Brand familiarity and tasting in conjoint analysis
Identifieur interne : 000344 ( Main/Corpus ); précédent : 000343; suivant : 000345Brand familiarity and tasting in conjoint analysis
Auteurs : Marija Cerjak ; Rainer Haas ; Damir KovaiSource :
- British Food Journal [ 0007-070X ] ; 2010-06-15.
Abstract
Purpose The aims of this paper is to determine, via an empirical study of beer consumers in Croatia, the influence of tasting on the validity of conjoint analysis CA under presence of familiar or unfamiliar brands. Designmethodologyapproach The research comprised a facetoface survey with 403 beer consumers. The respondents were divided into four groups regarding CA experiment familiarunfamiliar beer brand in combination with presence or absence of beer tasting. CA validity was measured with five criteria face validity, convergent validity, internal validity, predictive validity and subjective evaluation of conjoint task. In addition to the CA experiment, a structured questionnaire was used consisting of a few questions regarding respondents' socioeconomic characteristics, beer purchasing, and consuming behaviour. Findings The research results confirmed that tasting as an additional presentation method has significant influence on validity of CA. However, the results of the study indicate that tasting should be used as a stimulus presentation method for CA with food and beverage productsbrands, which are unfamiliar to the consumers. When testing familiar brands and brands with established perceptions, simpler and less expensive verbal stimulus presentation can be used. Practical implications According to the research results, it could be concluded that when performing CA with strong familiar brands, it is not necessary to use CA with tasting since tasting increases research complexity and costs and it does not achieve better results. However, tasting as a stimuli presentation method gives better results than pure verbal CA in the case of unfamiliar brands. Originalityvalue The paper is one of the first to deal with tasting as a presentation method in conjoint analysis and its results have direct implications for the future use of CA with food and beverages.
Url:
DOI: 10.1108/00070701011052664
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:D195DD69C86FAA7D8DAFEE04B1D570A1E73CB74BLe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Brand familiarity and tasting in conjoint analysis</title><author><name sortKey="Cerjak, Marija" sort="Cerjak, Marija" uniqKey="Cerjak M" first="Marija" last="Cerjak">Marija Cerjak</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Agricultural Marketing, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Haas, Rainer" sort="Haas, Rainer" uniqKey="Haas R" first="Rainer" last="Haas">Rainer Haas</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Institute for Marketing and Innovation, University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Kovai, Damir" sort="Kovai, Damir" uniqKey="Kovai D" first="Damir" last="Kovai">Damir Kovai</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Agricultural Marketing, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:D195DD69C86FAA7D8DAFEE04B1D570A1E73CB74B</idno><date when="2010" year="2010">2010</date><idno type="doi">10.1108/00070701011052664</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/D195DD69C86FAA7D8DAFEE04B1D570A1E73CB74B/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Corpus">000344</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Brand familiarity and tasting in conjoint analysis</title><author><name sortKey="Cerjak, Marija" sort="Cerjak, Marija" uniqKey="Cerjak M" first="Marija" last="Cerjak">Marija Cerjak</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Agricultural Marketing, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Haas, Rainer" sort="Haas, Rainer" uniqKey="Haas R" first="Rainer" last="Haas">Rainer Haas</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Institute for Marketing and Innovation, University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Kovai, Damir" sort="Kovai, Damir" uniqKey="Kovai D" first="Damir" last="Kovai">Damir Kovai</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Agricultural Marketing, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">British Food Journal</title><idno type="ISSN">0007-070X</idno><imprint><publisher>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher><date type="published" when="2010-06-15">2010-06-15</date><biblScope unit="volume">112</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">6</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="561">561</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="579">579</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0007-070X</idno></series><idno type="istex">D195DD69C86FAA7D8DAFEE04B1D570A1E73CB74B</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1108/00070701011052664</idno><idno type="filenameID">0701120601</idno><idno type="original-pdf">0701120601.pdf</idno><idno type="href">00070701011052664.pdf</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0007-070X</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">Purpose The aims of this paper is to determine, via an empirical study of beer consumers in Croatia, the influence of tasting on the validity of conjoint analysis CA under presence of familiar or unfamiliar brands. Designmethodologyapproach The research comprised a facetoface survey with 403 beer consumers. The respondents were divided into four groups regarding CA experiment familiarunfamiliar beer brand in combination with presence or absence of beer tasting. CA validity was measured with five criteria face validity, convergent validity, internal validity, predictive validity and subjective evaluation of conjoint task. In addition to the CA experiment, a structured questionnaire was used consisting of a few questions regarding respondents' socioeconomic characteristics, beer purchasing, and consuming behaviour. Findings The research results confirmed that tasting as an additional presentation method has significant influence on validity of CA. However, the results of the study indicate that tasting should be used as a stimulus presentation method for CA with food and beverage productsbrands, which are unfamiliar to the consumers. When testing familiar brands and brands with established perceptions, simpler and less expensive verbal stimulus presentation can be used. Practical implications According to the research results, it could be concluded that when performing CA with strong familiar brands, it is not necessary to use CA with tasting since tasting increases research complexity and costs and it does not achieve better results. However, tasting as a stimuli presentation method gives better results than pure verbal CA in the case of unfamiliar brands. Originalityvalue The paper is one of the first to deal with tasting as a presentation method in conjoint analysis and its results have direct implications for the future use of CA with food and beverages.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>emerald</corpusName><author><json:item><name>Marija Cerjak</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Agricultural Marketing, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Rainer Haas</name><affiliations><json:string>Institute for Marketing and Innovation, University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Damir Kovai</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Agricultural Marketing, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Brand awareness</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Food and drink products</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Beer</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Croatia</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Sensory perception</value></json:item></subject><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><abstract>Purpose The aims of this paper is to determine, via an empirical study of beer consumers in Croatia, the influence of tasting on the validity of conjoint analysis CA under presence of familiar or unfamiliar brands. Designmethodologyapproach The research comprised a facetoface survey with 403 beer consumers. The respondents were divided into four groups regarding CA experiment familiarunfamiliar beer brand in combination with presence or absence of beer tasting. CA validity was measured with five criteria face validity, convergent validity, internal validity, predictive validity and subjective evaluation of conjoint task. In addition to the CA experiment, a structured questionnaire was used consisting of a few questions regarding respondents' socioeconomic characteristics, beer purchasing, and consuming behaviour. Findings The research results confirmed that tasting as an additional presentation method has significant influence on validity of CA. However, the results of the study indicate that tasting should be used as a stimulus presentation method for CA with food and beverage productsbrands, which are unfamiliar to the consumers. When testing familiar brands and brands with established perceptions, simpler and less expensive verbal stimulus presentation can be used. Practical implications According to the research results, it could be concluded that when performing CA with strong familiar brands, it is not necessary to use CA with tasting since tasting increases research complexity and costs and it does not achieve better results. However, tasting as a stimuli presentation method gives better results than pure verbal CA in the case of unfamiliar brands. Originalityvalue The paper is one of the first to deal with tasting as a presentation method in conjoint analysis and its results have direct implications for the future use of CA with food and beverages.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>8</score><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>519 x 680 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><keywordCount>5</keywordCount><abstractCharCount>1888</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>7365</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>46661</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>19</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>280</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Brand familiarity and tasting in conjoint analysis</title><genre><json:string>research-article</json:string></genre><host><volume>112</volume><pages><last>579</last><first>561</first></pages><issn><json:string>0007-070X</json:string></issn><issue>6</issue><subject><json:item><value>Public policy & environmental management</value></json:item><json:item><value>Food & nutrition</value></json:item></subject><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><title>British Food Journal</title><doi><json:string>10.1108/bfj</json:string></doi></host><publicationDate>2010</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2010</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1108/00070701011052664</json:string></doi><id>D195DD69C86FAA7D8DAFEE04B1D570A1E73CB74B</id><fulltext><json:item><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><extension>pdf</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/D195DD69C86FAA7D8DAFEE04B1D570A1E73CB74B/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><extension>zip</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/D195DD69C86FAA7D8DAFEE04B1D570A1E73CB74B/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/D195DD69C86FAA7D8DAFEE04B1D570A1E73CB74B/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Brand familiarity and tasting in conjoint analysis</title><title level="a" type="sub" xml:lang="en">An experimental study with Croatian beer consumers</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher><availability><p>EMERALD</p></availability><date>2010</date></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Brand familiarity and tasting in conjoint analysis</title><title level="a" type="sub" xml:lang="en">An experimental study with Croatian beer consumers</title><author><persName><forename type="first">Marija</forename><surname>Cerjak</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Agricultural Marketing, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia</affiliation></author><author><persName><forename type="first">Rainer</forename><surname>Haas</surname></persName><affiliation>Institute for Marketing and Innovation, University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria</affiliation></author><author><persName><forename type="first">Damir</forename><surname>Kovai</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Agricultural Marketing, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia</affiliation></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">British Food Journal</title><idno type="JournalID">bfj</idno><idno type="pISSN">0007-070X</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1108/bfj</idno><imprint><publisher>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher><date type="published" when="2010-06-15"></date><biblScope unit="volume">112</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">6</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="561">561</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="579">579</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">D195DD69C86FAA7D8DAFEE04B1D570A1E73CB74B</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1108/00070701011052664</idno><idno type="filenameID">0701120601</idno><idno type="original-pdf">0701120601.pdf</idno><idno type="href">00070701011052664.pdf</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>2010</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract><p>Purpose The aims of this paper is to determine, via an empirical study of beer consumers in Croatia, the influence of tasting on the validity of conjoint analysis CA under presence of familiar or unfamiliar brands. Designmethodologyapproach The research comprised a facetoface survey with 403 beer consumers. The respondents were divided into four groups regarding CA experiment familiarunfamiliar beer brand in combination with presence or absence of beer tasting. CA validity was measured with five criteria face validity, convergent validity, internal validity, predictive validity and subjective evaluation of conjoint task. In addition to the CA experiment, a structured questionnaire was used consisting of a few questions regarding respondents' socioeconomic characteristics, beer purchasing, and consuming behaviour. Findings The research results confirmed that tasting as an additional presentation method has significant influence on validity of CA. However, the results of the study indicate that tasting should be used as a stimulus presentation method for CA with food and beverage productsbrands, which are unfamiliar to the consumers. When testing familiar brands and brands with established perceptions, simpler and less expensive verbal stimulus presentation can be used. Practical implications According to the research results, it could be concluded that when performing CA with strong familiar brands, it is not necessary to use CA with tasting since tasting increases research complexity and costs and it does not achieve better results. However, tasting as a stimuli presentation method gives better results than pure verbal CA in the case of unfamiliar brands. Originalityvalue The paper is one of the first to deal with tasting as a presentation method in conjoint analysis and its results have direct implications for the future use of CA with food and beverages.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords scheme="keyword"><list><head>Keywords</head><item><term>Brand awareness</term></item><item><term>Food and drink products</term></item><item><term>Beer</term></item><item><term>Croatia</term></item><item><term>Sensory perception</term></item></list></keywords></textClass><textClass><keywords scheme="Emerald Subject Group"><list><label>cat-PPEM</label><item><term>Public policy & environmental management</term></item><label>cat-FN</label><item><term>Food & nutrition</term></item></list></keywords></textClass></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="2010-06-15">Published</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><extension>txt</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/D195DD69C86FAA7D8DAFEE04B1D570A1E73CB74B/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="corpus emerald not found" wicri:toSee="no header"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><!-- Auto generated NISO JATS XML created by Atypon out of MCB DTD source files. Do Not Edit! --><article dtd-version="1.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research-article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">bfj</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="doi">10.1108/bfj</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>British Food Journal</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="ppub">0007-070X</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1108/00070701011052664</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="original-pdf">0701120601.pdf</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="filename">0701120601</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="type-of-publication"><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">research-article</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Research paper</compound-subject-part></compound-subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="subject"><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-PPEM</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Public policy & environmental management</compound-subject-part></compound-subject><subj-group><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-FN</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Food & nutrition</compound-subject-part></compound-subject></subj-group></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>Brand familiarity and tasting in conjoint analysis</article-title><subtitle>An experimental study with Croatian beer consumers</subtitle></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><string-name><given-names>Marija</given-names> <surname>Cerjak</surname></string-name><aff>Department of Agricultural Marketing, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia</aff></contrib><x></x><contrib contrib-type="author"><string-name><given-names>Rainer</given-names> <surname>Haas</surname></string-name><aff>Institute for Marketing and Innovation, University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria</aff></contrib><x></x><contrib contrib-type="author"><string-name><given-names>Damir</given-names> <surname>Kovačić</surname></string-name><aff>Department of Agricultural Marketing, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia</aff></contrib></contrib-group><pub-date pub-type="ppub"><day>15</day><month>06</month><year>2010</year></pub-date><volume>112</volume><issue>6</issue><fpage>561</fpage><lpage>579</lpage><permissions><copyright-statement>© Emerald Group Publishing Limited</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2010</copyright-year><license license-type="publisher"><license-p></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri content-type="pdf" xlink:href="00070701011052664.pdf"></self-uri><abstract><sec><title content-type="abstract-heading">Purpose</title><x> – </x><p>The aims of this paper is to determine, via an empirical study of beer consumers in Croatia, the influence of tasting on the validity of conjoint analysis (CA) under presence of familiar or unfamiliar brands.</p></sec><sec><title content-type="abstract-heading">Design/methodology/approach</title><x> – </x><p>The research comprised a face‐to‐face survey with 403 beer consumers. The respondents were divided into four groups regarding CA experiment (familiar/unfamiliar beer brand in combination with presence or absence of beer tasting). CA validity was measured with five criteria: face validity, convergent validity, internal validity, predictive validity and subjective evaluation of conjoint task. In addition to the CA experiment, a structured questionnaire was used consisting of a few questions regarding respondents' socio‐economic characteristics, beer purchasing, and consuming behaviour.</p></sec><sec><title content-type="abstract-heading">Findings</title><x> – </x><p>The research results confirmed that tasting as an additional presentation method has significant influence on validity of CA. However, the results of the study indicate that tasting should be used as a stimulus presentation method for CA with food and beverage products/brands, which are unfamiliar to the consumers. When testing familiar brands and brands with established perceptions, simpler and less expensive verbal stimulus presentation can be used.</p></sec><sec><title content-type="abstract-heading">Practical implications</title><x> – </x><p>According to the research results, it could be concluded that when performing CA with strong familiar brands, it is not necessary to use CA with tasting since tasting increases research complexity and costs and it does not achieve better results. However, tasting as a stimuli presentation method gives better results than pure verbal CA in the case of unfamiliar brands.</p></sec><sec><title content-type="abstract-heading">Originality/value</title><x> – </x><p>The paper is one of the first to deal with tasting as a presentation method in conjoint analysis and its results have direct implications for the future use of CA with food and beverages.</p></sec></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Brand awareness</kwd><x>, </x><kwd>Food and drink products</kwd><x>, </x><kwd>Beer</kwd><x>, </x><kwd>Croatia</kwd><x>, </x><kwd>Sensory perception</kwd></kwd-group><custom-meta-group><custom-meta><meta-name>peer-reviewed</meta-name><meta-value>yes</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta><meta-name>academic-content</meta-name><meta-value>yes</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta><meta-name>rightslink</meta-name><meta-value>included</meta-value></custom-meta></custom-meta-group></article-meta></front><body><sec><title>1. Introduction</title><p>Conjoint analysis (CA) is a common marketing research method for analysing consumer trade‐offs (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b9">Carroll and Green, 1995</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b30">Krapp and Sattler, 2001</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b17">Green <italic>et al.</italic>, 2001</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b6">Brusch and Baier, 2002</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b44">Toubia, 2001</xref>). It is used so frequently because it produces fairly realistic imitations of real market choice (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b26">Huber, 1987</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b6">Brusch and Baier, 2002</xref>) and provides good estimations of consumers' preferences. Furthermore, “the popularity of conjoint measurement appears to derive, at least in part, from its presumed superiority in (predictive) validity over less expensive techniques such as self‐explication approaches” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b31">Leight <italic>et al.</italic>, 1984</xref>; taken from <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b30">Krapp and Sattler, 2001</xref>).</p><p>Because of its practical importance, numerous researchers have shown an interest in enhancing the degree of task realism in the evaluation process during CA (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b16">Green and Helsen, 1989</xref>). Research efforts in the past have focused on three main aspects:<list list-type="order"><list-item><label>1. </label><p>Realistic definition of attributes and attribute levels.</p></list-item><list-item><label>2. </label><p>Improvement in the evaluation procedure so that it resembles actual purchase decisions.</p></list-item><list-item><label>3. </label><p>More realistic stimulus presentation methods.</p></list-item></list>In view of the specific characteristics of consumer food and beverage choice, the need for “holistic” CA methods, meaning more realistic stimulus presentations, is obvious. To gain a fuller understanding of the consumer choice, market research methods need to encompass quality attributes of pre‐purchase phase (brand, quality label, etc.) and post‐purchase phase (taste, convenience, etc.) in one test design (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b20">Grunert, 2002</xref>).</p><p>Using beer as an example we investigate how brand familiarity combined with tasting as additional presentation method influences the outcome of CA.</p></sec><sec><title>2. Research objectives and questions</title><p>CA for food and beverage products is frequently confronted with the problem how to include taste in the experiment, even though taste is an essential intrinsic quality dimension. There are three possibilities to deal with this problem. First, researchers use verbal description of taste in terms such as “quite sweet with a strawberry note”, without knowing for example what degree of sweetness the test persons relate to the term “quite sweet”. Second, researchers apply CA without tasting and try to obtain information about taste from qualitative methods such as focus groups. Third, CA with tasting as additional product presentation method is performed without knowing if and how taste influences perception of the other attributes contributing to a change in their utility functions (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b47">Vickers, 1993</xref>). Until now, little or no research has taken place to clarify the question of how taste, as one of the most important food product attributes, interacts with strong or weak brands (“weak” in the sense of brands that are unfamiliar to the consumer) during a CA experiment. Could it be that the familiarity with a brand is so strong that consumers have already established permanent “taste images”, making it unnecessary to include taste in CA test designs containing “strong” brands?</p><p>Consumers' choice of food and beverage products is typically considered a low involvement choice, which means that they apply heuristic models of choice with less cognitive efforts and more routine‐ or emotional‐based decisions. For low involvement products consumers often use familiar brand names as information cues, standing for a “bundle” of product attributes including taste, simplifying their selection process (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b49">Wansink, 2003</xref>). It has to be expected that consumers apply similar heuristic during conjoint task. Therefore it is of crucial importance for product development to understand the mutual influence of taste and brand.</p><p>Furthermore consumers' choice of food and beverage products is mainly influenced by quality expectations, which are derived from extrinsic quality cues (i.e. brand, price, store in which the product is bought, etc.) and intrinsic quality cues (colour of an apple as a quality cue for taste or fat content as a quality cue for tenderness and taste of meat (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b20">Grunert, 2002</xref>, p. 275)). After purchase, when consumers experience the quality of the product, hedonic factors such as smell, appearance and taste strongly influence customer satisfaction and re‐purchase intentions (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b21">Grunert <italic>et al.</italic>, 2000</xref>). To this extent, offering test persons the possibility of tasting sample products during conjoint measurement establishes a more “holistic” test situation that includes attributes from the pre‐purchase and the consumption situation. Does such a setting lead to higher validity of the CA outcomes?</p><p>Based on this framework we looked for a typical food and beverage product for which the consumption situation could be easily included into the CA experiment, meaning that extensive cooking processes should not be required. We selected beer as a test product because it is widely used and beer consumption does not depend on the consumer's age, education, income or social status. Standard beer quality, e.g. its sensory characteristics, enables consumers to have stable preference structures, which help them to recognise the product according to taste.</p><p>Clearly the selection of beer as a test product limits the degree to which the findings can be generalised. The taste of different beers is not always as distinct as it is the case with some other foods and beverages. Using beer reduces generalisability to packed, ready to consume food and beverage products. But in the category “alcoholic beverages” beer has the highest share of value in sales worldwide (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b1">ACNielsen, 2006</xref>, p. 42). Furthermore it is important to keep in mind that in the beer category manufacturer brands play a more important role in the consumer choice than private labels. It is the only food and beverage category worldwide in which manufacturer brands grew faster then private labels from 2005 to 2006. The global share of private labels in the beer market is around 6 per cent, which is quite low compared for example to the dairy market, which has a 27 per cent global share of private labels (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b1">ACNielsen, 2006</xref>, p. 42). Insofar the beer market represents a food and beverage sector where manufacturer brands are still strong and consumer loyalty to these brands plays an important role.</p><p>Choosing beer as an example, the objective of this article is to clarify the influence of tasting in CA on consumer preferences in the presence of familiar or unfamiliar brands. In respect to this objective the two main research questions in this study are: “How does tasting as an additional presentation method influence the validity of CA with food and beverage products?” and “How does tasting as presentation method in CA influence the importance of the product attribute ‘brand’?”</p></sec><sec><title>3. Theoretical background</title><p>The theoretical background to this study focuses on three topics: first, the importance of taste and its relation to the attribute “brand” in respect to the food and beverage choice, second the need to present stimuli in CA as realistically as possible, third, an explanation of the validity measures applied in this study.</p><sec><title>3.1 The influence of taste and brand on the food and beverage choice</title><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b37">Roeber <italic>et al.</italic> (2002)</xref> confirm the result of the Food Marketing Institute study (1999) by determining that “a majority of consumers consider taste, nutrition, product safety, and price as ‘very important’ factors in food selection”. In a US study, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b15">Govindasamy <italic>et al.</italic> (1997)</xref> showed that consumers rank freshness, taste/flavour, cleanliness, health value and absence of pesticides among the most important food characteristics. According to <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b40">Schutz <italic>et al.</italic> (1986)</xref>, food sensory characteristics, nutritional information, brand name and price are the most important characteristics in food choice. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b38">Roininen (2001)</xref> identifies health, energy content, good taste, momentary desire, and price as the most frequently mentioned reasons for choosing either apples or chocolate bars.</p><p>Numerous studies have shown that brand name and price are the most important attributes for rapidly consumed goods (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b23">Hensel‐Börner and Sattler, 2000a</xref>). Thus, it is to be expected that when choosing beer, brand and price will be more important than other attributes used in the CA. Furthermore, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b11">Daems and Delvaux (1997)</xref> mention that the sensory characteristics of beer are the most important for consumers. Food and beverage sensory characteristics i.e. their sensory image, are very often associated with a product name (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b5">Bárcenas <italic>et al.</italic>, 2001</xref>). For that reason, it could be expected that respondents in our study would express the importance of beer taste through the importance of beer brands.</p><p>It is important to keep in mind that we use the term “brand” as a multidimensional concept that goes far beyond the term “trademark”. A trademark can be a word, name, symbol, colour, scent or sound and represents a legal construct designed to protect products or services of entrepreneurs from imitators. In the strictest sense a trademark from the consumer's point‐of‐view could be little more than a name without further meaning:<disp-quote><p>If a company treats a brand only as a name, it misses the point of branding. Branding is used to develop a deep set of meanings for the brand (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b29">Kotler and Keller, 2005</xref>, p. 443).</p></disp-quote></p><p>This “deep set of meaning” can encompass different levels such as attributes, benefits, values, cultures or personality (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b29">Kotler and Keller, 2005</xref>, p. 443). In this article the term “unfamiliar brand” stands for brands that in the mind of the consumer represent nothing more then a name or symbol without further meaning. The term “familiar brand” stands for any brand having a “deep set of meaning”, which goes beyond the simple connotation of a name.</p></sec><sec><title>3.2 Influence of different stimuli presentations on CA results</title><p>“Endeavoring to make stimuli as realistic as possible is traditionally one of the core elements of conjoint analysis in practice” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b42">Strebinger <italic>et al.</italic>, 2000a</xref>), but also the subject of numerous methodological studies aiming to improve this method. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b48">Vriens <italic>et al.</italic> (1998)</xref> compared pictorial and verbal stimulus presentation methods. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b39">Sattler (1994)</xref> compared verbal and real presentation. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b28">Jaeger <italic>et al.</italic> (2001)</xref> conducted research comparing pictorial and real product presentation, and <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b13">Ernst and Sattler (2000)</xref> and <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b7">Brusch <italic>et al.</italic> (2002)</xref> studied multimedia stimulus presentation in comparison to verbal presentation. These studies show that presentation form does not influence CA. There are possible effects on internal validity (comparing verbal and real stimulus presentation for the benefit of verbal presentation) and an influence on the direct or derived results (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b7">Brusch <italic>et al.</italic>, 2002</xref>).</p><p>Presentation forms that are more complex than pictorial or real presentation increase the understanding of product attributes while verbal stimulus presentation facilitates stimulus evaluation and reduces research costs.</p><p>Although some studies reveal certain advantages of verbal over pictorial and real stimulus presentation (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b13">Ernst and Sattler, 2000</xref>), various authors call for the use of real product models when possible (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b25">Holbrook and Moore, 1981</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b18">Green and Srinivasan, 1990</xref>). <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b42 b43">Strebinger <italic>et al.</italic> (2000a, b)</xref> argue that pictorial and real stimuli as opposed to purely verbal product descriptions can convey more decision‐relevant information and that this effect differs from product to product. A new technical product concept can be relatively easily described by means of its technical characteristics. However, the problem emerges with products such as food and beverages, which have intrinsic quality attributes such as taste or sensory attributes. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b28">Jaeger <italic>et al.</italic> (2001)</xref> note:<disp-quote><p>While a verbal representation may be satisfactory for price information, intrinsic product characteristics of food products including appearance, taste and texture are probably less adequately represented.</p></disp-quote><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b25">Holbrook and Moore (1981)</xref> state that:<disp-quote><p>Many products involving aesthetic, sensory, or symbolic benefits must be experienced to be judged adequately. Music, haute cuisine, or fashion designs must be heard, tasted or seen to be properly appreciated.</p></disp-quote></p><p>Stimulus presentation as real food or drink products together with the possibility of tasting them has been used only in a very few previous studies. The sensory characteristics of the products were simply omitted in CA design and only consumer preferences towards other product attributes were examined. Exclusion of the intrinsic attributes such as appearance, flavour or texture from CA or ignorance of them could lead to distortion of results because these attributes cannot be adequately described verbally (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b28">Jaeger <italic>et al.</italic>, 2001</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b7">Brusch <italic>et al.</italic>, 2002</xref>). Therefore some researchers call for tasting as a presentation method in CA with food and beverages (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b22">Helgesen <italic>et al.</italic>, 1998</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b47">Vickers, 1993</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b10">Cheng <italic>et al.</italic>, 1990</xref>).</p></sec><sec><title>3.3 Definition of applied validity criteria</title><p>In this study we used five criteria to measure the validity of CA: face validity, convergent validity, internal validity, predictive validity and subjective evaluations of the test persons concerning the conjoint tasks.</p><p>Face validity measures whether the results from the CA (partworths) correspond with the expectations of experts, for example whether the results make sense in view of the available theoretical and empirical knowledge about the market place. Numerous studies have shown that brand name and price are the most important attributes for short durable consumer goods (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b39">Sattler, 1994</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b45">Tscheulin, 1991</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b23">Hensel‐Börner and Sattler, 2000a</xref>). Food and beverage sensory characteristics, e.g. their sensory image, are very often associated with a product name (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b5">Bárcenas <italic>et al.</italic>, 2001</xref>). For that reason respondents in our study could express the importance of beer taste through the importance of beer brand.</p><p>Convergent validity tests whether the utility weights (i.e. parthworths) obtained from different CA methods are the same. If these weights are equal (statistically indifferent), equal convergent validity can be expected because all further computations are based on the estimated partworths. Differences in the preference structure can be identified by a comparison of the distributions of parthworths</p><p>Internal validity measures the degree of appropriateness of the measurement model. It is measured as a correlation between the input values (preference ranks) and the estimated (output) values of the dependent variable. For each card/stimuli the partworths are summed and according to that sum, the estimated preference ranks are calculated and compared with the empirical rank value. Further, for each respondent it is possible to calculate the rank correlation coefficient (Kendal's Tau) between empirical and estimated rank values (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b39">Sattler, 1994</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b4">Backhaus <italic>et al.</italic>, 1996</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b13">Ernst and Sattler, 2000</xref>).</p><p>Predictive validity measures the extent to which estimated results overlap with real purchase intentions. The first‐choice‐hit rate employed in this research is one of the criteria very often used to measure predictive validity (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b48">Vriens <italic>et al.</italic>, 1998</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b7">Brusch <italic>et al.</italic>, 2002</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b45">Tscheulin, 1991</xref>). The individual partworths for each respondent group are used to predict choice behaviour in the holdout sample. Holdouts are product stimuli ranked by the test persons without being used for the estimation of the product attribute partworths during CA. The percentage of choices correctly predicted in the holdout sample based on the first‐choice rule indicates the predictive validity of this study.</p><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b23">Hensel‐Börner and Sattler (2000a)</xref> mention that the complexity of the CA experiment could negatively influence the validity of the results. Therefore we additionally measured the degree of complexity of the different CA experiment settings (with and without tasting) by asking respondents for their subjective evaluation (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b23">Hensel‐Börner and Sattler, 2000a</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b27">Huber <italic>et al.</italic>, 1991</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b30">Krapp and Sattler, 2001</xref>).</p></sec></sec><sec><title>4. Research hypotheses</title><p>As several studies have shown, more complex and realistic presentations increase the understanding of product evaluation, while verbal stimulus presentation facilitates stimulus evaluation and reduces research costs. Nevertheless several authors have concluded that in the case of food and beverage products it is not sufficient to describe the intrinsic quality attribute “taste” only verbally (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b28">Jaeger <italic>et al.</italic>, 2001</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b25">Holbrook and Moore, 1981</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b22">Helgesen <italic>et al.</italic>, 1998</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b47">Vickers, 1993</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b10">Cheng <italic>et al.</italic>, 1990</xref>). Because of the difficulty of describing sensory attributes as flavour or texture verbally, we assume that if test persons taste food and beverage products during CA, the results should be more valid. We therefore formulate the hypothesis:</p><p><italic>H1</italic>. CA with tasting has higher validity than CA with only verbal presentation of stimuli.</p><p>The analysis of literature shows that for food and beverage products and especially beer, the most frequent quoted important product attributes are taste (sensory characteristics), brand and price. It is interesting to note that food and beverage sensory characteristics are very often associated with product names (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b5">Bárcenas <italic>et al.</italic>, 2001</xref>). We assume that the taste “association” of familiar brands is more stable and stronger anchored in the mind of consumers compared to unfamiliar brands. This could mean that consumers pay more attention to the taste of unfamiliar brands, because there is no a priori knowledge about it. If so, the taste of unfamiliar brands should have a bigger influence during CA on consumer preferences compared to the taste of familiar brands. Based on this assumption we phrase H2:</p><p><italic>H2</italic>. The influence of tasting is stronger in CA with unfamiliar brands than with familiar ones.</p></sec><sec><title>5. Methodology and research process</title><sec><title>5.1 Test‐product</title><p>Owing to the fact that the experiment took place in Croatian cafe bars a typical Croatian beer (Ožujsko) and a strong international brand (Stella Artois) were chosen as well known (familiar) beer brands. Together they represent the market leaders in Croatia among domestic and imported beers respectively (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b35">Rajh <italic>et al.</italic>, 2001</xref>, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b36">2003</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b12">Dujmicic <italic>et al.</italic>, 2003</xref>). Additionally Austrian beer brands, only covering a small fraction of market share, were used for the beer samples offered to the test persons as unfamiliar brands.</p></sec><sec><title>5.2 Pre‐research focus group and survey</title><p>In order to determine the beer attributes and their levels used in CA, a two‐step pre‐research study was conducted with students from the Faculty of Agriculture University of Zagreb. A focus group of eight students discussed beer attributes that consumers usually consider as important for their choice. In a second step, a survey was carried out with 30 students to detect the importance of selected beer attributes on a five‐point Likert scale (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b32">Likert, 1932</xref>).</p><p>Respondents were additionally asked to evaluate coded samples of beers in respect to bitterness (weakly, moderate, highly), CO<sub>2</sub> content (low, moderate, high) and fullness (full taste, light taste) on a five‐point Likert scale. By applying these verbal attributes test persons evaluated the same beer products differently. Because of the contradictional nature of these results we decided to use the attribute taste as a between‐subjects factor.</p></sec><sec><title>5.3 Research design</title><p>Based on the results of the preliminary study, four beer attributes were selected for CA: brand, package type, package size and price (see <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F_0701120601004">Table I</xref>).</p><p>In order to control the influence of brand on respondents' preferences, the CA was divided into two experiment groups. Half of the respondents had to evaluate familiar beer brands and the other half beer without a familiar brand label. Ožujsko beer and Stella Artois were chosen as familiar beer brands. As beers without a familiar brand label, two imported Austrian beer brands with limited market access were used and they were labelled as “R” and “S”. Despite the fact that single letter brands are not common on the market, we decided to use them instead of fictitious brand names because for consumers unfamiliar brands are merely replaceable symbols, words, names, colours or even single letters. Each of these two experimental groups was further divided into two sub‐groups: one with and one without tasting (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="F_0701120601001">Figure 1</xref>).</p><p>The levels of the three other attributes were chosen according to the prevalent beer choice in popular Zagreb cafe bars. The two levels of package type were draught and bottled beer. Package size had also two levels: 0.5 and 0.33 litters. Only beer price had three levels: 8 Kuna, 12 Kuna, and 16 Kuna (for amount in Euros see <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F_0701120601004">Table I</xref>).</p><p>Hence, the main research comprised a survey with four independent respondent groups coming from the same population, namely beer consumers in cafe bars in Zagreb and surrounding suburbs. For all four groups verbal stimulus presentation method was used. The differentiating variables are:<list list-type="order"><list-item><label>1. </label><p>Group G1 – familiar beer brands without tasting.</p></list-item><list-item><label>2. </label><p>Group G2 – unfamiliar beer brands without tasting.</p></list-item><list-item><label>3. </label><p>Group G3 – familiar beer brands with tasting.</p></list-item><list-item><label>4. </label><p>Group G4 – unfamiliar beer brands with tasting.</p></list-item></list></p></sec><sec><title>5.4 Main CA experiment</title><p>The main CA experiment was carried out in 2004 with visitors to different cafe bars in Zagreb (8) and suburbs (2). The sample consisted of 403 beer consumers divided in four independent sub‐groups of the same size depending on the stimulus presentation method and the beer brands they had to evaluate: group G1 (<italic>n</italic>=100), group G2 (<italic>n</italic>=100), group G3 (<italic>n</italic>=100) and group G4 (<italic>n</italic>=103). Bar visitors were chosen to participate in the survey randomly with an equal number of respondents in each group surveyed in each bar. The conditions are certainly not comparable to a laboratory experiment, but the intention was to test under real purchasing and consumption situations.</p><p>In addition to the CA experiment, a structured questionnaire was used consisting of a few questions regarding respondents' socio‐economic characteristics, beer purchase and beer consumption behaviour, importance of a number beer attributes and preferences for these attributes.</p><p>Different respondent samples have also been used in comparable studies aiming to test the validity of various CA methods (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b13">Ernst and Sattler, 2000</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b7">Brusch <italic>et al.</italic>, 2002</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b34">Pullman <italic>et al.</italic>, 1999</xref>). The chi‐square test showed that there were no differences between groups in respect to respondents' demographic and socio‐economic characteristics (<italic>p</italic>>0.05). Therefore it can be concluded that the four groups were comparable and differences in results would not be influenced by systematic deviation in the groups (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b24">Hensel‐Börner and Sattler, 2000b</xref>).</p><p>Conjoint data were collected by means of the full profile method (the most common method of data collection in conjoint research (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b14">Gil and Sánchez, 1997</xref>)). A fractional factorial design was chosen and ten stimuli were derived by applying the Orthoplan procedure of SPSS (see <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b41">SPSS Inc., 1997</xref>). Otherwise a complete factorial design of 2×2×2×3 would encompass 24 stimuli: a number, which would make the experiment for the test persons far too complicated. The statistical software SPSS Conjoint uses fractional factorial designs, which present an appropriate fraction of the possible alternatives. Fractional factorial designs are experimental designs consisting of a carefully chosen subset (fraction) of the experimental runs of a full factorial design. The subset or fraction is chosen so as to exploit the sparsity‐of‐effects principle to access information about the most important features of the problem studied, while using considerably fewer resources than a full factorial design (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b41">SPSS Inc., 1997</xref>).</p><p>An additive partworth approach was utilised to estimate consumer preferences:<disp-quote><p>The respondent's task is to rank or score each profile from most to least preferred, most to least likely to purchase, or some other preference scale. From these rankings or scores, conjoint analysis derives utility scores for each factor level. These utility scores, analogous to regression coefficients, are called part‐worths and can be used to find the relative importance of each factor (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b41">SPSS Inc., 1997</xref>).</p></disp-quote></p><p>Within the conjoint task, respondents had to rank a set of ten stimuli according to their preferences. We decided to use ranking because it provides similar results compared to ratings. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b8">Carmone <italic>et al.</italic> (1978)</xref> compared the over‐all conjoint model goodness of fit under several forms of input data (raw data, rankings, and six‐point rating scales), and found conjoint analysis to provide robust results regardless of the type of input data scales, with superior recoveries for rankings in some cases.</p><p>Descriptions of beer concepts (stimuli) were printed on separate, coloured cards. The card order given to the respondents was randomised. Those respondents who evaluated CA with tasting had to taste two beers before ranking. The respondents had the possibility of tasting beers as many times as they wanted during the conjoint task. The beer was served cold in transparent glasses. To prevent the test persons from mixing up beers, the brand name (familiar or unfamiliar) was written on additional cards under each glass. Each conjoint task contained five additional, holdout stimuli. The holdouts represented beers already existing on the market or possible realistic constructs of beers. These stimuli had to be ranked according to purchase intention but were not be used for partworth calculation in CA. To facilitate the respondents' tasks, holdout and main cards were differently coloured, as were cards representing familiar and unfamiliar beers (four colours altogether) (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="F_0701120601002">Figure 2</xref>). Holdouts served to assess the predictive validity and were the basis for our hypothesis tests.</p></sec><sec><title>5.5 Data analysis</title><p>CA validity was measured with five criteria: face validity, convergent validity, internal validity, predictive validity and subjective evaluation of conjoint task.</p><p>For face validity we used Mann‐Whitney and Kolmogorov‐Smirnov test to verify statistical differences between the importances of single attributes. Convergent validity was verified by applying ANOVA and Kolmogorov‐Smirnov test (<italic>H1</italic> and <italic>H2</italic>). ANOVA was applied to scrutinise differences between distributions of utilities among respondents in different groups (<italic>H1</italic>) (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b24">Hensel‐Börner and Sattler, 2000b</xref>).</p><p>To test for convergent validity, partworths were calculated for each respondent followed by a comparison of distribution of these partworths between tasting and non‐tasting respondents by applying a Kolmogorov‐Smirnov test.</p><p>To verify differences in internal validity between groups we compared individual Kendal's Tau coefficients among groups by means of non‐parameter Mann‐Whitney and Kolmogorov‐Smirnov tests (similar comparison made <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b13">Ernst and Sattler, 2000</xref>).</p><p>Predictive validity was evaluated by measuring the first‐hit choice rate. By applying chi‐square test to the first‐hit choice rates between respondents groups we verified differences in respect to predictive validity.</p><p>To measure respondents' experience with the different CA experiment settings (with and without tasting) we collected their subjective evaluations concerning complexity and interest of the conjoint task. Using the five‐point Likert scale respondents in this study were asked how difficult (complexity) and how interesting the conjoint task was to evaluate. Non‐parameter Mann‐Whitney and Kolmogorov‐Smirnov tests were applied to test for significant differences concerning the subjective evaluations of CA tasks among different respondents groups.</p></sec></sec><sec><title>6. Results</title><sec><title>6.1 Sample characteristics</title><p>Altogether 403 respondents took part in this study of whom 266 were male (66 per cent) and 137 female (34 per cent). The number of male respondents is significantly higher but this is in accordance with the sex structure of beer consumers in general (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b33">Pettigrew, 2002</xref>). Respondents were aged between 17 and 72, with an average of 28.97 (±10.078) years. The majority of respondents were in the age group between 21 and 35 years, which reflects the age of most visitors to cafe bars. The majority of respondents had finished secondary school (72 per cent), a further 25 per cent had higher education and 3 per cent of respondents had only completed primary school.</p></sec><sec><title>6.2 Influence of tasting on validity of CA results</title><p>Previous research has shown that brand name plays an important role in the formation of beer preferences (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b2">Allison and Uhl, 1964</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b19">Guinard <italic>et al.</italic>, 2001</xref>) and that beer quality is often associated with its brand name. Hence, in this study we investigated whether tasting as a presentation method has an influence on the validity of CA with familiar and unfamiliar brands. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F_0701120601005">Table II</xref> gives an overview concerning the outcomes of the different validity tests. The results are explained in order of the several validity measures; each first in respect to differences between CA with tasting compared to CA without tasting and secondly in respect to differences between the groups G1 to G4.</p><p>Concerning face validity Mann‐Whitney and Kolmogorov‐Smirnov tests confirmed that there were significant differences between the importance of price and other beer attributes by all consumers (<italic>p</italic><0.01). Nevertheless, the difference between brand importance and the importance of package size and package type was notable only among respondents who tasted beer (<italic>p</italic><0.01). The respondents who evaluated beer concepts only according to their verbal description did not significantly distinguish between these attributes. These results suggest that stimulus presentation with tasting has higher face validity (<italic>H1</italic>).</p><p>As expected, the most important beer attributes for three respondents groups (G1, G3 and G4) were brand name and price. However, the respondents who evaluated unfamiliar beer brands without tasting (G2) considered brand name to be less important than other beer attributes (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="F_0701120601003">Figure 3</xref>). This indicates the smaller face validity in G2 group of respondents.</p><p>In respect to convergent validity the results of the Kolmogorov‐Smirnov test for partworths between tasting and non‐tasting respondents (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="F_0701120601006">Table III</xref>) revealed a statistical difference between groups for all attributes (brand, <italic>p</italic><0.01; price, package type and package size, <italic>p</italic><0.05).</p><p>Since the importance weights do not have the same structure in these groups, it may be concluded that there is almost no convergent validity, e.g. the methods result in different preference structures.</p><p>Statistical tests (ANOVA) used to examine the difference between the partworths of the four groups showed no differences in importance structures between groups G1, G3 and G4, while respondents from G2 had significantly different preference structures (<italic>p</italic><0.05). This is a clear confirmation of <italic>H2</italic> “the influence of tasting is stronger in CA with unfamiliar brands than with familiar ones”, because G2 is the group with unfamiliar brands without tasting.</p><p>Internal validity measured as the Kendall tau coefficient produced high values in both respondents' samples; a slightly higher value was found for respondents who did not taste beers (0.929) compared with other respondents (0.857). However, the Kendall tau differences were not statistically significant.</p><p>Kendal tau coefficients for respondents from G1 and G3 (familiar brands) were quite similar (0.93 and 1.0 respectively). Nonetheless, the difference between Kendal tau coefficients for G2 and G4 (unfamiliar brands) was much higher; its value was 0.79 for G2 and 0.93 for G4. This indicator of internal validity confirms the hypothesis that tasting has a stronger influence on the validity of CA with unfamiliar brands than with familiar brands.</p><p>For predictive validity the first‐choice hit rate was applied. The hit rate of the respondents who evaluated beers according to pure verbal presentation method was 54 per cent compared with 59 per cent for respondents who tasted beer. Although a statistical difference between these two rates was not confirmed, the results indicate the tendency towards higher predictive validity for CA with tasting.</p><p>The chi‐square test showed that there was no significant difference in the first‐choice hit rate between respondents in groups G1 and G3. Conversely, a significant difference was found between the hit rate of G2 and G4 respondents (<italic>χ</italic><sup>2</sup>=2.837, df=1, <italic>p</italic>=0.061). The first‐choice hit rates were 46 per cent for G2 and 58 per cent for G4 (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="F_0701120601007">Table IV</xref>).</p><p>The test of proportions indicated that there were differences between first‐choice hit rate and share of correctly estimated stimuli in a random model in all respondents groups (G1‐G4) (<italic>p</italic><0.01). The minor improvement compared with the random model appeared in CA without tasting with unfamiliar brands (32.5 per cent), while the improvement in all other groups was similar and ranged from 47.3 to 52.5 per cent. This would indicate that CA without familiar brands delivers higher predictive validity when the test persons can taste the products.</p><p>Both respondent groups evaluated the conjoint task as similarly complex (average evaluation of conjoint task difficulty on the five‐point Likert scale was 3.4 and 3.3, respectively; 1=not complex, 5=highly complex). On the other hand, a significant difference was apparent between respondents' evaluation of conjoint task attractiveness. The respondents with pure verbal presentation evaluated the task with an average grade of 2.8 while the respondents who tasted beers considered the conjoint task to be more interesting (average grade 3.1; 1=not interesting, 5=very interesting, <italic>p</italic><0.05).</p><p>There were no statistical differences between respondent groups G1‐G4 regarding difficulty of conjoint task (3.3 for G1, G2, G4 and 3.5 for G3). By contrast, the respondents who evaluated familiar brands without tasting considered the conjoint task as the least interesting (average grade 2.6) while all other respondents considered it as more interesting (G2 3.1; G3 3.0; G4 3.2). The difference between respondents of G1 and G3 concerning interestingness was statistically significant (<italic>p</italic>=0.01). Although the respondents who evaluated unfamiliar beers with tasting gave a slightly higher score for the conjoint task, there were no statistical differences between groups G2 and G4.</p></sec></sec><sec><title>7. Discussion</title><p>In this study, the hypothesis was confirmed that tasting has a greater influence on the validity of CA with unfamiliar product brands. Tasting had no influence on the validity of CA with familiar beer brands i.e. the results of verbal CA and CA with tasting performed with familiar brands were similar (equal). One could argue that consumers had already formed a stable judgment of beers with familiar brands and that tasting did not influence this perception. These findings are similar to those of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b5">Bárcenas <italic>et al.</italic> (2001)</xref> that consumer expectations, derived from previous experience about a particular product, influence their preferences and product acceptance. Therefore, it may be concluded that previous experience with familiar beer brands is sufficient to express preferences in a stable way. It is interesting that some respondents asked to taste familiar beer brands Ožujsko beer and Stella Artois refused to taste the beers, replying that they were familiar with their taste.</p><p>This observation could also be a confirmation of the “quality cues”‐theory. Obviously our respondents have subsumed the quality cue “taste” under the “umbrella” of the quality cue “brand”. This is in accordance with <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b46">Verbeke and Ward (2006)</xref>, who state that uncertainty or perceived difficulty to evaluate quality increases consumers' usage of extrinsic quality cues. From that point‐of‐view the presence of familiar brand names seems to have weakened or overridden the “taste information”.</p><p>There were no differences in validity measures for the two groups with familiar brands. It can therefore be concluded that when performing CA with familiar brands with a well defined image, it is not necessary to use CA with tasting since tasting increases research complexity and costs and does not achieve better results.</p><p>By contrast, respondents were unable to consistently evaluate their preferences towards unfamiliar beers only according to their external attributes. After tasting these products, respondents' answers were much more consistent. Therefore, it may be concluded that the structure of attribute importance and preferences in CA varies significantly when respondents also taste products unfamiliar with, besides receiving verbal descriptions. The research results showed that after tasting the expected structure of attribute importance was obtained, i.e. the same structure as obtained in CA with familiar brands. On the other hand, respondents who evaluated a purely verbal description of unfamiliar beers considered brand name less important than expected. These results are consistent with the results of the study by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b3">Arvola <italic>et al.</italic> (1999)</xref>, which revealed that purchase intention could only be well predicted after respondents had tasted unknown cheeses.</p><p>Apart from face validity, predictive validity was higher when respondents tasted unfamiliar beers before evaluating conjoint stimuli. It may therefore be concluded that stimulus presentation method tasting gives better results than pure verbal CA in the case of unfamiliar brands.</p><p>Although we expected that the complexity of the conjoint task without tasting would be more difficult for respondents, the study did not confirm this assumption. One possible explanation is that because of lack of interest, respondents made little cognitive effort to solve the conjoint task. CA with tasting of unfamiliar beer brands was evaluated as most interesting, but the differences between presentation methods were not statistically validated.</p></sec><sec><title>8. Recommendations for future research and CA stimuli presentation</title><p>Beer consumers have relatively well defined preferences for brands and very often associate beer taste with its brand and image. In this study, domestic and market leaders as familiar brands were investigated. It would be interesting to repeat this study with beer brands familiar to consumers but consumed less often. Since the study showed that tasting does not have an influence on the CA validity of familiar product brands, similar research could be carried out with product without well familiar brands or products in which brand preferences are not well expressed. It is possible that CA with products of higher heterogeneity, especially regarding their sensory characteristics (e.g. fruit yoghurt), could produce different results.</p><p>The results of this study indicate that tasting should be used as a stimulus presentation method for CA with food and beverage products/brands, which are unfamiliar to the consumers. When testing familiar brands and brands with established perceptions, simpler and less expensive verbal stimulus presentation can be used. The decision regarding the stimulus presentation method in CA designed to test the acceptance of a new product should be based on the product development stage. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b39">Sattler (1994)</xref> states that in the idea screening and concept testing stage, methods that do not necessarily have very high result validity are acceptable. At that stage, the use of a verbal presentation form is recommended. At the stage of determining intrinsic product characteristics (including sensory attributes) it is appropriate to use CA with tasting. When assessing extrinsic product attributes (e.g. package, appearance, price etc.) it is not necessary to use CA with tasting.</p><p>CA used to explore the market situation (e.g. market share) should be carried out with the tasting presentation method. This is especially the case when studying products less known to consumers.</p><p>Motivated respondents will produce better research results (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b43">Strebinger <italic>et al.</italic>, 2000b</xref>). This study showed that tasting increases the attractiveness of the conjoint task as an interesting exercise, i.e. motivating respondents to evaluate conjoint stimuli. Therefore it is recommended to include tasting, as CA can become tedious for the respondents because of the high number of product cards.</p></sec><sec><fig position="float" id="F_0701120601001"><label><bold>Figure 1<x> </x></bold></label><caption><p>Research design</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="0701120601001.tif"></graphic></fig></sec><sec><fig position="float" id="F_0701120601002"><label><bold>Figure 2<x> </x></bold></label><caption><p>An example of CA cards</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="0701120601002.tif"></graphic></fig></sec><sec><fig position="float" id="F_0701120601003"><label><bold>Figure 3<x> </x></bold></label><caption><p>The importance of beer attributes in different respondent groups</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="0701120601003.tif"></graphic></fig></sec><sec><fig position="float" id="F_0701120601004"><label><bold>Table I<x> </x></bold></label><caption><p>Beer attributes and levels used in CA</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="0701120601004.tif"></graphic></fig></sec><sec><fig position="float" id="F_0701120601005"><label><bold>Table II<x> </x></bold></label><caption><p>Summary table of validity tests</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="0701120601005.tif"></graphic></fig></sec><sec><fig position="float" id="F_0701120601006"><label><bold>Table III<x> </x></bold></label><caption><p>The importance of single beer characteristics in verbal CA and CA with tasting</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="0701120601006.tif"></graphic></fig></sec><sec><fig position="float" id="F_0701120601007"><label><bold>Table IV<x> </x></bold></label><caption><p>First‐choice‐hit‐rate in different groups</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="0701120601007.tif"></graphic></fig></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="b1"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>ACNielsen</string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>What's hot around the globe: insights on growth in food and beverages</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Executive News Report</italic></source>, <issue>December</issue>, p. <fpage>47</fpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b2"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Allison</surname>, <given-names>R.I.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Uhl</surname>, <given-names>K.P.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1964</year>), “<article-title><italic>Influence of beer brand identification on taste perception</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of Marketing Research</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>1</volume>, pp. <fpage>36</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>9</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b3"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Arvola</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Lähteenmäki</surname>, <given-names>L.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Tuorila</surname>, <given-names>H.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1999</year>), “<article-title><italic>Predicting the intent to purchase unfamiliar and familiar cheeses: the effect of attitudes, expected liking and food neophobia</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Appetite</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>32</volume>, pp. <fpage>113</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>26</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b4"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Backhaus</surname>, <given-names>K.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Erichson</surname>, <given-names>B.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Plinke</surname>, <given-names>W.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Weiber</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1996</year>), <source><italic>Multivariate Analysemethoden. Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Springer</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Berlin</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b5"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Bárcenas</surname>, <given-names>P.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Pérez de San Román</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Pérez Elortondo</surname>, <given-names>F.J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Albisu</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>), “<article-title><italic>Consumer preference structures for traditional Spanish cheeses and their relationship with sensory properties</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Food Quality and Preference</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>12</volume> No. <issue>4</issue>, pp. <fpage>269</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>79</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b6"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Brusch</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Baier</surname>, <given-names>D.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2002</year>), “<article-title><italic>Realitätsnähere Produktpräsentation in der Marktforschung – Multimedia und Conjointanalyse</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Forum der Forschung</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>13</volume>, pp. <fpage>86</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>9</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b7"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Brusch</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Baier</surname>, <given-names>D.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Treppa</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2002</year>), “<article-title><italic>Conjoint analysis and stimulus presentation: a comparison of alternative methods</italic></article-title>”, in <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Jajuga</surname>, <given-names>K.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Sokolowski</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Bock</surname>, <given-names>H.H.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (Eds), <source><italic>Classification, Clustering, and Analysis</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Springer</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Berlin</publisher-loc>, pp. <fpage>203</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>10</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b8"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Carmone</surname>, <given-names>F.J.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Green</surname>, <given-names>P.E.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Jain</surname>, <given-names>A.K.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1978</year>), “<article-title><italic>The robustness of conjoint analysis: some Monte‐Carlo results</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of Marketing Research</italic></source>, pp. <fpage>300</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>3</lpage>, 15 May.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b9"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Carroll</surname>, <given-names>J.D.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Green</surname>, <given-names>P.E.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1995</year>), “<article-title><italic>Psychometric methods in marketing research: Part I, conjoint analysis</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of Marketing Research</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>32</volume> No. <issue>4</issue>, pp. <fpage>385</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>91</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b10"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Cheng</surname>, <given-names>H.W.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Clarke</surname>, <given-names>A.D.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Heymann</surname>, <given-names>H.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1990</year>), “<article-title><italic>Influence of selected marketing factors on consumer response to restructured beef steaks: a conjoint analysis</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of Sensory Studies</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>4</volume>, pp. <fpage>165</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>78</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b11"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Daems</surname>, <given-names>V.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Delvaux</surname>, <given-names>F.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1997</year>), “<article-title><italic>Multivariate analysis of descriptive sensory data on 40 commercial beers</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Food Quality and Preference</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>8</volume> Nos <issue>5/6</issue>, pp. <fpage>373</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>80</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b12"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Dujmičić</surname>, <given-names>K.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Renko</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Renko</surname>, <given-names>N.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2003</year>), “<article-title><italic>A case study of the Croatian beer market structure and performances</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>British Food Journal</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>105</volume> No. <issue>3</issue>, pp. <fpage>193</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>203</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b13"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Ernst</surname>, <given-names>O.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Sattler</surname>, <given-names>H.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2000</year>), “<article-title><italic>Validität multimedialer Conjoint‐Analysen, Ein empirischer Vergleich alternativer Produktpräsentationsformen</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Marketing ZFP</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>22</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>161</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>72</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b14"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Gil</surname>, <given-names>J.M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Sánchez</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1997</year>), “<article-title><italic>Consumer preferences for wine attributes: a conjoint approach</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>British Food Journal</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>99</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>3</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>11</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b15"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Govindasamy</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Italia</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Liptak</surname>, <given-names>C.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1997</year>), “<article-title><italic>Quality of agricultural produce: consumer preferences and perceptions</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station</italic></source>, P‐02137‐1‐97.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b16"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Green</surname>, <given-names>P.E.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Helsen</surname>, <given-names>K.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1989</year>), “<article-title><italic>Cross‐validation assessment of alternative to individual‐level conjoint analysis: a case study</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of Marketing Research</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>26</volume>, pp. <fpage>346</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>50</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b18"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Green</surname>, <given-names>P.E.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Srinivasan</surname>, <given-names>V.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1990</year>), “<article-title><italic>Conjoint analysis in marketing: new developments with implications for research and practice</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of Marketing</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>54</volume>, pp. <fpage>3</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>19</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b17"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Green</surname>, <given-names>P.E.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Krieger</surname>, <given-names>A.M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Wind</surname>, <given-names>Y.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>), “<article-title><italic>Thirty years of conjoint analysis: reflections and prospects</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Interfaces</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>31</volume> No. <issue>3</issue>, pp. <fpage>56</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>73</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b19"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Guinard</surname>, <given-names>J.X.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Uotania</surname>, <given-names>B.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Schlich</surname>, <given-names>P.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>), “<article-title><italic>Internal and external mapping of preferences for commercial lager beers: comparison of hedonic ratings by consumers blind versus with knowledge of brand and price</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Food Quality and Preference</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>12</volume> No. <issue>4</issue>, pp. <fpage>243</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>55</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b20"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Grunert</surname>, <given-names>K.G.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2002</year>), “<article-title><italic>Current issues in the understanding of consumer food choice</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Trends in Food Science and Technology</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>13</volume>, pp. <fpage>275</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>85</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b21"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Grunert</surname>, <given-names>K.G.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Bech‐Larsen</surname>, <given-names>T.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Bredahl</surname>, <given-names>L.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2000</year>), “<article-title><italic>Three issues in consumer quality perception and acceptance of dairy products</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>International Dairy Journal</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>10</volume>, pp. <fpage>575</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>84</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b22"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Helgesen</surname>, <given-names>H.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Solheim</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Næs</surname>, <given-names>T.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1998</year>), “<article-title><italic>Consumer purchase probability of dry fermented lamb sausages</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Food Quality and Preference</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>9</volume> No. <issue>5</issue>, pp. <fpage>295</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>301</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b23"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hensel‐Börner</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Sattler</surname>, <given-names>H.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2000a</year>), “<article-title><italic>Ein empirischer Validitätsvergleich zwischen der Customized Computerized Conjoint Analysis (CCC), der Adaptive Conjoint Analysis (ACA) und Self‐Explicated‐Verfahren</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft (ZfB)</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>70</volume> No. <issue>6</issue>, pp. <fpage>705</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>27</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b24"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hensel‐Börner</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Sattler</surname>, <given-names>H.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2000b</year>), “<article-title><italic>Validity of customized and adaptive hybrid conjoint analysis</italic></article-title>”, in <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Decker</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Gaul</surname>, <given-names>W.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (Eds), <italic>Classification and information processing at the turn of the millennium, Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Gesellschaft für Klassifikation e.V., Berlin</italic>, pp. <fpage>320</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>9</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b25"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Holbrook</surname>, <given-names>M.B.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Moore</surname>, <given-names>W.L.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1981</year>), “<article-title><italic>Feature interactions in consumer judgments of verbal versus pictorial presentations</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of Consumer Behavior</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>8</volume>, pp. <fpage>103</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>13</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b26"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Huber</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1987</year>), “<article-title><italic>Conjoint Analysis: How we got here and where we are</italic></article-title>”, <italic>Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings</italic>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com">www.sawtoothsoftware.com</ext-link>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b27"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Huber</surname>, <given-names>J.C.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Wittink</surname>, <given-names>D.R.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Fiedler</surname>, <given-names>J.A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Miller</surname>, <given-names>R.L.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1991</year>), “<article-title><italic>An empirical comparison of ACA and full profile judgments</italic></article-title>”, <italic>1991 Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings</italic>, Ketchum, ID: Sawtooth Software, pp. <fpage>189</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>202</lpage>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.populus.com/tech_papers/compare_aca&fullprof.pdf">www.populus.com/tech_papers/compare_aca&fullprof.pdf</ext-link>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b28"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Jaeger</surname>, <given-names>S.R.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hedderley</surname>, <given-names>D.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>MacFie</surname>, <given-names>H.J.H.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>), “<article-title><italic>Methodological issues in conjoint analysis: a case study</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>European Journal of Marketing</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>35</volume> Nos <issue>11/12</issue>, pp. <fpage>1217</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>39</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b29"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Kotler</surname>, <given-names>P.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Keller</surname>, <given-names>L.K.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2005</year>), <source><italic>Marketing Management</italic></source>, <edition>12th ed.</edition>, <publisher-name>Prentice‐Hall International</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b30"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Krapp</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Sattler</surname>, <given-names>H.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>), “<article-title><italic>Rethinking preference measurement</italic></article-title>”, <italic>Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the European Marketing Academy (Bergen, Norwegen)</italic>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.henriksattler.de/publikationen/HS_046.pdf">www.henriksattler.de/publikationen/HS_046.pdf</ext-link>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b31"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Leight</surname>, <given-names>T.W.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>MacKay</surname>, <given-names>D.B.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Summers</surname>, <given-names>J.O.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1984</year>), “<article-title><italic>Reliability and validity of conjoint analysis and self‐explicated weights: a comparison</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of Marketing Research</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>20</volume>, pp. <fpage>350</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>67</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b32"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Likert</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1932</year>), “<article-title><italic>A technique for the measurement of attitudes</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Archives of Psychology</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>140</volume>, pp. <fpage>1</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>55</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b33"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Pettigrew</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2002</year>), “<article-title><italic>A grounded theory of beer consumption in Australia</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>5</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>112</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>22</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b34"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Pullman</surname>, <given-names>M.E.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Dodson</surname>, <given-names>K.J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Moore</surname>, <given-names>W.L.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1999</year>), “<article-title><italic>A comparison of conjoint methods when there are many attributes</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Marketing Letters</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>10</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>1</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>14</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b35"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Rajh</surname>, <given-names>E.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Vranešević</surname>, <given-names>T.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Tolić</surname>, <given-names>D.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>), “<article-title><italic>Tržišna vrijednost maraka u prehrambenoj industriji Republike Hrvatske</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Zbornik radova XVII. kongresa CROMAR‐a Hrvatske: Marketing države – marketing hrvatske države</italic></source>, Zagreb/Pula, pp. <fpage>231</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>5</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b36"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Rajh</surname>, <given-names>E.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Vranešević</surname>, <given-names>T.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Tolić</surname>, <given-names>D.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2003</year>), “<article-title><italic>Croatian food industry: brand equity in selected product categories</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>British Food Journal</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>105</volume> Nos <issue>4/5</issue>, pp. <fpage>263</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>73</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b37"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Roeber</surname>, <given-names>D.L.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Scanga</surname>, <given-names>J.A.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Belk</surname>, <given-names>K.E.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Smith</surname>, <given-names>G.C.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2002</year>), “<article-title><italic>Consumer attitudes and preferences</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>2002 Animal Sciences Research Report</italic></source>, The Department of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b38"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Roininen</surname>, <given-names>K.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>), “<article-title><italic>Evaluation of food choice behavior: development and validation of health and taste attitude scales</italic></article-title>”, academic dissertation, Department of Food Technology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/maa/elint/vk/roininen/evaluati.pdf">http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/maa/elint/vk/roininen/evaluati.pdf</ext-link>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b39"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Sattler</surname>, <given-names>H.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1994</year>), “<article-title><italic>Die Validität von Produkttests, Ein empirischer Vergleich zwischen hypothetischer und realer Produktpräsentation</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Marketing ZFP</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>16</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>31</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>41</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b40"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Schutz</surname>, <given-names>H.G.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Judge</surname>, <given-names>D.S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Gentry</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1986</year>), “<article-title><italic>The importance of nutrition, brand, cost and sensory attributes to food purchase and consumption</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Food Technology</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>40</volume> No. <issue>11</issue>, p. <fpage>79</fpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b41"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>SPSS Inc.</string-name></person-group> (<year>1997</year>), <source><italic>SPSS Conjoint™ 8.0</italic></source>, <publisher-name>SPSS Inc.</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Chicago, IL</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b42"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Strebinger</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hoffmann</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Schweiger</surname>, <given-names>G.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Otter</surname>, <given-names>T.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2000a</year>), “<article-title><italic>Zur Realitätsnähe der Conjointanalyse</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Marketing ZFP</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>1</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>55</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>74</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b43"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Strebinger</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hoffmann</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Schweiger</surname>, <given-names>G.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Otter</surname>, <given-names>T.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2000b</year>), “<article-title><italic>Verbal versus pictorial stimuli in conjoint analysis: the moderating effect of involvement and hemisphericity</italic></article-title>”, in <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Gundlach</surname>, <given-names>G.T.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Murphy</surname>, <given-names>P.E.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (Eds), <source><italic>Enhancing Knowledge Development in Marketing, 2000 AMA Educators' Proceedings</italic></source>, <volume>Vol. 11</volume>, <publisher-name>American Marketing Association</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Chicago, IL</publisher-loc>, pp. <fpage>182</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>8</lpage>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.werbelehrgang.at/service/download/files/ConjointAMA2000.pdf">www.werbelehrgang.at/service/download/files/ConjointAMA2000.pdf</ext-link>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b44"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Toubia</surname>, <given-names>O.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>), “<article-title><italic>Interior‐point methods applied to internet conjoint analysis</italic></article-title>”, Master of Science in Operations Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b45"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Tscheulin</surname>, <given-names>D.K.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1991</year>), “<article-title><italic>Ein empirischer Vergleich der Eignung von Conjoint‐Analyse und ‘Analytic Hierarchy Process’ (AHP) zur Neuproduktplanung</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>61</volume> No. <issue>11</issue>, pp. <fpage>1267</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>80</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b46"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Verbeke</surname>, <given-names>W.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Ward</surname>, <given-names>R.W.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), “<article-title><italic>Consumer interest in information cues denoting quality, traceability and origin: an application of ordered probit models to beef labels</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Food Quality and Preference</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>17</volume>, pp. <fpage>453</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>67</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b47"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Vickers</surname>, <given-names>Z.M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1993</year>), “<article-title><italic>Incorporating tasting into a conjoint analysis of taste, health claim, price and brand for purchasing strawberry yogurt</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of Sensory Studies</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>8</volume>, pp. <fpage>341</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>52</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b48"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Vriens</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Loosschilder</surname>, <given-names>G.H.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Rosbergen</surname>, <given-names>E.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Wittink</surname>, <given-names>D.R.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1998</year>), “<article-title><italic>Verbal versus realistic pictorial representation in conjoint analysis with design attributes</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of Product Innovation Management</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>15</volume>, pp. <fpage>455</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>67</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b49"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Wansink</surname>, <given-names>B.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2003</year>), “<article-title><italic>Measuring consumer response to food products: sensory tests that predict consumer acceptance</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Food and Quality Preference</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>14</volume>, pp. <fpage>23</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>6</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list><app-group><app id="APP1"><title>Corresponding author</title><p>Marija Cerjak can be contacted at: mcerjak@agr.hr</p></app></app-group></back></article></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Brand familiarity and tasting in conjoint analysis</title><subTitle>An experimental study with Croatian beer consumers</subTitle></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" lang="en" contentType="CDATA"><title>Brand familiarity and tasting in conjoint analysis</title><subTitle>An experimental study with Croatian beer consumers</subTitle></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Marija</namePart><namePart type="family">Cerjak</namePart><affiliation>Department of Agricultural Marketing, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Rainer</namePart><namePart type="family">Haas</namePart><affiliation>Institute for Marketing and Innovation, University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Damir</namePart><namePart type="family">Kovai</namePart><affiliation>Department of Agricultural Marketing, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="research-article">research-article</genre><originInfo><publisher>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2010-06-15</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2010</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType></physicalDescription><abstract>Purpose The aims of this paper is to determine, via an empirical study of beer consumers in Croatia, the influence of tasting on the validity of conjoint analysis CA under presence of familiar or unfamiliar brands. Designmethodologyapproach The research comprised a facetoface survey with 403 beer consumers. The respondents were divided into four groups regarding CA experiment familiarunfamiliar beer brand in combination with presence or absence of beer tasting. CA validity was measured with five criteria face validity, convergent validity, internal validity, predictive validity and subjective evaluation of conjoint task. In addition to the CA experiment, a structured questionnaire was used consisting of a few questions regarding respondents' socioeconomic characteristics, beer purchasing, and consuming behaviour. Findings The research results confirmed that tasting as an additional presentation method has significant influence on validity of CA. However, the results of the study indicate that tasting should be used as a stimulus presentation method for CA with food and beverage productsbrands, which are unfamiliar to the consumers. When testing familiar brands and brands with established perceptions, simpler and less expensive verbal stimulus presentation can be used. Practical implications According to the research results, it could be concluded that when performing CA with strong familiar brands, it is not necessary to use CA with tasting since tasting increases research complexity and costs and it does not achieve better results. However, tasting as a stimuli presentation method gives better results than pure verbal CA in the case of unfamiliar brands. Originalityvalue The paper is one of the first to deal with tasting as a presentation method in conjoint analysis and its results have direct implications for the future use of CA with food and beverages.</abstract><subject><genre>Keywords</genre><topic>Brand awareness</topic><topic>Food and drink products</topic><topic>Beer</topic><topic>Croatia</topic><topic>Sensory perception</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>British Food Journal</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal">journal</genre><subject><genre>Emerald Subject Group</genre><topic authority="SubjectCodesPrimary" authorityURI="cat-PPEM">Public policy & environmental management</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-FN">Food & nutrition</topic></subject><identifier type="ISSN">0007-070X</identifier><identifier type="JournalID">bfj</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1108/bfj</identifier><part><date>2010</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>112</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>6</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>561</start><end>579</end></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">D195DD69C86FAA7D8DAFEE04B1D570A1E73CB74B</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1108/00070701011052664</identifier><identifier type="filenameID">0701120601</identifier><identifier type="original-pdf">0701120601.pdf</identifier><identifier type="href">00070701011052664.pdf</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="Copyright">© Emerald Group Publishing Limited</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource>EMERALD</recordContentSource></recordInfo></mods></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Musique/explor/SchutzV1/Data/Main/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000344 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Main/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000344 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Musique
|area= SchutzV1
|flux= Main
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:D195DD69C86FAA7D8DAFEE04B1D570A1E73CB74B
|texte= Brand familiarity and tasting in conjoint analysis
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.38. |  |