as a high quality oil. On the other hand, G2 was chosen as a standard commercial oil characterized by low intensity of IOC indicat- ed positive traits. The association of hedonic judgements and quality categories (Table 5), shows that concepts such as “high quality from a different area” and “local production” are associated with high hedonic scores, while “low quality” is associated with low hedonic scores. Analysing product segmentation inside the different clusters, in Cluster 1, 62% of the consumers indicated L1 as being of high quality (Table 5), despite attributing it a low hedonic score (Table 4). Consumers per- ceived Oil L1, characterized by the highest intensity of bitterness and pungency, as a high quality oil even though they didn't prefer it at the tasting. Also in Cluster 2 high quality was associated with Oil L1 by a rel- evant portion of consumers (66%) (Table 6), but differently from Cluster 1, HQ was in line with the hedonic score (Table 4). Despite consisting of consumers indicating fruitiness as an important aspect, Cluster 3, when compared to other clusters, showed a lower percentage of consumers (44%) indicating L1 as HQ. They may not have recognized Oil L1, an oil marked by the highest olive fruitiness intensity, as a high quality oil, be- cause their preferred characteristic was clouded by a high intensity of bitterness and pungency. Consumers in Cluster 3 appeared more able to perceive the absence rather than the presence of olive fruitiness, as only a low percentage (26%) indicated G1 as HQ, probably due to the lack of “pleasant flavours” (Table 1).
as a high quality oil. On the other hand, G2 was chosen as a standard commercial oil characterized by low intensity of IOC indicat- ed positive traits. The association of hedonic judgements and quality categories (Table 5), shows that concepts such as “high quality from a different area” and “local production” are associated with high hedonic scores, while “low quality” is associated with low hedonic scores. Analysing product segmentation inside the different clusters, in Cluster 1, 62% of the consumers indicated L1 as being of high quality (Table 5), despite attributing it a low hedonic score (Table 4). Consumers per- ceived Oil L1, characterized by the highest intensity of bitterness and pungency, as a high quality oil even though they didn't prefer it at the tasting. Also in Cluster 2 high quality was associated with Oil L1 by a rel- evant portion of consumers (66%) (Table 6), but differently from Cluster 1, HQ was in line with the hedonic score (Table 4). Despite consisting of consumers indicating fruitiness as an important aspect, Cluster 3, when compared to other clusters, showed a lower percentage of consumers (44%) indicating L1 as HQ. They may not have recognized Oil L1, an oil marked by the highest olive fruitiness intensity, as a high quality oil, be- cause their preferred characteristic was clouded by a high intensity of bitterness and pungency. Consumers in Cluster 3 appeared more able to perceive the absence rather than the presence of olive fruitiness, as only a low percentage (26%) indicated G1 as HQ, probably due to the lack of “pleasant flavours” (Table 1).
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..