Comparative aspects of sensory profiling and consumer tests for food and non-food products

Agnès GIBOREAU

ADRIANT Research & Sensory Marketing

54 rue Lamartine- 75009 PARIS France

Tel: +33 (0)1 56 02 63 12 ;

Fax: +33 (0)1 56 02 63 19

 a.giboreauadriant.com

Sensory methodologies are now successfully used in non food industries, as previously shown through case study presentations and discussions within the sensory community (Giboreau et al. 2001, Civille et al. 2003).

From a general point of view – objectives, principles, statistics - methods are rather similar whether we eat the product or not. Applicable methods concern both discriminative, descriptive and hedonic approaches. More, innovation processes and marketing strategies seem to be comparable in food and non food businesses. In short, all companies are interested in designing and producing "good" products, i.e. making consumers satisfied and liable to the brand.

However, theoretical frames may differ for food or non food studies and specific methodological constraints exist when looking at protocols in details.

For instance, the relative importance of senses is not similar through all products. Taste of course is often central for food and oral care products although color or texture might be essential depending on the considered products. Touch is particularly important for many non food products (cosmetics, laundry, phones…) and in-situ consumer tests allow to study the relative importance of each sense and to predict actionable innovation directions.

The impact of functionality and design is another factor of difference between food and non food products, especially linked to usage specificity. Then, functional descriptors can be included in descriptive works, when manipulating the sample or its pack have a high impact on product perception. On the consumer level, most tests have thus to be conducted at home, in real context situations. Today, food industries are more and more aware of the importance of functionality as consumer demand is increasing regarding individual portions, outdoor consumption, easy-to-prepare meals and so on.

Another practical difference concerns the possibility to mimic natural consumption or use of the products in laboratory conditions, for instance, for applying body products or studying fragrance changes all day long. Non food products are also often difficult to standardize, because of their specific shape and size or because of not removable brand indexes. Results risk sometimes to be biased and the selection of the product space is a very critical point when designing the study. More, validation phases could be necessary to confirm conclusions obtained showing a brand or shape impact.

Finally, food and non food specificity can be questioned regarding:

the relative role of sensory and semantic properties of products,

the agreement / discrepancy between test and real usage conditions (size, shape, anonymity, evaluation phases, temporal aspects …)

the test organization constraints / flexibility : number of products, number of sessions, length of questionnaires, subject management (experts training, consumer segmentation).

An outcome of such a comparison could be to reinforce usage concerns in food domains and sensory expertise in non food ones.

Giboreau A. & Civille G.V (2001) Sensory evaluation of non food products, 4th R.M. Pangborn Symposium, Dijon.

Civille G.V & Giboreau A. (2003) Test conditions and context effects for non food consumer research, 5th R.M. Pangborn Symposium, Dijon.

 Slides                                                                                         Back to programme