involving children in the product development

process

MS

TS

Ltd

tel

+4

4 (

0)

19

59

56

7 3

20

e-m

ail

info

@m

sts.

co.u

kw

eb

htt

p:/

/ww

w.m

sts.

co.u

k

Yvonne Taylor, MSTS Ltd

Page 2

Format of the presentation

Yummy vs Yukky– getting beyond this basic response mechanism

Helping product developers– how can we get detailed information, from children, for

product developers to use

KidSpeak case study– what can we learn from children?– do kids and adults really differ - why can’t we just get

adults opinions?– how important is appearance

Page 3

Yummy vs Yukky

getting beyond this basic response mechanism

Page 4

Poor levels of discrimination

> Frequently we find that children just aren’t very good at discriminating between products. In this example, there is little difference in liking of products 2 – 6. Product 1 is less well liked.

3.2

3.9

4.1

4.2

4.2

4.5

0 1 2 3 4 5

product 1

product 2

product 3

product 4

product 5

product 6

what is it about product 1 which isn’t liked?

what is it about product 6 which is liked?

Page 5

Poor descriptive abilities

So what was it about product 6 that they did like:

‘it tasted nice’

‘it tasted lovely’

‘it was just like my usual product X’

Page 6

Poor descriptive abilities

So what was it about product 1 that they didn’t like:

‘Didn’t taste nice’

‘it tasted funny’

‘it didn’t taste like my usual product X’

Page 7

What have we learnt

> Most of the products perform similarly with one product which isn’t liked.

> We have no idea why these products are or aren’t liked apart from it’s something to do with taste… or is it?

– In line with their overall lack of ability to discriminate, children will tend to indiscriminately up-rate or down-rate all aspects of a product if they do or conversely don’t like it. This is called the halo effect.

Page 8

The halo effect (dislike of one aspect influences all other attributes)

How much do you like the look of this product?

‘not very much’

How much do you like the taste of this product?

‘not very much’

How much do you like How much do you likethe saltiness of this product? The sweetness of this product?

‘too salty’ ‘too sweet’

How much do you like the texture of this product?

‘not very much’

Page 9

Making sense of the findings> What does the product developer do with this information?

– Very little because:• It’s not detailed enough• We don’t know what is actually wrong with the product

> How do we go about addressing the issues of:– Lack of discrimination– Inability to articulate what is actually yummy and what is actually

yukky about a product

Page 10

Helping Product Developers

how can we get detailed information for the product

developers to use?

Page 11

Addressing the inability to articulateApply the techniques of sensory to children to select those withbetter than average taste buds:

– MSTS have done this and have a product called which is a panel of 8-12 year olds.

– All children who are interested in joining the KidSpeak panel attend an hour long screening session which commences with a short verbal ‘presentation’ to the children as a group on sensory experiences.

– The children are encouraged to ask questions, provide answers – this gives an initial indication of their personalities, and abilities to interact with adults and peers.

Page 12

Sensory ScreeningThe children participate in the key elements of a sensoryscreening programme:

– Identification of the flavours of a number of drinks

– Ranking of a range of different products according to strength, sweetness etc (to identify basic taste recognition)

– Written description of a fairly complex food product – covering key sensory characteristics

– Odd one out/triangle taste tests

– Aroma recognition

– Reactions to unusual flavours to ascertain willingness to try unfamiliar tastes

Page 13

Panel composition

Not sufficiently discriminating for the panel

Good descriptive skills/lower end of discrimination scale

Good descriptive & discriminating skills

Page 14

Methodology

> Small groups of children – Minimum of 12 for any project

> Quali-quant approach– Questionnaire and one to one interviewing

> Individual evaluation and assessments

> Some group assessment/consensus– E.g. voting for top 3 products to go in lunchbox

> Clients can get involved/sit on workshops/ask questions

Page 15

Product Categories

> MSTS have successfully used the KidSpeak panel on the following product categories:

– Fruit based desserts– Milk based desserts– Meatballs– Fruit juices– Hand held snacks

Page 16

Considerations of this approach

> Low penetration product categories– they may not be consumers of a product/brand on our panel– Sometimes the best we can do is non rejectors

> Small sample size– should be treated as qualitative even though we get some

‘numbers’

Page 17

KidSpeakcase study

what can we learn from children?do kids and adults really differ - why

can’t we just get adults opinions?how important is appearance?

Page 18

Scope of the Project

> Mums and children

> Likers of product category – RTE sweet desserts in pot

> Non rejectors of flavours tested

> Evaluation of NPD products in the context of existing ‘on market’ products

> To find out:– Which NPD route to go down– Learn some lessons from existing products re: Best in Class– Understand mum’s and children’s product likes/dislikes with

reasons

Page 19

Overall Opinion – children

1.1

1.7

2.1

2.3

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.3

3.8

3.8

4.3

2.8

1 2 3 4 5

Product A

Product C

Product B

Product E

Product F

Product G

Product H

Product M

Product L

Product K

Product I

Product J

Rated significantly higher than all other products

Least liked products

Product J is the most liked product with products I and K also doing well against the rest of the products

tested. Products A, C, B and E disliked.

Liking scale 1= horrible 5 = very nice

Page 20

Overall Opinion – adults

1.3

2.6

3.3

3.6

5.1

5.4

5.8

6.1

7.5

7.6

8.3

5.3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

product A

product B

product C

product E

product F

product G

product H

product I

product J

product K

product L

product M

Rated significantly higher than all other products

Least liked products

Liking scale 1= dislike extremely 9 = like extremely

The winner

Product M is the most liked product with products K and L also doing well against the rest of the products

tested. Products A, B C and E are disliked.

Page 21

To summarise

mums childrenBest liked product M J

Where do children rate product M?5th – mid range of liking

Where do mums rate product J?4th – mid range liking

Least liked products E, C, B & A E, B, C & A

What is wrong with E, C, B & A – what can we learn from them?

No one productticks the box forboth mums and

children

Page 22

Adults vs children best liked comparisons

6.1

8.3

7.7

5.8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Product J

product M

mums children

Product J had a sweeter and more syrupy flavour which children liked

Product M had a mouthfeel which children didn’t like

NB: Children liking scores re-worked to fit a 9 point scale

Page 23

Product M – descriptive vocabularyAPPEARANCE

Fruit pieces – non uniform shape

Dark colour

AROMA

Stronger on key flavour

Tinned fruit

TASTE

More fruity –esp. key flavour

Sweeter

Stronger

Tangy

Artificial

MOUTHFEEL

Firm

Smoother

More mouth-coating

Slower dissolving

Astringent

Children didn’t like this texture

Page 24

Product J – descriptive vocabulary

APPEARANCE

Fresh

Overripe – bitty/mushy pieces

SMELL

Key flavour

Syrup

Weak aroma

TASTE

Key flavour

Over-ripe

Sweet

Syrup

MOUTHFEEL

Fizzy tongue – acidic

Children liked this taste

Page 25

Product E, C, B and A – what is wrong with these products?

APPEARANCE

Unpleasant colour

Looks like it has too many bits

TASTE

Unrealistic ‘fruit’ flavours

Sour/bitter taste

TEXTURE

Bits too hard

More likely to be mentioned by children

Page 26

Summary

To maximise child appeal, the client should progress with product J and find other ways to satisfy mums through the concept proposition.

Product M would not have the required product appeal with children to ensure that repeat request rates are healthy.

Avoid products E, C B and A as they do not offer a commercial opportunity in their current form.

Learnings from children’s views on appearance and texture and how they affect liking should be borne in mind for future product development in this area.