I n n ova t ion St u die s Ut r e ch t ( I SU)

W or k in g Pa pe r Se r ie s

Un de r st a n din g con su m e r n e e ds a n d pr e fe r e n ce s
in n e w pr odu ct de ve lopm e n t : t h e ca se of
fu n ct ion a l food in n ova t ion s

Elle n H . M . M oor s a n d Rogie r D on de r s

I SU Working Paper # 09.03

1
 Understanding consumer needs and preferences in new product
development: the case of functional food innovations

Ellen H.M. Moors* & Rogier Donders

* Innovation Studies Group, Copernicus Research Institute for Sustainable Development and
Innovation, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80115, NL-3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Tel: +31 30 253 7812; fax: +31 30 253 2746. E-mail address: [email protected].

Abstract
As the majority of new products fail it is important to focus on the needs and preferences of the
consumers in new product development. Consumers are increasingly recognised as important co-
developers of innovations, often developing new functions for technologies, solving unforeseen
problems and demanding innovative solutions. The central research question of the paper is: How to
understand consumer needs and preferences in the context of new product development in order to
improve the success of emerging innovations, such as functional foods. Important variables appear to
be domestication, trust and distance, intermediate agents, user representations and the consumer- and
product specific characteristics. Using survey and focus group data, we find that consumers need and
prefer easy-to-use new products, transparent and accessible information supply by the producer,
independent control of efficacy and safety, and introduction of a quality symbol for functional foods.
Intermediate agents are not important in information diffusion. Producers should concentrate on
consumers with specific needs, like athletes, women, obese persons, and stressed people. This will
support developing products in line with the needs and mode of living of the users.

Key-words: consumer needs, preferences, new product development, functional foods

2
1. Introduction

The majority of new products fail. A study of Ernst & Young (2000) showed that only one-
third of all fast moving consumer goods introduced in Dutch supermarkets in 1998 can be
considered successful. New product development is an risky endeavour but is essential for the
health and survival of a company (Cooper 1993). The innovation success of new products is
improved when there is true added value to the consumer. As Griffin (1996, p.154) already
stated: “The most successful product development efforts match a set of fully understood
customer problems with a cost-competitive solution to those problems.” It is difficult,
however, to understand customer needs and preferences and to balance them with the strategy
of producers to make a product that satisfies consumers better than competing alternatives
(Schmidt 2005). Often consumers don’t know what new products they demand, since they
cannot overlook all future possibilities (Hamel & Prahalad 1994; Griffin 1996). Furthermore,
identifying opportunities for new products, especially for radical new, emerging products, is
quite difficult, as these products “can offer new, unique, or superior solutions to users’ needs
and can create entirely new markets” (Schmidt & Calantone 2006, p. 106). Accordingly,
incorporating the ‘voice of the consumer’ in early stages of new product development has
been recognised as a critical success factor (Griffin & Hauser 1993; Van Kleef et al. 2005).
The traditional economics literature has mostly ignored the relation between research and
product development choices of firms and consumer needs and preferences. In innovation
studies, research and (product) development is increasingly perceived as a co-evolutionary
process, an institutional interplay in which many heterogeneous stakeholders interact in
complex ways. The emergence of new functionalities of a product innovation is a particular
aspect of the widening process of co-evolution between a new technology and its users.
Heterogeneous user groups provide feedback about how a new technology, with a high degree
of flexibility regarding product specific characteristics and uncertainty about potential
applications and related ethical, legal and social aspects, matches their needs, preferences and
performance criteria. These aspects become articulated in demands and interactions between
users and producers. Accordingly, users are increasingly recognised as important co-
developers of innovations, often developing new functions for technologies, solving
unforeseen problems and demanding innovative solutions.
Theoretically, this paper attempts to bridge the gap between the rather classic linear
innovation model for understanding new product development, and more recent theorising on
innovation systems, characterised by feedback and co-evolution, in which user involvement
play an important role.
In order to get more insight in the consumers need and preferences in the context of new
product development, this paper focuses on what we can learn from innovation studies about
the role of consumers in emerging product innovations. Accordingly, the central research
question is: How to understand consumer needs and preferences in the context of new product
development, in order to improve the success of emerging product innovations? The focus
will be on one particular new product development, namely emerging functional food
innovations. These new food products are not only intended to originally satisfy hunger, but
also to prevent nutrition-related diseases and to increase physical and mental well-being of
consumers (Menrad 2003). Therefore, these new products specifically anticipate on consumer
needs and preferences.

This study is limited to consumer needs and preferences regarding functional foods
innovations in the Netherlands. The reasons for this empirical limitation are two-fold.
Firstly, The Netherlands has a historically and internationally strong position in the food
sector, as expressed in the Gross Domestic Product, export and Intellectual Property Rights

3
(MinEZ 2006). And regarding emerging food technologies, The Netherlands has a relative
high technological advantage in nutrigenomics research (Vandeberg & Boon 2008).
Secondly, in 2003, the Dutch Nutrigenomics Consortium has been founded, as a
collaboration between the Wageningen Centre for Food Sciences and the Dutch Centre for
Medical Systems Biology, with one of its central aims to develop novel food products
(Vandeberg et al. 2008). Accordingly, the Netherlands has a long tradition in food
developments and nowadays a strong position in new food product innovations.

This paper is organised as follows. Section 2 briefly outlines emerging functional foods
developments and the various discernable categories of functional foods. To study the needs
and preferences of consumers regarding functional food innovations, a conceptualisation of
user involvement needs to be made. Section 3 presents such conceptual model for studying
consumers needs and preferences with regard to emerging product developments. Section 4
describes the applied research methodology. Surveys and focus group sessions with
consumers provided a dataset for analysis. To investigate the presumed relations in the
conceptual model, this dataset has been analysed by means of factor analysis (Principal
Components Analysis). Section 5 presents the results. Section 6 discusses the findings and
ends with conclusions and recommendations.

2. Functional food innovations

Worldwide consumers are becoming more interested in the relation between food and health.
In consumer food, for example, products that lower cholesterol have become available (e.g.
Becel ProActiv). This growing awareness of the consumer combined with scientific
possibilities, gives the functional food industry the opportunity to develop a wide variety of
new functional food concepts. According to the EU definition ‘a food can be regarded as
functional if it is satisfactorily demonstrated to affect beneficially one or more target functions
in the body’ (Diplock et al.1999). Thus, functional foods are foodstuffs of which scientifically
has been proven that they have a positive influence on the physiological and/or mental
wellbeing of the user.
Because of the growing consumer interest, food producers have realised that functional
foods can have an important positive effect on sales. The global market of functional food is
estimated up to 33 billion US$, the European market estimations exceed 2 billion US$,
representing less than 1% of the European food market. Functional dairy products, such as
cholesterol-lowering butters, functional yoghurts, are the key product sector (Menrad 2003).
Within the incumbent food industry the producers are aware of the potential of functional
foods to provide an important contribution to the increase in sales in this sector (Kleef et al.
2005). As the market is characterised by a high rate of product failures, specific efforts in
nutritional research, product development and marketing of food (e.g. tasty products,
convenience, variety) are necessary to realise long-lasting market success of functional food
products (Menrad 2003). Accordingly, in the development of functional foods two aspects
play an important role: technological opportunities and (market) insight in the needs and
preferences of the consumer.
From the technological point of view, there are many different techniques to develop a new
functional food and a wide range of different kinds of functional foods can be developed. At
this moment, the functional foods on the market can be divided into three main categories
(Verduijn 2004):
The first category consists of functional foods of which the producers claim that the
consumption of these foods have a positive effect on human health (i.e. health-enhancing

4
functional foods). Furthermore, producers of these foods claim that the consumption of these
foods reduces the risk of certain diseases. Examples of diseases for which functional foods are
developed include cardiovascular diseases, cancer, obesities and diabetes. There are various
ways of producing novel food products providing health benefits: 1) by fortifying existing
products with additional nutrients, so called fortified foods (e.g. fruit juice fortified with
additional vitamin C); 2) by adding nutrients that normally are not present in the product, so
called enriched foods (e.g. margarine with plant sterol esters that have shown to lower blood
cholesterol (e.g. Becel ProActiv)); 3) by replacing some potentially harmful or undesirable
constituents by more beneficial components, so called altered products (e.g. the use of high
fibre fat replacers from grain products to reduce fat in products); and 4) the enhanced
commodities, these include developed products with enhanced content of certain components
beneficial for health (e.g. tomatoes with increased production of the nutrient lycopene)
(Spence 2006).
The second category consists of functional foods from which producers claim that the
consumption of these foods has a positive effect on the physical and mental wellbeing (i.e.
feel good functional foods). For example, food with high concentrations of carbohydrates
supports sleepiness and calming down. Sucrose could diminish stress feelings of children.
Also specific food ingredients are studied, such as choline, caffeine and specific amino acids
for their effect on the mood and the cognitive performance (Ashwell 2002).
The third category consists of functional foods which can be consumed before, during or
after physical exercise (sport functional foods) to improve physical performance and
recovery. A balanced diet with the precise composition of specific food ingredients, such as
re-hydrated products and supplements of micro-nutrients, could play an important role in the
improvement of the performance level of an athlete. They also often use energy drinks, with
high levels of caffeine and taurin (e.g. AA Energy Drink, Extran Energy) (Ashwell 2002).

Despite the large range of technical possibilities for the development of functional foods,
many companies have difficulties with the translation of scientific knowledge in successful
new products. An explanation for this can be found in the lack of insight in the needs and
preferences of the consumer. For the development of a new successful product it is essential
that producers have insight in the consumer’s needs and translate these into a new product.
However, this raises the question how to conceptualise the consumers needs and preferences
in the context of new product developments, so that new innovations can benefit from the
creative potential of the users?

3. Conceptual model for consumer needs and preferences

In general, new product development represents a science-based innovation trajectory, carried

out by a network of interrelated actors, such as universities, research institutes, producers,
government, and consumers, and based on demand-driven conditions, such as unmet needs
(Tidd et al. 2001). These conditions are reflected in expectations about potential customers
and new product innovation, adoption and diffusion.
Needs and preferences of consumers not only become visible in the end stage of new
product development but often are articulated throughout the innovation process in for
example research agendas of firms, wishes of retailers and experiential knowledge of
consumers. By this, consumers (may) introduce important societal aspects in innovation
processes (Nelson & Winter 1982; Rip & Kemp 1998).
A broad set of disciplines has focussed on the role of users (consumers) in technology and
product development, ranging from evolutionary economics, semiotic approaches and cultural

5
studies to science, technology and innovation studies. The latter has recently shown that
intensified, and well-designed user-producer interaction may increase chances for successful
innovations (e.g. Von Hippel 1988, Lundvall 1992, Coombs 2001, Smits 2002, Geels 2002,
Oudshoorn & Pinch 2003, Moors et al. 2003, Moors et al. 2008; Lütje 2003, Rohracher 2005,
Lettl 2006, Nahuis et al., 2009, Boon et al. 2008, Smits & Den Hertog 2007, Smits & Boon
2008).
New product developments originate from new technologies or from new market possibilities
(Eliashberg et al. 1997). But the ultimate success of new products is based on the assessment
or judgements of the consumer (Brown & Eisenhardt 1995; Cooper & Kleinschmidt 1987).
The incorporation of the ‘voice of the consumer’ in the early stages of new product
development has been identified as a critical success factor for the development of new
products (Van Kleef et al. 2005). Consumer oriented studies could be carried out at four
different stages of new product development: 1) at the stage of identification of technological
opportunities, 2) at the development stage, 3) at the testing stage and at the 4) market launch
stage. Most often, consumer research is performed during the development, testing or
launching of a new product, while various studies show that successful new product
development is mainly based on the quality of the identification of possibilities (stage 1).
(Cooper 1985,1988,1998; McGuinness et al 1989, in Van Kleef et al. 2005). The goal of the
first stage is to search for new ideas or opportunities, which typically involve the unmet
needs, ideas and preferences of consumers (Van Kleef et al. 2005).
Accordingly, consumer research in an early stage could importantly contribute to increase
the chance of a successful product on the market, and could give insights in the way
consumers accept products, how consumer needs are formed and influenced, and the way in
which product choice is realised (Goldenberg et al. 2002; Van Kleef et al. 2005). Fig 1 gives
an overview of the stages of new product development process along with representative
consumer research methods (Van Kleef et al. 2005).

Opportunity identification
Development Optimization
Understanding Creativity Screening Launch
consumer enhance- techniques Planning Product
needs ment tools testing
techniques

Figure 1: Stages of new product development process and representative consumer research methods
(Van Kleef et al. 2005:182)

Consumers, however, are not always able to articulate their needs, preferences or wishes, due
to the fact that they are not fully aware of all possibilities of a new technology or don’t want
to share their (creative ideas and opinions). Studies have shown that consumers are often
unaware of their underlying choice criteria and aspirations in purchasing a product or
choosing one product instead of another (Simonson 1993). People do not have clear and stable
preferences, even when they have complete information about the characteristics of
alternatives. To a large extent, consumers construct their preferences when faced with a
specific purchase decision, rather than retrieve pre-formed evaluations. Moreover, consumers
may have needs that they are not aware of, often referred to as ‘latent needs’. Consumers do
not ask for the fulfillment of these needs and may not be able to articulate them. This is

6
because products, which could fulfill them probably, do not yet exist. (Griffin & Hauser
1993). Furthermore, novel solutions to people’s latent needs can differentiate a product from
its competitors and make consumers more loyal (Oliver et al. 1997; Van Kleef et al. 2005).
Following Van Kleef et al. (2005), we make a distinction between consumer needs and
preferences: Needs are more general, referring to basic needs such as food, water, air,
protection etc. Preferences are more specific and related to concrete objects that could fulfil a
particular need, e.g. a particular sport functional food.
This paper focuses on the first part of the new product development process, namely
understanding consumer needs and preferences related to the opportunity identification stage
of product development. For the analysis, various concepts from the innovation studies
literature are chosen. In order to develop a conceptual model, we first have to get insight in
the product specific characteristics. Then we will focus on the person-related factors of the
consumer and the conditions focusing on consumer needs and preferences.

The functional food related product characteristics, such as physical, chemical properties and
nutrient content, are the first dimension in the model for understanding consumer needs and
preferences. Consumers will choose certain food products to fulfil the necessary nutrient
requirements and/or to fulfil their desire to eat a certain product, because of its flavour, texture
and appearance. By creating more flavourful food and improving the appearance of food
products, consumers are more likely to choose these products. The nutrient content, or what
people perceive to be ‘healthy food’ plays a major role in food choice (Wardlaw et al. 2004).
The food-related product characteristics can influence consumers’ perception, attitudes and
acceptance of the functional food product.

Person related factors of the consumer, such as age, gender, level of education, work,
household composition, psychological and physiological factors, perception of sensory
attributes, attitudes and acceptance are also an important dimension of the conceptual model.
Appearance of the product, aroma, taste and texture are examples of the perception of sensory
attributes. Personality, experience, mood and beliefs form the psychological factors. Satiety,
hunger, thirst and appetite are part of the physiological factors. The attitudes to sensory
properties, health, nutrition, price or value and acceptance of the food product are also
important indicators (e.g. Urala et al. 2007).

In many cases consumers do not yet have precise demand requirements and a clear view of
relevant product attributes. Users’ needs and possible alignments with technological
opportunities cannot be discovered ex-ante as Rosenberg (1976, 1982) stressed. They have to
be constructed and negotiated in a process of mutual articulation and alignment of demand
and supply. In this process the role of mediators, intermediate agents, advocacy groups or
spokespersons could be very relevant. Intermediate agents are actors who facilitate interaction
between consumers and producers, often bridging the knowledge gap between them. They
could be regarded as brokers between consumers and producers in order to create mutual
understanding and articulation and alignment of demand (consumption and user requirements)
and supply (production and product characteristics) (Boon et al. 2007; Van Lente et al. 2003;
Hoogma & Schot 2001). Important intermediate agents for functional food developments are
consumers and patient organisations, dieticians, supermarket organisations, venture
capitalists, organisations that inform the public in general such as the Dutch Food Centre
(Nederlands Voedingscentrum), the media and industry associations (Moors et al. 2003).

The most important success factor for the market introduction of new functional foods is that
the health claims of these products are waterproof. When no scientific evidence on efficacy

7
and safety can be given, users will find it difficult to trust the producers and will hesitate to
buy these new food products. Trust is an important factor in the interactions between
producers and users. Without mutual trust, efficient and effective interactions will not be
possible (Lundvall 1992). Therefore, an important starting point for the food industry is that
the claims of new food products with specific health enhancing effects can be scientifically
proven (Enzing & Van der Giessen, 2002). Trust is not only related to waterproof health
claims, but also to the extent to which producers handle food scandals. Food scandals like the
dioxin, BSE, and mouth-and-feet-disease have harmed the consumer trust in the safety and
quality of food. Although producers claim that they do everything to assure quality and safety,
the consumer is sensitive to incidents and campaigns of societal pressure groups. Clear,
harmonized governmental regulation about food claims etc. would possibly help to create
consumers’ trust (Moors et al. 2003).
Furthermore, consumers lack knowledge about food production methods and find it
difficult to understand technological developments such as functional food innovations
(Stichting Merkartikel 2002). This gap in knowledge increases the social and cultural distance
between consumers and producers and this could hinder effective interactions between them
(Lundvall, 1992). This lack of knowledge also stimulates the lack of trust, because users fear
new products and services based on technological developments. Therefore, consumer
acceptance of these new products and services is lacking and consumers are rather sceptical
about food products with health benefits. Verbeke (2005) showed that believing in the health
effects of functional foods is the most crucial factor affecting the consumers’ acceptance.

The process of user representations is a method for producers to deal with the uncertainty on
the demand side when products are radically new and there is no established market yet. User
representation is the outcome of “techniques employed by system designers to construct and
then appropriate […] representations (in a cognitive and political sense) of what the supposed
users are and what they want” (Akrich 1995,p.168). When the consumer needs and
preferences are heterogeneous, representativeness cannot be taken for granted (Nahuis et al.
2008). In order to deal with this heterogeneity, producers are interested in their future users
and they construct many different representations of these users, and objectify these
representations in technical choices. The problem is how to take the various user
representations into account and to combine them in order to develop a product that fits a
coherent combination of these user representations. Thereby, the concept of script (Akrich
1992) can be helpful. Through functional food innovations, new professionals (such as
medical and pharmaceutical researchers) will be involved in food development. This change
in relationship between actors and their products can be analysed from the ‘script’ that the
food product ’holds’ (Moors et al. 2003).

Users do not simply accept or reject innovative technologies, but have to ‘domesticate’ them.
Domestication of technology refers to the practices and consequences of incorporating new
technological products in daily lives (Silverstone and Hirsch 1992). Domestication is an
active process in which the very meaning and use of new technologies are (re)shaped, and,
consequently, the social identity of users themselves when users integrate novelties into their
daily lives and social relations. Accordingly, the domestication process analyses how
consumers really use the new products, how users integrate the new technology or product
that has already left the design stage into their daily life, and in which consumers give
meaning to a technology and thus reveal new applications for the innovation. Thus,
domestication refers to the capacity of users to bring new technologies and services into their
own culture and practice. After the actual development and production of the new product
and attaching functional and symbolic values to them (process of commodification), the users

8
will actually buy or receive the new product. This process of appropriation shows whether the
users are using the product as intended and expected by the producer. Incorporation reflects
how consumers make use of a specific product. Users can also show their use and
consumption of these new products to the outside world. In this way the users are connected
to the public world of shared meanings and claims and counterclaims of status and belonging.
This process is also called conversion. Functional food developments could lead to the use of
improved food (e.g. better flavour, texture, increased nutritional value) and foods with
enhanced health properties such as pro-biotics and nutritional supplements. This could lead to
a conversion from eating for feeding to eating for health. Functional food products will also
meet the increasing awareness of quality of food. Eating food is no longer a necessity to
survive, but eating food increasingly gets culinary and social characteristics. To what extent
the consumer actually decides to buy the new food product also depends on what the
consumer thinks of its innovativeness. This implies that producers should inform the
consumers and provide consumer tests already in an early stage of the development process.
Furthermore, the producer should not be too much far ‘ahead’ of the consumers, otherwise the
consumers will find it difficult to understand the newness and the benefits of the new products

Summarising, Figure 2 gives the concepts and dimensions, which have been identified as
being important in understanding consumer needs and preferences in the context of new
product development.

Concepts/variables Dimensions

Appropriation
Conversion
Incorporation
Domestication Integration in daily life
Product specific characteristics of three categories of
functional foods (sport, health-enhancing, feel good)

Trust in efficacy & safety

Trust & distance Evidence for efficacy & safety
Cultural distance (knowledge gap,
knowledge transfer)
Regulation

Consumer Mutual articulation of demand and supply

needs and Intermediate Advice in adoption process
preferences agents

User Perception of the producer from the

representations consumer

Personal related Age, gender, education, work, daily life

consumer Perceptions of new products
characteristics

o
Figure 2. Conceptual model for understanding consumer needs and preferences in new product
development

9
4. Research methodology

4.1. Operationalisation of concepts

The concepts in Fig. 2 have been operationalised according to their empirical facts as
discussed in Section 3.
Regarding the product specific characteristics the properties of the various categories of
functional foods (i.e. health-enhancing, feel good and sport functional foods) are presented in
the model, including taste, ease of use, availability, proven safety and efficacy, affordability,
and price.
Various types of consumers exist, all dealing differently with new products. By studying
these personal related consumer characteristics, that is who is the actual consumer of a
functional food product (age, gender, education level, job etc), how is (s)he dealing with new
products and information, and which products would (s)he choose and why, indicates how
various types of consumers assess various categories of new products (i.e. functional foods).
Various consumers could also have different perceptions of functional foods, based on the
sensory attributes and psychological and physiological factors. The dotted line in the
conceptual model indicates that the consumer characteristics are correlated with the user
representations.
User representations are indicated by the perception of the producer from the consumer
needs. Studying whether the products are in line with the needs and preferences of the
consumers gives an indication of the influence of these representations on the product
assessment of the consumer.
Intermediate agents take care of the mutual articulation of demand and supply and provide
aid with the adoption process of a new product. Indicators are: various types of intermediaries
and their advising role in the product adoption process.
Domestication refers to the practices and consequences of incorporating new products in
daily lives. The domestication process consists of three parts: Appropriation deals with the
fact whether users use a product as meant by the producer. Conversion describes whether
users give also other applications to existing products. Incorporation reflects how consumers
make use of a specific product. Furthermore the domestication process is influenced by the
extent to which the new products are integrated in the daily life and customs of the consumer
(e.g. eating habits, sport, work etc). When a new product fits easily these customs, it can be
more easily incorporated by the consumer in his daily living pattern. To what extent are these
dimensions of the domestication process influencing the consumer need of various categories
of functional foods (i.e. feel good, health-enhancing and sport functional foods).
Trust could be divided in trust in safety and trust in efficacy of a new product. For food
innovations, efficacy (working of the product) and safety (adverse side effects) are important
indicators. The distance between consumer and producer is indicated by the distance in
knowledge and the accessibility of the producer. Consumers have limited knowledge of
production methods and technologies, making it difficult for them to understand the various
technological opportunities. Difference in knowledge enlarges the social and cultural distance
between consumers and producers and accordingly, an effective interaction between them.
The larger the knowledge difference between consumer and producer, the larger is the cultural
distance, making it more difficult for a consumer to trust a new product. When consumers
understand a new product and its applications, the chance that the product will be integrated
in their daily life increases. There are various ways to bridge this cultural distance, amongst
others via information provision from various sources. Also, clear governmental regulation on
claims etc. could increase the trust by the consumer.

10
4.2. Data acquisition
Based on the dimensions mentioned in Figure 2, a survey on consumer needs and preferences
was prepared. The questionnaires were sent to respondents, recruited from the database of
OP&P Product Research in the Netherlands. OP&P Product Research provides the food
industry with consumer insights concerning product properties and product use and provides
guidelines for R&D and new product development. The respondents are naïve consumers who
are not trained nor experts, but represent the final target group. The database contains
approximately 5000 consumers in the Utrecht region, varying in age between 4 and 75 years
(www.opp.nl 2008).
The questionnaire contained questions on possible indicators of the concepts in Figure 2,
such as the age, gender, level of education, daily work, household composition, amount of
money spent on functional foods, the interest in sport, feel good and health functional foods,
the knowledge about new functional food products, the way of information gathering, the
source of information used, issues around efficacy and safety of sport, feel good, and health
functional foods, frequency of using functional foods etc. The questionnaire was sent to 460
consumers and returned by 212 respondents, leading to a response rate of 46%.
Furthermore, we worked with focus groups, an explorative test form based on group
discussions. First, an inventory of the relevant functional food product characteristics in the
eye of the consumers take place, followed by assessments of a series of functional food
products on these characteristics. Such focus groups provide quick insight in the ideas, needs
and preferences of consumers regarding functional foods and in the similarities and
differences between products and in the fit between concept and product. Focus group
discussions with a small amount of consumers are important source of qualitative data
gathering. The aim of the focus groups is to provide insights into the motives behind
consumer needs and preferences with regard to new product development, that is new
functional food innovations. Such information cannot be obtained by using written
questionnaires. Two focus group sessions have been organised.

4.3. Data analysis

In order to show which dimensions of the conceptual model are important for the consumers,
we applied Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation on the different
variables. This factor analysis technique is a method to recap a number of variables in a
limited amount of underlying clusters of related variables or dimensions. This analysis studies
whether there are cluster variables representing the same underlying dimension or factor. By
using factor analysis the set of indicators has been reduced to a limited amount underlying
dimensions. The scores of these underlying dimensions will be analysed. The factor analysis
demonstrates that specific variables show a high correlation with the other variables. The
highest correlating variables are on top of the tables (see Appendices). The highest scoring
indicators are represented as components. Component 1 gives the highest correlation with the
first indicators, component 2 gives the highest correlation with the subsequent indicators etc.
Thus, PCA shows which dimensions were most representative for the different variables in
the conceptual model.

5. Results

5.1 Results consumer survey research

The results of the consumer survey research are discussed per variable of the conceptual
model and for the various categories of functional foods, that is sport, health-enhancing and
feel good functional foods.

11
5.1.1 Domestication
The Principal Component Analysis (PCA) showed that two dimensions are at the basis for the
domestication variable of the sport functional foods category, namely the frequency of doing
sport and the ease of use. For the categories health-enhancing and feel good functional foods
only one dimension, ease of use, is at the basis of the domestication process. See Appendix 1.

5.1.2 Trust and distance

For both sport and feel good functional foods two dimensions have an important influence on
the variable trust and distance. First the dimension ‘ease of finding information’. Furthermore
‘uncertainty about efficacy and safety’ is an important dimension for trust and distance.
For sport functional foods the specific source of evidence influences to what extent the
functional food is trusted. Table 1 shows that the evidence about safety and efficacy should be
provided by an independent scientific organisation.

Table 1. Overview of organisations which, according to the consumer, should deliver the evidence for
efficacy and safety of sport functional foods.
Proof of efficacy and safety by

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Producer 33 15.6 15.6 15.6
(Top)sporters 15 7.1 7.1 22.6
Independent scientific
organisation 107 50.5 50.5 73.1

Government 16 7.5 7.5 80.7

Consumer organisation 8 3.8 3.8 84.4

Voedingscentrum
31 14.6 14.6 99.1
Other 2 .9 .9 100.0
Total 212 100.0 100.0

Regarding health-enhancing functional foods it is important for consumers that the

information is easy accessible. Furthermore, uncertainty about safety and efficacy is an
important indicator for the assessment of trust and distance of the food product. Table 2
shows that also for health-enhancing functional foods the consumers would like to obtain the
proof of safety and efficacy by an independent scientific organisation.

Table 2. Overview of organisations which, according to the consumer, should deliver the evidence for
efficacy and safety of health enhancing functional foods.
Proof of efficacy and safety by:

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Producer 35 16.5 16.5 16.5
Dieticians 9 4.2 4.2 20.8
Independent
scientific
113 53.3 53.3 74.1
organisation

Government 21 9.9 9.9 84.0

Consumer organisation 5 2.4 2.4 86.3

26 12.3 12.3 98.6

Voedingscentrum
Other 3 1.4 1.4 100.0
Total 212 100.0 100.0

12
For feel good functional foods it is important for consumers to obtain the information about
these products in an easy way. The uncertainty about efficacy and safety is, again, an
important indicator for the variable trust and distance regarding these products. More doubt
indicates less trust. Furthermore, more information about feel good functional foods leads to
higher purchasing of the product. Again, consumers want the proof of efficacy and safety by
an independent scientific organisation (Table 3, see also Appendix 2).

Tabel 3. Overview of organisations which, according to the consumer, should deliver the evidence for
efficacy and safety of feel good functional foods.
Proof of efficacy and safety by :

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Producer 38 17.9 17.9 17.9
Psychologists 6 2.8 2.8 20.8
Independent
scientific 123 58.0 58.0 78.8
organisation
Government 21 9.9 9.9 88.7

Consumer organisations 5 2.4 2.4 91.0

17 8.0 8.0 99.1

Voedingscentrum
Other 2 .9 .9 100.0
Total 212 100.0 100.0

5.1.3 Intermediate Agents

The results of the PCA on intermediate agents (Appendix 3) show for sport and health-
enhancing functional foods the dimension ‘independent organisation is necessary’ as the basis
for the variable Intermediate Agents. For the feel good functional foods this dimension is less
important. Appendix 4 gives an overview of the sources of information consumers use to
obtain information. The comparison how consumers are now gathering information on
functional foods with how they would like to do this in the future, gives potential points of
improvement for intermediate agents. Analysing these data shows that at the moment
consumers obtain their information on sport functional foods (p-value = 0.002) mainly via
family, friends or acquaintances. They would like to obtain this information from the producer
self. The analysis further shows that consumers obtain only a little information from well-
known intermediate agents. According to the consumers the Dutch ‘Voedingscentrum’ is the
only intermediate agent which should play a role in information services. Regarding health
enhancing functional foods (p-value table = 0.011), the consumers obtain their information
from the producer self. A considerable part of information is also acquired from family,
friends or acquaintances. According to the consumers the information should come from the
Dutch Voedingscentrum or a scientific institute. With regard to feel good functional foods (p-
value < 0.0005) most information also comes from the producer and that should also be the
case according to the consumer. The most important intermediate agents which should supply
information is according to the consumer a scientific organisation.
Fig 3 shows which information sources consumers currently use for obtaining information
about the different categories functional foods, and which information sources they would like
to use to obtain this information (p-value < 0.0005). At present, information about health
enhancing and feel good functional foods is obtained via advertisements on TV and radio.
Information about sport functional foods is particularly obtained via information on the
packaging. This packaging information is also preferred by the consumer as source of
information on sport functional foods. The same holds for the desired source of information
for health enhancing and feel good functional foods.

13
 Figure 3. Overview of current and desired information sources. The horizontal axes give the various
sources of information. The vertical axes give the percentage consumers choosing a specific source.
Internet
Internet
Internet
Artikelen in Artikelen in
wetenschappelijk

FeelGood Informatie zou moeten komen van

Artikelen in wetenschappelijk
e bladen e bladen
wetenschappelijk
Sport Informatie zou moeten komen van

e bladen
Gezondheid Informatie zou moeten komen van

14
Artikelen in krant Artikelen in krant

FeelGood Informatie komt van

Artikelen in krant of tijdschriften of tijdschriften
of tijdschriften
Sport Informatie komt van

Gezondheid Informatie komt van

Informatie op de Informatie op de
Informatie op de verpakking
verpakking
verpakking
Reclame in krant Reclame in krant
Reclame in krant
of tijdschriften of tijdschriften
of tijdschriften
Televisie- of Televisie- of Televisie- of
60 radioreclame radioreclame radioreclame
50
40
30
20
10
0

60
50
40
30
20
10
0

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
5.1.4. User representations
The PCA analysis on user representations shows differences between the three discerned
categories of functional foods (Appendix 5).
For sport functional foods two dimensions are most representative for user representations.
Firstly, the ‘supplety’, meaning that for sport functional foods the products correspond to the
needs arising during doing sport. Secondly, the supply of sport functional foods is okay,
implying that producers have a good insight in the needs of the consumer.
For health enhancing functional foods, three variables are at the basis of the user
representations. Firstly, the ‘supplety’, implying for health-enhancing functional foods that
the products could be a source for specific essential raw materials. Secondly, the ‘deficits’,
implying that consumers also really have problems for which health enhancing functional
foods are developed. Thirdly the prevention, indicating that consumers think that functional
foods could contribute to the prevention of specific problems.
For feel good functional foods two dimensions are important for users representations.
Firstly, the ‘supplety’ , indicating that feel good products could solve specific physical and
psychological well-being problems. Secondly, prevention, meaning that consumers have
specific problems which could be solved by using feel good functional foods.

5.1.5. Personal related consumer characteristics

Analysing the various consumer characteristics (i.e. age, gender, education level, daily work,
household composition) and their interest in the three categories of functional foods, four
combinations turn out to be significant:
Firstly, there is a correlation between age and interest in sport functional foods (p-value =
0.022). Young people are more interested than older ones, the interest is decreasing when age
increases (see Fig. 4).

Sport & Age

100
80
60 %moderate
40 % high
20 interest
0
Younger 29-41 42 or older
than 28

Figure 4. Relation between age and interest in sport functional foods

Secondly, age is also correlated with the interest in feel good functional foods (p-value =
0.055). Older consumers are less interested in these products (see Fig 5).

15
 Feel Good & Age
100
80
60 % moderate
40 % high
20 interest
0
Younger 29-41 42 or older
than 28

Figure 5. Relation between age an interest in feel good functional foods

Thirdly, gender of the consumer is correlated with the interest in sport functional foods (p-
value = 0.031). Male consumers are more interested in sport functional foods than women
(Fig 6.

Sport & Gender

100
80
60 %moderate
40 %high
20 interest

0
man woman

Figure 6. Relation between gender and interest in sport functional foods

Fourthly, the daily work of consumers is correlated with the interest in sport functional foods.
Especially students are interested in sport functional foods. No difference has been found
between part-timers and full-timers regarding interest in sport functional foods. People with
no job are not interested in sport functional foods (Fig 7) .

Sport & Work

100
80
60 %moderate
40 %high
20 interest
0
No Part- Full- Student
job time time

Figure 7: Relation between daily work and interest in sport functional foods

For the other consumer characteristics no significant correlations with the various categories of
functional foods are found.

16
5.1.6 Product specific characteristics

The PCA analysis of the variable ‘product specific characteristics’ (Appendix 6) shows for all
three categories functional foods that all product specific characteristics correlate, except for
the brand of the products. Furthermore, for health enhancing functional foods, it turns out that
the ease of use correlates to a certain extent with the other product specific characteristics.

5.2 Results Focus Group meetings

The most important concepts of the conceptual model which have been emphasised by the
focus group members were: trust in the producer, the intermediate agents, user representations
and the product characteristics. These are briefly discussed below.

Trust
The group members have relatively little trust in health enhancing functional foods. This lack
of trust is an important reason for not buying these products. They have more trust in drug
producers than in food producers. Food products with a strong medical character are ‘scary’,
due to the limited control on the dose and use by the right target group. The members don’t
expect functional foods to take over the role of pharmaceutical drugs in the future. A strict
distinction between medicinal drugs (strict control) and food products is necessary.
In the future, food producers should focus on gaining trust of the consumers by means of
producing safe and effective products, by which safety and efficacy has been proven by an
independent, trustworthy organisation. Additionally, producers should give the consumers the
possibility to try out the products and to experience their functionality.

Intermediate agents
There is a shortage on information supply about functional foods. It was not clear when a
functional food product really was ‘functional’. It is not clear who is guarding the safety and
efficacy. A clear and reliable quality symbol should be put on the packaging of those specific
products. This increases the transparency by choosing between various food products.
Reliable information about functional food products should be given by general
practitioners and dieticians. Also TV programs about product quality and comparisons,
investigating to what extent the trust in a product is justifiable, would be a good source for
reliable information.

User representations
With regard to user representations the producers not always have a correct perception of the
needs and wishes of the consumer. The group members don’t need functional foods, and
when these products were not developed, they wouldn’t miss them. Now that these are in the
supermarket, they try them out. They are fairly sceptical about functional foods. In general
they have a perception of functional foods and are sometimes willing to try them. None of
them uses functional foods daily, because they are not convinced that functional foods lead to
a significant health enhancing contribution. Effects of the use of functional foods are not
measurable directly and furthermore, none of them have a problem for which functional foods
could provide a remedy. Additionally, they found the price of functional food products high
compared to the effects and compared to normal healthy food products.

Product characteristics
Consumers think price is the most important product characteristic of functional foods. Due to
the high price of functional foods consumers are not easily willing to buy functional foods. A
lower price makes that consumers could base their choice of food products on functionality

17
and not on price. Another important characteristic in the assessment of functional foods is the
taste of these products. Taste influences the food decision process. If the taste is not good, the
product won ‘t be used. Because the effects of functional foods are not measurable (yet), the
functionality plays a minor role than the taste.

6. Concluding remarks

The aim of this paper was to understand the needs and preferences of consumers in the
context of new product development, in particular regarding functional foods. These insights
could lead to recommendations for the development of successful functional foods, based on
the unmet needs and preferences of consumers.
Firstly, this paper focused on functional foods developments and divided these in three
categories: sport, feel good and health enhancing functional foods. The literature on new
product development and science, technology and innovation studies lead to the development
of a conceptual model with the most important variables and dimensions playing a role in the
need and preferences of consumers with regard to new products. In order to investigate
whether and to what extent these variables really are important, a survey was sent to 460
consumers, with a response rate of 46%. Furthermore, focus group discussions with
consumers have been organised to obtain insights in the motives behind the needs and
preferences of consumers regarding the various categories functional food products.
The analysis of the variables of the conceptual model gives important points of attention
for the producer regarding the development of successful new functional foods in the future.
These variables include domestication, trust (and distance), intermediate agents, user
representations, personal-related characteristics of the consumer, and product specific
characteristics.
The most important conclusions regarding domestication are: Firstly, the ease of use is for
consumers an important quality, and, secondly, the frequency of doing sports is an important
dimension for the domestication of sport functional foods. The results show that for the three
categories of functional foods the ease of use in daily life is the most important dimension for
the variable domestication of functional foods.
The most important conclusions regarding trust and distance are that the information about
the functional food product usually is easy to find, but that uncertainty exists about the
efficacy and safety of the functional food products. An independent organisation or institute
should be erased which provides proof for the safety and efficacy of functional foods.
Furthermore, there is a need for an independent quality symbol (Keurmerk), so that
consumers know when they can trust the claim on a functional food product.
The most important conclusions regarding intermediate agents in functional food assessment
are that intermediate agents play no role as distributor of information. The consumers find that
the producer should provide this information, especially for sport functional foods, and should
give more attention to direct information supply, and that information about the efficacy of
the product need to be put on the packaging. This implies that consumers are able to find
information about functional foods without the help of intermediate agents, and to use this for
the assessment of functional food products. Only the Dutch Food Centre (Voedingscentrum),
was mentioned as a possible intermediary which could play a role in information supply about
health-enhancing and feel good functional foods. For evidence on efficacy and safety of
functional foods producers need to make use of an independent scientific institute, as
consumers find it very important that such evidence is provided by an independent institutes
(comparable with FDA for pharma products).

18
The most important conclusions regarding user representations are that functional foods are
used by the intended target group, being persons with a specific problem for which the
functional food could lead to an improvement. Furthermore, consumers think that functional
foods can be used for specific problems, and consumers are satisfied with the solutions
offered by the existing functional foods. The consumers really need to have a problem which
could be solved by using a functional food. The assessment takes place based on the fact
whether the producer has developed products which offer specific solutions for the problems
of the user. Accordingly, the producer needs a well developed insight in the (potential)
problems of the user.
Consumers regard the brand as a separate product characteristic. All other product
characteristics (i.e. taste, price, availability, safety, efficacy, and ease of use) are in the same
way assessed for the three categories of functional foods by the consumers. The group
discussions reveal that specific product characteristics were more important than others: Taste
and price are the most important product characteristics for the assessment of functional
foods.
Conclusions regarding personal-related consumer characteristics are: the age influences
the interest in sport and feel good functional foods: Young people are more interested than
older ones in these categories. Gender is important for the interest in sport functional foods,
with men being more interested. Daily work of consumers influences the interest in sport
functional foods. Students are more interested than people with or without a job in sport
functional foods.

Summarising, functional food producers should stay focused on consumers with specific
needs, such as athletes, women, obese persons, people with a tendency to stress etc. This will
help in developing products in accordance with the needs, preferences and life patterns of the
consumers. In addition, producers should pay more attention to the way in which they provide
product information to the consumers. Consumers prefer clear and transparent, easy
accessible, information directly from the producer. Also, an independent organisation should
control the efficacy and safety of functional foods, using a quality symbol on the packaging.
This enhances the trust between consumers and producers of new functional foods.
Furthermore, efficacy, brand, taste and price appear to be important consumer needs and
preferences regarding new product developments, especially functional food innovations.

The results presented in this study should be regarded as tentative due to the exploratory
nature of the research carried out. Further research should be conducted along three lines of
research. Firstly, the same research can be conducted in other Western countries. The results
obtained from these studies could be combined with those from the Netherlands to carry out a
more reliable international comparative study. Secondly, if in the future various new
functional foods are introduced to the international market, functional food development
trajectories can be compared on a case study basis and the motives behind consumer needs
and preferences could be studied more in depth. Thirdly, in the future more market specific
consumer research on emerging functional food developments should be done. This will lead
to the development of products which are better suited for specific types of consumers,
thereby discriminating between more categories of functional foods. For example, Van Kleef
et al. (2005) provide guidelines for the appropriateness of specific consumer research
methods in new product development processes based on the newness strategy of the
development process. In this way, radical new functional food innovations, for example
based on nutrigenomics developments, could be differentiated from more incremental food
innovations. Future research should also provide insight into the extent to which the results
found in this study are valid in other categories of new product developments, thereby
producing some insight into the reliability of these results on consumer needs and preferences.

19
References

Akrich, M. (1992) The De-Scription of Technical Objects, in: Bijker, W.E. and J. Law (Eds) Shaping
Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, London: MIT Press, 205-224.
Akrich, M. (1995), User representations: practices, methods and sociology, in Arie Rip, Thomas J.
Misa and Johan Schot (eds), Managing technology in society. The approach of constructive
technology assessment, London and New York: Pinter Publishers, 167-84.
Ashwell, M. (2002) Concepts of Functional Foods. International Life Sciences Institute.
Boon, W.P.C, E.H.M. Moors, S. Kuhlmann, R.E.H.M. Smits (2008) Demand articulation in
intermediary organisations: The case of orphan drugs in the Netherlands, Technological
Forecasting and Social Change 75(5): 644-671.
Brown, S.L. & Eisenhardt, K.M. (1995) Product development: past research, present findings, and
future directions. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 343-378.
Coombs, R., K. Green, A. Richards, and V. Walsh (eds.) (2001) Technology and the Market. Demand,
Users and Innovation. Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar.
Cooper, R.G. (1985) Selecting winning new product projects: using the NewProd system. Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 2, 34-44.
Cooper, R.G. (1988) Predevelopment activities determine new product success. Industrial Marketing
Management, 17, 237-247.
Cooper, R.G. (1993) Winning at new products: accelerating the process from idea to launch (2nd ed.)
Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Cooper, R.G. (1998) Benchmarking new product performance: results of the best practices study.
European Management Journal 16(1), 1-17.
Cooper, R.G. & Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1987) New products: what separates winners from losers? Journal
of Product Innovation Management 4, 169-184.
Diplock, A.T., P.J. Agget, M. Ashwell, F. Bornet, E.B. Fern, M.B. Roberfroid (1999) Scientific
concepts of functional foods in Europe:Consensus Document. British Journal of Nutrition,81, 1-27.
Eliashberg, J., G.L. Lilien, V.R. Rao (1997) Minimizing technological oversights: a marketing
research perspective. In R. Garud, P.R. Nayyar & Z.B. Shapira (Eds.) Technological innovation:
Oversights and foresights. USA: Cambridge University Press, 214-230.
Enzing, C.M. and A.M. van der Giessen (2002) Voedingsgenomicsonderzoek: ontwikkelingen en
maatschappelijke impact [Food genomics research: developments and societal impact], TNO-STB,
study for Rathenau Institute, June 2002.
Ernst Young & ACNielsen (2000) New product introduction. Successful innovation/failure: a fragile
boundary. Paris: Ernst & Young Global Client Consulting.
Geels, F.W. (2002) Understanding the Dynamics of Technological Transitions. A co-evolutionary and
socio-technical analysis. PhD thesis Twente University Press.
Griffin, A. and J.R. Hauser (1993) The voice of the customer. Marketing Science, 12(1), 1-27.
Griffin, A. (1996) Obtaining customer needs for product development. In M.D. Rosenau, Jr. (Ed.), The
PDMA handbook of new product development. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc, 153-166.
Goldenberg, J. and D. Mazursky (2002) Creativity in Product Innovation. Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press.
Hamel, G. & Prahalad, C.K. (1994) Competing for the future. Boston, MA; Harvard Business School
Press.
Hoogma, R. and J.W. Schot (2001) ‘How innovative are users? A critique of learning-by-doing and –
using’, in: Coombs, R., K. Green, A. Richards and V. Walsh (eds.): Technology and the Market.
Demands, Users and Innovation, Edward Elgar, 2001, 216-233.
Lettl, C., C. Herstatt, H.G. Gemuenden (2006) Users’ contribution to radical innovation: evidence
from four cases in the field of medical equipment technology, R&D Management 36,3: 251-272.
Lundvall, B.A. (1992) National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and
Interactive Learning. London: Pinter Publishers.

20
Lütje, C. ( 2003) Customers as co-inventors: An empirical analysis of the antecedents of customer-
driven innovations in the field of medical equipment. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of
the European Marketing Academy (EMAC), Glasgow.
McGuinness, N.W. & H.A. Conway (1989) Managing the search for new product concepts: a strategic
approach. R&D Management, 19(4), 297-308.
Menrad, K. (2003) Market and marketing of functional food in Europe. Journal of Food Engineering
56 (2003), 181-188.
MinEZ (2006). "Food & Nutrition - Een inventarisatie van de Nederlandse uitgangspositie." Ministerie
van Economische Zaken 40.
Moors, E.H.M., C. Enzing, A. van der Giessen, R.E.H.M. Smits (2003) User-producer interactions in
functional genomics innovations’ Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, Vol. 5, No.2-3,
120-143.
Moors, E.H.M., W.P.C. Boon, R. Nahuis, R.L.J. Vandeberg (2008) User-producer interactions in
emerging pharmaceutical and food innovations. International Journal of Innovation Management,
12(3): 459-487.
Nahuis, R., E.H.M. Moors, R.E.H.M. Smits (2009), User producer interaction in context? The case of
functional food innovation, ISU Working paper #09.01, Utrecht University.
Nelson, R. R. and S. G. Winter (1982) An evolutionary theory of economic change, Belknap Press.
Oliver, R.L., R.T. Rust, S. Varki (1997) Customer delight: foundations, findings and managerial
insight. Journal of Retailing, 73(3), 311-335.
Oudshoorn, N., T. Pinch (2003) How users matter. The co-construction of users and technology,
Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Rip, A. & R. Kemp (1998) Technological Change. In: Rayner, S. & E.L. Malone (Eds.): Human
Choice and Climate Change, Ohio: Battell Press, 327-399.
Rohracher, H. (2005) User Involvement in Innovation Processes. Strategies and Limitations from a
Socio-Technical Perspective, Munchen: Profil Verlag.
Rosenberg, N. (1976) Perspectives on Technology, Cambridge MA: Cambridge University Press.
Rosenberg, N. (1982) Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics, Cambridge MA: Cambridge
University Press.
Schmidt, J.B. & R.J. Calantone (2002) Escalation of commitment during new product development.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30 (Spring), 103-118.
Schmidt, J.B. (2005) What we still need to learn about developing successful new products: a
commentary on Van Kleef, Van Trijp & Luning. Food Quality and Preference 16 (2005), 213-216.
Silverstone, R. and Hirsch, E. (1992) Consuming technologies. Media and information in domestic
spaces, (London and New York: Routledge.
Simonson, I. (1993) Get closer to your customers byundertsanding how they make choices. California
Management Review, 35, 68-84.
Smits, R.E.H.M. (2002), Innovation studies in the 21th century: questions from a user’s perspective,
Technological forecasting and social change 69, 861-883.
Smits, R. and P. Den Hertog (2007) TA and the management of innovation in economy and society,
International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy 3(1), 28-52.
Smits, R.E.H.M., W.P.C. Boon (2008) The role of users in innovation in the pharmaceutical industry.
Drug Discovery Today, available online.
Spence, J.T. (2006) Challenges related to the composition of functional foods, Journal of Food
Composition and Analyses 19, S4-S6.
Stichting Merkartikel (2002) SMA Jaarbericht 2001
Tidd J., J. Bessant, K. Pavitt (2001) Managing Innovation. Integrating Technological market and
Organizational Change. Chicester: Wiley.
Urala, N., L. Lähteenmäki (2007) Consumers’ changing attitudes towards functional food. Food
Quality and Preference 18 (2007), 1-12.
Van Kleef, E., H.C.M. van Trijp, P. Luning (2005) Consumer research in the early stages of new
product development: A critical review of methods and techniques, Food Quality and Preference,
Volume 16, Issue 3, April 2005, 181-201.

21
Van Lente, H., M.P. Hekkert, R.E.H.M. Smits, B. van Waveren, B. (2003) Roles of systemic
intermediaries in transition processes, International journal of Innovation management 7(3), 1-33.
Vandeberg, R. L. J. and W.P.C. Boon (2008). "Anticipating emerging technologies." GSP Journal.
Accepted for publication
Vandeberg, R.L.J. & E.H.M. Moors (2008) Interactive Learning in Emerging Food Technologies. The
Case of the Dutch Nutrigenomics Consortium. Internal working paper Innovation Studies Group,
Utrecht University.
Verbeke, W. (2005) Consumer acceptance of functional foods: sociodemographic, cognitive and
attitudinal determinants. Food Quality and Preference, 16, 45-57.
Verduijn, S. (2004) De gebruiker van functionele voeding, MSc thesis, Science & Innovation
Management, Utrecht University.
Von Hippel, E. (1988) The Sources of Innovation, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wardlaw, G.M., J.S. Hampl, R.A. DiSilvestro (2004) Perspectives in Nutrition. In: McGraw-Hill, 12-
15.

22
Appendices

Appendix 1: Domestication
SPORT
Rotated Component Matrix(a) 57,00
Component
frequency easy use
Hoe vaak sportvoeding? 0,80 0,33
Hoe vaak sport? 0,77 -0,31
Makkelijk in gebruik 0,13 0,75
Volg aanwijzingen verpakking? -0,18 0,64
Sportvoeding ook tijdens niet-sport. 0,39 0,49
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation converged in 3
a iterations.

HEALTH
Component Matrix(a) 45,00
Component
1,00
Makkelijk in gebruik 0,74
Voldoet aan wensen 0,72
Gebruik ondanks geen
problemen 0,67
Hoe vaak? 0,66
Volg aanwijzingen verpakking? 0,54
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a 1 components extracted.

FEEL GOOD
Component Matrix(a) 43,00
Component
1,00
Makkelijk in gebruik 0,76
Huidige aanbod voldoet 0,70
Gebruik ondanks geen
problemen 0,69
Hoe vaak? 0,63
Volg aanwijzingen verpakking? 0,45
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a 1 components extracted.

23
Appendix 2: Trust and Distance

SPORT
Rotated Component Matrix(a) 60,00
Component
info twijfel info=kopen
Info is eenvoudig te vinden 0,76 -0,13 -0,11
Veel bekend over werking van sportvoeding 0,66 -0,14 0,28
Producenten sportvoeding eenvoudig te
benaderen 0,64 -0,21 -0,28
Op de hoogte van mogelijkheden sportvoeding? 0,61 -0,02 0,05
Twijfel aan veiligheid -0,04 0,83 0,06
Twijfel aan effectiviteit -0,17 0,78 -0,37
Regelgeving is goed 0,19 -0,64 -0,16
Meer info zorgt voor eerder kopen -0,03 0,02 0,90
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a Rotation converged in 4 iterations.

GEZONDHEID
Rotated Component Matrix(a) 54,00
Component
info no-twijfel
Informatie is eenvoudig te vinden 0,84 0,17
Veel bekend over werking gez.prod 0,78 0,19
Ben op hoogte van mogelijkheden 0,74 0,10
Producent eenvoudig te benaderen 0,63 0,27
Twijfel aan effectiviteit -0,21 -0,79
Twijfel aan veiligheid -0,19 -0,76
Regelgeving is goed 0,26 0,46
Meer info zorgt voor eerder kopen -0,39 0,44
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a Rotation converged in 3 iterations.

FEEL GOOD
Rotated Component Matrix(a) 66,00
Component
info twijfel info=kopen
Info is eenvoudig te vinden 0,86 -0,12 -0,06
Producenten eenvoudig te benaderen 0,73 -0,15 -0,08
Veel bekend over werking 0,70 -0,39 0,04
Op de hoogte van mogelijkheden feel good? 0,67 -0,03 0,12
Twijfel aan effectiviteit -0,12 0,86 -0,14
Twijfel aan veiligheid -0,08 0,82 0,06
Regelgeving is goed 0,38 -0,52 -0,07
Meer info zorgt voor eerder kopen 0,01 -0,02 0,98
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a Rotation converged in 4 iterations.

24
Appendix 3: Intermediate Agents

SPORT
Component Matrix(a) 0,53
Component
1,00
Onafhankelijke instantie is nodig 0,73
Duidelijk tot wie te richten met
vragen 0,73
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a 1 components extracted.

HEALTH
Component Matrix(a) 57,00
Component
1,00
Onafhankelijke instantie is nodig 0,75
Duidelijk tot wie te richten met
vragen 0,75
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a 1 components extracted.

FEEL GOOD
Component Matrix(a) 51,00
Component
1,00
Duidelijk tot wie te richten met
vragen 0,71
Onafhankelijke instantie is nodig -0,71
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a 1 components extracted.

25
Appendix 4: Information tables

S port A ctuele bron S port Gewenste bron

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
P roducent Consum enten V oedings Overheid W etens chap Fam ilie
bond centrum

Gezondheid A c tuele bron Gezondheid Gewenste bron

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
P roduc ent Consum enten V oedings Overheid W etensc hap Fam ilie
bond centrum

FeelGood A ctuele bron FeelGood Gewens te bron

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
P roducent Consum enten V oedings Overheid W etens chap Fam ilie
bond centrum

26
Appendix 5: User representations

SPORT
Rotated Component Matrix(a) 0,62
Component
supplety aanbod ok
Sportvoeding goede bron vocht 0,83 0,19
Mineralen moeten aangevuld 0,82 0,01
Behoefte aan bron vochtbalans 0,78 -0,18
Tijdens sport behoefte energie 0,78 0,03
Sportmiddelen goede bron mineralen 0,77 0,36
Sportmiddelen zijn goede energiebron 0,73 0,31
Producent heeft goed inzicht 0,19 0,81
Aanbod voldoet 0,47 0,66
Hoe vaak? 0,23 -0,38
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a Rotation converged in 3 iterations.

HEALTH
Rotated Component Matrix(a) 0,62
Component
supplety tekorten preventie
Becel goede oplossing? 0,78 0,01 0,24
Voeding met vitamines oplossing? 0,70 0,21 0,23
Calciummelk oplossing? 0,66 0,15 0,29
Producent heeft goed inzicht 0,57 0,11 -0,37
Tekort calcium 0,14 0,83 0,17
Tekort aan weerstand 0,17 0,81 0,18
Risico op hvz 0,05 0,68 0,01
Om problemen te voorkomen 0,38 0,11 0,78
FV goede oplossing voor mijn
problemen 0,47 0,06 0,68
Door problemen -0,01 0,25 0,68
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a Rotation converged in 6 iterations.

FEEL GOOD
Rotated Component Matrix(a) 66,00
Component
supplety preventie
FV kan energie geven 0,82 0,04
FV kan stress verlichten 0,80 0,35
FV goede oplossing voor psych.gez.heid 0,79 0,12
FV kan ontspannen 0,74 0,42
Behoefte aan energie 0,60 0,39
Psych/lich. klachten zorgen voor behoefte fv 0,58 0,25
Stressgevoelig 0,21 0,90
Moeite met ontspannen 0,22 0,89
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a Rotation converged in 3 iterations.

27
Appendix 6: Product specific properties / characteristics

SPORT
Rotated Component Matrix(a) 0,65
Component
belang rest belang merk
Doeltreffendheid 0,83 0,09
Veiligheid 0,79 -0,01
Prijs 0,77 -0,08
Smaak 0,76 0,10
Gebruiksgemak 0,66 0,43
Beschikbaarheid 0,64 0,37
Merk -0,02 0,94
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a Rotation converged in 3 iterations.

GEZONDHEID
Rotated Component Matrix(a) 58,00
Component
belang rest belang merk
Doeltreffendheid 0,77 0,09
Veiligheid 0,71 0,00
Prijs 0,70 -0,16
Beschikbaarheid 0,68 0,29
Smaak 0,65 0,20
Merk -0,11 0,89
Gebruiksgemak 0,50 0,61
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a Rotation converged in 3 iterations.

FEEL GOOD

Rotated Component Matrix(a) 66,00

Component
belang rest belang merk
Doeltreffendheid 0,85 0,05
Veiligheid 0,79 -0,04
Prijs 0,76 -0,02
Smaak 0,74 0,16
Beschikbaarheid 0,68 0,26
Gebruiksgemak 0,66 0,45
Merk 0,02 0,95
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a Rotation converged in 3 iterations.

28