You see them every time you walk down the soda aisle in your local grocery store. The big names like Coke and Pepsi sit right at eye level, while their lesser known counterparts like Sam’s Choice, Jolly Good, and Shasta line the bottom rack. While there may be a slew of reasons why Coke and Pepsi own the lion’s share of the market, did you know there is an exact science to making the most desirable food and beverage products? In Part 1 of The Science of the Food Industry, we look at how one doctor crafted the perfect recipe for Dr. Pepper by analyzing what beverage traits are most appealing to a consumer.
Not what the Doctor Ordered
The case study of Dr. Pepper is fascinating. In 2001, Dr. Pepper sat in third-place in the soda industry, but their position was anything but comfortable. See, Dr. Pepper was forced to defend its product on two fronts. On one side, marketers were trying to catch Coca-Cola and Pepsi, while the other side was trying to fend off cheaper alternatives. Marketers decided the best way to battle both fronts was to create spinoffs of their original and diet Dr. Pepper flavors.
“If we are to re-establish Dr Pepper back to its historic growth rates, we have to add more excitement,” the company’s president, Jack Kilduff, said.
Dr. Pepper executives thought they had bottled that excitement when the released “Red Fusion”, the first spin off in the 115-year history of the company. Alas, Red Fusion was a colossal failure, as Dr. Pepper enthusiasts described the drink as “Disgusting”, “Gagging”, and “Never again”.
Bring in the Nerds
Cadbury Schweppes, the parent company of Dr. Pepper, was extremely disappointed by the sales of Red Fusion, but they knew there was a market for Dr. Pepper spinoffs. That’s when they turned to Dr. Howard Moskowitz, who specialized in “optimizing” different types of foods.
“I’ve optimized pizzas. I’ve optimized salad dressings and pickles,” Moskowitz said in an interview. ”In this field, I’m a game change.”
Moskowitz believes there is an exact science to the food and beverage industry. The perfect chip or soda will appeal to the consumer in many ways, but it always offers one similar component; it keeps the consumer coming back for more.
The method to his madness is rather simple. Moskowitz runs focus groups that ask people to rate a product on a variety of different factors to find their “bliss point”. Some of the factors include crunchiness, texture, shape, size, density, and taste, as well as questions about the consumer’s likelihood to buy the product. Once the data is in the computer, the only thing left is to optimize a product from the consumer demands.
“The mathematical model maps out the ingredients to the sensory perceptions these ingredients create,” he said. “So I can just dial a new product. This is the engineering approach.”
Moskowitz first started optimizing foods when he worked for the U.S. Army. The army had contracted Moskowitz because they found that soldiers were not getting enough nutrition from their rations, but it wasn’t because the food itself lacked nutrition. The problem was soldiers were throwing away half full rations because the food didn’t appeal to them. Through his research, Moskowitz found that in order to strike a perfect formula, a food needed to be alluring enough to eat, but not feature an overriding or distinct flavor that tells the brain to stop.
Putting the Formula to Work
Cadbury Schweppes wanted Moskowitz to create a new product featuring cherry and vanilla flavors. Moskowitz formed nearly 4,000 tasting groups to try several different variations of the cherry and vanilla concoctions.
With the help of his data, Moskowitz compiled a 135-page report that detailed each and every opinion a tester had about the new products. Nestled in the report on page 83 were the exact measurements for creating the best spinoff.
The biggest change with the new spinoff was the amount of Dr. Pepper syrup the company added. In Red Fusion, 2 milliliters of syrup were used, but the perfect recipe suggested only 1.69 milliliters were necessary. Not only did Dr. Pepper create a better tasting product, but they also saved millions by not wasting syrup.
The product that came out was known as Cherry Vanilla Dr. Pepper, and is still selling strong on shelves today.
Dr. Silverman comments
Dr. Moskowitz’s took a very rational approach to determine what was most pleasing to the average human. He calls it the “bliss point”. By asking people how they felt when they tasted different formulations of Dr. Pepper, not whether it tasted good or better than another, he was able to pinpoint an ideal recipe.
Dr. Jonah Leherer, a neuroscientist and frequent contributor to the New York Times, has studied the emotional response of sensation, in particular that of taste. The neurochemical effects of certain substances on the brain can be measured and become predictable.
It’s not the taste that keeps people coming back for more, (if that were true, cigarettes would taste good); it’s the emotional response to ingesting that particular substance.
Dr. Pepper cherry vanilla is good, and I know that firsthand because the marketing companies have convinced me to try their soda, even though I know of the harmful effects. Does it make me feel duped? Rather, it has been more of an “A Ha!” moment. It has given me pause and made me promise myself to pay attention to my emotional response more than my stomach. Now the phrase, “CAVEAT EMPTOR” (let the buyer beware) gets even more meaningful.
This article is powerful, because we can no longer claim blissful ignorance. The companies that make these products are led by their bottom line. The best way to sell soda is to wrap up a bottle full of “pleasant emotional experience”, then give it to the marketers to get the people to try it through psychological pressures, like commercial advertising. It’s government-sanctioned, taxable, legal substance dealing.
In Parts 2 and 3 of The Science of Food, we’ll look at how Lunchables and Fritos grew to immense popularity, and the health risks associated with our favorite snack foods.
Related source: NY Times