The University of Georgia
College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences
An Evaluation of the "Grown in Georgia" Promotion
Kent Wolfe and John McKissick
Financial and Marketing Specialists and Professor with the Center for Agribusiness and
Economic Development
CR-01-39
September 2001
or Agribus
f
r
i
mic Develo
no
ss and Eco
e
n
ent Cent
e
pm
Section A
Section A - Table of Contents
Georgia Grown Promotion Supermarket Sales Analysis
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Department and Category Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Table 1. Change in Select Fresh Produce Sales (Grown in Georgia) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Table 2. Change in Select Fresh Produce Sales (Grown in Georgia)
Georgia Sales Compared to Non-Georgia Sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Featured Product Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 3. Promotion Impact on Sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2000 and 2001 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Georgia versus Non-Georgia Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Georgia Grown Promotion Supermarket Sales Analysis
Introduction
The Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development (CAED) was commissioned to assess
the impact of the 2001 Grown in Georgia campaign. Kroger was an active participant in the
promotional campaign. In addition to being the only major supermarket chain to participate in
the promotional campaign, Kroger graciously provided the CAED with its sales data for the sixweek promotional period.
Kroger allowed the CAED access to its product and price database to collect information on the
specific fresh produce products that were being promoted. In particular, sales information from
160 stores in Georgia, 3 stores in Alabama and 13 stores in South Carolina was collected from
the beginning of June though the middle of July for 2000 and 2001. The purpose of collecting
the information was to obtain a top-line estimate of the Grown in Georgia promotional
campaigns’’ impact on fresh produce sales.
Department and Category Analysis
In addition to comparing current and previous sales data, the fresh produce sales from stores
operating in Georgia were compared to stores operating in South Carolina and Alabama.
Comparing sales data from Georgia with data for South Carolina and Alabama provides insight
into product movement in stores not participating in the Grown in Georgia promotion.
Comparing these three store groups sheds light on the campaign’’s effectiveness, i.e., if the
promotion was effective, the change in Georgia’’s sales should exceed those in Alabama or
South Carolina assuming the absence of other factors that might contribute to changes in fresh
produce sales.
At first glance, the promotional campaign appears to be successful. The aggregate data suggests
that the Georgia stores experienced nearly a 10% increase in total produce sales over 2000
during the Grown in Georgia campaign time period. Comparing 2001 and 2000 sales data over
the promotional period revealed an increase of 9.63% in the Georgia store’’s produce
departments sales while the non-Georgia stores experience a slight increase (0.39%) or a -0.67%
decline in South Carolina and only a 4.96% increase in Alabama.
2
Table 1. Change in Select Fresh Produce Sales (Grown in Georgia)
Current Period: 06/02/01 to 07/14/01
Previous Period: 06/03/00 to 07/15/00
Percentage Change in Sales
Fresh Produce
Georgia Stores
(n=160)
South Carolina Stores
(n=13)
Alabama Stores
(n=3)
Pecans
35.87 %
59.5 %
63.46 %
Vidalia Onions
22.7 %
6.21 %
16.03 %
Squash
18.62 %
7.04 %
63.46 %
Cabbage
13.83 %
7.97 %
14.04 %
Peaches
13.21 %
- 9.63 %
4.22%
Tomatoes
12.60 %
1.62 %
12.54 %
Collards
7.71 %
- 25.49 %
- 6.06 %
Blue Berries
1.17 %
- 24.01 %
- 25.63 %
Carrots
1.02 %
- 9.73 %
- 5.92 %
Cantaloupes
-5.26 %
- 4.06 %
0.31 %
Watermelons
-5.72 %
0.36 %
-11.47 %
Total Produce Dept.
9.63 %
- 0.67 %
4.96 %
The results in table 1 are very revealing. However, given the relatively few number of stores
located in South Carolina and Alabama, the CAED determined it would be better to compare
stores located in Georgia with Stores located outside of Georgia. The information in provided in
table 2 compares changes in fresh produce sales in Georgia with fresh produce sales outside of
Georgia (Alabama and South Carolina). A weighted average was used to calculate the nonGeorgia store figures presented in table 2.
In comparing overall produce department sales information, the Georgia stores experienced a
positive increase in sales (9.63%) over the six-week Grown in Georgia promotional period
compared to a slight 0.39% increase in the non-Georgia stores over the same time period. This
is encouraging and may suggest that the 2001 Grown in Georgia promotional campaign had a
positive and significant impact on produce sales.
The data in table 2 compares the change in sales for all 11 products during the promotional
period as well as store location, those in Georgia and those outside of Georgia. This information
will allow a direct comparisons of product sales between years in Georgia and non-Georgia
stores as well as promoted and non-promoted products in 2001.
3
Table 2. Change in Select Fresh Produce Sales (Grown in Georgia)
Georgia Sales Compared to Non-Georgia Sales
Current Period: 06/02/01 to 07/14/01
Previous Period: 06/03/00 to 07/15/00
% Change in Sales From Previous
Year
Fresh Produce
Pecans
Vidalia Onions
Squash
Cabbage
Peaches
Tomatoes
Collards
Cantaloupes
Blue Berries
Carrots
Watermelons
Total % Change
Georgia Stores Non GA Stores -Weighted
35.87%
22.70%
18.62%
13.83%
13.21%
12.60%
7.71%
-5.26%
1.17%
1.02%
-5.72%
6.10%
60.24%
8.05%
17.62%
9.11%
-7.03%
3.67%
-21.85%
-3.24%
-24.31%
-9.02%
-1.86%
-4.23%
Difference between GA and Non GA
-24.37%
14.65%
1.00%
4.72%
20.24%
8.93%
29.56%
-2.02%
25.48%
10.04%
-3.86%
10.33%
The information in table 2 shows that overall, Georgia stores outperformed the non-Georgia
stores for the 11 featured products. This suggests that the Georgia Grown program had a
significant impact on promoting these products. Overall, the Georgia stores recorded an increase
in sales of 6.10% for the featured products compared to a decrease of 4.23% in the non-Georgia
stores. Combining these results reveals that overall, the Georgia stores experienced a 10.33%
sales increase for the featured products when compared to the non-Georgia stores.
Featured Product Analysis
The impact of the program for the 11 featured products is analyzed using two ways. The first
method is to evaluate the impact of the program in the Georgia Stores only from 2000 to 2001.
The second method is to compare the data from the Georgia stores and the non-Georgia stores
for the promotional time period and estimate the program’’s impact.
4
Table 3.
Promotion Impact on Sales
Measurement
Cost of promotion
Georgia Stores 2000 vs. 2001
Georgia Stores versus non-Georgia Stores
100,000
100,000
6.10%
10.33%
Change in Revenue
$436,513
$736,774
Cost Benefit Ratio
4.37
7.37
Kroger mkt. Share
25%
25%
$1,746,052
$2,947,096
Change in sales
State Impact
2000 and 2001 Analysis
The information in table 3 estimates that the Grown in Georgia campaign increased the promoted
product sales by 6.10% when compared to the same time period in 2000. The cost of generating
this additional revenue was $100,000 yielding a cost benefit ratio of 4.37. Therefore, for every
dollar spent on the promotion, an additional $4.37 was realized.
The 6.10% change in sales over 2000 translates into an increase of $436,513 for Georgia’’s
Kroger stores. Given that Kroger has 25% of the Georgia retail food market, it is possible to
estimate the impact of the 2001 program if it was implemented statewide. Multiplying the
$436,513 by four, it is estimated that the promotion would have generated $1,746,052 statewide.
Georgia versus Non-Georgia Analysis
The information in table 3 estimates that the Grown in Georgia campaign increased revenue by
6.10% in the state. The non-Georgia stores experienced a decrease of 4.23% for the 11 products
being featured during the promotion period. The difference between the Georgia and nonGeorgia stores is 10.33%. Using this figure, the it is estimated that the program generated an
additional $736,774 for Georgia’’s Kroger stores. The cost of generating this additional revenue
was $100,000 yielding a cost benefit ratio of 7.37.
The 10.33% change in 2001 sales between the Georgia and non-Geogia stores translates into
roughly $736,774 for Georgia’’s Kroger stores. Given that Kroger has 25% of the Georgia retail
food market, it is possible to estimate the impact of the program if it was implemented statewide.
Multiplying the $736,774 by four, it is estimated that the promotion would have generated
$2,947,096 statewide.
Conclusion:
According to the data presented in the three preceding tables, there is evidence that the Grown in
Georgia promotional campaign was effective in increasing fresh produce sales. During the
promotional period, the Georgia stores experienced significantly higher sales increases over the
previous year than did the non-Georgia stores. Examining store level data also support the idea
5
that the promotional campaign increased sales. However, it is important to remember that there
were significantly fewer non-Georgia stores used in this analysis and that factors other than the
Grown in Georgia promotional campaign could have contributed to the change in sales of both
the Georgia and non-Georgia stores. The cost-benefit ratios are positive suggesting that the retail
sales returns to the Grown in Georgia promotional campaign far exceed the cost of the campaign.
Section B
Section B - Table of Contents
Consumer Attitudes and Perceptions about Georgia-Grown Fresh Produce
Grown in Georgia Project Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Survey Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
Consumer Attitudes and Perceptions about Georgia-Grown Fresh Produce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Market Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Figure 1. Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Study Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 1: Q. Do You Recall Seeing Any Promotional material for Geogia-Grown Produce? . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 1a: Type of Promotion Observed In-Store (multiple Responses) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 1b: Produce Observed In-Store Produce Advertising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table 2: Q. Overall, Did the Georgia-Grown Display Prompt You to
Purchase Georgia-Grown Fresh Produce as Opposed to
Non-Georgia-Grown Fresh Produce? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 3: Q. Were you Pleased With the Overall Quality of the
Georgia-Grown Fresh Produce you Purchased? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Perceptions of Georgia-Grown Fresh Produce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 4: Q. In General, When You Think of Fresh Produce Grown in Georgia,
How Do yo Think it Compares to Other Fresh Produce Not Grown in Georgia? . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Table 5: Q. When Deciding Where to Purchase Fresh Produce, Which
Do You Consider More Important? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 6: Q. Would You Switch Supermarkets to Be Able to Purchase
Georgia-Grown Fresh Produce? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Purchase Preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 7: Q. Would You Buy Fresh Georgia-grown Fresh Produce
Over Non-Geogia-Grown Fresh Produce if it Was Competitively
Priced and Offered the Same Quality? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Georgia-Grown Campaign Awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 8: Q. Before Today, Have You Seen or Heard about the
Georgia-Grown Marketing Campaign? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 8a: Where Georgia-grown Promotion was Previously Seen or Hear
(Multiple Responses) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Georgia-Grown Campaign Effectiveness
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table 9: Q. Did the Georgia-grown Display Prompt You to Buy More
Types of Fresh Produce than You Had Originally Planned? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Table 10: Q. Did the Georgia-grown Display Prompt You to Buy Larger
Quantities of Fresh Produce than You Had Originally Planned? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Product Positioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Table 11: Q. Please Rate the Importance of These Attributes in Your Decision to
Purchase Fresh Produce? (1= not at all important and 5= very important)
Willingness to Pay for Labeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Figure 2. Willingness To Pay for Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Table 12: Q. Labeling Georgia-grown Fresh Produce May Involve Some
Additional Costs. Are Yo Willing to Pay a Slightly Higher Price
to Cover this Cost? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Grown in Georgia Project Summary
In-Store Survey Results
The results of the in-store research study indicate that the Georgia-grown marketing campaign
has the potential to significantly impact Georgia’s growers by increasing retail sales of Georgiagrown fresh produce. Retail outlets in the state should be informed of shoppers preferences for
Georgia-grown fresh produce and the potential impact the program might have on sales.
According to the survey results, a significant number of shoppers reported they would switch
stores to be able to purchase Georgia-grown fresh produce.
In addition, only a handful of shoppers (12%) were aware of the Georgia-grown marketing
campaign prior to the day they were interviewed. However, 94% of the shoppers indicated they
would purchase Georgia-grown fresh produce over competing produce it was competitively price
and offered similar quality. Ninety-nine percent of the shoppers indicated that labels should be
used to identified fresh produce grown in Georgia and 61% indicated that the Georgia-grown
displays influenced their purchase decision. Given the potential impact of this marketing
program, additional resources and effort should be directed to educate and inform consumers in
order to increase the awareness of the campaign.
Georgia Grown Promotion Supermarket Sales Analysis
There is evidence that the Grown in Georgia promotional campaign was effective in increasing
fresh produce sales. During the promotional period, the Georgia stores experienced significantly
higher sales increases over the previous year than did the non-Georgia stores. Examining store
level data also support the idea that the promotional campaign increased sales. However, it is
important to remember that there were significantly fewer non-Georgia stores used in this
analysis and that factors other than the Grown in Georgia promotional campaign could have
contributed to the change in sales of both the Georgia and non-Georgia stores. The cost-benefit
ration was positive (4.37) suggesting that the retail sales returns to the Grown in Georgia
promotional campaign exceed the cost of the campaign.
Produce Manager Survey Analysis
According to the information obtained in this survey, in-store displays, signs and feature
advertising appear to be the most effective techniques for increasing fresh produce sales. It
appears that all types of in-store promotions are effective in increasing fresh produce sales. Even
more interestingly, is the fact that in-store displays, signs and feature advertising were rated
more effective for increasing produce movement than price reductions. In-store demonstrations
and taste tests were rated equally effective as a price reduction for increasing sales. The most
effective promotional techniques appear to be those that the produce manager has some type of
influence over, with the exception of price reductions and shelf talkers.
State Promotional Programs Survey
A survey of state marketing programs found that many states offer generic advertising programs
aimed at increasing residents awareness of state produce products. Businesses that are members
of these promotional programs benefit from this generic advertising and increased consumer
awareness. Business members typically incorporate the state promotional logo into their
marketing material to establish their association with the being produce in state and the state
marketing program. Producers do not typically have the resources needed to advertise their
products on television and radio, the state’s generic television and radio advertising benefits all
the producers who have included the state’s logo in their marketing material.
Project Highlights:
•
According to the survey results, a significant number of shoppers reported they would
switch stores to be able to purchase Georgia-grown fresh produce.
•
Only a handful of shoppers (12%) were aware of the Georgia-grown marketing campaign
prior to the day they were interviewed.
•
94% of the shoppers indicated they would purchase Georgia-grown fresh produce over
competing produce it was competitively price and offered similar quality.
•
99% of the shoppers indicated that labels should be used to identified fresh produce
grown in Georgia.
•
61% indicated that the Georgia-grown displays influenced their purchase decision.
•
The program appears to have generated an additional $436,513 in revenue in one
supermarket chain. Expanding the promotion statewide would have generated an
estimated $1,746,052.
•
The cost-benefit ration for the program was 4.37, meaning that for every dollar spent on
the promotion an additional $3.37 retail dollar was generated.
•
Other Southern States have shown they can effectively promote fresh produce
Implications
Given consumers stated preference for Georgia grown produce and the corresponding increase
in fresh produce sales revenues during the promotional period, it appears the program was
effective. It is important to remember that only 12% of the shoppers were aware of the Grown in
Georgia campaign prior to being interviewed. Increasing consumers’ awareness through an
expanded Grown in Georgia promotional campaign could result in a more successful promotion.
Other Southern states have implemented successful generic advertising and promotional
campaigns aimed at increasing consumer awareness which have generated significant economic
benefit for their produce growers.
The results of the Grown in Georgia study suggest that spending additional funds to inform and
educate Georgia’s consumers will have a positive impact on the state’s economy. Consumers
prefer to purchase fresh produce grown in Georgia which will benefit Georgia’s produce
growers.
Promotional Suggestions:
•
A statewide generic promotional campaign should be undertaken utilizing various
multimedia channels.
•
The promotional campaign needs to be formulated to raise consumer awareness and
familiarity with the Grown in Georgia promotion statewide.
•
The promotional campaign needs to include product logs or means of clearly marking
Georgia grown fresh produce.
•
The promotion should incorporate the issues of freshness, extended storage and quality
into its message.
•
Importantly, consumers respond favorably to the idea of “Farm Fresh.” Therefore, the
promotional campaign needs to somehow utilize this concept.
Survey Highlights
Survey Highlights
•
71% of shoppers indicated they purchase fresh produce weekly.
•
Only 31% of the shoppers mentioned they were aware of the grown in Georgia
promotion. This is after they had traveled through the produce department where the
material was located.
•
Approximately eight in ten of the shoppers who were aware of the promotional material
indicated the material prompted them to purchase Georgia-grown produce over
competing produce.
•
A majority of the shoppers believe that Georgia-grown fresh produce is fresher and has a
better taste than produce grown out-of-state. Georgia-grown produce is perceived to
have a better storage life than other produce.
•
The quality of a supermarket’s fresh produce has more of an influence on where shoppers
shop for fresh produce than does either the price (fresh produce) or store convenience.
•
43% of the shoppers indicated that they would switch supermarkets to be able to
purchase Georgia-grown fresh produce.
•
83% of the shoppers indicated that the availability and quality of fresh produce
influences where they shop.
•
94% of the shoppers indicated that they would purchase Georgia-grown produce over
competing fresh produce if it were competitively priced and offered similar quality.
•
Only 12% of the shoppers indicated that they were aware of the Georgia-grown
promotion prior to visiting the supermarket.
•
99% of the shoppers felt that labels should be used to identify fresh produce that has been
produced in the state. In addition, the majority of the shoppers (67%) indicated that the
availability of Georgia-grown fresh produce would have an impact on their shopping
decision.
•
(61%) indicated that the Georgia-Grown display was useful in helping them select fresh
produce and nearly all of the shoppers indicated that they would like to see display
materials thorough-out the year.
Consumer Attitudes and Perceptions about Georgia-Grown Fresh Produce
Introduction
Georgia is involved with evaluating its current fresh produce marketing efforts. June is
considered to be the Grown in Georgia month. This effort is supported with limited marketing
and promotional materials. Increased regional, national and international competition have
resulted in renewed interest in Georgia’s Grown in Georgia marketing campaign. The purpose
of this marketing campaign is to increase market opportunities for Georgia’s fresh produce
growers.
The Georgia Department of Agriculture, the Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association
and a national supermarket chain with a strong presence in George worked together to develop
the 2001 Grown in Georgia marketing campaign. A total of $100,000 was apportioned for
promoting Georgia grown fruits and vegetables. The Georgia Department of Agriculture along
with The Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association worked cooperatively to develop a
special cardboard display featuring Georgia grown produce. The display contained 12 brochure
slots with each slot containing brochures featuring various fresh Georgia Grown produce and
recipes for preparing the produce. These displays were positioned in 140 plus stores in Georgia.
In addition, the national supermarket chain stores operating in Georgia created shelf labels that
also identified produce grown in Georgia.
As part of the promotional campaign, the supermarket chain utilized in-store cardboard displays
with recipe brochures for the major Georgia fruit and vegetable crops. The displays were used to
identify Georgia-grown produce when it was available and to offer shoppers recipe ideas as a
means of enticing them to purchase the produce. In addition to the display and recipes, shelf
labels were used to help shoppers identify Georgia-grown fresh produce.
The Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development (CAED) wanted to measure shoppers
campaign awareness and evaluate the campaigns impact on shoppers purchase decisions. To
accomplish these goals, the CAED conducted an in-store survey with shoppers during June
2001. Shoppers were intercepted as they exited the supermarket’s produce department and asked
to complete a simple questionnaire. The CAED analyzed the survey data to determine the
impact of the 2001 Grown in Georgia campaign on Georgia shoppers.
One of the objectives of this study was to examine the impact of the campaign on different
demographic groups. Five store groups were used representing different demographic groups
which are as follows:
•
Affluent Elite- Wealthy, well-educated suburban and urban neighborhoods. They top all
lifestyle measures of affluence, including income, education and occupation. Their tastes
run to the finer things, from imported automobiles to foreign travel.
•
Mid-Down Suburbs - Solidly middle class, matching the national average for education
and occupation. Neighborhoods are predominately found in major metropolitan markets
and close secondary cities. Income is skewed to $25 -$50 (k).
•
Inner City - Lower middle to downscale lifestyles. Densely populated urban
neighborhoods of row-houses, bungalows, and high rise apartment building.
4
Concentrated
5
in major urban areas. Lower income and education. Primarily blue collar and lower white
collar occupations, primarily clerical.
•
Small Town Living- These households typify small town America. Primarily small cities
and larger towns scattered across the US. Have upper middle income, some college
education and work in a mix of occupations. Reasonable incomes and low cost of living.
•
Rural America- Thousands fo small towns, hamlets and cross roads. Strongly
concentrated in the Central and South Region but are present in all states. Incomes are
lower and occupations are concentrated in manufacturing, family farms and major
agribusiness.
One of the basic foundations of marketing is to understand the consumer. By segmenting the
survey data by the five demographic categories, it is possible to determine the campaign’s
impact on different demographic groups. For instance, the Small Town America shoppers were
significantly less likely to mention seeing any Georgia Grown promotional material than their
Affluent Elite or Mid-Down Suburb counterparts.
Several important factors need to be investigated to first determine whether the current
marketing campaign is effective and what if any adjustments need to be implemented. The
Grown in Georgia marketing campaign is based on the belief that Georgians have state pride and
want to help local farmers and they are demanding fresher produce. This basic assumption is not
guaranteed.
Market Trends
Currently, Americans are consuming more fruits and vegetables than any other time in recent
history, figure 1. According to the Food Institute Report, this upward trend has apparently
continued as retail sales of fresh produce increased by 6.0% from 1998 to 1999. The increased
demand for fresh produce is reflected in the number of produce products being stocked in
supermarkets. In addition to increased demand for fresh produce, consumers are now more than
ever demanding high quality produce.
6
The recent food contamination scares have raised consumers desire for information on where
their food is being produced. In addition, consumers desire for fresh produce raises the questions
of where their fresh fruits and vegetables are being produced. Evidence of this trend was found
in the survey. In fact, 56% of the survey respondents indicated that they consider where fresh
produce has been grown when they make a purchase. Fifty-eight percent of the shoppers
indicated that they prefer Georgia-grown produce because of it quality (23%) or and they would
buy it for the simple fact that it was produced in Georgia (35%).
Study Results
Fresh produce is a frequently purchased items as indicated by the fact that 71% of shoppers
indicated they purchase fresh produce weekly. Nearly six in ten of the shoppers reportedly
purchased fresh produce that was grown in Georgia. The shoppers awareness of the Grown in
Georgia promotional campaign was not as high as expected. Only 31% of the shoppers
mentioned they were aware of the campaign, see table 1. This figure is low given the presence
of point-of-purchase promotional material present in the supermarkets. Small Town Living
shoppers were significantly less likely than Affluent Elite or Mid-Down Suburban shoppers to
recall any Grown in Georgia promotional material.
7
Table 1
Q. Do You Recall Seeing Any Promotional material for Geogia-Grown Produce?
Kroger Store Demographic Groups
Total
(n=284)
A
Affluent Elite
(n=60)
B
Mid-Down Suburbs
(n=63)
C
Inner City
(n=64)
D
Small Town living
(n=44)
E
Rural America
(n=53)
F
Yes
31%
40%
30%
27%
16%BF
38%
No
69%
60%
70%
73%
84%
62%
Response
A-F
Indicates that the marked values are significantly different that the corresponding value in column labeled A-F
The shoppers that reported seeing Georgia-grown promotional materials were asked to recall
what type of promotional material they saw for Georgia-grown produce. The shoppers were
most likely to mention they saw some type of sign promoting Georgia-grown produce( 18%).
About one in ten of the shoppers recalled seeing the promotion in a brochure or pamphlet or
seeing the promotion in the newspaper (table 1a.)
Table 1a.
Type of Promotion Observed In-Store
(multiple Responses)
Produce
Percentage
(n=81)
Signs
18%
Peaches
10%
Pamphlets/brochures/literature
9%
Newspaper Ad/Insert
8%
Blueberries
5%
Southern Grown Peaches
4%
Peanuts
3%
Grown in Georgia
3%
Stand
2%
Display
2%
Television
1%
Don’t know
3%
Other
33%
In addition to being able to recall what type of promotional material they saw the shoppers were
asked to recall which products were being promoted with this material (table 1b).
Overwhelmingly, the shoppers recalled observing Georgia-grown peaches promotional
material(table 1b). Peaches was mentioned significantly more times than any other type of fresh
produce (48%). Blueberry promotional material was mentioned by 15% of the shoppers. Vidalia
8
Onions promotional material was only observed by six percent (6%) of the respondents who saw
Georgia-grown promotional material.
Table 1b.
Produce Observed In-Store Produce Advertising
Produce
Percentage
(n=81)
Peaches
48%
Blueberries
15%
Vidalia Onions
6%
Tomatoes
5%
Cantaloupes
2%
Fruit
2%
Beans
1%
Potatoes
1%
Apples
1%
Vegetables
1%
Blackberries
1%
Green beans
1%
Watermelons
1%
Kiwi
1%
Melons
1%
Don’t Recall
2%
Other
7%
Despite the low level of overall shopper awareness, the promotional material appeared to be very
effective among exposed shoppers. Approximately eight in ten of the shoppers who were aware
of the promotional material indicated the material prompted them to purchase Georgia-grown
produce over competing produce (Table 2).
9
Table 2.
Q. Overall, Did the Georgia-grown Display Prompt You to Purchase Georgia-grown
Fresh Produce as Opposed to Non-Georgia-grown Fresh Produce?
Kroger Store Demographic Groups
Total
(n=57)
A
Affluent Elite
(n=14)
B
Mid-Down Suburbs
(n=13)
C
Inner City
(n=12)
D
Small Town living
(n=7)
E
Rural America
(n=11)
F
Yes
81%
93%
85%
67%
100%
63%
No
19%
7%
15%
33%
0%
36%
Response
A-F
Indicates that the marked values are significantly different that the corresponding value in column labeled A-F
Shoppers who purchased Georgia-grown fresh produce were pleased with its overall quality
(table 3). This is very important because quality is considered to be an important factor in
whether or not shoppers purchases specific produce.
However, Small Town Living Shoppers were significantly less pleases with the quality fo the
Georgia-Grown fresh produce they purchased than were Affluent Elite, Mid-Down and Rural
America Shoppers.
Table 3.
Q. Were you Pleased With the Overall Quality of the Georgia-Grown Fresh Produce you Purchased?
Kroger Store Demographic Groups
Affluent Elite
(n=39)
B
Mid-Down
Suburbs
(n=46)
C
Inner City
(n=40)
D
Small Town
living
(n=24)
E
Rural America
(n=34)
F
Response
Total
(n=183)
A
Yes
92%
92%
96%
90%
79%ACF
97%
No
8%
8%
4%
10%
21%
3%
A-F
Indicates that the marked values are significantly different that the corresponding value in column labeled A-F
Perceptions of Georgia-grown fresh produce
Promoting Georgia-grown fresh produce is essential to building shopper awareness and
increasing sales. However, it is important to measure shoppers perceptions of Georgia-grown
produce to develop an effective marketing mix. In addition, it is important to determine how
Georgia’s fresh produce compares to competing fresh produce.
To measure shoppers perception, the shoppers were asked to compare Georgia’s fresh produce
with competing fresh produce on six different attributes (freshness, taste, appearance, storage
life, price and nutrition). A majority of the shoppers believe that Georgia-grown fresh produce is
fresher and has a better taste than produce grown out-of-state (table 4). Georgia-grown produce
is perceived to have a better storage life than other produce. This may be attributed to the fact
that shoppers think Georgia-grown produce is fresher and has not been stored as long as produce
from outside the state. These results indicate there is an excellent marketing opportunity for
Georgia farmers which should be included in marketing Georgia-grown produce.
10
A few significant differences by demographic category were observed. Mid-Down Suburb
shoppers rate the appearance of Georgia-Grown fresh produce significantly lower than the
groups excluding the Affluent Elite. The Affluent Elite group rated the taste, price and nutrition
of Georgia-Grown fresh produce, relative to competing fresh produce, significantly lower than
Small Town Living and Rural America shoppers.
Table 4.
Q. In general, when you think of fresh produce grown in Georgia,
how do yo think it compares to other fresh produce not grown in Geogia?
Kroger Store Demographic Groups (% Better)
Total
(n=227)
A
Affluent Elite
(n=53)
B
Mid-Down Suburbs
(n=45)
C
Inner City
(n=48)
D
Small Town living
(n=40)
E
Rural America
(n=42)
F
10a. Freshness
66%
59%
64%
62%
74%
75%
10b. Taste
59%
45%EF
64%
52%
74%
67%
10c. Appearance
47%
41%
E
52%
68%
51%
10d. Storage life
59%
46%E
55%
72%
64%
10e. Price
47%
EF
40%
40%
38%
61%
60%
10f. Nutrition
34%
25%EF
24%F
37%
39%
47%
Response
A-F
24%
AD-F
63%
EF
Indicates that the marked values are significantly different that the corresponding value in column labeled A-F
Interestingly, less than one half of the shoppers perceived Georgia-grown fresh produce to be
better than the competition in terms of price and appearance. After speaking with the
supermarket chain’s assistant produce merchandiser, insight was gained into the appearance
issue. Some fresh produce commodity groups have created very successful brands and even have
a promotional budget which they give to supermarket chains. The organization will supply
“loose” guidelines for promoting the fresh produce i.e., Washington State Apples. These fresh
produce groups provide supermarkets with color display and/or bins and other promotional
material for displaying their produce. This creative packaging may help to enhance the produces
image and appearance.
Quality
Shoppers indicated that quality ( fresh produce) is an important factor in deciding where to shop
for fresh produce. The quality of a supermarket’s fresh produce has more of an influence on
where shoppers shop for fresh produce than does either the price (fresh produce) or store
convenience. Nearly two-thirds of the shoppers indicated that quality was the most important
factor in where they shop for fresh produce while the importance of price (19%) and
convenience (14%) was important but significantly less important.
There was only one significant difference noted among the different demographic groups. This
difference is in reference to product quality. Apparently, Affluent Elite shoppers give quality
more importance in their purchasing decision than other the other groups, and significantly more
important than Inner City and Rural America shoppers. This is important and should be kept in
mind when marketing to this group of shoppers.
11
Table 5
Q. When Deciding Where to Purchase Fresh Produce, Which Do You Consider More Important?
Kroger Store Demographic Groups
Total
(n=286)
A
Affluent Elite
(n=65)
B
Mid-Down Suburbs
(n=64)
C
Inner City
(n=62)
D
Small Town living
(n=43)
E
Rural America
(n=52)
F
Quality
65%
74%DF
70%
61%
60%
58%
Price
19%
12%
13%
26%
21%
23%
Convenience
14%
14%
14%
13%
16%
13%
Where produce
was grown
2%
0%
3%
0%
2%
6%
Response
A-F
Indicates that the marked values are significantly different that the corresponding value in column labeled A-F
Interestingly, 43% of the shoppers indicated that they would switch supermarkets to be able to
purchase Georgia-grown fresh produce (table 6). These results contradict the earlier findings
presented in table 4. One possible explanation is that supermarkets offering fresh produce of
similar quality and price, where the produce is grown may be a differentiating factor. This is an
extremely important finding.
Mid-Down Suburb shoppers are significantly less likely than Inner City, Small Town Living and
Rural America shoppers to switch stores in order to purchase Georgia-grown fresh produce.
Affluent Elite shoppers are less likely to switch supermarkets to purchase Georgia-grown than
Inner City, Small Town Living and Rural America shoppers. It appears that shoppers in
suburban areas are less loyal to Georgia-grown produce than are other groups.
Supermarkets and retail outlets that do not feature Georgia-grown produce may find themselves
losing customers if the Georgia-grown marketing campaign is expanded and Georgian’s
awareness with the campaign increases. Retail outlets that do not carry or participate in the
Georgia-grown campaign might loose a significant number of customers as they look to
competing retail outlets for Georgia-grown fresh produce.
12
Table 6.
Q. Would You Switch Supermarkets to Be Able to Purchase Georgia-grown Fresh Produce?
Kroger Store Demographic Groups
Total
(n=223)
A
Affluent Elite
(n=49)
B
Mid-Down Suburbs
(n=46)
C
Inner City
(n=48)
D
Small Town living
(n=37)
E
Rural America
(n=43)
F
Yes
43%
33%
24%AD-F
50%
54%
58%
No
57%
67%
76%
50%
46%
42%
Response
A-F
Indicates that the marked values are significantly different that the corresponding value in column labeled A-F
These results are confirmed by an earlier question that inquired into the fresh produce
availability and shoppers decision where to shop. According to the results, 83% of the shoppers
indicated that the availability and quality of fresh produce influences where they shop. These
shoppers prefer to shop supermarkets that offer quality fresh produce. Georgia produce growers
and promoters should capitalize on the fact that Georgia-grown produce offers higher quality
than produce from out-of-state because it is grown locally is not subject to abuse during
transportation that and does not have to be transported The fact that Georgia-grown fresh
produce does not have to be transported across the county and is closer to Georgia’s distribution
centers A case can be made that fresh Georgia produce has the potential to offer a higher quality
Purchase Preferences
Nearly all (94%) of the shoppers indicated that they would purchase Georgia-grown produce
over competing fresh produce if it were competitively priced and offered similar quality, table 6.
Shoppers appear to prefer fresh produce grown in Georgia, but they are not willing to sacrifice
quality nor pay a premium for Georgia-grown fresh produce. This provides credence to
identifying and marketing Georgia-grown fresh produce. If consumers are faced with two
competing fresh produce products exhibiting similar quality and competitively priced, shoppers
will choose Georgia-grown fresh produce over competing produce. Given this information, it is
important to provide marketing information at the point-of-purchase to inform shopper which
produce is state grown.
Table 7.
Q. Would You Buy Fresh Georgia-grown Fresh Produce over Non-Geogia-grown Fresh Produce
if it Was Competitively Priced and Offered the Same Quality?
Kroger Store Demographic Groups
Response
Total
(n=278)
Affluent Elite
(n=68)
Mid-Down Suburbs
(n=55)
Inner City
(n=59)
Small Town living
(n=48)
Rural America
(n=48)
Yes
94%
94%
98%
93%
85%
96%
No
6%
6%
2%
7%
15%
4%
A-F
Indicates that the marked values are significantly different that the corresponding value in column labeled A-F
The supermarket chain sponsors “Grown in Georgia”during June. This survey was administered
during the last full week of June. Unfortunately, just over one in ten shoppers was aware of the
Grown in Georgia campaign prior to the day they were interviewed. This is disappointing given
13
the fact that the campaign was run for an entire month. The low level of awareness may be
attributed to the fact that there was little television, radio or newspaper media exposure. Only
featured products were promoted, which included the Georgia-grown tag.
Georgia-Grown Campaign Awareness
Given the shoppers propensity to purchase Georgia-grown fresh produce, the lack of awareness
associated with the 2001 Georgia-grown marketing campaign provides a significant opportunity
to Georgia’s produce growers. Only 12% of the shoppers indicated that they were aware of the
Georgia-grown promotion prior to visiting the supermarket. The percentage of shoppers that
were aware of the promotion only increased by 19% after the shoppers enter the store and travel
through the produce department. Rural America shoppers were significantly more aware of the
campaign prior to the day they were interviewed than were Small Town Living shoppers.
Table 8.
Q. Before Today, Have You Seen or Heard about the Georgia-grown Marketing Campaign?
Kroger Store Demographic Groups
Total
(n=292)
A
Affluent Elite
(n=66)
B
Mid-Down Suburbs
(n=64)
C
Inner City
(n=61)
D
Small Town living
(n=47)
E
Rural America
(n=54)
F
Yes
12%
12%
14%
7%
4%
22%E
No
88%
88%
86%
93%
96%
78%
Response
A-F
Indicates that the marked values are significantly different that the corresponding value in column labeled A-F
The shoppers who mentioned they were aware of the campaign before the day they were
interviewed were asked where they had previously hear or seen the Georgia-grown promotion
(table 8a). Shoppers most frequently mention they were exposed to the Grown in Georgia
promotion in the store (28%) or from the television (26%). Interestingly, The University of
Georgia was responsible for exposing 7% of the shoppers to the promotion.
14
Table 8a.
Where Georgia-grown Promotion was Previously Seen or Hear
(Multiple Responses)
Produce
Percentage
(n=35)
In Store
28%
TV
26%
Extension/UGA
7%
Newspaper
5%
Other
Don’t Recall
26%
9%
Shoppers appear to be loyal to Georgia’s farmers as long as the produce a competitively priced
quality product. However, lack of “Georgia-grown” product awareness does not allow Georgia’s
growers capitalize on shopper loyalty. Shoppers desire information on where products are
produced. The desire for this information may be partially attributed to recent food scares as
well as their desire to purchase the freshest, best tasting produce available. Over nine out of ten
shoppers interviewed indicated they are in favor of having information available showing where
fresh produce has been grown. Specifically, 99% of the shoppers felt that labels should be used
to identify fresh produce that has been produced in the state. In addition, the majority of the
shoppers (67%) indicated that the availability of Georgia-grown fresh produce would have an
impact on their shopping decision. Increasing shoppers awareness of the campaign in the future
should result in increased success of the program.
Georgia-Grown Campaign Effectiveness
The majority of shoppers (61%) indicated that the Georgia-Grown display was useful in helping
them select fresh produce and nearly all of the shoppers indicated that they would like to see
display materials thorough-out the year (growing season) identifying Georgia-grown produce.
This information contradicts the results that less than one-third of the shoppers recalled seeing
any promotional material for Geogia-grown produce. Apparently, displays do have a impact on
shoppers purchase decisions as reflected by these results. This undertaking should have a postive
impact on both supermarkets revenues as well as Georgia’s growers. The shoppers were asked
wether the Georgia-grown display had any impact on the quantity and types of produce they had
originally planned to purchase, tables 8 &9.
The grown in Georgia promotion appears to have less effect on Mid-Down Suburb shoppers than
any other group. However, even among these shoppers the display was effective in increasing
fresh produce sales.
15
Table 9.
Q. Did the Georgia-grown Display Prompt You to Buy More Types of Fresh Produce than You Had Originally Planned?
Kroger Store Demographic Groups
Response
Yes, bought more
Total
(n=256)
A
Affluent Elite
(n=60)
B
Mid-Down Suburbs
(n=45)
C
Inner City
(n=62)
D
Small Town living
(n=40)
E
Rural America
(n=49)
F
21%
28%
9%BF
18%
23%
29%
DF
Bought as planned
54%
52%
69%
47%
48%
55%
Bought less than
planned
2%
0%
2%
3%
5%
0%
Had no plan to buy
produce
23%
20%
20%
32%F
25%
16%
A-F
Indicates that the marked values are significantly different that the corresponding value in column labeled A-F
Table 10.
Q. Did the Georgia-grown Display Prompt You to Buy Larger Quantities of
Fresh Produce than You Had Originally Planned?
Kroger Store Demographic Groups
Total
(n=26.3)
Affluent Elite
(n=57)
Mid-Down Suburbs
(n=51)
Inner City
(n=59)
Small Town living
(n=43)
Rural America
(n=50)
Yes, bought more
17%
21%
10%
15%
16%
22%
Bought as planned
59%
56%
73%
53%
56%
60%
Bought less than
planned
1%
0%
0%
3%
2%
0%
Had no plan to buy
produce
23%
23%
18%
29%
26%
18%
Response
A-F
Indicates that the marked values are significantly different that the corresponding value in column labeled A-F
A significant percent of the shoppers indicated that the Georgia-Grown display influenced them
to purchase more types of fresh produce than they originally intended to purchase. Twenty-one
percent (21%) of the shoppers indicated that the Georgia-grown displays prompted them to
purchase more types of fresh produce than they had intended to purchase. The Georgia-grown
displays had similar effects on shoppers decision on the quantity of fresh produce purchased.
Just under one in five shoppers (17%) indicated that the Georgia-grown display prompted them
to purchase more (larger quantities) of fresh produce than they originally intended to purchase.
These findings are significant. Apparently, shoppers are significantly influenced by the Georgiagrown displays. Utilizing these displays throughout the different fresh fruit and vegetable
growing seasons should have a positive impact on sales. Over three-quarters of the shoppers
indicated that a lgo identifying Georgia-grown produce would influence them to buy Georgiagrown fresh produce.
Product Positioning
16
One way to successfully market products is to position them according to shoppers attitudes. If
shoppers have any special feeling or attitudes towards the family farm, minority farmers or
locally produced produce. These finding can be incorporated into a marketing campaign in order
to capitalize these sentiments. The CAED wanted to assess the importance or impact of different
positioning strategies on shoppers purchase decisions. Shoppers were asked to rate the
importance of five different fresh produce positioning strategies on their decision to purchase
fresh produce.
Farm fresh appears to influence shoppers purchasing decision significantly more than any other
positioning strategy. On average, the shoppers considered farm fresh to be important in their
decision to purchase fresh produce. On the other hand, whether fresh produce was grown by
minority farms was not important in their purchase decision. The grown in Georgia, grown
locally and grown on a family farm position strategies did not appear to have a significant impact
on the shoppers purchase decision. This implies any marketing campaign should include the
“farm fresh”phase. Again, this is consistent with shoppers attitudes toward freshness. Freshness
is obviously an important purchase decision factor and needs to be incorporated into any
marketing campaign.
The Affluent Elite shoppers rated farm fresh significantly higher than any other group excluding
Small Town Living shoppers.
Table 11.
Q. Please Rate the Importance of These Attributes in Your Decision to
Purchase Fresh Produce? (1= not at all important and 5= very important)
Kroger Store Demographic Groups
Total
(n=306)
A
Affluent Elite
(n=69)
B
Mid-Down
Suburbs
(n=66)
C
Inner City
(n=66)
D
Small Town
living
(n=46)
E
Rural America
(n=59)
F
Farm Fresh
3.91
4.21CDF
3.83
3.71
3.94
3.87
Grown Locally
3.18
3.23
3.09
3.03
3.15
3.42
Grown in Georgia
3.18
3.15
3.01
3.17
3.13
3.47C
Grown on a family farm
3.06
2.97
2.82
3.06
3.15
3.34C
Grown by Minority Farmers
2.47
2.28
2.18
2.67C
2.71C
2.57C
Response
A-F
Indicates that the marked values are significantly different that the corresponding value in column labeled A-F
- - Values below the dashed line are significantly lower than the corresponding values above the dashed line (Total Column only)
In addition to estimating the importance of the above positioning strategies, it is equally
important to determine shoppers willingness to pay for products marketed under these strategies.
Shoppers were asked if they would be willing to pay more for products with each of the
aforementioned attributes. Consistent with the importance results, consumers are more likely to
pay more for products that are marketed as being farm fresh. Only 28% of the shoppers
indicated that they would not pay more for farm fresh produce. This is noticeably lower than the
17
percentage of shoppers that would not be willing to pay for products marketed under the four
remaining strategies.
Approximately one in three shoppers would be willing to pay an additional 10% for products
that were marketed as being farm fresh, grown locally, grown in Georgia or grown on a family
farm (Figure 2). The willingness to pay and additional 10% for fresh produce grown by minority
farmers is lower (26%).
Willingness to Pay for Labeling
The shoppers were in favor of labeling fresh produce with Georgia Grown logos. However,
shoppers are mixed on whether they are willing to pay “slightly higher prices” to cover the cost
of labeling fresh produce. Fifty-four percent of the shoppers indicated that they are willing to pay
slightly more to label Georgia-grown fresh produce while 46% were not willing to pay for
labeling. The mixed results suggest that shoppers would like to have the Georgia-grown label
information, but may not value it enough to pay for much of the cost associated with labeling the
fresh produce (table 12).
Table 12.
Q. Labeling Georgia-grown Fresh Produce May Involve Some Additional Costs.
Are Yo Willing to Pay a Slightly Higher Price to Cover this Cost?
Kroger Store Demographic Groups
Total
(n=261)
A
Affluent Elite
(n=63)
B
Mid-Down
Suburbs
(n=51)
C
Inner City
(n=57)
D
Small Town
living
(n=40)
E
Rural
America
(n=50)
F
Yes
54%
49%
55%
54%
55%
64%
No
46%
51%
45%
46%
45%
36%
Response
A-F
Indicates that the marked values are significantly different that the corresponding value in column labeled A-F
18
The study has already shown that consumers would like to have information on where produce is
grown and that shoppers are willing to purchase Georgia-grown produce over competing fresh
produce if quality and prices are similar. This willingness to pay for labeling results suggest that
promoting Georgia-grown fresh produce must not be reflected in noticeably higher prices.
Conclusion
The results of this study indicate that the Georgia-grown marketing campaign has the potential to
significantly impact Georgia’s growers by increasing retail sales of Georgia-grown fresh
produce. Retail outlets in the state should be made aware of shoppers preferences for Georgiagrown fresh produce and the potential impact the program might have on sales. According to the
survey results, a significant number of shoppers reported they would switch stores to be able to
purchase Georgia-grown fresh produce. This information provides leverage with Georgia’s
growers. Retail outlets that choose not to participate in the program take the chance of losing
customers and the increased potential sales that can be generated from consumers purchasing
addition quantities and types of Georgia-grown fresh produce.
In addition, only a handful of shoppers (12%) were aware of the Georgia-grown marketing
campaign prior to the day they were interviewed. However, 94% of the shoppers indicated they
would purchase Georgia-grown fresh produce over competing produce it was competitively price
and offered similar quality. Ninety-nine percent of the shoppers indicated that labels should be
used to identified fresh produce grown in Georgia and 61% indicated that the Georgia-grown
displays influenced their purchase decision. Given the potential impact of this marketing
program, additional resources and effort should be directed to educate and inform consumers in
order to increase the awareness of the campaign.
Georgians need to be informed of the advantages of purchasing Georgia-grown fresh produce.
For example, media advertisements could focus on the quality of Georgia’s fresh produce and
the fact that since it is grown locally, it is fresher than produce brought in from out-side the state.
The marketing campaign should make a clear connection between locally grown fresh produce,
their desirable qualities and the Georgia-grown displays and logos.
A survey of state marketing programs found that many states offer generic advertising programs
aimed at increasing residents awareness of state produce products. Businesses that are members
of these promotional programs benefit from this generic advertising and increased consumer
awareness. Business members typically incorporate the state promotional logo into their
marketing material to establish their association with the being produce in state and the state
marketing program. Producers do not typically have the resources needed to advertise their
products on television and radio, the state’s generic television and radio advertising benefits all
the producers who have included the state’s logo in their marketing material.
A survey of state marketing programs found that many states offer generic advertising programs
aimed at increasing residents awareness of state produce products. Businesses that are members
of these promotional programs benefit from this generic advertising and increased consumer
awareness. Business members typically incorporate the state promotional logo into their
marketing material to establish their association with the being produce in state and the state
marketing program. Since most of the state producers do not have the resources needed to
19
advertise their products on television and radio, the state’s generic television and radio
advertising benefits all the producers who have included the state’s logo in their marketing
material.
20
Section C
Section C - Table of Contents
Georgia Produce Manager Promotional Effectiveness Preliminary Top-Line
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Produce Manager Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Table 1: Table 1. Response Rate by Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Effective Promotional Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Table 2. Promotional Technique Effectiveness Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 3. The Single Most Effective Means Of Promoting Fresh Produce
(Open-ended with multiple responses) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 4. What Producers Can Do to Better Promote Their Products in
the Store (open-ended with multiple responses) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 5. Commodity Group or Product Doing the Best Job of Promoting
Their Product (open-ended with multiple responses) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Produce Manager Promotional Effectiveness Survey
Introduction
The purpose of the produce manager promotional effectiveness survey is to gather
information to determine the best method, according to produce managers, of promoting fresh
produce. This information is combined with information gathered from the “Grown in Georgia”
research project survey to determine the most effective way of marketing Georgia’s produce.
Produce Manager Methodology
To obtain these objectives, a mail survey is administered by the Center for Agribusiness
and Economic Development. To obtain the most reliable information on promotional effectiveness,
produce managers are targeted. Regional samples of the United States are constructed according to
a major fresh produce shipping data. A single mail-out methodology is utilized due to time
constraints associated with the project. As a result, the response rate is low and does not have the
benefit of a second and third mail-out. Table 1 presents the sampled regions, number of mailed
surveys, number of completed surveys, and the response rate.
To identify supermarket and grocery stores nationally, a specialized software program,
SelectPhone (1997), is utilized. The SelectPhone software identifies business by their Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) code. The SIC code for retail grocery establishments is 541105. The
software only identifies businesses that are registered with this particular SIC code. Once a list of
grocery retail outlets are identified using the SelectPhone software, a random sample of 1,000
establishments are selected. These 1,000 randomly selected establishments are then mailed a
survey addressed to the produce manager.
Table 1. Response Rate by Region.
Region
Number of
Mailed
Surveys*
Number of
Completed
Surveys
Response
Rate
New England (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT, NY, NJ, PA)
928
72
1.8%
East South Central (TN, KY AL MS)**
883
46
5.2%
Mountain, North and South West Central (CA, OR, WA, AZ,
COL, ID, MT, NV, UT, WY, AK, LA, OK, TX, IA, KA, MIN,
NEB, ND, SD)
927
41
4.4%
East North Central (Ill, IND. MI, OH, WS)
957
58
6.1%
South Atlantic (DL, FL, MD, NC, SC, VA, D.C., WV)
924
76
4.4%
Georgia
1,100
75
* Reflects the number of surveys that are mailed and not returned due to address problems.
** This region does not include the state of Georgia that is surveyed separately.
7.5%
2
Effective Promotional Activities
The following question is asked to produce managers “Please rate the following
promotional activities in terms of how effective they are at increasing fresh produce sales? Please
rate each of the following promotional activities using a five point scale where 5= Extremely
effective and 1= Extremely Ineffective.”
According to the results found in Table 2, in-store displays, signs, and feature advertising
appear to be the most effective techniques for increasing fresh produce sales. It appears that all
types of in-store promotions are effective in increasing fresh produce sales. Results also indicate
that in-store displays, signs, and feature advertising are rated more effective for increasing produce
movement than price reductions. In-store demonstrations and taste tests are rated equally effective
as a price reduction for increasing sales. The most effective promotional techniques appear to be
those that the produce manager has some type of influence over, with the exception of price
reductions and shelf talkers.
Park and German (1999) find that displays are found to be one of the most effective means
of promoting food products. According to their results, displays need to be colorful, attractive, and
“eye-catching.” The display’s main purpose is to entice customers to look at the displayed items.
The display colors, material, and presentation need to compliment and enhance the products’ image
as well as promote the idea that the products are fresh from the farm and of the highest quality.
Sampling and in-store demonstrations are effective ways to promote fresh produce.
Consumers are not generally enthusiastic about shopping for grocery items (Stanton, 1998).
However, consumers are keen to sample products, whether it is food or any other items. Sampling
provides a risk-free method for consumers to try different, new or exotic products. Additionally,
in-store sample demonstrations, are a complimentary method of encouraging consumers to try fresh
produce and to increase its purchase. For example, this may be done by introducing the consumers
to new recipes.
These preliminary results are valuable because they provide insight into what produce
managers perceive to be the most effective means of promoting fresh produce. Their perceptions
are consistent with other retail segment professionals. Results are also indicate fresh produce
marketers should focus energy on creating more effective promotional material as a means of
increasing sales.
3
Table 2. Promotional Technique Effectiveness Ratings
New
East South
England Central
(n=17)
(n=46)
Promotional Technique
Mtn./North & East North South
South Central
Central
Atlantic Georgia
(n=41)
(n=58)
(n=41) (n=75)
Mean Ratings
In-store displays
4.35
4.36
4.31
4.45
4.54
4.52
In-store signs
4.12
4.08
3.91
4.36
4.24
4.20
In-store feature advertising
3.59
3.84
3.77
3.78
4.14
4.04
Price reductions
3.80
3.68
3.86
3.74
4.22
3.99
In-store demonstrations/taste tests
3.82
3.71
3.94
4.06
4.08
3.91
Packaging
3.53
3.68
3.66
3.93
3.84
3.85
Free standing displays
3.82
3.73
3.49
3.63
3.81
3.83
Waterfall displays
3.82
3.68
3.40
3.51
3.92
3.61
Newspaper inserts
3.38
3.26
3.57
3.65
3.73
3.55
Coupons
3.24
3.51
3.51
3.42
3.73
3.52
Individual product stickers
2.94
3.26
3.26
3.18
3.35
3.49
Cross merchandising
3.25
3.65
3.64
3.41
3.43
3.42
Television advertising
3.81
3.29
3.20
3.36
3.86
3.38
Providing educational material
2.75
3.27
3.18
3.11
3.38
3.32
Shelf talkers
3.69
3.29
3.26
3.19
3.43
3.30
Produce manager bulletin with
marketing ideas, information and
recipes
3.47
3.36
3.09
3.27
3.35
Radio advertising
3.06
3.03
2.94
2.95
3.24
3.30
2.88
The results presented in Table 3 show that displays and advertising are the single most
effective means of promoting fresh produce. Store managers say that freshness sells produce and
therefore, freshness is a key issue that needs to be addressed by fresh producers and shippers.
4
Table 3. The Single Most Effective Means Of Promoting Fresh Produce (open-ended with multiple
responses)
New
England
(n=17)
East South
Central
(n=46)
Promotion
Mtn./North & East North
South Central
Central
(n=41)
(n=58)
South
Atlantic
(n=41)
Georgia
(n=75)
(%)
Displays
11.0
18.0
16.0
19.0
13.0
17.0
Advertising
26.0
9.0
14.0
12.0
12.0
14.0
9.0
6.0
7.0
9.0
6.0
9.0
Prices, Lower
11.0
5.0
8.0
7.0
9.0
6.0
Samples
13.0
6.0
9.0
8.0
0.0
6.0
Signage
6.0
9.0
4.0
7.0
6.0
6.0
Quality, High
6.0
2.0
6.0
5.0
5.0
3.0
Point of Service (POS)
0.0
0.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
Clean
0.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
Eye catching/Appealing
0.0
2.0
8.0
5.0
2.0
3.0
Promotion
0.0
8.0
2.0
4.0
0.0
3.0
Provide Information
2.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
9.0
2.0
Rotation
0.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
Packaging
2.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
Color Breaks
0.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
4.0
1.0
Word of Mouth
0.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
2.0
1.0
Recipes
6.0
1.0
0.0
2.0
2.0
0.0
Neatness
0.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
0.0
Other
9.0
17.0
20.0
11.0
18.0
17.0
Don't Know
0.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
3.0
3.0
Freshness
Produce managers are asked what suppliers can do to better promote their products in the
grocery store. Results are presented in Table 4. The highest response, consistent with all regions,
is to ensure a quality product. Consumers are very concerned with quality. It is difficult to
overcome poor product quality with advertising and promotion. Along the same lines, the issue of
freshness is important to consumers and is reflected in the survey results. Georgia’s produce needs
to be fresh; advertising and promotion should emphasize product quality and freshness.
Price reductions can always be used as a means of promoting products. However, it is not
the most frequently mentioned technique. Rotation, use of signs, advertising, and packaging are all
ways to better promote Fresh produce. The “fresh-cut” produce category has grown to account for
5
roughly 15% of retail produce sales. New “fresh-cut” items and alternative packaging should be
promoted to take advantage of consumers demand for convenience products and smaller household
sizes.
Table 4. What Producers Can Do to Better Promote Their Products in the Store (open-ended with
multiple responses).
New
England
(n=17)
East South
Central
(n=46)
Promotion
Mtn./North &
South Central
(n=41)
East North
Central
(n=58)
South
Atlantic
(n=41)
Georgia
(n=75)
(%)
Quality
0.0
9.0
6.0
6.0
7.0
14.0
Freshness
4.0
7.0
8.0
4.0
7.0
11.0
11.0
6.0
8.0
7.0
11.0
10.0
Rotation
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
9.0
Advertising
7.0
11.0
10.0
9.0
4.0
8.0
Signs
0.0
9.0
0.0
6.0
2.0
6.0
Packaging
11.0
7.0
2.0
7.0
9.0
6.0
Samples
14.0
2.0
10.0
3.0
7.0
4.0
Clean
4.0
2.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
3.0
Display
7.0
7.0
4.0
10.0
4.0
2.0
Delivery
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.0
2.0
Provide Information
0.0
4.0
6.0
6.0
9.0
2.0
Storage
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
Promotion
0.0
4.0
0.0
3.0
7.0
2.0
Coupons
0.0
4.0
6.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
Labels
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
1.0
Origin Information
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
Eye Appealing
0.0
4.0
0.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
14.0
4.0
10.0
7.0
2.0
0.0
Recipes
0.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
0.0
0.0
Neatness
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.0
0.0
29.0
15.0
18.0
17.0
15.0
15.0
0.0
0.0
4.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Prices, lower
Point of Sale
Other
Don't Know
The results in Table 5 provide some insight into the commodity group or product that is
doing the best job of promoting its products. There are a number of respondents that fall under the
“other category” because they are very regional and mentioned only once. As a result, to condense
6
the information into a displayable format, these single and limited groups are categorized as
“other.”
However, outside of Georgia, Washington apples and Idaho potatoes have a record of doing
a good job of promoting their products. For instance, Washington apple promoters provide retail
partners with money for advertising as well as in-store marketing material to better publicize their
products.
Table 5. Commodity Group or Product Doing the Best Job of Promoting Their Product
(open-ended with multiple responses).
New England
(n=17)
East South
Central
(n=46)
Group
Mtn./North &
South Central
(n=41)
East North
Central
(n=58)
South
Atlantic
(n=41)
Georgia
(n=75)
(%)
Vidalia
0.00
6.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.00
Washington Apples
6.00
3.00
16.00
21.00
12.00
7.00
Idaho Potatoes
0.00
15.00
0.00
9.00
5.00
5.00
Avocado
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
Bananas
6.00
0.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
Coke
0.00
0.00
5.00
0.00
0.00
4.00
Kiwi
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.00
Grapes
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.00
Fresh Express
0.00
3.00
7.00
5.00
0.00
4.00
Green Giant
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.00
Beef
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.00
4.00
Chiquita Bananas
0.00
3.00
0.00
5.00
0.00
2.00
Apples
6.00
6.00
5.00
5.00
2.00
0.00
Dole
0.00
6.00
16.00
9.00
5.00
0.00
Ready Pack
0.00
0.00
7.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Frito-lay
0.00
0.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Pepsi
0.00
0.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sunkist
0.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
5.00
0.00
Florida Citrus
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.00
0.00
0.00
82.00
58.00
25.00
34.00
58.00
45.00
0.00
0.00
9.00
0.00
2.00
0.00
Other
DK
7
Conclusion
The information obtained from the produce manager survey suggests that the most effective
way to promote Fresh produce is through a partnership. Given consumers’ tendency to look for
information about fresh produce in newspaper inserts and in-store displays and promotions, the
Fresh producer marketers should work closely with retailers to develop marketing materials. The
majority of promotional material is currently being created and implemented by the retail
establishments. There is an opportunity to design and distribute generic “Grown in Georgia”
promotional material such as ads to be placed in the various newspaper inserts, in-store displays,
and advertising materials. The generic material would focus on promoting Georgia grown produce
and not focus on promoting any one grower or producer. Logos and slogans should be developed
and utilized in the marketing material to provide a consistent marketing theme.
8
Section D