1. involving children in the product development process MSTS Ltd tel+44 (0) 1959 567 320 e-mailinfo@msts.co.uk webhttp://www.msts.co.uk Yvonne Taylor, MSTS Ltd

2. Page 2 Format of the presentation Yummy vs Yukky –getting beyond this basic response mechanism Helping product developers –how can we get detailed information, from children, for product developers to use KidSpeak case study –what can we learn from children? –do kids and adults really differ - why can’t we just get adults opinions? –how important is appearance

3. Page 3 Yummy vs Yukky getting beyond this basic response mechanism

4. Page 4 Poor levels of discrimination >Frequently we find that children just aren’t very good at discriminating between products. In this example, there is little difference in liking of products 2 – 6. Product 1 is less well liked. what is it about product 1 which isn’t liked? what is it about product 6 which is liked?

5. Page 5 Poor descriptive abilities So what was it about product 6 that they did like: ‘it tasted nice’ ‘it tasted lovely’ ‘it was just like my usual product X’

6. Page 6 Poor descriptive abilities So what was it about product 1 that they didn’t like: ‘Didn’t taste nice’ ‘it tasted funny’ ‘it didn’t taste like my usual product X’

7. Page 7 What have we learnt >Most of the products perform similarly with one product which isn’t liked. >We have no idea why these products are or aren’t liked apart from it’s something to do with taste… or is it? –In line with their overall lack of ability to discriminate, children will tend to indiscriminately up-rate or down-rate all aspects of a product if they do or conversely don’t like it. This is called the halo effect.

8. Page 8 The halo effect (dislike of one aspect influences all other attributes) How much do you like the look of this product?  ‘not very much’ How much do you like the taste of this product?  ‘not very much’   How much do you like the saltiness of this product? The sweetness of this product?  ‘too salty’ ‘too sweet’ How much do you like the texture of this product?  ‘not very much’

9. Page 9 Making sense of the findings >What does the product developer do with this information? –Very little because: It’s not detailed enough We don’t know what is actually wrong with the product >How do we go about addressing the issues of: –Lack of discrimination –Inability to articulate what is actually yummy and what is actually yukky about a product

10. Page 10 Helping Product Developers how can we get detailed information for the product developers to use?

11. Page 11 Addressing the inability to articulate Apply the techniques of sensory to children to select those with better than average taste buds: –MSTS have done this and have a product called which is a panel of 8-12 year olds. –All children who are interested in joining the KidSpeak panel attend an hour long screening session which commences with a short verbal ‘presentation’ to the children as a group on sensory experiences. –The children are encouraged to ask questions, provide answers – this gives an initial indication of their personalities, and abilities to interact with adults and peers.

12. Page 12 Sensory Screening The children participate in the key elements of a sensory screening programme: –Identification of the flavours of a number of drinks –Ranking of a range of different products according to strength, sweetness etc (to identify basic taste recognition) –Written description of a fairly complex food product – covering key sensory characteristics –Odd one out/triangle taste tests –Aroma recognition –Reactions to unusual flavours to ascertain willingness to try unfamiliar tastes

13. Page 13 Panel composition Not sufficiently discriminating for the panel Good descriptive skills/lower end of discrimination scale Good descriptive & discriminating skills

14. Page 14 Methodology >Small groups of children –Minimum of 12 for any project >Quali-quant approach –Questionnaire and one to one interviewing >Individual evaluation and assessments >Some group assessment/consensus –E.g. voting for top 3 products to go in lunchbox >Clients can get involved/sit on workshops/ask questions

15. Page 15 Product Categories >MSTS have successfully used the KidSpeak panel on the following product categories: –Fruit based desserts –Milk based desserts –Meatballs –Fruit juices –Hand held snacks

16. Page 16 Considerations of this approach >Low penetration product categories –they may not be consumers of a product/brand on our panel –Sometimes the best we can do is non rejectors >Small sample size –should be treated as qualitative even though we get some ‘numbers’

17. Page 17 KidSpeak case study what can we learn from children? do kids and adults really differ - why can’t we just get adults opinions? how important is appearance?

18. Page 18 Scope of the Project >Mums and children >Likers of product category – RTE sweet desserts in pot >Non rejectors of flavours tested >Evaluation of NPD products in the context of existing ‘on market’ products >To find out: –Which NPD route to go down –Learn some lessons from existing products re: Best in Class –Understand mum’s and children’s product likes/dislikes with reasons

19. Page 19 Overall Opinion – children Rated significantly higher than all other products Least liked products Product J is the most liked product with products I and K also doing well against the rest of the products tested. Products A, C, B and E disliked. Liking scale 1= horrible 5 = very nice

20. Page 20 Overall Opinion – adults Rated significantly higher than all other products Least liked products Liking scale 1= dislike extremely 9 = like extremely The winner Product M is the most liked product with products K and L also doing well against the rest of the products tested. Products A, B C and E are disliked.

21. Page 21 To summarise mumschildren Best liked productMJ Where do children rate product M? 5 th – mid range of liking Where do mums rate product J? 4 th – mid range liking Least liked productsE, C, B & AE, B, C & A What is wrong with E, C, B & A – what can we learn from them? No one product ticks the box for both mums and children

22. Page 22 Adults vs children best liked comparisons Product J had a sweeter and more syrupy flavour which children liked Product M had a mouthfeel which children didn’t like NB: Children liking scores re-worked to fit a 9 point scale

23. Page 23 Product M – descriptive vocabulary APPEARANCE Fruit pieces – non uniform shape Dark colour AROMA Stronger on key flavour Tinned fruit TASTE More fruity –esp. key flavour Sweeter Stronger Tangy Artificial MOUTHFEEL Firm Smoother More mouth-coating Slower dissolving Astringent Children didn’t like this texture

24. Page 24 Product J – descriptive vocabulary APPEARANCE Fresh Overripe – bitty/mushy pieces SMELL Key flavour Syrup Weak aroma TASTE Key flavour Over-ripe Sweet Syrup MOUTHFEEL Fizzy tongue – acidic Children liked this taste

25. Page 25 Product E, C, B and A – what is wrong with these products? APPEARANCE Unpleasant colour Looks like it has too many bits TASTE Unrealistic ‘fruit’ flavours Sour/bitter taste TEXTURE Bits too hard More likely to be mentioned by children

26. Page 26 Summary To maximise child appeal, the client should progress with product J and find other ways to satisfy mums through the concept proposition. Product M would not have the required product appeal with children to ensure that repeat request rates are healthy. Avoid products E, C B and A as they do not offer a commercial opportunity in their current form. Learnings from children’s views on appearance and texture and how they affect liking should be borne in mind for future product development in this area.