Genç Tüketicilerin Piliç Eti Tüketiminde Etkili Faktörlerin Tespiti Üzerine Bir Araştırma

Abstract

Piliç eti bir protein kaynağı olmasının yanında vücuda vitamin ve mineral desteği de sunan buna rağmen düşük doymuş yağ ve kolesterol oranına sahip önemli bir besindir. Kırmızı et gibi diğer protein kaynaklarının fiyatlarının çok yükselmiş olması tüketiciyi önemli bir alternatif ürün olan piliç etine yönlendirdiği görülmektedir. Türkiye piliç üretiminde, tüketiminde ve ihracatında Dünya’da önemli bir konuma sahiptir. Rekabetin yoğun olarak hissedildiği bu sektörde tüketici tercihleri tedarik zincirinin geliştirilmesinde ve rekabet stratejilerinin belirlenmesinde yol gösterici olabilir. Bu çalışmanın amacı tüketicilerin piliç tüketimindeki tercihlerinde etkili olan niteliklerin öncelik sıralarını belirlemektir. Araştırmanın nitelikleri ve düzeyleri yapılan literatür araştırması ve perakendecilerle yapılan derinlemesine mülakat tekniği ile elde edilmiştir. Bu amaçla yapılan araştırma için altı temel nitelik ve bunlara ait çeşitli düzey tanımlanmıştır. Nitelikler ve bu niteliklere ait düzeyler Markalama (Markalı ürün, Markasız ürün), Üretim Yöntemi (Organik, Klasik), Ürün İşleme Yöntemi (Katkı maddesi / koruyucu madde yok, tümü doğal malzemeler), Lezzet, Tat (Çeşni gibi ilave edilmiş lezzet var, İlave edilmiş lezzet yok), Sertifika (ISO 9001 / TSE Belgesi, Herhangi bir belge yok), Satış Fiyatı (Yüksek, Düşük) şeklinde belirlenmiştir. Veriler kolayda örnekleme yöntemi kullanılarak seçilen 188 üniversite öğrencisiyle yapılan anketlerle elde edilmiştir. Araştırmanın tasarımında ve verilerin analizinde Konjoint yaklaşımı kullanılmış ve hesaplamalar için SPSS v23 istatistik programı tercih edilmiştir. Elde edilen sonuçlara göre piliç eti tercihinde düşük fiyat algısının ötesinde kalite sertifikası sahipliğinin en öncelikli nitelik olduğu bulunmuştur.

Keywords

• Piliç Nitelikleri,Tüketici Tercihi,Konjoint Analizi,Piliç eti,Markalama

A Research on Determination of Effective Factors in Chicken Meat Consumption of Young Consumers

Abstract

Chicken meat, although it is a source of protein as well as offering vitamins and minerals to the body, is an important food source with low saturated fatty acids and cholesterol. It is seen that the prices of other protein sources such as red meat have increased so much that it directs the consumer to chicken meat which is an important alternative product. Turkey has an important position in terms of chicken production, consumption and exports in the world. Consumer preferences can guide the development of supply chain and determination of competition strategies in the sector where the competition is intensely felt. The aim of this study is to determine the priorities of attributes which are effective on the preferences of consumers in chicken meat consumption. The attributes and their levels of the research were obtained through literature research and in-depth interviews with retailers. For this purpose, six basic attributes and various levels were defined for the research. Attributes and levels are classified as follows. Branding (Branded product, Unbranded product), Production Method (Organic, Classic), Product Processing Method (No additives / preservatives, all natural ingredients), Certification (ISO 9001 / TSE Certificate, No Certificate), Retail Price (High, Low). The data were obtained through surveys with 188 university students who were selected by means of convenience sampling method. Conjoint approach was used in the design and analysis of the data and SPSS v23 statistical program was preferred for calculations. According to the results obtained, quality certificate ownership was found to be the highest priority in chicken meat preference beyond low price perception.

Keywords

• Chicken attributes,Consumer Preference,Conjoint Analysis,Chicken meat,Branding

References

1. Aral, Y., Aydın, E., Demir, P., Akın, A.C., Cevger, Y., Kaya Kuyululu, Ç.Y. ve Arıkan, M.S., 2013. Consumer preferences and consumption situation of chicken meat in Ankara Province, Turkey. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences 37: 582-587.
2. Aribarg, A. ve Foutz, N.Z., 2009. Category-based screening in choice of complementary products. Journal of Marketing Research 46 (4): 518-530.
3. Bretton-Clark 1990. Conjoint Designer. Bretton-Clark. Morristown. NJ.
4. Brunso, K., Fjord, T. A. ve Grunert, K. G., 2002. Consumers’ food choice and quality perception. MAPP working paper 77. Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus, Denmark. (Aktaran: Napolitano, F., Castellini, C., Naspetti, S., Piasentiar, E., Girolami, A., Braghieri, A., 2013. Consumer preference for chicken breast may be more affected by information on organic production than by product sensory properties. Poultry Science 92: 820-826)
5. Carlsson, F., Frykblom, P. ve Lagerkvist, C. J., 2005. Consumer preferences for food product quality attributes from Swedish agriculture. Ambio 34: 366-370. de Almeida, M.A., Villanueva, N.D.M., Gonçalves, J.R., Contreras-Castillo, C.J., 2015. Quality attributes and consumer acceptance of new ready-to-eat frozen restructured chicken. Journal of Food Science and Technology 52 (5): 2869–2877.
6. El-Deek, A., ve El-Sabrout, K., 2019. Behaviour and meat quality of chicken under different housing systems. World's Poultry Science Journal 75 (1): 105-114.
7. FAS, 2019. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/circulars/ livestock_poultry.pdf (erişim 28.05.2019)
8. Goddard, E., Shank, B., Panter, C., Nilsson, T. ve Cash S., 2007. Canadian chicken industry: consumer preferences, industry structure and producer benefits from investment in research and advertising. Electronic resource 07-041-126. Dept. of Rural Economy, University of Alberta. Available from: http://www.consumerdemand.re.ualberta.ca/Publications/Network_Working_Papers/PR%2007–04.pdf. (Aktaran: Michel vd., 2011)

9. Green, P.E. ve Srinivasan, V., 1990. Conjoint analysis in marketing: new developments with implications for research and practice. Journal of Marketing 54: 3-19.
10. Green, P.E., Krieger, A.M. ve Wind, Y.J., 2001. Thirty years of conjoint analysis: reflections and prospects. Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences 31: 56-73.
11. Grunert, K. G., 2005. Food quality and safety: Consumer perception and demand. European Review of Agricultural Economics 32 (3): 369-391.
12. Gustaffson, A., Ekdahl, F. ve Bergman, B., 1999. Conjoint analysis: a useful tool in the design process. Total Quality Management 10 (3): 327-343.
13. Herbst, S. T. ve Herbst, R., 2007. New food lover’s companion. New York, NY: Barron’s Educational Series, Inc. Innes, B. ve Cranfield, J., 2009. Consumer Preference for Production-Derived Quality: Analyzing Perceptions of Premium Chicken Production Methods. Agribusiness 25 (3): 395-411.
14. Jin, B., Park, J.Y. ve Ryu, J.S., 2010. Comparison of Chinese and Indian consumers’ evaluative criteria when selecting denim jeans A conjoint analysis. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management 14 (1): 180-194.
15. Kawataa, Y. ve Kubota, S., 2018. Consumers’ willingness to pay for reprocessed fried chicken: A way of reducing uneaten food. Appetite 120: 571-577. Kim, G., Kim, A. ve Sohn, S.Y., 2009. Conjoint analysis for luxury brand outlet malls in Korea with consideration of customer lifetime value. Expert Systems with Applications 36: 922-932.
16. Kim, S. J., Cho, A. R. ve Han, J., 2013. Antioxidant and antimicrobial activities of leafy green vegetable extracts and their applications to meat product preservation. Food Control 29 (1): 112-120.
17. Kotler, P. ve Armstrong, G., 2014. Principles of Marketing 15e. Global Edition, Pearson.
18. Lagerkvist, C. J., Carlsson, F. ve Viske, D., 2006. Swedish consumer preferences for animal welfare and biotech: A choice experiment. AgBioForum 9 (1): 51-58.
19. Lassoued, R., Hobbs, J.E., Micheels, E.T. ve Zhang, D.D., 2015. Consumer Trust in Chicken Brands: A StructuralEquation Model. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 63: 621-647.
20. Lawlor, J. B., Sheehan, E. M., Delahunty, C. M., Kerry, J. P. ve Morrissey, P. A., 2003. Sensory characteristics and consumer preference for cooked chicken breasts from organic, corn-fed, free-range and conventionally reared animals. International Journal of Poultry Science 2 (6): 409-416.
21. Magdelaine, P., Spiess, M.P. ve Valceschini, E., 2008. Poultry meat consumption trends in Europe. World's Poultry Science Journal 64:53-64. (Aktaran: Michel vd., 2011)
22. Michel, L.M., Anders,S. ve Wismer, W.V., 2011. Consumer Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Value-Added Chicken Product Attributes. Journal of Food Science 76 (8): 469-477. Napolitano,F., Castellini,C., Naspetti, S., Piasentier, E., Girolami,A. ve Braghieri, A., 2013. Consumer preference for chicken breast may be more affected by information on organic production than by product sensory properties. Poultry Science 92 (3), 820-826.
23. Nawi, N. M. ve Nasir, N. I. M., 2014. Consumers’ Attitude Toward the Food Safety Certificate (FSC) in Malaysia, Journal of Food Products Marketing 20 (1): 140-150.
24. Ong, F.S., Kitchen, P.J. ve Chew, S.S., 2010. Marketing a consumer durable brand in Malaysia: a conjoint analysis and market simulation. Journal of Consumer Marketing 27 (6): 507-515.
25. Ouyang, Y., Behnke, C., Almanza, B. ve Ghiselli, R., 2018. The Influence of Food Aromas on Restaurant Consumer Emotions, Perceptions, and Purchases. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management 27 (4): 405-423.
26. Pouta, E., Heikkilä, J., Forsman-Hugg, S., Isoniemi, M. ve Mäkelä, J., 2010. Consumer choice of broiler meat: The effects of country of origin and production methods. Food Quality and Preference. 21 (5): 539-546.
27. Shan, L.C., Henchion, M., De Brún, A., Murrin, C., Wall, P.G. ve Monahan, F.J., 2017. Factors that predict consumer acceptance of enriched processed meats. Meat Science 133: 185-193.
28. Sheth, J.N. ve Sosodia, R.S., 1999. Revisiting marketing’s lawlike generalizations. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 27 (1): 1-87.
29. Toklu, İ. T., 2018. Genç Tüketiciler İçin Kot Pantolon Niteliklerinin Önemi. Turkish Studies 13 (30): 459-476.
30. Toklu, İ.T., 2017. Consumer Preferences for the Attributes of Sunflower Oil: An Exploratory Study with Conjoint Analysis. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences 7 (1): 39-55.
31. Torrico, D.D., Hutchings, S.C., Ha, M., Bittner, E.P., Fuentes, S., Warner, R.D. ve Dunshea, F.R., 2018. Novel techniques to understand consumer responses towards food products: A review with a focus on meat. Meat Science 144: 30-42.
32. Walters, D. ve Lancaster, G., 1999. Value-based marketing and its usefulness to customer. Management Decision 37 (9): 679-708