Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-03T05:36:08.991Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Consumer Preferences for Peach Attributes: Market Segmentation Analysis and Implications for New Marketing Strategies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Benjamin L. Campbell ,
Saneliso Mhlanga  and
Isabelle Lesschaeve
Benjamin L. Campbell*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at University of Connecticut
Saneliso Mhlanga
Affiliation:
Consumer Insights and Product Innovation at Vineland Research and Innovation Centre
Isabelle Lesschaeve
Affiliation:
Consumer Insights and Product Innovation at Vineland Research and Innovation Centre
*
Correspondence: Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics ▪ University of Connecticut ▪ 1376 Storrs Road Unit 4021 ▪ Storrs, CT 06269 ▪ Phone 860.486.1925 ▪ Emailben.campbell@uconn.edu.
Get access

Abstract

Consumers in today's marketplace have seemingly endless choices with regards to produce. Peach growers and retailers in Ontario, Canada, have begun taking steps to increase demand for their products. This study investigates the impact of those strategies on the market. Using conjoint analysis and market simulations, we evaluate the peach market to identify key drivers of peach purchasing. The results indicate that the market is heterogeneous and that price, origin, and quality indicators are the most important drivers of purchases. Our simulations indicate that adoption of new plastic packaging by the industry is a viable strategy for increasing demand for local peaches.

Keywords

conjoint analysismarket simulationtender fruit
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 42 , Issue 3 , December 2013 , pp. 518 - 541
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baker, G.A. 1998. “Strategic Implications of Consumer Food Safety Preferences: Consumer Concerns and Willingness-to-Pay.” International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 1(4): 451–463.Google Scholar
Baker, G.A. 1999. “Consumer Preferences for Food Safety Attributes in Fresh Apples: Market Segments, Consumer Characteristics, and Marketing Opportunities.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 24(1): 80–97.Google Scholar
Baker, G.A., and Crosbie, P.J. 1994. “Consumer Preferences for Food Safety Attributes: A Market Segment Approach.” Agribusiness: An International Journal 10(4): 319–324.Google Scholar
Bretton-Clark. 1992. Conjoint Analyzer, version 3 (software). Bretton-Clark, Morristown, NJ.Google Scholar
Bruhn, C.M. 1995. “Consumer and Retailer Satisfaction with the Quality and Size of California Peaches and Nectarines.” Journal of Food Quality 18(3): 241–256.Google Scholar
Campbell, B.L., Lesschaeve, I., Bowen, A.J., Onufrey, S.R., and Moskowitz, H. 2010. “Purchase Drivers of Canadian Consumers of Local and Organic Produce.” HortScience 45(10): 1480–1488.Google Scholar
Campbell, B.L., Nelson, R.G., Ebel, R.C., and Dozier, W.A. 2006. “Mandarin Attributes Preferred by Consumers in Grocery Stores.” HortScience 41(3): 664–670.Google Scholar
Campbell, B.L., Nelson, R.G., Ebel, R.C., Dozier, W.A., Adrian, J.L., and Hockema, B.R. 2004. “Fruit Quality Characteristics of Satsuma Mandarins That Affect Consumer Preferences.” HortScience 39(7): 1664–1669.Google Scholar
Darby, K., Batte, M.T., Ernst, S., and Roe, B. 2008. “Decomposing Local: A Conjoint Analysis of Locally Produced Foods.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 90(2): 476–486.Google Scholar
Darby, M.R., and Karni, E. 1973. “Free Competition and the Optimal Amount of Fraud.” Journal of Law and Economics 16(1): 67–88.Google Scholar
Deloitte and Touche LLP. 2010. “Fifteen-year Comprehensive Strategic Plan for the Ontario Apple, Tender Fruit, and Fresh Grape Industry.” Report sponsored by Vineland Research and Innovation Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
Fields, D., and Gillespie, J. 2008. “Beef Producer Preferences and Purchase Decisions for Livestock Price Insurance.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 40(3): 789–803.Google Scholar
Ford, G.T., Smith, D.B., and Swasy, J.L. 1990. “Consumer Skepticism of Advertising Claims: Testing Hypotheses from Economics of Information.” Journal of Consumer Research 16(4): 433–441.Google Scholar
Frank, C.A., Nelson, R.G., Simonne, E.H., Behe, B.K., and Simonne, A.H. 2001. “Consumer Preferences for Color, Price, and Vitamin C Content of Bell Peppers.” HortScience 36(4): 795–800.Google Scholar
Green, P.E., and Helsen, K. 1989. “Cross-validation Assessment of Alternatives to Individual-level Conjoint Analysis: A Case Study.” Journal of Marketing Research 26(August): 346–350.Google Scholar
Greene, W.H. 2003. Econometric Analysis (5th edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Google Scholar
Hair, J.F. Jr., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., and Black, W.C. 1998. Multivariate Data Analysis (5th edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Google Scholar
Hall, C.R., Campbell, B.L., Behe, B.K., Yue, C., Lopez, R.G., and Dennis, J.H. 2010. “The Appeal of Biodegradable Packaging to Floral Consumers.” HortScience 45(4): 583–591.Google Scholar
Harrison, R.W., and Sambidi, P.R. 2004. “A Conjoint Analysis of the U.S. Broiler Complex Location Decision.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 36(3): 639–655.Google Scholar
Integrity Intellectual Property, Inc. 2009. “Strategic Review of Plant Breeding Systems for Orchard Fruit and Grape Vines - Final Report.” OVTP-12 Final Report to Vineland Research and Innovation Centre, Integrity Intellectual Property, Inc., La Jolla, CA.Google Scholar
Kotler, P., and Armstrong, G. 2001. Principles of Marketing (9th edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Google Scholar
Lawless, H.T., and Heyman, H. 1999. Sensory Evaluation of Food: Principles and Practices. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
Lin, B.H., Payson, S., and Wertz, J. 1996. “Opinions of Professional Buyers toward Organic Produce: A Case Study of the Mid-Atlantic Market for Fresh Tomatoes.” Agribusiness: An International Journal 12(1): 89–97.Google Scholar
Lusk, J.L., and Schroeder, T.C. 2004. “Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86(2): 467–482.Google Scholar
Manalo, A.B. 1990. “Assessing the Importance of Apple Attributes: An Agricultural Example of Conjoint Analysis.” Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resources Economics 19(2): 118–124.Google Scholar
Marshall, S. 2012. “Tender Fruit Marketing: Rewind and Fast Forward.” Presentation at the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Convention, Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada. Available at www.ofvc.ca/SessionDownloads/Thursday/Tender%20Fruit/T_TFruit_930_Marshall.pdf (accessed July 25, 2012).Google Scholar
Moskowitz, H., Gofman, A., and Beckley, J. 2006. “Using High-level Consumer-research Methods to Create A Tool-driven Guidebook and Database for Product Development and Marketing.” Journal of Sensory Studies 21(1): 54–100.Google Scholar
Nelson, P. 1970. “Information and Consumer Behavior.” Journal of Political Economy 78(2): 311–329.Google Scholar
Nelson, P. 1974. “Advertising as Information.” Journal of Political Economy 82(4): 729–754.Google Scholar
Nelson, R.G., Jolly, C.M., Hinds, M.J., Donis, Y., and Prophete, E. 2005. “Conjoint Analysis of Consumer Preferences for Roasted Peanut Products in Haiti.” Journal of Consumer Studies 29(3): 208–215.Google Scholar
Nganje, W.E., Hughner, R.S., and Lee, N.E. 2011. “State-branded Programs and Consumer Preference for Locally Grown Produce.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 40(1): 20–32.Google Scholar
Onozaka, Y., and McFadden, D.T. 2011. “Does Local Labeling Complement or Compete with Other Sustainable Labels? A Conjoint Analysis of Direct and Joint Values for Fresh Produce Claims.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 93(3): 693–706.Google Scholar
Wirth, F.F., Stanton, J.L., and Wiley, J.B. 2011. “The Relative Importance of Search versus Credence Product Attributes: Organic and Locally Grown.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 40(1): 48–62.Google Scholar
Yue, C., and Tong, C. 2009. “Organic or Local? Investigating Consumer Preference for Fresh Produce Using a Choice Experiment with Real Economic Incentives.” HortScience 44(2): 366–371.Google Scholar