 |
|
| Chocolate (rec.food.chocolate) all topics related to eating and making chocolate such as cooking techniques, recipes, history, folklore & source recommendations. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
Posted to rec.food.chocolate
|
|||
|
|||
Wanting to make awesome chocolates...
Sometime in the near future, I was hoping to make some truffles and
other types of chocolates. In the past, I've been pretty much dealing with mediocre brands, supplies, and even recipes for fondant and ganache. So does anyone have any good fondant or ganache recipes? Also, what kind of brands do you prefer to make yours? (Premium chocolates or specific creams... flavoring... syrups...) Got any tips for making them come out the best possible? Thanks in advance. =) *Shan* |
|
Posted to rec.food.chocolate
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wanting to make awesome chocolates...
>So does anyone have any good fondant or ganache recipes?
Making fondant by hand cannot duplicate the quality of institutionally made item, so IMO I prefer to buy a pail of ready made fondant instead if I make a lots of fondant containing chocolate centers. Another option is to use the DryFond which makes a better textured product than using powdered sugar fondant alternative. Regarding Ganache, IMO it does not need the use of expensive good tasting chocolatew which is better consumed IMO as is, by eating.<grin>>. If I make those filled ganache based chocolate confections. I would improve tastes by adding certain liqueurs/ or flavors to the formulations instead. I would rather spend the money on procuring refined hazelnut paste ( as homemade paste is rather gritty ( 600-1000microns and cannnot attain the desired particle range of 20-40 microns on that nut paste processed through a three roll or even by a Macintye refiner conche. >Got any tips for making them come out the best possible? In your case I would recommend to understand the recipe and its procedures before you even think of doing it yourself.< grin>. Then you are likely to get a good product that you can be proud of. But it takes a bit of practice and you better use less expensive ingredients initially. A lot of beginners are deluded into thinking that expensive ingredients will result in excellent product which is not absolutely true.; Indeed good quality materials will reflect on the end product but its better if you have already attained enough skill on chocolate confectionery before you invest your money on such costly ingredients. There are lots of chocolatiers( chocolate confectioners) who can produce really good tasting products due to their skill and not due to the ingredients they use. |
|
Posted to rec.food.chocolate
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wanting to make awesome chocolates...
Alex Rast wrote >Although it must be said that making one's own fondant is instructive for >the same basic technique used to temper chocolate (at least the slab and >spatula method). Hand-making fondant is certainly labour-intensive so if >you want to minimise effort it would be better to buy it. There are 2 >reasons to try making it at home: if you want to gain technique in making >fondant yourself, or if you have certain flavour and/or ingredient >specifications you can't find in something you can buy. .... A base fondant is supposed to be neutral not flavored .... besides what ingredients specification in particular would you expect from an institutionally made fondant.? Its just sugar, glucose and enough water cooked to a certain temperature , then cooled to the right temperature then agitated to create the required sugar crystals size responsible for its desirable qualities in confections. >IMHO ganache definitely benefits from using good-tasting chocolate, because >in a ganache the flavour of the chocolate really stands out and if you're >using one that doesn't taste good, it will be instantly apparent. Well if a certain chocolatier is not experienced or skilled enough that he will plunge into using ersatz chocolate then that will be the case.; but that is unlikely for a competent chocolate craftsman as the first qualification of his craftsmanship is to be able to understand what a good chocolate as based on his experience but it does not mean that its necessarily expensive. >However, "good tasting" is not synonymous with "expensive". There are many >cheap chocolates that also taste good, e.g. Guittard Gourmet Bittersweet >and Ghirardelli Bittersweet. It's best, I think, to start with one of those >cheaper but still good-tasting chocolates while you get good at making the >ganache. Even when first starting out, though, I don't think it's a bad >idea to experiment with different brands at different price points, to get >?an idea for what the range of flavours and handling characteristics are. If you have the money to spare for such venture why not? the bottom line of chocolate confectionery business is that you earn a margin out of your efforts to sustain your business not to be doing Santa Claus <grin>.. However if you are just a chocolate lover and had a money to splurge to satisfy for a certain chocolate cravings .... Then go for it! >One vital point to understand about expensive chocolate is that more often >than not the difference is not in the basic taste but in how characteristic >it is. An expensive, varietal chocolate from a high-end manufacturer (think >Amedei Chuao or Domori Porcelana) is very specific in its flavour profile, >which means that although it might not taste any better than a cheaper but >still quality chocolate, you'll be able to identify signature >characteristics. \ I never had any attachment to any chocolate brands as I leave those notions to t people who can't make the chocolate( for themselves) from the raw materials. It just chocolate chemistry and technology....pure and simple ....not esoteric names that has nothing to do with chocolates but only to improve its packaging value. Besides only those People who don't understand the chemistry of chocolates are likely to be emotionally attached to any fancy sounding names.<grin>. So the essence of chocolate is not based on the b rand name but what type of cocoa beans being used , the degree of roast, the degree of grinding and refining as well as not to be forgotten the extent its subjected to conching and other equally important parameters in chocolate manufacture. . In the end the cost of the raw materials the prestige of the manufacturer , the quantity being made and the variation and uniqueness in processing will reflect on its price. Consumers might disagree..... they say....we are willing to pay the price but how large is the market and will the demand sustain the investment for a widespread manufacture of expensive chocolates ? Besides the supply of well flavored cacao beans used to attain this well flavored chocolates is scarcer or produced in least quantity compared to the bulk beans. >Depending on what you want to achieve, this could be >either a plus or a minus. For instance, if your intent were to create a >truffle with good basic chocolate flavour, using something like Chuao might >disappoint because its signature taste would be so self-evident. But if you >wanted a truffle bursting with the sort of molasses/blueberry taste this >chocolate has, it would be a great choice. It's not going to be an >"average" taste though - which means that some people are likely to like it >more than others. Chocolate taste from the consumer panel is a subjective matter in many cases... erroneous and does not reflect the true quality of the chocolate . The marketing people are shrewdly exploiting the naivety of the normal consumer<grin>. Therefore I never rely on that. I never rely on that... ..I leave that area to the objective assessment of the trained taste panel (who are setting aside their emotion ) to give me reliable scientific and statistics based information as a basis for a particular new chocolate formulations. The scientifically trained taste panel report coupled with rigorous statistical analysis carries more weight than what a hordes of individuals from the consumer panel says.... >These same characteristics means that if you're making flavoured >chocolates, picking a good matching varietal can make or break your >chocolate. For instance, if you wanted a cinnamon chocolate, picking Domori >Porcelana as your chocolate base would be a disaster. The cinnamon would >completely overwhelm Porcelana's fine delicate flavour. But Domori Carenero >Superior would be a match made in heaven for the same piece, with a >powerful, assertive mix of fruit and spice that would really match the >cinnamon. Meanwhile, choosing a cheap and good, but less characteristic >chocolate like Guittard Gourmet Bittersweet would yield good results no >matter what the flavour choice, but they wouldn't be quite so inspired as a >well-matched varietal. This means that before using varietal chocolates for >confectionery, it's vital to taste and assess them carefully to understand >the flavour profile. Those fancy names never excite me...If supposing I am one of the panel personnel .I would rather have those items titled under a code name so that it will not excite the tasters nor influence their decision making. Fancy sounding chocolate names may delude an ordinary American consumers but may fail to gain appreciation from overseas consumers. Therefore those ideas based on brand influence Those ideas might be true in the United States and the surrounding areas but Europe and other developed countries have a different perspective that is meant by a good chocolate >I disagree sharply on the idea that adding a liqueur is an effective >default strategy to improving flavour. At least to me, alcohol and >chocolate tend to clash, and so most liqueurs end up diminishing the >chocolate flavour, making it taste inevitably somewhat boozy, and not >really showing their own flavours that well either. That is only your personal and incidentally a subjective assessment. There are many exceptions such for some Belgian and even Swiss type filled chocolates the use of good quality liqueurs is common and if used properly these spirits enhanced the taste of chocolates not overpower them. It also depends on the skill of the chocolatier, and the use of alcohol of spirits in chocolate is an art in itself , >With *careful* choice >some liqueurs can be introduced, but only in the case where the objective >is to highlight the liqueur itself, not as a background flavour enhancer. >Some chocolates, ganache in particular, are quite perishable and so some >commercial chocolatiers use the liqueurs as a preservative, which again I >think isn't warranted for most situtations. Better to have realistic >expiration dates. Preservative action of liqueurs is based on its ability of ethanol to lower water activity of the fillings and there are other means to attain that in the industry not strictly relying in dairy cream but in combinations also on industrial fractionated butter fat and sometimes the use of glycerin and sorbitol to confer the same water activity lowering.. The chocolate confectionery manufacturer who uses ganache then had many options to improve the shelf life of the product while still retaining the characteristics of dairy cream in terms of sensory qualities . If you are just a chef you may seldom or even will never had the opportunity to experience such unique ingredient application. >Adding other flavours is fine when you want that other flavour to be the >dominant note. However, when you want the chocolate to be the dominant >note, it's not warranted. For instance, some people add coffee in order to >"perk up" an otherwise uninspired chocolate flavour. If the idea is to have >a chocolatey flavour, IMHO that's better done by using a better chocolate, >rather than by resorting to enhancement agents. But again, if the piece >were intended to be a coffee chocolate, or a mocha chocolate, then of >course using coffee would be perfectly in order. Chocolate consumes in every region throughout the world have varying perception about flavors so its not right to conclude that what is good in your area is good for the rest of the world. >Definitely worth the trouble to get the refined paste. There are no units >suitable for an in-home application that can do even a halfway decent job >at grinding nuts. I think it's a bit frustrating in this age of every >conceivable kitchen gadget that you can't buy a halfway decent grinder, >although I'm guessing that the reason for this is that the market is >microscopic. Well many consumers don't understand the importance of nut paste in chocolates and being difficult to improvise its preparation then it will never be a part of an ordinary chocolate connoisseur repertoire of chocolate confection preparation . .. |
|
Posted to rec.food.chocolate
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wanting to make awesome chocolates...
at Thu, 15 Dec 2005 06:49:35 GMT in
.com>, (Chembake) wrote : >Alex Rast wrote >>Although it must be said that making one's own fondant is instructive >>for the same basic technique used to temper chocolate (at least the >>slab and spatula method). Hand-making fondant is certainly >>labour-intensive so if you want to minimise effort it would be better >>to buy it. There are 2 reasons to try making it at home: if you want to >>gain technique in making fondant yourself, or if you have certain >>flavour and/or ingredient specifications you can't find in something >>you can buy. > >... A base fondant is supposed to be neutral not flavored .... besides >what ingredients specification in particular would you expect from an >institutionally made fondant.? That's kind of the point, isn't it? The idea would be that your requirements need to be pretty exotic in order for making it at home to be useful from a *specifications* POV. But there are people who want certain things done in a certain way. So there's no harm in experimenting to see if you can meet your objectives with the DIY approach. >>IMHO ganache definitely benefits from using good-tasting chocolate, >>because in a ganache the flavour of the chocolate really stands out and >>if you're using one that doesn't taste good, it will be instantly >>apparent. > >Well if a certain chocolatier is not experienced or skilled enough >that he will plunge into using ersatz chocolate then that will be the >case.; but that is unlikely for a competent chocolate craftsman as the >first qualification of his craftsmanship is to be able to understand >what a good chocolate as based on his experience but it does not mean >that its necessarily expensive. Unfortunately, for people in a home setting, quite often they really haven't tasted enough chocolate to know right away that changing the chocolate itself may be necessary. They can readily identify the difference, and will instantly know that one chocolate is good and another bad when you have them try it, but they might be mystified as to why a given recipe or item isn't turning out as well as what they can get from a professional. I've seen a lot of people have a tendency to lump things into very broad categories, so that chocolate is chocolate (or perhaps they make the distinction between dark and milk and that's as far as they go), they use something truly bad in a truffle or other sensitive confection, and then are puzzled as to what to do to improve it. They then embark on a lot of ill-fated ventures that achieve nothing, sometimes giving up in frustration. That's why it's worth it when starting out to try at least a variety of chocolates and also not to go only for the cheapest brands. >>Even when first starting out, though, I >>don't think it's a bad idea to experiment with different brands at >>different price points, to get ?an idea for what the range of flavours >>and handling characteristics are. > >If you have the money to spare for such venture why not? >the bottom line of chocolate confectionery business is that you earn a >margin out of your efforts to sustain your business not to be doing >Santa Claus <grin>.. Well, the key point here is that in a professional setting, you want to have enough margin in your core business to afford some small-scale experimentation. Most of this will be stuff that never reaches the shelf or display case. You're just trying out a variant to see what you can do. That, in any case, shouldn't be very expensive, because you're not actually making this on a production scale. Sometimes if an experiment is particularly successful you would do a small production run to test-market and see what the reception was. It might then make it to full-scale production if the results of the test market showed that it could sustain a profit. >However if you are just a chocolate lover and had a money to splurge to >satisfy for a certain chocolate cravings .... Then go for it! Meanwhile on the home level that kind of experimentation tends to be more sporadic but every now and then it's worth it - just so long as you're not planning on making the results a critical piece for, say, a dinner where the boss is coming over, or a wedding reception, or some other encounter where you need to be certain of your outcome. >>One vital point to understand about expensive chocolate is that more >>often than not the difference is not in the basic taste but in how >>characteristic it is.... > >I never had any attachment to any chocolate brands as I leave those >notions to t people who can't make the chocolate( for themselves) >from the raw materials. Generally, that's the majority of both consumers and confectioners. As you know the number of actual chocolate producers themselves is small and so by and large you must choose some suppliers. >It just chocolate chemistry and technology....pure and simple ....not >esoteric names that has nothing to do with chocolates but only to >improve its packaging value. The esoteric name by itself means very little but if a chocolate manufacturer can establish a strong brand identity and style then it can mean something. For instance, I can know that a Cluizel chocolate is likely to be very balanced and refined, that a Scharffen Berger chocolate is likely to be strongly fruity, and that an Hachez chocolate will have superiour texture but mild flavour. I can also know that, as a general rule, Cluizel is somewhat better, overall, than Hachez, which in turn is somewhat better, overall, than Hershey's. These are broad categorisations but they help put each brand into a position. Some larger companies, however - e.g. Callebaut and Lindt, have a very wide array of different formulations with different flavours, so you can't pin them down. They're good as primary sources because they tend to be cheap and you can usually find a chocolate that matches the style you're looking for, unlike the "higher-end" chocolatiers where the style they choose is the style you get. .... > . In the end the cost of the raw materials the prestige of the >manufacturer , the quantity being made and the variation and >uniqueness in processing will reflect on its price. Which can be a plus or a minus. A high-priced chocolate from a boutique manufacturer can end up being only average, in which case you've blown a lot of money for a chocolate you could just as readily have gotten anywhere. But a recognisable chocolate of extreme quality from such a manufacturer might be able to justify its cost - even if it's only in the marketing value of bringing customers in the door. Amedei Chuao is my favourite example of that. A 1kg bloc isn't cheap - indeed, it's sufficiently expensive that you have to ask seriously whether this is justified. No doubt they're making a pretty hefty margin on their brand name. But the chocolate is supreme - one of the best anywhere - and it's got strong brand- and type- identification, enough that it will both bring people in the door and have them coming back for more. From a home standpoint, again, such a chocolate is worth it for specific occasions because yes, it's expensive, but it delivers the goods. But you could just as easily end up spending far too much for Dagoba Conacado and be stuck with what is really a very poor chocolate indeed. It's vital not to buy into a brand name. >Consumers might disagree..... they say....we are willing to pay the >price but how large is the market and will the demand sustain the >investment for a widespread manufacture of expensive chocolates ? Well, to judge by the emergence of multiple boutique chocolatiers within the last few years, the answer to that would seem to be "yes", at least from a standpoint of overall market. If, OTOH, you're thinking of starting your own business to get in on the action, you really have to find some sort of unique sales position because otherwise you'll probably be competing with a host of other, equally talented, people. >Besides the supply of well flavored cacao beans used to attain this >well flavored chocolates is scarcer or produced in least quantity >compared to the bulk beans. It must be said that this is one reason why you can advance at least some rationale for the belief in brand names. A smaller chocolate manufacturer can afford to be more selective with supply, and thus potentially create better chocolate. However, the end result isn't a given. Dagoba Conacado and Domori Chacao Absolute get beans from the same source, but where the first is abysmal, the second is divine - which goes to show you that source material isn't enough by itself. >>Depending on what you want to achieve, this could be >>either a plus or a minus....It's not going to be an "average" taste >> though - which means >>that some people are likely to like it more than others. > >Chocolate taste from the consumer panel is a subjective matter in many >cases... erroneous and does not reflect the true quality of the >chocolate . I disagree strongly. If "quality" is such an esoteric concept that it can only be understood by a few initiates, then of what value is it? In the final analysis, a quality chocolate should taste good. From my POV the only realistic criterion for tasting good that makes sense is that there would be broad consensus among the people who tried it that their reaction was positive. So if a relatively inexperienced person tried a chocolate and was put off by it, that chocolate isn't as good as it's made out to be. And just as the danger of excessive brand identification is strong with the novice, the danger of overintellectualising the experience is strong with the cognoscenti. People with lots of experience and jaded palates get led into believing that something unusual or exotic is good and pronounce it a resounding success - and this distinction is lost on the common man who quite plainly observes that it's bad - usually just plain wierd. Hopefully a tasting panel can be conducted so as to minimise either preconceived notions or the presence of bias. > The marketing people are shrewdly exploiting the naivety of >the normal consumer<grin>. Here I do unfortunately have to agree. It's a sad reality that all too many "tastings" are conducted not to *form* an opinion but to *justify* one. They've set up the tasting so as to lead the tasters to a predetermined conclusion, one that exhalts the value of their product. That's not an accurate or scientific study, nor, do I think, is it in the best interest of the company. A company learns nothing if it produces an only so-so product and conducts "surveys" intended to prove its superiority. In that case they're willfully blind to their own mediocrity and will find out their error when sales in the market are tepid (or no better than the competition). Unfortunately by that point they may already have too much invested into their product line to be able to change, something that could easily have been done to produce a more acceptable product that would have garnered greater market share had it been done earlier in the process. >.I leave that area to the objective assessment of the trained taste >panel (who are setting aside their emotion ) to give me reliable >scientific and statistics based information as a basis for a >particular new chocolate formulations. > The scientifically trained taste panel report coupled with rigorous >statistical analysis carries more weight than what a hordes of >individuals from the consumer panel says.... As I point out, even the "best-trained" panel can come in with preconceptions, or at least be jaded. You definitely want to be rigourous in your analysis, however, I think you want to do that with statistics drawn at least in part from common consumers whenever you can. >>These same characteristics means that if you're making flavoured >>chocolates, picking a good matching varietal can make or break your >>chocolate. For instance, if you wanted a cinnamon chocolate, picking >>Domori Porcelana as your chocolate base would be a disaster. The >>cinnamon would completely overwhelm Porcelana's fine delicate flavour. >>But Domori Carenero Superior would be a match made in heaven for the >>same piece... > >Those fancy names never excite me...If supposing I am one of the panel >personnel .I would rather have those items titled under a code name so >that it will not excite the tasters nor influence their decision >making. It's not the brand name that counts but the profile of the chocolates involved. Domori's Porcelana and Carenero Superior make for a particularly instructive comparison in this case because their characteristics are clear-cut within the stylistic choices of a particular manufacturer, but that they are from Domori is material only insofar as the particular style Domori uses makes these chocolates a good or a bad fit for a particular application. In a tasting setting, however, yes, you'd want to mask the brand as much as possible. Unfortunately, since most brands come in readily identifiable formats (often their logo is moulded into the chocolate piece), that's hard. >Fancy sounding chocolate names may delude an ordinary American >consumers but may fail to gain appreciation from overseas consumers. Right there I think is an example of a bias based on ethicity - the assumption that U.S. audiences are more easily duped. I think it's probably the same everywhere - that populations in every country you care to name are about as easily influenced by marketing tactics as any other. >Those ideas might be true in the United States and the surrounding >areas but Europe and other developed countries have a different >perspective that is meant by a good chocolate I wouldn't assume that Europeans are any more sophisticated than Americans, at least not when devising a survey. It's very, very difficult to design a scientific study to measure sophistication - because what is meant by that is itself variable. There are probably national preferences as to basic chocolate flavour, but I don't think one can conclude anything as to what that implies about their perception of quality. >>I disagree sharply on the idea that adding a liqueur is an effective >>default strategy to improving flavour. At least to me, alcohol and >>chocolate tend to clash... > >That is only your personal and incidentally a subjective assessment. Definitely. I point it out to illustrate that, given that subjective tastes vary, adding liqueur isn't a good *default* strategy - i.e. one that you apply semi-automatically, with the belief that it is going to be an overall improvement to the general population. .... >>With *careful* choice >>some liqueurs can be introduced, but only in the case where the >>objective is to highlight the liqueur itself, not as a background >>flavour enhancer. Some chocolates, ganache in particular, are quite >>perishable and so some commercial chocolatiers use the liqueurs as a >>preservative, which again I think isn't warranted for most situtations. >>Better to have realistic expiration dates. > >Preservative action of liqueurs is based on its ability of ethanol to >lower water activity of the fillings and there are other means to >attain that in the industry not strictly relying in dairy cream but in >combinations also on industrial fractionated butter fat and sometimes >the use of glycerin and sorbitol to confer the same water activity >lowering.. Yeah, you sometimes see that as well. Techniques which have less impact on the flavour I tend to prefer. The use of alchohol is one that on an ingredient list doesn't stand out quite so obviously because people tend not to think of it as an "additive" in the same way. It's a prime illustration of the underlying point - the concept of an "additive" as such is a vague term. Really, *any* ingredient in a recipe is technically an "additive". .... > >>Definitely worth the trouble to get the refined paste. There are no >>units suitable for an in-home application that can do even a halfway >>decent job at grinding nuts. I think it's a bit frustrating in this age >>of every conceivable kitchen gadget that you can't buy a halfway decent >>grinder, although I'm guessing that the reason for this is that the >>market is microscopic. > >Well many consumers don't understand the importance of nut paste in >chocolates and being difficult to improvise its preparation then it >will never be a part of an ordinary chocolate connoisseur repertoire >of chocolate confection preparation . I would like to see a greater availability (or at least visibility) of certain things for the home user. Part of the difficulty facing such an individual is his inability, unless he goes to extraordinary lengths, to get and/or indeed even know about certain key components, tools, etc. etc. On this NG you regularly get people asking how they can make chocolate from scratch at home, and then you have to explain to them the ins and outs of the industrial process and how unless they're willing to make a hefty investment they're not going to be able to do it. And yet there's no reason, *a priori* that this should be impossible - it's just that the equipment-makers aren't building anything for low-volume output. -- Alex Rast (remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply) |
|
Posted to rec.food.chocolate
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wanting to make awesome chocolates...
>Alex Rast wrote
.. >... A base fondant is supposed to be neutral not flavored .... besides >what ingredients specification in particular would you expect from an >institutionally made fondant.? >That's kind of the point, isn't it? The idea would be that your >requirements need to be pretty exotic in order for making it at home to be >useful from a *specifications* POV. But there are people who want certain >things done in a certain way. So there's no harm in experimenting to see if >you can meet your objectives with the DIY approach. Well, doing things in small scale is the beginning of any project to check the feasibility if it works,..... but often the results does not comes out similarly when its scaled up using an equipment suited for such purpose. In the past I made fondant from half a kilogram to 5 kilogram batch where in the latter I used a big wooden paddle/oar to stir the mass on a water cooled cooling table. It's a lot of work and even with the care of the operation I still can't come identical to the characteristics to the fondant made institutionally. The only importance for such operation is its instructional value so that anyone can get a feel how the sugar mass gradually become opaque due to the agitation and formation of very fine sugar crystals. In those cases I made it using the low dextrose equivalents syrups such as DE ( 36-43 )and high DE( 55-63) glucose syrup but the results are not that different. Now as the regular standard grade glucose was the norm( 42-43 DE) then I never bothered to use the 63 DE for that reason again. Now if you use the sugar cubes and granulated sugar, I did not see much difference either the end products become opaque when manipulated to attain the fondant desired qualities . >>One vital point to understand about expensive chocolate is that more >>often than not the difference is not in the basic taste but in how >>characteristic it is.... >I never had any attachment to any chocolate brands as I leave those >notions to t people who can't make the chocolate( for themselves) >from the raw materials. Generally, that's the majority of both consumers and confectioners. As you know the number of actual chocolate producers themselves is small and so by and large you must choose some suppliers. >It just chocolate chemistry and technology....pure and simple ....not >esoteric names that has nothing to do with chocolates but only to >improve its packaging value. >The esoteric name by itself means very little but if a chocolate >manufacturer can establish a strong brand identity and style then it can >mean something. For instance, I can know that a Cluizel chocolate is likely >to be very balanced and refined, that a Scharffen Berger chocolate is >likely to be strongly fruity, and that an Hachez chocolate will have >superiour texture but mild flavour. I can also know that, as a general >rule, Cluizel is somewhat better, overall, than Hachez, which in turn is >somewhat better, overall, than Hershey's. These are broad categorisations >but they help put each brand into a position. Some larger companies, >however - e.g. Callebaut and Lindt, have a very wide array of different >formulations with different flavours, so you can't pin them down. They're >good as primary sources because they tend to be cheap and you can usually >find a chocolate that matches the style you're looking for, unlike the >"higher-end" chocolatiers where the style they choose is the style you get. ....I thinks this selections of different chocolate brands as raw materials for their confections is true to small cholatiers but rare for large manufacturers. >However, the end result isn't a given. Dagoba Conacado >and Domori Chacao Absolute get beans from the same source, but where the >first is abysmal, the second is divine - which goes to show you that source >material isn't enough by itself. Beans from the same source does not mean that cocoa beans bought by two manufacturers are used in equally the same manufacturer. A chocolate formulation is not as simple as : Cocoa beans, sugar milk etc... but there are specific bean blends for every chocolate types made by them. Besides Most of these institution don't buy from one supplier but from a wide lot. Then they blend the beans according to its attributes as dictated by their formulation requirements and in the end it will never be the same for two manufacturers It's the same with the bakery, large bakeries can get the same flour from the same source ( and uses the same branded name) but the bakery product come out with different tastes and other qualities .! >I disagree strongly. If "quality" is such an esoteric concept that it can >only be understood by a few initiates, then of what value is it? In the >final analysis, a quality chocolate should taste good. From my POV the only >realistic criterion for tasting good that makes sense is that there would >be broad consensus among the people who tried it that their reaction was >positive. So if a relatively inexperienced person tried a chocolate and was >put off by it, that chocolate isn't as good as it's made out to be. And >just as the danger of excessive brand identification is strong with the >novice, the danger of overintellectualising the experience is strong with >the cognoscenti. People with lots of experience and jaded palates get led >into believing that something unusual or exotic is good and pronounce it a >resounding success - and this distinction is lost on the common man who >quite plainly observes that it's bad - usually just plain wierd. Hopefully >a tasting panel can be conducted so as to minimise either preconceived >notions or the presence of bias. In many product development based sensory analysis the consumer panel is just taken secondarily and is always done by the marketing people to measure if the product is liked by the consumers before the eve put in their marketing programs . The developers already had in mind what the customers wants and the consumer panel is used often for confirmatory purposes. .. >.I leave that area to the objective assessment of the trained taste >panel (who are setting aside their emotion ) to give me reliable >scientific and statistics based information as a basis for a >particular new chocolate formulations. > The scientifically trained taste panel report coupled with rigorous >statistical analysis carries more weight than what a hordes of >individuals from the consumer panel says.... >As I point out, even the "best-trained" panel can come in with >preconceptions, or at least be jaded. You definitely want to be rigourous >in your analysis, however, I think you want to do that with statistics >drawn at least in part from common consumers whenever you can. Indeed decision relies not only from the result of technical assessors but also from potential customers inputs ; and in many cases marketing people will even follow their gut feel and think that if the public wants it , it must be good for the business? They will do everything ( including )urging the management that the new product should be produced \Wholly technically based assessment is not risk free; developers can be become attached to the attributes of the product from their technical evaluation that the sometimes forget if the consumers still wants the product. This is true in some specialty chocolates such as for certain clientele( diabetics, those with food allergies etc). Unfortunately the market in this section is not that large. >It's not the brand name that counts but the profile of the chocolates >involved. Domori's Porcelana and Carenero Superior make for a particularly >instructive comparison in this case because their characteristics are >clear-cut within the stylistic choices of a particular manufacturer, but >that they are from Domori is material only insofar as the particular style >Domori uses makes these chocolates a good or a bad fit for a particular >application. In a tasting setting, however, yes, you'd want to mask the >brand as much as possible. Unfortunately, since most brands come in readily >identifiable formats (often their logo is moulded into the chocolate >piece), that's hard. That's what make it sell....good marketing strategy and good labeling/packaging. >Those ideas might be true in the United States and the surrounding >areas but Europe and other developed countries have a different >perspective that is meant by a good chocolate Well it had been my experience that many Europeans chocolate connoisseurs don't like American chocolates. I am not sure if its politically motivated or what....but they have these notions that Hershey destroyed the American palate.<grin> >I wouldn't assume that Europeans are any more sophisticated than Americans, >at least not when devising a survey. It's very, very difficult to design a >scientific study to measure sophistication - because what is meant by that >is itself variable. There are probably national preferences as to basic >chocolate flavour, but I don't think one can conclude anything as to what >that implies about their perception of quality. >From the point of chocolate formulations....American and European chocolates are not the same Many chocolatiers from the European continent had some aversion for the American made chocolates; The same also with other chocolate manufacturing institution from countries such as Australia ,Japan. Etc.. Definitely. I point it out to illustrate that, given that subjective tastes vary, adding liqueur isn't a good *default* strategy - i.e. one that you apply semi-automatically, with the belief that it is going to be an overall improvement to the general population. ....>Preservative action of liqueurs is based on its ability of ethanol to >lower water activity of the fillings and there are other means to >attain that in the industry not strictly relying in dairy cream but in >combinations also on industrial fractionated butter fat and sometimes >the use of glycerin and sorbitol to confer the same water activity >lowering.. Yeah, you sometimes see that as well. Techniques which have less impact on the flavour I tend to prefer. The use of alcohol is one that on an ingredient list doesn't stand out quite so obviously because people tend not to think of it as an "additive" in the same way. It's a prime illustration of the underlying point - the concept of an "additive" as such is a vague term. Really, *any* ingredient in a recipe is technically an "additive". This issue of additives sometimes get blurred with chocolate manufacturers....If it does not sound like a chemical.... Or just too commonly used its forgotten as a food additive for functional reasons. .... >Well many consumers don't understand the importance of nut paste in >chocolates and being difficult to improvise its preparation then it >will never be a part of an ordinary chocolate connoisseur repertoire >of chocolate confection preparation . >I would like to see a greater availability (or at least visibility) of >certain things for the home user. Part of the difficulty facing such an >individual is his inability, unless he goes to extraordinary lengths, to >get and/or indeed even know about certain key components, tools, etc. etc. >On this NG you regularly get people asking how they can make chocolate from >scratch at home, and then you have to explain to them the ins and outs of >the industrial process and how unless they're willing to make a hefty >investment they're not going to be able to do it. And yet there's no >reason, *a priori* that this should be impossible - it's just that the >equipment-makers aren't building anything for low-volume output. DIY chocolate manufacture is not an impossibility ... In the past I had toyed with making chocolate in a way suitable for home users interested in making their own chocolate from the scratch... Using the wok to roast the beans, then using the meat mincer to grind the beans to paste by repeated passes, and in other cases using the food processors to do the particle reductions but the results were unsatisfactory. Its gritty . .. I have used a pasta machine as an improvised 2 roll refiner but the resulting products is still gritty. One major reason is that the chocolate manufacturing equipments are made with high precision such as the roll distances , roll speed, roll temperatures and roll speed differentials. Etc. Conche machines does not come in small sizes that any home chocolate "would be"manufactuer could afford as its expensive and has no other uses. With conching..... there are ways to improvse such process....you can conche the chocolate by using the planetary mixers which run continuously for at least 8 hours. Would(it be wise enough to destroy) your kitchen aide mixers to do such things aside with the cake paddle improvised to sweep the chocolate paste around the mixing bowl evenly? But How can you attach a heat jacket to your mixing bowl? A hot water bath is not good as the steam may condense may come into contact with partially destroying it,nor you could apply that to many kitchen aide and even Hobart made machines designed for chocolate use. Another thing is How can you measure miniscule quantity of lecithin and PGPR( polyglycerol poly ricinoleate) if you don't own an analytical balance as one of your measuring equipmentsn for home scale chocolate manufacture. Another very important question is how can you attain the 15-30 microns unit particle size of your chocolate before you try to conche it in your supposedly strong planetary mixers with the cake paddle and bowl modified for such purpose for hours? Its more common for home bakers or small bakery businesses to buy the institutional Hobart mixer and even ovens as they are cheaper and had many other uses than special precision chocolate manufacturing equipment like Conche and refiner machines made by such names like Macintyre, Friggessa,Lehmann and Buhler that has a very limited application potential outside its specified use. But if anybody is determined to make his own chocolate from cacao beans you can invest they should insure that they can get at least a laboratory scale 3-roll refiner( or much better a 5 roll refiner if there is ) to insure they can practically get the same particle size and resulting mouth feel as the institutionally made chocolates feasibly. Then they should ensure that they have a really extra sturdy mixer with the bowl with a electric heat jacketed ( 50-70 degree C) mixing bowl to conche the chocolate for several hours non stop. IMO That is reason ...why chocolate is considered not only food of the gods but also.....MADE BY THE GODS!<grin>... as only the institutional chocolate manufacturer ( the 'gods') could do it properly <grin>. |
|
Posted to rec.food.chocolate
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wanting to make awesome chocolates...
at Sat, 17 Dec 2005 23:26:40 GMT in
.com>, (Chembake) wrote : >>Alex Rast wrote >. <deletia> > >>I disagree strongly. If "quality" is such an esoteric concept that it >>can only be understood by a few initiates, then of what value is it? >>...Hopefully >>a tasting panel can be conducted so as to minimise either preconceived >>notions or the presence of bias. > >In many product development based sensory analysis the consumer panel >is just taken secondarily and is always done by the marketing people to >measure if the product is liked by the consumers before the eve put in >their marketing programs . >The developers already had in mind what the customers wants and the >consumer panel is used often for confirmatory purposes. Which is, IMHO, Mistake #1. I don't think developers should assume that they "know" what the customer will want, because unfortunately, past or current sales aren't a good predictor of future sales of a new and previously unknown product. For all the manufacturer knows, they may tap into a pent-up reserve of previously unmet demand for a particular product or style that never existed before. Or, conversely, they may end up producing the innovation that nobody wants, even though other products had some mix of similar attributes and sold well. When consumer panels are secondary and done entirely by the marketing people, I think this indicates an attitude of corporate arrogance and condescension. When a "test" is done merely with the hopes that it will confirm an already-formulated expectation, it tends to end up being biassed by that preexisting belief so that - surprise surprise! the test ends up confirming what they already "know". If you're really going to test a product, you need to do so *before* there are any expectations as to result. >>It's not the brand name that counts but the profile of the chocolates >>involved. ... In a tasting setting, >>however, yes, you'd want to mask the brand as much as possible. >>Unfortunately, since most brands come in readily identifiable formats >>(often their logo is moulded into the chocolate piece), that's hard. > >That's what make it sell....good marketing strategy and good >labeling/packaging. Well, it probably helps to make the initial sale, but in terms of attracting repeat business the taste factors in much more strongly. People may be sucked into nice packaging and slick marketing campaigns initially, but in terms of what they buy regularly, they're not going to be so easily fooled in the long run. If a company wants to try to make it entirely on new and/or casual customers they're welcome to it, but usually it's the establishment of a core repeat clientele that ensures their long-term profitability. > >>Those ideas might be true in the United States and the surrounding >>areas but Europe and other developed countries have a different >>perspective that is meant by a good chocolate > >Well it had been my experience that many Europeans chocolate >connoisseurs don't like American chocolates. I think there's a risk of characterising "American chocolates" far too broadly. Just like any other country, the styles of different U.S. manufacturers varies widely. Guittard is generally balanced and on the dark side, Scharffen Berger is fruity, bright, and smooth, Ghirardelli is very dark, and well-finished, Hershey's tends to be sweet and relatively bland... there are several others each with their own peculiar style. And you get quality that similarly spans the gamut - Guittard is among the top few chocolatiers in the world, Scharffen Berger is clearly high-end, Merckens and Ghirardelli aim for a mid-range class, Hershey's and Baker's are low-end. You'll find similar divisions in just about any country. Nation of origin is rarely a reliable indicator of style or quality. >I am not sure if its politically motivated or what....but they have >these notions that Hershey destroyed the American palate.<grin> There are certainly plenty of Europeans who don't like Hershey's, but there are also plenty of *Americans* who don't like it either. > >>I wouldn't assume that Europeans are any more sophisticated than >>Americans, at least not when devising a survey.... > >>From the point of chocolate formulations....American and European >chocolates are not the same Again, I would consider this an overly broad characterisation. Of course American and European chocolates don't have the same formulation - any more than Callebaut and Nestle - 2 European chocolates - don't have the same formulation - nor even Valrhona and Cluizel - 2 French chocolates, nor Ghirardelli and Guittard - 2 San Francisco chocolates. You can narrow the geographic scope as much as you like and it makes little difference - different companies use different formulations. <deletia> >>I would like to see a greater availability (or at least visibility) of >>certain things for the home user. Part of the difficulty facing such an >>individual is his inability, unless he goes to extraordinary lengths, >>to get and/or indeed even know about certain key components, tools, >>etc. etc. On this NG you regularly get people asking how they can make >>chocolate from scratch at home... > >DIY chocolate manufacture is not an impossibility ... >In the past I had toyed with making chocolate in a way suitable for >home users interested in making their own chocolate from the scratch... > As I can attest! However for most people the effort doesn't justify the result. >Using the wok to roast the beans, then using the meat mincer to grind >the beans to paste by repeated passes, and in other cases using the >food processors to do the particle reductions but the results were >unsatisfactory. Its gritty . >. I have used a pasta machine as an improvised 2 roll refiner but the >resulting products is still gritty. I have been able to make extraordinarily smooth chocolate...with extraordinary effort. In previous posts, I've detailed the laborious process involved, and pretty much laid out the case for why, for your average home user, it's not worth it. But again, this is a case of no available machines. What I'm saying is there's no reason these machines couldn't be reduced to home capacities, it's just that they're not. .... >Another thing is >How can you measure miniscule quantity of lecithin and PGPR( >polyglycerol poly ricinoleate) if you don't own an analytical >balance as one of your measuring equipmentsn for home scale chocolate >manufacture. Well, most home users are probably not going to add extra emulsifiers. Cluizel and Domori have gone emulsifier-free, with excellent results, showing it can be done, so for the home user this is probably acceptable as well. The difficulty of finding good balance scales for home use is another irritant. The sorry excuses for "scales" that get passed off in the consumer sector are usually inexact spring scales good for a rough approximation at best. And they usually have similarly inexact digital readout. -- Alex Rast (remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply) |
|
Posted to rec.food.chocolate
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wanting to make awesome chocolates...
at Sat, 17 Dec 2005 23:26:40 GMT in
>>Alex Rast wrote >In many product development based sensory analysis the consumer panel >is just taken secondarily and is always done by the marketing people to >measure if the product is liked by the consumers before the eve put in >their marketing programs . >The developers already had in mind what the customers wants and the >consumer panel is used often for confirmatory purposes. >Which is, IMHO, Mistake #1. I don't think developers should assume that >they "know" what the customer will want, because unfortunately, past or >current sales aren't a good predictor of future sales of a new and >previously unknown product. For all the manufacturer knows, they may tap >into a pent-up reserve of previously unmet demand for a particular product >or style that never existed before. Or, conversely, they may end up >producing the innovation that nobody wants, even though other products had >some mix of similar attributes and sold well. When consumer panels are >secondary and done entirely by the marketing people, I think this indicates >an attitude of corporate arrogance and condescension. When a "test" is done >merely with the hopes that it will confirm an already-formulated >expectation, it tends to end up being biassed by that preexisting belief so >that - surprise surprise! the test ends up confirming what they already >"know". If you're really going to test a product, you need to do so >*before* there are any expectations as to result. That is a narrow perspective about confectionery related R&D. But yes,,, its common for the customers who initiated the new idea for a product but it can equally can come from the within the company specialists. Food product developments is not like theoretical physics...looking for the fundamental structure of matter . but 100% applied science...based on the customers wants and needs! Every food product developer is a practical person....he thinks and creates things for the customers. There are many reasons for doing a confectionery related applied research where the end products can be made available to the consumers. Food scientists are always on the lookout for new ideas and many of those concepts comes from the consumers out of suggestion and feedback .. It can come from the ranks within the company who by inspiration can come up with a new idea that can be applied to a new product that is gestating in the mind of the food scientist. It can come from regular meetings and brainstorming sessions on how to improve the company productivity. Even serendipitous comments from anybody who happens to expect something that is within the product line. These latter suggestion originate from the marketing people through their interaction with clients with and product performance survey which in time reaches the ears of the food designer/ product developer. They will inquire about their product performance if its satisfies their customers which will likely extract from the individual consumers their preferences how a certain confection should be. It may not be practical but still worthy to be take note of it. Then that will become the germ of an idea which can come up in board meetings or informal conversation with other personalities from the different divisions. Food designers in the confectionery lines also relies of patent files for ideas; Others may rethink the existing food items and see if it can be coaxed out to produce a certain attribute that the customer have not realized but exists in theory. To be a specialist in this line your ultimate focus is what the customer wants or expects and he had to convert all those consumer based concepts into technically structured information where he can use the fabrication of unique food item. It may not be a novelty but just an improvement of an existing product but it had some qualities that the customers is expected to like. Now having this in mind he will look at the ' library/database ' for a certain product and use that as a basis if the new concept he had in mind had a likelihood of success. It must not be forgotten that food product design is not a solitary effort by the food scientist in charge of ,making an abstract idea feasible. It's a team effort and involves a wide range of skills from that company hierarchy. The food designer will create the product in the laboratory scale and invite marketing people to offer their frank feedback if the idea is feasible and would bring good returns for its productions. If it appears there is a potential then more test and some scale up to the pilot plant scale to give more samples for evaluation and feedback. More brainstorming will bring up more ideas related to the product such what would the customer want from such product based upon the library/ that includes information database and experience; from the specialist on that line such the color,, the texture, taste and flavor; how to combine it in such a manner that the product is unique from competition or if it fit a specifications that the customers would end up buying it due to its desired attributes One the product had reached that level and tendency of success is thought to be highly feasible. If there are no security issues such as industrial espionage They may even invite some trusted consultants and critics to assess the products from their professional point of view. Then it will be subjected to trained sensory evaluation against what is supposed to be a near competitor ( if the product is related) or if the product supplies new attributes and see if there is an edge to make the product worthwhile a venture. After all these tedious evaluation procedures the results are statistically evaluated to gauge the likelihood that it will succeed in the market because of more positive attributes than the negatives then it will sent to the highest echelon of the company management for final decision At the same time another specialist will have their share of giving the product its personality , such as how will the product be packaged, what is the catchy labeling that will arouse customers attention. Does it need more publicity before the product is to be launched? Even before the product has reached the point after a pilot scale run the economics of doing it is evaluated if there is a need to invest in additional equipment etc., and what are the potential problems that may occur and do risk evaluation/ risk analysis for such new item. At this point more feedback may be needed a random sampling from customers who are urged to taste the product and offer their comments about it. The aggregate data will be again statistically analyzed and will then confirm if the product is ready scale up or needs to be reformulated for the improvement of its attributes. Etc. Once all the problems and ancillary issues are sorted out and the product is ready for production and even launched Thus in these steps mentioned, the confirmatory status of the new product feasibility is done through random sampling consumer panel evaluation. Never in a way that the group of customers have to dictate what they want as its messy and counter productive. Consumers don't have the structured thinking pattern like the experts and specialist in the particular firm that conduct the food t product development. It's a sheer waste of resources letting the consumers decide on a new product without considering the fact that the consumers thinking pattern is capricious Therefore from the point of practicality .No firm will waste their resources just to satisfy a lot of customers wants and needs from a certain products which all cannot be considered as a basis for product development. They firm must be selective and be pragmatic about the customers requirements if they want their business to survive. A product developer had to establish specifications what the product will offer to the customer at a certain price . >Well, it probably helps to make the initial sale, but in terms of >attracting repeat business the taste factors in much more strongly. People >may be sucked into nice packaging and slick marketing campaigns initially, >but in terms of what they buy regularly, they're not going to be so easily >fooled in the long run. If a company wants to try to make it entirely on >new and/or casual customers they're welcome to it, but usually it's the >establishment of a core repeat clientele that ensures their long-term >profitability. Long term profitability as the goal in confectionery related business has a downside ...I reiterate ....that means that you cannot completely satisfy all the customers wants and needs for a certain product The customers demand can be quixotic in many cases so the manufacturing company had to be aware that there are limits that the prospective company can to the customers as dictated by practicality. >Well it had been my experience that many Europeans chocolate >connoisseurs don't like American chocolates. >I think there's a risk of characterising "American chocolates" far too >broadly. Just like any other country, the styles of different U.S. >manufacturers varies widely. Guittard is generally balanced and on the dark >side, Scharffen Berger is fruity, bright, and smooth, Ghirardelli is very >dark, and well-finished, Hershey's tends to be sweet and relatively >bland... there are several others each with their own peculiar style. And >you get quality that similarly spans the gamut - Guittard is among the top >few chocolatiers in the world, Scharffen Berger is clearly high-end, >Merckens and Ghirardelli aim for a mid-range class, Hershey's and Baker's >are low-end. You'll find similar divisions in just about any country. >Nation of origin is rarely a reliable indicator of style or quality. As I am not a marketing person I cannot concur on that nor I am impressed with those fancy brands ! >>I wouldn't assume that Europeans are any more sophisticated than >>Americans, at least not when devising a survey.... >>From the point of chocolate formulations....American and European >chocolates are not the same >Again, I would consider this an overly broad characterisation. Of course >American and European chocolates don't have the same formulation - any more >than Callebaut and Nestle - 2 European chocolates - don't have the same >formulation - nor even Valrhona and Cluizel - 2 French chocolates, nor >Ghirardelli and Guittard - 2 San Francisco chocolates. You can narrow the >geographic scope as much as you like and it makes little difference - >different companies use different formulations. This is a fact...that different continents have different chocolate formulations and therefore different product requirements >DIY chocolate manufacture is not an impossibility ... >In the past I had toyed with making chocolate in a way suitable for >home users interested in making their own chocolate from the scratch... >As I can attest! However for most people the effort doesn't justify the >result. >I have been able to make extraordinarily smooth chocolate...with >extraordinary effort. In previous posts, I've detailed the laborious >process involved, and pretty much laid out the case for why, for your >average home user, it's not worth it. But again, this is a case of no >available machines. What I'm saying is there's no reason these machines >couldn't be reduced to home capacities, it's just that they're not. Really....? Extraordinarily smooth means the particle size range is 8-15 microns? ...IMO .thats kinda gives a slimy mouthfeel .....not extra smooth. From the chocolate quality standards that is already considered a fault and not a desirable attribute. I don't know how you did it , but I am certain it's an impractical and a sheer masochistic effort! IMO 99.9 % perspiration and 0.1% inspiration<grin>. I have doubts about if you were really able to make it with available home equipments<grin>. Unless you're some sort of a Thomas Edison reincarnation <grin>.? >Well, most home users are probably not going to add extra emulsifiers. >Cluizel and Domori have gone emulsifier-free, with excellent results, >showing it can be done, so for the home user this is probably acceptable as >well. No added emulsifiers means a higher amount of cocoa butter which makes the product more expensive per unit weight. .. |
|
Posted to rec.food.chocolate
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wanting to make awesome chocolates...
at Sun, 18 Dec 2005 23:58:58 GMT in
. com>, (Chembake) wrote : >at Sat, 17 Dec 2005 23:26:40 GMT in > >>>Alex Rast wrote > > >>In many product development based sensory analysis the consumer panel >>is just taken secondarily ... >>The developers already had in mind what the customers wants and the >>consumer panel is used often for confirmatory purposes. > >>Which is, IMHO, Mistake #1. I don't think developers should assume that >>they "know" what the customer will want, because unfortunately, past or >>current sales aren't a good predictor of future sales of a new and >>previously unknown product. ... > >That is a narrow perspective about confectionery related R&D. >... >Food product developments is not like theoretical physics...looking >for the fundamental structure of matter . but 100% applied >science...based on the customers wants and needs! <lots of deletia describing the R&D process> I'm actually not disputing the process of R&D as such. Nor do I think customers should be the sole source of new product ideas. I focus on the line "the developers already had in mind what the customers wants..." Essentially, all that R&D is for nothing if at the end of the day it's not a product that in actual fact consumers appreciate. Even with pretty exhaustive R&D, therefore, you cannot assume that a product will be well- received, and thus a panel must not be used for "confirmatory" purposes, but rather for exploratory purposes. In other words, come in expecting nothing. The customers might like it, or they might not. So when devising the panel, the directive to the research firm cannot be "here's this product that we think people are going to like and we want you to determine where its market will be", or worse still "here's a product that we think people will like and we want you to develop the statistics to show people how good it is and get them pre-sold so we can develop an effective marketing campaign". No, it must be "Here's a product. How much do people like it? That's what we want you to find out." Where a firm makes a mistake is when they think that it's only a matter of what marketing spin they put on a product that determines how well it's going to sell - they need to look at the customer base not just as a test- bed for sales concepts but also as a source of product feedback early in the development cycle. >>...Well it had been my experience that many Europeans chocolate >>connoisseurs don't like American chocolates. > > > >>I think there's a risk of characterising "American chocolates" far too >>broadly. Just like any other country, the styles of different U.S. >>manufacturers varies widely. Guittard is generally balanced and on the >>dark side, Scharffen Berger is fruity, bright, and smooth, Ghirardelli >>is very dark, and well-finished, Hershey's tends to be sweet and >>relatively bland... > >As I am not a marketing person I cannot concur on that Do you mean you cannot *confirm* that - i.e. that you don't know pro or con the position of different American manufacturers? > nor I am impressed with those fancy brands ! Nothing about a brand name, *in and of itself* says anything about quality. However, I will point out that brands do develop particular styles - so that from that information you can pick out certain chocolates from certain brands to suit certain needs. It's not that a brand guarantees anything, but I use these companies as examples in order to illustrate that there are indeed brand-to-brand differences that make it impossible to lump together chocolates from a given geographical region into one category. .... >>>From the point of chocolate formulations....American and European >>chocolates are not the same > >>Again, I would consider this an overly broad characterisation.... >>You can narrow the geographic scope as much as you like and it makes >>little difference - different companies use different formulations. > >This is a fact...that different continents have different chocolate >formulations and therefore different product requirements What I'm saying is that trying to characterise formulations by grouping them according to continent is far too broad. Indeed, I don't see a grouping that you can apply by any size of geographic region. Each brand has their own formulations, and trying to generalise by continent reveals nothing. However, if you're referring to *legal* definitions of chocolate in countries, yes, these do vary. But the legal definitions themselves have only the most incidental bearing on the chocolates from different countries. Usually they apply only to certain minimum standards which must be met, most of which chocolatiers exceed routinely. So asking about legal definitions tells you very little indeed. >>I have been able to make extraordinarily smooth chocolate...with >>extraordinary effort.... >Really....? Extraordinarily smooth means the particle size range is >8-15 microns? ...IMO .thats kinda gives a slimy mouthfeel .....not >extra smooth. From the chocolate quality standards that is already >considered a fault and not a desirable attribute. The chocolate I obtained was smoother than Cluizel but not as smooth as Hachez. Overall Hachez has the best texture in the industry, but they achieve this at the expense of flavour intensity, because they use extremely high cocoa butter formulations (>50% cocoa butter). >I don't know how you did it , but I am certain it's an impractical >and a sheer masochistic effort! >IMO 99.9 % perspiration and 0.1% inspiration<grin>. You got it. But more like 90% obsession, 9% perspiration, 1% inspiration. Not really worth the effort unless you're determined to do it. Not economically practical, to be sure. >>Well, most home users are probably not going to add extra emulsifiers. >>Cluizel and Domori have gone emulsifier-free, with excellent results, >>showing it can be done, so for the home user this is probably >>acceptable as well. > >No added emulsifiers means a higher amount of cocoa butter which makes >the product more expensive per unit weight. Which is acceptable for high-end companies like these and usually pretty acceptable for a home user, whose volume output is sufficiently small that saving a few pennies doesn't really mean much. -- Alex Rast (remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply) |
|
Posted to rec.food.chocolate
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wanting to make awesome chocolates...
Sat, 17 Dec 2005 23:26:40 GMT in
>>>Alex Rast wrote >>In many product development based sensory analysis the consumer panel >>is just taken secondarily ... >>The developers already had in mind what the customers wants and the >>consumer panel is used often for confirmatory purposes. .... >That is a narrow perspective about confectionery related R&D. >... >Food product developments is not like theoretical physics...looking >for the fundamental structure of matter . but 100% applied >science...based on the customers wants and needs! >I'm actually not disputing the process of R&D as such. Nor do I think >customers should be the sole source of new product ideas. An ordinary customers cannot think in clear structured manne nor know how to think in technical terms r what are their desires that can be immediately transferred into the laboratory to be used to create a product. Often their demands are unrealistic and the food designer must find s compromise so that the product will be practical to manufacture. >I focus on the line "the developers already had in mind what the customers >wants..." Its difficult to explain to an individual who had never experienced being deeply involved in actual research and development work to understand the minds of an innovative person doing such demanding job. Outsiders always think of food researchers as like mad scientists doing strange experiments whose works were motivated by conceit (or burning desire to be recognized ,) and have have forgotten the real world...<grin>Which is not true... First an foremost in applied food research you have a practical goal , there fore you have to base all your studies in your particular specialty on real food that the customers wants. Not on what caught your fancy....He or she keeps in mind that just like any worker in any industry his or her wage ultimately comes from the customers therefore they are obliged to do a job that pleases them. >Essentially, all that R&D is for nothing if at the end of the day it's not >a product that in actual fact consumers appreciate. Even with pretty >exhaustive R&D, therefore, you cannot assume that a product will be well- >received, and thus a panel must not be used for "confirmatory" purposes, >but rather for exploratory purposes. In other words, come in expecting >nothing. The customers might like it, or they might not. So when devising >the panel, the directive to the research firm cannot be "here's this >product that we think people are going to like and we want you to determine >where its market will be", or worse still "here's a product that we think >people will like and we want you to develop the statistics to show people >how good it is and get them pre-sold so we can develop an effective >marketing campaign". No, it must be "Here's a product. How much do people >like it? That's what we want you to find out." As I how I see it you have a chef mentality and it had been my experience dealing with a lot of kitchen and bakery people as I had worked in that area for long time in a technical positions also. An executive chef, and any other kind of chef differs only from the kitchen hand bakery helper in the nature of the skills but their perspective s are pretty much the same,; narrow minded folks whose passions and huge ego dominates their reasoning powers . In many cases. The higher their position in the kitchen, the bigger is their egos<sigh>. Not the kind of reasonable people that I would like to talk to for a long time without rankling their frail self identity. Therefore I cannot expect from them impartiality and to look at the culinary issues from a 'clinical' mindset. Any person who had been in food science for a long time, look at ingredients in a clinical fashion, similar to a doctor who operates a patient; its not because his patient is pretty , and sexy that he pours more attention to it than an ugly women. He treats them equally; and that is the view that I had; Nothing is best.... its relative to the purpose that ingredients is to be used for. What counts is if fits the specification you are looking for ; if it not how you can possibly tweak the formulations so that particular ingredient can fit. But from the scientific point of view, nothing is best... its relative to what is used for. Besides .... You are only assuming that food designers are just too focused on the technical aspects and had forgotten the customers in mind. If that had been the case the result of new product development in the food industry will never result in goods that will be unmarketable or wanted by the consumer. >Where a firm makes a mistake is when they think that it's only a matter of >what marketing spin they put on a product that determines how well it's >going to sell - they need to look at the customer base not just as a test- >bed for sales concepts but also as a source of product feedback early in >the development cycle. Product feedback is ever existent in the development cycle and much background research is also done how that new material will satisfy the customer. It is just a complex process that the people uninitiated in R& D methodology had difficulty in grasping its essence (or much more) completely understanding it. Therefore in many cases when the product is launched its likely to succeed although there are exceptions as well. >>...Well it had been my experience that many Europeans chocolate >>connoisseurs don't like American chocolates. >>I think there's a risk of characterising "American chocolates" far too >>broadly. Just like any other country, the styles of different U.S. >>manufacturers varies widely. Guittard is generally balanced and on the >>dark side, Scharffen Berger is fruity, bright, and smooth, Ghirardelli >>is very dark, and well-finished, Hershey's tends to be sweet and >>relatively bland... >Do you mean you cannot *confirm* that - i.e. that you don't know pro or con >the position of different American manufacturers? Every product from every country had its so called pro and con....but if you are outside America what you hear is the bad side of American goods and less of the good side<grin>.If I travel outside Europe say to the southern hemisphere; people there talk about that many American made food stuff are overrated and expensive . But it was never the same from products made in Europe. In particular Germany Switzerland UK Scandinavia etc. although in many cases its as pricey. I travel a lot and I don't stay in one continent for a long time that is maybe the reason that I don't have the attachment to American made products but I feel the same with product from other countries . One thing also I have been in R&D circuit for more than two decades starting from the bakery and I had used myriads of ingredients but I was unable to have a certain fancy for one. I know them well for their utilitarian and true purpose, functionality. When ever a new product succeed under my direction, some people ask me what is your special ingredients and do you really like that material that made your product give your employers good economic returns and reputation? Not really they are like workers that I employed to get the job done<grin>....an ingredient is just like the structural materials of a house you are planning to build...you look for the functionality and not that its looks good , well known expensive and have class so it should reflect on the quality of your building.... It its not that way... You combine different ingredient that best exhibit the qualities you want from a product and certainly you will get what you desire for. You don't look at the brand of the ingredients but the nature of its specifications as the basis of the decision. To be a good developer you should have that impartiality so that you can think straight with no bias against any of the material you use. The central focus is the product outcome. If you have that kind of preference....then you are becoming subjective in your decision not objective and you product development projects lacks the depth. Brand loyalty may make you likely to be exploited by the suppliers of your coveted ingredients. It had never happened to me . That what separates a food science practitioner from a chef,,,,yes they both have undertaken food studies and had acquired the food processing skill useful in their profession... The chef have so much passion for his trade that he ensures that his favored ingredients should be a part of his cooking materials repertoire so that he can deliver the best food to his client... On the other hand the food science practitioner never cares about that ingredient as long as it is within the specification he established, (and follows the country's food legislation requirements )if he can tweak the formulation so that another relatively similar ingredient can takes it place without affecting the quality of the end product. Pragmatism is the keyword here not idealism... > nor I am impressed with those fancy brands ! >Nothing about a brand name, *in and of itself* says anything about quality. >However, I will point out that brands do develop particular styles - so >that from that information you can pick out certain chocolates from certain >brands to suit certain needs. It's not that a brand guarantees anything, >but I use these companies as examples in order to illustrate that there are >indeed brand-to-brand differences that make it impossible to lump together >chocolates from a given geographical region into one category. Well I understand that point....that geography has noting to do with product quality... but as I am not brand conscious but care for product specification awareness...therefore .it does matter less to me whether somebody claims that this material is superior in every aspects... I am satisfied that at least I can duplicate many of that attributes in the laboratory with cost effective ingredients. .... >>>From the point of chocolate formulations....American and European >>chocolates are not the same >>Again, I would consider this an overly broad characterisation.... >>You can narrow the geographic scope as much as you like and it makes >>little difference - different companies use different formulations. >Food formulations are not the same in every continent ... >It is also dictated by difference in tastes and preferences. >However, if you're referring to *legal* definitions of chocolate in >countries, yes, these do vary. But the legal definitions themselves have >only the most incidental bearing on the chocolates from different >countries. Usually they apply only to certain minimum standards which must >be met, most of which chocolatiers exceed routinely. So asking about legal >definitions tells you very little indeed. >>I have been able to make extraordinarily smooth chocolate...with >>extraordinary effort.... >Really....? Extraordinarily smooth means the particle size range is >8-15 microns? ...IMO .thats kinda gives a slimy mouthfeel .....not >extra smooth. From the chocolate quality standards that is already >considered a fault and not a desirable attribute. >The chocolate I obtained was smoother than Cluizel but not as smooth as >Hachez. Overall Hachez has the best texture in the industry, but they >achieve this at the expense of flavour intensity, because they use >extremely high cocoa butter formulations (>50% cocoa butter). Aha that makes sense....high amounts of fat tend to mask the grittiness of higher particle size chocolates as more fat content tend to create an unctuous feeling in the mouth and therefore had a significant effect in modifying our sensory perceptions. Another thing is fat has a coating effect on particulate matter, even if the particle size is coarser i.e above the normal range of 10-40 microns in good chocolates . More fat surface to coat the larger particles results in the smooth sensory feeling in the mouth. Having cocoa butter that high indicates the manufacturer has a kind of passion that defies practicality....Why ?....certain surfactants can replace ten times or more the effect of the same amount of cocoa butter on chocolate functionality and at a tiny fraction of the cost. This brings to my mind that such chocolate manufacturer is also a fanatic...just like their ...hardcore consumers. They are , not the kind of chocolate manufacturer that I will rub elbows in regular basis and would not even go near them ...nor never touch with a ten foot pole as the 'virus of their snobbishness or (in extreme) lunacy' might infect me.<just joking>. I am not sure if these kind of people have sufficient scientific and practical knowledge to cure them of their extravagant madness<grin>.. That is maybe one reason that I am not impressed with the so called high end chocolate products because in their minds being extravagant is synonymous with elegance. To me the highest form of elegance is not by extravagant means but practicality and simplicity.....and that applies to any food product....including chocolates....If you can make a chocolate with optimum quality at the least cost then why would you go the extreme of using more of one material when functionally speaking there are more efficient and cost effective ways of doing it...? The cost effective and efficient way to get the required chocolate fluidity and viscosity is the use of available technological ingredients.. and not the wanton use of an expensive ingredient like cocoa butter which can increase the fat content of the product making it less healthy to consume.... (Specifically speaking )to health conscious people. >I don't know how you did it , but I am certain it's an impractical >and a sheer masochistic effort! >IMO 99.9 % perspiration and 0.1% inspiration<grin>. >You got it. But more like 90% obsession, 9% perspiration, 1% inspiration. >Not really worth the effort unless you're determined to do it. Not >economically practical, to be sure. Obsessive compulsive behavior borders in lunacy < just joking>....I hope you had checked your doctor about the soundness of your mental health if your obsession is not curtailed.<jj>. >>Well, most home users are probably not going to add extra emulsifiers. >>Cluizel and Domori have gone emulsifier-free, with excellent results, >>showing it can be done, so for the home user this is probably >>acceptable as well. >No added emulsifiers means a higher amount of cocoa butter which makes >the product more expensive per unit weight. >Which is acceptable for high-end companies like these and usually pretty >acceptable for a home user, whose volume output is sufficiently small that >saving a few pennies doesn't really mean much That is maybe the case....small consumer don't care for extra pennies as they can afford to give hefty tips for the service personnel in the hospitality and even food retailers including chocolate resellers). These expensive chocolates make them a luxury commodity that only the well to do can afford to be a part of their daily menu. But its different from the point of the big time manufacturer,.taking into consideration the majority of their chocolate consumers don't have the big bucks to satisfy their chocolate cravings but still requires that the chocolate confectionery to be as good if not absolutely equivalent and chocolate manufacturing technology have enabled much of that to become possible. |
|
Posted to rec.food.chocolate
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wanting to make awesome chocolates...
at Tue, 20 Dec 2005 01:13:40 GMT in
.com>, (Chembake) wrote : >Sat, 17 Dec 2005 23:26:40 GMT in > >>>>Alex Rast wrote > > >>>In many product development based sensory analysis the consumer >>>panel is just taken secondarily ... >>>The developers already had in mind what the customers wants and the >>>consumer panel is used often for confirmatory purposes. >>... >>Food product developments is not like theoretical physics...looking >>for the fundamental structure of matter . but 100% applied >>science...based on the customers wants and needs! > >>I'm actually not disputing the process of R&D as such. Nor do I think >>customers should be the sole source of new product ideas. >... >>I focus on the line "the developers already had in mind what the >>customers wants..." > >Its difficult to explain to an individual who had never experienced >being deeply involved in actual research and development work to >understand the minds of an innovative person doing such demanding job. .... >First an foremost in applied food research you have a practical goal , >there fore you have to base all your studies in your particular >specialty on real food that the customers wants. >Not on what caught your fancy.... I'm not trying to imply that the food researcher isn't being objective, or that his experiments are tinged by personal bias as such. It's that even an objective assessment must rely on certain assumptions, or to use the scientific term, axioms. There are things that you take as a given, and in the food science arena some of these things are about consumer attitudes and preferences. Thus all the careful objective research and development leads you to believe that product X should be successful. But then it turns out to be a disaster in the marketplace - because as it turns out things taken as axiomatic actually weren't, or that there was a previously unknown exception or modification to the axiom. This is especially true when dealing with consumer preferences which can turn on matters of extraordinary subtlety. In other words, even if you proceeded with the most careful analysis in the industry, you could still have been wrong. Thus consumer panels would be necessary not simply to confirm your analysis, but rather to get experimental data - which then would either independently confirm, refute, or modify the analysis. The critical point I'm trying to make is that the experiment has to be conducted without any expectations as to the outcome, or you already run the risk of getting misleading data. It's very similar to the process of drug research. A pharmaceutical company may have done very thorough theoretical and lab work that suggests their new drug will be effective, but you still have to go through the clinical trial, without expecting that the drug will actually turn out to be effective, because as that industry knows all-too-well, something that seems promising in the lab may actually turn out to be fatal in real patients. > >>Essentially, all that R&D is for nothing if at the end of the day it's >>not a product that in actual fact consumers appreciate. ... > >As I how I see it you have a chef mentality and it had been my >experience dealing with a lot of kitchen and bakery people as I had >worked in that area for long time in a technical positions also. >An executive chef, and any other kind of chef differs only from the >kitchen hand bakery helper in the nature of the skills but their >perspective s are pretty much the same,; narrow minded folks whose >passions and huge ego dominates their reasoning powers. Although there may indeed be a prevalence of such attitudes among professional chefs, I'd stop short of assuming that virtually all of them are ego-driven. However, while of course food research based mostly on personal motivations like that is inherently unscientific, even more objective research can run afoul of expectations which no reasonable person had any reason to doubt at the time. To a certain extent, I'd argue that you lose objectivity the second you start bringing expectations into an experiment. >Besides .... >You are only assuming that food designers are just too focused on the >technical aspects and had forgotten the customers in mind. No, I'm not assuming that they're thinking only of the technical aspects. I'm saying that in the development phase, the designer will of necessity have had to make a projection of what consumer tastes would be as opposed to knowing first-hand: after all, it's impossible to know what actual consumer reaction is to a product that doesn't exist. I'm in fact assuming the designer *does* take into consideration the customer, but he won't always be right about what actual consumer demand turns out to be. .... >>Do you mean you cannot *confirm* that - i.e. that you don't know pro or >>con the position of different American manufacturers? > >Every product from every country had its so called pro and con....but >if you are outside America what you hear is the bad side of American >goods and less of the good side<grin>.If I travel outside Europe say to > the southern hemisphere; people there talk about that many American >made food stuff are overrated and expensive . But it was never the >same from products made in Europe. In particular Germany Switzerland >UK Scandinavia etc. although in many cases its as pricey. I could believe that the perception of U.S. chocolate in many countries is that it's homogeneously bad. Perception, however, isn't a very reliable indicator of stylistic trends. People might assume U.S. chocolate were all the same, and yet these same individuals, put in a testing environment under good experimental conditions, might well conclude that various chocolates from U.S. companies were very difficult stylistically. >When ever a new product succeed under my direction, some people ask me >what is your special ingredients and do you really like that material >that made your product give your employers good economic returns and >reputation? >Not really they are like workers that I employed to get the job >done<grin>....an ingredient is just like the structural materials of a >house you are planning to build...you look for the functionality and >not that its looks good , well known expensive and have class so it >should reflect on the quality of your building.... Hear! Hear! If there's one thing I've seen, it's that there are far too many people who think there must be some "magic" ingredient in any recipe, a "secret" trick which in one stroke transforms it from the ordinary to the transcendant. I wish more books and other materials would spend more time to explode this notion, because in truth most of the time it's about technique, proportions, consistent procedures, etc. Ingredient choice has a role to play, but in a total sense - i.e. it's not one ingredient that will make or break something most of the time but rather the interactions between various players. A good example of that was my discussion of chocolates with cinnamon - where just using a "high-end" chocolate meant little - it was in choosing one that specifically harmonised with another ingredient - hinting at how you have to consider the recipe in totality, not one item. .... >Brand loyalty may make you likely to be exploited by the suppliers of >your coveted ingredients. Well, I'd say *slavish* brand loyalty makes you an easy target of exploitation. Some brand loyalty can pay off, because then you can often get discounts and promotions that other customers won't get, better credit terms, etc... Even so, companies can go out of business, and if you've staked your company on them, you are likely to go down with the ship. Thus a mercenary attitude may work to one's disadvantage, but so does a fanatical attitude. >> nor I am impressed with those fancy brands ! > >>...It's not that a >>brand guarantees anything, but I use these companies as examples in >>order to illustrate that there are indeed brand-to-brand differences >>that make it impossible to lump together chocolates from a given >>geographical region into one category. > >Well I understand that point....that geography has noting to do with >product quality... but as I am not brand conscious but care for product >specification awareness...therefore .it does matter less to me whether >somebody claims that this material is superior in every aspects... I am >satisfied that at least I can duplicate many of that attributes in the > laboratory with cost effective ingredients. Probably so, although product specifications can only say so much. Chocolates, for instance, don't come with specifications as to taste profiles, even though it might be argued that this is the most critical specification, so that it's hard to select from a list like a database for taste profiles. You can build up a database of characteristics, with multiple tastings, and this helps, but even there there is a fair amount of fuzziness. Furthermore it doesn't help you out faced with a new formulation. >... > >>The chocolate I obtained was smoother than Cluizel but not as smooth as >>Hachez. Overall Hachez has the best texture in the industry, but they >>achieve this at the expense of flavour intensity, because they use >>extremely high cocoa butter formulations (>50% cocoa butter). > >Having cocoa butter that high indicates the manufacturer has a kind of >passion that defies practicality....Why ?....certain surfactants can >replace ten times or more the effect of the same amount of cocoa butter >on chocolate functionality and at a tiny fraction of the cost. >This brings to my mind that such chocolate manufacturer is also a >fanatic...just like their ...hardcore consumers. It's very clear Hachez is positioning their product for a specific market. Those people no doubt know who they are. I'll agree that their choices are somewhat dubious IMHO, and represent an extremism that on surface is clouding their viewpoint, but I suppose as long as they're making an acceptable profit, what does it matter? It's nice to know there's a reference standard out there for an ideal texture, and it's a good object lesson in the kinds of tradeoffs you must expect if you decide to optimise one attribute at all costs. >They are , not the kind of chocolate manufacturer that I will rub >elbows in regular basis and would not even go near them ...nor never >touch with a ten foot pole as the 'virus of their snobbishness or >(in extreme) lunacy' might infect me.<just joking>. I get the impression that it's not snobbishness as such but a calculated and deliberate effort to capture a specific market. >That is maybe one reason that I am not impressed with the so called >high end chocolate products because in their minds being extravagant >is synonymous with elegance. Some of them probably are, but in many companies I see no overt indications of extravagance. Guittard, for example, shows every example of being pragmatic and yet produces chocolate that is IMHO among the best in the world. Now, for high quality, of necessity there will be some price premium, because the extra raw material costs and labour costs associated with premium ingredients and maximally-skilled workers must be accounted for somewhere - to repeat the old aphorism, "you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear", but within limits, high quality need not come at extravagant price, nor do I see all companies believing that it must. To be sure, there are companies out there who are obviously extravagant. If they offer something specific and unique, sometimes the cost is justifiable. However, just as often it's not justifiable and in those cases best avoided. >If you can make a chocolate with >optimum quality at the least cost then why would you go the extreme of >using more of one material when functionally speaking there are more >efficient and cost effective ways of doing it...? > >The cost effective and efficient way to get the required chocolate >fluidity and viscosity is the use of available technological >ingredients.. Usually the reason companies go to such extremes is that there is a market of equally uncompromising consumers who see anything less than a certain extreme as unacceptable. There are consumers out there who will not buy, for instance, any chocolate with lecithin, no matter how good it is, and so using various technological agents will never enable you to capture this market. That opens a market niche for a company willing to cater to that demand. If the demand is sufficiently solid, the company can make an acceptable profit. The textbook example of this is in hi-fi stereo equipment where the presence of audiophiles makes it possible to sell components that cannot possibly be considered economical in the usual sense - and which retail for upwards of $50,000. -- Alex Rast (remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply) |
|
Posted to rec.food.chocolate
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wanting to make awesome chocolates...
Tue, 20 Dec 2005 01:13:40 GMT in
>I'm not trying to imply that the food researcher isn't being objective, or >that his experiments are tinged by personal bias as such. It's that even an >objective assessment must rely on certain assumptions, or to use the >scientific term, axioms. There are things that you take as a given, and in >the food science arena some of these things are about consumer attitudes >and preferences. Thus all the careful objective research and development >leads you to believe that product X should be successful. But then it turns >out to be a disaster in the marketplace - because as it turns out things >taken as axiomatic actually weren't, or that there was a previously unknown >exception or modification to the axiom. This is especially true when >dealing with consumer preferences which can turn on matters of >extraordinary subtlety. In other words, even if you proceeded with the most >careful analysis in the industry, you could still have been wrong. Thus >consumer panels would be necessary not simply to confirm your analysis, but >rather to get experimental data - which then would either independently >confirm, refute, or modify the analysis. The critical point I'm trying to >make is that the experiment has to be conducted without any expectations as >to the outcome, or you already run the risk of getting misleading data. That is the way how any experiments should be done as dictated by good experimental design. Every experimenter must have a 'statistical turn of mind' before he starts doing his chore. Because the interpretation of result say sensory analysis s in mathematically based ( and somewhat abstract) the inference from such analysis is objective as its not biased. >It's very similar to the process of drug research. A pharmaceutical company >may have done very thorough theoretical and lab work that suggests their >new drug will be effective, but you still have to go through the clinical >trial, without expecting that the drug will actually turn out to be >effective, because as that industry knows all-too-well, something that >seems promising in the lab may actually turn out to be fatal in real >patients. That is part of the risk that any researcher will have to accept , but a drug is not directly tested on humans but on animals; unlike most confectionery research result which is tested directly by humans. >>Essentially, all that R&D is for nothing if at the end of the day it's >>not a product that in actual fact consumers appreciate. ... That is the expectation in any every product development work but they will not initiate any work along that does not have any pragmatic knowledge about the project. >As I how I see it you have a chef mentality and it had been my >Although there may indeed be a prevalence of such attitudes among >professional chefs, I'd stop short of assuming that virtually all of them >are ego-driven. However, while of course food research based mostly on >personal motivations like that is inherently unscientific, even more >objective research can run afoul of expectations which no reasonable person >had any reason to doubt at the time. To a certain extent, I'd argue that >you lose objectivity the second you start bringing expectations into an >experiment. Expectation usually comes from the top management person who decides on such research project that it will be worth investing on studying a particular area on interests Say for example in confectionery line. In the production of chocolates designed for the Gulf War, the prerequisites is it should not melt at 40 degree C. The customers are the soldiers and they have only one thing in mind give us a choc that won't melt under the normal dessert heat. There was not much soldier derived taste panel but was it was already been known by the military what the foot soldiers expect from their chocolates. And it can be assumed that there was a hint that some soldiers indeed taste it and see that with all the drastic changes such as use of alternative cocoa butter extenders could still provide the same chocolates they are used to. It's a fact that the military people consume what is given to them as part of their meal rations . Indeed it's a difficult task to formulate such unique chocolate confections which I considers as MilSpec ( robust to the conditions of military use and harsh field environment. The taste are already expected as standard chocolates. The same also during the World War Ii Milton Hershey developed a chocolate confection where it was never confirmed if it had undergone extensive consumer panel.( soldiers panel?). Mars confectionery is not know to have done much soldier evalution ) when they launched their chocolate bar for military use but it was widely applauded; but in the end the rivalry between Forrest Mars and Milton Hershsey the latter was honored by the war era government because of the importance of the sweets he development which helps boost the mrorale of the soldiers leading to winning many battles. Both of them have intense rivalry in that line but were there any soldiers complaining that one is worser than the other? I have not seen any evidence but its only which given more preference by the direct consumer. This supports the rationale that using the end users as the yardstick for product development is redundant. First before a product developer work on a new ides there was much study about the acceptability of the item to the end user. They have in their database voluminous information about the specific demands of the intended market and that it should not deviate from the sensory values from that product. So whatever is developed to cater to a certain client need benchmarking is also done how the unique products rates compared to the standard Therefore .... if the product was launched its expected to succeed. >No, I'm not assuming that they're thinking only of the technical aspects. >I'm saying that in the development phase, the designer will of necessity >have had to make a projection of what consumer tastes would be as opposed >to knowing first-hand: after all, it's impossible to know what actual >consumer reaction is to a product that doesn't exist. I'm in fact assuming >the designer *does* take into consideration the customer, but he won't >always be right about what actual consumer demand turns out to be. That is why there is a need for confirmatory test by random sampling .... The projection is already supported by sufficient evidence from the existing dababase >Every product from every country had its so called pro and con....but >if you are outside America what you hear is the bad side of American >goods and less of the good side<grin>.If I travel outside Europe say to > the southern hemisphere; people there talk about that many American >made food stuff are overrated and expensive . But it was never the >same from products made in Europe. In particular Germany Switzerland >UK Scandinavia etc. although in many cases its as pricey. >I could believe that the perception of U.S. chocolate in many countries is >that it's homogeneously bad. Perception, however, isn't a very reliable >indicator of stylistic trends. People might assume U.S. chocolate were all >the same, and yet these same individuals, put in a testing environment >under good experimental conditions, might well conclude that various >chocolates from U.S. companies were very difficult stylistically. America in general and United States in particular is a big country and being well known for chocolates which unfortunately is perceived that craft chocolate work is not well know in this country as elsewhere as a few big name companies dominate the market which are not well known to exquisite confectionery products Overseas American confections are just considered as second class compared to European made items. >When ever a new product succeed under my direction, some people ask me >what is your special ingredients and do you really like that material >that made your product give your employers good economic returns and >reputation? >Not really they are like workers that I employed to get the job >done<grin>....an ingredient is just like the structural materials of a >house you are planning to build...you look for the functionality and >not that its looks good , well known expensive and have class so it >should reflect on the quality of your building.... >Hear! Hear! If there's one thing I've seen, it's that there are far too >many people who think there must be some "magic" ingredient in any recipe, >a "secret" trick which in one stroke transforms it from the ordinary to the >transcendant. I wish more books and other materials would spend more time >to explode this notion, because in truth most of the time it's about >technique, proportions, consistent procedures, etc. Ingredient choice has a >role to play, but in a total sense - i.e. it's not one ingredient that will >make or break something most of the time but rather the interactions >between various players. A good example of that was my discussion of >chocolates with cinnamon - where just using a "high-end" chocolate meant >little - it was in choosing one that specifically harmonised with another >ingredient - hinting at how you have to consider the recipe in totality, >not one item. That can be considered as ingredient teamwork<grin> That's the way it is... a chocolate formulation is not just using any available cocoa beans but to use certain blends that will satisfy the requirements for the end product. But once it interacts during the manufacturing process that evolves the various flavors that consumers desire. The generation of unique aromas from chocolates can be also affected by the degree of chocolate processing such as the label of roasts, conching etc. .... ?Probably so, although product specifications can only say so much. >Chocolates, for instance, don't come with specifications as to taste >profiles, even though it might be argued that this is the most critical >specification, so that it's hard to select from a list like a database for >taste profiles. What a database can also provide aside from technical details of the formulations and ingredients and the write up of the results it also includes sensory evaluation results which can be useful for a related product development that is to be launched in the market in the near future. It will be different for novelty product where there is no data to support if that particular item will succeed in the market and indeed a good consumer taste evaluation should accompany the in house trained taste panel. One thing that the new product developer wants to avoid is much publicity and a consumer panel does not have any security clearance if it happens a competitor is scouting what his rival is doing and is disguising himself as an ordinary consumer. That will be disastrous to the developer if these kind of spying beat them in launching the product ahead of them. There will be much legal issues to be sorted out later which can be very expensive. You can build up a database of characteristics, with >multiple tastings, and this helps, but even there there is a fair amount of >fuzziness. Furthermore it doesn't help you out faced with a new >formulation. Databases are used because it's a good reference for the targeted taste for a new product.. Once the target customers is identified the related information is easily matched to the product, what is expected for such new item. With such information the food designer/ product developer will be sure most of the time that the product he is developing in his facilities will surely have good results in the market. >Having cocoa butter that high indicates the manufacturer has a kind of >passion that defies practicality....Why ?....certain surfactants can >replace ten times or more the effect of the same amount of cocoa butter >on chocolate functionality and at a tiny fraction of the cost. >This brings to my mind that such chocolate manufacturer is also a >fanatic...just like their ...hardcore consumers. >I get the impression that it's not snobbishness as such but a calculated >and deliberate effort to capture a specific market. Its looks weird but indeed a niche market do exist for such unique products. >That is maybe one reason that I am not impressed with the so called >high end chocolate products because in their minds being extravagant >is synonymous with elegance. >Some of them probably are, but in many companies I see no overt indications >of extravagance. Guittard, for example, shows every example of being >pragmatic and yet produces chocolate that is IMHO among the best in the >world. Now, for high quality, of necessity there will be some price >premium, because the extra raw material costs and labour costs associated >with premium ingredients and maximally-skilled workers must be accounted >for somewhere - to repeat the old aphorism, "you can't make a silk purse >out of a sow's ear", but within limits, high quality need not come at >extravagant price, nor do I see all companies believing that it must. I would say that the primary reason for higher cost is the use of more expensive flavor beans say the Criollo which is much scarcer than the common Forastero or even the Trinitario cacao beans. >Usually the reason companies go to such extremes is that there is a market >of equally uncompromising consumers who see anything less than a certain >extreme as unacceptable. There are consumers out there who will not buy, >for instance, any chocolate with lecithin, no matter how good it is, and so >using various technological agents will never enable you to capture this >market. I cannot understand the logic of such what I call 'leciphobic '( phobia for lecithin ) customers do exists as that substance( lecithin) is ubiquitous in many food stuff( in eggs and even milk for example) and is considered by others as a health food supplement .. If indeed there are people who do... its about a matter of ignorance that anything that does not sound like chocolatey is considered artificial .... And deserves not to be there .which is funny.. Most food manufacturing companies add ingredients due to functional reasons and many consumers who are ignorant about its purpose will avoid the \product for the same reason. > That opens a market niche for a company willing to cater to that >demand. If the demand is sufficiently solid, the company can make an >acceptable profit. The textbook example of this is in hi-fi stereo >equipment where the presence of audiophiles makes it possible to sell >components that cannot possibly be considered economical in the usual sense >- and which retail for upwards of $50,000. It might be for electronics....Just recently I bought the state of the art Sony Notebook with a 17 inch screen....Some people say it was an extravagant procurement... but what they don't know are the unique features it had and the bundled products that accompanies the main item... that led me to decide to obtain it ..., to me the unique qualities and good craftsmanship had justifies its cost But never (even in my imagination) will I do the same purchase such as in foodstuff. Or ingredients used for such purpose. Except maybe if I work in an industrial chemistry plant situation I may be forced to buy platinum,rhodium and palladium metals which are can be as expensive or even more than gold ;but that is an essential material due to its superior catalytic powers in certain chemical synthesis and nothing can take its place. |
|
Posted to rec.food.chocolate
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wanting to make awesome chocolates...
at Wed, 21 Dec 2005 22:51:35 GMT in
.com>, (Chembake) wrote : >Tue, 20 Dec 2005 01:13:40 GMT in > >>... Thus consumer panels would be >>necessary not simply to confirm your analysis, but rather to get >>experimental data - which then would either independently confirm, >>refute, or modify the analysis. > > The critical point I'm trying to >>make is that the experiment has to be conducted without any >>expectations as to the outcome, or you already run the risk of getting >>misleading data. > >That is the way how any experiments should be done as dictated by good >experimental design. >Every experimenter must have a 'statistical turn of mind' before he >starts doing his chore. However, earlier you say: >"Chocolate taste from the consumer panel is a subjective matter in many >cases... erroneous and does not reflect the true quality of the >chocolate . The marketing people are shrewdly exploiting the naivety of >the normal consumer" Which to me would imply that you believe consumer panels are conducted with preconceived conclusions already in mind. Otherwise, there would be no naivete of the normal consumer to exploit. If you're approaching the panel tasting truly objectively, indeed, to assume that a consumer were naive would be in itself already a bias. .... >>It's very similar to the process of drug research. A pharmaceutical >>company may have done very thorough theoretical and lab work that >>suggests their new drug will be effective, but you still have to go >>through the clinical trial... > >That is part of the risk that any researcher will have to accept , but >a drug is not directly tested on humans but on animals; unlike most >confectionery research result which is tested directly by humans. No, a clinical trial is by definition performed on human patients. *Laboratory* research may be on animal subjects, but once it gets to the clinical phase you're talking about real-live people, generally volunteers who have signed an informed-consent form, who are making themselves human guinea pigs for the sake of medical advance and often with the hope that it may lead to an effective treatment for their own condition. Every drug must go through the clinical phase because experiments on animals aren't conclusive. I'd analogise this to the case between the trained test panel and the consumer panel. The test panel represents the animal subject - a carefully selected group with calibrated response which you can measure. The consumer panel is the clinical subjects - a group representing the end target of the product who must themselves be sampled to get results that give you data on real reactions as opposed to reactions in a test case. >>... To a certain >>extent, I'd argue that you lose objectivity the second you start >>bringing expectations into an experiment. > >Expectation usually comes from the top management person who decides on >such research project that it will be worth investing on studying a >particular area on interests Top management can have a tendency to impose their expectations upon the rank and file, yes. But scientific researchers, I've seen, can have a tendency to impose their expectations upon the experiment. They know that it's not what they're supposed to do, but even with excellent training it proves almost impossible to avoid entirely. For that reason the results of one particular individual must always be tested against reality rather than taken as experimentally valid. This is one reason why in most of the hard physical sciences research results get reported to refereed publications and go through a fairly extended period of scrutiny and test against actual reults observed elsewhere before being accepted. >Say for example in confectionery line. In the production of chocolates >designed for the Gulf War, the prerequisites is it should not melt at >40 degree C. The customers are the soldiers and they have only one >thing in mind give us a choc that won't melt under the normal dessert >heat. There is an example of an expectation - "they have only one thing in mind". It's probably fair to say that this is a primary consideration but probably inaccurate to characterise it as the only criterion of value. You could, I suspect, make a chocolate that was entirely impervious to heat but which tasted so foul that no one would eat it. I suspect it's also inaccurate to call the soldiers the customers - at least, not in the sense of the front-line privates. The customer is the military of the country in question. Usually, some branch or office of that organisation will have drafted the specifications which are then handed over to the confectioner and as to whether the soldiers doing the fighting had any input into the process the confectioner isn't going to know or much care - from his POV that's not the "customer". >It's a fact that the military people consume what is given to them as >part of their meal rations . Well, in the military you are usually given 2 choices: accept what's given or go hungry. So naturally they'll typically take what's offered. .... >I have not seen any evidence but its only which given more preference >by the direct consumer. >This supports the rationale that using the end users as the yardstick >for product development is redundant. As I point out, the scenario you have brought up is one in which the end users from the POV of the confectioner aren't the individual soldier. The consumers in this case is the military, or that branch, command, or office responsible for the purchase decisions, and it would be a panel of *those* individuals who might need to be consulted during product development. Given that their interests are different, I think also that taste wouldn't be as overwhelming a factor - there would be many other factors at stake. Meanwhile when the product is going out into a commercial market, the customers are the actual eating public, because at some point they're buying the product. This is completely different from the soldier in the military who isn't buying the chocolate as such but is simply accepting as part of a rations distribution a product being bought by someone else. > First before a product developer >work on a new ides there was much study about the acceptability of the >item to the end user. They have in their database voluminous >information about the specific demands of the intended market and that >it should not deviate from the sensory values from that product. All you have is information as to what's been successful in the *past*. So as a result you'd be limited to producing derivatives of what has already been done, and furthermore if the ideal product had already been achieved, you couldn't do any better. Past market data, however, gives no information as to how successful an entirely new product will be. It may suggest areas worth exploring, but until real data is gathered through the production and sampling of that product, you don't actually know how well something is going to do - at best you're estimating. >>Every product from every country had its so called pro and con....but >>if you are outside America what you hear is the bad side of American >>goods and less of the good side<grin>... > >>I could believe that the perception of U.S. chocolate in many countries >>is that it's homogeneously bad. Perception, however, isn't a very >>reliable indicator of stylistic trends. > >America in general and United States in particular is a big country and >being well known for chocolates which unfortunately is perceived that >craft chocolate work is not well know in this country as elsewhere as a >few big name companies dominate the market which are not well known to >exquisite confectionery products I think that's a fairly accurate picture of virtually any chocolate- producing country - that on the whole, there will be a few large companies producing chocolate at a commodity grade, and who dominate the market, below them lying a sea of companies of various sizes producing chocolate of varying levels of quality. What differs, I believe, isn't so much reality but perception. Certain people in certain places, in other words, can have preconceptions about what a certain country is like for chocolate, but this is simply a personal bias, occasionally the result of tasting a few chocolates from the largest producers of that country. >>...Now, for high quality, of necessity there will be >>some price premium, because the extra raw material costs and labour >>costs associated with premium ingredients and maximally-skilled workers >>must be accounted for somewhere - to repeat the old aphorism, "you >>can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear", but within limits, high >>quality need not come at extravagant price, nor do I see all companies >>believing that it must. > >I would say that the primary reason for higher cost is the use of more >expensive flavor beans say the Criollo which is much scarcer than the >common Forastero or even the Trinitario cacao beans. That does contribute some amount but you also have to take into account that the most skilled roasters, confectioners, etc. can command higher pay than less-experienced people in the field and that they can get better results out of the same beans on similar equipment. Also, capital equipment isn't all the same - better machines cost more, on average, for the same processing capacity. >>...There are consumers out there who will >>not buy, for instance, any chocolate with lecithin, no matter how good >>it is, and so using various technological agents will never enable you >>to capture this market. > >I cannot understand the logic of such what I call 'leciphobic '( >phobia for lecithin ) There are 2 common reasons for this. One is that some people are so allergic to soy that even traces could be life-threatening, and for them soy lecithin in any amount is a high risk. The second is the group who object to GMO's (genetically modified organisms). Some of them have concerns about uninvestigated long-term health benefits and environmental impact. Others are more upset about the information which appears to indicate that most GMO's are being made not so much to improve product to the consumer, but to increase profitability to the manufacturer - so that they are at the mercy of products being created for their consumption without any direct benefit to them. Soy lecithin frequently comes from GMO soy, the most common being Roundup-Ready soybeans. >> That opens a market niche for a company willing to cater to that >>demand. If the demand is sufficiently solid, the company can make an >>acceptable profit. The textbook example of this is in hi-fi stereo >>equipment where the presence of audiophiles makes it possible to sell >>components that cannot possibly be considered economical in the usual >>sense - and which retail for upwards of $50,000. > >It might be for electronics....Just recently I bought the state of the >art Sony Notebook with a 17 inch screen....Some people say it was an >extravagant procurement... but what they don't know are the unique >features it had and the bundled products that accompanies the main >item... that led me to decide to obtain it ..., to me the unique >qualities and good craftsmanship had justifies its cost >But never (even in my imagination) will I do the same purchase such >as in foodstuff. Or ingredients used for such purpose. Well, here's a classic illustration of how different people have different priorities. One person may think a notebook's a notebook, and only buy the cheapest model that achieves some level of basic functionality, but meanwhile be obsessive about food - and thus go to any lengths to get the best. You, meanwhile, make different choices. However, there is one thing I offer as a suggestion. I claim there is an argument to be made that the people willing to get the most obsessive about a given product are the ones most naturally suited to being professionals in that field. After all, it's reasonable to suppose that the person who is obsessive will pursue research in that field more thoroughly and with more motivation than someone who's not obsessive, which might indeed be a criteria of "enjoyment", so that one can argue that willingness to be obsessive in a field indicates how much you enjoy that field. In an ideal world, all people would be working at something they truly enjoy, and if this yardstick of obsession is any indication, then should most people seek work in fields about which they obsess, they'd all be doing something they love. -- Alex Rast (remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply) |
|
Posted to rec.food.chocolate
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wanting to make awesome chocolates...
at Wed, 21 Dec 2005 22:51:35 GMT in
.com>, (Chembake) wrote : >Tue, 20 Dec 2005 01:13:40 GMT in However, earlier you say: >"Chocolate taste from the consumer panel is a subjective matter in many >cases... erroneous and does not reflect the true quality of the >chocolate . The marketing people are shrewdly exploiting the naivety of >the normal consumer" >Which to me would imply that you believe consumer panels are conducted with >preconceived conclusions already in mind. Otherwise, there would be no >naivete of the normal consumer to exploit. If you're approaching the panel >tasting truly objectively, indeed, to assume that a consumer were naive >would be in itself already a bias. ....Why I consider consumer panel as unreliable as they are not trained in an objective manner like the in house panel which are mostly professionals in food processing. Consumers can come from a wide range of background and have already a bias how a food should taste according to their experience and prejudice....A trained sensory panel is trained to be analytical and wholly dispassionate on the results of the sensory evalution...after all the results are to be statistically analyzed. >>It's very similar to the process of drug research. A pharmaceutical >>company may have done very thorough theoretical and lab work that >>suggests their new drug will be effective, but you still have to go >>through the clinical trial... >That is part of the risk that any researcher will have to accept , but >a drug is not directly tested on humans but on animals; unlike most >confectionery research result which is tested directly by humans. >No, a clinical trial is by definition performed on human patients. Nope... clinical means analytical and coolly dispassionate in doing the task but is expected to get results in an objective manner. Consumer panels cannot do that.. It means looking at things in objective manner with no pretense or influence from emotions >I'd analogise this to the case between the trained test panel >and the consumer panel. The test panel represents the animal subject - a >carefully selected group with calibrated response which you can measure. >The consumer panel is the clinical subjects - a group representing the end >target of the product who must themselves be sampled to get results that >give you data on real reactions as opposed to reactions in a test case. You got it wrong....an in house trained panel are professionally trained in sensory analysis...but consumer panels are mostly not...therefore from your own analogy the latter are considered the monkeys while the fomer are the humans as they think carefully before giving a sound sensory assessment . Besides the type of sensory analysis done by the consumer sensory panel is based on like and dislike which are not considered objective as that can be influenced by emotion and prejudice. The grading system for a consumer sensory analysis is not as elaborate as the from the trained sensory panel. Therefore its not considered to be of primary importance but only secondary( or supporting) in nature. Besides you cannot compare a pharmaceutical evaluation of a new drug to testing a new confectionery product. The drug testing takes years as the implications and side effects are to be noted down and its difficult to establish how such drug will affect the patient in the long run. Meanwhile the confectionery product does not take that long and have health risks( except in certain items that hare sugar free etc). >>... To a certain >>extent, I'd argue that you lose objectivity the second you start >>bringing expectations into an experiment. >Expectation usually comes from the top management person who decides on >such research project that it will be worth investing on studying a >particular area on interests >Top management can have a tendency to impose their expectations upon the >rank and file, yes. But scientific researchers, I've seen, can have a >tendency to impose their expectations upon the experiment. They know that >it's not what they're supposed to do, but even with excellent training it >proves almost impossible to avoid entirely. For that reason the results of >one particular individual must always be tested against reality rather than >taken as experimentally valid. This is one reason why in most of the hard >physical sciences research results get reported to refereed publications >and go through a fairly extended period of scrutiny and test against actual >results observed elsewhere before being accepted. That is true for the so called theoretical science but not usually in applied science like food application research./food product development. >Say for example in confectionery line. In the production of chocolates >designed for the Gulf War, the prerequisites is it should not melt at >40 degree C. The customers are the soldiers and they have only one >thing in mind give us a choc that won't melt under the normal dessert >heat. >There is an example of an expectation - "they have only one thing in mind". >It's probably fair to say that this is a primary consideration but probably >inaccurate to characterise it as the only criterion of value. You could, I >suspect, make a chocolate that was entirely impervious to heat but which >tasted so foul that no one would eat it. Any food item prepared should perform as expected...if not developer of such product is wasting his time and resources... But its not as simple....both Hershey and Mars spent a lot of time perfecting it but before it was released to the field, the specification that are desired for that particular confection was already established in coordination with the leaders of the military establishment who wanted such product to be created .for the benefit of the troops. A contented soldier will have better morale than a discontented one (which can even start a mutiny in extreme cases.) The development of extreme confections for the soldiers may not be comprehensible to an ordinary chocolate enthusiast nor considered such project to be difficult. Indeed this particular project was complex as the technology for alternative fats that simulate cocoa butter was not yet perfected during the 1980's when this desert chocolate was conceived. It took a lot of time as chemical processing were first perfected to attain the desired cocoa butte extender that will promote a more stable chocolate. Therefore...The basic ingredients are reassessed and analyzed using tools in analytical,physical chemistry ,and organic chemistry relating to the triglyceride mixtures that can still mimic the behavior of cocoa butter but has better stability to high temperature but without affecting seriously the sensory qualities that has something to do with the melting behavior which is influenced by the polymorphism of fats. They had to establish the perfect fat blend first for such purpose. A chef may say for example that is easy, put some tallow or suet fat into the chocolate and it will have the desired melting point ...which is totally wrong...It will not taste like normal chocolate. Researchers have to think and see the problem from a bigger picture and look it from the scientific viewpoint so that the resulting product formulated from such will not deviate much from the sensory qualities of the standard chocolate. >I suspect it's also inaccurate to call the soldiers the customers - at >least, not in the sense of the front-line privates. The customer is the >military of the country in question. Usually, some branch or office of that >organisation will have drafted the specifications which are then handed >over to the confectioner and as to whether the soldiers doing the fighting >had any input into the process the confectioner isn't going to know or much >care - The military organization who requested such product is the customer and the soldiers are the consumers. .... >As I point out, the scenario you have brought up is one in which the end >users from the POV of the confectioner aren't the individual soldier. The >consumers in this case is the military, or that branch, command, or office >responsible for the purchase decisions, and it would be a panel of *those* >individuals who might need to be consulted during product development. >Given that their interests are different, I think also that taste wouldn't >be as overwhelming a factor - there would be many other factors at stake. There is a compromise to be considered so that the product will succeed and it will part of the soldiers meal >Meanwhile when the product is going out into a commercial market, the >customers are the actual eating public, because at some point they're >buying the product. This is completely different from the soldier in the >military who isn't buying the chocolate as such but is simply accepting as >part of a rations distribution a product being bought by someone else. I don't see it that way,,,, any food product develop for buying customer had its own ;blueprint' or plan how its to developed and handled at the most economically reasonable way that will help bring the cost down. That is why there a widespread application of statistical methods such as Robust Product design, Design of experiments, Evolutionary operations, Taguchi methods which are incomprehensible to a non statistically minded individual. Trying to have every food product created by the food designer be tasted by the consumer is a grossly expensive and time consuming process and if that is applied ,implies the ignorance amd lack of good training of the food developer for better methods that cuts down development time by a small fraction of time needed; if that is to be compared to the ancient trial and error process ( or in the old fashioned way) that many chefs still apply when creating a new dish. By exerting so much time by examining every customers reaction to the product will drain the firm resources and delay the launch of the new product.That is where the importance of database and statistics comes extremely useful. Therefore this can be summed up to: Food developers with sound scientific background had an ingenious plan in mind how to initiate the food product development project in the most economically feasible way in the shortest time possible'He can apply predictive methods that are statistics/mathematically based but have solid scientific basis that it will work. He relies on huge database for the feasibility status of his new product .Personal ego is usually set aside in this work as the food product development is a team effort and he does not claim the work as his own but by team where he is just a member. In comparison A chef who has only an apprenticeship /vocational training and work experience looks at recipe development from an empirical view, (based on past experience coupled with tedious trial and error process depending much on personal evaluation and input from colleagues and even from the consumers. That is reasonable as the chef has usually a frail ego and needs to be appreciated for his work. And whatever the output , good or bad had an impact on his ego which he is serious about it. > First before a product developer >work on a new ides there was much study about the acceptability of the >item to the end user. They have in their database voluminous >information about the specific demands of the intended market and that >it should not deviate from the sensory values from that product. >All you have is information as to what's been successful in the *past*. So >as a result you'd be limited to producing derivatives of what has already >been done, and furthermore if the ideal product had already been achieved, >you couldn't do any better. Past market data, however, gives no information >as to how successful an entirely new product will be. It may suggest areas >worth exploring, but until real data is gathered through the production and >sampling of that product, you don't actually know how well something is >going to do - at best you're estimating. I A really novel food item that has no database to rely on feasibility study indeed needs some acceptance studies from a randomly selected consumers panel aside from the trained sensory analysis to establish if its practical to develop and manufacture. .. >I would say that the primary reason for higher cost is the use of more >expensive flavor beans say the Criollo which is much scarcer than the >common Forastero or even the Trinitario cacao beans. >That does contribute some amount but you also have to take into account >that the most skilled roasters, confectioners, etc. can command higher pay >than less-experienced people in the field and that they can get better >results out of the same beans on similar equipment. Also, capital equipment >isn't all the same - better machines cost more, on average, for the same >processing capacity. >I cannot understand the logic of such what I call 'leciphobic '( >phobia for lecithin ) There are 2 common reasons for this. >One is that some people are so allergic to soy that even traces could be >life-threatening, and for them soy lecithin in any amount is a high risk. I doubt about if there is such an established study that soy lecithin is a health risk. Its pure speculations...brought about by ignorance. There was already and in depth study and research publication how soy lecithin is metabolized in our body and how it benefits out health. >The second is the group who object to GMO's (genetically modified >organisms). Some of them have concerns about uninvestigated long-term >health benefits and environmental impact. Others are more upset about the >information which appears to indicate that most GMO's are being made not so >much to improve product to the consumer, but to increase profitability to >the manufacturer - so that they are at the mercy of products being created >for their consumption without any direct benefit to them. Soy lecithin >frequently comes from GMO soy, the most common being Roundup-Ready >soybeans. Well the GMO issue is a broad topic and its not of much interest to the confectioner and in my practice its not considered as.I have limited information in the latter but crop scientists and plant geneticist s may have already included the cacao plant in their genetic engineering study. >> That opens a market niche for a company willing to cater to that >>demand. If the demand is sufficiently solid, the company can make an >>acceptable profit. The textbook example of this is in hi-fi stereo >>equipment where the presence of audiophiles makes it possible to sell >>components that cannot possibly be considered economical in the usual >>sense - and which retail for upwards of $50,000. >It might be for electronics....Just recently I bought the state of the >art Sony Notebook with a 17 inch screen....Some people say it was an >extravagant procurement... but what they don't know are the unique >features it had and the bundled products that accompanies the main >item... that led me to decide to obtain it ..., to me the unique >qualities and good craftsmanship had justifies its cost >But never (even in my imagination) will I do the same purchase such >as in foodstuff. Or ingredients used for such purpose. >Well, here's a classic illustration of how different people have different >priorities. One person may think a notebook's a notebook, and only buy the >cheapest model that achieves some level of basic functionality, but >meanwhile be obsessive about food - and thus go to any lengths to get the >best. You, meanwhile, make different choices. IMO A good notebook computer is a necessary equipment that can improve ones productivity immensely ...Gone are the days that you will have to carry your paper based notebook as the source of your necessary work related information such as recipes, contacts, suppliers etc. and be expected to perform efficiently.... Just like mine. even when I am in the field or traveling I am still connected to the office by wireless broadband internet and large amount of work is continuously churned out from that portable electronic partner. Therefore the investment of such a very important tool is of paramount importance for the kitchen and food science professional in this new century. >However, there is one thing I offer as a suggestion. I claim there is an >argument to be made that the people willing to get the most obsessive about >a given product are the ones most naturally suited to being professionals >in that field. After all, it's reasonable to suppose that the person who is >obsessive will pursue research in that field more thoroughly and with more >motivation than someone who's not obsessive, which might indeed be a >criteria of "enjoyment", so that one can argue that willingness to be >obsessive in a field indicates how much you enjoy that field. In an ideal >world, all people would be working at something they truly enjoy, and if >this yardstick of obsession is any indication, then should most people seek >work in fields about which they obsess, they'd all be doing something they >love Obsession ( or having strong determination to reach a certain goal )if looked from a positive point of view is a good character trait that leads to better productivity ; but. It must not be allowed to degenerate to a negative point, the obsessive compulsive behavior that will likely lead to fanaticism. |
|
Posted to rec.food.chocolate
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wanting to make awesome chocolates...
at Tue, 27 Dec 2005 10:41:10 GMT in
.com>, (Chembake) wrote : >at Wed, 21 Dec 2005 22:51:35 GMT in s.com>, (Chembake) wrote : >>Tue, 20 Dec 2005 01:13:40 GMT in >However, earlier you say: >>"Chocolate taste from the consumer panel is a subjective matter in >>many cases... erroneous and does not reflect the true quality of the >>chocolate . The marketing people are shrewdly exploiting the naivety of >>the normal consumer" >>Which to me would imply that you believe consumer panels are conducted >>with preconceived conclusions already in mind. Otherwise, there would >>be no naivete of the normal consumer to exploit. If you're approaching >>the panel tasting truly objectively, indeed, to assume that a consumer >>were naive would be in itself already a bias. >...Why I consider consumer panel as unreliable as they are not trained >in an objective manner like the in house panel which are mostly >professionals in food processing. Consumers can come from a wide range >of background and have already a bias how a food should taste according >to their experience and prejudice Exactly. And those biasses need to be taken into account, *not* eliminated during tastings because indeed the consuming public does have expectations about what certain foods should taste like and if you develop a product that deviates from these expectations in ways the customers find to be a negative, even though to the "trained professional" such things would be simply another item of note as opposed to a negative as such, it risks doing poorly in the marketplace. The professional panel should thus not be conducted so as to *rate* the food product in the sense of quality judgement, but rather simply to break down its sensory qualities into neutral descriptors. There the panel is of great value because consumers may not be able to describe in precise language exactly what they're tasting. But they will be a better, or more accurate, judge of its ultimate quality because in the end it is they that you have to please. >>>It's very similar to the process of drug research.... >>>you still have to go through the clinical trial... >>That is part of the risk that any researcher will have to accept , but >>a drug is not directly tested on humans but on animals; unlike most >>confectionery research result which is tested directly by humans. >>No, a clinical trial is by definition performed on human patients. >Nope... clinical means analytical and coolly dispassionate in doing >the task but is expected to get results in an objective manner. Not in the case of the medical industry. In this context the clinical trial means those trials conducted on live patients. I agree that your usage of clinical as an adjective is one sometimes used to describe a variety of situations, but when one is referring to the medical industry it would be rare usage at best because of the probability of confusion. >Consumer panels cannot do that.. >It means looking at things in objective manner with no pretense or >influence from emotions > >>I'd analogise this to the case between the trained test panel >>and the consumer panel. The test panel represents the animal subject - >>a carefully selected group with calibrated response which you can >>measure. The consumer panel is the clinical subjects - a group >>representing the end target of the product who must themselves be >>sampled to get results that give you data on real reactions as opposed >>to reactions in a test case. > >You got it wrong....an in house trained panel are professionally >trained in sensory analysis...but consumer panels are mostly >not...therefore from your own analogy the latter are considered the >monkeys while the fomer are the humans as they think carefully before >giving a sound sensory assessment. It sounds like you misinterpreted the analogy, because in the medical field the purpose of lab work on animals is to understand baseline characteristics of a drug and establish, often at a microcellular level, the biological and biochemical processes taking place - the "objective" side of the analysis where you're trying to break down the behaviour of the drug into its constituent effects. Meanwhile the clinical phase is conducted to find out how the drug performs in the real world. Here what's being looked for is the overall effect on the patient - in the broadest sense whether it does harm or good, and also to a certain extent what side effects and other developments may be expected. So back to the food industry, the sensory panel would IMHO be primarily about breaking down the taste and other qualities into their component elements, where the consumer panel would be primarily about gauging overall reaction. These would match nicely against the drug industry phases I described. In both cases the panels are the *subjects*, not the *experimenters*, so whether they think carefully is itself irrelevant as concerns the analogy, but in any case I wouldn't suggest that consumers aren't thinking carefully. It's rather that their thought processes are different and not directed so much at a component-by-component breakdown as at an overall assessment. >Besides the type of sensory analysis done by the consumer sensory panel >is based on like and dislike which are not considered objective as that >can be influenced by emotion and prejudice. Since like and dislike are the ultimate bottom line for a food product, I might argue that the creation of new such products cannot be a purely objective process. Then again, I wonder if there *are* any purely objective processes. Still, given that at the end of the day the goal is to create a product that will be liked, the consumer must factor into this very prominently and although you might assume that you can know what consumer reaction is likely to be the actual testing gives real data as opposed to statistical projections. >The grading system for a consumer sensory analysis is not as elaborate >as the from the trained sensory panel. >Therefore its not considered to be of primary importance but only >secondary( or supporting) in nature. Why should a less-detailed report be given lesser weight? The only thing that a detailed report gives you automatically is - more detail. It cannot be assumed that because you have more detail you have more important information. This is especially true when the needed information is a subjective assessment that at the point of the buy decision comes down quite often to the simple question - do I like it or not? Being able to dissect *why* you like it is ultimately unimportant until after the fact. >Besides you cannot compare a pharmaceutical evaluation of a new drug to >testing a new confectionery product. >The drug testing takes years... >Meanwhile the confectionery product does not take that long ... Timescales involved aren't important, necessarily, to the similarity of the process. I'm using the drug example as an illustration of a similar overall situation - the need to test heretofore unknown products whose effect is on humans - humans who react in often unpredictable ways that have to be accounted for rather than dismissed and which therefore tend to make the process of product development somewhat less clear-cut, less easy to operate like a deterministic algorithim, than for example developing a machine to interact with other machines. .... >>I suspect it's also inaccurate to call the soldiers the customers ... >The military organization who requested such product is the customer >and the soldiers are the consumers. >... >>Meanwhile when the product is going out into a commercial market, the >>customers are the actual eating public, because at some point they're >>buying the product.... >I don't see it that way,,,, any food product develop for buying >customer had its own ;blueprint' or plan how its to developed and >handled at the most economically reasonable way that will help bring >the cost down. That is why there a widespread application of >statistical methods such as Robust Product design, Design of >experiments, Evolutionary operations, Taguchi methods which are >incomprehensible to a non statistically minded individual. >Trying to have every food product created by the food designer be >tasted by the consumer is a grossly expensive and time consuming... Most statistical controls have to do with testing samples as opposed to the entire production run, however, you can't simply translate the statistical data from one product to a different product, even if the products are similar. The new product must have its own statistics be generated and this involves data-gathering. Nonetheless, it sounds as though what you mention may be the *actual* primary objection to the use of consumer panels - high cost. Well, if that is the case, there's no point in wasting time arguing about other reasons as to why consumer panels should not be used - these other reasons are simply attempts to justify a decision made for a different reason - a valid reason that should be stated upfront. If it's too expensive, it's too expensive. >>I cannot understand the logic of such what I call 'leciphobic '( >>phobia for lecithin ) >There are 2 common reasons for this. >>One is that some people are so allergic to soy that even traces could >>be life-threatening, and for them soy lecithin in any amount is a high >>risk. >I doubt about if there is such an established study that soy lecithin >is a health risk. Its pure speculations...brought about by ignorance. The problem is, it's a bit like a new drug, isn't it? If the consumer has no way to know whether a particular ingredient could be fatal, should he be expected to take it? Even with a modicum of common sense, clearly an informed consumer will shun such a product until research does exist to establish what the risks are. Thus that the deeply allergic will avoid soy lecithin is a very rational decision indeed. -- Alex Rast (remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply) |
|
Posted to rec.food.chocolate
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wanting to make awesome chocolates...
at Tue, 27 Dec 2005 10:41:10 GMT in
.com>, (Chembake) wrote : >...Why I consider consumer panel as unreliable as they are not trained >in an objective manner like the in house panel which are mostly >professionals in food processing. Consumers can come from a wide range >of background and have already a bias how a food should taste according >to their experience and prejudice >Exactly. And those biasses need to be taken into account, *not* eliminated >during tastings because indeed the consuming public does have expectations >about what certain foods should taste like and if you develop a product >that deviates from these expectations in ways the customers find to be a >negative, even though to the "trained professional" such things would be >simply another item of note as opposed to a negative as such, it risks >doing poorly in the marketplace. It has never been a part of my experience that a product that has passed the professional panel was rejected later by the consumers as the mode of consumer acceptance was also taken into account before the product is to be launched. Thorough study was already being made and consumer expectation for that product was taken into account. Consumer may not like it due to other reasons such as for example as its expensive. ( but it has nothing to do with the tastes) An example was the launching of a candy apple that contains a layer of caramel and chocolate above it. Prior to that the expectation how the customer would like the product to appear and taste was taken into consideration and when it was released to the market it result in successful sales. >The professional panel should thus not be conducted so as to *rate* the >food product in the sense of quality judgement, but rather simply to break >down its sensory qualities into neutral descriptors. There the panel is of >great value because consumers may not be able to describe in precise >language exactly what they're tasting. But they will be a better, or more >accurate, judge of its ultimate quality because in the end it is they that >you have to please. In the professional sensory analysis there are some point in that series that include simulated consumer panel evaluation using the company staff which most of them are not trained in the science of sensory analysis but perform and equivalent job and the results were also mathematically analyzed .BTW the things to be tested are coded to prevent bias..But at least at that kind of crowd there is a coaching process how they should describe the product according to their individual perception if they are the consumer although the results is still considered as supplementary to what the trained test panel already did extensively by technical means. Even from that 'mock' consumer panel it can be extrapolated mathematically how the actual customer will buy the product and will it support the analytical evaluation of their trained colleagues.. In the actual market situation its not only essentially the goods that is sold but also the external appearance and the marketing strategy that influences the success of the product. So whether more or less customer in the product launch did evaluate the product from the initial purchase , good marketing skills can still influence the buying pattern for that product. >>>It's very similar to the process of drug research.... >>>you still have to go through the clinical trial... >>That is part of the risk that any researcher will have to accept , but >>a drug is not directly tested on humans but on animals; unlike most >>confectionery research result which is tested directly by humans. >>No, a clinical trial is by definition performed on human patients. >Nope... clinical means analytical and coolly dispassionate in doing >the task but is expected to get results in an objective manner. >Not in the case of the medical industry. In this context the clinical trial >means those trials conducted on live patients. I agree that your usage of >clinical as an adjective is one sometimes used to describe a variety of >situations, but when one is referring to the medical industry it would be >rare usage at best because of the probability of confusion. A food professional rarely worries that the use of such term that indicate objectivity will be construed as medical in meaning; in fact it was applied occasionally to describe how the evaluation is to be done..i.e in clinical manner. >Consumer panels cannot do that.. >It means looking at things in objective manner with no pretense or >influence from emotions >>I'd analogise this to the case between the trained test panel >>and the consumer panel. The test panel represents the animal subject - >>a carefully selected group with calibrated response which you can >>measure. The consumer panel is the clinical subjects - a group >>representing the end target of the product who must themselves be >>sampled to get results that give you data on real reactions as opposed >>to reactions in a test case. >You got it wrong....an in house trained panel are professionally >trained in sensory analysis...but consumer panels are mostly >not...therefore from your own analogy the latter are considered the >monkeys while the fomer are the humans as they think carefully before >giving a sound sensory assessment. >It sounds like you misinterpreted the analogy, because in the medical field >the purpose of lab work on animals is to understand baseline >characteristics of a drug and establish, often at a microcellular level, >the biological and biochemical processes taking place - the "objective" >side of the analysis where you're trying to break down the behaviour of the >drug into its constituent effects. Nope >Meanwhile the clinical phase is conducted to find out how the drug performs >in the real world. Here what's being looked for is the overall effect on >the patient - in the broadest sense whether it does harm or good, and also >to a certain extent what side effects and other developments may be >expected. Clinically speaking it's the medical personnel who can translate those effects of certain drugs that can only be understood by the fellow practitioners. It has no relation how confectionery technologist think when testing a new confectionery item. Or developing a new one. >So back to the food industry, the sensory panel would IMHO be primarily >about breaking down the taste and other qualities into their component >elements, where the consumer panel would be primarily about gauging overall >reaction. These would match nicely against the drug industry phases I >described. In professional sensory analysis there is also also a common terminology that is only understood by their peers( which we call as jargon). They try to explain the difference in taste , flavor and texture , it also includes the other qualities of the food item being evaluated. There are many descriptors that only the trained panel members can understand. >In both cases the panels are the *subjects*, not the *experimenters*, so >whether they think carefully is itself irrelevant as concerns the analogy, >but in any case I wouldn't suggest that consumers aren't thinking >carefully. It's rather that their thought processes are different and not >directed so much at a component-by-component breakdown as at an overall >assessment. I don't think that consumers can aptly break down their experiences to the point that it can be mathematically analyzed in the same accuracy due to the use of proper terminology as the professional panel.. Taking a costumers comment seriously that are untrained is similar to relying on the belief that the consumers never lie on their experience , but how do you know if they have a certain prejudice for that item which can influence their decision making? >Besides the type of sensory analysis done by the consumer sensory panel >is based on like and dislike which are not considered objective as that >can be influenced by emotion and prejudice. >Still, given that at the end of the day the goal is to create a >product that will be liked, the consumer must factor into this very >prominently and although you might assume that you can know what consumer >reaction is likely to be the actual testing gives real data as opposed to >statistical projections. Mere customer evaluation not considered real data as that is considered subjective( and even shallow). Unless the product is really new that there are no benchmarks to compare then the consumer will have to be asked if the novelty food item will succeed if supposing its launched in the market; but if there is another product that can be used for comparison then again I reiterate that the consumers feedback are just considered supportive as the exhaustive sensory analysis by the trained test panel have already established if that particular developed item will succeed or not . >The grading system for a consumer sensory analysis is not as elaborate >as the from the trained sensory panel. >Therefore its not considered to be of primary importance but only >secondary( or supporting) in nature. >Why should a less-detailed report be given lesser weight? The only thing >that a detailed report gives you automatically is - more detail. It cannot >be assumed that because you have more detail you have more important >information. This is especially true when the needed information is a >subjective assessment that at the point of the buy decision comes down >quite often to the simple question - do I like it or not? Being able to >dissect *why* you like it is ultimately unimportant until after the fact. It is the exactness of the results that is supported by details...the relevance of the mathematical analysis is difficult to refute or to set aside in favor of a non exact methods or based on emotions of like and dislike by the consumers. I say once again that is difficult for a mere chef to understand the innerworkings of the food product research. For more analogy say to relate to as story about the blind men and the elephant The blind men are the customers who only see one point of view of the elephant. He or she may like or dislike that particular item but due to limited perspective he cannot comprehend that the elephant is more than one part he had felt by the absence of sight Meanwhile a trained test panel is not blind and his or her sensory faculties are carefully cultivated to be used as an important tool for the job. So as he has no handicap he can judge what the elephant really is. I would emphasize that the trained panel see the elephant in many angles so its more exacting than feeling only a part of it. >Besides you cannot compare a pharmaceutical evaluation of a new drug to >testing a new confectionery product. >The drug testing takes years... >Meanwhile the confectionery product does not take that long ... >Timescales involved aren't important, necessarily, to the similarity of the >process. I'm using the drug example as an illustration of a similar overall >situation - the need to test heretofore unknown products whose effect is on >humans - humans who react in often unpredictable ways that have to be Unknown products?....how can that be a confectionery product is supposed to be known and its not as dangerous or risky if compared to drug use >accounted for rather than dismissed and which therefore tend to make the >process of product development somewhat less clear-cut, less easy to >operate like a deterministic algorithim, than for example developing a >machine to interact with other machines. Product development uses tools that are easy to understand and to apply by the professional trained in that discipline but would be so alien( and therefore incomprehensible) to the uninitiated in such field. That is the cause of confusion;;;when a tradesmen tries to understand the professional work of the food specialist but don't have the proper mindset and training to absorb it. Besides humans react positively to a confectionery product than to a drug which may arouse some suspicions due to unknown side effect. The quality attributes of new drug is not comparable to the attributes of a confection that is known to arouse pleasure in the consumption in the latter. Lets consider another example; confectionery industry arise from the apothecaries experience on how to make drugs pleasant to take by the patience so the included sugars and syrups, cooling agents and other additives that contribute pleasures in the intake of medicine which otherwise is unpalatable. .... >>I suspect it's also inaccurate to call the soldiers the customers ... >The military organization who requested such product is the customer >and the soldiers are the consumers. >... >I don't see it that way,,,, any food product develop for buying >customer had its own ;blueprint' or plan how its to developed and >handled at the most economically reasonable way that will help bring >the cost down. That is why there a widespread application of >statistical methods such as Robust Product design, Design of >experiments, Evolutionary operations, Taguchi methods which are >incomprehensible to a non statistically minded individual. >Trying to have every food product created by the food designer be >tasted by the consumer is a grossly expensive and time consuming... >Most statistical controls have to do with testing samples as opposed to the >entire production run, however, you can't simply translate the statistical >data from one product to a different product, even if the products are >similar. The new product must have its own statistics be generated and this >involves data-gathering. Your understanding of the statistical tools is unfortunately not sufficient enough in order to comprehend its importance in food product development >Nonetheless, it sounds as though what you mention may be the *actual* >primary objection to the use of consumer panels - high cost. Well, if that >is the case, there's no point in wasting time arguing about other reasons >as to why consumer panels should not be used - these other reasons are >simply attempts to justify a decision made for a different reason - a valid >reason that should be stated upfront. If it's too expensive, it's too >expensive. >The problem is, it's a bit like a new drug, isn't it? If the consumer has >no way to know whether a particular ingredient could be fatal, should he be >expected to take it? Even with a modicum of common sense, clearly an >informed consumer will shun such a product until research does exist to >establish what the risks are. Thus that the deeply allergic will avoid soy >lecithin is a very rational decision indeed. The consumer and the patient have different frame of mind; the patient needs to take the drug due to the belief that it will cure his ailment, but the confectionery consumer will eat the confection ( it may or may not be to his expectations but its not life threatening like the patient experience) but at least he or she can derive some form of pleasure in its consumption as its sweet and he or she is unlikely to puke due to it. -- |
|
Posted to rec.food.chocolate
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wanting to make awesome chocolates...
at Wed, 28 Dec 2005 06:12:38 GMT in
.com>, (Chembake) wrote : >at Tue, 27 Dec 2005 10:41:10 GMT in s.com>, (Chembake) wrote : > >... >In the actual market situation its not only essentially the goods that >is sold but also the external appearance and the marketing strategy >that influences the success of the product. >So whether more or less customer in the product launch did evaluate the >product from the initial purchase , good marketing skills can still >influence the buying pattern for that product. Indeed, that's a possibility, and in fact an excellent marketing strategy can "rescue" a middling product. But when you get the combined effect of a well-received product and a good marketing campaign, you can get a sales bonanza. By contrast even the slickest marketing can rarely salvage an honest-to-goodness dud. The simple fact that such duds can and do occur in the food industry indicates that the evaluation process as you describe it isn't infalliable. >>>>It's very similar to the process of drug research.... .... >>>No, a clinical trial is by definition performed on human patients. >>Nope... clinical means analytical and coolly dispassionate in doing >>the task but is expected to get results in an objective manner. > >>Not in the case of the medical industry. In this context the clinical >>trial means those trials conducted on live patients... > >A food professional rarely worries that the use of such term that >indicate objectivity will be construed as medical in meaning; in fact >it was applied occasionally to describe how the evaluation is to be >done..i.e in clinical manner. Perhaps not, but since this was a term introduced to refer to my analogy to the medical/drug research field, in this case the term must be used in the sense inferred in the medical industry. >>It sounds like you misinterpreted the analogy, because in the medical >>field the purpose of lab work on animals is to understand baseline >>characteristics of a drug and establish, often at a microcellular >>level, the biological and biochemical processes taking place - the >>"objective" side of the analysis where you're trying to break down the >>behaviour of the drug into its constituent effects. > >Nope What, exactly, are you disagreeing with here? > >>Meanwhile the clinical phase is conducted to find out how the drug >>performs in the real world. Here what's being looked for is the overall >>effect on the patient - in the broadest sense whether it does harm or >>good, and also to a certain extent what side effects and other >>developments may be expected. > >Clinically speaking it's the medical personnel who can translate >those effects of certain drugs that can only be understood by the >fellow practitioners. >It has no relation how confectionery technologist think when testing a >new confectionery item. Or developing a new one. The relation is between the 2 groups of *test subjects* in the 2 cases - lab animals vs. professional test panels, human patients vs. consumer panels. However, and this is important, I'm not equating the external characteristics of the individual subjects, so that in no way am I trying to imply that professional testers are like lab animals. What I'm saying is that the body - the group, performs a similar function whatever their external characteristics. So that if in the medical case the need is for somewhat unintelligent creatures as test subjects, and in the food case for test subjects who are anything but unintelligent, that's wide of the analogy itself. .... > >>In both cases the panels are the *subjects*, not the *experimenters*, >>so whether they think carefully is itself irrelevant as concerns the >>analogy, but in any case I wouldn't suggest that consumers aren't >>thinking carefully. It's rather that their thought processes are >>different and not directed so much at a component-by-component >>breakdown as at an overall assessment. > >I don't think that consumers can aptly break down their experiences >to the point that it can be mathematically analyzed in the same >accuracy due to the use of proper terminology as the professional >panel.. If you tried to extract the same level of detail out of the consumers for the same product, you could expect larger variances - i.e. a wider overall statistical distribution of the results, but this would be a reflection of the level of detail sought, not the accuracy of the analysis that can be performed. You'd just be trying to obtain finer resolution of the data than the available sample could accurately reveal. If, on the other hand, you restricted your questions to simple like/dislike response - the sort of level a consumer would probably respond on, then you would get probably equally accurate results - or to be precise in the language, results whose sample variance accurately reflected the distribution of the entire population. That's the whole goal of test panels - to estimate, by sampling, the overall statistical response of the population. > Taking a costumers comment seriously that are untrained is >similar to relying on the belief that the consumers never lie on their >experience , but how do you know if they have a certain prejudice for >that item which can influence their decision making? That's half of the reason to include the consumers in the sampling - to account for inbuilt bias as opposed to trying to eliminate it which if you do will give you the sales results that could be expected in a hypothetical universe where everybody bought free from prejudice as opposed to the real one where individual prejudices factor into the buying decision. In fact, you could probably suggest certain prejudices by comparing the results of the trained panel (who we hope will be close to neutral - although they may have their own prejudices) with that of the consumer panel. Major discrepancies would suggest a difference in expectations. Meanwhile, yes, you can always run into the consumer who is going to lie blatantly on a panel for a variety of reasons. Again, this should be allowed for as much as possible in the way the panel is set up, the questions that are asked, etc. .... >>Still, given that at the end of the day the goal is to create a >>product that will be liked, the consumer must factor into this very >>prominently... > >Mere customer evaluation not considered real data as that is considered >subjective( and even shallow). Subjective? Shallow? Possibly. And in fact a lot of buying decisions are made for those sorts of subjective, shallow reasons. Therefore you can't design a product on the assumption that people will buy it for objective reasons. You have to design it to play to the kinds of subjectivities people actually exhibit. Just because data is subjective doesn't mean it's any less "real". It just means it's much more difficult to rationalise - explain away through a logical thought process that one could follow algorithmically. Again, most people don't follow an algorithm when making a purchase decision. .... >>The grading system for a consumer sensory analysis is not as elaborate >>as the from the trained sensory panel. >>Therefore its not considered to be of primary importance but only >>secondary( or supporting) in nature. > >>Why should a less-detailed report be given lesser weight? The only >>thing that a detailed report gives you automatically is - more detail. >It is the exactness of the results that is supported by details...the >relevance of the mathematical analysis is difficult to refute or to set >aside in favor of a non exact methods or based on emotions of like and >dislike by the consumers. To be exact, a subjective preference is more difficult either to *prove* or to *disprove*. Sure, a mathematical analysis in some sense proves something - something that in fact you in effect already know - but just because something is more easily shown to be true or false in a Boolean sense doesn't make it automatically more important. What it does is make it more deterministic. >For more analogy say to relate to as story about the blind men and the >elephant >The blind men are the customers who only see one point of view of the >elephant. He or she may like or dislike that particular item but due to >limited perspective he cannot comprehend that the elephant is more than >one part he had felt by the absence of sight >Meanwhile a trained test panel is not blind and his or her sensory >faculties are carefully cultivated to be used as an important tool for >the job. So as he has no handicap he can judge what the elephant really >is. > >I would emphasize that the trained panel see the elephant in many >angles so its more exacting than feeling only a part of it. Except that it is the customers who are buying the product. So if the goal is to sell an elephant, then you have to appeal to the blind customer, not to the sighted panel. The panel may be able to expound on qualities that would be important to those who can see, but to the blind man such qualities might well be immaterial. Yes, the panel has a richer description, but all that richness of description means little when the buying decision is being made by somebody with a more impoverished perspective. Introducing also an alternative counterexample, I would portray the customers as people who can see, and who see...an elephant. They don't care much about the shape of the ears, or the length of the trunk, or any other feature that the trained person sees and integrates into a description. What they want is an elephant, pure and simple. In some sense you might say it's the customer who has the more holistic viewpoint, refusing to see an object as a collection of distinct subobjects. >>Timescales involved aren't important, necessarily, to the similarity of >>the process. I'm using the drug example as an illustration of a similar >>overall situation - the need to test heretofore unknown products whose >>effect is on humans - humans who react in often unpredictable ways that >>have to be > >Unknown products?....how can that be a confectionery product is >supposed to be known and its not as dangerous or risky if compared to >drug use It's not that the reaction might be dangerous, it's that it's unpredictable, precisely because, as you point out, customers are notoriously subjective. So it's difficult to quantify the response ahead of time, and the only way to get real data is to experiment on the real subjects. Drugs are unpredictable in dangerous ways, and now it's not because the patient's system responds subjectively, but because it responds with a complex of only partially-understood mechanisms. But in either case the result is the same - you can't predict the outcome as well as you would like without field trials. >>Trying to have every food product created by the food designer be >>tasted by the consumer is a grossly expensive and time consuming... > >>Most statistical controls have to do with testing samples as opposed to >>the entire production run, however, you can't simply translate the >>statistical data from one product to a different product, even if the >>products are similar. The new product must have its own statistics be >>generated and this involves data-gathering. > >Your understanding of the statistical tools is unfortunately not >sufficient enough in order to comprehend its importance in food >product development I've actually not described my background in statistics. FWIW I've done extensive theoretical and practical work with statistical models - and in both the sense of developing specific statistical tools for specific industries, and in developing the overall theory of statistical analysis. My specialty is in fact in computing technologies using statistical methods as an alternative to deterministic digital processing. This involves both an understanding of the ground rules of statistical analysis and a development of processing models that allow one to implement statistical functions in computer hardware. Computer hardware itself is also fabricated using methods of statistical process control. So I've had opportunities to interact with the field at many levels. Do you have a specific technique in mind that you think I might not be familiar with (perhaps, for example, one very much unique to the field you're in)? >>The problem is, it's a bit like a new drug, isn't it? If the consumer >>has no way to know whether a particular ingredient could be fatal, >>should he be expected to take it? Even with a modicum of common sense, >>clearly an informed consumer will shun such a product until research >>does exist to establish what the risks are. Thus that the deeply >>allergic will avoid soy lecithin is a very rational decision indeed. > >The consumer and the patient have different frame of mind; the patient >needs to take the drug due to the belief that it will cure his ailment, >but the confectionery consumer will eat the confection ( it may or may >not be to his expectations but its not life threatening like the >patient experience) Except that in the specific case of lecithin a customer has some reason to believe the confection *might* be fatal and no hard data to assure him that it won't. It's for that reason that some people in the soy-allergic group are scrupulous about avoiding soy lecithin. -- Alex Rast (remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply) |
|
Posted to rec.food.chocolate
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wanting to make awesome chocolates...
at Wed, 28 Dec 2005 06:12:38 GMT in
.com>, (Chembake) wrote : >at Tue, 27 Dec 2005 10:41:10 GMT in s.com>, (Chembake) wrote : >... .. >Indeed, that's a possibility, and in fact an excellent marketing strategy >can "rescue" a middling product. But when you get the combined effect of a >well-received product and a good marketing campaign, you can get a sales >bonanza. > By contrast even the slickest marketing can rarely salvage an >honest-to-goodness dud. The simple fact that such duds can and do occur in >the food industry indicates that the evaluation process as you describe it >isn't infalliable. A product that is destined not to succeed is because of the failure of the new product developer to assess the product quality that it will conform with the customer needs which should have been already anticipated . But it seldom happens as its a team effort and there are a lot of pragmatic and sensible people in his or her team to offer ideas that will help the food designer. Besides a failed product is not only something of sensory quality. It may fail even if it satisfies many the criteria what the consumer wants from that product..€¦.but if the developer expectation or much more the company behind his team expect so much for that particular product and they have their own projection for its performance and it it happens it does not reach the standard of performance as in their best selling products they will just stop selling , bring it back for more study and see if they can improve it further before they can relaunch it the same or as a different product name They consumers may say that it vanished , it means it failed because the consumer dislike it but its only half the truth >>>>It's very similar to the process of drug research.... .... >>>No, a clinical trial is by definition performed on human patients. >>Nope... clinical means analytical and coolly dispassionate in doing >>the task but is expected to get results in an objective manner. >>Not in the case of the medical industry. In this context the clinical >>trial means those trials conducted on live patients... >A food professional rarely worries that the use of such term that >indicate objectivity will be construed as medical in meaning; in fact >it was applied occasionally to describe how the evaluation is to be >done..i.e in clinical manner. >Perhaps not, but since this was a term introduced to refer to my analogy to >the medical/drug research field, in this case the term must be used in the >sense inferred in the medical industry. In the general sense, but not in particular to a certain developer who want to see things in clinical fashion as how he or she interpreted the term. >>It sounds like you misinterpreted the analogy, because in the medical >>field the purpose of lab work on animals is to understand baseline >>characteristics of a drug and establish, often at a microcellular >>level, the biological and biochemical processes taking place - the >>"objective" side of the analysis where you're trying to break down the >>behaviour of the drug into its constituent effects. >Nope >What, exactly, are you disagreeing with here? Its the comparison of subjects for ( drug use and confectionery consumption evaluation). >The relation is between the 2 groups of *test subjects* in the 2 cases - >lab animals vs. professional test panels, human patients vs. consumer >panels. However, and this is important, I'm not equating the external >characteristics of the individual subjects, so that in no way am I trying >to imply that professional testers are like lab animals. What I'm saying is >that the body - the group, performs a similar function whatever their >external characteristics. So that if in the medical case the need is for >somewhat unintelligent creatures as test subjects, and in the food case for >test subjects who are anything but unintelligent, that's wide of the >analogy itself. ..That analogy is funny from the confectioners point of view. >If you tried to extract the same level of detail out of the consumers for >the same product, you could expect larger variances - i.e. a wider overall >statistical distribution of the results, but this would be a reflection of >the level of detail sought, not the accuracy of the analysis that can be >performed. You'd just be trying to obtain finer resolution of the data than >the available sample could accurately reveal. If, on the other hand, you >restricted your questions to simple like/dislike response - the sort of >level a consumer would probably respond on, then you would get probably >equally accurate results - or to be precise in the language, results whose >sample variance accurately reflected the distribution of the entire >population. That's the whole goal of test panels - to estimate, by >sampling, the overall statistical response of the population. Yes and no responses, like and dislike €¦. Its not just not accurate enough to describe the attributes of the food product. Yes the result can also be statistically evaluated but it will never be used as the major factor that the product fits the expectation of the customer. Likelihood that the consumer may buy something or not because from rough statistics its shows it so is not a reliable indicator that the product will succeed in the market. A lot of marketing establishment have done that on other consumer products but produced mixed results. But if the product developed was really well thought of and exhaustive study was done along the line of the particular customer expectation then the marketing people will be exerting less effort to promote the product. > Taking a costumers comment seriously that are untrained is >similar to relying on the belief that the consumers never lie on their >experience , but how do you know if they have a certain prejudice for >that item which can influence their decision making? That can be gauged by their reaction to the new product and possible feed back they can submit to the marketing survey. >That's half of the reason to include the consumers in the sampling - to >account for inbuilt bias as opposed to trying to eliminate it which if you >do will give you the sales results that could be expected in a hypothetical >universe where everybody bought free from prejudice as opposed to the real >one where individual prejudices factor into the buying decision. >In fact, >you could probably suggest certain prejudices by comparing the results of >the trained panel (who we hope will be close to neutral - although they may >have their own prejudices) with that of the consumer panel. Major >discrepancies would suggest a difference in expectations. Difference in expectation is not what the trained test panel and the untrained consumer panel had in mind. The former knows from their experience and voluminous data what the consumer expects and the latter understand that their own expectation of the product is already taken care of.;even before the taste the product. And its pretty common in confectionery manufacture and seldom they will ask second opinion from somebody outside who does not understand what that confection is. There is a wide variety of confectionery products and even me I dont like many of them; so are the customers; there is a certain target client for a certain confectionery item and that will be expected to patronize them if all their needs for that certain item is filled up. Therefore Target market is the keyword here Every food designer have it in their mind before they embark on such particular food product development So when customer who is interested on that particular item will buy the product they are optimistic that they would appreciate it. Only people who has no affection for that certain confectionery line will dislike it.. Take it for example supposing I am a consumer...and it happen that ..... I dont like licorice but does it affects its sales?,,,,I am certain that if I am your so called consumer panel I will be the offer a vehement objection that I dislike it and so if supposing the consumer panel is composed of equally of people who like and dislikes licorice how can that judgement be taken as reliable and better than the trained in house panel( who do it clinically/objectively) in judging a new licorice product? As most consumer panel are just randomly selected how can the evaluators see a reliability that they have amassed the right target customer for that particular product line? A lot of consumer panel loves freebies.... and they have nothing to lose but something to gain. They may not like the product but out gratitude for the freebies and compensation for their time and effort they will gladly lie in the sensory evaluation to please the leader of the consumer panel evaluation team. How common is that occurrence of deceptive people whose integrity has a lot to be desired; but they are consumers and therefore should be included in your so called consumer panel to ultimately judge the product that your developing team made exhaustive efforts that the new item is what the particular target market wants. >Meanwhile, yes, you can always run into the consumer who is going to lie >blatantly on a panel for a variety of reasons. Again, this should be >allowed for as much as possible in the way the panel is set up, the >questions that are asked, etc. .... >Subjective? Shallow? Possibly. And in fact a lot of buying decisions are >made for those sorts of subjective, shallow reasons. Therefore you can't >design a product on the assumption that people will buy it for objective >reasons. You have to design it to play to the kinds of subjectivities >people actually exhibit. Just because data is subjective doesn't mean it's >any less "real". It just means it's much more difficult to rationalise - >explain away through a logical thought process that one could follow >algorithmically.  Again, most people don't follow an algorithm when making a >purchase decision. That justifies the reasoning that its not wise to trust the customers judgement as they are capricious . and most of the time unreliable. .. >I would emphasize that the trained panel see the elephant in many >angles so its more exacting than feeling only a part of it. >Except that it is the customers who are buying the product. So if the goal i>s to sell an elephant, then you have to appeal to the blind customer, not >to the sighted panel. The panel may be able to expound on qualities that >would be important to those who can see, but to the blind man such >qualities might well be immaterial. Yes, the panel has a richer >description, but all that richness of description means little when the >buying decision is being made by somebody with a more impoverished >perspective. This sums up that if a certain consumer only see a part of the whole picture then how can their decision be taken into account as reliable basis that the product is good or bad? >Introducing also an alternative counterexample, I would portray the >customers as people who can see, and who see...an elephant. They don't care >much about the shape of the ears, or the length of the trunk, or any other >feature that the trained person sees and integrates into a description. >What they want is an elephant, pure and simple. In some sense you might say i>t's the customer who has the more holistic viewpoint, refusing to see an >object as a collection of distinct subobjects. That is what I mean€¦.to see things as a whole€¦.but if you judge it by the term or like and dislike (which is common in consumer panel ) which are half truths ...it does not say anything to be taken seriously by a competent evaluator as it does not say anything valid( if not solid) descriptors that can be used to relate to the technically trained panel. >Unknown products?....how can that be a confectionery product is >supposed to be known and its not as dangerous or risky if compared to >drug use >It's not that the reaction might be dangerous, it's that it's >unpredictable, precisely because, as you point out, customers are >notoriously subjective. So it's difficult to quantify the response ahead of >time, and the only way to get real data is to experiment on the real >subjects. Drugs are unpredictable in dangerous ways, and now it's not >because the patient's system responds subjectively, but because it responds >with a complex of only partially-understood mechanisms. But in either case >the result is the same - you can't predict the outcome as well as you would >like without field trials. That is one of the major reason that I dont want to compare drug evaluation to confectionery assessment . They are different : a food item is never comparable to a medicinal product.. It does not give any sense or even logic at all for an equivalent comparison. >>Trying to have every food product created by the food designer be >>tasted by the consumer is a grossly expensive and time consuming... >>Most statistical controls have to do with testing samples as opposed to >>the entire production run, however, you can't simply translate the >>statistical data from one product to a different product, even if the >>products are similar. The new product must have its own statistics be >>generated and this involves data-gathering. >Your understanding of the statistical tools is unfortunately not >sufficient enough in order to comprehend its importance in food >product development >I've actually not described my background in statistics. FWIW I've done >extensive theoretical and practical work with statistical models - and in >both the sense of developing specific statistical tools for specific >industries, and in developing the overall theory of statistical analysis. >My specialty is in fact in computing technologies using statistical methods >as an alternative to deterministic digital processing. This involves both >an understanding of the ground rules of statistical analysis and a >development of processing models that allow one to implement statistical >functions in computer hardware. Computer hardware itself is also fabricated >using methods of statistical process control. So I've had opportunities to i>nteract with the field at many levels. Do you have a specific technique in >mind that you think I might not be familiar with (perhaps, for example, one >very much unique to the field you're in)? Uniqueness..?....maybe not as food product development is an applied science the statistical tools are related as in other field.. In my field our personnels use statistical tools to improve the efficiency of product development such as good design of experiments including robust product design , formulation optimization techniques ,Quality function deployment , and related statistical tools and it helped us a lot to hit the right product according to the customer requirement for such. item. In addition by extensive database of confectionery related matters including product movement, consumer expectations etc We already gained an understanding of customer wants and needs of a certain product and we develop product requirements( and specification ) along that line to ensure that customer wants are being addressed and the product is likely to succeed once its done. There is no need to go the customer everytime to ask them if this is what they want as that is redundant. Taking consumers as the source of positive feedback before the product is to be developed is an absurdity. By the way If your statistical thinking is correct and just focusing on the taste aspect alone, then what have been found in the laboratory and pilot scale studies including sensory analysis already produced positive result that the majority of the attributes as what the customer wants ( for that certain product)then why would the consumer will be expected to say grossly the opposite that is not what they want? Where is the positive correlation statistically speaking? Another thing is Why would the developer rely on the outside feedback to dictate them in their jobs when they are already aware what the consumer want and they are developing the products in that direction? Besides a certain company who has already established reputation for their confectionery product performance in the market have already amassed voluminous data what the customer wants for a certain confectionery product and so any new project is based on that mine of information.. They have use any available tools in their facility to get things done in behalf of the customers. I have seen a lot of product development done by big confectionery establishment ( not necessarily in the US) that was not even subjected to much consumer testing but succeeded in the market; and I have seen some new products from different small confectionery business that dont have good technically trained personalities in their workforce but just an assembly of chefs and kitchen personnel who made confections and relies on consumer feedback to judge their new product but to fail ultimately in the market. I have also seen some chocolatiers who had long experience in the field that he does not need to ask the customer what they want but he can create a novel products that really sell! The big decision if the product will fail or succeed in the market does not come from the consumers but within the producers ranks; These people are not crazy to waste resources without having a forethought if that particular product is doomed to fail .They are certain the know what the customer wants and they are going in that direction. Therefore this validates my earlier statement that the consumer panel is just SUPPORTIVE or CONFIRMATORY in any confectionery related development. >Except that in the specific case of lecithin a customer has some reason to >believe the confection *might* be fatal and no hard data to assure him that >it won't. It's for that reason that some people in the soy-allergic group >are scrupulous about avoiding soy lecithin. That is dubious thought....lecithin to be fatal....when similar lipids exist in the human body? And it was proven time and time again that is safe...regardless if comes from soybean or other plant material. If there is somebody who is really allergic to it is very rare and not a cause of concern for the confectionery manufacturer. |
|
Posted to rec.food.chocolate
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wanting to make awesome chocolates...
at Thu, 29 Dec 2005 23:27:53 GMT in
.com>, (Chembake) wrote : >at Wed, 28 Dec 2005 06:12:38 GMT in s.com>, (Chembake) wrote : >>at Tue, 27 Dec 2005 10:41:10 GMT in ps.com>, (Chembake) wrote : >>... >. .... >> By contrast even the slickest marketing can rarely salvage an >>honest-to-goodness dud. ... >A product that is destined not to succeed is because of the failure of >the new product developer to assess the product quality that it will >conform with the customer needs which should have been already >anticipated . In theory, that's how it's supposed to work. But in practice, even the best-researched and thoroughly tested products bomb in the marketplace, and I've seen plenty of cases where they bombed because of reasons that could have been caught had the product been subjected to consumer trials. Usually in those situations it seems obvious after the fact, but this is because some key factor that had never before been noted becomes visibly self- evident. No company will make the same mistake again, because now whatever that mystery factor is will have been determined and integrated into testing, database, and other systems. However, before the release of the fatal product, no company knew or perhaps cared about this factor. >But it seldom happens as its a team effort I agree that a total failure is rare. >Besides a failed product is not only something of sensory quality. It >may fail even if it satisfies many the criteria what the consumer >wants from that product..€¦.but if the developer expectation or much >more the company behind his team expect so much for that particular >product and they have their own projection for its performance and it >it happens it does not reach the standard of performance That's part of what I was referring to in describing the assumptions of the developer. On paper the product may look as if it's going to be a smash hit while in practice it might turn out to be only a modest success. Companies inevitably feel a bit deflated when this happens. >best selling products they will just stop selling , bring it back for >more study and see if they can improve it further before they can >relaunch it the same or as a different product name Another thing that can happen is that the product was great, but its cost structure just was too high for the actual market they were able to capture. This is one of the most common causes of customer mystery - it becomes a "whatever happened to that great xxx product..." when the truth is the cost they'd factored in assumed a larger market than actually came to pass. >>>It sounds like you misinterpreted the analogy,... >>Nope >>What, exactly, are you disagreeing with here? > >Its the comparison of subjects for ( drug use and confectionery >consumption evaluation). Don't be overly distracted by the fact that both of these items are comestibles. That wasn't really the point. The point was to illustrate industries where the market research process could justifiably invoke similar themes. .... >>If you tried to extract the same level of detail out of the consumers >>for the same product, you could expect larger variances - i.e. a wider >>overall statistical distribution of the results, but this would be a >>reflection of the level of detail sought, not the accuracy of the >>analysis that can be performed. ... If, on the other hand, you restricted >>your questions to simple like/dislike response - the sort of level a >>consumer would probably respond on, then you would get probably equally >>accurate results ... > >Yes and no responses, like and dislike €¦. Its not just not accurate >enough to describe the attributes of the food product. I would say that it's not a matter of *accuracy*, it's a matter of *resolution* - how many separate features are you going to try to extract? With any statistical data set taken with any sample, the resolution of your data is going to be inversely proportional to the accuracy - so the broader the conclusion you want to draw, the more accurate, in the sense of being a good predictor, you can expect your results to be. OTOH sometimes perfectly accurate results in a very broad classification don't tell you very much. Depending on the sample taken you can manage different levels of tradeoff between accuracy and resolution - in the case of the test panel you're getting excellent resolution at the sacrifice of some accuracy, while in the case of the consumer group you get good accuracy but lose resolution. To a certain extent using accuracy and resolution is quibbling over terminology, but the underlying property - of a tradeoff between 2 different desirable features of the analysis - is what I want to emphasize. >Yes the result can also be statistically evaluated but it will never be >used as the major factor that the product fits the expectation of the >customer. Why not? If the consumer likes it, we may assume fairly well that it fits their expectation. The direct evidence of actual response is more solid than the indirect inference that you could draw based upon an idea that if a product fell within a certain profile it could be expected to be well- received. >There is a wide variety of confectionery products and even me I dont >like many of them; so are the customers; there is a certain target >client for a certain confectionery item and that will be expected to >patronize them if all their needs for that certain item is filled up. > >Therefore Target market is the keyword here >Every food designer have it in their mind before they embark on such >particular food product development >So when customer who is interested on that particular item will buy >the product they are optimistic that they would appreciate it. >Only people who has no affection for that certain confectionery line >will dislike it.. Yes, you have hit the nail on the head when you identify the key issue as target market. Third-party analysis can be much more accurate when you have a narrow target market, because in that case there's been some attempt to pre-qualify your audience. Nonetheless, I think in this case a consumer testing round is valid - you just need to screen your consumers who are going to participate. Clearly it's futile to survey a broad spectrum of consumers for a product that's only going to appeal to a certain clientele - e.g. your licorice example. What's done is that with a quick round of preliminary questions taken from a broad canvassing, you can qualify your target consumers - who then form the basis of your consumer test panel. This is commonly called a "focus group", and although focus groups, like anything else, are only part of the marketing picture they have been remarkably successful when used intelligently. I can see how you might have thought what I was advocating would be foolish if you thought I meant that one should just randomly pick consumers out of a crowd. .... >As most consumer panel are just randomly selected how can the >evaluators see a reliability that they have amassed the right target >customer for that particular product line? >A lot of consumer panel loves freebies.... and they have nothing to >lose but something to gain. >They may not like the product but out gratitude for the freebies and >compensation for their time and effort they will gladly lie in the >sensory evaluation to please the leader of the consumer panel >evaluation team. When a company devises their consumer panels like this they have only themselves to blame for their own poor results. Such a panel will usually have been assembled to justify a pre-formed conclusion, exactly the behaviour I was warning against. Yes, a blind consumer panel conducted as you outline is useless. That's why you don't conduct consumer panels like that. But if you imagine that all consumer panels must of necessity be this way then you are missing out on an important market-evaluation tool. > Again, most people don't follow an algorithm when making a >>purchase decision. > >That justifies the reasoning that its not wise to trust the customers >judgement as they are capricious . and most of the time unreliable. IMHO it justifies rather the reasoning that it is not wise to treat marketing as an algorithmic, deterministic process that you can just follow procedurally. People are somewhat unpredictable and thus an attempt to reduce things down to a rigidly determined outcome will inevitably result in the occasional perplexed surprise when things don't go according to plan. >. >>I would emphasize that the trained panel see the elephant in many >>angles so its more exacting than feeling only a part of it. >>Except that it is the customers who are buying the product. So if the >>goal >i>s to sell an elephant, then you have to appeal to the blind customer, >not >>to the sighted panel. The panel may be able to expound on qualities >>that would be important to those who can see, but to the blind man such >>qualities might well be immaterial. Yes, the panel has a richer >>description, but all that richness of description means little when the >>buying decision is being made by somebody with a more impoverished >>perspective. > >This sums up that if a certain consumer only see a part of the whole >picture then how can their decision be taken into account as reliable >basis that the product is good or bad? Because it doesn't matter what *you* think. What matters is what the *customer* thinks. This is true to the extent that even if the customer were blind and attempting to buy an elephant, and the sighted experts could aver that what he was feeling was, indeed, an elephant, if that customer were to think that he was feeling a giraffe, then from the POV of the sale it would be a giraffe. That's what's meant by the aphorism "the customer is always right". People tend to take that statement as a policy directive for customer service, when in fact the meaning is much deeper - it means that a company must always follow what the customer says he wants, even if from the company's POV that seems absurd. It's futile to try to second-guess the customer. .... >i>t's the customer who has the more holistic viewpoint, refusing to see >an >>object as a collection of distinct subobjects. >That is what I mean€¦.to see things as a whole€¦.but if you judge it >by the term or like and dislike (which is common in consumer panel ) >which are half truths ...it does not say anything to be taken >seriously by a competent evaluator as it does not say anything valid( >if not solid) descriptors that can be used to relate to the >technically trained panel. To the technically trained panel what the customer says may be impossibly vague and meaningless, but the important point is - the trained panel is not the group who is going to be *buying* the product. So what they think in terms of what meaning the customer's description has is totally irrelevant. To give another example: in the film industry it's common for a film to get great reviews by the critics, who we may assume to have excellent knowledge. But then it bombs at the box-office, often because what the critics saw in the film was too obscure and/or inaccessible to make any sense to the viewing public. Meanwhile, all the critics could roundly pan a movie which then is a blockbuster, because even though it contains nothing that the critics see as commendable, it has appeal to the common man. I would argue that it is the critics who have the wrong perspective in these cases, not the audience. From the POV of the film's producers critical acclaim is only valuable insofar as it increases box- office returns, and likewise a high gross more or less negates any issues of poor review. If the audience likes it, I feel, the film should be considered "good" regardless of what the critics say, and it's in fact the critics who need to adjust their criteria of excellence based on the popular response - at least insofar as their aim is to provide a service that indicates to the readership what films they should see if they wish to be entertained. >>Unknown products?....how can that be a confectionery product is >>supposed to be known and its not as dangerous or risky if compared to >>drug use >>It's not that the reaction might be dangerous, it's that it's >>unpredictable, precisely because, as you point out, customers are >>notoriously subjective. ... > >That is one of the major reason that I dont want to compare drug >evaluation to confectionery assessment . They are different : a food >item is never comparable to a medicinal product.. >It does not give any sense or even logic at all for an equivalent >comparison. No analogy can be "perfect", retaining all the properties of the thing analogised, for if it did, it would be that very object. The only way one can, indeed, distinguish separate objects is that they have different properties. Thus when making an analogy it is necessary to restrict one's assessment of the similarities to that domain where the analogy is presumed to apply - the overlap of similar qualities - and not get caught up in how things are different from one another. Otherwise you'd find there were no good analogies for anything. .... >If your statistical thinking is correct and just focusing on the taste >aspect alone, then what have been found in the laboratory and pilot >scale studies including sensory analysis already produced positive >result that the majority of the attributes as what the customer >wants ( for that certain product)then why would the consumer will be >expected to say grossly the opposite that is not what they want? >Where is the positive correlation statistically speaking? It could be different because, as we have both pointed out exhaustively, the average person doesn't deconstruct a taste into its respective components. Rather, he sees it as a total object that he "likes" or "dislikes" subjectively. If you break down a taste into components you assume that these components are in one sense or another independent - or at least that you can reduce the taste to a minimal set of independent attributes that can be considered the "dimensions" of the taste as far as your analysis is concerned. Unfortunately, *real* taste tends to have inseparable variables: it's a case of "everything depends on everything". This kind of problem foils a database because DB's are designed on the relational model that assumes a 1-to-many hierarchichal relationship - that you can break down your attributes into that set of independent variables. Any time you've got the kind of many-to-many mapping that characterises real taste, your DB will go haywire. In actual fact, it's not quite a hopeless picture, because in spite of the fact that taste is so intertwined, you can approximate the picture with a series of more-or-less independent variables which give at least a reasonably complete representation of the taste. For many situations this gives good results, but since it's an approximation, it can't catch every case. The analysis might then indicate that such-and-such a combination will be a success, but in fact it's either not so successful as expected, or in the worst cases a total failure. Nothing was wrong with the analysis, it's just that if this result comes as a total shock then the people involved never really fully grasped that they were dealing with approximations and not with absolute fact. >Another thing is >Why would the developer rely on the outside feedback to dictate them in >their jobs when they are already aware what the consumer want and they >are developing the products in that direction? If they're not receptive to outside feedback, then I think the developers are running the risk of becoming closed-minded, convinced of their own knowledge. Part of being a first-class developer is being able to listen to and heed external input. >The big decision if the product will fail or succeed in the market does >not come from the consumers but within the producers ranks; These >people are not crazy to waste resources without having a forethought if >that particular product is doomed to fail .They are certain the know >what the customer wants and they are going in that direction. Being absolutely certain you know what someone else wants sets you up for the biggest possible embarrassment when you discover that what you thought they wanted was not what they actually did want. Sometimes you can predict effectively, sometimes not. Better not to assume that you know, but rather to believe that you have some ability to predict. >Therefore this validates my earlier statement that the consumer panel >is just SUPPORTIVE or CONFIRMATORY in any confectionery related >development. Once a consumer panel has been set up with the assumption that you know exactly how they will respond and are merely trying to verify your knowledge, you have committed the error I described above as "Such a panel will usually have been assembled to justify a pre-formed conclusion". >>Except that in the specific case of lecithin a customer has some reason >>to believe the confection *might* be fatal and no hard data to assure >>him that it won't. It's for that reason that some people in the >>soy-allergic group are scrupulous about avoiding soy lecithin. > >That is dubious thought....lecithin to be fatal....when similar lipids >exist in the human body? It's not the lecithin in particular that could be fatal, it's the derivation from soy, which for those truly allergic might be a cause for concern, which could be fatal. >And it was proven time and time again that is safe...regardless if >comes from soybean or other plant material. >If there is somebody who is really allergic to it is very rare and not >a cause of concern for the confectionery manufacturer. No, the confectionery manufacturer can't worry about that sort of thing explicitly, because then you are desiging for an extreme exception. However, in order to avoid possible legal entanglements, you may need in today's litigous society to print a disclaimer on your label. Meanwhile if a confectioner did choose to avoid lecithin it might be because he had other objections and thus being able to assuage the concerns of the soy- allergic would merely be a small bonus. -- Alex Rast (remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply) |
|
Posted to rec.food.chocolate
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wanting to make awesome chocolates...
at Thu, 29 Dec 2005 23:27:53 GMT in
.com>, (Chembake) wrote : >In theory, that's how it's supposed to work. But in practice, even the >best-researched and thoroughly tested products bomb in the marketplace, and >I've seen plenty of cases where they bombed because of reasons that could >have been caught had the product been subjected to consumer trials. Usually >in those situations it seems obvious after the fact, but this is because >some key factor that had never before been noted becomes visibly self- >evident. No company will make the same mistake again, because now whatever >that mystery factor is will have been determined and integrated into >testing, database, and other systems. However, before the release of the >fatal product, no company knew or perhaps cared about this factor. I dont know if the product you are talking about is confectionery.... And I know as I had seen a lot of their development works.... and it seldom fail... >That's part of what I was referring to in describing the assumptions of the >developer. On paper the product may look as if it's going to be a smash hit >while in practice it might turn out to be only a modest success. Companies >inevitably feel a bit deflated when this happens. Here we go again...you insist your position but you had never been in actual confectionery product development and manufacturing or have related experience to substantiate your claim.. You claimed you understand statistical application which is rather well known.... but it seems now never had any idea how its applied in food product development and you had never been there...and had any ideas that the quality aspects of a product are consumer oriented. Some times I wonder what is wrong with you... You have no first hand experience in this field then why you argue based on assumptions and not to accept a true experience from a person who actually witnessed it ? If you know nothing about confectionery production including research and development then better not insist your hypothetical ideas. >best selling products they will just stop selling , bring it back for >more study and see if they can improve it further before they can >relaunch it the same or as a different product name >Don't be overly distracted by the fact that both of these items are >comestibles. That wasn't really the point. The point was to illustrate >industries where the market research process could justifiably invoke >similar themes. .. But you are generalizing things....and that makes this comparison appears trivial... If you are in the proximity of that confectionery industry you will understand that the field is unique by itself...but its not that complicated like other food industries. >>I would say that it's not a matter of *accuracy*, it's a matter of >*resolution* - how many separate features are you going to try to extract? Accuracy and resolution....you are becoming more academic...you should be teaching in the university for first year statistics and not to dictate your terms to people who had been in thick of that application in real time. We know those things well.... for sure. And the consumer is the motivation for using those tools. >Why not? If the consumer likes it, we may assume fairly well that it fits >their expectation. The direct evidence of actual response is more solid >than the indirect inference that you could draw based upon an idea that if >a product fell within a certain profile it could be expected to be well- >received. Again you are theorizing... .. ....you have no first hand evidence based on confectionery experience .... so why insist that it would not work.? I am very sure it works as I have experienced it! >Therefore Target market is the keyword here >Every food designer have it in their mind before they embark on such >particular food product development >So when customer who is interested on that particular item will buy >the product they are optimistic that they would appreciate it. >Only people who has no affection for that certain confectionery line >will dislike it.. >Yes, you have hit the nail on the head when you identify the key issue as >target market. Third-party analysis can be much more accurate when >you have a narrow target market, because in that case there's been some >attempt to pre-qualify your audience. Nonetheless, I think in this case a >consumer testing round is valid - you just need to screen your consumers >who are going to participate. Clearly it's futile to survey a broad >spectrum of consumers for a product that's only going to appeal to a >certain clientele - e.g. your licorice example. What's done is that with a >quick round of preliminary questions taken from a broad canvassing, you can ..qualify your target consumers - who then form the basis of your consumer >test panel. This is commonly called a "focus group", and although focus >groups, like anything else, are only part of the marketing picture they >have been remarkably successful when used intelligently. I can see how you >might have thought what I was advocating would be foolish if you thought I >meant that one should just randomly pick consumers out of a crowd. Again that is good in theory. And in other complicated consumer products >When a company devises their consumer panels like this they have only >themselves to blame for their own poor results. Such a panel will usually >have been assembled to justify a pre-formed conclusion, exactly the >behaviour I was warning against. Yes, a blind consumer panel conducted as >you outline is useless. That's why you don't conduct consumer panels like >that. But if you imagine that all consumer panels must of necessity be this >way then you are missing out on an important market-evaluation tool. Again ,Maybe in other business but seldom in confectionery line.... > Again, most people don't follow an algorithm when making a >>purchase decision. >IMHO it justifies rather the reasoning that it is not wise to treat >marketing as an algorithmic, deterministic process that you can just follow >procedurally. People are somewhat unpredictable and thus an attempt to >reduce things down to a rigidly determined outcome will inevitably result >in the occasional perplexed surprise when things don't go according to >plan. That is why its not reliable to risk with such groups....a tried and tested panel will be a worthwhile examiner of the product than relying on so called consumer in critical decision making about a product that is already known. >This sums up that if a certain consumer only see a part of the whole >picture then how can their decision be taken into account as reliable >basis that the product is good or bad? >Because it doesn't matter what *you* think. What matters is what the >*customer* thinks. Here we go again... thats is always in mind of the product designer....what the consumer wants. I had re stated in my earlier post in that in the so called experimental design and consumer oriented QFD ( quality function deployment) and optimization. The goals are customer oriented and it had never failed to launch a product that succeeded in the market despite limited consumer tests. Again I mention that confectionery formulation is simpler and not like,drugs sauces, savory items , highly flavored materials where complexity is the norm and it really needs intensive support from a well selected consumer panel....but fortunately is seldom applied in the confections.... .... >To the technically trained panel what the customer says may be impossibly >vague and meaningless, but the important point is - the trained panel is >not the group who is going to be *buying* the product. So what they think >in terms of what meaning the customer's description has is totally >irrelevant. Again you are restating examples that is not being done in the confectionery development. You are trying to substantiate your futile reasoning by using non related products. >To give another example: in the film industry it's common for a ><film to get great reviews by the critics, who we may assume to have >excellent knowledge. But then it bombs at the box-office, often because >what the critics saw in the film was too obscure and/or inaccessible to >make any sense to the viewing public. Film industry....hey....we are discussing specific foods here...? Why the movies? >No analogy can be "perfect", retaining all the properties of the thing >analogised, for if it did, it would be that very object. The only way that analogy could be in the right sense is make similar to the issue being discussed. Why discuss films, drug research, computer statistics,, etc... What does it have to do with confectionery?.... Those are extra noises that is complicating the discussion. .... >Any time you've got the kind of many-to-many mapping that characterises >real taste, your DB will go haywire. \ Then why did it work?>.... if from your assumption that it has a complex relationship? >If they're not receptive to outside feedback, then I think the developers >are running the risk of becoming closed-minded, convinced of their own >knowledge. Part of being a first-class developer is being able to listen to >and heed external input. Not receptive...? They are not....but they are not trivial people who will waste their time to ask somebody things that they already know. >Being absolutely certain you know what someone else wants sets you up for >the biggest possible embarrassment when you discover that what you thought >they wanted was not what they actually did want. Sometimes you can predict >effectively, sometimes not. Better not to assume that you know, but rather >to believe that you have some ability to predict. Hah....youre just apprehensive as you had never been in proximity of a confectionery manufacturer or have never experienced confectionery product development .. You are just assuming things .....that had never happened... >Once a consumer panel has been set up with the assumption that you know >exactly how they will respond and are merely trying to verify your >knowledge, you have committed the error I described above as "Such a panel >will usually have been assembled to justify a pre-formed conclusion". Therefore ....its a waste of time to assemble that panel if the essential requirements of the product is already established <grin> >>Except that in the specific case of lecithin a customer has some reason >>to believe the confection *might* be fatal and no hard data to assure >>him that it won't. It's for that reason that some people in the >>soy-allergic group are scrupulous about avoiding soy lecithin. >That is dubious thought....lecithin to be fatal....when similar lipids >exist in the human body? >It's not the lecithin in particular that could be fatal, it's the >derivation from soy, which for those truly allergic might be a cause for >concern, which could be fatal. Thats another assumption....you have to know and understand that in many countries ....its declared that food items that supposed to contain an allergen is declared clearly in the labeling And so far it was effective in warning consumers who are supposed to be hypersensitive. For example ...Even if it does not contain nuts its should be declared that its made in the facility that may use nuts in other products. Or ingredients that are derived or related to nuts( say some legumes?) >No, the confectionery manufacturer can't worry about that sort of thing >explicitly, because then you are desiging for an extreme exception. >However, in order to avoid possible legal entanglements, you may need in >today's litigous society to print a disclaimer on your label. Meanwhile if >a confectioner did choose to avoid lecithin it might be because he had >other objections and thus being able to assuage the concerns of the soy- >allergic would merely be a small bonus. Its already part of the labeling code as an example I had related above... Alan I think this discussion is not going anywhere....you keep insisting ad nauseum your premises that were unproven in the confectionery industry and therefore had no merit. I will not spend any more time in this worthless discussion. Happy New Year! |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| How your kids make Belgian Chocolates | General Cooking | |||
| Wanting to collect the cream | General Cooking | |||
| Make yourself Belgian Chocolates for Easter | General Cooking | |||
| Make yourseff Belgian Chocolates for Easter | Recipes | |||
| H2S smell, wanting to oak | Winemaking | |||
Linear Mode
