consumer preferencesfor fresh fruit and vegetable...

Consumer Preferencesfor

Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Retail Package Sizes]

by

J. Richard BaconResearch Associate

Department of Food and Resource EconomicsUniversity of Delaware

Newark, Delaware

U. C. ToensmeyerProfessor

Department of Food and Resource EconomicsUniversity of Delaware

Newark, Delaware

R. Dean ShippyAssistant Dean of Instruction

College of Agriculture SciencesUniversity of Delaware

Newark, Delaware

Introduction

Consumer interest in fresh produce hasrisen over the past ten years. Rogers attri-butes this increased demand to three mainreasons (Rogers), First, and most obvious, isthe belief held by consumers that fresh pro-duce is related to good nutrition and health.The second reason is that personal incomehas become sufficiently large to permit thepreference for fresh produce to grow withoutmuch concern over price. Finally, youngerconsumers have exhibited more daring in theiracceptance of new and exotic produce items.

For many retail outlets the fresh producedepartment is a top profit generator. These

profits can slip away quickly if the food dis-tribution industry fails to keep its finger onthe pulse of the consumer. The food industrycan stay in touch with consumers’ ever chang-ing tastes and buying habits by directly askingconsumers to indicate their wants :and desires.Decisions based on old data can prove fatalwithin an industry as competitive as foodretailing.

Approximately 40 percent of fresh fruitsand vegetables are prepacked (Shepherd, etal.), Packaging of fresh produce offers ad-vantages to consumer and retailer alike.Packaged produce allows for rapid selectionof desired products and permits the retailersto market their products more efficiently.

lWork was accomplished under Project Del. No, 266.

Journal of Food Distribution Research February 88/page 61

Packaging of fresh fruits and vegetables gen-erally allows quality to be maintained longer,thereby increasing the shelf life of the product(Peleg).

Objectives

In this study, the shopping patterns andpreferences of Delaware consumers for freshproduce were analyzed. Specifically, the ob-jectives are:

1. To determine consumers’ preferences forpackage sizes for fresh produce and forpartially prepared produce.

2. To determine if any relationship existsamong package size preference, difficultyin finding the preferred package sizeand a consumer’s desire for a bulk dis-play of fresh produce.

3. To use the above information to makerecommendations for improvement ofmarketing practices in the food industry.

Procedure

Five thousand questionnaires designed tomeasure the attitudes and buying patterns ofconsumers were mailed to randomly selectedDelaware residents during September andOctober 1985. The sample was drawn fromall households having a telephone and weightedaccording to the population base of each coun-ty in Delaware. While the use of a mailedquestionnaire is a common and accepted meth-od of data collection, the reader should becautioned about the bias introduced as a resultof any form of voluntary response. Thoseconsumers who have an interest in the ques-tionnaire’s subject area are more likely torespond than are more apathetic consumers.This will compromise the randomness of therespondents (Bryson). However, the expenseof removing the bias, for the purposes of thisstudy, was greater than the benefit.

The questionnaire contained seven sec-tions covering consumer shopping patterns,package size preference for fresh meat, pack-age size preference for fresh produce; prefer-ences for bulk foods, generic foods, locally

produced products; and consumer demographiccharacteristics. This report will discuss thesections on respondent demographic and lifestyle characteristics and package size prefer-ences for fresh produce. 968 surveys werereturned --a 19.4 percent response rate.

Selected Consumer Characteristics

Almost two-thirds of the respondents tothis survey were female. The ages of therespondents are distributed over a wide range,19 to 91. Over 20 percent are within the 55to 64 age bracket. This age group is closelyfollowed by the 45 to 54, 35 to 44, and 25 to34 age groups, respectively (Table 1). Accord-ing to the 1980 census of population, thoseconsumers in the 34 and under age groups areunder represented in the data by 13.7 percent.The 35 to 74 age groups are over representedby 23 percent, and the 75 and older age groupis properly represented in the data. However,the U.S. population has continued to shifttoward the older age groups since 1980, afact which this data set reflects.

A majority of those responding had totalhousehold incomes within the middle to upperincome brackets. Over 23 percent of thehouseholds had combined incomes of $50,000or more, 32.6 percent were in the $30,000 to$49,999 income range, with 43.9 percent in-dicating their household earned a gross incomeof less than $30,000 a year (Table 1).

Those responding to the survey valuededucation. Over 16 percent indicated theyhad graduate school training. Almost 47 per-cent had completed or experienced some col-lege while only slightly over 7 percent hadnot completed high school (Table 1).

Over 42 percent of those responding tothe survey lived in a two-member household.This was followed by three-, four-, and one-member households with each size contributing17.4, 17.2 and 13.6 percent respectively (’I_’able1).

Occupation was classified into five majorcategories: professional, retired, office andclerical workers, homemakers, and blue collarworkers. Professionals and retired individuals

February 88/page 62 Journal of Food Distribution Research

were the two largest groups represented inthe survey by 24.6 and 23.4 percent, respec-tively. These were followed by office andclerical workers, homemakers, and blue collarworkers, representing 19.1, 18.1, and 11 per-cent of the respondents, respectively.

Table 1. Characteristics ofConsumers Surveyed, Delaware, 1985

Characte ristics Percent

Age24 and under 2.7625 to 34 18.0735 to 44 18.7045 to 54 19.4555 to 64 20.1965 to 74 15.7375 and over 5.10

IncomeLess than $10,000 6.6$10,000-$19,999 15.5$20,000-$29,999 21.8$30,000-$39,999 18.8$40,000-$49,999 13.8$50,000 or more 23,5

Education1 through 11 7.3High School Diploma 29.5Some College 24.3College Degree 22.5Graduate School 16.4

Family Size1 13,62 42,63 17.44 17.25 6.7Over 5 2.5

Source Consumer Mail Survey and Calculations

Results

Consumer Package Size PreferencesFor Fresh Produce

The consumers were asked to indicatethe size of package they preferred for themajor items of fresh produce. Further ques-tions were related to whether they had en-countered any difficulty in finding this pack-age size and whether they would prefer thisitem in a bulk display.

This section of the paper contains aseries of tables presenting the preferred pack-age sizes, problems in finding desired packagesize, and preference for fresh produce bulkdisplays.

Fresh Fruitj Consumers were asked tostate their preferences for eight fresh fruititems; the major results are presented in Table2. For apples, over 45 percent of those re-sponding indicated a preference for the three-pound package. This is consistent with thefindings of work done by Feick which showedthat in 1977 the top preferred package sizefor apples by Delaware consumers was thethree-pound unit.

Other popular apple package sizes werethe two- and five-pound sizes, preferred by19.4 and 13.1 percent of the respondents, re-spectively. Only 11.2 percent experienced anydifficulty in finding the preferred size. How-ever, the package sizes hardest to find werethe one- and two-pound packages, by 24.6 and15.1 percent respectively. The more popularthe desired apple package size, the fewer theproblems associated with finding that package(Table 3). A large percentage (88.9%) stillpreferred apples in a bulk display.

The most popular package size for blue-berries was the pint container, preferred by81 percent of the respondents. Only 7.2 per-cent indicated having any problems findingthe package size they wanted. Only 4 percentof those stating a preference for the one-pintpackage experienced any problems, while thosewanting a quart container had trouble 13,5percent of the time (Table 2).


Table 2. Top Package Size Preferences for Fresh Fruit,Delaware, 1985

Difficulty in Preferring ItemPkg. Size Respondents Finding Size in Bulk Display

Item Preferred (number) (t)ercent) (Dercent) (Dercent)

Apples(Ibs.)

Blueberries(pints)

Grapefruit(number)

Grapes(lbs.)

Oranges(number)

Peaches(lbs.)

Pears(lbs.)

Strawberries(pints)

All3251,

All12

All2436

All123

All6

1210

All321

All213

All12

7153241399461

527427

74

61317415311591

688255243

83

665264

14874

55817316981

506185115113

623359207

45.319.413.18.1

81.014.0

28,425.018.814.8

37.135.312,1

39.722.311.1

31.030.314.5

36.622.722.3

57.633.2

Source Consumer Mail Survey and Calculations

11.26.2

15.14.3

24.6

7.24.0

13.5

12.79.8

15,76.17.7

15.814.911.914.5

16.917.88.88.1

19.418.514.212.3

18.816.212.214.2

7.51.9

88.971,081.374.572.1

45.329.741.9

90.378.775.864.369.2

88.367.573.789,2

91.478.4

67.677.0

93.985.578.181.5

93.481.676.582.3

58.242,1

12.6 44,0


Table 3. Respondent Difficultyin Finding Desired Fresh Fruit Package SizeIn Terms of Ordered Size preferences and Size Popularity

Package Size Package SizeOrdered Preferences Popularity

---------------------- ----------- ------ ---

Respondents (significance) (gamma) (significance) (gamma)Item vercent) (level) (level) (level) (level)

ApplesBlueberriesGrapefruitGrapesOrangesPeachesPearsStrawberries

11.27.2

12.715.816.919.418.87.5

.000

.000NSNS

.027NSNS

.000

.343 .000 .277-.671 .000 .664

NSNS

.222 .014 -.127NSNS

-.658 ,000 .638

Source: Consumer mail survey and calculations

NS = Not significant at the 95% confidence level.

Table 4. Respondents’ Desire to See Fresh Fruit in a Buik Display,By Ordered Package Size Preferences and Package Size Popularity


-------------------- ------ ------- ------ -Respondents (significance) (gamma) (significance) (gamma)

Item t)ercent) (level) (level) (level) (level)

ApplesBlueberriesGrapefruitGrapesOrangesPeachesPearsStrawberries

88.945.390.388.391.493.993.458.2

NSNS

.024NS

.001NSNSNS

NSNS

-.229 .039 .222NS

-,417 .001 -.045NSNSNS


NS = Not significant at the 95940confidence level.


Over 90 percent of the consumers re-sponding said they like to see grapefruit inbulk displays. The most popular package sizesfor grapefruit mentioned were the two- andfour-unit packages, preferred, respectively, by28.4 and 25.0 percent of those indicating apackage size preference for grapefruit, Thetwo- and four-grapefruit packages were thehardest to find by 9.8 and 15.7 percent ofthose desiring those package sizes. Overall,12.7 percent indicated they had any packagesize problems with grapefruit (Table 2).

Over a third (37. IYo) of the consumersselected a one-pound package as their prefer-ence for grapes, The two-pound size wasselected by 35.3 percent, while the three-poundunit was a distant third choice by 12,1 per-cent. One- and three-pound grape packageswere reported to be the hardest to find by14.9 and 14.5 percent of those showing thoserespective preferences. Over 88 percent ofthe consumers responding indicated they pre-ferred to see grapes in a bulk display (Table2)$

When buying oranges, over one-third(39.790) of the consumers made the six-orangecontainer their top selection (Table 2). Thelarge twelve- and ten-item packages were thechoices of an additional 22.3 and 11.1 percentof the respondents. About twice the percent-age of consumers had trouble finding the six-unit package as the twelve- and ten-unit pack-ages. But the significance of this relationshipis weak. A large majority of the consumers(91.4Yo) preferred to see oranges in a bulkdisplay with bulk preference significantly in-creasing as the desired package size decreased(Table 4).

Thirty-one percent of the consumersselected the three-pound pack as their topchoice for fresh peaches. The two-poundcontainer was preferred by another 30.3 per-cent, while the one-pound unit was the pre-ferred size of an additional 14.5 percent.Almost one-fifth (19.4%) of the consumersresponding revealed they had experiencedproblems in finding their desired package size.More consumers (93.9%) preferred to seepeaches in bulk displays than any other fruitconsidered in this study (Table 2).

When purchasing pears, over one-third(36.6%) of the consumers preferred a two-pound package. The one-pound unit was thetop choice of 22.7 percent of the consumerssurveyed, followed by the three-pound packagewith 22.3 percent of the respondents. Almost19 percent of the consumers responding indi-cated problems in locating their desired pack-age size. Consumers wanting the two- andthree-unit package experienced the most dif -ficulty and also said they wanted to see pearsin bulk display more often (Table 2).

As for fresh strawberries, over one-half(57,6%) of the consumers surveyed wantedpint containers. The quart container wasselected by an additional 33.2 percent. Only7.5 percent said they had encountered problemsfinding their desired package size. Of thosehaving problems, only 1.9 percent preferredthe pint container while 12.6 percent preferredthe quart container (Table 2). Fifty-eightpercent of the respondents preferred to seestrawberries in a bulk display; however, ofthose who showed a preference for the pintcontainer, only 42.1 percent wanted a bulkdisplay (Table 2).

Fresh Vegetables. Consumers were askedto state their preferences for eleven freshvegetables and the major results are presentedin Table 5. For fresh asparagus, the one-pound unit was desired by 60.9 percent of theconsumers and the two-pound size by an addi-tional 23.1 percent. Over 21 percent of re-sponding consumers indicated having difficultyin finding their desired package size. Thosefavoring the one- and two-pound packagesreported trouble 15.4 and 14.9 percent of thetime, respectively (Table 5). Respondentsindicated they had significantly more troublefinding their desired asparagus package thelarger and less popular the package size (Table6). Overall, 8 percent of the consumers re-sponding preferred asparagus to be in a bulkdisplay (Table 5).

For carrot purchases, the one-poundpackage was the preference of 55.3 percent ofthe Delaware consumers. An additional 20.4percent of the respondents selected the two-pound package, while 15.1 percent wanted thelarger three-pound unit. Less than 7 percent


Table 5. Top Package Size Preferences for Fresh Vegetables, Delaware, 1985

Difficulty in Preferring ItemPkg. Size Respondents Finding Size in Bulk Display

Item Preferred (number) (Dercent) (Dercent) (Dercent)

Asparagus(lbs,)

Carrots(lbs.)

Sweet Corn(ears)

GreenSnap Beans(lbs.)

Lima Beans(lbs.)

Onions(lbs.)

Peas(lbs.)

Peppers(number)

Potatoes(Ibs.)

SweetPotatoes(lbs.)

Tomatoes(Ibs.)

All12

All123

All6

124

All12

All12

All312

All12

All213

All5

10

All231

All213

524319121

736407150111

649248

I35123

485254134

340169102

710293158118

356181103

55619611693

466359228

77213210384

591200179117

60.923.1

55.320.415.1

38.220.819.0

52.427.6

49.730.0

41.322.316.6

50.828.9

35.320.916.7

46.529.5

28.322.118.0

33.830.319.8

Source Consumer mail survey and calculations

Journal of Food Distribution Research

21.115.414.9

6.96.14.73.6

21.213,3

12.617.9

17.49.8

16.4

24.714.225.5

11.84.8

15.817.8

20.515.517,5

16.413.812.19.7

11.12.51.8

11.121.212.619.0

14.012.07.3

14.5

88.373.478.5

54.340.336.731.5

90.075.4

74.874.0

89,575.277.6

84.469.877.5

80.755.673.472.9

84.671.867.0

92.376.582.878.5

90.747.934.2

66.882.679.671.4

91.576.575.482.1

February 88/page 67

Table 6. Respondent Difficulty in Finding Desired Fresh Vegetable PackageSize in Terms of Ordered Size Preferences and Size Popularity


-------------------- ----------------- ---Respondents (significance) (gamma) (significance) (gamma)

Item uercent) (level) (level) (level) (level)

AsparagusCarrotsSweet CornGreen Snap BeansLima BeansOnionsPeasPeppersPotatoesSweet PotatoesTomatoes

21.16.9

21.217.424.711.820.516.411.117.914.0

.036NS

.009

.004

.026

.000

.045NS

.000NSNS

-.222

.222-.343-.304

.379-.196

.630

.000

.046

.003

.004

.003

.000

.018NS

.000

.031

.042

.301

.065

.250

.348

.362

.277

.190

.827-.218

.121

Source Consumer mail survey and calculations

NS = Not significant at the 950/0confidence level.

Table 7. Respondents’ Desire to See Fresh Vegetables in a Bulk Display,By Ordered Package Size Preferences and Package Size Popularity


-------------------- ------- ------ -------Respondents (significance) (gamma) (significance) (gamma)

Item t3ercent) (level) (level) (level) (level)

Asparagus 88.3 NS NSCarrots 54.3 NS NSSweet Corn 90.0 NS NSGreen Snap Beans 89.5 NS NSLima Beans 84.4 .035 .330 .015Onions 80.7 .000 -.331 .001Peas 84,6 NS NSPeppers 92.3 .003 -.215 .006Potatoes 66.8 .000 -.545 .000Sweet Potatoes 90.7 NS NSTomatoes 91.5 NS NS

-.227-.180

.281-.105


NS = Not significant at the 95% confidence level.


indicated any problems in finding their favoritesize package of carrots (Table 5). Consumers’difficulty in finding their desired package sizeof carrots decreases as the favored packagesize increases in popularity (Table 6). Overall,54.3 percent of the respondents wanted to seecarrots displayed in bulk (Table 5).

When purchasing sweet corn, 38.2 percentof the consumers wanted a package containingsix ears. Twelve ears was the preferred unitfor another 20.8 percent, and the four-earsize by an additional 18.9 percent of the re-spondents. Over one-fifth (21.2Yo) of thoseresponding had trouble locating their desiredpackage size of sweet corn (Table 5). Con-sumers said they have significantly greatertrouble finding their desired sweet corn pack-age size the smaller and/or less popular thedesired package size (Table 6). Ninety percentof the consumers responding favored a bulkdisplay for sweet corn.

The one-pound package for green snapbeans was the selection of 52.4 percent ofthe consumers surveyed, with the two-poundpackage preferred by 27.6 percent. Less than10 percent of the consumers preferring theone-pound package indicated they had experi-enced any problems in finding that packagesize, while 16.4 percent of those preferringthe two-pound unit stated they did havetrouble locating their desired package size(Table 5). Almost 90 percent of the respond-ing consumers indicated they liked to seegreen snap beans available in bulk (Table 5).

When purchasing fresh lima beans, nearlyhalf (49.7’%0)of the consumers selected theone-pound package, The two-pound size waspreferred by 30 percent of the consumers.The percentage of those having difficulty infinding their desired package size almostdoubled from the one-pound (14.2%) to thetwo-pound unit (25.5Yo) (Table 5), As withgreen snap beans, there is significant butmoderately weak statistical evidence to suggestthat respondents preferring the smaller andmore popular lima bean packages had fewerproblems finding their desired package size(Table 6). A1most 25 percent of the consumersresponding indicated they had encounteredpackage size problems with fresh lima beans.

Eighty-five percent of those respondingwanted to see lima beans available in bulk.The preferences for a bulk display was lessfor those preferring the one- and two-poundpackages at 69.8 and 77.5 percent, respectively(Table 5). There is significant evidence sug-gesting the larger and less popular the desiredpackage size the greater the desire to seelima beans in a bulk display (Table 7).

The top onion package size was thethree-pound unit, desired by 41.3 percent ofthe respondents. The second most popularpack was the one-pound size selected by 22.3percent of the consumers (Table 5). Generally,the more popular and larger the onion packagesize, the lower the incidence of problems as-sociated with finding the desired package size(Table 6). Only 4.8 percent of the consumerspreferring the three-pound unit experienceddifficulty in finding their desired packagesize, while those desiring the one- and two-pound package had trouble 15.8 and 17,8 per-cent of the time, respectively (Table 5).

Overall, 80.7 percent of the onion buyingconsumers preferred to see onions in bulkdisplays. However, only 55.6 percent of theconsumers purchasing the more popular three-pound unit wanted bulk displays. There is aslight tendency on the part of consumers pre-ferring the larger and more popular onionpackages sizes to have somewhat less desireto see this item in a bulk display (Table 7).

Approximately half (50.9?Jo)of the con-sumers wanted a one-pound package whenbuying fresh peas and the two-pound packagewas desired by 28.9 percent of the consumers.Over 20 percent of the consumers who shoppedfor fresh peas said they had problems findingtheir desired package size. Of those desiringa two-pound package, 17.5 percent indicatedthey had encountered problems, while 15.5percent of those wanting a one-pound unitsaid they had experienced trouble (Table 5).Almost 85 percent of responding consumersliked to see fresh peas in bulk display (Table5).

When buying peppers, 35.3 percent ofthe respondents wanted a two-unit package.Consumers indicated they had less trouble


finding the three-unit package (9.7%) than themore popular one- (12, 1%) and two-unit (13.8%)packages. More consumers (92.3%) preferredto see the pepper in bulk display than any ofthe fresh vegetables considered in this study(Table 5). Consumers had a significantlygreater desire to see peppers in a bulk displaythe smaller and more popular the desired pack-age sizes (Table 7).

The five-pound pack was the most popu-lar size of 46,5 percent of the consumers whenpurchasing potatoes, and 29.5 percent of theconsumers preferred the ten-pound pack.Approximately 11 percent of the respondentsreported any problems associated in findingtheir desired potato package size. Consumersbuying the five- and ten-pound packages onlyexperienced trouble 2.5 and 1.8 percent of thetime, respectively (Table 5). Consumers pre-ferring the larger and more popular potatopackages experience fewer problems findingthose unit sizes (Table 6). Next to carrots,fewer consumers (66.8°h) preferred potatoes ina bulk display than any other fresh vegetablein this study. Table 7 suggests that the largerand more popular the desired potato packagethe smaller the desire on the part of the con-sumer to see potatoes in a bulk display.

For sweet potatoes, 28.3 percent of theconsumers wanted a two-pound package, 22.1percent the three-pound pack, and 18 percentthe one-pound package. Over 28 percent ofthe consumers experienced problems findingtheir desired package size of sweet potatoes(Table 5). The more popular the desired pack-age size the greater the problems associatedwith finding the desired unit pack (Table 6),Consumers overwhelmingly supported the con-cept that sweet potatoes be offered in a bulkdisplay (Table 5).

For tomatoes, one-third (33.8%) of therespondents wanted to purchase two-poundpackages (Table 5). A one-pound pack wasthe top choice of another 30.3 percent, witha three-pound quantity being preferred by anadditional 19.8 percent of the consumers.Consumers indicating they had experiencedproblems finding their desired tomato packdecreased as the package size popularity in-creased (Table 6). Overall, 91.5 percent of

the consumers liked to see fresh tomatoes ina bulk display (Table 7).

Partially Prepared Produce

Consumers were asked to indicate theirwillingness to purchase partially prepared pro-duce items, on a regular basis, if such itemswere made available in their local stores(Table 8). A sectioned watermelon and freshfruit salad were the top partially preparedproduce items selected by 38.0 and 24,9 per-cent of the respondents, respectively. It isoften more difficult for a one- or two-memberhousehold to store and consume a large wholewatermelon before it loses quality, while freshfruit salad is very time consuming for theconsumer to prepare. These consumer pre-ferred fruit items were followed by shelledlima beans (24.7%) and shelled peas (20.7%).

The items receiving the lowest consumerwillingness to purchase rating were melonballs (12.0%), salad mix (13.0%), celery sticks(13.2°k), and carrot sticks (13.6Yo)(Table 8).

Table 8. Consumers Willing to PurchasePartially Prepared Produce, Delaware, 1985

Number of Percentage ofProduct Res~ondents Res~ondents

Carrot SticksCelery SticksCole SlawFresh Fruit SaladHalf CantaloupeMelon BallsSalad MixShelled Lima BeansShelled Peas+ or + Watermelon

129125163236142114123234196361

13,613.217.224.915.012.013.024.720.738.0

Source Consumer mail survey and calculations.


Summary and Conclusions

The typical shopper who responded tothis survey was a price-conscious female whopreferred shopping at a supermarket on aweekly basis. If she worked outside the home,she more than likely was a professional. Shewas from an average family size of 2.75 mem-bers with an annual gross household income ofaround $30,000.

Even though consumers may have a pre-ferred produce package size, they still like tosee fresh fruits and vegetables in a bulk dis-play. The items not receiving a high positiveresponse for a bulk display were blueberries,strawberries, carrots, and potatoes.

This study found that as the desiredpackage size became smaller the consumer hadmore trouble finding that size for apples,oranges, corn, onions, and potatoes. As thedesired package size became larger the con-sumer had more trouble finding that size forblueberries, strawberries, asparagus, greensnap beans, lima beans, and peas. In termsof bulk display, the smaller the desired pack-age size the more the consumer wanted tosee a bulk display of grapefruit, oranges,onions, peppers, and potatoes.

The study showed that as the desiredproduce size package became more popularthe consumer had less trouble finding thatsize when she shopped for apples, blueberries,strawberries, asparagus, carrots, corn, greensnap beans, lima beans, onions, peas, potatoes,and tomatoes.

Consumer time, produce size, and fresh-ness tend to be the factors in determiningwhether partially prepared produce items willbe bought on a regular basis.

With the demand pressures being placedon the smaller more popular fresh producepackage sizes, wholesale and retail managersneed to be more responsive to changes inpackage size demand. If these managers willdo this they will keep the produce departmentssupplied with the quantity and package sizespreferred by their customers. Retail producemanagers also need to pay closer attention to

the quality of their products, especially thoseitems that have a relatively short shelf life.If fresher local produce can be obtained andmarketed consumers can see the difference,they will respond. To maintain a high qualityimage for fresh produce it will be necessaryfor produce managers to cull produce that isshowing signs of deterioration rather than toreduce the item’s price in an attempt to re-cover some of the cost.

There is a need to evaluate furtherconsumer packaging preferences in terms ofvarious demographic characteristics. Thisinformation can assist market managers intargeting and meeting the needs of differentdemographic groups.

Market research is an essential part ofrunning a successful food retail business.Benefits are to be gained by keeping abreastof the shopping patterns and changes in con-sumer tastes and preferences. The food in-dustry needs to update constantly its figureson the demographic characteristics and trendsand consider their impact as related to storeoperation.

References

Bryson, Maurice C. November 1976. “TheLiterary Digest Pelt Making of a Statis-tical Myth,” The American Statistician30(4] 184-85.

Feick, Lawrence F. June 1977. DelawareConsumer Attitudes Toward and Consump-tion of Fresh Apples, unpublishedMaster’s Thesis, Department of Food andResource Economics, University ofDelaware, Newark.

Peleg, Kalman. 1985. Produce Handling,Package and Dis~ribution. AVI PublishingCo., Inc., Westport, Corm.

Roger, Harold T. March 1986. “Future ofFresh Produce in Your Hands,” AmericanVegetable Grower 34(3} 110.


Shepherd, Geoffrey S., Gene A. Futrell, and J. United States Department of Commerce. JuneRobert Strain. 1976. Marketing Farm 1982. Bureau of the Census. 1980 Census ojProducts, Iowa State University Press, Population--Characteristics of the Population--Ames, Iowa. General Population Characteristics--Delaware,

Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.


consumer preferencesfor fresh fruit and vegetable...

Documents