FOCUS GROUPS
A focus group is a group of respondents able to represent a specific population on matters being considered. When a sample survey is conducted, a random sample is selected because, if the sample is large enough with respect to the variation in the population, it will look very much like a "scale model" of the population. One can then study the sample and feel confident that what is observed in the sample will be typical of the whole population. The sample is representative.
However, the typical member of a population often is not the best respondent. That is especially true when hypothetical ideas are being considered or when special knowledge is required. In those situations, a random sample will not provide an adequate set of respondents.
Focus groups do not simply answer questions; they discuss issues and formulate ideas. The results of focus groups are the product of the interactions among the experts making up the group. Focus groups produce the best results when they are composed of the appropriate experts. In this case, the appropriate experts are opinion leaders from within the food service industry and discriminating consumers.
Few methods exist for gathering information from potential retail and wholesale customers that is both economical and reliable. The appropriate method depends on the questions asked, how much is known about the subject being studied by the respondents, the uses of the results, and the resources available for data collection and analysis. Each method has strengths and weaknesses. The researcher's first job is to match the most appropriate method to the situation with the aim of producing results with the best possible reliability and validity.
Reliability describes the reproducibility of the results. A reliable method would produce the same results if the study were to be performed by other researchers or repeated by the same researcher under identical conditions. Reliability is seldom if ever perfect. However, it is an ideal researchers must do their best to achieve.
Validity describes the degree to which measurements actually describe variation in the concept under study. When applied to the conclusions reached by the researcher, validity refers to the degree to which those conclusions actually reflect reality. Validity, too, is a goal diligently sought but seldom perfectly achieved.
Research methods can be divided roughly into qualitative and quantitative methods. Quantitative methods make and analyze measurements using numbers. Qualitative techniques rely on words for measurement and inductive logic for analysis.
A qualitative method called a focus group was used in an interpretive design for this study. An interpretive design is most appropriate because little was known by the researchers or sponsors about the impressions the respondents may have regarding forage-fed beef. Without this knowledge it would be very difficulty for researchers to write reliable and valid survey questions. In such cases, the accepted practice is to use focus groups, informants or similar methods to generate questions appropriate to the respondent.
The sponsors were interested in specific information regarding the degree of consumer acceptability of a forage-fed beef product; however, there was no guarantee that a random survey would lead the researcher to a large enough number of respondents (statistically-speaking) who had tried the product. Where little is known about a new product an interpretive approach is wisest, at least at first. A positivistic and quantitative method may or may not be appropriate later to validate the results of the interpretive study.
WHEN FOCUS GROUPS ARE APPROPRIATE
Consider focus groups when there is a gap between professionals and their target audiences. (Morgan and Krueger, p. l6.)
The more removed the investigators are from the respondents, the less likely they are to be able to empathize adequately. That is especially true when the investigators and the respondents come from different cultures (e.g., ranchers vs. chefs) and/or upbringings.
Professionals such as academics and ranchers have developed specialized ways of analyzing and evaluating their product that may not be shared by chefs and discriminating consumers. "Discriminating" in this study is used to describe a group of consumers who are members of a gourmet group, this group meets regularly for tastings and discussions of food. In addition they tend to be very particular about the quality of their food purchases for at-home consumption.
The daily product requirements demanded by chefs versus those expected or preferred by consumers may be very different from the product expectations of ranchers and academics. Very little new information can be gained from questionnaires or discussions about the attributes of forage-fed beef from ranchers or academics. "Because the interactions in focus groups provide a clear view of how others think and talk, they are powerful means of exposing professionals to the reality of the customer, student, or client." (Morgan and Krueger, p. 17.)
FOCUS GROUP RECRUITMENT
In recruiting participants for the two focus groups used here, efforts were made to include opinion leaders. In the area of discussing attributes of a food product, chefs and discriminating consumers were viewed as those with the greatest exposure to meat selection, preparation and taste. Initially, contacts were made with many potential representatives. Some individuals were not interested, others provided new contacts. The target number of participants for focus groups is between 6 and 10 people. Both groups were within this range.
FOCUS GROUP OPERATIONS
The participants in the chefs’ focus group were given the choice of two steaks either New York or rib eye, to prepare and taste within a specific time frame. Some participants requested and were given a second sample of two steaks to taste. The product was delivered to them frozen in individual-sized cryovac-sealed portions. Each Natural beef product sampled by the focus group participants was mechanically tenderized prior to being frozen.
Each participant was asked to make observations of the product at the time of preparation and consumption. They were also asked to try the product as close to the meeting date as possible. The chef focus group was conducted on June 10, 1997; there were six participants which included one food critique. All participants were male with an age range of 25 to 65 years old. The meeting lasted about 1 º hours.
For the discriminating consumer group, fourteen New York and 14 rib eye steaks were delivered in the same form as the samples given to the chefs. The gourmet group consisted of 14 participants who tried the product while on a "retreat" over a two-day period (one day prior to the focus meeting). The discriminating-consumer focus group was conducted on June 12, 1997; only nine of the group were able to attend the focus group meeting. There were both male and female; all participants were 50+ years old. The meeting lasted about 45 minutes.
The focus groups were assembled on the California State University, Chico campus. For the chef group, a campus restaurant area was used. For the discriminating consumers, a conference room was reserved. Tables were arranged so that they formed a rectangle around which participants sat. Tape recorders and microphones were placed on the tables. Tapes were made of each session to facilitate focus group analysis.
Beverages and snacks were provided to the respondents along with some token "Thank You" gifts. The investigators introduced themselves. The purpose of the study and how the focus group would be conducted were discussed. Participants were assured that their comments would be confidential and anonymous.
In an interpretive design, analysis occurs as the data are collected as well as following data collection (listening to tapes). As the participants answer questions, tell their stories, and discuss with each other, the investigator tries to extract summary ideas. When the opportunity arises, the participants are asked to comment on such summary statements. Their replies lead to revision of the summaries and further clarification is requested. Summaries are proposed in ways that clearly imply that the statement is not the investigator's idea but the investigator's understanding of what the group has said about an idea.
The investigator is careful not to cut off discussion too early or to direct the flow of ideas too specifically. However, there is a need to keep the conversation on track. This is usually done by stating something the group has said relevant to the topics of interest, rather than taking an unproductive tangent and asking for more comment on it. This usually brings discussion back to the topic. Tapes of the group discussions are listened to later to identify themes and meanings and to answer questions or concerns posed by the sponsor.
FOCUS GROUP: FOOD SERVICE REPRESENTATIVES
The following is a summary of observations and quotes given by these food experts on the various attributes of the product as well as some discussion of beef products in the food service industry in general. Please note that several of these chefs prepared the Natural beef samples along side a standard beef product and compared them. The following are from the direct commentary of the focus group participants without embellishment by the author/facilitator.
APPEARANCE
Raw product Upon opening the defrosted raw product from its sealed bag some pieces were notably torn. A definite lack of marbling was of concern for the chefs; this is an attribute of considerable importance to those in the food industry where marbling signals flavor, juiciness, and tenderness. For the retail shopper, they tend to look for really lean beef; in that respect this product would have natural appeal to these types of shoppers (this is confirmed by the second focus group of consumers).
Serving Size Serving size for these steaks were too small for restaurant portions. Thin cuts also added to the problem of being easily overcooked. Consistency in size and shape is of the utmost importance at a restaurant; customers will compare their steak with others at their table. If their serving looks smaller, even if it weighs the same, they will feel cheated.
Grilling At the time of grilling, several of the steaks began to curl within minutes. It was also noted that there was a lack of "carmalization" which is typically an indication of flavor. The lack of "carmalization" may be due to the tenderization process prior to freezing and/or from the lack of marbling. There also tended to be more curl to the product during grilling than would usually be expected.
Color The color of the fat and meat of the raw product seemed fine. Once the steaks were cooked (grilled) there seemed to be a gray color which was unappealing. This made it difficult to know when the steak was done. Easy to follow, simple instructions with clarity on the time required for cooking the product will assist the preparer.
The Overall Look General impressions were fair to good however both the New York and rib eye steaks looked more like round steak. The rib eye lacked the kernel of fat and tip on the end that would typically be found. The cut of the meat was not angled properly for the anticipated cuts. The lack of carmalization and color would not be that important for ground beef.
OTHER ATTRIBUTES
Tenderization/Texture The chefs understood the need of the tenderization process due to the minimal external fat on the product. However, it was believed that the tenderization method was responsible for the product having a pasty/mealy texture. Overall the product tended to be tender, although some steaks were tough.
Packaging The frozen cryovac sealed steaks had one positive attribute in that the product can be stacked. One of the problems with this type of packaging was that not all of the steaks were sealed securely which led to some leakage of juices. Restaurants are more likely to buy a fresh product and would rarely consider a beef product that has been frozen. Finally, the cryovac package left a "fishy" odor if meat is grilled immediately after removing from the packet. If sold frozen in cryovac packaging one chef suggested that the product should sit out of the package for a few minutes (up to 30 minutes) prior to grilling.
Flavor The overall flavor was good but not as intense when compared to standard beef products. When grilled some of the steaks lacked some flavor. Impressions varied with an overall opinion of inconsistent flavor among the pieces tested by each participant.
Concept The idea of a "no chemicals, low fat " product has some appeal. Since the product did not look like a typical cut (New York or rib eye), it was suggested that it would have more appeal being sold julienne-style. For example, selling this as a product for stir fry or fajita steak was a suggested option.
"Free Range", no hormones or minimal antibiotic usage will eventually be where more restaurants are going in the coming years. It will be a niche market for restaurants. However as the product exists now most restaurateurs would not consider offering it on their menus.
COMMENTS REGARDING BEEF PRODUCTS IN THE FOOD SERVICE INDUSTRY
Conducting Business with the Food Service Sector Restaurateurs prefer to use independent sellers but these sellers must have the best product at the best price. Personal service makes the difference. Independents have or at least seem to have more consistency. Restaurateurs look for quality, consistency, and stable price. In the Chico area there are 186 restaurants none of which can support a really high-end product ($30 to $40 per person). Therefore, these 3 factors can make or break a business.
Locally-produced products are very appealing to restaurateurs. Close associations with those who raise the product is also important to the restaurant’s clientele. Restaurateurs prefer to develop mutually trusting relationships--a chef would prefer dealing with the rancher and not a salesperson of some large firm. Many restaurants are willing to pay a premium (10-15%) for 1) knowing the producer; 2) receiving a consistent product; and 3) getting a quality product. The thought that you are supporting a local producer (you know their name or the region where the product is produced) gives the restaurant clientele a good feeling and has a lot of appeal. Customers are willing to pay when they have product recognition particularly if it is produced locally or regionally. A common theme is that customers at these restaurants do ask from where products come.
Another approach for selling to the food service industry is to have a product of superior quality. An example of such a beef product is Niman-Schell who produces a "natural" beef product in terms of being free of chemicals. (Please see Appendix for an example of Niman-Schell beef advertising.) A producer like this can dictate what will be sold to which restaurant. A top-quality producer can sell prime cuts to a restaurant with the understanding that the restaurant must then buy other lower quality cuts along with it. By receiving a premium price on the high-end portion, the producer could afford to sell the remaining product to markets that do not have high quality needs.
Promotions Any kind of information about the rancher (or group of ranchers) that can be shared will enhance sales of a product. It could be either something placed in the menu or on the table top. If the chef gets to know the rancher this can sometimes be the most important way of marketing the product. If the rancher invites the chef to the ranch to see the operation, even if the chef never goes, it shows confidence in the product. Once a relationship is established, the maintenance of that relationship is important where the rancher would periodically go to the restaurant that features his/her beef.
Other ways to enhance sales at a restaurant would include banners and brochures that tell the story of the family farm (this is very appealing to customers) and samples of the steaks (not necessarily strips) to the chef.
Grades Most restaurants do not really concern themselves with meat grades. Oftentimes restaurateurs and cooks have a difficult time knowing the difference between prime or choice. Some will purchase raw products from "scarbacks" as opposed to those with the USDA label if the product has the attributes s/he prefers. The USDA label is not all that meaningful to chefs.
Delivery Restaurants rely on 52 weeks per year of delivery. It is not worth it to them to build a relationship with a producer who can only provide product half the year.
CONCLUSION OF FOOD INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVES
Quality must be improved before chefs would consider using this product. Chefs are more interested in a fresh and not tenderized product. Most restaurateurs would not consider this product as it is now. Consistency, better packaging, and better cuts, would make this a more viable product among those in the food service industry. The "low fat" connotation has little appeal to the restaurateurs since for those in the food industry "light" usually mean smaller portions not necessarily low in fat. The product may appeal to a chef in a low-end steak house. At the retail level most people want less aged, less fatty products. Restaurants, on the other hand, will go for more fatty and aged-beef products. "Lean steak that doesn’t taste good you only buy once" especially when it is purchased at a restaurant.
FOCUS GROUP: GOURMET GROUP
The following is a summary of observations and quotes given by these discriminating consumers on the various attributes of the product as well as some discussion of at-home consumption of beef products. Half of the Natural beef steaks were marinated; the other half were seasoned with crushed pepper. They were flame grilled. The following are from the direct commentary of the focus group participants without embellishment by the author/facilitator.
Packaging The cryovac did not work 1/3 of the time with leakage occurring. The focus group consumers typically purchase their beef at Costco, Safeway, and the Butcher Shop. Packages with various cuts of meat did not seem to interest this group.
Participants mentioned that they rarely check the frozen meat case for product. They prefer to examine the fresh product; a frozen product makes the consumer question the age and quality. However, if they knew this product was available in the frozen food section of the supermarket they would look for it. Several comments were made that fresh beef products are usually purchased but oftentimes put directly in the freezer at home. Discussion centered on most having smaller families and less freezer space.
Appearance The initial impression of the look of the product was very lean with no marbliing. This would be the type of product they would look for when purchasing beef for at-home consumption. They also noted that the raw product was much redder than what is typically found at the supermarket. After the product was cooked, they had a difficult time knowing the level of doneness of the product. It did not seem to change color on the grill like standard beef products do. Each Natural beef product should come with instructions regarding quicker cooking time for grilling and less time for marinating. This is consistent with the fact that less time is required due to the tenderization process.
Taste The product seemed a little dry and flat if slightly overcooked. It was very good when marinated. Some of the product was used in stir fry and was found to be delicious by the whole group. Overall they agreed that there was no substantial difference in taste between this product and that of standard beef.
Concept The overall concept of no chemicals, minimal antibiotic usage and being a low fat product is very attractive to this group of consumers. Selection of this product would be based on its beneficial attributes toward health; purchases would not be based on taste. The group was very interested in a very lean ground beef product with minimal shrinkage. Right now consumers pay a premium for an extra lean ground beef product. Roast was also a product cut this group thought would be of some interest. Among these participants, a 10% or less fat content was the most desirable for a beef product.
Name The terms "Natural", "Range-Fed", Grass-Fed", or "Forage-Fed" all had strong appeal to the group. It implied minimal chemical usage and leanness. With names like these, a premium price would be feasible.
Promotion To attract this type of consumer emphasis should be placed on "no hormones, minimal antibiotics and leanness". If it were possible to present the percent of fat content on its label this could influence purchases. For example, in advertising a producer/marketer could compare fat content of a Natural beef New York or ground beef with that an equivalent standard beef product or poultry ; this would show the consumer the genuine leanness of the Natural beef product. Other suggestions included coupons and advertisements in the weekly food sections.
Labeling Information regarding the tenderization process got mixed reviews. Some said that when information about tenderization was given to consumers they might wonder what was wrong with the product in the first place. Others remarked the knowledge that it was an extra lean product made them think that the product would probably be extra tough.
Labeling the product with information on the location of the ranch or ranches or who the rancher/ranchers are has a definite appeal to locals. If two products were side-by-side and one had a local label, these consumers said they would be willing to pay a premium for the product with just that knowledge alone.
Other suggestions included giving consumers taste samples of the product at the location where the product is sold. Short and simple recipes for Natural beef entrees were also suggested. Also an endorsement of the American Heart Association (assuming it meets their dietary guidelines) would sway some consumers with dietary concerns. This product could be promoted to certain groups as well. It was suggested that organizations like Weight Watchers may be interested in telling their clientele about the availability of this product.
Using the results from the national trends, written surveys, and focus groups can aid in the determination of five marketing components?the target market, the potential retail price, how to best position the product, where to sell the product, and what would be the most effective way to promote it.
More information is needed to develop a complete marketing strategy. However, the national and local survey can be used to the advantage of the industry. For instance, women between the ages of 25 to 54 years. are the primary grocery shoppers of beef, there is no reason why this group should not be the target market for forage-fed beef. Furthermore, these women tend to be nutrition conscience and label readers. This is a good indication of how the product might be promoted. Observations made by the discriminating-consumers’ focus group revealed some direction in how to best promote and label the product.
For labeling, as discussed by the focus groups, there were two ideas. One ideas was to have the label emphasize the low fat attributes (perhaps a USDA nutrition label). The second suggestion made by both focus groups was to have a label that showed Natural beef to be a locally-produced product. This could be done by using a recognizable name (family or region) or state somewhere on the label the location of the ranches. Promotional aspects that were discussed were taste samples, farmers market, and Wednesday coupons in the supermarkets’ newspaper inserts.
The local written survey indicated that ground beef prices that could be considered for the product would be up to 12% above average retail price. However, 12% may, in fact, be low. According to the data gathered at supermarkets regarding ground beef price differentials based on leanness, consumers spend, on average, 48% more per pound for the leanest product.
Since most consumers indicated that they purchase beef in the supermarket this would be the best place to initiate sales. Since the restaurateurs were not optimistic of this product’s success, the market in the food service sector should be considered later once consistency, quality and appearance are improved. The food-service sector would rarely consider a frozen beef product (the same was indicated by the discriminating consumers); fresh product with nearly year-round delivery is what a restaurateur requires.
Recommendations Given the negative results from the food service focus group coupled with their statement that they buy fresh meat products, providing them with a frozen product may have biased their response. It is recommended that another focus group with chefs be conducted where the participants are given a fresh product, perhaps some tenderized and some not. Another recommendation is that consumers be exposed to opportunities to sample the Natural beef along with an equivalent standard beef product. This would yield immediate results from average consumers regarding general impressions about taste and appearance of the product.
In conclusion, all the information from the national trends along with the results from local surveys and focus groups provide a good starting point for implementing a marketing strategy for forage-fed beef in this region. More in-depth study of local consumers’ tastes and preferences are needed prior to finalizing a marketing strategy. Right now forage-fed beef has more potential to fit into the more healthful eating habits of current and future consumers than at any time in the past.
Albrecht, Terrance L., Johnson, Gerianne M., and Walther, Joseph B. Understanding communication processes in focus groups. In Morgan, David L., ed., Successful Focus Groups. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. 1993.
Morgan, David L. and Krueger, Richard A.. When to use focus groups and why. In Morgan, David L., ed. Successful Focus Groups. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. 1993.
Rogers, Everett M. with Shoemaker, F. Floyd. Communication of Innovations. (2nd Ed.) New York: The Free Press. 1971.
{ Top of Page }{ Table of Contents }
For more information about SAREP email link.