Use of auctions to assess consumer value for fresh and end-of-code milk.

The objective of this study was to survey consumers' milk purchasing behavior and investigate the effect of sensory experiences and an educational message on the perceived value of fluid milk at the beginning and near the end of code. Eleven auction sessions were carried out (n = 100 consumers), which included an explanation of the experiment, a survey about demographics and milk purchasing and consumption, sensory evaluation, an educational message, and 3 rounds of nth price auctions. Consumers were blindly served 2 pairs of milk samples from white-pigmented high-density polyethylene [2% and skim milk within 2 to 3 d of production (fresh) and 2% and skim milk with 2 to 3 d until the end of code (near-end)], and asked to indicate their preference and the level of acceptability for each sample using a 7-point hedonic scale. All samples were simultaneously evaluated by a panel of 8 judges who were trained to evaluate milk quality attributes on a 15 cm unstructured line scale. Results from the consumer panel acceptability rating session, trained panel descriptive analysis, and consumer auction bids were analyzed using multivariate factor analysis of variance. Subjecting pre- and post-survey responses to k means cluster analysis revealed 4 bidding populations in each round. Most participants (82%) indicated that they check the code date on milk every time they shop; 77% said they reached for the code date that was farthest out every time. However, on blind tasting, consumers did not prefer fresh over near-end milk. These findings were in agreement with their acceptability scores for fresh 2% (5.0/7.0), near-end 2% (5.2/7.0), fresh skim (4.5/7.0), and near-end skim (4.6/7.0) milks. Trained panelists did not detect a difference in "lacks freshness" flavor in fresh skim (1.9 cm/15.0 cm) or near-end skim milk (1.3 cm). Surprisingly, trained panelists did detect higher "lacks freshness" flavor in 1 lot of fresh 2% (2.3 cm) compared with near-end 2% milk (0.3 cm). When consumers bid on half gallons of milk with visible code dates, fresh skim was valued $0.27 higher than near-end skim, and fresh 2% was valued $0.29 higher than near-end 2%. After blind sensory evaluation, the margin between the fresh and near-end bids decreased to almost zero (fresh skim was valued only $0.03 more than near-end skim; near-end 2% was valued $0.01 more than fresh 2%). After the educational message about the meaning of code dates, consumer bids for near-end ($0.63) and fresh milk ($0.81) decreased compared with the first round of bidding ($0.74 and $1.01, respectively). Additionally, the margin in bids for fresh milk remained numerically higher than those for near-end milk ($0.15 for 2% and $0.21 for skim). The educational message about code date did not have the intended result of increasing consumer value for milk. Although consumers go out of their way to buy the freshest milk, they cannot necessarily distinguish fresh milk from milk at the end of code; consumers appear to value a code date that was farther out more than superior taste, even after a sensory experience and educational message.

Use of auctions to assess consumer value for milk from different packaging.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of a sensory experience and educational message on consumer value for fluid milk in different containers: translucent high-density polyethylene (HDPE), white-pigmented HDPE (light-block), and paperboard. We carried out 11 auction sessions (n = 100). Sessions included an explanation of the experiment process; a survey about demographics and milk purchasing and consumption behaviors; a sensory evaluation; an educational message; and 3 rounds of nth price auctions. Consumers were blindly served 2 pairs of milk samples-2% milk from paperboard and translucent HDPE, and skim milk from paperboard and translucent HDPE-and asked to indicate their preference and level of acceptability for each, using a 7-point hedonic scale. Consumers were asked to ascribe a monetary value to each sample. Consumers were also asked to taste and assess a value for 2% and skim milk from light-block HDPE. All milk samples were evaluated simultaneously by a panel of 9 judges who were trained to evaluate milk quality attributes on a 15 cm unstructured line scale. All milk was from the same industry source, processed and stored on the same timeline for each session. Results from the consumer panel on acceptability, trained panel descriptive analysis and consumer bids were analyzed using multi-factor ANOVA. Subjecting responses to pre- and post-surveys to k means cluster analysis revealed 4 bidding populations in each round. Trained panelists detected higher levels of light-oxidized off-flavor in skim milk from translucent HDPE (5.8 cm) than from light-block HDPE (2.42 cm) and in 2% milk from translucent HDPE (5.1 cm) than from paperboard (0.32 cm). Although 84% of participants regularly purchased milk in plastic containers, consumers' acceptability scores for milk of the same fat content but from different packaging were not different. However, consumers gave higher acceptability scores to 2% milk from paperboard (5.2/7.0) than skim milk from paperboard (4.7/7.0). We found no differences in consumer value (US$) for 2% or skim milk in paperboard or translucent HDPE. However, after consumers received an educational message and tasted "Certified Fresh Taste" samples, they were willing to pay more for 2% milk in paperboard ($0.31 more) or HDPE ($0.38 more) packaging with a "Certified Fresh Taste" seal and for skim milk in paperboard ($0.15 more) or HDPE ($0.21 more) packaging with a "Certified Fresh Taste" seal than for milk in packaging without such labeling. Although consumers could not detect a difference in the milk from different packages, they indicated that they would pay more for a "Certified Fresh Taste" seal after hearing about the effects of light on milk in different packaging, demonstrating the importance to consumers of external cues about freshness.