ABSTRACT
A sample of 402 consumers in Jacksonville and Tampa, Florida
was used to evaluate a new seafood product form called "low temperature
smoked (LTS) fish fillets". Skinless fish fillets are smoked for a re-
latively short time at relatively low temperatures. After'smoking, the
product is packaged and stored like other seafood products.- Upon thaw-
ing, it can be cooked in conventional ways.
For this test, mullet fillets which had been frozen for about one,
month after smoking were deepfat fried and presented to the consumer
panel. Sensory evaluations were very favorable. Acceptance was also
indicated by purchase intentions. Ninety-one percent of the primary
food shoppers in the sample indicated they would buy the product if avail-
able in retail food stores, and about 68 percent of all respondents'
expressed a willingness to order the product if available in restaurants,
'-I
'IV
; i
p
i
CONSUMER ACCEPTANCE OF LOW TEMPERATURE SMOKED
FISH FILLETS
A report by
Robert L. Degner, W. Steven Otwell
and John A. Koburger
September 1980
The Florida Agricultural Market Research Center
a part of
The Food and Resource Economics Department
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida, Gainesville 32611
The Florida Agricultural Market Research Center
A Service of
the Food and Resource Economics Department
of the
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
The purpose of this Center is to provide timely, applied research
on current and emerging marketing problems affecting Florida's agri-
cultural and marine industries. The Center seeks to provide research
and information to production, marketing, and processing firms, groups
and organizations concerned with improving and expanding markets for
Florida agricultural and marine products.
The Center is staffed by a basic group of economists trained in
agriculture and marketing. In addition, cooperating personnel from
other IFAS units provide a wide range of expertise which can be applied
as determined by the requirements of individual projects.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES ............................................... v
LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES ......................................... vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................. viii
SUMMARY ...................................................... ix
INTRODUCTION ................................................. 1
OBJECTIVES ................................................... 1
The Product .............................. .. ............. 2
Research Procedure ........................................ 4
FINDINGS ...................................................... .. 5
The Consumer Sample ....................................... 5
Test Product Evaluation .................................... 10
Sensory Evaluation .................................... 10
Effects of Socioeconomic and Demographic Characteristics on
Product Appeal ......................................... 14
Acceptability as a Menu Item ............................. 15
Comparison of the Test Product With Other Smoked Fish .......15
Evaluations by Primary Food Shoppers ...................... 17
Respondents' Ability to Identify Species ....................18
Suggestions for Product Improvement ........................18
Evaluation of Possible Product Names .......................21
Evaluation as a Retail Product ............................. 22
Purchase intentions ................................. 22
Substitution of the test product for currently available
frozen fish fillets .................................. 22
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS--Continued
Page
Pricing .............. ............................... 25
Preferred package size ............................ 28
Evaluation of a restaurant menu item .................. 28
Restaurant order intentions ...................... 28
CONCLUSIONS .................................................. 30
APPENDIX ..................................................... 32
REFERENCES ................................................... 48
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Nonrespondents' reasons for not sampling the test product.... 7
2 Number and percent of primary food shoppers, both cities.... 8
3 Frequency of use of frozen fish fillets, both cities........ 8
4 Usual cooking method for frozen fish fillets, both cities... 9
5 Consumer ratings of physical attributes of the smoked fish
fillets......................... ........................ 11
6 Consumer ratings of characteristics of the test product and
previously eaten smoked fish................. .............. 13
7 Number and percent of respondents that had previously eaten
smoked fish, Jacksonville and Tampa........................ 14
8 Mean overall appeal ratings for the test product by selected
demographic variables and classifications.................. 16
9 Ratings of selected characteristics of smoked fish fillets,
by primary food shoppers.................. .. .... .. ....... 17
10 Respondents' ability to correctly identify species from which
test products were made........................... ......... 19
11 Suggested improvements for the test product................. 20
12 Resondents' ratings for selected names for the test product. 23
13 Primary food shoppers' purchase intentions for the test pro-
duct at a "competitive price" ..................... ........ 23
14 Primary food shoppers' indicated substitution of the test
product for currently available frozen fish fillets, at
prevailing prices......................................... 25
15 A summary of primary shoppers' estimates of a "fair" retail
price for the test product....................... ......... .... 26
16 Primary shoppers' anticipated frequency of use of the test
product at various retail prices ............................ 27
LIST OF TABLES -- Continued
Table Page
17 Primary food shoppers' preferred package sizes for frozen
fish fillets ................................................. 29
18 Frequency of consumption of fish fillets in restaurants, all
respondents .............................................. 30
19 Respondents' intentions to order the test product if avail-
able in restaurants, by current frequency of fish fillet
orders ................................... .................. 31
LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES
Table Page
1 Socioeconomic and demographic composition of the consumer
panel ....................................... ............. 33
2 Species identified by respondents as the source of the
fish fillets............................................ 35
3 Primary shoppers' estimates of a "fair" retail price for
the test product .................................... 36
vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Appreciation is expressed to the Florida Sea Grant College for
their financial support. Special thanks are also due Judy King, FAMRC
Statistician for her assistance in editing and analyzing the data, and
to Patricia Beville and Cyndy Cooper for typing the manuscript.
viii
SUMMARY
A new seafood product form was recently developed by the Food
Science and Human Nutrition Department and consumer tested in cooperation
with the Food and Resource Economics Department.
The product is known as "low temperature smoked (LTS) fish fillets".
It is a skinless fish fillet which has been flavored by smoking at
relatively low temperatures for a relatively short period of time. It
is smoked at 120F for 1 1/2 hours, compared with smoking temperatures
of 1500 to 200F for 4 to 12 hours for conventionally smoked fish.
The new process requires less heat for production and results in
less product shrinkage, only 2 percent compared with 40-50 percent for
conventional smoking.
After smoking, the product is packaged and frozen like other fish
fillets. Upon thawing, it can be deep fat fried, pan fried, or broiled.
The product for this consumer test had been frozen one month and was
prepared by deep fat frying.
A wide range of species can be used. For this test, mullet fillets
were prepared. Use of underutilized species like mullet offers Florida
fisherman and seafood processors the opportunity to convert low valued
species to a profitable item.
A consumer sample of 402 individuals was obtained using the mall
intercept approach. Two hundred in Jacksonville and 202 in Tampa.
After sampling the product, respondents were interviewed to determine
their sensory reactions and fish fillet use patterns.
Consumers' evaluations of product color, smoked flavor, texture,
saltiness, smell, overall taste, and overall appeal were very favorable
for all socioeconomic and demographic classes.
Respondents rated the test product significantly higher than previously
eaten smoked fish.
Acceptability of the product as a family meal received relatively
high ratings. Acceptability as a special meal for friends and as a
restaurant meal was rated somewhat lower, but judged to be quite favor-
able nevertheless.
Respondents' ability to correctly identify mullet as the species
used for the test product had no effect on overall appeal ratings.
Ninety-one percent of the primary food shoppers interviewed said
they would buy the product if available in retail food stores.
Most primary food shoppers said they would substitute the LTS
fillets for conventional fillets from 1/3 to 1/2 of the time. It is
likely, however, that availability of the product would increase total
fish consumption.
On a volume basis, the test product could substitute for about 50
percent of conventional fillet purchases.
The average suggested "fair price" for the test product was $2.02
er pound; the median was $1.90 and the mode was $1.50. The range was
0.60 to $6.00 per pound.
Over 68 percent of all respondents said they would order the LTS
fillets if available in restaurants.
In conclusion, the LTS fillets were well accepted by the consumer
sample. Because an acceptable product can be made from currently under-
utilized species, Florida fishermen and seafood processors can also gain
by development of this product.
CONSUMER ACCEPTANCE OF LOW TEMPERATURE SMOKED
FISH FILLETS
Robert L. Degner, W. Steven Otwell
and John A. Koburger
INTRODUCTION
In the face of continually changing consumer tastes and preferences
new product development is a constant challenge to any industry. One of
the functions of the Food Science and Human Nutrition Department of the
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences at the University of Florida
is to develop new uses and new forms of products from agricultural
commodities and fishery resources. An essential part of this develop-
mental process is the evaluation of consumer response to newly created
products. The Florida Agricultural Market Research Center of the Food
and Resource Economics Department conducts extensive consumer research.
Without adequate evaluation at various stages of the developmental
process, much technical and scientific effort can be lost if the product
does not conform to consumers' needs and desires.
OBJECTIVES
The study is designed to determine consumer acceptance of low
temperature smoked (LTS) fish fillets. Specific objectives were to
Robert L. Degner is assistant professor in Food and Resource Economics,
and W. Steven Otwell is an assistant professor and John A. Koburger is a
professor of the Food Science and Human Nutrition Department, all of the
University of Florida
obtain consumer evaluation of basic product characteristics such as
exterior and interior color, smoked flavor, texture, saltiness, smell,
and acceptability as a family meal, a special meal for friends, and as
a restaurant menu item. Acceptable retail prices for the LTS fillets
were also estimated.
The Product
The low temperature smoked fish fillets are a new product form
recently developed by Drs. Koburger and Otwell of the Food Science and
Human Nutrition Department of the University of Florida, in cooperation
with the Florida Sea Grant College. The product was developed to expand
the use of traditional and underutilized fish species harvested in
Florida. The product is a skinless fish fillet which has been flavored
by smoking at relatively low temperatures for a relatively short time.
The fillets are smoked at 1200F for 1 1/2 hours, compared with smoking
temperatures of 1500 to 200oF for periods ranging from four to twelve
hours for conventionally smoked fish. Obviously, the low temperature
process has the advantage of requiring less heat energy for production,
compared with the traditional hot smoking process. Another advantage is
reduced product.shrinkage. Preliminary tests show a loss of only 2
percent, compared with 40 to 50 percent for hot smoking procedures.
After smoking, the product is cooled, frozen and packaged like
other seafood products. Tests have demonstrated that the LTS fillets
made from mullet can remain frozen for over three months with no detri-
mental effects on flavor and texture. Prior to serving, the product can
be fried, baked, or broiled. Cooking results in a final product that
differs from the traditional hot smoked fish in that it has a higher
moisture content and a greater yield.
The process may be used for a wide variety of species. Tests show
that the product can be made from lean or fatty fish, from popular or
underutilized fish (Otwell, et al., 1980). Also, the process is ideally
suited for utilization of "spent" (roe removed) mullet carcasses. This
is particularly important because Florida is the principal mullet roe
exporting state. After removal of the roe for export, spent mullet
carcasses are usually dumped overboard or sold at very low prices. The
LTS process offers a means of converting the low-value spent mullet
fillets into a potentially profitable item for fishermen and seafood
processors.
Further, the process and the basic characteristics of the product
lend itself to most seafood distributors' operations. The product
offers the advantages of extended shelf-life, high yield, and portion
control, which are important to retail outlets, restaurants, and other
food service firms. Preliminary taste panel tests indicated that the
product would be well received by consumers, offering them an additional
choice of seafood items.
The LTS fillets used in this consumer study were made from spent
mullet that had been frozen for approximately one month. Details of the
LTS process are included in the Appendix. The test product samples for
this consumer study were thawed under refrigeration, then deep fat fried
in peanut oil at 3500F for two minutes. The six-ounce cooked fillets
were cut into two-ounce samples for presentation to consumers. Cooking
of the product samples was done at the test sites by Otwell and Koburger
to ensure quality control.
Research Procedure
Four hundred and two consumers received samples of the test product
and were personally interviewed by professionally trained interviewers.
Two hundred consumers were interviewed in Jacksonville and 202 in Tampa,
Florida. Jacksonville and Tampa were selected as the test cities be-
cause both are relatively large metropolitan areas which afford a broad
spectrum of consumers from various socioeconomic backgrounds. Further,
market research firms with test kitchen facilities and trained inter-
viewers were available in both cities.
The consumer sample was obtained using the mall intercept approach
in late Febraury 1980. Interviewers solicited respondents from shoppers
patronizing large malls in each city. Approximately two-thirds of all
shoppers approached consented to sample the product and submit to a
brief interview. Interviewers screened respondents to 1) include only
those who ate fish, 2) include only those over 18 years of age, and 3)
to include equal proportions of males and females. In both malls, the
pedestrian traffic flow was sufficiently low to allow interviewers to
approach all shoppers passing by the intercept location. Thus, the
interviewers were not allowed to exercise any discretion as to the
shoppers they approached.
Upon giving their consent to sample the product and to be inter-
viewed, respondents were taken to a private interviewing area adjacent
to the test kitchen. Each respondent was given a warm sample of the
test product along with a bland milk cracker and a glass of water. The
cracker was provided in order to neutralize the taste of food, tobacco
5
items, and gum that respondents may have consumed. The water was provid-
ed so that the respondents could rinse after sampling the product.
Immediately after sampling the test product, respondents were asked
to evaluate the product and then questioned about their basic consumption
patterns for fish fillets. The duration of the interviews ranged from
approximately five to seven minutes. The questionnaire, which had been
thoroughly pretested on Gainesville area homemakers, is also included in
the Appendix.
FINDINGS
The results of this consumer study are discussed below in two
general sections. The first major section discusses the socioeconomic
and demographic composition and fish consumption patterns of the con-
sumer sample, and the second presents the consumers' evaluations of the
test product.
The Consumer Sample
The socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of the consumers
in Jacksonville and Tampa were very similar with respect to household
size, the number of children, age, and income. As mentioned previously,
respondents were preselected on the basis of sex, thus the proportions
of female and male were equal. The two cities differed, however by
education level and race of the respondents. The Tampa sub-sample
contained a disproportionately larger number of respondents with less
than high school educations and a significantly smaller proportion of
blacks than did the Jacksonville sample.
Although the income distributions for the sub-samples were not
significantly different from each other, the income distributions for
the respective cities were significantly different from published esti-
mates (Survey of Buying Power, 1979). The sub-samples in both cities
had disproportionately high numbers of incomes, over $25,000 per house-
hold per year, and disproportionately low numbers of incomes less than
$8,000, (Appendix Table 1). This probably results in conservative
product ratings since the highest income category rated the product
slightly lower than other income categories and blacks tended to rate it
higher than white respondents. These findings are discussed in more
detail in a later section. It should be pointed out, however, that most
socioeconomic and demographic characteristics did not appear to signi-
ficantly affect the product ratings and other consumer responses. Thus,
it is reasonable to assume that conclusions drawn from this study apply
to other populations even though the socioeconomic and demographic
characteristics may be somewhat different.
As mentioned previously, approximately two-thirds of the shoppers
contacted in the two malls agreed to sample the product and be inter-
viewed. Those who declined were asked for their primary reason. The
majority, slightly over half, indicated a lack of sufficient time (Table
1). The next largest group, about 14 percent, said they disliked fried
fish. About 7 percent said they disliked a smoked flavor and an equal
proportion declined because of diet restrictions. A few refused to
sample the product because of uncertainty as to quality and sanitation
of the product, the time of day, proximity to a meal, or because of a
fear of fish bones. About 14 percent refused to cooperate and refused
to give a reason (Table 1). The racial composition of the non-respondent
group was not significantly different from the group of consumers that
agreed to sample the product.
Table l.--Nonrespondents' reasons for not sampling the test product.
Reason Number Percent
Do not have time 104 53.1
Dislike fried fish 28 14.3
Dislike smoked flavor 13 6.6
Diet restrictions 13 6.6
Unsure of quality or sanitation 5 2.6
Too early in morning or too soon after eating 5 2.6
Product may contain bones 1 0.5
No specific reason 27 13.8
Totals 196 100.0a
a
Does not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.
All 402 respondents were asked to evaluate the product and to
answer questions related to general usage of fish fillets. However,
those respondents who were primarily responsible for food shopping in
their households and who had purchased frozen fish fillets for at home
consumption were asked to provide additional detail with respect to
frequency of use and to retail prices. It was felt that "primary shoppers"
would be able to provide reliable data on these questions. A total of
191 primary shoppers were interviewed in the two cities (Table 2).
Table 2.--Number and percent of primary food shoppers, both cities.
Do you shop for most of
your household groceries?
Both citiesa
Number Percent
Yes 191 58.8
No 134 41.2
Total 325 100.0
a
Chi-square analysis indicates no significant difference between
cities at the 0.05 probability level. X2 = 1.06, with 1 degree of freedom.
In the overall sample of consumers, approximately 20 percent report-
ed never using frozen fish fillets at home. A similar number, almost 19
percent, said frozen fish fillets were served infrequently, that is less
than once per month. Approximately 37 percent said that frozen fish
fillets were served in their households once or twice a month, while
nearly one-fourth of the respondents said that they were served once per
week or more (Table 3).
Table 3.--Frequency of use of frozen fish fillets, both cities.
Frequency Number Percenta
Never 80 19.9
Infrequently, less than once per month 75 18.7
Frequently, once or twice per month 148 36.8
Very frequently, once per week or more 99 24.6
Totals 402 100.0
a
A chi-square analysis indicated no statistically significant differ-
ences between cities, X = 3.97 with 3 degrees of freedom.
The usual method of cooking frozen fish fillets was similar in the
two cities. Almost 40 percent usually bake them while almost equal
proportions, 23 percent, pan-frying is the predominant method of pre-
paration. Very few households, less than 1 percent, usually steam or
microwave cook frozen fish fillets. Roughly 3 percent of the respond-
ents could not specify the most common method of cooking but instead use
a combination of baking, frying or broiling (Table 4). The usual method
of cooking cited by the respondents had no significant effect on their
ratings of overall product appeal or overall taste. This is consistent
with laboratory taste tests which indicated the manner in which the test
products were prepared had little effect on the test product ratings.
Table 4.--Usual cooking method for frozen fish fillet, both cities.
Usual cooking method Number Percent
Baked 127 39.6
Panfry 74 23.1
Broil 73 22.7
Deepfat fry 34 10.6
Miscellaneous" 3 0.9
Undeterminedc 10 3.1
Totals 32T 100.0
a
When the usual cooking methods are aggregated into the two general
categories "fried" and "baked" (broiled, microwave cooking and steaming
are included in the baked category and "undetermined" category responses
were assigned on the basis primacy) chi-square analysis indicates no
statistically significant difference in preparation methods between
cities, X2 = 0.015 with 1 degree of freedom.
b
Miscellaneous includes microwave cooking and steaming.
c
Respondents were unable to specify their "usual" cooking method,
but four said the broil and bake equally, three panfry and broil equally,
two panfry and bake equally, and one reportedly deepfat fries and broils
filets with equal frequency.
Test Product Evaluation
Sensory Evaluation
Immediately after the respondents had sampled the test product,
they were asked to evaluate selected physical attributes of the LTS fish
fillets. These attributes included exterior and interior color, smoked
flavor, texture, and saltiness. Respondents evaluations of these attri-
butes were obtained with a series of semantic differential scales.
Numerical values of one to five were assigned to the semantic differ-
ential scales and means and standard deviations calculated. A mean
value of 3.0 indicated a "just right" rating on each attribute. Per-
centage distributions for the various responses are also reported
(Table 5).
Many respondents rated the exterior and interior color of the
fillets as being slightly too dark. The mean ratings were 2.6 and 2.7,
respectively. Approximately 63 percent of the respondents felt that the
exterior color was just right, but one-third rated the exterior color at
being slightly too dark. The distribution of the ratings for interior
were very similar (Table 5). Obviously, the exterior and interior color
of the fillets can be influenced by the choice of species used for the
product. and variations in production and cooking methods. It is
encouraging to note the relatively large proportion of respondents that
was satisfied with the color of the mullet fillets.
The evaluation of the smoked flavor was judged to be of particular
importance. The mean rating of this attribute was 3.0. Over 78 percent
of the respondents indicated that the smoked flavor was just right.
About 12 percent said that the product did not have quite enough smoke
flavor. On the other hand, almost 8 percent was slightly too smokey.
11
Table 5.--Consumer ratings of physical attributes of the smoked fish fillets.
Meana Standard Percent of
Attribute value deviation respondents
Exterior color 2.6 0.6 -----
Much too dark --- --- 2.2
Slightly too dark -- 33.1
Just right -- 63.2
Slightly too light --- 1.5
Much too light -- 0.0
Total 10T.
Interior color 2.7 0.5 -----
Much too dark --- -- 1.2
Slightly too dark --- 30.9
Just right --- 66.7
Slightly too light -- -- 1.0
Much too light -- --- 0.3
Total 100.Ob
Smoked flavor 3.0 0.6 ---
Much too Smokeyy" --- --- 2.2
Slightly too Smokeyy" --- -- 7.7
Just right --- 78.4
Not quite enough
smoked flavor ---- 11.7
Need much more smoked flavor --- --- 0.0
Total 100.0
Texture 2.8 0.5
Much too tough --- --- 0.5
Slightly too tough --- 28.1
Just right -- 69.2
Not quite tough enough --- --- 2.2
Need to be much tougher --- --- 0.0
Total T10.
Salt 2.9 0.6
Much too salty --- --- 2.0
Slightly too salty --- --- 16.9
Just right -- 65.9
Not quite enough salt -- --- 14.9
Needs much more salt --- --- 0.3
Total 100.0
a
Means were calculated by assigning numerical values of 1-5, respectively
to the semantic differential scales in the order listed. Thus, a mean of 3.0
would indicate a "just right" rating on each attribute. According to Chi-squ
tests for each attribute there were no statistically significant differences
ratings between the two cities. There were 402 observations.
b
Does not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.
Only 2 percent said that the product had too much of a smoked flavor and
none said that it needed much more smoked flavor (Table 5). On the
basis of these results, it appears that the smoking time of 1 1/2 hours
is sufficient to please a very large proportion of the consumer sample.
The texture of the fillets was evaluated by using the term "tough-
ness". Almost 70 percent of the respondents said that the degree of
toughness was just right. However, slightly over 28 percent said the
product was slightly too tough as compared to only 2 percent that said
the product was not tough enough. One-half of 1 percent said the product
was much too tough but no one said the product needed to be much tougher.
Again, the choice of species has an effect on texture. While a signi-
ficant proportion of the sample viewed the test product as being slightly
too tough, it should be noted that there was a high degree of acceptability.
Since brining is essential to the production process, consumer
reactions to the degree of saltiness is also of considerable importance.
However, as with the other basic variables, the brine concentration may
be adjusted to improve acceptability. The mean rating of 2.9 indicates
that the product may be slightly too salty. However, examination of the
rating distribution reveals that almost two-thirds rated thought the
degree of saltiness was just right. Almost equal proportions of re-
spondents said that the product was slightly too salty or not quite
salty enough, 17 percent versus 15 percent. Two percent said the product
was much too salty, compared with only 0.3 percent who said it needed
much more salt (Table 5).
Respondents were also asked to rate the product with respect to
smell, overall taste, overall appeal, and its acceptability as a menu
item for a family meal, a special meal for friend, and a restaurant menu
13
item. They were also asked to rate any smoked fish they had previously
eaten for comparison. Interviewees were asked to rate these character-
istics using a 0 to 10 rating scale where 10 equaled excellent and 0
equaled extremely poor.
The ratings for smell, overall taste, and overall appeal were 7.8,
8.2, and 7.9, respectively for all respondents. Respondents in the two
cities rated these characteristics similarly (Table 6).
Table 6.--Consumer ratings of characteristics of the test product and
previously eaten smoked fish.
Characteristics Both cities Tampa Jacksonville
--------------- Mean rating ------------
Smell 7.8 --
Overall taste 8.2 ---
Overall appeal 7.9 --
As a family meal ---- 7.4 8.0
As a special meal for friends --- 6.4 7.0
As a restaurant meal 6.6
Rating of previously eaten
smoked fish 6.9b
a
Means are based on a rating scale
extremely poor. Where only one mean is
test indicated that differences between
significant at the 0.05 level.
b
A paired
rating and the
significant at
freedom.
where 10 = excellent and 0 =
reported for both cities, a t-
cities were not statistically
t-test indicates the difference between the overall appeal
rating given previously eaten smoked fish is statistically
the 0.01 probability level, t = 5.49 with 319 degrees of
Effects of Socioeconomic and Demographic Characteristics on
Product Appeal
Analysis of covariance was used to determine whether respondent's
ratings for overall appeal were influenced by sex, race, income, age,
household size or ability to correctly identify the species from which
the product was made. The effect of the time of day interviewed on the
overall rating was also examined, but was judged to have little impact.
Sex, race, income, and household size apparently influence the over-
all appeal ratings. Females rated the product significantly higher than
males. The average overall appeal rating given by women was 8.6, com-
pared with 8.2 for men (Table 7). Black respondents tended to rate the
product higher than did white, 8.7 compared with 8.0.
Table 7.--Number and percent of respondents that had previously eaten
smoked fish, Jacksonville and Tampa.
Had previously eaten smoked fish a
City Yes No
Number Percent Number Percent
Jacksonville 144 71.3 58 28.7
Tampa 180 90.0 20 10.0
a
Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant difference
at the 0.01 probability level, X2 = 22.50, with 1 degree of freedom.
The overall appeal ratings for most income categories were similar,
except for the highest income category. Households which exceed $25,000
in annual income rated the product significantly lower than did all others.
However, even though they gave it a lower rating, their rating of 7.8 is
judged to be satisfactory.
The overall appeal ratings did not appear to be significantly
related to age. The average ratings for the various age categories were
quite similar (Table 8).
Acceptability as a Menu Item
Acceptability of the test product as a family meal and as a special
meal for friends received significantly higher ratings in Jacksonville,
but ratings in both cities were relatively high. These differences are
attributed to the finding that blacks tended to rate the product higher
as a family meal and as a special meal for friends than did the white
respondents and the Jacksonville sample contained a larger proportion of
blacks. Rating of the product as a family meal averaged 7.4 in Tampa
and 8.0 in Jacksonville, and the ratings as a special meal for friends
averaged 6.4 in Tampa and 7.0 in Jacksonville. Ratings of the test
product's acceptability as a restaurant meal were similar for the two
cities. The average rating was 6.6 (Table 6).
Comparison of the Test Product With Other Smoked Fish
Respondents that had previously eaten some type of smoked fish were
asked to rate it using the 0 to 10 rating scale. The average rating for
previously eaten smoked fish was 6.9 compared with the overall appeal
rating of 7.9 for the test product (Table 6).
A significantly larger proportion of the consumers in Tampa had
previously eaten smoked fish. Ninety percent of the Tampa respondents
had eaten smoked fish compared with only 71 percent of the Jacksonville
consumers (Table 7). Greater familiarity with smoked fish was expected
for the Tampa consumers because of the prevalence of seafood processors
producing smoked products. Smoked fish items have traditionally been
Table 8.--Mean overall appeal ratings for the test product by selected
demographic variables and classifications.
Product characteristic
demographic variable,
classification F value Mean rating
Overall appeal
Sex
Female
Male
Race
White
Black
Income
Under $8,000 per year
$8,000 9,999
$10,000 14,999
$15,000 24,999
$25,000 over
Age
Under 18c
18 24
35 49
50 64
65 +
Household size
1
4 or more
Species
Do not know
Correct
Incorrect
5.93*
7.29**
2.79*
0.87
1 .76
8.6a
8.2b
8.0a
8.7b
8.5a
8.7a
8.5a
8.2a
7.8b
8.3a
8.2a
8.5a
8.4a
8.4a
8.4a
8.5a
8.6a
8.0b
8.3a
8.3a
8.5a
0.29
a
Statistical significance at the
one and two asterisks, respectively.
0.05, 0.01 levels is indicated by
Means reported here are least squares means. Means for a given
demographic variable followed by the same letter are not significantly
different at the 0.10 percent probability level.
c
Although respondents were screened to eliminate those under 18 years
of age, two were inadvertently included.
---
more readily available in the Tampa area. It should be noted, however,
that the ratings in the two cities for previously eaten smoked fish were
similar and the test product received higher overall appeal ratings in
both.
Evaluations by Primary Food Shoppers
The ratings for overall taste, overall appeal, and acceptability
for various types of meals were also analyzed to determine whether
primary food shoppers and non-shoppers evaluated the product similarly.
Primary food shoppers rated the product significantly higher with respect
to overall taste than did non-shoppers. The average rating for overall
taste was 8.4 for primary shoppers compared with 8.0 for the non-shoppers.
There were no statistically significant differences in ratings for the
remaining characteristics (Table 9).
Table 9.--Ratings of selected characteristics of smoked fish fillets, by
primary food shoppers.
Primary food All
Characteristics shopper Non-shopper respondents
------------------- Mean ratings ---------------
Overall taste 8.4 8.0 8.2
Overall appeal --- --- 7.9
As an occasional meal --- --- 7.7
As a special meal for friends --- --- 6.7
As a restaurant meal --- --- 6.6
a
Where only one mean is reported for all respondents, a t-test indicated
that means for the two groups were not significantly different at the 0.05
probability level.
Respondents' Ability to Identify Species
Few respondents, only 23 percent, correctly identified mullet as
the species from which the test product were made. Nearly 40 percent
said they did not know, and almost 37 percent ventured an incorrect
species. A significantly larger proportion of Tampa respondents (Table
10 correctly identified the species as mullet. Nearly a third of Tampa
respondents correctly identified the species, compared with only 14
percent in Jacksonville.
The 147 respondents that incorrectly identified the species mention-
ed 31 different species as the possible source of the fillets. The most
frequently mentioned species were trout, flounder, perch, mackeral,
grouper, codfish and whiting, mentioned by a total of 23 percent of the
respondents (Appendix Table 2). Other guesses ranged from high value
species such as salmon and halibut to rarely eaten species such as shad
and bonito (Appendix Table 2).
Respondents' ability to correctly identify the species from which
the fillets were made did not seem to affect the overall appeal ratings.
Respondents that did not know what species the product was made from and
those that correctly identified the species had the same mean rating,
8.3 (Table 7). Those that incorrectly identified the species had a mean
rating of 8.5. However, this difference was not statistically significant.
Suggestions for Product Improvement
Over half were satisfied with the product as prepared and offered
no suggestion for improvement. Most suggestions dealt with product
attributes and characteristics which were evaluated using the rating
scales previously discussed, and were consistent with the ratings.
Table 10.--Respondents' ability to
test products were made.
correctly identify species from which
Response Tampa Jacksonville Both cities
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Did not know
species 77 38.7 83 41.1 160 39.9
Correctly
identified
species 65 32.7 29 14.4 94 23.4
Incorrectly
identified
species 57 28.6 90 44.6 147 36.7
Totalsb 199 100.0 202 100.0 401 100.0
a
Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant
in responses between cites, at the 0.01 probability level, X2 =
2 degrees of freedom.
difference
21.40, with
Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.
For example, about 3 percent of the respondents suggested that the
exterior color should be lighter and only one respondent, 0.3 percent said
the exterior color should be darker (Table 11). Almost 9 percent suggest-
ed that the interior color of the fillets should be lighter and only
0.5 percent, two respondents, suggested that the interior color be darker.
With respect to smoked flavor, 15 respondents or 3.7 percent suggested
that the smoked flavor be reduced, and 21 respondents, or 5.2 percent
recommended increasing the smoked flavor.
A few respondents, 7 of the 402, recommended using a batter or a
breading. Interestingly, two respondents suggested using less batter,
despite the fact that none was used on the test product.
Table 11.--Suggested improvements for the test product.
Suggestion First response All responses
Number Percent Number Percent
None 207 51.5 --
Basic characteristics
Exterior color should be
lighter 7 1.7 12 3.0
Exterior color should be
darker 0 0.0 1 0.3
Interior color should be
lighter 25 6.2 35 8.7
Interior color should be
darker 1 0.3 2 0.5
Reduce smoke flavor 12 3.0 15 3.7
Increase smoke flavor 19 4.7 21 5.2
Texture should be more tender 19 4.7 26 6.5
Reduce salt 25 6.2 33 8.2
Increase salt 11 2.7 18 4.5
Use filet that does not
taste or smell as strong 8 2.0 9 2.2
Make less greasy 3 0.8 4 1.0
Should be more moist 16 4.0 23 5.7
Should be less moist 3 0.8 3 0.8
Make thicker 7 1.7 9 2.2
Make smaller (bite-sized) 2 0.5 2 0.5
Make larger 2 0.5 2 0.5
Change shape 1 0.3 2 0.5
Breading or batter
Needs more batter 3 0.8 5 1.2
Needs less batter 2 0.5 2 0.5
Bread with cornmeal 2 0.5 2 0.5
Cooking
Microwave 1 0.3 1 0.3
Do not overcook 4 1.0 8 2.0
Miscellaneous 9 2.2 9 2.2
Serving suggestions
Add spices 2 0.5 4 1.0
Serve with sauce 9 2.2 10 2.5
Flavor with lemon juice 2 0.5 5 1.2
ab b
Totals 402 100.0a --
a
Does not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.
b
Not summed due to multiple responses.
A few respondents recommended alternative cooking methods such as
cooking in a microwave oven, conventional baking, or pan frying. About
2 percent of the respondents felt that the fillets had been overcooked,
and that prevention of overcooking could result in a better product. A
few suggested that the product would be enhanced by serving with sauces
or other flavorings such as lemon juice (Table 11).
Evaluation of Possible Product Names
Several fanciful names were developed and evaluated to illustrate
various types of names that could be used for the test product. There
are undoubtedly many names which could be informative and at the same time
convey a favorable product image to the consumer. These names are intended
only as a point of departure.
All respondents were asked to rate four possible names for the new
product using the rating scale where 10 = excellent and 0 = extremely poor.
Of the four names tested, "Natural Smoked Fish Fillets" was preferred;
it received an average rating of approximately 6.9 (Table 12). From a
statistical standpoint, "Natural Smoked Fish Fillets" was rated signi-
ficantly higher than "Smoked Flavored Fillets" and "Florida Smokies",
which had mean ratings of approximately 6.0 and 5.8, respectively. The
two latter means were not significantly different from each other. The
fourth name, "Campfire Fish Fillets" received relatively low evaluations
in both cities. The mean ratings for the name "Campfire Fish Fillets",
were 5.6 and 5.9 for Tampa and Jacksonville respondents, respectively; the
mean rating by Tampa respondents was significantly lower than the mean
rating by Jacksonville respondents. When responses are analyzed on an
overall basis, the mean rating for "Campfire Fish Fillets" was 5.2,
significantly lower than the three previous names (Table 12).
Evaluation as a Retail Product
Purchase intentions
Primary food shoppers were asked whether or not they would buy the
test product if available at "competitive prices". Ninety-one percent
said they would buy the product if available, only 9 percent said they
would not CTable 13). Responses were similar in both cities. The except-
ionally high proportion of positive responses indicate considerable
potential as a retail product.
Substitution of the test product for currently available
frozen fish fillets
Primary shoppers were asked to indicate their probable rate of sub-
stitution of the test product for currently available frozen fish fillets
if the LTS fillets were "priced the same" as the fillets usually bought.
Respondents in Jacksonville expressed a greater willingness to substitute
the LTS fillets for the conventionally prepared product. About one-
fourth of the primary food shoppers in Jacksonville said they would
substitute the test product 100 percent of the time, compared with only
9 percent of the Tampa respondents. However, approximately 30 percent of
the Tampa respondents said they were willing to substitute the test product
about 20 to 25 percent of the time compared with 12 percent of the Jack-
sonville consumers. Overall, about 18 percent of the primary shoppers
who said they were willing to buy the test product were willing to substitute
it exclusively for conventional frozen fish fillets. An additional 11
Table 12.--Respondents' ratings for selected names for the test product.
Both Statistical
Name cities significance
Mean rating b
"Natural Smoked fish
fillets" 6.94 A
"Smoked flavored fillets" 5.97 B
"Florida Smokies" 5.84 B
"Campfire fish fillets" 5.24 C
a
Ratings for the various names were compared using paired t-tests.
Means connected by a series of the same letter are not significantly
different at the 0.05 probability level. The mean ratings for the name
"Campfire fish filets" were 5.64 and 4.85 for Tampa and Jacksonville
respondents, respectively. A standard t-test indicated that the differ-
ence in these means was statistically significant at the 0.05 probability
level. Means for other names were similar for the two cities.
b
Means are based on a rating scale where 10 = excellent and 0 =
extremely poor. There were 402 observations for each mean.
Table 13.--Primary food shoppers' purchase intentions for the
at a "competitive price".
test product
Purchase intentions Number Percenta
Yes, would buy if available 171 91.0
No, would not buy 17 9.0
Totals 188 100.0
a
Chi-square analysis indicates no statistically significant differ-
ence in purchase intentions by city, X2 = 0.90, with 1 degree of freedom.
Chi-square analyses for purchase intentions by age, income, race, or
household size were not statistically valid because of sparse numbers
of observations.
percent said they would substitute it three-fourths of the time, while
one-half of the shoppers expressed a probable substitution rate of one-
third to one-half of the time. The remaining 20 percent of the primary
shoppers said they would probably substitute the test product from 20 to
25 percent of the occasions when frozen fish fillets were served at
home.
An estimate of the total annual quantities of frozen fish fillets
bought by the entire sample of 402 respondents was made by utilizing the
information on frozen fish fillet purchase frequency and preferred
package size. Assuming that the preferred package size is indicative of
the quantity served on each occasion, the 190 primary food shoppers
would purchase a total of 7,272 pounds of frozen fish fillets annually.
Given each respondent's stated substitution ratio, it appears that
primary food shoppers would substitute 3,889 pounds of the test product
for conventional frozen fish fillets. This amounts to 53 percent of the
total. Indications are the estimated per capital consumption of frozen
fish fillets of the respondents households is biased upward. The estimated
per capital consumption of frozen fish fillets in the primary shopper
households is almost 14 pounds per year, compared with 2.7 pounds for
the U.S. as a whole (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1980). While part of
the discrepancy can be justified on the basis of the manner in which the
consumer sample was selected, the important consideration is the sub-
stitution ratio. The estimated consumption of the test product was
probably also overstated as well, therefore, substitution ratio of the
test product for the conventional fish fillets may be reasonably accurate.
However, even if the substitution ratio is greatly exaggerated, the
market potential for the product appears to be very favorable (Table 14).
Table 14.--Primary food shoppers' indicated substitution of the test
product for currently available frozen fish fillets, at
prevailing prices.
Rate of
substitution Tampa Jacksonville Both cities
Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
100 7 9.1 23 25.3 30 17.9
75 8 10.4 11 12.1 19 11.3
33-50 39 50.7 46 50.6 85 50.6
20-25 23 29.9 11 12.1 34 20.2
Totals 77 100.0 91 100.0 168 100.0
a
Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant difference
between cities at the 0.01 probability level, X2 = 12.74, with 3 degrees of
freedom.
b
Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.
Pricing
Primary shoppers who indicated a willingness to buy the LTS fillets
if available in retail stores were asked what they would consider to be
a "fair price". The average price was slightly over $2.00 per pound,
but there was considerable dispersion as evidenced by the standard de-
viation of 74 cents per pound. The median fair price was $1.90 per pound,
and the mode was $1.50 (Table 15). Respondent's estimates of a fair
retail price ranged from 60 cents per pound to $6.00 per pound. Although
approximately one-third indicated a fair price would be $1.50 per pound
or less, a similar number felt a fair price would be in excess of $2.12
per pound (Appendix Table 3).
Table 15.--A summary of primary shoppers' estimates of a "fair" retail
price for the test product.
Statistica Price per pound
--- Dollars ---
Mean, standard deviation 2.02 (a = 0.74)
Median 1.90
Mode 1.50
a
All statistics are based upon 162 observations.
Primary shoppers were also asked how frequently they would serve
the test product, if available, at prices of $3.00, $2.00, $1.50 and
$1.00 per pound. At a price of $3.00 per pound, approximately 22 percent
of the respondents in both cities said they would never serve the product.
Another 22 percent said they would serve it infrequently, that is, less
than once per month. Half of the respondents said they would serve it
one to three times per month, and 6 percent said they would serve it
once per week or more (Table 16).
At a price of $2.00 per pound, about 96 percent of the Tampa re-
spondents and 92 percent of the Jacksonville respondents said they would
purchase the product. Roughly 80 percent said they would serve the
product frequently, more than once per month. Sixty-five percent of the
Tampa respondents said they would serve it from one to three times per
month if available at $2.00 per pound and the remaining 10 percent said
they would serve it at least once per week. Half of the Jacksonville
respondents said they would serve LTS fillets one to three times per
Table 16.--Primary
product
shoppers' anticipated frequency of use of the test
at various retail prices.
Price per pound,
dollars/frequency a Both cities b Tampa Jacksonville
------------------ Percent
3.00
Never
Infrequently
Frequently
Very frequently
Total
2.00
Never
Infrequently
Frequently
Very frequently
Totals c
1.50
Never
Infrequently
Frequently
Very frequently
Totals c
1.00
Never
Infrequently
Frequently
Very frequently
Totalsc
21.9
22.5
49.7
5.9
100.0
3.8
21.3
65.0
10.0
100.0
0.0
12.5
75.0
12.5
0.0
8.8
66.3
25.0
7.7
19.8
49.5
23.1
100.0
0.0
12.1
50.6
37.4
100.-
0.0
8.8
38.5
52.8
100.0
a
Frequency of use
per month; frequently,
per week or more.
is defined as follows: Infrequent, less than once
one to three times per month; very frequently, once
When only one percentage is reported for both cities, a chi-square
analysis indicated that differences between cities were not statistically
significant at the 0.05 probability level.
c
Totals may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.
month if available at $2.00 per pound, but 23 percent said they would
serve them once per week or more (Table 16).
At $1.50 per pound all respondents indicated a willingness to serve
the product at least occasionally. At a retail price of $1.50 and also
$1.00 approximately 87 to 91 percent of the primary shoppers said they
would serve the product one or more times per month (Table 16).
Preferred package size.--Primary food shoppers that expressed a
willingness to buy the product were asked what package size they preferred
for the LTS fillets. Slightly over 16 percent expressed the need for a
eight ounce package and about 22 percent specified a 12 ounce package.
The largest proportion, almost 37 percent, suggested a one pound package
(Table 17). Approximately 12 and 6 percent of the respondents mentioned
two and three pound packages, respectively. The remaining 6 percent
specified a variety of preferred package sizes ranging from one-third
to six pounds (Table 17).
Evaluation as a restaurant menu item
All respondents were asked how frequently, if ever, they ordered
fish fillets in restaurants. The finding were similar for the two cities.
Approximately 15 percent of all respondents said they never consumed fish
fillets in restaurants, and about 27 percent ordered them infrequently,
that is less than once per month. The largest proportion, nearly 44
percent, ordered fish fillets once or twice per month. Fourteen percent
said they ordered fish fillets once a week or more (Table 18).
Restaurant order intentions.--The order intentions for the test
product were analyzed by current frequency of fish fillet orders.
Surprisingly, of the 61 respondents (15 percent) who said they never
Table 17.--Primary food shoppers' preferred package sizes for frozen
fish fillets.
Preferred Both cities
package size Number Percent
Ounces
8 28 16.4
12 38 22.2
16 63 36.8
32 21 12.3
48 10 5.9
Various b 11 6.4
Totals 171 100.0
a
When the 32 and 48 ounce package classifications are combined and
the "various" category eliminated, chi-square analysis indicates no
statistically significant difference in package size preferences between
cities, X2 = 2.73, with 3 degrees of freedom.
b
The "various" size category includes responses that ranged from
0.33 to 6 pounds.
order fish fillets in restaurants, almost 56 percent said they would
order the test product if available. Thirty-six percent of this group said
they would not, and 8 percent were undecided. Of the respondents that order
fish fillets in restaurants less often than once per month, about 64 per-
cent said they would order the LTS fillets, about 30 percent would not,
and 6 percent were undecided. Consumers that order fish fillets once
to three times per month expressed the greatest propensity to order. Seventy-
eight percent said they would not, while only 5 percent were undecided.
Table 18.--Frequency of consumption of fish filets in restaurants, all
respondents.
Frequency Both cities
Number Percent
Never 61 15.2
Infrequently, less than once
per month 108 26.9
Frequently, once or twice
per month 176 43.9
Very frequently, once per
week or more 56 14.0
Totals 401 100.0
a
Chi-square analysis indicates no statistically significant differ-
ences in consumption on frequency by cities at the 0.05 probability
level, X2 = 2.73, with 3 degrees of freedom.
Restaurant patrons that order fish fillets once per week or more often
expressed a reasonably high propensity to order the LTS fillets. About
61 percent said they would order them, 30 percent said they would not,
and about 9 percent were undecided.
When all consumers are treated as one group, about 68 percent said
they would order the product as a restaurant meal, 25 percent would not,
and about 6 percent were undecided (Table 19). Thus, it appears the LTS
fillets would make an acceptable restaurant item.
CONCLUSIONS
The LTS fillets have considerable widespread appeal, as evidenced
by the sensory evaluations of the consumer sample. Although the sensory
Table 19.--Respondents' intentions to order the test product if available
in restaurants, by current frequency of fish filet orders.
Order intentions for test product
Current frequency of Number of Do not
fish filet orders respondents Yes No know Totals
----------- Percent ------------
Never 61 55.7 36.1 8.2 100.0
Infrequently, less than
once per month 108 63.9 29.6 6.5 100.0
Frequently, one to three
times per month 175 78.3 16.6 5.1 100.0
Very frequently, once
per week or more 56 60.7 30.4 8.9 100.0
All respondents 400 68.5 25.0 6.5 100.0
evaluations were generally favorable, slight modifications in the pro-
duction process (i.e., brining, smoking, etc.) and variations in cooking
methods and times may improve ratings slightly.
The large proportions of the respondents that expressed a willing-
ness to buy the product at retail food stores or restaurants and the
indicated frequency of use provide further indications Qf favorable
consumer reaction.
This study has demonstrated that an acceptable product can be made
from a currently underutilized species. Thus, Florida fishermen and
seafood processors can gain by development of this product.
APPENDIX
Appendix Table 1.--Socioeconomic
panel.
and demographic composition of the consumer
Demographics Both cities Jacksonville Tampa
-------------------- Percent ------------
Number of adults in
household
2
3
4
5
6
Total b
14.2
58.5
17.7
6.7
2.0
1.0
100.0
Number of children
in household
55.8
20.5
16.8
5.3
1.5
0.3
100.0
6
Total
Education
11th grade or less
12th grade
13, 14 or 15 (college or
vocations)
16 or moreb
Totals
Age
Under 18 years
18-24 years
25-34 years
35-49 years
50-64 years
65 + years
Refused
Total
4.0
42.6
29.2
24.3
100.0
11.0
34.5
29.5
25.0
100.0
1.0
28.9
24.2
20.7
18.2
6.7
.3
100.0
Appendix Table 1.--Socioeconomic and demographic composition of the consumer
panel--Continued.
Demographics Both cities Jacksonville Tampa
------------------ Percent -------------
Incomec
Under $8,000 per year 9.7 --
$8,000 9,999 8.0 --
$10,000 14,999 17.5
$15,000 24,999 29.9
$25,000 and over 32.7 ----
Refused 2.2
Total 100.0
Sex
Female 50.3 --- ----
Male 49.8
Totalb 100.0
Race
White ---- 85.2 97.0
Black ---- 14.8 3.0
Totalsb 100.0 100.0
a
Where only one percentage is reported
analysis indicated that differences between
significant at the .05 level.
for both cities, a chi-square
cities were not statistically
Does not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.
The income distributions for the consumer panel in the two cities
differed substantially from published estimates of income distributions
(Survey of Buying Power, 1979). Chi-square analysis indicated the differ-
ences statistically significant at the 0.01 levels, X2 = 62.28 and
38.13 with 4 degrees of freedom in Tampa and Jacksonville, respectively.
The consumer sample in both cities had disproportionately high numbers
of high incomes (over $25,000 per household per year) and disproportion-
ately low numbers of low incomes (less than $8,000).
Appendix Table 2.--Species identified by respondents as the source of the
fish fillets.
Species Frequency Percent
Do not know 160 40.00
Mullet 94 23.50
Trout 17 4.25
Flounder 17 4.25
Perch 13 3.25
Mackeral 12 3.00
Grouper 11 2.75
Codfish 11 2.75
Whiting 11 2.75
Bass 7 1.75
Salmon 4 1.00
Snapper 4 1.00
Catfish 4 1.00
Shark 3 0.75
Haddock 3 0.75
Whitefish 3 0.75
Redfish 3 0.75
Halibut 2 0.50
Pollack 2 0.50
Sole 2 0.50
Tuna 2 0.50
Herring 2 0.50
Carp 1 0.25
Drum 1 0.25
Pike 1 0.25
Kipper 1 0.25
Bluefish 1 0.25
Turbot 1 0.25
Dolphin 1 0.25
Swordfish 1 0.25
Pompano 1 0.25
Shad 1 0.25
Bonito 1 0.25
"Saltwater" (non-specific) 1 0.25
"Freshwater" (non-specific) 1 0.25
Total 400 100.00
Appendix Table 3.--Primary shoppers' estimates of a "fair" retail price
for the test product.
Suggested price
per pounds Respondents
Dollars Number Percent Cumulative percent
0.60 1 0.62 0.62
0.69 1 0.62 1.24
0.89 2 1.23 2.47
0.98 1 0.62 3.09
0.99 1 0.62 3.71
1.00 3 1.85 5.56
1.15 1 0.62 6.18
1.19 1 0.62 6.80
1.25 4 2.47 9.27
1.29 2 1.23 10.50
1.33 3 1.85 12.35
1.39 4 2.47 14.82
1.49 3 1.85 16.67
1.50 28 17.28 33.95
1.59 2 1.23 35J18
1.60 2 1.23 36.41
1.65 1 0.62 37.03
1.67 1 0.62 37.65
1.69 2 1.23 38.88
1.70 2 1.23 40.11
1.75 4 2.47 42.58
1.79 6 3.70 46.28
1.80 3 1.85 48.13
1.89 2 1.23 49.36
1.90 2 1.23 50.59
1.95 2 1.23 51.82
1.98 3 1.85 53.67
1.99 1 0.62 54.29
2.00 17 10.49 64.78
2.10 1 0.62 65.40
2.12 1 0.62 66.02
2.25 5 3.09 69.11
2.29 1 0.62 69.73
2.33 1 0.62 70.35
2.35 1 0.62 71.97
2.50 17 10.49 81.46
2.52 4 2.47 83.93
2.59 1 0.62 84.55
2.64 1 0.62 85.17
2.67 6 3.70 88.87
2.87 1 0.62 89.49
2.95 1 0.62 90.11
Appendix Table 3.--Primary shoppers' estimates of a "fair" retail price
for the test product--Continued.
Suggested price
per pound
Respondents
Percent
3.09
1.23
1.85
1.23
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
100.00
Cumulative percent
93.20
94.43
96.28
97.51
98.13
98.78
99.37
100.00
100.00
a
Some prices were
12-ounce packages.
b
calculated from respondents' suggestions based on
Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.
Dollars
Number
3.00
3.19
3.32
3.33
3.49
3.72
5.32
6.00
Totalsb
The Basic Low Temperature Smoking Process
The following procedures were used for preparation of the test
product samples. Additional information on alternative procedures are
reported by Otwell et al.
Brining
Soak clean skinless fish fillets in a prechilled (400F) salt brine.
The recommended salt concentration is 4 percent (4 cups salt per 9
gallons water). Soaking time should be no less than 30 minutes. Occas-
ional, gentle stirring will facilitate soaking. After brining, the
fillets should be dried on racks held in refrigeration for approximately
30 minutes, until a glaze-like pellicle develops on the surface.
Smoking
Place racks of fillets in a preheated smokehouse and smoke for 1
1/2 hours at 1200F in moderate smoke at a relative humidity of approx-
imately 60 percent. Smoking temperatures between 80 to 120F may be
effective depending on the characteristics of different smokehouses.
The finished product is not cooked, but has a pale yellow, damp appear-
ance and the surface flesh is firm.
Packaging and Storage
Refrigerate the cold smoked fillets to 40oF or below, then package.
Fillets should be layered with freezer paper and wrapped in plastic
bags. Avoid bulk packaging to permit a more rapid freeze. Store frozen
at OF (-20C) or below.
39
Cooking
Thaw frozen fillets in refrigeration overnight, then fry, bake or
broil as desired. Deep fat frying at 3050F until golden brown is an
excellent cook method. Frying does not require batter or breading.
Smoked Fish Fillet Study
Time of interview
PRODUCT EVALUATION
After respondent has sampled the product ask the following; circle responses.
How would you rate this product with respect to (Hand Sheet A).
A. Exterior color?
much too slightly
dark too
dark
3
just
right
4
slightly
too
licht
5
much too
light
B. Interior color?
1 2
much too slightly
dark too
dark
3
just
right
4
slightly
too
light
5
much too
light
C. Smoked flavor ?
4
not quite
enough
smoke flavor
5
needs much
more smoke
flavor
D. Texture?
1
much too
tough
E. Salt ?
much too
salty
slightly
too
tough
slightly
too
salty
just
right
just
right
not quite
tough
enough
4
not quite
enough
salt
needs to be
much tougher
5
needs much
more salt
1
much too
Smokeyy"
2
slightly
too
Smokeyy"
3
just
right
Smoked Fish Fillet Study
2. Using a rating scale where 10 = excellent and
would you rate this product with respect to:
Characteristi c
0 = extremely poor, how
Rating
Smell
Overall taste
Overall appeal
As an occasional meal for
your family
As a special meal for friends
As a restaurant meal
3. Have you ever eaten smoked fish before today? 1. Yes 2. No
Using the rating scale where 10 = excellent and 0 = extremely poor,
how would you rate the smoked fish you had eaten previously as far
as overall appeal?
4. A. How often, if ever, are frozen fish fillets served in your house
1. Never Why not?
)ld?
(Skip to question 8)
2. Infrequently; times a year
3. Once a month
4. Once every 3 weeks
5. Once every 2 weeks
6. Every week
7. Times a week
(If response is 2-7):
B. How are frozen fish fillets usually prepared in your household?
1. Deep fat fry
2. Pan fry
3. Broil
4. Baked
5. Other (specify)
C. Do you shop for most of the groceries for your household?
1. Yes 2. No (Skip to question 8)
Smoked Fish Fillet Study
General Product Usage
5. If these frozen smoked fish fillets were available in stores
at a"competitive" price, would you or would you not buy them?
(Circle 1 or 2; complete others as appropriate).
1. Would buy. What would you consider to be a fair price?(unaided)
$ 12 oz. okg $ 1 lb. pkg
What size package would you prefer (unaided)?
1. 8 oz. 4. 2 Ibs.
2. 12 oz. 5. 3 Ibs.
3. 1 lb. 6. Other (specify)
2. Would not buy -- Go to question 8.
Product Pricing
6. If these smoked fillets cost$ how often do you think you
would buy and serve them? (Place a check in appropriate cell under
each price, except for frequency classification 2 & 7. For these
indicate the number of times per year or week).
Frequency $3/lb $2/lb 51.50/lb $1/lb
1. Never
2. Infrequently,
times a year
3. 1 time per month
4. 2 times per month
5. 3 times per month
6. Every week
7. times a week
Smoked Fish Fillet Study
43
7. If priced the same as the frozen fish fillets you usually buy,
how often do you think you would substitute the smoked fillets
for the usual ones?
1. Always 2. 3/4 of time 3. 1/2 of time
4. 1/4 of time 5. Other; specify ratio of smoked
to total times
8. How often, if ever, do you eat fish fillets in a restaurant?
1. Never (If never) Why not?
2. Infrequently; times per year
3. 1 time per month
4. 2 times per month
5. 3 times per month
6. Every week
7. times per week
9. If these smoked fish fillets were available in restaurants, would
you order them? (Circle)
1. Yes 2. No 3. Do not know
10. What suggestions, if any, do you have for improving this product?
11. Using the rating scale where 10 = excellent and 0 = extremely poor,
how would you rate the following names for this product?
1. "Campfire fish fillets"
2. "Florida Smokies"
3. "Natural Smoked fish fillets"
4. "Smoke flavored fillets"
12. What species (kind) of fish do you think these fillets were made
of? (unaided) 1. Don't know 2.(specify)
Smoked Fish Fillet Study
44
Demographics
13. How many adults (age 18 and older) are in your household?
14. How many children (under 18) are in you household?
15. What is the highest grade of school that you have completed? (Circle
number to the riaht of description)
1. Elementary 01 02 03 04 05 06
2. Junior High 07 08
3. High School 09 10 11 12
4. College 13 14 15 16
or vocational
5. Graduate School (Master's degree) 17
6. Graduate School (Doctorate) 18
16. To which of the following age groups do you belong? (show card A)
1. Under 18 years 5. 50-64 years
2. 18-24 years 6. 65 + years
3. 25-34 years 7. (refused)
4. 35-49 years
17. Which of the following categories best describes your household's
total after tax or take-home income from all sources? (show card B)
1. Under $8,000 per year
2. $8,000-9,999
3. $10,000-14,999
4. $15,000-24,999
5. $25,000 and over
6. (refused)
Thank you very much for your help. We at the University of Florida
appreciate your cooperation in this smoked fish fillet marketing study.
(By observation -- Questions 18 & 19)
18. Sex of respondent: 1. Female 2. Male
19. Race:
1. White (excluding Spanish origin)
2. White, Spanish/American Indian
3. Black
4. Oriental
Smoked Fish Fillet Study
45
SHEET A
A. Exterior color?
much too slightly
dark too
dark
3
just
right
4
slightly
too
light
5
much too
light
B. Interior color?
1
much too
dark
2
slightly
too
dark
3
just
right
4
slightly
too
light
5
much too
light
C. Smoked flavor?
1
much too
Smokeyy"
D. Texture?
1
much too
tough
2
slightly
too
Smokeyy"
2
slightly
too
tough
3
just
right
3
just
right
E. Salt?
1
much too
salty
2
slightly
too
salty
3
just
right
4 5
not quite needs much
enough more smoke
smoke flavor flavor
4
not quite
tough
enough
4
not quite
enough
salt
5
needs to be
much
tougher
5
needs much
more salt
CONFIDENTIAL
CARD A
AGE
Under 18 years
18-24 years
25-34 years
35-49 years
50-64 years
64 + years
CARD B CQNEIDENTIAL
CARD B AFTER
HOUSEHOLD AFTER TAX INCOME
Under $8,000 per year
$8,000-9,999
$10,000-14,999
$15,000-24,999
$25,000 and over
47
SMOKED FISH FILLET STUDY
NON RESPONDENTS
1. (If person refuses to sample fillets ask: What is the main reason
you won't try the sample?)
(Circle unaided first response)
1. Do not have time
2. Do not like fried fish
3. Cannot eat fried fish because of diet restrictions
4. Do not like smoked flavor of any kind
5. May contain bones
6. Unsure of sanitation
7. Unsure of quality
8. No specific reason
(complete questions 2 4 by observation)
2. Sex: Male_ Female
3. Age:
1. Under 35 years
2. 35-64 years
3. 65 + years
4. Race:
1. ___ white (excluding Spanish origin)
2. White, Spanish
3. Black
4. Oriental
REFERENCES
Otwell, W. Steven, J. A. Koburger-and R. L. Degner. Low Temperature
Smoked Fish Fillets, Sea Grant Report, Florida Sea Grant College,
August 1980.
Sales and Survey Marketing Management, Survey of Buying Power, 1979.
Vol. 123, No. 2, Part I, New York, July 1979.
Thompson, Ralph B. (Ed.). Florida Statistical Abstract 1979. Bureau
of Economic and Business Research, College of Business Administration,
University of Florida, University of Florida Press, Gainesville,
1979.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries of the United States,
1979, Currect Fishing Statistics, No. 8000, April, 1980.
|