Introduction

What is the influence of supplementary information such as the brand or ingredient list and brand designation on consumer perception? The underlying question isto find out if knowing the list ingredients or the brand, modify the consumer product perception.

Data and method

8 smoothies were tested at three sensorial analysis sessions by 24 panelists. The first session was a blinded one, for the second session judges were aware of the smoothie brand and at the third one they were aware of the designation brand (for example “Strawberry-Banana”) and the smoothieingredient list.

The aim is to compare sessions. That is why we realise an HMFA (Hierarchical Multiple Factor Analysis) with the session in higher level of hierarchy.To help to answer the following question: “Is there an influence on the consumer preference when he knows more about the product?” a PCA of product factorial coordinate from the three first HMFA axis was realised with hedonic judgement.

Results

With the HMFA results, we obtain that the first and second dimension are a common factor of the first and third sessions and the third dimension is a specific factor of the second Session.

Figure 1: Representation of the three sessions on the dimensions 1x2 and 1x3 of the HMFA

Axes description

With the descriptors of the categorisation, we have the main descriptors of the three first dimensions resumed in the below table:

DIM 1 / DIM 2 / DIM 3
Positive values / Banana, coco, creamy, sweet, thick / Strawberries, raspberries, thick, chemical taste, tasteless, strange / Thick, creamy, mild, tasteless, banana
Negative values / Exotic, slightly acid, thirst-quenching, mango, passion fruit, bitter / Citrus fruit, fresh, acid / Acid, orange, citrus fruit, mango, passion fruit, liquid

Table 1: Axe representative descriptors

Smoothie analysis

Figure 2: Representation of the smoothies on the dimension 1x2 and 1x3

On the individual graph (cf. figure 2), we obtain that the first dimension matches the information from the categorisation: in the positive side of the first dimension,smoothies with bananaare described as thick and sweet; and in the negative side there are smoothies with berries, described as slightly acid, thirst quenching and fresh. Finally smoothies with the product designation MP are thirst-quenching and slightly acid.

The third dimension globallyopposed smoothies from own brand labelling from smoothies with a quality brand. This separation between brands is interesting. Indeed this dimension is a common factor of the second session where panelists know smoothie brands and we can suppose that it has an influence on panelist judgements.

Hedonic judgments

A PCA per session was realised on non scale product factorial coordinate of the two first dimensions of the HMFA. Hedonic judgments were drawn as illustrative on it in order to observe eventually differences of judgments between the sessions.

On the whole,even if there is different trends, one preferring banana, coco and creamy, one preferring citrus fruit, fresh and acid smoothies, we observe that panelists prefer exotic, acid and thirst-quenching smoothies.

For the second session, we observed a bigger consensus which shows that Immédia_FFM and Immédia_MP were the most appreciated. To a lesser extent Innocent_ABC was also “more” appreciated.As Immedia and Innocent are quality brand rather than Carrefour and Casino, this lead us to wonder if there is an influence of knowing brand or it is because of the second session, which means a better productapproach? Did panelists know that Innocent and Immedia were quality brand?

In the third session trends are similar to the first session. Ingredient lists and product designation were given to panelists, however it seems that they were only influence by the smoothie designation.

Conclusion

The napping categorisations show a product division on texture, taste and flavour. Thus, four groups were obtained: thick, very sweet smoothies with banana and coco flavours; acid smoothies with citrus fruit flavour; exotic, thirst quenching and slightly acid smoothies with mango flavour; tasteless and chemical taste smoothies with berries flavours.

With this analysis panelists judgment seems being influenced by additional product information. Panelist preferences are globally similar at the first and third sessions. For the second session, a brand effect appears withan opposition between own brand labelling and “quality” brand. However panelists mightget a better approach of the smoothies session by session?

1