歐洲消費者對含昆蟲類產品之態度與市場區隔分析

全文

(1)國立臺灣師範大學管理學院管理研究所碩士論文 Graduate Institute of Management College of Management National Taiwan Normal University Master Thesis. 歐洲消費者對含昆蟲類產品之態度與市場區隔分析 Entomophagy – A Marketing Approach in Europe. 馬雪峰 Mathias Heuch Grevstad. 指導教授：沈永正博士 Advisor：Yung-Cheng Shen, Ph.D.. 中華民國 107 年 7 月 July 2018.

(2) Abstract The purpose of this paper is to contribute on the market research of entomophagy as food security and sustainable food choices are becoming of growing importance on an international wide basis. As of January 2018, the EU has allowed insect-based food to be imported and sold for commercial purposes within its markets, thus opening for a new product category companies can create products for. European countries are composed by different cultures but are often subject to the same legalization, cooperation on trade, and often viewed by other countries as a driver of global change. By examining European attitudes and motivations towards insect-based products, a segmentation analysis can be carried out to distinguish between different compositions of motivations towards insect-based food. Environment, health, novelty and taste aspects were found to be different motivations through one-on-one interviews and therefore chosen to be measured in a quantitative survey. Data analysis suggested four segments on which three segments could be targeted as the motivation aspects had a positive factor toward overall attitude on insect-based food. The fourth segment does not seem to be influenced by the measured motivations and is subject for further research. Identifying the different motivations of each segment can be beneficial in terms of creating and communicating the correct and appropriate marketing messages. This thesis strives to answer the question on how entomophagy can be successfully introduced in the European market, by the analysis of underlying motivations for attitudes.. Keywords: Entomophagy, Insects, Food security, Attitudes, Market segmentation, European market.. 1.

(3) Table of content Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 1 List of figures .................................................................................................................................. 4 List of tables .................................................................................................................................... 5 Chapter I Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 6 Chapter II A brief introduction to the concept of entomophagy ................................................... 10 2.1 Why entomophagy?............................................................................................................. 10 2.2 Change in legislation ........................................................................................................... 11 2.3 Definition of insects and insect-based food ........................................................................ 12 2.4 Insects as livestock feed ...................................................................................................... 14 2.5 Insect-based food startups ................................................................................................... 15 Chapter III Literature review ........................................................................................................ 17 3.1 Customer acceptance ........................................................................................................... 18 3.2 Food neophobia ................................................................................................................... 18 3.3 Insect-based food................................................................................................................. 19 3.4 Categorizing insect-based food as product.......................................................................... 20 3.5 Food attitudes in Europe ..................................................................................................... 21 3.6 Sushi in Europe ................................................................................................................... 22 3.7 Market entry strategies ........................................................................................................ 23 3.8 Hedonic vs utilitarian motivation ........................................................................................ 24 Chapter IV Research design.......................................................................................................... 25 4.1 Research question................................................................................................................ 25 4.2 Three stage approach ........................................................................................................... 26 4.3 Explorative interviews......................................................................................................... 27 4.4 Quantitative research questionnaire .................................................................................... 28 2.

(4) 4.5 Concepts of attitude ............................................................................................................. 29 Chapter V Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 31 5.1 Findings from qualitative research ...................................................................................... 31 5.2 Descriptive statistics............................................................................................................ 34 5.3 Explanation of variables ...................................................................................................... 36 5.4 Factor analysis ..................................................................................................................... 37 5.4.1 Interpretation of the rotated model (PCA) .................................................................... 38 5.5 Estimating overall attitude based on variables from factor analysis ................................... 40 5.6 Cluster analysis and segmentation ...................................................................................... 41 5.6.1 Regression within group membership .......................................................................... 42 5.6.2 The Rationalists – Group 1 ........................................................................................... 42 5.6.3 The Novelty seekers – Group 2 .................................................................................... 43 5.6.4 The Explorers – Group 3 .............................................................................................. 44 5.6.5 The Conservative – Group 4 ......................................................................................... 45 Chapter VI Discussion .................................................................................................................. 47 6.1 Key findings ........................................................................................................................ 47 6.2 Leveraging motivations ....................................................................................................... 48 6.3 Shortcomings and limitations .............................................................................................. 50 6.4 Further research ................................................................................................................... 50 Chapter VII Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 52 List of references........................................................................................................................... 53 Appendix 1 - Interview guideline: ................................................................................................ 62 Appendix 2 - Questionnaire – survey ........................................................................................... 64. 3.

(5) List of figures Figure 1 - Reported number of edible insect species by country (Jongema, 2012; FAO,2013; Jansson & Berggren, 2015) ........................................................................................................... 14 Figure 2 - Three stages research approach (Own research) .......................................................... 27 Figure 3 - Intro picture for quantitative questionnaire (Foodstuffsa.co.za, 2014) ........................ 29 Figure 4 - Classification of motivations (Own research + Stock et. al, 2015) .............................. 30 Figure 6 - Cluster centers/segmentation ....................................................................................... 41 Figure 7 - Distances between final clusters .................................................................................. 42 Figure 8 - Illustration of group placement according to significance (Own research) ................. 48 Figure 9 - Product life cycle with segmentation adoption (Own research + PLC) ....................... 49. 4.

(6) List of tables Table 1 - List of edible insects with corresponding English name (Ramos-Elorduy, 2005) ........ 13 Table 2 - Summary of findings through explorative interviews (Own research) ......................... 33 Table 3 - Model summary (Overall attitude explained by hedonic and utility)............................ 34 Table 4 - One-way ANOVA (Overall attitude explained by hedonic and utility) ........................ 35 Table 5 – Coefficient contribution and significance in one-way ANOVA .................................. 36 Table 6 - Explanation of coding in questionnaire ......................................................................... 36 Table 7 - KMO & Bartlett's test .................................................................................................... 37 Table 8 – Total Variance Explained ............................................................................................. 38 Table 9 – Pattern Matrix ............................................................................................................... 39 Table 10 - Model summary (variables from factor analysis) ........................................................ 40 Table 11 - One-way ANOVA (variables from factor analysis) .................................................... 40 Table 12 - Membership in group 1 - The Rationalists .................................................................. 43 Table 13 - Membership in group 2 - The Novelty seekers ........................................................... 44 Table 14 - Membership in group 3 - The Explorers ..................................................................... 45 Table 15 - Membership in group 4 - The Conservatives .............................................................. 46. 5.

(7) Chapter I Introduction The population in the world is continuously increasing and expecting to reach 9.7 billion by 2050 (UN, 2018), which is bringing several different challenges to the humankind in terms of sustainability and maintaining the current lifestyle for the years to come. The rapid growth in human population will have an impact on the human food consumption and food safety (Gahukar,2011; Dossey,2013; Oonincx et.al 2010). Countless news articles have been written on global issues in the past years with the ambition of informing and altering behavior of people to make a positive impact. Among the suggestions for ensuring a sustainable future of food, entomophagy – the eating of insects have received increased attention from academical research and media coverage. 1 Entomophagy, the description of harvest, preparation and consuming of insects are considered normal and an important part of the daily consumed nutritional content for over 3000 ethnic groups (Ramos-Elorduy, 2009). While the eating of algae and lab produced meat are further suggestions for solving the food crisis in the future, entomophagy has already been introduced several thousand years, and the practice is still common in Asia, Africa and Latin America. (CISR, 2018; Laaninen, 2016; Hartmann et al., 2015). 2 The practice of eating insects is a phenomenon approaching western culture both through being a novelty food, but also through being an alternative source of proteins. The EU’s approach in this context has been to partly allow insect-based food in its markets through a legislation starting from the beginning of 2018. Insectbased food has a wide range in terms of products and includes cricket flour bread, mealworm. 1. The United Nations have identified food security to be of similar importance as climate-change issues, and poverty as the most significant global issues (UN,2017). 2 The consumption of algae reached new heights, mainly through the evidence of health benefits through algaederived food products (Wells et. al, 2016). With a direct presence in training related edibles and a nourishment for farmed fish, arguments for an increased use of algae in human nutrition revolve around health benefits and a positive sustainable harvest and up-scaling (Norambuena et al., 2015). Cultured meat on the other hand have yet to be commercialized as it has not yet reached the public market although 30 independent labs are working on it (Flynn,2012).. 6.

(8) protein bars and locust burger patty. The benefits of insect-based food have already been identified and contributes to the idea of introducing entomophagy to European customers. Reasons for advocating entomophagy and insect-based food can be supported through two aspects. In the worldwide agriculture sector, 70% of land use is related to livestock production which claims more than 70% of the available freshwater in the world (FAO, 2006; Pimentel et al, 2014; WWAP,2018). Rearing of insects requires lower resources in terms of water and land use than traditional beef and cattle farming, proposing the environmental benefits with regards to a worsening environmental situation in the world. Secondly, the nutrition values in insects are found to be high, especially with regards to protein and vitamins (Belluco et al., 2013; van Huis, 2012; Kouřimská & Adámková, 2016). This lays the foundation for the beneficial health aspects of introducing insectbased food. As the idea of cutting down an unsustainable consumption of meat is a noble idea in theory, it will, in turn be the consumers who decide to what degree entomophagy can be introduced in the European market and how much of the traditional food sources it will compliment. Different European countries operated with different regulations towards insect food. For example, bug burgers served in the Netherlands have been banned in Italy since 2003. Through the new legislation, the EU now has a common regulation for entomophagy, creating a new market with standardized rules. The European market is also characterized as a wealthy market, with a population exceeding 500 million people which could offer benefits in terms of scalability and customers with stable financial conditions for products linked to entomophagy (EC, 2018). Although the consumption of insect-based food in Europe is likely to be a small contributor towards the world food security, trends originating from European markets can potentially be a driver of global change at a later stage. An example of such a cultural driver already occurring can be seen in the introduction of sushi to western markets, where demand from traveling Japanese 7.

(9) businessmen motivated businesses to serve this in Western countries (Bestor, 2000). With time and information-communication being crucial for the conversion of customer skepticism and eventual success, sushi is now a dish offered in high-class restaurants and daily grocery stores both in the American and European market. This paper will examine what motivational factors European consumers weigh in a purchasing process on insect-based food. The discovery and analysis of motivations can also can also be ground for marketing advices for the communication and information process of the product to European customers in terms of segmentation. Existing research on entomophagy is limited as insect food or insect-based food have had limited access on the European market, however consumer acceptance and profiling have been the main focus points. With an increased interest on entomophagy from governmental institutions, foundations, and businesses operating in the food sector, multiple forces are endeavoring on the question of whether entomophagy has a future in the European market. This paper seeks to contribute on this question by broadening the research on insect-based food and complementing it with marketing theory and analysis of the motivational factors needed to be considered. By conducting explorative interviews with potential customers and summarizing the individual factors of importance to purchase insect-based food, the most frequent mentioned and highest weighted factors can be deducted and measured through the quantitative analysis. While the motivations for purchasing are central in the interviews, initial associations, thoughts and perceptions can contribute to a holistic understanding of the interview objects opinion on insectbased food. Based on the findings from the initial qualitative research, a survey was developed for an investigative examination of the motivational factors. Attitude towards insect-based food is divided into two categories based on the qualitative results, hedonic and utilitarian. The attitudes 8.

(10) are a construct of several motivations, whereas four of them have been found in the qualitative research and used to identify and segment future potential consumers of insect-based food in Europe. Based on attitudinal segmentation, the potential market can be examined, and marketing communication correctly advertised. The next section will discuss the potential of entomophagy in Europe as an outcome of the change in legislation. Classification of insects and insect-based food is carried out together with defining the scope of this study in terms of insect as feed. Chapter three will give an overview of the current literature on the topic of entomophagy and summarize the conclusive findings. Chapter four proposes a research question to be answered and explains the research design and methodical approach of the study. Chapter five presents the findings in both the qualitative and quantitative research. Chapter six summarizes the key findings and discusses marketing implications based on the findings. Chapter concludes the research and reviews how the thesis answers the research questions.. 9.

(11) Chapter II A brief introduction to the concept of entomophagy This section will introduce the concept of entomophagy in terms of why it is of importance, and the recent relevance through the change in legislation. With the change in legislation being one of the main motivations for this thesis and its relevance, the content of the legislation is essential to summarize. Definitions of the concept and related aspects are covered and specified for the use in later stages of the paper. Recent development and current use of entomophagy is commented upon and serves as a look at the status quo of the concept.. 2.1 Why entomophagy? As the world population steadily increases towards 9.7 billion people, the parliamentary office of Science and Technology of UK estimates that an increase in global food production of 60% between 2007 and 2050 is needed to meet the future demand of a growing population (POST, 2015). This might prove challenging as agricultural irrigation already devours 70% of total water withdrawals and close to 80% of the agricultural land in the world is used to farm animals (Molden et al., 2007; Laaninen, 2016). As economies become developed and people experience an increase in living standards, the majority of grain produced is fed to animals rather than people. Along with the development of Asian countries, the average diet is expected to shift towards a protein rich and meat focused diet with annual meat consumption doubling from 40kg per person to 80kg in 2050 (Molden, 2007). The European Parliament has acknowledged these estimates and currently searching for sustainable alternatives, such as the use of insects as food. Most members of the EU banned all kinds of food containing insects regarded as novel food in 1997 as the consumption was not widespread before the assembly of the EU food legislations. Some exceptions include complete bags of grasshoppers, crickets and mealworms sold and marketed by UK based Planet Organic. 3. 3. http://www.planetorganic.com/. 10.

(12) The Dutch supermarket chain Jumbo, announced in 2014 that they will begin to sell insect burgers and started the process of making insects-based food a natural choice for grocery-store customers (Brody, 2014).. 2.2 Change in legislation The new Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 which covers the topic of novelty food has been in effect since January 2018 and replaces the previous Regulation (EC) No 258/97 and Regulation (EC) No 1852/2001 (EC, 2018). The new regulation brings forth the following four main changes that aim to improve conditions for food businesses and their opportunity to bring new and innovative foods to the European market while they at the same time adhere to the high level of food safety for European Customers (European Commission, 2018). The following four elements summarize and condenses the originally eight points from the change in legislation and gives and impression of how the regulation on an EU level changes the market with a focus on entomophagy. 1. Novel food category expansion: The Novel Food definition includes various situations of food originating from plants, animals, minerals, (…), insects, which were not produced or used before 1997 may now be considered as part of the novel food category. 2. Generic authorizations of Novel Foods: Businesses and food establishments can offer authorized Novel Food on the European Union market, given met requirements for use, labeling and specifications. 3. A centralized authorization procedure: Facilitating the application procedure for authorization. 4. Efficiency and transparency: Setting deadlines for safety evaluation and authorization procedure will reduce the time needed on the application process.. 11.

(13) As the change in legislation has only been in force for a limited amount of time as of the writing of this paper, the introduction of insect-based products on a large scale has yet to appear in the European Union market. However, the appearance of businesses focusing mainly on insect-based food or existing companies introducing this as part of their product line will be discussed in section 2.5. As mentioned in the introduction, the European market contains specific characterizations that makes it the target market of entomophagy. Other than being a wealthy and financially stable marketplace, innovation is promoted and the EU with its regulatory bodies are actively searching for sustainable and alternative sources of food which can reduce dependency towards outside markets and reduce the strain on the agricultural sector.. 2.3 Definition of insects and insect-based food While insects broadly may cover over half a million species, Ramos-Elorduy (2005) has identified more than 1600 species that are edible and possible to be used as human food. This number has risen to more than 1900 in studies done in recent years (FAO, 2013). The most commonly consumed insect are beetles (31% of all total insects consumed), followed by caterpillars (18%), and then bees, wasps and ants (14%) (Jansson & Berggren, 2015). Eating insects and entomophagy as a phenomenon most frequently appear in the regions of Asia, Africa and South America, where insects can be part of a daily diet. In these regions the altering of appearance and manipulation of display is little or nonexistent to overcome acceptancy issues which are present in westernized countries. The following table gives an overview of the species in the world that are reported as edible and their common English name.. 12.

(14) Table 1 - List of edible insects with corresponding English name (Ramos-Elorduy, 2005). Gahukar (2011) describes different methods of preparation and arrangement of insects as food in different areas, however, apart from cooking, frying, boiling and adding spices, they are often presented and eaten in pieces or as a whole. In contrast, the introduction of insects as food in European countries are likely to be gradual and develop over time with insect-based food as an entry-level product in terms of testing the market and proving the potential for this novelty food on a long-term basis. Furthermore, the scope of entomophagy in this thesis is limited to insectbased food where the insect content is a minority of the total product, but still significant in terms of being defined as “novelty food” according to EU-legislation standards. By examining where the edible species of insects are located, a better understanding of the concept of entomophagy can be clarified together with the current influence in people’s daily diet.. 13.

(15) Figure 1 - Reported number of edible insect species by country (Jongema, 2012; FAO,2013; Jansson & Berggren, 2015). Figure 1 gives and overview of where the reported edible insects are located. Asia and the pacific, Africa and South America together with Mexico are the regions which have the highest frequency of edible insects due to suiting living conditions in terms of forestation and temperature living conditions. This also explains the suggestion of insect consumption being linked to a cultural aspect in determining whether it is considered part of a daily diet (FAO, 2013).. 2.4 Insects as livestock feed The previous sections have focused on insects being consumed by individuals in different regions of the world, however this is not complete in terms of covering the aspect of edible insects. Linked to entomophagy in human food, is the usage of insects as livestock feed. The nutrition values of insects make them able to be used as a replacement for fish meals and oil in diets for animals (van Huis, 2012). Estimates from 2010 puts the global feed production at 720 million tons and towards a 300-billion-dollar value (IFIF,2011). Makkar et. al (2014), estimates an increase of 60-70% in consumption of animal products by 2050, which would require a similar increase in livestock food. 14.

(16) The increase in population combined with a stable livestock production puts pressure on feed for livestock and forces the industry to explore other possible alternatives. Both van Huis (2012) and Makker et. al (2014) advocate the use of insects as feed for livestock and fish and further specify that the most promising insect species for industrial production are black solider larvae (BSF), the common housefly, different sorts of mealworm and grasshoppers. The arguments build on the protein to body mass ratios and the insects overall nutrition values. Makkar et.al (2014) gives a good overview of results linked to replacing and substituting fishmeal as a livestock feed with various insects. As the results are summaries of other articles, they vary in terms of substitution amount and the method being tested, and a generalization in terms of the results should be made carefully. Nevertheless, Makkar et. al (2014) determines in his conclusion that meals containing insects is a valid substitution for soybean and fishmeal in the diets of livestock and fish species. The study specifies that previous studies have been conducted on fish and poultry due to the limited amount needed, while the amount of insect food needed to feed pigs is higher, and the consumption amount has put constraints on the number of studies being conducted on them. The future availability and scaling of the feed industry would be a determining factor for its success as a complementary source of feed (van Huis, 2012; Makker et.al, 2014). Making consumers aware of the fact that insects are indirectly part of their diet by being used as feed for livestock could be a potential way of step-by-step convincing consumers that insects exists as an alternative source of food, however the measurement of this and the customers attitude of insects as feed is not part of the scope in this research.. 2.5 Insect-based food startups The market of insect-based food in Western countries have recently gained a considerable amount of attention, which can be seen in the number of companies and startups producing and selling food with insects as ingredients (Engström, 2018). According to general market theory, the high 15.

(17) number of new entrants in the market suggests the profitability in the market to be initially high and decreasing over time as the market becomes saturated. Although there is not a specific measurement of the insect-based food market in the European market, some estimates suggest the total market value of edible insects to be valued at 1181,6 million USD by 2023 (Meticulous Market Research Pvt. Ltd, 2016). Whether the startups in the field of entomophagy has a future or not will depend on the consumer acceptance and is likely to be driven by the regional and worldwide focus on alternative food sources and food security.. 16.

(18) Chapter III Literature review As EU legislation recently changed, another obstacle for introducing entomophagy on a larger scale in the EU is identified and described by Jansson and Berggren (2015) and van Huis (2012). Consumer attitudes, and their skepticism is described as barriers for commercialization of entomophagy. The following part will summarize the current literature on food decisions in Europe with the focus on why insects haven’t been introduced before. Customer attitudes and their recent development will build the basis for this paper and the marketing aspects discussed. When humans began to domesticate wild animal species, the focus was not only amount of meat per animal, but milk products, fur, wool and the means of using the animal as a transportation and farming tool. The utility of larger animals outperformed the insects comparing the benefits and their availability in Europe (FAO, 2013). DeFoliart (1999) argues that the shift towards farming, the use of land as resources for food combined with the “uncertain nature of insects as staple food” was responsible for the lack of interest in breeding, harvesting and adopting insects as food in western countries. Although western interest in insects has been low and limited by the previous EU regulations, Durst et al. (2008) reported that France imports close to five tons and Belgium imports three tons of dried caterpillars from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) which are intended for unspecified consumption. Durst et al. (2008) also comments that the capturing, processing, transportation and marketing of edible insects can potentially provide income and livelihood opportunities for people with prior knowledge on this, given an increase in demand from the western world. This perspective is supported by Gahukar (2011), but he remarks that existing technologies on farming and processing of insects need to be modernized and improved before they are disseminated to local communities. This would be needed in order to create commercial value and availability to consumers. 17.

(19) 3.1 Customer acceptance When it comes to introducing entomophagy to the western food-culture, customer acceptance and skepticism might be the biggest obstacle for success (van Huis, 2012; House 2016; Gahukar, 2011; Durst et.al, 2008). The major research in Europe has focused on people’s reluctance towards eating insect-based food, willingness to substitute meat for insects and profiling people who are willing to try insect-based food (Hartmann et al., 2015; Ruby et al., 2015; Schösler et al., 2015; Vanonhacker et. al, 2012; Verbeke, 2014). Although the customer acceptance for insect-based food is low, (Vanonhacker et. al, 2012), research suggests that people with high “sensation seeking” traits and having a high convenience orientation also have a more sympathetic view towards insects in food products (Verbeke, 2014). Non-vegetarians are also reported to be more likely to eat insect-based food, compared to individuals that identify themselves as vegetarians (Hamerman, 2015; Verbeke, 2014). Verbeke (2014) has also identified external motivations and altruistic motives for eating insect-based food. An expressed intention to reduce meat consumption and a belief that insects are good for the environment are the key findings, while health aspects and curiosity also mentioned as arguments towards an insect-based food diet (Sogari, 2015). While the studies vary with countries being investigated and motivational focus being different for individual people, the results are coinciding towards an increased focus on and interest for insect-based food from the end consumer perspective.. 3.2 Food neophobia A central aspect closely linked to the acceptance of novelty food is the term food neophobia, which is the description of the skepticism of novelty food or the reluctance to eat specific food (Dovey et al., 2007). Verbeke (2014) measured food neophobia in her research sample as a large and significant factor to estimate the readiness of consuming insects. This is consistent with findings of Tuorila et al. (2001), where respondents described food neophobia towards novelty food which 18.

(20) they are not familiar with. New food or unfamiliar food can either be introduced from other cultures or invented to suit a specific need or taste. However, as the conversion of customers can be a difficult task for companies or producers, the example of sushi illustrates that time and careful marketing can change consumers attitudes on a large scale. (Bestor, 2000). Verbeke (2014) notes that food neophobia is of grave importance and must be tackled for entomophagy to gain a foothold in Western markets. With regards to customers perceptions, Yen (2009) finds the main attitude towards insect-based food in the westernized countries to be either food neophobia (fear) or curiosity.. 3.3 Insect-based food A factor that is found to be influential towards the willingness to try and purchase insect-based food is whether the insects itself are visible or not. As the new EU regulation (2015/2283) addresses “insect-based” food and not insects as a separate product, this study is focusing on the insect-based food which can be classified as insect concealed products. Schouteten et. al (2015) has found the appearance of prepared insect-based food to be of importance for the consumer, and the similarity towards existing products and appearances give a positive contribution towards likability. The common western view on insect-based food is found to have a negative relationship between disgust and the degree of concealment or incorporation of insects in the food (Gmuer et al., 2016; Hartmann et al., 2015; Lensvelt & Steenbekkers, 2014; Schösler et al., 2012). This finding proposes an argument towards manipulating likability by modifying the appearance of insect-based food to reduce consumer reluctance. The prediction of consumer acceptance for insect food increases when insects are incorporated as a processed rather than as a whole ingredient (Hartmann et al., 2015). This finding is further supported by the findings in Tan et al. (2015) research where the degree of cultural exposure through visibility of insects in food was negatively correlated with liking of the product. Although the theory is consistent on this matter, factors such 19.

(21) as level of information, exposure over time and cultural influences might account for the effects in the previous research.. 3.4 Categorizing insect-based food as product While products can be defined broadly with few constraints, this part will explore the marketing aspects of insect-based food as a consumer product with the relevant classifications, ramifications and concerns. Consumer products, being a narrower definition of products, have traditionally been categorized in three groups: convenience products, shopping products and specialty products (Murphy & Enis, 1986; Winzar,1992). Kotler and Keller introduced in their book a fourth consumer product classification, “unsought goods” being identified as products “(..) consumers do not know about or normally think of buying” (Kotler & Keller, 2012, p.327). Claessens (2017) further argues that these are products which initially are of low interest to the customer or the customer has little knowledge about. Regardless of the classification, consumer products are usually subject to marketing in one form or another, either through commercials, advertisement or similar forms of mass communication. Claessens (2017) argues that the four different consumer categories have distinctive differences that proposes different purchasing behavior for the product, implicitly also different marketing communication tools. Through legislation from EU and other governmental institutions in Europe, insect-based food has been labeled “novelty-food” as it has not been consumed to a significant degree within EU before 15. May 1997 (European Commission, 2018). Low demand for, and little interest in insect-based food can be explanatory reasons for why the product has yet to receive an acknowledged categorization of the previous mentioned consumer product categories, but this paper will in the following part argue the case towards a categorization in an unsought good category.. 20.

(22) 3.5 Food attitudes in Europe Europe is a developed region of the world where EU is the biggest importer and exporter of food (EC, 2018). Previous studies have been carried out on European customers and their attitudes towards food have been measured and studied. European food attitudes have changed with factors such as government guidelines 4, trends and information availability (Urala & Lähteenmäki, 2005; Bestor, 2000). Although different food products, such as healthy, functional and environmentally sustainable food has been subject of governmental guidelines or promotion in order to be accepted or used on a daily basis, it is likely that trends and individual motivation factors together with marketing are contributing factors for the change of food attitudes (Margetts et al., 1997). To understand different food choices, culture is often a component that is considered. With culture being defined as shared attitudes, beliefs, values and practices, culture becomes a complex entity with measurable on different parameters. By disentangling the components of culture, specific aspects can be measured more concretely. Motivation is the focus in the further analyses of this thesis. Looy et al. (2014) describes culture as a factor for shaping the acceptance versus the reluctance of insect-based food, however the specifications of influence or measured effect have yet to be academically established. Several cross-cultural studies involving non-insect consumers from European countries and insect consumers from south Asian countries find food neophobia, disgust thresholds and perceived risk to be psychological factors inhibited in the European culture and mindset (Hamerman, 2015; Megido et al., 2013; House, 2016; Hartmann & Siegrist, 2016). However, as past practices of Entomophagy in Europe can be found (Bodenheimer, 1951), Tan (2017) suggests that there is nothing inherent that precludes the acceptance of insects as food. Tan. 4. Government guidelines towards food consumption is different among the various in Europe although similar characteristics towards healthy food is expressed (Margetts et al, 1997). 21.

(23) (2017) further argues that the availability and norms of food production are influential factors for shaping the acceptance of insects as food from a cultural perspective. In the EU, food security is found to be of a relatively high concern in the population of the member states, with the highest concern towards the food security on a worldwide basis, but also a concern within the European Union itself (EC Barometer, 2012). A majority of the population within the EU are also of the opinion that the EU should produce more food to be an independent food supplier, but also with regards to meet external demand for food in the future (EC Barometer, 2012). Attitudes towards what kind of food should be produced have yet to be specified and conducted, however the EU has mentioned the focus on algae production, cultured meat and entomophagy as described in the introduction.. 3.6 Sushi in Europe Another example of a novelty but seemingly ugly food being introduced to European markets was sushi. This example shows how changes in food attitude have change over time with regards to a specific product category, in some classification, similar to insect-based food. Introduced to the American markets after the second world war, mainly to satisfy Japanese businessmen and curious Americans, sushi was soon perceived as a healthy alternative to fast food and became a growing trend in the big American cities (Bestor, 2000). According to Theodore C. Bestor, the trend was picked up by Europeans visiting America and thereby grew into the popular dish it is today offered by high-end stores to kiosks and grocery stores. While the dish eventually grew into a popular trend, some customers were skeptical and reluctant to try the raw fish (van Huis, 2012). With a view of eating raw fish as barbaric and unhygienic and potentially health inflicting, the consumer acceptance came only after extensive information communication and being lead or persuaded by the curious early adopters. The introduction of sushi and the conversion of previously skeptical 22.

(24) customers is often referred to as one of the big changes in customer attitude and preference in recent years. Whether this phenomenon is replicable and applicable to insect-based food will remain to be seen and decided by the customers. However, the example of sushi shows how a novel food can turn into a commonly consumed dish worldwide.. 3.7 Market entry strategies The introduction of insect-based food in European countries is a process that has already begun as described in section 2.5. However, with regards to the legislation change and the number of new entrants, the market seems to be in an early phase. In terms of market creation, the new legislation has removed the barriers for entry opening up for a previously untapped market which can also resemble the definition of being a blue ocean market where no previous company operated, creating a new marketplace for companies targeting this market (Chan & Mauborgne, 2005). As multiple startups and renowned companies have identified this potential market, several different products have been introduced, with a range of products from protein bars to candy and snacks. The introduction of such novel food by multiple companies in Europe can indicate a trend towards this and be a factor when it comes to creating awareness, however, whether this categorizes as a trend or a smaller change in the European food assortment is too early to conclude upon. In terms of marketing insect-based food, van Huis (2017) comments on two possible focus points for strategies. Firstly, the positive environmental impact compared to traditional consumption of meat and secondly the health benefits linked to the nutrition values. These two strategies target different customer segments as they emphasize on different benefits. By psychographic segmentation, individuals with similar values, personality traits or mindset can be grouped together, making the basis for a product made to serve their needs or desires (Kotler & Keller, 2012). This thesis explores a similar approach where the hypothesis is that motivational attitudes can be a segmentation factor for marketing insect-based food. 23.

(25) 3.8 Hedonic vs utilitarian motivation To predict the behavior and decompile the elements weighted in a purchasing decision a classification of the motivational factors is carried out. The division of motivational factors is done similar to the research by Mikalef et al. (2012) although the motivational focus was different. Holbrook & Hirschman (1982) defines hedonic motivation or hedonic consumer behavior as an evaluation of esthetic products, emotive aspects, and product experience. Furthermore, the authors states that hedonic consumption would involve emotional arousal and the feelings of joy, fear and rapture, which is amongst the targeted measured variables. Utilitarian motivation or consumption behavior on the other hand, involves the attitude towards usefulness, value and prudence of the product (Ahtola, 1985). In marketing theory, goods can also be classified in hedonic and utilitarian goods, where hedonic goods often are classified as luxury items or desirable objects that gives the consumer a pleasure or enjoyment from purchasing the product. In contrast, a utilitarian good is purchased for the practicality and the consumer’s needs (Wertenbroch et al., 2004). It is evident that the classification of motivation into hedonic and utilitarian coincides to some extent with the classification of the product, however the scope of this thesis is limited to the measuring of hedonic and utilitarian motivation as components of the total attitude towards insect-based food. This coincides also with how the terminology is used in marketing when determining the purchasing motives and consumer choices (Dhar & Wertenbroch, 2000).. 24.

(26) Chapter IV Research design The previous literature review gives a basis for the following research question which will be answered through the three-stage approach of interviews, questionnaire and marketing suggestions. The main research question is intended to explore the new opportunities in the market due to the change in EU-legislation and the introduction of insect-based food in the European market. The research question is also formed in a way that it broadens the research on entomophagy and goes further in terms of suggesting relevant marketing aspects based on the findings of the research.. 4.1 Research question The research question in this thesis builds on previous literature on Europeans attitudes towards insect-based food and then further contributes by analyzing the underlying motivations which could be leveraged in marketing purposes. On this basis the following research question is created: How can entomophagy through insect-based food be successfully marketed in the European countries? The main research question is constructed to be decompiled and partly answered through two subquestions. As the two sub-questions seek to give a holistic approach towards the research question they pose a key factor of relevance to the main research question. The following two sub-questions are posed as following: What motivations should be promoted when marketing entomophagy to consumers in Europe? How can the potential customers in Europe be segmented based on their motivation for purchasing insect-based food?. 25.

(27) These two sub-questions are aimed to be answered through the analysis of the results in both the qualitative and the quantitative results. Together with market-entry theory and previous literature findings, the main research question can be answered.. 4.2 Three stage approach The method to answer the research question can be divided into three stages. Explorative one-onone interviews conducted with what can be characterized as future potential customers of insectbased food in Europe. In order to build a fundament for the further research, the understanding and basic assumptions needs to be established and verified. Qualitative research will also focus on the understanding of the research question (Strauss & Corbin, 1994). As can be seen from the appendix 1 – Interview guidelines, understanding what motives participants have and what their reasons for purchasing insect-based food are is the key objective. In addition, associations towards insectbased food and whether this is appealing in different settings are also explored. With the findings from the qualitative interviews, a quantitative survey can be developed, with the intention of measuring the motivational applicability from the interviews. By measuring and clustering the motivations, a segmentation analysis can be done to determine how the different groups in the market can be targeted. The third and last stage of the research methodology is the analysis of the quantitative data, and recommendation forming with regards to the marketing aspects. The combined first-hand data from the interviews will have an in-depth support function as it will contribute to the consumer behavior and attitudes, while the quantitative data will increase the reliability and broaden the perspective. The recommendations and suggestions for marketing entry will be based on both forms of data retrieved and complemented with current literature and research on relevant topics, such as unsought product marketing. Limitations and shortcomings of this methodology will be discussed in chapter 6.3. 26.

(28) Explorative one-on-one interviews. Conduct quantitative survey. Give marketing suggestions based on results. Figure 2 - Three stages research approach (Own research). 4.3 Explorative interviews The main importance and key aspect of conducting explorative interviews is deducting associations towards entomophagy and the underlying motives and arguments that eventually creates the attitude for insect-based food. With the main objective being a collection of individual perceptions and associations, rather than a representation of multiple individuals, explorative interviews were found to be adequately applicable. With regards to the participation criteria in the explorative interviews a selection of requirements needed to be met by the respondents. The requirements were developed in order to get responses that were beneficial in terms of being creative and useful for the later stages in the quantitative part of the research. As the regulations previously mentioned being changed in EU countries and thereby opening up for marketing opportunities in these specific countries, country of origin or future expected country of residence became important as a selective criterion. As marketing recommendations and suggestions are the final objective of this research, interview objects would further need to fit the category of being a future potential customer. As Vanonhacker et. al (2012) mentions, people with personality traits of a high curiosity factor and openness towards innovative and new food are more likely to try insect-based food, making the curiosity factor and open mind traits selective requirements for being competent interview objects. To acquire a broad set of opinions and perspectives, people. 27.

(29) from different countries in Europe were chosen to participate. This might also help in reducing or eliminating country and background specific biases to a certain extent.. 4.4 Quantitative research questionnaire The second step of the three-stage research is a qualitative research questionnaire, where the objective is to measure the effects found in the explorative interviews. More specifically, to measure to what degree the found motivations in the explorative interviews, are influencing the choice to purchase insect-based food. This can be done through factor analysis where the weighting of motivations as independent variables can be ranked, and their importance can be measured. The findings from the explorative interviews, which can be seen in Table 2 suggests that the attitude towards insect-based food can be a reflection of two components: hedonic and utilitarian motivational factors. The following equation is derived to measure the consumer attitude towards insect-based food. 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 = 𝛽𝛽1 ∗ 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 + 𝛽𝛽2 ∗ 𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈. In this equation, AIBF is attitude towards insect-based food, and the β’s measures the weighting of each component. Table 2 gives an overview of the classification of hedonic and utilitarian motivations. As for the components of the questionnaire, the factors are condensed down to two utilitarian factors and two hedonic factors. This is mainly due to the frequency of mentioning in the explorative interviews, but also to narrow the scope of the study. The two utilitarian factors measured are environmental benefits and health benefits, while the two hedonic factors are taste and novelty product. The distribution and hosting of the questionnaire is done through Google forms. To give the respondents with a low awareness of insect-based food an insight to what the concept contains the following picture was added to the introduction of the questionnaire.. 28.

(30) Figure 3 - Intro picture for quantitative questionnaire (Foodstuffsa.co.za, 2014). To incentivize responses an incentive system was developed, offering a reward to one randomly selected participant. This might create an incentive-bias in the results, however the extent of the limitations is discussed in chapter 6.3.. 4.5 Concepts of attitude This section will have a look at attitudes which are measured in the quantitative survey and categorize them into different measurable sections. Furthermore, the concepts of different attitude are shortly summarized, and the choice of terminology decided. Attitude in general is a psychological construct, which decide whether a reaction is favorable or unfavorable towards something or someone (Perloff, 2016). It is exhibited in an individual’s beliefs, feelings or intended behavior (Meyer, 2012). While the separation of different categories within attitudes can be done in different ways, however this paper uses hedonic and utilitarian motivation to examine the overall attitude. In psychology, the ABC-model is commonly used to explain an attitude, while the idea of hedonic vs utilitarian motivation is often referred to in marketing situations where the motive for purchase of an item is examined (Lim & Ang, 2008; Ellis, 1991). Attitude in this research is measured as the total motivation to purchase insect-based food. The decision to use hedonic and utilitarian as categorization factors is also due to insect-based food being a new product on the European market and the experience with or common knowledge on the topic of entomophagy is 29.

(31) limited (Sogari et al. 2017). Furthermore, the separation of the motivational factors into two categories narrows the focus in this study and is more applicable in terms of answering the research questions.. Novelty food Hedonic motivation Taste Motivation/attitude to purchase insectbased food. Environmental aspects Utilitarian motivation Health benefits. Figure 4 - Classification of motivations (Own research + Stock et. al, 2015). The separation of utilitarian and hedonic motivation is also consistent with how Stock et. al (2015) defined their user motives toward the and reasoning for purchasing specific goods. Classifying variables into hedonic and utilitarian motivation gives a better overview of how the different subsections in turn affect the motivation, and what motivations the consumer perceives as important.. 30.

(32) Chapter V Analysis The following section compiles the results from the qualitative and quantitative research in separate sections. A factor analysis is carried out on the respondents to group the different underlying motivations together. This also reduces the dimensions in terms of motivations to be more applicable for market segmentation. A cluster analysis is performed on the factor scores, grouping the respondents into different market segments, based on how the motivations influence the overall motivation towards insect-based food. As the quantitative research design is based on the findings from the qualitative research, they are presented in a chronological order.. 5.1 Findings from qualitative research The results from the explorative interviews are used to establish a theoretical framework for the second phase, which is covered by the qualitative survey. This part will summarize the key findings from the interviews and justify the implementation of the key elements in the developed survey as listed in Appendix 2. Although the interview guideline was followed, the response of the interviewees might have required a follow up question or a minor change in the interview guideline to make the interview as natural and contributing as possible. As the objective of this research phase is to find associations towards, current perceptions, motivations and possible marketing arguments for insect-based food, table 2 below will give an illustration of the discussed findings. The topic of entomophagy or the phenomena of introducing insects as ingredients in food seems to be in an early stage as the interview objects initially communicate a low level of awareness towards it. This also coincides with the fact that supply of insect-based food has until recently been very limited by previous legislations on an EU-regulatory level. In the table below, initial associations describe the key associations the interviewees had when first presented with the concept. The initial associations are coherent with the current literature on entomophagy in Western societies where food neophobia (fear), skepticism and disgust are frequently mentioned. 31.

(33) It seems as the disgust for insect-based food is linked towards the appearance of insects, which again is associated to diseases and pestilence through contact with insects and previous knowledge of diseases and epidemics. Although the frequency of negative associations is high, an interest or curiousness towards insect-based food can be found in several of the participants, which could suggest a previous interaction with the concept or a personality trait of curiousness. When the difference between insect-based food and the eating of insect as a whole was clarified and the former was emphasized as the focus point, the reluctance decreased with some interview objects. Some interviewees were further posing the argument that the source of particular food is in some cases are difficult to trace back as a consumer, and the trust in commercially sold products is high. This is also noted in the current perceptions section where the interviewees perceptions were communicated after a certain reflection on the concept. The frequency of negative associations decreased and questions to whether the concept was viable was raised. Again, coherent with previous research, the visibility and appearance of insects in the food is likely to have an impact on the choice of purchasing insect-based food. The internal motivation is mentioned by some interview objects to be low in terms of choosing an insect-based product, over current alternatives, which is consistent with the classification of the product in chapter 3.4.. 32.

(34) Initial associations. Current perceptions. Utilitarian. Hedonic motivation. motivation. factors. factors Disgust. A product of the. Environment. Curiousness. Health benefits. Novelty food. Nutrition values. Taste. future Skepticism. Low internal motivation. Curiousness. Taste must be as good as or better than alternatives. Acceptable as an. Appearance can. Price. Eagerness to try. ingredient, less. influence attitude. competitiveness. something new. Associated with pest,. Seen as food from. Sustainable. Innovator feeling. vermin.. “eastern countries”.. choice. acceptance towards insects as main dish. A big difference if you Is it a safe food see the insect in the. alternative?. food or not A positive impact on. Exotic food, that. the environment. seems unnatural.. Alternative source of proteins Table 2 - Summary of findings through explorative interviews (Own research). When respondents were asked to find arguments for eating insects, the arguments mainly revolved around the first two mentioned aspects in utilitarian and hedonic motivation factors. The factors mentioned with the highest frequency or emphasized as most important for the interview objects were environment, curiousness, health benefits and novelty food. These findings together with. 33.

(35) previous findings on consumer motivation, supported the decision to examine these four factors further in the quantitative analysis.. 5.2 Descriptive statistics The questionnaire received 125 responses, giving the sample size N=125. The responses came from 20 different nations within Europe, giving the data a strong diversity effect. While the respondents age ranges from 18 to 61, the majority of respondents are aged between 20 and 30 years. The sample size consists of 80 (64%) males and 45 (36%) females. Out of the sample size, 114 (91.2%) responded that they had heard about using insects as food ingredients indicating that a large majority is familiar with the concept of entomophagy. By measuring the overall attitude (dependent variable) as a result of hedonic and utilitarian (independent variables) aspects through regression the following results can be found.. 5. The variables “Overall attitude”,. “HedonicA_Average” and “”UtilitarianC_Average” are the average value of the response of the dedicated questions, specified in Appendix 2. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) gives relatively high R values implying that the independent variables can explain the variance in attitude. The difference between R squared and adjusted R is low (0.006) due to the number of independent (2) variables in the model.. Table 3 - Model summary (Overall attitude explained by hedonic and utility). Questions in the survey was coded in terms of which aspect they measured; Overall attitude, hedonic, utilitarian, environment, taste, health, novelty. The grouping of the means in overall attitude, hedonic and utilitarian provide a basis for the initial regression analysis. Three out of four questions regarding hedonic are negatively worded and the fourth is reverse coded to achieve consistency in the measurement.. 5. 34.

(36) To confirm the applicability and strength of the R values, the ANOVA output must be interpreted in terms of significance and F values. The null hypothesis in this model is that the model does not have any explanatory power in predicting the attitude. Table 4 gives evidence for the null hypothesis to be rejected and confirm the significant explanatory power of the model. The results are significant on a 0.05% level.. Table 4 - One-way ANOVA (Overall attitude explained by hedonic and utility). The measured coefficients of the variables are reported in Table 5 and shows the relationship of the. independent. variables. to. the. dependent. variable.. The. independent. variable. “HedonicA_Average” has a negative relationship to attitude, as the wording is negative in the questionnaire. The significance is high for both variables, supporting the hypothesis of utilitarian and hedonic aspects having predicting power of measuring the overall attitude on insect-based food.. 35.

(37) Table 5 – Coefficient contribution and significance in one-way ANOVA. 5.3 Explanation of variables The variables described in section 5.2 and in the further analysis are responses to the questionnaire conducted. As specified in the section above, the variables for the regression is a composition of average results amongst the respondents on a given Likert scale with values from 1, to 5 for the specified results. As can be seen from appendix 2, question 8 measures the overall attitude in its four sub questions, the three first sub questions from question 9 measures the utilitarian aspect and the following three questions measures the hedonic aspect. The remaining of the questionnaire consists of questions covering the different motivational arguments. The following table explains the abbreviation of the questionnaire coding in appendix 2. For the further analysis, the variables are referred to with their abbreviation and numeration.. Table 6 - Explanation of coding in questionnaire. 36.

(38) 5.4 Factor analysis The purpose of factor analysis is to estimate a model which explains variance and covariance between a set of observed variables in a dataset by a set of fewer unobserved factors and their weighting. Variables in this analysis include environment, taste, novelty and health. The variables n3 (novelty) and e8 (environmental) are reverse coded for this analysis as the wording of the question is negative. The key table to examine in factor analysis to determine the fit of the model and the suitable use of factor analysis is the KMO (Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity. The KMO-value is reported in a value between 0 and 1. Values smaller than 0.5 indicate that the correlations between pairs of variables cannot be explained by other variables and that factor analysis might not be appropriate (Malhotra, 2010). As can be seen from table 6, the KMO value is 0.843, implying that factor analysis is applicable. Bartlett’s test of sphericity is used to test the null hypothesis that the variables are uncorrelated. If this null hypothesis cannot be rejected, the appropriateness of factor analysis is questionable (Malhotra, 2010). Output from table 6 gives p < 0.000, thus the null hypothesis of uncorrelated variables can be rejected.. Table 7 - KMO & Bartlett's test. Varimax is chosen as the rotation method and cross loadings or variables with a poor loading is removed. To determine the number of factors extracted in the factor analysis retaining factors with an eigenvalue > 1. This will keep the factors that explain at least the same or more of the variance as a single variable (Kaiser, 1960). The total variance explained by the four factors is 70.617%, which is higher than Hinkin’s (1998) minimum target of 60%. 37.

(39) Table 8 – Total Variance Explained. 5.4.1 Interpretation of the rotated model (PCA) Four factors have been retained in the model, requiring the rotation of the factors. Extracting the four factors in principal component analysis (PCA) rotating through Varimax with Kaiser Normalization gives an interpretable pattern matrix and the following structure matrix. The structure matrix represents the correlations between the variables and the factors. Correlations lower than 0.4 are removed in pattern matrix to remove insignificant variables.. 38.

(40) Table 9 – Pattern Matrix. After rotating and dropping the variables with cross loadings, the variables are grouped together as expected. Variables E 1-4 (Environment) show a strong loading in factor 1. Therefore, factor 1 is called “Environment”. Variables H 7-9 appear in factor 2, named “Health”. The third factor consists of novelty variables and can therefore be called “Novelty”. The last and fourth factor have one loading from a taste variable and one loading from a novelty variable. This factor is called “Taste” for now. These factors are groupings of variables that have a similar underlaying explanation (Malhotra, 2010). By saving the factor scores from the factor analysis. A cluster analysis can be carried out on the regressed factors. This will illustrate the different target markets where insect-based food can be targeted and by which motivation, that consumers will see as important for purchase.. 39.

(41) 5.5 Estimating overall attitude based on variables from factor analysis Using the variables from the factor analysis that are identified to have a similar underlaying explanation, a regression for predicting the overall attitude on insect-based food can be conducted. The regression with the specific predictor variables illustrates how good the variables fit to predict the overall attitude towards insect-based food. Comparing the results with the previous regression on hedonic and utilitarian variables, this regression gives a slightly lower explanatory power with the adjusted R squared 0.583.. Table 10 - Model summary (variables from factor analysis). From table 11, the ANOVA output shows that the significance of the model is high, and the null hypothesis can be rejected. This further supports the argument for performing further statistical analysis on these variables. The variables from the factor analysis are further used for the cluster analysis in the following chapter.. Table 11 - One-way ANOVA (variables from factor analysis). 40.

(42) 5.6 Cluster analysis and segmentation The cluster analysis is done to achieve a multidimensional scaling, and a segmentation of the market according to the weighting of the different motivational factors. The following part contains an interpretation of the cluster centers and a classification of the target market.. Figure 5 - Cluster centers/segmentation. Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4. Environment Health Novelty Taste. Keeping in mind the categorization of the factors, the following deductions are found. The first cluster consists of people that are highly considering the environmental aspects (0.85108), but also the health aspects to some smaller degree (0.20754). We call this group “The Rationalists”. In the second cluster, novelty is the largest and only positive contributor (0.35619). This group is named “The Novelty Seekers”. The third cluster have a strong contribution from taste (1.09050), health (0.57587) and novelty (0.35619). This group is called “The Explorers”. In the fourth group, there are no positive contributors and can be seen as a group that principally shows little or no interest in insect-based food. This group is called “The Conservatives”. This deduction is made, as all the factors have a negative contribution and can also be interpreted as a segment group where the four measured motivations are not applicable. The four different segments are further explored in 41.

(43) section 5.4.1. For the comparison between groups, the distances between the final cluster centers gives an indication of how similar or dissimilar the groups are to each other. Figure 6 shows that most of the groups are distanced relatively far apart with a value above 2. Group 1 (The Rationalists) and group 3 (The Explorers) have less distances between each other and the distinction between these groups must be more carefully made than the other groups. Figure 6 - Distances between final clusters. 5.6.1 Regression within group membership The following part will have a look at how the original regression holds up where the group membership is used to separate the different regressions. The regression is run with “Attitude_Average”. as. the. dependent. variable. and. “HedonicA_Average”. and. “UtilitarianC_Average” as independent variables. By running the regression on each group segment, the significance and strength of coefficients can be measured. Model summary, ANOVAtables and coefficients are reported for all the four clusters separately. 5.6.2 The Rationalists – Group 1 The explanation power of this model is rather low as the adjusted R squared is 0,346. The ANOVA-table supports the significance and the null-hypothesis of equal group means can be rejected. The “UtilitarianC_Average” variable is not significant on a 5% confidence level, however the “HedonicA_Average” is. The coefficient is negative as the wording of the question in the questionnaire is negative. This implies that there is a negative relationship between negative 42.

(44) hedonic aspects of insect-based food and overall attitude towards insect-based food, in the segment where health and environment are key motivational factors.. Table 12 - Membership in group 1 - The Rationalists. 5.6.3 The Novelty seekers – Group 2 This model’s fit is somewhat higher than in group 1, as the adjusted R squared is 0.494. The ANOVA-table displays a significant difference in means. In this group, “UtilitarianC_Average” is the only significant variable and has a positive beta. This suggests a positive relationship between positive utilitarian aspects of eating insect-based food and the overall attitudes on insect-based food in the segment where novelty is a motivational factor. 43.

(45) Table 13 - Membership in group 2 - The Novelty seekers. 5.6.4 The Explorers – Group 3 The models fit in this group is slightly higher than the previous groups as adjusted R squared is 0.511. The ANOVA table gives the confirmation of significance also for this regression. The variable HedonicA_Average is significant, and the coefficient is again negative. This can be interpreted as a negative relationship between negative hedonic perceptions linked to insect-based food and overall attitude towards insect-based food, in the segment where taste, health and novelty are motivational factors.. 44.

(46) Table 14 - Membership in group 3 - The Explorers. 5.6.5 The Conservative – Group 4 The main regression on these groups members provides a model with an adjusted R Squared of 0.551. The regression is also significant as illustrated in the ANOVA table below. The UtilitarianC_Average variable is significant with a positive coefficient. This indicates a positive relationship between positive utilitarian aspects of eating insect-based food and the overall attitude of insect-based food in this group. However, as all the measured motivations from the cluster analysis are negative, the motivations measured are not applicable in this group.. 45.

(47) Table 15 - Membership in group 4 - The Conservatives. 46.

(48) Chapter VI Discussion This chapter summarizes the findings of this paper and suggests market strategies according to acknowledged theory based on the segmentation of the market. The scope of this paper is limited to recommendations of the strategies and will not exhaustively prescribe a complete marketing strategy. Shortcomings and limitations are commented upon, and suggestions for further research on the topic is presented.. 6.1 Key findings The findings in this paper are consistent with current literature on the topic. Skepticism, food neophobia and a reluctance towards insect-based food is key describing terms of potential consumers attitudes. Through concealing and manipulating the appearance, consumers perceptions can be influenced. With the increased media focus on sustainability and insects as alternative and complementary food resources, awareness of entomophagy is found in multiple interview objects and respondents. The four main motivations found through explorative interviews were further examined by a questionnaire where quantitative investigation could be performed. Through factor and cluster analysis, the underlying motivation of purchase can be deducted, and a segment based on attitude created. Out of the four group clusters, three of them can be targeted for marketing purposes. To summarize the findings of each group, the wording of the relationship is changed compared to the one in section 5.3. Group 1 – The Rationalists, where environment and health are key motivators, there is a positive relationship between positive hedonic aspects and positive overall attitude towards insect-based food. Group 2 – The Novelty Seekers, where novelty is the main motivation, there is a positive relationship between positive utilitarian aspects of eating insect-based food and positive overall attitudes towards insect-based food. Group 3 – The Explorers, where taste, health and novelty are motivations, there is a positive relationship between positive hedonic aspects and positive overall attitudes towards insect-based food. Group 4 – 47.