A Consumer Preference Study: Energy Bars

Photo Source: Microsoft Office Clips

Click Here to Enter

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Photo Source: Microsoft Clips

Home

Executive Summary

Introduction

Methodology

Questionnaire / Design / Sampling / Data Collection

Analysis

Basic Statistics/ Regression / Disciminant Analysis / ANOVA/MANOVA / Factor Analysis

Summary

Appendix A

Appendix B

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Photo Source: Microsoft Office Clips

This report contains statistical analysis of copy-testing research on print ads for three popular brands of energy bars: EAS Myoplex Delux (EAS), Atkins Advantage (Atkins) and Snickers Marathon (Snickers). The purpose of the study was to determine the brand preferences of the respondents, examine the perceptions with regard to each brand's attributes, and to determine the affect of advertising on the brand preferences. An on-line questionnaire was constructed and sent via e-mail, returning a total of 63 completed surveys. Data was imported into SPSS for the analysis.

From the research, we can conclude that respondents perceived that Atkins had a slightly higher positive brand perception although there was very little difference between the three brands: EAS, Atkins, Snickers. With regard to the affect of advertising, the analysis showed that the Snickers brand perception improved the most after exposure to the advertising while Atkins improved the least. It should be noted that overall, there was little relationship between brand favorability and favorability of the three ads. One unique aspect with regard to the survey data is that the majority of respondents were men.

For additional information and analysis, please review the remainder of this Web site.

INTRODUCTION

Photo Source: Microsoft Office Clips

Energy bars are a relatively new product category that represents a sizable portion of the Diet and Wellness food and beverage industry. In 2003, sales of energy bars and sports drinks topped $3 billion in the United States. While energy drinks dominate the category with regard to marketshare, more than 13% of U.S. Adults use energy/diet bars. (Packaged Facts 2004).

The study featured in the Web site attempts to examine three energy bars within the product category to examine consumer's brand preferences as well as the impact of the brands' advertising on those brand preferences. From the densely populated energy bar category, three bars were selected: EAS Myoplex Delux (EAS), Atkins Advantage (Atkins) and Snickers Marathon (Snickers)

An online questionnaire was developed (See Appendix A) and sent via email. Sixty-three respondents completed the survey. The results of the survey were analyzed using SPSS using a variety of statistical techniques including Regression Analysis, Discriminant Analysis, ANOVA/MANOVA and Factor Analysis. The results will be examined for statistical significance in order to determine if the research findings can be projected to the population.

The methodology including the Questionnaire, Design, Sampling, Data Collection will be desribed in detail and the results of the statistical analysis will be provided. Conclusions from the data will be presented and the results summarized. Finally, a sample of the survey will br provided (Appendix A) as well as the frequency analysis associated with the survey questions (Appendix B.)

Source: Packaged Facts. "The U.S. Market for Sports Nutritional Products: Sports Drinks and Energy Bars. Fueling the Coach Potato" (1 April 2004): abstract obtained by www.marketresearch.com.

METHODOLOGY

Photo Source: Microsoft Office Clips

QUESTIONNAIRE

A questionnaire was created to assist respondents with indicating their brand preferences, perception of brand attributes, and impact of brand advertising for three energy bars: EAS, Atkins and Snickers. At the beginning of the survey, the researcher was introduced and it was explained that the purpose of the research was purely for educational purposes. In addition, it was clearly stated that responses would be kept strictly confidential. The questionnaire is composed of four main sections.

• Section One: This section measures change in brand favorability on a pre-post ad exposure. Respondents were asked to indicate brand favorability for candy bars, energy drinks and energy bars. Respondents were then asked to divide 10 points according to their likelihood of purchasing brands of candy bars, energy drinks and energy bars. Only whole numbers are allowed so that equal weight could not be applied to all three brands.  Next, print ads were presented one at a time for each of the energy bars (EAS, Atkins and Snickers.) The respondents are asked to view the ads for only 30-seconds in attempts to simulate a real-world environment. After viewing the ads, the respondents were asked again to indicate purchase intention for each brand in the same manner as they had before they viewed the ads. Respondents were also able to add comments with regard to their post-ad brand preferences via open ended question.
  

• Section Two: This section presents respondents’ attitude toward the brand. The participants are asked to indicate how strongly they agree or disagree with the statement by answering ten Likert items related to brand attributes. For example, respondents are presented a Likert item “EAS is a good energy bar.” Respondents may chose from the following responses: “strongly agree,” “agree,” “neither agree nor disagree,” “disagree,” or“strongly disagree." Each scale point is coded as a numeric value for later statistical analysis. A value of 5 is given to “strongly agree” and 1 to “strongly disagree.”
  

• Section Three: This section asks respondents to either agree or to disagree with 10 statements with regard to the advertising message as well as the ad itself. For example, respondents were presented with a series of statements about the advertising message for each energy bar such as “The ad was attention getting.” Respondents could check the box for the brand that matched the statement, according to their opinion.  In addition, options were presented in the same format in order to measure attitudes toward the advertisement itself. For example, “This ad made me feel differently about the product.”
  

• Section Four: In this final section, respondents were asked to provide basic demographic information including gender, age, highest level of completed education, frequency of physical activity, and average consumption of energy bars. The purpose of this section was to determine if specific demographic information was somehow related to respondents’ reactions. In efforts to protect respondents’ privacy, all the responses were provided anonymously.

DESIGN

In lieu of a control group, this research effort utilized a survey to make comparisons between per and post advertising exposure. By subtracting pre-exposure purchase intention from post-exposure purchase intention, the constant sum scale is used to measure the net effects of adverting. The online survey was created by using Macromedia Dreamweaver 8.

SAMPLING

The study utilized a non-random convenience sample due to time and monetary constraints. It was decided that a minimum sample size of 60 was sufficient to conduct statistical analysis in order to determine statistical significance and project to the entire population. For example, if a projection could be made in 85 or more samples of 100 samples within the same population as the 60 drawn, results could be found of the same magnitude within the larger population. The online survey was sent out in the form of a link within the body of an email.  The email was sent to acquaintances, family members, and graduate advertising students from the University of Texas at Austin. The email also encouraged recipients to forward the survey to other individuals who may be interested in participating.  There were no monetary rewards given for completing the survey. A total of 124 respondents attempted to complete the survey. Of those, 63 surveys were completely and correctly completed. The low successful completion rate as compared to the attempted completion rate was the result of technical difficulties experienced in creating the survey. A Macintosh computer was originally used to create the online survey, which presented a variety of challenges. Once the survey was recreated using a PC-based computer, the survey was successfully hosted. However, there were a number of initial respondents that did not choose to resubmit their prior responses. Therefore, the sample size for this research is 63.

The respondents received the following email:


Hello, family and friends.  As most of you know, I'm  in graduate school here at UT (Dept of Advertising)  and I'm stumbling across one of my first research  projects. It's an online survey 
about product usage  and I need to have 100 people complete it in the next  5 days. Please click below to access the survey: (If  the link doesn't work, you can copy and paste it into  
your browser.)  http://www.ciadvertising.org/sa/fall_06/adv380j/chelseamcc/swamp.html  The survey's results will not be tabulated in any  formal way - nothing is being published 
from this  research - it's just a practice before I have to do it  for real (perhaps in a thesis.)  So if you have a few minutes and can fill out the survey, I will be most grateful.  
Feel free to pass this along to anyone who is charitable enough to want to help another fellow human being. Thanks! Chelsea McCullough

DATA COLLECTION

All the data in this study were collected electronically from September 27 through October 3. Participants were able to access the questionnaire by clicking a link in the email. When the respondent completed the questionnaire and clicked the submit button, all responses were stored in a database file hosted by the Center for Interactive Advertising. The database file and the online questionnaire were connected to each other through a Cold Fusion file, which contained a message thanking respondents for their participation. A total of 124 respondents attempted to complete the survey. Of those, 63 surveys were correctly completed. Thus, the sample size for this research is 63.

ANALYSIS

Photo Source: Microsoft Office Clips

BASIC STATISTICS

Paired t-Tests

Paired t-Tests: Brand Index Scores: It is clear that the 63 respondents have an almost equal perception of all three brands, and a very slight favorable perception of Atkins over EAS and Snickers. In 85 or more samples of every 100 samples drawn from the same population as this sample, we would expect to find equal perception of all three brands, but we cannot project with confidence brand favorability between EAS and Atkins or Atkins and Snickers.

Between-Groups t-Tests: EAS

Brand and Ad Index Score by Pre-Post Ad Exposure Change Score: In 85 or more samples of every 100 samples chosen from the same population as this sample, we would expect up-movers (people who have a more favorable perception of the EAS brand after seeing the EAS ad than before) to have a more favorable perception of the EAS brand as well as a more favorable perception of the EAS ad than down-movers (people who have a less favorable perception of EAS after seeing the ad than before.)

Implications for Advertising: The respondents that like the EAS ad (up-movers) show a more favorable response to the EAS brand than the respondents that do not like the EAS ad (down-movers). The result for EAS could be a strengthening of the existing customer base, but a weakness in attracting new consumers.  If the desired effect of the advertising campaign is to increase consumption or positive brand identification amongst the current EAS customer base, this campaign may be successful.

Chi-Squared Significance Test: EAS

Brand Index Score Relative to Median, Pre-Post Ad Exposure Change Score: More respondents with above-median brand perceptions (62.5%) had improved brand perceptions after ad exposure than respondents with below-median brand perceptions (37.5%). Also notable is the finding that the majority of down-movers (64.3%) had above-median brand perceptions. In 85 or more out of every 100 samples drawn from the same population as this sample, we would expect to find a cross tabulation distribution with the same proportions as this sample.

Implications for Advertising: As discussed in detail in Part 2, if the desired effect of the advertising campaign is to increase consumption or positive brand identification amongst the current EAS customer base, this campaign may be successful.

Pre-Post Ad Exposure Change Score Frequencies

Pre-Post Ad Exposure Change Scores by Brand: Snickers had the most respondents with improved brand perception (34.9% up-movers) and the least respondents with lowered brand perceptions (65.1% down-movers) after exposure to the ad. Atkins had the least respondents with improved brand perception (25.4% up-movers) and the most respondents with lowered brand perceptions (74.6% down-movers) after exposure to the ad.

Implications for Advertising: The Snickers ad does the best job of improving general consumer brand perceptions relative to the other brands. It is important for EAS and Atkins brand managers to look at the content and execution of the Snickers ad. It may help them identify weaknesses in the content and/or execution of their own ads/messages. 

Brand Index Score Comparison: EAS and Atkins

Brand Comparison: It is clear from the results that the majority of respondents (65.1%) have a more favorable or equal brand perception of Atkins than EAS. A minority of respondents have less than favorable brand perceptions of Atkins (34.9%) of Atkins than EAS.

Implications for Advertising: With reference to previous analyses, the difference between mean brand index scores for EAS and Atkins are extremely small. EAS should figure out how to increase their advantage, and Atkins should figure out how to threaten it.

Simple Correlation Coefficient: EAS versus Atkins

EAS versus Atkins: There is a high correlation between the EAS and Atkins brand index scores. In 85 or more out of every 100 samples drawn from the same population as this sample, we would expect to find a moderate positive correlation between EAS and Atkins brand perceptions.

Implications for Advertising: Respondents make very strong distinctions between the two brands.  This condition creates a perfect opportunity to maximize brand loyalty.

Simple Correlation Coefficient: Gender Sub-Sample

EAS versus Atkins, Among Males: There is a high positive correlation between the EAS and Atkins brand index scores in the male sub-sample (15 of 64 total respondents). In 85 or more out of every 100 samples drawn from the same population as this one, we would expect to find a high positive correlation between EAS brand perceptions and Atkins brand perceptions among men.

Implications for Advertising: The correlation between EAS and Atkins brands is higher amongst the male gender sub-sample than amongst the entire sample. Therefore, advertising that is directed towards men, should continue to emphasize qualities between the brands.

REGRESSION ANALYSIS

This report contains regression analysis of copy-testing research on print ads for three brands of energy bars: EAS Myoplex Delux, Atkins Advantage and Snickers Marathon.  The dependent variable is the pre-post ad exposure change score and the independent variables are the responses for the ten Likert items regarding specific brand attributes. An on-line questionnaire was constructed and sent via e-mail, and a total of 63 completed surveys were returned. Data was imported into SPSS for the following analysis.

Multiple Regression Analysis: EAS Myoplex Delux, Atkins Advantage and Snickers Marathon

Brand Attributes: EAS Myoplex Delux, Atkins Advantage and Snickers Marathon

Regression Analysis: EAS Myoplex Delux

The multiple regression analysis for EAS Myoplex Delux (EAS) reveals a low coefficient of multiple determinants (R2), 7.6%, indicating that there is little to no relationship between how respondents rated the EAS brand (ten Likert items) and their favorability of the EAS ad.  In other words, the Likert items account for only 7.6% of the variance in the pre-post ad exposure change scores.

The standard error of estimate (Se) is high at 1.9, indicating respondents were an average of 1.9 units away from the regression line. Given the statistically significant F ratio of 0.43, in 85 or more samples of every 100 samples drawn from the same population as this sample we would expect to find a multiple regression coefficient of the same magnitude.

Three of the ten EAS Myoplex Delux brand attributes can be considered important meaning that they best explain the variance in pre-post ad exposure change scores relative to other brand attributes:

• Tastes good (2)
• Gives energy (3)
• More costly (5)

In 85 or more of 100 samples drawn from the same population as this sample, we would expect only one of the EAS Myoplex Delux brand attributes as well as the constant term (a), to have the same magnitude of impact:

• More costly than other brands (5)

Regression Analysis: Atkins Advantage

The multiple regression analysis for Atkins Advantage reveals a low coefficient of multiple determinants (R2), 30.5%, indicating that there is little to no relationship between how respondents rated the Atkins Advantage brand (ten Likert items) and their favorability of the Atkins Advantage ad. In other words, the Likert items account for only 30.5% of the variance in the pre-post ad exposure change scores.

The standard error of estimate (Se) is high at 2.0, indicating respondents were an average of 2.0 units away from the regression line. The F ratio of 2.28 was not statistically significant, and therefore we would not expect to find a multiple regression coefficient of the same magnitude in 85 or more samples of every 100 samples drawn from the same population as this sample.

Three of the ten Atkins Advantage brand attributes can be considered important meaning that they best explain the variance in pre-post ad exposure change scores relative to other brand attributes:

• Tastes good (2)
• Has attractive packaging (8)
• Is a good energy bar (10)

In 85 or more of 100 samples drawn from the same population as this sample, we would expect two of the Atkins Advantage brand attributes as well as the constant term (a), to have the same magnitude of impact:

• Tastes good (2)
• Has attractive packaging (7)

The unstandardized coefficients (b) suggest the relationship between each Atkins Advantage brand attribute (Likert item) and what the respondents thinks about the Atkins Advantage ad.

Multiple regression equation: Atkins Advantage

Pre-Post Ad Exposure Change Score for Atkins Advantage = -0.2 - 0.3 (high quality) - 1.0 (tastes good) – 0.6 (gives energy) + 0.2 (makes workouts better) + 0.5 (more costly) + 0.4 (fits lifestyles) - 0.3 (physically fit) + 1.6 (attractive packaging) + 0.6 (recommend to a friend) - 0.8 (good energy bar)

Regression Analysis: Snickers Marathon

The multiple regression analysis for Snickers Marathon reveals a low coefficient of multiple determinants (R2), 25.8%, indicating that there is little to no relationship between how respondents rated the Snickers Marathon brand (ten Likert items) and their favorability of the Snickers Marathon ad. In other words, the Likert items account for only 25.8% of the variance in the pre-post ad exposure change scores.

The standard error of estimate (Se) is high at 1.7, indicating respondents were an average of 1.7 units away from the regression line. The F ratio of 1.80 was not statistically significant, and therefore we would not expect to find a multiple regression coefficient of the same magnitude in 85 or more samples of every 100 samples drawn from the same population as this sample.

Six of the ten Snickers Marathon brand attributes can be considered important meaning that they best explain the variance in pre-post ad exposure change scores relative to other brand attributes:

• High quality (1)
• Tastes good (2)
• Gives energy (3)
• Fits lifestyles (6)
• Has attractive packaging (8)
• Is a good energy bar (10)

In 85 or more of 100 samples drawn from the same population as this sample, we would expect four of the Snickers Marathon brand attributes as well as the constant term (a), to have the same magnitude of impact:

• High quality (1)
• Tastes good (2)
• Gives energy (3)
• Has attractive packaging (7)

DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS

This report contains a multiple discriminant analysis for consisting of two groups, those who had positive pre-post ad exposure change scores and those who had negative pre-post ad exposure change scores for EAS Myoplex Delux. Those respondents who indicated no change in their pre-post ad exposure brand evaluations were not included in this analysis.

The categorical dependent variable in this analysis is group membership and the independent variables are the brand attributes as indicated by the Likert items in the questionnaire. This analysis was conducted to determine whether or not we can accurately predict, with a better than chance accuracy, the up-movers (those with positive change scores) from the down-movers (those with negative change scores) according to their brand attribute (Likert item) responses. An on-line questionnaire was constructed and sent via e-mail, returning a total of 64 completed surveys, 33 of which will be used in this analysis. Data was imported into SPSS for the following analysis.

EAS Myoplex Delux Brand Attributes: Up-Movers vs. Down-Movers

Comparison of the mean brand attribute (Likert item) scores does not reveal any dramatic differences between up-movers and down-movers. The largest differences between mean scores for up-mover and down-mover groups was on item 5 (More costly than other brands) even though the magnitude of change for this item is not great (0.4).

Two of the ten brand attribute items can be considered important, meaning they best account for the differences in pre-post exposure change scores between up-movers and down-movers: item 4 (Makes workouts better) and item 5 (More costly than other brands.)

The unstandardized discriminant coefficients suggest the relationship between each brand attribute and how much respondents liked the ad and can be interpreted as follows:

Functions at Group Centroids

Group Centroids

The group centroids (mean of the discriminant function scores) for the up-movers and down-movers are far apart and distinguishable from each other. Both the Wilks Lambda and Chi-Square values are significant at the 0.15 level, meaning that in 85 or more out of 100 samples drawn from the same population as this one, we would expect to find group centroid values of the same magnitude.

Confusion Matrix

78.8% of cases correctly classified

The discriminant function correctly predicted group membership to up-movers or down-movers for 26 of these 33 respondents, resulting in an accuracy rate of 78.8%. Based on the observed t-ratio, this accuracy result can be projected to the entire population. In other words, in 85 or more out of 100 samples drawn from the same population as this one, we would expect to find an accuracy rate of the same magnitude.

Conclusions

This is a valuable discriminant analysis since results based on this sample of 33 respondents can be projected to the entire population (all of the findings were significant at the 0.15 significant level.) If we know the attitudes someone in this population has toward EAS Myoplex Delux (as defined by the Likert items on the questionnaire), we can predict with 78.8% accuracy whether or not they will like the ad (as indicated by a positive pre-post ad exposure change score).

ANOVA/MANOVA ANALYSIS

This report contains a two-way factorial ANOVA as well as a MANOVA of copy-testing research on print ads for EAS Myoplex Delux energy bars, as a dependent variable. The two-way factorial ANOVA test will attempt to determine the relationship between the dependent variable (Likert item ‘EAS Myoplex Delux energy bars taste good’) and two independent variables: 1) frequency of physical activity 2) the change score of constant sum scale (up, same, and down). When using a factorial design, we can draw conclusions regarding effects of the independent variables separately, as well as the combined effect of the independent variables. An on-line questionnaire was constructed and sent via e-mail, returning a total of 64 completed surveys. Data was imported into SPSS for the following analysis.

ANOVA: Pre-Post Ad Exposure Change Score / Physical Activity Frequency

 ANOVA: Pre-Post Ad Exposure Change Score / Physical Activity Frequency

There is no difference between the mean scores on the taste attribute (Likert item) between those with lower levels of physical activity (2 or fewer times per week) and those with higher levels of physical activity (3 or more times per week.) The mean scores for both were 2.8. 

There was some difference among the pre-post ad exposure change score groups, where the up-movers-movers mean score was 3.2, the down-movers mean score was 3.0 and the same group was 2.5. The total mean for the entire sample was 2.8. The group that is most sensitive to taste are those with no  pre-post change scores (with a mean score of 2.5.) The group that is least sensitive to taste are those with positive change scores (with a mean score of 3.2). NOTE: A mean score of 1 would indicate ‘Strongly Agree’ to the question, “EAS Myplex Delux tastes good.”  A mean score of 5 would indicate ‘Strongly Disagree.’

Based on a sum of squares to test for the significance of pre-post ad exposure change score, frequency of physical activity, and the relationship between the change score and physical activity, we can make the following statements:  In 85 or more of 100 samples drawn from the same population as this sample, we would expect to find mean scores of the same magnitude among pre-post ad exposure change score groups (up/same/down), the mean scores among physical activity groups (high/low), and mean scores of the same magnitude among pre-post ad exposure change score / physical activity groups (up and high/same and high/down and high/up and low /same and low/down and low.)

MANOVA: Pre-Post Ad Exposure Change Score / Physical Activity-Brand Attributes

Based on the Wilks’ Lambda test for the significance of pre-post ad exposure change score, physical activity, and the relationship/interaction between change score and physical activity, we can make the following statements: (1) We cannot project the mean scores among pre-post ad exposure change score groups (up/same/down) in this sample to the entire population; (2) In 85 or more of 100 samples drawn from the same population as this sample, we would expect to find mean scores of the same magnitude among physical activity groups (high/low); and (3) We cannot project the mean scores among pre-post ad exposure change score groups / physical activity groups in this sample to the entire population.

 FACTOR ANALYSIS

This report contains factor analyses of copy-testing research on print ads for three brands of energy bars (EAS Myoplex Delux, Atkins Advantage and Snickers Marathon.) Ten brand attribute (Likert item) variables were anal­yzed for relationships and new composite factors were created to identify related characteristics of the variables for the three brands of energy bars. These factors were then computed into weighted scales of brand favorability for each brand.

Total Variance Explained: EAS Myoplex Delux, Atkins Advantage and Snickers Marathon

Discussion: One of the 10 factors created for EAS Myoplex Delux has an Eigenvalue greater than one, indicating that it explains the variance of at least one single Likert item. This factor explains 84.7% of the variance (15.3% is unexplained variance). For Atkins Advantage, 1 of the 10 factors created has an Eigenvalue greater than 1. This factor explains 85.6% of the variance (14.4% is unexplained variance). For Snickers Marathon, 1 of the 10 factors created has an Eigenvalue greater than 1. This factor explains 85.3%of the variance (14.7% is unexplained variance).  For all three brands, a Varimax rotation was used to create a component matrix for these factors. For all three brands, the “good” factor (“EAS Myplex Delux/Atkins Advantage/Snickers Marathon is a good brand of energy bar”) and all other factors loaded on factor one. The factors that loaded in factor one are somehow related to one another independent of other factors.

Function and Rotated Component Matrices Factors

Only one component was extracted for each brand (EAS Myplex Delux/Atkins Advantage/Snickers Marathon.) The solutions for each brand cannot be rotated.

Discussion: The mean attitude scores for EAS Myoplex Delux, Atkins Advantage and Snickers Marathon were all 3.0. Based on the results from a paired t-test to test for the significance of the mean attitude scores, we can make the following statement: Based on the results from this analysis, we cannot predict with confidence that we would find the same magnitude of difference between EAS Myoplex Delux, Atkins Advantage and Snickers Marathon mean attitude scores.

SUMMARY

Photo Source: Microsoft Clips

In an attempt to identify variables that explain the effects of advertising on consumer brand preference of energy bars, an online survey was conducted in which 63 people responded. Data was collected and then analyzed using various statistical tests in SPSS including: correlated t-test, between groups t-test, chi-square significance test, frequency counting, simple correlation coefficient, regression analysis, discriminant analysis, ANOVA/MANOVA, and factor analysis. The results from the sample were statistically examined to determine whether or not they could be projected to the entire population with statistical confidence.

The three brands tested in this research were EAS Myoplex Delux (EAS), Atkins Advantage (Atkins) and Snickers Marathon (Snickers). There was almost no differentiation between perceptions of the three brands, although Atkins was the most favored brand, then Atkins, and finally Snickers. Atkins had the highest brand preference mean (on the constant sum scale) pre-exposure but also had the highest percentage of respondents who thought less positively about the brand after viewing the ad. Snickers, on the other hand, had the highest number of respondents who thought more positively about the brand after viewing the ad.

There is little connection between how people view the three brands on the ten Likert item scale and how they view the print ads. Given the statistical significance, these findings can be projected to the entire population at the p=0.15 level for the EAS brand, but not for the Atkins and Snickers brands. In other words, in 85 or more of 100 samples drawn from the same population as this sample, we would expect to find the same results for EAS, but not for Atkins or Snickers.

The study’s limitations included a very small sample size (63) as well as the fact that a non-random sample was collected. Also, due to limited time and resources, there was not a control group utilized.

This study did not indicate large differences between each brand, but may provide a basis for future research among the crowded competitive product category of energy bars.