1

3/10/15

ANALYSIS OF
BLIND PRODUCT TEST
MARKET RESEARCH TERM
PROJECT

Submitted By:
Amarjeet Singh
Koushik Rakshit
Namita Pandey
Roma Agrawal

3/10/15

AGENDA

Background
Objective
Research Design
Sample Size and Data Description
Feedback
Analysis
Summary
Questions

3/10/15

BACKGROUND

R & D team of Smirnoff has prepared two

new blends of Vodka; Test Blend 1 and Test
Blend 2

Marketing team want to do Blind test of the

two new blends Vs. Smirnoff (Control Blend)

Any of the Test Blends if found to be better

than Smirnoff then it will be replaced by
that new Test Blend.

3/10/15

OBJECTIVE

Primary Objective
To

test whether drinkers have liked the new test

blends of vodka or not.
To decide whether current blend should be
replaced by any of the new test blends or not (at
90% and 95% Confidence level)

Secondary Objective
To

find the important attributes that drive overall

preference of vodka and to what extent they are
responsible for overall likability of the blend.
To reduce the correlated attributes into factors and
to see their effect on overall likeability
To predict the purchase intentions by evaluating
the ratings on attributes.

3/10/15

RESEARCH DESIGN

One to one interview was conducted in 5 large cities

Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, Bangalore, Chennai

The Research was conducted with sequential monadic

exposure 3 blends were given one after the another and
feedback was taken

Consumers were given neutralizer after each blend to

remove bias

Target Group
Males/Females in the age group of 25 35 yrs.
Consuming vodka at least twice a week
Regular consumer of any one of the three brands
Smirnoff, Fuel or Magic Moments

3/10/15

SAMPLE SIZE AND DATA DESCRIPTION

760, each will be given 3 blends of Vodka
Total = 760*3 = 2280 observations

Each person will be given a unique a unique

response no and they have to response for
each of 3 blends, i.e., 3 rows for each persons.
PANEL

PANEL1
(where Test
Product 1 is
first blend)

PANEL1
(where Control
Product is first
blend)

PANEL1
(where Test
Product 2 is
first blend)

3/10/15

Age- Recorded as number of yrs., ranging from

25 to 35
30

Ages Recorded as two bands of Age

24.33
1 Age
between 2530yrs & 2 Age between 31
35yrs
25

P
E
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

20

15

18.4
14.4

14.57

14.17
11.2

9.13

10
6.8
5

7.69
4
2.66

12.93
14.57
25

26

6.08276.88

28

11.2

12

9.72

6.46

7.98
6.08

3.64

7.98

PANEL1
PANEL2
PANEL3

7.29

4.86

3.2

2.66
1.2
29

12.96

12

5.6
303.64 13.69
31

32

33

34

35

AGE (YR)

At 95%, there is no significant difference among age

3/10/15

Study was done in 5 centers:

22
21.46
21

P
E
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

20.91

20

20.4
19.6

19.77

20.53

20.24

19.84

19.03

19

18

20.8

20.53

21.2

PANEL1
PANEL2
PANEL3

18.25

18

17

16
DELHI

19.43
MUMBAI

KOLKATA

BANGALORE

CHENNAI

At 95%,
there together
is no significant difference among
Placement Order and Product
goes
centers as well
1 First-placed blend
2 Second-placed blend
3 Third-placed blend
Product beside this specifies which blend is first, second or
third.

3/10/15

FEEDBACK

Each attribute was ranked on a scale of 1 to

10 (10 being the max and 0 means that it is
not all being liked by the drinker)

Strength of different attribute was taken on 5

point likert scale:
1 (too weak)

2 (little weak)

Intention to buy
1-Yes and 2-No

3 (just right)

4 (too strong)

5 (too strong)

10

3/10/15

Analysis
Starts

11

3/10/15

IMPORTANCE OF ATTRIBUTES
Attributes in the order of their importance:
Taste -> Mouth Feel -> Aroma ->
Smoothness -> Throat Feel -> Flavor -> After
Taste
After taste was not adding any value so Ignored
that attribute in predicting the overall likeability
Regression Equation:

[Overall Likeability] = 0.589 + 0.174[Aroma] + 0.300[Taste] +

0.118[Smoothness] + 0.089[Flavour] + 0.101[Throat Feel] +
0.206[Mouth Feel]

This equation explains 77.4 % variability in

Overall Likeability

12

3/10/15

SMIRNOFF OR OTHER ?
Top2 at
95% CL

Prod1
and
Prod2

Prod3
and
Prod2

Top3 at
95% CL

Prod1
and
Prod2

Overall
Likeability DIFFERENT

Prod3
and
Prod2

Overall
Likeability

SAME

SAME

Taste

SAME

SAME

Taste

DIFFERENT

SAME

Mouth Feel

SAME

SAME

Mouth Feel

SAME

SAME

MainBrand

%age

Magic Moments

22.76%

Smirnoff

62.23%

Fuel

15.00%

SAME

Neither Blends are better than Control Product (Smirnoff)at 95%

Confidence Level (Taken top 2 rating and top 3 ratings)

13

3/10/15

OVERALL LIKEABILITY W.R.T. STRENGTH

Attributes in the order of their importance:
Strength Of Taste -> Strength of Smoothness
->
Strength of After Taste -> Strength of Flavor

Strength of Aroma is not a important factor.

[Overall Likeability] = 8.56 - 0.300[Strength of Taste] +

0.150[Strength of Smoothness] - 0.093[Strength of
Flavour] - 0.117[Strength of After Taste]

This equation explains 7.1 % variability in Overall

Likeability, We should not consider all these.
Note: This is not correct to do, as OL is on 10 point scale
and rest of the predictors are on 5 point scale

14

3/10/15

CORRELATION ?

Correl Aroma
ation Taste

Smoothn
ess
Flavor
ThroatFeel
Aftertaste
MouthFeel

Correlation Matrix
Arom Tast Smoothn
Throata
e
ess
Flavor
Feel
1.000

1.00
.699

Aftertaste

MouthFeel

.650 .778

1.000

.699 .783

.730

1.000

.644 .749

.784

.743

1.000

.658 .791

.759

.772

.796

1.000

.652 .797

.762

.768

.814

.831

1.000

Huge Correlation and KMO statistics (0.945) > 0.5 hence we can go
for factor Analysis

15

3/10/15

CANNOT BE CONVERTED INTO FACTORS

Compone
nt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Total Variance Explained

Extraction Sums of Squared
Initial Eigenvalues
Loadings
% of
Cumulativ
% of
Cumulativ
Total
Variance
e%
Total
Variance
e%
5.482
78.316
78.316
5.482
78.316
78.316
.431
6.156
84.473

.276
3.939
88.412

.252
3.603
92.015

.220
3.146
95.161

.179
2.558
97.718

.160
2.282
100.000

Total Variance is explained by 1 component only.

16

3/10/15

PURCHASE BEHAVIOR W.R.T. ATTRIBUTES

Structure Matrix
Function

1
Taste
.373
Aroma
.337
Throat-feel
.212
Smoothness
.139
Flavor
.057
After Taste
-.072
Mouth Feel
.148

Q6_Int_p (Y=1,N=2)

Original

Crossvalidatedb

Count 1
2
%
1
2
Count 1
2
%
1
2

Considering all
attributes except
Overall Likeability

Classification Resultsa,c
Predicted Group
Membership
1
2

519
125
71.8
8.0
516
127
71.4
8.2

204
1432
28.2
92.0
207
1430
28.6
91.8

Total

723
1557
100.0
100.0
723
1557
100.0
100.0

a. 85.6% of original grouped cases correctly

classified.

17

3/10/15

Standardized Canonical
Discriminant Function
Coefficients
Function

1
Taste
.477
Aroma
.370
Throat-Feel
.329

Only considering 3
most important
attributes

Classification Resultsa,c
Predicted Group
Membership
Q6_Int_p (Y=1,N=2)
1
2
Original
Count 1
498
225
2
129
1428
%
1
68.9
31.1
2
8.3
91.7
CrossCount 1
498
225
b
validated
2
129
1428
%
1
68.9
31.1
2
8.3
91.7

Total
723
1557
100.0
100.0
723
1557
100.0
100.0

a. 84.5% of original grouped cases correctly

classified.
b. 84.5% of cross-validated grouped cases correctly

18

3/10/15

SUMMARY

There is no difference in samples w.r.t age, ages,

market, centers, panels, products.

Taste and Mouth Feel are most important attributes

and After taste is least important

(Regression and step-wise regression)

Seen that there were correlation between many

attributes, we clubbed the correlated attributes into
factors and then tried to find the effect on overall
likeability

(Chi square test is used to test this)

(Factor Analysis and Regression)

We tried to discriminate the two levels of purchase

intension on the basis of attributes

Important attributes were: Overall likeability, taste,

Mouth Feel

19

3/10/15

CONCLUSION

Control product should not be replaced by any of the test

products

Aroma, Taste, Mouth-Feel and Throat feel are most

important attributes that drinkers like.

After taste is least important

Main brand of drinkers is Smirnoff only.

Company should concentrate on these 3 attributes if in

future they want to launch any new products

We would like to suggest a launch of new product but not

with the replacement of Smirnoff

20

3/10/15

Thank You
For Listening
Us