Food labels: Do consumers perceive what semiotics want to convey?

Food Quality and Preference 22 (2011) 689–698

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Quality and Preference journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodqual

Food labels: Do consumers perceive what semiotics want to convey? Gastón Ares a,⇑, Betina Piqueras-Fiszman b, Paula Varela c, Ricardo Morant Marco d, Arantxa Martín López d, Susana Fiszman c a

Sección Evaluación Sensorial, Departamento de Ciencia y Tecnología de Alimentos, Facultad de Química, Universidad de la República (UdelaR), General Flores 2124, C.P. 11800, Montevideo, Uruguay b Departamento de Proyectos de Ingeniería, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera s/n, 46022 Valencia, Spain c Instituto de Agroquímica y Tecnología de Alimentos (CSIC), Apartado de correos 73, 46100 Burjassot, Valencia, Spain d Departamento de Teoría de los Lenguajes y Ciencias de la Comunicación, Universitat de València, Av. Blasco Ibáñez 32, 46010 Valencia, Spain

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 20 January 2011 Received in revised form 14 May 2011 Accepted 16 May 2011 Available online 20 May 2011 Keywords: Consumer studies Semiotic analysis Word association Yogurt Food labels

a b s t r a c t In this research work, a multidisciplinary approach was applied to answer the question: do consumers perceive what semiotics want to convey? The idea behind was to determine if consumers’ expectations and associations raised by simulated yogurt labels, designed with different sign combinations frequently applied in commercial products, were in agreement with results from a semiotic analysis, and to check for cultural differences, comparing results from two Spanish-speaking countries (Spain and Uruguay). A survey of the plain yogurt market was performed, followed by a semiotic analysis of the gathered labels performed by a team of semiotics experts. Only the non-verbal elements such as images, visual structure, colors, typography and their combinations, were considered; so brand, price, nutritional information, composition, etc. were nor taken into consideration. The main messages conveyed by the labels were summarized and based on that, five yogurt model labels were designed and subsequently used as stimuli in a consumer study. An online consumer questionnaire, based on a word association task, was performed in both countries to understand the words, descriptions, associations, thoughts or feelings generated by the model labels. The approach was successful, and the results obtained showed that the main messages conveyed by the model labels were well understood in Spain and Uruguay; however some cultural differences in the perception of the messages could be highlighted. Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction A product’s package is the container that holds, protects, preserves and identifies the product, and which also facilitates its handling, storage and commercialization (Rodríguez Tarango, 2003). Consumers usually actively scan packages before purchase (Ulrich & Malkewitz, 2008) and therefore packaging also plays a major role in attracting their attention and largely influence their purchase decisions (Crilly, Moultrie, & Clarkson, 2004; Fenko, Schifferstein, & Hekkert, 2010). Consumers have to trade several sensory and non-sensory factors when making their everyday food choices (Jaeger, 2006). For this reason, in many companies great debates exist on whether a product’s performance in the marketplace is due to its sensory characteristics or to its associated imagery (Rousseau & Ennis, 2008). Consumers draw important information about the product and its attributes from the package’s aesthetic and graphic design (Moskowitz, Porretta, & Silcher, 2005; Moskowitz, Reisner, lawlor, & Deliza, 2009). Packaging is also a source of ⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +598 29245735; fax: +598 29241906. E-mail address: [email protected] (G. Ares). 0950-3293/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.05.006

product recognition and serves as an extrinsic quality cue and provides consumers with information about brand image and lifestyle (Dano, 1996; Steenkamp, 1989; van Dam & van Trijp, 1994). Furthermore, food packaging creates sensory and hedonic expectations in the consumer (Ares & Deliza, 2010; Becker, van Rompay, Schifferstein, & Galetzka, 2011; Deliza, MacFie, & Hedderley, 2003; Lange, Issanchou, & Combris, 2000; Rodríguez Tarango, 2003). Expectations could be regarded as pre-trial beliefs about a product (Olson & Dover, 1979), affecting decisions both consciously and subconsciously (Deliza & MacFie, 1996). There are two types of expectations: sensory-based and hedonic-based (Cardello, 1994). Sensory expectations are related to consumers’ beliefs about the sensory characteristics of the product, whereas hedonic expectations refer to how much the product will be liked or disliked. These expectations are created through consumers’ previous experiences with the product, information presented on the label, packaging characteristics and the product itself, particularly through its appearance. If the sensory and hedonic expectations shaped by the packaging are high, consumers may be interested in the product and would choose to buy it. However, if these expected sensory and hedonic characteristics are not

690

G. Ares et al. / Food Quality and Preference 22 (2011) 689–698

perceived when consumers try the product, they will probably not buy the product again (Deliza & MacFie, 1996). A mismatch between expectations raised for example by the pack or label, and the actual perceived characteristics of the product would lead to positive or negative disconfirmation, depending if the product is better or worse than expected (Cardello, 1994). Therefore, all the characteristics of the package should be deeply regarded in the design process to attract consumers’ attention in order to generate sensory and hedonic expectations that match the product’s real characteristics and to increase their interest in buying the product. Although food companies usually invest large amounts of money on packaging design for marketing reasons there are not many published studies about the influence of the package’s visual components, specifically signs, on consumer sensory, hedonic and emotional expectations of food products (Ares & Deliza, 2010; Becker et al., 2011; Deliza & MacFie, 1996; Lange et al., 2000; Moskowitz et al., 2009; Murray & Delahunty, 2000). According to Opperud (2004), when consumers first perceive a product the attention is drawn to signs that can help them identify and categorize the product. In the case of packaged products, all this information is gathered from the signs present in their package, i.e. package’s appearance and its several visual elements (color, size and shape). Food packages and labels could communicate information to consumers in two main forms: linguistic signs (symbols based entirely on social convention), or signs that are based on resemblance (drawings, pictures, signs, colors, shapes and textures) (Smith, Mogelvang-Hansen, & Hyldig, 2010). In addition, under the assumption of the social construction theory (Dittmar, 1992), physical objects are communicators of social meaning between people; therefore, food packages and labels not only retrieve information about the qualities of the product itself but also about the people who consume it. The object of a semiotic analysis is to describe the mechanism by means of which a sign system produces meaning (Kehret-Ward, 1988). The semiotic theory states that a specific product design evokes thoughts, emotions, impressions and associations because they display signs that are consciously and unconsciously interpreted as such. In this model, the stimuli evoke a series of spontaneous impressions in the consumer, which are subjectively represented in his mind, given a certain context (Opperud, 2004). Morris’s pioneering model of semiotics (Morris, 1939) defined a 3-way relationship among a sign, being anything that stands for something (the product) to somebody (consumer). Semiotic analysis use objective, standardized and recognized methods of study to ‘‘decompose’’ a label in its signs and symbols involved in conveying a certain message. This type of analysis has been applied to several areas that involve communication and the transfer of information, such as films, theater, fashion and architecture (Berger, 1995). Products are designed as a construct of signs capable of representation which would be interpreted by users, thus the consumer response to the product appearance would be an important stage in the understanding of the process of communication. Theoretically, the designer would produce a message which would be encoded into a signal that the receiver should decode to receive the message (Crilly et al., 2004). However, a lack of knowledge about the relationships between key parameters on product designs and how these actually stimulate the consumer response, leads to uncertainty when it comes to determine what combination of signs should be used to stimulate desired responses. Many times this makes companies/brand objectives difficult to achieve (Ulrich & Malkewitz, 2008). In the case of food packaging, the interplay of its many possible visual elements makes this interpretation a complicated process; and though in many cases rules of thumb relating to visual responses have been correct, they have not been scientifically tested

and their behavioral underpinnings have not been investigated. Consequently, a semiotic analysis of food packages and labels could help to understand and interpret consumers’ associations and expectations of the content, and hence to design packages that arouse specific reactions in the consumer. In addition, different cultural backgrounds and past experiences of consumers are key parameters influencing their response to products; thus, the context or environment of consumption would be an important consideration in how the message would be interpreted (Crilly et al., 2004). The aims of the present work were: (i) to determine if consumers’ expectations or associations raised by simulated yogurt labels, designed with different sign combinations frequently applied in commercial products, are in agreement with results from a semiotic analysis, or in other words, whether labels successfully convey their intended meaning; and (ii) to check for cultural differences comparing results from two Spanish-speaking countries. 2. Materials and methods 2.1. Information-gathering stage The natural yogurt packaging markets of, Uruguay, Spain and two other European close countries (France and UK) were surveyed. France and UK were included in the survey, as they are very important markets in terms of dairy products, and together with the high mobility of European consumers nowadays, their products were considered of interest for the study. The objective of the survey was to have an overall picture of the messages that natural yogurt packages contained, focusing only on the signs (non-verbal elements such as images, visual structure, colors, typography and their combinations). Various big-surface supermarkets were visited – at least three in each country – and all natural yogurts available (brands and off-brands) were purchased. The labels were subsequently scanned for their analysis by the semiotic team. Thirty-two labels were evaluated in total. Products were manufactured and sold in each of the countries surveyed (Spain, Uruguay, France and UK). In the four countries, the colors, main image and general design of the yogurts labels were similar. The most common colors used in the labels were blue, white, grey, black, lilac and green. The main images found on the labels included the product itself (in different types of containers or served on a spoon), natural landscapes (sky, mountains and countryside, daisies, and cows), and a female silhouette, depending on the type of yogurt. Yogurt labels with bright colors that included images related to natural landscapes and images of the product were found in the four countries, whereas those yogurts with predominantly grey or black labels were only encountered in England. 2.2. Semiotic analysis of the commercial labels A team of semiotic experts from the Departamento de Teoría de los Lenguajes y Ciencias de la Comunicación [Department of Language Theory and Communication Sciences] (Universitat de València) reviewed the labels surveyed from the four markets. They elaborated a report highlighting the main symbols contained in the labels; these non-verbal elements were analyzed taking into consideration the typographic codes (Friedl, Ott, & Stein, 1998), the chromatic codes (Verichon, 2007; Zelanski & Fisher, 2006), the graphic codes and their distribution (Samara, 2007, 2009), and the messages they were intended to convey. The brand and any other information such as price, nutritional information, composition, etc., were not considered. The analysis included two aspects: a denotative or objective reading of the symbols, that is

G. Ares et al. / Food Quality and Preference 22 (2011) 689–698

the direct, rational, neutral message transmitted, and a connotative reading, based on the interpretation of the subliminal or latent messages that are directed to produce reactions and emotions in the consumer. The detailed semiotic analysis of the commercial labels has not been included in the present article because it was similar to that of the model labels, described in Section 3.1. 2.3. Design of the model labels Five simulated yogurt label were designed by an expert industrial designer engineer from the Departamento de Proyectos de Ingeniería of the Universitat Politècnica de València. The designs were based on the previous semiotic analysis, specifically, by combining some representative elements of the main messages present in the commercial yogurts of the four surveyed markets. The objective was to create five labels capable of conveying very distinct messages. The labels comprised different combination of non-verbal elements; the only text included was ‘‘Plain Yogurt’’ (Yogur Natural in Spanish), in different typographies and colors depending on the message and taking into account the semiotic analysis. The five designed model labels are displayed in Fig. 1. The labels were used as stimuli for a consumer survey. 2.4. Semiotic analysis of the model labels The semiotic experts reviewed the yogurt model labels created in order to confirm that the messages involved were in line with

691

the main messages highlighted by the survey of the plain yogurt previously analyzed.

2.5. Consumer test 2.5.1. Participants The study was carried out in the cities of Montevideo (Uruguay) and Valencia (Spain). Both cities have similar sized populations (around 1 million people) and correspond to the national capital city and a regional capital city, respectively. One hundred participants answered the survey in each country. Participants were recruited in each city using a convenient, intentional and reasoned sampling. Convenience consumers’ samples are usually used in qualitative studies when the aim of the research is to get an approximation to a research subject and involves recruiting available participants who meet specific criteria (Kinnear & Taylor, 1993). Instead of randomly recruiting participants, specific age and gender quotas were defined to balance the sample and to avoid differences in the participants’ age and gender distribution between the countries. Participants’ age ranged between 18 and 60 years old. Besides, in each city a minimum of 25 males and 25 females should be more than 35 years old and a minimum of 25 males and 25 females should be 34 years old or less (see Table 1). Consumers were recruited via e-mail using databases in the two countries. Apart from the age and gender requirement, they had to be frequent consumers of natural yogurt (at least once a week). There was no requirement about brand usage. At recruitment

Fig. 1. Model labels of plain yogurt used in the study. (1) Yogurt 1; (2) Yogurt 2; (3) Yogurt 3; (4) Yogurt 4 and (5) Yogurt 5.

692

G. Ares et al. / Food Quality and Preference 22 (2011) 689–698

Table 1 Demographic distribution of the participants.

Mean age (years) Gender distribution Men (%) Women (%) Yogurt consumption frequency Every day (%) Many times per week (%) Once a week (%)

Spaniards (n = 102)

Uruguayans (n = 100)

35.6

36.57

49 51

41 59

26.5 41.1 32.4

28 43 27

stage, no information about the specific aim of the study was provided. As expected, no significant differences were found in the gender and age distribution of the consumer samples recruited from Montevideo and Valencia (v2 = 4.7, p = 0.20). 2.5.2. Consumer survey The consumer survey was designed by the sensory-consumer experts from the Universidad de la República (Uruguay) and the Instituto de Agroquímica y Tecnología de Alimentos (Spain) coauthoring the present study. The survey was delivered through online questionnaires in which consumers were given written instructions of the tasks. The questionnaires were self-completed at home. Consumers were asked to complete a word association task. Word association is a quick, simple and useful qualitative methodology commonly used in psychology and sociology (Ares, Giménez, & Gámbaro, 2008), and is based on the assumption that providing a stimulus to a respondent and asking him/her to freely associate what ideas come to his/her mind could give relatively unrestricted access to the respondent’s mental representations of the presented stimulus. The stimuli in this case were the designed model labels. The five labels were randomly presented to the participants following a complete block experimental design (William’s Latin Square). Each label was presented in an individual screen, together with the task: ‘‘Please write down the first words, descriptions, associations, thoughts or feelings that come to your mind when you see the following image of a plain yogurt label’’. An open blank space was provided were they could fit as many words or phrases they required (maximum 3000 characters). 2.6. Data analyses All the associations provided by the participants were written down and analyzed. For each model label and country (Spain and Uruguay), the frequency in which each association was mentioned was determined by counting the number of participants that mentioned that particular association. Words mentioned by more than 5% of the consumers were considered for the data analyses. The grouping procedure was performed independently by three of the researchers who authored this study, considering personal interpretation of the meaning of the words and word synonymy as determined by the same Spanish dictionary (Real Academia Española, 2006). After individually evaluating the data, a meeting of the researchers was undertaken in order to check the agreement between their classifications. Significant differences between the frequencies of each association related to the model labels within each country were evaluated using Friedman’s Test. This test is a non-parametric alternative to ANOVA where the assumption of normality is not acceptable (Friedman, 1937). Friedman’s test was used instead of chi-square test because the aim was to check for significant differences in the frequency of mention of each of the elicited terms and

not global differences in the frequency distribution of all the elicited terms. A multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) was performed on the frequency table of the terms mentioned for each country. Also, a multiple factor analysis (MFA) was run on the data coming from the two countries as independent frequency data tables, to understand the comparative positioning of the five samples as perceived by the consumers in the two markets. FactoMineR was used to perform MCA and MFA (Husson, Josse, Lê, & Mazet, 2007; Lê, Josse, & Husson, 2008) in R language (R Development Core Team, 2007). The rest of the analyses were performed with XLStat 2009 (Insightful, NY).

3. Results 3.1. Semiotic analysis There are four main aspects of a label which can generate associations, and expectations in consumers’ mind: drawings (including the background and its texture), visual structure (relative positioning of the elements), colors and typography. According to Spang (2010) considering that consumers’ purchase decisions are based on emotional aspects rather than on rational considerations, the symbolic meaning of images play a key role in determining consumers’ associations of a food label. Results of the semiotic analysis of the images of the labels are detailed bellow: Yogurt 1- The main image of the label referred to a traditional, artisanal production process and to a natural environment, stressing the freshness and naturalness of the product (Gracia, 1998). Yogurt 2- The main image (daisies) also referred to nature and the countryside, stressing the naturalness of the product. Moreover, in some UK’s yogurts daisies and other flowers are commonly used to represent organic products. In Uruguay, daisies are used in plain yogurt labels. Thus, the main image of this label tried to convey that it is a natural and organic product. In the back of the label there are two rounded mountains, which might communicate perfection, calm and peace. Yogurt 3- The main image in this label was the product itself, which tried to indicate that it is an authentic yogurt and that consumers would find exactly that product inside the package. The use of a non-conventional picture of the product is also used to communicate the idea of a different, special and high quality product. Yogurt 4- The principal image was an arrow pointing downwards, suggesting that the product would have a positive effect on gastrointestinal health. The fact that the arrow is made of little spheres could be associated with the idea of an effective product made with high technology. Yogurt 5- It had two main images: one related to the product itself, stressing the sensory quality of the product and its authenticity (reference to a traditional yogurt glass container), and the other one a slim, stylized silhouette, stressing the relationship between the product and a good body figure. Therefore, the label tried to indicate that the yogurt is a high quality product which contributes to weight control and fitness. The visual structure of the label is mainly influenced by culture. In western cultures, reading is done from left to right, which suggests that the main elements would be placed on the middle or on the right side (Acaso, 2009). In the case of the labels considered in the present work, all the images had a central location. The types of lines that are used in the label communicate a lot of information to consumers and evoke different associations (Dupont, 2004). A horizontal straight line as the one used in Yogurts 3 and 4 suggests calm, tranquility, security and stability (University of the State of New York., 1910), which may suggest

693

G. Ares et al. / Food Quality and Preference 22 (2011) 689–698

that these feelings might a be a result of the improvement in health status reached through the consumption of this product. Curved lines, as in Yogurt 5, suggest smoothness, elegance, happiness, fantasy and youth, association that could be related to weight control. According to Vidales Giovannetti (1995) curved lines are also associated with femininity. Colors in a food label are usually used to differentiate between products and make them more attractive to consumers. Attractive colors are able to catch consumers’ attention even when seen from a long distance. However, colors have an important symbolic meaning, communicating different emotions and ideals, and making the product identifiable and memorable (Hine, 1995; Vidales Giovannetti, 1995). Díaz Rojo, Morant Marco, and Westall Pixton (2006) state that the symbolic meaning of color is used by consumers to associate, differentiate, classify and rank food products. The main colors used in the label of Yogurt 1 were green, blue and white. Green is commonly used to express healthiness, freshness, naturalness and life (Díaz Rojo et al., 2006; García Fernández, 2000; Grande Esteban, 2006). Blue refers to calm, relaxation, safety, freshness, cleanness and peace, particularly in this case in which it was used in the representation of the sky (Vidales Giovannetti, 1995); whereas white suggests purity, tranquility and cleanness (Acaso, 2009). Green, blue and white were also used in Yogurt 2, but in this case with a different purpose. Green was only used in the typography, which tried to suggest that the naturalness of the product was not the central idea that the label is trying to convey. The main colors were white, related to purity and cleanness, and sky blue, stressing the freshness and purity of the product. The combination of colors is usually used to convey the idea of well-being, health, being commonly used in light, low-calorie or healthy food products. An interesting feature of this label was that sky blue was used in the mountains and that white was used in the sky. This might be associated with the fact that the designer wanted to create an imaginary world, presenting the product as different, dreamy and modern (Vidales Giovannetti, 1995). Orange and yellow were also used in this label, communicating optimism, joy, vitality and lightness, as the flowers themselves did (Dupont, 2004). Yogurt 3 used a range of colors that widely differed from those commonly used in yogurt labels. In this case serious, dark colors such as grey and black were used, which tried to communicate the idea of an elegant, luxurious, special product for a specific group of people (Acaso, 2009; Vidales Giovannetti, 1995). According to García Fernández (2000) black represents the maximum sophistication and the highest social class. However, it is interesting to notice that this color has been also associated with negative ideas such as illness and death, suggesting that some consumers might not like this type of label (Acaso, 2009; Vidales Giovannetti, 1995). Green clearly dominated the label of Yogurt 4, stressing the idea of a natural and healthy product. Moreover, green could also be associated to calm, peace and tranquility. The yellow color of the arrow is associated to optimism, joy and dynamism (Dupont, 2004), which could be associated to the fact that these feelings might be a consequence of consuming this type of product due to its effect on health. White was used in the typography to communicate the idea of purity, freshness, calm and peace. The main color in Yogurt 5 is lilac, which is associated with women, dreams and relax (Vidales Giovannetti, 1995). The use of yellow and orange gamuts in the curved lines tried to communicate optimism, energy and joy, which could be a consequence of weight control through the consumption of this product. White once again was present in the typography of this yogurt, conveying the idea of natural and pure product. Typography is another important visual element in a food label, being able to express, evoke and communicate sensations and

emotions to consumers. According to Dupont (2004) typography determines whether the message is successfully conveyed to consumers or not. A first aspect is the use of lowercase or capital letters. Capital letters are usually used when a word wants to be emphasized (Aicher, 1988). In this sense, Yogurts 1–4 used capital letters in the word ‘‘natural’’ (‘‘plain’’ in English) stressing the type of yogurt over the food category. Particularly, in the case of Yogurt 1 the size of the word ‘‘natural’’ was larger than the size of the word ‘‘yogur’’, which intended to put emphasis on the fact that it is a plain and natural yogurt (in Spanish ‘‘natural’’ is a polysemic word that in this context means both ‘‘plain’’ and ‘‘natural’’ in English) (Aicher, 1988). The main message, product characteristics, feelings and emotions that are conveyed by the labels according to a professional semiotic analysis are summarized in Table 2. 3.2. Word association – Frequency of elicitation In order to analyze results from the word association task, all the elicited words were grouped into categories in order to overcome the possible bias of considering individual words. Only those categories mentioned by more than 5% of the consumer sample for at least one yogurt in one of the countries were considered for further analysis. 3.2.1. Comparison of the two countries As shown in Table 3 56 categories were identified, of which 49 had at least a number of mentions equivalent to 5% of the consumers for at least one yogurt label for Spanish consumers, whereas 47 categories were relevant for Uruguayan consumers. This suggests that some differences existed between Spanish and Uruguayan consumers’ associations regarding the evaluated yogurt labels. Frequency of elicitation has been related to the importance of a concept in consumers’ mind and therefore the most frequently mentioned categories might be those more relevant for consumers’ perception of the evaluated yogurt labels (Guerrero, Colomer, Guàrdia, Xicola, & Clotet, 2000). The most frequently elicited categories in Spain were Probiotics (n = 94), Natural (n = 86), Healthy (n = 81), Commercial brands (n = 64), Nature/Countryside (n = 61), and Diet/Slimming (n = 53). Thus, in general Spanish consumers’ associations of the evaluated labels were mainly related to aspects related to health, naturalness and interestingly the recall of commercial brands of yogurt. In Uruguay the most frequently mentioned categories were Yummy/Pleasant (n = 66), Fresh (n = 62), Healthy (n = 61), Probiotics (n = 58), and Nature/Countryside (n = 50); suggesting that for Uruguayan consumers the most salient associations were related to health, naturalness, and expected sensory and hedonic characteristics of the yogurts. It is interesting to notice that although the majority of the categories were relevant

Table 2 Summary of results from semiotic analysis of the five yogurt labels considered. Yogurt

Main message

Product characteristics, feelings and emotions conveyed by the label

Yogurt 1 Yogurt 2 Yogurt 3 Yogurt 4 Yogurt 5

Natural, artisanal product

Freshness, naturalness, calm, relaxation, peace and purity Light or low-calorie, freshness, calm and relaxation Exclusive, authentic and elegant

Natural, ecological or organic product Premium, high quality product Natural, positive effect on gastrointestinal health High quality product, positive effect on weight control

Dynamism, joy, naturalness and optimism Feminine, weight control, authentic, dynamism and joy

694

G. Ares et al. / Food Quality and Preference 22 (2011) 689–698

Table 3 Categories identified in the word association task and p-value of the Friedman test for establishing differences between the frequencies of the associations related to the model labels within each country. Category

Spain

Uruguay

Category

Spain

Uruguay

Acid Advertising Artificial Attractive Bland flavor Cheap Childhood Classic/Old-fashioned Commercial brands Cosmetic products Cows Creamy Diet/Slimming Feminine Firm Flowers Freedom Fresh Fruits Full fat Happiness Healthy Homemade Indifference Herbal tea Light Liking Low calorie

0.061 <0.001* 0.035* – 0.502 0.004* 0.001* 0.003* <0.001* <0.001* <0.001* <0.001* <0.001* <0.001* – <0.001* 0.001* 0.033* 0.071 0.001* 0.001* 0.011* <0.001* 0.427 <0.001* 0.394 – <0.001*

0.085 – 0.061 0.008* 0.349 – 0.517 0.219 <0.001* – <0.001* <0.001* <0.001* <0.001* <0.001* <0.001* – <0.001* 0.004* 0.072 0.005* 0.120 <0.001* 0.282 – 0.084 0.030* <0.001*

Maternal Milk Modern Natural Nature/Countryside Not attractive Odd Organic/Environmentally friendly Premium Probiotics Purity Tranquility/Peace Rejection to try/purchase Runny/Liquid Tacky Simple Skimmed Smooth Spanish regions Spring Sugar Sweet Thick Traditional Unpleasant/Disliking Willingness to try/purchase Without additives Yummy/Tasty/Pleasant

<0.001* <0.001* <0.001* <0.001* <0.001* – 0.092 0.458 0.004* <0.001* 0.004* 0.511 – <0.001* <0.001* 0.406 <0.001* 0.019* <0.001* <0.001* – 0.429 <0.001* <0.001* – 0.458 0.001* 0.019*

<0.001* <0.001* – <0.001* <0.001* 0.014* 0.274 – <0.001* <0.001* 0.024* <0.001* 0.007* <0.001* – 0.287 <0.001* 0.009* – <0.001* <0.001* 0.675 <0.001* <0.001* 0.076* 0.305 0.008* <0.001*

Categories identified by ‘–’ were mentioned by less than 5% of the participants for all the evaluated labels. * Indicates significant differences between the frequencies of the associations related to the model labels within each country, for a significance level of 0.05.

for both countries, some of them were only mentioned in only one of the countries, suggesting cross-cultural differences in consumers’ associations of the model labels. The evaluated labels raised different associations in consumers’ minds in both countries. As shown in Table 3, according to Friedman’s test significant differences were found in the frequency of mention of 39 categories in Spain and for 35 categories in Uruguay. Some differences were found in the categories that were significant in discriminating between the labels, suggesting differences between Spanish and Uruguayan consumers. Uruguayan consumers not only mentioned more frequently words related to pleasure and hedonics than Spanish consumers but they also used them to differentiate the labels in a larger extent (Table 2). Despite differences in some of the categories elicited in both countries, in general consumers’ associations for the main message of each model label were similar in Spain and Uruguay. 3.2.2. Consumers’ perception of Yogurt 1 When thinking of Yogurt 1 (c.f. Fig. 1) Spanish consumers mainly elicited the categories Natural (n = 41), Nature/Countryside (n = 30), Healthy (n = 25), Cows (n = 19), Traditional (n = 15), Homemade (n = 14) and Fresh (n = 13); whereas Uruguayan consumers mentioned the categories Nature/Countryside (n = 34), Natural (n = 27), Fresh (n = 27), Yummy (n = 19), Healthy (n = 18), Homemade (n = 17), Milk (n = 16), Cows (n = 14) and Tranquility (n = 14). Most mentioned categories in both countries were, as expected, related to a traditional, artisanal, fresh product and to a natural environment, conveyed by the blue, white and green design of label 1 (Díaz Rojo et al., 2006; García Fernández, 2000; Gracia, 1998; Grande Esteban, 2006; Vidales Giovannetti, 1995). 3.2.3. Consumers’ perception of Yogurt 2 In the case of Yogurt 2 the categories mostly mentioned in Spain and Uruguay were Nature/Countryside (n = 27, n = 11), Healthy (n = 21, n = 15), Fresh (n = 13, n = 21), Spring (n = 10, n = 14), and

Flowers (n = 11, n = 11). Spanish consumers also mentioned the categories Natural (n = 17), Herbal tea (n = 14), Happiness (n = 10) and Tacky (n = 10); whereas Uruguayan consumers used the categories Yummy/Tasty/Pleasant (n = 11) and Skimmed (n = 10). References to naturalness, freshness and healthiness were also made in this case but mentions of happiness became important in this label, as expected by the appearance of flowers and orange and yellow colors in the design (Dupont, 2004). It is worth highlighting that no mention to organic was made, suggesting that the association that exists between flowers and ‘‘organic’’ observed in English yogurts does not exist in Spain or Uruguay. On the other hand, Herbal Tea mentions in Spain probably came from the association with the flowers normally showed in this kind of teas’ packaging in that country. It is worth noting that the offer of organic yogurts in Spain and Uruguay is much lower that in the UK or in France, so it is expectable that with the raise of this type of products, and if the image of daisies/flowers is linked to them, in a few years this association could be made by consumers in the two target countries. 3.2.4. Consumers’ perception of Yogurt 3 Yogurt 3 was perceived as a premium product by Uruguayan consumers (n = 18) and as modern by Spanish consumers (n = 26), being the idea of a ‘‘luxurious’’ product positioning, successfully conveyed by the dark color of the design (Acaso, 2009; García Fernández, 2000; Vidales Giovannetti, 1995). Moreover, consumers in both countries expected this yogurt to be Runny/liquid (n = 16 in Spain and n = 24 in Uruguay), Creamy (n = 22 and 10). Many mentions for the category Milk (n = 15 and 16) were made when thinking of this label, whereas consumers in Uruguay mentioned the hedonic-related categories Yummy/Tasty/Pleasant (n = 11) and Unpleasant/Disliking (n = 10), which indicated a clear segmentation in consumers’ hedonic perception of this label. The dislike may have been potentially generated as a negative response to black, as suggested by some authors (Acaso, 2009; Vidales Giovannetti, 1995).

695

G. Ares et al. / Food Quality and Preference 22 (2011) 689–698

It is worth mentioning than black labels per se did not exist in Uruguay or Spain at the time of the survey in yogurts. However, other premium products in both countries were using this king of aesthetics (ice-cream, crisps, chocolate, etc.). The fact that some consumers have negative hedonic expectations regarding this label, might be related to that, they did not link the use of black to the category, so they reject it. However, in general, the principle of premium/modern/designed was successfully conveyed. 3.2.5. Consumers’ perception of Yogurt 4 Yogurt 4 was associated with commercial brands of probiotic yogurts and therefore the most elicited categories in both countries were Probiotics (n = 77 and 53 in Spain and Uruguay, respectively), Commercial brands (n = 35 and 15) and Healthy (n = 14 and 14). This label was the most straightforward for consumers, they agreed in a great extent, generating fewer associations with high frequencies of mention. 3.2.6. Consumers’ perception of Yogurt 5 In the case of Yogurt 5, Spaniards’ and Uruguayans’ associations were related to the categories Diet/Slimming (n = 36 and 10), Lowcalories (n = 16 and 15), Feminine (n = 16 and 13) and Healthy (n = 13 and 11), confirming the message suggested by the curved lines and lilac color were successfully conveyed in both countries (Vidales Giovannetti, 1995). Uruguayan consumers also used the

categories Yummy (n = 24), Firm (n = 15) and Creamy (n = 12), whereas Spanish consumers mentioned categories such as Commercial brands (n = 13) and Skimmed (n = 12) when thinking of this product. Firm and creamy were relevant for Uruguayans, probably because of the image of the spoon, picturing a firm-set yogurt, not that common in Uruguay, as most yogurts are stirred in that country. In Spain, however, the most common offering is within the firm-set yogurt type, so that might be why it was not necessary for them to point out textural characteristics in this case.

3.3. Word association – Multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) and multiple factor analysis (MFA) MCA was used to study the relationships between the yogurt labels and consumer associations in each country. The representation of the categories and the labels in the four dimensions of the MCA enabled the identification of the profile of each label according to consumers’ associations. As shown in Figs. 2 and 3, the five yogurts were clearly differentiated, corresponding to different product categories and raising different expectations in consumers in both countries. In the MCA of Spaniards’ data, Yogurt 1 was located at positive values of the second dimension, and at negative values of the third and fourth dimensions of the MCA, being associated with the categories Traditional, Natural, Homemade, Without additives, Spanish 2

1

y5

y1

0

-1

0

1

2

Dim 2 (27.4%)

Dim 2 (27.8%)

y2

-2

y3

Homemade Traditional Spanish regions 1 Freedom Cows Flowers Full fat Herbal tea Nature Cheap Spring Happiness Feminine Without aditives Shabby Yummy Fresh Natural Purity Skimmed Classic Childhood Light Sweet Attractive Fruits Healthy Not attractive Organic Low calorie Sugar Quietness 0 Willingness to try Simple Bland flavour -1 1Rejection to try 2 Liking Indiference0 Milk Premium Artificial Diet Slimming Cosmetic Acid Unpleasant Smooth products Odd Creamy Commercial Thick brands Runny Modern -1 Maternal Advertising Probiotics

y4 -1 -2

Dim 1 (34.5%) Dim 1 (34.2%) 2

1

Herbal tea

Flowers

y2

Cheap

Spring

y4 0 -1

0

y3

1

y5

y1

Dim 4 (17.4%)

Dim 4 (17.2%)

1

-2

Shabby

Purity Odd Quiteness Rejection to try Simple Cosmetic Indiference Unpleasant Probiotics products Sweet Acid Bland flavour Happiness Commercial Light Not attractive Healthy Fresh brands Modern 0 AdvertisingSmooth Childhood Attractive Artificial Fruits Maternal -1 Natural 0 Thick Runny 1 Liking Creamy Willingness to try Nature PremiumMilk Sugar Yummy Low calorie Cows Freedom Organic Diet Slimming Classic Homemade Full fat Skimmed Without aditives Feminine Traditional -1 Spanish regions

-1 -2

Dim 3 (20.4%)

Dim 3 (21.9%)

Fig. 2. Multiple correspondence analysis representation of categories and labels for Spanish consumers.

2

696

G. Ares et al. / Food Quality and Preference 22 (2011) 689–698

2

Modern

2

Maternal Premium

Runny

Shabby

y3 1

Dim 2 (25.5%)

Dim 2 (25.5%)

1

y5 y4

-2

0 -1

0

1

y2

y1

-1

Thick Smooth Purity Childhood Artificial Creamy Milk Unpleasant Advertising Bland flavour Odd Diet Slimming Sugar Fruits Willingness to try FirmAttractive Simple Yummy Rejection to try 0 Sweet Probiotics Feminine Not -2 -1 attractive Low calorie 0 Classic 1 Commercial Cheap brands Acid Liking Healthy LightFull fat Skimmed Without aditives Natural Fresh Happiness Homemade Flowers Cows Spring TraditionalQuiteness Nature Freedom Indiference

-1

Dim 1 (36.7%)

Dim 1 (36.7%) 2

1

Flowers Spring

y2

Skimmed

1

y3 0 -1

0

y4

1

y5

y1

Dim 4 (15.8%)

Dim 4 (15.8%)

Light

-2

Happiness ModernOdd Indiference Runny Smooth Probiotics Purity Acid UnpleasantBland flavour Fresh Artificial Quiteness Rejection to try Maternal Low calorie Healthy 0 Cheap Childhood Premium LikingNot attractiveSimple Commercial -1 0Classic Diet Slimming 1 2 Feminine Homemade Willingness to try Sweet brands Natural Shabby Fruits Thick Full fat Yummy NatureMilk Creamy Attractive Advertising Traditional Without aditives Cows Freedom Sugar Firm -1

-1 -2

Dim 3 (21.9%)

Dim 3 (21.9%)

Fig. 3. Multiple correspondence analysis representation of categories and labels for Uruguayan consumers.

milk producer’ regions, Full fat, Freedom, and Cows. Yogurt 2 was located at positive values of the second and fourth dimensions and was differentiated from the rest for being associated with the categories Cheap, Flowers, Spring and Herbal tea. Yogurt 3 showed a clearly different profile. This yogurt was located at positive values of the first dimension and negative values of the second, and it was related to the categories Runny/Liquid, Maternal, Creamy, Modern, Premium, Thick and Milk. It is interesting that both Liquid and Thick were mentioned for the same label, probably due to the different expectations raised by the yogurt photograph. Yogurt 4 was associated with categories such as Probiotics, Acid, Commercial brands and Advertising. Meanwhile, the third dimension of the MFA separated Yogurt 5 from the rest due to the correlation of this dimension with the categories Classic, Low calories, Diet/Slimming, Feminine, Sugar, and Artificial. As shown in Fig. 3, the MCA of Uruguayan consumers’ data was similar to that of Spanish consumers’ data, being the differentiation and characterization of the yogurts similar. This similarity in the position of the evaluated labels in the two countries is shown in Fig. 4, through the representation of the labels in the first and second dimension of the MFA ran on the data of the two countries as independent frequency data tables. The representation of the categories in the MFA showed agreement in most of the categories that

were used by consumers in both countries (data not shown). These results mean that the general understanding of the messages conveyed by the five model labels was the same in both countries, and that the differences pointed out in the five detailed cases, relative to cultural or exposure differences in both countries did not determine overall perception. 4. Discussion According to the semiotic analysis, the evaluated yogurt model labels tried to convey different messages regarding the type of product they represented and particularly about product characteristics, feelings and emotions (Table 2). According to the word association task, some of the messages that the label tried to communicate to consumers were conveyed, whereas others were not. As shown in Table 2 and Figs. 2 and 3, the main message regarding the type of yogurt each label represented was successfully communicated to consumers. They associated Yogurt 1 with a natural, homemade o artisanal product, Yogurt 2 with a natural product, Yogurt 3 was regarded as a premium yogurt, whereas Yogurts 4 and 5 were associated with gastrointestinal health and weight control, respectively. These main messages were understood in a very similar way by consumers in Uruguay and Spain, suggesting agreement in the

G. Ares et al. / Food Quality and Preference 22 (2011) 689–698

697

frequently hedonic terms while commercial brands were more relevant to Spaniards. In particular, the use of flowers in a yogurt label to convey ‘‘organic’’ was not successful in none of the countries, probably due to a low exposure to this sign because of the low penetration of organic yogurts. In addition, the use of black color to convey the meaning of high quality, premium or exclusive was successfully understood in both, even if this color is not used in yogurt labels in none of the countries. However this concept was rejected by some Uruguayan consumers, probably because of the absence of these colors in milk product packaging in their country, leading to an incongruence of meaning. More research is needed in the field of semiotics and perception, particularly focusing in sensory/hedonic expectations and also in the emotions generated by products labels. Also, it might be interesting to study the interaction of labels, package materials and shape in consumers’ perception and expectations.

References

Fig. 4. Representation of the labels in the multiple factor analysis performed on the data of the two countries as independent frequency data tables.

understanding of the basic symbols used in the evaluated model labels despite cultural differences. It is interesting to notice that in the case of Yogurt 2 consumers did not associate the flowers with an organic and ecological product in any of the countries, despite the fact that this was one of the messages that the semiotic analysis identified for this label in Europe; however this could be due to the fact of the low exposure to organic yogurts in the two countries target of this study. For Yogurt 3, associated with a premium quality in both markets, dark colors were negatively appreciated by some Uruguayan consumers (dislike/unpleasant associations) probably due to the absence of these colors in milk product packaging in their country, leading to an incongruence of meaning. Consumers’ responses to the word association task were mainly related to product status, sensory and hedonic characteristics of the yogurts, being terms related to feelings and emotions mentioned in a much lower frequency, particularly in Spain. Thus, most consumers did not seem to spontaneously think of emotional issues when evaluating the label of different types of yogurts, or emotions were more difficult to verbalize or made conscious. For this reason, it would be interesting to specifically investigate the emotional issues related to the evaluated model labels, and to compare these emotions with the ones that were identified in semiotic analysis. 5. Conclusions The multidisciplinary approach developed for this study proved to be highly successful. A consumer study was proposed, based on word association, using as stimuli model labels originated by the interaction of tools as semiotics, design and consumer research. The results obtained in the word association task indicated that the main messages conveyed by the model labels were well understood in Spain and Uruguay. Furthermore, the overall perception of the yogurt labels was very similar in both countries. However, some cultural differences were noted between the two countries. In general, Uruguayan consumers used more

Acaso, M. (2009). El lenguaje visual. Barcelona: Paidós Ibérica. Aicher, O. (1988). Tipografía. Valencia: Campgràfic. Ares, G., & Deliza, R. (2010). Studying the influence of package shape and colour on consumer expectations of milk desserts using word association and conjoint analysis. Food Quality and Preference, 21, 930–937. Ares, G., Giménez, A., & Gámbaro, A. (2008). Understanding consumers’ perception of conventional and functional yogurts using word association and hard laddering. Food Quality and Preference, 19, 636–643. Becker, L., van Rompay, T. J. L., Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Galetzka, M. (2011). Tough package, strong taste: The influence of packaging design on taste impressions and product evaluations. Food Quality and Preference, 22, 17–23. Berger, A. A. (1995). Semiotics and Cultural Criticism. In Cultural Criticism. A primer of key concepts. London: SAGE Publications Ltd., pp. 73–77. Cardello, A. V. (1994). Consumer expectations and their role in food acceptance. In H. J. H. MacFie & D. M. H. Thomson (Eds.), Measurement of Food Preferences (pp. 253–297). London: Blackie Academic and Professional. Crilly, N., Moultrie, J., & Clarkson, P. J. (2004). Seeing things: Consumer response to the visual domain in product design. Design Studies, 25, 547–577. Dano, F. (1996). Packaging: une approche sémiotique. Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 11, 23–25. Deliza, R., & MacFie, H. J. H. (1996). The generation of sensory expectation by external cues and its effect on sensory perception and hedonic ratings: A review. Journal of Sensory Studies, 11, 103–128. Deliza, R., MacFie, H., & Hedderley, D. (2003). Use of computer-generated images and conjoint analysis to investigate sensory expectations. Journal of Sensory Studies, 18, 465–486. Díaz Rojo, J. A., Morant Marco, R., & Westall Pixton, D. (2006). El culto a la salud y la belleza. La retórica del bienestar. Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva. Dittmar, K. (1992). The Social Psychology of Human Possessions. New York: St Martins’ Press. Dupont, L. (2004). 1001 trucos publicitarios. Barcelona: Ediciones Robinbook. Fenko, A., Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Hekkert, P. (2010). Shifts in sensory dominance between various stages of user-product interactions. Applied Ergonomics, 41, 34–40. Friedl, F., Ott, N., & Stein, B. (1998). Typography: An encyclopedic survey of type design and techniques throughout history. New York: BlackDog & Leventhal. Friedman, M. (1937). The use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality implicit in the analysis of variance. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 32(200), 675–701. García Fernández, J. L. (2000). Comunicación no verbal. Periodismo y medios audiovisuales. Madrid: Editorial Universitas. Gracia, M. (1998). El significado de los colores en la publicidad alimentaria. In A. Barusi, F. X. Medina, & G. Colesanti (Eds.), El color en la alimentación mediterránea (pp. 171–182). Barcelona: Institut Català de la Mediterrània. Grande Esteban, I. (2006). Conducta real del consumidor y marketing efectivo. Madrid: ESIC. Guerrero, L., Colomer, Y., Guàrdia, M. D., Xicola, J., & Clotet, R. (2000). Consumer attitude towards store brands. Food Quality and Preference, 11, 387–395. Hine, T. (1995). The total package: The secret history and hidden meanings of boxes, bottles, cans, and other persuasive containers. New York: Little Brown. Husson, F., Josse, J., Lê, S., & Mazet, J. (2007). FactoMineR: Factor analysis and data mining with R. R package version 1.04. URL http://cran.R-project.org/ package=FactoMineR. Jaeger, S. R. (2006). Non-sensory factors in sensory science research. Food Quality and Preference, 17, 132–144. Kehret-Ward, T. (1988). Using a semiotic approach to study the consumption of functionally related products. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 4, 187–200. Kinnear, T. C., & Taylor, J. R. (1993). Investigación de Mercados. Un enfoque aplicado. Colombia: McGraw-Hill Interamericana S.A, pp. 361–371.

698

G. Ares et al. / Food Quality and Preference 22 (2011) 689–698

Lange, C., Issanchou, S., & Combris, P. (2000). Expected versus experienced quality: trade-off with price. Food Quality and Preference, 11, 289–297. Lê, S., Josse, J., & Husson, F. (2008). FactoMineR: An R package for multivariate analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 25(1). Morris, C. W. (1939). Esthetics and the theory of signs. Erkenntnis, 8, 131–150. Moskowitz, H. R., Porretta, S., & Silcher, M. (2005). Concepts as combinations of graphics. In H. R. Moskowitz (Ed.), Concept research in food product design and development (pp. 105–121). Ames: Blackwell Publishing. Moskowitz, H. R., Reisner, M., lawlor, J. B., & Deliza, R. (2009). Packaging research in food product design and development. Ames: Wiley-Blackwell. Murray, J. M., & Delahunty, C. M. (2000). Mapping consumer preference for the sensory and packaging attributes of Cheddar cheese. Food Quality and Preference, 11, 419–435. Olson, J. C., & Dover, P. A. (1979). Disconfirmation of consumer expectations through product trial. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 179–189. Opperud, A. (2004). Semiotic Product Analysis. In D. McDonagh, P. Hekkert, J. van Erp, & D. Gyi (Eds.), Design and Emotion (pp. 137–141). London: Taylor and Francis. Real Academia Española. (2006). Diccionario de la Lengua Española. Madrid: Espasa Calpe S.A. Rodríguez Tarango, J. A. (2003). Introducción a la Ingeniería en Envase y Embalaje. In J. A. Rodríguez Tarango (Ed.). Manual de ingeniería y diseño en envase y embalaje para la industia de los alimentos, farmaceútica, química y de cosméticos (pp. 1:1–1:6). México: Instituto Mexicano de Profesionales en Envase y Embalaje S.C.

Rousseau, B., & Ennis, D. M. (2008). An Application of Landscape Segmentation AnalysisÒ to Blind and Branded Data. IFPress, 11, 2–3. Samara, T. (2007). Design Elements: A Graphic Style Manual. Minneapolis, MN: Rockport Publishers. Samara, T. (2009). The Designer’s Graphics Stew: Visual Ingredients, Techniques, and Layout Recipes for Graphic Designers. Minneapolis, MN: Rockport Publishers. Smith, V., Mogelvang-Hansen, P., & Hyldig, G. (2010). Spin versus fair speak in food labelling: A matter of taste? Food Quality and Preference, 21, 1016–1025. Spang, K. (2010). Vender con figuras. In S. Robles & M. V. Romero (Eds.), Publicidad y lengua española (pp. 40–53). Sevilla: Comunicación Social Ediciones y publicaciones. Steenkamp, J. E. B. M. (1989). Product quality: an investigation into the concept and how it is perceived by consumers. Assen: Van Gorcum. Ulrich, R. O., & Malkewitz, K. (2008). Holistic package design and consumer brand impressions. Journal of Marketing, 72, 64–81. University of the State of New York. (1910). Free Hand Draqing Introduction. In: Design and Representation. A Handbook for Teachers. Albany, NY State. van Dam, Y. K., & van Trijp, H. C. M. (1994). Consumer perceptions of, and preferences for, beverage containers. Food Quality and Preference, 5, 253–261. Verichon, A. (2007). Colors: what they mean and how to make them. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc. Vidales Giovannetti, M. D. (1995). El mundo del envase. Manual para el diseño y producción de envases y embalajes. Barcelona: Editorial Gustavo Gili. Zelanski, P. J., & Fisher, M. P. (2006). Color. Upper Saddle River. NJ: Prentice Hall.