Design and Performance of Small Scale Sensory Consumer Tests

Small scale internal consumer tests provide a company with a cheap way to get valuable information regarding their products advantages and flaws. Therefore the demand for possibilities to do this kind of test has increased. This report is part of a new sensory project at Unilever. It presents a method for sensory comparison of the company’s own products with the corresponding competitor products. The method allows the company to identify possibly poor performing products and also outstanding good performing products, why expensive big scale consumer tests can be limited into only including products that likely needs improvements or that in a larger scale test could be proven “best in test”. Out of many potential tests for affective evaluation of foods the 9-point hedonic scale test and the ranking test was chosen. Questionnaires and preparation procedures were constructed, where after 16 evaluations including 23 Unilever products, performed on different food categories, were conducted. The results showed that indications and also significant differences in liking and preference could be seen in test groups of only ten participants. Among the evaluations performed seven Unilever products showed potential of being best in test, and six Unilever products got results indicating they were less preferred/liked compared to the competitor, why further evaluations are needed. As an example of a possible way to proceed with the identified poor performing products, a second method, including the 9-point hedonic scale with added attributes and Just-AboutRight scales, was presented and practiced on one product. The results showed that a product can be poor performing and graded as disliked among participants when compared to competitor products, but when tested on its own regarded as acceptable or even good performing. Further evaluations will have to be performed before determination if this is a successful method of identifying which attributes causes the product flaws.