Category Archives: Sensory Commentry

Bringing consumers along for the innovation ride

The consumer woman_shopping_checkoutgoods market is developing at a faster rate of change than ever. Consumers are demanding more choice than ever, with social media platforms such as Facebook and Instagram broadening communication and accelerating change.

In response, businesses and developers are innovating rapidly to meet these demands. The speed of this change, has allowed research and development teams to really stretch themselves and extend their offerings, breaking typical format, sensory and technological barriers. The recent trends in healthy flavoured water, has led to the development of tree waters (such as birch), the enthusiasm around kale chips and the rise of alternative ‘milks’ such as almond, rice and oat based options. This breadth of development routes and options is just the beginning, and could lead to some really interesting new product development coming out over the next few years including familiar products in brand new formats – such as fizzy milk & crunchy cheese (https://tinyurl.com/ycl5row6)

Regardless of the product and development team behind it, stepping into new innovative spaces is a challenge for any brand. Many strong brands have struggled to diversify their portfolios with the Museum of Failure in Sweden happy to showcase development mistakes from which all budding developers can learn. Crucially, making a great product, simply isn’t good enough these days, without bringing the consumer along the journey with a clear brand identity and meaning. Broadening a brands portfolio doesn’t mean forgetting or even diluting what the brand stands for.

Therefore, delivering the brand meaning for consumers is key. Communicating these equities and conceptual cues is essential throughout the usage journey, with product attributes (including these new sensations), pack designs and formats, messaging and claims all playing a role in both implicit and explicit brand cues (http://www.mmr-research.com/insights/sensory-is-implicit). Ensuring all key touchpoints of pack and product experience align with the conceptual associations of the brand provides a strong and coherent message to consumers, allowing the brand to shine through even in a new category, shelf or even store. Developers, marketers and insights need to work together, particularly in this challenging fast-paced innovative world of consumer goods, to deliver new offerings with strong and consistent messages which consumers can both consciously and subconsciously navigate, and bring the strength of the brand along the innovation journey into a new food type, category and marketplace.

Natural, is it all in the name?

ShoppingA colleague at work recently asked me to comment on the role of colour on consumer perceptions of natural for her own blog article. This got me thinking, natural is a buzz word for consumers these days. Natural is everywhere! Gone are the days of ‘No additives’ or ‘Nothing artificial’ to dialing up all things natural with taglines like ‘Nature’s best’.

But what is ‘natural’?  Well at the moment, anything can be!  Consumer preferences towards healthier products have driven this trend in ‘natural’ products, with no legislative or governing bodies fast enough to keep up!  As a result there is no clear definition or regulation of the term natural.  Therefore product developers have been learning through testing out the ideal ‘natural’ product, and sensory cues are key to delivering this.

For a product to be considered natural, all sensory attributes must associate to the product ingredients, marking the ideal for consumers. Visual cues of natural are most key, with less bright and vibrant pack colours (direct cues with green packaging has worked for some products), and an equally muted product inside.  Visible, recognisable ingredients, each providing a variety of colour shades, irregular shapes and combinations all help cue natural for wide range of products. Achieving an overall natural appearance is a fine balance between consistent portion size and execution (so consumers get the same product each time), with some variety and irregularly to reduce processed and mass-produced associations.
Natural aromas and flavours can also be slightly muted (aroma more than flavour) but must align with the ingredients. Take a flavoured yoghurt for example, natural aroma cues can be delivered by both notes of the over-arching strawberry flavour, but also the dairy milk base to give recognisable associations to consumers. Crucially, if a product has a wide range of ingredients, e.g. a mixed fruit juice or cereal bar, consumers need to be able to taste the different flavours. This is particularly key if there are bits of fruit, chocolates etc. as this indicates that nothing is hidden in the products, enhancing natural cues.
Textures are also key across food, drink and particularly in personal care categories. Although relating the texture to ingredients is important, it is considered more of a hygiene factor by consumers, allowing slightly more wiggle room for product developers. However, in personal care, smooth non-oily textures can achieve natural as long as the other touch points of pack and neutral pale colours align. This highlights how appearance is king for a ‘natural’ product execution with all attributes of the product delivering to this message.

Whilst the sensory cues are clear, the natural message isn’t.  Manufacturers and marketeers do not need to jump through hoops to make natural claims, which could broaden the scope of the meaning, even beyond consumer acceptance.  As the debate ‘naturally’ heats up, product development companies need to take care their natural cues have a direct basis for consumers (e.g. organic, no additives etc.), as I predict very soon proof will be needed to explain the natural claim.  They need to keep track of developments in consumer perceptions and legislation of the term natural.  I too will be watching closely!

 

Cilantro appreciation is all in the genes

CilantroWhen making a cup of tea at work, my colleague Rosie and I were chatting about our most loved and hated foods. Interestingly the herb Cilantro (known as Coriander to the Brits) came up very quickly and she told me there was some sort of genetic reason behind some people really hating it. This made me want to understand more.

After a bit of digging into research articles, I found that Rosie was spot on! A study in 2012 which looked at twins, found that 80% of identical twins shared their like or dislike or cilantro, whilst only 50% of familial twins shared this connection. This suggested there is a genetic component involved which another study investigated in more detail.

This further study, published in Flavour journal in 2012, found a proportion of the population detects a soapy flavour in cilantro, which is linked to their genes. Everyone has a sequence of DNA (single nucleotide polymorphism) called rs72921001, which lies among our odour receptor genes. This DNA sequence can vary between people and depending on whether the sequence, known as a genotype, is AA, AG or GG, can determine an individual’s sensitivity to the soapy note. The location of this DNA sequence in the genome can be near a particular gene, OR6A2, which codes for an odour receptor which is highly specialised to binds to specific aldehyde molecules, which can be found in both cilantro and soap. Since odour sensitivity directly relates to flavour perception, detecting these aldehyde aroma compounds impacts the flavour of cilantro, leading to some people describing it as soapy.

Although the proportion of the population detecting the soapy note in cilantro can vary between 4 and 14% depending on ethnicity and other genetic factors, the study found that these genes can influence the liking of this particular herb. So next time you’re sitting down for a meal full of coriander and someone complains it tastes like soap, it isn’t their fault, it’s all in the genes!

Jamie’s Sugar Rush – Not a rushed response?

SodasSo it’s been a few weeks since Jamie’s launched his battle against sugar , and I’ve been waiting to hear the response and reaction from consumers, manufacturers, legislators, and frankly anyone! Interestingly, even though everyone is talking about in sugars in our foods and drinks, it hasn’t really been the storm I was expecting.

This got me thinking, whilst it is certainly a good idea to tackle how much sugar we all eat and drink, as Jamie showed the dental and general health implications could be huge. This in turn could reduce the strain on the NHS and have wider reaching benefits. Whilst his campaign message is undoubtedly very well intended, I have a few questions on his approach.

Firstly, would a 10p increase in drinks costing £2.45 in his restaurants really dissuade anyone from ordering a drink with added sugar, particularly when you consider other restaurants charge around £2.50 anyway?  I realise this is just the start to his tax proposition however, other restaurants have appeared to be slow or reluctant to follow his lead, which is intriguing.

Whilst he backed up his manifesto with the observed reduction in fizzy drink consumption in Mexico following a one peso drinks tax, can we really compare these very different nations and use the same the approach to very different social status and sugar intake problems?  He hardly mentioned the early stage results of the Mexican findings, nor discussed the difficulties observed during the introduction of France’s soft drink tax, which showed a far lower level of impact over a longer period of time, and is a nation with a closer socio-economic structure to the UK.

The final queries I have from Jamie’s sugar rush, were when Jamie outlined how much sugar we can easily consume in our diets (without even having fizzy drinks, desserts or sweets).   When discussing a typical daily diet, Jamie found we could easily consume over five times the recommended level of sugar without a fizzy drink in sight, fundamentally questioning the point of focusing on a single food offering, rather than recommending balance and moderation.  This got me thinking, if sugar is in a wide range of our foods and drinks already, what are the food and drinks industry doing to align with government recommendations?  Are they doing anything to reduce sugar in their products already?

The food and drinks industry aren’t just standing idly by and increasing the sugar levels in their products, many of them are constantly striving to reduce sugar contents right under our noses!  Using a small step reduction approach, which takes a small amount of sugar out of the product so that consumers won’t notice, they then wait until everyone has adjusted to the new sweetness level and do it again.  This method has been used on reducing salt and sugar in products for years, however it does take time.  Larger scale jumps can lead to consumers noticing a large difference and rejecting of the product (even if claimed on the label), which can severely damage consumer enjoyment, the product and even perception of the brand too.  All of these are heavy costs to the food and drinks industry, and they are determined to products that taste good and consumers will like.

Alternatively, sweetening agents such as aspartame, sucralose and more recently stevia have also been included into products.  These deliver sweetness without the diabetes and tooth decay issues associated with sugar, and are commonly used in diet drinks and as table top sweeteners.  However, consumer perceptions of sweeteners are mixed, with some feeling these aren’t a natural source of sweetness and opting for sugar and honey alternatives, whilst others find these an option for low-calorie enjoyment of sweet products.

Jamie’s sugar rush has highlighted a key debate in the production of our foods and drinks, and the need to strike a balance between great tasting products and healthy lifestyle.  I’m sure this debate will continue for the foreseeable future, and maybe Jamie’s efforts will be a slow burning reminder for the food and drinks industry to keep sugar near the top of their priorities.

Soft Drinks

Sugar wars – The attack of the chef

Sugar is in the headlines again this week and battle lines are being drawn.  Celebrity chef Jamie Oliver has launched an attack on sugar in a Channel 4 documentary to be shown later this week on UK TV, and the Food and Drink Federation has already hit back in defense.  This couldn’t be more topical following the recent SACN guidelines aiming to reduce sugar consumption to 5g a day.

Jamie Oliver and his team are aiming to introduce a tax on soft drinks with added sugar.  The sugary drinks tax would increase beverage costs by 20p per litre, which would add around 7p onto the cost of canned soft drinks.  Soft drinks have been singled out in Jamie’s manifesto as he states they are the largest single source of sugar consumption for children, providing high calorie intakes and impacting dental health.  Although a 20p per litre cost increase may not sound like much, the cost increase would be too large for manufacturers to absorb themselves and would therefore be passed directly on to consumers with the intention to reduce sugary drink consumption, increase overall public health, improve dental health and potentially reduce obesity levels.  Other countries have already introduced this tax with varying degrees of success, including France, Hungary, and most recently Mexico where a 10% tax on sugar-sweetened beverages is projected to decrease consumption by around 12% and could substantially reduce the prevalence of obesity.

However the Food and Drink Federation has already hit back, stating sugar consumption in the UK is in decline, with increasing consumption of diet product offerings.  The regulatory body also insists that sugary soft drinks are not the largest source of calories consumed by children, with director general Ian Wright suggesting that government legislation of sugar consumption won’t work by “Demonising one nutrient out of a range on the national menu is not a healthy way to proceed.”  Since many food and beverages are already taxed, the federation suggests any additional taxes would not be proven effective at driving long-term dietary changes, as found with the sugary drink tax in France showing initial decreases in consumption followed by normal patterns resuming.

This debate got me thinking, how can we define what is a “sugary drink”?  What about natural sugars?  Plenty of products already state “No Added Sugar” on the label, would these be exempt from the sugar tax?  Fruit juices can contain similar amounts of fructose as the levels of added sugar in soft drinks, would these need to be taxed even though the sugar isn’t “added”.  With the ever increase demand for natural products, will including natural sources of sweetness such as fruit juices and honey be included in this tax too?

Another thought is about the level of sugar in these drinks.  Would a blanket price increase be introduced, as requested in Jamie’s manifesto, or would the level of tax be based on the amount of sugar in a product?  Would providing sugar tax bands, or a sliding tax scale support the food and drinks industry to reduce sugar levels, and encourage consumers to make healthier choices?

I look forward to this documentary to find out more details, answer these questions and really understand the options, opportunities and challenges facing us to reduce sugar in the UK population’s diet.

Highlights of Pangborn 2015

Pangborn 2015The international sensory symposium of the year, Pangborn 2015 has come to an end, leaving sensory and consumer researchers with a lot to think about.  I just wanted to share the highlights and three key themes of the conference here to get us all thinking about what the next two years may hold in product-based research.

 

Global research – The whole world is conducting sensory and consumer science, and Pangborn 2015 really opened up the world to all the possible insights, from Australia to China, from the US to Thailand.  Delegates learnt about the opportunities and challenges working across international markets and languages.

Speedy sensory – Rapid techniques in product evaluation, such as Mapping, Sorting and Check-All-That Apply (CATA) were put under the microscope at Pangborn, both for general research, and for assessments with specific target consumers.  As expected all rapid methods offer a trade off between speed, efficiency and the level of detail achieved.  As presented by Tracey Hollowood, and something I’ve personally embraced in my own publications, are the opportunities offered by hierarchical sorting approaches to gain fantastic sensory differences and product insight efficiently, while offering the closest option to profiling.  I’d be happy to share my thoughts and ideas on this as well as my paper for anyone interested!

Controlled context – Sensory scientists are always seeking to control all factors of product assessment, from sample preparation and presentation to the surrounding environment and even lighting. However, more consumer researchers are interested in assessing products within the context of where and when they would typically be used.   This is particularly interesting for consumer Central Location Testing (CLT) to determine whether a product fits the context and environment that it would usually be used in.  Therefore finding the ideal trade off between controlled, strict and accurate product testing, to more ‘in-the-moment’ assessments in context is still heavily under debate.

As expected, Pangborn 2015 was a fantastic mix of current research developments, intriguing novel applications for testing techniques as well as branching into newer unchartered territories of mobile apps, global consumer understanding and more implicit methodologies.

New challenges in product development – The role of social media

Social MediaMy friends and I were reminiscing about some of our favourite childhood foods and drinks this weekend.  Everything from foam bananas to panda cola we put the FMCG world to rights.  Which got me thinking, some products and brands have really survived the test of time, either by tapping into the traditional and familiar or evolving and adapting with the times.

However in terms of products this is less easy than it seems.  Changes in commodity prices, manufacturing technology  enhancements even government legislation can all impact the products we see on the shelves, and the developers need to constantly manage and cope with these ever changing demands without alienating the people who love their products.  This often means continual small product changes, which are monitored and checked by sensory panels and consumers to ensure the difference isn’t noticed.  Discrimination testing, like triangle, duo-trio and more recently tetrad tests are all suitable for checking these differences to give product developers the most confidence possible when launching these adjusted version to market. However, there is still a risk, and with the rise in social media, the consumer voice is stronger than ever.

Whilst sites like Twitter and Facebook has allowed product manufacturers to communicate  more directly with consumers, consumers can also talk back.  This can highlight, emphasise and even magnify smaller product tweaks, and lead to scandals on the larger changes.  Whilst previously product changes might be published in newspapers and even discussed on TV, the ever increasing world of social media can allow consumers to voice their anger and frustrations to the world, and the manufacturers themselves.  This places more responsibility on product developers to communicate changes to consumers, which may not be ideal to the overall acceptance of the product and could even damage the brand.

Whilst products will always change overtime, a fine balance must be struck by developers to ensure consumers continue to trust and enjoy their offerings.  Social media can play a fantastic role in connecting brands and consumers more directly, however this can lead to more challenges in future for developers that are keen to stay up to date and evolve.

Generating consumer descriptions of products – It’s not all talk

Consumer language

As a sensory and consumer scientist, understanding how consumers perceive and describe products is an essential aspect of market research.  However, consumers can struggle to find the language to express and articulate product characteristics, often selecting liking and hedonic terms they feel more comfortable using.  This leads to difficulties understanding why consumers like or dislike products and could provide limited optimisation guidance for product development teams.

An ideal approach is preference mapping, allowing consumers to just rate their liking of the products, while a trained sensory panel score the samples for their characteristics.  The consumer liking data is then combined with the sensory map of product characteristics to really understand what attributes drive consumer liking and is a robust insightful tool.  However, this approach can be expensive and time consuming, and in this ever demanding world of faster insights, may not be suitable in every case.  This means asking consumers to describe products in detail, a tricky task.

So what is the best way to gain the most product information and insight directly from consumers?  Is there a practical way to get participants to really give product characteristic descriptions?  A recent study in Food Quality and Preference has compared a range of different consumer methods, to find that the highest number of descriptive terms were provided by consumers when assessed samples at an individual level or by presenting triads of samples in a repertory grid.  This is in contrast to assessing and comparing a wider number of product in the full sample set, which can lose some of the detail.

These study findings align with my own experience of product testing with consumers, where found pairwise comparisons offer the best option to get detail from consumers.  For example, if consumers are trying to describe the characteristics of plain biscuits, it is easy to compare and contrast two products for differences in key attributes such as colour, baked character, crumbliness, cereal flavour, crunchiness, sweetness and so on.  By providing both products, consumers can say things like “This biscuit is drier than that one”, and help them to express the differences in the products.  This can allow consumers to generate descriptions as well as elements of liking and crucially provide R&D teams with as much sample focussed detail to drive development and product optimisation

Sweets in jars

Flavour… more than meets the mouth

Recently brought to my attention, here is a fascinating summary of the perception of artificial flavourings, published by the BBC last year.

My colleague Sam sent me this interesting article, as she was intrigued by how the origin of flavouring can impact consumer perceptions, with some ‘artificial’ flavours possibly originating from less frequently consumed varieties of foods we know and love.  The author Chris Baraniuk uses banana flavourings to great effect, highlighting how sensory and flavour chemistry can be used to trick consumer perceptions.  On his journey through flavour he steps into the world of the full sensory experience and cross-modal interaction with Charles Spence, and even flavour encapsulation, which provides such hope for the food industry to deliver key flavours and product attributes, albeit with varying levels of success at this early stage.

Thank you Sam for sending me this article.  It summarises nicely the challenges faced by the food and drinks industry to deliver flavoursome, natural tasting foods.  This is particularly important for current FMCG trends, as shown by the 2015 Insights Show, highlighting how consumers are demanding more and more different and exciting flavour options.

The not so sweet taste of fat

Fat

Another exciting study has hit the world of taste research.  Researchers from Purdue University, have found new evidence to suggest we can perceive the taste of fat, termed ‘Oleogustus’.  In a study published this month, Mattes and his team have found new evidence that fats can have a distinct taste, different sensation to the basic tastes of sweet, sour, salty, bitter or umami.

In this study, volunteers were screened for their taste ability through a series of discrimination (spot the similar samples) tests.  Screening selected 69% of volunteers, with 36% showing higher taste acuity.  Successful participants wore nose clips, to reduce the impact of aroma and flavour, and sorted a variety of taste samples into groups using an adapted Taxonomic Free Sorting approach.  The samples were matched for texture, so volunteers focussed on taste differences when describing what united samples that they placed in the same groups.

Sorting results found participants grouped samples into salty, sweet, sour and bitter tastes, with the fat samples generally placed separately to all these basic tastes.  Whilst some overlap was observed with certain fats considered to be have elements sour, umami and bitter tastes, follow-up assessments found participants could isolate the fat samples specifically. Some short chain fatty acids were found to be slightly sour, whilst medium length chain fatty acids had some cross-over with umami compounds such as Monosodium Glutamate.  Interestingly, long chain fatty acids were found to have some bitter associations for consumers, and these findings led the study authors to conclude that the taste of fat may not be entirely pleasant, and even considered unpalatable.

Despite fat delivering a specific sensation we can detect on the tongue, it is the combination of these tastes, aromas, textures and flavours that contribute to the full sensory experience.  Fats can aid flavour delivery and provide texture cues to a wide range of products such as the melting mouthfeel of chocolate and ice cream, so even though it may be unpalatable when isolated, fat is easily accepted in the full context of foods and beverages.  Nevertheless, this greater understanding of what we perceive when we eat, can help industry develop low fat alternatives and fat replacers, knowing the role this essential ingredient plays in the mouth, and how we can perceive it.

This is a fascinating finding for both sensory research and the food industry as a whole, particularly for those developing low fat products with fat free alternatives.  This study highlights that fat has a taste which could be important to mimic in low fat products, as well as indicating the levels that isolated fatty acids can detected by consumers.  The concentrations of fats used in this study are around the levels in fermented and rancid products and could help explain the unpalatable nature of fat samples by consumers.  This new study suggests the taste of fat could play more of a role in food perception than we all realise, beyond the texture and mouthfeel characteristics we recognise in some of our favourite foods like chocolate!