Consumer Preferences for Coffee Research Paper

Introduction to Research Topic

Coffee is one of the most popular drinks in the world. A coffee maker is a common sight in both private and public life of many people, with almost every place of employment having a coffee machine. Its popularity is due to its ability to give people energy to either wake-up or keep working for longer periods of time. The first time coffee was used in a drink was in Ethiopia around 800 AD. Its energetic quality was discovered by a monk after he added some coffee berries to his drink. It is one of the most traded commodities on Earth and is produced in over 50 countries. More than 50% of all people over 18 years old drink coffee daily. Not everyone enjoys coffee, but it is a common enough drink that most know its smell, taste, or at least its nature.

Conducting Primary Research

Primary research is conducted directly, without the use of external sources. It allows the researchers to gain original information based on their efforts alone. The first step in primary research on the topic of consumer preferences in coffee would be to decide which preferences to cover. This decision would define the focus of the whole research. After some deliberation, two different topics were left: preferred type and preferred brand of coffee. The type of coffee has proved to gain fewer results during a test run which led to the brands becoming the topic of the research. The next step would be to define the leading brands of coffee in the United States based on their popularity. Since this is research based on popularity, the quality of the product itself is irrelevant.

Although the majority of primary research has to be conducted directly, some outside information can be used to create an impression on the topic. In this case, the top coffee brands had to be defined. The research into this topic produced a report from 2015 that stated that the five most profitable coffee manufacturers are Keurig, which produces special coffee pods, Folgers, which sells pre-ground coffee in large quantities, Starbucks, which is famous for its chain of coffee shops, Maxwell House, which produces instant coffee, and Dunkin’ Donuts, also known for its donuts and cakes. These five companies were included in a survey that was filled out anonymously by people online and on the street. The survey contained the question “What is your usual brand of coffee?” and a section for comments if the person was willing to share why they choose this brand.

Conducting Secondary Research

Secondary research is conducted through the review of research done by researchers in the past. This type of research can be conducted through the use of electronic devices and services. During the research on this topic, our team used the available electronic libraries and Google Scholar to find relevant research information. The relevancy of research was defined by the age and topic of the paper. Only sources newer than five years old were deemed eligible as the market for coffee could change drastically during this time due to disruptive technologies and changes in economic conditions.

This research resulted in five articles dedicated to different aspects of consumer preference of coffee brands. For secondary research, a more global approach was taken to increase the amount of relevant information. These papers cover such topics as the preference of private vs. national coffee brands, the effect of perceived brand quality on customer behaviour, and the effects of packaging on purchasing behaviour.

The first article was focused on a blind taste test between low and high-grade coffee. Its findings have shown that the preferences were distributed equally between the choices meaning that quality grades do not have a strong effect on preferences (Giacalone et al. 2016). Two different studies of the competition between national and private brands were researched. They revealed a growing interest in private brands even in lower income neighbourhoods.

This fact suggests that in the coming years the market might drastically change (Jones 2014; Jones 2015). By placing instant coffee in jars and improving the packaging, another research was able to find that people are more likely to prefer coffee in a beautiful package than the one without it (Kobayashi and Benassi 2015). Also, a research group in Taiwan found that customers chose to visit Starbucks over other shops mostly due to their brand awareness of it (Yang et al. 2015).

Collection and Analysis of Primary Data

The data during the primary research was collected through a survey. To maximize the number of results a combination of an online and in-the-field data collection was employed. The survey was posted on multiple message boards, and social networks with the cut-off date placed after the in-the-field data collection were to be completed. Ten different online sources were used to gather information for the survey. Meanwhile, the in-the-field team would approach randomly chosen people in public places to gather live data. Most were slightly apprehensive, but a good number of them agreed to participate in the survey. The final group of participants included 310 people from both online and live sources. 46 of them refused to answer the question or could not choose their preferred brand.

To account for more brands, a choice labelled “other” was added to the survey. Overall the results reflected the report on the most profitable companies. Keurig has received the most votes with 76 people choosing it. Folgers was in second place with 43 votes. Starbucks got 39 votes. Maxwell House received 37 votes. Dunkin’ Donuts was chosen 35 times. Finally, the other 34 votes went to the option labelled “other.” The notes presented by the participants indicated a positive correlation of preference and convenience when choosing coffee. The coffee that involved more complex preparation scored lower suggesting that perceived difficulty in preparation negatively correlates with preferences. These results suggest two things: consumer preferences for coffee are dependent on the convenience of the product, and that smaller brands are gaining popularity.

Ethical Considerations

The team holds no affiliation with any of the researched companies and does not endorse any of their products. However, some ethical considerations were present during the research. The close social and family circles of the researchers were excluded from taking the survey as they were involved in the preparation process. The surveys would have to be done anonymously to avoid intruding into people’s privacy. The online surveys were done through newly created accounts to avoid bias from the participants. During in-the-field research, the team members had to be extremely polite and non-intrusive while gathering the survey data. If a person refused to take the survey, the team members were not to ask again to avoid becoming a nuisance. The data gathering was to be done only in public places and with complete respect for the law.

Reflective Observations on Team Working

Working in a team for crucial for this assignment as the nature of research, and especially primary research requires the processing of a large amount of data. During the primary research and data collection, the team was separated into an online division and real world division. The online division was responsible for gathering survey data through online resources such as message boards and social networks. At the same time, the real world division was responsible for gathering survey results from strangers in different parts of the research area. Without a team, this task would be much more exhausting and would result in less data gathered. Work on the cataloguing of the data was also made more efficient with multiple people working on the same task.

The team was also instrumental in the preparation and analysis stages due to different perspectives that were presented by different team members. At first, this was a source of confusion and frustration as the team was not able to decide on the clear focus of the presentation. However, through careful discussion and deliberation, the team was able to consider many more topics than it would be possible working solo. By discussing every presented topic, their flaws were uncovered, and the final decision was made unanimously. The team also served as the test group during the creation of the survey. By involving themselves and their social circles, a coherent test was done that played a large role in the choice of the topic. Overall, teamwork became a valuable tool for this assignment.

Reference list

Giacalone, D, Fosgaard, T, Steen, I & Münchow, M 2016, ‘Quality does not sell itself’, British Food Journal, vol. 118, no. 10, pp.2462-2474.

Jones, E 2014, ‘Consumer preferences for national brands and private labels: do business cycles matter?’, National Brands and Private Labels in Retailing, vol. 1, pp.91-101.

Jones, E 2015, ‘Consumer preferences for coffee: hot and wet, or quality and flavor?’, Journal of Food Products Marketing, vol. 22, no. 3, pp.350-380.

Kobayashi, M & Benassi, M 2015, ‘Impact of packaging characteristics on consumer purchase intention: instant coffee in refill packs and glass jars’, Journal of Sensory Studies, vol. 30, no. 3, pp.169-180.

Yang, C, Paoching, C, Lin, S, Rofiq, M & Davaanyam, O 2015, ‘The brand perception influence on coffee consumption: a case study of the chain stores Starbucks and 85°C daily cafe in Taiwan’, International Journal of Science and Engineering Investigations, vol. 4, no. 42, pp.65-68.