Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T04:31:17.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Biggest Bang for the Buck: Valuation of Various Components of a Regional Promotion Campaign by Participating Restaurants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2015

Ran Xie ,
Olga Isengildina-Massa  and
Carlos E. Carpio
Ran Xie
Affiliation:
John E. Walker Department of Economics atClemson University, Clemson, South Carolina
Olga Isengildina-Massa
Affiliation:
University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas
Carlos E. Carpio
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics atTexas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examined how various components of the Certified South Carolina campaign are valued by participating restaurants. A choice experiment was conducted to estimate the average willingness to pay (WTP) for each campaign component using a mixed logit model. Three existing campaign components—Labeling, Multimedia Advertising, and the “Fresh on the Menu” program—were found to have a significant positive economic value. Results also revealed that the type of restaurant, the level of satisfaction with the campaign, and the factors motivating participation significantly affected restaurants' WTP for the campaign components.

Keywords

choice experimentmixed logit modellocal food willingness to payC40M31M38
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 46 , Issue 2 , May 2014 , pp. 193 - 208
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2014

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

Adamowicz, W.Boxall, P., Williams, M., and Louviere, J.J.. “Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation”. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80(1998): 64–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adamowicz, W, Swait, J., Boxall, R., Louviere, J., and Williams, M.. “Perception versus Objective Measures of Environmental Quality in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Models of Environmental Valuation”. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 32(1997):65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alfnes, F.Guttormsen, A., Steine, G., and Kolstad, K.. “Consumers' Willingness to Pay for the Color of Salmon: A Choice Experiment with Real Economic Incentives”. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 88(2006): 1050–1061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhat, C.R. “Imputing a Continuous Income Variable from Grouped and Missing Income Observations”. Economics Letters 46(1994): 311–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brick, J.M.Martin, D., Warren, P., and Wivagg, J.. “Increased Efforts in RDD Surveys”. 2003 Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods (2003):26–31.Google Scholar
Cameron, A.C. and Trivedi, P.K.. Microeco-nometrics: Methods and Applications. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlsson, E. and Martinsson, P.. “Do Hypothetical and Actual Marginal Willingness to Pay Differ in Choice Experiments?” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 41(2001): 179–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpio, C.E., and Isengildina-Massa, O.. “Consumer Willingness to Pay for Locally Grown Products: The Case of South Carolina”. Agribusiness 25(2009):412–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpio, C.E., and Isengildina-Massa, O.. “To Fund or Not to Fund: Assessment of the Potential Impact of a Regional Promotion Campaign”. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 35(2010):245–260.Google Scholar
Carpio, C.E., and Isengildina-Massa, O.. “Does Government Sponsored Advertising Increase Social Welfare? A Theoretical and Empirical Investigation”. Paper presented at the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association's 2013 AAEA and CAES Joint Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, August 4-6, 2013.Google Scholar
Curtin, R.Presser, E., and Singer, E.. “The Effects of Response Rate Changes on the Index of Consumer Sentiment”. Public Opinion Quarterly 64(2000):413–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Govindasamy, R.Schilling, B., Sullivan, K., Turvey, C., Brown, L., and Puduri, V.S.. “Returns to the Jersey Fresh Promotional Program: the Impacts of Promotional Expenditures on Farm Cash Receipts in New Jersey.” Working Paper, Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics and the Food Policy Institute, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 2003.Google Scholar
Hamilton, M.B. Online Survey Response Rates and Times: Background and Guidance for Industry. Ipathia, Inc./SuperSurvey (2003). Internet site: www.supersurvey.com/papers/ supersurvey_white_paper_response_rates.pdf (Accessed June 1, 2013).Google Scholar
Hanemann, M.Loomis, J., and Kanninen, B.. “Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Di-chotomous Choice Contingent Valuation”. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73(1991): 1255–1263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasing, T, Carpio, C.E., Willis, D.B., Sydorovych, O., and Marra, M.. “The Effect of Label Information on U.S.Farmers' Herbicide Choices”. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 416(2012):200–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hensher, D.Shore, N., and Train, K.. “Households Willingness to Pay for Water Service Attributes”. Environmental and Resource Economics 32(2005):509–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holbrook, A.Krosnick, J., and Pfent, A.. “The Causes and Consequences of Response Rates in Surveys by the News Media and Government Contractor Survey Research Firms”. Advances in Telephone Survey Methodology. Lepkowski, J.M., Tucker, C., Brick, J.M., de Leeuw, E.D.. Japec, L., Lavrakas, P.J., Link, M.W., and Sangster, R.L., eds. New York, NY: Wiley, 2007.Google Scholar
Holmes, T.P. and Adamowicz, W.L.. “Attribute-Based Methods”. A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation. Champ, P.A., Boyle, K.J. and Brown, T.C., eds. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, 2003.Google Scholar
Keeter, S.Kennedy, C., Dimock, M., Best, J., and Craighill, P.. “Gauging the Impact of Growing Nonresponse on Estimates from a National RDD Telephone Survey”. Public Opinion Quarterly 70(2006):759–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeter, S.Miller, C., Kohut, A., Groves, R., and Presser, S.. “Consequences of Reducing Non-response in a Large National Telephone Survey”. Public Opinion Quarterly 64(2000): 125–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, J.A. and Shogren, J.F.. “Calibration of the Difference between Actual and Hypothetical Valuations in a Field Experiment”. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 37(1998): 193–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Louviere, J.J.Hensher, D.A., and Swait, J.D.. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lusk, J.L.Fox, J.A., Schroeder, T.C., Minterta, J., and Koohmaraie, M.. “In-Store Valuation of Steak Tenderness”. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83(2001):539–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lusk, J.L. and Hudson, D.. “Willingness-to-Pay Estimates and Their Relevance to Agribusiness Decision Making”. Review of Agricultural Economics 26(2004): 152–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFadden, D. “The Measurement of Urban Travel Demand”. Journal of Public Economics 3(1974):303–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onken, K.A. and Bernard, J.C.. “Catching the ‘Local’ Bug: A Look at State Agricultural Marketing Programs”. Choices (New York, N.Y.) 25(2010): 1–7.Google Scholar
Patterson, P.M. “State-Grown Promotion Programs: Fresher, Better?” Choices (New York, N.Y.) 21(2006):41–46.Google Scholar
Patterson, P.M.Olofsson, H., Richards, T.J., and Sass, S.. “An Empirical Analysis of State Agricultural Product Promotions: A Case Study on Arizona Grown”. Agribusiness 15(1999): 179–196.3.0.CO;2-K>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ratcliffe, J. “The Use of Conjoint Analysis to Elicit Willingness-to-Pay Values”. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 16(2000):270–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ready, R.C.Buzby, J.C., and Hu, D.. “Difference between Continuous and Discrete Contingent Value Estimates”. Land Economics 72(1996): 397–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Revelt, D. and Train, K.. “Customer-Specific Taste Parameters and Mixed Logit”. Working paper, Department of Economics, University of California, Berkeley, 1999.Google Scholar
Revelt, D. and Train, K.. “Mixed Logit with Repeated Choices: Households' Choices of Appliance Efficiency Level”. The Review of Economics and Statistics 80(1998):1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Train, K. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zapata, S., Carpio, C., Isengildina-Massa, O., and Lamie, R.. “Do Internet-Based Promotion Efforts Work? Evaluating MarketMaker”. Journal of Agribusiness 29(2011): 159–180.Google Scholar