Research Methods II

Group 1.5

4 March 2010
 Content

Introduction.................................................................................3
Research Design ..........................................................................3
Text analysis................................................................................4
Respondent 1......................................................................................4
Respondent 2......................................................................................5
Respondent 3......................................................................................6
Respondent 4......................................................................................7
Conceptual model.........................................................................9
Typology ...................................................................................11
Conclusion.................................................................................14
Appendices.................................................................................14
Appendix 1 .......................................................................................14
Appendix 2........................................................................................16
Appendix 3........................................................................................18
Appendix 4........................................................................................20

2
Introduction
The following report is dedicated to the qualitative research concerning the factors influencing
the quality of soft drinks. It should be kept in mind that the initiator of this investigation is the
company Celestial Flavors, a well known company when it comes to tea. This same company
plans to put a new soft drink on the market and in order to understand what encompasses the
quality of such a drink, Celestial Flavors has conducted interviews in which it asked the
participants to compare and rate the soft drinks of various well established brands on the market.
Having accomplished this first, very important, step of data collection the task is now to analyze
these row data collections and to develop a theory concerning the influence of factors to the
perceived quality of soft drinks.

Concerning the structure of this paper, first the research design will be presented and explained.
Second, the text analysis will deal with each of the four interviewees individually. Moreover, the
typologies of the respondents will be discussed. Finally, in order to accomplish the second step
of the research a conceptual model will be developed and explained. To round off our
investigation, a conclusion will briefly recap the results of this undertaking.

Research Design
The main purpose of this section is to provide an overview of the main steps and actions we will
take in this work. As a research group of International Business and Management Faculty we
decided to explore the topic of people perception of soft drinks quality. Therefore research group
is interested in finding the factors, which determine the perception of soft drinks quality. After
examining the field and nature of the issue it became apparent that the research type to be
implemented should be qualitative research. Therefore in order to execute the qualitative
research and to study the quality of soft drinks next research question was developed:

“Which factors determine the perception of soft drink quality?”

The next step of the research should have been a development of theoretical framework, however
on this early stage of our research the one has not been presented yet. Therefore in order not to
be confused and rush on early stage of the research, this step was skipped until group can
develop the one which would fit the research design.

Therefore the group perceived to the next step of developing a conceptual model, which will
help us to answer the research question stated above. We tried to work from scratch and find the
factors which influenced the purchasing decision of our respondents. Having organized a group

3
meeting we tried to develop indicators of a product. First, we read four answers of respondents
trying to analyze and develop ideas. Then, we identified several factors which were important for
respondents: product appearance, the fame of brand, type of product, appeal. These are our
assumptions based from scratch but interviews have to be analyzed in order to understand
whether these indicators are relevant or there are some more determinants of product quality.

The next step is to decide the data collection technique, which in our case was obtaining data
already collected by the management of Celestical Flavors. Celestical Flavors collected the data
from interviewing 36 subjects individually, by recording the session on videotape. The analysis
will be based on the 4 interviews with consumers who were asked to judge pair wise similarities
between brands and evaluate each subject (the total number=36) on 7-point Likert scale
(1=highly dissimilar, 7=highly similar). To exclude the opportunity of different circumstances,
all interviews were conducted in the same room and by the same interviewer. After the
interviews were conducted the protocols were transcribed to facilitate further analysis.

As a result available data was considered sufficient enough to satisfy the requirements of the
qualitative research. Thus group started the work on building the conceptual model.

Text analysis
Respondent 1
The research group had to analyse interviews of four respondents regarding their preferences for
soft drinks. After analyzing first respondent 17 codes, influencing respondent’s perception of
soft drinks were obtained (see appendix 1). Afterwards these codes were grouped into four
categories. The detailed explanation of codes and developed categories is introduced in the
following paragraphs.

It is important to mention that in interview respondent mentioned that “he was not a big fan of soft
drinks” which could easily explain missing information on taste and quality of the beverages
themselves.

The most influential category with the majority of codes appeared to be Product Appearance.
Thus such responses as for example “very nice colour”, “kitschy”,” more sparkling”,” because also
the lettering” and so on. In total there were seven codes assigned to the category “Product
appearance”. This category although easily derived from the interview did not provide the research
group with sufficient information on product quality. Therefore other three categories, such as
“Form-factor”, “Brand recognition” and “Level of Curiosity”, were developed. Brand recognition
was the second most important category to our mind. The number of codes in this category is only

4
two which much smaller than in the first one. However respondent number one seemed to be highly
influenced repeating “brand preferences” and “world brand recognition” in the interview. This can
also be seen from his preference to only two brand he new during the interview,” Coca-cola” and
“7up”.

The third category “Form-factor has 4 codes, which is slightly more than the second one. However
it is difficult that form-factor has any influence on product quality. However while comparing the
products respondent usually first paid attention to the difference in “shape”, “height” and “content”
of the bottles, cans. Therefore, it was concluded that such visual criteria as form factor was
important in comparing the beverages for the respondent. Finally the last category assigned was the
content of the soft drink, more specifically as it was mentioned in interview “adventure of not
knowing the taste”. Two codes were assigned to this category, “content” and as it appeared one
sentence before “adventure of not knowing the taste”. This category however can have small impact
on the research, due to its rare appearance in respondents’ judgments. Moreover it is probably
highly influenced by appearance than is an independent observation from the respondent.

In conclusion it must be underlined that appearance is certainly playing the main role for
respondent1. Also it seems likely that brand recognition and form-factor are also an important
categories for the respondent, while content of the beverages had lees interest for the respnednt1.

Respondent 2
Concerning the second respondent, having studied his answers we were able to identify 75 codes
(refer to appendix 2). After this initial process we could clearly see a patter emerging and hence,
we have grouped those belonging together, at least from our subjective point of view, into eight
different categories; these being the following: brand name, physical appearance, brand
awareness, personal preferences, uncertainty of respondent, distinctiveness, handiness and
appeal.

The first category, brand name, clearly includes all the names of the brands used during the
experiment. Thus, it groups seven codes. The second category, physical appearance, includes
codes that relate to the design, colour and shape of the cans or bottles. Hence, it contains 14
codes. The next category, namely brand awareness, deals with the familiarity of the respondent
with the brand and his perception of the same. In total it holds 16 codes. The next category is
personal preferences and as the name already gives it away it primary deals with the
respondent’s prior experience with the drinks and his personal choice of consumption and
preferences regarding taste and brands. It is rather doubtful that this category can be used in the
further analysis, as it clearly indicates the opinion of one single individual and thereby is biased.

5
This category contains as many as 14 codes. Moving on to the next - uncertainty of respondent,
this again cannot be utilized for the further investigation and hence should find its place in the
following typology of the respondent instead of the conceptual model. It indicates the hesitance
and uncertainty of the respondent during the interview. The total number of codes here is three.
The next category is distinctiveness. It describes the individualistic features of a drink that make
it stick out from the crowd. This category has 16 codes. Second but last, is handiness. It deals
with the design and its practicability of the cans and bottles; thereby it contains only two codes.
And last but not least, appeal. It is concerned with the impact the cans have on the consumers
and how these same people perceive the cans and bottles. It holds three codes.

Now that we have identified the categories it is about time to select those that will have the most
contribution to the conceptual model, while sorting out those that do not fit the requirement and
find a place in the research where they still could play their part and thereby enhance this
undertaking. As already mentioned, personal preferences and uncertainty of respondent do not
qualify for generalization and hence, should be excluded from the conceptual model and thereby
from the model building. Nevertheless, they will serve as great indicators in the respondent’s
typology. As for the remaining six categories, they are great candidates to be applied in the
further research.

Respondent 3
The next analysis is the analysis of interview with third respondent. After reading the script of
his answers, the 69 codes were created. (see appendix 3). After analysing all of them, the
following categories were developed. The first category is Degree of Similarity. This category
portrays the answers of respondent concerning the similarity between two products, which he
was comparing. Under Degree of Similarity 12 codes were grouped. The codes mostly depict the
number (reflecting the degree of similarity, 1- highly dissimilar, 7- highly similar) the respondent
assigned to a certain group of drinks.

The second category is Uncertainty of Making a Choice. This category represents the level of
confidence showed by the respondent while answering questions about the certain products. In
total 6 codes were grouped into this category. Most of the answers he had were that he was not
sure whether he like this product or nor, and that he was not able to assign a certain degree of
similarity for two products. Thus, the possible answers were: “doubtful case”, “can’t say what I
like or dislike”, “don’t know exactly how to say it”, “I wouldn’t know”. In other words, the
respondent was hesitant to make a decision, thus, his answer was not sure.

6
The third category is Types of Brands. This category speaks for itself – here the codes reflect the
brands the respondent had to choose between two possibilities and the name of brands he used in
this answer. Among those 8 brands he used were “coca-cola”, “coca-cola coke”, “fernandes
super pineapple”, “henson californiana lychee juice”, “hero orange juice "jus d'orange”, “hubba
bubba soda”, “pickwick shimmer ice tea”, “ 7-up”, “spa citron”.

The forth category is the Product Attributes. This category shows how the respondent describes
the product. Often he not just only name the attribute of a product, but also shows the degree of
this attribute. For example, sometimes he says “nice”, “nicer”, “the best”, “a little bit”. Under
this category fall all the attributes the respondent mentioned in his answers. Most of the time he
used such qualities as “boring”, “nice”, “old-fashioned”, “fresh”, “bright”, “dull”, “best-
looking”, “lifeless”, “colour”.

The last category developed is the Degree of Attractiveness of a product for the consumer.
Degree of attractiveness consists of 11 codes. This category represents how a particular product
appeals to the respondent. The answers vary from “it doesn’t appeal to me” to “this one is my
favourite”.

Taking into account the conceptual model, it is suggested to use only three categories from the
third respondent’s interview analysis. The first relevant category is the types of brands. The
particular brands are important for the respondent and therefore they can influence the quality of
the products. The second one is product attributes. The way how the respondent talk about the
product, the way he describes it is important for the quality of the products. The last one is
degree of attractiveness. This how the respondent distinguishes between eye-catching products
and “grey” products, thus the appearance can deliver a message of the quality of this products.
`The Degree of Similarity and Uncertainty of Making a Choice are not relevant for the
conceptual model due to the following. Degree of Similarity shows how two products are similar
and does not say anything about their quality. Uncertainty of Making a Choice is mainly about
the personality of respondent, as it depicts his ability to judge, be critical and make a decision
quickly.

Respondent 4
Finally, we analyzed interview number 4. As a result, 25 codes were discovered to influence
respondent’s perception and decision of soft drinks quality. The codes were grouped in 5
categories (refer to appendix 4). The detailed explanation of codes and categories is discussed in
the following paragraphs.

7
Most of the codes were assigned to the category named Product Appearance. Most of them are
related to the way how the can appeared to the respondent, which color it was, what size it had,
for example: “appeals more to me”, “nice color”, “look at this can”, “it looks good»,» prettier»,»
shape” . Overall, there were 10 out of 25 codes assigned to this category. Although the
respondent did not mention what he exactly means by the “Product Appearance”, we can easily
say that his decision about the soft drink will be based on size, color of the can, advertisements,
shape of cans and writings. All of these are “Product Appearance” to us. Despite the fact that the
most of the Interviewee answers relate to the category “Product appearance” in his responses he
provided more clarity about his soft drink comparisons. Therefore, we created four more
categories in order to compare the respondent’s preferences: Brand recognition, Type of Product,
Health consciousness and Thirst satisfaction. The number of codes in these categories is not that
big, but still plays a major role in his soft drink preferences. It is possible to say that Brand
recognition is also quite important for the respondent. This category consists of 5 codes, for
example: “I don’t know”, “it looks familiar to me””unfamiliar”. The respondent also paid much
attention to “advertising” and “commercials”. When he was answering questions, most of the
times he first looked at the appearance of the cans, and then on the name of the brand. If the
brand was well-advertised and known to him, the respondent gave the high score on that
particular soft drink product.

The third category Type of Product has 9 codes. Although the number of codes in this category
is bigger than in Brand recognition, we cannot say that type of product is of great importance for
the respondent. First, the respondent just names different types: “soft”, “juice”, “pineapple”,
“oriental drinks”, “nice and fresh”. Although respondent mentioned types of products and also
something about “content”, we conclude that it was not the main criteria for decision about the
soft drink.

Last two categories “Health consciousness” and “Thirst Satisfaction” had each one code:
“vitamins” and “hot whether”. The respondent did not talk about it much, but we still decided to
include these codes in categories.

All in all, we conclude that health consciousness and thirst satisfaction are not relevant for this
particular respondent and we would advise not to include them in the conceptual model. In
contrast, product appearance plays a major role in making a decision about the soft drink. Brand
recognition and types of product are also important factors for this respondent in comparison of
soft drinks.

8
Conceptual model
In order to develop the theory for the research question, it is essential to build the conceptual
model. Based on the research question, it was determined that the dependent variable in our
model is the perception of quality of soft drinks.

Theoretical coding was used for the text analysis. The main task was to develop the theory with
the use of conceptual model. The codes formulated from the text are closely related to the text; in
most of the cases they are exact words, which the person interviewed mentioned in his speech.

The first step in coding procedure was open coding. Each protocol was segmented in order to
analyse the text. The segments represent the answers for each question. In other words, text was
segmented paragraph-wise. For example, in first segment of respondent 3, he was asked to
compare Pickwick Shimmer Ice Tea and Fernandes Super Pineapple soft drinks.
The second step of the coding procedure is the axial coding. All the codes
within one respondent were compared and analysed in order to form
categories. For respondent 1, 17 codes were grouped into the following
categories: product appearance, form-factor, brand recognition, level of curiosity. The second
respondent’s 75 codes were incorporated into eight categories: brand name, physical appearance,
brand awareness, personal preferences, uncertainty of respondent, distinctiveness, handiness and
appeal. The codes of Respondent number three have five categories: degree of similarity,
uncertainty of making a choice, types of brands, product attributes, and degree of attractiveness.
And finally, forth respondent’s codes are combined into the following categories: product
Appearance, brand recognition, type of Product, health consciousness, thirst satisfaction.

After that, all the categories were analyzed carefully. From the analysis conducted the following
conclusion was drawn. There are numbers of categories, which do not influence the dependent
variable, namely the quality of soft drinks. Those categories from the first respondent are: form-
factor, level of curiosity. Form-factor, which describes the shape, size, content and other
dimensions of the particular drink, do not influence directly the quality. Neither does level of
curiosity of the participant, which is sorely the personal characteristic of the respondent. The
excluded categories from respondent two are as follows: personal preferences, uncertainty of
respondent, distinctiveness, and handiness. Uncertainty of respondent, personal preferences and
handiness, present whether the respondent is sure about the drinks, how he would use them, in
what sequence and for what purpose. Thus, they do not have an impact on the quality of the
product. The irrelevant categories of the third respondent are degree of similarity, uncertainty of
making a choice. They are similar to the ones from the previous respondent, distinctiveness and

9
uncertainty of respondent. Therefore, they are useless for the current conceptual model. Type of
Product, health consciousness and thirst satisfaction of the last respondent are the categories,
which were excluded from the further analysis.

All in all, the following codes are relevant for the conceptual model: product appearance, brand
recognition, brand name, physical appearance, brand awareness, appeal, types of brands, product
attributes, degree of attractiveness, product appearance and brand recognition. If one looks
carefully on all those categories, it is obvious that some of them looks similar, contains the same
codes, and thus can be collapsed together. For examples, product appearance, physical
appearance, product attributes, and product appearance were grouped into one category –
Product appearance. Brand recognition, brand name, types of brands were subsumed under the
broader category – Brand name. And lastly, brands awareness, appeal, degree of attractiveness
and brands recognition were combined into the Appeal. All the steps from the categories’
analysis, where they were excluded, combined and their relationships were determined is the
selective coding procedure.

Thus, as a result, three independent variables were developed: product appearance, brand name,
and appeal. All three of them are measurable. The level of quality of soft drinks can be measured on
a Likert scale. The way product looks like, the brand of the product and appeal can be measures on
nominal scale.

graph 1. Conceptual Model

The relationship which exists between dependent and independent variables is the following.
Product appearance has a positive influence on the quality of soft drinks. The fresher, nicer the
product is, the better quality it has. Brand name has positive relationship with the quality as well.
The more famous the brands, the better quality it is. And finally, appeal has positive impact on
quality of soft drinks too. For example, the more product appeals to the person, the better quality is

10
perceived. In other words, all the independent variables have positive relationships with the
dependent variable in the conceptual model.

Typology
In final part of our paper, the typology of respondents was created and analysed. Thematic coding
was used, when respondents were coded for the second time. However, this time coding was made
not for selecting categories for our conceptual model, but for understanding more what is valued by
each respondent and to assign a certain type to that respondent. Therefore, Kwalitan was used to
code each respondent separately. This will not undermine the validity of our report but only will
help to create typology. After the codes were assigned, the categories were created and then, each
respondent was labelled. After the typology was done, it is possible to say that all respondents are
very similar, but there are still several differences between them.

Respondent 1

While analyzing respondent 1 for the second time, we tried to find codes which could characterise
this respondent as personality. Three categories were created, namely: Colour consciousness,
Doubtfulness and Attitude as a consumer. This respondent had to think a while before making his
decision, taking everything slowly. Such codes as “er”, “ehm”, and “I don’t know” appeared
frequently which means that the person is doubtful about the products and can’t answer the question
rapidly. Those codes were assigned to Doubtfulness category. The respondent emphasised on the
attitude as a consumer: “unfamiliar with”, “approach as a consumer”(Attitude as a consumer
category). However, the codes which stand out for this respondent relate to the category Colour
consciousness. He frequently repeated “colour”, “importance of colour”. “I have a thing for
colour”,”yellow”. Basically, the respondent judged products on colour. This only proves the fact
that this person is not a fan of soft drinks and makes a choice on his personal appeal of colour. This
is too narrow minded and does not relate to the soft drink product as such. This respondent is
labelled “Colour Respondent” as he focuses mainly on colour. As the main aim of typology is to
segment the market, it is important to remember to sell particular products to specific segment. So,
for such types as respondent 1, producers should put on the market for instance nice cans with a
nice colour, as the colour is so highly valued in this case.

Respondent 2

As could be observed the second respondent is a male individual who has some problems with
stating a clear answer. This was explicitly evident through his abnormally frequent use of “uhhs”
during the whole interview. He repeated “uhh”, “somewhat”, “generally speaking”, “getting

11
harder”. Those codes were assigned to the category Uncertainty. These codes characterise
second respondent the best. Moreover, the respondent often based his judgement on the fact
whether or not he has seen the product before, saying “does not ring any bells”, “recognise’,
“wouldn’t know”(Product knowledge category). Hence he feels unsecure when he sees a brand
not known to him and starts to say “uumms” again and again. The respondent relied also on the
“design” and “colour”( Product appearance category) of the can, thereby focusing on its appeal,
physical appearance and distinctiveness. This respondent is labelled as “Unconfident decision-
maker” as seemed to be very uncertain while answering questions. Therefore, Uncertainty
category is crucial for typing second respondent. While selling to such kind of consumers, it is
important to provide famous, very well-known brands, which look stylish and colourful.

Respondent 3

This respondent has its own feelings about each product. He says: “boring”, “fresh idea”,
“lifeless thing”, “much fun”. Those codes were assigned to Personal Judgment category. In
addition, this respondent emphasises the importance of a particular attributes of the product. The
second category was created, namely Appearance, which included such codes as “best-looking”,
“nice” and “old-fashioned”. Therefore, this respondent judges products on their appearance and
gives an answer with his own understanding of a product (boring, much fun, and fresh). Based
on this, third respondent is labelled “How it looks man”. Such types of people as respondent 3
judge others on their appearance at first, and then come up with their own ideas. Looking at
others more in depths they see who the other people actually are. They are type of people with
psychological thinking that analyze people’s actions not people’s words. They base their final
opinions on end results, not on the actions that brought these results. While marketing to this
segment it is crucial to sell fun, fresh and modern products. Such people do not judge very much
on the quality or type of the product, but on the nice and modern look of the can.
Respondent 4

The last respondent is very open to the outside information and to the way products appear to him.
“Advertising” and “commercials” are very important. “Well-known” brands were usually his
choice. These codes were assigned to the category Fame of product. This person made fast decision,
looking at the brand, how well they looked and how well it was advertised. It can be said that only
at the beginning of the interview, he was a little nervous. The code “ha-ha” was assigned to
category “Emotions”. This little laugh meant that the respondent did not feel comfortable at the
beginning. However, as the interview moved on, this person opened up and shared his attitudes
toward products based on fame. Another category we created was Thirst Satisfaction which

12
included three codes: “ hot whether”, “just to drink”, “ satisfy thirst’. However, it was noticed that if
the respondent wants to have a drink for pleasure, he will choose again the most famous product.
The forth respondent is labelled “Practical Respondent”. Such people have several personal
characteristics. For instance, they judge on things as they see or observe them. Such people are
very practical, thinking of a particular product they need for specific use. People in this segment
value highly-advertised and practical products. They observe every detail of the product and very
conscious.

Typology conclusion

In a short summary, four respondents were labelled as “Colour Respondent”, “Unconfident

decision-maker”, “How it looks man” and “Practical Respondent”. On the basics of the
difference between them it is possible to create three market segments to which 4 respondents
belong. “Colour Respondent” belongs to the first segment where the products should have nice-
colour cans. It is not important for such consumers what shape of the can is, or what the quality
of the product is. Colour of the cans remains important.

“Unconfident decision-maker” and “How it looks man” belong to the second market segment.
Such consumers need not only nice colour of the cans, but also well-known brands, products that
are fun and nice. Second and third respondent are quite similar as they value the product only on
how it looks. However, for “Unconfident decision-maker” it is even more important to sell a
product which catches his eye and makes him confident of his purchase.

“Practical Respondent” belongs to the third market segment. Products sold to such type of
consumers should be highly advertised, famous, have nice look and colour of the cans.
Moreover, when such consumers buy a drink for pleasure, not only for thirst satisfaction, they
choose their favourite and the most commercialised product. So, such people are very practical
and need practical products, including advertisement, looks of cans, reliability.

13
 Conclusion
Having analyzed the interviews and extracted the key essence of those, namely the codes, which
then were further grouped into categories, which in turn, again followed a comprising and this
time also selection process, we have managed to come up with a conceptual model which
indicates the key factors for the perceived quality of a soft drink. Accordingly, now Celestial
Flavors should be able to use our results either for further research, and in this case we would
recommend theory testing, or they could already design a test product to introduce it to research
groups and test it in this frame.

All in all, it became obvious that the perceived quality of soft drinks seems to depend on the
positive relationships to three main factors, namely, brand name, appeal and product appearance.
Hence, any positive development in either of these factors will increase the perceived quality,
whilst any decrease results in an perceived decrease in quality.

Appendices

Appendix 1
Codes and categories from protocol of respondent 1

1 - aperance
------------------------------------------------------
Description : -

1. colour
2. aperance
3. sparkling
4. lettering
5. youthfull
6. imaging
7. fresh look

14
2 - form factor
------------------------------------------------------
Description : -

1. shape
2. size
3. height
4. design

3 - brand recognition
------------------------------------------------------
Description : -

1. appeal to people
2. brand name
3. brands
4. coca-cola
5. doesn't tell me very much
6. 7-up
7. Advenutre

4 - content of the drink

------------------------------------------------------
Description : -

1. content
2. adventure
3. not familiar with content
4. taste

15
Appendix 2
Codes and categories from protocol of respondent 1

1 - brand name
------------------------------------------------------
Description : -

1. 7-up
2. coca-cola coke
3. fernandes super pineapple
4. henson californiana lychee juice
5. hero orange juice "jus d'orange"
6. hubba bubba soda
7. pickwick shimmer ice tea

2 - physica appearance
------------------------------------------------------
Description : -

1. blue present,
2. cans
3. colour
4. colour red frequent
5. design
6. design of the can
7. difference in design
8. length
9. looks very unclear
10. print
11. shape
12. short and thick
13. somewhat longer.
14. this one does look very clear

3 - brand awareness
------------------------------------------------------
Description : -

1. appeal to people
2. brand name
3. brands
4. doesn't ring any bells
5. doesn't tell me very much
6. familiar
7. familiarity,
8. he name hero tells
9. i do recognise
10. known statement.
11. never seen any of them for sale
12. rather well known,
13. reputation
14. very recognisable.
15. very unfamiliar
16. well known brands

4 - personal prefernces
------------------------------------------------------
Description : -

16
 1. 2nd best
2. 2nd consumed
3. 3rd
4. 3rd choice consumption
5. male
6. most consumed
7. most prefered brand
8. nd best
9. nd consumed
10. rd
11. rd choice consumption
12. trial
13. wo equal
14. would win

5 - uncertainty of respondent
------------------------------------------------------
Description : -

1. time for consideratition

2. uhh
3. uncertainty

6 - distinctiveness
------------------------------------------------------
Description : -

1. ack of comparability
2. certain similarities
3. contain the same product,
4. dissimilar
5. distinctiveness
6. huge difference.
7. lack simiarities
8. people would doubt between
9. similar
10. some clear differences
11. some similarities
12. somewhat in common
13. totally different
14. totally different,
15. totally not alike.
16. very few similarities

7 - handyness
------------------------------------------------------
Description : -

1. especially for smaller children

2. shape

8 - appeal
------------------------------------------------------
Description : -

1. catch the eye.

2. catches the eye
3. certain appeal,

17
Appendix 3
Codes and categories from protocol of respondent 1

1 - degree of similarity
------------------------------------------------------
Description : -

1. 1 on degree of simiarity
2. 2 on degree of simiarity
3. 4 on degree of simiarity
4. 5 on degree of simiarity
5. 6 on degree of simiarity
6. 7 on degree of simiarity
7. degree of similarity - 1
8. degree of similarity - 3
9. degree os similarity - 3
10. give a four
11. i would like to give it a four
12. i'm back to a one

2 - uncertainty of making a choice

------------------------------------------------------
Description : -

1. also a doubtful case

2. can't say that i like or dislike one abo
3. i don't know exactly how to say it.
4. i wouldn't know
5. it's a doubtful case
6. nothing more i can say about it

3 - type of brands
------------------------------------------------------
Description : -

1. 7-up
2. coca-cola
3. coca-cola coke
4. fernandes super pineapple
5. henson californiana lychee juice
6. hero orange juice "jus d'orange"
7. hubba bubba soda
8. pickwick shimmer ice tea
9. really like 7-up.
10. spa citron

4 - product attributes
------------------------------------------------------
Description : -

1. .lifeless.
2. a bit fresher
3. a bit old-fashioned,
4. a bit old-fashioned.
5. a lifeless thing
6. appears somewhat fresher
7. bit boring
8. bit dull

18
 9. do find that one nicer
10. for brightness
11. for the shade of colour
12. fresher
13. is my favourite, when it comes to freshn
14. looks fresher
15. looks somewhat nicer
16. modern fresh.
17. much fresher
18. much more fun
19. nice
20. nicer
21. old-fashioned……..commercia
22. old-fashioned……..commercial
23. one appears to be the nicest
24. ridiculously boring
25. the nicest
26. the nicest, when, when it comes to fresh
27. this one is also lifeless
28. this one is the best looking one
29. very fresh, fresh idea
30. very, very nice.

5 - degree of attractiveness
------------------------------------------------------
Description : -

1. doesn't appeal to me
2. i actually like this one
3. i don't think that one is overwhelming
4. i like this one
5. i really don't like
6. none of them are definitely nice
7. none of them are special
8. this one i like even more
9. this one is my favourite,
10. this one outclasses the other
11. way outclasses the other one

19
Appendix 4
Codes and categories from protocol of respondent 1

1 - product appearance
------------------------------------------------------
Description : -

1. appeals more to me
2. cans and writings
3. easier can
4. it looks good
5. look at this can
6. nice colour
7. prettier
8. shape
9. size

2 - brand recognition
------------------------------------------------------
Description : -

1. advertising
2. commercials
3. familiar
4. i don't know it
5. unfamiliar

3 - type of drink
------------------------------------------------------
Description : -

1. content
2. fruit-juice
3. ice tea
4. juice
5. nice and fresh
6. not compare on taste
7. oriental drinks
8. pineapple
9. soda

4 - health concious
------------------------------------------------------
Description : -

1. vitamins

5 - thirst satisfaction
------------------------------------------------------
Description : -

1. hot wheather

20