When gauging the commercial market value of a commodity, different measures are usually applied. For example, one of them is the percentage of the monetary units or physical units that this product represents within the corresponding sector, in other words, the market share. However, in marketing, measuring this commercial market value is determined by the perceptions of consumers. In particular, there are two concepts that help us measure it. These are image and positioning.

Brand image is the way the product/brand is defined by consumers based on important attributes. In turn, the product position is the place the product occupies in consumers' minds relative to competing products ( Kotler & Armstrong, 2017 ). In other words, the positioning is a representation of the market perception of brands as well as the market perception of brands and their attributes. Attributes define or represent a product decomposed into its basic variables. Positioning is not the brand/company image. In the image, only a brand, or product, is depicted so there can be no relative comparisons. The essence of the positioning method is to have both the brands and the attributes in the same positioning map ( Kotler & Keller, 2015 ). The position of attributes and brands helps to analyse the association between them. When the same attribute is associated with several brands or products, we can ascertain the competition between brands. Likewise, if there is an attribute without any brand nearby, it indicates a potential market opportunity. Repositioning a product or brand can be proposed when there are no attributes around. However, the repositioning is not always feasible ( Kotler & Armstrong, 2017 ).

These two concepts can help us better understand consumer behaviour towards fresh meat, given the current situation of the sector due to the changing consumer demand ( Resurreccion, 2013 ). In Spain, the decline in fresh meat consumption since 2008 has affected the whole meat sector, although there are some exceptions such as turkey, whose total consumption rose by 2.8% in 2016 compared to 2015 ( MAGRAMA, 2017 ). This data leads us to reflect on consumer perceptions towards the different kinds of meat and their key attributes. Henchion et al. (2014) noted how the meat quality will be a key factor for consumers to the detriment of the product price or the income of the consumers. Korzen & Lassen (2010) described how the perceptions of quality depended on two contexts: the "everyday context" (of the consumer that purchases, prepares and eats the meat) and the "production context" (the pre-consumer side of the value chain: primary production, slaughtering and meat processing). Grunert et al. (2004) analysed consumer perceptions of meat quality, focusing on beef and pork. The authors described the various intrinsic and extrinsic quality cues perceived by the consumer. Intrinsic quality cues are those which are physically part of the product itself (e.g. colour) while extrinsic cues are not physically part of the product (price) ( Grunert, 2006 ). Acebrón & Dopico (2000) considered that consumers infer the quality of beef on the basis of intrinsic (colour, freshness and visible fat) and extrinsic (price, promotion, designation of origin and presentation) quality cues.

In beef, pork and chicken, Glitsch (2000) found that the place of purchase, colour, flavour and freshness are considered quality indicators of the three fresh meats in six European countries. Becker et al. (2000) reported similar outcomes for the same three fresh meats, plus the country of origin variable as an extrinsic cue for quality selection in the shop and for assessing the safety of meat. Font-i-Furnols & Guerrero (2014) grouped the preference factors towards pork, beef and lamb into three groups: psychological (beliefs, attitudes and expectations), sensorial (visual appearance, in-mouth texture and flavour) and marketing (price and quality labelling). Troy & Kerry (2010) organised meat quality cues at point of sale (colour, packaged meat colour, visible drip and visible fat), point of consumption (tenderness, flavour, juiciness and succulence) and major background cues (safety, nutrition, sustainability and ethics). Many authors point to the growing importance of this latter group of attributes ( Verbeke & Viaene, 2000 ; Bernués et al. , 2003 ; Resurreccion, 2013 ; Henchion et al. , 2014 ). Specifically for rabbit, Kallas & Gil (2012) noted that for consumers of rabbit meat in Catalonia (Spain) the price is considered less impor­tant that other factors (such as local origin, "certified quality" brand and "boneless" rabbit meat format). However, non-consumers stated the economic factor as the main limiting factor for purchasing this kind of meat. Buitrago-Vera et al. (2016) found that the reasons for rabbit meat consumption at home are: it is tasty, healthy, not fattening (low fat), a high quality meat and a good price (it is cheap). In short, there is no consensus on the attributes to be used to measure or assess the quality of fresh meat. It should be noted that there are very few studies that have analysed rabbit meat. Nor were any other brand image or positioning studies found in the fresh meat sector, except for the one carried out by Prinsloo et al. (2014) in South Africa for branded meat products. In that case, the authors compared the attributes associated with three brands of meat sold in the supermarkets of Middelburg, Mpumalanga. The attributes used were quality and staff competence.

In Spain, the different types of fresh meat are consumed from highest to lowest frequency in the following order: chicken, beef, pork, turkey, rabbit and lamb, with chicken the fresh meat most often consumed ( Escribá-Pérez et al. , 2017 ). Of the six meats analysed, rabbit meat is the fifth most consumed by frequency. In addition, the rabbit meat industry is certainly facing a critical, complex, and challenging period that is characterised by a progressive falloff in consumption ( Cullere & Dalle Zotte, 2018 ). In this situation, it is worth asking how this fresh meat is perceived by consumers. So, the overall aim of this research is to determine which attributes are associated with rabbit meat, both in itself and in relation to the other types of fresh meat consumed in Spain, in order to increase its consumption. This general aim is broken down into the following three specific objectives: i) to draw up the positioning map for the different types of fresh meat; ii) to analyse the image of rabbit meat; and, finally, iii) to obtain the sociodemographic consumer profile based on consumer perception of rabbit meat.

In-depth knowledge of consumers' perceptions of value is considered a critical success factor in today's competitive market ( McEachern & Schröder, 2004 ; Groot & Albisu, 2015 ). In marketing, two key concepts can be used to determine consumer perceptions: image and positioning. Product image is the way that consumers define the product in terms of important attributes. In contrast, the positioning of the product is the place the item occupies in the minds of consumers in relation to competitor products. According to the positioning analysis, rabbit meat competed commercially with turkey for the "low fat" and "healthy" attributes. Both types of meat were linked to lean meats, low in fat and suitable for those wishing to eat a clean, healthy and beneficial diet ( Murcia, 2014 ). Rabbit meat had in its favour that it was considered more "economical" than turkey. However, this does not translate into higher frequency consumption compared to turkey meat. In the positioning map, rabbit meat did not compete with any other fresh meat and it was not associated with any other adjective.

According to the results of the image of rabbit meat, it is important to note that the mean of all the items, with the exception of "It's tasty meat, with flavour", had a score higher than four. Bearing in mind that we used a Likert scale (from 1 to 5), we may affirm that there was a high degree of agreement in all the statements proposed. So, we can see how rabbit meat was considered clean, healthy and easy to find. In contrast, it was less considered as a tasty meat and with good value for money. There was also a lot of divergence around whether it is tasty or not.

Once these consumer perceptions are identified, they must be transmitted throughout the value chain so that different agents can work on them ( Zouaghi et al. , 2017 ). The rabbit meat value chain consists of input suppliers, producers, abattoirs, cutting plants and distribution. This value chain has become slightly more complicated nowadays, as distribution can follow two different paths: the traditional channel and the modern or large-scale distribution channel ( Baviera-Puig et al. , 2017 ).

The work of value chain stakeholders can be of two types. First, if the products do not have the attributes that consumers value and perceive, they have to try to provide them as far as possible through new products, as proposed by Casillas-Peñuelas et al. (2015) , new functionalities of current products, modifying or adjusting the price, etc. It can also help set the agenda for other researchers. For example, in the case of rabbit nutrition, research can be done into how to improve the flavour and make rabbit meat tastier, as it is the attribute rated lowest by consumers. Second, if they already have the attributes that consumers value and perceive, they have to work on how to transmit these attributes to consumers so that they can perceive them this way ( Verbeke & Viaene, 1999 ).

In this research, we also found two clearly distin­guished groups: consumers who rated rabbit meat more positively and consumers that did so less positively. The definition of these two groups of consumers can be used to carry out different marketing actions appropriate to each group ( Kallas & Gil, 2012 ; Buitrago-Vera et al. , 2016 ; Gracia & de-Magistris, 2016 ). These two groups were defined by the variables "educational level", "rabbit meat consumption by children under 18 residing in the home", "geographical area" and "habitual residence". For the variables "gender", "age", "number of people in the home" and "presence of children younger than 18 years in the home", there were no significant differences. In other words, having a positive or negative image of rabbit meat did not depend on gender, age, size of the home or whether there were minors in the household or not.

The consumers with a more positive image of rabbit meat tended to be people with no formal educational qualifications or with only primary studies, located in the Spanish Central, North-Central and Eastern areas and Barcelona, living in cities with up to 100,000 inhabitants. If there were children under 18 in the household and they consumed rabbit meat, there were clear significant differences in favour of a positive image of rabbit meat compared to homes where minors did not consume this type of meat.

These results can be related to those reported by Escribá-Pérez et al. (2017) . These authors found that the average consumption frequency of rabbit meat increased in older people (over 55), in those with no formal qualifications or only primary education, in lower social classes (low and lower middle), in households with two or more than five members, and in homes without children under 18. Geographically, its consumption was located in the East and North-Central regions. Both studies coincide in terms of the "educational level" and "geographical area" variables. So, we can deduce that for both of these variables a positive image affects an increase in the frequency of consumption ( Sans & Sanjuán-López, 2015 ).

In summary, we identified the consumer perception of rabbit meat in Spain using two marketing tools: positioning and image. This is very useful for the different value chain stakeholders, who can devise different marketing strategies to improve rabbit meat consumption. We also analysed the sociodemographic profile in order to improve these marketing strategies. Future research could focus on testing different communication messages, pricing strategies or launching new products in order to improve the four 'P's (product, place, price and promotion) of rabbit meat. Another future research line could be why turkey is becoming increasingly popular in comparison with rabbit meat, when the latter is considered more economical.