Investigating Italian Consumer Preferences for Different Characteristics of Provolone Valpadana Using the Conjoint Analysis Approach

foods Article Investigating Italian Consumer Preferences for Different Characteristics of Provolone Valpadana Using the Conjoint Analysis Approach Niculina Iudita Sampalean 1, Tiziana de-Magistris 2,3,* and Daniele Rama 1 1Department of Agri-Food Economics, Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Environmental Sciences, Campus Piacenza-Cremona, Catholic University of Sacred Heart, via Emilia Parmense, 84, 29122 Piacenza (PC), Italy; [email protected] (N.I.S.); [email protected] (D.R.) 2Unidad de Economía Agroalimentaria y de los Recursos Naturales, Centro de Investigación y Tecnología, Agroalimentaria de Aragón, 50059 Zaragoza, Spain 3Instituto Agroalimentario de Aragón (IA2), CITA-Universidad de Zaragoza, 50013 Zaragoza, Spain *Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +34-976-71-6352 Received: 29 October 2020; Accepted: 23 November 2020; Published: 25 November 2020   Abstract: The objective of this paper was twofold. First, we estimated consumer preferences for an Italian cheese (Provolone Valpadana) with respect to several attributes and levels, such as price, origin certification, production system, ‘free from’ labelling, and brand. Second, we identified consumer clusters with similar preferences for various cheese characteristics. Preferences were estimated using the conjoint analysis method. Then, a cluster analysis was used to classify consumers into different (three) clusters followed by a market simulation. In all three clusters, the attribute most preferred by Italian consumers was the brand of the cheese: consumers preferred to purchase Provolone cheese having the lowest price, produced by Auricchio, bearing a European Union (EU) quality certification, produced organically, and non-lactose-free. The results of our study provide helpful information to food companies for better segmenting their market and targeting their consumers, as well as effectively promoting their products using brands, certifications as organic and lactose-free. This study contributes to the literature on consumer preference for the EU labelling scheme (voluntary and mandatory). To our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate this combination of multiple labels displayed on the front of Italian cheese packaging. Keywords: Provolone Valpadana; cheese; conjoint analysis; cluster analysis; market shares 1. Introduction Consumers have become highly conscious of food product characteristics when shopping. They search for products of higher quality made with environmentally friendly production processes that have connections with the territory and that prevent health issues [ 1 – 4 ]. To keep up with this change in consumer preferences, a greater range of products have emerged on the market. As a result, this abundant variety of products has made food shopping a more difficult task for consumers [5]. Some food-labelling schemes enable manufacturers to disclose the qualities of food products to consumers [ 6 ]. Thus, the use of labels allows food companies to signal quality or the presence of specific desirable but not obvious attributes [ 7 ]. In this context, during the past two decades, the European Union (EU) has launched different food labelling regulations that food companies can adopt on a voluntary basis. The aim of these food-labelling schemes is to establish the requirements for the use of particular labels and the procedures for controlling the quality of labelled products to protect consumers from being misled. Two examples of these regulations are EEC Regulation No. 834/2007, concerning organic production and the labelling of organic products, and Regulation No. 2081/92 Foods 2020,9, 1730; doi:10.3390/foods9121730 www.mdpi.com/journal/foods Foods 2020,9, 1730 2 of 16 adopted by the European Commission and further amended with several texts which culminated in EEC Regulation No. 1151/2012, which introduced the quality labels Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) and Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) labels. The PDO and PGI labels were designed as quality cues to reduce asymmetric information and to reduce consumer uncertainty associated with food purchases regarding desirable product characteristics. In particular, the PDO label may be used in the case of food products that are produced, processed, and prepared in a given geographical area using local know-how. (EEC Regulation No. 1151/2012). Many studies on consumer preferences for food labelling have been conducted since the 2000s, and they have especially focused on consumer willingness to pay (WTP) for multiple front-of-package (FOP) food labelling schemes [1,3,8–10] and some have focused on cheese products [11–13]. Although cheese is one of the most important agricultural food products in Italy, accounting for 87.4% of the total value of Italian dairy products sold abroad [ 14 ], studies on consumer preferences for food labelling on cheese products are scarce [ 12 , 15 – 17 ]. In general, these studies have reported that PDO labels are preferred over organic labelling; nutritional claims are preferred over organic labelling; nutritional claims are preferred over the nutritional fact panel. Yet, most studies have also demonstrated that preferences for food labelling schemes are heterogeneous across consumers, with gender, age, educational level, and that the degree of environmental concern influenced consumer WTP for different cheeses [11,18]. At the European level, 53 of 247 types of cheese designated as PDO or PGI are Italian produced. For Italy, these cheeses represent 57% of the national production value and 50% of exports. Likewise, in 2018, sales of Geographical Indication (GI) cheeses grew by 2% in quantity and 1.5% in value compared with non-GI cheeses; those cheeses decreased by 1.6% in volume and increased by 0.6% in value [ 19 ]. In this context, Grana Padano PDO and Parmigiano Reggiano PDO together account for 59.3% of the volume and 66.3% of the value of total sales of GI cheeses in large-scale distribution [19]. Four regions of northern Italy (Lombardy included) account for 65% of the PGI production value; 76 PDO/PGI certified products come from Lombardy, and 9896 PDO/PGI enterprises are located in the region, generating a production value of €1958 million [19]. Provolone Valpadana is one of the most consumed GI cheeses in Italy, with a consumption value of € 77 million and representing 1.1%, by weight, of the total Italian GI cheese consumption, more than the well-known Pecorino Toscano PDO or Montasio PDO [19]. Istat’s ‘Report on Family Consumption Expense’ shows that the average monthly household expenditure in Italy in 2017 was € 2563.94. Of this total average expenditure, € 457.12 was dedicated to food and non-alcoholic drinks. Spending on cheese, milk, and eggs was € 58.26 (these are measured as an aggregate), which represents 2.27% of the total average monthly household expenditure and 12.75% of the total average monthly expenditure for food and non-alcoholic drinks. Provolone is a spun-paste semihard cheese made from whole cows’ milk with natural acidity from fermentation. Milk is collected in the area of origin within 60 h of milking and then undergoes mild heat treatment until the cheese is pasteurised. The maturation period can vary as follows: for up to 6 kg, the minimum maturation period is 10 days; for over 6 kg, the minimum maturation period is 30 days; for over 15 kg of only the piquant variety, the minimum maturation period is 90 days; for over 30 kg of the product labelled PVS (Provolone Valpadana Strong) the maturation period is over 8 months (for the piquant variety). The cheese may also be smoked, formed into different shapes (one of its most important characteristics) and be formed into blocks of various weight [20]. Provolone Valpadana was recognized as a PDO product in 1996. Since then, all its producers must strictly comply with the production regulations. Today, Provolone Valpadana PDO is produced by authorised cheesemakers and can also be sold by packaging companies. In all cases, every single shape must be marked with the Consortium’s trademark and the PDO trademark, which are unequivocal guarantees of quality [21]. Foods 2020,9, 1730 3 of 16 Provolone Valpadana is a typical premium cheese with unmistakable qualities; it is easy to compare with other generic products (e.g., spun-paste cheese), but consumers must recognise its unique qualities. In light of the foregoing context, the objective of this study was twofold. The first objective was to assess Italian consumer preferences for Provolone Valpadana that bears multiple food labels, such as those making claims related to their origin (PDO), method of production (organic), and healthiness (free from lactose). Because of the increasing complexity of consumer preference, the second aim of this study was to examine heterogeneity in preferences for labelled cheeses on the basis of consumers’ sociodemographic and personal characteristics. To achieve these objectives, we conducted an online survey of 246 Italian cheese consumers and used both a conjoint and cluster analysis to analyse our data. Our study contributes to the consumer cheese preference literature because this is the first study to investigate consumer preferences for these multiple food labels on Italian cheese using an approach combining conjoint analysis and cluster analysis. Furthermore, our findings have marketing implications because they disclose useful information to Italian stakeholders along with the cheese supply chain that can help producers and retailers, among others, design the best strategies to differentiate cheeses by adopting various labelling schemes for different segments of consumers. Literature Review Consumer preferences towards different food labels and different combinations of food labels have been widely investigated during the last decade for several food products. For instance, Bernabeu et al. [22]. analysed the price, origin, type and production system for wine, while Erraach et al. [9] examined the relative importance of European origin labels (PDO) associated with extrinsic (price and packaging) and intrinsic (color) cues of Spanish olive oil on consumer preferences. Aprile et al. [ 8 ] provided evidence about extra-virgin olive oil consumers’ WTP. Likewise, de Magistris and Gracia [ 23 ] investigated consumers’ preferences and WTP for almonds carrying different sustainability labels (e.g., food miles and organic certifications). Similarly, Mesias et al. [ 24 ] used price, origin, production system and labelling as attributes to study preferences for beef in Extremadura. Finally, Cilla et al. [ 25 ] and Garavaglia and Mariani [ 26 ] investigated consumers’ preferences for cured ham in Spain. These studies in general showed that the PDO and organic farming labels are most important. In particular, Aprile et al. [ 8 ] showed that the highest premium price is associated with PDO labels, followed by organic farming labels, and then PGI labels. Erraach et al. [ 9 ] indicated that price and origin labelling (PDO label) were the attributes that most affect consumers’ preferences. De Magistris and Gracia [ 23 ] suggested that consumers were willing to pay a positive price premium for ‘locally grown’ and ‘organically produced’ attributes. Finally, Mesias et al. [ 24 ] showed that the origin of the product is the most important attribute in the choice of beef, followed by quality labelling, production system and price. In the literature, some studies have focused on consumer preferences for several food labels appearing on cheeses sold in Europe. For example, Garavaglia and Marcoz [ 12 ] investigated the Fontina cheese bearing the PDO certification. The authors reported differences in consumer preferences depending on the respondent’s place of residence. Likewise, Skubic et al. [ 13 ] conducted a study in Slovenia and found that price was the most important attribute for consumers. De Magistris and Gracia [ 27 ] found that Spanish consumers were willing to pay more for PDO cheese than for organic or light cheeses. Moreover, gender, age, educational level, and the degree of the environmental concern influenced consumer WTP for different cheeses. Several studies have investigated consumer preferences for cheese products based on production, processing, trading or branding. For example, Tendero and Bernabeu [ 28 ] demonstrated that consumers most highly value the PDO label as a guarantee of quality and food safety and that they prefer cheeses that are appropriately priced, aged, and if possible, certified. Similarly, Bernabeu et al. [ 29 ] investigated the perceived quality of cheese from Castilla-La-Mancha compared with that of cheeses from the rest Foods 2020,9, 1730 4 of 16 of Spain and foreign cheeses. The authors found that consumers attached the most importance to the origin of the cheese, followed by the cheese type, price, and production system (organic). Moreover, Bernabeu et al. [ 29 ] revealed that organic production systems had the lowest relative importance as well as a negative influence on consumer preferences for cheese. Napolitano et al. [ 17 ] assessed the effect of information concerning organic production of Pecorino cheese on consumer WTP. They showed that consumers were willing to pay a higher price than local retail price for organic cheese than regular cheese ( € 3.00/100 g). Moreover, information regarding organic farming was found to be the main determinant of cheese preference and consumer WTP. Some studies have focused on consumer WTP for cheeses with FOP nutritional claims. For instance, Gracia and de Magistris [ 3 ] determined that the most preferred food label was the PDO indication, closely followed by the nutritional fact panel and the EU organic logo. Likewise, de Magistris and Lopez-Galan [ 11 ]. Investigated consumer WTP for cheeses bearing ‘reduced fat’ and ‘low salt’ claims in Spain. The authors reported that Spanish cheese consumers were willing to pay a premium for packages of cheese with reduced-fat and low-salt claims. Another important claim related to the health of consumers that may be present on the FOP of cheese is the ‘lactose-free’ claim. This claim contains important information for consumers with food intolerances (e.g., lactose intolerance). Hartmann et al. [ 30 ] investigated how ‘free-from labelling’ shapes consumer perceptions of food products and whether the absence of an ingredient is considered an indicator of improved nutritional value of the product. The authors concluded that a ‘lactose-free’ label was highly correlated with the perception of healthiness as well as the intention to pay a premium price, imagining that consumers attribute inappropriate health benefits to products free of lactose. Lactose-free cheese occurs when cheese is aged more than about one month, as bacteria added from the beginning to the milk ‘digest’ lactose converting it into lactic acid; the latter contributes to cheese taste and aroma, and first of all it induces protein coagulation, therefore the cheese production [31]. Finally, studies on consumer preference for private brands of cheese are scarce. To our knowledge, only Arfini [ 15 ] conducted such a study, comparing consumer WTP for cheeses bearing Consortium labels and EU PDO labels. The findings showed that the presence of the manufacturer’s brand was comparatively important when shopping for grated cheese (18.91%) and ordinary cheese (18.24%). The results further indicated that little attention was paid to the private label of the firm producing or marketing the typical products at issue; however, the Consortium label played an important role in reassuring consumers about the quality of the purchased product. For Parmigiano Reggiano cheese, as many as 75% of the interviewed consumers looked for the Consortium label when shopping [15]. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Conjoint Analysis and Choice Task Procedure Conjoint analysis is one of the most widely used marketing research methods for analysing consumer trade-offs and is used to examine survey responses concerning preferences and intentions to buy; it is a method for simulating how consumers might react to changes in current products or new products introduced into an existent competitive array [ 32 ]. The model assumes that the substitute products notion can be defined as a series of specific levels of a common set of attributes. It also assumes that the total utility the consumer derives from a product is determined by the utility or part-worth contributed by each attribute level. The conjoint analysis starts with the consumer’s overall or global judgements about a set of complex attributes. It then performs a decomposition of the original evaluations of the consumer into separate and compatible utility scales, according to which the original overall judgements can be reconstituted [33]. Foods 2020,9, 1730 5 of 16 The most commonly used composition rule adopted in this study is additive because it is the one considering most (80% or 90%) of the variation in preference in almost all cases. Following Mesias et al., 2005 [24] we used the additive composition rule: Y= n X i=1 Xij X j=1 vij where Y is the total utility, Vij is the utility associated with level j (j =1, 2 . . . , m) of attribute i (i =1, 2 . . . , n), and Xij is a dummy variable that takes the value of 1 (or 0) in the case of presence (or absence) of the jth level of the ith attribute. For the qualitative attributes, the part-worth model was used because of its flexibility [ 31 ]. For the price attribute, a Linear Less relationship was used because in general, higher prices correspond to lower utility or preferences. Here, the conjoint analysis (CA) procedure consisted of a choice task to establish the trade-offs that Italian consumers make between price, quality certification (PDO), system production (organic), ‘free from’ labelling, and brand of Provolone Valpadana Dolce. Italian consumers were presented 16 varieties of Provolone Valpadana Dolce with different combinations of attributes levels. The attributes (and their levels) used in the study are listed in Table 1and were identified (as most important when buying cheese: price ( € 2.20/200 g, € 2.86/200 g, and € 3.20/200 g), quality certification (with or without PDO), production system (organic or conventional), brand (Auricchio, Latteria Soresina (both national brands), Coop (private label), or no brand) and lactose content (lactose-free or non-lactose-free). To select the price levels, information on the Provolone Valpadana sold in different Italian supermarkets was used, and three price levels were set up ( € 2.20/200 g, € 2.86/200 g, and € 3.20/200 g). The most frequent lowest price of a package of 200 g was around € 2.20. Therefore, this price was chosen as the lowest price. The second level was 30% higher than the most frequent lowest price, and the third level was 45% higher than the most frequent lowest price. Moreover, the Coop private label was chosen since it could represent any Italian private label of Provolone Valpadana. As for the national brands, two brands were selected: Auricchio, the leader brand [ 34 ], and Latteria Soresina, another national brand of Provolone Valpadana cheese. In other words, any other private label and national brand could have been used instead of COOP and Latteria Soresina. Table 1. Attributes and their corresponding levels. Attributes Level Price 2.20 € 2.86 € 3.20 € European Quality Certification (Protected Designation of Origin) Yes No Production System Organic Conventional Lactose content Contains Lactose Lactose-Free Brand Latteria Soresina Auricchio Coop No Brand With these five attributes and their 13 levels, 96 potential profiles were obtained. Because this is a particularly high number to show to consumers, an orthogonal design (SPSS) was applied to the profiles to reduce the number to 16, a number more likely to encourage participation of consumers. Foods 2020,9, 1730 6 of 16 An example of one of the 16 obtained profiles is shown in Figure 1. Foods 2020,9, 0 6 of 16 An example of one of the 16 obtained profiles is shown in Figure 1. Foods 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 16 The respondents evaluated a picture that contained the different attribute levels in this study. The packaging used was the same as that on the market, but some attribute-level combinations shown are not present in the marketplace. Once the profile’s cards were formed, they were shown to the respondents who evaluated them, giving a score from 1 to 10 according to their stated preference. Participants had the option to repeat the same number on different cards. The number 1 and 10 corresponded to the lowest and highest levels of preference, respectively (thus employing the complete profile method). The main argument in support of the full-profile approach is that it gives a more realistic description of stimuli by defining the levels of each of the attributes and considering the potential environmental correlation between factors in real stimuli [35]. Figure 1. Example of evaluated cheese profile. Using SPSS software, the utility estimates generated by the conjoint analysis were used in a kmeans cluster analysis to classify the consumers into homogeneous preferences groups and classify them into clusters 2.2. Data Gathering A self-administered structured electronic survey was completed by 245 people in Italy. The survey was distributed online (Facebook, Messenger, WhatsApp, LinkedIn) between September 2019 and March 2020. All subjects gave their informed consent for inclusion before they participated in the study. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of Catholic’s University of the Sacred Heart. A pilot study with Valpadana cheese consumers was conducted to test the validity and the comprehension of the survey. Table 2 shows the characteristics of the final sample of respondents. Table 2. Sociodemographic distribution of the collected sample in comparison with the Italian population (%). Variables Levels Sample Population Age (in years) 18–35 24 36–55 53 >55 23 Gender Female 81 51 * Male 19 49 * Education Elementary and middle school 2 High school Diploma 41 Figure 1. Example of evaluated cheese profile. The respondents evaluated a picture that contained the different attribute levels in this study. The packaging used was the same as that on the market, but some attribute-level combinations shown are not present in the marketplace. Once the profile’s cards were formed, they were shown to the respondents who evaluated them, giving a score from 1 to 10 according to their stated preference. Participants had the option to repeat the same number on different cards. The number 1 and 10 corresponded to the lowest and highest levels of preference, respectively (thus employing the complete profile method). The main argument in support of the full-profile approach is that it gives a more realistic description of stimuli by defining the levels of each of the attributes and considering the potential environmental correlation between factors in real stimuli [35]. Using SPSS software, the utility estimates generated by the conjoint analysis were used in a k-means cluster analysis to classify the consumers into homogeneous preferences groups and classify them into clusters. 2.2. Data Gathering A self-administered structured electronic survey was completed by 245 people in Italy. The survey was distributed online (Facebook, Messenger, WhatsApp, LinkedIn) between September 2019 and March 2020. All subjects gave their informed consent for inclusion before they participated in the study. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of Catholic’s University of the Sacred Heart. A pilot study with Valpadana cheese consumers was conducted to test the validity and the comprehension of the survey. Table 2shows the characteristics of the final sample of respondents. Approximately 81% of the respondents were women and only 19% were men. Compared with the Italian population, women were overrepresented, which might be explained by the fact that, in general, women oversee food shopping for households. Roughly 24% of the participants were less than 35 years old, 53% were between 36 and 55 years old, and 23% were older than 55 years. The sample may have skewed toward a younger demographic because the questionnaire was distributed online, and the older population tends to not have access to the Internet or computer skills. Roughly 43% of the participants had completed high school degrees, and 57% had a university degree. More than half were married (53%), which is similar to the Italian population overall (47%). In more than 40% of our sample, the family was composed of three or four members, which is also comparable with the Italian population overall (35%). More than half the respondents (66%) were from southern or island regions, with the central region being the least represented territory (7%) of participants compared with 20% of the Italian population. For participant occupations, most (40%) were office workers, followed by housewives (14%), freelancers (13%), students or unemployed persons (present in the same proportion Figure 1. Example of evaluated cheese profile. The respondents evaluated a picture that contained the different attribute levels in this study. The packaging used was the same as that on the market, but some attribute-level combinations shown are not present in the marketplace. Once the profile’s cards were formed, they were shown to the respondents who evaluated them, giving a score from 1 to 10 according to their stated preference. Participants had the option to repeat the same number on different cards. The number 1 and 10 corresponded to the lowest and highest levels of preference, respectively (thus employing the complete profile method). The main argument in support of the full-profile approach is that it gives a more realistic description of stimuli by defining the levels of each of the attributes and considering the potential environmental correlation between factors in real stimuli [35]. Using SPSS software, the utility estimates generated by the conjoint analysis were used in a k-means cluster analysis to classify the consumers into homogeneous preferences groups and classify them into clusters. 2.2. Data Gathering A self-administered structured electronic survey was completed by 245 people in Italy. The survey was distributed online (Facebook, Messenger, WhatsApp, LinkedIn) between September 2019 and March 2020. All subjects gave their informed consent for inclusion before they participated in the study. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of Catholic’s University of the Sacred Heart. A pilot study with Valpadana cheese consumers was conducted to test the validity and the comprehension of the survey. Table 2shows the characteristics of the final sample of respondents. Approximately 81% of the respondents were women and only 19% were men. Compared with the Italian population, women were overrepresented, which might be explained by the fact that, in general, women oversee food shopping for households. Roughly 24% of the participants were less than 35 years old, 53% were between 36 and 55 years old, and 23% were older than 55 years. The sample may have skewed toward a younger demographic because the questionnaire was distributed online, and the older population tends to not have access to the Internet or computer skills. Roughly 43% of the participants had completed high school degrees, and 57% had a university degree. More than half were married (53%), which is similar to the Italian population overall (47%). In more than 40% of our sample, the family was composed of three or four members, which is also comparable with the Italian population overall (35%). More than half the respondents (66%) were from southern or island regions, with the central region being the least represented territory (7%) of participants compared with 20% of the Italian population. For participant occupations, most (40%) were office workers, followed by housewives (14%), freelancers (13%), students or unemployed persons (present in the same proportion Foods 2020,9, 1730 7 of 16 of 5%), teachers (2%), and entrepreneurs (2%). Concerning annual income, 26% of the respondents earned less than € 10,000 per year, 31% earned between € 10,000 and € 20,000 per year, and 11% earned more than €40,000 per year. Table 2. Sociodemographic distribution of the collected sample in comparison with the Italian population (%). Variables Levels Sample Population Age (in years) 18–35 24 36–55 53 >55 23 Gender Female 81 51 * Male 19 49 * Education Elementary and middle school 2 High school Diploma 41 University degree 57 Marital status Bachelor/Maiden 33 42 * Married 53 47 * Divorced 9 3 * In a relationship 3 Widow 1 Family members 1 12 33 * 2 36 27 * 3–4 40 35 * >4 12 5 * Geographical Distribution North 27 46 * South and Islands 66 34 * Centre 7 20 * Occupation Office worker 40 Freelance 13 Student 5 Housewife 14 Teacher 2 Entrepreneur 2 Unemployed 5 Other 19 Average annual income (€)<10.000 26 10,000–20,000 31 20,000–40,000 32 40,000–50,000 4 >50,000 7 * ISTAT (National Statistics Institute) data extracted in April 2020. http://dati.istat.it/Index.aspx?QueryId=18460. Foods 2020,9, 1730 8 of 16 3. Results The results section is divided into two parts. The first part describes the results of consumer preferences for different Provolone Valpadana cheese profiles and the clusters formed by these preferences. The second part, using the simulation process, identifies market shares for the most preferred cheeses as well as for some existent cheeses on the market. 3.1. Cheese Consumer Preference Structure Table 3presents consumer preferences for various FOP food labelling. We found that brand is the most highly valued attribute (58.24%), followed by price (13.89%), production system (10.65%), lactose content (8.94%), and finally, the quality certification (8.29%). Additionally, based on the utility estimates for each level of attributes, consumers preferred to purchase Provolone cheese having the lowest price, bearing the Auricchio brand, bearing the EU quality certification, having been organically produced, and non-lactose-free. Table 3. Mean part-worth and relative importance for all respondents. Attributes Levels Utility Estimate Importance Values (%) Quality Certification NO PDO −0.077 8.292 PDO 0.077 Production System Organic 0.144 10.652 Conventional −0.144 Brand No Brand −0.287 58.239 Aurrichio 0.966 Coop −0.378 Latteria Soresina −0.301 Lactose Content Contains Lactose 0.039 8.941 Lactose-Free −0.039 Price 2.2 −0.068 13.877 2.86 −0.136 3.2 −0.204 (Constant) 6.723 Notes: Pearson’s R =0.992; Kendall’s tau =1.000. Using SPSS software, the utility estimates generated by the conjoint analysis were used in a k-means cluster analysis to classify the consumers into homogeneous preferences groups and classify them into clusters. Three clusters of consumers were identified with different preference structures. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that all clusters differed significantly from each other with respect to price (p<0.05), lactose content (p<0.1) as well as for the other variables were the significance was the highest (p<0.01). The utility estimates and their relative importance were then calculated for each of the levels of the attribute. The results, together with the size of each cluster (expressed as %), are listed in Table 4(A and B). In all three clusters, the attribute most preferred by the Italian consumers was the brand of the cheese, and this attribute’s highest relative importance was in cluster 2 (77.16%) followed by cluster 1 (62.83%). Foods 2020,9, 1730 9 of 16 Table 4. A. Mean part-worth for the clusters. B. Relative importance for the clusters. A Attributes Levels Cluster 1 (44%) Cluster 2 (22%) Cluster 3 (34%) Price 2.20 €−0.14947 −0.01865 −0.08053 2.86 €−0.1943 −0.02424 −0.10469 European Quality Certification (Protected Designation of Origin) Yes −0.0089 0.0658 0.2014 No 0.0089 −0.0658 −0.2014 Production System Organic 0.0656 0.0668 0.2971 Conventional −0.0656 −0.0668 −0.2971 Lactose content Contains Lactose 0.0171 0.0708 0.0519 Lactose-Free −0.0171 −0.0708 −0.0519 Brand Latteria Soresina −0.3137 −0.8606 0.0878 Auricchio 0.9577 2.7149 −0.1778 Coop −0.5533 −1.0091 0.2683 No brand −0.0900 −0.8440 −0.1800 B Attributes Relative Importance Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Price 13.57 6.49 19.13 European Quality Certification (Protected Designation of Origin) 6.43 4.53 13.40 Production System 8.79 5.30 16.67 Lactose Content 8.38 6.52 11.23 Brand 62.83 77.16 39.57 Regarding the largest and first cluster (44%), the most preferred attribute was the brand (62.83%), followed by price (13.57%). However, these consumers equally preferred the production system and lactose content (8.79% and 8.38%), whereas the quality certification was the least preferred attribute (6.43%). The second cluster consisted of 22% of the sample who most preferred the brand of cheese (77%); lactose content and price exhibited similar relative importance of preference (6.52% and 6.49%, respectively). As in cluster 1, EU quality certification was the least valued attribute (4.53%). Comparable to the first and the second cluster, in the third cluster (representing 34% of all consumers), the most preferred attribute was brand, followed by price (19.13%); however, in contrast to the other two clusters, the lactose content (11.23%) was the least preferred attribute. Finally, as expected, the level of price in all clusters exhibited a negative value, especially for the highest price ( € 3.20/200 g). Moreover, the utility assigned to the ‘free from lactose’ level exhibited a negative value in all clusters, suggesting that consumers did not prefer lactose-free cheese. Consumers in cluster 1 showed a clear preference for cheese without a quality certification, in contrast to clusters 2 and 3. Likewise, regarding the brand attribute, cheese with the Auricchio brand presented the highest utility in the first and second clusters but negative utility in the third cluster, in contrast with Latteria Soresina and Coop, both of which exhibited positive utility. Thus, the results suggest that consumers in cluster 1 most preferred the brand Auricchio while in the cluster 3, consumers most preferred the cheese brand Coop. Regarding lactose content, in cluster 2, consumers ranked the lactose content in the cheese as the second most important attribute in contrast to consumers in clusters 1 and 3. As for the production Foods 2020,9, 1730 16 of 16 38. Krystallis, A.; Ness, M. Consumer preferences for quality foods from a South European perspective: A conjoint implementation on Greek olive oil. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 2005,8, 62–91. 39. Fotopoulos, C.; Krystallis, A.; Ness, M. Wine produced by organic grapes in Greece: Using means-end chains analysis to reveal organic buyers’ purchasing motives in comparison to the non-buyers. Food Qual. Prefer. 2003,14, 549–566. [CrossRef] 40. Barnes, V. Brands, Geographical Origin, and the Global Economy: A History from the Nineteenth Century to the Present. J. Leg. Hist. 2019,40, 326–328. [CrossRef] 41. Bourdieu, P. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1984; ISBN 0674212770. 42. Topçu, U.C.; Kaplan, M. Willingness to Buy Foreign Products in Relation to Ethnocentric Tendencies and Worldminded Attitudes of Consumers. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015,207, 157–164. [CrossRef] Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).