Authenticity and Success in Marketing “Local” in Retail Grocery Settings



Download 152.28 Kb.
Page2/3
Date01.02.2018
Size152.28 Kb.
#37334
1   2   3

Takeaways: Intention to purchase before entering a store has an affect on how much is actually purchased – and perception of available local food before entering a store affects intention to purchase. Therefore, it is possible that even if local food sales do not increase on the day of a “Meet the Farmer” event or other in-store promotion, the activity could still lead to increased sales in the future. It is also important that marketing and interventions help to make clear to consumers the “difference” that they are making when purchasing local. Additionally, in-store interventions may be successful when used in tandem, and therefore it may be less relevant to measure their successes separately.

  1. Carpio, C. E., & Isengildina-Massa, O. (2009). Consumer Willingness to Pay for Locally Grown Products: The Case of South Carolina. Agribusiness, 25(3), 412-426.

This study concluded that South Carolinians are willing to pay an average price premium of 27% for local produce and 23% for local animal products. It suggests that the premium consumers will agree to varies by age, gender and income, but also by perceived product quality, a desire to support the local economy, patronage of farmers’ markets, and consumer ties to agriculture.

Takeaway: People are willing to pay price premiums for local food. Convincing them it is of high quality and that it supports the local economy may be effective in promoting local food purchases, as will supporting consumer connections with agriculture.

  1. Costanigro, M., D. Thilmany, S. Kroll, and G. Nurse. 2011. An In-Store Valuation of Local and Organic Apples: the Role of Social Desirability. Agribusiness: An International Journal. 27(4):465-477.

As a result of an in-store experiment in Colorado, researchers found that customers were more willing to buy “local” than “organic” apples. Motivations for valuing “local” correlate with social and public good consumer values.

  1. Cranfield, John, Henson, Spencer & Blandon, Jose. (2008). “The effect of attitudinal and socio-demographic factors on the likelihood of buying locally produced food.” International Food Economy Research Group, Department of Food, Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada. Working Paper No. 8_FSD. http://econpapers.repec.org/article/wlyagribz/v_3a28_3ay_3a2012_3ai_3a2_3ap_3a205-221.htm.

These researchers found that socio-demographics (gender, age, income and education) play only a limited role in predicting local food purchase intentions amongst Canadians. Attitudinally-based variables have a greater influence including general views towards local farmers and food quality. “Consumers with heightened levels of food involvement, either growing food or preparing most meals from scratch, are more likely to purchase local foods.”

Takeaway: This finding indicates that people in rural areas may have a disposition to purchase locally due to their connections with agriculture. It also suggests that encouraging more people to prepare meals from scratch could potentially lead to a higher likelihood that people will purchase local food, and implementing interventions that improve customers’ attitudes toward farmers may increase local food sales.

  1. Darby, K. et al.. (2008). “Decomposing Local: A conjoint analysis of locally produced foods.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 90(2):476-486.

These researchers found that Ohio-based respondents place similar values on foods produced “in state” and “nearby,” and that willingness to pay for local production is independent from values associated with freshness and farm size.

Takeaway: Although various studies have shown that freshness or “anti corporate” values are guiding factors for consumers choosing local foods, the “local” label is seen as preferable even apart from these characteristics (indicating that local is important to people even if other fresh options are available). Consumers are also willing to pay higher prices for local foods.

  1. Dreier, Shonna & Taheri, Minoo. 2009. “Innovative Models: Small Grower and Retailer Collaborations: Part B – Balls Food Stores’ Perspective.” Wallace Center, Winrock International. http://www.ngfn.org/resources/research-1/innovative-models/Balls%20Food%20Stores%20Innovative%20Model.pdf/view

This report on a Kansas city grocery retail chain that offers many local items found that ey “innovations” that the grocery retailer has made include forming strong relationships with suppliers (and being willing to expedite payments); working with a third party that labels local food; promoting locally grown food to increase overall sales; making operational changes to support local foods sales.

In marketing efforts the stores advertise “meet the grower” events in major newspapers and advertise cheap lunches ($1.01 for all natural hotdog, chips and drink) on the radio – which gives more overall exposure for the store. Additionally they launched local TV commercials that feature local products and in which the owner states “Shop Hen House Markets where you will find a farmers’ market 7 days a week.” It also advertises in a local publication geared toward foodies.



Takeaway: Increasing marketing/advertising efforts helps…. And selling local food can lead to increases in overall sales.

  1. Grabowski, Gretchen. 2013. “Issues in the Marketplace: Living Local.” Mintel.

The Mintel firm conducted this survey to better understand American consumers’ interest in buying local products. The summary analysis of the research is that although Americans are “drawn to the selflessness of living local,” their decision whether or not to purchase local items ultimately comes down to convenience. “Consumers want to purchase local products – namely the local produce that they tend to most associate with their own health – but they don’t want to go out of their way to get them.” The analyst concludes that:

“Marketers should be encouraged to find more ways to bring the local products consumers want directly, or at least in closer proximity, to them. In this way, local involvement can be positioned as being mutually beneficial to communities as well as the residents on which communities depend. Consumers wanting at least some personal gain from their local efforts will also feel better accommodated.”

“Consumers’ local behaviors are likely tied to a larger sense of community attachment (more than eight in 10 respondents agree people should have pride in their local communities).”

Researchers found that women were more likely to say that they “try to buy local whenever [they] can,” and that, unsurprisingly, fresh produce is the category of food consumers are mostly likely to say they attempt to purchase locally.

They also found that 75% of respondents cited it being “good for the local economy” as their reason for buying local. Supporting American-made goods, and giving back to the local community were also motivation for over half of respondents. Interestingly, 25% of “young people” (18-24) responded that “it makes me feel unique” was a reason for buying local.

It is worth noting that grocery stores where people already shop was the location most cited by respondents as a place where they buy local food (89%) – which reinforces the importance of focusing on grocery stores. Analysts believe this highlights consumers’ unwillingness to go out of their way to get to harder-to-reach markets.



In terms of price, the report concluded that “consideration should also be given to the fact that, even if local goods are more expensive than other items, many consumers may not care. While some 38% of Mintel respondents agree that local goods and services are too expensive, nearly half say it is worth it to spend more on these items… some 47% agree that local goods are generally of higher quality than other products.” Despite this interpretation, the survey did reveal that 61% said lower prices could attract them to buy more local goods.

Takeaways: market research confirms perceived health benefits and community impact persuades consumers to purchase locally-produced food. However it also indicates that people must also feel it is convenient to do so. If a local product is priced higher than a conventional product, some consumers will not be deterred, but they must believe they are getting a higher value for themselves and for their communities by making the purchase. Thus, interventions that (1) make it easy for customers to pick up local products without too much effort (2) encourage them to think about the benefits to themselves and (3) encourage them to think about benefits for local economy may be most effective.

  1. Gracia, A., de Magistris, T., & Nayga, R. M. (2012). Importance of Social Influence in Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Local Food: Are There Gender Differences? Agribusiness.

Through an experimental auction, the authors of this study (conducted in Spain) found that consumers are willing to pay a premium for local products. They also tested the role of social influence on willingness to pay (WTP) and found that while it positively impacted women (increasing their WTP) it negatively impacted men. The study considered social influence to be whether they were motivated to purchase based on perception that a product was local and socially embedded. Social embeddedness was described as the social relationships between actors in a local food system and surrounding community based on reciprocity, trust and shared values.

Takeaway: Women are more likely to purchase locally produced food than men. This finding is reinforced by other authors (Gallons et al. 1997; Jekanowski et al. 2000; Kezis et al. 1998, Weatherall et al. 2003).

  1. Hanss, Daniel & Bohm, Gisela. (2013). “Promoting purchases of sustainable groceries: An intervention study.” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 33:53-67.

This study – carried out in Norway – found that interventions aimed at educating consumers on how to mitigate environmental and social problems through purchasing decisions were successful in strengthening both intention to purchase and actual purchasing of certain (domestic/seasonal/certified) products. However, the intervention did not lead to customers having greater feelings of self-efficacy.

The latter could be concerning because previous studies have found that belief in the efficacy of purchasing decisions is important for prompting consumer behavior change: “If consumers do not believe that their sustainable behaviors will make a difference, that is, if consumers have low self-efficacy beliefs, they may not be willing to accept the costs of sustainable consumption” (54).



The interventions presented information on how purchasing affects social and environmental issues, and also how one individual’s purchase can encourage other consumers to do the same.

Takeaways: Grocery retailers may be able to increase local food sales by having information available on environmental and related topics. Perhaps leaflets produced by an independent party (such as CEFs) placed in the produce area would be more effective than ones produced by the grocery company. Interventions should also focus on materials that demonstrate the impact/efficacy of consumers’ local purchases (i.e., posters with pictures of farmers and quotes about how their family business has improved by being able to sell to the store). It could also be important for these posters to stress how each purchase and every individual shopper can make a difference. For instance, materials demonstrating that “every little bit counts,” or that “shopping in the local section can encourage other passing customers to do the same.”

  1. Hinrichs, C.C. (2000). Embeddedness and local food systems: notes on two types of direct agricultural market. Journal of Rural Studies, 16(3), 295-303.

Hinrichs explains that while social connections are assumed to be a positive value of direct purchasing (farmers’ markets, CSAs, etc.) ‘marketness’ and ‘instrumentalism’ complicate social embeddedness and give more power to educated, middle-class consumers than to farmers and less-advantaged consumers.

Takeaway: Because selling local food in a mainstream grocery store is inherently still part of modern commodity relations (even more so than the farmers’ markets Hinrichs discusses), economic relations that are characteristic of contemporary capitalism may impede social embededness. By increasing opportunities for the farmers who sell to grocery stores and the customers who shop there to develop connections and mutual obligations, social embeddedness will increase. (Perhaps there is a way for customers to play a role in asking grocery retailers to carry products from local farms, or for retailers to organize trips for customers to visit farms).

  1. Hinrichs, Clare, Patricia Allen and Hilary Melcarek. 2011. “When Local is Linchpin: Strategic Possibilities and Limits in Efforts to Change the Food System.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Rural Sociological Society, Boise, ID July 28-31, 2011

These authors completed a discursive analysis of textual materials from 18 U.S. Buy Local Food campaigns and interviewed 44 Buy Local Food initiative leaders “about the work of promoting “local food” as a way to change the food system.” They found that campaigns stress geographic proximity but seldom stress direct producer-consumer relationships. In interviews, leaders were much more likely to mention strengthening the economy, supporting farmers, improving health and the environment, and “connections.” They concluded that “local” does hold campaigns together – but that it is limiting in terms of achieving transformational change.

  1. Hinrichs, C. & Allen, P. (2008). “Selective Patronage and Social Justice: Local Food Consumer Campaigns in Historical Context.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 21:329-352.

The spread and significance of local food systems across the nation has remained uneven because even those who profess concern for local farmers and shop at farmers’ markets are likely to buy the majority of their food at supermarkets. Campaigns like “Buy Fresh, Buy Local” have worked to change this and to increase retail of local food. The BFBL marketing kit consists of information about “keeping dollars in the community,” etc., which they seem to find most effective. These authors note that BFBL campaigns are a reaction to the problems of the contemporary capitalist agrifoods system; however, they find that they are insufficient in addressing social justice concerns around inequality. They suggest a movement away from “local” as the operative descriptor for this reason.

Takeaway: Although we aren’t looking to toss out the “local” level, this does highlight the importance of defining it beyond geographical proximity if we want to fulfill the social and economic values associated with local food movements.

  1. Jacob, J. (2012). Who buys Local and Organic? Comparing Rhode Island Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Conventional, Local (RI & CT) and USDA-Certified Organic Milk. Honors Thesis, Brown University.

This study, carried out for an undergraduate honors thesis, found that people surveyed outside supermarkets are more willing to pay a premium for local than they are for organic. It found that women and people in high SES (socioeconomic status) categories were more likely to pay a premium for local milk, and that moving up the age brackets, older customers were less wiling than younger customers to pay a premium for local milk.

  1. Jarosz, L. (2000). “Understanding agri-food network as social relations.” Agriculture and Human Values 17(279-283).

This article does not speak directly to consumer values and decisions, but indicates that relationships among suppliers, producers, workers, processors, brokers, wholesalers and retailers are crucial for building strong regional food networks. Strong social relationships between these actors allow agri-systems to become more “embedded” in communities.

  1. Jekanowski, M.D., Williams, D.R., and Schiek,W.A. (2002). Consumers’ willingness to purchase locally produced agricultural products: An analysis of an Indiana survey. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 29(8), 43-53.

A survey of 320 people in Indiana found that (1) length of residency in state, (2) gender (women more likely), and (3) quality perceptions are the strongest predictors of likelihood to purchase products produced within the state.

Takeaway: Quality of local products should be emphasized in promotions.

  1. Katchova, Ani L, & Woods, Timothy A. (2012). Marketing Local Foods by Food Cooperatives. Paper presented at the 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil.

This paper explores the ways that food cooperatives across the U.S. have used business strategies to promote and market local foods. Through a survey of co-ops, they found that food co-ops feel they have an advantage on working with local farmers (compared to non-co-op grocers). They use approaches to promote local products “including farmer photos and stories, food sampling, newsletters and social media, etc.” (8). Co-ops “also provide staff training on local products, samplings, annual merchandising features, sponsorship of off-site local food events, on-site festivals, and deli features to increase consumer awareness of local foods” (9).


Takeaways: Although the efficacy of these promotional activities has not been specifically measured in co-ops, the consistency of using several marketing approaches indicates that food co-ops have anecdotally found them valuable in promoting local food sales. These approaches include using social media, newsletters and websites to disseminate information, providing samples, training staff on promoting local foods, and hosting off-site events.

  1. Kirby, L. (2007). Growing Local: Implications for Western North Carolina. Asheville, NC, Appalachian Sustainable Agriculture Project.

82% of Western North Carolina respondents indicated they would buy more locally-produced food if it was labeled as such.

Takeaway: There is a demand for locally produced food in western North Carolina and a desire that it be more effectively labeled.

  1. Landry, Timothy, Todd J. Arnold & John B. Stark. (2005). “Retailer community embeddedness and consumer patronage.” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 12(1): 65-72.

This study tested a conceptual framework that demonstrates the link between community embeddedness of a retailer and consumer patronage. The framework follows that socializing actions (things that community members do to communicate with other community members what it means to be a part of the community), reciprocity (when community members or entities give mutual support to one another), and social compliance (essentially, acting on social norms) affect patronage, but this relationship is mediated by congregation and utilitarian value (UV: the value derived from buying something).
The study found that reciprocity positively affected perception of UV, which positively affected patronage. In other words, if consumers felt some sort of reciprocal relationship with the retailer, then they saw the products as more valuable and were willing to buy more at higher prices: “...consumers are more likely to allow for situations of higher price and interaction costs with the retailer because the retailer’s input to the community is adequate to convey value in the goods.”
It also found that providing for the community’s unique needs through socializing actions boosted the UV, which affected patronage. This goes beyond marketing things as “local” in general, but becoming “locally relevant” to consumers so that each consumer can see herself in the products and in the retailer’s identity. This usually implies providing a unique product mix for each store based on the consumer base and community events.
Additionally, it determined that congregation, which is affected by socializing actions, reciprocity and social compliance, increases patronage. Retailers that create a space for community to take place, such as a grocery store with a cafe area, or an outdoor provision center with rock climbing classes cause community to take place at that location, which ultimately increases patronage.
Finally, the study found that these patterns are not explained away by the convenient location of the store, either. “Further, it is important to note that both utilitarian value and congregation explained more of the variance in patronage than did convenience. Thus, this research implies that retailer actions taken to facilitate the formation and sustenance of community will have a stronger impact upon consumption behavior than simply the locale and ease of effort associated with stopping at a given store. “
Takeaways: If grocery retailers are able to create the perception that they are positively affecting the community (community embedded), and if customers feel that they are further positively affecting the community by shopping at/supporting these stores, then they will be more likely to pay a premium and go out of their way to shop at them. To create the feeling that it is a community-embedded store, stores should go beyond marketing things as “local,” but should also strive to create a unique, culturally/geographically appropriate product mix for each store (not just buy “locally relevant”). For example, if a town were to have an Irish Dance Festival, a grocery store would support this by featuring locally made Irish-style beers and foods, demonstrating that the store is aware and supportive of what is going on in and important to the community. In addition to this “socializing action,” retailers should also work to become a location of “gathering and participation.” In other words, it should not only be part of outside community events (like soup kitchens and local festivals) but it should work to make community events happen on the premises. For instance, through a café space, regular cooking classes or community discussions.


  1. Leopold Center. (2003). “Ecolabel value assessment: consumer and food business perceptions of local foods.” Iowa State University AND Leopold Center. (2004). Ecolabel value assessment: Phase II. Iowa State University.

A consumer survey conducted in four areas of the United States measured the effectiveness of various local food “ecolabels” and found that consumers preferred labels that focus on the freshness of products and the distance they traveled from farm to consumer. Labels that stress environmental factors (such as CO2 emissions) were found to be less effective. More than 75% of consumers said that they would prefer to buy locally grown produce from “family farmers.” 12-18 percent of consumer respondents were willing to pay 30 percent or more for products that combined locally grown with attributes of environmental and community stewardship. It was believed that the “local” attribute was more important than socially and environmentally responsible attributes. A second phase of the study found that consumers would choose “local-some pesticides used” over “U.S. organic” – thus underscoring the symbolic importance of “local” in people’s minds. Respondents preferred the tagline “Freshness-dated, so you know when it left the farm” to other taglines tested.

Takeaways: Marketing of local food should focus first on freshness, quality and price (revealed to be consumers’ core values) and secondarily on augmented benefits that consumers value including support for local farms, low environmental impact and supporting the local economy. Consumers are willing to pay higher prices for local items.

  1. Miller, K., & Pedersen, C. (2012). Using Social marketing Initiatives to Address Disconnection in the Lockyer Valley Region. SILVER SPONSOR.

This study introduces a theoretical analysis in preparation for a case study of community engagement in Australia (using food and other initiatives). Drawing on other authors from the field, this study defines community engagement as “a synergistic activity whereby participants exchange information, experience relationships and the pleasures of human contact which, in turn, rewards participating people intrinsically through pride in oneself and extrinsically by way of social approval (Abdul-Ghani, Hyden & Marhsall 2011)” (p.158) These and other authors postulate that increasing engagement leads to stronger feelings of connectedness, sense of belonging, and, ultimately, positive outcomes for the place and its residents. As they summarize, community engagement (CE) theorists have also suggested that results of engagement are most successful if residents have played an active part in the change.

Takeaways: Interventions that make customers feel a part of increasing local food sales in grocery retailers may help to build engagement and store loyalty. Community engagement can be seen as an ongoing and cyclical process that continually boosts both overall community well-being, and sense of attachment to the store.

  1. Nurse, G. and Thilmany, D. (2010). “Local Sourcing for Retail: The role of consumer motivation.” Presentation at the National Grocers Association (NGA). AND Onozaka, Y., Nurse, G. & Thilmany McFadden, D. “Local Food Consumers: How Motivations and Perceptions Translate to Buying Behavior.” Choices Magazine.

A survey with 1052 respondents found that “proven health benefits” was the most important factor for respondents in choosing fresh produce, followed by “supporting local economy,” “farmers receiving fair share of economic returns,” and “maintaining local farmland.” Surprisingly, considering responses, consumers valued “Local” by far over “organic.” Though consumers associated local produce with freshness, quality, food safety, nutritional values, public health, and support for the local economy, there was relatively low awareness about carbon footprint and treatment of labor claims among respondents.

People need to be convinced a product does “what it is supposed to.” In other words, does it truly taste good? It is also important to boost “perceived consumer effectiveness,” meaning providing information to show the actual implications of buying locally produced food.

Respondents revealed that supermarkets (as opposed to co-ops, specialty stores, natural food stores, farmers markets, convenience stores and direct for the producer) are actually least effective in boosting perceived-consumer effectiveness.

In a test of targeting certain motivators to see if they could increase sales, retailers found that positive connections with consumers and less shrink (food “lost” to the retailer because it is not sold or goes bad) were unexpected outcomes for grocers.



Takeaways: By demonstrating product quality and also communicating the implications of purchasing locally, retailers can boost their “authenticity” and “transparency” and achieve not only increased local food sales, but also improved overall relationships with consumers and reduced shrinkage.

  1. Onken, Kathryn & Bernard, John. (?) “Catching the ‘local’ bug: a look at state agricultural marketing programs. Choices Magazine> http://www.choicesmagazine.org/magazine/print.php?article=112

Almost all states now have some sort of marketing program for agricultural products. One question is whether quality certification is essential to the success of these programs. New Jersey and California currently have the most rigorous standards (for being able to use the in-state marketing materials) and are also two of the states to achieve the biggest gain in sales of locally grown products.

Takeaway: assurance of quality matters in marketing local foods

  1. Ostrom, M. (2006). "Everyday meanings of ‘local food’ views from home and field.” Community Development, 37(1): 65-78.

This paper examines the way that consumers and farmers understand the meaning of “local food.” The researcher initially felt that understandings of “local” among both producers and consumers were so varied (in geographic and symbolic terms) that no meaningful patterns could be established. Authors feared this was a limiting factor in local foods initiatives. However, upon further analysis of survey responses, the researcher found a good bit of agreement amongst both consumers and farmers in what the “local” label stands for. The majority of both consumers and farmers saw food produced within their county or nearby counties as “local” – a smaller percentage listed food produced within the state as local. Only 3% of consumers and 16% of farmers surveyed saw food produced from a larger geographic boundary than the state (region, country, etc.) as “local.” 18% of consumers actually thought of “local” as produced within their city or town, and 3% as within their neighborhood.

When qualitatively describing local food, many used adjectives related to quality such as “fresher,” “tastier,” “healthier,” and “purer.” Many consumers thought of locally produced food as “pesticide and antibiotic free” or “natural.” They also associated local food with connections to area farmers that were described as more trustworthy, small-scale, responsible and humane than other farmers. “Thus, knowing how the food was grown and who grew it were very important to many people, and they associated having access to this knowledge as a benefit of ‘locally grown’ food.” (p.73). Many consumers also made statements about the positive feeling invoked from helping to support farmers and allowing them to succeed.

In a second part of the survey, consumers indicated that freshness, nutrition and quality were most important to them as determinants of food purchasing, with convenience coming in second.

The authors conclude that despite some disagreement (particularly among activists and organizations) over definitions of local – it has become a meaningful term to many consumers. The trick is to ensure that it does not become appropriated by corporations by living up to consumer expectations that “local” labels actually support local economies and produce high quality food.



Takeaways: People are most likely to consider “local” food to be food produced within geographic locations no larger than nearby counties. Thus, some stores’ practice of labeling food from states within the region as “local” is likely to clash with consumers’ definitions of local, as is labeling food produced by large corporations (for instance, in North Carolina, Mt. Olive, Krispy Kreme, Smithfield Pork, etc..) as “local” (due to clashes with qualitative understandings of “local food.”)

  1. Pirog, R., & Larson, A. (2007). Consumer perceptions of the safety, health, and environmental impact of various scales and geographic origin of food supply chains. Unpublished manuscript, Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State University, Ames, IA. http://www.leopold.iastate.edu/pubs-and-papers/2007-09-consumer-perceptions

These authors speculate that environmental concerns are the motivation for buying both local and organic.

  1. Policy Link. (Undated). “Grocery Store Development.” Available at: http://www.policylink.org/site/c.lkIXLbMNJrE/b.7962289/k.8730/Grocery_Store_Development/apps/nl/newsletter2.asp

This report on attracting and making successful grocery stores in urban, low-income areas indicates that creating a perception of “community engagement” is important for creating trust (where people have previously mistrusted corporations) and learning how to best work within the community. Partnerships with Community Development Corporations can often help.

Takeaway: although this report focuses on urban areas, many of the lessons regarding under-served communities may also apply in rural areas.

  1. Racine, E.F., Mumford, E.A., Laditka, S.B., & Lowe, A.E. (2012). Understanding Characteristics of Families Who Buy Local Produce. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 45(1):30-38.

A cross-sectional analysis of North Carolina families with children found that about half of families report buying local produce an average of once per month. White families, lower income families, families living in rural areas, families with children who ate five or more servings of fruit and veggies per day, and families with children in poor health were more likely to purchase local produce. The project concluded that interventions could focus on promoting local foods purchasing in urban areas and among black families.

  1. Roininen, K., Arvola, A., & Lahteenmaki, L. (2006). Exploring consumers' perceptions of local food with two different qualitative techniques: laddering and word association. Food Quality and Preference, 17(1–2), 20-30.

Using “laddering” (an interview method that, in this case, asked subjects to sort product-types in order of preference, and then describe why they made the choice and why the choice was important) and “word association” interview techniques, researchers in Finland found that (1) “quality,” “locality,” “vitality of rural areas,” “short transportation distances,” “freshness”, and “animal well-being” are all values associated with local food, and that (2) laddering interview techniques, while time intensive, are effective for understanding the “relationship between perceived attributes and the reasons for choices.”

Takeaways: Laddering interview techniques may be effective for future research into specific groups of people’s perceptions of local food. The values mentioned above highlighted should be in promotional materials for local food.

  1. Schneider, M., & Francis, C. (2005). Marketing locally produced foods: consumer and farmer opinions in Washington County, Nebraska. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 20(4), 252–260.

A survey of residents in Washington County, Nebraska found that quality and taste were the most important factors in people’s food purchasing preferences, and that “environmentally friendly production and support for local farmers were also important.” Consumers indicated a willingness to pay a price premium for local foods.

Takeaway: Quality and taste must be emphasized in local foods promotional activities, followed by environmental benefits and support for local farmers.

  1. Stanton, J. L., Wiley, J. B., & Wirth, F. F. (2012). Who are the locavores? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 29(4), 248-261

This project (focused on Pennsylvania residents) found that there is a segment of the population willing to pay for a locally produced product, but that it is smaller than segments that are more interested in taste or price than the environmental/social values associated with locally produced food.

The researchers recommended the following phrase that retailers could use in encouraging consumers to buy local: “that purchasing from local farmers helps the economy in the communities we serve. Local produce can be delivered to your store very quickly and faster shipping means even fresher produce for you. Items can be picked and packed at a more mature stage. This can really bring out the taste of the product. Eating locally grown food also means less fossil fuel burned in preparation and transport – and less energy needed to refrigerate during transportation”



Takeaway: Although some consumers will be attracted to local foods if they are marketed as better for environmental/social reasons, if retailers wants to attract a wider range of customers it will be important to stress quality/freshness and also be able to boast affordable prices.

  1. Thilmany, D., Bond, C., & Bond, J. (2008, December). Going Local: Exploring Consumer Behavior and Motivations for Direct Food Purchases. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 90(5):1303-1309.

Like other studies discussed in this review, this paper emphasizes the importance of consumers’ belief in the “effectiveness” of an action taken to achieve a particular social good. They grouped consumers of local food into four segments: urban assurance seekers, price conscious shoppers, quality and safety consumers, and personal value buyers. It is important to note that none of these groups are strict local shoppers, and their motivations may lead them to other products at times.



  1. Tregear, A., & Ness, M. (2005). Discriminant Analysis of Consumer Interest in Buying Locally Produced Foods. Journal of Marketing Management, 21(1/2), 19-35

This UK marketing research found that attitudinal factors tend to explain variations in local food interest better than demographic factors. However, it also noted that the importance of factors such as price and intrinsic quality did not vary between those with different levels of interest in purchasing locally. This indicates that certain “pragmatic expectations” of consumers will have to be met for marketing strategies to work. The researchers also noted that environmental and social welfare factors were more important to those disposed to buying locally produced foods.

  1. Tsoodle, L., Ross, K., and Clark, P. (2011). Burlingame Grocery Sustainability Project Customer Survey *For Discussion Only*. Kansas State University Center for Community Engagement and Development. www.burlingameks.com/documents/pdf/GROCERY%20SURVEY.pdf

This project surveyed people (n=535) in Kansas to ask about their shopping preferences. They indicated a lack of total store loyalty amongst respondents (most shopped at multiple grocery stores). Tabulated responses ranked quality of food as most important in grocery store expectations, followed by cleanliness of store, prices, and supporting local businesses, with convenient business hours, customer service, availability of food, buying locally grown foods, and travel time to store being ranked as “very important” by less than half of respondents (see Table below). 50 percent of responders said that supporting local businesses is important in their shopping experience, and 98.3 percent “agreed that they would purchase locally grown foods if available.”

Owners of local grocery stores in Kansas “expressed frustration” over people going out of town to find “deals” at bigger stores. “Grocery store owners work hard to supply groceries for the community, support local clubs, ball teams, church events, and other civic causes. These local owners want local citizens to return the support to their local business.”



Takeaways: Although people indicate that supporting local business is important, local business owners feel that even when they act as “community-engaged” businesses, local people pass their store over in favor for “deals” at larger stores. Thus underscoring the fact that even a “community-engaged” image cannot necessarily overcome a segment of people who desire a “good price.” However, for those that are more disposed to supporting local businesses, quality of produce and cleanliness of store can help draw them in.

  1. Verain, M. C. D., Bartels, J., Dagevos, H., Sijtsema, S. J., Onwezen, M. C., & Antonides, G. (2012). Segments of sustainable food consumers: a literature review. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 36(2), 123-132.

This review of studies (published up to 2010) on segments of “sustainable food consumers” found that typical socio-demographics are insufficient in predicting behavior in relation to sustainable food consumption. Though some studies find that women do seem more likely to purchase “sustainable food,” this is not consistent across all studies, nor are findings about age or education level. Rather, personality characteristics, lifestyle and behavior are more important to take into consideration.

  1. Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2006). Sustainable Food Consumption: Exploring the Consumer Attitude-Behaviour Gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19(2), 169-194.

This article indicates that ethical food consumption can be stimulated by raising involvement, perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE), certainty, social norms, and perceived availability. This research was carried out in Europe, but reflects ideas also confirmed in a U.S. context (Campbell dissertation). Their emphasis on “social norms,” however, contradicts Campbell’s research, which suggests that internalized factors rather than social norms are more significant.

  1. Webber, C. B., & Dollahite, J. S. (2008). Attitudes and Behaviors of Low- Income Food Heads of Households Toward Sustainable Food Systems Concepts. Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, 3(2–3), 186 - 205.

This study, which was aimed at understanding the attitudes of low-income household shoppers toward food purchasing, found that household heads were primarily concerned with the health of their families. In particular they were concerned with whether products were fresh and free from harmful additives (chemicals, pesticides, etc.). Although these issues were of primary concern, many people were not familiar with the concept of “organic” agriculture or concerned with “local” over “non-local” produce as long as it appeared fresh and was affordable. Low-income respondents in rural areas were more likely than in urban areas to attach importance to supporting local economies through purchasing from local farmers or food producers and to associate local food with a variety of positive health and economic indicators.

Takeaway: Freshness and value of local products should be emphasized in grocery stores in low-income, rural areas. However, stressing benefits to the local community and playing up the idea of “community loyalty” may also be resonant with some shoppers.

  1. Wolf, M.M. (1997). A target consumer profile and positioning for promotion of the direct marketing of fresh produce: A case study. Journal of Food Distribution Research, 28(3), 11-17.

This study looks at farmers’ markets and thus does not necessarily pertain to supermarket retailing, but may have insights for Meet the Farmer events held in these stores. The authors note that it is important to determine what to communicate in marketing materials – quality? environmentalism? The following characteristics were most frequently ranked as “very to extremely desirable” (in descending order of frequency) by Californians in San Luis Obispo (interviews conducted at supermarkets and other locations, not at farmers’ markets to avoid bias): Fresh looking, fresh tasting, in a high quality product, good value for the money, is reasonably priced, convenient to buy, easily accessible. Farmers or market managers are advised to create promotional campaigns around these factors.

  1. Zepeda, L., & Leviten-Reid, C. (2004). Consumers’ views on local food. Journal of Food Distribution Research, 35(3), 1-6.

In this focus group study, it was found that many “alternative “ (organic shoppers) and “conventional” shoppers associated positive values with locally produced food (in particular, positive community benefits). However, many of the “conventional shoppers” and African American participants were unlikely to actively seek out local labels in grocery stores, despite general support for local food. They were also less likely to describe specific benefits of purchasing local food.

Takeaway: It may be helpful to promote increased knowledge about specific community benefits or purchasing locally produced products; furthermore, it is helpful to then use reminders to look for local labels in stores. For instance, signs or posters saying, “look for ‘local’ labels to support local farmers” with a big image of the local logo and an image of a farmer could be effective.

  1. Zepeda, L. & Li, J. (2006). Who Buys Local Food? Journal of Food Distribution Research 37(3), 1011.

Based on a national survey, the authors found that consumers who buy local food (which they defined here as buying in supermarkets, direct from farmers, or through CSAs) are not characterized by typical demographics or income level, “nor do attitudes or behaviors related to the environment and health significantly affect whether shoppers buy local.” Rather, they found that other attitudes and behaviors related to food and shopping (like loving to cook) were most likely to increase the probability of buying local food.

Takeaway: market local food as a means to cooking new dishes.

  1. Zepeda, L., & Nie, C. (2012). What are the odds of being an organic or local food shopper? Multivariate analysis of US food shopper lifestyle segments. Agriculture and Human Values, 1-14

This study found that although a combination of intrinsic and extrinsic values explain motivations for purchasing organic and local foods, extrinsic variables increase the “probability of being in a particular consumer food lifestyle segment.” The extrinsic variables they found most helpful in predicting and explaining behavior include environmental concerns, health practices, race, the presence of a farmers’ market, and to a lesser degree, family composition and income. When clustering consumers into lifestyle segments – they found that clusters formed heavily around cooking patterns (frequencies of cooking at home). It is interesting to note that communities of color were found to be 15% more likely than White people to be in the “adventurous” lifestyle segmentation (the most likely to buy organic or local food and enjoy cooking). Effects of income on purchasing were inconsistent… but it seems that while high incomes do not necessarily correlate with local food purchasing, very low incomes are a barrier.


Download 152.28 Kb.

Share with your friends:
1   2   3



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
well-being
local community
health benefits
research team
money spent
most important factors
other three
social benefits