124
Margaret Everitt
II.C.2. Reference products Referring again to Figure 8.2, product 301 indicates a mean liking score of 7.6 and would provide a good target quality reference. Product 268 has a mean score of 6.8 and although it records a statistically significant decrease in liking it still represents a high level of liking. From a practical stance, if this product was selected to illustrate the acceptance limits it may set the quality range too tight. However, product 579 has a mean score of 6.2 and shows a decrease in liking from product 301 of two statistical levels. This product could therefore, from a business perspective, represent a more realistic example of the limits of sensory variation. Further insight regarding the degree of variation that consumers will tolerate, especially with reference to the key drivers of preference, can be gained by comparing the sensory profiles of those products selected to show the target quality range. Figure 8.6 shows the profile of each of the three products selected for Cluster 1 (i.e. Segment 1). The sensory panel mean score is plotted on to each attribute axis for each product (low scores are central; high scores are peripheral). Where the profile lines overlap there are no significant differences between the products. Where they diverge the differences are significant, and
Figure 8.6 Sensory profile as generated by the trained sensory panel, for the three products selected to represent the sensory acceptance range in Cluster 1, i.e. products 301, 268, and 579.