CONSUMER'S PREFERENCES FOR NEWNESS AND INNOVATION IN FRESH BEEF IN ARGENTINE

¹ Ingeniera Zootecnista y Agrónoma, Especialista en Ciencia Animal; Estudios de Doctorado en la Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, España. Profesora Adjunta de Producción de Carne en la Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias de la Universidad National de Lomas de Zamora. Investigadora en el Centro de Estudios del Sistema Agroalimentario, FCA – UNLZ. Dirección postal: 1152 (1832) Lomas de Zamora, Buenos Aires. Argentina. e-mail: viola@agrarias.net

² Doctor de la Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras Diplomado en EHESS (Escuela de Altos Estudios en Ciencias Sociales, París, 1973). Presidente de la Comisión de Doctorado de la Facultad de Filosofía y Letras. UBA. Presidente de la Asociación Argentina de Semiótica. Profesor Titular en la UBA y el IUNA. Dirección postal: Gral. M. Guemes 2954 – 2do. Pisa (1425) Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires. Argentina. e-mail: otraversa@arnet.com.ar.

The livestock agricultural policy is a relevant factor for increasing competition in food producing countries. Even though consumer attitudes have an influence over the success of innovation, changes have been guided by a focus on structure and behavior of livestock and of industrial process. This article explores the novelty concept, from a specific case, to contribute evidence about reciprocal relations between elements of the subsystems. A general hypothesis is constructed: if in a group of consumers of fresh beef, preferences for new product co-evolves with several associated productive strategies, the changes in production practices will need to include new abilities (agreements, systems of capturing ideas, communication patterns, cooperation, technological reorganization, strategic alliances), whose scope will transform incremental innovations into radical ones. A set of data about consumers from Buenos Aires was used from: (1) a random sample of 690 household concerning meal selection and preferences; 2)studies about differences in ways of supply and strategies that influence perceptions about quality; and 3) data from interviews and discussion groups. The concept of novelty shows several relations with added value system practices. In a convergent style (changes towards demand satisfaction) home meal preference, the quality perception, consumer attitudes, and the scope of subsystem changes needed to introduce novelties, reinforce the need for new organizational strategies.

Key words: Novelty, innovation, consumer, preferences, beef, Buenos Aires.

Mots Clés : nouveauté, innovation, consommateur, préférences, viande de bceuf, Buenos Aires.

1. INTRODUCTION

Not many studies exist concerning the point of contact between the two main forces resulting in products not only rewarding and also fulfillment of needs and wants of customers. This paper tries to introduce a newness concept from specific cases and adds it to other related elements to accommodate a more realistic theoretical position about food innovation problems. Likewise, this article will present and explore some results about the newness concept as a starting point towards a hypothesis, which may be useful to improve specific policy framework. In the second section, will be discussed previous literature with implications about the research hypothesis formulation. The third section describes the methodology used in this research whose aim is to answer the questions: What is newness in fresh beef products to the consumer today? What is newness in fresh beef products to the consumer today? Are there some coordinated links between the newness concept by consumer and production systems that have some influence on innovation policy design? In the fourth section, we describe results and finally we present conclusions.

2. PREVIOUS LITERATURE: VIEWS AND FACTORS ON INNOVATION AND SUCCESS

On the other hand, Malerba (2001) proposed that demand by industrial or service users or by consumers has always proven to be a key element along various dimensions: a major factor in the redefinition of a segmented system, stimulus for innovation, factor shaping the organization of innovative and production activity. In addition, Padberg and Westgren (1979) have pointed out that food consumers are incrementalist because large changes are risky. Consumers cannot articulate their wants because of the complexity of their choices. They may be able to express the direction of their preferences but no more. Their wants are often the only determinate in groups: seeing themselves in a symbiotic relationship with food manufactures and advertisers.Therefore, to study the confluence of supply and demand, products can be useful for performance competition, if we are able to know the consumer assessing criteria. Views about the newness concept in consumers segments could contribute to evidences on reciprocal behaviors among subsystem's element. We will define them as co-evolutionary and will propose that they will have influence in the progress of sectored system and then would need other innovations, in subsystem and environment. Ida (2002) has discussed the interaction between supply and demand developments of innovation, based on the framework of evolutionary ecology and shows that there are a variety of types of processes in which the quality of products and consumers preferences coevolves.

According to the framework, we will make a general hypothesis: If in a group of fresh beef consumers, the preferences for newness product coevolves with several production strategies the changes in practices will need to include new organizational skills (agreements, systems to capture ideas, communication patterns, cooperation, technological re-organization, strategic alliance, among others) whose scope will transform incremental innovation into radical innovation. We will examine the suitability of the hypothesis through a set of data resulting from fresh beef consuters that were researched at Center for Agrofood System Studies (CEAGRO) in Argentina.

3. METHODOLOGY

The main approach for assessing the validity of the hypothesis was based on an analysis of three empirical data sources. They were: first, a random sample of 690 households in the city of Buenos Aires and surrounding areas; second, results from research about usually quality perception signals, both implicit or explicit, in the fresh beef product case; and finally, qualitative data collected through in-depth interviews and a focus group. During 1999, Aulicino et al. as well as McCormick et al. developed a complete inquiry on attitudes, habits and preferences about ways of feeding and cooking in 690 households. Housewives in charge of buying and who were responsible for the family meals were surveyed. All those surveyed had children of school are. The questionnaire was personal, took 35 minutes and registered weekly information (from Tuesday to Saturday). The answers were processed by Survey Analysis Software (SNAP, 1994) and System Portable Analysis Numeric Data (SPAD-N, 1996). Multivariate analysis (Johnson and Wichern, (1992) was carried out using Statistical Analysis System (SAS, 1993). As results of those inquiries, a ranking of plates was obtained. We found that the beef meals ranked first. We built a consumer profile for this particular style selection by sub-sample cluster analysis. Recent studies in the same location found some differences between supply ways and choice strategies, related to sheep meat and beef consumers (More, 2000; Lynch et al., 2000; Viola and Traversa, 2001; Viola and More, 2002).

Between April through May of 2002, we carried out in-depth interviews (Vales, 1997) and focus groups (Foxall and Goldsmith, 1997) in order to determine why consumers included beef in their diet and which were the new needs or demands about what they could consider an original product. These interviews and focus group participants had a similar profile and location as a sub sample. The focus group included men and women, in charge of buying but with different family configurations, although each group was made up of persons of the same age segment. All the people had had «C expanded» economic level (see Argentinean Marketing Association, 1998 and Abbiati et al., 1999). Meetings were held with a moderator and a non-participant observer that collected information on tape and by notes. While reviewing, the information was sorted by code responses. Using these three steps, interesting results about the newness consumer concept were obtained and lead the authors to postulate a hypothesis about beef innovation product characteristics.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION FROM A CASE STUDY

4.1. POSITION OF BEEF IN PREFERENCE RANKING

Table 2

Frequency of chosen dishes taking into account aging surveyed

Source: Mc. Cormick et al. (1999), in %, based on 690 households.

Table 3

Source: own calculations.

4.2. THE CONSUMERS TAKE IN ACCOUNT TWO MAIN INTERMINGLED ORIENTATIONS RELATED TO BEEF

4.2.1. HABITS ORIENTED

4.2.2. RELIABLE ORIENTED

Beef appears to be related to health, retailers, place of purchase or product conditions. All these factors were regarded as signs of reliability (consumers pointed out behaviors like «I decreased beef consumption on my doctor's advice»; «In the supermarket I don't trust the refrigeration»; «The cleanliness of the store is very important»; «I wouldn't like canned beef»). Even if the place of purchase was always relevant, there were some differences when analyzing the data of those surveyed in the sub sample of 409 households where the consumers ate beef at lunch or at dinner. Shopping is therefore a way of selecting beef that has strong influence but whose meaning to the consumers is diverse. Buying beef at supermarket was usual only in cluster 1; on the other hand, buying at a butcher's shop appeared clearly in cluster 2. We used a logistic procedure (see Table 3) that proven socioeconomic level is an important variable category that defines a cluster. As result of this cluster analysis, socioeconomic level and place of purchase were two main significant variables frequent in the sub-sample cluster. Also other variable categories could define each cluster, e.g., age, education level and family configuration (see Table 3). The opportunity of meals also influenced consumer behavior; the clusters at lunch time were different clusters at dinner time. We think that these differences may be related to storage capacity and other attitudes such as taste or the idea of the quality of beef storage. Other research points out the existence of consumer attitudes related to conservation of food (see More et al., 2001).

4.2.3. FACTORS THAT HAVE INFLUENCED CONSUMER PERCEPTION OF QUALITY

In the case of beef, the confluence of product characteristics and message is evident. Some ways to communicate quality products have been summarized in Table 4 and show their effects on consumer behavior. Usually, the consumers use product attractiveness or appearance signals in different combinations, also consider orienting factors (health, convenience, information) and extrinsic attributes (Viola and More, 2002).

Table 4

Some ways to communicating quality products
connected to consumer behavior

4.3. KIND OF PRODUCT INNOVATION IN DEMAND

During the in-depth interview and focus groups, the moderator asked if they were able to describe some changes that improved beef products, and then why these changes could be considered novelties. Finally, with the list of changes, the moderator asked reasons to justify each one. We collected eighteen main changes but not all of them took place alone, many of them should be considered holistically. Newness suggested by consumers can be located on packaging, information and design. The main reasons are described as follows: 1) Packaging consumers requested: new materials, new shape, to solve drainage accumulation losses and to use security sealing; 2) Information: consumers requested slaughtering, origin and breeding system data and requested customer services; 3; Design: consumers requested almost-ready fresh meal , frozen indicator device, new cuts and single portions. Most of newness pointed out by consumers (about 18 of them were related with fresh beef products) needed other changes in different areas of the added value chain. Table 5 shows the list of suggested product innovations placed, in groups according to types with indications about other ` subsystem changes.

Table 5

The newness by consumers sorted to types according focus group results

Source: own calculations, based on research findings.

4.4. THE ROLE OF CONSUMER RESEARCH ON FOOD PRODUCT INNOVATION

In 1979, Padberg and Westgreen suggested that the conventional hypothesis about product competition and consumer buying behavior are inappropriate to examine these processes in the modern food system. Consequently, they present some hypotheses in the interface between product development and consumer behavior. Apart from this, Flarrnsen et al. (2000), based on a series of case of studies, indicated that both product and process orientation lead to success only when the company is able to undertake actions valued by the market.

Newness, household practices and upstream processes: In the course of examining the consumer's argument, it was noted that their concerns were linked to: 1) several processes (breeding, slaughtering, packaging, and so on); 2) security devices added to give more protection to the product than habitual (sealing, frozen indicator); and 3) also with friendly design (ready, single portion, drainage). These suggestions might be associated, on the one hand, to consumer's views about processes adopted by producers, slaughters, manufacturers and retailers; on the other hand, to the services and reliability that they provide.

4.5. THE FUNCTION OF NEWNESS CONCEPT BY CONSUMERS IN THE CHARACTER INNOVATION

According Orihata and Watanabe (2000), product concept is not merely a matter of linkage between technology and market needs, nor a simple reciprocal relationship between engineers and marketers. Rather, product concept is the value or meaning that crystallizes, or emerges, from the interplay between suppliers and the institutional system of market. The first function of product concept is ((integrity)). Integrity is not just about the combination of technologies inside of a product, nor about the adjustment between product performance and user expectations, but also the free integration of both these dimensions.

In the case of beef, a critical look at the newness concept, even if it is an ideal product that could not exist, has the capacity to take place in a subjective field where each individual preference is included. The exploration of these issues might enable the coordination of several subsystem changes and the prediction of new trends.

Newness and association with organisational innovation: The product innovation, connected with information, implies adopting organizational innovation (cooperation, integration, logistic system, communication path, and so on) in management production (breeding system), in in­dustrial processing and also system retailing.

Communication paths among areas of added value chain need logistic, technical code and speed output flow. Several food companies could have limitations in their own stock of skills/knowledge, as well as a low degree of development in their suppliers. Additionally, some livestock breeding systems include some food, pesticide, anabolic or another technology that improve productivity. When ever there is technology that will be left aside, the <<ways of negotiation)) should be more sophisticated, even more so if integration biases are weak.

4.6. TOWARDS A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE INTERACTIONS AMONG SUBSYSTEM

At first sight, the main force that has integration capability in an agro-food system could be a technology drive. But if the newness concept of consumers coevolves the glance innovation food matter should be changed, because moving towards a new analysis field it is necessary. Defining product innovation in this new analysis field will undergo a dynamic path, finding points of balance among the product assembling, consumer's needs and system or subsystem performance. A better competitive position will be held with the prospect of creating two sorts of barriers: commercials and technological. Good environmental innovativeness will be a policy design that can be adapted according to each dynamic evolutionary circumstance.

Food producer strategies, food industrial companies and food retailers: If the ways of perceiving quality of consumers are not homogenous, it might be right to revise the sketches to improve ways of producing beef food. If the scope of the newness suggested (Table 5) involves actions from more than one enterprise or subsystem, their indivi­dual or isolated competences might be insufficient. This implies that the development of some innovations would be limited unless the communication system was clearly specified and new cooperation or association network mechanisms were used within the system, subsystem or among firms. ]]> CONCLUSION

In the case study, newness suggestions for consumer shows, several relations with added value system practices. A first group of newness in demand was connected to ways of producing and processes that can assure conditions and quality attributes that have been considered relevant included those that rescue past ways of breeding animals. A second group of newness was related to improve the reliability, habitual usages and ways of operating with the food. The former could be associated with system practice perceptions and the latter with new trends in alimentary behaviors. All would indicate that if beef newness were put into practice, simultaneous associated changes in more of than one food production subsystem and in each environment would be needed. Thus the changes, as a whole, should not be considered incremental.

If fresh beef sectored system drives changes towards demand satisfaction (convergent) or in order directions (divergent) the hypothesis that has been presented will be acceptable. In a convergent style the selection of meat meals chosen at home, the quality perception, the preferences and the scope of changes in order to introduce novelties reinforce the need for new global organizational strategies in each subsystem. We wish to admit that we lack time variables which would enable us to show tendencies in order to difene co-evolution types that can be used to desigh policies. These will be the object of our future research. In addition, during the course of analysis, new research questions have appeared, they include: What mechanisms would balance the combination among technology, innovation product and competitiveness barriers in the case of beef production if the quality perceived by consumers introduces a discontinuous behavior?

Acknowledgements: The authors acknowledge the cooperation of Ana Maria Pereyra and Nora Abbiati on the data analysis.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES        [ Links ]

2. ASOCIACIÓN ARGENTINA DE MARKETING. 1998. Índice de nivel socioeconómico argentino 1996. Buenos Aires: Ed. A. A. M., Comisión de Investigación de Mercado.         [ Links ]

3. AULICINO, J. M.; PEREYRA, A. M.; YASKY, M. 1999. «Hábitos alimentarios en los hogares de Buenos Aires y sus alrededores». In: Cuadernos del CEAgro, 1.         [ Links ]

4. COMBS, G. F. JR.; WELCH, R. M.; DUXBURY, J. M. 1996. Thinking in terms of food systems. New York: Cornell University (In: http:// www.scas.cit.cornell.edu).         [ Links ]

5. FOXALL, G. R.; GOLDSMITH, R. 1997. Consumer p chology for marketing. Boston: Ed. International Thompson Business Press.         [ Links ]

6. GARCIA, R.; CALANTONE, R. 2002. «A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: a literature review». In: The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19: 110-132.         [ Links ]

7. GREEN, R.; HY, M. 2002. «La trazabilidad como instrumento de seguridad alimentaria», In: Cuadernos del CEAgro, 4.         [ Links ]

8. HARMSEN H., GRUNERT, K. G.; DECLERCK , F. 2000. «Why did that cheese? An empirically based framework for understanding what drives innovation activity». In: R&D Management, 30 (2): 151-165.         [ Links ]

9. IDA, T. 2002. «On the co-evolution of the product quality and the consumer preferences» Kyoto University, Faculty of Economics Kyoto, Japan.         [ Links ]

10. JOHNSON, B. AND LUNDVALL, B. A.1994. «Innovation National System and institutional learning». In: Revista de Comercio Exterior (August): 695-704.         [ Links ]

11. JOHNSON, R. A.; WICHERN, D. W. 1992. Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis. Texas: Prentice-Hall International, third Edition.         [ Links ]

12. LYNCH, G. M. et al. 2000. «Características de la oferta de carne ovina en súper/ hipermercados de Buenos Aires y alrededores». In: Cuadernos del CEAgro, 2: 43-51.         [ Links ]

13. MALERBA, F. 2001. Sectoral systems of innovation and production: concepts, analytical framework and empirical evidence. Eindhoven: Bocconi University, ECIS Conference «The Future of Innovation Studies».         [ Links ]

14. McCORMICK, M., LACAZE, M. L., PEREYRA, A. M.; BATTISTINI, M. 1999. «La distribución alimentaria en tiempos de cambio: una visión de las preferencia de los consu­midores de Buenos Aires y alrededores». In: Cuadernos del CEAgro, 1.         [ Links ]

15. MORÉ, M. R.; YASKY, M.; DE LAllARI, G. 2001. «El estado de los alimentos y los procesos de conservation. Posiciones de los consumidores de Buenos Aires y alrededores», Cuadernos del CEAgro, 3.         [ Links ]

16. MORÉ, M. R. et a! 2000. «La posición de la came ovina en el consumo general de cameos». In: Cuadernos del CEAgro, 2: 27-41.