| Literature DB >> 35327311 |
Yunho Ji1, Jangheon Han2.
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has changed traditional consumer consumption behavior and requires a new service strategy to cope with sustainable consumption. Moreover, it is necessary to focus academic attention on consumer behavior to cook and eat more easily amid Korea's socioeconomic changes such as the increase in single-person households, aging, rising prices, and continuing economic recession. In this study, we used a revised importance-performance analysis (IPA) to identify specific measures to improve consumer satisfaction with home meal replacements (HMRs). An online survey of Korean adults who had purchased HMRs was conducted based on a convenience sampling method. According to the results, items that could be intensively improved were the 'introduction of new dishes', 'creation of various flavors', 'cost-effectiveness, and 'reasonable price', whereas 'easy to prepare', 'easily available', and 'identified country of origin' received favorable assessments. With the growth of the non-face-to-face economy due to COVID-19, our findings suggest marketing strategies for sustainable HMR consumption.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; home meal replacement; modified IPA; service strategy; sustainable consumption
Year: 2022 PMID: 35327311 PMCID: PMC8949210 DOI: 10.3390/foods11060889
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Classifications and descriptions of home meal replacements (HMRs).
| Classification | Definition |
|---|---|
| Ready to eat (RTE) | Can be consumed immediately after purchase, without any cooking, |
| Ready to heat (RTH) | Require brief heating in a microwave or hot water, |
| Ready to cook (RTC) | Require cooking utensils (e.g., frying pans, pots, and ovens), a relatively long heating time or a simple cooking process, |
| Ready to prepare (RTP) | Contain small portions, fresh ingredients, and sauces, and can be consumed after a series of cooking processes, |
Reproduced with permission from [29]; published by Elsevier Science, 2001.
Annual HMR sales in Korea (in KRW).
| Classification | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | Annual Average Growth (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RTE | 652,340 | 800,972 | 1,530,521 | 1,583,074 | 1,416,162 | 25.2 |
| RTH | 109,959 | 163,041 | 181,734 | 184,531 | 224,639 | 19.6 |
| RTC | 1,330,585 | 1,767,897 | 1,317,778 | 1,694,898 | 2,010,327 | 15.2 |
| RTP | 705,262 | 664,459 | 678,034 | 743,403 | 774,251 | 12.1 |
| Total | 2,798,147 | 3,396,370 | 3,708,068 | 4,205,908 | 4,425,381 | 15.2 |
Note: The numbers are 1 million KRW units. Reproduced with permission from [55,56,57,58,59]; Korean statistical Information Service (https://kosis.kr/index/index.do, 15 February 2022).
Demographics and consumption characteristics of the respondents.
| Variables | Frq. | % | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | Male | 140 | 45.8 |
| Female | 166 | 54.2 | |
| Age (years) | <30 | 32 | 10.5 |
| 30–39 | 137 | 44.8 | |
| 40–49 | 71 | 23.2 | |
| ≥50 | 66 | 21.6 | |
| Job | Students | 11 | 3.6 |
| Office | 106 | 34.6 | |
| Service | 33 | 10.8 | |
| Housewife | 77 | 25.2 | |
| Self-employed | 36 | 11.8 | |
| Others | 43 | 14.1 | |
| Monthly income | <$2000 | 48 | 15.7 |
| $2000–$3000 | 90 | 29.4 | |
| $3000–$5000 | 72 | 23.5 | |
| >$5000 | 96 | 31.4 | |
| HMR usage frequency | 0–2 times | 124 | 40.5 |
| 3–5 times | 93 | 30.4 | |
| 6–9 times | 40 | 13.1 | |
| ≥10 times | 49 | 16 | |
| HMR expenditures | <$6 | 202 | 62 |
| $6–$10 | 68 | 22.2 | |
| ≥$10 | 36 | 11.8 | |
| Total | 306 | ||
The satisfaction results of HMR attributes.
| Customer Attribute | Satisfaction | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Rank | |
| unique taste | 2.7148 | 1.00686 | 16 |
| creation of various flavors | 3.3475 | 0.94792 | 9 |
| introduction of new dishes | 3.3410 | 0.97424 | 10 |
| new flavor | 2.9148 | 0.94204 | 15 |
| cheaper than home cooking | 3.2000 | 1.03364 | 13 |
| reasonable price | 3.2984 | 0.85811 | 11 |
| efficiency at low cost | 3.4112 | 0.91125 | 6 |
| cost-effectiveness | 3.3882 | 0.90506 | 8 |
| easy to prepare | 4.2557 | 0.63363 | 3 |
| simple to cook | 4.3816 | 0.70298 | 1 |
| easy to store | 4.2000 | 0.78388 | 4 |
| easily available | 4.2623 | 0.72324 | 2 |
| neatly packed | 3.1344 | 0.83408 | 14 |
| accurate ingredient information | 3.2204 | 0.87547 | 12 |
| exact ingredient labeling | 3.4000 | 0.83745 | 7 |
| exact country of origin | 3.9046 | 0.82501 | 5 |
| average | 3.5234 | - | |
Implicitly derived importance of HMR attributes.
| Customer Attribute | Implicitly Derived Importance | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PCC | (ln) | Standard Deviation | Rank | |
| unique taste | 0.032 | 0.9212 | 0.41253 | 12 |
| creation of various flavors | 0.065 | 1.1586 | 0.33734 | 6 |
| introduction of new dishes | 0.165 | 1.1578 | 0.32478 | 2 |
| new flavor | −0.006 | 1.0142 | 0.34366 | 15 |
| cheaper than home cooking | 0.057 | 1.0997 | 0.37912 | 10(2) |
| reasonable price | 0.074 | 1.1523 | 0.30559 | 5 |
| efficiency at low cost | 0.031 | 1.1818 | 0.32381 | 13 |
| cost-effectiveness | 0.110 | 1.1763 | 0.31783 | 3 |
| easy to prepare | 0.182 | 1.4364 | 0.15751 | 1 |
| simple to cook | −0.038 | 1.4616 | 0.19094 | 14 |
| easy to store | 0.057 | 1.4144 | 0.21421 | 10(2) |
| easily available | 0.064 | 1.4330 | 0.19213 | 7 |
| neatly packed | 0.061 | 1.1010 | 0.30453 | 8 |
| accurate ingredient information | −0.007 | 1.1281 | 0.29930 | 16 |
| exact ingredient labeling | 0.059 | 1.1883 | 0.28071 | 9 |
| the exact country of origin | 0.088 | 1.3375 | 0.22962 | 4 |
| average | 0.062 | |||
Note: PCC—partial correlation coefficients; ln—natural logarithm.
Results of the modified IPA.
| Extracted Dimension | Customer Attribute | Satisfaction | Implicitly Derived Importance |
|---|---|---|---|
| I (concentrate here) | introduction of new dishes | 3.3410 | 0.165 |
| cost-effectiveness | 3.3882 | 0.110 | |
| reasonable price | 3.2984 | 0.074 | |
| creation of various flavors | 3.3475 | 0.065 | |
| II (keep up the good work) | easy to prepare | 4.2557 | 0.182 |
| the exact country of origin | 3.9046 | 0.088 | |
| easily available | 4.2623 | 0.064 | |
| III (low priority) | cheaper than home cooking | 3.2000 | 0.057 |
| unique taste | 2.7148 | 0.032 | |
| neatly packed | 3.1344 | 0.061 | |
| exact ingredient labeling | 3.4000 | 0.059 | |
| efficiency at low cost | 3.4112 | 0.031 | |
| new flavor | 2.9148 | −0.006 | |
| accurate ingredients | 3.2204 | −0.007 | |
| IV (possible overkill) | easy to store | 4.2000 | 0.057 |
| simple to cook | 4.3816 | −0.038 |
Figure 1Matrix results of an importance–performance analysis of home meal replacement attributes.