4.4 Article

Pork quality in the eye of the Greek consumer

Journal

BRITISH FOOD JOURNAL
Volume 114, Issue 4-5, Pages 647-660

Publisher

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1108/00070701211229945

Keywords

Perceived quality; Pork meat; Conjoint analysis; Quality; Meat; Greece

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose - The present study aims at investigating consumers' pork meat quality perception, focusing on the stage prior to consumption. Furthermore, market segmentation is attempted on the basis of specific socio-demographic characteristics, pork consumption habits and quality perception. Design/methodology/approach - A field research was performed in a Greek urban area, Thessaloniki. The research was based on consumers' quality evaluations of pork meat pictures, which were computer-manipulated to acquire different levels of two intrinsic quality cues (colour and marbling), while labels were added indicating various levels of two extrinsic quality cues (price and origin). Data were analysed by means of conjoint analysis. Findings - Results indicate that Greek consumers appear to attach more importance to marbling when forming pork quality judgments. Price is classified second in importance closely followed by colour, while country of origin appears to be the least important factor affecting quality perception of pork. Research limitations/implications - The study has employed only a number of quality cues, hypothesising that these cues principally influence consumers' decisions on pork quality. This restricted number of cues was decided so that consumers could more easily and effectively respond to the data collection procedure. As a result, some cues that could possibly be used by consumers were not included. Originality/value - Although quality perception of meat has been researched before in Greece, the procedure followed in the present study was employed for the first time to investigate quality perception of pork meat.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available