Exploring consumer product profiling techniques and their linkage to a quantitative descriptive analysis

Abstract

a b s t r a c tConsumer's voice is crucial for new product development. One way to capture it is to ask consumers to describe products and to quantify their perception of this description. In this context four profiling methods; sorting, projective mapping, flash profile and repertory grid method (RGM) were explored among target consumers of hot beverages in two European countries (UK and France) with the assumption that meaningful sensory descriptors can be generated and quantified, and that product maps can ultimately be drawn. A quantitative descriptive analysis was also performed with a trained panel and its outcomes were used as a basis for comparison. Results showed that consumers were able to describe and quantify product differences, that their perception was similar on a cross-country level, that trained panel maps translated well consumers' description, and that flash profiling and RGM were more suitable for such a task as they generate a rich vocabulary and more accurate maps. However, when describing complex attributes as mouthfeel or afterfeel, the consumers' description was not enough detailed or not consensual.

Performance of Flash Profile and Napping with and without training for describing small sensory differences in a model wine

“…This is also generally consistent with previous studies comparing holistic methodologies and attribute-based methodologies in different products categories. For example, in a study on hot beverages Moussaoui and Varela (2010) found that FP and RGM gained benefit of providing a quantitative product mapping compared to Sorting and Projective…”

“…Assessors are asked to list the sensory characteristics that best describe the differences among the samples and then rank all the samples for each of their individual attribute lists (Dairou & Sieffermann, 2002). FP has already been used for sensory evaluation in many different food product categories, including jams (Dairou & Sieffermann, 2002), dairy products (Delarue & Sieffermann, 2004), hot beverages (Moussaoui & Varela, 2010), lemon iced teas (Veinand et al, 2011), fish nuggets (Albert et al, 2011), and liver pâté (Dehlholm, Brockhoff, Meinert, Aaslyng, & Bredie, 2012). One of the drawbacks of this method is that, since assessors are not imposed on the use of a common vocabulary, the semantic interpretation of FP results can be complex.…”

“…Previous works have been done on this topic by comparing responses from the same assessors to the same sample set in different sessions for the repeatability, or comparing the position of a blind repeated sample on product spaces for accuracy (Ares & Varela, 2014). Several researchers have found that both Napping and FP were repeatable (Dairou & Sieffermann, 2002;Moussaoui & Varela, 2010;Veinand et al, 2011). The FP method has normally been performed in two or three replicates (Dairou & Sieffermann, 2002;Price et al, 2014).…”

Metodologias sensoriais descritivas mais rápidas e versáteis – uma atualidade na ciência sensorial

“…A equipe é frequentemente monitorada com relação ao seu desempenho (concordância, capacidade discriminativa, repetibilidade) e à reprodutibilidade, individual ou do grupo como um todo, durante os treinamentos, com o objetivo de alcançar resultados mais precisos e, portanto, mais confiáveis e consistentes (NBR ISO 11132 ABNT, 2016;MOUSSAOUI;VARELA, 2010).…”

Processing Capability of Maize Varieties Through Free Sorting and CATA Methodologies and Physicochemical Characteristics

“…The change in the stress in relation with the number of dimensions of the configuration was similar for both replicates, indicating a good repeatability in both experiments (Table 3). The good performance of sorting may be related to the set of samples used, since maize has many sensory attributes that interact, leading consumers naturally to use many sensory attributes for the formation of groups and description of samples (Moussaoui & Varela, 2010). According to the configuration structure observed and the distance measured between samples in the first experiment, four groups of varieties can be formed (Figure 1a).…”