Flash profiling methodology

AU consumers were able to use the Flash Profile methodology. No consumer gave up the study despite the large number of products. They aU fiiUy understood the ranking procedure and managed to complete the task. This was also the case for perfumers even if they were not familiar with sensory analysis protocols, they completed the Flash Profile session even quicker than the consumers, probably because of their ability to smell several perfumes. It is also possible that perfumers recognized some perfumes. 

Using consumers with the Flash Profile methodology proved to be an effective way to understand specific consumer sensory perceptions (Ballay et al, 2004). It allowed us not only to correlate specific perfumers attributes with major consumers impressions, but also to identify consumers semantic attributes which still need to be investigated and fully understood. It also allowed us to reduce the time limit of the studies and therefore to be more reactive and operational. 

Projective Flash Profile methodology. AH consumer panels (France, China and United States) evaluated exactly the same products. Consumers were given no indication of the perfume brands and names. The sessions wCTe condncted on separate days and in locations that were specific to each country. The evaluation took place in a sensory booth according to detailed gnidelines. Participants were allowed to take breaks whenever they wished. 

Similar to what was observed with the previous Flash Profile consumer studies, aU consumers were able to use the Projective Flash Profile methodology. Moreover, no consumers had trouble finding and imagining mental images, emotions or associations with the different perfumes. This is a confirmation of the highly imaginative and very evocative potential of fragrances. 

Flash Profile (FP) methodology through an example evaluation of dark chocolates... 

Nevertheless, PSP can be applied with confidence to any product space where its use seems to be relevant. PSP has already been used in cosmetics (Chrea et al., 2011), aromas and beverages with success. Other PSP methodologies have already been envisaged, such as Flash PSP (Teillet et al, 2013), which is a mix of Flash Profile (Dairou and Sieffermann, 2002) and PSP approaches. Enabling the aggregation of... 

Flash Profile has become our internal methodological reference for sensory descriptive analysis, and we use it in a diversity of situations requiring descriptive sensory analysis. 

A second limitation of the comparative evaluation methodology is that it is rather difficult to compare results from different sessions obtained at different times. Indeed, with Flash Profile the products are ranked in order of increasing intensity for each descriptor, but they are not given any absolute intensity scores on a scale. Contrary to conventional descriptive methodologies, it is thus much more difficult to correlate several sensory maps. Two maps can be qualitatively compared, but combining data into one map is not straightforward and will require specific calculation techniques. The free vocabulary also adds to this complexity and to the difficulty in comparing data from different exercises. 

Also, we are cnrrently working on a new descriptive methodology to combine the resnlts of descriptive evalnations obtained at different times. As discussed in Section 15.4.1, the evalnation procedure in Flash Profile implies that we cannot directly combine resnlts from evaluations at different times. By including into the sample set a few standards which are common to all evaluations, and by using a specific calcnla-tion module, we are now able to pool data from different evaluation sessions and to analyse them into one sensory map, even if we did not have the same judges in the different sessions (Teillet et al, 2013). 

From our point of view. Flash Profile cannot replace conventional descriptive analysis methodologies. As it does not allow a precise quantification of the intensity of sensory attributes, it does not seem suitable for tracking in time the evolution of the sensory properties of products. However, Flash Profile can be seen as a powerful complement or alternative to conventional sensory profiling techniques at the earlier stages of product development, for sensory benchmarking or rapid characterization of a product set. Its rapidity also offers an incontestable advantage over conventional methods in a business environment. 

Flavourists are usually comfortable with this methodology, as the requested deconstruction of the flavour perception to discriminate products is not far from their way of working. They find the ranking task easy to perform, as long as the number of products to rank is not too large (the sensory scientist in charge of the project usually selects flash profile for studies of eight to ten products maximum). 

Perfumers were familiar neither with sensory analysis nor with the Flash Profile procedure. They were therefore first given a brief outline of the methodology and procedure. They were then introduced to the 12 samples of perfumes simultaneously. Paper strips were provided for evaluation. 

Consumers. Flash Profile with consumers consisted of one session. All sessions were individual and lasted from 45 min to 1 h 30 min, which was shorter than perfumers Flash Profile sessions. Methodology was similar to the perfumers Flash Profile, except that for consumers all sessions were carried out individually in a partitioned sensory booth. 

Regarding the methodology, The Projective Flash Profile was carried out in two stages ... 

Thereby, Projective Flash Profile has become a key LVMH methodology. 

To be able to compare consumers and technical vocabulary, participants must not influence each other, whether they be consumers or test drivers. In fact, very experienced experts have a strong influence on each other. Therefore, a free choice profiling method that does not require discussion with the rest of the panel is preferable. Besides, test drivers are available for less than 10 h a month, so a fast methodology is needed. Due to the complexity of the products and the constraints of the evaluations, we choose to use Flash Profile (FP) (Dairou and Sieffermann, 2002 Delarue and Sieffermann, 2004 Tarea et al 2003). 

---