|
HISTORIC NOTE
The publications in this collection do
not reflect current scientific knowledge
or recommendations. These texts
represent the historic publishing
record of the Institute for Food and
Agricultural Sciences and should be
used only to trace the historic work of
the Institute and its staff. Current IFAS
research may be found on the
Electronic Data Information Source
(EDIS)
site maintained by the Florida
Cooperative Extension Service.
Copyright 2005, Board of Trustees, University
of Florida
JANUARY 1980
Fresh tq
for Muse
INDUSTRY REPORT 80-1
HUMPR S -- -80
APR 23 1980
l C :..
A I
II
1z3-F-7tZ
Abstract
The fresh market potential for muscadine grapes was evaluated with an
in-store sales test, and by determining acceptance by supermarket consumers
and produce managers. The in-store test was conducted in six supermarkets
in Tampa, Florida in late August and early September, 1979. Muscadine grape
sales averaged about 25 pounds per store per day of both varieties offered.
Sales per 1,000 customers were nine to 10 pounds, comparing favorably
with sales of 11 pounds per 1,000 customers for black seeded grapes.
Produce managers were not generally familiar with muscadines, and felt
they did not compare favorably with other grapes in general appearance,
color, surface blemishes, taste and overall quality. However, managers
were willing to handle muscadines, as they recognized that some of their
customers would purchase them. Of consumers buying muscadines, 87
percent said they would buy them again. Consumers liked the taste of
muscadines but criticized the tough skin and presence of seeds. The
sample of muscadine purchasers had a significantly higher proportion of
black consumers than did the sample of other grape purchasers.
Key words: muscadine grapes, consumer preference, retail produce
FRESH MARKET POTENTIAL FOR MUSCADINE GRAPES
A report by
Robert L. Degner, Kary Mathis and Gervasio Cubenas
January 1980
The Florida Agricultural Market Research Center
a part of
The Food and Resource Economics Department
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida, Gainesville 32611
The Florida Agricultural Market Research Center
A Service of
The Food and Resource Economics Department
of the
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
The purpose of this Center is to provide timely, applied research
on current and emerging marketing problems affecting Florida's agri-
cultural and marine industries. The Center seeks to provide research
and information to production, marketing, and processing firms, groups
and organizations concerned with improving and expanding markets for
Florida agricultural and marine products.
The Center is staffed by a basic group of economists trained in
agriculture and marketing. in addition, cooperating personnel from
other IFAS units provide a wide range of expertise which can be applied
as determined by the requirements of individual projects.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES .................................................. v
LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES .......................................... vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................... viii
SUMMARY ......................................................... ix
INTRODUCTION .................................................... 1
OBJECTIVES ..................................................... 2
PROCEDURES ..................................................... 3
In-store Sales Test ........................................ 3
Firm and Store Selection ............................... 3
Store Adit Procedures .................................. 5
Produce Supplies and Logistics ......................... 5
Trade Evaluation of Muscadine Grapes ........................ 9
Consumer Interviews ........................................ 9
Grape Purchaser Samples ................................ 9
Questionnaire Development .............................. 10
Interviewing Procedure ................................. 11
FINDINGS ........................................................ 11
In-store Sales Results ...................................... 11
Trade Evaluation of Muscadine Grapes ........................ 17
Consumer Survey ............................................. 22
Purchasers' Evaluations of Muscadine Grapes ............ 24
Consumption patterns .............................. 25
Evaluation of muscadine grape characteristics ..... 26
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS Continued
Page
Qualities liked ............................... 27
Qualities disliked ............................ 27
Perceived shelf life .......................... 28
Comparisons of the bronze muscadine variety
with other table grapes ..................... 30
Comparisons of the purple muscadine variety
with other table grapes ................... .... 31
Comparison of the bronze with the purple
muscadine variety ........................... 32
Muscadine grape purchasers' evaluations of
sweetness and hull "texture" or "consistency". 32
Repeat purchase intentions ....................... 33
Other Grape Purchasers' Awareness of and Aversions to
Muscadine Grapes ...................................... 34
Other grape purchasers' awareness of muscadine
grapes .................... .................. 34
Other grape purchasers' aversions to muscadine
grapes ......................................... 36
Consumers' Perceptions of the Words "Muscadine" and
"Scuppernong".......................................... 37
CONCLUSIONS ...................................................... 42
APPENDIX A ....................................................... 43
APPENDIX B ....................................................... 62
REFERENCES ....................................................... 82
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Retail prices of table grapes, test stores, Tampa, Florida,
August 29 through September 1, 1979 ............................. 13
2 Display space allocated to various types of fresh table
grapes ...................................... .................. 14
3 Average daily sales of various types of fresh table grapes, test
supermarkets ............................... ................... 14
4 Average daily sales of various types of fresh table grapes per
1,000 customers, selected supermarkets, Tampa, Florida, 1979... 16
5 Produce managers' evaluations of selected characteristics of
selected grapes ............................................. 19
6 Reasons given by muscadine grape purchasers for discarding
muscadine grapes............................................. 25
7 Refrigeration of muscadine grapes by purchasers................. 25
8 Consumption of muscadine grapes, adults versus children.......... 26
9 Occasions when muscadine grapes were eaten...................... 27
10 Muscadine grape qualities liked by muscadine purchasers.......... 28
11 Muscadine grape qualities disliked by muscadine purchasers....... 29
12 Muscadine grape purchasers' perceived differences in shelf life
of muscadine grapes versus other types of grapes................ 30
13 Repeat purchase intentions for muscadines by consumer familiar-
ity.................................. ....................... 34
14 Types of grapes observed by purchasers of other grapes, unaided
recall................................................ ...... 35
15 Other grape purchasers primary reasons for not buying muscadine
grapes ....................................................... 36
16 Muscadine grape purchasers' ability to recall another name for
the "Florida grapes"........................................ 40
17 Muscadine grape purchasers' ratings of selected names for "the
grapes they bought"........................................... 41
v
LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES
Table Page
1 Average daily sales per store, by income area, selected
types of grapes.............................................. 63
2 Average sales per thousand customers, by income area, selected
types of grapes.............................................. 63
3 Produce managers' estimates of time required for packaging and
pricing selected types of grapes ................................ 64
4 Quantities and proportions of selected types of grapes discarded
at time of packaging......................................... 64
5 Produce managers' perception of shelf life for selected grapes.. 65
6 Produce managers' ratings of selected grapes' general appearance. 65
7 Produce managers' rating of selected grapes' color.............. 66
8 Produce managers rating of selected grapes' surface blemishes... 66
9 Produce managers rating of selected grapes with respect to the
proportion of mashed, crushed, or split berries contained in
1 ugs ....... ..................................................... 67
10 Produce managers' rating of selected grapes with respect to the
proportion of soft or rotten berries contained in lug........... 67
11 Produce managers' ratings of taste of selected grapes........... 68
12 Produce managers' rating of selected grapes for overall eating
quality ................................... .................... 68
13 Produce managers' opinions of the effects of using the words
"muscadine" and scuppernongg" in advertising on sales of muscadine
grapes ........................................................ 69
14 Average weekly grocery and produce expenditures for muscadine grape
purchasers and other grape purchasers .......................... 69
15 Purchase rates for selected types of grapes, by muscadine purchasers
and other grape purchasers .................................... 70
vi
LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES Continued
Table Page
16 Demographic composition of the muscadine purchaser and other
grape purchaser samples ................ ...................... 71
17 Number of days muscadine grapes were stored by consumers
before trying................................................ 73
18 Proportion of muscadine grape purchases on hand when inter-
viewed ....................................................... 73
19 Rating comparisons for selected characteristics, bronze
muscadine versus green seedless grapes......................... 74
20 Rating comparisons for selected characteristics, bronze
muscadine versus red seeded grapes............................. 74
21 Rating comparisons for selected characteristics, bronze
muscadine versus black seeded grapes........................... 75
22 Rating comparisons for selected characteristics, purple
muscadine versus green seedless grapes......................... 75
23 Rating comparisons for selected characteristics, purple
muscadine versus red seeded grapes............................ 76
24 Rating comparisons for selected characteristics, purple
muscadine versus black seeded grapes........................... 76
25 Rating comparisons for selected characteristics, bronze
muscadine versus purple muscadine grapes....................... 77
26 Muscadine grape purchasers' evaluations of sweetness and hull
texture or consistency by muscadine variety.................... 77
27 Grape pruchasers initial thought associations related to the
word "muscadine". ........................................... 78
28 Grape purchasers' initial thought associations related to the
word "scuppernong"..... ........................ .............. 79
29 Grape purchasers' attitudes toward initial thought associations
related to the words "muscadine" and "scuppernong".............. 80
30 Image profiles of "persons named muscadine and scuppernong"
based on respondents' descriptions of selected physical and
socioeconomic attributes..................................... 81
vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We appreciate very much the patience and cooperation of the retail
supermarket firm. Without the help of the produce merchandiser and the
produce managers of the six test stores, this study would not have been
possible.
Ms. Felicity Trueblood was the grower representative in charge of
supply coordination. In addition to this responsibility, she also negotiat-
ed prices with the cooperating chain, provided financial support for the
point-of-sale material, and delivered grapes to the warehouse in her own
car. Her untiring efforts in performing these tasks is genuinely appreciat-
ed.
Appreciation is also expressed to Gervasio Cubenas for assistance in
editing and analyzing the data, and to Ms. Patricia Beville for typing and
editing the manuscript.
viii
SUMMARY
* The objective of this research was to determine the feasibility of
marketing muscadine grapes through supermarkets.
* An in-store sales test was conducted in six stores in Tampa in late
August and early September 1979. The test was conducted for only
four days because of inadequate muscadine grape supplies.
* Trade acceptance was determined by interviewing produce managers in
the cooperating stores.
* Consumer acceptance was ascertained by interviewing 78 muscadine grape
purchasers and 290 purchasers of other grapes.
* Although the sales test was far too brief to provide indisputable
evidence, muscadine grape sales appeared to compare favorably with
those of other seeded varieties.
* Average daily sales per store of the "Higgins", a bronze variety, and
of the "Southland", a purple variety, were approximately 13 and 12
pounds, respectively. They constituted 3.8 and 3.4 percent of total
grape sales.
* Sales per 1,000 customers were about 10 and 9 pounds, respectively,
for the bronze and purple varieties, compared with 11 pounds for a
black seeded variety and 188 pounds for Thompson seedless.
* Produce managers felt that muscadine grapes took slightly longer to
package than bunch grapes, but that discards at time of packaging
were less. They also perceived shelf life to be greater for muscadine
grapes.
* Produce managers down-rated muscadine grapes with respect to general
appearance, color, surface blemishes, taste, and overall quality.
* All produce managers indicated a willingness to sell muscadine grapes
again, provided sufficient quantities could be obtained.
* Purchasers of muscadine grapes were found to be similar to purchasers of
other grapes with respect to age, education, employment status, occupa-
tional classification, family composition, income, and sex.
ix
* The sample of muscadine purchasers had a significantly higher proportion
of black consumers than did the sample of other grape buyers.
* Virtually all muscadine grapes purchased were eaten out-of-hand as
snacks, primarily by adults.
* Consumers
tended to
seeds.
liked muscadine grapes primarily because of taste; some
dislike them because of tough skin and the presence of
* Muscadine grape purchasers that usually bought "Thompson" seedless
grapes tended to rate those grapes higher with respect to physical
characteristics than the muscadines that were purchased. However,
those that usually bought red or black seeded varieties rated the
muscadine grapes higher.
* Eighty-seven percent of the muscadine grape purchasers said they would
buy them again. Eight percent said they would not, and five percent
were undecided.
* This project demonstrates that muscadine grapes can be successfully
marketed through supermarkets. Although produce managers were not
overly enthusiastic, the muscadine grapes do appeal to a segment of
consumers, as evidenced by relatively high repeat pruchase intentions.
* Development of commercial markets will require that growers recognize
and meet the performance standards which other supermarket produce
suppliers adhere to, namely, dependable supplies of consistently
high quality products.
x
FRESH MARKET POTENTIAL FOR MUSCADINE GRAPES
Robert L. Degner, Kary Mathis and Gervasio Cubenas
INTRODUCTION
There have been several attempts at commercial grape production in
Florida, but until recently most efforts were not successful. Early
settlers, primarily along the east coast, attempted to grow European
varieties. These varieties were subject to various diseases, insects
and weather conditions to which they were not adapted, resulting in
failure. In the early 1900's another major attempt was made at com-
mercial grape production, this time in the Orlando area. By the 1920's,
approximately 500 acres of grapes had been planted within a 50 mile
radius of Orlando. The predominant varieties, "Concord", "Niagara" and
"Ives", were obtained from northern states. These varieties were not
adapted to Florida growing conditions, with the most serious shortcoming
their susceptibility to Pierce's disease. By the early 1930's, commercial
grape production was practically non-existent in the state (Hart and
Polopolus).
Continuing research by the Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations
has resulted in development of a number of grape varieties adapted to
Florida growing conditions. In 1978, there were 5 bunch and 12 muscadine
varieties recommended (Mortensen). The development of suitable varieties
Robert L. Degner is Assistant Professor, Kary Mathis is Professor
and Gervasio Cubenas is Research Assistant in the Food and Resource
Economics Department, University of Florida.
2
has stimulated interest in commercial grape production. Total acreage
is currently estimated at 300 to 400 acres, equally divided between
bunch and muscadine1 varieties (Mathis and Degner).
Until recent seasons, most production has been marketed directly to
consumers through U-pick outlets. Early in 1979, representatives of the
Florida Grape Growers Association requested assistance from the Institute
of Food and Agricultural Sciences at the University of Florida in conduct-
ing research to evaluate the fresh market potential of muscadine grapes,
specifically through commercial marketing channels. Muscadine grapes
were chosen rather than bunch grapes because they are native to the
southeastern United States and probably offer greater immediate pro-
duction potential due to the greater availability of adapted varieties.
Further, they are harvested as single berries rather than bunches;
growers were interested in trade and consumer acceptance of the product
which represents a departure from the more familiar bunch grape.
OBJECTIVES
The basic objective of this research was to determine the feas-
ibility of marketing fresh Florida-grown muscadine grapes through retail
supermarkets. Specific objectives were to 1) determine retail sales of
muscadine grapes relative to bunch grapes commonly sold by food stores,
2) determine trade acceptance of muscadine grapes, and 3) determine
consumer acceptance of muscadine grapes, with emphasis on repeat purchase
intentions.
"Muscadine" is the common name for a native grape of the southeast,
Vitis rotundifolia Michx. "Scuppernong" is the oldest named muscadine
variety and is frequently used as a common name for all muscadines. "Bullace"
is the common name for one of the seven species of wild grapes in the south-
east, and is sometimes applied to muscadines, also.
3
These objectives were met by conducting an in-store sales test, by
interviewing the produce managers of the cooperating supermarkets, and
by interviewing muscadine grape purchasers and other grape purchasers.
Details follow of procedures used during the research period of August
and September, 1979.
PROCEDURES
In-store Sales Test
Firm and Store Selection
A major supermarket chain in Tampa was selected to cooperate in the
in-store sales experiment for several reasons. First of all, the chain
selected appeals to a broad spectrum of customers as evidenced by stores
in practically all socioeconomic areas. Average sales per store are
approximately four million dollars per year. Thus, it was anticipated
that sales data from such stores would provide an accurate reflection of
all grape sales in a relatively short period for various socioeconomic
segments. It was also expected that a favorable in-store test might
result in laying the groundwork for market development potential with
the cooperating firm.
Florida Agricultural Market Research Center (FAMRC) personnel and
the produce merchandiser of the firm jointly selected six stores for the
in-store test. The six stores were selected on the basis of clientele
income in order to assess the effects of income and other socioeconomic
characteristics on grape purchase behavior. Two stores were selected in
"low" income areas, two in "medium", and two in "high" income areas.
The income area classifications were made on the basis of the produce
4
merchandiser's knowledge of the stores' clientele and confirmed by
examining census tract data.
No direct control was exercised by researchers with respect to
retail pricing or display space. However, most requests and suggestions
were honored. The produce merchandiser of the cooperating firm was
asked to price the muscadines about the same as seeded table grape
varieties obtained from other areas.
The produce merchandiser was also asked to allocate equal display
space to the two types of bronze and purple muscadine grapes used, and that
total display space for each color be similar to the space allocated to
other seeded varieties in the respective test stores.
It was also requested that each store display only point-of-sale
material provided by the FAMRC for the muscadine grapes. The Florida
Grape Growers Association did not provide the necessary point-of-sale
material as initially promised, so the FAMRC developed a four-color
price card, 5 1/2 X 7 inches in size, which depicted a stylized ren-
dition of bronze and purple grapes. The price cards used the slogan
"Try Florida Grapes" (Appendix A). The use of the words "muscadine" or
scuppernongg" was avoided so that consumers' images of and familiarity
with the words could be explored without introducing bias (Figure 1).
Produce managers in each test store were asked to display one price card
with their bronze grape display and one with their purple muscadine
grape display.
FAMRC personnel visited each store prior to the test to discuss the
research schedule and procedures with store managers and produce depart-
ment managers. Produce managers were also provided with written in-
structions for the in-store sales test, merchandising suggestions, and
adequate supplies of the price cards (see Retailer Instructions, Appendix
A).
5
Store Audit Procedures
Permission was also received from the firm to conduct daily store
audits. Trained market research personnel visited each of the test
stores daily to obtain grape sales data for all varieties, spoilage, use
of point-of-sale material, prices, and the amount of display space
allocated to each variety.
Daily transaction totals were also obtained for each store. These
transaction totals were used as an estimate of the number of customers
that each store attracted. This allowed grape sales to be expressed
relative to the number of customers shopping a given store.
Produce Supplies and Logistics
FAMRC personnel reviewed grape sales records from the cooperating
firm for the month preceding the in-store sales test to determine the
probable supplies of muscadine grapes needed to conduct the test satis-
factorily. The produce merchandiser agreed to order fifty 22 pound lugs
each week of each color. He felt this quantity was required to supply
all stores in the chain. A 22 pound (net) lug was specified to conform
to the California-type lug which is the industry standard. Grower
representatives approved the California-sized lug. A larger lug puts
Florida growers at a distinct disadvantage because of produce buyers'
tendency to think in terms of price per lug rather than price per
pound.
Arrangements were made to begin the sales test in mid August, 1979.
Initial plans were for cooperating growers to make two shipments per
week to the chain's warehouse. Cooperating growers were asked to pick
on Monday, deliver to the warehouse early on Tuesday for delivery to the
6
stores on Wednesday. A second delivery was tentatively scheduled for
Friday with delivery to the stores on Saturday, contingent upon sales of
the first shipment. This delivery schedule permitted minimal time in
transit and storage to maximize shelf life. The muscadine grapes were
to be handled as any other produce item to conform with normal store
operations insofar as possible. Participating growers initially agreed
to provide sufficient quantities of both bronze and purple muscadine
grapes to the supermarket distribution center in Tampa to meet retail
demand in a minimum of six test supermarkets for a minimum of two full
weeks. The test was to be conducted using both colors of muscadines to
determine consumer preference. Growers were interested in supplying
quantities in excess of the requirements of the six test stores as a
supply "cushion" to be sold through other stores of the chain unless
needed by the test stores.
A grower representative was chosen as supply coordinator by fellow
growers. The coordinator's responsibility was to arrange with participat-
ing growers for necessary grape supplies, and to coordinate transportation
for delivery to the retailer's distribution center. Growers also agreed
to allow the supply coordinator to negotiate prices received by the
growers prior to the test.
Growers agreed that the varieties of the bronze and purple muscadine
grapes would conform to recommendations of the Florida Agricultural
Experiment Stations for fresh market use (Mortensen). They further
agreed to insure a high-quality pack acceptable to the cooperating
retailer. This included careful field grading, with picking and storage
to maximize shelf life. Growers were also asked to provide refrigerated
transportation at a temperature less than 50'F. (100C.) to the cooperating
7
retailer's warehouse. Growers were also asked to use conventional grape
lugs, such as those used by the California grape industry or North
Carolina grape growers, and to identify each lug as to shipper, color,
variety, and date packed to facilitate store audits and to pinpoint
shipping problems should any occur. Growers also consented to provide
point-of-sale material such as bin strips and price cards of sufficient
quantity for the six test stores (Grower Agreement, Appendix A).
Unfortunately, many, if not most of the grower agreements were not
met, requiring modification of the research plan. Lack of grower com-
mittment resulted in less than satisfactory data from the project.
Growers failed to provide sufficient supplies, refrigerated transpor-
tation, adequate quality control, and required point-of-sale material.
The most serious shortcoming was the small quantity of grapes
provided. Several growers had limited quantities of acceptable varieties
because of production problems. However, in many cases, the lack of
supply was due to a lack of grower commitment to the research project.
Growers reportedly received higher prices through U-pick operations or
retail outlets which they had developed on their own. Thus, they were
reluctant to supply grapes for the study.
Growers were dissatisfied with the price of 50 cents per pound that
had been negotiated by the supply coordinator with the retailer, even
though this price was greater than anticipated in the planning stages of
the study. The price was also above what the retailer was paying for
seeded varieties of grapes from California and above that usually obtained
by a prominent North Carolina grower (Norris, 1979).
8
As a result of grower dissatisfaction with price and difficulties
associated with making deliveries to the retailer, growers were able or
willing to supply only 24 lugs of "Dixie", a bronze variety, and no
purple muscadines for the first scheduled week of the test, which was
the week of August 20, 1979. Refrigerated storage was provided for the
24 lugs for the night prior to shipment, but refrigerated transportation
to the warehouse was not. Upon delivery, however, the produce merchan-
diser for the cooperating chain rejected the shipment because of their
blemished appearance2 and lack of size uniformity. He was disturbed by
the fact that the grapes were loose rather than bunch grapes, even
though this characteristic had been discussed. He expressed concern
that the substandard appearance of the "Dixie" muscadines would be a
detriment to his stores' produce departments.
The produce merchandiser was shown samples of "Higgins" and "South-
land" (bronze and purple varieties, respectively) by FAMRC personnel a
few days after the first shipment. He agreed to initiate the in-store
test the following week. He agreed to accept delivery of 50 lugs each
of "Higgins" and "Southland", provided the quality was similar to the
samples.
On Monday, August 24, several Gainesville area growers delivered a
total of 12 lugs of each variety to the University of Florida Food
Science Department's cold storage facilities. Because the growers were
unable to furnish transportation, FAMRC personnel transported the 24
2
Muscadine grapes have rougher skins than some other varieties, and
this often leads to spots or russetingg". The "Dixie" has a rougher
skin than many other muscadine varieties and more often exhibits the
spots.
9
lugs of grapes to the cooperating retailer's warehouse on Tuesday,
August 24 in a stationwagon. Two lugs of each variety were distributed
to each of the six test stores the following morning, in conjunction
with the stores' regularly scheduled produce shipments. Since growers
chose to make no further shipments, the 24 lugs were the only muscadine
grapes available for the in-store tests.
Trade Evaluation of Muscadine Grapes
Initial plans were to interview produce managers in all stores
handling muscadine grapes. However, since muscadine grape supplies were
limited to the six test stores, acceptance was ascertained only for the
produce managers of the six stores.
Produce managers in the cooperating stores were interviewed in
person by FAMRC staff approximately 10 days after the sales test.
Produce managers were probed to determine labor, requirements for packag-
ing loose grapes relative to bunch grapes, shelf life, the extent of
customer compliments or complaints, and their own evaluation of the
physical quality of the grapes. Managers were also asked for their
evaluation of the price cards used in the study and their willingness to
sell muscadines in the future.
Consumer Interviews
Grape Purchaser Samples
A professional interviewer was stationed in each of the six test
stores between the hours of 2:00 P.M. and 8:00 P.M. on Thursday and
Friday and 12:00 noon until 6:00 P.M. on Saturday, August 30 through
10
September 1. The hours were selected to obtain a consumer sample which
would include adequate numbers of homemakers employed outside the home.
Interviewers obtained the names and telephone numbers of all grape
purchasers willing to be interviewed by telephone at a later date.
Approximately 77 percent of all grape purchasers consented to be in-
terviewed by telephone. A sample of 200 muscadine grape purchasers and
200 purchasers of other table grapes was initially planned for the
study. However, since the supply of muscadine grapes was so restricted,
interviewers were only able to obtain names and telephone numbers of 107
muscadine grape purchasers. Of these, only 78 were subsequently inter-
viewed. A number provided incorrect telephone numbers, while others re-
fused to answer questions even though they had originally agreed to an
interview. Obtaining the required number of other grape purchasers was
no problem due to the greater numbers intercepted in the test stores.
Names and addresses of 532 purchasers of other grapes were compiled,
from which a random sample of 290 was drawn for interview.
Questionnaire Development
Questionnaires used in interviewing both samples were thoroughly
pretested in Gainesville prior to interviewing grape purchasers. Copies
of the questionnaires are found in Appendix A. Both the muscadine
purchaser questionnaires and the other grape purchaser questionnaires
were designed to provide basic information related to food and produce
expenditures in general and grape purchase patterns in particular. Both
questionnaires used word association and word "personification" questions
to assess consumers' perceptions of the words "muscadine" and scuppernong"
(Kahn, Asch). Muscadine purchasers were asked to evaluate selected
11
physical characteristics of the muscadine grapes compared to the type of
grape they usually purchased. Their repeat purchase intentions were
also explored.
Interviewing Procedure
Approximately one week after consumers were contacted in the stores
as they purchased muscadine or other grapes, they were interviewed by
telephone by professional interviewers. A minimum of one week was
allowed in order to give consumers a chance to use the grapes which
they had purchased Due to the very small number of muscadine purchasers
that had been contacted in the stores, numerous attempts were made to
interview every one of the purchasers. Some were called on many occasions
at various times of the day and night in attempts to complete interviews.
Other grape purchasers were called twice at different times of the
day in attempts to interview them. After two unsuccessful attempts,
interviewers were instructed to call a designated alternate which had
also been randomly selected.
FINDINGS
In-store Sales Results
Each of the six test stores received two lugs of "Higgins" and two
lugs of "Southland" muscadine grapes on Wednesday, August 29. The
muscadine grapes were received along with their regularly scheduled
produce shipments. Representatives of FAMRC personally visited each of
the test stores on the morning of delivery to insure display of the
muscadine grapes as quickly as possible. However, due to the lateness
12
of some deliveries and the large quantities of produce delivered to some
stores, it was late morning to early afternoon before the muscadine
grapes were packaged and displayed in all stores. Therefore, sales data
from the first day of exposure could not be used for analysis because of
the varying amounts of exposure time from store to store. Problems also
occurred on Saturday, September 1. Five of the six stores sold out of
muscadine grapes during the afternoon and early evening. The out-of-
stocks precluded the use of data from most of the stores for the fourth
day as well. Thus, when the inexact observations obtained Thursday and
Saturday are deleted, only 12 store-day observations could be used for
analysis.
Both varieties of muscadine grapes were packaged in green plastic
foam trays with a film overwrap. In most stores the net weight of
muscadine grape packages was slightly under one pound, usually about 15
ounces. Both varieties of muscadine grapes were priced at 78U per
pound, as compared with 834 per pound for the "Ribier", a black seeded
variety, which was available in some stores.
Red seedless grapes were
available at all stores at 88 per pound, but "Thompson" seedless were
heavily advertised at 58U per pound (Table 1). Red seeded grapes were
not available, due to the abundance and consequently low prices of the
seedless varieties during the test.
Display space was allocated approximately equally between the bronze
and purple muscadine varieties. Approximately 3 square feet were devoted
to the bronze and slightly less for the purple variety. The range was
from about 1.5 to 4.25 square feet. The space allocated to the bronze and
purple muscadines constituted about 10 percent of the total shelf space
13
Table l.--Retail prices of table grapes, test stores, Tampa, Florida, August
29 through September 1, 1979.
Type of Grape a Price per pound
---- Cents ----
Bronze muscadine ("Higgins") 78
Purple muscadine ("Southland") 78
Green seedless ("Thompson") 58
Red seedless 88
Black seeded ("Ribier") 83
a
Red seeded varieties were not available in the test stores due to the
heavy supplies and low prices of the seedless varieties.
allocated to all grapes (Table 2). The black seeded variety, was available
in some of the stores during the test. In these stores display space
allocated to this grape was only about one square foot or 2.8 percent of
the total grape display space. Because the "Thompson" seedless was
featured during the test period, it received a large amount of display
space. On the average, over 20 square feet of space was allocated to
them. The display space devoted to the green seedless grapes ranged
from about 7 to slightly over 30 square feet per store. Overall, 70
percent of the grape space was used for green seedless (Table 2).
Sales of both types of muscadine grapes compared favorably with those
of the red seedless and the black seeded. Sales of the bronze muscadines
average slightly over 13 pounds per store per day. Sales ranged from 5.3
to 19.1 pounds per day and constituted 3.8 percent of total grape sales
over all six stores (Table 3).
14
Table 2.--Display space allocated to various types of fresh table grapes.
Proportion
Type of grape Average Low High of total
-------------- Square feet ---------- Percent
Muscadines
Bronze 2.95 2.00 4.25 10.1
Purple 2.70 1.41 4.25 9.3
Green seedless 20.38 6.83 30.07 70.1
Red seedless 2.56 1.22 4.00 7.7
Black seeded 1.15 1.89 4.00 2.8
Totals, all types 29.40 15.94 42.28 100.0
a
Percentages are based on 12 "store-days" except for the black seeded
variety, which is based on 5 observations.
Table 3.--Average daily sales of various types of fresh table grapes, test
supermarkets.
Daily sales Average
Type of grape Averaged Low High proportion
------------- Pounds ---------- Percent
Muscadines
Bronze 13.1 5.3 19.1 3.8
Purple 11.5 2.9 19.8 3.4
Green seedless 300.2 81.0 584.0 87.9
Red seedless 9.4 0.0 25.5 2.8
Black seeded 17.4 7.5 33.5 2.1
Totals, all types 342.6 143.4 622.3 100.0
a
Averages are based on 12 observations from 6 supermarkets except for
black seeded which are based on 5 observations. Most observations were made
on Thursday and Friday. It should be noted however that these observations
preceded the Labor Day weekend and thus reflect heavier than normal sales.
15
Sales of the purple variety were quite similar. Average sales were
11.5 pounds per store per day, with a range of 2.9 to 19.8 pounds. On
the average, the purple muscadine grape sales amounted to 3.4 percent of
all grape sales. Red seedless sales averaged 9.4 pounds per store per
day while sales of the black seeded variety averaged 17.4 pounds. These
sales comprised 2.8 and 2.1 percent, respectively, of total grape sales.
Caution should be used in interpreting these figures, particularly for
the black seeded variety, because that variety was not available to all
stores in quantity. Green seedless sales averaged slightly over 300
pounds per store per day and constituted nearly 88 percent of the total
grape sales. Daily sales per store ranged from 81 to 584 pounds (Table
3).
Sales were also analyzed in terms of pounds sold per 1,000 customers.
On this basis, an average of 10.3 pounds of muscadine grapes were sold
per 1,000 customers. Bronze sales ranged from 1.8 to 26.1 pounds per
1,000 customers over the six stores. Again, sales of the purple muscadine
grape were similar. The average for the purple variety was 8.7 pounds,
while the range was 1.9 to 21.9 pounds per 1,000 customers. Slightly
over 11 pounds of black seeded grapes were sold per 1,000 customers and
slightly over 6 pounds of the red seedless were sold per 1,000 customers.
The green seedless exhibited the largest sales figures. On the
average, nearly 188 pounds of green seedless grapes were sold for every
1,000 customers. The range was from approximately 44 pounds to slightly
over 500 pounds per 1,000 customers (Table 4). The six test stores sold
a total of approximately 214 pounds of grapes per 1,000 customers.
Total grape sales ranged from 34 to over 300 pounds per 1,000 customers.
16
Table 4.--Average daily sales of various types of fresh table grapes per
1,000 customers, selected supermarkets, Tampa, Florida, 1979.
Daily sales
Type of grape Average Low High
Pounds per 1,000 customers
Muscadines
Bronze 10.3 1.8 26.1
Purple 8.7 1.9 21.9
Green seedless 187.9 43.8 505.5
Red seedless 6.2 0.0 16.9
Black seeded 11.2 4.4 32.8
Totals, all types 214.3 34.0 309.2
a
Averages are based on 12 observations from 6 supermarkets except
for black seeded which are based on 5 observations. Most observations
were made on Thursday and Friday. It should be noted however, that
these observations preceded the Labor Day weekend and thus, reflect
heavier than normal sales.
Grape sales were also analyzed by income level of the respective
stores' clientele. Unfortunately, when store sales are classified by
income areas, there are only four, three, and five observations for
"low", "medium", and "high" income stores, respectively. Thus, con-
clusions drawn from such scanty data may be rather tenuous. It appears
however, that there were no significant differences in muscadine sales
by income area (Appendix Tables 1 and 2).
Even though muscadine grapes were available in the stores for a
very brief period of time, it is apparent that consumers will buy them
if they are available. Most of the stores exhausted their supplies of
muscadines within the four-day test period. It should be noted however,
17
that this four-day period constituted one of the highest volume sales
periods of the entire year, the Labor Day weekend. To the nature of
many family Labor Day weekend outings may have resulted in disportion-
ately heavy grape sales. It is probable that grape sales in non-holiday
weeks may be substantially lower, in terms of total store sales and
sales per 1,000 customers.
Trade Evaluation of Muscadine Grapes
The questions asked of the six produce managers focused on six
major areas. They were labor requirements, shelf life, customer re-
action, product characteristics, point-of-sale (POS) material, and
finally, their willingness to sell muscadine grapes in the future.
On the average, produce managers reported that muscadine grapes
required about two minutes per lug longer than bunch grapes commonly
handled. Muscadine grapes took nine minutes per lug, where most of the
other varieties took only seven minutes per lug (Appendix Table 3). Due
to the short duration of this in-store test, the initial packaging and
pricing time requirements were the only ones considered. None of the
managers interviewed reported reworking any packages during the four day
period.
Only two managers reported discarding some of the bronze muscadine
grapes at the time of packaging. The average quantity of bronze grapes
discarded for all six stores amounted to 8 ounces (227 g.) per lug or
slightly over 2 percent by weight. Three managers reported discarding
some of the purple muscadine grapes at the time of packaging. However,
the quantity was quite small, amounting to only 3 ounces (85 g.) per lug
or slightly less than 1 percent (Appendix Table 4).
18
The largest proportion of discarded grapes was reported for the
green seedless variety. Managers discarded an average of 1 pound (454
g.) of green seedless grapes per lug or 4.5 percent. They reported a
discard rate of 5 and 6 ounces (140 and 170 g.) for the red and black
seeded varieties respectively, for a total of approximately 1.5 percent
per lug.
The brief duration of the in-store sales test made an objective
evaluation of shelf life difficult, if not impossible, for the produce
managers. Nevertheless, they were asked for their perception of shelf
life for the muscadine varieties and for other varieties commonly sold.
On the average, the managers felt that Florida bronze and purple muscadine
grapes would remain saleable for slightly over one week. The average
was 7.5 days (Appendix Table 5). The average shelf life attributed to
the green seedless was only 5 days, and for the red seeded varieties,
slightly less. Black seeded varieties had a perceived shelf life of
only 4.4 days. None of the managers observed deterioration problems with
the Florida muscadine grapes during the four days during which they were
in the stores. Several mentioned recurring problems with soft rot on
the stem ends of bunch grapes that had become detached from the stems.
Apparently the managers associated the tough skins of the muscadines
with increased keeping qualities or shelf life rather than associating
the loose grapes with rotting problems.
Managers received very few complaints or compliments in regard to
the muscadine grapes. Two managers had a total of three complaints.
All three were in regard to tough skin. One customer complained about
the tough skin of the bronze variety while two complaints were received
about the purple variety. Two managers each reported one customer that
19
made positive comments about the bronze muscadine grapes. Both customers
praised the taste of the bronze. No positive comments about the purple
variety were reported by the six managers.
The managers were also asked to evaluate a number of characteristics
of the grapes. These characteristics included general appearance,
color, surface blemishes, taste, and overall eating quality. They were
also asked to appraise the quality of the pack with respect to the
presence of mashed or crushed berries and soft or rotten berries. A
summary of the average ratings for each characteristic is found below
(Table 5), and detailed tables are found in Appendix B. Evaluations
were made with rating a scale where 10 equals "excellent" and 0 equals
"extremely poor" with respect to each of the characteristics.
Table 5.--Produce managers' evaluations of selected characteristics
of selected grapes.
Type of grape
Muscadines Green Seeded
Characteristic Bronze Purple seedless Red Black
--------------- Average ratinga-------------
General appearance 6.3 7.5 8.2 6.8 6.8
Color 5.7 7.0 8.3 7.3 7.2
Surface blemishes 4.3 6.3 6.5 7.3 6.8
Mashed or crushed berries 7.7 7.5 7.7 7.5 6.5
Soft or rotten berries 7.5 8.2 8.2 7.2 6.7
Taste 6.0 7.4 9.2 8.2 7.5
Overall eating quality 5.8 6.4 9.3 7.8 7.0
a
The rating scale used was: 0 = extremely poor and 10 = excellent.
Averages are based n" six observations.
20
On general appearance, managers rated the bronze muscadine lowest
with an average rating of 6.3. The green seedless was rated highest,
with an average rating of 8.2. The purple muscadine was second with an
average rating of 7.5 (Table 5, Appendix Table 6).
The bronze and purple muscadines also received the lowest ratings
on color, with average ratings of 5.7 and 7.0, respectively. However,
there was considerable disagreement among managers. Some rated the
muscadine grapes "extremely low" on color while others rated them
"extremely high". Again, green seedless received the highest average
rating with respect to color (Table 5, Appendix Table 7).
An analysis of the ratings with respect to the proportion of soft
or rotten berries in the lugs revealed an average rating of 8.2 for both
the green seedless and for the purple muscadine variety. The bronze
muscadine had an average rating of 7.5, slightly above that received by
the red seeded variety which averaged 7.2. The black seeded varieties
again ranked lowest with an average rating of 6.7 (Table 5, Appendix
Table 10).
Taste was also evaluated by the managers using the same rating
scale. The highest average taste rating went to green seedless with an
average of 9.2. The next highest average was received by red seeded
varieties with an average of 8.2 and then followed by black seeded
varieties with an average of 7.5. The purple muscadine taste rating of
7.4 was very similar to that received by the black seeded varieties.
The bronze muscadine received the lowest taste rating, averaging only
6.0 (Table 5, Appendix Table 11).
Finally, managers were asked to use the same rating scale to evaluate
overall eating quality. The green seedless variety received the highest
21
rating, 9.3. The red and black seeded varieties came next, with 7.8 and
7.0 average rating, respectively. The purple and bronze muscadines
received the lowest overall average ratings of 6.4 and 5.8, respectively
(Table 5, Appendix Table 12).
In addition to the product characteristics discussed above, managers
made some comments about the pack or the product. One manager expressed
a preference for the recloseable lugs used by one of the cooperating
growers. Another commented that the new muscadine grapes were certainly
an improvement over the native varieties, but he still felt that the new
varieties were better suited for jelly and wine than for the fresh
market.
Another said the lack of stems provided the consumer with a better
buy because they were not paying for the inedible stems. Another manager
expressed concern that the muscadine season coincided with that of the
green seedless season. He cited the 204 per pound price differential in
effect during the study as evidence of stiff competition.
Price cards used as point-of-sale material during the test were
also evaluated by the produce managers. The average rating for the
price cards was 8.7 out of the possible 10. Three of the managers
suggested using more color, and one suggested separate price cards for
each variety of muscadines, i.e., all bronze illustrated on one and all
purple on the other. The managers were satisfied with the size and
overall quality. The managers said they had not received POS material
for other grapes.
Managers were asked to estimate what effect, if any, the use of the
term "muscadine" on POS material would have on sale of the grapes.
Their responses were limited to a 5 point semantic differential scale
22
which ranged from "very negative" to "very positive". Two managers felt
that the use of the word muscadine would have a slightly negative effect
on sales, one felt that it would have no effect either way, while two
felt that the use of the term would have a slightly positive effect on
sales and one felt that it would have a very positive effect.
However, an evaluation of the term scuppernongg" for bronze muscadine
grapes was judged to be slightly less than desirable. One felt that the
use of the term would have a very negative effect on sales. Two others
felt that it would have a slightly negative effect and one felt that it
would have a neutral effect. The remaining two managers felt that using
the term scuppernong would have a slightly positive effect on sales
(Appendix Table 13).
All managers expressed an interest in selling both varieties of
muscadine grapes again next year, provided a sufficient supply could be
obtained. The overall consensus was that there was a market for this
particular kind of grape. Most were quick to point out that it would
never be a large volume commodity like the green seedless grape, but
that it could compete with other seeded varieties if priced competively
and promoted.
Consumer Survey
A total of 78 muscadine grape purchasers and 290 purchasers of
other table grapes (termed "other grape purchasers") were interviewed by
telephone approximately one week after they had been contacted in the
stores. Muscadine grape purchasers and other grape purchasers spent an
average of slightly over $50.00 per week on all groceries and approximately
23
$10.00 per week or about 19 percent on produce. There were no statistically
significant differences in total grocery expenditures or produce expenditures
between the two groups of grape purchasers (Appendix Table 14).
Purchase rates for selected types of table grapes were analyzed for
the muscadine purchaser sample and the other grape purchaser sample.
Purchase rates were classified as "light", "medium" or "heavy". "Light"
users were defined as those that made a purchase once per month or less
and "medium", two to three times per month. "Heavy" users were defined
as those that made a purchase of once per week or more.
An analysis of the two groups' purchase rates for selective types
of table grapes revealed that the purchase rates for green seedless
grapes were significantly different for the two groups (Appendix Table
15). About half of the muscadine purchasers were classified as heavy users
(purchase once per week or more) of green seedless grapes but almost 60
percent of the other grape purchasers were classified as heavy users of
green seedless grapes. On the other hand, a slightly larger proportion
of muscadine grape purchasers were classified as heavy users of green,
red, and black seeded varieties. For example, 5.5 percent of the muscadine
purchasers were classified as heavy users of red seeded grapes compared
with only 1.7 percent of the other grape purchasers. Further, slightly
over 16 percent of the muscadine purchasers were classified as hbavy
users of black seeded varieties compared with only 3.5 percent of the
other grape purchaser sample. Conversely, a very high proportion of the
other grape purchasers sampled were classified as being light users of
the seeded varieties.
A number of demographic and socioeconomic variables were compared
for the two groups of grape purchasers. Chi-square analysis was used to
24
determine whether or not statistically significant differences existed
between the two groups with respect to age, education, employment status
of the household head, family composition, race, income, and sex of the
purchaser (Appendix Table 16). The only statistically significant
difference was with respect to race, which is consistent with other
findings (Proctor). Thirty-nine percent of the grape purchasers were
black compared with only 22 percent of the other grape purchaser sample.
It was found that blacks were more familiar with muscadines than were
whites. Blacks' greater familiarity with muscadines is probably due to
predominantly rural southern backgrounds and the fact that muscadine
grapes grow wild in many southern areas.
Purchasers' Evaluations of Muscadine Grapes
Muscadine grape purchasers were not called for an interview until
at least seven days had elasped from the time they had purchased the
muscadine grapes. Two-thirds had tried the grapes the same day of
purchase. Over 97 percent had tried them within one day and all re-
spondents had tried them within four days of purchase. On the day of
interview approximately 90 percent had consumed or had discarded all
muscadines purchased. Only 8 percent reported having some on hand
(Appendix Tables 17, 18). Four of the 78 respondents, slightly over 5
percent, said they discarded the muscadine grapes without eating them.
All discards occurred within 24 hours of purchase. Three of the four
said they simply did not like the taste, while one said that they were
spoiled. Interestingly, the one person reporting spoilage had refrigerat-
ed the muscadine grapes. Two of the three respondents said they did not
like the taste, two had not refrigerated the grapes; one had (Table 6).
25
Tdble 6.--Reasons given by muscadine grape purchasers for discarding
muscadine grapes.
Reason Number Percent
Did not like taste 3 75.0
Spoilage 1 25.0
Totals 4 100.0
Almost 90 percent of the grape purchasers refrigerated their grapes but
slightly over 10 percent did not (Table 7).
Table 7.--Refrigeration of muscadine grapes by purchasers.
Reason Number Percent
Type of home storage 69 88.5
Unrefrigerated 8 10.2
Do not recall 1 1.3
Totals 78 100.0
Consumption patterns
Adults were the major consumers of the muscadine grapes purchased.
Approximately three-fourths of the respondents said adults in the house-
holds consumed most of the muscadine grapes. Children were the primary
consumers in slightly less than 10 percent of the households. The
26
remaining 16 percent of the respondents said that adults and children
consumed the muscadine grapes in equal proportions (Table 8).
Table 8.--Consumption of muscadine grapes, adults versus children.
Major consumers of muscadine
grapes purchased Number Percent
Adults consumed most 55 74.3
Children 7 9.4
Both equally 12 16.2
Totalsa 74 100.0
a
Percentage does not sum to 100 due to rounding.
Virtually all of the grapes were eaten fresh, as out-of-hand snacks.
Only one person reported eating muscadine grapes as part of a meal.
Morning, afternoon, and nighttime snacks were mentioned by 52, 77, and
71 percent of the respondents, respectively, as times when they ate
muscadine grapes (Table 9). The one person that ate muscadine grapes as
part of a meal used them in a salad. None of the respondents used the
grapes in jellies, for juices, or wine.
Evaluation of muscadine grave characteristics
Muscadine grape purchasers were probed to determine the muscadine
grape qualities they liked most and the qualities disliked most. Most
respondents were able to verbalize only one or two qualities.
27
Table 9.--Occasions when muscadine grapes were eaten.
Occasion Responses
Number Percenta
Breakfast 0 0
Morning snack 39 52
Lunch 1 1
Afternoon snack 58 77
Dinner 0 0
Nighttime snack 53 71
Total number of respondents 75 ---
a
Percentages are based on 75 respondents: the total percentage
exceeds 100 because of multiple responses.
Qualities liked.--Taste was the first quality cited by 57 percent of the
muscadine purchasers. When probed for additional responses two-thirds of all
respondents stated taste as a quality liked. Sweetness, texture, juiciness
and appearance were mentioned first by 15, 7, 7, and 3 percent, respectively.
When all responses are analyzed, these same qualities were mentioned by
35, 17, 12 and 8 percent of the respondents. A few mentioned size,
smell, color, freshness, general eating quality, and price as qualities
liked most. Several mentioned nostagia and medicinal qualities, which
are included in a miscellaneous category (Table 10).
Qualities disliked.--Thirty-two percent of the muscadine purchasers
mentioned tough skin as the quality disliked most. Seeds, tartness, and
taste were mentioned by 9, 8, and 3 percent, respectively. Four percent
mentioned the high price as the thing they disliked the most. Analysis of
subsequent responses revealed that tough skins were disliked by 42 percent
28
Table lO.--Muscadine grape qualities liked by muscadine purchasers.
Qualities liked most First response All responses
--------------- Percenta-- ----------
Taste 57 67
Sweetness 15 35
Texture 7 17
Juiciness 7 12
Appearance 3 8
Size 1 4
Smell 0 1
Color 0 1
Freshness 0 5
General eating qualities 0 5
Price 0 1
Miscellaneous 4 4
Nothing at all 7 7
Totals 100c d
a
Percentages are based on 75 observations.
b
"Miscellaneous" includes nostalgia, medicinal qualities.
c
Does not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.
d
Percentages were not summed because of multiple responses.
of the respondents, seeds by 16 percent, and tartness by 11 percent. It
should be noted that 41 percent of the respondents had no complaints at
all about the muscadine grapes (Table 11).
Perceived shelf life.--About two-thirds of the muscadine grape
purchasers felt that the shelf life of the muscadine grapes would be no
different from the type of grapes that they normally buy. The remaining
respondents were about evenly divided as to which type of grape would
29
Table 11.--Muscadine grape qualities disliked by muscadine purchasers.
Quality disliked most First response All responses
--------------- Percent ---------------
Tough skin 32 42
Seeds 9 16
Too tart 8 11
Taste (general) 3 3
Watery 1 1
Color 1 1
Appearance 0 1
Not ripe enough 0 1
Price 4 4
No complaints 41 41
Total 100
a
Percentages were based on 76 observations.
b
Does not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.
c
Percentages were not summed because of multiple responses.
have a long shelf life. Seventeen percent felt that muscadine grapes
would have a longer shelf life but about 16 percent thought the other
types of grapes would remain edible for a longer period of time (Table
12). On the average, respondents, thought that muscadine grapes would
have a shelf life of about one week, the same as other grapes. It
should be pointed out that most respondents probably did not have an
opportunity to observe the maximum shelf life for muscadine grapes.
Most started eating the grapes soon after purchase, and had very few
muscadine grapes on hand by the time of the interviews.
30
Table 12.--Muscadine grape purchasers' perceived differences in shelf life
of muscadine grapes versus other types of grapes.
Response Number Percent
No difference in shelf life 47 67.1
Muscadine grapes have longer shelf
life 12 17.1
Other grape have longer shelf
life 11 15.7
Totals 70 100.0
a
A paired t test on the shelf life ratings (t = 1.35, 60 d.f.) indicates
that muscadine purchasers did not perceive a significant difference
in shelf life for muscadine grapes compared with other types of grapes.
b
Total does not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.
Comparisons of the bronze muscadine variety with other table grapes.--
Muscadine grape purchasers were asked to rate the muscadine grapes which
they had purchased and also rate the type of grape usually purchased
with respect to color, flavor, freshness, shelf life and overall quality.
They were asked to rate these characteristics on a scale where ten
equals "excellent" and zero equals "poor". Additionally, they were
asked to evaluate the muscadine varieties with respect to sweetness
using a three-point semantic differential scale i.e., "too sweet", "just
right", "not sweet enough". Hull texture or consistency was evaluated
with respect to toughness using a similar type of scale.
Purchasers of the bronze muscadine variety who usually purchased green
seedless grapes indicated a preference for the color and flavor of the
green seedless grapes. Freshness and shelf life were not received to
31
be significantly different, but they judged over all quality of the
bronze muscadine grape to be below that of the green seedless
(Appendix Table 19).
Very few of the muscadine purchasers usually bought red seeded
grapes. The small sample size, coupled with the fact that red seeded
grapes are not nearly as popular as the green seedless grapes, resulted
in very few comparisons of the muscadine grapes with the red seeded
grapes. However, for those observations that were obtained, the bronze
muscadine grape received better ratings on all of the characteristics
evaluated. These results should be interpreted with caution; the dif-
ferences were not statistically significant (Appendix Table 20).
Comparisons of the bronze muscadine grape with black seeded grapes
revealed a preference for the bronze muscadine grapes. Flavor, freshness
and overall quality ratings for the bronze muscadine variety were signi-
ficantly better than for the black seeded grapes. The color and shelf
life ratings of the bronze muscadine were also superior to that of the
black seeded grapes, but the differences were not statistically signi-
ficant (Appendix Table 21).
Comparisons of the purple muscadine variety with other table grapes.--
Purchasers of the purple muscadine grapes that usually bought green
seedless grapes tended to rate the green seedless variety higher than
the purple muscadine variety. The rating differences for color and
flavor were both statistically significant; however, ratings for fresh-
ness, shelf life, and overall quality were not (Appendix Table 22).
Rating comparisons for the purple muscadine and the red seeded
showed a preference for the purple muscadine grape. However, this
preference is based on an extremely small number of observations. None
were statistically significant (Appendix Table 23).
32
Comparisons of the purple muscadine grape with the black seeded
grapes showed a preference for the purple muscadine grape with respect
to all the characteristics evaluated. All were statistically signi-
ficant. Shelf life of the purple muscadine grapes also received higher
ratings than did the black seeded grapes. However, as mentioned earlier,
this is probably based on received or subjective evaluations rather
than an objective comparison (Appendix Table 24).
Comparison of the bronze with the purple muscadine variety.--
Fourteen shoppers purchased both bronze and purple muscadine grapes.
They were asked to rate the characteristics of both varieties. The
purple variety received higher ratings on all characteristics. The
rating difference for color was statistically significant at the 0.05
probability level and rating differences for flavor and overall quality
were statistically significant at the 0.10 probability level. Dif-
ferences for freshness and shelf life were not statistically significant
(Appendix Table 25).
Muscadine grape purchasers'evaluations of sweetness and hull "texture"
or "consistency".--All muscadine grape purchasers were asked to evaluate
sweetness and hull texture or consistency of the respective variety or
varieties which they had brought. None of the bronze muscadine grape
purchasers said that the bronze was too sweet. Seventy-eight percent
said that the bronze was just right with respect to sweetness but 22
percent said that it was not sweet enough. Only one purchaser of the
purple variety indicated that it was too sweet. Eighty percent said
that it was just right and 18 percent said that the purple variety was
not sweet enough (Appendix Table 26).
33
The skin of the bronze variety was judged too tough by 39 percent
of the purchasers. Fifty-seven percent said that the hull texture was
just right. Surprisingly, two respondents or 4 percent, said that it was
not tough enough. Twenty-seven percent of the purchasers of the purple
variety said that the hull was too tough. Sixty-nine percent said that
it was just right, and 4 percent said that the texture or consistency
was not tough enough (Appendix Table 26).
Repeat purchase intentions
One of the most important measures of a product's potential success
is the degree of customer satisfaction as expressed by repeat purchase
intentions. A very high proportion of the muscadine grape purchasers
expressed an intention to buy them again. Overall, 87 percent said that
they intended to buy them again, 8 percent did not plan to buy them
again, and 5 percent were undecided (Table 13). Of the six persons that
did not plan to buy muscadine grapes aaain, five cited taste and one
expressed displeasure with the grapes because they were not ripe enough.
Slightly over two-thirds of the muscadine grape purchasers were familiar
with muscadine grapes to some degree. Eighty-nine percent of those
familiar with them intended to buy them again, 4 percent did not and 8
percent were undecided.
Of the 25 people that were unfamiliar with muscadine grapes prior
to buying them during the in-store sales test, 21 or 84 percent intended
to buy them again. Four purchasers or 16 percent did not plan to buy
them again; none were undecided (Table 13). Repeat purchase intentions
were also analyzed by variety of muscadine grapes purchased. Repeat
purchase intentions were similar regardless of the muscadine variety
purchased.
34
Table 13.--Repeat purchase intentions for muscadines by consumer familiarity.
Repeat purchase Degree of familiarity
intentions Familiar Unfamiliar Total
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Plan to buy
muscadines again 47 89 21 84 68 87
Do not plan to buy
muscadines again 2 4 4 16 6 8
Undecided 4 8 0 0 4 5
Totals a 43 100 25 100 78 100
a
Percentage totals may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.
Other Grape Purchasers' Awareness of and Aversions
to Muscadine Grapes
A sample of 290 shoppers that purchased grapes other than muscadine
grapes were interviewed to determine whether or not they had seen the muscadine
grapes and if so, why they had not purchased them. The interviews also
provided insight as to whether these shoppers had any identifiable socio-
economic or demographic characteristics which would set them apart from the
shoppers that had purchased muscadine grapes.
Other grape purchasers' awareness of muscadine grapes
Other grape purchasers were asked to describe the types of grapes
they had observed while they were in the store on the day an interviewer had
contacted them. Respondents were given no clues as to what types of grapes
35
were actually offered in the stores. Respondents' unaided recall indicates
that 92 percent remembered seeing green seedless grapes in the stores
(Table 14). Almost one-fourth of the other grape purchasers recalled seeing
black seeded grapes in the stores, and about one-fifth, or about 21 percent
remembered seeing the red seeded and seedless varieties. Many of those in-
cluded in the 21 percent could not differentiate between the red seeded and
seedless varieties.
Table 14.--Types of grapes observed by purchasers of other grapes, unaided
recall.a
Types of grapes observed Percent
during shopping trip Number of total
Green seedless 266 92
Black seeded 69 24
Red seeded and seedless 61 21
Purple muscadine 24 8
Bronze muscadine 8 3
Purple and bronze muscadine 10 3
a
An additional 18 persons, 6 percent, recalled seeing muscadine grapes
when asked directly. Thus, 60 respondents, 21 percent of the other grape
purchasers recalled seeing at least one variety of muscadine grapes.
b
Percentages are based on 290 observations. Percentages and numbers
are not summed because of multiple responses.
Twenty-four of the 290 shoppers or approximately 8 percent recalled
seeing only the purple muscadine variety. Eight respondents, roughly
3 percent of the total, recalled seeing only the bronze muscadine variety.
36
An additional 10 respondents, about 3 percent, recalled seeing both the
purple and the bronze muscadine varieties. Thus, 42 other grape purchasers,
14 percent, recalled seeing at least one variety of muscadine grapes
without any aid or clues from the interviewers. An additional 18 persons,
6 percent, recalled seeing muscadine grapes when asked directly. Thus,
60 respondents, 21 percent of the other grape purchasers, recalled
seeing at least one variety of muscadine grapes (Table 14).
Other grape purchasers' aversions to muscadine grapes
All shoppers that recalled seeing muscadine grapes in the stores
were asked why they had not purchased them. The most common reason
given, mentioned by almost 43 percent of the respondents, as the fact
that muscadines contain seeds. A sizeable proportion, almost 27 percent,
mentioned price as being the primary reason for not buying them. Appear-
ance and uncertainty as to the nature of the grape were reasons given
by almost equal numbers of shoppers, roughly 12 and 11 percent, respectively.
Tough skin was the major reason given by two of the respondents, or 3.6
percent (Table 15).
Table 15.--Other grape purchasers primary reasons for not buying
muscadine grapes.
Reasons Number Percent
They contain seeds 24 42.9
Price (too expensive) 15 26.8
Appearance 7 12.5
Unsure of them 6 10.7
Tough skin 2 3.6
Like other varieties 2 3.6
Total 56 100.0
37
Consumers' Perceptions of the Words "Muscadine" and "Scuppernong"
Throughout the in-store sales test and during the initial sections
of the consumer interview use of the words "Muscadine" and "Scuppernong"
were carefully avoided. As mentioned earlier, the point-of-sales material
referred to the grapes only as "Florida grapes". This was done so that
images evoked by the words muscadine and scuppernong could be evaluated
with consumers without introducing bias.
Several projective interviewing techniques were used. The first
was a word association test which asked the respondent to verbalize the
first thing that entered his or her mind when the words muscadine or
scuppernong were mentioned (Kahn). A second projective technique used
was that of a word personification analysis (Asch). Respondents were
asked to describe persons named Muscadine or Scuppernong. Their des-
criptions provided insights as to the images that the words created.
Responses from the muscadine grape purchaser sample and the other
grape purchaser sample were quite similar. Slightly over one-third of
both groups mentioned grapes as the first thought association after
hearing the word muscadine. The next most frequent thought association
was "wine" with 16 and 11 percent of both groups, respectively. Only 1
percent of each group mentioned jelly as their first thought association.
The word "fruit" or names of specific fruits were cited by 8 percent of
the muscadine grape purchasers and 9 percent of the other grape purchasers.
Thus, 59 percent of the muscadine purchasers mentioned grapes, wine,
jelly, or some kind of fruit as the first word to come to mind after
hearing the word muscadine, as compared to 57 percent for the other
grape purchasers (Appendix Table 27). A variety of responses was obtained
from the remaining respondents. Interviewees mentioned many different
38
types of prepared food products such as cheese, ice cream, and seafood.
Various chemicals, medicines, and a number of mechanical objects such as
a motor scooter, canoes, machines, etc. were also mentioned.
Substantial numbers of muscadine purchasers and other grape purchasers,
38 percent and 28 percent, respectively, associated grapes with the word
scuppernong. Very few mentioned wine, jelly, or a fruit in general as a
response to the word scuppernong (Appendix Table 28). In total, 44
percent and 35 percent of the muscadine purchasers and other grape
purchasers respectively associated grapes, wine, jelly, or some fruit
with the word. The remaining responses indicated a considerable amount
of confusion with respect to the word scuppernong. A few associated
scuppernongg" with foods in general, with vegetables such as cucumbers,
mushrooms, or corn, animals such as dogs or fish, or mechanical objects
such as a scuba diving tool, a parachute, or a gong.
All respondents were immediately asked after their word association
whether the association was pleasant or unpleasant. Reactions were
similar for muscadine purchasers and other grape purchasers. Sixty-
three percent indicated a pleasant or positive reaction to the word
muscadine, 14 percent negative, and 23 percent neutral (Appendix Table
29). Reactions to the word scuppernong were not as favorable. Of the
muscadine purchasers' sample, 49 percent indicated a pleasant or positive
response to the word. A negative response was indicated by 22 percent
and a neutral response by 30 percent (Appendix Table 29).
Analysis of the word personification tests for the words muscadine
and scuppernong revealed no significant differences in responses between
the muscadine grape purchasers sample and the other grape purchasers.
Respondents generally described a person named "Muscadine" as a physically
39
attractive, middle-aged male who was well educated with above average
income. A very high proportion, 92 percent, indicated they would like a
person named Muscadine as a friend (Appendix Table 30). The overall
image evoked by the word muscadine appeared to be fairly positive.
The image profile generated for a person named Scuppernong was
judged to be less favorable than that evoked by the word muscadine. A
preponderance of those interviewed also described a person named Scuppernong
as male. However, they described the person as having less education,
less income, and as being less physically attractive. Fewer respondents
indicated that they would like this person as a friend. Thus, it appears
that the word muscadine would be preferred to the word scuppernong for
promotional purposes. However, it is likely that neither is ideal for
promoting Florida-grown grapes.
Prior to the questions about the words muscadine and scuppernong,
the muscadine grape purchasers were asked whether or not they knew the
"Florida grapes" by any other name. Only 11 muscadine grape purchasers,
14 percent, were able to give another name for the "Florida grapes".
The names given to the muscadine grapes included "scuffadines", "Scupper-
ings", "bullies", and "bullets". Obviously, these are corruptions of
either scuppernong or Bullace.3 Scuppernong was correctly used by only
one of the 78 respondents (Table 16). None of the respondents correctly
referred to the "Florida grapes" as muscadine grapes. From these results,
it is quite apparent that the terms muscadine and scuppernong are not
widely recognized and used, even among Florida consumers with a propensity
to purchase muscadine grapes.
3
See footnote 1.
40
Table 16.--Muscadine grape purchasers' ability to recall another name for
the "Florida grapes".
Response Number Percenta
"Bullets" 6 8
"Scuffadines" 2 3
"Bullies" 1 1
"Scupperings" 1 1
"Scuppernongs" 1 1
Totals 11 14b
a
Percentages are based on 78 observations.
b
Total does not agree due to rounding.
All muscadine grape purchasers were asked to rate the names "Muscadine
grapes" and "Florida grapes" for the muscadine grapes which they had
purchased. Purchasers of the bronze variety were also asked to rate the
fanciful name "Bronze Goddess" and the common name scuppernongg". Only
purchasers of the purple variety were asked to evaluate the fanciful
name "Royal Delight".
The term "Florida grape" received an average rating of 8.99, the
highest of the group. The names "Bronze Goddess" and "Royal Delight"
received the next highest ratings, 8.56 and 7.75, respectively. The
term scuppernong received the fourth highest rating with an average of
7.43, and the term muscadine received the lowest rating, an average of
7.19. Mean differences for the terms "Florida", "muscadine", and
41
scuppernongg grapes" were compared using paired "t" tests. A statis-
tically significant preference at the 0.05 probability level was found
for the term "Florida grape" over both "muscadine" and scuppernongg". A
similar comparison of the terms muscadine and scuppernong revealed no
statistically significant difference in the mean ratings (Table 17).
Table 17.--Muscadine grape purchasers' ratings of selected names for "the
grapes they bought."
Name Number Mean rating
"Florida" grape 72 8.99
"Bronze Goddess" 43 8.56
"Royal Delight" 40 7.75
"Scuppernong" 44 7.43
"Muscadine grape" 62 7.19
a
All muscadine grape purchasers were asked to rate the names "mus-
cadine" and "Florida" grapes using a scale where 10 = excellent and 0 =
poor. Only purchasers of the bronze variety were asked to rate "Bronze
Goddess" and "Scuppernong" and only purchasers of the purple variety were
asked to evaluate "Royal Delight."
b
Mean differences for "Florida grapes", "Muscadine grapes", and
"Scuppernong grapes" were compared used paired "t" tests. A statistically
significant preference (at the 0.05 probability level) for the term "Florida"
grapes" over both "muscadine" and scuppernongg" grapes was indicated (t =
4.5 with 61 degrees of freedom and t = 3.3 with 41 degrees of freedom,
respectively.) A similar comparison of the term "muscadine" and "scupper-
nong" revealed no statistically significant difference in preference.
42
CONCLUSIONS
Muscadine grapes can be marketed through retail supermarkets in
Florida. Sale volumes of muscadines compared favorably with sales of
other seeded grapes. Muscadines appealed to black consumers, in parti-
cular in the retail store test in Tampa in 1979. These findings are
consistent with other studies (Proctor).
Grapes of all types are primarily a snack food, and most muscadines
were eaten by adults rather than children. Consumers buying muscadines
said they would purchase them again, and supermarket produce managers
would handle muscadine grapes if available.
Current Florida production of muscadines is small and widely dis-
persed over the state. These conditions make it extremely difficult for
the industry to provide commercial quantities of grapes for significant
retail marketing. Individual growers with larger acreages have been
successful in marketing their grapes through local retail food stores.
Packing, assembling, storing and distributing adequate consistent
supplies of high quality muscadine grapes to supermarkets is apparently
not within the capability of the present Florida industry. Virtually
all Florida growers have small acreages, operated on a part-time or
hobby basis. Developing packing and refrigeration facilities, providing
containers and transportation, and operating in the competitive pricing
environment of commercial produce channels is not feasible for most
growers as long as they act independently. Entering the commercial
market will require growers to adapt commercial production and distribution
techniques. Florida muscadine growers must determine, individually and
collectively, if they wish to enter this market.
APPENDIX A
44
FLORIDA GRAPE GROWER'S AGREEMENT
with
The Florida Cooperative Extension Service
and
The Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
Project Title:
Commercial Fresh Market Potential for Florida Muscadine
Grapes
In order to achieve the objectives of this research project I, the under-
signed, hereby agree to the following:
1. To provide the following quantities and varieties of grapes during
the time period indicated:
Variety or varieties Quantity Dates
(22.5 lb. lugs)
Bronze
a) Carlos
b) Dixie _______ _____ _______
c) Higgins
d) Fry
Black
(a) Southland
b) Magoon
(c) Cowart
(d) Jumbo
2. Prices paid to all growers will
the test by Felicity Trueblood,
the cooperating retailer.
be negotiated and agreed to prior to
a representative of the growers, and
45
3. Agree to carefully monitor the quality of grapes shipped to insure
a high-quality pack acceptable to the retailer. I further agree to:
(a) pick during the cool part of the day, i.e., before 9:00 A.M.
(b) Sort to remove damaged, scarred, or undersized grapes, leaves,
and stems as well as other foreign matter.
(c) Pack in an approved container. Net weight should be 22.5 Ibs,
at the vineyard. The overfill provides an allowance for
shrinkage.
(d) Identify each lug as to shipper, color, variety, and date packed.
(e) Provide refrigerated storage (less than 500 F.) if necessary.
(f) Provide refrigerated transportation to the retailer's distribution
center.
Date ___________ Signed
Agent, Florida Grape Grower's Association
Date Signed
Florida Cooperative Extension Service
Signed ___
Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
RETAILER INSTRUCTIONS
Thank you for your help in this marketing experiment.
The following
information and suggestions can help make Florida grapes a profitable item
in your department.
1. These grapes are harvested
varieties of the muscadine
and other southern states.
they are succulent and very
without stems. They are improved
grape which is native to Florida
They contain a few seeds, but
flavorful.
2. Please package them as you do your other grapes; however
since they are a new product to most shoppers, slightly
smaller packages may encourage sales.
3. Please use a refrigerated display for both varieties of
Florida grapes. Give them about the same shelf space as the
red and black grapes you normally sell.
4. Please use the enclosed price cards over your Florida grape
displays. Since this is an experiment our supply is limited,
but if you need more, contact Mr. Mitchell. Please do not
use any point-of-purchase material other than the price-cards,
since it may influence our experiment.
5. Please reorder as soon as possible. Although supplies are
very limited, you must avoid out-of-stocks if at all possible.
We appreciate your cooperation and sincerely hope that this will be
profitable to you.
Robert L. Degner,
Research Economist
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS COOPERATIVE EX FT NSION F PVIC;E
SCHOOL OF FOREST RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION
46
FOOD AND RESOURCE ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT
ORIDA AGRICULTURAL MARKET RESEARCH CENTER
1083 McCARTY HALL
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 32611
TELEPHONE 904/392 1846
'-Ur~l-n-ll.llli~
Try Flori
Grapes
da
Price card developed and used by the Florida Agricultural
Market Research Center in conducting an in-store sales
test of muscadine grapes.
47
48
Florida Grape Purdhasers
GRAPE MARKETING STUDY
Florida Agricultural Market Research Center
Food and Resource Economics Department
IFAS, University of Florida
Hello, Mrs. Jones? (Verify identity of respondent). My name is
and I am a representative of the Agricultural Market Research Center at the University
of Florida in Gainesville. I am calling to ask you a few questions about the grapes
you bought last week at Kash and Karry. As I recall, you bought some (types) of
grapes. How many pounds of the (type(a)) grapes did you buy that day we contacted
you in the store? Have you bought any more grapes since that day? (If yes), what
type and how many?
Quantity bought
Day of contact Since contacted
(For office use)
Pounds
Bronze Florida
Purple Florida
Green seedless (Thompson)
Green with seeds
Red seeded (Tahay)
Dark purple or black with seeds
Had you planned or not planned to buy grapes before you saw them in the store?
2. Not planned
Type
(Circle)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
;. Planned
Florida Grape Purchasers
3. During the summer months of June, July, and August, how frequently,
usually buy (type of grape)?
49
if ever, do you
Green seedless
(Thompson)
Seeded
red
Green
purple/bla
Never
Infrequently, < once per month
Once per month
Once every 3 weeks
Once every 2 weeks
Every week
Several times per week
4. Before I ask you more questions specifically about grapes, I would like to ask a few
general questions about food shopping. Of course, our conversation is strictly con-
fidertial. Approximately how much do you spend each week for food?
$ per week
5. Of this, how many dollars would you estimate is spent for fresh produce?
$ per week
6. What other fresh fruit items, if any did you buy last week? (all stores, all sh6pinc
trips) How much of each did you buy?
Item Quantity Item Quantity
(Read Zist)
Apples
Apricots
Bananas
Berries (all)
Cherries
Grapefruit
Lemons, Limes
Oranges
Pounds
Peaches
Pears
Plums & Nectarines
Pineapple
Melons (all)
Other (specify)
For Office use -- Grand total
Frequency
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Pounds
Florida Grape Purchasers 50
7. Now I am going to mention a word that you may or may not have heard before. I
would like for you to tell me the very first thing that comes to your mind when
you hear the word, whether it makes sense or not. What is the first thing
that comes to your mind when you hear the word, MUSCADINE? Is that pleasant or
unpleasant to you? What is the second thing that comes to mind? Is that pleasant
or unpleasant to you?
Pleasant Unpleasant
Pleasant Unpleasant
Neutral
Neutral
8. Suppose someone named MUSCADINE moved next door to you. How would you describe this
person? (unaided response).
Female; /
Middleaged
Well educated
Physically attractive,
Old; /
Poorly educated; /
Tall
Rich
Unattractive;
short
Average;
Poor
Ethnic background
Other comments
9. From your first impression of this person, would you or would you not like this person!
Would like
2.
Would not like
10. Now I am going to mention a word that you may or may not have heard before. I
would like for you to tell me the very first thing that comes to your mind when
you hear the word, whether it makes sense or not. What is the first thing
that comes to your mind when you hear the word, SCUPPERNONG? Is that pleasant or
unpleasant to you? What is the second thing that comes to mind? Is that pleasant
or unpleasant to you?
Pleasant Unpleasant
Pleasant Unpleasant
Neutral
Neutral
11. Suppose someone named SCUPPERNONG moved next door to you. How would you describe this
person? (unaided response).
Female; /
Physically attractive,
Young Middleaged Old; /
Well educated Poorly educated; /
Tall
Rich
Unattractive;
short
Average;
Poor
Ethnic background
Other comments
12. From your first impression of this person, would you or would you not like this person?
2. Would not like
1.
2.
Male
Young
1.
1.
2.
Male
1. Would like
51
Florida Grape Purchasers
13. How many of the Florida grapes, if any, do you have left right now?
I. All are left (Terminate, explaining that you will call back in a few days
after they have tried them. If respondent does not know, have her check.)
2. 3/4 left
3. 1/2 left
4. 1/4 left
5. none ate all
6. Discarded without eating: why?
Spoilage _Disliked because of
14. Were they refrigerated immediately after getting them home? Yes No
15. How many days did you have them before you tried them? days
16. How long do you think you could keep them in your refrigerator without significant
spoilage? days (no range)
17. How long do you think you could keep the (kind) grapes you usually buy in
your refrigerator? (no range)
18. How did you use the Florida grapes? (Circle all ways used, specify percentages if
used in more than one way.)
How used Percent
1. Ate fresh
(If eaten fresh) what time of day or meal were they
eaten?)
a. Breakfast d. Morning snack
b. lunch e. Afternoon snack
c. Dinner f. Nighttime snack
2. Used in salad
3. Jelly/preserves
4. Fresh juice
5. Wine
6. Other (specify)
7. Don't Know
Florida Grape Purchasers 52
19. Who in your household ate most of the Florida grapes?
1. Adults
2. Children
3. Both equally
20. I would like for you to rate the Florida grapes on several points using a
rating scale where 10 = excellent and 0 = poor. (Rate characteristics) Now
how would you rate the type of grape you usually buy? (Rate only the type of grape
they usually buy).
(Circle type of grape usually bought
Florida Green Seeded
Characteristic Bronze Purple Seedless Green Red Dark purple
Color
Flavor/taste
Freshness when bought
Shelf life or keeping
quality
Overall quality
Now, I would like you to compare several other characteristics:
21. How would you describe the sweetness of:
--------------------- Rotate-----------------------
Florida bronze Too sweet Just right Not sweet enough
Florida purple Too sweet Just right Not sweet enough
Usual type Too sweet Just right Not sweet enough
(Specify)
Florida grape purchasers
53
22. How would you describe the skin or hull texture or consistency?
------------------ Rotate ----------------------
Too tough Just right Not tough enough
Florida bronze
Florida purple
Usual type
(Rotate)
23. What did you like most, if anything, about the Florida grapes? (Probe)
1. 2. 3.
24. What did you dislike most, if anything, about the Florida grapes? (Probe)
1.
2.
3.
25. If you were to see Florida grapes in your supermarket again next summer, would
you or would you not buy them again?
1. Would buy again.
2. Would not buy again -- why not?
26. Using the rating scale where 10 = excellent and 0 = po
following names for the grapes you bought? (Only one
1. Muscadine grapes
2. "Florida" grapes
3. "Bronze Goddess (If purchaser of "PForid
4. Scuppernong grapes (If purchaser of "Florid
5. Royal Delight If purchaser of "Florid(
6. None of these; suggested name:
27. Were the Florida grapes a new type of grape to you?
28. If no, Do you know this type of grape by another name?
Yes (If yes) what?
No, know but can't identify.
29. Have you ever patronized a U-pick vineyard in Florida?
or, how would you rate the
choice, Rotate 1-3).
a Bronze")
a Bronze")
a Purple")
Yes
No
Yes No
54
Non-Purchasers
3. During the summer months of June, July, and August, how frequently, if ever, do you
usually buy (type of grape)?
Green seedless
Frequency (Thompson)
Seeded
Green red
purple/black
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Never
Infrequently, < once per month
Once per month
Once every 3 weeks
Once every 2 weeks
Every week
Several times per week
4. Before I ask you more questions specifically about grapes, I would like to ask a few
general questions about food shopping. Of course, our conversation is strictly con-
fidential. Approximately how much do you spend each week for food?
$ per week
5. Of this, how many dollars would you estimate is spent for fresh produce?
$ per week
hat other fresh fruit items, if any did you buy last week? (all stores, all shopping
trips) How much of each did you buy?
Item Quantity Item Quantity
(Read list)
Apples
Apricots
Bananas
Berries (all)
Cherries
Grapefruit
Lemons, Limes
Oranges
Pounds
Peaches
Pears
Plums & Nectarines
Pineapple
Melons (all)
Other (specify)
For Office use -- Grand total
Pounds
I @I II
Non-Purchasers 55
7. Now I am going to mention a word that you may or may not have heard before. I
would like for you to tell me the very first thing that comes to your mind when
you hear the word, whether it makes sense or not. What is the first thing
that comes to your mind when you hear the word, MUSCADINE? Is that pleasant or
unpleasant to you? What is the second thing that comes to mind? Is that pleasant
or unpleasant to you?
Pleasant Unpleasant
Pleasant Unpleasant
Neutral
Neutral
8. Suppose
person?
someone named MUSCADINE moved next door to you. How would you describe this
(unaided response).
Physically attractive,
Unattractive;
Young Middleaged
Well educated Pc
Old; /
poorly educated; /
Ethnic background
Other comments
9. From your first impression of this person, would you or would you not like this perso
Would like
2.
Would not like
10. Now I am going to mention a word that you may or may not have heard before. I
would like for you to tell me the very first thing that comes to your mind when
you hear the word, whether it makes sense or not. What is the first thing
that comes to your mind when you hear the word, SCUPPERNONG? Is that pleasant or
unpleasant to you? What is the second thing that comes to mind? Is that pleasant
or unpleasant to you?
Pleasant Unpleasant
Pleasant Unpleasant
Neutral
Neutral
11. Suppose
person?
someone named SCUPPERNONG moved next door to you. How would you describe thi
(unaided response).
Male
Female; /
Young Middleaged
Physically attractive,
Old; /
Tall
Unattractive;
short
Average;
Well educated
Poorly educated; /
Ethnic background
Other comments
12. From your first impression of this person, would you or would you not like this persc
2. Would not like
1.
2.
Male
Female; /
Tall
Rich
short
Average;
Poor
1.
1.
2.
Rich
Poor
1. Would like
Non-Purchasers
30. The other day when we contacted you in Kash and Karry, you had just
How many different types of grapes were on display there? Number
Would you describe them?
bought some grapes.
(Unaided recall; circle number of ones identified)
1. Green seedless
2. Green seeded
3. Red seeded (Tokay)
4. Purple seeded (Ribier)
5. Florida bronze
6. Florida purple
7. Can't describe or name any
8. Other:
(If (5) and (6) Florida grapes) were not mentioned above, ask following:
Did you see any "Florida grapes"?
1. No (Go to Demographics)
2. Yes
31. Why did you decide to not buy the Florida grapes?
56
Demographics 57
Demographics
I would like to ask you a few more questions about you and your household.
32. How many adults (age 18 and over) are in your household?
33. How many children (under 18)?
34. What is the highest grade of school that you have
completed?
Elementary 01
Junior High
High School
College
or vocational
Graduate school
Graduate school
02
07
09
13
03
08
10
14
04 05 06
10
15
(Master's degree)
(Doctorate)
12
16
17
18
35. Are you 1.
2.
3.
employed?
Unemployed?
Retired?
Occupation
Occupation
Former occupation
36. Are you 1. Married (If yes) Is your spouse:
a. employed?
b. Unemployed?
c. Retired?
Occupation
Occupation
Former occupation
2. Unmarried
37. To which of the following racial or ethnic groups do you belong?
1.
2.
White
Black
3. American Indian
4. Oriental
or Alaskan native
38. To which of the following age groups do you belong?
1.
2.
3.
4.
Under
18-24
25-34
35-49
18 years
years
years
years
5.
6.
7.
50 64 years
65 + years
(Refused)
39. Which of the following categories best describes your household's total after tax
or take-home income from all sources?
1. Under $8,000 per year
2. $8,000-9,999
3. $10,000-14,999
4. $15,000-24,999
5. $25,000 and over
6. (Refuaed)
40. Sex of respondent:
1.
Female
2.
Male
Thank you very muqh for your help. We at the University of Florida appreciate
..r r-nnnora-nn in this rape marketing study.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
(Circle)
58
Store
Manager
Date
PRODUCE MANAGER QUESTIONNAIRE
Grape Marketing Study
1. Approximately how many minutes does it take (on the average) to package a
lug of the following Florida grape?
a. Thompson seedless Minutes
b. Red seeded Minutes
c. Black seeded Minutes
2. At the time of packaging, approximately how many of each type would you
have to discard out of one 22 lb. lug?
a. Florida bronze Why?
b Florida black Why?
c. Thompson seedless Why? __
d. Red seeded Why?
e. Black seeded Why?
3. During the four days that you had Florida grapes in your store, did you
have to rework any packages of Florida grapes after they had been on
display?
Yes H_ ow many? What percent? % Why?
No
4. From the time of delivery to your store, how many days would each of the
following types of grapes remain saleable, i.e., what is the total shelf
life? What are the major causes of deterioration?
Type Shelf life Major deterioration problems
Florida bronze days
Florida black days
Thompson seedless days
Red seeded days
Black seeded days
59
5. What complaints (and how many) if any, have you had from your customers
about the Florida bronze? (Specify Number).
The Florida black? (Specify Number).
6. What compliments, if any, have you had from your customers about the
Florida bronze? (Specify Number).
The Florida black? (Specify Number).
7. How many requests, if any have you or your helpers had from customers
for more:
Florida bronze?
Florida black?_
8. Using a rating scale where 0 = extremely poor and 10 = excellent, I would
like to get your personal evaluation of several characteristics of the
Florida grapes compared to the grapes that you usually sell.
Florida Thompson Seeded
Characteristic Bronze Black seedless Red Black
General appearance
Color
Surface blemishes
Mashed or crushed
berries
Soft or rotten
berries
Taste
Overall eating quality
Point-of-sale material
9. Are there any other quality features that you would like to comment on?
No
Yes What?
Non-Purchasers 60
GRAPE MARKETING STUDY
Florida Agricultural Market Research Center
Food and Resource Economics Department
IFAS, University of Florida
Hello, Mrs. Jones? (Verify identity of respondent). My name is
and I am a representative of the Agricultural Market Research Center at the University
of Florida in Gainesville. I am calling to ask you a few questions about the grapes
you bought last week at Kash and Karry. As I recall, you bought some (types) of
grapes. How many pounds of the (type(a)) grapes did you buy that day we contacted
you in the store? Have you bought any more grapes since that day? (If yes), what
type and how many?
quantity bought
Day of contact Since contacted
(For office use
Pounds
Bronze Florida
Purple Florida
Green seedless (Thompson)
Green with seeds
Red seeded (Tahay)
Dark purple or black with seeds
?. Had you planned or not planned to buy grapes before you saw them in the store?
2. Not planned
1. Type
(Circle)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
I. Planned
61
10. How could the Florida grape POS material be improved?
11. If the Florida grapes were called "Muscadines" on POS material and in other
advertising material, what effect, if any, do you think it would have on
their sales?
Very negative
Slightly negative Neutral Slightly positive Very positive
12. If the Bronze Florida grapes were called "Scuppernongs"
and in other advertising material, what effect, if any,
would have on their sales?
on POS material
do you think it
Very negative Slightly negative Neutral Slightly positive Very positive
13. If you could be assured of a sufficient supply of the bronze grapes for
about three weeks next summer, would you or would you not want to sell
them?
Yes
Comment:
No Comment:
14. If you could be assured of a sufficient supply of the black grapes for aboul
three weeks next summer, would you or would you not want to sell them?
Yes
Comment:
No Comment:
APPENDIX B
63
Appendix Table l.--Average daily sales per store, by income area, selected
types of grapes.
Income area
Type of grapea Low Medium High
---------------- Pounds ------------
Green seedless ("Thompson") 178.3 400.3 337.7
Bronze muscadine ("Higgins") 14.1 14.0 11.9
Purple muscadine ("Southland") 10.6 16.3 9.4
Red seedless 11.8 16.0 3.5
a
Red and black seeded varieties were not available in all stores
during the two days during which data were obtained.
b
Average daily sales for "low", "medium" and "high" stores are based
on 4, 3, and 5 observations, respectively.
Appendix Table 2.--Average sales per thousand customers, by income area,
selected types of grapes.
Income areasb
Type of grapea Low Medium High
------------- Pounds ----------------
Green seedless ("Thompson") 128.3 168.1 247.5
Bronze muscadine ("Higgins") 10.4 6.6 12.4
Purple muscadine ("Southland") 7.5 7.9 10.2
Red seedless 9.7 8.3 2.2
a
Red and black seeded varieties were not available in all stores
during the two days during which data were obtained.
b
Sales per 1,000 customers for "low", "medium", and "high" income
stores are based on 4, 3, and 5 observations, respectively.
64
Appendix Table 3 .--Produce managers' estimates of time required for packaging
and pricing selected types of grapes.
Time required to tray wrap, weigh and
price one lug
Average Lowest Highest
Type of grape
Red seeded
Green seedless
Black seeded
Bronze muscadine
Purple muscadine
------------- Minutes ---------------
7.0 3.0 12
7.0 2.5 12
7.3 4.0 12
9.0 3.0 12
9.0 3.0 12
a
Averages are based on six observations.
Appendix Table 4.--Quantities and proportions of selected types of grapes
discarded at time of packaging.
Discards
Type of grape Average quantity per luga Percent
Ounces Grams
Bronze muscadine ("Higgins") 8 227 2.3
Purple muscadine ("Southland") 3 85 0.8
Green seedless 16 454 4.5
Red seeded varieties 5 142 1.5
Black seeded varieties 6 170 1.8
a
Only two managers reported discards of the bronze muscadine grapes;
three discarded some purple muscadine grapes. Averages are based on six
observations.
65
Appendix Table 5.--Produce managers' perception of shelf life for selected
grapes.
Type of grape Averagea Lowest Highest
----------------- Days -------------------
Bronze muscadine 7.5 5 10
Purple muscadine 7.5 5 10
Red seeded 5.0 3 7
Green seedless 4.7 3 7
Black seeded 4.4 3 6
a
Averages are based on six observations.
Appendix Table 6.--Produce managers' ratings of selected grapes' general
appearance.
General appearance rating
Type of grape Average Lowest Highest
Green seedless 8.2 7 9
Purple muscadine 7.5 4 10
Red seeded 7.3 6 9
Black seeded 6.8 9 5
Bronze muscadine 6.3 5 8
a
The rating scale used was: 10 = excellent, 0 = extremely poor.
b
Averages are based on six observations.
66
Appendix Table 7.--Produce managers' rating of selected grapes' color.
Color rating
Type of grape Averageb Lowest Highest
Green seedless 8.33 7 10
Red seeded 7.33 5 9
Black seeded 7.17 3 10
Purple muscadine 7.00 3 10
Bronze muscadine 5.67 2 10
a
The rating scale used was: 10 = excellent, 0 = extremely poor.
b
Averages are based on six observations.
Appendix Table 8.--Produce managers rating of selected grapes' surface
blemishes.
Surface blemish rating
Type of grape Averageb Lowest Highest
Red seeded 7.3 5 10
Black seeded 6.8 3 10
Green seedless 6.5 2 9
Purple muscadine 6.3 3 10
Bronze muscadine 4.3 2 6
a
The rating scale used was: 10 = excellent, free of surface blemishes,
0 = extremely blemished.
b
Averages are based on six observations.
67
Appendix Table 9.--Produce managers rating of selected grapes with respect
to the proportion of mashed, crushed, or split berries
contained in lugs.
Mashed or crushed rating a
Type of grape Average b Lowest Highest
Bronze muscadine 7.7 3 10
Green seedless 7.7 5 9
Purple muscadine 7.5 5 10
Red seeded 7.5 4 9
Black seeded 6.5 3 9
a
The rating
split berries, 0
berries.
scale used was: 10 = excellent, free of
= extremely large quantities of mashed,
mashed, crushed, or
crushed or split
b
Averages are based on six observations.
Appendix Table 10.--Produce managers' rating of selected grapes with respect
to the proportion of soft or rotten berries contained in
lug.
Soft or rotten rating
Type of grape Averageb Lowest Highest
Green seedless 8.2 7 10
Purple muscadine 8.2 5 10
Bronze muscadine 7.5 3 10
Red seeded 7.2 4 9
Black seeded 6.7 5 8
a
The rating scale used was: 10 = excellent, free of soft or rotten berries,
0 = extremely large quantities of soft or rotten berries.
b
Averages are based on six observations.
68
Appendix Table ll.--Produce managers' ratings of taste of selected grapes.
Type of grape
Green seedless
Red seeded
Black seeded
Purple muscadine
Bronze muscadine
Averaged
9.2
8.2
7.5
7.4
6.0
Taste rating
Lowest
8
7
5
5
5
a
The rating scale used was: 10 = excellent, 0 = extremely poor.
b
Averages are based on six observations.
Appendix Table 12.--Produce managers' rating of selected grapes for overall
eating quality.
Type of grape
Green seedless
Red seeded
Black seeded
Purple muscadine
Bronze muscadine
Overall quality rating
AverageD Lowest Highest
9.3 8 10
7.8 6 10
7.0 6 8
6.4 4 9
5.8 4 8
a
The rating scale used was: 10 = excellent, 0 = extremely poor.
b
Averages are based on six observations.
Highest
10
10
9
9
9
-~----CI-
69
Appendix Table 13.--Produce managers' opinions of the effects of using the words
"muscadine" and scuppernongg" in advertising on sales of
muscadine grapes?
Rating "Muscadine" "Scuppernong"
---------------- Number ---------------
Very negative 0 1
Slightly negative 2 2
Neutral 1 1
Slightly positive 2 2
Very positive 1 0
a
The term
of muscadines,
varieties.
Appendix Table
"muscadine" was used in a hypothetical example for all varieties
whereas the term scuppernongg" was reserved for the bronze
14.--Average weekly grocery and produce expenditures for
muscadine grape purchasers and other grape purchasers.
Average weekly expenditures
All Produce proportion
Sample groceries Produce of all groceries
------- Dollars ------- ----- Percent ---
Muscadine purchasers 51.65 10.30 19.9
Other grape purchasers 50.14 9.62 19.0
Average, both groups 50.46 9.78 19.2
a
Comparison of mean expenditures for the two groups indicated no
statistically significant differences for groceries or produce (t = 0.51,
d.f. = 342 and t = 0.79, d.f. = 339, respectively).
70
Appendix Table 15.--Purchase rates for selected types of grapes, by muscadine
purchasers and other grape purchasers.
Purchase rate for selected
types of table grapes Muscadine purchasers Other grape purchasers
Number Percent Number Percenl
Green Seedlessc
Light 20 26.0 41 14.0
Medium 19 24.7 80 27.7
Heavy 38 49.3 168 58.1
Totals 77 TO1 0 00T
Green seeded
Light 64 90.1 284 98.3
Medium 4 5.6 4 1.4
Heavy 3 4.2 1 0.3
Totals 7T T00.0 289
Red seeded
Light 64 87.7 277 96.2
Medium 5 6.8 6 2.1
Heavy 4 5.5 5 1.7
Totals 73 100.0 288 100.0
Black seeded
Light 51 68.9 271 94.1
Medium 11 14.9 7 2.4
Heavy 12 16.2 10 3.5
Totals -7 218 O 100 O
a
The usage rates are defined as follows:
or less; medium, two to three times per month;
Light, purchased once per month
and heavy, once per week or more
b
Percentages may not round to 100 percent due to rounding.
c
Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant difference
1 user rate of "Thompson" seedless grapes by type of grape purchaser;
X = 6.1 with 2 d.f. Sparse values in cells of contingency tables for other
types of grapes precluded conventional Chi-square analyses.
71
Appendix Table 16.--Demographic composition of the muscadine purchaser
and other grape purchaser samples.
Demographic variable, Muscadine Other grape
classification purchasers purchasers All
---------------- Percent
Age of purchaser (years)
Under 35
35 through 64
Over 65
Totals
Education
Less than high school
High school graduate
Some college, college
degrees)
Totals
Employment status of household
head
Employed
Unemployed
Retired
Totals
Occupational classification
White collar
Blue collar
Totals
Family composition
Children
No children
29
57
14
34
48
18
33
50
17
100T
23
51
26
56
28
15
64
36
55
45
25
51
24
26
51
23
49
33
17
56
44
45
55
51
32
17
58
42
47
53
Totals
1O6
72
Appendix Table 16.--Continued
Demographic variable, Muscadine Other grape
classification purchasers purchasers All
---------------- Percent -----------------
Racec
White 61 78 74
Black 39 22 26
Totals T00 T00 TWO
Income (Annual)
Less than $8,000 22 23 23
$8,000 $9,999 21 12 14
$10,000 $14,999 13 14 14
$15,000 $24,999 17 16 16
$25,000 and over 6 9 8
Refused 18 26 25
Totals 100 100 100
Sex of purchaser
Female 91 90 90
Male 9 10 10
Totals T1' 100 TO0
a
Percentages for the demographic variables
numbers of muscadine purchasers and other grape
Age: 77
Education: 77
Employment status
of household head 77
Occupational
classification 56
281
278
282
211
were based on the following
purchasers, respectively:
Family composition
Race:
Income:
Sex:
73
77
78
78
283
279
288
290
b
Mean household sizes were also compared for the two groups. The
average for the muscadine purchaser sample was 3.5 compared with 3.1 for the
other grape purchaser sample. However, the difference was not statistically
significant at the 0.05 probability level (t = 1.44, with 353 degrees of
freedom).
c
The proportion o; blacks purchasing muscadines was found to be statis-
tically significant, X = 8.82, with 1 degree of freedom.
73
Appendix Table 17.--Number of days muscadine grapes were stored by cehsumers
before trying.
Number of days Cumulative
stored Number Percent percent
0 52 67.5 67.5
1 23 29.9 97.4
2 1 1.3 98.7
4 1 1.3 100.0
Totals 77 100.0 100.0
Appendix Table 18.--Proportion of muscadine grape purchases on hand when
interviewed.
Proportion of muscadine
purchases on hand Number Percent
All 0 0.0,
Three-fourths 1 1.3
Half 0 0.0
One-fourth 5 6.4
None, ate all 67 85.9
Discarded without eating 4 5.1
Do not know 1 1.3
Totals 78 100.0
74
Appendix Table 19.--Rating comparisons for selected characteristics, bronze
muscadine versus green seedless grapes.
Mean ratings Mean
Characteristics Bronze Green seedless difference ta d.t.
Color 8.3 9.7 -1.4 -3.13** 35
Flavor 8.2 9.4 -1.2 -2.20* 34
Freshness 9.0 9.7 -0.7 -1.61 34
Shelf life 8.8 9.5 -0.8 -1.53 30
Overall quality 8.5 9.6 -1.0 1.90t 34
a
Mean rating differences were analyzed using a paired t test. Stat-
istical significance at the 0.01, 0.05, and 0.10 probability levels are
designated by the following symbols, respectively: **, *, and t.
Appendix Table 20.--Rating comparisons for selected characteristics, bronze
muscadine versus red seeded grapes.
Mean ratings Mean
Characteristics Bronze Red seeded difference ta d.f.
Color 9.0 8.5 0.5 1.0 1
Flavor 9.5 8.0 1.5 3.0 1
Freshness 10.0 8.5 1.5 3.0 1
Shelf life 9.0 7.5 1.5 1.0 1
Overall quality 9.5 7.5 2.0 --- 1
a
Mean rating differences were analyzed using a paired t test.
istical significance at the 0.01, 0.05, and 0.10 probability levels
designated by the following symbols, respectively: **, *, and t.
Stat-
are
75
Appendix Table 21.--Rating comparisons for selected characteristics, bronze
muscadine versus black seeded grapes.
Mean ratings Mean
Characteristics Bronze Black seeded differences ta d.f.
Color 9.6 8.8 0.8 1.4 4
Flavor 9.8 8.6 1.2 2.45t 4
Freshness 9.4 8.4 1.0 2.24t 4
Shelf life 8.7 8.3 0.3 1.0 2
Overall quality 9.6 7.8 1.8 4.8** 4
a
Mean rating differences were analyzed using a paired t test. Stat-
istical significance at the 0.01, 0.05, and 0.10 probability levels are
designated by the following symbols, respectively: **, *, and t.
Appendix Table 22.--Rating comparisons for selected characteristics, purple
muscadine versus green seedless grapes.
Mean rating Mean
Characteristic Purple Green seedless difference ta d.f.
Color 8.6 9.4 -0.9 -1.96t 37
Flavor 8.4 9.3 -0.9 -1.85t 35
Freshness 9.2 9.3 -0.1 -0.2 35
Shelf life 8.9 9.0 -0.1 -0.26 34
Overall quality 8.7 9.4 -0.7 -1.58 35
a
Meari rating differences were analyzed using a paired t test. Stat-
istical significance at the 0.01, 0.05, and 0.10 probability levels are
designated by the following symbols, respectively: **, *, and t.
76
Appendix Table 23.--Rating comparisons for selected characteristics, purple
muscadine versus red seeded grapes.
Mean rating Mean
Characteristic Purple red seeded difference ta d.f.
Color 10.0 7.5 2.5 1.67 1
Flavor 9.5 6.5 3.0 1.50 1
Freshness 10.0 8.0 2.0 --- 1
Shelf life 9.5 7.5 2.0 1
Overall quality 10.0 8.0 2.0 --1
a
Mean rating differences were analyzed using a paired t test. Stat-
istical significance at the 0.01, 0.05, and 0.10 probability levels are
designated by the following symbols, respectively: **, *, and t.
Appendix Table
24.--Rating comparisons for selected characteristics, purple
muscadine versus black seeded grapes.
Mean rating Mean
Characteristic Purple black seeded difference ta d.f.
Color 9.4 7.4 2.0 3.65* 4
Flavor 9.4 8.0 1.4 2.75* 4
Freshness 9.6 7.6 2.0 2.83* 4
Shelf life 10.0 6.5 3.5 3.66* 3
Overall quality 9.4 7.0 2.4 6.00** 4
a
Mean rating differences were analyzed using a paired t test. Stat-
istical significance at the 0.01, 0.05, and 0.10 probability levels are
designated by the following symbols, respectively: **, *, and t.
77
Appendix Table 25.--Rating comparisons for selected characteristics, bronze
muscadine versus purple muscadine grapes.
Mean ratings Mean
Characteristics Bronze Purple difference ta d.f.
Color 8.0 8.7 -0.7 -1.79* 13
Flavor 8.1 8.7 -0.6 -1.29t 11
Freshness 9.1 9.2 -0.1 -1.00 11
Shelf life 8.6 8.8 -0.2 -0.80 9
Overall quality 8.6 8.8 -0.3 -1.39t 11
a
Mean rating differences were analyzed using a paired t test.
istical significance at the 0.01, 0.05, and 0.10 probability levels
designated by the following symbols, respectively: **, *, and t'
Stat-
are
Appendix Table 26.--Muscadine grape purchasers' evaluations of sweetness
and hull texture or consistency by muscadine variety.
Characteristic, Muscadine variety
evaluation Bronze Purple
Number Percent Number Percent
Sweetness
"Too sweet" 0 0 1 2
"Just right" 35 78 39 80
"Not sweet enough" 10 22 9 18
Totals 45 100 49 100
Hull texture or consistency
"Too tough" 18 39 13 27
"Just right" 26 57 34 69
"Not tough enough" 2 4 2 4
Totals 46 100 49 100
78
Appendix Table 27.--Grape purchasers initial thought associations related
to the word "muscadine".
Muscadine purchasers' Other grape purchasers'
Thought initial responses initial response
Grapes
Wine
Jelly
Fruit
Subtotal
Foods, general
Drinks
Vegetables, plants
Animals, general
Chemicals, medicines
Phonic associations
Miscellaneous
Negative taste, smell
Nothing
Totals
- ----------- Percent a
34 36
16 11
1 1
8 9
59 57
9 7
1 -b
4
1
11
3
1
1
9
100
6
1
4
2
6
-b
16
100
a
Percentages for muscadine purchasers and other grape purchasers are
based on 76 and 287 observations, respectively. Totals may not sum to
100 because of rounding.
b
Less than 0.5 percent.
79
Appendix Table 28.--Grape purchasers' initial thought associations related
to the word scuppernongg."
Muscadine purchasers' Other grape purchasers'
Thought associations initial response initial response
------------------ Percenta----------
Grapes 38 28
Wine 1 3
Jelly 1 0
Fruit 4 4
Subtotal 44 35
Foods, general 5 6
Drinks 0 2
Vegetables, plants 3 1
Animals 4 2
Mechanical objects 14 6
Chemicals, medicines 4 3
Negative taste 4 6
Positive taste 0 1
Geographic locations 1 1
Miscellaneous activities 2 6
Miscellaneous positive 1 --b
Miscellaneous neutral 4 3
Miscellaneous negative 1 5
Nothing 11 23
Totals 100a 100a
a
Percentages for muscadine purchasers and other grape purchasers are
based on 76 and 285 observations, respectively. Totals may not sum to 100
due to rounding.
b
Less than 0.5 percent.
80
Appendix Table 29.--Grape purchasers' attitudes toward initial thought
associations related to the words "muscadine" and
scuppernongg."
Word, type of Attitude
grapes purchased Positive Negative Neutrala Totalsb
-------------------- Percentc--------------
"Muscadine"
Muscadine purchasers 72 13 15 100
Other grape purchasers 60 14 26 100
Both groups 63 14 23 100
"Scuppernong"
Muscadine purchasers 65 15 19 100
Other grape purchaserse 49 22 30 100
a
The neutral category includes respondents that were
immediately verbalize thought associations.
b
Totals may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.
not able to
c
Percentages for muscadine purchasers and other grape purchasers
are based on 78 and 290 observations, respectively.
d
Chi-square analysis indicates Do statistically significant differ-
ences in responses between groups, X = 4.1 with 2 degrees of freedom.
e
Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant differ-
e ce in responses between groups at the 0.05 percent probability level;
X = 7.0 with 2 degrees of freedom.
81
Appendix Table 30.--Image profiles of "persons named muscadine and stuppernong"
based on respondents' descriptions of selected physical
and socioeconomic attributes.
Attributed "Muscadine" "Scuppernong"
---------------- Percentb--------------
Age
"Young" 33 27
"Middle-aged" 57 55
"Ol d" 10 18
Total 100 TO
Education
"Well educate" 74 57
"Average education" 0 2
"Poorly educated" 26 41
Total 100 100
Income
"Rich" 66 59
"Average" 1 9
"Poor" 33 41
Total 100
Physical attractiveness
"Attractive" 74 58
"Unattractive" 26 42
Totals T00 TO
Friendship
Would like as a friend 92 88
Would not like as a friend 8 12
Totals 100 T-
Sex
Male 76 66
Female 16 24
Do not know 9 22
Totals T0 T
a
Chi-square analysis indicates no statistically significant differences
between muscadine purchasers and other grape purchasers at the 0.05 probability
level.
b
Percentages are based on 193 to 245 observations.
82
REFERENCES
Asch, S. C. "Forming Impressions of Personalities", Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, Vol. 41:258-289, 1946.
Federal-State Market News Service, Los Angeles Wholesale Market Report,
Vol. LXV, (Various July, August Issues), 1979.
Hart, Kenneth H. and Leo Polopolus. Potential For Commercial Grape
Production in Florida, Agricultural Economics Report No. 8, Department
of Agricultural Economics, Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations,
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida,
Gainesville, April 1970.
Kahn, Robert L. and Charles F. Cannell. The Dynamics of Interviewing, New
York: Wiley, 1957.
Mathis, Kary and Robert L. Degner, Grape
Marketing Environment, Staff Report
Research Center, Food and Resource
of Florida, Gainesville, November,
Production in Florida: The Current
No. 3, Florida Agricultural Market
Economics Deparmtnet, University
1977.
Mortensen, J. A. "Grape Varieties Recommended for Florida", Leesburg ARC
Research Report WG 78-1, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences,
University of Florida, Gainesville (Mimeograph) January 11, 1978.
Norris, Roslyn, Editor, Proceedings: Viticultural Symposium, July 27, 1979.
Florida A&M University, Center for Viticultural Science and Small
Farm Development, Tallahassee, Florida.
Proctor, E. A. Muscadine Grape Fresh Market Study, AG-153, The North
Carolina Agricultural Extension Service, Raleigh, North Carolina,
February 1979.
|
