Author
Ann-Christine Engström
SCA R&D CENTRE
Report No F4203
Project
2013-01-07
GraphoInvent
Information classification
INTERNAL
Perceived quality evaluation of printed products by
200 end-users
Keywords: Market research, market study, perception, product development, sales
In November 2012 a quantitative market investigation regarding the new paper product
GraphoInvent was performed. 200 persons in Stockholm and Gothenburg compared the quality
of GraphoInvent to a wood free uncoated (WFU) paper in the high-quality segment. In the study
both unprinted and printed areas were compared. The respondents followed a questionnaire with
questions for comparing the quality. They also had the opportunity to make comments. The
results in the investigation showed that GraphoInvent was better than the WFU competitor but
that the differences between the samples were small. Regarding both paper and print quality over
50% of the respondents considered GraphoInvent the better paper. Approximately 30% preferred
the WFU competitor, whereas around 20% were unable to see any noticeable difference between
the samples.
The market investigation was conducted at bus stations, train stations and shopping malls in
different illuminations and surroundings. Despite the varying light conditions GraphoInvent was
considered a high-quality paper. In the print quality comments GraphoInvent was described as
having less print through, better print evenness and clearer colours. The tactile feeling of the
paper was described as solid and stable which also contributed strongly to the high-quality sense.
Furthermore people believed that GraphoInvent had higher production costs and a higher price
than the competitor.
In a parallel study with the panel in the perception laboratory at SCA R&D Centre,
GraphoInvent was preferred by a majority of the panelists.
Question No 2: “Which sample do you think looks best?”
F4203.doc
1 (1)
Author
Ann-Christine Engström
SCA R&D CENTRE
Report No F4203
Project
2013-01-07
GraphoInvent
Information classification
INTERNAL
Contents
Page
1.
Introduction
3
2.
Experimental
3
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
Market investigation methodology
Panel evaluation methodology
Sample preparation
Analysis of the comments
3
4
5
6
3.
Results
6
4.
Conclusions
12
5.
Recommendations
13
6.
References
13
7.
7.1
7.2
Appendix
Questionnaire
Panel results
15
15
16
Sent to:
Rolf Johannesson
Lars Lindgren
Anette Rosenlöv
Kristina Enander
Jan Knuts
Thomas Jansson
Per-Johan Ahlzén
Susanna Fält
Marcus Edbom
Anders Hillvall
F4203.doc
SCA Sales and Marketing
Publication Papers/pulp
“
”
SCA Ortviken
”
“
“
”
“
”
Örjan Petterson
Bengt Wikman
Marie Nässbjer
Jerker Jäder
Karin Persson
Annica Widersten
SCA R&D Centre
”
”
”
”
”
2 (2)
Author
Ann-Christine Engström
SCA R&D CENTRE
Report No F4203
Project
2013-01-07
GraphoInvent
Information classification
INTERNAL
1.
Introduction
During the autumn 2012 a market investigation was initiated to increase awareness of the paper
and print quality of GraphoInvent. Since the paper is intended to compete with both coated and
uncoated high-quality papers, a thorough investigation of the quality was considered necessary.
A decision was made to perform a quantitative investigation based on answers from a large
number of respondents. Parallel studies with the trained panel at SCA R&D Centre in the
perception laboratory were performed for comparison.
Initially a pre-study was made in September 2012 to investigate the perceived quality of
GraphoInvent [1]. In the pre-study 50 persons at SCA R&D Centre and at Mid Sweden
University examined GraphoInvent in comparison to a wood free competitor. In the study
GraphoInvent was preferred by 44% of the respondents whereas 26% did not see any noticeable
difference. In comparison to an LWC paper GraphoInvent was preferred by 28% of the
respondents whereas 14% did not see any difference. Due to the promising results it was decided
to proceed with the larger study. At the end of November a market investigation with 200
respondents was performed in Stockholm and Gothenburg. This report focuses mainly on the
results from that investigation.
2.
Experimental
2.1
Market investigation methodology
The market investigation aimed at studying how the visual impression of GraphoInvent was
perceived by a randomly selected population. When performing a quantitative measurement a
minimum of 50 respondents is needed in order to statistically assure the investigation [2]. In this
study 200 respondents were used which increases the statistical significance. The study was
performed with structured face-to-face interviews, following a questionnaire and with the
interviewer taking notes. In so doing, important comments about the paper products were
collected and the number of measurement errors could be decreased by avoiding
misunderstandings or misinterpretations of the task.
The majority of the investigations were made in the two biggest cities (Stockholm and
Gothenburg) in Sweden in order to receive a representative selection of the population. Some
initial respondents were collected in Sundsvall. The random selection of respondents was made
at central bus and train stations and in shopping malls. This also conveyed that both light
conditions and surrounding environment varied during the visual examination (See Figure 1).
F4203.doc
3 (3)
Author
Ann-Christine Engström
SCA R&D CENTRE
Report No F4203
Project
2013-01-07
GraphoInvent
Information classification
INTERNAL
Figure 1. Interview with untrained persons in varying environments.
In making contact with the respondents they were asked to participate in a market investigation
for evaluating a new paper product released from SCA. Since, generally, no marketing is allowed
during a market investigation [5], the identities of the two samples were not revealed even after
the inquiry. This approach also benefits the objectivity and the statistical reliability of the study.
The same questionnaire was used in all interviews and exactly the same routine was followed in
order not to influence the result. The questionnaire was made simple with both open and closed
questions. It was elaborated from recommended marketing guidelines combined with valid
questions for evaluating paper characteristics [3, 4, 5, 6, and 7] (See Appendix 7.1).
The respondents also had the opportunity to freely make comments in connection to each
question. The time for each interview varied from 3 to 6 min depending on the amount of
comments made. After the inquiry each respondent received a lottery ticket for participating in
the study.
2.2
Panel evaluation methodology
The panel evaluations were made in the perception laboratory with 15 persons from SCA R&D
Centre participating. The full panel consists of 38 persons (18 men and 20 women) and the
majority of this group has long experience in evaluating paper and print quality. The reliability
and validity of perceptual evaluations are well documented in the literature, especially in the
food and consumer research area [8]. The use of a trained panel means that certain attributes in
print quality are distinguished to a greater extent compared to the average observer [9, 10].
Rating properties such as “colourfulness”, most people will respond similarly [10]. In a study
[11] it was found that the majority of the results from uncontrolled and controlled viewing
conditions were comparable at general preference assessments. The best correlation was
obtained when evaluating specific preferences in controlled conditions (standardized laboratory)
and uncontrolled conditions performed in daylight [11, 12].
In this study the panelists were given exactly the same instructions as the respondents of the
market investigation. The light source in the laboratory was D50. All panel results are compiled
in Appendix 7.2.
F4203.doc
4 (4)
Author
Ann-Christine Engström
SCA R&D CENTRE
Report No F4203
Project
2013-01-07
GraphoInvent
Information classification
INTERNAL
Figure 2. Interview with the panel in the perception laboratory.
2.3
Sample preparation
In this study GraphoInvent and a competitor paper (a European wood free uncoated, WFU paper)
with brightness ~103% (ISO 2470 D65) were compared.
The paper samples used in the comparisons were two adverts selected from the fashion magazine
“Elle”. These were HSWO printed with optimized print settings (See Figure 2). Both adverts
were selected in order to reveal the paper quality in the printing. Sample set I, picturing a girl,
mainly consisted of half tones and skin tones whereas sample set II had some full tones but also
paper white, unprinted areas. 72% of the respondents made their assessments based on sample
set I and the rest (56 persons) evaluated sample set II.
Figure 2. Sample set I and II in the study.
The adverts were cut out and mounted on cardboard in order to facilitate the examination.
The respondents were informed of the mounting before evaluating the samples. Since no gloves
were used in the study around 20 persons could examine each sample set before these needed to
be exchanged.
F4203.doc
5 (5)
Author
Ann-Christine Engström
SCA R&D CENTRE
Report No F4203
Project
2013-01-07
GraphoInvent
Information classification
INTERNAL
2.4
Analysis of the comments
In order to facilitate the further treatment of data the notes from the comments were sorted into
different quality categories. In the category “Better print quality” judgements connected to the
printing, such as better colours, contrast, colour reproduction etc. were compiled. Different
optical properties and better quality in general were sorted into “looks brighter”. In the category
“tactile feeling” judgements of how the paper felt were put together. Regarding GraphoInvent
the latter category primarily included comments such as “the paper feels thicker”, “is more
robust” etc. For the wood free uncoated paper (WFU) frequent comments were “thinner paper”
and “smoother paper”.
In the “Looks worse” category all negative comments about the paper and the print quality were
compiled.
3.
Results
The market investigation was performed in Stockholm (48%), Gothenburg (46%) and Sundsvall
(6%). Of the 200 respondents 51% were men and 49% women. The age groups statistics are
presented in Figure 3. As shown in the graph the majority of the respondents were in the 21-50
year categories.
Figure 3. Age distribution of the 200 respondents participating in the study.
F4203.doc
6 (6)
Author
Ann-Christine Engström
SCA R&D CENTRE
Report No F4203
Project
2013-01-07
GraphoInvent
Information classification
INTERNAL
The first question in the questionnaire was “At a first impression – Do you think there is any
difference between the samples?”. The answer was to be put into a pre-defined scale from 1-5
where 1 was “No difference” and 5 was “Big difference”, See Figure 4. As seen in the graph the
majority of the answers were between 2 and 4. In the comments it was evident that the
respondents saw a difference but that it was small or very small. Only ~4% saw a big difference
between the samples and 19% did not see any difference at all. Regarding the panel at SCA
R&D Centre the majority chose number 4. This was most likely due to that the panel is trained to
detect small-scale differences in the laboratory. Nevertheless only ~3% of the trained panel
chose the “Big difference” value, which is similar to the larger study.
Figure 4. Difference between the samples as perceived by 200 respondents.
The following two questions were connected to the reason for the perceived quality differences.
The comments given in connection to questions 3 and 4 were jointly compiled and the
evaluations were based on the total number of comments received, See Figure 5 and 6. Similar
comments are categorised into different paper and print related properties, See 2.3 in the
Experimental part.
In the graphs the negative comments were given negative numbers. Regarding the WFU paper
the majority of the respondents reacted negatively to the low opacity of the paper which, in turn,
affected the print quality.
F4203.doc
7 (7)
Author
Ann-Christine Engström
SCA R&D CENTRE
Report No F4203
Project
2013-01-07
GraphoInvent
Information classification
INTERNAL
Figure 5. Comments about GraphoInvent compiled in quality categories.
Figure 6. Comments about the WFU competitor paper in quality categories.
It is interesting to note that the WFU competitor paper was judged as being an environmental or
green paper by some respondents. When the respondents were asked why, they claimed that low
quality papers often are more environmentally friendly than high-quality papers.
F4203.doc
8 (8)
Author
Ann-Christine Engström
SCA R&D CENTRE
Report No F4203
Project
2013-01-07
GraphoInvent
Information classification
INTERNAL
The fourth question was “Which sample do you think looks the best?”. As is shown in Figure 7
the majority of the respondents, 53% preferred GraphoInvent whereas 29% preferred the WFU
paper. 19% of the respondents did not see any noticeable difference between the samples.
Figure 7. The respondents answer of “which sample do you think looks best?”
In the results some differences were observed between the preferences in Stockholm compared
to Gothenburg. In Stockholm 48% of the respondents preferred GraphoInvent while the result in
Gothenburg was 58% in favour of GraphoInvent. The corresponding numbers for the WFU
paper were 30% and 26% for Stockholm and Gothenburg, respectively. “No notable difference”
scored 22% and 16%, respectively. Despite these differences the ranking of the answers was
identical. Some scatter in the analysis was expected due to more variables affecting the precision
compared to the environment in the perception laboratory. In the panel results GraphoInvent was
preferred by 90%.
When comparing sample sets I and II the differences between the results were minor, See Figure
8. Regarding sample set I (halftones, skin tones) 53% of the respondents preferred GraphoInvent
and the corresponding number for sample set II (with more paper white areas) was 51%. The rest
of the values also matched which means that the general quality evaluation is valid for both
unprinted and printed areas.
F4203.doc
9 (9)
Author
Ann-Christine Engström
SCA R&D CENTRE
Report No F4203
Project
2013-01-07
GraphoInvent
Information classification
INTERNAL
Figure 8. Comparing results of sample set I and II regarding the question: ”Which sample do you think
looks best?”.
The final question was “Which sample do you think has the highest price?” In Figure 9 results
are presented which show that 54% of the respondents believed that GraphoInvent had the
highest price and 17% thought the WFU paper to be the most expensive. Almost one third (28%)
of the 200 respondents thought that the two printed papers had the same price. This verifies the
outcome from the initial questions which showed that the quality of GraphoInvent is preferred
but the differences between the samples are small.
F4203.doc
10 (10)
Author
Ann-Christine Engström
SCA R&D CENTRE
Report No F4203
Project
2013-01-07
GraphoInvent
Information classification
INTERNAL
Figure 9. Question: “Which sample do you think has the highest price?”
When the respondents were asked to comment why they thought the printed paper had a high
price the answer was clearly connected to the quality of the paper, See Figure 10. As seen in the
graph the advantages for GraphoInvent are obvious. It is interesting to notice that GraphoInvent
was experienced as a more exclusive, high-quality paper compared to the WFU paper.
The majority of the respondents commented that both the feeling of the paper and the print result
contributed to this sense.
F4203.doc
11 (11)
Author
Ann-Christine Engström
SCA R&D CENTRE
Report No F4203
Project
2013-01-07
GraphoInvent
Information classification
INTERNAL
Figure 10. Comments regarding “the highest price” of GraphoInvent respectively the WFU paper.
The panel results regarding the “highest price” showed that 63% of the panelists believed that
GraphoInvent had the highest price whereas 13% reckoned the WFU paper was the most
expensive. Around 17% thought the papers had the same price.
4.
Conclusions
The results of the market investigation showed that GraphoInvent is better compared to the WFU
competitor. However, the differences between the papers are small. Over 50% of the 200
participating persons preferred GraphoInvent whereas 30% preferred the WFU paper. Around
20% were unable to see any noticeable difference between the samples. Furthermore over 50%
believed that GraphoInvent had a higher price than the WFU paper and almost one third of the
respondents believed they had the same price.
In the study both printed and unprinted areas were evaluated with similar results which mean that
both the paper and print quality of GraphoInvent are high. GraphoInvent was considered an
exclusive, high-quality paper mainly due to the print evenness and the solid paper feeling. The
paper properties contributing most to these results are the bulk and opacity but also brightness,
light spreading and paper formation affect the impression. The factor contributing most to the
relatively poor performance of the WFU paper was the low opacity which negatively affected
both unprinted and printed areas.
F4203.doc
12 (12)
Author
Ann-Christine Engström
SCA R&D CENTRE
Report No F4203
Project
2013-01-07
GraphoInvent
Information classification
INTERNAL
Some differences were found between Stockholm and Gothenburg. These can most likely be
explained in terms of the different light and surrounding environments in the evaluation of the
samples. Within the panel at SCA R&D Centre an even higher preference for GraphoInvent was
found (90%). This can be explained by the use of standardized light and grey surroundings in the
laboratory but also that the trained panel is more sensitive to detect small differences in ordinary
evaluations.
GraphoInvent received good results both by the panel and ordinary people and also in varying
light and environments which facilitates demonstrations of the paper at customer visits.
5.
Recommendations
This study with 200 persons participating revealed that GraphoInvent is highly comparable to
high-quality papers. Comments from the investigation concerning the performance of
GraphoInvent, such as less print through, higher print evenness and clearer colours can be used
as arguments in sales contacts. The tactile feeling of the paper, described in terms such as a solid
and stable paper, is also a strong argument connected to the high-quality sense.
6.
References
1.
Engström A-C “Förstudie till marknadsundersökning av GraphoInvent” Internal
document within the GraphoInvent project, September 2012
2.
Christensen et. al ”Marknadsundersökning: en handbok” studentlitteratur AB 2010
3.
Faarup P.K., Hansen K. ”Marknadsundersökningar – i teori och praktik” Liber 2008
4.
Hamilton J. ”Vad du behöver veta om marknadsundersökningar” translation of ”What
is Market research” ESOMAR, European Society for Opinion and Marketing Research
1989
5.
ICC / ESOMAR, (International council on marketing practice / Essential organisation
for encouraging, advancing and elevating market research) ”Internationella regler för
marknadsundersökningar” ICC Sweden 1996
6.
Edström J. ”Marknadsundersökning SCA – en jämförelse mellan två papperstyper”
Master’s thesis , Mid Sweden University 2012
7.
Bell E., Bryman A. ”Business research methods” 3rd edition Oxford University Press
Inc. 2011
F4203.doc
13 (13)
Author
Ann-Christine Engström
SCA R&D CENTRE
Report No F4203
Project
2013-01-07
GraphoInvent
Information classification
INTERNAL
8.
Keelan W B “Handbook of image quality” Marcel Dekker Inc.m 2002
9.
Lindberg S “Perceptual determinants of print quality” Ph D thesis, Department of
psychology, Stockholm University 2004
10. Engeldrum P G “Physchometric scaling” A toolkit for imaging systems development,
Imcotek Press 2000
11. Zuffi S, Brambilla C, Eschbach R, Rizzi A “Controlled and uncontrolled viewing
conditions in the evaluation of prints” ITC, IMATI, Consiglio Nazionale delle
Ricerche, Milano Italy, Xerox, Webster USA, Universita degli studi di Milano 2008
12. Pedersen M “Image quality metrics for the evaluation of printing workflows” Doctoral
dissertation from the Faculty of mathematics and natural science, University of Oslo
2011
F4203.doc
14 (14)
Author
Ann-Christine Engström
SCA R&D CENTRE
Report No F4203
Project
2013-01-07
GraphoInvent
Information classification
INTERNAL
7.
Appendix
7.1
Questionnaire (Template translated from Swedish)
1)
Sex
Female Male 2) Age (categories) ‐ 20 You will now see 2 printed paper samples 3) At a first impression –Do you think there is any difference between sample 1 and sample 2? What is the difference? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Sample 1 is:………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Sample 2 is:………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 21‐30 31‐40 41‐50 1 2 3 1= No Difference 51‐60 4 ‐60 years 5 5= Big Difference 4) Which sample do you think looks the best? Sample 1 Sample 2 No notable difference Comments:…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5) Which paper sample do you think has the highest price? Sample 1 Sample 2 Comments:…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… They have the same price Thank you for partcipating! F4203.doc
15 (15)
Author
Ann-Christine Engström
SCA R&D CENTRE
Report No F4203
Project
2013-01-07
GraphoInvent
Information classification
INTERNAL
7.2
Panel results
Age distribution in panel.
“At a first impression –Do you think there is any difference between sample 1 and sample 2?”
F4203.doc
16 (16)
Author
Ann-Christine Engström
SCA R&D CENTRE
Report No F4203
Project
2013-01-07
GraphoInvent
Information classification
INTERNAL
“Which sample do you think looks the best?”
Comments from the panel about the GraphoInvent quality in categories.
F4203.doc
17 (17)
Author
Ann-Christine Engström
SCA R&D CENTRE
Report No F4203
Project
2013-01-07
GraphoInvent
Information classification
INTERNAL
Comments from the panel about the WFU paper quality in categories.
“Which sample has the highest price?”
F4203.doc
18 (18)
Author
Ann-Christine Engström
SCA R&D CENTRE
Report No F4203
Project
2013-01-07
GraphoInvent
Information classification
INTERNAL
Comments from the panel connected to the papers price
F4203.doc
19 (19)