British Food Journal

Irish consumer preferences for honey: a conjoint approach

M. Murphy*C. CowanM. Henchion S. OReilly
Article information:
To cite this document:
M. Murphy*C. CowanM. Henchion S. OReilly, (2000),"Irish consumer preferences for honey: a conjoint
approach", British Food Journal, Vol. 102 Iss 8 pp. 585 - 598
Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 00:34 01 February 2016 (PT)

Permanent link to this document:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070700010348424
Downloaded on: 01 February 2016, At: 00:34 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 14 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 960 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
I.V. Suresh, C. Padmakar, Prabha Padmakaran, M.V.R.L. Murthy, C.B. Raju, R.N. Yadava, K. Venkata Rao,
(1998),"Effect of pond ash on ground water quality: a case study", Environmental Management and Health,
Vol. 9 Iss 5 pp. 200-208 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09566169810240508
Ko de Ruyter, Martin Wetzels, (2000),"Customer equity considerations in service recovery: a cross-
industry perspective", International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 11 Iss 1 pp. 91-108 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/09564230010310303
Jan A. De Jong, Ilse M. Van Eekelen, (1999),"Management consultants: what do they do?",
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 20 Iss 4 pp. 181-188 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437739910276984

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115318 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emerald-library.com

Irish consumer preferences for Irish consumer

preferences for
honey: a conjoint approach honey
M. Murphy*, C. Cowan and M. Henchion
The National Food Centre, Dunsinea, Castleknock, Dublin, Ireland, 585
and
S. O'Reilly
Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 00:34 01 February 2016 (PT)

Food Economics Department, University College Cork, Ireland

Keywords Honey, Consumer, Ireland
Abstract The ideal honey profile for 153 Irish consumers of honey was one with a thick texture,
a dark golden colour, made by a small-scale producer, at a price of IR1.95 and packaged in a
454g (1lb) plain glass jar. Least squares regression was used to estimate part worths for the
conjoint analysis. Using the scale attribute as a basis for segmentation three distinct segments
were identified. Market simulation experiments simulated market shares for 11 products; the
ideal products for each segment (three in total), two existing mass-produced honeys, four from
small-scale local farm producers and one from a farm producer produced on a larger scale. The
first cluster was the least price sensitive, with the most important attribute being small-scale
producer source. Mass-produced honeys had a very small market share in this segment. The
second cluster was distinguished by deriving a high utility from a light-coloured honey. Again
mass-produced honeys had the smallest market share. In the first two clusters, in addition to some
of the ideal products, honey/s from small-scale producers had high market shares. The third
cluster was the most price sensitive and the mass-produced honeys commanded their largest
market share in this segment. This segment also derived the highest utility of all segments from a
honey produced on a mass scale. The results show that adjusting pricing and promotional
approaches could increase market share for honey producers.

Introduction and background

The aim of this article is to report the results of a study that concerns the use of
conjoint analysis, an analytical method for the analysis of product attribute
trade-offs made in product choice by consumers, applied to the Irish honey
market. The focus of this research has been to identify segments of the honey
market that have similar preferences. Producers, manufacturers and retailers
can then target their products at these niche segments. This paper also aims to
identify the constituents of an ideal honey profile for each market segment
(cluster) and the calculation of possible market shares of actual honey products,
based on a market simulation.
Central to the conjoint analysis model are four assumptions outlined by Ness
and Gerhardy (1994):
This paper is based on research carried out with the financial support from the EU Commission,
Agriculture and Fisheries (FAIR) specific RTD programme, CT95 0360 Agro-alimentaire
Paysan Europeen. The paper does not necessarily reflect the EU Commission's views and does
not anticipate the Commission's future policy in this area.
British Food Journal,
* Former Walsh Research Fellow at The National Food Centre and presently a Lecturer in Vol. 102 No. 8, 2000, pp. 585-597.
Marketing at the Waterford Institute of Technology, Waterford, Ireland. # MCB University Press, 0007-070X
 BFJ (1) All products can be defined as a set of attributes.
102,8 (2) Alternative versions of the same product can be defined as a set of
different attribute levels.
(3) Consumers evaluate the utility of attribute level combinations, when
making a purchase decision.
586 (4) When consumers choose between alternative products, they trade off
attribute level combinations.
Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 00:34 01 February 2016 (PT)

In this article, the next section provides a brief overview of the Irish honey
market. The technique of conjoint analysis is then explained, followed by a
discussion of aspects of research design and methodology. The empirical
results are summarised with emphasis on the interpretation of the model and
its use for segmentation and simulation analyses. Finally some summary
comments and conclusions are presented.

The honey market

Beekeeping in Ireland is for some an absorbing hobby and for others a valuable
farm income supplement. It is estimated that there are 2,000 beekeepers in
Ireland, managing 22,000 colonies (hives) of bees. Although beekeeping can be
carried out almost anywhere in Ireland, some areas are naturally more
favourable than others. Bennett (1998) has shown the local climate and flora
(both natural and farming-influenced) significantly affect productivity. In 1990,
The Federation of Irish Beekeepers Associations which acts as an umbrella
body for the various associations throughout Ireland conducted a census of
population of both colonies and beekeepers per county. It was noted in that
census that 78 per cent of the beekeepers had 1-10 hives, 11 per cent had 11-20
hives, 7 per cent had 21-50 hives, 3 per cent were in the 51-200 hive bracket and
0.30 per cent had more than 200 hives. Thus the majority of beekeepers have a
small number of hives, suggesting that most of the beekeepers are producing
honey as a hobby rather than as a business interest.
Honey production was 198 tonnes in 1997 or 11 per cent of Irish needs
consumption was 1,779 tonnes. A clear deficit exists that could be made up by
increased home production. Irish honey bees do not produce as much as their
counterparts in New Zealand, Mexico and Russia, where much of the world's
honey originates, but the quality is often much better. Overall the EU produces
almost half its needs.

Conjoint analysis
Survey research is limited in its ability to manipulate or control for interactions
between price sensitivity and various product, vendor and buying situation
characteristics, but a survey technique which attempts to address this problem is
conjoint or trade-off analysis (Morris and Joyce, 1988). Conjoint analysis is a
technique that models the nature of consumer trade-offs among multi-attribute
products or services. The model assumes that alternative product concepts can
 be defined as a series of specific levels of a common set of attributes. It also Irish consumer
assumes that the total utility the consumer derives from a product is determined preferences for
by the utilities or part-worths contributed by each attribute level. Conjoint honey
analysis starts with the consumer's overall or global judgements about a set of
complex alternatives (Green and Wind, 1975). It then performs a decomposition
of the original evaluations of the consumer into separate and compatible utility
scales, by which the original overall judgements can be reconstituted. Being able 587
to separate overall judgements into components, in this manner, can provide a
producer with valuable information about the relative importance of various
Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 00:34 01 February 2016 (PT)

attributes of a product. It can also provide information about the value of various
levels of a single attribute. Therefore the aim of conjoint analysis is to identify
the attribute combination which confers the highest utility to the consumer and
to establish the relative importance of attributes in terms of their contribution to
total utility. An ideal product profile can then be judged.
Anttila et al. (1980) summarise the advantages of conjoint measurement in
relation to more traditional techniques within market research. These include
ranking of preferences compared to magnitude of preference, thus improving
data reliability; explicit trade-offs between attributes provides a more realistic
approach and part-utilities produced by conjoint analysis provide a common
scale facilitating direct comparison. More recent work has highlighted the
appropriateness of conjoint measurements as a basis for market segmentation
(Steenkamp, 1987; Huang and Fu, 1995; Ness and Gerhardy 1994; Ball et al.,
1996; Batt and Katz, 1997).
Steenkamp's (1987) seminal paper applied the conjoint technique to quality
evaluations in a ham market. He found conjoint measurement ``a versatile
marketing technique . . . [that] allows the researcher to form market segments
based on individuals' quality perceptions''. Huang and Fu (1995) support this
approach arguing that conjoint analysis provides ``a means for the researcher to
identify and delineate market segments based on individual preference
structures instead of grouping consumers a priori on selective socio-economic
and demographic characteristics''. Similarly, Ball et al. (1996) illustrate the
usefulness of ``preference-based segmentation'' in the development of
appropriate and practical marketing strategies. Ness and Gerhardy (1994)
illustrated that the estimation of consumer willingness to trade off one attribute
against another reflects the process of product evaluation in the marketplace.
Batt and Katz (1997) provide strong evidence supporting the usefulness of
conjoint analysis in the accurate identification of consumer priorities and price
sensitivities, underlying benefits-based segmentation and realistic, efficient
demand forecasts for multiple market scenarios. They demonstrated the power
of conjoint modelling and prediction through the comparison of previous
research findings with subsequent real market data. In the current study ``ideal''
products for the sample and for three consumer segments are identified. Market
simulation derives market shares for 11 products, including eight actual
honeys.
 BFJ Methodology
102,8 De Pelsmacker and Ven Kenhove (1994) describe five steps in conjoint analysis:
(1) determination of the relevant attributes;
(2) determination of the relevant levels for each of the product attributes;
(3) determination of the method to generate data and the scale-type;
588 (4) the estimation method; and
(5) the analysis of the results.
Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 00:34 01 February 2016 (PT)

Establishing the attributes

Product attributes are components or characteristics of the product. Conjoint
analysis starts with the determination of relevant product attributes that are
believed to influence a consumer's preference (between different honeys). The
attributes should include those most relevant to potential consumers and those
that can be influenced or manipulated by the producer (Cattin and Wittink, 1982).
A focus group was conducted with eight female consumers of honey. The
recruitment criteria for the focus groups was as follows:
(1) female buyers and eaters of honey;
(2) all had to consume honey at least once a month;
(3) ABC1 socio-economic group; and
(4) age from 30-60 years.
Three attributes were identified which were very important for consumers of
any honey, but which did not differentiate between honeys. These were that a
honey should be:
(1) pure;
(2) Irish; and
(3) a healthy nutritional product.
It was subsequently decided to anchor all conjoint analysis profile cards with a
label stating that the honey was ``Pure 100% Irish honey''. The important
differentiating attributes were:
(1) texture of the honey;
(2) colour of the honey;
(3) source of the honey;
(4) price; and
(5) packaging.

Determination of attribute levels

Having determined relevant attributes, levels must be assigned to them. These
must be plausible, actionable and capable of being traded off (Van der Pol and
 Ryan, 1996). Two further focus groups were conducted, again with eight Irish consumer
women in each group. The objective for both these groups was to identify the preferences for
levels associated with the five attributes identified by the first focus group. honey
These attribute levels were as follows:
(1) texture thick and runny;
(2) colour dark golden and light golden; 589
(3) source mass produced and made by a small producer;
Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 00:34 01 February 2016 (PT)

(4) price IR1.95, IR2.15 and IR2.45; and

(5) packaging 227g (8 oz) shaped glass jar and 454g (1lb) plain glass jar.
These levels were identified by the focus groups. For example, the term ``small-
scale producer'' was used rather than farmhouse, as it was found that the
consumer does not think of the honey as farmhouse, but rather as honey from
small-scale local producers. The levels of the price were chosen in a way that
the ``middle'' level reflected the average price paid for a jar of honey,
irrespective of the size of that jar. Price was unique among the identified
attributes, in that consumers felt that there were three realistic prices that they
could pay for honey. Any price below IR1.95 and above IR2.45 was not
considered realistic for a jar of honey.

Generation of data and scale type

Having established the relevant attributes and their levels, hypothetical
scenarios with different combinations of attributes were presented to individuals.
This study gave rise to 48 possible combinations (2  2  2  3  2). Clearly it
would have been unrealistic to ask individuals their preferences for so many
scenarios. This study utilised a fractional factorial design, under SPSS Conjoint,
to reduce the number of profiles to a manageable size, while at the same time
maintaining orthogonality. Thus there were fewer judgements to be made by the
respondent. This reduced the number of profiles to be evaluated to eight.
The full-profile approach was utilised as the means of presentation to the
respondent. In the full-profile approach, respondents were asked to rate the full
product descriptions (full product profiles or combinations of levels of all the
attributes) according to preference. In this case the list of attributes is not too
long, so respondents were not expected to have difficulties in distinguishing
between them. If such were the situation Adaptive Conjoint could be used, in
which case ``the parameter estimates are obtained by combining direct
assessments of attribute levels and paired comparison evaluations. However,
the influence (weight) of the direct assessments is allowed to decrease as the
number of paired comparison judgements provided by a respondent decreases''
(Johnson, 1987). The main argument that favours the full-profile approach is
that it gives a more realistic description of stimuli by defining the levels of each
of the attributes and possibly taking into account the potential environmental
correlation between factors in real stimuli (Green and Srinivasan, 1978). A
 BFJ rating scale was utilised over a rank scale due to possible time constraints on
102,8 the respondents. The scale was anchored from 1 to 9, with 1 being dislike
extremely and 9 being like extremely.
This study utilised a verbal description approach. Each verbal description
was placed on a profile card. This meant that each respondent was given eight
stimulus cards, with each card defining the levels of each of the five attributes.
590 Each card contained a simple sketch of a honey jar (size was dependent on the
packaging of the profile), with a simple label stating that the honey was ``Pure
100% Irish honey''.
Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 00:34 01 February 2016 (PT)

The eight conjoint profile cards were administered to 153 respondents.

Respondents were chosen at random in both Cork and Dublin. Commercial
brands are available in both markets. However, in Cork there is also a large
number of small-scale honey producers with markets in the area, while Dublin
consumers had less access to the products of these producers. Respondents had
to have eaten honey at least once in the last month.

Estimation method
All 153 respondents interviewed provided a set of metric scores for the
combinations of attributes. Based on these scores, the conjoint analysis
procedure calculates the contribution of each product attribute to the
respondent's preference. The contribution of the attribute level is termed its
``part-worth utility''. For each respondent, the part-worths were estimated using
Ordinary Least Square regression analysis. Conjoint uses the utility ranges to
compute importance scores for each attribute.

Simulation of market share

With an understanding of the relative importance of attributes and the impact
of specific levels, it is then possible to conduct further analysis by predicting
the market share that a stimulus is likely to capture in various competitive
scenarios. This can be done using the part-worth utility functions for each
respondent. In this study, both the Maximum Utility model and the BTL and
Logit models are utilised. The Maximum Utility model tends to exaggerate the
market share of a specific product (it assigns a very high percentage of market
share to the first choice), while the BTL and Logit models tend to underestimate
the market share of the first choice. The Maximum Utility model does not give
sufficient recognition to a purchaser's second choices (in terms of utility scores),
which on occasions of course are purchased.
From the point of view of this research and considering the honey industry,
choice might be related to the Maximum Utility model's results as the
purchases may be of a sporadic, non-routine variety, but they may also be
tempered by the BTL and Logit models' results. The reason is that, in the
design of the conjoint experiment, only some decision factors were included.
Other factors such as availability may influence the honey consumer's decision.
For instance, if the consumer's first choice was not available in the retail outlet,
she/he would probably consider the second choice.
 Results Irish consumer
Part-worths and relative importance of attributes preferences for
Table I shows the part-worth utility scores for each level of each attribute. honey
Respondents overall felt that price was the most important factor (26 per cent)
closely followed by texture (25 per cent), packaging (19 per cent), scale of
production (17 per cent), and finally the colour of the honey (13 per cent). Price
was therefore twice as important for respondents as the colour of the honey. 591
Price and texture accounted for just over 50 per cent of the importance all
consumers attached to the attributes of a honey. The colour of the honey was
Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 00:34 01 February 2016 (PT)

the least-valued attribute.

Within the attributes, the utilities of each level were also investigated. With
regard to the price of honey, IR2.45 had a negative utility (U = 0.5375), while
a price of IR2.15 had a higher utility (U = 0.2439) and a price of IR1.95 had
the highest utility (U = 0.2936). A honey from a small-scale producer had more
utility (U = 0.5877) than one that was produced on a mass scale (U = 0.5877).
The remaining utilities can be read from Table I.
The utility of the price attribute shows that consumers in this survey were
price conscious, deriving a higher utility from a honey of a lower price. They
can also be judged as being in some way price sensitive, as they derived a
higher utility from the larger 454g jar than from the smaller 227g (8 oz) shaped
glass jar. The degree to which the larger jar was preferred due to its larger size
could not be determined, but certainly, from conducting the survey, a lot of
people preferred the larger jar as they felt it gave them value for money.
If a producer were to charge IR2.15 instead of IR1.95 for their honey, there
would be a consequent loss in utility of 0.0497. However, if the producer were to
package his honey in a 454g plain glass jar instead of a 227g shaped glass jar,
there would be a consequent rise in utility of 1.2582. If this larger jar of honey
was priced at IR2.15, instead of IR1.95, the utility would rise by 1.2085

Relative
Attribute Level Utility importance (%)

Texture Thick 0.4801 25

Runny 0.4801
Colour Light golden 0.0315 13
Dark golden 0.0315
Scale of production Small 0.5877 17
Mass 0.5877
Price IR1.95 0.2936 26
IR2.15 0.2439
IR2.45 0.5375
Packaging 227g (8oz) shaped glass 0.6291 19
454g (1lb) plain glass 0.6291
Table I.
Notes: Pearson's R = 0.997; Kendall's tau = 1.000. These statistics show that the data fit Results of conjoint
was very good analysis (n = 153)
 BFJ (1.2582 0.0497). Alternatively if the price was reduced from IR2.45 to
102,8 IR1.95 and the honey was packaged in the 454g plain glass container instead
of a 227g shaped glass jar, there would be a consequent rise in utility of 2.0893
(0.8311 + 1.2582).

Market segmentation
592 The market was segmented on the attribute of scale, to ascertain if clearly
defined clusters of consumers existed. Scale was considered the most
appropriate basis for segmentation as it would divide the respondents
Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 00:34 01 February 2016 (PT)

according to those who obtained a high utility for a honey from a small-scale
producer and from a larger-scale producer. A three-cluster solution was found
to have the best fit. The first cluster contained 17 respondents, the second
contained 72 and the third contained 64.
All three clusters preferred the 454g plain glass jar and a thick textured
honey. However, differences existed with respect to the other attributes for
consumers in the three clusters. For cluster 1 in addition to a 454g plain glass
jar and a thick textured honey, the ideal product was also dark golden in colour,
priced at IR2.15 and from a small-scale producer. For cluster 2 the ideal
product was similar but light golden in colour. For cluster 3 it was dark golden,
priced at IR1.95 and mass-produced. Table II shows the importance scores for
all 153 consumers as well as the three clusters. Table III details the attribute
levels and the utility associated with each level.
Cluster one derived the highest utility of all clusters from a honey made by a
small-scale producer and this attribute also contributed nearly 50 per cent
towards the importance associated with buying a honey. They derived the
lowest utility from a price of IR1.95. Price was also one of the lowest
contributors towards the importance of various honey attributes, when
compared to the other clusters. Though they gave a positive utility towards the
454g plain glass jar, it was the lowest on a cross-cluster basis. Cluster one, in
subsequent analysis, was found to have the highest percentage of single people
and the lowest percentage of children. They also had the highest percentage of
respondents working full-time and the lowest working part-time.

All consumers
(n = 153) Cluster 1 (n = 17) Cluster 2 (n = 72) Cluster 3 (n = 64)
Importance Importance Importance Importance
Attribute score % score % score % score %

Texture 25 12 23 29(a)
Colour 13(b) 10(b) 14(b) 13
Scale of
production 17 49(a) 20 6(b)
Price 26(a) 18 27(a) 27
Table II. Packaging 19 11 16 25
Importance scores for
each attribute Notes: (a) Most important attribute; (b) Least important attribute
 All consumers Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Irish consumer
Level of attribute (n = 153) (n = 17) (n = 72) (n = 64) preferences for
honey
Texture
Thick 0.4801 0.3676 0.6302(a) 0.3367
Runny 0.4801 0.3676 0.6302 0.3367
Colour
Light golden 0.0315 0.1912 0.0017 0.0262
593
Dark golden 0.0315 0.1912(a) 0.0017 0.0262
Scale
Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 00:34 01 February 2016 (PT)

Small 0.5877 2.2353(a) 0.7691 0.0746

Mass 0.5877 2.2353 0.7691 0.0746
Price
IR1.95 0.2936 0.1176 0.1736 0.4812(a)
IR2.15 0.2439 0.3088 0.4514 0.0148
IR2.45 0.5375 0.4265 0.6250 0.4664
Packaging
225g shaped 0.6291 0.1176 0.4149 1.0181
454g (1lb) plain glass 0.6291 0.1176 0.4149 1.0181(a) Table III.
Utility score of
Notes: (a) cluster with highest utility for this attribute attributes

Though colour was the least important attribute for consumers in cluster two,
they were the only consumers to derive a positive utility from a light-coloured
honey. This differentiated them from the other clusters, in terms of their ideal
honey profile. They derived the highest utility of all three clusters from a price
of IR2.15 and the lowest utility from IR2.45. This group of respondents,
however, gave a higher utility to IR1.95 than cluster one, but this utility is
lower than cluster three.
Cluster three considered price as the second most important attribute when
buying a honey and obtained the largest positive utility of all clusters from a price
of IR1.95, while obtaining the lowest utility of all clusters from a price of IR2.15.
They also obtained the largest positive utility from a 454g jar, compared to the
other clusters, and this is reinforced when one considers that, of all three clusters,
this cluster considered packaging to have the largest importance. They were also
the only cluster to derive a positive utility from a honey produced on a mass scale.
Cluster three, in further analysis, were found to have the most children.

Simulation of market share

This was done using the part-worth utility functions for each respondent both
for the overall 153 consumers of honey and the three clusters. The conjoint
results were used to simulate choices among eight actual products (two mass-
produced honeys packaged by commercial food companies, five small-scale
producer honeys and one local farm product, (produced on a larger scale), and
three ideal products (the ideal product for each cluster). Table IV summarises
the market share predictions for each cluster for a simulation with the eight
products and the ideal product for that cluster.
 Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 00:34 01 February 2016 (PT)

BFJ

594

cluster
102,8

Table IV.

cluster with eight

Simulation for each

honey profile for that

products and the ideal
Cluster one Cluster two Cluster three
Preference Market share predictions (%) Preference Market Share Predictions (%) Preference Market Share Predictions %
Product Max. utility BTL Logit Max. utility BTL Logit Max. utility BTL Logit

Honey 1 6.6 4.90 11.97 10.20 5.1 7.99 10.07 9.70 3.0 3.23 5.88 2.30
Honey 2 7.1 32.35 13.07 16.16 5.6 16.67 11.59 14.47 5.6 13.44 11.95 12.58
Honey 3 6.9 4.90 12.66 12.09 6.1 5.21 11.80 10.16 5.3 6.45 10.95 10.28
Honey 4 7.3 5.88 12.68 11.38 6.1 12.50 11.67 11.37 5.3 21.77 11.35 13.80
Honey 5 6.9 4.90 12.66 12.09 6.1 5.21 11.80 10.16 5.3 6.45 10.95 10.28
Honey 6 7.3 2.94 12.93 14.29 5.9 8.33 11.82 11.49 5.1 3.23 10.94 5.29
Honey 7 2.6 0.00 4.97 0.28 4.1 0.00 8.58 4.02 5.7 7.80 12.28 13.49
Honey 8 2.2 0.00 4.95 0.52 4.1 6.25 8.71 5.18 5.7 14.25 11.89 14.45
Ideal cluster 1 8.0 44.12 14.13 22.99
Ideal cluster 2 7.2 37.85 13.95 23.44
Ideal cluster 3 6.4 23.39 13.80 17.51
Note: Honey 1 farm product produced on a larger scale than other farm-produced honeys; honeys 2, 3-6 small-scale producers;
honeys 7, 8 large-scale mass-produced.
 Simulation cluster 1. In the choice-based simulation models, the two mass Irish consumer
produced honeys had no market share for the 17 respondents of cluster one, preferences for
under the Maximum Utility model. These, it will be recalled, were the least honey
price sensitive of all the clusters and attributed nearly 50 per cent of the
importance to the attribute of scale deriving a high, positive utility from a
honey made by a small producer. The mass-produced honeys also had the
lowest market share of all honeys under the BTL and Logit rules. All three 595
choice models indicated that the ``ideal'' product for clusters one and two was
Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 00:34 01 February 2016 (PT)

the most preferred and would have the largest market share. Again all three
models suggested that one of the honeys, a small-scale one, would have the
next largest market share. The ideal product profile for cluster three had a very
low market-share prediction for cluster one. Under each of the three models, all
other farmhouse honeys commanded roughly similar market shares.
Simulation cluster 2. In the choice-based simulation models, the two mass-
produced honeys had the lowest market-share predictions of all honeys, but
their share of the market had increased compared to cluster one. The ideal
product profiles for clusters one and two had the largest market-share
predictions for cluster two, while the ideal profile for cluster three had one of
the lowest predictions. Two of the small-scale produced honeys had a larger
market share than the remainder, which commanded relatively similar shares.
Simulation cluster 3. In the choice-based simulation methods, the two
mass-produced honeys commanded their highest market share predictions. It
must be remembered that cluster three was the most price-conscious of all three
clusters. The ideal honey profile for clusters one, two and three had high
market-share predictions for cluster three. All other farmhouse honeys had
similar market shares.

Discussion and conclusions

Price and texture were felt to be the most important product attributes,
followed by packaging, scale of production and finally the colour of the honey.
There was considerable variation in utility between the attributes. A price of
IR1.95 had the highest utility followed by IR2.15 and IR2.45. This indicates
that consumers of honey are price conscious. This is also reflected on
consumers' packaging preference for a larger 454g (1lb) plain glass jar rather
than a smaller 227g shaped jar.
A thick texture had a higher utility than a runny texture. Small-scale
production had a higher utility than mass production. A dark golden colour
had a higher utility than a light golden colour.
The profile with the highest possible utility for all survey respondents was
priced at IR1.95, in a 454g (1lb) jar, had a thick texture, a dark golden colour
and was made by a small-scale producer. The product profile with the least
possible utility had a runny texture, a light golden colour, was produced on a
mass scale, with a price of IR2.45 in a 227g shaped glass jar. A farmer-
 BFJ producer who produces a honey with this utility can analyse the part-worth
102,8 utilities of each of the attributes to ascertain how she/he can increase the
consumer's utility from the honey.
Three segments were identified, each with different needs, illustrating that
honey consumers are not homogeneous. Consumers in cluster one were most
interested in buying honey from small-scale producers. They could be defined
596 as the most ``pro-small producer''. It can also be said that cluster one was the
least price-sensitive cluster. This group has a higher proportion of full-time
workers and single people and is prepared to pay a premium for a jar of honey.
Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 00:34 01 February 2016 (PT)

Cluster three, on the other hand, is the most price sensitive of all three clusters
this is reinforced not only by the utilities associated with price but also by the
utility scores associated with the packaging. The percentage of the market held
by the mass-produced honeys increased from cluster one to cluster three. This
is thus the most price-sensitive cluster. This may reflect the fact that the
highest proportion of respondents with children, were in this cluster. They also
tend to purchase honey more frequently than the other clusters, suggesting that
the total expenditure effect (which states that buyers are more price sensitive
when total expenditure is larger) may be making them more price sensitive.
Producers of honey be they small-scale or large-scale should consider
these findings, when they devise marketing, pricing or promotional campaigns
aimed at increasing purchase of honey. They can then devise niche strategies to
serve these specialist markets. The identification of the ideal product for each
segment enables producers to develop products that possess the desired
combinations of attributes and consider how best to target their market. This is
one of the benefits of conjoint analysis. In this regard, scale of production was
identified as contributing nearly 50 per cent of the importance in terms of
attributes for cluster one, the least price-sensitive cluster. Producers who aim to
satisfy this segment should stress the small scale of their honey production in
any promotional strategies undertaken by them.
Further research should be conducted into the psychological pricing of
honey. The findings suggest that the most price-sensitive cluster (cluster 3)
derived a lower utility for a price of IR2.15 compared to IR1.95. An
investigation into the psychological aspects of price for this group of
consumers would allow small-scale producers to target this price sensitive
segment more effectively. This cluster represents the second largest segment
and members purchase honey more frequently.
Research should also be conducted to analyse what consumers consider an
acceptable price for a 227g jar of honey from a small producer. Consumers in
cluster one, although valuing small-scale production, derived a negative utility
for a price of IR2.45 and a 227g jar. Many small-scale producers use the
smaller package. The results of the current research suggest a reduction in
price of the 227g jar could help improve their product offering for this relatively
affluent segment.
As actual market share data are not available, either in total or for the
segments identified, comparative analysis of such data with predicted shares in
 the market segments analysed is not presently possible but would be of Irish consumer
interest. Such analysis could further test the accuracy and usefulness of this preferences for
methodology in understanding and anticipating consumer behaviour as honey
discussed by Batt and Katz (1997).

References
Anttila, M., van den Heuvel, R. and Moller (1980), ``Conjoint measurement for marketing 597
management'', European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 7, pp. 397-408.
Ball, S., Klose, A. and Remond, C. (1996), ``Illustration of a market segmentation technique using
Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 00:34 01 February 2016 (PT)

family-focused prevention program preference data'', Health Education Research, Vol. 11

No. 2, pp. 259-67.
Batt, C. and Katz, J. (1997), ``A conjoint model of enhanced voice mail services: implications of
new service development and forecasting'', Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 21 No. 8,
pp. 743-60.
Bennett, P. (1998), ``Beekeeping for profit and pleasure'', Farm and Food, Spring, Vol. 8 No. 1,
Teagasc, pp. 16-17.
Cattin, P. and Wittink, D.R. (1982), ``Commercial use of conjoint analysis: a survey'', Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 46, Summer, pp. 44-53.
De Pelsmacker, P. and Ven Kenhove, P. (1994), Marktonderzoek Methoden en Toepassingen,
Garant, Leuven, pp. 107-17.
Green, P.E. and Srinivasan, V. (1978), ``Conjoint analysis in consumer research: issues and
outlook'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 5, pp. 103-23.
Green, P.E. and Wind, Y. (1975), ``New way to measure consumers' judgements'', Harvard
Business Review, July-August, pp. 107-15.
Huang, C. and Fu, J. (1995), ``Conjoint analysis of consumer preferences and evaluations of a
processed meat'', Journal of International Food and Agribusiness Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 1,
pp. 35-53.
Johnson, R.M. (1987), ``Adaptive conjoint analysis'', Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings,
pp. 253-65.
Morris, M.H. and Joyce, M.L. (1988), `` How marketers evaluate price sensitivity'', Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 17, pp. 169-76.
Ness, M.R. and Gerhardy, H. (1994), ``Consumer preferences for quality and freshness attributes
of eggs'', British Food Journal, Vol. 96 No. 3, pp. 26-34.
Steenkamp, J-B. (1987), ``Conjoint measurement in ham quality evaluation'', Journal of
Agricultural Economics, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 473-80.
Van der Pol, M. and Ryan, M. (1996), ``Using conjoint analysis to establish consumer preferences
for fruit and vegetables'', British Food Journal, Vol. 98 No. 8, pp. 5-12.
 This article has been cited by:

1. Marta Cosmina, Gianluigi Gallenti, Francesco Marangon, Stefania Troiano. 2016. Attitudes towards honey
among Italian consumers: A choice experiment approach. Appetite 99, 52-58. [CrossRef]
2. Shang Wu, Jacob R. Fooks, Kent D. Messer, Deborah Delaney. 2015. Consumer demand for local honey.
Applied Economics 1-18. [CrossRef]
3. Amos Gyau, Claude Akalakou, Ann Degrande, Apollinaire Biloso. 2014. Determinants of Consumer
Preferences for Honey in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Journal of Food Products Marketing 20,
476-490. [CrossRef]
4. Elena Maria Marcoz, T.C. Melewar, Charles Dennis. 2014. The Value of Region of Origin, Producer
Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 00:34 01 February 2016 (PT)

and Protected Designation of Origin Label for Visitors and Locals: The Case of Fontina Cheese in Italy.
International Journal of Tourism Research n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
5. Cristina B. Pocol, Sorana D. Bolboac. 2013. Perceptions and trends related to the consumption of
honey: A case study of North-West Romania. International Journal of Consumer Studies 37:10.1111/
ijcs.2013.37.issue-6, 642-649. [CrossRef]
6. P. Mondragn-Cortez, J.A. Ulloa, P. Rosas-Ulloa, R. Rodrguez-Rodrguez, J.A. Resendiz Vzquez. 2013.
Physicochemical characterization of honey from the West region of Mxico. CyTA - Journal of Food 11,
7-13. [CrossRef]
7. Peter J. Batt, Aijun Liu. 2012. Consumer behaviour towards honey products in Western Australia. British
Food Journal 114:2, 285-297. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
8. Francisco J Mesas, Federico Martnez-Carrasco, Jos M Martnez, Paula Gaspar. 2011. Functional and
organic eggs as an alternative to conventional production: a conjoint analysis of consumers' preferences.
Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 91:10.1002/jsfa.v91.3, 532-538. [CrossRef]
9. ROSIRES DELIZA, AMAURI ROSENTHAL, DUNCAN HEDDERLEY, SARA R. JAEGER. 2010.
CONSUMER PERCEPTION OF IRRADIATED FRUIT: A CASE STUDY USING CHOICE-
BASED CONJOINT ANALYSIS. Journal of Sensory Studies 25:10.1111/jss.2010.25.issue-2, 184-200.
[CrossRef]
10. Francisco J. Mesas, Paula Gaspar, ngel F. Pulido, Miguel Escribano, Francisco Pulido. 2009. Consumers
preferences for Iberian dry-cured ham and the influence of mast feeding: An application of conjoint analysis
in Spain. Meat Science 83, 684-690. [CrossRef]
11. Bjrg Helen Nstvold, Jens stli. 2009. Bacalhau in Portugal: The Importance of Information at Point-
of-Sale. Journal of Aquatic Food Product Technology 18, 135-145. [CrossRef]
12. Pinya Silayoi, Mark Speece. 2007. The importance of packaging attributes: a conjoint analysis approach.
European Journal of Marketing 41:11/12, 1495-1517. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
13. ADRIANA GMBARO, GASTN ARES, ANA GIMNEZ, SILVANA PAHOR. 2007.
PREFERENCE MAPPING OF COLOR OF URUGUAYAN HONEYS. Journal of Sensory Studies
22:10.1111/jss.2007.22.issue-5, 507-519. [CrossRef]
14. Athanasios Krystallis, Dan Petrovici, Ioannis Arvanitoyannis. 2007. From Commodities to the
Consumption of Quality Foods in Eastern European Context. Journal of East-West Business 12, 5-37.
[CrossRef]
15. S.C.F Iop, E. Teixeira, R. Deliza. 2006. Consumer research: extrinsic variables in food studies. British
Food Journal 108:11, 894-903. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
 16. Ioannis Arvanitoyannis, Athanasios Krystallis. 2006. An empirical examination of the determinants
of honey consumption in Romania. International Journal of Food Science and Technology 41:10.1111/
ifs.2006.41.issue-10, 1164-1176. [CrossRef]
17. Laura Martnez-Carrasco Martnez, Margarita Brugarolas Moll-Bauz, Francisco Jos Del Campo Gomis,
frica Martnez Poveda. 2006. Influence of purchase place and consumption frequency over quality wine
preferences. Food Quality and Preference 17, 315-327. [CrossRef]
18. Francisco J Mesas, Miguel Escribano, Antonio Rodrguez de Ledesma, Francisco Pulido. 2005. Consumers'
preferences for beef in the Spanish region of Extremadura: a study using conjoint analysis. Journal of the
Science of Food and Agriculture 85:10.1002/jsfa.v85:14, 2487-2494. [CrossRef]
19. H Vermeulen, J F Kirsten, T O Doyer, H C Schnfeldt. 2005. Attitudes and acceptance of South African
Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 00:34 01 February 2016 (PT)

urban consumers towards genetically modified white maize. Agrekon 44, 118-137. [CrossRef]
20. Mark Speece, Duc Phung Nguyen. 2005. Countering negative countryoforigin with low prices: a conjoint
study in Vietnam. Journal of Product & Brand Management 14:1, 39-48. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
21. Maurice Murphy, Cathal Cowan, Hilary Meehan, Seamus OReilly. 2004. A conjoint analysis of Irish
consumer preferences for farmhouse cheese. British Food Journal 106:4, 288-300. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]