Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-04T21:41:30.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Strategic market planning for value-added natural beef products: A cluster analysis of Colorado consumers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2007

Dawn D. Thilmany ,
Wendy J. Umberger  and
Amanda R. Ziehl
Dawn D. Thilmany*
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, B313 Clark Building, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, 80523-1172, USA,.
Wendy J. Umberger
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, B312 Clark Building, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, 80523-1172, USA,.
Amanda R. Ziehl
Affiliation:
Marketing Specialist, Center for Profitable Agriculture, University of Tennessee, P.O. Box 1819, Spring Hill, TN, 37174-1819, USA,.
*
*Corresponding author: Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the past decade, sales of meat products labeled as natural (minimally processed) and produced without antibiotics and hormones have increased dramatically. In response to growing demand for meat products differentiated by various production attributes, many smaller-scale beef enterprises are considering direct marketing of their beef products to end-consumers as a viable approach to sustaining their family farming operations. This research uses survey data from Colorado consumers, and factor and cluster analysis to determine market segments for various (varied by production protocols and other meat attributes) natural beef products. Findings from the cluster analysis indicate that there are multiple segments of consumers who are likely to purchase natural beef, and that different segments are motivated by different factors. The most important factor explaining almost two-thirds of the differences among consumer responses relates to consumers' perceptions of the importance of meat attributes related to production practices (e.g. use of antibiotics, hormones and environmentally friendly grazing). Interestingly, the two consumer segments that are willing to pay a significantly higher premium for natural, local beef are motivated by different aspects of the meat and its intrinsic production attributes. One segment, representing 12.5% of consumers, ranked the importance of all production attributes significantly lower than the sample average. Consumers in this segment appear to be motivated by their perceptions of the extrinsic quality of natural beef products. The other segment, 13% of consumers, appears to be altruistic, ranking all production attributes such as ‘no antibiotics’, ‘no hormones’, and ‘humane treatment’, significantly higher than all of the other clusters. These results indicate the potential strength of production methods (and marketing of such quality differences) as product differentiation criteria. This paper illustrates the type of market research that may be useful for beef producers seeking value-added marketing opportunities, and portrays the types of consumers who are fueling the growth in natural meats in the United States. Such market analysis can facilitate producers' ability to effectively develop product concepts, labeling and promotional strategies targeted at the most receptive consumer segments, and illustrates that there is more than one type of consumer interested in purchasing products differentiated by sustainable production methods.

Keywords

natural beefconsumer demandtargeted marketing
Type
Review Article
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , September 2006 , pp. 192 - 203
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006

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

01Food Safety and Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA-FSIS). 2003. Meat and poultry labeling terms. Available at Web site http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/pubs/lablterm.htm (verified 4 August 2005).Google Scholar
02Agricultural Marketing Service, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA-AMS). 2002. The National Organic Program, organic food standards and labels: the facts. April. Available at Web site http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/Consumers/brochure.html (verified 4 August 2005).Google Scholar
03Organic Trade Association (OTA). 2004. The OTA manufacturer survey. Available at Web site http://www.ota.com/pics/documents/2004SurveyOverview.pdf (verified 17 July 2005).Google Scholar
04Kinsey,, J. and Senauer,, B. (1996) Consumer trends and changing food retailing formats. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78: 5 1187–1191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
05McGarry-Wolf,, M. and Thulin,, A.J. (2000) A target consumer profile and positioning for promotion of a new locally branded beef product. Journal of Food Distribution Research 32: 1 193–197.Google Scholar
06Lusk,, J.L. and Fox,, J.A. (2002) Consumer demand for mandatory labeling of beef from cattle administered growth hormones or fed genetically modified corn. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 34: 1 27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
07Ziehl,, A.R. 2004. An empirical analysis of consumer retail purchase behavior for beef differentiated by primal and production attributes. Unpublished MS thesis, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.Google Scholar
08Smith,, W. (1956) Product differentiation and market segmentation as alternative marketing strategies. Journal of Marketing 21: 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
09Mangaraj,, S. and Senauer,, B. 2001. A segmentation analysis of U.S. grocery store shoppers. Working Paper 01–08. The Food Industry Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar
10Carlson,, A., Kinsey,, J. and Nadav,, C. (2002) Consumers' retail source of food: a cluster analysis. Family Economics and Nutrition Review 14: 2 11–20.Google Scholar
11Baker,, G.A. and Crosbie,, P.J. (1993) Measuring food safety preferences: identifying consumer segments. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 18: 2 277–287.Google Scholar
12Baker,, G.A. and Burnham,, T.A. (2001) Consumer response to genetically modified foods: market segment analysis and implications for producers and policy makers. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 26: 2 387–403.Google Scholar
13Empacher,, C., Gotz,, K. and Schultz,, I. (2002) Target group analysis of the Institute for Social-Ecological Research. In Schmidt,, E. (ed.) Models of Sustainable Consumption: A New Ecopolitical Sphere of Action as a Challenge to Environmental Communication. Federal Environmental Agency, Forschung, Berlin. p. 87–181Google Scholar
14Sunding,, D.L. (2003) The role for government in differentiated product markets: looking to economic theory. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85: 3 720–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15Gagnon,, K. 2004. Predator Friendly Ranching Group Tries to Establish New Market. July 23, Meatingplace.com. Available at Web site http://www.meatingplace.com (verified 1 August 2005).Google Scholar
16Tronstad,, R., Lobo,, R., Umberger,, W., Nakamoto,, S.T., Curtis,, K.R., Lev,, L., Bailey,, D., Ward,, R., and Bastian,, C. (2005) Certification and labeling considerations for agricultural producers. Western Extension Marketing Committee Report, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. available at web site http://ag.arizona.edu/arec/wemc/wemc.html.Google Scholar
17Jekanowski,, M.D., Williams,, D.R. II, and Schiek,, W.A. (2000) Consumers' willingness to purchase locally produced agricultural products: an analysis of an Indiana Survey. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 29: 8 43–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18Thilmany,, D., Grannis,, J. and Sparling,, E. (2003) Regional demand for natural beef products: urban vs. rural willingness to pay and target customers. Journal of Agribusiness 21: December 149–166.Google Scholar
19Grannis,, J. and Thilmany,, D. (2002) Marketing natural pork: an empirical analysis of consumers in the mountain region. Agribusiness 18(4): 475–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20US Census Bureau. 2000. 2000 Census Profiles for Colorado. Available at Web site http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsServlet (verified 1 July 2005).Google Scholar
21STATA Press. (2001) STATA Reference Manual. College Station, TXGoogle Scholar