FROZEN PROCESSED FISH AND SHELLFISH CONSUMPTION IN INSTITUTIONS AND PUBLIC EATING PLACES Survey Methods and Procedures UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE BUREAU OF COMMERCIAL FISHERIES WASHINGTON 2 5, D. C. CIRCULAR 66 United States Department of the Interior, Fred A. Seaton, Secretary Fish and Wildlife Service, Arnie J. Suomela, Commissioner Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Donald L, McKernan, Director INSTITUTIONS AND PUBLIC EATING PLACES are among the best of all potential markets for frozen fishery products. In recognition of this, a survey was imdertaken to obtain information on the consumption of frozen processed fish and shellfish in these establishments. This study was conducted in ten selected cities by Cross - ley, S-D Surveys, Inc. , of New York City in order to obtain information which could be used by the fishing industry to increase consumer demand for fishery products. The data obtained for each city as a result of this survey, together with an explanation of the methods and procedures used, are pub- lished in a series as follows: Circular 66 - Survey Methods and Procedures Circular 67 - Atlanta, Georgia Circular 68 - Chicago, Illinois Circular 69 - Cleveland, Ohio Circular 70 - Denver, Colorado Circular 71 - Houston, Texas Circular 72 - Los Angeles, California Circular 73 - New York, New York Circular 74 - Omaha, Nebraska Circular 75 - Portland, Oregon Circular 76 - Springfield, Massachusetts This project was financed from funds provided by the Saltonstall-Kennedy Act to increase production and markets for the domestic fishing industry. These publications are available upon request from the Director, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, U. S. Department of the Interior, Washington 25, D. C, FROZEN PROCESSED FISH AND SHELLFISH CONSUMPTION IN INSTITUTIONS AND PUBLIC EATING PLACES SURVEY METHODS AND PROCEDURES Prepared in the Division of Industrial Research and Services Branch of Market Development CIRCULAR 66 WASHINGTON - NOVEMBER 1959 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY 1 n. METHODOLOGY A. Definition of Terms 2 B. Questionnaire Design 3 C. Sample Design 3 D. Data Processing 8 E. Reporting 9 m. RELIABILITY OF STUDY RESULTS A. Sampling Error H B. Nonresponse Error 15 C. Response Errors 16 SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE I. PURPOSE OF STUDY The over-all purpose of this survey was to obtain data that could be used by the fishing industry to increase consumer dennand for fish and shellfish. In recognition of the importance of the nnass feeding industry as a potential market for frozen fishery products this survey was under- taken among institutional ajid public eating places. The data collected should be useful in helping processors of frozen fish, shellfish, and portions to adjust their operations and services in order to reduce costs, provide better services, and develop new or expanded markets. Specifically the objectives of this research were to obtain informa- tion on the following within each of ten selected cities: a. Proportion of establishments using frozen processed sea food in its three forms; fish, shellfish, ajid portions. b. Quantity of purchases of frozen processed sea food; by species and amount of prepreparation. c. Sources of supply of frozen processed sea food. d. Attitudes toward services of suppliers, quality, con- dition, packaging, and profitability of frozen pro- cessed sea food. e. Method of cooking frozen processed sea food. f. Awareness and usage of Government inspected frozen processed sea food. g. Reasons for not using frozen processed sea food. n. METHODOLOGY A. Definition of Terms 1 . Frozen Processed Sea Food Any sea food (fish or shellfish, fresh, or salt water) \<^ich has been processed to some degree and frozen prior to delivery to the eating establishment. Pro- cessed, in this sense, means that the sea food has been cleaned, shelled, precooked, breaded, or pre- pared in some other way. 2. Frozen Processed Fish All species of fish wiiich meet the definition of frozen processed sea food. This division excludes shellfish and portion controlled sea foods regardless of species 3. Frozen Processed Shellfish All species of shellfish which meet the definition of frozen processed sea food. This division excludes fish items and portion controlled sea foods regard- less of species . 4. Portion Controlled Sea Food (Also called "Portions") Any species of sea food fillets, usually bottom fish, which are frozen into a large mass and then cut into rectangular pieces of equal size. One or more of these pieces or "Portions" usually constitute a serving, Prior to delivery to the establishment "Portions" are sometinnes further processed by cooking and/ or breading. B. Questionnaire Design The Bureau of Connmercial Fisheries supplied Crossley, S-D Surveys, Inc. with a detailed list of specific objectives from which a first draft of the questionnaire was designed. This draft was presented to various processors for their opinions and connments, many of which were incorporated in a second draft. The revised version was then pretested with 57 estab- lishments in Pittsburgh and Toledo. As a result of the test, minor changes were made in the wording of several questions ajid the sequence was altered to maximize interviewing effi- ciency. A copy of the final version of the questionnaire is included at the end of this circular. C. Sample Design For the Frozen Processed Fish and Shellfish Study, there were selected ten separate probability sampler., each one to represent the public and institutional, nonmilitary, eating places serving hot, solid food for consumption on the premises within the corporate limits of each one of ten cities designated by the Department of the Interior. Each of the probability samples, except the one for Springfield, Massachusetts, was selected both fronn a list of establishments of the types described above and from clusters of areas within each city. In Springfield, Massachusetts, an area probability sample only was used. Wherever both list probability and area probability samples were selected, no sampling unit had a double opportunity of being selected because, in effect, all eating places appearing on the lists were eliminated from the universe being sampled through the area clusters. The samp- ling fraction for each type of eating place was the same, whether it was sampled from the list or from the area coverage. With respect to the area sampling, it was necessary to divide each city into sampling units (areas made up of clusters of adjacent blocks) expected to contain almost equal numbers of establishments serving hot solid food eind belonging to the first subuniverse (restaurants, hotels, bars, etc.). This was done by plotting on up-to-date city maps a sample of such places, as listed on the most recent directories, and then outlining the boundaries of the areas so that they would enclose equal nvunbers of plotted establishments amd so as to divide the space between two plotted establishments belonging to two different areas approximately equally betw^een the two areas. From the total number of such areas (comprising the whole city), a probability sample of areas was selected and the selected areas were fully canvassed by the field staff. Below are listed the ten cities used for this study, the number of interviews obtained through the probability area sample, the number of interviews obtained through the probability list Seimple , and the total number of interviews obtained: City Atlanta, Georgia Chicago, Illinois Cleveleind, Ohio Denver, Colorado Houston, Texas Los Angeles, California New York, New York Omaha, Nebraska Portland, Oregon Springfield, Massachusetts Number Nvunber of Inte r views of Clusters Area List Total 31 204 39 243 51 764 78 842 38 383 27 410 32 164 52 216 32 256 32 288 48 562 35 597 71 1,131 40 1,171 31 114 60 174 30 250 31 281 30(1) 196 - 196 Totals 394 4,024 394 4,418 (1) All of city was included but it was divided into 30 assignments. The universe of all public and institutional, nonmilitary, eating places serving hot solid food (for consumption on the premises) was subdivided, for each city, into four subuniverses , as follows: 1. Eating places serving the public at large and principally or importantly concerned with the service of food for consumption on the premises: restaurants, cafeterias, hotels, bars, etc. 2. Eating places serving particular groups of the general public at the place of their principal activity for con- sumption there: in plant and in school feeding opera- tions. 3. Eating places serving particular "captive" groups in quasi households: food serving facilities in hospitals, nursing honnes, asylums, prisons, and "institutions" generally. 4. Eating places of all other types, located in semiprivate organizations or in establishnnents open to the general public but not principally nor importantly concerned with the service of food for consumption on the premises: food service in clubs, lunch counters, refreshment stands, drugstores, variety stores, other retail estab- lishments, transportation systems, etc. In all ten cities except Chicago, Illinois euid Cleveland, Ohio, the sampling fraction varied from one subuniverse to the other so that samples adequate for analysis purposes could be expected to be produced for all four subuniverses, even though the number of establishments in the four subuniverses varied greatly. (In Chicago, Illinois and Cleveland, Ohio, the number of establish- ments in the four subuniverses were such that, by taking the same sampling fraction in all cases, adequate samples could be expected in all four subuniverses. ) Because of the different sampling fractions within each city, the samples had to be reweighted so that all the findings could be shown for each city as a whole. As between cities, however, no reweighting was done, since each city involves a separate study with a separate sample. Therefore, even after reweighting, the "tabulating cases" for each city represent a different proportion of its universe, as shown in the following: City Atlanta, Georgia Chicago, Illinois Cleveland, Ohio Denver, Colorado Houston, Texas Los Angeles, California New York, New York Omaha, Nebraska Portland, Oregon Springfield, Massachusetts 196 Total 4,418 Total Number of Interviews Total Number of "Tabulating Cases "After Reweighting Proportion of Universe Represented by "Tabulating Cases" 243 431 1/ 1.56 842 842 1/ 7.87 410 410 1/ 5.00 216 434 1/ 2.87 288 536 1/ 2.47 597 874 1/ 4.35 1, 171 1,404 1/ 12.20 174 275 1/ 1.65 281 363 1/ 2.71 jtts 196 221 1/ 1.16 The proportions shown in the last column above represent the net effective proportions reflecting the different sampling rates, the reweighting factors applied to offset these different sampling rates, and the different connpletion rates achieved. The latter are shown in the following table: Completion City Rate % Atlanta, Georgia 96 Chicago, Illinois 89 Cleveland, Ohio 80 Denver, Colorado 87 Houston, Texas 81 Los Angeles, California 92 New York, New York 82 Omaha, Nebraska 91 Portland, Oregon 83 Springfield, Massachusetts 86 While the sample was designed so that the "expectation" (based on the available data) would be of a subsample , adequate for separate analysis, for each of four subuniverses , these "expec- tations" were not always realized. In some cases, the samples produced for certain subuniverses were too small for separate analysis. In such cases, subuniverses No. 1 and No. 4 were merged, and/or subuniverses No. 2 and No. 3, the first two representing, roughly, the "public" eating places ajid the latter two the "institutional". On this merged basis, adequate samples for analysis were obtained in all cities. While the list sample was a single-stage sample, the area sam- ples in all cities except Springfield, Massachusetts, were two-stage sannples. The first stage was a sampling of areas, as explained above. The second stage was a sannpling of the establishments listed by the field staff in their full canvas of the sampled areas . In Springfield, Massachusetts, the area sample, too, was a single-stage saimple, because, in the first stage, the areas selected comprised the whole city, this was necessary because the sample for subuniverse No, 3 (institutions) had to be a 100 percent sample, in order to provide adequate basis for analysis. Where a two-stage area sample was combined with a single- stage list sample, the sampling fractions for the two stages were so selected as to equal, in combination, the single samp- ling fraction used for the list sample. In general, the sampling fraction for the first stage in the two-stage area sample was determined by the over -all sampling fraction for subuniverse No. 3 (institutions). In some cases, supplementary sampling was done within certain sampled areas for certain subuniverses to provide more adequate samples. Thus, one subuniverse within one city was in some cases sampled at more than one rate. These different sampling rates, too, were offset by proper reweighting factors that are reflected in the reweighted "Tabulating Cases" reported above . D. Data Processing Each completed questionnaire was checked in against a "Call Record Sheet" to insure that the proper sampling procedure was followed. In addition each interview was reviewed by a trained editor for completeness, accuracy, consistency, and quality. Codes for all open questions were developed from a represen- tative subsample of interviews. In the coding operation, standard quality controls were utilized to insure a high level of accuracy. For instance, a record was kept of responses coded into the miscellaneous categories with frequent review to deter- mine whether or not a separate category should be added to the code . All data were punched onto IBM cards ajid verification checks were performed in accordance with standard tabulating proced- ures. Each interview was then given its proper weight by duplication of its punch cards on the basis of the particular sampling rate used in selection of the establishment. The weighted distribution of responses were then tabulated by- machine and percentaged as shown in the Detailed Findings. E. Reporting The results of the survey are reported separately for each of ten selected cities. Four classes and four Sizes of establishments were defined for the study and these were used for analysis v^ere the sample size permitted. Where the sample was too small to yield statistically meaningful data, combinations have been made within these indicators. Below are the basic classifications utilized and in the case of type of operation the most frequently used combination. Com- binations within sales volume, where used, are self-explanatory. Type of Establishment Class I Establishments primarily engaged in serving food to the general public. (Restaurants, cafeterias, etc . Class II Establishments serving food to limited groups of people. (Schools, plants, commercial enterprises , etc. Class m Establishments serving food to captive groups of people. (Hos- pitals, homes for the handicapped, prisons , etc. ) Class IV Miscellaneous Establishments (Drugstores, lunch counters , stands, clubs, etc.) Class I and IV Public Eating Places Class II and III Institutions Annual Sales Volume Less than $10,000 $10,000 - 39,999 $40,000 - 99,999 $100,000 and over Each city's report is presented in three parts: Summary of Findings Detailed Findings Distribution of the Sample In the Summary of Findings the highlights of the survey are discussed. It will be noted that for selected findings, reference has been made to how the results connpare with the nine other cities included in the study. 10 The detailed findings are presented in the fornn of percentaged distributions to the responses to various questions asked. While the percentages are based on the weighted number of tabulation cases, the number appearing in parentheses at the head of each column is the actual number of interviews con- ducted. Throughout the detailed tabulations a single asterisk ( * ) has been used to denote that the percentages may add to more than the total or subtotal since some respondents give more than one reply to the question. Any unusual circumstances relating to the Detailed Findings are explained by footnotes on the tables to v^ich they apply. With only a few exceptions all of the detailed tables are shown in the same sequence for all ten cities. The exceptions are several cases where the number of respondents was so low that the table had no statistical significance and was therefore not shown. Tables a^ through i_are a statistical description of the kinds of establishments included in each city sample. m. RELIABILITY OF STUDY RESULTS A. Sampling Error Standard Error of the Proportions For all percentages, the standard error may be estimated by using the formula for simple random sampling (the symbol "d" denotes standard deviation). dp - v/f and making appropriate adjustnnents for estimated loss of statistical efficiency of the sample due to clustering and for the gain due to stratification and the finite population factor. 11 The estimated adjustment factors for all ten cities in this survey are submitted in the following table together with the total number of completed interviews for each city as shown in the section on Sample Design. Atlanta, Georgia Chicago, Illinois Cleveland, Ohio Denver, Colorado Houston, Texas Los Angeles, California New York, New York Omaha, Nebraska Portland, Oregon Springfield, Massachusetts Adjustnnent Factor Total Number of Interviews 0.90 243 1.33 842 1.07 410 1.05 216 1.03 288 1.19 597 1.44 1,171 0.88 174 0.98 281 0.52 196 Total 4,418 Following are examples of how the table should be used. The proportion of all public and institutional eating places in Denver, Colorado, that bought frozen processed sea food in the preceding 12 months is 58. 8 percent (Denver Table 1, Column 1, Line 4); this percentage is based on the total Denver sample of 216 eating places (ibidem, line 1 and table above, line 4). Applying the formula for simple random sampling, we get: dp = /pq = 7.588 X .412 = /242256 = /.001121 V 216 V 216 v' 0335 Applying the adjustment factors shown in the table above, line 4, we estimate the error of the proportion as follows: dp = 1.05 X .0335 = .035175 (say .036) 12 This means that the chances are, 2 out of 3, that if all eating places in Denver had been interviewed with the same techiiiques used in this survey this proportion would have fallen between ,588 + .036 and .588 — .036, or between 62.4 percent and 55. 2 percent. The above procedure is followed when the "base" for the percent- age whose standard error is desired is the same as the total number of interviews according to the last column in the table above. In other cases, the following slightly modified procedure is followed. The proportion of all public and institutional eating places in Denver, Colorado, with annual sales volume of less than $10,000, that bought frozen processed sea food in the preceding 12 months is 39.6 percent (Denver Table 1, column 4, line 4); this percent- age is based on a Denver subsample of 87 eating places (Ibidem, line 1), which is not the total Denver sample of 216 places (see table above, line 4). First we must adjust the percentage to express it as a proportion of the total sample, as follows: 39.6% X 87 (size of subsample) = 34.452 34.452 -1. 216 (size of total sample) = 16.0% Applying the formula for simple random sampling: = /. 16 X .84 = /. 1 344 = / >/ 216 v/ 216 y dp = /. 16 X .84 = /. 1 344 - / 00062222 = .02494 Applying the adjustment factor from the first column of the preceding table above, line 4, dp = 1.05 X .02494 . .026187 (say .0262) 13 This is the standard error as a proportion of the total sample and must be converted back to represent a proportion of the subsample . .0262 X 216 (size of total sample) - 5.6592 5.6592 T 87 (size of subsample) = .06505 (say .065) This means that chances are, two out of three, that if all eating places in Denver had been interviewed with the sanne techniques used in this survey, this proportion would have fallen between .396+ .065 and .396 - .065, or between 33.1 percent and 46. 1 percent. Below are the standard errors of the proportion estimated for the corresponding percentages in all ten cities: Standard Error of the Proportion Atlanta, Georgia Chicago, Illinois Cleveland, Ohio Denver, Colorado Houston, Texas Los Angeles, California New York, New York Omaha, Nebraska Portland, Oregon Springfield, Massachusetts Percentage of Eating Places With Annual Percentage of Sales Volume All Eating Under $10,000 Places That That Bought Bought Frozen Frozen Processed Processed Sea Food Sea Food .026 .055 .022 .048 .025 .029 .036 .065 .030 .063 .024 .037 .018 .021 .030 .072 .029 .043 .019 .037 14 Standard Errors of the Mean or Total The standard errors of the quantities shown in certain tables (as for instance, total quantity purchased of a particular item of fish or shellfish) are naturally larger than the standard errors of the proportions. For this reason, and because res- ponse error may be high--when respondents recollect quan- tities of items purchased--standard errors of the quantities have not been computed. It should be noted, also, that in computing standard errors of the quantities, the adjustment factors listed above cannot be applied. It is necessary to ascertain adjustment factors for each individual fish or shellfish itenn purchased, inasmuch as the number of establishments purchasing each item will vary with the individual case. B, Nonresponse Error Nonresponse error occurs when an establishment falls in a probability sample, but no interview can be completed at the establishment. To the extent that nonrespondents are different from respondents the survey results might have been altered had the nonrespondents been included in the interviewed sample, The completion rate for each city is given in Section II-C, Sample Design, It varies from 80 percent in Cleveland to 96 percent in Atlanta. These completion rates are relatively high indicating that nonresponse error has been held to a mininnum. As a standard part of field procedure, repeated call backs were made to those establishments when no interview was com- pleted at the time of the first visit. These procedures substan- tially reduced the number of noncompleted interviews, and lowered the possibility of nonresponse error. Where no interview was completed after repeated call backs, several factors were operating: 1. Absence of the proprietor or a qualified represen- tative, during the period of the field work. 15 2. Preoccupation of the proprietor with the Christmas rush, year-end inventories , or clerical work. 3. In the case of some schools, closing of the schools for vacation during part of the period of field work. 4. Lack of interest in the study, on the part of some proprietors. Some establishments served only a minimum of hot solid food, and seldom if ever used frozen processed sea food. Nonresponse error is one of a number of factors affecting the statistical significance of the findings. It is not taken into account in the computation of tolerances, discussed in Section III- A, Sampling Error. C. Response Errors While not measurable, response errors are likely to exist where answers to questions are of a reasoning or quantitative nature. Such errors may be defined as those introduced into a study when respondents consciously or unconsciously give superficial and/or incomplete answers to questions which require reasons or numerical answers. Response errors in this study are more likely to occur in numerical estimates since the only source generally available is memory of detailed material by the respondents. For want of ajiy other guiding principle, one must assume that these errors are randomly distributed. On the other hand, predominant errors may exist in quantitative responses in the smaller establishments since their records would tend to be less complete than those of larger establish- ments. However, the effect of quantities erroneously reported by small establishments would tend to be tempered by the greater weight of quantities given by large establishments. 16 The questionnaire and interviewer training are the main ways of controlling response error. On this study, it is considered that the questionnaire, field training, and supervision were such that response error was held to a minimum considering the nature of the data being collected. The cause of response errors may be one or a combination of the two following factors: 1. Personal psychological motivations 2. Definition problems The first factor may cause a respondent to give superficial estimates or reasons due to embarrassment when he lacks knowledge about a subject of v,diich he feels he should be aware, Examples of such responses on this study are listed below: 1. Statements that all frozen processed sea food is Government inspected. 2. Placing type of fish in wrong categories (i.e., codfish cakes under Portion Con- trolled Sea Food). 3. "Top of the head" estimates as to package sizes, number of servings per package, and refrigeration capacities. Other psychological motivations such as disinterest, dislike, laziness, and other similar feelings result in superficial answers in that the respondent feels that his estinnate is as accurate as the records and thus eliminates the laborious task of looking up the necessary data. In addition, various person- ality quirks affect the respondents attitude as to the type of establishment which he operates. Definition problems may cause a respondent to react as des- cribed above, or he may unconsciously give incomplete or 17 erroneous answers due to his misinterpretation of the termi- nology employed or lack of adequate concentration to the question which is asked. This becomes apparent in situations such as the following: 1. Confusion of answers between questions where "types amd sizes" of packages are considered as opposed to subsequent questions referring to "quality and con- dition" of the product. 2. Confusing steaks and fillets in regard to type of fish. 3. Considering fresh fish as frozen pro- cessed fish by virtue of the fact that the fresh fish is packed in ice. 4. Giving weekly figures for meals served or giving Friday totals in the case of fish meals in lieu of average daily meals served. 5. Respondents, when proprietors , counting themselves as employees. 6. Discrepancies between number of meals served and total receipts (this may also result from personal psychological motivations). Obvious response errors were either corrected by the editor- ial staff or returned to the field for clarification. 18 CROSSLEY, S-D SURVEYS, INC., ^05 Park Avenue. New York 22, New York SURVEY OF EATING PLACES December, 1958 1 2 Job *I7H0 3 4 SECTION A - INTRODUCTION The U.S. Bureau of Connerclal Fisheries of the Depsrt- ■ent of Interior has asked us to conduct a study aaong various kinds of eating establ ishaents concerning their use of fish and t,holIflsh. The advice and guid- ance which you give us vlll enable the coaaerclal fishery Industry to provide you elth better products and Bervlces. I eould like to speak to the person who Is responsible for purchasing the fishery products you use. 1. Have you bought any seafood during the past 12 ■onths? {INCLUDES FRESH. FROZEN OR CANNED FISII OR SIELLPISK) res 5- 1 No -2 IF "KO. • aiP TD SECTION C 2, Have you bought any frozen processed seafood In the past 12 nonths? (THE ITBH(S) MUST BE PRO- CESSED AND DELIVERED IN THE FROZEN FORM) Yes -4 No -5 IF "KO, ■ SKIP TD SECTION C SECTION B - USERS 3. About ho* often do you get deliveries of frozen processed seafood? Every day 6-1 2-4 tlaes per eeek -2 Once a week -3 2-3 tlaes per moDtb. . . . -4 Once a aonth -S Less than once a aonth. -6 4. Proa vhat type of supplier do you usually get frozen processed seafood? Seafood Processor -8 Seafood Wholesaler -9 Frozen Pood Distributor -0 Other (SpeclfT) 8. Hov far la your aaln supplier froa this establlshaent') Less than 10 alles 7-1 10-50 miles -2 51-100 miles -3 Hore than 100 miles.... -4 Don't kno* -5 6a. Can you think of any ways In shlch any of your frozen processed seafood suppller(s) could Improve services to you'' Yes -8 No -9 D.K. -0 IF •NO" OR "O.K.," aiP TO QUESTIOM 7 b. ffhlch suppliers? Seafood Processor 8-1 Seafood Wholesaler -2 Frozen Food Distributor -3 oil r _ 6c. Ho« could the services be iaproved'>_ 7a. As far as you kno* can you buy frozen processed seafood that Is Inspected or graded by the U.S. government?" Yes 10-1 No -2 rF 'YES.- SKIP TO QUESTION 8 b. If government inspected or graded frozen processed seafood were available, do you think you would buy more, less or about the same as you do no*? More -4 Less -5 About the saae -6 D.K -7 c. Why do you say that? 11- . {SKIP TD 0. 101 8a. Do you buy any^ Yes 12-1 No -2 IF -YES,' SKIP TO QUESTIOK 9 b. Why not? 13- (SKIP TO Q. 10) 9a. Why do you buy It? 14- b. Has the government Inspection had any effect on the amount of frozen seafood you buy? Buy more 15- 1 Buy a^out the same. -2 Buy less -3 D.K -4 FROZEN PROCESSED SHELLFISH 10. What were all the different kinds of frozen pro- cessed shellfish tnat you bought in the month of November? None 16-X (SKIP TO 0. 19) FOR EACM KIND ASK: 11. How were the processed when you bought (Species) them"* Were they precooked, breaded or processed In any other way? (DESCRIBE THOROUGHLY) 12. Generally, are you satisfied with the anount of pre-preparatlon of the _or would you (Species/Form) prefer more or less' FOR EACM DIFFERENT SPECIES/ PORH ASK: 13. Vhat package size did you buy"* 14. How many packages did you buy during the month'' 15. Hov many servings do you usually get frcin this size package. (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) Form - I.e. Hoe Precessed Should Be Pre - Prepared - Pk.. sue LbB No. of PkfB. No. Servings Per Pk«. More Less CcJked Breaded Other (Specify) CI us D Crabs D Lobsters D Oysters a Scallops D Shrimps D other Other Other ie». G*D«rkIlr speaklni, tr« you •aturied or not vltti th« types uid slzfls of th« frozen processed shetl- risb pscksges^ Stturied 31-1 Dlssstlsfled. . . . -2 0. K -3 ir •SATISFIED- OR -D-K..' *ll> TO Q. 17 b. In ehat esys sre you dlssstlsfled'' Sa- il*. Are you xtlsflsd or not eltli the gusllty and con- dition of the frozen processed shellfish that you bur? Sstlsfled 33-1 Dlssstlsfled -2 0. K -3 IF 'SATISFIED" OR 'O.!!.,' SKIP TO 0. IB b. Why sre you dlssst Isf led") 34- IB. Ihat percentage of the frozen processed shellfish that you serve are .... fried? t 35- brolled? 36- baked? 37- Other. 36- (Speclfy) loot POBTIOK CONTROLLED SEAFOODS As > ju knov no* you can buy portion controlled seafoods (pre-forned] . By this 1 nean fish that Is frozen and pre-cut Into unlfora pieces or servings, ready for final preparation. For exaaple, fish sticks. 18a. Did you buy any portions like this during Noveaber? No IF "VES, ■ S«IP TO Q. » 3B-I -2 b. Is there any particular reason vhy you didn't? (PROtEl 40- IF 'HIOH PRICE* OR 'HIGH COST' MEXTIOREO, aXIP TO Q. 3« c. Is price or cost one of the reasons for not buying 20b. what are the principal dlBBdvantages?_ . 44- .45- •w? Yas No 41- 1 -2 S«1P TO g. 34 20a. Ihat are the principal advantages you can of in usins nortions? think 42- 43- Do you think your custoaers like portions better, about the saae or less than other kinds of frozen processed flsh'> Like portions better.. 46-1 Like about the saae... -2 Like portions less.... -3 D.K .4 IF 'SIME* OR "D.K.,' «IP TO 0* 22 b. Why do you think that? 22a. Considering everything that goes Into your total cost eould you say that portions are nore expen- sive, about the sane or cheaper to use than other kinds of frozen processed fish? Portions more expensive 48-1 About the sane -3 Portions cheaper -3 D.K -4 IF "SAHE" OR 'D-K.," SKIP JO Q, 23 b. thy 18 that? 49- 23a. Ilould you say that the quality of portions Is better, about the same, or poorer than other kinds of frozen processed flsh^ Portions better 50- 1 About the same. -2 Portions poorer -3 D.K -4 IF -SAHE- OR •D.K.," SKIP TO Q. 24 b. Why is that? SHOW CARD A 24. During Noveober which of these types of frozen fish portions did you buy? FOR EACH TYPE ASK: 25. What size package do you buy? (lbs. ) 26. How many packages did you buy last month? 27. How nany ounces is each portion In this size package? 38. How nany servings do you usually get fron this size package? 29a. Are you satisfied or not with the quality or con- dition of the portions that you buy? (24) (26) Type of Portion Bought Last Month Pkg. Size (lbs.) No. of Pkgs. Portion Size. Oz. No. Servings Per Pkg. Satis- fied Dis- satis- fied D.K. Breaded a D D D Plain n D D D Breaded D D a D Plain p D D D IF 'SATISFIED- OR 'CK.,' «IP TO Q. JO b. thy are you dlsAat laf led? . 64- 6S- 30a, Generally speaking, are you satisfied or not vith the size of the portions in a package? Satisfied 66-1 Not satisfied. . -2 IF -SATISFIED.' SKIP TO Q. 31 b. What size portion. In ounces, vould you prefer? Oz. 67- 31a. fhat percentage of the portions thiC you serve are .... fried? % 68- brolled? 69- baked? 70- Other 71- {spectfy> 100% b. Do jou cook portions while stiu frozen? Yes 72-1 No -2 33. Aeo JOU order portions froa your supplier do you specify the kind of fish you want or not? Specify kind -4 Do not specify kind -5 S3. Are you currently buying nore. less or about the saae aaount of portions coapared to a year ago at tbla tlae? Use Bore no* -7 About the saae -8 Use less noa -9 D.K -0 34- Are there other portion controlled seafood iteas vhlch are not no* available but vhlch you would like to have'> (For exaaple, such things as in- dividual casseroles, portions packed eith dif- ferent kinds of sauces, etc.) Yes 73- 1 No -2 IF TIO" OR "O-lt. ■, SKIP TO Q. 36 ^^' "^ 35. ffhat are they' 74- FROZEH PROCESSED FISH CARD 2 fhat lere all the different kinds of frozen pro- cessed fish that you bought in the nonth of Noveaber') I don't aean the portion controlled or pre-shaped fish we have Just discussed. None 5-X ^ SKIP TO 0. « PDR EACH KIND ASK: How were the 39. 40. 41. processed when you bought (Species) thea'' Were they steaks, fillets, precooked. breaded or what? (DESCRIBE THOROUOHLY) Generally, are you satisfied with the aaount of pre-preparatlon of the ? Or would (Specles/Pora) you prefer aore or less' FOR EACH DIFFERUIT SP£CIES/R}RM ASK: •hat package size did you buy' How aany packages did you buy during the aonth? Nov aany servings do you usually get froa this size package? 42a. Generally speaking, are you setlsried or not with the types and sizes of the frozen processed fish packages? Satisfied 30-1 Dissatisfied. . . -2 D.K -3 IF "SATISFIED- OR -D-K.." SKIP TO 0. «3 b. In what ways are you dissatisfied' 31- 43a. Are you satisfied or not with the quality or condition of the frozen processed fish that you buy? Satisfied 32-1 Dissatisfied. . . -2 D. K -3 IF "SATISFIED" OR "O.K.', SKIP TO Q. M b. IThy are you dissatisfied' ■hat percentage of the frozen processed fish that you serve is , , , . fried? % 34- brolled? 35- baked? 36- Other 37- (Speclfy) 100% SKIP TO 0. ll« IN -NON PROFIT" ESTABLISHMENTS Which Is aore profitable for you. frozen pro- cessed seafood or other high protein foods' Frozen Processed Seafood 38-1 Other (Specify) D.K. ■ Over the past twelve Booths, about how auch did you spend for frozen processed seafood' . 39- 40- SECTION C - NON-USERS 478. Have you ever served any frozen processed seafood In this establishDent? Yes 41- I -2 -3 IF "MO* OR 'D. K., ' SKIP TO QUESTIOM b. Why did you stop serving frozen processed seafood? Specleft Ftora - I.e. Hoe Processed Shou P id Be repar Fre- ed Pk«. Size Lbs. No. of Pk«s. No. SerTlncs Per Pkc. Cooked Breaded PlUets Steaks Other (Specify) More Less As Is Codfish n Flounder O Hvldock D Halibut a Ocean Perch D Salion O S.ordtUh a Plsb Cakes or Balls Unspecified D Other Other Other Other 1 Other 1 1 48. Is there any particular reason vhy you don't serve any frozen processed seafood? _^ 43- . 44- SECTIOM D - CLASSIFICATIOII DAT* 48a. Do you have any cold storage facilities vhlch are used (or could be used) for keeping frozen processed seafood'' tes 45-1 No -2 IF "NO, • SXIP TO Q. 50 b. About vhat Is your capacity in cubic feet? 46- Cu. Pt. 47- SOa. Is there any particular type of food that you specialize In serving? Specialty 48-1 No Specialty -2 IF 110 SPECIALrr," SKIP TO Qk 51 b. Itiat is your specialty? Steak or Chop House -4 Chinese Food -7 Seafood -5 Italian Pood -8 French Pood -6 Health Pood -9 Kosher -0 Other (Specify) 51. On hoe aany days of the week are aeals served here? 7 days 49-1 S days -2 5 days -3 Less than 5 -4 52. ffhat is your seating capacity? * Seats 50- 51- S3a. About hoa aany aaln. old-day (lunch) aeals do you serve each weekday, excluding Saturday and Sunday? ff 52- 53- b. Hoe aany of these are prlnarlly seafood aeals? H 54- 55- c. About ho* najiy main aid-day (lunch) aeals do you serve on Saturdays and Sundays? * 56- 57- d Ho* aany of these are primarily seafood aeals? # 58- 59- 54a. About ho* aany mpln evening (supper) meals do you serve eoch aeekday. excluding Saturday and Sunday? * 60- 61- b. Ho* aany of these are primarily seafood meals? # 62- 63- c. About ho* aany main evening (supper) meals do you serve on Saturdays and Sundays? » 64- 65- d. Ho* aany of these are primarily seafood meals' * 66- 67- 55. Ho* aany regular employees do you usually have that are engaged in the preparation and serving of food? H 68- 69- 56. In the last 12 months about ho* much did you spend for food? $ .'^^' 71- 57. About ehat percentage »aB this of your total operating cost? * "^2- SHOW CARD B 58. In ahich of these groups eould you report your total receipts from meals served during 1957 or your last fiscal year' PLEASE SPECIFY) ,^ ooo („ »100,000_ -3 Over tlOO.OOO -4 59. About *hat is the average price per meal for all the meals that you serve (excluding liquor)? ( 74- 75- 60. VIPt OF POOP StRVICE OPERATION Claaa I 76; Res tau rant Cafeteria Hotel Motel Drinking Place Other (Specify) Claaa II Public School (Specify Type) Private School (Stiecify Type) In Plant Feeding (Specify Type) Other (Specify) Class III Hospital (Specify Type) Home for Handicapped^ (Specify Type) (Specify Type) House of Correction . (Specify Type) (Specify) Claaa IV Store (Specify Type) Lunch Counter, Stand Club (Specify Type) Other (Specify) Name of Person(s) Intervieaed Title. Name of Establishment Address . City State, Telephone No. Intervle*er__ Time Interview Started, Time Interview Ended — Validated By -3 -5 _C. F. t 77- Date _A»I 78 PM IHT.DUP..D.C.60- II71H MBL WHOI Library • Serials 5 W SE 001 17