Download Regional Identity Promotion Program Workshop

Effectiveness and Impact of StateGrown Promotion Programs
Dr. Wen-fei Uva
Senior Extension Associate
Department of Agricultural, Resource, and Managerial
Economics
Cornell University
September 1999
Modified by Georgia Agriculture Education Curriculum Office
June, 2002
Current Situation:
• Food travels an average of 1,300 miles before
reaching the consumer’s table in the U.S.
• More than 20 state-grown promotion programs
in place
• Administration typically rests with the state’s
Department of Agriculture
• Funds from state sources often combined with
funds from licensing fees and private sector
contributions.
State-Grown Promotion Programs
Common Objectives:
• Promoting broad groups of food and
agricultural products produced within
the state.
• Support the local economy
• Agricultural market expansion and
development
Marketing Concept
Differentiate Locally-Grown
Products
-- Building a “BRAND” Loyalty
To increase sales at any price
-- Reduce consumers’ sensitivity
to price change
Some Research Results Related to
Product Origin Promotion Programs:
References:
•
Brooker et al. 1988, Pick Tennessee Product
•
Cambell and Feenstra 1998, The Case of PlacerGROWN
(CA)
•
Jones et al. 1990, Ohio Fruit Producer Survey
•
Lockeretz 1986, Urban Consumers’ Attitude towards Locally
Grown Produce
•
Michigan Dept. of Agriculture, 1989, Yes! Michigan
•
Patterson et al. 1999, A Case Study of Arizona Grown
•
Ramu et al. 1998, The Case of Jersey Fresh
•
Stern and Douglas 1999, Western Massachusetts CISA Study
•
Skinner et al. 1999, What does the ‘Made in Vermont’ Label
Mean to Consumers?
Attributes of Locally-Grown Products
Valued by Consumers
Top of mind beliefs:
• Quality
• Freshness
• Taste
• Healthfulness
• Positive experience
Other positive messages
• Sustainable community development
• Contribution to local economies
• Community connection
• Environment quality
Consumer Responses
• Produce display and TV were the most effective for
building awareness
• Think local produce in the summertime
• Prefer to buy local products if given the choice
• Expect good quality from locally-grown products
• Branding of locally-grown products could not
substitute for quality
• Consumers who were biased towards the locally
grown products were most influenced by the logo.
• Messages at a direct marketing environment are
more effective
Whether or not consumers express
preference for locally produced foods,
their buying behavior will depend upon
availability of local products at
competitive prices and acceptable quality.
Supermarket Customers
•
Liked attractive price tags and produce display with
the logo
•
Disliked the additional brochures given in the store
•
Higher educated people were less affected by the logo
•
Processed and convenient food buyers were less likely
to look for products with the locally-grown logo
•
Majority (3/4) will NOT change stores to buy local
•
Most (90%) will prefer the grocery store to have a
greater selection of local produce.
•
Repetition of the messages in different forms
• Consumers are facing information-overload
by in-store promotion when shopping at
grocery stores
• in-store promotion alone is not effective
• Consumer loyalty cannot be built through
logo alone; communicating information of
additional benefits is needed.
Producers/Farmers Response
• More likely to participate if they are informed of
the consumers’ awareness of the program
• 1/2 will participate in the program if it is free.
• Most commonly use the logo on price cards, posters
and banners, and produce displays.
• The general state-grown promotion program is
more popular than quality-control program.
• Larger farms and older producers are less likely to
participate in the state-grown promotion program
Retailer and Wholesaler Aspects
•
Responded the state/locally grown logo added
“value & freshness” to their produce
•
Liked the materials the most and media
promotion
•
Retailers are more likely to participate in the
program than wholesalers
•
Primary wholesalers (>75%) are less likely to
participate in the program
•
Producer-wholesalers are more likely to
participate than non-producer-wholesalers.
Program Evaluation Results
• Promotion always has positive effect on
sales
• Premium local products can demand a
premium price when treated as a different
product from non-local products.
• Ensuring quality is more important than
price
• Program visibility and continuity is
important
Program Evaluation - continued
•“Jersey Fresh”:
> Each $1 spent on the program resulted in a
return of $46.90 to NJ Agriculture
> For every $1 spent on the program the local
farmers earned an additional $15.20 in net
farm income
Campaign Components
• Designated Management
• A Promotional Campaign
Logo, Slogan, POP materials, Posters, Signs, Stickers,
Educational Materials
• Information
Farm Map/Directory, Harvest Calendar, Regional
Food/Nutrition Guides, Features of Participants
• Promotional Vehicles
Newspaper, Radio, Cable TV, Billboards, Public Media,
POP materials, Local Partnership
• Education Program for Participants
Effective Promotion Messages
•
A single promotion campaign
•
Messages of quality and freshness
•
Clear labels
•
Increase convenience and availability to buy
•
Contributions to the local economy and
community
•
Use local farmers to communicate; health and
education professionals as support
•
Messages for non-local groups - tourists, out-ofstate
Keys to the Success of a State-Grown
Promotion Program
• A vision
• Seed funding
• A champion to carry through
• A program supported by different sectors of
the community, not just the ag. sector
• A sense of immediate threat sufficient to
motivate action among community groups
• Political leadership and technical support
Challenges
• Maintain interests among producers,
businesses and consumers
• Continuity -- The 5-year rule of thumb
• Identify funding sources for long-term
sustainability
Evaluation Questions
• Whether consumers are aware of the
promotion
• Whether the origin of food products
matters to the consumers
• Whether the promotion influences their
preferences & buying behavior
• The effects of promotion on product sales &
farm incomes