Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

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

  • Dawn D. Thilmany (a1), Wendy J. Umberger (a2) and Amanda R. Ziehl (a3)

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.

Copyright

Corresponding author

*Corresponding author: Email: thilmany@lamar.colostate.edu

References

Hide All
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).
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).
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).
04Kinsey,, J. and Senauer,, B. (1996) Consumer trends and changing food retailing formats. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78: 5 11871191.
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 193197.
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 2738.
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.
08Smith,, W. (1956) Product differentiation and market segmentation as alternative marketing strategies. Journal of Marketing 21: 38.
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.
10Carlson,, A., Kinsey,, J. and Nadav,, C. (2002) Consumers' retail source of food: a cluster analysis. Family Economics and Nutrition Review 14: 2 1120.
11Baker,, G.A. and Crosbie,, P.J. (1993) Measuring food safety preferences: identifying consumer segments. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 18: 2 277287.
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 387403.
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. 87181
14Sunding,, D.L. (2003) The role for government in differentiated product markets: looking to economic theory. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85: 3 720724.
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).
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.
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 4353.
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 149166.
19Grannis,, J. and Thilmany,, D. (2002) Marketing natural pork: an empirical analysis of consumers in the mountain region. Agribusiness 18(4): 475489.
20US Census Bureau. 2000. 2000 Census Profiles for Colorado. Available at Web site http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsServlet (verified 1 July 2005).
21STATA Press. (2001) STATA Reference Manual. College Station, TX

Keywords

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed