One of the first projects I did upon joining the faculty of NC State
University in the late 70s was to conduct a marketing study in a
number of local supermarkets wherein I compared the sales rate of
traypacked, unfrozen fish having one of two different labels, side by
side. In the beginning we always compared same species, same cuts
(fillets); actually in truth, exactly the same fish, just different
labels. Later we did vary the fish between the two types of labels;
read on...
Actually each fish package had two labels; the one giving the
customary information of species, weight, etc. and the second label
being that which was varied in the study: one stated "fresh, never
frozen" and the other was "previously frozen for your protection". We
ran this study for many weeks, and did not see any distinct
difference in purchase rate between the two labels, unless we varied
the "freshness" (days post harvest, or post thawing in some cases) of
fish in the tray packs. Whenever one pack had visible liquid (drip or
purge) it would be differentiated against, or if one had noticeable
odor compared to the other, it would be differentiated against.
We concluded from this limited study that labeling "previously frozen
for your protection" would not automatically dissuade most consumers
from purchasing; that they were relying more on their eyes and noses
examining the fish than reading the special labels, or caring what
those labels said. Had we actually asked people which label they
would prefer (i.e., whether they would prefer to buy "never frozen"
rather than "previously frozen"), I have no doubt that most if not
all would have said they would prefer the former, just as some of you
have indicated that your focus groups have responded. But in actual
practice, when the fish are presented in an unfrozen form, consumers
seemed to pay less attention to such labeled information than they
did to what their eyes and nose told them about the "quality" of what
they wanted to purchase.
I have had many conversations with fish retailers over the years
since, and I sense that this is probably true: people if asked say
they want "strictly fresh" when purchasing raw fish (and probably
entrees in restaurants as well), and at retail they almost certainly
prefer to buy fish in an unfrozen state because (1) psychologically
it is more appealing than a crusty frozen piece of meat; and (2) they
believe they have some ability to sense its "freshness" and "quality"
when unfrozen, even if traypacked.
This project was carried out because at the time we were convinced
that the transport chain of fish from boat to plate was too
inconsistent to allow unfrozen fish to be reliably delivered in top
organoleptic quality throughout the year. Thus, freezing at sea,
plus proper controlled thawing and use of a special traypack (in
which the film would not fog and which was designed to absorb thaw
drip) should deliver a more consistently high organoleptic quality of
fish to consumers at retail. Unfortunately for our fledgling
program, about that time the state of Maine cranked up a "strictly
fresh never frozen" PR campaign to convince consumers that we were
liars (no, really they thought they could pull this off with improved
air shipping etc.) and this scared off our project supporters.
A footnote: A few years after this I sent a student around to many
retail fish markets for an entire summer, noting the apparent
organoleptic quality of fish that was offered in the unfrozen
condition. Virtually all of the fish evaluated was either not
labeled as to whether it had been frozen or not, or was labeled as
"fresh" (implying "never frozen"). Then the student tested the fish
with one of the old Torry meters. If the apparent organoleptic
quality was high but the Torry meter reading indicated a low
"freshness", we presumed that the fish had in fact been previously
frozen. Fully 50% or more of the fish that by presentation was
implicated as "fresh" had in fact been frozen, judging by these
criteria. So we documented to some extent the common knowledge that
fish handlers have come to know that they can more economically
deliver higher quality fish, in the unfrozen form most consumers
prefer, by thawing high quality frozen fish and presenting them as
"fresh".
I am told that our industry suffers relative to poultry and meats
because consumers don't know how to properly cook fish at home. I am
convinced that also, we cannot/have not deliver(ed), on a consistent
basis year in-year out, the high level of organoleptic quality in
our product that leads to trust on the part of the consumer. That's
a major challenge for a hunt-and-kill meat industry, particularly one
so far flung from the consumer's table as is the fish harvesting
industry, and dealing with such a highly perishable/sensitive product.
-- Tyre C. Lanier, Ph.D. Prof., Food Science, NCSU office 919-513-2094 cell 919-389-9528 tyre@unity.ncsu.edu tyre@mycingular.blackberry.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 12 2007 - 11:13:03 PDT