Identification and characterization of fluid milk consumer groups

Abstract

Consumption of fluid milk has steadily declined over the last few decades. Understanding the attributes of fluid milk products that are attractive to specific consumer groups may provide a sound basis for education and marketing to encourage increased dairy consumption and reverse the downward trend. The objective of this study was to identify the attributes of fluid milk that specific consumer groups find attractive and attributes that suggest a higher purchase likelihood. An adaptive choice-based conjoint (ACBC) survey was designed to assess attributes of fluid milk. The ACBC survey included Kano, importance, labeling identification, and beliefs questions to determine the key attributes that dictated consumer purchase and consumption. Self-reported purchase habits and attitudes for organic food products were also collected. Attributes in the ACBC exercise included fat content, package type, shelf life, and label claims. Maximum difference scaling was used to rank the importance of attributes in fluid milk that affected purchase. Maximum difference scaling was also used to rank qualities and issues associated with organic milk that were most motivating for those who identified as organic milk consumers. Results were analyzed by univariate and multivariate statistics. A total of 1,163 fluid milk consumers completed the survey, and of those, 434 were regular purchasers of organic milk. The ideal fluid milk from conjoint analysis was 2% milkfat, organic, packaged in a plastic jug, conventionally pasteurized, and contained no additives or label claims. The belief that "organic milk is healthier" was the most important motivator for purchases of organic milk, followed by the beliefs that "organic milk production encourages ethical treatment of animals" and "organic milk production supports local farms and farmers." Conjoint importance scores of all fluid milk consumers showed that milkfat content was the most important attribute, followed by flavor, package size, and price. For all milk consumers, designation as organic was ranked as the 8th most important of 14 attributes. Evaluation of these results on both aggregate and individual levels suggest that fluid milk consumers are not a homogeneous consumer group and that underlying consumer groups are led to purchase decisions by specific product features or expectations.

Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Imported Milk: Based on Shanghai, China

“…The coefficient of the skim attribute was positive and statistically significant at the 1% level, indicating that consumers prefer skim imported milk to whole imported milk. Chapman and Lawless [44], Harwood and Drake [45] found that American consumers would like skim milk rather than whole milk, but compared with skim milk, consumers preferred low-fat milk with 1% or 2% fat content. Yang et al [64] reported that Chinese consumers prefer skim milk to 1.5% and 3.8% milkfat.…”

“…Investigating consumer preferences for fat content in dairy foods like milk, Tuorila [43] delineated three levels: skim, 1.9% milkfat, and 3.9% milkfat. Chapman and Lawless [44] used two levels: skim and 2% milkfat; Harwood and Drake [45] employed four levels: skim, 1% milkfat, 2% milkfat, and whole milk; Yasmine et al [46] and Getter et al [47] used three levels: skim, reduced milkfat, and whole milk. Considering the limitation of the number of attribute levels and actual sales situation of imported milk in China, this study delineated the fat content of imported milk into two levels: whole milk and skim milk.…”

U.S. Consumer Demand for Traditional and Greek Yogurt Attributes, Including Livestock Management Attributes

“…Interestingly, purchasing 2 percent, 1 percent, or fat-free dairy milk was not a statistically significant indicator of yogurt fat content preference for either traditional of Greek yogurt in the SUR models. Consumers have a preference for reduced-fat/low-fat milk when compared to whole and nonfat milk, with high consumption of 2 percent reduced-fat milk (WMMB 2017; Harwood and Drake 2018; Bir et al 2019); however, these preferences are not emulated in their WTP for fat content in yogurt.…”

Consumer insights on prepackaged Cheddar cheese shreds using focus groups, conjoint analysis, and qualitative multivariate analysis

“…Focus groups have been extensively used to investigate a variety of dairy products including drinkable yogurts (Thompson et al, 2007b), chocolate milk (Thompson et al, 2007a), and Gouda cheese (Jo et al, 2018). Online surveys allow collection of quantitative and qualitative data from a large number of consumers and may use a variety of techniques including conjoint analysis, Kano model analysis, and maximum difference scaling (MaxDiff;McLean et al, 2017;Harwood and Drake, 2018).…”

“…Although conjoint analysis estimates the overall importance of each attribute to a holistic product concept, MaxDiff scaling, sometimes referred to as "best-worst" scaling, allows direct comparison of individual attribute/ level combinations (Lynch, 1985;Hein et al, 2008). Respondents are presented with sets of items and asked to choose the "best" and "worst" item from each set (Louviere and Woodworth, 1990;Harwood and Drake, 2018). Kano model analysis approaches consumer sentiments about product attributes by assessing their benefit to the consumer in response to the degree in which they are present (Kano et al, 1984).…”