SENSORY SEGMENTATION OF FRAGRANCES 245 Table VI Demographics of the Segments (% of Total) A. Education Total Low Meal High Grade School -- Some High School 6 7 5 5 Graduated High School 31 35 33 18 Some College 36 35 35 39 Graduated College 17 11 21 21 Post Graduate 11 13 6 16 B. Income Total Low Meal High Under $10,000 6 6 6 8 $10,000-$15,000 11 8 17 5 $15,000-$20,000 11 11 13 8 $20,000-$25,000 11 17 6 8 $25,000-$30,000 17 15 21 16 $30,000- $35,000 14 14 13 18 $35,000-$40,000 6 10 3 13 Over $40,000 23 19 21 24 C. Age Total Low Med High 18-34 47 47 54 36 35 -49 53 53 46 64 D, Employment Total Low Meal High Full Time 32 33 33 26 Part Time 25 25 16 39 Not Employed 43 42 51 34 E. Frequency of Using Fragrance Total Low Med High Daily 54 58 49 55 5-6 Times a Week 24 19 30 24 3-4 Times a Week 22 21 21 21 F. Type of Fragrance Used Total Low Med High Spray On 43 51 41 32 Splash On 6 7 6 5 Both 50 42 52 63 Note: Percentages may not add to 100% because of rounding. 4. These segments differ in the way that sensory attribute levels drive overall fragrance liking, for "blind" fragrance evaluation. 5. There are some demographic differences (especially age) among the segments. DISCUSSION DO SENSORY PREFERENCE SEGMENTS REALLY EXIST? The thrust of this paper is to uncover the existence of sensory segments in the popula- tion. Do they really exist, however, or are they statistical artifacts?

246 JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS From a variety of other studies, dealing with both food (e.g., coffee) and cosmetics (including perfumes), it appears that sensory preference segments do exist. One can ask these individuals to profile different products (using the same attributes and scales). Thus, these consumers probably do want products generating divergent sensory experi- ences (13). IMPORTANCE OF BLIND VS. BRANDED TESTING All products tested in this study were "blind," so that the consumers would not know the identity of the stimulus. However, in fragrances especially there is a strong branding effect. Prestige and brand may override sensory preferences. A fragrance that a segment might dislike on a pure sensory basis (e.g., for the light or low impact seg- ment) may rise dramatically in acceptance when it is branded. The rise in acceptance comes from the brand effect, not from the fragrance itself. NEXT STEPS FOR SENSORY SEGMENTATION The work reported here provides the reader with the basis for future research. Among the questions to be answered by further scientific research (of both a basic and an applied nature) are: 1. What particular packaging elements (e.g., color, size, graphics) correlate with the sensory segments? Does the sensory segmentation extend as clearly into packaging as it appears to extend into product sensory attributes? Do individuals segmenting on sensory preferences show similar preferences for packaging, or does packaging gen- erate a new (and perhaps different) segmentation of consumers? 2. What types of visual stimuli for advertisements appeal to the segments? What types of product statements? Do the sensory segments show different preferences for visual background (e.g., for advertisements)? Do they show different preferences for product description? The sensory segmentation procedure provides only the first and cursory glance into individual differences. If segmentation by this procedure is truly effective and mean- ingful, then it opens up a large arena of investigation into individual differences. The pervasive "problems" with individual variability may turn into scientific insights and marketing opportunities if, indeed, researchers can easily classify individuals into one of a limited set of preference segments. REFERENCES (1) G. Ekman and C. Akesson, Saltiness, sweetness and preference: A study of quantitative relations in individual subjects. Report No. 177, Psychological Laboratories, University of Stockholm, Sweden (1964). (2) R. M. Pangborn, Individual variations in affectire responses to taste stimuli. Psychonomic Science, 21, 125-128 (1970). (3) G. T. Mower, R. G. Mair, and T. Engen, "Influence of Internal Factors on the Perceived Intensity and Pleasantness of Gustatory and Olfactory Stimuli," in The Chemical Senses and Nutrition, M. R. Kare and O. Maller, Eds. (Academic Press, New York, 1977), Chapter 5. (4) H. R. Moskowitz, J. Chandler, R. Moldawer, and R. Laterra, Psychophysical measurement as a tool for perfumery and the cosmetic industry, J. Soc. Cosmetic Chemists, 30, 91-104 (1979).