves more attention in promotional and educational food material copy. This also introduces the interdependence, or cross effects, of advertising policies of other as- sociated foods. It is suspected that the popular- ity of fried chicken is partly the result of adver- tisements of vegetable shortening manufacturers. It certainly appears that fried chicken has been promoted more in advertising copy by these food manufacturers than by either the poultry proces- sors or producers. Fried chicken uses more of their product than other forms of preparing the meat. Therefore, their promotion of fried chick- en has by no means been happenstance. The second indication from consumers’ replies was the almost total lack of association of chicken with its food value. Here poultry producers and processors appear to have missed what may be a very excellent promotional opportunity. Appar- ently consumers’ awareness of the food value of TABLE 4. VARIATIONS. BY FAMILY TYPE. IN IDEA ASSO- CIATIONS WITH CHICKEN. HOUSTON. SEPTEMBER-NO- VEMBER 1955‘ Selected idea associations Number <>_f_ Baked Chicken 11111111195 Fried Tasty chicken and 111 chicken meal and dump- Type of family surveY dressing lings — — Percent of families — — Family income: High ($6.000 and over) 151 58 7 3 5 Medium ($3.000-$5.999) 413 39 22 4 3 ow (0-$2.999) 157 27 28 4 7 Education of housewife: College 163 47 13 2 6 High school 278 ,47 18 4 4 Grade school 241 30 24 4 4 Age of housewife: Under 40 420 47 16 4 3 40-59 236 34 21 4 5 60 and over 70 19 36 9 Race: White ' 508 42 18 4 5 Negro 201 37 22 4 4 ‘Poultry buyers in selected chain stores. % of families Sfiwldrwso“ ' econ reason ~ 60 50 4O 3O Good flavor 8 Economical E Healthy toad Easy la prepare family enjoys little waste 'Iean, easy to 8 various methods digest at preparing Figure 3. Maior reasons for buying chicken. families making purchases in selected Houston chain stores. October-Novem- ber 1955. this product has been taken for granted—a very dangerous assumption for the poultry industry to accept. Emphasis on the B vitamins in properly bal- anced diets (and in promoting vitamin supple- ments) has been capitalized upon by producers of several foods. Also the C vitamin has been used to great advantage in encouraging consumer use of citrus fruits. Accepted food composition tables reveal that niacin and thiamine (two of the major B vitamins) rank higher in chicken than in most beef cuts?’ 4 Probably few consum- ers are aware of this. Consumers also need to know that a pound of meat from a broiler size chicken contains fewer calories than a pound of beef, but is equal in pro- tein plus the higher B vitamin content mention- ed above, Table 3. “Weight conscious” consum- ers are readily interested in such facts. Why not take advantage of this interest and need? ~3~“Composition of Foods,” Agricultural Handbook No. 8, U.S.D.A., Washington, D.C., 1954, and “Food Values of Portions Commonly Used,” Bowes and Church, Seventh Edition, Philadelphia, Pa., 1951. , 4The exception possibly is beef liver. Gel tired of chicken Prefer variety of meals Prefer other meals Already serve frequently Too expensive Other Don't know or no reply l I I l T I , IO 2O 30 4O 5O % of families Figure 4. ‘ Reasons for not serving chicken more frequently. 6 Some of the variation in ideas about chi according to type of family are shown in Tab_ As anticipated, mention of chicken and dump ' as a dish drops sharply among the younger ho wives. Therefore, greater promotion of this t‘ may be beneficial. Tasty meals are associ with chicken more frequently by low-income t by middle or high-income families. The re, is not known, but probably is related to di ences in meat preferences. e Principal Reasons for Buying Further information about consumers’ = tudes toward chicken and their implications revealed in answer to the question: “What your main reasons for buying chicken?” fell into four groups: flavor, economy, health f versatility in meal preparation. Flavor pred inates among the first and second reasons gi for buying chicken. Its economy as a food was the second most frequently mentioned m, vation in making purchases, Figure 3. ' » The thought of chicken as a nutritious f was mentioned in reasons for buying more of than in the previously discussed question deal with “free-idea” associations. Even so, it ran a low third as either a first or second factor a fluencing consumers’ decisions to buy chicken.‘ lack of knowledge, or a generally disintere, and passive attitude toward the food value*‘ chicken, was thereby confirmed by replies to i question. Consumers apparently consider ch en a good food, but no more so than any 0th? Consequently, among the Houston families in i viewed, very little consideration is given to _ nutritious and healthful qualities. .- The above findings indicate strongly the :_ for an educational program that will increase consumer demand for chicken based on its f‘ ticular food value properties of high protein, h' vitamin B source and lower calorie value t“ other major meats. If a higher calorie counfi wanted, it can be had by buying hens instead broilers, because hens generally are fatter a therefore, have more calories. i" Reasons ior Not Serving More Often Regardless of the resources that might be - voted toward increasing the consumer demi for chicken, some consumers will not be l‘ suaded to buy it. Can the extent of resista, be predetermined? Some idea of the resista that may be encountered is indicated in Figur Apparently40 percent of the poultry buy checked in the Houston stores surveyed had i particular reason for not buying more poult‘ Expansion of consumption among these famil, appears possible. The remaining 60 percent, ho, ever, present varying degrees of resistance. I atively stiff resistance may come from those ing “do not want to tire of chicken,” “too exp sive” or “already serve it frequently.” ~ _ 5. REASONS FOR INCREASING OR DECREASING i TRY PURCHASES DURING PAST YEAR, POULTRY TOMERS OF SELECTED CHAIN STORES, HOUSTON, f‘ SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER 1955 Purchases Reason Increased Decreased f — Percent of families — ge in size of family l2 39 ,- y eats more chicken 24 > economical 34 ken on diet ‘ll "fer to serve 6 f more variety in meals 22 “e less money to spend on chicken 9 gi e less time to cook A 9 h’! eat chicken in summer 6 ~ ken quality has decreased 6 = l3 9 Total 100 100 er of families 217 46 _ ent of number in sample 29 6 However, statements such as “preference for 3 er meats” and the like, imply an attitude that *- be subject to influence by new types of edu- p, ional and promotional programs. Chicken was considered too expensive by ly about 11 percent of the low-income families ‘i to $2,999 per year) and 6 percent of those with ,ium incomes ($3,000 to $5,999). Therefore, ’th the exception of a few families, the cost of 'cken in Houston now is not an obstacle to ;ter use. Iasons for Changing Purchases Consumers’ motivations in buying poultry a ‘o are revealed by their reasons for increasing decreasing purchases over the previous year. _o-thirds of the poultry buyers interviewed re- rted no change during the year in their buying te for chicken. Twenty-nine percent increased ieir purchases; only 6 percent reported de- ises, Table 5. - . Growth of the family in numbers or in the es of the children motivated a third of those king increased purchases. This usually meant ore children to feed or the children were reach- g tliie age when their food consumption in- ase . Another third of the families who increased tying did so because poultry was more econom- l-at least, in relation to other food prices. Six ‘ cent said it was because chicken is easy to e. In these replies nothing seems capable of ‘erpretation as a basic change in consumers’ itudes toward poultry except “easier to serve.” is point is another. that also can be stressed ad- intageously in promotional material. _ In the small proportion of the households ere housewives reported that poultry pur- wses declined, either a reduction in family size t the desire to use a greater variety of foods s the principal cause, Table 5. Days and Meals Chicken Is Served As noted earlier, family uses of chicken can in themselves reveal attitudes toward this food. It is found most frequently on the family table for Sunday dinner or weekday evening meals, Figure 5. Very few families reported using chicken in any form as a part of noon meals dur- ing the week. When it comes to special occasion meals, about as many families use chicken fre- quently as do not. A better understanding of the use of chick- ens can be had by looking more closely at the re- plies received. Although chicken is a popular Sunday dinner item, a third of the families use it infrequently for this purpose. I Likewise, about a third of the families serve chicken infrequently during the week at evening meals. Therefore, a considerable portion of the consumers are not using chicken very frequently for these meals. To obtain increased consumption of chicken among these families is the marketing challenge that faces the poultry industry. The extremely flow frequency with which chicken is served at noon meals also needs investi- gation. difficult to stimulate because most families do not eat together at this meal. Either chicken salad sandwiches or cold fried chicken, no doubt, could be a common part of lunches at home or on the job. Eating practices of families at their noon meals probably need further marketing research by the poultry industry. An analysis of the type of families using chicken at noon meals reveals some interesting variations. Only 1 in 25 high-income families have chicken frequently at these meals, compared with 1 in 5 of the low-income families. Conse- quently, there is perhaps a greater possibility of increasing consumption at noon meals among high-income families. Seventy-five percent of the high-income households and 50 percent or more of the middle and low-income families interviewed reported no use of chicken in any form at the weekday noon meal. % of families 80- Frequent Infrequent 7o_ Never 60- 50- 40* Sunday Weekday Weekday _ Special dinner noon evening occasion Figure 5. Frequency with which families serve chicken at various meals. Increased use there, however, may be. TABLE 6. PROPORTION OF FAMILIES, BY AGE OF HOUSE- WIFE. SERVING CHICKEN FREQUENTLY AT SELECTED TYPES OF MEALS Number Meal Age °_i P! far?‘ Sun- Week- Week- Special housewiie ilies in day day day °c¢a_ sulveY dinner noon evening sions '— — Percent of families — — Under 40 431 64 11 69 46 40-59 240 72 10 68 58 6O and over 73 78 38 64 41 The highest frequency of using chicken at noon meals Was among families Where the house- wife was 60 years of age or older. Among them, a third used chicken frequently as part of their lunch menus, Table 6. Chicken is least likely to be part of midday meals of executive, supervisory or professional- worker families. Its use was most frequent, about 1 family in 5, among families of clerical or serv- ice employees. Percentage having Number of Type of family chicken frequently at families in weekday noon meals the sample Executive, " “supervisory or professional 7 198 Skilled or unskilled 10 157 Clerical or service 20 64 The noon meal, one must conclude, is defi- nitely the weakest from the viewpoint of demand for chicken. Since consumers interviewed in the survey were contacted at the food store, those using chicken most frequently would be most likely to be contacted. Therefore, the figures cited in this report are likely to overstate the frequency of use of chicken rather than to understate it. This "makes the lOW frequency of some of the uses even more alarming from the viewpoint of the poul- try industry. Some other interestingland, in this case, per- plexing differences also Were found 1n the type of meal where chicken is served. High-income families ($6,000 or more per year) who buy chickens, are more likely to serve them at special °/¢ 0f fdmilies Income: Low ' . rm 70- 60— 50.. 40- 30- 20- lO-— O Sunday Weekday Weekday Special dinner noon evening occasion Figure 6. Proportion of families. in_ different income groups. serving chicken frequently at the indicated meals. 8 TABLE 7. NUMBER OF MEALS CHICKEN IS SER ACCORDING TO INCOME OF THE FAMILY. PO i BUYERS IN SELECTED STORES. HOUSTON, SEPTE lb NOVEMBER 1955 Family annual income Number of Meals Low Medium Hi ' _-._. $5.999) 6- o Y. — — — Perceiit of Families — - 1 per month 1 2 per month 4 6 3 per month 2 2 1 per week 24 43 2 per week 47 34 3 per week l3 12 4 per week 9 2 Total 100 100 Number of families 165 424 occasion meals than are low-income families. L0‘, income families—unable to afford beef freque I ly—may consider beef a prestige meat and, the - fore, more suitable for serving on these 0c” sions. Inability to afford beef also may bet reason low-income families (less than $3,000 i; year) are more likely to serve chicken for Sundi dinners, Figure 6. Reasons behind these co’ sumption patterns need to be determined in f ' ture research. " Number oi Meals Chicken Is Served Although there appear to be opportunities i expand the market demand for chickens, the f0 lowing facts indicate that expansion will not 1 achieved easily. Three-fourths of the poult buyers interviewed already served chicken at o to two meals per Week. Another seventh we,‘ having chicken three or four times per Wee Only a tenth of the families reported havi chicken less than once a week. The 1 in 10 families having chicken less tha once a week cannot be considered a large mark potential with which to work. Not consider however, are those who buy no chicken at all. Co’ sumers not using chicken had no opportunity be contacted at the poultry display in the However, the percentage not using chicken i, probably small. ’ It is evident then that the poultry indust if must look, for the most part, toward increasin the consumption of chicken among families no, serving it only once a week. This group, togeth A with those using chicken only a few times j month, accounts for about half of the prese poultry buyers. Any promotion program, ob j! ously, must be directed primarily toward the‘ consumers. l’ The decline in the proportion of famili from the low to the high-income group, who chicken twice a Week, is shown in Table 7. Thi further emphasizes the need to concentrate an promotion campaign among the middle and hig income families. . '~ ,4 8. EFFECT OF PREFERENCE FOR CHICKEN ON _ER OF MEALS IT IS SERVED ACCORDING TO IN- j I CLASS, HOUSTON, SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER 1955 Family income and preference for chicken 3 er J Low-income Medium-income High-income ‘ als l families families families First Second First Second First Second ;_. — — — — — Percent of families — — — — — s_ _r week 24 28 28 _36 44 66 ~ week 45 47 40 54 41 19 _ r week 16 l0 21 3 6 4 a week l3 7 6 3 l‘ er of v 'lies 87 58 180 311 32 100 , _ct of Preference on Serving Frequency f The question arises often as to the degree of Auence a person’s preferences actually have 0n f buying behavior. If the preference for chick- lean be increased, will it have any effect on the sumption 0f this product? Table 8 provides I indication of the effect of a preference for __\ ken on the meat bought by consumers inter- wed in Houston. The actions of families are lyzed to determine the effect of family in- _ e. If first preference figures only are com- “ed, differences associated with income are ap- l ent readily. ’ Whether chicken is a first or a second pref- nce meat has less effect on the number of “ls it is served in low-income families than it s in medium or high-income families. Gener- y speaking, however, when chicken is a second Tference meat, it is served at fewer meals. This ‘perlines the influence and advantage of in- a sing the preference position of chicken among ilies now favoring other meats. It also points ain to the fact that the potential for increased ‘ sumption appears greater among medium and h-income families than among those with 10W omes. ' Analysis also was made of the frequency of ' ing chicken by families who have it as their ':_rd choice meat. In most instances the serving "uency was reduced further. Therefore, con- »: ers’ replies consistently showed that when eference for chicken is lowered, so is the fre- ency with which it is served. sect of the Education on rving Frequency Apparently there is an “educational rebound” ainst chicken. The evidence develops when com- b isons are made between the number of meals icken is served in relation to the educational , kground of the housewives. To eliminate the uence of differences in family income, only ose with medium incomes were compared in 3.: 7. Only 6 percent of the families with a de-school-educated homemaker serve chicken i: than once a week, compared with 16 percent ere the homemaker is college-educated. Also, more of the college-educated housewives serve chicken just once a week rather than twice. In this and other instances conclusions are not stat- ed unless accepted statistical tests indicate, with a very high degree of certainty, that a true dif- ference exists among the population as a whole. Therefore, allowances have been made for sam- pling errors. Better-educated housewives probably are more aggressive in preparing a variety of meat dishes in their menus. Consequently, they may feel less need to use chicken frequently. How- ever,a wide variety of dishes can be prepared us- ing chicken. Only by additional research will we learn more about why chicken is rejected by the better-educated housewife. Tables presenting the findings among low and high-income families are not included, but the same general situation was present. There- fore, the indication was consistent throughout the 745 families interviewed. Several other factors possibly associated with the number of meals chicken is served also were considered. No clear-cut pattern was found ex- cept that the age of the housewife seemed to have some influence. When the housewife reaches the 40-to-60 range, there is a greater tendency to in- crease or decrease the use of chicken than with housewives under 40 years of age. This same tendency continues as they attain the age of 60 and above. At present we do not know the rea- son for this shift to more or less use of chicken. It may be that more standard cooking habits evolve as the homemaker grows older. This change, however, may simply reflect a difference in the ideas and methods of meal preparation to which the young, middle-aged and older house- wives have been exposed. Although the Jewish families interviewed ap- peared to be low in their preference for chicken, it was learned that they serve chicken more fre- quently than most families of other religious faiths. However, when the number of families of a particular type interviewed is small, as it was for Jewish families, it is not possible to draw final conclusions. Mexican families, too, serve chicken more often than most other families. Again, the sample of Mexican families in the 7' °l lumm" Grade school _ 6 High school COHGQI Loss than | per 2 per 3-4 Der once o week week week week Figure 7. Education of the housewife and number of meals chicken is served during the week. medium-income families. i9 study was small, so this is only a tentative find- ing. The analysis of the number of meals chicken is served again confirmed the indications that executive, supervisory and professional-worker families have chicken less frequently than those of skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled workers. Chicken was reported served twice a week by a much larger proportion of the latter families. Frequency and Types of Meat Used for Picnics Climatic conditions in Houston are conducive to picnicing. Since it is situated near the Gulf Coast, the weather during the winter is compara- tively mild. Consequently, picnicingcan be en- joyed almost the year round. In spite of these favorable conditions, the proportion of families having picnics it not large, judging from the replies of the poultry customers interviewed. A little over a third of the families said they never have picnics. Another two-fifths have a picnic only one to four times during the year. Therefore, for three-fourths of the fam- ilies interviewed, picnics are infrequent or non- existent. The remaining fourth of the families have picnics from one time per month to as fre- quently as once or twice a week. Some families reported that they have picnics only during the summer. Apparently, it can be concluded that only about 10 percent of the poultry-buying families in Houston have frequent picnics. Such a small proportion may indicate that no special attention to picnicing is warranted in a program to increase poultry consumption. Maybe the idea of family picnics needs more promotion. Chicken already is a family picnic favorite. Seventy-five percent of the picnicing families serve chicken at half or more of these occasions. Another fifth reported having chicken at a third to a half of their pic- n1cs. ATTITUDES TOWARD FROZEN POULTRY Since the marketing of frozen chicken and other poultry began comparatively recently, con- sumers were asked whether they bought it in this form and their opinions of it. Because it was thought consumers’ attitudes might vary accord- ing to the recency with which frozen poultry had been purchased, the time of their latest purchase was obtained. Time Since Latest Purchase About 3O percent of the families reported they had bought frozen whole chickens. Two- thirds of these had made a purchase within the past 16 weeks. Twenty-six percent of the fam- ilies had purchased frozen chicken parts, and most of these were made within the past 16 weeks. 10 Housewives were not asked how freque they purchased the various forms of frozen ch’ en; but, in view of the large percentage bu and the relatively small volume sold, it is li, that the purchase frequency is small. Only a " 10 percent of the consumers purchased a chicken within the 4 weeks preceding the in. view, which also indicates a low/purchase rat- , . About one family in seven had boughtf zen parts within the preceding 4 weeks. was a somewhat greater purchase frequency i parts than for frozen whole chickens. The c‘ tistical possibilities of sampling variations, i, ever, prevent a firm conclusion that frozen p A were bought more frequently than frozen wh chicken. - Opinions of Buyers Those buying frozen whole chicken were m inclined to have an unfavorable rather than favorable opinion of the product. Fifty-seven w; cent of those interviewed had unfavorable c, ments, Table 9. The most frequent reply Q that it was tasteless. Other important comme: were that the quality was bad, it lacked freshn or it was troublesome to thaw. Some gave v particular reason, but merely indicated that t , preferred fresh chicken. Only 1 percent of the families buying in cated they thought frozen chicken was too pensive. However, this cannot be interpreted a true measure of the extent to which consum are aware of the greater expense of frozen chi en. On a food item of this type, consumers as more inclined to indicate the bad points with _ spect to quality rather than the price unless t are questioned directly about it. i When 57 percent of the recent purchasers :5 dissatisfied with a product, as is the case frozen whole chicken, a major consumer acce TABLE 9. OPINIONS OF FROZEN CHICKEN FROM ‘i’ WHO HAVE PURCHASED. HOUSTON, SEPTEMBER- ' VEMBER 1955 p o . . Frozen whole Frozen chick; pmmns chickens parts , — — Percent of families —i, Favorable: l " Prefer frozen 43 55 ' " Other - 2 Sub-total 43 57 /, Unfavorable: Tasteless 29 l6 Prefer fresh 8 4 Bad quality 8 7 Lacks freshness 5 2 Troublesome to thaw 5 3 Too expensive 1 5 Other l 6 Sub-total ‘ s1 4s Total 100 100 Number of families 242 188. - problem exists. As indicated earlier, a de- ed survey among frozen poultry buyers will 1 ecessary to learn more about the problems of keting chicken in this form. However, from T-present findings, it seems that many families _; hasing frozen chicken do so only for special or because the fresh chicken available at the he is unsuitable. 1 The 43 percent of the buyers who made favor- j comments regarding frozen chicken simply » they preferred to buy chicken this way. Ad- 'nal research should seek the reasons for this erence. I Comments regarding frozen chicken parts e similar to those for frozen whole chickens. y-three percent of those who bought were not v icularly satisfied with frozen parts. “Taste- ”’ again was the most frequently mentioned avorable reaction. “Bad quality” and “too ex- sive” also were reported by consumers. It is 1 surprising that “too expensive” was more auently mentioned for chicken parts; the ice parts of the chicken naturally are priced ch higher per pound than is a whole chicken. The medium and high-income families have * ater preference for frozen chicken parts than low-income group. Inability of low-income ” ilies to afford them is probably a factor. And, §is usual for frozen foods, a more favorable re- ' 'on was found among the younger housewives. ‘man resistance to change seems to increase as " becomes older and causes a rebellion against _w fangled” products. ions of Non-buyers When two-thirds of the families do not buy roduct, it is important to know why. “Prefer "u: chicken” was the most important single re- . It was followed closely by “tasteless,” and a lesser extent by “lacks freshness” and “too nsive.” Reasons for not buying frozen parts e largely the same. However, a number men- fl that they prefer whole chickens rather n parts. About a fifth of the families who "not purchased whole frozen chicken or parts Ae no reason for not buying. These families, bably, have never had any inducement to try “ product. , Things not said seem more important than fments made about frozen chicken. Indica- i s are that most consumers see no advantage {frozen chicken. It is just another substitute duct, more or less on a par with fresh chick- ,.but involving extra care in use and prepara- p . Many consider it an inferior product. Con- , ers, obviously; are more aware of the disad- tages than "the inherent advantages of the uct. Frozen chicken does possess several ad- ‘ tages over fresh chicken, assuming it receives per care in processing, distribution and in stor- ‘ at the retail store. Such advantages need to stressed by consumer education and advertis- ing programs, if the industry desires to expand the market for frozen chicken. CONSUMER PREFERENCES Consumers were quizzed concerning the form of poultry preferred for home use during warm weather, which includes at least half of the year in Houston, and during periods ofcold or cool weather. Such information was sought because it gives some insight as to poultry dishes pre- pared by Houston families and whether they vary seasonally. The type of chicken preferred for the principal types of chicken dishes was also de- termined. Chickens may be purchased either live, whole-dressed, whole cut-up or as chicken parts. Form Preferred Consumer preferences as to fried, baked, broiled, stewed or barbecued chicken indicate that fried chicken is liked the most. This also was in- dicated in the “idea association” question dis- cussed earlier. Houston families were asked what propor- tion of the chicken served in the home was in each of the five forms mentioned above. This made it possible to determine the most popular forms and how much variation existed in methods of home preparation. Replies revealed there is considerable varia- tion in uses of chicken. As was expected, during warm weather, most of the families used fried chicken. For a third of the families fried chicken accounted for three-fourths or more of this meat served at home during warm weather. In another 23 percent, fried chicken represented one-half to three-fourths of their servings of this meat. Nonetheless, baked, broiled, stewed or barbecued chicken.was occasionally served by a rather‘ sub- stantial proportion of the families during warm weather, Table 10. In cold weather, approximately the same uses are made of chicken as during warm weather, ex- cept that fried chicken is somewhat less popular. Baking and stewing of chicken increases. The proportion of the time chickens are broiled re- mains almost unchanged from one season to the other. Barbecuing declines somewhat during cold weather, although the winters are comparatively mild in the Houston area. High-income families reduce more the serv- ing of fried chicken during cold weather than do _ the other two income groups. Fried chicken is not used as extensively by homemakers 60 or more years of age. It is not uncommon for elderly individuals to say that fried foods no longer agree with them. Consequently, they are more inclined to stew chickens. Outdoor barbecuing of chicken at home has increased in popularity during recent years. It is somewhat more popular among the high-income ll TABLE 10. FORM OF CHICKEN PREFERRED IN HOT AND COLD WEATHER. HOUSTON, SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER l, Hot weather Cold weather F01’!!! Of Percent of total chickens used chicken Less than Less than { 25% 25-49 50-75 76-100 25% 25-49 50-75 76-1 — — — — — — — — — — Percent of families — — — — — — — — — I Frying 12 25 2s a2 22 so 21 Baking as s 1 4s 2 ' " s Broiling 22 8 4 23 8 3 Stewing 37 7 2 l 4O 14 2 Barbecuing 24 9 2 l l9 l ' ‘Families buying poultry in selected chain stores. families, but an appreciable number of medium and low-income families also are indulging in this new method 0f “dining out.” It is also more pop- ular among the younger and middle-aged home- makers. Hamburger and expensive steak cuts also are used widely for outdoor barbecuing. Therefore, chicken has a considerable competition from these meats for outside barbecuing. Type Preferred for Various Uses Since most chickens are bought for frying, what type is desired for this purpose? In Hous- ton, preferences were about equally divided be- tween whole dressed and whole cut-up birds. Not to be overlooked, however, is the fact that house- wives frequently buy whole chickens, but have them cut up before taking them home. As would be expected, whole-dressed chickens are preferred almost exclusively for baking or broiling. Few families use whole cut-up chicken for this pur- pose. If the chicken is to be stewed, whole-dressed birds are preferred by slightly more families’ than are the cut-up. Whole-dressed chickens are the choice for barbecuing. Despite the fact that about a third of the housewives bought frozen chicken within the pre- ceding 3 months, few indicated a preference for frozen chicken for either frying, baking, broiling, stewing or barbecuing. This supports the con- clusion previously drawn that housewives buy frozen chicken mostly for convenience or because the fresh birds in the store do not measure up to expectations. It points again to the lack of any advantage for frozen chicken in most consumers’ minds. » Less than 3 percent of the families inter- viewed preferred to buy live chickens. Marketing of live birds, as a result, almost has become a method of the past. Selling whole cut-up chickens became wide- spread only after World War II. There are often differences in acceptance of a new method by housewives of different ages. Replies showed that housewives less than 40 years of age are more likely to buy whole cut-up chickens to fry than are others. To a less extent, the same dif- ference prevails in the type of chicken bought for ' stewing. 12 It was noted that the higher-income famili and those with college-educated housewives, l, fer whole cut-up chicken for frying purpo Stores in Negro neighborhoods, however, find that the preference is for whole-dres chickens. ~i The sale of whole cut-up chickens, therefo . is supported mostly by its convenience for f p, mg. Preferences of Way a Fryer is Cut Several methods can be used to prepare i». cut-up chicken for retailing. One is to split ». bird down the back and separate the two sid , Another is to cut the bird so that the back is; separate piece. Almost 60 percent of the hou wives interviewed preferred cut-up chickens t w were split down the back. Another fourth we’ not in favor of this method. The others had i" particular preference. The method preferred H. not vary by the age or education of the ho makers. Reasons for preferring one or the oth method of cutting were not obtained. 1 Pieces Preferred Consumer preferences for different pieces v chicken can be important for several reasons. ,_ the first place, they may have considerable l fluence on the way the chicken is cut up. a ondly, since individual chicken parts are pac aged and sold in retail stores, the popularity , each piece is of considerable importance in me { chandising and pricing. Thirdly, one possibili». of promoting increased demand for chicken is f emphasize in advertising the individual “pa that consumers prefer. ~ This latter approach been used little, if any, so far. Since the v. way to sell a product is to point out its appealii characteristics, this suggestion appears to ha‘ considerable merit. * s Breasts, drumsticks and thighs are the u; popular pieces of chicken, Table 11. The bred is most preferred. Drumsticks rank ahead i thighs. The wings and backs are important ‘ second, third and fourth preferences. The pull or wish bone ranks low, probably because Wi today’s cutting methods it seldom appears as separate piece of chicken. Answers as to pref PIECES OF CHICKEN PREFERRED. HOUSTON. SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER 1955 ' Preferences First Second Third l Fourth . i — —- — Percent of families — — — ast as 1s 1s 5 mstick 24 26 18 4 fégh 19 32 17 4 _ 6 8 I 9 5 .411: 5 6 7 5 if» ard 2 1 2 1 v er & heart 1 1 2 1 ;ey bone 1 1 1 1 AI cellaneous 6 l 1 2 g answer 8 27 72 A b Total 100 100 100 100 oi families 744 744 744 744 fees were voluntary statements of the indivi- "a1. Had the parts been named in the inter- ews, it is possible that the pulley bone would ‘ve been selected more often. . H The order of consumer preferences is in ac- f d with store sales records. However, most ilies seem to prefer the whole chicken. They the bonier parts rather than pay higher prices l; only the meatier pieces. (‘v gin‘ J ‘families. As family income increases, there also is an increase in the preference for chicken breasts and a corresponding decline in preference for bony parts. For example, almost half of the high-in- come families preferred the breast of chicken as compared with only about a third of the medium- income families and a fourth of the low-income Primarily, for this reason, the more expensive chicken parts sell better in high-income areas than in the low-income areas. The higher prices asked for such pieces are of less conse- quence to these families. Preferences for Mixed-parts Packages A market test of a mixed package of chicken parts was conducted in a group of’ Houston chain stores as a part of the market research project. Two sizes of packages were used. One was a combination of two breasts, two drumsticks and two thighs. The smaller package was a combi- nation of single pieces». Sales of these packages were low, indicating an insufficient demand. Most families reported enough variety in the chicken pieces preferred by family members to make it more suitable to buy whole chickens rather than pay higher prices for select pieces. __ A The mixed-parts packages were priced enough higher in relation to the value of the other parts to reflect the value of a whole chicken. Previous pricing experiences of the participating stores for individual parts were available as a guide. 13 APPENDIX The survey was made among poultry-pur- chasing families contacted at 12 large chain food stores in Houston. The stores were well distrib- uted geographically in the city. Therefore, all types of income areas were represented. During the survey, interviewers were placed in each of the stores on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays. However, interviewers were in each store only at specified hours. The hours varied from day to day and week to week to provide a random sampling of the stores operating hours. The hours sample was designed to include during the survey all shopping periods except 12:30 to 3:00 p m., 5 :00 to 7:00 p. m. and after 8:30 p. m. These times omitted often represent low customer patronage hours. Subsequent research in another city has indicated less variation in customer count during the week-end shopping days than origi- nally was supposed. ' The store interviews were continued for 6 weeks. The proportion of all poultry customers contacted in each store is not known, but appar- ently it was at least 80 percent. Field staff mem- bers reported a high incidence of repeat contacts during the last weeks of the survey. This indi- cated relatively complete coverage of the poultry customers of the 12 stores. The indicated fre- quency with which poultry was bought by the Houston families interviewed also confirms this conclusion. Fewer than 3 percent of the families made a purchase less often than once a month. Ninety-six percent of the families buying at the 12 stores purchased poultry every 2 weeks or of- tener. p Since it is impractical to conduct a very long interview in a food store, only the name, address 14 and telephone number of the customers and _ mission to interview them in their homes * obtained at the store. Home interviews made on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays ing the first 6 weeks with Thursdays, Fri‘ and Saturdays in the stores. After that, f0 up home interviews were made throughout? week until all the families contacted had s visited. The housewife was interviewed except i“ stances of single persons or widovvers living ‘ single household. ‘ Field interviewers were personnel ex i enced in interviewing procedures and met‘ All attended a briefing and training session’: were required to take trial interviews befo survey began. Interviews were checked y authenticity by a system of random selection vided to the field supervisor. " Telephone interviews were made among‘ _ the families with telephone service as a w‘ this technique. No significant differences g found between answers by this and the hom terview method. In conjunction with the store contact i views, a special display of mixed chicken f was featured in each of the 12stores. The" pose was to determine interest in buying m’, parts packages. Packages varied as to size, contained only the meatier parts of the chick breast, thighs and drumsticks. Prices of t packages were in line with those of whole c f chicken considering that the package conta only the meatier parts. c: [Blank Page in Original Bulletin] State-wide Research p‘, an‘: “l: "k Location oi field research units oi the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and cooperating agencies ORGANIZATION OPERATION, Research results are carried to Texas farmers, ranchmen and homemakers by county agents and specialists of the Texas Agricultural Ex- tension Service IN THE MAIN STATION, with headquarters at College Station, are 16 sub. matter departments, 2 service departments, 3 regulatory services and-i administrative staff. Located out in the major agricultural areas of Te :_~ 21 substations and 9 field laboratories. In addition, there are 14 cooper’ stations owned by other agencies. Cooperating agencies include the T Forest Service, Game and Fish Commission of Texas, Texas Prison Sy‘ U. S. Department of Agriculture, University of Texas, Texas Technol" College, Texas,‘ College of Arts and Industries and the King Ranch. experiments ate conducted on farms and ranches and in rural homes; THE TEXAS STATION is conducting about 400 active research projects, gr in 25 programs, which include all phases of agriculture in Texas. s w, these are: Conservation and improvement of soil Beef cattle Conservation and use of water Dairy cattle Grasses and legumes Sheep and goats Grain crops Swine Cotton and other fiber crops Chickens and turkeys y Vegetable crops Animal diseases and parasites i Citrus and other subtropical fruits Fish and game > Fruits and nuts Farm and ranch engineering Oil seed crops Farm and ranch business Ornamental plants Brush and weeds Insects Rural home economics Rural agricultural economics Plant diseases a ' Two additional programs are maintenance and upkeep, and central se AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH seeks the WHATS. the I WHYS. the WHENS, the WHERES and the HOWS oi hundreds oi problems which confront operators oi iarrns and ranches. and the many industries depending on a or serving agriculture. Workers oi the Main Station _ and the field units oi the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station seek diligently to find solutions to these problems. A * JOJLI? ,5 WQdQLZPCA ~95 jOITLOFFOll/Q pfOgfééifi The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station is the public agricultural research agency I oi the State oi Texas. and is one oi ten ‘I parts oi the Texas AdM College System Marketing agricultural produ